בבא בתרא קלט

בבא בתרא קלט

וְהָא תַּנְיָא: שָׁמִין אֶת הַמְחוּבָּרִין לַלּוֹקֵחַ!

But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ketubot 8:5) that in a similar case, the court appraises the produce still connected to the ground for the purchaser of the land, who must pay the seller’s heirs for it? Accordingly, the connected produce also belongs to the heirs.

אָמַר עוּלָּא: לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן בִּבְנוֹ, כָּאן בְּאַחֵר; הוֹאִיל וְדַעְתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קְרוֹבָה אֵצֶל בְּנוֹ.

Ulla said that this is not difficult; here, in the mishna, the halakha is stated with regard to his son, who receives the connected produce after the father’s death. There, in the baraita, the halakha is stated with regard to another person who purchased the land from the son. Since a person’s disposition is favorable toward his son, the father certainly intended to bequeath the connected produce to his son together with the property itself. When the son sold it to another person, there was no such intention.

מַתְנִי׳ הִנִּיחַ בָּנִים גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים – אֵין הַגְּדוֹלִים מִתְפַּרְנְסִין עַל יְדֵי הַקְּטַנִּים, וְלֹא הַקְּטַנִּים נִזּוֹנִין עַל הַגְּדוֹלִים, אֶלָּא חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה.

MISHNA: If a person died and left adult and minor sons, the adults are not provided for by using funds of the minors, and the minors are not sustained, i.e., they do not receive food, by using funds of the adults. Rather, they receive a share of the inheritance equally, and each son sees to his needs from his own share.

נָשְׂאוּ הַגְּדוֹלִים – יִשׂאוּ הַקְּטַנִּים. וְאִם אָמְרוּ קְטַנִּים: הֲרֵי אָנוּ נוֹשְׂאִין כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁנְּשָׂאתֶם אַתֶּם – אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לָהֶם; אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁנָּתַן לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם, נָתַן.

If the adults married, the minors marry, as the Gemara will explain. But if the minors say: We are marrying in the same manner that you adults married during our father’s lifetime, the court does not listen to them. Rather, whatever their father gave the adults in his lifetime he gave them, and the minors do not have the right to receive more than their share of the inheritance.

הִנִּיחַ בָּנוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת וּקְטַנּוֹת – אֵין הַגְּדוֹלוֹת מִתְפַּרְנְסוֹת עַל יְדֵי הַקְּטַנּוֹת, וְלֹא הַקְּטַנּוֹת נִזּוֹנוֹת עַל הַגְּדוֹלוֹת, אֶלָּא חוֹלְקוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה.

Similarly, if the father left adult and minor daughters but no sons, in which case his daughters inherit the estate, the adults are not provided for by using funds of the minors, and the minors are not sustained by using funds of the adults. Rather, they receive a share of the inheritance equally, and each daughter sees to her needs from her share.

נָשְׂאוּ גְּדוֹלוֹת – יִשְּׂאוּ קְטַנּוֹת. וְאִם אָמְרוּ קְטַנּוֹת: הֲרֵי אָנוּ נוֹשְׂאוֹת כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁנְּשָׂאתֶם אַתֶּם – אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לָהֶן.

If the adult daughters married, the minor daughters marry, as the Gemara will explain. But if the minors say: We are marrying in the same manner that you adults married during our father’s lifetime, the court does not listen to them.

זֶה חוֹמֶר בַּבָּנוֹת מִבַּבָּנִים – שֶׁהַבָּנוֹת נִזּוֹנוֹת עַל הַבָּנִים, וְאֵין נִזּוֹנוֹת עַל הַבָּנוֹת.

This following halakha is a stringency with regard to daughters’ inheritance vis-à-vis sons’ inheritance: The halakha is that the daughters are sustained by using funds of the sons, as stipulated in their mother’s marriage contract, but they are not sustained by using funds of the other daughters.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי גְּדוֹל אֲחֵי דִּלְבַשׁ וְאִיכַּסִּי מִבֵּיתָא – מַאי דַּעֲבַד עֲבַד.

GEMARA: Rava says: With regard to this eldest of the brothers who wears garments and covers himself from the common property of the house, what he did is done, and the other brothers cannot subtract from his share of the inheritance as a result.

וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: אֵין הַגְּדוֹלִים מִתְפַּרְנְסִין עַל הַקְּטַנִּים! מַתְנִיתִין – בִּשְׁרָכָא.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that the adults are not provided for by using funds of the minors? The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to an unemployed person [bisherakha], whereas Rava was referring to the brother who handles the finances of the entire family. Therefore it is in the interest of all the brothers for him to wear appropriate attire.

