Bava Batra 131 – Is Theory or Practice More Important?

Which is to be followed, a ruling issued by a Sage during learning or his practical ruling in court?

Neither. While learning, the Sage may not have considered all aspects of the matter. On the other hand, a practical ruling may be misunderstood by the observer as to the reason behind it. Rather, the Sage has to declare that the law agrees with a particular view and that it is to be followed in practice.

Is the ruling about changes in inheritance true for someone on his deathbed, because of "on the day when he makes his sons inherit," or even for one who is young and healthy? Rebbi said (and some say ruled in an actual case) that it also works for a healthy person. The two reports disagree on whether "is theory or practice more important."

Art: Baron Mikhail Petrovich Klodt von Jurgensburg - Beside a Sick Woman

Bava Batra 130 – Power to Change Allocations in the Inheritance

If one says, "Let so-and-so inherit me," where there is a daughter who will survive him, or if he says, "Let my daughter inherit me," where there is a son who will survive him – he has said nothing, that is, his words are not effective, since he made a stipulation contrary to what is written in the Torah.

However, if he increased the portion of one son among the other sons, or one daughter among the other daughters, or completely eliminated the portion of one son, leaving everything for the other sons, his words stand. Thus, one can change the portion of those in the same inheritance order. This ruling contradicts the one cited earlier; indeed, it is the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan ben Berokah and is the one accepted in practice.

Art: Carl Larsson - Mother And Daughter

Bava Batra 129 – Being Precise with “Give” vs “Bequeath”

If a person awards his property to several people in turn by saying, "My properties shall be given to you upon my death, and after you die, so-and-so shall inherit it, and after he dies, so-and-so shall inherit it," the law is as follows:

When the first beneficiary dies, the second beneficiary acquires the property. When the second beneficiary dies, the third beneficiary acquires the property. If the second beneficiary dies during the lifetime of the first one, the property reverts to the heirs of the first beneficiary upon his death.

Even though the award was referred to as "inheritance," it was only valid because he "gave" to the first one. Thus, when the second beneficiary died, he could not "give" anything to the third one, and the regular order of inheritance was restored.

Art: Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema - A Family Group

Bava Batra 128 – Decisions of Rabbi Abba

Rabbi Abba sent several rulings to Rav Yosef. The last of them deals with inheritance.

* If a defendant made an extralegal offer, like "Swear that this is your slave and take him," - he cannot retract.
* A third-generation cousin can testify regarding a second-generation cousin.
* One who knew a testimony about a land boundary but became blind cannot testify about it anymore.
* If one says, "My wife shall take a share in my estate like one of my sons," - it is as he says. The husband certainly can give her a gift. However, she only takes a share in his current properties, not in any subsequent acquisitions.

Art: Gabriel METSU - The Hunter's Gift

Bava Batra 127 – Questions About Firstborn

A man is believed to say about his son that he is a firstborn, even if it was presumed to be otherwise. The phrase "he must recognize the firstborn" is superfluous, and it is interpreted to mean that the father can identify the firstborn to others, that is, help them recognize the firstborn.

If two sons were born in hiding, and it is not clear who the firstborn is, they can appoint each other as agents against other brothers and together win the portion of the firstborn – so was Rava's advice. They told Rava that even though it sounded logical, the Torah insisted on definite knowledge about a firstborn. Rabbi Yannai explained this to be valid only when the firstborn was known and then mixed up. The next day, Rava publicly announced: "The statement that I made previously was an error on my part."

Art: Léon Augustin Lhermitte Woman with Child and Two Children

Bava Batra 126 – Changing Allocations in the Inheritance

If one says, "So-and-so, my firstborn son, shall not take a double portion of my estate," or "So-and-so, my son, shall not inherit with his brothers," - he has said nothing, that is, his directives are not followed, because he has made a stipulation contrary to what is written in the Torah.

However, suppose one distributes his property before his death, increasing the share of one and decreasing the share of the other or making the portion of the firstborn equal to those of the other brothers. In that case, his words stand because he conveyed the portions of his estate as gifts rather than bequests.

If at any point in a document, whether at the beginning, the middle, or the end, one wrote that the awards are conveyed as "gifts," even though the document also contains language of inheritance, his words stand.

