MISHNAH: Some inherit and bequeath; inherit but do not bequeath, bequeath but do not inherit, neither inherit nor bequeath. The following inherit and bequeath: The father from the sons, and the sons from the father, and the paternal brothers inherit and bequeath. A man from his mother, a man from his wife, and the sons of sisters inherit but do not bequeath. A woman to her son, a woman to her husband, and the mother’s brothers bequeath but do not inherit. But the maternal brothers neither inherit nor bequeath 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 daughter 27:8 . Biblical law of inheritance is derived mainly from Num. 27:8–11 . .” The son precedes the daughter and all the son’s descendants come before the daughter 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 precede . But the father precedes all his descendants.
HALAKHAH: “Some inherit and bequeath,” etc. It is written: “If a man die without a son, you shall transfer his estate to his daughter 27:8 . Biblical law of inheritance is derived mainly from 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, 27:9–11 . ” but here is written: “you shall transfer.” It is an extension of the law “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 equal 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; 27:10 . ” therefore, if he has one are both equal? And you agree, if there is no child , here also, if there is no son. The Sadducees say, the son’s daughter and the daughter are equal, 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 man134. ? The verse says, “any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes 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 another 4:11, 69c l. 37 and the Babli 111a . .
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, “close 27:11 . ”; the closer relative has precedence 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. .
So far a daughter 27:6–11 , 36:8–9 , Deut. 21:15–17 , only the father is mentioned. One might infer that these laws do not apply to the mother’s estate. Since 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 tribe 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 Huna 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 Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. 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? He 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 son? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.
“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” 134 the husband’s inheritance is inferred from 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 cases 1:8, Iššut 12:3); rejected in the Babli as minority opinion ( 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.
“Son.” Not only a son, from where a daughter’s son? The verse says, “a son”, 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 anywhere 26:55 requires that inheritance be governed by “the names of the fathers’ tribes.” .
MISHNAH: Zelophehad’s daughters 27:1–7 . took three parts 26:52–56 which prescribes first that the land be distributed to “those”, i. e., those mentioned in the second desert census, Num. 26:5–51 , but computed “by the names of their fathers’ tribes” which means the names of those who left Egypt. in inheritance: Their father’s who was of those who left Egypt, his part among his brothers in the estate of Hepher, and because he was firstborn he was taking two parts.
HALAKHAH: “Zelophehad’s daughters,” etc. 6, 9 ,Tanḥuma Buber Pineḥas 8, 9, Num. rabba Pineḥas 11 . Zelophehad’s daughters said before our teacher Moses: If we are Zelophehad’s daughters, we should inherit from our father. If we are not Zelophehad’s daughters, let our mother enter levirate marriage 25:5–9 . Since the latter conclusion obviously is impossible, so is the hypothesis from which it follows. . Immediately, “ 27:5 . he brought their suit before the Eternal.” The Holy One, praise to Him, told him, “ 27:7–8 . Zelophehad’s daughters speak correctly. Give them possession of inheritance,” give them real estate, give them movables, give them their father’s part among their father’s brothers.
5 = Num. rabba 21(9). Rebbi Joshiah said, the Land was distributed to those who left Egypt, as it is written: “By the names of the fathers’ tribes they shall inherit. 26:55 , referring to the census Num. 1 . ” Then why does the verse say: “To those 26:53 . The verse asserts that the distribution of land has to be based on the census of Num. 26 . ”? Only because of women and because of children. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Land was distributed to those who entered the Land, as it was said, “to those it shall be distributed 26:53 . The verse asserts that the distribution of land has to be based on the census of Num. 26 . .” Then why does the verse say: “By the names of the fathers’ tribes”? This inheritance was different from all other inheritances in the world. For in all other inheritances in the world the living inherit from the dead but here the dead from the living. It was stated: Rebbi Joshua ben Qorha said, the Land was distributed to those who left Egypt and to those who stood in the plains of Moab. How is that? If one was both of those who left Egypt and those who stood in the plains of Moab, he took two parts to those who left Egypt and distributed to those who stood in the plains of Moab. . Of those who left Egypt but not of those who stood in the plains of Moab, or of those who stood in the plains of Moab but not of those who left Egypt, he took one part. The daughters of Zelophehad took five parts: their part with those who left Egypt and their part with those who stood in the plains of Moab. And because he 6:8 ). was a firstborn they took two parts. And their father’s part among his brothers. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says otherwise. But “giving you shall give them inheritance among their father’s brothers. 27:7–8 . ” That is what is written: “Ten measures fell to Manasseh 17:5 . It is explained in Jos. 17:2 that Gilead and Bashan were given to the seven male clans of Manasseh, and the Cisjordan territory to the five female clans. If together this made ten districts, it follows that the five females in the plains of Moab, while representing only one person of the Exodus, received 3/10 of the entire territory of Manasseh. ”.
