Search

Bava Batra 153

Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:

podcast placeholder

0:00
0:00




Summary

Rav and Shmuel disagreed regarding a case where one promised a gift using the phrase “in life and in death.” Rav held that this language indicated a deathbed gift, with “in life” being mentioned merely as an expression of hope. Shmuel, however, interpreted it as a gift from a healthy person.

In Nehardea, they followed Rav’s ruling. Later, Rava introduced a distinction: he argued that Rav would agree that using the phrase “from life” (rather than “in life”) would be treated as a gift from a healthy person. Ameimar, however, rejected Rava’s interpretation of Rav’s position.

When a case of this nature came before Rav Nachman in Nehardea, he sent it to be adjudicated in a different city, not wanting to rule against Shmuel in Shmuel’s own city of Nehardea.

In another instance, Rava ruled against a woman who tried to reclaim her gift, which was consistent with his position (as she had used the phrase “from life and in death”). When she persistently complained about his ruling, Rava arranged for another rabbi to write her the ruling she desired, but instructed him to add a citation at the bottom of the document from Bava Metzia regarding deception, signaling that he was deceiving her and the ruling should not be followed. Upon realizing this subterfuge, the woman cursed Rava that his boat should sink—and indeed, his boat sank.

When a gift document lacks language indicating either a deathbed or healthy status of the giver, and there is a dispute between the giver claiming it was written while dying and the recipients claiming otherwise, who bears the burden of proof? Rabbi Meir holds that we presume the person was healthy until proven otherwise. The rabbis, however, rule that the money remains with the giver until proven otherwise.

A case arose involving a deathbed gift that used appropriate deathbed gift language, but the document didn’t record that the person had died. After the person’s death, the recipients claimed the gift, while the heirs argued that their father had recovered from his illness (thus invalidating the gift) before becoming sick again and dying. Raba ruled in favor of the recipients, reasoning that since the person was now dead, it was likely they died from the original illness, making the gift valid.

Abaye challenged Raba’s ruling by citing the case of a sunken ship: even though we presume the passengers died, we must consider the possibility they survived if their bodies aren’t found. Similarly, he argued, we should consider the possibility of recovery, as most sick people do recover. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, resolved the difficulty by explaining that Raba was following Rabbi Natan’s position.

Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yaakov disagreed about a case where the document did not include whether given while healthy or on one’s deathbed. Rabbi Yaakov held that we follow the last known presumption of ownership, regardless of current possession. Rabbi Natan ruled that we follow the current presumption – if the person is currently on their deathbed, we assume the gift was given on their deathbed; if healthy, we assume they were healthy at the time the document was written.

Rabbi Elazar noted that this same dispute between Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yaakov applies to a case in Mishna Taharot 6:7 regarding ritual impurity. The case involves a valley enclosed by a fence that is defined as a public space in summer (due to heavy foot traffic) but as a private space in winter (due to minimal traffic). When there’s a known dead body present but uncertainty about whether someone passed over it, the rule is: doubt in a public space yields ritual purity, while doubt in a private space yields impurity (based on Sotah laws). If it’s unknown whether the person was there in summer or winter, Rabbi Yaakov would rule based on the last known presumption of the person, which means they are deemed pure, while Rabbi Natan would rule based on the current season – they would be declared impure if the issue arises in the winter, and pure if it is summer.

Bava Batra 153

סְבוּר מִינֵּיהּ, הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְאַחֵר, אֲבָל לְעַצְמוֹ – לֹא; אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב חִסְדָּא: כִּי אֲתָא רַב הוּנָא מִכּוּפְרִי, פָּירְשַׁהּ: בֵּין לְעַצְמוֹ בֵּין לַאֲחֵרִים.

Rav’s disciples understood from this that this statement applies only when the person on his deathbed wishes to retract his gift and transfer it to another. But if he recovers and wishes to retract the gift and retain it for himself, Shmuel’s statement does not apply. Rav Ḥisda said to them: When Rav Huna came from Kufrei, he explained that Shmuel’s statement applies both to retaining the property for himself and to transferring it to others.

הָהוּא דִּקְנוֹ מִינֵּיהּ, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, אָמַר: מַאי אֶיעְבֵּיד לָךְ, דְּלָא אַקְנֵית כִּדְמַקְנוּ אִינָשֵׁי.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person on his deathbed who wrote a deed of transfer granting his property to another, and it was acquired from him by means of an act of acquisition. He subsequently recovered and wanted to retract the gift, and he came before Rav Huna. Rav Huna said to him: What can I do for you? You cannot retract the gift, as you did not transfer the gift in the manner that people on their deathbed transfer ownership of gifts, and you enhanced the legal power of the recipient by performing an act of acquisition.

הָהִיא מַתַּנְתָּא דַּהֲוָה כָּתוּב בָּהּ ״בַּחַיִּים וּבַמָּוֶת״ – רַב אָמַר: הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת בָּרִיא.

§ The Gemara relates: There was a deed pertaining to a certain gift of a person on his deathbed, in which it was written that the gift is given both in life and in death. In such a case, Rav says: It is like the gift of a person on his deathbed, and if he recovers he can retract it. And Shmuel says: It is like the gift of a healthy person, and he cannot retract it.

רַב אָמַר הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע – מִדִּכְתִיב בָּהּ ״בַּמָּוֶת״, אַחַר מִיתָה קָאָמַר לֵיהּ; וְהַאי דִּכְתִיב ״בַּחַיִּים״ – סִימָן בְּעָלְמָא, דְּחָיֵי.

The Gemara explains: Rav says: It is like the gift of a person on his deathbed. This can be inferred from the fact that it is written in the deed that the gift is given in death. This means that the giver is saying to him that the gift should take effect after his death, and that which is written in the deed, that the gift is given in life, is merely an auspicious omen, expressing hope that the giver will live.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת בָּרִיא – מִדִּכְתִיב בָּהּ ״בַּחַיִּים״, מֵחַיִּים קָאָמַר; וְהַאי דִּכְתַב ״וּבַמָּוֶת״ – כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר ״מֵעַתָּה וְעַד עוֹלָם״. אָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב.

And Shmuel says: It is like the gift of a healthy person. This can be inferred from the fact that it is written in the deed that the gift is given in life. This means that the giver is saying that the gift takes effect during his life, i.e., immediately. And that which he wrote, that the gift is given in death, is like one who says: From now and for evermore, i.e., that the gift is not retractable. The Sages of Neharde’a say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav.

אָמַר רָבָא: וְאִי כְּתִיב בַּהּ ״מֵחַיִּים״ – קְנָה.

Rava said: And if it was written in the deed that the gift is given during life and in death, the recipient acquires the gift and it cannot be retracted, as this term indicates that the gift takes effect while the giver still lives.

אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: לֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרָבָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: פְּשִׁיטָא, דְּהָא אָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא ״מֵחַיִּים״ – מוֹדֵי רַב; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

Ameimar said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rava. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: Isn’t that obvious, as the Sages of Neharde’a say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav? Ameimar replied: Lest you say that with regard to the term: During life, Rav concedes that the giver intends for the gift to take effect immediately, Ameimar teaches us that since the giver also mentioned death, he intended the gift as the gift of a person on his deathbed and he can retract it.

הָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן לִנְהַרְדְּעָא. שַׁדְּרֵיהּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא לְשׁוּם טַמְיָא, אָמַר: הָכָא אַתְרָא דִשְׁמוּאֵל – הֵיכִי נַעֲבֵיד כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב!

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who wrote in the deed that the gift is given in life and in death. When he recovered he wanted to retract the gift. He came before Rav Naḥman in Neharde’a. Rav Naḥman sent him to appear before Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba in Shum Tamya. Rav Naḥman said in explanation of his actions: Here, Neharde’a, is the place of Shmuel. Consequently, Shmuel’s rulings should be followed, and therefore how can we act in accordance with the opinion of Rav?

הָהִיא דַּאֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, עֲבַד לַהּ רָבָא כִּשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ. הֲוָה קָא טָרְדָא לֵיהּ.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who wrote in the deed that the gift is given during life and in death. She came before Rava. Rava acted with regard to her case in accordance with his halakhic ruling, and he ruled that she cannot retract the gift. She did not accept the ruling, and she constantly troubled him, saying that he had not judged her case properly.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְרַב פָּפָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חָנָן – סָפְרֵיהּ: זִיל כְּתוֹב לַהּ, וּכְתוֹב בָּהּ: ״שׂוֹכֵר עֲלֵיהֶן אוֹ מַטְעָן״. אָמְרָה: לִיטְבַּע אַרְבֵּיהּ! אַטְעוֹיֵי קָא מַטְעֵית לִי! אַמְשִׁינְהוּ לְמָנֵיהּ דְּרָבָא בְּמַיָּא, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי לָא אִיפְּרַק מִטִּיבְעָא.

Rava said to Rav Pappa, his scribe, son of Rav Ḥanan: Go, write for her a ruling in her favor, and write in the ruling the phrase: He may hire replacements at their expense, or deceive them to get them to return to work. This is a phrase from the mishna (Bava Metzia 75b) that discusses the ruling in the case of one who hired laborers to perform a task that cannot be delayed, and they quit. Rava intended this phrase to indicate to the court that the ruling was merely a ruse in order to persuade the woman to leave. The woman understood the ruse. She said: May his ship sink; you are deceiving me. Rava had his clothes immersed in water so that the curse should be fulfilled in this alternative manner, but even so he was not saved from the sinking of his ship.

מַתְנִי׳ לֹא כָּתַב בָּהּ שְׁכִיב מְרַע, הוּא אוֹמֵר ״שְׁכִיב מְרַע הָיִיתִי״, וְהֵן אוֹמְרִים ״בָּרִיא הָיִיתָ״ – צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁשְּׁכִיב מְרַע הָיָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ – עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה.

MISHNA: If one did not write in the deed that he was on his deathbed, and he then recovered and wished to retract the gift, and he says: I was on my deathbed, and since I recovered, I can retract the gift, but the recipients say: You were healthy, and the gift cannot be retracted, the giver must bring proof that he was on his deathbed in order to retract the gift. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The burden of proof rests upon the claimant, and since the property is in the possession of the giver, the recipients must bring proof that they have the right to receive it.

גְּמָ׳ הָהוּא מַתַּנְתָּא דַּהֲוָה כְּתִב בַּהּ: ״כַּד הֲוָה קְצִיר וּרְמֵי בְּעַרְסֵיהּ״; וְלָא כְּתַב בָּהּ: ״וּמִגּוֹ מַרְעֵיהּ אִיפְּטַר לְבֵית עוֹלָמֵיהּ״.

GEMARA: There was a deed pertaining to a certain gift of a person on his deathbed, in which it was written that the gift was bestowed when the giver was sick and lying in his bed, but the continuation of the standard formula: And from his sickness he departed to his eternal home, was not written in it. The giver’s heirs claimed that although he was ill when he wrote the deed, he later recovered, and his gift is not valid.

אֲמַר רַבָּה: הֲרֵי מֵת, וַהֲרֵי קִבְרוֹ מוֹכִיחַ עָלָיו. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הַשְׁתָּא, וּמָה סְפִינָה – שֶׁרוּבָּן לֵאָבֵד, נוֹתְנִין עֲלֵיהֶן חוּמְרֵי חַיִּים וְחוּמְרֵי מֵתִים; חוֹלִין – שֶׁרוֹב חוֹלִין לְחַיִּים, לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

Rabba said: He is dead, and his grave proves that he died. It may therefore be assumed that he did not recover from his sickness, and his gift remains valid. Abaye said to him: And now, if in the case of a ship that sank, where the fate of most of the passengers of sunken ships is to perish, the stringencies of the living and the stringencies of the dead are applied to them due to the uncertainty as to whether they are alive or dead, in the case of sick people, where the fate of most sick people is to return to life, all the more so is it not clear that one should assume that he recovered from the illness and his gift is invalid?

