POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
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 169
1) REPLACING A LOST DOCUMENT
(a) (Beraisa): Shimon claims that he lost his loan document -
even though witnesses say that they wrote, signed and
gave him the document, we do not write another document
1. This refers to a loan document, but we do write
another document of sale, without Acharayos.
(b) Question: The Beraisa said, we write another document of
sale, without Acharayos - what is the reason?
2. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, also regarding a
document of sale, we do not write another (perhaps
he returned the document, which negates the sale).
3. Similarly, R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if Yehudah
received a gift and returned the document, the gift
reverts to the giver;
4. Chachamim say, he keeps the gift.
(c) Answer (Rav Safra): Because we do not write two documents
on one field;
1. We are concerned lest the field be collected by a
creditor (Levi) of the seller (Reuven), and the
buyer (Shimon) will take land from someone who
bought from Reuven after Shimon (and give him one
(d) Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti): Why must Shimon wait before
taking the second land? He can take the fields one after
2. A long time later, Shimon will tell Levi to again
claim his loan, and Shimon will take land from
someone else who bought from Reuven (and give him
the other document).
3. Question: When Shimon takes land the first time, we
tear up Levi's document, he cannot take land a
i. Suggestion: Perhaps we do not tear up Levi's
4. Answer: Indeed, we are not concerned that Shimon's
land will be taken by a creditor, rather, that Levi
will bring witnesses that the land used to belong to
Levi's fathers, and Reuven stole it (and Shimon will
collect twice, as explained above).
ii. Rejection: Rav Nachman taught, a Tirfa (the
first document given to one who is entitled to
take land from a buyer) is invalid unless it
says 'the lender's document was torn up';
iii. An Adrachta (the second document, which
authorizes him to take the land from a buyer)
is invalid unless it says 'the Tirfa was torn
iv. A Shuma (a document in which Beis Din writes
the value of the land he takes) is invalid
unless it says 'the Adrachta was torn up'.
(e) Answer: If he does so, each buyer will hear that he also
took from another, and they will discover his trick.
(f) Question: Why does the Beraisa say that we write another
document of sale, without Acharayos? (Perhaps Shimon
really lost it, why should he lose?) We can write with
Acharayos, and give Reuven (the seller) a document saying
that Shimon can only collect Acharayos with a document
with the date of the replacement document! (This
invalidates the original document.)
(g) Answer (Rabanan): This teaches that we do not force
someone to accept a Shover (receipt, or any document that
negates a different document) to enable someone (who lost
his document) to receive what they deserve. (We are
concerned that the Shover will be lost or eaten by mice.)
(h) Rejection (Rav Papa or Rav Ashi): Really, we normally
force someone to accept a Shover;
2) ACHARAYOS ON A SALE
1. Here we do not, we are concerned that a creditor
will take Shimon's land, and Shimon will collect
(with the original document) from later buyers, who
do not have the Shover.
(i) Question: But the later buyers will go to Reuven (to be
compensated), he will show them the Shover, they will
take back their land!
(j) Answer #1: In the meantime, Shimon may consume the
produce, and it may be difficult to recover it.
(k) Answer #2: Perhaps the buyers did not have Acharayos,
they will not go to Reuven.
(l) Question: If so, for the same reason we should not write
a Shover for one who lost a loan document!
(m) Answer: When a creditor comes to collect from buyers,
since he is owed money, they suspect that the borrower
paid, they will not give up their land before asking the
1. Here, Shimon's land was taken, he wants back land,
they do not think that he would accept money from
Reuven in its stead. (They know that Reuven sold all
(a) (Beraisa): We write another document of sale, without
3) DOES MESIRAH ACQUIRE OSIYOS?
(b) Question: What do we write?
(c) Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): 'One may not collect with this
document from sold or unsold property, it is only to
prove that Shimon bought it'.
1. Inference (Rafram): This teaches that Acharayos
Ta'us Sofer (if a document does not mention
Acharayos, there is Acharayos, we assume that the
Sofer neglected to write it).
(d) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): The document does not mention
i. If not for this text, he would have Acharayos,
even though it was not mentioned!
2. Rejection (Rav Ashi): Really, Acharayos Lav Ta'us
Sofer (if a document does not mention Acharayos,
there is no Acharayos);
(e) Leah gave Levi money to buy land for her; he bought for
her without Acharayos.
1. Rav Nachman: She sent you to help her, not to harm
her! You must buy the land without Acharayos, and
sell it to her with Acharayos (i.e. if it is taken,
you must compensate her).
(a) (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): If Yehudah received a
gift from Moshe and returned the document, the gift
reverts to the giver;
(b) Chachamim say, he keeps the gift.
(c) Question: What is R. Shimon's reason?
(d) Answer #1 (Rav Asi): It is as if Moshe said 'This gift is
yours as long as you have the document'.
(e) Question (Rabah): If so, also if the document was lost or
stolen, the gift should go back!
(f) Answer #2 (Rabah): They argue about whether or not Osiyos
(the contents of a document) are acquired through
1. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says that Osiyos are acquired
through Mesirah (therefore, returning the document
is like returning the gift),
2. Chachamim say that Osiyos are not acquired through
Mesirah (until he *also* writes another document).