Today’s daf opens with a case about two brothers who inherited their father’s estate and split the property between them. However, their father had a lien on the property and the creditor came to one of the brothers to seize part or all of his inheritance as repayment for the loan.
For illustration’s sake, let’s say brothers Reuven and Shimon inherited their father’s estate by evaluating the assets and splitting them according to their preferences. Reuven received, say, the farm house and a herd of dairy cows while Shimon took the apple orchard. Time passed. Reuven became a dairy farmer, grew his flock, created a milk supply line and developed a brand of natural ice cream. Shimon, meanwhile, developed a local apple picking business in his orchard and a reputation for giving the best hay rides in the fall. They each took their half of the inheritance and grew them in different personalized directions.
Are these two brothers still linked together by the fact that they inherited their father’s single estate? Or by now are these two independent properties with no legal ties other than, one hopes, the love of family?
If, many years later, a creditor knocks on the farm house door and demands Rueven’s property to settle the father’s debt, is Reuven alone required to make this repayment? Or does Shimon also have to pitch in by dint of the fact that both properties were one when the father initially staked the property as collateral? This is a tough call. The Talmud offers two primary opinions and the third is a compromise position:
Rav says: The original division of the property is void.
Shmuel says: Each brother, upon receiving his portion, has foregone his right to the other property.
Rav Asi says: The brother whose portion was seized takes one-quarter in land and one-quarter in money.
Rav says that when the creditor arrives, it is as if the brothers never split the property. After the creditor takes what is owed to him, then the brothers re-divide what is left, evenly. Shmuel, however, argues the properties are now distinct and if the creditor chooses one or the other property to seize for repayment of the loan, there is no legal reason for the other brother to lose anything.
The Gemara explains their reasoning:
Rav says that the original division of the property is void, because he holds that brothers who divided property received as an inheritance are still considered to be heirs.
And Shmuel says that upon dividing the inheritance each has foregone his rights to the other half of the estate, because he holds that brothers who divided an inheritance are considered as purchasers from each other, specifically like a purchaser without a guarantee concerning outstanding debts on the land.
According to Rav, the two properties are indefinitely linked to each other by virtue of being part of one original estate, and the brothers are always considered heirs with a joint responsibility to pay their father’s debts. Shmuel, however, reasons that when the brothers decide to split the inheritance they become like a buyer and seller. Once the transaction is complete there are no lasting legal bonds that tie them or their properties together.
Rav Asi, according to the Gemara, offers a compromise between the two. He fundamentally rules like Rav that the brother who lost his half of the inheritance to the creditor is owed a portion of the remaining inheritance from his brother. If he is an inheritor, he is owed land currently held by his brother, but if he is like a buyer then his brother can pay back his portion of the loan in money. Hence, Rav Asi arrives at the middle position that his new half of the inheritance will be paid in a combination of land and money.
Unlike many talmudic discussions, this one ends with a clear decision introduced with the word hilkhitah, it is the law: The law follows Rav, who holds that the original division is void and, after the debt has been discharged, the brothers divide the remaining estate evenly.
One might hope that Rav’s position would be the impulse of many brothers — that the lucky one would help out his brother out of love as well as fairness. But in many cases in the Talmud, inheriting brothers are often on poor terms, so it is necessary to establish what they owe each other by the letter of the law. And so, once a brother, always a brother; once an inheritor, always an inheritor. They are linked together in their responsibility to share the windfall of their inheritance as well as the weight of their father’s debts. We can only hope this legal link will also reflect ongoing ties of solidarity and mutual support.
Read all of Bava Batra 107 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on October 10, 2024. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world.
Your donation to My Jewish Learning fuels endless journeys of Jewish discovery. With your help, My Jewish Learning can continue to provide nonstop opportunities for learning, connection and growth.
