Q&A: Two Notes on the Chapter "One Who Is Dying"
Two Notes on the Chapter "One Who Is Dying"
Question
In honor of my teacher and master, the great Rabbi, may he live long and well, greetings and all the best.
Bava Batra 148b–149a.
A) Bava Batra 148b: They raised a question: If he consecrated all his property and then recovered, what is the law? Do we say that with respect to consecration he fully resolved and transferred it, or perhaps with respect to himself he did not fully resolve and transfer it? If he declared all his property ownerless, what is the law? Do we say that since, for the poor no less than for the rich, he fully resolved and transferred it, or perhaps with respect to himself he did not fully resolve and transfer it? If he distributed all his property to the poor, what is the law? Do we say that in the case of charity he certainly did fully resolve and transfer it, or perhaps with respect to himself he did not fully resolve and transfer it? Let it stand unresolved. (Another version: If he consecrated all his property, what is the law? If he declared all his property ownerless, what is the law? If he distributed all his property to the poor, what is the law? Let it stand unresolved.)
And see the glosses of the Bach (and I did not understand his intent), and see Bach, Choshen Mishpat, siman 250.
And see Maharshal and Rashash.
And see Ein Mishpat, note 20, and it requires clarification why he referenced both versions.
I would be glad for an explanation of all this.
And see Shiltei HaGibborim, who omitted the question of distributing to the poor, and this whole matter requires clarification.
B) 149a. Rashbam, s.v. "May enjoy" writes: "It appears."
And his intent here requires clarification.
Signed with great respect,
Answer
Hello,
I did not understand what you were asking. Are you looking for an explanation of the entire flow of the Talmudic passage? It is hard for me to write a whole book of explanations on Talmudic topics here on request.
Beyond that, please do not direct me simply to look at commentators. If there is someone relevant, quote his wording and ask whatever needs to be asked. I do not have time to get into every such thing, because of the pressure of the times and the large number of questioners.
Beyond that, in the future please spell out the question clearly so that it will be easy to understand. Because of my many sins, I do not have time to decipher your riddles written in overly terse form.
As for the matter itself, why should there not be references to both versions? There is not necessarily any dispute between them. He rules "let it stand unresolved" for all the questions.
The words of the Rashbam really do require further study. The question about "it appears" is stated explicitly later on. Perhaps he means that what follows spells out the question in greater detail. At first they thought the Gemara was troubled only about "it appears," and afterward they brought that in the study hall there was a whole series of questions, of which "it appears" was only the first. But it seems more likely that he had a different textual version, and it would be worthwhile to look at the commentators there.