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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 12, 2017 | 讟状讝 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Batra 111

From where do we derive that a son inherits from his mother? 聽From where do we derive that a firstborn doesn’t get a double portion from his mother’s inheritance?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讻诇 讘转 讬专砖转 谞讞诇讛 诪诪讟讜转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讗讱 讘转 讬讜专砖转 砖谞讬 诪讟讜转 讗诇讗 讝讜 砖讗讘讬讛 诪砖讘讟 讗讞讚 讜讗诪讛 诪砖讘讟 讗讞专 讜诪转讜 讜讬专砖转谉

The verse states: 鈥淎nd every daughter who possesses an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel鈥 (Numbers 36:8). Noting the plural in the phrase 鈥渇rom the tribes of the children of Israel,鈥 the baraita asks: How can a daughter inherit land from two tribes? Rather, this is referring to a daughter whose father is from one tribe but her mother is from another tribe, and they both died, and she inherited from both of them. Therefore, it can be seen in this verse that a daughter inherits from her mother.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘转 讘谉 诪谞讬谉 讗诪专转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讘转 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讛 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗讘 讬驻讛 讻讞讛 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗诐 讘谉 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讜 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗讘 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讜 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗诐 讜诪诪拽讜诐 砖讘讗转 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘谉 拽讜讚诐 诇讘转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘谉 拽讜讚诐 诇讘转

The baraita continues: I have derived only that a daughter inherits from her mother; from where do I derive that a son inherits from his mother as well? You can say an a fortiori inference: And just as a daughter, whose power is diminished with regard to her father鈥檚 property in that she does not inherit it when there is a son, yet her power is enhanced with regard to her mother鈥檚 property in that she inherits it; with regard to a son, whose power is enhanced with regard to his father鈥檚 property in that he is first in the order of inheritance, is it not logical that his power is enhanced with regard to his mother鈥檚 property? The baraita continues: And from the place that you came, i.e., from the inference that was just stated, one can say the following: Just as there, with regard to a father鈥檚 property, a son precedes a daughter, so too here, with regard to a mother鈥檚 property, a son precedes a daughter. This is the opinion of the first tanna.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘 讗讞讚 讛讘谉 讜讗讞讚 讛讘转 砖讜讬谉 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讬讜 诇讘讗 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 诇讛讬讜转 讻谞讚讜谉

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said in the name of Rabbi Zekharya ben Hakatzav: Both the son and the daughter are equal with regard to the mother鈥檚 property. What is the reason for his ruling? It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source. According to this principle, a halakha derived by means of an a fortiori inference cannot go beyond the halakhot of the source from which it is derived. Since the halakha that a son inherits from his mother was derived via an a fortiori inference from the halakha that a daughter inherits from her mother, it cannot be that this inference should lead to the conclusion that a son precedes a daughter in inheriting from their mother.

讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇讗 讚专讬砖 讚讬讜 讜讛讗 讚讬讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And doesn鈥檛 the first tanna also interpret verses employing the principle of: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source? But the principle of: It is sufficient, which limits the extent of a fortiori inference, is found in the Torah, so how could he disagree with it?

讚转谞讬讗 诪讚讬谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讻讬爪讚 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 讗诇 诪砖讛 讜讗讘讬讛 讬专拽 讬专拽 讘驻谞讬讛 讛诇讗 转讻诇诐 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇砖讻讬谞讛 讗专讘注讛 注砖专

As it is taught in a baraita that explains the hermeneutical principles: How does an a fortiori inference work? The verse states with regard to Miriam, after she spoke ill of her brother Moses: 鈥淎nd the Lord said to Moses: If her father had but spit in her face, should she not hide in shame seven days?鈥 (Numbers 12:14). The verse is saying that if a father spits in the face of his daughter and reprimands her, she would feel shame for seven days. By an a fortiori inference it is derived that Miriam, who suffered the more severe reprimand of the Divine Presence, should be ostracized for fourteen days. Why then, was Miriam ostracized for only seven days?

讗诇讗 讚讬讜 诇讘讗 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 诇讛讬讜转 讻谞讚讜谉

Rather, it is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source, so her punishment cannot be for longer than the punishment of one who is reprimanded by a father. In any event, the principle the begins with: It is sufficient, can be seen in this verse, so how does the first tanna rule that a son precedes a daughter with regard to a mother鈥檚 property?

讘注诇诪讗 讚专讬砖 讚讬讜 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诪诪讟讜转 诪拽讬砖 诪讟讛 讛讗诐 诇诪讟讛 讛讗讘 诪讛 诪讟讛 讛讗讘 讘谉 拽讜讚诐 诇讘转 讗祝 诪讟讛 讛讗诐 讘谉 拽讜讚诐 诇讘转

The Gemara answers: Generally, the first tanna also interprets verses employing the principle that begins with: It is sufficient, but it is different here with regard to inheritance, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd every daughter who possesses an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel鈥 (Numbers 36:8). The verse juxtaposes the tribe of the mother to the tribe of the father. Therefore, the first tanna holds that just as with regard to the tribe of the father, i.e., inheriting from one鈥檚 father, a son precedes a daughter, so too, with regard to the tribe of the mother, i.e., inheriting from one鈥檚 mother, a son precedes a daughter.

