[112a - 29 lines; 112b - 11 lines]
1)[line 2]מאי "ואומר"...?MAI "V'OMER..."?- what [is the need for all of the times that Rebbi Yishmael offers] "and it says..."?
2)[line 3]בסבת הבן קא קפיד קראB'SIBAS HA'BEN KA KAPID KRA- the verse [that commands a woman who is in line to inherit her parents to marry only a husband of her father's Shevet (Bamidbar 36:8)] is insistent due to [the possibility that] her son will [inherit her and thereby] transfer [her inheritance out of her father's Shevet]
3)[line 4]יריתYARIS- inherit (Aramaic equivalent of "Yoresh")
4)[line 5]לעבור עליו בלאו ועשהLA'AVOR ALAV B'LAV V'ASEH- [the second verse cited by Rebbi Yishmael is also concerned with transferal via a son, and the reason why an additional verse is written is to cause a woman who marries out of her father's Shevet] to transgress both a prohibition (which is more severe and punishable by Malkus (lashes); see Background to Yevamos 64:69) as well as a positive commandment
5)[line 8]תא שמע, "ואלעזר בן אהרן מת וגו'"TA SHEMA, "V'ELAZAR BEN AHARON MES..."- Although we cannot derive a new teaching from a verse in the Prophets that is not taught in the Torah, Rebbi Yishmael attempts to prove from this verse that at least one of the verses in the Torah must be concerned with the inheritance of a husband.
6)[line 9]דנסיב איתתאNASIV ITESA- married a woman
7)[line 11]הכי הואHACHI HU- is a similar case (namely, that Ya'ir inherited the twenty-three cities from his mother rather than from his wife)
8)[line 11]תרי קראי למה לי?TREI KERA'EI LAMAH LI?- why do I require two verses [outside of the five books of the Torah (TOSFOS DH Im) to convey the same teaching]?
9)[line 13]וקראיKERA'EI- the [three] verses [cited by Rebbi Yishmael from the Torah]
10)[line 14]כדשנינןKED'SHANINAN- as we answered [earlier]
11)[line 14](דזבין) [דזבן] מיזבן(ZAVIN) [ZAVAN] MIZBAN- he bought [the twenty-three cities, and did not inherit them from either his wife or his mother]
12)[line 15]לא מצית אמרתLO MATZIS AMRAT- you cannot suggest
13)[line 16]שדה חוזרת ביובלSADEH CHOZERES BA'YOVEL (YOVEL - The Jubilee Year)
(a)One must desist from working the land every seventh year (Vayikra 25:1-7); this year is termed Shemitah or Shevi'is. Produce which grows during the seventh (Shevi'is) year is holy, which in this context means:
1.It is considered ownerless; anyone may enter a field and pick that which he wishes to eat.
2.It may not be bought and sold in a normal fashion (see Insights to Sukah 40:1).
3.It may be consumed only in the manner considered normal for that type of food, or burned to provide illumination in the case of oil. It may not be wasted, used for medicinal purposes, fed to animals, etc.
(b)The Yovel year follows every seven Shemitah cycles. The Chachamim understand that this fiftieth year stands alone and that the new Shemitah cycle begins the following year, whereas Rebbi Yehudah maintains that the Yovel year is the first year of the next seven-year Shemitah cycle as well. The Yovel year is observed only when most of all of the Shevatim live in Eretz Yisrael (Erchin 32b).
(c)All Halachos applicable to Shemitah produce apply also to that which grows during Yovel. Additionally, toward the beginning of the Yovel year, all Eved Ivrim (Jewish slaves; see Background to Yevamos 104:9) are set free, and all properties sold in Eretz Yisrael since the previous Yovel return to the families to whom they belong as a Sedei Achuzah (permanent inheritance; see Background to 108:21). On Yom ha'Kipurim of a Yovel year, Beis Din blows a Shofar to signal that all slaves are to be set free (Vayikra 25:8-24).
(d)Since a purchased field returns to its true owners at Yovel, it is certain that Pinchas would not have buried his father in such a field. This is because one is presumed to prefer to have his family members buried in a communal plot that remains in the family (see, for example, 100b line 8).
14)[line 18]משדה חרמיםSEDEI CHARAMIM - Types of Fields Sanctified as a "Cherem"
(a)A Cherem is a type of pledge. If one declares that an object should be a "Cherem," then it is consecrated. There are two categories of Charamim:
1.Chermei Kohanim, in which one specifies that the object designated as a Cherem is to go to the Kohanim. Such items are the personal property of the Kohen and one does not have the right to redeem them (see Bamidbar 18:14);
2.Chermei Gavo'ah, in which one specifies that the object designated as a Cherem is to belong to Bedek ha'Bayis (the monetary fund of Hekdesh, used for the upkeep of the Beis ha'Mikdash and Yerushalayim). Such objects are redeemable, similar to any other sanctified object (Vayikra 27:28).
(b)Tana'im disagree as to whether an object that was designated simply as a "Cherem" belongs to the Kohanim or to Bedek ha'Bayis (Mishnah, Erchin 28b).
(c)In our Gemara, Rav Papa suggests that Pinchas may have acquired a field through its designation as a Sedei Cherem for Kohanim. Alternatively, "Sedei Charamim" may refer to a Sedei Achuzah that was sanctified by its owner and then redeemed by another (see Background to 108:21). Such a field is divided amongst the Kohanim at the following Yovel year, and is referred to as a being similar to a Sedei ha'Cherem (Vayikra 27:21). See also Insights.
15)[line 19]סוף סוף, הא קא מתעקרא נחלה משבטא דאימא לשבטא דאבא!SOF SOF, HA KA MIS'AKRA NACHALAH MI'SHIVTA D'IMA L'SHIVTA D'ABA!- Ultimately, the inheritance [of the mother received by her daughter] is transferred from the mother's tribe to the father's tribe! (a) This point of Abaye begins a new discussion, unrelated to the previous Gemara. Rav Papa's questions on the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael remained unanswered. Abaye is unsure of how to understand the verse that insists that no inheritance be transferred out of the Shevet to whom it currently belongs ("Lo Sisov"; Bamidbar 36:7 and 9). Earlier on this Amud we inferred that the woman in question inherited land from both her father, who belonged to one Shevet, and her mother, who belonged to another. Since this is true, what will it help if she is careful to marry a husband belonging to her father's Shevet? Ultimately, the land that she received from her mother will belong to the Shevet of her father! (RASHBAM); (b) According to the Girsa of TOSFOS (DH Eima, beginning from "v'Nir'eh l'Ri; this Girsa is also mentioned and rejected by the Rashbam), Abaye is responding to the question of Rav Papa on the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael. If, as Rav Papa suggests, a husband does not inherit his wife, then how are we to understand the verse that insists that no inheritance be transferred out of the Shevet to whom it currently belongs ("Lo Sisov"; Bamidbar 36:7 and 9)? Ultimately, the land that she received from her mother will belong to the Shevet of her father, since her son will belong to his father's Shevet! If, however, the verse is concerned with the land being transferred to her husband, then it is possible to understand the verse, as the Gemara will soon make clear (TOSFOS DH Eima).
16)[line 20]וממאי? ודלמא שאני התם שכבר הוסבה!UMI'MAI? V'DILMA SHAINI HASAM SHE'KVAR HUSVAH!- (a) (Abaye now considers another possibility) (RASHBAM); (b) (Rav Papa now asks Abaye) (first TOSFOS DH Amar)) and is it necessarily so [that a daughter removes her mother's estate out of its current status when she marries a husband of her father's Shevet]? Perhaps [that case] is different [and it is not considered a transferal] since [the estate] is already [considered to have been] transferred [to her father's Shevet when she inherited it, as she belongs to the Shevet of her father]!
17)[line 21](אמר ליה) [ודלמא] שכבר הוסבה לא אמרינן(AMAR LEI) [V'DILMA] SHE'KVAR HUSVAH LO AMRINAN- ([Abaye] said to [Rav Papa] (first TOSFOS DH Amar)) [(Abaye now reconsiders the first side of the argument) but perhaps (RASHBAM)] we do not say that the estate has already been transferred [out of her mother's Shevet, since the daughter is still partially connected to that Shevet]
18)[line 22]אי אמרת בשלמא [אמרינן] שכבר הוסבה, (היינו דמתוקמא קרא בין בסבת הבן בין בסבת הבעל) [שפיר]IY AMRAT BISHLAMA [AMRINAN] SHE'KVAR HUSVAH, (HAINU D'MISOKMA KRA BEIN B'SIBAS HA'BEN BEIN B'SIBAS HA'BA'AL) [SHAPIR]- if one were to say that the estate is [considered to have been] already transferred, (this explains how verse can be referring to either transferal via a son or transferal via a husband (second TOSFOS DH Amar)) [it is satisfactory (since it is then possible for her to marry into her father's Shevet and avoid transferring the inheritance to a different Shevet) (RASHBAM)]
19)[line 25]כי מינסבאKI MINASVA- when she is married
20)[line 28]דמנסבינן לה לגברא דאבוהי משבטא דאבוה, ואימיה משבטא דאימהD'MENASVINAN LAH L'GAVRA D'AVUHI MI'SHIVTA D'AVUHA, V'IMEI MI'SHIVTA D'IMAH- (Rav Ashi explains on behalf of Abaye) [it is possible to avoid a transferal] when she is married to a man whose father is from the same Shevet as her father, and whose mother is from the same Shevet as her mother [since her mother's estate is now primarily in the possession of her father's Shevet and partially in that of her mother's - just as it was before she got married]
21)[line 1]האי "לאחד ממשפחת מטה אביה ואמה" מיבעי ליה!HAI "L'ECHAD MI'MISHPACHAS AVIHA V'IMAH" MIBA'I LEI!- that [verse (Bamidbar 36:8) should read, "[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 and her mother, [such that Bnei Yisrael inherit the estates of their fathers]"!
22)[line 3]אפילו איפכאAFILU IPCHA- even the opposite (scenario; namely, that her husband's father is from the same Shevet as her mother and his mother is from the same Shevet as her father) [is acceptable, since either way the estate is partially in the possession of the same two tribes]
23)[line 3]תניא בסבת הבן ותניא בסבת הבעלTANYA B'SIBAS HA'BEN V'TANYA B'SIBAS HA'BA'AL- (a) we learned one Beraisa [which infers that one verse (Bamidbar 36:7) is concerned] with the transferal [of a woman's inheritance] via her son [which leaves the other verse (Bamidbar 36:9) to be concerned with the transferal of a woman's inheritance via her husband], and we learned another Beraisa [which infers that one verse (Bamidbar 36:9) is concerned] with the transferal [of a woman's inheritance] via her husband [which leaves the other verse (Bamidbar 36:7) to be concerned with the transferal of a woman's inheritance via her son]. These Beraisos do not disagree in a practical sense; the Gemara merely wishes to point out that neither considers both verses to be concerned with the transferal of a woman's inheritance via her son, a notion entertained by the Gemara on 112a (RASHBAM); (b) we learned one Beraisa [which infers that one verse (Bamidbar 36:7) is concerned] with the transferal [of a woman's inheritance] via her son [which leaves the other verse (Bamidbar 36:9) to be concerned with the transferal of a woman's inheritance via her husband], and we learned another Beraisa [which infers that both verses are concerned] with the transferal [of a woman's inheritance] via her husband. The first Beraisa does not agree with Abaye, since it readily accepts that the words "Lo Sisov" can be fulfilled even though the estate that a woman inherited from her mother is transferred to her husband, who fully belongs to her father's Shevet. The second Beraisa, however, agrees with the assertion of Abaye (TOSFOS DH H"G).
24)[line 4](תניא בסבת הבן)(TANYA B'SIBAS HA'BEN)- The RASHBAM strikes these words from the Girsa, since they imply that the Beraisos disagree. TOSFOS, however, not only keep them, but add the words "v'Tanya b'Sibas ha'Ba'al" at the very end of the Daf.
25)[line 9]הרי בסבת הבעל אמורHAREI B'SIBAS HA'BA'AL AMUR- this verse, then, already discusses the concern of transferal via a husband. The Gemara (113a) explains how this apparent from this verse.