ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 114
BAVA BASRA 114 - sponsored anonymously by a talmid of Rabbi Kornfeld from
West Hempstead, N.Y.
(a) According to Rabah, the donor can retract from a gift even after the
Kinyan has been made, as long as they have not yet stood up - because the
Kinyan is made on the understanding that as long as they are still sitting,
he will be able to reflect whether he is able to stand by the gift, or
whether to make any further stipulations.
(b) Rabah cannot be referring to a Matnas Shechiv-Mera- because a Matnas
Shechiv-Mera does not require a Kinyan.
(c) Rav Yosef holds - that once they switch to a different issue, the donor
may can no longer retract, even if they have not yet stood up.
(a) Rav Yosef attempts to prove his opinion from Rav Yehudah's Din
('Sheloshah she'Nichnesu Levaker es ha'Choleh'), assuming that he is
speaking about a Shechiv-Mera who is only distributing part of his
property) - because, according to Rabah, how can the three men rule
immediately? Why do we not suspect that the Shechiv-Mera will retract before
they stand up?
(b) Rav Ashi used Rav Yosef's argument against Rav Yosef himself - because,
even according to him, why are we not concerned that he will retract before
they have switched to another topic?
(c) He answered both Kashyos with one sweep however ...
1. ... his Kashya on Rav Yosef - by establishing the three men's final
ruling only after they changed the topic of conversation.
(d) In spite of the principle that when Rabah argues with Rav Yosef, we rule
like Rabah, in this case we will rule - like Rav Yosef, due to the
declaration that the Halachah is Rav Yosef in three cases (all in this
Masechta); 'be'Sadeh' (in the first Perek), Inyan (our case), and Mechtzah
(in 'Mi she'Meis')'.
2. ... Rav Yosef's Kashya on Rabah - by establishing it when they had
already stood up before sitting down a second time in order to convey the
Shechiv-Mera's decisions to the heirs.
(a) In spite of having listed 'ha'Ish es Imo, ve'ha'Ish es Ishto' in the
category of 'Nochlin ve'Lo Manchilin', the Tana nevertheless sees fit to add
'ha'Ishah es B'nah ve'ha'Ishah es Ba'alah' in the category of Manchilin
ve'Lo Nochlin' (which seems to be repeating the same thing) - to compare the
two Halachos, to teach us that just as a man does not inherit his wife in
the grave (i.e. he only inherits what she has in her possession at the time
of her death, as we learned earlier), so too does a son not inherit his
mother in the grave (i.e. if he died before his mother, he does not pass on
property that his mother leaves upon her death, to his heirs).
(b) Those who inherit ...
1. ... a man who dies if his married daughter (his only child) died in his
lifetime are - his heirs (not her husband).
(c) Despite the fact that this latter Halachah appears to be obvious
(because there is no conceivable reason to even think that a son who dies
before his mother should inherit her), we need the Mishnah to teach us
this - because we would otherwise have explained the two Pesukim "ve'Lo
Sisov" by Hasavas ha'Ben, one when his mother died before him, and the
other, when he died before his mother (a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' that a son
inherits his mother 'ba'Ra'uy').
2. ... a woman who dies if her husband and children died in her lifetime
are - her father's heirs.
(d) The Tana only adds then the third case (in the category of 'Manchilin
ve'Lo Nochlin') 'Achei ha'Eim' (which we already know from 'B'nei Achos' [by
Nochlin ve'Lo Manchilin] even though there is no Chidush) - because of the
other two cases (where there is).
(a) The Tana finds it necessary to insert both 'ha'Av es ha'Banim' and
'ha'Banim es ha'Av' in the Reisha (in the case of 'Nochlin u'Manchilin'),
even though the latter is self-understood from the former - because he wants
to explicitly record all the cases.
(b) We do not find it necessary to pose this Kashya, like we do on the
Seifa - because the Reisha, unlike the Seifa, is not in itself, superfluous.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Shimon made two
statements, one of them that a father inherits his son, the other - that a
mother inherits her son.
Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Shimon's source for his second ruling is - the Pasuk
in Masei "ve'Chol Bas Yoreshes Nachalah *mi'Matos*, which pertains to both a
woman's father and her mother (as we learned earlier), and which he treats as a regular 'Hekesh').
(b) It is obvious that a father and mother - also inherit their daughters?
(c) This does not mean that Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Shimon does not accept the
principle 'Mishpachas Eim Einah Keruyah Mishpachah' at all. In fact - he
restricts it to giving Mishpachas Av precedence over Mishpachas Eim, so that
in our case, a mother will inherit her son and daughter only where her
husband is no longer alive.
(d) We quote 'Rebbi Yochanan *Mishum* Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Shimon', and not
just 'Amar Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Shimon' - because the latter was not Rebbi
Yochanan's Rebbi Muvhak (from whom he learned most, see Gilyon ha'Shas).