Bava Batra 140a — the Talmud in English

The daughters take

the daughters take

all of it,

all the property!? Surely this is certainly unreasonable! For they are surely not entitled to more than twelve months or more than the time of their maturity, whereas here it follows that they will receive support beyond these times.

Rather, Rava said,

indeed, the intention of the Mishna is not that the daughters receive everything.

Rather, they provide for them for support, for the daughters until they reach maturity. And the remainder,

whatever surplus remains in the property, is

for the sons.

It remains for the sons by virtue of inheritance.

And the Gemara says:

It is obvious,

it is reasonable to say simply that if the property was

ample, and became limited,

if at the time of the father's death the property was ample, but afterward the cost of support rose, or the property deteriorated, and now its value is not sufficient to support the sons and the daughters,

the heirs have already acquired it.

Since the determining time is the time of the father's death, and then it was ample, they therefore acquire the property, and the sons and the daughters will be supported together .

But

limited and became ample,

if at the time of the father's death the property was limited and it became ample, because the cost of support fell or the property increased in value,

what

who will acquire the improvement of the property? Is it that

they remain in the possession of the heirs,

that the property is still in the possession of the orphans, and although the Sages enacted that the property be in the possession of the daughters, they did not entirely deprive the sons of their rights, and it is considered that they still have an attachment to the property.

Therefore, in the possession of the heirs is the improvement,

the improvement belongs to them, since their property improved.

Or perhaps

or perhaps

the heirs are removed from here,

the enactment was that the daughters would be entirely in possession of the property, and the sons would have no connection whatsoever to it; consequently, the property of the daughters improved, and the sons have no share in this.

Come and hear

the Gemara brings a proof to resolve the doubt, from this

which Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Orphans who hastened and sold limited property,

heirs who hastened to sell before the daughters brought the sons to court in order to claim the limited property for themselves,

what they sold, they sold.

The sale is valid even though the property is limited. But as long as there had not been a bringing to court, the sons have rights in the property.

And it is proven from here that they have a connection to the property, and therefore the improvement belongs to the heirs. But after the bringing to court, it is possible to say that since they cannot sell, from that point onward the property is entirely in the possession of the daughters, and the improvement will belong to the daughters.

Rabbi Jeremiah sat

he sat

before

before

Rabbi Abbahu, and was asking him,

and asked him:

His widow—what is the law: does she make it limited?

If one dies and leaves sons and daughters, and also a widow who receives support from her husband's property [which he obligated himself to provide for her in the condition of the ketuba, for as long as she is a widow and has not married another], and there is property for the daughters and the widow,

do we say,

shall we say,

since she has support,

which she is entitled to receive as support under the condition of the ketuba,

she makes it limited,

do we include in the calculation of the property the obligation of the widow's support? If because of this the property is considered limited [not sufficient for everyone], property will be set aside for the support of the daughters and the widow, and the remainder will be for the sons.

Or perhaps,

perhaps we shall say,

since if she were to marry,

if the widow were to marry another man,

she would not have it,

she would not receive support,

now also she does not have it!

Even now she will not receive a share in the property as with limited property. Since it is possible that she will not need to receive support if she marries, it follows that the property is ample, for there is enough for the sons and the daughters, and therefore everyone—the sons, the daughters, and the widow—will be supported equally, according to the law of ample property.

If you should say,

if we adopt in this problem the second side,

since if she were to marry,

for if she were to marry another,

she would not have it

she has no support,

now also she does not have it,

even now she has no special right in the property and property is not designated for her—there is still a doubt:

His wife's daughter,

one who accepted at the time of marriage to support his wife's daughter from another man, and it follows that she too must receive support from the father's property, and there is property for the daughters and the wife's daughter,

what is the law: does she make the property limited,

does the obligation to support his wife's daughter enter among the obligations of the heirs and make the property limited?

Do we say,

shall we say

since when she marries,

even if she marries another,

she has it,

she continues to receive support, as the father obligated himself to his wife; if so, this is an ordinary debt,

and

therefore

she makes it limited,

this makes the property limited.

Or perhaps,

or perhaps we shall say,

since if she were to die

if his wife's daughter were to die,

she would not have it,

the obligation of support would lapse,

and

therefore

she does not make it limited,

she does not make it limited, since this is a debt whose collection is not certain to occur. Rather, everyone will be supported, and if in the end she does not die and there is not enough property, the law will be as with property that was ample and became limited.

And if you should say,

if we adopt the second side,

since if she were to die she would not have it

she has no obligation of support,

and she does not make it limited,

she does not make the property limited, there is still a doubt:

A creditor,

if there is property only for the daughters and the creditor,

what is the law: does he make the property limited?

Is this debt like the daughters' debt, which makes the property limited, or not?

Do we say,

shall we say

since when he dies

even if the creditor dies,

he also has it,

it must be paid to his heirs, and therefore the creditor

makes it limited

he makes the property limited, since this is a debt that will be collected in any event, and the sons will have to beg at the doors.

Or perhaps,

perhaps we shall take the opposite side,

since collection is lacking,

the creditor still needs to collect his debt, and the debt has not been collected; therefore it is not taken into account,

and he does not make it limited,

he does not make the property limited, and everyone will be supported together until the creditor collects, and afterward only the daughters will be supported from the property that remains.

And there is one who poses it in the opposite direction,

there is one who was uncertain about those same questions above, only in a different order:

A creditor—what is the law: does he make the property limited?

Does he make it limited, since even if he dies, the debt is still collectible?

And if you should say that indeed he makes it limited, there is still a doubt: