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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 24, 2017 | 讻状讞 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 122

How was the land divided – into twelve equal portions or by equal portions for each individual Israelite? 聽Some type of compensation (either in land or financial) took place by those who received greater portions or those who received portions closer to Jerusalem. 聽聽 The land was divided by a lottery and the urim and tumim. 聽The gemara discusses how the process worked. 聽In Yechezkel, the future land distribution is discussed and the gemara discusses the differences and describes what the 13th portion mentioned there will be. 聽The next mishna describes similarities between sons and daughters regarding inheritance and also differences between when they inherit from their mothers or their fathers. 聽The rabbis have several attempts to explain in what aspect is the mishna referring to in making the comparisons between sons and daughters.


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

转讗 砖诪注 讘讬谉 专讘 诇诪注讟

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof. The verse states: 鈥淎ccording to the lot shall their inheritance be divided between the more and the fewer鈥 (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.

讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 注转讬讚讛 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 砖转转讞诇拽 诇砖诇砖讛 注砖专 砖讘讟讬诐 砖讘转讞诇讛 诇讗 谞转讞诇拽讛 讗诇讗 诇砖谞讬诐 注砖专 砖讘讟讬诐 讜诇讗 谞转讞诇拽讛 讗诇讗 讘讻住祝 砖谞讗诪专 讘讬谉 专讘 诇诪注讟 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讗讛 讘讬讛讜讚讛 砖讜讛 讞诪砖 住讗讬谉 讘讙诇讬诇

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: 鈥淏etween the more and the fewer.鈥 Rabbi Yehuda said: The area of land whose yield is a se鈥檃 of grain in Judea is so valuable that it is equal in value to the area necessary to produce five se鈥檃 of grain in the Galilee.

讜诇讗 谞转讞诇拽讛 讗诇讗 讘讙讜专诇 砖谞讗诪专 讗讱 讘讙讜专诇 讜诇讗 谞转讞诇拽讛 讗诇讗 讘讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 注诇 驻讬 讛讙讜专诇

The baraita continues: And the land was divided only by a lottery, as it is stated: 鈥淥nly by lot shall the land be divided鈥 (Numbers 26:55). And the land was divided only with the Urim VeTummim, as it is stated: 鈥淏y the pronouncement of the lot鈥 (Numbers 26:56).

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讗诇注讝专 诪诇讜讘砖 讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐 讜讬讛讜砖注 讜讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 注讜诪讚讬诐 诇驻谞讬讜 讜拽诇驻讬 砖诇 砖讘讟讬诐 讜拽诇驻讬 砖诇 转讞讜诪讬谉 诪讜谞讞讬谉 诇驻谞讬讜

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.

讜讛讬讛 诪讻讜讬谉 讘专讜讞 讛拽讚砖 讜讗讜诪专 讝讘讜诇谉 注讜诇讛 转讞讜诐 注讻讜 注讜诇讛 注诪讜 讟专祝 讘拽诇驻讬 砖诇 砖讘讟讬诐 讜注诇讛 讘讬讚讜 讝讘讜诇谉 讟专祝 讘拽诇驻讬 砖诇 转讞讜诪讬谉 讜注诇讛 讘讬讚讜 转讞讜诐 注讻讜

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.

讜讞讜讝专 讜诪讻讜讬谉 讘专讜讞 讛拽讚砖 讜讗讜诪专 谞驻转诇讬 注讜诇讛 讜转讞讜诐 讙讬谞讜住专 注讜诇讛 注诪讜 讟专祝 讘拽诇驻讬 砖诇 砖讘讟讬诐 讜注诇讛 讘讬讚讜 谞驻转诇讬 讟专祝 讘拽诇驻讬 砖诇 转讞讜诪讬谉 讜注诇讛 讘讬讚讜 转讞讜诐 讙讬谞讜住专 讜讻谉 讻诇 砖讘讟 讜砖讘讟

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.

讜诇讗 讻讞诇讜拽讛 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讞诇讜拽讛 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讛讘讗 讛注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讗讚诐 讬砖 诇讜 砖讚讛 诇讘谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖讚讛 驻专讚住 砖讚讛 驻专讚住 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖讚讛 诇讘谉 诇注讜诇诐 讛讘讗 讗讬谉 诇讱 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讛专 讜讘砖驻诇讛 讜讘注诪拽 砖谞讗诪专 砖注专 专讗讜讘谉 讗讞讚 砖注专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讞讚 砖注专 诇讜讬 讗讞讚 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讞诇拽 诇讛谉 讘注爪诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗诇讛 诪讞诇拽转诐 谞讗诐 讛壮

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: 鈥淭he gate of Reuben, one; the gate of Judah, one; the gate of Levi, one鈥 (Ezekiel 48:31), which is to say that everyone鈥檚 portion will be the same. And the Holy One, Blessed be He, will distribute it to them personally, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd these are their portions, says the Lord鈥 (Ezekiel 48:29). This is the conclusion of the baraita.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 砖讘转讞诇讛 诇讗 谞转讞诇拽讛 讗诇讗 诇砖谞讬诐 注砖专 砖讘讟讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇砖讘讟讬诐 讗讬驻诇讜讙 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讗诪专 诪专 注转讬讚讛 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 砖转转讞诇拽 诇砖诇砖讛 注砖专 砖讘讟讬诐 讗讬讚讱 诇诪讗谉 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇谞砖讬讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛注讘讚 讛注讬专 讬注讘讚讜讛讜 诪讻诇 砖讘讟讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬诪讗 专讜谞讙专 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛谞讜转专 诇谞砖讬讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 诇转专讜诪转 讛拽讚砖 讜诇讗讞讝转 讛注讬专

搂 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 岣sda said: For the king, as it is written: 鈥淎nd they that serve the city, out of all the tribes of Israel, shall till it鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Ezekiel 48:21). Based on this latter verse, the former verse speaks of a specific tract of land.

讜诇讗 谞转讞诇拽讛 讗诇讗 诇讻住驻讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘讬谉 专讘 诇诪注讟 诇诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇砖讜驻专讗 讜住谞讬讗 讗讟讜 讘砖讜驻讟谞讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗诇讗 诇拽专讜讘讛 讜专讞讜拽讛

The baraita also states: And the land was divided only with money, as it is stated: 鈥淏etween the more and the fewer.鈥 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.

讻转谞讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讻住驻讬诐 讛注诇讜讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讘拽专拽注 讛注诇讜讛

The Gemara notes: There is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m 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.

讜诇讗 谞转讞诇拽讛 讗诇讗 讘讙讜专诇 砖谞讗诪专 讗讱 讘讙讜专诇 转谞讗 讗讱 讘讙讜专诇 讬爪讗讜 讬讛讜砖注 讜讻诇讘 诇诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 砖拽讜诇 讻诇诇 讛砖转讗 讚诇讗讜 讚讬讚讛讜 砖拽讜诇 讚讬讚讛讜 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 谞讟诇讜 讘讙讜专诇 讗诇讗 注诇 驻讬 讛壮 讬讛讜砖注 讚讻转讬讘 注诇 驻讬 讛壮 谞转谞讜 诇讜 讗转 讛注讬专 讗砖专 砖讗诇 讗转 转诪谞转 住专讞 讘讛专 讗驻专讬诐

The baraita also states: And the land was divided only by a lottery, as it is stated: 鈥淥nly by lot shall the land be divided鈥 (Numbers 26:55). The Sages taught: In the phrase 鈥渙nly by lot,鈥 the term 鈥渙nly鈥 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: 鈥淎ccording to the commandment of the Lord they gave him the city that he asked, even Timnath Serah in the hill-country of Ephraim鈥 (Joshua 19:50).

讻转讬讘 住专讞 讜讻转讬讘 讞专住 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘转讞诇讛 驻讬专讜转讬讛 讻讞专住 讜诇讘住讜祝 驻讬专讜转讬讛 诪住专讬讞讬谉 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘转讞诇讛 诪住专讬讞讬谉 讜诇讘住讜祝 讻讞专住

The Gemara interjects: It is written concerning Joshua鈥檚 burial: 鈥淎nd they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnath Serah鈥 (Joshua 24:30), and it is written: 鈥淎nd they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnath Heres鈥 (Judges 2:9). Why is the name changed? Rabbi Elazar says: Initially, its fruits were as dry as clay [ke岣res], and ultimately, its fruits were so plump that they were spoiling [masri岣n]. And there are those who say the opposite: Initially, the fruits were spoiling prematurely, and ultimately, they lasted as long as clay without spoiling.

讻诇讘 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬转谞讜 诇讻诇讘 讗转 讞讘专讜谉 讻讗砖专 讚讘专 诪砖讛 讜讬讜专砖 诪砖诐 讗转 砖诇砖讛 讘谞讬 讛注谞拽 讞讘专讜谉 注讬专 诪拽诇讟 讛讜讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 驻专讜讜专讛讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转 砖讚讛 讛注讬专 讜讗转 讞爪专讬讛 谞转谞讜 诇讻诇讘 讘谉 讬驻谞讛 讘讗讞讝转讜

Caleb also received his portion directly from God and not through the lottery, as it is written: 鈥淎nd they gave Hebron to Caleb, as Moses had spoken; and he drove out from there the three sons of the giant鈥 (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: 鈥淏ut the fields of the city, and the villages thereof, they gave to Caleb the son of Jephunneh for his possession鈥 (Joshua 21:12).

诪转谞讬壮 讗讞讚 讛讘谉 讜讗讞讚 讛讘转 讘谞讞诇讛 讗诇讗 砖讛讘谉 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗讘 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗诐 讜讛讘谞讜转 谞讝讜谞讜转 诪谞讻住讬 讛讗讘 讜讗讬谞谉 谞讝讜谞讜转 诪谞讻住讬 讛讗诐

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鈥檚 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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讗讞讚 讛讘谉 讜讗讞讚 讛讘转 诇谞讞诇讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讬专转讬 讻讬 讛讚讚讬 讛讗 转谞谉 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

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鈥檛 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.

(住讬诪谉 谞驻砖诐) 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讞讚 讛讘谉 讜讗讞讚 讛讘转 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讘专讗讜讬 讻讘诪讜讞讝拽

Nafsham is a mnemonic for the names of the Sages cited in the following discussion: Na岣an; Pappa; Ashi; Mar. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 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 诪讬讜爪讗讬 诪爪专讬诐 讜讞诇拽讜 注诐 讗讞讬讜 讘谞讻住讬 讞驻专

The Gemara questions this explanation: We already learn this as well in a mishna (116b): 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, 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.

讜注讜讚 诪讗讬 讗诇讗

And furthermore, if the explanation of the mishna is as stated by Rav Na岣an, 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 Na岣an鈥檚 explanation, what is the contrast between the two clauses in the mishna?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讞讚 讛讘谉 讜讗讞讚 讛讘转 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讞诇拽 讘讘讻讜专讛

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.

讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讜砖讛讬讛 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 砖谞讬 讞诇拽讬诐 讜注讜讚 诪讗讬 讗诇讗

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讞讚 讘谉 讘讬谉 讛讘谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讘转 讘讬谉 讛讘谞讜转 讗诐 讗诪专 讬讬专砖 讻诇 谞讻住讬 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉

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.

讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讛讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛 诇拽诪谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讗诪专 注诇 诪讬 砖专讗讜讬 诇讬讜专砖讜 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 注诇 诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讬讜专砖讜 讗讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion does Rav Ashi say this? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka? The Gemara challenges: But the mishna teaches this later (130a), as Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan ben Beroka.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 拽讗 住转诐 诇谉 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 住转诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讛讬讗 讜住转诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐

And if you would say that the tanna here taught us an unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讜注讜讚 诪讗讬 讗诇讗

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 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 讜讘谞讻住讬 讛讗讘 讗诇讗 砖讛讘谉 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗讘 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗诐

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鈥檚 estate before it is disbursed to the children, but they are not sustained from the property of their mother.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇转转 诇讜 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘讻诇 讛谞讻住讬诐 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗

The Sages taught in a baraita: When the verse states: 鈥淏ut he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion of all that he has鈥 (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:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 122

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 122

转讗 砖诪注 讘讬谉 专讘 诇诪注讟

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof. The verse states: 鈥淎ccording to the lot shall their inheritance be divided between the more and the fewer鈥 (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.

讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 注转讬讚讛 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 砖转转讞诇拽 诇砖诇砖讛 注砖专 砖讘讟讬诐 砖讘转讞诇讛 诇讗 谞转讞诇拽讛 讗诇讗 诇砖谞讬诐 注砖专 砖讘讟讬诐 讜诇讗 谞转讞诇拽讛 讗诇讗 讘讻住祝 砖谞讗诪专 讘讬谉 专讘 诇诪注讟 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讗讛 讘讬讛讜讚讛 砖讜讛 讞诪砖 住讗讬谉 讘讙诇讬诇

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: 鈥淏etween the more and the fewer.鈥 Rabbi Yehuda said: The area of land whose yield is a se鈥檃 of grain in Judea is so valuable that it is equal in value to the area necessary to produce five se鈥檃 of grain in the Galilee.

讜诇讗 谞转讞诇拽讛 讗诇讗 讘讙讜专诇 砖谞讗诪专 讗讱 讘讙讜专诇 讜诇讗 谞转讞诇拽讛 讗诇讗 讘讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 注诇 驻讬 讛讙讜专诇

The baraita continues: And the land was divided only by a lottery, as it is stated: 鈥淥nly by lot shall the land be divided鈥 (Numbers 26:55). And the land was divided only with the Urim VeTummim, as it is stated: 鈥淏y the pronouncement of the lot鈥 (Numbers 26:56).

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讗诇注讝专 诪诇讜讘砖 讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐 讜讬讛讜砖注 讜讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 注讜诪讚讬诐 诇驻谞讬讜 讜拽诇驻讬 砖诇 砖讘讟讬诐 讜拽诇驻讬 砖诇 转讞讜诪讬谉 诪讜谞讞讬谉 诇驻谞讬讜

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.

讜讛讬讛 诪讻讜讬谉 讘专讜讞 讛拽讚砖 讜讗讜诪专 讝讘讜诇谉 注讜诇讛 转讞讜诐 注讻讜 注讜诇讛 注诪讜 讟专祝 讘拽诇驻讬 砖诇 砖讘讟讬诐 讜注诇讛 讘讬讚讜 讝讘讜诇谉 讟专祝 讘拽诇驻讬 砖诇 转讞讜诪讬谉 讜注诇讛 讘讬讚讜 转讞讜诐 注讻讜

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.

讜讞讜讝专 讜诪讻讜讬谉 讘专讜讞 讛拽讚砖 讜讗讜诪专 谞驻转诇讬 注讜诇讛 讜转讞讜诐 讙讬谞讜住专 注讜诇讛 注诪讜 讟专祝 讘拽诇驻讬 砖诇 砖讘讟讬诐 讜注诇讛 讘讬讚讜 谞驻转诇讬 讟专祝 讘拽诇驻讬 砖诇 转讞讜诪讬谉 讜注诇讛 讘讬讚讜 转讞讜诐 讙讬谞讜住专 讜讻谉 讻诇 砖讘讟 讜砖讘讟

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.

