Bava Batra 223

וכי מנין ליאיר שלא היה לו לשגוב מלמד שנשא יאיר אשה ומתה וירשה

Whence could Jair possess [cities] which did not belong to Segub?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 11. ');">¹</span> [But] this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The statement that fair had cities which were his own property independent of that of his father. ');">²</span> teaches that Jair took a wife who died, and he was her heir.

מאי ואומר וכי תימא בסבת הבן קא קפיד קרא אבל בעל לא ירית תא שמע ולא תסוב נחלה לבני ישראל ממטה למטה

[For] what [purpose is] 'furthermore it is said' [required]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 111b. Why five Biblical quotations in addition to the first one from Num. XXXVI, 8? ');">³</span> — In case it be said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and if you will say'. ');">⁴</span> that Scripture is only concerned for a transfer [through] the son,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the prohibition against marrying into another tribe was solely due to the fact that the son who is heir to his mother would cause the transfer of the estate from his mother's tribe to that of his. ');">⁵</span>

וכי תימא לעבור עליו בלאו ועשה ת"ש לא תסוב נחלה ממטה למטה אחר

but that a husband was not heir [to his wife]. proof was brought from,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'come and hear'. ');">⁶</span> So shall no inheritance of the children of Israel remove front tribe to tribe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXVI. 7. Since this verse is superfluous, being practically a repetition of the verse following it, it must be taken to refer to another case of transfer. If XXXVI. 8 has reference to the son, XXXVI. 7 must have reference to the husband. ');">⁷</span> And in case it be said,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 463, n. 17. ');">⁸</span>

וכי תימא לעבור עליו בשני לאוין ועשה תא שמע ואלעזר בן אהרן מת וגו'

its<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of Num. XXXVI. 7. ');">⁹</span> purpose is [to teach that] one would transgress thereby [both] a negative<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' so shall no inheritance remove etc. ');">¹⁰</span> and a positive<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shall be wife etc (Num. XXXVI, 8). ');">¹¹</span>

וכי תימא אלעזר הוא דנסיב איתתא ומתה וירתה פנחס תא שמע ושגוב הוליד את יאיר וגו'

[precept],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But a husband cannot be heir to his wife. ');">¹²</span> proof was brought from,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 1. ');">¹³</span> So shall no inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXVI, 9. ');">¹⁴</span>

וכי תימא התם נמי הכי הוא אם כן תרי קראי למה לי

And in case it is said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 463, n. 7. ');">¹⁵</span> that the purpose of this is [to teach that] one would transgress two negative [precepts] and [one] positive, proof was brought from,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 1. ');">¹³</span> And Eleazar the son of Aaron died etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Josh. XXIV, 33. ');">¹⁶</span>

אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי ממאי דלמא לעולם אימא לך בעל לא ירית וקראי בסבת הבן כדשנינן ויאיר דזבין מיזבן ופנחס נמי דזבין מיזבן

And in case it be said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 463, n. 7. ');">¹⁵</span> that it was Eleazar who took a wife who died, and [that it was] Phinehas [who] was her heir,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heir to his mother in the lifetime of his father, Eleazar, who, though her husband, was not entitled to be her heir. ');">¹⁷</span> proof was brought from,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 463, n. 17. ');">⁸</span>

א"ל פנחס דזבין מיזבן לא מצית אמרת דאם כן נמצאת שדה חוזרת ביובל ונמצא צדיק קבור בקבר שאינו שלו

and Segub begat fair etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Chron. II, 22. ');">¹⁸</span> And in case it be said,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 463, n. 7. ');">¹⁵</span> 'There, also, the same thing may have happened'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., fair may have been heir to his mother; not Segub to his wife. ');">¹⁹</span>

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>

אמר אביי סוף סוף הא קא מתעקרא נחלה משבטא דאימא לשבטא דאבא

— He replied unto him: It cannot be said that Phinehas had bought [the land], for, if so, it would follow that the field must return in the jubilee year,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To its original owner. V. Lev. XXV, 13. In this year of the jubilee ye shall return every man unto his possession. ');">²³</span> and the righteous man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Eleazar. ');">²⁴</span> would thus be buried in a grave which was not his own.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it cannot be assumed that the field in which Phinehas had buried his father was a purchased one. ');">²⁵</span>

