Bava Batra 217

דהכא תרתי והכא חדא

[from the fact] that in one case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here', i.e., the case of a son. ');">¹</span> [there are] two [advantages]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The designation of a handmaid, and the redemption of a field of his (father's) possession. ');">²</span>

שדה אחוזה גופה מהאי טעמא הוא דקא קיימא ליה לתנא כלום יש יבום אלא במקום שאין בן הא יש בן אין יבום

and in the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'here', i.e., the case of a brother. ');">³</span> [only] one?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of the levirate marriage. ');">⁴</span>

אימא שארו זה האב מלמד שהאב קודם לבת יכול יקדים לבן ת"ל הקרוב קרוב קרוב קודם

— The very [law of a son's precedence in the case of the redemption of a] field of [his father's] possession was deduced by the Tanna from this very argument, viz., 'Surely levirate marriages only take place where there is no son, but where there is a son there is no levirate marriage'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was this argument that had confirmed the Tanna in his opinion that a son takes his father's place in the redemption of a field of his father's possession (v. 'Ar, 25b). Without this argument it could not have been proved that a son has any greater claim to the redemption of the field than a brother or any other person. Since this law, then, depends entirely on the argument mentioned, there remains only one independent point in favour of a son's precedence. Hence it was necessary to have recourse to the reply mentioned. ');">⁵</span> [But why not] say [thus]: <i>'His kinsman</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXVII, 22. ');">⁶</span>

כיון דלענין יבום בן ובת כי הדדי נינהו לענין נחלה נמי בן ובת כי הדדי נינהו

refers to the father. This teaches that a father takes precedence over a daughter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since she never takes the place of her father either as a son (for designation and redemption), or as brother (for Ievirate marriage). ');">⁷</span> One might [assume] that he [also] takes precedence over [a] son, it was therefore expressly stated that is next [to him],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXVII, 22. ');">⁶</span>

ואימא שארו זה האב מלמד שהאב קודם לאחי האב יכול יקדים לאחין תלמוד לומר הקרוב קרוב קרוב קודם

[which implies,] he who is nearest takes the precedence'? — Since in respect of levirate marriages a son and a daughter have the same<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether the dead man has left a son or a daughter, his widow is in either case exempt from levirate marriage; but his being survived by a father does not make any difference. ');">⁸</span> standing, a son and a daughter must have the same standing in the case also of inheritance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A daughter, therefore, takes precedence over a father, ');">⁹</span>

אחי האב לא צריכי קרא אחי האב מכח מאן קא אתו מכח אב קאי אב קא ירתי אחי האב

[Why again not] say [thus]: 'His kinsman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXVII, 22. ');">⁶</span> refers to the father. This teaches that a father takes precedence over the [dead man's] father's brothers. One might [assume] that he also takes precedence over brothers, it was therefore expressly stated, that is next,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXVII, 11. ');">¹⁰</span>

והא קראי לאו הכי כתיבי דכתיב (במדבר כז, יא) ואם אין אחים לאביו וגו' קראי שלא כסדרן כתיבי

[which implies], he who is nearest takes the precedence'? — The father's brothers do not require any Scriptural text;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To prove that a father takes precedence over them. ');">¹¹</span> [for] from whom<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on whose strength'. ');">¹²</span>

והאי תנא מייתי לה מהכא דתניא את זו דרש רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי (במדבר כז, ח) איש כי ימות ובן אין לו וגו' במקום בת אתה מעביר נחלה מן האב ואי אתה מעביר נחלה מן האב במקום אחין

do the father's brothers derive their right? From the father; should [then] the brothers of the father inherit when the father [himself] is alive! But, surely, the Scriptural verses are not written in this [order], for it is written, <i>And if his father have no brethren</i> etc.!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. According to this verse, since his kinsman refers to the father, the father's brothers should take precedence over him, for the verse reads, And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman, which implies (cf. the preceding verse), that if he has brothers it is they who inherit, and not he. ');">¹³</span> — The verses are not written in [the proper] order<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though kinsman, i.e., 'a father', is mentioned after 'a father's brothers', he nevertheless takes precedence over them, by reason of the given argument. ');">¹⁴</span>

ואימא במקום בת אתה מעביר נחלה מן האחין

[of succession]. The following Tanna derives it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law that a father takes precedence over the dead man's brothers. ');">¹⁵</span> from the following: For it was taught: R. Ishmael, son of R. Jose, gave the following exposition: [It is written,] <i>If a man die, and have no son, [then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter]</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXVII, 8. ');">¹⁶</span> [This implies that] where there is a daughter the inheritance is passed from the father,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the dead man. The phrase [H] (we-ha'abartem) is taken to mean, 'ye shall cause (the inheritance) to pass (from his father) unto his daughter' that is, the father of the deceased is passed over in favour of the daughter. ');">¹⁷</span> but no inheritance is passed from the father, where there are [only] brothers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the dead man. ');">¹⁸</span> But [why not] say [thus]? Where there is a daughter the inheritance is passed from the brothers,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the dead, unto his daughter; and accordingly. Num XXVII, 8 should be read and interpreted as follows: If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass (from his brothers) unto his daughter; and if he has no daughter, his brothers inherit from him. ');">¹⁹</span>