Bava Batra 113b (קיג:) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara asks:

For what halakhic purpose?

It is obvious that the daughters of a sister inherit from their maternal uncle when he has no sons?

Rav Sheshet said:

There is a practical difference

with regard to precedence.

That is, even with regard to an inheritance that comes through mishmush—for example, this case, in which they inherit through their mother—the sons nevertheless precede the daughters.

As explained in the following statement:

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak taught in the presence of Rav Huna:

It is written,

“And he shall inherit

it,” and we expound: The letter vav adds to the preceding matter, teaching us:

The second inheritance

that is, the other inheritances mentioned in the passage

is compared to the first inheritance,

the inheritance of a son, which takes precedence over all the others.

Just as with the first inheritance, a son precedes a daughter, so too with the second inheritance, a son precedes a daughter.

And the same applies to the tenth inheritance.

It follows that a son precedes a daughter; brothers precede sisters; the paternal uncles precede the paternal aunts; and the sons of the paternal uncles precede the daughters of the paternal uncles , and so on.

Further, with regard to the laws of inheritance:

Rabba bar Ḥanina taught in the presence of Rav Naḥman:

It is written,

“And it shall be on the day that he causes his sons to inherit.”

And we expound:

By day you cause inheritances to be assigned, but you do not cause inheritances to be assigned at night.

Abaye said to him: If that is so, one whose death occurred during the day is the one whose sons inherit from him, whereas one whose death occurred at night is not one whose sons inherit from him

[One who dies during the day bequeaths his property to his sons, while one who dies at night does not bequeath it to his sons] ?!

?!

Perhaps you meant that “the adjudication of inheritances”

is performed only during the day, like other monetary cases ?

And from where do we know that the division of inheritances is like monetary cases ?

As it is taught:

At the end of the passage of inheritances,

“And it shall be for the Children of Israel a statute of judgment,” the entire passage was concluded

[completed]

all

of it as a judgment.

We learn from here that the inheritance must be adjudicated by three judges, in accordance with the law.

We also learn from here that in all monetary cases, the initial adjudication must take place during the day, as with inheritances, concerning which it is written, “And it shall be on the day that he causes his sons to inherit” .

And this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Yehuda.

As Rav Yehuda said: If three people entered to visit

the sick person, if they wish, they may write

the testimony as they heard it from the sick person, describing how he apportioned his property,

and if they wish, they may adjudicate,

since they are three, and they can adjudicate and say: This is the law: So-and-so shall receive this portion, and so-and-so shall receive that portion, whose values are equal, and the like .

And they write a legal ruling for them, so that they can no longer contest one another.

But if there were

two, they write

testimony,

but they do not adjudicate.

For a court consists of no fewer than three judges .

And Rav Ḥisda said: They taught this only

when they entered to visit him

during the day.