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא שְׁמַעְתָּא דְּרַבָּה – כְּרַבִּי נָתָן. דְּתַנְיָא: מִי מוֹצִיא מִיַּד מִי? הוּא מוֹצִיא מִידֵיהֶן בְּלֹא רְאָיָה, וְהֵן אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ אֶלָּא בִּרְאָיָה; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: In accordance with whose opinion is that halakha of Rabba? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a case where one who gave his property to others claims that since he was on his deathbed at the time he can retract the gifts, and the recipients claim that he was healthy and cannot retract it, who removes the property from whose possession? The giver can remove it from the recipients’ possession without proof, as the property was previously established to be in his possession, but the recipients can remove it from the giver’s possession only with proof. This is the statement of Rabbi Ya’akov.

רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: אִם בָּרִיא הוּא – עָלָיו לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁהָיָה שְׁכִיב מְרַע. אִם שְׁכִיב מְרַע הוּא – עֲלֵיהֶן לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁבָּרִיא הָיָה.

Rabbi Natan says: The presumption is that the current situation reflects the situation at the time the gift was bestowed. Therefore, if he is currently healthy, the obligation is upon him to bring proof that he was on his deathbed when he gave his property to others. If he is currently on his deathbed, the obligation is upon the recipients to bring proof that he was healthy then.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: וּלְטוּמְאָה – כַּמַּחְלוֹקֶת. דִּתְנַן: בִּקְעָה בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה – רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לַשַּׁבָּת, וּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לַטּוּמְאָה.

Rabbi Elazar says: And with regard to a case of uncertain ritual impurity, the halakha depends on the same dispute. This is as we learned in a mishna (Teharot 6:7): The halakha is that a case where it is uncertain if something or someone became impure in the public domain, the item or person is deemed pure. With regard to an expanse of fields, in the summer, when many people pass through the fields, it is considered the private domain with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, but it is considered the public domain with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity, and if one is uncertain as to whether he was rendered impure there, he is deemed pure.

בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים – רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לְכָאן וּלְכָאן.

In the rainy season, when not many people pass through the fields, an expanse of fields is considered the private domain both with regard to this, Shabbat, and with regard to that, ritual impurity. Therefore, if one is uncertain whether he was rendered impure there, he is deemed impure. If one does not know whether the day he entered the expanse of fields was considered part of the summer or the rainy season, and he is uncertain whether he was rendered impure there, Rabbi Ya’akov maintains that he retains the status of purity that he held before entering the fields. According to Rabbi Natan, it is presumed that he entered the fields during the same season in which he came to ask whether he was rendered impure.

אָמַר רָבָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא עָבְרוּ עָלָיו יְמוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, אֲבָל עָבְרוּ עָלָיו יְמוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים – רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לְכָאן וּלְכָאן.

Rava disagrees with Rabbi Elazar and says: They taught the ruling of the mishna only with regard to a case where the rainy season has not yet passed over the fields after the possibility arose that the fields contained impurity. But if the rainy season has already passed over the fields, it is considered the private domain both with regard to this, Shabbat, and with regard to that, ritual impurity. Even though the one who passed through the fields came to ask about his status in the summer, when the fields should be considered the public domain, he is nevertheless deemed impure even according to Rabbi Natan, and there is no parallel dispute with regard to uncertain ritual impurity.

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה וְכוּ׳.

