at the College, and he expressed his approval'.1 He went to him [when the other] explained2 Would anyone acquire possession if he were told, 'Acquire ownership as an ass'?3 For it was stated: [If one was told]. 'Acquire possession like an ass'. he does not acquire ownership. [If. however. one was told]. 'You and an ass [shall acquire possession].' R. Nahman said: He acquires the ownership of a half.4 And R. Hamnuna said: The statement is invalid '5 And R. Shesheth said: He acquires the ownership of all.
R. Shesheth said: Whence do I derive this?6 — For it was taught: R. Jose said: In cucumbers, the inner portion only' is bitter.7 Consequently. when a person is giving [a cucumber] as a heave-offering8 he [must]add9 to the external part of it,10 and [thus] gives the heave-offering. [But] why? [This is surely the same as the case of] 'You and the ass'!11 — There it is different; for Biblically it12 is perfect terumah,' for R. Elai said, 'Whence [is it inferred] that if one separates a heave-offering from an inferior quality for the [redemption of] a superior quality that his offering is valid? For it is said. And ye shall bear no sin by reason of it, seeing that ye have set apart from it the best thereof.13 [From this it is to be inferred that if you do not set apart from the best, but of the worst, you shall bear sin]; if, [however, the inferior quality] does not become consecrated, why should there be any bearing of sin!14 Hence [it follows] that if one separates a heave-offering from an inferior quality for [the redemption of] a superior quality, his offering is valid.'15
R. Mordecai said to R. Ashi: R. Iwya raised an objection [from the following Mishnah]: It once happened with five women, among whom there were two sisters. that a person gathered a basket of figs which were16 theirs and[which] were' [also of the fruit] of the Sabbatical year17 and said, 'Behold you are all betrothed18 unto me by this basket',19 and one of them accepted on behalf of all. The Sages said: The sisters are not betrothed.20 [From this it follows that] only the sisters were not consecrated. but the strangers were consecrated;21 but why? This [is surely the same case as] 'You and the ass'!22 — He said unto him: This is indeed [the reason] why I saw R. Huna b. Iwya in [my] dream: Because R. Iwya raised the objection. Have we not [however]. explained [the Mishnah23 as referring only to the case] where he said, 'She who is [legally] suitable among you for cohabitation shall be betrothed unto me'?24
A certain [person] said to his wife, 'My estate shall belong to you and to your children' — R. Joseph said: She acquires the ownership of half [of it]. R. Joseph. furthermore, said: Whence do I derive this? — For it was taught:25 Rabbi said: And it shall be for Aaron and his sons,26 half for Aaron [and] half for his sons.27 Abaye said to him: This28 is quite correct there;29 [since] Aaron was [in any case] entitled to receive a share, the All Merciful [must have] mentioned him explicitly in order [to indicate] that he is to receive a [full] half, [in the case of] a woman, [however], [who] is not entitled to be heir [at all]. it should be sufficient for her to receive like one of the children,30 [But] this is not [so] — For surely there was [such] a case at Nehardea where Samuel allowed her to receive a half; at Tiberias, and R. Johanan allowed her to receive a half. Furthermore, when R. Isaac b. Joseph came, he related [that] the Government31 once imposed crown money32 upon Bule33 and Startege33 [and] Rabbi said: Bule shall give a half and Startege a half!34 — What a comparison!35 There, when an order was issued36 on previous occasions it was directed to37 Bule, [yet] Startege contributed together with them, and the Government38 knew that they were assisting. Why. then, did they now direct the order to both Bule and Startege? [Obviously] to indicate that these [as well as] those [shall each contribute] a half.
Baba Bathra 143b
and if he brought fifty in one vessel and fifty in the other, he has [also] fulfilled his duty. [From this it follows that only] if he had [already] brought, has he fulfilled his duty;1 but that this is not the proper thing to do.2 Now, if it could be assumed that in any such case 'half and half' [is meant]. this3 [should have been allowed] even at the outset! — What a comparison! There, we are in a position to testify4 that this person first intended [to bring as] big [an] offering [as possible], and that [the reason] why' he said, 'In two vessels' [was] because he knew that it was impossible to bring [all] in one vessel.5 [Hence] we order him to bring as much as it is possible.
A certain [man] once sent home pieces of silk. R. Ammi said: Those which are suitable for the sons [belong] to the sons; [those] suitable for the daughters. [belong] to the daughters. [This,] however, has only been said [in the case] where he has no daughter-in-law, but if he has a daughter-in-law. [it is assumed that] he sent it for his daughter-in-law. If, however, his daughters were not married, [the gift belongs to them because] one would not neglect one's daughters10 and send to his daughter-in-law.
Once a certain [person] said. 'My estate [shall be given] to my sons' — He had a son and a daughter. [Do] people call a son. 'sons';11 or perhaps, they do not call a son. 'sons', and his intention was12 to include13 his daughter in the gift? — Abaye said, Come and hear: And the sons of Dan: Hushim,14 Raba said to him: Perhaps [this is to be explained]. in accordance with the Tanna of the School of Hezekiah, that they were as numerous as the leaves15 of a reed! But, said Raba. And the sons of Paliu: Eliab.16 R. Joseph said, And the sons of Ethan: Azariah.17
A certain [person] once said, 'My estate [shall be given] to my sons'. He had a son and a grandson. [Do] people call a grandson. son';18 or not? — R. Habiba said: People call a grandson 'son'.18 Mar son of R. Ashi said: People do not call a grandson. 'son'19 [A Baraitha] was taught in agreement with the view of Mar son of R. Ashi: He who is forbidden by a vow [to have any benefit] from [his] sons is allowed [to derive benefits] from [his grandsons].20
MISHNAH. HAD ONE LEFT SONS [WHO WERE] OF AGE AND MINORS, [AND] THOSE [WHO WERE] OF AGE IMPROVED THE ESTATE,21 THEY IMPROVED [IT] FOR THE COMMON GOOD.22 IF, [HOWEVER]. THEY23 SAID,24 SEE WHAT [OUR] FATHER HAS LEFT; WE DESIRE TO CULTIVATE [OUR OWN SHARES] AND TO ENJOY THE PROFITS.25 THE PROCEEDS26 BELONG TO THEM.27 LIKEWISE. [IN THE CASE WHERE] THE WIFE28 HAD EFFECTED IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ESTATE,29 SHE IMPROVED [IT] FOR THE COMMON GOOD.30 IF, [HOWEVER].SHE SAID, 'SEE WHAT MY HUSBAND HAS LEFT ME; I DESIRE TO CULTIVATE [MY SHARE] AND TO ENJOY31 THE BENEFITS', THE PROCEEDS BELONG TO HER.32
GEMARA. R. Habiba son of R. Joseph son of Raba said in the name of Raba: [The law of our Mishnah]33 is 'applicable34 only [to the case] where the improvement of the estate was effected out [of the funds] of the estate, but if it was improved at the expense of the elder brothers,35 the profits belong to themselves.36 [But] this is not [so]! For, surely. R. Hanina said,' Even if their father had left them37 nothing but
- To Next Folio -