POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
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
1) WHO RECEIVED PORTIONS OF THE LAND?
(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!
(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
2. If it only counts the heads of families - it should
only count six!
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
(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
(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
1. Question (Rabah - Beraisa - R. Yehudah):
Tzelofchad's daughters received four portions -
(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
2) TZELOFCHAD'S DAUGHTERS
3. This teaches that merit comes through those with
merit, and detriment comes through those that have
(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
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
(f) (Beraisa): Tzelofchad's daughters were Chachamos, able to
expound, and righteous.
2. The law is, one may not honor a Talmid in front of
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
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
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
3. They were righteous - they only married men fitting
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'.
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.