Previous Folio / Baba Bathra Contents / Tractate List / Navigate Site
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Bathra
What is the reason1 [why he] does not [take a double portion if] money [was collected]? [Is it not] because their father did not bequeath that particular money? [In the case of] land also, their father, [surely], did not bequeath that land! Furthermore, you, O Master, have said, [that] the reason of the Palestinians is logical, for if the grandmother had sold [her estate] before [her death], her sale would have been valid.2 Following R. Nahman there is [this] difficulty: What is the reason1 why he does not [take a double portion when] land [was collected]? [Is it not] because their father did not bequeath that land? [In the case of] money also, their father did not bequeath that money! Furthermore, surely, R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: [If] orphans collected [a plot of] land for their father's debt3 the creditor4 may re-collect it from them!5 — He replied to him: There is no difficulty according to me, nor is there any difficulty according to R. Nahman. We were stating the reason of the Palestinians,6 but we ourselves7 do not hold [this] opinion.8
What [was the story of the] grandmother? [Once] a certain [person] said to them:9
Baba Bathra 125b
'My estate [is bequeathed] to [my] grandmother, and after [her demise] to my heirs.'1 He had a married daughter [who] died during the lifetime of her husband and the lifetime of her grandmother. After the grandmother died, the husband came to claim [the estate].2 R. Huna said: 'To my heirs',3 implies, 'even to the heirs of my heirs';4 and R. Anan said: 'To my heirs', implies, 'but not to the heirs of my heirs'.
[A message] was sent from Palestine:5 The law is in accordance with [the statement] of R. Anan; but not because of his reason. 'The law is in accordance with [the statement] of R. Anan' [in] that the husband is not to be the heir. 'But not because of his reason', for, whereas R. Anan holds the opinion [that] even though his daughter had a son he would not be heir,6 [the law] is not [so]; for had his daughter had a son he would certainly have been heir.7 The reason why the husband is not heir is this: Because [the estate] was8 prospective [property],9 and the husband is not [entitled] to receive of prospective [property] as of [property which is already] in the possession [of his wife at the time of her death].
Does this10 imply that R. Huna11 holds the opinion that a husband [is entitled] to receive of the prospective [property of his wife] as of that which is [already] in [her] possession [at the time of her death] — R. Eleazar said: This subject12 began with the great and ended with the small.13 [R. Huna's reason is this:] Whosoever says, '[Another person shall be my heir] after you,'14 is [regarded] as one who said, '[That person shall be my heir] from now'.15
R. Papa said: The law is that a husband does not receive of the 'prospective'18 [estate] of his wife as of that which is in her possession';18 and the firstborn son does not receive of a prospective [estate of his father] as of that which is in [his father's] 'possession'. The firstborn son, [furthermore,] does not receive a double portion in a loan [owing to his father], whether [the heirs] had collected [in payment] land or whether they had collected money;
- To Next Folio -