## Bava Batra Daf 131a

###### Bava Batra 131a:1
[Bava Batra 131a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/131a:1)

מִגְמָר נָמֵי לָא תִּגְמְרוּ מִינֵּיהּ – דְּאֵין לַדַּיָּין אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁעֵינָיו רוֹאוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
but **do not learn from it either, as a judge has only what his eyes see** as the basis for his ruling. One must rule according to his own understanding.


###### Bava Batra 131a:2
[Bava Batra 131a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/131a:2)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: בְּבָרִיא הֵיאַךְ? כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה – בִּשְׁכִיב מְרַע, דְּבַר אוֹרוֹתֵי הוּא; אֲבָל בְּבָרִיא – לָא; אוֹ דִלְמָא אֲפִילּוּ בְּבָרִיא נָמֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava raises a dilemma: In** the case of **a healthy person** who bequeaths his estate to one of his sons, **how** should the court rule? Should it be reasoned that **when Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says** that the bequeathal is valid, he said so specifically **with regard to** the case of **a person on his deathbed, since he is capable of bequeathal,** as the verse: “In the day that he causes his sons to inherit” (Deuteronomy 21:16), from which the validity of this bequeathal is derived, is referring specifically to the time of one’s death; **but in** the case of **a healthy person,** he did **not** say his ruling? **Or perhaps** he stated his ruling **even in** the case of **a healthy person.**


###### Bava Batra 131a:3
[Bava Batra 131a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/131a:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא לְרָבָא: תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי נָתָן לְרַבִּי: שְׁנִיתֶם מִשְׁנַתְכֶם כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה! דִּתְנַן: לֹא כָּתַב לָהּ ״בְּנִין דִּיכְרִין דְּיִהְוֹין לִיךְ מִינַּאי, אִינּוּן יִרְתוּן כֶּסֶף כְּתוּבְּתִיךְ יוֹתֵר עַל חוּלַקְיהוֹן דְּעִם אֲחוּהוֹן״ – חַיָּיב, שֶׁתְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mesharshiyya said to Rava: Come** and **hear** a resolution of your dilemma from a *baraita*, **as Rabbi Natan said to Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi: **You taught** in **your Mishna in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, as we learned** in a mishna (*Ketubot* 52b): If the husband **did not write for her** in her marriage contract: Any **male children you will have from me will inherit the money of your marriage contract in addition to their portion** of the inheritance **that** they receive together **with their brothers,** he **is** nevertheless **obligated** as though he had written it, **as it is a stipulation of the court** and consequently takes effect even if it is not explicitly stated. This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka that one may add to the share of some of his sons at the expense of the others.


###### Bava Batra 131a:4
[Bava Batra 131a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/131a:4)

וְאָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי: ״יִסְּבוּן״ תְּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **said to him:** We did not learn that the male children she has from him will inherit the money of the marriage contract; that version is not accurate. Rather, **we learned** that **they will take** the money of the marriage contract, as a gift. When a bequeathal is worded in this manner, it is valid in any event, as stated in the previous mishna (126b).


###### Bava Batra 131a:5
[Bava Batra 131a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/131a:5)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי: יַלְדוּת הָיְתָה בִּי וְהֵעַזְתִּי פָּנַי בְּנָתָן הַבַּבְלִי – אֶלָּא דְּקַיְימָא לַן: בְּנִין דִּכְרִין לָא טָרְפָא מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדִי; אִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ ״יִסְּבוּן״ תְּנַן, אַמַּאי לָא טָרְפָא מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדִי? אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: ״יִרְתוּן״ תְּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi later retracted his response, and **said:** My response was because of **immaturity** that **I had in me, and I was insolent in the presence of** Rabbi **Natan the Babylonian** by responding in a manner that is incorrect. It is incorrect for the following reason: **But since we maintain** that concerning an obligation detailed in a marriage document ensuring inheritance rights of a woman’s **male children,** the beneficiaries **do not repossess liened** property that has been sold, one can infer that they do not receive the money as a gift. As, **if it enters your mind** that **we learned** in the mishna that **they will take** the money as a gift, **why don’t they repossess liened** property? The gift was given to them before the property was sold to others. **Rather, conclude from** this claim that **we learned** in the mishna that **they will inherit** the money.


###### Bava Batra 131a:6
[Bava Batra 131a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/131a:6)

מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאִית לֵיהּ הַאי סְבָרָא – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אֲפִילּוּ בְּבָרִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Mesharshiyya concludes: **Of whom have you heard that he holds this opinion** that one can add to the inheritance of some of his sons at the expense of the others? It is the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, and conclude from** the mishna in *Ketubot* that his ruling applies **even with regard to a healthy person,** as one does not write a marriage contract on his deathbed. This resolves Rava’s dilemma.


