בכורות 52 — Soncino English Talmud

¹NOR CAN A WOMAN CLAIM WITH HER KETHUBAH [FROM THESE], NOR CAN DAUGHTERS CLAIM THEIR SUPPORT, NOR CAN A LEVIR CLAIM. NONE OF THESE TAKE FROM THE IMPROVEMENT IN THE VALUE OF THE ESTATE, NOR OF WHAT WILL FALL TO THE ESTATE AS THEY DO OF WHAT IS NOW HELD IN POSSESSION. GEMARA. What is the reason? — Scripture say. The right of the first-born is his, [intimating] that the right of the first-born [is conferred] by a man but not by a woman. HE DOES NOT TAKE DOUBLE SHARE OF THE INCREASE IN VALUE because Scripture says: Of all that he hath. NOR DOES HE TAKE A DOUBLE SHARE OF WHAT WILL FALL DUE [TO THE ESTATE] AS HE DOES OF WHAT IS HELD IN POSSESSION, because Scripture says: Of all that he hath. NOR CAN A WOMAN CLAIM WITH HER KETHUBAH. Is it really so? Has not Samuel said: A creditor can claim also the improvement in the value of the estate? — Said R. Abba: They have taught here one of the concessions made in connection with the kethubah. NOR THE OBLIGATIONS OF SUPPORTING THE DAUGHTERS. What is the reason? — Stipulations in a kethubah are like the kethubah. NOR A LEVIR. What is the reason? Scripture calls him a firstborn. Said Abaye: They have taught this only with regard to the improvement in the value of the estate between the death of the brother and the performance of the levirate marriage, but he does take a double share of the improvement of the value of the estate which took place between the period of the performance of the levirate marriage and the division of the estate. What is the reason? The Divine Law says: Shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead; but here is a case of one who succeeded. Raba however says: He does not take the improvement in the brother's share even between the period of the performance of the levirate marriage and the dividing up of the estate. What is the reason? He has the same law as a first-born; as a first-born does not take [a double share of the improvement in the value of the estate] before the division, so a levir also does not take [a double share of the improvement] before the division. NONE OF THESE TAKE FROM THE IMPROVEMENT IN THE VALUE OF THE ESTATE.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ

^ᵃnote:I.e., from the improvement in value of the estate or from what is to accrue to the estate.
^ᵇnote:If a man undertakes to support for five years the daughter of his wife whom she had from another man, on his death the alimentation can be taken only from the present value of the estate but not from what is to accrue to the estate after his death nor from any increment in the estate.
^ᶜnote:A brother-in-law who takes his own and the share of his deceased brother whose wife he had taken in levirate marriage, cannot take the improvement in value from the dead brother's inheritance or from what accrued to the estate after the brother's death.
^ᵈnote:Deut. XXI, 17.
^ᵉnote:The estate of a man.
^ᶠnote:Ibid. He hath at present.
^ᵍnote:What he hath, at the time of death.
^ʰnote:If one lent another money on the security of an estate and the debtor sold his property and the purchasers improved it, the creditor can seize the whole estate including the improvement in the property. The woman also is here in the position of a creditor.
^ⁱnote:Since the Rabbis made certain concessions (to the heirs) in connection with the kethubah as that, for example, she cannot claim from land of average quality as is the case with a creditor but only claims from the worst land (B.K. 7b) and also that she must take an oath when claiming (v. Git. 34b), they also made a further concession by laying down that she cannot claim from the improvement in the estate which has taken place since her husband's death (R. Gershom).
^ʲnote:And just as a woman cannot claim with her kethubah from the increase in value of the estate since her husband's death, so it is with any undertaking set forth in the kethubah.
^ᵏnote:And it shall be that the first-born that she beareth, and in Yeb. 24a it is explained that this passage refers to a levir, it being the duty of the eldest to perform the levirate marriage. Now since the law describes him as a first-born his case is on a par with that of a first-born who does not receive a double share of the increase in value of the estate, nor does the levir take two shares in what accrues to the estate after the brother's death.
^ˡnote:That the levir does not take from the increase in the value of the estate belonging to his dead brother.
^ᵐnote:Deut. XXV, 6.
^ⁿnote:As soon as he married the deceased brother's wife, the double share of the estate is his, for he is in the place of his brother and is no longer called the first-born. Consequently the improvement in the estate took place in his possession and thus he takes two shares in the improvement of the estate.
^ᵒnote:Even after the performance of the levirate marriage he is still called the first-born.

