## Bava Batra Daf 143b

###### Bava Batra 143b:1
[Bava Batra 143b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/143b:1)

וְאִם הֵבִיא חֲמִשִּׁים בִּכְלִי אֶחָד וַחֲמִשִּׁים בִּכְלִי אֶחָד – יָצָא. אִם הֵבִיא אִין – לְכַתְּחִלָּה לָא; וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ כׇּל כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא פַּלְגָא וּפַלְגָא הוּא, אֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה נָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if he brought fifty-**tenths **in one vessel and fifty in one vessel, he fulfilled** his obligation. One can infer from the *baraita* that after the fact, **if he** had **brought** fifty-tenths in each vessel, **yes,** he fulfilled his obligation, but he may **not** do so ***ab initio*. And if it should enter your mind** to say that **every case like this is** divided **half and half,** it should be permitted to divide the meal-offering into equal halves **even *ab initio*.**


###### Bava Batra 143b:2
[Bava Batra 143b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/143b:2)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם, אֲנַן סָהֲדִי דְּהַאי גַּבְרָא מֵעִיקָּרָא – לְקׇרְבָּן גָּדוֹל קָא מְכַוֵּין, וְהַאי דְּקָאָמַר בִּשְׁנֵי כֵלִים – דְּיָדַע דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר לְאֵתוֹיֵי בִּכְלִי אֶחָד; כַּמָּה דְּאֶפְשָׁר לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַיְיתִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara dismisses Rabbi Zeira’s objection: **How can** these cases **be compared? There,** in the case of the meal-offering, **it is clear to us that this person initially intended to** bring **a large offering, and** the reason **that he said** he will bring the offering **in two vessels** was **that he knew that it is not possible to bring** the entire offering **in a single vessel.** Therefore, **we bring,** in a single vessel, **as much as** it **is possible to bring,** which is sixty-tenths. In any other case it is possible that the division should be into two equal portions.


###### Bava Batra 143b:3
[Bava Batra 143b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/143b:3)

וְהִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף בְּשָׂדֶה, עִנְיָן וּמֶחֱצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: **And the *halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav Yosef** in three matters where he disagreed with Rabba: **In** the matter of dividing **a field** between brothers (see 12b); in the matter of whether certain actions are limited by the court session or by the **topic** of discussion in the court (see 114a); **and** in the matter of **half,** i.e., this matter, whether an unspecified division into two parts is divided into two equal halves.


###### Bava Batra 143b:4
[Bava Batra 143b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/143b:4)

הָהוּא דְּשַׁדַּר פִּיסְקֵי דְשִׁירָאֵי לְבֵיתֵיהּ. אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: הָרְאוּיִין לְבָנִים – לַבָּנִים, רְאוּיִין לְבָנוֹת – לַבָּנוֹת. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלֵית לֵיהּ כַּלָּתָא, אֲבָל אִית לֵיהּ כַּלָּתָא – לְכַלָּתֵיהּ שַׁדַּר. וְאִי בְּנָתֵיהּ לָא נְסִיבָן – לָא שָׁבַק בְּנָתֵיהּ וּמְשַׁדַּר לְכַלָּתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites additional incidents concerning a gift whose method of division was not specified: There was **a certain** man **who sent swaths of silk to his home** as a gift. **Rabbi Ami says** that in such a case, **those** swaths that are **suitable for** the **sons’** garments are given **to the sons,** and those that are **suitable for** the **daughters’** garments are given **to the daughters.** The Gemara comments: **We said this only when he does not have daughters-in-law, but if he has daughters-in-law,** it is presumed that **he sent** it **for his daughters-in-law. And if his daughters are not married,** it is presumed that **he does not forsake his daughters and send to his daughters-in-law,** so the silk is given to his daughters.


###### Bava Batra 143b:5
[Bava Batra 143b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/143b:5)

הַהוּא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ: ״נִכְסַיי לִבְנַיי״. הֲוָה לֵיהּ בְּרָא וּבְרַתָּא. מִי קָרוּ אִינָשֵׁי לִבְרָא ״בְּנַיי״ – וּלְסַלּוֹקֵי לִבְרַתָּא מֵעִישּׂוּר קָאָתֵי; אוֹ דִלְמָא, לָא קָרוּ אִינָשֵׁי לִבְרָא ״בְּנַיי״ – וּלְמוֹשְׁכָהּ לְבַרְתָּא בְּמַתָּנָה קָאָתֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
There was **a certain** man **who said to** those surrounding him: I leave **my property to my sons [*levanai*],** and **he had** only **a son and a daughter.** The question was raised: **Do people call** a single **son** in the plural: **My sons, and** in his will **he came to remove his daughter** even **from the tenth** of his property that would rightfully be her dowry? **Or perhaps people do not call** a single **son: My sons, and he came to include** his **daughter in the gift?**


