Bava Batra 231:1

ולא תהא תורה שלמה שלנו כשיחה בטלה שלכם מה לבת בנו שכן יפה כחה במקום האחין תאמר בבתו שהורע כחה במקום אחין ונצחום ואותו היום עשאוהו יום טוב

shall not our perfect Torah be as [convincing] as your idle talk!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was not intended, nor is there any need to dismiss you with what you call 'a feeble reply'. The purpose of the argument was that Anah was not the name of a male but that of a female (cf. Gen, XXXVI, 14), who was a daughter of Zibeon and a grand-daughter of Seir (cf. ibid, vv. 24 and 20). Since she was reckoned among the inhabitants of the land, i.e., one of those who inherited from Seir, sons' daughters must, consequently, have equal rights of succession in the estate of their grandfather. with his sons. Hence, 'your deduction is fallacious for the reason etc' (v. Tosaf. s.v. [H] and Bah's glosses). ');">¹</span> [Your deduction is fallacious for] the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the law is not Specifically enunciated in the Torah it may be inferred by logical deduction, ');">²</span>

(שופטים כא, יז) ויאמרו ירושת פלטה לבנימן ולא ימחה שבט מישראל

why a son's daughter [has a right of inheritance is] because her claim is valid where there are brothers,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of her father. ');">³</span> but can the same he said of the [deceased's] daughter whose right [of inheritance] is impaired where there are brothers?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As she is not entitled to the inheritance where her brothers are alive, so she is not entitled to it when a brother is survived by a daughter. ');">⁴</span>

אמר רבי יצחק דבי רבי אמי מלמד שהתנו על שבט בנימין שלא תירש בת הבן עם האחין

Thus they were defeated. And that day was declared a festive day.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In Megillath Ta'anith the date assigned for the celebration of this event is 24th Ab. For a full discussion of this discrepancy. v. Zeitlin, S., JQR 1919, 278ff. The attitude of the Sadducees in this controversy was prompted according to Geiger, [H] III, I ff by their anxiety to defend against the attacks of the Pharisees the validity of Herodian succession to the Hashmonean throne through Mariamne, the daughter of Alexander and granddaughter of Hyrcanus; v. HUCA VII-VIII. 278ff.] ');">⁵</span> <i>And they said: 'They that are escaped must be as an inheritance for Benjamin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the law is not Specifically enunciated in the Torah it may be inferred by logical deduction, ');">²</span></i>

אמר רבי יוחנן משום ר' שמעון בן יוחאי כל שאינו מניח בן ליורשו הקדוש ברוך הוא מלא עליו עברה כתיב הכא (במדבר כז, ח) והעברתם את נחלתו וכתיב התם (צפניה א, טו) יום עברה היום ההוא

that a tribe be not blotted out from Israel',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Judges XXI, 17. ');">⁶</span> R. Isaac of the school of R. Ammi said: [This] teaches that a stipulation was made concerning the tribe of Benjamin that a son's daughter is not to be heir [together] with [his] brothers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the estate of their father; but the surviving brothers are to inherit all the estate, including the share of their dead brother, though he is survived by a daughter. This provision had to be made at a time when only six hundred men of the tribe of Benjamin survived (Judges XX. 47) all of whom had married wives from other tribes (Ibid. vv. 14, 23). The entire possessions of the tribe having been divided and distributed between six hundred men only, the share of each individual was considerable, being a six hundredth part of all the property of the tribe. Should any daughter have inherited such a share, and then have married a member of another tribe, a large portion of the lands of the tribe would have passed over to those of another tribe. Hence the provision that a son's daughter is to have no share in the inheritance. The law enjoining a daughter to marry within the tribe of her father is held to have been only a temporary measure and not binding upon subsequent generations; v. infra 120a. ');">⁷</span>

(תהלים נה, כ) אשר אין חליפות למו ולא יראו אלהים רבי יוחנן ורבי יהושע בן לוי חד אמר כל שאינו מניח בן וחד אמר כל שאינו מניח תלמיד

R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: The Holy One, blessed be He, is filled with anger against any one who does not leave a son to he his heir. [For] here it is written, And you shall cause his inheritance to pass,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXVII, 8, [H] we-ha'abartem. ');">⁸</span> and there it is written, That day is a day of wrath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeph. I, 15. [H] 'ebrah. The root of this word, [H] is identical with that of [H] ');">⁹</span>

תסתיים רבי יוחנן דאמר תלמיד דאמר רבי יוחנן דין גרמיה דעשיראה ביר תסתיים דרבי יוחנן דאמר תלמיד

<i>Such as have no changes, and fear not God</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. LV, 20. ');">¹⁰</span> R. Johanan and R. Joshua b. Levi [are in dispute as to the exposition of this text]. One says: Whosoever does not leave behind a son.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Changes, [H] is rendered 'a son (or a pupil) who takes his father's (or teacher's) place'. ');">¹¹</span>

ומדרבי יוחנן אמר תלמיד רבי יהושע בן לוי אמר בן

And the other says: Whosoever does not leave a disciple.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Changes, [H] is rendered 'a son (or a pupil) who takes his father's (or teacher's) place'. ');">¹¹</span> It may he proved [that it was] R. Johanan who said 'a disciple'; for R. Johanan said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ber, 5b. ');">¹²</span>

והא רבי יהושע בן לוי לא אזיל לבי טמיא אלא לבי מאן דשכיב בלא בני דכתיב (ירמיהו כב, י) בכו בכה להולך ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב להולך בלא בן זכר אלא רבי יהושע בן לוי הוא דאמר תלמיד

This is the bone of my tenth son.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He carried with him a 'bone', which commentators understand to be a tooth, of his tenth dead son when going to comfort those who mourned the loss of a child. Now, if R. Johanan were of the opinion that Ps. LV, 20, has reference to a son, he would not have carried about that which stigmatised him as one who is not God-fearing. ');">¹³</span> Thus it is proved that it was R. Johanan who said 'a disciple'. But since R. Johanan said, 'a disciple', R. Joshua b. Levi [must have] said 'a son'! [Is it not a fact,] however, that R. Joshua b. Levi did not go to a house of mourning unless it was the house of him who died without leaving any sons, for it is written, <i>But weep sore for him that goeth away</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jer. XXII, 10. ');">¹⁴</span>

ומדר' יהושע בן לוי הוא דאמר תלמיד רבי יוחנן אמר בן

and Rab Judah said in the name of Rab [that this means], 'he who goes [from the world] without [leaving] male children'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, then, R. Joshua said that such a person was not God-fearing, would he have gone to visit his house of mourning? ');">¹⁵</span> — But [it must be] R. Joshua b. Levi who said, 'a disciple'. Since, however, it is R. Joshua b. Levi who said 'a disciple', R. Johanan must have said, 'a son', a contradiction [then arises again<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 6. ');">¹⁶</span>

קשיא דרבי יוחנן אדרבי יוחנן לא קשיא הא דידיה הא דרביה:

between one statement] of R. Johanan and another statement of his?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on that of R. Johanan'. ');">¹⁷</span> — There is no contradiction; one [statement] is his own;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His own opinion is in agreement with that of R. Joshua b. Levi. ');">¹⁸</span>

סימן הדד עני וחכם:

the other, his teacher's. (Mnemonic<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The mnemonic is an aid to the recollection of the three sayings of R. phinehas b. Hama that follow. ');">¹⁹</span>

דרש רבי פנחס בן חמא מאי דכתיב (מלכים א יא, כא) והדד שמע במצרים כי שכב דוד עם אבותיו וכי מת יואב שר הצבא מפני מה בדוד נאמרה בו שכיבה וביואב נאמרה בו מיתה דוד שהניח בן נאמרה בו שכיבה יואב שלא הניח בן נאמרה בו מיתה

