ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 115
(a) Rebbi Yochanan asked Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Shimon (who holds that a
woman inherits her son) from the Seifa of our Mishnah 'ha'Ishah es B'nah ...
Manchilin ve'Lo Nochlin'. He asked from the Seifa and not from the Reisha
'ha'Ish es Imo ... Nochlin ve'Lo Manchilin' is - because the Reisha states
explicitly that a woman does not inherit (whereas the Reisha only infers
(b) Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Shimon replied - that he did not really know who
the author of our Mishnah is (meaning that he had a problem with it (as we
shall now see).
(c) We suggest that the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Zecharyah ben
ha'Katzav - who does not Darshen 'Matos', as we learned earlier (and that
will explain why a mother does not inherit her daughter).
(d) We reject this however, on the basis of the Beraisa, which comments on
'B'nei Achos' in our Mishnah 'B'nei Achos, ve'Lo B'nos Achos' - which Rav
Sheishes explained earlier to mean that B'nei Achos take precedence over
B'nos Achos, clashing with Rebbi Zecharyah (who doesn't hold of the Hekesh
of "Matos" at all).
(a) Our Mishnah seems to contradict itself, since - at one and the same
time, it Darshens Matos (with regard to the Din of precedence) and doesn't
Darshen Matos (with regard to a woman inheriting her son).
(b) We resolve this problem by establishing - that in fact, the Tana does
Darshen "Matos". Nevertheless, a woman does not inherit her son because the
Torah writes "ve'Chol Bas Yoreshes Nachalah", from which we extrapolate
"Yoreshes", 've'Einah Moreshes'.
(c) We extrapolate that from this Pasuk - because the Pasuk continues
"Yoreshes Nachalah mi'Matos", from which we Darshen 'Yoreshes Sh'tei Matos
[her father and her mother]) ve'Einah Moreshes Sh'tei Matos".
(a) Rabeinu Chananel learns the previous Halachah from the extra 'Mem' in
"*mi*'Matos" - which he explains to mean that it is only one of the two
Matos that a woman is Yoresh but not Morish (i.e. her mother).
(b) The Pasuk refers to the father and mother of a daughter. The equivalent
Din with regard to the father and mother of a son will be - exactly the same
(from a S'vara).
(a) It is clear that if Ya'akov dies, leaving a son Reuven and a daughter
Dinah, that Reuven inherits his father's property. In a case where Reuven
and his sons Chanoch died before Ya'akov, leaving only Dinah and Serach,
Chanoch's daughter, alive after Ya'akov's death, our Mishnah rules - that
Serach will inherit Ya'akov's property (in place of Reuven).
(b) This Halachah extends to the offspring of any heir (e.g. a brother) who
will take precedence over the next of kin (and is not confined to the
offspring of a son).
(c) A man's daughter takes precedence over his brothers or his father. If a
man dies leaving only a brother, a father and his daughter's granddaughter -
the order of precedence is - 1. his daughter's granddaughter, 2. his father
and 3. his brother.
(d) A son's daughter's son or daughter - takes precedence over a daughter
(because a son and all his offspring take precedence over a daughter).
(a) We learn that a son's offspring take precedence over the next of kin
from "u'Vein *Ein* Lo" - which we Darshen (due to the extra 'Yud') to mean
'Ayein Alav' (examine whether the deceased son left no offspring before
giving his father's property to his daughter.
(b) We have a precedent for 'Ein' without a 'Yud' - in Parshas Balak, where
the Torah writes "Me'ein Bil'om" (without a 'Yud').
(c) And we know that the same applies to the offspring of the deceased's
daughter, who will inherit before his brother - because there too, the Torah
write "ve'Im Ein Lo Bas", with a 'Yud'.
(a) When the Tana says that a father precedes all his ofspring, he means -
that he takes precedence over his other children (and their chidren) to
inherit the property of his deceased son.
(b) This will not apply to - his offspring which are also offspring of the
(a) There where the deceased leaves behind no descendants, says the Beraisa,
then 'Ayein Alav' goes upwards to his direct ancestors (or their offspring),
going back as far as Reuven (or Shimon ... ). The deceased's ...
1. ... grandfather takes precedence over his father's brother.
(b) The Tana stop short of Ya'akov - because, as Abaye explains, we have a
tradition that no tribe will ever become extinct, in which case, no Yerushah
will ever get as far as Ya'akov.
2. ... father's brother takes precedence over his great-grandfather.
3. ... father's sister takes precedence over his great-grandfather.
(a) Rav Huna Amar Rav states that if a Dayan rules that the daughter of the
deceased inherits together with his son's daughter - we ignore his ruling
(irrespective of his greatness).
(b) The Beraisa cites the source of this fallacy as being the Tzedokim. The
Talmidim of Tzadok and Baytus rejected Torah she'be'Al Peh - when they
taught what they had learned from their Rebbe, Antignos Ish Socho: namely,
'that one should not learn Torah in order to receive reward', which they
understood to mean that one must serve Hashem without receiving reward. In
that case, they argued, there is no truth in Torah.
(c) That Tzedoki elder learned his Din from a 'Kal va'Chomer' - because he
said, if the daughter of the deceased's son, who comes on the strength of
the son, inherits, then how much more so, a daughter, who comes on the
strength of the deceased himself.
(d) Raban Yochanan ben Zakai cited him two Pesukim in Vayishlach. From the
fact that one Pasuk refers to Tziv'on and Anah as sons of Se'ir ha'Chori,
and the other, which lists Anah (together with Ayah) as a son of Tziv'on -
he extrapolates that Tziv'on must have had relations with his own mother
(Tziv'on's wife), who subsequently gave birth to Anah.
(a) Rabah (or Rava) and some say Rav Papa, Darshen from the Pasuk "Hu Anah
Asher Matza es ha'Yeimim ba'Midbar" - that there was only one Anah and not
two (one, a son of Se'ir ha'Chori, the second, the son of Tziv'on).
(b) This is something that even Shavur Malka (the King of Persia) did not
Darshen. Assuming that the author of the statement was ...
1. ... Rabah (or Rava), Shavur Malka referred to - Shmuel.
(c) ... to whom they referred to by this name - because they are kings in
Halachah (Shmuel when he argues with Rav in money-matters, Rabah against Rav
Yosef and Rava against Abaye).
2. ... Rav Papa, Shavur Malka referred to - Rabah or Rava ...
(a) Raban Yochanan ben Zakai has proved from here - the principle 'B'nei
Banim Harei Hein ke'Banim' (since Anah is listed together with Tziv'on and
Ayah, who were heirs of Se'ir ha'Chori).
(b) Nevertheless, we know that Tziv'on had relations with his mother (that
the Pasuk does not only write "Eileh B'nei Tziv'on ... " to teach us the
principle of 'B'nei Banim Harei Hein ke'Banim" - because then, why did it
mention him together with Anah and not Ayah, who were both sons of Se'ir
(c) This disproves the Tzedokim - inasmuch as if a son (or a daughter) of a
son is considered a child (because he stands in place of his father), then a
daughter should not inherit when there is a son's daughter available.
(a) The Tzedoki elder queried Raban Yochanan ben Zakai's 'Pircha' on his
'Kal va'Chomer' - on the grounds that, he too, admitted that a daughter does
not inherit when there is *the son* of a son (and he only argued in the case
of a daughter against a son's *daughter*).
(b) Raban Yochanan it seems, had been loathe to reveal to him his true
reasoning - because one may not reveal to the Tzedokim the Torah's reasons.
(c) He finally refute the 'Kal va'Chomer - on the basis of the fact that a
son's daughter inherits even when there are sons, whereas a daughter does
(d) The Torah, in Parshas Masei specifically records that ...
1. ... the daughters of Tz'lafchad inherited their father's portion in his
father Cheifer's property, despite his brothers (as we shall see later).
2. ... the daughters of Cheifer did not inherit because she had brothers
(a) When Raban Yochanan ben Zakai said 'she'Lo Tehei Torah Sheleimah
she'Lanu ke'Sichah Beteilah she'Lachem", he meant - that their baseless 'Kal
va'Chomers' could not stand up to our 'Pirchos' (which are Torah).
(b) The significance of the fact that this episode took place on the
twenty-fourth of Teives is - that this is one of the Yomim-Tovim listed in
Megilas Ta'anis (though for the most part, the Yomim-Tovim mentioned there
are no longer functional).
(c) The justification of this Yom-Tov was - the fact that they defeated the
Tzedokim, who were a powerful force in Yisrael, and managed to get them to
admit that they were wrong.