(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 111



(a) The Tana Kama in the Beraisa extrapolates from the Pasuk "ve'Chol Bas Yoreshes Nachalah *mi'Matos* B'nei Yisrael" - that a daughter inherits from two tribes, which implies that, assuming her father is from one tribe, and her mother, from another, she inherits them both.

(b) Bearing in mind the Isur 'Hasavah' (moving an inheritance from one tribe to another[which applied to the generation that entered Eretz Yisrael, and which affected no-one other than the daughters of Tz'lafchad, as we will learn later]) - the case must be where she had brothers, and did not therefore stand to inherit her father, and the Pasuk is speaking in the eventuality that her brothers would die later.

(c) And the Tana learns that a son ...

1. ... inherits his mother too - from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a father, whom the son inherits even though the daughter (his sister) doesn't; certainly, there where a daughter does inherit, he inherits, too.
2. ... takes precedence over a daughter in his mother's inheritance - from the same source, because just as there he takes precedence, so too, he should take precedence here.
(d) We need a Pasuk to teach us that a son inherits his mother, because we would otherwise have thought - that it is a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' for a son to inherit his father, and a daughter, her mother.
(a) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi disagree. They quote Rebbi Zecharyah ben ha'Katzav, who says that when it comes to a mother's property, a son and a daughter are equal. He does not the 'Kal va'Chomer' from the property of a father to this point - because of the principle 'Dayo', which teaches us that since we learn a son inheriting his mother from a daughter, he can only be like her, but not more than her.

(b) We learn the principle of 'Dayo' from Miriam, who was sent out of the camp for seven days, due to a 'Kal va'Chomer' from her father, before whom she would have been in disgrace for seven days (had she angered him). Now if before a father (who only puts five of the basic physical features that make up a person) one would be disgrace for seven days, then surely before Hashem, who supplies a person with ten spiritual features, one ought to be in disgrace for fourteen days.

(c) 'Dayo' therefore teaches us that - since the source of the the 'Kal va'Chomer' is her father, Miriam could only be sent out of the camp for seven days, like the source, and not more. Note: It seems that Hashem deliberately reduced Miriam's sentence to seven days, to teach us the principle of 'Dayo'.

(a) When Rav Nitai wanted to rule like Rebbi Zecharyah, Shmuel said - 'Efes Zecharyah' (meaning that the Halachah is not like him).

(b) When ...

1. ... Rebbi Tivla attempted to do likewise, quoting Rav Chin'na bar Shalmaya Amar Rav - Rav Nachman ordered him to retract, or he would place him in Cherem (in spite of Rav Chin'na bar Shalmaya).
2. ... Rav Huna bar Chiya too, tried to rule like Rebbi Zecharya, quoting Rav Huna Amar Rav (see Rabeinu Gershom) - Rav Nachman told him that he would ask Rav Huna whether he had really said that.
(c) This caused Rav Huna bar Chiya embarrassment - because he had not really heard it from him (and quoted him only in order to lend weight to his ruling, something which Chazal permit one to do).
(a) Rav Nachman's final word on the subject was - that if Rav had no longer been alive, Rav Huna bar Chiya would have stood up to him and would not have relented.

(b) Rav Nachman was so sure of himself, even to the point of dismissing the opinion of Rav Huna Amar Rav - on the basis of Rav and Shmuel, who both ruled against Rebbi Zecharyah ha'Katzav.

(c) Rebbi Yanai was leaning on the shoulders of Rebbi Simlai - his Shamash, because he was already old and frail.

(d) When the latter spied Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah coming towards them, he commented - that an inportant man wearing an important-looking cloak was approaching them.

(a) When, after feeling Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah's cloak, Rebbi Yanai commented 'Dein Shi'ureih ke'Sak', he meant that it was made of a coarse (inferior) fabric whose Shiur Tum'ah is four Tefachim (like a sack, and not three finger-breadths, like a cloth garment [see also Metzapeh Eisan]).

(b) After Rebbi Yanai had taught him that a son precedes a daughter in his mother's property from "Matos" (like the Tana Kama), Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah asked him - whether a Bechor also receives a double portion of his mother's inheritance (like he does of his father's).

(c) Rebbi Yanai's reaction to Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah's question was - to instruct Rebbi Simla'i to lead him away (because he was asking questions which had obvious answers).




(a) Abaye learns that a Bechor does not receive a double portion in his mother's property - from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "be'Chol Asher Yimatzei *Lo*" ('ve'Lo Lah').

(b) We confine this to a case where a Bachur marries an Almanah, who already had children from a previous marriage, because then their first baby is indeed his birstborn but not hers.

(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak subsequently learns from the Pasuk there "Ki Hu Reishis Ono" - that he does not even inherit her if she is a Besulah.

(d) We object to this D'rashah however, on the grounds that this Pasuk is needed to include 'ha'Ba Achar Nefalim' - meaning that a Nefel (who is considered a firstborn with regard to Pidyon ha'Ben [since he is a "Peter Rechem"]) is not considered a firstborn as regards the Dinim of Yerushah, because "Reishis Ono" implies that the father is concerned about his survival.

(a) We learn both current D'rashos from "Reishis Ono" - because to teach us the latter D'rashah alone, it would have sufficed to write "Ki Hu Reishis On" ("Ono" implies 've'Lo Onah').

(b) We object to this D'rashah however, by suggesting that the Pasuk comes to preclude the Bechor of an Almon and a Besulah, who is only his mother's firstborn, but not his father's. The Bechor of a Bachur who marries a Besulah, however, will perhaps receive a double portion in his mother's inheritance.

(c) Rava finally learns from the Pasuk "Ki *Lo* Mishpat ha'Bechorah" - that a Bechor only inherits a double portion of his father's property, but not of his mother's (see Tosfos DH 'Lo').

(a) The Beraisa learns "She'ero" Zu Ishto, that a man inherits his wife. We know that this applies even to where they have a son - because in any event, a husband, who is not a blood-relative, is less of a relation than any regular heir. Consequently, once the Torah gives him the status of an heir, it obviously places him first in line.

(b) The Lashon "u'Nesatem es Nachalaso li'She'ero ha'Karov Eilav" implies that it is the woman who inherits her husband. The Tana knows that she does not - from the Pasuk "ve'Yarash Osah", implying 'Hu Yoresh Osah, ve'Ein Hi Yoreshes Oso'.

(c) Had the Torah wanted to teach us that a husband and wife inherit each other, it would have written - "u'Nesatem es Nachalaso li'She'ero ... ve'Yarash".

(d) The problem with the current D'rashah is - how we can simply negate what the Torah specifically writes "u"Nesatem es Nachalaso li'She'ero", implying that a woman inherits her husband.

(a) Abaye therefore amends the Pasuk to read "u'Nesatem es Nachalaso le'Hakarov Eilav li'She'ero ve'Yarash Osah", to which Rava objects - on the grounds that one cannot just take words and mix them at will (like Abaye has done with "She'ero" and "ha'Karov Eilav").

(b) Rava holds 'Gor'in u'Mosifin ve'Dorshin', so he amends the Pasuk "u'Nesatem es Nachalaso li'She'ero" to read - "u'Nesatem es Nachalas She'ero Lo (having moved the 'Vav' from the end of "Nachalaso" and the 'Lamed' from the beginning of "li'She'ero", to form the word "Lo").

(c) This differs from Abaye's change of order to which Rava himself objected - inasmuch this is only a change of letters, which is feasible, whereas Abaye changed the order of words, which is not.

(d) The current source for a man inheriting his wife is the opinion of Rebbi Akiva in a Beraisa. Rebbi Yishmael argues with Rebbi Akiva - inasmuch as he does hold of 'Gor'in, Mosifin ve'Dorshin'.

(a) Rebbi Yishmael interprets the Pasuk "ve'Chol Bas Yoreshes Nachalah mi'Matos B'nei Yisrael, le'Echad mi'Mishpachas Mateh Avihah Tih'yeh le'Ishah" - in connection with Hasavas ha'Ba'al (a woman who has no brothers transferring the Yerushah from her father's tribe to that of her husband, when first her father and then she, dies, and her husband inherits her).

(b) After citing two more Pesukim, which will be discussed shortly, the Beraisa quotes the Pasuk "ve'Elazar ben Aharon Meis va'Yikberu Oso be'Giv'as Pinchas B'no". The Tana ascribes the fact that ...

1. ... Pinchas owned property that he had not inherited from his father - to his having inherited them from his wife when she died.
2. ... a similar Pasuk relates how Ya'ir, (son of Menasheh,) owned twenty-three cities in the land of Gil'ad that he had not inherited from his father, S'guv - to his having inherited them from his wife when she died.
Next daf


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