Mishnah Bava Batra 8:1

סֵדֶר נְחָלוֹת כָּךְ הוּא, (במדבר כז) אִישׁ כִּי יָמוּת וּבֵן אֵין לוֹ, וְהַעֲבַרְתֶּם אֶת נַחֲלָתוֹ לְבִתּוֹ, בֵּן קוֹדֵם לַבַּת, וְכָל יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵכוֹ שֶׁל בֵּן קוֹדְמִין לַבַּת. בַּת קוֹדֶמֶת לָאַחִין. יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵכָהּ שֶׁל בַּת, קוֹדְמִין לָאַחִין. אַחִין קוֹדְמִין לַאֲחֵי הָאָב. יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵכָן שֶׁל אַחִין, קוֹדְמִין לַאֲחֵי הָאָב. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל הַקּוֹדֵם בַּנַּחֲלָה, יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵכוֹ קוֹדְמִין. וְהָאָב קוֹדֵם לְכָל יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵכוֹ: The order of precedence with regard to inheritances is this: The verse states: “If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8). This teaches that a son precedes a daughter. Additionally, all descendants of a son precede a daughter. A daughter precedes the brothers of the deceased. Additionally, the descendants of a daughter precede the brothers of the deceased. Brothers of the deceased precede the uncles of the deceased. Additionally, the descendants of the brothers precede the uncles. This is the principle: Concerning anyone who precedes another with regard to inheritance, his descendants precede the other as well, and a father who inherits precedes all of his descendants.

בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד נָטְלוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָקִים בַּנַּחֲלָה. חֵלֶק אֲבִיהֶן שֶׁהָיָה עִם יוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם, וְחֶלְקוֹ עִם אֶחָיו בְּנִכְסֵי חֵפֶר. וְשֶׁהָיָה בְכוֹר נוֹטֵל שְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים: 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; and an additional portion that he received from Hepher because he was a firstborn, and a firstborn takes two portions of inheritance from his father.

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: 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.

הָאוֹמֵר אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בְנִי בְּכוֹר לֹא יִטֹּל פִּי שְׁנַיִם, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בְנִי לֹא יִירַשׁ עִם אֶחָיו, לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, שֶׁהִתְנָה עַל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה. הַמְחַלֵּק נְכָסָיו לְבָנָיו עַל פִּיו, רִבָּה לְאֶחָד וּמִעֵט לְאֶחָד וְהִשְׁוָה לָהֶן אֶת הַבְּכוֹר, דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. וְאִם אָמַר מִשּׁוּם יְרֻשָּׁה, לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. כָּתַב בֵּין בַּתְּחִלָּה בֵּין בָּאֶמְצַע בֵּין בַּסּוֹף מִשּׁוּם מַתָּנָה, דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. הָאוֹמֵר אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי יִירָשֵׁנִי בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵשׁ בַּת, בִּתִּי תִירָשֵׁנִי בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֶּשׁ בֵּן, לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, שֶׁהִתְנָה עַל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר, אִם אָמַר עַל מִי שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְיָרְשׁוֹ, דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. וְעַל מִי שֶׁאֵין רָאוּי לְיָרְשׁוֹ, אֵין דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין. הַכּוֹתֵב אֶת נְכָסָיו לַאֲחֵרִים וְהִנִּיחַ אֶת בָּנָיו, מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי, אֲבָל אֵין רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הֵימֶנּוּ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, אִם לֹא הָיוּ בָנָיו נוֹהֲגִין כַּשּׁוּרָה, זָכוּר לְטוֹב: In a case of one who says: So-and-so, my firstborn son, will not take a double portion of my estate; or one who says: So-and-so, my son, will not inherit my estate among his brothers, he has said nothing, as he has stipulated counter to that which is written in the Torah. With regard to one on his deathbed who apportions his property orally, granting it to his sons as a gift, and he increased the portion given to one of his sons and reduced the portion given to one son, or equated the portion of the firstborn to the portions of the other sons, his statement stands. But if he said that they will receive the property not as a gift but as inheritance, he has said nothing. If he wrote in his will, whether at the beginning, or in the middle, or at the end, that he is granting them the property as a gift, his statement stands. In a case of one who says: So-and-so will inherit from me, in a case where there is a daughter, or: My daughter will inherit from me, in a case where there is a son, he has said nothing, as he has stipulated counter to that which is written in the Torah concerning the order of inheritance. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: If he said this about one fit to inherit from him, his statement stands, but if it was about one for whom it was not fit to inherit from him, his statement does not stand. With regard to one who wrote a document granting his property to others as a gift and left his sons with nothing, what he did is done, i.e., it takes effect; but the Sages are displeased with him. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If he did so because his sons were not acting properly, he is remembered positively.

