ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 141
BAVA BASRA 141 (30 Av) - This daf has been dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Esther
Chaya Rayzel (Friedman) bas Gershon Eliezer, upon her Yahrzeit and Yom
Kevurah, by her daughter and son-in-law, Jeri and Eli Turkel. Esther
Friedman was a woman of valor who was devoted to her family and gave of
herself unstintingly, inspiring all those around her.
(a) Based on the Pasuk in Tzefanyah "Yom Evrah ha'Yom ha'Hu", Rebbi Yochanan
in the name of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai learns from the Lashon of the Pasuk
"ve'Ha'avartem es Nachalaso le'Bito" - that Hashem is angry with someone who
dies without leaving behind a son.
(b) Nevertheless, the father in our Mishnah gives one Manah for a boy, but
two for a girl, because it is more important to provide generously
('le'Inyan Harvachah') for a girl (for whom begging is more degrading than
for a boy).
(c) According to Shmuel, our Mishnah is talking about a firstborn daughter,
like Rav Chisda, who said - said that the birth of a daughter first is a
good sign for the sons that follow, either because she helps to look after
him or because prevents the Ayin ha'Ra from affecting the son (as would
happen if he was the Bechor [see Agados Maharsha]).
(d) Assuming that he was not referring to a firstborn child, when Rav Chisda
said that he preferred daughters to sons - he meant that he looked forward
to the birth of another daughter, because he was used to having daughters
but no sons.
(a) Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, explains the Pasuk in Chayei Sarah "va'Hashem
Beirach es Avraham ba'Kol" to mean that Avraham did not have a daughter.
That is a B'rachah - because a daughter, Chazal say, requires special
protection, and besides, whom would she have married?
(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah - the B'rachah was that Avraham had a
daughter, whose name was Bakol.
(c) We refute the suggestion that this is the Rebbi Yehudah referred to in
the third alternative to explain why the father gave more for a daughter
than for a son - because the Pasuk only teaches us that Avraham did not even
lack a daughter (but not that it is better to have a daughter than a son).
(a) We therefore cite Rebbi Yehudah in another Beraisa. Rebbi Meir says
there that it is a Mitzvah to feed one's daughters, 'Kal va'Chomer' one's
sons - who study Torah.
(b) And it is like Rebbi Yehudah here who argues with Rebbi Meir and says -
that if it is a Mitzvah to sustain one's sons, then 'Kal va'Chomer' one's
daughters - to ecourage would-be suitors to marry them.
(c) We ask on this from the Beraisa 'Yaldah Zachar u'Nekeivah, ha'Zachar
Notel Shishah Dinrim'. The Tana there says that if the man's wife gave birth
to a boy and a girl, the boy receives six (golden) Dinrim, which is
equivalent to ...
1. ... one and a half Manim.
(d) The daughter receives two Dinrim (half a Manah).
2. ... a hundred and fifty Zuzim (or Dinrim).
(a) If the daughter was born first, then each one receives one Manah.
(b) When Rav Ashi presented this Sugya to Rav Kahana, the latter established
the Beraisa by Mesares - meaning that the father switched the condition, as
we shall now see.
(c) He stipulated that if the son was born first, he would receive two Manah
and the daughter, nothing. In the event that the daughter was born first -
each one would receive one Manah.
(d) In fact, they were not sure which one was born first. Consequently - the
son takes four Dinrim (one Manah) either way, and the remaining Manah, they
split (because of the principle 'Mamon ha'Mutal be'Safek, Cholkin' [money
which is in doubt, and over which neither has a Chazakah], is divided). This
explains why the son takes six Dinrim, and the daughter, two.
(a) Another Beraisa says 'Yaldah Zachar u'Nekeivah, Ein Lo Ela Manah'.
Ravina establishes this Beraisa like yet another Beraisa. In a case where
the husband declares 'ha'Mevasreini ba'Meh Niftar Rachmah shel Ishti; Im
Zachar, Yitol Manah; Im Nekeivah, Titol Manah', the Tana there says -
'Yaldah Zachar, Notel Manah; Yaldah Nekeivah, Notel Manah, Yaldah Zachar
u'Nekeivah, Eino Notel Ela Manah' (in fact, the previous Beraisa is probably
the Seifa of this one).
(b) Seeing as the Tana concludes like this - we have to amend the Reisha and
insert 'Im Zachar u'Nekeivah, Yitol Nami Manah'.
(c) The Tana concludes 'Ein Lo *Ela* Manah' - because we may otherwise have
thought that the Mevaser receives two Manah in this case.
(d) Despite the fact that the Mevaser receives a Manah in all the cases, the
husband mentions them all - to preclude a Nefel (a still-born baby) from the
(a) If a husband declares that his property is to go to the baby with whom
his wife is pregnant, Rav Huna rules 'ha'Mezakeh le'Ubar Lo Kanah' - because
he is not yet in the world).
(b) Rav Nachman asked Rav Huna from our Mishnah 'ha'Omer, Im Yaldah Ishti
Zachar, Yitol Manah - Notel Manah', which clearly holds that he is Koneh.
(c) Rav Huna replied - that he did not know who the author of the Mishnah
(d) True, Rav Nachman holds 'ha'Mezakeh le'Ubar, Lo Kanah', but *he* holds -
that, once the Ubar is born, the Kinyan takes effect, in which case our
Mishnah does not pose a problem.
(a) To dispense with the Kashya on Rav Huna, we try to establish our Mishnah
like Rebbi Meir, who holds 'Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Bo le'Olam' (and like
whom Rav Huna actually holds). We reject this suggestion however, on the
grounds - that even Rebbi Meir agrees 'Ein Adam Makneh *le'Davar* she'Lo Ba
(b) Then we try to establish it like Rebbi Yossi, who says in the Mishnah in
1. ... 'Ubar Posel' - which meaans that, if a Kohen dies, leaving his wife
(who is a bas Yisrael) pregnant but without any other children, the Ubar
disqualifies the wife's Avadim from eating Terumah (even though he is not
yet in the world).
(c) We reject that suggestion too, on the grounds - that Yerushah, which
comes automatically (and does not require a Kinyan), is different.
2. ... 've'Eino Ma'achil' - which means that, on the other hand, he does not
enable the wife to eat Terumah (like he will do once he is born).
(a) Then we try to establish the author as Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, who
says - that a father has the authority to bequeath all his property to one
of his sons (like we learned in the previous Perek).
(b) We reject the proposition that he is the one who holds that one can be
Mezakeh on behalf of someone who is not yet born, and that he will therefore
be the author of our Mishnah, on the grounds - that Rebbi Yochanan ben
Berokah is speaking about *something* that is not yet in the world, but not
about *someone* who is not.
(c) And we further reject the suggestion that maybe Rebbi Yochanan ben
Berokah also holds like Rebbi Yossi ('ha'Mezakeh le'Ubar Koneh'), and is
actually speaking in that case - because there is no reason to suggest that
(a) Finally, we refute the suggestion that our Mishnah is speaking in a case
1. ... of 'Mevasreni' (like the Beraisa earlier), where he is giving money,
not to the Ubar, but to the one who gives him the news - because how would
we then explain the Seifa 've'Im Ein Sham Yoresh Ela Hu, Yoresh ha'Kol'?
What turns the harbinger of good news into an heir?
(b) Neither can we establish it when the husband specifically stipulates
that the baby will only receive the money after he is born - because Rav
Huna holds 'ha'Mezakeh le'Ubar, Lo Kanah', even after the baby is born (as
we learned earlier).
2. ... where the baby has already been born - because why did the Tana
conclude 've'Im Amar Kol Mah *she'Teiled* Ishti Yitol, Harei Zeh Yitol', and
not 'Kol Mah *she'Yaldah* Ishti'?