Bava Basra Daf 134 - Yonasan Ben Uziel, Zeh Bni
Summary
- The shiur opens with a dedication for שלמה מרדכי בן ברכה מלכה הכהן and then analyzes whether the Chachamim agree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel about transferring inheritance away from unworthy children, concluding from Shmuel’s directive that it is improper to be ma’avir inheritance even מברא בישא לברא טבא and certainly not from a son to a daughter, with the Rema ruling that the “best” disposition of assets is to leave them to heirs. It then presents the story of יונתן בן עוזיאל receiving an estate and dividing it to demonstrate a fully effective gift, contrasts it with the case of Beit Choron to establish that כל מתנה שאינה שאם הקדישה אינה מוקדשת אינה מתנה, and notes halachic applications from the Yeraim and a stringency from the Sfas Emes. It proceeds to the greatness of Hillel’s eighty students, the stature of רבן יוחנן בן זכאי and יונתן בן עוזיאל, interpretations that avoid any contradiction to the uniqueness of Moshe’s prophecy, the limited role of gematria, and a responsum of the Rashba rejecting a contemporary “prophet.” The new משנה rules זה בני נאמן and זה אחי אינו נאמן, defines the inheritance ramifications, derives the nafka minot of *yerushah* and exemption from *yibum*, grounds the belief in זה בני on his power to divorce, addresses a Ramban–Riyaz dispute about extending that credibility, and concludes with whether a husband is believed to say גרשתי את אשתי and the scope of *palginan dibura*.
- The shiur for בבא בתרא דף קל"ג is sponsored by ליעד and אריאל מכבי לזכות רפואה שלמה for שלמה מרדכי בן ברכה מלכה הכהן on the day of his procedure, with wishes for a *refuah sheleimah*. The learning begins several lines from the bottom of דף קל"ג עמוד ב' at מאי הוי עלה.
- Shmuel tells Rav Yehuda: שיננא, לא תהוי בי עבורי אחסנתא, ואפילו מברא בישא לברא טבא, וכל שכן מברא לברתא, establishing that the Chachamim do not agree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel to permit diverting inheritance from unworthy children. The Rema (Choshen Mishpat 282:2) rules that if one instructs that his assets be used in the “best” way, they are given to the heirs because אין רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו otherwise. The Maharsha (חידושי אגדות סנהדרין צ"א) explains that Avraham did not violate this by giving all to Yitzchak because Yishmael was a בן שפחה and unfit for *yerushah*, and the בני פילגשים were not treated as equals; the Netziv writes that this reflected the practice regarding בני פילגשים. The באר שבע explains the prohibition of העברה מבין רשע as a safeguard for potential future זרע כשר; Avraham, with רוח הקודש, knew no זרע כשר would emerge from Yishmael and therefore could divert his estate.
- A man with misbehaving sons wrote all his property to יונתן בן עוזיאל, who sold one-third, was מקדיש one-third, and returned one-third to the sons, thereby showing it was his fully effective *matanah*. Shammai arrived “with his staff and bag” to challenge him, and יונתן בן עוזיאל answered that if one cannot reverse his sale or *hekdesh*, one cannot reverse his gift to the sons either; Shammai acknowledged, הטיח עלי בן עוזיאל. Shammai’s initial thought was based on the case of Beit Choron, where a “gift” made only to circumvent a נדר הנאה was invalidated with the rule אמרו חכמים כל מתנה שאינה שאם הקדישה אינה מוקדשת אינה מתנה, whereas here the recipient’s unfettered actions demonstrated a true gift. The Rashbam holds that both the מדיר and the מודר violate *lo yachel* in that scenario; the Rambam (Hilchot Nedarim 12:2) holds the מדיר violates *lo yachel*; the Ran holds only the מודר violates *lo yachel*. The Yeraim (סימן קי"ח) condemns the ruse of “gifting” money to an עבד or שפחה to lend to Jews with interest as worse than the case of Beit Choron because the recipient lacks true control. The Sfas Emes (Sukkah) rules stringently that to fulfill eating *matzah*, one must give guests the *matzah* as a complete *matanah* so it is genuinely theirs.
- Eighty students belong to הלל הזקן: שלשים מהן ראוים שתשרה עליהם שכינה כמשה רבינו, שלשים ראוים שתעמוד להן חמה כיהושע בן נון, ועשרים בינוניים; גדול שבכולן יונתן בן עוזיאל, קטן שבכולן רבן יוחנן בן זכאי. The Rambam (Shemoneh Perakim) explains that “שתשרה שכינה כמשה רבינו” does not equate them to Moshe’s prophecy; the Chasam Sofer cites that collectively they could bring down a level of השראת השכינה parallel to Moshe’s worldly effect without contravening לא קם בישראל כמשה עוד. Of רבן יוחנן בן זכאי it is said that he left nothing—מקרא, משנה, גמרא, הלכות, אגדות, דקדוקי תורה ודקדוקי סופרים, קלים וחמורים, גזירות שוות, תקופות, גימטריאות, משלים, שיחת שדים, שיחת דקלים, שיחת מלאכי השרת, דבר גדול מעשה מרכבה, דבר קטן הויות דאביי ורבא. Of יונתן בן עוזיאל it is said that when he sat and learned תורה, birds flying above him burned; Rashi (Sukkah) attributes this to מלאכים gathering to hear his תורה.
- The Chafetz Chaim (שם עולם) emphasizes the staggering ascent of Torah greatness from students back to earlier masters—הלל to שמעיה ואבטליון, אנשי כנסת הגדולה and the Neviim, through ברוך בן נריה and ירמיהו, to יונה, אלישע, אליהו, אחיה השילוני, and דוד המלך—yet דוד still says גל עיני ואביטה נפלאות מתורתך, underscoring the endless pursuit of Torah understanding.
- The Gemara in נזיר (דף ה) derives סתם נזירות ל' יום from the gematria of יהיה, suggesting gematria as a derashah tool, yet many Rishonim, including the Rambam (Peirush haMishnayot, Nazir) and the Rosh, hold that the duration is a received tradition and the gematria is only an אסמכתא, hence the dictum that gematriot are פרפראות לחכמה. The Rashba (שו"ת הרשב"א ח"א סימן תקמ"ח) rejects a contemporary claimant to prophecy, arguing that נבואה rests only on a חכם עשיר וגבור and, from our sugya, that even in Hillel’s era the דור was not ראוי for השראת השכינה; therefore, our generation certainly is not, and such phenomena are products of an overactive כח הדמיון.
- The משנה rules האומר זה בני, נאמן; זה אחי, אינו נאמן. If he asserts a fourth “brother,” the existing brothers do not reduce their shares, but the claimant must share his portion with the person he identified. If that person dies, נכסים יחזרו למקומם to the one who acknowledged him; if assets fall to that person ממקום אחר, all brothers inherit with him.
- The nafka minot of זה בני are to enable *yerushah* and to exempt the wife from *yibum* (and *chalitzah*). The Mishnah’s chiddush is that even when he is מוחזק to have a brother, he is believed to exempt his wife from *yibum* by asserting that he has a son. Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel that he is believed הואיל ובידו לגרשה, meaning his present power to divorce creates the credibility to achieve the same exemption through saying זה בני, and Tosafot note that this *migo* operates even though divorcing would disqualify her from marrying a Kohen whereas saying זה בני would not. The Ramban holds that once believed, she is permitted even to a Kohen; the Riyaz (cited by the Riaz from his teacher, the Rid) limits the effect and does not permit to a Kohen. A proposed analogy in a case cited by Rav Akiva Eiger—about a woman’s claim גויה הייתי ונתגיירתי and her daughter—would hinge on whether a *migo* that would have prohibited a category persists when a different claim is accepted, but Rav Akiva Eiger rejects the comparison, distinguishing הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר from the acceptance of זה בני.
- Reports from רבי יוחנן appear contradictory on whether a husband is believed to say גרשתי את אשתי; the resolution is כאן למפרע, כאן להבא, meaning he is not believed retroactively but is believed going forward, since it is only בידו לגרשה מכאן ולהבא. When he says “I divorced her a month ago,” a doubt arises whether we accept his statement at least להבא by applying *palginan dibura*; Rav Mari and Rav Zevid disagree on this point. Rava’s rule—איש פלוני בא על אשתי, הוא ואחר מצטרפין להורגו, להורגו ולא להורגה—shows that *palginan dibura* operates בתרי גופי but not בחד גופא, so we split credibility across persons, not within one subject’s unitary claim.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions