Bava Batra 130a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

If one says, “So-and-so shall inherit me,”

even if he is his brother,

in a place where there is

a daughter

,

or he said,

“My daughter shall inherit me,” in a place where there is

to him

a son, he has said nothing.

Because

he stipulated contrary to what is written in the Torah.

And in the Gemara it will be explained what the law is if, concerning one son among the sons, he said, “This son of mine shall inherit all my property,” according to the first tanna.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka says: If he said concerning one who is fit to inherit from him,

such as if he said concerning one son among the sons, “This son of mine shall inherit all my property”,

his words stand.

But if he said

concerning one who is not fit to inherit from him,

such as a daughter in place of a son, or a brother in place of a daughter,

his words do not stand.

Gemara:

We learned in the first clause of our Mishna: “If one says, ‘So-and-so shall inherit me in a place where there is a daughter ... he has said nothing.’”

It follows:

The reason

he has said nothing is because it is

another in place of a daughter,

or

a daughter in place of a son; but a son among the sons, and a daughter among the daughters—his words stand.

And not as we learned in the previous Mishna: “If one says, ‘So-and-so, my son, shall not inherit with his brothers,’ he has said nothing, because he stipulated contrary to what is written in the Torah.”

Come and hear the final clause: “Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka says: If he said concerning one who is fit to inherit from him, his words stand,”

apparently

is this not the same as the first tanna?

And if you would say that Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka even regarding another in place of a daughter, and a daughter in place of a son,

says that his words stand,

he is saying,

but in any event the first tanna holds like the tanna of the preceding Mishna, and even if he said concerning one son among the sons, “This son of mine shall inherit all my property,” he has said nothing, since he stipulated contrary to what is written in the Torah,

and what it said in our Mishna, “If one says, ‘So-and-so shall inherit me in a place where there is a daughter,’ he has said nothing,” comes to teach us the power of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, who disagrees even in this case and holds that his words stand.

Or

we reject this: It is not possible to explain that the intention of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka is regarding a brother in place of a daughter, and a daughter in place of a son, for

it

is

taught

in a beraita:

“Rabbi Ishmael, the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, says: Father and the Sages did not disagree concerning another in place of a daughter, and a daughter in place of a son, that he has said nothing.

Regarding what did they disagree? Regarding a son among the sons, and a daughter among the daughters.

For Father says, ‘He shall inherit.’ And the Sages say, ‘He shall not inherit.’”

And if so, our question has returned to its place: In what did Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka and the first tanna disagree?

And the Gemara answers: Our Mishna can be explained in two ways. The first way is:

If you wish, say: Since

Rabbi Ishmael said

“they did not disagree

concerning father and the Sages regarding another in place of a daughter, and a daughter in place of a son,”

it follows

by implication

from his words that he came to exclude the

o

pinion of the

first tanna,

who

held

that Rabbi Yohanan and the Rabbis

did disagree

in this matter.

And according to the first tanna, Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka held that even a daughter in place of a son is considered fit to inherit from him. Therefore, the first clause of our Mishna emphasized that if he said concerning a daughter in place of a son, he has said nothing, to teach us that Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka also disagreed in this case, and not like the words of his son, Rabbi Ishmael.

If you wish, say:

Everyone agrees with the words of Rabbi Ishmael, the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, that Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka and the Sages disagreed only regarding a son among the sons, and

the entire

Mishna

is the

words of

Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka.

And [the Mishna] is deficient, and this is what it teaches: “If one says, ‘So-and-so shall inherit me in a place where there is a daughter; my daughter shall inherit me in a place where there is a son,’ he has said nothing.

But a daughter among the daughters and a son among the sons—if he said, ‘He shall inherit all his property,’ his words stand.

For Rabbi Yohanan says: If he said concerning one who is fit to inherit from him, his words stand.”

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka.

And as we established in the second answer, they disagreed only regarding a son among the sons. And the entire Mishna is according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka.

And Rava likewise said: The halakha is according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka.

Rava said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka?

The verse says: “And it shall be on the day that he causes his sons to inherit”; the Torah gave the father permission to cause an inheritance to whomever he wishes

of his sons, as much as he wishes. And from here we learned that the father can increase the inheritance of one son among the sons.

Abaye said to him: This is derived from “he shall not be able to give the right of the firstborn”.

That is, from this verse it is to be learned that the father cannot transfer the portion of the firstborn from his firstborn son, but from the implication of the negative you hear the positive: that his other property, without the firstborn portion, he can transfer from one brother to another.

And the Gemara answers:

That verse is needed for what is taught in a beraita:

Abba Hanan said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: