## Bava Batra Daf 131b

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

מִמַּאי דִּבְחַד בֵּי דִינָא אִיתְּקוּן? דִּלְמָא בִּתְרֵי בֵּי דִינָא אִיתְּקוּן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From where** do you conclude **that** both clauses, the one for the benefit of the sons and the one for the benefit of the daughters, **were instituted by one court** and are therefore each read in light of the other? **Perhaps they were instituted by two** different **courts** and are unrelated to each other. Accordingly, the wording of the gift and the wording of the inheritance are not part of the same statement.


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

לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּקָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא: זֶה מִדְרָשׁ דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים בַּכֶּרֶם בְּיַבְנֶה: הַבָּנִים יִירְשׁוּ וְהַבָּנוֹת יִזּוֹנוּ; מָה הַבָּנִים אֵינָן יוֹרְשִׁין אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶם, אַף בָּנוֹת לֹא יִזּוֹנוּ אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This possibility should **not enter your mind, as** the **former clause** of that mishna **teaches** (*Ketubot* 49a): A father is not obligated to provide his daughter’s sustenance. **This interpretation was interpreted** by **Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya before the Sages of the vineyard in Yavne:** Since the Sages instituted that after the father’s death, **the sons inherit** the sum of money specified in their mother’s marriage contract, **and the daughters are sustained** from their father’s estate, these two *halakhot* are equated: **Just as the sons inherit only after their father’s death,** not during his lifetime, **so too, the daughters are sustained** from their father’s property **only after their father’s death.**


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

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּחַד בֵּי דִינָא אִיתְּקוּן, הַיְינוּ דְּיָלְפִינַן תַּקָּנָה מִתַּקָּנָה. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּתְרֵי בֵּי דִינָא אִיתְּקוּן, הֵיכִי יָלְפִינַן תַּקָּנָה מִתַּקָּנָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Granted, if you say** that the two clauses **were instituted by one court, this is** the reason **that we derive** the *halakhot* of one **ordinance from** the *halakhot* of the other **ordinance,** under the assumption that a court institutes ordinances in a consistent manner. **But if you say** that they **were instituted by two** distinct **courts** operating in different periods, **how can we derive** the *halakhot* of one **ordinance from** the *halakhot* of the other **ordinance?**


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

מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ בִּתְרֵי בֵּי דִינָא אִיתְּקוּן; וּבֵי דִינָא בָּתְרָא תַּקּוּן כְּבֵי דִינָא קַמָּא, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא תִּקְשֵׁה תַּקַּנְתָּא אַתַּקַּנְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this explanation: **From where** is it assumed that they were instituted by one court? **Actually, I will say to you** that **perhaps** the two clauses **were instituted by two** separate **courts, and** nevertheless Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya derived the *halakhot* of one ordinance from the *halakhot* of the other ordinance, because **the latter court** presumably **instituted** its ordinance **in accordance with** the format of **the former court, so that** one should **not ask** about contradictions between one **ordinance and** the other **ordinance.** With regard to the *halakhot* of inheritance, there is no reason to read the two clauses in light of the other.


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

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַכּוֹתֵב כׇּל נְכָסָיו לְאִשְׁתּוֹ – לֹא עֲשָׂאָהּ אֶלָּא אַפּוֹטְרוֹפָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** A person on his deathbed **who writes** a document granting **all his property to his wife has merely rendered her a steward.** The assumption is that he did not intend to deprive his heirs of their entire inheritance. Rather, he intended to appoint her as a steward in charge of the property, so that the heirs will honor her.


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

פְּשִׁיטָא, בְּנוֹ הַגָּדוֹל – לֹא עֲשָׂאוֹ אֶלָּא אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס. בְּנוֹ הַקָּטָן מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses similar cases: It is **obvious** that if one writes a document granting all his property to **his adult son,** he does not intend to give him the entire inheritance, but to have him distribute it among his brothers. Rather, **he has merely rendered him a steward [*apotropos*].** If he writes it to **his minor son, what** is the *halakha*? Is it still assumed that his intention is to appoint him as a steward, or is that implausible since a minor boy is not yet capable of assuming this position and therefore the father apparently intended to bequeath to him the entire inheritance?


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

אִיתְּמַר, רַב חֲנִילַאי בַּר אִידֵּי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֲפִילּוּ בְּנוֹ קָטָן הַמּוּטָּל בַּעֲרִיסָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **was stated** that **Rav Ḥanilai bar Idi** says that **Shmuel says** that **even** if one wrote a document granting all his property to **his minor son who is lying in** his **crib,** he does not receive the entire inheritance. Rather, the father presumably intended to appoint him as a steward when he reached adulthood, so that the other heirs would honor him.


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

פְּשִׁיטָא, בְּנוֹ וְאַחֵר – אַחֵר בְּמַתָּנָה, וּבְנוֹ אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס. אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאַחֵר – לְאַחֵר בְּמַתָּנָה, וְאִשְׁתּוֹ אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara states: It is **obvious** that if one wrote a document granting all his property to **his son and another** person, he intended to give **the other** person half the property **as a gift, and** to appoint **his son a steward** to oversee the property of his brothers, with whom he shares the other half. Similarly, if he wrote a document granting all his property to **his wife and another** person, he intended to give **the other** person half the property **as a gift, and** to appoint **his wife a steward** to oversee the other half of the property for his sons.


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

אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲרוּסָה וְאִשְׁתּוֹ גְּרוּשָׁה – בְּמַתָּנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Furthermore, it is obvious that if one wrote a document granting all his property to **his betrothed wife,** whom he did not yet wed, **or** to **his** former **wife,** whom he had **divorced,** he intended to give it to them **as a gift,** as he had no reason to have his heirs honor them.


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

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: בַּת אֵצֶל הַבָּנִים, וְאִשָּׁה אֵצֶל הָאַחִים, וְאִשָּׁה אֵצֶל בְּנֵי הַבַּעַל, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: If one wrote a document granting all his property to his **daughter before** his **sons,** in a case where he has sons who would inherit from him, **or** to his **wife before** his **brothers, or** to his **wife before the husband’s sons** who are not her sons, **what is** the *halakha*? Is it assumed that his intention was to appoint her as a steward or to give her the property as a gift?


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

אָמַר רָבִינָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: בְּכוּלְּהוּ לֹא קָנָה, לְבַר מֵאִשְׁתּוֹ אֲרוּסָה וְאִשְׁתּוֹ גְּרוּשָׁה. רַב עַוִּירָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא אָמַר: בְּכוּלְּהוּ קָנֵי, לְבַר מֵהָאִשָּׁה אֵצֶל הָאַחִין וְאִשָּׁה אֵצֶל בְּנֵי הַבַּעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said in the name of Rava** that **in all of** these cases the recipient **did not acquire** the property. Rather, he or she was merely appointed a steward, **except for** the cases of **his betrothed wife and his** former **wife** whom he **divorced.** By contrast, **Rav Avira said in the name of Rava** that **in all of** these cases the recipient **acquired** the property, **except for** the cases of his **wife before** his **brothers and** his **wife before the husband’s sons,** where he clearly intended only to appoint her as a steward.