Bava Batra 147a (קמז.) — the Talmud in English

“It seems that I have a son,”

I thought that I had a son.

“Now,”

once it became clear to me

“that I have no son, my property is for so-and-so!”

“Or, he was ill and bedridden, and they said to him: ‘For whom is your property?’ He said to them: ‘It seems that my wife is pregnant.’”

But

“now,”

“that my wife is not pregnant, my property is for so-and-so,”

and ultimately it became clear that he had been mistaken,

“and it became known that he had a son, or that his wife was pregnant, his gift is not a gift.”

Let us say that this is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, and not that of the Rabbis,

who disagree with Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya. For here, the ruling follows the assessment of the donor’s intent in order to nullify the gift to so-and-so.

The Gemara rejects this:

Even if you say that it is the opinion of the Rabbis, “it seems” is different.

In our case, the Rabbis agree, since he explicitly stated that everything he was giving to so-and-so was because he had no son.

This distinction would seemingly be obvious, and it is unclear what the questioner’s reasoning was. Therefore, the Gemara asks:

But the one who raised this question—what did he see in raising it!?

What basis was there for interpreting the beraita as expressing the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and not that of the Rabbis?

The Gemara answers:

It might have entered your mind to say,

it could have been said,

“He is merely mentioning his distress,”

that he is only mentioning his distress at having no son, but does not wish to make the gift dependent upon that fact. Therefore, it is not explicit that this was his intention, and one might have thought that the ruling does not accord with the Rabbis.

It teaches us,

therefore, that in this case everyone agrees.

A shekhiv mera is subject to a special rule: if he gives away all his property, or even gives away only part of it but explicitly states that he is giving it because of his impending death, he does not require an act of acquisition; rather, the property is acquired through his statement alone. The Gemara seeks a source for this rule.

Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: From where is it derived that the gift of a shekhiv mera,

which is acquired through speech alone,

is from the Torah,

that this is effective by Torah law?

As it is stated: “

When a man dies and has no son,

you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter.”

The word “you shall transfer” is superfluous, since the verse could have stated: “When a man dies and has no son—his inheritance shall be given to his daughter.” From this superfluous word they expound:

There is another transfer that is like this,

another transfer of property that resembles inheritance in that it does not require an act of acquisition.

And what is it?

What is this additional transfer?

It is the gift of a shekhiv mera,

who can transfer property through speech, without an act of acquisition.

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha: From here

it is derived, from another verse, as it is written: “And if he has no daughter,

you shall give his inheritance to his brothers,”

and seemingly the word “you shall give” is superfluous, since the verse could have stated: “His inheritance shall be given to his brothers.” From this superfluous word we expound:

There is another giving that is like this.

There is another form of giving that resembles inheritance in that it does not require an act of acquisition,

and what is it,

what is this additional giving?

It is the gift of a shekhiv mera,

which does not require an act of acquisition.

The Gemara explains:

And Rav Naḥman—what is the reason that he did not say that it is derived from “you shall transfer,”

why does he not expound the superfluous word “you shall transfer”?

That word is needed for the teaching of Rabbi.

Since it is required for another exposition.

As it is taught

in a beraita:

Rabbi says: In all of them,

in all the cases of inheritance,

giving is stated concerning them,

the language of giving is used concerning them,

whereas here,

in the inheritance of a daughter,

it is stated

in the language of

transference.

The verse comes to teach us:

There is no one who transfers an inheritance from one tribe to another except a daughter,

for when a daughter inherits, she transfers the inheritance to another tribe,

since her son

and her husband inherit from her,

and they belong to another tribe. From here we learn that a son inherits from his mother, and that a husband inherits from his wife.

The Gemara explains:

And Rabbi Zeira—what is the reason

why

did he not say

that it is derived from

“you shall give”?

Since this word is not superfluous, but rather

it is the usual manner of the verse;

this is the customary way for Scripture to write, and there is no superfluous word here.

Rav Menasya bar Yirmeya said:

The gift of a shekhiv mera is learned from the verse:

“In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death, and Isaiah son of Amoz the prophet came to him and said to him: So said the Lord: Set your house in order, for you are going to die and will not live.”

The prophet did not tell him to perform an act of acquisition with his property; rather,

through a mere testament,

he could transfer it through a statement alone.

Rami bar Yeḥezkel said:

He derives it from another verse:

“And Ahithophel saw that his counsel had not been followed, and he saddled the donkey and arose and went to his house, to his city, and he gave instructions to his household, and he strangled himself.”

