(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Bava Basra 119


(a) Question (Rav Papa): What does the verse ("Chavlei Menasheh Asarah") count?
1. If it counts all brothers in Menasheh that received their father's portion - there were many more!
2. If it only counts the heads of families - it should only count six!
(b) Answer (Abaye): Really, it counts the heads of families; it only includes the other portions to teach that Tzelofchad's daughters received his extra portion as a firstborn.
1. This implies, Eretz Yisrael already belonged to Benei Yisrael before we entered (a firstborn does not receive an extra portion in property which the father did not own in his lifetime).
(c) (Beraisa): The children (of the Meraglim and of Korach's congregation) received portions from their grandfathers.
(d) Contradiction (Beraisa): They received portions in their own merit.
(e) Answer #1: The former Beraisa holds that portions were allocated to those that left Mitzrayim; the latter Beraisa holds, to those that entered.
(f) Answer #2: Both Beraisos hold, portions were allocated to those that left Mitzrayim; the former speaks of children below 20 (when they entered Eretz Yisrael), the latter, children above 20.
(g) (Mishnah): He received two portions because he was a firstborn.
(h) Question: But Chefer never received a share of Eretz Yisrael in his life - it was only *Ra'uy* (likely) to come to him; a firstborn gets an extra share of Muchzak property, not of Ra'uy!
(i) Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah): He received an extra share in tent pegs (or other Metaltelin) - Chefer was Muchzak in them.
1. Question (Rabah - Beraisa - R. Yehudah): Tzelofchad's daughters received four portions - "Chavlei Menasheh..."
(j) Answer #2: Rather, Eretz Yisrael already belonged to Benei Yisrael before we entered.
(k) Question (Beraisa - R. Shimon ha'Shakmoni): Moshe knew that Tzelofchad's daughters receive a part of Eretz Yisrael; he just didn't know whether they receive an extra share, for Tzelofchad was a firstborn.
1. The Parsha of inheritance was fitting to be said through Moshe; Tzelofchad's daughters merited that it was said through them.
(l) Moshe knew that the man that gathered wood on Shabbos would be killed - "Mechalaleha Mos Yumas" - he just didn't know which death penalty.
1. This Parsha was fitting to be said through Moshe; the Mekoshesh was guilty, and it was written because of him.

3. This teaches that merit comes through those with merit, and detriment comes through those that have sinned.
(m) (Summation of question): If Eretz Yisrael was owned before we entered, why was Moshe unsure?!
(n) Answer: Moshe was unsure if we already owned Eretz Yisrael!
1. It says "V'Nasati Osah Lachem *Morasha* (something you bequeath)" - is it *also* an inheritance (and the firstborn gets double); or, does it only teach that the parents bequeath but do not inherit?
(o) Hash-m revealed to Moshe that it is also an inheritance.
(p) "Tevi'emo (Hash-m will bring *him*, i.e. the congregation of Yisrael) v'Sita'emo b'Har Nachalsecha" - Benei Yisrael prophesized, without recognizing the prophecy (that they themselves will not enter Eretz Yisrael).
(a) Question: "Va'Ta'amodna Lifnei Moshe v'Lifnei Elazar ha'Kohen v'Lifnei ha'Nesi'im v'Chol ha'Edah" - is it possible, they came before Moshe, did not receive an answer, they came before Elazar ... and then before the Nesi'im and the congregation?!
(b) Answer #1 (R. Yoshiyah): The verse is written out of order (first they came before the congregation, then before the Nesi'im, then Elazar, then Moshe).
(c) Answer #2 (Aba Chanan): They were all sitting in the Beis Medrash, and they came before all of them at once.
(d) Question: On what do they argue?
(e) Answer: Aba Chana says that one may honor a Talmid in front of his Rebbi (i.e. they addressed their question to all present, even though the others were Moshe's Talimidim); R. Yoshiyah says, one may not.
1. The law is, one may honor a Talmid in front of his Rebbi.
2. The law is, one may not honor a Talmid in front of his Rebbi.
3. Question: This is a contradiction!
4. Answer: No - the laws speak in different cases.
i. One may honor a Talmid in front of his Rebbi if the Rebbi himself honors him; otherwise, one may not.
(f) (Beraisa): Tzelofchad's daughters were Chachamos, able to expound, and righteous.
1. They were Chachamos - they spoke at the proper time.
i. (Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak): Moshe was expounding the Parshah of Yibum. They said - if we are like a son, we should get an inheritance; if not, our mother should do Yibum; "Va'Yakriv Moshe Es Mishpatan Lifnei Hash-m".
2. They were able to expound - 'If our father had left a son, we would not request an inheritance.'
i. Question (Beraisa): ('If our father had left a) daughter, (we would not request an inheritance.')
ii. Answer #1 (R. Yirmiyah): The text of this Beraisa is mistaken, we discard it.
iii. Answer #2 (Abaye): We can explain the Beraisa - 'Even if our father had left a daughter to a son, we would not request'.
3. They were righteous - they only married men fitting for them.
i. (Beraisa - R. Eliezer Ben Yakov): Each of them was at least 40 years old when she married.
ii. Question: But Rav Chisda taught, a woman that marries before age 20 will bear children until age 60; if she marries at 20, she will bear children until age 40; if she marries at 40, she will not bear children.
iii. Answer: Since they were righteous, a miracle was done for them and they were able to conceive, like Yocheved.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,