Talking Talmud

When someone makes a gift from his deathbed, no formal act of acquisition is necessary for the gift to be acquired by its recipient. Plus, a discussion of the biblical sources of deathbed gifts - Hezekiah or Achitophel, with Achitophel's 3 points of advice for his children. Also, let's talk about the weather - and its implications for crops, as they follow from the Jewish holidays. Where the smoke from the Temple blowing one direction or another carried with it predictions about the upcoming season.

A new mishnah! With more on the bridal gifts -- she received gifts after kiddushin, and before nisuin, so they were sent to her father's house, because she hadn't yet been fully married and moved to her husband's house. But then the gifts are not collected in the event that they never reach nisuin. But if the groom eats with the bride's family, the groom gives up his claim on the gifts (even if nisuin doesn't happen). Without that meal with the purported "in-laws," he would still have the claim on them. And not if he said she should be using them still in her parents' house. All of these are things that lose value over time. The Gemara cites cases where issues did creep in between bride and groom. For example, a groom who sent new wine, new oil, and linen in the run-up to Shavuot, in praise of the land of Israel. And another case of a woman who had lost her sense of smell, and who dies before nisuin. Also, coming back to define the bridal gifts and the groomsmen gifts. Plus, another new mishnah - with the case of a person on his deathbed, who gives away all of his property. When does he mean to divest of his possessions even if he gets better, and what must he do to condition the gift on his actual death?

What happens to gifts that are given in advance for an upcoming wedding, and then either bride or groom dies? (or perhaps less dramatically, if wedding is called off for other reasons - but the Gemara's case is death). Plus, what about returning bridal gifts - the kiddushin money, for example. Also, on the groom/groomsmen gifts - the reciprocity is presumed for each wedding, but that also depends on the location of the groom in his expected presence at his groomsmen's weddings, for example. Plus, different kinds of scholars of Torah - with their various strengths and skills.

If one leaves heirs some of whom are minors and some of whom are of age - with various stipulations - what is the halakhah? Plus, if one married a child off in a "wedding house" - the son acquires the house, at least under the right conditions. Also, if one writes his estate over to his wife, she is then an administrator of the estate - with other halakhot which are each established according to the tradition. Also, a new mishnah - brothers who are partners in business, and then they are "called up" -- in service to the Romans (or Persians), with a key historical backdrop for this halakhah - how does that service pay for what all of them owe, or how doees earnings from such service reach all of them? Likewise, if a brother takes ill.... and the level of responsibility is spread out among the brothers (or not). And another mishnah: Groomsmen who give gifts to the groom, and his reciprocal gifts back to them.

When one doesn't respond to a stipulation of inheritance that would go to a person and a donkey... To understand this case, a somewhat parallel case is introduced of five women, two of whom were sisters, who were to be betrothed with a basket of figs - and those two sisters cannot be betrothed in this way, because, as sisters, they cannot be betrothed to the same person. But are the other three betrothed, and if so, why? (Which is then lined up with the donkey in the first case). Plus, the case of one who sent silks to his home, some for his sons, some for his daughters, and maybe daughters-in-law. And the case of one who bequeaths his belongings to his sons (when he had only one, but also a daughter) - is that an error or intentional? Similarly, if one seems to call his grandson "son," is that effective or an error? Also, a new mishnah! With complications of family dynamics and estate-planning.

More on the powers of acquisition (or lack thereof) of a fetus. What is the timing of a person trying to bequeath property to a fetus, when that person than dies? And most importantly, what changes once the baby is born and is only one day old? Also, given the conclusion that a fetus cannot inherit, the Gemara's focus shifts to the nature of the dispute and the hierarchy of the sages responding (including pinning authority to age-order, at least briefly).

When a man commits to giving an unborn child a set amount of money - regardless of the gender of the child, which apparently makes a difference in terms of the amount given - what is the halakhah? If a girl is supposed to get double the amount than the son, is she more valued than he would be? But the Gemara indicates that one who fathers only daughters is not in God's good graces. At the end of the day, providing for one's daughters in inheritance is upheld before one provides for one's sons. Also, one who is transferring ownership to a fetus is not successful in the transfer. Even though one can acquire goods on behalf of someone else, when one is not a fetus. Plus, a discussion of how various opinions line up with each other or don't - in this case, specifically probing that of Rabbi Meir.

A new chapter! Chapter 9 -- with a mishnah from the previous daf (as the beginning of the chapter) and a second mishnah on this daf as well. Firstly, the case of a man who dies and leaves both sons and daughters -- depending on the size of the estate, either the sons or the daughters take priority in terms of getting that inheritance. [Who's Who: Admon]. Secondly, the case of a man dies and leaves behind sons and daughters and a "tumtum." The value of the estate matters in this case too, but the Gemara addresses this case to determine the halakhic nature of a tumtum -- and whether a tumtum inherits, with or without separate stipulation of gifts. Plus, an investigation into how many genders there are (a very "modern" take that is built into the halakhic system).

A new mishnah (from the bottom of 138): A father who gives his land to his son, while retaining the rights to the produce for himself, until after his own death. Plus, once the produce is detached from the ground, it is the father's, while I still attached, it's "part of the land," and owned by the son who owns the land. Note that funds that are held for minors cannot be used to provide for the adults, and vice versa. The same applies for adult and minor daughters, with one key caveat that is a difference between the sons and daughters in this capacity. Also, the case of a woman who borrows money, uses it, and gets married -- what accrues to her? And what rights might the husband have? Is the husband like a buyer or like an heir?

More on deathbed requests, as presented in a series of beraitot. How much attention must be given to the wording of such requests? What happens when debt factors in to those gifts from the deathbed? Also, when one on his deathbed claims someone owes him money -- the statement alone is not proof of the debt.

If one person gives another person an etrog, and that the recipient should pass it along to another person after his own death, then there's a dispute between Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel as to the degree of ownership by that first recipient. He has to pass it on, so he can't use it in all ways, like an outright owner. Can he sell it, for example? Also, a story about a woman who owned a date palm that was planted in the property of Rav Bibi bar Abaye - and he was regularly upset when she came to harvest the fruit. The Gemara works to figure out what was really upsetting him.

A new mishnah! On how a healthy person can transfer property to others -- to go into effect after that person's death: the phrasing of "from now until after death." But what happens to that property during the lifetime? Neither father nor son can sell those properties during the father's lifetime. And if the son did sell, the buyer does not have the right until father's death. But does the father need to say, " from now" to begin with? The Gemara suggests that the date alone should be enough. Also, the case of all of the above, but where the son dies in his father's lifetime -- what happens if the son has sold the property before he died? Does the sale take effect (say, after the father's death? Or not at all? It's a dispute between R. Yochanan and Resh Lakish.

When a man is dying, they ask him in a roundabout way whether his wife will be subject to yibum. When he says she could marry a kohen gadol means she doesn't have any need for yibum. But what about when a man comes to divorce his wife, he is considered reliable with regard to his wife's status - sometimes! Sometimes, he is explicitly "not believed" with regard to his wife's status. Which leads to a serious discussion about protecting the women, and also held in a respectful manner that allowed for different opinions. Also, if a will is written on one's deathbed and not yet given to anyone, and then the person dies -- that will is not considered valid. Likewise, a deed of transfer that is to be written on one's deathbed is not valid, because that kind of contract is only effective if the original owner is still alive.

A practical example, of one who found his children to be lacking and gave all of his property to Yonatan ben Uziel instead of to his official heirs. The sage gave a portion of that gift back to the children, which opened a tussle with Shammai, over the standing of the benefactor's wishes. Also, the 80 students of Hillel the Elder, and their greatness, including the least of them being R. Yochanan ben Zakkai, and how accomplished and steadfast he was in learning Torah. Also, a new mishnah! When man who specifies his heirs, he's largely believed - and then his wife would be proven exempt from yibum. Which is more of a "yibum" issue than an "inheritance" issue, but it applies to both.

More on Rabbi Yehudah ben Berkoka's position, with the property being established as an inheritance vs. as a gift. But what is the real difference? Why would it be preferable to inherit, as compared to receive a gift? For starters, the heirs need to support the widow of the benefactor, which is not the case for the recipients of gifts. Also, a new mishnah! What happens when a person really does give his property away and his rightful heirs get nothing? The majority view frowns upon such a decision, though it would take effect. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel explains that there are circumstances, say, with an heir who is not behaving well, where circumventing the inheritance laws would be considered the right move. The Gemara provides a story that illustrates what the rabbis of the majority view think of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel's caveat.

A case where a husband gives his wife the entirety of his property as a gift, not an inheritance, where her ketubah is fundamentally folded into the sum total of his property, as it were. Then a creditor comes along to collect from her. What is she to do? [Who's Who: Rabbi Yehudah Nachtom (the Baker)] Rabbi Yehudah Nachtom has a story that illustrates exactly the question of whether the wife should keep the sum total of the gift. Also, the case of a woman who forfeits the right to her ketubah when her husband gave her land. But why does this (potentially small) piece of land mean she's forfeited her ketubah? The Gemara has a complicated answer.

What happens when a healthy person wants to allocate his property as gifts? In contrast to the cases we've seen to this point, which have been deathbed utterances. Also, what happens when there's an administrator (apotropa) appointed over the estate. Note that the case doesn't spell out the relationship between all parties. Plus, how does the appointment of an administrator function in the context of gift-giving vs. the default inheritance?

More on stipulations of inheritance vs. those of gift-giving. What if the stipulation is about someone who is suitable to be inheriting in any case? Also, a deep dive into the ways of determining what the given halakhah is. Plus, a few words of appreciation in memory of Rabbi Raymond Harari z"l.

How to handle inheritance - with oral designation as a gift, and not as "inheritance." Including the question of when one must stipulate that a gift is indeed a gift in the statement of establishing a gift (beginning, middle, or end of the giving). Also, a dispute among 3 Amoraim -- when or whether giving a gift in place of "inheritance" would be effective. Plus, how that kind of gift can be reapportioned to others. Also, when one rethinks a statement with legal consequences, one can recant -- if one does so in a very speedy manner: fundamentally, "within the initial statement."

This daf presents 7 queries about some quirky cases that were sent by Rabbi Abba to Rav Yosef Bar Chama [Who's Who: Rav Yosef bar Chama and also Rabbi Abba, in which the halakhah is decided in accord with Rabbi Abba, in the end of it all. Cases include both details about inheritance as well as other legal issues pertaining to one's standing.

How the laws pertaining to a "Tumtum" affect his ability to inherit the double portion. This status has all kinds of implications to other areas of halakhah that pertain to males -- including the timing of brit milah, including the impurity that attaches to a mother after giving birth. Also, a question was sent to Shmuel: When a person has knowledge that he is the first-born, and his father says that someone else is the first-born -- does the father's statement hold sway or not? (it's a machloket)

More on the double portion inherited by the first-born. What happens if the first-born renounces the extra part of his double portion, so that he ends up with a comparable inheritance to other brothers? Rav Pappa and Rav Pappi (yes) both weigh in, based on inference. Plus, an actual case that came before Rava adjudication. Also, a new mishnah! Namely, if the father attempts to decree a different kind of inheritance division than that which is established in the Torah - it won't work. Maybe if he reapportioned his property via gifting, but not inheritance. Plus, the question: first-born to whom? How do the different parents make a difference in this regard?

Different views from the sages in Nehardea, in the land of Israel, and elsewhere - with the dispute over whether the payment of a debtor returning the loan of a parent who has died is divided into a double portion for the eldest son. The crux of the matter seems to be whether the payment is in land or in cash - but that distinction is probed and found to be difficult. Also, when there's a great-grandmother (yes) and a great-granddaughter who dies before she inherits -- should her husband inherit from the great-grandmother because he would have inherited from his wife? (But would he have done so?)

A beraita (Tosefta) presents the idea of enhancement to the property that takes place after the death of the father - for which the first-born does not get the double-portion. But that's a point that needs refinement. It may depend who made those improvements. Plus, the question of who pays the father's debt - that is, as a double portion, or not? Also, more on the first-born not taking a double-portion when a loan was returned to the estate. But who supports that view?

On the double-portion for the first-born. And the various ways that can play out. Plus, going back to the biblical treatment of the double portions. Also, a good deal of commentary on the story of Jacob, Leah, and Rachel. And also the story of the 70 persons of Jacob's family who went down to to Egypt, and the concern that counting out the family members totals 69. How to find the 70th?

How DID the divide the land of Israel in the time of Joshua? Was it divided according to tribe? Or per capita? (We recommend googling for a map) Also, a new mishnah! On how a son and a daughter both inherit according to the laws of inheritance, and the differences between the way they inherit, including from each parent. But the mishnah is formulated in a difficult way, and the Amoraim work hard to make sense of it.

A side-step away from the laws of inheritance, to address the nature of the 15th of Av and also Yom Kippur. Which of course leads back to the daughters of Tzlofchad and the matter of marrying only within their own tribe. Plus, events that are attributed to taking place on Tu B'Av -- and a review of the story of Beitar. Also, 7 people whose lives overlapped and thereby cover the entirety of Jewish history.

Starting with some aggadah - a miracle that was done for the daughters of Tzlofchad that parallels the miracle done for Yocheved: bearing children "older," but really older. And the Gemara does the math for us -- and explains the miracle of her returned youth in detail. Also, shifting focus back to the daughters of Tzlofchad and the order of their names in the Torah -- once for their age order and once for their measures of wisdom. Plus, the exhortation that they marry people who are suitable for them.

More Tzlofchad, his inheritance (including a double portion), and his daughters. Plus, Shimon HaShikmoni weighs in to say that Moses always knew the daughters were going to inherit from their father, and the real underlying question was whether they were going to inherit the double portion. Also, a long list of the positive attributes of the daughters of Tzlofchad, and why the sages may have spent the time to list off their wonderful traits. Plus, recognition of Yocheved.

Presenting several of the six questions on how the land was divided when the Children of Israel came to the land of Israel -- from Rav Pappa to Abaye. Also, as an interruption to those six cases, an interlude that pays attention to the righteous conduct of Yehoshua (Joshua) and Kalev (Caleb) who inherited the portions of the land of the other spies (who spoke ill of the land). Plus, an example of the premise that biblical verses are interpreted to teach different things when they otherwise might be seen to be redundant.

Beginning with a new mishnah on the previous daf! On the daughters of Tzlofchad and their inheritance of their father's portion of the land of Israel. The Gemara shifts the discussion to be about Tzlofchad's double portion -- and whether the daughters would inherit that double portion as well. Also, a deeper dive into the way the land of Israel was apportioned to those of the Children of Israel who entered the land. Plus, how those divisions might apply to kohanim, and the practice of implementing the biblical text.

More on inheritance - with a harsh pronouncement: a man who dies without sons is reflecting God's wrath. Plus, the story of R. Yochanan, who focused on the inheritance in students, because he himself had lost 10 sons. As well as R. Yehoshua ben Levi's special effort to pay a shiva visit/ condolence call to those who died without sons. Also, the hierarchy or priority of heirs, and how that is passed on to the next heirs as well.

