Talmud - Bava Batra 115a בבא בתרא קט״ו א׳

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Shimon from the mishna, which teaches: A woman with regard to her son, a woman with regard to her husband, and maternal uncles all bequeath to their respective relatives but do not inherit from them. The mishna states explicitly that a mother does not inherit her son’s property. Rabbi Yehuda ben Shimon said to him: With regard to our mishna, I do not know who taught it, i.e., I am not aware of any tanna who concurs with its ruling and it is not the accepted halakha.

The Gemara asks: But let Rabbi Yoḥanan say to Rabbi Yehuda ben Shimon that the mishna is written in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav, who, as noted on page 111a, does not derive the halakha that sons precede daughters with regard to the inheritance of their mother from the word “tribes.” Since Rabbi Yehuda ben Shimon’s ruling is based on a derivation from the word “tribes,” it stands to reason that Rabbi Zekharya disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda ben Shimon, and the ruling of the mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Zekharya’s opinion.

The Gemara answers: The mishna cannot be interpreted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav, as it teaches: And the sons of a sister inherit but do not bequeath, and a Sage taught that the mishna is referring only to sons of a sister and not to daughters of a sister, and we say: With regard to what halakha is there a distinction between the sons and daughters of a sister? And Rav Sheshet said: The distinction is meant to teach that where there are sons as well, they precede the daughters in inheriting from their maternal uncle.

The Gemara continues: And if it enters your mind that the mishna is written in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav, doesn’t he say: Both the son and the daughter are equal with regard to the mother’s property, as they inherit equally? The mishna stands in contraposition to Rabbi Zekharya’s ruling, and therefore it cannot be written in accordance with his opinion.

The Gemara asks: And the tanna of our mishna, whichever way you look at it, is inconsistent: If he interprets the word “tribes,” then a woman also should inherit from her son, as noted above (114b). And if he does not interpret the word “tribes,” then from where is it clear to him that a son precedes a daughter with regard to the property of the mother? Both halakhot are derived from the same source, so how can the tanna accept one and reject the other?

The Gemara explains: Actually, the tanna of the mishna interprets the word “tribes,” but it is different here, with regard to a woman inheriting from her son, as the verse states: “And every daughter who possesses [yoreshet] an inheritance from the tribes” (Numbers 36:8), which teaches that a daughter inherits [yoreshet] from two tribes, but she does not bequeath to two tribes. She bequeaths only to her father’s tribe.

MISHNA: The order of precedence with regard to inheritances is this: The verse states: “If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8). This teaches that a son precedes a daughter. Additionally, all descendants of a son precede a daughter. A daughter precedes the brothers of the deceased. Additionally, the descendants of a daughter precede the brothers of the deceased. Brothers of the deceased precede the uncles of the deceased. Additionally, the descendants of the brothers precede the uncles.

This is the principle: Concerning anyone who precedes another with regard to inheritance, his descendants precede the other as well, and a father who inherits precedes all of his descendants.

GEMARA: The Sages taught: The verse states: “If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8). I have derived only that a son precedes others with regard to the inheritance of the deceased; from where do I derive that a son of a son, or a daughter of a son, or a son of a daughter of a son also precedes the deceased’s other relatives? The verse states: “If a man dies, and he has no [ein lo] son.” The word ein is written aleph, yod, nun. Therefore, the Sages read it as if it states: Investigate with regard to him [ayyein alav], to search for descendants of his son, and give the inheritance to them if they are found.

The next verse states: “And if he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers” (Numbers 27:9). I have derived only that a daughter precedes others, except a son and his descendants, with regard to the inheritance of the deceased, from where then do I derive that a daughter’s daughter, or a son of a daughter, or a daughter of a son of a daughter also precede the deceased’s other relatives? The verse states: “And if he has no [ein lo] daughter.” The word ein is written aleph, yod, nun. Therefore, the Sages read it as if it states: Investigate with regard to him [ayyein alav], to search for descendants of his daughter, and give the inheritance to them if they are found.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

BavaBatra 115a examines maternal inheritance rights, debating whether sons precede daughters and whether a mother inherits from her son.