Bava Batra

a covered cistern  the proceeds  are to be equally divided'; but [the proceeds of] a covered cistern [are surely] due to [the elder brothers] themselves!  — A covered cistern is different, since It [only] requires watching  and even minors can keep a watch over it. 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. R. Safra's father left [some] money. He took it [and] carried on with it a business. [Then] came his brothers and sued him before Raba.  He said to them. 'R. Safra is a great man; he [is] not [expected to] leave his studies in order to toil for others'. [WHERE] THE WIFE HAD EFFECTED IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ESTATE. SHE IMPROVED IT FOR THE COMMON GOOD — What has a wife to do with the property of orphans? — R. Jeremiah replied: [The Mishnah speaks] of a wife [who is] an heiress.  [Is this not] obvious?  — It might have been assumed [that] since it is not usual for her to look after an orphan's estate  [she is entitled to all the profits], even where she did not [first] make a specific declaration,  as if she had [actually] made [it], hence it [was necessary to] teach us [that this is not so]. 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. [Is not this] obvious? It might have been assumed [that] since it is creditable to her when people say that she works for the orphans. she might [consequently] forego her claims,  hence it [was necessary to] teach us [that this is not so]. R. Hanina said: If a person marries his adult son in a house [of his], he  acquires its ownership. But this only [in the case of] one [who is] of age, and only [where he married] a virgin, and only [when she is] his first wife, and only — where he is the first [son] whom he married. It is obvious [that] where his father had set aside for him  a house and [there is] an upper story [thereon], [the latter] acquired the ownership of the house [but] not [of] the upper story. What [is, however, the law in the case of] a house and an exedra?  [Or in the case of] two houses one within the other? — This is undecided. An objection was raised: [If] his father had set aside for him a house and [it contains] furniture, he acquires possession of the furniture [but] not of the house! — R. Jeremiah replied: [This refers to a case] where, for instance, his father's store[s] were kept there.  The Nehardeans say': Even [if only) a dove-cote.  R. Judah and R. Papi say: Even [if only] a pot of fish-hash. Mar Zutra married his son and hung up  for himself  a sandal.  R. Ashi married his son and hung up  for himself  a jug of oil. Mar Zutra said: The following three things have [been] enacted [by] the Rabbis as fixed law without [adducing any] reason. One [is] this.  The other [is that] which Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel, [namely that]. a [dying] man [who] gave all his property to his wife, in writing. [thereby] only appointed her adminstratrix.  [.And the] third  [is that] which Rab had stated: [If one said] 'You owe me a maneh; give it to X', in the presence of the three parties,  [X] acquires possession.