Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/287

Paragraph 1- If one died, and was survived by older and younger children, and the older children caused the properties to go up in value, all the appreciation would be owned by the estate. They would not even take payment for their work. If the older children said, “see what our father has left us, we are going to work and consume,” the appreciation would belong to the child that appreciates. This assumes the property appreciated because of the expenses incurred by the child working the property. If the properties appreciated on their own, however, the appreciation would belong to the estate. Similarly, if the wife of the deceased was among the sisters or cousins that inherit, and the properties appreciated, the appreciation would go to the estate. If she said, “see what my husband left, I am going to work and consume,” and the properties appreciated because of the expenses incurred by her, the appreciation would belong to her. This is only the opinion of the Rambam. We do not find any authority who concurs with this. The view of all other authorities is that this we said earlier that if the adults caused an appreciation then it would go to the estate, is only where the properties appreciated on their own, which means they hired workers with money from the estate or they transacted with the estate’s merchandise. If the properties appreciated because of expenses they incurred or if they physically worked the properties by digging and building, they would keep the appreciation. If they caused an appreciation on something that had they informed the younger ones, they too could have done it, such as guarding or something similar, the appreciation would go to the estate, even if they physically worked the properties because they did not tell the younger ones originally. If they said, “see what father left us, we are going to work and consume,” all the appreciation in all the properties would go to them, even the appreciation on their brothers’ share and even if they appreciated because of the properties. ''If the brothers are adults, they don’t need to say it in court. They can just say it in front of witnesses. If there are minor orphans, however, he must say it in front of court. This all applies to brothers that are supported together. If they are not supported together, however, he would not even be able to collect appreciation from his own work. Rather, he would take like any other person who goes down to another’s property without permission. If one of the brothers has many sons, and the properties appreciate, he cannot say give me what my sons appreciated. Similarly, the others cannot say give us what your son consume. Rather, everything will be from the estate. If one of the brothers gave a gift to others, and the other brothers saw and were silent, that qualifies as a waiver.''

Paragraph 2- If one of the brothers took money and performed commerce with it, and he was a great Torah scholar who would not abandon his Torah for a moment, all the profit would be his because he would not leave the Torah and work for the sake of his brothers.

Paragraph 3- If one inherited his father and appreciated the properties by planting and building, and it was later known that he has other brothers in another country, and those brothers are minors, the appreciation would go to the estate. If they were adults, because he did not know that he had brothers we would appraise him like a sharecropper. Similarly, if a brother went down to the properties of a minor and appreciated them, we would not appraise him like a sharecropper. Rather, the appreciation would go to the estate because he went down without permission.