וממאי ודלמא שאני התם שכבר הוסבה א"ל שכבר הוסבה לא אמרינן

— But say that it may have fallen to him as a field devoted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] a field devoted, always remains in the possession of the priest (Lev. XXVII, 21, and Num. XVIII, 14). Consequently, the land which Phinehas possessed in the lifetime of his father need not be assumed to have been an inheritance at all; what proof, then, is there for the assertion that a husband is heir to his wife? ');">²⁶</span> — Abaye replied: After all,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it he assumed that a husband is not heir to his wife. ');">²⁷</span> the inheritance<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a daughter to whom it was bequeathed by her mother. ');">²⁸</span>

א"ל רב יימר לרב אשי אי אמרת בשלמא שכבר הוסבה היינו דמתוקמא קרא בין בסבת הבן בין בסבת הבעל

would be removed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the marriage of the daughter unto one of the tribe of her father. ');">²⁹</span> from the tribe of the mother to the tribe of the father!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What safeguard, then, against the transfer of property from one tribe to another would have been provided by Num. XXXVI, 8 (cf. supra 111b), which requires every daughter that possesseth an inheritance to be married to one of the family of the tribe of her father? While this provision prevents the transfer from the tribe of a father to that of another, it does not prevent the transfer from a mother's tribe! Consequently, if it he assumed that the transfer is effected through the husband, i.e., that the husband is heir to his wife, provision against the transfer may be made on the lines mentioned below; if, however, it be assumed that the husband is not heir, and that the transfer is effected through the son, what provision against this can be made? This, therefore, urges Abaye, is proof that Num. XXXVI, 8, teaches the law that a husband is heir to his wife. ');">³⁰</span> But how!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from what' i.e., the proof is not conclusive. ');">³¹</span>

אלא אי אמרת לא אמרינן שכבר הוסבה כי מינסבא לאחד ממשפחת מטה אביה מאי הוה הא מתעקרא נחלה משבטא דאימא לשבטא דאבא

Is it not possible that that case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The transfer of a mother's inheritance to another tribe. ');">³²</span> is different<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From that of the transfer to another tribe of a father's inheritance. ');">³³</span> because [the estate] had already been transferred?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A mother's estate, as soon as the daughter inherits it, is removed from the mother's tribe to that of the daughter who belongs to her father's tribe. Consequently it does not matter whether the daughter subsequently marries one from her mother's tribe or not. What proof, then, is there from Num. XXXVI, 8, that a husband is heir to his wife? ');">³⁴</span>

דמנסבינן לה לגברא דאבוהי משבטא דאבוה ואימיה משבטא דאימה

— He said to him: [The argument]. 'because it had already been transferred' is rather weak.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'we do not say'. Though a partial transfer takes place when a daughter inherits an estate from her mother, it does not follow that this must have the way for a complete transfer to another tribe. The daughter belongs, at least partly, to the tribe of her mother but her son is an entire stranger to that tribe. Consequently there remains the question. What safeguard was provided against the transfer from the mother's tribe? ');">³⁵</span> R. Yemar said to R. Ashi: If [the argument], 'because it had already been transferred' is to be used,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the result that we are not concerned with the transfer from the mother's tribe. ');">³⁶</span> one can very well understand the verse<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num, XXXVI, 8, And every daughter that possesseth etc. ');">³⁷</span> [as having reference] either to transfer through the son or to transfer through the husband;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., owing to one or other of these possibilities of transfer from the father's inheritance to another tribe, a daughter inheriting an estate must marry one of her father's tribe. ');">³⁸</span> if, however, it is said that [the argument] 'because it had already been transferred', is not to he used, [of] what benefit is [it] when she is married to a man of the family of her father's tribe? Surely the inheritance is removed from the tribe of her mother to that of her father! — She may he given in marriage to a person whose father is of the tribe of her father, and his mother of the tribe of her mother.