Bava Batra 145b — the Talmud in English

d.

And the Sabbatical Year does not cancel it.

Even though this is a debt.

e.

And the firstborn does not take a double portion from it.

Even according to the one who says that from a loan he does take a double portion.

The Gemara explains the beraita:

The first law,

it is collected in court—

what is the reason?

It is considered like a loan,

and this is not merely a good custom of returning to him according to his kindness; therefore, he can demand from him that he pay his debt.

And likewise, the repayment time of the loan is at the time of his rejoicing; therefore, the second law is understood: it is collected only at its time and not earlier, since the repayment time has not yet arrived.

The third law,

and there is no violation of interest in it,

because

he did not give it with this intention.

Since he did not give it on the condition that his fellow return more to him, everything that he adds for him is generosity of heart and acts of kindness, in order to honor him; therefore, there is no prohibition of interest here.

The fourth law,

and the Sabbatical Year does not cancel it,

even though this is an ordinary debt, because

we do not apply to it “he shall not press,”

for now he cannot demand the debt, since its repayment time has not yet arrived. And every debt whose creditor cannot press the debtor during the Sabbatical Year is not canceled by the Sabbatical Year, as with one who lends his fellow for ten years: today he cannot press him, and the Sabbatical Year does not cancel it.

And the fifth law,

and the firstborn does not take a double portion,

because

it is a prospective asset,

as we ruled above, that a loan is a prospective asset,

and the firstborn does not take

a double portion

from a prospective asset as from an established asset,

as it is written, “in all that is found to him”; and here it was not found in the possession of his father.

Rav Kahana said: The general rule of the shushbinut,

the general rule concerning the return of a shushbinut debt is as follows:

If the shushbin who must return it

was in the city,

he was present in the city when his shushbin married,

he should have come,

he must come himself and rejoice with him; and if he did not come, he can demand from him in court that he pay him his debt, according to what he received.

Perhaps he heard the sound of the bell,

he heard the sound of the bells that announce the coming to rejoice with the groom—even if he was not in the city, he must come to rejoice with him, since he knows about it. Therefore, if he did not come, he must pay his debt.

If he did not hear the sound of the bell,

if he was far away and did not hear even the sound of the bells,

he should have informed him;

the groom should have informed his shushbin that he should come to his wedding in order to rejoice with him; and if he did not inform him, he has only

a grievance against him.

The shushbin has a grievance against the groom for not inviting him to rejoice and eat and drink at his feast. But

he does pay.

This does not exempt him from paying him his debt, but he must deduct from it the cost of the meal that he would have eaten had he informed him.

And how much?

How much does he credit him for not having eaten with him?

Abaye said: The sons of the wedding feast were accustomed

the custom among those celebrating,

up to a zuz, bring it in his hand,

if he brings a zuz in his hand for the shushbinut,

he eats it with his belly,

he eats its value with his belly, since the least substantial meal is worth a zuz. And if the shushbinut money is

up to four

zuz,

he pays half,

he deducts half of the shushbinut money for him, since if he brings a larger gift, they feed him more, and therefore he deducts more.

From this point onward,

the measure is

each person according to his importance.

It depends on the importance of the shushbin: if he is important, they would bring him an important meal, and accordingly they deduct from the shushbin’s debt to the groom.

The Sages taught:

We learned in a beraita concerning the laws of shushbinut:

If he made the celebration with him publicly,

if the first one held his wedding publicly,

and requested

the second one, who must return it to him,

to make it with him privately,

to make a modest celebration because he wishes to economize on the meal,

he can say to him,

the first one, who must return his debt:

“Publicly I will make it with you, as you made it with me!”

For I will return my debt only with a great celebration, as it was with me; and as long as you do not make that celebration, I am not obligated to return it to you.

And likewise, if

he made it with him with a virgin,

the first one married a virgin,

and requested

the second one

to make it with him

to bring the shushbinut

with a widow,

for the celebration of a widow’s wedding,

he can

the first one

say to him: “With a virgin I will make it with you, as you made it with me!”

Since the celebration with a widow is smaller.

And likewise in the opposite case, if

he made it with him with a second wife,

the first one married a second wife, and the second one brought him a gift,

and requested

the second one

to make it with him

the shushbinut

with a first wife,

when he marries a first wife, when the rejoicing is greater,

, he can

the first one

say to him: “When you marry another wife”

[a second time], then

“I will make it with you!”

Since he does not want excessive rejoicing, and he will return it to him with exactly the same rejoicing in which he participated.

And likewise, if the first one

made it with him with one,

when he married one woman,

and requested

the second one

to make it with him with two,

to return the shushbinut to him when he marries two women together, for there is no greater rejoicing than when he marries two women who are rivals to one another,

he can

the first one

say to him: “With one I will make it with you, as you made it with me.”

The Gemara brings several words of aggada.

The Sages taught,

we learned in a beraita: There are several types of possessors of wisdom. There is a sage who resembles one who is

wealthy in possessions,

rich in landed property, such as fields and vineyards, for this is visible to everyone. Or he resembles one who is

wealthy in public animals,

rich in livestock, which is something revealed to everyone—

this is a master of aggadot,

who expounds everywhere before the masses, is known to everyone, and has the reputation of a sage.

And there is a sage who resembles

one wealthy in rocks,

a moneychanger who profits from exchanging coins, or

one wealthy in tekua,

rich in oil, whose wealth is not revealed and publicized, but only when people come to them do they see their treasures—

this is a master of dialectical analysis,

who is not publicized like the master of aggadot, but only when people come to him can he display his wisdom.

And there is a sage who resembles

one wealthy in measured produce,

rich in grain, which is sold by measure, and

one wealthy in treasures,

he has stores of silver and gold hidden in his treasuries, and they are revealed only rarely—

this is a master of traditions.

He knows many halakhot and traditions, and reveals them when it is necessary to issue a halakhic ruling.

And the Gemara comes to teach us that the one who needs to examine and toil more in his wisdom is more modest and less publicized. Therefore, the master of aggada is the most publicized, and the master of traditions is the most modest.

The Gemara concludes:

Everyone needs the master of wheat,

the last one, who is the master of wheat; and this is a metaphor for one who knows

Gemara,

the one who knows the Mishnayot and beraitot. And just as one cannot do without wheat, so the master of Gemara is the most important of all.

Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav: What is the meaning of that which is written, “All the days of the poor are bad,”

that which Scripture said in the Book of Proverbs [chapter 15], that the life of the poor is bad—which poor person is intended?

This is the master of Gemara,

who must toil and mortify himself to understand the questions and answers.

But concerning that which Scripture said,

“And a good-hearted person has a continual feast,” this is the master of Mishna.

One who studies Mishnayot, in which there are no questions and answers.

Rava said the opposite,

contrary to Rabbi Zeira: “All the days of the poor are bad” refers to the master of Mishna, for everything is obscure to him in the Mishna, and he does not know how to issue a halakhic ruling; likewise, he does not know how to resolve the contradiction between Mishnayot. Whereas “a good-hearted person has a continual feast” refers to the master of Gemara, who indeed toils and labors, but ultimately reaches a great light, for everything is clear to him, and there is no greater joy than this.

And this accords with another statement of Rava:

And this is what Rav Mesharsheya said in the name of Heaven, in the name of Rava: What is the meaning of that which is written

what is the meaning of the verse in the Book of Ecclesiastes [chapter 10,

“He who moves stones is distressed by them,”

one who moves stones from this place to another—this is work that causes distress,

“he who splits wood is endangered by them,”

one who cuts wood, ultimately warms himself with it and benefits from it.

The Gemara explains: “

‘He who moves stones is distressed by them’—these are the masters of Mishna,

who study Mishnayot all day and ultimately experience distress from this study, since one who studies only them has difficulty with the reasons of the Mishna and does not know how to explain it. But

‘he who splits wood is endangered by them’—these are the masters of Gemara,

who labor and toil to understand the words of the Gemara, but after the toil comes the enjoyment, for their Mishna is ordered and clear.”

And the Gemara brings other interpretations that can be expounded from the verse in Proverbs:

Rabbi Hanina said: “‘All the days of the poor are bad’—this is one who has a bad wife. ‘And a good-hearted person has a continual feast’—this is one who has a good wife.”

Rabbi Yannai said: “‘All the days of the poor are bad’—this is an istenis,

whose mind recoils and melts from every repugnant thing that he sees, and therefore his life is bad. “‘

And good

heartedness is a continual feast’—this is one whose disposition is pleasant,

who tolerates everything and does not recoil from any filth or repulsiveness, so that his life is always good and he does not suffer.”

Rabbi Yohanan said: “‘All the days of the poor are bad’—this is a compassionate person,

who in his heart worries and weeps over the suffering of human beings, and therefore he too lives always in distress.

“‘And a good-hearted person has a continual feast’—this is a cruel person,”

who does not feel or share in the suffering of others.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: “‘All the days of the poor are bad’—this is one whose mind is narrow,

who is exacting, and whose eye is begrudging both with regard to his own possessions and with regard to those of others.

“‘And a good-hearted person has a continual feast’—this is one whose mind is broad.”