What’s in a Sign?

The Gemora, before citing the various reasons offered for the second verse referring to a husband, includes the word “siman” - sign. This word usually introduces a mnemonic device for the information which will be presented. However, our text of the Gemora simply has the word siman, with no obvious mnemonic device. Some write that the device was lost. Others offer novel interpretations of what the word siman is meant to convey in our Gemora. Some say that the word is actually the name of a sage, either Siman or Seemon. Others explain that the word siman or a variation are reflective of the answers given (ish, yidbeku, matos, ben), while some say that the missing word of the mnemonic device is Amar, for the names of those offering the answers (Rav Ashi, Rav Nachman, Rava).

Transfer to a Son;
Transfer to a Husband

The Gemora cites two braisos that explain the meaning of the two verses that prohibit the transfer of a woman’s inheritance to another tribe.

The Rashbam says that the text of the Gemora states that we have one braisa that focuses on the transfer to a son, and one that focuses on the transfer to a husband. The first braisa cited is the one which cites the first verse, and states that it refers to a transfer to a son, since the second verse already refers to a transfer to a husband. The Gemora introduces this braisa as the one which focuses on the transfer to a son, since it begins with that transfer. The second braisa cites the second verse, and states that it refers to transfer to a husband, since the first verse already refers to the transfer to a son. The Gemora introduces this braisa as the one which focuses on the transfer to a husband, since it begins with that transfer. The Gemora then proceeds to discuss why both braisos agree that the second verse refers to a transfer to a husband.

Rabbeinu Tam (112b Hachi Garis) disagrees with the Rashbam, and offers a different text of the Gemora. The first braisa cites the first verse about transfer, and states that it refers to transfer to a husband, proving this from the fact that the second similar verse is referring to such a transfer, indicating that both verses, in context, are only referring to a transfer to a husband. This first braisa is introduced as the braisa which focuses on the transfer to a husband, since it accepts only such a transfer as forbidden. The second braisa cites the second verse, and states that it refers to a transfer to a husband, since the first one already refers to a transfer to a son. The Gemora then discusses why both braisos – although they differ on the meaning of the first verse – agree that the second verse refers to a transfer to a husband.

Rabbeinu Tam challenges the Rashbam’s reading. According to the Rashbam, both braisos agree in the meaning of both verses, so there is no reason for the Gemora to identify them as focusing on different transfers. Furthermore, the Gemora could have stated that both braisos agree on the first verse referring to the transfer to a son, and not just to their agreement on the second verse.

Below is the flow of the Gemora, according to Rashbam and Rabbeinu Tam:

Rashbam Rabbeinu Tam
There is a braisa that focuses on transfer to a son, and one that focuses on transfer to a husband
The one which focuses on a son is: The one which only forbids transfer to a husband is:
Braisa 1:
First verse refers to a son, by process of elimination, since second verse refers to a husband First verse refers to a husband, from the context of the second verse, which refers to a husband
The one which focuses on a husband is: The one which also forbids transfer to a son is:
Braisa 2:
Second verse refers to a husband, by process of elimination, since the first verse refers to a son
Both braisos agree that the second verse refers to a husband
[They differ only in emphasis] [They differ on the first verse only]

The Kovetz Shiurim discusses what practical difference there between being concerned about a transfer to a husband or if we are also concerned about a transfer to a son. He lists three possible differences:
1. The prohibition of transfer to a husband takes effect as soon as they are fully married, and he inherits her (nisuin), while the prohibition of transfer to a son will take effect only upon conception or birth.
2. If a woman is sterile, there will be no prohibition due to transfer to a son, but only due to transfer to her husband.
3. If the husband relinquished his right to inherit his wife, there is no transfer, and the marriage is permitted. However, the prohibition of transfer to the son will still be in effect.