Bechoros 8:9 - 8:10

ולא בנכסי האם – the usufruct property (i.e., the wife’s personal property from which her husband is entitled to benefit – brought into the marriage from her father’s home and that is not included in her marriage contract, and property that she inherits or receives as a gift after her marriage) of the mother, as it is written (Deuteronomy 21:17): “since he is the first fruit of his vigor, the birthright is his due,” implying that it refers to that which is his (i.e., the father’s), that is to say, with his property, “the birthright is his due,” but not the property of his wife.

ואינו נוטל פי שים בשבח – if the property [of the father] grew in value after the death of the father prior to their dividing it, the first born does not take a double portion of the increased value/amelioration. But rather, they assess the property, what it was worth at the time of the death of the father and the first-born [son] takes a double portion of them alone, as it states (Deuteronomy 21:17): “and allot to him a double portion of all he possesses,” of what belonged to the father at the time of [his] death.

ולא בראוי (what is coming due to the estate [as he does of what is held in possession]) – in the property, for their father did not hold in possession at the time of his death, but other than what was appropriate to fall to him in inheritance, but what fell to them after a time, the first-born does not take from them a double portion.

ולא האשה בכתובתה – in the growth that accrued . But if the property [value] is not equivalent at the time of the death of her husband in order to the measure [of what is written] in her Ketubah, but afterwards it increased [in value], she does not take for her Ketubah settlement other than what they were worth [at the time of his death], and even though in general, the creditor collects the increase in value, this is one of the leniencies of the Ketubah that they taught here. And she does not take what is coming due to the estate as she does of what is held in possession.

ולא הבנות – [the daughters do not] take maintenance/alimentation after the death of their father according to the conditions of her (i.e., the wife’s) Ketubah (see Tractate Ketubot, Chapter 4, Mishnah 11), but the female children, they will be yours, but from me they may dwell in my house and are supported from my property. Not from the increase in value of the property nor from that which is appropriate to come after death. Since the maintenance of the daughters is from the conditions of the Ketubah, they are like the Ketubah itself.

ולא היבם – [the levir] who takes a portion of the [property] of the dead when he performs levirate marriage with his wife, he does not take the portion of his brother, neither from the increase [in value] nor form that which is coming due to the estate [over time]. What is the reason? The All-Merciful calls him “the first born (Deuteronomy 25:6): “The first son that she bears shall be accounted to the dead brother,” like the first-born son; just as the first-born does not take from the increase nor that which is appropriate to come [to him], so too the levir does not take neither the increase in value nor what is appropriate to come (i.e., what is expected to accrue to the estate).

וכולן אינן נוטלין בשבח – He teaches this again [in the Mishnah] to include increase that comes of its own accord/automatically, as for example, grain that was ruined when his father died and now it made ears of corn, or dates in the budding stage and they now became large dates. For if the Mishnah had only taught the first clause, I would think that the firstborn does not take a double-portion of the increase in value, that they words refer to the increase that his brother was busy with as for example the manuring of the fields and the crushing of the earth and the hoeing.

ולא בראוי כבמוחזק – to include [as well] if the father of their father was alive at the time of the death of their father, that the property would be appropriate to them [via inheritance] when he would die, even though that certainly, it would eventually fall to them, and even if he has another son, these would take the portion of their father, for I might think that it is like what is held in possession. Hence, this is not the case. For if only from the first clause of the Mishnah, I might think that what is appropriate according to what is taught in the first clause, the first born does not take, as for example, when the property of the brother of their father who did not have children fell to them at the time of the death of their father, it is not appropriate other than from doubt, for perhaps he will not have issue.

הבכורה – does not return [to the original owner] in the Jubilee year, as it is written (Deuteronomy 21:17): “a double portion, I make an analogy [of nearby verse fragments] of the two parts one to another, just as one part, his plain heir’s right does not return in the Jubilee year for it is an inheritance, as it is written (Deuteronomy 21:17): “When he wills the property to his sons,” even the part of is first-born son is [his] inheritance.

והיורש את אשתו – for this [anonymous] Tanna/teacher holds that this is from the Torah, (Numbers 27:11): “[If his father had no brothers, you shall assign his property] to his nearest relative in his own clan, and he shall inherit it,” from here, [we learn] that the husband inherits his wife [who dies first].

והמיבם את אשת אחיו – and he took his brother’s portion, it is a complete inheritance and he doesn’t return to the rest of the brothers in the Jubilee year. For the All-Merciful calls him a first born (Deuteronomy 25:6): “The first son [that she bears shall be accounted to the dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out in Israel,] the firstborn status does not return in the Jubilee year as we have derived.

והמתנה כדברי ר' מאיר – it is something sold, that the All-Merciful stated that it be returned in the Jubilee year, but an inheritance and a gift is not [returned[.

וחכמים אומרים מתנה כמכר – as it is written (Leviticus 25:13): “In this year of jubilee, each of you shall return to his holding.” But it is an extraneous verse, for it has already been stated (Leviticus 25:10): “Each of you shall return to his holding [and each of you shall return to his family],” but it (i.e., the extraneous verse] comes in order to include the gift that it comes.

רבי אליעזר אומר כולן חוזרים ביובל – He holds like the Rabbis who state that the word תשובו /shall return [to his holding] includes the gift. And these all of them are a gift. The firstborn – to give him a “double portion” (Deuteronomy 21:17) the All-Merciful calls a gift. And the person who inherits his wife, the inheritance of the husband is according to the Rabbis. And the one who performs levirate marriage on the wife of his [deceased] brother (who died without fathering any children), the All-Merciful calls him a first-born, for just as the first-born portion returns, so the levir returns [his portion].

היורש את אשתו יחזיר לבני משפחה – Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka holds that the inheritance of the husband of his [deceased] wife is from the Torah, and here, what are we dealing with? As For example, that his wife had bequeathed to him a cemetery, but because of the blemish/discredit to the family, the Rabbis stated that they should consider the cost and return the graves to the members of the family.

וינכה להם מן הדמים – the cost of the grave of his wife. For he, at any rate, is responsible for her burial. But the Halakha is according to the Sages that a gift is like a sale, and according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka , for a husband whose wife bequeathed him a cemetery takes the money and returns the cemetery to the members of the family, and deducts from the monies the cost of his wife’s grave.