Bava Batra

and if he brought fifty in one vessel and fifty in the other, he has [also] fulfilled his duty. [From this it follows that only] if he had [already] brought, has he fulfilled his duty;  but that this is not the proper thing to do.  Now, if it could be assumed that in any such case 'half and half' [is meant]. this  [should have been allowed] even at the outset! — What a comparison! There, we are in a position to testify  that this person first intended [to bring as] big [an] offering [as possible], and that [the reason] why' he said, 'In two vessels' [was] because he knew that it was impossible to bring [all] in one vessel.  [Hence] we order him to bring as much as it is possible. And the law is in accordance with [the view] of R. Joseph  in the case of 'Field',  'Subject'  and 'Half'. A certain [man] once sent home pieces of silk. R. Ammi said: Those which are suitable for the sons [belong] to the sons; [those] suitable for the daughters. [belong] to the daughters. [This,] however, has only been said [in the case] where he has no daughter-in-law, but if he has a daughter-in-law. [it is assumed that] he sent it for his daughter-in-law. If, however, his daughters were not married, [the gift belongs to them because] one would not neglect one's daughters  and send to his daughter-in-law. Once a certain [person] said. 'My estate [shall be given] to my sons' — He had a son and a daughter. [Do] people call a son. 'sons';  or perhaps, they do not call a son. 'sons', and his intention was  to include  his daughter in the gift? — Abaye said, Come and hear: And the sons of Dan: Hushim,  Raba said to him: Perhaps [this is to be explained]. in accordance with the Tanna of the School of Hezekiah, that they were as numerous as the leaves  of a reed! But, said Raba. And the sons of Paliu: Eliab.  R. Joseph said, And the sons of Ethan: Azariah. A certain [person] once said, 'My estate [shall be given] to my sons'. He had a son and a grandson. [Do] people call a grandson. son';  or not? — R. Habiba said: People call a grandson 'son'.  Mar son of R. Ashi said: People do not call a grandson. 'son'  [A Baraitha] was taught in agreement with the view of Mar son of R. Ashi: He who is forbidden by a vow [to have any benefit] from [his] sons is allowed [to derive benefits] from [his grandsons]. MISHNAH. HAD ONE LEFT SONS [WHO WERE] OF AGE AND MINORS, [AND] THOSE [WHO WERE] OF AGE IMPROVED THE ESTATE,  THEY IMPROVED [IT] FOR THE COMMON GOOD.  IF, [HOWEVER]. THEY  SAID,  SEE WHAT [OUR] FATHER HAS LEFT; WE DESIRE TO CULTIVATE [OUR OWN SHARES] AND TO ENJOY THE PROFITS.  THE PROCEEDS  BELONG TO THEM.  LIKEWISE. [IN THE CASE WHERE] THE WIFE  HAD EFFECTED IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ESTATE,  SHE IMPROVED [IT] FOR THE COMMON GOOD.  IF, [HOWEVER].SHE SAID, 'SEE WHAT MY HUSBAND HAS LEFT ME; I DESIRE TO CULTIVATE [MY SHARE] AND TO ENJOY  THE BENEFITS', THE PROCEEDS BELONG TO HER. GEMARA. R. Habiba son of R. Joseph son of Raba said in the name of Raba: [The law of our Mishnah]  is 'applicable  only [to the case] where the improvement of the estate was effected out [of the funds] of the estate, but if it was improved at the expense of the elder brothers,  the profits belong to themselves.  [But] this is not [so]! For, surely. R. Hanina said,' Even if their father had left them  nothing but