מי שמת. שהנכסים מרובים – in order that the sons will be supported and the daughters until they become adults (i.e., the age of twelve and one-half years – or until they are married, after which the balance of the estate goes to the sons).

שהנכסים מועטים – and they don’t have a measure like this.

בשביל שאני זכר הפסדתי – in astonishment. Burt rather, I will not lose out and all of us will be supported together. But the Halakha is not according to Admon. The put the widow with the daughter when the property is small, like a daughter with the brothers. Just as the daughter is with the brothers, the daughter is supported whereas the sons go begging at the doors. Even the widow is with the daughter. The widow receives support and the daughter goes begging at the doors.

וטומטום – doubtfully a male and doubtfully a female.

הזכרין דוחין אותו אצל הנקבות – for they say to him, bring proof that you are a male and take [your portion].

הנקבות דוחים אותו אצל הזכרים – as they say to hm, bring proof that you are a female and you will be supported with us.

ילדה זכר נוטל מנה – and even though we hold that one who makes an assignment to a fetus did not acquire it, here we are dealing with someone on his deathbed who made an assignment to his son, he acquired it, for the temperament of a person is closest with his son.

ילדה זכר ונקבה – twins together.

ילדה טומטום אינו נוטל – this Mishnah is superseded and the Halakha is that a person of indeterminate sex takes the least of the two of them.

יורש את הכל – so that you don’t say that this is a creature of its own kind, and not worthy of inheritance. This comes to teach us that this is not the case.

השביחו גדולים את הנכסים – while they are still belonging to the estate (before division among heirs).

השביחו לאמצע – and these words refer, when they improved the estate on account of the estate themselves, for they didn’t take out anything of their own, but only from the estate of their father, they hired workers. And they improved the estate on account of themselves. But if they dug and planted and spent their own money, the improvements they made, they made for themselves.

וכן אשה שהשביחה – In the Gemara (Tractate Bava Batra 144a) we establish it with a woman inheriting such as the case of Reuven who married the daughter of Shimon, his brother. But alas, he died without having any children. And the daughters of Shimon, his brother, inherit him. It is found that his wife, who is the daughter of Shimon, his brother, inherits him with the rest of her sisters. And you might say that with this benefit that she derives due to the emerging rumor that she manages [her husband’s property] and improves it, even if she had said, “see what my husband left me etc.,” even so, she renounced it and wants to improve it for the common fund/estate (and divide the profit equally). But it comes to teach it that she improved it for herself.

שנפל אחד [מהן] לאומנות – to the service of the king, for it is the custom of the king to appoint from all the houses of the city one person [to serve] as custom-collector/publican for one month or two months.

נפל לאמצע – all the profit, because it was on account of his father that it came time, but if was on his account, because of his sharpness and importance and wisdom that he was taken into the service of he king, what he earned, the profit is for himself.

חלה ונתרפא – if he became sick by accident, meaning to say, that he was not negligent with himself and he is cured from the estate, but if he got sick from blowing cold winds/cold draughts, and similar things, and it is written concerning it (Proverbs 22:5): “Thorns and snares are in the path of the crooked; [He who values his life will keep far from them],” in this we state in our Mishnah that he is not healed other than from what is his.

שושבינות – it is the manner of wedding gifts (see Talmud Bava Batra 144b) that one takes a meal and a gift to the wedding and eats with him, and the other returns and does the same for that one when he marries a woman. But if the father sent the wedding gift undefined via the hand of one of his sons, and the wedding gift returned after that following the death of the father, it returned to the estate, because it is like a loan, for it can be collected in the Jewish court of law, For a person who brings a wedding gift to his friend can go back and claim the wedding gift from him in a Jewish court, that he should give him the wedding gift in the manner that he had given it to him. And it will be that the second marriage should be like the first marriage: if she is a virgin, she is a virgin, if she is a widow, she will be a widow, and if in public, it will be in public, and if it is private, it will be in private, for the second can say to the first, “I will not do with you other than in the manner that you did for me.”

אבל השולח לחבירו כדי יין וכדי שמן – without a wedding, or alternatively, at a wedding, and he doesn’t go to eat with him, this is not wedding gifts, but rather a [personal] gift, and they are not collected in the Jewish court.

השולח סבלונות – it is the custom of grows on the morrow of the betrothal that they send to the house of the betrothed ornaments and kinds of precious goods and pitchers of wine and pitchers of oil, and sometimes, the groom goes to eat there.

אינן נגבין – if he (i.e., the groom) dies or she (i.e., the bride) dies, or he comes to divorce her, for on account of his love and joy of eating he pardoned, and especially when he at a Denar’s worth, but if he at less than a Denar, he did not pardon and he collects the nuptial gifts.

שלח סבלונות מרובים – and even a little, if he explained that on the connection that they come with her, to the house of her husband, then these are collected. But it is the way of things that [the Mishnah] took that it is the manner of nuptial gifts that they send them in order that they will come to the house of the husband, to be many. And those which they send in order that she can adorn herself with them in the house of her father, it is the manner to be few.

ושייר קרקע כל שהוא – (see Tractate Peah, Chapter 3, Mishnah 7 for a similar statement at the beginning of the Mishnah) and the same law applies if he left to himself movable, his gift is a gift. But if he stood and doesn’t return and he who acquired something from him on this same gift, as the gift of someone on their deathbed for a portion, requires acquisition, whether standing or not standing. But if he did not acquire it from his hand, the recipient did not acquire the gift, even if the person on his deathbed died. And especially, if he came to transfer/give possession the gift while living. But if he said: “Give to so-and-so this and that after his death,” he doesn’t require acquisition even if he left something to himself. And a person on his deathbed who came to give a a gift while living, if he did not leave anything to himself and stood, it goes back and even if they acquired it from his hand. It is a Mitzvah on account of death that he heard him when he said: “Woe is he who dies.” It (i.e., the gift) always returns [to its owner] whether he left [something to himself] or he did not leave [something to himself], and even if they acquired it from his hand. But if he died, the recipient acquired the gift, and even without acquisition.

לא כתב שכיב מרע – a pitcher of harvest and throws it into his bier, and even if it is not the language of gift of a healthy individual when he walked in the marketplace on his feet and didn’t leave anything.

הוא אומר שכיב מרע הייתי – and I have retracted, but the other says: “You were healthy and you cannot retract, he has to bring proof that he was on his deathbed, since after the present we follow, since presently, he is healthy. It is upon him to bring proof that he was on his deathbed at the time of the gift.

וחכמים אומרים – we don’t follow after the present but we say: “the claimant must produce evidence” (see Tractate Bava Kamma, Chapter 3, Mishnah 11 as well as the last line of our Mishnah). And the recipient of a gift who comes to remove it from the hand of the giver who is in possession of it, he must bring proof and witnesses that he (i.e., the giver) was healthy at that time, and the Halakha is according to the Sages.

ר' אליעזר אומר אחד בריא ואחד מסוכן – Rabbi Eliezer does not hold by [the statement] that the words of a person on his deathbed are as if they are written and transmitted, and even if one issues directives due to [his imminent] death, he holds that his gift is not a gift, other than through an acquisition, like the gift of a health individual. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

כבינתי – it is the Aramaic translation of a brooch of hammered metal.

תקברם אמם – meaning to say, they don’t bring a proof from them because they were wicked, and the Rabbis fined the sons to fulfill for the daughter the gift of their mother, even though it was not according to the law.

אבל לא החול – if the person on his deathbed distributed his possessions on a weekday.

קל וחומה בחול – and such is the Halakha, that whether it is a weekday or Shabbat, the words of a person on his deathbed are as if hey are written and transmitted, and there is no need for an acquisition. But if he asked tha they should acquire it from his hand, they acquire it from it, whether on weekdays or on Shabbat in order that his mind should not be troubled by it.

יורשי האב אומרים הבן מת ראשון – and the creditor cannot collect from these properties for the son never took possession of them.

ובעלי החוב אומרים האב מת ראשון – and the properties fell one hour before the son and they are mortgaged to the marriage contract of his wife and the creditors.

בית שמאי אומרים יחלוקו – the School of Shammai holds that the document that stands to be collected is considered as collected, and the inheritors of the father and the creditors, both of them are in possession. Therefore, they divide it.

ובית הלל אומרים – the property is in the possession of the inheritors and is seen as possessed, and the creditor comes to take it from their hands, and he has to bring proof that the father died first.

האשה מתה תחלה – and there is nothing for the inheritors of the wife, for the husband died last and inherited his wife.

נכסים בחזקתן – mort-main (i.e., wife’s estate held by her husband, which in case of her death or divorce he must restore “in specie,” being responsible with all his landed property for loss or deterioration) belongs to present occupants but the School of Hillel did not explain if it is in the possession of the inheritors of the wife which were hers or in the possession of the inheritors of the husband for their responsibility is upon him. Therefore, the mort-main is to be divided.

וכתובת אשה – which are a Maneh (= 100 silver denars) or two hundred (denars) and a supplement which remain in the possession of the inheritors of the husband.

ונכסים הנכנסים והיוצאים עמה – these are the usufruct (i.e., the wife’s estate of which the husband has the fruition without responsibility for loss or deterioration) for at the time that she enters [into marriage], they enter with her, and if they lessened, they lessen for her, and if they increased, they increased for her, it is found that the inheritors of the wife take all the usufruct and half of the mort-main.

נפל הבית עליו ועל אמו – and she has no other son other than this one. The inheritors of the son say that the woman died first and the son inherited her property and we inherit the son. But the inheritors of the woman from the family of the house of her father state that the son died first and that we inherit the woman.

אלו ואלו מודים [ – The School of Shammai and the School of Hillel [agree] that they should divide it. But this is not like the case where the house fell upon him and his wife. For in that case, there are two types of property. There is what the husband is in possession of and there is what the wife is in possession of, but here, everything is in the possession of the woman/wife since she was a widow. And both come from the power of inheritance to inherit everything. Therefore, it is divided.

מודה אני בזה – for according to the words of the School of Hillel, we say that is so that the property is left in the hands of the possessors, in the possession of her inheritors from the father’s side, for during her lifetime, once her husband died she is a connected through the tribe of her father. And her monies also during her lifetime are in the possession of her father’s tribe. Therefore, her inheritors from the father’s side inherit her, and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiba.

על חלוקין אנו מצטערין – meaning to say, on the disagreement above of the Schools of Shammai and Hillel. We are saddened that they didn’t come to agreement and you say that also with this they are divided. And you came to dispute on the first Tanna/teacher, that they are both equivalent.