A mishnah on yesterday’s daf continued the discussion of what monetary obligations and rewards are received individually by inheriting brothers and which are split evenly amongst them by examining the case of the shoshbinut, or groomsmen’s gift. Commentators explain that it was common practice for a groomsman (or his father) to contribute to the wedding feast, with the understanding that the groom would reciprocate when his friend got married.
Turns out this was more than a gift — the shoshbinut created a reciprocal debt that was legally enforceable. Today’s daf explains that it was collectible in court, and even the sabbatical year didn’t abrogate the debt. What makes it legally interesting is that unlike an ordinary monetary debt, this is a situational obligation: It is only collectible when the original giving party eventually gets married.
The shoshbinut is a beautiful example of a binding communal structure of support, ensuring both men have access to funds and resources when they’re needed, and not only encouraging but mandating reciprocity. In addition to detailing the loan and legal status of these “gifts,” the Gemara examines the relationship expectations underlying them:
Rav Kahana said: The principle with regard to the reciprocation of gifts of groomsmen is: If the initial recipient was in town when his groomsman wed, he should have come. If 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 for not informing him, but he still repays the shoshbinut.
Rav Kahana toggles between financial obligation and courtesy of wedding attendance. He considers both the effort that the now-married friend should put into attending the wedding of their former groomsmen and the potential offense incurred if they are not invited. The concern is not purely one of financial obligation, but of relationship. However, regardless of attendance, the now-married friend is still obligated to reciprocate the gift.
Since a significant function of these gifts was to provide for the wedding feast that the groomsmen would typically enjoy along with the groom, the Gemara does discusses how much a married friend could deduct from their reciprocal gift if they don’t attend their former groomsman’s wedding:
Abaye said: The members of a wedding feast were accustomed to act thus: 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 it was up to four dinars, he now pays half. From that sum onward, each person deducts according to his prominence.
If Shimon gave Reuven a groomsman’s gift worth a dinar, then when Shimon gets married and Reuven is unable to attend, Reuven owes him nothing; the assumption is that Shimon ate roughly a dinar’s worth of food at Reuven’s wedding, and since Reuven won’t eat at Shimon’s wedding, there is no debt. If Shimon gave Reuven a groomsman’s gift worth three dinars, Reuven now owes him a gift of half that sum, or 1.5 dinars. If Shimon gave him a gift over four dinars, however, we calculate how much Shimon would typically eat and be fed according to his importance and deduct that from the total — and this is the amount Reuven owes in return.
This discussion clarifies the nature of the shoshbinut we’ve been discussing. On the one hand, it doesn’t function exactly like a loan and the Gemara states that there is no concern of violating the prohibition of interest if one reciprocated with a much larger gift — i.e., if Shimon had given Reuven a gift worth two dinars, Reuven is permitted to give him a gift worth ten dinars. But it’s not exactly a gift either, since the reciprocal obligation is taken seriously enough that it can be enforced in court, and they are expected to reciprocate with a gift of at least equivalent value. Though the intricacies of these gifts are complicated, given their formalized status, they are a powerful example of custom and halakhah intermingling to ensure a system of communal support, informed deeply by the nature of people’s relationships.
Read all of Bava Batra 145 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on November 17, 2024. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world.
Your donation to My Jewish Learning fuels endless journeys of Jewish discovery. With your help, My Jewish Learning can continue to provide nonstop opportunities for learning, connection and growth.