专讘 谞讬转讗讬 住讘专 诇诪注讘讚 注讜讘讚讗 讻专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诪讗谉 讻讝讻专讬讛 讗驻住 讝讻专讬讛 专讘讬 讟讘诇讗 注讘讚 注讜讘讚讗 讻专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 讛讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 砖诇诪讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讛讚专 讘讱 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪驻讬拽谞讗 诇讱 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 砖诇诪讬讗 诪讗讜谞讬讱

The Gemara relates: Rav Nittai thought to perform an action, i.e., issue a ruling, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav, who taught that a son and daughter are equal with regard to inheriting from their mother. Shmuel said to him: In accordance with whose opinion do you wish to issue this ruling, in accordance with the opinion of Zekharya? Zekharya is nil [afes], i.e., his statement was not accepted as halakha. Rabbi Tavla performed an action, i.e., issued a ruling, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav. Rav Na岣an said to him: What is this? Rabbi Tavla said to him: As Rav 岣nnana bar Shelamya says in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav. Rav Na岣an said to him: Go retract your ruling, and if you do not, I will take Rav 岣nnana bar Shelamya out of your ear, i.e., I will punish you severely for ruling against the accepted halakha.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 住讘专 诇诪注讘讚 注讜讘讚讗 讻专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 讛讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗砖诇讞 诇讬讛 讗讬讻住讬祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 讻讬 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬转专讬住转 诇拽讘诇讬

The Gemara relates further: Rav Huna bar 岣yya thought to perform an action, i.e., issue a ruling, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav. Rav Na岣an said to him: What is this? Rav Huna bar 岣yya said to him: As Rav Huna says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav. Rav Na岣an said to him: Shall I send a messenger to Rav Huna to ask him if that is indeed what he said? Rav Huna bar 岣yya was embarrassed, as he was not certain that Rav Huna actually said this ruling. Rav Na岣an said to him: Now, if Rav Huna were to have died, you would have been brazen enough to say before me that this is what he said, but since he is still alive, you cannot be so brazen.

讜讗讬讛讜 讻诪讗谉 住讘专讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘

The Gemara asks: And he, Rav Na岣an, in accordance with whose opinion does he hold? As there were various sages who ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav, why did Rav Na岣an not agree? The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with this statement of Rav and Shmuel, who both say: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav.

诪讬住转诪讬讱 讜讗讝讬诇 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗讻转驻讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬 砖诪注讬讛 讜讗转讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 诇讗驻讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘专 讗讬谞砖 讚讗转讗 诇拽讬讘诇谞讗 讛讜讗 讬讗讬 讜讙讜诇转讬讛 讬讗讬 讻讬 诪讟讗 诇讙讘讬讛 讙砖砖讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讬谉 砖讬注讜专讬讛 讻砖拽

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yannai, who had already grown old and whose eyes were dim, would walk leaning on the shoulder of Rabbi Simlai, his attendant, and Rabbi Yehuda Nesia came toward them. Rabbi Simlai said to Rabbi Yannai: The person who is coming toward us is handsome and his cloak is handsome. When Rabbi Yehuda Nesia reached him, Rabbi Yannai felt his cloak and said to Rabbi Simlai: Concerning this cloak, its measurement with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity is like the measurement of sackcloth, meaning it was a cloak of inferior quality, as it was thick and rough.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 诪谞讬谉 诇讘谉 砖拽讜讚诐 诇讘转 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 诪讟讜转 诪拽讬砖 诪讟讛 讛讗诐 诇诪讟讛 讛讗讘 诪讛 诪讟讛 讛讗讘 讘谉 拽讜讚诐 诇讘转 讗祝 诪讟讛 讛讗诐 讘谉 拽讜讚诐 诇讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪讛 诪讟讛 讛讗讘 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讗祝 诪讟讛 讛讗诐 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐

When Rabbi Yehuda Nesia met Rabbi Yannai he asked him: From where is it derived that a son precedes a daughter with regard to the mother鈥檚 property? Rabbi Yannai said to him: As it is written: 鈥淎nd every daughter who possesses an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel鈥 (Numbers 36:8). The verse juxtaposes the tribe of the mother to the tribe of the father. This teaches that just as with regard to the tribe of the father a son precedes a daughter, so too, with regard to the tribe of the mother, a son precedes a daughter. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to him: If so, if these two halakhot are in fact juxtaposed, the following should also be derived: Just as with regard to the inheritance of the father鈥檚 tribe a firstborn takes a double portion, so too, with regard to inheritance from the mother鈥檚 tribe, when he inherits from his mother a firstborn takes a double portion.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖诪注讬讛 讙讜讚 诇讬转 讚讬谉 爪讘讬 诇诪讬诇祝 讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讻诇 讗砖专 讬诪爪讗 诇讜 诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讛

