Bekhorot 52a (נב.) — the Talmud in English

And

even

the woman does not—

receive from the appreciation by which the estate increased after her husband’s death, nor from property that was destined to come to her husband after his death—

with regard to her ketובה;

for if the assets were not worth enough to cover her ketובה and then increased in value, she does not receive from that appreciation.

And

even

the daughters do not receive their sustenance.

That is, daughters whom the mother had before she married the father, and for whom the father accepted responsibility to provide sustenance from his assets for a certain period— they do not receive from the appreciation by which their father’s assets increased after his death, nor from property that was destined to come to their father after his death.

We learned in Yevamot (40a): When a yavam marries his yevama, he thereby acquires a share in the assets of his deceased brother, and he likewise inherits a double portion of his father’s estate—that is, both his own portion and the portion of the deceased—because the yavam takes the place of his deceased brother.

And

even

the yavam—

who receives a double portion [his own portion and the portion of his deceased brother] in the inheritance of their father, who died after the brother—does not receive from the appreciation by which the father’s assets increased after his death, nor from property that was destined to come to the father after his death.

And all of them do not receive from appreciation, nor from property destined to come as they do from property already in their possession—

the Gemara explains this.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The bekhor receives a double portion of the father’s assets, but does not receive a double portion of the mother’s assets.

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason?

the verse says: “For he recognizes the firstborn, the son of the hated one, to give him a double portion of all that will be found to him, for he is the beginning of his strength”;

And we explain: It is because

the verse states: “For he must acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated one, to give him a double portion of all that is found to him, for he is the first fruit of his strength;

of the firstborn.”

to him

belongs the law

of the firstborn.”

The law of the firstborn belongs to a man.

That is, it applies to the assets of the man who is the first fruit of his strength.

But the law of the firstborn does not belong to a woman.

That is, the one who is the first fruit of a man’s strength does not have the law of the firstborn with regard to the assets of the wife of the man whose first fruit he is.

We learned in the Mishna:

And he does not receive

the bekhor

from appreciation:

And we explain that the reason is because

it is written: “

from all that is found to him

[to the father at the time of death].” We learned in the Mishna:

Nor from property destined to come as from property already in his possession:

And we explain the reason: It is because

it is written: “

from all that is found to him

[to the father at the time of death].”

We learned in the Mishna:

Nor does the woman receive from her ketובה

[from appreciation or from property destined to come]:

And we challenge this:

Is that so? But Shmuel said: A creditor

who lent money to another, and the borrower sold the assets and the purchasers caused them to increase in value,

collects the

principal from the purchasers together with

the appreciation. Why is a woman different, that she does not collect the appreciation, when she too is a creditor?

Why is a woman different, so that she does not collect the appreciation, when she too is a creditor?

Said

Rabbi Abba, in explanation:

Here they taught one of the leniencies of the ketובה,

meaning that this is one of the ways in which a ketובה is treated leniently in comparison with an ordinary creditor.

We learned in the Mishna:

Nor do the daughters receive their sustenance

[from appreciation or from property destined to come]:

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason?

And we explain: Since

a condition of the ketובה,

[a condition that he stipulates with his wife and writes for her in her ketובה], is itself

like the ketובה

itself, it

is considered so.

We learned in the Mishna:

Nor does the yavam

[receive from appreciation or from property destined to come]:

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason?

And we explain: The Merciful One

called him a “bekhor”

when it called him so—the yavam—as the verse states: “And it shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall take the name of his deceased brother.” Regarding a bekhor, the Torah stated, “from all that is found to him,” but not from appreciation or from property destined to come.

the brother-in-law, as the verse says: “And it shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall stand in the name of his deceased brother.” Regarding a firstborn, the Torah says, “of all that is found with him,” but not appreciation or property due to come.

Abaye said:

They taught

that the yavam does not receive from the appreciation by which the father’s assets increased

only with regard to appreciation by which

the

assets increased between the father’s death

and

the levirate marriage.

That is, for example, the brother died, and afterward his father died, while the brothers had not yet divided the estate; the assets increased in value, and the yavam came and performed yibbum. This appreciation is like property destined to come, since it was not in the father’s possession.

But

the appreciation by which the father’s assets increased after he performed yibbum, that is,

between the levirate marriage and the division

of the father’s assets among the brothers—

he receives

[the yavam receives it].

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason?

And we explain: Since “

he shall take the name of his deceased brother”

for purposes of inheritance,

the Merciful One said

regarding the yavam,

and he has taken the place

of his brother from the moment of the father’s death, acquiring the right to a double portion of the father’s assets. Therefore, whatever increase the assets underwent afterward is his increase. The only appreciation that can be excluded is appreciation by which the father’s assets increased before the levirate marriage, when the yavam had not yet acquired them.

Rava said: Even

the appreciation by which the father’s assets increased

between the levirate marriage and the division, too, he does not receive

the yavam.

What is the reason?

Because the law of the yavam is

like that of a bekhor: Just as a bekhor has no

right to appreciation by which the assets increased

before division

of the bekhor’s portion with his brothers, as explained in our Mishna,

so too the yavam has no

right to appreciation by which the father’s assets increased

before division

of the yavam’s portion with his other brothers. We learned in the Mishna:

And all of them do not receive from appreciation: According to Rashi, the passage is understood as explained in the main text. The case is one in which the father died after the brother and his assets increased in value. But if the father died before the brother, and the brother had already acquired his portion during his lifetime, it is obvious that the yavam receives both the principal and the appreciation. Since the brother had already acquired them during his lifetime, they are like his other assets, and with respect to the brother’s own assets, everyone agrees that the yavam certainly receives even the appreciation [whether according to Rashi, who holds that no special laws were stated regarding the inheritance of the brother beyond the ordinary laws of inheritance, or according to the other Rishonim, who hold that special laws were stated even regarding the brother’s inheritance. Once the brother had acquired his portion, whatever increased in value afterward increased as his property, and it is impossible to exclude the yavam from inheriting that appreciation]. Just as he receives the appreciation of the brother’s other assets, so he receives the appreciation of the assets that the brother inherited from his father, for what difference is there between the two once the brother had acquired them during his lifetime? [Although the estate has not yet been divided, the yavam has a share before division just as he does after division, and it is his property that increased in value.] This is likewise explained

in the Mordekhai on Bava Batra, section 1476. The dispute between Abaye and Rava is as follows: Rava understands that the yavam should be compared to a bekhor, since the Torah made him like a bekhor. Just as a bekhor does not receive from appreciation by which the assets increased before division, so too this is the law of the yavam with regard to the father’s assets; he has a share in the appreciation only after division. Abaye, however, holds— according to Rabbeinu Gershom —that the yavam is considered like a bekhor only until the levirate marriage. Once he performs yibbum, the law of a bekhor no longer applies to him, and he inherits fully, as he does his ordinary portion; therefore, he receives both the principal and the appreciation. According to the other Rishonim, however, the passage indeed requires explanation, because it must necessarily be interpreted as referring to a case in which the father died before the brother. If the father died after the brother, according to the Rishonim the yavam receives nothing, since the assets are property destined to come with respect to the brother. Thus, the father must have died first, and the brother acquired his portion of the father’s estate during his lifetime. Nevertheless, our passage states that the yavam does not receive from the appreciation by which these assets increased. This is difficult: Why should the yavam not receive the appreciation? Since the brother acquired his portion fully during his lifetime—it was his ordinary portion, in which he had a right even before division—and his brother now inherits him as a bekhor, this portion should legally be treated as though it had been the brother’s ordinary portion. Just as, if the deceased had been a partner with others in certain assets, it would be obvious that the yavam receives the appreciation by which those assets increased, so too we should say that the yavam receives the appreciation by which his brother’s inherited portion increased [even though the estate had not yet been divided. Indeed, he should receive it even if the assets increased before he performed yibbum, since it was his brother’s appreciation; why should he not receive it?]. The Mordekhai on Bava Batra proved from this difficulty that the halakha follows Rashi. See there in the Responsa of the Maimonidean scholars, Mishpatim, section 51, which discusses our passage at length according to Rashi’s approach.