A new mishnah! On the order of inheritance, including the portion each receives (or doesn't) -- prioritizing sons over daughters, not surprisingly (and the descendants of the relative who takes priority takes priority over other relatives). The textual support or this rationale is a careful inference from the biblical text. Plus, a key historical question about whether the 10 Tribes that were exiled were still around to inherit. Also, a difference of interpretation over who should interpret between the Pharisees and the Sadducees -- wherein the Pharisees reject the Sadducees' so-called halakhah. Specifically, with regard to individual designation of heirs. Plus, the tidbit that King Shapur refers to the prophet Shmuel.

When can the respective parties renege on a formal act of acquisition (kinyan)? Of course, it's a machloket -- whether they can walk it back for as long as they're sitting together or whether they must still be talking about the transaction (regardless of whether they are still sitting together). Also, a woman bequeaths to her son, but doesn't inherit from her -- but this case seems redundant in the mishnah! The Gemara explains that just as the husband inherits some categories of property from his wife, but not no matter what -- so too, her son. The restating of the case specifies that the son too doesn't inherit from his mother's posthumously acquired property.

How a husband has the right to inherit from his wife. Plus, identifying the players of the biblical genealogies of yesterday's daf. Also, a discussion of whether the time of death has implications for the inheritance (spoiler: it doesn't). Plus, a visit to an ill person -- by 3 or 2 people, who can either make a court for him, or simply witness a will.

When interpreting a verse from genealogies in the Book of Chronicles becomes an essential point to the laws of inheritance -- when the son, Yair, had cities (read: land) that his father Seguv seems not to have had. So the inference is that Yair inherited from his mother. Also, the Gemara goes back to the cases of a woman who inherits from her father and has to marry within the same tribe... which complicates matters immeasurably, especially if and when the likely case is that the parents are not necessarily from the same tribe.

With many topics on this daf… the case of a son and a daughter inheriting their mother's estate, with the debate over the son's precedence. With a lot of discussion about who agrees with whom. Note the 2 Rav Huna's. Plus, the cloak of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia - which brings us back to the son/daughter inheritance question. Also, the question of a woman inheriting from her husband (she doesn't), even though the husband inheriting from the wife is a given (with proof from the daughters of Tzlofchad, again).

A discourse on the families in the Torah -- including the children of Aaron, with regard to establishing the laws of inheritance. Also, back to halakhah - where sons inherit their father's estate, and the debate over whether daughters should be inheriting in the same measure as sons, and how the daughters of Tzlofchad prove to the contrary.

A person's son is considered to be his primary son, and not even the deceased's father, but the father may precede the deceased's daughter. Which raises the question whether the father should take precedence over the son too. Plus the question of the paternal uncle. Also, delving into the biblical text establishing these ties of kinship - including establishing the father's side of the family as "family" (but the mother's side is also called "family"). Plus, the tricky issue of naming people who are not in a given tribe by the name of that tribe (e.g., Levi and Yehudah).

A new chapter! With an introduction to the basis of the laws of inheritance. Including the rules of the first-born, and referring to the daughters of Tzlofchad. The first mishnah gives the list of who inherits and bequeaths to each other, who inherits but doesn't bequeath, doesn't inherit, but does bequeath, and neither. The Gemara wants to address the order of these cases -- including the fact that the sages did not want to begin the mishnah with calamity. Plus, cases reminiscent of Yevamot with cases of yibum and inheritance.

A case of a debtor coming to collect a deceased father's debt from one of two brothers who had divided their father's estate: is the brother who covered the debt left high and dry or do they redistribute the entirety of the estate? Also, what do judges do when they are in the process of appraising and distributing property for orphans, and they disagree about the appraisal? Plus, what happens when a seller sells half a field without specifying which portion? Or specifying inexactly? Also, how a fence should be set up to divide that land.

A new mishnah! On the sale of a field with demarcations of the property, where the buyer can hold the seller to those specifications, with a one-sixth margin of error (give or take, which is the bulk of the discussion). Plus, whether one-sixth exactly should be treated as more or less than one-sixth, which are respectively defined with halakhic conclusions. Also, the case of brothers who drew lots to determine the portions each received of their inheritance. With parallels to the division of the land of Israel among the 12 tribes, under the guidance of the Urim ve-Turim -- but there's no reason to think the brothers' decision would be contested, which is an easier lottery, such as it was.

A new mishnah! (from 104) With a case of contradictory measurements (specific and approximate), which is a complication for an effective sale - the one nullifies the other. Plus, a story that took place in the Galil - with the rental of a place for the year, 1 gold dinar per month. But then the year was declared a leap year - with an extra month. Should that be paid for as an independent month or divide it so that the 12 dinars of the year are spread out? Also, the language of a coin (istera) that's worth 96 copper coins vs. the language of 100 copper coins - which calls on the buyers and sellers to be precise - and yet people are often imprecise in exactly this kind of transaction. So the Gemara addresses which is meant when the vagaries of expression are in place. And it uses the leap year rental as a proof -- except not quite.

Interactions between buyer and seller - when a seller gives the buyer and advantage, for the portion of land being sold. In whose favor are the adjustments for the buyer or seller? It seems the seller wins out - in that he cannot be compelled to sell.... or so it would seem. Based on the costs of the land. Plus, the amount of land that is a minimum for the sowing of the given measure of seed could lead to a surplus of land that can be returned to the seller.

Beginning a new chapter - with a new mishnah. Namely, if one sells a field that has crevices or rocks of 10 handbreadths of depth or height, respectively - those areas are not included in the amount of land sold (a minimum of which is to plant a basic minimum of seed). And another new mishnah too, with specifics of a contract and their implications brought to practice.

More on the spacing of found buried bodies - and when the presumption is that you have found an ancient burial ground, based on the spacing (depending on the dispute with regard to burial details). Also, a dispute between the sages and R. Shimon in the mishnah vs. that of both sides in the baraita. Plus, the contrast to a burial ground and a vineyard, in terms of proximity.

Beginning with a mishnah on 100 -- about the structure of catacombs: family burial places carved into the recesses of a wall, and the specifics of the dimensions required for them. The Gemara delves into the spacing of niches for burial coming off chambers, including what direction to place the body. Also, the question of coming across a buried body - or two, and how to ascertain whether they are buried in the way of Jewish burial. When it comes to three bodies buried in that way, the question of moving the bodies for reburial is more complicated.

More on the definitions of a thoroughfare -- specifically, a private path. Is it measured in cubits or by use? Note: "Dayanei Golah" - the judges of the Diaspora, who weigh in on the width of a private path. With prooftexts for why a public thoroughfare is the width it is in comparison to other roads, likewise the king's road, and the cemetery road. Also, a ceremony that took place on the cemetery road - now with the judges from Tzipori. With details as to how it was done: who would be there, when, and where.

All you want to know about the cherubim/keruvim, and then some (because of there's dispute). What is their wingspan? What are their positions? Which way are they facing? Plus, 3 mishnayot: Beginning with the location of one home that had a cistern on the other side of another party's home. Also, the various ownership of property, from private to public to the king's road to that of a graveyard.

2 mishnayot! First, wine that goes sour is not the seller's responsibility, unless he knew it would sour. Plus other cases where it turns out that the seller is in fact responsible (e.g., if he brags about how great the wine is before the sale and then it goes bad). Also, the difference between "old wine" and "aged wine" and "cooking wine," in terms of caliber. Second, in the event of building a small home, with modeling on the Beit HaMikdash. Plus, mention of the Wisdom of Ben Sira.

Wine that is produced by pouring water over leaves (shemarim) that are terumah - the first 2 pourings are considered terumah still, but by the third, it loses that standing, unless it still has the taste of wine. That question of "taste" carries many ramifications as well. Also, to be able to make kiddush on "wine," the wine itself has to be eligible for libations on the altar.

More on wine that may have become vinegar - this case, in a barrel from which terumot and ma'aserot may have been taken. Does the barrel turn from the top or from the bottom? What if the liquid smells of vinegar, but tastes of wine? How to determine thee time of the turning? Also, more on the suitable use of the generic "Shehakol" blessing, as compared to "Borei Pri HaGefen" blessing - for various beverages.

A seller of wine selling a cellar of wine - where the difference between a barrel vs. the stock carries real implications for the shift from wine to vinegar being an issue for the sale. Also, when wine is sold in a store, the blessing over it should be the one for wine (Borei Pri HaGefen). But there is a risk of the wine becoming vinegar - and when it's turning, or turned, it should get the more generic "Shehakol" blessing.

More on the dispute between Rav and Shmuel - on whether the seller owes the buyer the value of the error in the event that the merchandise sold was not as it should have been. Also, the saga of fighting camels - where the original owner might be liable for the loss of one of them. Plus, the question of the application of the concepts of "rov" and "chazakah" in establishing whether there was an error in the sale. Also, does the seller of defunct seeds need to pay for the loss of the seeds, or also pay for all the expenses that went into planting the seeds?

Note: We had some technical difficulties with the recording of this episode and apologize for the choppiness at the end of the recording.

Beginning chapter 6 - with a new mishnah. One who sells produce that is sometimes used for eating and sometimes for planting -- what happens if the buyer plants the item and it doesn't grow? What if one sells an ox and it turns out to be a gorer? When is the seller responsible for the dud of the sale? Plus, when does the issue of "rov" - the majority, especially in terms of expectations - kick in, especially since it's rarely applied in the context of monetary dealings.

In the middle of 7 beraitot -- the last of which addresses increases to the cost of wheat, and then the Gemara turns to Megillat Ruth. Specifically, can you find wheat to purchase? If so, there's a dispute whether you can leave the land of Israel. Think of the family of Naomi, who left the land of Israel for Moab, because of a famine in that generation. Plus, all of the arrangements that needed to have been made for Ruth to end up with Boaz -- meaning, a good thing (that couple) that comes from bad things (the respective spouses' deaths, for example), which is theologically troubling. Also, another consideration of when one is allowed to leave the land of Israel - in terms of economics, again. Plus, Rabbi Yochanan's recollections, including of a time when the costs were down, but people still didn't have money for food.

A given town has limits on how much it can increase the size of its measures. If the rationale is to avoid inflation, then why increase at all? Perhaps it's a concern of "ona'ah" - defrauding either party - but the Gemara rejects that as a concern too. And so on, for a few attempts. Plus, the use of verses to establish the adjustments to weights and measures. Also, people who hold onto produce as a matter of hoarding, usurers, and those who mess with their weights and measures - all of whom are treated by the law as not great, deceitful categories of people. Plus, a differences in marketplace practices by Shmuel and his father, to make sure the price there isn't driven up.

Further discussion of the laws that pertain weights and measures, with a mnemonic to help them remember 11 beraitot, all pertaining to weights and measures, including those pertaining to the norms of the given place. For example, whether a serving might be flat or level, as compared to rounded or heaping. Plus, a caution against using "large" or "small" weights, with the goal, of course, against preventing cheating. Plus, punishments for those who messed with weighs and measures. Also, the injunction against metal weights and measures, and uneven levels, and less precise pacing for leveling the goods. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai wasn't sure whether he should teach all of these halakhot in public - lest they teach the dishonest people how to be dishonest. But if he didn't teach them, what would that imply about the Torah and the knowledge of the Torah scholars?

A new mishnah! (the last of the chapter) -- on the upkeep of weights and measures. That is, wiping them clean, specifically those that are used for wet goods. Also, a question of ethical importance as determined by one's honesty in weights and measures -- supported by textual nuance. Plus, why it is that dishonesty in weights and measures is so bad.

2 mishnayot! First: The case of someone who sells food and drink -- that is, oil and wine -- and the price rises or falls, and the seller or the buyer wants to renege, it depends where in the process of pouring it out for the buyer whether each can renege. If a middleman is responsible for the commodity, and a barrel of the goods breaks, he is responsible to cover the loss. Plus, the dripping of 3 extra drops, after the seller has transferred the buyer's purchase to him. Also, the second mishnah: Someone sends a minor son to buy oil with the particular coin to make the purchase - the kid loses the change and breaks the flask of oil, and it's a dispute whether the storekeeper is liable or not. Because wasn't it the father's goal for the storekeeper to give the child the oil and change? Or was that the storekeeper's independent decision?

The daf describes how kinyan meshicha works and questions if it an alternative to hagbaha or only done when hagbaha cannot be performed

A baraita with the 4 different methods by which a buyer can acquire merchandise -- for example, dry good. That is, until the measuring cup (as it were) is filled, as per their terms, at which point, the seller cannot renege. If the buyer owns that vessel, however, then the buyer takes full possession from the time that the good reach the vessel. Plus, what happens if the goods are deposited with a guardian or custodian? When does the transfer of ownership occur? Also, the search for a parallel question of acquisition conundrums, which leads to Gittin - bills of divorce. But the Gemara concludes that the bills of divorce are not actually a good parallel case.

The daf has a discussion about the color of the sun based off the mishnah’s halacha about white and red wheat. A new mishnah discusses the sale of fruit and flax.

A series of (fun) questions about the trees, the land, and the purchasing thereof. Including details of the distances between the trees and the implications of that. Also, a new mishnah, in 2 parts: 1: Selling animal body parts and when other pieces (and what pieces) are thought to be included by default (or specifically not, as the case may be). 2: Selling one item as a deliverable, but what is delivered is something else (wine vs. vinegar, for example). Which leads into when one may renege on a deal - because the deal is not being upheld.

When one owns trees in the middle of another's property, how is growth on the tree ascribed to either owner (new branches, new roots)? What if there's water and sediment and other debris covering the roots? Note: 3 trees together in another person's property is sufficient for the tree-owner to own the land their rooted in as well. Also, trees must be between 4 and 8 amot apart for these details to apply. Or was that between 8 and 16 amot? (it's a machloket) Noting that planting in the space between can be permitted or a violation of "mixtures" -- kilayim -- depending on how far apart the trees are.

The daf discussed the sale if tree, if the land is included and does the owner bring bikkurim form these trees. How to bring bikkurim is a machloket between Rabbi Meir and the Chachamim

A new mishnah! If you buy the "fruits" of a dovecoat, or of a beehive, or even honeycomb, then the "first fruits" of each of them need to be left for the seller to bring in offering. The mishnah specifies what measure of each is necessary. Also, if you buy the honeycombs of a beehive, you need to leave 2 of them behind for the bees. Plus, a discourse on the unique properties of honey as food -- that comes from a non-kosher animal, no less -- as well as a discussion of the nature of the beehive as a kind of property.

Two new mishnayot! First - When it comes to selling a donkey, what gear, if any, is included as a default? The answer may depend on whether donkeys were primarily used for riding or as pack animals. Second - second other animals... Plus, the question of selling a donkey with its foal (vs. a cow with its calf).

