Bava Batra 144b — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

Brothers who are partners,

brothers who are partners, who inherited property and remained partners,

one of them who was appointed to a government post,

one of the brothers was chosen by the king for a particular task, such as a tax collector,

the proceeds are shared.

The profit that he receives from his work for the king is divided among all the brothers. Since he received the position as the representative of the family, they all therefore receive a share of the profit.

And if that brother who was chosen for the king’s service

became ill and recovered,

he was ill and incurred expenses for his treatment, then it is

from his own [funds],

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

Gemara:

A beraita was taught:

the beraita explains what was stated in the Mishna:

this “craft,”

the reference is

to the king’s craft,

as was explained.

The Sages taught: One of the brothers

who had not yet divided their inheritance,

whom they appointed as a tax collector or a polmostus,

whom the king appointed as responsible for collecting the king’s funds, or as a policeman, and he has profit from his appointment, the matter depends:

If it was on account of the brothers,

if he appointed him on account of the family, having chosen him as they are accustomed to take one person from each family, then the profit goes

to the brothers,

his wages are divided among the brothers.

But

if it was on account of himself,

if he was chosen on account of his importance or his sharpness,

to himself,

he receives his wages for himself, and his brothers have no share in this.

The Gemara asks about the first ruling:

If

he was chosen

on account of the brothers,

then the profit that comes also

to the brothers—is it not obvious?

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

The Gemara answers:

No, it is necessary,

this ruling is needed in a case

where he is much sharper,

where the brother who was chosen is sharper than the others.

You might say,

we would say,

his sharpness caused it for him,

his sharpness caused them to choose specifically him, and not the family,

it teaches us,

therefore it is necessary to teach that this is attributed to the family, and all of them share in his wages.

The Sages taught: One of the brothers who took two hundred dinars

from the brothers’ joint funds,

in order to study Torah or to study a craft,

and they are all supported from the estate of the household, while he wishes to receive his food expenses from them in the place where he is,

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

eat together with us;

you have food,

you will receive food like each of the brothers.

If you are not

with us,

but you are in another place,

you have no food,

you have no right to receive food.

The Gemara asks:

Let them give him [food] wherever he is,

let them give him [food] where he is; what difference does it make that he is not together with them? Even if he were with them, they would have to spend for his food.

The Gemara answers:

This supports Rav Huna,

from here there is proof for Rav Huna.

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

When everyone is supported together, there are fewer expenses; therefore, if he eats separately, they must spend more.

The Gemara asks:

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

let him receive at least the amount that they would have spent had he been with them!?

The Gemara answers:

Indeed, so it is,

indeed, he receives those expenses.

We learned in the Mishna:

He became ill and recovered, he recovers from his own [funds]:

The Gemara now explains the second ruling of the Mishna.

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

in the Mishna, that the expenses of the treatment are from his own [funds],

when he brought it upon himself through negligence,

that through his negligence he caused himself to become ill.

But in a case of compulsion,

if he became ill through circumstances beyond his control,

he recovers from the common funds.

The expenses of the treatment are divided among all of them, and this is specifically regarding a brother who is occupied on behalf of all of them. But an ordinary brother who becomes ill pays for his own treatment, even when it was through circumstances beyond his control.

The Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances of negligence?

When can his illness be attributed to negligence?

As in the statement of Rabbi Hanina.

For Rabbi Hanina said: Everything is in the hands of Heaven,

all illnesses that come upon a person are a decree from Heaven,

except chills and fever,

except for illnesses that come because of cold and heat, from which he can protect himself,

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

one who guards his soul and walks on a straight path can take care regarding illnesses that come through cold and heat.

Mishna:

It was customary that when a man married a woman, his friend would send him gifts and come to rejoice with him. The recipient of the gift was obligated to act likewise toward him when he married a woman. This is called shushbinut. The Mishna is discussing this practice.

