ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 119
(a) Initially, we establish that the Beraisa which rules that the children
of the Meraglim and the Mislonenim (the Adas Korach, who were Levi'im, did
not receive a portion anyway) received a portion via their paternal or
maternal grandparents, holds 'le'Yotz'ei Mitzrayim Nischalkah', whereas the
Beraisa which maintains that they received it on their own merit, holds
'le'Ba'ei ha'Aretz Nischalkah'. This is possible, despite the fact that the
Reisha of the latter Beraisa ('Meraglim, Yehoshua ve'Kalev Natlu Chelkan')
holds 'le'Yotz'ei Mitzrayim Nischalkah' - if we view this as the final
statement of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar.
(b) Aternatively, we establish even the first Beraisa like those who hold
'le'Ba'ei ha'Aretz Nischalkah' - if the children of the Meraglim and the
Mislonenim were under twenty when they entered the Land.
(c) The 'B'nei ha'Mislonenim really inherited - from their
great-grandfathers (the fathers of the Mislonenim). They cannot have been
literally the sons of the Mislonenim, since the uprising of Korach (to which
the Mislonenim pertain, as we learned earlier) took place thirty-eight years
earlier, after the decree of the Meraglim (in which case their children
could not possibly have been under twenty when they entered Eretz Yisrael?)
(d) Assuming the author to be ...
1. ... Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar (as we just suggested) they inherited from
their greatgrandfathers - who left Egypt over the age of twenty (just like
the B'nos Tz'lofchad inherited from Chefer).
2. ... Rebbi Yonasan - then they inherited from them by way of Chazarah, via
brothers of the Mislonenim, who had been under twenty at the time of the
decree of the Meraglim, but who were well over twenty when they entered
Eretz Yisrael, and who therefore received a portion. Those portions now went
back by way of Chazarah to their parents who left Egypt when they were
twenty, and from whom all their descendants who entered Eretz Yisrael (even
those who were under twenty) inherited.
(a) We established that the daughters of Tzlofchad inherited their father's
Cheilek Bechorah in the property of his father. We already cited Rabah's
answer to the Kashya ('Eretz Yisrael Muchzekes Hi'), that since neither
Chefer nor Tz'lofchad had yet received their portion in Eretz Yisrael, it
ought to have been considered Ra'uy, and a Bechor does not inherit a double
portion in Ra'uy. Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel initially answers it - by
establishing it by Metaltelin (such as tent-pegs, which everybody in the
(b) This does not mean that the entire Beraisa is talking about the
inheritance of Metaltelin - only the Cheilek Bechorah.
(c) We ask on this however, from Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa regarding the
ten Batei Avos of Menasheh (that we discussed earlier) - including the
Cheilek Bechorah of Tz'lofchad in his father Chefer's property (and the Tana
is referring to Eretz Yisrael, not to Metaltelin).
(d) The Pasuk refers to portions of land of the ten Batei Avos as "Chevlei
Menasheh" - because they used to measure portions of land by means of a rope
(a) Eretz Yisrael was indeed Muchzekes from the time they left Egypt (as
Rabah explains) - but that we only know after Hashem resolved Moshe's
She'eilah. Initially, Moshe himself was uncertain whether the daughters of
Tz'lofchad were entitled to the Cheilek Bechorah of Tz'lofchad in Chefer's
property or not (as we shall see shortly)?
(b) This is based on a Beraisa of Rebbi Chidka, who quotes Rebbi Shimon
ha'Shikmoni - a Talmid of Rebbi Akiva.
(c) As we just explained, the Tana interprets Moshe's doubt concerning the
B'nos Tz'lofchad's Cheilek ha'Bechorah. As far as their right to their
father's Cheilek Pashut is concerned - Moshe knew full-well that they were
entitled to receive it.
(d) Even though the Dinim of unheritance were not yet recorded, Moshe would
have known them - from Marah, in Paeshas Beshalach, where they were taught
the Dinei Mamonos ("Sham Sam Lo Chok *u'Mishpat* ... ").
(a) Rebbi Shimon ha'Shikmoni says that ...
1. ... Parshas Nachalos ought to have been taught by Moshe straight, like he
did the major part of the Torah, and - that it only came about through the
B'nos Tz'lofchad, because they merited that it should be said in their name.
(b) Moshe knew that a Mechalel-Shabbos earns the death-sentence, and what he
asked Hashem was - because he did not know which of the four deaths he
should receive, Sekilah (the strictest) or strangulation (the most lenient).
2. ... Parshas Mekoshesh ought to have been taught by Moshe straight, like
he did the major part of the Torah, and - that it only came about through
the Mekoshesh Eitzim (Tz'lofchad), because he deserved the disgrace that it
should be said in his name.
(c) We can learn from these statements - that nothing that belongs in the
Torah is omitted (that it does not require an incident for something to be
(a) Moshe doubted whether we learn from the Pasuk "ve'Nasati Lachem
Morashah, Ani Hashem" teaches us that 'Eretz Yisrael Muchzekes Hi' or not.
Perhaps "Morashah", which implies something that one bequeaths without
actually inheriting oneself, is written to hint that the generation that
left Egypt would not inherit Eretz Yisrael (see also Agados Maharsha).
(b) We know that it *can* also be synonymous with 'Yerushah' - because we
have a precedent for it in a Pasuk in Yeshayah "le'Morash Kipod", and
because there are many such words with the same format 'Mo'ed, 'Mofes',
'Motze' ... (which like Morashah) are formed from the Hif'il verb).
(c) And we learn that it ...
1. ... *is* - from the Pasuk in Pinchas "ve'Ha'avarta es Nachalas Avihen
Lahen", 'Zu Cheilek Bechorah' (as we learned on the previous Daf).
(d) According to the other meaning of the word, we make a similar D'rashah
from the Pasuk in the Shirah "Tevi'emo ve'Sita'emo be'Har Nachalascha" -
where (from the fact that the Torah does not write "Tevi'einu ve'Sita'einu")
we translate as "bring them and plant them" (to preclude the generation that
was actually singing the Shirah, who were destined not to enter Eretz
Yisrael, even though they had not yet sinned).
2. ... in any event, implies "Morashah", 've'Lo Yerushah' - because, when
"ve'Ha'avarta ... " was said, the previous generation had in fact, all died
out, indicating retroactively, that that is what "Morashah" must have meant.
(a) What appears strange with the Pasuk (in connection with the B'nos
Tz'lofchad) "va'Ta'amodnah Lifnei Moshe, ve'Lifnei Elazar ha'Kohen ve'Lifnei
ha'Nesi'im ve'Chol ha'Eidah" - is that, assuming they asked Moshe first, and
he did not know, it would have been inappropriate to then ask Elazar, the
Princes or the congregation (because if Moshe did not know something, from
where would they have known it?)
(b) Rebbi Yashiyah answers 'Sareis ha'Mikra ve'Darsheihu', by which he
means - that we must invert the Pasuk and explain that they asked Moshe,
after having asked Elazar, the Princes and the congregation (whom they asked
(c) The Pasuk prefers to invert the order - in order not to mention Elazar,
the Princes and the congregation before Moshe.
(a) According to Aba Chanan in the name of Rebbi Eliezer - they entered the
Beis-Hamedrash, and asked all the Talmidei-Chachamim who were sitting there
(b) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether it is Kavod ha'Rav to give
deference to a Talmid (Elazar, the Princes ... ) in the presence of the Rav
(Aba Shaul) or not (Rebbi Yashiyah).
(c) We rule 'Cholkin' - when the Rebbe himself gives Kavod to the Talmid,
and 'Ein Cholkin' when he doesn't.
(d) The Tana'im argue - in a case when the Rebbe gives Kavod to the Talmid,
because that is what Moshe and all Yisrael used to do (See Ritva).
Effectively then, we are ruling like Aba Shaul.
(a) The Beraisa concludes that the daughters of Tz'lofchad were
Chochmaniyos, Darshaniyos and Tzidkaniyos. We learn 'Chochmaniyos' from the
fact that they spoke up at the right moment - meaning that they asked about
Nachalos when Moshe taught the Dinim of Yibum. If a woman is considered like
a son, to exempt his mother from Yibum, then why should she not also inherit
her father (like a son).
(b) They were Darshaniyos, because, they explained, had Tz'lofchad had a
son, they would have remained silent. When Rebbi Yirmiyah learned the
Beraisa which states 'Bas' - he reacted by erasing it from the Beraisa.
(c) Abaye however, explained the Beraisa - to mean not 'Bas', but 'Bas
ha'Ben'. They even knew that a daughter does not inherit as long as a
daughter of a son (her brother) alive.
(d) They knew this from the Parshah of Nachalos (which, as we explained
earlier. had already been taught at Marah). Their She'eilah - concerned the
Cheilek Bechorah, as we explained above, and not the Cheilek Pashut. (In
that case however, it is unclear what they proved from the Parshah of
Yibum - see also Tosfos DH 'Ilu').
(a) We know that they were Tzidkaniyos - because, not only did they marry
into their own tribe (so as not to move the Yerushah from their tribe, but
they also waited a long time before marrying the right partners (their own
cousins), in keeping with Hashem's advice (as we shall see later).
(b) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov in a Beraisa comments on this - that in their
quest to find the right partner, not one of them married before she turned
(c) According to Rav Chisda, a woman who marries before the age of twenty,
can have children until she turns sixty. He also says that a woman who
1. ... after she is twenty - can have children until she is forty.
(d) In spite of Rav Chisda, the B'nos Tz'lofchad had children - because they
relied on their righteousness, trusting that Hashem would perform a miracle,
and bless them with children (although they would probably not have done so
had they been obligated to have children, like a man), like He performed a
miracle with Yocheved, as we shall now see.
2. ... from the age of forty - will not have children (though it is feasible
that nowadays, the nature of women has changed).