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 125
1) AN EXTRA SHARE IN A LOAN
(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
(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.
2) THE GIFT TO THE GRANDMOTHER
(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
1. When the grandmother later died, the daughter's
husband claimed the property.
(b) (Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael): The law is as Rav Anan, but
his reason is wrong.
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.
(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!
(d) Suggestion: Rav Huna says that the husband inherits - he
must hold that a husband inherits property that is Ra'uy!
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.
(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
(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
2. A firstborn does not get an extra share in a loan
owed to the father, whether it was paid with money
3. If a firstborn owed money to his father, he keeps