Bava Batra 109b — the Talmud in English

And you do not transfer an inheritance from the father even where there is a daughter ?

And the Gemara answers:

If so, the Merciful One should not have written “and you shall transfer it,”

but rather “and you shall give it,” as with the other heirs. And consequently we learn that the daughter precedes the brothers, from what is written afterward: “And if he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers” .

And the Gemara asks:

For the one who derives

the law of the father’s inheritance

from “and you shall transfer it,” what does he make of this “relative”?

And the Gemara answers:

He needs it for that which was taught in a beraita,

“His relative”—this is his wife

. This teaches that the husband inherits his wife .

And the Gemara asks:

For the one who derives it from “his relative,” what does he make of this “and you shall transfer it”?

And the Gemara answers:

He needs it for that which was taught in a beraita: Rabbi says: with regard to all of them, “giving” is stated, but here “transferring” is stated,

we learn from here

that you have no one who transfers an inheritance from tribe to tribe except a daughter. Since her son and her husband,

who also come from other tribes,

inherit her.

And from here: the husband inherits his wife, and the son his mother.

The Gemara returns to discuss the exposition mentioned above: “His relative—this is the father.”

And the Gemara asks:

From where is it that “his relative” is the father, as it is written, “he is the relative of your father”? Say that “his relative” is the mother, as it is written, “she is the relative of your mother,”

and let us learn from here that both his father and his mother inherit him ?

Rava said: The verse says, “from his family, and he shall inherit it”; the father’s family is called a family, but the mother’s family is not called a family.

For it is written, “according to their families, according to their fathers’ houses” .

And the Gemara asks: But

is the mother’s family not called a family?!

But it is written

in the Book of Judges, in the episode of Micah’s idol (Judges 17:3):

“And there was a young man from Bethlehem of Judah, from the family of Judah, and he was a Levite, and he sojourned there.”

And we were considering it:

This itself is difficult: you said, “and he was a Levite,” which indicates that he came from Levi,

but on the other hand it says

“from the family of Judah,” which indicates that he came from Judah?

Rather, is it not that his father was from Levi and his mother was from Judah, and

nevertheless

he said, “from the family of Judah,”

which indicates that the mother’s family is called a family?

Rav Hanan bar Rav said: No! He was a man whose name was Levi.

And his father was from Judah.

And the Gemara asks:

If so, this is what

he said, these words:

Micah (

Judges 17:13)

“Now I know that the Lord will do good to me, since I have a Levite as a priest,”

and if he was not a Levite, in what did Micah rejoice?

And the Gemara answers:

Yes.

Nevertheless, he rejoiced,

because there happened

to be

for him a man whose name was Levi .

And the Gemara asks:

But was “Levi” his name? Surely his name was Jonathan! As it is stated, (

ibid. 18:30)

“And Jonathan son of Gershom son of Manasseh—he and his sons were priests for the tribe of the Danites.”

He said to him: And according to your reasoning, was he the son of Manasseh? Surely he was the son of Moses! For it is written (

I Chronicles 23:15),

“The sons of Moses: Gershom and Eliezer.”

Rather, because he performed the deed of Manasseh, Scripture associated him with Manasseh .

Here too,

he was in fact from the tribe of Levi, and the reason that it called him “from the family of Judah” was not because his mother was from the tribe of Judah, but

because he performed

the deed of Manasseh, who came from Judah, Scripture associated him with Judah.

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: From here, that they attribute the corruption

such as here, the passage dealing with a priest of idolatry

to the corrupt one

Manasseh.

Rabbi Yose bar Hanina said: From here:

It is said about Adonijah son of Haggith:

“And he too was very handsome, and his mother bore him after Absalom.”

This implies that they had the same mother.

And

it is difficult:

was not Adonijah

the

son of Haggith, and

was

Absalom

the

son of Maacah?

Rather, because he performed the deed of Absalom, who rebelled against the kingdom, Scripture associated him with Absalom.

And this is: “They attribute the corruption to the corrupt one.”

Rabbi Elazar said: A person should always cleave to the good

! For Moses, who married the daughter of Jethro, there emerged

from him Jonathan, who was a priest of idolatry with Micah.

But

Aaron, who married the daughter of Amminadab, had Phinehas emerge from him.

And the Gemara asks: But

did Phinehas not come from Jethro?!

But it is written, “And Eleazar son of Aaron took for himself from the daughters of Putiel as a wife,”

What, is it not that he came from Jethro

who was called “Putiel” because

he fattened calves for idolatry?

And the Gemara answers:

No! He came from Joseph

who was also called “Putiel,” because

he struggled

and battled

his inclination.

And

we challenge this:

But

we learned in Sanhedrin that the

tribes would taunt him

Phinehas

and say, “Have you seen this son of Puti? His mother’s father fattened calves for idolatry, and he will kill a prince of a tribe of Israel,”

which implies that he was Jethro’s grandson?