Wenn man sagt: "Dieser Mann, mein Sohn, ein Anker, soll keine doppelte Portion nehmen" oder "Dieser Mann, mein Sohn, soll nicht mit seinen Brüdern erben", hat er nichts gesagt, denn er schreibt gegen das, was geschrieben steht in der Tora. [Und er kann ihn nicht vom Erbe trennen, es sei denn, er gibt sein Eigentum als Geschenk an seine anderen Söhne.] Wenn man sein Eigentum durch sein Wort unter seinen Söhnen verteilt, wird [sein Befehl angesichts des Todes als "geschrieben und übermittelt" angesehen in der Tora "und ohne einen Kinyan (eine Handlung, die den Erwerb bewirkt) (dies ist der Stoß von" durch sein Wort ")] und er stimmte mehr dem einen und weniger dem anderen zu und machte den Anker ihnen gleich [durch mit einem Ausdruck von "Geschenk"] stehen seine Worte. [Und dies wird nicht als Vorgabe gegen das angesehen, was in der Thora geschrieben steht. Denn einer hat das Recht, sein Geld als Geschenk an jeden zu geben, den er will.] Und wenn er "als Erbe" sagte, dh wenn er einem anderen mehr und weniger einem anderen als Erbe gab und sagte: "Dieser Mann, mein Sohn, wird ein Feld eines Beth-Kor erben, und dieser Mann, mein Sohn, wird ein Feld eines Beth-Lethech erben, "oder von seinem Sohn, einem Bechor, den er gleichermaßen mit den anderen erben soll, hat er sagte nichts, nachdem er gegen das, was in der Thora geschrieben steht, festgelegt hatte]. Wenn er "als Geschenk" entweder am Anfang, in der Mitte oder am Ende schrieb, stehen seine Worte. [am Anfang: "Lass dieses Feld diesem gegeben werden und lass ihn es erben." am Ende: "Lass ihn es erben und lass es ihm geben." in der Mitte: "Lass ihn dieses Feld erben und lass es ihm geben und lass ihn es erben."] Wenn man sagt: "Lass diesen Mann mich erben", wo er eine Tochter hat, oder "Lass meine Tochter erbe mich, "wo er einen Sohn hat, hat er nichts gesagt, nachdem er gegen das, was in der Thora geschrieben steht, festgelegt hat. R. Yochanan b. B'roka sagt: Wenn er dies über jemanden sagt, der geeignet ist, ihn zu erben, stehen seine Worte. Und wenn es um jemanden geht, der nicht in der Lage ist, ihn zu erben, stehen seine Worte nicht. [zB Wenn er es über einen Sohn unter den anderen Söhnen oder über eine Tochter unter den anderen Töchtern sagte, stehen seine Worte so, wie geschrieben steht (5. Mose 21:16): "Dann wird es an dem Tag sein, den er verursacht seine Söhne zu erben "—Die Tora gewährte dem Vater die Vollmacht, zu veranlassen, dass jeder seiner Söhne, den er wünscht, ihn erbt. Und R. Yochanan räumt ein, dass er mit einem Bruder, wo er eine Tochter hat, oder mit einer Tochter, wo er einen Sohn hat, nichts gesagt hat. Denn eine Tochter kann nicht erben, wo ein Sohn ist; oder ein Bruder, wo es eine Tochter gibt. Ebenso räumt R. Yochanan ein, dass er, wenn er den Anker den anderen Brüdern gleichgestellt hat, nichts gesagt hat, was geschrieben steht (ebenda): "Er wird nicht in der Lage sein, Primogenitur usw. zu gewähren." Die Halacha entspricht R. Yochanan b. B'roka.] Wenn jemand sein Eigentum an andere schreibt und seine Kinder übergibt, wird das getan, was er getan hat, aber die Weisen sehen es nicht positiv, [auch wenn seine Kinder sich nicht richtig deportieren, für gute Kinder könnten Ausgabe von ihnen.] R. Shimon b. Gamliel sagt: Wenn seine Kinder sich nicht richtig deportierten (und er sie so enterbte), wird er "zum Guten erinnert". [Die Halacha stimmt nicht mit R. Shimon b. Gamliel.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
לא אמר כלום – and he is not able to remove hm from the inheritance, other that via that he would give his property to the rest of his sons through a gift.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra
Introduction
Mishnah five deals with a father’s ability to decide which of his inheritors will inherit.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
על פיו – because it is a Mitzvah in the consequence of a death and a person on his deathbed, his words are like they were written and transmitted and they don’t require an [act of] acquisition, and because of this it is taught “by his mouth”/על פיו.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra
Our mishnah deals with a father who does not want to simply let the inheritance fall in its proper order (as learned in the first two mishnayoth of the chapter) but rather wants to divide his property in another fashion.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
והשוה להן את הבכור – in the language of a gift.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra
If a man says, “So and so, my firstborn son, shall not receive a double portion”, or “So and so, my son, shall not inherit with his brothers”, he has said nothing, for he has made a condition contrary to what is written in the Torah. The Torah demands that the eldest son receive a double portion and each of the other sons divide the money equally. A father’s attempt to lessen the portion of the eldest son or increase the portion of the other sons would be, therefore, a condition that goes against Torah law, and such a condition is invalid.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
דבריו קיימין – and we don’t have here [the case] of a person making a condition against what is written in the Torah because it is within the power of an individual to give his money as a gift to whomever he desires.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra
If a man apportioned his property to his sons by word of mouth, and gave much to one and little to another, or made them equal to the firstborn, his words are valid. But if he had said [that it should be so] “by inheritance”, he has said nothing. If he had written down, whether at the beginning or in the middle or at the end [of his will] that it should be as a gift, his words are valid. However, the fact that a man cannot make a change in the inheritance law does not mean that he cannot apportion his money as a present to his children while he is still alive. As long as the document or his verbal contract states that the money is being passed to his children as a present while he is still alive and not as an inheritance after his death, the transaction is valid. The Torah’s laws govern inheritance, the transfer of money after death and not presents given during life.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
ואם אמר משום ירושה – and if he increased [the monies] to one and lessened them to another in the designation of inheritance as he said: “So-and-so my son will a field that is an area requiring a Khor of seed, and so-and-so my son will inherit a field that is in an area requiring a one-half Khor of seed. But regarding his first-born son he said that he would inherit like that of his fellow, he did not say anything, for he made a condition that is against what is written in the Torah.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra
If a man said, “So and so a man shall inherit from me” and he has a daughter; or “My daughter shall inherit from me”, and he has a son, he has said nothing, for he has made a condition contrary to what is written in the Torah. Rabbi Johanan ben Baroka says: “If he said [that so and so shall inherit from me] of one that was qualified to inherit from him, his words are valid, but if of one that was not qualified to inherit from him his words do not remain valid.” Similar to the law in section one, here too a person attempts to change the laws of inheritance from the Torah, by saying that a stranger will inherit when he has a daughter or that his daughter will inherit when he has a son. Again, we learn that such a stipulation, contrary to the laws of the Torah, is invalid. Rabbi Johanan ben Baroka disagrees. He says that as long as the intended inheritor is a legal inheritor, meaning one of those on the list in mishnah one and two, then a person can bypass the primary inheritor and give to the secondary one. In other words Jacob could state that instead of his sons inheriting his property his daughter Dina could inherit, since she is on the lines of inheritance. He could not however, state that a stranger to the family would inherit in place of his sons.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
כתב בין בתחלה וכ' – “You will give such-and-such a field to son-and-so, and he will inherit it.” This is at the beginning. “He will inherit it and you will give it to him.” This is at the at the end. “He will inherit such-and-such a field and you will give it to him and he will inherit it. This is a gift in the middle.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra
If a man wrote away his property to others and passed over his sons, what he has done is done, but the Sages are not comfortable with it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If has sons did not behave properly, it should be counted to his credit.” Finally, the mishnah states that although a person can give away his property to strangers before he dies, thereby leaving no inheritance for his sons, the Rabbis were not happy with such an action. The laws of inheritance in the Torah are not just guidelines for inheriting should the situation arise, they are the proper way in which property would be transferred from generation to generation. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel lastly notes, that if the sons were engaged in improper behavior, it is meritorious for the father to ensure that they receive no inheritance.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
אם אמר על מי שראוי ליורשו – as for example, regarding a son among the sons, or regarding a daughter among the daughters, so-and-so will inherit me, his words are fulfilled, as it is written (Deuteronomy 21:16):”When he wills his property to his sons [he may not treat as first-born the son of the loved one in disregard of the son of the unloved one who is older].” The Torah gave permission to the father to bequeath to the sons to whomever he desires. And Rabbi Yohanan [Ben Beroka] agrees regarding a brother in place of a daughter, and regarding a daughter in place of a son, he has not said anything for the daughter is not worthy of inheriting in place of a son nor is the brother [worthy of inheriting] in place of a daughter. And similarly, Rabbi Yohanan [ben Beroka] agrees that if he made the first born equivalent to the [other] sons, he has not said anything, as it is written (Deuteronomy 21:16): “he may not treat as first-born the son of the loved one.” And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
אין רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו – The Sages have no pleasure from his actions, and even if his sons did not conduct themselves appropriately. Perhaps, there will arise from them a higher-level seed. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel.
