(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 112

BAVA BASRA 112 - This Daf has been dedicated in honor of the birth of Ayala Kramer (Yerushalayim). May she grow to be a source of Nachas and a credit to her parents and all of Klal Yisrael.


(a) The current Beraisa cites two more Pesukim (following "ve'Chol Bas Yoreshes Nachalah le'Echad mi'Mishpachas Mateh Avihah Tih'yeh le'Ishah"): "ve'Lo Sisov Nachalah li'Venei Yisrael mi'Mateh el Mateh" and "ve'Lo Sisov Nachalah mi'Mateh le'Mateh Acher".
Why does the Tana need to cite ...
  1. ... the second Pasuk? Why will we perhaps not be able to learn Hasavas ha'Ba'al from the first one?
  2. ... the third Pasuk? Why will we perhaps not be able to learn Hasavas ha'Ba'al from the second one either?
(b) In any case, why does he need to add the Pasuk in ...
  1. ... Yehoshua (concerning Pinchas' property)?
  2. ... Divrei Hayamim (concerning Ya'ir's twenty-three cities)?
(c) How do we then know that there too, it was not the wife of S'guv, Ya'ir's father who died, and whom he inherited?
(a) Rav Papa then attempts to repudiate the proof from Pinchas and Ya'ir by attributing their property neither to Hasavas ha'Av nor to Hasavas ha'Ba'al (nor to Yerushas ha'Eim).
How else might they have come by their property?
What is the Navi then coming to teach us?

(b) On what grounds does Abaye reject this suggestion?

(c) We nevertheless reinstate the Kashya by switching from a field that they purchased to a S'dei ha'Cherem.
What does this mean?

(d) To which case does this Kashya pertain, to that of Pinchas or to that of Ya'ir?

(a) What have we achieved with this Kashya?

(b) Does this mean that if Abaye had not refuted Rav Papa's Kashya from Pinchas (as we just explained), the proof for Hasavas ha'Ba'al would have remained intact?

(a) What does Abaye mean when he asks (with regard to the Pasuk "ve'Chol Bas Yoreshes Nachalah mi'Matos B'nei Yisrael") 'Sof Sof Ha ka Mis'akra Nachalah mi'Shivta de'Eima le'Shivta de'Aba'?

(b) What do we mean when we suggest 've'Dilma Sha'ani Hasam she'Kevar Husvah'?

(c) What does Abaye reply to that?

(a) How does Rav Yeimar attempt to prove to Rav Ashi that we must say 'she'Kevar Husvah'? What would be the problem if we didn't?

(b) What is Rav Ashi's reply? How does Abaye, (who holds Hasavas ha'Ba'al) explain the possibility of not saying 'she'Kevar Husvah' and still not worry about the daughter removing her mother's property still further when she marries?

(c) But why will this not then be considered Hasavah vis-a-vis her father's property, which was one hundred per-cent within his tribe, and has now (partially) passed to another tribe (from the husband's mother's side)?

(d) If in fact, we do not say 'she'Kevar Husvah', forcing the daughter to marry a man from her father's tribe but whose mother was from the same tribe as her own mother, then why did the Torah not write "le'Echad mi'Mishpachas Mateh Avihah ve'Imah"?

6) Regarding Abaye's initial Kashya, we explained that assuming that we hold of Hasavas ha'Ba'al, but do not say 'she'Kevar Husvah', why are we not concerned with the daughter (whose parents were from different tribes) transferring her mother's property to her husband's tribe.
Besides the fact that it is impossible to explain it, on what grounds do we reject the text which explains the Kashya to be on Rav Papa (who queries the Tana's proof for Hasavas ha'Ba'al) that even if we did not hold of 'Hasavas ha'Ba'al', what difference would it make, since anyway once the daughter married someone from a different tribe, her sons would transfer her father's property from her father's tribe to that of her husband?

Answers to questions



(a) How does another Beraisa establish the Pasuk ...
  1. ... "ve'Lo Sisov Nachalah li'Venei Yisrael mi'Mateh el Mateh"?
  2. ... "ve'Lo Sisov Nachalah mi'Mateh le'Mateh Acher"?
(b) What does this prove?

(c) This Tana proves from the fact that the second Pasuk refers to Hasavas ha'Ba'al, the first Pasuk must be referring to Hasavas ha'Ben.
How does a second Tana arrive at exactly the same conclusion, but through reverse logic?

(d) In which point do these Tana'im argue with the Tana earlier in the Sugya, who established the same two Pesukim by Hasavas ha'Ben?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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