inherits

The slave seeks only freedom; they don't seek their master's property. But the son isn't just a son; he claims his father's inheritance for himself. Those who inherit the dead are themselves dead, and they inherit the dead. Those who inherit the living are themselves alive, and they inherit (both) the living and the dead. The dead can't inherit anything, because how can the dead inherit? If the dead inherits the living they won't die, but the dead will live even more! A gentile doesn't die, because they've never lived in order that they may die. Whoever has believed in the Truth has lived, and is at risk of dying, because they're alive since the day Christ came. The world is created, the cities gentrified, and the dead carried out.

If a husband writes to his wife, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property”, he may enjoy its usufruct during her lifetime and, when she dies, he is her heir. If so, why might he have written to her, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property”? That if she sold it or gave it away her act is valid. If he wrote, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property and upon their produce”, he may not enjoy their usufruct during her lifetime but, when she dies, he inherits her. Rabbi Judah says: he may in all cases enjoy the usufruct from the usufruct unless he wrote to her: “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property and upon its produce and the produce of its produce and so on without end.” If he wrote, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property, its produce and the produce of its produce during your lifetime and after your death”, he may neither enjoy it produce during her lifetime nor does he inherit her when she dies. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: when she dies he inherits her because [by his declaration] he is making a condition which is contrary to what is written in the Torah and whenever a man makes a condition which is contrary to what is written in the Torah, his condition is null and void.

If a husband writes to his wife, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property”, he may enjoy its usufruct during her lifetime and, when she dies, he is her heir. If so, why might he have written to her, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property”? That if she sold it or gave it away her act is valid. If he wrote, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property and upon their produce”, he may not enjoy their usufruct during her lifetime but, when she dies, he inherits her. Rabbi Judah says: he may in all cases enjoy the usufruct from the usufruct unless he wrote to her: “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property and upon its produce and the produce of its produce and so on without end.” If he wrote, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property, its produce and the produce of its produce during your lifetime and after your death”, he may neither enjoy it produce during her lifetime nor does he inherit her when she dies. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: when she dies he inherits her because [by his declaration] he is making a condition which is contrary to what is written in the Torah and whenever a man makes a condition which is contrary to what is written in the Torah, his condition is null and void.

He who performs one commandment is rewarded, his days are prolonged, and he inherits the land, But he who does not perform one commandment, is not rewarded, his days are not prolonged, and he does not inherit the land. He who is familiar with Bible, Mishnah, and the ways of the land will not easily sin, as it is said, “And a threefold cord is not quickly broken” (Ecclesiastes 4:12. But he who is not familiar with Bible, Mishnah and the ways of the land does not belong to civilization.

If a man left sons and daughters and one that was of doubtful gender, if the property was great the males may push him (the one of doubtful gender) onto the females; if the property was small the females may thrust him onto the males. If a man said, “If my wife shall bear a male he shall be given 100 zuz”, and she had a male, he receives 100 zuz. [If he said, “If my wife shall bear a] female she shall be given 200 zuz”, and she had a female, she receives 200 zuz. [If he said, “If may wife shall bear a] male he shall be given 100 zuz and if a female 200 zuz” and she had a male and a female, the male receives 100 zuz and the female 200 zuz. If she had one of doubtful gender, he does not take. But if he said, “Whatsoever my wife shall bear shall be given [such an amount], he receives. If he [the one of doubtful gender] was the only heir, he inherits everything.

If the house fell down on a man and his father, or upon a man and any from whom he inherits, and he was liable for his wife’s ketubah or to a creditor: the father’s heirs say, “The son died first and the father died afterward”, and the creditors say, “The father died first and the son died afterward.” The School of Shammai says: “Let them split [the property].” The School of Hillel says: “The property remains in its former status [in the hands of those who inherit the father].”

The following do not return [to their owners] in Jubilee year: The share of the first-born, [The inheritance of] one who inherits his wife's [estate] [And of] one who performs yibbum with his sister-in-law And a present, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: a present is like a sale. Rabbi Eliezer says: all of these return in the Jubilee. R. Johanan ben Berokah says: if one inherits his wife's estate, he returns it to the members of the family and he deducts from the purchase money.

The following do not return [to their owners] in Jubilee year: The share of the first-born, [The inheritance of] one who inherits his wife's [estate] [And of] one who performs yibbum with his sister-in-law And a present, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: a present is like a sale. Rabbi Eliezer says: all of these return in the Jubilee. R. Johanan ben Berokah says: if one inherits his wife's estate, he returns it to the members of the family and he deducts from the purchase money.

A girl one day old defiles due to menstruation. A girl ten days old defiles due to zivah. A boy one day old defiles due to zivah, and defiles due to scale disease and due to corpse uncleanness; He subjects [his deceased brother's widow] to yibbum [levirate marriage]; He exempts [his mother] from yibbum, He enables her to eat terumah And he disqualifies her from eating terumah; He inherits and transmits inheritance; He who kills him is guilty of murder, And he counts to his father, to his mother and to all his relatives as a fully grown man.

Some person might serve his father fattened meat and inherit hell. Some person might bind his father to the grindstone and inherit paradise. How does one serve his father fattened meat and inherit hell? A person used to serve his father fattened chickens. One day, his father said to him: My son, from where do you get the money for these? He said to him: Old man, old man, eat and shut up just as dogs eat and are silent. It turns out that he serves his father fattened meat and inherits hell. How does one bind his father to the grindstone and inherits paradise? A person was a miller at a grindstone; there came a requisition for millers. He said: Father, go and grind in my stead. If it should come to pass that someone is degraded, it is better that it should happen to me rather than to you. If it should come to pass that someone is beaten, it is better that it should happen to me rather than to you. It turns out that he binds his father to the grindstone and inherits paradise.

Some person might serve his father fattened meat and inherit hell. Some person might bind his father to the grindstone and inherit paradise. How does one serve his father fattened meat and inherit hell? A person used to serve his father fattened chickens. One day, his father said to him: My son, from where do you get the money for these? He said to him: Old man, old man, eat and shut up just as dogs eat and are silent. It turns out that he serves his father fattened meat and inherits hell. How does one bind his father to the grindstone and inherits paradise? A person was a miller at a grindstone; there came a requisition for millers. He said: Father, go and grind in my stead. If it should come to pass that someone is degraded, it is better that it should happen to me rather than to you. If it should come to pass that someone is beaten, it is better that it should happen to me rather than to you. It turns out that he binds his father to the grindstone and inherits paradise.

Some person might serve his father fattened meat and inherit hell. Some person might bind his father to the grindstone and inherit paradise. How does one serve his father fattened meat and inherit hell? A person used to serve his father fattened chickens. One day, his father said to him: My son, from where do you get the money for these? He said to him: Old man, old man, eat and shut up just as dogs eat and are silent. It turns out that he serves his father fattened meat and inherits hell. How does one bind his father to the grindstone and inherits paradise? A person was a miller at a grindstone; there came a requisition for millers. He said: Father, go and grind in my stead. If it should come to pass that someone is degraded, it is better that it should happen to me rather than to you. If it should come to pass that someone is beaten, it is better that it should happen to me rather than to you. It turns out that he binds his father to the grindstone and inherits paradise.

He who has a preponderance of merit inherits paradise. He who has a preponderance of sins inherits hell. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said: It does not say “He lifts sins,” but rather (Ex. 34:7, Michah 7:18) “He lifts sin.” The Holy One, praise to Him, seizes one document from the sins and the merits tilt. Rebbi Eleazar said (Ps. 62:13): “Kindness is Yours, o Master, because You repay to everyone according to his deeds,” and if he has none, You give him from Yours. That is the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, because Rebbi Eleazar said (Ex. 34:6): “And much kindness,” He turns towards kindness.

He who has a preponderance of merit inherits paradise. He who has a preponderance of sins inherits hell. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said: It does not say “He lifts sins,” but rather (Ex. 34:7, Michah 7:18) “He lifts sin.” The Holy One, praise to Him, seizes one document from the sins and the merits tilt. Rebbi Eleazar said (Ps. 62:13): “Kindness is Yours, o Master, because You repay to everyone according to his deeds,” and if he has none, You give him from Yours. That is the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, because Rebbi Eleazar said (Ex. 34:6): “And much kindness,” He turns towards kindness.

HALAKHAH: “If property came to a woman waiting for her levir,” etc. Here, you say “she may sell or give away and it is valid. If she dies, what does one do with her ketubah?” And you also say “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs!” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, when do you say “she may sell or give away and it is valid”? If they came to her before she became a woman waiting for her levir. When do you say “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs”? If they came to her after she became a woman waiting for her levir. If they came to her before she became a woman waiting for her levir and produced revenue after she became a woman waiting for her levir, [that revenue is as if] they came to her after she became a woman waiting for her levir. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the levir in this situation is a problem for the House of Shammai. If he is a husband, he inherits everything. If he is not a husband, he inherits nothing. Because of the doubt, “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs.” For the House of Hillel it is obvious that he is a husband and inherits everything. For even his brother had only the usufruct.

HALAKHAH: “If property came to a woman waiting for her levir,” etc. Here, you say “she may sell or give away and it is valid. If she dies, what does one do with her ketubah?” And you also say “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs!” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, when do you say “she may sell or give away and it is valid”? If they came to her before she became a woman waiting for her levir. When do you say “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs”? If they came to her after she became a woman waiting for her levir. If they came to her before she became a woman waiting for her levir and produced revenue after she became a woman waiting for her levir, [that revenue is as if] they came to her after she became a woman waiting for her levir. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the levir in this situation is a problem for the House of Shammai. If he is a husband, he inherits everything. If he is not a husband, he inherits nothing. Because of the doubt, “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs.” For the House of Hillel it is obvious that he is a husband and inherits everything. For even his brother had only the usufruct.

HALAKHAH: “If property came to a woman waiting for her levir,” etc. Here, you say “she may sell or give away and it is valid. If she dies, what does one do with her ketubah?” And you also say “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs!” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, when do you say “she may sell or give away and it is valid”? If they came to her before she became a woman waiting for her levir. When do you say “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs”? If they came to her after she became a woman waiting for her levir. If they came to her before she became a woman waiting for her levir and produced revenue after she became a woman waiting for her levir, [that revenue is as if] they came to her after she became a woman waiting for her levir. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the levir in this situation is a problem for the House of Shammai. If he is a husband, he inherits everything. If he is not a husband, he inherits nothing. Because of the doubt, “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs.” For the House of Hillel it is obvious that he is a husband and inherits everything. For even his brother had only the usufruct.

Rebbi Isaac ben Tevele in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah: “ The first-born whom she will bear shall be”; He compared it to a first-born. Since the first-born does not inherit during his father’s lifetime, so this one does not inherit during his father’s lifetime. But since the first-born inherits after his father’s death, does this one inherit after his father’s death? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, since the first-born does not inherit when it was time to inherit, so this one does not inherit when it was time to inherit. Afterwards he cannot inherit. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Rebbi Judah. Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, practice follows Rebbi Judah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, many times I sat before Rebbi Hoshaia and never heard that from him. He said to him, does nobody exist who heard something his partner did not hear?

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, only from the place of masculinity. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: even from the female place. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi retracted this, from the following verse: “And with a male you should not lie in the way of a woman’s beddings”, one who may lie in two ways, including the female. Who is that? That is the hermaphrodite. Rebbi said, I looked for but did not find words of Ben Shamua about the hermaphrodite, for the entire group ganged up on me. Why? Not to make it public or because he was not worth it? What difference does it make? He usually made public. If you say, it was not to make it public, the publicity is already in his hand. The reason must be that he was not worth it. What could he made public? He inherits, he testifies, his grain offering is burnt completely, one says grace with him as with a male.

Rebbi Yose said: All the time Rebbi Hila told me, state in your baraita that he inherits from her and defiles himself for her. We have also stated so: A man defiles himself for his qualified wife but does not become defiled for his disqualified wife.

“If a woman made a vow forbidding herself any usufruct,” etc. Consider the following: He said, I copulated, but she says, I was not copulated with. Even if he changed and then said, I did not copulate, he cannot be believed since from the start he had said, I copulated. But if from the start he said that he had not copulated, the two together can uproot the presumption. The colleagues asked: What are we talking about? If following the early Mishnah, we have understood that one may marry in levirate. If following the later Mishnah, we have understood that one may perform ḥalîṣah. Where did we hear that one coerces? Rav Huna in the name of Rav: That is, if a bill of divorce has passed from his hand to her hand. He says, it is the bill of divorce of a wife. But she says, it is the bill of divorce of a sister-in-law. Within thirty days, the presumption is that he did not copulate; one coerces him to performḥalîṣah. After thirty days, one asks him to perform ḥalîṣah. Rebbi Yose asked, after thirty days, the presumption is that he copulated and you say one coerces? But it must be the following: Rav Huna in the name of Rav: That is, if a bill of divorce has passed from his hand to her hand. He says, it is the bill of divorce of a wife. But she says, it is the bill of divorce of a sister-in-law. Within thirty days, the presumption is that he did not copulate; one coerces him to performḥalîṣah. After thirty days, one asks him to performḥalîṣah. The following: If he says, I copulated, and she says, I was not copulated with, it is obvious that he has to sustain her. It is obvious that he does not inherit from her. The problem is whether he inherits his brother’s property. If she says, I was copulated with, and he says, I did not copulate, it is obvious that he does not have to sustain her. It is obvious that he inherits his brother’s property. The problem is whether he inherits from her.

“If a woman made a vow forbidding herself any usufruct,” etc. Consider the following: He said, I copulated, but she says, I was not copulated with. Even if he changed and then said, I did not copulate, he cannot be believed since from the start he had said, I copulated. But if from the start he said that he had not copulated, the two together can uproot the presumption. The colleagues asked: What are we talking about? If following the early Mishnah, we have understood that one may marry in levirate. If following the later Mishnah, we have understood that one may perform ḥalîṣah. Where did we hear that one coerces? Rav Huna in the name of Rav: That is, if a bill of divorce has passed from his hand to her hand. He says, it is the bill of divorce of a wife. But she says, it is the bill of divorce of a sister-in-law. Within thirty days, the presumption is that he did not copulate; one coerces him to performḥalîṣah. After thirty days, one asks him to perform ḥalîṣah. Rebbi Yose asked, after thirty days, the presumption is that he copulated and you say one coerces? But it must be the following: Rav Huna in the name of Rav: That is, if a bill of divorce has passed from his hand to her hand. He says, it is the bill of divorce of a wife. But she says, it is the bill of divorce of a sister-in-law. Within thirty days, the presumption is that he did not copulate; one coerces him to performḥalîṣah. After thirty days, one asks him to performḥalîṣah. The following: If he says, I copulated, and she says, I was not copulated with, it is obvious that he has to sustain her. It is obvious that he does not inherit from her. The problem is whether he inherits his brother’s property. If she says, I was copulated with, and he says, I did not copulate, it is obvious that he does not have to sustain her. It is obvious that he inherits his brother’s property. The problem is whether he inherits from her.

“If a woman made a vow forbidding herself any usufruct,” etc. Consider the following: He said, I copulated, but she says, I was not copulated with. Even if he changed and then said, I did not copulate, he cannot be believed since from the start he had said, I copulated. But if from the start he said that he had not copulated, the two together can uproot the presumption. The colleagues asked: What are we talking about? If following the early Mishnah, we have understood that one may marry in levirate. If following the later Mishnah, we have understood that one may perform ḥalîṣah. Where did we hear that one coerces? Rav Huna in the name of Rav: That is, if a bill of divorce has passed from his hand to her hand. He says, it is the bill of divorce of a wife. But she says, it is the bill of divorce of a sister-in-law. Within thirty days, the presumption is that he did not copulate; one coerces him to performḥalîṣah. After thirty days, one asks him to perform ḥalîṣah. Rebbi Yose asked, after thirty days, the presumption is that he copulated and you say one coerces? But it must be the following: Rav Huna in the name of Rav: That is, if a bill of divorce has passed from his hand to her hand. He says, it is the bill of divorce of a wife. But she says, it is the bill of divorce of a sister-in-law. Within thirty days, the presumption is that he did not copulate; one coerces him to performḥalîṣah. After thirty days, one asks him to performḥalîṣah. The following: If he says, I copulated, and she says, I was not copulated with, it is obvious that he has to sustain her. It is obvious that he does not inherit from her. The problem is whether he inherits his brother’s property. If she says, I was copulated with, and he says, I did not copulate, it is obvious that he does not have to sustain her. It is obvious that he inherits his brother’s property. The problem is whether he inherits from her.

MISHNAH: “The policemen shall speak to the people, saying: Who is the man who built a new house and did not inaugurate it; he should go and return to his house,” etc. Not only he who builds a house, but also one who builds a barn, a cow-shed, a wood-shed, a storage facility. Not only he who builds, but also one who buys, or inherits, or who received as a gift.

MISHNAH: “And who is the man who planted a vineyard and did not redeem it,” etc. Not only one who planted a vineyard but also one who planted five fruit trees, even from five different kinds. Not only one who planted but also one who sank or grafted, also one who buys, or inherits, or who received as a gift.

