Notes[ 18 ]8. B. MQ b.
88. Sifra on Lev. 1:.
89. This standard is also found in the Yerushalmi, MQ 3 : 5 (8c, 8d – 83 a).
9. Also in Y. MQ 3 : 5 ( 83 a).
91. The most surprising aspect of the list is an omission; we are not told that
a son is forbidden to testify or serve as a judge in a case involving his father. The
Mishnah printed in the Vilna edition of the Babylonian Talmud does not men-
tion the father; both omissions may be explained as omissions of the obvious,
given that the prohibition on testimony by relatives is based on Deut. 4: 16 : “Fa-
thers shall not be put to death for sons, nor sons be put to death for fathers.”
9. M. San. 3 : 4.
93. The term giso is understood to refer to the husband of a man’s wife’s sister,
not the wife’s brother. Both of these individuals would in theory be included in
the prohibition without being singled out, since they are respectively the son-in-
law and son of another prohibited relative, the father-in-law; it is not clear here
why the wife’s sister’s husband is mentioned explicitly.
94. B. San. 8a.
95. In theory, the list of individuals included in each generation should be
broader, with Ego’s father’s sister’s husband and his mother’s brother and sister’s
husband in the first generation, Ego’s sister’s husband in the second generation,
and Ego’s nephews and niece’s husbands in the third. This is the only section of
the sugya that employs this generational model, and it is not clear that the Bavli
uses “generations” the way we might in constructing a family tree.
96. B. San. 8a.
9. B. San. 8a.
98. M. BB 8 : 1.
99. M. BB 8 :.
1. The Mishnah does not list a man’s sisters or the sisters of his father as his
potential heirs, but their ability to inherit when they have no brothers can be
inferred from the right of daughters to inherit from their father if he has no sons.
Furthermore, the mention of a man’s sister’s sons as his possible heirs indicates
that a sister has inheritance rights with regard to her brother; the rights of neph-
ews to inherit from their maternal uncle are derived solely from their mother.
1 1. This includes the individual’s daughters as well as sons (B. BB 113 a – b ).
1. M. BB 8 :.
1 3. B. BB 1 9b, 11b.
14. B. BB 11b – 111 a, 111 b. There is a rabbinic dispute as to whether a husband’s
right to inherit his wife’s property can be traced to the Bible or whether it is a
rabbinic enactment.
1 5. B. BB 1 8b.
1 6. B. BB 1 8b – 1 9a d iscusses t he preference for ver t ica l rat her t ha n hor i zon-
tal inheritance and draws a connection between vertical inheritance and levi-
rate marriage: a man’s sons and even daughters take precedence over his broth-
ers precisely because either a son or a daughter obviates the need for levirate.
1. B. BB 1 9b explicitly acknowledges that allowing daughters to inherit will
lead to property leaving the patrilineage.
1 8. M. Yev. 1 : 1.
1 9. B. Yev. 3 a.
11. The specification of a man’s sister on his mother’s side and his mother’s
sister in no way implies that maternal relatives are “closer” than paternal rela-
t ives. Rat her, t he Mish na h ha s no need to l ist a ma n’s sister by h is fat her or h is fa-