כְּתִיב: ״סֶרַח״, וּכְתִיב: ״חֶרֶס״! אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בַּתְּחִלָּה פֵּירוֹתֶיהָ כְּחֶרֶס, וּלְבַסּוֹף פֵּירוֹתֶיהָ מַסְרִיחִין; וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בַּתְּחִלָּה מַסְרִיחִין, וּלְבַסּוֹף כְּחֶרֶס.

The Gemara interjects: It is written concerning Joshua’s burial: “And they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnath Serah” (Joshua 24:30), and it is written: “And they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnath Heres” (Judges 2:9). Why is the name changed? Rabbi Elazar says: Initially, its fruits were as dry as clay [keḥeres], and ultimately, its fruits were so plump that they were spoiling [masriḥin]. And there are those who say the opposite: Initially, the fruits were spoiling prematurely, and ultimately, they lasted as long as clay without spoiling.

כָּלֵב – דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּתְּנוּ לְכָלֵב אֶת חֶבְרוֹן כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר מֹשֶׁה וַיּוֹרֶשׁ מִשָּׁם אֶת שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי הָעֲנָק״. חֶבְרוֹן עִיר מִקְלָט הֲוַאי! אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: פַּרְוָורָהָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת שְׂדֵה הָעִיר וְאֶת חֲצֵרֶיהָ נָתְנוּ לְכָלֵב בֶּן יְפֻנֶּה בַּאֲחֻזָּתוֹ״.

Caleb also received his portion directly from God and not through the lottery, as it is written: “And they gave Hebron to Caleb, as Moses had spoken; and he drove out from there the three sons of the giant” (Judges 1:20). The Gemara asks about this verse: But Hebron was a city of refuge that belonged to the priests, as described in the book of Joshua (21:13); how could it have been given to Caleb? Abaye said: Its outskirts [parvaraha], i.e., only the fields and vineyards lying beyond the city limits, were given to Caleb. As it is written: “But the fields of the city, and the villages thereof, they gave to Caleb the son of Jephunneh for his possession” (Joshua 21:12).

מתני׳ אֶחָד הַבֵּן וְאֶחָד הַבַּת בְּנַחֲלָה, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַבֵּן נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּנִכְסֵי הָאָב וְאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּנִכְסֵי הָאֵם, וְהַבָּנוֹת נִזּוֹנוֹת מִנִּכְסֵי הָאָב וְאֵינָן נִזּוֹנוֹת מִנִּכְסֵי הָאֵם.

Both the son and the daughter of the deceased are included in the halakhot of inheritance. But the difference is that the firstborn son takes a double portion of the property of the father, and he does not take a double portion of the property of the mother. And another difference is that the daughters are sustained from the property of the father after he dies, as it is a mandatory condition of their mother’s marriage contract that they are to be sustained even before the estate is disbursed to the children, but the daughters are not sustained from the property of the mother, which is all inherited by the sons.

גמ׳ מַאי ״אֶחָד הַבֵּן וְאֶחָד הַבַּת לְנַחֲלָה״? אִילֵימָא דְּיָרְתִי כִּי הֲדָדֵי – הָא תְּנַן: בֵּן קוֹדֵם לְבַת, כָּל יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵיכוֹ שֶׁל בֵּן קוֹדְמִין לְבַת!

The Gemara analyzes the mishna: What is meant by the first clause of the mishna: Both the son and the daughter of the deceased are included in the halakhot of inheritance? If we say that they inherit together, didn’t we learn in a mishna (115a): A son precedes a daughter? Additionally, all descendants of a son precede a daughter. It is clear that a daughter does not inherit together with a son.

(סִימָן: נַפְשָׁם) אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֶחָד הַבֵּן וְאֶחָד הַבַּת נוֹטְלִין בְּרָאוּי כִּבְמוּחְזָק.

Nafsham is a mnemonic for the names of the Sages cited in the following discussion: Naḥman; Pappa; Ashi; Mar. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: This is what the mishna is saying: Both the son and the daughter take in inheritance the property due to their father as they would take in inheritance the property that he had in his possession.

הָא נַמִי תָּנֵינָא: בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד נָטְלוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָקִים בְּנַחֲלָה, חֵלֶק אֲבִיהֶן שֶׁהָיָה מִיּוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם, וְחֶלְקוֹ עִם אֶחָיו בְּנִכְסֵי חֵפֶר!

The Gemara questions this explanation: We already learn this as well in a mishna (116b): Zelophehad’s daughters took three portions of land in the inheritance of Eretz Yisrael: Their father’s portion that he received because he was among those who left Egypt; and his portion that he received with his brothers in the property of Hepher, their father, although Zelophehad predeceased his father and never was in possession of the inheritance from Hepher; and an additional portion that he received from Hepher because he was a firstborn. It is already taught in that mishna that property due to the deceased is inherited in the same manner as property possessed by the deceased.

וְעוֹד, מַאי ״אֶלָּא״?

