ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 117
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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).
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
(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.
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
(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".
(d) Abaye had no answer to Rav Papa's Kashya, with which we remain.
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).