Bava Batra – The Last Gate

• Seder Nezikin – “Book of Damages”
• Bava Batra – “The Last Gate” – You’re Responsible, and Here’s Why
  • With great… property… comes great responsibility. Pre-diving-in that seems to be the message we’re about to delve into. And we’re in for quite a ride. Bava Batra is the longest tractate in the entire Talmud, coming in at 176 pages, so it’s going to occupy us for the next six months. This is also one of the few tractates that is not an exposition on a section of the Torah, and is instead a codification of Jewish oral law around the rights and responsibilities of property owners.
  • 6/27/24, Chapter 1, Page 2 – The first section of the tractate looks at jointly owned property. We jump right in with one or more of the joint owners wanting either a privacy partition on the property, for which he would be responsible, or for security reasons, such as a gate house or security wall, which would be the co-responsibility of all owners. The building and maintenance costs are shared in the latter case, and, the passage is quick to point out, must be in compliance with local building codes.
  • 6/28/24, Page 3 – An argument over wall thickness in regard to building codes. If the stones used to build the wall are unplaned, i.e., they have protrusions, is the thickness of the wall measured from the tip of the protrusions or the base? Left unresolved. A weird tangent at the end of the page – a slave, Herod, rebelled against his Hasmonean masters, killing them all except the king’s daughter who he tried to forcibly marry. She commited suicide. He preserved her body in honey. Some said he preserved her body to have sex with because he really only lusted after her, others say he preserved her body in order to continue his claim he was married to the king’s daughter, whom he loved.
  • 6/29/24, Page 4 – Herod admits to the current leader of the sages that he’s the one who killed all the royalty and a whole bunch of Torah scholars and sages. The leader refuses to curse him and tells him he has to repent – a good start would be rebuilding the Temple. Herod says he’s afraid of the Roman response. The sage tells him to send a messenger to the Romans to stall for time, then go ahead and rebuild the Temple while negotiations are going on. Grace Hopper was a plagiarist.
  • 6/30/24, Page 5 – This one feels like a really bad ruling to me. Ronya owns a field that is surrounded by lands owned by Ravina. Ravina wants to build fences around all four property lines for privacy and demands that Ronya pay for part or all of them. When Ronya demurs, Ravina basically raids his fields to show him that he needs fences. The rabbis rule in Ravina’s favor. I can’t see the logic in this one.
  • 7/1/24, Page 6 – One neighbor builds a wall or fence on his property to give himself some privacy. His next door neighbor builds a higher wall, and demands that the first guy pay for half of it, “since he was already concerned about privacy”. The rabbis rule that he indeed has demonstrated his concern and therefore has to pay half the cost of his neighbor’s wall, but, not the other way around, with the second neighbor paying for half the first’s wall. I am really not following the logic on these pages.
  • 7/2/24, Page 7 – Today’s page goes into very intricacies and decisions when a property is divided by two owners. My favorite is a dispute where one person owns the lower floor and another the upper floor of a building, and the building starts to collapse, or sink, making the lower floor uninhabitable. The upper floor owner doesn’t care about the plight of the lower. The rabbis rule that he can be forced to evacuate while the property is rebuilt, but only once the height of the lower floor collapses to 10 handbreadths… approximately 1 meter in height.
  • 7/3/24, Page 8 – A litany of the various community, city, and state taxes one is expected to pay based on occupation, length of time in residence, and other factors. All are required to contribute. Except Torah scholars, who are to be exempt from paying all taxes, because, well, Torah scholars. On the flipside, God will provide for them and their safety and security, so apparently, the community, city, and state owe them no services in turn beyond basic subsistence.
  • 7/4/24, Page 9 – “Ropa para donar?” (clothing to donate?) is a phrase I hear probably 2-3 times a day when my doorbell is rung. According to Talmudic ruling, if someone is in tattered clothing, you don’t hesitate, you provide them with donated clothing, because otherwise they would be subject to contempt. I’d be out of clothing if I did that, and these folk are rarely disheveled. Interestingly, on the flipside, if someone asks for food, it is considered appropriate to inquire into just how hungry are they, since being hungry doesn’t engender contempt.
  • 7/5/24, Page 10 – We’re off on a tangent about the power of charity, of doing a mitzvah for the sake of the good it will accomplish in the world, regardless of the personal cost. There are lots of clichés and platitudes cited on the subject by one rabbi or another, but the gist of it comes down to that doing something for the good of humanity is more important than whatever personal hardship doing so might engender. Not sure how they’re going to tie this in to rights and obligations of property owners, but I can see a connection coming.
  • 7/6/24, Page 11 – When two or more people appear before the court over a property division dispute, one of the key things that is considered is what is really divisible and what isn’t. While a field may be split up into smaller fields, and a house may be able to be separated into a two family dwelling, depending on configuration. An outhouse, a bathhouse, an olive oil press, cannot be, as dividing them would render them useless to at least one of the disputants. There goes Solomon’s famous act.
  • 7/7/24, Page 12 – In the midst of a discussion on property owners taking care to not block off alleyways that provide access to public streets, the conversation switches to make sure that alleyways that connect cities are also kept clear. I found myself immediately pausing to think about cities connected by alleys – which they differentiate from public thoroughfares, and the only thing that popped into my head was the wardrobe to Narnia.
  • 7/8/24, Page 13 – The sages continue their discussions about what sorts of properties are divisible. Quite the lively argument ensues over whether the “Sacred Writings” can be split up. The question is, if two people co-own a full set of scrolls – the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings – can those be separated, and does it matter how they’re divided up among physical scrolls – can a scroll be cut? It’s left undecided, but leaning towards “no”, the entirety cannot be split up.
  • 7/9/24, Page 14 – In a side note, we find that a properly scribed Torah scroll (with double poles) should be as close to equal in height (ideally “six handbreadths”, or about two feet) as it is in width when rolled up, but at no point should the width be greater than the height. One Rav Aha bar Ya’akov scribed a Torah that was exactly equal, and his fellow rabbis were so envious that he died from the power of their jealous gaze. Jewish space lasers indeed!
  • 7/10/24, Page 15 – I do love when the sages need to twist themselves into knots to explain inconsistencies or incongruities. There is apparently written documentation, from various preserved scrolls, that certain famous biblical folk wrote not just their own or others’ stories, but wrote specific, spelled out, sections of the Torah. This is, of course, at odds with the “God dictated the Torah to Moses who wrote it down, complete” origin story. It engenders some creative illogic.
  • 7/11/24, Page 16 – We’re on a tangent started on yesterday’s page about the book of Job. Specifically, the sages seem intent on a clear identification of who and what Satan, or, really, in the original Hebrew, “The Satan” is. Via various readings of different Torah passages and the book of Job, they equate The Satan = The Evil Inclination = The Angel of Death. I’m waiting for this to all tie in to something like evil intentions or temptations of property owners.
