[113a - 30 lines; 113b - 16 lines]
1)[line 5]הרי הסיבת הבן אמורHAREI HESEBAS HA'BEN AMUR- (a) this already refers to transferal [out of the Shevet] via a son [since a son, as a blood relative, is presumed to be closer than a husband, and it is therefore logical that the first verse refers to him] (RASHBAM); (b) according to the Girsa הרי הסיבת הבעל אמור HAREI HESEBAS HA'BA'AL AMUR - this already refers to transferal [out of the Shevet] via a son [and it is therefore logical that the second verse refers to the same thing] (TOSFOS to 112b DH H"G; see BACH ibid. #3)
2)[line 7]דכולי עלמא מיהתD'CHULEI ALMA MIHAS- at the least, everyone agrees
3)[line 9]מאי משמע?MAI MASHMA?- how is [transferal via the husband] implied in this verse [(a) according to the first Beraisa? (RASHBAM); (b) such that all opinions agree? (TOSFOS to 112b DH H"G)
4)[line 9]סימןSIMAN- Opinions vary as to how to interpret this seemingly extraneous word:
1.This is the name of an Amora, who here cites Rabah bar Rav Shila (GILYON).
2.The word אימ"ם "IMAM" (Aleph, Yud, Mem, Mem) is missing from before the word "Siman." Due to its similarity to the word "Siman," it was mistakenly left out of our printing. It is a mnemonic device for the four words from the verse that are now quoted:
i."Ish" (line 10)
ii."Yidbeku" (line 12)
iii."Matos" (line 13)
iv."mi'Mateh" (line 14) (YA'AVETZ).
3.There was a mnemonic device before the word "Siman" that was mistakenly left out. It stood for the four Amora'im that follow (namely, Rabah bar Rav Shila, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, Rava, and Rav Ashi) (see DIKDUKEI SOFRIM #9);
4.The word "Amar" that follows is a mnemonic device for remembering the three words from the verse that are now quoted; namely, "Ish," "Matos," and "Acher." It really ought to read "Eimar" (Aleph, Yud, Mem, Reish) in order to include a reference to the word "Yidbeku" (YOSEF DA'AS).
5)[line 10]אמר קרא, "איש"AMAR KRA, "ISH"- the verse (Bamidbar 36:9) uses the word "Ish" [which can also mean "the husband of" (see Rus 1:3)]. According to this suggestion, the verse reads, "And an inheritance shall not be transferred from on tribe to a different tribe, but rather a husband of the tribes of Bnei Yisrael shall stick with the inheritance that he receives from his wife."
6)[line 10]תרוייהו "איש" כתיב בהו!TARVAIHU "ISH" KSIV BEHU!- the word "Ish" is written in both [verses]! Rabah bar Rav Shila was certainly aware of the content of the two verses in question. His suggestion was that since both verses imply that they are talking about transferal via a husband, one must be specific and the other must be written as a hint to transferal via a son. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak asks that if this were so, who is to say that the second verse is specific and that the first is the extra one? Rava then goes on to ask the same question on Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak himself (RASHBAM; see also TOSFOS DH Tarvaihu).
7)[line 12]"ידבקו""YIDBEKU"- "they should stick" (Bamidbar 36:9). [This word implies marriage, as the verse refers to a husband "sticking to" - i.e., bonding with - his wife (Bereishis 2:24).]
8)[line 13]"ידבקו מטות""YIDBEKU MATOS"- "[... but rather each man of] the tribes of Bnei Yisrael shall stick [with his inheritance...]" (Bamidbar 36:9). [This phrase implies marriage, since these words can be understood to refer to the combining of two tribes.]
9a)[line 14]"ממטה למטה אחר""MI'MATEH L'MATEI ACHER"- "[And an inheritance shall not be transferred] from one tribe to a different tribe" [which can also be read as "And an inheritance shall not be transferred from one tribe to the tribe of another"] (Bamidbar 36:9).
b)[line 14]ובן לאו אחר הואU'VEN LAV ACHER HU- and a son [of hers] is not "another" [since he is a blood relative]
10)[line 16]ומטו בהMATU BAH- some lean toward [saying that Rebbi Yanai quoted] it
11)[line 17]שאינו נוטל בראוי כבמוחזקEINO NOTEL BA'RA'UY KEVA'MUCHZAK - a husband does not inherit those portions of his wife's estate that were not in her possession at the time of her death (YERUSHAS HA'BA'AL: RA'UY / MUCHZAK)
(a)If one is alive at the time of his' wife's death, then he inherits her estate. A wife, however, never inherits the estate of her husband (Mishnah to 108a; 111b).