²This implies even an improvement in the value of the estate which comes of itself. If, e.g., [on the father's death] what was available of the products of the ground was classed under hafirah and now it is shuble [ears], or [on the father's death] they were shalpufe and afterwards became full-grown dates. NOT WHAT WILL FALL DUE [TO THE ESTATE] AS THEY DO OF WHAT IS HELD IN POSSESSION. This brings as under the rule the grandfather's estate. MISHNAH. THE FOLLOWING DO NOT RETURN [TO THEIR OWNERS] IN JUBILEE: THE SHARE OF THE FIRST-BORN, [THE INHERITANCE OF] ONE WHO INHERITS HIS WIFE'S [ESTATE] [AND OF] ONE WHO MARRIES HIS SISTER-IN-LAW AND A PRESENT. THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. MEIR. BUT THE SAGES SAY: A PRESENT HAS THE LAW OF A SALE [OF LAND]. R. ELEAZAR SAYS HOWEVER: ALL THESE RETURN IN JUBILEE. R. JOHANAN B. BEROKAH SAYS: IF ONE INHERITS HIS WIFE'S ESTATE, HE RETURNS IT TO THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY AND ALLOWS THEM A DEDUCTION FROM THE PURCHASE MONEY. GEMARA. What is the reason of R. Meir? — Only in the case of a sale [of land] does the Divine Law enjoin that it must return in the year of Jubilee [to its original owners], but not with regard to a present or an inheritance; and the cases [enumerated in the Mishnah as not returning in Jubilee] are either cases of inheritance or such as come under the category of a present; [with reference to] a first-born [it says]: By giving him a double portion, the Divine Law thus describing his portion as a present. AND HE WHO INHERITS HIS WIFE'S ESTATE. A man's inheritance of his wife's estate is a biblical law [and therefore it is a genuine inheritance]. HE WHO MARRIES HIS SISTER-IN-LAW. [The reason being because] the Divine Law describes him [the levir] as a first-born. BUT THE SAGES SAY: A PRESENT HAS THE LAW OF A SALE OF LAND. What is the reason of the Rabbis? [Scripture says]: Ye shall return, intimating the inclusion of the case of a present; but all the other cases are those of inheritance; with regard to a first-born Scripture Says: ‘By giving him a double portion’, thus comparing the share he receives as a first-born with the plain [ordinary] portion; as the plain portion of the first-born is considered as an inheritance, so the extra share received by a firstborn is also considered as an inheritance. R. ELEAZAR SAYS HOWEVER: ALL OF THESE RETURN IN JUBILEE. He agrees with the Rabbis who say that ‘Ye shall return’ intimates the inclusion of the case of a present and holds that all these cases [enumerated in the Mishnah] come under the category of a present; with regard to a first-born Scripture says: ‘By giving him a double portion’; thus the Divine Law describes his share as a present. With regard also to the case of one who in herits his wife's estate, he holds that a man's inheritance of his wife's estate is a rabbinical law. Again, with regard to the case of one who marries his sister-in-law, the Divine Law calls [the levir] a first-born. R. Assi reported in the name of R. Johanan: After the heirs have divided up the estate, they are considered as purchasers from one another and return [their portions] one to another in the year of Jubilee. To this R. Oshaiah demurred: THE FOLLOWING DO NOT RETURN IN JUBILEE: THE SHARE OF A FIRST-BORN. R. Eleazar replied to him: The expression DO NOT RETURN here means that the return in Jubilee does not make [the privileges of the first-born] of no account. To this R. Shesheth demurred: Does this imply that the one [R. Eleazar] who said: ALL OF THESE RETURN IN JUBILEE means that the return in Jubilee makes [the privilege of the first-born] of no account? Thereupon Rami b. Hama applied to R. Shesheth the verse: Wisdom is good with an inheritance, for has he not heard the following: When Rabin came, he reported in the name of R. Johanan (another version is [that when Rabin came he reported that] R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Eleazar b. Shammua’), RETURNING IN JUBILEE here means that it makes [the privileges of the first-born] of no account. R. JOHANAN B. BEROKAH SAYS: IF ONE INHERITS HIS WIFE'S ESTATE HE RETURNS IT TO THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY etc. What is his view? If he holds that a man's inheritance of his wife's estate is a biblical law, then why should he return it to the family in Jubilee? And if he holds that a man's inheritance of his wife's estate is only a rabbinical law, what claim is there to the money? One may still maintain that a man's inheritance of his wife's estate is a biblical law, and we are dealing here with a case where e.g., his wife bequeathed him a cemetery and for fear of casting a reflection on the family, the Rabbis ruled that he should take [from them] the money for the cemetery and return it to them in Jubilee. And so it has been taught: If one sells his grave and the road to his grave, or his halting place and the place for lamentation, the members of his family come and bury him per force, so as not to cast any reflection on the family. And what the Mishnah means by ‘HE ALLOWS THEM A DEDUCTION’ is with reference to the cost of his wife's grave, [as this is an obligation which devolves on him].^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ

^ᵖnote:And without any expense of labour or money on the part of the plain heir.