    • Side note, as there’s a short finish to this chapter on page 17 – an argument over who, in history, has never been subject to the temptations of The Satan. All agree that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are included, but the list varies from there, among any of a half a dozen others who various rabbis think merit such esteem. In the end, only the three forefathers are universally agreed upon.
  • 7/12/24, Chapter 2, Page 17 – If you’re going to dig a hole in the ground, for example, a cistern, you are required to make sure it’s not too close to an existing one on, say, a neighbor’s property, and to ensure that the walls are reinforced so that the ground between them will not collapse. The general guideline is 3 handbreadths, or a foot, from your property line, which makes it about 2 feet apart at the closest from your neighbor’s. Apparently we are not going to get a tie-in (yet?) of The Satan to property owner responsibilities.
  • 7/13/24, Page 18 – Like the well in yesterday’s discussion, other things must be kept a foot away from the property line – irrigation channels, vegetable plants, and fertilizer that uses things like lime, urine, and/or manure. Trees must be further, because of their root system – a solid 6 feet away. Of note, if one person keeps bees and another grows mustard, they must be widely separated – bees apparently harm mustard plants, and mustard plants taint the honey of the bees.
  • 7/14/24, Page 19 – Well, I’m glad we clarified this. After yesterday’s prohibition on dumping urine any closer than a foot to the property line wall, an objection is raised. What about peeing? I mean, if you’re going to pee, you pee against the wall. Indeed, most of the rabbis agree that this is an exception – it’s quite proper to stand and pee against a wall. Not everyone agrees, a few call out that it might be proper to do so, but only if you’re a dog.
  • 7/15/24, Page 20 – We’ve read about how impurity from impure objects spreads through a room. If two rooms are connected by an open window, it can spread there too. But what if something is placed in the window to block it? If, and only if, it’s something that otherwise is not of use, and is permanent. So, not a bunch of leaves, or a pile of books, or a hanging curing meat (prosciutto? are they curing prosciutto?), or… a baby. No, you cannot use your baby to block impurities from passing through a window.
  • 7/16/24, Page 21 – Early on, the sages realized that not every man was capable of teaching his sons Torah. So they established a system of teachers for children to learn Torah. Maximum of 25 students per teacher. Teaching gentile children was optional, and the community could forbid it. We later have a scene in the days of King David, where we find that a teacher who taught Torah incorrectly could be executed, and one who failed to notice that his students had learned incorrectly, could potentially be as well. This sounds so familiar….
  • 7/17/24, Page 22 – Most of today’s page is devoted to positioning of walls and ladders and making sure mongooses cannot invade your neighbor’s dovecote and eat the birds or eggs. I, however, am intrigued by the ruling over cosmetics and perfumes peddlers. It seems that the wives of both rich men and rabbis had some influence in Talmudic decisions, as their right to check out the latest in makeup and scents resulted in a ruling that said peddlers never be impeded in their travel or lodging.
  • 7/18/24, Page 23 – So far we’ve focused on not causing direct damage to a neighbor’s property. But what about indirect damage? You’re engaged in an activity that as a byproduct causes damages – they use an example of an activity that attracts crows who might eat produce from a neighbor’s field. GMO seeds spring to mind for a modern day example. The upshot, love thy neighbor as thyself – move or cease the activity in a place where it might indirectly damage a neighbor’s property.
  • 7/19/24, Page 24 – If your property is outside the city walls, you have to take extra care when planting trees. Most must be at least 25 cubits, about 38 feet, from the city wall; while trees that have a lot of branches, like sycamores and carobs, must be double that. Why? Because, it is opined, cities are so aesthetically beautiful that you can’t have trees obscuring approaching travelers’ view of them. Cities – pretty. Trees – not pretty. Umm, okay.
  • 7/20/24, Page 25 – What direction should one face when praying? Well, north if you want to achieve wealth; south if you want to achieve wisdom; and west if you want to touch the Divine Presence. Never east, because that’s the direction that heretics (Christians and Muslims at the time) were instructed to face in order to pray. In the Talmudic view, despite God being everywhere, west was his seat of power, so praying to the east was turning your back on him.
  • 7/21/24, Page 26 – We’re back on the layout of your grounds. If you’re planting a vineyard, you must plant it at least 4 cubits – 6 feet – from the property line. This is in order to allow room to maneuver your oxen around the vineyard at harvest time. Today, that would be room for a mechanical harvester. If you’re planting an orchard, the trees must be 16 cubits – 24 feet – from the property line in order to avoid the roots encroaching on, and “stealing nutrition” from, your neighbor’s soil.
  • 7/22/24, Page 27 – Grammar and geometry occupy today’s page. We start with our tree from yesterday, planted 24 feet from a neighbor’s lands. But what if the roots, or the branches, extend onto the neighbor’s property? Well then, obviously, the tree’s owner is a thief! Or wait, no, the grammar is unclear… many sages read this as the tree itself is the thief. And that 24 feet? Most of us would assume a circle around the tree, but some of these rabbis argue for a square, adding in those corners as forbidden territory, and the calculations to prove it.
  • 7/23/24, Chapter 3, Page 28 – With regard to what may as well be called squatter’s rights, the rabbis establish that the daily use of a property for three years establishes ownership. This applies whether it is a home, a well, a ditch, a field, a bathhouse, a vineyard, an olive grove, or the presses for either of those, a cave, a dovecote, or… a slave. That’s right, grab yourself someone else’s slave, put him to work for three years, and he’s yours.
  • 7/24/24, Page 29 – Continuing on squatter’s rights, the question is raised – what if the original owner of the property has been abroad, and returns only to find that someone has taken over his lands? Is his protest over ownership valid if the three years allotted have passed? Surprisingly, the rabbis say no – because in a sort of six degrees of separation moment, they assert that everyone is connected by a friend of a friend of a friend who would have let you know.
  • 7/25/24, Page 30 – A traveling businessman returns home to find someone living in his home. The person claims to have been there for more than three years, and that the merchant had come and gone over that period. The merchant claims to have been so focused on his trade that he never noticed there was someone living in his house. Could this be? Rava, one of the shapers of the Talmud, says “yes”, someone who is focused on their work could easily have not noticed. No squatter’s rights from Rava!
  • 7/26/24, Page 31 – We’re now going completely in the opposite direction from squatter’s rights, as the senior rabbis quash these claims left and right. Two competing claims on land – one claims, and provides evidence, for ownership of the land based on inheritance and ancestry, the other that occupation over time, even over generations, trumps ancestry and inheritance. The rabbis rule in favor of ancestry and toss the occupiers to the curb. Rather prescient for what’s going on “over there” these days.
  • 7/27/24, Page 32 – A man has a bill of sale for a piece of land that he is claiming ownership of. He is accused of having forged the document. He admits the forgery, but says he did it because he lost the real one, and this was his only way of proving his ownership. That this claim engenders a rabbinical argument over whether or not to accept his claim (“why would he make up such a story if it wasn’t true?”) seems ridiculous to me.
