[a - 31 lines; b - 31 lines]
1)[line 1]אי אבוה דאמיה מיוסף, אמה דאמיה מיתרו ...IY AVUHA D'IMEI MI'YOSEF, IMEI D'IMEI MI'YISRO ...- if his mother's father was [a descendant] of Yosef, then his mother's mother was [a descendant] of Yisro ... (see Insights)
2)[line 3]דיקא נמיDEIKA NAMI- [not only is this explanation logical, but] it can be inferred [from the verse] as well
3)[line 3]תרתיTARTEI- [the words "mi'Bnos Putiel" imply that the wife of Elazar was descended from] two [who can both be referred to as "Puti'el" since a) the word "Puti'el" is contains a "Yud" and is not written as "Put'el" (first explanation of the RASHBAM); b) she is described as "from the daughters of Puti'el", in the plural, instead of "the daughter of Puti'el" (second, preferred explanation of the RASHBAM)]
4)[line 6]נחשוןNACHSHON- Nachshon ben Aminadav was the Nasi (prince) of Shevet Yehudah in the Sinai desert. It was in his merit that the waters of the Red Sea split, as he was the first to trust in Hash-m fully enough to enter the Yam Suf. The waters split when they reached his nostrils.
5)[line 6]ממשמע שנאמרMI'MASHMA SHE'NE'EMAR- from the implication of what is written
6)[line 10]"[הֵמָּה עִם-בֵּית מִיכָה וְהֵמָּה הִכִּירוּ אֶת-קוֹל הַנַּעַר הַלֵּוִי;] וַיָּסוּרוּ שָׁם וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ, 'מִי-הֱבִיאֲךָ הֲלֹם, וּמָה-אַתָּה עֹשֶׂה בָּזֶה, וּמַה-לְּךָ פֹה?""[HEMAH IM BEIS MICHAH V'HEMAH HIKIRU ES KOL HA'NA'AR HA'LEVI;] VA'YASURU (SHAMAH VA'YOMER) [SHAM VA'YOMRU LO,] 'MI HEVI'ACHA HALOM, U'MAH ATAH OSEH BA'ZEH, U'MAH LECHA FOH?'"- "[They were near the house of Michah and they recognized the voice of the Levite youth;] and they went there and said to him, 'Who brought you here, and what are you doing with this, and what is there for you here?'" (Shoftim 18:3). This verse refers to spies sent from the Shevet of Dan prior to their conquest of the city of Layish (see Background to 109:22).
7)[line 12]לאו ממשה קא אתית?LAV MI'MOSHE KA ASIS?- are you not descended from Moshe Rabeinu?
8)[line 13]"[וַיֹּאמֶר,] 'אַל-תִּקְרַב הֲלֹם; [שַׁל-נְעָלֶיךָ מֵעַל רַגְלֶיךָ, כִּי הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה עוֹמֵד עָלָיו אַדְמַת-קֹדֶשׁ הוּא.]""[VA'YOMER,] 'AL TIKRAV HALOM; [SHAL NE'ALECHA ME'AL RAGLECHA, KI HA'MAKOM ASHER ATAH OMED ALAV ADMAS KODESH HU.']"- "[And He said,] 'Do not come close to here; [remove your shoes from your feet, for the ground upon which you stand is consecrated ground']" (Shemos 3:5). These words were spoken to Moshe by Hash-m from the burning bush. Our Gemara explains that it was this incident - in which Moshe proved himself to be worthy of Divine Revelation - that the spies from Dan referred to when they used the word "Halom".
9)[line 14]"[וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו ה',] 'מזה (מַה-זֶּה) בְיָדֶךָ?' [וַיֹּאמֶר, 'מַטֶּה.']""[VA'YOMER ELAV HASH-M,] 'MAH ZEH V'YADECHA?' [VA'YOMER, 'MATEH.']"- "[And Hash-m said to him,] 'What is this in you hand?' [And he answered, 'A staff']" (Shemos 4:2). This, too, is part of a dialog from the incident of the burning bush. After Moshe asked for a sign through which he would be able to prove that he was indeed sent by Hash-m, Hash-m instructed him to throw his staff to the ground, upon which it would turn into a serpent. It was to this that the spies from Dan referred to when they used the word "ba'Zeh".