###### Bava Batra 131a:7
[Bava Batra 131a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/131a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: בֵּין לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״יִסְּבוּן״, וּבֵין לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״יִרְתוּן״, הָא אֵין אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said to Abaye:** How can one prove that the mishna in tractate *Ketubot* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka? **Whether according to the one who says** that the correct version of the mishna is: **They will take, and whether according to the one who says** the correct version of the mishna is: **They will inherit,** the mishna is difficult, for the following reason: **A person cannot transfer ownership** of **an entity that has not** yet **come into the world.** How can the husband confer rights to his property to children that have yet to be born?


###### Bava Batra 131a:8
[Bava Batra 131a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/131a:8)

וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּאָמַר: אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם, הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְדָבָר שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בָּעוֹלָם, אֲבָל לְדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּעוֹלָם – לֹא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa explains: **And even according to Rabbi Meir, who says** that **a person can transfer ownership** of **an entity that has not** yet **come into the world, this statement** applies specifically in a case where he transfers the item **to an entity,** i.e., a person, **that is in the world; but** with regard to transferring ownership of an item **to an entity that is not** yet **in the world,** e.g., to his children that have yet to be born, this statement does **not** apply. Therefore, the ruling of the mishna is difficult according to all opinions.


###### Bava Batra 131a:9
[Bava Batra 131a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/131a:9)

אֶלָּא תְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין שָׁאנֵי; הָכָא נָמֵי – תְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין שָׁאנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa explains: **Rather,** evidently **a stipulation of the court is different.** Since this clause of the marriage contract was instituted by rabbinic ordinance, it is not subject to the standard *halakhot* of transferring property, and one can transfer ownership of an item to an entity that is not yet in the world. Accordingly, **here too,** with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka and the Rabbis, **a stipulation of the court is different,** and even according to the Rabbis, who disagree with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, one can bequeath the money of his wife’s marriage contract to the male children she will have from him in any manner he chooses. Consequently, there is no proof that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka.


###### Bava Batra 131a:10
[Bava Batra 131a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/131a:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא מַפֵּיק לַהּ בִּלְשׁוֹן ״יִרְתוּן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye **said to him:** The assertion that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka is **due to** the fact **that it expresses** this bequeathal **with the wording: They will inherit,** as opposed to: They will take. This indicates that a person can normally apportion his inheritance to his sons in any manner he wishes, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka.


###### Bava Batra 131a:11
[Bava Batra 131a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/131a:11)

הֲדַר אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא דַּאֲמַרִי, דִּתְנַן: לֹא כָּתַב לָהּ ״בְּנָן נוּקְבָן דְּיִהְוְיָין לִיכִי מִינַּאי, יִהְוְיָין יָתְבָן בְּבֵיתִי וְיִתַּזְנָן מִנִּכְסַאי עַד דְּתִילַּקְחָן לְגוּבְרִין״ – חַיָּיב, שֶׁהוּא תְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye then said: That which I said is not correct.** The expression: They will inherit, is appropriate even according to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, **as we learned** in the continuation of that mishna that even if the husband **did not write for** his wife: Any **female children you will have from me will sit in my house and be sustained from my property until they are taken by men,** i.e., until they are married, he **is** nevertheless **obligated** as though he had written it, **as it** too **is a stipulation of the court.**


###### Bava Batra 131a:12
[Bava Batra 131a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/131a:12)

וְהָוֵה לָזֶה בְּמַתָּנָה וְלָזֶה בִּירוּשָׁה, וְכֹל לָזֶה בִּירוּשָּׁה וְלָזֶה בְּמַתָּנָה – אֲפִילּוּ רַבָּנַן מוֹדוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** since these two clauses are written adjacent to each other in the marriage contract, **it is** effectively a case where one bequeaths his estate to two people: **To this** one, the daughters, **as a gift, and to that** one, the sons, **as an inheritance. And** in **any** case where one bequeaths his estate **to this** person **as an inheritance and to that** person **as a gift, even the Rabbis concede** that the bequest is valid even if it is to people who are not his heirs, as it is considered a gift with regard to both recipients.


###### Bava Batra 131a:13
[Bava Batra 131a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/131a:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נְחוּמִי וְאִית דְּאָמַר רַב חֲנַנְיָה בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי, לְאַבָּיֵי:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥumi, and some say** it was **Rav Ḥananya bar Minyumi, said to Abaye:**