Bava Batra 318

אבל לענין דינא לא

and that with respect to [a matter of] law, [it is] not [applicable]? Surely it was taught: [In the case where] a house collapsed upon a man and his father [or] upon a man and those whose heir he is, and [that man] had against him [the claim of] a woman's <i>kethubah</i> or [that of] a creditor, [and. in the first case]. the heirs of the father plead [that] the son died first and the father afterwards, while the creditor[s] plead [that] the father died first and the son afterwards;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 157a, q.v. for notes. ');">¹</span> [now,] 'sons'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the son who was killed. ');">²</span>

והתניא נפל הבית עליו ועל אביו עליו ועל מורישיו והיתה עליו כתובת אשה ובעל חוב יורשי האב אומרים הבן מת ראשון ואח"כ מת האב ובעל חוב אומר האב מת ראשון ואחר כך מת הבן

[denote] 'the heirs of the father',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'The father of their father', i.e., their grandfather. They claim that their inheritance does not come to them from their father, who was in debt, but from their grandfather; and that for this reason they (and not the creditors) are entitled to the estate. ');">³</span> do they not? and 'brothers'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 2. ');">⁴</span>

מאי לאו יורשי האב בני מורישיו אחי ואי סלקא דעתך לא מצי אמר מכח אבוה דאבא קאתינא דכי כתיב תחת אבותיך יהיו בניך בברכה כתיב כי מת הבן ואח"כ מת האב מאי הוי נימא להו בע"ח ירושת אבוהון קא שקילנא

'those whose heir he is'? If then it could be assumed [that] one cannot plead. 'I come by virtue of the rights of the father of [my] father', because the verse,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'when it is written'. ');">⁵</span> Instead of thy fathers shall be thy sons, [was] written in [connection with] a blessing. what avails<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what is'. ');">⁶</span>

לא יורשי האב אחיו מורישיו אחי דאבוה

it [for the heirs] that the son died [first] and the father died afterwards, the creditor [surely] could say to them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The court. ');">⁷</span> 'I collect [my debt from] the inheritance of their father'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since their inheritance, as has been assumed, cannot come direct from their grandfather but from their father. As, however. they are allowed to advance such a plea, it follows that even in legal matters (not only in a blessing) grandchildren succeed directly to the estate of their grandfather ');">⁸</span>

בעו מיניה מרב ששת בן מהו שיירש את אמו בקבר להנחיל לאחין מן האב אמר להו רב ששת תניתוה האב שנשבה ומת בנו במדינה ובן שנשבה ומת אביו במדינה יורשי האב ויורשי הבן יחלוקו

— No; [by] 'the heirs of the father','his brothers'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The brothers of the son that was killed, who are, of course, the sons of the father that was killed whose entire estate they inherit, in the case where their brother died first and afterwards their father. ');">⁹</span> [are meant; and by] 'those whose heir he is' the 'brothers of his father'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The uncles of the son that was killed. The Mishnah, in the second case, refers to an uncle and a nephew upon whom a house collapsed. If the nephew died first, the brothers of the uncle (the 'heirs of the father' who is one of the brothers of the uncle) are entitled to the entire estate. If, however, the uncle died first, the nephew is entitled as the heir of his father (one of the brothers) to share the estate with them. ');">¹⁰</span>

היכי דמי אילימא כדקתני הי נינהו יורשי האב והי נינהו יורשי הבן אלא לאו הכי קאמר אב שנשבה ומת בן בתו במדינה ובן בתו שנשבה ומת אבי אמו במדינה ולא ידעינן הי מינייהו מית ברישא יורשי האב ויורשי הבן יחלוקו

[are meant]. R. Shesheth was asked: May a son in the grave<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., who predeceased his mother. ');">¹¹</span>

ואם איתא נהי נמי דבן מת ברישא לירתיה לאבוה דאמיה בקבריה ולירתינהו לאחוה מן אבוה אלא לאו שמע מינה אין הבן יורש את אמו בקבר להנחיל לאחין מאב

be heir to his mother<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus keep away her estate from, her other living heirs (e.g., her brothers). ');">¹²</span> to transmit [her estate] to his paternal brothers?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who are complete strangers to his mother. ');">¹³</span>

אמר ליה רב אחא בר מניומי לאביי אף אנן נמי תנינא נפל הבית עליו ועל אמו אלו ואלו מודים שיחלוקו ואם איתא נהי נמי דבן מת ברישא לירתיה לאמיה בקבריה ולירתו אינהו לאחי מאבוה אלא לאו שמע מינה אין הבן יורש את אמו בקבר להנחיל לאחין מן האב שמע מינה

— R. Shesheth said to them, You have learnt it: If a father was taken captive [and died] and his son died in the [home] country, or if a son was carried into captivity [where he died] and his father died in the [home] country. [the estate] is to be divided between the heirs of the father and the heirs of the son. How is this to be understood? If it be suggested [that it is to be understood] as was taught,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is a case of a father and his own son, ');">¹⁴</span> who then are the heirs of the father and who are the heirs of the son?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both, surely. are represented by the very same heir or heirs. If the son has no issue the heirs of the father would also inherit the sons' estate, and if he has issue, his sons would inherit the estate of their grandfather as well as that of their father. ');">¹⁵</span>

וטעמא מאי אמר אביי נאמרה סיבה בבן ונאמרה סיבה בבעל מה סיבה האמורה בבעל אין הבעל יורש את אשתו בקבר אף סיבה האמורה בבן אין הבן יורש את אמו בקבר להנחיל לאחין מן האב

[Must it] not then [be concluded that it is] this that was meant: If a father was taken into captivity [where he died] and the son of his daughter died in the [home] country, or if the son of one's daughter was taken into captivity [where he died], and the father of his mother died in the [home] country; and it is not known which of them died first, [the estate] is to be divided between the heirs of the father and the heirs of the son. Now, if it were so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a son in the grave inherits the estate of his mother. ');">¹⁶</span> granted even that the son died first, he should in his grave inherit [the estate] of the father of his mother and transmit it to his paternal brothers! [Must it] not consequently be inferred that a son in the grave does not inherit [the estate of] his mother to transmit [it] to his paternal brothers?

