Bava Batra 111a — the Talmud in English

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

and it says “tribes,” in the plural.

How does a daughter inherit two tribes?

Rather, this refers 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 the daughter inherits her mother?.

And I have only a daughter; from where [do we know] a son

who inherits his mother? Perhaps the Torah intended that the son inherit the father and the daughter the mother ?

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

with regard to the property of the father,

and she does not inherit where there is a son,

her power is strong with regard to the property of the mother; a son, whose power is strong with regard to the property of the father, is it not logical that his power should be strong with regard to the property of the mother?!

And

if you say: from where do we know that the son precedes the daughter?

This matter is to be learned

from the place from which you came.

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

Just as there

[with regard to the property of the father]

the son precedes the daughter, so here too the son precedes the daughter.

But

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Yosei said in the name of Rabbi Zechariah ben Ha-Katzav: both 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 expound that the son precedes the daughter, like the first tanna]?

Because they held,

it is enough for what comes from the inference,

[the inheritance of the son, which is learned by a kal va-chomer from the inheritance of the daughter]

to be like the subject

[like the inheritance of the daughter]. And therefore the son does not precede the daughter; rather, they inherit equally.

And the Gemara raises an objection: Is it that

the first tanna does not expound “it is enough,”

and why is the son preferable to the daughter?!

But

the law of

“it is enough

for what comes from the inference to be like the subject” is

from the Torah!

For it was taught

in the Sifrei, in a beraita explaining how one expounds through the thirteen principles

, with regard to the principle of kal va-chomer, how

[how does one expound through “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: If her father had surely spit 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",

and this is the law of kal va-chomer: if, when her father spit in her face, she is confined for seven days, all the more so, if the Divine Presence spit in her face, she must be confined for seven days.

And seemingly we should have said,

a kal va-chomer with regard to the Divine Presence: fourteen

days ?

Rather,

from here we learn

that it is enough for

the matter

that comes from the inference to be like the subject.

This is the end of the beraita.

And if so, according to the first tanna it is difficult: why was he not concerned with the law of “it is enough for what comes from the inference to be like the subject”?

And the Gemara answers:

In general he expounds “it is enough,” but here it is different, for the verse says “from the tribes,”

in the plural.

He compares the tribe of the mother to the tribe of the father: just as with the tribe of the father, the son precedes the daughter, so with the tribe of the mother, the son precedes the daughter .

Rav Nitai considered carrying out a practical ruling [he thought to rule]

in accordance with Rabbi Zechariah ben Ha-Katzav,

and to divide the property of the mother equally between the son and the daughter.

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

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

Rabbi Tavla carried out a practical ruling in accordance with Rabbi Zechariah ben Ha-Katzav.

Rav Naḥman said to him: What is this

[what did you see to rule in accordance with him]?

Rabbi Tavla said to him

Rabbi Tavla: because

Rav Ḥinana bar Shelmaya said in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Zechariah ben Ha-Katzav.

Rav Naḥman said to him

Rav Naḥman:

Go, retract! And if not, I shall extract Rav Ḥinana bar Shelmaya from your ears! [

Retract; and if not, I shall forcibly extract from you the money that you took on the strength of Rav Ḥinana, and you will be placed under ban. ].

Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya considered carrying out a practical ruling in accordance with Rabbi Zechariah ben Ha-Katzav.

Rav Naḥman said to him: What is this?

Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said to him

Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya: because

Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Zechariah ben Ha-Katzav.

Rav Naḥman said to him

Rav Naḥman:

I shall send to him

that you are saying these things in his name, and I shall know whether the matter is true .

He became embarrassed.

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

Rav Naḥman said to him

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

now, when Rav Huna’s soul had departed, you would have fortified yourself against me

[if Rav Huna were not alive, you would have taunted me with his words and would not have retracted your words].

And he

[Rav Naḥman],

in accordance with whom did he hold?

Like that which Rav and Shmuel [said], both of them said: The halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Zechariah ben Ha-Katzav.

Before us is brought another incident dealing with the law of inheritance of the mother’s property:

Rabbi Yannai was walking supported on the shoulder of Rav Shemaya, his attendant. And Rabbi Yehuda Nesi’a came before them.

[Rabbi Yannai was blind because of his old age, and it happened that he walked in the street while leaning on the shoulders of his attendant, Rav Shemaya, and Rabbi Yehuda Nesi’a came before them].

Rav Shemaya said to

Rav Yannai,

“The person who is coming toward us is handsome, and his garment

is handsome.”

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

When he reached him, he felt him.

[When Rabbi Yehuda Nesi’a came before them, Rabbi Yannai felt his garments].

Rabbi Yannai said to

Rabbi Yannai said to his attendant,

“The measure of this one is like a sack.”

[The measure of this garment with regard to impurity is like 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 precedes the daughter with regard to the property of the mother?”

Rabbi Yannai said to him

Rabbi Yannai

, for it is written “tribes”; the tribe of the mother is compared to the tribe of the father: just as with the tribe of the father the son precedes the daughter, so with the tribe of the mother the son precedes the daughter.

Rabbi Yehuda said to him

Rabbi Yehuda

, if

so, we must compare the inheritance of the father to the inheritance of the mother completely, and say:

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

from the mother

takes a double portion?