Bava Batra 111a (קיא.) — the Talmud in English

“And every daughter who inherits an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel,”

and “tribes” is stated in the plural.

How can a daughter inherit from two tribes?

Rather, this is referring to one whose father was from one tribe and whose mother was from another tribe, and they died, and she inherited them.

And it is thereby explained that a daughter inherits from her mother?

You have said a kal va-chomer: If a daughter, whose power is diminished

with regard to the property of her father,

and does not inherit when there is a son,

has greater power with regard to the property of her mother, then a son, whose power is greater with regard to the property of his father, should certainly have greater power with regard to the property of his mother?!

And

if you say: From where do we know that the son takes precedence over the daughter?

This matter can be learned

from the place from which you came. [

From the place where you began to derive the law concerning the son, namely, from the property of the father.]

Just as there [

with regard to the property of the father]

the son takes precedence over the daughter, so here too the son takes precedence over the daughter.

However,

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, said in the name of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav: The son and the daughter are equal with regard to the property of the mother.

And they inherit equally.

The Gemara explains:

What is the reason [

why did they not derive that the son takes precedence over the daughter, as does the first tanna]?

Because they held:

It is sufficient for what is derived from the law [

the son’s inheritance, which is learned through a kal va-chomer from the daughter’s inheritance]

to be equivalent to the case from which it is derived [

the daughter’s inheritance]. Therefore, the son does not take precedence over the daughter; rather, they inherit equally.

The Gemara raises an objection: Does

the first tanna not expound the principle of “it is sufficient,”

and why, then, is the son superior to the daughter?!

But

the law of

“it is sufficient

for what is derived from the law to be equivalent to the case from which it is derived”

is from the Torah!

As it is taught

in the Sifre, in a beraita explaining how one derives laws through the thirteen hermeneutical principles,

how is a kal va-chomer applied [

how does one derive through a kal va-chomer]?

It is stated in the Torah (Numbers 12:14), in the passage concerning Miriam’s leprosy:

“And the Lord said to Moses: Had her father but spat in her face, would she not be ashamed for seven days?

She shall be confined for seven days outside the camp, and afterward she shall be gathered in.”

This is the law of a kal va-chomer: If, when her father spat in her face, she was confined for seven days, then all the more so, if the Divine Presence spat in her face, she should be confined for seven days.

Yet ostensibly we should say:

A kal va-chomer for the Divine Presence: fourteen

days?

Rather,

from here we learn:

It is sufficient for

what

is derived from the law to be equivalent to the case from which it is derived.

Thus far the beraita.

If so, according to the first tanna it is difficult: Why did he not take into consideration the principle of “it is sufficient for what is derived from the law to be equivalent to the case from which it is derived”?

The Gemara answers:

In general, he does expound the principle of “it is sufficient,” but here it is different, as the verse says: “from tribes,”

in the plural.

The tribe of the mother is compared to the tribe of the father. Just as with regard to the tribe of the father, the son takes precedence over the daughter, so too with regard to the tribe of the mother, the son takes precedence over the daughter.

Rav Netai considered carrying out the practical ruling [

in accordance with Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav,

and dividing the mother’s property equally between the son and the daughter].

Shmuel said to him: In accordance with whom? With Zekharya?! Zekharya is nothing!

That is, his words are nullified, and the halakha is not in accordance with him.

Rabbi Tavla carried out the practical ruling in accordance with Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav.

Rav Naḥman said to him: What is this

[

what did you see that led you to issue the ruling in accordance with him]?

Rabbi Tavla said to him: Because

Rav Ḥinnana bar Shelamya said in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav.

Rav Naḥman said to him

Rav Naḥman:

Go retract your ruling! And if not, I will extract Rav Ḥinnana bar Shelamya from your ears!

[Retract your ruling, and if not, I will forcibly extract from you the money that you took on the authority of Rav Ḥinnana, and you will be placed under a ban. ]

Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya considered carrying out the practical ruling in accordance with Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav.

Rav Naḥman said to him: What is this?

He said to him

Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya: Because

Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav.

Rav Naḥman said to him

Rav Naḥman:

I will send to him

that you say these things in his name, and I will find out whether the matter is true .

He was embarrassed.

Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya was embarrassed, for he feared that Rav Huna had retracted his statement, or that he had not heard it from him properly .

He said to him

Rav Naḥman: Fortunately for me, Rav Huna is alive, and it is possible to clarify the truth with him, for

now, if Rav Huna had died, you would have entrenched yourself against me

[If Rav Huna had not been alive, you would have used his words to argue against me, and you would not have retracted your statement].

And he [

Rav Naḥman]

in accordance with whose view did he hold?

Like that statement of Rav and Shmuel, who both said: The halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav.

The following is another incident concerning the law of inheritance of the mother’s property:

Rabbi Yannai was proceeding, leaning on the shoulders of Rav Shemlai, his attendant. And Rabbi Yehuda Nesi’a came toward them.

[Rabbi Yannai was blind because of his advanced age, and it happened that he was walking in the street while leaning on the shoulders of his attendant, Rav Shemlai, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi came before them.]

He said to him

Rav Shemlai said to Rabbi Yannai:

A person is coming toward us; he is distinguished, and his head covering

is fine.

[The person coming toward us is an important man, and his garments are elegant.]

When he reached him, Rabbi Yannai felt him.

[When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi came before them, Rabbi Yannai felt his garments.]

He said to him

Rabbi Yannai said to his attendant:

This garment has the same measure as a sack.

[This garment has, with regard to susceptibility to ritual impurity, the same measure as a garment made of sackcloth ], that is, it is an inferior garment.

He asked him [

Rabbi Yehuda asked Rabbi Yannai]:

From where do we know that the son takes precedence over the daughter with regard to the property of the mother?

He said to him

Rabbi Yannai:

As it is written: “tribes”; the tribe of the mother is compared to the tribe of the father. Just as with regard to the tribe of the father, the son takes precedence over the daughter, so too with regard to the tribe of the mother, the son takes precedence over the daughter.

Rabbi Yehuda said to him

Rabbi Yehuda:

, if

so, we should compare the inheritance of the father with the inheritance of the mother completely, and say:

Just as with regard to the tribe of the father, the firstborn takes a double portion, so too with regard to the tribe of the mother, the firstborn

from the mother

takes a double portion?