POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Bava Basra 136
BAVA BASRA 136 (25 Av)- dedicated by Mrs. G. Kornfeld for the second
of her mother, Mrs. Gisela Turkel (Golda bas Chaim Yitzchak Ozer), an
exceptional woman with an iron will who loved and respected the study of
1) DOCUMENTS THAT TAKE EFFECT AFTER DEATH
(a) (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If one wants to write his
property to his children (e.g. before he marries a woman,
so they will receive it after he dies, she will not be
able to collect her Kesuvah from it) he must write 'From
today and after I die';
2) IS OWNING THE PRODUCE LIKE OWNING THE PROPERTY?
(b) R. Yosi says, he need not write this.
(c) If one wrote his property to his son (for after his
death), the father may not sell it because he already
wrote it to the son; the son may not sell it because (the
produce) still belongs to the father.
1. If the father sold it, the buyer may use it until
the father dies; if the son sold it, the buyer does
not receive anything until the son dies.
(d) (Gemara) Question: Even if he writes 'From today and
after I die', why does it help?
1. (Mishnah): 'This is your Get from today and after I
die' - she is doubtfully divorced; if he died
without children, she does Chalitzah, she may not do
(e) Answer: There, we are unsure if he intended to make a
condition (this is your Get from today, on condition that
I die (from this sickness)), or if he originally wanted
the Get to take effect from today, and retracted, and
said '(no, rather) after I die';
1. Here, we are sure that he wants the son to receive
permanent rights to the property from today, and to
receive the produce after the father's death.
(f) (Mishnah): R. Yosi says, he need not write this.
(g) Question (Rav Nachman): Does the Halachah follow R. Yosi?
(h) Answer (Rabah bar Avuha): Yes.
(i) (Rav Huna): R. Yosi's reason is that the date on a
document proves that it should take effect (at least
partially, i.e. regarding permanent rights to the
property) from that day.
(j) Support (Beraisa -R. Yosi): He need not write this,
because the date on a document proves that it should take
effect from that day.
(k) Version #1 - Question (Rava): What is the law regarding a
Hakna'ah document (it says that an acquisition (Chalipin)
was done - does R. Yehudah admit that it need not say
'From today and after I die')?
(l) Answer (Rav Nachman): He agrees, it need not say this
(because the acquisition took place today).
(m) (Rav Papa): Some Hakna'ah documents must say this, others
1. If it says 'Aknei u'Kanina Minei' - Aknei means that
the witnesses acquired for him, u'Kanina is an extra
language to show that the giver wants the
acquisition to take effect immediately, therefore it
need not say 'From today and after I die';
(n) Question (R. Chanina of Sura): Most Chachamim do not know
the difference between these languages, do the scribes
2. If it says 'Kanina Minei v'Aknei', Aknei merely
explains that Kanina Minei was an acquisition - if
it does not say 'From today and after I die', it is
like a document after death (it is invalid).
1. They asked the scribes of Abaye and Rava - they knew
(o) (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): Whether it says 'Aknei
u'Kanina Minei' or 'Kanina Minei v'Aknei', it need not
say 'From today and after I die';
1. R. Yehudah and R. Yosi argue about documents that do
not mention an acquisition.
(p) Version #2 - Rav Zvid of Neharda'a: Rava taught (like Rav
Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua) in the name of Rav Nachman.
(a) (R. Yochanan): If the son sold the property and then he
died in the father's lifetime, the buyer never gets it
(we will explain why);
(b) (Reish Lakish): The buyer gets it (after the father
(c) R. Yochanan says that the buyer never gets it - he holds
that owning the produce is like owning the property (the
son never properly owned it, therefore the buyer does not
(d) Reish Lakish says that the buyer gets it - owning the
produce is not like owning the property.
(e) Question: They argued about this elsewhere!
1. (R. Yochanan): If one sold his land for a limited
amount of time, the buyer brings Bikurim and reads
(f) Answer: R. Yochanan had to teach here that the buyer does
not get it;
2. (Reish Lakish) The buyer brings Bikurim but does not
read the declaration;
i. R. Yochanan says that he reads the declaration
- owning the produce is like owning the
property, he can thank Hash-m for "Ha'Adamah
Asher Nasatah Li";
ii. Reish Lakish says that he cannot say this,
because owning the produce is not like owning
1. Even though normally, owning the produce is like
owning the property, one might have thought that a
father (even when he retains the produce) concedes
full ownership to the son, and the son's sale stands
- R. Yochanan teaches, this is not so.
(g) Question (R. Yochanan - Beraisa): 'My property is (given)
to you (Shimon), and after you (die) Ploni will inherit,
and after him Almoni' - after Shimon dies, Ploni
acquires; after Ploni dies, Almoni acquires;
2. Also, Reish Lakish had to teach here that the buyer
3. Even though normally, owning the produce is not like
owning the property, one might have thought that a
person always favors himself (even against his son),
when he retains the produce, he also keeps full
ownership, and the son's sale is void - Reish Lakish
teaches, this is not so.
1. If Ploni died before Shimon, when Shimon dies it
goes to Shimon's heirs.
(h) Answer (Reish Lakish): R. Hoshaya answered, the law is
different when he says 'After you...', this language
2. Summation of question: If owning the produce is not
like owning the property, Shimon never really owned
it, it should go to the heirs of the giver!
shows that he wants each recipient to get full ownership.
(i) Rabah bar Rav Huna asked similarly of Rav, Rav answered
as R. Hoshaya.
(j) Contradiction (Beraisa): If Ploni died before Shimon,
when Shimon dies it goes to the heirs of the giver.
(k) Answer: Tana'im argue whether or not 'After you' is