Bekhorot

This implies even an improvement in the value of the estate which comes of itself.1 If, e.g., [on the father's death] what was available of the products of the ground was classed under hafirah2 and now it is shuble [ears], or [on the father's death] they were shalpufe3 and afterwards became full-grown dates.4 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.5 MISHNAH. THE FOLLOWING DO NOT RETURN [TO THEIR OWNERS] IN JUBILEE:6 THE SHARE OF THE FIRST-BORN, [THE INHERITANCE OF] ONE WHO INHERITS HIS WIFE'S [ESTATE] [AND OF] ONE WHO MARRIES HIS SISTER-IN-LAW7 AND A PRESENT. THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. MEIR. BUT THE SAGES SAY: A PRESENT HAS THE LAW OF A SALE [OF LAND].8 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.9 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;10 [with reference to] a first-born [it says]: By giving him a double portion,11 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]. 12 HE WHO MARRIES HIS SISTER-IN-LAW. [The reason being because] the Divine Law describes him [the levir] as a first-born.13 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,14 intimating the inclusion of the case of a present; but all the other cases15 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. 16 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]17 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.18 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. 19 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.20 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?21 Thereupon Rami b. Hama applied to R. Shesheth the verse: Wisdom is good with an inheritance,22 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’),23 RETURNING IN JUBILEE here means that it makes [the privileges of the first-born] of no account.24 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?25 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 cemetery26 and for fear of casting a reflection on the family,27 the Rabbis ruled that he should take [from them] the money for the cemetery and return it to them in Jubilee.28 And so it has been taught: If one sells his grave and the road to his grave, or his halting place29 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.30 And what the Mishnah means by ‘HE ALLOWS THEM A DEDUCTION’31 is with reference to the cost of his wife's grave, [as this is an obligation which devolves on him]. 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. 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.). XXV, 10. present. every man unto his possession. by one as an heir is called inheritance. difficulty therefore remains with regard to R. Assi's opinion. 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. explains above, i.e., that it does not cause the first-born to lose his privileges on account of Jubilee. 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. burial.