Husbands Inherit, Wives Do Not: A Legitimate Biblical Exegesis?

Later, other potential heirs from their tribe, Joseph, point out the repercussions of that decision should the daughters marry outside of their tribe. Moses apparently returns to God for clarification and states that the daughters must marry within their tribe, to ensure that the inherited property will not pass to another tribe upon the daughters’ death (Num 36:1–12).

Biblical translations follow NJPS, with modifications. Unless otherwise indicated, all other translations are mine.

In m. Baba Batra 8:1, the father is the first heir listed. The Talmud, in Baba Batra 108a-b, comments that the Mishnah gave prominence to this rule (even though this happens rarely and in tragic circumstances): :וְתַנָּא אַיְּידֵי דְּאָתְיָא לֵיהּ מִדְּרָשָׁא חֲבִיבָא לֵיהּ, “since [this halakhah is not explicit in the Torah but] is derived through midrash, this halakhah is precious to the author of the Mishnah.”

An expanded list is found in m. Baba Batra 8:2. Rashbam, summing up the halakhic conclusions of the Talmudic discussion, provides an even more detailed list in his commentary to b. Baba Batra 116b, s.v. הכי נמי מסתברא.

The rule that the husband inherits is explicit in m. Baba Batra 8:1.

Slight variations on this prooftext are found in other classical rabbinic texts. Sifri Zuta ad loc. reads: מנין אתה אומר יורש הוא אדם את אשתו ת״ל וירש אותה, “what is the source for saying that a man inherits from his wife? The words ‘he shall inherit from her (אוֹתָהּ).’” In Sifri ad loc., two further prooftexts are offered—either that the word מִמִּשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ in the same verse teaches that a man inherits his wife’s estate; or from the fact that Phineas, from the tribe of Levi, owned land on Mount Ephraim (according to Josh 24:33), and the only way that land from the tribe of Ephraim could have ended up owned by someone from the tribe of Levi (during years when purchased property returned to the original owners at the Jubilee year) was through inheriting from a wife who came from another tribe.

This is the opinion of many halakhic authorities. See e.g. Maimonides Ishshut 10:7: וחכמים הם שתיקנו כתובה לאשה, “the rabbis legislated that a woman should have a ketubbah.” On the other hand, the commonly used text of the ketubbah reflects another Talmudic opinion (see e.g. b. Ketubbot 10a)—that the ketubbah is a Torah requirement for a woman who is marrying for the first time. As the ketubbah reads: כסף זוזי מאתן דחזי ליכי מדאורייתא, “two hundred zuzim of silver as the Torah requires for you.”

See A Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (Alef – Taw) [Hebrew], ed. Menachem Zvi Kaddari (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2006), s.v., שְׁאֵר. Likewise, the first sense listed in The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, ed. David J. A. Clines, 9 vols. (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 1993–2014), s.v., שְׁאֵר, is “flesh, in ref. to blood-relations, i.e. (close) relatives, (next of) kin” (p. 8:221), though שְׁאֵר can also refer to flesh in the sense of the body or flesh as food (p. 222).

Sara Japhet, The Commentary of Rabbi Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam) on the Book of Job (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2000), 96.

For an explanation of omnisignificance, see Yaacov Elman’s essay, “Classical Rabbinic Interpretation,” in The Jewish Study Bible, ed. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, 2^nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 1859–1878. The term was first used by James L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), 104.

Mikraot Gedolot Ha-keter, ed. M. Cohen, Exodus vol. 2, p. 8. In his commentary to Numbers 27, Ibn Ezra refers readers back to this comment.

See Mikraot Gedolot Ha-keter, ed. M. Cohen, Genesis vol. 1, p. 29.

See Mikraot Gedolot Ha-keter, ed. M. Cohen, Genesis vol. 1, p. 29.

While the concept of asmakhta appears frequently in the Talmud, it is never used there the way Ibn Ezra uses it, to solve the tension between peshat and midrash. For analysis of the difference between Ibn Ezra’s use of asmakhta and the Talmud’s use, see my article, “Asmakhta and Abraham ibn Ezra’s Exegesis,” in Polemical and Exegetical Polarities in Medieval Jewish Cultures: Studies in Honour of Daniel J. Lasker, ed. Ehud Krinis et al. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2021), 229–241. For more on asmakhta, see also Jay Harris, How Do We Know This? Midrash and the Fragmentation of Modern Judaism (Albany: State University of New York, 1995), 48 and passim; and my article "אסמכתא' ככלי פרשני: הרחבת המושג וצמצומו'”[“Asmakhta” as an Interpretive Tool: The Expansion and Narrowing of the Concept], in צבי תפארה: מחקרים מוגשים לפרופ' צבי זוהר [Zvi Tifʾara: Studies Presented to Prof. Zvi Zohar], ed. by Yaron Harel et al. (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2025), 37–59.

Ibn Ezra’s language alludes to Ecclesiastes 11:6.

יסוד דקדוק הוא שפת יתר, ed. by Nehemia Aloni (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1984), 86.

See, for example, his commentary to Leviticus 21:2, s.v.  כי אם לשארו: (Mikraot Gedolot Ha-keter, ed. M. Cohen, Leviticus, p. 168):

 היה נראה לנו, כי פירושו...וכאשר ראינו שהעתיקו קדמונינו ז״ל: כי...בטל פירוש הראשון.

I used to think that the explanation of the verse was...but when I saw that the tradition the rabbis passed on was...the first explanation was canceled.

See also Ibn Ezra’s shorter commentary on Exodus 13:9 (Mikraot Gedolot Ha-keter, ed. M. Cohen, Exodus, vol 1, p. 102): ובעבור שהעתיקו כן חכמינו ז״ל, בטל הפירוש הראשון, “since the rabbis of blessed memory passed on the tradition[al explanation], the first explanation is canceled.” And see Zev Farber, “Can the Torah Contradict Halacha?” TheTorah (2013).

See Hananel Mack, שבעים פנים לתורה: למהלכו של ביטוי [Seventy Faces of the Torah: On the Course of the Expression] in ספר היובל לרב מרדכי ברויאר [Sefer ha-Yovel le-Rav Mordechai Breuer], ed. Moshe Bar-Asher (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992), 449–462. Editor’s note: See also Biti Roi, “Tikkunei Zohar: Seventy Faces of Torah,” TheTorah (2025).

In recent years, scholars have debated whether many or most of the comments in our printed versions of Rashi where Rashi offers more than one interpretation might be the results of copyists adding to the original text of Rashi.  See, for example, the discussion in Elazar Touitou, “על גלגולי הנוסח של פירוש רש"י לתורה” [Concerning the Presumed Original Version of Rashi’s Commentary on the Pentateuch], Tarbiz 56 (1987): 211–242; and in Avraham Grossman, “הגהות ר' שמעיה ונוסח פירוש רש"י לתורה” [The Glosses of R. Shemayah and the Text of Rashi’s Commentary on the Torah], Tarbiz 60 (1991): 67–98.