Whence could Jair possess [cities] which did not belong to Segub?1 [But] this2 teaches that Jair took a wife who died, and he was her heir.
[For] what [purpose is] 'furthermore it is said' [required]?3 — In case it be said4 that Scripture is only concerned for a transfer [through] the son,5 but that a husband was not heir [to his wife]. proof was brought from,6 So shall no inheritance of the children of Israel remove front tribe to tribe.7 And in case it be said,8 its9 purpose is [to teach that] one would transgress thereby [both] a negative10 and a positive11 [precept],12 proof was brought from,13 So shall no inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe.14 And in case it is said15 that the purpose of this is [to teach that] one would transgress two negative [precepts] and [one] positive, proof was brought from,13 And Eleazar the son of Aaron died etc.16 And in case it be said15 that it was Eleazar who took a wife who died, and [that it was] Phinehas [who] was her heir,17 proof was brought from,8 and Segub begat fair etc.18 And in case it be said,15 'There, also, the same thing may have happened'19 [it may be replied]: If so, why two Scriptural verses?20 R. Papa said to Abaye: Wherefrom?21 Is it not indeed possible to maintain [that] a husband is not heir [to his wife]? As to the Scriptural verses, these may speak of a transfer through the son, as interpreted [above]; and that Jair may have bought [the cities]; and Phinehas, [also], may have bought [the hill]?22 — He replied unto him: It cannot be said that Phinehas had bought [the land], for, if so, it would follow that the field must return in the jubilee year,23 and the righteous man24 would thus be buried in a grave which was not his own.25 — But say that it may have fallen to him as a field devoted?26 — Abaye replied: After all,27 the inheritance28 would be removed29 from the tribe of the mother to the tribe of the father!30 But how!31 Is it not possible that that case32 is different33 because [the estate] had already been transferred?34 — He said to him: [The argument]. 'because it had already been transferred' is rather weak.35
R. Yemar said to R. Ashi: If [the argument], 'because it had already been transferred' is to be used,36 one can very well understand the verse37 [as having reference] either to transfer through the son or to transfer through the husband;38 if, however, it is said that [the argument] 'because it had already been transferred', is not to he used, [of] what benefit is [it] when she is married to a man of the family of her father's tribe? Surely the inheritance is removed from the tribe of her mother to that of her father! — She may he given in marriage to a person whose father is of the tribe of her father, and his mother of the tribe of her mother.
Original footnotes renumbered.
- Cf. supra n. 11.
- The statement that fair had cities which were his own property independent of that of his father.
- Supra 111b. Why five Biblical quotations in addition to the first one from Num. XXXVI, 8?
- Lit., 'and if you will say'.
- I.e., that the prohibition against marrying into another tribe was solely due to the fact that the son who is heir to his mother would cause the transfer of the estate from his mother's tribe to that of his.
- Lit., 'come and hear'.
- Num. XXXVI. 7. Since this verse is superfluous, being practically a repetition of the verse following it, it must be taken to refer to another case of transfer. If XXXVI. 8 has reference to the son, XXXVI. 7 must have reference to the husband.
- V. p. 463, n. 17.
- Of Num. XXXVI. 7.
- so shall no inheritance remove etc.
- Shall be wife etc (Num. XXXVI, 8).
- But a husband cannot be heir to his wife.
- V. n. 1.
- Num. XXXVI, 9.
- V. p. 463, n. 7.
- Josh. XXIV, 33.
- Heir to his mother in the lifetime of his father, Eleazar, who, though her husband, was not entitled to be her heir.
- I Chron. II, 22.
- I.e., fair may have been heir to his mother; not Segub to his wife.
- One verse is quite sufficient to teach that a son is heir to his mother. The other, then, must serve the purpose of teaching that a husband also is heir to his wife.
- I.e., what proof is there from the verses quoted that a husband is heir to his wife?'
- And it was his not by inheritance from a wife but by right of purchase. [The question, 'Why two Scriptural verses?' does not apply here as it is usual for the Bible to record and register acquisitions by individuals. (Rashb.)]
- To its original owner. V. Lev. XXV, 13. In this year of the jubilee ye shall return every man unto his possession.
- Hence it cannot be assumed that the field in which Phinehas had buried his father was a purchased one.
- [H] a field devoted, always remains in the possession of the priest (Lev. XXVII, 21, and Num. XVIII, 14). Consequently, the land which Phinehas possessed in the lifetime of his father need not be assumed to have been an inheritance at all; what proof, then, is there for the assertion that a husband is heir to his wife?
- If it he assumed that a husband is not heir to his wife.
- Of a daughter to whom it was bequeathed by her mother.
- On the marriage of the daughter unto one of the tribe of her father.
- What safeguard, then, against the transfer of property from one tribe to another would have been provided by Num. XXXVI, 8 (cf. supra 111b), which requires every daughter that possesseth an inheritance to be married to one of the family of the tribe of her father? While this provision prevents the transfer from the tribe of a father to that of another, it does not prevent the transfer from a mother's tribe! Consequently, if it he assumed that the transfer is effected through the husband, i.e., that the husband is heir to his wife, provision against the transfer may be made on the lines mentioned below; if, however, it be assumed that the husband is not heir, and that the transfer is effected through the son, what provision against this can be made? This, therefore, urges Abaye, is proof that Num. XXXVI, 8, teaches the law that a husband is heir to his wife.
- Lit., 'from what' i.e., the proof is not conclusive.
- The transfer of a mother's inheritance to another tribe.
- From that of the transfer to another tribe of a father's inheritance.
- A mother's estate, as soon as the daughter inherits it, is removed from the mother's tribe to that of the daughter who belongs to her father's tribe. Consequently it does not matter whether the daughter subsequently marries one from her mother's tribe or not. What proof, then, is there from Num. XXXVI, 8, that a husband is heir to his wife?
- Lit., 'we do not say'. Though a partial transfer takes place when a daughter inherits an estate from her mother, it does not follow that this must have the way for a complete transfer to another tribe. The daughter belongs, at least partly, to the tribe of her mother but her son is an entire stranger to that tribe. Consequently there remains the question. What safeguard was provided against the transfer from the mother's tribe?
- With the result that we are not concerned with the transfer from the mother's tribe.
- Num, XXXVI, 8, And every daughter that possesseth etc.
- I.e., owing to one or other of these possibilities of transfer from the father's inheritance to another tribe, a daughter inheriting an estate must marry one of her father's tribe.
Baba Bathra 112b
If so,1 that [verse]2 should have [read], 'To one of the family of the tribe of her father and her mother'! — If it had been written thus, even the reverse3 might have been assumed, hence4 the need for the present reading.5
It was taught [that a daughter inheriting an estate must marry one of her father's tribe in order to prevent] transfer [from tribe to tribe] through the son; and it was [also] taught [that the object is to prevent] transfer through the husband. 'It was taught [that the object is to prevent] transfer through the son': [For it is written]. So shall no inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe.6 Scripture speaks [here] of transfer through the son. Thou sayest [that it speaks] of a transfer through the son, perhaps [it speaks] only7 of a transfer through the husband? — Since it was said, so shall no inheritance remove front one tribe to another tribe,8 behold transfer through the husband has been spoken of, to what, then, shall one apply, so shall no inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe?9 [It must be assumed, therefore, that] Scripture speaks [here] of transfer through the son.
Original footnotes renumbered.
- That the man she marries must belong both to her mother's, as well as to her father's tribe.
- Num. XXXVI, 8.
- When his father belongs to the tribe of her mother, and his mother to the tribe of her father, involving the complete transference from her father's tribe to that of her mother's, the tribe of her husband's father,
- To teach that his father must be of the same tribe as her father.
- Lit., 'he teaches us'.
- Num. XXXVI, 7.
- Lit., 'or it is not, but'.
- Ibid. 9.
- Ibid, 7.