§ The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: The burden of proof rests upon the claimant, and since the property is in the possession of the giver, the recipients must bring proof that they have the right to receive it.

New to Talmud?

Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you. 

The Hadran Women’s Tapestry

Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories. 

A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!

Cindy Dolgin
Cindy Dolgin

HUNTINGTON, United States

I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!

Batsheva Pava
Batsheva Pava

Hashmonaim, Israel

3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!

Lisa Kolodny
Lisa Kolodny

Raanana, Israel

I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!

Pamela Elisheva
Pamela Elisheva

Bakersfield, United States

I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.

Jodi Gladstone
Jodi Gladstone

Warwick, Rhode Island, United States

I start learning Daf Yomi in January 2020. The daily learning with Rabbanit Michelle has kept me grounded in this very uncertain time. Despite everything going on – the Pandemic, my personal life, climate change, war, etc… I know I can count on Hadran’s podcast to bring a smile to my face.
Deb Engel
Deb Engel

Los Angeles, United States

I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!

Rochel Cheifetz
Rochel Cheifetz

Riverdale, NY, United States

I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!

Anne Mirsky (1)
Anne Mirsky

Maale Adumim, Israel

I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.

Leeza Hirt Wilner
Leeza Hirt Wilner

New York, United States

I learned Talmud as a student in Yeshivat Ramaz and felt at the time that Talmud wasn’t for me. After reading Ilana Kurshan’s book I was intrigued and after watching the great siyum in Yerushalayim it ignited the spark to begin this journey. It has been a transformative life experience for me as a wife, mother, Savta and member of Klal Yisrael.
Elana Storch
Elana Storch

Phoenix, Arizona, United States

When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.

Laura Shechter
Laura Shechter

Lexington, MA, United States

I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!

Debbie Engelen-Eigles
Debbie Engelen-Eigles

Minnesota, United States

A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul

Phyllis Hecht.jpeg
Phyllis Hecht

Hashmonaim, Israel

Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!

Miriam Tannenbaum
Miriam Tannenbaum

אפרת, Israel

When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.

Ruth Leah Kahan
Ruth Leah Kahan

Ra’anana, Israel

I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Sarene Shanus
Sarene Shanus

Mamaroneck, NY, United States

See video

Susan Fisher
Susan Fisher

Raanana, Israel

Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba

Marsha Wasserman
Marsha Wasserman

Jerusalem, Israel

While vacationing in San Diego, Rabbi Leah Herz asked if I’d be interested in being in hevruta with her to learn Daf Yomi through Hadran. Why not? I had loved learning Gemara in college in 1971 but hadn’t returned. With the onset of covid, Daf Yomi and Rabbanit Michelle centered me each day. Thank-you for helping me grow and enter this amazing world of learning.
Meryll Page
Meryll Page

Minneapolis, MN, United States

I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.

Adina Hagege
Adina Hagege

Zichron Yaakov, Israel

Bava Batra 153

סְבוּר מִינֵּיהּ, הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְאַחֵר, אֲבָל לְעַצְמוֹ – לֹא; אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב חִסְדָּא: כִּי אֲתָא רַב הוּנָא מִכּוּפְרִי, פָּירְשַׁהּ: בֵּין לְעַצְמוֹ בֵּין לַאֲחֵרִים.

Rav’s disciples understood from this that this statement applies only when the person on his deathbed wishes to retract his gift and transfer it to another. But if he recovers and wishes to retract the gift and retain it for himself, Shmuel’s statement does not apply. Rav Ḥisda said to them: When Rav Huna came from Kufrei, he explained that Shmuel’s statement applies both to retaining the property for himself and to transferring it to others.

