Reference for Bava Batra 250:7

אמר רב פפא הלכתא אין הבעל נוטל בראוי כבמוחזק ואין הבכור נוטל בראוי כבמוחזק ואין הבכור נוטל פי שנים במלוה בין שגבו קרקע בין שגבו מעות

is logical. For had the grandmother sold [the estate] prior [to her demise] the sale would have been legally valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This proves that the grandmother was nor only entitled to usufruct but also to the full possession of the estate. Had she sold it, the granddaughter would has e received nothing. Hence, as regards the granddaughter, the estate was only prospective, and her husband, therefore, was not entitled to claim it. ');">¹⁷</span> R. Papa said: The law is that a husband does not receive of the 'prospective'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The terms have been fully explained in the Gemara and notes supran. ');">¹⁸</span> [estate] of his wife as of that which is in her possession';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The terms have been fully explained in the Gemara and notes supran. ');">¹⁸</span> and the firstborn son does not receive of a prospective [estate of his father] as of that which is in [his father's] 'possession'. The firstborn son, [furthermore,] does not receive a double portion in a loan [owing to his father], whether [the heirs] had collected [in payment] land or whether they had collected money;

Explore reference for Bava Batra 250:7. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.