Bava Batra

MISHNAH. IF ONE OF THE BROTHERS WHO ARE PARTNERS [IN THE INHERITED ESTATE]  WAS APPOINTED  TO A GOVERNMENT POST  THE INCOME FROM THE APPOINTMENT IS TO BE EQUALLY DIVIDED BETWEEN ALL THE BROTHERS.  [IF ONE OF THEM] CONTRACTED A DISEASE AND HAD HIMSELF CURED, THE [EXPENSES OF THE] CURE [MUST BE DEFRAYED] OUT OF HIS OWN. GEMARA. A Tanna taught: The appointment  [in our Mishnah means] a government appointment. Our Rabbis taught: [In the case where] one of the brothers was appointed [tax] collector or overseer,  if [the appointment was] due to the brothers  [the income  belongs] to the brothers; if [the appointment was] due to himself  [the income belongs] to himself. 'If [the appointment was] due to the brothers', [it was said). [the income belongs] to the brothers'; [is not this] obvious! — This is required only [in the case] where he is exceptionally' smart [since] it might have been said [that] his smartness had caused him [to receive the appointment].it was necessary to teach us [that this is not so]. Our Rabbis taught: [If] one of the brothers took [from an inherited estate]  two hundred zuz to study Torah or to learn a trade. the brothers can tell him:  'If you are with us you [can] have [your] maintenance; if you are not with us. you [can] have no maintenance'. But let them give [it] to him wherever he is? — This [is proof] in support of R. Huna. For R. Huna said, 'The blessing of a house [is proportionate] to its size'  Then let them give him according to the blessing of the house! — That is so. [IF ONE OF THEM] CONTRACTED A DISEASE AND HAD HIMSELF CURED, THE [EXPENSES OF THE] CURE [MUST BE DEFRAYED] OUT OF HIS OWN. Rabin sent in the name of R. El'a: This applies only  [to the case] where he contracted the disease through [his own] negligence. but [if] by accident the [cost of the] cure is [defrayed] from the common funds. What is meant by negligence? — As R. Hanina [taught]. For R. Hanina said:  Every' thing is in the power of heaven except [illness through] cold [or] heat; for it is said, Cold [and] heat  are in the way of the froward. he that keepeth his soul holdeth himself far from them. MISHNAH. IF SOME OF THE BROTHERS HAVE BESTOWED GIFTS AS GROOMSMEN  IN THE LIFETIME OF [THEIR] FATHER  [WHEN] THE WEDDING GIFTS ARE RECIPROCATED  THEY REVERT TO THE COMMON FUNDS OF THE ESTATE; FOR [THE RECIPROCATION OF] WEDDING GIFTS MAY BE CLAIMED THROUGH A COURT OF LAW.  IF, HOWEVER, ONE HAS SENT TO HIS FRIEND JARS OF WINE OR JARS OF OIL,  HE CANNOT CLAIM THEM  THROUGH A COURT OF LAW, BECAUSE [THE PRESENTATIONS OF] SUCH [GIFTS] ARE [MERE ACTS OF] LOVINGKINDNESS. GEMARA. A contradiction was raised: [If] his father had sent [through] him  a wedding gift. the reciprocated gift returns to him.  [If] a wedding gift was sent  to his father, the reciprocated gift  is to be returned  from the common funds! — R. Assi replied in the name of R — Johanan: Our Mishnah also speaks  [of the case where the gift] was sent to his father. But, surely it was stated, IF SOME OF THE BROTHERS ACTED AS GROOMSMEN! — Read, 'TO SOME'.  But. Surely. it was taught. [WHEN] THE WEDDING GIFTS ARE RECIPROCATED! — It means this: [When] it has to be reciprocated, it is returned from the common funds. R. Assi said: There is no difficulty:  Here  [it is a case] where [the father] did not specify;  here  [it refers to the case] where he did specify; as It was taught: If his father sent wedding gifts [through] him,  the reciprocated gift belongs to him.  If his father. [however.] sent wedding gifts without specifying [which son was to take them], the reciprocated gift reverts to the common estate. And Samuel explained: Here  it is a case of a levir  who is not [entitled] to receive the prospective possessions  of his dead brother' as those which he already possessed.  Does this then imply that the other  must repay;  [why could] he [not] say. 'Give me my shoshbin and I will rejoice with him'?  Has it not been taught. 'Where it is the custom to return  the [token of] betrothal  it [must] be returned, [and] where the custom is not to return. it [need] not [be] returned'; and R. Joseph b. Abba said in the name of Mar 'Ukba in the name of Samuel, 'This applies only to the case  where she died but [where] he died it [need] not [be] returned. What is the reason? Because she can say: