Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Bathra

Folio 111a

[It is written.] And every daughter that possesseth an inheritance in the tribes¹  of the children of Israel;²  how can a daughter inherit [from] two tribes?¹  — [Obviously] only when her father is from one tribe and her mother from another tribe, and both died, and she inherited [from] them. [From this] one may only [derive the law in respect of] a daughter. whence [may the law respecting] a son [he derived]?³  — One may derive it by an inference from minor to major: If a daughter, whose claims upon her father's property are impaired,⁴  has strong legal claims upon the property of her mother, should a son, whose claims upon the property of his father are strong, not justly have strong legal claims⁵  upon the property of his mother? And by the same argument:⁶  As there,⁷  a son takes precedence over a daughter, so here,⁸  a son takes precedence over a daughter. R. Jose son of R. Judah and R. Eleazar son of R. Jose said in the name of R. Zechariah h. Hakkazzab:⁹  Both a son and a daughter [have] equal [rights] in [the inheritance of] a mother's estate.¹⁰  What is the reason? — It is sufficient for [a law that is] derived by argument to he like [the law] from which it is derived.¹¹  And does not the first Tanna¹²  expound. 'It is sufficient [etc.]'? Surely, [the exposition of] Dayyo¹³  is Pentateuchal! For it was taught:¹⁴  'An example¹⁵  of an inference from minor to major [is]. And the Lord said to Moses: 'If her father had but spit in her face, should she not hide in shame seven days?'¹⁶  [Would not one expect, by] inference from minor to major, [that in the case] of the divine presence, [she should hide in shame for] fourteen days?¹⁷  — But [it is held that] it is sufficient for [a law that is] derived by argument. to he like [the law] from which it is derived'!¹⁸  — Elsewhere he does expound Dayyo,¹⁹  hut here it is different, because Scripture says, in the tribes,¹⁹  thus comparing the mother's tribe to the father's tribe: as [in the case of] the father's tribe a son takes precedence over a daughter, so [in the case of] the mother's tribe a son takes precedence over a daughter.

R. Nittai intended to decide a case in accordance with [the view of] R. Zechariah b. Hakkazzab, [but] Samuel said to him: 'In accordance with whom? In accordance with Zechariah? Zechariah faileth!'²⁰

R. Tabla decided a case in accordance with [the view of] R. Zechariah h. Hakkazzab. R. Nahman said to him: 'What is this?' — He replied unto him: '[I rely upon] that which R. Hinena b. Shelemia said in the name of Rab [that] the halachah is in accordance with [the view of] R. Zechariah h. Hakkazzab.' He said to him: 'Withdraw, or I shall pull R. Hinena b. Shelemia from your ears!'²¹

R. Huna b. Hiyya intended to decide a case in accordance with [the view of] R. Zechariah h. Hakkazzab. R. Nahman said to him: 'What is this?' He replied: '[I rely upon] that which R. Huna said in the name of Rab [that] the halachah is in accordance with [the view of] Zechariah h. Hakkazzab. He said to him: 'I will send to him!'²²  He grew embarrassed.²³  He said to him: 'Now, had R. Huna been dead, you would have continued to oppose me.'²⁴  And whose opinion did he²⁵  adopt? — That of Rab and Samuel both of whom said: The halachah is not in agreement with [the view of] R. Zechariah h. Hakkazzab.

R. Jannai was [once] walking, leaning²⁶  upon the shoulder of R. Simlai his attendant,²⁷  and R. Judah the Prince²⁸  came to meet them. He²⁹  said to him: The man who comes towards us is distinguished³⁰  and his cloak is distinguished.³⁰  When he³¹  came nigh him [R. Jannai] touched it [and] said to him: This [cloak] — its [legal minimum] size [as regards Levitical uncleanness is but] that of³²  sackcloth!³³  He³¹  inquired of him: Whence [is it derived] that a son takes precedence over a daughter in [the inheritance of] a mother's estate? — He replied to him: From³⁴  tribes;³⁵  [where the plural indicates that] the mother's tribe is to be compared to the father's tribe: as [in the case of] the father's tribe,³⁶  a son takes precedence over a daughter so [in the case of] the mother's tribe,³⁷  a son takes precedence over a daughter. He³⁸  said to him: If [so, let it be said that] as [in the case of] the father's tribe a firstborn takes a double portion, so [in the case of] the mother's tribe a firstborn shall take a double portion'!

