Bava Batra 147a — the Talmud in English

I thought that I had a son,

I thought that I had a son.

Now,

once it became clear to me

that I have no son, my property is to so-and-so!

Or, he was ill and lying in bed, and they said to him: “To whom are his properties?” He said to them: “It seems that my wife is pregnant.”

But

now,

since my wife is not pregnant, my property is to so-and-so,

and in the end it became clear that he had erred,

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

Let us say: It is Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, and not the Rabbis,

who disagree with Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya. For here they follow the assessment in order to invalidate the gift to so-and-so.

The Gemara rejects this:

You may even say that it is the Rabbis. “It seems” is different.

Here the Rabbis agree, since he explicitly said that everything that he gives to so-and-so is because he has no son.

And apparently this distinction is obvious, and it is not clear what the questioner thought. Therefore the Gemara asks:

But the one who raised it, what did he raise it for!?

What basis was there for establishing the beraita according to Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and not according to the Rabbis?

The Gemara answers:

It might have entered your mind to say,

it would have been possible to say,

it is his distress that he mentions,

that he merely mentions his distress that he has no son, but he does not wish to make the gift dependent on this, and therefore it is not explicit that this is his intention; and it would have been possible to think that this is not according to the Rabbis.

He teaches us,

therefore he teaches that here it follows everyone.

In the case of a person dangerously ill, there is a special law: if he gives all his properties, or even gives part of them but explains that he is giving because of death, he does not need an act of acquisition; rather, it is acquired through speech alone. And the Gemara seeks a source for this.

Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: From where is it [derived] concerning the gift of a person dangerously ill,

which acquires through speech alone,

that it is from the Torah,

that this is effective by Torah law?

As it is stated, “

When a man dies and has no son,”

“then you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter.”

The word “you shall transfer” is superfluous, for it would have been possible to write: “When a man dies, and he has no son—his inheritance is to his daughter.” And from the superfluity they expound:

You have another transfer that is like this,

there is another transfer of properties that resembles inheritance in that it does not need an act of acquisition.

And which is it?

What is the additional transfer?

This is the gift of a person dangerously ill,

who can effect acquisition through speech without an act of acquisition.

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

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

“then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers,”

and apparently the word “you shall give” is superfluous, for it would be possible to write “his inheritance to his brothers”; and from the superfluity we expound:

You have another giving that is like this.

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

and which is it

what is the additional giving?

This is the gift of a person dangerously ill,

which does not need an act of acquisition.

The Gemara explains:

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

why does he not expound the superfluity of “you shall transfer”?

That one is needed for [the teaching] of Rabbi.

Since it is required for another exposition.

As it was taught

we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi says: In all of them,

in all the inheritances,

giving is stated concerning them,

the language of giving is stated,

but here,

in the inheritance of a daughter,

there is stated

the language of

transfer.

The verse comes to teach us:

You have none who transfers an inheritance from one tribe to another except a daughter,

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

since her son

and her husband inherit her,

and they are from another tribe. And from here we learn that a son inherits his mother, and a husband inherits his wife.

The Gemara explains:

And Rabbi Zeira, what is the reason

why

did he not say

he does not expound from

“then you shall give”?

Since it is not superfluous, but rather

it is the way of the verse,

this is the usual way to write, and there is no superfluity here.

Rav Menasya bar Yirmeya said:

the gift of a person dangerously ill is learned from the verse:

“In those days Hezekiah became ill unto death, and Isaiah son of Amoz the prophet came to him, and said to him: So said Hashem: Command your household, for you are dying and shall not live.”

The prophet did not say to him that he should perform an act of acquisition with his properties, but rather

by a mere testament,

through speech alone he can effect acquisition.

Rami bar Yeḥezkel said,

he expounds from another verse:

“And Ahitophel saw that his counsel had not been carried out, and he saddled the donkey and arose and went to his house, to his city, and he commanded his household, and he strangled himself.”

Here too it is not stated that he performed an act of acquisition, but rather

by a mere testament,

through speech alone.

Since Ahitophel was mentioned, the Gemara brings a statement in his name.

The Sages taught: Ahitophel commanded his sons three things:

1.

Do not be 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 not cloudy,

sow wheat,

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

Mar Zutra said,

the wheat will succeed if the festival day is

cloudy,

that is, overcast.

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 not “clear” literally,

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

and not “cloudy” literally,

the intention is not that it should be actually an overcast day, but even

cloudy, and a north wind blows against it.

Even though there were clouds and a north wind scattered the clouds,

this is “clear”

and a sign that the wheat will succeed.

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: We

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

we teach it concerning [the statement of] Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi.

We rely on his signs, since they are on Sukkot, because then they are judged concerning the water.

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

the evening following Shemini Atzeret, after the judgment concerning the water has ended,

everyone watches the smoke of the arrangement

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

If the smoke

inclined toward the north,

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

the poor rejoice,

because the produce is sold cheaply,

and householders

who have storehouses in which to keep produce

are distressed,

because they cannot preserve the produce

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

and the produce is sold cheaply.

And if

toward the south,

when a northern wind inclines the column of smoke toward the south,

the poor are distressed,

since the produce is sold at a high price,

and the householders rejoice

because they sell it at a great profit,

because the rains of the year are few and the produce is preserved

within the storehouses, and they do not need to take everything out and sell it cheaply. And there is also not such a great yield.

If

it inclined toward the east,

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

everyone rejoices,

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

And if

toward the west,

when an eastern wind blows and the column of smoke inclines westward,

everyone is distressed,

since there are no rains and there is drought.

And these were their signs, and not on Atzeret.

The Gemara raises a contradiction from another beraita:

But it was raised as a contradiction

from a beraita in which we learned the opposite: A wind

from the east is always

always

good,

beneficial. And a wind

from the west is always

always

difficult.

Whereas above we said the opposite.

And the beraita continues to explain:

A northern wind is good

beneficial

for wheat when it has brought forth a third

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

and difficult for olives when they blossom

the flowers.

And a southern wind is difficult for wheat when it has brought forth a third, and good for olives when they blossom.

And the Gemara gives a sign:

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

which wind is beneficial:

the table

that stood in the Temple, its place was

in the north,

therefore a northern wind is good for it, as will be explained,

and the menorah in the south,

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

This one grows what belongs to it,

a northern wind grows wheat, from which the showbread for the table is made.

This one grows what belongs to it.

A southern wind is beneficial for olives, from which oil for the menorah is made.

But in any event, there is a contradiction concerning the western and eastern winds.

The Gemara answers:

It is not difficult,

there is no contradiction.

This is for us,

for the people of Babylonia, where there is much water: the second beraita was stated, that a western wind is difficult because it brings much rain, and an abundance of rain is harmful. And an eastern wind is good, because it does not bring much rain.

And this is for them,

for the people of the Land of Israel, which needs much rain; therefore a western wind is beneficial and an eastern wind is difficult.

It was taught: Abba Shaul says: If the festival day of Atzeret

is clear,

without clouds,

it 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 beginning 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 is there?

Why is it necessary to know this?