Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 10, 2017 | 讬状讚 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Batra 108

Study Guide Bava Batra 108. What is the purpose of the small and large ditches mentioned in the mishna? 聽The new chapter deals with inheritance laws and the mishna discusses who can inherit from another and what is the order. 聽The Torah delineates the order but leaves out a father inheriting from his son. 聽Two different braitot are brought that each establish聽(using derivations from different verses) that the father comes after the son and daughter of the deceased and before the brothers and paternal uncle. 聽 The gemara questions why the father is there and not either before the daughter or after the brother. The gemara also questions what the author of each braita would learn out from the other verse (the one he didn’t learn out this halacha from).

讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讞讬讛 拽讜驻爪转 讜诇注讘讬讚 讞专讬抓 讜诇讗 诇注讘讬讚 讘谉 讞专讬抓 讗讬讬讚讬 讚专讜讜讞 拽讬讬诪讗 讘讙讜讬讛 讜拽驻爪讛 讜诇注讘讬讚 讘谉 讞专讬抓 讜诇讗 诇注讘讬讚 讞专讬抓 讗讬讬讚讬 讚拽讟讬谉 拽讬讬诪讗 讗砖驻转讬讛 讜拽驻爪讛 讜讻诪讛 讘讬谉 讞专讬抓 诇讘谉 讞专讬抓 讟驻讞

so that an animal will not jump over the fence, enter the field, and cause damage. The Gemara asks: Let him make only a larger ditch and not make a smaller ditch. The Gemara replies: Since the ditch is wide, the animal can stand inside it and jump from there over the fence. The Gemara asks: If so, then let him make only a smaller ditch and not make a larger ditch? Since the ditch is small, the animal stands on its edge and jumps over the fence. The baraita explains the matter further: And how much space is there between the larger ditch and the smaller ditch? One handbreadth.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讘讬转 讻讜专

 

诪转谞讬壮 讬砖 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 讜讬砖 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 讜诇讗 谞讜讞诇讬谉 诇讗 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪谞讞讬诇讬谉

MISHNA: There are family members who both inherit from and bequeath to each other upon their respective deaths; and there are those who inherit from certain relatives but do not bequeath to them; and there are those who bequeath to certain relatives but do not inherit from them; and there are those who, despite being relatives, do not inherit from nor bequeath to one another.

讜讗诇讜 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 讛讗讘 讗转 讛讘谞讬诐 讜讛讘谞讬诐 讗转 讛讗讘 讜讛讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讘 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 讛讗讬砖 讗转 讗诪讜 讜讛讗讬砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜讘谞讬 讗讞讬讜转 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 讛讗砖讛 讗转 讘谞讬讛 讜讛讗砖讛 讗转 讘注诇讛 讜讗讞讬 讛讗诐 诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 讜诇讗 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜讛讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗诐 诇讗 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪谞讞讬诇讬谉

The mishna lists those referred to above. And these both inherit and bequeath: A father with regard to his sons, and sons with regard to their father, and paternal brothers; all inherit from one another and bequeath to each other. A man with regard to his mother, and a man with regard to his wife, and sons of sisters, i.e., nephews born to the sisters of the deceased, all inherit from their respective relatives but do not bequeath to them. A woman with regard to her sons, and a woman with regard to her husband, and maternal uncles, all bequeath to their respective relatives but do not inherit from them. And maternal brothers, despite being blood relatives, do not inherit from each other nor do they bequeath to one another, as they are not considered relatives for the purpose of inheritance.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚拽转谞讬 讛讗讘 讗转 讛讘谞讬诐 讘专讬砖讗 诇讬转谞讬 讛讘谞讬诐 讗转 讛讗讘 讘专讬砖讗 讞讚讗 讚讗转讞讜诇讬 讘驻讜专注谞讜转讗 诇讗 诪转讞诇讬谞谉

GEMARA: The Gemara begins by clarifying the order of the list in the mishna. What is different, i.e., what is the reason, that the mishna teaches: A father with regard to his sons, as the first example? Let it teach: Sons with regard to their father, as the first example. The Gemara explains why this would be preferable: One reason is that we do not want to begin with a calamity, as the death of a son during his father鈥檚 lifetime is a calamity; therefore, it would have been appropriate to begin with the example of sons inheriting from their father.

讜注讜讚 讻讚讻转讬讘 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬诪讜转 讜讘谉 讗讬谉 诇讜

And furthermore, the verse first states that a son inherits from his father, as it is written in the portion concerning inheritance: 鈥淚f a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter鈥 (Numbers 27:8).

讜转谞讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗转讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讚专砖讗 讞讘讬讘讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: And as for the tanna of the mishna who listed the father inheriting first, since the halakha that a father inherits from his son is learned through a derivation and is not explicitly mentioned in the verse, this halakha is dear to him; therefore, he listed it first.

