ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 159
(a) The statement of the B'nei Eretz Yisrael 'Ben she'Machar be'Nechsei Aviv
be'Chayei Aviv, u'Meis, B'no Motzi mi'Yad ha'Lekuchos' ended - 've'Zu Hi
she'Kashah be'Dinei Mamonos'.
(b) We refute the suggestion that this is because the Lekuchos can say to
him 'Your father sells, and you take back' - because he can reply that he is
claiming in his capacity as the heir of his grandfather, and not of his
(c) We know that a grandson inherits from his grandfather - from the Pasuk
in Tehilim "Tachas Avosecha Yiheyu Banecha".
(a) So we amend the statement once more, to 'Bechor she'Machar Cheilek
Bechorah be'Chayei Aviv u'Meis be'Chayei Aviv, B'no Motzi mi'Yad
ha'Lekuchos'. We initially assume this to match the concluding phrase more
than the previous suggestion - because the Cheilek Bechorah is certainly
Ra'uy, and we would think that, seeing as the Bechor died in his father's
lifetime, his son cannot claim it from the purchaser.
(b) We refute this suggestion too however - on the basis of what we learned
in 'Yesh Nochlin', that the Bechor's children inherit his Cheilek Bechorah
from their grandfather, even though their father is no longer alive (like we
saw with the daughters of Tz'lofchad).
(a) We therefore amend the statement yet again to 'Hayah Yode'a Lo Eidus
bi'Sh'tar ad she'Lo Na'aseh Gazlan ve'Na'aseh Gazlan, Hu Eino Me'id al K'sav
Yado, Aval Acherim Me'idin'. Even though a witness is normally believed to
substantiate his signature on a Sh'tar - we learn from the Pasuk in
Mishpatim "Al Tashes Yadcha Im Rasha Liheyos Eid Chamas" that he is not
believed where he is suspect.
And we follow the same pattern when we present the text as 'Hayah Yode'a Lo
be'Eidus ad she'Lo Na'aseh Lo Chasno, ve'Na'aseh Chasno, Hu Eino Me'id al
K'sav Yado ... '. We refute the answer however, on the basis of a statement
by Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman, who establishes the case - even
when Beis-Din had not substantiated the Sh'tar.
(b) And we suspect - that he may have forged the signature on the Sh'tar, or
even written the Sh'tar after he became a Gazlan.
(c) This ruling is initially considered to be beyond comprehension - because
if we are afraid that perhaps the Gazlan forged the signature on the Sh'tar,
what will it help if others recognize the signature?
(d) We refute this Kashya, too however - by establishing the case when
Beis-Din had already substantiated the Sh'tar before he became a Gazlan (see
Hagahos Ashri), in which case there is nothing to worry about (see Tosfos DH
(a) We resolve the problem however, by citing the ruling that even Moshe and
Aharon would be disqualified from testifying in cases involving their
fathers-in-law - which proves that a relative is intrinsically Pasul to
testify (due to a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv'), and not because of any particular
suspicion. And in that case, the fact that the Sh'tar was already
substantiated, will not validate it once it has been signed by someone who
is now a son-in-law.
(b) So we revert to the original text of the statement of the B'nei Eretz
Yisrael ('Ben she'Machar be'Nechsei Aviv... ') - in which case the grandson
ought not to be able to claim the field that his father sold, and the Pasuk
"Tachas Avosecha Yiheyu Banecha" was written (not to teach a Halachah,
but) - in the form of a blessing, a prediction that Tzadikim will have
children and grandchildren to inherit them.
(a) Our Mishnah discussed the case of 'Nafal ha'Bayis Alav ve'al Aviv, Alav
ve'al Morishav ... . Yorshei ha'Av Omrim ... '. If 'Yorshei ha'Av' refers to
his (the son's) sons, 'Morishav' refers to - his brothers.
(b) What do we try and prove from here - that a grandson does inherit
directly from his grandfather (because "Tachas Avosecha Yiheyu Banecha" is a
Halachah), because otherwise, even if the son died first, there would be no
reason for his creditors not to claim the property from his sons.
(c) We refute this proof by explaining 'Yorshei ha'Av' to mean his (the
son's) brothers, in which case, 'Morishav' means - his father's brothers.
(a) They asked Rav Sheishes whether a son inherits his mother in the grave -
to pass on her property to his paternal brothers.
(b) Rav Sheishes resolved the She'eilah from a Beraisa, which states - that
if a father was taken captive, and his son died in his hometown or
vice-versa, 'Yorshei ha'Av ve'Yorshei ha'Ben Yachloku'.
(c) The problem with this Beraisa the way it stands is - that if neither the
father nor the son had children, then the father's heirs inherit the
property, whereas if the son had children, then they inherit both the father
and the son.
(d) We therefore amend the Beraisa to read - 'Av she'Nashvah u'Meis ben Bito
bi'Medinah; u'Ben she'Nashvah, u'Meis Avi Imo bi'Medinah', Yorshei ha'Av
ve'Yorshei he'Ben Yachloku'.
(a) The Safek is - whether the father (of his deceased daughter) died first
or her son.
(b) If the father died first, then the son's heirs (e.g. his paternal
brothers) will inherit the property; whereas if the son died first, then the
father's heirs (e.g. his brothers) will inherit it.
(c) The reason for the Beraisa's ruling is - the principle 'Mamon ha'Mutal
(d) Rav Sheishes now proves from this Beraisa - that a son does not inherit
his mother to pass on his grandfather's property to his paternal brothers,
because if he did, then, either way, it would be they who would inherit the
property, and there is no reason why the father's brothers should receive
(a) Rav Acha bar Minyumi substantiates Rav Sheishes ruling from our Mishnah
'Nafal ha'Bayis Alav ve'al Imo, Eilu ve'Eilu Modim she'Yachloku' - in
exactly the same way, because if a son would inherit his mother in the grave
to pass on the property to his paternal brothers, then, even if the son died
first, his paternal heirs ought to inherit all the property, and should not
have to share it with their grandmothers heirs.
(b) The source for this ruling is the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Seivah" "Seivah"
(which is synonymous with "Hasavah" Hasavah") - from a husband who inherits
his wife, but not in the grave.
(c) What is strange about this 'Gezeirah-Shavah' is -the fact that 'in the
grave' has different connotations in the two cases. It means that a husband
does not inherit property that falls to his wife when *she* is already in
the grave, but that a son does not inherit his deceased mother's property
when *he* is in the grave.
(a) Reuven, who had sold Shimon all the fields that he had purchased from
Bei bar Sisin, refused to give Shimon one particular field, even though it
was also called 'de'Bei bar Sisin' - because although it was called 'de'Bei
bar Sisin', that was not because he had purchased it from Bei bar Sisin.
In spite of having learned this Sugya in Chezkas ha'Batim, we repeat it
here - because it is similar to our current Mishnahs, which discuss cases of
(b) Rav Nachman placed that field in the possession of Shimon. Rava
disagreed with Rav Nachman, on the basis of the S'vara - 'ha'Motzi
me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah', in which case, the field ought to remain with
the original owner.
(c) Both Rava and Rav Nachman appear to have switched their opinions from
another case (regarding 'Ana be'Shechuni Gava'i Hava'i') - where Rav Nachman
placed the disputed property in the domain of the original owner, whereas
Rava placed it in the domain of the purchaser; whereas in the current case,
they reverse their rulings.
(d) We resolve the apparent discrepancy ...
1. ... in Rava, by making a distinction between the first case - where it is
the purchaser who currently owns the property, whereas in the second case -
the property is still under the jurisdiction of the original owner.
2. ... in Rav Nachman, by going after the purchaser in the case of Bei bar
Sisin - since the field is called 'Bei bar Sisin', just as the seller
specified, but after the seller in the first case - because the Chazakah is
not better than the Sh'tar that he ought to have produced, and which he
would have had to substantiate, had the seller demanded it (there too,
Shimon had to substantiate his claim, seeing as Reuven queried it).
***** Hadran Alach, Mi she'Meis *****