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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 11, 2017 | 讟状讜 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 110

Various lessons are derived from the Levi that Micha hired to work for him. 聽Also聽it is explained that he repented in the time of King David, based on a verse from Chronicles. 聽From where do we derive that a daughter only inherits in a case where there are no sons. 聽Four different possibilities are brought and discussed.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讘讜讛 讚讗诪讬讛 诪讬讜住祝 讗诪讛 讚讗诪讬讛 诪讬转专讜 讗讬 讗讘讜讛 讚讗诪讬讛 诪讬转专讜 讗诪讛 讚讗诪讬讛 诪讬讜住祝 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚讻转讬讘 诪讘谞讜转 驻讜讟讬讗诇 转专转讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rather, this is how the matter should be resolved: If his mother鈥檚 father came from the family of Joseph, his mother鈥檚 mother came from the family of Yitro, and if his mother鈥檚 father came from the family of Yitro, his mother鈥檚 mother came from the family of Joseph, so while his mother was descended from Joseph on one side and from Yitro on the other, Pinehas was a more distant relative to Yitro than Jonathan was. Based on this conclusion, the language of the verse is also precise, as it is written: 鈥淎nd Elazar, Aaron鈥檚 son, took one of the daughters of Putiel鈥 (Exodus 6:25). Conclude from the wording of the verse that Pinehas was descended from two men who were referred to as Puti: Yitro and Joseph.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讜砖讗 讗砖讛 爪专讬讱 砖讬讘讚讜拽 讘讗讞讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬拽讞 讗讛专谉 讗转 讗诇讬砖讘注 讘转 注诪讬谞讚讘 讗讞讜转 谞讞砖讜谉 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讘转 注诪讬谞讚讘 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖讗讞讜转 谞讞砖讜谉 讛讬讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讞讜转 谞讞砖讜谉 诪讻讗谉 砖讛谞讜砖讗 讗砖讛 爪专讬讱 砖讬讘讚讜拽 讘讗讞讬讛 转谞讗 专讜讘 讘谞讬诐 讚讜诪讬谉 诇讗讞讬 讛讗诐

Rava says: One who marries a woman needs to first examine her brothers so that he will know in advance what character his children will have, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd Aaron took Elisheva, the daughter of Amminadav, the sister of Nahshon鈥 (Exodus 6:23). By inference from that which is stated: 鈥淭he daughter of Amminadav,鈥 do I not know that she is the sister of Nahshon, as Nahshon was the son of Amminadav? What is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淭he sister of Nahshon鈥? From here one learns that one who marries a woman needs to examine her brothers. The reason is as the Sages taught: Most sons resemble the mother鈥檚 brothers.

讜讬住讜专讜 砖诪讛 讜讬讗诪专 诪讬 讛讘讬讗讱 讛诇诐 讜诪讛 讗转讛 注讜砖讛 讘讝讛 讜诪讛 诇讱 驻讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗讜 诪诪砖讛 拽讗 讗转讬转 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讗诇 转拽专讘 讛诇诐 诇讗讜 诪诪砖讛 拽讗 讗转讬转 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 诪讛 讝讛 讘讬讚讱 诇讗讜 诪诪砖讛 拽讗 讗转讬转 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讜讗转讛 驻讛 注诪讚 注诪讚讬 转注砖讛 讻讜诪专 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

In connection with the Gemara鈥檚 mention of Jonathan, who served as a priest for Micah, the Gemara quotes additional statements of the Sages concerning that episode. Describing when the men from the tribe of Dan passed through Micah鈥檚 house, the verse states: 鈥淎nd they turned aside there and said to him: Who brought you here [halom], and what [ma] are you doing in this place, and what do you have here [po]?鈥 (Judges 18:3). The Sages interpret their multiple questions. They said to him: Do you not come from Moses, about whom it is written: 鈥淒o not draw close to here [halom]鈥 (Exodus 3:5)? Do you not come from Moses, about whom it is written: 鈥淲hat [ma] is that in your hand鈥 (Exodus 4:2)? Do you not come from Moses, about whom it is written: 鈥淏ut as for you, stand here [po] with me鈥 (Deuteronomy 5:27)? Shall you, a descendant of our teacher Moses, become a priest for idol worship?

