משנה: יֵשׁ נוֹחֲלִין וּמַנְחִילִין. נוֹחֲלִין וְלֹא מַנְחִילִין. מַנְחִילִין וְלֹא נוֹחֲלִין. לֹא נוֹחֲלִין וְלֹא מַנְחִילִין. אֵילּוּ נוֹחֲלִין וּמַנְחִילִין הָאָב אֶת הַבָּנִים וְהַבָּנִים אֶת הָאָב וְהָאַחִין מִן הָאָב נוֹחֲלִין וּמַנְחִילִין. הָאִישׁ אֶת אִמּוֹ וְהָאִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבְנֵי אֲחָיוֹת נוֹחֲלִין וְלֹא מַנְחִילִין. הָאִשָּׁה אֶת בְּנָהּ וְהָאִשָּׁה אֶת בַּעֲלָהּ וַאֲחֵי הָאֵם מַנְחִילִין וְלֹא נוֹחֲלִין. וְהָאַחִים מִן הָאֵם לֹא נוֹחֲלִין וְלֹא מַנְחִילִין. סֵדֶר נְחָלוֹת כָּךְ הוּא אִישׁ כִּי יָמוּת וּבֵן אֵין לוֹ וְהַעֲבַרְתֶּם אֶת נַחֲלָתוֹ לְבִתּוֹ. הַבֵּן קוֹדֵם לַבַּת וְכָל־יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵיכוֹ שֶׁל בֵּן קוֹדֶם לַבַּת. הַבַּת קוֹדֶמֶת לָאַחִין יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵיכָהּ שֶׁל בַּת קוֹדְמִין לָאַחִין. הָאַחִין קוֹדְמִין לַאֲחֵי הָאָב כָּל־יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵיכָן שֶׁל אַחִים קוֹדְמִין לַאֲחֵי הָאָב. זֶה הַכְּלָל כַּל־הַקּוֹדֵם בַּנַּחֲלָה יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵיכוֹ קוֹדְמִין. וְהָאָב קוֹדֵם לְכָל יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵיכוֹ. MISHNAH: Some inherit and bequeath; inherit but do not bequeath, bequeath but do not inherit, neither inherit nor bequeath1Among relatives.. The following inherit and bequeath: The father from the sons, and the sons from the father, and the paternal brothers inherit and bequeath2The father inherits from his childless son. The sons inherit from their father. The brothers inherit from their childless brother after the father’s death.. A man from his mother, a man from his wife, and the sons of sisters inherit but do not bequeath3A son inherits from his widowed or divorced mother. A husband inherits from his wife. The sons of sisters inherit from an uncle who died without children or brothers. But women do not inherit except daughters of a man who died without sons.. A woman to her son, a woman to her husband, and the mother’s brothers bequeath but do not inherit3A son inherits from his widowed or divorced mother. A husband inherits from his wife. The sons of sisters inherit from an uncle who died without children or brothers. But women do not inherit except daughters of a man who died without sons.. But the maternal brothers neither inherit nor bequeath4Maternal halfbrothers are not considered relatives for the law of inheritance since Numbers.26.55">Num. 26:55 restricts inheritance to “the paternal tribe.”.
The order of inheritances is the following: “If a man die without a son, you shall transfer his estate to his daughter5Numbers.27.8">Num. 27:8. Biblical law of inheritance is derived mainly from Numbers.27.8-11">Num. 27:8–11..” The son precedes the daughter and all the son’s descendants come before the daughter6If at the death of the father a daughter is alive and also a predeceased son’s daughter, the granddaughter will inherit but not the daughter. On the other hand, the daughter has a claim on the estate for support or dowry, cf. Mishnah 11, Ketubot 13:3:2-6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.13.3.2-6">Ketubot 13:3.. The daughter precedes the brothers and all the daughter’s descendants precede the brothers. The brothers precede the father’s brothers and all their descendants precede the father’s brothers. This is the principle: For every one preceding in inheritance, his descendants precede7Only agnates inherit; all claims to inheritance are valid per stirpes.. But the father precedes all his descendants8But not his grandchildren. If a son dies during his father’s lifetime, the father inherits only if the son left no descendants. Since the brothers only could inherit as their father’s descendants, they cannot inherit if the father is alive..