  • 7/28/24, Page 33 – A man borrows money from a lender, guaranteeing it with his property. He dies, leaving his children as orphans (callback reminder, according to the Talmud, children are orphans if their father dies, even if their mother is still alive). The rabbis rule that the lender cannot take the land in repayment, as… there are orphans living on it. Instead, he must wait until they are adults and then take them to court to recover the money he loaned.
  • 7/29/24, Page 34 – In what may be one of the more bizarre, at least to modern sensibilities, court cases, when neither side of a dispute over property ownership is able to provide evidence for their claim, the suggestion is made that the court step out of it, and “let the stronger prevail”. Certainly it’s an approach used in territorial disputes, but it’s interesting to see it in the context of individual properties. Could that happen in today’s world? Oh wait, Musk vs. Zuckerberg….
  • 7/30/24, Page 35 – A man sells a donkey or cow or maidservant – may as well lump them all together, right? – not knowing that the animal or servant is pregnant and it gives birth. Both buyer and seller claim the offspring as theirs. Initially it is proposed that ownership depends on transaction date, then on delivery date, and then they decide that the court shouldn’t really be involved and just let the two litigants battle it out physically. All this seems very antithetical to the whole purpose of the Talmud, to me.
  • 7/31/24, Page 36 – These guys are all over the place when it comes to determining ownership. Today’s arguments are over, more or less, the modern dictum of “possession is 9/10 of the law”. Someone who is out plowing and planting fields that they claim are theirs, or harvesting dates, or other fruits from trees, can be assumed to be the rightful owner, because, argue some of the sages, who in their right mind would plow and plant fields or harvest fruits that weren’t their own?!
  • 8/1/24, Page 37 – A seller claims that he sold an orchard to a buyer – but just the trees, not the land – and that he has the right to plow the land around the trees, or force the buyer to move the trees elsewhere. There are arguments raised on both sides, and the rabbis come down with the decision that his position is only valid if he spelled that out in the sales contract. Otherwise, at a minimum, the buyer controls, if not owns, the minimum amount of land around each tree to maintain it.
  • 8/2/24, Page 38 – “What if?” following on yesterday’s page… “what if it’s not an orchard or a tree, but a small plant?” Does the buyer acquire the land under and around it when it is sold to him? No, replies Rava, and others agree. It’s not reasonable to expect that someone selling you a saffron crocus plant is selling you his entire garden, in this case, unless he specifies that, the seller controls the land. But Rava, you find it reasonable that if I buy a couple of trees I buy the entire estate?
  • 8/3/24, Page 39 – A squatter occupied the land of an owner who was away in Spain for a year. Yes, Spain. Surely, the rabbis opine, someone went to Spain to tell him about it during that year, so we can assume that he knew about it and lodged a protest if he objected. Fine, says the owner, but see, what I did, is I protested to someone in Spain about this squatter on my land, surely, someone went back home to the squatter to advise him of my protest. Two can play at this game.
  • 8/4/24, Page 40 – A coerced document is not valid. That is all.
  • 8/5/24, Page 41 – Although I’m assuming it is not the intent of the rabbinical rulings here, the gist of this passage is – if you don’t have proof of your legitimate claim of ownership, for example, you lost the bill of sale, or the deed, or something similar, you should make up a story that is unverifiable, and not disprovable. That, at the least, will give you standing in court to argue your case. This sounds like a setup for all sorts of con games.
  • 8/6/24, Page 42 – We’re back on presumptive ownership after three years of occupying and working on a property. The rabbis want to make it clear that ownership is personal, not collective. That’s to say, the person making the claim, or their son or father, must themselves occupy and work on the property. A business partner does not count, as they have their own interests in ownership.
  • 8/7/24, Page 43 – Person A owes money to Person C, guaranteed by a lien on a property he co-owns with Person B. He sells his share of the property to Person B and relinquishes ownership of it. Person C takes them both to court, and while Person B didn’t know about the lien, the courts rule that Person C can take possession of the share of the property formerly owned by Person A – selling it to someone else does not eliminate the lien. Know your partner!
  • 8/8/24, Page 44 – The rabbis have been discussing what amounts to due diligence over the last couple of pages. Today they discuss the difference in doing so for immovable property, like land and/or a home, versus movable property, for example, a cloak, or a… slave. Their reasoning doesn’t delve so much into chain of custody and documents as it does into “people will talk” – i.e., if you sell a piece of land, everyone knows, and someone will rat out a sketchy seller. For a cloak, or slave, probably, no one’s going to say anything.
  • 8/9/24, Page 45 – Bring a gentile into the mix and, well, you know what you get. So says Ameimar, rector of one of the most prestigious rabbinical academies, and widely considered one of the most important sages of his time. We all know, he opines, that the average, ordinary gentile is an extortionist, and nothing they say in regard to business dealings can be trusted. Funny how that belief almost two millennia ago has been flipped around, no?
  • 8/10/24, Page 46 – A craftsman accidentally gives you the wrong package of utensils and you don’t discover it until you reach home. You notify him via messenger, and are allowed to use the utensils you were given until he comes to you and swaps them out for the correct ones. That’s right, the craftsman is required to do the legwork, not you.
  • 8/11/24, Page 47 – At first blush, today’s page seems strange. Led by a senior rabbi, a ruling is codified that if a property is obtained from its owner under duress, and specifically, threat of death, the transfer of ownership is valid. On deeper dive, the rabbis are referring to situations where essentially sanctioned assassins are the ones taking the property. The ruling is basically acknowledging reality – they’re going to do it, better to let them and buy back the property, than lose your life.
  • 8/12/24, Page 48 – Commandment 209 of the 613 in the Torah states that you should honor, give respect to, the elderly. That’s all it says. But in a blatantly self-aggrandizing move, the sages, and rabbis, declare that what that really means is that you have to listen and be obedient to them and their wisdom and authority, even if they advise or do something illegal or immoral. This sounds… so familiar.
  • 8/13/24, Page 49 – A married couple may enjoy the profits from profit that either of them brought into the marriage. But, the rabbis want to make clear, unless they create and sign agreements changing the ownership, any property they come into the marriage with, remains their individual property, and the other has no claim on it in the event of separation, divorce, or death. Only properties bought while they were married have joint ownership.
  • 8/14/24, Page 50 – Following on yesterday, the sages opine that it is perfectly valid for a husband to ask his wife to sign over her property to him jointly, and if she doesn’t it is perfectly valid for him to be suspicious of her motives. After all, perhaps she is already thinking about his death, or divorcing him. They don’t seem to consider that his asking might be him contemplating the same about her, nor do they consider the reverse case, her asking him to sign over his property to be jointly owned.
