Talmud for Bekhorot 9:3

“A person who pays the sheqel for a poor person,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, only if they counted lambs against rams and rams against lambs, but if they counted lambs against lambs and rams against rams, it was his part from the first hour. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if they counted lambs against lambs and rams against rams, they are like buyers¹⁵⁹R. Eleazar accords them the state of partnership only it there was a genuine distribution of the estate before the new partnership was entered into; if the estate was left untouched and each son got a proportional share of everything, it remains an estate. R. Joḥanan holds that the formal establishment of a partnership is all that is needed. Here “property” means not only real estate but everything not livestock. Babli Bekhorot56b., as we have stated there¹⁶⁰Mishnah Bekhorot9:3.: “The buyer or recipient of a gift is not liable for animal tithe. Rebbi Ḥizkiah¹⁶¹The reading of ג “Ḥilkiah” has to be rejected since the latter was not a student of R. Jeremiah. said that Rebbi Jeremiah asked: And why are we not saying that sometimes they are liable for both and sometimes they are not liable for either. How is this done? If they distributed the properties and afterwards distributed the animals they are liable for both¹⁶²If the estate was distributed except for livestock and then a partnership formed, they are individually responsible for their sheqels with agio, while the undistributed livestock remains subject to animal tithe even under the new arrangement.. If they distributed the animals and afterwards distributed the properties they are not liable for either.¹⁶³If the livestock was distributed but not the real estate and the cash of the estate, they may continue to pay their sheqels together with one agio while the livestock is under the rules of partnership. Babli Bekhorot56b. Rebbi Mana said, this holds only if the animals were not a majority, but if the animals were a majority they form the main property¹⁶⁴The rule of the Mishnah applies even if the cash was never distributed explicitly.. Rebbi Abun said that Rebbi Shammai asked: Because you made them like one person for animal tithe, you made them not liable for agios¹⁶⁵If the heirs are adults the status of the estate should have no influence on the duty to pay the agio.? He said to him, no. There is a difference because he is giving a complete tetradrachma¹⁶⁶Since the estate (here supposed to be property of two brothers) pays for both of them, there is only one transaction and only one fee is due.. Then even if they distributed and then formed a partnership, they should be liable for animal tithe and not liable for the agio¹⁶⁷If the partnership would pay for them.. But we have stated, “they are liable for the agio, not liable for animal tithe.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Abba bar Rav Huna¹⁶⁸In the Babli he is mentioned as Rabbah bar Rav Huna. it is the same for two brothers inheriting from their father or two brothers-in-law inheriting from their father-in-law¹⁶⁹Since in the absence of male offsprings the daughters inherit following the rules for males, all rules for brothers dividing the estate of their father apply to brothers-in-law acting as administrators of their wives’ estates..