## Bekhorot Daf 52a ###### Bekhorot 52a:1 [Bekhorot 52a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/52a:1) וְלֹא הָאִשָּׁה בִּכְתוּבָּתָהּ, וְלֹא הַבָּנוֹת בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֵיהֶן, וְלֹא אֶת הַיָּבָם, וְכוּלָּם אֵין נוֹטְלִין בַּשֶּׁבַח וְלֹא בָּרָאוּי כְּבַמּוּחְזָק. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **And neither does a woman** take these portions, i.e., any enhancement of the value of the property or the property due the husband, from her husband’s property **for** payment of **her marriage contract** upon her divorce or her husband’s death; **nor** do **the daughters** take this share of the property **for their sustenance,** to which they are entitled from their late father’s possessions. **Nor** does **a man whose married brother died childless [*yavam*]** receive these portions, even though he acquires his brother’s portion of their shared father’s inheritance after performing levirate marriage with his brother’s wife. The mishna summarizes: **And all of them do not take** a portion **in** any **enhancement** of the value of the property after the death of the owner, **nor** do they take a portion **in** property **due** the deceased, **as** they do in property **in** his **possession.** ###### Bekhorot 52a:2 [Bekhorot 52a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/52a:2) **גְּמָ׳** מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְלוֹ מִשְׁפַּט הַבְּכוֹרָה״ — מִשְׁפַּט הַבְּכוֹרָה לָאִישׁ, וְאֵין מִשְׁפַּט הַבְּכוֹרָה לָאִשָּׁה. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that the firstborn son does not receive a double portion when inheriting the property of his mother. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason?** The Gemara explains that **the verse states: “The law of primogeniture is his”** (Deuteronomy 21:17); this is understood to mean that there is **a law of primogeniture for a man,** i.e., a duty to bequeath a double portion to his firstborn son, **and there is no law of primogeniture for a woman.** ###### Bekhorot 52a:3 [Bekhorot 52a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/52a:3) וְאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל בַּשֶּׁבַח. דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִמָּצֵא לוֹ״, וְלֹא בָּרָאוּי כְּבַמּוּחְזָק, דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִמָּצֵא לוֹ״. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The mishna teaches further: **And neither does he take** twice the portion **in** any **enhancement** of the value of the property after the death of his father. The Gemara explains that this is **because it is written:** “A double portion **of all that he has”** (Deuteronomy 21:17), and this enhancement was not in his father’s possession at the time of his death. The mishna also teaches: **Nor** does he take twice the portion in property **due** the father, **as** he does in the property **in possession** of the father. The Gemara explains that this too is **because it is written: “Of all that he has”** (Deuteronomy 21:17), and property due the father is not in his possession. ###### Bekhorot 52a:4 [Bekhorot 52a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/52a:4) וְלֹא הָאִשָּׁה בִּכְתוּבָּתָהּ. אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח! אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: מִקּוּלֵּי כְתוּבָּה שָׁנוּ כָּאן. **William Davidson Edition - English:** § The mishna teaches: **And neither does a woman** take any enhancement of the value of the property or the property due the husband, from her husband’s property **for** payment of **her marriage contract.** The Gemara asks: **Is that so? But doesn’t Shmuel say a creditor collects** the value of **the enhancement** of the field of a borrower after the latter’s death? Since a wife’s marriage contract is like a promissory note, she is considered a creditor. **Rabbi Abba says:** The Sages **taught here** one **of the leniencies** for the husband that apply to **a marriage contract:** That a woman does not collect the value of the enhancement despite the fact that she is a creditor. ###### Bekhorot 52a:5 [Bekhorot 52a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/52a:5) וְלֹא הַבָּנוֹת בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֵיהֶן. מַאי טַעְמָא? תְּנַאי כְּתוּבָּה כִּכְתוּבָּה דָּמֵי. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The mishna teaches: **Nor** do **the daughters** take this share of the property **for their sustenance,** to which they are entitled from their late father’s possessions. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for this? The Gemara explains that **a stipulation in the marriage contract,** such as that the daughters are entitled to sustenance from the father’s property after his death, **is comparable to the marriage contract** itself, and therefore they cannot claim that which cannot be claimed from a marriage contract, i.e., an enhancement to the father’s property. ###### Bekhorot 52a:6 [Bekhorot 52a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/52a:6) וְלֹא (אֶת) הַיָּבָם. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״בְּכוֹר״ קַרְיֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁבַח שֶׁשָּׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים בֵּין מִיתָה לְיִבּוּם, אֲבָל דְּבֵין יִבּוּם לַחֲלוּקָּה — שָׁקֵיל. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״יָקוּם עַל שֵׁם אָחִיו הַמֵּת״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וַהֲרֵי קָם. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The mishna teaches: **Nor** does **the *yavam*** receive these portions. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for this? The Gemara answers that **the Merciful One calls** the *yavam* **a firstborn,** in the verse: “And it shall be, the firstborn” (Deuteronomy 25:6). **Abaye says:** The Sages **taught** this *halakha* **only with regard to an enhancement by** which **the property** was **enhanced between the death** of the brother **and the levirate marriage. But** concerning the enhancement **that** occurs **between the levirate marriage and the distribution** of the inheritance, **he does take** it. **What is the reason? The Merciful One states: “Shall succeed in the name of his brother who is dead”** (Deuteronomy 25:6), **and** by that stage **he has succeeded** him, and the enhancement occurred at that stage. ###### Bekhorot 52a:7 [Bekhorot 52a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/52a:7) רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ דְּבֵין יִבּוּם לַחֲלוּקָּה נָמֵי לָא שָׁקֵיל, מַאי טַעְמָא? כִּבְכוֹר, מָה בְּכוֹר אֵין לוֹ קוֹדֶם חֲלוּקָּה, אַף יָבָם נָמֵי אֵין לוֹ קוֹדֶם חֲלוּקָּה. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **Rava says: Even with regard to** the enhancement that occurs **between the levirate marriage and the distribution** of the inheritance, the *yavam* **does not take** it. **What is the reason?** He is compared **to a firstborn: Just as a firstborn does not have** any special right to the inheritance **before** its **distribution, so too, a *yavam* does not have** any right to the inheritance **before** its **distribution.** ###### Bekhorot 52a:8 [Bekhorot 52a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/52a:8) וְכוּלָּם אֵין נוֹטְלִין בַּשֶּׁבַח, **William Davidson Edition - English:** The mishna teaches: **And all of them do not take** a portion **in** any **enhancement.**