He said to his attendant: Take me away from here, as this man, Rabbi Yehuda Nesia, does not desire to learn but is instead raising difficulties that are easily resolved. And what is the reason he does not receive a double portion? Abaye said: The verse concerning the double portion received by a firstborn son states: 鈥淏y giving him a double portion of all that he has鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:17), indicating that he receives a double portion in all that he has, but not in all that she has.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讞讜专 砖谞砖讗 讗诇诪谞讛 讗讘诇 讘讞讜专 砖谞砖讗 讘转讜诇讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚砖拽讬诇

The Gemara asks: And why not say that this statement applies in the case of a bachelor who married a widow, i.e., a man who marries a woman who already has children from another man, so that the firstborn son is his firstborn but not hers, but in the case of a bachelor who married a virgin, so too the halakha will be that their firstborn son will take a double portion of his mother鈥檚 inheritance?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 拽专讗 专讗砖讬转 讗谞讜 讗讜谞讜 讜诇讗 讗讜谞讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: There is a different derivation teaching that halakha, as the same verse states: 鈥淔or he is the first fruits of his strength [ono]鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:17), indicating that the halakha of the double portion is stated with regard to his strength, but not her strength, thereby excluding a son who is the firstborn of his mother alone.

讛讛讜讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇讘讗 讗讞专 谞驻诇讬诐 讚诇讛讜讬 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 诪讬 砖诇讘讜 讚讜讜讛 注诇讬讜 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讘讜 讚讜讜讛 注诇讬讜

The Gemara challenges: But that verse is required to derive the halakha of a child who came into the world after his mother gave birth to non-viable newborns who did not reach the full term of nine months. This verse teaches that such a firstborn son should be a firstborn with regard to inheritance, even though he is not a firstborn with regard to the mitzva to redeem one鈥檚 firstborn son. How is this halakha derived from the verse? The term 鈥渉is strength [ono]鈥 is understood as referring to acute mourning [aninut], in the following manner: A firstborn son for the purpose of inheritance of land is only one whose father鈥檚 heart is pained about him when he dies, i.e., a son who lives beyond birth, excluding this non-viable newborn whose father鈥檚 heart is not pained about him when he dies. Therefore, the next viable son to be born after a non-viable newborn is considered the firstborn.

讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 讻讬 讛讜讗 专讗砖讬转 讗讜谉 诪讗讬 讗讜谞讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara answers: If so, that the sole purpose of the term: 鈥淗is strength鈥 is to teach that halakha, let the verse say: For he is the first fruit of strength [on], omitting the possessive 鈥渉is,鈥 represented by the letter vav. What is derived from the more expanded term: 鈥淗is strength [ono],鈥 which indicates specifically the father鈥檚 strength? Conclude two conclusions from it, both with regard to mourning and with regard to the status of the firstborn as the father鈥檚 heir specifically.

讜讗讻转讬 讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诇诪讜谉 砖谞砖讗 讘转讜诇讛 讗讘诇 讘讞讜专 砖谞砖讗 讘转讜诇讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚砖拽讬诇

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But one can still say that this statement applies in a case of a widower who married a virgin, so that he already has a firstborn from his previous marriage who is the first fruit of his strength. And the son born to him and his second wife is not the first fruit of his strength, and it is this type of firstborn who does not inherit a double portion of his mother鈥檚 estate. But in a case of a bachelor who married a virgin, so too the halakha will be that their shared firstborn son will take a double portion of his mother鈥檚 inheritance.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讜 诪砖驻讟 讛讘讻专讛 诪砖驻讟 讛讘讻讜专讛 诇讗讬砖 讜诇讗 诪砖驻讟 讛讘讻讜专讛 诇讗砖讛

Rather, Rava said: There is a different derivation teaching that halakha, as the same verse states: 鈥淭he right of the firstborn is his鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:17). The emphasis on 鈥渉is鈥 indicates that the primogeniture applies specifically to a man, and the primogeniture does not apply to a woman, whether the woman is the one inheriting or is the legator.

讜讛讗讬砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讗专讜 讝讜 讗砖转讜 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讘注诇 讬讜专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讛讬讗 转讬专砖谞讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讬专砖 讗讜转讛 讛讜讗 讬讜专砖 讗讜转讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讬讗 讬讜专砖转 讗讜转讜

搂 The mishna teaches: And a man with regard to his wife inherits but does not bequeath. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara explains: As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse concerning inheritance states: 鈥淎nd if his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his kinsman [she鈥檈ro] who is next to him of his family, and he shall inherit it鈥 (Numbers 27:11). This kinsman is one鈥檚 wife, and the Torah teaches that a husband inherits from his wife, as the Gemara will explain later. One might have thought that she would also inherit from him; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall inherit it,鈥 with the word 鈥渋t鈥 written in the feminine 鈥otah,鈥 which can also be translated as: Her. This teaches that it is he who inherits from her, but she does not inherit from him.

