Bava Batra 139a (קלט.) — the Talmud in English

But it was taught in the Tosefta:

one who writes his property to his son and so on, and the son sold the property during the father’s lifetime, and the father died,

the

produce

attached

to the ground

is assessed for the purchaser,

and he pays their value to the heirs.

And does this imply that the heirs also receive produce attached to the ground?

Ulla said: This is not difficult.

Here

[in our Mishna] it is referring

to

one who writes his property

to his son,

and does not sell it to another. Whereas

here

[in the Tosefta] it is referring

to

a case in which the son sold the property

to another.

Therefore, when he wrote it to his son,

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

we assess his intention as having transferred to him even the produce that would be on the ground at the time of his death.

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

Mishna:

Our Mishna deals with the laws of inheritance in a case where the father did not instruct his sons what to do with his property.

One who dies and

leaves behind adult sons and minor sons.

The expenses of the adults for clothing are greater than those of the minors, whereas the expenses of the minors for food are greater than those of the adults.

The adults are not supported

with clothing

by

[at the expense] of the share of

the minors, nor are the minors fed at

the expense of the share of

the adults,

Rather, they divide equally,

and each one supports and feeds himself from his own share. And if

the adults married

women after their father’s death, and took the wedding expenses from the inheritance before the division,

the minors shall marry.

That is, they too take the expenses of their weddings from the inheritance before the division.

And if

the adults married before their father’s death, and

the minors said,

after their father’s death,

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

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 the minors, nor are the minors fed by the adults; rather, they divide equally.

As above.

And likewise, if

the adults married

and took their expenses from the property before the division,

the minors shall marry.

As stated above.

And if

they married before their father’s death, and

the minors said, “We too shall marry in the manner in which you married,” they are not heeded.

But

this is a stringency

that applies

to

the inheritance of

daughters, as opposed to

the inheritance of

sons: if

he left sons and daughters,

the daughters are fed

until they reach maturity or until they marry,

at

the expense of

the sons,

by virtue of the conditions of the ketuba.

But

if he left only daughters,

they are not fed

from the inheritance

at

the expense of

the daughters.

Rather, they divide equally, and each one is fed from her own share.

Gemara:

Rava said: In the case of this eldest brother,

the older brother who conducts the business involving the property,

who dressed and clothed himself from the household

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

whatever he did, he did.

He does not forfeit any part of his share on account of this.

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

But, ab initio, he may not purchase the clothing at the expense of the inheritance funds .

The Gemara raises an objection:

But we learned

in the Mishna,

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

which implies that if they took money from the inheritance for clothing, they forfeited it from their shares! The Gemara answers:

The Mishna

is dealing

with a shirka

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

The Gemara asks: If he is a

shir­ka, it is obvious

that he may not support himself at the expense of his brothers.

The Gemara answers:

Lest you say: It is pleasing to them that he not be disgraced,

[were it not for the fact that we had stated that he is not supported, one might have said that he could support himself 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, ‘We too 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, the first clause contradicts the latter clause: the first clause implies that the minors shall marry like the adults, whereas the latter clause implies that they may not marry like them?

Rav Yehuda said: This is what it is saying: If the adults married after their father’s death,

and took the wedding expenses from the inheritance funds,

the minors shall marry after their father’s death.

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

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

We further learned:

“If he left behind adult daughters and minor daughters,

the adults are not supported by the minors, nor are the minors fed by the adults.”

The Gemara presents halakhic discussions related to this ruling:

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

A woman who

borrowed

money,

and consumed it

[that is, squandered it],

and then arose and married,

bringing her property into her husband’s possession—

is the

husband

the owner of his wife’s property, both during her lifetime and after her death,

a purchaser,

that is, is he treated as having purchased her property from the time of the marriage,

or is he an heir,

and does he acquire her property only after her death, while during her lifetime he merely consumes the produce?

The practical difference is: If he is

a purchaser,

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

a

verbal loan

cannot be 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 can be 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 adults married husbands,

and squandered the entire inheritance for that purpose,

the minors shall marry husbands,

that is, the minors can collect from the husband the share due to them?!

And it follows that he has the status of an heir!

The Gemara rejects this:

No!

It can be explained as follows:

The adults married husbands; the minors shall marry husbands.

That is, the minors cannot extract money from the husband; rather, they can marry using the money remaining in the estate.

The Gemara asks:

Is that so? But R. Hiyya taught: The adults married husbands; the minors shall marry from the husband?

Perhaps the funding 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 fed from his property.

The daughter married

and brought the property into her husband’s possession;

his widow is still fed from his property.

And if

the daughter died,

and her husband inherited her property,

Rav Yehuda, the son of the sister of R. Yosei, son of R. Ḥanina, said: The incident occurred in my presence, and they said:

His widow is still

fed from his property.”

The Gemara infers:

Granted, if you say

that the husband

is an heir, that is why his widow is fed from his property,

as is the case with any ordinary heir, whose property is used to feed the widow.

But if you say

that the husband

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

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

And it is thus proven that the husband has the status of an heir.

Abaye said: If Ravin had not sent this, we would not know

that the husband has the status of an heir?!

But we learned: “These are

the properties

that do not return

to their original owners

in the Jubilee: the firstborn portion

and one who inherits his wife.”

And it is proven that the husband is an heir.

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