Bava Batra 116a (קטז.) — the Talmud in English

He said to him: “Fool!”

“Is our complete Torah not to be considered as substantial as your idle conversation?”:

for your kal va-chomer can easily be refuted!

What is the case with his son’s daughter, whose power is greater

to inherit from her grandfather? Even

in place of the brothers ,

can you say the same with regard to his daughter, whose power is weaker

and who does not inherit from her father

in place

of

brothers?

And they defeated them.

And that day

on which they defeated them was the twenty-fourth of Tevet, and

they made it a holiday.

Further concerning the inheritance of a son’s daughter:

It is stated in the passage concerning the concubine in Gibeah (Judges 21:17):

“And they said: There shall be an inheritance for the survivors of Benjamin, and a tribe shall not be blotted out from Israel.”

Rabbi Yitzḥak of the school of Rabbi Ami said: This teaches that they stipulated concerning the tribe of Benjamin that a son’s daughter should not inherit together with the brothers [of

the son]; rather, the brothers inherit all of their father’s property, including the share of their deceased brother.

They instituted this arrangement because, following the incident of the concubine in Gibeah, only six hundred men remained from the tribe of Benjamin. If a woman were to inherit and marry a son of another tribe, it would turn out that a very large portion of the inheritance of the tribe of Benjamin would be diminished . Therefore, they instituted that a son’s daughter should not inherit according to her ordinary law. For the abandonment of property by the court is legally effective .

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Anyone who does not leave a son to inherit from him, the Holy One, blessed be He, is filled with wrath against him. [That is, He hates him] .

That is, He hates him.

And from where do we derive this?

It is written here, “And you shall transfer his inheritance,” and it is written there,

(Zephaniah 1:15)

“A day of wrath is that day,”

(Psalms 55:20)

“They have no exchange

[from the language of “exchange,” meaning one who fills his place]

for them, and they do not fear God.”

That is, one who has no son to fill his place, and with whom “you shall transfer his inheritance” cannot be fulfilled, his day of death is a “day of wrath.”

Now, there is a dispute concerning this statement:

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi; one said: Anyone who does not leave a son, and one said: Anyone who does not leave a student.

But we do not know which of them said this and which said that.

And we resolve it:

Conclude

that

Rabbi Yoḥanan

is the one

who said

“a student” ,

For Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “This is the bone of my tenth son” [When Rabbi Yoḥanan went to comfort deeply bereaved mourners, he would bring with him a tooth

that remained to him from one of his sons who had died, and show it to the mourner, saying to him, “This is what remained to me of my ten sons” ], that is, he did not leave a son after him to inherit from him.

If he had held that one who did not leave a son to inherit from him is called “one who does not fear God,” he would not have said this, so as not to publicize his sins. For it is written: “Fortunate is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.”

And from here

conclude that Rabbi Yoḥanan is the one who said “a student.”

And since Rabbi Yoḥanan said “a student,” Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said “a son.”

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

But Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi did not go to a house of mourning, except to the house of one who died without

sons,

[Rabbi Yehoshua would not go to the house of a deceased person to mourn for him, so as not to interrupt his Torah study; rather, he went to one who died without children],

as it is written: “Weep bitterly for the one who is gone,” and Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: For one who is gone without a male child,

whereas if such a person were considered “one who does not fear God,” he certainly would not have grieved over him more than over other dead people?

Rather, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is the one who said “a student.”

And since Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is the one who said “a student,” Rabbi Yoḥanan said “a son.”

And if so,

there is a difficulty from Rabbi Yoḥanan against Rabbi Yoḥanan,

as above?

The Gemara answers:

It is not difficult. This

statement, in which he said, “This is the bone of my tenth son,”

was his own

view; that is, he himself held like Rabbi Yehoshua, who said “a student.”

This

statement, in which he said “a son,” was

the

opinion

of his teacher.

He himself did not hold like him.

(Mnemonic: Hadad, poverty, and a sage ):

Rabbi Pinḥas ben Ḥama expounded: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And Hadad heard in Egypt that David slept with his fathers, and that Joab the commander of the army had died”?

Why, with regard to David, is the expression “sleeping” used, whereas with regard to Joab, the expression “death” is used?

Rabbi Pinḥas explains:

David, who left a son, is described with the expression “sleeping.” Joab, who did not leave a son, is described with the expression “death.”

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But

did Joab not leave a son?

For it is written: “Of the sons of Joab: Obadiah son of Jehiel,”

apparently, he had sons?

Rather, David, who left a son like himself, is described with the expression “sleeping.” Joab, who did not leave a son like himself, is described with the expression “death” .

Incidentally, additional homiletic interpretations by Rabbi Pinḥas ben Ḥama were brought here:

Rabbi Pinḥas ben Ḥama expounded: Poverty within a person’s home

is more difficult than fifty plagues.

As it is stated

in Job:

“Have pity on me, have pity on me, you are my friends, for the hand of God has struck me.”

That is, Job complained that God’s hand had struck him. And “hand” signifies fifty plagues, for in Egypt, concerning which it is written “the finger of God,” there were ten plagues; therefore, “the hand of God,” which has five fingers, signifies fifty plagues.

And his friends said to him: “Beware, do not turn to iniquity, for you have chosen this rather than poverty.”

That is, do not question the attribute of justice, for there are those who suffer more than you. This fiftyfold affliction is better for you than poverty; after all, you still have silver, gold, and land, and the Holy One, blessed be He, still has more mercy on you than on many people who are poor .

And from here there is proof that poverty is more difficult than fifty plagues.

Another

Rabbi Pinḥas bar Ḥama expounded: Anyone who has

distress or

a sick person in his home should go to a sage and ask him to pray for mercy on his behalf.

As it is stated: “The wrath of a king

[the distress caused when wrath comes upon him from the Omnipresent]

is messengers of death

[a sick person who is near death],

but a wise man

will atone for it

[will dispel it] .”

We learned in the Mishna:

“This is the principle: Whoever precedes another in inheritance, his descendants through his branch precede; and the father precedes all his descendants through his branch.”

Rami bar Ḥama raised a dilemma: The father’s father and the father’s brother—for example, Abraham and Ishmael

who come to inherit

Esau’s property —

which of them precedes ?

Rava said: Come and hear: The father precedes all his descendants through his branch.

And

we raise a difficulty: Did Rami bar Ḥama not know the explicit Mishna?