Bava Batra 115a — the Talmud in English

He raised an objection to him [

he challenged him]:

Rabbi Yohanan to Rabbi Yehuda ben Shimon:

Have we not learned in the Mishna:

“The woman [inherits] her son, and the woman [inherits] her husband, and the maternal brothers cause others to inherit but do not inherit,”

[which teaches that] the maternal family is not called a family? And how did you say that the mother inherits her son?

He said to him: Our Mishna

itself is difficult, as will be explained below, and

I do not know who taught it.

And the law is not as it is written in it.

And the Gemara discusses: Why does he not know who taught it?

Let Rabbi Zekharya ben Ha-Katzav

[mentioned above (111a), that a son and a daughter are equal with regard to their mother’s property, and we do not compare the tribe of the mother to the tribe of the father]

say to him

that he does not expound the juxtaposition of

“tribes.”

And the Gemara answers:

The Mishna cannot be established

[it is impossible to establish the Mishna]

in accordance with Rabbi Zekharya ben Ha-Katzav.

For

this

teaches

in the Mishna:

“The sons of a sister

inherit but do not cause others to inherit.”

And

the tanna taught

(above, 113a):

The sons of a sister

inherit,

but not the daughters of a sister.

And the Gemara discusses: (there)

For what halakhic purpose?

Surely the daughters of a sister inherit their maternal uncles if there are no sons?

Rav Sheshet said:

There is a practical difference

with regard to precedence.

That is to say, even with regard to an inheritance through mishmush, such as this one, where they inherit through their mother, nevertheless the sons precede the daughters.

And if it enters your mind that the Mishna

is

in accordance with Rabbi Zekharya ben Ha-Katzav, he said that a son and a daughter are equal with regard to their mother’s property?!

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

The tanna of our Mishna, whichever way you look at it: If he expounds “tribes,” the woman too should 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 the mother’s property?

And the Gemara answers:

In fact, he expounds “tribes.”

And therefore a son precedes a daughter with regard to the mother’s property.

But

in any event, the mother does not cause her son to inherit, for

here it is different, as the verse says: “And every daughter who inherits an inheritance,”

and we expound:

“who inherits,” but does not cause others to inherit

for two tribes, but only for her father. And from here [it follows] that the mother does not inherit her daughter. And the same law 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, then you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter.”

And from here we learn that the

son precedes the daughter

with regard to inheritance. And likewise,

all the descendants of a son precede the daughter.

And likewise, a

daughter precedes the brothers,

and likewise the father of the deceased. And all the

descendants of a daughter precede the brothers

and the father of the deceased.

The brothers precede the paternal uncles,

and likewise, the

descendants of the brothers precede the paternal uncles.

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

This is the principle: Whoever precedes with regard to inheritance

and dies,

his descendants precede.

And they stand in his place to inherit that same inheritance before the other relatives of the deceased, even though they are closer to the deceased than this person’s descendants.

And the father precedes

to inherit his son or daughter who died

over all his descendants.

That is to say, the deceased’s brothers.

Gemara:

The Gemara explains: From where do we derive that whoever precedes with regard to inheritance, his descendants precede?

The Sages taught:

The inheritance of a

“son” is stated in the Torah;

I have only [learned] a son, who inherits his father first. But

the son of the son, or the daughter of the son

[where there is no son of the son],

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

[do we know] that they too inherit before the daughter?

The verse states: “He has none,”

and we expound:

Search into it.

That is, search for a son for him in every manner in which you can find one. And even his descendants who come through his power are considered “son.”

And likewise, the inheritance of a

“daughter” is stated in the Torah; I have only [learned] a daughter, the daughter of the daughter, and the son of the daughter,

and the daughter of the son of the daughter, from where

[do we know] that they precede the brothers?

The verse states: “He has none; search into it.”

And search for a daughter for him in every manner in which you can find one. And even her descendants are considered like a daughter, for “the fetus is the thigh of its mother”.