## Bava Batra Daf 111a

###### Bava Batra 111a:1
[Bava Batra 111a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/111a:1)

״וְכׇל בַּת יֹרֶשֶׁת נַחֲלָה מִמַּטּוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – הֵיאַךְ בַּת יוֹרֶשֶׁת שְׁנֵי מַטּוֹת? אֶלָּא זוֹ שֶׁאָבִיהָ מִשֵּׁבֶט אֶחָד וְאִמָּהּ מִשֵּׁבֶט אַחֵר, וּמֵתוּ, וִירָשָׁתַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The verse states: **“And every daughter who possesses an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel”** (Numbers 36:8). Noting the plural in the phrase “from the tribes of the children of Israel,” the *baraita* asks: **How** can **a daughter inherit** land from **two tribes? Rather, this** is referring to a daughter **whose father** is **from one tribe but her mother** is **from another tribe, and they** both **died, and she inherited** from both of **them.** Therefore, it can be seen in this verse that a daughter inherits from her mother.


###### Bava Batra 111a:2
[Bava Batra 111a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/111a:2)

וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא בַּת, בֵּן מִנַּיִן? אָמַרְתָּ קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה בַּת, שֶׁהוֹרַע כֹּחָהּ בְּנִכְסֵי הָאָב – יִפָּה כֹּחָהּ בְּנִכְסֵי הָאֵם; בֵּן, שֶׁיִּפָּה כֹּחוֹ בְּנִכְסֵי הָאָב – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיִּפָּה כֹּחוֹ בְּנִכְסֵי הָאֵם? וּמִמָּקוֹם שֶׁבָּאתָ – מָה לְהַלָּן בֵּן קוֹדֵם לַבַּת, אַף כָּאן בֵּן קוֹדֵם לַבַּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **I have** derived **only** that **a daughter** inherits from her mother; **from where** do I derive that **a son** inherits from his mother as well? **You** can **say an *a fortiori*** inference: **And just as a daughter, whose power is diminished with regard to** her **father’s property** in that she does not inherit it when there is a son, yet her power **is enhanced with regard to** her **mother’s property** in that she inherits it; with regard to **a son, whose power is enhanced with regard to** his **father’s property** in that he is first in the order of inheritance, **is it not logical that his power is enhanced with regard to** his **mother’s property?** The *baraita* continues: **And from the place that you came,** i.e., from the inference that was just stated, one can say the following: **Just as there,** with regard to a father’s property, **a son precedes a daughter, so too here,** with regard to a mother’s property, **a son precedes a daughter.** This is the opinion of the first *tanna*.


###### Bava Batra 111a:3
[Bava Batra 111a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/111a:3)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמְרוּ, מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶּן הַקַּצָּב: אֶחָד הַבֵּן וְאֶחָד הַבַּת, שָׁוִין בְּנִכְסֵי הָאֵם. מַאי טַעְמָא? דַּיּוֹ לַבָּא מִן הַדִּין לִהְיוֹת כַּנִּדּוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said in the name of Rabbi Zekharya ben Hakatzav: Both the son and the daughter are equal with regard to the mother’s property. What is the reason** for his ruling? **It is sufficient for the** conclusion that **emerges from** an *a fortiori* **inference to be like** its **source.** According to this principle, a *halakha* derived by means of an *a fortiori* inference cannot go beyond the *halakhot* of the source from which it is derived. Since the *halakha* that a son inherits from his mother was derived via an *a fortiori* inference from the *halakha* that a daughter inherits from her mother, it cannot be that this inference should lead to the conclusion that a son precedes a daughter in inheriting from their mother.


###### Bava Batra 111a:4
[Bava Batra 111a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/111a:4)

וְתַנָּא קַמָּא – לָא דָּרֵישׁ ״דַּיּוֹ״?! וְהָא ״דַּיּוֹ״ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And doesn’t the first *tanna*** also **interpret** verses employing the principle of: **It is sufficient** for the conclusion that emerges from an *a fortiori* inference to be like its source? **But** the principle of: **It is sufficient,** which limits the extent of *a fortiori* inference, **is** found **in the Torah,** so how could he disagree with it?


