daf bit: Bava Batra 146

[cellio]

The mishna teaches: if a dying man gave all his property, in writing, to others, but kept some land for himself, his gift is valid -- it stands even if he recovers. (The g'mara asks: how much is "some"? Enough for his maintenance, according to Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav.) If, however, he did not keep any land for himself, his gift is invalid -- he would not have given everything away if he thought he would live. (146b mishna, 149a g'mara)

Comments

[buoren.livejournal.com]

The more I learn about religion (in general) and Judaism (in specifics) the more I'm amazed at how much there are proclamations that seem like common sense that I could very easily see people trying to wiggle out of absent an edict... I mean, it would be unreasonable that someone, who thought they were going to die, having done something which clearly demonstrates their intent instead of allowing the descendants to squabble about their wishes, should be punished by being thrown into an unlivable situation when doing what is karmically good.


Thanks for sharing this snippet.

[cellio]

The more I learn (about anything) the more I realize that "common sense" is an oxymoron -- not because anyone necessarily has ill will, but because "common" isn't. Everyone has a context, a set of assumptions, and it's very rare that two people have exactly the same ones. How much the moreso for a whole community?

Some would argue that the burden should be on the giver to specify any stipulations, lest he be guilty of dangling gifts in front of people only to yank them away. Others would rule as the rabbis did here, that there are cases where you have to infer an intent. (From this one could ask if there are other cases where we don't make the giver stipulate, or if it's just this case of the premature deathbed gift? The g'mara will get into this.) One can imagine cases where the man makes gifts that are very different from how inheritance would usually go and then the heirs (if he does die) challenge it. One can ask if there are other cases where we should "do what he meant" instead of "what he said", and how would that interact with commerce, interpersonal relations, and so on?

One thing I love about talmud is that it opens up questions like this. If I just wanted the answers I'd look 'em up in a law code; it's the discussion, both in the sources and among people studying it now, that can be really fascinating sometimes.

(Other times, of course, I struggle to find something interesting to say about a particular passsage... Life's not perfect. :-) )

[cellio]

By the way, I have several posts of yours in browser tabs awaiting thoughtful responses, which will at this point have to wait until after Shabbat. I'm sorry. Not ignoring you!