Art: Father is at the Helm by William McTaggart

Bava Batra 125 – The Case of a Grandmother Concerning Inheritance

A certain person told his family, "My property shall go to my grandmother upon my death, and after her lifetime, it shall go to my heirs." The donor had an only daughter, who was married, but she died during the lifetime of her husband and her father's grandmother, and then the husband came forward and claimed the estate.

Ran Huna said, "To my heirs" means "even to the heirs of my heirs," and so the husband inherits. Ran Anan said, "To my heirs" means "but not to the heirs of my heirs," so the husband does not inherit. And the law is like Rav Anan, but not for his reason. Rather, the husband does not inherit here because it is only a prospective asset for him since the grandmother could have prevented the inheritance by selling the property.

Art: Grandmother and Granddaughter by Lovis Corinth

Bava Batra 124 – Limitations to the Double Portion of the Firstborn

What is the status of the benefits that accrue to the father's estate after his death but before the division, such as a calf born of a cow in the estate or a loan repaid to the estate?

Rabbis: the firstborn does not take the double portion of that;
Rebbi: the firstborn takes a double portion of those benefits that happen automatically, but not those that the orphans brought to the estate through their actions.

What are their arguments?

Rabbis: the expression "...to give him the double portion..." compares the double portion to a gift. Just as a gift cannot be given unless it has come into the donor's possession, so does the double portion, which includes only present assets.

Rebbi: The words "...double portion..." make the law for both portions the same, including future automatic benefits.

Art: Cattle, Sheep and Rabbits on a Hillside by George W. Horlor

Bava Batra 123 – The Double Portion of the Firstborn

Is the firstborn's double portion simply double that of every other brother, or does he take 2/3 of the whole estate, with the other brothers dividing the remaining 1/3?

The answer comes from the phrase "...and it shall be on the day that he bequeaths to his sons..." This phrase is superfluous since the law it states – that the firstborn gets a double portion – is expressed in different words in the very next verse. Therefore, the superfluous phrase teaches that the other brothers – if there are more than one – get at least as much as the firstborn, that is, at least 1/2, which is more than 1/3. Now that the 2/3 possibility is out, the only remaining logical alternative is that the firstborn gets double the portion of each brother.

Art: The Courtenay Brothers by Thomas Hudson

Bava Batra 122 – Daughters are Supported From the Father's Estate

A son and a daughter (where there are no sons) are equal in inheriting from a mother's estate and a father's estate. However, there are some differences.

A son who is a firstborn takes a double portion of his father's estate, but he does not take a double portion of his mother's estate – since "...to him is the right of the firstborn" can be understood to say that "regarding him, that is, the father, the right of the firstborn applies."

The daughters are supported by the father's estate until they marry, but they are not supported by the mother's estate.

Art: Three children of James Greenhalgh by Ramsay Richard Reinagle

Bava Batra 121 – Prohibition to Marry Outside the Tribe Ends

Israel had no days as festive as the 15th of Av and Yom Kippur, for on those days, the maidens of Jerusalem would go out dressed in white garments that were borrowed (so as not to embarrass those that had none), dance in the vineyards, and matches between them and eligible men were arranged.

One can understand Yom Kippur since it is the day of forgiveness, but what is the significance of the 15th of Av? On that day:

* The tribes were allowed to intermarry with each other;
* The tribe of Benjamin was allowed to marry members of the other tribes;
* Those destined to die in the Wilderness ceased to die;
* Jews were allowed to go on the pilgrimage festivals;
* The slain of Bethar were afforded burial;
* They stopped chopping trees for the Altar.

Art: Repose by John White Alexander

Bava Batra 120 – Not to Intermarry between Tribes

Upon entering the Land of Israel, the Jews were commanded to marry only within tribes: "Any daughter who inherits a legacy shall become the wife of someone from a family of her father's tribe..."

This was true, however, only for the first generation after entry because it is introduced with "this is the thing that God has commanded," which teaches that this "thing" applies only to this generation. The reason was to encourage the Jews who entered the Land to conquer all of it from the Canaanite inhabitants - and not get it through marriage.

The daughters of Tzelophchad were given the same commandment, but for them, it was just good advice – because they were wise, expounders of the Torah, and righteous. Nevertheless, they followed it. Moreover, a miracle happened to them: they were rejuvenated and married righteous, fitting husbands.

