ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 122
BAVA BASRA 122 - This Daf has been dedicated by Rabbi Dr. Eli Turkel of
Ra'anana, Israel, to the memory of his father, Reb Yisrael Shimon ben Shlomo
ha'Levi Turkel (Yarhzeit: 10 Av).
(a) Another Beraisa states that the division of Eretz Yisrael in time to
come will differ basically from the original division - inasmuch as it will
be divided into thirteen portions (instead of twelve).
(b) Initially, we interpret the Beraisa 've'Lo Nischalkah Ela be'Kesef' - to
mean that those who received superior-quality land had to compensate those
who received land of inferior quality.
(c) According to Rebbi Yehudah - five Sa'ah in Galil was worth one Sa'ah in
(d) We know that the Land was divided by lots from the Pasuk in Pinchas "Ach
be'Goral Yechalek es ha'Aretz". The Tana learns from the Pasuk there "al-Pi
ha'Goral Techalek Nachalaso" - that it also had to be divided by means of
the Urim ve'Tumim (see Rashash).
(a) Elazar the Kohen Gadol wore the Urim ve'Tumin.
(b) Yehoshua and the whole of Yisrael stood before him as the lots were
drawn, from two boxes, twelve 'pieces of paper' each with the name of one
tribe (including Ephrayim and Menasheh but excluding Levi) on one, the
twelve portions of land on the other.
(c) Elazar would first consult the Urim ve'Tumim, before announcing which
tribe was about to be drawn from one box and which portion of land from the
other ('Zevulun will now be drawn and the border of Acco with it'), then the
appointee mixed the lots, first in the one box, from which he drew a 'piece
of paper' with 'Zevulun' written on it, then in the other, from which he
drew 'T'chum Acco'.
(d) This Beraisa describes how - whereas in the distribution of Yehoshua one
person received cornfields, and another, orchards, in the distribution in
the time of Mashi'ach, everyone will receive part of his portion in the
mountains, part in the lowlands and part in the valley (incorporating all
the different kinds of land).
(a) The above dual system of distribution achieved - the people's confidance
in the lots, inasmuch as it was clearly Divinely-inspired.
(b) They could not use one box, with each lot containing both the name of
the tribe and the section of land which that tribe was destined to receive -
because then the division of land would not have been effected by lots, as
the Torah requires, but by the word of Elazar.
(c) The Sugya mention Zevulun and Naftali and not Reuven and Shimon (or
Yehudah and Yisachar) - to teach us that the land was not distributed in any
particular order, but randomly.
(d) The Tana describes yet a third distinction between the two distributions
(besides the question of which tribes participated, which will be discussed
shortly). He learns from the Pasuk "ve'Eileh Machlekosam Ne'um Hashem" -
that it will be distributed by none other than Hashem Himself.
(a) We also resolve our original She'eilah (whether Eretz Yisrael was
distributed 'li'Shevatim' or 'le'Karfaf de'Gavri') from this lengthy
Beraisa - from the Lashon 'li'Sheneim-Asar Shevatim', implying twelve equal
(b) The Tana earlier, mentioned thirteen portions into which the land will
be apportioned in the time Mashi'ach. It would be incorrect to say that the
thirteenth portion will go to Levi (though it is true that Levi will receive
a portion), because against that, Ephrayim and Menasheh will only receive
(c) The thirteenth portion will be given to - the Nasi (to the King
(d) Initially, we cite a Pasuk "ve'ha'Oved me'Ir *Ya'avduhu* mi'Kol Shivtei
Yisrael". Rav Papa asked Abaye how we know that this Pasuk is referring to a
portion of land, and not to the obligation to serve him like Talmidim, a
Rav - to which he replied with another Pasuk there "va'ha'Nosar le'Nasi ...
", which is clearly referring to a portion of land.
(a) We refute our initial interpration of the Beraisa 've'Lo Nischalkah Ela
be'Kesef' (that whoever received superior-quality land would compensate
those who received land of inferior quality) on the grounds - that only a
fool would willingly forego good-quality land for money.
(b) What the Tana therefore means is - that those who received portions
closer to Yerushalayim had to compensate those who lived further away from
(c) Besides being further away from Yerushalayim, the second disadvantage
living further northwards had was - the fact that it was closer to foreign
countries, which meant more money spent on self-defense.
(d) Rebbi Yehudah's earlier statement that one Sa'ah in Yehudah was
equivalent to five Sa'ah in Galil, might have been based on the distance
from Yerushalayim (to explain the Tana Kama of his Beraisa). He might also
have meant - that whereas the tribes who lived closer to Yerushalayim had to
compensate those who lived further monetarily, (like the Tana Kama) it was a
also a fact that those who lived in Galil received five times as much land
as those who lived in Yehudah (due to the inferior-quality land [see Rashi
Parshas Sh'lach 13:22). Note also, that if that was so, then the twelve
equal strips of land must have been equal in vaue, but not in size.
(a) The Tana Kama of the previous Beraisa is Rebbi Eliezer. According to
Rebbi Yehoshua - the distance was not compensated by money, but the further
they lived from Yerushalayim, th mor land they received.
