## Bava Batra Daf 113a

###### Bava Batra 113a:1
[Bava Batra 113a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/113a:1)

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״וְלֹא תִסֹּב נַחֲלָה מִמַּטֶּה לְמַטֶּה אַחֵר״ – בְּסִיבַּת הַבַּעַל הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **is taught** in **another** *baraita*: **“So shall no inheritance transfer from one tribe to another tribe”** (Numbers 36:9); **the verse speaks of** the **transfer** of the inheritance **by means of the husband.** The Torah prohibits the woman from marrying a man from a different tribe since her husband will inherit from her, thereby transferring her inheritance away from its original tribe.


###### Bava Batra 113a:2
[Bava Batra 113a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/113a:2)

אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּסִיבַּת הַבַּעַל; אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּסִיבַּת הַבֵּן? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְלֹא תִסֹּב נַחֲלָה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמַּטֶּה אֶל מַטֶּה״ – הֲרֵי הֲסִיבַּת הַבֵּן אָמוּר; הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְלֹא תִסֹּב נַחֲלָה מִמַּטֶּה לְמַטֶּה אַחֵר״? בְּסִיבַּת הַבַּעַל הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Do you say** that this is **with regard to** the **transfer** of the inheritance **by means of the husband, or is it only with regard to** the **transfer** of the inheritance **by means of the son? When it says: “So shall no inheritance of the children of Israel transfer from tribe to tribe”** (Numbers 36:7), the verse is **speaking with regard to** the **transfer** of the inheritance **by means of the son. How do I realize** the meaning of the verse: **“So shall no inheritance transfer from one tribe to another tribe”** (Numbers 36:9)? That **verse speaks of** the **transfer** of the inheritance **by means of the husband.**


###### Bava Batra 113a:3
[Bava Batra 113a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/113a:3)

דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִיהַת, ״מִמַּטֶּה לְמַטֶּה אַחֵר״ – בְּסִיבַּת הַבַּעַל הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר; מַאי מַשְׁמַע? סִימָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב שֵׁילָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״אִישׁ״. תַּרְוַיְיהוּ ״אִישׁ״ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **In any event,** according to **everyone,** i.e., according to both *baraitot*, the phrase in **the verse “from one tribe to another tribe” speaks of** the **transfer** of the inheritance **by means of the husband.** The Gemara asks: **From where** is this **inferred?** The Gemara supplies **a mnemonic. Rabba bar Rav Sheila said** that the latter part of **the verse states:** “So shall no inheritance transfer from one tribe to another tribe; for the tribes of the children of Israel shall cleave **each one [*ish*]** to its own inheritance,” alluding to the transfer by means of the husband, as the word “*ish*” means husband, in the context of: “Elimelech the husband [*ish*] of Naomi” (Ruth 1:3). The Gemara asks: But the word **“*ish*” is written in both of** the verses. Therefore, both verses should be interpreted with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the husband.


###### Bava Batra 113a:4
[Bava Batra 113a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/113a:4)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, אָמַר קְרָא: ״יִדְבְּקוּ״. תַּרְוַיְיהוּ ״יִדְבְּקוּ״ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said** a different explanation. The **verse states: “Shall cleave,”** and this term alludes to marriage, as in the context of: “And he shall cleave to his wife” (Genesis 2:24). The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the term **“shall cleave” is written in both of** the verses. Therefore, both verses should be interpreted with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the husband.


###### Bava Batra 113a:5
[Bava Batra 113a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/113a:5)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״יִדְבְּקוּ מַטּוֹת״. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״מִמַּטֶּה לְמַטֶּה אַחֵר״ – וּבֵן לָאו אַחֵר הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said** a different explanation: The **verse states: “The tribes** of the children of Israel **shall cleave,”** and tribes cleave to one another through marriage. **Rav Ashi said** another explanation: The **verse states: “From one tribe to another tribe,” and a son is not** considered **“another,”** as he is an extension of his mother.


