Bekhorot 52b (נב:) — the Talmud in English

And we explain: The Mishna repeated and restated this clause for this purpose, in order

to include

to include]:

even

appreciation that occurs by itself—

without the heirs’ exertion—for they do not take this appreciation either;

for example, when it was a furrow and became ears of grain

grain that grew and became produce and ears of grain],

when it was unripe dates and became dates

unripe dates that became dates], so that one should not say: It is only with regard to appreciation in which the heirs exerted themselves that they do not take, such as fertilizing, hoeing, and tilling fields.

...

nor that which is destined to come, like that which is already possessed:

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

To include

even

the property of the father’s father [that of the firstborn]

. who died after the father’s death. These too are considered destined to come, even though at the time of the father’s death it was certain that ultimately this property would come to the father, so that he could bequeath it to his sons and to the firstborn.

It is written [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 purchase, but an inheritance does not return in the Jubilee.

Mishna:

And these are those that do not return in the Jubilee:

the portion of

the firstborn.

An inheritance certainly does not return in the Jubilee year. The Mishna’s innovation is that even the firstborn’s additional share does not return in the Jubilee year.

And

a husband

who inherits his wife.

And one who performs yibbum with his brother’s wife

and takes a double portion of the father’s property; the additional portion does not return in the Jubilee either.

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 to the one who gave it.

Rabbi Elazar says:

All of them—

the firstborn’s portion, a husband’s inheritance, the additional portion of the yavam, and a gift—

return in the Jubilee.

Rabbi Yohanan 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

and the Gemara explains this statement.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “And these are those that do not return in the Jubilee: the firstborn’s portion, one who inherits his wife, one who performs yibbum with his brother’s wife, and a gift,” the words of Rabbi Meir:

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason of Rabbi Meir?

And we explain:

It is a sale concerning which the Torah said that it returns in the Jubilee

It is only a sale concerning which the Torah said that it returns in the Jubilee], but

a gift and an inheritance do not.

Perhaps the Gemara’s intention is the verse in Leviticus 25:14: “And when you sell property to your fellow or buy from your fellow’s hand, you shall not wrong one another. According to the number of years after the Jubilee you shall buy from your fellow; according to the number of years of crops he shall sell to you.” Thus, return in the Jubilee year is mentioned in connection with a sale, and monetary exploitation applies only to a sale.

And

therefore:

these

from our Mishna

that are of the category of inheritance

are, as it will explain,

inheritance

and are things that do not return.

And these, from our Mishna,

that are of the category of a gift

are, as it will explain,

a gift

and are things that do not return in the Jubilee—

The Gemara explains: These are inheritance, and these are a gift:

The firstborn,

that is, the firstborn’s portion: “

to give him a double portion,”

the verse states; therefore,

the Merciful One called it a gift,

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

And one who inherits his wife:

It 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 yibbum with his brother’s wife:

For

“firstborn”

the Merciful One called him, as the verse states: “And it shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall stand in the name of his dead brother.” Rabbi Meir already taught that the firstborn’s portion is a gift that does not return in the Jubilee.

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 reason of the Sages?

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, because the verse has already stated, “And you shall return every man to his ancestral property”—

to include a gift.

And all these—

the firstborn’s portion, one who inherits his wife, and one who performs yibbum with his brother’s wife, concerning which the Sages did not disagree with Rabbi Meir—because

they are inheritances,

and not for Rabbi Meir’s reason, since Rabbi Meir follows his own view that a gift does not return.

For concerning

the firstborn, the verse says

“to give him a double portion,”

the verse compares

the

firstborn’s portion to the ordinary portion: Just as the ordinary portion is an inheritance,

it is,

so too the firstborn’s portion is an inheritance,

it is, and therefore it does not return. And one who performs yibbum with his wife also receives an inheritance, since the Merciful One called him a firstborn.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Elazar says: All of them return in the Jubilee:

And we explain his reason:

He agrees with the Sages, who say

“you shall return”

to include a gift; and all these—

the firstborn’s portion, a husband’s inheritance, and the yavam’s portion—

are gifts.

For:

The firstborn: “

to give him a double portion,”

the verse states; therefore,

the Merciful One called it a gift.

And one who inherits his wife

is considered a gift, because

a husband’s inheritance is rabbinic

.

And one who performs yibbum with his brother’s wife

is also considered a gift, because

“firstborn”

the Merciful One called him,

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

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Brothers who divided an inheritance are purchasers,

because there is no berera, the possibility of saying that each one came into possession of his own portion of the inheritance;

and

therefore

they return their portions to one another in the Jubilee,

because their division is considered a sale.

Rav Hoshaya raised an objection

from our Mishna:

“And these are those that do not return in the Jubilee: the firstborn’s portion.”

