It was taught in another Baraitha: So shall no inheritance remove from tribe to tribe.1 Scripture speaks [here] of a transfer through the husband. Thou sayest [that it speaks] of a transfer through the husband, perhaps [it speaks] only2 of a transfer through the son? — Since it was said, so shall no inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe,3 behold, transfer through the son has been spoken of, to what, then, shall one apply, so shall no inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe?1 [It must be assumed, therefore, that] Scripture speaks [here] of transfer through the husband.
Both,4 at all events, [agree that] in, from one tribe to another tribe,1 Scripture speaks of transfer through the husband; how [is this] to be inferred?5 — Rabbah son of R. Shila said: Scripture states, Ish.6 Is not Ish written in both?7 — But, said R. Nahman b. Isaac, Scripture states, shall cleave.8 Is not [the phrase], shall cleave, written in both?9 But, said Raba; Scripture states. The tribes shall cleave.10 R. Ashi said: Scripture states. from One tribe to another tribe,11 but a son is not [of] another.12
R. Abbahu said in the name of R. Johanan. in the name of R. Jannai, in the name of Rabbi (and some trace it to13 R. Joshua b. Korha): Whence [is it proved] that a husband does not receive [as heir] the prospective [estate of his wife]14 as [he does] that which was [already] in [her] possession? It is said, And Segub begat Jair, who had three and twenty cities in the land of Gilead;15 whence could Jair possess [cities] which did not belong to Segub?16 But this teaches that Segub took a wife and she died in the lifetime of those whose heiress she would have been;17 and when these died, Jair inherited her [estate].18 Furthermore it is said, And Eleazar the son of Aaron died; and they buried him etc.19 Whence could Phinehas possess [a hill] which did not belong to Eleazar?20 But this teaches that Eleazar took a wife, who died in the life-time of those whose heiress she would have been,21 and when these died, Phinehas inherited her [estate].22 [For] what [purpose is] 'furthermore it is said' [required]?23 — In case it be said that it was Jair who took a wife who died,24 and that he inherited from her, it is, therefore, expressly stated, and Eleazar the son of Aaron died.19 And in case it he said that it may have fallen to him25 as a field devoted.26 Scripture states, his son20 [which implies that] the inheritance was due to him27 but his son inherited it.28
AND THE SONS OF A SISTER. A Tanna taught:29 The sons of a sister30 but not the daughters of a sister.
Original footnotes renumbered.
- Ibid. 9.
- V. p. 446, n. 10.
- Ibid. 7.
- Lit., 'all the world': the Tannaim in the two Baraithoth quoted.
- A mnemonic sign seems to have been omitted here from the text, the word Siman, 'sign', only remaining (v. Emden's note a.l.).
- [H] may be rendered 'husband' as well as man'.
- Ibid. 7 and 9.
- The same expression, 'shall cleave', is used of a husband elsewhere, and shall cleave unto his wife (Gen. II, 24).
- V. note 8.
- Heb. [H] (Num. XXXVI. 9), while in v. 7. these words are separated. The members of the tribe are united through their fathers, hence the verse mist be speaking of fathers, i.e., husbands.
- Ibid. 9.
- Hence, Num. XXXVI, 9, must have reference to the case where the husband is heir.
- Lit., 'and they arrived in it (so far as to quote it) in the name of'.
- An estate, e.g.. bequeathed by her father whom she predeceased. Had her father died first, she would have inherited from him, and her husband would have inherited from her.
- I Chron. II, 22.
- Cf. p. 463, n. 11.
- Lit., 'those who cause her to inherit'.
- Which she would have inherited had she been alive. This proves that prospective estates are not inherited by the husband but by the son.
- Josh. XXIV, 33.
- v. p. 463. n. 11.
- V. supra n. 3.
- V. supra n. 4.
- Why is not the evidence from Segub and fair sufficient?
- V. supra 112a.
- V. p. 465. n. 4.
- To Eleazar; his wife had survived the relative from whom the hill was inherited.
- Because Eleazar's wife pre-deceased the relative to whom the hill belonged. This proves that a prospective estate is not inherited by the husband, but by the son.
- Infra 115a.
- Inherit from the brother of their mother.
Baba Bathra 113b
[In respect] to what Law?1 — R. Shesheth said: In respect of precedence,2 [as] R. Samuel b. R. Isaac recited before R. Huna: [Since it is said], and he shall possess it,3 the inheritance [mentioned] second4 is to be compared to the one [mentioned] first;5 as [in the case of] the inheritance [mentioned] first, a son takes precedence over a daughter so, [in the case of] inheritance [mentioned] second,6 a son takes precedence over a daughter.7
Rabbah b. Hanina recited [a Baraitha] before R. Nahman:8 [Since it is written], Then it shall be, in the day that he causeth his sons to inherit,9 an inheritance10 may be divided11 in the daytime but not at night.
Abaye said unto him: 'If that is the case,12 would children be heirs only to him who died in the daytime, but not to him who died at night?13 [You mean], perhaps, [the administration of] the law[s] of inheritance;14 as it was taught: [With the Biblical announcement] And it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgment,15 the whole section16 has been proclaimed to be [of a] judicial [character].17 And [this, in fact is] in accordance with Rab Judah who said: Three [persons] who came to visit18 a sick man may, if they wish, [either] write down [his instructions. with reference to the disposal of his estate19 or], if they prefer it, give judgment.20 Two [persons] may write down [the testator's instructions] but may not give judgment.21 And R. Hisda commented: This applies only22 to daytime;
Original footnotes renumbered.
- Surely daughters inherit from their mother where there are no sons; and since their mother is heiress to her brothers (where there are no living brothers), they also, who are her heiresses, should, in such a case, be entitled to the inheritance of their uncles!
- Lit., 'to precede'. i.e., where there are brothers and sisters, the former are to be the heirs of their uncles, not the latter.
- Num. XXVII, 11. [H] referring to 'inheritance' mentioned in verse 8.
- I.e., the second or any of those following in order of succession.
- The inheritance from a father.
- Or any of the cases of inheritance mentioned.
- The order of precedence is consequently as follows: Son, daughter, brother, sister, brother's son, brother's daughter. If, however, one brother of the deceased has a son and another brother has a daughter, the nephew and niece inherit equally the respective shares of their fathers, the brothers of the deceased.
- V Sanh. 34b.
- Deut. XXI, 16.
- Lit.. 'inheritances
- Lit., 'thou causest to fall'.
- Lit., 'but from now', Abaye assumed Rabbah to interpret the Baraitha in the sense that a distribution of shares of an inheritance takes place only when death occurred in the daytime.
- Surely, this is impossible.
- That lawsuits relating to matters of inheritance must be dealt with by the court in the daytime only; as is the case with other civil lawsuits. Cf. Jer. XXI, 12, Execute justice in the morning.
- Num. XXVII, 11.
- Num. XXVII, 1-11 dealing with the laws of inheritance.
- And not of a private nature which is the concern of individuals, judicial proceedings, therefore, with respect to an inheritance must conform to the procedure relating to other civil law cases.
- I.e., they did not come at the express bidding of the testator to act as witnesses. for in that case they would become unqualified to act as judges (Rashb.); p. 470 n. 4.
- And thus act as his witnesses.
- Lit., 'execute judgment'. A quorum of three is the minimum required for a laycourt of law. By forming themselves into a court, they legally confirm the instructions of the testator, and by issuing their verdict prevent the heirs from any further litigation.
- Two, being less than the quorum required for the constitution of a court of law, can only act as witnesses.
- Lit., 'they have not taught but'.