## Bava Batra Daf 132a

###### Bava Batra 132a:1
[Bava Batra 132a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/132a:1)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: בְּבָרִיא הֵיאַךְ? בִּשְׁכִיב מְרַע הוּא דְּנִיחָא לֵיהּ – דְּלִישְׁתַּמְעוּן מִלֵּהּ, אֲבָל בְּבָרִיא – הָא קָאֵי אִיהוּ; אוֹ דִלְמָא בָּרִיא נָמֵי נִיחָא לֵיהּ, דְּלִישְׁתַּמְעוּן מִלֵּהּ מֵהַשְׁתָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the *halakha* that a person on his deathbed who wrote a document granting all his property to his wife has appointed her as a steward, **Rava raises a dilemma: In** the case of **a healthy person, what** is the *halakha*? Should it be reasoned that specifically **in** the case of **a person on his deathbed it** is assumed that he intended to appoint his wife as a steward, **as it is preferable for him that her word be heard** and she is honored after his death, **but in** the case of **a healthy person, he is** still **standing** and can ensure that his wife is honored, so he apparently intended to actually give her all of his property? **Or perhaps** should it be reasoned that **in** the case of **a healthy person as well, it is preferable that** his wife’s **word be heard** and she be given honor **from now?**


###### Bava Batra 132a:2
[Bava Batra 132a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/132a:2)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַכּוֹתֵב פֵּירוֹת נְכָסָיו לְאִשְׁתּוֹ – גּוֹבָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מִן הַקַּרְקַע. לְמֶחֱצָה, לִשְׁלִישׁ וְלִרְבִיעַ – גּוֹבָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מִן הַשְּׁאָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a resolution of the dilemma from a *baraita*: If **one writes** a document that **the profits of his property** should go **to his wife** in the event that he dies or divorces her, **she collects** payment of **her marriage contract,** which he wrote her at the time of their marriage, **from the land** itself. The profits are hers as a result of his gift. Similarly, if he wrote a document granting her **one-half, one-third, or one-quarter** of his property, **she collects** payment of **her marriage contract from the rest** of his property, which he did not give her as a separate gift.


###### Bava Batra 132a:3
[Bava Batra 132a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/132a:3)

כָּתַב כׇּל נְכָסָיו לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, וְיָצָא עָלָיו שְׁטַר חוֹב – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: תִּקָּרַע מַתְּנָתָהּ וְתַעֲמוֹד עַל כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: תִּקָּרַע כְּתוּבָּתָהּ וְתַעֲמוֹד עַל מַתְּנָתָהּ; וְנִמְצֵאת קֵרַחַת מִכָּאן וּמִכָּאן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: If one **wrote** a document granting **all his property to his wife, and** subsequently **a promissory note emerged against him** for a loan he took while they were married but before he gave her this gift, **Rabbi Eliezer says** that **she** should **tear up her** deed of **gift and remain with her marriage contract,** so that the creditor will not be able to collect the property she received, as her marriage contract preceded the promissory note. **And the Rabbis say: She** must **tear up her marriage contract and remain with her** deed of **gift,** as by accepting the gift of all her husband’s property she waived her right to receive payment of her marriage contract. Since the promissory note preceded the deed of gift, the creditor receives the property, **and** the wife **is found** to be **bald from here and from there,** i.e., she receives neither her gift nor her marriage contract.


###### Bava Batra 132a:4
[Bava Batra 132a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/132a:4)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנַּחְתּוֹם: מַעֲשֶׂה וְאֵירַע הַדָּבָר בְּבַת אֲחוֹתִי כַּלָּה, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים, וְאָמְרוּ: תִּקָּרַע כְּתוּבָּתָהּ וְתַעֲמוֹד עַל מַתְּנָתָהּ, וְנִמְצֵאת קֵרַחַת מִכָּאן וּמִכָּאן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yehuda the baker said:** There was **an incident where** this **matter occurred to my sister’s daughter** who is my **daughter-in-law [*kalla*],** that my son wrote such a document to her, **and the incident came before the Sages. And they said** that **she** must **tear up her marriage contract and remain with her** deed of **gift, and she is found** to be **bald from here and from there.**


###### Bava Batra 132a:5
[Bava Batra 132a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/132a:5)

טַעְמָא דְּיָצָא עָלָיו שְׁטַר חוֹב, הָא לֹא יָצָא עָלָיו שְׁטַר חוֹב – קָנְיָא. וּבְמַאי? אִילֵּימָא בִּשְׁכִיב מְרַע – וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ לֹא עֲשָׂאָהּ אֶלָּא אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס! אֶלָּא לָאו בְּבָרִיא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: **The reason** she loses her gift **is that a promissory note emerged against him, but if a promissory note did not emerge against him, she acquires** the gift of his property. **And with regard to what** case is this stated? **If we say** it is **with regard to a person on his deathbed, but didn’t you say** previously that in such a case **he merely rendered her a steward? Rather, is it not with regard to a healthy person?** Accordingly, Rava’s dilemma is resolved: If a healthy person writes a document granting all his property to his wife, it is hers.


