(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 142


(a) We have already learned that although both Rav Huna and Rav Nachman agree that 'ha'Mezakeh le'Ubar, Lo Kanah', wheras Rav Huna extends this ruling even to after the baby is born, Rav Nachman then holds 'Kanah'.
How do we reconcile this with Rav Nachman's own ruling 'ha'Mocher Peiros Dekel la'Chavero, Lo Kanah', even after the fruit has grown?

(b) What does Rav Sheishes holds?

(c) What does the Beraisa say in the case of a Ger who dies and the people who sieze his property then discover that he has a son, or that the Ger's wife is pregnant?

(d) And what does the Tana say if, after they returned whatever they took, they discover that the the son died or that the wife miscarried?

(a) How does Rav Sheishes attempt to prove his opinion from this latter ruling?

(b) Abaye refutes Rav Sheishes' proof, because, he says Yerushah that comes by itself, is different.
How does Rava refute it?

(c) What is the practical difference between Abaye's answer and that of Rava.
In which case will the first set of people own it according to Rava, but not according to Abaye?

(a) We learned in the Mishnah in Nidah 'Tinok ben Yom Echad Nochel u'Manchil'.
If we take this Mishnah at surface value, from whom does the child inherit, and to whom does he bequeath it?

(b) What do we infer from there? Why is this a Kashya on the current Sugya?

(a) To answer this Kashya, we cite Rav Sheishes, who establishes the Mishnah differently.
Why did he do that? What problem do we have with the basic Mishnah as it stands?

(b) So Rav Sheishes explains the Mishnah to mean that the Ubar inherits his mother's property to bequeath it to his paternal brothers.
How does it affect the inference and answer the Kashya?

(c) Why does the Ubar nevertheless not inherit his mother in the grave to bequeath the property to his brothers (like he does, his father)?

(d) How does Mar bar Rav Ashi reconcile this with a case that actually ocurred, where the baby shuddered three times after the mother had died?

Answers to questions



(a) Mar B'reih de'Rav Yosef quoting Rava, establishes the Mishnah in Nidah ('Tinok ben Yom Echad Nochel u'Manchil') with regard to the Cheilek Bechorah.
What does the Tana then mean?

(b) What does he hold in the previous case? In what point does Mar B'rei de'Rav Yosef disagree with the previous interpretation of that Mishnah?

(c) Why then does the Tana say specifically 'Tinok ben Yom Echad', and not an Ubar? What does he learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "ve'Yaldu Lo"?

(d) What does this mean practically?

(a) We are now learning in Rava's name that an Ubar acquires.
How do we reconcile this with Rava, who, on the previous Amud, argued with Abaye, and maintained that he does not (even in the case of a Yerushah)?

(b) That is how they quoted Mar B'rei de'Rav Yosef Amar Rava in Sura. In Pumbedisa, they quoted him differently.
What did he learn from the Pasuk there "ve'Yaldu Lo"?

(c) How is it possible for an Ubar who is a Bechor to have a brother?

(d) What ruling do we issue concerning all three statements of Mar B'rei de'Rav Yosef in the name of Rava?

(a) Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules 'ha'Mezakeh le'Ubar, Lo Kanah'. How does he reconcile this with our Mishnah ('ha'Omer Im Teiled Ishti Zachar ... ', like Rav Nachman asked Rav Huna)?

(b) What did Shmuel promise to tell Rav Chanah Bagdesa'ah in front of ten people, if he would collect them? What does 'Bagdesa'ah' mean?

(c) We rule however like Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Yochanan.
What is the exception to this ruling?

(a) Who objected when that man promised his wife that all his property would go to the children that she would bear him?

(b) How did he pacify him?

(c) We conclude that the subsequent children will not inherit the first son's portion of the father's estate.
Why not, in light of our Mishnah, which we just corroborated?

(d) We ask whether the son from the first wife will inherit together with them or not.
What does this mean, in terms of what he will receive ...

  1. ... if he does?
  2. ... if he does not?
(a) Rebbi Avin, Rebbi Meyasha and Rebbi Yirmiyah all hold that the oldest son does receive a portion of the younger sons inheritance.
What do Rebbi Avahu, Rebbi Chanina bar Papi and Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha say?

(b) On what grounds did Rebbi Yirmiyah think that the Halachah must be like him and his colleagues, rather than like Rebbi Avahu and his colleagues?

(c) How did Rebbi Avahu respond to Rebbi Yirmiyah's statement?

(a) He told Rebbi Yirmiyah how he had explained his reason to Rebbi Avin (one of Rebbi Yirmiyah's colleagues), and suggested that he go and ask him. How had Rebbi Avin responded to Rebbi Avahu's explanation?

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah followed Rebbi Avahu's advice. What did Rebbi Avin tell him?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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