Previous daf

1)

(a) What does Rebbi Yashiyah learn from the Pasuk in Pinchas "li'Shemos Matos Avosam Yinchalu".

(b) How does he interpret the Pasuk there "la'Eileh Teichalek ha'Aretz be'Nachalah"? To whom was this said?

(c) Who would then not have received a portion in Eretz Yisrael?

(d) What does the Sifri mean when it Darshens "la'Eileh", 'li'Kesheirim u'Kedoshim'? Whom is it coming to exclude?

(a) Rebbi Yonasan disagrees.
What does he learn from the Pasuk "la'Eileh Teichalek ha'Aretz"?

(b) How does he then explain the Pasuk "li'Shemos Matos Avosam Yinchalu"?

(c) What are ramifications of this double inheritance?

(a) Rebbi gave a Mashal to two Kohanim, two brothers Reuven and Shimon who lived in the same town, and who sent their sons (Reuven one son, and Shimon, two) down to the granary to collect Terumah.
What happened next?

(b) On what basis did they do this? Was it automatic?

4)

(a) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar has a third opinion.
How was the Land distributed, according to him?

(b) Did the dead inherit the living, according to him, like they did according to Rebbi Yonasan?

(c) Who is now the author of our Mishnah (which holds 'le'Yotz'ei Mitzrayim Nischalkah')?

(a) According to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, what would be a case of someone who was mi'Yotz'ei Mitzrayim but not mi'Ba'ei ha'Aretz?

(b) A case of someone who was mi'Ba'ei ha'Eretz, but not mi'Yotz'ei Mitzrayim might be of someone under twenty whose father had died in Egypt, who left Egypt, and who was over twenty when he entered Eretz Yisrael.
How else might it be possible?

(c) How do we initially interpret 'mi'Ka'an u'mi'Ka'an Notel Chelko mi'Ka'an u'mi'Ka'an' (bearing in mind our original assumption that nobody received both portions directly, as we shall see)?

(a) Considering that the generation who left Egypt all died in the desert, how might it have been possible for someone to have been both from the Yotzei Mitzrayim and the Ba'ei ha'Aretz?

(b) We initially think that such a person did not receive two portions.
Why not? In which capacity would they inherit their portion?

(c) We retract from this however, in light of a Tosefta.
What does the Tosefta say about Yehoshua and Kalev, who fitted into this category? How many portions did they receive in Eretz Yisrael, according to this Tana?

(a) According to the current Beraisa, who inherited the portions of the Mislonenim and the congregation of Korach in Eretz Yisrael?

(b) Who is the author of this statement?

(c) Did the children of the Mislonenim and the congregation of Korach receive a portion in Eretz Yisrael?

(d) Is this statement too, confined to those who hold 'le'Yotz'ei Mitzrayim Nischalkah'?

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Va'eira "ve'Nasati Osah Lachem Morashah"?

(b) How would we otherwise have interpreted "li'Shemos Matos Avosam Yinchalu"?

(a) What did Rav Papa ask Abaye on Rebbi Yonasan from the Pasuk "la'Rav Tarbu Nachalaso, ve'la'Me'at Tam'it Nachalaso"? What is the meaning of ...

1. ... "la'Rav Tarbeh Nachalaso"?
2. ... "la'Me'at Tam'it Nachalaso"?

(b) Why can we not explain the Pasuk in the reverse, to say that we distribute the land to the many or the few, as they are now (irrespective to how many or few they were when they left Egypt)?

(c) How do we know that, according to this Tana ...

1. ... the Pasuk is not coming to teach us that the land was distributed equally among all the families?
2. ... the Pasuk is not referring to Chazarah, and that it is not therefore coming to teach us that we go after those who left Egypt, too?

(d) What did Abaye reply?

Next daf