Mesorat%20hashas for Bava Batra 261:13

אמר ליה רב נחומי ואית דאמר רב חנניה בר מניומי לאביי

— He replied to him: Because he [first] used the expression, 'they shall inherit'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of the generally more effective term 'take', denoting 'gift'. This seemed to imply agreement with the view of R. Johanan b. Beroka, as against that of the Rabbis. Hence, Rabbi preferred to change the reading. ');">³⁵</span> Subsequently, Abaye said: What I said is nothing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There was really no need for Rabbi to suggest a change of reading, for in either case, whatever the reading, the Mishnah may be considered to be in agreement with both R. Johanan and the Rabbis. ');">³⁶</span> For we learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 52b. ');">³⁷</span> [A husband who] did not give his wife in writing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Together with her kethubah. ');">³⁸</span> [the following] undertaking, viz., 'The female children that will be born from our marriage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'which you will have from me'. ');">³⁹</span> shall live in my house and be maintained out of my estate until they shall be taken [in marriage] by men, is [nevertheless] liable, because that [fatherly duty] is a condition [imposed] by the court. Consequently, this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The husband's undertaking with reference to the male children on the one hand, and to that of the female children on the other. ');">⁴⁰</span> is a case of giving to one as a 'gift'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The maintenance of the daughters. There is legal obligation on a father to provide for the maintenance of his daughters. ');">⁴¹</span> and to another as an 'inheritance',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sons are given their mother's kethubah as her legal heirs. ');">⁴²</span> and wherever [something is given] to one person as an inheritance and to another as a gift<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the expressions of 'gift' and 'inheritance' were used one immediately after the other. ');">⁴³</span> even the Rabbis agree [that the assignments are valid].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the Mishnah, supra 126b, which represents the opinion of the Rabbis, an assignment made by using the expression of inheritance is legally valid whenever the expression of 'gift' was used with it. This was explained in the Gemara, supra 129a, to apply even to the case of two separate fields given as an inheritance and a gift respectively to two different persons. Similarly, here, the kethubah for the sons and the maintenance for the daughters may be regarded as the assignment of an inheritance and a gift respecting two persons; and, since the two provisions were made by the same court and are to be entered in the same contract, the two clauses, one containing the term, 'inherit', and the other, 'give', may be assumed to follow in close proximity to one another; in which case the Rabbis also agree that both the inheritance and the gift are acquired. The question, therefore, remains why was Rabbi compelled to have recourse to a change of reading? ');">⁴⁴</span> R. Nihumai (one said, it was R. Hananya b. Minyumai) asked Abaye:

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Bava Batra 261:13. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.