Bava Batra 134a (קלד.) — the Talmud in English

And

if not,

it is an unconditional gift, and

you cannot take back what I returned

to his sons, since I am able to give it to whomever I wish.

Shammai said

—

“Ben Uziel has struck me; Ben Uziel has struck me.”

That is, he defeated me with a decisive answer.

What did

Shammai

originally think? Because of the incident of Beit Ḥoron.

As we learned: There was an incident in Beit Ḥoron, involving one whose father was prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from him, and

the son

was marrying off his son,

and wished to invite his father.

He said to his friend, “Behold, this courtyard and this feast are given to you

as a gift, but they are yours only so that my father may come and eat with us at the feast.”

He said to him, “If they are mine, behold, they are consecrated to Heaven.”

He said to him, “I did not give you what is mine

so that

you should consecrate it to Heaven.”

He said to him, “You gave me yours only so that you and your father could eat and drink and appease one another, while the sin would rest upon his head.”

[That is, upon my head.]

That is, you did not intend it as an unconditional gift, but only as a means of evading the prohibition of the vow imposed upon you. It follows that I would be assisting you in violating your vow.

The Sages said: Any gift that is not

a sufficiently complete gift, to the extent

that if the recipient consecrated it

it would be

consecrated, is not a gift.

Incidentally, the Gemara brought a beraita concerning the greatness of Jonathan ben Uziel:

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

Hillel the Elder had eighty disciples. Thirty of them were worthy that the Divine Presence should rest upon them as it did upon Moses our teacher,

and thirty of them were worthy that the sun should stand still for them as it did for Joshua son of Nun,

but the sin of the generation caused the Divine Presence not to rest upon them in this manner and the sun not to stand still for them.

Twenty were of intermediate stature.

The greatest of them all was Jonathan ben Uziel.

The least of them all was Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai.

They said of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai that he left no verse, no Mishna, no Gemara

[the reasoning behind the mishnayot],

no halakhot

[halakha given to Moses at Sinai],

no aggadot, no fine points of Torah

[derivations based on inclusions and exclusions],

no fine points of the scribes

[the decrees of the Sages],

no kal va-chomer, no gezerot shavot, no tekufot

the calculation of the lunar conjunction,

, no gematriot, no parables of launderers, and no parables of foxes,

which have practical significance for understanding words of Torah,

no discourse of demons

to adjure them for an amulet or for healing,

, no discourse of palm trees

[as when Solomon spoke to the trees],

no discourse of the ministering angels

to adjure them,

, and no great matter and no small matter.

The Gemara explains:

The great matter is the Account of the Chariot.

And the small matter is the discussions of Abaye and Rava.

To fulfill that which is stated: “To give an inheritance to those who love Me, there is

[three hundred and ten worlds, corresponding to the numerical value of yesh, “there is”],

and

[why is all this so? Because]

“I will fill their treasuries.”

That is, their treasuries are filled with every good thing of Torah and wisdom.

And since the least of them all

[Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai]

was so great, the greatest of them all

[Jonathan ben Uziel]

was certainly so, all the more so.

They said of Jonathan ben Uziel that whenever he sat and occupied himself with Torah, every bird that flew over him was burned.

Mishna:

One who says, “This is my son,”

even though he had not been established for us as his son,

is believed.

The Gemara will explain in what regard he is believed.

But if he said

“This is my brother,” he is not believed

to obligate his brother to share with him in the inheritance of their father,

but

he is nevertheless believed to obligate himself; therefore

he shall take with him from his portion.

That is, he shall take from the portion of the brother whom he identifies as his.

For example, Reuven and Shimon came to divide their father’s estate, and Shimon testified concerning Levi that he was his brother, while Reuven did not know him.

Reuven takes half of the estate, and from the other half Shimon takes one-third. Levi takes half of Shimon’s portion, namely, one-sixth. The additional one-sixth remains in Reuven’s possession until Levi brings proof that he is their brother.

And if

Levi dies

without sons and bequeaths his property to his brothers,

the assets

that Shimon gave him from his portion

return to their place,

that is, to Shimon.

But if

property came to him

[that is, to Levi]

from another source, his brothers inherit it together with him.

For Reuven concedes that Levi is their brother, and consequently he must give him a share of Levi’s property.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that one who says

“This is my son” is believed.

The Gemara explains:

For what halakhic purpose?

In what regard is he believed?

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said:

He is believed to make him

his heir and to exempt his wife from yibbum.

For yibbum does not apply where there is a son.