Bava Batra 131b — the Talmud in English

From where [do we know] that

these two enactments

were enacted by one court? Perhaps they were enacted by two courts,

and the language of a gift mentioned in the enactment of “female children” does not establish the language of inheritance mentioned in “male children”? And the Gemara answers:

it does not enter your mind

to say so.

For it teaches in the opening clause: “This is the exposition that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya expounded before the Sages in the vineyard of Yavneh: the sons shall inherit, and the daughters shall be supported. Just as the sons inherit only after the death of their father, so the daughters shall be supported only after the death of their father.”

The Gemara proves:

Granted, if you say that they were enacted by one court, this is why we derive one enactment from another enactment. But if you say that they were enacted by two courts, how do we derive one enactment from another enactment?

And we reject this:

From where [is this so]?

Perhaps, in fact I can say to you that they were enacted by two courts, and the latter court enacted [it] like the first court, so that one enactment should not contradict another enactment.

And therefore it is possible to compare the enactments.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: One who writes all his property to his wife

as a gift,

has made her only a guardian.

That is to say, his intention is not to give her his property, but only to make her a guardian over his property after his death, so that she will support his sons from it according to her assessment of their needs .

And he gave her his property so that his sons would accord her honor and heed her words .

We raise an objection concerning this:

It is obvious

to us that if he wrote all his property to

his eldest son, he made him only a guardian.

So that his younger brothers would honor him .

But if he wrote all his property to

his youngest son,

who is not so concerned with honoring him,

what is [the law]?

Is his intention a complete gift, or to make him a guardian?

And concerning this matter

it was stated [נאמר בבית המדרש]in the beit-midrash:

in the

Rav Hanilai bar Idi said in the name of Shmuel: Even if he wrote to

he wrote to

his son

the

youngest, lying in a cradle,

his intention is only to make him a guardian over his property.

We were further uncertain concerning this law:

It is obvious

to us that if he wrote all his property to

his son

who is closer to him and whose honor he desires,

or

wrote all his property to

another person

who is not at all obligated to honor him,

Concerning this it is obvious to us that for

another person

his intention is to give

as a gift,

for if he were making him a guardian, he would have had to write so explicitly,

and

to

his son

his intention is to make him

a guardian.

And similarly, if he wrote all his property to

his betrothed wife,

or

or

to

his wife

the

divorced,

certainly his intention is to give it to her

as a gift.

But

they raised a question before them:

if he wrote all his property to

a daughter among the sons,

or

or

in a case where he had no sons, and wrote all his property to

a woman among the brothers,

or

or

wrote all his property to

a woman among her husband’s sons [כלומר בניו שהיו לו מאשה אחרת]that is, his sons whom he had from another woman,

—that is, his sons from another woman—

what is [the law]?

Does he have concern for their honor in all these cases, or is his intention a complete gift?

Ravina said in the name of Rava: In all of them [בת בין הבנים, ואשה אצל האחים, ואשה אצל אחי הבעל]a daughter among the sons, a woman among the brothers, and a woman among her husband’s brothers

—a daughter in the presence of sons, a wife in the presence of brothers, and a wife in the presence of her husband’s brothers—

she does not acquir

e

[it],

and we say that his intention is to make her a guardian over his property,

except for his betrothed wife and his divorced wife,

for in their case his intention is certainly a complete gift.

But

Rav Avira said in the name of Rava: In all of them [אשתו ארוסה, וגרושה, ובת בין הבנים]his betrothed wife, his divorced wife, and a daughter among the sons,

his intention is not for guardianship, but for a complete gift, and

she acquires, except for the woman among the brothers and the woman among her husband’s sons

in whose case his intention is for guardianship, because of their honor.