הלכה: יֵשׁ נוֹחֲלִין וּמַנְחִילִין כול׳. כְּתִיב אִישׁ כִּי יָמוּת וּבֵן אֵין לוֹ וְהַעֲבַרְתֶּם אֶת נַחֲלָתוֹ לְבִתּוֹ. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. שִׁינָּה הַכָּתוּב נַחֲלָה זֹאת מִכָּל נְחָלוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. שֶׁבְּכוּלָּן כָּתוּב וּנְתַתֶּם וְכָאן כָּתוּב וְהַעֲבַרְתֶּם. עִיבּוּר הַדִּין הוּא שֶׁתְּהֵא הַבַּת יוֹרֶשֶׁת. חַכְמֵי גוֹיִם אוֹמְרִים. בֵּן וּבַת שָׁוִין כְּאַחַת. דְּאִינּוּן דָּֽרְשֵׁי. וּבֵן אֵין לוֹ. הָא אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן שָׁוִין. הָתִיבוֹן. וְהָֽכְתִיב. וְאִם אֵין לוֹ בַּת. הָא אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן שָׁוִין. וְאַתּוּן מוֹדִין דְּלֵיתֵי בַּר אַף הָכָא לֵיתֵי בַּר. הַצַּדּוּקִין אוֹמְרִים. בַּת הַבֵּן וְהַבַּת שְׁנֵיהֶן שָׁוִין. דְּאִינּוּן דָּֽרְשֵׁי. מַה בַּת בְּנוֹ הַבָּאָה מִכֹּחַ בְּנִי יוֹרַשְׁתָּנִי. בִּתִּי הַבָּאָה מִכּוֹחִי אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתִּירָשֵׁינִי. אָֽמְרוּ לָהֶן. לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתֶּם בְּבַת הַבֵּן שֶׁאֵינָהּ בָאָה אֶלָּא מִכֹּחַ הָאַחִים תֹאמְרוּ בַּבַּת שֶׁאֵינָהּ בָאָה אֶלָּא מִכֹּחַ הַזָּקֵן. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר. וְכָל־בַּת יוֹרֶשֶׁת נַחֲלָה מִמַּטּוֹת וגו׳. וְכִי הֵיאַךְ אֶיפְשַׁר לַבַּת לֵירֵשׁ שְׁנֵי מַטּוֹת. אֶלָּא תִּיפְתָּר אָבִיהָ מִשֵּׁבֶט זֶה וְאִמָּהּ מִשֵּׁבֶט אַחֵר. HALAKHAH: “Some inherit and bequeath,” etc. It is written: “If a man die without a son, you shall transfer his estate to his daughter5Numbers.27.8">Num. 27:8. Biblical law of inheritance is derived mainly from Numbers.27.8-11">Num. 27:8–11..” Rebbi Ismael stated: The verse distinguished this inheritance from all other inheritances mentioned in the Torah, since for all of them it is written “you shall give,10The inheritance of the agnates, verses Numbers.27.9-11">Num. 27:9–11.” but here is written: “you shall transfer.” It is an extension of the law11He reads the hiph‘il “to transfer” in the meaning of pi‘el “to be pregnant”, to express an exception to the usual rules. As stated at the end of the paragraph, the inheritance of the daughter implies a transfer of the property to her sons, who belong to her husband’s family, not her father’s. that the daughter shall inherit. The Gentile Sages say, son and daughter are equal12This is the rule in Roman and Egyptian native law while in Egyptian Greek law the daughter inherited only if her dowry had not been paid (cf. R. Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, New York 1944, §11.), for they explain “if he have no son;” therefore, if he has one both are equal. One objected, is it not written “if he have no daughter;13Numbers.27.10">Num. 27:10.” therefore, if he has one are both equal14Would a daughter have to share her inheritance with the agnate uncles?? And you agree, if there is no child15A man’s brothers only inherit in the absence of stirpes., here also, if there is no son16A daughter only inherits in the absence of sons.. The Sadducees say, the son’s daughter and the daughter are equal17Babli 116b., for they explain: Since my son’s daughter who comes by force of her father does inherit from me, would it not be logical that my daughter who comes by force of myself should inherit from me? One told them, no. If you mention the son’s daughter who only inherits by the power of the brothers, what could you say about the daughter who only inherits by the power of the old man18The deceased son’s daughter inherits her father’s share in her grandfather’s estate; her claim is the same as that of any of her uncles. But a daughter who has brothers has no claim whatsoever on her father’s estate; she only has a lien on the estate for her dowry if at her father’s death she was not yet married. The principles of the claims of a son’s daughter and a daughter are different. Sifry Num.134.? The verse says, “any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes19Numbers.36.8">Num. 36:8. The verse really reads: Any daughter, heiress of property, of the tribes of the Children of Israel, … But the word מִמַּטּוֹת carries a (minor) dividing accent which may justify the truncation in the quote..” How is it possible for a daughter to inherit from two tribes? But explain it if her father was from one tribe and her mother from another20The same text in Ta‘aniot 4:11, 69c l. 37 and the Babli 111a..
