(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 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.
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.
(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')'.



(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).
2. ... a woman who dies if her husband and children died in her lifetime are - her father's heirs.
(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').

(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.

(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).

6) 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').

Next daf


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