<i>Hadad, Poverty, Sage</i>.) R. Phinehas b. Hama gave the following exposition: With reference to the Scriptural text, And when Hadad heard in Egypt that David slept with his fathers, and that Joab the captain of the host was dead,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Kings XI, 21. ');">²⁰</span>

ויואב לא הניח בן והכתיב (עזרא ח, ט) מבני יואב עובדיה בן יחיאל אלא דוד שהניח בן כמותו נאמרה בו שכיבה יואב שלא הניח בן כמותו נאמרה בו מיתה

why was [the expression of] 'sleeping' used in the case of David, and [that of] 'death' in the case of Joab? 'Sleeping' was used in the case of David because he left a son; 'Death' was used in the case of Joab because he left no son. Did not Joab leave a son? Surely, it is written, Of the sons of Joab, Obadiah the son of Jehiel!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezra VIII, 9. ');">²¹</span> — But, [this is the reply,] with David who left a son like himself [the expression of] 'sleeping' was used; with Joab who did not leave a son like himself, 'death' was used.

דרש ר' פנחס בן חמא קשה עניות בתוך ביתו של אדם יותר מחמשים מכות שנאמר (איוב יט, כא) חנוני חנוני אתם רעי כי יד אלוה נגעה בי וקא אמרי ליה חבריה (איוב לו, כא) השמר אל תפן אל און כי על זה בחרת מעוני

R. Phinehas b. Hama gave the following exposition: Poverty in one's home is worse than fifty plagues, for it is said, Have Pity upon me, have pity upon me, O ye my friends; for the hand<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This implies fifty plagues. Ten plagues were inflicted on the Egyptians with one finger (V. Ex. VIII, 15). Job who was touched with five fingers (hand) must have been inflicted with fifty plagues ');">²²</span> of God hath touched me,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Job XIX, 21. ');">²³</span>

דרש ר' פנחס בר חמא כל שיש לו חולה בתוך ביתו ילך אצל חכם ויבקש עליו רחמים שנא' (משלי טז, יד) חמת מלך מלאכי מות ואיש חכם יכפרנה:

and his friends answered him, Take heed, regard not inquiry; for this hast thou chosen rather than poverty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXXVI, 21. This, in the text, is taken to refer to Job's infliction, implying that poverty is even worse than all his fifty plagues. ');">²⁴</span> R. Phinehas b. Hama gave the following exposition: Whosoever has a sick person in his house should go to a Sage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'wise (man),' a scholar and saint. ');">²⁵</span>

זה הכלל כל הקודם בנחלה יוצאי ירכו קודמין והאב קודם לכל יוצאי ירכו: בעי רמי בר חמא אבי האב ואחי האב כגון אברהם וישמעאל בנכסי עשו איזה מהן קודם אמר רבא תא שמע האב קודם לכל יוצאי ירכו ורמי בר חמא

who will invoke [heavenly] mercy for him; as it is said: <i>The wrath of a king<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' God's visitation. ');">²⁶</span></i> is as messengers of death,' but a wise man will pacify it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XVI, 14. ');">²⁷</span> THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: THE LINEAL DESCENDANTS OF ANY ONE WITH A PRIORITY TO SUCCESSION TAKE PRECEDENCE. A FATHER TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER ALL HIS DESCENDANTS. Rami b. Hama inquired: [With regard to the claims of] a father of the father<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the deceased. ');">²⁸</span> and a brother of the father,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the deceased. ');">²⁸</span> as, for example, [the claims of] Abraham and Ishmael upon the possessions of Esau,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abraham was the father, and Ishmael the brother of Isaac the father of Esau. ');">²⁹</span> who takes precedence? — Raba said: Come and hear: A FATHER TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER ALL HIS DESCENDANTS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He takes, therefore, precedence over a brother of the father of the deceased who is his descendant. ');">³⁰</span> And Rami b. Hama?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Did he not know the law of our Mishnah? ');">³¹</span> —