## Bava Batra Daf 159b

###### Bava Batra 159b:1
[Bava Batra 159b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159b:1)

אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן דִּינָא לָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**but with regard to the *halakha*** it does **not** indicate anything?


###### Bava Batra 159b:2
[Bava Batra 159b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159b:2)

וְהָתַנְיָא: נָפַל הַבַּיִת עָלָיו וְעַל אָבִיו, עָלָיו וְעַל מוֹרִישָׁיו; וְהָיְתָה עָלָיו כְּתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה וּבַעַל חוֹב; יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב אוֹמְרִים: הַבֵּן מֵת רִאשׁוֹן, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת הָאָב; וּבַעַל חוֹב אוֹמֵר: הָאָב מֵת רִאשׁוֹן, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת הַבֵּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But isn’t it taught** in the mishna (157a): **A house collapsed on** a son **and upon his father, or upon** a certain person **and upon those** from **whom he stands to inherit,** and it is unknown who died first. If the son **bore** the responsibility to pay the **marriage contract of** his **wife and** to pay **a creditor,** and the son had no money with which to pay them except that which he might inherit from his father, and **the father’s heirs say: The son died first and afterward the father died,** and therefore the son did not inherit property from his father, **and the creditor says: The father died first and afterward the son died,** there is a dispute as to the *halakha*. The son therefore inherited his father’s property, and his creditor has a lien upon the property, enabling him to collect payment from the property even after the son’s death.


###### Bava Batra 159b:3
[Bava Batra 159b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159b:3)

מַאי, לָאו ״יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב״ – בְּנֵי, ״מוֹרִישָׁיו״ – אַחֵי? וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ לָא מָצֵי אֲמַר ״מִכֹּחַ אֲבוּהּ דְּאַבָּא קָאָתֵינָא״, דְּכִי כְּתִיב: ״תַּחַת אֲבֹתֶיךָ יִהְיוּ בָנֶיךָ״ – בִּבְרָכָה כְּתִיב; כִּי מֵת הַבֵּן וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת הָאָב – מַאי הָוֵי? נֵימָא לְהוּ בַּעַל חוֹב: יְרוּשַּׁת אֲבוּהוֹן קָא שָׁקֵילְנָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What, is it not** correct to explain that **the father’s heirs** are the son’s **sons,** and the term: **Those** from **whom he stands to inherit,** is referring to the deceased son’s **brothers? And if it enters your mind** to maintain that the grandson **cannot say: I come** to repossess the property **on the basis of** the right of my **father’s father** to the property, **as when it is written** in the verse in Psalms: **“In the place of your fathers shall be your sons,”** this **is written as a blessing,** then the mishna is difficult. According to this understanding, grandsons inherit from their grandfather only through their father. If so, even **if the son died** first **and afterward the father died, what of it? Let the creditor say to** the son’s sons: It is **their father’s inheritance** that **I am taking,** as the grandsons inherit from their grandfather only through their father.


###### Bava Batra 159b:4
[Bava Batra 159b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159b:4)

לָא; ״יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב״ – אֶחָיו, ״מוֹרִישָׁיו״ – אַחֵי דַּאֲבוּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this explanation: **No, the father’s heirs are** the deceased son’s **brothers,** who certainly inherit from their father directly, and the term: **Those** from **whom he stands to inherit,** is referring to the deceased son’s **father’s brothers.** Therefore, one cannot derive from the mishna that a grandson inherits from his grandfather directly.


###### Bava Batra 159b:5
[Bava Batra 159b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159b:5)

בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: בֵּן, מַהוּ שֶׁיִּירַשׁ אֶת אִמּוֹ בַּקֶּבֶר – לְהַנְחִיל לָאַחִין מִן הָאָב? אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: הָאָב שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה, וּמֵת בְּנוֹ בַּמְּדִינָה; וּבֵן שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה, וּמֵת אָבִיו בַּמְּדִינָה – יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב וְיוֹרְשֵׁי הַבֵּן יַחְלוֹקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Sages **raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: What is** the *halakha* **with regard to a son inheriting from his mother** while he is **in the grave, in order to bequeath** that inheritance **to his paternal brothers?** If a son dies, and afterward his mother dies, does the deceased son inherit from his mother, and subsequently bequeath the inheritance to his paternal brothers, who are not related to the mother? **Rav Sheshet said to them: You learned it** in a *baraita*: Consider **the** case of a **father who was taken captive** and died in captivity, **and his son died in the province,** i.e., at home, **and** consider the case of **a son who was taken captive** and died, **and his father died in the province.** Since it is not known who died first, **the father’s heirs and the son’s heirs divide** the inheritance.


###### Bava Batra 159b:6
[Bava Batra 159b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159b:6)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא כִּדְקָתָנֵי, הֵי נִינְהוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב וְהֵי נִינְהוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי הַבֵּן? אֶלָּא לָאו הָכִי קָאָמַר: אָב שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה וּמֵת בֶּן בִּתּוֹ בַּמְּדִינָה, וּבֶן בִּתּוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה וּמֵת אֲבִי אִמּוֹ בַּמְּדִינָה, וְלָא יָדְעִינַן הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ מִית בְּרֵישָׁא – יוֹרְשֵׁי הָאָב וְיוֹרְשֵׁי הַבֵּן יַחְלוֹקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of the case? **If we say** that the case **is as** the *baraita* **teaches,** the *baraita* is difficult. **Who are the father’s heirs and who are the son’s heirs?** The same individuals inherit from both of them. **Rather, is it not** so that **this** is what the *baraita* **is saying:** Consider the case of **a father who was taken captive** and died in captivity, **and his daughter’s son died in the province, and** consider the case of the **son of his daughter who was taken captive** and died, **and the father of** the captive’s **mother died in the province, and we do not know which of them died first.** If the father died first, his daughter’s son inherits from him, and the son’s paternal relatives subsequently inherit from the son. If the son died first, the father’s heirs inherit the father’s estate. Since it is unknown which of them died first, **the father’s heirs and the son’s heirs divide** the inheritance.


###### Bava Batra 159b:7
[Bava Batra 159b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159b:7)

וְאִם אִיתָא, נְהִי נָמֵי דְּבֵן מֵת בְּרֵישָׁא, לֵירְתֵיהּ לַאֲבוּהּ דְּאִמֵּיהּ בְּקִבְרֵיהּ, וְלֵירְתִינְהוּ לַאֲחוֹהַּ מִן אֲבוּהּ! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ – אֵין הַבֵּן יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִמּוֹ בַּקֶּבֶר, לְהַנְחִיל לָאַחִין מֵאָב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it is so** that a son inherits from his mother while in the grave, **although the son indeed died first, he should inherit** from **his mother’s father** while **in his grave and bequeath** his inheritance **to his paternal brothers,** and the son’s heirs should receive the entire inheritance. **Rather, isn’t it** correct to **conclude from** the *baraita* that **the son does not inherit from his mother** while **in the grave in order to bequeath** that inheritance **to his paternal brothers?**


