משנה: הָאוֹמֵר אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי יִירָשֵׁנִי בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בַּת בִּתִּי תִירָשֵׁינִי בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בֵּן לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם שֶׁהִתְנָה עַל מַה שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּתּוֹרָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר אִם אָמַר עַל מִי שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לִירוּשָׁה דְּבָרָיו קַייָמִין וְעַל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִירוּשָׁה אֵין דְּבָרָיו קַייָמִין. MISHNAH: One who says, Mr. X shall inherit from me while he has a daughter100But no son., or, my daughter shall inherit from me while he has a son, did not say anything since he stipulated against what is written in the Torah84Mishnah Bava meṣia‘ 7:14. The rules based on Num. 27:6–11 are prescriptive, rather than eventual rules in the intestate case.. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqah said, if he said that about anybody who can be his heir, his words stand; about anybody who cannot be his heir, his words do not stand101As explained in the Halakhah; Tosephta 7:18..
הלכה: הָאוֹמֵר אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי יִירָשֵׁנִי כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אֶלָּא עַל בֵּן בֵּין הַבָּנִים וְעַל בַּת בֵּין הַבָּנוֹת. בַּת בֵּין הָאַחִין אַח בֵּין הַבָּנוֹת לֹא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה. רִבִּי שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי נָתָן. בַּר בָּא אָמַר. אָכֵין שְׁאֵילָה. מַאי טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה. רִבִּי זְעִירָא אָמַר. הָכֵן שְׁאֵלָה. מָה רָאוּ לוֹמַר הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְאַתְּ לֹא שָׁנִיתָה לָנוּ כֵן. אִינּוּן יִרְתוּן. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. אִינּוּן יִטְּלוּן. אָמַר [רִבִּי] לָא. וַאֲפִילוּ כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר יִרְתוּן. כֹּחַ בֵּית דִּין מְיוּפֶּה. כְּמַה דְתֵימַר תַּמָּן. אֵין אָדָם מְזַכֶּה בִּלְשׁוֹן מַתָּנָה. וְהָכָא מְזַכֶּה. וְדִכְװָתָהּ. אֵין אָדָם מְזַכֶּה בִּלְשׁוֹן יְרוּשָׁה. וְהָכָא מְזַכֶּה. HALAKHAH: “One who says, Mr. X shall inherit from me,” etc. 102Both following paragraphs are reformulations of a text in Ketubot4:12, Notes 239–248. The statement of R. Joḥanan paraphrases Tosephta 7:18. It is clear that the Tosephta was unknown to the editors, if any, of this Yerushalmi. The Yerushalmi mentions neither the restriction of the Babli (130a) by R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa touching the privilege of the firstborn nor the extension of the Tosephta which includes grandchildren. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said only this about a son among sons or a daughter among daughters, but not a daughter among brothers103The daughter among the father’s brothers is also mentioned in Ketubot, but naturally the father’s brothers do not inherit if there be a daughter as stated in the same sentence. The two clauses “daughter among brothers,” “brother among daughters” mean the same. or a brother among daughters. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi asked Rebbi Nathan104In Ketubot: Nathan the Babylonian.; bar Abba105In Ketubot: Rebbi Abba. said, so was the question: What is Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa’s reason? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, so was the question: What did they see to say that practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? He told him, did you not teach us so106Mishnah Ketubot 4:12 states that in a polygamous family the sons of one wife inherit her ketubah in addition to their part in the father’s estate. This shows that while the formulation of the biblical law of inheritance presupposes equal parts for every son, there are situations where by common law inheritances are distributed unevenly.: “they shall inherit”? So is the Mishnah: “they shall take.”107Since the distribution of the deceased mother’s ketubah is an obligation which the father accepted at his marriage, it is not an inheritance from the father (Babli 131a; Ketubot52b, 55a). [Rebbi]108Reading of E. In Ketubot R. Ze‘ira. La said, even following him who said “inherit”, is not the power of the court strengthened109The inheritance of the sons in a polygamous family is not a private contract but common law interpreted as an ordinance of the Court which promulgated the rules of ketubah.? As you say, nobody can transfer property using the language of gift; here he may do it110Property can be transferred by a gift document but not by words unless accompanied by an act of acquisition. The rule is waived for a death-bed will.. Similarly, nobody can transfer property using the language of inheritance; here he may do it111Again, if the language of inheritance is used exclusively, the will is valid only as a death-bed will. Otherwise the terminology of giving must be used..
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. אִם מֵתָה יִירָשֶׁנָּה. שֶׁהִתְנָה עַל מַה שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה. רַב יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַב. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיתְנָה עַל הַכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה. וְהַמַּתנֶה עַל הַכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה תְּנָייוֹ בָטֵל. בִּתְנַאי שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלְּמָמוֹן. וָכָא בִּתְנַאי מָמוֹן נָן קַייָמִין. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרַב. בַּסּוֹף הוּא זָכָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה. דָּמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מָֽכְרָה וְנָֽתְנָה בְּדִין הוּא לִהְיוֹת קַייָם. וְלָמָּה אָֽמְרוּ מִכְרָהּ בָּטֵל. שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא מַבְרַחַת נְכָסֶיהָ מִבַּעֲלָהּ וְאוֹמֶרֶת. שֶׁלִּי הֵן. רִּבִּי יוּסְטִינֵי הֲוָה לֵיהּ עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רַבָּנִן וְחִייְבוּנֵיהּ. קָם קוֹמֵי רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. אָמַר. זִיל חוֹת לְנִיכְסָךְ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זֵירָא. אָמַר רַב. בַּסּוֹף הוּא זָכָה בָהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. אֵיזִיל חוֹת לְנִיכְסָךְ. מָאן אִינּוּן רַבָּנִן. רַבָּנִין דְּרִבִּי יוּסְטִינֵי. 112A reformulation of texts in Ketubot 9:1, Notes 44–57. There, we have stated113Mishnah Ketubot 9:1. If a couple write a prenuptial agreement reserving the wife’s property to her and her heirs, it is unconditionally valid for the rabbis but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel denies the validity of the inheritance clause.: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if she dies, he should inherit from her since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah.” Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “Since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid”? Conditions other than for money matters. But here we are dealing with a money matter!114He agrees with Rabban Simeon that the inheritance clause is invalid but questions his reasoning since this is a money matter where stipulations are permitted which deviate from biblical rules; Babli Qiddušin 19b. What is Rav’s reason? Because in the end he acquired it115In the Babli, Ketubot 84a, it is stated explicitly that for Rav the husband’s right to his wife’s estate is rabbinic. Therefore his acquisition of the estate is a court decree. (In the Yerushalmi, Ketubot 8:5 Note 44, this is ascribed to R. Simeon ben Laqish.). Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa116One is tempted to read instead: R. Joḥanan said, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, since the reason given in the next sentence has nothing to do with R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa’s statement. This is the approach taken by all classical commentaries but it is impossible today since the text here and later is confirmed by E.
As explained in Note 109, R. Joḥanan holds that the rule of R, Joḥanan ben Beroqa is common law modifying biblical rules. Therefore, he also must hold that an acceptance of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s rule cannot be based on the latter’s reason. His explanation essentially is identical with that ascribed to Rav in the preceding sentence., for Rebbi Joḥanan said, if she sold or gave away117Her paraphernalia property, to which the husband has no property rights during her lifetime., the rule should be that it is valid. Then why did they say that her sale is invalid? Lest she smuggle away her properties from her husband and say, they are mine. Rebbi Justinus had a case before the rabbis and they obligated him118He and his wife lived under a regimen of separation of properties. When she died, the local court told him to surrender his wife’s properties to her family.. He came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who told him, enter your properties119He decided following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel as rabbinic ordinance.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Did not Rav say, because in the end he acquired it. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, go and enter your properties? Who are these rabbis120The greatest authorities of the first two Amoraic generations follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Which court could decide against him?? The rabbis of Rebbi Justinus121Courts of first instance sometimes do err..
וְיָרַשׁ אוֹתָהּ. יָכוֹל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא יוֹרְשָׁהּ כָּךְ הִיא יוֹרְשָׁתוֹ. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אוֹתָהּ. הוּא יוֹרְשָׁהּ. הִיא אֵינָהּ יוֹרְשָׁתוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. אָבִיהָ יוֹרְשָׁהּ אֲחֶיהָ יוֹרְשִׁם אוֹתָהּ. הָתִיב רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ שֶׁאֵין יוֹרֶשֶׁת אִשָּׁה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה מֵעַתָּה יִירַשׁ אֶת אֲרוּסָתוֹ. כְּמָה דְתֵימַר תַּמָּן. הַקְּרוֹבָה. לֹא גְרוּשָׁה. וְדִכְװָתָהּ. הַקְּרוֹבָה. לֹא אֲרוּסָה. הָתִיב רַב הַמְנוּנָא. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ שֶׁאֵין אִשָּׁה יוֹרֶשֶׁת דְּבַר תּוֹרָה מֵעַתָּה יִירַשׁ הַבַּעַל בָּרָאוּי כִבְמוּחְזָק. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. כָּךְ שָׁנָה רִבִּי. אֵין הַבַּעַל נוֹטֵל בָּרָאוּי כִבְמוּחְזָק. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. הֲרֵי בְכוֹר הֲרֵי יְרוּשָּׁתוֹ תוֹרָה וְאֵינוֹ יוֹרֵשׁ בָּרָאוּי כִבְמוּחְזָק. “And he shall inherit from her122Num. 26:11: “If his father had no brothers, transfer his estate to his relative who is closest to him of his family; he shall inherit (from) her.” In the verse, the feminine her refers to the estate. The identification of her with the wife is R. Aqiba’s (Sifry Num.134). In Lev. 18, the masculine word שְׁאֵר “relative” is used exclusively for female relatives..” I could think that just as he inherits from her, she should inherit from him123Babli 111b.. The verse says, “from her.” He inherits from her, she does not inherit from him124He explains the emphasis, “he shall inherit her” when the same could have been expressed by the shorter, וְיָֽרְשָׁהּ. The additional word used for her implies not him.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of the Sages are that her father inherits from her, her brothers inherit from her125They reject R. Aqiba’s derivation. Her in the verse refers to the estate; by biblical law her clan should be her heirs. The inheritance of the husband is purely rabbinical.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: If you say that the inheritance status of a woman is not from the Torah, should he not inherit from his preliminarily wedded wife126There really is no basis for this question since it is generally accepted that preliminary marriage be only relevant for criminal law whereas definitive marriage activates all financial aspects of a marriage (cf. Introduction to Tractate Qiddušin.) The question is rather whether there be a biblical basis for the common law practice that the husband’s claim on the wife’s property only starts with definitive marriage, when the couple starts living together.? As you say there, “the one close to him,127Probably one should read הַקָּרוֹב both times for הַקְּרוֹבָה. In Lev. 21:2 the expression שְׁאֵרוֹ הַקָּרֹב אֵלָיו “the relative close to him” is explained as “his wife who is close to him,” i. e., his definitively wedded wife, since all other closely related relatives are enumerated in vv. 2–3. The mention of closeness excludes the preliminarily wedded one since intimacy with her is forbidden to him [Sifra Emor (4)].” not the preliminarily wedded one, so also here, “the one close to him,” not the preliminarily wedded one. Rav Hamnuna objected: If you say that a woman does not inherit by the word of the Torah, should not the husband inherit the expectancy like existing property128If the heiress wife dies before her father, his estate will go to her childen. Since in general common law gives her inheritance to her husband, why not in this case also?? Rebbi Yose said, so did Rebbi teach: The husband does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand129This is a statement of fact: Moneys due to the wife after her death go to her children, rather than her surviving husband. Babli 125b.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there is the first-born whose inheritance is from the Torah but he does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand79,Tosephta 7:7, Bekhorot 6:18.130There is biblical precedent to exclude future income from present distribution..
אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק וִילֵּין דְּכָֽתְבִין. אִין מִיתַת דְלָא בְנִין כָּל־דְּלָהּ יַחֲזוֹר לְאָבִיהָ. תְּנַאי מָמוֹן הוּא וּתְנָאוֹ קַייָם. Rebbi Isaac said: About those who write, if she should die without children, all that was hers shall revert to her father. This is a stipulation about money; the stipulation is valid131This is repeated from Ketubot 9:1, Note 87..
וּשְׂגוּב הוֹלִיד אֶת יָאִיר וגו׳. וְכִי מְנַיִין הָיוּ לְיָאִיר עָרִים בְּהַר הַגִּלְעַד. אֶלָּא שֶׁנָּשָׂא אִשָּׁה מִבְּנוֹת מְנַשֶּׁה וָמֵתָה וְיָֽרְשָׁהּ. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ שֶׁאֵין יוֹרֶשֶׁת אִשָּׁה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה נֵימַר וַיְהִי לִשְׂגּוּב אֶלָּא וַיְהִי לוֹ לְיָאִיר. דִּכְװָתָהּ. וְאֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַהֲרֹן מֵת. וְכִי מְנַיִין הָיוּ לוֹ לְפִינְחָס בְּהַר אֶפְרַיִם. אֶלָּא שֶׁנָּשָׂא אִשָּׁה מִבְּנוֹת אֶפְרַיִם וְיָֽרְשָׁהּ. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ שֶׁאֵין יְרוּשַׁת אִשָּׁה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. נֵימַר. וַיְהִי לְאֶלְעָזָר אֶלָּא וַיְהִי לְפִינְחָס. 132This paragraph is R. Ismael’s argument to show that the husband’s inheriting his deceased wife’s properties, if not explicit in the Torah, at least was established practice already in the time of Joshua (Sifry Num. 134.) A different explanation of the verses quoted here is given in the Babli, 113a.“Segub fathered Jair,1331Chr. 2:22. The verse states that Jair, a Calebite, had 23 villages in the land of Gilead (Manasseh).” etc. From where did Jair have cities on Mount Gilead? But he married a woman from the daughters of Manasse who died and he inherited from her. If you would say that the inheritance from a wife was not a word of the Torah it should not say that “Jair had” but that “Segub had.134In v. 21 it is reported that Jair’s grandfather Hezron married a Gileadite wife. If the property came through her, the verse should have attributed ownership to her son Segub, rather than her grandson Jair.” Similarly, “Eleazar ben Aaron died.135Jos. 24:33, “they buried him on his son Phineas’s hill which had been given to him on the Mountain of Ephraim.”” From where did Phineas have property on the Mountain of Ephraim? But he married a woman from the daughters of Ephraim and inherited from her. If you would say that the inheritance from a wife was not a word of the Torah it should say that “Eleazar had” not that “Phineas had.136As Rashi ad. loc. intimates, one cannot say that the tribe of Ephraim gave Phineas property among themselves since the Torah explicitly excluded priests from receiving any land outside the Levitic cities (Deut. 18:1). Therefore, ownership of property outside such cities must be by inheritance from a non-priestly wife. The tribal affiliation of Eleazar’s father-in-law Puṭiel (Ex. 6:25) is not known.”