Bava Basra - Daf 139
- When younger siblings receive the same marriage funding that older siblings received
The next Mishnah states: הניח בנים גדולים וקטנים – if [the father] left older and younger sons, the older sons are not supported (with clothing) from the undivided estate, and the younger sons are not fed from the estate, since either would disproportionally deplete the estate. Instead, they divide it equally. If the older sons married, and funded the expenses from the estate, ישאו הקטנים – the younger ones may also marry using money from the estate. If the younger sons say, הרי אנו נושאין כדרך שנשאתם אתם – “We will marry the same way you married,” we do not listen to them; אלא מה שנתן להם אביהם נתן – rather, whatever the father gave [the older sons] to marry, he gave, and the younger sons are not entitled to receive the same. This seems to contradict the previous ruling, and the Gemara explains that the first case is where the older sons’ marriages were after their father died, and funded from the estate, so the younger sons can demand the same. The latter case is where the older sons married in the father’s lifetime, and whatever he gave them for their marriage was a gift. The same is taught regarding older and younger daughters.
- A husband is both a לוקח and a יורש in his wife’s assets
Rava was asked: לוותה ואכלה – if [a woman] borrowed money without a שטר and used it, and she got married, so her husband took possession of her assets, בעל לוקח הוי או יורש הוי – is a husband considered a purchaser or an heir of these assets? A מלוה על פה – oral loan cannot be collected from those who purchased property from the borrower, but it is collected from an heir. A proof is brought from Ravin, who ruled that a widow is supported by her husband’s estate, even after the only heir, a daughter, marries someone. This proves the husband is a יורש. Abaye brought another proof from a Mishnah, which teaches that property which a husband inherited from his wife is not returned in יובל (when all purchases are returned). However, Rava brought an opposing proof from the תקנה of אושא, that if a married woman sold property, the husband may collect it from the buyers after she dies, proving he is a לוקח (who preceded these buyers)!? Therefore, Rav Ashi concludes that the Rabbis treated the husband as either a יורש or a לוקח, והיכא דטבא ליה עבדו ליה – and whichever was better for him, they considered him. However, regarding the widow whose daughter married, they considered him a יורש, to protect the widow’s rights.
- Sons and daughters in an estate of נכסים מרובין or נכסים מועטין
The ninth Perek begins: מי שמת והניח בנים ובנות – if one died and left behind sons and daughters, בזמן שהנכסים מרובין – where the property is abundant, the sons inherit it, and the daughters are supported from it. נכסים מועטין – But if the property is inadequate, הבנות יזונו והבנים ישאלו על הפתחים – the daughters are supported, and the sons go begging at the doors. Admon objects: בשביל שאני זכר הפסדתי – because I am a male, I lose?! Rather, they are supported together until the estate runs out. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel agrees with Admon. Rav defines נכסים מרובין as enough to support both the sons and daughters for twelve months. Shmuel said this is the minority opinion of Rabban Gamliel bar Rebbe, but the Chochomim say that מרובין means enough to support the sons and daughters עד שיבגרו – until [the daughters] mature, which is the full amount of their support entitlement.