###### Bava Batra 159b:8
[Bava Batra 159b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159b:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי לְאַבָּיֵי, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: נָפַל הַבַּיִת עָלָיו וְעַל אִמּוֹ – אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ מוֹדִים שֶׁיַּחְלוֹקוּ. וְאִם אִיתָא, נְהִי נָמֵי דְּבֵן מֵת בְּרֵישָׁא, לֵירְתַיהּ לְאִמֵּיהּ בְּקִבְרֵיהּ, וְלֵירְתוּ אִינְהוּ לְאַחֵי מֵאֲבוּהּ! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אֵין הַבֵּן יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִמּוֹ בַּקֶּבֶר לְהַנְחִיל לָאַחִין מִן הָאָב? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa bar Minyumi said to Abaye: We learn** this *halakha* in the mishna (158b) **as well:** If **the house collapsed on** a son **and upon his mother,** both **these** Sages **and those** Sages, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, **concede that** the son’s heirs and the mother’s heirs **divide** the property between them. **And if it is so** that a son inherits from his mother while in the grave, **although** the **son indeed died first, he should inherit** from **his mother** while **in his grave and they should inherit** from him, i.e., he should bequeath his inheritance **to his paternal brothers. Rather, isn’t it** correct to **conclude from** that mishna that **the son does not inherit from his mother** while **in the grave in order to bequeath** that inheritance **to his paternal brothers?** The Gemara affirms: **Conclude from** the mishna that this is so.


###### Bava Batra 159b:9
[Bava Batra 159b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159b:9)

וְטַעְמָא מַאי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: נֶאֶמְרָה ״סִיבָּה״ בַּבֵּן, וְנֶאֶמְרָה ״סִיבָּה״ בַּבַּעַל; מָה ״סִיבָּה״ הָאֲמוּרָה בַּבַּעַל – אֵין הַבַּעַל יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ בַּקֶּבֶר, אַף ״סִיבָּה״ הָאֲמוּרָה בַּבֵּן – אֵין הַבֵּן יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִמּוֹ בַּקֶּבֶר, לְהַנְחִיל לָאַחִין מִן הָאָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And what is the reason** that a son does not inherit from his mother while in the grave? **Abaye says:** The term **transfer,** concerning the transfer of inheritance from one tribe to another, **was stated with regard to** the inheritance of **a son** (see Numbers 36:7), **and** the term **transfer was stated with regard to** the inheritance of **a husband** (see 111b–113a and Numbers 36:9). **Just as** in the case categorized as **transfer that was stated with regard to** the inheritance of **a husband, the husband does not inherit** from **his wife** while he is **in the grave** in order to bequeath that inheritance to his heirs, **so too,** in the case categorized as **transfer that was stated with regard to** the inheritance of **a son, the son does not inherit from his mother** while **in the grave in order to bequeath** that inheritance **to his paternal brothers.**


###### Bava Batra 159b:10
[Bava Batra 159b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159b:10)

הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: נִכְסֵי דְּבַר סִיסִין מְזַבֵּנְינָא לָךְ. הֲוַאי חֲדָא אַרְעָא דַּהֲוָה מִיקַּרְיָא ״דְּבֵי בַּר סִיסִין״, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָא לָאו דְּבֵי בַּר סִיסִין הִיא, וְאִיקְּרוֹיֵי הוּא דְּמִיקַּרְיָא ״דְּבֵי בַּר סִיסִין״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ There was **a certain** person **who said to another: I am selling to you** all of **the property** that I own **of bar Sisin. There was one** parcel of **land that was called** the tract **of the house of bar Sisin.** The seller **said to** the buyer: **This** latter parcel of land **is** actually **not** the property **of the house of bar Sisin, and it is** merely **called: Of the house of bar Sisin,** and therefore it is not included in the sale.


###### Bava Batra 159b:11
[Bava Batra 159b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159b:11)

אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אוֹקְמַהּ בִּידָא דְּלוֹקֵחַ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: דִּינָא הָכִי?! הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ – עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה! וְרָמֵי דְּרָבָא אַדְּרָבָא, וּדְרַב נַחְמָן אַדְּרַב נַחְמָן –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The matter **came before Rav Naḥman,** and **he placed** the land **in the possession of the buyer. Rava said to Rav Naḥman:** Is **this the *halakha*?** The *halakha* is that **the burden of proof rests upon the claimant,** which in this case is the buyer. **And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction between** this statement **of Rava** and another statement **of Rava, and between** this statement **of Rav Naḥman** and another statement **of Rav Naḥman.**


###### Bava Batra 159b:12
[Bava Batra 159b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159b:12)

דְּהָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: מַאי בָּעֵית בְּהַאי בֵּיתָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִינָּךְ זְבֵינְתַּהּ, וַאֲכַלִית שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא בְּשִׁכּוּנֵי גַּוָּאֵי הֲוַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the contradictions. There was **a certain** man **who said to another: What do you want,** i.e., what are you doing, **with this house** of mine? **He said to** the claimant: **I purchased it from you and I** worked and **profited** from it for **the years** necessary for establishing the **presumption** of **ownership.** The claimant **said to him: I was** traveling **among the settlements** in a distant location, and I was unaware that you were residing in my house, which is why I did not lodge a protest.


###### Bava Batra 159b:13
[Bava Batra 159b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159b:13)

אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל בְּרוֹר אֲכִילָתָךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: דִּינָא הָכִי?! הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ – עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה! קַשְׁיָא דְּרָבָא אַדְּרָבָא, וּדְרַב נַחְמָן אַדְּרַב נַחְמָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The one residing in the house **came before Rav Naḥman** for a judgment. Rav Naḥman **said to him: Go clarify your profiting,** i.e., prove that you really resided there for three years, and then the case can be judged. **Rava said to** Rav Naḥman: Is **this the** correct **judgment?** The *halakha* is that **the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.** Therefore, the claimant should have to prove that the possessor did not reside in the house. The first statement **of Rava is difficult,** as it is contradicted **by** the second statement **of Rava, and** the first statement **of Rav Naḥman** is difficult, as it is contradicted **by** the second statement **of Rav Naḥman.** In the first case, Rav Naḥman ruled in favor of the buyer, and Rava ruled in favor of the seller, whereas in the second case their rulings were reversed.


###### Bava Batra 159b:14
[Bava Batra 159b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159b:14)

דְּרָבָא אַדְּרָבָא לָא קַשְׁיָא – הָכָא מוֹכֵר קָאֵי בְּנִכְסֵיהּ, הָתָם לוֹקֵחַ קָאֵי בְּנִכְסֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction **between** the first statement **of Rava** and the second statement **of Rava** is **not difficult. Here,** with regard to the property of bar Sisin, the **seller stands in** possession of **his property,** and the buyer claims the parcel of land from him. **There,** the **buyer stands in** possession of **his property,** since he dwells in the house, and the seller wishes to evict him.


###### Bava Batra 159b:15
[Bava Batra 159b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159b:15)

דְּרַב נַחְמָן אַדְּרַב נַחְמָן לָא קַשְׁיָא – הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: דְּבֵי בַּר סִיסִין, וּמִיקַּרְיָא ״דְּבֵי בַּר סִיסִין״; עֲלֵיהּ דִּידֵיהּ רַמְיָא לְגַלּוֹיֵי דְּלָאו דְּבֵי בַּר סִיסִין הִיא. הָכָא, לֹא יְהֵא אֶלָּא דְּנָקֵיט שְׁטָרָא – מִי לָא אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: קַיֵּים שְׁטָרָךְ וְקוּם בְּנִכְסֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The contradiction between one statement **of Rav Naḥman and** the other statement **of Rav Naḥman** is **not difficult as well,** because there, **since** the seller **said to him:** I am hereby selling you all of the property that I own **of the house of bar Sisin, and** this parcel of land is **called: Of the house of bar Sisin,** it is **incumbent on him to reveal that it** is **not of the house of bar Sisin. But here,** in the case where the claimant states that he had been in a distant location, it **should not be** considered as any case **other** than one **where** the possessor is **holding a document** as evidence that he purchased the house. **Wouldn’t we** then **say to him:** First **ratify your document, and** only then be **established** as the owner of the **property?** In this case as well, since his presumptive ownership is in place of a document, he needs to clarify the matter by means of witnesses.


###### Bava Batra 159b:16
[Bava Batra 159b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159b:16)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ מִי שֶׁמֵּת**