הָהוּא דִּקְנוֹ מִינֵּיהּ, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, אָמַר: מַאי אֶיעְבֵּיד לָךְ, דְּלָא אַקְנֵית כִּדְמַקְנוּ אִינָשֵׁי.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person on his deathbed who wrote a deed of transfer granting his property to another, and it was acquired from him by means of an act of acquisition. He subsequently recovered and wanted to retract the gift, and he came before Rav Huna. Rav Huna said to him: What can I do for you? You cannot retract the gift, as you did not transfer the gift in the manner that people on their deathbed transfer ownership of gifts, and you enhanced the legal power of the recipient by performing an act of acquisition.

הָהִיא מַתַּנְתָּא דַּהֲוָה כָּתוּב בָּהּ ״בַּחַיִּים וּבַמָּוֶת״ – רַב אָמַר: הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת בָּרִיא.

§ The Gemara relates: There was a deed pertaining to a certain gift of a person on his deathbed, in which it was written that the gift is given both in life and in death. In such a case, Rav says: It is like the gift of a person on his deathbed, and if he recovers he can retract it. And Shmuel says: It is like the gift of a healthy person, and he cannot retract it.

רַב אָמַר הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע – מִדִּכְתִיב בָּהּ ״בַּמָּוֶת״, אַחַר מִיתָה קָאָמַר לֵיהּ; וְהַאי דִּכְתִיב ״בַּחַיִּים״ – סִימָן בְּעָלְמָא, דְּחָיֵי.

The Gemara explains: Rav says: It is like the gift of a person on his deathbed. This can be inferred from the fact that it is written in the deed that the gift is given in death. This means that the giver is saying to him that the gift should take effect after his death, and that which is written in the deed, that the gift is given in life, is merely an auspicious omen, expressing hope that the giver will live.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת בָּרִיא – מִדִּכְתִיב בָּהּ ״בַּחַיִּים״, מֵחַיִּים קָאָמַר; וְהַאי דִּכְתַב ״וּבַמָּוֶת״ – כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר ״מֵעַתָּה וְעַד עוֹלָם״. אָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב.

And Shmuel says: It is like the gift of a healthy person. This can be inferred from the fact that it is written in the deed that the gift is given in life. This means that the giver is saying that the gift takes effect during his life, i.e., immediately. And that which he wrote, that the gift is given in death, is like one who says: From now and for evermore, i.e., that the gift is not retractable. The Sages of Neharde’a say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav.

אָמַר רָבָא: וְאִי כְּתִיב בַּהּ ״מֵחַיִּים״ – קְנָה.

Rava said: And if it was written in the deed that the gift is given during life and in death, the recipient acquires the gift and it cannot be retracted, as this term indicates that the gift takes effect while the giver still lives.

אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: לֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרָבָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: פְּשִׁיטָא, דְּהָא אָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא ״מֵחַיִּים״ – מוֹדֵי רַב; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

Ameimar said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rava. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: Isn’t that obvious, as the Sages of Neharde’a say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav? Ameimar replied: Lest you say that with regard to the term: During life, Rav concedes that the giver intends for the gift to take effect immediately, Ameimar teaches us that since the giver also mentioned death, he intended the gift as the gift of a person on his deathbed and he can retract it.

הָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן לִנְהַרְדְּעָא. שַׁדְּרֵיהּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא לְשׁוּם טַמְיָא, אָמַר: הָכָא אַתְרָא דִשְׁמוּאֵל – הֵיכִי נַעֲבֵיד כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב!

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who wrote in the deed that the gift is given in life and in death. When he recovered he wanted to retract the gift. He came before Rav Naḥman in Neharde’a. Rav Naḥman sent him to appear before Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba in Shum Tamya. Rav Naḥman said in explanation of his actions: Here, Neharde’a, is the place of Shmuel. Consequently, Shmuel’s rulings should be followed, and therefore how can we act in accordance with the opinion of Rav?

הָהִיא דַּאֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, עֲבַד לַהּ רָבָא כִּשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ. הֲוָה קָא טָרְדָא לֵיהּ.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who wrote in the deed that the gift is given during life and in death. She came before Rava. Rava acted with regard to her case in accordance with his halakhic ruling, and he ruled that she cannot retract the gift. She did not accept the ruling, and she constantly troubled him, saying that he had not judged her case properly.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְרַב פָּפָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חָנָן – סָפְרֵיהּ: זִיל כְּתוֹב לַהּ, וּכְתוֹב בָּהּ: ״שׂוֹכֵר עֲלֵיהֶן אוֹ מַטְעָן״. אָמְרָה: לִיטְבַּע אַרְבֵּיהּ! אַטְעוֹיֵי קָא מַטְעֵית לִי! אַמְשִׁינְהוּ לְמָנֵיהּ דְּרָבָא בְּמַיָּא, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי לָא אִיפְּרַק מִטִּיבְעָא.

Rava said to Rav Pappa, his scribe, son of Rav Ḥanan: Go, write for her a ruling in her favor, and write in the ruling the phrase: He may hire replacements at their expense, or deceive them to get them to return to work. This is a phrase from the mishna (Bava Metzia 75b) that discusses the ruling in the case of one who hired laborers to perform a task that cannot be delayed, and they quit. Rava intended this phrase to indicate to the court that the ruling was merely a ruse in order to persuade the woman to leave. The woman understood the ruse. She said: May his ship sink; you are deceiving me. Rava had his clothes immersed in water so that the curse should be fulfilled in this alternative manner, but even so he was not saved from the sinking of his ship.

מַתְנִי׳ לֹא כָּתַב בָּהּ שְׁכִיב מְרַע, הוּא אוֹמֵר ״שְׁכִיב מְרַע הָיִיתִי״, וְהֵן אוֹמְרִים ״בָּרִיא הָיִיתָ״ – צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁשְּׁכִיב מְרַע הָיָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ – עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה.

MISHNA: If one did not write in the deed that he was on his deathbed, and he then recovered and wished to retract the gift, and he says: I was on my deathbed, and since I recovered, I can retract the gift, but the recipients say: You were healthy, and the gift cannot be retracted, the giver must bring proof that he was on his deathbed in order to retract the gift. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The burden of proof rests upon the claimant, and since the property is in the possession of the giver, the recipients must bring proof that they have the right to receive it.

גְּמָ׳ הָהוּא מַתַּנְתָּא דַּהֲוָה כְּתִב בַּהּ: ״כַּד הֲוָה קְצִיר וּרְמֵי בְּעַרְסֵיהּ״; וְלָא כְּתַב בָּהּ: ״וּמִגּוֹ מַרְעֵיהּ אִיפְּטַר לְבֵית עוֹלָמֵיהּ״.

GEMARA: There was a deed pertaining to a certain gift of a person on his deathbed, in which it was written that the gift was bestowed when the giver was sick and lying in his bed, but the continuation of the standard formula: And from his sickness he departed to his eternal home, was not written in it. The giver’s heirs claimed that although he was ill when he wrote the deed, he later recovered, and his gift is not valid.

אֲמַר רַבָּה: הֲרֵי מֵת, וַהֲרֵי קִבְרוֹ מוֹכִיחַ עָלָיו. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הַשְׁתָּא, וּמָה סְפִינָה – שֶׁרוּבָּן לֵאָבֵד, נוֹתְנִין עֲלֵיהֶן חוּמְרֵי חַיִּים וְחוּמְרֵי מֵתִים; חוֹלִין – שֶׁרוֹב חוֹלִין לְחַיִּים, לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

Rabba said: He is dead, and his grave proves that he died. It may therefore be assumed that he did not recover from his sickness, and his gift remains valid. Abaye said to him: And now, if in the case of a ship that sank, where the fate of most of the passengers of sunken ships is to perish, the stringencies of the living and the stringencies of the dead are applied to them due to the uncertainty as to whether they are alive or dead, in the case of sick people, where the fate of most sick people is to return to life, all the more so is it not clear that one should assume that he recovered from the illness and his gift is invalid?

