בבא בתרא קט
דְּהָכָא תַּרְתֵּי, וְהָכָא חֲדָא!
from the fact that here, there are two examples of the superiority of a son, designation and an ancestral field, and here, there is only one demonstration of the superiority of a brother, levirate marriage?
שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה גּוּפַהּ, מֵהַאי טַעְמָא הוּא; דְּקָא קַיְימָא לֵיהּ לְתַנָּא – כְּלוּם יֵשׁ יִבּוּם אֶלָּא בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בֵּן, הָא יֵשׁ בֵּן אֵין יִבּוּם.
The Gemara answers: With regard to an ancestral field itself, the tanna establishes his ruling from this same reason: Is there levirate marriage except in a case where there is no son? In a case where there is a son, there is no levirate marriage. The determination that the redemption of the ancestral field by a son is in place of the redemption of the field by the father, whereas the redemption of the field by a brother is not, is based on the reasoning that the halakha of levirate marriage is not an indication that a brother is a closer relative than a son. Therefore, the halakha of an ancestral field cannot be regarded as a second example of the son’s superiority, as it stems from the first example, that of levirate marriage.
אֵימָא: ״שְׁאֵרוֹ״ – זֶה הָאָב, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָאָב קוֹדֵם לַבַּת. יָכוֹל יַקְדִּים לַבֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הַקָּרוֹב״ – קָרוֹב קָרוֹב קוֹדֵם!
The Gemara suggests an alternative derivation: Why should the father of the deceased inherit before only the brothers? Say that he should inherit before the daughter of the deceased as well by interpreting the verse as follows: “His kinsman” (Numbers 27:11), this is referring to the father, and the Torah teaches that the father precedes the daughter of the deceased in inheriting from him. One might have thought that the father of the deceased should precede the son of the deceased in inheriting from him. The verse therefore states: “Next [hakkarov] to him,” teaching that the closer [karov] one is to the deceased, the earlier one is in the order of inheritance.
כֵּיוָן דִּלְעִנְיַן יִבּוּם – בֵּן וּבַת כִּי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ; לְעִנְיַן נַחֲלָה נָמֵי, בֵּן וּבַת כִּי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ.
This suggestion is rejected: Since with regard to the matter of levirate marriage a son and a daughter are equivalent, as levirate marriage is not performed if the deceased had either a son or a daughter, it stands to reason that with regard to the matter of inheritance as well, a son and a daughter are equivalent in that the father does not precede the daughter.
וְאֵימָא: ״שְׁאֵרוֹ״ – זֶה הָאָב, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָאָב קוֹדֵם לַאֲחֵי הָאָב. יָכוֹל יַקְדִּים לָאַחִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הַקָּרוֹב״ – קָרוֹב קָרוֹב קוֹדֵם!
The Gemara suggests an alternative derivation: Why should the father of the deceased inherit before the brothers of the deceased? Say that he should inherit only before his own brothers by interpreting the verse as follows: “His kinsman” ( Numbers 27:11), this is referring to the father, and the Torah teaches that the father precedes the father’s brothers in inheriting from the deceased. One might have thought that the father of the deceased should precede the brothers of the deceased in inheriting from him. The verse states: “Next [hakkarov] to him,” teaching that the closer [karov] one is to the deceased, the earlier one is in the order of inheritance.
אַחֵי הָאָב לָא צְרִיכִי קְרָא; אַחֵי הָאָב מִכֹּחַ מַאן קָא אָתוּ – מִכֹּחַ אָב; קָאֵי אָב, קָא יָרְתִי אַחֵי הָאָב?!
The Gemara responds: A verse is not necessary to teach that the father of the deceased inherits before the father’s brothers, for the following reason: By whose virtue do the father’s brothers come to inherit from the deceased? By virtue of the father, as their right to inherit is a result of their being brothers of the father of the deceased. Could it be that while the father is still alive, his brothers should inherit? The Gemara therefore concludes that the father precedes the brothers of the deceased.
וְהָא קְרָאֵי לָאו הָכִי כְּתִיבִי – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאִם אֵין אַחִים לְאָבִיו וְגוֹ׳״! קְרָאֵי שֶׁלֹּא כְּסִדְרָן כְּתִיבִי.
The Gemara challenges: But the verses are not written that way, as it is written: “And if he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father’s brothers” (Numbers 27:10), and only later is it written: “And if his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his kinsman who is next to him” (Numbers 27:11), indicating that the father, whose right to inherit is derived from the term “kinsman,” inherits only after the brothers of the deceased and his own brothers. The Gemara explains: The verses are not written in order, since as explained earlier, it is not reasonable that the father’s brothers inherit before the father. Therefore, it must be that the inheritance of the father is not written in its proper place, and he may inherit even before the brothers of the deceased.
