[a - 44 lines; b - 29 lines]
1)[line 1]"וְכָל-בַּת יֹרֶשֶׁת נַחֲלָה [מִמַּטּוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְאֶחָד מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת מַטֵּה אָבִיהָ תִּהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה ...]""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 [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).
(f)Our Gemara infers from this verse that a daughter may receive an inheritance from two different Shevatim. This is implied by the word "Matos", since the minimal plural possible is two.
2)[line 4]קל וחומרKAL VA'CHOMER - An A Fortiori Argument
(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 Kal va'Chomer. This is a logical argument in which proof of a law is shown by means of an already proven stronger law. A Kal va'Chomer can be applied to permit (i.e., something must be permitted since that which is more likely to be forbidden is already permitted) as well as to forbid (i.e., something must be forbidden since that which is more likely to be permitted is already forbidden). Because a Kal va'Chomer is based upon pure logic, one need not have a tradition in order to apply it. In this, a Kal va'Chomer differs from the other thirteen methodologies found in the Beraisa.
3)[line 5]הורע כחה בנכסי האבHURA KOCHAH B'NICHSEI HA'AV- her ability [to inherit] her father's estate is less [than that of her brother]
4)[line 6]אינו דין ...?EINO DIN ...?- is it not a Kal va'Chomer ...? Although "Din" may refer to any of the thirteen methodologies employed by Chazal when determining Halachah from the verses of the Torah (see above, entry #2), it generally refers to a Kal va'Chomer.
5)[line 7]וממקום שבאתUMI'MAKOM SHE'BAS- and [the source for that which a daughter does not inherit her mother when she has a brother is] from whence you came; i.e., it can also be derived from this verse
6)[line 8]להלןL'HALAN- there [in the case of children inheriting their father]
7)[line 11]שויןSHAVIN- are equal [in that they receive equal portions]
8)[line 11]דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדוןDAYO L'BA MIN HA'DIN LIHEYOS KA'NIDON- it is enough for that which is derived from a Kal va'Chomer to be equal to the source from which it is derived
9)[line 14]"וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, 'וְאָבִיהָ יָרֹק יָרַק בְּפָנֶיהָ, הֲלֹא תִכָּלֵם שִׁבְעַת יָמִים? [תִּסָּגֵר שִׁבְעַת יָמִים מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה וְאַחַר תֵּאָסֵף.]""VA'YOMER HASH-M EL MOSHE, 'V'AVIHA YAROK YARAK B'FANEHA, HA'LO SIKALEM SHIV'AS YAMIM? [TISAGER SHIV'AS YAMIM ...]"- "And Hash-m said to Moshe, 'And if her father had shown his displeasure with her, would she not be shamed for seven days? [She should be shut out of the camp for seven days, and afterward be gathered in']" (Bamidbar 12:14). This verse relates the punishment that Hash-m decreed for Miriam after she spoke Lashon ha'Ra against her brother Moshe.
10)[line 15]קל וחומר לשכינה ארבעה עשרKAL VA'CHOMER L'SHECHINAH ARBA'AH ASAR- logic would dictate that [she should remain outside of the camp] when the Presence of Hash-m [was displeased with her] for fourteen days (see Insights)
11)[line 17]בעלמא דריש דיוB'ALMA DARISH DAYO- (the Gemara answers) [the Tana Kama] generally applies [the rule of] "Dayo" [to a Kal va'Chomer] (see above, entry #8)
12)[line 18]מקישMAKISH (HEKESH - A Comparison of Two Subjects Mentioned Together in One Verse or Neighboring Verses)
(a)One of the methods employed by Chazal when determining Halachah from the verses of the Torah is "Hekesh". A Hekesh entails comparing two subjects that are mentioned together in one verse or neighboring verses.
(b)A Hekesh is a powerful way of determining Halachah. When two subjects are compared through a Hekesh, all possible parallels are drawn between them, unless a different Derashah teaches us otherwise ("Ein Hekesh l'Mechetzah"). Additionally, Pirchos (logical differences) that would impede a Kal va'Chomer (see Background to Bava Kama 24:43) or a Gezeirah Shavah (see Background to Bava Kama 40:9a) do not stand in the way of learning one subject from another through a Hekesh ("Ein Meshivin Al ha'Hekesh").
(c)Our Gemara compares the inheritance of a father's estate to the inheritance of a mother's estate, since they are referred to together in the word "Matos".
13)[line 20]סבר למעבד עובדאSAVAR L'ME'AVAD UVDA- figured to rule in a case that occurred
14)[line 22]אפס זכריהAFES ZECHARYA- a) [it is as if the ruling of Rebbi] Zecharyah does not exist; i.e., we do not rule according to his opinion (RASHBAM); b) leave [the ruling of Rebbi] Zecharyah (related to the Greek word "Afesis", to leave; ARUCH)
15)[line 24]מאי האי?MAI HAI?- what is this; i.e., why are you ruling according to the opinion of Rebbi Zecharyah ben ha'Katzav?
16)[line 26]זיל אהדר בך!ZIL AHADAR BACH!- Go and retract [your ruling]!
17)[line 26]מפיקנא לך רב חיננא בר שלמיא מאוניךMAPIKNA LACH RAV CHINENA BAR SHELEMYA ME'UNECH- lit. I will remove Rav Chinena bar Shelemya from your a) ear (RASHI to Chulin 132b); b) strength (Sanhedrin 8a). This means a) I will excommunicate you, and [the ruling of] Rav Chinena bar Shelemya will not be able to help you (RASHBAM, RASHI to Yevamos 60b and Sanhedrin 8a); b) I will refute all of the proofs and arguments of Rav Chinena bar Shelemya (RASHI to Chulin 132b); c) I will force you to pay for [the ruling of] Rav Chinena bar Shelemya from your own pocket (RABEINU GERSHOM)
18)[line 31]אשלח ליה?ASHALACH LEI?- shall I send [a message] to [Rav Huna notifying him that you are ruling according to the opinion of Rebbi Zecharyah ben ha'Katzav in his name]?
19)[line 31]איכסיףICHSIF- [Rav Huna bar Chiya] was embarrassed [since a) Rav Huna may have retracted his opinion or he may not have meant it as a practical ruling (RASHBAM); he had never really heard any such ruling from Rav Huna, but rather claimed such only so that Rav Nachman would accept it] (RABEINU GERSHOM)]
20)[line 32]השתא, כי נח נפשיה דרב הונא איתריסת לקבליHASHTA, KI NACH NAFSHEI D'RAV HUNA, ISRISAS L'KAVLI- now, had Rav Huna died, you would have stubbornly argued with me
21)[line 33]איהו כמאן סברה?IHU K'MAN SAVRAH?- who did [Rav Nachman himself] rule according to?
22)[line 35]מיסתמיך ואזיל רבי ינאיMISTAMICH V'AZIL REBBI YANAI- Rebbi Yanai was being supported while walking [due to that which he was infirm and blind due to old age]
23)[line 35]אכתפא דרבי שמלאי שמעיהA'KASPA D'RAV SAMLA'I SHAM'EI- upon the shoulder of his attendant Rav Samla'i
24)[line 36]אתיASI- came
25)[line 36]ר' יהודה נשיאהREBBI YEHUDAH NESI'AH- Rebbi Yehudah "the Prince", so titled since he was the leader of the Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael. This Amora was the grandson of Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi - otherwise known as Rebbi - who edited the Mishnah.
26)[line 37]לאפייהוL'APAIHU- toward them
27a)[line 37]א"ל, "בר אינש דאתא לקיבלנאAMAR LEI, "BAR INASH D'ASA L'KIVLANA- [Rav Samla'i] said to [Rebbi Yanai], "The person who is coming to greet us
b)[line 37]הוא יאיHU YA'EI- he appears distinguished
c)[line 38]וגולתיה יאי"V'GULSEI YA'EI"- and his cloak is a) of superior appearance; b) of the style that identifies him as a Torah scholar
28)[line 38]כי מטא לגביהKI MATA L'GABEI- when [Rebbi Yehudah] reached [Rebbi Yanai]
29)[line 38]גששהGASHESHAH- [Rebbi Yanai] felt [Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah's cloak]
30)[line 39]דין שיעוריה כשקDEIN SHI'UREI K'SAK (MISHKAV U'MOSHAV - Items that Become Tamei when Sat or Lain Upon)
(a)A Zav, Zavah, Yoledes (see Background to Yoma 55:17), or Nidah (see Background to Pesachim 23:62) cause objects underneath them to become Avos ha'Tum'ah whether or not they come into contact with them. The status of such an object is that of a Tamei Midras (lit. that which is treaded upon), also known as a Mishkav or Moshav ha'Zav/Zavah, or the "Tachton" of a Zav or Zavah. An object beneath a Zav or a Zavah becomes a Midras only if it is designed for lying, sitting, or leaning upon. Earthenware objects (Klei Cheres) cannot receive Tum'as Midras.
