ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 105
BAVA BASRA 101-105 - 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) Rebbi Aba bar Mamal Amar Rav declares that the Rabbanan disagree with
ben Nannes in our Mishnah. In a case where Reuven said 'Midah be'Chevel Ani
Mocher Lach Hein Chaser Hein Yeser' or vice-versa - they will consider it a
Safek whether we follow the first Lashon or the last, and will rule
'Cholkin' (or will go after the Muchzak like Shmuel later).
(b) In the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a, in a case in Tzipori, where Shimon
rented a bathhouse from Reuven in Tzipori at twelve golden Dinrim for a
year, a golden Dinar a month, and it turned out to be a leap-year, Raban
Shimon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Yossi ruled - that Reuven and Shimon should
share the extra month .
(c) Were it not for Rebbi Aba bar Mamal Amar Rav, we might have attributed
Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Yossi's doubt to the fact that on the one
hand, Shimon might have changed his mind when he added 'at a golden Dinar a
month', whereas on the other, he might have merely been explaining his
initial stipulation of 'a Dinar a month', a S'vara with which ben Nannes may
well agree. But in our Mishnah, where the two Leshonos definitely contradict
each other, they will concede 'Tofes Lashon Acharon'.
(d) According to Rav, the basis of the Rabbanan's ruling both in our Mishnah
and in the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a is - the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero
(a) According to our initial assumption, that the Tana'im of Merchatz hold
'Pirushi ka'Mefaresh', the ramifications of 'Dinar Zahav la'Chodesh',
besides the fact that Reuven will receive the extra Dinar are - that Reuven
gets paid at the end of each month (and not at the end of the year, as is
customary in the realm of S'chirus), and that he has the right to terminate
the contract at the end of each month.
(b) The basis of the Rabbanan's Safek (as well as ben Nannes' ruling 'Tofes
Lashon Acharon') is - the fact that the two statements were made within
'Toch K'dei Dibur' (the time it takes to say 'Shalom Aleichem Mori' or 'Mori
(a) 'Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel Zu Divrei ben Nannes, Aval Chachamim Omrim
'Halach Achar Pachos she'bi'Leshonos' - because they are not sure whether we
adopt the first Lashon or the last.
(b) The ramifications of this ruling regarding 'Midah be'Chevel Ani Mocher
Lach Hein Chaser Hein Yeser' are - that if it transpires that Reuven gave
Shimon more than a Beis-Kur, he may claim the balance (Midah be'Chevel);
whereas if he gave him less, Shimon has to accept it (Hein Chaser Hein
(c) Rav and Shmuel both rule in a case where Reuven said to Shimon ...
1. ... 'Kur bi'Sheloshim Ani Mocher Lach' - that they can retract right up
to the last Sa'ah (even if Shimon made a Meshichah on each Sa'ah before
pouring it into his container).
(d) We currently ascribe Shmuel's latter ruling to the principle T'fos
Lashon Acharon', like ben Nannes in our Mishnah. Even though Shmuel's
earlier statement 'Zu Divrei ben Nannes, Aval Chachamim Omrim ... ' implies
that he does not hold like ben Nannes, we are currently forced to say - that
'Zu u'Sevira Leih'.
2. ... 'Kur bi'Sheloshim Ani Mocher Lach, Sa'ah be'Sela' - then Shimon
acquires each Sa'ah as he pours it into his container.
(a) With regard to the case of the bathhouse, on the assumption that Reuven
and Shimon had arrived in Beis-Din ...
1. ... at the beginning of the thirteenth month - Shmuel rules that the
owner may ask the hirer to leave or to pay him for the coming month.
(b) When Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Yossi ruled 'Yachloku es Chodesh
ha'Ibur', it was in a case - when Reuven and Shimon came to Beis-Din in the
middle of the month.
2. ... at the end of the thirteenth month - he rules that the Socher is not
obligated to pay for that month,
(c) Shmuel's reason for this ruling - is because he holds like the Chachamim
of ben Nannes, who are uncertain whether we adopt the first or the last
Lashon, so whoever is Muchzak gets to keep what he has (not like Rav's
interpretation of their ruling).
(d) And he rules in the case of 'Kur bi'Sheloshim Sa'ah be'Sela, Rishon
Rishon Kanah' - for the same reason, because until Shimon acquires the
grain, Reuven is Muchzak, but once he pours it into his vessels, he is
(a) If Reuven inverted the order and said 'Sa'ah be'Sela Kur bi'Sheloshim
Ani Mocher Lach' Shmuel would still hold Rishon Rishon Kanah ...
(b) ... whereas according to Rav, who holds like ben Nannes ('T'fos Lashon
Acharon'), Shimon would then not acquire the grain until all thirty Sa'ah
had been poured into his vessel.
(a) Amar Rav Huna, Amri Bei Rav 'Astira Me'ah Ma'i, Me'ah Ma'im; Me'ah Ma'i
'Amri Bei Rav' - refers to Rav Hamnuna.
(b) An Astira is - half a Sela Medinah (alias half a Dinar [an eighth of a
Sela Tzuri]), which is the equivalent of ninety-six P'rutos (1 Dinar = 6
Ma'ah, 1 Ma'ah = 2 Pundiyon, 1. Pundiyon = 2 Isrim, 1 Isar = 8 P'rutos).
(c) 'Me'ah Mai' is equivalent to a hundred P'rutos.
(d) Amri Bei Rav is coming to teach us - 'T'fos Lashon Acharon' (like ben
(a) Rav stated that had he been in Tzipori when the episode of the bathhouse
took place ('bi'Sheneim-Asar Zehuvim le'Shanah, Dinar Zahav le'Chodesh'), he
would have declared the owner right - because, as we just explained, he
rules like ben Nannes.
(b) In spite of Rav's latter ruling, Amri Bei Rav (who is a Talmid of Rav)
found it necessary to issue the former statement (in the case of the
bathhouse) - because otherwise, we might have ascribed his ruling there to
the fact that the second stipulation ('Dinar le'Chodesh') comes to explain
the first ('Sh'neim-Asar Zehuvim le'Shanah'), and not to contradict it (as
we already suggested on the previous Amud).
(c) Had we indeed done so, Rav would have then held in the case of 'Astira
Me'ah Ma'i ... ' - that we go after the Muchzak, like Shmuel (or 'Yachloku',
like we learned at the beginning of the Sugya).
(d) Clearly - the last of Rav's above rulings was that of 'Astira Me'ah
Ma'i', from which we learn categorically, that Rav holds like ben Nannes, as
(a) We refute the text in Bava Metzi'a (with reference to the case of
'Astira Me'ah Ma'i ... '), 'I me'Hasam, Havah Amina Pirushi ka'Mefaresh',
meaning that 'Astira' refers to a large Sela worth a hundred P'rutos (and in
the reverse case, that 'Me'ah Ma'i' refers to a hundred small ones - on the
grounds that Rav might just as well have switched 'Astira' for ninety-six
P'rutos (which are not subject to interpretation). And besides, if anything,
it is the case of the bathhouse (with which the Sugya there is contrasting
'Astira Me'ah Ma'i') which is subject to interpretation, as we explained
(and not 'Astira Me'ah Ma'i').
(b) In the case of the bathhouse, we rule neither like Rav ('T'fos Lashon
Acharon') nor like Shmuel ('be'Ba be'Emtza ha'Chodesh Askinan'), but like
Rav Nachman in Bava Metzi'a - who gives the owner right in all cases,
because of the principle 'Karka be'Chezkas Ba'alehah' (land is always in the
owner's possession, so he is considered Muchzak, even if they only arrived
in Beis-Din at the end of the month).