ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 153
BAVA BASRA 153 (12 Elul) - sponsored with warm Mazel Tov blessings on the
occasion of the wedding of Avi and Estie Turkel. May they merit to build
together a Bayis Ne'eman b'Yisrael that will be a pride to their dear
parents and to all of Klal Yisrael!
When a Shechiv-Mera who recovered came before Rav Huna, to reclaim his
property, he told him that he had not given away his property in the
conventional manner - because, having written the Sh'tar and handed it to
the beneficiary, in addition to having made a Kinyan, he could no longer
retract (as we just concluded).
(a) In a case where someone wrote 'be'Chayai u've'Mosi', Rav considered it
to be a Matnas Shechiv-Mera (and permitted the benefactor to retract). The
reason that he inserted 'be'Chayai' - was merely as a good sign that he
(b) Shmuel says 'Harei Hi ke'Matnas Bari', and the reason that he added the
words 'le'Achar Miysah' was - as if to say from now and forever.
(c) Shmuel did not have a doubt like he does in the case of 'Matnas
Shechiv-Mera she'Kasuv Bah Kinyan' - because the fact that he specifically
said 'be'Chayai' clarifies his intentions.
(d) We know that the current case is one of a Matnas Shechiv-Mera, and not
of a Matnas Bari - because otherwise, Rav would not have given it the Din of
a Matnas Shechiv-Mera.
(a) In all the previous cases, we rule like Shmuel. In this case however -
the Neherda'i rule like Rav.
Rav Nachman sent him to Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba in Shum
Tamya - because he did not want to issue a ruling like Rav in Neharda'a,
which was Shmuel's territory.
(b) According to Rava, in a case where the Shechiv-Mera wrote, not
'be'Chayai', but 'me'Chayai' - the benefiary acquires the property, and the
benefactor may no longer retract.
(c) Ameimar however - rules against Rav (making no distinction between
'be'Chayai' and 'me'Chayai'.
(d) When Rav Ashi remarked that his ruling was obvious, bearing in mind the
Neherdai's previous statement - Ameimar replied that we may well have
thought that they would concede that there is a difference between
'be'Chayai' and 'me'Chayai'.
(a) When, in the case of a woman who had written her Matnas Shechiv-Mera
'me'Chayim u'le'Achar Miysah', Rava followed his previous ruling and placed
her property in the Reshus of the benefiary - she did not give up, but
insisted (correctly), that he had erred in his ruling.
(b) Rava countered this, by instructing his Sofer (Rav Papa B'rei de'Rav
Chanan) - to write the property in her name, but to add the words 'Socher
Aleihen O Mata'an' (a term borrowed from Bava Metzi'a, which implied that he
was tricking the woman).
(c) The woman, who realized what Rava meant, reacted - by cursing him that
his boat should sink in the river.
(d) Rava tried to circumvent her curse - by soaking his clothes in water,
but he did not succeed, and his boat sank (though not with him inside it).
(a) One would normally know that a Sh'tar Matnas Shechiv-Mera was actually
written by a Shechiv-Mera by writing in the Sh'tar 'ke'de'Katzir v'Rami
be'Arseih' (meaning that he was sick and bedridden).
(b) If the Sh'tar contained no such indication, Rebbi Meir maintains that
the onus lies on the Shechiv-Mera to prove that he was indeed a
Shechiv-Mera - because most people are not Shechiv-Meras.
(c) According to the Chachamim - the onus lies on the beneficiary to prove
that he was, because of the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero, Alav ha'Re'ayah'
(it is up to the claimant to substantiate his claim).
(a) Besides the fact that the Shechiv-Mera was indeed sick and bedridden,
they would customarily write in a Matnas Shechiv-Mera - that he died from
(b) In a case where this was not done, the problem would be - the
possibility that he actually recovered from his original illness, and fell
ill again later and died, in which case, the property ought really to go to
the Shechiv-Mera's heirs.
(c) When such a case occurred, Rabah ruled 'Harei Meis, ve'Harei Kivro
Mochi'ach Alav', by which he meant - that, since we now see that he is dead
and buried, we can safely assume that he died from his original illness.
(a) When, in a case of a sinking ship, the Mishnah in Gitin rules 'Nosnin
1. ... Chumrei Chayim', the Tana means - that a bas Kohen to a Yisrael is fo
rbidden to eat Terumah.
(b) The basic principle that distinguishes between a man whose ship sank and
that of a Shechiv-Mera is - that whereas the majority of people whose ships
sink, do not survive, the majority of sick people do.
2. ... Chumrei Meisim, he means that a bas Yisrael to a Kohen is forbidden
(c) This distinction prompts Abaye to query Rabah's previous ruling - on the
grounds that if we consider the case of Yisrael who was married to a bas
Yisrael as if he was alive (le'Chumra), how much more so should we assume
that the Shechiv-Mera recovered and died only later.
(a) When the Beraisa asks 'Mi Motzi mi'Yad Mi', the Tana means to ask - what
the Din will in the case of Sh'tar a Matanah which fails to indicate whether
the benefactor was a Shechiv-Mera or a Bari.
(b) Rebbi Ya'akov rules that *he* always takes from *them*, and not
vice-versa - because of the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero, Alav
(c) Rebbi Nasan agrees with this - only if he is a Shechiv-Mera at the time
of the claim, but not if he is a Bari at that time.
(d) The Machlokes between Rabah and Abaye that we just cited conforms with
this Machlokes inasmuch as - Rabah holds like Rebbi Nasan (who goes after
what he is now), and Abaye, like Rebbi Ya'akov (who holds that the majority
of sick people recover).
(a) We rule that 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid', Tamei, bi'Reshus
ha'Rabim', Tahor'. With regard to Shabbos, a Bik'ah - a field or a series of
fields surrounded by a wall is a Reshus ha'Yachid.
(b) With regard to Tum'ah ...
1. ... in the summer - it has a Din of a Reshus ha'Rabim.
(c) The reason for this distinction - is because, in the winter, when the
ground is seeded, people are careful not to walk there.
2. ... in the winter - it has the Din of a Reshus ha'Yachid.
(a) When Rebbi Elazar says 'u'le'Inyan Tum'ah ke'Machlokes', he means that
Rebbi Nasan and Rebbi Ya'akov argue there like they argue in the previous
case, only a Chezkas Taharah replaces the Chezkas Mamon.
(b) The Safek here is whether the person entered the Bik'ah in the summer or
in the winter. Consequently - according to Rebbi Nasan, it depends on when
he appears before Beis-Din, whereas according to Rebbi Ya'akov, we place him
on a Chezkas Taharah, irrespective of when he asks the She'eilah.
(a) When Rava qualifies Rebbi Elazar's statement to when no winter passed
from the time that the valley was fenced - but once a winter has passed it
remains a Reshus ha'Yachid even in the simmer-time.
(b) The basis of Rava's statement is - either a S'vara (see Tosfos DH 'Amar
Rava') or a Chumra de'Rabbanan.
(c) We refute the text 've'Amar Rava', in which case Rebbi Elazar's
statement is based on that of Rava - on the grounds that Rebbi Elazar lived
much before Rava, and it is unlikely for a statement by him to have depended
upon one of Rava for interpretation.
(a) According to Rabeinu Chananel, Rava actually comes to argue with Rebbi
Elazar, who does not differentiate in the way that Rava does.
(b) Rabeinu Chananel explains Rava differently than we did before - by
establishing 'Lo Avru Alav Yemos ha'Geshamim' (not from the time that the
Bik'ah was fenced, but) from the time that the Tum'ah was lying in it.