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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 16, 2017 | 讻壮 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 113

One cannot divide inheritance at night. 聽What exactly this statement means is explained by the gemara, based on a braita and a statement made by Rav Yehuda and Rav Hisda. 聽The statement of Rav Yehuda relates to the concept discussed in other places that a witness can’t also function as a judge. 聽What exactly is meant by a witness is a subject of debate among the commentaries. 聽When one makes a kinyan, there is a certain timeframe in which one side can change their minds. 聽What that timeframe is is a subject of debate between聽Rabba and Rav Yosef. 聽 What type of kinyan聽the gemara is referring to is debated by the commentaries. 聽 Why is the mishna repeating cases that can be inferred from the previous section? 聽Rabbi Yochanan says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Shimon that a woman inherits from her son. 聽However Rabbi Yochanan questions that this聽goes against the mishna. 聽Rabbi Yehuda rejects our mishna and says that he doesn’t know who wrote our mishna!


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

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讜诇讗 转住讘 谞讞诇讛 诪诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 讗讞专 讘住讬讘转 讛讘注诇 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

It is taught in another baraita: 鈥淪o shall no inheritance transfer from one tribe to another tribe鈥 (Numbers 36:9); the verse speaks of the transfer of the inheritance by means of the husband. The Torah prohibits the woman from marrying a man from a different tribe since her husband will inherit from her, thereby transferring her inheritance away from its original tribe.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘住讬讘转 讛讘注诇 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘住讬讘转 讛讘谉 讻砖讛讜讗 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 讛专讬 讛住讬讘转 讛讘谉 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 诪诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 讗讞专 讘住讬讘转 讛讘注诇 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 husband, or is it only with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the son? When it says: 鈥淪o shall no inheritance of the children of Israel transfer from tribe to tribe鈥 (Numbers 36:7), the verse is speaking with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the son. How do I realize the meaning of the verse: 鈥淪o shall no inheritance transfer from one tribe to another tribe鈥 (Numbers 36:9)? That verse speaks of the transfer of the inheritance by means of the husband.

讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛转 诪诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 讗讞专 讘住讬讘转 讛讘注诇 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 (住讬诪谉) 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讬砖 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬砖 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜

The Gemara comments: In any event, according to everyone, i.e., according to both baraitot, the phrase in the verse 鈥渇rom one tribe to another tribe鈥 speaks of the transfer of the inheritance by means of the husband. The Gemara asks: From where is this inferred? The Gemara supplies a mnemonic. Rabba bar Rav Sheila said that the latter part of the verse states: 鈥淪o shall no inheritance transfer from one tribe to another tribe; for the tribes of the children of Israel shall cleave each one [ish] to its own inheritance,鈥 alluding to the transfer by means of the husband, as the word 鈥ish鈥 means husband, in the context of: 鈥淓limelech the husband [ish] of Naomi鈥 (Ruth 1:3). The Gemara asks: But the word ish鈥 is written in both of the verses. Therefore, both verses should be interpreted with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the husband.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 拽专讗 讬讚讘拽讜 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讬讚讘拽讜 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜

Rather, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said a different explanation. The verse states: 鈥淪hall cleave,鈥 and this term alludes to marriage, as in the context of: 鈥淎nd he shall cleave to his wife鈥 (Genesis 2:24). The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the term 鈥渟hall cleave鈥 is written in both of the verses. Therefore, both verses should be interpreted with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the husband.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讬讚讘拽讜 诪讟讜转 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 讗讞专 讜讘谉 诇讗讜 讗讞专 讛讜讗

Rather, Rava said a different explanation: The verse states: 鈥淭he tribes of the children of Israel shall cleave,鈥 and tribes cleave to one another through marriage. Rav Ashi said another explanation: The verse states: 鈥淔rom one tribe to another tribe,鈥 and a son is not considered 鈥渁nother,鈥 as he is an extension of his mother.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讜诪讟讜 讘讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 诪谞讬谉 诇讘注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 讘专讗讜讬 讻讘诪讜讞讝拽 砖谞讗诪专 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 讜砖诇讜砖 注专讬诐 讘讗专抓 讛讙诇注讚 诪谞讬谉 诇讬讗讬专 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇砖讙讜讘 讗诇讗 诪诇诪讚 砖谞砖讗 砖讙讜讘 讗砖讛 讜诪转讛 讘讞讬讬 诪讜专讬砖讬讛 讜诪转讜 诪讜专讬砖讬讛 讜讬专砖讛 讬讗讬专

Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says that Rabbi Yannai says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says, and some determined it was in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣: From where is it derived that a husband who inherits from his wife does not take in inheritance the property due to the deceased as he does the property she possessed? Instead of the husband inheriting the property that was due to her, that property is inherited by her other relatives, such as her son, or other relatives of her father. As it is stated: 鈥淎nd Seguv begot Yair, who had twenty three cities in the land of Gilead鈥 (I聽Chronicles 2:22). The Gemara asks: From where did Yair have land that his father, Seguv, did not have? Rather, this teaches that Seguv married a woman and she died in the lifetime of her potential legators, and her legators then died, and Yair, her son, not Seguv, her husband, inherited these inheritances from her.

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 讜讙讜壮 诪谞讬谉 诇驻谞讞住 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇讗诇注讝专 诪诇诪讚 砖谞砖讗 讗诇注讝专 讗砖讛 讜诪转讛 讘讞讬讬 诪讜专讬砖讬讛 讜诪转讜 诪讜专讬砖讬讛 讜讬专砖讛 驻谞讞住

And it is stated: 鈥淎nd Elazar, the son of Aaron, died; and they buried him in the Hill of Pinehas his son鈥 (Joshua 24:33). From where did Pinehas have land that his father, Elazar, did not have? Rather, this teaches that Elazar married a woman and she died in the lifetime of her potential legators, and her legators then died, and Pinehas her son, not Elazar her husband, inherited the property from her.

讜诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讬讗讬专 讚讛讜讛 谞住讬讘 讗讬转转讗 讜诪转讛 讜讬专转讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讗讛专谉 诪转 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚谞驻诇讛 诇讬讛 讘砖讚讛 讞专诪讬诐 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘谞讜 谞讞诇讛 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇讜 讜讬专砖讛 讘谞讜

And what is the meaning of: And it is stated? Why is it necessary to provide an additional proof beyond the first verse? The Gemara explains. And if you would say: In the verse concerning Seguv and Yair, it is Yair, not Seguv, who married a woman and she died and he inherited from her, and he did not inherit from his mother, the verse states: 鈥淎nd Elazar, the son of Aaron, died; and they buried him in the Hill of Pinehas his son鈥 (Joshua 24:33), teaching that Pinehas inherited the land of those from whom his mother inherited, and Elazar did not. And if you would say that this land came into the possession of Pinehas as a dedicated field, as he was a priest, and he did not inherit it from his mother, the verse states: 鈥淗is son,鈥 indicating that it was an inheritance that was fitting for him, i.e., Elazar, had his wife not predeceased her legators, and his son inherited it.

讜讘谞讬 讗讞讜转 转谞讗 讘谞讬 讗讞讜转 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转 讗讞讜转

搂 The mishna teaches: And sons of sisters, i.e., nephews born to the sisters of the deceased, inherit from their maternal uncles but do not bequeath to them. It is taught in a baraita: This halakha applies to sons of sisters but not to daughters of sisters.

诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇拽讚诐

With regard to what halakha was this said? It is obvious that in principle daughters have the right to inherit from their maternal uncle, as the mother inherits from him. Rav Sheshet said: It is said to teach that where there are sons as well, they precede the daughters in inheriting from their maternal uncle.

转谞讬 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讬专砖 诪拽讬砖 讬专讜砖讛 砖谞讬讛 诇讬专讜砖讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诪讛 讬专讜砖讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讘谉 拽讜讚诐 诇讘转 讗祝 讬专讜砖讛 砖谞讬讛 讘谉 拽讜讚诐 诇讘转

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k taught a baraita before Rav Huna: At the end of the passage discussing inheritance of land, the verse states: 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). The verse juxtaposes a secondary inheritance, that of one inheriting from other relatives, to a primary inheritance, that of a child inheriting from a parent. This teaches that just as with regard to a primary inheritance a son precedes a daughter, so too, with regard to a secondary inheritance a son precedes a daughter.

转谞讬 专讘讛 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讛讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讛谞讞讬诇讜 讗转 讘谞讬讜 讘讬讜诐 讗转讛 诪驻讬诇 谞讞诇讜转 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪驻讬诇 谞讞诇讜转 讘诇讬诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讚砖讻讬讘 讘讬诪诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讬专转讬 诇讬讛 讘谞讬讛 诪讗谉 讚砖讻讬讘 讘诇讬诇讬讗 诇讗 讬专转讬 诇讬讛 讘谞讬讛

Rabba bar 岣nina taught a baraita before Rav Na岣an: A verse in the passage concerning the double portion inherited by a firstborn states: 鈥淭hen it shall be on the day that he causes his sons to inherit that which he has鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:16). The addition of the phrase 鈥渙n the day鈥 teaches that it is specifically during the day that you may distribute inheritances, but you may not distribute inheritances at night. Abaye said to him: That cannot be the halakha, as, if that is so, it ought to be that only one who dies during the day is the one from whom his children inherit, but with regard to one who dies at night, his children do not inherit from him, and this is not the case.

讚诇诪讗 讚讬谉 谞讞诇讜转 拽讗 讗诪专转 讚转谞讬讗 讜讛讬转讛 诇讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讞拽转 诪砖驻讟 讗讜专注讛 讻诇 讛驻专砖讛 讻讜诇讛 诇讛讬讜转 讚讬谉

Abaye suggests a different interpretation of Rabba bar 岣nina鈥檚 statement: Perhaps you said a distinction between day and night with regard to the adjudication of inheritances, as judges are permitted to sit only during the day. A proof for this distinction is as it is taught in a baraita: A verse in the passage concerning inheritance states: 鈥淎nd it shall be for the children of Israel a statute of judgment鈥 (Numbers 27:11), teaching that the entire portion was placed [ure鈥檃] together to be considered a matter of judgment, subject to the procedural rules of a court matter.

讜讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖诇砖讛 砖谞讻谞住讜 诇讘拽专 讗转 讛讞讜诇讛 专爪讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 专爪讜 注讜砖讬谉 讚讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讚讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐

Abaye continues: And this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda says: In a case where there were three men who entered a room to visit a sick person and the sick person desired to write a will in order to distribute his property following his death, if the visitors wish to do so they may write his will and sign it as witnesses. And if they wish, they may act in judgment, i.e., they may act as a court in the matter, since there are three of them. Therefore, they can determine that the will has the validity of an act of court and transfer the property to the heirs in their capacity as a court. But if only two came to visit the sick person, they may write the will and sign it as witnesses, but they may not act in judgment, since three are required to form a court. And Rav 岣sda says: This halakha was taught only in a case where the three came to visit him during the day,

  • 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 113

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 113

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讜诇讗 转住讘 谞讞诇讛 诪诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 讗讞专 讘住讬讘转 讛讘注诇 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

It is taught in another baraita: 鈥淪o shall no inheritance transfer from one tribe to another tribe鈥 (Numbers 36:9); the verse speaks of the transfer of the inheritance by means of the husband. The Torah prohibits the woman from marrying a man from a different tribe since her husband will inherit from her, thereby transferring her inheritance away from its original tribe.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘住讬讘转 讛讘注诇 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘住讬讘转 讛讘谉 讻砖讛讜讗 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 讛专讬 讛住讬讘转 讛讘谉 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 诪诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 讗讞专 讘住讬讘转 讛讘注诇 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 husband, or is it only with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the son? When it says: 鈥淪o shall no inheritance of the children of Israel transfer from tribe to tribe鈥 (Numbers 36:7), the verse is speaking with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the son. How do I realize the meaning of the verse: 鈥淪o shall no inheritance transfer from one tribe to another tribe鈥 (Numbers 36:9)? That verse speaks of the transfer of the inheritance by means of the husband.

讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛转 诪诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 讗讞专 讘住讬讘转 讛讘注诇 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 (住讬诪谉) 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讬砖 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬砖 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜

The Gemara comments: In any event, according to everyone, i.e., according to both baraitot, the phrase in the verse 鈥渇rom one tribe to another tribe鈥 speaks of the transfer of the inheritance by means of the husband. The Gemara asks: From where is this inferred? The Gemara supplies a mnemonic. Rabba bar Rav Sheila said that the latter part of the verse states: 鈥淪o shall no inheritance transfer from one tribe to another tribe; for the tribes of the children of Israel shall cleave each one [ish] to its own inheritance,鈥 alluding to the transfer by means of the husband, as the word 鈥ish鈥 means husband, in the context of: 鈥淓limelech the husband [ish] of Naomi鈥 (Ruth 1:3). The Gemara asks: But the word ish鈥 is written in both of the verses. Therefore, both verses should be interpreted with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the husband.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 拽专讗 讬讚讘拽讜 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讬讚讘拽讜 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜

Rather, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said a different explanation. The verse states: 鈥淪hall cleave,鈥 and this term alludes to marriage, as in the context of: 鈥淎nd he shall cleave to his wife鈥 (Genesis 2:24). The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the term 鈥渟hall cleave鈥 is written in both of the verses. Therefore, both verses should be interpreted with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the husband.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讬讚讘拽讜 诪讟讜转 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 讗讞专 讜讘谉 诇讗讜 讗讞专 讛讜讗

Rather, Rava said a different explanation: The verse states: 鈥淭he tribes of the children of Israel shall cleave,鈥 and tribes cleave to one another through marriage. Rav Ashi said another explanation: The verse states: 鈥淔rom one tribe to another tribe,鈥 and a son is not considered 鈥渁nother,鈥 as he is an extension of his mother.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讜诪讟讜 讘讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 诪谞讬谉 诇讘注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 讘专讗讜讬 讻讘诪讜讞讝拽 砖谞讗诪专 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 讜砖诇讜砖 注专讬诐 讘讗专抓 讛讙诇注讚 诪谞讬谉 诇讬讗讬专 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇砖讙讜讘 讗诇讗 诪诇诪讚 砖谞砖讗 砖讙讜讘 讗砖讛 讜诪转讛 讘讞讬讬 诪讜专讬砖讬讛 讜诪转讜 诪讜专讬砖讬讛 讜讬专砖讛 讬讗讬专

Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says that Rabbi Yannai says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says, and some determined it was in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣: From where is it derived that a husband who inherits from his wife does not take in inheritance the property due to the deceased as he does the property she possessed? Instead of the husband inheriting the property that was due to her, that property is inherited by her other relatives, such as her son, or other relatives of her father. As it is stated: 鈥淎nd Seguv begot Yair, who had twenty three cities in the land of Gilead鈥 (I聽Chronicles 2:22). The Gemara asks: From where did Yair have land that his father, Seguv, did not have? Rather, this teaches that Seguv married a woman and she died in the lifetime of her potential legators, and her legators then died, and Yair, her son, not Seguv, her husband, inherited these inheritances from her.

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 讜讙讜壮 诪谞讬谉 诇驻谞讞住 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇讗诇注讝专 诪诇诪讚 砖谞砖讗 讗诇注讝专 讗砖讛 讜诪转讛 讘讞讬讬 诪讜专讬砖讬讛 讜诪转讜 诪讜专讬砖讬讛 讜讬专砖讛 驻谞讞住

And it is stated: 鈥淎nd Elazar, the son of Aaron, died; and they buried him in the Hill of Pinehas his son鈥 (Joshua 24:33). From where did Pinehas have land that his father, Elazar, did not have? Rather, this teaches that Elazar married a woman and she died in the lifetime of her potential legators, and her legators then died, and Pinehas her son, not Elazar her husband, inherited the property from her.

讜诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讬讗讬专 讚讛讜讛 谞住讬讘 讗讬转转讗 讜诪转讛 讜讬专转讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讗讛专谉 诪转 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚谞驻诇讛 诇讬讛 讘砖讚讛 讞专诪讬诐 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘谞讜 谞讞诇讛 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇讜 讜讬专砖讛 讘谞讜

And what is the meaning of: And it is stated? Why is it necessary to provide an additional proof beyond the first verse? The Gemara explains. And if you would say: In the verse concerning Seguv and Yair, it is Yair, not Seguv, who married a woman and she died and he inherited from her, and he did not inherit from his mother, the verse states: 鈥淎nd Elazar, the son of Aaron, died; and they buried him in the Hill of Pinehas his son鈥 (Joshua 24:33), teaching that Pinehas inherited the land of those from whom his mother inherited, and Elazar did not. And if you would say that this land came into the possession of Pinehas as a dedicated field, as he was a priest, and he did not inherit it from his mother, the verse states: 鈥淗is son,鈥 indicating that it was an inheritance that was fitting for him, i.e., Elazar, had his wife not predeceased her legators, and his son inherited it.

