(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 124



(a) In the current Beraisa, which discusses the Machlokes between Rebbi and the Rabbanan, the Tana states 'Yarshu Sh'tar Chov, Bechor Notel Pi Shenayim'. The author of this statement is - Rebbi (though this is not unanimous, see Maharsha).

(b) Rebbi confines this ruling to a Sh'tar Chov - because it is based on the fact that the heirs are Muchzak in the Sh'tar. An oral debt is certainly considered Ra'uy, even according to him.

(c) In a case where someone produced a Sh'tar Chov against *them* - the Tana obligates the Bechor to pay extra, in proportion to what he received.

(d) This statement, which is unconnected with the previous one, goes - even according to the Chachamim.

(a) When the Tana adds 've'Im Amar Eini Nosen ve'Eini Notel Rashai', he means - that if the Bechor wishes to withdraw from his rights to the extra portion and not have to pay extra, then he would be entitled to do so.

(b) He cannot simply mean to authorize the Bechor to decline to take an extra portion of the heir's claim, and not to pay an extra portion of the claim against them - because, since he is receiving an extra portion of the Yerushah, why should the fact that he withdraws from receiving the one absolve him from having to pay the other?

(c) The practical difference that the Bechor's withdrawal makes will be in a case - where the creditor is, for some reason or other, unable to claim it from his brothers or, if when he comes to claim it from them, they are overseas.

(d) An heir cannot withdraw from his inheritance, nor a Bechor from his Cheilek Pashut - because it is not possible to withdraw from something that one owns (and a Yoresh owns automatically).

(a) The Rabbanan learn from the Pasuk "*La'ses Lo* Pi Shenayim" - that the Cheilek Bechorah is a Matanah, and that consequently (besides the fact that he is able to withdraw from it), he will not receive anything that is Ra'uy (as we just learned).

(b) Rebbi agrees with this D'rashah on principle - only he confines it to the fact that the Bechor is able to withdraw from the Cheilek Bechorah.

(c) The reason that he does not extend it to preclude inheriting 'Sh'vach she'Shavchu Nechasim le'Achar Miysah' is - because the Torah writes "La'ses Lo *Pi Shenayim*", comparing the Cheilek Bechorah to the Cheilek Pashut in this regard.

(d) The Rabbanan learn from "Pi Shenayim" - that the Bechor is entitled to receive his two portions next to each other (which means for example, that in a case where there are only two brothers and three adjoining fields, they draw lots in a way that the Bechor must receive the middle field together with one of the two outer ones).

(a) Rav Papa states that if a date-palm grew thicker or land threw up a layer of slime after the heirs inherited it, fertilizing and improving the quality of the soil - even the Rabbanan will concede that the Bechor will receive an extra portion.

(b) The Chachamim argue with Rebbi, he says, in a case of ...

1. ... 'Chafurah va'Havah Shuvli', meaning Shachas (crops that have only grown to the stage that they are fit for animals), which then ripened into wheat.
2. ... 'Sheluf'fi va'Havah Tamri', meaning - dates in their early stages of growth that ripened into dates.
(c) What makes this worse than the previous case is - the fact that here, the original Yerushah does not only improve, but changes its name too, rendering it 'Ra'uy'.

(d) Rebbi argues on the grounds - that nevertheless, seeing as it is the original Yerushah that changed, the Bechor inherits it.




(a) 'Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Chiya Asah ke'Divrei Rebbi Asah, Asah ke'Divrei Chachamim Asah', because, he is uncertain - whether the principle 'Halachah ke'Rebbi me'Chavero' extends to 'Chaverav' (even when he argues against a majority) or not.

(b) Rav Nachman Amar Rav 'Asur La'asos ke'Divrei Rebbi' - because he holds 'Halachah ke'Rebbi me'Chavero, ve'Lo me'Chaverav'; whereas Rav Nachman himself says - 'Mutar La'asos ke'Divrei Rebbi, because he holds 'Halachah ke'Rebbi me'Chavero, va'Afilu me'Chaverav'.

(c) Rav said 'Ein Halachah ke'Rebbi' (and not 'Ein Halachah ke'Rebbi') - to counter Rebbi Chiya, who said 'Asah ke'Divrei Rebbi Asuy'.

(d) Rava holds like Rav, only he adds 've'Im Asah, Asuy' - because, according to him, the ruling in the Beis-Hamedrash was 'Matin Acharei Chachamim' (which means Lechatchilah, but that Bedieved, if one ruled like Rebbi, the ruling is valid).

(a) 'Sifra (de'Bei Rav)' is - the Medrash on Sefer Vayikra, whereas 'Sha'ar Sifri (de'Bei Rav)' is - the Medrash on the Halachic section of Bamidbar and Devarim as well as the Mechilta on Sh'mos (from "ha'Chodesh ha'Zeh Lachem").

(b) If 'S'tam Mishnah is Rebbi Meir' and 'Stam Sifra, Rebbi Yehudah', the author of ...

1. ... the Sifri is - Rebbi Shimon.
2. ... Seder Olam - Rebbi Yossi.
3. ... Tosefta - Rebbi Nechemyah.
(c) The Rebbe of them all was - Rebbi Akiva.
(a) The Pasuk "be'Chol Asher Yimatzei Lo" is - the source for the ruling that a Bechor only inherits the Cheilek Bechorah from what his father actually possessed when he died (but not from Ra'uy).

(b) When Rav Nachman, citing the Sifri, precludes from there Pasuk 'Sh'vach she'Hishbichu Yorshin le'Achar Miysas Avihen', he does not preclude 'Sh'vach she'Shavchu Nechasim' (and the author is Rebbi).

(c) According to Rami bar Chama quoting the Sifri - the Pasuk comes to preclude even 'Sh'vach she'Shavchu Nechasim', and certainly 'Sh'vach she'Hishbichu Yorshin' (and the author of the Beraisa is the Rabbanan).

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel states 'Ein Bechor Notel Pi Shenayim be'Milveh' (even a Milveh bi'Sh'tar). We initially think that Shmuel must follow the opinion of Rebbi and not the Rabbanan, because, since according to the latter - the Bechor does not even receive the Cheilek Bechorah from property which *is* in the heir's possession, it is obvious that he will not receive property which isn't.

(b) The problem this creates with the Beraisa 'Yarshu Sh'tar-Chov, Bechor Notel Pi Shenayim, Bein be'Milveh Bein be'Ribis' is - that if, as we just established, Rebbi denies the Bechor the right to claim the Cheilek Bechorah from a Milveh, then who is the author of this Beraisa?

(c) We therefore establish Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's statement according to the Rabbanan - and the Chidush is that since the heirs are holding a Sh'tar-Chov, we do not consider them Muchzak, as if they had already claimed the debt and had it in their possession.

(d) When the Tana refers to a Sh'tar with Ribis - he is referring to a debtor who is a Nochri (from whom one is permitted to take Ribis).

(a) They sent from Eretz Yisrael 'Bechor Notel Pi Shenayim be'Milveh Aval Lo be'Ribis'. The Shalchu mi'Tam cannot hold like Rebbi - because in another Beraisa, he specifically rules that he takes from the Ribis as well.

(b) We therefore conclude that they hold like the Rabbanan, despite the Rabbanan's earlier ruling that the Bechor does not even receive 'Sh'vach she'Shavchu Nechasim' (such as Shachas that grew into wheat) - because they consider a Milveh, as if it was already claimed (despite the fact that the heirs initially own nothing but a piece of paper).

(c) This S'vara works for the loan itself - which after all, is money which their father already owned (and the Sh'tar takes the place of a security (which we already know, renders the creditor Muchzak on the loan), but not for the Ribis - which is a new acquisition.

(d) We cannot reconcile this with Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel - who definitely argues with Shalchu mi'Tam on this point (and who holds that he is not even Muchzak in the Milveh either, according to the Rabbanan).

(a) Rav Acha bar Rava told Ravina that Ameimar arrived in their place and ruled like Shalchu mi'Tam. Based on the fact that Ameimar was from Neherda'a, Ravina retorted - 'Neherda'i le'Ta'amaihu' (the Neherda'i follow their own reasoning).

(b) When Rav Nachman said 'Gavu Karka Ein Lo, Gavu Ma'os Yesh Lo', he meant - that the Bechor receives an extra portion only if the heirs claimed money, but not if they claimed land.

(c) The reason for this is - because it is money that the debtor borrowed from their father and not land. Consequently, it is his money in which their father is Muchzak and not his land.

(d) And the reasoning of Rabah, who holds the reverse is - because, due to the principle 'Milveh le'Hotza'ah Nitnah' (a loan is meant to be spent) the money that a creditor claims from a debtor is not the same money that he borrowed. His Karka, on the other hand, is Meshubad to him from the outset, and so he is considered Muchzak in it.

(a) Despite the fact that Ameimar does not appear in the previous Machlokes, Ravina said 'Neherda'i le'Ta'amaihu' - because Rav Nachman too, came from Neherda'a, and it is logical to say that Ameimar holds like him.

(b) Nevertheless - it does not follow that Ameimar holds like Rav Nachman completely and not like Rabah. In fact, both Rabah and Rav Nachman hold like Shalchu mi'Tam, and in this point Ameimar agrees with him. He also holds like Rabah however, seeing as he does differentiate between Gavu Ma'os or Gavu Karka (see also Tosfos DH 'Neherda'i').

Next daf


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