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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 18, 2017 | 讻状讘 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 116

Rabbi Yochanan quotes an opinion of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai saying that one who doesn’t leave sons to inherit, will be the subject of God’s wrath. 聽This leads to a discussion in the gemara relating to what kind of legacy one must leave – a son? 聽A student? 聽A son who follows in the father’s ways? 聽Rami bar Hama has some questions regarding cases of inheritance when there are no sons, daughters or father? 聽His questions derive from the last line in the mishna 聽– “The father comes before all those who descend from him.” 聽 Who does the “him” refer to? 聽There is a tannaitic聽debate regarding how the land was diviided up when they reached Israel – based on those who left Egypt (over age 20) who were no longer alive when they entered the land or based on those who came to Israel? 聽Or based on both?


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

讜诇讗 转讛讗 转讜专讛 砖诇诪讛 砖诇谞讜 讻砖讬讞讛 讘讟诇讛 砖诇讻诐 诪讛 诇讘转 讘谞讜 砖讻谉 讬驻讛 讻讞讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讛讗讞讬谉 转讗诪专 讘讘转讜 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讬谉 讜谞爪讞讜诐 讜讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 注砖讗讜讛讜 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

but will our perfect Torah not be as worthy as your frivolous speech, as your inference is fallacious: What is notable about the inheritance of a daughter of the deceased鈥檚 son? It is notable in that her right is enhanced in that she inherits from her paternal grandfather together with the brothers of her father. Would you say that the same applies with regard to the deceased鈥檚 daughter, whose right to inherit is diminished in that she does not inherit from her father together with her brothers? The Sadducee鈥檚 a fortiori inference is thereby disproved. The Gemara concludes: And since the Sadducees had no counterargument, the Sages were victorious over them, and they established that day, the twenty-fourth of Tevet, as a minor festival to celebrate the establishment of the halakha in accordance with the opinion of the Sages.

讜讬讗诪专讜 讬专砖转 驻诇讟讛 诇讘谞讬诪谉 讜诇讗 讬诪讞讛 砖讘讟 诪讬砖专讗诇

Having discussed the halakha of a son鈥檚 daughter鈥檚 right to inheritance, the Gemara cites a verse that relates to the matter. After the incident known as: The concubine in Gibeah, the men of the tribe of Benjamin numbered only six hundred, and each of these men had inherited large plots of land from their deceased relatives. The verse states: 鈥淎nd they said: They that are escaped must be as an inheritance for Benjamin, that a tribe be not blotted out from Israel鈥 (Judges 21:17).

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讗诪讬 诪诇诪讚 砖讛转谞讜 注诇 砖讘讟 讘谞讬诪讬谉 砖诇讗 转讬专砖 讘转 讛讘谉 注诐 讛讗讞讬谉

Rabbi Yitz岣k of the house of Rabbi Ami says: This teaches that the elders of that generation stipulated with regard to the tribe of Benjamin that a daughter of a son shall not inherit with the brothers of her father. Since the daughter of a son who inherits her grandfather鈥檚 property may later bequeath it to her husband, who may be from another tribe, the elders instituted this temporary ordinance in order to ensure that other tribes would not inherit large quantities of land belonging to the tribe of Benjamin, lest the tribe of Benjamin be left with little land of its own.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪谞讬讞 讘谉 诇讬讜专砖讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪诇讗 注诇讬讜 注讘专讛 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜讛注讘专转诐 讗转 谞讞诇转讜 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讬讜诐 注讘专讛 讛讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗

搂 The Gemara presents a related statement. Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: Concerning anyone who does not leave behind a son to inherit from him, the Holy One, Blessed be He, is filled with wrath [evra] toward him, as it is written here: 鈥淚f a man die, and he has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance [veha鈥檃vartem] to his daughter鈥 (Numbers 27:8), and it is written there: 鈥淭hat day is a day of wrath [evra]鈥 (Zephaniah 1:15). The words 鈥veha鈥檃vartem鈥 and 鈥evra鈥 share common root letters, whereby Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i interprets that God鈥檚 wrath may be the result of the inheritance passing to a daughter rather than a son.

讗砖专 讗讬谉 讞诇讬驻讜转 诇诪讜 讜诇讗 讬专讗讜 讗诇讛讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讞讚 讗诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪谞讬讞 讘谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪谞讬讞 转诇诪讬讚

The Gemara presents a related statement. Concerning the verse: 鈥淕od shall hear, and humble them, even He that is enthroned of old, Selah; those that have no exchange, and fear not God鈥 (Psalms 55:20), Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi each interpret the verse in a different manner. One says that this is a reference to anyone who does not leave behind a son to inherit from him, as he does not leave anyone to serve in exchange, i.e., as a replacement, for him; and one says that this is a reference to anyone who does not leave behind a student to serve in exchange for him.

转住转讬讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 转诇诪讬讚 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讬谉 讙专诪讬讛 讚注砖讬专讗讛 讘讬专 转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 转诇诪讬讚

The Gemara suggests: It may be concluded that it was Rabbi Yo岣nan who says that the verse is referring to one who does not leave behind a student, for Rabbi Yo岣nan, whose ten sons died in his lifetime, said to those he would console: This is the bone of my tenth son, to encourage them not to succumb to their sorrow. Since Rabbi Yo岣nan knew that he would not leave any sons to inherit his property, it is reasonable to assume that he interpreted the verse as meaning that God is full of wrath toward one who does not leave behind a student. The Gemara comments that it may be concluded that it was Rabbi Yo岣nan who says that the verse is referring to one who does not leave behind a student.

讜诪讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 转诇诪讬讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 讘谉

The Gemara notes: And from this, that Rabbi Yo岣nan is the one who says that the verse is referring to one who does not leave behind a student, it follows that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says the verse is referring to one who does not leave behind a son.

讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇讗 讗讝讬诇 诇讘讬 讟诪讬讗 讗诇讗 诇讘讬 诪讗谉 讚砖讻讬讘 讘诇讗 讘谞讬 讚讻转讬讘 讘讻讜 讘讻讛 诇讛诇讱 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇讛讜诇讱 讘诇讗 讘谉 讝讻专 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 转诇诪讬讚

The Gemara asks: But this cannot be, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would not go to a house of mourning [bei tamya] to console the bereaved so as not to interrupt his studies, except to the house of one who died without any sons, as it is written: 鈥淲eep not for the dead, neither bemoan him; but weep sore for him that goes away鈥 (Jeremiah 22:10), and Rabbi Yehuda says that Rav says that the verse is referring to one who departs from this world without leaving behind a male child. From the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would console specifically one who died without leaving a son, it is apparent that he does not hold that God is full of wrath toward such an individual. Rather, it must be that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is the Sage who says that the verse is referring to one who does not leave behind a student.

讜诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 转诇诪讬讚 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘谉

The Gemara notes: And from this that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is the one who says that the verse is referring to one who does not leave behind a student, it follows that Rabbi Yo岣nan says it is referring to one who does not leave behind a son.

拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讚专讘讬讛

The Gemara asks: This poses a difficulty from one statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan, that the verse is referring to one who does not leave behind a son, to another statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as he would say: This is the bone of my tenth son. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult: This statement, with regard to the bone of his son, is his, while that statement, with regard to the verse, is his teacher鈥檚.

(住讬诪谉 讛讚讚 注谞讬 讜讞讻诐)

搂 The Gemara continues with three homiletic interpretations by Rabbi Pine岣s ben 岣ma, and provides a mnemonic to facilitate the memorization of these expositions: Hadad, poverty, and sage.

讚专砖 专讘讬 驻谞讞住 讘谉 讞诪讗 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讚讚 砖诪注 讘诪爪专讬诐 讻讬 砖讻讘 讚讜讚 注诐 讗讘讜转讬讜 讜讻讬 诪转 讬讜讗讘 砖专 讛爪讘讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讘讚讜讚 谞讗诪专讛 讘讜 砖讻讬讘讛 讜讘讬讜讗讘 谞讗诪专讛 讘讜 诪讬转讛 讚讜讚 砖讛谞讬讞 讘谉 谞讗诪专讛 讘讜 砖讻讬讘讛 讬讜讗讘 砖诇讗 讛谞讬讞 讘谉 谞讗诪专讛 讘讜 诪讬转讛

The Gemara presents the first homiletic interpretation: Rabbi Pine岣s ben 岣ma interpreted a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淎nd when Hadad heard in Egypt that David slept with his fathers, and that Joab the captain of the host was dead鈥 (I聽Kings 11:21)? For what reason is it that in the case of King David, sleeping was stated with regard to his demise, and in the case of Joab, death was stated with regard to his demise? He answers: Concerning King David, who left a son behind, sleeping was stated with regard to his demise, as it was not a complete death, while concerning Joab, who did not leave a son behind, death was stated with regard to his demise, as he left no son to succeed him.

讜讬讜讗讘 诇讗 讛谞讬讞 讘谉 讜讛讻转讬讘 诪讘谞讬 讬讜讗讘 注讘讚讬讛 讘谉 讬讞讬讗诇 讗诇讗 讚讜讚 砖讛谞讬讞 讘谉 讻诪讜转讜 谞讗诪专讛 讘讜 砖讻讬讘讛 讬讜讗讘 砖诇讗 讛谞讬讞 讘谉 讻诪讜转讜 谞讗诪专讛 讘讜 诪讬转讛

The Gemara asks: And is it so that Joab did not leave a son behind; but isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淥f the sons of Joab: Obadiah, son of Jehiel鈥 (Ezra 8:9)? Rather, concerning King David, who left a son as great as himself, sleeping was stated with regard to his demise, but concerning Joab, who did not leave a son as great as himself, death was stated with regard to his demise.

讚专砖 专讘讬 驻谞讞住 讘谉 讞诪讗 拽砖讛 注谞讬讜转 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讬讜转专 诪讞诪砖讬诐 诪讻讜转 砖谞讗诪专 讞谞谞讬 讞谞谞讬 讗转诐 专注讬 讻讬 讬讚 讗诇讜讛 谞讙注讛 讘讬 讜拽讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讞讘专讬讛 讛砖诪专 讗诇 转驻谉 讗诇 讗讜谉 讻讬 注诇 讝讛 讘讞专转 诪注谞讬

The Gemara presents the second homiletic interpretation: Rabbi Pine岣s ben 岣ma interpreted a verse homiletically, and derived that poverty in a person鈥檚 household is more difficult than fifty plagues, as it is stated: 鈥淗ave pity upon me, have pity upon me, O you my friends; for the hand of God has touched me鈥 (Job 19:21), and his friends were saying to him: 鈥淭ake heed, regard not iniquity; for this have you chosen rather than poverty鈥 (Job 36:21). Job, who suffered many plagues, was told by his friends that his suffering was preferable to poverty.

讚专砖 专讘讬 驻谞讞住 讘专 讞诪讗 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 讞讜诇讛 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讬诇讱 讗爪诇 讞讻诐 讜讬讘拽砖 注诇讬讜 专讞诪讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讞诪转 诪诇讱 诪诇讗讻讬 诪讜转 讜讗讬砖 讞讻诐 讬讻驻专谞讛

The Gemara presents the third homiletic interpretation: Rabbi Pine岣s bar 岣ma interpreted a verse homiletically: Anyone who has a sick person in his home should go to a sage, and the sage will ask for mercy on the sick person鈥檚 behalf, as it is stated: 鈥淭he wrath of a king is as messengers of death; but a wise man will pacify it鈥 (Proverbs 16:14).

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 讬专讻讜 讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗讘讬 讛讗讘 讜讗讞讬 讛讗讘 讻讙讜谉 讗讘专讛诐 讜讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讻住讬 注砖讜 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 拽讜讚诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讛讗讘 拽讜讚诐 诇讻诇 讬讜爪讗讬 讬专讻讜 讜专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗

搂 The mishna teaches that this is the principle: Concerning anyone who precedes another with regard to inheritance, his descendants precede the other as well, and a father precedes all of his descendants. Rami bar 岣ma raises a dilemma: With regard to the claim of a father of the deceased鈥檚 father and the claim of the brother of the deceased鈥檚 father, such as the claims of Abraham and Ishmael to the property of Esau, who was Abraham鈥檚 grandson and Ishmael鈥檚 nephew, which of them precedes the other and inherits the property? Rava said: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: A father precedes all of his descendants, therefore, Abraham would inherit, as Ishmael was his descendant. The Gemara asks: And why did Rami bar 岣ma have a dilemma; was he not aware of the statement of the mishna?

讗讙讘 讞讜专驻讬讛 诇讗 注讬讬谉 讘讛

The Gemara answers: Due to his keen mind, he did not analyze the mishna carefully.

讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗讘讬 讛讗讘 讜讗讞讬讜 讻讙讜谉 讗讘专讛诐 讜讬注拽讘 讘谞讻住讬 注砖讜 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 拽讜讚诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讛讗讘 拽讜讚诐 诇讻诇 讬讜爪讗讬 讬专讬讻讜 讜专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讬讜爪讗讬 讬专讬讻讜 砖诇讜 讜诇讗 讬讜爪讗讬 讬专讬讻讜 砖诇 讘谞讜

Rami bar 岣ma raised a dilemma: With regard to the claim of a father of the deceased鈥檚 father and the claim of the deceased鈥檚 brother, such as the claims of Abraham and Jacob to the property of Esau, who was Abraham鈥檚 grandson and Jacob鈥檚 brother, which of them precedes the other and inherits the property? Rava said: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: A father precedes all of his descendants, therefore, Abraham would inherit, as Jacob was his descendant. The Gemara asks: And why did Rami bar 岣ma have a dilemma; presumably, he was aware of the statement of the mishna? The Gemara answers: Rami bar 岣ma understood that the mishna teaches that a father precedes only his own immediate descendants, but not the descendants of his son.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚拽转谞讬 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 讜讗讬诇讜 讗讬转讬讛 诇讬爪讞拽 讬爪讞拽 拽讜讚诐 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讬转讬讛 讬爪讞拽 讬注拽讘 拽讜讚诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara notes that so too, it is reasonable to understand the mishna in that manner, as it teaches: This is the principle: Anyone who precedes another with regard to inheritance, his descendants precede the other as well. And if Isaac were alive, Isaac would precede Abraham and inherit Esau鈥檚 property. Now, also, when Isaac is not alive, Jacob should precede Abraham, because of the principle that the descendants of one who precedes another with regard to inheritance also precede the other. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from this clause of the mishna that the brother of the deceased precedes the grandfather.

诪转谞讬壮 讘谞讜转 爪诇驻讞讚 谞讟诇讜 砖诇砖讛 讞诇拽讬诐 讘谞讞诇讛 讞诇拽 讗讘讬讛谉 砖讛讬讛 注诐 讬讜爪讗讬 诪爪专讬诐 讜讞诇拽讜 注诐 讗讞讬讜 讘谞讻住讬 讞驻专 讜砖讛讬讛 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 砖谞讬 讞诇拽讬诐

MISHNA: Zelophehad鈥檚 daughters took three portions of land in the inheritance of Eretz Yisrael: Their father鈥檚 portion that he received because he was among those who left Egypt; and his portion that he received with his brothers in the property of Hepher, their father; and an additional portion that he received from Hepher because he was a firstborn, and a firstborn takes two portions of inheritance from his father.

  • 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 116

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 116

讜诇讗 转讛讗 转讜专讛 砖诇诪讛 砖诇谞讜 讻砖讬讞讛 讘讟诇讛 砖诇讻诐 诪讛 诇讘转 讘谞讜 砖讻谉 讬驻讛 讻讞讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讛讗讞讬谉 转讗诪专 讘讘转讜 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讬谉 讜谞爪讞讜诐 讜讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 注砖讗讜讛讜 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

but will our perfect Torah not be as worthy as your frivolous speech, as your inference is fallacious: What is notable about the inheritance of a daughter of the deceased鈥檚 son? It is notable in that her right is enhanced in that she inherits from her paternal grandfather together with the brothers of her father. Would you say that the same applies with regard to the deceased鈥檚 daughter, whose right to inherit is diminished in that she does not inherit from her father together with her brothers? The Sadducee鈥檚 a fortiori inference is thereby disproved. The Gemara concludes: And since the Sadducees had no counterargument, the Sages were victorious over them, and they established that day, the twenty-fourth of Tevet, as a minor festival to celebrate the establishment of the halakha in accordance with the opinion of the Sages.

讜讬讗诪专讜 讬专砖转 驻诇讟讛 诇讘谞讬诪谉 讜诇讗 讬诪讞讛 砖讘讟 诪讬砖专讗诇

Having discussed the halakha of a son鈥檚 daughter鈥檚 right to inheritance, the Gemara cites a verse that relates to the matter. After the incident known as: The concubine in Gibeah, the men of the tribe of Benjamin numbered only six hundred, and each of these men had inherited large plots of land from their deceased relatives. The verse states: 鈥淎nd they said: They that are escaped must be as an inheritance for Benjamin, that a tribe be not blotted out from Israel鈥 (Judges 21:17).

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讗诪讬 诪诇诪讚 砖讛转谞讜 注诇 砖讘讟 讘谞讬诪讬谉 砖诇讗 转讬专砖 讘转 讛讘谉 注诐 讛讗讞讬谉

Rabbi Yitz岣k of the house of Rabbi Ami says: This teaches that the elders of that generation stipulated with regard to the tribe of Benjamin that a daughter of a son shall not inherit with the brothers of her father. Since the daughter of a son who inherits her grandfather鈥檚 property may later bequeath it to her husband, who may be from another tribe, the elders instituted this temporary ordinance in order to ensure that other tribes would not inherit large quantities of land belonging to the tribe of Benjamin, lest the tribe of Benjamin be left with little land of its own.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪谞讬讞 讘谉 诇讬讜专砖讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪诇讗 注诇讬讜 注讘专讛 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜讛注讘专转诐 讗转 谞讞诇转讜 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讬讜诐 注讘专讛 讛讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗

搂 The Gemara presents a related statement. Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: Concerning anyone who does not leave behind a son to inherit from him, the Holy One, Blessed be He, is filled with wrath [evra] toward him, as it is written here: 鈥淚f a man die, and he has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance [veha鈥檃vartem] to his daughter鈥 (Numbers 27:8), and it is written there: 鈥淭hat day is a day of wrath [evra]鈥 (Zephaniah 1:15). The words 鈥veha鈥檃vartem鈥 and 鈥evra鈥 share common root letters, whereby Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i interprets that God鈥檚 wrath may be the result of the inheritance passing to a daughter rather than a son.

讗砖专 讗讬谉 讞诇讬驻讜转 诇诪讜 讜诇讗 讬专讗讜 讗诇讛讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讞讚 讗诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪谞讬讞 讘谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪谞讬讞 转诇诪讬讚

The Gemara presents a related statement. Concerning the verse: 鈥淕od shall hear, and humble them, even He that is enthroned of old, Selah; those that have no exchange, and fear not God鈥 (Psalms 55:20), Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi each interpret the verse in a different manner. One says that this is a reference to anyone who does not leave behind a son to inherit from him, as he does not leave anyone to serve in exchange, i.e., as a replacement, for him; and one says that this is a reference to anyone who does not leave behind a student to serve in exchange for him.

转住转讬讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 转诇诪讬讚 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讬谉 讙专诪讬讛 讚注砖讬专讗讛 讘讬专 转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 转诇诪讬讚

The Gemara suggests: It may be concluded that it was Rabbi Yo岣nan who says that the verse is referring to one who does not leave behind a student, for Rabbi Yo岣nan, whose ten sons died in his lifetime, said to those he would console: This is the bone of my tenth son, to encourage them not to succumb to their sorrow. Since Rabbi Yo岣nan knew that he would not leave any sons to inherit his property, it is reasonable to assume that he interpreted the verse as meaning that God is full of wrath toward one who does not leave behind a student. The Gemara comments that it may be concluded that it was Rabbi Yo岣nan who says that the verse is referring to one who does not leave behind a student.

讜诪讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 转诇诪讬讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 讘谉

The Gemara notes: And from this, that Rabbi Yo岣nan is the one who says that the verse is referring to one who does not leave behind a student, it follows that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says the verse is referring to one who does not leave behind a son.

讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇讗 讗讝讬诇 诇讘讬 讟诪讬讗 讗诇讗 诇讘讬 诪讗谉 讚砖讻讬讘 讘诇讗 讘谞讬 讚讻转讬讘 讘讻讜 讘讻讛 诇讛诇讱 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诇讛讜诇讱 讘诇讗 讘谉 讝讻专 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 转诇诪讬讚

The Gemara asks: But this cannot be, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would not go to a house of mourning [bei tamya] to console the bereaved so as not to interrupt his studies, except to the house of one who died without any sons, as it is written: 鈥淲eep not for the dead, neither bemoan him; but weep sore for him that goes away鈥 (Jeremiah 22:10), and Rabbi Yehuda says that Rav says that the verse is referring to one who departs from this world without leaving behind a male child. From the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would console specifically one who died without leaving a son, it is apparent that he does not hold that God is full of wrath toward such an individual. Rather, it must be that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is the Sage who says that the verse is referring to one who does not leave behind a student.

讜诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 转诇诪讬讚 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘谉

The Gemara notes: And from this that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is the one who says that the verse is referring to one who does not leave behind a student, it follows that Rabbi Yo岣nan says it is referring to one who does not leave behind a son.

拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讚专讘讬讛

The Gemara asks: This poses a difficulty from one statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan, that the verse is referring to one who does not leave behind a son, to another statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as he would say: This is the bone of my tenth son. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult: This statement, with regard to the bone of his son, is his, while that statement, with regard to the verse, is his teacher鈥檚.

(住讬诪谉 讛讚讚 注谞讬 讜讞讻诐)

搂 The Gemara continues with three homiletic interpretations by Rabbi Pine岣s ben 岣ma, and provides a mnemonic to facilitate the memorization of these expositions: Hadad, poverty, and sage.

讚专砖 专讘讬 驻谞讞住 讘谉 讞诪讗 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讚讚 砖诪注 讘诪爪专讬诐 讻讬 砖讻讘 讚讜讚 注诐 讗讘讜转讬讜 讜讻讬 诪转 讬讜讗讘 砖专 讛爪讘讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讘讚讜讚 谞讗诪专讛 讘讜 砖讻讬讘讛 讜讘讬讜讗讘 谞讗诪专讛 讘讜 诪讬转讛 讚讜讚 砖讛谞讬讞 讘谉 谞讗诪专讛 讘讜 砖讻讬讘讛 讬讜讗讘 砖诇讗 讛谞讬讞 讘谉 谞讗诪专讛 讘讜 诪讬转讛

The Gemara presents the first homiletic interpretation: Rabbi Pine岣s ben 岣ma interpreted a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淎nd when Hadad heard in Egypt that David slept with his fathers, and that Joab the captain of the host was dead鈥 (I聽Kings 11:21)? For what reason is it that in the case of King David, sleeping was stated with regard to his demise, and in the case of Joab, death was stated with regard to his demise? He answers: Concerning King David, who left a son behind, sleeping was stated with regard to his demise, as it was not a complete death, while concerning Joab, who did not leave a son behind, death was stated with regard to his demise, as he left no son to succeed him.

讜讬讜讗讘 诇讗 讛谞讬讞 讘谉 讜讛讻转讬讘 诪讘谞讬 讬讜讗讘 注讘讚讬讛 讘谉 讬讞讬讗诇 讗诇讗 讚讜讚 砖讛谞讬讞 讘谉 讻诪讜转讜 谞讗诪专讛 讘讜 砖讻讬讘讛 讬讜讗讘 砖诇讗 讛谞讬讞 讘谉 讻诪讜转讜 谞讗诪专讛 讘讜 诪讬转讛

The Gemara asks: And is it so that Joab did not leave a son behind; but isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淥f the sons of Joab: Obadiah, son of Jehiel鈥 (Ezra 8:9)? Rather, concerning King David, who left a son as great as himself, sleeping was stated with regard to his demise, but concerning Joab, who did not leave a son as great as himself, death was stated with regard to his demise.

讚专砖 专讘讬 驻谞讞住 讘谉 讞诪讗 拽砖讛 注谞讬讜转 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讬讜转专 诪讞诪砖讬诐 诪讻讜转 砖谞讗诪专 讞谞谞讬 讞谞谞讬 讗转诐 专注讬 讻讬 讬讚 讗诇讜讛 谞讙注讛 讘讬 讜拽讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讞讘专讬讛 讛砖诪专 讗诇 转驻谉 讗诇 讗讜谉 讻讬 注诇 讝讛 讘讞专转 诪注谞讬

The Gemara presents the second homiletic interpretation: Rabbi Pine岣s ben 岣ma interpreted a verse homiletically, and derived that poverty in a person鈥檚 household is more difficult than fifty plagues, as it is stated: 鈥淗ave pity upon me, have pity upon me, O you my friends; for the hand of God has touched me鈥 (Job 19:21), and his friends were saying to him: 鈥淭ake heed, regard not iniquity; for this have you chosen rather than poverty鈥 (Job 36:21). Job, who suffered many plagues, was told by his friends that his suffering was preferable to poverty.

讚专砖 专讘讬 驻谞讞住 讘专 讞诪讗 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 讞讜诇讛 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讬诇讱 讗爪诇 讞讻诐 讜讬讘拽砖 注诇讬讜 专讞诪讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讞诪转 诪诇讱 诪诇讗讻讬 诪讜转 讜讗讬砖 讞讻诐 讬讻驻专谞讛

The Gemara presents the third homiletic interpretation: Rabbi Pine岣s bar 岣ma interpreted a verse homiletically: Anyone who has a sick person in his home should go to a sage, and the sage will ask for mercy on the sick person鈥檚 behalf, as it is stated: 鈥淭he wrath of a king is as messengers of death; but a wise man will pacify it鈥 (Proverbs 16:14).

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 讬专讻讜 讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗讘讬 讛讗讘 讜讗讞讬 讛讗讘 讻讙讜谉 讗讘专讛诐 讜讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讻住讬 注砖讜 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 拽讜讚诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讛讗讘 拽讜讚诐 诇讻诇 讬讜爪讗讬 讬专讻讜 讜专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗

搂 The mishna teaches that this is the principle: Concerning anyone who precedes another with regard to inheritance, his descendants precede the other as well, and a father precedes all of his descendants. Rami bar 岣ma raises a dilemma: With regard to the claim of a father of the deceased鈥檚 father and the claim of the brother of the deceased鈥檚 father, such as the claims of Abraham and Ishmael to the property of Esau, who was Abraham鈥檚 grandson and Ishmael鈥檚 nephew, which of them precedes the other and inherits the property? Rava said: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: A father precedes all of his descendants, therefore, Abraham would inherit, as Ishmael was his descendant. The Gemara asks: And why did Rami bar 岣ma have a dilemma; was he not aware of the statement of the mishna?

讗讙讘 讞讜专驻讬讛 诇讗 注讬讬谉 讘讛

The Gemara answers: Due to his keen mind, he did not analyze the mishna carefully.

讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗讘讬 讛讗讘 讜讗讞讬讜 讻讙讜谉 讗讘专讛诐 讜讬注拽讘 讘谞讻住讬 注砖讜 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 拽讜讚诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讛讗讘 拽讜讚诐 诇讻诇 讬讜爪讗讬 讬专讬讻讜 讜专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讬讜爪讗讬 讬专讬讻讜 砖诇讜 讜诇讗 讬讜爪讗讬 讬专讬讻讜 砖诇 讘谞讜

Rami bar 岣ma raised a dilemma: With regard to the claim of a father of the deceased鈥檚 father and the claim of the deceased鈥檚 brother, such as the claims of Abraham and Jacob to the property of Esau, who was Abraham鈥檚 grandson and Jacob鈥檚 brother, which of them precedes the other and inherits the property? Rava said: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: A father precedes all of his descendants, therefore, Abraham would inherit, as Jacob was his descendant. The Gemara asks: And why did Rami bar 岣ma have a dilemma; presumably, he was aware of the statement of the mishna? The Gemara answers: Rami bar 岣ma understood that the mishna teaches that a father precedes only his own immediate descendants, but not the descendants of his son.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚拽转谞讬 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 讜讗讬诇讜 讗讬转讬讛 诇讬爪讞拽 讬爪讞拽 拽讜讚诐 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讬转讬讛 讬爪讞拽 讬注拽讘 拽讜讚诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara notes that so too, it is reasonable to understand the mishna in that manner, as it teaches: This is the principle: Anyone who precedes another with regard to inheritance, his descendants precede the other as well. And if Isaac were alive, Isaac would precede Abraham and inherit Esau鈥檚 property. Now, also, when Isaac is not alive, Jacob should precede Abraham, because of the principle that the descendants of one who precedes another with regard to inheritance also precede the other. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from this clause of the mishna that the brother of the deceased precedes the grandfather.

诪转谞讬壮 讘谞讜转 爪诇驻讞讚 谞讟诇讜 砖诇砖讛 讞诇拽讬诐 讘谞讞诇讛 讞诇拽 讗讘讬讛谉 砖讛讬讛 注诐 讬讜爪讗讬 诪爪专讬诐 讜讞诇拽讜 注诐 讗讞讬讜 讘谞讻住讬 讞驻专 讜砖讛讬讛 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 砖谞讬 讞诇拽讬诐

MISHNA: Zelophehad鈥檚 daughters took three portions of land in the inheritance of Eretz Yisrael: Their father鈥檚 portion that he received because he was among those who left Egypt; and his portion that he received with his brothers in the property of Hepher, their father; and an additional portion that he received from Hepher because he was a firstborn, and a firstborn takes two portions of inheritance from his father.

Scroll To Top