Bava Batra 146a — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said,

why

“All the days of the poor are bad,” and are there not Sabbaths and Festivals

when he has food in abundance, for they distribute food to the poor from the communal charity bowl at those times; and if so, why are all his days bad?

In accordance with what Shmuel said, for Shmuel said: A change of regimen is the beginning of illness.

Every change from a person’s fixed habit causes him illness. Therefore, although the poor person has something with which to delight himself on Shabbat and on a Festival, since throughout the week he eats dry bread, the food of Shabbat causes him illness. Consequently, even on Shabbat his days are bad.

It is written in the book of Ben Sira

concerning the verse in Proverbs

“All the days of the poor are bad”

—King Solomon said that only his days are bad, but at night he sleeps in tranquility.

And Ben Sira says,

he adds:

even the nights.

His nights too are bad, and the reason is that

his roof is in the lowlands,

his house is located in a low place, and therefore

from the rain of roofs to his roof,

the rains that fall upon the high roofs near him fall upon his roof and disturb his rest.

And besides this, he has another trouble:

“His vineyard is on the height of mountains,”

for his vineyard is in the mountains, and in high places the land is less fertile.

“From the dust of his vineyard,”

all the manure that he places in his vineyard to improve it descends together with the soil

to the vineyards

of the wealthy, which are located in the valley.

It follows that, since his house is low, he suffers from the rain, and since his vineyard is in the mountains, he loses.

Mishna:

It is the custom of grooms to send, after the betrothal, a gift to the house of their father-in-law in honor of their wife. It is called “sivlonot,” from the expression “one who bears a burden,” for he bears a load. And when he brought the gift, sometimes he would eat with his betrothed.

And the Mishna comes to explain in which circumstances, if in the end he did not marry his betrothed—for example, he died or he changed his mind—she need not return the sivlonot that she received from him, although ordinarily his entire intention in sending the gift is to honor her, since she will be married to him in the future.

One who sends sivlonot to his wife,

one who sends gifts to his wife—jewelry and kinds of fruit—after the betrothal,

to the house of his father-in-law,

in order to honor his wife,

if he sent

to

there one hundred maneh,

even if he sent a large gift worth one hundred maneh,

and ate there the groom’s meal, even [if it was worth] a dinar,

nevertheless, if in the end he did not marry her—for example, he died or she died—

they are not collected.

She need not return the sivlonot, because, on account of the enjoyment he had when he ate in his father-in-law’s house, he relinquished his claim to them.

But

if he did not eat there the groom’s meal

when he sent the gift,

they are collected

she must return them if in the end he did not marry her.

If he sent many sivlonot,

and explained that his entire purpose was so that

they would return with her to her husband’s house

at the time of her marriage to him,

they are collected,

since he explicitly stipulated that he was not relinquishing them.

But if

he sent few, so that she would use them in her father’s house,

this is what he said: that he was sending them to her so that she would use them in her father’s house,

they are not collected.

She need not return them.

And in the latter clause, since it is speaking of one who explicitly said this, there is no difference whether he ate in his father-in-law’s house or not, since everything follows his stipulation.

Gemara:

Rava said,

that which we learned in the Mishna, that if he ate at his father-in-law’s house he relinquishes the sivlonot, is

specifically [when it was worth] a dinar,

specifically if he ate food worth a dinar,

but

if he ate food worth

less than a dinar, no,

he does not relinquish them, and she must return them.

The Gemara asks:

Is it obvious!

This matter is indeed obvious, for

“a dinar” we learned,

this is how the Mishna states it, and certainly not less.

And the Gemara answers:

It was necessary to state this,

we might have said,

the same law applies even to less than a dinar,

that he relinquishes his claim to his betrothed because of the affection arising from the joy of eating.

And the fact that it teaches “a dinar” is merely the usual manner of the matter,

for this is the usual amount eaten, as explained above, but it is not specifically required;

it teaches us

Rava’s ruling, that it is specifically a dinar.

The Gemara considers the intention of the Mishna:

1.

“He ate,” we learned,

since this is how we learned it: that if he ate, he relinquishes his claim; therefore, the question arises:

if he drank, what is the law?

What is the law if he only drank? Is there enjoyment from drinking alone as well, or only from eating?

2.

“He,” we learned,

we learned in the Mishna that if he ate, he relinquishes his claim; and the question arises: if

his agent ate, what is the law?

What is the law if his agent ate? Does he also relinquish his claim, since they honored his agent, or not?

3.

“There,” we learned,

we learned in the Mishna that if he ate there, in his father-in-law’s house, he relinquishes his claim; and the question arises:

if it was sent to him, what is the law?

If his father-in-law sent the meal to the groom’s house, is this the same affection on account of which he relinquishes his claim, or not?

And the Gemara seeks to resolve one of the uncertainties from a beraita.

Come and hear

a proof from this:

Rabbi Judah said in the name of Shmuel: There was an incident involving a certain man who sent

sivlonot

to his father-in-law’s house: one hundred barrels of wine, and of oil, and silver vessels, and gold vessels, and silk vessels,

silk vessels;

and he rode in his joy,

the groom too came because he had sent such an abundant gift,

and he went and stood at the entrance of his father-in-law’s house, and they brought out

for him

a cup of hot water, and he drank,

and afterward

he died,

and they were uncertain whether she had to return the entire gift.

