Bava Batra 111
״וְכׇל בַּת יֹרֶשֶׁת נַחֲלָה מִמַּטּוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – הֵיאַךְ בַּת יוֹרֶשֶׁת שְׁנֵי מַטּוֹת? אֶלָּא זוֹ שֶׁאָבִיהָ מִשֵּׁבֶט אֶחָד וְאִמָּהּ מִשֵּׁבֶט אַחֵר, וּמֵתוּ, וִירָשָׁתַן.
The verse states: “And every daughter who possesses an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel” (Numbers 36:8). Noting the plural in the phrase “from the tribes of the children of Israel,” 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.
וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא בַּת, בֵּן מִנַּיִן? אָמַרְתָּ קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה בַּת, שֶׁהוֹרַע כֹּחָהּ בְּנִכְסֵי הָאָב – יִפָּה כֹּחָהּ בְּנִכְסֵי הָאֵם; בֵּן, שֶׁיִּפָּה כֹּחוֹ בְּנִכְסֵי הָאָב – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיִּפָּה כֹּחוֹ בְּנִכְסֵי הָאֵם? וּמִמָּקוֹם שֶׁבָּאתָ – מָה לְהַלָּן בֵּן קוֹדֵם לַבַּת, אַף כָּאן בֵּן קוֹדֵם לַבַּת.
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’s property in that she does not inherit it when there is a son, yet her power is enhanced with regard to her mother’s property in that she inherits it; with regard to a son, whose power is enhanced with regard to his father’s 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’s 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’s property, a son precedes a daughter, so too here, with regard to a mother’s property, a son precedes a daughter. This is the opinion of the first tanna.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמְרוּ, מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶּן הַקַּצָּב: אֶחָד הַבֵּן וְאֶחָד הַבַּת, שָׁוִין בְּנִכְסֵי הָאֵם. מַאי טַעְמָא? דַּיּוֹ לַבָּא מִן הַדִּין לִהְיוֹת כַּנִּדּוֹן.
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’s 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.
וְתַנָּא קַמָּא – לָא דָּרֵישׁ ״דַּיּוֹ״?! וְהָא ״דַּיּוֹ״ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הוּא!
The Gemara asks: And doesn’t 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?
דְּתַנְיָא: מִדִּין קַל וָחוֹמֶר כֵּיצַד? ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה: וְאָבִיהָ יָרֹק יָרַק בְּפָנֶיהָ, הֲלֹא תִכָּלֵם שִׁבְעַת יָמִים?״ קַל וָחוֹמֶר לַשְּׁכִינָה – אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר!
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: “And the Lord said to Moses: If her father had but spit in her face, should she not hide in shame seven days?” (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?
אֶלָּא דַּיּוֹ לַבָּא מִן הַדִּין לִהְיוֹת כַּנִּדּוֹן.
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’s property?
בְּעָלְמָא דָּרֵישׁ ״דַּיּוֹ״; וְשָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״מִמַּטּוֹת״ – מַקִּישׁ מַטֵּה הָאֵם לְמַטֵּה הָאָב; מָה מַטֵּה הָאָב – בֵּן קוֹדֵם לַבַּת, אַף מַטֵּה הָאֵם – בֵּן קוֹדֵם לַבַּת.
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: “And every daughter who possesses an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel” (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’s father, a son precedes a daughter, so too, with regard to the tribe of the mother, i.e., inheriting from one’s mother, a son precedes a daughter.
רַב נִיתַּאי סָבַר לְמֶעְבַּד עוֹבָדָא כְּרַבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶּן הַקַּצָּב; אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּמַאן – כִּזְכַרְיָה? אָפֵס זְכַרְיָה. רַבִּי טַבְלָא עֲבַד עוֹבָדָא כְּרַבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶּן הַקַּצָּב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: מַאי הַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב חִינָּנָא בַּר שֶׁלֶמְיָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶּן הַקַּצָּב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל אַהְדַּר (בָּךְ), וְאִי לָא – מַפֵּיקְנָא לָךְ רַב חִינָּנָא בַּר שֶׁלֶמְיָא מֵאוּנָּיךְ!
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 Naḥman said to him: What is this? Rabbi Tavla said to him: As Rav Ḥinnana bar Shelamya says in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav. Rav Naḥman said to him: Go retract your ruling, and if you do not, I will take Rav Ḥinnana bar Shelamya out of your ear, i.e., I will punish you severely for ruling against the accepted halakha.
רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא סָבַר לְמֶעְבַּד עוֹבָדָא כְּרַבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶּן הַקַּצָּב; אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: מַאי הַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶּן הַקַּצָּב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֶשְׁלַח לֵיהּ? אִיכְּסִיף. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַשְׁתָּא כִּי נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, אַיתְרֵיסְתְּ לְקִבְלִי.
The Gemara relates further: Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya thought to perform an action, i.e., issue a ruling, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav. Rav Naḥman said to him: What is this? Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said to him: As Rav Huna says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav. Rav Naḥman said to him: Shall I send a messenger to Rav Huna to ask him if that is indeed what he said? Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya was embarrassed, as he was not certain that Rav Huna actually said this ruling. Rav Naḥman 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.
וְאִיהוּ כְּמַאן סַבְרַהּ? כִּי הָא דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶּן הַקַּצָּב.
The Gemara asks: And he, Rav Naḥman, 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 Naḥman 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.
מִיסְתְּמִיךְ וְאָזֵיל רַבִּי יַנַּאי אַכַּתְפָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׂמְלַאי שַׁמָּעֵיהּ, וְאָתֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה לְאַפַּיְיהוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בַּר אִינָשׁ דַּאֲתָא לְקִיבְלַנָא, הוּא יָאֵי, וְגוּלְּתֵיהּ יָאֵי. כִּי מְטָא לְגַבֵּיהּ, גַּשְּׁשַׁהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דֵּין – שִׁיעוּרֵיהּ כְּשַׂק.
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.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ: מִנַּיִן לְבֵן שֶׁקּוֹדֵם לַבַּת בְּנִכְסֵי הָאֵם? אָמַר לֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״מַטּוֹת״ – מַקִּישׁ מַטֵּה הָאֵם לְמַטֵּה הָאָב; מָה מַטֵּה הָאָב – בֵּן קוֹדֵם לַבַּת, אַף מַטֵּה הָאֵם – בֵּן קוֹדֵם לַבַּת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי – מָה מַטֵּה הָאָב, בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם; אַף מַטֵּה הָאֵם, בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם?!
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’s property? Rabbi Yannai said to him: As it is written: “And every daughter who possesses an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel” (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’s tribe a firstborn takes a double portion, so too, with regard to inheritance from the mother’s tribe, when he inherits from his mother a firstborn takes a double portion.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְשַׁמָּעֵיהּ: גּוּד, לֵית דֵּין צָבֵי לְמֵילַף. וְטַעְמָא מַאי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אָמַר קְרָא: ״בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִמָּצֵא לוֹ״; ״לוֹ״ – וְלֹא לָהּ.
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: “By giving him a double portion of all that he has” (Deuteronomy 21:17), indicating that he receives a double portion in all that he has, but not in all that she has.
וְאֵימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בָּחוּר שֶׁנָּשָׂא אַלְמָנָה, אֲבָל בָּחוּר שֶׁנָּשָׂא בְּתוּלָה – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּשָׁקֵיל!
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’s inheritance?
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, אָמַר קְרָא: ״רֵאשִׁית אֹנוֹ״; ״אוֹנוֹ״ – וְלֹא אוֹנָהּ.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: There is a different derivation teaching that halakha, as the same verse states: “For he is the first fruits of his strength [ono]” (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.
הָהוּא מִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לַבָּא אַחַר נְפָלִים, דְּלֶהֱוֵי בְּכוֹר לְנַחֲלָה – מִי שֶׁלִּבּוֹ דָּוֶוה עָלָיו, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאֵין לִבּוֹ דָּוֶוה עָלָיו!
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’s firstborn son. How is this halakha derived from the verse? The term “his strength [ono]” 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’s heart is pained about him when he dies, i.e., a son who lives beyond birth, excluding this non-viable newborn whose father’s 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.
אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא: ״כִּי הוּא רֵאשִׁית אוֹן״ – מַאי ״אוֹנוֹ״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.
The Gemara answers: If so, that the sole purpose of the term: “His strength” is to teach that halakha, let the verse say: For he is the first fruit of strength [on], omitting the possessive “his,” represented by the letter vav. What is derived from the more expanded term: “His strength [ono],” which indicates specifically the father’s strength? Conclude two conclusions from it, both with regard to mourning and with regard to the status of the firstborn as the father’s heir specifically.
וְאַכַּתִּי, אֵימָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי אַלְמוֹן שֶׁנָּשָׂא בְּתוּלָה, אֲבָל בָּחוּר שֶׁנָּשָׂא בְּתוּלָה – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּשָׁקֵיל!
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’s 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’s inheritance.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לוֹ מִשְׁפַּט הַבְּכֹרָה״ – מִשְׁפַּט הַבְּכוֹרָה לָאִישׁ, וְלֹא מִשְׁפַּט הַבְּכוֹרָה לָאִשָּׁה.
Rather, Rava said: There is a different derivation teaching that halakha, as the same verse states: “The right of the firstborn is his” (Deuteronomy 21:17). The emphasis on “his” 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.
וְהָאִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְכוּ׳. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״שְׁאֵרוֹ״ – זוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַבַּעַל יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. יָכוֹל אַף הִיא תִּירָשֶׁנּוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְיָרַשׁ אוֹתָהּ״ – הוּא יוֹרֵשׁ אוֹתָהּ, וְאֵין הִיא יוֹרֶשֶׁת אוֹתוֹ.
§ 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: “And if his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his kinsman [she’ero] who is next to him of his family, and he shall inherit it” (Numbers 27:11). This kinsman is one’s 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: “And he shall inherit it,” with the word “it” written in the feminine “otah,” which can also be translated as: Her. This teaches that it is he who inherits from her, but she does not inherit from him.
וְהָא קְרָאֵי לָאו הָכִי כְּתִיבִי! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, תָּרֵיץ הָכִי: ״וּנְתַתֶּם אֶת נַחֲלָתוֹ לַקָּרוֹב אֵלָיו, שְׁאֵרוֹ וְיָרַשׁ אֹתָהּ״.
The Gemara questions this explanation: But the verses are not written like this. The verse states that “his kinsman” inherits from the deceased, so that if that term is referring to one’s 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.
אָמַר רָבָא: סַכִּינָא חֲרִיפָא מַפְסְקָא קְרָאֵי?! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: ״וּנְתַתֶּם אֶת נַחֲלַת שְׁאֵרוֹ לוֹ״ – קָא סָבַר גּוֹרְעִין וּמוֹסִיפִין, וְדוֹרְשִׁין.
Rava said: Does a sharp knife cut verses? How can you split the verse, rearrange it and omit letters from its words? Abaye’s derivation rearranges the words and omits the letter lamed from the term “to his kinsman [leshe’ero].” Rather, Rava said: This is what the verse is saying: And you shall give the inheritance of his kinsman [she’ero] to him. The letters should be arranged differently, removing the letter lamed from the word leshe’ero and the letter vav from the word naḥalato 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.
וְהַאי תַּנָּא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא – דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְיָרַשׁ אוֹתָהּ״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַבַּעַל יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
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: “And he shall inherit it,” with the word “it” written in the feminine “otah,” 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.
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְכׇל בַּת יֹרֶשֶׁת נַחֲלָה מִמַּטּוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְאֶחָד מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת וְגוֹ׳״ – בַּהֲסָבַת הַבַּעַל הַכָּתוּב מְדַבַּר.
The baraita quotes another tanna. Rabbi Yishmael says: This derivation is not necessary, as the verse states: “And 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” (Numbers 36:8). The purpose of this mitzva was so that the land she inherited from her father’s 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.
וְאוֹמֵר: ״וְלֹא תִסֹּב נַחֲלָה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמַּטֶּה אֶל מַטֶּה״. וְאוֹמֵר: ״וְלֹא תִסֹּב נַחֲלָה מִמַּטֶּה לְמַטֶּה אַחֵר״.
Rabbi Yishmael continues: And another verse states: “So shall no inheritance of the children of Israel transfer from tribe to tribe” (Numbers 36:7), and another verse states: “So shall no inheritance transfer from one tribe to another tribe” (Numbers 36:9), also indicating that a husband inherits from his wife.
וְאוֹמֵר: ״וְאֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַהֲרֹן מֵת, וַיִּקְבְּרוּ אֹתוֹ בְּגִבְעַת פִּנְחָס בְּנוֹ״ – וְכִי מִנַּיִן לְפִנְחָס שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לוֹ לְאֶלְעָזָר? אֶלָּא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנָּשָׂא פִּנְחָס אִשָּׁה וּמֵתָה, וִירָשָׁהּ.
Rabbi Yishmael continues: And the verse in the Prophets states: “And Elazar, the son of Aaron, died; and they buried him in the Hill of Pinehas his son, which was given him in Mount Ephraim” (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’s 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.
וְאוֹמֵר: ״וּשְׂגוּב הוֹלִיד אֶת יָאִיר, וַיְהִי לוֹ עֶשְׂרִים וְשָׁלֹשׁ עָרִים בְּאֶרֶץ הַגִּלְעָד״ –
Rabbi Yishmael continues. And the verse in the Writings states: “And Seguv begot Yair, who had twenty-three cities in the land of Gilead” (I Chronicles 2:22).
