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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 13, 2017 | 讬状讟 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)

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

  • Masechet Chagigah is lovingly sponsored in honor of Debra Rappaport Rosen by her family, who are in awe at her incredible achievement of finishing all of Shas!

Bava Batra 142

Rav Sheshet holds that a fetus can acquire items. 聽He brings a source to support his opinion but it is rejected. 聽A source is brought to reject Rav Sheshet’s opinion. 聽But it too is rejected as it can be explained as referring to something else. 聽The debate continues regarding whether a fetus can acquire聽items or not. 聽And the gemara concludes that we hold that it cannot, however our mishna is an exception since it is to his own son.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讻砖转诇讚 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗祝 诇讻砖转诇讚 诇讗 拽谞讛

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 to one who says that the transfer of ownership should take effect when she gives birth, at which point the child already exists. The Gemara rejects this resolution: Rav Huna does not interpret the mishna in this way, because Rav Huna conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rav Huna says: Even if one says that the transfer of ownership should take effect when she gives birth, the fetus does not acquire it.

讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诪讝讻讛 诇注讜讘专 诇讗 拽谞讛 诇讻砖转诇讚 拽谞讛 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讗祝 诇讻砖转诇讚 诇讗 拽谞讛 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 拽谞讛

The Gemara clarifies: As Rav Na岣an says: With regard to one who transfers ownership of an item to a fetus, the fetus does not acquire it. But if he says that the transfer of ownership of the item should take effect when she gives birth, the fetus acquires it. And Rav Huna says: Even if he says that the transfer of ownership of the item should take effect when she gives birth, the fetus does not acquire it, because the fetus did not exist in the world when he transferred ownership. And Rav Sheshet says: In both this case and that case, the fetus acquires the item.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讙专 砖诪转 讜讘讝讘讝讜 讬砖专讗诇 谞讻住讬讜 讜砖诪注讜 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘谉 讗讜 砖讛讬转讛 讗砖转讜 诪注讜讘专转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讞讝讬专 讛讞讝讬专讜 讛讻诇 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖诪注讜 砖诪转 讘谞讜 讗讜 砖讛驻讬诇讛 讗砖转讜 讛讞讝讬拽 讘砖谞讬讛 拽谞讛 讜讘专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讗 拽谞讛

Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say that the fetus acquires the item? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a convert who died, apparently without offspring, and Jews plundered [uvizbezu] his property, assuming that he had no heirs and his property was therefore ownerless, and subsequently they heard that he had a son or that his wife was pregnant, they are obligated to return the property. If they returned it all, and then they heard that his son died or that his wife miscarried, if one took possession at the second time, after hearing about the death or the miscarriage, he acquired the property, but if one took possession only at the first time, before it was known there was an heir at all, he did not acquire the property.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 注讜讘专 诇讗 拽谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讛讜 讗讞讝讜拽讬 讘砖谞讬讛 讛讗 讗讞讝讬拽讜 诇讛讜 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗

Rav Sheshet explains: And if it enters your mind that a fetus does not acquire property, why do they need to take possession again the second time? Didn鈥檛 they already take possession one time? Evidently, the miscarried fetus had acquired ownership in the meantime.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讬专讜砖讛 讛讘讗讛 诪讗讬诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 专讘讗 讗诪专 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚专驻讜讬 诪专驻讬讗谉 讘讬讚讬讬讛讜 诪注讬拽专讗

Abaye said in reply to Rav Sheshet: Inheritance, which comes into the possession of the heir by itself without a formal act of acquisition, is different. Even if a fetus inherits property, it may not be able to acquire property in any other manner, e.g., receiving a gift. Rava said: It is different there, in the case where they plundered the property of the convert, as the property was initially only loosely held in their hands, as they did not clearly know whether or not the deceased convert had heirs. Therefore, the first time they took possession was not sufficient, and they needed to take possession again in order to acquire the property.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 砖砖诪注讜 讘讜 砖诪转 讜诇讗 诪转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between Abaye鈥檚 refutation and Rava鈥檚 refutation? The practical difference between them is in a case where they initially heard with regard to the fetus that he had died, and they then took possession of the property. But in reality, he had not died, and then he died. According to Abaye, a fetus inherits property. Therefore, the property was not ownerless, and the plunderers did not acquire it. According to Rava, since the plunderers heard that the fetus had died, they took a firm hold upon the property, and they acquired it the first time.