Art: Wedding Dance in a Tavern by Gerrit

Bava Batra 119 – The Winning Argument of the Daughters of Tzelophchad

The daughters of Tzhelophchad petitioned that they should inherit their father's portion in the Land of Israel. Their argument ran as follows: if they were to be considered for inheritance, given that they had no brothers, well and good. However, if they are not considered for inheritance, they should likewise not be considered for yibum (levirate marriage) – and then their mother should be married to a brother of Tzelophchad, who would receive Tzelophchad's portion, thus bringing it back to the family.

Moses had to ask God, and their petition was granted. Moses would have written this part of the law anyway, but they were meritorious and thus deserved that it was written through them – because of their love for the Land of Israel.

Art: Moses Approaching Mt. Sinai by Lesser Ury

Bava Batra 118 – Who Got a Portion in the Land of Israel

The daughters of Tzelophchad and the descendants of Joseph petitioned for a share in the Land of Israel. From this, we learn that no other person entered the Land who did not take a portion. And if you think that only successful petitions were recorded, like the one of the daughters of Tzelophchad, then the petition of the descendants of Joseph will prove you wrong, for they did not get it granted.

Joshua and Calev took the portions of the spies in the Land. We learn it from "they lived from among the spies." We already know that they did not die from "and not a man was left of them except for Caleb and Joshua," so what does the extra "live" tell us? That they lived in the portions of the spies.

Art: Daughters of the Revolution by Grant Wood

Bava Batra 117 – Daughters of Tzelophchad: Example of Inheriting in the Land of Israel

The daughters of Tzelophchad took three portions of the inheritance of the Land of Israel. (1) the portion of their father, Tzelophchad, who was among those who left Egypt; (2) their father's portion among brothers in the estate of Chepher, his father; (3) an extra share in the estate of Chepher, to which their father was entitled because he was a firstborn.

Number (1) teaches that the Land of Israel was divided among those who left Egypt, even if they were not living at the time of the conquest of Israel; Number (2) teaches that the daughter of a son received a share even when her father's brothers are alive; Number (3) teaches that the Land of Israel is considered to have been in possession of those who left Egypt.

Art: My Wife and my daughters in the Garden by Joaquin Sorolla y Bastida

Bava Batra 116 – Man Who Leaves Not a Son

R. Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, "Whoever does not leave behind a son to inherit him, the Holy One, Blessed be He is full of anger toward him."

From where do we know this? "If a man dies and he has no son, and you will pass (veha'avartem) his inheritance" and "evrah" means a day of anger, as in "a day of anger."

But is it a son or a student? Since Rabbi Yochanan lost his ten sons and would console people with "Look, this is a bone of my last son," - it must be that he meant a student, for otherwise, he would not publicize that God was angry with him. Then why did he say "son?" - These were the words of his teacher, but he himself felt that a man must leave a student.

Art: A Turkish School in the Vicinity of Cairo by John Frederick Lewis

Bava Batra 115 – Order of Inheritance: Depth-First

"if a man should die, and he has no sons, you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter." A son takes precedence over a daughter. Moreover, all the descendants of a son take precedence over a daughter.

However, a daughter takes precedence over the deceased's brothers (her uncles), and the descendants of a daughter take precedence over brothers. The daughter also precedes the deceased's father (her grandfather).

This is the rule: whoever takes precedence in the inheritance, his descendants also take precedence, and the father takes precedence over all his descendants – because the deceased's brothers are related to him through their common father.

Art: By the Deathbed by Edvard Munch

Bava Batra 114 – Time to Reconsider an Agreement

When two parties want to formalize a verbal agreement, they often perform an "exchange acquisition," in which one party hands the other a small article, such as a kerchief, and the second party takes possession of it.

Whenever this happens, parties are entitled to retract for a certain period. For how long? Rabbah said, "As long as they are seated at the same location." Rav Yosef said, "As long as they discuss the same subject."

However, both Rabbah and Rav Yosef need help with the rule learned previously about a court executing the last will. If a sick person can retract, none of their decisions are valid! Rav Yosef answers that this rule only applies while they are still discussing inheritance.

Art: Fair Exchange - Antonio Paoletti

Bava Batra 113 – Inheritance Passed Down Only by Day

Rabba bar Chanina said, based on "it shall be on the day that he bequeaths to his sons," that you may pass down inheritances only by day.

Abaye asked him, - Could it be that the one who dies by day has his sons inherit his property, but the one who dies by night does not? Of course not! Rather, since it says, "this should be to the children of Israel as a statute of judgment," inheritance has the laws of a court case. For example, suppose three people visit a sick person who instructs them concerning his last will. In that case, they have two options: write it down as witnesses or act as court judges and execute the judgment – but only by day since all court cases must be started by day.

Said Rabba Bar Chanina, "Yes, that is what I meant."

Art: Death In The Sick Room Edvard Munch

Happy Hanukah! Весёлой Хануки!

Bava Batra 112 - Not to Transfer Land in Israel Between Tribes

A man inherits his wife, but she does not inherit him. In discussing the laws of inheritance, it says, "You shall give his inheritance to … his flesh, and he shall inherit her," and "his flesh" means his wife because "they shall become one flesh."

In connection with this, there was a commandment for a Jewish woman to marry only within her tribe. The commandment was in force only during the years of conquest of the Land of Israel. It applied only to a woman who could potentially inherit land at the time of marriage - that is, if she had no brothers and was thus her father's prospective heir.

Art: The Sculptor Jacques Lipchitz and His Wife Berthe Lipchitz by Amedeo Modigliani

Happy Hanukkah!

Bava Batra 111 – Daughters Could Have Inherited Together with Sons

Even though we know that the son precedes the daughter in the inheritance coming from their father,  it could still be that the daughter precedes the son in the inheritance from their mother.

However, we have the following a-forteriori (kal vachomer) argument: "Any daughter who inherits a legacy from the tribes of the children of Israel" refers to the inheritance coming to a daughter from her mother. Now, the daughter does not inherit from her father but nevertheless inherits from her mother. The son, who inherits from his father, surely inherits from his father and even preempts the daughter.

Rabbi Zecharia Hakatzav says that an a-forteriori argument cannot give the son more rights than the daughter, and they should share in the inheritance equally. However, the final law does not follow him.

Art: Mother and Daughter by Federico Zandomeneghi

Bava Batra 110 – How Children and Brothers Inherit

From where do we derive that the son precedes the daughter in the line of inheritance? From "if a man dies... and he has no son, then you shall pass his estate to his daughter." This implies that the daughter would inherit because the deceased has no son, but if he had a son, the son would precede her.

Brothers inherit from each other and bequeath to each other – provided they are brothers from the same father. Brothers related only through their mother are not connected for inheritance. This is derived from "according to their families, according to their fathers' households."

Art: A Family Portrait by Edward Bird

Bava Batra 109 - Order of Inheritance

The children of the deceased are first in line for inheritance, followed by the father and, only then, his siblings. How do we know that the father indeed precedes the deceased's brothers?

The passages of the Torah describing the laws of inheritance do not mention the deceased's father at all. However, in the phrase "You shall give his inheritance to HIS RELATIVE who is closest to him of his family," "his relative" means the deceased's father. Now that we see that the father is mentioned, his place in the inheritance chain is right after the children because one's father is considered a closer relative to him than his siblings.

If so, why is the father not mentioned explicitly? The Torah wanted to avoid describing the sad situation of a father inheriting his son.

Art: And When Did You Last See Your Father? by Willliam Frederick Yeames

Bava Batra 108 – Laws of Inheritance

In general, the relative closest to the deceased inherits his possessions. The primary succession of heirs is thus as follows: a man's primary heir is his son. The estate reverts to the deceased man's daughter if there is no son. After this, the next eligible heir is the deceased's father, and if there is no living father, the estate reverts to that father's own heirs.

There are persons who can inherit and bequeath possessions, such as a son, who can inherit from his father but also bequeath to him. Some inherit but do not bequeath—such as a son and his mother: he can inherit from her, but the mother does not inherit from her son.

Art: Disinherited by Francois Adolphe Grison

Bava Batra 107 – Estate Division and Disagreements in Value Assessment

If two brothers divide inherited land, thinking that they were the only heirs, and then a third brother comes from overseas, their original division is void. Inheritors are considered to have bought their respective portions from each other, so it was a mistaken sale, and they will have to redivide. The same law applies when their father's creditor collects land from one of the brothers.

