Zichru4Life
Bava Basra Daf 127
"Zhrufala'b'aslafkur'zayin" The first thing on the daaf, "Tumtum-shinikr'v'nim-sazakhar" is excluded from various 'alachas' such as 'bakhayr'. The 'Gomor' says five 'alachas' that a 'tumtum-shinikr'v'nim-sazakhar is excluded from. He doesn't get 'pishnayim', he doesn't have 'dalaachas' have been 'sayir' 'mayr'. He's not 'mim-mayit' in the 'haylik bakhayr'. The 'Bakhar's portion is calculated as if he doesn't exist. 'Ebshizvi' says, he doesn't get 'mihlana' eighth day if it's 'chabbas'. 'Ebsharvi' says, his mother's not become Tommy from childbirth. The 'Gomor' asked on 'Ebsharvi'a from a mission that says that a woman that miscarries a 'tumtum' has to observe the hummus of a male and a female birth. This is not a stereotype 'shizvi' even though it's based on the same 'possak' because the possible 'atana' was 'missupic' about excluding a 'tumtum'. Second second second 'adaf', two infants, one of whom is a 'bakhayr' but it's not known which. 'Abrais adaishin's bakhar'v'lafk. The 'Gomor' explains it's coming to exclude 'rava's bsak' two women that gave birth in hiding and we don't know which is the 'bakhayr'. They could write for each other a 'harshah' to be able to collect 'pishnayyin'. The above Bryce is teaching us that since the 'bakhar's identity is unknown' he's not entitled to 'pishnayyin' at all. A 'pupa' told 'rava' that 'rava'n sent the 'possak' from 'amyanayi' that if the infants were originally recognised and then they became mixed they could write 'harshah' but if they were never recognised they can't write 'harshah' because the 'bakhar' is not entitled to 'pishnayyin'. 'rava' corrected his 'pssak' publicly. Third 'sak' in the daf 'yakir' a 'makhlakus' when a father is believed to identify the 'bakhar'. The Bryce adaish is the word 'yakir' 'yakir' when a 'lakhir'. From here up you would have said that a person is believed to say 'this is my bakhar' Similarly he's also believed to identify his son as a 'hala' and the 'gham say is not'. 'rava' explains that they used the 'possak' of 'yakir' in a case where you need 'hakar' and even though it seems obvious that a father is believed because you could have given him the possessions as a gift the 'possak' is needed for possession he obtains after he identifies him which you couldn't have given as a gift. According to a mayor who holds all the 'cukhav' 'sai' in his cookies the 'sad' 'tumtum' 'shinik' of an 'impsa' 'hah' eating cookies to console himself for being excluded from five 'hala' 's' together with a disappointed 'safik' bakhar who discovered he can't receive a double portion was surprised when a father walked up to a friend of his sitting on their bench and announced 'this is my bakhar' 'cukh' is reminds of 'cukhav' 'sai' 'n' the 'sad' 'tumtum' 'shinik' of an 'impsa' 'hah' that was eating cookies to console himself because it was excluded from five 'hala' 's' reminds the first 'sag' in the daf a 'tumtum' 'shinik' of an 'impsa' 'hah' is excluded from various 'hala' 's' such as 'bakhar' he was sitting together with a disappointed 'safik' bakhar who couldn't get 'bishnayim' reminds of the second 'sag' of the daf two infants one of whom is the bakhar but it's not known which and he was surprised when a father woke up to a friend and said 'this is my bakhar' reminds of the third 'sag' of the daf 'yak' 'yak' 'yak' 'yak' 'yak' 'yak' 'yak' 'yak' 'yak' 'yak' 'yak' 'yak' 'yak' 'yak' 'yak' 'yak' 'yak' is when a father is believed to identify the bakhar
127