Commentary for Bava Batra 265:2

ההוא דפלגינהו לנכסיה לאתתיה ולבניה שייר חד דיקלא סבר רבינא למימר לית לה אלא חד דיקלא אמר ליה רב יימר לרבינא אי לית לה חד דיקלא נמי לית לה אלא מיגו דנחתא לדיקלא נחתא נמי לכולהו נכסי

Rabina intended to give his decision [that] she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The widow. ');">⁴</span> can only have<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In payment of the balance of her kethubah. ');">⁵</span> [that] one palm-tree.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She has no claim, however, on the share which the son received. Since a wife is assumed to renounce her claims in the case where her husband assigned to others all his estate with the exception of any small fraction allotted to her, she must also be assumed to have renounced her claims in this case, where only one palm-tree was not disposed of, in consideration of the share allotted to her. ');">⁶</span> R. Yemar, [however], said to Rabina: If she had no [claim upon the son's share], she [should] have no [claim] even [upon] the one palmtree.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as she renounced her claim upon the share of the son in consideration of the share allotted to her, so she must have renounced her claim upon the palm-tree. She well knew that besides her share, her husband had no property other than that palm-tree and the share assigned to the son. As she forfeits her rights in the case of the one, so she should forfeit them in the case of the other. ');">⁷</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 265:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.