Bava Batra 112a (קיב.) — the Talmud in English

And from where is it known that Jair did not have anything that belonged to Seguv

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

As above.

This concludes the beraita.

The Gemara 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: Initially, we cited the verse, “And every daughter who inherits an inheritance,” and so on. And we interpreted it as referring to the transfer caused by the husband.

And if you would say

that there is no proof from this verse, because

the

transfer of

transfer

of the inheritance through the son's inheritance

is what the verse emphasizes, but a husband does not inherit, come and hear

[and therefore we cited the second verse],

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

from tribe to tribe.”

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

And if you would say

that both verses refer to the transfer caused by the son, and an additional verse was stated in order

to transgress both a prohibition and a positive commandment,

Wrote the Rashbam, "And that which the text changed was intended only to warn that she not marry to another tribe, so as to incur lashes:..." And seemingly difficult: how will she be lashed? Is that not a warning of a doubt, from where do we know that she will die and leave an inheritance to her husband and sons? And even according to the one who says a warning of a doubt is a warning, that is only in the case 'if you will desire to transgress a prohibition', but here perhaps she will not at all transgress any prohibition? And further difficult, behold the negative adds something new over the positive, for the positive forbade only marriage to another tribe, but the negative also includes the intercourse of prostitution which might produce children? Also one must ask, when does the negative apply — at the time of the intercourse, or at the time the son is born? It seems to say: certainly the prohibition is not at intercourse nor at birth but at marriage. As Rashbam wrote later (Kib' 2, dh "If so") "and this verse warned us, 'and you shall not transfer an inheritance', that is, be careful in all marriages of women, that at the time of marriage they should not come to effect a transfer of inheritance." End quote. And it becomes clear that the prohibition is on the marriages that cause transfer of inheritance. And the prohibition does not depend on what in fact will be transferred from tribe to tribe. According to this, there is no warning of a doubt. For at the time of marriage one certainly transgresses the prohibition. And also the prohibition is not in intercourse but in marriage, as above. See further in Birkat Avraham and in the collection Shiurim (shka). and in the shiurim of HaRav Sh. Rozovsky.

Ta shma

[and therefore the third verse was brought],

“An inheritance shall not be transferred from tribe to another tribe.”

And if you would say

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

to transgress two prohibitions

and a positive commandment,

ta

shma [and therefore the fourth exposition was brought], in the Book of Joshua:

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

And if you would say,

there is no proof from there, because there

it was Eleazar who married a woman

[he married a woman]

and she died, and Pinḥas inherited her,

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

Ta shma

[and therefore the fifth exposition was brought]:

“And Seguv fathered Jair, and so on.”

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

that Seguv 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 his wife.

This concludes the explanation of the beraita.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: From where

[do we still know that a husband inherits his wife]?

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

the

transfer

by

Jair

of property that his father did not have,

because he bought it,

[he purchased land], and not through the husband's inheritance.

And

for

Pinḥas likewise

had property that Eleazar did not have,

because he bought it,

and not by virtue of a husband's inheritance; and the verses came to teach us nothing, but merely to show us their wealth?

He said to him,

Abaye:

You cannot say that Pinḥas bought it.

For if so, the field would return at the Jubilee, and it would emerge that a righteous man

[Eleazar]

was buried in a grave that was not his own .

Rather, say that a field fell to him

as an inheritance,

from a field devoted to the priests .

See in Ketzot HaChoshen ( sec. 177, s.k. 2), which brought evidence from the words of Tosafot in Gittin (ch. 2), that the sanctity of blood (kedushat damim) removes the property from servitude, and if the purchaser consecrated the field in sanctity of blood, it does not return in Jubilee. And the difficulty: if so why do we say "it is found the righteous is buried in a grave that is not his", for the grave of the dead is forbidden to benefit, and so it would be sanctity of the body and not return in Jubilee? See there. And in the Chazon Ish (Choshen Mishpat, Collections sec. 13 no. 15) he wrote, "and this should be rejected, that land of the world does not cease and come out in Jubilee." For example, when one dedicates all his property to the priests. The property is given to the members of that priestly watch. Perhaps Pinchas was not serving in the same watch as his father. Shita Mekubetzet. And For example one consecrates his property to the priests. They give the assets to the sons of that course. And perhaps Phinehas was not in the same course as his father. So it is plausible. And in Rashbam, he added also the seller of an inherited estate, when it goes out in Jubilee it does not return to the owner but is given to the priests as a herem field. And see Shetamk in the name of in the name of Ramban who rejected his words.

For it is written: “And every devoted thing in Israel shall be yours” [that is, to the priests], and there were many devoted properties there; perhaps Pinḥas received his portion of the devoted property in that region, and not because he inherited his wife.

The conclusion of the matter is that it is not necessary to interpret the verses specifically as referring to the transfer caused by the husband. They may also be interpreted as referring to the transfer caused by the son.

Abaye further raised a difficulty concerning these verses: It is stated in the verse, “And every daughter who inherits an inheritance from the tribes of the Children of Israel shall be the wife of one from the family of the tribe of her father.”

And we expounded above that since it is written “from the tribes,” in the plural, this indicates 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. It follows that she inherits from two tribes.

And the verse says that she must marry one from the family of her father's tribe, so that the inheritance will not be transferred from one tribe to another.

Abaye said

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

ultimately, is the inheritance not thereby uprooted from her mother's tribe to her father's tribe?

That is, the inheritance she inherited from her mother is uprooted and transferred to her father's tribe?

Perhaps we must amend the interpretation and say that she may marry only someone whose father is from her father's tribe and whose mother is from her mother's tribe.

And

we reject this:

From where?

[What is the basis for your difficulty?]

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

from the mother's tribe to another tribe, since her mother's family is affiliated with her mother's husband, who was from another tribe; and when she inherited from her mother, the inheritance had already been transferred.

Abaye said to him:

Abaye said: There is still room for doubt in the matter: Perhaps the principle

“it has already been transferred” is not stated .

And the reason: because it is possible that at the time of the daughter's marriage the mother is still alive, and her property is in her possession, and the estate has not yet been transferred. And when she dies and her daughter inherits, then the estate will be transferred from tribe to tribe. HaRa'em. And Rashbam, explained: perhaps the verse was punctilious about the transfer of the estate by the marriage, even though it had been in part previously transferred. And he insisted that we not add to the transfer another transfer from tribe to tribe. And in the Tosafot. they added that one cannot say the verse was not particular about the mother's estate even though it was already transferred; for as it is written 'inheritance of two tribes' it implies that a regulation must be made even concerning the mother's inheritance.

Rav Yemar said to Rav Ashi:

Why did Abaye doubt whether we say “it has already been transferred” or not? The verse clearly demonstrates that there is no concern for the mother's tribe, for it is written, “She shall be the wife of one from the family of the tribe of her father,” and

if you say

that we do say, “it has already been transferred,”

it is understandable why we do not take the mother's tribe into consideration.

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

Rashbam and other early authorities did not read this sentence as such.

But if you say that we do not say, “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 it say, “She shall be the wife of one from the family of the tribe of her father”?

What difference does it make if she marries one from the family of her father's tribe? The inheritance is thereby uprooted 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.