Bava Batra 146a (קמו.) — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:

Why does it say,

“All the days of the poor are bad,” when there are Shabbatot and Festivals

when he has food in abundance then, since food is distributed to the poor from the tamhui? If so, why are all his days bad?

It is in accordance with the statement of Shmuel, for Shmuel said: A change in one’s routine is the beginning of illness.

Every departure from a person’s fixed routine causes him illness. Therefore, although the poor person has something with which to delight himself on Shabbat and the 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 peacefully.

But Ben Sira says,

adding:

even his nights.

His nights, too, are bad, because

his roof is among the lowly roofs,

his house is in a low place, and therefore

from the rain of the roofs to his roof,

the rain that falls on the higher roofs adjacent to him descends onto his roof and disturbs his rest.

In addition, he has another misfortune:

“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 soil of his vineyard,”

all the fertilizer 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 because his house is low, he suffers from the rain, and because his vineyard is in the mountains, he suffers a loss.

Mishna:

It is the custom of grooms to send, after the betrothal, a gift to their father-in-law’s house in honor of their wife. This is called sivlonot, from the expression “one who bears a burden” [Kings V], as he bears a load. When he brought the gift, he would sometimes eat with his betrothed.

The Mishna comes to explain in which circumstances, if he ultimately did not marry his betrothed—for example, if he died or changed his mind—she need not return the sivlonot she received from him. Ordinarily, although his entire purpose in sending the gift is to honor her, since she is destined to be married to him in the future,

One who sends sivlonot to his wife,

one who sends his wife gifts, jewelry and types of fruit, after the betrothal,

to his father-in-law’s house,

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 a groom’s feast even worth one dinar,

nevertheless, if he ultimately did not marry her—for example, if he or she died—

they are not collected.

She need not return the sivlonot, since, because of the pleasure he experienced when he ate at his father-in-law’s house, he waived his claim to them.

But

if he did not eat a groom’s feast there

when he sent the gift,

these are collected

she must return them if he ultimately did not marry her.

If he sent many sivlonot,

and specified 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,

these are collected,

since he explicitly stipulated that he was not waiving his claim.

But if

he sent a few items, for her to use in her father’s house,

that is what he said: he was sending them for her to use 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 stated his condition, it makes no difference whether he ate at his father-in-law’s house or not, since everything depends on his stipulation.

Gemara:

Rava said:

What we learned in the Mishna—that if he ate at his father-in-law’s house, he waives his claim to the sivlonot—applies

specifically to a dinar,

only if he ate food worth a dinar,

but

if he ate food worth

less than a dinar, no;

he does not waive his claim, and she must return them.

The Gemara asks:

Is it obvious!

This matter is obvious, since

we learned “a dinar”;

this is the wording of the Mishna, and certainly not less.

The Gemara answers:

Lest you say

that we would say,

the same law applies even to less than a dinar,

as he waives his claim against his betrothed because of the affection generated by the joy of eating.

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

as this is the usual amount spent on such a meal, as explained above, but it is not precise,

it teaches us

Rava teaches us that it is specifically a dinar.

The Gemara considers the intent of the Mishna:

1.

We learned “he ate,”

since this is what we learned—that if he ate, he waives his claim—and therefore the question arises:

If he drank, what is the law?

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

2.

We learned “he,”

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

his agent ate, what is the law?

What is the law if his agent ate? Does he waive his claim in that case as well, since they honored his agent, or not?

3.

We learned “there,”

we learned in the Mishna that if he ate there, in his father-in-law’s house, he waives 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 because of which he waives his claim, or not?

The Gemara seeks to resolve one of these uncertainties from a beraita.

Come and hear

a proof from that

which Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: An incident occurred involving a certain man who sent

sivlonot

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

silk garments,

and rode in his joy,

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

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

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 Rabbi Aḥa Sar HaBira brought this ruling before the Sages in Usha,

Rabbi Aḥa asked the Sanhedrin in Usha,

and they said,

and ruled:

With regard to sivlonot that are subject to wearing out

by the bride while she is still in her father’s house, he waives his claim to them because of the groom’s meal worth a dinar, and therefore

they are not collected. But those that are not subject to wearing out,

such as gold and silver jewelry,

are collected;

she must return them, since he did not intend to waive his claim against her.