And this ruling Rabbi Akha, the officer of the city, brought before the Sages in Usha,

Rabbi Akha asked the Sanhedrin in Usha,

and they said,

and they ruled:

for sivlonot that are liable to wear out

while with the bride, while she is still in her father’s house, he relinquishes them because of the groom’s meal worth a dinar, and therefore

they are not collected. And those that are not liable to wear out,

such as gold and silver jewelry,

are collected,

she must return them, since he did not intend to relinquish his claim to them.

And this explains to us that what we learned in the Mishna—that if he ate, he relinquishes his claim—applies specifically to sivlonot that are liable to wear out; but things that endure permanently, she must return.

Infer from this,

in any event, one can resolve from the beraita

even if he drank,

that even when he merely drank, he relinquishes his claim to the sivlonot, for here they brought him only a cup of drink.

The Gemara asks:

Can you infer from this that even less than a dinar [suffices]!?

Can one also resolve this contrary to Rava’s earlier statement, that specifically a dinar is required, since the cup of hot water was worth less than a dinar?

The Gemara rejects this:

Rav Ashi said,

there is no proof from here, for

who can say to us

who tells us

that they did not grind a pearl,

that they did not grind a precious stone and put it inside the cup,

and give him to drink,

and they gave him to drink, for this was the manner of nobles when giving medicine; consequently, he enjoyed something worth more than a dinar.

The Gemara asks: Perhaps one can resolve another question, whether

one can infer from this that even if it was sent to him.

That even if he did not eat in his father-in-law’s house, but it was sent to him, he relinquishes his claim, for here he did not enter his father-in-law’s house, and nevertheless she need not return it.

The Gemara rejects this:

Perhaps the entire entrance of his father-in-law’s house is considered like his father-in-law’s house.

The entrance is considered as inside the house, as though he entered it; therefore, there is no proof.

They raised a dilemma before them,

the members of the academy were uncertain:

What is the law concerning an increase in the value of the sivlonot? What is the law? [

the Rashbam explains it as: “An increase in the value of the sivlonot—what is the law?” We shall explain according to his version: the sivlonot increased in value and now are worth more, but the case is that after they increased in value, she ate them or sold them to others. If they were still extant, she would certainly have had to return everything; the uncertainty is because the sivlonot are no longer extant.]

Is it that

since, if they exist, they would return to him,

if they were extant, they would return to their owner, and therefore

the increase took place in his authority,

the increase occurred under his ownership?

Or perhaps,

or shall we say,

since, if they were lost or stolen,

if they were stolen [and it is necessary to add: even if they were seized by force ],

she would have to pay him,

she would be obligated to pay him, therefore

under her authority

the increase occurred.

This is considered to have increased under her ownership, since it is acquired by her, for this is why she is liable for accidents.

And the Gemara remains with

teyku.

Rava raised a dilemma: sivlonot that are liable to wear out,

which we learned above in the beraita, that they are not collected and she need not return them—if in the end

they did not wear out,

and remained extant,

what is the law?

The uncertainty is that perhaps he relinquishes his claim only on the assumption that she indeed used them and they were completely worn out; but if they remained, perhaps his intention was that she must return them.

And the Gemara comes to resolve the uncertainty from the above beraita.

Come and hear,

we learned in the beraita:

And this ruling Rabbi Akha, the officer of the city, brought before the Sages in Usha, and they said: sivlonot that are liable to wear out are not collected. And those that are not liable to wear out are collected.

And the Gemara infers: from the fact that if they are liable to wear out she does not return them,

is it not that even though they did not wear out,

since it says “liable to wear out,” it implies that if they stand to wear out, then although they did not wear out, they are not returned .

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

do not infer this. Rather, it is speaking of a case

where they wore out.

The beraita is speaking of a case in which they indeed wore out in the end, and there is no proof concerning a case in which they did not wear out.

Come and hear

from what we learned in the Mishna:

sivlonot

that are few, so that she may use them while she is in her father’s house, are not collected,

and here the Mishna does not mention that they are “liable to wear out,” but only that they are few, for his intention was that she use them in her father’s house, and she need not return them even though they remain extant .

The Gemara rejects this:

Rava explained it,

Rava establishes the Mishna

with a yeiva and a savakta,

which are women’s ornaments, such as scarves; they are a small matter, and therefore he relinquishes his claim to them in every case, even when they did not wear out. There is no proof from here concerning Rava’s uncertainty about a large item, whether he relinquishes his claim when it did not wear out.

Rabbi Judah said in the name of Rav: There was an incident involving a certain man who sent to his father-in-law’s house new wine, new oil, and new linen vessels, on Shavuot,

at the time of the Festival of Shavuot.

The Gemara asks:

What does this teach us

what innovation is he coming to teach through this story?

The Gemara answers:

If you wish, say,

it is possible to say:

the importance of the Land of Israel,

to show the importance of the Land, which hastens to ripen its fruits, so that already on Shavuot the fruits are ripe.

And if you wish, say,

and it is possible to say:

for if he claims, his claim is a valid claim.

If the woman must return the items and the husband claims that he sent wine and oil on Shavuot, his claim is a valid claim, and it is not a false claim.

Rabbi Judah said in the name of Rav: There was an incident involving a certain man

to whom they said

concerning his wife, when she was already married to him:

“His wife is teruternet!”

She has a blemish, for she cannot smell,

and he entered a ruin after her to examine her

whether she could smell; and if he found that she had a blemish, he could divorce her without a marriage contract. And he took with him a radish to test whether she would detect its smell.

He said to her: “I smell the scent of a radish in the Galilee!”