There came a case before Rebbi Ḥanina of a woman whose ketubah was less than 200 zuz, and he said, she should take what he had written for her. He said to Rebbi Mana, sit down and sign. He answered, follow your argument and sign yourself, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya say in the name of Samuel, by the Temple šeqel? Rebbi Eudaimon of Sepphoris in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Because of a renunciation. Now, should a woman whose ketubah was for less than 200 [zuz] not hide her ketubah in order to collect by the Temple šeqel? They said in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna, at a place where one does not write a ketubah. But at a place where one writes a ketubah, what she presents she collects. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated thus: If a deaf-mute man married a hearing wife, she has no claim for support nor ketubah, but if she died, he inherits from her, for she wanted to connect him with her property, but he could not want to connect her with his property. If a hearing male married a deaf-mute woman, she has a claim to support and ketubah, but if she died, he does not inherit, for he wanted to connect her with his property, but she could not want to connect him with her property. But can a deaf-mute woman acquire and have ketubah? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, explain it that at the moment he married her, she was hearing. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, he married her when she was hearing but she turned deaf-mute. In any case, did he not marry her when she was hearing? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, explain it that she was deaf-mute and turned hearing; he married her when she was hearing and she turned deaf. That you should not say, because at the start she was deaf-mute she has [no] ketubah, therefore it is necessary to say that she (does not have) [has]. Rebbi Yose does not say so, but since if one has sexual relations with a deaf-mute, is he not liable for a fine? Only if there were no fine would there be no ketubah. Rebbi Yudan said, does that depend on a fine? Look, the adult woman collects no fine but her ketubah is 200, the virgin after marriage collects a fine but her ketubah is a mina!

MISHNAH: What a woman finds or makes with her hands belongs to her husband. Of what she inherits he eats the yield during her lifetime. [Payments she receives for] settlements for shame and diminution of value belong to her; Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says, in case it is covered, she receives two thirds and he one third; in case it is visible, he receives two thirds and she one third. His part shall be given immediately; her part shall be invested in real estate and he eats its yield.

HALAKHAH: “If property came to a woman waiting for her levir,” etc. Here, you say “she may sell or give away and it is valid.” And you also say “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs!” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, when do you say “she may sell or give away and it is valid”? If they came to her before she became a woman waiting for her levir. When do you say “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs”? If they came to her after she became a woman waiting for her levir. If they came to her before she became a woman waiting for her levir and produced revenue after she became a woman waiting for her levir, [that revenue is as if] they came to her after she became a woman waiting for her levir. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the levir in this situation is a problem for the House of Shammai. If he is a husband, he inherits everything. If he is not a husband, he inherits nothing. Because of the doubt, “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs.” For the House of Hillel it is obvious that he is a husband and inherits everything. For even his brother had only the usufruct.

HALAKHAH: “If property came to a woman waiting for her levir,” etc. Here, you say “she may sell or give away and it is valid.” And you also say “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs!” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, when do you say “she may sell or give away and it is valid”? If they came to her before she became a woman waiting for her levir. When do you say “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs”? If they came to her after she became a woman waiting for her levir. If they came to her before she became a woman waiting for her levir and produced revenue after she became a woman waiting for her levir, [that revenue is as if] they came to her after she became a woman waiting for her levir. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the levir in this situation is a problem for the House of Shammai. If he is a husband, he inherits everything. If he is not a husband, he inherits nothing. Because of the doubt, “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs.” For the House of Hillel it is obvious that he is a husband and inherits everything. For even his brother had only the usufruct.

HALAKHAH: “If property came to a woman waiting for her levir,” etc. Here, you say “she may sell or give away and it is valid.” And you also say “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs!” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, when do you say “she may sell or give away and it is valid”? If they came to her before she became a woman waiting for her levir. When do you say “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs”? If they came to her after she became a woman waiting for her levir. If they came to her before she became a woman waiting for her levir and produced revenue after she became a woman waiting for her levir, [that revenue is as if] they came to her after she became a woman waiting for her levir. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the levir in this situation is a problem for the House of Shammai. If he is a husband, he inherits everything. If he is not a husband, he inherits nothing. Because of the doubt, “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs.” For the House of Hillel it is obvious that he is a husband and inherits everything. For even his brother had only the usufruct.

MISHNAH: If somebody writes to his wife: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties,” he receives their revenues and if she should die, he inherits from her. In this case, why did he write “I shall have nothing to do with your properties”? If she sold or gave away, it is valid. If he wrote to her: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties, nor with their revenues,” he does not receive their revenues during her lifetime but if she should die, he inherits from her. Rebbi Jehudah says, he continues to receive the investment results of her revenues unless he writes: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties, nor with their revenues, nor with revenues derived from revenues, without limits.” If he wrote “I shall have nothing to do with your properties, nor with their revenues, nor with revenues derived from revenues during your lifetime and after your death,” he does not receive the revenues during her lifetime and does not inherit from her after her death. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if she dies, he should inherit from her 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.

MISHNAH: If somebody writes to his wife: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties,” he receives their revenues and if she should die, he inherits from her. In this case, why did he write “I shall have nothing to do with your properties”? If she sold or gave away, it is valid. If he wrote to her: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties, nor with their revenues,” he does not receive their revenues during her lifetime but if she should die, he inherits from her. Rebbi Jehudah says, he continues to receive the investment results of her revenues unless he writes: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties, nor with their revenues, nor with revenues derived from revenues, without limits.” If he wrote “I shall have nothing to do with your properties, nor with their revenues, nor with revenues derived from revenues during your lifetime and after your death,” he does not receive the revenues during her lifetime and does not inherit from her after her death. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if she dies, he should inherit from her 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.

Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but not in the matter of words. Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel for he said, if she dies he inherits from her, but in matters of words, “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,” in personal matters. But in money matters, one’s stipulations are valid and that is a money matter! Why did we say that the condition is invalid? Because in the end he acquired it. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The law should have been that if she sold or gave it away it should be valid, for [the buyer] acquired it. Why did they say it is invalid? That a wife should not sell her husband’s property and say, it is mine.

They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Following the Sages, if she died who inherits from her? Those, her brothers, inherit from her.

Rebbi Yose said: All the time my teacher Rebbi Hila told me, state in your baraita that he inherits from her and defiles himself for her. We have also stated so: A man defiles himself for his qualified wife but does not become defiled for his disqualified wife.

“This, your house,” because of what do you catch him? Because of “your house,” “this”? If it collapsed and he himself rebuilt it, is it not “this”? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody said to his heirs, give a wedding house to my son or a widow’s house to my daughter, if it collapsed, the heirs are required to rebuild it.” There, we have stated: “If somebody says to his son, ‘a qônām that you can not enjoy anything from me,’ if he dies, [the son] inherits. ‘During my lifetime and after my death,’ if he dies, [the son] does not inherit.” [Did we not state, ‘during my lifetime’, [the son] inherits; ‘after my death’, [the son] inherits?] What is the difference between the one who says it one by one and the one who says it by twos? Rav Jeremiah and Rebbi Yose [ben Ḥanina] both say, ‘a qônām that I cannot enjoy these my properties during my lifetime and after my death,’ from the moment he said “these” he forbade to him during his lifetime and after his death. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated in Nedarim what we did not state in S̄ebuot: “A qônām that I shall not enter your house, or that I shall not buy your field, if the owner died or sold it, the other is permitted. That I shall not enter this house, or that I shall not buy this field, if the owner died or sold it, the other is forbidden.” Because he said “this”. Therefore, if he had not said “this”, he would have forbidden to him both during his lifetime and after his death.

“This, your house,” because of what do you catch him? Because of “your house,” “this”? If it collapsed and he himself rebuilt it, is it not “this”? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody said to his heirs, give a wedding house to my son or a widow’s house to my daughter, if it collapsed, the heirs are required to rebuild it.” There, we have stated: “If somebody says to his son, ‘a qônām that you can not enjoy anything from me,’ if he dies, [the son] inherits. ‘During my lifetime and after my death,’ if he dies, [the son] does not inherit.” [Did we not state, ‘during my lifetime’, [the son] inherits; ‘after my death’, [the son] inherits?] What is the difference between the one who says it one by one and the one who says it by twos? Rav Jeremiah and Rebbi Yose [ben Ḥanina] both say, ‘a qônām that I cannot enjoy these my properties during my lifetime and after my death,’ from the moment he said “these” he forbade to him during his lifetime and after his death. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated in Nedarim what we did not state in S̄ebuot: “A qônām that I shall not enter your house, or that I shall not buy your field, if the owner died or sold it, the other is permitted. That I shall not enter this house, or that I shall not buy this field, if the owner died or sold it, the other is forbidden.” Because he said “this”. Therefore, if he had not said “this”, he would have forbidden to him both during his lifetime and after his death.

“This, your house,” because of what do you catch him? Because of “your house,” “this”? If it collapsed and he himself rebuilt it, is it not “this”? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody said to his heirs, give a wedding house to my son or a widow’s house to my daughter, if it collapsed, the heirs are required to rebuild it.” There, we have stated: “If somebody says to his son, ‘a qônām that you can not enjoy anything from me,’ if he dies, [the son] inherits. ‘During my lifetime and after my death,’ if he dies, [the son] does not inherit.” [Did we not state, ‘during my lifetime’, [the son] inherits; ‘after my death’, [the son] inherits?] What is the difference between the one who says it one by one and the one who says it by twos? Rav Jeremiah and Rebbi Yose [ben Ḥanina] both say, ‘a qônām that I cannot enjoy these my properties during my lifetime and after my death,’ from the moment he said “these” he forbade to him during his lifetime and after his death. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated in Nedarim what we did not state in S̄ebuot: “A qônām that I shall not enter your house, or that I shall not buy your field, if the owner died or sold it, the other is permitted. That I shall not enter this house, or that I shall not buy this field, if the owner died or sold it, the other is forbidden.” Because he said “this”. Therefore, if he had not said “this”, he would have forbidden to him both during his lifetime and after his death.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Gudguedah testified about a deaf-mute girl who was married off by her father, that she must be divorced by a bill of divorce, and about an underage girl who was married to a Cohen, that she may eat heave and her husband inherits from her if she dies, and about a stolen log which was used to build a house, that [the owner] has to take the value, and about a purification sacrifice of a stolen animal which was not known in public, that it atones because of the order of the altar.

There, we have stated: “The father bestows on his son beauty, strength, riches, wisdom, and years.” From where beauty? “May Your deeds appear on Your servants, and Your glory on their sons.” Strength, “strong on earth will be his descendants.” Riches, “I was young and became old, but never saw a just man abandoned and his descendants in need of bread.” Wisdom, “you shall teach your sons to argue about them.” Years, “that your and your sons’ days be many.” And just as he inherits five qualities, so he owes him the following five things. He feeds him, he gives him to drink, he clothes him, he puts on his shoes, he leads him. That is what is written: “This should fall on Joab’s head: sufferer from flux and from skin disease, holding the distaff, falling by the sword, and senseless.” Sufferer from flux, weak. From skin disease, abandoned. Holding the distaff, uneducated. Falling by the sword, short lived. Without bread, poor. When Solomon came to kill Joab, he said to him: Your father gave me five sentences; accept them and I can be killed. He accepted them and all of them came to pass on the House of David. Sufferer from flux was Rehabeam: “King Rehabeam with difficulty climbed on his chariot to flee to Jerusalem;” some say, he suffered from flux; some say, he was weak. Suffering from skin disease was Uziahu: “King Uziahu suffered from skin disease until the day of his death.” Holding the distaff was Joash: “They punished Joash.” Rebbi Ismael stated: This teaches that they gave him over to hardened hoodlums who had never known a woman and they raped him the way women are raped. That is what is written: “Israel’s pride will testify against it,” Israel’s pride will be raped in its face. Falling by the sword, this is Josiah, as is written: “The archers shot at king Josia,” and Rebbi Joḥanan said, this teaches that they made his body like a sieve. Rebbi Ismael stated: 300 arrows were shot at the Eternal’s anointed. Without bread, that is Jehoiachin: “And his meal, a permanent meal was given to him,.”

Some person might serve his father fattened meat and inherit hell. Some person might bind his father to the grindstone and inherit paradise. How does one serve his father fattened meat and inherit hell? A person used to serve his father fattened chickens. One day, his father said to him: My son, from where do you get the money for these? He said to him: Old man, old man, eat and shut up just as dogs eat and are silent. It turns out that he serves his father fattened meat and inherits hell. How does one bind his father to the grindstone and inherits paradise? A person was a miller at a grindstone; there came a requisition for millers. He said: Father, go and grind in my stead. If it should come to pass that anyone be degraded, it is better that it should happen to me rather than to you. If it should come to pass that anyone be beaten, it is better that it should happen to me rather than to you. It turns out that he binds his father to the grindstone and inherits paradise.

Some person might serve his father fattened meat and inherit hell. Some person might bind his father to the grindstone and inherit paradise. How does one serve his father fattened meat and inherit hell? A person used to serve his father fattened chickens. One day, his father said to him: My son, from where do you get the money for these? He said to him: Old man, old man, eat and shut up just as dogs eat and are silent. It turns out that he serves his father fattened meat and inherits hell. How does one bind his father to the grindstone and inherits paradise? A person was a miller at a grindstone; there came a requisition for millers. He said: Father, go and grind in my stead. If it should come to pass that anyone be degraded, it is better that it should happen to me rather than to you. If it should come to pass that anyone be beaten, it is better that it should happen to me rather than to you. It turns out that he binds his father to the grindstone and inherits paradise.

Some person might serve his father fattened meat and inherit hell. Some person might bind his father to the grindstone and inherit paradise. How does one serve his father fattened meat and inherit hell? A person used to serve his father fattened chickens. One day, his father said to him: My son, from where do you get the money for these? He said to him: Old man, old man, eat and shut up just as dogs eat and are silent. It turns out that he serves his father fattened meat and inherits hell. How does one bind his father to the grindstone and inherits paradise? A person was a miller at a grindstone; there came a requisition for millers. He said: Father, go and grind in my stead. If it should come to pass that anyone be degraded, it is better that it should happen to me rather than to you. If it should come to pass that anyone be beaten, it is better that it should happen to me rather than to you. It turns out that he binds his father to the grindstone and inherits paradise.

Ben Azai preached: “A dead fly will permanently spoil perfumer’s oil.” Does not one dead fly spoil perfumer’s oil? And this person by one sin spoiled all merits he had. Rebbi Aqiba preached: “ So the abyss opened wide and its mouth swallowed the one without law.” It does not say “without laws”, but “without law”, him who has not a single merit that should help him on the scale of merit. That is, for the Future World. But in this world, even if 999 angels plead for his conviction and one angel pleads for his acquittal, the Holy One, praise to Him, lends His weight to the scale of merit. What is the reason? “If there is for him one angel out of a thousand, to tell a man his straightness. He will act with him in grace and say, let him be redeemed, not go down to destruction; I found weregilt.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, if you find a saying of Rebbi Eliezer, son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, bend your ear like this funnel and listen, since Rebbi Joḥanan reported that Rebbi Eliezer, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, said: Even if 999 angles plead for his conviction and one angel pleads for his acquittal, the Holy One, praise to Him, lends His weight to the scale of merit. Not only this entire angel, but if 999 aspects of that angel plead for conviction and one aspect for acquittal, the Holy One, praise to Him, lends His weight to the scale of merit. What is the reason? It does not say, “if there is for him one angel of a thousand,” but “one out of a thousand”, one aspect out of a thousand aspects of that angel. What is written afterwards? “He will act with him in grace and say, let him be hurt, not go down to destruction; I found weregilt.” “Let him be hurt,” by suffering. “I found weregilt,” he found means to redeem himself. That is, in this world. But in the Future World, if he has a majority of merits, he inherits paradise; a majority of sins, he inherits hell. If he was 50–50. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, “he carries his iniquity.” Rebbi Abbahu said, it is written: “He carries.” What does the Holy One, praise to Him, do? He grabs one of his demerits, and the merits decide. Rebbi Eleazar said: “You, Eternal, are acting in grace, for You will complete for everybody according to his deeds.” And if he has none, You will give him from Yours. That is Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, for Rebbi Eleazar said, “You, Eternal, are acting in grace,” this teaches that He turns to the aspect of grace.

Ben Azai preached: “A dead fly will permanently spoil perfumer’s oil.” Does not one dead fly spoil perfumer’s oil? And this person by one sin spoiled all merits he had. Rebbi Aqiba preached: “ So the abyss opened wide and its mouth swallowed the one without law.” It does not say “without laws”, but “without law”, him who has not a single merit that should help him on the scale of merit. That is, for the Future World. But in this world, even if 999 angels plead for his conviction and one angel pleads for his acquittal, the Holy One, praise to Him, lends His weight to the scale of merit. What is the reason? “If there is for him one angel out of a thousand, to tell a man his straightness. He will act with him in grace and say, let him be redeemed, not go down to destruction; I found weregilt.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, if you find a saying of Rebbi Eliezer, son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, bend your ear like this funnel and listen, since Rebbi Joḥanan reported that Rebbi Eliezer, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, said: Even if 999 angles plead for his conviction and one angel pleads for his acquittal, the Holy One, praise to Him, lends His weight to the scale of merit. Not only this entire angel, but if 999 aspects of that angel plead for conviction and one aspect for acquittal, the Holy One, praise to Him, lends His weight to the scale of merit. What is the reason? It does not say, “if there is for him one angel of a thousand,” but “one out of a thousand”, one aspect out of a thousand aspects of that angel. What is written afterwards? “He will act with him in grace and say, let him be hurt, not go down to destruction; I found weregilt.” “Let him be hurt,” by suffering. “I found weregilt,” he found means to redeem himself. That is, in this world. But in the Future World, if he has a majority of merits, he inherits paradise; a majority of sins, he inherits hell. If he was 50–50. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, “he carries his iniquity.” Rebbi Abbahu said, it is written: “He carries.” What does the Holy One, praise to Him, do? He grabs one of his demerits, and the merits decide. Rebbi Eleazar said: “You, Eternal, are acting in grace, for You will complete for everybody according to his deeds.” And if he has none, You will give him from Yours. That is Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, for Rebbi Eleazar said, “You, Eternal, are acting in grace,” this teaches that He turns to the aspect of grace.

