Bava Batra 244

כתיב סרח וכתיב (שופטים א, לה) חרס אמר ר' אלעזר בתחלה פירותיה כחרס ולבסוף פירותיה מסריחין ואיכא דאמרי בתחלה מסריחין ולבסוף כחרס

It is written, serah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">¹</span> and it is [also] written, heres!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Judges I, 35. Why is the place called both serah and heres? ');">²</span> — R. Eleazar said: At first,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before it came into the possession of Joshua. ');">³</span>

כלב דכתיב (שופטים א, כ) ויתנו לכלב את חברון כאשר דבר משה ויורש משם את שלשה בני הענק חברון עיר מקלט הואי אמר אביי פרוורהא דכתיב (יהושע כא, יב) ואת שדה העיר ואת חצריה נתנו לכלב בן יפונה באחוזתו:

its fruits [were as dry] as a potsherd<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. [H] ');">⁴</span> and afterwards<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the place passed over to Joshua. ');">⁵</span> its fruits emitted all offensive odour.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (from root, [H] Hiph., 'to produce an offensive odour'). The fruits were so juicy that decay set in early. ');">⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אחד הבן ואחד הבת בנחלה אלא שהבן נוטל פי שנים בנכסי האב ואינו נוטל פי שנים בנכסי האם והבנות נזונות מנכסי האב ואינן נזונות מנכסי האם:

Others say: at first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before it came into the possession of Joshua. ');">³</span> they emitted an offensive odour<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And could not, therefore, be preserved. V. previous note. ');">⁷</span> and afterwards<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 504, n. 15. ');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי אחד הבן ואחד הבת לנחלה אילימא דירתי כי הדדי הא תנן בן קודם לבת כל יוצאי יריכו של בן קודמין לבת

[they were as dry] as a potsherd.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 504, n. 14. As they were not so juicy they could be preserved for a long time. ');">⁹</span> 'Caleb?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whence is it proved that Caleb did not receive his share by lot but at the command of the Lord? ');">¹⁰</span> — for it is written. And they gave Hebron unto Caleb, as Moses had spoken; and he drove out thence the three sons of Anak.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Judges I, 20. ');">¹¹</span>

(סימן נפשם) אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק הכי קאמר אחד הבן ואחד הבת נוטלין בראוי כבמוחזק

Was [not] Hebron a city of refuge?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which belonged to the priests (v. Josh. XXI, 13). How, then, could it be given to Caleb who was of the tribe of Judah? ');">¹²</span> Abaye replied: Its suburbs [were given to Caleb], for it is written, But the fields of the city, and the villages thereof, gave they to Caleb the son of Jephunneh for his possession.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Josh. XXI, 12. ');">¹³</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. BOTH A SON AND A DAUGHTER HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS OF SUCCESSION. EXCEPT THAT A SON [WHEN FIRSTBORN] TAKES A DOUBLE PORTION IN THE ESTATE OF HIS FATHER BUT DOES NOT TAKE IT IN THE ESTATE OF HIS MOTHER. DAUGHTERS MUST BE MAINTAINED OUT OF THE ESTATE OF THEIR [DECEASED] FATHER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 119b, under what conditions. ');">¹⁴</span>

הא נמי תנינא בנות צלפחד נטלו שלשה חלקים בנחלה חלק אביהן שהיה מיוצאי מצרים וחלקו עם אחיו בנכסי חפר

BUT NOT OUT OF THE ESTATE OF THEIR [DECEASED] MOTHER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is not the duty of a mother to provide for her daughters. ');">¹⁵</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What [is meant by] BOTH A SON AND A DAUGHTER HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS OF SUCCESSION? If it is suggested that [the meaning is that] they have equal status in heirship. Surely, [it may be retorted], we have learnt, 'a son takes precedence over a daughter [and] all lineal descendants of a son take precedence over a daughter!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 115a. ');">¹⁶</span> — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: It is this that was meant: Both a son and a daughter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the absence of a son and any of his lineal descendants. ');">¹⁷</span>

ועוד מאי אלא

[are equally entitled to] take [their shares] in a prospective [estate of the deceased] as in that which is in [his] possession [at the time of his death]. Surely, we have learnt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 116b. ');">¹⁸</span> this also; 'The daughters of Zelophehad took three shares in the inheritance [of Canaan]: The share of their father who was of those who came out of Egypt, and his share among his brothers in the possessions of Hepher'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Hepher was not in possession of his share in the land at the time of his death and yet it was given to his son, Zelophehad, and through him to his daughters, it is obvious that both sons and daughters are entitled as much to the prospective property of their parents as to that which is already in their possession. Why, then, was it necessary to repeat this law in our Mishnah? ');">¹⁹</span> Furthermore, what [is the force of] EXCEPT?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What is the antithesis? The first part of the Mishnah speaks of the equality of a son and a daughter, and the second part speaks of the difference (not between a son and a daughter but) between the the estates of a mother and a father! ');">²⁰</span>

אלא אמר רב פפא הכי קאמר אחד הבן ואחד הבת נוטלין חלק בבכורה

— But, said R. Papa, it is this that was meant: Both a son and a daughter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the absence of a son and any of his heirs. ');">²¹</span> [are entitled to] take the [prospective] portion of the birthright [of their father]. Surely, we have learnt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 116b. ');">²²</span> this also: 'Since he was a firstborn son [who] takes two shares'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not having left a son, this prospective double portion was given to his daughters. Why, then, should this law have to be stated again? ');">²³</span>

הא נמי תנינא ושהיה בכור נוטל שני חלקים ועוד מאי אלא

Furthermore, what [is the force of] EXCEPT?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What is the antithesis? The first part of the Mishnah speaks of the equality of a son and a daughter, and the second part speaks of the difference (not between a son and a daughter but) between the the estates of a mother and a father! ');">²⁰</span> — But, said R. Ashi, it is this that was meant: [As regards] both, a son [of the deceased] among [his other] sons and a daughter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 3. ');">²⁴</span> among [his other] daughters, if [the deceased] had said, 'he [or she]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' pointing out one of his heirs. ');">²⁵</span>

אלא אמר רב אשי הכי קאמר אחד בן בין הבנים ואחד בת בין הבנות אם אמר יירש כל נכסי דבריו קיימין

shall inherit all my property', his instruction is legally valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because a person has a right to transmit all his property to any one individual of his legal heirs. He cannot, however, transmit his estate to a daughter when a son or his heirs are alive. Since the latter have the first legal claim as heirs to his estate, and one has no right to dispose of his bequests (unless in the manner of a gift) except accordance with the laws of succession. ');">²⁶</span> Whose view is here represented?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'like whom'. ');">²⁷</span> [Is it not that] of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'like'. ');">²⁸</span>

כמאן כר' יוחנן בן ברוקא הא קתני לה לקמן ר' יוחנן בן ברוקא אומר אם אמר על מי שראוי ליורשו דבריו קיימין על מי שאינו ראוי ליורשו אין דבריו קיימין

R. Johanan b. Beroka? Surely that is [specifically] taught further on:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 130a. ');">²⁹</span> R. Johanan b. Beroka said: If [a person] said [it]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That all his estate shall be inherited by one person only. ');">³⁰</span> concerning one who is entitled to be his heir. his instruction is legally valid; [if, however, he said it] concerning one who is not entitled to be his heir, his instruction is not valid!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why, then, should our Mishnah teach by implication what was specifically taught elsewhere? ');">³¹</span>

וכי תימא קא סתם לן כרבי יוחנן בן ברוקא סתם ואחר כך מחלוקת היא וסתם ואחר כך מחלוקת אין הלכה כסתם

And if it is suggested [that] it was [desired] to state [the law] anonymously, [to show] agreement with [the view of] R. Johanan b. Beroka,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the law is always in agreement with the anonymous Mishnah, the Editor may have desired in this way, to indicate that the law is in agreement with the views of R. Johanan. ');">³²</span> [surely, it may be pointed out, this is a case of] an anonymous statement followed by<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and after that'. ');">³³</span> a dispute,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between R. Johanan and the Rabbis. ');">³⁴</span>

ועוד מאי אלא

and [wherever] an anonymous statement [is] followed by a dispute the law is not [decided] in accordance with the anonymous statement!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What, then, is the object of our Mishnah? ');">³⁵</span> Furthermore, what [is the force of] EXCEPT?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 506, n. 2. ');">³⁶</span> But, said Mar son of R. Ashi, it is this that was meant: Both a son and, [in the absence of a son], a daughter [have] equal [rights of succession] in the estate of a mother and in the estate of a father, except<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The force of 'except' is that while in the previous case there is equality in the loss' between the estate of a father and that of a mother, in the following case there is a difference between these two kinds of estate. ');">³⁷</span>

אלא אמר מר בר רב אשי הכי קאמר אחד הבן ואחד הבת שוין בנכסי האם ובנכסי האב אלא שהבן נוטל פי שנים בנכסי האב ואינו נוטל פי שנים בנכסי האם

that a son takes a double portion in the estate of his father<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While a daughter is not entitled to a double portion even in the absence of a son. ');">³⁸</span> and he does not take a double portion in the estate of his mother. Our Rabbis taught: <i>Giving him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The firstborn. ');">³⁹</span></i>

ת"ר (דברים כא, יז) לתת לו פי שנים פי שנים כאחד אתה אומר פי שנים כאחד או אינו אלא פי שנים בכל הנכסים ודין הוא

a double portion,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI, 17. ');">⁴⁰</span> [implies] twice as much as [any] one [of the others receive].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The estate is divided according to the number of brothers plus one, and the firstborn takes two such shares. ');">⁴¹</span> You said 'Twice as much as [any] one [of the others]'; is it not possible<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'or'. ');">⁴²</span> [that our Mishnah] does not [mean this] but 'a double portion in all the estate'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Two thirds of the estate for the firstborn, and one third for all the others. ');">⁴³</span> — But this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the firstborn takes only twice as much as any one of the others. ');">⁴⁴</span> may be deduced by logical reasoning: