ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 129
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that as long as the Shechiv-Mera mentioned
Matanah either at the beginning, in the middle or at the end, his words are
valid. We know that 'Yerushah' applies to a private inheritance - from the
Pasuk in Yeshayah "ve'Yereishuhah Ka'as ve'Kipod".
(b) Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan explains ...
1. ... 'at the beginning' as - 'Tinasen Sadeh P'lonis li'Peloni ve'Yirshah'.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan then qualifies our Mishnah - by confining it to one
recipient and one field. But if the Shechiv-Mera was giving even one field
to two people (half to each) or two fields to even one person, then the Tana
would not extend the Lashon Matanah to wherever the Shechiv-Mera used a
2. ... 'in the middle' as - 'Yirshah ve'Tinasen Lo ve'Matanah vi'Yirshah'.
3. ... 'at the end' as ' - Yirshah ve'Tinasen Lo'.
(d) The Din be in that case would be - that wherever the Shechiv-Mera used a
Lashon Matanah, the gift would be effective, and wherever he used the Lashon
Yerushah, it would not (because it is 'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah').
(a) Rebbi Elazar holds - that even there, the Lashon Matanah would extend to
where he used a Lashon Yerushah, and the Matanah would take effect in both
(b) According to Ravin, in a case where the Shechiv-Mera said 'Tinasen Sadeh
P'lonis li'Peloni ve'Yirash P'loni Sadeh P'lonis', Rebbi Yochanan says
'Kanah', and Rebbi Elazar, 'Lo Kanah'. When Rav Dimi cited ...
1. ... Rebbi Elazar as saying 'Kanah', he was referring to a case of Adam
Achas u'Shetei Sados or Sadeh Achas u'Shenei B'nei Adam exclusively (in
which case Rav Dimi and Ravin are of one accord in this point).
(c) In light of the wording following Rebbi Elazar's earlier ruling 'Aval
bi'She'tei Sados u'Shenei B'nei Adam, Lo', we justify the Kashya that we
just asked from Rav Dimi's version of Resh Lakish on to that of Ravin - by
ascribing that wording to our own inference, rather to Rebbi Elazar himself.
2. ... Rebbi Yochanan as saying 'Lo Kanah' with regard to Sh'tei Sados
u'Shenei B'nei Adam, we are forced to concede that Ravin and Rav Dimi
disagree in this point (it is actually Ravin himself who arrives at this
(a) Resh Lakish agrees in part with the previous ruling. According to him,
Shimon would not acquire the field if the father said 'Tinasen Sadeh Pelonis
li'Reuven, ve'Sadeh P'lonis le'Shimon ve'Yirashum' - because we would then
ascribe the Lashon Matanah to Reuven, and the Lashon Yerushah, to Shimon.
(b) And Shimon would only acquire the second field if the Shechiv-Mera had
said - 'P'loni u'Peloni Yirshu Sadeh P'lonis u'Pelonis she'Nasatim Lahem
Matanah, ve'Yirashum', in which case we would say that just as one
'Yerushah' pertains to each son, so too, does the Lashon Matanah.
(a) Given that none of the disputants that we are about to quote hold like
Resh Lakish, the above opinion to conform with that of ...
1. ... Rav Hamnuna, who says 'Lo Shanu Ela Adam Echad ve'Sadeh Achas, Aval
... Lo' is - that of Rav Dimi, citing Rebbi Yochanan.
(b) Rav Sheishes supports his opinion with a Beraisa, which discusses a case
where a father says 'T'nu Shekel le'Banai le'Shabbos', assuming that they
require a Sela (two Shekalim). The Tana might be talking about a
Shechiv-Mera on his death-bed - or he might be referring to a man who is
going overseas, and is asking Beis-Din to feed his children from his estate
whilst he is away.
2. ... Rav Nachman, who says 'Afilu Adam Echad u'Shetei Sados ... Aval
Sh'tei Sados u'Shenei B'nei Adam, Lo' is - Rav Dimi, citing Rebbi Elazar.
3. ... Rav Sheishes, who says 'Afilu Sh'tei Sados u'Shenei B'nei Adam' is -
that of Ravin citing Rebbi Yochanan.
(c) The Tana rules there that each week we give them out of their father's
estate - the Sela that they require.
(d) Had he said 'Al Titnu Lahem Ela Shekel' (an indication that he means
exactly what he says) - we would follow his instructions (and give them only
a Shekel), in spite of the fact that his sons really need more?
(a) In Kesuvos, we establish the author of this Beraisa as Rebbi Meir, who
says - 'Mitzvah Le'kayem Divrei ha'Meis' (It is a Mitzvah to carry out the
wishes of the deceased).
(b) Despite that, we conclude there that, irrespective of which Lashon the
father used, we give his sons their needs - because we assume that in this
case, the father really wants to satisfy his children's needs, and he only
said 'Al Titen Lahem Ela Shekel', to encourage them not to be too
(c) In a case where the father added 'Im Meisu, Yirshu Acherim Tachteihem',
the Tana of the Beraisa rules - that irrespective of which Lashon he used,
we only give his children a Shekel.