  • 8/15/24, Page 51 – A husband sells part or full ownership of a property to his wife. He later claims he did it only to find out if she had more money than she let on, hidden away from him. The rabbis rule that the sale is valid if she can prove he knew about her money, but invalid if she can’t prove it. I find myself trying to imagine a worldview where this would be something a husband would do to his wife in the first place. I suppose, arranged marriages for family prominence and all that.
  • 8/16/24, Page 52 – A minor is considered sufficiently responsible to deposit collateral in guarantee of a loan, however, is not considered sufficiently responsible to have the item of collateral returned to him. Instead, the lender uses the collateral to purchase a “safe investment” in the name of the minor, to be collected when he is of age. A Torah scroll or a date palm tree are both suggested, the former for its enduring value, the latter because at least he’ll be able to eat. Our ancestors were very weird people.
  • 8/17/24, Page 53 – Because in daf yomi we read these pages one at a time, I sometimes miss the connectedness of thought processes. It turns out that the last ten pages are commentary on exceptions to the rule of presumptive ownership outlined on page 42 – occupying and working a property for three years allows you to claim ownership. This is apparently the last, and notes that the presumptive owner has to take action to secure the property – a fence, a wall, a new lock – in the presence of the owner or witnesses, in order to validate his claim.
  • 8/18/24, Page 54 – When does the ownership of a piece of property change over after a sale? In the Talmudic era, gentiles assumed that transfer occurred on the receipt of payment, while Jews assumed it on the receipt of the deed. This created a window if those things didn’t happen simultaneously, for someone else to lay claim to the temporarily ownerless land by performing an appropriate act of acquisition. And, it apparently wasn’t all that unusual of an occurrence.
  • 8/19/24, Page 55 – When it comes to property, despite all the Talmudic laws, the local law of the land takes precedence as long as it is part of its national constitution and legislation. Not, however, if it is imposed by a monarch or leader for their own gain, outside of written law. The examples given are Persian law, which only allows squatter’s rights possession after 40 years instead of the Talmudic 3 years takes precedence; and, in turn, eminent domain, on a monarch’s whim, is not considered valid.
  • 8/20/24, Page 56 – Back on squatter’s rights and working the land to establish ownership over three years. Obviously, there has to be proof, and witnesses were the primary manner of providing it. If, however, it is found that the witnesses have lied on behalf of the person claiming ownership, conspiring to help him get the property – presumably for their own profit as well – they are held equally responsible for all penalties and repayment to the actual owner.
  • 8/21/24, Page 57 – Partnerships and cooperative arrangements for owning property can make a wide variety of rules regarding the usage of common areas, such as courtyards. However, the one activity that may not be prohibited, for any reason, is women doing laundry. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. The laundry must be done!
  • 8/22/24, Page 58 – A brief tangential topic on today’s page that caught my attention. How do you tell the difference between a Torah scholar and an Ignoramus? You look under their bed. A true Torah scholar will have nothing but his sandals in summer or shoes in winter under his bed. The more other stuff that’s under there, the more ignorant the bed’s owner.
  • 8/23/24, Page 59 – The sages argue over the respective rights of two neighbors when it comes to building additions onto their homes that might impact sightlines, sunlight, drainage or irrigation, privacy, and projecting onto each other’s property. The arguments are exactly what we might hear at a modern planning commission or zoning board meeting. It’s both bizarre and a shame that after two millennia we’re still having the exact same property rights arguments.
  • 8/24/24, Page 60 – In a sort of Jewish feng shui, the rabbis discuss the arrangements of houses that face onto a common courtyard. One key point they drive home is that all the houses have to be designed in such a way that no one’s doors or windows face directly at the doors or windows of the house opposite them. The alignment or spacing of them must be such that they are… staggered, so no one can look directly into the home of a neighbor, providing a small measure of privacy.
  • 8/25/24, Chapter 4, Page 61 – The sages discuss the sale of a home where the seller owns the structures on the land, but not the land. The concept is similar to what today we’d think of as a condo or co-op townhouse, where the land is owned by the community or a corporation. Basically, today’s page is an outline of what you have to make sure you spell out is included in a sales contract – any extensions, side or rear buildings, additions, wells or cisterns, etc.
  • 8/26/24, Page 62 – Pretty much a repeat of yesterday’s page, except outlining what needs to be specified in the sale of land. Exact boundaries and what’s included. I’m waiting for the section of this chapter where the arguments start.
  • 8/27/24, Page 63 – Back to the sale of the house, but now including… the land and the air rights. So, how does one write such a real estate contract? “From the depth of the earth up to the height of the sky.” That so much more poetic than the legalese we use nowadays. And conveys the meaning as well as most legal documents do. It would even engender the same courtroom arguments. “How deep is the earth?” “How high is the sky?”
  • 8/28/24, Page 64 – Selling a plot of land, with or without its house, did not, apparently, unless specified, include: pits, cisterns, dovecotes, and winepresses. Those things are valuable enough that they could be sold separately, which also meant that rights of access had to be worked out. All of this chapter so far seems to come down to, “make sure to get all the details in writing before you sign a sales contract”.
  • 8/29/24, Page 65 – These guys are really fixated on the furniture and fixtures. I guess it’s no different than modern day sales contracts. Who among us hasn’t bought, or rented, a place to live only to arrive after getting the keys and found that the refrigerator was taken by the previous owner or tenant, or even something small, like all the lightbulbs? Different focus two millennia ago, but the rabbis do discuss ovens, cisterns, wine-making utensils, and… beehives.
  • 8/30/24, Page 66 – The discussion on beehives continues today, first over whether honey can be harvested on Shabbat, then over what sorts of mortgages can be attached to a beehive, and then, a linguistic argument over whether a particular Hebrew phrase means “honeycomb” or “honey forest”. And my mind is off on imagining the latter.
  • 8/31/24, Page 67 – More of the same, with the topics of today’s page being an olive press and a bathhouse. If the furniture and fixtures are not specified in the sale, they don’t come with the property. And, in another arena, if you buy multiple properties in a single sale, taking possession of one of them gives you possession of all of them, if, and only if, they are contiguous. If they are not, you must take possession of each, in turn. Possession in this case being performing an act of improvement on it, whatever that act may be.
  • 9/1/24, Page 68 – In the realm of things we don’t tend to think about in property sales in modern times, what about when someone sells… a city? What does that include? Does it include the gardens in the city? The surrounding fields that supply it? The nearby woods where people hunt? The city’s suburbs? The cattle and other grazing animals? It’s slaves? The city’s registrar? Yes, these are the things that must be hashed out and specified in contracts. The registrar?! Talk about job security for public employees….
  • 9/2/24, Page 69 – The level of detail of what has to be enumerated in a sales contract as included has reached absurdity, yet, probably indicates issues that actually came up in era. Rocks in a field? If they’re not random but actually being useful for a wall, or preventing things from blowing away. Reeds in a field? If they’re providing wind protection. A platform under a bed? If it’s non-moveable. Door frames? If they’re attached to the house with clay, but not if just nailed in.