If three judges came to appraise land belonging to orphans to satisfy their debts and disagreed about its value, claiming respective values of 80, 105, and 120, the land would be worth 105. Two against one would consider it worth less than 105, and two against one would consider it worth more than 105. Other approaches include throwing away the highest value or considering that the judge mentally adjusts his estimate to be closer to his friends' numbers.

Art: Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson working on the Declaration of Independence by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris

Bava Batra 106 – Selling a Field by Landmarks

If a seller states that he is selling a field of a specific size and also identifies the field by its landmarks and boundaries, he has made two contradictory statements. "Within these landmarks and boundaries" means selling as is, regardless of size. The fact that he added the field size compels him to at least come close to this size.

If the field was found to be of a different size, then if the difference is less than a sixth, the field becomes the buyer's without any adjustment. If the difference is more significant than a sixth, they must adjust, with the seller or the buyer paying the difference.

This 1/6 is different from overcharge since no overcharge law exists for land. Instead, it is an estimate of what people forgive.

Art: Enclosed Field at Eragny by Camille Pissarro 

Bava Batra 105 – Contradictory Statements in Contracts

If the seller says, "I am selling you this amount of land as measured by a rope, be it more or less," these two statements are contradictory. "Measured by a rope" does not forgive even a slight variation, whereas "be it more or less" forgives a deviation of up to 1/24. The second statement nullifies the first. If it was uttered after a while, it is definitely a retraction. Even if it was uttered immediately, we assume he changed his mind. These are the words of Ben Nannas.

However, the Sages say that since he added nothing to clarify his retraction, this may indicate that he understood the contradiction, returned to the first statement, and decided to stop talking to avoid further mistakes. Therefore, the statement giving the seller the smaller amount is operative, keeping the money in dispute in the hands of the current owner.


Art: Cornfield near Calais by Josephine Bowes

Bava Batra 104 – Contract for the Sale of Land

If one says to his fellow, "I am selling you a beit kor of the earth as measured by a rope," it is understood that he means to sell precisely that amount of land, no less and no more. If the buyer later measures and finds it to be less, the seller must refund him the missing amount.

Although in the sale of movable items, a slight deviation voids the purchase, the Sages assessed that in the case of real estate, the buyer wants the sale to stand, even if the quantity is slightly more or less, as long as he is compensated for the difference. If the seller gave him more than a beit kor, the buyer has to return the excess land. If the seller said, "beit kor, be it less or more," the sale stands, provided the discrepancy is no more than 1/24.

Art: Breton Landscape Fields By The Sea by Paul Gauguin

Bava Batra 103 – Selling a Tract of Land

A beit kor is a tract of land on which a kor of barley seed can be sown. It is fixed at 75,000 square amot, or between 4 to 7½ acres.

If one says to his fellow, "I am selling you a beit kor of earth, that is, land suitable for cultivation, and there were clefts 10 hand-breadths deep or more, or rock 10 hand-breadths high, they are is not included while measuring the area of the sold land. Instead, the seller must provide land of level ground, to the full measure of beit kor. Clefts smaller than 10 hand-breadths, however, do contribute to the total area.

If the seller said, "I am selling you about a beit kor," then even clefts larger than 10 hand-breadths count as part of the area because "about" means in whatever condition it is.

Art: Alfalfa Fields, Saint-Denis by Georges Seurat

Bava Batra 102 – Investigating a Possible Forgotten Catacomb

If one finds an interred corpse, he must investigate further to see if he is dealing with a forgotten graveyard since the laws for a single corpse and a graveyard differ.

If one finds a corpse in an area not previously known to contain corpses lying in its usual manner, he may remove it along with its surrounding earth, for it may be assumed that it is not a graveyard. If, however, he found three corpses and there is a space between them of from four to eight amot, it is considered a graveyard zone, and the corpses may not be relocated. The upper limit of eight amot agrees with Rabbi Shimon's opinion on the size of catacombs.


Art: Crown Prince Frederick by the corpse of General Douay at the Battle of Wissembourg by Anton Alexander von Werner