(b)Different materials receive Tum'as Midras at different minimum sizes. Each Shi'ur depends upon what amount of the material is comfortable to sit upon. A piece of cloth less than three Tefachim square will not become Tamei if it is sat or lain upon by a Zav, etc. Material woven from goats' hair, known as Sak, requires four square Tefachim, of leather five square Tefachim, and a woven reed mat six square Tefachim.
(c)One who comes into contact with or carries a Midras becomes a Rishon l'Tum'ah. As well, his clothes and any other utensils (other than earthenware utensils) that he is touching receive this level of Tum'ah.
(d)Rebbi Yanai, after feeling the cloak of Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah, commented, "[The material of] this [cloak would receive Tum'ah at] the same [minimum size] as Sak [due to its coarseness and thickness]". The KOS YESHU'OS explains that since Rav Yanai was unable to see, he was unsure whether Rav Samla'i had meant that Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah's cloak was that befitting a Torah scholar or that it was of superior quality. Since he found it to be of inferior quality, he was sure that the person who wore it must be a Talmid Chacham. See the ME'IRI for a different explanation of this seemingly incongruous remark.
31)[line 43]בכור נוטל פי שניםBECHOR NOTEL PI SHENAYIM - The Double Inheritance of a Firstborn Son
(a)A son firstborn to his father, assuming that he was the first viable child born to that father, inherits a double portion of his father's estate (Devarim 21:17; Bechoros 46a). If there are two brothers, the Bechor receives two-thirds of the inheritance; if there are three, then he receives half, with each remaining brother receiving a quarter, and so on.
(b)A Bechor receives a double portion only from those assets in his father's possession at the time of his father's death (Devarim 21:17). Cases in which a Bechor will not receive a double portion include:
1.One of his father's relatives dies after his father, and his father's heirs receive an inheritance through their father's estate;
2.Money is repaid to his father's estate after his father's death, even if the document in which the debt had been transcribed had been in his father's possession at the time of his death;
3.His father's estate bears profits after his father's death due to human intervention, such as a field that produces wheat after it is tilled, planted, watered, etc. A Bechor will, however, receive a double portion of a tree that has grown larger on its own after his father's death (123b-125b).
32a)[line 1]גודGUD- pull [me onward]
b)[line 1]לית דין צבי למילףLEIS DEIN TZAVI L'MEILAF- this one [clearly] does not [truly] wish to learn [but rather to bother me with easily answered questions]
33)[line 2]"[כִּי אֶת-הַבְּכֹר בֶּן-הַשְּׂנוּאָה יַכִּיר, לָתֶת לוֹ פִּי שְׁנַיִם] בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר-יִמָּצֵא לוֹ, [כִּי-הוּא רֵאשִׁית אֹנוֹ, לוֹ מִשְׁפַּט הַבְּכֹרָה.]""[KI ES HA'BECHOR BEN HA'SENU'AH YAKIR, LASES LO PI SHENAYIM] B'CHOL ASHER YIMATZEI LO, [KI HU REISHIS ONO, LO MISHPAT HA'BECHORAH.]"- "[For he must recognize the firstborn son of the less favored wife by giving him a double inheritance in all that is found in his possession [at the time of his death, for he is beginning of his strength; his is the right of the firstborn]" (Devarim 21:17). This verse describes that which a firstborn receives a double inheritance (see above, entry #31). The verse makes it clear that it is not up to the father to determine who is to be considered the firstborn; it s an title that is automatically granted.
34)[line 3]בחור שנשא אלמנהBACHUR SHE'NASA ALMANAH- (in this context) a man who has no children from a previous marriage who married a woman who has had children from a previous marriage [in which case their firstborn child is a Bechor of his father but not of his mother]
35)[line 4]בתולהBESULAH- (in this context) a woman who has no children from a previous marriage
36)[line 5]"... ראשית אונו ...""... REISHIS ONO ..."- see above, entry #33
37)[line 6]בא אחר נפליםBA ACHAR NEFALIM- [a son] who is born after stillborn [siblings, who is not considered a Bechor for the purposes of Pidyon ha'Ben (see Background to Shekalim 6:26)]
38)[line 7]מי שלבו דווה עליוMI SHE'LIBO DAVEH ALAV- [a son] for whom one's heart worries [for his wellbeing]
39)[line 8]יצא זהYATZA ZEH- which excludes this [stillborn fetus]
40)[line 10]תרתיTARTEI- two [teachings; firstly, that a stillborn is not considered a Bechor, and secondly, that only the firstborn of a father and not that of a mother receives a double inheritance]
41)[line 10]אלמוןALMON SHE'NASA BESULAH- (in this context) a man who has had children from a previous marriage who married a woman who has no children from a previous marriage [in which case their firstborn child is a Bechor of his mother but not of his father]. Our Gemara at this point suggests that the reason why a firstborn to his mother but not to his father will not receive a double share of his mother's inheritance is that he is not also a firstborn to his father.
42)[line 12]שקילSHAKIL - he will take [a double share, not only in his father's estate, but in that of his mother as well]
*43*) [line 12] "... לו משפט הבכורה ..." "... LO MISHPAT HA'BECHORAH ..." - see above, entry #33 Although in the simple meaning of the verse the word "Lo" refers to the son and not the deceased father, Rava suggests that it be understood to be referring to the father. It is not possible to suggest that these words refer to a specific case, since "Mishpat ha'Bechorah" imply that all* Halachos applicable to the double inheritance of a firstborn apply only to the estate of his father.
44) [line 15] מנהני מילי? MINAHANEI MILEI? - from where do we know these things (namely; that a husband inherits his wife, and a wife does not inherit her husband)?
45)[line 15]"[וְאִם-אֵין אַחִים לְאָבִיו, וּנְתַתֶּם אֶת-נַחֲלָתוֹ לִ]שְׁאֵרוֹ [הַקָּרֹב אֵלָיו מִמִּשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ וְיָרַשׁ אֹתָהּ ...""[V'IM EIN ACHIM L'AVIV, U'NSATEM ES NACHALASO LI']SHE'ERO [HA'KAROV EILAV MI'MISHPACHTO, V'YARASH OSAH ...]"- "[And if his father has no brothers, then you should give his estate to] his relative [who is closest to him from his family, and he shall inherit it ...]" (Bamidbar 27:11). Our Gemara explains that "his relative' refers to his wife. The verse then seems to imply that one's wife inherits him, and not the other around. The Gemara will soon explain how just the opposite is derived.
46)[line 15]זו אשתוZO ISHTO- this refers to his wife. A wife is described as "Basar Echad" - "one flesh" - with her husband (Bereishis 2:24), which implies that she is a very close relative of her husband. Furthermore, the word "She'erah" is used in the description of a husband's duties toward his wife (Shemos 21:10) (RASHBAM to 109b DH She'ero).
47)[line 17]"... וירש אותה ...""... V'YARASH OSAH ..."- see above, entry #46
48)[line 18]והא קראי לאו הכי כתיב!יV'HA KERA'EI LAV HACHI KESIVEI!- but the verses (Bamidbar 27:8-11) are not written thusly [but rather imply that a wife should inherit her husband]! Although it may be possible to suggest that a husband inherit his wife as well, how is it possible to read the verse in such a way that it only means the opposite of what it appears to say?
49)[line 19]"ונתתם את נחלתו ל[ה]קרוב אליו; שארו -- וירש אותה ...""U'NESATEM ES NACHALSO LE[HA]'KAROV ELAV; SHE'EIRO- V'YARASH OSAH ..." - "... you should give his estate to he who is closest to him; his wife - he shall inherit her ..."
