Bava Batra 113a — the Talmud in English

It was taught in another beraita: “An inheritance shall not pass from tribe to tribe

to another,” the verse is speaking of the passing [of an inheritance] through the husband.

You say [that it is] through the husband; or is it only through the son?

When it says, “An inheritance shall not pass for the Children of Israel from tribe to tribe,” the passing through the son is stated.

How, then, do I uphold, “An inheritance shall not pass from tribe to another tribe”? The verse is speaking of the passing through the husband.

And the difference between them is the meaning from which they expound: according to the first beraita’s tannai, we expound from “another tribe” that the reference is not to the son, but to the husband. And it follows that the first verse deals with the passing through the son. As stated above.

Whereas according to the tannai of the latter beraita, it does not appear appropriate to expound from “another tribe” that this means the husband.

Rather, based on reasoning, he established the first verse—“And an inheritance shall not pass ... from tribe to tribe”—as referring to the son, who is closer to his mother than the husband; and consequently the latter verse became superfluous for him, to establish it as referring to the passing through the husband.

In any event, it is clear,

that according to everyone, at least,

they explained

“From tribe to another tribe,” the verse is speaking of the passing through the husband.

What is the implication?

That is, from where does the first beraita know that the verse deals with the passing through the husband? He said,

Siman [the name of an amora],

(the name of an amora, a sage of the Gemara period)

Rabba bar Rav Shila said: The verse says,

“An inheritance shall not pass from tribe to another tribe,

a man

shall cleave to his inheritance

.”

“A man” is an expression of marriage, that is, the husband.

And we reject this:

both of them [in both verses],

(of the two verses)

“a man” is written in them.

And in the first verse as well it says, “From tribe to tribe, for a man shall the Children of Israel cleave to his fathers’ inheritance

”. Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The verse says, “They shall cleave.”

And the expression “cleave” applies to the husband, as it is written, “And he shall cleave to his wife

”. And we reject this:

“They shall cleave” is written in both of them.

Rather, Rava said: The verse says,

“An inheritance shall not pass from tribe to another tribe, for a man in his inheritance

shall cleave, the tribes

of the Children of Israel

.”

The word “shall cleave” is adjacent to the word “tribes,” and it implies that it is said of the husband, for he joins and unites between the tribes.

Rav Ashi said: The verse says, “From tribe to another tribe,” but a son is not another.

For he is his mother’s leg. And therefore we expound it as referring to the husband.

Rabbi Abbahu said, Rabbi Yoḥanan said, Rabbi Yannai said, Rabbi said; and they attributed it in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korkha

From where [do we know] that the husband does not take

in the inheritance of his wife’s assets that are

expected

to come to her in the future, such as assets that she is destined to inherit from her father

as

the inheritance of her assets that are

established

assets, such as when her father died, she inherited him, and afterward she died

? As it is stated: “And Segub fathered Jair, and he had twenty-three cities in the land of Gilead.”

And we expound:

From where did Jair have

assets in Gilead

that Segub did not have

his father?

Rather, this teaches that Segub married a woman, she died during the lifetime of her inheritors, her inheritors died, and Jair inherited

her, her son. And it is proven that the husband does not inherit his wife’s assets that are expected to come to her in the future.

And it says: “And Eleazar the son of Aaron died, and they buried

him in Gibeath Pinḥas his son

,” and so forth,

from where did Pinḥas have [property] that Eleazar did not have?

This teaches that Eleazar married a woman, she died during the lifetime of her inheritors, her inheritors died, and Pinḥas inherited her.

The Gemara asks:

What is “and it says”

[for what purpose did we need an additional verse]?

And the Gemara answers:

And if you should say

[if you reject and say]

“Jair had married a woman, she died, and he inherited her,”

the verse states, “And Eleazar the son of Aaron died ... .”

And from the superfluity of the verse we expound that it speaks of a case in which he married a woman, she died during the lifetime of her inheritors, her inheritors died, and his son inherited her.

And if you should say that it fell to him,

that field to Pinḥas

as a field of consecrated property,

as above, 112a,

the verse says,

“in Gibeath Pinḥas

his son,”

and apparently the word “his son” is superfluous, and we expound:

An inheritance expected to come to him, and his son inherited it.

That is, his wife’s assets expected to come at a later time: he does not inherit them, but rather his son inherits them.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And the sons of a sister

inherit but do not cause others to inherit.”

A tannai taught: the sons of a sister

inherit,

but not the daughters of a sister.

And it will be explained below.