ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 57
BAVA BASRA 57 & 58 - dedicated by an admirer of the work of the Dafyomi
Advancement Forum, l'Iluy Nishmas Mrs. Gisela (Golda bas Reb Chaim Yitzchak
Ozer) Turkel, A"H.
(a) Besides two witnesses attesting to each signature on a Sh'tar, Beis-Din
verify a Sh'tar - by calling each witness to attest to his own signature.
(b) They do not require two witnesses for each signature - because in fact,
when the witnesses themselves attest to their own signatures, they are
merely corroborating the contents of the Sh'tar and not their own
(c) If one of the witnesses is no longer alive - Beis-Din find two witnesses
from the street to attest to his signature.
(a) In a case where one of the signatories on a Sh'tar died, and the
remaining signatory's brother came together with another witness to verify
his signature, Ravina, based on our Mishnah (where the Tana believed three
brothers, together with one stranger, to establish a Chazakah) - intended to
accept their testimony.
(b) Rav Ashi objected to his intended ruling however, on the grounds - that
three quarters of the money was then being extracted on the basis of two
brothers, and the remaining quarter, on someone else.
(c) This case is different than that of our Mishnah - because the
invalidation of brothers as witnesses is based on the fact that all brothers
are counted as one witness, a fact that has no bearing there (since the four
witnesses will simply be considered as two). It will however, invalidate the
current case, as we explained, because if three quarters of the money would
be extracted by one witness and a quarter by the other, the Sh'tar would
also be Pasul (as we learned in Kesuvos).
(a) Our Mishnah lists things which are or are not subject to a Chazakah.
Rearing an animal or setting-up any kind of oven or mill are not. The Tana
must be referring to a moveable oven and a hand-mill - because if either of
them were attached to the ground, the other members of the Chatzer would
obviously object, and they would be subject to a Chazakah.
(b) In his list that are, the Tana incorporates - building a wall of ten
Tefachim for any of the above.
(c) Rearing chickens and placing manure in the Chatzer also belong in the
first list. What belongs in the second list that is connected with ...
1. ... rearing chickens is - rearing them in the house.
(d) The purpose of the pit or wall is - to prevent the wind from scattering
2. ... placing manure in the Chatzer is - digging a pit three Tefachim deep
for it, or building a wall of three Tefachim.
(a) The Chazakah we are concerned with here is - Chezkas Shalosh Shanim.
(b) According to Rabeinu Chananel, the opening phrase of our Mishnah 'Eilu
Devarim she'Yesh Lahen Chazakah' pertains to the cases listed in the earlier
Mishnah in the Perek ('Na'al, Gadar u'Paratz) - which refer to a regular
(c) We reject Rabeinu Chananel's interpretation of our Mishnah on the
grounds that - a. it serves no purpose, and is therefore superfluous and b.
the Tana will continue listing cases where there is a Chazakah until the end
of the Perek (so why make such a statement at this stage).
(a) We ask why the difference between the Reisha of the Mishnah and the
Seifa, why with a Mechitzah, there is a Chazakah, and without one, there is
not. However, this Kashya is based on the mistaken premise - that the Tana
is talking about an outsider who brings his animal into the Chatzer without
permission from the residents. Consequently, it is obvious that the
residents would not permit such a thing, thereby enabling the Machzik to
establish a Chazakah.
(b) Ula's initial answer is - based on his principle that whatever acquires
by Nechsei ha'Ger (such as building one of the above walls [which require
digging]) establishes a Chazakah, and whatever does not (such as rearing
one's animals on his land), does not establish a Chazakah either. Both of
these, he assumes, are dependent upon the effectiveness of the Kinyan.
(c) We could have refuted this answer from the Seifa - from the case of
someone who rears chickens in the house, establishes a Chazakah, even though
he does not acquire by Nechsei ha'Ger.
(d) Rav Sheishes however, presents a more basic rejection of Ula's
principle. For example ...
1. ... plowing acquires by Nechsei ha'Ger, though it does not establish a
Chazakah, whereas ...
2. ... eating the fruit establishes a Chazakah, yet it does not acquire by
(a) To resolve the discrepancy between the Reisha of our Mishnah and the
Seifa, Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah establishes the Mishnah when the
one who began to rear animals ... in the Chatzer was one of the partners
who owned the Chatzer. This reconciles the Reisha and the Seifa - inasmuch
as partners, who might not be fussy about rearing animals in the Chatzer
(and similar casual uses), are fussy about building a wall.
(b) The Mishnah in Nedarim says that partners who had declared a Neder
forbidding Hana'ah on each other - are forbidden to enter their shared
(c) ... proving that they are particular about the casual use of their joint
Chatzer. Otherwise, it would be as if each one had declared his section of
the Chatzer Hefker, and partners would be permitted to enter, even if they
were Mudar Hana'ah.
(d) So Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah amends the previous answer,
restricting our Mishnah to a wood-store behind the house - which is not
subject to Chazakah because, even though partners tend to be particular
about using their joint Chatzer, they are not however, particular about
using the common wood-store at the back of the house.