  • 9/3/24, Page 70 – Today’s page spends much of the time discussing how big a tree has to be before it is considered automatically part of a land sale, as opposed to being transplanted to the seller’s new property. However, this page has caused some consternation among Talmudic scholars, as the rabbis quoted in the argument… weren’t alive at the same time. In the 18th century, one of the preeminent Talmudic scholars declared unequivocally that the Talmud was… wrong.
  • 9/4/24, Page 71 – It’s been established that a seller may sell property and exclude certain things, like a favorite tree, to which he retains access. But what about a house? It’s hard to imagine, but the rabbis disagree and argue, for example, over whether if a seller sells a house and specifies something like “along with its 100 barrels of wine”, and it turns out there are… 120… or 101… that he retains the portion where the extra barrels are as his own property, with access.
  • 9/5/24, Page 72 – An argument between several of the more famous rabbis leads to reiterating a simple principle of Jewish law – nothing is absolute. It’s one of the reasons that there was both a Talmudic rabbinical council and Sanhedrin (sort of a Jewish supreme court) back in the day, and there are still rabbinical courts in the more orthodox world today. Jewish law is considered a guideline for rabbinical decisions, not an absolute, and each case is decided on its own merits and circumstances.
  • 9/6/24, Chapter 5, Page 73 – It’s a pissing contest for which sage can tell the most ridiculously exaggerated story. It’s not clear how it got started, but we have mountain sized antelopes, a tree big enough for a raven who ate a snake who ate a frog as big as a fort, a fish big enough to feed sixty neighborhoods and whose bones are sufficient to rebuild entire towns, an ax falling into a pit so deep that it’s been falling for seven years, and more. Stoned. That’s what they are. Stoned.
  • 9/7/24, Page 74 – A series of tales from Rav Yehuda, of India. He pays particular note to the sea oryx, a massive horned sea creature. In fact, it is so big, that after he created it, God realized that if the one male and one female sea oryx currently in existence were to have a child, it would be so big it would destroy the world. So he castrates the male and kills the female, and salt cures her flesh. And then opines that salt cured fish is delicious, but salt cured meat is not. Let me go make some pasta with guanciale for him.
  • 9/8/24, Page 75 – The tales have turned to the infamous Leviathan, and among the various stories about the huge waves he causes when swimming and his atrociously bad breath, we have a story of Rabbi Yohanan describing a vision of the future. One of his students sneers at him, unbelievingly. Later the student sees the vision coming to pass, returns to Yohanan, apologizes and asks to be reaccepted. Yohanan, instead, turns the evil eye on him and reduces him to a pile of bones. Don’t mock the teacher.
  • 9/9/24, Page 76 – This is the sort of thing that falls into the “why people hate lawyers” category. Someone buys a promissory note, an IOU, from a lender. Now, to any normal person, he bought it for the purposes of collecting the debt. But no, the borrower’s advocate asserts that all the person bought was a piece of paper, not the debt owed, because no contract was written that specified he acquired the lien, and since the original lender doesn’t have proof of the loan anymore….
  • 9/10/24, Page 77 – We’re back to what more or less amounts to “furniture and fixtures”, just for non-land properties. If you buy a boat, do you buy it’s cargo, or its slaves? If you buy an ox, do you buy its yoke, or its plow? As with real-property, only if it’s specified in the written contract are things which are not physically a part of what you’re buying included. I’m sure this page is a setup for all the exceptions to be listed in the coming pages.
  • 9/11/24, Page 78 – Not surprisingly given the last pages, if you sell a donkey, you don’t sell its saddle, harness, and saddlebags unless specified in the contract. If you sell a wagon, it doesn’t come with the mules… unless specified in the contract. If you sell a cow, the sale doesn’t include its calf. But, in a weird twist, and without a coherent explanation, if you sell a donkey, its foal is automatically included. Always.
  • 9/12/24, Page 79 – If you consecrate something like a well, dunghill, dovecote that is filled with, respectively, water, manure, doves, and then use those for your own benefit, you are guilty of both misuse of and deriving benefit from consecrated property. If you consecrate those things when empty, and later fill them and use them, you are only guilty of misuse. Because, you can’t transfer or consecrate ownership of something which doesn’t yet exist.
  • 9/13/24, Page 80 – Although the subjects of the discussion are, on the surface, doves, bees, and olive trees, it quickly becomes clear that the rabbis are using these, to some extent, as a metaphor. The underlying theme is that mothers are attached to their daughters, but the feeling is not necessarily reciprocated, and this looks to open up quite the line of rulings related to obligations to either mother or daughter. We shall see in upcoming pages.
  • 9/14/24, Page 81 – The rabbis argue over whether there are seven or ten varieties of cedar tree. The seven they agree on are: cedar, acacia, myrtle, balsam, cypress, teak, and juniper. The three in contention are: pistachio, oak, and coral. What we learn from this is that the rabbis hadn’t a remote clue about tree taxonomy.
  • 9/15/24, Page 82 – Earlier we saw that if a seller sells some trees to a buyer, the buyer acquires the land immediately around them in order to be able to harvest the fruits. On and off since, there were passages that refined this, and even talked about rights of way to get to the trees. The question arises of whether new shoots that appear near to those trees are a part of them, or new, separate trees – as this could extend the buyer’s property rights. Recommendation to seller, tear out new shoots as soon as you see them.
  • 9/16/24, Page 83 – If a seller sells something to a buyer that is inferior to the quality promised, the buyer can cancel the sale. If the quality is better than promised, the seller can cancel the sale. If it is the quality promised, be it good or bad, neither can cancel the sale.
  • 9/17/24, Page 84 – Are vinegar and wine the same thing or a different thing? The rabbis argue over whether fundamentally, they are the same product, simply in different states. And how does that affect the sale of a barrel of either wine or vinegar, if the other is received? After all, a cook may prefer vinegar, while a businessman may prefer wine. Regardless of its existential state, one might think that the buyer wants the product in the state they contracted for, not the other.
  • 9/18/24, Page 85 – When, in a transaction, does the buyer take possession of an object being sold? The sages debate, and much of the answer is determined by where the sale takes place – buyer’s property, seller’s property, public property, or neutral property; and, much is determined by what the object is placed into – does the container in which it’s placed belong to the buyer or seller? As usual, the debate goes on. And on.
  • 9/19/24, Page 86 – A thief steals a “purse”, a bag or other container of money and valuables… on the Sabbath… and carries it out into the public domain as he escapes. He has violated two laws – theft, and working/carrying on the Sabbath. The question arises if he is liable for both, since it is one act? This is an important question, because the punishment for the first is a fine and/or jail time, while for the second, death. Arguments abound in both directions, as always.
  • 9/20/24, Page 87 – An interesting approach to salaries. The rabbis consider the case of a worker who is hired to perform a job that is not year-round, that is seasonal. Various arguments are argued, but the upshot is, that there is a minimum acceptable wage per day of work, and only two payment schemes are acceptable – either pay them at least that per day during the work season, or, hire them on an annual basis and pay them the equivalent, spread out over the year.
  • 9/21/24, Page 88 – In the ultimate “Do Not Touch the Merchandise” moment, the rabbis rule that if a buyer is in a store and picks something up, and a robber comes in at that moment and robs the store, including whatever is in the buyer’s hands, the buyer is liable for the theft of that item.
  • 9/22/24, Page 89 – A kav in biblical measurements worked out to just a shade over a quart. Measuring cups were permitted in 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1, 1-1/2, and 3 kav, roughly corresponding to 1/2 cup, 1 cup, 1 pint, 1 quart, 1-1/2 quart, and 3 quart sizes. No person was permitted to have any other sized measuring cups in their home, regardless of what they used it for, even a urinal. Even if they weren’t in the business of selling something by measurement. Impropriety, I tell you!
  • 9/23/24, Page 90 – The sages continue with their analyses of measurements, discussing the ways that sellers might use them to, basically, cheat customers. They limit the variation on measuring cups to plus or minus one-sixth, which to me seems pretty huge – that’s just shy of 17% that you could sneak in extra profit. They also ban warehousing of produce to drive up prices, unless it’s produce you personally have produced, and in no case, “the basics”; wine, oil, and flour.
  • 9/24/24, Page 91 – Wine, oil, and flour, and adding in eggs today, must be sold by their producer. No middlemen, no distributors, allowed. Because these were considered the basic foodstuffs necessary to the local diet, no “double profiting”, i.e., retail sales versus wholesale sales, was allowed, as it would raise the prices of those items above what the community leaders felt was acceptable. I like that the mandated “basic food basket” included wine.
  • 9/25/24, Chapter 6, Page 92 – If a purchaser buys seeds or seedlings, plants them, and they fail to grow, does the seller have any responsibility? That depends, say the rabbis. Did the purchaser specify that he was buying them with the intention to plant them? If he didn’t spell it out, the seller is off the hook, as he can claim that as far as he knew, the buyer intended to simply eat the seeds or seedlings. I believe this is the same principle that seed companies and nurseries operate on today.
  • 9/26/24, Page 93 – If someone gives you raw ingredients to cook a meal for guests, and you don’t, or the meal you cook isn’t servable to them, you owe the person who gave you the ingredients for not just the cost of the materials, but his and his guests’ humiliation. I suppose this is a roundabout way to weed out lazy or incompetent cooks….
  • 9/27/24, Page 94 – A discussion about the allowable quantity of dirt (about 17%) when buying lentils in bulk, versus wheat or barley, because “lentils are dug up from the dirt”, led me to a short internet dive to see how lentils grow and are harvested. Because this discussion practically makes them seem like a root crop. They’re not. Like other legumes, the plants produce seeds, hanging from their bushes, which once again leads me to believe these sages were out of touch with how agriculture actually works.
  • 9/28/24, Page 95 – I’m trying to imagine in modern times the acceptance of one-sixth as an agreed upon measure of imprecision. The rabbis here are not just applying it to, as yesterday, the amount of dirt and/or chaff in lentils, but in the size of a property that’s sold, the number of barrels in a wine cellar, the amount of spoiled or rotted produce in a shipment. That’s a huge amount of imprecision, and seems like it ought to be unacceptable to either buyer or seller.
  • 9/29/24, Page 96 – A buyer tastes from a barrel of wine to determine if it’s still good, and it is. However, three days later when he goes to pick it up, it’s vinegar. The rabbis argue over whether he was just a poor taster, or whether the wine was busy turning into vinegar below the surface, or whether it just happened in three days (a process that normally takes weeks to months). It seems never to occur to them that the seller might have substituted vinegar for the wine in order to cheat the buyer.
  • 9/30/24, Page 97 – Tamad. This is the first time I recall encountering this liquid. It’s an after-product of winemaking, where one takes the grape pomace left behind and dumps it into water, to make a “wine-flavored beverage”. Though there are arguments among the rabbis about tithing and who is allowed to drink this (especially if the original wine was consecrated), they all agree that such an inferior product cannot be used as a wine stand-in for rituals.
  • 10/1/24, Page 98 – If a seller sells a buyer a barrel of spiced wine, he is responsible for making sure it is of drinkable quality that will last until the next festival of Shavuot, a spring harvest festival that also commemorates the receipt on Mt. Sinai of the ten commandments. Unless… unless the buyer specifies he plans to use the spiced wine for cooking, in which case it is assumed that the quality isn’t all that important to him and the seller has no guarantee obligations.
  • 10/2/24, Page 99 – We’re off on a tangent, as the rabbis discuss the measurements of the inner sanctuary in the Temple where the Ark of the Covenant was kept. With measurements of 20 cubits side to side, they muse on how it is that the Ark has 10 cubits of space on either side of it. They decide that the Ark, despite its spelled out measurements in the Torah, takes up no space in the physical world, just lending to its spiritual, metaphysical aura. Quite the debate for two millennia ago!
  • 10/3/24, Page 100 – If a buyer buys property that has, to date, contained any sort of public pathway or road, he is required to leave that passage open to the public, or provide an alternative one that does not inconvenience or noticeably lengthen the route for anyone who is used to using it. Most of the page today is dedicated to the width required, which is based on traffic volume and what it connects to – varying from 2.75′ for a footpath to a whopping 48′ for an intercity route.
  • 10/4/24, Page 101 – A pivot from public thoroughfares to catacombs, their burial chambers, and how to arrange the coffin niches. A lot of detail on the size of the niches, how many of them are allowed, and how they are to be angled. And, because these guys are so practical, if the spacing isn’t perfect, you can, of course, simply fit in smaller niches for baby coffins…. Can we go back to public thoroughfares?
  • 10/5/24, Page 102 – If, when digging the foundation of a structure, you encounter a corpse, you can relocate it elsewhere. But, if you find a second corpse within 12 feet of the first, you must stop work, and search an area of 30 feet around those two corpses to see if there’s a third. If there is, you must assume it’s a graveyard and abandon construction plans. Of course, you’ve just dug up a 60-foot diameter circle, disinterring, at a minimum, three corpses.
  • 10/6/24, Chapter 7, Page 103 – If a seller sells a field and the measurements are listed, then if the actual property is smaller, he must refund the difference. Vice versa, if the actual property is bigger, the buyer must refund thee difference. Included in the actual measurements are crevices and boulders, which may prevent planting of crops (despite that they could be, respectively, filled in or removed), and which a buyer can claim reduce the size of the property.
  • 10/7/24, Page 104 – Wording matters. Or does it? Our putative seller from yesterday is selling a “beit kor” of land, a large parcel that is somewhere around 57 acres, but basically just means “a big tract” of land. Because of that, the rabbis, for the most part, conclude that regardless of whether it says “a beit kor“, “about a beit kor“, or “more or less a beit kor“, it all means the same. One would think a more exacting measurement is in order for selling swathes of farmland.