讜诇讗 讻讞诇讜拽讛 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讞诇讜拽讛 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讛讘讗 讛注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讗讚诐 讬砖 诇讜 砖讚讛 诇讘谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖讚讛 驻专讚住 砖讚讛 驻专讚住 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖讚讛 诇讘谉 诇注讜诇诐 讛讘讗 讗讬谉 诇讱 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讛专 讜讘砖驻诇讛 讜讘注诪拽 砖谞讗诪专 砖注专 专讗讜讘谉 讗讞讚 砖注专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讞讚 砖注专 诇讜讬 讗讞讚 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讞诇拽 诇讛谉 讘注爪诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗诇讛 诪讞诇拽转诐 谞讗诐 讛壮

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: 鈥淭he gate of Reuben, one; the gate of Judah, one; the gate of Levi, one鈥 (Ezekiel 48:31), which is to say that everyone鈥檚 portion will be the same. And the Holy One, Blessed be He, will distribute it to them personally, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd these are their portions, says the Lord鈥 (Ezekiel 48:29). This is the conclusion of the baraita.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 砖讘转讞诇讛 诇讗 谞转讞诇拽讛 讗诇讗 诇砖谞讬诐 注砖专 砖讘讟讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇砖讘讟讬诐 讗讬驻诇讜讙 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讗诪专 诪专 注转讬讚讛 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 砖转转讞诇拽 诇砖诇砖讛 注砖专 砖讘讟讬诐 讗讬讚讱 诇诪讗谉 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇谞砖讬讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛注讘讚 讛注讬专 讬注讘讚讜讛讜 诪讻诇 砖讘讟讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬诪讗 专讜谞讙专 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛谞讜转专 诇谞砖讬讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 诇转专讜诪转 讛拽讚砖 讜诇讗讞讝转 讛注讬专

搂 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 岣sda said: For the king, as it is written: 鈥淎nd they that serve the city, out of all the tribes of Israel, shall till it鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Ezekiel 48:21). Based on this latter verse, the former verse speaks of a specific tract of land.

讜诇讗 谞转讞诇拽讛 讗诇讗 诇讻住驻讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘讬谉 专讘 诇诪注讟 诇诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇砖讜驻专讗 讜住谞讬讗 讗讟讜 讘砖讜驻讟谞讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗诇讗 诇拽专讜讘讛 讜专讞讜拽讛

The baraita also states: And the land was divided only with money, as it is stated: 鈥淏etween the more and the fewer.鈥 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.

讻转谞讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讻住驻讬诐 讛注诇讜讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讘拽专拽注 讛注诇讜讛

The Gemara notes: There is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m 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.

讜诇讗 谞转讞诇拽讛 讗诇讗 讘讙讜专诇 砖谞讗诪专 讗讱 讘讙讜专诇 转谞讗 讗讱 讘讙讜专诇 讬爪讗讜 讬讛讜砖注 讜讻诇讘 诇诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 砖拽讜诇 讻诇诇 讛砖转讗 讚诇讗讜 讚讬讚讛讜 砖拽讜诇 讚讬讚讛讜 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 谞讟诇讜 讘讙讜专诇 讗诇讗 注诇 驻讬 讛壮 讬讛讜砖注 讚讻转讬讘 注诇 驻讬 讛壮 谞转谞讜 诇讜 讗转 讛注讬专 讗砖专 砖讗诇 讗转 转诪谞转 住专讞 讘讛专 讗驻专讬诐

The baraita also states: And the land was divided only by a lottery, as it is stated: 鈥淥nly by lot shall the land be divided鈥 (Numbers 26:55). The Sages taught: In the phrase 鈥渙nly by lot,鈥 the term 鈥渙nly鈥 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: 鈥淎ccording to the commandment of the Lord they gave him the city that he asked, even Timnath Serah in the hill-country of Ephraim鈥 (Joshua 19:50).

讻转讬讘 住专讞 讜讻转讬讘 讞专住 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘转讞诇讛 驻讬专讜转讬讛 讻讞专住 讜诇讘住讜祝 驻讬专讜转讬讛 诪住专讬讞讬谉 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘转讞诇讛 诪住专讬讞讬谉 讜诇讘住讜祝 讻讞专住

The Gemara interjects: It is written concerning Joshua鈥檚 burial: 鈥淎nd they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnath Serah鈥 (Joshua 24:30), and it is written: 鈥淎nd they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnath Heres鈥 (Judges 2:9). Why is the name changed? Rabbi Elazar says: Initially, its fruits were as dry as clay [ke岣res], and ultimately, its fruits were so plump that they were spoiling [masri岣n]. And there are those who say the opposite: Initially, the fruits were spoiling prematurely, and ultimately, they lasted as long as clay without spoiling.

讻诇讘 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬转谞讜 诇讻诇讘 讗转 讞讘专讜谉 讻讗砖专 讚讘专 诪砖讛 讜讬讜专砖 诪砖诐 讗转 砖诇砖讛 讘谞讬 讛注谞拽 讞讘专讜谉 注讬专 诪拽诇讟 讛讜讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 驻专讜讜专讛讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转 砖讚讛 讛注讬专 讜讗转 讞爪专讬讛 谞转谞讜 诇讻诇讘 讘谉 讬驻谞讛 讘讗讞讝转讜

Caleb also received his portion directly from God and not through the lottery, as it is written: 鈥淎nd they gave Hebron to Caleb, as Moses had spoken; and he drove out from there the three sons of the giant鈥 (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: 鈥淏ut the fields of the city, and the villages thereof, they gave to Caleb the son of Jephunneh for his possession鈥 (Joshua 21:12).

诪转谞讬壮 讗讞讚 讛讘谉 讜讗讞讚 讛讘转 讘谞讞诇讛 讗诇讗 砖讛讘谉 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗讘 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗诐 讜讛讘谞讜转 谞讝讜谞讜转 诪谞讻住讬 讛讗讘 讜讗讬谞谉 谞讝讜谞讜转 诪谞讻住讬 讛讗诐

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鈥檚 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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讗讞讚 讛讘谉 讜讗讞讚 讛讘转 诇谞讞诇讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讬专转讬 讻讬 讛讚讚讬 讛讗 转谞谉 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

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鈥檛 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.

(住讬诪谉 谞驻砖诐) 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讞讚 讛讘谉 讜讗讞讚 讛讘转 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讘专讗讜讬 讻讘诪讜讞讝拽

Nafsham is a mnemonic for the names of the Sages cited in the following discussion: Na岣an; Pappa; Ashi; Mar. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 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 诪讬讜爪讗讬 诪爪专讬诐 讜讞诇拽讜 注诐 讗讞讬讜 讘谞讻住讬 讞驻专

The Gemara questions this explanation: We already learn this as well in a mishna (116b): 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, 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.

讜注讜讚 诪讗讬 讗诇讗

And furthermore, if the explanation of the mishna is as stated by Rav Na岣an, 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 Na岣an鈥檚 explanation, what is the contrast between the two clauses in the mishna?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讞讚 讛讘谉 讜讗讞讚 讛讘转 谞讜讟诇讬谉 讞诇拽 讘讘讻讜专讛

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.

讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讜砖讛讬讛 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 砖谞讬 讞诇拽讬诐 讜注讜讚 诪讗讬 讗诇讗

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讞讚 讘谉 讘讬谉 讛讘谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讘转 讘讬谉 讛讘谞讜转 讗诐 讗诪专 讬讬专砖 讻诇 谞讻住讬 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉

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.

讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讛讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛 诇拽诪谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讗诪专 注诇 诪讬 砖专讗讜讬 诇讬讜专砖讜 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 注诇 诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讬讜专砖讜 讗讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion does Rav Ashi say this? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka? The Gemara challenges: But the mishna teaches this later (130a), as Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan ben Beroka.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 拽讗 住转诐 诇谉 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 住转诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讛讬讗 讜住转诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐

And if you would say that the tanna here taught us an unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讜注讜讚 诪讗讬 讗诇讗

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 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 讜讘谞讻住讬 讛讗讘 讗诇讗 砖讛讘谉 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗讘 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗诐

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鈥檚 estate before it is disbursed to the children, but they are not sustained from the property of their mother.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇转转 诇讜 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘讻诇 讛谞讻住讬诐 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗

The Sages taught in a baraita: When the verse states: 鈥淏ut he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion of all that he has鈥 (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:

Scroll To Top