(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Bava Basra 45

BAVA BASRA 44-55 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of love for the Torah and for those who study it.


(a) (Ravin bar Shmuel): If Reuven sold his field without Achrayus, he cannot testify about it, since this can enable his creditor to collect it.
(b) Question: What is the case?
1. If Reuven has other land, the creditor must collect from it, not from sold property!
2. If Reuven has no other land, it makes no difference to him whether or not the creditor collects from the sold land, in any case the creditor has nothing to take from Reuven himself!
(c) Answer: Rather, Reuven has no other land, he wants the creditor to collect, lest Reuven be considered "Loveh Rasha v'Lo Yeshalem".
(d) Question: Even if the creditor collects, Reuven will be like one who borrowed (from the buyer) and does not pay!
(e) Answer: No, he sold it without Achrayus to evade having any liability to compensate the buyer.
(f) (Rava): Shimon bought Levi's donkey, and a Nochri seized it, Levi must take the Nochri to Beis Din to restore it to Shimon (Rashbam; Tosfos - he must compensate Shimon for his loss), so he will not be considered a borrower that does not repay.
1. This is only if Shimon does not know if the Nochri really owned it, but if he admits that Levi owned the donkey, Levi is exempt.
2. This is only if the Nochri took the donkey without the saddle (this shows that he is not stealing, rather he truly owns it), but if he also took the saddle, (we assume he is just stealing) Levi is exempt.
(g) (Ameimar): In every case, Levi is exempt;
1. Nochrim are established robbers - "Asher Pihem...."
(a) (Mishnah): A craftsman does not get a Chazakah...
(b) (Rabah): This is only if witnesses saw the owner (Reuven) give Shimon (the craftsman) the vessel;
1. If not, Migo that Shimon would be believed if he denied ever receiving it, he is believed to say that he bought it.
(c) Question (Abaye): If so, even if witnesses saw him give it, Migo that Shimon could say that he returned it, he can say that he bought it!
(d) Answer (Rabah): You think that one who accepts a deposit in front of witnesses need not return it with witnesses, but this is not so, rather he must return it in front of witnesses.

(e) Question (Abaye - Beraisa): Levi saw his slave by a craftsman (that teaches his trade), or his garment by a launderer; the latter (Yehudah) claims that he bought or received it (or him) as a gift - he is not believed;
1. If he claims that he saw Levi tell him to sell or give it (or him), he is believed. (We immediately explain this clause, even though the question against Rabah is from the first clause.)
2. Question: What is the difference between the clauses?
3. Answer (Rabah): In the second clause, Ploni (a third party) has the garment or slave, he claims 'I saw Levi tell Yehudah to sell or give it (or him) to me';
i. Migo that Ploni would be believed to say that he bought it from Levi, he is believed to say that Levi told Yehudah to sell it to him.
4. (The question against Rabah): The first clause teaches that when Levi sees his property by Yehudah, Yehudah is not believed;
5. Question: What is the case?
i. If witnesses saw Levi give it to Yehudah, even if Levi does not see it by him, Yehudah is liable (according to Rabah, the deposit must be returned in front of witnesses)!
6. Answer: Rather, he did not give it in front of witnesses, and the Beraisa says that when Levi sees it by Yehudah, Yehudah is not believed!
(f) Answer (Rabah): Rather, Levi gave it to Yehudah in front of witnesses, and still, Yehudah is liable only if Levi sees it by him.
(g) Abaye: But you yourself said that a deposit given in front of witnesses must be returned in front of witnesses!
(h) Rabah: I retracted from that teaching.
(i) Question (against Abaye, and a support for Rabah - Rava - Beraisa): Reuven gave his garment to Shimon (a craftsman). Shimon says 'You hired me for two', Reuven says 'I hired you for one': if Shimon has the garment, Reuven must bring proof (or pay two);
1. If he returned the garment to Reuven: if it is within the time to claim his wages, Shimon swears that he was not paid and collects;
2. If it is after the time to claim his wages, Shimon must bring proof in order to collect.
3. Question: What is the case?
i. If he gave the garment in front of witnesses, we ask the witnesses what the wage was!
4. Answer: Rather, he did not give it in front of witnesses, and the craftsman is believed;
i. Migo he is believed to say that he bought it, he is believed that he was hired for two.
(j) Answer: Really, he did not give it in front of witnesses; Reuven did not see his garment by Shimon, therefore Shimon is believed.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,