On today’s daf, we encounter a strange and disturbing story about inheritance.
Issur the convert had 12,000 dinars in the house of Rava. Rav Mari, his son, whose conception was not in sanctity but whose birth was in sanctity, was away in a rabbinic house of study.
Issur converted to Judaism between his son’s conception and his son’s birth. As we’ve learned, for the rabbis, conversion to Judaism severs one’s legal kinship ties — even to those yet to be born. When Issur converted, his kinship tie to the fetus was severed: Mari wasn’t halakhically his son. Of course, legal ties and emotional ties are not the same thing. From the story, it will become clear that Issur and Mari saw themselves as father and son.
Since the story is about inheritance law, we can assume that Issur is on his deathbed and the text tells us that Mari wasn’t there because he was away at school. At the same time, Rava was storing an enormous sum of money for Issur. So what happens to the money?
Rava declares the reasons that Rav Mari, who is not halakhically Issur’s son, cannot acquire the 12,000 dinars when Issur dies:
If (he were to acquire it) as inheritance, he is not fit to inherit. If as a gift, the sages equated the gift of a person on his deathbed with inheritance. Anywhere that it can be acquired as inheritance, it can also be as a gift, anywhere that it cannot be as inheritance, it cannot be as a gift.
Rava notes that since Rav Mari bears no legal relationship to Issur, he cannot inherit the latter’s wealth, and therefore also can’t benefit from the kinds of deathbed gifts that the rabbis limit to legal heirs (i.e., gifts that are verbal, without any kind of action to effect the transfer of ownership). In order to legally acquire the money, Rav Mari would have to perform an act of formal acquisition:
If (he wanted to acquire it) by pulling, they are not (physically) with him. If by exchange, money cannot be acquired by exchange. If by means of land, Issur does not have any land. In the presence of all three?
Although a verbal transfer cannot effect the movement of the wealth, a formal acquisition can. But there are obstacles. Rava notes that Mari is not local and can’t literally move the money, that a symbolic exchange doesn’t work for money (see Bava Metzia 46a) and that Issur did not give the money together with land, which can be acquired through symbolic exchange. If none of the usual ways to transfer property work for Issur on his deathbed, the only way he can ensure that Mari gets his money is by gathering Mari, Rava and himself together and declaring his wishes (see the discussion in Bava Batra 144a). How does Rava respond to this possibility?
If he sends for me, I shall not go.
At this point, it’s worth noting that Rava does not appear to be a disinterested party. If Issur dies without heirs (which looks likely) and with an estate (because he can’t give away his money without Rava’s presence), then Issur’s estate will be considered hefker, legally ownerless, and available for anyone to come and seize. And the person with the best shot of seizing those 12,000 dinars is the person who already has them in his possession — Rava. It’s hard not to read this story as Rava trying to take ownership of a fortune that is not his own, and perhaps worse, by thwarting the clear wishes of a man on his deathbed.
Rav Ika, son of Rav Ami, objected to this: Why? But let Issur admit that these dinars are owned by Rav Mari, and he shall transfer them by admission. In the meantime, admission emerged from Issur’s house.
Rav Ika reminds the community that there’s another way to transfer funds on one’s deathbed, by verbally “admitting” that the money is already the recipient’s. It’s a legal fiction, but it works. Issur clearly seizes upon this option, and immediately ensures that the money goes to his son. Rava doesn’t take it lying down.
Rava became angry, and said: They are teaching people claims and causing me loss.
Rava is one of the Talmud’s great heroes. His legal positions almost always prevail over those of his interlocutor, Abaye. But in this story, he appears mercenary and cruel, intent on using his knowledge of Torah to take money that doesn’t belong to him.
Over the years, this characterization has led numerous scholars of the Talmud to attempt to explain Rava’s behavior: Perhaps it’s a pedagogical technique meant to make his students ask more questions about inheritance? Maybe it’s a comedic performance meant to highlight the limits of the law? Maybe he needed the money to fund charitable organizations in his community? These explanations read Rava’s behavior here in light of everything else we know about him from the breadth of the Talmud.
But maybe Rava isn’t the point. Maybe the point is Rav Ika, son of Rav Ami, who accurately understands Rava’s attempt to seize the money. Or maybe, if we side with the Rava apologists, he just doesn’t get what Rava is doing. But either way, when he perceives an injustice, he turns to the law and has the courage to speak up for what he knows is right.
Read all of Bava Batra 149 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on November 21, 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.