1. E.V.: in any tribe. The plural 'in tribes', [H] implies no less than two.
2. Num. XXXVI, 8.
3. That a son also inherits from his mother.
4. Since a son takes precedence over her.
5. To be heir.
6. Lit., 'and from whence you came'.
7. In the case of a father's inheritance.
8. In the case of the inheritance of a mother.
9. A proper noun, or ha-Kazzab 'the butcher'.
10. They take equal shares.
11. Since the law that a son may be heir to his mother is derived from the law of a daughter's right to such an inheritance, it cannot be held to confer upon him, in such a case, any right of precedence over a daughter.
12. Who maintains that a son takes precedence over a daughter even in the case of a mother's inheritance.
13. [H] 'it is sufficient'.
14. B.K. 25a, Zeb. 69b.
15. Lit., 'how'.
16. Num. XII, 14.
17. If seven days is the period for a father (who is only a mortal), fourteen days, at least, (double), should be the period in the case of the divine presence.
18. Hence the rule of Dayyo is proved to he Pentateuchal; how then, can the first Tanna uphold a law which is contrary to this rule of Dayyo?
19. Num. XXXVI, 8.
20. [H] (cf. Gen. XLVII, 16, 17). 'The law is contrary to the view of R. Zechariah.'
21. He would be placed under the ban so that he would think no more of R. Hinena; cf. Sanh. 8a.
22. To R. Huna, to ascertain whether he really held such an opinion.
23. Not being sure whether R. Huna still adhered to the same opinion.
24. Now, however, that R. Huna is alive, this resistance must cease. R. Nahman, apparently, suspected R. Huna b. Hiyya of quoting R. Huna without due authorisation.
25. R. Nahman
26. R. Jannai suffered from defective eyesight due to old age.
27. [H] The [H] of many of the Rabbis was a disciple of the master and himself a scholar.
28. Judah II.
29. The attendant.
30. Lit., 'beautiful'.
31. R. Judah.
32. Lit., 'like'.
33. And therefore cannot be as distinguished as the attendant claimed it to be. Cheap, coarse material is not subject to the laws of Levitical uncleanness, unless its size is no less than four handbreadths by four, instead of three by three which is the legal minimum required in the case of finer materials.
34. Lit., 'for it is written'.
35. Num. XXXVI, 8.
36. I.e., inheritance from a father.
37. I.e., the inheritance of a mother's estate.
38. V. p. 460, n. 12.

— He¹  called to his attendant: Lead on! This [man] does not desire to learn.²  What, then, is the reason?³  — Abaye replied: Scripture says: Of all that he hath,⁴  implying he⁵  and not she.⁶  Might it not be suggested that these words⁷  [apply to the case where] a bachelor married a widow;⁸  but [where] a bachelor married a virgin⁹  he¹⁰  takes [a double portion] also [in the estate of his mother]? — R. Nahman h. Isaac replied: Scripture said: For he¹¹  is the first-fruits of his strength.¹²  [from which it is to be inferred that the law applies to the first fruits of] his¹³  strength and not of her strength. [Surely] that [word]¹⁴  is required for [the law that though one was] born after a miscarriage¹⁵  he is, [nevertheless, regarded as the] firstborn son [in respect] of inheritance, [the text implying that only] he for whom [a father's] heart grieves¹⁶  [is included in the law, but that a miscarriage], for which it does not, is excluded!¹⁷  — If so,¹⁸  the text should have read, 'For he is the first-fruits of strength';¹⁹  why his strength?²⁰  Two [laws, therefore,] are to be deduced from it. But still, might it not be suggested that these words²¹  [apply only to the case of] a widower²²  who married a virgin,²³  but [where] a bachelor married a virgin²⁴  the firstborn son takes [a double portion] also [in the estate of his mother]! — But, Raba said, [this is the proper reply]: Scripture states, The right of the firstborn is his,²⁵  [and this indicates that] the right of the firstborn [is applicable] to [the estate of] a man and not to [that of] a woman.