###### Bava Batra 111a:5
[Bava Batra 111a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/111a:5)

דְּתַנְיָא: מִדִּין קַל וָחוֹמֶר כֵּיצַד? ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה: וְאָבִיהָ יָרֹק יָרַק בְּפָנֶיהָ, הֲלֹא תִכָּלֵם שִׁבְעַת יָמִים?״ קַל וָחוֹמֶר לַשְּׁכִינָה – אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita* that explains the hermeneutical principles: **How** does **an *a fortiori* inference** work? The verse states with regard to Miriam, after she spoke ill of her brother Moses: **“And the Lord said to Moses: If her father had but spit in her face, should she not hide in shame seven days?”** (Numbers 12:14). The verse is saying that if a father spits in the face of his daughter and reprimands her, she would feel shame for seven days. By **an *a fortiori*** inference it is derived that Miriam, who suffered the more severe reprimand **of the Divine Presence,** should be ostracized for **fourteen** days. Why then, was Miriam ostracized for only seven days?


###### Bava Batra 111a:6
[Bava Batra 111a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/111a:6)

אֶלָּא דַּיּוֹ לַבָּא מִן הַדִּין לִהְיוֹת כַּנִּדּוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, it is sufficient for the** conclusion that **emerges from** an *a fortiori* **inference to be like** its **source,** so her punishment cannot be for longer than the punishment of one who is reprimanded by a father. In any event, the principle the begins with: It is sufficient, can be seen in this verse, so how does the first *tanna* rule that a son precedes a daughter with regard to a mother’s property?


###### Bava Batra 111a:7
[Bava Batra 111a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/111a:7)

בְּעָלְמָא דָּרֵישׁ ״דַּיּוֹ״; וְשָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״מִמַּטּוֹת״ – מַקִּישׁ מַטֵּה הָאֵם לְמַטֵּה הָאָב; מָה מַטֵּה הָאָב – בֵּן קוֹדֵם לַבַּת, אַף מַטֵּה הָאֵם – בֵּן קוֹדֵם לַבַּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Generally,** the first *tanna* also **interprets** verses employing the principle that begins with: **It is sufficient, but it is different here** with regard to inheritance, **as the verse states:** “And every daughter who possesses an inheritance **from the tribes** of the children of Israel” (Numbers 36:8). The verse **juxtaposes** the **tribe of the mother to** the **tribe of the father.** Therefore, the first *tanna* holds that **just as** with regard to the **tribe of the father,** i.e., inheriting from one’s father, **a son precedes a daughter, so too,** with regard to the **tribe of the mother,** i.e., inheriting from one’s mother, **a son precedes a daughter.**


###### Bava Batra 111a:8
[Bava Batra 111a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/111a:8)

רַב נִיתַּאי סָבַר לְמֶעְבַּד עוֹבָדָא כְּרַבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶּן הַקַּצָּב; אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּמַאן – כִּזְכַרְיָה? אָפֵס זְכַרְיָה. רַבִּי טַבְלָא עֲבַד עוֹבָדָא כְּרַבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶּן הַקַּצָּב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: מַאי הַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב חִינָּנָא בַּר שֶׁלֶמְיָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶּן הַקַּצָּב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל אַהְדַּר (בָּךְ), וְאִי לָא – מַפֵּיקְנָא לָךְ רַב חִינָּנָא בַּר שֶׁלֶמְיָא מֵאוּנָּיךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Rav Nittai thought to perform an action,** i.e., issue a ruling, **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav,** who taught that a son and daughter are equal with regard to inheriting from their mother. **Shmuel said to him: In accordance with whose** opinion do you wish to issue this ruling, **in accordance with** the opinion of **Zekharya? Zekharya is nil [*afes*],** i.e., his statement was not accepted as *halakha*. **Rabbi Tavla performed an action,** i.e., issued a ruling, **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav. Rav Naḥman said to him: What is this?** Rabbi Tavla **said to him: As Rav Ḥinnana bar Shelamya says in the name of Rav:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav.** Rav Naḥman **said to him: Go retract your** ruling, **and if** you do **not, I will take Rav Ḥinnana bar Shelamya out of your ear,** i.e., I will punish you severely for ruling against the accepted *halakha*.