Indebtedness, and how transfer happens. Plus, when and how one can rescind with regard to the given transaction. Also, how movable property is acquired together with land. Plus, how a sale can be effected even via the transfer of a document, depending on the connection with land. Plus, defining "antiki" and why it's not part of a default sale if not stipulated. And... a new mishhnah! When one makes an offer for an item, what things are NOT included with that attempt to purchase? Sometimes, the sum that is offered reveals the thinking of the purchaser, but the sages say that may not matter.

How do you acquire a boat? It's a debate between Rav and Shmuel, even after they try to draw the parallel to the acquisition of a large animal and the "pulling" that is effective in that case. In this context, Rabbi Natan raises the discussion of letters - and the Gemara fills in the details about documentation in the transfer of ship ownership. Also, what are the details that are essential for transfer of ownership to take place? Is a document enough? Is a transfer of a document enough? A dispute between Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi and the sages.

More on the Leviathan. Among other details, the Leviathan can boil the water of the ocean. Also, it's very smelly. Also, -- all of which details have prooftexts, especially from the Book of Job, to back them up. Plus, a discussion of glory of the Leviathan and its benefits for the righteous. [Where's Where: Tzipori] Plus, a description of Jerusalem as part of the World to Come. Also, back to halakhah... Buying a ship, which is a "movable" item - which requires a formal proprietary act of acquisition. How far would one need to move it for that movement to count as your taking possession of the ship?

More of the dramatic, fantastical, fascinating passages. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua traveled by ship - and they see a great light in the sea, which opens up a discussion about the Leviathan. Likewise, another trip, this time with apparent magic happening to the meat from which they had cut out the sciatic nerve, and the apparent magic that happens on that spot even a year later. Also, a deep focus on the Leviathan, male and female, as well as its placement in this chapter of Bava Batra.

Chapter 5! A new mishnah -- with a shift to a discussion of movable property, and what is included in their sales. For example, what is included in the sale of a ship (when the formality does not stipulate: "and everything that is within it"). Also, the voyages of Rabbah bar bar Chana -- which go beyond a traveler's account to mystical teachings/ experiences.

Rav Huna on consecrating a field - where he says one does not take possession, in accord with Rabbi Akiva. But then the Gemara lines of Rav Huna's view with that of Rabbi Shimon, which seems to not actually follow the view of Rabbi Akiva. Or can you align them after all? The question hinges on the consecration of trees with or without the land around them. Plus, how to redeem trees from the Temple treasury -- and what to do about people's "ancestral land"? Also, another passage in the name of Rav Huna - on what accompanies the transfer of ownership when property is consecrated, but not as default accompanying items. Plus, the question of whether a grafted carob tree or trimmed sycamore tree would be consecrated like land or like trees.

A new mishnah! More on what's not included - and what happens when the transfer of ownership is not via a sale, but other means, such as a gift. Plus, what if the main property (for example, a field) is sold to one party and the not included items are sold to someone else? Also, what IS the difference between a sale and a gift? The Gemara offers several suggestions, from the stipulations regarding not-included property to the generosity presumed to be the intention of a gift. [Who's Who: Rabbi Yehudah ben Nekosa]

More on the trees -- selling fields and trees (if the tree is grafted or cut). Addressing the parameters of the cases presented, and how expansive the details listed are. Also, the case of one who uses a document to establish another party as a guardian for one's items. What happens when that guardian claims he has returned the items -- and the owner says he hasn't received them and the document remains in full standing. Plus, the Nehardeans do things differently - again.

The Gemara doing what the Gemara does - fleshing out details of the mishnah. For example, the mishnah says "produce that's attached to the ground," and the gemara explains: even if it was already ready to be harvested. Ditto for the watch station. Also, when one sells a field when there are trees (of various kinds) in the field - the buyer acquires the trees regardless, but the details should be specified.

Two mishnah. The first describes which items are included in the sale of a city? The daf discusses the definition of one of the items mentioned in the mishnah and what does this mean about what the Rabbis in Bavel knew about life in the time of the Mishnah. The second mishnah discusses the sale of a field.

3 mishnayot! Each about selling different properties, where the details of the sale are not specified. First, a courtyard. (if the details are specified, or if the seller says: "I'm selling you everything that is therein," then those sales are simpler, as per the stipulation). Second, an olive press, and third, a bath house. Without specification, the attached portions are all part of the sale, and the movable items are not.

Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree if a once completed utensil then attached to the ground is considered part of the land. The Gemara discusses some ranging cases through the lens if this disagreement ranging from beehives to the susceptibility of food becoming impure.

More on the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the sages - who, with several cases. For example, what happens when a property is given to two different people, and neither has access to pass through the other's portion. Plus, the difference between a sale and a gift -- where the dispute whether a sale is "generous" does not apply to gifts, because it's accepted as a given that the gift with generosity. Also, a new mishnah! One who sells the door to one's home together with the house - but not the key to that door -- how does that work?! The Gemara then attempts to determine whether this mishnah is in accord with Rabbi Meir's approach or not.

More on the cistern, and how it's not necessarily included in the sale of the house - again, without specifying its inclusion. But how will the buyer get there? Perhaps by purchasing a right-of-way to get there, but it's a machloket. Which leads into another key machloket - between Rabbi Akiva and the sages, whether one sells "generously" or "sparingly" - what is included in that which is not stipulated? Or one of several other possible points of dispute.

When one stipulates that another should get a portion of one's property - but without stipulating how much property - the Gemara establishes the minimums of how much is given. Also, when one sells a house with depth and height o the structure identified, the ground and air rights are only included when one adds - from the depths to the sky.

The daf includes visual aids to determine the boundaries of sales that account for division of property, and who owns what where, in relation to the boundaries. Also, Rabbah's precise language that leads to practical differences in the sales, with Abaye's questioning whether those differences are different enough after all.

A new chapter - with a new mishnah! If you sell a house without specifying that attachments or annexes to the house are included in the sale, then they are not included. The Gemara addresses these "attachments" and what happens when they are cisterns, for example, of a size of 4 amot - because smaller than 4 amot would be included in the sale, according to Mar Zutra.

2 new mishnayot: The openings one cannot make in one's home that is on a courtyard - especially when facing other homes openings, in contrast to facing the public domain. Similarly, one cannot dig under the courtyard or road - unless it's clearly strong enough to support a wagon that is heavily laden with stones. Also, shifting from "building code" to external signs of mourning, in recognition of the building that was destroyed, namely, the Second Temple. Including the proper way of mourning, such that it should be meaningful, but not going so far that the community wouldn't be able to do it.

If one opens a window lower than 4 amot, and the neighbors don't protest, then the one who did so can keep it, as a chazakah. A high window, however, doesn't get the status of chazakah, because it's not the kind of thing that people protested - except that R. Ilai disagrees. Which some say means not permitting one to protest for the sake of not being too selfish, like the traits of the biblical Sodom. Also, a new mishnah! On the airspace of a shared courtyard - for example, a beam that reaches into the courtyard, which will establish ownership if it's not protested. Plus, another mishnah, with more on what is permissible in a home on a shared courtyard -- for example, opening a loft into a home, but not into the courtyard.

More on Rabbi Benaya, including a visit to the Cave of Machpelah, and an encounter with Abraham, Sarah, and more... Also, a return to the discussion of chazakah, and the fact that a spout (as of a gutter) does not establish a chazakah. Plus, the difference between the Egyptian and Tyrian ladders and windows, with regard to what establishes the presumption of ownership, and what does not.

A new mishnah! Listing what does work for chazakah (yes, really) and what does not. Also, how residents on a courtyard can protest and prevent activities in the courtyard, except for laundry, which the Jewish women did "at home." [Who's Who: Rabbi Benaya]. How long should men's garments be? The tunic? The overcloak? Plus, the expectation of orderliness and presentation of a Torah scholar.

How do false witnesses pay back the owner of a field? To prove chazakah does one require one set of witnesses for all three years or different sets of witnesses first different periods of time that add up to three year? The answer to this question is a makhloket Chachamim and Rabbi Akiva.

More on "dina de-malchuta" -- including the exilarch, Jewish ruler of the Jews in Babylonia, who quotes the sage, Shmuel, regarding the law of the land and chazakah. Also, planting a boundary between fields, and how that has impact on Pe'ah.

If a person removes branches from a palm tree for the sake of improving the tree, that might be well enough to acquire the tree. How he removes the branches likely provides information as to his intent. With parallels to flattening a heap, with intent to improve. Also, property that belongs to a non-Jew, in contrast to that which belongs to a Jew -- and how the law of the land applies to Jews as well as Halakhah does, including the requirement for a document to bring about a transfer of property. As an event in Dura demonstrates.

How breaching a wall can be sufficient to take possession. Plus, when one moves stones to benefit the land - that can also be a chazakah. Also, one who builds palaces on the property of a convert who died without heirs, and someone else comes along and puts the doors on the palaces, and thereby achieves the presumption of ownership. Plus, one who does any of the activities that a slave might do for a master - functions for the master to take possession, such as it is, of the slave.

Neither father nor son can take possession of the other's property via chazakah. The question is in the case that they are separated in some way that means the father is no longer financially responsible for the son. Also, the difference between using a chazakah for ownership, which is not the case for gift-giving. Plus, a revision of the text of the mishnah. Which helps us understand various aspects or even kinds of chazakah.

Can a wife buy a property from her husband? Is that a valid sale? What is the property is given as a gift? What does the daf mean when it talks about hidden money

Ways in which a husband attempting to take ownership of his wife's property won't work. The Gemara continues to address the peculiarities of this dynamic (attempted sales between husband and wife). Plus, Ameimar on "m'log" property. Also, doesn't a married woman have to protest her husband's attempted possession of the property (in which case, doesn't he acquire it)? But there's no chazakah with regard to a married woman. Also, no chazakah via damage.

A husband cannot establish a presumption of ownership regarding his wife's property - nor a wife regarding her husband's. Which makes sense given the usual terms of rights in marriage, but even if he has foresworn those rights. Also, if there's proof of a sale, then he would take ownership of her property -- unless she then protests (possibly in contrast to Rav Huna and valid sales under duress). The ketubah itself can stipulate ownership too.