AND A MAN [INHERITS FROM] HIS WIFE etc. Whence is this derived?²⁶  — Our Rabbis taught:²⁷  His kinsman,²⁸  refers to his wife; [and this] teaches that the husband is heir to his wife. One might [say that] she also is heir to him, it is therefore expressly stated, And he shall inherit her,²⁹  meaning he is heir to her³⁰  but she is not heir to him. But, surely, the Scriptural verses are not written like that!³¹  — Abaye said: interpret thus, 'Ye shall give his inheritance unto one that is next to him; [as to] his kinswoman, he shall inherit her'. Raba said: A sharp knife is dissecting the Biblical verses!³²  But, said Raba, this is what the text implies: 'Ye shall give the inheritance of his kinswoman into him';³³  [Raba] holding the view [that prefixes and suffixes] may he detached from [words] and added to [others], and [a new] interpretation may [then] he given [to the Biblical text].³⁴

The following³⁵  Tanna derives it³⁶  from the following³⁷  [text]: For it was taught: And he shall inherit her,³⁸  teaches that the husband is heir to his wife; these are the words of R. Akiba. R. Ishmael, [however], said: This is not necessary,³⁹  for it is said, And every daughter that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, [shall be wife] unto one of the family etc.⁴⁰  This text speaks of a transfer [from one tribe to another that may be occasioned] through the husband.⁴¹  Furthermore, it is said. So shall no inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe.⁴²  Furthermore, it is said. So shall no inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe.⁴³  Furthermore it is said, And Eleazar the son of Aaron died; and they buried him it, the Hill of Phinehas his son.⁴⁴  Whence could Phinehas possess [a hill] which did not belong to Eleazar?⁴⁵  But this⁴⁶  teaches that Phinehas took a wife who died, and he was her heir. Furthermore it is said, And Segub begat Jair, who had three and twenty cities in the land of Gilead.⁴⁷

1. R. Jannai.
2. He only wishes to argue.
3. Why, indeed, does a firstborn son take a double share in his father's, and not in his mother's estate?
4. Deut. XXI, 27. viz., the firstborn takes a double portion of all that he, (his father) hath.
5. The father.
6. The mother.
7. That a firstborn son takes a double portion only in the estate of his father.
8. Who had children from her first marriage. In such a case, the father's firstborn son is not that of the mother.
9. In which case the firstborn son of the father is also the firstborn son of the mother.
10. The firstborn son.
11. The firstborn son.
12. Deut. XXI. 17.
13. The father's.
14. [H] his strength.
15. Though he did not 'open the womb', and is not regarded as a firstborn son in respect of 'sanctification to the Lord' and 'redemption from the priest' (v. Ex. XIII, 2).
16. [H] may be rendered 'grief' as well as 'strength'.
17. How, then, could this deduction as well as the one previously mentioned, he made from the same text?
18. That only the latter deduction is to be made.
19. [H] without the suffix' would have been sufficient.
20. [H]
21. 'His strength, and not her strength', excluding a firstborn from the right to a double portion in the mother's estate.
22. Who had children from his first wife.
23. Since the first son from the second marriage is only the wife's firstborn, not his.
24. And the son is firstborn on both sides.
25. Deut. XXI, 17. The whole clause being superfluous. [H] 'his' is interpreted as referring to the father.
26. Lit., 'whence these words?'
27. Suprann 109b.
28. Num. XXVII, 11.
29. Lit. rendering of the clause translated in the versions, 'and he shall possess it' (ibid.). V. following note.
30. The pronoun [H] is taken here to refer to 'his kinsman', denoting 'wife'.
31. The Pentateuchal text does not read, 'ye shall give her inheritance to her husband', but, ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman, and 'kinsman' has been interpreted as 'wife'. This, therefore, implies that the wife is heir to her husband
32. According to Abaye's exposition the text is broken up words are transposed. and a wholly, unnatural and arbitrary interpretation is the result.
33. Reading, [H] instead of [H]
34. A [H] is detached from [H] and a [H] from [H] to form a new word, [H], thus obtaining the required reading and interpretation. V. previous note.
35. Lit., 'this'.
36. The law that a husband is heir to his wife.
37. Lit., 'from here'.
38. Num. XXVII, 11.
39. There is no need to infer the law from Num. XXVII, 11, and thus to subject the Biblical text to forced interpretation.
40. Num. XXXVI, 8.
41. Scripture is warning a daughter, who has inherited an estate, that she must marry one of her own tribe, for, if she marry into another tribe, her estate, on her death, will be inherited by her husband and thus pass over from the estates of her own tribe to those of another. This clearly proves that a husband is heir to his wife; for, otherwise, a daughter inheriting an estate would be free to marry into any other tribe.
42. Ibid. 7.
43. Ibid. 9.
44. Josh. XXIV, 33.
45. Phinehas was the son of Eleazar from whom he would presumably inherit after his death. How, then, did Phinehas possess a hill at the very moment his father died?
46. The mention of a hill that belonged to Phinehas.
47. I Chron. II, 22.