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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 1, 2017 | 讝壮 讘住讬讜谉 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 130

The mishna brings two opinions relating to one who wants to bequeath to one’s children in a way different than the Torah law – is it allowed and if so, in what cases is it allowed? 聽It seems there are two opinions, however the gemara聽raises a problem with stating there are two opinions based on the simple reading of the mishna. 聽Two聽solutions are suggested. 聽The halacha is concluded like Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka who allows one to favor one son over the others or one daughter over the others (in a case where there are no sons). 聽 There is a debate regarding Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi’s psak聽– whether he said “The halacha is like Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka” or whether he ruled in a case like Rabbi Yochanan. 聽This leads to a discussion regarding what the best way to learn a halacha is – by what someone says or by case law? 聽What are the pros and cons of each approach? 聽There are those who say neither is good enough – one must say “This is the halacha and you can act upon it.”

讜拽讚讜砖讬谉

and betrothal, as if a man betroths a woman and retracts the betrothal within the time required for speaking, his retraction is not effective.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讬讬专砖谞讬 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讘转 讘转讬 转讬专砖谞讬 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讘谉 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 砖讛转谞讛 注诇 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘转讜专讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 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 讜注诇 诪讬 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讜 诇讬讜专砖讜 讗讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉

MISHNA: In a case of one who says: So-and-so will inherit from me, in a case where there is a daughter, or: My daughter will inherit from me, in a case where there is a son, he has said nothing, as he has stipulated counter to that which is written in the Torah concerning the order of inheritance. Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka says: If he said this about one fit to inherit from him, his statement stands, but if it was about one for whom it was not fit to inherit from him, his statement does not stand.

讙诪壮 讟注诪讗 讚讗讞专 讘诪拽讜诐 讘转 讜讘转 讘诪拽讜诐 讘谉 讛讗 讘谉 讘讬谉 讛讘谞讬诐 讜讘转 讘讬谉 讛讘谞讜转 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 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 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna that the reason the first tanna rules that his bequeathal is invalid is that he bequeathed his estate to another in a case where he had a daughter, or to his daughter where he had a son, but if he bequeathed his entire estate to one son among his other sons, or to one daughter among his other daughters, his statement stands. The Gemara questions this inference: Say the latter clause of the mishna: Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka says that if he said this about one fit to inherit from him, his statement stands. This is identical to the opinion of the first tanna. What information does this statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka add? With regard to what case do they disagree?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞专 讘诪拽讜诐 讘转 讜讘转 讘诪拽讜诐 讘谉 拽讗诪专 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 注诇 讗讞专 讘诪拽讜诐 讘转 讜讘转 讘诪拽讜诐 讘谉 砖诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

The Gemara continues: And if you would say that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka is saying that one鈥檚 statement stands even in a case where he bequeathed his estate to another where he had a daughter or to a daughter where he had a son, as although he bequeathed it to one who is not currently his heir, the beneficiary would be fit to inherit from him if the current heirs die, and this would be contrary to the opinion of the first tanna, this is difficult. And isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:18) that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: My father and the Rabbis did not disagree about a case where one bequeathed his estate to another where he had a daughter or to a daughter where he had a son; in a case such as this, my father concedes that he has said nothing.

注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讘谉 讘讬谉 讛讘谞讬诐 讜讘转 讘讬谉 讛讘谞讜转 砖讗讘讗 讗讜诪专 讬讬专砖 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬讬专砖

Rabbi Yishmael continues: With regard to what case do they disagree? They disagree with regard to a case where he bequeathed his entire estate to one son among his other sons, or to one daughter among his other daughters, as my father says that the son or daughter inherits the entire estate, and the Rabbis say that he does not inherit it.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讚拽讗诪专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 谞讞诇拽讜

The Gemara explains: If you wish, say that from the fact that Rabbi Yishmael is saying that they did not disagree about a case where one bequeathed his estate to another where he had a daughter or to a daughter where he had a son, by inference, the first tanna of that baraita, to whom he was responding, holds that they did disagree in this case.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讜诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讛讬讗 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛讗讜诪专 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讬讬专砖谞讬 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讘转 讘转讬 转讬专砖谞讬 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讘谉 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讛讗 讘转 讘讬谉 讛讘谞讜转 讜讘谉 讘讬谉 讛讘谞讬诐 讗诐 讗诪专 讬讬专砖 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 砖专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 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

And if you wish, say instead that the entire mishna is stating the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, and the mishna is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: With regard to one who says: So-and-so will inherit from me, in a case where there is a daughter, or: My daughter will inherit from me, in a case where there is a son, he has said nothing, but if he bequeathed his property to one son among his other sons, or one daughter among his other daughters, then if he said that the son or daughter will inherit all his property, his statement stands, as Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka says: If he said this about one fit to inherit him, that he should inherit all of his property, his statement stands.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛

搂 As for the halakhic ruling, Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka. And Rava says as well that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讛谞讞讬诇讜 讗转 讘谞讬讜 讛转讜专讛 谞转谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讗讘 诇讛谞讞讬诇 诇讻诇 诪讬 砖讬专爪讛

Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka? The verse states: 鈥淭hen it shall be, in the day that he causes his sons to inherit鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:16), which is interpreted to mean that the Torah gave the father permission to bequeath his estate to whomever he wishes among his sons.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛讗 诪诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇讘讻专 谞驻拽讗

Abaye said to him: Isn鈥檛 this halakha derived from the continuation of the verse: 鈥淗e may not make the son of the beloved the firstborn, before the son of the hated, who is the firstborn鈥? From the prohibition against depriving the firstborn of his double portion it can be inferred that one can change the apportionment of the inheritance of his other sons.

讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

The Gemara answers: That clause in the verse is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: Abba 岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer:

诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇讘讻专

Why must the verse state: 鈥淗e may not make the son of the beloved the firstborn鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:16)?

诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讛谞讞讬诇讜 讗转 讘谞讬讜 砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 驻砖讜讟 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讜 砖谞讜讟诇 讘专讗讜讬 讻讘诪讜讞讝拽 讛转讜专讛 谞转谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讗讘 诇讛谞讞讬诇 诇讻诇 诪讬 砖讬专爪讛 讘讻讜专 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讜 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 讘专讗讜讬 讻讘诪讜讞讝拽 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇讘讻专

Abba 岣nan explains: It is necessary because it is stated previously in the verse: 鈥淭hen it shall be, in the day that he causes his sons to inherit,鈥 as one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference, as follows: And if with regard to an ordinary son, one who is not a firstborn, whose power is enhanced in that he takes in inheritance the property due the deceased as he does the property the deceased possessed at the time he died, nevertheless, the Torah gave the father permission to bequeath his estate to whichever of his sons he wishes, depriving his other sons of their portions, then with regard to a firstborn, whose power is diminished in that he does not take a double portion of the property due his father as he takes of the property the deceased possessed at the time of his death, is it not clear all the more so that his father can deprive him of the double portion he receives as a firstborn? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗e may not make the son of the beloved the firstborn.鈥

讜讬讗诪专 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇讘讻专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讛谞讞讬诇讜 讗转 讘谞讬讜

Abba 岣nan continues: And let the verse state only the prohibition of: 鈥淗e may not make the son of the beloved the firstborn.鈥 Why must the verse state: 鈥淭hen it shall be, in the day that he causes his sons to inherit鈥?

砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讘讻讜专 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讜 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 讘专讗讜讬 讻讘诪讜讞讝拽 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇讘讻专 驻砖讜讟 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讜 砖谞讜讟诇 讘专讗讜讬 讻讘诪讜讞讝拽 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

It is necessary because one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference, as follows: And if with regard to a firstborn, whose power is diminished in that he does not take a double portion of the property due his father as he takes of the property the deceased possessed, nevertheless the Torah states: 鈥淗e may not make the son of the beloved the firstborn,鈥 i.e., the firstborn may not be deprived of his double portion, then with regard to an ordinary son, whose power is enhanced in that he takes in inheritance the property due the deceased as he does the property the deceased possessed, is it not clear all the more so that his father cannot deprive him of his portion of the inheritance?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讛谞讞讬诇讜 讗转 讘谞讬讜 讛转讜专讛 谞转谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讗讘 诇讛谞讞讬诇 诇讻诇 诪讬 砖讬专爪讛

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hen it shall be, in the day that he causes his sons to inherit,鈥 indicating that the Torah gave the father permission to bequeath his estate to whichever of his sons he wishes. Consequently, the prohibition 鈥渉e may not make the son of the beloved the firstborn鈥 is not available to prove that one may bequeath his estate to whichever of his sons he wishes.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讜专讛 讗讬转诪专

搂 The Gemara resumes discussion of the halakhic ruling: Rabbi Zerika says that Rabbi Ami says that Rabbi 岣nina says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka. Rabbi Abba said to Rabbi Zerika: It was stated that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ruled in an actual case in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讛诇讻讛 注讚讬驻讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诪注砖讛 专讘

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Since both Rabbi Zerika and Rabbi Abba agree that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, why did Rabbi Abba state that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ruled as much in an actual case? The Gemara answers: One Sage, Rabbi Zerika, holds that a ruling in principle is a preferable source for a halakha, rather than a ruling from an incident; and one Sage, Rabbi Abba, holds that a specific incident ruled upon by a Sage is a preferable source.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诇诪讚讬谉 讛诇讻讛 诇讗 诪驻讬 转诇诪讜讚 讜诇讗 诪驻讬 诪注砖讛 注讚 砖讬讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛诇讻讛 诇诪注砖讛 砖讗诇 讜讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛诇讻讛 诇诪注砖讛 讬诇讱 讜讬注砖讛 诪注砖讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讚诪讛

The Gemara examines which source is preferable. The Sages taught in a baraita: One may derive the halakha neither from a statement nor from an incident where one saw a ruling issued in a certain manner, unless the Sages explicitly tell him that it is the practical halakha. If he asked the Sages and they told him the practical halakha, he may go and act upon the ruling in those circumstances, provided that he does not compare between cases and apply the ruling to other circumstances.

诪讗讬 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讚诪讛 讜讛讗 讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 讚诪讜讬讬 诪讚诪讬谞谉 诇讛

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the statement: Provided that he does not compare? But don鈥檛 we compare cases throughout the entire Torah? The main method of halakhic derivation is through comparing cases where the halakha was already established to cases where the halakha is unclear.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讚诪讛 讘讟专驻讜转

Rav Ashi said that this is what the baraita is saying: Provided that he does not compare between various cases of animals with wounds that will cause them to die within twelve months [tereifot], which are forbidden for consumption. In general, one may compare cases, but with regard to the definition of a tereifa, one may not compare.

讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讟专驻讜转 讝讜 讚讜诪讛 诇讝讜 讜讗诇 转转诪讛 砖讛专讬 讞讜转讻讛 诪讻讗谉 讜诪转讛 讞讜转讻讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讞讬转讛

This is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to tereifot, one does not say: This wound is similar to that wound. Every type of wound has its own halakhot. And do not wonder about this principle, as there are organs with regard to which one cuts it from here, i.e., one side, and the animal dies within twelve months, but one cuts it from there, i.e., another side, and it lives.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗住讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讬 讗诪专 诇谉 诪专 讛诇讻讛 讛讻讬 谞注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛 讗诪专 诇讗 转注讘讬讚讜 注讚 讚讗诪讬谞讗 讛诇讻讛 诇诪注砖讛

Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: When the Master, i.e., Rabbi Yo岣nan, says to us: This is the halakha, should we act upon the ruling? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Do not act upon the ruling unless I say that it is a practical halakha.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讜诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讻讬 讗转讬 驻住拽讗 讚讚讬谞讗 讚讬讚讬 诇拽诪讬讬讻讜 讜讞讝讬转讜 讘讬讛 驻讬专讻讗 诇讗 转拽专注讜讛讜 注讚 讚讗转讬转讜 诇拽诪讗讬 讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讻讜 讜讗讬 诇讗 讛讚专谞讗 讘讬 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 诇讗 诪讬拽专注 转拽专注讜讛讜 讜诪讙诪专 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讙诪专讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讗 诪讬拽专注 转拽专注讬谞讬讛 讚讗讬 讛讜讗讬 讛转诐 讚诇诪讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讻讜 讟注诪讗

Rava said to Rav Pappa and to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: When a legal ruling of mine comes before you and you perceive a refutation of it, do not tear it up until you come before me to discuss it. If I have a valid explanation, I will tell you, and if not, I will retract my ruling. If a ruling of mine comes before you after my death, when you can no longer discuss it with me, do not tear it up, but do not learn from it either, i.e., do not rule in accordance with it. Do not tear it up, as had I been there, perhaps I would have told you a valid explanation that you would have accepted;

  • 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 130

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 130

讜拽讚讜砖讬谉

and betrothal, as if a man betroths a woman and retracts the betrothal within the time required for speaking, his retraction is not effective.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讬讬专砖谞讬 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讘转 讘转讬 转讬专砖谞讬 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讘谉 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 砖讛转谞讛 注诇 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘转讜专讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 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 讜注诇 诪讬 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讜 诇讬讜专砖讜 讗讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉

MISHNA: In a case of one who says: So-and-so will inherit from me, in a case where there is a daughter, or: My daughter will inherit from me, in a case where there is a son, he has said nothing, as he has stipulated counter to that which is written in the Torah concerning the order of inheritance. Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka says: If he said this about one fit to inherit from him, his statement stands, but if it was about one for whom it was not fit to inherit from him, his statement does not stand.

讙诪壮 讟注诪讗 讚讗讞专 讘诪拽讜诐 讘转 讜讘转 讘诪拽讜诐 讘谉 讛讗 讘谉 讘讬谉 讛讘谞讬诐 讜讘转 讘讬谉 讛讘谞讜转 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 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 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna that the reason the first tanna rules that his bequeathal is invalid is that he bequeathed his estate to another in a case where he had a daughter, or to his daughter where he had a son, but if he bequeathed his entire estate to one son among his other sons, or to one daughter among his other daughters, his statement stands. The Gemara questions this inference: Say the latter clause of the mishna: Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka says that if he said this about one fit to inherit from him, his statement stands. This is identical to the opinion of the first tanna. What information does this statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka add? With regard to what case do they disagree?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞专 讘诪拽讜诐 讘转 讜讘转 讘诪拽讜诐 讘谉 拽讗诪专 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 注诇 讗讞专 讘诪拽讜诐 讘转 讜讘转 讘诪拽讜诐 讘谉 砖诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

The Gemara continues: And if you would say that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka is saying that one鈥檚 statement stands even in a case where he bequeathed his estate to another where he had a daughter or to a daughter where he had a son, as although he bequeathed it to one who is not currently his heir, the beneficiary would be fit to inherit from him if the current heirs die, and this would be contrary to the opinion of the first tanna, this is difficult. And isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:18) that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: My father and the Rabbis did not disagree about a case where one bequeathed his estate to another where he had a daughter or to a daughter where he had a son; in a case such as this, my father concedes that he has said nothing.

注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讘谉 讘讬谉 讛讘谞讬诐 讜讘转 讘讬谉 讛讘谞讜转 砖讗讘讗 讗讜诪专 讬讬专砖 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬讬专砖

Rabbi Yishmael continues: With regard to what case do they disagree? They disagree with regard to a case where he bequeathed his entire estate to one son among his other sons, or to one daughter among his other daughters, as my father says that the son or daughter inherits the entire estate, and the Rabbis say that he does not inherit it.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讚拽讗诪专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 谞讞诇拽讜

The Gemara explains: If you wish, say that from the fact that Rabbi Yishmael is saying that they did not disagree about a case where one bequeathed his estate to another where he had a daughter or to a daughter where he had a son, by inference, the first tanna of that baraita, to whom he was responding, holds that they did disagree in this case.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讜诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讛讬讗 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛讗讜诪专 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讬讬专砖谞讬 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讘转 讘转讬 转讬专砖谞讬 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讘谉 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讛讗 讘转 讘讬谉 讛讘谞讜转 讜讘谉 讘讬谉 讛讘谞讬诐 讗诐 讗诪专 讬讬专砖 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 砖专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 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

And if you wish, say instead that the entire mishna is stating the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, and the mishna is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: With regard to one who says: So-and-so will inherit from me, in a case where there is a daughter, or: My daughter will inherit from me, in a case where there is a son, he has said nothing, but if he bequeathed his property to one son among his other sons, or one daughter among his other daughters, then if he said that the son or daughter will inherit all his property, his statement stands, as Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka says: If he said this about one fit to inherit him, that he should inherit all of his property, his statement stands.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛

搂 As for the halakhic ruling, Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka. And Rava says as well that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讛谞讞讬诇讜 讗转 讘谞讬讜 讛转讜专讛 谞转谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讗讘 诇讛谞讞讬诇 诇讻诇 诪讬 砖讬专爪讛

Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka? The verse states: 鈥淭hen it shall be, in the day that he causes his sons to inherit鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:16), which is interpreted to mean that the Torah gave the father permission to bequeath his estate to whomever he wishes among his sons.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛讗 诪诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇讘讻专 谞驻拽讗

Abaye said to him: Isn鈥檛 this halakha derived from the continuation of the verse: 鈥淗e may not make the son of the beloved the firstborn, before the son of the hated, who is the firstborn鈥? From the prohibition against depriving the firstborn of his double portion it can be inferred that one can change the apportionment of the inheritance of his other sons.

讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

The Gemara answers: That clause in the verse is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: Abba 岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer:

诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇讘讻专

Why must the verse state: 鈥淗e may not make the son of the beloved the firstborn鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:16)?

诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讛谞讞讬诇讜 讗转 讘谞讬讜 砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 驻砖讜讟 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讜 砖谞讜讟诇 讘专讗讜讬 讻讘诪讜讞讝拽 讛转讜专讛 谞转谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讗讘 诇讛谞讞讬诇 诇讻诇 诪讬 砖讬专爪讛 讘讻讜专 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讜 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 讘专讗讜讬 讻讘诪讜讞讝拽 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇讘讻专

Abba 岣nan explains: It is necessary because it is stated previously in the verse: 鈥淭hen it shall be, in the day that he causes his sons to inherit,鈥 as one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference, as follows: And if with regard to an ordinary son, one who is not a firstborn, whose power is enhanced in that he takes in inheritance the property due the deceased as he does the property the deceased possessed at the time he died, nevertheless, the Torah gave the father permission to bequeath his estate to whichever of his sons he wishes, depriving his other sons of their portions, then with regard to a firstborn, whose power is diminished in that he does not take a double portion of the property due his father as he takes of the property the deceased possessed at the time of his death, is it not clear all the more so that his father can deprive him of the double portion he receives as a firstborn? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗e may not make the son of the beloved the firstborn.鈥

讜讬讗诪专 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇讘讻专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讛谞讞讬诇讜 讗转 讘谞讬讜

Abba 岣nan continues: And let the verse state only the prohibition of: 鈥淗e may not make the son of the beloved the firstborn.鈥 Why must the verse state: 鈥淭hen it shall be, in the day that he causes his sons to inherit鈥?

砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讘讻讜专 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讜 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 讘专讗讜讬 讻讘诪讜讞讝拽 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诇讗 讬讜讻诇 诇讘讻专 驻砖讜讟 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讜 砖谞讜讟诇 讘专讗讜讬 讻讘诪讜讞讝拽 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

It is necessary because one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference, as follows: And if with regard to a firstborn, whose power is diminished in that he does not take a double portion of the property due his father as he takes of the property the deceased possessed, nevertheless the Torah states: 鈥淗e may not make the son of the beloved the firstborn,鈥 i.e., the firstborn may not be deprived of his double portion, then with regard to an ordinary son, whose power is enhanced in that he takes in inheritance the property due the deceased as he does the property the deceased possessed, is it not clear all the more so that his father cannot deprive him of his portion of the inheritance?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讛谞讞讬诇讜 讗转 讘谞讬讜 讛转讜专讛 谞转谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讗讘 诇讛谞讞讬诇 诇讻诇 诪讬 砖讬专爪讛

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hen it shall be, in the day that he causes his sons to inherit,鈥 indicating that the Torah gave the father permission to bequeath his estate to whichever of his sons he wishes. Consequently, the prohibition 鈥渉e may not make the son of the beloved the firstborn鈥 is not available to prove that one may bequeath his estate to whichever of his sons he wishes.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讜专讛 讗讬转诪专

搂 The Gemara resumes discussion of the halakhic ruling: Rabbi Zerika says that Rabbi Ami says that Rabbi 岣nina says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka. Rabbi Abba said to Rabbi Zerika: It was stated that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ruled in an actual case in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讛诇讻讛 注讚讬驻讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诪注砖讛 专讘

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? Since both Rabbi Zerika and Rabbi Abba agree that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, why did Rabbi Abba state that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ruled as much in an actual case? The Gemara answers: One Sage, Rabbi Zerika, holds that a ruling in principle is a preferable source for a halakha, rather than a ruling from an incident; and one Sage, Rabbi Abba, holds that a specific incident ruled upon by a Sage is a preferable source.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诇诪讚讬谉 讛诇讻讛 诇讗 诪驻讬 转诇诪讜讚 讜诇讗 诪驻讬 诪注砖讛 注讚 砖讬讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛诇讻讛 诇诪注砖讛 砖讗诇 讜讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛诇讻讛 诇诪注砖讛 讬诇讱 讜讬注砖讛 诪注砖讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讚诪讛

The Gemara examines which source is preferable. The Sages taught in a baraita: One may derive the halakha neither from a statement nor from an incident where one saw a ruling issued in a certain manner, unless the Sages explicitly tell him that it is the practical halakha. If he asked the Sages and they told him the practical halakha, he may go and act upon the ruling in those circumstances, provided that he does not compare between cases and apply the ruling to other circumstances.

诪讗讬 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讚诪讛 讜讛讗 讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 讚诪讜讬讬 诪讚诪讬谞谉 诇讛

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the statement: Provided that he does not compare? But don鈥檛 we compare cases throughout the entire Torah? The main method of halakhic derivation is through comparing cases where the halakha was already established to cases where the halakha is unclear.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讚诪讛 讘讟专驻讜转

Rav Ashi said that this is what the baraita is saying: Provided that he does not compare between various cases of animals with wounds that will cause them to die within twelve months [tereifot], which are forbidden for consumption. In general, one may compare cases, but with regard to the definition of a tereifa, one may not compare.

讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讟专驻讜转 讝讜 讚讜诪讛 诇讝讜 讜讗诇 转转诪讛 砖讛专讬 讞讜转讻讛 诪讻讗谉 讜诪转讛 讞讜转讻讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讞讬转讛

This is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to tereifot, one does not say: This wound is similar to that wound. Every type of wound has its own halakhot. And do not wonder about this principle, as there are organs with regard to which one cuts it from here, i.e., one side, and the animal dies within twelve months, but one cuts it from there, i.e., another side, and it lives.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗住讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讬 讗诪专 诇谉 诪专 讛诇讻讛 讛讻讬 谞注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛 讗诪专 诇讗 转注讘讬讚讜 注讚 讚讗诪讬谞讗 讛诇讻讛 诇诪注砖讛

Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: When the Master, i.e., Rabbi Yo岣nan, says to us: This is the halakha, should we act upon the ruling? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Do not act upon the ruling unless I say that it is a practical halakha.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讜诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讻讬 讗转讬 驻住拽讗 讚讚讬谞讗 讚讬讚讬 诇拽诪讬讬讻讜 讜讞讝讬转讜 讘讬讛 驻讬专讻讗 诇讗 转拽专注讜讛讜 注讚 讚讗转讬转讜 诇拽诪讗讬 讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讻讜 讜讗讬 诇讗 讛讚专谞讗 讘讬 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 诇讗 诪讬拽专注 转拽专注讜讛讜 讜诪讙诪专 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讙诪专讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讗 诪讬拽专注 转拽专注讬谞讬讛 讚讗讬 讛讜讗讬 讛转诐 讚诇诪讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讻讜 讟注诪讗

Rava said to Rav Pappa and to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: When a legal ruling of mine comes before you and you perceive a refutation of it, do not tear it up until you come before me to discuss it. If I have a valid explanation, I will tell you, and if not, I will retract my ruling. If a ruling of mine comes before you after my death, when you can no longer discuss it with me, do not tear it up, but do not learn from it either, i.e., do not rule in accordance with it. Do not tear it up, as had I been there, perhaps I would have told you a valid explanation that you would have accepted;

Scroll To Top