ההוא דאמר ליה לחבריה נכסי דבר סיסין מזבנינא לך הואי חדא ארעא דהוה מיקריא דבי בר סיסין אמר ליה הא לאו דבי בר סיסין היא ואיקרויי הוא דמיקריא דבי בר סיסין

R. Aha b. Manyumi said to Abaye. 'We also were taught [to the same effect]: IF THE HOUSE COLLAPSED UPON ON A MAN AND HIS MOTHER, BOTH AGREE THAT [THE ESTATE IN DISPUTE] IS TO BE DIVIDED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 158b. ');">¹⁷</span> Now, if it were so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a son in the grave inherits the estate of his mother. ');">¹⁶</span>

אתא לקמיה דרב נחמן אוקמה בידא דלוקח אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן דינא הכי המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה ורמי דרבא אדרבא ודרב נחמן אדרב נחמן

granted even that the son had died first, he should in his grave inherit [the estate] of his mother and transmit it to his paternal brothers! [Must it] not then be concluded that a son in the grave does not inherit [the estate of] his mother to transmit [it] to his paternal brothers?' This proves it. And what is the reason? — Abaye replied: 'Remove' is mentioned in [the case of the inheritance of] a son,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Num. XXXVI, 7. So shall no inheritance&nbsp;… remove, which refers to the inheritance of a son from his mother. Cf. supra 112b. ');">¹⁸</span>

דההוא דא"ל לחבריה מאי בעית בהאי ביתא אמר ליה מינך זבינתה ואכלית שני חזקה אמר ליה אנא בשכוני גואי הואי

and 'remove' is [also] mentioned in [the case of the inheritance of] a husband,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So shall no inheritance remove. Num. XXXVI, 9, which refers to a husband's inheritance from his wife. Cf. supra l.c. ');">¹⁹</span> as [in the case of] removal [of an estate] mentioned in [respect of] the husband, a husband in the grave does not inherit [the estate of] his wife, so [also in the case of the] removal [of an estate] mentioned in [respect of] the son, a son in the grave does not inherit [the estate of] his mother to transmit [it] to his paternal brothers.

אתא לקמיה דרב נחמן אמר ליה זיל ברור אכילתך אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן דינא הכי המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה קשיא דרבא אדרבא ודרב נחמן אדרב נחמן

A man once said to his friend, 'I am selling you the estate of Bar Sisin.' [In it] there was [a plot of] land that bore the name of Bar Sisin, [but the seller] told him, 'This does not belong to Bar Sisin, though it bears the name of Bar Sisin.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is his in name only, not in fact. ');">²⁰</span> [When the matter] was brought before R. Nahman he decided in favour of the buyer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he placed it firmly in the hand of the buyer'. ');">²¹</span>

דרבא אדרבא לא קשיא הכא מוכר קאי בנכסיה התם לוקח קאי בנכסיה

Said Raba to R. Nahman: 'Is this the law? [Surely], he who claims from the other has to produce the proof!' A contradiction was pointed out between two statements of Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'Raba on Raba'. ');">²²</span>

דרב נחמן אדרב נחמן לא קשיא הכא כיון דאמר ליה דבי בר סיסין ומיקריא דבי בר סיסין עליה דידיה רמיא לגלויי דלאו דבי בר סיסין היא הכא לא יהא אלא דנקיט שטרא מי לא אמרינן ליה קיים שטרך וקום בנכסי:

and between two statements of R. Nahman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'R. Nahman on R. Nahman'. ');">²³</span> For, once a person said to another, 'What claim have you upon this house?' [The other] replied to him, 'I bought it from you and enjoyed [undisturbed] usufruct [during the three] years [required to establish the legal right] of possession.' [The first] said to him, 'I occupied [however], the inner rooms.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the occupier of the inner rooms is making use of the outer ones, the enjoyment of the usufruct for three years in the latter does not establish the right of ownership. ');">²⁴</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך מי שמת </strong></big><br><br>

[When the matter] was brought before R. Nahman he said [to the buyer]. 'Go [and] bring proof of your [undisturbed] enjoyment of the usufruct.' Said Raba to R. Nahman, 'Is this the law? [Surely], he who claims from the other has to produce the proof!' [Does not this present] a contradiction between the two statements of Raba and between the two statements of R. Nahman!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra notes 5 and 6. ');">²⁵</span> — There is no contradiction between Raba's statements, [because] here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of the land of Bar Sisin. ');">²⁶</span> the seller is in possession of his property;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it belongs to him. ');">²⁷</span> and there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the dispute about the outer rooms. ');">²⁸</span> the buyer is in the possession of his property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it belongs to him. ');">²⁷</span> There is [also] no contradiction between the statements of R. Nahman, [because] since here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of the land of Bar Sisin. ');">²⁶</span> he spoke to him, of the estate of Bar Sisin and [that plot] bore the name of Bar Sisin, It is incumbent upon him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The seller. ');">²⁹</span> to prove that it does not belong to Bar Sisin; here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the dispute about the outer rooms. ');">²⁸</span> [however.] [granted] that he has no [less a claim] than [one] who holds a deed, do we not [even in such a case] say [to the holder], 'Attest your deed and you will retain possession of the estate'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, it is the buyer who has to produce the proof. On the whole passage, v. supra 29b, 30a. ');">³⁰</span>