(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 118

BAVA BASRA 118 (7 Av) - has been dedicated to the memory of Dr. Simcha Bekelnitzky (Simcha Gedalya ben Shraga Feibush) of Queens, N.Y., by his wife and daughters on his fifth Yahrzeit. G-dfearing and knowledgeable, Simcha was well known in the community for his Chesed and Tzedakah. He will long be remembered.



(a) When Rav Papa also asked Abaye on what grounds, according to Rebbi Yonasan ...
1. ... the B'nos Tz'lofchad complained (seeing as Tz'lofchad was not destined to receive a portion in Eretz Yisrael anyway [so even if he had had a son, he would not have received anything is his stead]) - he replied that their complaint concerned their rights in Cheifer's property, after Chazarah.
2. ... the B'nei Yosef complained, seeing as they received a portion according to their numbers, just like all the other tribes - he replied that they complained about the Yesomim under twenty who entered Eretz Yisrael, who had no relatives over twenty who left Egypt, from whom they might inherit through Chazarah (See Rashash. See also Rabeinu Gershom).
(b) Abaye could have justifiably answered the Kashya - by explaining that each tribe received an equal portion, as we shall see later.

(c) According to Rebbi Yonasan - the B'nos Tz'lofchad receive a three portions that we enumerated earlier, but not the personal portion of their Tz'lofchad, to which he was not entitled

(a) Abaye extrapolates from the fact that the Torah only the complaints of the daughters of Tz'lofchad and the B'nei Yosef - that nobody else had cause for complaint.

(b) Abaye is not suggesting that (according to those who hold 'le'Yotz'ei Mitzrayim Nischalkah') nobody under twenty left Egypt, who would have had no portion when they entered the Land - because, even if there were, they had relatives who were over twenty when they left Egypt, who died in the desert, and from whom they inherited.

(c) We refute Abaye's proof however on the grounds - that the Torah only records those complaints that gained something, but not those who complained in vain.

(a) We know that the complaints of the B'nei Yosef got them nowhere - because Yehoshua could not possibly have given them any land other than their own. So what did they gain that they did not already have?

(b) And the Navi only records their complaints - to teach us Yehoshua's reply - from which we learn the importance of avoiding Ayin ha'Ra, as we shall now see.

(a) Yehoshua advised the B'nei Yosef (not to capture land that they did not yet own, but ) - to go and clear some of the forest-land in their own portion of land and to live there, away from eyes of people (to avoid the ravages of Ayin ha'Ra).

(b) The B'nei Yosef's responded to Yehoshua's advice - by reminding him that the B'nei Yosef are not subject to Ayin ha'Ra.

(c) Rebbi Avahu 'amends' the Pasuk to read (not "Ben Poras Yosef, Ben Poras Alei Ayin", but) ... "Ben Poras Olei Ayin", meaning that they are elevated over the evil eye, which can therefore do them no harm.

(d) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina learns the same D'rashah from the Pasuk (in the same Parshah [in the B'rachah that Yosef gave to the B'nei Yosef]) - "ve'Yidgu la'Rov be'Kerev ha'Aretz", ' meaning that the B'nei Yosef will increase like fish, which are not subject to the Ayin ha'Ra, because they are covered by water.




(a) Ula learns from the Pasuk "vi'Yehoshua bin Nun ve'Kalev ben Yefuneh Chayu min ha'Anashim ha'Heim" - that Yehoshua and Kalev inherited the portions of the other ten spies.

(b) The Pasuk cannot simply be coming to teach us that the ten Meraglim died, but *they* lived - because for that we have a Pasuk in Pinchas "And not a man of them remained except for Kalev ... ".

(c) The problem with the Beraisa that we quoted earlier 'Mislonenim (whom we initially assume to mean the grumblers in Parshas Beha'aloscha) va'Adas Korach Lo Hayah Lahem Cheilek ba'Aretz' is - that another Beraisa teaches us that Yehoshua and Kalev received their respective portions, too.

(a) The source of the Machlokes Tana'im is based on a Pasuk "Avinu Meis ba'Midbar ... ". When the daughters of Tz'lofchad continued "ve'Hu Lo Hayah ...
1. ... be'Soch ha'Eidah" - they had in mind the Adas Meraglim.
2. ... ha'No'adim al Hashem" - they had in mind the Mislonenim.
(b) And they also mentioned - the congregation of Korach.

(c) The basis of the Machlokes Tana'im is now - whether to learn the congregation of Korach and the Mislonenim (in this regard) from the Adas Meraglim with a Hekesh or not.

(d) Rav Papa asked Abaye whether, according to the Tana who does compare the Mislonenim, as well as the congregation of Korach, to the Adas Meraglim, does this mean that Yehoshua and Kalev inherited the whole (such a large chunk) of Eretz Yisrael. To which he replied that the Mislonenim refers (not to the thousands of grumblers in Parshas Beha'aloscha, as we thought until now, but) to the two hundred and fifty men from Reuven, who joined Korach.

(a) The Pasuk lists ten Batei Avos (clans) for the tribe of Menasheh.

(b) Assuming that this comprises the six main Batei Avos and the four portions of the B'nos Tz'lofchad, Rav Papa asks - that according to Rebbi Yonasan (who holds 'le'Ba'ei ha'Aretz Nischalkah'), the Tana should only have listed eight (since, as we learned earlier, in his opinion, Tz'lofchad did not receive a portion for them to inherit - see Tosfos DH 'u'le'Ma'an').

(c) Abaye retorted that in that case, seeing as the B'nos Tz'lofchad inherited only *three* portions, the Pasuk should have listed only *nine* Batei Avos. We are therefore forced to admit that one of Tz'lofchad's brothers died as well (as we explained earlier). And that being the case, according to Rebbi Yonasan too, two of his brothers must have died (after Cheifer), and part of what Cheifer later inherited through Chazarah, went to the B'nos Tz'lofchad through their father (thereby answering Rav Papa's Kashya as well.

(a) Darshening the Pasuk in Pinchas, the Beraisa interprets "Nason Titen Lahem" to refer to the Cheilek Pashut of their father's inheritance. In the same light, according to the Tana ...
1. ... "be'Soch Achei Avihen" - refers to Tz'lofchad's Cheilek Pashut in the inheritance of their grandfather Cheifer.
2. ... "ve'Ha'avarta es Nachalas Avihen Lahen" - refers to Tz'lofchad's Cheilek Bechorah.
(b) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov Darshens from ...
1. ... "Nason Titen Lahem ... " (the double expression) - that they also inherited the property of one of their uncles.
2. ... " ... *Achuzas* Nachalah" (according to Rebbi Yonasan) - that they inherited the property of a second uncle too.
(c) Although the Tana Kama agrees with Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov (that the B'nos Tz'lofchad received at least one portion from an uncle), he does not want to learn it from the same source as Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov - because he holds 'Dibrah Torah ki'Leshon B'nei Adam'.

(d) In spite of the fact that the Pasuk is listing Batei Avos, it incorporate the B'nos Tz'lofchad, who were five private heirs (out of many) belonging to the Beis-Av of Cheifer - only in order to teach us that they received their father's Cheilek Bechorah, from which in turn, we learn that Eretz Yisrael belonged to Yisrael already from the time they left Egypt (and was not considered Ra'uy [as we explained earlier]).

9) The Tana Kama of the current Beraisa must hold -'le'Yotz'ei Mitzrayim Nischalkah', since he holds that the B'nos Tz'lofchad inherited their father's portion.

Next daf


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