Responsa for Bava Batra 265:1

אמר ליה רב כהנא אילו הדר קני מי לא שקלא וכיון דאילו הדר קני שקלא השתא נמי שקלא

R. Kahana, [however], said to him: If [her husband] had [subsequently] bought other property would she not [have been entitled to] seize [it]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In payment of her kethubah. She only renounced her claim upon that property which her husband gave to his daughters at the time her share was assigned to her. ');">¹</span> Now, since if he had bought other property she would [have been entitled to] seize [it],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In payment of her kethubah. She only renounced her claim upon that property which her husband gave to his daughters at the time her share was assigned to her. ');">¹</span> in this case too she [is] also [entitled to] seize [the dead daughter's third].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'now'. The third that her husband inherited from his dead daughter is regarded as new property acquired by him after the assignments were made. (V. previous note). ');">²</span> [Once] a certain [dying] man divided his estate between his wife and his son, [and] left over one palm-tree.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which he assigned to no one. ');">³</span>

Explore responsa for Bava Batra 265:1. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.