讗诪专 诇讛谉 讻讱 诪拽讜讘诇谞讬 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬 讗讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讬砖讻讬专 讗讚诐 注爪诪讜 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讗诇 讬爪讟专讱 诇讘专讬讜转

Jonathan said to them: This is the tradition that I received from the house of my father鈥檚 father: A person should always hire himself out to idol worship and not require the help of people by receiving charity, and I took this position in order to avoid having to take charity.

讜讛讜讗 住讘专 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪诪砖 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 注讘讜讚讛 砖讝专讛 诇讜 讻讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 谞讟讜砖 谞讘讬诇转讗 讘砖讜拽讗 讜砖拽讜诇 讗讙专讗 讜诇讗 转讬诪讗 讙讘专讗 专讘讗 讗谞讗 讜讝讬诇讗 讘讬 诪讬诇转讗

The Gemara comments: And he, Jonathan, thought that this referred to actual idol worship, but that is not so, that was not the intent of the tradition. Rather, here the term idol worship, literally: Strange service, is referring to service, i.e., labor, that is strange, i.e., unsuitable, for him. In other words, one should be willing to perform labor that is difficult and humiliating in his eyes rather than become a recipient of charity. As Rav said to Rav Kahana, his student: Skin a carcass in the market and take payment, but do not say: I am a great man and this matter is beneath me.

讻讬讜谉 砖专讗讛 讚讜讚 砖诪诪讜谉 讞讘讬讘 注诇讬讜 讘讬讜转专 诪讬谞讛讜 注诇 讛讗讜爪专讜转 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖讘讗诇 讘谉 讙专砖诐 讘谉 诪谞砖讛 谞讙讬讚 注诇 讛讗爪专讜转 讜讻讬 砖讘讜讗诇 砖诪讜 讜讛诇讗 讬讛讜谞转谉 砖诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖砖讘 诇讗诇 讘讻诇 诇讘讜

The Gemara continues its discussion of that episode. Later, when King David saw that money was excessively precious to Jonathan, he appointed him as director of the treasuries of the Temple, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd Shebuel, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, was ruler over the treasuries鈥 (I聽Chronicles 26:24). The Gemara asks: And was his name really Shebuel; but wasn鈥檛 his name Jonathan? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He is called Shebuel in order to allude to the fact that he repented and returned to God [shav la鈥檈l ] with all his heart.

讜讛讘谞讬诐 讗转 讛讗讘 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬诪讜转 讜讙讜壮 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬谉 诇讜 讘谉 讛讗 讬砖 诇讜 讘谉 讘谉 拽讜讚诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬诪讗 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘谉 诇讬专讜转 讘谉 讗讬讻讗 讘转 转讬专讜转 讘转 讗讬讻讗 讘谉 讜讘转 诇讗 讛讗讬 诇讬专讜转 讜诇讗 讛讗讬 诇讬专讜转

搂 The mishna teaches in the list of those who inherit from and bequeath to each other: Sons with regard to their father. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha that sons inherit the entire estate and daughters do not receive a share along with them? As it is written: 鈥淚f a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter鈥 (Numbers 27:8). The reason the inheritance would be passed to a daughter is that he has no son, but if he has a son, the son takes precedence. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Why not say the following: If there is only a son, let the son inherit the father鈥檚 estate; if there is only a daughter, let the daughter inherit the father鈥檚 estate; and if there is both a son and a daughter, neither this one should inherit nor that one should inherit.

