Bagian Terkait Bilangan 27:8

So far a daughter²³In all paragraphs dealing with the laws of inheritance, Num. 27:6–11, 36:8–9, Deut. 21:15–17, only the father is mentioned. One might infer that these laws do not apply to the mother’s estate. Since Num. 36:8 mentions the daughter as heiress, one infers that the daughter inherits from her mother (Sifry Num. 134).. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument de minore ad majus. Does the son precede the daughter? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Zachariah the butcher’s son: So did Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah say in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe²⁴Babli 111a; Tosephta 7:10. Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai the Kappadokian had a case; the judges were Rav Huna²⁵One has to read Rebbi Huna; the second generation Babylonian Rav Huna could not sit in a court together with two Galilean fourth generation judges, even though in the Babli, 111a, Rav Huna is reported to have erroneously followed R. Zachariah., Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, and Rebbi Aḥa. Rebbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice; in particular they rely on Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Eleazar the father of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman²⁶From here it seems that “bar Naḥman” was his family name. in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. ²⁴Babli 111a; Tosephta 7:10. Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rebbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,” what is the rule? He²⁷R. Yannai. the senior authority. said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son²⁸This is R. Yudan the Prince’s objection.? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him²⁹Probably one should read, parallel to the Babli: He said to R. Joḥanan; since the student R. Joḥanan could not tell his teacher R. Yannai to insult the patriarch to his face., let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.

“A man from his mother, a man from his wife.” Is “a man from his mother” not the same as “a man from his wife”³⁰Neither rule has a direct scriptural root. The inheritance of a man from his mother was earlier derived from a biblical expression (Note 20). The inheritance of a man from his wife is not implied by this. In the Babli 111b and Sifry Num. 134 the husband’s inheritance is inferred from Jos. 24:33; one explains that the “property of Phineas in the Mountains of Ephraim” must have come to him as inheritance from his wife since as a priest he would have been barred from receiving property outside of Levitic cities.? Rebbi Isaac: he wanted to enumerate all cases³¹The word פנסטא in L’s text defies explanation. E’s reading פנטסה is read by S. Lieberman as πάντοσε “in all ways, in any way”. The Mishnah often is formulated with redundancies, if the enumeration of all cases helps memorization.
In the Yerushalmi, the husband’s right to his deceased wife’s estate possibly remains a matter of common law [Halakhah 6, followed by Maimonides (Neḥalot 1:8, Iššut 12:3); rejected in the Babli as minority opinion (Ketubot 83b)]. Cf. M. A. Friedman, Jewish Marriage in Palestine, Tel-Aviv and New York 1980, p. 391 ff. and did not find them, so he formulated the rule twofold.

³²Cf. Babli 115a. The argument is intended to show a biblical source for the claim that the rules of inheritance are to be interpreted per stirpes.“Son.” Not only a son, from where a daughter’s son? The verse says, “a son³³No definite article is used in the paragraph, to allow maximum freedom of interpretation.”, from anywhere. “Daughter.” Not only a daughter, from where a daughter’s son, a son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter, a son’s son? The verse says, “a daughter”, from anywhere. “Brothers.” Not only brothers, from where brothers’ sons, brothers’ daughters, brothers’ sons’ daughters? The verse says, “his flesh’s relatives”, from anywhere³⁴As long as an agnate exists, no matter how many generations one would have to go back, he becomes the heir. Only the male ancestors are considered since Num. 26:55 requires that inheritance be governed by “the names of the fathers’ tribes.”.