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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 12, 2017 | 讬状讞 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 141

According to the mishna, Does a tumtum get the lower amount (like the girls in a case where there is a lot of money and like the boys in the case where there is little money) or does he not receive anything at all? 聽Why in the case in the mishna does the husband commit 200 if a girl is born and 100 if a boy is born – aren’t boys more preferred than girls? 聽Three possible answers are brought. 聽Two tannaitic sources are brought with cases similar to the ones in our mishna聽but without enough details so the gemara establishes the details of the cases discussed. 聽A man on his deathbed gave all of his property to his unborn baby. 聽Rav Huna says this doesn’t work because a fetus can’t acquire items. 聽Rav Nachman questions him from our mishna where all the cases were giving a gift to a fetus. 聽Rav Huna rejects the mishna and says he doesn’t know who the author is. 聽The gemara then questions why Rav Huna couldn’t have given a different answer. 聽It raises聽seven possibilities but then rejects them all.

讗诇讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 谞讬讝讜谉 讻讘转 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 诇专讘讗 诪讗讬 讬讜专砖 讻讘谉 讗诇讗 专讗讜讬 诇讬专砖 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 专讗讜讬 诇讝讜谉 讜讗讬谉 诇讜

But according to the opinion of Abaye, what does it mean that the tumtum is sustained as a daughter, since Abaye maintains that the tumtum does not have the rights of a daughter? The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, even according to Rava, what does it mean that a tumtum inherits as a son, since Rava concedes that the tumtum and sons do not actually inherit anything? Rather, the baraita means that it is fitting for the tumtum to inherit but he does not actually inherit. Here too, with regard to sustenance, according to Abaye, the baraita means that it is fitting for the tumtum to be sustained, but he is not actually sustained.

讛讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬诇讚讛 讗砖转讬 讝讻专 讜讻讜壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讘转 注讚讬驻讗 诇讬讛 诪讘谉 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪谞讬讞 讘谉 诇讬讜专砖讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪诇讗 注诇讬讜 注讘专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛注讘专转诐 讗转 谞讞诇转讜 诇讘转讜 讜讗讬谉 讛注讘专讛 讗诇讗 注讘专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讬讜诐 注讘专讛 讛讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to one who says: If my wife gives birth to a male the offspring shall receive 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 two hundred dinars, if she in fact gave birth to a female, the offspring receives two hundred dinars. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that for him a daughter is preferable to a son? But this seems to contradict what Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: With regard to anyone who does not leave behind a son to inherit from him, the Holy One, Blessed be He, is filled with wrath upon him, as it is stated: 鈥淚f a man dies, and has no son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass [veha鈥檃vartem] to his daughter鈥 (Numbers 27:8). The term ha鈥檃vara means nothing other than wrath, as it is stated: 鈥淭hat day is a day of wrath [evra]鈥 (Zephaniah 1:15).

诇注谞讬谉 讬专讜砖讛 讘谉 注讚讬祝 诇讬讛 诇注谞讬谉 讛专讜讜讞讛 讘转讜 注讚讬驻讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara resolves the contradiction: With regard to the matter of inheritance, for him a son is preferable to a daughter, as a son bears his name and retains his ancestral heritage within his father鈥檚 tribe, but with regard to the matter of providing for his offspring鈥檚 comfort, for him his daughter is preferable to his son, as a son is more capable of coping for himself and the daughter needs more support.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘诪讘讻专转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讻讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘转 转讞诇讛 住讬诪谉 讬驻讛 诇讘谞讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚诪专讘讬讗 诇讗讞讛讗 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚诇讗 砖诇讟讗 讘讬讛 注讬谞讗 讘讬砖讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜诇讚讬讚讬 讘谞转谉 注讚讬驻谉 诇讬 诪讘谞讬

And Shmuel said: Here we are dealing with a mother who is giving birth for the first time, and this is in accordance with the statement of Rav 岣sda, as Rav 岣sda says: If one gives birth to a daughter first, it is a good sign for sons. There are those who say that this is because she raises her brothers, i.e., helps in their upbringing, and there are those who say that this is because the evil eye does not have dominion over the father. Rav 岣sda said: And as for myself, I prefer daughters to sons.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara adds: And if you wish, say: In accordance with whose statement is this mishna in which preference is given to the daughter? It is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

讛讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讘讻诇 讚转谞讬讗 讜讛壮 讘专讱 讗转 讗讘专讛诐 讘讻诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讜 讘转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖讛讬转讛 诇讜 讘转 讜讘讻诇 砖诪讛 讗讬诪讜专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专转讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞住专讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讘专讛诐 讚注讚讬驻讗 诪讘谉 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: Which statement of Rabbi Yehuda is this referring to? If we say it is referring to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the term 鈥渨ith everything [bakkol],鈥 that is difficult. The Gemara cites Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement. As it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd Abraham was old, well stricken in age; and the Lord had blessed Abraham with everything [bakkol]鈥 (Genesis 24:1). Rabbi Meir says: The blessing was that he did not have a daughter. Rabbi Yehuda says: The blessing was that he had a daughter, and her name was Bakkol. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda understands the birth of a daughter to be a blessing. The Gemara explains the difficulty: Say that you heard Rabbi Yehuda explain that the blessing was that the Merciful One did not even deprive Abraham of a daughter, in addition to his sons. Did you hear him say that a daughter is preferable to a son?

讗诇讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 诪爪讜讛 诇讝讜谉 讗转 讛讘谞讜转 讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇讘谞讬诐 讚注住拽讬 讘转讜专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪爪讜讛 诇讝讜谉 讗转 讛讘谞讬诐 讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇讘谞讜转 讚诇讗 诇讬转讝诇谉

The Gemara proposes another of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statements: Rather, it is referring to this other statement of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: One is not halakhically obligated to provide sustenance for his children beyond the age of six. Nevertheless, it is a mitzva to provide sustenance for the daughters. And one can infer a fortiori that it is certainly a mitzva to provide for sons, who are engaged in the study of the Torah; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is a mitzva to provide sustenance for the sons. And one can infer a fortiori that it is certainly a mitzva to provide for daughters, so that they not be disgraced by having to beg for their livelihood. This indicates that with regard to providing sustenance for one鈥檚 children, Rabbi Yehuda gives preference to the daughters.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讛讝讻专 谞讜讟诇 砖砖讛 讚讬谞专讬谉 讜讛谞拽讘讛 谞讜讟诇转 砖谞讬 讚讬谞专讬谉 讘诪讗讬

搂 The mishna discusses a case where one stipulated that if his wife gives birth to a male the offspring shall receive one hundred dinars, and if she gives birth to a female the offspring shall receive two hundred dinars. The mishna states that if she gave birth to both a male and a female, the male receives one hundred dinars and the female receives two hundred. The Gemara asks: But with regard to that which is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:4): If she gave birth to a male and a female, the male receives six dinars of gold, which are equivalent to one hundred fifty dinars of silver, and the female receives two dinars of gold, equivalent to fifty dinars of silver, with what situation is this baraita dealing?

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专讬转讛 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘诪住专住 讚讗诪专 讝讻专 转讞诇讛 诪讗转讬诐 谞拽讘讛 讗讞专讬讜 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 谞拽讘讛 转讞诇讛 诪谞讛 讝讻专 讗讞专讬讛 诪谞讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讜诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 谞驻拽 讘专讬砖讗 讝讻专 砖拽讬诇 诪谞讛 诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬讚讱 诪谞讛 讛讜讛 诪诪讜谉 讛诪讜讟诇 讘住驻拽 讜讞讜诇拽讬谉

Rav Ashi said: I said this halakha before Rav Kahana, and he explained it as teaching about one who inverted the stipulations of his gift. The baraita is referring to one who said: If a male is born first he will receive two hundred dinars, and if a female is born after him she will receive nothing. And if a female is born first she will receive one hundred dinars, and if a male is born after her he will receive one hundred dinars. And the mother gave birth to a male and a female, but we do not know which of them emerged from the womb first. In this case, the male takes one hundred dinars, as whichever way you look at it, this sum is due to him. The other one hundred dinars are property of uncertain ownership and are divided equally between the male and female.

讜讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 诪谞讛 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讘诪讘砖专谞讬

The Gemara asks: And with regard to that which is taught in another baraita: If she gave birth to a male and a female, he receives only one hundred dinars, how can you find these circumstances? Ravina said: This is referring to one who said: I shall give a certain sum to whoever informs me.

讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讘砖专谞讬 讘诪讛 谞驻讟专 专讞诪讛 砖诇 讗砖转讬 讗诐 讝讻专 讬讟讜诇 诪谞讛 讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 谞讜讟诇 诪谞讛 讗诐 谞拽讘讛 诪谞讛 讬诇讚讛 谞拽讘讛 谞讜讟诇 诪谞讛 讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 诪谞讛

This is as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:5): In a case where one said: Whoever informs me as to what opened my wife鈥檚 womb, i.e., what the sex of her child is, if it is a male, the one who informs me shall receive one hundred dinars. Therefore, if the wife gave birth to a male, the one who informed him receives one hundred dinars. If he also said: If it is a female he shall receive one hundred dinars, if she gave birth to a female, he receives one hundred dinars. If she gave birth to a male and a female, he receives only one hundred dinars.

讜讛讗 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讚讗诪专 谞诪讬 讗诐 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 谞诪讬 讬讟讜诇 诪谞讛 讗诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 谞驻诇

The Gemara challenges: But since he did not say anything about a male and a female, if she gave birth to a male and a female, he should not receive anything. Why does the baraita state that he receives one hundred dinars? The Gemara answers: This is referring to where he also said: If she gives birth to a male and a female he shall also receive one hundred dinars. The Gemara asks: But if he stated all of the possibilities, what did his stipulations serve to exclude? The Gemara answers: They serve to exclude a case where she gives birth to a non-viable newborn, in which case he receives nothing.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 谞讻住讬 诇讛讗讬 讚诪注讘专转 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讜讬 诪讝讻讛 诇注讜讘专 讜讛诪讝讻讛 诇注讜讘专 诇讗 拽谞讛

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who said to his wife: My property is given to the one with whom you are pregnant. Rav Huna said: This is a case of one who transfers ownership of an item to a fetus, and in the case of one who transfers ownership of an item to a fetus, the fetus does not acquire the item.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬诇讚讛 讗砖转讬 讝讻专 讬讟讜诇 诪谞讛 讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 谞讜讟诇 诪谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讬 砖谞讗讛

Rav Na岣an raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna opinion from the mishna, which states: With regard to one who says: If my wife gives birth to a male the offspring shall receive one hundred dinars, if she in fact gave birth to a male, the offspring receives one hundred dinars. This indicates that the fetus did acquire the money. Rav Huna said to him: I do not know who taught our mishna. It is not identifiable with a known opinion, and presumably the text has been corrupted.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐

The Gemara asks why Rav Huna replied in this manner: But let him say to Rav Na岣an: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: A person can transfer ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world, e.g., produce that has not yet grown. Just as he maintains that one can transfer ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world, so too, he maintains that one can transfer ownership of an item to a fetus, who has not yet been born.

讗讬诪讜专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讚讘专 砖讬砖谞讜 讘注讜诇诐 诇讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讘注讜诇诐 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛

The Gemara rejects this explanation: Say that you heard Rabbi Meir express this opinion with regard to transferring ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world to an entity that is in the world. Did you hear him speak of transferring ownership to an entity that has not yet come into the world, e.g., a fetus?

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 注讜讘专 拽谞讬 讚转谞谉 注讜讘专 驻讜住诇 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara proposes another resolution to Rav Na岣an鈥檚 objection: But let Rav Huna say to Rav Na岣an: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says: A fetus acquires ownership, as we learned in a mishna (Yevamot 67a): With regard to an Israelite woman who married a priest and he died and left her pregnant, the fetus disqualifies its father鈥檚 Canaanite slaves from partaking of teruma, because until it is born the fetus is not considered a priest, and the slaves, who are part of its inheritance, are not the slaves of a priest. And the fetus does not enable its mother to partake of teruma, even though it is the child of a priest. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. It is evident from this mishna that Rabbi Yosei holds that a fetus inherits its father鈥檚 property.