###### Bava Batra 113a:6
[Bava Batra 113a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/113a:6)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר רַבִּי; וּמָטוּ בָּהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה: מִנַּיִן לְבַעַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל בָּרָאוּי כִּבְמוּחְזָק? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּשְׂגוּב הוֹלִיד אֶת יָאִיר, וַיְהִי לוֹ עֶשְׂרִים וְשָׁלוֹשׁ עָרִים בְּאֶרֶץ הַגִּלְעָד״. מִנַּיִן לְיָאִיר – שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לוֹ לִשְׂגוּב? אֶלָּא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנָּשָׂא שְׂגוּב אִשָּׁה, וּמֵתָה בְּחַיֵּי מוֹרִישֶׁיהָ; וּמֵתוּ מוֹרִישֶׁיהָ, וִירָשָׁהּ יָאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Abbahu says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that **Rabbi Yannai says** that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says, and** some **determined it** was **in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa: From where** is it derived **that a husband** who inherits from his wife does not **take in** inheritance the property **due** to the deceased **as** he does the property she **possessed?** Instead of the husband inheriting the property that was due to her, that property is inherited by her other relatives, such as her son, or other relatives of her father. **As it is stated: “And Seguv begot Yair, who had twenty three cities in the land of Gilead”** (I Chronicles 2:22). The Gemara asks: **From where** did **Yair have** land **that** his father, **Seguv, did not have? Rather,** this **teaches that Seguv married a woman and she died in the lifetime of her** potential **legators, and her legators** then **died, and Yair,** her son, not Seguv, her husband, **inherited** these inheritances from **her.**


###### Bava Batra 113a:7
[Bava Batra 113a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/113a:7)

וְאוֹמֵר: ״וְאֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַהֲרֹן מֵת וַיִּקְבְּרוּ וְגוֹ׳״. מִנַּיִן לְפִנְחָס – שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לוֹ לְאֶלְעָזָר? מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנָּשָׂא אֶלְעָזָר אִשָּׁה, וּמֵתָה בְּחַיֵּי מוֹרִישֶׁיהָ; וּמֵתוּ מוֹרִישֶׁיהָ, וִירָשָׁהּ פִּנְחָס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is stated: “And Elazar, the son of Aaron, died; and they buried** him in the Hill of Pinehas his son” (Joshua 24:33). **From where** did **Pinehas have** land **that** his father, **Elazar, did not have?** Rather, this **teaches that Elazar married a woman and she died in the lifetime of her** potential **legators, and her legators** then **died, and Pinehas** her son, not Elazar her husband, **inherited** the property from **her.**


###### Bava Batra 113a:8
[Bava Batra 113a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/113a:8)

וּמַאי ״וְאוֹמֵר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא, יָאִיר – דַּהֲוָה נְסִיב אִיתְּתָא וּמֵתָה, וְיַרְתַהּ; תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: וְאֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַהֲרֹן מֵת״. וְכִי תֵּימָא דִּנְפַלָה לֵיהּ בִּשְׂדֵה חֲרָמִים, אָמַר קְרָא: ״בְּנוֹ״ – נַחֲלָה הָרְאוּיָה לוֹ, וִירָשָׁהּ בְּנוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And what** is the meaning of: **And it is stated?** Why is it necessary to provide an additional proof beyond the first verse? The Gemara explains. **And if you would say:** In the verse concerning Seguv and Yair, it is **Yair,** not Seguv, **who married a woman and she died and he inherited** from **her,** and he did not inherit from his mother, **the verse states: “And Elazar, the son of Aaron, died;** and they buried him in the Hill of Pinehas his son” (Joshua 24:33), teaching that Pinehas inherited the land of those from whom his mother inherited, and Elazar did not. **And if you would say that** this land **came into** the possession of Pinehas **as a dedicated field,** as he was a priest, and he did not inherit it from his mother, **the verse states: “His son,”** indicating that it was **an inheritance that was fitting for him,** i.e., Elazar, had his wife not predeceased her legators, **and his son inherited it.**


###### Bava Batra 113a:9
[Bava Batra 113a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/113a:9)

וּבְנֵי אָחוֹת. תָּנָא: בְּנֵי אָחוֹת, וְלֹא בְּנוֹת אָחוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And sons of sisters,** i.e., nephews born to the sisters of the deceased, inherit from their maternal uncles but do not bequeath to them. **It is taught** in a *baraita*: This *halakha* applies to **sons of sisters but not** to **daughters of sisters.**