- One who says, “את וחמור should acquire my possessions”
It was stated: If one says: קני כחמור – “Acquire my possessions like the donkey,” he acquires nothing, just like the donkey. If he said: את וחמור – “You and the donkey should acquire my possessions,” Rav Nachman says: קנה מחצה – he acquires half, because we interpret his statement to mean that he and the donkey should each receive half his property. Although the donkey cannot acquire, the person acquires his half. Rav Hamnuna says he acquires nothing, because the joint gift was given together; since the donkey’s gift is void, the person’s cannot be valid. Rav Sheishess says he acquires everything, because the benefactor knows the donkey cannot acquire, and intends that the entire gift should go to whoever can acquire. Rav Sheishess sources his opinion in a Baraisa, which teaches that terumah taken from a fruit which has sweet and bitter sections on other such fruit is valid, despite the fact that the bitter section cannot be taken as terumah against the sweet section of another fruit!? The Gemara answers that even bitter produce taken as terumah on sweet produce is Biblically valid.
- One who tells his wife, "נכסיי ליך ולבניך"
A man once told his wife: נכסיי ליך ולבניך – “My possessions shall belong to you and to your sons.” Rav Yosef says: קנתה מחצה – she acquires half, not just an equal share. He brought a source from Rebbe, who taught that when the passuk says (regarding לחם הפנים), "והיתה לאהרן ולבניו" – and it will be for Aharon and his sons, it means: מחצה לאהרן מחצה לבניו – half is for Aharon, and half is for his sons to divide among themselves. This proves that when one person is mentioned as a recipient alongside a group, he receives half. Abaye objects that in that case, אהרן בר חלוקה הוא – Aharon was eligible for a share of the לחם הפנים without being mentioned; since the Torah specified him unnecessarily, it must be to award him half. But in our case, where the wife was not eligible to receive anything without specific mention (since she is not an heir), דיה שתטול כאחד מן הבנים – it should be sufficient for her to take a portion like one of the sons, and not half!? This case ("מחצה") is one of three places ("שדה ענין וחצה") where the halachah follows Rav Yosef.
- Adult sons improved the estate before they and the minor sons divided it
The next Mishnah states that if one died and left adult and minor sons, השביחו גדולים את הנכסים – and the adults improved the estate before it was divided, השביחו לאמצע – they have improved equally for everyone. If they said: ראו מה שהניח אבא – “See what our father has left us, הרי אנו עושין ואוכלים – we will work and eat for ourselves,” (i.e., they were prepared to divide the estate, and make improvements in their own portion, but Beis Din did not do so), השביחו לעצמן – then they improved for themselves. The same is taught regarding a widow who has a share in the estate. Rava was quoted as saying that the improvements are shared equally only ששבחו נכסים מחמת נכסים – where the estate improved through the estate itself (i.e., the adults neither worked nor spent their own funds, but hired workers with the estate’s funds), אבל שבחו נכסים מחמת עצמן – but where the estate improved through their own efforts or funds, השביחו לעצמן – they improved for themselves. The Gemara clarifies that if the קטנים were capable of making the improvements (such as guarding a cistern), the improvements are shared.