Bava Batra 144b (קמד:) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

Brothers who are partners,

brothers who are partners, having inherited property and remaining partners,

if one of them was appointed to a royal position,

one of the brothers was appointed by the king to a particular task, such as a tax collector,

the proceeds are divided among them.

The profit he receives from his service for the king is divided among all the brothers, because he received the position as the representative of the family, and therefore all of them receive a share of the profit.

And if that brother who was appointed to serve the king

became ill and recovered,

he was ill and incurred expenses for his recovery,

the expenses are his own,

he must pay them from his own funds, and the brothers do not participate with him, as will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

The tanna taught,

the baraita explains what was stated in the Mishna:

this “position,”

the reference is

to a royal position,

as explained.

The Sages taught: If one of the brothers

before they had divided their inheritance,

was appointed a tax collector or a polmostus,

the king appointed him to be responsible for collecting the king’s money, or as a police officer, and he receives profit from his appointment, the matter depends:

If it was on account of the brothers,

if he was appointed because of the family, having been selected as is customary, to take one person from each family, the profit

is for the brothers,

and his remuneration is divided among the brothers.

But

if it was on account of himself,

if he was chosen because of his prominence or acumen,

it is for himself,

he receives his remuneration for himself, and his brothers have no share in it.

The Gemara asks about the first ruling:

if

he was chosen

on account of the brothers,

then it follows that the profit also goes

to the brothers; it is obvious!

It is obvious that the profit is divided among them all.

The Gemara answers:

No, it is necessary

to state this ruling in a case

where he was much more astute,

where the brother who was chosen was more astute than the others.

Lest you say

that

his astuteness caused him to be chosen,

that his acumen was what caused them to choose him specifically, and he was not chosen on account of the family,

it teaches us

that it must nevertheless be attributed to the family, and they all share in his remuneration.

The Sages taught: If one of the brothers took two hundred dinars

from the brothers’ joint funds

in order to study Torah or to learn a trade,

and they are all sustained from the household assets, while he wishes to receive from them the cost of his sustenance at the place where he is staying,

the brothers may say to him: If you are with us,

eat together with us;

you have sustenance,

you will receive sustenance like each of the brothers.

If you are not

with us,

but are staying elsewhere,

you have no sustenance,

you have no right to receive sustenance.

The Gemara asks:

And let them give him sustenance wherever he is,

what difference does it make that he is not with them? Even if he were with them, they would have to spend money on his sustenance.

The Gemara answers:

This supports Rav Huna,

as this provides a proof for Rav Huna.

For Rav Huna said: The blessing of the household is in its majority.

When everyone is sustained together, expenses are lower; therefore, if he eats separately, they must spend more.

The Gemara asks:

And let them give him according to the blessing of the household,

so that he receives at least the amount they would have spent had he been with them!?

The Gemara answers:

Indeed, that is the case;

he does receive those expenses.

We learned in the Mishna:

“He became ill and recovered: He recovers at his own expense”:

The Gemara now explains the second ruling of the Mishna.

Ravin sent in the name of Rav Ela: They taught this

in the Mishna, that the expenses of recovery are his own,

only when he brought it upon himself through negligence,

that he caused his illness through his own negligence.

But if it was unavoidable,

if he became ill through circumstances beyond his control,

he recovers at the expense of the joint estate.

The expenses of recovery are divided among them all. This applies specifically to a brother who is engaged in work on behalf of all of them. But an ordinary brother who becomes ill pays for his own recovery, even if it was unavoidable.

The Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances of negligence?

When can his illness be attributed to negligence?

As in the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina.

For Rabbi Ḥanina said: Everything is in the hands of Heaven

all illnesses that befall a person are decreed from Heaven,

except for chills and heatstroke,

except for illnesses caused by cold and heat, from which he can protect himself,

as it is stated: “Chills and snares are on a perverse path, and one who guards his soul distances himself from them,”

one who guards himself and follows a proper path can protect himself from illnesses caused by cold and heat.

Mishna:

It was customary that when a man married, his friend would send him gifts and come to rejoice with him. The recipient of the gift was required to do the same for him when he married. This is called shushbinut, and the Mishna discusses this custom.

If some of the brothers practiced shushbinut during their father’s lifetime,

the father sent one of his sons with gifts to rejoice and celebrate with the groom, and afterward the father died. The groom who received the shushbinut must return it to the sender when one of the sender’s sons marries,

the shushbinut was returned,

when he repays his debt by bringing joy to the one who brought him joy,

it is returned to the joint estate,

he does not return the shushbinut gifts to the brother who came to him during his celebration as the father’s agent; rather, it is divided among all of them when one of the brothers marries, because

the shushbinut is collectible in court,

it is a full debt that can be claimed. Therefore, all the brothers inherit this debt, and consequently the shushbinut is returned to the joint estate.

The Mishna explains that the shushbinut is collectible in court only when it was sent for the celebration of a marriage.

But one who sends his friend jars of wine and jars of

oil,

even if he sends them for the purpose of his marriage but does not come himself to rejoice with him, this is merely a gift; there is no obligation to return a gift in exchange for it, and he cannot claim it from him.

Gemara:

And it was raised as a contradiction

the Gemara raises an apparent contradiction from another baraita, in which we learned differently:

As it was taught:

If his father sent him shushbinut,

when his father sent him with shushbinut to the wedding of his father’s friend, so that he would eat and rejoice with the groom in his father’s place, then

when it is returned,

when the groom repays the debt at his own wedding,

it is returned to him,

to that brother who acted as his father’s agent, and not to the other brothers.

But if

the shushbinut was sent to his father,

if others sent shushbinut to their father when he married, or when one of his sons married, and afterward the father died, then

when it is returned, it is returned from the joint estate.

All the heirs must pay this debt of their father to that groom from the inheritance.

There is an apparent contradiction between the Mishna and the first clause of the baraita. There it states that the brother who acted as the agent receives the shushbinut alone, whereas in the Mishna we learned that they all receive it.

The Gemara answers:

Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: When we, too, learned in the Mishna,

the meaning was:

“It was sent to his father,” we learned.

The father received shushbinut from others, and the brothers must repay his debt, in accordance with the second ruling of the baraita. But if the father sent it through one of the brothers, it is returned only to that brother.

The Gemara asks:

But,

in the Mishna,

it teaches: “Brothers, some of whom practiced shushbinut.”

This indicates that they practiced it and now it is being returned to them, rather than that they must repay their father’s debt!?

The Gemara rejects this:

Teach: “to some of them.”

The Mishna means that it was done for them. It does not say, “some of them practiced it,” but rather, “for some of them”; it was done for them, and now they must repay it.

The Gemara continues to ask:

But it teaches: “The shushbinut was returned”!

This indicates that the shushbinut is now returned to the brothers, and not that they must send it to someone else.

The Gemara answers:

This is what it is saying:

this is the meaning of the Mishna:

“It returned in order to be collected”;

it is returned in order to collect the debt from the brothers,

and it is collected from the joint estate.

It is collected from all the brothers, as their father’s debt.

Rav Asi said:

Rav Asi offers another resolution to the contradiction between the baraita and the Mishna:

It is not difficult;

there is no contradiction between them, because

here,

the Mishna is dealing with an unspecified case: The father did not explicitly say who would be the shushbin. Therefore, when it is returned, it is returned to all of them, since that was his intention.

But

here,

the baraita is dealing

with an explicitly specified case,

where he told one of the brothers that he would be the shushbin, and it is reasonable to assume that his intention was that it be returned to him.

And as it was taught:

And so we learned in a baraita:

If his

father

sent him shushbinut, when it is returned

through the recipient,

it is returned to him,

to the one who brought it. But if

his father sent shushbinut without specification

and did not specify through whom it was to be sent,

when it is returned,

it is returned to the brothers;

it is returned to the joint estate,

and is divided among them all.

Shmuel said:

He resolves the contradiction between the baraita and the Mishna:

Here we are dealing with a levir,

the Mishna is dealing with a levir. In fact, the shushbinut should be returned to the one to whom the father sent it, as explained in the baraita. However, that brother died, and another brother performed yibbum with his wife; he should have received the shushbinut in place of his brother. But he does not receive it, because

a levir does not take property that is due as he takes property already in possession,

because a levir receives only property that was already in his brother’s possession. But with regard to a debt that is due to be collected, he does not have a greater right to it than the other brothers. Therefore, it is returned equally to all the brothers.

The Gemara infers from Shmuel’s resolution:

By inference,

you learn

that the other one pays,

that although the brother died, they must repay the shushbinut debt.

The Gemara challenges this: Why?

Let him say: “Give me my shushbin, and I will rejoice with him!”

Let him claim that his obligation is to repay only the one who brought him the shushbinut and rejoiced with him; here, since that brother died and cannot rejoice at his celebration, he should not be obligated to repay it.

Was it not taught:

Did we not learn in a baraita:

In a place where the practice is to return betrothal money,

to return the betrothal money if the betrothal was subsequently annulled,

they return it,

because this is the established practice?

In a place where the practice is not to return it, they do not return it.

And Rav Yosef bar Abba said that Mar Ukva said that Shmuel said: They taught this

that the betrothal money that she received must be returned

only when she died;

the woman died, and therefore her heirs must return the betrothal money.

But if he died, they do not return it;

the woman does not return it.