(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 127

BAVA BASRA 126-128 - have been generously dedicated by Dick and Beverly Horowitz of Los Angeles, California. May they be blessed with a life of joy and much Nachas from their children and grandchildren.


(a) Still in connection with a Tumtum she'Nikra, what does ...
  1. ... Rav Sheravya learn from the Pasuk in Tazri'a "Ishah ki Sazri'a *ve'Yaldah* Zachar ve'Tam'ah Shiv'as Yamim"?
  2. ... Rav Shizbi learn from there "Ishah ki Sazri'a *ve'Yaldah* Zachar ... u'va'Yom ha'Shemini Yimol"?
(b) Will the first Halachah apply should the Tumtum turn out to a girl, or will her mother indeed be Tamei for fourteen days?
(a) What does the Beraisa say about a woman who has a miscarriage which turns out to be a Tumtum or an Androginos? What is an Androginos?

(b) What are the ramifications of this ruling?

(c) In any event, this Beraisa disproves Rav Sheravya (who precludes a Tumtum [even 'she'Nikra'] from the entire Din of Tum'ah and Taharah).
Why is it not also a disproof for Rav Shizbi, who after all, Darshens "ve'Yaldah" to preclude a Tumtum from Milah overriding Shabbos? Is it not clear that the Tana does not Darshen "ve'Yaldah"?

(d) What alternative D'rashah might the Tana (and Rav Shizbi) learn from "Ishah Ki Sazri'a ve'Yaldah"?

(a) What problem do we have with the above answer? What ought the Tana to have said, had he been in a Safek?

(b) In short, the woman ought not to have any days of Taharah at all.
Why not?

(c) Seeing as the woman has to observe fourteen days of Tum'ah anyway, what is then the point in inserting 'le'Zachar'?

(d) Since we do not offer an answer to this Kashya anyway, why do we not conclude 'Tiyuvta' (like we just did on Rav Sheravya)?

(a) We learned a Beraisa which bears out Rebbi Ami "Ben", 've'Lo Tumtum', "Bechor" 've'Lo Safek'.
We explain that this comes to preclude from the statement of Rava.
What did Rava say about a man whose two wives gave birth to two babies simultaneously, one of them to a Bechor, if the babies were mixed-up from birth, without knowing which one is the Bechor?

(b) Ravin went to great lengths to discover the Halachah in this case. What did he learn from Rebbi Yanai, who distinguished between 'Hukru ve'li'Besof Nis'arvu' and 'Nis'arvu ve'li'Besof Hukru'?

(c) What is the source for this Chumra?

(d) What was Rava's reaction to Rebbi Yanai's ruling?

(a) How did Rava originally explain the Beraisa, before hearing the true explanation from Rebbi Yanai? What did he learn from ...
  1. ... "ve'Hayah ha'Ben"?
  2. ... "ha'Bechor"?
(b) In which point did Rebbi Yanai enlighten him? How does the D'rashah differ, according to Rebbi Yanai?
Answers to questions



(a) The B'nei Akra de'Agma asked Shmuel what the Din will be if Reuven was established as the Bechor, but his father declared Shimon the Bechor.
What do we mean by 'established'?

(b) What did Shmuel reply?

(c) Bearing in mind that this hinges on a Machlokes Tana'im (as we shall now see), what is the basis of Shmuel's ruling?

(a) What does Rebbi Yehudah ...
  1. ... learn from the Pasuk "Ki es ha'Bechor ben ha'Senu'ah *Yakir*"?
  2. ... say about a father who is a Kohen declaring his son to be a ben Gerushah or Chalutzah (and Pasul li'Kehunah)?
(b) What do the Rabbanan learn from the word "Yakir"?
(a) Bearing in mind that the issue of Ne'emanus here concerns which son receives the Cheilek Bechorah, what problem do we have with the Rabbanan's D'rashah from "Yakir"?

(b) Why do we confine the Kashya to the Rabbanan? Why is there no Kashya on Rebbi Yehudah?

(c) What do we answer?

(d) How will Rebbi Meir, who holds 'Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam', establish "Yakir"? What makes us think that Rebbi Meir is involved in this Machlokes?

9) Who is the author of the Beraisa which states 'Hayu Muchzakin Bo ...
  1. ... she'Hu Bechor, va'Amar Aviv al Acher she'Hu Bechor, Ne'eman'?
  2. ... she'Eino Bechor, va'Amar Bechor Hu, Eino Ne'eman'?
(a) Rebbi Yochanan says 'B'ni Hu, ve'Chazar ve'Amar Avdi Hu, Eino Ne'eman' (in his second statement).
Why, in the reverse case 'Avdi Hu, ve'Chazar ve'Amar B'ni Hu', does he rule 'Ne'eman'?

(b) Then why does he not also believe him in the first case, on the grounds that he is really his Eved, and he called him 'B'ni, because he loves him like a son?

(c) If however, he is passing through customs, Rebbi Yochanan reverses the ruling.
At which stage does he refer to him as 'B'ni' in this case, and when, as 'Avdi' (and vice-versa)?

(d) Why, if he says first 'B'ni' and then 'Avdi', is he believed there, but not in the reverse case?

(a) We ask on Rebbi Yochanan from the Beraisa 'Hayah Meshamsho ke'Ven, u'Va ve'Amar B'ni Hu, ve'Chazar ve'Amar Avdi Hu, Eino Ne'eman'.
What does the Tana rule in the Seifa 'Hayah Meshamsho ke'Eved, u'Ba ve'Amar Avdi Hu, ve'Chazar ve'Amar u'B'ni Hu'?

(b) Why does this Beraisa pose a strong Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan?

(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak reconciles the Beraisa with Rebbi Yochanan by establishing it by Avda Meitzar Me'ah.
What is 'Avda Meitzar Me'ah'? How does that answer the Kashya?

(d) How will this also help us to understand the excessive Lashon of the Beraisa?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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