## Bava Batra Daf 110b

###### Bava Batra 110b:1
[Bava Batra 110b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/110b:1)

מַאן כּוּ׳ לֵירוֹת? אַטּוּ בַּר קַשָּׁא דְּמָתָא לֵירוֹת?! הָכִי קָא אָמֵינָא: אִיכָּא בֵּן וּבַת – לָא הַאי לֵירוֹת כּוּלֵּיהּ וְלָא הַאי לֵירוֹת כּוּלֵּיהּ, אֶלָּא כִּי הֲדָדֵי לֵירְתוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**who** then **should inherit? Is that to say that the ruler of the city should inherit?** Rav Pappa said to him: **This is what I** meant to **say:** If **there is a son and a daughter, this** one **should not inherit all of** the estate, **and that** one **should not inherit all of** the estate, **but they should inherit it** in **equal** portions **to one another.**


###### Bava Batra 110b:2
[Bava Batra 110b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/110b:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְאִצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן הֵיכָא דְּלֵית לֵיהּ אֶלָּא חַד בְּרָא, לֵירְתִינְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ נִכְסֵי?! וְדִלְמָא הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּבַת נָמֵי בַּת יְרוּשָּׁה הִיא? הָהוּא מִ״וְּכׇל בַּת יֹרֶשֶׁת נַחֲלָה״ נָפְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: But is the verse necessary** in order **to teach us that when he has only one child,** that child **should inherit all of his property?** If you say that the right of the son and daughter to the inheritance is equal, then the verse: “If a man dies, and has no son” (Numbers 27:8), which teaches that when there is no son his daughter inherits, is superfluous. Rav Pappa responded: **And perhaps this** verse **teaches us this: That a daughter is also subject to** receiving **inheritance.** The Gemara replies: No, the verse does not need to teach us this, since **that** *halakha* **is derived from** the verse: **“And every daughter who possesses an inheritance”** (Numbers 36:8), which clearly states that a daughter is subject to receiving inheritance.


###### Bava Batra 110b:3
[Bava Batra 110b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/110b:3)

רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״לָמָּה יִגָּרַע שֵׁם אָבִינוּ מִתּוֹךְ מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ, כִּי אֵין לוֹ בֵּן״. טַעְמָא דְּאֵין לוֹ בֵּן, הָא יֵשׁ לוֹ בֵּן – בֵּן קוֹדֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said:** The *halakha* that a son inherits his father’s estate and precedes a daughter is derived **from here,** in the passage in the Torah where the daughters of Zelophehad request their father’s inheritance in Eretz Yisrael. They said to Moses: **“Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he has no son?”** (Numbers 27:4). Rabbi Aḥa ben Ya’akov infers: **The reason** they requested the inheritance is **that,** as they said: He **has no son.** One can infer: **But** if **he has a son,** the **son takes precedence** and the daughters would not have requested an inheritance.


###### Bava Batra 110b:4
[Bava Batra 110b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/110b:4)

וְדִלְמָא בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד הוּא דְּקָאָמְרָן הָכִי; נִיתְּנָה תּוֹרָה – וְנִתְחַדְּשָׁה הֲלָכָה! אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא כִּדְשַׁנִּין מֵעִיקָּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But perhaps** it was **the daughters of Zelophehad who said this,** i.e., that they were entitled to an inheritance only because their father had no son. They thought that this was the *halakha* based on the custom at that time, but after God spoke to Moses, the **Torah was given and a *halakha* was initiated** that a daughter’s right to inherit is equal to that of the son. The Gemara accepts this difficulty and states: **Rather, it is clear** that the source for this *halakha* is **as we answered initially,** i.e., as Abaya derived from the verse of: “If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8).


###### Bava Batra 110b:5
[Bava Batra 110b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/110b:5)

רָבִינָא אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״הַקָּרֹב אֵלָיו״; ״הַקָּרוֹב״ – קָרוֹב קוֹדֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said:** The source for the *halakha* that a son precedes a daughter is **from here: “Who is next to him [*hakkarov elav*]”** (Numbers 27:11), teaching that the **closer [*karov*]** one is to the deceased, the **earlier** one is in the order of inheritance, and a son of the deceased is considered to be a closer relative to the deceased than the daughter.


