REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
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) What does another Beraisa say about the division of Eretz Yisrael in
time to come? How will it differ basically from the original division?
(b) How do we initially interpret the Beraisa 've'Lo Nischalkah Ela
(c) According to Rebbi Yehudah, how many Sa'ah in Galil was equivalent in
value to one Sa'ah in Yehudah?
(d) We know that the Land was divided by lots from the Pasuk in Pinchas "Ach
be'Goral Yechalek es ha'Aretz".
What does the Tana learn from the Pasuk
there "al-Pi ha'Goral Techalek Nachalaso"?
(a) Who wore the Urim ve'Tumim?
(b) What was the procedure with regard to the lots? How many boxes were
(c) How did the Urim ve'Tumim work in conjunction with the lots?
(d) What distinction between the distribution of Yehoshua and that of
Mashi'ach (besides the one mentioned earlier) does this Beraisa describe?
(a) What did the above dual system of distribution achieve?
(b) Why could they 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
(c) Why does the Sugya mention Zevulun and Naftali and not Reuven and Shimon
(or Yehudah and Yisachar)?
(d) The Tana describes yet a third distinction between the two distributions
(besides the question of which tribes participated, which will be discussed
What does he learn from the Pasuk in Yechezkel "ve'Eileh
Machlekosam *Ne'um Hashem*"?
(a) How do we also resolve our original She'eilah (whether Eretz Yisrael was
distributed 'li'Shevatim' or 'le'Karfaf de'Gavri') from this lengthy
(b) The Tana earlier, mentioned thirteen portions into which the land will
be apportioned in the time of Mashi'ach.
Would it be correct to say that
the thirteenth portion will go to Levi?
(c) Then who will receive the thirteenth portion.
(d) Initially, we cite a Pasuk in Yechezkel "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.
What did Abaye reply?
(a) We initially interpreted the Beraisa 've'Lo Nischalkah Ela be'Kesef' to
mean that those who received superior-quality land would compensate those
who received land of inferior quality.
On what grounds do we refute this
(b) Then what *does* the Tana mean?
(c) What second disadvantage did living further northwards have, besides
being further away from Yerushalayim?
(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).
might he have meant?
(a) The Tana Kama of the previous Beraisa is Rebbi Eliezer.
Rebbi Yehoshua say?
(b) What is the Tana'im's source for this compensation?
(a) What does the Tana of another Beraisa learn from the Pasuk "*Ach*
be'Goral Yechalek es ha'Aretz"?
Answers to questions
(b) Why can this not be coming to preclude Yehoshua and Kalev from taking a
(c) Then what is the Pasuk coming to teach us?
(d) Who 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".
What does Rebbi
Elazar mean when ...
(b) Which area did they give to Kalev?
- ... in the first Lashon, he explains 'bi'Techilah Peirosehah ke'Cheres, ve'li'be'Sof Peirosehah Masrichin'?
- ... in the second Lashon, he explains 'bi'Techilah Peirosehah Masrichin, ve'li'be'Sof Peirosehah ke'Cheres'?
(c) How does Abaye reconcile this with the fact that Chevron was an Ir
(a) What do we Darshen from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "*Lo* Mishpat
ha'Bechorah" with regard to the property that a son inherits from his
(b) How will the Din differ from an ordinary Yerushah, if a father dies
leaving Nechasim Me'utin?
(c) What would be the Din in the equivalent case, but where it was their
mother whom they inherited?
(a) Our Mishnah begins with the words 'Echad ha'Ben ve'Echad ha'Bas
be'Nachalah'. Why can this not mean that ...
(b) On what grounds do 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
- ... a daughter inherits together with her brother?
- ... daughter who inherits, receives even Ra'uy just like her brother, like Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak suggests?
(c) What additional Kashya do we ask after making the second of the two
(d) We are happy to make the second of the two above points based on the
Mishnah in connection with the B'nos Tz'lofchad.
How could we have proved
our point from another Mishnah?
(a) And on what grounds do we reject Rav Papa's suggestion 'Echad ha'Ben
ve'Echad ha'Bas Notlin Cheilek bi'Vechorah'?
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.
(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.
What does Rebbi Yochanan ben
Berokah say later in the Perek?
(c) Perhaps the Tana is presenting a S'tam Mishnah like Rebbi Yochanan ben
(d) So how does Mar bar Rav Ashi finally establish our Mishnah, to answer
the second Kashya ('ve'Od, Mai Ela') as well?
What do we however learn, from the Pasuk in Ki
Seitzei (with regard to a a Bechor) "ve'Yaldu Lo Banim"?
Answers to questions