ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 56
BAVA BASRA 56 (4 Sivan) - Dedicated by Rabbi Kornfeld's father, Mr. David
Kornfeld, in memory of the members of his family who perished at the hands
of the Nazi murderers in the Holocaust and whose Yahrzeit is observed today:
his mother (Mirel bas Yakov Mordechai), brothers (Shraga Feivel, Aryeh Leib
and Yisachar Dov, sons of Mordechai), grandfather (Reb Yakov Mordechai ben
Reb David [Shpira]) and aunt (Charne bas Yakov Mordechai [wife of Reb Moshe
(a) We ask what the Din will be if, according to Rebbi Yochanan who said
'ha'Meitzar ve'ha'Chatzav Mafsikin be'Nechsei ha'Ger', there is no Meitzar
or Chaztav - what Shiur is required to acquire Nechsei ha'Ger that has no
borders, with one strike of the spade.
(b) We could have simply given the Shiur as two rows of furrows, like Rav
Papa explained earlier according to Rav - only we knew that Rebbi Yochanan
has a different Shiur (see also Ritva [it is unclear though, what our Sugya,
which seems to be speaking about a field with borders, has to do with the
ruling of Rav Papa]. See also Tosfos).
(c) The Shiur Rebbi Merinus gives in the name of Rebbi Yochanan (that one
will acquire with one strike of the spade) is - an area that people would
refer to as so-and-so's field (and not fields).
(d) Rav Papa defines this further - as an area that Ger used to water from
(a) We already learned that Yehoshua used the Chatzav to divide Eretz
Yisrael - both one tribe from the other, and one individual property-owner
(b) He specifically used the Chatzav for this purpose - because it grows
directly downwards and does not nurture from the sides.
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav (who also made the previous statement) said that
1. ... the cities that Yehoshua listed in his Seifer - were border cities
(b) According to Rebbi Meir, these three nations are equivalent to Naftucha,
Arva'ah and Shalma'ah; and according to Rebbi Shimon, they are Ardiskis,
Asya and Aspamya (usually translated as Spain). Rebbi Yehudah lists them
as - Se'ir, Amon and Mo'av.
2. ... the Keini, Kenizi and Kadmoni - are not subject to Ma'aser, and he
derives this from the Pasuk "Zos ha'Aretz Asher Nishba'ati" (incorporating
the borders specified there).
(c) The exemption of these three countries from Ma'asros might refer to any
of them that were captured after the death of Yehoshua. Alternatively, it
refers to - the time of Mashi'ach, when they will be given to us anyway, as
Hashem promised Avraham.
(d) Rav does not also preclude the Refa'im, who like the Keini, Kenizi and
Kadmoni, are mentioned in connection with the promise given to Avraham
Avinu - because the Refa'im are equivalent to the Chivi, which are therefore
subject to Ma'asros, and whose land Moshe actually captured (See Rashi in
Mishpatim 23:28, and Torah Temimah there).
(a) Our Mishnah states that - if two witnesses testify that Reuven
established a Chazakah by eating the Peiros of Shimon's field, and then
became Zomemin (by two others claiming that they were with them in a
different location during that time, and could not have witnessed what they
claimed they did) - they must pay Shimon the value of the field (which he
takes back from Reuven anyway) between them.
(b) And in a case where three pairs of witnesses testify the same thing, one
each year - each pair must pay one third of the cost of the field.
(c) When the Tana says that three brothers testified on the three years of
Reuven's Chazakah, each of whom was paired by a second witness ...
1. ... 'Harei Eilu Shalosh Iduyos', he means - that since each brother
testified on a different year, they do not disqualify each other's testimony
(as if they were testifying in different lawsuits).
2. ... 've'Hein Eidus Achas le'Hazamah', he means - that they only become
Zomemin if they all become Zomemin, and that when they do, they pay the
K'nas (the fine) between them.
(a) When Rebbi Chalafta asked Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri what the Din will be
if three pairs of witnesses testify that Reuven ate the fruits of Shimon's
field (thereby establishing a Chazakah) for three consecutive years (one
pair each year) he replied - that Reuven's Chazakah was established (like
the Tana of our Mishnah).
(b) Rebbi Chalafta (some reverse the names) replied - that although he
agreed with this ruling in principle, Rebbi Akiva disqualified their
testimony, based on the Pasuk in Shoftim "al-Pi Sh'nei Eidim ... Yakum
Davar", from which we Darshen 'Davar ve'Lo Chatzi Davar', meaning that
witnesses must give the full testimony, and not just part of it (that
requires additional witnesses).
(c) Seeing as the Tana'im are arguing over the case presented by our
Mishnah, this means - that the author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Akiva.
(d) Rebbi Chalafta - was Rebbi Yossi's father.
(a) We refute the suggestion that from 'Davar ve'Lo Chatzi Davar', the
Rabbanan disqualify witnesses one of whom testifies to one hair on a girl's
back, and the other to one on her stomach (see Sugya Nidah 52b), on the
grounds - that since only one witness testifies on each hair, this is not
only Chatzi Davar, but Chatzi Eidus too, and, having already written (in
Shoftim) "Lo Yakum Eid Echad be'Ish", the Torah does need a second D'rashah
to preclude Chatzi Eidus.
(b) The Rabbanan learn from 'Davar' - to disqualify a case where one *pair*
of witnesses testifies that she has one hair on her back, and the other,
that she a hair on her stomach.
(c) What makes this case fall under the category of 'Chatzi Eidus' more than
the case in our Mishnah (which Rebbi Akiva disputes) is - the fact that
(unlike the case in our Mishnah) each pair, who testified about the same
moment, saw only half of what they could have seen at the time.
(d) Nevertheless, we will not combine the testimony of one pair of witnesses
who saw a hair on her back the day before (but which fell out), and a second
pair who saw one hair on her stomach today - because when a hair falls out
before puberty, we consider retroactively to have been part of a wart, and
not a pubic hair.
(a) In a case where one witness testified that Reuven ate wheat for three
years, and another witness testified that he ate barley, Rav Yehudah rules -
that Reuven has established a Chazakah?
(b) Rav Nachman queries this from a case where one witness testified on the
first, third and fifth years, and a second witness, on the second, fourth
and sixth, which will not constitute a Chazakah - since neither witness is
testifying on a Chazakah.
(c) This case differs from that of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korcha, who ruled
earlier that even if the two witnesses testified on two different days,
their testimonies nevertheless combine (even though they are testifying on
two different coins) - inasmuch as there at least, each witness testifies
that a transaction relating to a Manah had taken place (whereas here,
neither witness testifies on a Chazakah).
(a) Rav Nachman's Kashya on Rav Yehudah is due to his understanding - that
Rav Yehudah was speaking when the one witness testified that Reuven ate
wheat in the first, third and fifth years, and the second witness, in the
second, fourth and sixth years (like the case from which he asked) ...
(b) ... and this misunderstanding in turn, lies in the fact - that was
indeed what the farmers used to do to avoid having to leave the land fallow
every third year, as is otherwise customary.
(c) Rav Yehudah replied however, that when he spoke about one witness
testifying that the Machzik ate wheat, and the second witness, barley - he
was referring to a case where they were testifying about the same three
years, and the reason that they were believed is because we assume that one
of them was not conversant with the distinction between wheat and barley (a
not uncommon occurrence, it seems).