Subscribe
Daily Daf Dose
What did the Father Intend?
The Gemora tells the story of Yonasan ben Uziel, who received the property of a man who did not wish to have his children receive it. The Gemora explains that Shammai felt that this gift was similar to the gift of Bais Choron, which was conditional on the recipient fulfilling the intent of the giver.
The Rashbam learns that the intent in this case was for the man’s children not to receive the property. Shammai therefore protested when Yonasan ben Uziel gave some of the property to them.
Tosfos (133b Ba) learns that the intent was for the children to receive the property, and the gift was for the man to avoid giving them the property directly, since he had sworn that they may not receive benefit from him. Shammai therefore felt this was the same as the case of Bais Choron, and further thought that Yonasan ben Uziel gave all the property to the children. Just as in the case of Bais Choron, the Sages ruled that a gift given only to circumvent an oath, and not allowing the recipient to consecrate it, is invalid, so Shammai felt that the gift was invalid. Yonasan ben Uziel explained that the father gave him the property as a full gift, and he actually did first sell and consecrate part of it.
The Ritva says that he specifically first sold and consecrated part of it, to ensure that the father meant it as a full gift, as indicated by his not protesting. The gift was thus an unconditional gift, so Yonasan could also give part of it back to the children, and avoid transgressing the oath.
My Brother?
The Mishna says that if one (e.g., Levi) claims that someone (e.g., Yehudah) is his brother, the doubtful brother only splits with the brother who made the claim, but not with the others.
The Rashbam explains that vis a vis Levi, we view the estates as split among all the brothers, including Yehudah, reducing Levi’s share appropriately. For example, if there are two other brothers (e.g., Reuven and Shimon), none of whom are first born, the estate will be split in the following manner: Reuven and Shimon claim there are three brothers, so they each get 1/3, which takes up 2/3 of the estate.
Levi and Yehudah claim there are four brothers. Levi therefore only collects ¼. At this point, 11/12 of the estate are taken. The last 1/12 is given to Yehudah. Although he claims he should be getting ¼, the other 2/12 would come from Reuven and Shimon, who do not accept his claim of being a brother. Levi can therefore tell Yehudah to discuss the remainder of his share with Reuven and Shimon.
Rabbeinu Gershom, however, says that Levi, by claiming that Yehudah is a brother, must split his whole share equally with Yehudah. Therefore, Reuven and Shimon each get 1/3, while Levi and Yehudah each get 1/6. If Yehudah proves to Reuven and Shimon that he is a brother, he will succeed in collecting 1/12 from each. In that case, he must give half of what he collects to Levi, who gave of his share to Yehudah, to compensate for Reuven and Shimon not agreeing to accept Yehudah as a brother.
A Son, for Inheritance
The Gemora says that it is obvious that a man can identify his son regarding inheritance, and therefore the Mishna is teaching us about yibum. The Rashbam says that although we learned from a verse that a man may identify one of his sons as a bechor, indicating that this is not an obvious concept, that is true when we knew the son to be his son, but not a bechor. In that case, the Torah tells us that the man has full power to identify a bechor, even regarding property which he otherwise would not be able to give to the son. However, in the Mishna, where we do not even know this person to be his son, the man has no special reliability. Therefore, all the Mishna is stating is that the man has the power to identify his son, only regarding property which he could otherwise give to him – i.e., present property, or future property that he will have until he is too frail to give it, according to Rabbi Meir, who allows for a gift of future property. That statement is indeed obvious, so the Mishna must be teaching us about yibum.
The Rashba and Ritva, however, understand the earlier verse that allows a man to identify his bechor, to allow a man to identify anyone as his son, even if we have no prior knowledge of a relationship. Therefore, the Mishna is empowering a man to identify someone as his son regarding inheritance, with no qualifications. When the Gemora says that this is obvious, the Gemora means it is obvious because we already know this from the verse cited earlier.
The Gemora tells the story of Yonasan ben Uziel, who received the property of a man who did not wish to have his children receive it. The Gemora explains that Shammai felt that this gift was similar to the gift of Bais Choron, which was conditional on the recipient fulfilling the intent of the giver.
The Rashbam learns that the intent in this case was for the man’s children not to receive the property. Shammai therefore protested when Yonasan ben Uziel gave some of the property to them.
Tosfos (133b Ba) learns that the intent was for the children to receive the property, and the gift was for the man to avoid giving them the property directly, since he had sworn that they may not receive benefit from him. Shammai therefore felt this was the same as the case of Bais Choron, and further thought that Yonasan ben Uziel gave all the property to the children. Just as in the case of Bais Choron, the Sages ruled that a gift given only to circumvent an oath, and not allowing the recipient to consecrate it, is invalid, so Shammai felt that the gift was invalid. Yonasan ben Uziel explained that the father gave him the property as a full gift, and he actually did first sell and consecrate part of it.
The Ritva says that he specifically first sold and consecrated part of it, to ensure that the father meant it as a full gift, as indicated by his not protesting. The gift was thus an unconditional gift, so Yonasan could also give part of it back to the children, and avoid transgressing the oath.
My Brother?
The Mishna says that if one (e.g., Levi) claims that someone (e.g., Yehudah) is his brother, the doubtful brother only splits with the brother who made the claim, but not with the others.
The Rashbam explains that vis a vis Levi, we view the estates as split among all the brothers, including Yehudah, reducing Levi’s share appropriately. For example, if there are two other brothers (e.g., Reuven and Shimon), none of whom are first born, the estate will be split in the following manner: Reuven and Shimon claim there are three brothers, so they each get 1/3, which takes up 2/3 of the estate.
Levi and Yehudah claim there are four brothers. Levi therefore only collects ¼. At this point, 11/12 of the estate are taken. The last 1/12 is given to Yehudah. Although he claims he should be getting ¼, the other 2/12 would come from Reuven and Shimon, who do not accept his claim of being a brother. Levi can therefore tell Yehudah to discuss the remainder of his share with Reuven and Shimon.
Rabbeinu Gershom, however, says that Levi, by claiming that Yehudah is a brother, must split his whole share equally with Yehudah. Therefore, Reuven and Shimon each get 1/3, while Levi and Yehudah each get 1/6. If Yehudah proves to Reuven and Shimon that he is a brother, he will succeed in collecting 1/12 from each. In that case, he must give half of what he collects to Levi, who gave of his share to Yehudah, to compensate for Reuven and Shimon not agreeing to accept Yehudah as a brother.
A Son, for Inheritance
The Gemora says that it is obvious that a man can identify his son regarding inheritance, and therefore the Mishna is teaching us about yibum. The Rashbam says that although we learned from a verse that a man may identify one of his sons as a bechor, indicating that this is not an obvious concept, that is true when we knew the son to be his son, but not a bechor. In that case, the Torah tells us that the man has full power to identify a bechor, even regarding property which he otherwise would not be able to give to the son. However, in the Mishna, where we do not even know this person to be his son, the man has no special reliability. Therefore, all the Mishna is stating is that the man has the power to identify his son, only regarding property which he could otherwise give to him – i.e., present property, or future property that he will have until he is too frail to give it, according to Rabbi Meir, who allows for a gift of future property. That statement is indeed obvious, so the Mishna must be teaching us about yibum.
The Rashba and Ritva, however, understand the earlier verse that allows a man to identify his bechor, to allow a man to identify anyone as his son, even if we have no prior knowledge of a relationship. Therefore, the Mishna is empowering a man to identify someone as his son regarding inheritance, with no qualifications. When the Gemora says that this is obvious, the Gemora means it is obvious because we already know this from the verse cited earlier.
0 comments:
Post a Comment