Talmud for Bava Batra 9:2

Rav said, if a dying person said, do not bury me, he is buried as a charge on public charity. Rebbi Immi asked, how could one think that others are provided for by his property and he is buried as a charge on public charity¹¹This is the unanimous opinion of the Babli.? The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Her heirs, the heirs of her ketubah, are obligated to bury her.¹²This is an obligation independent of the wishes of the deceased.” Explain it, if they inherited real estate¹³Since usually a ketubah is payable in real estate.. As it was stated¹⁴A similar text in Tosephta 9:3.: “If he left male and female slaves, mortgages, and movables, anybody¹⁵Anybody with a claim sustainable in court, the widow for her ketubah or a creditor. who takes them first acquires them and¹⁶If nothing is left of his estate. he shall be buried by public charity.” Because he took it first¹⁷If the estate already had disappeared before the burial.. Therefore, if he did not take it first one removes from his hand. Explain it, if he said, bury me¹⁸If the deceased had requested a burial before he died, the burial expenses are privileged.. As Rebbi Yose said in the name of the rabbis: If a dead person was buried who had not said “bury me”, even though others came and took [of his property] one removes from their hands. If they took real estate. In fact, what you say, one removes from their hands, if they took real estate. But if they took movables, one does not remove from their hands, if it was a loan by witnesses¹⁹In this case, time is of the essence since any one of the witnesses could die anytime. But real estate can be foreclosed only by a regular court procedure.. But for a documented loan, whether they took real estate or movables one does not²⁰It seems that this is a scribal error and one should read: מוציאין “one does remove”. Since the claim is documented, there is no need for the creditor to resort to self-help. remove from their hands. For²¹This is an unnecessary word; R. Abba explains general principles about the legal standing of death-bed requests. Rebbi Abba, the son of Rav Huna, said²²In the Babli (Baba batra 152a, 175a; Giṭṭin 13a, 15a) this is an undisputed statement of Rav Naḥman.: They made the words of a bedridden person equal to those of a healthy person who wrote and delivered²³The legal forms of a valid gift.. But only if he died from that illness, not if he recovered. And if he was explicit and said, give field X to Y. If he said, give field X to Y²⁴It seems that one has to read: Give field X to Y and Z. It is understood that each one gets half a field but the method of subdivision of the field was not indicated.? Is it as if he was explicit or only if he said, the Northern half, the Southern half?²⁵No answer is given since it is clear that the bequest cannot be enforced against the legal heirs; the burden of proof being on the claimants, who would have to prove in court that the method of division is that intended by the donor; this is impossible after the latter’s death. Rebbi Yudan asked: If he said, burn me by pagan rites and give half of field X to Y. Since they do not burn, do they give?²⁶Since the first half of the request is clearly illegal, can the second half be legal? Rebbi Ḥaggai asked: A sick person who said, my daughters shall be supported. Would the daughters not be supported anyway²⁷Since daughters’ right to sustenance is a standard condition of the ketubah (Mishnah 4:11), what did the mention of the daughters add to their rights?? No, it is necessary, for otherwise would they be supported from pledged real estate or would they be supported from movables²⁸At places where the ketubah could be taken only in real estate, the daughters could be supported only by real estate.? Rebbi Yudan [ ]²⁹The words בָּרַח לְנוֹי “he fled to beauty” do not make sense here. there came a case before Rebbi Yose about a bedridden person who had said, my documents shall be given to X. He said to him, the bedridden can only transfer property which is acquired either by a document or by taking hold³⁰By bodily possession.. But these are acquired by a document and by taking hold. As it was stated³¹Tosephta Qiddušin 1:7.: “A ship is acquired by taking hold in the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Nathan says a ship and documents are acquired by a document and by taking hold. ³²This last sentence is not in the Tosephta or in the Babli (Baba batra76a); R. Yose’s ruling is rejected by Rav Naḥman (Note 22) who validates the transfer of documents by death-bed declaration. If he wrote and did not take hold, or took hold without writing [a transfer document] he did not do anything unless he both writes and takes hold.”

Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses; Rebbi Eleazar said, one cannot transfer benefits to fetuses²⁴The question whether an unborn child can inherit and receive gifts is discussed in Babli Baba Batra141b/142a, Yerushalmi Baba Batra 9:1 in a similar way. The opinion of R. Eleazar is attributed to (the slightly older) Rav Huna in the Babli.. Rebbi Yose²⁵R. Yose, the fifth generation Amora, colleague of R. Jonah. In ms. A, the name appears as ר׳ יונסה, a confluence of both names. said, even though Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses, he agrees that most of [the fetus’s] head and body must come out alive²⁶In Babli Baba Batra 142a, that a gift to a minor is acquired only at the time of birth is the opinion of Rav Naḥman, Samuel’s foremost student in matters of civil law.. That is the Mishnah, “if somebody performed ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law but she turns out to have been pregnant,” as you say here, retroactively ḥalîṣah did not touch her, so retroactively the child is a son and receives the benefit²⁷After birth, the gift is valid from the time it was given but it is not acquired (and cannot be invested by the baby’s trustees) before birth.. There, we have stated: “If somebody says, if my wife gives birth to a male, he shall take a mina²⁸100 drachmae. In the parallel, Baba batra 141b, only the male baby is mentioned. In Yerushalmi Baba batra9:2, edited by a different group, and Tosephta Baba batra 9:5, a different text, the male gets double the amount of the female., if she gave birth to a male, [the male baby] will take a mina. If a female, 200 [drachmae], if she gave birth to a female, that one will take 200.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is only for his son, but not for any other. Rebbi Yasa²⁹It seems here that instead of ר׳ יוסה (in both mss.) one should read ר׳ יסה; he is R. Yasa (Assi), contemporary of R. Eleazar. said, even any other. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, only from a sick person, but not a healthy one; only movables but not real estate³⁰The rules of emergency wills, which are much more lenient than those of standard wills, are detailed in tractates Giṭṭin and Baba batra. Real estate can be acquired only if all rules are followed; since the fetus cannot perform the act of acquisition, no real estate can be transferred to him on the death bed.. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. “³¹A similar baraita in Babli Baba batra 142a. If a proselyte has no children after he became Jewish, his estate has no heirs; so anybody who wants to may take it. It is assumed here that if the deceased had a wife, he died without a will and she was not present since either way she immediately could lay claim to the entire property. Therefore, it is stated that only later it became known that the widow was pregnant. If a proselyte died and Jews plundered his estate, then it became known that he had a son overseas or that [his wife] was pregnant, everybody is required to return [what he took].” What does Rebbi Eleazar do with this³²The unborn baby inherits his father’s estate. This is a biblical decree (Num. 27:8).? There is a difference because it is his child. The second part [of the Mishnah] disagrees with Samuel in the interpretation of Rebbi Yose: “If they returned everything and then the son died³³And again there are no legal heirs. or she had a miscarriage³⁴If a fetus cannot acquire, then the first group of people who had returned what they had taken, simply should be given back what they had returned. If a fetus can acquire, then the first group took the possession illegally and they should not be considered as owners., anybody who takes first after that acquires it.” The first group did not acquire. Even at the beginning they should not have acquired! Did not Rebbi Yose say, even though Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses, he agrees that most of [the fetus’s] head and body must come out alive. He was not living³⁵In the interpretation of R. Yose, the return was in error and the people who took first should take their property back.! Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar³⁶In Baba batra 9:1 this is an anonymous statement of the editors. In ms A: R. Eleazar. Cf. Berakhot 7:117. said, because of abandoning³⁷The owners had given up hope to recover their property. Then they had given up ownership. Loss of ownership by giving up hope of recovery is the topic of Baba meṣi‘a 2.. The rabbis of Caesarea, R. Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Abba bar Natan³⁸A Babylonian in Galilee, older than R. Ḥiyya bar Abba, student of Rav Huna. The next name, R. Nathan, seems to be corrupt; possibly one should read “R. Eleazar”. Unfortunately, two lines are missing here in ms. A.: Rebbi Natan changed his mind because of that Mishnah: “If a male, a mina, if a female, 200.” Is a female in this situation not like an outsider³⁹Since in the presence of sons she does not inherit (but can claim support from the estate and a dowry).? Bar Qappara stated: “On transfers benefit to a one day old.⁴⁰He denies that an unborn child can inherit or receive gifts; cf. Mishnah Niddah 5:3.”