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא שְׁמַעְתָּא דְּרַבָּה – כְּרַבִּי נָתָן. דְּתַנְיָא: מִי מוֹצִיא מִיַּד מִי? הוּא מוֹצִיא מִידֵיהֶן בְּלֹא רְאָיָה, וְהֵן אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ אֶלָּא בִּרְאָיָה; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: In accordance with whose opinion is that halakha of Rabba? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a case where one who gave his property to others claims that since he was on his deathbed at the time he can retract the gifts, and the recipients claim that he was healthy and cannot retract it, who removes the property from whose possession? The giver can remove it from the recipients’ possession without proof, as the property was previously established to be in his possession, but the recipients can remove it from the giver’s possession only with proof. This is the statement of Rabbi Ya’akov.

רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: אִם בָּרִיא הוּא – עָלָיו לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁהָיָה שְׁכִיב מְרַע. אִם שְׁכִיב מְרַע הוּא – עֲלֵיהֶן לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁבָּרִיא הָיָה.

Rabbi Natan says: The presumption is that the current situation reflects the situation at the time the gift was bestowed. Therefore, if he is currently healthy, the obligation is upon him to bring proof that he was on his deathbed when he gave his property to others. If he is currently on his deathbed, the obligation is upon the recipients to bring proof that he was healthy then.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: וּלְטוּמְאָה – כַּמַּחְלוֹקֶת. דִּתְנַן: בִּקְעָה בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה – רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לַשַּׁבָּת, וּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לַטּוּמְאָה.

Rabbi Elazar says: And with regard to a case of uncertain ritual impurity, the halakha depends on the same dispute. This is as we learned in a mishna (Teharot 6:7): The halakha is that a case where it is uncertain if something or someone became impure in the public domain, the item or person is deemed pure. With regard to an expanse of fields, in the summer, when many people pass through the fields, it is considered the private domain with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, but it is considered the public domain with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity, and if one is uncertain as to whether he was rendered impure there, he is deemed pure.

בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים – רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לְכָאן וּלְכָאן.

In the rainy season, when not many people pass through the fields, an expanse of fields is considered the private domain both with regard to this, Shabbat, and with regard to that, ritual impurity. Therefore, if one is uncertain whether he was rendered impure there, he is deemed impure. If one does not know whether the day he entered the expanse of fields was considered part of the summer or the rainy season, and he is uncertain whether he was rendered impure there, Rabbi Ya’akov maintains that he retains the status of purity that he held before entering the fields. According to Rabbi Natan, it is presumed that he entered the fields during the same season in which he came to ask whether he was rendered impure.

אָמַר רָבָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא עָבְרוּ עָלָיו יְמוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, אֲבָל עָבְרוּ עָלָיו יְמוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים – רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לְכָאן וּלְכָאן.

Rava disagrees with Rabbi Elazar and says: They taught the ruling of the mishna only with regard to a case where the rainy season has not yet passed over the fields after the possibility arose that the fields contained impurity. But if the rainy season has already passed over the fields, it is considered the private domain both with regard to this, Shabbat, and with regard to that, ritual impurity. Even though the one who passed through the fields came to ask about his status in the summer, when the fields should be considered the public domain, he is nevertheless deemed impure even according to Rabbi Natan, and there is no parallel dispute with regard to uncertain ritual impurity.

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה וְכוּ׳.

§ The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: The burden of proof rests upon the claimant, and since the property is in the possession of the giver, the recipients must bring proof that they have the right to receive it.

Want to follow content and continue where you left off?

Create an account today to track your progress, mark what you’ve learned, and follow the shiurim that speak to you.

Clear all items from this list?

This will remove ALL the items in this section. You will lose any progress or history connected to them. This is irreversible.

Cancel
Yes, clear all

Are you sure you want to delete this item?

You will lose any progress or history connected to this item.

Cancel
Yes, delete