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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 14, 2017 | 讬状讞 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bava Batra 112

Study Guide Bava Batra 112. From where do we learn that a husband inherits from his wife? 聽Two different opinions are suggested. 聽One brings five verses to prove it and the gemara聽tries to explain why all five verses are needed. 聽Some of the verses are from a section in the Torah that dictates that a daughter who inherits land must marry someone from the same tribe. 聽Abaye raises the question of how is the problem resolved if she receives land from her mother, the land will pass out of the tribe (assuming her mother is from a different tribe). 聽Another halacha is brought that a husband only inherits land that the wife owned at the time of her death but if property is passed on to her after her death, (i.e. her father dies and she has no brothers), that land stays in her family. 聽The source for this halacha is brought (from some of the verses that were used in the earlier braita聽– that are now explained in a different way).


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

讜讻讬 诪谞讬谉 诇讬讗讬专 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇砖讙讜讘 诪诇诪讚 砖谞砖讗 讬讗讬专 讗砖讛 讜诪转讛 讜讬专砖讛

And from where did Yair have land that his father, Seguv, did not have? Rather, this teaches that Yair 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.

诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘住讘转 讛讘谉 拽讗 拽驻讬讚 拽专讗 讗讘诇 讘注诇 诇讗 讬专讬转 转讗 砖诪注 讜诇讗 转住讘 谞讞诇讛 诇讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛

The Gemara proceeds to explain this baraita. What is the meaning of: And it states? Why is it necessary to provide additional proofs beyond the first verse? The Gemara explains: The first verse seems to prove the halakha that a husband inherits from his wife. And if you would say that the verse that rules that a woman who inherited land from her father cannot marry a man from another tribe is not concerned that he will inherit from her, but rather the verse is concerned about a transfer of inheritance from one tribe to another by means of the son who will inherit from his mother, as he belongs to his father鈥檚 tribe, but a husband does not inherit from his wife; therefore, come and hear another verse that is seemingly superfluous: 鈥淪o shall no inheritance of the children of Israel transfer from tribe to tribe鈥 (Numbers 36:7). This teaches that a transfer of land could occur by means of the husband inheriting from her.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘诇讗讜 讜注砖讛 转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 转住讘 谞讞诇讛 诪诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 讗讞专

And if you would say that this verse is also concerned with the transfer of the inheritance by means of the son, and that the seemingly superfluous verse is stated for another purpose, i.e., in order to establish that a woman who inherited land from her father and marries a man from another tribe will violate for that act a prohibition, namely: 鈥淪o shall no inheritance of the children of Israel transfer,鈥 and a positive mitzva, namely: 鈥淪hall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father鈥; therefore, come and hear another verse that is seemingly superfluous: 鈥淪o shall no inheritance transfer from one tribe to another tribe鈥 (Numbers 36:9), which teaches that a transfer can occur by means of the husband inheriting from his wife.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘砖谞讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讜注砖讛 转讗 砖诪注 讜讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讗讛专谉 诪转 讜讙讜壮

And if you would say that this verse is also concerned with the transfer of the inheritance by means of the son, and that the seemingly superfluous verse is stated for another purpose, i.e., in order to establish that a woman who inherited land from her father and marries a man from another tribe violates for that act two prohibitions and a positive mitzva; therefore, come and hear another proof that a husband inherits from his wife, from the verse: 鈥淎nd Elazar, the son of Aaron, died鈥 (Joshua 24:33).

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗诇注讝专 讛讜讗 讚谞住讬讘 讗讬转转讗 讜诪转讛 讜讬专转讛 驻谞讞住 转讗 砖诪注 讜砖讙讜讘 讛讜诇讬讚 讗转 讬讗讬专 讜讙讜壮

And if you would say that Pinehas did not inherit this land from his wife, but from his mother, as it was Elazar, his father, who married a woman who inherited land, and she subsequently died, and her son Pinehas inherited from her so that this verse proves the inheritance of a son and not that of a husband; therefore, come and hear a proof from the verse: 鈥淎nd Seguv begot Yair鈥 (I聽Chronicles 2:22).

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讗诐 讻谉 转专讬 拽专讗讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

And if you would say: That is the case there as well, that it was Yair who inherited it from his deceased mother, if so, why do I need two verses to teach the same halakha? This concludes the Gemara鈥檚 explanation of the baraita.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讘注诇 诇讗 讬专讬转 讜拽专讗讬 讘住讘转 讛讘谉 讻讚砖谞讬谞谉 讜讬讗讬专 讚讝讘讬谉 诪讬讝讘谉 讜驻谞讞住 谞诪讬 讚讝讘讬谉 诪讬讝讘谉

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: From where do you know that this is how the verse should be understood? Perhaps I could actually say to you: A husband does not inherit from his wife, and the verses are concerned about a transfer of inheritance from one tribe to another by means of the son, as we explained, teaching that one who does so violates two prohibitions and a positive mitzva. And with regard to Yair, one could say that he purchased it from a third party and did not inherit it. And with regard to Pinehas as well, one could say that he purchased it from a third party.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻谞讞住 讚讝讘讬谉 诪讬讝讘谉 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讚讗诐 讻谉 谞诪爪讗转 砖讚讛 讞讜讝专转 讘讬讜讘诇 讜谞诪爪讗 爪讚讬拽 拽讘讜专 讘拽讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讜

Abaye said to him: You cannot say that Pinehas purchased the land where he buried his father, as if so, the field would return to its original owner in the Jubilee Year (see Leviticus, chapter 25), and it would be found that this righteous man, i.e., Elazar, is buried in a grave in land that is not his.

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讚谞驻诇讛 诇讬讛 诪砖讚讛 讞专诪讬诐

Rav Pappa asked further: Rather, say that in his capacity as a priest he came into possession of this land as a dedicated field. Pinehas, as a priest, may have owned the land by that means. Therefore, one can still say that a husband does not inherit from his wife, and the verses are concerned about a transfer of inheritance from one tribe to another by means of the son.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 住讜祝 住讜祝 讛讗 拽讗 诪转注拽专讗 谞讞诇讛 诪砖讘讟讗 讚讗讬诪讗 诇砖讘讟讗 讚讗讘讗

Abaye said: Even if you say that her son and not her husband inherits from her, ultimately the inheritance is uprooted from the tribe of the mother and is moved to the tribe of the father, and the prohibition against her marrying a man from another tribe is not effective in achieving its goal. The verse speaks of a woman who inherited the land from her mother who is of a different tribe from her father (see 111a). Even if she marries a man from her own tribe, the inheritance will be transferred from her mother鈥檚 tribe to that of her, the woman鈥檚, husband, as even if the woman鈥檚 son inherits, he is of his father鈥檚 tribe.

讜诪诪讗讬 讜讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 砖讻讘专 讛讜住讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讻讘专 讛讜住讘讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

Rav Pappa rejects this: And from where do you raise your challenge? But perhaps it is different there, as the inheritance had already been transferred by the mother of the woman when she married the father, so that the Torah is no longer concerned with the continued transfer. When the parents of this now-deceased woman married, the land that her mother would eventually inherit was already thought of as being transferred away from the ownership of her mother鈥檚 tribe. Therefore, the fact that even if this woman鈥檚 son inherits from her, the fact that the land will permanently belong to a member of her husband鈥檚 tribe is of no concern. Abaye said to him: We do not say, i.e., employ, the logic of: As it had already been transferred, since as long as this woman owned it, it still belonged to a person of the first tribe.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讬诪专 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 砖讻讘专 讛讜住讘讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪转讜拽诪讗 拽专讗 讘讬谉 讘住讘转 讛讘谉 讘讬谉 讘住讘转 讛讘注诇

Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi: Even according to Abaye, who holds the verses teach that the husband inherits, there is still a difficulty. Granted, if you say the logic of: As it has already been transferred, this is how it can be understood that the verse is established as referring to both scenarios: The verse can be understood either with regard to a transfer by means of the son or with regard to a transfer by means of the husband. In both of these scenarios, the daughter鈥檚 marriage to a man from her father鈥檚 tribe is effective in ensuring that land she will inherit will not leave the tribe, because if she inherited it from her father it remains within the same tribe, and if she inherited it from her mother it had already been transferred when her mother married her father.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 砖讻讘专 讛讜住讘讛 讻讬 诪讬谞住讘讗 诇讗讞讚 诪诪砖驻讞转 诪讟讛 讗讘讬讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 讛讗 诪转注拽专讗 谞讞诇讛 诪砖讘讟讗 讚讗讬诪讗 诇砖讘讟讗 讚讗讘讗

But if you say that we do not say the logic of: As it has already been transferred, then even when she gets married to one of the family of the tribe of her father, what of it? But an inheritance is uprooted from the tribe of her mother, who had inherited land from her, the mother鈥檚, father, to the tribe of her father, as her husband is from her father鈥檚 tribe.

