Commentary for Bava Batra 264:7

ההוא דאמר להו פלגא לברת ופלגא לברת ותילתא לאיתת בפירי איקלע רב נחמן לסורא עול לגבי רב חסדא אמר ליה כי האי גוונא מאי אמר ליה הכי אמר שמואל אפילו לא הקנה לה אלא דקל אחד לפירותיו אבדה כתובתה

[Once] a certain [dying] man said to [his executors]; — 'A half<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of his landed property. ');">²²</span> [shall be given] to [one] daughter [of mine], a half to [the other] daughter, and a third of the fruit to [my] wife'. R. Nahman, [who] happened to be [at that time] at Sura was visited by R. Hisda [who] inquired of him [as to] what [was the legal position] in such a case.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the husband had assigned no land at all to his wife. The question is whether it is assumed that a woman renounces her claims only when she is given a share in the land itself but not when she only obtains a portion of fruit (as here), or whether there is no difference between land and fruit as regards the renouncement of her claims. ');">²³</span> — He replied to him: Thus said Samuel, 'Even if he allotted to her one palm-tree for its usufruct<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., only while it continues to be fruit-bearing. ');">²⁴</span> her <i>kethubah</i> is lost,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her share of the fruit of the tree is regarded as a share in the land itself, since the tree draws its nourishment from the ground and is consequently regarded as real estate. The same law should apply to the case under consideration. ');">²⁵</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 264:7. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.