## Bava Batra Daf 144b

###### Bava Batra 144b:1
[Bava Batra 144b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/144b:1)

**מַתְנִי׳** אַחִין הַשּׁוּתָּפִין שֶׁנָּפַל אֶחָד מֵהֶן לְאוּמָּנוּת – נָפַל לָאֶמְצַע. חָלָה וְנִתְרַפֵּא – נִתְרַפֵּא מִשֶּׁל עַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **brothers who were** also **partners,** and it occurred **that one of them was summoned to** public **service,** which is assessed per family, **he was summoned from the middle,** i.e., the profits or expenses of his service are divided among them. If one of the brothers **became sick and sought treatment, the** cost of the **treatment is** paid **from his own** resources.


###### Bava Batra 144b:2
[Bava Batra 144b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/144b:2)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנָא: הַאי אוּמָּנוּת – לְאוּמָּנוּת הַמֶּלֶךְ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֶחָד מִן הָאַחִין שֶׁמִּינּוּהוּ גַּבַּאי אוֹ פּוּלְמוֹסְטוּס; אִם מֵחֲמַת הָאַחִין – לָאַחִין, אִם מֵחֲמַת עַצְמוֹ – לְעַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Sages **taught: This service** mentioned in the mishna is referring **to** forced **imperial service,** but if one of the brothers engaged in a trade of his own volition, the profits are his alone. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 10:5): In the case of **one of the brothers who was appointed** as **a tax collector or a military commander [*polmustos*],** a position with the potential for profit, **if** he was appointed **on account of** all **the brothers,** as the procedure was to impress a representative from each family for this purpose, any profit accrues **to** all **the brothers. If** he was appointed **on account of himself,** the profit accrues **to himself.**


###### Bava Batra 144b:3
[Bava Batra 144b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/144b:3)

אִם מֵחֲמַת אַחִין לָאַחִין – פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּחָרִיף טְפֵי; מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: חוּרְפֵּיהּ גָּרֵים לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it **obvious** that **if** he was appointed **on account of** all **the brothers,** then the profit accrues **to** all **the brothers?** The Gemara responds: **No,** it is **necessary** to state this *halakha* in a case **where** the brother appointed was **sharper,** i.e., more capable, than the other brothers. **Lest you say** that **his sharpness caused him** to be selected for the position, and he should receive all the profits, the *baraita* **teaches us** that his talent notwithstanding, since he was selected as a representative of the family, the profit accrues to all the brothers.


###### Bava Batra 144b:4
[Bava Batra 144b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/144b:4)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֶחָד מִן הָאַחִין שֶׁנָּטַל מָאתַיִם זוּז לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה אוֹ לִלְמוֹד אוּמָּנוּת – יְכוֹלִין הָאַחִין לוֹמַר לוֹ: אִם אַתָּה אֶצְלֵנוּ – יֵשׁ לְךָ מְזוֹנוֹת, אִם אֵין אַתָּה אֶצְלֵנוּ – אֵין לְךָ מְזוֹנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught:** With regard to **one of the brothers, who took two hundred dinars** from the common inheritance to support himself when he went to another place **to study Torah or to learn a trade, the brothers can say to him: If you are** here **with us, you are entitled to sustenance** along with us. **If you are not** here **with us, you are not entitled to sustenance.**


###### Bava Batra 144b:5
[Bava Batra 144b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/144b:5)

וְלִיתְּבוּ לֵיהּ כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ! מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: בִּרְכַּת הַבַּיִת בְּרוּבָּה. וְלִיתְּבוּ לֵיהּ לְפִי בִּרְכַּת הַבַּיִת! הָכִי נָמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But shouldn’t they give him** his sustenance **wherever he is?** The Gemara answers: This ruling **supports** the opinion **of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna says: The blessing of the house** is **in its abundance.** This means that the extent to which blessing permeates a home is proportionate to the number of people who live there, and when many people live together the expenses per capita decrease. The Gemara asks: **But shouldn’t they give him** his sustenance **according to the blessing of the house,** i.e., the expenses he would incur even if he were in the house? The Gemara responds: **Indeed,** they are required to provide for those expenses that he would incur in any event.


