(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 78

BAVA BASRA 78 & 79 - dedicated by an admirer of the work of the Dafyomi Advancement Forum, l'Iluy Nishmas Mrs. Gisela (Golda bas Reb Chaim Yitzchak Ozer) and Reb Yisroel Shimon (ben Reb Shlomo) Turkel, A"H.



(a) According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, the accessories of a donkey (which will be explained in the Sugya) are not automatically sold together with the donkey. Nachum ha'Madi rules - that they are.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah makes a compromise. According to him, if Shimon, pointing to Reuven's donkey, says 'Sell me ...

1. ... this donkey of yours (Chamorcha Zeh)' he means - to purchase the donkey as is (together with the accessories).
2. ... this donkey, assuming it is yours (Chamorcha Hu)', he means - to purchase the donkey only.
(c) The basis for this distinction lies in the fact - that in the former case, Shimon knows for certain that the donkey belongs to Reuven, whereas in the latter, he is in doubt (as Rava will explain later in the Sugya).
(a) Ula establishes the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Nachum ha'Madi by 'Sak, Diskaya and Kumni'. A Diskaya is a type of sack (see Rabeinu Gershom). Rav Papa bar Shmuel translate 'Kumni' as - a sort of saddle specially manufactured for women.

(b) In the case of a saddle, a saddle-cloth, or the strap or breast strap that tie them in place, the Tana'im would agree - that they are all included in the sale ...

(c) ... because most donkeys are designated for riding and not for transporting loads.

(d) The Din of Kumni differs from a regular saddle - because it is generally men who ride donkeys. Consequently, as far as the incidence of use is concerned, to purchase a donkey for women to ride on is comparable to purchasing one for transportation.

(a) The Beraisa incorporates the saddle and the saddle-cloth ... (but not the sacks and the Kumni) in the sale of the donkey, in a case where the owner specifically stated 'the donkey and its accessories' but not the sacks and the Kumni - unless the owner specifically stated 'Hi ve'Chol Mah she'Alehah', in which case they are all included.

(b) We can extrapolate from there - that if he had not specifically stated 'the donkey and its accessories', the purchaser would not even acquire the saddle ... (a Kashya on Ula, who said that both Tana'im agree that he would).

(c) We reconcile the Beraisa with Ula however - by establishing the Halachah in the Reisha of the Beraisa even where he did not state 'the donkey and its accessories', and the Tana only referred to where h did state it to teach us that even then, the purchaser does not acquire the sacks and the Kumni.

(a) We ask whether the Tana Kama and Nachum ha'Madi argue when the donkey is actually 'wearing' the accessories at the time of the sale. If it was not - even Nachum ha'Madi would agree that the purchaser would not acquire them.

(b) Alternatively - they argue when the donkey is not wearing the accessories, but if it was, even the Rabbanan will agree that he would acquire them.

(c) We learned in a Beraisa 'u'vi'Zeman she'Amar Lo Hu ve'Chol Mah she'Alav Harei Kulan Mechurin'. Initially we think this proves - that our Mishnah must be speaking when the animal is wearing the accessories, and the author of the Beraisa is the Rabbanan.

(d) However, we reconcile it even if we establish the Machlokes when the donkey is not wearing the accessories - and what the Tana really meant to write was 'u'vi'Zeman she'Amar Lo Hu ve'Chol Mah *she'Ra'uy* Lih'yos Alav, Harei Kulan Mechurin', to concur with the opinion of the Rabbanan.

(a) We then attempt to resolve the She'eilah by quoting Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah ('Pe'amim Mechurin, Pe'amim Einan Mechurin ... '), who speaks specifically when the donkey is actually wearing the accessories (and so, we assume, do the Tana Kama and Nachum ha'Madi who precede him).

(b) We refute that proof however - by establishing the other Tana'im, when the donkey is not wearing the accessories.

(c) In that case, we will correlate Rebbi Yehudah with the Rabbanan - with reference to what we can infer from their Machlokes (that both agree that they are sold), and he comes to teach us that even then, there are times when the accessories are not sold.




(a) Rebbi Avahu reconciled the Beraisa, which rules 'Machar es ha'Karon, Machar es ha'Perados', with our Mishnah, which rules 'Lo Machar es ha'Perados' - by establishing the Beraisa when the mules are hitched to the cart, and the Mishnah, when they are not.

(b) We try to resolve our current She'eilah from there - inasmuch as we would expect the Seifa 'ha'Mocher es ha'Chamor ... ' (our case) to speak likewise when the donkey is not wearing the accessories.

(c) We query this proof however, from the Reisha (the Mishnah before) 'Machar es ha'Sefinah ... Aval Lo Machar es ha'Avadim ve'es *ha'Antiki'*, which Rav Papa interpreted to mean the goods that the ship is transporting.

(d) We therefore query the proof from 'Machar es ha'Karon ... ' - by asking why we compare 'Machar es ha'Chamor' to 'Machar es ha'Karon' (where the mule is not hitched to the wagon), and not to 'ha'Mocher es ha'Sefinah' (where the goods *are* loaded)?

(e) So we are forced to conclude - that each case is independent in this regard, and we cannot learn one from the other.

