ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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
(a) When Rav Papa also asked Abaye on what grounds, according to Rebbi
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
(b) Abaye could have justifiably answered the Kashya - by explaining that
each tribe received an equal portion, as we shall see later.
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).
(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
(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
(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.
(b) And they also mentioned - the congregation of Korach.
2. ... ha'No'adim al Hashem" - they had in mind the Mislonenim.
(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 ...
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
1. ... "be'Soch Achei Avihen" - refers to Tz'lofchad's Cheilek Pashut in the
inheritance of their grandfather Cheifer.
(b) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov Darshens from ...
2. ... "ve'Ha'avarta es Nachalas Avihen Lahen" - refers to Tz'lofchad's
1. ... "Nason Titen Lahem ... " (the double expression) - that they also
inherited the property of one of their uncles.
(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'.
2. ... " ... *Achuzas* Nachalah" (according to Rebbi Yonasan) - that they
inherited the property of a second uncle too.
(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]).