But even if the very acquisition of the firstborn’s portion is an inheritance or a gift, nevertheless it should return in the Jubilee like the ordinary portion, because perhaps this is not his portion, but he exchanged it with his brother!?

Rabbi Elazar said

to Rabbi Oshaya:

What does

“do not return,”

which we learned, mean?

They do not return to become void.

That is, this does not mean that nothing must be returned. Since they are purchasers, they certainly return the firstborn’s portion just as they return the rest of the inheritance. Rather, according to the one who says that the firstborn’s portion does not return in the Jubilee, although he returns the firstborn’s portion, he does not return it to become void and for no purpose; instead, they divide the inheritance again, and he takes a double portion as at first. In contrast, according to the view that the firstborn’s portion returns in the Jubilee, the firstborn’s right is entirely nullified, and they divide the inheritance equally.

B. And Maimonides [Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sabbatical and Jubilee Years 11:20] wrote: “Brothers who divided an inheritance are like purchasers, and they return each one’s portion to the other in the Jubilee; their division is not annulled from the way it was. Likewise, the firstborn and one who performs yibbum with his brother’s wife return in the Jubilee the portion they took, and take the corresponding portion.” And the Ra’avad wrote: “Brothers who divided an inheritance are like purchasers, and so on.” The explanation is that this is what they said in the Gemara: “What does ‘do not return’ mean? They do not return to become void.” And likewise wrote Mahari Korkos and Kesef Mishne: It appears from our master’s words that this is what he means: In the Jubilee they do not return in order to annul the division entirely [“to become void”] and divide it again as at first. Rather, the division remains, and they merely exchange one another’s portions. Concerning Maimonides’ statement that the division is not annulled from the way it was [that is, we do not say that they return all the portions to their pre-division state and then divide them anew; rather, the division remains and they only exchange the portions. This is the plain implication of Maimonides’ intention, and it also appears to be how Rabbi Hayyim understood it. But see Birkat HaZevah, Arakhin 26b, and Penei Yehoshua, Gittin 48a], he wrote in the novellae of Rabbi Hayyim HaLevi, Laws of Neighbors [2:11, beginning “And this requires examination”]: “Indeed, it would be possible to say that if there is no berera, and each one takes his portion as an acquisition, then the essential act is the acquisition and the acquisition of each one’s portion, and consequently they are divided from one another. But from Maimonides’ statement that the division is not annulled from the way it was, it is proven that ‘the division itself remains, and the Jubilee does not annul it. For if we were to say that they took their portions entirely as an acquisition, but there is no division of inheritance here at all, then when the Jubilee annuls the act of acquisition, the entire division would automatically be annulled. Rather, certainly there is also a law of division of inheritance here, which is not annulled in the Jubilee; and for this reason their division is not annulled from the way it was.’” C. The Mahari Korkos and Kesef Mishne wrote: According to Rashi’s explanation, it is difficult: From where would it enter our minds that he would lose his firstborn’s portion? Their intention is that according to Rashi, the dispute between the tannaim over whether the firstborn’s portion returns is whether the firstborn’s portion returns to become void, so that the firstborn loses his portion, or whether, according to the opposing view, he does not lose his portion. “But Maimonides explains that according to everyone the firstborn does not lose the firstborn’s portion, since he remains a firstborn forever and takes a double portion even after the Jubilee. Rather, the Merciful One called it a gift, so that in the Jubilee he returns it and does not have a double portion, and it returns to become void—that is, his firstborn’s portion returns to the estate held jointly by the heirs, while the other portions are exchanged with one another,” Avi Ezri here. According to this, the explanation of their question is that it is implausible to say that his firstborn’s portion is entirely annulled, since he is still a firstborn now, in accordance with Maimonides’ reasoning. Rav Sheshet challenged this: By inference, the one who says [that is, Rabbi Elazar in the Mishna]

the reference is to Rabbi Elazar in the Mishna

“they return”—

means that they return to become void!?

For if the one who says that the firstborn’s portion does not return means only that, in exchange for the firstborn’s portion that he returns, he receives another portion, then necessarily the one who says that it returns means that it returns entirely. Can that be so!?

Rav Hama applied to Rav Sheshet,

who raised the aforementioned question, the verse in Ecclesiastes [chapter 7]:

“Wisdom is good together with an inheritance.”

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

And he had not heard

by Rav Sheshet

that when Ravin came, he said that Rabbi Yohanan said—and some say that Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua: What does

“they return” \-

mean? They return to become void.

Had he heard these words of wisdom, he would not have raised his objection.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka says: One who inherits his wife shall return it to the members of the

family and deduct the value from the money:

And we challenge this statement:

What does

Rabbi Yohanan 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”