## Bava Batra Daf 144a

###### Bava Batra 144a:1
[Bava Batra 144a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/144a:1)

אוּדְיָינֵי – הַשָּׂכָר לָאֶמְצַע. וְהָא אוּדְיָינֵי, דְּמֵחֲמַת עַצְמוֹ הוּא! שָׁאנֵי אוּדְיָינֵי – דְּלִנְטִירוּתָא הוּא דַּעֲבִידָא, וַאֲפִילּוּ קְטַנִּים נָמֵי מָצוּ מְנַטְּרִי לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**a mortar [*udaini*],** which people pay to use, **the rent** goes **to the middle? But isn’t** the profit accruing from **a mortar** considered profit accruing **on his,** i.e., the adult son’s, **own account,** as the adult son must supervise its operation, and there is no outlay from the property? The Gemara dismisses this objection: **A mortar is different, as for** its **typical use** it can suffice **with supervision, and even minors are able to supervise its** use. Since the adults do not contribute anything more than the minors, they cannot demand a greater share of the profits.


###### Bava Batra 144a:2
[Bava Batra 144a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/144a:2)

אָמְרוּ ״רְאוּ מַה שֶּׁהִנִּיחַ אַבָּא, הֲרֵי אָנוּ עוֹשִׂין וְאוֹכְלִין״ – הִשְׁבִּיחוּ לְעַצְמָן. רַב סָפְרָא שְׁבַק אֲבוּהּ זוּזֵי. שַׁקְלִינְהוּ, עֲבַד בְּהוּ עִיסְקָא. אֲתוֹ אַחֵי, תַּבְעוּהוּ בְּדִינָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא; אֲמַר לְהוּ: רַב סָפְרָא גַּבְרָא רַבָּה הוּא, לָא שָׁבֵיק גִּירְסֵיהּ וְטָרַח לְאַחֲרִינֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: 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.** The Gemara relates: **Rav Safra’s father left** him **dinars.** Rav Safra **took them** and **entered** into **a business venture with them. His brothers came** and **charged him in** a court of **law before Rava,** claiming their share of the profits. Rava **said to them: Rav Safra is a great man; he does not abandon his studies and toil for others.** It is therefore clear that if he invested the money, it was for his own profit, even if he did not explicitly declare so at the outset.


###### Bava Batra 144a:3
[Bava Batra 144a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/144a:3)

הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחָה אֶת הַנְּכָסִים – הִשְׁבִּיחָה לָאֶמְצַע. אִשָּׁה בְּנִכְסֵי יַתְמֵי מַאי עֲבִידְתַּהּ? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: בְּאִשָּׁה יוֹרֶשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to **a wife who enhanced the property** of her deceased husband, **she enhanced** it so that the profit goes **to the middle.** The Gemara asks: **What is** the deceased’s **wife doing with** the **orphans’ property?** What rights does she have to the property? **Rav Yirmeya said:** The mishna is referring **to a wife** who is **an heiress,** e.g., if she were the daughter of her husband’s brother, and both brothers died without leaving sons, in which case she inherits in her father’s stead.


###### Bava Batra 144a:4
[Bava Batra 144a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/144a:4)

פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּלָאו דַּרְכַּהּ לְמִטְרַח, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא פָּרֵישׁ – כְּמוֹ דְּפָרֵישׁ דָּמֵי, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it **obvious** that the *halakha* in this case is the same as with regard to any other heir? The Gemara replies: It is necessary to state this, **lest you say** that **since it is not** a woman’s **way to toil** to enhance property, then **even though she did not expressly state** that she is toiling for herself, **it is considered as though** she **had expressly stated** this. The mishna **teaches us** that only if she expressly stated this do the profits accrue to her.


###### Bava Batra 144a:5
[Bava Batra 144a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/144a:5)

וְאִם אָמְרָה: ״רְאוּ מַה שֶּׁהִנִּיחַ לִי בַּעְלִי, הֲרֵינִי עוֹשָׂה וְאוֹכֶלֶת״ – הִשְׁבִּיחָה לְעַצְמָהּ. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁבִיחָא לַהּ מִילְּתָא, דְּאָמְרִי: קָא טָרְחָא קַמֵּי יַתְמֵי – אַחוֹלֵי אַחֲלָה; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **And 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.** The Gemara asks: Isn’t this **obvious?** The Gemara explains: It is necessary to state this, **lest you say** that **since** it **is praiseworthy for her** to enhance the property on behalf of the orphans, **as** people will **say:** See how **she toils for the orphans, she relinquishes** her right to the profits and they should divide them equally. The mishna **teaches us** that this is not the case.