###### Bava Batra 111a:9
[Bava Batra 111a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/111a:9)

רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא סָבַר לְמֶעְבַּד עוֹבָדָא כְּרַבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶּן הַקַּצָּב; אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: מַאי הַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶּן הַקַּצָּב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֶשְׁלַח לֵיהּ? אִיכְּסִיף. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַשְׁתָּא כִּי נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, אַיתְרֵיסְתְּ לְקִבְלִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates further: **Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya thought to perform an action,** i.e., issue a ruling, **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav. Rav Naḥman said to him: What is this?** Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya **said to him: As Rav Huna says** that **Rav says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav.** Rav Naḥman **said to him: Shall I send** a messenger **to** Rav Huna to ask him if that is indeed what he said? Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya **was embarrassed,** as he was not certain that Rav Huna actually said this ruling. Rav Naḥman **said to him: Now, if Rav Huna were** to have **died, you would have been brazen** enough to say **before me** that this is what he said, but since he is still alive, you cannot be so brazen.


###### Bava Batra 111a:10
[Bava Batra 111a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/111a:10)

וְאִיהוּ כְּמַאן סַבְרַהּ? כִּי הָא דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶּן הַקַּצָּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And he,** Rav Naḥman, **in accordance with whose** opinion **does he hold?** As there were various sages who ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav, why did Rav Naḥman not agree? The Gemara answers: He holds **in accordance with this** statement **of Rav and Shmuel, who both say:** The ***halakha*** is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav.**


###### Bava Batra 111a:11
[Bava Batra 111a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/111a:11)

מִיסְתְּמִיךְ וְאָזֵיל רַבִּי יַנַּאי אַכַּתְפָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׂמְלַאי שַׁמָּעֵיהּ, וְאָתֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה לְאַפַּיְיהוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בַּר אִינָשׁ דַּאֲתָא לְקִיבְלַנָא, הוּא יָאֵי, וְגוּלְּתֵיהּ יָאֵי. כִּי מְטָא לְגַבֵּיהּ, גַּשְּׁשַׁהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דֵּין – שִׁיעוּרֵיהּ כְּשַׂק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Rabbi Yannai,** who had already grown old and whose eyes were dim, **would walk leaning on the shoulder of Rabbi Simlai, his attendant, and Rabbi Yehuda Nesia came toward them.** Rabbi Simlai **said to** Rabbi Yannai: The **person who is coming toward us is handsome and his cloak** is **handsome. When** Rabbi Yehuda Nesia **reached him,** Rabbi Yannai **felt** his cloak and **said to** Rabbi Simlai: Concerning **this** cloak, **its measurement** with regard to the *halakhot* of ritual impurity **is like the** measurement of **sackcloth,** meaning it was a cloak of inferior quality, as it was thick and rough.


###### Bava Batra 111a:12
[Bava Batra 111a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/111a:12)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ: מִנַּיִן לְבֵן שֶׁקּוֹדֵם לַבַּת בְּנִכְסֵי הָאֵם? אָמַר לֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״מַטּוֹת״ – מַקִּישׁ מַטֵּה הָאֵם לְמַטֵּה הָאָב; מָה מַטֵּה הָאָב – בֵּן קוֹדֵם לַבַּת, אַף מַטֵּה הָאֵם – בֵּן קוֹדֵם לַבַּת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי – מָה מַטֵּה הָאָב, בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם; אַף מַטֵּה הָאֵם, בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
When Rabbi Yehuda Nesia met Rabbi Yannai he **asked him: From where** is it derived **that a son precedes a daughter with regard to the mother’s property?** Rabbi Yannai **said to him: As it is written:** “And every daughter who possesses an inheritance from **the tribes** of the children of Israel” (Numbers 36:8). The verse **juxtaposes** the **tribe of the mother to** the **tribe of the father.** This teaches that **just as** with regard to the **tribe of the father a son precedes a daughter, so too,** with regard to the **tribe of the mother, a son precedes a daughter.** Rabbi Yehuda Nesia **said to him: If** so, if these two *halakhot* are in fact juxtaposed, the following should also be derived: **Just as** with regard to the inheritance of **the father’s tribe a firstborn takes a double** portion, **so too,** with regard to inheritance from **the mother’s tribe,** when he inherits from his mother **a firstborn takes a double** portion.