Bava Batra 133a — the Talmud in English

Rav Kahana said to him: If he subsequently acquired [property], would she not collect [her כתובה from it] [A0003]if he had acquired property after giving her the gift, would she not collect from that property ?!

[If he acquired property after giving her the gift, would she not collect from that property] ?!

And certainly she collects from that property, since she waived only the lien that she had on his property at present, but not on what he would acquire in the future.

And

if so,

since if he subsequently acquired

other property,

she would collect, [A0010]she would collect her ketuba from it

[she would collect her marriage settlement from it]

now also,

in the case where the husband subsequently acquired the property of his deceased wife,

she would collect [A0014]she collects her ketuba from that property.

[she would collect her marriage settlement from that property].

Further, concerning that matter:

A certain

person dangerously ill

who divided his property between his wife and his sons.

He divided his property among his wife and his sons, that is, “he made her a partner among the sons.”

But

he left

among his property

one date-palm

without specifying to whom it belonged.

And it was uncertain to us: Could she collect the remainder of her ketuba from the property of the orphans, or only from that date-palm, or perhaps, since she too received a share in the inheritance and did not protest the share of the orphans, she waived the remainder, and she cannot collect it even from that date-palm?

Ravina thought to say:

She cannot collect the remainder of her ketuba from the property of the orphans, since she waived for them the lien that she had on their property, and

she has only one date-palm.

Rav Yeimar said to Ravina: If she has none,

that is, if she does not collect from the property of the orphans,

she does not have even one date-palm.

For she knew of that date-palm and waived to its heirs [her lien] on all the property that was presently in the father’s possession, since he made her a partner among the sons.

Rather,

if you say that she did not waive her lien on that date-palm, since she said in her heart: “Behold, he left me a small place from which to collect the remainder of my ketuba,” if so,

from the fact that she descended to the date-palm, she also descended to all the property.

And she will collect the remainder of her ketuba even from the share of the orphans.

And now there is no proof at all from her silence to say that she waived [her rights] to the sons. For this reason that she was silent and did not protest was because he left her a place from which to collect, namely, from the date-palm; and she said in her heart: “Why should I protest now? I will wait until the court appraises the date-palm, and afterward I will protest concerning everything, and I will collect my ketuba even from the property of the orphans.”

Conclusion of the discussion:

A dangerously ill person who wrote all his property [to others], or divided it among his sons in the presence of his wife and also gave her any amount of land, and she remained silent, [the recipients] acquire. For she waived for them the lien that she had on this property.

And the same is the case if he gave all his property to others and also gave his wife any amount of land. Since he made her a partner in the property like them, they acquire.

And this applies when he divided all his property. But if he left even one date-palm, since she collects this date-palm, she returns and collects all the rest of the property.

And specifically when he gave her a gift of land; but if he gave her a gift of movable property, she did not waive her ketuba.

And specifically with regard to property presently in his possession did she waive her lien; but with regard to property that will come afterward, she did not waive [it].

And specifically in the case of a dangerously ill person who wrote his property, but in the case of a healthy person, it is uncertain whether she waived her lien, and it is incumbent upon the woman to bring proof in order to extract the money from the heirs.

The Gemara returns to deal with matters connected with the law of “the inheritance of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka”:

Rav Huna said: A dangerously ill person who wrote all his property to another,

who is not his son, and did not specify whether his intention was to give it as a gift or by way of inheritance.

We see: If

that recipient

is fit to inherit from him,

such as one son among sons,

he takes them by way of inheritance.

Like Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka.

And if not,

if he is not fit to inherit from him,

he takes them by way of a gift.

Since a person does not utter his words in vain, and certainly intended to give him the property by way of a gift.

And below it will be explained what difference there is whether he acquires the property by way of a gift or by way of inheritance.

Rav Nahman said to him: Why do you steal [words] by stealth?!

Why did you state your law in a manner that appears as though it is agreed upon by everyone?

If you hold like Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, say, “The halakha is like Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka,”

for your teaching [A0071]for your report

[your transmitted teaching]

follows Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, does it not?

Perhaps this is what you said:

Perhaps you did not intend to innovate for us the halakha in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, but rather an incident came before you, concerning one who divided his property without specification as follows, and you came to innovate for us the distinction between taking by way of inheritance and taking by way of a gift. And incidentally we learned that you hold like Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka.

And this was the incident:

There was a certain man who was in the process of dying, [A0077]he became ill and was close to death,

[he became ill and was close to death],

and they said to him: To whom [will be] his property? Perhaps to so-and-so?

And he said to them: To whom else?

Certainly to that so-and-so! And it is as though he had said, “My property is given to so-and-so.”

And you said to us concerning this, [A0082]that is, in this case Rav Huna spoke, that

[that is, this is what Rav Huna said in this case],

if he is fit to inherit from him, he takes them by way of inheritance, and if not, he takes them by way of a gift.

He said to him,

Rav Huna to Rav Nahman:

Yes. This is what I said. [A0087]Indeed, this was the incident.

[Indeed, that was the incident.]

The Gemara explains:

For what halakhic purpose?

What difference is there whether he takes the property by way of inheritance or by way of a gift?

Rav Adda bar Ahava thought to say before Rava,

there is a practical difference:

If

the recipient of the gift

is fit

to inherit from him, and he takes the property by way of inheritance, then

his widow

of the deceased

is sustained from his property.

In accordance with the law that “a widow is sustained from the property of orphans,” that is, from the property of the heirs.

And if not,

if he is not fit to inherit from him and he took the property by way of a gift,

his widow is not sustained from his property.

Rava said to him,

But because he gave him the property as the gift of a dangerously ill person, which is only by rabbinic law,

is it diminished?!

That is, is the widow’s power thereby weakened?!

Now, with regard to inheritance by Torah law, you say that his widow is sustained from his property; with regard to a gift by rabbinic law, is it not all the more so

that she should be sustained from that property ?!

Rather, Rava said:

This is the difference between a gift and an inheritance:

As

that ruling

which Rav Aha bar Rav Avya sent: According to Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka,

one who says

“My property is yours, and after you, to so-and-so,”

we see:

If

the first recipient of the gift

was fit to inherit from him,

he takes the property by way of inheritance, and

the second has nothing in place of the first,

since

there is no

here

language of gift, but language of inheritance, and inheritance has no interruption.

But if he is not fit to inherit from him and takes it by way of a gift, his words stand, and the second will take the property after the first.

Rava said to Rav Nahman:

Why, if he is fit to inherit from him, does the second have nothing in place of the first?

But he interrupted it!

That is, he bequeathed it to him on the understanding that after his death he would give the property to the second.

Rava said to him:

He thought that it has an interruption, but the Torah said that it has no interruption.

That is, since he stipulated concerning what is written in the Torah, the act stands and the condition is void.

Another incident concerning that matter: