Bekhorot 52b — the Talmud in English

And we explain: The Mishna repeated and taught this case in order

to include

the following:

Even

increase that occurs on its own—

without the heirs’ labor—even this increase they do not receive. This is the case, for example,

when a dug-up plant develops into ears of grain

a plant that grew and became grain and ears, or

when a young date cluster develops into dates

a young cluster that became dates. This is so that one should not say: They do not receive only an increase in which the heirs labored, such as fertilizing fields, hoeing, and plowing.

We learned in the Mishna: “And none of them receive…”

nor property that was destined to come into his possession as property already in his possession:

The Gemara found this difficult: Why did the tanna repeat and teach this detail? Therefore, we explain:

To include

even

the property of the paternal grandfather

of the firstborn, who died after the father’s death. This property is also considered property that was merely destined to come into his possession, even though it is certain that at the time of the father’s death these assets would ultimately pass to the father, so that he could bequeath them to his sons, including the firstborn.

It is written in Leviticus 25: “And you shall sanctify the fiftieth year… It shall be a jubilee for you, and you shall return, every man to his ancestral property [the fields return to their owners]… In this jubilee year you shall return, every man to his ancestral property.” This law applies to a sale, but an inheritance does not return in the Jubilee year.

Mishna:

And these are the properties that do not return in the Jubilee year:

The

firstborn’s additional share.

And

a husband

who inherits his wife.

And one who performs levirate marriage with his brother’s wife

and receives a double portion of their father’s property: even this additional portion does not return in the Jubilee year.

And a gift.

These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say:

Even

a gift is like a sale

and returns in the Jubilee year to the one who gave it.

Rabbi Elazar says:

All of them—

the firstborn’s additional share, the husband’s inheritance, the additional share received by the yavam, and the gift—

return in the Jubilee year.

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: One who inherits his wife shall return

the land

to the members of her family, and deduct the value from the money

as the Gemara will explain.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “And these are the properties that do not return in the Jubilee year: the firstborn’s additional share, one who inherits his wife, one who performs levirate marriage with his brother’s wife, and a gift,” the words of Rabbi Meir:

The Gemara asks:

What is Rabbi Meir’s reason?

And we explain:

It is only a sale that the Torah says must return in the Jubilee year

a sale alone is what the Torah says returns in the Jubilee year,

but not a gift or an inheritance.

And

therefore:

these

cases in our Mishna

are cases of inheritance,

as it proceeds to explain; therefore,

inheritance

is something that does not return.

And these cases in our Mishna

are cases of gifts,

as it proceeds to explain; therefore,

a gift

is something that does not return in the Jubilee year—

And the Gemara explains which cases are inheritance and which are gifts:

The firstborn—

that is, the firstborn’s additional share:

“To give him a double portion,”

the verse says; therefore,

the Torah calls it a gift,

and since it is a gift, it does not return in the Jubilee year.

And one who inherits his wife:

This is an inheritance, because

a husband’s inheritance of his wife

is

from Torah law,

and therefore it is like other inheritances.

And one who performs levirate marriage with his brother’s wife:

For

“firstborn”

the Torah calls him,

as the verse says: “And it shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother.” And Rabbi Meir has already taught that the firstborn’s additional share is a gift and does not return in the Jubilee year.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And the Sages say: A gift

is like a sale”:

The Gemara asks:

What is the Sages’ reason?

And we explain: It is written: “In this Jubilee year you shall return, every man to his ancestral property.” And

“you shall return”—

that is, this entire verse is superfluous, since the Torah has already said: “And you shall return, every man to his ancestral property”—

comes to include a gift.

And all these—

the firstborn’s additional share, one who inherits his wife, and one who performs levirate marriage with his brother’s wife, regarding which the Sages did not disagree with Rabbi Meir—are so because

they are inheritances,

and not for Rabbi Meir’s reason, since Rabbi Meir maintains that a gift does not return.

For concerning

the firstborn the verse says

“to give him a double portion,”

and the verse compares

the firstborn’s

additional share to the ordinary share: Just as the ordinary share is an inheritance,

it is,

so too the firstborn’s additional share is an inheritance,

and therefore it does not return. And the share received by one who performs levirate marriage with his brother’s wife is also an inheritance, since the Torah calls him a firstborn.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Rabbi Elazar says: All of them return in the Jubilee year”:

And we explain his reason:

He agrees with the Sages, who say

“you shall return”

comes to include a gift, and all these

the firstborn’s additional share, the husband’s inheritance, and the yavam’s share

are gifts.

