Mishnah Bava Batra 9:4

מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַנְּכָסִים מְרֻבִּים, הַבָּנִים יִירְשׁוּ וְהַבָּנוֹת יִזּוֹנוּ. נְכָסִים מֻעָטִין, הַבָּנוֹת יִזּוֹנוּ וְהַבָּנִים יִשְׁאֲלוּ עַל הַפְּתָחִים. אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר, בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁאֲנִי זָכָר הִפְסַדְתִּי. אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי אַדְמוֹן: In the case of one who died and left behind both sons and daughters, when the estate is large the sons inherit the estate and the daughters are provided with sustenance from it according to the stipulations of the deceased’s marriage contract with their mother. With regard to a small estate, which is insufficient to provide for both the sons and the daughters, the daughters are provided with sustenance. And if the sons, who receive in this case neither inheritance nor sustenance, have no other means with which to support themselves, they go and request charity at the doors. Admon says, rhetorically: I lost out just because I am male? Rather, he holds that the sons also receive sustenance. Rabban Gamliel said: I see as correct the statement of Admon.

הִנִּיחַ בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת וְטֻמְטוּם, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַנְּכָסִים מְרֻבִּים, הַזְּכָרִים דּוֹחִין אוֹתוֹ אֵצֶל נְקֵבוֹת. נְכָסִים מֻעָטִין, הַנְּקֵבוֹת דּוֹחוֹת אוֹתוֹ אֵצֶל זְכָרִים. הָאוֹמֵר אִם תֵּלֵד אִשְׁתִּי זָכָר יִטֹּל מָנֶה, יָלְדָה זָכָר, נוֹטֵל מָנֶה. נְקֵבָה מָאתַיִם, יָלְדָה נְקֵבָה, נוֹטֶלֶת מָאתָיִם. אִם זָכָר מָנֶה אִם נְקֵבָה מָאתַיִם, וְיָלְדָה זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, זָכָר נוֹטֵל מָנֶה וְהַנְּקֵבָה נוֹטֶלֶת מָאתָיִם. יָלְדָה טֻמְטוּם, אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל. אִם אָמַר כָּל מַה שֶּׁתֵּלֵד אִשְׁתִּי יִטֹּל, הֲרֵי זֶה יִטֹּל. וְאִם אֵין שָׁם יוֹרֵשׁ אֶלָּא הוּא, יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת הַכֹּל: With regard to one who left behind sons and daughters and a tumtum, whose halakhic status as male or female is indeterminate, the halakha is as follows: When the estate is large the males direct the tumtum to the females and exclude him from the inheritance, claiming that perhaps the tumtum is female. When the estate is small, the females direct the tumtum to the males and exclude him from receiving sustenance, claiming that perhaps the tumtum is male. With regard to one who says: If my wife gives birth to a male the offspring shall receive a gift of one hundred dinars, if she in fact gave birth to a male, the offspring receives one hundred dinars. If he says: If my wife gives birth to a female the offspring shall receive a gift of two hundred dinars, if she in fact gave birth to a female, the offspring receives two hundred dinars. If he says: If my wife gives birth to a male the offspring shall receive a gift of one hundred dinars and if she gives birth to a female the offspring shall receive a gift of two hundred dinars, and in fact she gave birth to both a male and a female, the male offspring receives one hundred dinars and the female offspring receives two hundred dinars. If she gave birth to a tumtum, the tumtum does not receive anything. If he said: Whatever offspring my wife gives birth to shall receive a gift of a certain sum, and she gave birth to a tumtum, the tumtum receives it. And if there is no heir other than the tumtum, the tumtum inherits all of the estate.

הִנִּיחַ בָּנִים גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים, הִשְׁבִּיחוּ גְּדוֹלִים אֶת הַנְּכָסִים, הִשְׁבִּיחוּ לָאֶמְצַע. אִם אָמְרוּ רְאוּ מַה שֶּׁהִנִּיחַ לָנוּ אַבָּא, הֲרֵי אָנוּ עוֹשִׂים וְאוֹכְלִין, הִשְׁבִּיחוּ לְעַצְמָן. וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחָה אֶת הַנְּכָסִים, הִשְׁבִּיחָה לָאֶמְצַע. אִם אָמְרָה רְאוּ מַה שֶּׁהִנִּיחַ לִי בַּעְלִי, הֲרֵי אֲנִי עוֹשָׂה וְאוֹכֶלֶת, הִשְׁבִּיחָה לְעַצְמָהּ: 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.

הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ סִבְלוֹנוֹת לְבֵית חָמִיו, שָׁלַח שָׁם מֵאָה מָנֶה וְאָכַל שָׁם סְעוּדַת חָתָן אֲפִלּוּ בְדִינָר, אֵינָן נִגְבִּין. לֹא אָכַל שָׁם סְעוּדַת חָתָן, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נִגְבִּין. שָׁלַח סִבְלוֹנוֹת מְרֻבִּין שֶׁיַּחְזְרוּ עִמָּהּ לְבֵית בַּעְלָהּ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נִגְבִּין. סִבְלוֹנוֹת מֻעָטִין שֶׁתִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ, אֵינָן נִגְבִּין: With regard to one who sends presents [sivlonot] to his father-in-law’s house following his betrothal, even if he sent there the sum of ten thousand dinars and subsequently ate there a groom’s feast even worth the value of a single dinar, if for any reason the marriage is not effected, the presents are not collected in return by the formerly betrothed man. If he did not eat a groom’s feast there, the presents are collected, as they were not an unconditional gift. If he sent many presents with the stipulation that they return with her to her husband’s house, i.e., to his own house, after the wedding, these are collected if the marriage is not effected. If he sent a few presents for her to use while in her father’s house, they are not collected.

שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁכָּתַב כָּל נְכָסָיו לַאֲחֵרִים וְשִׁיֵּר קַרְקַע כָּל שֶׁהוּא, מַתְּנָתוֹ קַיֶּמֶת. לֹא שִׁיֵּר קַרְקַע כָּל שֶׁהוּא, אֵין מַתְּנָתוֹ קַיֶּמֶת. לֹא כָתַב בָּהּ שְׁכִיב מְרַע, הוּא אוֹמֵר שְׁכִיב מְרַע הָיָה וְהֵן אוֹמְרִים בָּרִיא הָיָה, צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁהָיָה שְׁכִיב מְרַע, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה: With regard to a person on his death-bed who wrote a deed granting all of his property to others, and he reserved for himself any amount of land, his gift stands even if he subsequently recovers. If he did not reserve for himself any amount of land, and he recovered, his gift does not stand, as the gift was conditional upon his death, since is it evident that he did not intend to leave himself without means of support. If one did not write in the deed that he was on his deathbed, and he then recovered and wished to retract the gift, and he says: I was on my deathbed, and since I recovered, I can retract the gift, but the recipients say: You were healthy, and the gift cannot be retracted, the giver must bring proof that he was on his deathbed in order to retract the gift. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The burden of proof rests upon the claimant, and since the property is in the possession of the giver, the recipients must bring proof that they have the right to receive it.

הַמְחַלֵּק נְכָסָיו עַל פִּיו, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אֶחָד בָּרִיא וְאֶחָד מְסֻכָּן, נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחֲרָיוּת נִקְנִין בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה, וְשֶׁאֵין לָהֶן אַחֲרָיוּת אֵין נִקְנִין אֶלָּא בִמְשִׁיכָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מַעֲשֶׂה בְאִמָּן שֶׁל בְּנֵי רוֹכֵל שֶׁהָיְתָה חוֹלָה וְאָמְרָה תְּנוּ כְבִינָתִי לְבִתִּי וְהִיא בִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מָנֶה, וָמֵתָה, וְקִיְּמוּ אֶת דְּבָרֶיהָ. אָמַר לָהֶן, בְּנֵי רוֹכֵל תְּקַבְּרֵם אִמָּן. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בְּשַׁבָּת, דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִכְתּוֹב. אֲבָל לֹא בְחֹל. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, בְּשַׁבָּת אָמְרוּ, קַל וָחֹמֶר בְּחֹל. כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ, זָכִין לַקָּטָן, וְאֵין זָכִין לַגָּדוֹל. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, לַקָּטָן אָמְרוּ, קַל וָחֹמֶר לַגָּדוֹל: With regard to one who divides his property between various recipients by means of verbal instruction, Rabbi Elazar says: Both in the case of one who is healthy and in the case of one who is dangerously ill, the halakha is as follows: Property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., land, is acquired by means of money, by a deed of transfer, or by taking possession of it. And that which does not serve as a guarantee, i.e., movable property, can be acquired only by pulling. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Elazar: There was an incident involving the mother of the sons of Rokhel, who was sick, and who said: My brooch shall be given to my daughter, and it is valued at twelve hundred dinars. And this woman subsequently died, and the Sages upheld her statement. This indicates that a person on his deathbed can gift property without an act of acquisition. Rabbi Elazar said to them: That case was different; the sons of Rokhel should be buried by their mother, i.e., he cursed them. It is not possible to bring a proof from this incident, as these sons were wicked people. Consequently, when ruling in this matter the Sages did not act in accordance with the halakha, but allowed the mother of the sons of Rokhel to give this valuable piece of jewelry to their sister without an act of acquisition having been performed. Rabbi Eliezer says: On Shabbat, the verbal statement of a person on his deathbed stands, as he cannot write, and the Sages instituted that he can effect the transaction verbally lest the inability to do so exacerbate his condition. But a verbal instruction does not stand if stated on a weekday. Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to Shabbat, the Sages stated that his verbal instruction is sufficient, even though writing is prohibited. One can infer a fortiori that the same applies with regard to a weekday, when writing is permitted. Similarly, one can acquire property on behalf of a minor, but one cannot acquire property on behalf of an adult, since he can perform the act of acquisition himself; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says: The Sages stated this halakha with regard to a minor, and one may infer a fortiori that this also applies with regard to an adult, who is able to perform the act of acquisition himself.

נָפַל הַבַּיִת עָלָיו וְעַל אָבִיו אוֹ עָלָיו וְעַל מוֹרִישָׁיו, וְהָיְתָה עָלָיו כְּתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה וּבַעַל חוֹב, יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב אוֹמְרִים, הַבֵּן מֵת רִאשׁוֹן וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת הָאָב, בַּעֲלֵי הַחוֹב אוֹמְרִים, הָאָב מֵת רִאשׁוֹן וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת הַבֵּן, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, יַחֲלֹקוּ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, נְכָסִים בְּחֶזְקָתָן: A house collapsed on a son and upon his father, or upon a certain person and upon those from whom he stands to inherit, and it is unknown who died first. If the son bore the responsibility to pay the marriage contract of his wife and to pay a creditor, and the son had no money with which to pay them except that which he might inherit from his father, and the father’s heirs say: The son died first and afterward the father died, and therefore the son did not inherit property from his father, and the creditors say: The father died first and afterward the son died, resulting in the son’s inheriting his father’s property, enabling the creditors to collect payment from the property even after the son’s death, there is a dispute with regard to how to rule. Since it cannot be determined who died first, Beit Shammai say: They divide the property between them so that the father’s heirs receive half of his property and the son’s creditors receive the other half. And Beit Hillel say: The property retains its previous ownership status. Since the last known owner of the property was the father, the property is given to the father’s heirs.

נָפַל הַבַּיִת עָלָיו וְעַל אִשְׁתּוֹ, יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל אוֹמְרִים, הָאִשָּׁה מֵתָה רִאשׁוֹנָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת הַבַּעַל, יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאִשָּׁה אוֹמְרִים, הַבַּעַל מֵת רִאשׁוֹן וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵתָה הָאִשָּׁה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, יַחֲלֹקוּ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, נְכָסִים בְּחֶזְקָתָן, כְּתֻבָּה בְּחֶזְקַת יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבַּעַל, נְכָסִים הַנִּכְנָסִים וְהַיּוֹצְאִין עִמָּהּ בְּחֶזְקַת יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב: If the house collapsed upon a husband and upon his wife, and it is unknown who died first, if the wife did not have any children from her husband, then the following claims arise: The husband’s heirs say: The wife died first and was inherited by her husband, and afterward the husband died, and therefore the husband’s heirs inherit both his and her property. The wife’s heirs say: The husband died first and afterward the wife died, and her heirs inherit the property that she brought with her to the marriage and the payment of her marriage contract. Beit Shammai say: They divide the property under dispute between them. And Beit Hillel say: The guaranteed property that the wife brought with her to the marriage retains its previous ownership status. The sum of the marriage contract remains in the possession of the husband’s heirs, since the marriage contract is collected from the husband’s property. Property that is brought into and taken out of the marriage with her, i.e., usufruct property that remains in the wife’s possession during her marriage, remains in the possession of the heirs of the woman’s father.

נָפַל הַבַּיִת עָלָיו וְעַל אִמּוֹ, אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ מוֹדִים שֶׁיַּחֲלֹקוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, מוֹדֶה אֲנִי בָזֶה שֶׁהַנְּכָסִים בְּחֶזְקָתָן. אָמַר לוֹ בֶן עַזַּאי, עַל הַחֲלוּקִין אָנוּ מִצְטַעֲרִין, אֶלָּא שֶׁבָּאתָ לְחַלֵּק עָלֵינוּ אֶת הַשָּׁוִין: If the house collapsed on a son and upon his mother, and it is unknown who died first, the following claims arise: The mother’s paternal family claims that the son died first, and therefore they inherit from the mother, and the son’s heirs claim that the mother died first and her son inherited from her, and therefore they inherit from the son. In this case, both these Sages and those Sages, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, concede that they divide the property between them. Rabbi Akiva said: In this case I concede that the property retains its previous ownership status. Ben Azzai said to Rabbi Akiva: We are already troubled by those cases where Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel are in disagreement. But do you come to bring upon us a disagreement with regard to the case where they agree?