הָא כֵּיצַד? נַחֲלָה מְמַשְׁמֶשֶׁת וְהוֹלֶכֶת עַד רְאוּבֵן. וְלֵימָא: עַד יַעֲקֹב! אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: גְּמִירִי, דְּלָא כָּלֶה שִׁבְטָא.

The Gemara asks: How so, i.e., how is the investigation performed when he has no offspring at all? The Gemara answers: The family lineage that determines the inheritance is successively examined up to Reuben, son of Jacob, i.e., the heirs are determined by investigating the family genealogy, and that investigation can extend all the way to Reuben, son of our forefather Jacob. The Gemara asks: And let it say: Until Jacob himself, rather than until Reuben, since if none of Reuven’s descendants survive, one would have to examine Jacob’s descendants. Abaye said in reply: It is learned as a tradition that a tribe will not be eliminated entirely, and some descendants will always remain.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: כָּל הָאוֹמֵר תִּירַשׁ בַּת עִם בַּת הַבֵּן, אֲפִילּוּ נָשִׂיא שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל – אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, שֶׁאֵינָן אֶלָּא מַעֲשֵׂה צְדוֹקִין. דְּתַנְיָא: בְּאַרְבָּעָה וְעֶשְׂרִים בְּטֵבֵת תָּבְנָא לְדִינָנָא; שֶׁהָיוּ צְדוֹקִין אוֹמְרִין: תִּירַשׁ הַבַּת עִם בַּת הַבֵּן;

§ Rav Huna says that Rav says: With regard to anyone who says that a daughter of the deceased should inherit the estate of her father along with the daughter of the son of the deceased, even if he is a prince of the Jewish people, one should not listen to him, as this is nothing other than an act of the Sadducees, and runs counter to the ruling of the mishna that the descendants of a son inherit before a daughter. As it is taught in a baraita in Megillat Ta’anit, which describes various minor holidays on which it is forbidden to fast or eulogize: On the twenty-fourth of Tevet, we returned to our law, i.e., the halakha was reestablished in accordance with the opinion of the Sages after having been dictated by the Sadducees. As the Sadducees would say: A daughter should inherit the estate of her father along with the daughter of the son of the deceased.

נִטְפַּל לָהֶן רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, אָמַר לָהֶם: שׁוֹטִים, מִנַּיִן זֶה לָכֶם? וְלֹא הָיָה אָדָם שֶׁהֶחְזִירוֹ דָּבָר, חוּץ מִזָּקֵן אֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה מְפַטְפֵּט כְּנֶגְדּוֹ וְאוֹמֵר: וּמַה בַּת בְּנוֹ הַבָּאָה מִכֹּחַ בְּנוֹ, תִּירָשֶׁנּוּ. בִּתּוֹ הַבָּאָה מִכֹּחוֹ, לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן?

The baraita continues: Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai joined them to discuss their ruling, and said to them: Imbeciles, from where do you derive this ruling? And there was no person that answered him anything, except for one old man who was chattering at him and saying that it is an a fortiori inference: And just as a daughter of the deceased’s son, who comes to claim her inheritance from her grandfather by virtue of his son, inherits her grandfather’s property, so too, with regard to the deceased’s own daughter, who comes to inherit by virtue of the deceased, all the more so is it not clear that she should inherit his property?

קָרָא עָלָיו אֶת הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה: ״אֵלֶּה בְנֵי שֵׂעִיר הַחֹרִי יֹשְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ לוֹטָן וְשׁוֹבָל וְצִבְעוֹן וַעֲנָה״, וּכְתִיב: ״אֵלֶּה בְנֵי צִבְעוֹן וְאַיָּה וַעֲנָה״! אֶלָּא, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁבָּא צִבְעוֹן עַל אִמּוֹ וְהוֹלִיד עֲנָה.

Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai recited this verse about him: “These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land: Lotan and Shobal and Zibeon and Anah” (Genesis 36:20), and it is written: “And these are the children of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah” (Genesis 36:24). The first verse portrays Zibeon and Anah as brothers, while the second states that they are father and son. Rather, this teaches that Zibeon engaged in sexual intercourse with his mother and begot Anah, so that he was both Anah’s father and his brother. From the fact that the first verse equates Zibeon and Anah by referring to both of them as Seir’s sons despite Anah being a grandson of Seir, it is clear that grandchildren are equal to children, contrary to the Sadducees’ assertion.

וְדִלְמָא תְּרֵי עֲנָה הָווּ! אֲמַר רַבָּה: אָמִינָא מִלְּתָא דְּלָא אֲמָרָהּ שָׁבוֹר מַלְכָּא, וּמַנּוּ? שְׁמוּאֵל; אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: אָמִינָא מִלְּתָא דְּלָא אֲמָרָהּ שָׁבוֹר מַלְכָּא, וּמַנּוּ? רַבָּה; אָמַר קְרָא: ״הוּא עֲנָה״ – הוּא עֲנָה דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא.

The Gemara interrupts the recounting of the baraita and questions Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai’s inference: But perhaps there were two people named Anah, so that one Anah was Zibeon’s son, and the other his brother? Rabba said: I will state a matter that even King Shapur did not state. And who is this King Shapur? This cannot be a reference to Shapur, king of Persia; rather, it must be a moniker for someone else. He is Shmuel, whose legal rulings were accepted by the public like the edicts of a king by his subjects. Some state a different version, that it was Rav Pappa who said: I will state a matter that even King Shapur did not state. And who is this King Shapur? He is Rabba. The verse goes on to state: “This is Anah” (Genesis 36:24), indicating that he is the same Anah mentioned initially, earlier in the verse. Accordingly, there was only one Anah, who was both Zibeon’s brother and Zibeon’s son.

אָמַר לֵיהּ: רַבִּי, בְּכָךְ אַתָּה פּוֹטְרֵנִי? אָמַר לוֹ: שׁוֹטֶה,

The baraita continues: The Sadducee said to Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai: My teacher, you dismiss me with this retort? I agree that the son of a son precedes a daughter, as the verse you quoted suggests; I am asserting that a daughter inherits together with the daughter of a son, and the verse you quoted has no bearing on that claim. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to him: Imbecile,