Bava Batra 115a (קטו.) — the Talmud in English

He challenged him [

he raised an objection]

Rabbi Yoḥanan to Rabbi Yehuda ben Shimon:

Did we not learn in the Mishna:

“A woman with regard to her son, a woman with regard to her husband, and the mother’s brothers inherit but do not bequeath,”

indicating that the mother’s family is not called a family? How, then, could you say that the mother inherits her son?

He said to him: Our Mishna

itself presents a difficulty, as will be explained below, and

I do not know who taught it.

And the halakha is not in accordance with what is written in it.

The Gemara asks: Why does he not know who taught it?

Let him say that Rabbi Zechariah ben HaKatzav [

mentioned above (111a), that a son and a daughter are equal with regard to their mother’s property, and we do not derive the mother’s tribal line from the father’s tribal line]

is the one who taught it, since he does not expound

the juxtaposition of

“tribes.”

The Gemara answers:

The Mishna cannot be established [

it is impossible to establish the Mishna]

in accordance with Rabbi Zechariah ben HaKatzav.

For

it

teaches

in the Mishna:

“The sons of a sister

inherit but do not bequeath.”

And

the tanna taught

(above, 113a):

The sons of a sister

inherit,

but not the daughters of a sister.

The Gemara asks (there):

For what halakhic purpose?

Surely the daughters of a sister inherit their mother’s brothers if there are 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, such as this one, in which they inherit through their mother, the sons nevertheless precede the daughters.

And if it should enter your mind that our Mishna

is in accordance with

Rabbi Zechariah ben HaKatzav, did he not say that a son and a daughter are equal with regard to their mother’s property?!

The Gemara raises an objection:

The tanna of our Mishna is caught either way: If he expounds “tribes,” a woman should also inherit her son,

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Shimon.

And

if he does not expound “tribes,” from where does he derive that a son precedes a daughter with regard to their mother’s property ?

The Gemara answers:

Actually, he expounds “tribes.”

Therefore, a son precedes a daughter with regard to their mother’s property.

But

in any event, the mother does not bequeath to her son,

for here the verse says: “And every daughter who inherits an inheritance,”

and we expound:

“Who inherits,” but does not bequeath

to two tribes; rather, she inherits only from her father. From here it follows that a mother does not inherit her daughter. The same applies to her son.

Mishna:

The order of inheritances is as follows:

It is stated in the Torah:

“If a man dies and has no son, you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter.”

From this we learn that the

son precedes the daughter

with regard to inheritance. And likewise,

all the descendants of a son’s loins precede the daughter.

And likewise,

a daughter precedes the brothers,

and likewise the father of the deceased. And all

the descendants of a daughter’s loins precede the brothers

and the father of the deceased.

The brothers precede the paternal brothers,

and likewise

the descendants of the brothers’ loins precede the paternal brothers.

And if they have a sister, they and their descendants precede the sister, while the sister and her descendants precede the paternal brothers.

This is the principle: Whoever has precedence with regard to inheritance,

and dies,

his descendants precede.

They take his place in inheriting that inheritance before the other relatives of the deceased, even if those relatives are closer to the deceased than this person’s descendants.

And the father takes precedence

in inheriting his son or daughter who died

over all his descendants.

That is, over the deceased’s brothers.

Gemara:

The Gemara explains: From where do we derive that the descendants of whoever has precedence with regard to inheritance have precedence?

The Sages taught:

The Torah states the inheritance of a

“son”; I have derived only a son

who inherits his father first. But

the son’s son or the son’s daughter [

where there is no son’s son],

or the son of the son’s daughter, from where

do we know that they too inherit before a daughter ?

The verse therefore states, “and has no son,”

and we expound:

Search for him.

That is, search for a son in whatever manner you can find one. Even his descendants who come through him are considered a “son.”

And likewise, the Torah states the inheritance of a

“daughter”; I have derived only a daughter, a daughter’s daughter, and a daughter’s son ,

and the daughter of a daughter’s son, from where

do we know that they precede the brothers?

The verse therefore states, “and has no son; search for him.”

Search for a daughter in whatever manner you can find one. Even her descendants are considered like a daughter, because