Bava Batra

Surely it was taught:  the fruit attached [to the ground].  is valued  for the buyer!  — 'Ulla replied: There is no difficulty Here  [the law deals] with one's [own] son;  there  [it deals] with a stranger.  [In the former case, attached fruit belongs to the son] because a person is favourably disposed towards his son. MISHNAH. [IF] ONE LEFT SONS  [WHO WERE] OF AGE, AS WELL AS MINORS, THOSE WHO ARE OF AGE ARE NOT TO BE SUPPORTED  AT THE EXPENSE OF  THE MINORS,  NOR ARE THE MINORS TO BE FED AT THE EXPENSE OF  THOSE WHO ARE OF AGE,  BUT ALL RECEIVE EQUAL SHARES] IN THE ENTIRE ESTATE].  [IF] THOSE WHO WERE OF AGE MARRIED,  THE MINORS [ALSO] MAY TAKE [A SIMILAR SUM TOWARDS THEIR MARRIAGE EXPENSES].  IF THE MINORS, HOWEVER, CLAIMED,  'WE DESIRE TO TAKE AS MUCH AS YOU HAVE TAKEN',  THEIR REQUEST IS DISREGARDED  BUT WHAT THEIR FATHER HAD GIVEN THEM  IS REGARDED AS A GIFT.  [IF] ONE LEFT DAUGHTERS [WHO WERE] OF AGE, AS WELL AS MINORS THOSE WHO ARE OF AGE ARE NOT TO BE SUPPORTED  AT THE EXPENSE  OF THE MINORS,  NOR ARE THE MINORS TO BE FED AT THE EXPENSE  OF THOSE WHO ARE OF AGE.  BUT ALL RECEIVE EQUAL SHARES [IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTATE]. [IF] THOSE [WHO WERE] OF AGE MARRIED,  THE MINORS [ALSO] MAY TAKE [A SIMILAR SUM TOWARDS THEIR MARRIAGE EXPENSES].  IF THE MINORS, HOWEVER, CLAIMED,  'WE DESIRE TO TAKE AS MUCH AS YOU HAVE TAKEN',  THEIR REQUEST IS DISREGARDED.  IN THE FOLLOWING RESPECT  DAUGHTERS  ARE OF GRATER IMPORTANCE THAN SONS.  FOR DAUGHTERS ARE FED AT THE EXPENSE OF THE SONS  BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF [OTHER] DAUGHTERS. GEMARA. Raba said: If  the eldest of the brothers  drew upon the general funds of the estate for his dress and outfit,  his action cannot be disputed.  But surely, we learnt, THOSE WHO ARE OF AGE ARE NOT TO BE SUPPORTED AT THE EXPENSE OF THE MINORS! — Our Mishnah [refers] to [those who are] without a calling.  [In the case of] one without a calling, [is this not] obvious!  — [Since] it might have been assumed that [the brothers] desire that he should not be disgraced  it was necessary to teach us [that this is not so]. IF THOSE WHO WERE OF AGE MARRIED, THE MINORS ALSO MAY TAKE. What does this mean?  — Rab Judah replied, it is this that was meant: IF THOSE WHO WERE OF AGE HAD MARRIED after the death of their father, THE MINORS [ALSO] MAY TAKE  after the death of their father; if, however, those who were of age had married during the lifetime of their father, and the MINORS after the death of their father, CLAIMED, 'WE DESIRE TO TAKE AS MUCH AS YOU HAVE TAKEN', THEIR REQUEST IS DISREGARDED BUT WHAT THEIR FATHER HAD GIVEN THEM IS REGARDED AS A LEGAL GIFT. [IF] ONE LEFT DAUGHTERS [WHO WERE] OF AGE, AS WELL AS MINORS. Abbuha b. Geniba sent to Raba: Will our Master teach us, [in the case of a woman who] took a loan and spent it, and thereupon  married,  [whether] the husband has [the legal] status of a buyer  or that of an heir? Is he [regarded as] a buyer [and consequently he need not repay her debt] since a verbal loan cannot be collected from a buyer; or is he, perhaps, regarded as an heir, [who must pay her debt], since a verbal loan may be collected from heirs? — He replied to him: We have learned this in our Mishnah, [IF] THOSE [WHO WERE] OF AGE MARRIED, THE MINORS [ALSO] MAY TAKE; does not [this mean that] IF THOSE WHO WERE OF AGE [WERE] MARRIED to husbands, THE MINORS MAY TAKE [towards their marriage expenses] from the husbands?  — No; [this may mean that] IF THOSE [WHO WERE] OF AGE [WERE] MARRIED to husbands, THE MINORS [ALSO] MAY TAKE  [a similar sum towards the expenses of their marriage] to husbands. [But] this is not [so];  for, surely, R. Hiyya taught: [If] those who were of age had married husbands,  the minors may take [their due] from [those] husbands!  — It is possible that maintenance  is different,  since such [an obligation] is generally known. R. Papa said to Raba:  Is not this  the very [case] which Rabin had sent in his letter?  If a person died, [he wrote], and left a widow and a daughter, his widow is to receive her maintenance out of his estate.  [If] the daughter married,  his widow is [still] to receive her maintenance out of his estate. [If] the daughter died?  Rab Judah, the son of the sister of R. Jose b. Hanina, said: I had [such] a case, and it was decided  [that] his widow is to receive her maintenance out of his estate. [Now,] if it be granted  that he  is [regarded as] an heir,  it is quite correct that his widow should be maintained out of his  estate;  if, however, it is held  that he  is [regarded as] a buyer, why should she be maintained out of his estate! Abaye said: Would we not have known [this]  if Rabin had not sent [his letter]? Surely we learnt:  The following do not return in the Jubilee year:  The [portion of] the birthright,