###### Bava Batra 132a:6
[Bava Batra 132a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/132a:6)

לְעוֹלָם בִּשְׁכִיב מְרַע; וְרַב עַוִּירָא מוֹקֵי לַהּ בְּכוּלְּהוּ, רָבִינָא מוֹקֵי לַהּ בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ אֲרוּסָה וְאִשְׁתּוֹ גְּרוּשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **Actually,** the *halakha* of the *baraita* is stated **with regard to a person on his deathbed; and Rav Avira would interpret** the *baraita* as referring **to all of** the cases mentioned above in which, in his opinion, the wife acquires the property and is not appointed as a steward. And **Ravina would interpret** it specifically **in reference to** a case where one wrote a document granting all his property to **his betrothed wife or his** former **wife, whom he divorced,** where he concedes that she acquires the property.


###### Bava Batra 132a:7
[Bava Batra 132a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/132a:7)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, הֲלָכָה: תִּקָּרַע כְּתוּבָּתָהּ וְתַעֲמוֹד עַל מַתְּנָתָהּ, וְנִמְצֵאת קֵרַחַת מִכָּאן וּמִכָּאן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says** that **Rav Naḥman says:** The ***halakha*** is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. **She** must **tear up her marriage contract and remain with her** deed of **gift, and she is found** to be **bald from here and from there.**


###### Bava Batra 132a:8
[Bava Batra 132a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/132a:8)

לְמֵימְרָא דְּלָא אָזֵיל רַב נַחְמָן בָּתַר אוּמְדָּנָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is this to say that Rav Naḥman does not follow** the principle of **assessing** intention, meaning that even if one did not state something explicitly, the court assesses what his intention was and decides the *halakha* based on that assessment? Clearly, upon accepting the gift the wife did not intend to waive payment of her marriage contract and thereby be left with nothing in the event that her husband’s creditor produces a promissory note that predates her gift.


###### Bava Batra 132a:9
[Bava Batra 132a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/132a:9)

וְהָתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָלַךְ בְּנוֹ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, וְשָׁמַע שֶׁמֵּת בְּנוֹ, וְעָמַד וְכָתַב כׇּל נְכָסָיו לַאֲחֵרִים, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא בְּנוֹ – מַתְּנָתוֹ מַתָּנָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַתְּנָתוֹ מַתָּנָה – שֶׁאִילּוּ הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁבְּנוֹ קַיָּים, לֹא כְּתָבָן. וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Ketubot* 5:9): In a case **where one’s son went overseas and he heard that his son died, and** then he **arose and wrote** a document granting **all his property to others, and then his son came** back, **his gift** to the other people **is** a valid **gift. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: His gift is not** a valid **gift, as had he known that his son** was **alive he would not have written** a document granting **them** his property. **And Rav Naḥman says** that the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya.** Apparently, Rav Naḥman follows the principle of assessing intention.


###### Bava Batra 132a:10
[Bava Batra 132a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/132a:10)

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּנִיחָא לַהּ דְּתִיפּוֹק עֲלַהּ קָלָא דְּכַתְבִינְהוּ נִיהֲלַהּ לְהָנְהוּ נְכָסִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There,** in the case of one who writes a document granting all his property to his wife, it **is different, as** it is **beneficial to her that it be publicized that he wrote** a document granting **her** all of **that property,** and she was willing to risk not receiving payment of her marriage contract to gain this benefit.


###### Bava Batra 132a:11
[Bava Batra 132a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/132a:11)

תְּנַן הָתָם: הַכּוֹתֵב נְכָסָיו לְבָנָיו, וְכָתַב לְאִשְׁתּוֹ קַרְקַע כׇּל שֶׁהוּא – אִבְּדָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. מִשּׁוּם דְּכָתַב לָהּ קַרְקַע כׇּל שֶׁהוּא – אִבְּדָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **We learned** in a mishna **there** (*Pe’a* 3:7): If a man **writes** a document granting **his property to his sons, and he wrote** a document granting **any amount of land to his wife, she has lost** her right to receive payment of **her marriage contract.** The Gemara questions this: **Because he wrote** a document granting **her any amount of land, she has lost** her right to receive payment of **her marriage contract?** Why should this be?


###### Bava Batra 132a:12
[Bava Batra 132a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/132a:12)

אָמַר רַב: בִּמְזַכֶּה לָהֶן עַל יָדָהּ. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בִּמְחַלֵּק לְפָנֶיהָ וְהִיא שׁוֹתֶקֶת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אֲמַר: בְּאוֹמֵר לָהּ: ״טְלִי קַרְקַע זוֹ בִּכְתוּבָּתִךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav says:** This mishna is referring **to** a case where the husband **transfers ownership** of his property **to** his sons **through** his wife’s participation in a formal act of acquisition. Not only did she not protest the transfer of property to the sons, but she facilitated the transaction. Clearly, she agreed to waive payment of her marriage contract. **And Shmuel says:** It is referring not only to a case where she actually participates in the act of acquisition, but also **to** a case where he **distributes** the property to his sons **in her presence, and she is silent** and does not ask about her marriage contract. **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says:** It is referring **to** a case where **he says to her: Take** only **this** parcel of **land for your marriage contract.**