בבא בתרא דף קמה

״תנו לי בעלי ואשמח עמו״. הכא נמי, נימא: ״תנו לי שושביני ואשמח עמו״!

Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him, i.e., it is not my fault that we are not getting married, she is not required to return the betrothal money. Here too, let him say: Give me my groomsman and I will rejoice with him.

אמר רב יוסף: הכא במאי עסקינן – כגון ששמח עמו שבעה ימי משתה, ולא הספיק לפורעו עד שמת.

Rav Yosef said: With what are we dealing here? Shmuel’s statement is referring to a case where the original recipient, in reciprocation, rejoiced with the brother who brought the gifts of groomsmen during the seven days of the wedding feast, but did not suffice to repay him before the brother died. Since it was the usual practice to send the gifts of groomsmen after the groomsman rejoiced with the betrothed man for seven days, he is obligated to reciprocate the gifts of groomsmen, and the yavam cannot claim them for himself.

לימא ״תנו לי בעלי ואשמח עמו״ – תנאי היא? דתניא: המארס את האשה; בתולה – גובה מאתים, ואלמנה – מנה. מקום שנהגו להחזיר קדושין – מחזירין,

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Shmuel’s statement that a betrothed woman can claim: Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him, is a dispute between tanna’im? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who betrothed a woman and then he divorces her or dies, if she is a virgin, she collects two hundred dinars in payment of her marriage contract. And if she is a widow, she collects one hundred dinars. In a place where people were accustomed to return the betrothal money when the betrothed man or woman died, they return it. In a place where people were accustomed not to return the betrothal money, they do not return it. This is the statement of Rabbi Natan. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Actually they said: In a place where people were accustomed to return it, they return it; in a place where people were accustomed not to return it, they do not return it.

מקום שנהגו שלא להחזיר קדושין – אין מחזירין, דברי רבי נתן. רבי יהודה הנשיא אומר, באמת אמרו: מקום שנהגו להחזיר – מחזירין,

מקום שנהגו שלא להחזיר – אין מחזירין.

רבי יהודה הנשיא היינו תנא קמא! אלא לאו ״תנו לי בעלי ואשמח עמו״ איכא בינייהו –

The Gemara clarifies: The opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is identical to the opinion of the first tanna, i.e., Rabbi Natan. Rather, is it not that the difference between them concerns the validity of the claim: Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him?

וחסורי מחסרא, והכי קתני: המארס את האשה, בתולה – גובה מאתים, ואלמנה – מנה. במה דברים אמורים – דהדר ביה איהו; אבל מתה – מקום שנהגו להחזיר,

And the statement in the baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: With regard to one who betrothed a woman and then the betrothal is terminated, if she is a virgin, she collects two hundred dinars in payment of her marriage contract, and if she is a widow, she collects one hundred dinars. In what case is this statement said? It is said where he retracted, i.e., he died or divorced her. But with regard to where she died, the halakha is as follows: In a place where people were accustomed to return the betrothal money, they return it; in a place where people were accustomed not to return the betrothal money, they do not return it. And this applies specifically to where she died; but if he died, they do not return it. What is the reason for this? It is because she can say: Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him. This is the statement of Rabbi Natan.

מחזירין; מקום שנהגו שלא להחזיר, אין מחזירין. ודוקא שמתה היא, אבל מת הוא – אין מחזירין. מאי טעמא? יכולה היא שתאמר: ״תנו לי בעלי ואשמח עמו״.

ואתא רבי יהודה הנשיא למימר, באמת אמרו: בין מת הוא, ובין מתה היא; מקום שנהגו להחזיר – מחזירין, מקום שנהגו שלא להחזיר – אין מחזירין; ולא מציא אמרה:

And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi came to say: Actually they said: Whether he died or whether she died, in a place where people were accustomed to return it, they return it; in a place where people were accustomed not to return it, they do not return it, and she cannot say: Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him.

״תנו לי בעלי ואשמח עמו״!

לא; דכולי עלמא יכולה שתאמר: ״תנו לי בעלי ואשמח עמו״. ודמית הוא – כולי עלמא לא פליגי, כי פליגי – שמתה היא; והכא בקדושין

The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, everyone agrees that she can say: Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him, and in a case where he died, everyone agrees that she does not have to return the betrothal money. They disagree in a case where she died, and here it is with regard to the question of whether betrothal money is given as a sunk cost, i.e., that it is not returned even if the betrothal is not consummated, that they disagree. Rabbi Natan holds that betrothal money is not given as a sunk cost, and in a place where people were accustomed to return it, they return it. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that betrothal money is given as a sunk cost.

לטיבועין ניתנו קא מיפלגי – רבי נתן סבר: קדושין לאו לטיבועין ניתנו, ורבי יהודה הנשיא סבר: קדושין לטיבועין ניתנו.

והא ״מקום שנהגו להחזיר מחזירין״ קתני! הכי קאמר: וסבלונות – ודאי מקום שנהגו להחזיר, מחזירין.

The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the baraita teach that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, in a place where people were accustomed to return it, they return it? This indicates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not hold that the betrothal money was given as a sunk cost. The Gemara replies: This is not referring to the betrothal money, which is not returned in any event. This is what the baraita is saying: But with regard to presents, which the betrothed man sent his betrothed following the betrothal, certainly in a place where people were accustomed to return them, they return them.

והני תנאי – כהני תנאי, דתניא: קדשה בככר – בתולה גובה מאתים, ואלמנה מנה; דברי רבי מאיר. רבי יהודה אומר: בתולה גובה מאתים,

The Gemara notes: The dispute between these tanna’im, in the following baraita, is like the dispute between those tanna’im just mentioned, as it is taught in a baraita: In a case where the man betrothed a woman with a talent of silver, equivalent to six thousand dinars, if she was a virgin she collects in payment of her marriage contract two hundred dinars over and above this amount, and if she was a widow she collects one hundred dinars over and above this amount. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: A virgin collects two hundred dinars and a widow one hundred dinars, and she returns the rest of the betrothal money to him. Rabbi Yosei says: If he betrothed her with twenty, he gives her thirty halves; if he betrothed her with thirty, he gives her twenty halves, as the Gemara will explain.

ואלמנה מנה; ומחזרת לו את השאר. רבי יוסי אומר: קדשה בעשרים – נותן לה שלשים חצאין. קדשה בשלשים – נותן לה עשרים חצאין.

במאי עסקינן? אילימא שמתה, מי אית לה כתובה?! ואלא שמת הוא – אמאי מחזרת לו את השאר? ונימא: ״תנו לי בעלי ואשמח עמו״! ואלא באשת ישראל שזינתה. ובמאי?

The Gemara clarifies the baraita: With what are we dealing? If we say the baraita is referring to when she died, is she entitled to receive payment of her marriage contract? Rather, perhaps the baraita is referring to where he died, in which case why does Rabbi Yehuda state that she returns the rest of the betrothal money to him? Let her say: Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him. Rather, perhaps the baraita is referring to the case of the wife, i.e., the betrothed, of an Israelite, who committed adultery, who cannot claim that she is available to marry her betrothed, as it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse with him. The Gemara challenges: This is also difficult, as with what circumstance is the baraita dealing? If it is referring to where she committed adultery willingly, is she entitled to receive payment of her marriage contract? Rather, it is referring to a case of rape. But in that case, she is permitted to him. Why should she return the betrothal money?

אי ברצון – מי אית לה כתובה? ואלא באונס – מישרא שריא ליה!

ואלא באשת כהן שנאנסה, ובקדושין לטיבועין ניתנו קמיפלגי – רבי מאיר סבר: קדושין לטיבועין ניתנו, ורבי יהודה סבר: לאו לטיבועין ניתנו. ורבי יוסי – מספקא ליה אי לטיבועין

Rather, the baraita is referring to the wife, i.e., the betrothed, of a priest, who was raped and is prohibited from engaging in intercourse with her betrothed. She therefore cannot claim: Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him, yet she is entitled to receive payment of her marriage contract, and the tanna’im disagree with regard to whether betrothal money is given as a sunk cost: Rabbi Meir holds that betrothal money is given as a sunk cost. Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is not given as a sunk cost. And Rabbi Yosei is uncertain if it is given as a sunk cost or not.

ניתנו אי לא,

והלכך קדשה בעשרים – נותן לה שלשים חצאין. קדשה בשלשים – נותן לה עשרים חצאין.

The Gemara explains Rabbi Yosei’s opinion: And since it is uncertain whether or not she is required to return the betrothal money, therefore, she returns only half the money: If he betrothed her with twenty sela, which are equivalent to eighty dinars, she owes him forty dinars. Yet, if she is widowed or divorced, she is entitled to one hundred dinars in payment of her marriage contract, so he or his estate gives her thirty halves of a sela, which are equivalent to sixty dinars, so that she receives one hundred dinars in all. If he betrothed her with thirty sela, which are equivalent to one hundred twenty dinars, she owes him sixty dinars. Since she is entitled to one hundred dinars in payment of her marriage contract, he gives her twenty halves of a sela, equivalent to forty dinars.

אמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן: בכל מקום שנהגו להחזיר – מחזירין. ותרגומא: נהרדעא. שאר בבל מאי? רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו: מוהרי הדרי,

Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Naḥman says: In every place where they were accustomed to return the betrothal money, they return it. And the interpretation of this statement is that it is referring to Neharde’a. The Gemara asks: With regard to the rest of Babylonia, what is the halakha? Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: The presents are returned and the betrothal money is not returned. Rav Pappa said: The halakha is that whether he died or whether she died or whether he retracted his agreement to the betrothal and divorced her, the presents are returned and the betrothal money is not returned. If she retracted her agreement to the betrothal and requested a divorce, even the betrothal money is returned.

קדושי לא הדרי. אמר רב פפא, הלכתא: בין שמת הוא, בין שמתה היא, והדר ביה הוא – מוהרי הדרי, קדושי לא הדרי.

הדרא בה איהי – אפילו קדושי נמי הדרי.

אמימר אמר: קדושי לא הדרי, גזירה שמא יאמרו קדושין תופסין באחותה. רב אשי אמר: גיטה מוכיח עליה. והא דרב אשי בדותא היא, דאיכא דשמע בהא ולא שמע בהא.

Ameimar said: The betrothal money is not returned. This is a rabbinic decree, lest people say that betrothal takes effect with her sister. If the betrothal money is returned, people are likely to think that the betrothal is retroactively nullified and that the man can betroth her sister, whereas in fact the betrothal was not retroactively nullified and he cannot betroth her. Rav Ashi said: Her bill of divorce proves for her that she was betrothed, so this concern is not in effect. The Gemara comments: And this statement of Rav Ashi is a mistake, since there are those who heard about this, i.e., the return of the betrothal money, but did not hear about that, i.e., the bill of divorce.

שהשושבינות נגבית בבית דין. תנו רבנן, חמשה דברים נאמרו בשושבינות: נגבית בבית דין, וחוזרת בעונתה, ואין בה משום רבית,

§ The mishna teaches: If the gifts of groomsmen are reciprocated after the father’s death, they are reciprocated to the middle, because gifts of groomsmen are a legal debt owed to the father, collectible in court. The Sages taught (Tosefta 10:8): Five statements were said with regard to gifts of groomsmen: They are collectible in court; and they are reciprocated only at their relevant time, i.e., at the time of the groomsman’s own wedding; and they are not subject to the prohibition of interest, i.e., it is permitted to reciprocate with a gift of greater value than the original gift;

ואין השביעית משמטתה, ואין הבכור נוטל בה פי שנים.

and the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate them; and the firstborn does not take a double portion of them.

נגבית בבית דין – מאי טעמא? כמלוה דמיא. ואין בה משום רבית – דלאו אדעתא דהכי יהב ליה. ואין השביעית משמטתה – דלא קרינא ביה: ״לא יגש״.

