BAVA BASRA 125 (2 Sivan) - This Daf has been dedicated in memory of Harry Bernard Zuckerman, Baruch Hersh ben Yitzchak (and Miryam Toba), by his children and sons-in-law.


(a)Objection #1 (against Rabah): Rabah says that if they collected money, he gets no extra share. We must consider it as if the father did not leave this money.

1.The same applies if they collected land!

(b)Objection #2: Presumably the Halachah follows Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael, who say (in the case on 125b) that if the grandmother sells, the sale is valid.

(c)Objection #1 (against Rav Nachman): Rav Nachman says that if they collected land, he gets no extra share. We must consider it as if the father did not leave this land.

1.The same applies if they collected money!

(d)Objection #2: Rav Nachman himself said in the name of Rabah bar Avuha that if orphans collected land for a debt owed to their father, a creditor of their father can collect that land. (This shows that it is considered like property of the father!)

(e)Answer (Rabah): These do not refute me, nor Rav Nachman.

1.We only came to explain the Halachah sent from Eretz Yisrael (124b, that the firstborn receives a double portion in the principal, but not in the interest). We personally hold that he does not even get a double share even in the principal.



(a)A case occurred in which Levi said 'my property should go (after my death) to my grandmother, and after her, to my heirs.' Levi had a married daughter; she died in the life of her husband and the grandmother. When the grandmother later died, the daughter's husband claimed the property.

1.Rav Huna: Levi said 'to my heirs.' This includes his heirs' heirs.

2.Rav Anan: 'My heirs' excludes his heirs' heirs.

(b)(Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael): The Halachah follows Rav Anan, but his reason is wrong.

(c)The Halachah follows Rav Anan, that the husband does not inherit. However, Rav Anan would say that even if the daughter had a son, her son would not inherit, but this is wrong. Her son certainly would inherit!

1.Her husband does not inherit because the property was only Ra'uy (apt to fall to his wife), and a husband inherits only what his wife was Muchzak in.

(d)Suggestion: Rav Huna says that the husband inherits. He must hold that a husband inherits property that was Ra'uy!

(e)Rejection (R. Elazar): This discussion started with great sages, and will conclude with lower sages (myself);

1.If one says 'after you, the property will go to Ploni...', it is as if he said 'the property should belong to Ploni from now.' (The first recipient (the grandmother) has only usage rights, so the daughter received the (permanent rights to the) property right away, so her husband inherited it when she died.)

(f)(Rava): Presumably, Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael hold that if the grandmother sold the property, the sale stands. (Therefore, the property might not fall to the daughter. It is only Ra'uy, and a husband does not inherit Ra'uy.)

(g)(Rav Papa): The Halachah is, a husband inherits only what his wife is Muchzak in, but not what was Ra'uy to fall to her;

1.A firstborn gets an extra share only in what his father was Muchzak in, but not what was Ra'uy to fall to the father;

2.A firstborn does not get an extra share in a loan owed to the father, whether it was paid with money or land.

3.If a firstborn owed money to his father, they divide (he keeps half his extra share of it, and gives half to his brothers. We are unsure whether it is considered Muchzak to his father.)