讜讗诇讗

Abaye asked Rav Pappa: And rather,

诪讗谉 讻讜壮 诇讬专讜转 讗讟讜 讘专 拽砖讗 讚诪转讗 诇讬专讜转 讛讻讬 拽讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬讻讗 讘谉 讜讘转 诇讗 讛讗讬 诇讬专讜转 讻讜诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讛讗讬 诇讬专讜转 讻讜诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讚讚讬 诇讬专转讜

who then should inherit? Is that to say that the ruler of the city should inherit? Rav Pappa said to him: This is what I meant to say: If there is a son and a daughter, this one should not inherit all of the estate, and that one should not inherit all of the estate, but they should inherit it in equal portions to one another.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讗爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讞讚 讘专讗 诇讬专转讬谞讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜 谞讻住讬 讜讚诇诪讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘转 谞诪讬 讘转 讬专讜砖讛 讛讬讗 讛讛讜讗 诪讜讻诇 讘转 讬专砖转 谞讞诇讛 谞驻拽讗

Abaye said to him: But is the verse necessary in order to teach us that when he has only one child, that child should inherit all of his property? If you say that the right of the son and daughter to the inheritance is equal, then the verse: 鈥淚f a man dies, and has no son鈥 (Numbers 27:8), which teaches that when there is no son his daughter inherits, is superfluous. Rav Pappa responded: And perhaps this verse teaches us this: That a daughter is also subject to receiving inheritance. The Gemara replies: No, the verse does not need to teach us this, since that halakha is derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd every daughter who possesses an inheritance鈥 (Numbers 36:8), which clearly states that a daughter is subject to receiving inheritance.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 诇诪讛 讬讙专注 砖诐 讗讘讬谞讜 诪转讜讱 诪砖驻讞转讜 讻讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘谉 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬谉 诇讜 讘谉 讛讗 讬砖 诇讜 讘谉 讘谉 拽讜讚诐

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: The halakha that a son inherits his father鈥檚 estate and precedes a daughter is derived from here, in the passage in the Torah where the daughters of Zelophehad request their father鈥檚 inheritance in Eretz Yisrael. They said to Moses: 鈥淲hy should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he has no son?鈥 (Numbers 27:4). Rabbi A岣 ben Ya鈥檃kov infers: The reason they requested the inheritance is that, as they said: He has no son. One can infer: But if he has a son, the son takes precedence and the daughters would not have requested an inheritance.

讜讚诇诪讗 讘谞讜转 爪诇驻讞讚 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专谉 讛讻讬 谞讬转谞讛 转讜专讛 讜谞转讞讚砖讛 讛诇讻讛 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚砖谞讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But perhaps it was the daughters of Zelophehad who said this, i.e., that they were entitled to an inheritance only because their father had no son. They thought that this was the halakha based on the custom at that time, but after God spoke to Moses, the Torah was given and a halakha was initiated that a daughter鈥檚 right to inherit is equal to that of the son. The Gemara accepts this difficulty and states: Rather, it is clear that the source for this halakha is as we answered initially, i.e., as Abaya derived from the verse of: 鈥淚f a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter鈥 (Numbers 27:8).

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讛拽专讘 讗诇讬讜 讛拽专讜讘 拽专讜讘 拽讜讚诐

Ravina said: The source for the halakha that a son precedes a daughter is from here: 鈥淲ho is next to him [hakkarov elav]鈥 (Numbers 27:11), 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 daughter.

讜诪讗讬 拽讜专讘讛 讚讘谉 诪讘转 砖讘谉 拽诐 转讞转 讗讘讬讜 诇讬注讚讛 讜诇砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讬注讚讛 讘转 诇讗讜 讘转 讬注讚讛 讛讬讗 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 谞诪讬 诪讛讗讬 驻讬专讻讗 讙讜驻讛 讛讜讗 讚讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇转谞讗 讻诇讜诐 讬砖 讬讘讜诐 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讘谉 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚砖谞讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗

The Gemara asks: And what demonstrates the closeness of a son more than that of a daughter? That a son stands in place of his father to designate a Hebrew maidservant as a wife for himself and with regard to an ancestral field. The Gemara rejects this: This is not a valid proof, as designation cannot demonstrate that a son is a closer relative; a daughter is not subject to designation, because she obviously cannot marry the Hebrew maidservant. With regard to an ancestral field as well, the tanna establishes his ruling that a son is a closer relative than others from this same refutation: Is there levirate marriage except in a case where there is no son? And this applies also where there is no daughter. Rather, it is clear that the source for this halakha is as we answered initially.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讛转谞讞诇转诐 讗转诐 诇讘谞讬讻诐 讗讞专讬讻诐 讘谞讬讻诐 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转讬讻诐 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诇诪注谉 讬专讘讜 讬诪讬讻诐 讜讬诪讬 讘谞讬讻诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讘谞讬讻诐 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转讬讻诐

And if you wish, say instead that the halakha that a son precedes a daughter is derived from here, in the passage in the Torah addressing the inheritance of slaves, which states: 鈥淎nd you may make them an inheritance for your sons [livneikhem] after you鈥 (Leviticus 25:46). One can infer: 鈥淵our sons,鈥 but not your daughters. The Gemara asks: If that is so, then when the verse states: 鈥淭hat your days may be multiplied, and the days of your sons [beneikhem]鈥 (Deuteronomy 11:21), should one infer that this too means: 鈥淵our sons,鈥 but not your daughters? Is it not obvious that daughters are also worthy of receiving the blessing of longevity?

讘专讻讛 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara answers: A blessing is different. In a verse that speaks of blessings, the term beneikhem should be understood in its broader sense, as 鈥測our children.鈥 In a verse that speaks of a halakha, it is to be understood in the narrower sense of 鈥測our sons.鈥

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 讜讻讜壮 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗转讬讗 讗讞讜讛 讗讞讜讛 诪讘谞讬 讬注拽讘 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪谉 讛讗讘 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讗诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪谉 讛讗讘 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讗诐

搂 The mishna teaches: And paternal brothers inherit from one another and bequeath to each other. From where do we derive this halakha? Rabba said: It is derived from a verbal analogy between the word: Brothers, stated with regard to inheritance, and the word: Brothers, found in the verses concerning Jacob鈥檚 sons. When Jacob鈥檚 sons speak to Joseph, they state: 鈥淲e, your servants, are twelve brothers, the sons of one man in the land of Canaan鈥 (Genesis 42:13), and in the passage discussing inheritance the verse states: 鈥淎nd if he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father鈥檚 brothers鈥 (Numbers 27:10). Just as there, in the verse concerning Jacob鈥檚 sons, the word brothers is referring to paternal brothers and not maternal brothers, as the twelve of them shared only the same father, so too here, where this term is used with regard to inheritance, the verse is referring to paternal brothers and not maternal brothers.

讜诇诪讛 诇讬 诪诪砖驻讞转讜 讜讬专砖 讗转讛 讻转讬讘 诪砖驻讞转 讗讘 拽专讜讬讛 诪砖驻讞讛 诪砖驻讞转 讗诐 讗讬谞讛 拽专讜讬讛 诪砖驻讞讛

The Gemara asks: But why do I need this proof from the verse concerning Jacob鈥檚 sons? It is written in the passage concerning inheritance: 鈥淭hen 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). When the term 鈥渇amily鈥 is used in the Bible, one鈥檚 father鈥檚 family is called one鈥檚 family, while one鈥檚 mother鈥檚 family is not called one鈥檚 family, so that in all matters of inheritance, it is the patrilineal relatives who are taken into account.

讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘讛 诇注谞讬谉 讬讘讜诐 讗讬转诪专

The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so that the verbal analogy is not needed to teach the halakha of inheritance, and when Rabba鈥檚 explanation was stated, it was stated with regard to the matter of levirate marriage, teaching that levirate marriage is performed only by a paternal brother but not by a maternal brother.

讜讛讗讬砖 讗转 讗诪讜 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And a man with regard to his mother inherits from her relatives but does not bequeath to her. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught:

  • 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 110

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 110

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讘讜讛 讚讗诪讬讛 诪讬讜住祝 讗诪讛 讚讗诪讬讛 诪讬转专讜 讗讬 讗讘讜讛 讚讗诪讬讛 诪讬转专讜 讗诪讛 讚讗诪讬讛 诪讬讜住祝 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚讻转讬讘 诪讘谞讜转 驻讜讟讬讗诇 转专转讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rather, this is how the matter should be resolved: If his mother鈥檚 father came from the family of Joseph, his mother鈥檚 mother came from the family of Yitro, and if his mother鈥檚 father came from the family of Yitro, his mother鈥檚 mother came from the family of Joseph, so while his mother was descended from Joseph on one side and from Yitro on the other, Pinehas was a more distant relative to Yitro than Jonathan was. Based on this conclusion, the language of the verse is also precise, as it is written: 鈥淎nd Elazar, Aaron鈥檚 son, took one of the daughters of Putiel鈥 (Exodus 6:25). Conclude from the wording of the verse that Pinehas was descended from two men who were referred to as Puti: Yitro and Joseph.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讜砖讗 讗砖讛 爪专讬讱 砖讬讘讚讜拽 讘讗讞讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬拽讞 讗讛专谉 讗转 讗诇讬砖讘注 讘转 注诪讬谞讚讘 讗讞讜转 谞讞砖讜谉 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讘转 注诪讬谞讚讘 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖讗讞讜转 谞讞砖讜谉 讛讬讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讞讜转 谞讞砖讜谉 诪讻讗谉 砖讛谞讜砖讗 讗砖讛 爪专讬讱 砖讬讘讚讜拽 讘讗讞讬讛 转谞讗 专讜讘 讘谞讬诐 讚讜诪讬谉 诇讗讞讬 讛讗诐

Rava says: One who marries a woman needs to first examine her brothers so that he will know in advance what character his children will have, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd Aaron took Elisheva, the daughter of Amminadav, the sister of Nahshon鈥 (Exodus 6:23). By inference from that which is stated: 鈥淭he daughter of Amminadav,鈥 do I not know that she is the sister of Nahshon, as Nahshon was the son of Amminadav? What is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淭he sister of Nahshon鈥? From here one learns that one who marries a woman needs to examine her brothers. The reason is as the Sages taught: Most sons resemble the mother鈥檚 brothers.

讜讬住讜专讜 砖诪讛 讜讬讗诪专 诪讬 讛讘讬讗讱 讛诇诐 讜诪讛 讗转讛 注讜砖讛 讘讝讛 讜诪讛 诇讱 驻讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗讜 诪诪砖讛 拽讗 讗转讬转 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讗诇 转拽专讘 讛诇诐 诇讗讜 诪诪砖讛 拽讗 讗转讬转 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 诪讛 讝讛 讘讬讚讱 诇讗讜 诪诪砖讛 拽讗 讗转讬转 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讜讗转讛 驻讛 注诪讚 注诪讚讬 转注砖讛 讻讜诪专 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

In connection with the Gemara鈥檚 mention of Jonathan, who served as a priest for Micah, the Gemara quotes additional statements of the Sages concerning that episode. Describing when the men from the tribe of Dan passed through Micah鈥檚 house, the verse states: 鈥淎nd they turned aside there and said to him: Who brought you here [halom], and what [ma] are you doing in this place, and what do you have here [po]?鈥 (Judges 18:3). The Sages interpret their multiple questions. They said to him: Do you not come from Moses, about whom it is written: 鈥淒o not draw close to here [halom]鈥 (Exodus 3:5)? Do you not come from Moses, about whom it is written: 鈥淲hat [ma] is that in your hand鈥 (Exodus 4:2)? Do you not come from Moses, about whom it is written: 鈥淏ut as for you, stand here [po] with me鈥 (Deuteronomy 5:27)? Shall you, a descendant of our teacher Moses, become a priest for idol worship?

讗诪专 诇讛谉 讻讱 诪拽讜讘诇谞讬 诪讘讬转 讗讘讬 讗讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讬砖讻讬专 讗讚诐 注爪诪讜 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讗诇 讬爪讟专讱 诇讘专讬讜转

Jonathan said to them: This is the tradition that I received from the house of my father鈥檚 father: A person should always hire himself out to idol worship and not require the help of people by receiving charity, and I took this position in order to avoid having to take charity.

讜讛讜讗 住讘专 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪诪砖 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 注讘讜讚讛 砖讝专讛 诇讜 讻讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 谞讟讜砖 谞讘讬诇转讗 讘砖讜拽讗 讜砖拽讜诇 讗讙专讗 讜诇讗 转讬诪讗 讙讘专讗 专讘讗 讗谞讗 讜讝讬诇讗 讘讬 诪讬诇转讗

The Gemara comments: And he, Jonathan, thought that this referred to actual idol worship, but that is not so, that was not the intent of the tradition. Rather, here the term idol worship, literally: Strange service, is referring to service, i.e., labor, that is strange, i.e., unsuitable, for him. In other words, one should be willing to perform labor that is difficult and humiliating in his eyes rather than become a recipient of charity. As Rav said to Rav Kahana, his student: Skin a carcass in the market and take payment, but do not say: I am a great man and this matter is beneath me.

讻讬讜谉 砖专讗讛 讚讜讚 砖诪诪讜谉 讞讘讬讘 注诇讬讜 讘讬讜转专 诪讬谞讛讜 注诇 讛讗讜爪专讜转 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖讘讗诇 讘谉 讙专砖诐 讘谉 诪谞砖讛 谞讙讬讚 注诇 讛讗爪专讜转 讜讻讬 砖讘讜讗诇 砖诪讜 讜讛诇讗 讬讛讜谞转谉 砖诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖砖讘 诇讗诇 讘讻诇 诇讘讜

The Gemara continues its discussion of that episode. Later, when King David saw that money was excessively precious to Jonathan, he appointed him as director of the treasuries of the Temple, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd Shebuel, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, was ruler over the treasuries鈥 (I聽Chronicles 26:24). The Gemara asks: And was his name really Shebuel; but wasn鈥檛 his name Jonathan? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He is called Shebuel in order to allude to the fact that he repented and returned to God [shav la鈥檈l ] with all his heart.

讜讛讘谞讬诐 讗转 讛讗讘 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬诪讜转 讜讙讜壮 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬谉 诇讜 讘谉 讛讗 讬砖 诇讜 讘谉 讘谉 拽讜讚诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬诪讗 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘谉 诇讬专讜转 讘谉 讗讬讻讗 讘转 转讬专讜转 讘转 讗讬讻讗 讘谉 讜讘转 诇讗 讛讗讬 诇讬专讜转 讜诇讗 讛讗讬 诇讬专讜转

搂 The mishna teaches in the list of those who inherit from and bequeath to each other: Sons with regard to their father. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha that sons inherit the entire estate and daughters do not receive a share along with them? As it is written: 鈥淚f a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter鈥 (Numbers 27:8). The reason the inheritance would be passed to a daughter is that he has no son, but if he has a son, the son takes precedence. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Why not say the following: If there is only a son, let the son inherit the father鈥檚 estate; if there is only a daughter, let the daughter inherit the father鈥檚 estate; and if there is both a son and a daughter, neither this one should inherit nor that one should inherit.

讜讗诇讗

Abaye asked Rav Pappa: And rather,

诪讗谉 讻讜壮 诇讬专讜转 讗讟讜 讘专 拽砖讗 讚诪转讗 诇讬专讜转 讛讻讬 拽讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬讻讗 讘谉 讜讘转 诇讗 讛讗讬 诇讬专讜转 讻讜诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讛讗讬 诇讬专讜转 讻讜诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讚讚讬 诇讬专转讜

who then should inherit? Is that to say that the ruler of the city should inherit? Rav Pappa said to him: This is what I meant to say: If there is a son and a daughter, this one should not inherit all of the estate, and that one should not inherit all of the estate, but they should inherit it in equal portions to one another.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讗爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讞讚 讘专讗 诇讬专转讬谞讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜 谞讻住讬 讜讚诇诪讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘转 谞诪讬 讘转 讬专讜砖讛 讛讬讗 讛讛讜讗 诪讜讻诇 讘转 讬专砖转 谞讞诇讛 谞驻拽讗

Abaye said to him: But is the verse necessary in order to teach us that when he has only one child, that child should inherit all of his property? If you say that the right of the son and daughter to the inheritance is equal, then the verse: 鈥淚f a man dies, and has no son鈥 (Numbers 27:8), which teaches that when there is no son his daughter inherits, is superfluous. Rav Pappa responded: And perhaps this verse teaches us this: That a daughter is also subject to receiving inheritance. The Gemara replies: No, the verse does not need to teach us this, since that halakha is derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd every daughter who possesses an inheritance鈥 (Numbers 36:8), which clearly states that a daughter is subject to receiving inheritance.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 诇诪讛 讬讙专注 砖诐 讗讘讬谞讜 诪转讜讱 诪砖驻讞转讜 讻讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘谉 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬谉 诇讜 讘谉 讛讗 讬砖 诇讜 讘谉 讘谉 拽讜讚诐

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: The halakha that a son inherits his father鈥檚 estate and precedes a daughter is derived from here, in the passage in the Torah where the daughters of Zelophehad request their father鈥檚 inheritance in Eretz Yisrael. They said to Moses: 鈥淲hy should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he has no son?鈥 (Numbers 27:4). Rabbi A岣 ben Ya鈥檃kov infers: The reason they requested the inheritance is that, as they said: He has no son. One can infer: But if he has a son, the son takes precedence and the daughters would not have requested an inheritance.

讜讚诇诪讗 讘谞讜转 爪诇驻讞讚 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专谉 讛讻讬 谞讬转谞讛 转讜专讛 讜谞转讞讚砖讛 讛诇讻讛 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚砖谞讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But perhaps it was the daughters of Zelophehad who said this, i.e., that they were entitled to an inheritance only because their father had no son. They thought that this was the halakha based on the custom at that time, but after God spoke to Moses, the Torah was given and a halakha was initiated that a daughter鈥檚 right to inherit is equal to that of the son. The Gemara accepts this difficulty and states: Rather, it is clear that the source for this halakha is as we answered initially, i.e., as Abaya derived from the verse of: 鈥淚f a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter鈥 (Numbers 27:8).

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讛拽专讘 讗诇讬讜 讛拽专讜讘 拽专讜讘 拽讜讚诐

Ravina said: The source for the halakha that a son precedes a daughter is from here: 鈥淲ho is next to him [hakkarov elav]鈥 (Numbers 27:11), 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 daughter.

讜诪讗讬 拽讜专讘讛 讚讘谉 诪讘转 砖讘谉 拽诐 转讞转 讗讘讬讜 诇讬注讚讛 讜诇砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讬注讚讛 讘转 诇讗讜 讘转 讬注讚讛 讛讬讗 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 谞诪讬 诪讛讗讬 驻讬专讻讗 讙讜驻讛 讛讜讗 讚讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇转谞讗 讻诇讜诐 讬砖 讬讘讜诐 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讘谉 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚砖谞讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗

The Gemara asks: And what demonstrates the closeness of a son more than that of a daughter? That a son stands in place of his father to designate a Hebrew maidservant as a wife for himself and with regard to an ancestral field. The Gemara rejects this: This is not a valid proof, as designation cannot demonstrate that a son is a closer relative; a daughter is not subject to designation, because she obviously cannot marry the Hebrew maidservant. With regard to an ancestral field as well, the tanna establishes his ruling that a son is a closer relative than others from this same refutation: Is there levirate marriage except in a case where there is no son? And this applies also where there is no daughter. Rather, it is clear that the source for this halakha is as we answered initially.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讛转谞讞诇转诐 讗转诐 诇讘谞讬讻诐 讗讞专讬讻诐 讘谞讬讻诐 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转讬讻诐 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诇诪注谉 讬专讘讜 讬诪讬讻诐 讜讬诪讬 讘谞讬讻诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讘谞讬讻诐 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转讬讻诐

And if you wish, say instead that the halakha that a son precedes a daughter is derived from here, in the passage in the Torah addressing the inheritance of slaves, which states: 鈥淎nd you may make them an inheritance for your sons [livneikhem] after you鈥 (Leviticus 25:46). One can infer: 鈥淵our sons,鈥 but not your daughters. The Gemara asks: If that is so, then when the verse states: 鈥淭hat your days may be multiplied, and the days of your sons [beneikhem]鈥 (Deuteronomy 11:21), should one infer that this too means: 鈥淵our sons,鈥 but not your daughters? Is it not obvious that daughters are also worthy of receiving the blessing of longevity?

讘专讻讛 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara answers: A blessing is different. In a verse that speaks of blessings, the term beneikhem should be understood in its broader sense, as 鈥測our children.鈥 In a verse that speaks of a halakha, it is to be understood in the narrower sense of 鈥測our sons.鈥

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 讜讻讜壮 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗转讬讗 讗讞讜讛 讗讞讜讛 诪讘谞讬 讬注拽讘 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪谉 讛讗讘 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讗诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪谉 讛讗讘 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讗诐

搂 The mishna teaches: And paternal brothers inherit from one another and bequeath to each other. From where do we derive this halakha? Rabba said: It is derived from a verbal analogy between the word: Brothers, stated with regard to inheritance, and the word: Brothers, found in the verses concerning Jacob鈥檚 sons. When Jacob鈥檚 sons speak to Joseph, they state: 鈥淲e, your servants, are twelve brothers, the sons of one man in the land of Canaan鈥 (Genesis 42:13), and in the passage discussing inheritance the verse states: 鈥淎nd if he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father鈥檚 brothers鈥 (Numbers 27:10). Just as there, in the verse concerning Jacob鈥檚 sons, the word brothers is referring to paternal brothers and not maternal brothers, as the twelve of them shared only the same father, so too here, where this term is used with regard to inheritance, the verse is referring to paternal brothers and not maternal brothers.

讜诇诪讛 诇讬 诪诪砖驻讞转讜 讜讬专砖 讗转讛 讻转讬讘 诪砖驻讞转 讗讘 拽专讜讬讛 诪砖驻讞讛 诪砖驻讞转 讗诐 讗讬谞讛 拽专讜讬讛 诪砖驻讞讛

The Gemara asks: But why do I need this proof from the verse concerning Jacob鈥檚 sons? It is written in the passage concerning inheritance: 鈥淭hen 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). When the term 鈥渇amily鈥 is used in the Bible, one鈥檚 father鈥檚 family is called one鈥檚 family, while one鈥檚 mother鈥檚 family is not called one鈥檚 family, so that in all matters of inheritance, it is the patrilineal relatives who are taken into account.

讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘讛 诇注谞讬谉 讬讘讜诐 讗讬转诪专

The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so that the verbal analogy is not needed to teach the halakha of inheritance, and when Rabba鈥檚 explanation was stated, it was stated with regard to the matter of levirate marriage, teaching that levirate marriage is performed only by a paternal brother but not by a maternal brother.

讜讛讗讬砖 讗转 讗诪讜 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And a man with regard to his mother inherits from her relatives but does not bequeath to her. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught:

Scroll To Top