## Bava Batra Daf 140a

###### Bava Batra 140a:1
[Bava Batra 140a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/140a:1)

שָׁקְלִי לְהוּ בָּנוֹת לְכוּלְּהוּ?! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: מוֹצִיאִין לָהֶן מְזוֹנוֹת לַבָּנוֹת עַד שֶׁיִּבְגְּרוּ, וְהַשְּׁאָר לַבָּנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
shall the **daughters take all** of the estate, even if it is more than is required for their sustenance? **Rather, Rava said:** The court **appropriates sustenance for the daughters until they reach their majority, and the remainder** is given **to the sons.**


###### Bava Batra 140a:2
[Bava Batra 140a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/140a:2)

פְּשִׁיטָא – מְרוּבִּין וְנִתְמַעֲטוּ, כְּבָר זָכוּ בָּהֶן יוֹרְשִׁין. מוּעָטִין וְנִתְרַבּוּ, מַאי? בִּרְשׁוּת יוֹרְשִׁין קָיְימִי – הִלְכָּךְ בִּרְשׁוּת יוֹרְשִׁין שְׁבוּח; אוֹ דִּלְמָא, סַלּוֹקֵי מְסַלְּקִי יוֹרְשִׁין מֵהָכָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara comments: It is **obvious** that if the estate was **large and became small,** the **heirs,** i.e., the sons, **already acquired it** when it was large. It remains in their possession, and they must provide for the daughters from it. The Gemara asks: If the estate was **small,** and was therefore not inherited by the sons, **and** then it **became large, what** is the *halakha*? Does even a small estate **remain in the possession of the heirs,** while the court reserves it for the daughters’ sustenance, and **therefore it appreciated in the possession of** the **heirs** and they receive the appreciation in the estate’s value? **Or perhaps** the **heirs are** totally **removed from** possession of a small estate, and the appreciation in value is to the benefit of the daughters receiving sustenance.


###### Bava Batra 140a:3
[Bava Batra 140a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/140a:3)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יְתוֹמִין שֶׁקָּדְמוּ וּמָכְרוּ בִּנְכָסִים מוּעָטִין – מַה שֶּׁמָּכְרוּ, מָכְרוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Come** and **hear** a proof, **as Rabbi Asi says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** In the case of **orphans who preemptively sold** land **from a small estate** left to them by their father, before the court appropriated it for the daughters’ sustenance, concerning **that which they sold,** the **sale** is valid, even though they acted improperly. One can infer from this that a small estate remains in the possession of the heirs even when they are not authorized to derive benefit from it, and therefore the appreciation in its value belongs to them.


###### Bava Batra 140a:4
[Bava Batra 140a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/140a:4)

יָתֵיב רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, וְקָא בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ: אַלְמְנָתוֹ, מַהוּ שֶׁתְּמַעֵט בַּנְּכָסִים? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּאִית לַהּ מְזוֹנֵי – מְמַעֲטָא; אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ מִנַּסְבָא – לֵית לַהּ, הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי לֵית לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yirmeya was sitting before Rabbi Abbahu and raised** the following **dilemma before him: What is** the *halakha* with regard to the sustenance to which the deceased’s **widow** is entitled? Does it **reduce** the value of **the estate** when evaluating whether the estate is categorized as a large estate or a small estate? **Do we say** that **since she has** a right to receive **sustenance,** it **reduces** the value of the estate? **Or perhaps** we say that **since if she remarries she does not have** a right to sustenance, **now as well,** for the purposes of determining the value of the estate, she is considered as if **she does not have** a right to sustenance, and therefore it does not reduce the value of the estate.


###### Bava Batra 140a:5
[Bava Batra 140a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/140a:5)

אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר: כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ מִנַּסְבָא לֵית לַהּ – הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי לֵית לַהּ; בַּת אִשְׁתּוֹ, מַהוּ שֶׁתְּמַעֵט בַּנְּכָסִים? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּכִי מִנַּסְבָא נָמֵי אִית לַהּ – וּמְמַעֲטָא; אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ מֵתָה לֵית לַהּ – וְלָא מְמַעֲטָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Furthermore, **if you say** that **since, if she remarries she does not have** a right to sustenance, **now as well** she is considered as if **she does not have** a right to sustenance, and it is not taken into account when evaluating the estate, then another dilemma can be raised: **What is** the *halakha* with regard to the sustenance one pledged to give, for a certain number of years, to the **daughter of his wife** from a previous marriage, i.e., his step-daughter, which is an obligation not affected by his death or by her marriage? Does it **reduce** the value of **the estate? Do we say** that **since, when she marries she also has** a right to sustenance, it **reduces** the value of the estate? **Or perhaps** we say that **since, if she dies she does not have** a right to sustenance, it **does not reduce** the value of the estate.


###### Bava Batra 140a:6
[Bava Batra 140a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/140a:6)

וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר: כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ מֵתָה לֵית לַהּ – וְלָא מְמַעֲטָא; בַּעַל חוֹב – מַהוּ שֶׁיְּמַעֵט בַּנְּכָסִים? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּכִי מָיֵית נָמֵי אִית לֵיהּ, מְמַעֵט; אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דִּמְחַסְּרִי גּוּבְיָינָא, לָא מְמַעֵט?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say** that **since, if she dies she does not have** a right to sustenance, therefore it **does not reduce** the value of the estate, **what is** the *halakha* with regard to a debt owed to the deceased’s **creditor?** Does it **reduce** the value of **the estate? Do we say** that **since, when** the creditor **dies he also has** a right to the money owed him, and it is collected by his heirs, therefore it **reduces** the value of the estate? **Or perhaps** we say that **since it has not yet been collected,** it **does not reduce** the value of the estate.


###### Bava Batra 140a:7
[Bava Batra 140a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/140a:7)

וְאִיכָּא דְּבָעֵי לַהּ לְאִידַּךְ גִּיסָא – בַּעַל חוֹב, מַהוּ שֶׁיְּמַעֵט בַּנְּכָסִים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And there are** those who say **that** Rabbi Yirmeya **raised the dilemmas in the opposite direction,** i.e., in the reverse order: **What is** the *halakha* with regard to a debt owed to **a creditor?** Does it **reduce** the value of **the estate?**