讚诪谞住讘讬谞谉 诇讛 诇讙讘专讗 讚讗讘讜讛讬 诪砖讘讟讗 讚讗讘讜讛 讜讗讬诪讬讛 诪砖讘讟讗 讚讗讬诪讛

Rav Ashi said to him: There is a way that the transfer to another tribe can be avoided: Where we marry her to a man whose father is from her father鈥檚 tribe and his mother is from her mother鈥檚 tribe, the transfer is avoided as the land retains the exact status as it had when it was in the woman鈥檚 possession.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗讬 诇讗讞讚 诪诪砖驻讞转 诪讟讛 讗讘讬讛 讜讗诪讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗讬 讻转讬讘 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬驻讻讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: If so, if a daughter who inherits land from both of her parents must marry a man whose father is from her father鈥檚 tribe and whose mother is from her mother鈥檚 tribe, this verse: 鈥淪hall be a wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father鈥 (Numbers 36:8), should have said: Shall be a wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father and her mother. The Gemara replies: If it were written like this, I would say that even the opposite is permitted, that she may marry a man whose mother is from her father鈥檚 tribe and whose father is from her mother鈥檚 tribe. As long as she marries someone who is connected to both tribes, it is permitted. The verse therefore teaches us that the opposite is not permitted.

转谞讬讗 讘住讘转 讛讘谉 讜转谞讬讗 讘住讘转 讛讘注诇 转谞讬讗 讘住讘转 讛讘谉 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 讘住讘转 讛讘谉 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

The Gemara comments: Concerning the marriage of a woman who inherited land, it is taught in a baraita with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the son, and it is taught in a baraita with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the husband. The Gemara presents the baraitot: A baraita is taught with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the son, as follows: 鈥淪o shall no inheritance of the children of Israel transfer from tribe to tribe鈥 (Numbers 36:7); that verse speaks of the transfer of the inheritance by means of the son. The Torah prohibits the woman from marrying a man from a different tribe since her son will inherit from her and thereby the inheritance will transfer away from its original tribe.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘住讘转 讛讘谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘住讘转 讛讘注诇 讻砖讛讜讗 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 讛专讬 讘住讘转 讛讘注诇 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 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 讘住讘转 讛讘谉 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

Do you say that this is with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the son, or is it only with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the husband? When it says: 鈥淪o shall no inheritance transfer from one tribe to another tribe鈥 (Numbers 36:9), the verse is speaking with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the husband. How do I realize the meaning of the verse: 鈥淪o shall no inheritance of the children of Israel transfer from tribe to tribe鈥 (Numbers 36:7)? That verse speaks of the transfer of the inheritance by means of the son.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 112

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 112

讜讻讬 诪谞讬谉 诇讬讗讬专 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇砖讙讜讘 诪诇诪讚 砖谞砖讗 讬讗讬专 讗砖讛 讜诪转讛 讜讬专砖讛

And from where did Yair have land that his father, Seguv, did not have? Rather, this teaches that Yair 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.

诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘住讘转 讛讘谉 拽讗 拽驻讬讚 拽专讗 讗讘诇 讘注诇 诇讗 讬专讬转 转讗 砖诪注 讜诇讗 转住讘 谞讞诇讛 诇讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛

The Gemara proceeds to explain this baraita. What is the meaning of: And it states? Why is it necessary to provide additional proofs beyond the first verse? The Gemara explains: The first verse seems to prove the halakha that a husband inherits from his wife. And if you would say that the verse that rules that a woman who inherited land from her father cannot marry a man from another tribe is not concerned that he will inherit from her, but rather the verse is concerned about a transfer of inheritance from one tribe to another by means of the son who will inherit from his mother, as he belongs to his father鈥檚 tribe, but a husband does not inherit from his wife; therefore, come and hear another verse that is seemingly superfluous: 鈥淪o shall no inheritance of the children of Israel transfer from tribe to tribe鈥 (Numbers 36:7). This teaches that a transfer of land could occur by means of the husband inheriting from her.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘诇讗讜 讜注砖讛 转讗 砖诪注 诇讗 转住讘 谞讞诇讛 诪诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 讗讞专

And if you would say that this verse is also concerned with the transfer of the inheritance by means of the son, and that the seemingly superfluous verse is stated for another purpose, i.e., in order to establish that a woman who inherited land from her father and marries a man from another tribe will violate for that act a prohibition, namely: 鈥淪o shall no inheritance of the children of Israel transfer,鈥 and a positive mitzva, namely: 鈥淪hall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father鈥; therefore, come and hear another verse that is seemingly superfluous: 鈥淪o shall no inheritance transfer from one tribe to another tribe鈥 (Numbers 36:9), which teaches that a transfer can occur by means of the husband inheriting from his wife.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘砖谞讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讜注砖讛 转讗 砖诪注 讜讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讗讛专谉 诪转 讜讙讜壮

