## Bava Batra Daf 109a

###### Bava Batra 109a:1
[Bava Batra 109a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/109a:1)

דְּהָכָא תַּרְתֵּי, וְהָכָא חֲדָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Bava Batra 109a:2
[Bava Batra 109a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/109a:2)

שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה גּוּפַהּ, מֵהַאי טַעְמָא הוּא; דְּקָא קַיְימָא לֵיהּ לְתַנָּא – כְּלוּם יֵשׁ יִבּוּם אֶלָּא בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בֵּן, הָא יֵשׁ בֵּן אֵין יִבּוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 109a:3
[Bava Batra 109a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/109a:3)

אֵימָא: ״שְׁאֵרוֹ״ – זֶה הָאָב, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָאָב קוֹדֵם לַבַּת. יָכוֹל יַקְדִּים לַבֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הַקָּרוֹב״ – קָרוֹב קָרוֹב קוֹדֵם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 109a:4
[Bava Batra 109a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/109a:4)

כֵּיוָן דִּלְעִנְיַן יִבּוּם – בֵּן וּבַת כִּי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ; לְעִנְיַן נַחֲלָה נָמֵי, בֵּן וּבַת כִּי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 109a:5
[Bava Batra 109a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/109a:5)

וְאֵימָא: ״שְׁאֵרוֹ״ – זֶה הָאָב, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָאָב קוֹדֵם לַאֲחֵי הָאָב. יָכוֹל יַקְדִּים לָאַחִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הַקָּרוֹב״ – קָרוֹב קָרוֹב קוֹדֵם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 109a:6
[Bava Batra 109a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/109a:6)

אַחֵי הָאָב לָא צְרִיכִי קְרָא; אַחֵי הָאָב מִכֹּחַ מַאן קָא אָתוּ – מִכֹּחַ אָב; קָאֵי אָב, קָא יָרְתִי אַחֵי הָאָב?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 109a:7
[Bava Batra 109a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/109a:7)

וְהָא קְרָאֵי לָאו הָכִי כְּתִיבִי – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאִם אֵין אַחִים לְאָבִיו וְגוֹ׳״! קְרָאֵי שֶׁלֹּא כְּסִדְרָן כְּתִיבִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 109a:8
[Bava Batra 109a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/109a:8)

וְהַאי תַּנָּא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא – דְּתַנְיָא: אֶת זוֹ דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: ״אִישׁ כִּי יָמוּת וּבֵן אֵין לוֹ וְגוֹ׳״ – בִּמְקוֹם בַּת אַתָּה מַעֲבִיר נַחֲלָה מִן הָאָב, וְאִי אַתָּה מַעֲבִיר נַחֲלָה מִן הָאָב בִּמְקוֹם אַחִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Bava Batra 109a:9
[Bava Batra 109a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/109a:9)

וְאֵימָא: בִּמְקוֹם בַּת אַתָּה מַעֲבִיר נַחֲלָה מִן הָאַחִין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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,**