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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 11, 2017 | 讬状讝 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 140

Sons have rights to the inheritance but daughters have rights to sustenance from the estate. 聽In the event that there aren’t enough funds, the Tanna聽Kamma聽gives the girls rights to the sustenance before giving rights to the sons. 聽Admon disagrees and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel supports his position. 聽The gemara discusses how one calculates how much money is considered enough money in the estate in order for the boys to get their inheritance? 聽Rabbi Yirmiya asks if other things enter into the calculation – the widow’s rights to sustenance until she gets remarried or dies, her daughter from a previous marriage in a case where the husband committed to supporting her for a period of time and a creditor from a loan who is owed money by the estate? 聽What if there is a widow and only a daughter left to inherit and not enough money for both of them? 聽How is a tumtum viewed regarding these laws – do they get inheritance rights or sustenance rights or neither? 聽If a man on his deathbed left a pregnant wife and stipulated: if the baby is male give him this gift, if female… – what is the case if twins are born? 聽If a tumtum is born?

砖拽诇讬 诇讛讜 讘谞讜转 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讛谉 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇讘谞讜转 注讚 砖讬讘讙专讜 讜讛砖讗专 诇讘谞讬诐

shall the daughters take all of the estate, even if it is more than is required for their sustenance? Rather, Rava said: The court appropriates sustenance for the daughters until they reach their majority, and the remainder is given to the sons.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪专讜讘讬谉 讜谞转诪注讟讜 讻讘专 讝讻讜 讘讛谉 讬讜专砖讬谉 诪讜注讟讬谉 讜谞转专讘讜 诪讗讬 讘专砖讜转 讬讜专砖讬谉 拽讬讬诪讬 讛诇讻讱 讘专砖讜转 讬讜专砖讬谉 砖讘讜讞 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 住诇讜拽讬 诪住诇拽讬 讬讜专砖讬谉 诪讛讻讗

搂 The Gemara comments: It is obvious that if the estate was large and became small, the heirs, i.e., the sons, already acquired it when it was large. It remains in their possession, and they must provide for the daughters from it. The Gemara asks: If the estate was small, and was therefore not inherited by the sons, and then it became large, what is the halakha? Does even a small estate remain in the possession of the heirs, while the court reserves it for the daughters鈥 sustenance, and therefore it appreciated in the possession of the heirs and they receive the appreciation in the estate鈥檚 value? Or perhaps the heirs are totally removed from possession of a small estate, and the appreciation in value is to the benefit of the daughters receiving sustenance.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讬转讜诪讬谉 砖拽讚诪讜 讜诪讻专讜 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪讜注讟讬谉 诪讛 砖诪讻专讜 诪讻专讜

The Gemara answers: Come and hear a proof, as Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In the case of orphans who preemptively sold land from a small estate left to them by their father, before the court appropriated it for the daughters鈥 sustenance, concerning that which they sold, the sale is valid, even though they acted improperly. One can infer from this that a small estate remains in the possession of the heirs even when they are not authorized to derive benefit from it, and therefore the appreciation in its value belongs to them.

讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜拽讗 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诇诪谞转讜 诪讛讜 砖转诪注讟 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讬 诪诪注讟讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 诪谞住讘讗 诇讬转 诇讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诇讬转 诇讛

Rabbi Yirmeya was sitting before Rabbi Abbahu and raised the following dilemma before him: What is the halakha with regard to the sustenance to which the deceased鈥檚 widow is entitled? Does it reduce the value of the estate when evaluating whether the estate is categorized as a large estate or a small estate? Do we say that since she has a right to receive sustenance, it reduces the value of the estate? Or perhaps we say that since if she remarries she does not have a right to sustenance, now as well, for the purposes of determining the value of the estate, she is considered as if she does not have a right to sustenance, and therefore it does not reduce the value of the estate.

讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 诪谞住讘讗 诇讬转 诇讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诇讬转 诇讛 讘转 讗砖转讜 诪讛讜 砖转诪注讟 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 诪谞住讘讗 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讛 讜诪诪注讟讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 诪转讛 诇讬转 诇讛 讜诇讗 诪诪注讟讗

Furthermore, if you say that since, if she remarries she does not have a right to sustenance, now as well she is considered as if she does not have a right to sustenance, and it is not taken into account when evaluating the estate, then another dilemma can be raised: What is the halakha with regard to the sustenance one pledged to give, for a certain number of years, to the daughter of his wife from a previous marriage, i.e., his step-daughter, which is an obligation not affected by his death or by her marriage? Does it reduce the value of the estate? Do we say that since, when she marries she also has a right to sustenance, it reduces the value of the estate? Or perhaps we say that since, if she dies she does not have a right to sustenance, it does not reduce the value of the estate.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 诪转讛 诇讬转 诇讛 讜诇讗 诪诪注讟讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 诪讛讜 砖讬诪注讟 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 诪讬讬转 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪诪注讟 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讞住专讬 讙讜讘讬讬谞讗 诇讗 诪诪注讟

And if you say that since, if she dies she does not have a right to sustenance, therefore it does not reduce the value of the estate, what is the halakha with regard to a debt owed to the deceased鈥檚 creditor? Does it reduce the value of the estate? Do we say that since, when the creditor dies he also has a right to the money owed him, and it is collected by his heirs, therefore it reduces the value of the estate? Or perhaps we say that since it has not yet been collected, it does not reduce the value of the estate.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讘注讬 诇讛 诇讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 诪讛讜 砖讬诪注讟 讘谞讻住讬诐

And there are those who say that Rabbi Yirmeya raised the dilemmas in the opposite direction, i.e., in the reverse order: What is the halakha with regard to a debt owed to a creditor? Does it reduce the value of the estate?

讘转 讗砖转讜 诪讛讜 砖转诪注讟 讘谞讻住讬诐 讗诇诪谞转讜 诪讛讜 砖转诪注讟 讘谞讻住讬诐 讗诇诪谞转讜 讜讘转 讗讬 讝讛 诪讛谉 拽讜讚诪转

What is the halakha with regard to sustenance the deceased pledged to give the daughter of his wife from a previous marriage? Does it reduce the value of the estate? What is the halakha with regard to the sustenance to which his widow is entitled? Does it reduce the value of the estate? Furthermore, with regard to his widow and daughter, which of them takes precedence if the estate is insufficient to provide sustenance for both?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讜转讗 诇诪讞专 讻讬 讗转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻砖讜讟 诪讬讛转 讞讚讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 注砖讜 讗诇诪谞讛 讗爪诇 讛讘转 讻讘转 讗爪诇 讛讗讞讬谉 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪讜注讟讬谉 诪讛 讘转 讗爪诇 讗讞讬谉 讛讘转 谞讬讝讜谞转 讜讛讗讞讬谉 讬砖讗诇讜 注诇 讛驻转讞讬诐 讗祝 讗诇诪谞讛 讗爪诇 讛讘转 讗诇诪谞讛 谞讬讝讜谞转 讜讛讘转 转砖讗诇 注诇 讛驻转讞讬诐

Rabbi Abbahu said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Go now and come back tomorrow. When he came back, Rabbi Abbahu said to him: Resolve at least one of your questions, as Rabbi Abba says that Rabbi Asi says: The Sages established the status of the widow in relation to the daughter as equivalent to the status of the daughter in relation to the brothers in the case of a small estate. Just as in the case of a daughter in relation to her brothers, the daughter is sustained and the brothers go and request charity at the doors, so too in the case of a widow in relation to the daughter, the widow is sustained and the daughter goes and requests charity at the doors.

讗讚诪讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讗谞讬 讝讻专 讛驻住讚转讬 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讗谞讬 讝讻专 讜专讗讜讬 讗谞讬 诇注住讜拽 讘转讜专讛 讛驻住讚转讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诪讗谉 讚注住讬拽 讘转讜专讛 讛讜讗 讚讬专讬转 讚诇讗 注住讬拽 讘转讜专讛 诇讗 讬专讬转 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讗谞讬 讝讻专 讜专讗讜讬 讗谞讬 诇讬专砖 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪专讜讘讬谉 讛驻住讚转讬 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪讜注讟讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches: Admon says, rhetorically: I lost out just because I am male? Rather, he holds that the sons also receive sustenance. The Gemara asks: What is he saying? Abaye said that this is what he is saying: Because I am male, and I am fit to engage in the study of the Torah, I lost out and must go begging instead of studying the Torah? Rava said to him: If that is so, should one conclude that it is only one who engages in the study of the Torah who inherits, whereas one who does not engage in the study of the Torah does not inherit? Rather, Rava said that this is what Admon is saying: Because I am male, and I am fit to inherit in the case of a large estate, should I lose my inheritance entirely in the case of a small estate?

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讬讞 讘谞讬诐 讜讘谞讜转 讜讟讜诪讟讜诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谞讻住讬诐 诪专讜讘讬谉 讛讝讻专讬诐 讚讜讞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗爪诇 谞拽讘讜转 谞讻住讬诐 诪讜注讟讬谉 讛谞拽讘讜转 讚讜讞讜转 讗讜转讜 讗爪诇 讝讻专讬诐

MISHNA: With regard to one who left behind sons and daughters and a tumtum, whose halakhic status as male or female is indeterminate, the halakha is as follows: When the estate is large the males direct the tumtum to the females and exclude him from the inheritance, claiming that perhaps the tumtum is female. When the estate is small, the females direct the tumtum to the males and exclude him from receiving sustenance, claiming that perhaps the tumtum is male.

讛讗讜诪专 讗诐 转诇讚 讗砖转讬 讝讻专 讬讟讜诇 诪谞讛 讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讬讟讜诇 诪谞讛 谞拽讘讛 诪讗转讬诐 讬诇讚讛 谞拽讘讛 谞讜讟诇转 诪讗转讬诐

With regard to one who says: If my wife gives birth to a male the offspring shall receive a gift of one hundred dinars, if she in fact gave birth to a male, the offspring receives one hundred dinars. If he says: If my wife gives birth to a female the offspring shall receive a gift of two hundred dinars, if she in fact gave birth to a female, the offspring receives two hundred dinars.

讗诐 讝讻专 诪谞讛 讗诐 谞拽讘讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讝讻专 谞讜讟诇 诪谞讛 谞拽讘讛 谞讜讟诇转 诪讗转讬诐 讬诇讚讛 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 讗诐 讗诪专 讻诇 诪讛 砖转诇讚 讗砖转讬 讬讟讜诇 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讟讜诇 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 讬讜专砖 讗诇讗 讛讜讗 讬讜专砖 讗转 讛讻诇

If he says: If my wife gives birth to a male the offspring shall receive a gift of one hundred dinars and if she gives birth to a female the offspring shall receive a gift of two hundred dinars, and in fact she gave birth to both a male and a female, the male offspring receives one hundred dinars and the female offspring receives two hundred dinars. If she gave birth to a tumtum, the tumtum does not receive anything. If he said: Whatever offspring my wife gives birth to shall receive a gift of a certain sum, and she gave birth to a tumtum, the tumtum receives it. And if there is no heir other than the tumtum, the tumtum inherits all of the estate.

讙诪壮 讚讜讞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜砖拽讬诇 讻讘转 讛讗 拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讬诇讚讛 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚讜讞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗讬谉 诇讜

GEMARA: The mishna states that the males direct the tumtum to the females. The Gemara asks: Does this mean that they direct him, and he takes sustenance like a daughter? Isn鈥檛 it taught in the latter clause of the mishna that if one said that either his male or female child will receive a certain sum once his wife gives birth, and she gave birth to a tumtum, the tumtum does not receive anything? This indicates that the tumtum does not have the rights of a female. Abaye says: The mishna means that they direct him to the females, but he has no rights to sustenance.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讚讜讞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讬砖 诇讜 讜住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚转谞讬讗 讬诇讚讛 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖讛 讞诇讛 注诇讬讛谉

And Rava says: They direct him to the females and he has a right to sustenance. And with regard to the latter clause of the mishna, which grants the tumtum nothing at all, there we arrive at the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it is taught in a mishna (Temura 24b): If one consecrates a firstborn animal while it is still a fetus, stating that if it is male it shall be a burnt-offering and if it is female it shall be a peace-offering, and the mother gave birth to a tumtum or a hermaphrodite [androginos], Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: It is not imbued with sanctity, as it is neither male nor female. So too, in the case discussed in the mishna here, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that the tumtum receives nothing, as he is considered to be a distinct entity of indeterminate sex, neither male nor female.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讬讜专砖 讻讘谉 讜谞讬讝讜谉 讻讘转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讗 讬讜专砖 讻讘谉 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪讜注讟讬谉 讜谞讬讝讜谉 讻讘转 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪专讜讘讬谉

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: A tumtum inherits as a son and is sustained as a daughter. Granted, according to Rava, the baraita can be explained to mean that the clause: Inherits as a son, is in the case of a small estate, as the daughters direct the tumtum to the sons, and just as there is no inheritance for the sons, there is none for the tumtum either. And the clause: And is sustained as a daughter, is in the case of a large estate, as the sons direct the tumtum to the daughters, and the tumtum receives sustenance along with them.

  • 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 140

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 140

砖拽诇讬 诇讛讜 讘谞讜转 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讛谉 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇讘谞讜转 注讚 砖讬讘讙专讜 讜讛砖讗专 诇讘谞讬诐

shall the daughters take all of the estate, even if it is more than is required for their sustenance? Rather, Rava said: The court appropriates sustenance for the daughters until they reach their majority, and the remainder is given to the sons.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪专讜讘讬谉 讜谞转诪注讟讜 讻讘专 讝讻讜 讘讛谉 讬讜专砖讬谉 诪讜注讟讬谉 讜谞转专讘讜 诪讗讬 讘专砖讜转 讬讜专砖讬谉 拽讬讬诪讬 讛诇讻讱 讘专砖讜转 讬讜专砖讬谉 砖讘讜讞 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 住诇讜拽讬 诪住诇拽讬 讬讜专砖讬谉 诪讛讻讗

搂 The Gemara comments: It is obvious that if the estate was large and became small, the heirs, i.e., the sons, already acquired it when it was large. It remains in their possession, and they must provide for the daughters from it. The Gemara asks: If the estate was small, and was therefore not inherited by the sons, and then it became large, what is the halakha? Does even a small estate remain in the possession of the heirs, while the court reserves it for the daughters鈥 sustenance, and therefore it appreciated in the possession of the heirs and they receive the appreciation in the estate鈥檚 value? Or perhaps the heirs are totally removed from possession of a small estate, and the appreciation in value is to the benefit of the daughters receiving sustenance.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讬转讜诪讬谉 砖拽讚诪讜 讜诪讻专讜 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪讜注讟讬谉 诪讛 砖诪讻专讜 诪讻专讜

The Gemara answers: Come and hear a proof, as Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In the case of orphans who preemptively sold land from a small estate left to them by their father, before the court appropriated it for the daughters鈥 sustenance, concerning that which they sold, the sale is valid, even though they acted improperly. One can infer from this that a small estate remains in the possession of the heirs even when they are not authorized to derive benefit from it, and therefore the appreciation in its value belongs to them.

讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜拽讗 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诇诪谞转讜 诪讛讜 砖转诪注讟 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讬 诪诪注讟讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 诪谞住讘讗 诇讬转 诇讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诇讬转 诇讛

Rabbi Yirmeya was sitting before Rabbi Abbahu and raised the following dilemma before him: What is the halakha with regard to the sustenance to which the deceased鈥檚 widow is entitled? Does it reduce the value of the estate when evaluating whether the estate is categorized as a large estate or a small estate? Do we say that since she has a right to receive sustenance, it reduces the value of the estate? Or perhaps we say that since if she remarries she does not have a right to sustenance, now as well, for the purposes of determining the value of the estate, she is considered as if she does not have a right to sustenance, and therefore it does not reduce the value of the estate.

讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 诪谞住讘讗 诇讬转 诇讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诇讬转 诇讛 讘转 讗砖转讜 诪讛讜 砖转诪注讟 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 诪谞住讘讗 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讛 讜诪诪注讟讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 诪转讛 诇讬转 诇讛 讜诇讗 诪诪注讟讗

Furthermore, if you say that since, if she remarries she does not have a right to sustenance, now as well she is considered as if she does not have a right to sustenance, and it is not taken into account when evaluating the estate, then another dilemma can be raised: What is the halakha with regard to the sustenance one pledged to give, for a certain number of years, to the daughter of his wife from a previous marriage, i.e., his step-daughter, which is an obligation not affected by his death or by her marriage? Does it reduce the value of the estate? Do we say that since, when she marries she also has a right to sustenance, it reduces the value of the estate? Or perhaps we say that since, if she dies she does not have a right to sustenance, it does not reduce the value of the estate.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 诪转讛 诇讬转 诇讛 讜诇讗 诪诪注讟讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 诪讛讜 砖讬诪注讟 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 诪讬讬转 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪诪注讟 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讞住专讬 讙讜讘讬讬谞讗 诇讗 诪诪注讟

And if you say that since, if she dies she does not have a right to sustenance, therefore it does not reduce the value of the estate, what is the halakha with regard to a debt owed to the deceased鈥檚 creditor? Does it reduce the value of the estate? Do we say that since, when the creditor dies he also has a right to the money owed him, and it is collected by his heirs, therefore it reduces the value of the estate? Or perhaps we say that since it has not yet been collected, it does not reduce the value of the estate.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讘注讬 诇讛 诇讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 诪讛讜 砖讬诪注讟 讘谞讻住讬诐

And there are those who say that Rabbi Yirmeya raised the dilemmas in the opposite direction, i.e., in the reverse order: What is the halakha with regard to a debt owed to a creditor? Does it reduce the value of the estate?

讘转 讗砖转讜 诪讛讜 砖转诪注讟 讘谞讻住讬诐 讗诇诪谞转讜 诪讛讜 砖转诪注讟 讘谞讻住讬诐 讗诇诪谞转讜 讜讘转 讗讬 讝讛 诪讛谉 拽讜讚诪转

What is the halakha with regard to sustenance the deceased pledged to give the daughter of his wife from a previous marriage? Does it reduce the value of the estate? What is the halakha with regard to the sustenance to which his widow is entitled? Does it reduce the value of the estate? Furthermore, with regard to his widow and daughter, which of them takes precedence if the estate is insufficient to provide sustenance for both?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讜转讗 诇诪讞专 讻讬 讗转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻砖讜讟 诪讬讛转 讞讚讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 注砖讜 讗诇诪谞讛 讗爪诇 讛讘转 讻讘转 讗爪诇 讛讗讞讬谉 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪讜注讟讬谉 诪讛 讘转 讗爪诇 讗讞讬谉 讛讘转 谞讬讝讜谞转 讜讛讗讞讬谉 讬砖讗诇讜 注诇 讛驻转讞讬诐 讗祝 讗诇诪谞讛 讗爪诇 讛讘转 讗诇诪谞讛 谞讬讝讜谞转 讜讛讘转 转砖讗诇 注诇 讛驻转讞讬诐

Rabbi Abbahu said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Go now and come back tomorrow. When he came back, Rabbi Abbahu said to him: Resolve at least one of your questions, as Rabbi Abba says that Rabbi Asi says: The Sages established the status of the widow in relation to the daughter as equivalent to the status of the daughter in relation to the brothers in the case of a small estate. Just as in the case of a daughter in relation to her brothers, the daughter is sustained and the brothers go and request charity at the doors, so too in the case of a widow in relation to the daughter, the widow is sustained and the daughter goes and requests charity at the doors.

讗讚诪讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讗谞讬 讝讻专 讛驻住讚转讬 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讗谞讬 讝讻专 讜专讗讜讬 讗谞讬 诇注住讜拽 讘转讜专讛 讛驻住讚转讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诪讗谉 讚注住讬拽 讘转讜专讛 讛讜讗 讚讬专讬转 讚诇讗 注住讬拽 讘转讜专讛 诇讗 讬专讬转 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讗谞讬 讝讻专 讜专讗讜讬 讗谞讬 诇讬专砖 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪专讜讘讬谉 讛驻住讚转讬 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪讜注讟讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches: Admon says, rhetorically: I lost out just because I am male? Rather, he holds that the sons also receive sustenance. The Gemara asks: What is he saying? Abaye said that this is what he is saying: Because I am male, and I am fit to engage in the study of the Torah, I lost out and must go begging instead of studying the Torah? Rava said to him: If that is so, should one conclude that it is only one who engages in the study of the Torah who inherits, whereas one who does not engage in the study of the Torah does not inherit? Rather, Rava said that this is what Admon is saying: Because I am male, and I am fit to inherit in the case of a large estate, should I lose my inheritance entirely in the case of a small estate?

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讬讞 讘谞讬诐 讜讘谞讜转 讜讟讜诪讟讜诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谞讻住讬诐 诪专讜讘讬谉 讛讝讻专讬诐 讚讜讞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗爪诇 谞拽讘讜转 谞讻住讬诐 诪讜注讟讬谉 讛谞拽讘讜转 讚讜讞讜转 讗讜转讜 讗爪诇 讝讻专讬诐

MISHNA: With regard to one who left behind sons and daughters and a tumtum, whose halakhic status as male or female is indeterminate, the halakha is as follows: When the estate is large the males direct the tumtum to the females and exclude him from the inheritance, claiming that perhaps the tumtum is female. When the estate is small, the females direct the tumtum to the males and exclude him from receiving sustenance, claiming that perhaps the tumtum is male.

讛讗讜诪专 讗诐 转诇讚 讗砖转讬 讝讻专 讬讟讜诇 诪谞讛 讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讬讟讜诇 诪谞讛 谞拽讘讛 诪讗转讬诐 讬诇讚讛 谞拽讘讛 谞讜讟诇转 诪讗转讬诐

With regard to one who says: If my wife gives birth to a male the offspring shall receive a gift of one hundred dinars, if she in fact gave birth to a male, the offspring receives one hundred dinars. If he says: If my wife gives birth to a female the offspring shall receive a gift of two hundred dinars, if she in fact gave birth to a female, the offspring receives two hundred dinars.

讗诐 讝讻专 诪谞讛 讗诐 谞拽讘讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讝讻专 谞讜讟诇 诪谞讛 谞拽讘讛 谞讜讟诇转 诪讗转讬诐 讬诇讚讛 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 讗诐 讗诪专 讻诇 诪讛 砖转诇讚 讗砖转讬 讬讟讜诇 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讟讜诇 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 讬讜专砖 讗诇讗 讛讜讗 讬讜专砖 讗转 讛讻诇

If he says: If my wife gives birth to a male the offspring shall receive a gift of one hundred dinars and if she gives birth to a female the offspring shall receive a gift of two hundred dinars, and in fact she gave birth to both a male and a female, the male offspring receives one hundred dinars and the female offspring receives two hundred dinars. If she gave birth to a tumtum, the tumtum does not receive anything. If he said: Whatever offspring my wife gives birth to shall receive a gift of a certain sum, and she gave birth to a tumtum, the tumtum receives it. And if there is no heir other than the tumtum, the tumtum inherits all of the estate.

讙诪壮 讚讜讞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜砖拽讬诇 讻讘转 讛讗 拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讬诇讚讛 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚讜讞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗讬谉 诇讜

GEMARA: The mishna states that the males direct the tumtum to the females. The Gemara asks: Does this mean that they direct him, and he takes sustenance like a daughter? Isn鈥檛 it taught in the latter clause of the mishna that if one said that either his male or female child will receive a certain sum once his wife gives birth, and she gave birth to a tumtum, the tumtum does not receive anything? This indicates that the tumtum does not have the rights of a female. Abaye says: The mishna means that they direct him to the females, but he has no rights to sustenance.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讚讜讞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讬砖 诇讜 讜住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚转谞讬讗 讬诇讚讛 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖讛 讞诇讛 注诇讬讛谉

And Rava says: They direct him to the females and he has a right to sustenance. And with regard to the latter clause of the mishna, which grants the tumtum nothing at all, there we arrive at the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it is taught in a mishna (Temura 24b): If one consecrates a firstborn animal while it is still a fetus, stating that if it is male it shall be a burnt-offering and if it is female it shall be a peace-offering, and the mother gave birth to a tumtum or a hermaphrodite [androginos], Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: It is not imbued with sanctity, as it is neither male nor female. So too, in the case discussed in the mishna here, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that the tumtum receives nothing, as he is considered to be a distinct entity of indeterminate sex, neither male nor female.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讬讜专砖 讻讘谉 讜谞讬讝讜谉 讻讘转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讗 讬讜专砖 讻讘谉 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪讜注讟讬谉 讜谞讬讝讜谉 讻讘转 讘谞讻住讬诐 诪专讜讘讬谉

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: A tumtum inherits as a son and is sustained as a daughter. Granted, according to Rava, the baraita can be explained to mean that the clause: Inherits as a son, is in the case of a small estate, as the daughters direct the tumtum to the sons, and just as there is no inheritance for the sons, there is none for the tumtum either. And the clause: And is sustained as a daughter, is in the case of a large estate, as the sons direct the tumtum to the daughters, and the tumtum receives sustenance along with them.

Scroll To Top