daf bits: Bava Batra 111 and a bonus

[cellio]

The talmud is in the midst of a discussion of inheritance law. If a man dies his sons, not his wife, are his heirs. But if a woman dies, who are her heirs, her children (to be parallel) or her husband? The g'mara says that her husband is her heir, and offers the following proof (among others): when Eleazar the son of Aharon the high priest died, his son Pinchas buried him in a hill that he (Pinchas) owned. How did Pinchas own a hill that he did not inherit from his father? Pinchas had taken a wife who had later died, and he inherited it from her. (111b)

I'm not sure why the g'mara doesn't consider the possibility that Pinchas bought the land.

And in honor of the coming holiday, a bonus daf bit:

Everything the talmud says about Channukah is covered on four pages of tractate Shabbat. Some parts are well-known, such as the dispute between Hillel and Shammai about whether to start with one light and build up (Hillel) or start with eight and decrease each night (Shammai). Here is a different teaching on this holiday.

Rav Yehudah says: he who lights the Channukah lights pronounces two blessings and he who watches pronounces one (add one more on the first day for everyone). What blessing does everyone say? Al ha-nisim (for the miracles). What blessing does the one who lights say? Who has commanded us to light the Channukah lights. But the torah says no such thing! Rav Avia derives it from "you shall not turn aside from [the torah]" (Deut 17:11). R. Nechemiah says it comes from "ask your father and let him tell you" (Deut 32:7).

R. Amram objects to this reasoning, saying that we could use it to require a blessing for every rabbinic ordinance. (R. Amram took the words right out of my mouth.) R. Abaye answers him: a certain rabbinic ordinance (that is, one calling for a definite action) requires a blessing, but one arising out of doubt does not. Well then, Amram asks, what about the blessing on the second day of festivals (in the Diaspara), which is a case of doubt? Abaye says this is lest people treat the second day slightingly; his argument is that if people don't have to sanctify it they will treat it as an ordinary day. (Shabbat 23a)

R. Avia's proof-text surprises me; I read that verse (which continues "do not add to or subtract from the law") as opposing, not supporting, this rabbinic innovation, yet this is exactly the verse cited. R. Amram's objection is the same one I have wondered about; what are the bounds on this approach? Obviously there are some, but I have more to learn here.

Comments

[zevabe.livejournal.com]

There are 7 positive Rabbinic commandments totally without basis in the Torah, all of which have a blessing of the form: Baruch Atah Hashem, Elokeinu Melech HaOlam, Asher kidshanu b'mitzvotav v'tzivanu...

Some are alleged to be a debate:
Eruvin (several different one's, but all the same blessing)
Purim (Megillat Esther specifically)
Hanukkah lights
Shabbat candles
Megillat Eichah (on Tisha B'av)
Netilat Yedayim for bread
Hallel

For example, AskMoses lists brachot on food among the 7, but not Eicha, as does Wikipedia.

[cellio]

I've heard seven too, including Shabbat lights, Channukah lights, netilat yadayim, and Purim megillah, but the others are a little unclear. (Eiruv surprises me, actually; there would seem to be a closer connection to the torah text than for, say, Esther.)