Brothers, some of whom gave shushbinut during the father’s lifetime,

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

the shushbinut was returned,

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

it is returned to the common fund,

he does not return the gifts of the shushbinut 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 a woman. Because

the shushbinut is collected in court,

this is a full debt, which can be claimed; therefore all the brothers inherit this debt, and consequently the shushbinut returns to the common fund.

The Mishna explains that the shushbinut is collected in court specifically when he sends it for the joy of a wedding.

But one who sends his fellow jugs of wine and jugs of

oil,

even if he sends them for the needs of his marriage but does not come himself to rejoice with him, this is an ordinary gift, and there is no obligation to return a gift in exchange for it, nor can he claim it from him.

Gemara:

And he raises a contradiction

the Gemara asks about an apparent contradiction from another beraita, in which we learned differently:

For it was taught:

If his father sent him shushbinut,

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

when it is returned,

when the groom returns his debt at the time of his own wedding,

it returns to him,

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

But if

shushbinut was sent to his father,

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

when it is returned, it returns from the common fund.

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

The contradiction between the Mishna and the first clause of the beraita is difficult: there it says that the same brother who was the agent receives the shushbinut alone, whereas in the Mishna we learned that all of them receive it.

The Gemara answers:

Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said: When we also learned our Mishna,

what we learned in the Mishna refers to the case of

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

The father received shushbinut from others, and the brothers must pay his debt, like the second ruling of the beraita. But if the father sent it through one of the brothers, it returns to him alone.

The Gemara asks:

But this,

after all, in the Mishna

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

It implies that they gave it and now it is returned to them, and not that they must repay their father’s debt!?

The Gemara rejects this:

Teach: “to some of them.”

The meaning of the Mishna is that it was given to them; it does not say, “some of them gave,” but rather, “to some of them,” that it was given to them, and now they must return it.

The Gemara continues to ask:

But it teaches: “The shushbinut was returned”!

For now the shushbinut returns to the brothers, and not that they must send it to another.

The Gemara answers:

This is what it is saying,

this is the meaning of the Mishna:

it returns to be collected,

it returns in order to collect its debt from the brothers,

it is collected from the common fund.

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

Rav Asi said,

Rav Asi gives another answer to the contradiction between the beraita and the Mishna:

It is not difficult,

there is no contradiction between them, because

here it is an unspecified case,

in the Mishna, the father did not explicitly say who would be the recipient of the shushbinut. Therefore, when it returns, it returns to all of them, because that was his intention.

But

here,

in the beraita, the case is

where he specified,

where he said to one of the brothers that he would be the recipient of the shushbinut, and it is reasonable that his intention was that it return to him.

And as it was taught

and so we learned in a beraita:

if his father sent him

with

his father’s shushbinut, when it returns

through the recipient,

it returns to him,

to the one who brought it; but

if his father sent shushbinut without specification,

and did not specify through whom,

when it returns,

to the brothers,

it returns to the common fund,

it is divided among all of them.

Shmuel said,

he gives an answer to the contradiction between the beraita and the Mishna:

Here we are dealing with a levirate brother,

the Mishna is dealing with a levirate brother, for the shushbinut should indeed return to the one with whom the father sent the shushbinut, as explained in the beraita. But the case is that he died, and another brother performed yibbum with his wife, and he should have received the shushbinut in place of his brother. But he does not receive it, since

he does not take property that is destined to come as he takes property already in possession,

because the levirate brother receives only property that is already in his brother’s possession. But regarding a debt that is destined to be collected, he does not take it to the exclusion of the other brothers; therefore, it returns equally to all the brothers.

The Gemara draws a precise inference from Shmuel’s answer:

By inference

you learn from this

that the other one pays,

even though he is dead, they must return the debt of the shushbinut.

The Gemara objects: Why?

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

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

Was it not taught:

did we not learn in a beraita:

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

to return the betrothal money if the betrothal was annulled after the engagement,

they return it,

since this is the custom.

In a place where the custom 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 only

that one must return the money that she received for the betrothal,

when she died,

the woman; therefore her heirs must return the money of her betrothal.

But when he died, they do not return it,

the woman does not return it.