(a) Rav Papa establishes both Mishnahs by the Chatzer, only he holds that
some people tend to be particular, and others not, creating a Safek.
Consequently, he goes le'Kula by Mamon (to permit a partner to rear his
animals in the Chatzer, as a result of which he cannot later establish a
Chazakah); and le'Chumra by Isur (Nedarim [forbidding the partners to enter
(b) Assuming that the Machzik is forbidden to rear his animals in the
Chatzer (because of Safek Gezel), we go le'Kula on behalf of his partner, to
prevent the Machzik from making a Chazakah (see Rabeinu Gershom) - because
the partner can claim to be from those who are not fussy, unless the Machzik
can prove otherwise.
(a) According to Ravina, partners tend not to be particular about entering
the Chatzer (and using it casually, like we said at first), and the reason
that the Mishnah in Nedarim is strict is because the author is Rebbi
Eliezer, who holds that 'even foregoing is prohibited by a Mudar Hana'ah'
(as we shall now explain).
(b) If a storekeeper from whom Reuven is Mudar Hana'ah, sends the latter a
nut or two extra, Rebbi Eliezer forbids him to accept it - because he
forbids all Hana'ah, even Hana'ah that comes as a result of what the Mudar
himself did for the Madir (such as here, where he gave him nuts [just as he
would give anyone else who purchased something from him]).
(c) The Rabbanan however, say - that, seeing as he only gave him extra nuts
because he purchased something from him, it does not fall under the aegis of
(a) The only thing, according to Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Bena'ah, which
one partner cannot prevent the other from doing in the Chatzer is - allowing
his wife to wash the laundry there, because if she were to wash by the river
(as was otherwise customary), she would inevitably uncover her legs as she
stood in the water, washing, creating a temptation that passing men might
not be able to resist.
(b) The Pasuk "ve'Otzem Einav me'Re'os be'Ra" refers - to a man who shuts
his eyes as he walks past women who are washing their clothes in the river.
(c) This cannot apply to a case where the person concerned ...
1. ... could travel by another route - because then not only is he
praiseworthy for closing his eyes as he passes, but he is a Rasha for
choosing that route, placing himself in a situation of temptation.
(d) We therefore establish the Pasuk - when in fact, he had no alternative
route, yet it is praiseworthy for him to close his eyes as he walks past
2. ... had no alternative route (according to our current understanding) -
because then, since he is an O'nes, why should he be obligated to close his
(a) When Rebbi Yochanan asked him to describe a Talmid-Chacham's ...
1. ... undershirt, he replied - one that reaches down to his feet, so that
none of his body is revealed (see Agados Maharsha).
(b) He also told him that the Talmid-Chacham's table was two-thirds 'Gedil'
and one third uncovered. The part that was covered with a cloth was - the
inside (where the participants ate), and they would use it to wipe their
mouths during the course of the meal, and to place the bread on it.
2. ... cloak, he replied - one that reaches down to within a Tefach of his
undershirt (and if it extends to the same length, all the better).
(c) They referred to the tablecloth as 'Gedil' - because it was woven.
(d) On the uncovered part of the table - they would place the pots of food
and the cups, so that they should not dirty the table-cloth.
(a) The ring was used - to suspend the table on some sort of peg from the
wall when not in use.
(b) Initially, we reconcile Rebbi Bena'ah, who places the ring on the
outside of the table, with the Beraisa, which places it on the inside, by
establishing his statement when there is a child sitting at table with his
father - where we are afraid that the child will play with the ring and move
the table during the course of the meal.
(a) Alternatively, both opinions speak when there is no child, but a waiter
serving. This time - it is the Tana who speaks when there is a waiter. To
prevent knocking the table as he serves, we move the table so that the ring
is on the inside.
One can expect to find underneath the bed of ...
(b) We conclude that both opinions might even be speaking when there is a
servant. Rebbi Bena'ah nevertheless place the ring on the outside. He is not
afraid that the servant might upset the table by knocking into the ring,
because he is speaking about a day meal, where the servant can see what he
is doing, and can take care not to knock the table during the meal. Whereas
the Tana is speaking about a night-meal, where we are afraid that he will
knock the ring, because he cannot see it.
(c) According to ...
1. ... the earlier answer, we display more concern about the waiter knocking
the table than the other participants - because he is the one to be walking
about during the meal.
(d) In contrast, the table of an Am ha'Aretz - has fire (heating facilities)
in the outside (or in the middle, if the table is a round one) and the pots
on the inside.
2. ... the latter answer, we display more concern about the other
participants knocking the table than the waiter - because they have less
room than he does.
1. ... a Talmid-Chacham - sandals in the summer (which he currently wears),
and shoes in the winter.
2. ... an Am ha'Aretz - just about anything ('ke'Otzar B'lus', meaning a
mixed storehouse, containing food and vessels).