Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yashiyah learns from the Pasuk in Pinchas "li'Shemos Matos Avosam Yinchalu" - that Eretz Yisrael was distributed according to those who left Egypt (into 603,550 portions, as they are enumerated in Parshas Bamidbar).

(b) He interprets the Pasuk there "la'Eileh Teichalek ha'Aretz be'Nachalah" (referring to the 601,730 men, children of those who left Egypt, who entered Eretz Yisrael, as they are enumerated in Parshas Pinchas) - as if it would have written 'ka'Eileh', meaning grown-ups (over twenty) like these.

(c) Anyone who did not have a father who left Egypt above the age of twenty, or even a brother or any other paternal relative, who died in the desert without children, would not have received a portion in Eretz Yisrael, even though he himself was twenty when he entered the Land.

(d) When the Sifri Darshens "la'Eileh", 'li'Kesheirim u'Kedoshim' - it means to exclude Resha'im like the Meraglim and the Mislonenim, who received no portion in Eretz Yisrael for their sons to inherit (as we shall see later).

(a) Rebbi Yonasan disagrees. He learns from the Pasuk "la'Eileh Teichalek ha'Aretz" - that Eretz Yisrael was distributed according to those who entered it.

(b) He interprets the Pasuk "li'Shemos Matos Avosam Yinchalu" - to mean that after the new generation inherited their portions, their fathers inherited it from them (in their graves), and bequeathed it back to them.

(c) The ramifications of this double inheritance are - that assuming, for example, that Reuven had one son who entered the Land, and his brother Shimon (both of whom left Egypt) had ten, they would inherit the eleven potions of their children, divide them equally (in the grave) and bequeath them to their respective families, five and a half portions each for each family.

(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. When they returned with three portions, their fathers divided them into two, each family taking one a half portions.

(b) They did this - by prior arrangement. There is no reason for it to have been an automatic procedure (like it was with regard to the division of Eretz Yisrael).

4)

(a) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar has a third opinion. In his opinion - the Land was distributed according to both those who left Egypt and those who entered it.

(b) The dead did not inherit the living - according to him, like they did according to Rebbi Yonasan (since he needs the Pasuk "li'Shemos Matos Avosam Yinchalu" to teach us that 'le'Yotz'ei Mitzrayim Nischalkah').

(c) The author of our Mishnah (which holds 'le'Yotz'ei Mitzrayim Nischalkah') - is either Rebbi Yashiyah or Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar?

(a) According to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, a case of Yotz'ei Mitzrayim but not, mi'Ba'ei ha'Aretz, would be - that of Reuven, for example, who left Egypt above the age of twenty, and who died in the desert, leaving a son who was under twenty when he entered the Land.

(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. Alternatively, it is possible - if he bore children in the desert and they entered Eretz Yisrael over twenty.

(c) According to our original assumption (that nobody received both portions directly [as we shall now see]), we initially interpret 'mi'Ka'an u'mi'Ka'an Notel Chelko mi'Ka'an u'mi'Ka'an' - in a case where Reuven who left Egypt above the age of twenty, bore children in the desert who were twenty when they entered Eretz Yisrael, and who now received their own portion in their capacity as Ba'ei ha'Aretz, and the portion of their father, who was from the Yotz'ei Mitzrayim.

(a) Considering that the generation who left Egypt all died in the desert, it would have been possible for someone to have been both from the Yotzei Mitzrayim and the Ba'ei ha'Aretz - if he was over sixty when he left Egypt (since the decree to die in the desert did not pertain to those over sixty).

(b) We initially think that such a person did not receive two portions - since "la'Eileh Teichalek ha'Aretz" refers specifically to the children of those who left Egypt. Someone who left Egypt, inherited in his own right and did not fall into the category of "la'Eileh".

(c) We retract from this however, in light of a Tosefta, which specifically states that Yehoshua and Kalev (who were not subject to the decree), each received three portions, with the Yotz'ei Mitzrayim, with the Ba'ei ha'Aretz, and that of the Meraglim.

(a) According to the current Beraisa - the whole of Yisrael inherited the portions of the Mislonenim and the congregation of Korach in Eretz Yisrael.

(b) The author of this statement is - either Rebbi Yashiyah (who holds 'le'Yotz'ei Mitzrayim Nischalkah'), or it is the conclusion of the statement of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar.

(c) This does not mean that the children of the Mislonenim and the congregation of Korach did not receive a portion in Eretz Yisrael - because they might have received one from their paternal or maternal grandparents (assuming that the latter did not have brothers).

(d) The author of this statement however - might even be Rebbi Yonasan (who holds 'le'Ba'ei ha'Aretz Nischalkah'), assuming for example, that the children concerned were not twenty when they entered the Land, and who would now inherit via their brothers or cousins, after they had inherited back to their common grandparents.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Nasati Osah Lachem Morashah" - that the land was distributed according to the Yotz'ei Mitzrayim.

(b) Otherwise, we would have interpreted "li'Shemos Matos Avosam Yinchalu" - to mean that the land was distributed to the twelve tribes.

(a) Rav Papa asked Abaye on Rebbi Yonasan from the Pasuk "la'Rav Tarbu Nachalaso, ve'la'Me'at Tam'it Nachalaso" - that the Pasuk implies that the land should be distributed according to the original size of the tribe (irrespective of how large it was at the time that it was distributed). Consequently ...

1. ... "la'Rav Tarbeh Nachalaso" means - if a father left Egypt with ten sons, and only five grandsons entered Eretz Yisrael, they would receive ten portions.
2. ... "la'Me'at Tam'it Nachalaso" means - if a father left Egypt with five children, and ten grandsons entered the Land, then they would receive five portions.

(b) We cannot explain the Pasuk in the reverse, to say that we distribute the land to the many or the few, as they are now (irrespective of how many or few they were when they left Egypt) - because, having stated "la'Eileh Teichalek ha'Aretz", that would be obvious, and we would know it anyway, even without a Pasuk.

(c) According to this Tana ...

1. ... the Pasuk cannot be coming to teach us that the land was distributed equally among all the families - because "Tarbeh" and "Tam'it" imply that some take more and others, less. If that is what the Torah is coming to teach us, then it should have written "Cheilek ke'Cheilek Yinchalu".
2. ... the Pasuk cannot be referring to Chazarah, and that it is therefore coming to teach us that we go after those who left Egypt, too - because we already know that from "li'Shmos Matos Avosam Yinchalu", and besides, the Lashon "Tarbeh" and "Tam'it" imply the first stage of the inheritance, and not the second stage, as is evident from the end of the Pasuk "Ish L'fi Pekudav Yutan Nachalaso" (which implicitly suggests that we are speaking at the time of counting).

(d) Abaye had no answer to Rav Papa's Kashya, with which we remain.