(b) The Tana'ims source for this compensation is the Pasuk "bein Rav
(a) The Tana of another Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "*Ach* be'Goral
Yechalek es ha'Aretz" - that Yehoshua and Kalev are precluded from
inheritance by lots.
(b) This cannot be coming to preclude Yehoshua and Kalev from taking a
portion altogether - because if they received the portion of others (the
Meraglim ... ), then why should they not receive their own?
(c) The Pasuk is coming to teach us - that Yehoshua and Kalev received their
portions without lots.
(d) Yehoshua, at his own request - received Timnas Serach in Har Ephrayim.
(a) In Sefer Yehoshua, Yehoshua's inheritance is called ''Timnas Serach'',
whereas in Shoftim, it is referred to as ''Timnas Cheres''. When ...
1. ... in the first Lashon, Rebbi Elazar explains 'bi'Techilah Peirosehah
ke'Cheres, ve'li'be'Sof Peirosehah Masrichin' - he means that initially, the
fruits there were dry, but after Yehoshua inherited it, they became so
juicy, that if one kept them too long, they went bad.
(b) They gave to Kalev - the area he went to Daven at, Chevron.
2. ... in the second Lashon, Rebbi Elazar explains 'bi'Techilah Peirosehah
Masrichin, ve'li'be'Sof Peirosehah ke'Cheres', he means - that initially,
the fruits there used to quickly go bad from the juice, but, once Yehoshua
inherited it, they would last for long periods of time (despite their
juiciness) as if they were dry.
(c) Abaye reconciles this with the fact that Chevron was an Ir Miklat - by
establishing what they gave Kalev, as the villages and the suburbs of
Chevron, but not the town itself.
(a) We Darshen from the Pasuk "Lo Mishpat ha'Bechorah" - that a Bechor does
not inherit a double portion of his mother's property.
(b) If a father dies leaving Nechasim Me'utin - it is a T'nai Kesuvah that
the daughters are fed from the property, and the sons, if necessary, must go
(c) In the equivalent case, but where it was their mother whom they
inherited - the sons would inherit as usual (because the daughters are not
fed from their mother's property).
(a) Our Mishnah begins with the words 'Echad ha'Ben ve'Echad ha'Bas
be'Nachalah'. This cannot mean that ...
1. ... a daughter inherits together with her brother - because we have
already learned that a son always takes precedence over a daughter.
(b) We reject the Kashya 've'Od Mai Ela' (after making the first of the two
previous points [with reference to the continuation of the Mishnah 'Ela
she'ha'Ben Notel Pi Shenayim be'Nechsei ha'Av ve'Lo be'Nechsei ha'Eim']) -
because 've'Od' always follows a weak Kashya, implying that the second
Kashya is better than the original one (whereas here, the original Kashya is
a strong one [which is not the case with all the subsequent cases, where we
are only asking that we know it already]).
2. ... a daughter who inherits, receives even Ra'uy just like her brother,
like Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak suggests - because we have already learned
(with regard to the B'nos Tz'lofchad inheriting their father's inheritance
in Chefer's portion (even though his father died after him).
(c) After making the second of the two above points, we add 've'Od, Mai
Ela' - insinuating that the Tana is adding a second statement about Yerushas
ha'Ben, when in fact, this is the first statement in this regard. Note that
this Kashya applies equally to Rav Papa and Rav Ashi (whose answers we will
deal with shortly, and) neither of whom attempts to answer it.
(d) We are happy to make the second of the two points based on the Mishnah
in connection with the B'nos Tz'lofchad. We could also have proved our point
from the Mishnah that we learned earlier 've'Chol Yotz'ei Yereicho shel Ben
Kodmin le'Bas' (which effectively means that his grandson or daughter
inherits Ra'uy [what his son did not yet possess from his property]).
(a) And we reject Rav Papa's suggestion 'Echad ha'Ben ve'Echad ha'Bas Notlin
Cheilek bi'Vechorah' on the grounds - that this too, we already know from
the Mishnah 've'she'Hayah Bechor Notel Shenei Chalakim'.
The Torah draws no distinction between a son and daughter respectively,
regarding the regular inheritance of their father or mother, as we just
learned in our Mishnah. What we do however, learn from the Pasuk "ve'Yaldu
Lo Banim" is - that the Din of a Bechor inheriting a double portion pertains
specifically to a son, and not to a daughter.
(b) Neither can the Tana be teaching us that just as a father may bequeath
all his property to one of his sons, so too, may he bequeath it to one of
his daughters (should he have no sons), as Rav Ashi suggests, because this
is the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, who says in a Mishnah later in
the Perek - that if a father declares one of his potential heirs (but not
anybody else) to be his sole heir, his declaration is valid.
(c) The Tana would be most unlikely to be presenting a S'tam Mishnah like
Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah - since we rule 'S'tam ve'Achar-Kach Machlokes,
Ein Halachah ki'S'tam', so what would be the point in doing so?
(d) Mar bar Rav Ashi finally establishes our Mishnah to mean - that a son
and a daughter alike, inherit their mother's property just like their
father's, only the son, even if he is a Bechor, will not inherit double in
his mother's property.