Bava Batra 122b (קכב:) — the Talmud in English

Incidentally, the Gemara explains what “Timnat Serah” means: ostensibly, an explanation is needed, for in the Book of Joshua

it is written, “

Timnat

Serah,” whereas

in the Book of Judges

it is written, “

Timnat

Heres.”

Rabbi Elazar said: At first,

before it came into Joshua’s possession,

its produce

was dry

like earthenware, but ultimately,

once it came into his possession,

its produce became putrid.

That is, it was full of oil and of superior quality. Joshua’s merit brought this about.

Some say: At first,

before it came into his possession, its produce was

putrid

from an excess of oil and therefore was not properly preserved.

But ultimately,

once it came into his possession, it became

like earthenware,

and remained preserved for a long time.

And from where do we know that

Caleb

received his portion without a lottery?

As it is written: “And they gave Hebron to Caleb, as Moses had spoken,

and he dispossessed from there the three sons of Anak.”

And the Gemara challenges this: How could they have given him Hebron? Was

Hebron not a city of refuge?

Abaye said:

Caleb received its

suburbs. [

The areas outside the city and its surroundings.]

As it is written: “And the field of the city and its courtyards they gave to Caleb son of Jephunneh as his possession.”

Indeed, they did not give him Hebron itself; rather, it remained a city of refuge.

Mishna:

Our Mishna comes to teach about the differences between inheriting the mother’s property and inheriting the father’s property.

The son as well as the daughter

are equal

with regard to inheritance.

This will be explained in the Gemara.

However, the son takes a double portion of the father’s property

if he is the firstborn,

but does not take a double portion of the mother’s property.

As we expounded above (111b): “To him belongs the right of the firstborn”; the right of the firstborn applies to inheriting a man’s property, but not to inheriting a woman’s property.

And

likewise,

the daughters are sustained from the father’s property

until they reach maturity or marry, if he died and left only few assets, as will be explained below (139b).

But they are not sustained from the mother’s property,

even if she left only few assets. Rather, the sons inherit everything.

Gemara:

The Gemara explains:

What is the meaning of “the son as well as the daughter with regard to inheritance”?

In what respect are they equal in inheritance?

If you say that they inherit equally [

that they inherit their parents together],

we learned

above (115a):

“A son takes precedence over a daughter,

and likewise

all the descendants of a son take precedence over a daughter.”

(Mnemonic: Nefesham )

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: This is what it is saying: The son as well as the daughter,

where there is no son,

take

equal shares of their father’s inheritance,

of

what was

due

to their father, such as property that he was destined to inherit from his father,

as if

this property

were already in his possession

.

And we reject this:

We have also learned this

above (116b):

“The daughters of Zelophehad received three portions in the inheritance: their father’s portion, as he was among those who left Egypt; and his portion with

his brothers in Hepher’s property.”

But Hepher’s property was not yet in Zelophehad’s possession, and nevertheless his daughters inherited it. Thus, it is established that a daughter inherits property that was merely due to her father.

Furthermore,

it is difficult: If the Mishna came to teach us this law,

what is the meaning of “however,

that the son takes a double portion of the father’s property but does not take a double portion of the mother’s property”? For according to your explanation, the first clause is not dealing at all with distinctions between the father’s property and the mother’s property?

Rather, Rav Pappa said: This is what it is saying:

The son as well as the daughter

where there is no son,

take a share of the firstborn’s portion

of their father, even if he died during the lifetime of his father.

And the Gemara challenges this:

We have also learned this! (

There.)

“And when he was a firstborn, he took two portions.”

That is, the daughters of Zelophehad received the firstborn’s portion that their father was destined to take from his father.

Furthermore,

there is the same difficulty as above:

What is the meaning of “however”?

For according to your explanation, the first clause is not dealing at all with distinctions between the father’s property and the mother’s property?

Rather, Rav Ashi said: This is what it is saying: A son among sons, and a daughter among daughters, if

their father said,

“So-and-so shall inherit all my property,” his words take effect.

And the Gemara challenges this:

In accordance with whose opinion? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka?! It is taught below (

139a):

“Rabbi

Yohanan ben Beroka says: If one said this concerning someone who is fit to inherit from him, his words take effect; concerning someone who is not fit to inherit from him, his words do not take effect.”

Why, then, was this law taught also in our Mishna?

And if you would say that the Mishna states anonymously in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, [

perhaps you would say that Rabbi wished to teach us that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, and therefore he formulated the anonymous Mishna in accordance with his opinion.]

That cannot be said, for “

an anonymous ruling followed by a dispute” means that “an anonymous ruling followed by a dispute” does not establish the halakha in accordance with the anonymous ruling.

Furthermore,

there is a difficulty:

What is the meaning of “however,”

as above?

Rather, Mar bar Rav Ashi said: This is what it is saying: The son as well as the daughter,

where there is no son,

are equal

in inheriting

the mother’s property and the father’s property; however, the son takes a double portion of the father’s property but does not take a double portion of the mother’s property.

The Gemara discusses the parameters of the law of the “double portion” stated with regard to the firstborn:

The Sages taught

in a baraita: The Torah states,

“To give him a double portion,”

and it is established that he is given

a double portion as one.

That is, he takes twice as much as one of the brothers.

From where

do you say that “a double portion as one”? Or perhaps it is not

a double portion as one, but a double portion of all the property,

that is, he should take an additional share corresponding to all his brothers?