For:

The firstborn:

“To give him a double portion,”

the verse says; therefore,

the Torah calls it a gift.

And one who inherits his wife

is considered to have received a gift because

a husband’s inheritance is rabbinic

.

And one who performs levirate marriage with his brother’s wife

is likewise considered to have received a gift, because

“firstborn”

the Torah calls him,

and it has already been explained that the firstborn’s additional share is a gift.

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Brothers who divide an inheritance are considered purchasers,

because there is no legal certainty allowing us to say that each one received his actual inheritance share.

And

therefore

they return their respective shares to one another in the Jubilee year,

since their division is considered a sale.

Rav Hoshaya raises an objection

from our Mishna:

“And these are the properties that do not return in the Jubilee year: the firstborn’s additional share.”

But even if the firstborn’s acquisition of his share is considered an inheritance or a gift, in any event it should return in the Jubilee year like the ordinary share, because perhaps this is not his actual share, but rather he exchanged it with his brother’s share!?

Rabbi Elazar said

to Rabbi Oshaya:

What does

“do not return”

which we learned in the Mishna mean?

They do not return to be nullified.

That is, it does not mean that nothing must be returned. Since they are considered purchasers, they certainly return the firstborn’s share just as they return the rest of the inheritance. Rather, according to the one who says that the firstborn’s share does not return in the Jubilee year, although he returns the firstborn’s share, he does not return it for no purpose or without receiving anything in exchange. Instead, the inheritance is divided again, and he receives a double portion as he did at first. By contrast, according to the opinion that the firstborn’s share returns in the Jubilee year, the firstborn’s right is entirely cancelled, and the inheritance is divided again equally.

Rav Sheshet challenges this: Is it implied, then, that according to the one who says

the reference is to Rabbi Elazar in the Mishna

“they return,”

he means that they return to be nullified!?

For if the opinion that the firstborn’s share does not return means only that in exchange for the firstborn’s share that he returns, he receives another share, then necessarily the opinion that it does return means that it returns entirely. But can that possibly be so!?

Rav Hama applied to Rav Sheshet,

who raised this question, the verse from Ecclesiastes, chapter 7:

“Wisdom together with an inheritance is good.”

That is, wisdom and intellectual sharpness together with knowledge of the tannaitic sources, which were Rav Sheshet’s inheritance.

And Rav Sheshet had not heard

from Rav Sheshet

what Ravin said when he came in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan—and some say that Rabbi Elazar said it in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua: What does

“they return” mean? \-

They return to be nullified.

Had he heard this wise teaching, he would not have raised his question.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: One who inherits his wife shall return to her family

and deduct the value from the money”:

And we challenge this ruling:

What does

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka maintain!?

If he holds: the husband's inheritance is by Torah law,

then

why should he return it to the members of the family,

for inheritance is not returned according to everyone’s view?!

And if

Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka

holds: the husband's inheritance is rabbinic,

and therefore he should return his inheritance to the members of his wife's family, then what is the meaning of what we learned: “And he shall deduct for them from the money,” for

what is the role of money [

what place is there for a calculation of money, concerning land that returns in the Jubilee [year], since land returns in the Jubilee [year] for free]?!

And we answer:

Actually, he holds

Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka:

the husband's inheritance is by Torah law—

And here,

in our Mishna,

with what are we dealing? With a case where his wife bequeathed to him

the

family cemetery

that had belonged to her,

and because of family disgrace,

that their cemetery should be in the possession of someone who is not of their family,

the Rabbis said: let him take

the husband

money and return it [

the husband takes money from the members of the wife's family and returns the cemetery to them].

And as it was taught:

One who sells

his

grave, and the path to his grave, the place of his standing [

the place where standing ceremonies are held for the dead for seven days]

and the house of his eulogy: the members of the family come and bury him

there

against his will

of the purchaser

because of family disgrace,

and they return the money to the purchaser.

And what of “

they shall deduct for them from the money”?

This is what it is saying:

When the family returns the money for the cemetery, they deduct from what they must pay

the money for his wife's grave,

and they return to him only the money for the rest of the cemetery, because the husband is obligated to bury his wife.

We have returned to you, chapter “There is a firstborn”