10)[line 15]"וְאַתָּה פֹּה עֲמֹד עִמָּדִי [וַאֲדַבְּרָה אֵלֶיךָ אֵת כָּל-הַמִּצְוָה וְהַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר תְּלַמְּדֵם ...]""V'ATAH POH AMOD IMADI [VA'ADABRA ELECHA ES KOL HA'MITZVAH VEHA'CHUKIM VEHA'MISHPATIM ASHER TELAMDEM ...]"- "And you should stand here with Me [and I shall impart to you all of the commandments, statutes, and laws that you are to teach them ...]" (Devarim 5:28). After Klal Yisrael received the Torah at Har Sinai, Hash-m instructed Moshe to send them back to their tents. Moshe himself, however, was instructed to remain behind with Hash-m. It was to this that the spies from Dan referred to when they used the word "Poh".
11)[line 16]כך מקובלני מבית אבי אבאKACH MEKUBLANI MI'BEIS AVI ABA- I have the following tradition from my father's father's house (i.e., that of Moshe Rabeinu)
12)[line 17]ואל יצטרך לבריותV'AL YITZTARECH LA'BERIYOS- rather than depend upon others [for his sustenance]
13)[line 19]עבודה שזרה לוAVODAH SHE'ZARAH LO- lit. work that is foreign to him; i.e., that which is beneath his station in life
14a)[line 20](נטוש) [נשוט] נבילתא בשוקא(NETOSH) [NESHOT] NEVEILTA B'SHUKA- [better that you] skin a[n animal] carcass in the marketplace (The Girsa change follows that opinion of the MAHARSHA; see TOSFOS DH Neshot])
b)[line 20]ושקול אגראU'SHEKOL AGRA- and receive an [honest] wage
c)[line 21]ולא תימא, "גברא רבא אנא וזילא בי מילתא"V'LO TEIMA, "GAVRA RABAH ANA V'ZILA BI MILSA"- rather than say, "I am a great man and it is beneath my dignity" (see Insights)
15)[line 22]ממון חביב עליו ביותרMAMON CHAVIV ALAV B'YOSER- lit. money was especially beloved to him; i.e., he had a strong desire to amass wealth. This was apparent from the way in which he misunderstood the teaching of his grandfather Moshe Rabeinu (LEV AHARON).
16)[line 23]מינהו על האוצרותMINAHU AL HA'OTZAROS- he appointed him to be in charge of the [royal] treasuries (which was apparently a lucrative position)
17)[line 23]"וּשְׁבֻאֵל בֶּן-גֵּרְשׁוֹם בֶּן-מֹשֶׁה נָגִיד עַל-הָאֹצָרוֹת.""U'SHEVU'EL BEN GERSHOM BEN (MENASHEH) [MOSHE] NAGID AL HA'OTZAROS."- "And Shevu'el son of Gershom son of Moshe was the officer of the treasuries" (Divrei ha'Yamim I 26:24). See TOSFOS DH u'Shevu'el for an explanation of why our Gemara cited this verse with the word "Menasheh" instead of "Moshe" as it appears in Divrei ha'Yamim.
18)[line 26]שב לאל בכל לבוSHAV LA'KEL B'CHOL LIBO- he wholeheartedly returned to [the service of] Hash-m. When Shlomo ha'Melech succeeded his father as king, he replaced Yehonasan ben Gershom along with all of the other royal officers. At that point, Yehonasan returned to his previous position as priest of Pesel Michah (see Background to 109:22:c and 27). He did, however, merit a life measured by centuries due to that which he was stingy with the Pesel. Since he did not believe in it, he would convince those who sought to seek its favor with offerings of large animals to instead give a small donation of flour and eggs. These he would later eat himself (YERUSHALAMI to Berachos 64b, cited by the RASHBAM).