שְׁרָכָא – פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: נִיחָא לְהוּ דְּלָא נִינַּוַּול; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara asks: If the mishna is referring to an unemployed person, isn’t it obvious that he may not take from the common inheritance of all the brothers? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that it is preferable for them that he dress appropriately so that he will not be repulsive, thereby dishonoring the family name, the mishna teaches us that he does not have the right to take money for clothing from the common inheritance, and if he does so, the brothers can subtract from his share of the inheritance as a result.

נָשְׂאוּ גְּדוֹלִים יִשְּׂאוּ קְטַנִּים. מַאי קָאָמַר?

§ The mishna teaches that if the adults married, the minors marry. The Gemara asks: What is it saying? What does this mean?

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, הָכִי קָאָמַר: נָשְׂאוּ גְּדוֹלִים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן – יִשְּׂאוּ קְטַנִּים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן. אֲבָל נָשְׂאוּ גְּדוֹלִים בְּחַיֵּי אֲבִיהֶן, וְאָמְרוּ קְטַנִּים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן: ״הֲרֵי אָנוּ נוֹשְׂאִין כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁנְּשָׂאתֶם אַתֶּם״ – אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לָהֶן, אֶלָּא מָה שֶׁנָּתַן לָהֶן אֲבִיהֶן – נָתַן.

Rav Yehuda says that this is what it is saying: If the adults married after their father’s death and used the common inheritance to pay for their weddings, the minors that marry after their father’s death may also pay for their weddings from the common inheritance. But if the adults married during their father’s lifetime, and the minors said after their father’s death: We will marry in the same manner that you married, the court does not listen to them. Rather, whatever sum their father gave the adults to pay for their weddings in his lifetime he gave them, and the minors do not have the right to demand that same sum from the inheritance.

הִנִּיחַ בָּנוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת וּקְטַנּוֹת. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ אֲבוּהּ בַּר גְּנִיבָא לְרָבָא, יְלַמְּדֵנוּ רַבֵּינוּ: לָוְותָה וְאָכְלָה, וְעָמְדָה וְנִשֵּׂאת – בַּעַל לוֹקֵחַ הָוֵי, אוֹ יוֹרֵשׁ הָוֵי?

§ The mishna teaches that if the father left adult and minor daughters, and the adults married, the minors marry. Avuh bar Geneiva sent a question to Rava: Our teacher, instruct us: If a woman borrowed money and consumed it, and before repaying the debt she arose and married, bringing her property into the marriage, what is the halakha? Is the husband considered a purchaser of her property or is he considered an heir to her property?

לוֹקֵחַ הָוֵי – וּמִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת; אוֹ דִּלְמָא יוֹרֵשׁ הָוֵי – וּמִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה גּוֹבֶה מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין?

The halakhic ramification of this dilemma is as follows: Is he considered a purchaser, and the creditor therefore cannot collect his wife’s premarital debt from him, as one does not collect from the purchasers a loan by oral agreement? Or perhaps he is considered her heir, and one collects from the heirs a loan by oral agreement.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵינָא: נָשְׂאוּ גְּדוֹלוֹת – יִשְּׂאוּ קְטַנּוֹת. מַאי, לָאו נָשְׂאוּ גְּדוֹלוֹת לְבַעַל – יִשְּׂאוּ קְטַנּוֹת מִבַּעַל?

Rava said to him: We learned the answer to this question in the mishna: If the adult daughters married, the minor daughters marry. What, is it not teaching that if the adult daughters married, each one of them transferring money from the common inheritance to her husband to cover the wedding expenses, the minor daughters also marry, paying for the wedding from the money that each elder sister transferred to her husband? Clearly, although the money the elder daughters took from the inheritance for their weddings has the status of a loan by oral agreement, their husbands are liable to return it. This proves that the husbands are considered heirs.

לֹא; נָשְׂאוּ גְּדוֹלוֹת לְבַעַל – יִשְּׂאוּ קְטַנּוֹת לְבַעַל.

The Gemara answers: No, the mishna is teaching that if the adults married and each one transferred money to her husband, the minors also marry, and each one may transfer money from the common inheritance to her husband for the wedding expenses. They cannot collect money from what was already transferred by their sisters to their husbands.

אִינִי?! וְהָא תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: נָשְׂאוּ גְּדוֹלוֹת לְבַעַל – יִשְּׂאוּ קְטַנּוֹת מִבַּעַל!

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach that if the adults married and transferred money to the husband, the minors marry and collect money from the husband of each elder sister?

דִּלְמָא שָׁאנֵי פַּרְנָסָה, דְּאִית לַהּ קָלָא.

The Gemara answers: Even according to this interpretation, there is no proof from the mishna with regard to the case of a loan by oral agreement. Perhaps the provision of wedding expenses for the daughters is different, as it generates publicity. Since it is well known that a specific portion of a person’s estate is liened to the future wedding expenses of his single daughters, it has the status of a loan with a promissory note. Therefore, the younger daughters can collect from the husbands of the elder daughters even if the status of the husbands is that of purchasers.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא, לָאו הַיְינוּ דִּשְׁלַח רָבִין בְּאִגַּרְתֵּיהּ: מִי שֶׁמֵּת, וְהִנִּיחַ אַלְמָנָה וּבַת – אַלְמְנָתוֹ נִזּוֹנֶת מִנְּכָסָיו. נִשֵּׂאת הַבַּת – אַלְמְנָתוֹ נִזּוֹנֶת מִנְּכָסָיו. מֵתָה הַבַּת – אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בֶּן אֲחוֹתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי [בֶּן חֲנִינָא]: עַל יָדִי הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה, וְאָמְרוּ: אַלְמְנָתוֹ נִזּוֹנֶת מִנְּכָסָיו.

Rav Pappa said to Rava: Is this not identical to the halakha that Ravin sent in his letter from Eretz Yisrael? That halakha states that with regard to one who died and left a widow and a daughter, his widow is sustained from his property. If the daughter then married, the widow is still sustained from his property, although it is now in the possession of the daughter’s husband, as she had inherited the property from her father. With regard to a case where the daughter then died and her husband inherited from her, Rav Yehuda, son of the sister of Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥanina, says: This incident occurred with me, and the Sages said that the late man’s widow is still sustained from his property although it is fully owned by his daughter’s husband.

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא יוֹרֵשׁ הָוֵי, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי אַלְמְנָתוֹ נִזּוֹנֶת מִנְּכָסָיו; אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לוֹקֵחַ הָוֵי, אַמַּאי נִזּוֹנֶת מִנְּכָסָיו?

Rav Pappa explains: Granted, if you say the husband is considered an heir, it is due to that reason that his father-in-law’s widow is sustained from his property; it is still liened to her sustenance. But if you say that a husband is considered a purchaser of his wife’s property, why is his father-in-law’s widow sustained from his property? The purchasers of inherited property are not obligated to sustain the widow.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִי לָאו דִּשְׁלַח רָבִין, אֲנַן לָא יָדְעִינַן? וְהָא תְּנַן: אֵלּוּ הֵן שֶׁאֵין חוֹזְרִין בַּיּוֹבֵל – הַבְּכוֹרָה,

Abaye said: If Ravin had not sent this letter, would we not have known that the husband has the status of a purchaser? But didn’t we learn in the mishna (Bekhorot 52b): These properties do not return to their original owners in the Jubilee Year (see Leviticus 25:13–24): The portion of the firstborn, i.e., it does not return to the common ownership of the brothers to be shared equally like the rest of the inheritance, but rather remains in the possession of the firstborn;

וְהַיּוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ!

and one who inherits the property of his wife after her death, i.e., the property is not returned to her family. Evidently, the husband does not have the status of a purchaser, as a purchaser must return the property to its original owner in the Jubilee Year.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְהַשְׁתָּא דִּשְׁלַח, מִי יָדְעִינַן?! הָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: בְּאוּשָׁא הִתְקִינוּ, הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁמָּכְרָה נִכְסֵי מְלוֹג בְּחַיֵּי בַּעְלָהּ, וּמֵתָה – הַבַּעַל מוֹצִיא מִיַּד הַלָּקוֹחוֹת.

Rava said to him: And now that Ravin sent the letter, do we in fact know that the husband has the status of an heir? Doesn’t Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, say: In Usha they instituted an ordinance that in the case of a woman who sold her usufruct property, i.e., property that she alone owns and her husband benefits only from the profits, in her husband’s lifetime and then died, the husband repossesses it from the purchasers? Apparently the husband’s status is that of a purchaser, as a purchaser can appropriate his purchase from a later purchaser, whereas an heir does not inherit property that the person sold before he died.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: בַּעַל – שַׁוְּיוּהוּ רַבָּנַן כְּיוֹרֵשׁ, וְשַׁוְּיוּהוּ רַבָּנַן כְּלוֹקֵחַ, וְהֵיכָא דְּטָבָא לֵיהּ עֲבַדוּ לֵיהּ; גַּבֵּי יוֹבֵל – שַׁוְּיוּהוּ רַבָּנַן כְּיוֹרֵשׁ, מִשּׁוּם פְּסֵידָא דִידֵיהּ. גַּבֵּי דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא – שַׁוְּיוּהוּ רַבָּנַן כְּלוֹקֵחַ, מִשּׁוּם פְּסֵידָא דִידֵיהּ. גַּבֵּי דְּרָבִין – מִשּׁוּם פְּסֵידָא דְּאַלְמָנָה, שַׁוְּיוּהוּ רַבָּנַן כְּיוֹרֵשׁ.

Rather, Rav Ashi says that the Sages equated the husband with an heir, and the Sages equated him with a purchaser. And they deemed him as whichever is better for him, based on the circumstances of the case. With regard to the Jubilee Year, the Sages equated him with an heir, due to his potential loss were he to be equated with a purchaser, as he would be obligated to return the property to his wife’s heirs. With regard to the case of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, where the wife sold the property, the Sages equated him with a purchaser, due to his potential loss were he to be equated with an heir. With regard to Ravin’s halakha, concerning the sustenance of the husband’s father-in-law’s widow, due to the potential loss of the widow, the Sages equated him with an heir.

וְהָא גַּבֵּי דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, דְּאִיכָּא פְּסֵידָא לְלָקוֹחוֹת, וְשַׁוְּיוּהוּ רַבָּנַן כְּלוֹקֵחַ!

The Gemara asks: But with regard to the case of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, there is a loss to the purchasers, from whom the husband appropriates the property, and nevertheless, the Sages equated him with a purchaser.

הָתָם, אִינְהוּ אַפְסִידוּ אַנַּפְשַׁיְיהוּ – כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא בַּעַל, לָא אִיבְּעִי לְהוּ לְמִיזְבַּן מֵאִיתְּתָא דְּיָתְבָא תּוּתֵי גַּבְרָא.

The Gemara answers: There, the purchasers caused their own loss. Since they knew that there is a husband, they should not have purchased property from a wife living under the authority of her husband, removing it from the husband and his heirs.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ יֵשׁ נוֹחֲלִין

מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת; בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַנְּכָסִים מְרוּבִּין – הַבָּנִים יִירְשׁוּ, וְהַבָּנוֹת יִזּוֹנוּ. נְכָסִים מוּעָטִין – הַבָּנוֹת יִזּוֹנוּ, וְהַבָּנִים יִשְׁאֲלוּ עַל הַפְּתָחִים. אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר: בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁאֲנִי זָכָר, הִפְסַדְתִּי?! אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי אַדְמוֹן.

MISHNA: In the case of one who died and left behind both sons and daughters, when the estate is large the sons inherit the estate and the daughters are provided with sustenance from it according to the stipulations of the deceased’s marriage contract with their mother. With regard to a small estate, which is insufficient to provide for both the sons and the daughters, the daughters are provided with sustenance. And if the sons, who receive in this case neither inheritance nor sustenance, have no other means with which to support themselves, they go and request charity at the doors. Admon says, rhetorically: I lost out just because I am male? Rather, he holds that the sons also receive sustenance. Rabban Gamliel said: I see as correct the statement of Admon.

גְּמָ׳ וְכַמָּה מְרוּבִּין? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּזּוֹנוּ מֵהֶן אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. כִּי אַמְרִיתָא קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בַּר רַבִּי, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּזּוֹנוּ מֵהֶן אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ עַד שֶׁיִּבְגְּרוּ.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And how large must the estate be in order for the sons to inherit it? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Large enough to provide sustenance from it for both these, the sons, and those, the daughters, for twelve months. Rav Yehuda continues: When I said this ruling before Shmuel, he said: That is the statement of Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. But the Rabbis say: The estate must be large enough to provide sustenance from it for both these and those until the time that the daughters reach their majority, at age twelve and six months, as indicated in the marriage contract.

אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי: כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כֹּל שֶׁיִּזּוֹנוּ מֵהֶן אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ עַד שֶׁיִּבְגְּרוּ – הֵן מְרוּבִּין; פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוּעָטִין.

This was also stated by other amora’im: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and some say it was Rabba bar bar Ḥana who says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Any estate that is large enough to provide sustenance from it for both these and those until the time that the daughters reach their majority is a large estate; less than that, this is a small estate.

וְאִי לֵיכָּא לְאֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ עַד שֶׁיִּבְגְּרוּ,

The Gemara asks: And if there is not enough to provide for these and those until the daughters reach their majority,