(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 166



(a) We just learned in the Beraisa that if the Shtar contained 'Zahav be'Dinrim', the Ba'al ha'Sh'tar may claim two silver Dinrim-worth of gold. We ask how we know that he did not mean two golden Dinrim worth of gold nuggets. Abaye answer this Kashya - with the principle 'Yad Ba'al ha'Sh'tar al ha'Tachtonah'.

(b) This poses a problem on the Reisha (of both Beraisos that we just learned. Why do we not say there too 'Yad Ba'al ha'Sh'tar al ha'Tachtonah', in which case, in the Reisha ...

1. ... of the first Beraisa 'Kesef be'Dinrin, Ein Pachos mi'bi'Sh'nei Dinrin Dahav' - the Tana ought to have entitled him to no more than 'pieces of silver to the value of two silver Dinrim'.
2. ... of the second Beraisa 'Dahav Dinrin ... Ein Pachos mi'Shenei Dinrin Dahav' - he should have entitled him to only 'two silver Dinrim-worth of gold nuggets.
(c) Rav Ashi answers the Kashya by drawing a distinction between 'Dinri' - which is the text in the Reisha of both Beraisos and which means golden Dinrim, and 'Dinrim', which means silver Dinrim, and which is the text in the Seifa.

(d) The source of Rav Ashi's distinction - is a Mishnah in Taharos, as we shall now see.

(a) The Tana in Taharos rules that a woman who has five Safek Leidos or five Safek Ziyvus - must bring one set of Korbanos, after which she is permitted to eat Kodshim, and is exempt from bringing the remaining four sets of Korbanos.

(b) The Korban that a woman is obligated to bring for one Leidah or one Ziyvus is - either two pigeons or two young doves (one as an Olah and one as a Chatas).

(c) A Safek ...

1. ... Leidah is - where the woman is not sure whether she gave birth to a baby or to what is known as a 'Ru'ach'.
2. ... Ziyvus is - where she saw blood on three consecutive days, but is not sure whether this took place during the days when she was a Nidah, or whether it was between Nidus and Nidus, in which case she is now a Zavah.
(d) The case of five Safek Ziyvos cited in the Mishnah in K'riysus is - when following the initial Safek, she saw blood three times on another four consecutive months.
(a) The difference between this woman and a woman who is obligated five Vaday Korbenos Leidah or five Vaday Korbenos Ziyvus - is that the latter remains obligated to bring the outstanding four sets of Korbanos.

(b) In the case of Safek, the point of bringing one set of birds (despite the fact that she is Chayav five) is - that one set of Korbanos is what permits her to eat Kodshim, as we just explained.

(c) The woman is not obligated to bring the rest of her Korbanos - because Chazal found it difficult enough to permit the bringing of the one Korban Chatas that she needs, which then has to be burned (a Halachah peculiar to a Safek Chatas ha'Of). But more than that they were reluctant to let her bring.

(d) In the case of Vaday Chamesh Leidos, she is obligated to bring all five sets of birds - provided she gave birth each subsequent time after the thirty-three days of Taharah (for a boy) or the sixty-six days for a girl (the Yemei M'los.

(a) When the going price for a pair of birds in Yerushalayim was once '*Dinrei* Zahav', Raban Shimon ben Gamliel swore - that he would not go to bed that night before he had brought the price down to *Dinrim*.

(b) When he said 'ha'Ma'on ha'Zeh' - he was referring to the Beis Hamikdash.

(c) In order to achieve this end, he Darshened in the Beis-Hamedrash - that a woman who had five Vaday Korbenos Leidah or five Korbenos Ziyvah need only bring one of them in order to eat Kodshim, and was exempt from bringing the rest (removing the incentive from the bird-sellers to keep their prices high).

(d) Immediately, the price of a pair of birds dropped to a quarter of a Dinar - which is the equivalent of forty-eight P'rutos.

5) Rav Ashi proved from here - that Dinrim are silver Dinrim whereas Dinrei are golden ones.




(a) We learned in our Mishnah that when there is something missing in the latter part of the Sh'ar, we will copy it from the first half. The Tana of the Beraisa gives as an example 'Chanan' from 'Chanani' or 'Anan' from 'Anani'. He adds that we will not however, copy 'Chein' from 'Chanani' or 'An' from 'Anani'.

(b) We suggest the reason for this distinction as being because two letters can sometimes constitute as much as half a name (should the name on top comprise four letters). We object to this suggestion however - on the grounds that, by the same token, one letter will be half a name, should the name on top comprise two letters.

(c) The reason that we finally give for not accepting a discrepancy of two letters - is because sometimes, the word on top will be one of three letters, in which case the discrepancy will entail the majority of the word.

(a) Rav Papa takes for granted that a case where the word 'Sefel' appears on the top half of the Sh'tar and 'Kefel', on the lower half, is a typical example of our Mishnah's ruling ('Holchin Achar ha'Tachton'). 'Sefel' refers to a cup that Reuven gave Shimon to look after - 'Kefel' to a cloak that can be folded.

(b) The reverse case ('Kefel' on top, and 'Sefel' at the bottom) is not so straightforward - because of the possibility that a fly closed the gap in the 'Kuf' at the bottom of the Sh'tar, turning it into a 'Samech' (and Rav Papa's She'eilah is whether we contend with that possibility or not).

(a) The She'eilah ends with a 'Teiku. We therefore rule - 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero, Alav ha'Re'ayah'.

(b) In a case where an ox gored and killed a pregnant cow, next to which a dead calf is found, but it is not known whether it was still-born before the goring or whether the goring killed it and caused it to fall out of the womb, we rule - 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero, Alav ha'Re'ayah'

(c) The ruling here is differenet than there - because there, where it is a Safek as to what happened, Beis-Din have the authority to issue a ruling according to the doubt; whereas here, where it is a 'S'feika de'Diyna', Beis-Din are forced to remain silent, allowing the Chazakah to decide the Halachah.

(a) The problem Rav Sh'ravya had with the Sh'tar, which contained the wording 'Shis Me'ah ve'Zuza' was - whether 'Shis Me'ah' meant six hundred Istiri or six hundred 'P'rutos'.

(b) An 'Istira' is - a Sela.

(c) Abaye dismissed the possibility that 'Shis Me'ah' meant six hundred P'rutos - because people tend to transfer so many P'rutos into Dinrim (each Dinar = 192 P'rutos).

(a) According to Rabeinu Chananel, the ramifications of Abaye's statement 'Yad Ba'al ha'Sh'tar al ha'Tachtonah', are - that he will only receive Sela'im Medinah (where each one is worth half a Zuz), and not Sela'im Tzuri (where each one is worth four Zuzim).

(b) We disagree with Rabeinu Chananel - on the grounds that an Istira is a Sela Tzuri (and only 'Istiri P'shiti' refers to Sela'im Medinah).

(c) The outcome of the She'eilah therefore is - that the Ba'al ha'Sh'tar receives six hundred and one Zuz ...

(d) ... and not Sela'im (Tzuri), as we thought initially, because of the principle 'Yad Ba'al ha'Sh'tar al ha'Tachtonah'. Note, that according to Rabeinu Chananel, we do not contend with the possibility of Zuzim at any stagte. The reason for this may well be because had the Ba'al ha'Sh'tar meant Zuzim, he would have written 'Shis Me'ah ve'Chad Zuzi' (rather than 'Shis Me'ah ve'Zuzi').

Next daf


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