^ᵠnote:Vegetable e.g., the green of grains (Jast.).
^ʳnote:Undeveloped dates.
^ˢnote:The Mishnah therefore informs us with this last clause that even in such instances where the ordinary (non first-born) heir has spent no money on or worked in any way for the improvement in the estate, the first-born takes merely an equal share with the rest of the brothers and does not enjoy the privileges of a first-born.
^ᵗnote:If their grandfather was alive when their father died and the former's estate was coming to them eventually, for even if he had another son, their father would ultimately receive his share, I might have thought that this is counted as having the estate in one's possession. The last clause in the Mishnah by repeating: NOR WHAT IS TO FALL DUE etc, thus informs us that this is not so. For, from the previous clause in the Mishnah which says that a first-born does not take a double share etc., I might have thought that the expression ‘WHAT IS TO FALL DUE TO THE ESTATE’ referred only to a case where there fell to them the estate of their father's brother, the latter having children at the time of their father's death, so that it did not appear coming to them on their father's death, but both he and his sons died before the division (Rashi); or the latter having no children when their father died but yet as he might still have heirs there was no certainty that the property was coming to them (Sh. Mek.).
^ᵘnote:As is the case where one sells land to another, the year of Jubilee effecting a restoration to the original owner, v. Lev. XXV, 10.
^ᵛnote:And took his brother's share, for it is regarded as a genuine inheritance and therefore it does not return in Jubilee.
^ʷnote:And it goes out in Jubilee.
^ˣnote:The Gemara later explains this passage.
^ʸnote:Lit., those cases of inheritance are considered as inheritance, and those cases of a present are considered as a present.
^ᶻnote:Deut. XXI, 17. Scripture using the word giving.
^ᵃᵃnote:V. B.B. 11b.
^ᵃᵇnote:V. supra p. 358, n. 1.
^ᵃᶜnote:Lev. XXV, 10, the passage being superfluous, Scripture having already said in the same verse, and ye shall return every man unto his possession.
^ᵃᵈnote:In which the Rabbis admit that they do not return in Jubilee (Rashi).
^ᵃᵉnote:As Scripture writes: Then it shall be when he maketh his sons to inherit, (Deut. XXI, 16). Thus the share received by one as an heir is called inheritance.
^ᵃᶠnote:One who inherits his wife's estate and he who marries his sister-in-law.
^ᵃᵍnote:And is not genuine inheritance. It therefore returns in Jubilee.
^ᵃʰnote:And again divide up the estate after the year of Jubilee.
^ᵃⁱnote:I.e., the first-born, after the Jubilee, receives his double share.
^ᵃʲnote:Why should the first-born lose his privileged portion? Therefore R. Eleazar's reply above is not acceptable, and the difficulty therefore remains with regard to R. Assi's opinion.
^ᵃᵏnote:Eccl. VII, II. Good is wisdom. The acumen of an Amora (Rabin) together with the erudition of many Baraithas, the inheritance of successive scholars, possessed by R. Shesheth. For had R. Shesheth known Rabin's wise observation, he would never have objected in the way he did (Rashi and Tosaf.). R. Gershom explains as follows: Good is wisdom, R. Shesheth has shown wisdom in his objection. Nevertheless why did he object? Has he not heard etc.? Wisdom alone is not sufficient without inheritance and knowledge of the rulings of the scholars.
^ᵃˡnote:I.e., R. Eleazar in our Mishnah.
^ᵃᵐnote:Therefore the passage in the Mishnah that Jubilee does not cause a return, also has the same meaning as R. Eleazar explains above, i.e., that it does not cause the first-born to lose his privileges on account of Jubilee.
^ᵃⁿnote:By him, since it is not a genuine inheritance.
^ᵃᵒnote:Which belonged to her family as a burial place.
^ᵃᵖnote:It is derogatory for a family that strangers should be interred in their graveyard, while their own members should have to seek burial in a strange graveyard. There is no difficulty as regards the period before Jubilee, as the family can pay the husband for the burials which take place without anybody being aware that the cemetery was no longer in their possession, Tosaf. Yom Tob.
^ᵃᵠnote:Force the buyer to take back the purchase price and cancel the sale.
^ᵃʳnote:A halting place, of which there were seven in number, for consolation for the funeral escort on returning from a burial.
^ᵃˢnote:V. Keth. 84a.
^ᵃᵗnote:Since the inheritance is a biblical law and hence a genuine one, why should he make any deduction for them at all?