(b)A husband inherits only those assets that were in his wife's possession at the time of her death (Muchzak). He does not receive that which is fit to enter her "possession" only after her death (Ra'uy). Examples of Ra'uy include:
1.An estate belonging to a relative of his wife that she would have been next in line to inherit had she been alive (RASHI to Bava Kama 42b);
2.A debt owed to his wife - even one transcribed in a document - that she had not yet collected at the time of her death (RAV OVADYAH MI'BARTENURA, based upon 124-125).
3.Monetary appreciation of her estate brought about by that which had not been there before, such as fruit that had grown on her fruit trees after her death. If the tree itself had grown thicker since his wife's death, however, then it would not be considered Ra'uy, since this addition is not an appreciably different entity (SEFER HA'CHINUCH #400, based upon 124-125).
12)[line 21]מורישיהMORISHEHA- those whom she was in line to inherit
13)[line 26]דהוה נסיב איתתאHAVAH NASIV ITESA- he was married to a woman
14)[line 29]אמר קרא "בנו"AMAR KRA "BENO"- the verse says "his son" (Yehoshua 24:33; see Background to 111:55)
15)[line 29]נחלה הראויה לוNACHALAH HA'RE'UYAH LO- [the wording of the verse implies that the] land [was land] which [may conceivably have been] fitting to belong to [Elazar]. (a) From the end of the verse which states that "... they buried him in the hill of his son Pinchas that had been given to him on Mount Efrayim," our Gemara infers that Elazar and Pinchas went to Beis Din to determine which of them deserved the land. This must be because it was an inheritance that had fallen to Elazar's wife, making it Ra'uy, and they were unsure as to whether or not her husband Elazar should receive it. Beis Din awarded it to Pinchas (first explanation of the RASHBAM; it is possible that he did not have the words "Amar Kra 'Beno'" in his Girsa); (b) The seemingly extraneous word "Beno" implies that even though it was conceivable that it should have gone to Elazar himself, it went instead to his son Pinchas. This must be a reference to land that came to the family through the estate of Elazar's deceased wife (second explanation of the RASHBAM, cited in the name of RABEINU CHANANEL)
113b----------------------------------------113b
16)[line 1]למאי הלכתא?L'MAI HILCHESA?- for the purposes of what Halachah [does the Beraisa explaining the Mishnah rule that only nephews receive their maternal uncles' estate]? [Nieces should certainly receive it if they have no brothers!]
17)[line 1]לקדםL'KADEM- to precede [their sisters] (i.e., the Halachah taught is that nephews receive their uncles' inheritance, and they do not need to share it with their sisters)
18)[line 2]"[וְאִם אֵין אַחִים לְאָבִיו, וּנְתַתֶּם אֶת נַחֲלָתוֹ לִשְׁאֵרוֹ הַקָּרֹב אֵלָיו מִמִּשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ,] וְיָרַשׁ אֹתָהּ...""V'YARASH"- "[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).
19)[line 3]מקישMAKISH- see Background to 111:12. Our Gemara derives a Hekesh from the "Vav" which appears at the beginning of the word "v'Yarash" - and, for that matter, at the beginning of each of the verses describing the order of inheritance (Bamidbar 27:9-11). These connecting letters imply that the various stages of inheritance are comparable to one another.
