Bava Batra 111b (קיא:) — the Talmud in English

He said to

Rabbi Yannai

his attendant [to his servant],

his servant,

“Let us go.” [Let us leave,]

let us go

“This man has no desire to learn,” [the person before us does not truly wish to study, but only to raise arbitrary difficulties].

the person before us does not truly wish to learn, but only to raise questions for no purpose .

And what is the reason [why is his question in fact not a question]?

why in truth is his question not a question?

Abaye said: The verse states (Deuteronomy 21:17): “For he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated one, to give him a double portion

Deuteronomy 21:17): “For he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated one, to give him a double portion

of all that he possesses,

for he is the first of his strength; the birthright is his,” .

And we interpret it to mean: only that which he possesses

“his,”

that is, belonging to the man, does the firstborn take a double portion,

and not

that which he possesses

“hers.”

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

Perhaps this applies only when a young man marries a widow,

in which case his firstborn son receives a double portion only from his father’s property, since he is not the first of his mother’s strength.

But when a young man marries a virgin,

and his son is the first of their strength,

does he likewise take

a double portion from his mother’s property?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The verse states, “The first of his strength.”

And we interpret it:

“His strength,” and not her strength.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

That

verse

is needed for

a firstborn

who was born after miscarriages, so that he should be considered the firstborn with regard to inheritance.

And we interpret “his strength” as derived from the term “mourning” and grief, meaning:

one whose heart would grieve over him

if he were to die is called a firstborn.

This one [the miscarried fetus]

a miscarriage

is excluded, since his heart would not grieve over him.

Therefore, the son born after miscarriages is considered a firstborn with regard to inheritance.

If so, the word “his strength” is not available for this interpretation?

The Gemara answers:

If so, let the verse say, “For he is the first of strength.” What is the significance of “his strength”?

Conclude from this that it teaches two matters.

One is that a son born after miscarriages is called a firstborn.

And, in addition, a firstborn takes a double portion only from his father’s property, and not from his mother’s property.

Nevertheless,

the difficulty remains:

Perhaps this applies only

in that he does not take a portion from his mother’s property, but only when the firstborn is born to

a widower who married a virgin,

so that he is not the first of his father’s strength.

But

a firstborn born to

a young man who married a virgin,

and who is the first of the strength of both his father and his mother,

does he likewise take

a double portion even from his mother’s property?

Rather, Rava said: The verse states, “The law of the birthright is his,”

and we interpret “his” as referring to the father:

the law of the birthright.

That is, only

to

the man’s

heirs were the laws of the birthright stated,

and not

were the laws of

the law of the birthright stated for

the woman’s heirs.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And the man inherits his wife ...

they inherit but do not bequeath”

etc.:

From where are these matters derived?

As the Sages taught in a baraita: “His relative”—this refers to his wife. This teaches that a husband inherits his wife .

One might have thought that she too inherits him; therefore, the verse states, “And he shall inherit her”: he inherits her, but she does not inherit him.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

But the verses are not written that way!

For it is written: “If a man dies ... then you shall give his inheritance to his relative who is closest to him from his family, and he shall inherit it.” This implies that “his relative” inherits him, and not that he inherits his relative?

Abaye said: Explain it this way: “Then you shall give his inheritance to the one closest to him, his relative, and he shall inherit it.”

Accordingly, indeed, the husband inherits his relative.

Rava said: Does a sharp knife divide verses?!

That is, where did you obtain the sharp knife with which you divided the verse according to your will?!

Rather, Rava said: This is what it means: “Then you shall give his relative’s inheritance to him.”

He is of the opinion that one may “subtract, add, and expound.”

That is, we subtract the vav from “his inheritance” and the lamed from “to his relative,” and expound the verse to read, instead of “his inheritance to his relative,” “his relative’s inheritance to him.”

This is the source for the law that a husband inherits his wife.

And this tanna derives it

the law that a husband inherits his wife

from here, as it is taught in a baraita: “‘And he shall inherit her’—this teaches that a husband inherits his wife. These are the words of Rabbi Akiva .

Rabbi Yishmael says: It is not necessary”—that is, there is no need to expound the verse as you do, and he does not accept the principle that one may “subtract, add, and expound.” Rather, we establish “his relative” as referring to inheritance by the father, as above (108b).

The inheritance of a wife by her husband is derived as follows:

It says (

Numbers 36:8)

“And every daughter who inherits an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel shall be a wife to one of the family

of the tribe of her father

,” etc.,

The verse is speaking of the transfer caused by the husband,

that is, the verse was careful to prohibit her from marrying a member of another tribe, so that the inheritance of her fathers would not pass from tribe to tribe through her husband inheriting her.

This proves that a husband inherits his wife.

And it says (

there),

“And an inheritance shall not pass from the children of Israel from tribe to tribe.”

Below it will be explained why the baraita required all the verses cited here.

And it says (

there),

“And an inheritance shall not pass from one tribe to another tribe.”

And it says (

Joshua 24:33),

“And Eleazar the son of Aaron died, and they buried him in Gibeah of Phinehas his son.”

And from where do we know that Phinehas had not inherited property from Eleazar,

for Phinehas was Eleazar’s son and inherited his ancestral property?

Rather, this teaches that Phinehas married a woman

from another tribe

, and she died, and he inherited her.

This is the inheritance of a wife by her husband.

And it says (

I Chronicles 2:22),

“And Segub begot Jair, and he had twenty-three cities in the land of Gilead,”