## Bava Batra Daf 143a

###### Bava Batra 143a:1
[Bava Batra 143a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/143a:1)

וְכַרְכֵּישׁ בָּהּ רֵישֵׁיהּ בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא. אֲזַל לְגַבֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִילּוּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ ״קְנִי כַּחֲמוֹר״, מִי קָנֵי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and he nodded [*vekharkeish*] his head** in **the study hall** in approval **of this** explanation. Rabbi Yirmeya **went to** Rabbi Avin, who **said to him:** Rabbi Abbahu’s reasoning is that **if** a father **said to** his son: **Acquire** an item **as a donkey** does, **does he acquire** it? In the same manner that the son would not acquire anything if his acquisition were likened to that of a donkey, which possesses no ability to acquire an item, so too, since the father compared the son’s acquisition to the acquisition effected by his unborn children, who possess no ability to acquire property, the son did not acquire any property.


###### Bava Batra 143a:2
[Bava Batra 143a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/143a:2)

דְּאִיתְּמַר: ״קְנִי כַּחֲמוֹר״ – לֹא קָנָה. ״אַתְּ וַחֲמוֹר״ – רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: קָנָה מֶחֱצָה, וְרַב הַמְנוּנָא אָמַר: לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: קָנָה הַכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as it was stated:** With regard to one who says to another: **Acquire** an item **as a donkey** does, he **does not acquire** any property, as a donkey cannot acquire property. But with regard to one who says: **You and a donkey** shall both acquire my property, there is a disagreement. **Rav Naḥman says:** The person **acquires** his **half** of the property, **and Rav Hamnuna says:** It is as though the giver **does not say anything.** Since the beneficiary was included with the donkey in the same acquisition, he does not acquire any property, just as the donkey does not acquire any property. **Rav Sheshet says:** The person **acquires all** the property. As the giver knew that a donkey cannot acquire property, he intended for the person, who was capable of acquiring property, to acquire all the property.


###### Bava Batra 143a:3
[Bava Batra 143a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/143a:3)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֵין לְךָ מַר בַּקִּישּׁוּת, אֶלָּא פְּנִימִי שֶׁבּוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ, כְּשֶׁהוּא תּוֹרֵם – מוֹסִיף עַל הַחִיצוֹן שֶׁבּוֹ, וְתוֹרֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say this? As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yosei says: There is nothing bitter in the cucumber other than its inner** part, which is sometimes bitter and inedible and unfit to be separated as *teruma*. **Therefore,** since one does not know if the cucumber he separates as *teruma* is bitter inside, **when he separates *teruma*,** he **adds** part of another cucumber as *teruma*, in addition **to the outer** part **of** the cucumber, which is edible. **And he separates** both **as *teruma*,** thereby ensuring that the *teruma* consists of sufficient edible cucumber.


###### Bava Batra 143a:4
[Bava Batra 143a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/143a:4)

אַמַּאי? ״אַתְּ וַחֲמוֹר״ הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Sheshet asks: **Why** does the separation of *teruma* take effect? **Is it** not analogous to one who states: **You and a donkey** shall acquire an item, since he designated as *teruma* both the outer part of the cucumber, which is fit to become *teruma*, and the inedible inner part, which is not fit to become *teruma*? Since this does not invalidate the separation of *teruma* with regard to the edible outer part, one can infer that although the donkey cannot acquire property, this does not prevent the person from acquiring the property.


###### Bava Batra 143a:5
[Bava Batra 143a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/143a:5)

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא תְּרוּמָה מְעַלַּיְיתָא הִיא –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara replies: **It is different there, as by Torah law** the bitter inner part **is** also **properly** considered ***teruma*,** even though by rabbinic law if one separated inferior produce as *teruma* he must again separate produce of superior quality as *teruma*. Therefore, when one designates the entire cucumber as *teruma*, he is not designating both fit and unfit produce.