20a)[line 3]ירושה שניהYERUSHAH SHENIYAH- (a) second-stage inheritance; namely, when a daughter inherits her father if he has no sons. The same would hold true for "Yerushah Shelishis"; i.e., the third stage of inheritance, wherein one's father inherits him if he has no children. Our Gemara refers to a stage later than "Yerushah Sheniyah," since it involves a case wherein the deceased had no children, father, or siblings, leading to that which his nephew or niece inherited his estate (RASHBAM); (b) second-stage inheritance; namely, when the descendant(s) of he who is in line to inherit receives the estate in place of his/her deceased ancestor. Our Gemara refers to "Yerushah Sheniyah," since it involves a case wherein a nephew or niece inherit his/her uncle's estate through their late mother, who inherited it through her late father (TOSFOS DH Makish); (c) second-stage inheritance; namely, when anyone other than the son or daughter of the deceased inherits his property. Our Gemara refers to "Yerushah Sheniyah," since it involves a case wherein a nephew or niece inherits his/her uncle's estate (RABEINU GERSHOM, RITVA)
b)[line 3]לירושה ראשונהYERUSHAH RISHONAH- (a) first-stage inheritance (namely, when a son inherits his father) (RASHBAM); (b) first-stage inheritance (namely, when one of those mentioned in the Torah as an heir inherits his/her relative) (TOSFOS DH Makish); (c) first-stage inheritance (namely, when a son or daughter inherit his/her father) (RABEINU GERSHOM, RITVA)
21)[line 6]"וְהָיָה בְּיוֹם הַנְחִילוֹ אֶת בָּנָיו [אֵת אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה לוֹ, לֹא יוּכַל לְבַכֵּר אֶת בֶּן הָאֲהוּבָה עַל פְּנֵי בֶן הַשְּׂנוּאָה הַבְּכֹר]""V'HAYAH B'YOM HANCHILO ES BANAV [ES ASHER YIHEYEH LO, LO YUCHAL L'VAKER ES BEN HA'AHUVAH AL PNEI VEN HA'SENU'AH HA'BECHOR]"- "And upon the day that he bequeaths that which he owns to his sons, he may not recognize the son of his favored [wife] in place of the son of his less-favored [wife] who is the firstborn" (Devarim 21:16). The recognition of a Bechor in this verse refers to that which a Bechor receives a double portion of his father's inheritance.
22)[line 7]מפילMAPIL- lit. cause to fall; i.e., bequeath
23)[line 8]דשכיב ביממא הוא דירתי ליה בניה...D'SHACHIV B'YEMAMA HU D'YARSEI LEI BANEI...- is it [only] one who dies during the day whose sons inherit him...
24)[line 10]דין נחלותDIN NACHALOS- (a) the parceling of inheritance [among heirs, which must be carried out by Beis Din] (RASHBAM); (b) that which those who are instructed by one close to death as to how he wishes his possessions to be apportioned immediately prior to his death become a Beis Din [to the point that unhappy would-be heirs may not insist upon taking the matter to a higher court] (TOSFOS DH Ur'ah)
25)[line 11]"[וְאִם אֵין אַחִים לְאָבִיו, וּנְתַתֶּם אֶת נַחֲלָתוֹ לִשְׁאֵרוֹ הַקָּרֹב אֵלָיו מִמִּשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ, וְיָרַשׁ אֹתָהּ,] וְהָיְתָה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְחֻקַּת מִשְׁפָּט [כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה' אֶת מֹשֶׁה]""... V'HAYESAH LI'VNEI YISRAEL L'CHUKAS MISHPAT..."- "[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,] and it shall be a statute of judgment for Bnei Yisrael [as HaSh-m commanded Moshe]" (Bamidbar 27:11).
26)[line 12]אורעה כל הפרשה כולה להיות דיןUR'AH KOL HA'PARSHAH KULAH LIHEYOS DIN- the entire section [of law concerning the division of inheritance] was revealed to (a) have the status of normal judicial procedure [such that it requires three judges] (RASHBAM); (b) grant those who are instructed by one close to death as to how he wishes his possessions to be apportioned immediately prior to his death the status of a Beis Din [to the point that unhappy would-be heirs may not insist upon taking the matter to a higher court] (TOSFOS DH Ur'ah)
27)[line 13]לבקר את החולהL'VAKER ES HA'CHOLEH- to visit one who is sick [and wishes to apportion his possessions in a way other than that which his heirs would normally receive it, through bequeathing them as gifts to selected recipients immediately prior to his death]
28a)[line 14]רצו כותביןRATZU KOSVIN- if they wish, they may record [their testimony so as to act later as witnesses in front of Beis Din]
b)[line 15]רצו עושין דיןRATZU OSIN DIN- if they wish, they may [act immediately as a Beis Din and] issue a ruling [that will enforce the allocation of the sick man]
29)[last line]לא שנוLO SHANU- we did not learn [that they may act as a Beis Din]