הָאוֹמֵר זֶה בְּנִי, נֶאֱמָן. זֶה אָחִי, אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן וְנוֹטֵל עִמּוֹ בְּחֶלְקוֹ. מֵת, יַחְזְרוּ נְכָסִים לִמְקוֹמָן. נָפְלוּ לוֹ נְכָסִים מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר, יִירְשׁוּ אֶחָיו עִמּוֹ. מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְנִמְצֵאת דְּיָתֵיקֵי קְשׁוּרָה עַל יְרֵכוֹ, הֲרֵי זוֹ אֵינָהּ כְּלוּם. זִכָּה בָהּ לְאַחֵר, בֵּין מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין בֵּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין, דְּבָרָיו קַיָּמִין: One who says: This is my son, is deemed credible. One who says: This is my brother, is not deemed credible with regard to his other brothers’ obligation to share the inheritance with the subject of his statement. When one claims that this man is his brother, this claim is accepted with regard to the speaker’s own portion, and the man in question takes a share of their father’s inheritance with him, i.e., from his portion. If the man in question dies, the property he received from the father’s inheritance shall return to its place, i.e., to the possession of the brother who testified on his behalf, from whose portion he received a share. If property came into the man in question’s possession from somewhere else, other than from the father, and the man in question died, all of the brothers of the one who testified shall inherit with the one who testified, as according to his claim they too are the heirs of the deceased. With regard to one who died, and a will written by a person on his deathbed [dayetikei] is found bound to his thigh, which clearly indicates that it was written by him and was not forged, this is nothing. The will is not valid, as he did not give it to anyone, and he may have reconsidered. If he transferred ownership of the will to the designated recipient through another person, whether one of the heirs or whether not one of the heirs, his statement stands.

הַכּוֹתֵב נְכָסָיו לְבָנָיו, צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב מֵהַיּוֹם וּלְאַחַר מִיתָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ. הַכּוֹתֵב נְכָסָיו לִבְנוֹ לְאַחַר מוֹתוֹ, הָאָב אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִמְכֹּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כְּתוּבִין לַבֵּן, וְהַבֵּן אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִמְכֹּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן בִּרְשׁוּת הָאָב. מָכַר הָאָב, מְכוּרִין עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת. מָכַר הַבֵּן, אֵין לַלּוֹקֵחַ בָּהֶן כְּלוּם עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת הָאָב. הָאָב תּוֹלֵשׁ וּמַאֲכִיל לְכָל מִי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. וּמַה שֶּׁהִנִּיחַ תָּלוּשׁ, הֲרֵי הוּא שֶׁל יוֹרְשִׁין. הִנִּיחַ בָּנִים גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים, אֵין הַגְּדוֹלִים מִתְפַּרְנְסִים עַל הַקְּטַנִּים וְלֹא הַקְּטַנִּים נִזּוֹנִין עַל הַגְּדוֹלִים, אֶלָּא חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה. נָשְׂאוּ הַגְּדוֹלִים, יִשְׂאוּ הַקְּטַנִּים. וְאִם אָמְרוּ קְטַנִּים הֲרֵי אָנוּ נוֹשְׂאִים כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁנְּשָׂאתֶם אַתֶּם, אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לָהֶם, אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁנָּתַן לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם נָתָן: A healthy person who writes a document granting his property to his sons in his lifetime, but wishes to continue to derive benefit from it until his death, must write: I give the property from today and after my death. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: He need not write: From today and after my death; it is sufficient for him to write that the transfer will take effect after he dies. If one writes a document granting his property to his son from today and after his death, the father cannot sell the property because it is written as granted to the son, and the son cannot sell it because it is still in the possession of the father with regard to using the property and consuming its produce. If the father sold the property, it is sold to the purchaser inasmuch as he may use it and consume its produce until the father dies, at which point it belongs to the son. If the son sold it during his father’s lifetime, the purchaser has no right to use it until the father dies. In continuation of the case discussed in the previous mishna of a father who wrote a document granting his property to his son but reserved the rights to the produce during his lifetime, the mishna states that the father may detach produce from the land and feed the produce to whomever he wishes, and what he left detached at the time of his death belongs to all the father’s heirs, not only to this son. If a person died and left adult and minor sons, the adults are not provided for by using funds of the minors, and the minors are not sustained, i.e., they do not receive food, by using funds of the adults. Rather, they receive a share of the inheritance equally, and each son sees to his needs from his own share. If the adults married, the minors marry, as the Gemara will explain. But if the minors say: We are marrying in the same manner that you adults married during our father’s lifetime, the court does not listen to them. Rather, whatever their father gave the adults in his lifetime he gave them, and the minors do not have the right to receive more than their share of the inheritance.

הִנִּיחַ בָּנוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת וּקְטַנּוֹת, אֵין הַגְּדוֹלוֹת מִתְפַּרְנְסוֹת עַל הַקְּטַנּוֹת וְלֹא הַקְּטַנּוֹת נִזּוֹנוֹת עַל הַגְּדוֹלוֹת, אֶלָּא חוֹלְקוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה. נָשְׂאוּ גְדוֹלוֹת, יִשְׂאוּ קְטַנּוֹת. וְאִם אָמְרוּ קְטַנּוֹת, הֲרֵי אָנוּ נוֹשְׂאוֹת כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁנְּשָׂאתֶם אַתֶּם, אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לָהֶן. זֶה חֹמֶר בַּבָּנוֹת מִבַּבָּנִים, שֶׁהַבָּנוֹת נִזּוֹנוֹת עַל הַבָּנִים וְאֵין נִזּוֹנוֹת עַל הַבָּנוֹת: Similarly, if the father left adult and minor daughters but no sons, in which case his daughters inherit the estate, the adults are not provided for by using funds of the minors, and the minors are not sustained by using funds of the adults. Rather, they receive a share of the inheritance equally, and each daughter sees to her needs from her share. If the adult daughters married, the minor daughters marry, as the Gemara will explain. But if the minors say: We are marrying in the same manner that you adults married during our father’s lifetime, the court does not listen to them. This following halakha is a stringency with regard to daughters’ inheritance vis-à-vis sons’ inheritance: The halakha is that the daughters are sustained by using funds of the sons, as stipulated in their mother’s marriage contract, but they are not sustained by using funds of the other daughters.