Bava Batra 259

וקדושין:

and betrothal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a man betrothed a woman, though he changed his mind immediately, the betrothal remains valid. [In Ned. 87a the reading is fuller: 'except (in the case) of blasphemy, idolatry, betrothal and divorce.] ');">¹</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A PERSON SAID, 'X<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., any relative other than a son. ');">²</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> האומר איש פלוני יירשני במקום שיש בת בתי תירשני במקום שיש בן לא אמר כלום שהתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר אם אמר על מי שראוי ליורשו דבריו קיימין ועל מי שאין ראוי לו ליורשו אין דבריו קיימין:

SHALL BE MY HEIR', WHERE THERE IS A DAUGHTER, [OR] IF HE SAID, 'MY DAUGHTER SHALL BE MY HEIR', WHERE THERE IS A SON, HIS INSTRUCTIONS ARE TO BE DISREGARDED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he said nothing'. ');">³</span> FOR HE MADE A STIPULATION AGAINST A [LAW] WHICH IS WRITTEN IN THE TORAH. R. JOHANAN B. BEROKAH SAID: IF [A PERSON] SAID [IT]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That one person shall he his sole heir. ');">⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> טעמא דאחר במקום בת ובת במקום בן הא בן בין הבנים ובת בין הבנות דבריו קיימין אימא סיפא רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר אם אמר על מי שראוי ליורשו דבריו קיימין היינו תנא קמא

CONCERNING ONE WHO IS ENTITLED TO BE HIS HEIR, HIS INSTRUCTIONS ARE VALID; [IF], HOWEVER, [HE SAID IT] CONCERNING ONE WHO IS NOT ENTITLED TO BE HIS HEIR, HIS INSTRUCTIONS ARE NOT VALID. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. The reason [why the testator's instructions are invalid, is,] because [he appointed, as has been said], another [legal heir] where there was a daughter, or a daughter where there was a son,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In both of which cases his instructions are contrary to the Torah. ');">⁵</span>

וכי תימא רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אפילו אחר במקום בת ובת במקום בן קאמר והתניא רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר לא נחלקו אבא וחכמים על אחר במקום בת ובת במקום בן שלא אמר כלום

[had he appointed,] however, a son among the [other] sons or a daughter among the [other] daughters, his instructions would, [accordingly], have been valid; tell [me, then, what you understand by] the latter clause [which reads], R. JOHANAN B. BEROKAH SAID: IF [A PERSON] SAID [IT] CONCERNING ONE WHO IS ENTITLED TO BE HIS HEIR, HIS INSTRUCTIONS ARE VALID, surely this [represents] the same [view as that of] the first Tanna!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wherein, then, lies the difference between them? ');">⁶</span> And if it be suggested [that] R. Johanan b. Beroka maintains [that] even another [legal heir may be appointed] where there is a daughter, and [that] a daughter [may be appointed as heir] where there is a son;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that it is on this point that he differs from the first Tanna. ');">⁷</span>

על מה נחלקו על בן בין הבנים ובת בין הבנות שאבא אומר יירש וחכמים אומרים לא יירש

[it may be retorted], surely, it has been taught: R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka said, 'There was no dispute between father and the Sages concerning [the law] that one's instructions are invalid<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V, p. 541, n. 11. ');">⁸</span> when another [legal heir was appointed] where there was a daughter, or [where] a daughter [was appointed heir] where there was a son; their dispute related only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what do they dispute on?', or 'on what are they divided?' ');">⁹</span>

איבעית אימא מדקאמר לא נחלקו מכלל דתנא קמא סבר נחלקו

[to the case of an appointment as sole heir] of a son among the [other] sons or [of] a daughter among the [other] daughters, [in] which [case] father said, [the one appointed] inherits, and the Sages say [that] he does no inherit'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From this statement it is obvious that R. Johanan b. Beroka cannot be assumed to maintain, as has been suggested, that another legal heir may he appointed where there is a daughter, or that a daughter may be made heir where there is son ');">¹⁰</span> — If you wish, it may be replied: Since he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Ishmael. ');">¹¹</span>

איבעית אימא כוליה דרבי יוחנן בן ברוקה היא וחסורי מחסרא והכי קתני האומר איש פלוני יירשני במקום שיש בת בתי תירשני במקום שיש בן לא אמר כלום הא בת בין הבנות ובן בין הבנים אם אמר יירש כל נכסיו דבריו קיימין שר' יוחנן אומר אם אמר על מי שראוי ליורשו דבריו קיימין

said that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan b. Beroka and the Sages. ');">¹²</span> did not dispute, it may be inferred that the first Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., some other Tanna. ');">¹³</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי יוחנן בן ברוקה וכן אמר רבא הלכה כר' יוחנן בן ברוקה

is of the opinion that they did dispute.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah, then, may be explained to represent the view of the first Tanna. Hence it is possible to suggest that R. Johanan maintains, as has been suggested above, that another legal heir may be appointed even where there is a son etc. ');">¹⁴</span> [And] if you prefer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if there is an objection to the assumption that R. Ishmael was in dispute with another Tanna as to whether his own father was or was not in disagreement with the Sages. ');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רבא מאי טעמיה דרבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אמר קרא (דברים כא, טז) והיה ביום הנחילו את בניו התורה נתנה רשות לאב להנחיל לכל מי שירצה

it may be replied that all [the Mishnah]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'all of it'. ');">¹⁶</span> represents<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'is of', ');">¹⁷</span>

אמר ליה אביי הא מלא יוכל לבכר נפקא

[the views of] R. Johanan b. Beroka, only some [words are] missing [from the text] which should read as follows:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and thus it teaches'. ');">¹⁸</span> IF A PERSON SAID, 'X SHALL BE MY HEIR', WHERE THERE IS A DAUGHTER, [OR IF HE SAID], 'MY DAUGHTER SHALL BE MY HEIR', WHERE THERE IS A SON, HIS INSTRUCTIONS ARE TO BE DISREGARDED, but [in the case of the appointment as heir of] a daughter among the [other] daughters or [of] a son among the [other] sons, if [the father] said, [that one of them]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whom he named. ');">¹⁹</span>

ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא אבא חנן אמר משום רבי אליעזר

should inherit all his estate, his instruction is legally valid, for R. Johanan said: IF [A PERSON] SAID [IT]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gave instructions as to whom he desired to be his heir. ');">²⁰</span> CONCERNING ONE WHO IS ENTITLED TO BE HIS [IMMEDIATE] HEIR, HIS INSTRUCTIONS ARE LEGALLY VALID. R. Judah said in the name of Samuel: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with [the view of] R. Johanan b. Beroka. And so said Raba: The <i>halachah</i> is in agreement with [the view of] R. Johanan b. Beroka. Raba said: What is the reason [for the opinion] of R. Johanan b. Beroka? — Scripture said: Then it shall be, in the day that he causeth his sons to inherit<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI, 16. ');">²¹</span> [from which it is to be inferred that] the Torah gave authority to a father to cause anyone<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of his sons; or, according to the first interpretation (supra note 1), any one of his legal heirs. ');">²²</span> whom he desires to inherit [his estate]. Abaye said to him: This [law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a father may transmit all his estate to any one of his sons (or heirs). ');">²³</span> surely, could be] deduced from, He may not make [the son of the beloved] the firstborn!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. Which shows that it is only the birthright that a father may not transfer to another son. The other shares of his estate, however, he may, consequently, assign to whomsoever he pleases. ');">²⁴</span> — That [text] is required for [the purpose of another inference], as it was taught: Abba Hanan said in the name of R. Eliezer: