Bava Batra 109b (קט:) — 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,”

but rather “and you shall give,” as it says with regard to the other heirs. And consequently we would know that the daughter takes precedence over the brothers, as it is written afterward: “And if he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers”.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

According to the one who derives

the law of the father’s inheritance

from “and you shall transfer,” what does he do with this expression, “his relative”?

And the Gemara answers:

He requires it for that which was taught in a beraita:

“His relative”—this is his wife

. This teaches that a husband inherits from his wife.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

According to the one who derives it from “his relative,” what does he do with “and you shall transfer”?

And the Gemara answers:

He requires it for that which was taught in a beraita: Rabbi says: In all of them, the expression “giving” is used, but here the expression “transferring” is used;

we learn from here

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

who may come from other tribes as well,

inherit from her.

And from here it follows that a husband inherits from his wife, and a son inherits from his mother.

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

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

From where do you know 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 from him.

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

As it is written: “according to their families, by their fathers’ houses”.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty: Is it so that

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

But it is written

in the Book of Judges, in the account 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 considered this matter:

This itself is difficult. You said, “and he was a Levite,” indicating that he descended from Levi,

but on the other hand it says,

“from the family of Judah,” indicating that he descended 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,”

indicating that the mother’s family is called a family?

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

And his father was from Judah.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

If so, this is what

these words that he said

Micah

(Judges 17:13)

meant: “Now I know that the Lord will prosper me, since I have a Levite as a priest,”

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

And the Gemara answers:

Yes.

He nevertheless rejoiced,

because it happened

that

a man whose name was Levi came to him.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

Was his name Levi? 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 to the tribe of the Danites.”

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

(I Chronicles 23:15):

“The sons of Moses: Gershom and Eliezer.”

Rather, because he acted in the manner of Manasseh, Scripture associated him with Manasseh.

Here too,

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

because he acted

in the manner of Manasseh, who descended from Judah, Scripture associated him with Judah.

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: From here it follows that one attributes the disgrace

—such as here, the passage concerning a priest who served idolatry—

to the disgraced one

—Manasseh.

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: From here:

It is stated 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.

But

this is difficult:

Was Adonijah

the

son of Haggith, and

was

Absalom

the

son of Maacah?

Rather, because he acted in the manner of Absalom, who rebelled against the monarchy, Scripture associated him with Absalom.

And this is the meaning of the principle: “One attributes the disgrace to the disgraced one.”

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

! For Moses, who married the daughter of Jethro, produced

a son, Jonathan, who served idolatry for Micah.

But

Aaron, who married the daughter of Amminadab, produced Phinehas.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty: Is it so that

Phinehas did not descend from Jethro?!

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

Does this not mean that he descended from Jethro,

who was called “Putiel” because

he fattened calves for idolatry?

And the Gemara answers:

No! He descended from Joseph,

who was also called “Putiel” because

he resisted

and battled

his evil inclination.

And

we challenge this:

But

we learned in Sanhedrin that the

tribes would disparage him

—Phinehas—

and say: “Have you seen this son of Puti, the son whose mother’s father fattened calves for idolatry? He would kill the prince of a tribe of Israel!”

This implies that he was Jethro’s grandson.