ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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". The Tana needs to cite ...
1. ... the second Pasuk - because we might otherwise have thought that the
first Pasuk refers to Hasavas ha'Ben (and not Hasavas ha'Ba'al).
(b) And he also needs to add the Pasuk in ...
2. ... the third Pasuk - because perhaps we need the second Pasuk for a
La'av (which carries with it Malkos [seeing as the first Pasuk is only an
Asei]) for Hasavas ha'Bein.
1. ... Yehoshua (concerning Pinchas' property) - because we would otherwise
have thought that we need the previous three Pesukim for an Asei and two
La'avin by Hasavas ha'Ben (see Shitah Mekubetzes).
(c) We know that there it cannot have been the wife of S'guv, Ya'ir's father
who died, and whom he inherited - because we would not require two Pesukim
to demonstrate 'Yerushas ha'Eim'.
2. ... Divrei Hayamim (concerning Ya'ir's twenty-three cities) - because
otherwise, we might have established the case of Pinchas where Pinchas
inherited from his mother.
(a) Rav Papa then attempts to repudiate the proof from Pinchas and Ya'ir by
attributing their property, neither to Hasavas Av nor to Hasavas ha'Ba'al
(nor to Yerushas ha'Eim) - but to their having purchased it. And the Tana is
coming to teach us how wealthy they were.
(b) Abaye rejects this suggestion on the grounds - that, bearing in mind
that purchased property is returned to the owner in the Yovel, it would mean
that Elazar ha'Tzadik was buried in a temporary grave, to be exhumed and
re-buried in the Yovel (a disgrace to which Pinchas would never have
subjected his father).
(c) We nevertheless reinstate the Kashya by switching from a field that they
purchased to a S'dei ha'Cherem - which means either a field which the owner
declared Cherem or a field of Hekdesh which someone other than the owner or
his son redeemed, and which goes to the Kohanim in Yovel.
(d) This Kashya pertains to the case of Pinchas, who was a Kohen (and who
might therefore have received such a field), but not to Ya'ir, who was from
the tribe of Menasheh.
(a) This Kashya - dispenses with our proof for Hasavas ha'Ba'al, since now,
neither the case of Pinchas nor that of Ya'ir, need necessarily be speaking
about Hasavas ha'Ba'al.
(b) The truth of the matter is however, that even if Abaye had not refuted
Rav Papa's Kashya from Pinchas (as we just explained) - the proof for
Hasavas ha'Ba'al would have been refuted, since Ya'ir might well have
purchased his cities, in which case we would no longer have two Pesukim for
Hasavah, one of which we would have inevitably used for Hasavas ha'Ba'al (as
we explained earlier).
(a) When Abaye 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', he is querying - whether the Torah is equally worried
about the Yerushas ha'Eim as it is about Yerushas ha'Av, in which case, the
daughter will be obligated to marry a member of the same tribe as her mother
as well as of her father (as will be explained later), or whether "le'Echad
mi'Mishpachas *Avihah*" comes to preclude the family of the mother, about
which the Torah is not particular.
(b) When we suggest 've'Dilma Sha'ani Hasam she'Kevar Husvah', we mean - to
resolve Abaye's She'eilah, on the grounds that it would be pointless to
restrict the daughter to marry a member of her mother's tribe, seeing as,
the moment her mother dies, her property has already passed from her own
tribe to that of her daughter (who belongs to the tribe of her father).
(c) But Abaye replies that perhaps we do not say she'Kevar Husvah'. It is
not because a woman's property has been partially moved to another tribe,
that her daughter is permitted to move it still further.
(a) Rav Yeimar attempts to prove to Rav Ashi that we must say 'she'Kevar
Husvah' - because if we didn't, then since we are concerned about Hasavas
ha'Ba'al no less than Hasavas ha'Ben, why does the Torah not worry about the
Hasavah of the mother's property (since it only mentions "Mishpachas
Avihah", and not 'mi'Mishpachas Imah'). Since, when all's said and done, by
marrying someone from her father's tribe, the daughter removes her mother's
property still further ...
Regarding Abaye's initial Kashya, we explained that assuming that we hold of
Hasavas ha'Ba'al, but do not say 'she'Kever 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, 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 - because Abaye's proof that we may as well concede
'Hasavas ha'Ba'al' is an external one that has nothing to do with the
Beraisa that Rav Papa is querying, and even if we assume that he is merely
coming to prove that a husband inherits, that is not something that Rav Papa
doubted in essence (seeing as our Sugya brings a number of sources for
this), only how it can be proved from the Pesukim cited by the Beraisa.
(b) ... to which Rav Ashi replies that Abaye, (who holds Hasavas ha'Ba'al)
maintains that it is possible not to say 'she'Kevar Husvah' and still not
worry about the daughter removing her mother's property still further when
she marries - by making her marry a man whose mother is from the same tribe
as her own mother was, re-creating exactly the same situation as existed
when her mother married her father (before the Isur of Hasavah was
(c) Nevertheless, this will not be considered Hasavah vis-a-vis her father's
property, which was one hundred per-cent within his tribe, and has now
(partially) passed over to another tribe (from the husband's mother's
side) - since, practically speaking, it is either her husband or his son who
will inherit it (and not someone from his mother's side).
(d) Even 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 mother, the Torah could not have written "le'Echad
mi'Mishpachas Mateh Avihah ve'Imah" - because we would then have thought
that the Torah permits the daughter to marry even someone whose father is
from the same tribe as her mother, and his mother from the same tribe as her
father (since the property has not been transferred completely from one
tribe to another, and a little of the original tribe remains).
(a) Another Beraisa establishes the Pasuk ...
1. ... "ve'Lo Sisov Nachalah li'Venei Yisrael mi'Mateh el Mateh" - by
(b) This proves that this Tana holds of both Hasavas ha'Ben and Hasavas
ha'Ba'al (even though earlier, we established both Pesukim by Hasavas
2. ... "ve'Lo Sisov Nachalah mi'Mateh le'Mateh Acher" - by Hasavas ha'Ba'al.
(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. A second
Tana arrives at exactly the same conclusion, but through reverse logic.
Since the first Pasuk refers to Hasavas ha'Ben, he says, the second one must
refer to Hasavas ha'Ba'al.
(d) These Tana'im argue with the Tana earlier in the Sugya, who established
the same two Pesukim by Hasavas ha'Ben (to give two sets of Malkos to the
transgressor) - inasmuch as he holds that we prefer to Darshen an extra
Pasuk, rather than to just use it to add an extra La'av.