(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 100



(a) The problem with the Din in our Mishnah 'Mah she'Nasan Nasan, ve'she'Lo Lo Higi'o' (according to all the above explanations) is - why he cannot demand that they take back their path and return his (because it is a false sale).

(b) We answer this Kashya by quoting Rebbi Yehudah Amar Rebbi Eliezer, who says - that once the public have picked a path, it becomes theirs.

(c) Not that the public are allowed to steal, but we are speaking, says Rav Gidal Amar Rav - when they already had a path, but somehow it got lost (its exact location became forgotten).

(a) This Din differs from the equivalent case where Reuven owned a path going through Shimon's field but lost it - inasmuch as the public's choice of a path is conclusive, whereas Reuven would have to obtain permission either from Shimon or from the Beis-Din before obtaining another one.

(b) The basis for this distinction is - the fact that one cannot take a public to a Din-Torah, giving them the virtual power of a Beis-Din in this matter.

(c) This explains why the public take back their path. The reason that the owner does not receive his is - in the form of penalty for giving the public a crooked path (according to the various interpretations).

(d) Rabah bar Rav Huna Amar Rav, who declares that the Halachah is not like Rebbi Eliezer - disagrees with Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's interpretation of Rebbi Eliezer. According to him, Rebbi Eliezer is not speaking about a case when the public lost a path in that field (see Maharsha).

(a) The assumption that if Rebbi Eliezer is speaking when the public lost a path in the field, it must be Halachah is based on the in Kesuvos, where Admon and the Chachamim argue over a case where Reuven claims from Shimon the path that he lost through his field, when the latter, who surrounds him on all four sides, had purchased his four fields from four people. If Reuven was claiming his lost path through Shimon's single field - even the Rabbanan would concede that Shimon is obligated to give him one.

(b) Seeing as, according to Rabah bar Rav Huna Amar Rav, Rebbi Eliezer is not speaking when the public lost a path in the owners field, we establish the basis of Rebbi Eliezer's ruling on a statement of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, who rules that one is forbidden to spoil a piece of field that the public made theirs (even without the consent of the owner).

(a) The public acquired that piece of land, according to Rebbi Eliezer - by walking along its length and breadth.

(b) This is based on a Beraisa, where Rebbi Eliezer specifically says so. The Rabbanan - require a Kinyan Chazakah in order to acquire the land.

(c) We did indeed learn in Bava Kama that treading on the borders of a field is considered a Chazakah. However, this refers (not to walking round the borders, but) - to trampling round the borders that one raised, with the intention of hardening the earth.

(d) Rebbi Eliezer derives his opinion from the Pasuk in Lech-Lecha, where Hashem told Avraham "Kum His'halech ba'Aretz le'Orkah u'le'Rochbah". The Rabbanan counter his proof however - because in their opinion, Hashem's instructions to Avraham were not for the purpose of acquiring the land, but (based on Hashem's love for him) was symbolical (that his children should find it easy to capture, that they should be considered heirs and not robbers in the eyes of the world and the Satan).

(a) According to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, the Chachamim concede to Rebbi Eliezer - that one can acquire a path that runs through a vineyard with walking alone (because that is its sole function, see Tosfos DH 'bi'Shevil').

(b) Rav Yitzchak bar Ami would instruct someone selling a path that ran through a vineyard - to make sure that it was sufficiently wide for the purchaser to carry a bundle of branches on his shoulders backwards and forwards without being hindered by the walls.

(c) Rabeinu Chananel establish Rav Yitzchak bar Ami - with regard to Reuven who lost a path in Shimon's field, and which the latter was now replacing.

(a) We qualify Rav Yitzchak bar Ami's ruling - by confining it to where there is a wall on either side of the path. Otherwise, what difference would the width of the path make?

(b) The logic to learn vice-versa would be - that if the path had walls on either side, then the width of the path would be preset (and the sale cut and dry).

(c) We decline to accept that explanation however - because if the seller sold a path S'tam, why should the fact that the path had walls, absolve him from the obligation of providing the purchaser with a proper path that was of use to him (see also Tosfos DH 've'Lo')?




(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Derech ha'Yachid Arba Amos. Rav Huna however, rules like Acherim in a Beraisa. The minimum width that Acherim ascribes to a private path is - the width that is required for a donkey to travel the path carrying a load.

(b) We reconcile Rav Huna with the Daynei Golah, who give the Shiur as two and a half Gemadim - two and a half Amos, though according to some opinions, are small-size Amos.

(c) The Daynei Golah are - Shmuel and Karna, and the text 'Tanu Daynei Golah' (in spite of the fact that they are Amora'im) simply means - that they are quoting a Beraisa.