###### Bava Batra 143b:6
[Bava Batra 143b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/143b:6)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וּבְנֵי דָּן – חֻשִׁים״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא, דִּלְמָא כִּדְתָנָא דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה: שֶׁהָיוּ מְרוּבִּין כְּחוּשִׁים שֶׁל קָנֶה! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: ״וּבְנֵי פַלּוּא – אֱלִיאָב״. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: ״וּבְנֵי אֵיתָן – עֲזַרְיָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: Come** and **hear** a proof that one does refer to a single son using the plural term sons, as it is written: **“And the sons of Dan: Hushim”** (Genesis 46:23). **Rava said to** Abaye: **Perhaps** this verse should be understood **as the school of Ḥizkiyya taught,** that Hushim is not the name of Dan’s son but **that they,** Dan’s sons, **were as numerous as** the **groups [*ḥushim*] of reeds. Rather, Rava said:** One can prove this usage of the term sons in the verse: **“And the sons of Pallu: Eliab”** (Numbers 26:8). **Rav Yosef said:** This can be proven from another verse: **“And the sons of Ethan: Azariah”** (I Chronicles 2:8).


###### Bava Batra 143b:7
[Bava Batra 143b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/143b:7)

הַהוּא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ: ״נִכְסַאי לִבְנַאי״. הֲוָה לֵיהּ בְּרָא, וּבַר בְּרָא. קָרוּ אִינָשֵׁי לְבַר בְּרָא ״בְּרָא״, אוֹ לָא? רַב חֲבִיבָא אֲמַר: קָרוּ אִינָשֵׁי לְבַר בְּרָא ״בְּרָא״, מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לָא קָרוּ אִינָשֵׁי לְבַר בְּרָא ״בְּרָא״. תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּמָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָאָה מִבָּנִים – מוּתָּר בִּבְנֵי בָנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
There was **a certain** man **who said to** those surrounding him: I leave **my property to my sons,** and **he had a son and a grandson,** i.e., his son’s son. The question was raised: Do **people call a grandson a son, or** do they **not? Rav Ḥaviva said: People call a grandson a son. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: People do not call a grandson a son.** The Gemara comments: **It is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Mar bar Rav Ashi:** With regard to **one prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from** a certain person’s **sons,** it is **permitted** for him to derive benefit **from** the **sons of** that person’s **sons,** as they are not included in the term sons.


###### Bava Batra 143b:8
[Bava Batra 143b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/143b:8)

**מַתְנִי׳** הִנִּיחַ בָּנִים גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים; הִשְׁבִּיחוּ גְּדוֹלִים אֶת הַנְּכָסִים – הִשְׁבִּיחוּ לָאֶמְצַע. אִם אָמְרוּ: ״רְאוּ מַה שֶּׁהִנִּיחַ אַבָּא, הֲרֵי אָנוּ עוֹשִׂין וְאוֹכְלִים״ – הִשְׁבִּיחוּ לְעַצְמָן. וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחָה אֶת הַנְּכָסִים – הִשְׁבִּיחָה לָאֶמְצַע. אִם אָמְרָה: ״רְאוּ מַה שֶּׁהִנִּיחַ לִי בַּעְלִי, הֲרֵי אֲנִי עוֹשָׂה וְאוֹכֶלֶת״ – הִשְׁבִּיחָה לְעַצְמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **one who** died and **left** behind **adult and minor sons,** if **the adult** sons **enhanced the property, they enhanced** it so that the profit goes **to the middle,** i.e., it is distributed among all the heirs. **If** the adult sons **said** from the outset: **See that which** our **father left** behind; **we are** going to **engage** in business with our share of the property **and profit** from it, then **they enhanced** the property **for themselves. And similarly,** with regard to **a wife who enhanced the property** of her deceased husband, **she enhanced** it so that the profit goes **to the middle,** i.e., it is divided between her and the heirs. **If she said: See that which my husband left me; I am** going to **engage** in business with my share **and profit** from it, then **she enhanced** the property **for herself.**


###### Bava Batra 143b:9
[Bava Batra 143b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/143b:9)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב חֲבִיבָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁשָּׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים מֵחֲמַת נְכָסִים, אֲבָל שָׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָן – הִשְׁבִּיחוּ לְעַצְמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Ḥaviva, son of Rav Yosef, son of Rava, says in the name of Rava: They taught** this *halakha* **only** with regard to **where the property was enhanced on account of the property,** i.e., the heirs invested money from the common inheritance in order to enhance the property, and their input was only in the management of its investment. **But** if the **property was enhanced on their account,** i.e., on account of the efforts or expenditure of the adult sons, the *halakha* is that **they enhanced** it **for themselves.**


###### Bava Batra 143b:10
[Bava Batra 143b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/143b:10)

אִינִי?! וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אֲפִילּוּ לֹא הִנִּיחַ לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם אֶלָּא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is that so? But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥanina say: Even** if **their father left them nothing but**