(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 152



(a) Rav and Shmuel argue over a Matnas Shechiv-Mera that contains a Kinyan. When Amri bei Rav mi'Shemeih de'Rav say 'Arkeveih a'T'rei Richshi' - they mean that the unnecessary Kinyan gives the transaction the strength of a Matnas Bari as well as of a Matnas Shechiv-Mera.

(b) It is ..

1. ... a Matnas Bari - inasmuch as he cannot retract, should he recover.
2. ... a Matnas Shechiv-Mera - inasmuch as 'Halva'aso li'Peloni' is effective (even without Ma'amad Sheloshtan).
(c) The literal meaning of 'Arkeveih a'T'rei Richshi' is - 'Ride it on two racing camels'

(d) And when Shmuel says 'Lo Yada'na Mai Adun Bah', he means that he has a Safek whether it is valid or not. His problem, assuming that ...

1. ... there is a Sh'tar - is that the Shechiv-Mera seems to want the Kinyan to take place via the Sh'tar, and a Sh'tar cannot acquire after the benefactor's death.
2. ... there is no Sh'tar - because here too, it seems that he wants the Kinyan to take affect after his death, which it cannot, because the moment he dies, his heirs inherit his property automatically.
(a) We know that they are referring to a 'Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Kulo' and not 'be'Miktzaso' 1. because otherwise they should have specifically said so; 2. because our Mishnah rules 'Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas, Matanaso Matanah' (with or without a Kinyan), so why does Shmuel have a Safek - 3. because we have already ruled that a Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas requires a Kinyan; 4. because we will shortly ask from a case of a Shechiv-Mera who wrote all his property to someone, so presumably, that is the case that we are talking about.

(b) It would not make any difference if the Kinyan was not written in the Sh'tar. As a matter of fact, it would not even make any difference if there was no Sh'tar at all.

(c) We query the opinions of both Rav and Shmuel from another ruling of theirs, where Ravin Amar Rebbi Avahu quotes Rebbi Elazar, who sent to the Golah in the name of Rav - that if a Shechiv-Mera said 'Kisvu u'Tenu Manah li'Peloni' and then died - one does not carry out his instructions, in case he wanted the Kinyan to take effect specifically via the Sh'tar, and, as we have already learned, a Sh'tar cannot take effect after the death of the benefactor.

(d) Shmuel rules there - 'Kosvin ve'Nosnin'.

(a) To reconcile Rav's two rulings, we draw a distinction between where they made a Kinyan (the first ruling, which effects the Kinyan immediately) and where they did not (the second ruling, where he obviously intends the Sh'tar to acquire only after his death).

(b) And we resolve the discrepancy in Shmuel, by establishing his latter - by 'Meyapeh es Kocho' (which ensures that the Kinyan takes effect immediately [as we shall see shortly]).

(c) Rava asked on Shmuel from another statement of his. With Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak sitting behind him, Rava was sitting - in front of Rav Nachman, when he asked the Kashya.

(d) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel said - that if a Shechiv-Mera wrote all his property out to someone, even assuming that he made a Kinyan, too), he is permitted to retract, in the event that he recovers.

(a) Rav Nachman resolved the discrepancy in Shmuel - by establishing his second ruling in a case of 'Meyapeh es Kocho'.

(b) Nevertheless Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak needed to ask Rava to explain Rav Nachman's answer - because he did not answer directly, only by way of a hint ...

(c) ... either that he had an answer (which he later explained to him), or the concept of 'Meyapeh es Kocho'.

(d) Rav Chisda explains 'Meyapeh es Kocho' to mean - that he added 've'Kanina Mineih Mosif al Matnasa' (that the Kinyan was meant to strengthen the Matanah rather than to qualify it).




(a) When Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he said - that if a Shechiv-Mera wrote out all his property, first to Reuven and then to Shimon, without handing them the Sh'tar - then Shimon acquires the property, because of the principle 'Daytiki Mevateles Daytiki' (which means that a second Matnas Shechiv-Mera overrides the Matnas Shechiv-Mera that preceded it, as we have already learned).

(b) 'Daytiki' is the acronym for - 'Da Tehei Lemeikam u'le'Mehavei' (meaning 'This is conclusive').

(c) According to Rav, if he did hand them the Sh'tar, Reuven acquires the property; Shmuel says - that Shimon acquires it.

(d) The basis of their Machlokes is - that, according to Rav, this has the Din of a Matnas Shechiv-Mera with a Kinyan, from which he cannot retract should he recover (as Rav said above). Consequently, he cannot retract even if he does not. Whereas Shmuel holds that despite the Sh'tar, it is a Matnas Shechiv-Mera (as we learned above), in which case, he is able to retract.

(a) We ask on this, that they have already argued over this point before - in the case of 'Matnas Shechiv-Mera she'Kasuv Bo Kinyan'.

(b) Had they not presented their Machlokes ...

1. ... here too, we might have thought that Rav will concede that the second one will acquire here - since unlike in the previous case, no Kinyan took place.
2. ... there too, we might have thought that Shmuel will agree with Rav - because a Kinyan took place.
(c) And we reconcile Shmuel, who holds in the first case 'Lo Yada'na Mai Adun Bah', with his own ruling here 'Sheini Kanah' - by bearing in mind that in our case, no Kinyan took place.
(a) The above is the version as it was learned in Sura. In the Pumbedisian version, Rav Yirmiyah bar Aba cited a She'eilah that Bei Rav sent to Shmuel. When they asked Shmuel about a Shechiv-Mera who wrote all his property to others with a Kinyan, he replied 'Ein Achar Kinyan K'lum' (and he cannot retract).

(b) This principle certainly pertains to a Shechiv-Mera who gave his property to Reuven and who now wants to give it to Shimon. Rav Chisda quotes Rav Huna from Kufri, who says - that it even extends to where the Shechiv-Mera recovers and wants to retrieve the property himself.

(a) We reject the proposal that the Pumbedisian version comes to amend Shmuel's earlier statement 'Matnas Shechiv-Mera she'Kasuv Bah Kinyan, Lo Yada'na Mai Adun Bah' - on the grounds that if this ruling would pertain to a straightforward case of Matnas Shechiv-Mera with a Kinyan, it would still clash with the ruling of Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, who said 'Shechiv-Mera ... Amad Chozer', whilst here Shmuel rules 'Ein Achar Kinyan K'lum'.

(b) Consequently - it must come to amend Shmuel's previous statement 'Kasav ve'Zikah la'Zeh ... Sheini Kanah'.

(c) And the case is - when the Shechiv-Mera wrote the property to Reuven and gave it to him with an additional Kinyan. All this gives it a Din of 'Meyapeh es Kocho'.

Next daf


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