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 158 and 159. These are some highlights.
Bava Batra 158: The air of the Land of Israel makes you wise. Why, then, is Halacha in accordance with the Babylonian Talmud? Shouldn’t the Jerusalem Talmud win the disputes?
Our daf relates that Rabbi Zeira moved from Bavel to the Land of Israel. In Bavel, he had one opinion about a law. After he settled in Israel, he reversed himself and arrived at a different conclusion. He explained his actions. “The air of the Land of Israel makes one wise.” Living in Israel had made him wiser and it had led him to a new conclusion. In Bava Metzia (85a) the Gemara relates that Rabbi Zeira fasted one hundred fasts to forget his learning that he has absorbed in Bavel and to merit to successfully acquire the Torah from scholars in Israel. In the Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 16:4) we are taught, “Ain Torah keYorat Eretz Yisrael, There is no Torah like the Torah of the Land of Israel,” “V’lo chochma k’chochmat Eretz Yisrael, and there is no wisdom like the wisdom of Israel.”
We possess two Talmuds. There is a Talmud that was put together in Israel under the leadership of Rabbi Yochanan, the Jerusalem Talmud, and there is a Talmud that was put together by Rav Ashi in Babylonia, the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian Talmud is studied far more than the Jerusalem Talmud. When we have a dispute between the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud, Halacha accepts the rulings of the Babylonian Talmud. This is true even when the Babylonian Talmud is more lenient than the Jerusalem Talmud (see Rif end of Eruvin, Introduction to the Talmud by Rabbi Shmuel Hanagid, and Semag Lavin 65).
Why was the Babylonian Talmud accepted so broadly? Don’t the Sages in Israel benefit from the holy air of the Land of Israel? Why, then, does Halacha follow the rulings of the Babylonian Talmud and not the rulings of the Sages of the Holy Land?
Rav Hai Gaon (quoted in Sefer HaEshkol Hilchot Sefer Torah) gives an answer. The Sages of Israel are wiser than the sages of Babylonia. However, Israel was a place afflicted with challenges when the Talmud was composed. There were many persecutions from the Romans and Christians. In Babylonia, the Sages were under the rule of the Persians—who were tolerant and allowed for the free practice of our faith. While the air and Sages of Israel were more gifted, the persecutions in Israel prevented the scholars there from reaching the heights of knowledge that the scholars of Babylonia reached. In Babylonia they were able to better their learning. Halacha therefore accords with them.
Maharik (Shoresh 91) gives another reason for the centrality of the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian Talmud was composed by Rav Ashi many years after the completion of the Jerusalem Talmud. Rav Ashi had in front of him the Talmud Yerushalmi when he composed the Talmud Bavli. He knew the conclusions of the Sages of Israel, and yet he sometimes chose to rule against them. In Halacha we usually accept the last point of view. When later Sages argue with their predecessors, we accept the view of the later authorities. Earlier Sages were greater scholars. Yet, the later ones knew their arguments and still reached different conclusions. We usually therefore accept the later conclusions for they took into account the earlier proposals and rejected them (See Rosh Sanhedrin 4:6, Tosafot Kiddushin 45b s.v. Hava, Rama Choshen Mishpat 25:2). (Me’orot Daf Hayomi)
Bava Batra 159: Does a grandson inherit the rabbinic position of his maternal grandfather?
Our Gemara has a fascinating discussion about the law that a grandson inherits the assets of his grandfather. How does this law work? Is it that the assets come to the domain of the son, in the grave, and the grandson then receives them from his deceased father, or do the assets move directly from the grandfather to the grandson since the son is not alive? The difference between these understandings would be in regard to people who lent money to the deceased son. If the assets of the grandfather first go to his son and then to the grandson, the creditors would be entitled to seize assets. They had been in the domain of the son, the son owed them, so the lenders could seize the property for their debts. But if the assets move directly from grandfather to grandson, then the lenders to the son would not be entitled to take any of the assets. The properties were never owned by the person who owed them money and therefore they could not seize anything. Our Gemara mentions that there is a point of view that holds that a grandson inherits directly from his grandfather.
If Rabbi Yaakov gets appointed as the rabbi of a city and then passes away, Rama (Yoreh Deiah 245:22) rules like Rivash (Siman 271) that his son should inherit the position. What about a rabbi who only had a daughter? She had a son. Does a grandson inherit the rabbinic position of his maternal grandfather? If the inheritance of a grandson comes through his father in the grave, in our case, the grandson should not inherit. His mother is not entitled to the rabbinic position of her father. But if the grandson inherits directly from the grandfather, perhaps a grandson can inherit the rabbinic position directly from his maternal grandfather.
Poskim discuss the law of a son-in-law. Would a son-in-law inherit the rabbinic position of his wife’s father? Shu”t Avodat HaGershuni (Siman 49) rules that a son-in-law does not inherit his father-in-law’s rabbinic post. A husband can inherit his wife’s property. However, a wife has no claim to serve as the rabbi. Judaism does not allow for women rabbis. Therefore, if the father-in-law died, the son-in-law has no claim to the position. Shu”t Beit Yitzchak (Yoreh Dei’ah Chelek Bet Siman 69-70) disagrees. The son claiming a position of his father is not normal inheritance. It is not money or an item of value moving from one generation to the next. The Torah commanded that when a rabbi passes away his son should receive the position. A son-in-law can fulfill this task as well. If the son-in-law is deserving, the son-in-law is the one the community should appoint. Beit Yitzchak argues that in the case when the son-in-law passed away and there is a grandson, even Avodat HaGershuni should agree that the grandson inherits the position. Our Gemara taught that a grandson might inherit directly from his grandfather. A daughter is not entitled to her father’s position; however, the grandson has a direct link to his zayde. The community should appoint the grandson if the grandfather passes away. Shu”t Simchat Yom Tov (Siman 6) disagrees with Beit Yitzchak. He argues that according to Avodat HaGershuni a grandson is not entitled to the position of his mother’s father. (Mesivta)
By Rabbi Zev Reichman
Rabbi Zev Reichman teaches Daf Yomi in his shul, East Hill Synagogue.