讜讛讗 拽专讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讻转讬讘讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转专讬抓 讛讻讬 讜谞转转诐 讗转 谞讞诇转讜 诇拽专讜讘 讗诇讬讜 砖讗专讜 讜讬专砖 讗转讛

The Gemara questions this explanation: But the verses are not written like this. The verse states that 鈥渉is kinsman鈥 inherits from the deceased, so that if that term is referring to one鈥檚 wife, a wife should inherit from her husband. Abaye said: Answer like this, i.e., as if the verse were split into two parts. The first part is: Then you shall give his inheritance to he who is next to him, which is a general statement with regard to the inheritance of relatives. The second is: His kinsman, and he shall inherit it, meaning that a husband inherits from his kinsman, referring to his wife.

讗诪专 专讘讗 住讻讬谞讗 讞专讬驻讗 诪驻住拽讗 拽专讗讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜谞转转诐 讗转 谞讞诇转 砖讗专讜 诇讜 拽讗 住讘专 讙讜专注讬谉 讜诪讜住讬驻讬谉 讜讚讜专砖讬谉

Rava said: Does a sharp knife cut verses? How can you split the verse, rearrange it and omit letters from its words? Abaye鈥檚 derivation rearranges the words and omits the letter lamed from the term 鈥渢o his kinsman [leshe鈥檈ro].鈥 Rather, Rava said: This is what the verse is saying: And you shall give the inheritance of his kinsman [she鈥檈ro] to him. The letters should be arranged differently, removing the letter lamed from the word leshe鈥檈ro and the letter vav from the word na岣lato and combining them to form the word lo, meaning: To him. Accordingly, the verse teaches that a husband inherits from his wife. The Gemara explains that Rava holds that the Sages subtract and add and interpret homiletically, meaning that letters can be removed from words and appended to each other, and a halakha can be derived from the new word formed by the combination of letters.

讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪讛讻讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讬专砖 讗讜转讛 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讘注诇 讬讜专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara comments: And this tanna cites the halakha that a husband inherits from his wife from here, as it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd he shall inherit it,鈥 with the word 鈥渋t鈥 written in the feminine 鈥otah,鈥 which can also be translated as: Her. This teaches that a husband inherits from his wife; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva, similar to the derivation cited in the baraita above.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讻诇 讘转 讬专砖转 谞讞诇讛 诪诪讟讜转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗讞讚 诪诪砖驻讞转 讜讙讜壮 讘讛住讘转 讛讘注诇 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

The baraita quotes another tanna. Rabbi Yishmael says: This derivation is not necessary, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd every daughter who possesses an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father鈥 (Numbers 36:8). The purpose of this mitzva was so that the land she inherited from her father鈥檚 tribe will not be transferred to another tribe upon her death. The verse speaks of a transfer of inheritance from one tribe to another by means of the husband, i.e., she must not marry a man from another tribe so that the land will not be transferred to that tribe when her husband inherits from her upon her death. This indicates that a husband inherits from his wife.

讜讗讜诪专 讜诇讗 转住讘 谞讞诇讛 诇讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪诪讟讛 讗诇 诪讟讛 讜讗讜诪专 讜诇讗 转住讘 谞讞诇讛 诪诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 讗讞专

Rabbi Yishmael continues: And another verse states: 鈥淪o shall no inheritance of the children of Israel transfer from tribe to tribe鈥 (Numbers 36:7), and another verse states: 鈥淪o shall no inheritance transfer from one tribe to another tribe鈥 (Numbers 36:9), also indicating that a husband inherits from his wife.

讜讗讜诪专 讜讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讗讛专谉 诪转 讜讬拽讘专讜 讗转讜 讘讙讘注转 驻谞讞住 讘谞讜 讜讻讬 诪谞讬谉 诇驻谞讞住 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇讗诇注讝专 讗诇讗 诪诇诪讚 砖谞砖讗 驻谞讞住 讗砖讛 讜诪转讛 讜讬专砖讛

Rabbi Yishmael continues: And the verse in the Prophets states: 鈥淎nd Elazar, the son of Aaron, died; and they buried him in the Hill of Pinehas his son, which was given him in Mount Ephraim鈥 (Joshua 24:33). And from where did Pinehas have land that his father, Elazar, did not have? Rather, this teaches that Pinehas married a woman who inherited her father鈥檚 land, and she died and he inherited from her so that he had his own land. This also indicates that a husband inherits from his wife.

讜讗讜诪专 讜砖讙讜讘 讛讜诇讬讚 讗转 讬讗讬专 讜讬讛讬 诇讜 注砖专讬诐 讜砖诇砖 注专讬诐 讘讗专抓 讛讙诇注讚

Rabbi Yishmael continues. And the verse in the Writings states: 鈥淎nd Seguv begot Yair, who had twenty-three cities in the land of Gilead鈥 (I聽Chronicles 2:22).