(d) Another Beraisa defines the dimensions of the various 'Derachim'. The Tana reiterates the Shiurim of Derech ha'Rabim and Derech ha'Yachid (as defined in our Mishnah), adding that of Derech me'Ir le'Ir (eight Amos) and Derech Arei Miklat. Based on the Pasuk "Tachin Lecha ha'Derech" (which he Darshens "Derech" 'ha'Derech'), the width of Derech Arei Miklat is - thirty-two Amos.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Derech ha'Kever Ein Lo Shi'ur' - because it is not Kavod ha'Meis to turn away some of those accompanying it for lack of space.

(b) The Beraisa discusses someone who sells 'Kivro, Derech Kivro, Makom Ma'amado, u'Veis Hespedo'.

1. ... 'Kivro' means - a cave (a family tomb), which will be described shortly.
2. ... 'Makom Ma'amado' is - the place where they would stop and sit and stand on the way back from the burial a number of times, as we shall soon see.
(c) The Tana rules in such a case - that we force the purchaser to sell it back and bury the deceased there, whether the former agrees or not.

(d) The reason for this is - Kavod ha'Meis for members of the family who owned a family tomb to have nowhere to be buried.

(a) The Beraisa learns from the opening Pasuk in Koheles "Havel Havalim Amar Koheles Havel Havalim ha'Kol Havel" - that, corresponding to the seven 'Havalim' (each "Havalim" counts as two) one makes seven Ma'amados and Moshavos.

(b) Rav Ashi cites a Beraisa where Rebbi Yehudah presents this as what they used to do in Yehudah. The Minhag was to sit for a short time (after the officer in charge announced 'Sh'vu Yekarim Shavu'), get up and walk a little (after he announced 'Imdu Yekarim Amodu') seven times.

(c) The purpose of Ma'amados and Moshavos (besides that of comforting the mourners) was to increase the sadness and crying of the mourners, and to impress upon those present the futility of physical life per se (to encourage them to do Teshuvah).

(d) The fact that this was a matter of Minhag indicates that is has nothing to do with frightening away the demons that accompany the mourners from the grave, as others suggest (since this would affect everybody). And besides - what would this have to do with the "Havel Havalim" of Koheles, with which we just connected it.

(a) Based on Rebbi Yehudah's statement, the Rabbanan commented - that if so, there was no reason not to perform Ma'amad and Moshav even on Shabbos (see Rabeinu Gershom).

(b) When Rav Ivya, his sister's husband, died, Rami bar Papa - arranged Ma'amad and Moshav after the burial.

(c) Rav Yosef pointed out two errors on the part of Rami bar Papa. Besides the fact that Rami bar Papa arranged Ma'amad u'Moshav for non-relatives (whereas it is normally reserved for relatives who were not mourners) - he also erred, according to Rav Yosef, in that Ma'amad and Moshav are confined to the day of the burial, whereas he performed them on the following day.

(a) According to Abaye, he also performed them in town and not in the Beis-Hakevaros, whereas according to Rava, he ought not to have performed them in that town in the first place - because it was not the Minhag ha'Makom'.

(b) It is not permitted to bury one's dead on Shabbos.

(c) Rav Yosef and Abaye will explain the statement of the Chachamim in our Mishnah 'Im-kein Af be'Shabbos Mutar La'asos Kein' - with regard to a town that is situated close to a Beis-Hakevaros, and where someone had been buried just before dusk on Erev Shabbos.

(a) If Reuven undertook to sell or dig a family burial ground for Shimon, he would have to dig - two caves leading from the central Chatzer, four Amos below the surface, according to the Tana Kama.

(b) The measurements of ...

1. ... the Chatzer were - six by six Amos. The Chatzer was situated at ground level (and steps led down to the caves on either side).
2. ... each cave were - six Amos by four Amos.
(c) He would dig - eight Kuchin (horizontal graves) in the walls of each cave, three on either side and two at the end.

(d) Each Kuch would be - four Amos long, seven Tefachim high (four, according to Rabeinu Gershom) and six Tefachim wide.

(a) We account for the ...
1. ... three Kuchin in the two parallel six-Amah walls like this: One Amah each Kuch, an Amah space between the Kuchin, and half an Amah space at the outer extremities of the walls (before the first Kuch and after the last one). See also Hagahos ha'G'ra.
2. ... two Kuchin in the far four-Amah wall like this: One Amah each Kuch, an Amah between each Kuch and half an Amah at the beginning and at the outer extremities of the wall.
(b) Despite the fact that a dead person is generally three Amos tall, the Kuchin nevertheless needed to be four Amos - because of the Aron (coffin) in which he was placed into the Kuch.

(c) The Kuchin needed to be so high - a. in order to accommodate the Aron without undue difficulty, and b. to ensure that one Tefach space remains between the top of the Aron and the ceiling of the Kuch.

(d) This was necessary to prevent someone walking on top of the cave from becoming Tamei (because of the principle 'Tum'ah Retzutzah Boka'as ve'Olah' [when there is no space between the coffin and the earth above it, the Tumah simply travels upwards and renders anyone in its path Tamei]).

Next daf


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