50)[line 21]סכינא חריפא מפסקא קראי?SAKINA CHARIFA MAFSEKA KERA'EI?- is a sharp knife cutting up the verses? i.e., how can you rearrange the order of the words in the verse in order to derive this teaching?
51)[line 22]גורעין ומוסיפין ודורשיןGOR'IN U'MOSIFIN V'DORSHIN - Subtracting, Adding, and Deriving
(a)When deriving Halachos from verses, the principle of "Gor'in u'Mosifin v'Dorshin" is sometimes applied. This means that we subtract (Gor'in) a letter written as part of one word, add it (Mosifin) to a different word or to a letter subtracted from a different word to form a new word, and then derive (Dorshin) the teaching from the new implications of the verse.
(b)Rava suggests that this principle is applied in our case to subtract the letter "Vav" from the end of the word "Nachalaso" and the letter "Lamed" from the beginning of the word "li'She'ero" and combine them to form the new word "Lo". The verse then teaches that we should give "the estate of his wife to him".
(c)It is difficult to understand why the method of derivation suggested Rava is superior to that utilized by Abaye. The RASHBAM suggests two ways to understand this. The first is that Rava does not actually suggest that the verse be broken up, only that it be read as if it is. it is actually read as, "... and you should give him the inheritance that is rightfully his; it is to his wife [that these instructions are directed] ...". Such an explanation cannot be offered for Abaye since his reading of the verse is somewhat unclear even after his suggested manner of rearranging it. The other suggestion of the Rashbam is that it is better to subtract individual letters and arrange them into a new word than to rearrange already existing words.
52)[line 25]הסבת הבעלHESEBAS HA'BA'AL- the transferal [of an estate from one Shevet to another via] a husband [who inherits his wife's property that had belonged to her father].
53)[line 25]"וְלֹא-תִסֹּב נַחֲלָה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמַּטֶּה אֶל-מַטֶּה, [כִּי אִישׁ בְּנַחֲלַת מַטֵּה אֲבֹתָיו יִדְבְּקוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.]""V'LO SISOV NACHALAH LI'VNEI YISRAEL MI'MATEH EL MATEH ..."- "And an inheritance belonging to Bnei Yisrael shall not be transferred from on tribe to another, [but rather each man in Bnei Yisrael shall stick with the inheritance of the tribe of his father]" (Bamidbar 36:7).
54)[line 26]"וְלֹא-תִסֹּב נַחֲלָה מִמַּטֶּה לְמַטֶּה אַחֵר, [כִּי-אִישׁ בְּנַחֲלָתוֹ יִדְבְּקוּ מַטּוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.]""V'LO SISOV NACHALAH MI'MATEH L'MATEI ACHER ..."- "And an inheritance shall not be transferred from on tribe to a different tribe, [but rather each man of the tribes of Bnei Yisrael shall stick with his inheritance]" (Bamidbar 36:9).
55)[line 27]"וְאֶלְעָזָר בֶּן-אַהֲרֹן מֵת, וַיִּקְבְּרוּ אֹתוֹ בְּגִבְעַת פִּינְחָס בְּנוֹ [אֲשֶׁר נִתַּן-לוֹ בְּהַר אֶפְרָיִם.]""V'ELAZAR BEN AHARON MES, VA'YIKBERU OSO B'GIV'AS PINCHAS BENO [ASHER NITAN LO B'HAR EFRAYIM.]"- "And Elazar son of Aharon died, and they buried him in the hill of his son Pinchas [that had been given to him on Mount Efrayim]" (Yehoshua 24:33).
56)[last line]"וּשְׂגוּב, הוֹלִיד אֶת-יָאִיר, וַיְהִי-לוֹ עֶשְׂרִים וְשָׁלוֹשׁ עָרִים בְּאֶרֶץ הַגִּלְעָד.""U'SEGUV HOLID ES YA'IR, VA'YEHI LO ESRIM V'SHALOSH ARIM B'ERETZ HA'GIL'AD ..."- "And Seguv bore Ya'ir, who had twenty-three cities in the land of Gil'ad ..." (Divrei ha'Yamim I 2:22). It is clear from the previous verse, which mentions Seguv but does not mention these twenty-three cities, that Seguv never owned them. Furthermore, in the succeeding verse, the cities are referred to as "Chavos Ya'ir".