Talmud for Bava Batra 8:1

MISHNAH: Both son and daughter⁷⁵If there are no sons, the rules of inheritance apply to daughters as if they were sons. are equal for the rules of inheritance, except that the son take a double portion of the father’s property⁷⁶Deut. 21:17. The entire paragraph only deals with father and son; since the mother is neither required nor empowered to recognize a child as hers, it cannot refer to the mother’s inheritance.
It probably is correct to read פִּי שְׁנַיִם as “double portion” rather than “two thirds” which would read פִּים (1S.13:21); cf. Sifry Deut. #217. The double portion of male first-borns is also found in the Egyptian native law both in Ptolemaic and in Roman times and the Syro-Roman law book. but no double portion of the mother’s property. And the daughters can claim sustenance from the father’s property⁷⁷After the father’s death; cf. Mishnah 9:1, Ketubot 4:8. but not from the mother’s property.

There⁶⁵Mishnah Baba Batra 8:7., we have stated: “If somebody writes his property over to his sons, he has to write: From today and after death⁶⁶By a positive biblical rule, an inheritance has to be divided evenly among the male heirs (Num. 27:6–11) except that the firstborn male in rabbinic interpretation receives a double portion (Deut. 21:17). If the father wants to distribute his property unevenly, or leave real estate to his daughters, he has to execute a will which has to become valid during his lifetime since nobody can act in law after his death.. Rebbi Yose says, this is unnecessary.” What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? The date of the document is its proof⁶⁷Since everybody knows that a will has to be activated during the testator’s lifetime, the date of the will automatically becomes the date of its validation except if this is disclaimed in the document itself. The same statement is in the Babli, Baba Batra 136a.. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is no condition⁶⁸Perhaps compare Greek ὕστερος “later, subsequent” as in combination τῇ ὑστέρῃ προσβολῇ “later, subsequent, conditions added to a document.” (E. G.) Less likely is a relation between the hapax איסרטה and Arabic شرطة “stipulation, clause” which might be Aramaic שטר, Accadic šeṭrum,šaṭārum “document”.. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It applies neither to bills of divorce nor to gifts⁶⁹This is a reformulation of the colleague’s statement: R. Yose’s statement about wills is applicable neither to divorces nor to gifts.. Rebbi Ila⁷⁰He disagrees with R. Ze‘ira. said, for a gift; since he said “from today”, the gift is irrevocable. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve the yield to himself⁷¹During his lifetime.. But in bills of divorce, since he wrote “from today” in the bill, it would be a separation⁷²If it is a divorce, the wife will be able to marry another man.. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve her body⁷³The use of prothetic א for אל, על is Babylonian. He wants to prevent his wife from remarrying during his lifetime. Therefore, the mention of “after death” contradicts the statement “from today” and there is no divorce. Rashba (Novellae ad 72b) reads: “the bill of divorce is unclear” (He also reads לְשַׁייֵר לוֹ גוּפָהּ, a better Yerushalmi style). to himself. Rebbi Bibon⁷⁴Rashba reads: R. Bun. [Compare the Latin adjective vivus “alive” as equivalent of חַיִים; cf. also the Roman name Bibulus. (E.G.)] bar Cahana said before Rebbi Ilai, not to reserve her earnings for himself⁷⁵Then the divorce would be absolute and the wife entitled to remarry during her first husband’s lifetime.? He answered, we do not find a woman married to one man and her earnings belonging to another. Rebbi Ze‘ira praised him for this and called him “son of the Torah.”

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says, this my son is a bastard, he cannot be believed,” etc. There, we have stated¹⁸²Mishnah Baba batra 8:8, dealing with rights of inheritance.: “If somebody said, this is my son, he is to be believed.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To give him¹⁸³Make him a legal heir., but not to take from him. Rebbi Yose said, is that not the Mishnah: “Even if both of them say about the fetus in her belly that he is a bastard, they cannot be believed”¹⁸⁴The Mishnah makes the statement of R. Joḥanan superfluous.? Maybe it¹⁸⁵The statement of R. Abbahu in the name of R. Joḥanan. was said following Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah said, they can be believed; Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To give him, but not to take from him. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, still it is a baraita: “For he has to recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated one.¹⁸⁶Deut. 21:17. Quoting a verse is obviously not quoting a baraita. Probably the baraita quoted in the Babli, 78b, Sifry Deut. 217 is meant: “ ‘For he has to recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated one;’ he has to make him recognized by others; this implies that a person is believed if he says, this son of mine is the firstborn. Rebbi Jehudah says, just as a man is believed if he says, this son of mine is the firstborn, so he is believed if he says that he is the son of a divorcee or one who had received ḥalîṣah, but the Sages say, he is not believed.”” If they¹⁸⁷The parents. maintained that he was his son but at the moment of his death he said that he was not his son, he cannot be believed¹⁸⁸Once a person has obtained public recognition as a son, the presumption of permanence of the status quo ante requires valid testimony by two independent witnesses to change that status; cf. Giṭṭin Chapter 3.. That he was not his son but at the moment of his death he said that he was his son, he is believed¹⁸⁹Since the dying person also could have given an unrelated person a part of his estate.. Some Tannaïm state on the first case that he is believed. Rebbi Ḥisqiah, Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Huna: If they maintained that he was from his slave girl, he is believed¹⁹⁰If the father acknowledged that he had fathered the child with his slave girl and everybody assumed that he had manumitted the pregnant girl in order to be the legal father of the child but on his deathbed he acknowledged that he never manumitted the girl and, therefore, his child is not his child in Jewish law (Mishnah Yebamot 2:5), he must be believed since his statement now is compatible with his earlier statements.. If he was standing next to the customs collectors¹⁹¹When he would have to pay customs duty for the importation of a slave but not for an accompanying son. and said, he is my son, but later he said, he is my slave, he is believed¹⁹²We believe him that he was cheating on the customs.. He is my slave, but later he said, he is my son, he is not believed¹⁹³Nobody pays custom duties which he is not obligated for.. Some Tannaïm state, he is believed. Rebbi Mana said, because of those Samaritans¹⁹⁴In Baba batra: The Nabateans. who use their sons as slaves.