Bava Batra 114
אֲבָל בַּלַּיְלָה, אֲפִילּוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה – כּוֹתְבִין וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין דִּין. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּהָווּ לְהוּ עֵדִים, וְאֵין עֵד נַעֲשֶׂה דַּיָּין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, הָכִי נָמֵי קָאָמֵינָא.
but if they came at night, even if three men came to visit the sick person, they may write the will and sign it as witnesses but they may not act in judgment. What is the reason that they may not act in judgment the next day? It is because they are already witnesses to the will of the deceased, and there is a principle that a witness cannot become a judge, i.e., one who acts as a witness in a particular matter cannot become a judge with regard to that same matter? Rabba bar Ḥanina said to Abaye: Yes, it is indeed so; this is what I was saying.
אִיתְּמַר: קִנְיָן, עַד אֵימָתַי חוֹזֵר? רַבָּה אָמַר: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁיּוֹשְׁבִין. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁעוֹסְקִין בְּאוֹתוֹ עִנְיָן.
§ After mentioning Rav Yehuda’s ruling the Gemara cites a related dispute. It was stated: With regard to a transaction, until when may one of the parties renege on the transaction? Rabba says: As long as they are seated in the same location they may renege on the transaction. Rav Yosef says: As long as they are dealing with that matter, i.e., they are still discussing that transaction, they may renege on it.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: כְּווֹתִי דִּידִי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לְבַקֵּר אֶת הַחוֹלֶה – רָצוּ כּוֹתְבִין, רָצוּ עוֹשִׂין דִּין. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁיּוֹשְׁבִין, לֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ!
Rav Yosef said: It stands to reason in accordance with my opinion, as Rav Yehuda says: In a case where there were three men who entered a room to visit a sick person and the sick person desires to write a will in order to distribute his property following his death, if the visitors wish to do so they may write his will and sign it as witnesses. And if they wish, they may act in judgment. And if it enters your mind that one may renege on a deal as long as they are seated in the same location, then let us be concerned that perhaps he will renege on his decision. How can the visitors act in judgment in a case where the matter has not been resolved, as the sick person may still change his mind?
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אַמְרִיתַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא; וּלְרַב יוֹסֵף מִי נִיחָא?! וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא הָדַר בֵּיהּ! אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר – דִּיסְלִיקוּ
Rav Ashi said: I stated this halakha before Rav Kahana and I asked him: And according to the opinion of Rav Yosef, does it work out well? But even according to his opinion there should be a concern that perhaps he will renege on his decision, as Rav Yosef holds that one may renege on a transaction as long as the two parties are still dealing with that matter. Rather, what have you to say? That according to Rav Yosef, Rav Yehuda’s ruling applies where they withdrew
מֵעִנְיָנָא לְעִנְיָנָא; הָכִי נָמֵי, דְּקָמוּ וַהֲדַר יְתִיבוּ. וְהִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף בְּשָׂדֶה, עִנְיָן וּמֶחֱצָה.
from discussing that matter to discuss a different matter, so he can no longer renege on his decision. So too, according to Rabba, one can explain that Rav Yehuda was referring to a case where they arose and then sat down again. Although no support for Rav Yosef’s opinion was adduced from Rav Yehuda’s ruling, the Gemara nevertheless states: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef in the disputes concerning the division of a field, discussed above (12b), reneging while they are discussing the same matter, discussed here, and a half of one’s property, discussed below (143a).
הָאִשָּׁה אֶת בְּנָהּ וְכוּ׳. הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ רֵישָׁא: הָאִישׁ אֶת אִמּוֹ, וְהָאִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ!
§ The mishna teaches that a woman bequeaths to her son, her husband, and her maternal uncles, but she does not inherit from them. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this as well? But it is already taught in the former clause: A man inherits from his mother and a man inherits from his wife. The halakha stated in this clause seems to be the same as that of the other clause.
הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּאִשָּׁה אֶת בְּנָהּ, דּוּמְיָא דְּאִשָּׁה אֶת בַּעְלָהּ; מָה אִשָּׁה אֶת בַּעְלָהּ – אֵין הַבַּעַל יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ בַּקֶּבֶר, אַף אִשָּׁה אֶת בְּנָהּ – אֵין הַבֵּן יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִמּוֹ בַּקֶּבֶר, לְהַנְחִיל לָאַחִין מִן הָאָב.
The Gemara answers: This teaches us that the halakha of a woman who bequeaths to her son is similar to that of a woman who bequeaths to her husband: Just as with regard to a woman who bequeaths to her husband, the husband does not inherit property through his wife while he is in the grave, i.e., if a husband predeceases his wife, then his relatives, such as children from another marriage, do not inherit the wife’s property through him but rather the wife’s own relatives inherit her property, so too, the same halakha applies with regard to a woman who bequeaths to her son, that the son does not inherit property through his mother while he is in the grave in order to bequeath to his paternal brothers. In both cases, the woman’s own relatives inherit her property.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה – הָאָב יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת בְּנוֹ, וְאִשָּׁה יוֹרֶשֶׁת אֶת בְּנָהּ; שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מַטּוֹת״ – מַקִּישׁ מַטֵּה הָאֵם לְמַטֵּה הָאָב, מָה מַטֵּה הָאָב – אָב יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת בְּנוֹ, אַף מַטֵּה הָאֵם – אִשָּׁה יוֹרֶשֶׁת אֶת בְּנָהּ.
§ With regard to the halakha that a mother inherits from her son, the Gemara notes that Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Shimon: By Torah law a father inherits from his son, and a woman inherits from her son if the father is no longer alive, as it is stated with regard to a woman receiving inheritance: “And every daughter who possesses an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel” (Numbers 36:8). Since the plural term “tribes” includes both her father’s tribe and her mother’s tribe, the verse juxtaposes the tribe of the mother to the tribe of the father, in that just as with regard to the father’s tribe a father inherits from his son, so too, with regard to the mother’s tribe, a woman inherits from her son if the father is deceased.