And if you would say that this verse is also concerned with the transfer of the inheritance by means of the son, and that the seemingly superfluous verse is stated for another purpose, i.e., in order to establish that a woman who inherited land from her father and marries a man from another tribe violates for that act two prohibitions and a positive mitzva; therefore, come and hear another proof that a husband inherits from his wife, from the verse: 鈥淎nd Elazar, the son of Aaron, died鈥 (Joshua 24:33).

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗诇注讝专 讛讜讗 讚谞住讬讘 讗讬转转讗 讜诪转讛 讜讬专转讛 驻谞讞住 转讗 砖诪注 讜砖讙讜讘 讛讜诇讬讚 讗转 讬讗讬专 讜讙讜壮

And if you would say that Pinehas did not inherit this land from his wife, but from his mother, as it was Elazar, his father, who married a woman who inherited land, and she subsequently died, and her son Pinehas inherited from her so that this verse proves the inheritance of a son and not that of a husband; therefore, come and hear a proof from the verse: 鈥淎nd Seguv begot Yair鈥 (I聽Chronicles 2:22).

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讗诐 讻谉 转专讬 拽专讗讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

And if you would say: That is the case there as well, that it was Yair who inherited it from his deceased mother, if so, why do I need two verses to teach the same halakha? This concludes the Gemara鈥檚 explanation of the baraita.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讘注诇 诇讗 讬专讬转 讜拽专讗讬 讘住讘转 讛讘谉 讻讚砖谞讬谞谉 讜讬讗讬专 讚讝讘讬谉 诪讬讝讘谉 讜驻谞讞住 谞诪讬 讚讝讘讬谉 诪讬讝讘谉

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: From where do you know that this is how the verse should be understood? Perhaps I could actually say to you: A husband does not inherit from his wife, and the verses are concerned about a transfer of inheritance from one tribe to another by means of the son, as we explained, teaching that one who does so violates two prohibitions and a positive mitzva. And with regard to Yair, one could say that he purchased it from a third party and did not inherit it. And with regard to Pinehas as well, one could say that he purchased it from a third party.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻谞讞住 讚讝讘讬谉 诪讬讝讘谉 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讚讗诐 讻谉 谞诪爪讗转 砖讚讛 讞讜讝专转 讘讬讜讘诇 讜谞诪爪讗 爪讚讬拽 拽讘讜专 讘拽讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讜

Abaye said to him: You cannot say that Pinehas purchased the land where he buried his father, as if so, the field would return to its original owner in the Jubilee Year (see Leviticus, chapter 25), and it would be found that this righteous man, i.e., Elazar, is buried in a grave in land that is not his.

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讚谞驻诇讛 诇讬讛 诪砖讚讛 讞专诪讬诐

Rav Pappa asked further: Rather, say that in his capacity as a priest he came into possession of this land as a dedicated field. Pinehas, as a priest, may have owned the land by that means. Therefore, one can still say that a husband does not inherit from his wife, and the verses are concerned about a transfer of inheritance from one tribe to another by means of the son.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 住讜祝 住讜祝 讛讗 拽讗 诪转注拽专讗 谞讞诇讛 诪砖讘讟讗 讚讗讬诪讗 诇砖讘讟讗 讚讗讘讗

Abaye said: Even if you say that her son and not her husband inherits from her, ultimately the inheritance is uprooted from the tribe of the mother and is moved to the tribe of the father, and the prohibition against her marrying a man from another tribe is not effective in achieving its goal. The verse speaks of a woman who inherited the land from her mother who is of a different tribe from her father (see 111a). Even if she marries a man from her own tribe, the inheritance will be transferred from her mother鈥檚 tribe to that of her, the woman鈥檚, husband, as even if the woman鈥檚 son inherits, he is of his father鈥檚 tribe.