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 111

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 111

讜讻诇 讘转 讬专砖转 谞讞诇讛 诪诪讟讜转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讛讬讗讱 讘转 讬讜专砖转 砖谞讬 诪讟讜转 讗诇讗 讝讜 砖讗讘讬讛 诪砖讘讟 讗讞讚 讜讗诪讛 诪砖讘讟 讗讞专 讜诪转讜 讜讬专砖转谉

The verse states: 鈥淎nd every daughter who possesses an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel鈥 (Numbers 36:8). Noting the plural in the phrase 鈥渇rom the tribes of the children of Israel,鈥 the baraita asks: How can a daughter inherit land from two tribes? Rather, this is referring to a daughter whose father is from one tribe but her mother is from another tribe, and they both died, and she inherited from both of them. Therefore, it can be seen in this verse that a daughter inherits from her mother.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘转 讘谉 诪谞讬谉 讗诪专转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讘转 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讛 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗讘 讬驻讛 讻讞讛 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗诐 讘谉 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讜 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗讘 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讜 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗诐 讜诪诪拽讜诐 砖讘讗转 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘谉 拽讜讚诐 诇讘转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘谉 拽讜讚诐 诇讘转

The baraita continues: I have derived only that a daughter inherits from her mother; from where do I derive that a son inherits from his mother as well? You can say an a fortiori inference: And just as a daughter, whose power is diminished with regard to her father鈥檚 property in that she does not inherit it when there is a son, yet her power is enhanced with regard to her mother鈥檚 property in that she inherits it; with regard to a son, whose power is enhanced with regard to his father鈥檚 property in that he is first in the order of inheritance, is it not logical that his power is enhanced with regard to his mother鈥檚 property? The baraita continues: And from the place that you came, i.e., from the inference that was just stated, one can say the following: Just as there, with regard to a father鈥檚 property, a son precedes a daughter, so too here, with regard to a mother鈥檚 property, a son precedes a daughter. This is the opinion of the first tanna.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘 讗讞讚 讛讘谉 讜讗讞讚 讛讘转 砖讜讬谉 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讬讜 诇讘讗 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 诇讛讬讜转 讻谞讚讜谉

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said in the name of Rabbi Zekharya ben Hakatzav: Both the son and the daughter are equal with regard to the mother鈥檚 property. What is the reason for his ruling? It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source. According to this principle, a halakha derived by means of an a fortiori inference cannot go beyond the halakhot of the source from which it is derived. Since the halakha that a son inherits from his mother was derived via an a fortiori inference from the halakha that a daughter inherits from her mother, it cannot be that this inference should lead to the conclusion that a son precedes a daughter in inheriting from their mother.

讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇讗 讚专讬砖 讚讬讜 讜讛讗 讚讬讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And doesn鈥檛 the first tanna also interpret verses employing the principle of: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source? But the principle of: It is sufficient, which limits the extent of a fortiori inference, is found in the Torah, so how could he disagree with it?

讚转谞讬讗 诪讚讬谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讻讬爪讚 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 讗诇 诪砖讛 讜讗讘讬讛 讬专拽 讬专拽 讘驻谞讬讛 讛诇讗 转讻诇诐 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇砖讻讬谞讛 讗专讘注讛 注砖专

As it is taught in a baraita that explains the hermeneutical principles: How does an a fortiori inference work? The verse states with regard to Miriam, after she spoke ill of her brother Moses: 鈥淎nd the Lord said to Moses: If her father had but spit in her face, should she not hide in shame seven days?鈥 (Numbers 12:14). The verse is saying that if a father spits in the face of his daughter and reprimands her, she would feel shame for seven days. By an a fortiori inference it is derived that Miriam, who suffered the more severe reprimand of the Divine Presence, should be ostracized for fourteen days. Why then, was Miriam ostracized for only seven days?

讗诇讗 讚讬讜 诇讘讗 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 诇讛讬讜转 讻谞讚讜谉

Rather, it is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source, so her punishment cannot be for longer than the punishment of one who is reprimanded by a father. In any event, the principle the begins with: It is sufficient, can be seen in this verse, so how does the first tanna rule that a son precedes a daughter with regard to a mother鈥檚 property?

讘注诇诪讗 讚专讬砖 讚讬讜 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诪诪讟讜转 诪拽讬砖 诪讟讛 讛讗诐 诇诪讟讛 讛讗讘 诪讛 诪讟讛 讛讗讘 讘谉 拽讜讚诐 诇讘转 讗祝 诪讟讛 讛讗诐 讘谉 拽讜讚诐 诇讘转

The Gemara answers: Generally, the first tanna also interprets verses employing the principle that begins with: It is sufficient, but it is different here with regard to inheritance, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd every daughter who possesses an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel鈥 (Numbers 36:8). The verse juxtaposes the tribe of the mother to the tribe of the father. Therefore, the first tanna holds that just as with regard to the tribe of the father, i.e., inheriting from one鈥檚 father, a son precedes a daughter, so too, with regard to the tribe of the mother, i.e., inheriting from one鈥檚 mother, a son precedes a daughter.