עַד כְּדוֹן בֵּן אֶת הָאָב. הָאָב אֶת הַבֵּן. מָה אִם הַבֵּן שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָא אֶלָּא מִכוֹחַ הָאָב הֲרֵי הוּא יוֹרְשׁוֹ. הָאָב שֶׁאֵין הַבֵּן בָּא אֶלָּא מִכּוֹחוֹ אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיּוֹרְשׁוֹ. אָמַר קְרָא קָרוֹב. קָרוֹב קוֹדֵם. So far the son [inherits from] the father. The father from the son? Since the son only inherits by the father’s power, is it not logical that the father on whom the son depends inherit from him? The verse says, “close21Numbers.27.11">Num. 27:11.”; the closer relative has precedence22The argument presented would imply that the father has precedence over his grandchildren. Therefore, the argument de minore ad majus has to be rejected and the rules all must be found in the verse. It is asserted that a person’s closest relatives are his children. The verse then also justifies the rule of the Mishnah that the heir is the agnate connected to the bequeather by a minimum of ascents in the genealogical tree..
עַד כְּדוֹן בַּת. בֵּן. מָה אִם הַבַּת שֶׁהוֹרַעְתָּה כוֹחָהּ בְּנִיכְסֵי הָאָב ייִפִּיתָה כוֹחָהּ בְּנִיכְסֵי הָאֵם. בֵּן שֶׁיִּיפְּיתָה כוֹחוֹ בְנִיכְסֵי הָאָב אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁנְּייַפֶּה כוֹחוֹ בְּנִיכְסֵי הָאֵם. נִמְצֵאת הַבַּת לְמֵידָה מִן הַכָּתוּב וְהַבֵּן מִקַּל וַחוֹמֶר. בֵּן קוֹדֵם לַבַּת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָֽעְזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶּן הַקַּצָּב. כָּךְ הָיָה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אֶחָד הַבֵּן וְאֶחָד הַבַּת שָׁוִין בַּמַּטֶּה הָאֵם. רִבִּי מַלּוּךְ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי זְכַרְיָה. רִבִּי יַנַּאי קַפּוֹדָקָייָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ עוֹבְדָא וַהֲווּ דַייָנִין רַב הוּנָא וְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי וְרַב אָחָא. אֲמַר לוֹן רַב אָחָא. אֲחֵינוּ שֶׁבְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ הֵדְיוֹטוֹת הֵן וְהֶן טוֹעִין אֶת הַהֲלָכָה. וְעוֹד דְּאִינּוּן סָמְכִין עַל הָדָא דְרִבִּי מַלּוּךְ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. וְלֵי תוּ כֵן. רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. אֵין הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי זְכַרְיָה. רִבִּי בָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵין הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶּן הַקַּצָּב. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אָבוֹי דְרִבִּי יצְחָק בַּר נַחְמָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. אֵין הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי זְכַרְיָה. רִבִּי יַנַּאי וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֲווֹן יָֽתְבִין. עֲאַל רִבִּי יוּדָן נְשִׂייָא וְשָׁאַל. וְכָל־בַּת יוֹרֶשֶׁת נַחֲלָה מִמַּטּוֹת. מָהוּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מַקִּישׁ מַטֶּה הָאָב לְמַטֶּה הָאֵם. מַה מַטֶּה הָאָב אֵין לַבַּת בִּמְקוֹם הַבֵּן אַף מַטֶּה הָאֵם אֵין לַבַּת בִּמְקוֹם בֵּן. אוֹ חִילּוּף. מַה מַטֶּה הָאֵם יֵשׁ לַבַּת בִּמְקוֹם בֵּן אַף מַטֶּה הָאָב יֵשׁ לַבַּת בִּמְקוֹם בֵּן. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אִיתָא מִן תַּמָּן לֵית אַהֵן גּוּבְרָא בָּעֵי מִישְׁמַע מִילָּה דְּאוֹרַייָא. So far a daughter23In all paragraphs dealing with the laws of inheritance, Numbers.27.6-11">Num. 27:6–11, Numbers.36.8-9">36:8–9, Deuteronomy.21.15-17">Deut. 21:15–17, only the father is mentioned. One might infer that these laws do not apply to the mother’s estate. Since Numbers.36.8">Num. 36:8 mentions the daughter as heiress, one infers that the daughter inherits from her mother (Sifry Num. 134).. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument de minore ad majus. Does the son precede the daughter? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Zachariah the butcher’s son: So did Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah say in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe24Babli 111a; Tosephta 7:10. Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai the Kappadokian had a case; the judges were Rav Huna25One has to read Rebbi Huna; the second generation Babylonian Rav Huna could not sit in a court together with two Galilean fourth generation judges, even though in the Babli, 111a, Rav Huna is reported to have erroneously followed R. Zachariah., Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, and Rebbi Aḥa. Rebbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice; in particular they rely on Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Eleazar the father of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman26From here it seems that “bar Naḥman” was his family name. in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. 24Babli 111a; Tosephta 7:10. Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rebbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,” what is the rule? He27R. Yannai. the senior authority. said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son28This is R. Yudan the Prince’s objection.? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him29Probably one should read, parallel to the Babli: He said to R. Joḥanan; since the student R. Joḥanan could not tell his teacher R. Yannai to insult the patriarch to his face., let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.