  • 10/8/24, Page 105 – Way back we discussed the Jewish lunar calendar – 12 months of either 29 or 30 days, based on the lunar cycle, and then when the yearly balance gets off, since that adds up to less than 365.25 days, we add an extra month to realign things. So what happens if you have a yearly rent, paid in monthly installments and suddenly there’s an extra month? To balance landlord’s and tenant’s interests, they split the difference and the tenant pays for half a month.
  • 10/9/24, Page 106 – Refining the rules around large property sales from page 104. Although previously the rabbis said it just had to be around 57 acres, they’ve boxed that in to within +/-1/6 of that size – i.e., within 9.5 acres of that. That seems a huge range to me, yet they spend their time arguing over whether it’s just “less than 1/6” or “less than and including 1/6”. Also, this doesn’t apply if they buyer previously inspected the property. Which, one would think they would do regardless.
  • 10/10/24, Page 107 – Today’s page basically boils down to: “don’t cheat your partners, friends, or family members when it comes to dividing property”. Several examples are considered, and solutions spelled out, and they all come down to that simple statement.
  • 10/11/24, Chapter 8, Page 108 – In this new chapter we’re entering into what portends to be a contentious subject… inheritance. It ominously starts with – there are family members who mutually bequeath and inherit from each other, there are those who bequeath but don’t inherit, there are those who inherit but don’t bequeath, and there are those who neither bequeath nor inherit. I’m betting we’re headed into some deep and convoluted moral territory here.
  • 10/12/24, Page 109 – Who is a closer relative to you? Your father, your brother, or your son? What about your mother, your sister, or your daughter? If you die intestate, do you really want the rulings of these wacky Talmudic rabbis determining who inherits what based on which familial relationship they think is most important? Though it doesn’t spell it out, the gist of today’s page is, make a written will.
  • 10/13/24, Page 110 – Not surprising in this conversation about inheritance is that the whole macho sons’ versus daughters’ inheritance question arises. Traditionally, only sons inherited. Daughters, sometimes did, if there was no son, but sometimes their husband, a son-in-law, actually received the inheritance. Surprisingly, most of the rabbis argue for daughters to receive at least partial, if not equal, inheritances in this “modern age”. Queue Zelophehad’s daughters (Numbers 27 & 36).
  • 10/14/24, Page 111 – Sometimes these guys were more enlightened than I give them credit for. In converse to yesterday, they now tackle inheritance from the mother, rather than the father, noting that daughters get priority, but that sons should not be excluded. They also consider where one spouse has children from a previous marriage, and that the oldest is the primary inheritor, regardless of whether he or she is from their marriage together or the previous one. Because that’s family.
  • 10/15/24, Page 112 – Are all the discussions about inheritance involving women a misogynistic exercise of a patriarchal rabbinate? Like so many things, there’s an economic drive behind this, that comes to the fore in today’s arguments. A son or daughter inheriting from one’s mother if she belongs to another tribe, or a daughter inheriting from her father and marrying outside of her tribe, means that property is lost by one and gained by another, changing the balance of power.
  • 10/16/24, Page 113 – In the early days of Judaism, the twelve tribes of Israel were basically autonomous, and were often at odds with each other economically and politically. In Numbers, there are several prohibitions against inter-tribe marriages that would result in land transfers. By the time of the Talmudic rabbis, they were considering that with the unification of Judaism, perhaps this prohibition should simply apply to marrying outside of the faith.
  • 10/17/24, Page 114 – A witness to a last will and testament cannot then later act as executor of the inheritance, it is considered a potential conflict of interest and/or loyalties. This was a short page.
  • 10/18/24, Page 115 – To the credit of the Talmudic rabbinical council, two millennia ago, they were already engaged in arguments over gender in inheritance. While some cleaved to a rigid interpretation of Numbers 27, that inheritance goes to sons first, sons’ descendants next, and only then to daughters, a significant number of others interpret it in gender-neutral terms as simply, offspring, and then offspring’s descendants, regardless of whether they are son or daughter.
  • 10/19/24, Page 116 – The argument continues on inheritance. Now, the question is, does a daughter inherit before the daughter of her brother, or vice versa? The patriarchal folk want to just eliminate all daughters’ inheritances, and, vaguely waving, give the money to, you know, a male, a man, we’re not sure who, but not a female, a woman. Those on the other side are quite clear that generations matter, and the sister inherits before her niece.
  • 10/20/24, Page 117 – We’re moving on. Literally, as we join the Jews marching around the wilderness for forty years and finally arriving at the Promised Land and taking it over. We can discuss who the people already living there were later. The argument today is whether the lands are to be apportioned among the Israelites based on the families that left Egypt to start the Exodus, or the families that are in the group at the end of the forty year march? A consensus is not, of course, reached.
  • 10/21/24, Page 118 – This is the sort of argument that only a politician would dream up. There they were, portioning out land based on the families that had been on the march through the wilderness. And the infamous three daughters of Zelophehad are in line to get their father’s share. “But”, scream the traditionalists, “he’s dead, he’s not here, you weren’t alive when he started the march, why should you get any?” Meanwhile, not a peep when sons of other dead folk line up, because, well, “they’re men”.
  • 10/22/24, Page 119 – These daughters of Zelophehad have just really stirred up a hornet’s nest. They have appeared before the sages, rabbis, and elders and made their case, and now they’ve gone straight to the mortal top, Moses. He agrees with them, which for most of the others is all that’s necessary, though there are some who think they know better than him. This causes a bit of consternation, because, well, you don’t get to puff yourself up as better than Moses. Just sayin’.
  • 10/23/24, Page 120 – Though the daughters of Zelophehad did get their inheritance, it came with a binding agreement to only marry within their tribe. Since they were all already married within the tribe, it wasn’t exactly a difficult decision for them. But, it established the groundwork for the same binding agreement for future daughters who expected inheritances. One that exists to this day, though instead of tribes, the agreement now is intra-faith marriage.
  • 10/24/24, Page 121 – We’re off on tangents, of course. Yom Kippur, and Tisha B’Av, days of remembrance, days of atonement, days of putting the past behind. Why, it is asked, are these considered “good days” when everything is about death, destruction, and gloom. Because, the answer comes, a good day is not the same as a joyful day. A good day is when you can take the things that weigh you down and bring them to completion. Not joy, perhaps, but satisfaction.
  • 10/25/24, Page 122 – Having, at some point, apparently decided that division of the land of Israel will be per capita, rather than equal portions per tribe (since some tribes are bigger than others), a new question arises. How to divide up land of unequal quality – there are mountains, forests, desert, shore, etc. – into regions for each tribe? Divine drawing of lots, obviously. Put 13 stones into a hopper and draw them like bingo tiles. God will decide which stone gets drawn for each portion. Who can argue with that?
