Bava Batra 145b (קמה:) — the Talmud in English

d.

And the Sabbatical year does not cancel it.

Even though this is an ordinary debt.

e.

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

Even according to the one who says that the firstborn takes a double portion from a loan.

The Gemara explains the beraita:

The first ruling,

it may be collected in court—

what is the reason?

It is considered like a loan,

and this is not merely a virtuous practice of reciprocating his kindness. Therefore, he may demand that the other repay his debt.

Likewise, the time for repayment of the loan is at the time of his celebration. Therefore, the second ruling is understandable: it may be collected only at its proper time and not beforehand, since the time for repayment has not yet arrived.

The third ruling,

and it does not involve interest,

because

he did not give it with that intention.

Since he did not give it on condition that his fellow return more to him, whatever the latter adds is an act of generosity and loving-kindness, in order to honor him; therefore, there is no prohibition of interest here.

The fourth ruling,

and the Sabbatical year does not cancel it,

even though this is an ordinary debt, because

we cannot apply to it the verse “he shall not press him,”

as at present he cannot demand payment of the debt, since the time for repayment has not yet arrived. Any debt regarding which the creditor cannot press the debtor during the Sabbatical year is not canceled by the Sabbatical year. This is similar to one who lends money to his fellow for ten years: since today he cannot press him for payment, the Sabbatical year does not cancel the loan.

And the fifth ruling,

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

of a prospective asset as of an established asset,

as it is written: “of all that is found in his possession.” Here, this was not found in his father’s possession.

Rav Kahana said: The general rule of shushbinut,

the general rule regarding repayment of a shushbinut debt is as follows:

If the shushbin who is required to repay

was in the city,

present in the city when his fellow shushbin married,

he should have come,

he must come himself and gladden him. And if he did not come, the latter may bring him to court and demand that he pay him his debt in the amount that he had received.

If he heard the sound of the bell,

he heard the sound of the bells announcing the invitation to come and rejoice with the groom—even if he was not in the city, he must come and gladden 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 even hear the sound of the bells,

he should have informed him.

The groom should have informed the shushbin that he should come to his wedding in order to gladden 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 must pay.

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

And how much?

How much is he credited for not having eaten at his feast?

Abaye said: The custom of the celebrants

is as follows:

up to a zuz, he brings in his hand,

if he brings a zuz in his hand as the shushbinut gift,

he consumes it with his stomach;

he eats its value, since the least expensive meal is worth a zuz. And if the shushbinut gift is

up to four

zuz,

he pays half;

he deducts half of the shushbinut gift, since when one brings a larger gift, he is fed more, and therefore more is deducted for the meal.

From that point onward,

the measure is

each person according to his importance.

It depends on the importance of the shushbin: if he was an important person, they would bring him an important meal, and accordingly they deduct from the shushbinut debt owed by the shushbin to the groom.

The Sages taught:

We learned in a beraita concerning the laws of shushbinut:

If he celebrated with him publicly,

if the first one held his wedding publicly,

and the second requested

the one who was required to repay him,

to celebrate with him privately,

to hold a modest celebration because he wished to limit the expense of the feast,

he may say to him,

the first one, who is required to repay his debt:

“I will celebrate with you publicly, as you celebrated with me!”

I will repay my debt only with a large celebration, as I had at my wedding; and as long as you do not hold that same celebration, I am not obligated to repay you.

Likewise, if

he celebrated with him with a virgin,

the first one married a virgin,

and the second requested

the second one

to celebrate with him

and bring the shushbinut gift

with a widow,

at the celebration of a widow’s wedding,

the first one may

the first one

say to him: “I will celebrate with you with a virgin, as you celebrated with me!”

since the celebration with a widow is smaller.

And likewise in the reverse case, if

he celebrated with him with a second wife,

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

and the second requested

the second one

to celebrate with him

with a shushbinut gift

with a first wife,

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

, he may

the first one

say to him: “When you marry another wife a second time], then

(a second time), then

I will celebrate with you!”

Since he does not wish to participate in an excessively grand celebration, he will repay him with precisely the same level of celebration in which he participated.

And likewise, if the first one

celebrated with him with one,

when he married one wife,

and the second requested

the second one

to celebrate with him with two,

to repay him the shushbinut gift when he marries two women together—for there is no greater celebration than marrying two women who are co-wives to one another—

the first one may

the first one

say to him: “With one I will celebrate with you, as you celebrated with me.”

The Gemara brings several aggadic teachings.

The Sages taught,

we learned in a beraita: There are several types of scholars. There is a scholar who resembles one who is

rich in landed property,

wealthy in real estate, such as fields and vineyards, which is visible to everyone. Or he resembles one who is

rich in livestock,

wealthy in animals, which is also openly visible to everyone—

this is a master of aggada,

one who expounds everywhere before the multitudes, is known to everyone, and has a reputation as a scholar.

And there is a scholar who resembles one who is

rich in coins,

a money changer who earns by exchanging currencies, or

rich in Tekoa oil,

wealthy in oil. The wealth of these people is not openly known or publicized; only when one comes to them does one see their treasures—

this is a master of dialectical analysis,

who is not as well known as a master of aggada, but only when people come to him can he display his wisdom.

And there is a scholar who resembles one who is

rich in measures,

wealthy in grain, which is sold by measure, and

rich in storehouses,

who has stores of silver and gold kept in his treasuries and revealed only rarely—

this is a master of traditions.

He knows many halakhot and traditions, and reveals them when it is necessary to rule on halakha.

The Gemara teaches us that the more one must investigate and toil in acquiring his wisdom, the more modest and less publicized he is. Therefore, the master of aggada is the most publicized, while the master of traditions is the most modest.

The Gemara concludes:

Everyone needs the master of wheat,

the last one, who possesses the wheat; this is a metaphor for one who knows

Gemara,

that is, one who knows the Mishnayot and the beraitot. Just as one cannot manage without wheat, so the master of Gemara is the most important of them 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苦,”

what poor person is the verse in the Book of Proverbs referring to [chapter 15] when it says that the life of the poor is苦?

This is a master of Gemara,

who must toil and exhaust himself in order to understand the questions and answers.

But concerning that which the verse says,

“But one of good heart has a continual feast,” this is a master of Mishna.

This refers to one who studies Mishnayot, which contain no questions and answers.

Rava said the opposite,

in contrast to Rabbi Zeira: “All the days of the poor are苦” refers to a master of Mishna, for everything is obscure to him in the Mishna; he does not know how to rule on halakha, and he also does not know how to resolve contradictions between Mishnayot. But “one of good heart has a continual feast” refers to a master of Gemara. Although he toils and labors, in the end he reaches a great light: everything becomes 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 Rava: What is the meaning of that which is written

what is meant by the verse in Ecclesiastes [chapter 10]

“He who moves stones is hurt by them,”

one who moves stones from one place to another performs work that causes pain;

“He who splits wood is warmed by it,”

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

The Gemara explains: “

He who moves stones is hurt by them”—these are the masters of Mishna,

who study Mishnayot all day, and in the end suffer from this learning, since one who studies only them finds it difficult to understand the reasons for the Mishna and does not know how to explain it. But

“He who splits wood is warmed by it”—these are the masters of Gemara,

who toil and labor to understand the words of the Gemara, but after the toil comes the pleasure, for their learning becomes orderly and clear.

The Gemara brings other expositions that may be derived from the verse in Proverbs:

Rabbi Hanina said: “All the days of the poor are苦”—this is one who has a bad wife. “But one of good heart has a continual feast”—this is one who has a good wife.

Rabbi Yannai said: “All the days of the poor are苦”—this is an esthete,

whose sensibility recoils and melts away at every repulsive thing he sees, and therefore his life is苦. “

But one of good

heart has a continual feast”—this is one whose sensibility is sound,

who tolerates everything and does not recoil from dirt and repulsive things, so that his life is always good and he does not suffer.

Rabbi Yohanan said: “All the days of the poor are苦”—this is a compassionate person,

who worries in his heart and weeps over the suffering of other people, and therefore he too lives constantly in distress.

“But one of good heart 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苦”—this is one of narrow understanding,

who is irritable and begrudges both what belongs to him and what belongs to others.

“But one of good heart has a continual feast”—this is one of broad understanding.