Torah Community Connections

Week 109 - Shabbat - 29 December 2001

BAVA BATRA: CHAPTER 9: MISHNAH 5

If one sends betrothal gifts to his father-in-law's house, if he sent a hundred maneh there and ate there a groom's meal of even a dinar - they are not actionable; if he did not eat a groom's meal there, they are acti6nable. If he sent many betrothal gifts which are to return with her to her husband's home - these are actionable; few betrothal gifts which she is to use in her father's house, are not actionable.

Kehati

As we mentioned (at the beginning of Ketubot), the Jewish custom in ancient times when a man wished to marry a woman was that he would first sanctify her in betrothal in front of witnesses (erusin) making her his betrothed, but she would remain living in her father's house. When the time of the actual wedding (nisu'in) arrived, he would bring her to the bridal chamber (huppah) and then bring her home as his wife. It was also the custom on the day following the sanctification for the groom to send to his betrothed at her father's home jewelry and delicacies. These gifts were called "sivlonot", betrothal gifts. Sometimes the groom would come to his father-in-law's home to eat there the feast of bride-grooms. Following the halakhah which we learnt in the previous mishnah which dealt with the groomsman's gifts, which are actionable in the Bet Din, this mishnah teaches what happens with the betrothal gifts, whether or not they are actionable if he later divorced his betrothed or if one of them died.

If one sends betrothal gifts to his father-in-law's house - The betrothal gifts sent to the bride's home by the groom on the day following the sanctification of erusin, as explained above, if he sent a hundred maneh there - gifts worth ten thousand zuz, and ate there a groom's meal of even a dinar - And thereafter divorced her, or one of them died, they are not actionable - he cannot sue for recovery of the betrothal gifts, for once he ate a wedding meal in his father-in-law's house, we hold that on account of his joy at the meal he certainly waived his rights to the betrothal gifts. The Gemara explains that this only applies if the meal he ate was worth at least a dinar, but if it was worth less he did not waive his rights to the betrothal gifts and may reclaim them; if he did not eat a groom's meal there - at his father-in-law's house, they are actionable - the only reason he sent the gifts was to take the bride unto himself, and since he did not do so, she must return the wedding gifts.

If he sent many betrothal gifts which are to return with her to her husband's home - so that she bring them to her husband's house after the wedding, these are actionable - even if he ate a groom's meal at his in-laws' house; but if he sent few betrothal gifts which she is to use in her father's house – these - are not actionable - even if he did not eat a groom's meal.

The commentators explain that the first part of the mishnah refers to a groom's betrothal gifts without specifying any purpose, and in such a case there is a difference in whether or not he ate a groom's meal. The second part of the mishnah, though, refers to where he specified to what use the gifts are to be put. The fact that it mentioned "many" and "few" gifts has no special significance. What is binding is whether the groom specified that the gifts were to be used in his home after the marriage, or in her father's home, and this differentiation is irrelevant to whether or not he ate the groom's meal. The reason why the mishnah mentioned "many" and "few" gifts is because usually a groom who gives his betrothed many gifts expects them to be used later in his own home, while one who gives few gifts expects them to be used by his betrothed in her father's house (Rashbam; Bartenura).

BAVA BATRA: CHAPTER 9: MISHNAH 6

One who is laid low by illness who assigned all his possessions to others and reserved the smallest piece of land, his gift is valid. If he did not reserve any land whatsoever, his gift is not valid. If he did not write in it "on the deathbed," he says he was dangerously ill, and they say he was healthy - he must bring proof that he was dangerously ill; so R. Meir. But the Sages say: One who claims from his neighbor, upon him is the proof.

Kehati

One who is laid low by illness - dangerously ill - who assigned all his possessions to others - or if he distributed his assets by an oral declaration. For example, if he said: All my assets are to go to so-and-so, for the oral declaration of a dangerously ill person is considered equivalent to a deed which was written and delivered (Rashbam; Tiferet Israel), and reserved the smallest piece of land - for himself; and the same applies if he reserved any movable property for himself (Gemara), his gift is valid - i.e., if he recovered from his illness he cannot retract his gift. Since he left something for himself, we say that it was his intention to give these gifts even if he did recover from his illness. In a case where a dangerously ill person gave away part of his assets, the donee does not acquire them until he performs an act of acquisition, regardless of whether the donor later recovered or did not. If he did not reserve any land whatsoever - If he left nothing for himself, his gift is not valid - i.e., if he recovers from his illness, he may retract. Since he left nothing for himself we say that he only gave his goods to others because he thought he was about to die and therefore this is certainly classed as a gift of a dangerously ill person.

If he did not write in it "on the deathbed" - If he did not write in the deed of gift that he was sick at the time of giving nor was it made clear that it was the gift of a healthy person, and the donor reserved nothing for himself, he says he was dangerously ill - and since he has recovered he is entitled to retract, and they - the donees say he was healthy - and therefore unable to retract, he - the donor must bring proof that he was dangerously ill - for as he is well now, there is a presumption that he was well at the time that he wrote the deed, therefore he must bring proof that then he was sick; so R. Meir - who holds that one judges by the person's present physical condition. But the Sages say: One who claims from his neighbor upon him is the proof - The donee who wishes to remove something from the donor who has presumptive title must prove that at the time of the deed the donor was healthy. The halakhah follows the Sages.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives