Bava Batra 125b (קכה:) — the Talmud in English

That man who said to them

“My property is for my grandmother, and after her, for my heirs” . [He meant that after the grandmother’s death, her sons would not inherit her; rather, the inheritance would return to his heirs].

But after the grandmother dies, her sons will not inherit her; rather, the inheritance will return to my heirs].

And that man

had a daughter who was married. She died during the lifetime of her husband and during the lifetime of her grandmother. [She had a married daughter who died during the lifetime of her husband and during the lifetime of the grandmother].

He had a married daughter who died during the lifetimes of her husband and her grandmother].

After the grandmother died, he came

the

husband, to claim. [He sought to inherit the grandmother by virtue of his wife, who would have been entitled to inherit her].

He claimed the right to inherit the grandmother through his wife, who would have been entitled to inherit her].

Rav Huna said:

Indeed, the husband inherits the grandmother, since when he said, “And after her

for my heirs,”

his intention was to say:

“And even for my heirs’ heirs.”

And Rav Anan said:

The husband does not inherit. Since the expression “And after her

for my heirs,”

means, in my view, for my actual heirs,

and not for my heirs’ heirs.

They sent word from there: [They sent word concerning this matter from Eretz Yisrael]:

they sent this ruling concerning the matter from the Land of Israel]:

The halakha is in accordance with Rav Anan, but not for his reason.

That is to say:

The halakha is in accordance with Rav Anan,

with regard to the ruling he issued,

that the husband does not inherit.

But not for his reason, for Rav Anan held that even if she had a son [even if there were a son born to his daughter],

even if she had had a son]

he would not inherit,

since the expression is, “For my heirs, and not for my heirs’ heirs.”

That is not so! For if she had a son, he would certainly inherit,

and the reason the husband does not inherit is that this was prospective property, and a husband does not take prospective property as he takes property already in possession.

The Gemara asks:

Does this imply that Rav Huna holds that a husband takes prospective property as he takes property already in possession?!

But there is no one who disputes that a husband does not inherit his wife’s prospective property; how, then, does Rav Huna hold here that the husband inherits his wife’s property?

Rav Elazar said: This matter began with the great [This discussion began with the great, namely, with the words of Rav Huna],

the discussion began with the great ones, namely, with the words of Rav Huna]

and ended with the lesser [with the words of Rav Elazar, who was lesser in stature than Rav Huna].

with the words of Rav Elazar, who was lesser in comparison with Rav Huna].

And this is how Rav Huna’s reasoning is to be understood: He held that

anyone who says, “After you,” is deemed as though he said, “From now.”

Therefore, when he said, “My property is for my grandmother, and after her, for my heirs,” it is as though he said: The body of the land is acquired by my heirs from now, but the grandmother is to enjoy the produce of the land throughout her lifetime.

It follows that the body of the land was acquired by his daughter even before her death. Therefore, her husband inherits it, and it is not prospective property.

Rabba said: The reasoning of the scholars of the West is more plausible,

for they did not hold that “anyone who says, ‘After you,’ is deemed as though he said, ‘From now,’”

for

if

the grandmother acted first and sold [if the grandmother preceded them and sold the property before her death],

if the grandmother preceded them and sold the property before her death]

her sale is valid [her sale stands], which demonstrates that the daughter has no rights to the property until the grandmother dies. Therefore, it is prospective property.

her sale would take effect], and this proves that the daughter has no rights in the property until the grandmother dies. Therefore, it is prospective property.

Rav Pappa said: The halakha is that a husband does not take prospective property as he takes property already in possession .

And a firstborn does not take prospective property as he takes property already in possession. And a firstborn does not take a double portion of a loan, whether it was collected in land or whether it was collected in money.