(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 92

BAVA BASRA 91-95 - 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.


***** Perek ha'Mocher Peiros *****


(a) If Shimon plants the fruit that Reuven sold him and it failed to grow, the Tana Kama exempts Reuven from responsibility. At the time of the sale - Reuven did not stipulate anything.

(b) The basis of this ruling is - that there are always two reasons why a person might sell fruit; either for eating or for planting, in which case the seller is entitled to claim that he sold it for eating.

(c) And this Halachah - extends to flax, even though most people sell flax to plant, because (as Shmuel will teach us shortly), we do not follow the majority in order to extract money from the defendant ('ha'Motzi me'Chavero overrides the Din of Rov)

(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel precludes garden seeds from this ruling - since they are not fit to eat, in which case one only buys them to plant, and it is obviously a false sale.

(b) This is even more obvious than one where Reuven sells Shimon wine and it turns out to be beer (where the sale is also invalid) - because here the seeds are not fit to eat at all, whereas there, some people would want to purchase vinegar and not wine.

(c) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is not coming to argue with the Tana Kama, but to explain his opinion - in which case there is no Tana who disagrees with him.

(d) In spite of the fact that there is nothing he can do with the seeds other than burn them, Shimon is not obligated to pay Reuven the price of firewood - because, it would seem, garden seeds do not make very good fuel.

(a) According to Rav, if Reuven sells Shimon an ox which turns out to be a goring ox, the sale is invalid - because that is not what he bought (much in the same way as someone who purchases wine that turned out to be vinegar).

(b) Shmuel claims - that the seller can say that he sold it to Shecht and eat.

(c) Even Sumchus, who rules Cholkin (in Bava Kama, in the case where an ox gored a cow, and we find a stillborn calf beside the dead cow), will concede here that the sale is valid - since whereas there, we are in doubt as to when the calf was born, here all the facts are known, in which case we go after the one with the strongest argument (the seller in this case, because, since we do not follow the majority, the onus lay on the purchaser to stipulate that he was buying the animal for plowing and not for eating.

(d) According to Shmuel, this is different than 'Yayin ve'Nimtza Chometz', where the sale is invalid - because there, the purchaser specifically said that he wants wine, whereas here he did not stipulate.

(a) In other cases it would help to ascertain whether Reuven usually sells for eating or for plowing (whether he is basically a butcher or a farmer) - but we are speaking in a case where he is known to be a bit of both, who sometimes sells for the one, and sometimes for the other.

(b) The price might indicate what he sold it for - because the price of an animal that is for plowing is generally much higher than one that is for eating.

(c) In the previous Perek, in the case where Reuven sold a plow, and the price indicates that the ox was included in the sale - the Rabbanan do not consider the price as an indication.

(d) Here however, they will they concede that it is - because in addition to the fact that the Shimon paid a high price, he is probably from the majority of people who purchase an ox for plowing (and, as we concluded, Reuven sells for plowing too); whereas there, having established the case where some people call an ox an ox, and not a plow, the price cannot determine that the purchaser is from the other group (and he should have stipulated that himself).

(a) We do not look at the price in our case to determine whether Shimon bought the ox for eating or for plowing - because we are speaking when the price of meat jumped dramatically, so that there is no difference between the price of an ox for plowing and an ox for Shechting.

(b) Despite the fact that, as we just explained, the purchaser received what he paid for, he might claim that the sale is invalid and that he wants his money back - to spare him the trouble of having to sell the meat.

(a) Rav and Shmuel must be speaking when Reuven actually has money with which to pay - because otherwise he could anyway force Shimon to accept the animal, as we learned in Bava Kama (the debtor can pay with any goods he wishes, and is not obligated to sell his Metaltelin in order to pay cash).

(b) We can extrapolate from here Rav Huna's D'rashah "Yashiv", 'le'Rabos Shaveh Kesef ke'Kesef' (permitting the debtor to pay with whatever he wishes [the source of the previous D'rashah]) only applies when he does not have cash with which to pay, but when he does, he is obligated to pay cash.

(c) We cannot confine this extrapolation to the actual money that Shimon paid Reuven (whereas other money that Reuven had would not preclude him from the right to pay Metaltelin) - because (bearing in mind that money is to spend) there is no S'vara to differentiate between the money that he received and other money.

(d) The Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel now is - whether we go after the majority (of those who sell their animals for plowing [Rav]), or not (Shmuel [because, in his opinion, we only follow the majority in matters of Isur, but not of Mamon]).



7) We just concluded that Rav and Shmuel argue over whether a Rov can extract money from the defendant. Even Shmuel agrees however, that a Rov determines in matters of Isur, such as the case of nine shops - where someone purchased meat and did not remember from which butchery he bought it. Assuming there that nine of those butcheries sold Kasher meat and one of them non-Kasher meat, the meat is Kasher.


(a) The Mishnah in Kesuvos rules - that if a widow or a divorcee claims that she was a Besulah when she married (and is therefore entitled to a Kesuvah of two hundred Zuz), whereas the husband claims that she was a widow (who only receives a hundred) - she claims two hundred Zuz, but only if witnesses testify that she married in the manner that Besulos do.

(b) This implies however - that without witnesses, she is only entitled to a Manah, despite the fact most women marry as Besulos (a Kashya on Rav).

(c) Initially, we answer that most women marry as Besulos and *all Besulos have a Kol* that they did, and that consequently, since the woman under discussion did not have a Kol, unless she has witnesses, she only receives a hundred Zuz (since the fact that there is no Kol outweighs the Rov). We refute this answer however, on the grounds - that if that were so, why would we even believe witnesses, who must be false, since there was no Kol.

(d) So we amend the previous answer to read (not all Besulos have a Kol that they did, but) - that *most Besulos have a Kol* that they did (the lack of which negates the Rov, but not witnesses).

(a) The Beraisa rules that if Reuven sold Shimon an Eved who turned out to be ...
1. ... a Ganav or a kidnapper - the sale is valid.
2. ... an armed robber or a murderer who is wanted by the government - the sale is not valid.
(b) According to Shmuel (who does *not go after the majority* in money-matters) the sale ought to be invalid in the Reisha too - because someone who pays money for an Eved expects a healthy one, not a sick one (in body or in mind).

(c) The reason that the sale is valid, is (not because *the majority of Avadim* are Ganavim and kidnappers, and we go after the majority, but) - because *all Avadim are Ganavim and kidnappers*.

Next daf


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