Joshua and Caleb took three parts: Their part with those who left Egypt and their part with those who stood in the plains of Moab; in addition they took the parts of the spies. This is what is written: “Joshua bin Nun and Caleb ben Yephuneh lived off the men, etc. 14:38 . ” But the part of the complainers 11:1 ff. and Korah’s gang became common property; their sons [inherited] from their paternal and maternal grandfathers. That is what is written: “Korah’s sons did not die. 26:11 . They were Levites not involved in the distribution of land. ”
Rebbi explained it by a parable; to what can this be compared? To two brothers, co-owners who left Egypt. One had nine sons, the other a single son. They inherited ten bet kor. Each of them takes a letekh . . They return it to their fathers and then split. It turns out that the single son takes half and the sons of the other take half each of them took a bet kor rather than a letekh, half a bet kor. If the fathers were above the age of twenty at the Exodus, there is no reason why the sons of one should be co-owners with the son of the other. If they were below age twenty at the Exodus, they should have survived and the entire question could not be raised. Therefore, one has to assume that the grandfather was alive at the time of the Exodus and the entire allotment was returned to the grandfather, from whom each son inherited the claim to half the estate which was then split for the ten grandsons. .
Rebbi Dositheos ben Jehudah explained it by a parable; to what can this be compared? To two brothers, Cohanim and co-owners who stood by a threshing floor; one had nine sons and the other had one. They took (the area of) ten qab. They returned it to their father and split. It turns out that the son of one takes half and the sons of the other take half.
Rebbi Joḥanan objected: “I shall bring you to your forefathers’ land, etc. 6:8 . The verse ends: “I shall give it to you as an inheritance, I, the Eternal.” Giving implies a voluntary act, a gift, whereas inheritance is automatic by law. ” If it was a gift, why an inheritance? And if an inheritance, why a gift? But after he gave it to them as a gift, he turned around and gave it as inheritance; then those of the generation of the conquest already were an inheritance ( Babli 117b ). 1:39 ): “Your little ones, of whom you said, they will be taken as prey, and your children who today do not know good or bad, they will come there, to them I shall give it, and they will inherit it.” If it was a gift, why an inheritance? And if an inheritance, why a gift? But after he gave it to them in the language of a gift, he turned around and gave it in the language of inheritance.” . Rebbi Hoshaia said, anywhere one mentions מוֹרָשָה it means weariness “to inherit” would be rwš “to be poor.” . They objected, is it not written, “an inheritance (מוֹרָשָׁה) of the congregation of Jacob 33:4 : “Moses commended to us Torah, an inheritance …” This verse should not have a negative connotation. ”? He said, there is no weariness greater than this. He who studies forgets everything on 1:13 : “For his own benefit a person studies Torah and forgets it, for if a person could study Torah and not forget it, he would study it for two or three years and then never think of it again” and miss all rewards for the study of Torah. .