וְהַאי תַּנָּא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא – דְּתַנְיָא: אֶת זוֹ דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: ״אִישׁ כִּי יָמוּת וּבֵן אֵין לוֹ וְגוֹ׳״ – בִּמְקוֹם בַּת אַתָּה מַעֲבִיר נַחֲלָה מִן הָאָב, וְאִי אַתָּה מַעֲבִיר נַחֲלָה מִן הָאָב בִּמְקוֹם אַחִין.
§ The Gemara records an additional derivation for the halakha that the father precedes the brothers of the deceased. And this tanna cites it from here, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, taught this halakha: It is written: “If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8). In the rest of the passage the verse employs the phrase “and you shall give.” It is only in this verse that it employs the phrase “and you shall pass.” Based on this, Rabbi Yishmael teaches that in a case where there is a daughter, you pass an inheritance to her from one who appears to have precedence, namely, the father, and by inference, you do not pass the inheritance from the father in a case where there are brothers of the deceased.
וְאֵימָא: בִּמְקוֹם בַּת אַתָּה מַעֲבִיר נַחֲלָה מִן הָאַחִין,
The Gemara asks: But why not say that in a case where there is a daughter, you pass the inheritance to her from the brothers,
וְאִי אַתָּה מַעֲבִיר נַחֲלָה מִן הָאָב אֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם בַּת! אִם כֵּן, לָא נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְהַעֲבַרְתֶּם״!
but you do not pass an inheritance from the father even in a case where there is a daughter, so that the father precedes the daughter in the order of inheritance? The Gemara answers: If so, the Merciful One would not write: “Then you shall pass the inheritance to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8). This indicates that the logical order of inheritance is being overridden, as the fact that the daughter precedes the brothers of the deceased is due to her being a closer relative of his. It is obvious that the Torah intends that she precede even the father.
וּלְמַאן דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״וְהַעֲבַרְתֶּם״, הַאי ״שְׁאֵרוֹ״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״שְׁאֵרוֹ״ – זוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַבַּעַל יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ.
Having quoted two derivations for the halakha that the father precedes the brothers, the Gemara proceeds to discuss them and asks: And according to the one who derives it from the term: “And you shall pass,” what does he do with this term: “His kinsman,” which was said to refer to the father? The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which is taught in a baraita: “His kinsman.” This is referring to his wife, and the Torah teaches that a husband inherits from his wife.
וּלְמַאן דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״שְּׁאֵרוֹ״, הַאי ״וְהַעֲבַרְתֶּם״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא – רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בְּכוּלָּן נֶאֱמַר בָּהֶן ״נְתִינָה״, וְכָאן נֶאֶמְרָה בָּהֶן ״הַעֲבָרָה״; שֶׁאֵין לְךָ שֶׁמַּעֲבִיר נַחֲלָה מִשֵּׁבֶט לְשֵׁבֶט אֶלָּא בַּת, הוֹאִיל וּבְנָהּ וּבַעְלָהּ יוֹרְשִׁין אוֹתָהּ.
The Gemara asks: And according to the one who derives it from the term: “His kinsman,” what does he do with this term: “And you shall pass”? He requires it for that which is taught in a baraita, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: In the context of all of the relatives listed in the passage detailing the laws of inheritance, it is stated concerning them with the terminology of giving, and only here, in the context of daughters, it is stated concerning them with the terminology of passing. This teaches us that you have no one who passes an inheritance of land in Eretz Yisrael from one tribe to another except for a daughter, since her son and husband inherit from her.
וּמִמַּאי דִּ״שְׁאֵרוֹ״ זֶה הָאָב? דִּכְתִיב: ״שְׁאֵר אָבִיךָ הִיא״. אֵימָא: ״שְׁאֵרוֹ״ – זוֹ הָאֵם, דִּכְתִיב: ״שְׁאֵר אִמְּךָ הִיא״!
§ The Gemara returns to discuss the interpretation of the term: “His kinsman” (Numbers 27:11). And from where does one know to derive that with regard to the term: “His kinsman [she’ero],” this is referring to the father, as it is written in the context of forbidden sexual relations: “She is your father’s kinswoman [she’er]” (Leviticus 18:12)? Perhaps one should say instead: “His kinswoman,” this is referring to the mother, as it is also written: “For she is your mother’s kinswoman [she’er]” (Leviticus 18:13).
