(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 125


(a) Objection #1 (Against Rabah): Rabah says that if they collected money, he gets no extra share - it must be, because the father did not leave this money.
1. But the same applies if they collect land!
(b) Objection #2: Presumably the law is as the Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael, who say (in the case described below) that if the grandmother sells, the sale is valid.
(c) Objection #1 (Against Rav Nachman): Rav Nachman says that if they collected land, he gets no extra share - it must be, because the father did not leave this land.
1. But the same applies if they collect money!
(d) Objection #2: Rav Nachman himself cited Rabah bar Avuha, who said that if orphans collect land for a debt owed to their father, a creditor of their father can collect that land (we see, it is considered like property of the father)!
(e) Answer (Rabah): These do not refute me, nor Rav Nachman.
1. We only came to explain the reason of the law sent from Eretz Yisrael (the firstborn receives a double portion in the principal, not in the interest) - we personally hold, he does not even get a double share in the principal.


(a) A man said 'My property should go (after my death) to my grandmother; after her, to my heirs.' The man had a married daughter; she died in the life of her husband and the grandmother.
1. When the grandmother later died, the daughter's husband claimed the property.
2. Rav Huna: The one who gave the gift said 'To my heirs' - this includes his heirs' heirs.
3. Rav Anan: 'My heirs' excludes his heirs' heirs.
(b) (Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael): The law is as Rav Anan, but his reason is wrong.
(c) The law is as Rav Anan, that the husband does not inherit; but Rav Anan would say this even if the daughter had a son, that son would not inherit, but this is wrong.
1. Her son certainly would inherit!
2. Her husband does not inherit because the property was only Ra'uy (likely to fall to his wife), and a husband only inherits what his wife was Muchzak in.
(d) Suggestion: Rav Huna says that the husband inherits - he must hold that a husband inherits property that is Ra'uy!
(e) Rejection (R. Elazar): This discussion started with great sages, and will conclude with lower sages (myself).
1. If one says 'After you, the property will go to Ploni...', it is as if he said 'The property should belong to Ploni from now'. (The first recipient (the grandmother) only has usage rights, so the daughter received the (permanent rights to the) property right away, so her husband inherited it when she died.)
(f) (Rava): Presumably, the reason for the sages of Eretz Yisrael is because if the grandmother sold the property, the sale stands. (Therefore, the property might not fall to the daughter; it is only Ra'uy, and a husband does not inherit such property).
(g) (Rav Papa): The law is: a husband only inherits what his wife is Muchzak in, not what was Ra'uy to fall to her;
1. A firstborn only gets an extra share in what his father was Muchzak in, not what was Ra'uy to fall to the father;
2. A firstborn does not get an extra share in a loan owed to the father, whether it was paid with money or land.
3. If a firstborn owed money to his father, he keeps half.
Next daf


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