Texts in Conversation
Philo reasons that if the law names the father's brother as heir for the father's sake, the father himself is named all the more. Rabbinic tradition in Sifre Numbers reaches the same conclusion using the same form of kal va'chomer argument.
Share:
2500 BCE
1000+ CE
Philo The Special Laws
Classical
132 How, then, does it do this? It puts down the father's brother as the heir of his nephews, no doubt rewarding the uncle for the father's sake--unless anyone is so silly as to suppose that one who honors someone for the sake of someone else thereby chooses to dishonor the latter. Those who pay attention to their friends' acquaintances do not thereby neglect their friends, do they? Do not those who show the most solicitous care for those whom they honor also welcome their friends? In precisely the same way, when when the law names the father's brother to share in the inheritance on account of the father, how much more does it name the father! It does not do this explicitly, for the reasons cited, but it makes clear the will of the lawgiver with surer force than an explicit mention.
Date: 20-50 C.E. (based on scholarly estimates)
Sifre Numbers 134:2
Halakhic Midrash
Rabbinic
her son and her husband inheriting her (i.e., what she has inherited from her father, who may be of a different tribe.) Whence is it derived that the father (of the deceased) precedes his brothers (i.e., the brothers of the deceased) in the inheritance? R. Yishmael was wont to say: It is written "then you shall pass over his inheritance to his daughter." Because of a daughter you pass over an inheritance from the father, and not because of the brothers. And whence is it derived that a father inherits (his son)? It follows, a fortiori, viz.: If the father's brothers who come (to inherit) only by power of the father, inherit him, then the father (himself), whose brothers come (to inherit) only by his power, how much more so should he inherit (his son)? And whence is it derived that the son's daughter stands in place of the son? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If the daughters of Tzelafchad, who inherited only for a particular time (i.e., an exception was made in their case, for the land was apportioned only to those who had left Egypt and had died), how much more so (is this to obtain) for the succeeding generations!
Date: 200 C.E. (based on scholarly estimates)
Tags:
Search:
Notes and References
... In his Special Laws Book 2 sections 129-132 Philo refers to the fact that Scripture (Numbers 27:8-11) gives a full written account of inheritance rules but deliberately omits mention of fathers inheriting their children's property. ... Yet from the remote case of the father's brothers, a fortiori Philo says, we understand that fathers inherit their children's property as if it were explicitly written. Thus, like the Rabbis, Philo considers legal midrashic interpretation to yield results synonymous to explicit written scriptures. ... It is of interest to note that the Talmud cites the Sifre passage to Numbers 27:8-11 which contains almost the same a fortiori argument as Philo does. The Sifre states the a fortiori argument in regards to the first case of Scriptures where brothers inherit their dead brother, while Philo argues the same thing from the second case since this one specifically mentions the father ("the brothers of the father"). In point of fact there is no difference between the two arguments except the one word "father" stated in Scripture. Otherwise Philo's words and the Sifre's words are virtually identical. ...
Basser, Herbert W.
Studies in Exegesis: Christian Critiques of Jewish Law and Rabbinic Responses 70-300 C.E.
(pp. 129-130) Brill, 2000
* The use of references are not endorsements of their contents. Please read the entirety of the provided reference(s) to understand the author's full intentions regarding the use of these texts.
Your Feedback:
Leave a Comment
Anonymous comments are welcome. All comments are subject to moderation.