Bava Batra 112a — the Talmud in English

And from where do we know that Jair did not have land that Shgub did not have

? It teaches that Jair married a woman, she died, and he inherited her property.

As stated above.

This concludes the beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna.

The Gemara, the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna, asks:

What is the purpose of the phrase “and it says”? [

Why did we need all the verses cited in the beraita?]

The Gemara explains: At first, we brought the verse, “And every daughter who inherits property,” and so on. We interpreted it as referring to the transfer of the husband’s inheritance.

But if you would say

that there is no proof from this verse, because

the

transfer of

the inheritance

through the son’s inheritance is

what the verse is concerned with, but a husband does not inherit, come and hear a proof [

that is why we brought the second verse]:

“And inheritance shall not be transferred among the Children of Israel

from tribe to tribe.”

And if we do not say that a husband inherits from his wife, why did we need two verses? Rather, certainly the verse comes to teach us that a husband inherits from his wife.

But if you would say

that both verses concern the transfer through the son, and an additional verse was stated in order

for one to transgress both a prohibition and a positive commandment,

«Не перейдёт наследство из одного колена в другое».

Come and hear a proof [

that is why the third verse was brought]:

“Inheritance shall not be transferred from tribe to another tribe.”

But if you would say

that this verse, too, is not superfluous, and it was necessary in order

for one to transgress two prohibitions

and a positive commandment,

come

and hear [that is why the fourth exposition was brought], in the Book of Joshua:

“And Eleazar, son of Aaron, died,” and so on.

But if you would say,

there is no proof from there, because there

Eleazar was the one who married a woman [

he married a woman]

and she died, and Pinchas inherited her,

and the verse came to teach us that a son inherits from his mother just as a daughter does; but in fact a husband does not inherit from his wife.

Come and hear a proof [

that is why the fifth exposition was brought]:

“And Shgub fathered Jair,” and so on.

But if you would say that there, too, this is the case,

that Shgub was the one who married a woman, she died, and Jair, his son, inherited her,

then why do I need two verses ?

Rather, certainly they came to teach us that a husband inherits from his wife.

This concludes the explanation of the beraita.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: From where

do we still know that a husband inherits from his wife?

Perhaps, I can say to you that a husband does not inherit, and the verses concern

the transfer through

the son, as we explained, and

for

Jair

there were lands that his father did not have,

because he bought them, [

he purchased lands], and not through the husband’s inheritance.

And

for

Pinchas, too,

there were lands that Eleazar did not have,

because he bought them,

and not through the husband’s inheritance. The verses came to teach us nothing; they merely show us their wealth?

He said to him,

Abaye:

You cannot say that Pinchas bought the land.

For if so, a field would return at the Jubilee, and the righteous man [

Eleazar]

would be buried in a grave that was not his own .

Rather, say that a field fell to him

as an inheritance, to Pinchas,

from property dedicated to the Temple treasury .

Сказал Абай ведь даже если она выйдет замуж за представителя её отцовского колена, в конце концов, разве не искореняется наследство из колена матери в колено отца? То есть наследство, которое она унаследовала от своей матери, искореняется и переходит к колену её отца? И, возможно, нам следует установить, что она должна выйти замуж лишь за того, чей отец из колена её отца, а мать — из колена её матери. И отвергаем:

As it is written: “And every dedicated thing in Israel shall be yours [that is, the priests’].” There were many dedicated properties there, and perhaps Pinchas received his share of the dedicated property in that town, not because he inherited it from his wife.

The conclusion is that it is not necessary to interpret the verses specifically as referring to the transfer through the husband. It is possible to interpret them as referring also to the transfer through the son.

Abaye further raised a difficulty concerning these verses: The verse states, “And every daughter who inherits property from the tribes of the Children of Israel shall be a wife to one of the families of the tribe of her father.”

And earlier we expounded that, since the verse says “from tribes,” in the plural, it means that it is referring to a daughter whose father was from one tribe and whose mother was from another tribe, and both died, and she inherited from them. She therefore inherited property from two tribes.

And the verse says that she must marry someone from one of the families of her father’s tribe, so that the inheritance should not be transferred from one tribe to another.

Abaye said

Even if she marries someone from her father’s tribe,

in the end, is the inheritance not being uprooted from her mother’s tribe to her father’s tribe?

That is, the inheritance that she received from her mother is uprooted and transferred to her father’s tribe?

Perhaps we should amend the interpretation and say that she may marry only a man whose father is from her father’s tribe and whose mother is from her mother’s tribe.

And

we reject this:

From where? [

What makes you think that your difficulty is valid?]

Perhaps there it is different, because it has already been transferred

,

Abaye said to him:

Abaye still raised a doubt about the matter: Perhaps the principle that

“it has already been transferred” is not accepted .

Rav Yemar said to Rav Ashi:

Why did Abaye doubt whether we accept the principle that “it has already been transferred” or not? The verse clearly proves that there is no need to be concerned about the mother’s tribe, for it is written, “She shall be a wife to one of the families of the tribe of her father,” and

if you say

that we accept the principle that “it has already been transferred,”

it is understandable why we are not concerned about the mother’s tribe.

(That is, the verse can be interpreted as referring both to the transfer through the son and to the transfer through the husband )

But if you say that we do not accept the principle that it has already been transferred,

and a woman who inherits from two tribes cannot transfer her mother’s inheritance from one tribe to another, why does the verse say, “She shall be a wife to one of the families of the tribe of her father”?

What difference would it make if she married someone from one of the families of her father’s tribe? The inheritance would still be transferred from her mother’s tribe to her father’s tribe!

The Gemara answers:

We arrange for her to marry a man whose father is from his father’s tribe and whose mother is from his mother’s tribe.