砖讗谞讬 讬专讜砖讛 讛讘讗讛 诪讗讬诇讬讛

The Gemara rejects this explanation: Inheritance is different, since, unlike a gift, it comes into the possession of the heir by itself, without a formal act of acquisition. Therefore, a fetus can acquire an inheritance, but not a gift.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讗 讬专讜砖讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诪转谞讛 讚转谞谉 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

The Gemara proposes another resolution to Rav Na岣an鈥檚 objection: But let Rav Huna say to Rav Na岣an: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, who says: The case of an inheritance is not different, and the case of a gift one gives to his heir is not different, i.e., the same halakhot apply to both. As we learned in a mishna (130a): Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka says: If one said about a person who is fit to inherit from him, e.g., one of his sons: This person will inherit all of my property, his statement stands.

讗讬诪讜专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 诇讚讘专 砖讬砖谞讜 讘注讜诇诐 诇讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讘注讜诇诐 诪讬 讗诪专

The Gemara rejects this explanation: Say that you heard Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka express this opinion with regard to a gift given to an entity that already exists in the world, but does he say anything with regard to a gift given to an entity that has not yet come into the world?

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讛讬讗 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚住讘专 诇讛

The Gemara proposes another resolution to Rav Na岣an鈥檚 objection: But let Rav Huna say to Rav Na岣an: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, who compares a gift to an inheritance, and he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, that a fetus is fit to inherit. The Gemara rejects this explanation: Who says that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei?

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讘诪讘砖专谞讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 讬讜专砖 讗诇讗 讛讜讗 讬讜专砖 讛讻诇 讗讬 讘诪讘砖专谞讬 讬讜专砖 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛

The Gemara proposes another resolution to Rav Na岣an鈥檚 objection: But let Rav Huna say to Rav Na岣an that the mishna is referring not to one who gave a gift to the fetus, but to one who said: I shall give a certain sum to whoever informs me. This person is in the world. The Gemara rejects this explanation as well: If that is so, then concerning that which the last clause of the mishna teaches: And if there is no heir other than the tumtum, the tumtum inherits all of the estate, if the mishna is referring to one who said: I shall give a certain sum to whoever informs me, what is the purpose of mentioning an heir, since the mishna is not discussing a gift to the heir at all?

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讘砖讬诇讚讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讗诐 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 讻诇 砖转诇讚 讻诇 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara proposes another resolution to Rav Na岣an鈥檚 objection: But let Rav Huna say to Rav Na岣an: The mishna is referring to a case where the gift was made after his wife had already given birth but he did not yet know the sex of the baby. The Gemara rejects this explanation as well: If that is so, then concerning that which the latter clause of the mishna teaches: Whatever offspring my wife gives birth to shall receive a certain sum, and she gave birth to a tumtum, the tumtum receives it, there is a difficulty. According to this explanation, the phrase: Whatever offspring my wife gives birth to, is incorrect. The mishna should have said: Whatever offspring my wife gave birth to.

  • 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 141

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 141

讗诇讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 谞讬讝讜谉 讻讘转 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 诇专讘讗 诪讗讬 讬讜专砖 讻讘谉 讗诇讗 专讗讜讬 诇讬专砖 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 专讗讜讬 诇讝讜谉 讜讗讬谉 诇讜

But according to the opinion of Abaye, what does it mean that the tumtum is sustained as a daughter, since Abaye maintains that the tumtum does not have the rights of a daughter? The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, even according to Rava, what does it mean that a tumtum inherits as a son, since Rava concedes that the tumtum and sons do not actually inherit anything? Rather, the baraita means that it is fitting for the tumtum to inherit but he does not actually inherit. Here too, with regard to sustenance, according to Abaye, the baraita means that it is fitting for the tumtum to be sustained, but he is not actually sustained.

讛讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬诇讚讛 讗砖转讬 讝讻专 讜讻讜壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讘转 注讚讬驻讗 诇讬讛 诪讘谉 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪谞讬讞 讘谉 诇讬讜专砖讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪诇讗 注诇讬讜 注讘专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛注讘专转诐 讗转 谞讞诇转讜 诇讘转讜 讜讗讬谉 讛注讘专讛 讗诇讗 注讘专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讬讜诐 注讘专讛 讛讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to one who says: If my wife gives birth to a male the offspring shall receive 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 two hundred dinars, if she in fact gave birth to a female, the offspring receives two hundred dinars. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that for him a daughter is preferable to a son? But this seems to contradict what Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: With regard to anyone who does not leave behind a son to inherit from him, the Holy One, Blessed be He, is filled with wrath upon him, as it is stated: 鈥淚f a man dies, and has no son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass [veha鈥檃vartem] to his daughter鈥 (Numbers 27:8). The term ha鈥檃vara means nothing other than wrath, as it is stated: 鈥淭hat day is a day of wrath [evra]鈥 (Zephaniah 1:15).

