Bava Batra, Daf Kuf Yud Dalet (folio 114). The last thing we were discussing was that inheritance goes from an aunt to her nephews, or from the mother's side of the family to her children, but not from the children to their mother's side of the family. We also talked about how inheritance only happens during the day. The whole judgment, the accepting of witnesses, and everything happen during the day, not at night.
And with that, we're going to start four lines in, where it says itmar (it was stated): kinyan. If someone made a kinyan, any sort of exchange, at what point can he go back? Meaning, at what point is it finalized? At what point is it not totally finalized yet? As long as they're sitting and discussing a certain case. Okay, if someone's not happy, they can back out. Rav Yosef says that as long as they're dealing with the same concept back and forth, even if they're still not there but the conversation is ongoing, someone can back out.
And Rav Yosef says it makes sense, like what I'm saying: as long as they're discussing the subject. Rav Yosef says that if three people came in to visit a sick person, they could, if they want, write the testimony, or actually sit there and be Dayanim (judges), like we said last daf. If you want to say, like Rabbah, that they can back out as long as they're sitting, then why are they sitting there as Dayanim? Aren't we worried that maybe the sick person is going to go back on his words, and the whole din (judgment) will be a waste of time?
Rashbam explains that even if he doesn't actually go back on his words, it doesn't look good that this person has the ability to knock out the entire din or waste the entire Beit din (rabbinical court)'s time. Or, as Tosafot explains, there's a chashash, there's a worry here, that he will go back. It's not just that ability; it's that we're worried he'll actually go back, and Beit din's time will be wasted.
And I said this in front of Rav Kahana. I said what Rav Yosef's proof is, and I pushed it away. Rav Yosef even makes sense according to Rav Yosef, but let's say he goes back even while they're discussing the whole case. Meaning, you always have this worry that the sick person is going to waste everyone's time. What's Rav Yosef going to explain for his Shita (position), for what he was saying? They're discussing one subject, going to the other, coming back to this, going back to that. And at that point they can't go back on whatever the din was.
But the Gemara says, “Okay, then they got up and sat back down.” And we'll say he can't go back on his word anymore. The Gemara ends with a machloket (dispute): are we talking about just this masechet (tractate) or the entire Shas? And there are three sugyot (discussions). Number one is sadeh. This is if one of the brothers is asking for a piece of land from the inheritance that's next to his land. You know, it's next to my land; I just want this part of the land. According to Rav Yosef, the other brothers could say no. According to the view that the brothers can't say no, is that our case here? What is considered the subject ending? Is it their getting up? Is it their talking about a different subject? And in the case where someone says, “My money is going to my wife and my kids,” is it half to the wife and half to the kids, or does it go to her and then she gives it over, or does she just get a small part? The machloket is discussed on a daf; we'll get there.
A woman bequeaths to her son and to her husband, and the mother's brothers bequeath to their nephews, meaning their sisters' kids, if there's no other inheritor. So the Gemara asks, “Why do I need all this? You're just repeating yourself. We already learned in the reisha (first part).” It says that a person inherits from his mother, and a person inherits from his wife. So I understand that a wife bequeaths to her husband and a mother bequeaths to her son. So why do you have to repeat this?
So the Gemara explains that there is a chidush (novel point) here: a woman bequeathing to her son is like a woman bequeathing to her husband. The same way that when a woman bequeaths to her husband, he doesn't get anything that came to her after she already passed away, the same thing applies once a son dies: he does not inherit from his mother and then give it to his brothers. Meaning, if he's not around, his mother's inheritance is going to go to his stepbrothers. It doesn't work like that, since they're not hers. Rather, it's going to go to her side of the family.
Now Tosafot doesn't like this because the analogy is not the same. In the first case the woman dies; in the second case the son is dying, so it doesn't make sense. Rather, the way Tosafot brings it, the piece is explained this way: the husband does not yoreish (inherits) his wife after he himself passes away in order to give it to his side of the family. Meaning, once the husband dies, the wife's inheritance doesn't go to his side of the family; rather, it goes to her side of the family. The same thing when the son dies: it doesn't go to his brothers from his father, as inheritance usually goes; rather, it goes to her side of the family, his mother's side of the family. And a father inherits his children, meaning if the children die, the father gets their inheritance.
And really, a woman—a mother—inherits her son. Meaning, if the mother is still alive and the children die, okay, she gets it. It says—and we're seeing the word. We said that this pasuk (verse) is talking about a woman who inherits from two Shevatim, meaning from her father and her mother. And we're going to compare. We're going to compare the mother's shevet (tribe) to the father's shevet. The same way a father inherits his son, we see the word she'ero (his kin), veha'avartem (you shall transfer). The same thing applies to the mother: a mother inherits her son.
Now, Rabbi Yochanan asked Rabbi Shimon a question. We learned in our Mishnah that a woman bequeaths to her son and to her husband, and that her brothers—the mother's brothers—bequeath to her children, but not the other way around: they don't inherit from her children. And it sounds like the mother does not inherit from her children. Amar lei, Rabbi Yehuda answered back to Rabbi Hanan: “I don't know who gave the halacha (law) in our Mishnah. I don't know who the Tanna (Mishnah authority) of the Mishnah is. Therefore, I'm just going to go with that Hol hekesh (textual comparison) Matot Matot (tribes, tribes). I'm just going to go with that, rather than going by what it says in the Mishnah.” But we'll ask more questions on that piece. We'll stop right here. Baruch Hashem le'olam, amen ve'amen (Blessed is Hashem forever, amen and amen).