The baraita states that gifts of groomsmen are collectible in court. What is the reason for this? It is that they are considered similar to a loan. The baraita states: And they are not subject to the prohibition of interest. The reason is that it was not with that in mind that he gave him a larger gift. Rather, he did so on account of his joy at his friend’s wedding. The baraita states: And the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate them. The reason is that one cannot read the verse concerning the abrogation of debts during the occurrence of the Sabbatical Year: “He shall not exact it of his neighbor and his brother, because the Lord’s release has been proclaimed” (Deuteronomy 15:2), with regard to gifts of groomsmen. Since one cannot choose to exact the gifts until the time of one’s own wedding, they are not addressed by this verse.

ואין הבכור נוטל פי שנים – דהוה ליה ראוי, ואין הבכור נוטל בראוי כבמוחזק.

The baraita states: And the firstborn does not take a double portion from them. The reason is that they constitute potential inheritance, and the firstborn does not take in inheritance the property due the deceased as he does the property the deceased possessed.

אמר רב כהנא, כללא דשושבינותא: הוה במתא – איבעי ליה למיתא. שמע קל טבלא – איבעי ליה למיתא. לא שמע קל טבלא – איבעי ליה

§ Rav Kahana said: The principle with regard to the reciprocation of gifts of groomsmen is: If the recipient was in town when his groomsman wed, he should have come to the wedding, and even if he did not come, he is obligated to send the gifts of groomsmen. If he was not in town, but he was nearby and he heard the sound of the drum announcing the wedding, he should have come. If he was far away and did not hear the sound of the drum, the betrothed man should have informed him. If he did not inform him, the recipient has a grievance against the betrothed man because he did not inform him about the wedding, but he still repays the gifts of groomsmen.

לאודועיה; תרעומת אית ליה, שלומי משלם.

ועד כמה? אמר אביי: נהגו בני גננא, עד זוזא – אייתא בכפיה אכליה בכרסיה. עד ארבעה – משלם פלגא. מכאן ואילך – איניש איניש כחשיבותיה.

In this case, since he did not partake of the wedding feast, he is entitled to deduct a sum from the reciprocal gift. The Gemara asks: And up to how much can he deduct? Abaye said: The members of a wedding feast were accustomed to deduct according to the following principle: If the gift of groomsmen that the reciprocal giver received was up to a dinar, he now pays nothing, because what a person brings in his hand he consumes in his stomach. If the gift of groomsmen was up to four dinars, he now pays half. From that sum onward, each person deducts according to his prominence, i.e., in accordance with the outlay that would have been required to honor the reciprocal giver properly, had he participated in the wedding feast.

תנו רבנן: עשה עמו בפומבי, ובקש לעשות עמו בצנעא – יכול לומר לו: בפומבי אעשה עמך, כדרך שעשית עמי. עשה עמו בבתולה,

The Sages taught (Tosefta 10:9): If one served as groomsman for his friend at a public [pumbei] wedding, and when the groomsman himself wed, he requested that his friend reciprocate by serving as a groomsman for him at a private wedding, the friend can say to him: I am willing to reciprocate and serve as groomsman for you only at a public wedding, where the rejoicing is greater, in the manner you served as a groomsman for me. If one served as a groomsman for his friend when he married a virgin, and he requested that his friend reciprocate by serving as a groomsman for him when he marries a widow, the friend can say to him: I shall serve as a groomsman for you only when you marry a virgin, in the manner you served as a groomsman for me.

ובקש לעשות עמו באלמנה – יכול לומר לו: בבתולה אעשה עמך, כדרך שעשית עמי.

עשה עמו בשניה, ובקש לעשות עמו בראשונה – יכול לומר לו: לכשתשא אשה אחרת, אעשה עמך. עשה עמו באחת, ובקש לעשות עמו בשתים – יכול לומר לו:

If one served as a groomsman for his friend when he married a second wife, and he requested that his friend reciprocate by serving as a groomsman for him when he marries a first wife, the friend can say to him: When you marry another woman I will serve as a groomsman for you. If one served as a groomsman for his friend when he married one woman, and he requested that his friend reciprocate by serving as a groomsman for him when he marries two women, the friend can say to him: I will serve as a groomsman for you when you marry one woman, in the manner you served as a groomsman for me.

