Bava Batra 133b — the Talmud in English

There was a certain one who said to his fellow: “My property is yours, and after you, it is for so-and-so.”

And

the

first

was

one who was fit to inherit him.

When the first died, the second came to claim [the property].

[When the first died, the second came to claim his property].

Rav Ilish, before Rava, thought to say: The second also takes it.

In accordance with the intention of the giver, who said, “and after you, it is for so-and-so.”

He said to him

Abaye:

Do judges of Hatzatzah judge like this?!

[Judges who are not expert in law judge in this manner]!

Is this law

not the same as that which Rav Aḥa bar Rav Avya sent

above, that inheritance has no interruption?!

He was embarrassed.

Rav Ilish was embarrassed before Rava. Perhaps Rava would say in his heart: Had I not been here, he would have issued a false judgment. And likewise all the judgments that he issued when [Rava] was not present.

And in order to comfort him,

he recited concerning him

Rava the verse in Isaiah,

“I am the Lord; in its time I will hasten it.”

That is to say, at the time when the righteous require salvation, the Holy One, blessed is He, summons it for them.

You too—I know concerning you that no mishap came through your hand, and even now the Holy One, blessed is He, summoned me here so that you would not err in issuing a ruling.

Mishna:

One who writes his property to others,

as a gift,

and leaves out his sons

and writes nothing for them:

what

he did is done, but the spirit of the Sages is not pleased with him.

And they are also strict with him, for he uprooted an inheritance from the Torah.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: If his sons were not conducting themselves properly, he is remembered for good.

That is to say, the spirit of the Sages is also pleased with him.

And in the Gemara it will be explained whether Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees with the words of the first tanna, or explains his words.

Gemara:

The Gemara is uncertain regarding the explanation of the Mishna:

It was asked of them: Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

and hold that even if his sons are not conducting themselves properly, the spirit of the Sages is not pleased with him, lest a worthy son emerge from them,

or not?

The Gemara resolves the uncertainty:

Come

and

hear

what we learned concerning this matter in a beraita:

Yosef ben Yo’ezer had a son who was not conducting himself properly,

and he wanted him not to benefit from his property.

He had a chest of dinars.

[He had a vessel full of dinars]

He arose and consecrated it.

He went

that son,

and married the daughter of the maker of the crowns of King Yannai

[He married the daughter of the one who repaired the crowns of King Yannai], and she was an intelligent woman] .

And when

his wife gave birth to a child, he bought her a fish.

[When his wife gave birth, he bought her a fish sufficient for her needs].

He tore it open and found a pearl inside it.

[He opened the belly of the fish and found a pearl inside it].

His wife said to him

his wife:

Do not bring it to the king, for they will take it from you for a small price; go and bring it before the treasurers,

and do not appraise it yourself, for a person’s declaration to the Most High is like his delivery to an ordinary person; rather, let them appraise it themselves.

[But go to the king’s house, since they will buy the stone from you cheaply. Rather, go to the Temple and ask the treasurer to appraise the stone himself and give you its value.

And do not appraise the stone yourself, since if you say, “I will give it to the consecrated property for such-and-such,” you will no longer be able to demand more for it. Since “a person’s declaration to the Most High is like his delivery to an ordinary person.”]

He brought it; they appraised it at thirteen upper chambers of dinars.

[When he came before the treasurer, they appraised the stone for him at the value of thirteen vessels full of dinars].

They said to him: Seven are available; six are not.

[We can pay you seven upper chambers of dinars for it, but the additional six are lacking for the consecrated property].

He said to them: Give me seven,

and

the six

[the six lacking upper chambers],

behold, they are consecrated to Heaven.

The treasurers stood

the treasurers,

and wrote

in the records of the consecrated property:

Yosef ben Yo’ezer brought in

one upper chamber of dinars,

and

thereby caused that

his son brought in six.

That is to say, the merit of his father, who consecrated one upper chamber of dinars because his son was not conducting himself properly, caused his son to become fit to contribute six upper chambers of dinars to the consecrated property.

And some say

as a condemnation:

Yosef ben Yo’ezer brought in one, and

thereby caused that

his son took out seven.

Had he not consecrated one, his son would not have demanded that the consecrated property pay seven upper chambers of gold dinars, thereby emptying the treasury of the consecrated property completely; rather, he would have left a certain sum in the treasury.

And since he left nothing, this indicates that had there been thirteen upper chambers of gold in the consecrated property, he would have taken all of them and would have consecrated nothing.

In any event, the Gemara infers from the first “some say”:

Since they said, “brought in,”

it follows

by implication

from this

that Yosef ben Yo’ezer acted properly

by consecrating his property.

The Gemara rejects this:

On the contrary, since they said

in the second “some say,”

“took out,”

it follows

by implication

from this

that he did not act properly.

Rather,

since some say this and some say that,

from this nothing can be inferred.

In any event,

what has become of it,

that is to say, according to the view of the first tanna, is it permitted to prevent an unworthy son from inheriting his father?

The Gemara resolves it:

Come

and

hear

what we learned concerning this matter:

Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Sharp one,

[clever one],

do not be among those who transfer an inheritance, even from a bad son to a good son, and all the more so from a son to a daughter.

[Do not judge in a place where they transfer the inheritance, even from an unworthy son to a worthy son, and all the more so when they transfer the inheritance from a son to a daughter].

And it is proven from here that the view of the first tanna is not like the view of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and he holds that the inheritance should not be transferred even from an unworthy son.

For if you say that they did not disagree concerning this matter, then Shmuel is neither like the first tanna nor like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

The Sages taught: An incident occurred involving a certain man whose sons were not conducting themselves properly. He arose and wrote his property to Yonatan ben Uzziel.

What did Yonatan ben Uzziel do?

He sold one-third

of the property for his needs,

and consecrated one-third, and returned to his sons

of that man

one-third.

Shammai came upon him with his staff and his bundle.

That is to say, he came to argue with him and claimed to him that he could not return the property to his sons, since their father had given him his property on the condition that he not give it to his sons.

He said to him

Yonatan ben Uzziel:

Shammai, if you can take out what I sold

for my needs,

and what I consecrated, you can take out what I returned.

Since this is not a complete gift.