What does Rebbi Yoshiyah learn from the Pasuk in Pinchas "li'Shemos Matos Avosam Yinchalu".
(b)
How does he interpret the Pasuk there "la'Eileh Teichalek ha'Aretz be'Nachalah"? About whom was this said?
(c)
Who would then not have received a portion in Eretz Yisrael?
(d)
What does the Sifri mean when it Darshens "la'Eileh", 'li'Kesheirim u'Kedoshim'? Whom does it come to exclude?
1)
(a)
Rebbi Yoshiyah 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 comes to exclude - Resha'im like the Meraglim and the Mislon'nim, who received no portion in Eretz Yisrael for their sons to inherit (as we shall see later).
2)
(a)
Rebbi Yonasan disagrees with Rebbi Yoshiyah. What does he learn from the Pasuk "la'Eileh Teichalek ha'Aretz"?
(b)
How does he then explain the Pasuk "li'Shemos Matos Avosam Yinchalu"?
(c)
What are the ramifications of this double inheritance?
2)
(a)
Rebbi Yonasan, disagrees with Rebbi Yoshiyah. He learns from the Pasuk "la'Eileh Teichalek ha'Aretz" that - Eretz Yisrael was distributed according to those who entered it ('le'Ba'ei ha'Aretz Nischalkah') ...
(b)
... and 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 (in their graves), divide them equally and bequeath them to their respective families, five and a half portions for each family.
3)
(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. What happened next?
(b)
On what basis did they do this? Was it automatic?
3)
(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 the three portions - their fathers divided them into two, each family taking one a half portions.
(b)
They did this by prior arrangement, since there is no reason for it to have been an automatic procedure (like it was with regard to the division of Eretz Yisrael).
117b----------------------------------------117b
4)
(a)
Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar has a third opinion. How was the land distributed, according to him?
(b)
What is his source for saying this?
(c)
Who is now the author of our Mishnah (which holds 'le'Yotz'ei Mitzrayim Nischalkah')?
4)
(a)
Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar has a third opinion. He holds that - the land was distributed according to both those who left Egypt and those who entered it.
(b)
His source is -the two above Pesukim, the former which teaches us that 'le'Yotz'ei Mitzrayim Nishalkah', the latter, 'le'Ba'ei ha'Aretz Nischalkah'.
(c)
The author of our Mishnah (which holds 'le'Yotz'ei Mitzrayim Nischalkah') is either Rebbi Yoshiyah or Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar.
5)
(a)
According to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, what would be a case of someone who was mi'Yotz'ei Mitzrayim but not mi'Ba'ei ha'Aretz?
(b)
A case of someone who was mi'Ba'ei ha'Eretz, but not mi'Yotz'ei Mitzrayim might be where someone under twenty whose father had died in Egypt, who left Egypt, and who was over twenty when he entered Eretz Yisrael. How else might it be possible?
(c)
How do we initially interpret 'mi'Ka'an u'mi'Ka'an Notel Chelko mi'Ka'an u'mi'Ka'an' (bearing in mind our original assumption that nobody received both portions directly (as we shall now see)?
5)
(a)
According to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, a case of someone who was mi'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 initial assumption (that nobody received both portions directly [as we shall now see]), we interpret 'mi'Ka'an u'mi'Ka'an Notel Chelko mi'Ka'an u'mi'Ka'an' with reference to 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.
6)
(a)
Considering that the generation who left Egypt all died in the desert, how would have been possible for someone to have been both from the Yotzei Mitzrayim and the Ba'ei ha'Aretz?
(b)
We initially think that such a person did not receive two portions. Why not? In which capacity would they inherit their portion?
(c)
We retract from this theory however, in light of a Tosefta. What does the Tosefta say about Yehoshua and Kalev, who fitted into this category? How many portions did they receive in Eretz Yisrael?
6)
(a)
In spite of the fact 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, and someone who left Egypt, inherited in his own right and did not fall into the category of "la'Eileh".
(c)
We retract from this theory 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, the Ba'ei ha'Aretz and the portion of the Meraglim.
7)
(a)
According to the current Beraisa, who inherited the portions of the Mislon'nim and the congregation of Korach in Eretz Yisrael?
(b)
Who is the author of this statement?
(c)
Did the children of the Mislon'nim and the congregation of Korach receive a portion in Eretz Yisrael?
(d)
How is it possible to say this even according to Rebbi Yonasan (le'Ba'ei ha'Aretz Nischalkah')?
7)
(a)
According to the current Beraisa the whole of Yisrael inherited the portions of the Mislon'nim and the congregation of Korach in Eretz Yisrael.
(b)
The author of this statement is either Rebbi Yoshiyah (who holds 'le'Yotz'ei Mitzrayim Nischalkah'), or it is the conclusion of the statement of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar.
(c)
It is possible for the children of the Mislon'nim and the congregation of Korach to have received a portion - from their paternal or maternal grandparents.
(d)
It is possible to say this even according to Rebbi Yonasan ('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 it back to their common grandparents.
8)
(a)
What do we learn from the Pasuk in Va'eira "ve'Nasati osah Lachem Morashah"?
(b)
How would we otherwise have interpreted "li'Shemos Matos Avosam Yinchalu"?
(c)
According to whom are we saying this?
8)
(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.
(c)
We are saying this to explain the reasoning behind the D'rashah of Rebbi Yeshiyah and Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar.
9)
(a)
With reference to Rebbi Yonasan, what did Rav Papa ask Abaye from the Pasuk "la'Rav Tarbu Nachalaso, ve'la'Me'at Tam'it Nachalaso"? What is the meaning of ...
1.
... "la'Rav Tarbeh Nachalaso"?
2.
... "la'Me'at Tam'it Nachalaso"?
(b)
Why can we not explain the Pasuk in the reverse, to say that we distribute the land to the many or the few, as they were when they entered the land (irrespective to their numbers when they left Egypt)?
(c)
How do we know that ...
1.
... the Pasuk is not coming to teach us that the land was distributed equally among all the families?
2.
... the Pasuk is not referring to Chazarah, and that it is not therefore coming to teach us that we go after those who left Egypt, too (besides the fact that we already know that from "li'Shmos Matos Avosam Yinchalu")?
(d)
How do we know that?
(e)
What did Abaye answer?
9)
(a)
With reference to Rebbi Yonasan, Rav Papa asked Abaye from the Pasuk "la'Rav Tarbu Nachalaso, ve'la'Me'at Tam'it Nachalaso" which 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). Consequently ...
1.
... "la'Rav Tarbeh Nachalaso" means that - if a father left Egypt with ten sons, and only five grandsons entered Eretz Yisrael, they would receive ten portions, and ...
2.
... "la'Me'at Tam'it Nachalaso" that - if a father left Egypt with five children, and ten grandsons entered the Land, then they would receive five portions.
(b)
We cannot explain the Pasuk in the reverse, to say that we distribute the land to the many or the few, as they were when they entered the land (irrespective of their numbers when they left Egypt) - because, having stated "la'Eileh Teichalek ha'Aretz", this would be obvious, and would not require an extra Pasuk.
(c)
Nor can the Pasuk be ...
1.
... coming to teach us that the land was distributed equally among all the families - because then the Torah ought to have written "Cheilek ke'Cheilek Yinchalu". "Tarbeh" and "Tam'it" imply that some take more and others, less.
2.
... referring to Chazarah, to teach us that we go after those who left Egypt, too (besides the fact that we already know that from "li'Shmos Matos Avosam Yinchalu") - because "Tarbeh" and "Tam'it" imply the first stage of the inheritance, and not the second stage ...
(d)
... 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).
(e)
Abaye had no answer to Rav Papa's questions, which remain difficult.