This clarifies that what we learned in the Mishna—that if he ate, he waives his claim—applies specifically to sivlonot that are subject to wearing out; but items that remain intact must be returned.

Learn from this

that in any event, it is possible to resolve from the beraita

even if he drank,

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

The Gemara asks:

Can you learn from this that even less than a dinar suffices!?

Can it also be resolved 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, because

who can tell us

who says

that they did not grind a precious stone for him

that is, grind a precious stone and put it into the cup,

and give it to him to drink,

as it was customary for nobles to give such a drink as a remedy, in which case he benefited from something worth more than a dinar.

The Gemara asks: Perhaps another uncertainty can be resolved:

Learn from this that even if it was sent to him.

Even if he did not eat at his father-in-law’s house, but it was sent to him, he waives his claim, since here he did not enter his father-in-law’s house, and nevertheless she need not return the gift.

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 of the house is considered part of the house, as though he entered it; therefore, there is no proof.

They raised a question:

The members of the academy were uncertain:

What is the law regarding the appreciation of the sivlonot? [

The Rashbam reads: “What is the law if the sivlonot appreciated?” We shall explain according to his version: The sivlonot appreciated and are now worth more, but the case is one in which, after they appreciated, she ate them or sold them to others. If they were still extant, she would certainly have to return everything; the uncertainty concerns the fact that the sivlonot are no longer extant.]

Is it that

since if they were extant, they would return to him,

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

they appreciated in his domain;

the appreciation took place in his domain?

Or perhaps

we should say:

since if they were lost or stolen,

if they were stolen [and one must add: even if they were forcibly taken,]]

she would have to compensate him,

she would be obligated to pay him; therefore

in her domain

they appreciated.

This is considered appreciation in her domain, since it is acquired by her, as she is liable for accidents involving it.

The Gemara leaves the matter at

teyku.

Rava raised a question: With regard to sivlonot that are subject to wearing out,

which we learned in the earlier beraita are not collected and need not be returned, if ultimately

they did not wear out,

and remained extant,

what is the law?

The uncertainty is whether perhaps he waives his claim only on the assumption that she actually used them and they were entirely worn out, but if they remained intact, perhaps his intention was that she must return them.

The Gemara seeks to resolve the uncertainty from the earlier beraita.

Come and hear,

for we learned in a beraita:

“And Rabbi Aḥa Sar HaBira brought this ruling before the Sages in Usha, and they said: Sivlonot that are subject to wearing out are not collected; and those that are not subject to wearing out are collected.”

The Gemara infers from the fact that if they are subject to wearing out, she does not return them:

Is it not so even though they did not wear out,

since it says “subject to wearing out,” implying that if they are destined to wear out, then even though they did not wear out, they are not returned .

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

do not infer this. Rather, it is speaking of items

that did wear out.

The beraita is speaking of a case in which they in fact wore out eventually, 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

few in number, for her to use while she is in her father’s house, are not collected,”

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

The Gemara rejects this:

Rava explained it

Rava establishes the Mishna

as referring to yeiva and savakhta,

which are women’s bindings, such as scarves. They are few in value, and therefore he waives his claim to them in any event, even when they did not wear out. There is therefore no proof here concerning Rava’s uncertainty regarding an expensive item: whether he waives his claim when it did not wear out.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: An incident occurred involving a certain man who sent new wine, new oil, and new linen garments to his father-in-law’s house on Atzeret,

at the time of the Festival of Shavuot.

The Gemara asks:

What does this teach us?

What novel point is this story coming to teach?

The Gemara answers:

If you wish, say:

It is possible to say:

the importance of Eretz Yisrael,

to demonstrate the importance of the Land, whose produce ripens quickly, so that the fruit is already ripe by Atzeret.

And if you wish, say:

it is possible to say:

that if he makes this claim, his claim is a valid claim.

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

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: An incident occurred involving a certain man

to whom people said

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

“His wife is tohertenit!”

She had a defect: she could not smell,

and he entered a ruin after her to examine her

to see whether she could smell. If he found that she had this defect, he could divorce her without a ketuba. He took a radish with him to test whether she would detect its smell.

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