Bava Batra 139b — the Talmud in English

Rava said to him: And now that he sent [the letter], do we know

that the husband is like an heir?!

A

nd

behold,

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina said: In Usha they instituted: A woman who sold

the

property

of

melog

that she brought to her husband at the time of the marriage, on condition that he eat its produce, and the woman sold it

during

her husband’s lifetime,

on condition that if her husband dies during her lifetime, the purchaser will acquire it.

And apparently, if the husband is like an heir, and he does not acquire the property until the time of death, then the purchaser preceded him; and even if the woman dies during her husband’s lifetime, he will not inherit her, but rather the purchaser will acquire it.

But they instituted in Usha that if

the woman dies

during her husband’s lifetime,

the husband takes

the property

from the purchasers.

And it is proven that the husband is considered like a purchaser from the time of the marriage, and not like an heir. For if not, why does he take it from the purchasers ? And if so, this is difficult: Why with regard to inheritance is he considered like an heir, whereas with regard to the sale of the property is he considered like a purchaser?

Rather, Rav Ashi said: A husband,

there are places where the Sages

made him [

made him]

like an heir, and

there are places where the Sages

made him like a purchaser, and wherever it is beneficial for him, they acted for him [

they instituted it for him in a manner that benefits him].

Therefore,

with regard to the Jubilee, the Sages made him [

left him according to his law , to be]

like an heir, because of his loss,

for if he were a purchaser, he would have to return it at the Jubilee.

But

with regard to the

words of

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina,

concerning the law of a woman who sold melog property during her husband’s lifetime,

the Sages made him like a purchaser,

and he takes it from the purchasers,

because of his loss.

But

with regard to Ravin,

where a widow is sustained from the property even after the death of her daughter,

because of the widow’s loss the Sages made him [

left him according to his law, to be]

like an heir.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But with regard to Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina, where there is loss to the purchasers, and

nevertheless

the Sages made him like a purchaser,

why did they take greater concern for the widow’s loss?

And the Gemara answers:

There,

in the case of a woman who sold melog property during her husband’s lifetime, they did not take concern for the purchasers’ loss, because

they caused their own loss; since there is a husband, they should not have bought from a woman who sits under a husband. [

they should not have bought from a woman who sits under a husband].

But in the case of the widow, they took concern for her loss, and they instituted for her that she should eat the produce from her husband’s property.

We shall return to you, chapter “There Are Those Who Inherit.”

Introduction

By Torah law, when a person dies and leaves sons and daughters, the sons inherit all the property, and the daughters have no share in their father's property. However, one of the conditions of the ketuba by which a man obligates himself to his wife at the time of her marriage is that the father obligates himself to provide for the needs of his daughters until they reach maturity [twelve years and six months], or until the time of their marriages.

This obligation includes food, clothing, and the other needs of marriage.

Therefore, when the sons inherit their father's property, they must support the daughters, as the father obligated himself, because the father's property is liened for the purpose of the daughters' support.

This applies when the father left

ample property,

which contains enough to support both the sons and the daughters. But if he left behind only

limited property,

which is not sufficient in this property to support the sons and the daughters [until the daughters reach maturity, or, according to one tanna in the Gemara, the property is not sufficient to support both of them for twelve months], in this case the Sages enacted that the daughters be supported from the father's property, whereas the sons must beg at the doors.

Two matters are included in this enactment: a. The daughters are supported from the property, and not the sons. b. The property is in the possession of the daughters and not the sons, so that the sons will not use the property for themselves.

Indeed, the Rosh adds that if the court sees that, even with ample property, the sons are consuming the inheritance's money in a manner unlike the way of the world, they remove the money from the possession of the sons.

Mishna:

One who dies,

and leaves property behind,

and leaves sons,

who inherit the father's property,

and daughters,

who have a lien upon the property for their support until they reach maturity or until they marry, behold,

when the property is ample,

which contains enough for the support of the sons and the daughters [and the Gemara disputes in defining ample property, whether the property contains what is sufficient for support until the daughters reach maturity, or whether there is support for both of them for twelve months] —

The sons shall inherit,

and the property shall be in their possession,

and the daughters shall be supported

by means of the sons.

But if he bequeathed to his sons only

limited property,

which is not sufficient in the property for support for the sons and the daughters —

The daughters shall be supported,

they receive the property for their support, and the property is now in their possession. And the Sages enacted this so that the sons would not be able to deprive them of the property.

And the sons shall beg at the doors.

Since they deprived them of the property and transferred it to the possession of the daughters.

Admon says:

But

because I am male, have I lost!?

That is, Admon disagrees with the Rabbis, and holds that since a male has precedence over a daughter, for according to Torah law he is the heir of his father's property and not the daughter, it is not reasonable to give precedence to the daughters over the sons.

Rabban Gamaliel said:

I see the words of Admon!

The words of Admon appear more convincing to me, and therefore I hold that the halakha follows him.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that there is a distinction between ample property and limited property.

And the Gemara discusses:

And how much is ample,

what quantity of property is required for it to be considered ample?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Sufficient that they be supported from it

from the property,

these

the sons,

and these

the daughters

for twelve months.

And Rav Yehuda added and said:

When I stated it before Shmuel,

when I came before Shmuel to learn Torah from him after Rav's death, and I told him what Rav had said concerning ample property,

he said to me,

Shmuel answered me:

These are the words of Rabban Gamaliel son of Rabbi,

who holds that property is required for twelve months' support.

But the Sages say,

they disagree and hold:

Sufficient that these be supported

the sons

and these

the daughters

until they reach maturity.

Until the daughters reach maturity. For until this time the father obligated himself to support them in the condition of the ketuba.

It was also stated,

there is proof that Rabbi Yohanan likewise holds that the measure is until the daughters reach maturity:

When Ravin came,

when Ravin came from Babylonia to the Land of Israel,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan; and some say

and there are those who said that

he said

this, Ravin, in the name of

Rabba bar bar Hana, said Rabbi Yohanan: All that they can be supported,

if there is in the property enough to support

these and these until they reach maturity,

this is ample property.

Less than this,

if the property does not contain enough to support the sons and the daughters until this time, this is limited property, and the property is in the possession of the daughters.

And from the words of the Mishna it may be inferred that if the property does not contain the measure of ample property, everything goes to the daughters.

And concerning this the Gemara wonders:

And if there is not enough for these and these until they reach maturity,