וְהָאִישׁ אֶת אִמּוֹ וְהָאִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. לֹא הוּא הָאִישׁ אֶת אִמּוֹ הוּא הָאִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. רִבִּי יִצְחָק בָּעֵי מֵימַר פנסטה וְלָא אַשְׁכָּח. וָמַר הָדָא הִילְכְתָא תִינְייָתָא. “A man from his mother, a man from his wife.” Is “a man from his mother” not the same as “a man from his wife”30Neither rule has a direct scriptural root. The inheritance of a man from his mother was earlier derived from a biblical expression (Bava Batra 8:1:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bava_Batra.8.1.2">Note 20). The inheritance of a man from his wife is not implied by this. In the Babli 111b and Sifry Num. 134 the husband’s inheritance is inferred from Joshua.24.33">Jos. 24:33; one explains that the “property of Phineas in the Mountains of Ephraim” must have come to him as inheritance from his wife since as a priest he would have been barred from receiving property outside of Levitic cities.? Rebbi Isaac: he wanted to enumerate all cases31The word פנסטא in L’s text defies explanation. E’s reading פנטסה is read by S. Lieberman as πάντοσε “in all ways, in any way”. The Mishnah often is formulated with redundancies, if the enumeration of all cases helps memorization.
In the Yerushalmi, the husband’s right to his deceased wife’s estate possibly remains a matter of common law [Bava Batra 8:5:2-6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bava_Batra.8.5.2-6">Halakhah 6, followed by Maimonides (Neḥalot 1:8, Iššut 12:3); rejected in the Babli as minority opinion (Ketubot.83b">Ketubot 83b)]. Cf. M. A. Friedman, Jewish Marriage in Palestine, Tel-Aviv and New York 1980, p. 391 ff. and did not find them, so he formulated the rule twofold.
בֵּן. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בֵן. בֶּן בַּת מְנַיִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר בֵּן. מִכָּל־מָקוֹם. בַּת. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בַת. בֶּן בַּת בַּת בֵּן בַּת בַּת בֶּן בֵּן מְנַיִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר בַּת. מִכָּל־מָקוֹם. אָחִים. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אַחִים. בְּנֵי אַחִים בְּנוֹת אַחִים בְּנֵי בְנוֹת אַחִים מְנַיִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לִשְׁאֵרוֹ הַקָּרוֹב. מִכָּל־מָקוֹם. 32Cf. Babli 115a. The argument is intended to show a biblical source for the claim that the rules of inheritance are to be interpreted per stirpes.“Son.” Not only a son, from where a daughter’s son? The verse says, “a son33No definite article is used in the paragraph, to allow maximum freedom of interpretation.”, from anywhere. “Daughter.” Not only a daughter, from where a daughter’s son, a son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter, a son’s son? The verse says, “a daughter”, from anywhere. “Brothers.” Not only brothers, from where brothers’ sons, brothers’ daughters, brothers’ sons’ daughters? The verse says, “his flesh’s relatives”, from anywhere34As long as an agnate exists, no matter how many generations one would have to go back, he becomes the heir. Only the male ancestors are considered since Numbers.26.55">Num. 26:55 requires that inheritance be governed by “the names of the fathers’ tribes.”.