###### Bava Batra 144b:6
[Bava Batra 144b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/144b:6)

חָלָה וְנִתְרַפֵּא – נִתְרַפֵּא מִשֶּׁל עַצְמוֹ. שְׁלַח רָבִין מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אִלְעָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁחָלָה בִּפְשִׁיעָה, אֲבָל בְּאוֹנֶס – נִתְרַפֵּא מִן הָאֶמְצַע. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי בִּפְשִׁיעָה? כִּדְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הַכֹּל בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם, חוּץ מִצִּנִּים פַּחִים; שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״צִנִּים פַּחִים בְּדֶרֶךְ עִקֵּשׁ, שׁוֹמֵר נַפְשׁוֹ יִרְחַק מֵהֶם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If one of the brothers **became sick and sought treatment, the** cost of the **treatment is** paid **from his own** resources. **Ravin sent** a ruling **in the name of Rabbi Ela: They taught** this **only** in a case **where he became ill through negligence. But** if he became ill **through circumstances beyond his control,** the cost of **the treatment is** paid **from the middle,** i.e., from the common inheritance. The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances in** which it is considered **negligence?** This is **in accordance with** the statement **of Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: All** occurrences that befall man **are in the hand of Heaven except for colds** and **obstacles [*paḥim*],** from which one is able to protect himself, **as** it **is stated: “Colds and snares are on the path of the crooked; he who guards his soul shall keep far from them”** (Proverbs 22:5).


###### Bava Batra 144b:7
[Bava Batra 144b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/144b:7)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאַחִין שֶׁעָשׂוּ מִקְצָתָן שׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת בְּחַיֵּי הָאָב, חָזְרָה שׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת – חָזְרָה לָאֶמְצַע; שֶׁהַשּׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת נִגְבֵּית בְּבֵית דִּין. אֲבָל הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ לַחֲבֵירוֹ כַּדֵּי יַיִן וְכַדֵּי שֶׁמֶן – אֵין נִגְבִּין בְּבֵית דִּין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** It was common practice for friends of a groom to give him gifts in order to help cover the expenses of the wedding feast. These gifts are known as gifts of groomsmen, and would be reciprocated in turn. While the groom and the groomsman were at times the recipient and the giver of the gifts, respectively, the gifts were at times provided by the father of the groomsman and received by the father of the groom. In the case of **brothers, some of whom brought gifts of groomsmen in their father’s lifetime,** which were provided by their father, when **the gifts of groomsmen are reciprocated** after the father’s death, when one of the brothers gets married, **they are reciprocated to the middle,** i.e., the gift is divided among the brothers. This is **because gifts of groomsmen are** a legal debt owed to the father, **collectible in court. But** with regard to **one who sends his friend jugs of wine or jugs of oil,** a reciprocal gift **is not collectible in court, because they are** considered **acts of kindness.**


###### Bava Batra 144b:8
[Bava Batra 144b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/144b:8)

**גְּמָ׳** וּרְמִינְהִי: שָׁלַח לוֹ אָבִיו שׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת, כְּשֶׁהִיא חוֹזֶרֶת – חוֹזֶרֶת לוֹ. נִשְׁתַּלְּחָה לְאָבִיו שׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת, כְּשֶׁהִיא חוֹזֶרֶת – חוֹזֶרֶת מִן הָאֶמְצַע. אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כִּי תְּנַן נָמֵי מַתְנִיתִין, נִשְׁתַּלְּחָה לְאָבִיו תְּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** between the mishna’s ruling that the gifts of groomsmen are reciprocated to the middle, and the first clause of a *baraita*: If **a father sent** his son with **gifts of groomsmen, when they are reciprocated** when that son gets married, **they are reciprocated to** that son. If **his father was sent gifts of groomsmen** for the wedding of one of his sons, **when they are reciprocated** from the father’s estate, **they are reciprocated from the middle,** i.e., the cost of the gift is divided among the brothers. **Rabbi Asi says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: When we learned the mishna as well, we learned** it as teaching the *halakha* with regard to gifts of groomsmen that **were sent to** the **father** for the wedding of one of his sons, not with regard to gifts of groomsmen sent by the father.


###### Bava Batra 144b:9
[Bava Batra 144b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/144b:9)

וְהָא ״אַחִין שֶׁעָשׂוּ מִקְצָתָן שׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת״ קָתָנֵי! תְּנִי: ״לְמִקְצָתָן״. וְהָא ״חָזְרָה שׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת״ קָתָנֵי! הָכִי קָאָמַר: חָזְרָה לִגְבּוֹת – נִגְבֵּית מֵאֶמְצַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** the mishna **teaches** the *halakha* with regard to **brothers, some of whom brought gifts of groomsmen.** The Gemara responds: Emend the text of the mishna and **teach** it as saying: With regard to brothers, **to some of whom** gifts of groomsmen were brought. The Gemara objects: **But** the mishna explicitly **teaches** the *halakha* if **the gifts of groomsmen are reciprocated.** The Gemara responds: **This is** what the mishna **is saying: When it is collected** from the brothers **in return, it is collected from** the **middle.**


###### Bava Batra 144b:10
[Bava Batra 144b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/144b:10)

רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר: לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן בִּסְתָם, כָּאן בִּמְפָרֵשׁ – כִּדְתַנְיָא: שָׁלַח לוֹ אָבִיו שׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת, כְּשֶׁהִיא חוֹזֶרֶת – חוֹזֶרֶת לוֹ. שָׁלַח אָבִיו שׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת סְתָם, כְּשֶׁהִיא חוֹזֶרֶת – חוֹזֶרֶת לָאֶמְצַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Asi says:** Even if the text of the mishna is not emended, it is **not difficult** and can be reconciled with the *baraita*. **Here** in the mishna it is referring to where the father sent the gifts of groomsmen **without specifying** which son should be ascribed credit for bringing the gifts. **There** in the *baraita*, it is referring to **where** the father **specified** that the credit for the gifts of groomsmen should be ascribed to a specific son, who receives gifts in return, **as it is taught** in another *baraita*: If **his father sent gifts of groomsmen on his,** i.e., the son’s, behalf, then **when** the gift **is reciprocated, it is reciprocated to him,** i.e., to that specific son. If **his father sent gifts of groomsmen without specification,** then **when** the gift **is reciprocated, it is reciprocated to the middle.**


###### Bava Batra 144b:11
[Bava Batra 144b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/144b:11)

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: הָכָא בְּיָבָם עָסְקִינַן, שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל בָּרָאוּי כִּבְמוּחְזָק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel says: Here** in the mishna **we are dealing with a man whose married brother died childless [*yavam*].** The son who brought the gifts of groomsmen died childless, his brother entered into levirate marriage with the widow, and the gifts of groomsmen were reciprocated at the wedding of the *yavam*. Although the *yavam* inherits the property of his brother, since the reciprocal gifts were not extant when his brother died, they do not belong solely to him; rather, they are divided among the brothers. This is because the *yavam* **does not take** in inheritance the property **due** the deceased **as** he does the property the deceased already **possessed.**


###### Bava Batra 144b:12
[Bava Batra 144b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/144b:12)

מִכְּלָל דְּאִידַּךְ – מְשַׁלֵּם? לֵימָא: ״תְּנוּ לִי שׁוֹשְׁבִינִי וְאֶשְׂמַח עִמּוֹ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Is it possible to conclude **by inference** from Shmuel’s statement **that the other** side, i.e., a friend who had received gifts of groomsmen from the deceased, is obligated to **repay** the gifts of groomsmen he received from the deceased? Why should this be so? **Let him say: Give me my groomsman and I will rejoice with him.** Since the one who gave him the gifts is deceased, he is not obligated to reciprocate.


###### Bava Batra 144b:13
[Bava Batra 144b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/144b:13)

מִי לָא תַּנְיָא: מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהַחְזִיר קִדּוּשִׁין – מַחְזִירִין, מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְהַחְזִיר – אֵין מַחְזִירִין. וְאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר מָר עוּקְבָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁמֵּתָה הִיא, אֲבָל מֵת הוּא – אֵין מַחְזִירִין, מַאי טַעְמָא? יְכוֹלָה הִיא שֶׁתֹּאמַר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Pesaḥim* 3:1) with regard to similar circumstances: In **a place where** people **are accustomed to return the betrothal** money when the betrothed man or woman dies, **they return** it; in **a place where** people **are accustomed not to return** it, **they do not return** it. **And Rav Yosef bar Abba says** that **Mar Ukva says** that **Shmuel says: They taught** this **only** with regard to **when** the woman **dies,** in which case one follows the local custom. **But if** the man **dies,** all agree that **they do not return** the money. **What is the reason** for this? Since **she can say:**