(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 84

BAVA BASRA 82-85 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.



(a) We refer to a case where Reuven sells Shimon something worth ...
1. ... five Dinrim for six as - 'Sh'tus Ma'os'.
2. ... six Dinrim for five as - 'Sh'tus Mekach'.
(b) In fact, 'Sh'tus Ma'os' means - a fifth more (or less) than the price, whereas 'Sh'tus Mekach' means - a sixth less (or more) than the price.

(c) The Seifa of our Mishnah rules that when Reuven sold Shimon an article worth six Dinrim for five, Reuven is permitted to retract. In fact - the Tana might just as well have presented the case where he sold him one worth seven, for six, because, as we just learned, there is no difference between Sh'tus Ma'os and Sh'tus Mekach.

(d) This opinion is - not unanimous. It is the opinion of Rav Chisda in our Sugya, who holds like Shmuel in Perek ha'Zahav.

(a) Rav Huna rules that in a case where Reuven sells Shimon something worth five Dinrim for six, and then the price rises to eight, it is Shimon who has the right to retract - because he is the one to have been cheated initially; and not Reuven, since it is only because he overcharged Shimon in the first place that the sale is not already concluded, so to allow him to then retract after the price rises, would be akin to rewarding the sinner.

(b) The Chidush would be exactly the same if the price rose to seven Dinrim (instead of eight), because Reuven would still be overcharged.

(c) 've'Tana Tuna' means - and we have a proof from our Mishnah' ('Tuna' is equivalent to 'Tana Didan').

(d) His proof from our Mishnah 'Yafos ve'Nimtze'u Ra'os, Loke'ach Yachol Lachzor Bo ve'Lo Mocher' is - from the fact that, if we did not establish the Mishnah in a case when the price of wheat went up, there would be no Chidush (since it is obvious that only the purchaser can retract, seeing as he is the one who was cheated).

(a) In a case where he sells him something worth six Dinrim for five, and the price drops to three, Rav Huna rules - that only the seller can retract, and not the purchaser (based on the same argument as the previous case).

(b) And his proof is from the Seifa of our Mishnah - 'Ra'os ve'Nimtze'u Yafos, Mocher Yachol Lachzor Bo, ve'Lo Loke'ach' (based on the same logic as the previous proof from the Reisha).

(c) Even though both rulings seem to be contained in our Mishnah, we nevertheless need Rav Chisda to teach them - because we might otherwise have thought that in Rav Chisda's case both parties are permitted to retract (seeing as at the end of the day, both of them are being overcharged). (d) And our Mishnah, which is speaking when the price did not rise, would then be teaching us ...

1. ... in the Reisha (where the wheat turned out to be inferior [according to our text 'Ha Asa le'Ashme'inan de'Loke'ach Yachol Lachzor Bo']) - that the purchaser can retract (and that we do not say that just as the purchaser always claims that the article is inferior, so too, does the seller claim that it is superior, and that consequently, even though the seller promised him superior wheat, he anticipated that it would be inferior (in which case, it ought not to be considered Ona'ah [M'lo ha'Ro'im]).
2. ... in the Seifa (where the wheat turned out to be superior) that the seller can retract (and that we do not say that the purchaser always claims that the article is inferior, but that really, the seller intended to give him superior wheat [in which case, it is not considered Ona'ah]).
(a) Rav Papa extrapolates from our Mishnah 'Shechamtis ve'Nimtzas Levanah' that the sun is red - since there are only two known color-species of wheat, white and red.

(b) Otherwise, we would have thought that 'Shechamtis' means - black.

(c) We prove that the sun is really red - from the fact that that is how we see it in the mornings and evenings.

(d) It appears white to us during the day - only because its brightness distorts the color in our eyes.

(a) We cite a Beraisa in connection with Tzara'as "u'Mar'eihu Amok min ha'Or", 'ke'Mar'eh Chamah min ha'Tzeil'. The Tana means - that the Tzara'as appears deeper than the skin, like the sun appears deeper than the shade.

(b) We reconcile Rav Papa with the Beraisa, bearing in mind that Tzara'as is white and not red - by restricting the comparison of Tzara'as to the sun to the corollary between sun and shade (but not to its color).

(c) If, as we believed, when we asked on Rav Papa from the Beraisa, the sun is really white, we would then ascribe the fact that it is red in the mornings and evenings - to the fact that it passes the rose-garden in Gan Eden (which is in the east) in the morning, and the entrance to Gehinom (which is in the west) in the evening.

(d) 'Ika de'Amri Ipcha' means - that according to others, the sun is appears red in the morning, because its rays shine westwards where it catches a reflection of Gehinom; whereas in the evening it turns red because its rays shine eastwards, catching the reflection of the rose-garden in Gan Eden.




(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Yayin ve'Nimtza Chometz, Sheneihen Yecholin Lachzor Bahen'. We attempt to establish the author as Rebbi, because he says in a Beraisa - that 'Yayin ve'Nimtza Chometz' is considered two species (and if one takes Ma'asros from one on the other, the Ma'asros are invalid).

(b) The Tana Kama - considers them one species.

(c) To establish our Mishnah even like the Rabbanan, we cite Rebbi Ila'a, who (after inferring from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Sis'u Alav Chet ba'Harimchem es Chelbo Mimenu" that if one takes from the bad on the good, one has performed a sin) - extrapolates that for a sin to have been performed (for separating from bad wine (vinegar) on good wine, the Ma'aser must be valid (see Ritva, who explains why we need to come on to Rebbi Ilai at all), which means that they are considered the same species.

(d) What makes wine and vinegar two species in the realm of buying and selling is - the fact that some people prefer wine and others, vinegar (unlike inferior and superior wheat, which are definitely one and the same species, as regards buying and selling).

(a) Our Mishnah validates a Meshichah on 'fruit' (which incorporated grain) even though it has not yet been measured - because measuring is merely a formality, and is not a Kinyan.

(b) The Meshichah must take place - either in a Simta or in a Chatzer that is jointly owned by the seller and the purchaser.

(c) For the Kinyan to be effective, Pisuk Damim must already have taken place. This constitutes determining the price of the fruit (either by following the standard price, or by fixing a price of their own ['e.g. so much per Eifah'].

(d) Prior Pisuk Damim is crucial to the Kinyan - because without it, the parties will end up arguing over the price, and the purchaser will refuse to pay the price demanded by the seller.

(a) If, for whatever reason, Meshichah is hard for him to do - the Tana advises a smart purchaser who wants to acquire fruit that is lying in the owner's domain - to rent the location of the fruit (in which case he will acquire the fruit simultaneously).

(b) When the Tana requires the purchaser of flax to 'move it from one place to another, he means - that he is obligated to pick it up and acquire it with Hagbahah, because Chazal only instituted Meshichah by things that are too heavy to acquire with Hagbahah (such as the Reisha of our Mishnah, which is speaking about large, heavy bundles).

(c) He then states - that one acquires flax that is still attached to the ground by detaching some of it (though this will be explained later in the Sugya).

(d) 'Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan 'Madad ve'Hini'ach al-Gabei Simta, Kanah'. A 'Simta' is - a private path (or a small area at the side of the road designated for people to put down their loads and rest a while).

(e) The reason for this ruling is - because a Simta is considered like the purchaser's own domain in this regard.

(a) When Rebbi Zeira suggested that maybe Rebbi Yochanan was referring specifically to when the seller poured the fruit into a receptacle belonging to the purchaser, Rebbi Asi retorted - that Rebbi Zeira was talking like a novice, because then Rebbi Yochanan would not have been teaching contained any Chidush.

(b) According to Rebbi Zeira's contention - the purchaser would not acquire the fruit, if the seller poured it ...

1. ... on to the floor of the Simta.
2. ... into a receptacle belonging to the purchaser that was lying in the Reshus ha'Rabim?
(c) We try to prove from the statement of Rebbi Yanai Amar Rebbi 'Chatzar ha'Shutfin Konin Zeh mi'Zeh' that Rebbi Zeira must have conceded that Rebbi Asi was right - by presuming that he speaks when the owner poured the fruit on to the floor of the Chatzer.

(d) The connection between this ruling and the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan currently under discussion is - that Rebbi Yanai happened to be the latter's Rebbe (and we assume that he follows his opinion).

(a) We refute the proof from Rebbi Yanai, by establishing his statement when the owner poured it into the purchaser's receptacle (and not on the floor of the Chatzer). And we prove this from a statement of Rebbi Ya'akov Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who ruled - that if a seller measured out fruit for the purchaser and placed it in a Simta (which must now mean on to the floor of the Simta) - the purchaser does not acquire it.

(b) This actually clashes with Rebbi Asi's opinion - who must have erred in his understanding of Rebbi Yochanan.

(c) We ask another Kashya on Rebbi Asi from our Mishnah 'Madad ve'Lo Mashach, which presumes that this took place in a Simta. This cannot be speaking when the owner poured the fruit into the purchaser's receptacle - because then the Kashya would not be confined to Rebbi Asi, but would extend to all the Amora'im in the Sugya, including Rebbi Yanai Rebbi Ya'akov and Rebbi Yochanan.

(d) Rebbi Asi reconciles the Mishnah with his own opinion by establishing it (not in a Simta but) - in a Reshus ha'Rabim (where even the vessels belonging to the purchaser do not acquire).

(a) We could then extrapolate from the Reisha 'Mashach ve'Lo Madad Kanah' - that Meshichah acquires in the Reshus-ha'Rabim.

(b) The problem with this is from a series of rulings by Abaye and Rava cited earlier in the Perek. According to them ...

1. ... one acquires - a ship and a large species of animal with Mesirah.
2. ... the major distinction between Mesirah and Meshichah (location-wise) is - that whereas Mesirah acquires even in the Reshus ha'Rabim or in a domain that belongs to neither of the parties, Meshichah only acquires in a Simta or in a domain that belongs to both of them.
(c) Consequently, Abaye and Rava will establish ...
1. ... the Reisha of our Mishnah - when the purchaser pulled the fruit from the Reshus ha'Rabim into his own domain.
2. ... the Seifa 'Im Hayah Pike'ach, Socher es Mekomo' - by amending it to read 've'Im bi'Reshus Ba'alim Hi, Im Hayah Pike'ach, Socher es Mekomo'.
Next daf


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