If she was preliminarily married with agreement but definitively married without agreement, may she eat heave? Rav said, she does eat; but Samuel said, she may not eat. Rebbi Mana said, Rav’s reason is that if she was preliminarily married with agreement, the permanence of the status quo implies the assumption that he definitively married her with agreement. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav’s reason is that by the earlier Mishnah, a preliminarily married daughter of an Israel may eat heave. What is the difference between them? Her earnings. According to Rebbi Mana, for Rav her earnings belong to her husband; according to Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, for Rav her earnings belong to her father. If she should die, who inherits from her? According to Rebbi Mana, for Rav her husband inherits; according to Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, for Rav her father inherits if she dies. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun stated, for Rav her husband inherits if she dies. If she was preliminarily married without agreement and definitively married without agreement, may she eat heave? Samuel said, she does eat. Come and see: If she was preliminarily married with agreement and definitively married without agreement, Samuel says that she may not eat; here he says she may eat? Samuel treats her as an orphan.

If she was preliminarily married with agreement but definitively married without agreement, may she eat heave? Rav said, she does eat; but Samuel said, she may not eat. Rebbi Mana said, Rav’s reason is that if she was preliminarily married with agreement, the permanence of the status quo implies the assumption that he definitively married her with agreement. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav’s reason is that by the earlier Mishnah, a preliminarily married daughter of an Israel may eat heave. What is the difference between them? Her earnings. According to Rebbi Mana, for Rav her earnings belong to her husband; according to Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, for Rav her earnings belong to her father. If she should die, who inherits from her? According to Rebbi Mana, for Rav her husband inherits; according to Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, for Rav her father inherits if she dies. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun stated, for Rav her husband inherits if she dies. If she was preliminarily married without agreement and definitively married without agreement, may she eat heave? Samuel said, she does eat. Come and see: If she was preliminarily married with agreement and definitively married without agreement, Samuel says that she may not eat; here he says she may eat? Samuel treats her as an orphan.

If she was preliminarily married with agreement but definitively married without agreement, may she eat heave? Rav said, she does eat; but Samuel said, she may not eat. Rebbi Mana said, Rav’s reason is that if she was preliminarily married with agreement, the permanence of the status quo implies the assumption that he definitively married her with agreement. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav’s reason is that by the earlier Mishnah, a preliminarily married daughter of an Israel may eat heave. What is the difference between them? Her earnings. According to Rebbi Mana, for Rav her earnings belong to her husband; according to Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, for Rav her earnings belong to her father. If she should die, who inherits from her? According to Rebbi Mana, for Rav her husband inherits; according to Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, for Rav her father inherits if she dies. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun stated, for Rav her husband inherits if she dies. If she was preliminarily married without agreement and definitively married without agreement, may she eat heave? Samuel said, she does eat. Come and see: If she was preliminarily married with agreement and definitively married without agreement, Samuel says that she may not eat; here he says she may eat? Samuel treats her as an orphan.

If she was preliminarily married with agreement but definitively married without agreement, may she eat heave? Rav said, she does eat; but Samuel said, she may not eat. Rebbi Mana said, Rav’s reason is that if she was preliminarily married with agreement, the permanence of the status quo implies the assumption that he definitively married her with agreement. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav’s reason is that by the earlier Mishnah, a preliminarily married daughter of an Israel may eat heave. What is the difference between them? Her earnings. According to Rebbi Mana, for Rav her earnings belong to her husband; according to Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, for Rav her earnings belong to her father. If she should die, who inherits from her? According to Rebbi Mana, for Rav her husband inherits; according to Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, for Rav her father inherits if she dies. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun stated, for Rav her husband inherits if she dies. If she was preliminarily married without agreement and definitively married without agreement, may she eat heave? Samuel said, she does eat. Come and see: If she was preliminarily married with agreement and definitively married without agreement, Samuel says that she may not eat; here he says she may eat? Samuel treats her as an orphan.

If both were Cohanim or brothers, both are forbidden. If there were three brothers; two of them contracted a preliminary marriage with her and then died. That is what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: The wife of one deceased contracts levirate marriage but not the wife of two deceased men. If they were brothers, both contracted a preliminary marriage with her and then one of them died. Is she permitted to the second? As you take it, what he had acquired, he had acquired; the rest he inherits from his brother. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, she is forbidden to him. Rebbi Yose said, the reason of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi is that the aspect acquired in any sister-in-law who is not totally inside [the family] is considered to be under the incest prohibition and an incest prohibition frees the co-wife. Rebbi Ḥanina said, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said it correctly. Does she not become his because of his brother? To his brother she was forbidden; to him she should be permitted?

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says to his son: A qônām that you cannot enjoy anything from me,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah said, look what we did state here: “If somebody says to his son, ‘a qônām that you can not enjoy anything from me,’ if he dies, the son inherits; ‘during my lifetime and after my death,’ if he dies, he cannot inherit.” Did we not state, ‘during my lifetime’, he inherits; ‘after my death’, he inherits, ‘during my lifetime and after my death’, he cannot inherit? What is the difference between the one who says it one by one and the one who says it by twos? Rav Jeremiah and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say, ‘a qônām that I shall not enter this house during my lifetime and after my death’, since he said “this house”, he forbade it on himself during lifetime and after death. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated in Neziqin what we did not state in Nedarim: ‘A qônām that I cannot enjoy these my properties during my lifetime and after my death,’ from the moment he said “these” he forbade them to himself during his lifetime and after his death.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says to his son: A qônām that you cannot enjoy anything from me,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah said, look what we did state here: “If somebody says to his son, ‘a qônām that you can not enjoy anything from me,’ if he dies, the son inherits; ‘during my lifetime and after my death,’ if he dies, he cannot inherit.” Did we not state, ‘during my lifetime’, he inherits; ‘after my death’, he inherits, ‘during my lifetime and after my death’, he cannot inherit? What is the difference between the one who says it one by one and the one who says it by twos? Rav Jeremiah and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say, ‘a qônām that I shall not enter this house during my lifetime and after my death’, since he said “this house”, he forbade it on himself during lifetime and after death. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated in Neziqin what we did not state in Nedarim: ‘A qônām that I cannot enjoy these my properties during my lifetime and after my death,’ from the moment he said “these” he forbade them to himself during his lifetime and after his death.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says to his son: A qônām that you cannot enjoy anything from me,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah said, look what we did state here: “If somebody says to his son, ‘a qônām that you can not enjoy anything from me,’ if he dies, the son inherits; ‘during my lifetime and after my death,’ if he dies, he cannot inherit.” Did we not state, ‘during my lifetime’, he inherits; ‘after my death’, he inherits, ‘during my lifetime and after my death’, he cannot inherit? What is the difference between the one who says it one by one and the one who says it by twos? Rav Jeremiah and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say, ‘a qônām that I shall not enter this house during my lifetime and after my death’, since he said “this house”, he forbade it on himself during lifetime and after death. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated in Neziqin what we did not state in Nedarim: ‘A qônām that I cannot enjoy these my properties during my lifetime and after my death,’ from the moment he said “these” he forbade them to himself during his lifetime and after his death.

Rebbi Tanḥum from Kefar Gun in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose: Four. One collects grasses from everywhere on condition that one not uproot. And one relieves himself behind a wall. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum: Up to a place where he lets wind and is not heard. And one grazes in forests, even the tribe of Jehudah in the tribe of Naftali, and one gives Naftali an entire region South of the lake, as it is said, “lake and South of it he inherits,” the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean. Rebbi Aqiba says, “lake” is Lake Samokhonites, “and South” is Lake Tiberias. And one may step to one side. Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Even into a field full of saffron. How? Does one have to pay or not? Since Rav Jehudah said, even into a field full of saffron, that means, one pays. Rebbi La said, since Rav Jehudah said, even into a field full of saffron, that means, one does not pay. But one cannot deviate more than necessary. Let us hear from the following: Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Joshua were on the road [and stepped aside because of obstacles on the road] when they saw Jehudah ben Pappos, who was sinking, coming towards them. Rabban Gamliël said to Rebbi Joshua: Who is this one who makes an exhibition of himself? He answered: This is Jehudah ben Pappos, all whose deeds are done for Heaven’s sake.

HALAKHAH: “Some inherit and bequeath,” etc. It is written: “If a man die without a son, you shall transfer his estate to his daughter.” 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,” but here is written: “you shall transfer.” It is an extension of the law that the daughter shall inherit. The Gentile Sages say, son and daughter are equal, 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;” 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 man? The verse says, “any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes.” 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.

HALAKHAH: “Some inherit and bequeath,” etc. It is written: “If a man die without a son, you shall transfer his estate to his daughter.” 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,” but here is written: “you shall transfer.” It is an extension of the law that the daughter shall inherit. The Gentile Sages say, son and daughter are equal, 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;” 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 man? The verse says, “any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes.” 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.

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”; the closer relative has precedence.

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”; the closer relative has precedence.

“And he shall inherit from her.” 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. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of the Sages are that her father inherits from her, her brothers inherit from her. 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? As you say there, “the one close to him,” 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.

“And he shall inherit from her.” 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. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of the Sages are that her father inherits from her, her brothers inherit from her. 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? As you say there, “the one close to him,” 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.

“And he shall inherit from her.” 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. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of the Sages are that her father inherits from her, her brothers inherit from her. 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? As you say there, “the one close to him,” 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.

MISHNAH: If he is survived by sons, daughters, and a sexless child, if the estate is large the males push him to the females; if the estate is small the females push him to the males. If somebody says, in case my wife gives birth to a male, he shall take a mina; if she gave birth to a male he takes a mina. But if a female 200, if she gave birth to a female she takes 200. If a male a mina, if a female 200, if she gave birth to a male and a female, the male takes a mina and the female 200. If she gave birth to a sexless child, he does not take anything. If he said, any that my wife shall give birth to shall take, and if there is no heir but him, he inherits everything.

MISHNAH: If the house collapsed on him and his father, or on him and his heirs, or on him and one from whom he inherits, and a woman’s ketubah and documents of indebtedness were on him. The father’s heirs say that the son died first and then the father; the holders of the debt say that the father died first and then the son. The House of Shammai say that they shall split; the House of Hillel say the properties are in the possession of their holders. If the house collapsed on him and his wife; the father’s heirs say that the wife died first and then the husband. The wife’s heirs say that the man died first and then the wife. The House of Shammai say that they shall split; the House of Hillel say the properties are in the possession of their holders, the ketubah is in the hands of the husband’s heirs; properties that enter and leave with her are in the hands of her father’s heirs. If the house collapsed on him and his wife; the father’s heirs say that the wife died first and then the husband. The wife’s heirs say that the man died first and then the wife. The House of Shammai say that they shall split; the House of Hillel say the properties are in the possession of their holders, the ketubah is in the hands of the husband’s heirs; properties that enter and leave with her are in the hands of her father’s heirs.

He who has a preponderance of merit inherits paradise. He who has a preponderance of sins inherits hell. What if he is in equilibrium? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it does not say “He lifts sins” but rather He lifts sin. The Holy One, praise to Him, removes one document from the sins and the merits tilt. Rebbi Eleazar said, kindness is Yours, o Master, because You repay everyone according to his deeds, and if he has none, You give him from Yours. This is the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, because Rebbi Eleazar said, and much kindness, He turns towards kindness.

He who has a preponderance of merit inherits paradise. He who has a preponderance of sins inherits hell. What if he is in equilibrium? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it does not say “He lifts sins” but rather He lifts sin. The Holy One, praise to Him, removes one document from the sins and the merits tilt. Rebbi Eleazar said, kindness is Yours, o Master, because You repay everyone according to his deeds, and if he has none, You give him from Yours. This is the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, because Rebbi Eleazar said, and much kindness, He turns towards kindness.