About this episode
Study Guide Bava Batra 139 Today's daf is sponsored by Judith Shapiro in loving memory of her brother David Tychman z"l on his eleventh yahrzeit. "He was a passionate Zionist and a wonderful uncle to my children." If a father gives their land as a gift to one son "from today and after death," the father has exclusive rights to all the produce detached from the ground throughout his lifetime. Upon his death, the heirs receive any produce detached from the ground, not the gift recipient. However, in Tosefta Ketubot, the ruling is that if the son sold the field and then the father died, the buyer would have to return the value of produce attached to the ground at the time of the father's death to the heirs, as even produce attached to the ground belongs to the giver. Ulla resolves the contradiction by differentiating between the generosity of a father to a son as opposed to a non-relative (the buyer). If a father died and left older and younger children, before the inheritance is divided, they all get an equal portion for their needs - food, clothing, dowry. However, if some children were married in the father's lifetime, the younger children who were not yet married cannot demand the same amount of money for the wedding/dowry as the older ones received when the father was still alive. Rava brings an exception to the rule - if the oldest brother is managing the inheritance money and he takes money from the estate for clothing so he can dress respectfully when dealing with the inheritance, we do not insist that all the other brothers receive an equal share for their clothing. The son of Geneiva asked Rava: If a woman takes out a loan without a document (oral loan) and then gets married - since her husband has rights to her possessions, is he considered a "buyer" in which case, the creditor can't collect the loan (as an oral loan is not collected from land that is sold) or is he considered an inheritor and the loan can be collected. Rava tries to prove that he is considered an heir from our Mishna, but the proof is rejected. Rav Papa and Abaye each bring other sources to prove that a husband is considered an heir, but Rava raises a difficulty based on the takana in Usha which treats the husband as a buyer since a woman who sells her usufruct property and dies, the husband can demand it back from the buyers. This would only make sense if he was considered a buyer. Rav Ashi resolves the contradiction by explaining that sometimes the rabbis gave the husband status like an heir and sometimes like a buyer, depending on the situation - whatever is in the husband's or someone else's best interest, i.e. providing for a widow. Sons have rights to the inheritance but daughters have rights to sustenance from the estate. If there aren't sufficient funds for both, the rabbis give the girls rights to sustenance before giving rights to the sons. The sons are expected to ask for charity. Admon questions their position and Rabban Gamliel supports Admon. The amoraim discuss what is considered sufficient funds for both the sons and daughters.