REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
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.
|
1)
(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".
Why does the Tana need to cite ...
- ... the second Pasuk? Why will we perhaps not be able to learn Hasavas ha'Ba'al from the first one?
- ... the third Pasuk? Why will we perhaps not be able to learn Hasavas ha'Ba'al from the second one either?
(b) In any case, why does he need to add the Pasuk in ...
- ... Yehoshua (concerning Pinchas' property)?
- ... Divrei Hayamim (concerning Ya'ir's twenty-three cities)?
(c) How do we then know that there too, it was not the wife of S'guv,
Ya'ir's father who died, and whom he inherited?
2)
(a) Rav Papa then attempts to repudiate the proof from Pinchas and Ya'ir by
attributing their property neither to Hasavas ha'Av nor to Hasavas ha'Ba'al
(nor to Yerushas ha'Eim).
How else might they have come by their property?
What is the Navi then coming to teach us?
(b) On what grounds does Abaye reject this suggestion?
(c) We nevertheless reinstate the Kashya by switching from a field that they
purchased to a S'dei ha'Cherem.
What does this mean?
(d) To which case does this Kashya pertain, to that of Pinchas or to that of
Ya'ir?
3)
(a) What have we achieved with this Kashya?
(b) Does this mean that if Abaye had not refuted Rav Papa's Kashya from
Pinchas (as we just explained), the proof for Hasavas ha'Ba'al would have
remained intact?
4)
(a) What does Abaye mean when he 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'?
(b) What do we mean when we suggest 've'Dilma Sha'ani Hasam she'Kevar
Husvah'?
(c) What does Abaye reply to that?
5)
(a) How does Rav Yeimar attempt to prove to Rav Ashi that we must say
'she'Kevar Husvah'? What would be the problem if we didn't?
(b) What is Rav Ashi's reply? How does Abaye, (who holds Hasavas ha'Ba'al)
explain the possibility of not saying 'she'Kevar Husvah' and still not worry
about the daughter removing her mother's property still further when she
marries?
(c) But why will this not then be considered Hasavah vis-a-vis her father's
property, which was one hundred per-cent within his tribe, and has now
(partially) passed to another tribe (from the husband's mother's side)?
(d) 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 own mother, then why did the Torah not write "le'Echad mi'Mishpachas
Mateh Avihah ve'Imah"?
6)
Regarding Abaye's initial Kashya, we explained that assuming that we hold of
Hasavas ha'Ba'al, but do not say 'she'Kevar 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, on what grounds do 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?
Answers to questions
112b---------------------------------------112b
7)
(a) How does another Beraisa establish the Pasuk ...
- ... "ve'Lo Sisov Nachalah li'Venei Yisrael mi'Mateh el Mateh"?
- ... "ve'Lo Sisov Nachalah mi'Mateh le'Mateh Acher"?
(b) What does this prove?
(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.
How does a
second Tana arrive at exactly the same conclusion, but through reverse
logic?
(d) In which point do these Tana'im argue with the Tana earlier in the
Sugya, who established the same two Pesukim by Hasavas ha'Ben?
Answers to questions
Next daf
|