MISHNAH: Both son and daughter are equal for the rules of inheritance, except that the son take a double portion of the father’s property 21:17 . The entire paragraph only deals with father and son; since the mother is neither required nor empowered to recognize a child as hers, it cannot refer to the mother’s inheritance. It probably is correct to read פִּי שְׁנַיִם as “double portion” rather than “two thirds” which would read פִּים ( 1S. 13:21 ); cf. Sifry Deut. #217. The double portion of male first-borns is also found in the Egyptian native law both in Ptolemaic and in Roman times and the Syro-Roman law book. but no double portion of the mother’s property. And the daughters can claim sustenance from the father’s property 4:8 . but not from the mother’s property.
HALAKHAH: “Both son and daughter are equal for the rules of inheritance,” etc. It is written 21:17 . The entire paragraph only deals with father and son; since the mother is neither required nor empowered to recognize a child as hers, it cannot refer to the mother’s inheritance. It probably is correct to read פִּי שְׁנַיִם as “double portion” rather than “two thirds” which would read פִּים ( 1S. 13:21 ); cf. Sifry Deut. #217. The double portion of male first-borns is also found in the Egyptian native law both in Ptolemaic and in Roman times and the Syro-Roman law book. in the estate at the moment of the father’s death is subject to the double portion privilege of the firstborn son, but not expected income ( Sifry Deut. 217). : “Of anything which will be found with him,” etc. How could he inherit the expectancy like existing property? 6:18. How? If his father died during his father’s father’s lifetime, he takes a double portion of his father’s estate but not a double portion of his grandfather’s estate. But if his father was a firstborn, just as he takes from his father’s estate so he takes from his grandfather’s estate 52b . . Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Abba [Cohen] bar Delaiah: It was said “a rule of law 21:17 . The entire paragraph only deals with father and son; since the mother is neither required nor empowered to recognize a child as hers, it cannot refer to the mother’s inheritance. It probably is correct to read פִּי שְׁנַיִם as “double portion” rather than “two thirds” which would read פִּים ( 1S. 13:21 ); cf. Sifry Deut. #217. The double portion of male first-borns is also found in the Egyptian native law both in Ptolemaic and in Roman times and the Syro-Roman law book. ” in the matter of a double portion just as it was said “a rule of law 27:11 . ” in the matter of a single portion. Since for a single portion one considers the son as if he were alive to take his father’s single portion so for a double portion one considers the son as if he were alive to take his father’s double portion.
MISHNAH: One who says, “my firstborn X shall not take a double portion,” [or] “my son Y shall not inherit together with his brothers,” did not say anything since he stipulated against what is written in the Torah 7:14. The rules based on Num. 27:6–11 are prescriptive, rather than eventual rules in the intestate case. . One who distributes his property orally, if he increased for one, or diminished for another, or made the firstborn equal to the others, his words are upheld; except if, however, he formulated it in terms of inheritance, he did not say anything. But if he wrote in terms of gift, whether at the start, or in the middle, or at the end, his words are upheld.
HALAKHAH: “One who says, “my firstborn X shall not take a double portion,’ ” etc. Rebbi La made the right of the firstborn equal to that of the brothers. Rebbi Ḥaggai said to them: Is that not a verse, “he shall not be able to declare as firstborn.” ; Sifry Deut. 216. Rebbi Eliezer said, by the Temple Service! He is able, but he is not permitted. Except that he is able designating it as a gift.
“But if he wrote in terms of gift, whether at the start, or the middle, or the end, his words are upheld.” Rebbi Hoshaia said: “There shall be given to Mr. X the inheritance I want him to inherit.” “X should inherit the gift I want him to inherit.” “X shall inherit the inheritance which I gave to him .” or gift either before, or in between, or after mentioning inheritance. Cf. Babli 129a ; Tosephta 7:17 . 1:5, Notes 495–499 . “Write and give field X to person Y.” Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rebbi Joḥanan He told them, if it is documentation, then write and deliver. If it is to transfer property, everybody agrees that nobody can transfer property after his death.
1:5, Notes 490–492 . Cf. Babli 152a . Samuel asked Rav Huna: if one wrote a gift in the language of a sale? He answered, he made it ride on two racing horses; Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, they only said that one brings two white horses and makes it ride on both. One goes in one direction and the other in another; it turns out that he caught nothing.