(a) Abaye says - that Rebbi Eliezer, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, Rebbi Meir, Rebbi Nasan, Sumchus and Nachum ha'Madi all hold that in one way or another, the accessories of a main object are automatically sold together with the main object.

(b) We will find the respective Mishnahs of Rebbi Eliezer ('ha'Mocher es Beis ha'Bad, Machar es ha'Koreh') and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel ('ha'Mocher es ha'Ir, Machar es ha'Santer') in - 'ha'Mocher es ha'Bayis.

(c) Rebbi Meir's ruling ('Machar es ha'Kerem, Machar Tashmishei Kerem') differs technically from the other Tana'im - inasmuch as it is a Beraisa, whereas all the others are Mishnos.

(d) Rebbi Nasan and Sumchus (Bitzis and Dugis) and Nachum ha'Madi (in the current Mishnah), all appear in Mishnos in this Perek, Mishnos that we have already learned.

(a) Abaye does not mean to say that all the above Tana'im agree with each other - since that is not the case.

(b) Abaye said 'Kulhu Sevira Lehu'. Had the Tana'im all been fully of one accord, he would have said - ' ... Amru Davar Echad'.

(c) The only Tana of the above Tana'im to agree with the rulings of all the others is - Rebbi Meir.

(a) The distinction our Mishnah makes between the sale of a donkey and the sale of a cow with regard to their young is - that whereas in case of the former, its baby (a Si'ach) is sold together with it, in the case of the latter, it is not.

(b) What the sale of a trash-heap, a water-pit, a bee-hive and a dove-cot have in common is the fact - that the Tana declared their respective contents sold together with them.

(c) The Tana is referring to a trash-heap - which is three Tefachim deep or tall, and where the owner tends to place the manure of his animals.

(d) The reasoning behind this ruling is that the contents of each of the above is Tafel (secondary) to them, and will not therefore apply in the reverse case.

(a) If the owner of the animal specifically stated that he was selling ...
1. ... the animal with its young one - it is obvious that both respective babies would be included in the sale.
2. ... the animal (period) - it is obvious that neither would.
(b) Consequently, our Mishnah (which draws a distinction between a donkey and a cow) must speak - when he said 'Chamor Menikah or 'Parah Menikah, Ani Mocher Lach'.

(c) The reason for the difference, in this context, lies is the respective meanings of 'Chamor Menikah' and 'Parah Menikah', as Rav Papa explains.

1. Parah Menikah means - a cow that has milk (since he did not mention the baby).
2. Chamor Menikah can only mean - a feeding donkey (incorporating its baby), seeing as donkey's milk is forbidden.
(d) A young donkey is called 'Si'ach' (which means quiet speech) - because it docilely follows its master's instructions (as opposed to an older one, which only responds to a stick).
(a) Rav Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan explains the Pasuk "Al-kein Yomru ha'Moshlim ... ". He interpreted "Al-kein Yomru ha'Moshlim Bo'u Cheshbon" to be an invitation to the "Moshlim" - the Tzadikim who control their Yetzer-ha'Ra to come and make a reckoning ...

(b) ... of the (temporary) losses incurred by a Mitzvah against the (permanent) gains, and of the (temporary) gains to be won by sinning against the (permanent) losses.

(c) By 'Cheshbono shel Olam', he meant - that this was a major reckoning that encompasses the world (of gigantic proportions). (d) He interpreted ...

1. ... "Tibaneh ve'Sikonen" to mean - that if they respond to the Torah's call, they will be built in this world and established in the next.
2. ... "Ir Sichon. Ki Eish Yatz'ah' me'Cheshbon" - that on the other hand if, like donkeys, they go after (the) sweet talk (of the Yetzer-ha'Ra), then a fire will go out from those who do make a reckoning and consume those who don't (as we learned above, that one person will be burned by the other's Chupah).
3. ... "ve'Lehavah mi'Kiryas Sichon" to continue - that the flame will emanate from the town of the Tzadikim who are compared to trees (as we find often in T'nach).
(a) By "Achlah Or Mo'av" - he was referring to those who follow their Yetzer-ha'Ra like the donkey that goes after sweet talk, who as we just explained, will be consumed by the flames that emanate from the Tzadikim.

(b) "Ba'alei Bamos Arnon" refers to conceited people, about whom Resh Lakish said - they are destined to fall into Gehinom (where they too, will get burned.

(c) And Rebbi Yonasan explains the continuation of the Pasuk ...

1. ... "va'Niram, Avad Cheshbon" to mean - that the Rasha claims 'Ein Ram' (there is no G-d [ke'va'Yachol]), and no-one will take him to task for his misdeeds.
2. ... "ad Divon" - 'ad she'Yavo Din' (until the final reckoning arrives).
3. ... "va'Nashim ad Nofach" - 'ad she'Tavo Eish she'Einah Tzerichah Nifu'ach' (until the fire comes that does not need to be fanned [i.e. the fire of Gehinom]).
(d) "ad Meidva" might mean 'until it hurts', and it might mean - 'ad de'Avid Mai de'Ba'i (until He [Hashem] gives him what he deserves [because in this world they have it good, so as to drive them out of the World to Come]).
13) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, fire will consume someone who separates from Torah-study. Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan says - that he will fall into Gehinom.

Next daf


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