Bava Batra 122b — the Talmud in English

In passing, the Gemara explains what “Timnat Serah” is: apparently, 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 Eleazar said: At first,

before it came into Joshua’s possession,

its produce

was dry

like earthenware, and in the end,

once it came into his possession,

its produce was putrid.

That is, they were full of fat and excellent. And Joshua’s merit caused this for them.

And there are those who say: At first,

before it came into his possession, its produce was

putrid

from excessive fat, and it was not properly preserved.

And in the end,

when it came into his possession, it became

like earthenware.

And it endured for a long time.

And from where do we know that

Caleb

took his portion without a lot?

For it is written, “And they gave Caleb Hebron, as Moses had spoken ,

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

And the Gemara raises an objection: How did they give him Hebron, when

Hebron was a city of refuge?

Abaye said:

Caleb received

its suburbs. [

the suburbs and the area surrounding the city].

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

And indeed, Hebron itself was not given to him; rather, it was 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.

Both the son and the daughter

are equal

with regard to inheritance.

This will be explained in the Gemara.

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

if he was 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 the property of a man, but not to inheriting the property of a woman.

And

likewise

the daughters are sustained from the father’s property

until they come of age or marry, if he died and left few assets, as will be explained below (139b).

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

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

Gemara:

The Gemara explains:

What is meant by “both the son and 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],

did we not learn

above (115a),

“A son precedes a daughter,

and likewise

all the descendants of a son precede a daughter.”

(A mnemonic: NAFSHAM )

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: This is what it is saying: both the son and the daughter

where there is no son,

take

equally from their father’s inheritance,

with regard to

what

was destined

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

as

if this property

were possessed

by him.

And we reject this:

this too we have learned

above (116b):

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

his brothers in Hepher’s property.”

But Hepher’s property had not yet been in Zelophehad’s possession, and nevertheless his daughters inherited it. And it is explained that a daughter inherits property that was destined to come to her father.

Furthermore,

there is a difficulty:

what is meant by “except

that the son takes a double portion of the father’s property and does not take a double portion of the mother’s property”? According to your words, the first clause does not deal at all with the distinctions between the father’s property and the mother’s property.

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

both the son and the daughter

where there is no son,

take a share of the firstborn’s portion

of their father, even though he died during his father’s lifetime.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

This too we have learned! (there)

There.)

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

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

Furthermore,

there is the difficulty stated above,

what is meant by “except,”

for according to your words, the first clause does not deal at all with the distinctions between the father’s property and the mother’s property.

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

their father

said, “He shall inherit all my property,” his words stand.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

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

130a):

“Rabbi

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

And for what purpose did we teach this law also in our Mishna?

And if you would say: He stated an anonymous Mishna for us in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka. [

Perhaps you will say: Rabbi wished to instruct us that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, and therefore he taught the anonymous Mishna according to his words].

It cannot be said so! For

it is “an anonymous teaching followed afterward by a dispute.” And with “an anonymous teaching followed afterward by a dispute,” the halakha does not follow the anonymous teaching .

Furthermore,

there is a difficulty:

what is meant by “except,”

as above?

Rather, Mar bar Rav Ashi said: This is what it is saying: both the son and the daughter

where there is no son,

are equal

in inheriting

the mother’s property and the father’s property, except that the son takes a double portion of the father’s property and does not take a double portion of the mother’s property.

The Gemara discusses the parameters of the law of “a double portion” stated concerning the firstborn:

The Sages taught

in a beraita: It is stated in the Torah,

“to give him a double portion,”

and we hold that they give him

a double portion as one.

That is, in relation to one of the brothers, he takes a double portion.

From where

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

rather a double portion of all the property,

that is, that he takes an additional portion corresponding to all his brothers?