MISHNAH: One who says, Mr. X shall inherit from me while he has a daughter, or, my daughter shall inherit from me while he has a son, did not say anything since he stipulated against what is written in the Torah 7:14. The rules based on Num. 27:6–11 are prescriptive, rather than eventual rules in the intestate case. . Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqah said, if he said that about anybody who can be his heir, his words stand; about anybody who cannot be his heir, his words do not stand.
HALAKHAH: “One who says, Mr. X shall inherit from me,” etc. 4:12, Notes 239–248 . The statement of R. Joḥanan paraphrases Tosephta 7:18 . It is clear that the Tosephta was unknown to the editors, if any, of this Yerushalmi. The Yerushalmi mentions neither the restriction of the Babli (130a ) by R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa touching the privilege of the firstborn nor the extension of the Tosephta which includes grandchildren. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said only this about a son among sons or a daughter among daughters, but not a daughter among brothers, but naturally the father’s brothers do not inherit if there be a daughter as stated in the same sentence. The two clauses “daughter among brothers,” “brother among daughters” mean the same. or a brother among daughters. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi asked Rebbi Nathan Nathan the Babylonian. ; bar Abba Rebbi Abba. said, so was the question: What is Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa’s reason? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, so was the question: What did they see to say that practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? He told him, did you not teach us so 4:12 states that in a polygamous family the sons of one wife inherit her ketubah in addition to their part in the father’s estate. This shows that while the formulation of the biblical law of inheritance presupposes equal parts for every son, there are situations where by common law inheritances are distributed unevenly. : “they shall inherit”? So is the Mishnah: “they shall take.” is an obligation which the father accepted at his marriage, it is not an inheritance from the father ( Babli 131a ; Ketubot 52b , 55a ). [Rebbi] R. Ze‘ira. La said, even following him who said “inherit”, is not the power of the court strengthened. ? As you say, nobody can transfer property using the language of gift; here he may do it. Similarly, nobody can transfer property using the language of inheritance; here he may do it.
9:1, Notes 44–57 . There, we have stated 9:1 . If a couple write a prenuptial agreement reserving the wife’s property to her and her heirs, it is unconditionally valid for the rabbis but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel denies the validity of the inheritance clause. : “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if she dies, he should inherit from her since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah.” Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “Since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid”? Conditions other than for money matters. But here we are dealing with a money matter! 19b . What is Rav’s reason? Because in the end he acquired it 84a , it is stated explicitly that for Rav the husband’s right to his wife’s estate is rabbinic. Therefore his acquisition of the estate is a court decree. (In the Yerushalmi, Ketubot 8:5 Note 44 , this is ascribed to R. Simeon ben Laqish.) . Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, if she sold or gave away, the rule should be that it is valid. Then why did they say that her sale is invalid? Lest she smuggle away her properties from her husband and say, they are mine. Rebbi Justinus had a case before the rabbis and they obligated him. He came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who told him, enter your properties. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Did not Rav say, because in the end he acquired it. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, go and enter your properties? Who are these rabbis? The rabbis of Rebbi Justinus.
“And he shall inherit from her 26:11 : “If his father had no brothers, transfer his estate to his relative who is closest to him of his family; he shall inherit (from) her .” In the verse, the feminine her refers to the estate. The identification of her with the wife is R. Aqiba’s ( Sifry Num. 134). In Lev. 18 , the masculine word שְׁאֵר “relative” is used exclusively for female relatives. .” I could think that just as he inherits from her, she should inherit from him. The verse says, “from her.” He inherits from her, she does not inherit from him” when the same could have been expressed by the shorter, וְיָֽרְשָׁהּ. The additional word used for her implies not him . . Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of the Sages are that her father inherits from her, her brothers inherit from her in the verse refers to the estate; by biblical law her clan should be her heirs. The inheritance of the husband is purely rabbinical. . Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: If you say that the inheritance status of a woman is not from the Torah, should he not inherit from his preliminarily wedded wife.) The question is rather whether there be a biblical basis for the common law practice that the husband’s claim on the wife’s property only starts with definitive marriage, when the couple starts living together. ? As you say there, “the one close to him, 21:2 the expression שְׁאֵרוֹ הַקָּרֹב אֵלָיו “the relative close to him” is explained as “his wife who is close to him,” i. e., his definitively wedded wife, since all other closely related relatives are enumerated in vv. 2–3 . The mention of closeness excludes the preliminarily wedded one since intimacy with her is forbidden to him [ Sifra Emor (4 )]. ” not the preliminarily wedded one, so also here, “the one close to him,” not the preliminarily wedded one. Rav Hamnuna objected: If you say that a woman does not inherit by the word of the Torah, should not the husband inherit the expectancy like existing property? Rebbi Yose said, so did Rebbi teach: The husband does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there is the first-born whose inheritance is from the Torah but he does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand 6:18. .
Rebbi Isaac said: About those who write, if she should die without children, all that was hers shall revert to her father. This is a stipulation about money; the stipulation is valid 9:1, Note 87 . .
134.) A different explanation of the verses quoted here is given in the Babli, 113a . “Segub fathered Jair, 2:22 . The verse states that Jair, a Calebite, had 23 villages in the land of Gilead (Manasseh). ” etc. From where did Jair have cities on Mount Gilead? But he married a woman from the daughters of Manasse who died and he inherited from her. If you would say that the inheritance from a wife was not a word of the Torah it should not say that “Jair had” but that “Segub had.” Similarly, “Eleazar ben Aaron died. 24:33 , “they buried him on his son Phineas’s hill which had been given to him on the Mountain of Ephraim.” ” From where did Phineas have property on the Mountain of Ephraim? But he married a woman from the daughters of Ephraim and inherited from her. If you would say that the inheritance from a wife was not a word of the Torah it should say that “Eleazar had” not that “Phineas had. intimates, one cannot say that the tribe of Ephraim gave Phineas property among themselves since the Torah explicitly excluded priests from receiving any land outside the Levitic cities ( Deut. 18:1 ). Therefore, ownership of property outside such cities must be by inheritance from a non-priestly wife. The tribal affiliation of Eleazar’s father-in-law Puṭiel ( Ex. 6:25 ) is not known. ”
MISHNAH: If one writes his properties over to others while neglecting his children, what he did is done but the Sages do not approve of him. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if his children did not behave properly, let him be well remembered.
HALAKHAH: “If one writes his properties over to others,” etc. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, about one who writes his properties over to others while neglecting his children, the verse says: “their sins were on their bones 32:27 . It is a sin which will cling to his bones even in the grave. In the Babli, 133b , Samuel told his student Rav Jehudah in his law practice never to help anybody to deprive a son of his inheritance. .” As the following: A person deposited his properties with Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and told him, if my sons will be useful give them half and keep half. His sons came and took half. Later they came to appeal against him. He told them, your father said only: If my sons will be useful give them half and keep half. Now you are badly educated, return to me what I gave to you.
MISHNAH: He who says, this is my son, is to be believed 21:17 is interpreted to mean that the father has the right to recognize a son without submitting a proof; his statement has to be accepted by the court. There is no difference whether the son was born from a licit or an illicit union; as long as the mother was Jewish the son frees the childless wife from levirate marriage and is entitled to a full share in the inheritance ( Mishnah Yebamot 2:6 ). . This is my brother, he is not to be believed but he shall split his part with him; if he dies the properties shall return to their origin. If he received property from another source, his brother shall inherit with him. If somebody died and a will 1:7, Note 90. was found tied to his hip, this is nothing. If in it he transferred property to another, whether of the heirs or not of the heirs, his words are confirmed.
