Commentary for Bava Batra 223:9

אלא אימא דנפלה ליה משדה חרמים

[it may be replied]: If so, why two Scriptural verses?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One verse is quite sufficient to teach that a son is heir to his mother. The other, then, must serve the purpose of teaching that a husband also is heir to his wife. ');">²⁰</span> R. Papa said to Abaye: Wherefrom?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., what proof is there from the verses quoted that a husband is heir to his wife?' ');">²¹</span> Is it not indeed possible to maintain [that] a husband is not heir [to his wife]? As to the Scriptural verses, these may speak of a transfer through the son, as interpreted [above]; and that Jair may have bought [the cities]; and Phinehas, [also], may have bought [the hill]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it was his not by inheritance from a wife but by right of purchase. [The question, 'Why two Scriptural verses?' does not apply here as it is usual for the Bible to record and register acquisitions by individuals. (Rashb.)] ');">²²</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 223:9. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.