Bava Batra 122
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״בֵּין רַב לִמְעָט״.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof. The verse states: “According to the lot shall their inheritance be divided between the more and the fewer” (Numbers 26:56). Evidently, whether the tribe had many or few people, the tribe as a whole received a portion equal to that of every other tribe, and each individual within the tribe received a different amount of land than those in other tribes.
וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא: עֲתִידָה אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁתִּתְחַלֵּק לִשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר שְׁבָטִים – שֶׁבַּתְּחִלָּה לֹא נִתְחַלְּקָה אֶלָּא לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שְׁבָטִים. וְלֹא נִתְחַלְּקָה אֶלָּא בְּכֶסֶף – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בֵּין רַב לִמְעָט״. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: סְאָה בִּיהוּדָה, שָׁוָה חָמֵשׁ סְאִין בַּגָּלִיל.
And another proof can be seen from that which is taught in a baraita: Eretz Yisrael is destined to be divided among thirteen tribes during the messianic era, unlike the division in the time of Joshua. As, initially the land was divided only among twelve tribes, as the Torah does not allot a portion to the tribe of Levi. The baraita continues: And the land was divided only with money, such that each tribe that received a portion more valuable than average compensated another tribe that had received a portion less valuable than average, as it is stated: “Between the more and the fewer.” Rabbi Yehuda said: The area of land whose yield is a se’a of grain in Judea is so valuable that it is equal in value to the area necessary to produce five se’a of grain in the Galilee.
וְלֹא נִתְחַלְּקָה אֶלָּא בְּגוֹרָל – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַךְ בְּגוֹרָל״. וְלֹא נִתְחַלְּקָה אֶלָּא בְּאוּרִים וְתוּמִּים – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַל פִּי הַגּוֹרָל״.
The baraita continues: And the land was divided only by a lottery, as it is stated: “Only by lot shall the land be divided” (Numbers 26:55). And the land was divided only with the Urim VeTummim, as it is stated: “By the pronouncement of the lot” (Numbers 26:56).
הָא כֵּיצַד? אֶלְעָזָר מְלוּבָּשׁ אוּרִים וְתוּמִּים, וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹמְדִים לְפָנָיו; וְקַלְפִּי שֶׁל שְׁבָטִים וְקַלְפִּי שֶׁל תְּחוּמִין מוּנָּחִין לְפָנָיו;
The baraita asks: How can these texts be reconciled? One indicates that the land was divided by lottery and the other indicates that the land was divided with the Urim VeTummim. The baraita explains: Elazar the High Priest was dressed with the Urim VeTummim, and Joshua and all the Jewish people were standing before him, and a lottery receptacle containing the names of the tribes and another lottery receptacle containing the names of the boundaries of the twelve different regions of Eretz Yisrael were placed before him.
וְהָיָה מְכַוֵּין בְּרוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְאוֹמֵר: זְבוּלֻן עוֹלֶה, תְּחוּם עַכּוֹ עוֹלֶה עִמּוֹ. טָרַף בְּקַלְפִּי שֶׁל שְׁבָטִים – וְעָלָה בְּיָדוֹ זְבוּלֻן, טָרַף בְּקַלְפִּי שֶׁל תְּחוּמִין – וְעָלָה בְּיָדוֹ תְּחוּם עַכּוֹ.
And Elazar would ascertain the assignments of land with the Divine Spirit and say, in accordance with the notification of the Urim VeTummim: The name of the tribe Zebulun now emerges from the receptacle in the lottery, and the region whose boundary is Akko emerges with it from the other receptacle. After stating this, he would mix the lots in the receptacle of the tribes and the lot of Zebulun would emerge in his hand. He would then mix the lots in the receptacle of the boundaries, and the boundary of Akko would emerge in his hand.
וְחוֹזֵר וּמְכַוֵּין בְּרוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְאוֹמֵר: נַפְתָּלִי עוֹלֶה, וּתְחוּם גִּינּוֹסַר עוֹלֶה עִמּוֹ. טָרַף בְּקַלְפִּי שֶׁל שְׁבָטִים – וְעָלָה בְּיָדוֹ נַפְתָּלִי, טָרַף בְּקַלְפִּי שֶׁל תְּחוּמִין – וְעָלָה בְּיָדוֹ תְּחוּם גִּינּוֹסַר. וְכֵן כׇּל שֵׁבֶט וָשֵׁבֶט.
And Elazar would repeat the process and ascertain the assignments with the Divine Spirit and say: The name of the tribe Naftali now emerges, and the region whose boundary is Ginnosar emerges with it from the other receptacle. After stating this, he would mix the lots in the receptacle of the tribes and the lot of Naftali would emerge in his hand. He would then mix the lots in the receptacle of the boundaries, and the boundary of Ginnosar would emerge in his hand. And so he would proceed for each and every tribe.
וְלֹא כַּחֲלוּקָּה שֶׁל עוֹלָם הַזֶּה, חֲלוּקָּה שֶׁל עוֹלָם הַבָּא. הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, אָדָם יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׂדֵה לָבָן – אֵין לוֹ שְׂדֵה פַרְדֵּס, שְׂדֵה פַרְדֵּס – אֵין לוֹ שְׂדֵה לָבָן. לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, אֵין לָךְ כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּהָר וּבַשְּׁפֵלָה וּבָעֵמֶק, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: שַׁעַר רְאוּבֵן אֶחָד, שַׁעַר יְהוּדָה אֶחָד, שַׁעַר לֵוִי אֶחָד״. הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְחַלֵּק לָהֶן בְּעַצְמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאֵלֶּה מַחְלְקֹתָם נְאֻם ה׳״.
The baraita continues: And unlike the division in this world, i.e., in the time of Joshua, will be the division of portions in the World-to-Come, i.e., in the messianic era. In this world, if a person has a field of grain, he does not have a field for an orchard; if he has a field for an orchard, he does not have a field of grain. This is so because each climate and variety of soil is suitable for a different type of produce. But in the World-to-Come, you do not have any person who does not have a portion in Eretz Yisrael in the mountain, and in the lowland, and in the valley, as it is stated: “The gate of Reuben, one; the gate of Judah, one; the gate of Levi, one” (Ezekiel 48:31), which is to say that everyone’s portion will be the same. And the Holy One, Blessed be He, will distribute it to them personally, as it is stated: “And these are their portions, says the Lord” (Ezekiel 48:29). This is the conclusion of the baraita.
קָתָנֵי מִיהַת: ״שֶׁבַּתְּחִלָּה לֹא נִתְחַלְּקָה אֶלָּא לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שְׁבָטִים״; שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, לִשְׁבָטִים אִיפְּלוּג! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara states its proof: In any event, the baraita teaches: As initially, the land was divided only among the twelve tribes. Conclude from the baraita that the land was divided according to the tribes, and not apportioned directly to each person. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the baraita that this is the case.
אָמַר מָר: עֲתִידָה אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁתִּתְחַלֵּק לִשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר שְׁבָטִים. אִידַּךְ לְמַאן? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לְנָשִׂיא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָעֹבֵד הָעִיר יַעַבְדוּהוּ מִכֹּל שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי, אֵימָא רוּנְגָּר בְּעָלְמָא! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַנּוֹתָר לַנָּשִׂיא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, לִתְרוּמַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְלַאֲחֻזַּת הָעִיר״.
§ The Gemara returns to analyze the baraita just cited. The Master says above: Eretz Yisrael is destined to be divided among thirteen tribes. The Gemara asks: As to the other, thirteenth portion, for whom is it? Rav Ḥisda said: For the king, as it is written: “And they that serve the city, out of all the tribes of Israel, shall till it” (Ezekiel 48:19). The verse is understood as meaning that the nation will collectively allot a portion to the king, who serves the needs of the nation. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Why is the verse interpreted in this way? Say that the verse speaks of mere wages [rongar], so that the king has rights to collect taxes, but not an actual portion of land. The Gemara answers: That possibility should not enter your mind, as it is written: “And the residue shall be for the prince, on the one side and on the other of the sacred offering and of the possession of the city” (Ezekiel 48:21). Based on this latter verse, the former verse speaks of a specific tract of land.
וְלֹא נִתְחַלְּקָה אֶלָּא לִכְסָפִים – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בֵּין רַב לִמְעָט״. לְמַאי? אִילֵּימָא לְשׁוּפְרָא וְסַנְיָא, אַטּוּ בְּשׁוּפְטָנֵי עָסְקִינַן? אֶלָּא לִקְרוֹבָה וּרְחוֹקָה.
The baraita also states: And the land was divided only with money, as it is stated: “Between the more and the fewer.” With regard to what is this said? If we say it is with regard to beauty and ugliness, i.e., that those who receive inferior-quality land received monetary compensation from the others, is that to say we are dealing with fools [beshufetanei] who would agree to take inferior-quality land in exchange for more money? Rather, it is said with regard to the difference between land that is close to Jerusalem and land that is far from Jerusalem. Those whose property was close to Jerusalem compensated those whose property was farther away.
כְּתַנָּאֵי – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: בִּכְסָפִים הֶעֱלוּהָ. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: בְּקַרְקַע הֶעֱלוּהָ.
The Gemara notes: There is a dispute between tanna’im with regard to the manner by which this compensation was given: Rabbi Eliezer says: The tribes compensated each other with money. Rabbi Yehoshua says: The tribes compensated each other with land by giving extra land to those whose portions were in less advantageous locations.
וְלֹא נִתְחַלְּקָה אֶלָּא בְּגוֹרָל – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַךְ בְּגוֹרָל״. תָּנָא: ״אַךְ בְּגוֹרָל״ – יָצְאוּ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְכָלֵב. לְמַאי? אִילֵּימָא דְּלָא שְׁקוּל כְּלָל; הַשְׁתָּא דְּלָאו דִּידְהוּ שְׁקוּל, דִּידְהוּ מִיבַּעְיָא?! אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא נָטְלוּ בְּגוֹרָל, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי ה׳. יְהוֹשֻׁעַ – דִּכְתִיב: ״עַל פִּי ה׳ נָתְנוּ לוֹ אֶת הָעִיר אֲשֶׁר שָׁאָל, אֶת תִּמְנַת סֶרַח בְּהַר אֶפְרָיִם״.
The baraita also states: And the land was divided only by a lottery, as it is stated: “Only by lot shall the land be divided” (Numbers 26:55). The Sages taught: In the phrase “only by lot,” the term “only” indicates that Joshua and Caleb are excluded from this proviso. The Gemara asks: With regard to what were they excluded? If we say that they did not take portions at all, now that it has already been taught that they took the portions of the spies (118b) that were not their own, is it necessary to teach that they took their own portions? It goes without saying that they did collect their portions. Rather, the exclusion teaches that they did not take portions by a lottery but according to explicit designation by the Lord. With regard to Joshua, this is as it is written: “According to the commandment of the Lord they gave him the city that he asked, even Timnath Serah in the hill-country of Ephraim” (Joshua 19:50).
כְּתִיב: ״סֶרַח״, וּכְתִיב: ״חֶרֶס״! אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בַּתְּחִלָּה פֵּירוֹתֶיהָ כְּחֶרֶס, וּלְבַסּוֹף פֵּירוֹתֶיהָ מַסְרִיחִין. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בַּתְּחִלָּה מַסְרִיחִין, וּלְבַסּוֹף כְּחֶרֶס.
The Gemara interjects: It is written concerning Joshua’s burial: “And they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnath Serah” (Joshua 24:30), and it is written: “And they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnath Heres” (Judges 2:9). Why is the name changed? Rabbi Elazar says: Initially, its fruits were as dry as clay [keḥeres], and ultimately, its fruits were so plump that they were spoiling [masriḥin]. And there are those who say the opposite: Initially, the fruits were spoiling prematurely, and ultimately, they lasted as long as clay without spoiling.
כָּלֵב – דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּתְּנוּ לְכָלֵב אֶת חֶבְרוֹן כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר מֹשֶׁה, וַיּוֹרֶשׁ מִשָּׁם אֶת שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי הָעֲנָק״. חֶבְרוֹן עִיר מִקְלָט הֲוַאי! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: פַּרְוורַהָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת שְׂדֵה הָעִיר וְאֶת חֲצֵרֶיהָ נָתְנוּ לְכָלֵב בֶּן יְפֻנֶּה בַּאֲחֻזָּתוֹ״.
Caleb also received his portion directly from God and not through the lottery, as it is written: “And they gave Hebron to Caleb, as Moses had spoken; and he drove out from there the three sons of the giant” (Judges 1:20). The Gemara asks about this verse: But Hebron was a city of refuge that belonged to the priests, as described in the book of Joshua (21:13); how could it have been given to Caleb? Abaye said: Its outskirts [parvaraha], i.e., only the fields and vineyards lying beyond the city limits, were given to Caleb. As it is written: “But the fields of the city, and the villages thereof, they gave to Caleb the son of Jephunneh for his possession” (Joshua 21:12).
מַתְנִי׳ אֶחָד הַבֵּן וְאֶחָד הַבַּת בַּנַּחֲלָה; אֶלָּא שֶׁהַבֵּן נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּנִכְסֵי הָאָב, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּנִכְסֵי הָאֵם. וְהַבָּנוֹת – נִזּוֹנוֹת מִנִּכְסֵי הָאָב, וְאֵינָן נִזּוֹנוֹת מִנִּכְסֵי הָאֵם.
MISHNA: Both the son and the daughter of the deceased are included in the halakhot of inheritance. But the difference is that the firstborn son takes a double portion of the property of the father, and he does not take a double portion of the property of the mother. And another difference is that the daughters are sustained from the property of the father after he dies, as it is a mandatory condition of their mother’s marriage contract that they are to be sustained even before the estate is disbursed to the children, but the daughters are not sustained from the property of the mother, which is all inherited by the sons.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״אֶחָד הַבֵּן וְאֶחָד הַבַּת לְנַחֲלָה״? אִילֵּימָא דְּיָרְתִי כִּי הֲדָדֵי, הָא תְּנַן: בֵּן קוֹדֵם לַבַּת, כׇּל יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵיכוֹ שֶׁל בֵּן קוֹדְמִין לַבַּת!
GEMARA: The Gemara analyzes the mishna: What is meant by the first clause of the mishna: Both the son and the daughter of the deceased are included in the halakhot of inheritance? If we say that they inherit together, didn’t we learn in a mishna (115a): A son precedes a daughter? Additionally, all descendants of a son precede a daughter. It is clear that a daughter does not inherit together with a son.
(סִימָן: נַפְשָׁ״ם.) אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֶחָד הַבֵּן וְאֶחָד הַבַּת נוֹטְלִין בָּרָאוּי כִּבְמוּחְזָק.
Nafsham is a mnemonic for the names of the Sages cited in the following discussion: Naḥman; Pappa; Ashi; Mar. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: This is what the mishna is saying: Both the son and the daughter take in inheritance the property due to their father as they would take in inheritance the property that he had in his possession.
הָא נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד נָטְלוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָקִים בַּנַּחֲלָה – חֵלֶק אֲבִיהֶן שֶׁהָיָה מִיּוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם, וְחֶלְקוֹ עִם אֶחָיו בְּנִכְסֵי חֵפֶר!
The Gemara questions this explanation: We already learn this as well in a mishna (116b): Zelophehad’s daughters took three portions of land in the inheritance of Eretz Yisrael: Their father’s 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, although Zelophehad predeceased his father and never was in possession of the inheritance from Hepher; and an additional portion that he received from Hepher because he was a firstborn. It is already taught in that mishna that property due to the deceased is inherited in the same manner as property possessed by the deceased.
וְעוֹד, מַאי ״אֶלָּא״?
And furthermore, if the explanation of the mishna is as stated by Rav Naḥman, what is meant by the phrase: But the difference is that the firstborn son takes a double portion of the property of the father, and he does not take a double portion of the property of the mother? According to Rav Naḥman’s explanation, what is the contrast between the two clauses in the mishna?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֶחָד הַבֵּן וְאֶחָד הַבַּת נוֹטְלִין חֵלֶק בִּבְכוֹרָה.
Rather, Rav Pappa said: This is what the mishna is saying: Both the son and the daughter of the deceased take a portion of the firstborn.
הָא נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: וְשֶׁהָיָה בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל שְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים! וְעוֹד, מַאי ״אֶלָּא״?
The Gemara questions this explanation: We already learn this in a mishna as well (116b), which explains the third portion taken by the daughters of Zelophehad: And they took an additional portion that he received from Hepher, as he was a firstborn, and a firstborn takes two portions of inheritance from his father. And furthermore, if the explanation of the mishna is as stated by Rav Pappa, what is meant by the phrase: But the difference is that the firstborn son takes a double portion of the property of the father, and he does not take a double portion of the property of the mother? According to this explanation as well, the first clause of the mishna has nothing to do with inheriting from the mother.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֶחָד בֵּן בֵּין הַבָּנִים וְאֶחָד בַּת בֵּין הַבָּנוֹת, אִם אָמַר: ״יִירַשׁ כׇּל נְכָסַי״ – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין.
Rather, Rav Ashi said: This is what the mishna is saying: With regard to both a son among the sons, and a daughter among the daughters, if the father says: This particular child shall inherit all my property, his statement stands. A father can do so for any one son, or, when there are no sons, for any one daughter.
כְּמַאן, כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא?! הָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ לְקַמַּן – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא אוֹמֵר: אִם אָמַר עַל מִי שֶׁרָאוּי לְיוֹרְשׁוֹ – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין, עַל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְיוֹרְשׁוֹ – אֵין דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין!
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion does Rav Ashi say this? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka? The Gemara challenges: But the mishna teaches this later (130a), as Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: If one said about another who is fit to inherit from him that the named individual should inherit all his property, his statement stands, but if one said it about another who is unfit to inherit from him, his statement does not stand. It is not reasonable to say that this mishna is stating the same halakha that is recorded in the later mishna in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka.
וְכִי תֵּימָא: קָא סָתַם לַן כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא; סְתָם וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַחֲלוֹקֶת הִיא, וּסְתָם וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַחֲלוֹקֶת – אֵין הֲלָכָה כַּסְּתָם!
And if you would say that the tanna here taught us an unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, in order to demonstrate that his opinion is accepted as halakha, this would not establish the halakha in accordance with his opinion. The reason is that this would be an instance of an unattributed mishna and thereafter a mishnaic dispute concerning the same matter, as in the later mishna there is a tanna who disagrees with the ruling of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka; and in an instance of an unattributed mishna and thereafter a mishnaic dispute, the halakha is not in accordance with the unattributed mishna.
וְעוֹד, מַאי ״אֶלָּא״?
And furthermore, if the explanation of the mishna is as stated by Rav Ashi, what is meant by the clause: But the difference is that the firstborn son takes a double portion of the property of the father, and he does not take a double portion of the property of the mother? According to this explanation as well, the first clause of the mishna has nothing to do with inheriting from the mother.
אֶלָּא אָמַר מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֶחָד הַבֵּן וְאֶחָד הַבַּת שָׁוִין בְּנִכְסֵי הָאֵם וּבְנִכְסֵי הָאָב, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַבֵּן נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּנִכְסֵי הָאָב, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּנִכְסֵי הָאֵם.
Rather, Mar bar Rav Ashi said: This is what the mishna is saying: Both the son and the daughter are equal in their rights both with regard to the property of the mother and with regard to the property of the father. Sons and daughters can inherit from either fathers or mothers. But the differences are that the firstborn son takes a double portion of the property of the father, and he does not take a double portion of the property of the mother, and that the daughters are sustained from their father’s estate before it is disbursed to the children, but they are not sustained from the property of their mother.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לָתֶת לוֹ פִּי שְׁנַיִם״ – פִּי שְׁנַיִם כְּאֶחָד. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר פִּי שְׁנַיִם כְּאֶחָד, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּכׇל הַנְּכָסִים? וְדִין הוּא –
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: When the verse states: “But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion of all that he has” (Deuteronomy 21:17), this means the firstborn receives double the property received by any other one inheritor. The baraita analyzes this statement: Do you say the firstborn receives double the property received by any one inheritor, or rather, is it a double portion of all the property, such that the firstborn receives two-thirds of the entire estate, which is twice the portion left for the other inheritors to divide between themselves? The baraita suggests: And this question can be resolved through logical inference:
