R. Chanina: If a person marries off his (firstborn) son (in his first marriage) in a house, the son acquires the house.

Beraisa (Rav Hoshiyah): He only acquires the house but not the movables.

R. Ila divided his mansion between himself and his son.

Question (R. Chagai to R. Yosi): If they made his chupah inside a small room in the mansion but the wedding banquet was made in the mansion, what is the law? (Does the son acquire the mansion?)

Answer (R. Yosi): Will the son see his father leaving the house and send him away completely? Of course not! Since the main part of the wedding is the chupah, he only acquires the chupah room.

R. Yehoshua ben Levi: We divide up all of the estate, including that of the young sons, for the sake of the older sons (so that they can take the money and earn from it).

Question: If the younger ones saw that the older ones had taken too much and they came to complain in Beis Din, what is the law?

Answer (R. Abahu): The older ones must make an oath (that they took no more than was rightfully theirs).

R. Mana: In all cases except here, whenever a person wants to take money from someone, the onus of proof is on him.

R. Chiya the Great: Brothers who inherit their father are assumed to be partners for the first three generations (meaning any profits that come from the estate are divided equally amongst them). (Note: According to many, the text from this entry until the end of (j)-1 should appear in the sugya after the next Mishnah.)

Rebbi bar Bun: Rav Hamnuna also ruled this way.

R. Imi: If a son was seen doing business with part of the estate during his father's life, he alone receives those profits.

It is like the case of a person who learned to be a Sofer and he wrote a Sefer Torah. His brothers then wanted to receive a portion of the profits since it was their father's money that paid for him to learn Safrus.

The case came before R. Ami. He said, "If a person found a lost (ownerless) object, must he share it with his brothers?''

A person was once sent on a paid mission. His brothers wanted to share his profits (claiming that it was theirs, since they had not yet divided the estate).

The case came before R. Ami who said, "Do we say that if a person went out to steal, his brothers divide the profits?!''

(Alexandri,) the brother of R. Huraina, who was the brother of R. Shmuel bar Susartei, wanted to divide the profits of the business that R. Huraina was doing.

R. Huraina to Alexandri: Do you think that our father left a lot of money to divide? I earned all of the money myself!

The Mishnah taught: (Above in daf 142-143 (c) ) - Similarly, if a woman (improved the property, the improvements are shared equally. If she said, "See what my husband left for me; I will work and improve it'' - if it improves, she receives all of the profits.)

R. Ila: Her claim was made in Beis Din.

(Mishnah): If brothers were (still) partners (as they had not yet divided the estate) and one was enlisted for the work of the king (because of the estate), the profits of his work are divided.

If one of the brothers was sick, he pays the medical bills from his own property.

If some of the brothers were shushvinim (sent by their father to give gifts for a wedding, where it was customary, if the giver attended the wedding, that the favor would need to be returned by the recipients if the father would make a wedding in the future) during their father's lifetime; then if after the father died, the shushvinus (gifts) were reciprocated, they are divided between the brothers, as legally, Beis Din can enforce that reciprocation of the shushvinus.

But if his friend sent him jugs of wine or oil (even though they were a wedding gift), they cannot be collected, as they were merely given out of kindness (rather than as actual shushvinus).

(Gemara) - Beraisa: If brothers were (still) partners and one was enlisted for the work of the king, when it was because of the brothers' reputation, the estate receives any payments involved; if it was because of that particular brother's reputation, the payments fall specifically to him.

It is like the case of Rav Nachman bar Shmuel bar Nachman who was caught by the tax collectors to pay the king's rich man's tax. Rav Nachman wanted his brothers to share in tax payment. The case came before R. Ami, who said, "If Nachman himself has a lot of property that was the cause of the tax collectors action, he must pay it all himself. If not, they should all give equally.