  • 10/26/24, Page 123 – I feel like I have let all my readers, let alone myself, down. In a brief mention, the rabbis use the case of Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn, to illustrate a point, casually reminding each other that, after all, he defiled his father’s bed, and therefore mucked up his inheritance. Defiled his father’s bed? I mean, I read Genesis 35. Yes, okay, it’s only one sentence, but damn. He schtupped his father’s favorite concubine in his father’s own bed, and I totally missed it. Mea culpa.
  • 10/27/24, Page 124 – It’s a bit more convoluted than this, but basically, the firstborn son has the right to take a double share of inheritance when his father passes… if, and only if, he assumes his father’s debts and uses the extra money to pay them off and clear his family’s honor. Even if the extra share doesn’t cover the debt, he assumes the responsibility. He can choose not to assume those debts, but then he only gets an equal share to his siblings.
  • 10/28/24, Page 125 – The ancient culture we’re exploring had some curious definitions of terms that we tend to take for granted. I think. I’m not a lawyer. Maybe I’m wrong. The discussion is over whether when someone designates something to be inherited “by my heirs” it refers to all descendants or just his/her direct children, and no others. The rabbinical ruling leans towards “just direct children”, and that grandchildren, or spouses of children, are not included.
  • 10/29/24, Page 126 – If a son borrows money from his father, and before the loan is paid back, his father dies, how is that handled in the estate? According to the rabbinical ruling, the loan is considered part of the estate, and is added to the value split between the various children. Interestingly, that includes the one who took out the loan, so he gets, in essence, a discount on his loan repayment for whatever his share of the estate is.
  • 10/30/24, Page 127 – Even 1500 years ago gender was a hot topic (the Talmud defines 8 different genders). Tumtums and hermaphrodites – those whose genitals are indeterminate at birth and those who are born with genitals for both sexes. Regardless of whether they are later determined to be male or female, the rabbis decide that they are not counted as sons for inheritance purposes, but simply as a “sibling” in the distribution of wealth, in practice, amounting to inheriting as a daughter.
  • 10/31/24, Page 128 – We’re back to one of those late night stoned conversations with the rabbis. “What if?” one asks, “What if, a witness to something later goes blind? Can he still be a witness?” “Well sure, as long as he can describe the event so we can understand.” “Okay, what if, after he goes blind, he goes deaf?” “Well yeah, because he can still describe something.” “Umm, and if he then goes mute?” “He could write something out.” “Okay, stay with me, what if then goes insane?” “Do I really have to answer this question?”
  • 11/1/24, Page 129 – Quite the discussion over the differences in oral and written statements of a person leaving property to another with either the term give or inherit. One triggers a set of gift giving conditions, the other a set of inheritance conditions, each of which affect the division of the estate in different ways. It’s quite complex and, after attempting to parse it out, I’m convinced it’s the basis for the US’s current convoluted gift and inheritance laws and taxes.
  • 11/2/24, Page 130 – The Torah specifies a sort of chain of inheritance that could basically be summed up as “first born son, then other sons, then daughters, etc…”, what if someone wants to change that? The rabbis agree that the chain is immutable, but, they point out that percentages are not included in Torah law, and there’s no reason you can’t give everyone in the chain “something”, like, .00001%, and then leave the rest to whomever you want.
  • 11/3/24, Page 131 – I guess we’re in the “work around” phase of inheritance. Given all the intricacies and misogyny of the inheritance system, the rabbis discuss and decide that the simplest way around the Torah… yes, how not to follow the rules you’ve sworn to follow but have realized at times kind of suck… is to divide your property into gifts and inheritance properties, and simply write into your will the standard inheritance stuff, and then gift all the rest to the people you want it to go to.
  • 11/4/24, Page 132 – Does a woman collect her “marriage contract”, i.e., the amount promised her at the time of wedding to be paid to her by her husband if their marriage ends, when her husband dies? One group of rabbis says yes, since the man’s sons will inherit all or the majority of his estate, the woman should collect that before the estate is divided. Another group says it only applies in the case of divorce, and she loses that as a widow, and just inherits whatever she inherits.
  • 11/5/24, Page 133 – We’ve established that there’s a chain of inheritance. But what if you really, really don’t want to leave anything to your children because they’re disrespectful, or criminals, or whatever? You can leave your property to a third party and not to them, as long as you spell out in your will the reasons for not following inheritance laws, and the sages say, your wishes will be respected.
  • 11/6/24, Page 134 – In the midst of a conversation about inheritances for “newly discovered relatives”, we have a side bar to discuss Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai. While he’s popped up before in the pages of the Talmud, this mini-bio points out that while he never neglected Torah study, he also made it a point to be well versed in science, math, and the natural world. He’s pointed out as unique among the Talmudic rabbis, most of whom ignore everything but Torah. To their detriment. I like this self-criticism, however it got in there.
  • 11/7/24, Page 135 – A new will supersedes an old will. That make sense. But what if the new will appears after death? How do we know if it’s valid, or simply a forgery by an unscrupulous would-be heir? It’s the stuff of telenovelas, soap operas. It’s kind of simple in the eyes of the rabbinate. A will isn’t valid unless it’s been witnessed before the person’s death. And, best, registered with all fees paid. The house always gets its cut.
  • 11/8/24, Page 136 – Basically, this is probably one of the earliest descriptions of how to write a “life lease”. In order to avoid inheritance taxes, one can gift, or sell for a token amount, a property to a child, another relative, or, really, anyone, with the proviso that you remain the sole beneficiary of the property until your death – to live on, to work on, to profit from. Even if it’s sold on to someone else, that life lease remains intact. And again, no inheritance taxes!
  • 11/9/24, Page 137 – We’re getting convoluted again. If someone wills a property to another, let’s say, his son, but stipulates that on the death of that son, the property then is to pass to his grandson, does the son have the right to ignore the second part and sell the property? Although there’s some argument, the decision is, yes, he does, and the grandson has no recourse. It does, however, in the eyes of the community, make the son a “wicked, cunning person” whom no one should trust.
  • 11/10/24, Page 138 – If a person gives all his property and wealth away before his death, but has debts, how does the creditor collect? If he didn’t specify any particular order for the gifts, the creditor takes an amount from each person based on the percentage value of their gift. If, however, the gifts were given as “give this, then out of what’s left, that, and, on…”, then the creditor collects from the first person up to their full amount, and, on down the line until the debt is settled.
  • 11/11/24, Page 139 – The upshot of all this, as we end Chapter 8, is that “sons inherit and daughters are supported”. The latter, the rabbis clearly point out, takes priority. In the case of a decently sized estate, the sons inherit the property and support the daughters until they marry. In the case of a meager estate, the daughters are supported, and the sons are required to work and/or beg for enough to support both the daughters and themselves.

 

Go back to Bava Metzia – The Middle Gate 

Go forward to Sanhedrin

Go back to Main Page