R. Johanan pointed out to R. Judah son of R. Simeon [the following objection: Have we not learnt]. A WOMAN [TRANSMITS HER ESTATE TO] HER SONS AND [TO] HER HUSBAND [BUT DOES NOT INHERIT FROM THEM]; AND MOTHER'S BROTHERS TRANSMIT [THEIR ESTATES TO THEIR NEPHEWS] BUT DO NOT INHERIT [FROM] THEM?1 — He replied to him: As to our Mishnah, I do not know who is its author!2 But why did he not say3 to him [that] it4 [may represent the views of] R. Zechariah b. Hakkazzab who does not expound, tribes?5 — Our Mishnah cannot be upheld as [representing the views of] R. Zechariah h. Hakkazzab, for it teaches, AND SISTERS'6 SONS. And a Tanna taught7 [that this implies] sisters'6 sons [only], but not sisters'6 daughters; and the question was asked,8 'In respect to what law?' And R. Shesheth answered, 'In respect of precedence'.9 Now, if it were assumed that our Mishnah was [a representation of the views of] R. Zechariah b. Hakkazzab. [it could rightly have been objected]: Surely, he said, 'Both a son and a daughter [have] equal [rights] in [the inheritance of] a mother's estate'!10
[As to] the Tanna of our [Mishnah], how are his views to be reconciled?11 If he expounds, tribes, a woman also should he heir to her son;12 if he does not, whence does he [deduce the law] that a son takes precedence over a daughter in [inheriting] his mother's property?13 — He does, in fact,14 expound, tribes,15 but here,16 [the case] is different, for Scripture says, And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance17 [from which it is to he inferred that] she may inherit from,18 but not transmit19 to [her mother].20
MISHNAH. THE ORDER OF SUCCESSION21 IS AS FOLLOWS: IF A MAN DIE, AND HAVE NO SON, THEN YE SHALL CAUSE HIS INHERITANCE TO PASS UNTO HIS DAUGHTER.22 A SON TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER A DAUGHTER. ALL LINEAL DESCENDANTS23 OF A SON24 TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER A DAUGHTER.25 A DAUGHTER TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE BROTHERS.26 LINEAL DESCENDANTS27 OF A DAUGHTER [ALSO] TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE BROTHERS. BROTHERS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE BROTHERS OF THE FATHER.25 LINEAL DESCENDANTS28 OF BROTHERS [ALSO] TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE BROTHERS OF THE FATHER.27 THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: THE LINEAL DESCENDANTS OF ANY ONE WITH A PRIORITY TO SUCCESSION29 TAKE PRECEDENCE. A FATHER TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER ALL HIS DESCENDANTS.30
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: [It is written,] son,31 [from which] one only learns that32 a son [has a prior claim to heirship]; whence [may it he deduced that] a son of the son, or a daughter33 of the son, or a son of the daughter of the son [has the same rights]? — It is expressly stated, En lo34 [which is taken to imply], 'hold an enquiry35 concerning him'.36 [It is written] daughter,37 [from which] one only learns that32 a daughter [is next in succession to a son]; whence [may it he deduced that] a daughter of the daughter. and the son of a daughter and a daughter of the son of the daughter [have also the same rights]? — It is expressly stated, En lo34 [which is taken to imply], 'hold an enquiry35 concerning him'.36
Baba Bathra 115b
In what manner [is] this [enquiry carried out]? — [In a manner that] the estate may ultimately find its way1 to Reuben.2 Let him say. 'to Jacob'!3 — Abaye replied: We have it by tradition that no tribe would become extinct.
R. Huna said in the name of Rab: Anyone, even a prince in Israel, who says that a daughter is to inherit with the daughter of the son, must not he obeyed; for such [a ruling] is only the practice of the Sadducees. As it was taught: On the twenty-fourth of Tebeth we returned to our [own] law;4 for the Sadducees having maintained [that] a daughter inherited with the daughter of the son, R. Johanan h. Zakkai joined issue with them. He said to them: 'Fools, whence do you derive this?' And there was no one who could reply a word, except one old man who prated at him and said: 'If the daughter of his son, who succeeds5 [to an inheritance] by virtue of his son's right, is heir to him, how much more so his daughter who derives her right from himself!' He6 read for him this verse, These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land: Lotan and Shobal and Zibeon and Anah,7 and [lower down] it is written, And these are the children of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah!8 — [But this] teaches that Zibeon had intercourse with his mother and begat Anah.9 Is it not possible that there were two [called] Anah? — Rabbah said: I would say something which King Shapur10 [could] not have said; — and who is he? — Samuel; others say [that it was] R. Papa [who] said: I would say something which King Shapur [could] not have said — and who is he? — Raba;11 'Scripture says: This is Anah, [implying]: The same Anah that was [mentioned] before' — He said unto him: O, master, do you dismiss me with such [a feeble reply]?12 — He said to him: Fool,
- To Next Folio -