Bava Batra 130a (קל.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

One who says: So-and-so shall inherit me,

even if he is his brother,

where there is

a daughter,

,

or he said,

My daughter shall inherit me, where there is

a son,

he has said nothing.

Because he stipulated contrary to

what is written in the Torah.

The Gemara will explain what the law is if he said concerning one son among his sons, “This son of mine shall inherit all my property,” according to the opinion of the first tanna.

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

for example, he said concerning one son among his sons, “This son of mine shall inherit all my property” ,

his statement stands .

But if he said

concerning one who is not fit to inherit from him,

for example, a daughter in place of a son, or a brother in place of a daughter,

his statement does not stand.

Gemara:

We learned in the first clause of our Mishna: “One who says: So-and-so shall inherit me where there is a daughter … he has said nothing.”

It may be inferred:

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 with regard to one son among the sons, or one daughter among the daughters, his statement stands.

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

Come and hear the latter clause: ‘Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka says: If he said concerning one who is fit to inherit from him, his statement stands,’

apparently

is this not the opinion of the first tanna?

And if you would say that Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka is even saying that when one designates another in place of a daughter, or a daughter in place of a son,

his statement stands,

he is saying so,

whereas the first tanna nevertheless holds like the tanna of the previous Mishna, and even if he said concerning one son among his 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 was stated in our Mishna, “One who says: So-and-so shall inherit me where there is a daughter, has said nothing,” comes to teach us the power of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, who disagrees even in this case and holds that his statement stands .

Or

we reject this: It is not possible to explain that Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka is referring to a brother in place of a daughter, or a daughter in place of a son,

for

it

was taught

in a baraita:

“Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, says: Abba and the Sages did not disagree with regard to another in place of a daughter, or a daughter in place of a son, that he has said nothing.

With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to one son among the sons, and one daughter among the daughters.

For Abba says: He shall inherit. And the Sages say: He shall not inherit.”

And if so, our difficulty returns to its place: With regard to what did Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka and the first tanna disagree?

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

If you wish, say:

Rabbi Yishmael

said, “They did not disagree

about another in place of a daughter, or a daughter in place of a son,”

meaning,

by inference

from his words, that he came to exclude the

v

iew of the

first tanna,

who

held

that Rabbi Yohanan and the Rabbis

did disagree

about this matter.

According to the opinion of 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, contrary to the statement of his son, Rabbi Yishmael.

If you wish, say:

Everyone agrees with the statement of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, that Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka and the Sages disagreed only concerning one son among the sons, and

the entire

Mishna

is the statement

of

Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka,

and the Mishna is incomplete, and this is what it teaches: “One who says: So-and-so shall inherit me where there is a daughter, or, My daughter shall inherit me where there is a son, has said nothing.

But with regard to a daughter among the daughters or a son among the sons, if he said, ‘He shall inherit all his property,’ his statement stands.

As Rabbi Yohanan says: If he said concerning one who is fit to inherit from him, his statement stands.”

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka.

And as we established in the second answer, they disagreed only concerning one son among the sons, and the entire Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka .

And Rava likewise said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka.

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

The verse states: “And it shall be on the day that he causes his sons to inherit,” the Torah granted the father permission to bequeath to whomever he wishes

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

Abaye said to him: This can be derived from the verse, “He may not give the right of the firstborn” .

That is, from this verse one can learn that the father cannot transfer the firstborn’s share of the firstborn ; but from the negative statement you can infer the positive: His other property, apart from the firstborn’s share, he can transfer from one brother to another .

The Gemara answers:

That verse is needed for that which was taught in a baraita:

Abba Ḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: