May these words of Torah serve as a merit le’iluy nishmat Menachem Mendel ben Harav Yoel David Balk, a”h.
This week we learned Bava Batra 146. These are some highlights.
Bava Batra 146: If he wishes to retract a gift because the reason for the giving is no more, will he get his assets back?
- Yaakov has been living in South Africa for more than 50 years. He has raised children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. They have all moved to Israel. He is alone. Why doesn’t he leave? The South African laws make it virtually impossible to take wealth out of the country. Were he to leave South Africa to try to be close to his children, he would lose all his possessions. He is a wealthy man in South Africa. He is afraid of life in Israel without any wealth. Finally, he decides to make the leap. He will make aliyah and live near his children. He does not want to allow the state to seize all his assets. He calls his friend R. Kalman. He gives R. Kalman a contract gifting him all his possessions in South Africa. R. Ya’akov moved to Israel. He found it very hard to live in Israel. The culture was foreign. The language was hard to grasp. After three months in the Holy Land he decided to return to his beloved South Africa. He boarded a flight in Tel Aviv and landed in Capetown. He called his friend R. Kalman. “I need my money back. I gave it to you planning to live in Israel. I was not able to make it there. Now you must return it to me,” he demanded. R. Kalman refused to comply with the request. “You gave me the money. You did not stipulate any conditions. If you would have wanted you could have written a condition in the contract. You did not write anything. It is my money now and I have no wish to give you any of it.” Who is right?
Our Gemara contains a lesson about the concept called umdana. An umdana is an assessment based on context. Sometimes a person will not specify his thoughts and intentions. Nevertheless, we treat his actions as if he verbalized a condition because the context of his deeds clearly indicates the conditions he meant to impose.
Our Gemara quotes the lesson of Rav Shimon Ben Menasya. Rav Shimon taught about a man who thought his son was dead. The man had an only son, the child traveled to a distant island, and rumors came that the boy had died. The man gave away all his assets to a stranger. The son then returned. Rabbi Shimon Ben Menasya ruled that the assets are to be given to the son. The father had not stipulated that the gift was conditional. However, the circumstances indicate that he only gave everything away for he was sure his son was dead. When he thought his son was alive he never tried to give anything away. He gave everything to a friend for he thought his son was not alive. Now that it turns out that his son is alive the gift was null and void. The son gets the assets back.
Nimukei Yosef (page 69a from the dapei Harif) applies this principle to a man who travels. If a person travels to another land and before he boarded the boat gave away his assets to his friend with an act of acquisition such as chalipin, even though no condition was articulated we know he intended a stipulation. He meant to say, “If I make it in the other land, the assets are yours. However, if I have to return the gift is null and void and you will have to return the goods to me.” Our case is like the scenario of the Nimukei Yosef. Since R. Yaakov was unable to settle in the Land of Israel and he returned to South Africa, the gift is revoked and R. Kalman is to give the money back. (Ateh Lemashal)
By Rabbi Zev Reichman
Rabbi Zev Reichman teaches Daf Yomi in his shul, East Hill Synagogue.
