Bava Basra, chapter 9, Mishnah 4. The Mishnah before us includes several laws relating to brothers who inherited assets from their father and have not yet divided the inheritance among themselves. As long as the assets have not been divided, everyone is sustained from the "tefisas habayis" - the undivided family estate, which is destined to be divided equally among the sons later, or according to the laws of the firstborn and so on. Each of the laws in the Mishnah stands on its own.
The Brother Appointed to a Position:
The first case deals with a custom that was prevalent in those places: the governing authority, the king or his representative, granted a specific family the right of tax farming - the right to collect taxes. The appointee collected for the king and was allowed to keep a percentage of the collection for himself, meaning this was a highly profitable opportunity. The Mishnah assumes that the king did not choose this brother because of his personal skills - not because he manages finances well, not because he is trustworthy, and not because he is the firstborn - but simply announced that it was that family's turn to engage in tax collection, and one of the sons was sent to fulfill the role.
Appointed because of the family: All the profits that come to him from the position enter the communal fund, the tefisas habayis, and the brothers divide them equally. The reason is that the appointment does not come by his own merit and his special talents, but rather he is fulfilling a role that came to the entire family, and therefore he has no special rights to the profits.
Appointed on his own merit: If the king chose this brother specifically because he is known as a responsible, wise, or trustworthy person - he was chosen because of his own virtues, and the income is his.
Similarly, it is obvious that a brother who obtained a job through his own efforts - even if it is a job that all the brothers are equally capable of doing - his wages remain in his hands.
The Mishnah itself is very concise: "Ha'achin hashutafin" - brothers who are economic partners in the same tefisas habayis, in the undivided family estate; "shenafal echad meihen l'umanus" - that one of them was appointed to a position. Although "umanus" usually means a specific craft that a person takes upon himself, the simple meaning of the Mishnah is that he received the appointment for tax collection and the like solely because he is one of the family members. In such a case - "nafal la'emtza" - the profits fall to the middle and are divided equally among the brothers.
Medical Expenses:
The second law deals with a brother who became ill. The simple understanding is that all living necessities - housing, food, clothing, and medical care - are provided from the estate's assets. However, if he brought the illness upon himself through reckless and negligent behavior, the halachah is that the medical expenses come out of his own portion and not from the common fund. In a case of circumstances beyond his control, he is healed from the resources of the common fund in any event.
Here too, a distinction must be made - the obligation to bear the expenses himself applies specifically to a one-time, fixed expense: paying for an X-ray and a cast, after which the injury heals. But if the expense turned into continuous treatment with no end in sight, it is considered like sustenance and the basic needs of the person, and is covered by the common fund even if he brought it upon himself. This is how the halachah is decided in practice.
Here as well, the wording of the Mishnah is brief: "Chalah venisrapeh" - he became ill and required healing. "Nisrapeh" usually means that he recovered, but here the intention is that he recovered through medical treatment involving a financial expense. The Mishnah does not explicitly state that this refers to an illness caused by his negligence, but that is its intention: "Nisrapeh mishel atzmo" - he pays from his private pocket and not from the common fund. The Mishnah is concise, and does not say everything necessary to understand the law.
Shoshvinus:
The next case is a completely new topic: "shoshvinus". This custom existed in the time of the Mishnah, as well as in many other eras and places, at a time when people did not have enough money to make weddings. How did this work? Whenever a wedding was held, the friends and neighbors in the community contributed, each according to his ability and in his own way: the shoemaker provided shoes, the distillery owner gave the drinks, and so on - gifts for the groom so that he could hold his wedding. The community banded together and pooled resources so that the wedding would be proper, with its food, drinks, and decorations.
However, these are not gifts in the usual sense, but rather a sort of social obligation, to the extent that there is an official obligation to return them. If the neighbors gave you a shoshvinus, when their son gets married you will be obligated to return a shoshvinus to them; and if you do not do so, they may take you to beis din and collect the money from you. This is a formal obligation in every respect.
The Mishnah's question is therefore: what is the halachah when the shoshvinus was given by the family during the father's lifetime, and now, after his passing, one of the sons marries and the neighbors bring back a drink or a gift? Does the return belong to the chasan or to all the brothers? The fundamental halachah is that it belongs to all the brothers, since this is a reciprocal payment due to the family in exchange for the shoshvinus given to the neighbors at a previous wedding - and the money was the father's, not the sons'. Therefore they divide it equally, even though there is a specific chasan here.
It is different when it is clear that the current chasan is the one who gave the shoshvinus to his friend, and the return goes back to him personally. But when it is nothing more than a general obligation of one family to another - "your family took care of ours at our wedding, and now we are taking care of yours" - the funds fall to the middle.
The text of the Mishnah: "Ha'achin she'asu miktzasan shoshvinus bechayei ha'av" - for example, there were four brothers, and during the father's lifetime two of them gave shoshvinus gifts to their neighbors who got married. After the father's passing the sons marry, and the neighbors reciprocate and bring gifts to their weddings. In such a case "chazrah shoshvinus" - it returns to the middle, and the economic value of that shoshvinus enters the family's joint fund.
The reason: this contribution is collectible in beis din. If the neighbors had not brought the gift to that son's wedding, the sons or the family could have sued them in beis din, since an obligation is imposed on them due to the shoshvinus they received from that family. This is the definition of shoshvinus: it is not a true wedding gift but an obligation toward the family, and like the law of any obligation to the family created during the father's lifetime - when it is paid, it falls to the middle, into the joint fund.
A true gift versus shoshvinus:
Here the Mishnah distinguishes between shoshvinus and actual wedding gifts, and this is a separate matter. Indeed, a wonderful society is revealed here, where the entire community bands together to make a wedding for a neighbor, and does so in a way that everyone feels it comes from love and not from obligation - even though it contains a measure of obligation and mutual commitment, and there is great beauty in this. But the bottom line is that a person must have the ability to give a true gift as an act of piety, as an expression of love and not of obligation.
A true wedding gift is therefore something else, and as the text of the Mishnah states: "Aval hasholeiach lachaveiro kadei yayin vechadei shemen" - the neighbor or friend who sends a wedding gift, a jug of wine or a jug of oil, out of the generosity of his heart and not due to an obligation, this is a wedding gift. In such a case - "einan nigbin beveis din" - a person cannot claim "I gave you a bottle of wine, and now you must return a bottle of wine to me." It was a wedding gift, and one cannot demand reciprocity in beis din. "Mipnei shehen gemilus chasadim" - since they were given as an act of kindness and not as an official obligation that must be repaid, if they are nevertheless returned out of reciprocity, they belong to the chasan alone, since it is a gift and not a debt in the legal sense.
In summary: This Mishnah contains three halachos regarding brothers who are partners in their father's estate: a brother who was appointed to a trade because of the family - his profits fall to the middle, whereas one appointed due to his own merits or who obtains work by his own efforts - his wages are his own; a brother who became ill through his own negligence - he heals himself from his own funds, unless the expense became continuous and is considered like sustenance; and shoshvinus given by the family during the father's lifetime that was returned afterward - falls to the middle, since it is an obligation collectible in beis din, as opposed to a true wedding gift which is not collectible in beis din because it is an act of kindness, and it belongs to the chasan alone.