Bava Batra 262:1

ממאי דבחד בי דינא איתקון דלמא בתרי בי דינא איתקון

Whence [it is to be inferred] that [both provisions] were made by one court? Is it not possible [that] they were made by two [different] courts?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And, consequently, the two expressions, ('inheritance' for the sons, and 'gift' for the daughters), cannot be regarded as made one immediately after the other. And since in this case the Rabbis would regard the assignments as invalid, Rabbi had to revert to a change of reading, in order that the Mishnah may conform with the view of the Rabbis. ');">¹</span> — This possibility<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the provisions were made at two courts. ');">²</span>

לא סלקא דעתך דקתני רישא זה מדרש דרש ר' אלעזר בן עזריה לפני חכמים בכרם ביבנה הבנים יירשו והבנות יזונו מה הבנים אינן יורשין אלא לאחר מיתת אביהם אף בנות לא יזונו אלא לאחר מיתת אביהן

cannot be entertained,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it cannot enter your mind'. ');">³</span> for in the earlier part [of the Mishnah cited] it was stated: R. Eleazar b. Azariah gave the following exposition in the presence of the Sages in the Vineyard of Jabneh:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The name of the School established in that town (Jamnia) by R. Johanan b. Zakkai, and so called because the members sat in rows like vines in a vineyard (J. Ber. IV, 1). Krauss Lewy's Festschrift, 22, maintains that they originally met in a vineyard.] ');">⁴</span>

אי אמרת בשלמא בחד בי דינא איתקון היינו דילפינן תקנה מתקנה אלא אי אמרת בתרי בי דינא איתקון היכי ילפינן תקנה מתקנה

'[Since it was provided that] the sons shall be heirs [to their mother's <i>kethubah</i>], and the daughters shall be maintained [out of their father's estate, the two cases are to be compared]: As the sons cannot be heirs except after the death of their father, so the daughters cannot claim maintenance except after the death of their father'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He thus holds that there is no legal, as distinct from moral, obligation on the father to support his daughter after a certain age, v. Keth. 49a. ');">⁵</span> [Now], if it is granted [that both provisions]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kethubah for the sons, and maintenance for the daughters. ');">⁶</span>

ממאי דלמא לעולם אימא לך בתרי בי דינא איתקון ובי דינא בתרא תקון כבי דינא קמא כי היכי דלא תקשה תקנתא אתקנתא:

were enacted by one court, one can well understand why an analogy was drawn between one provision and the other. If, however, it is argued [that they] were enacted at two [different] courts, how could an analogy be drawn between one provision and the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One court may have given the sons the right of heirship after the father's death, while the other court may have granted the daughters' maintenance even during the lifetime of their father. Hence it must be assumed that both provisions were made by the same court. ');">⁷</span> — What proof!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'whence your proof'? ');">⁸</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הכותב כל נכסיו לאשתו לא עשאה אלא אפוטרופא

It is quite possible still to maintain [that the provisions]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 549, n. 6. ');">⁹</span> were enacted by two [different] courts;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the expressions of 'inheritance' and 'gift' cannot be regarded as having been made one immediately after the other. Rabbi was consequently compelled, in order that the Mishnah may conform with the view of the Rabbis, to change the reading from 'they shall inherit' to 'they shall take'. ');">¹⁰</span>

פשיטא בנו הגדול לא עשאו אלא אפוטרופוס בנו הקטן מאי

but<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to the argument, how could R. Eleazar draw an analogy between provisions made by different courts. ');">¹¹</span> the latter court had to frame its provisions on the lines analogous to those of the former court in order that there might be no discrepancy between the one provision and the other.

איתמר רב חנילאי בר אידי אמר שמואל אפילו בנו קטן המוטל בעריסה

Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: If a [dying] man gave all his property<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a gift. ');">¹²</span> to his wife, in writing, he [thereby] only appointed her administratrix.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And his sons are entitled to receive their due shares in the estate. Since no father would give all his estate to his wife and leave his children penniless it is taken for granted that the testator's wish was not that all his property shall be given to his wife for her sole use, but that she shall only administer it in the interests of all the heirs. His use of the expression 'gift' is assumed to have been intended as a means of making his children dependent on her, so that she might enjoy the respect due to her. ');">¹³</span>

פשיטא בנו ואחר אחר במתנה ובנו אפוטרופוס (אשתו ואחר לאחר במתנה ואשתו אפוטרופוס)

It is obvious [that if he assigned all his property to] his grown up son, he [thereby], merely appointed him administrator.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that his brothers may pay him due respect. ');">¹⁴</span> What [is the law, however, if he assigned it to] his young son? — It was stated [that] R. Hanilai b. Idi said in the name of Samuel: Even [If to] his youngest son who [still] lies in [his] cradle.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The estate is not to be given to him alone but to all the heirs. The father's wish is interpreted as a desire that all the other heirs shall pay respect to his youngest son. ');">¹⁵</span>

אשתו ארוסה ואשתו גרושה במתנה

It is obvious [that if a father assigned all his property to] his son or [to] a stranger, the stranger [is to receive it] as a gift,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, had the testator merely meant him to be administrator, he would have stated the fact explicitly. ');">¹⁶</span> while the son [is merely appointed] administrator.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 8 and 9 supra. ');">¹⁷</span>

איבעיא להו בת אצל הבנים ואשה אצל האחים ואשה אצל בני הבעל מהו

[If he assigned it to] his betrothed or [to] his divorced wife, [either of them is to receive it] as a gift.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he can hardly be so much concerned about safeguarding their respect as to make provision to that extent. ');">¹⁸</span> The question was [however], asked, What [is the law if the assignment was made to] a daughter where there are sons, [to] a wife where there are brothers,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the testator; and no other heirs. ');">¹⁹</span>

אמר רבינא משמיה דרבא בכולהו לא קנה לבר מאשתו ארוסה ואשתו גרושה רב עוירא משמיה דרבא אמר בכולהו קני לבר מהאשה אצל האחין ואשה אצל בני הבעל

or to a wife where there are sons of the husband?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Born from another wife, in each of these cases the consideration of respect is likely to arise. ');">²⁰</span> — Rabina said in the name of Raba: None of these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in all of them not'. ');">²¹</span> acquires possession, except his betrothed, or divorced wife. R. 'Awira in the name of Raba said: All these acquire possession except a wife where there are brothers,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. note 2. ');">²²</span> and a wife where there are sons of the husband.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. note 3. ');">²³</span>