HALAKHAH: “He who says, this is my son, is to be believed,” etc. 4:7 Notes 182–194 , Babli 127b as Amoraic statement. If it was the general belief that he was his son, but at the moment of his death he said, he is not my son, or about one not his son he said, he is my son, he is believed 21:17 requires the father to recognize his son “on the day he distributes his estate”, any statement he makes on his death bed in matters of recognizing sons must be believed without requiring proof. . If he stood near the toll collector and said, he is my son and then changed and said, he is my slave, he is believed. He is my slave, and then said, he is my son, he cannot be believed. Some Tannaïm state, he is to be believed. Rebbi Mana said, for example those Nabateans who particularly use their sons as slaves and son without inconsistency. .
1:6 , explained there in Notes 166–173 ( Tosephta 8:1 , Babli 138a , Ḥulin 39b , Keritut 24b ). “If somebody said that all his property should be given to X, a Cohen, and [the estate] contained slaves, even if [the Cohen] said ‘I cannot have them’ they eat heave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, since he said ‘I cannot have them’, the heirs acquired them.” Rebbi La said, they disagree if he did not specify. How do we hold? If it is clear that he wants them, everybody agrees that his slaves may eat heave. If it is clear that he does not want them, everybody agrees that the heirs acquired them. But we deal with the case that he did not specify, where the rabbis think that at the start he wanted them and then he changed his mind. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, since he said ‘it is impossible for me’, the heirs acquired them.
It was stated3:9 (17d l. 66) Note 175 . : “Rebbi Simeon ben Gamiel says: A will invalidates a will, a gift does not invalidate a gift.” Rebbi Abba bar Ḥana: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying that in any case where he can invalidate his will if he recuperates, he also can repeal his gift. As the following: Rebbi Onias’s sister wrote her property over to Rebbi Onias. She needed money and sold it to her husband. After she died, he came to protest against him. He asked him, why did you not claim it during her lifetime? He answered, I did not want to cause her pain. Nevertheless, Rebbi Immi removed it explains that the gift was a death-bed gift which became meaningless when the woman recovered; therefore R. Immi confirmed the husband in his possessions and took away the gift document from R. Onias. In either case would R. Immi have followed the instructions of his teacher R. Joḥanan. .
MISHNAH: One who writes his properties over to his sons must write: “from today and after my death,” the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said, it is unnecessary 7:3 Note 67 . . If one writes his properties over to his son for the time after his death, the father cannot sell them because they are written over to the son; the son cannot sell because they are in the father’s possession. If the father sold, they are sold until he dies. If the son sold, the buyer has no claim until the father dies. The father harvests and feeds anybody he pleases; what becomes part of his estate belongs to the heirs.
HALAKHAH: “One who writes his properties over to his sons,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rebbi Joḥanan. “From today after his death,” his gift is a gift. “From today and after death” it is no bill of divorce. 7:3 , explained there in Notes 67–75 . The colleagues say, so he told him: this is no condition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: R. Ze‘ira. For reasons of chronology, this is the more convincing reading. said, so he told him: It applies neither to bills of divorce nor to gifts. Rebbi La said, for a gift; since he said “from today”, the gift is clear. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve the yield to himself. But in bills of divorce, since he wrote “from today” in the bill, it would be a separation. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve her body to himself. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La, not to reserve her earnings for himself? He answered, we do not find a woman married to one man and her earnings belonging to another. Rebbi Ze‘ira confirmed him: מְקַלֵּס לֵיהּ “he acclaimed him”. and called him “son of the Torah.”
1:6 , explained there in Notes 157–162 . Tosephta 9:14 . “If somebody says, I freed my slave Ṭabi, I freed him, I shall free him, he is free, this one is free; then he acquired.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But only by a document. “He should be freed, Rebbi says, he acquired, but the Sages say, he did not acquire.”
If someone said, field X I gave to Y, it is given to him, it should be his, Y should inherit my property, Y should take possession of my property, he did not say anything 1:5 . The Tosephta disagrees, 9:12 . The Tosephta text is explained away by the Babli, Giṭṭin 40b . . It should be given to him as a gift, Rebbi says, he acquired, but the Sages say, he did not acquire; but one forces the heirs to fulfill the deceased’s words. 14b , 15a , 40a ; Ketubot 70a . It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, also if one writes διέθεμεν 1 fasc. 4 (1931) 144–146 has noted that the expression τάδε διεθέμην is used in Egyptian Greek deeds; also cf. R. Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, New York 1944, p. 143. Since the expression is a legal Greek term, its use characterizes a valid deed even though the corresponding use of the past in Hebrew was declared invalid as statement of a deed. (S. Lieberman, Tosefta kiFshutah Bava batra p. 441, wants to infer that Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel validates also the Hebrew נָתַתִּי; this seems unjustified.) in Greek it is a gift. Rebbi Ḥanin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: I turned to all linguists to know what is διέθεμεν and nobody told me anything.
9:1, Notes 66–85 . The text is partially problematic. One who said, my property should be given to X, if X died to Y, if Y died to Z. The one who was mentioned earlier receives the property earlier. If the second died during the first’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If the third died during the second’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If both the second and the third die during the first’s lifetime, the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate Rebbi is reported to permit the first holder to sell the real estate and use the proceeds for himself; then the second and third will receive nothing since the real estate for which the condition was formulated is no longer operative. Naturally, he may sell only if prior to the sale he had acquired the property. So here one should understand acquired as acquired in order to sell . , the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he only has the usufruct. Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Yannai said, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will version. Since a death-bed will becomes valid only at the moment of death, the lien formulated by the bequeather already became active; the property is Y’s before X’s death-bed will is activated. . Rebbi Joḥanan said, not even as a gift from a healthy person. As in the following: A woman wrote her properties over to a certain man. She needed money and sold it to her husband. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Madia or bar Maria . brought the case before Rebbi Yose. Did not Rebbi Yannai say, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not the gift of a healthy person? Since the husband of this woman is obligated to provide for her food, is that not like a death-bed will? So far, he is obligated to provide for her bread and legumes. Maybe eggs? Maybe chicken? Since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired Rebbi is reported to permit the first holder to sell the real estate and use the proceeds for himself; then the second and third will receive nothing since the real estate for which the condition was formulated is no longer operative. Naturally, he may sell only if prior to the sale he had acquired the property. So here one should understand acquired as acquired in order to sell . the real estate, that means that she may sell the property even in order to eat delicacies. Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob said, it was stated there 4:6 . that her burial is part of her upkeep. If she did not have a burial site, since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired Rebbi is reported to permit the first holder to sell the real estate and use the proceeds for himself; then the second and third will receive nothing since the real estate for which the condition was formulated is no longer operative. Naturally, he may sell only if prior to the sale he had acquired the property. So here one should understand acquired as acquired in order to sell . the real estate, it means that he may sell the real estate and acquire a burial site.
Rebbi Yose said: About those who write, “if she hates, if she is hated”. This is a stipulation about money; the rabbis upheld it.
MISHNAH: If he left adult and underage sons, the adult ones cannot be provided for at the expense of the underaged, nor the underaged fed at the expense of the adults, but they split evenly. If the adult ones wed, the underaged may wed. But if the underaged said, we want to have weddings just as you had, one does not listen to them, because what their father gave them, he gave. If he left adult and underage daughters, the adult ones cannot be provided for at the expense of the underaged, nor the underaged fed at the expense of the adults, but they split evenly. If the adult ones wed, the underaged may wed. But if the underaged said, we want to have weddings just as you had, one does not listen to them. It is a restriction about daughters which does not exist for sons, that daughters will be fed at the expense of sons 4:13 . Sons may not inherit until the claims of the daughters are satisfied. But in the absence of sons, daughters of all ages have identical claims on the estate. but not at the expense of daughters.
HALAKHAH: “If he left adult and underage sons” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Could the older ones take 100 barrels, each worth twenty denars, and the younger ones take 100 barrels, each worth ten denars? He told him, what these take, those should be taking.