ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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.
(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.
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.
(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).
(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).
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.
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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 ...
(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.