ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 121
BAVA BASRA 121 (10 Av) - dedicated by Mrs. G. Kornfeld (Rabbi Kornfeld's
mother) to the memory of her father, Reb Yisrael Shimon ben Shlomo ha'Levi
Turkel. Reb Yisrael Turkel loved Torah and supported it with his last
breath. He passed away on 10 Av, 5740.
(a) Rebbi Yossi (or Rav Asi) bar Nasan did not understand the Beraisa we are
about to quote, until his Rebbe explained it to him - Rav Sheishes, whom he
followed first to Neherda'a and then to Mechuza, before catching up with
(b) Rav Sheishes explained the Tana Kama, who extrapolates from the Pasuk
"Mo'adei Hashem Asher Tikre'u Osam ... ", 'Mo'adei Hashem Ne'emru, Shabbos
Bereishis Lo Ne'emru' to mean - that Yom-Tov requires Kidush, but not
(c) He learns this on the basis of the fact - that "Mo'adei Hashem" appears
twice in the Pasuk, one of which is superfluous.
(d) We might have thought otherwise - because Shabbos, after all, appears in
the Parshah of Mo'adim (so it ought to have the same Din as Mo'adim).
(a) The above D'rashah - refers (not to the individual's Mitzvah of Kidush,
which applies on Shabbos from "Zachor es Yom ha'Shabbos le'Kadsho", but) to
the Mitzvah of Kidush Beis-Din on the Sunday before (like Kidush Beis-Din of
Yom-Tov, which took place on the preceding Rosh Chodesh).
(b) The Tana refers to Shabbos as 'Shabbos Bereishis' - because it was fixed
by Hashem at the Creation (unlike Yom-Tov, which is constantly fixed by
(c) Rav Sheishes explains ben Azai, who said 'Mo'adei Hashem Ne'emru,
Hafaras Nedarim Lo Ne'emru' to mean - that Hafaras Nedarim (by which he
really means Hataras Nedarim) does not require a Beis-Din shel Mumchin, like
Kidush Beis-Din does.
(d) There is no discrepancy between ben Azai's D'rashah and the Torah's own
words "Rashei ha'Matos" - since the latter refers to a Yachid Mumcheh, as we
(a) In the Mishnah on Ta'anis, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel describes Yom Kipur
and Chamishah-Asar be'Av as the greatest Yamim-Tovim. On them - the girls
would go out to the vineyards and dance.
Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan ascribes the Simchah on Tu be'Av to
the fact that the tribes became reunited with Binyamin once again. He
learns this from the Pasuk "Ish *Mimenu* Lo Yiten es Bito le'Vinyamin
le'Ishah" - which implies 'from us', but not from our children (who will be
permitted to intermarry with them).
(b) They would all wear borrowed dresses - so as not to embarrass the girls
from poor families, who could not afford pretty clothes.
(c) Yom Kipur is the happiest of days because it is a day of forgiveness,
the day when Moshe descended from Har Sinai with the second Luchos. Based on
the Pasuk in Mas'ei "Zeh ha'Davar" (implying that the Isur of Hasavas
Nachalah was confined to that generation only, as we explained earlier), Rav
Yehudah Amar Shmuel gives the reason for the Simchah on Chamishah-Asar be'Av
as being - because it was the day when the tribes were permitted to
intermarry once again.
(d) Rav Dimi bar Yosef Amar Rav Nachman ascribes the Simchah on Tu be'Av to
the fact that the last of the generation that left Egypt died. His
explanation is not synonymous with that of Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel - because
that was not the generation to which Hasavas Nachalah applied (as we
(a) We just cited the explanation of Rav Dimi bar Yosef Amar Rav Nachman. In
fact, it was on Tish'ah be'Av of the previous year that the last person of
that generation died. On Tish'ah be'Av of that year, everyone arose from the
graves that they dug themselves each year, in which fifteen thousand plus
would simply not get up, and they discovered that the entire generation had
died out. However, in order to ascertain that they had not erred in the day
of the month, they continued with the procedure until the fifteenth of Av,
when there was a full moon and there could be no more doubt that Tish'ah
be'Av had passed.
(b) The real reason for the Simchah was - the fact that, since now the
sadness that accompanied the annual deaths now dissipated (preventing the
Shechinah from appearing), Hashem appeared to Moshe once again, as He used
to do before the episode with the Meraglim.
(c) Rav Nachman derives this from the juxtaposition of the two Pesukim
"Va'yehi Ka'asher Tamu Kol Anshei ha'Milchamah la'Mus ... Va'yedaber Hashem
Eilai Leimor". This does not imply that Hashem did not speak to Moshe
throughout the thirty-eight years from the Meraglim until then - but that He
did not speak with him with the same intensity as He used to, or that He did
speak with Him unless the need arose.
(d) Rav Nachman might learn his D'rashah from the fact that the first of
these Pesukim is superfluous. Alternatively, he might learn it from - the
Lashon "va'Yedaber Hashem ... " and not "va'Yomer Hashem ... " (the Lashon
that it uses a little earlier in the Parshah), which implies with greater
intensity (and love).
(a) Ula connects the Simchah of Tu be'Av to the border-guards whom Yeravam
(the first king of the ten tribes) set-up to prevent the ten tribes from
going up to Yerushalayim on the Shalosh Regalim. The cause for the Simchah
was - the fact that Hoshe'a ben Eilah (the last of those kings), prompted by
the fact that the Golden Calves set up by Yeravam to replace the worship of
Hashem in the Beis-Hamikdsh, was exiled, removed them.
(b) Rav Masnah connects the Simchah with those who were killed in the last
stronghold of Beitar by the Romans. The cause of the Simchah was - the fact
that after seven years lying in the open, the Romans finally allowed the
corpses to be buried.
(c) On the same day, he says, the Chachamim in Yavneh instituted the
B'rachah of 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv' (in Birchas ha'Mazon).
1. 'ha'Tov' - that they were finally brought to burial.
(d) According to Rabah and Rav Yosef, the Simchah is connected with the
completion of the Mitzvah of cutting the wood for the Mizbe'ach, which began
in Nisan. The significance of the final date is based on Rebbi Eliezer, who
said - that when the fifteenth of Av arrives, the power of the sun begins to
wane (which leads to increase in smoke and in worms [both of which will
disqualify the wood from the Mizbe'ach]).
2. ... 'ha'Meitiv' - that they did not begin to decompose during that time.
(a) The decline in the heat would not cause wood that was cut before Tu
be'Av to become wormy anyway - because once wood has been cut-off from the
tree, it does not become wormy.
(b) Rav Menasheh informs us that this day became known as 'Yom Tavar
Magal' - which means the day on which they broke their sickles.
(c) Rebbi Eliezer also describes this day - as being the day when the nights
begin to grow longer, and on which one should therefore begin to work less
and learn more.
(d) Rav Yosef explains the latter half of Rav Menasheh's final statement
'she'Eino Mosef Yasif' to mean - that if someone does not do that, he will
die prematurely ('his mother will bury him'), like we find at the end of
Megilas Esther "ve'Zichrom La *Yasuf* mi'Zar'am" (meaning 'and the memory of
these days will not *terminate* from their descendants').
(a) The Beraisa lists seven people who spanned the world from the Creation
until the present day and beyond. Adam ha'Rishon is the first of these. The
last of them is - Eliyahu ha'Navi (who is still alive).
(b) If ...
1. ... Mesushelach served Adam - Shem served Mesushelach.
(c) We prefer to list Mesushelach rather than Lemech (who also served
Adam) - because the list includes only Tzadikim.
2. ... Ya'akov served Shem - Amram served Ya'akov
3. ... Achiyah ha'Shiloni served Amram - Eliyahu served Achiyah ha'Shiloni.
(d) When Mesushelach died, Shem was - ninety-eight years old (seeing as
Mesushelach died only a week before the Flood, and Shem turned a hundred,
two years after the Flood).
(a) It is logical to say that Amram saw Ya'akov - because his father Kehas,
was among those who went down to Egypt, seventeen years before the death of
Ya'akov, and Amram was Kehas' oldest son.
(b) According to other Medrashim, only two people spanned the world, Adam
and Chanoch (on the assumtion that the latter became the Angel Matatron,
only our Tana holds that Chanoch really died).
(c) This Tana interprets the Pasuk "ve'Einenu Ki Lakach Oso Elokim" - to
mean that he died prematurely (since he buried Adam and Chavah) surviving
the former by only fifty-seven years (even though he was born hundreds of
years after him).
(d) We know that, according to this Tana, Pinchas was not Eliyahu - because
otherwise, we could have listed six generations, by concluding that Moshe
served Amram, and Pinchas served Moshe (omitting Achiyah altogether).
(a) Bearing in mind that Ya'akov lived in Egypt 17 years, and that Amram
lived 137 years, the youngest age that Achiyah ha'Shiloni (who saw Amram)
could possibly have been at the time of the Exodus was - 56 (210- 137+17).
(b) This leaves us with a problem, because we know that none of those who
left Egypt entered Eretz Yisrael. We know that Achiyah ha'Shiloni entered
Eretz Yisrael - because he was the Navi who crowned Yeravam, King of the ten
(c) Rav Hamnuna initially answers by listing Achiyah ha'Shiloni as a Levi.
That would solve the problem - because the Torah specifically writes in
Sh'lach Lecha "ba'Midbar ha'Zeh Yiplu Pigreichem ve'Chol Pekudeichem le'Chol
Misparchem", implying that the decree of the Spies was confined to those who
were counted from the age of twenty (to preclude tribe of Levi, who were
counted from the age of one month).
(a) Ya'ir and Machir were -sons of Menasheh.
(b) The Beraisa says - that they left Egypt at the time of the Exodus, yet
they entered Eretz Yisrael.
(c) The Pasuk records that the men of Ay smote thirty-six men of Yisrael.
Rebbi Nechemyah disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah, who interprets this
literally - on the basis of the Lashon of the Pasuk "ki'Sheloshim-
ve'Shishah Ish" (and not "Sheloshim-ve'Shishah Ish").
(d) He therefore interprets the Pasuk with regard to Ya'ir ben Menasheh -
who was killed, and who is considered like thirty-six Tzadikim (the majority
of the Sanhedrin), proving at least, that *he* entered Eretz Yisrael
(although he left Egypt [that Machir did is presumably, a tradition]).
(a) We have proved from this Beraisa - that it is not only members of the
tribe of Levi who left Egypt and entered Eretz Yisrael, but also from other
tribes (in which case, it is also possible that Achiyah ha'Shiloni was not a
Levi after all).
(b) In the realm of Erchin, someone who is under twenty has in common with
someone who is over sixty - that they are both evaluated at less than the
full Erech of fifty Shekalim (for men) or thirty Shekalim (for women).
(c) Based on this fact, Rav Acha bar Ya'akov learns from the
'Gezeirah-Shavah' "va'Ma'alah" (in Sh'lach-Lecha ["mi'ben Esrim Shanah
va'Ma'alah"]) from "va'Ma'alah" by Erchin - that just as those over sixty
are compared to those under twenty by Erchin, so too, are they compared with
regard to being outside the decree of having to die in the desert.
(d) Assuming that Achiyah ha'Shiloni was not a ben Levi, the minimum number
of years that he would then have had to see Amram for him to have entered
Eretz Yisrael is - five years, making his age sixty-one when he left Egypt.
(a) They asked whether Eretz Yisrael was divided up 'li'Shevatim' (according
to the tribes) or 'le'Karfaf Gavri' (according to the number of people) - in
other words, whether it was divided into twelve equal portions irrespective
of how many people it comprised, or whether it was divided according to its
size (i.e. the larger the tribe, the larger the portion).
(b) We resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa which merely quotes the Pasuk
in Pinchas "Bein Rav li'Me'at" - implying that some people received bigger
portions than others, whereas if Eretz Yisrael was divided according to the
people, then everyone would receive the same size portion. (According to
this, we conclude that Eretz Yisrael was divided 'li'Shevatim'.