אָמַר רָבָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״מִמִּשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ וְיָרַשׁ אֹתָהּ״; מִשְׁפַּחַת אָב קְרוּיָה ״מִשְׁפָּחָה״, מִשְׁפַּחַת אֵם אֵינָהּ קְרוּיָה ״מִשְׁפָּחָה״ – דִּכְתִיב: ״לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם״.
Rava said in response that the verse states: “Then you shall give his inheritance to his kinsman who is next to him of his family, and he shall inherit it” (Numbers 27:11), emphasizing that “kinsman” is referring specifically to someone who is of his family, and it is the father’s family that is called one’s family, while one’s mother’s family is not called one’s family. Proof for this is found in another verse, as it is written: “By their families, by their fathers’ houses” (Numbers 1:2).
וּמִשְׁפַּחַת אֵם אֵינָהּ קְרוּיָה ״מִשְׁפָּחָה״?! וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״וַיְהִי נַעַר מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת יְהוּדָה, וְהוּא לֵוִי, וְהוּא גָר שָׁם״ – הָא גוּפָא קַשְׁיָא; אָמְרַתְּ ״וְהוּא לֵוִי״ – אַלְמָא מִלֵּוִי אָתֵי, ״מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת יְהוּדָה״ – אַלְמָא מִיהוּדָה אָתֵי! אֶלָּא לָאו דַּאֲבוּהּ מִלֵּוִי, וְאִימֵּיהּ מִיהוּדָה? וְקָאָמַר ״מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת יְהוּדָה״!
The Gemara raises a difficulty: And is one’s mother’s family indeed not called one’s family? But it is written in the episode of Micah forming an idol to be worshipped: “And there was a young man of Bethlehem in Judah of the family of Judah who was a Levite, and he sojourned there” (Judges 17:7). The Gemara explains the difficulty: This matter itself is difficult. You said: “Who was a Levite,” as apparently he came from the tribe of Levi, but the verse says: “Of the family of Judah,” so apparently he came from the tribe of Judah. Rather, is it not that his father was from the tribe of Levi and his mother was from the tribe of Judah, and yet the verse says that he was: “Of the family of Judah”? This appears to prove that one’s mother’s family is also called his family.
אָמַר רָבָא בַּר רַב חָנָן: לָא; גַּבְרָא דִּשְׁמֵיהּ לֵוִי. אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דְּקָאָמַר מִיכָה: ״עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי יֵיטִיב ה׳ לִי, כִּי הָיָה לִי הַלֵּוִי לְכֹהֵן״? אִין, דְּאִיתְרְמִי לֵיהּ גַּבְרָא דִּשְׁמֵיהּ לֵוִי.
Rava bar Rav Ḥanan said in response: No, the verse speaks of a man whose name was Levi, but his father was of the tribe of Judah. The Gemara asks: If that is so, how is that which Micah said when that man agreed to serve as his priest: “Now I know that the Lord will do me good, seeing that I have a Levite as my priest” (Judges 17:13), understood? It is understood only if he was an actual Levite, not if he was from the tribe of Judah and named Levi. Rava bar Rav Ḥanan responded: Yes, it is understood. Micah understood the fact that a man whose name is Levi happened upon him as an auspicious sign.
וְכִי לֵוִי שְׁמוֹ?! וַהֲלֹא יְהוֹנָתָן שְׁמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וִיהוֹנָתָן בֶּן גֵּרְשֹׁם בֶּן מְנַשֶּׁה, הוּא וּבָנָיו הָיוּ כֹהֲנִים לְשֵׁבֶט הַדָּנִי״! (אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ) וְכִי בֶּן מְנַשֶּׁה הוּא?! וַהֲלֹא בֶּן מֹשֶׁה הוּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּנֵי מֹשֶׁה גֵּרְשׁוֹם וֶאֱלִיעֶזֶר״!
The Gemara asks further: But is it so that his name was indeed Levi; but wasn’t Jonathan his name, as it is stated: “And Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites” (Judges 18:30)? Rava bar Rav Ḥanan said to him: And according to your reasoning, that his name was not Levi but he was from the tribe of Levi, there is also a difficulty from that same verse: But is it so that he was the son of Manasseh; but wasn’t he the son of Moses, as it is written: “The sons of Moses: Gershom and Eliezer” (I Chronicles 23:15)?
אֶלָּא מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁעָשָׂה מַעֲשֵׂה מְנַשֶּׁה, תְּלָאוֹ הַכָּתוּב בִּמְנַשֶּׁה; הָכָא נָמֵי, מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁעָשָׂה מַעֲשֵׂה מְנַשֶּׁה – דְּאָתֵי מִיהוּדָה, תְּלָאוֹ הַכָּתוּב בִּיהוּדָה.