(d) Rav Sheishes now extrapolates from there - that even in a case of two
fields and two people, as long as by one of them a person uses a Lashon
Matanah, both recipients acquire the two fields.
(a) Rav Sheishes himself establishes the Beraisa - when the 'Acherim' is
also the next of kin, and the author as Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah (who
permits a father to give his property to do that, even using a Lashon
(b) The case will then be - when he left instructions to feed two of his
sons at the above-mentioned rate, and bequeathed whatever remains to one of
his other sons.
(c) He does that - in order to remove the Kashya from Rav Hamnuna and Rav
Nachman (even though he himself clearly considers this answer a Dochek).
(d) According to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yishmael B'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben
Berokah in Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah (whose opinion we will cite on the
following Daf), we will establish the case when 'Acherim' is the next
closest relative after his sons, such as his daughter or his brothers.
(a) Rav Ashi queries our Sugya from another Beraisa, which rules in the case
'Nechasai Lach ve'Acharecha Yirash Peloni, ve'Acharei Acharecha, Yirash
P'loni', in the event that ...
1. ... things follow that course - that we follow his instructions to the
(b) Rav Ashi proves from here - that the Lashon Matanah ('Nechasai Lach') is
effective even with regard to two fields and two recipients.
2. ... the second candidate (the first P'loni) dies before the first
recipient - that the first recipient's heirs inherit the property after him.
(c) Even though we are talking about the same field, Rav Ashi Rav Ashi
compares it to two fields - because the two recipients only acquire it one
after the other, and not simultaneously.
(a) We attempt to answer Rav Ashi's Kashya - like Rav Sheishes answered his
own, by establishing it by the next of kin, and according to Rebbi Yochanan
(b) We have a problem with this answer however, based on a statement by Rav
Acha B'rei de'Rav Ivya, who said that according to Rebbi Yochanan -
'Nechasai Lach ve'Acharecha li'Peloni, ve'Rishon Ra'uy le'Yorsho, Ein
le'Sheini be'Makom Rishon'. Likewise in the Reisha of the Beraisa, having
established the author as Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, Acharecha ought not to
(c) The reason for this is - because according to Rebbi Yochanan ben
Berokah, unless the father specifically uses a Lashon Matanah, an heir
inherits as a Yoresh, and not as a beneficiary, in which case no condition
is possible, and his children will inherit him, and not 'Acharecha'.
(d) We therefore conclude - with a Kashya on all the above opinions except
for Ravin citing Rebbi Yochanan and Rav Sheishes, as well as Resh Lakish, as
we shall now see.
(a) We know that the Beraisa cannot be a Kashya on Resh Lakish - because
then Rava would not have ruled like him in this case, as he did in Yevamos
(against Rebbi Yochanan, together with two other cases).
(b) We reconcile the Beraisa, which validates a Lashon Yerushah after a
Lashon Matanah even in a case of two fields and two people (even not in the
way prescribed by Resh Lakish) like Resh Lakish - by establishing it by
'Toch K'dei Dibur', where Resh Lakish would concede its effectiveness.
(c) We cannot answer the Kashya on the other Amora'im in the same way -
because had they been lenient with regard to two fields and two people (even
'Toch K'dei Dibur'), then that is the case that they ought to have
presented, rather than one field and two people or one person and two fields
(which we would have understood ourselves from a 'Kal va'Chomer', even
'Achar K'dei Dibur').
(a) We rule - that 'Toch K'dei Dibur ke'Dibur Dami', with the sole
exceptions of Avodas Kochavim and Kidushin.
'Toch K'dei Dibur' is not considered 'K'dei Dibur' in all cases - in the
event that he specifically said that he was retracting.
(b) The ramifications of this ruling with regard to ...
1. ... Avodas Kochavim are - that if someone designates or sets aside an
object for idolatrous purposes, it remains Asur be'Hana'ah (due to Chumra
de'Avodas Kochavim), even if he retracts from his designation 'Toch K'dei
(c) When someone says two things 'Toch K'dei Dibur, assuming that ...
2. ... Kidushin are - that if someone betroths a woman with money, which he
switches over to a gift 'Toch K'dei Dibur', the Kidushin remains intact (and
she is considered Safek Mekudeshes, since it is only a Chumra de'Rabbanan).
1. ... both of them are conceivable (such as 'Harei Zu Temuras Olah, Temuras
Shelamim') - then both of them take effect (and he sells the animal in
question, using half the proceeds to buy an Olah, and half, to buy a
(d) All these Halachos are based on the fact - that we consider whatever is
said 'Toch K'dei Dibur' as if the speaker meant both statements to take
effect (rather than saying that he changed his mind).
2. ... one of them can take effect, and the one cannot (such as Matanah and
Yerushah, in our case) - then we ignore the one that cannot take effect, and
apply the one that can.
3. ... the two statements contradict each other (such as ''Midah be'Chavel',
'Hein Chaser, Hein Yeser' that we learned in Perek Beis Kur) - then the Din
varies, depending upon circumstances, as we discussed there.