讜诪诪讗讬 讜讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 砖讻讘专 讛讜住讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讻讘专 讛讜住讘讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

Rav Pappa rejects this: And from where do you raise your challenge? But perhaps it is different there, as the inheritance had already been transferred by the mother of the woman when she married the father, so that the Torah is no longer concerned with the continued transfer. When the parents of this now-deceased woman married, the land that her mother would eventually inherit was already thought of as being transferred away from the ownership of her mother鈥檚 tribe. Therefore, the fact that even if this woman鈥檚 son inherits from her, the fact that the land will permanently belong to a member of her husband鈥檚 tribe is of no concern. Abaye said to him: We do not say, i.e., employ, the logic of: As it had already been transferred, since as long as this woman owned it, it still belonged to a person of the first tribe.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讬诪专 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 砖讻讘专 讛讜住讘讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪转讜拽诪讗 拽专讗 讘讬谉 讘住讘转 讛讘谉 讘讬谉 讘住讘转 讛讘注诇

Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi: Even according to Abaye, who holds the verses teach that the husband inherits, there is still a difficulty. Granted, if you say the logic of: As it has already been transferred, this is how it can be understood that the verse is established as referring to both scenarios: The verse can be understood either with regard to a transfer by means of the son or with regard to a transfer by means of the husband. In both of these scenarios, the daughter鈥檚 marriage to a man from her father鈥檚 tribe is effective in ensuring that land she will inherit will not leave the tribe, because if she inherited it from her father it remains within the same tribe, and if she inherited it from her mother it had already been transferred when her mother married her father.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 砖讻讘专 讛讜住讘讛 讻讬 诪讬谞住讘讗 诇讗讞讚 诪诪砖驻讞转 诪讟讛 讗讘讬讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 讛讗 诪转注拽专讗 谞讞诇讛 诪砖讘讟讗 讚讗讬诪讗 诇砖讘讟讗 讚讗讘讗

But if you say that we do not say the logic of: As it has already been transferred, then even when she gets married to one of the family of the tribe of her father, what of it? But an inheritance is uprooted from the tribe of her mother, who had inherited land from her, the mother鈥檚, father, to the tribe of her father, as her husband is from her father鈥檚 tribe.

讚诪谞住讘讬谞谉 诇讛 诇讙讘专讗 讚讗讘讜讛讬 诪砖讘讟讗 讚讗讘讜讛 讜讗讬诪讬讛 诪砖讘讟讗 讚讗讬诪讛

Rav Ashi said to him: There is a way that the transfer to another tribe can be avoided: Where we marry her to a man whose father is from her father鈥檚 tribe and his mother is from her mother鈥檚 tribe, the transfer is avoided as the land retains the exact status as it had when it was in the woman鈥檚 possession.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗讬 诇讗讞讚 诪诪砖驻讞转 诪讟讛 讗讘讬讛 讜讗诪讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗讬 讻转讬讘 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬驻讻讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: If so, if a daughter who inherits land from both of her parents must marry a man whose father is from her father鈥檚 tribe and whose mother is from her mother鈥檚 tribe, this verse: 鈥淪hall be a wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father鈥 (Numbers 36:8), should have said: Shall be a wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father and her mother. The Gemara replies: If it were written like this, I would say that even the opposite is permitted, that she may marry a man whose mother is from her father鈥檚 tribe and whose father is from her mother鈥檚 tribe. As long as she marries someone who is connected to both tribes, it is permitted. The verse therefore teaches us that the opposite is not permitted.

转谞讬讗 讘住讘转 讛讘谉 讜转谞讬讗 讘住讘转 讛讘注诇 转谞讬讗 讘住讘转 讛讘谉 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 讘住讘转 讛讘谉 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

The Gemara comments: Concerning the marriage of a woman who inherited land, it is taught in a baraita with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the son, and it is taught in a baraita with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the husband. The Gemara presents the baraitot: A baraita is taught with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the son, as follows: 鈥淪o shall no inheritance of the children of Israel transfer from tribe to tribe鈥 (Numbers 36:7); that verse speaks of the transfer of the inheritance by means of the son. The Torah prohibits the woman from marrying a man from a different tribe since her son will inherit from her and thereby the inheritance will transfer away from its original tribe.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘住讘转 讛讘谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘住讘转 讛讘注诇 讻砖讛讜讗 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 讛专讬 讘住讘转 讛讘注诇 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 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 讘住讘转 讛讘谉 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

Do you say that this is with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the son, or is it only with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the husband? When it says: 鈥淪o shall no inheritance transfer from one tribe to another tribe鈥 (Numbers 36:9), the verse is speaking with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the husband. How do I realize the meaning of the verse: 鈥淪o shall no inheritance of the children of Israel transfer from tribe to tribe鈥 (Numbers 36:7)? That verse speaks of the transfer of the inheritance by means of the son.

Scroll To Top