## Bava Batra Daf 122b

###### Bava Batra 122b:1
[Bava Batra 122b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/122b:1)

כְּתִיב: ״סֶרַח״, וּכְתִיב: ״חֶרֶס״! אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בַּתְּחִלָּה פֵּירוֹתֶיהָ כְּחֶרֶס, וּלְבַסּוֹף פֵּירוֹתֶיהָ מַסְרִיחִין. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בַּתְּחִלָּה מַסְרִיחִין, וּלְבַסּוֹף כְּחֶרֶס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara interjects: **It is written** concerning Joshua’s burial: “And they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnath **Serah”** (Joshua 24:30), **and it is written:** “And they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnath **Heres”** (Judges 2:9). Why is the name changed? **Rabbi Elazar says: Initially, its fruits** were as dry **as clay [*keḥeres*], and ultimately, its fruits** were so plump that they were **spoiling [*masriḥin*]. And there are** those **who say** the opposite: **Initially,** the fruits were **spoiling** prematurely, **and ultimately,** they lasted as long **as clay** without spoiling.


###### Bava Batra 122b:2
[Bava Batra 122b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/122b:2)

כָּלֵב – דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּתְּנוּ לְכָלֵב אֶת חֶבְרוֹן כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר מֹשֶׁה, וַיּוֹרֶשׁ מִשָּׁם אֶת שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי הָעֲנָק״. חֶבְרוֹן עִיר מִקְלָט הֲוַאי! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: פַּרְוורַהָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת שְׂדֵה הָעִיר וְאֶת חֲצֵרֶיהָ נָתְנוּ לְכָלֵב בֶּן יְפֻנֶּה בַּאֲחֻזָּתוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Caleb** also received his portion directly from God and not through the lottery, **as it is written: “And they gave Hebron to Caleb, as Moses had spoken; and he drove out from there the three sons of the giant”** (Judges 1:20). The Gemara asks about this verse: But **Hebron was a city of refuge** that belonged to the priests, as described in the book of Joshua (21:13); how could it have been given to Caleb? **Abaye said: Its outskirts [*parvaraha*],** i.e., only the fields and vineyards lying beyond the city limits, were given to Caleb. **As it is written: “But the fields of the city, and the villages thereof, they gave to Caleb the son of Jephunneh for his possession”** (Joshua 21:12).


###### Bava Batra 122b:3
[Bava Batra 122b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/122b:3)

**מַתְנִי׳** אֶחָד הַבֵּן וְאֶחָד הַבַּת בַּנַּחֲלָה; אֶלָּא שֶׁהַבֵּן נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּנִכְסֵי הָאָב, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּנִכְסֵי הָאֵם. וְהַבָּנוֹת – נִזּוֹנוֹת מִנִּכְסֵי הָאָב, וְאֵינָן נִזּוֹנוֹת מִנִּכְסֵי הָאֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Both the son and the daughter** of the deceased are included **in** the *halakhot* of **inheritance. But** the difference is **that the** firstborn **son takes a double** portion **of the property of the father, and he does not take a double** portion **of the property of the mother. And** another difference is that **the daughters are sustained from the property of the father** after he dies, as it is a mandatory condition of their mother’s marriage contract that they are to be sustained even before the estate is disbursed to the children, **but the** daughters **are not sustained from the property of the mother,** which is all inherited by the sons.


###### Bava Batra 122b:4
[Bava Batra 122b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/122b:4)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי ״אֶחָד הַבֵּן וְאֶחָד הַבַּת לְנַחֲלָה״? אִילֵּימָא דְּיָרְתִי כִּי הֲדָדֵי, הָא תְּנַן: בֵּן קוֹדֵם לַבַּת, כׇּל יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵיכוֹ שֶׁל בֵּן קוֹדְמִין לַבַּת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara analyzes the mishna: **What** is meant by the first clause of the mishna: **Both the son and the daughter** of the deceased are included **in** the *halakhot* of **inheritance? If we say that** they **inherit together, didn’t we learn** in a mishna (115a): **A son precedes a daughter?** Additionally, **all descendants of a son precede a daughter.** It is clear that a daughter does not inherit together with a son.


###### Bava Batra 122b:5
[Bava Batra 122b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/122b:5)

(סִימָן: נַפְשָׁ״ם.) אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֶחָד הַבֵּן וְאֶחָד הַבַּת נוֹטְלִין בָּרָאוּי כִּבְמוּחְזָק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
***Nafsham*** is **a mnemonic** for the names of the Sages cited in the following discussion: Naḥman; Pappa; Ashi; Mar. **Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: This** is what the mishna **is saying: Both the son and the daughter take in** inheritance the property **due** to their father **as** they would take **in** inheritance the property that he had **in** his **possession.**


###### Bava Batra 122b:6
[Bava Batra 122b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/122b:6)

הָא נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד נָטְלוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָקִים בַּנַּחֲלָה – חֵלֶק אֲבִיהֶן שֶׁהָיָה מִיּוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם, וְחֶלְקוֹ עִם אֶחָיו בְּנִכְסֵי חֵפֶר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this explanation: **We** already **learn** this **as well** in a mishna (116b): **Zelophehad’s daughters took three portions** of land **in** the **inheritance** of Eretz Yisrael: **Their father’s portion** that he received **because he was among those who left Egypt; and his portion** that he received **with his brothers in** the **property of Hepher,** their father, although Zelophehad predeceased his father and never was in possession of the inheritance from Hepher; and an additional portion that he received from Hepher because he was a firstborn. It is already taught in that mishna that property due to the deceased is inherited in the same manner as property possessed by the deceased.


###### Bava Batra 122b:7
[Bava Batra 122b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/122b:7)

וְעוֹד, מַאי ״אֶלָּא״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** if the explanation of the mishna is as stated by Rav Naḥman, **what** is meant by the phrase: **But** the difference is that the firstborn son takes a double portion of the property of the father, and he does not take a double portion of the property of the mother? According to Rav Naḥman’s explanation, what is the contrast between the two clauses in the mishna?


###### Bava Batra 122b:8
[Bava Batra 122b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/122b:8)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֶחָד הַבֵּן וְאֶחָד הַבַּת נוֹטְלִין חֵלֶק בִּבְכוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Pappa said: This** is what the mishna **is saying: Both the son and the daughter** of the deceased **take a portion of the firstborn.**


###### Bava Batra 122b:9
[Bava Batra 122b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/122b:9)

הָא נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: וְשֶׁהָיָה בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל שְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים! וְעוֹד, מַאי ״אֶלָּא״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this explanation: **We** already **learn** this in a mishna **as well** (116b), which explains the third portion taken by the daughters of Zelophehad: **And** they took an additional portion that he received from Hepher, **as he was a firstborn,** and a firstborn **takes two portions** of inheritance from his father. **And furthermore,** if the explanation of the mishna is as stated by Rav Pappa, **what** is meant by the phrase: **But** the difference is that the firstborn son takes a double portion of the property of the father, and he does not take a double portion of the property of the mother? According to this explanation as well, the first clause of the mishna has nothing to do with inheriting from the mother.


###### Bava Batra 122b:10
[Bava Batra 122b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/122b:10)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֶחָד בֵּן בֵּין הַבָּנִים וְאֶחָד בַּת בֵּין הַבָּנוֹת, אִם אָמַר: ״יִירַשׁ כׇּל נְכָסַי״ – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Ashi said: This** is what the mishna **is saying:** With regard to **both a son among the sons, and a daughter among the daughters, if** the father **says:** This particular child **shall inherit all my property, his statement stands.** A father can do so for any one son, or, when there are no sons, for any one daughter.


###### Bava Batra 122b:11
[Bava Batra 122b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/122b:11)

כְּמַאן, כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא?! הָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ לְקַמַּן – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא אוֹמֵר: אִם אָמַר עַל מִי שֶׁרָאוּי לְיוֹרְשׁוֹ – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין, עַל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְיוֹרְשׁוֹ – אֵין דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **In accordance with whose** opinion does Rav Ashi say this? Is it **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka?** The Gemara challenges: **But** the mishna **teaches this later** (130a), as **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: If** one **said about** another **who is fit to inherit** from **him** that the named individual should inherit all his property, **his statement stands,** but if one said it **about** another **who is unfit to inherit** from **him, his statement does not stand.** It is not reasonable to say that this mishna is stating the same *halakha* that is recorded in the later mishna in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka.


###### Bava Batra 122b:12
[Bava Batra 122b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/122b:12)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: קָא סָתַם לַן כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא; סְתָם וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַחֲלוֹקֶת הִיא, וּסְתָם וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַחֲלוֹקֶת – אֵין הֲלָכָה כַּסְּתָם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say that the *tanna* here taught us an unattributed** mishna **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka,** in order to demonstrate that his opinion is accepted as *halakha*, this would not establish the *halakha* in accordance with his opinion. The reason is that this would be an instance of **an unattributed** mishna **and thereafter** a mishnaic **dispute** concerning the same matter, as in the later mishna there is a *tanna* who disagrees with the ruling of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka; **and** in an instance of **an unattributed** mishna **and thereafter** a mishnaic **dispute, the *halakha*** is **not in accordance with the unattributed** mishna.


###### Bava Batra 122b:13
[Bava Batra 122b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/122b:13)

וְעוֹד, מַאי ״אֶלָּא״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** if the explanation of the mishna is as stated by Rav Ashi, **what** is meant by the clause: **But** the difference is that the firstborn son takes a double portion of the property of the father, and he does not take a double portion of the property of the mother? According to this explanation as well, the first clause of the mishna has nothing to do with inheriting from the mother.


###### Bava Batra 122b:14
[Bava Batra 122b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/122b:14)

אֶלָּא אָמַר מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֶחָד הַבֵּן וְאֶחָד הַבַּת שָׁוִין בְּנִכְסֵי הָאֵם וּבְנִכְסֵי הָאָב, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַבֵּן נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּנִכְסֵי הָאָב, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּנִכְסֵי הָאֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Mar bar Rav Ashi said: This** is what the mishna **is saying: Both the son and the daughter are equal** in their rights both **with regard to** the **property of the mother and with regard to** the **property of the father.** Sons and daughters can inherit from either fathers or mothers. **But** the differences are that **the** firstborn **son takes a double** portion **of the property of the father, and he does not take a double** portion **of the property of the mother,** and that the daughters are sustained from their father’s estate before it is disbursed to the children, but they are not sustained from the property of their mother.


###### Bava Batra 122b:15
[Bava Batra 122b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/122b:15)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לָתֶת לוֹ פִּי שְׁנַיִם״ – פִּי שְׁנַיִם כְּאֶחָד. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר פִּי שְׁנַיִם כְּאֶחָד, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּכׇל הַנְּכָסִים? וְדִין הוּא –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: When the verse states: **“But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion of all that he has”** (Deuteronomy 21:17), this means the firstborn receives **double** the property received **by** any other **one** inheritor. The *baraita* analyzes this statement: **Do you say** the firstborn receives **double** the property received **by** any **one** inheritor, **or rather, is it a double** portion **of all the property,** such that the firstborn receives two-thirds of the entire estate, which is twice the portion left for the other inheritors to divide between themselves? The *baraita* suggests: **And this** question can be resolved through **logical inference:**