讜诪讗讬 讚专砖讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖讗专讜 讝讛 讛讗讘 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讗讘 拽讜讚诐 诇讗讞讬谉 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 拽讜讚诐 诇讘谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛拽专讜讘 拽专讜讘 拽专讜讘 拽讜讚诐

And what is the derivation? As it is taught in a baraita concerning the verse: 鈥淎nd if his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his kinsman who is next to him of his family, and he shall inherit it鈥 (Numbers 27:11): 鈥淗is kinsman鈥; this is referring to the father, and the Torah teaches that the father precedes the brothers of the deceased in inheriting from him. One might have thought that the father of the deceased should precede the son of the deceased in inheriting from him; the verse therefore states: 鈥淣ext [hakkarov] to him,鈥 teaching that the closer [karov] one is to the deceased, the earlier one is in the order of inheritance, and a son of the deceased is considered to be a closer relative to the deceased than the father of the deceased.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讘谉 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讗讞 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讘谉 砖讻谉 拽诐 转讞转 讗讘讬讜 诇讬注讚讛 讜诇砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛

The Gemara asks: And what did you see to include the son as the closer relative than the father and to exclude the brother? The Gemara answers: I include the son, as he stands in place of his father to designate a Hebrew maidservant as a wife for himself, which a brother cannot do. And similarly, he stands in place of his father with regard to an ancestral field. If a son redeems a field consecrated by his father, it is considered as though the father himself redeemed it and the field returns to the family in the Jubilee Year. By contrast, if the brother of the one who consecrated it redeems the field, it does not return to the family (see Leviticus 27:16鈥21).

讗讚专讘讛 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讗讞 砖讻谉 拽诐 转讞转 讗讞讬讜 诇讬讘讜诐 讻诇讜诐 讬砖 讬讘讜诐 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讘谉 讛讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讘谉 讗讬谉 讬讘讜诐

The Gemara asks: On the contrary, I should include the brother as the closer relative, as he stands in his brother鈥檚 place with regard to levirate marriage, and a son does not. The Gemara answers: This is not a valid claim, as is there levirate marriage except in a case where there is no son? In a case where there is a son, there is no levirate marriage. This indicates that a son stands in place of the deceased before a brother even with regard to levirate marriage.

讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讗讬 驻讬专讻讗 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讞 注讚讬祝 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛

The Gemara comments: The reason that a son is considered to be a closer relative than a brother is specifically due to this refutation, that where there is a son there is no levirate marriage. This indicates that without this refutation I would say that a brother is superior to a son in terms of how close a relative he is. The Gemara therefore asks: Why not derive that a son is closer to the deceased than a brother

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 108

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 108

讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讞讬讛 拽讜驻爪转 讜诇注讘讬讚 讞专讬抓 讜诇讗 诇注讘讬讚 讘谉 讞专讬抓 讗讬讬讚讬 讚专讜讜讞 拽讬讬诪讗 讘讙讜讬讛 讜拽驻爪讛 讜诇注讘讬讚 讘谉 讞专讬抓 讜诇讗 诇注讘讬讚 讞专讬抓 讗讬讬讚讬 讚拽讟讬谉 拽讬讬诪讗 讗砖驻转讬讛 讜拽驻爪讛 讜讻诪讛 讘讬谉 讞专讬抓 诇讘谉 讞专讬抓 讟驻讞

so that an animal will not jump over the fence, enter the field, and cause damage. The Gemara asks: Let him make only a larger ditch and not make a smaller ditch. The Gemara replies: Since the ditch is wide, the animal can stand inside it and jump from there over the fence. The Gemara asks: If so, then let him make only a smaller ditch and not make a larger ditch? Since the ditch is small, the animal stands on its edge and jumps over the fence. The baraita explains the matter further: And how much space is there between the larger ditch and the smaller ditch? One handbreadth.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讘讬转 讻讜专

 

诪转谞讬壮 讬砖 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 讜讬砖 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 讜诇讗 谞讜讞诇讬谉 诇讗 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪谞讞讬诇讬谉

MISHNA: There are family members who both inherit from and bequeath to each other upon their respective deaths; and there are those who inherit from certain relatives but do not bequeath to them; and there are those who bequeath to certain relatives but do not inherit from them; and there are those who, despite being relatives, do not inherit from nor bequeath to one another.

讜讗诇讜 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 讛讗讘 讗转 讛讘谞讬诐 讜讛讘谞讬诐 讗转 讛讗讘 讜讛讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讘 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 讛讗讬砖 讗转 讗诪讜 讜讛讗讬砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜讘谞讬 讗讞讬讜转 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 讛讗砖讛 讗转 讘谞讬讛 讜讛讗砖讛 讗转 讘注诇讛 讜讗讞讬 讛讗诐 诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 讜诇讗 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜讛讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗诐 诇讗 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪谞讞讬诇讬谉

The mishna lists those referred to above. And these both inherit and bequeath: A father with regard to his sons, and sons with regard to their father, and paternal brothers; all inherit from one another and bequeath to each other. A man with regard to his mother, and a man with regard to his wife, and sons of sisters, i.e., nephews born to the sisters of the deceased, all inherit from their respective relatives but do not bequeath to them. A woman with regard to her sons, and a woman with regard to her husband, and maternal uncles, all bequeath to their respective relatives but do not inherit from them. And maternal brothers, despite being blood relatives, do not inherit from each other nor do they bequeath to one another, as they are not considered relatives for the purpose of inheritance.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚拽转谞讬 讛讗讘 讗转 讛讘谞讬诐 讘专讬砖讗 诇讬转谞讬 讛讘谞讬诐 讗转 讛讗讘 讘专讬砖讗 讞讚讗 讚讗转讞讜诇讬 讘驻讜专注谞讜转讗 诇讗 诪转讞诇讬谞谉

GEMARA: The Gemara begins by clarifying the order of the list in the mishna. What is different, i.e., what is the reason, that the mishna teaches: A father with regard to his sons, as the first example? Let it teach: Sons with regard to their father, as the first example. The Gemara explains why this would be preferable: One reason is that we do not want to begin with a calamity, as the death of a son during his father鈥檚 lifetime is a calamity; therefore, it would have been appropriate to begin with the example of sons inheriting from their father.

讜注讜讚 讻讚讻转讬讘 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬诪讜转 讜讘谉 讗讬谉 诇讜

And furthermore, the verse first states that a son inherits from his father, as it is written in the portion concerning inheritance: 鈥淚f a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter鈥 (Numbers 27:8).

讜转谞讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗转讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讚专砖讗 讞讘讬讘讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: And as for the tanna of the mishna who listed the father inheriting first, since the halakha that a father inherits from his son is learned through a derivation and is not explicitly mentioned in the verse, this halakha is dear to him; therefore, he listed it first.

讜诪讗讬 讚专砖讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖讗专讜 讝讛 讛讗讘 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讗讘 拽讜讚诐 诇讗讞讬谉 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 拽讜讚诐 诇讘谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛拽专讜讘 拽专讜讘 拽专讜讘 拽讜讚诐

And what is the derivation? As it is taught in a baraita concerning the verse: 鈥淎nd if his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his kinsman who is next to him of his family, and he shall inherit it鈥 (Numbers 27:11): 鈥淗is kinsman鈥; this is referring to the father, and the Torah teaches that the father precedes the brothers of the deceased in inheriting from him. One might have thought that the father of the deceased should precede the son of the deceased in inheriting from him; the verse therefore states: 鈥淣ext [hakkarov] to him,鈥 teaching that the closer [karov] one is to the deceased, the earlier one is in the order of inheritance, and a son of the deceased is considered to be a closer relative to the deceased than the father of the deceased.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讘谉 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讗讞 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讘谉 砖讻谉 拽诐 转讞转 讗讘讬讜 诇讬注讚讛 讜诇砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛

The Gemara asks: And what did you see to include the son as the closer relative than the father and to exclude the brother? The Gemara answers: I include the son, as he stands in place of his father to designate a Hebrew maidservant as a wife for himself, which a brother cannot do. And similarly, he stands in place of his father with regard to an ancestral field. If a son redeems a field consecrated by his father, it is considered as though the father himself redeemed it and the field returns to the family in the Jubilee Year. By contrast, if the brother of the one who consecrated it redeems the field, it does not return to the family (see Leviticus 27:16鈥21).

讗讚专讘讛 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讗讞 砖讻谉 拽诐 转讞转 讗讞讬讜 诇讬讘讜诐 讻诇讜诐 讬砖 讬讘讜诐 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讘谉 讛讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讘谉 讗讬谉 讬讘讜诐

The Gemara asks: On the contrary, I should include the brother as the closer relative, as he stands in his brother鈥檚 place with regard to levirate marriage, and a son does not. The Gemara answers: This is not a valid claim, as is there levirate marriage except in a case where there is no son? In a case where there is a son, there is no levirate marriage. This indicates that a son stands in place of the deceased before a brother even with regard to levirate marriage.

讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讗讬 驻讬专讻讗 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讞 注讚讬祝 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛

The Gemara comments: The reason that a son is considered to be a closer relative than a brother is specifically due to this refutation, that where there is a son there is no levirate marriage. This indicates that without this refutation I would say that a brother is superior to a son in terms of how close a relative he is. The Gemara therefore asks: Why not derive that a son is closer to the deceased than a brother

Scroll To Top