(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 65

BAVA BASRA 61-67 - This week's study material has been dedicated by Mrs. Rita Grunberger of Queens, N.Y., in loving memory of her husband, Reb Yitzchok Yakov ben Eliyahu Grunberger. Irving Grunberger helped many people quietly in an unassuming manner and is dearly missed by all who knew him. His Yahrzeit is 10 Sivan.


(a) (Rav Huna citing Rav): The Halachah follows Chachamim.
(b) (R. Yirmeyah bar Aba citing Shmuel): The Halachah follows R. Akiva.
(c) R. Yirmeyah bar Aba: But many times I said in front of Rav that the Halachah follows R. Akiva, and he did not respond!
(d) Rav Huna: How do you learn the argument?
(e) R. Yirmeyah: R. Akiva says that a person sells stingily, Chachamim say that a person sells generously.
(f) Rav Huna: He did not respond, for the Halachah is, a person sells stingily; according to your version of the argument, the Halachah follows R. Akiva.
(g) Suggestion (Ravina): Rav and Shmuel hold as they hold elsewhere:
1. (Rav Nachman citing Shmuel): Brothers who divide an inheritance (are like buyers and sellers); they do not have rights to walk over each other's property (because they sell generously, even if one can only get to his property through his brother's), they have no rights to set up ladders or have windows (to exclude the other from building near it) nor run an irrigation ditch through the other's property;
2. (Rav): They have all these rights against each other.
(h) They must argue in both cases.
(i) If they only argued regarding brothers, one might have thought that Rav's reason is that the heirs are entitled to live as their father did - "Tachas.Avosecha Yihyu Vanecha" - but normally, Rav holds that a person sells generously;
(j) If they only argued regarding a regular sale, one might have thought that Shmuel would agree regarding brothers ("Tachas Avosecha...").
(k) Rav Nachman: Is the Halachah like us (Shmuel and his Talmidim), or like you (and Rav)?
(l) Rav Huna: It is like you, for you are close to the Reish Galusa and see how the judges rule.
(m) Reuven owned an inner house and an outer house. If he sold or gave them (at the same time) the inner house to Shimon and the outer house to Levi, neither has rights to walk through the other, all the more so if he gave the outer house and sold the inner house (for he favors Levi, he gave him a gift).
(n) Suggestion: Also if he gave the inner house and sold the outer house, neither has rights to walk through the other.
(o) Rejection: That is wrong.
1. (Mishnah): This applies to a sale, but one who gives (a gift), he gives everything.
2. Inference: A person gives generously.
3. Also regarding the houses, Reuven gives generously to Shimon, and included a path.
(a) (Mishnah): One who sells a house, he sells the door, but not the key; he sells a grinder attached to the floor, but not an unattached grinder; he sells the frame around a millstone, but not the funnel, nor Tanur or Kirayim (types of ovens);
1. If he said 'The house and everything inside', they are all included.

(b) Suggestion: Our Mishnah is not like R. Meir, for he says that one who sells a vineyard includes everything needed for the vineyard.
(c) Rejection: Our Mishnah is even like R. Meir - R. Meir only includes things that are stationary; our Mishnah excludes things that are moved.
(d) Objection: But the key is not sold, and presumably, it is like the door (that it is taught with), i.e. it is fixed!
(e) Conclusion: Indeed, the Mishnah is not like R. Meir.
(f) (Beraisa): One who sells a house sells the door, the latch (fixed in the wall), and the lock (fixed in the door), but not the key;
(g) He sells a grinder that is carved into the wall, not one which is affixed; he sells the frame around a millstone, but not the funnel, nor Tanur or Kirayim or a millstone;
(h) R. Eliezer says, anything attached to the ground is like the ground.
(i) If he said 'The house and everything inside', all these are included;
1. In any case, he did not include a pit, cistern or Yatzia.
(a) (Beraisa): A pipe that was hollowed out and then attached (is considered a vessel), it disqualifies a Mikveh (if three Lugim of water from it fall into a Mikveh with less than 40 Se'ah of water, the Mikveh is disqualified (even when it will have enough water))l
1. If it was attached and then hollowed out (it is not considered a vessel), it does not disqualify a Mikveh.
(b) Question: The Beraisa is not like R. Eliezer, nor like Chachamim!
1. Question: What did R. Eliezer say that is unlike this Beraisa?
i. Suggestion: His opinion about the house (anything attached to the ground is like the ground) is unlike the Beraisa.
ii. Rejection: Perhaps he holds that a person sells generously (but really, not everything attached is considered like ground), and Chachamim hold that he sells stingily!
2. Answer #1: R. Eliezer's opinion about a beehive (as follows) is unlike the Beraisa.
Next daf


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