באחת אעשה עמך, כדרך שעשית עמי.

תנו רבנן: עתיר נכסין עתיר פומבי – זה הוא בעל הגדות. עתיר סלעים עתיר תקוע – זהו בעל פלפול. עתיר משח עתיר כמס – זהו בעל שמועות.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: There are different types of Torah scholars. There is a scholar who is wealthy in figurative property and wealthy in public renown; this is the master of homiletics. There is a scholar who is wealthy in coins and wealthy in houses; this is the master of dialectics. There is one who is wealthy in oil and wealthy in hidden stores; this is the master of halakhic traditions. Everyone is dependent on the owner of wheat; this is the master of Talmud, who understands the reasons behind the rulings and traditions.

הכל צריכין למרי חטיא – תלמוד.

אמר רבי זירא אמר רב, מאי דכתיב: ״כל ימי עני רעים״? זה בעל תלמוד. ״וטוב לב משתה תמיד״ – זה בעל משנה.

Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “All the days of the poor are terrible; and for the good-hearted it is always a feast” (Proverbs 15:15)? “All the days of the poor are terrible”; this is referring to the master of Talmud, who is wearied by the difficulty of his Talmud study. “And for the good-hearted it is always a feast”; this is referring to the master of Mishna, who recites the mishnayot by rote and is not wearied thereby.

רבא אמר: איפכא. והיינו דאמר רב משרשיא משמיה דרבא, מאי דכתיב: ״מסיע אבנים יעצב בהם, בוקע עצים יסכן בם״? ״מסיע אבנים יעצב בהן״ – אלו בעלי משנה.

Rava says: The opposite is true. And this is consistent with that which Rav Mesharshiyya says in the name of Rava: What is the meaning of that which is written: “He who quarries stones shall be hurt by them; and he that chops wood shall be warmed thereby” (Ecclesiastes 10:9). “He who quarries stones shall be hurt by them”; these are the masters of Mishna. They exert themselves to memorize the mishnayot, but since one cannot reach practical conclusions from the mishna, they are comparable to one who carries a heavy load without benefiting from it. “He that chops wood shall be warmed thereby”; these are the masters of Talmud, who attain the benefit of their exertions in the form of practical conclusions.

״בוקע עצים יסכן בם״ – אלו בעלי תלמוד.

רבי חנינא אמר: ״כל ימי עני רעים״ – זה שיש לו אשה רעה. ״וטוב לב משתה תמיד״ – זה שיש לו אשה טובה. רבי ינאי אמר:

The Gemara cites other interpretations of this verse. Rabbi Ḥanina says: “All the days of the poor are terrible”; this is referring to one who has a wicked wife. “And for the good-hearted it is always a feast”; this is referring to one who has a good wife. Rabbi Yannai says: “All the days of the poor are terrible”; this is referring to one who is delicate [istenis] and overly sensitive, because he constantly encounters unpleasant situations. “And for the good-hearted it is always a feast”; this is referring to one who is relaxed and not particular with regard to his food or his surroundings.

״כל ימי עני רעים״ – זה איסטניס. ״וטוב לב משתה תמיד״ – זה שדעתו יפה.

רבי יוחנן אמר: ״כל ימי עני רעים״ – זה רחמן. ״וטוב לב משתה תמיד״ – זה אכזרי. ורבי יהושע בן לוי אמר:

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: “All the days of the poor are terrible”; this is referring to an empathetic person, because he is constantly affected by the suffering in the world. “And for the good-hearted it is always a feast”; this is referring to a cruel person, who is not pained by the suffering of others. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: “All the days of the poor are terrible”; this is referring to a person of impatient disposition. “And for the good-hearted it is always a feast”; this is referring to a person of patient disposition.

״כל ימי עני רעים״ – זה שדעתו קצרה. ״וטוב לב משתה תמיד״ – זה שדעתו רחבה.