###### Bava Batra 143a:6
[Bava Batra 143a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/143a:6)

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: מִנַּיִן לַתּוֹרֵם מִן הָרַע עַל הַיָּפֶה – שֶׁתְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא תִשְׂאוּ עָלָיו חֵטְא, בַּהֲרִימְכֶם אֶת חֶלְבּוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ״ – וְאִם אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ, נְשִׂיאוּת חֵטְא לָמָּה? מִכָּאן לַתּוֹרֵם מִן הָרַע עַל הַיָּפֶה, שֶׁתְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as Rabbi Ile’a says: From where** is it derived **that** the *halakha* **with regard to one who separates *teruma* from poor-**quality produce **for superior-**quality produce is **that his *teruma* is** valid ***teruma*?** It is **as it is stated** with regard to *teruma*: **“And you shall bear no sin by reason of it, seeing that you have set apart from it the best thereof”** (Numbers 18:32). By inference, this indicates that it is a transgression to separate the inferior part of the produce as *teruma*. Rabbi Ile’a explains the proof: **And if** the inferior produce **is not sanctified** as *teruma*, **why** does it involve the **bearing of sin,** as it is a meaningless act? **From here** one can derive that **that** the *halakha* with regard to **one who separates *teruma* from poor**-quality produce **for superior-**quality produce is **that** although he acted improperly, **his *teruma* is** valid ***teruma*.**


###### Bava Batra 143a:7
[Bava Batra 143a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/143a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב מָרְדֳּכַי לְרַב אָשֵׁי, מֵתִיב רַב אַוְיָא תְּיוּבְתָּא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּחָמֵשׁ נָשִׁים וּבָהֶן שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת, וְלִיקֵּט אֶחָד כַּלְכָּלָה שֶׁל תְּאֵנִים – וְשֶׁלָּהֶן הָיְתָה, וְשֶׁל שְׁבִיעִית הָיְתָה; וְאָמַר: ״הֲרֵי כּוּלְּכֶן מְקוּדָּשׁוֹת לִי בְּכַלְכַּלָּה זֹאת״; וְקִבְּלָה אַחַת מֵהֶן עַל יְדֵי כּוּלָּן. אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: אֵין אֲחָיוֹת מְקוּדָּשׁוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cited Rav Hamnuna’s opinion that if one says: You and a donkey shall acquire my property, he did not say anything. **Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: Rav Avya raises an objection** to Rav Hamnuna’s opinion from a mishna (*Kiddushin* 50b): **An incident** occurred **involving five women, and among them** were **two sisters, and one person gathered a basket of figs that belonged to them, and** the fruit **was of** the **Sabbatical** Year, **and he said: You are hereby all betrothed to me with this basket, and one of them accepted** it **on behalf of all of them. The Sages said: The sisters are not betrothed,** as it is prohibited to marry the sister of one’s wife during her lifetime.


###### Bava Batra 143a:8
[Bava Batra 143a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/143a:8)

אֲחָיוֹת הוּא דְּאֵין מְקוּדָּשׁוֹת – הָא נָכְרִיּוֹת מְקוּדָּשׁוֹת; וְאַמַּאי? ״אַתְּ וַחֲמוֹר״ הִיא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One can infer from the mishna: **It is** only the **sisters who are not betrothed, but** the **unrelated women** are **betrothed. But why** is that so? **It is** analogous to one who states: **You and a donkey** shall acquire an item. Since he tried to betroth two women ineligible for betrothal together with the eligible women, the betrothal should not take effect even with regard to the eligible women.


###### Bava Batra 143a:9
[Bava Batra 143a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/143a:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַיְינוּ דַּחֲזַאי רַב הוּנָא בַּר אַוְיָא בְּחֶלְמָא – דְּמוֹתֵיב רַב אַוְיָא תְּיוּבְתָּא. לָאו מִי אוֹקֵימְנָא דְּאָמַר: ״הָרְאוּיָה מִכֶּם לְבִיאָה תִּתְקַדֵּשׁ לִי״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi **said to** Rav Mordekhai: **This is why I saw Rav Huna bar Avya in a dream, because** you were going to tell me that **Rav Avya raised an objection** to Rav Hamnuna’s opinion. But as for this objection, **didn’t we interpret** the mishna in *Kiddushin* as referring to **where he says: Those of you who are eligible for** engaging in **sexual intercourse** with me **shall be betrothed to me?** Since the sisters were forbidden to him, they were not included in the betrothal in the first place, and there was no impediment to the betrothal of the eligible women taking effect. The case is therefore not comparable to the case discussed by Rav Hamnuna.


###### Bava Batra 143a:10
[Bava Batra 143a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/143a:10)

הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לַהּ לִדְבֵיתְהוּ: ״נִכְסַיי לִיךְ וְלִבְנִיךְ״, אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: קָנְתָה מֶחֱצָה. וְאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״וְהָיְתָה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו״ – מֶחֱצָה לְאַהֲרֹן מֶחֱצָה לְבָנָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates: There was **a certain** man **who said to his wife: My property is given to you and to your sons. Rav Yosef says:** In such a case, the wife **acquires half** of the property, even though the man did not specify how much of his property he was giving her. **And Rav Yosef said: From where do I say this? As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** The verse states with regard to the shewbread: **“And it shall be for Aaron and his sons”** (Leviticus 24:9). This means **half for Aaron** and **half for his sons.** One can infer from the *baraita* that when it is specified that a gift is to be divided between an individual and a group, the intention is that the individual receives half.


