Pt2 Stories of Disinheritance and Consecration to the Temple (Bava Batra 133b-134a)
Story of Yonatan ben Uzziel and Shammai; Story of Beit Ḥoron
Part two of a two-part series. First part here.
Story of Yonatan ben Uzziel and Shammai
In this story, a man, displeased with his children's behavior, decided to give all his property to Yonatan ben Uzziel.1
Upon acquiring the property, Yonatan ben Uzziel used a third for his personal needs, consecrated another third to the Temple,2 and returned the final third to the original owner’s children.
Shammai objected to this, arguing that Yonatan should not have returned any portion of the property to the children, as it went against the father’s wishes.
Yonatan ben Uzziel responded by challenging Shammai to reclaim the sold and consecrated portions if he believed they should all be restored. If he couldn't reclaim those, he argued, then he couldn't object to the return of the remaining third to the children either, as the property was now his to manage.
Realizing the strength of Yonatan’s argument, Shammai conceded, acknowledging that he had been effectively reprimanded and had no counterargument.
תנו רבנן:
מעשה באדם אחד, שלא היו בניו נוהגין כשורה,
עמד וכתב נכסיו ליונתן בן עוזיאל.
מה עשה יונתן בן עוזיאל?
מכר שליש, והקדיש שליש, והחזיר לבניו שליש.
בא עליו שמאי במקלו ותרמילו.
אמר לו: שמאי, אם אתה יכול להוציא את מה שמכרתי ומה שהקדשתי – אתה יכול להוציא מה שהחזרתי, אם לאו – אי אתה יכול להוציא מה שהחזרתי.
אמר: הטיח עלי בן עוזיאל! הטיח עלי בן עוזיאל!
[...]
The Sages taught:
There was an incident involving one man whose children did not act properly.
He arose and wrote a document transferring all his property to Yonatan ben Uzziel, one of the Sages, as a gift.
What did Yonatan ben Uzziel do?
He sold a third of the property for his needs, and consecrated a third of the property, and returned the remaining third to the man’s children.
Shammai came to Yonatan ben Uzziel with his staff and traveling bag to protest his giving part of the property to the man’s children against the deceased’s wishes.
Yonatan ben Uzziel said to him: Shammai, if you can repossess the property that I sold from the purchasers and the property that I consecrated from the Temple treasury, you can repossess what I returned to the man’s children as well; but if not, as the property is mine and I have the right to do with it whatever I want, you cannot repossess what I returned to the man’s children either.
Shammai then said: Ben Uzziel reprimanded me; ben Uzziel reprimanded me, and I have no response.
[...]
Story of Beit Ḥoron
The Talmud quotes a Mishna, which tells a story about a man from Beit Ḥoron3 who sought a way for his father, who had vowed (neder) not to derive benefit from him, to attend his grandson's wedding meal. To circumvent the vow, he transferred ownership of the courtyard and the wedding meal to another person, with the intention that this would legally allow his father to participate.
However, the recipient, upon taking ownership, consecrated the property to the Temple, making it inaccessible to all, thus counteracting the original intent. Frustrated, the son argued that this was not the purpose of his gift. The recipient defended his action, suggesting that he did not want to be part of enabling a potential sin by helping them violate the vow.
דתנן:
מעשה בבית חורון,
באחד שהיה אביו מודר הימנו הנאה,
והיה משיא בנו;
ואמר לחבירו: הרי חצר וסעודה נתונין לך במתנה,
ואינן לפניך, אלא כדי שיבא אבא, ויאכל עמנו בסעודה.
אמר לו: אם שלי הן – הרי הן מוקדשין לשמים!
אמר לו: לא נתתי לך את שלי שתקדישם לשמים!
אמר לו: לא נתת לי את שלך אלא שתהא אתה ואביך אוכלין ושותין ומרצין זה לזה, ויהא עון תלוי בראשו!
As we learned in a mishna (Nedarim 48a):
An incident occurred involving someone in the city of Beit Ḥoron
whose father had vowed not to derive benefit from him,
and the son was marrying off his own son and wanted his father to be able to participate in the wedding meal.
And he therefore said to another: The courtyard where the wedding will take place and the wedding meal are hereby given to you as a gift,
but they are given to you only so that my father will come and eat with us at the meal. The son wanted to circumvent the prohibition imposed by the vow and enable his father to participate in the meal, so he transferred ownership to someone else for that purpose.
The recipient said to him: If they are mine, they are all hereby consecrated to Heaven, i.e., the Temple, and are forbidden to everyone.
The son said to him in anger: I did not give you my property so that you should consecrate them to Heaven.
The recipient said to him: You gave me your property only so that you and your father would eat and drink and thereby appease each other, and the sin of transgressing the vow would be hung on his, i.e., my, head, as I enabled the transgression.
Who lived in the late Second Temple period.
הקדיש - hekdesh. See previous part on this.