19)[line 27]מנלן?MINALAN?- from where do we know [that a daughter receives no part of her father's estate when she has a brother]?
20)[line 30]אי איכא בן, לירות בןIY IKA BEN, LEIROS BEN- if there is a son, then the son should inherit [his father's entire estate]
21)[line 1]אטו בר קשא דמתא לירות?ATU BAR KASHA D'MASA LEIROS?- Should the a) governor of the town (RASHBAM here); b) town sentinel (RASHBAM to Pesachim 111b) then inherit?
22)[line 4]ואצטריך קרא לאשמועינן היכא דלית ליה אלא חד ברא, לירתינהו לכולהו נכסי?V'ITZTERICH KRA L'ASHMO'INAN HEICHA D'LEIS LEI ELA CHAD BRA, LIRSINHU L'CHULHU NICHSEI?- do we require a verse to inform us that when there is but one son, he should inherit the entire estate? This answer of Abaye is meant to be understood as follows. Unless the Torah teaches otherwise, we would assume that a daughter has the same rights to inherit her father that a son does. Therefore, assuming that this is indeed the Halachah, there is no difference between a son and a daughter. Why, then, would the verse need to specify that when the deceased did not leave behind a son, then his daughter should inherit him? This is an unnecessary as teaching that if one son is no longer alive, then the inheritance should be given to the next son! The verse therefore should have simply stated that one's inheritance should be given to his children after he dies. From that which the verse discusses a son and a daughter separately, we see that the daughter receives the inheritance only when there is no son.
23)[line 6]דבת נמי בת ירושה היאD'VAS NAMI BAS YERUSHAH HI- a) that a daughter receives [the entire] inheritance even [when she has no brother to inherit with her; we would have otherwise assumed that she receives half of the inheritance when she has a brother but none of it when she has no brother] (first explanation cited by the RASHBAM in the name of "all of his teachers"); b) that a daughter also receives [her father's] inheritance [whatsoever; we would have otherwise assumed that she never receives her father's inheritance since she may then pass it on to a different Shevet] (second, preferred explanation of the RASHBAM)
24)[line 7]"וְכָל-בַּת יֹרֶשֶׁת נַחֲלָה [מִמַּטּוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְאֶחָד מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת מַטֵּה אָבִיהָ תִּהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה, לְמַעַן יִירְשׁוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ נַחֲלַת אֲבֹתָיו.]""V'CHOL BAS YORESHES NACHALAH [MI'MATOS BNEI YISRAEL, L'ECHAD MI'MISHPACHAS MATEI AVIHA TIHEYEH L'ISHAH, LEMA'AN YIRSHU BNEI YISRAEL ISH NACHALAS AVOSAV.]" (BNOS TZELAFCHAD - The Daughters of Tzelafchad)
(a)Hash-m instructed Moshe Rabeinu to divide the portion allotted to each Shevet in Eretz Yisrael into individual portions, such that every individual within the Shevet received an equal lot (Bamidbar 26:52-56). Tana'im disagree as to the exact method of allocation (117a-b).
(b)Tzelafchad son of Chefer of Shevet Menasheh had perished in the desert. He had died in the desert as a result of a sin that he had committed (Bamidbar 27:3). Tana'im disagree as to what sin this was. Rebbi Akiva explains that Tzelafchad was the Mekoshesh Etzim - the Jew who profaned Shabbos by gathered kindling on the holy day. The Mekoshesh Etzim received the death penalty of Sekilah (stoning; see Background to 10:29:b) (Bamidbar 15:32-36). Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira maintains that Tzelafchad was among those who resolved to conquer Eretz Yisrael on their own, even after Moshe informed them that they were destined to die in the desert over the next forty years due to the sin of the Meraglim (spies). Moshe clearly warned them that Hash-m would not support their endeavor; they ignored this warning, and were as a result massacred by the Amalekim and the Kena'anim (Bamidbar 14:40-45) (Shabbos 96b-97a).
(c)At the time of his death, Tzelafchad had no sons. He had, however, five daughters: Machlah, Tirtzah, Chaglah, Milkah, and No'ah. His daughters came to Moshe Rabeinu with a grievance. Why should their father receive no inheritance simply because he had had no sons? It made sense for themselves, his daughters, to receive their father's inheritance in this situation! Moshe Rabeinu appealed to Hash-m, and He responded by teaching the proper order of inheritance. Hash-m agreed with the Bnos Tzelafchad that a daughter who has no brothers receives her father's estate as her inheritance (Bamidbar 27:1-11; see 119b and Background to 108:5).
(d)Subsequently, the representatives of the Shevet of Menasheh came to Moshe Rabeinu with a grievance of their own. Since the husband and sons of Bnos Tzelafchad would inherit them when they were to pass on, if they were to marry out of the Shevet this would remove their inheritance from Shevet Menasheh. Considering that Bnos Tzelafchad received an inheritance that was larger than usual (see Mishnah 116b and following Gemara), this was an especial cause for concern. Again, Moshe Rabeinu appealed to Hash-m. Hash-m agreed with Shevet Menasheh as well: "And every daughter [from the tribes of Bnei Yisrael] who is in line to inherit [her father's estate should get married to a member of the tribe of her father, such that Bnei Yisrael inherit the estates of their fathers]" (Bamidbar 36:8).
(e)This Mitzvah applied to that generation only, however. All daughters in line to receive their father's inheritance in subsequent generations are permitted to marry whomever they please (120a).
25)[line 8]נפקאNAFKA- lit. comes out; i.e., is derived
26)[line 8]מהכאME'HACHA- [that which a daughter does not inherit when she has a brother may be derived] from here (i.e., the following source)
27)[line 8]"לָמָּה יִגָּרַע שֵׁם-אָבִינוּ מִתּוֹךְ מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ כִּי אֵין לוֹ בֵּן? [תְּנָה-לָּנוּ אֲחֻזָּה בְּתוֹךְ אֲחֵי אָבִינוּ.]""LAMAH YIGARA SHEM AVINU MI'TOCH MISHPACHTO KI EIN LO BEN? [TENAH LANU ACHUZAH B'SOCH ACHEI AVINU.]"- "Why should the name of our father be lost from among his family [simply] because he has no son? [Give us an inheritance among our father's brothers]" (Bamidbar 26:4). This verse details the grievance of the Bnos Tzelafchad (see above, entry #24)
28)[line 12]ניתנה תורה ונתחדשה הלכהNITNAH TORAH V'NISCHADSHAH HALACHAH- [but] the Torah was [then] given and the law was renewed [in such a fashion that a son and a daughter equally inherit their father's estate]
29)[line 13]מחוורתא כדשנין מעיקראMECHAVARTA KED'SHANYAN ME'IKARA- it is clear [that the correct answer is] as we answered originally (namely, that it is implied by Bamidbar 27:8 as Abaye explained to Rav Papa)
30)[line 16]בת לאו בת יעדה היאBAS LAV BAS YE'ADAH HI- a daughter lacks the ability to perform Yi'ud [since a woman is unable to marry another woman, and as such that which she cannot marry her father's Amah Ivriyah whereas her brother can does not imply that her brother is more closely related to their father than she is]
31)[line 20]"וְהִתְנַחַלְתֶּם אֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם אַחֲרֵיכֶם [לָרֶשֶׁת אֲחֻזָּה, לְעֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבֹדוּ ...]""V'HISNACHALTEM OSAM LI'VENEICHEM ACHAREICHEM [LA'RESHES ACHUZAH, L'OLAM BA'HEM TA'AVODU ...]"- "And you shall bequeath them to your sons after you [for them to inherit as a holding; you shall work them forever ...]" (Vayikra 25:46). This verse refers to Nochri slaves.