###### Bava Batra 144a:6
[Bava Batra 144a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/144a:6)

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הַמַּשִּׂיא אִשָּׁה לִבְנוֹ גָּדוֹל בַּבַּיִת – קְנָאוֹ. וְדַוְקָא גָּדוֹל, וְדַוְקָא בְּתוּלָה, וְדַוְקָא אִשְׁתּוֹ רִאשׁוֹנָה, וְדַוְקָא שֶׁהִשִּׂיאוֹ רִאשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥanina says:** In the case of **one who marries a woman to his eldest son** and arranges the wedding feast **in a house** that he designated for the purpose of the wedding canopy and the wedding feast, the son **acquires** the house as a gift. The Gemara notes: **And** this is the *halakha* **specifically** in the case of the **eldest** son, **and specifically** if he is marrying **a virgin, and specifically** when this woman is **his first wife, and specifically when** the father **married him off first** among his sons. When all these conditions exist, it is presumed that the father has a particular fondness toward the son, due to which he gave him the house.


###### Bava Batra 144a:7
[Bava Batra 144a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/144a:7)

פְּשִׁיטָא, יִיחֵד לוֹ אָבִיו בַּיִת וַעֲלִיָּיה – בַּיִת קָנָה, עֲלִיָּיה לֹא קָנָה. בַּיִת וְאַכְסַדְרָה, מַהוּ? שְׁנֵי בָתִּים זֶה לִפְנִים מִזֶּה, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the details of this *halakha*: It is **obvious** that if **his father designated a house for** the son’s nuptials **and** there is **an upper story** above the house, the son **acquired the house,** but **he did not acquire the upper story.** If he designated **a house** for the son, **and** there is **a portico [*ve’akhsadra*]** in front of the house, **what is** the *halakha*? If there were **two houses, one within the other,** and the inner one was designated for the son’s nuptials, **what is** the *halakha*? The Gemara concludes: These questions **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Bava Batra 144a:8
[Bava Batra 144a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/144a:8)

מֵיתִיבִי: יִיחֵד לוֹ אָבִיו בַּיִת וּכְלֵי בַיִת – כְּלֵי בַיִת קָנָה, בַּיִת לֹא קָנָה! אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה אוֹצָרוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו מוּנָּח שָׁם. נְהַרְדָּעֵי אָמְרִי: אֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹבָכָא דְיוֹנֵי. רַב יְהוּדָה וְרַב פַּפֵּי אָמְרִי: אֲפִילּוּ עֲצִיצָא דְהַרְסָנָא. מָר זוּטְרָא אַנְסְבֵיהּ לִבְרֵיהּ, וּתְלָא לֵיהּ סַנְדָּלָא. רַב אָשֵׁי אַנְסְבֵיהּ לִבְרֵיהּ, וּתְלָא לֵיהּ אֲשִׁישָׁא דְמִשְׁחָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: If **his father designated a house and furniture for his** son’s nuptials, the son **acquired the furniture,** but **he did not acquire the house. Rabbi Yirmeya says:** This is referring to a case **where his father’s storeroom was placed there.** It is clear that just as his father did not intend to give him the storeroom, neither did he intend to give him the house. The Sages **of Neharde’a say: Even** if there is only **a dovecote** in the house that belongs to the father, the son does not acquire the house. **Rav Yehuda and Rav Pappi say: Even** if there is only **a pot [*atzitza*] of** small **fried fish,** the son does not acquire the house. **Mar Zutra married off his son, and hung a sandal** in the house, to indicate that he did not intend to give the house as a gift. **Rav Ashi married off his son, and hung a jug [*ashisha*] of oil** in the house.


###### Bava Batra 144a:9
[Bava Batra 144a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/144a:9)

אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא, הָנֵי תְּלָת מִילֵּי שַׁוִּינְהוּ רַבָּנַן כְּהִלְכְתָא בְּלָא טַעְמָא: חֲדָא – הָא, אִידַּךְ – דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַכּוֹתֵב כׇּל נְכָסָיו לְאִשְׁתּוֹ – לֹא עֲשָׂאָהּ אֶלָּא אַפּוֹטְרוֹפָּא. אִידַּךְ – דְּאָמַר רַב: מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ, תְּנֵהוּ לִפְלוֹנִי; בְּמַעֲמַד שְׁלָשְׁתָּן – קָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Zutra says: These three matters were instituted by the Sages as a *halakha* without any explanation** of their process, i.e., they instituted these enactments despite the fact that the mechanism by which they function is unclear: **One** is **this** *halakha* with regard to the son acquiring the house designated for his nuptials. **Another** is that **which Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says: One who writes** a deed granting **all** of **his property to his wife renders her only a steward** of his property, i.e., he intends only to put her in charge of the property and she does not acquire it. **Another** is that **which Rav says:** With regard to one who says to another: **I** have **one hundred dinars in your possession; give it to so-and-so,** if this occurred **in the presence of** all **three** parties, that third person **acquires** it, without need of witnesses or a formal act of acquisition.