(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 Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Basra 48

BAVA BASRA 48 & 49 - these Dafim have been dedicated anonymously l'Iluy Nishmas Tzirel Nechamah bas Tuvya Yehudah.



(a) We learned in a Beraisa 'Get ha'Me'useh be'Yisrael Kasher'. A 'Get Me'useh' is - a Get that a man is forced to write by a Yisrael (e.g. by Beis-Din), provided of course, he declares 'Rotzeh Ani'.

(b) The Beraisa concludes 'be'Akum Pasul', which we initially think is because when he forced by Nochrim (even by a Nochri court), he is not performing a Mizvah, unlike the Reisha, where he is (as we suggested a little earlier).

(c) To reconcile the Beraisa with Rav Huna, who holds 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin, Z'vineih Z'vini', we cite Rav Masharshaya, who explains that, min ha'Torah, the Get is valid even if it is a Nochri who forced the man to write it, and the Tana invalidates it mi'de'Rabbanan, so that any woman who wants a Get should not hire a Nochri to coerce her husband into writing her a Get.

(a) Rav Hamnuna asks from the Beraisa (already discussed on the previous Amud) 'Lakach mi'Sikrikun, ve'Chazar ve'Lakach mi'Ba'al ha'Bayis, Mekcho Bateil', which we reconcile with Rav Huna by citing Rav - who restricts the ruling to where the seller said 'Lech Chazek u'Keni', but if he as much as wrote a Sh'tar Mechirah, the sale is valid.

(b) Even according to Shmuel, who says 'Af bi'Sh'tar Nami Lo Kanah', we can answer - that the Tana will validate the sale if the purchaser paid.

(c) As for Rav Bibi, who, quoting Rav Nachman, rules 'Karka Ein Lo, Ma'os Yesh Lo' - Rav Huna holds that since he only quotes Rav Nachman, and not a Beraisa, he is entitled to disagree.

(d) Had Rav Bibi made this statement in his own name (and not in the name of Rav Nachman), we would have answered 'Gavra a'Gavra Karamis' (How can you ask from on Amora on to another)?




(a) Rava rules 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin Z'vineih Z'vini', but he qualifies it - restricting it to 'Sadeh S'tam' (where the seller picked the field that he wants to sell), but in a case of 'Sadeh Zu', the sale will be invalid.

(b) Even in the case of 'Sadeh Zu', Rava concedes that the sale will be valid in one of two cases. One of them is if the seller (in spite of his predicament) counted the money that he received as payment for the field, the other - where he could have got out of selling the field or of delaying the sale, but declined to do so.

(c) The Halachah however, is not like Rava - but that the sale is valid, even in a case of 'Sadeh Zu'.

(d) And we prove this from a statement by Ameimar, who ruled 'Talyuhah ve'Kadish, Kidushav Kidushin' - even though the man wants specifically that woman and no other (making it a case of 'Ishah Zu').

(a) Mar bar Rav Ashi rules in the case of 'Talyuhah ve'Kadish' that the Kidushin is not valid, even though he agrees with the Halachah regarding 'Sadeh Zu'. The reason for this is - because although, in principle, he agrees with Ameimar, he holds that the Chachamim issued a decree negating the Kidushin. *He* behaved unconventionally, they figured, so they would deal with him unconventionally.

(b) This makes sense in a case of Kidushei Kesef (which the Chachamim have the power to negate [due to the principle of 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker']). And it works by Kidushei Bi'ah too - because their decree is based on the fact that when a person betroths a woman, he does so according to the Rabbanan's specifications. And the Rabbanan did not validate such a Kidushin, automatically rendering the Bi'ah a Bi'as Z'nus (an immoral act).

(c) Apart from the fact that we learn Kidushei Kesef from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah', it is not possible to interpret the Kashya to mean that Kidushei Kesef is easier to negate since it is only mi'de'Rabbanan, whereas Kidushei Bi'ah is d'Oraysa - because the answer 'Shavyuhu Rabbanan Be'ilas Z'nus' then makes no sense, because unless we explain the answer the way we did, the Kashya remains; How can the Chachamim negate a Torah institution?

(a) Tavi - a tough guy, suspended Papi on a Kinra-tree, forcing him to sell him his field.

(b) 'Tavi Tala Papi *be'Kinra'* might also mean - 'to force him to sell him his harp'.

(c) Besides signing on the Moda'a, Rabah bar bar Chanah also signed on the Ashkalta - another name for a Sh'tar Mechirah.

(a) When Rav Huna said that whoever signed on the Moda'a did well, and whoever signed on the Ashkalta did well, he meant - that if he had not signed on the Moda'a, he would have done well to sign on the Ashkalta.

(b) When we say 'Rav Huna le'Ta'ameih', we mean - that what Rav Huna is then coming to tell us is that 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin, Z'vineih Z'vini' (like he said earlier).

(c) Rava did indeed rule earlier that we do not write a Moda'a on a sale, unless the seller is under threat of losing his field without receiving payment. However - we do not rule like Rava (as we see from his differentiation between Sadeh S'tam and Sadeh Zu regarding the Din of 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin', of which we do not hold).

(a) 'Amanah' is - when witnesses testify that the Sh'tar produced by the creditor was handed to him by the debtor (whom he trusted not to produce it unless the loan actually took place) in advance of the loan, so that when the debtor requires money, he will just have to ask the creditor for it.

(b) According to Rav Nachman, witnesses who said ...

1. ... 'Amanah Hayu Devareinu' - are not believed
2. ... 'Moda'a Hayu Devareinu' - are not believed either.
(a) A Sh'tar Amanah is not a Sh'tar Mukdam (pre-dated), and therefore Pasul anyway - because the debtor is Meshabed his property from the time he writes the Sh'tar retroactively, should the loan take place.

(b) 'Amanah Hayu Devareinu' is certainly not believed if the witnesses signatures were substantiated from another source. Neither are the witnesses believed with a 'Peh she'Asar Hu ha'Peh she'Hitir', if they substantiate their own signatures, says Rava - because they do not have the power to negate their own testimony ('Keyvan she'Higid, Shuv Eino Chozer u'Magid').

(c) We know that 'Keyvan she'Higid ... ' applies even in the case of a Sh'tar (which we may have thought is not Kasher until it is substantiated), on the basis of a statement by Resh Lakish, who stated - that once witnesses sign on a Sh'tar, it is as if their testimony has already been examined in Beis-Din.

(d) And besides, we cannot believe witnesses who say 'Amanah Hayu Devareinu' (in spite of the 'Peh she'Asar'), says Rav Ashi - because, as Rav Kahana taught, it is forbidden to keep such Sh'tar in one's possession, in which case we apply the principle 'Ein Adam Meisim Atzmo Rasha' (a person is not believed when he issues a statement that renders himself a Rasha).

(a) We reconcile Rav Nachman's latter statement ('Moda'a Hayu Devareinu Ein Ne'emanim)' with Rabah bar bar Chanah, who signed on a Sh'tar Moda'a - by differentiating between an oral Moda'a (Rav Nachman) and a written one (Rav Rabah bar bar Chanah).

(b) 'Moda'a Hayu Devareinu in a Sh'tar is believed - because it was written before the Sh'tar Mechirah, in which case 'Keyvan she'Higid ... ' will not apply.

Next daf


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