###### Bava Batra 143a:11
[Bava Batra 143a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/143a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם, אַהֲרֹן בַּר חֲלוּקָּה הוּא; לְהָכִי פְּרַט בֵּיהּ רַחֲמָנָא – לְמִשְׁקַל פַּלְגָא. אִשָּׁה – לָאו בַּת יְרוּשָּׁה הִיא, דַּיָּה שֶׁתִּטּוֹל כְּאֶחָד מִן הַבָּנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rav Yosef: **Granted, there,** in the case of the shewbread, **Aaron is eligible to receive a share** of the shewbread as a priest; it is **for this** reason that **the Merciful One specified him** separately, so **that he should take** more than other priests, i.e., **half.** But with regard to **a woman, who is not eligible to inherit** her husband’s property, **it is sufficient for her to receive** a portion of the inheritance **as one of the sons,** not half of all the property.


###### Bava Batra 143a:12
[Bava Batra 143a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/143a:12)

אִינִי?! וְהָא עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא, וְאַגְבְּיַהּ שְׁמוּאֵל פַּלְגָא! בִּטְבֶרְיָא, וְאַגְבְּיַהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן פַּלְגָא! וְתוּ, כִּי אֲתָא רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף, אָמַר: הָהוּא דְּמֵי כְלִילָא דִּשְׁדוֹ דְּבֵי מַלְכָּא אַאַבּוּלֵי וְאַאִיסְטְרוּגֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי: נִיתְּבוּ אַבּוּלֵי פַּלְגָא וְאִיסְטְרוּגֵי פַּלְגָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: **Is that so? But there was an incident in Neharde’a** where a man gave a gift to an individual and to a group of people, **and Shmuel collected half** the sum for the individual. There was a similar case **in Tiberias, and Rabbi Yoḥanan collected half** the sum for the individual. **And furthermore, when Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef came** from Eretz Yisrael **he said:** There was **a certain coronation tax that was placed by the royal house on the city councilmen [*a’abulei*] and on the prominent citizens [*ve’a’isterugei*]. Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **said: Let the city councilmen give half and the prominent citizens half.** This indicates that when two groups are mentioned together, the intent is that each one represents half.


###### Bava Batra 143a:13
[Bava Batra 143a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/143a:13)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם, מֵעִיקָּרָא כִּי הֲווֹ כָּתְבִי – אַאַבּוּלֵי הֲווֹ כָּתְבִי; וְאִיסְטְרוּגֵי הֲווֹ מְסַיְּיעִי בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ, וְיָדַע מַלְכָּא דַּהֲווֹ קָא מְסַיְּיעִי; הַשְׁתָּא מַאי דְּקָא כָּתְבִי אַאַבּוּלֵי וְאַאִיסְטְרוּגֵי, לְמֵימְרָא דְּהָנֵי פַּלְגָא וְהָנֵי פַּלְגָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: **How can** the case concerning the tax **be compared** to the other cases? **There, initially, when they would write** the writ of assessment, **they would write** that it was placed **on the city councilmen** alone. **And the prominent citizens would assist them** in raising the sum, **and the king knew that they were assisting** them. Therefore, **now,** the meaning of **what they wrote:** It is placed **on the city councilmen and on the prominent citizens, is to say that these** should give **half** of the tax, **and those** should give **half.**


###### Bava Batra 143a:14
[Bava Batra 143a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/143a:14)

מֵתִיב רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה מֵאָה עִשָּׂרוֹן, לְהָבִיא בִּשְׁנֵי כֵלִים״ – מֵבִיא שִׁשִּׁים בִּכְלִי אֶחָד, וְאַרְבָּעִים בִּכְלִי אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira raises an objection** to Rav Yosef’s ruling from a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Menaḥot* 12:7): With regard to **one who says: It is** incumbent **upon me** to bring **a meal-offering** of **one hundred tenths** of an ephah **in two vessels, he brings sixty-**tenths **in one vessel, and** the remaining **forty-**tenths **in one vessel,** as no more than sixty-tenths may be brought in a single vessel.