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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 17, 2017 | 讻状讗 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Batra 115

Study Guide Bava Batra 115. In the wake of the discussion between Rabbi Yochanan聽and Rabbi Yehuda, the gemara聽finds a contradiction聽of sorts in the mishna聽and resolves it. 聽The mishna discusses the order of inheritance – if one is not alive, it first goes to their descendants before it continues to the next level. 聽There was a big debate between the Tzedukim and the Rabbis about a case where there are 2 siblings – a son and daughter but the son is no longer alive and his daughter precedes his sister for their father’s inheritance. 聽The Tzedukim say that the sister and the granddaughter split it 50/50. 聽Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai debates them and wins and sets the law according to traditional halacha.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗砖讛 讗转 讘谞讛 讜讛讗砖讛 讗转 讘注诇讛 讜讗讞讬 讛讗诐 诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 讜诇讗 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖谞转谞讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讬 砖谞讗讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Shimon from the mishna, which teaches: A woman with regard to her son, a woman with regard to her husband, and maternal uncles all bequeath to their respective relatives but do not inherit from them. The mishna states explicitly that a mother does not inherit her son鈥檚 property. Rabbi Yehuda ben Shimon said to him: With regard to our mishna, I do not know who taught it, i.e., I am not aware of any tanna who concurs with its ruling and it is not the accepted halakha.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘 讛讬讗 讚诇讗 讚专讬砖 诪讟讜转

The Gemara asks: But let Rabbi Yo岣nan say to Rabbi Yehuda ben Shimon that the mishna is written in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav, who, as noted on page 111a, does not derive the halakha that sons precede daughters with regard to the inheritance of their mother from the word 鈥渢ribes.鈥 Since Rabbi Yehuda ben Shimon鈥檚 ruling is based on a derivation from the word 鈥渢ribes,鈥 it stands to reason that Rabbi Zekharya disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda ben Shimon, and the ruling of the mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Zekharya鈥檚 opinion.

诇讗 诪讬转讜拽诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘 讚拽转谞讬 讜讘谞讬 讗讞讜转 讜转谞讗 讘谞讬 讗讞讜转 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转 讗讞讜转 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讜讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇拽讚诐

The Gemara answers: The mishna cannot be interpreted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav, as it teaches: And the sons of a sister inherit but do not bequeath, and a Sage taught that the mishna is referring only to sons of a sister and not to daughters of a sister, and we say: With regard to what halakha is there a distinction between the sons and daughters of a sister? And Rav Sheshet said: The distinction is meant to teach that where there are sons as well, they precede the daughters in inheriting from their maternal uncle.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘 讛讬讗 讛讗 讗诪专 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

The Gemara continues: And if it enters your mind that the mishna is written in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav, doesn鈥檛 he say: Both the son and the daughter are equal with regard to the mother鈥檚 property, as they inherit equally? The mishna stands in contraposition to Rabbi Zekharya鈥檚 ruling, and therefore it cannot be written in accordance with his opinion.

讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讚专讬砖 诪讟讜转 讗砖讛 谞诪讬 转讬专砖 讗转 讘谞讛 讗讬 诇讗 讚专讬砖 诪讟讜转 讘谉 讚拽讜讚诐 诇讘转 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And the tanna of our mishna, whichever way you look at it, is inconsistent: If he interprets the word 鈥渢ribes,鈥 then a woman also should inherit from her son, as noted above (114b). And if he does not interpret the word 鈥渢ribes,鈥 then from where is it clear to him that a son precedes a daughter with regard to the property of the mother? Both halakhot are derived from the same source, so how can the tanna accept one and reject the other?

诇注讜诇诐 讚专讬砖 诪讟讜转 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻诇 讘转 讬专砖转 谞讞诇讛 讬讜专砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讜专砖转

The Gemara explains: Actually, the tanna of the mishna inter-prets the word 鈥渢ribes,鈥 but it is different here, with regard to a woman inheriting from her son, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd every daughter who possesses [yoreshet] an inheritance from the tribes鈥 (Numbers 36:8), which teaches that a daughter inherits [yoreshet] from two tribes, but she does not bequeath to two tribes. She bequeaths only to her father鈥檚 tribe.

诪转谞讬壮 住讚专 谞讞诇讜转 讻讱 讛讜讗 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬诪讜转 讜讘谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 讜讛注讘专转诐 讗转 谞讞诇转讜 诇讘转讜 讘谉 拽讜讚诐 诇讘转 讻诇 讬讜爪讗讬 讬专讬讻讜 砖诇 讘谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讘转 讘转 拽讜讚诪转 诇讗讞讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬 讬专讬讻讛 砖诇 讘转 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讗讞讬谉 讗讞讬谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讗讞讬 讛讗讘 讬讜爪讗讬 讬专讬讻谉 砖诇 讗讞讬谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讗讞讬 讛讗讘

MISHNA: The order of precedence with regard to inheritances is this: The verse states: 鈥淚f a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter鈥 (Numbers 27:8). This teaches that a son precedes a daughter. Additionally, all descendants of a son precede a daughter. A daughter precedes the brothers of the deceased. Additionally, the descendants of a daughter precede the brothers of the deceased. Brothers of the deceased precede the uncles of the deceased. Additionally, the descendants of the brothers precede the uncles.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讘谞讞诇讛 讬讜爪讗讬 讬专讬讻讜 拽讜讚诪讬谉 讜讛讗讘 拽讜讚诐 诇讻诇 讬讜爪讗讬 讬专讬讻讜

This is the principle: Concerning anyone who precedes another with regard to inheritance, his descendants precede the other as well, and a father who inherits precedes all of his descendants.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘谉 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘谉 讘谉 讛讘谉 讗讜 讘转 讛讘谉 讗讜 讘谉 讘转 讛讘谉 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 注讬讬谉 注诇讬讜

GEMARA: The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淚f a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter鈥 (Numbers 27:8). I have derived only that a son precedes others with regard to the inheritance of the deceased; from where do I derive that a son of a son, or a daughter of a son, or a son of a daughter of a son also precedes the deceased鈥檚 other relatives? The verse states: 鈥淚f a man dies, and he has no [ein lo] son.鈥 The word ein is written aleph, yod, nun. Therefore, the Sages read it as if it states: Investigate with regard to him [ayyein alav], to search for descendants of his son, and give the inheritance to them if they are found.

讘转 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘转 讘转 讛讘转 讜讘谉 讛讘转 讜讘转 讘谉 讛讘转 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 注讬讬谉 注诇讬讜

The next verse states: 鈥淎nd if he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers鈥 (Numbers 27:9). I have derived only that a daughter precedes others, except a son and his descendants, with regard to the inheritance of the deceased, from where then do I derive that a daughter鈥檚 daughter, or a son of a daughter, or a daughter of a son of a daughter also precede the deceased鈥檚 other relatives? The verse states: 鈥淎nd if he has no [ein lo] daughter.鈥 The word ein is written aleph, yod, nun. Therefore, the Sages read it as if it states: Investigate with regard to him [ayyein alav], to search for descendants of his daughter, and give the inheritance to them if they are found.

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 谞讞诇讛 诪诪砖诪砖转 讜讛讜诇讻转 注讚 专讗讜讘谉 讜诇讬诪讗 注讚 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讙诪讬专讬 讚诇讗 讻诇讛 砖讘讟讗

The Gemara asks: How so, i.e., how is the investigation performed when he has no offspring at all? The Gemara answers: The family lineage that determines the inheritance is successively examined up to Reuben, son of Jacob, i.e., the heirs are determined by investigating the family genealogy, and that investigation can extend all the way to Reuben, son of our forefather Jacob. The Gemara asks: And let it say: Until Jacob himself, rather than until Reuben, since if none of Reuven鈥檚 descendants survive, one would have to examine Jacob鈥檚 descendants. Abaye said in reply: It is learned as a tradition that a tribe will not be eliminated entirely, and some descendants will always remain.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 转讬专砖 讘转 注诐 讘转 讛讘谉 讗驻讬诇讜 谞砖讬讗 砖讘讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 砖讗讬谞谉 讗诇讗 诪注砖讛 爪讚讜拽讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 讘讗专讘注讛 讜注砖专讬诐 讘讟讘转 转讘谞讗 诇讚讬谞谞讗 砖讛讬讜 爪讚讜拽讬谉 讗讜诪专讬谉 转讬专砖 讛讘转 注诐 讘转 讛讘谉

Rav Huna says that Rav says: With regard to anyone who says that a daughter of the deceased should inherit the estate of her father along with the daughter of the son of the deceased, even if he is a prince of the Jewish people, one should not listen to him, as this is nothing other than an act of the Sadducees, and runs counter to the ruling of the mishna that the descendants of a son inherit before a daughter. As it is taught in a baraita in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit, which describes various minor holidays on which it is forbidden to fast or eulogize: On the twenty-fourth of Tevet, we returned to our law, i.e., the halakha was reestablished in accordance with the opinion of the Sages after having been dictated by the Sadducees. As the Sadducees would say: A daughter should inherit the estate of her father along with the daughter of the son of the deceased.

谞讟驻诇 诇讛谉 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛诐 砖讜讟讬诐 诪谞讬谉 讝讛 诇讻诐 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讗讚诐 砖讛讞讝讬专讜 讚讘专 讞讜抓 诪讝拽谉 讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 诪驻讟驻讟 讻谞讙讚讜 讜讗讜诪专 讜诪讛 讘转 讘谞讜 讛讘讗讛 诪讻讞 讘谞讜 转讬专砖谞讜 讘转讜 讛讘讗讛 诪讻讞讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The baraita continues: Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai joined them to discuss their ruling, and said to them: Imbeciles, from where do you derive this ruling? And there was no person that answered him anything, except for one old man who was chattering at him and saying that it is an a fortiori inference: And just as a daughter of the deceased鈥檚 son, who comes to claim her inheritance from her grandfather by virtue of his son, inherits her grandfather鈥檚 property, so too, with regard to the deceased鈥檚 own daughter, who comes to inherit by virtue of the deceased, all the more so is it not clear that she should inherit his property?

拽专讗 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛诪拽专讗 讛讝讛 讗诇讛 讘谞讬 砖注讬专 讛讞专讬 讬砖讘讬 讛讗专抓 诇讜讟谉 讜砖讜讘诇 讜爪讘注讜谉 讜注谞讛 讜讻转讬讘 讗诇讛 讘谞讬 爪讘注讜谉 讜讗讬讛 讜注谞讛 讗诇讗 诪诇诪讚 砖讘讗 爪讘注讜谉 注诇 讗诪讜 讜讛讜诇讬讚 注谞讛

Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai recited this verse about him: 鈥淭hese are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land: Lotan and Shobal and Zibeon and Anah鈥 (Genesis 36:20), and it is written: 鈥淎nd these are the children of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah鈥 (Genesis 36:24). The first verse portrays Zibeon and Anah as brothers, while the second states that they are father and son. Rather, this teaches that Zibeon engaged in sexual intercourse with his mother and begot Anah, so that he was both Anah鈥檚 father and his brother. From the fact that the first verse equates Zibeon and Anah by referring to both of them as Seir鈥檚 sons despite Anah being a grandson of Seir, it is clear that grandchildren are equal to children, contrary to the Sadducees鈥 assertion.

讜讚诇诪讗 转专讬 注谞讛 讛讜讜 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪诇转讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专讛 砖讘讜专 诪诇讻讗 讜诪谞讜 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诪诇转讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专讛 砖讘讜专 诪诇讻讗 讜诪谞讜 专讘讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讜讗 注谞讛 讛讜讗 注谞讛 讚诪注讬拽专讗

The Gemara interrupts the recounting of the baraita and questions Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai鈥檚 inference: But perhaps there were two people named Anah, so that one Anah was Zibeon鈥檚 son, and the other his brother? Rabba said: I will state a matter that even King Shapur did not state. And who is this King Shapur? This cannot be a reference to Shapur, king of Persia; rather, it must be a moniker for someone else. He is Shmuel, whose legal rulings were accepted by the public like the edicts of a king by his subjects. Some state a different version, that it was Rav Pappa who said: I will state a matter that even King Shapur did not state. And who is this King Shapur? He is Rabba. The verse goes on to state: 鈥淭his is Anah鈥 (Genesis 36:24), indicating that he is the same Anah mentioned initially, earlier in the verse. Accordingly, there was only one Anah, who was both Zibeon鈥檚 brother and Zibeon鈥檚 son.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讘讻讱 讗转讛 驻讜讟专谞讬 讗诪专 诇讜 砖讜讟讛

The baraita continues: The Sadducee said to Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai: My teacher, you dismiss me with this retort? I agree that the son of a son precedes a daughter, as the verse you quoted suggests; I am asserting that a daughter inherits together with the daughter of a son, and the verse you quoted has no bearing on that claim. Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai said to him: Imbecile,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 115

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 115

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗砖讛 讗转 讘谞讛 讜讛讗砖讛 讗转 讘注诇讛 讜讗讞讬 讛讗诐 诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 讜诇讗 谞讜讞诇讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖谞转谞讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讬 砖谞讗讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Shimon from the mishna, which teaches: A woman with regard to her son, a woman with regard to her husband, and maternal uncles all bequeath to their respective relatives but do not inherit from them. The mishna states explicitly that a mother does not inherit her son鈥檚 property. Rabbi Yehuda ben Shimon said to him: With regard to our mishna, I do not know who taught it, i.e., I am not aware of any tanna who concurs with its ruling and it is not the accepted halakha.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘 讛讬讗 讚诇讗 讚专讬砖 诪讟讜转

The Gemara asks: But let Rabbi Yo岣nan say to Rabbi Yehuda ben Shimon that the mishna is written in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav, who, as noted on page 111a, does not derive the halakha that sons precede daughters with regard to the inheritance of their mother from the word 鈥渢ribes.鈥 Since Rabbi Yehuda ben Shimon鈥檚 ruling is based on a derivation from the word 鈥渢ribes,鈥 it stands to reason that Rabbi Zekharya disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda ben Shimon, and the ruling of the mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Zekharya鈥檚 opinion.

诇讗 诪讬转讜拽诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘 讚拽转谞讬 讜讘谞讬 讗讞讜转 讜转谞讗 讘谞讬 讗讞讜转 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转 讗讞讜转 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讜讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇拽讚诐

The Gemara answers: The mishna cannot be interpreted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav, as it teaches: And the sons of a sister inherit but do not bequeath, and a Sage taught that the mishna is referring only to sons of a sister and not to daughters of a sister, and we say: With regard to what halakha is there a distinction between the sons and daughters of a sister? And Rav Sheshet said: The distinction is meant to teach that where there are sons as well, they precede the daughters in inheriting from their maternal uncle.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘 讛讬讗 讛讗 讗诪专 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

The Gemara continues: And if it enters your mind that the mishna is written in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav, doesn鈥檛 he say: Both the son and the daughter are equal with regard to the mother鈥檚 property, as they inherit equally? The mishna stands in contraposition to Rabbi Zekharya鈥檚 ruling, and therefore it cannot be written in accordance with his opinion.

讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讚专讬砖 诪讟讜转 讗砖讛 谞诪讬 转讬专砖 讗转 讘谞讛 讗讬 诇讗 讚专讬砖 诪讟讜转 讘谉 讚拽讜讚诐 诇讘转 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And the tanna of our mishna, whichever way you look at it, is inconsistent: If he interprets the word 鈥渢ribes,鈥 then a woman also should inherit from her son, as noted above (114b). And if he does not interpret the word 鈥渢ribes,鈥 then from where is it clear to him that a son precedes a daughter with regard to the property of the mother? Both halakhot are derived from the same source, so how can the tanna accept one and reject the other?

诇注讜诇诐 讚专讬砖 诪讟讜转 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻诇 讘转 讬专砖转 谞讞诇讛 讬讜专砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讜专砖转

The Gemara explains: Actually, the tanna of the mishna inter-prets the word 鈥渢ribes,鈥 but it is different here, with regard to a woman inheriting from her son, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd every daughter who possesses [yoreshet] an inheritance from the tribes鈥 (Numbers 36:8), which teaches that a daughter inherits [yoreshet] from two tribes, but she does not bequeath to two tribes. She bequeaths only to her father鈥檚 tribe.

诪转谞讬壮 住讚专 谞讞诇讜转 讻讱 讛讜讗 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬诪讜转 讜讘谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 讜讛注讘专转诐 讗转 谞讞诇转讜 诇讘转讜 讘谉 拽讜讚诐 诇讘转 讻诇 讬讜爪讗讬 讬专讬讻讜 砖诇 讘谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讘转 讘转 拽讜讚诪转 诇讗讞讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬 讬专讬讻讛 砖诇 讘转 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讗讞讬谉 讗讞讬谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讗讞讬 讛讗讘 讬讜爪讗讬 讬专讬讻谉 砖诇 讗讞讬谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讗讞讬 讛讗讘

MISHNA: The order of precedence with regard to inheritances is this: The verse states: 鈥淚f a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter鈥 (Numbers 27:8). This teaches that a son precedes a daughter. Additionally, all descendants of a son precede a daughter. A daughter precedes the brothers of the deceased. Additionally, the descendants of a daughter precede the brothers of the deceased. Brothers of the deceased precede the uncles of the deceased. Additionally, the descendants of the brothers precede the uncles.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讘谞讞诇讛 讬讜爪讗讬 讬专讬讻讜 拽讜讚诪讬谉 讜讛讗讘 拽讜讚诐 诇讻诇 讬讜爪讗讬 讬专讬讻讜

This is the principle: Concerning anyone who precedes another with regard to inheritance, his descendants precede the other as well, and a father who inherits precedes all of his descendants.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘谉 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘谉 讘谉 讛讘谉 讗讜 讘转 讛讘谉 讗讜 讘谉 讘转 讛讘谉 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 注讬讬谉 注诇讬讜

GEMARA: The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淚f a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter鈥 (Numbers 27:8). I have derived only that a son precedes others with regard to the inheritance of the deceased; from where do I derive that a son of a son, or a daughter of a son, or a son of a daughter of a son also precedes the deceased鈥檚 other relatives? The verse states: 鈥淚f a man dies, and he has no [ein lo] son.鈥 The word ein is written aleph, yod, nun. Therefore, the Sages read it as if it states: Investigate with regard to him [ayyein alav], to search for descendants of his son, and give the inheritance to them if they are found.

讘转 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘转 讘转 讛讘转 讜讘谉 讛讘转 讜讘转 讘谉 讛讘转 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 注讬讬谉 注诇讬讜

The next verse states: 鈥淎nd if he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers鈥 (Numbers 27:9). I have derived only that a daughter precedes others, except a son and his descendants, with regard to the inheritance of the deceased, from where then do I derive that a daughter鈥檚 daughter, or a son of a daughter, or a daughter of a son of a daughter also precede the deceased鈥檚 other relatives? The verse states: 鈥淎nd if he has no [ein lo] daughter.鈥 The word ein is written aleph, yod, nun. Therefore, the Sages read it as if it states: Investigate with regard to him [ayyein alav], to search for descendants of his daughter, and give the inheritance to them if they are found.

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 谞讞诇讛 诪诪砖诪砖转 讜讛讜诇讻转 注讚 专讗讜讘谉 讜诇讬诪讗 注讚 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讙诪讬专讬 讚诇讗 讻诇讛 砖讘讟讗

The Gemara asks: How so, i.e., how is the investigation performed when he has no offspring at all? The Gemara answers: The family lineage that determines the inheritance is successively examined up to Reuben, son of Jacob, i.e., the heirs are determined by investigating the family genealogy, and that investigation can extend all the way to Reuben, son of our forefather Jacob. The Gemara asks: And let it say: Until Jacob himself, rather than until Reuben, since if none of Reuven鈥檚 descendants survive, one would have to examine Jacob鈥檚 descendants. Abaye said in reply: It is learned as a tradition that a tribe will not be eliminated entirely, and some descendants will always remain.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 转讬专砖 讘转 注诐 讘转 讛讘谉 讗驻讬诇讜 谞砖讬讗 砖讘讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 砖讗讬谞谉 讗诇讗 诪注砖讛 爪讚讜拽讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 讘讗专讘注讛 讜注砖专讬诐 讘讟讘转 转讘谞讗 诇讚讬谞谞讗 砖讛讬讜 爪讚讜拽讬谉 讗讜诪专讬谉 转讬专砖 讛讘转 注诐 讘转 讛讘谉

Rav Huna says that Rav says: With regard to anyone who says that a daughter of the deceased should inherit the estate of her father along with the daughter of the son of the deceased, even if he is a prince of the Jewish people, one should not listen to him, as this is nothing other than an act of the Sadducees, and runs counter to the ruling of the mishna that the descendants of a son inherit before a daughter. As it is taught in a baraita in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit, which describes various minor holidays on which it is forbidden to fast or eulogize: On the twenty-fourth of Tevet, we returned to our law, i.e., the halakha was reestablished in accordance with the opinion of the Sages after having been dictated by the Sadducees. As the Sadducees would say: A daughter should inherit the estate of her father along with the daughter of the son of the deceased.

谞讟驻诇 诇讛谉 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛诐 砖讜讟讬诐 诪谞讬谉 讝讛 诇讻诐 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讗讚诐 砖讛讞讝讬专讜 讚讘专 讞讜抓 诪讝拽谉 讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 诪驻讟驻讟 讻谞讙讚讜 讜讗讜诪专 讜诪讛 讘转 讘谞讜 讛讘讗讛 诪讻讞 讘谞讜 转讬专砖谞讜 讘转讜 讛讘讗讛 诪讻讞讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The baraita continues: Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai joined them to discuss their ruling, and said to them: Imbeciles, from where do you derive this ruling? And there was no person that answered him anything, except for one old man who was chattering at him and saying that it is an a fortiori inference: And just as a daughter of the deceased鈥檚 son, who comes to claim her inheritance from her grandfather by virtue of his son, inherits her grandfather鈥檚 property, so too, with regard to the deceased鈥檚 own daughter, who comes to inherit by virtue of the deceased, all the more so is it not clear that she should inherit his property?

拽专讗 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛诪拽专讗 讛讝讛 讗诇讛 讘谞讬 砖注讬专 讛讞专讬 讬砖讘讬 讛讗专抓 诇讜讟谉 讜砖讜讘诇 讜爪讘注讜谉 讜注谞讛 讜讻转讬讘 讗诇讛 讘谞讬 爪讘注讜谉 讜讗讬讛 讜注谞讛 讗诇讗 诪诇诪讚 砖讘讗 爪讘注讜谉 注诇 讗诪讜 讜讛讜诇讬讚 注谞讛

Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai recited this verse about him: 鈥淭hese are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land: Lotan and Shobal and Zibeon and Anah鈥 (Genesis 36:20), and it is written: 鈥淎nd these are the children of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah鈥 (Genesis 36:24). The first verse portrays Zibeon and Anah as brothers, while the second states that they are father and son. Rather, this teaches that Zibeon engaged in sexual intercourse with his mother and begot Anah, so that he was both Anah鈥檚 father and his brother. From the fact that the first verse equates Zibeon and Anah by referring to both of them as Seir鈥檚 sons despite Anah being a grandson of Seir, it is clear that grandchildren are equal to children, contrary to the Sadducees鈥 assertion.

讜讚诇诪讗 转专讬 注谞讛 讛讜讜 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪诇转讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专讛 砖讘讜专 诪诇讻讗 讜诪谞讜 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诪诇转讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专讛 砖讘讜专 诪诇讻讗 讜诪谞讜 专讘讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讜讗 注谞讛 讛讜讗 注谞讛 讚诪注讬拽专讗

The Gemara interrupts the recounting of the baraita and questions Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai鈥檚 inference: But perhaps there were two people named Anah, so that one Anah was Zibeon鈥檚 son, and the other his brother? Rabba said: I will state a matter that even King Shapur did not state. And who is this King Shapur? This cannot be a reference to Shapur, king of Persia; rather, it must be a moniker for someone else. He is Shmuel, whose legal rulings were accepted by the public like the edicts of a king by his subjects. Some state a different version, that it was Rav Pappa who said: I will state a matter that even King Shapur did not state. And who is this King Shapur? He is Rabba. The verse goes on to state: 鈥淭his is Anah鈥 (Genesis 36:24), indicating that he is the same Anah mentioned initially, earlier in the verse. Accordingly, there was only one Anah, who was both Zibeon鈥檚 brother and Zibeon鈥檚 son.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讘讻讱 讗转讛 驻讜讟专谞讬 讗诪专 诇讜 砖讜讟讛

The baraita continues: The Sadducee said to Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai: My teacher, you dismiss me with this retort? I agree that the son of a son precedes a daughter, as the verse you quoted suggests; I am asserting that a daughter inherits together with the daughter of a son, and the verse you quoted has no bearing on that claim. Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai said to him: Imbecile,

Scroll To Top