转讗 砖诪注 转讬谞讜拽 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞讜讞诇 讜诪谞讞讬诇 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讬谉 注讜讘专 诇讗 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 谞讜讞诇 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗诐 诇讛谞讞讬诇 诇讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讘 讜讚讜拽讗 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 注讜讘专 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

The Gemara offers another refutation of the opinion of Rav Sheshet: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Nidda 43b鈥44a): A one-day-old child inherits property and bequeaths property. One can infer that if the child is one day old, yes, he inherits property; but a fetus does not. The Gemara replies: Doesn鈥檛 Rav Sheshet say that the mishna teaches a different halakha? The mishna teaches that a one-day-old child inherits his mother鈥檚 property the moment he is born, so that he is able to bequeath it, if he then dies, to his heirs who are not the mother鈥檚 heirs, e.g., his paternal brothers. This halakha specifically applies from when he is one day old, but a fetus whose mother died does not inherit from her. What is the reason for this?

讚讛讜讗 诪讬讬转 讘专讬砖讗 讜讗讬谉 讛讘谉 讬讜专砖 讗转 讗诪讜 讘拽讘专 诇讛谞讞讬诇 诇讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讘

The reason is that we presume that the fetus died first, before its mother died, and the son does not inherit from his mother while in the grave, in order to bequeath the inheritance to his paternal brothers. The halakha is that if a son dies, and afterward his mother dies, the deceased son does not inherit from his mother and subsequently bequeath the inheritance to his paternal brothers, who are not related to the mother. But in other cases, where it is not his mother鈥檚 estate, a fetus inherits property.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讛讜讗 诪讬讬转 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讗 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讜驻专讻住 转诇转讗 驻专讻讜住讬 讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讝谞讘 讛诇讟讗讛 砖诪驻专讻住转

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that it is certain that the fetus died first? But there was an incident where the mother died and the fetus made three spasmodic motions afterward. Apparently, a fetus can die after the mother. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: That incident was just as it is with the tail of the lizard, which jerks after being severed from the lizard, but it is just a spasmodic motion which does not indicate that it is still alive.

诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讜诪专 砖诪诪注讟 讘讞诇拽 讘讻讜专讛 讜讚讜拽讗 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 注讜讘专 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讜讬诇讚讜 诇讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗

Mar, son of Rav Yosef, says in the name of Rava: The mishna comes to say that a one-day-old child reduces the portion of the firstborn. The firstborn is entitled to a double portion of the inheritance, and this is calculated taking into account the portion due to his dead brother. And it is in this context that specifically the portion of a one-day-old child is taken into account, but the portion of a fetus is not taken into account, even though a fetus also inherits property. What is the reason for this? The Merciful One states concerning the portion of the firstborn: 鈥淚f a man has two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated, and they bore him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:15). The term 鈥渃hildren鈥 excludes a fetus.

讚讗诪专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘谉 砖谞讜诇讚 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讜 讗讬谞讜 诪诪注讟 讘讞诇拽 讘讻讜专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讜讬诇讚讜 诇讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗

This is similar to another halakha, as Mar, son of Rav Yosef, says in the name of Rava: A son who was born after his father鈥檚 death does not reduce the firstborn鈥檚 portion. What is the reason for this? The Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淎nd they bore him children,鈥 and this term 鈥渃hildren鈥 does not apply to a fetus.

讘住讜专讗 诪转谞讜 讛讻讬 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 诪转谞讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘讻讜专 砖谞讜诇讚 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讬讻讬专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 诇讬转讗 讚讬讻讬专 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讻诇 讛谞讬 诇讬砖谞讬 讚讗诪专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗

The Gemara notes: In Sura they taught Mar鈥檚 statement that way, but in Pumbedita they taught it this way: Mar, son of Rav Yosef, says in the name of Rava: A firstborn who was born after his father鈥檚 death does not receive a double portion. What is the reason for this? The Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淏ut he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:17), and in this case the father is not there that he can acknowledge him. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with all these versions of that which Mar, son of Rav Yosef, says in the name of Rava. Accordingly, a one-day-old child reduces the portion of the firstborn, a son born after his father鈥檚 death does not reduce the firstborn鈥檚 portion, and a firstborn born after his father鈥檚 death does not receive a double portion.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪讝讻讛 诇注讜讘专 诇讗 拽谞讛 讜讗诐 转讗诪专 诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讚注转讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 拽专讜讘讛 讗爪诇 讘谞讜

Rabbi Yitz岣k says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to one who transfers ownership of an item to a fetus, the fetus does not acquire the item. And if you say that the statement of our mishna (140b), with regard to one who gives a gift to his unborn child, indicates that an item can be transferred to a fetus, the circumstances there are unique. Since the disposition of a person is to be inclined toward his son, the Sages validated such a transfer, but one cannot transfer an item to the unborn child of another.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讞谞讗 讘讙讚转讗讛 驻讜拽 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬 讘讬 注砖专讛 讜讗讬诪专 诇讱 讘讗驻讬讬讛讜 讛诪讝讻讛 诇注讜讘专 拽谞讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 讛诪讝讻讛 诇注讜讘专 诇讗 拽谞讛

Shmuel said to Rav 岣na of Baghdad: Go out and bring me an assembly of ten men, and I will say a halakha to you in their presence, so that it will be well publicized. The halakha was: With regard to one who transfers ownership of an item to a fetus, the fetus acquires the item. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that with regard to one who transfers ownership of an item to a fetus, the fetus does not acquire the item.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 谞讻住讬 诇讘谞讬 讚讬讛讜讜 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讱 讗转讗 讘专讬讛 拽砖讬砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 诪讗讬 转讬讛讜讬 注诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 拽谞讬 讻讞讚 诪讘专讗 讛谞讱 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 拽谞讜 讚讗讻转讬 诇讬转谞讛讜

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who said to his wife, before she conceived: My property is given to the sons that I will have from you. His older son from a previous marriage came and said to him: That man, i.e., me, what will become of him, i.e., will I receive nothing? He said to his son: Go and acquire a portion like one of the sons who will be born, i.e., you will receive a share as well. The Gemara comments: Those sons who were not yet born certainly did not acquire the property, and do not receive more than their share as heirs, as they are not yet in existence.

讛讗讬 讗讬转 讞讜诇拽 诇讟诇讬讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讘谞讬讗 讗讜 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讞讜诇拽 诇讟诇讬讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讘谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘讬 诪讬讬砖讗 讜专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬转 讞讜诇拽 诇讟诇讬讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讘谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讬 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讬转 讞讜诇拽 诇讟诇讬讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讘谞讬讗

The Gemara asks: With regard to this son, does the young man [letalya] receive an additional share of the inheritance in a case where there are other sons from the second wife, since his father gave him an additional share, or does the young man not receive an additional share of the inheritance where there are other sons? There are Rabbi Avin, and Rabbi Meyasha, and Rabbi Yirmeya, who all say: The young man does receive an additional share of the inheritance where there are other sons. And there are Rabbi Abbahu, and Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappi, and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣, who all say: The young man does not receive an additional share of the inheritance where there are other sons.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转谉 讗讜 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜转讬讬讻讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转谉 讚拽砖讬砖谞讗 诪讬谞讬讬讻讜 讜诇讗讜 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讬讻讜 讚讚专讚拽讬 讗转讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 讘拽砖讬砖讜转讗 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讘讟注诪讗 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讚讗住讘专转讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛

Rabbi Abbahu said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Is the halakha in accordance with our opinion, or is the halakha in accordance with your opinion? Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Abbahu: It is obvious that the halakha is in accordance with our opinion, as we are older than you, and the halakha is not in accordance with your opinion, as you are youngsters [dardekei]. Rabbi Abbahu said to Rabbi Yirmeya in reply: Does the matter depend upon age? The matter depends upon the reason behind the ruling. Rabbi Yirmeya asked him: And what is your reason? Rabbi Abbahu replied: Go to Rabbi Avin, as I explained this halakha to him,

  • 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)

  • Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren".

  • Masechet Chagigah is lovingly sponsored in honor of Debra Rappaport Rosen by her family, who are in awe at her incredible achievement of finishing all of Shas!

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 142

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 142

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讻砖转诇讚 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗祝 诇讻砖转诇讚 诇讗 拽谞讛

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 to one who says that the transfer of ownership should take effect when she gives birth, at which point the child already exists. The Gemara rejects this resolution: Rav Huna does not interpret the mishna in this way, because Rav Huna conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rav Huna says: Even if one says that the transfer of ownership should take effect when she gives birth, the fetus does not acquire it.

讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诪讝讻讛 诇注讜讘专 诇讗 拽谞讛 诇讻砖转诇讚 拽谞讛 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讗祝 诇讻砖转诇讚 诇讗 拽谞讛 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 拽谞讛

The Gemara clarifies: As Rav Na岣an says: With regard to one who transfers ownership of an item to a fetus, the fetus does not acquire it. But if he says that the transfer of ownership of the item should take effect when she gives birth, the fetus acquires it. And Rav Huna says: Even if he says that the transfer of ownership of the item should take effect when she gives birth, the fetus does not acquire it, because the fetus did not exist in the world when he transferred ownership. And Rav Sheshet says: In both this case and that case, the fetus acquires the item.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讙专 砖诪转 讜讘讝讘讝讜 讬砖专讗诇 谞讻住讬讜 讜砖诪注讜 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘谉 讗讜 砖讛讬转讛 讗砖转讜 诪注讜讘专转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讞讝讬专 讛讞讝讬专讜 讛讻诇 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖诪注讜 砖诪转 讘谞讜 讗讜 砖讛驻讬诇讛 讗砖转讜 讛讞讝讬拽 讘砖谞讬讛 拽谞讛 讜讘专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讗 拽谞讛

Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say that the fetus acquires the item? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a convert who died, apparently without offspring, and Jews plundered [uvizbezu] his property, assuming that he had no heirs and his property was therefore ownerless, and subsequently they heard that he had a son or that his wife was pregnant, they are obligated to return the property. If they returned it all, and then they heard that his son died or that his wife miscarried, if one took possession at the second time, after hearing about the death or the miscarriage, he acquired the property, but if one took possession only at the first time, before it was known there was an heir at all, he did not acquire the property.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 注讜讘专 诇讗 拽谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讛讜 讗讞讝讜拽讬 讘砖谞讬讛 讛讗 讗讞讝讬拽讜 诇讛讜 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗

Rav Sheshet explains: And if it enters your mind that a fetus does not acquire property, why do they need to take possession again the second time? Didn鈥檛 they already take possession one time? Evidently, the miscarried fetus had acquired ownership in the meantime.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讬专讜砖讛 讛讘讗讛 诪讗讬诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 专讘讗 讗诪专 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚专驻讜讬 诪专驻讬讗谉 讘讬讚讬讬讛讜 诪注讬拽专讗

Abaye said in reply to Rav Sheshet: Inheritance, which comes into the possession of the heir by itself without a formal act of acquisition, is different. Even if a fetus inherits property, it may not be able to acquire property in any other manner, e.g., receiving a gift. Rava said: It is different there, in the case where they plundered the property of the convert, as the property was initially only loosely held in their hands, as they did not clearly know whether or not the deceased convert had heirs. Therefore, the first time they took possession was not sufficient, and they needed to take possession again in order to acquire the property.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 砖砖诪注讜 讘讜 砖诪转 讜诇讗 诪转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between Abaye鈥檚 refutation and Rava鈥檚 refutation? The practical difference between them is in a case where they initially heard with regard to the fetus that he had died, and they then took possession of the property. But in reality, he had not died, and then he died. According to Abaye, a fetus inherits property. Therefore, the property was not ownerless, and the plunderers did not acquire it. According to Rava, since the plunderers heard that the fetus had died, they took a firm hold upon the property, and they acquired it the first time.

转讗 砖诪注 转讬谞讜拽 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞讜讞诇 讜诪谞讞讬诇 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讬谉 注讜讘专 诇讗 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 谞讜讞诇 讘谞讻住讬 讛讗诐 诇讛谞讞讬诇 诇讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讘 讜讚讜拽讗 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 注讜讘专 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

The Gemara offers another refutation of the opinion of Rav Sheshet: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Nidda 43b鈥44a): A one-day-old child inherits property and bequeaths property. One can infer that if the child is one day old, yes, he inherits property; but a fetus does not. The Gemara replies: Doesn鈥檛 Rav Sheshet say that the mishna teaches a different halakha? The mishna teaches that a one-day-old child inherits his mother鈥檚 property the moment he is born, so that he is able to bequeath it, if he then dies, to his heirs who are not the mother鈥檚 heirs, e.g., his paternal brothers. This halakha specifically applies from when he is one day old, but a fetus whose mother died does not inherit from her. What is the reason for this?

讚讛讜讗 诪讬讬转 讘专讬砖讗 讜讗讬谉 讛讘谉 讬讜专砖 讗转 讗诪讜 讘拽讘专 诇讛谞讞讬诇 诇讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讘

The reason is that we presume that the fetus died first, before its mother died, and the son does not inherit from his mother while in the grave, in order to bequeath the inheritance to his paternal brothers. The halakha is that if a son dies, and afterward his mother dies, the deceased son does not inherit from his mother and subsequently bequeath the inheritance to his paternal brothers, who are not related to the mother. But in other cases, where it is not his mother鈥檚 estate, a fetus inherits property.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讛讜讗 诪讬讬转 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讗 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讜驻专讻住 转诇转讗 驻专讻讜住讬 讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讝谞讘 讛诇讟讗讛 砖诪驻专讻住转

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that it is certain that the fetus died first? But there was an incident where the mother died and the fetus made three spasmodic motions afterward. Apparently, a fetus can die after the mother. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: That incident was just as it is with the tail of the lizard, which jerks after being severed from the lizard, but it is just a spasmodic motion which does not indicate that it is still alive.

诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讜诪专 砖诪诪注讟 讘讞诇拽 讘讻讜专讛 讜讚讜拽讗 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 注讜讘专 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讜讬诇讚讜 诇讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗

Mar, son of Rav Yosef, says in the name of Rava: The mishna comes to say that a one-day-old child reduces the portion of the firstborn. The firstborn is entitled to a double portion of the inheritance, and this is calculated taking into account the portion due to his dead brother. And it is in this context that specifically the portion of a one-day-old child is taken into account, but the portion of a fetus is not taken into account, even though a fetus also inherits property. What is the reason for this? The Merciful One states concerning the portion of the firstborn: 鈥淚f a man has two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated, and they bore him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:15). The term 鈥渃hildren鈥 excludes a fetus.

讚讗诪专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘谉 砖谞讜诇讚 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讜 讗讬谞讜 诪诪注讟 讘讞诇拽 讘讻讜专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讜讬诇讚讜 诇讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗

This is similar to another halakha, as Mar, son of Rav Yosef, says in the name of Rava: A son who was born after his father鈥檚 death does not reduce the firstborn鈥檚 portion. What is the reason for this? The Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淎nd they bore him children,鈥 and this term 鈥渃hildren鈥 does not apply to a fetus.

讘住讜专讗 诪转谞讜 讛讻讬 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 诪转谞讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘讻讜专 砖谞讜诇讚 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讬讻讬专 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 诇讬转讗 讚讬讻讬专 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讻诇 讛谞讬 诇讬砖谞讬 讚讗诪专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗

The Gemara notes: In Sura they taught Mar鈥檚 statement that way, but in Pumbedita they taught it this way: Mar, son of Rav Yosef, says in the name of Rava: A firstborn who was born after his father鈥檚 death does not receive a double portion. What is the reason for this? The Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淏ut he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:17), and in this case the father is not there that he can acknowledge him. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with all these versions of that which Mar, son of Rav Yosef, says in the name of Rava. Accordingly, a one-day-old child reduces the portion of the firstborn, a son born after his father鈥檚 death does not reduce the firstborn鈥檚 portion, and a firstborn born after his father鈥檚 death does not receive a double portion.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪讝讻讛 诇注讜讘专 诇讗 拽谞讛 讜讗诐 转讗诪专 诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讚注转讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 拽专讜讘讛 讗爪诇 讘谞讜

Rabbi Yitz岣k says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to one who transfers ownership of an item to a fetus, the fetus does not acquire the item. And if you say that the statement of our mishna (140b), with regard to one who gives a gift to his unborn child, indicates that an item can be transferred to a fetus, the circumstances there are unique. Since the disposition of a person is to be inclined toward his son, the Sages validated such a transfer, but one cannot transfer an item to the unborn child of another.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讞谞讗 讘讙讚转讗讛 驻讜拽 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬 讘讬 注砖专讛 讜讗讬诪专 诇讱 讘讗驻讬讬讛讜 讛诪讝讻讛 诇注讜讘专 拽谞讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 讛诪讝讻讛 诇注讜讘专 诇讗 拽谞讛

Shmuel said to Rav 岣na of Baghdad: Go out and bring me an assembly of ten men, and I will say a halakha to you in their presence, so that it will be well publicized. The halakha was: With regard to one who transfers ownership of an item to a fetus, the fetus acquires the item. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that with regard to one who transfers ownership of an item to a fetus, the fetus does not acquire the item.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 谞讻住讬 诇讘谞讬 讚讬讛讜讜 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讱 讗转讗 讘专讬讛 拽砖讬砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 诪讗讬 转讬讛讜讬 注诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 拽谞讬 讻讞讚 诪讘专讗 讛谞讱 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 拽谞讜 讚讗讻转讬 诇讬转谞讛讜

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who said to his wife, before she conceived: My property is given to the sons that I will have from you. His older son from a previous marriage came and said to him: That man, i.e., me, what will become of him, i.e., will I receive nothing? He said to his son: Go and acquire a portion like one of the sons who will be born, i.e., you will receive a share as well. The Gemara comments: Those sons who were not yet born certainly did not acquire the property, and do not receive more than their share as heirs, as they are not yet in existence.

讛讗讬 讗讬转 讞讜诇拽 诇讟诇讬讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讘谞讬讗 讗讜 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讞讜诇拽 诇讟诇讬讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讘谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘讬 诪讬讬砖讗 讜专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬转 讞讜诇拽 诇讟诇讬讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讘谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讬 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讬转 讞讜诇拽 诇讟诇讬讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讘谞讬讗

The Gemara asks: With regard to this son, does the young man [letalya] receive an additional share of the inheritance in a case where there are other sons from the second wife, since his father gave him an additional share, or does the young man not receive an additional share of the inheritance where there are other sons? There are Rabbi Avin, and Rabbi Meyasha, and Rabbi Yirmeya, who all say: The young man does receive an additional share of the inheritance where there are other sons. And there are Rabbi Abbahu, and Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappi, and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣, who all say: The young man does not receive an additional share of the inheritance where there are other sons.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转谉 讗讜 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜转讬讬讻讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转谉 讚拽砖讬砖谞讗 诪讬谞讬讬讻讜 讜诇讗讜 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讬讻讜 讚讚专讚拽讬 讗转讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 讘拽砖讬砖讜转讗 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讘讟注诪讗 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讝讬诇 诇讙讘讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讚讗住讘专转讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛

Rabbi Abbahu said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Is the halakha in accordance with our opinion, or is the halakha in accordance with your opinion? Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Abbahu: It is obvious that the halakha is in accordance with our opinion, as we are older than you, and the halakha is not in accordance with your opinion, as you are youngsters [dardekei]. Rabbi Abbahu said to Rabbi Yirmeya in reply: Does the matter depend upon age? The matter depends upon the reason behind the ruling. Rabbi Yirmeya asked him: And what is your reason? Rabbi Abbahu replied: Go to Rabbi Avin, as I explained this halakha to him,

Scroll To Top