Bava Batra 125b — the Talmud in English

For there was one who said to them ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

“My property is for the grandmother, and after her, for my heirs” . [After the grandmother dies, her sons will not inherit it; rather, the inheritance will return to my heirs].

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

And that man

And that man

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

After the grandmother died,

the

husband came and brought a claim. [He brought a claim to inherit the grandmother, by virtue of his wife, who had been fit 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 the heirs of my heirs.”

And Rav Anan said:

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

for my heirs,”

means, for my actual heirs,

and not for the heirs of my heirs.

They sent from there: [They sent regarding this matter from the Land of Israel]:

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

That is:

The halakha is in accordance with Rav Anan

in the ruling that 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 she had a son],

he does not inherit,

since “for my heirs and not for the heirs of my heirs.”

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

and as for the husband, this is the reason that he does not inherit: because it was a prospective inheritance, and the husband does not take a prospective inheritance as he takes an inheritance already held.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

By implication, Rav Huna holds that the husband takes a prospective inheritance as he takes an inheritance already held?!

But is there anyone who disputes that the husband does not inherit from his wife property that was only prospective, and from where, then, does it follow that Rav Huna holds here that the husband inherits from his wife?

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

and ended with lesser ones [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 resolved: for he holds,

Anyone who says “after you” is considered as though he said “from now.”

Therefore, when he said, “My property is for the grandmother, and after her, for my heirs,” it is as though he said: Behold, the substance of the land is acquired by my heirs from now, except that the grandmother will consume the produce of the land all the days of her life.

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

Rabba said: The reasoning of the people of the West is logical,

for they do not hold that “anyone who says ‘after you’ is considered as though he said ‘from now,’”

for

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

her sale is a valid sale [her sale remains in force], and it is demonstrated that the daughter still has no rights at all to the property until the grandmother dies. Therefore, it is a prospective inheritance.

Rav Pappa said: The halakha is that the husband does not take a prospective inheritance as he takes an inheritance already held .

because they do not hold that “anyone who says, ‘After you,’ is considered to have said, ‘from now,’”

for

And a firstborn does not take a prospective inheritance as he takes an inheritance already held. And a firstborn does not take a double portion in a loan, whether they collected land or whether they collected money.

the grandmother preceded them and sold the property, [

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

her sale would be a valid sale [

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 in the same way as property already in his wife’s possession.”

And a firstborn does not take prospective property in the same way as property already in the father’s possession. And a firstborn does not take a double portion of a debt, whether the debt was collected in land or whether it was collected in money.