Study Bava Batra folio 122B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
כתיב: ״סרח״, וכתיב: ״חרס״! אמר רבי אלעזר: בתחלה פירותיה כחרס, ולבסוף פירותיה מסריחין. ואיכא דאמרי: בתחלה מסריחין, ולבסוף כחרס.
The Talmud interjects: It is written concerning Joshua’s burial: “And they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnath Serah” (Joshua 24:30), and it is written: “And they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnath Heres” (Judges 2:9). Why is the name changed? R' Elazar says: Initially, its fruits were as dry as clay [keḥeres], and ultimately, its fruits were so plump that they were spoiling [masriḥin]. And there are those who say the opposite: Initially, the fruits were spoiling prematurely, and ultimately, they lasted as long as clay without spoiling.
כלב – דכתיב: ״ויתנו לכלב את חברון כאשר דבר משה, ויורש משם את שלשה בני הענק״. חברון עיר מקלט הואי! אמר אביי: פרוורהא, דכתיב: ״ואת שדה העיר ואת חצריה נתנו לכלב בן יפנה באחזתו״.
Caleb also received his portion directly from God and not through the lottery, as it is written: “And they gave Hebron to Caleb, as Moses had spoken; and he drove out from there the 3 sons of the giant” (Judges 1:20). The Talmud asks about this verse: But Hebron was a city of refuge that belonged to the priests, as described in the book of Joshua (21:13); how could it have been given to Caleb? Abaye said: Its outskirts [parvaraha], i.e., only the fields and vineyards lying beyond the city limits, were given to Caleb. As it is written: “But the fields of the city, and the villages thereof, they gave to Caleb the son of Jephunneh for his possession” (Joshua 21:12).
מתני׳ אחד הבן ואחד הבת בנחלה; אלא שהבן נוטל פי שנים בנכסי האב, ואינו נוטל פי שנים בנכסי האם. והבנות – נזונות מנכסי האב, ואינן נזונות מנכסי האם.
Mishnah: Both the son and the daughter of the deceased are included in the halakhot of inheritance. But the difference is that the firstborn son takes a double portion of the property of the father, and he does not take a double portion of the property of the mother. And another difference is that the daughters are sustained from the property of the father after he dies, as it is a mandatory condition of their mother’s marriage contract that they are to be sustained even before the estate is disbursed to the children, but the daughters are not sustained from the property of the mother, which is all inherited by the sons.