诇注谞讬谉 讬专讜砖讛 讘谉 注讚讬祝 诇讬讛 诇注谞讬谉 讛专讜讜讞讛 讘转讜 注讚讬驻讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara resolves the contradiction: With regard to the matter of inheritance, for him a son is preferable to a daughter, as a son bears his name and retains his ancestral heritage within his father鈥檚 tribe, but with regard to the matter of providing for his offspring鈥檚 comfort, for him his daughter is preferable to his son, as a son is more capable of coping for himself and the daughter needs more support.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘诪讘讻专转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讻讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘转 转讞诇讛 住讬诪谉 讬驻讛 诇讘谞讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚诪专讘讬讗 诇讗讞讛讗 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚诇讗 砖诇讟讗 讘讬讛 注讬谞讗 讘讬砖讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜诇讚讬讚讬 讘谞转谉 注讚讬驻谉 诇讬 诪讘谞讬

And Shmuel said: Here we are dealing with a mother who is giving birth for the first time, and this is in accordance with the statement of Rav 岣sda, as Rav 岣sda says: If one gives birth to a daughter first, it is a good sign for sons. There are those who say that this is because she raises her brothers, i.e., helps in their upbringing, and there are those who say that this is because the evil eye does not have dominion over the father. Rav 岣sda said: And as for myself, I prefer daughters to sons.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara adds: And if you wish, say: In accordance with whose statement is this mishna in which preference is given to the daughter? It is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

讛讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讘讻诇 讚转谞讬讗 讜讛壮 讘专讱 讗转 讗讘专讛诐 讘讻诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讜 讘转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖讛讬转讛 诇讜 讘转 讜讘讻诇 砖诪讛 讗讬诪讜专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专转讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞住专讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗讘专讛诐 讚注讚讬驻讗 诪讘谉 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: Which statement of Rabbi Yehuda is this referring to? If we say it is referring to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the term 鈥渨ith everything [bakkol],鈥 that is difficult. The Gemara cites Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement. As it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd Abraham was old, well stricken in age; and the Lord had blessed Abraham with everything [bakkol]鈥 (Genesis 24:1). Rabbi Meir says: The blessing was that he did not have a daughter. Rabbi Yehuda says: The blessing was that he had a daughter, and her name was Bakkol. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda understands the birth of a daughter to be a blessing. The Gemara explains the difficulty: Say that you heard Rabbi Yehuda explain that the blessing was that the Merciful One did not even deprive Abraham of a daughter, in addition to his sons. Did you hear him say that a daughter is preferable to a son?

讗诇讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 诪爪讜讛 诇讝讜谉 讗转 讛讘谞讜转 讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇讘谞讬诐 讚注住拽讬 讘转讜专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪爪讜讛 诇讝讜谉 讗转 讛讘谞讬诐 讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇讘谞讜转 讚诇讗 诇讬转讝诇谉

The Gemara proposes another of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statements: Rather, it is referring to this other statement of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: One is not halakhically obligated to provide sustenance for his children beyond the age of six. Nevertheless, it is a mitzva to provide sustenance for the daughters. And one can infer a fortiori that it is certainly a mitzva to provide for sons, who are engaged in the study of the Torah; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is a mitzva to provide sustenance for the sons. And one can infer a fortiori that it is certainly a mitzva to provide for daughters, so that they not be disgraced by having to beg for their livelihood. This indicates that with regard to providing sustenance for one鈥檚 children, Rabbi Yehuda gives preference to the daughters.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讛讝讻专 谞讜讟诇 砖砖讛 讚讬谞专讬谉 讜讛谞拽讘讛 谞讜讟诇转 砖谞讬 讚讬谞专讬谉 讘诪讗讬

搂 The mishna discusses a case where one stipulated that if his wife gives birth to a male the offspring shall receive one hundred dinars, and if she gives birth to a female the offspring shall receive two hundred dinars. The mishna states that if she gave birth to both a male and a female, the male receives one hundred dinars and the female receives two hundred. The Gemara asks: But with regard to that which is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:4): If she gave birth to a male and a female, the male receives six dinars of gold, which are equivalent to one hundred fifty dinars of silver, and the female receives two dinars of gold, equivalent to fifty dinars of silver, with what situation is this baraita dealing?

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专讬转讛 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘诪住专住 讚讗诪专 讝讻专 转讞诇讛 诪讗转讬诐 谞拽讘讛 讗讞专讬讜 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 谞拽讘讛 转讞诇讛 诪谞讛 讝讻专 讗讞专讬讛 诪谞讛 讜讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讜诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 谞驻拽 讘专讬砖讗 讝讻专 砖拽讬诇 诪谞讛 诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬讚讱 诪谞讛 讛讜讛 诪诪讜谉 讛诪讜讟诇 讘住驻拽 讜讞讜诇拽讬谉

Rav Ashi said: I said this halakha before Rav Kahana, and he explained it as teaching about one who inverted the stipulations of his gift. The baraita is referring to one who said: If a male is born first he will receive two hundred dinars, and if a female is born after him she will receive nothing. And if a female is born first she will receive one hundred dinars, and if a male is born after her he will receive one hundred dinars. And the mother gave birth to a male and a female, but we do not know which of them emerged from the womb first. In this case, the male takes one hundred dinars, as whichever way you look at it, this sum is due to him. The other one hundred dinars are property of uncertain ownership and are divided equally between the male and female.

讜讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 诪谞讛 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讘诪讘砖专谞讬

The Gemara asks: And with regard to that which is taught in another baraita: If she gave birth to a male and a female, he receives only one hundred dinars, how can you find these circumstances? Ravina said: This is referring to one who said: I shall give a certain sum to whoever informs me.

讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讘砖专谞讬 讘诪讛 谞驻讟专 专讞诪讛 砖诇 讗砖转讬 讗诐 讝讻专 讬讟讜诇 诪谞讛 讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 谞讜讟诇 诪谞讛 讗诐 谞拽讘讛 诪谞讛 讬诇讚讛 谞拽讘讛 谞讜讟诇 诪谞讛 讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 诪谞讛

This is as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:5): In a case where one said: Whoever informs me as to what opened my wife鈥檚 womb, i.e., what the sex of her child is, if it is a male, the one who informs me shall receive one hundred dinars. Therefore, if the wife gave birth to a male, the one who informed him receives one hundred dinars. If he also said: If it is a female he shall receive one hundred dinars, if she gave birth to a female, he receives one hundred dinars. If she gave birth to a male and a female, he receives only one hundred dinars.

讜讛讗 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讚讗诪专 谞诪讬 讗诐 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 谞诪讬 讬讟讜诇 诪谞讛 讗诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 谞驻诇

The Gemara challenges: But since he did not say anything about a male and a female, if she gave birth to a male and a female, he should not receive anything. Why does the baraita state that he receives one hundred dinars? The Gemara answers: This is referring to where he also said: If she gives birth to a male and a female he shall also receive one hundred dinars. The Gemara asks: But if he stated all of the possibilities, what did his stipulations serve to exclude? The Gemara answers: They serve to exclude a case where she gives birth to a non-viable newborn, in which case he receives nothing.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 谞讻住讬 诇讛讗讬 讚诪注讘专转 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讜讬 诪讝讻讛 诇注讜讘专 讜讛诪讝讻讛 诇注讜讘专 诇讗 拽谞讛

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who said to his wife: My property is given to the one with whom you are pregnant. Rav Huna said: This is a case of one who transfers ownership of an item to a fetus, and in the case of one who transfers ownership of an item to a fetus, the fetus does not acquire the item.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬诇讚讛 讗砖转讬 讝讻专 讬讟讜诇 诪谞讛 讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 谞讜讟诇 诪谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讬 砖谞讗讛

Rav Na岣an raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna opinion from the mishna, which states: With regard to one who says: If my wife gives birth to a male the offspring shall receive one hundred dinars, if she in fact gave birth to a male, the offspring receives one hundred dinars. This indicates that the fetus did acquire the money. Rav Huna said to him: I do not know who taught our mishna. It is not identifiable with a known opinion, and presumably the text has been corrupted.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐

The Gemara asks why Rav Huna replied in this manner: But let him say to Rav Na岣an: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: A person can transfer ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world, e.g., produce that has not yet grown. Just as he maintains that one can transfer ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world, so too, he maintains that one can transfer ownership of an item to a fetus, who has not yet been born.

讗讬诪讜专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讚讘专 砖讬砖谞讜 讘注讜诇诐 诇讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讘注讜诇诐 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛

The Gemara rejects this explanation: Say that you heard Rabbi Meir express this opinion with regard to transferring ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world to an entity that is in the world. Did you hear him speak of transferring ownership to an entity that has not yet come into the world, e.g., a fetus?

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 注讜讘专 拽谞讬 讚转谞谉 注讜讘专 驻讜住诇 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara proposes another resolution to Rav Na岣an鈥檚 objection: But let Rav Huna say to Rav Na岣an: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says: A fetus acquires ownership, as we learned in a mishna (Yevamot 67a): With regard to an Israelite woman who married a priest and he died and left her pregnant, the fetus disqualifies its father鈥檚 Canaanite slaves from partaking of teruma, because until it is born the fetus is not considered a priest, and the slaves, who are part of its inheritance, are not the slaves of a priest. And the fetus does not enable its mother to partake of teruma, even though it is the child of a priest. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. It is evident from this mishna that Rabbi Yosei holds that a fetus inherits its father鈥檚 property.

砖讗谞讬 讬专讜砖讛 讛讘讗讛 诪讗讬诇讬讛

The Gemara rejects this explanation: Inheritance is different, since, unlike a gift, it comes into the possession of the heir by itself, without a formal act of acquisition. Therefore, a fetus can acquire an inheritance, but not a gift.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讗 讬专讜砖讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诪转谞讛 讚转谞谉 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

The Gemara proposes another resolution to Rav Na岣an鈥檚 objection: But let Rav Huna say to Rav Na岣an: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, who says: The case of an inheritance is not different, and the case of a gift one gives to his heir is not different, i.e., the same halakhot apply to both. As we learned in a mishna (130a): Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka says: If one said about a person who is fit to inherit from him, e.g., one of his sons: This person will inherit all of my property, his statement stands.

讗讬诪讜专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 诇讚讘专 砖讬砖谞讜 讘注讜诇诐 诇讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讘注讜诇诐 诪讬 讗诪专

The Gemara rejects this explanation: Say that you heard Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka express this opinion with regard to a gift given to an entity that already exists in the world, but does he say anything with regard to a gift given to an entity that has not yet come into the world?

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讛讬讗 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚住讘专 诇讛

The Gemara proposes another resolution to Rav Na岣an鈥檚 objection: But let Rav Huna say to Rav Na岣an: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, who compares a gift to an inheritance, and he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, that a fetus is fit to inherit. The Gemara rejects this explanation: Who says that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei?

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讘诪讘砖专谞讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 讬讜专砖 讗诇讗 讛讜讗 讬讜专砖 讛讻诇 讗讬 讘诪讘砖专谞讬 讬讜专砖 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛

The Gemara proposes another resolution to Rav Na岣an鈥檚 objection: But let Rav Huna say to Rav Na岣an that the mishna is referring not to one who gave a gift to the fetus, but to one who said: I shall give a certain sum to whoever informs me. This person is in the world. The Gemara rejects this explanation as well: If that is so, then concerning that which the last clause of the mishna teaches: And if there is no heir other than the tumtum, the tumtum inherits all of the estate, if the mishna is referring to one who said: I shall give a certain sum to whoever informs me, what is the purpose of mentioning an heir, since the mishna is not discussing a gift to the heir at all?

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讘砖讬诇讚讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讗诐 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 讻诇 砖转诇讚 讻诇 砖讬诇讚讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara proposes another resolution to Rav Na岣an鈥檚 objection: But let Rav Huna say to Rav Na岣an: The mishna is referring to a case where the gift was made after his wife had already given birth but he did not yet know the sex of the baby. The Gemara rejects this explanation as well: If that is so, then concerning that which the latter clause of the mishna teaches: Whatever offspring my wife gives birth to shall receive a certain sum, and she gave birth to a tumtum, the tumtum receives it, there is a difficulty. According to this explanation, the phrase: Whatever offspring my wife gives birth to, is incorrect. The mishna should have said: Whatever offspring my wife gave birth to.

Scroll To Top