Rava bar Rav Ḥanan explains the verse: Rather, although he was the son of Moses, because he acted as Manasseh the king of Judah, who was notorious for idol worship, acted, the verse linked him to Manasseh by calling him “the son of Manasseh.” Here too, in the verse from which you seek to prove that one’s mother’s family is called one’s family, since he acted as Manasseh, who came from the tribe of Judah, acted, the verse linked him to Judah by stating that he was “of the family of Judah,” but he was, in fact, a Levite.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: מִכָּאן שֶׁתּוֹלִין אֶת הַקַּלְקָלָה בַּמְקוּלְקָל. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״וְגַם הוּא טוֹב תֹּאַר מְאֹד, וְאֹתוֹ יָלְדָה אַחֲרֵי אַבְשָׁלוֹם״ – וַהֲלֹא אֲדֹנִיָּה בֶּן חַגִּית וְאַבְשָׁלוֹם בֶּן מַעֲכָה! אֶלָּא, מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁעָשָׂה מַעֲשֵׂה אַבְשָׁלוֹם – דְּמָרַד בַּמַּלְכוּת, תְּלָאוֹ הַכָּתוּב בְּאַבְשָׁלוֹם. הָכָא נָמֵי, מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁעָשָׂה מַעֲשֵׂה מְנַשֶּׁה – תְּלָאוֹ הַכָּתוּב בִּמְנַשֶּׁה.
In connection with this, Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: From here it is learned that corruption is linked to one who is corrupt, as this man was linked to Manasseh and Judah despite having no familial connection to them. Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: That concept can be seen from here, in the matter of Adonijah, the son of David: “And he was also a very handsome man; and she gave birth to him after Absalom,” (I Kings 1:6) but Adonijah wasn’t the son of Haggith and Absalom was the son of Maachah, so why does the verse state: “And she gave birth to him after Absalom,” as if they were sons of the same mother? Rather, since Adonijah acted in a manner fit for Absalom, who also rebelled against the monarchy, the verse linked him to Absalom, referring to him as his full brother. Here too, with regard to Jonathan, since he acted as Manasseh acted, the verse linked him to Manasseh.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לְעוֹלָם יִדְבַּק אָדָם בַּטּוֹבִים, שֶׁהֲרֵי מֹשֶׁה שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת יִתְרוֹ – יָצָא מִמֶּנּוּ יְהוֹנָתָן; אַהֲרֹן שֶׁנָּשָׂא בַּת עַמִּינָדָב – יָצָא מִמֶּנּוּ פִּנְחָס.
§ In connection with the story of Jonathan, son of Manasseh, the Gemara cites a related statement. Rabbi Elazar says: A person should always cleave to good people, meaning one should marry a woman from a good family, as this is beneficial for the offspring of that marriage. As in the case of Moses, who married a daughter of Yitro, who was a priest of idolatry, Jonathan, who was also a priest of idolatry, descended from him, while in the case of Aaron, who married the daughter of Amminadab, who was of distinguished lineage in the tribe of Judah, Pinehas descended from him.
וּפִנְחָס לָאו מִיִּתְרוֹ אָתֵי? וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״וְאֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַהֲרֹן לָקַח לוֹ מִבְּנוֹת פּוּטִיאֵל לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה״; מַאי, לָאו דְּאָתֵי מִיִּתְרוֹ – שֶׁפִּיטֵּם עֲגָלִים לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה? לָא, דְּאָתֵי מִיּוֹסֵף – שֶׁפִּטְפֵּט בְּיִצְרוֹ.
The Gemara asks: And did Pinehas not also come from Yitro? But it is written: “And Elazar, Aaron’s son, took one of the daughters of Putiel as a wife; and she bore him Pinehas” (Exodus 6:25). What, is it not stating that Pinehas came from the family of Yitro, who was also called Putiel because he fattened [pittem] calves for idol worship? The Gemara answers: No, it is stating that he came from Joseph, who battled [shepitpet] with his desire by resisting the advances of Potiphar’s wife.
וַהֲלֹא שְׁבָטִים מְבַזִּים אוֹתוֹ, וְאוֹמְרִים: רְאִיתֶם ״בֶּן פּוּטִי״ זֶה – בֵּן שֶׁפִּיטֵּם אֲבִי אִמּוֹ עֲגָלִים לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, יַהֲרוֹג נְשִׂיא שֵׁבֶט מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל?!
The Gemara asks: But didn’t the tribes denigrate him after he killed Zimri (see Numbers, chapter 25), and say of him: Have you seen this son of Puti, the son of he whose mother’s father fattened calves for idol worship? Should such a man kill a prince of a tribe of Israel?