###### Bava Batra 110b:6
[Bava Batra 110b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/110b:6)

וּמַאי קוּרְבֵהּ דְּבֵן מִבַּת – שֶׁבֵּן קָם תַּחַת אָבִיו לִיעִדָה וְלִשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה? יְעִדָה – בַּת לָאו בַּת יְעִדָה הִיא! שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה נָמֵי – מֵהַאי פִּירְכָא גּוּפַהּ הוּא, דְּהָא קַיְימָא לֵיהּ לְתַנָּא, כְּלוּם יֵשׁ יִבּוּם – אֶלָּא בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בֵּן! אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא כִּדְשַׁנִּין מֵעִיקָּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what** demonstrates the **closeness of a son more than** that of **a daughter? That a son stands in place of his father to designate** a Hebrew maidservant as a wife for himself **and with regard to an ancestral field.** The Gemara rejects this: This is not a valid proof, as **designation** cannot demonstrate that a son is a closer relative; **a daughter is not subject to designation,** because she obviously cannot marry the Hebrew maidservant. With regard to **an ancestral field as well, the *tanna* establishes his** ruling that a son is a closer relative than others **from this** same **refutation: Is there levirate marriage except in a case where there is no son?** And this applies also where there is no daughter. **Rather, it is clear** that the source for this *halakha* is **as we answered initially.**


###### Bava Batra 110b:7
[Bava Batra 110b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/110b:7)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, מֵהָכָא: ״וְהִתְנַחַלְתֶּם אֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם אַחֲרֵיכֶם״; ״בְּנֵיכֶם״ – וְלֹא בְּנוֹתֵיכֶם. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״לְמַעַן יִרְבּוּ יְמֵיכֶם וִימֵי בְנֵיכֶם״, הָכִי נָמֵי ״בְּנֵיכֶם״ – וְלֹא בְּנוֹתֵיכֶם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that the *halakha* that a son precedes a daughter is derived **from here,** in the passage in the Torah addressing the inheritance of slaves, which states: **“And you may make them an inheritance for your sons [*livneikhem*] after you”** (Leviticus 25:46). One can infer: **“Your sons,” but not your daughters.** The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** then when the verse states: **“That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your sons [*beneikhem*]”** (Deuteronomy 11:21), should one infer that **this too** means: **“Your sons,” but not your daughters?** Is it not obvious that daughters are also worthy of receiving the blessing of longevity?


###### Bava Batra 110b:8
[Bava Batra 110b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/110b:8)

בְּרָכָה שָׁאנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **A blessing is different.** In a verse that speaks of blessings, the term *beneikhem* should be understood in its broader sense, as “your children.” In a verse that speaks of a *halakha*, it is to be understood in the narrower sense of “your sons.”


###### Bava Batra 110b:9
[Bava Batra 110b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/110b:9)

וְהָאַחִין מִן הָאָב נוֹחֲלִין וּמַנְחִילִין וְכוּ׳. מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבָּה: אַתְיָא ״אַחְוָה״–״אַחְוָה״ מִבְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב; מַה לְהַלָּן, מִן הָאָב וְלֹא מִן הָאֵם; אַף כָּאן, מִן הָאָב וְלֹא מִן הָאֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And paternal brothers inherit** from one another **and bequeath** to each other. **From where do we** derive this *halakha*? **Rabba said:** It **is derived from** a verbal analogy between the word: **Brothers,** stated with regard to inheritance, and the word: **Brothers,** found in the verses concerning **Jacob’s sons.** When Jacob’s sons speak to Joseph, they state: “We, your servants, are twelve brothers, the sons of one man in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 42:13), and in the passage discussing inheritance the verse states: “And if he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father’s brothers” (Numbers 27:10). **Just as there,** in the verse concerning Jacob’s sons, the word brothers is referring to **paternal** brothers **and not maternal** brothers, as the twelve of them shared only the same father, **so too here,** where this term is used with regard to inheritance, the verse is referring to **paternal** brothers **and not maternal** brothers.


###### Bava Batra 110b:10
[Bava Batra 110b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/110b:10)

וּלְמָה לִי? ״מִמִּשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ וְיָרַשׁ אֹתָהּ״ כְּתִיב – מִשְׁפַּחַת אָב קְרוּיָה ״מִשְׁפָּחָה״, מִשְׁפַּחַת אֵם אֵינָהּ קְרוּיָה ״מִשְׁפָּחָה״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But why do I** need this proof from the verse concerning Jacob’s sons? **It is written** in the passage concerning inheritance: “Then you shall give his inheritance to his kinsman who is next to him **of his family, and he shall inherit it”** (Numbers 27:11). When the term “family” is used in the Bible, one’s **father’s family is called** one’s **family,** while one’s **mother’s family is not called** one’s **family,** so that in all matters of inheritance, it is the patrilineal relatives who are taken into account.


###### Bava Batra 110b:11
[Bava Batra 110b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/110b:11)

אִין הָכִי נָמֵי; וְכִי אִיתְּמַר דְּרַבָּה, לְעִנְיַן יִבּוּם אִיתְּמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Yes, it is indeed so** that the verbal analogy is not needed to teach the *halakha* of inheritance, **and when Rabba’s** explanation **was stated,** it **was stated with regard to the matter of levirate marriage,** teaching that levirate marriage is performed only by a paternal brother but not by a maternal brother.


###### Bava Batra 110b:12
[Bava Batra 110b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/110b:12)

וְהָאִישׁ אֶת אִמּוֹ וְכוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And a man** with regard to **his mother** inherits from her relatives but does not bequeath to her. The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? The Gemara answers: **As the Sages taught:**