讜讘谞讬 讗讞讜转 转谞讗 讘谞讬 讗讞讜转 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转 讗讞讜转

搂 The mishna teaches: And sons of sisters, i.e., nephews born to the sisters of the deceased, inherit from their maternal uncles but do not bequeath to them. It is taught in a baraita: This halakha applies to sons of sisters but not to daughters of sisters.

诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇拽讚诐

With regard to what halakha was this said? It is obvious that in principle daughters have the right to inherit from their maternal uncle, as the mother inherits from him. Rav Sheshet said: It is said to teach that where there are sons as well, they precede the daughters in inheriting from their maternal uncle.

转谞讬 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讬专砖 诪拽讬砖 讬专讜砖讛 砖谞讬讛 诇讬专讜砖讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诪讛 讬专讜砖讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讘谉 拽讜讚诐 诇讘转 讗祝 讬专讜砖讛 砖谞讬讛 讘谉 拽讜讚诐 诇讘转

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k taught a baraita before Rav Huna: At the end of the passage discussing inheritance of land, the verse states: 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). The verse juxtaposes a secondary inheritance, that of one inheriting from other relatives, to a primary inheritance, that of a child inheriting from a parent. This teaches that just as with regard to a primary inheritance a son precedes a daughter, so too, with regard to a secondary inheritance a son precedes a daughter.

转谞讬 专讘讛 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讛讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讛谞讞讬诇讜 讗转 讘谞讬讜 讘讬讜诐 讗转讛 诪驻讬诇 谞讞诇讜转 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪驻讬诇 谞讞诇讜转 讘诇讬诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讚砖讻讬讘 讘讬诪诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讬专转讬 诇讬讛 讘谞讬讛 诪讗谉 讚砖讻讬讘 讘诇讬诇讬讗 诇讗 讬专转讬 诇讬讛 讘谞讬讛

Rabba bar 岣nina taught a baraita before Rav Na岣an: A verse in the passage concerning the double portion inherited by a firstborn states: 鈥淭hen it shall be on the day that he causes his sons to inherit that which he has鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:16). The addition of the phrase 鈥渙n the day鈥 teaches that it is specifically during the day that you may distribute inheritances, but you may not distribute inheritances at night. Abaye said to him: That cannot be the halakha, as, if that is so, it ought to be that only one who dies during the day is the one from whom his children inherit, but with regard to one who dies at night, his children do not inherit from him, and this is not the case.

讚诇诪讗 讚讬谉 谞讞诇讜转 拽讗 讗诪专转 讚转谞讬讗 讜讛讬转讛 诇讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讞拽转 诪砖驻讟 讗讜专注讛 讻诇 讛驻专砖讛 讻讜诇讛 诇讛讬讜转 讚讬谉

Abaye suggests a different interpretation of Rabba bar 岣nina鈥檚 statement: Perhaps you said a distinction between day and night with regard to the adjudication of inheritances, as judges are permitted to sit only during the day. A proof for this distinction is as it is taught in a baraita: A verse in the passage concerning inheritance states: 鈥淎nd it shall be for the children of Israel a statute of judgment鈥 (Numbers 27:11), teaching that the entire portion was placed [ure鈥檃] together to be considered a matter of judgment, subject to the procedural rules of a court matter.

讜讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖诇砖讛 砖谞讻谞住讜 诇讘拽专 讗转 讛讞讜诇讛 专爪讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 专爪讜 注讜砖讬谉 讚讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讚讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐

Abaye continues: And this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda says: In a case where there were three men who entered a room to visit a sick person and the sick person desired to write a will in order to distribute his property following his death, if the visitors wish to do so they may write his will and sign it as witnesses. And if they wish, they may act in judgment, i.e., they may act as a court in the matter, since there are three of them. Therefore, they can determine that the will has the validity of an act of court and transfer the property to the heirs in their capacity as a court. But if only two came to visit the sick person, they may write the will and sign it as witnesses, but they may not act in judgment, since three are required to form a court. And Rav 岣sda says: This halakha was taught only in a case where the three came to visit him during the day,

Scroll To Top