Bava Batra 111b — the Talmud in English

He said to

Rabbi Yannai

to his attendant

his servant,

Let us go.

let us go

This one does not desire to learn

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

And what is the reason

why in truth is his question not a question?

Abaye said: The verse says (

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

of all that is found with him,

for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his”,

and we expound: only that which is found

“with him,”

that is, with the man—the firstborn takes a double portion,

but not

that which is found

with her.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Say that these words apply only to a young man who married a widow,

so that his firstborn son takes a double portion only from his property, since he is not the beginning of his wife’s strength.

But a young man who married a virgin,

and whose son is the beginning of their strength,

here too, does he take

a double portion?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The verse says, “The beginning of his strength.”

And we expound,

“His strength,” and not her strength.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

That

verse

is needed for

the firstborn who

comes after miscarriages, so that he should be a firstborn with regard to inheritance.

And we expound “‘His strength’” from the language of mourning and sorrow, that is,

one whose heart grieves over him

if he dies—he is called a firstborn.

This one

a miscarriage

is excluded, for his heart does not grieve over him.

And therefore, the son who comes after miscarriages is considered a firstborn with regard to inheritance .

And if so, the word “his strength” is not available for exposition?

And the Gemara answers:

If so, let the verse say, “For he is the beginning of strength”; what is the significance of “his strength”?

Learn from it two things.

One: a son who comes after miscarriages is called a firstborn.

And furthermore, a firstborn takes a double portion only from the father’s property, and not from the mother’s property.

And still

it is difficult:

Say that these words apply

that he does not take from the mother’s property only in the case of a firstborn who comes from

a widower who married a virgin,

since he is not the beginning of his father’s strength.

But

a firstborn who comes from

a young man who married a virgin,

and he is the beginning of his father’s and mother’s strength,

here too, does he take

a double portion even from the mother’s property?

Rather, Rava said: The verse says, “To him belongs the right of the firstborn,”

and we expound: “to him,” that is, to the father,

belongs the right of the firstborn.

That is, only

to

the heirs of the

man

were the laws of the firstborn stated,

and not

were the laws of

the right of the firstborn for

the heirs of the

woman

We learned in the Mishna:

“And the man [inherits] his wife ...

they inherit but do not bequeath

and so forth:

From where are these words derived?

For the Sages taught: “‘His relative’—this is his wife. It teaches that the husband inherits his wife .

It might also be that she inherits him; the verse states, “And he shall inherit it”: he inherits her, but she does not inherit him.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But the verses are not written that way!

For it is written: “When a man dies ... you shall give his inheritance to his relative who is nearest to him from his family, and he shall inherit it,” and it implies that “his relative” inherits him, and he does not inherit his relative.

Abaye said: Explain it this way: “You shall give his inheritance to his closest relative; his relative shall inherit it” .

And according to this, indeed the husband inherits his relative.

Rava said: Does a sharp knife divide verses?!

That is, from where do you have the sharp knife with which you divided the verse according to your will?!

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

He holds: “We subtract, add, and expound.”

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

”. And from here is the source of the law of the husband’s inheritance.

And this tanna derives it

the law of the husband’s inheritance

from here: For it was taught: “‘And he shall inherit it’ teaches that the husband inherits his wife. These are the words of Rabbi Akiva .

Rabbi Yishmael says: It is not necessary—that is, one should not expound the verse as you do, and he does not hold “we subtract, add, and expound”; rather, we establish “his relative” as referring to the father’s inheritance, as above (108b

). And the husband’s inheritance is learned as follows:

For it says (

Numbers 36:8),

“And every daughter who possesses 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

,” and so forth,

The verse speaks of the transfer [of inheritance] through the husband,

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

And it is proven from here that the husband inherits his wife.

And it says (

there),

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

Below it will be explained why the beraita required all the verses brought 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 the hill of Phinehas his son.”

And from where did Phinehas have [this hill], which Eleazar did not have,

for Phinehas was Eleazar’s son and inherited his fathers’ inheritance ?

Rather, it teaches that Phinehas married a woman

from another tribe

, and she died, and he inherited her.

And this is the husband’s inheritance.

And it says (

I Chronicles 2:22),

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