(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 Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Basra 109



(a) We refute the suggestion that "She'ero" comes to give the deceased's father precedence ...
1. ... over his daughter (but not over his son from "ha'Karov") - because seeing that a daughter is equivalent to a son regarding absolving her mother from Yibum, she is also equivalent to a son regarding Yerushah.
2. ... over his father's brother - because it is obvious that a father takes precedence over his own brother, who, to begin with, only inherits his nephew through him (his brother).
(b) If not for the proof that a daughter is on the same level as a son, we would have placed her - after both her father and brother.

(c) We finally learn from "She'ero" - that a father takes precedence over a brother, despite the three advantages that the latter has over the former, as we discussed earlier in the Sugya.

(a) According to our current explanation, the Pesukim are written in the wrong order - because "She'ero" (denoting a father), is written only after a father's brother, even though the latter is derived from the former.

(b) We are able to Darshen the Pesukim in the wrong order - due to the Pasuk "ha'Karov", which instructs us to place the heirs in the correct order, in spite of their having been written in the wrong one.

(c) The Torah nevertheless needs to list all the heirs (and does not rely on the Pasuk "ha'Karov" which indicates the correct order of the majority of them) - because we learn various side D'rashos from the Torah's choice of words (as we shall see later in the Sugya).

(a) In the Pasuk "ve'Ha'avartem es Nachalaso le'Bito", Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa, interprets the word "ve'Ha'avartem" to imply - that we take the inheritance away from the deceased's father, who ought to inherit when there is no son, and give precedence to his daughter ...

(b) ... to preclude the deceased's brothers, who do not take precedence over their father. In any event, he now learns from here (rather than from "She'ero") - that a father inherits.

(c) We refute the suggestion that "Bas" comes before "Achim" but not before "Av" - on the grounds that the Torah would not then need to insert the word "ve'Ha'avartem", since it explicitly writes "ve'Im Ein Lo Bas, u'Nesatem es Nachalaso le'Achiv".

(d) Based on the fact that, according to this Tana, "She'ero" does not refer to the deceased's father, his overview of the order of heirs differs radically with that of the previous Tana - in that according to him, the Pesukim are written in the right order (sons, daughters, father, brothers and father's brothers), as opposed to the previous Tana, as we explained earlier.




(a) Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi learns from "She'ero" - that a husband inherits his wife.

(b) The basic translation of "She'ero", according to him is - 'flesh'.

(c) The first Tana, on the other hand, explains "ve'Ha'avartem" like Rebbi, who learns from the fact that by all other relatives, the Torah writes "u'Nesatem", and by Bas, "ve'Ha'avartem" - that a man's daughter (in the event that she inherits him) moves his inheritance from his tribe to another tribe, via either her husband or her son, should either of these later inherit her.

(a) According to the first Tana, we learn from the Pasuk "She'er Avicha Hi" - that "She'er" in the Parshah of Yerushah too, refers to the deceased's father.

(b) In view of the Pasuk "Ki She'er Imcha Hi", Rava learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "*mi'Mishpachto*, ve'Yarash Osah" - that it cannot refer to the deceased's mother, because we learn from ...
2. ... "le'Mishpechosam le'Veis Avosam" - that 'Mishpachas Av Keruyah Mashpachah (but not Mishpachas Eim)'.
(a) We query this last D'rashah from the Pasuk, which writes (in connection with Pesel [the image of] Michah) "Vayehi Na'ar ... mi'Mishpachas Yehudah, ve'Hu Levi" - which we initially interpret to mean - that his father was from Yehudah, and his mother from Levi.

(b) The problem is - that this implies that 'Mishpachas Eim Keruyah Mishpachah', which clashes with Rava's previous statement.

(c) Rava bar Rav Chanan resolves the problem by explaining "ve'Hu Levi" to mean (not that he descended from the tribe of Levi, but) - that his name was Levi.

(d) Despite the fact that he was not even a Levi maternally, his 'employer' boasted that G-d had done him a good turn by providing him with a Levi as a Kohen - because his name alone was a sure sign that Hashem was on his side.

(a) The Sugya makes a strange twist however, concluding that he was a hundred per cent Levi. The man's real name was - Yonasan ben Gershom ben Menasheh.

(b) The 'Nun' in Menasheh is 'hanging' - because it is only there as a hint, as we shall now see), since his grandfather's real name was Moshe (Rabeinu).

(c) The Navi writes ...

1. ... "ben Menasheh" - because he behaved like King Menasheh, who (later in history) would be guilty of spreading idolatry more than any other king.
2. ... "mi'Mishpachas Yehudah" - because King Menasheh came from the tribe of Yehudah.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan Mishum Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai learns from the previous two statements - that one 'hangs' the evil deeds of someone who is not so well-known on those of someone who is already infamous.

(b) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina learns it from the Pasuk (with regard to Adoniyah, son of David) "ve'Gam Hu Tov To'ar Me'od, ve'Oso Yaldah Achar Avshalom" - which is clearly coming to compare Adoniyah to his half-brother Avshalom the ultimate rebel (who gave Adoniyahu his cue to rebel against his own father King David).

(c) This Pasuk would otherwise appear strange, since Adoniyah's mother was Chagis, whereas Avshalaom's was Ma'achah.

(a) Moshe's marriage to the daughter of Yisro, who all his life, had been an idolater (in spite of the fact that he became a Ba'al-Teshuvah) - resulted in Moshe's grandson Yonasan becoming an idolater.

(b) See, in contrast, how Aharon, who married the daughter of the Tzadik Aminadav (Nachshon's father), had a grandson called Pinchas, which prompted Rebbi Rebbi Elazar to stress the importance of marrying into a good family (although Gedolim have said that nowadays this might not be an important factor in choosing a Shiduch).

(c) We query this however, from the Pasuk "ve'Elazar ben Aharon Lakach Lo mi'Benos Putiel Lo le'Ishah" - which we initially interpret to mean from the daughters of Yisro, who *fattened calves* for idolatry ('*she'Pitem Agalim* la'Avodah-Zarah').

(d) We attempt to resolve this by interpreting "mi'Benos Putiel" to mean - 'mi'Benos Yosef (she'Pitpet be'Yitzro [who struggled with his Yeitzer-ha'Ra], and not "mi'Benos Yisro ... ').

10) We conclude however, that Pinchas descended from Yisro too - by citing the tradition that the tribes accused Pinchas of being the son of this 'ben Puti', whose maternal grandfather fattened calves for idolatry.


(a) We finally explain "mi'Benos Putiel" to mean - that in fact, he descended from both Yosef and Yisro, because one of mother's parents was a descendant of one, and the other, of the other (though we do not know which is which [see previous statement]).

(b) This vindicates Rebbi Elazar's statement about choosing the family into which one marries - inasmuch as Pinchas was further removed than Yonasan was (perhaps the third of fourth generation) from Yisro (see also Agados Maharsha).

(c) Elazar's wife could not have actually been the daughter of Yisro - because then how would the connection with the tribe of Yosef have fitted in.

(d) We prove this interpretation of "mi'Benos Putiel" from the actual words themselves - either from the extra 'Yud' in Putiel (which comes to add something), or from the word "mi'B'nos", which implies two daughters, the daughter of 'Pitput' (Yosef) and the daughter of 'Pitum' (Yisro).

Next daf


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