And furthermore, if the explanation of the mishna is as stated by Rav Naḥman, what is meant by the phrase: But the difference is that the firstborn son takes a double portion of the property of the father, and he does not take a double portion of the property of the mother? According to Rav Naḥman’s explanation, what is the contrast between the two clauses in the mishna?

אֶלָּא אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֶחָד הַבֵּן וְאֶחָד הַבַּת נוֹטְלִין חֵלֶק בַּבְּכוֹרָה.

Rather, Rav Pappa said: This is what the mishna is saying: Both the son and the daughter of the deceased take a portion of the firstborn.

הָא נַמִי תָּנֵינָא: וְשֶׁהָיָה בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל שְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים! וְעוֹד, מַאי ״אֶלָּא״?

The Gemara questions this explanation: We already learn this in a mishna as well (116b), which explains the third portion taken by the daughters of Zelophehad: And they took an additional portion that he received from Hepher, as he was a firstborn, and a firstborn takes two portions of inheritance from his father. And furthermore, if the explanation of the mishna is as stated by Rav Pappa, what is meant by the phrase: But the difference is that the firstborn son takes a double portion of the property of the father, and he does not take a double portion of the property of the mother? According to this explanation as well, the first clause of the mishna has nothing to do with inheriting from the mother.

אֶלָּא אֲמַר רַב אַשִׁי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֶחָד בֵּן בֵּין הַבָּנִים וְאֶחָד בַּת בֵּין הַבָּנוֹת, אִם אָמַר ״יִירַשׁ כָּל נְכָסַי״ – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין.

Rather, Rav Ashi said: This is what the mishna is saying: With regard to both a son among the sons, and a daughter among the daughters, if the father says: This particular child shall inherit all my property, his statement stands. A father can do so for any one son, or, when there are no sons, for any one daughter.

כְּמַאן, כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא? הָא קָתָנֵי לָהּ לְקַמָּן, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא אוֹמֵר: אִם אָמַר עַל מִי שֶׁרָאוּי לְיוֹרְשׁוֹ – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין, עַל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְיוֹרְשׁוֹ – אֵין דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין!

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion does Rav Ashi say this? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka? The Gemara challenges: But the mishna teaches this later (130a), as Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: If one said about another who is fit to inherit from him that the named individual should inherit all his property, his statement stands, but if one said it about another who is unfit to inherit from him, his statement does not stand. It is not reasonable to say that this mishna is stating the same halakha that is recorded in the later mishna in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka.

וְכִי תֵּימָא: קָא סָתַם לָן כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא – סְתָם וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַחֲלוֹקֶת הִיא, וּסְתָם וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַחֲלוֹקֶת – אֵין הֲלָכָה כִּסְתָם!

And if you would say that the tanna here taught us an unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, in order to demonstrate that his opinion is accepted as halakha, this would not establish the halakha in accordance with his opinion. The reason is that this would be an instance of an unattributed mishna and thereafter a mishnaic dispute concerning the same matter, as in the later mishna there is a tanna who disagrees with the ruling of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka; and in an instance of an unattributed mishna and thereafter a mishnaic dispute, the halakha is not in accordance with the unattributed mishna.

וְעוֹד, מַאי ״אֶלָּא״?

And furthermore, if the explanation of the mishna is as stated by Rav Ashi, what is meant by the clause: But the difference is that the firstborn son takes a double portion of the property of the father, and he does not take a double portion of the property of the mother? According to this explanation as well, the first clause of the mishna has nothing to do with inheriting from the mother.

אֶלָּא אֲמַר מָר בַּר רַב אַשִׁי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֶחָד הַבֵּן וְאֶחָד הַבַּת שָׁוִין בְּנִכְסֵי הָאֵם וּבְנִכְסֵי הָאָב, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַבֵּן נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּנִכְסֵי הָאָב, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּנִכְסֵי הָאֵם.

Rather, Mar bar Rav Ashi said: This is what the mishna is saying: Both the son and the daughter are equal in their rights both with regard to the property of the mother and with regard to the property of the father. Sons and daughters can inherit from either fathers or mothers. But the differences are that the firstborn son takes a double portion of the property of the father, and he does not take a double portion of the property of the mother, and that the daughters are sustained from their father’s estate before it is disbursed to the children, but they are not sustained from the property of their mother.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לָתֶת לוֹ פִּי שְׁנַיִם״ – פִּי שְׁנַיִם כְּאֶחָד. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: פִּי שְׁנַיִם כְּאֶחָד, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּכָל הַנְּכָסִים? וְדִין הוּא.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: When the verse states: “But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion of all that he has” (Deuteronomy 21:17), this means the firstborn receives double the property received by any other one inheritor. baraita analyzes this statement: Do you say the firstborn receives double the property received by any one inheritor, or rather, is it a double portion of all the property, such that the firstborn receives two-thirds of the entire estate, which is twice the portion left for the other inheritors to divide between themselves? The baraita suggests: And this question can be resolved through logical inference: