בבא בתרא קכה

בבא בתרא קכה

מַאי שְׁנָא מָעוֹת דְּלָא – דְּלָאו הָנֵי מָעוֹת שְׁבַק אֲבוּהוֹן; קַרְקַע נָמֵי – לָאו הָא קַרְקַע שְׁבַק אֲבוּהוֹן!

because what is different about money, resulting in the halakha that the firstborn is not entitled to a double portion of it, is that their father did not leave them this specific money that was collected. With regard to land as well, their father did not leave them this specific parcel of land when he died, as the debtor could have repaid them with a different parcel of land, or with money.

וְעוֹד, הָא אַתְּ הוּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ: מִסְתַּבֵּר טַעְמָא דִּבְנֵי מַעְרְבָא, דְּאִי קְדֵים סָבְתָּא וְזַבְּנָא – זְבִינַהּ זְבִינֵי!

And furthermore, aren’t you the one who said that the explanation of the people of the West, Eretz Yisrael, is reasonable? In a case where a married woman had been fit to inherit from her great-grandmother but then predeceased her great-grandmother, who then died, and her widower claims the inheritance in his late wife’s stead, the Sages of Eretz Yisrael ruled that he is not entitled to the inheritance, as it is merely property due to his wife, and a husband does not inherit property due to be inherited by his late wife. Rabba agreed that the inheritance is considered property due to the wife, and not property possessed by her, as if the great-grandmother would have sold it before she died, her sale would have been a valid sale. Here, too, the land should be considered property due to the father, of which a firstborn is not entitled to a double portion, since the debtor could have sold it. Therefore, Rabba’s opinion is difficult.

לְרַב נַחְמָן קַשְׁיָא, מַאי שְׁנָא קַרְקַע דְּלָא – דְּלָאו הָא קַרְקַע שְׁבַק אֲבוּהוֹן; מָעוֹת נָמֵי – לָאו הָנֵי מָעוֹת שְׁבַק אֲבוּהוֹן!

Abaya continues: According to the opinion of Rav Naḥman it is difficult; what is different about land, resulting in the halakha that the firstborn is not entitled to a double portion of it, is that their father did not leave them this specific parcel of land. With regard to money as well, their father did not leave them this specific money when he died.

וְעוֹד, הָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: יְתוֹמִים שֶׁגָּבוּ קַרְקַע בְּחוֹבַת אֲבִיהֶן – בַּעַל חוֹב חוֹזֵר וְגוֹבָהּ מֵהֶן!

And furthermore, doesn’t Rav Naḥman say that Rabba bar Avuh says: With regard to orphans who collected land for a debt owed to their father, their father’s creditor can come and seize this land from them, as any land owned by the father is liened against his debts. Evidently, Rav Naḥman holds that land liened against a debt has the legal status of land that is in the possession of the creditor. If so, why does Rav Naḥman hold that a firstborn is not entitled to a double portion of land that is collected as payment of a debt?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא לְדִידִי קַשְׁיָא, וְלָא לְרַב נַחְמָן קַשְׁיָא; טַעְמָא דִּבְנֵי מַעְרְבָא קָאָמְרִינַן, וְלַן לָא סְבִירָא לַן.

Rabba said to Abaye: According to my opinion it is not difficult, and according to the opinion of Rav Naḥman it is not difficult. We were merely saying, i.e., explaining, the reason for the opinion of the people of the West, Eretz Yisrael, introduced with the phrase: They sent the following ruling from there, that a firstborn is entitled to a double portion of the payment of a debt. But we ourselves do not hold in accordance with that opinion. Therefore, one cannot raise a contradiction from our opinions stated elsewhere to what we said in explanation of the Sages of Eretz Yisrael.

מַאי סָבְתָּא? דְּהַהוּא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ:

Having mentioned in passing the case of the great-grandmother, the Gemara discusses that case in depth. What is the case of the great-grandmother that was mentioned by Abaye? The Gemara explains: There was a certain moribund person who said to those present:

״נִכְסַי לְסָבְתָּא, וּבָתְרַהּ לְיָרְתַאי״. הַוְיָא לֵיהּ בְּרַתָּא דַּהֲוָה נְסִיבָא, שְׁכִיבָא בְּחַיֵּי בַּעְלַהּ וּבְחַיֵּי סָבְתָּא. בָּתַר דִּשְׁכִיבָא סָבְתָּא, אֲתָא בַּעַל קָא תָּבַע.

All my property is given to my grandmother, and after she dies, it is given to my heirs, not inherited by her heirs. He then died. He had a married daughter, who died during the lifetime of her husband and during the lifetime of her father’s grandmother. After her father’s grandmother died, her husband came and claimed the inheritance, as his wife was the heir of her father, and he is his wife’s heir.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: ״לְיָרְתַי״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ לְיָרְתֵי יָרְתַי. וְרַב עָנָן אָמַר: ״לְיָרְתַי״ – וְלָא לְיָרְתֵי יָרְתַי.

Rav Huna said: When her father said that his property is given: To my heirs, he meant: And even to the heirs of my heirs. Therefore, since his daughter’s husband is the heir of his heir, he is entitled to the inheritance. And Rav Anan said that he meant: To my heirs, but not to the heirs of my heirs. Therefore, the husband is not entitled to the property.

שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב עָנָן, וְלָאו מִטַּעְמֵיהּ. הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב עָנָן – דְּבַעַל לָא יָרֵית, וְלָאו מִטַּעְמֵיהּ; דְּאִילּוּ רַב עָנָן סָבַר: אַף עַל גַּב דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ בְּרָא לִבְרַתֵּיהּ, לָא יָרֵית; וְלָא הִיא, דְּאִילּוּ הֲוָה לֵיהּ בְּרָא לִבְרַתֵּיהּ, וַדַּאי יָרֵית; וּבַעַל הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּלָא יָרֵית – מִשּׁוּם דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ רָאוּי, וְאֵין הַבַּעַל נוֹטֵל בָּרָאוּי כִּבְמוּחְזָק.

The Gemara relates: They sent a ruling from there, Eretz Yisrael: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Anan, but not due to his reasoning. The Gemara explains: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Anan that the husband does not inherit the property. But not due to his reasoning, as Rav Anan holds that even if his daughter had a son to inherit from her, he would not inherit the property, as her father bequeathed it only to his heirs, not to the heirs of his heirs. And that is not so, as if his daughter had a son, he would certainly inherit; and this is the reason the husband does not inherit: Because the inheritance is considered property due to the daughter, as she did not own it during her lifetime, and a husband does not take in inheritance property due to his wife as he does the property she possessed.

מִכְּלָל דְּרַב הוּנָא סָבַר: בַּעַל נוֹטֵל בָּרָאוּי כִּבְמוּחְזָק?!

The Gemara asks: By inference, does Rav Huna, who ruled that the husband is entitled to the inheritance, hold that a husband takes in inheritance property due to his wife as he does the property she possessed?

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: דָּבָר זֶה נִפְתַּח בִּגְדוֹלִים וְנִסְתַּיֵּים בִּקְטַנִּים, כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר: ״אַחֲרֶיךָ״, כְּאוֹמֵר ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו״ דָּמֵי.

Rabbi Elazar says: This matter was introduced by great Sages, namely Rav Huna, and concluded by lesser Sages, i.e., by me. Rabbi Elazar, humbly referring to himself as a lesser Sage, will now explain Rav Huna’s statement. Anyone who says to another upon granting him an inheritance or a gift: After you die it is given to so-and-so, is considered like one who says: It is given to so-and-so from now. The first recipient merely has the right to use the property during his lifetime but did not actually become the owner. Accordingly, the inheritance was owned by the daughter in her lifetime, and the great-grandmother merely had usage rights. Therefore, it is inherited by the husband.

אָמַר רַבָּה: מִסְתַּבְּרָא טַעְמָא דִּבְנֵי מַעְרְבָא, דְּאִי קְדֵים סָבְתָּא וְזַבִּנָא – זְבִינַהּ זְבִינֵי.

Rabba said: The explanation of the people of the West, that the inheritance is considered property due to the daughter and not property possessed by her, is reasonable, as if the grandmother would have sold it before she died, her sale would have been a valid sale, and the daughter would not have received it at all.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, הִלְכְתָא: אֵין הַבַּעַל נוֹטֵל בָּרָאוּי כִּבְמוּחְזָק, וְאֵין הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל בָּרָאוּי כִּבְמוּחְזָק. וְאֵין הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בַּמִּלְוָה – בֵּין שֶׁגָּבוּ קַרְקַע, בֵּין שֶׁגָּבוּ מָעוֹת.

In conclusion, Rav Pappa said that the halakha is that the husband does not take in inheritance property due to his wife as he does the property she possessed; and a firstborn does not take a double portion of property due to his father as he does the property his father possessed; and a firstborn does not take a double portion of payment for a loan, whether the brothers collected land or whether they collected money.