32)[line 18]כלום יש יבום אלא במקום שאין בןKLUM YESH YIBUM ELA B'MAKOM SHE'EIN BEN?- is Yibum not applicable only when there is no son [of the deceased]? See Background to 108:23. Our Gemara explains that based upon this reasoning, a daughter should reinstate her father's Sedei Achuzah. Although this is not so, this is because the Gemara in Erchin (25b) derives it from that which a daughter does not inherit her father when he left a son. The Gemara in Erchin cannot therefore be a source for our Halachah, since this would entail circular reasoning (see also TOSFOS DH u'Sedei).
33)[line 23]ברכה שאניBERACHAH SHAINI- a blessing is different [since a blessing that applies to one's sons and not one's daughters would not be viewed as a blessing; therefore, in context it is clear that "Beneichem" must refer to all of one's children]
34)[line 24]אתיא "אחוה" "אחוה" מבני יעקבASYA "ACHAVAH" "ACHAVAH" MI'BNEI YAAKOV (GEZEIRAH SHAVAH - A Derivation Equating Two Subjects Utilizing a Common Word or Phrase)
(a)In a Beraisa found in the introduction to the Sifra (the Halachic Midrash on Vayikra), Rebbi Yishmael lists the thirteen methodologies employed by Chazal when determining Halachah from the verses of the Torah. One of these is Gezeirah Shavah, in which two identical words (or two words that share the same root) that appear in two different sections of the Torah reveal that the Halachos applicable to one section apply to the other and vice versa.
(b)One may apply a Gezeirah Shavah only if he has received a tradition from his teachers that such a connection between the two words exists. Once the connection is established, however, then one may derive Halachos that were not specified in the tradition.
(c)A Gezeirah Shavah is unlimited; one may not pick and choose which Halachos he would like to apply. This facet of a Gezeirah Shavah is termed "Ein Gezeirah Shavah l'Mechetzah". This rule is waived in the case of an explicit teaching that precludes the application of a specific Halachah.
(d)There are three possible configurations of a Gezeirah Shavah:
1.MUFNEH MI'SHNEI TZEDADIM - If both words are seemingly unnecessary and are not used in the derivation of any other teaching, then all of the rules described above apply.
2.MUFNEH MI'TZAD ECHAD - If the word in only one of the sections is available, some maintain that Halachos may be derived from such a Gezeirah Shavah only if there is no argument against comparing the two sections. This status is known as "Lemedin u'Meshivin". Others rule that such a Gezeirah Shavah is no more limited than one that is Mufneh mi'Shnei Tzedadim.
3.EINO MUFNEH KOL IKAR - If neither word is free, then those who maintain that a Gezeirah Shavah that is Mufneh mi'Tzad Echad is unlimited grant such a Gezeirah Shavah the status of Lemedin u'Meshivin. Those who applied the status of Lemedin u'Meshivin to a Gezeirah Shavah that is Mufneh mi'Shnei Tzedadim rule that this one may not be used to determine any Halachos whatsoever.
(e)In our Gemara, Rava explains that the Rabanan have a tradition that a Gezeirah Shavah connects the subject of inheritance to that of the sons of Yakov Avinu. The sons of Yakov Avinu told Yosef, whom they then understood to be the Egyptian ruler Tzofnas Pane'ach, that "... we are your servants, twelve brothers the sons of one man ..." (Bereishis 42:13). Regarding inheritance, the verse states, "And if he has no daughter, then give his inheritance to his brothers". Just as the word "brothers" in the first verse did not all share the same mother, so too regarding inheritance two men are considered brothers only when they share at least a common father.
(f)The RASHBAM explains that the words "the sons of one man" are seemingly extraneous. He presumably mentions this so in order to explain how that side of the Gezeirah Shavah is Mufneh. RASHI (to Yevamos 17b) makes no mention of this availability.
35)[line 30]לענין יבום איתמרL'INYAN YIBUM ITMAR- it was stated with regard to Yibum [to explain the source for that which only brothers of a common father are commanded to perform Yibum with each other's wives (see Background to 108:22)]
36)[last line]מנא הני מילי?MINA HANEI MILEI?- from where do we know these things (namely; that children inherit their mother, and furthermore, that a daughter inherits her mother only when her mother did not leave a son)?