Bava Batra 139a — the Talmud in English

But was it not taught:

in the Tosefta: One who writes his property to his son, etc., and the son sold the property during the father’s lifetime, and the father died,

they assess the

produce of the

attached

to the land

for the purchaser,

and he pays their value to the heirs.

And it follows that the heirs receive even produce attached to the land?

Ulla said: It is not difficult.

Here

[in our Mishna] it is speaking

of

one who writes his property to

his son,

and did not sell it to another. But

here

[in the Tosefta] it is speaking

of

a case in which the son sold the property to

another.

And therefore, when he wrote it to his son,

since a person’s disposition is close to his son,

we assess his intention as having granted him also the produce that would be on the land at the time of his death.

But in the case of another, the value of the attached produce must be deducted from the land, and given to the heirs.

Mishna:

Our Mishna deals with the laws of division of an inheritance, in a case in which the father did not command his sons what to do with his property.

One who dies and

leaves behind adult sons and minor sons.

Now the expenses of the adults for clothing are greater than those of the minors, whereas the expenses of the minors for sustenance are greater than those of the adults.

The adults are not supported

with clothing

by means of

[at the expense of] the share of

the minors, nor are the minors sustained at

the expense of the share of

the adults,

rather, they divide equally,

and each is supported and sustained from his share. And if

the adults married

a wife after the death of their father, and took the wedding expenses from the inheritance, before the division,

the minors shall marry.

That is, they too shall take their wedding expenses from the inheritance before the division.

And if

the adults married before the death of their father, and

the minors said,

after the death of their father,

“Behold, we shall marry in the manner in which you married,” they are not heeded. Rather, whatever their father gave them, he gave.

And this is not included in the inheritance.

And if he died without sons, and

left behind adult daughters and minor daughters, the adults are not supported by means of the minors, nor are the minors sustained at the expense of the adults; rather, they divide equally.

As above.

And likewise, if

the adult daughters married,

and took their expenses from the property before the division,

the minor daughters shall marry.

As above.

And if

they married before the father’s death, and

the minor daughters said, “Behold, we shall marry in the manner in which you married,” they are not heeded.

But

this is the stringency

that exists

in

the inheritance of

daughters over

the inheritance of

sons: if he left sons and daughters,

he left sons and daughters,

the daughters are sustained

until they mature, or until they marry,

at the expense of

the

sons,

by the terms of the ketuba.

And

if he left only daughters,

they are not sustained

from the inheritance

at the

expense of

the daughters.

Rather, they divide equally, and each is sustained from her share.

Gemara:

Rava said: This eldest brother,

the elder brother who conducts business with the property,

who wore and clothed himself from the household

[that is, he acquired fine clothing for himself, to go out and come in with them, from the inheritance funds],

whatever he did, he did.

And he does not lose from his share on account of this.

Since the brothers derive benefit from his wearing fine clothing, so that his words will be heeded.

But initially he should not purchase the clothing at the expense of the inheritance funds.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But did we not learn

in the Mishna,

“The adults are not supported at the expense of the minors,”

which implies that if they took from the inheritance for clothing, they lost it from their share! And the Gemara answers:

Our Mishna

deals

with a sharkha

[that is, the eldest brother is idle and does not toil in the inheritance], and the brothers derive no benefit whatever from his wearing fine clothing.

And the Gemara raises an objection: If it is

a sharkha, it is obvious

that he may not be supported at his brothers’ expense?

And the Gemara answers:

Lest you say: They are pleased that he not be disgraced,

[were it not for what we learned—that he is not supported—there would be room to say that he may be supported at his brothers’ expense, since they are pleased that he not appear neglected],

therefore

it teaches us

the Mishna that he is not supported.

We learned in the Mishna:

“The adults married, the minors shall marry,

and if the minors said, ‘Behold, we shall marry in the manner in which you married,’ they are not heeded.”

The Gemara explains:

What is it saying?

For according to the plain meaning of the words, the beginning contradicts the end: in the beginning it implies that the minors shall marry like the adults, whereas in the end it implies that they shall not marry like them?

Rav Yehuda said: This is what it is saying: The adults married after the death of their father,

and took the wedding expenses from the inheritance funds;

the minors shall marry after the death of their father.

But if the adults married during their father’s lifetime, and the minors said after their father’s death, “Behold, we shall marry

in the manner in which you married,” they are not heeded. Rather, whatever their father gave them, he gave.

We further learned:

“He left behind adult daughters and minor daughters,

the adults are not supported by means of the minors, nor are the minors sustained at the expense of the adults.”

The Gemara brings halakhic discussions connected with this halakha:

Avuha bar Geniva sent to Rava: Our Master, teach us:

a woman who

borrowed

money,

and consumed it

[that is, squandered it],

and then proceeded and married,

and brought her property into the possession of her husband.

Is the

husband

with regard to his wife’s property, both during her lifetime and after her death,

a purchaser,

that is, he is treated as a purchaser of her property from the time of the marriage,

or is he an heir,

and did not acquire her property until after her death, while during her lifetime he merely consumes the produce?

And the practical difference is: if he is

a purchaser,

the creditor cannot collect his debt from the woman’s property that is in the husband’s possession, because

a

verbal loan

is not collected from purchasers.

Or perhaps he is an heir, and

if so, the creditor can collect from him even after the woman’s death, since

a verbal loan is collected from heirs.

He said to him,

Rava:

We learned

in our Mishna

, “The adults

married, the minors shall marry,”

does this not mean

that the Mishna intends to say that if

the adult daughters married a husband,

and squandered all the inheritance for this purpose,

the minor daughters shall marry from the husband,

that is, the minors shall extract from the husband the share due to them?!

And it follows that he is like an heir!

The Gemara rejects this:

No!

It is possible to explain it as follows:

The adult daughters married a husband; the minor daughters shall marry a husband.

That is, the minor daughters cannot extract money from the husband; rather, they can marry using the money remaining in the estate’s property.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Is that so? But R. Hiyya taught: “The adult daughters married a husband; the minor daughters shall marry from the husband”?

Perhaps support for marriage is different, since it has publicity.

Rav Pappa said to Rava: Is this not what Ravin sent in his letter: “One who dies and leaves a widow and a daughter, his widow is sustained from his property.

The daughter married

and brought the property into the possession of her husband; nevertheless

his widow is sustained from his property.”

And if

the daughter died,

and her husband inherited her property,

Rav Yehuda, the son of the sister of R. Yosei bar Hanina, said: The incident occurred through me, and they said:

still

“his widow is sustained from his property.”

The Gemara infers:

Granted, if you say

that the husband

is an heir, for this reason his widow is sustained from his property.

Like any ordinary heir, from whose property the widow is sustained.

But if you say

that the husband

is a purchaser, why is she sustained from his property?

For money is not extracted from purchasers in order to sustain the widow?

And it proves that the husband is like an heir.

Abaye said: If Ravin had not sent [this], we would not have known

that the husband is like an heir?!

But did we not learn: “These are the

properties

that do not return

to their original owners

in the Jubilee: the birthright ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page position")

and one who inherits his wife.”

And it proves that the husband is an heir.

For if we were to consider him a purchaser from the time of the marriage, he would have had to return the land in the Jubilee, like any purchase and sale that returns in the Jubilee.