(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 129


(a) We learned in our Mishnah that as long as the Shechiv-Mera mentioned Matanah either at the beginning, in the middle or at the end, his words are valid.
From where do we know that 'Yerushah' applies to a private inheritance?

(b) How does Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan explain ...

  1. ... 'at the beginning'?
  2. ... 'in the middle'?
  3. ... 'at the end'?
(c) In which two ways does Rebbi Yochanan then qualify our Mishnah? When would the Tana not extend the Lashon Matanah to where the Shechiv-Mera used a Lashon Yerushah?

(d) What would the Din then be in that case?

(a) What does Rebbi Elazar say?

(b) According to Ravin, in a case where the Shechiv-Mera said 'Tinasen Sadeh P'lonis li'Peloni ve'Yirash P'loni Sadeh P'lonis', Rebbi Yochanan says 'Kanah', and Rebbi Elazar, 'Lo Kanah'.
How do we resolve this with the ruling of ...

  1. ... Rebbi Elazar that we just cited (according to Rav Dimi)?
  2. ... Rebbi Yochanan, according to Rav Dimi?
(c) In light of the wording following Rebbi Elazar's earlier ruling 'Aval bi'Shetei Sados u'Shenei B'nei Adam, Lo', how do we justify the Kashya that we just asked from Rav Dimi's version of Resh Lakish on to that of Ravin?
(a) Resh Lakish agrees in part with the previous ruling.
Why, according to him, would Shimon not acquire the field if the father said 'Tinasen Sadeh Pelonis li'Reuven, ve'Sadeh P'lonis le'Shimon ve'Yirashum'?

(b) What would the Shechiv-Mera need to say for Shimon to acquire the second field, according to Resh Lakish?

(a) Given that none of the disputants that we are about to quote hold like Resh Lakish, which of the above opinions conforms with that of ...
  1. ... Rav Hamnuna, who says 'Lo Shanu Ela Adam Echad ve'Sadeh Achas, Aval ... Lo'?
  2. ... Rav Nachman, who says 'Afilu Adam Echad u'Shetei Sados ... Aval Sh'tei Sados u'Shenei B'nei Adam, Lo'?
  3. ... Rav Sheishes, who says 'Afilu Sh'tei Sados u'Shenei B'nei Adam'?
(b) Rav Sheishes supports his opinion with a Beraisa, which discusses a case where a father says 'T'nu Shekel li'Banai le'Shabbos', assuming that they require a Sela (two Shekalim). The Tana might be talking about a Shechiv-Mera on his death-bed.
Who else might he be referring to?

(c) What does the Tana rule there" How much do we actually give his children each week out of his estate?

(d) Under which circumstances would we follow his instructions, in spite of the fact that his sons really need more?

(a) In Kesuvos, we establish the author of this Beraisa as Rebbi Meir.
What does Rebbi Meir say?

(b) Despite that, we conclude there that, irrespective of which Lashon the father used, we give his sons their needs.
Why is that?

(c) What does the Tana of the Beraisa then rule in a case where the father added 'Im Meisu, Yirshu P'loni u'Peloni Tachteihem'?

(d) What does Rav Sheishes now extrapolate from there?

(a) Like whom does Rav Sheishes himself establish the Beraisa, to refute his own proof from there?

(b) What is then the case?

(c) Why does he do that?

(d) How will we establish the Beraisa, according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yishmael B'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah in Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah (whose opinion we will cite on the following Daf)?

Answers to questions



(a) Rav Ashi queries our Sugya from another Beraisa.
What does the Tana rule in the case 'Nechasai Lach ve'Acharecha Yirash Peloni, ve'Acharei Acharecha, Yirash P'loni' in the event that ...
  1. ... things follow that course?
  2. ... the second candidate (the first P'loni) dies before the first recipient?
(b) What does Rav Ashi prove from here?

(c) We are after all, talking about the same field.
On what grounds does Rav Ashi compare it to two fields?

(a) How do we attempt to answer Rav Ashi's Kashya?

(b) We have a problem with this answer however, based on a statement by Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ivya.
What did Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ivya say regarding Rebbi Yochanan? How does that refute our attempted answer?

(c) What is the reason for this?

(d) So what is our conclusion?

(a) How do we know that the Beraisa cannot be a Kashya on Resh Lakish?

(b) Then how do we reconcile the Beraisa, which validates a Lashon Yerushah after a Lashon Matanah even in a case of two fields and two people (even not in the way prescribed by Resh Lakish) with Resh Lakish?

(c) Why can we not answer the Kashya on the other Amora'im in the same way?
How do we know that the Lashon Matanah does not effect the Lashon Yerushah by two fields and two people, even when they are said 'Toch K'dei Dibur' (according to them)?

(a) What ruling do we issue with regard to 'Toch K'dei Dibur'? In which two cases is it not considered ke'Dibur?

(b) What are the ramifications of this ruling with regard to ...

  1. ... Avodas Kochavim?
  2. ... Kidushin?
(c) What is now the Din when someone says two things 'Toch K'dei Dibur, assuming that ...
  1. ... both of them are conceivable (such as 'Harei Zu Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim')?
  2. ... one of them can take effect, and the one cannot (such as Matanah and Yerushah, in our case)?
  3. ... the two statements contradict each other (such as ''Midah be'Chavel', 'Hein Chaser, Hein Yeser' that we learned in Perek Beis Kur)?
(d) What is the common basis for all these Halachos? How do we view two statements that are made 'Toch K'dei Dibur'?
11) Under what circumstances is 'Toch K'dei Dibur' not considered 'K'dei Dibur' in all cases?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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