ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 49
BAVA BASRA 48 & 49 - these Dafim have been dedicated anonymously l'Iluy
Nishmas Tzirel Nechamah bas Tuvya Yehudah.
(a) We just cited Rav Nachman, who rules that both 'Amanah Hayu Devareinu'
and 'Moda'a Hayu Devareinu' are not believed. Rav Ashi agrees with his
ruling regarding 'Amanah Hayu Devareinu', but not regarding 'Moda'a Hayu
Devareinu', where he holds that he is believed.
(b) We already cited Mar bar Rav Ashi (or Rav Ashi)'s reason by 'Amanah Hayu
Devareinu'. His source is - the Pasuk in Iyov "Al Tashken be'Oholecha
(c) We know that he disagrees with Rav Nachman's reasoning in this case
(that the witnesses cannot negate a Sh'tar), even though he agrees with his
ruling - because otherwise, he would not believe the witnesses by 'Moda'a
Hayu Devareinu either.
(d) In a nutshell, he defines the difference between the two rulings as -
'Zeh Nitan Likasev' ('Moda'a Hayu Devareinu'), 've'Zeh Lo Nitan Likasev'
('Amanah Hayu Devareinu').
(a) With regard to Mar bar Rav Ashi's ruling validating 'Moda'a Hayu
Devareinu' (even if they testify orally), he says 'Zeh Nitan Likasev' on the
grounds - that it is a Mitzvah to save a fellow-Jew from an O'nes that
causes him a financial loss.
(b) The witnesses are believed - even if their signatures are substantiated
from another source.
(c) Nor is it considered 'Chozer u'Magid - since 'Moda'a Hayu Devareinu',
which does not actually invalidate the Sh'tar, is considered an independant
testimony (only prevents him from claiming with it until the loan takes
(d) It would be considered 'Chozer u'Magid', if they would claim 'Pesulim
Hayinu' or 'Anusim Hayinu' (since this would render the Sh'tar invalid).
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Ein le'Ish Chazakah be'Nechsei Ishto', and we
ask why it is not obvious that, since he is permitted to eat the Peiros of
his wife's Nechsei Milug, he cannot establish a Chazakah on them. The
difference between this case and Mashkanta de'Sura, where the debtor needs
to make a Mecha'ah (despite the fact that there too, the creditor permitted
to eat the Peiros) is - that there, we are afraid that seeing as a few years
have elapsed, people will forget that the creditor received the field as a
Mashkon, whereas here, everyone knows about the Takanas Chachamim permitting
a man to eat the Peiros of his wife's Nechsei Milug.
(b) To answer the Kashya why it is not obvious, we establish our Mishnah -
when the husband declared 'Din u'Devarim Ein Li bi'Nechasayich' (effectively
withdrawing his rights on the Peiros of Nechsei Milug).
(c) Nevertheless, we initially suggest that he cannot establish a Chazakah
on his wife's property - because his wife will be unlikely to protest even
if he eats the fruit unlawfully, due to the fact that he feeds her.
(a) The Beraisa rules that if someone says to his friend 'Din u'Devarim Ein
Li al Sadeh Zeh' (or a similar Lashon of withdrawal), intending to give him
the field as a gift - the field remains his, because one cannot withdraw
from something that one already owns (unless one specifically declares it
(b) To relinquish his rights on his wife's Nechsei Milug in this way - our
Mishnah must be speaking when he did so during the engagement period (since
marital rights only come into effect after the Chupah).
(c) de'Bei Rebbi Yanai, who gives this answer, bases it on a statement of
Rav Kahana, who states - 'Nachalah ha'Ba'ah Lo le'Adam mi'Makom Acher, Adam
Masneh Alehah she'Lo Yirshenah', meaning that an inheritance that a person
receives by means of a Takanas Chachamim, he is able to withdraw in advance
of receiving it.
(a) Rav Kahana's statement is based on a broader principle presented by
Rava, who says - 'Kol ha'Omer I Efshi be'Takanas Chachamim, Shom'in Lo'.
(b) Rava in turn, said it in connection with a ruling of Rav Huna Amar Rav,
who stated that a woman who does not want to work for her husband, has the
right to say - 'Eini Nizones ve'Eini Osah' ('I will not be sustained by my
husband and I won't work for him'!).
(c) Rava presented his principle specifically on Rav Huna Amar Rav's
ruling - because that is what they happened to be learning in the
Beis-Hamedrash at the time.
(d) And the reason for the principle is - because the Chachamim did want to
impose their favors against the recipient's wishes.
(a) A woman can ...
1. ... decline to work for her husband (despite the fact that he is the one
who will be losing out and not her) - due to the fact that the initial
Takanah was for her sake (that she her husband should sustain her), and it
was only to offset the ensuing breakdown of Shalom Bayis that Chazal added
her husband takes her work in exchange.
(b) The man might relinquish his claim on the Peiros of his wife's Nechsei
Milug - because against that, he is obligated to redeem her in the event
that she is captured.
2. ... retract, even after they are married, even though the Takanah is
already in effect - because practically, it only takes effect each day as
she needs to eat.
(a) We can extrapolate from our Mishnah 'Ein le'Ish Chazakah be'Nechsei
Ishto' - that although one cannot establish a Chazakah on one's wife's prope
rty, it is possible to obtain it through witnesses or a Sh'tar that his wife
sold it to him.
(b) The Mishnah in Gitin rules that if Reuven purchased all Shimon's fields
(which were automatically Meshubad to his wife's Kesuvah) and then paid his
wife a token fee for her rights in the fields, 'Mikcho Bateil'- meaning that
the wife's sale is Bateil, and that, should the seller die or divorce his
wife, her rights to claim her Kesuvah from any of those fields remain
(c) The reason for this ruling is - because she can claim that she only
added her signature to the sale in order to make her husband happy, but that
she did not really mean it.
(a) We reconcile this with the previous inference from our Mishnah, by
citing Rabah bar Rav Huna. To tally with our Mishnah, Rabah bar Rav Huna
establish the Mishnah in Gitin - by three specific fields, on which the
woman particularly relies.
(b) The difference between a field 'she'Kasav Lah bi'Kesuvasah', and
'she'Yiched Lah bi'Kesuvasah' is - that the former the husband designated in
the Sh'tar, whilst the latter, he designated only orally (a regular
(c) The third field upon which a woman implicitly relies is - one of her
father's fields which she brought into the marriage, and which was assessed,
inserted in the Kesuvah and on which her husband accepted responsibility
(known as Nechsei Tzon Barzel).