Bava Batra 109aבבא בתרא ק״ט א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Bava Batra 109a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
109aק״ט א
1 א

דהכא תרתי והכא חדא

from the fact that here, there are two examples of the superiority of a son, designation and an ancestral field, and here, there is only one demonstration of the superiority of a brother, levirate marriage?

2 ב

שדה אחוזה גופה מהאי טעמא הוא דקא קיימא ליה לתנא כלום יש יבום אלא במקום שאין בן הא יש בן אין יבום

The Gemara answers: With regard to an ancestral field itself, the tanna establishes his ruling from this same reason: Is there levirate marriage except in a case where there is no son? In a case where there is a son, there is no levirate marriage. The determination that the redemption of the ancestral field by a son is in place of the redemption of the field by the father, whereas the redemption of the field by a brother is not, is based on the reasoning that the halakha of levirate marriage is not an indication that a brother is a closer relative than a son. Therefore, the halakha of an ancestral field cannot be regarded as a second example of the son’s superiority, as it stems from the first example, that of levirate marriage.

3 ג

אימא שארו זה האב מלמד שהאב קודם לבת יכול יקדים לבן ת"ל הקרוב קרוב קרוב קודם

The Gemara suggests an alternative derivation: Why should the father of the deceased inherit before only the brothers? Say that he should inherit before the daughter of the deceased as well by interpreting the verse as follows: “His kinsman” (Numbers 27:11), this is referring to the father, and the Torah teaches that the father precedes the daughter of the deceased in inheriting from him. One might have thought that the father of the deceased should precede the son of the deceased in inheriting from him. The verse therefore states: “Next [hakkarov] to him,” teaching that the closer [karov] one is to the deceased, the earlier one is in the order of inheritance.

4 ד

כיון דלענין יבום בן ובת כי הדדי נינהו לענין נחלה נמי בן ובת כי הדדי נינהו

This suggestion is rejected: Since with regard to the matter of levirate marriage a son and a daughter are equivalent, as levirate marriage is not performed if the deceased had either a son or a daughter, it stands to reason that with regard to the matter of inheritance as well, a son and a daughter are equivalent in that the father does not precede the daughter.

5 ה

ואימא שארו זה האב מלמד שהאב קודם לאחי האב יכול יקדים לאחין תלמוד לומר הקרוב קרוב קרוב קודם

The Gemara suggests an alternative derivation: Why should the father of the deceased inherit before the brothers of the deceased? Say that he should inherit only before his own brothers by interpreting the verse as follows: “His kinsman” ( Numbers 27:11), this is referring to the father, and the Torah teaches that the father precedes the father’s brothers in inheriting from the deceased. One might have thought that the father of the deceased should precede the brothers of the deceased in inheriting from him. The verse states: “Next [hakkarov] to him,” teaching that the closer [karov] one is to the deceased, the earlier one is in the order of inheritance.

6 ו

אחי האב לא צריכי קרא אחי האב מכח מאן קא אתו מכח אב קאי אב קא ירתי אחי האב

The Gemara responds: A verse is not necessary to teach that the father of the deceased inherits before the father’s brothers, for the following reason: By whose virtue do the father’s brothers come to inherit from the deceased? By virtue of the father, as their right to inherit is a result of their being brothers of the father of the deceased. Could it be that while the father is still alive, his brothers should inherit? The Gemara therefore concludes that the father precedes the brothers of the deceased.

7 ז

והא קראי לאו הכי כתיבי דכתיב (במדבר כז, יא) ואם אין אחים לאביו וגו' קראי שלא כסדרן כתיבי

The Gemara challenges: But the verses are not written that way, as it is written: “And if he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father’s brothers” (Numbers 27:10), and only later is it written: “And if his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his kinsman who is next to him” (Numbers 27:11), indicating that the father, whose right to inherit is derived from the term “kinsman,” inherits only after the brothers of the deceased and his own brothers. The Gemara explains: The verses are not written in order, since as explained earlier, it is not reasonable that the father’s brothers inherit before the father. Therefore, it must be that the inheritance of the father is not written in its proper place, and he may inherit even before the brothers of the deceased.

8 ח

והאי תנא מייתי לה מהכא דתניא את זו דרש רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי (במדבר כז, ח) איש כי ימות ובן אין לו וגו' במקום בת אתה מעביר נחלה מן האב ואי אתה מעביר נחלה מן האב במקום אחין

§ The Gemara records an additional derivation for the halakha that the father precedes the brothers of the deceased. And this tanna cites it from here, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, taught this halakha: It is written: “If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8). In the rest of the passage the verse employs the phrase “and you shall give.” It is only in this verse that it employs the phrase “and you shall pass.” Based on this, Rabbi Yishmael teaches that in a case where there is a daughter, you pass an inheritance to her from one who appears to have precedence, namely, the father, and by inference, you do not pass the inheritance from the father in a case where there are brothers of the deceased.

9 ט

ואימא במקום בת אתה מעביר נחלה מן האחין

The Gemara asks: But why not say that in a case where there is a daughter, you pass the inheritance to her from the brothers,