专讘 谞讬转讗讬 住讘专 诇诪注讘讚 注讜讘讚讗 讻专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诪讗谉 讻讝讻专讬讛 讗驻住 讝讻专讬讛 专讘讬 讟讘诇讗 注讘讚 注讜讘讚讗 讻专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 讛讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 砖诇诪讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讛讚专 讘讱 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪驻讬拽谞讗 诇讱 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 砖诇诪讬讗 诪讗讜谞讬讱

The Gemara relates: Rav Nittai thought to perform an action, i.e., issue a ruling, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav, who taught that a son and daughter are equal with regard to inheriting from their mother. Shmuel said to him: In accordance with whose opinion do you wish to issue this ruling, in accordance with the opinion of Zekharya? Zekharya is nil [afes], i.e., his statement was not accepted as halakha. Rabbi Tavla performed an action, i.e., issued a ruling, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav. Rav Na岣an said to him: What is this? Rabbi Tavla said to him: As Rav 岣nnana bar Shelamya says in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav. Rav Na岣an said to him: Go retract your ruling, and if you do not, I will take Rav 岣nnana bar Shelamya out of your ear, i.e., I will punish you severely for ruling against the accepted halakha.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 住讘专 诇诪注讘讚 注讜讘讚讗 讻专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 讛讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗砖诇讞 诇讬讛 讗讬讻住讬祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 讻讬 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬转专讬住转 诇拽讘诇讬

The Gemara relates further: Rav Huna bar 岣yya thought to perform an action, i.e., issue a ruling, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav. Rav Na岣an said to him: What is this? Rav Huna bar 岣yya said to him: As Rav Huna says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav. Rav Na岣an said to him: Shall I send a messenger to Rav Huna to ask him if that is indeed what he said? Rav Huna bar 岣yya was embarrassed, as he was not certain that Rav Huna actually said this ruling. Rav Na岣an said to him: Now, if Rav Huna were to have died, you would have been brazen enough to say before me that this is what he said, but since he is still alive, you cannot be so brazen.

讜讗讬讛讜 讻诪讗谉 住讘专讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘

The Gemara asks: And he, Rav Na岣an, in accordance with whose opinion does he hold? As there were various sages who ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav, why did Rav Na岣an not agree? The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with this statement of Rav and Shmuel, who both say: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav.

诪讬住转诪讬讱 讜讗讝讬诇 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗讻转驻讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬 砖诪注讬讛 讜讗转讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 诇讗驻讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘专 讗讬谞砖 讚讗转讗 诇拽讬讘诇谞讗 讛讜讗 讬讗讬 讜讙讜诇转讬讛 讬讗讬 讻讬 诪讟讗 诇讙讘讬讛 讙砖砖讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讬谉 砖讬注讜专讬讛 讻砖拽

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yannai, who had already grown old and whose eyes were dim, would walk leaning on the shoulder of Rabbi Simlai, his attendant, and Rabbi Yehuda Nesia came toward them. Rabbi Simlai said to Rabbi Yannai: The person who is coming toward us is handsome and his cloak is handsome. When Rabbi Yehuda Nesia reached him, Rabbi Yannai felt his cloak and said to Rabbi Simlai: Concerning this cloak, its measurement with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity is like the measurement of sackcloth, meaning it was a cloak of inferior quality, as it was thick and rough.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 诪谞讬谉 诇讘谉 砖拽讜讚诐 诇讘转 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 诪讟讜转 诪拽讬砖 诪讟讛 讛讗诐 诇诪讟讛 讛讗讘 诪讛 诪讟讛 讛讗讘 讘谉 拽讜讚诐 诇讘转 讗祝 诪讟讛 讛讗诐 讘谉 拽讜讚诐 诇讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪讛 诪讟讛 讛讗讘 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讗祝 诪讟讛 讛讗诐 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐

When Rabbi Yehuda Nesia met Rabbi Yannai he asked him: From where is it derived that a son precedes a daughter with regard to the mother鈥檚 property? Rabbi Yannai said to him: As it is written: 鈥淎nd every daughter who possesses an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel鈥 (Numbers 36:8). The verse juxtaposes the tribe of the mother to the tribe of the father. This teaches that just as with regard to the tribe of the father a son precedes a daughter, so too, with regard to the tribe of the mother, a son precedes a daughter. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to him: If so, if these two halakhot are in fact juxtaposed, the following should also be derived: Just as with regard to the inheritance of the father鈥檚 tribe a firstborn takes a double portion, so too, with regard to inheritance from the mother鈥檚 tribe, when he inherits from his mother a firstborn takes a double portion.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖诪注讬讛 讙讜讚 诇讬转 讚讬谉 爪讘讬 诇诪讬诇祝 讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讻诇 讗砖专 讬诪爪讗 诇讜 诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讛

He said to his attendant: Take me away from here, as this man, Rabbi Yehuda Nesia, does not desire to learn but is instead raising difficulties that are easily resolved. And what is the reason he does not receive a double portion? Abaye said: The verse concerning the double portion received by a firstborn son states: 鈥淏y giving him a double portion of all that he has鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:17), indicating that he receives a double portion in all that he has, but not in all that she has.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讞讜专 砖谞砖讗 讗诇诪谞讛 讗讘诇 讘讞讜专 砖谞砖讗 讘转讜诇讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚砖拽讬诇

The Gemara asks: And why not say that this statement applies in the case of a bachelor who married a widow, i.e., a man who marries a woman who already has children from another man, so that the firstborn son is his firstborn but not hers, but in the case of a bachelor who married a virgin, so too the halakha will be that their firstborn son will take a double portion of his mother鈥檚 inheritance?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 拽专讗 专讗砖讬转 讗谞讜 讗讜谞讜 讜诇讗 讗讜谞讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: There is a different derivation teaching that halakha, as the same verse states: 鈥淔or he is the first fruits of his strength [ono]鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:17), indicating that the halakha of the double portion is stated with regard to his strength, but not her strength, thereby excluding a son who is the firstborn of his mother alone.

讛讛讜讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇讘讗 讗讞专 谞驻诇讬诐 讚诇讛讜讬 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 诪讬 砖诇讘讜 讚讜讜讛 注诇讬讜 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讘讜 讚讜讜讛 注诇讬讜

The Gemara challenges: But that verse is required to derive the halakha of a child who came into the world after his mother gave birth to non-viable newborns who did not reach the full term of nine months. This verse teaches that such a firstborn son should be a firstborn with regard to inheritance, even though he is not a firstborn with regard to the mitzva to redeem one鈥檚 firstborn son. How is this halakha derived from the verse? The term 鈥渉is strength [ono]鈥 is understood as referring to acute mourning [aninut], in the following manner: A firstborn son for the purpose of inheritance of land is only one whose father鈥檚 heart is pained about him when he dies, i.e., a son who lives beyond birth, excluding this non-viable newborn whose father鈥檚 heart is not pained about him when he dies. Therefore, the next viable son to be born after a non-viable newborn is considered the firstborn.

讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 讻讬 讛讜讗 专讗砖讬转 讗讜谉 诪讗讬 讗讜谞讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara answers: If so, that the sole purpose of the term: 鈥淗is strength鈥 is to teach that halakha, let the verse say: For he is the first fruit of strength [on], omitting the possessive 鈥渉is,鈥 represented by the letter vav. What is derived from the more expanded term: 鈥淗is strength [ono],鈥 which indicates specifically the father鈥檚 strength? Conclude two conclusions from it, both with regard to mourning and with regard to the status of the firstborn as the father鈥檚 heir specifically.

讜讗讻转讬 讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诇诪讜谉 砖谞砖讗 讘转讜诇讛 讗讘诇 讘讞讜专 砖谞砖讗 讘转讜诇讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚砖拽讬诇

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But one can still say that this statement applies in a case of a widower who married a virgin, so that he already has a firstborn from his previous marriage who is the first fruit of his strength. And the son born to him and his second wife is not the first fruit of his strength, and it is this type of firstborn who does not inherit a double portion of his mother鈥檚 estate. But in a case of a bachelor who married a virgin, so too the halakha will be that their shared firstborn son will take a double portion of his mother鈥檚 inheritance.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讜 诪砖驻讟 讛讘讻专讛 诪砖驻讟 讛讘讻讜专讛 诇讗讬砖 讜诇讗 诪砖驻讟 讛讘讻讜专讛 诇讗砖讛

Rather, Rava said: There is a different derivation teaching that halakha, as the same verse states: 鈥淭he right of the firstborn is his鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:17). The emphasis on 鈥渉is鈥 indicates that the primogeniture applies specifically to a man, and the primogeniture does not apply to a woman, whether the woman is the one inheriting or is the legator.

讜讛讗讬砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讗专讜 讝讜 讗砖转讜 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讘注诇 讬讜专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讛讬讗 转讬专砖谞讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讬专砖 讗讜转讛 讛讜讗 讬讜专砖 讗讜转讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讬讗 讬讜专砖转 讗讜转讜

搂 The mishna teaches: And a man with regard to his wife inherits but does not bequeath. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara explains: As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse concerning inheritance states: 鈥淎nd if his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his kinsman [she鈥檈ro] who is next to him of his family, and he shall inherit it鈥 (Numbers 27:11). This kinsman is one鈥檚 wife, and the Torah teaches that a husband inherits from his wife, as the Gemara will explain later. One might have thought that she would also inherit from him; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall inherit it,鈥 with the word 鈥渋t鈥 written in the feminine 鈥otah,鈥 which can also be translated as: Her. This teaches that it is he who inherits from her, but she does not inherit from him.

讜讛讗 拽专讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讻转讬讘讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转专讬抓 讛讻讬 讜谞转转诐 讗转 谞讞诇转讜 诇拽专讜讘 讗诇讬讜 砖讗专讜 讜讬专砖 讗转讛

The Gemara questions this explanation: But the verses are not written like this. The verse states that 鈥渉is kinsman鈥 inherits from the deceased, so that if that term is referring to one鈥檚 wife, a wife should inherit from her husband. Abaye said: Answer like this, i.e., as if the verse were split into two parts. The first part is: Then you shall give his inheritance to he who is next to him, which is a general statement with regard to the inheritance of relatives. The second is: His kinsman, and he shall inherit it, meaning that a husband inherits from his kinsman, referring to his wife.

讗诪专 专讘讗 住讻讬谞讗 讞专讬驻讗 诪驻住拽讗 拽专讗讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜谞转转诐 讗转 谞讞诇转 砖讗专讜 诇讜 拽讗 住讘专 讙讜专注讬谉 讜诪讜住讬驻讬谉 讜讚讜专砖讬谉

Rava said: Does a sharp knife cut verses? How can you split the verse, rearrange it and omit letters from its words? Abaye鈥檚 derivation rearranges the words and omits the letter lamed from the term 鈥渢o his kinsman [leshe鈥檈ro].鈥 Rather, Rava said: This is what the verse is saying: And you shall give the inheritance of his kinsman [she鈥檈ro] to him. The letters should be arranged differently, removing the letter lamed from the word leshe鈥檈ro and the letter vav from the word na岣lato and combining them to form the word lo, meaning: To him. Accordingly, the verse teaches that a husband inherits from his wife. The Gemara explains that Rava holds that the Sages subtract and add and interpret homiletically, meaning that letters can be removed from words and appended to each other, and a halakha can be derived from the new word formed by the combination of letters.

讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪讛讻讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讬专砖 讗讜转讛 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讘注诇 讬讜专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara comments: And this tanna cites the halakha that a husband inherits from his wife from here, as it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd he shall inherit it,鈥 with the word 鈥渋t鈥 written in the feminine 鈥otah,鈥 which can also be translated as: Her. This teaches that a husband inherits from his wife; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva, similar to the derivation cited in the baraita above.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讻诇 讘转 讬专砖转 谞讞诇讛 诪诪讟讜转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗讞讚 诪诪砖驻讞转 讜讙讜壮 讘讛住讘转 讛讘注诇 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

The baraita quotes another tanna. Rabbi Yishmael says: This derivation is not necessary, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd every daughter who possesses an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father鈥 (Numbers 36:8). The purpose of this mitzva was so that the land she inherited from her father鈥檚 tribe will not be transferred to another tribe upon her death. The verse speaks of a transfer of inheritance from one tribe to another by means of the husband, i.e., she must not marry a man from another tribe so that the land will not be transferred to that tribe when her husband inherits from her upon her death. This indicates that a husband inherits from his wife.

讜讗讜诪专 讜诇讗 转住讘 谞讞诇讛 诇讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪诪讟讛 讗诇 诪讟讛 讜讗讜诪专 讜诇讗 转住讘 谞讞诇讛 诪诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 讗讞专

Rabbi Yishmael continues: And another verse states: 鈥淪o shall no inheritance of the children of Israel transfer from tribe to tribe鈥 (Numbers 36:7), and another verse states: 鈥淪o shall no inheritance transfer from one tribe to another tribe鈥 (Numbers 36:9), also indicating that a husband inherits from his wife.

讜讗讜诪专 讜讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讗讛专谉 诪转 讜讬拽讘专讜 讗转讜 讘讙讘注转 驻谞讞住 讘谞讜 讜讻讬 诪谞讬谉 诇驻谞讞住 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇讗诇注讝专 讗诇讗 诪诇诪讚 砖谞砖讗 驻谞讞住 讗砖讛 讜诪转讛 讜讬专砖讛

Rabbi Yishmael continues: And the verse in the Prophets states: 鈥淎nd Elazar, the son of Aaron, died; and they buried him in the Hill of Pinehas his son, which was given him in Mount Ephraim鈥 (Joshua 24:33). And from where did Pinehas have land that his father, Elazar, did not have? Rather, this teaches that Pinehas married a woman who inherited her father鈥檚 land, and she died and he inherited from her so that he had his own land. This also indicates that a husband inherits from his wife.

讜讗讜诪专 讜砖讙讜讘 讛讜诇讬讚 讗转 讬讗讬专 讜讬讛讬 诇讜 注砖专讬诐 讜砖诇砖 注专讬诐 讘讗专抓 讛讙诇注讚

Rabbi Yishmael continues. And the verse in the Writings states: 鈥淎nd Seguv begot Yair, who had twenty-three cities in the land of Gilead鈥 (I聽Chronicles 2:22).

Scroll To Top