Here too, it does not say that he performed an act of acquisition, but rather

through a mere testament,

through a statement alone.

Since Ahithophel was mentioned, the Gemara cites a statement in his name.

The Sages taught: Ahithophel commanded his sons three things:

1.

Do not be involved in dispute.

2.

And do not rebel against the monarchy of the house of David.

3. If

the festival day of Atzeret

Shavuot

is clear,

clear and without clouds,

sow wheat,

as this is a sign that they will succeed that year.

Mar Zutra said:

The wheat will succeed if the festival day is

overcast,

that is, cloudy.

The Gemara explains:

It was stated: The scholars of Nehardea said in the name of Rav Yaakov,

the sign that the wheat will succeed is

neither “clear” in the literal sense,

meaning that the intention is not that there be no clouds at all,

nor “overcast” in the literal sense,

meaning that the intention is not that it be entirely cloudy, but even

overcast, with a north wind blowing against it.

Although there were clouds and a north wind scattered the clouds,

this is “clear”

and is a sign that the wheat will succeed.

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: We

disagree with the beraita that gives signs on Atzeret; rather,

we teach it in accordance with Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi.

We rely on his signs, since they concern Sukkot, when they are judged concerning water.

For Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: On the evening following the final festival day of the Festival,

the evening following Shemini Atzeret, after the judgment concerning water has been concluded,

everyone looks toward the smoke of the arrangement

above the altar, when the limbs and fats were being offered.

If the smoke

inclines toward the north,

since there is a southern wind causing the smoke to incline northward,

the poor rejoice,

because produce is sold cheaply,

while the landowners

who have storehouses in which to preserve produce

are distressed,

because they cannot preserve the produce

since the rains of the year are abundant and the produce rots,

and the produce is sold cheaply.

And if it inclines

toward the south,

as a northern wind causes the column of smoke to incline southward,

the poor are distressed,

since produce is sold at a high price,

while the landowners rejoice,

because they sell it at a large profit,

since the rains of the year are sparse and the produce is preserved

in the storehouses, and they do not need to take everything out and sell it cheaply. In addition, the yield is not particularly large.

If it

inclines toward the east,

since there is a western wind on account of which the column of smoke inclines eastward,

everyone rejoices,

because the wealthy can store produce, and, since there are abundant rains, the yield is large and the produce is not expensive.

And if it

inclines toward the west,

as an eastern wind blows and causes the column of smoke to incline westward,

everyone is distressed,

because there is no rain and there is drought.

These were their signs, and not the signs given with regard to Atzeret.

The Gemara raises a contradiction from another beraita:

And we raise a contradiction

from a beraita in which we learned the opposite: An

eastern wind is always

always

good,

beneficial. And a

western wind is always

always

harmful.

Whereas above we stated the opposite.

And the beraita continues to explain:

A northern wind is good

and beneficial

for wheat when it has reached one-third

of its growth, since at that point it no longer requires rain,

and harmful to olives when they blossom,

the flowers.

And a southern wind is harmful to wheat when it has reached one-third, and good for olives when they blossom.

And the Gemara gives a mnemonic:

And Rav Yosef said, and some say Mar Zutra said, and some say Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And your mnemonic is:

which wind is beneficial? The

Table

that stood in the Temple was located

in the north,

so a northern wind is beneficial to it, as will be explained,

and the Menora was in the south,

so a southern wind is beneficial to it, as will be explained.

This one grows its own produce,

the northern wind promotes the growth of wheat, from which the showbread for the Table is made.

This one grows its own produce.

The southern wind benefits olives, from which the oil for the Menora is made.

Nevertheless, there remains a contradiction concerning the western and eastern winds.

The Gemara answers:

It is not difficult;

there is no contradiction.

This statement is for us,

for the inhabitants of Babylonia, where there is abundant water; the second beraita was stated there, according to which a western wind is harmful because it brings much rain, and excessive rain is damaging, whereas an eastern wind is beneficial because it does not bring much rain.

And that statement is for them,

for the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael, which requires abundant rain; therefore, a western wind is beneficial and an eastern wind is harmful.

It is taught in a beraita: Abba Shaul says: The festival day of Atzeret

is clear,

without clouds,

is a good sign for the entire year,

and not only for the success of the wheat.

Rav Zevid said: This first day,

the first day

of the beginning of the year,

of the start of the year,

if it is hot,

if it is hot,

the entire year will be hot,

the entire year will be hot.

If it is cold,

if it is cold,

the entire year will be cold,

the entire year will be cold.

What practical difference does this make?

Why is it necessary to know this?