Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Bava Basra, 139

1) THE "PARNASAH" OF DAUGHTERS WHO INHERIT AN ESTATE WITH OTHER DAUGHTERS

QUESTION: Rava cites the Mishnah as proof that a husband is considered like an heir (Yoresh) when he gets possession of his wife's property, and not like a buyer (Loke'ach). The Mishnah says that if the older daughters got married using the money of the estate (including the share of the younger daughters), then the younger daughters may also get married using the money of the estate, which Rava explains to mean that they may collect their share of the estate from the husbands of the older daughters. This proves that a husband has the status of an *heir* with regard to his wife's property (and debts), and not the status of a *buyer*. Since the husband has the status of an heir, he is obligated to pay his wife's debts (even a debt that is a Milveh Al Peh, with no Shtar). If his status would be that of a buyer, he would not be obligated to pay his wife's debts (Milveh Al Peh).

The Gemara attempts to refute Rava's proof by saying that our Mishnah means only that the younger daughters may also get married using the money of the estate, but not that they may take the money from the husbands of the older daughters. The Gemara defends Rava's proof by quoting the Beraisa of Rebbi Chiya which states explicitly that if the older daughter takes money from the estate and gets married, the younger daughter may collect her share of that money from the husband. This again seems to prove that a husband has the status of an heir and not a buyer.

The Gemara refutes this proof and says that perhaps a husband does have the status of a buyer, and, normally, he does not need to pay back his wife's debts. However, in this case, her debt has the status of a Milveh b'Shtar, a loan taken with a Shtar (which everyone, including potential buyers, hears about). This is because the money that she took was for her Parnasah, her general support (clothing, etc.), and when a daughter takes money from the estate for such a purpose, everyone hears about it (it has a "Kol"). Consequently, even if the husband has the status of a buyer, he should have heard about the money that she took and that she now owes, and therefore he is obligated to pay her debt.

The AVNEI MILU'IM (91:7) asks how can it be that the money for Parnasah which the older daughter took has a "Kol" and everyone hears about it? The daughter is not entitled to take money for Parnasah when there are *only* daughters (Kesuvos 69a)! Only when there are *sons* who are inheriting the estate is a daughter entitled to receive money for Parnasah! Hence, the money that the daughter takes from the estate (when there are only daughters) is an ordinary loan from the estate, and it does not matter for what purpose (such as Parnasah) she uses it! How, then, does the loan have a special "Kol" if it is not uniquely for Parnasah? This question is also asked by the KOVETZ SHI'URIM.

ANSWER: The AVNEI MILU'IM answers that when the Gemara refutes the proof from the statement of Rebbi Chiya, it understands that Rebbi Chiya is not referring to the case in the Mishnah of daughters alone who inherit the estate of their father (when there are no sons). Rather, the Gemara understands that Rebbi Chiya is referring to a case in which there is a son, in which case the requirement to pay Parnasah to the daughters applies. (I. Alsheich)

139b

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that when a man dies and leaves sons and daughters, when there is a lot of property ("Nechasim Merubim"), the sons inherit it and the daughters receive support. When there is a small amount of property ("Nechasim Mu'atim"), then daughters receive support and and the sons must fend for themselves. The Gemara (in the second opinion) explains that "a lot of property" is defined as any property which provides for both the sons and the daughters for as long as the daughters are still minors, until the reach the age of Bagrus. Any amount less than that constitutes a small amount of property.

Why does the Mishnah divide the Halachah into two separate cases, one case of "Nechasim Merubim" and another case of "Nechasim Mu'atim?" In both cases, the Halachah is the same! The daughters must receive support until they reach the age of Bagrus! The Mishnah should state simply, "When one dies and leave sons and daughters, the daughters receive support, and the sons receive the rest," and this would include all circumstances!

ANSWER: From the rest of the Gemara and from the words of the Rishonim, it is clear that there is an essential difference between the support that the daughters receive when there are "Nechasim Merubim" and the support that they receive when there are "Nechasim Mu'atim." It was necessary, therefore, for the Mishnah to divide them into two separate cases.

In the case of "Nechasim Merubim," the sons inherit the entire estate, as the Torah mandates. They must provide support for the daughters, from the estate, at regular intervals, as the Chachamim enacted. In contrast, in the case of "Nechasim Mu'atim," the *entire sum* of the estimated support needs of the daughters is allocated to them from the estate from the beginning (it is separated from the estate and deposited with Beis Din or with an estate manager). Whatever is left over is inherited by the sons (and if nothing is left over, then the sons get nothing). (Indeed, the Gemara (140a) suggests that the sons are completely removed from the estate and have no rights of inheritance in a case of "Nechasim Mu'atim;" if there is anything left over after the support of the daughters is allocated to them, then the sons receive it but not as "heirs" per se. The Gemara concludes, however, that the sons *do* have the rights to inherit the estate; they have a "Tefisas Yad" in the property (RASHBAM 140a, DH Yesomim she'Kadmu). Nevertheless, the daughters still receive a lump sum for their support, and the sons receive as their inheritance the remaining property, if any.)

This difference manifests itself in a number of additional Halachic ramifications.

(a) In the case of "Nechasim Merubim," although the sons must take care of the estate and not negligently cause it to be lost (in which case Beis Din steps in and takes control of the estate (NIMUKEI YOSEF; see SHULCHAN ARUCH EH 112:11), they are permitted to sell the property for a great need and to thereby cause the daughters to lose their support. This is because the estate is in the ownership of the sons. In contrast, in the case of "Nechasim Mu'atim," the sons are not permitted (l'Chatchilah) to sell the property at all, even for a great need (TOSFOS 140a, DH Yesomim). Even though -- if the sons do sell the property -- the sale is valid (as the Gemara says), it is Asur l'Chatchilah for them to do so, since the rights of the daughters to receive their support comes before the rights of the sons to inherit the property.

(b) In a case in which the father left "Nechasim Merubim" which decreased in value, even though the property is now considered "Nechasim Mu'atim," we do not say that the daughters receive their support as a lump sum and the sons get nothing, but rather the daughters receive their support (at intervals) together with the sons, from the fund of the estate, since the sons initially inherited the estate (when it was "Nechasim Merubim"). In contrast, when the estate was "Nechasim Mu'atim" to begin with, the daughters receive a lump sum for their support and the sons do not receive ownership of the property (except for what is left over after the daughters' support has been given to them). (I. Alsheich)