ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 172
(a) Rabah bar Rav Shiloh gave instructions to Sofrim who used to write
Sh'tar Akneyasa. This might refer to Sh'tarei Matanah which do not contain
Acharayus, or it might refer to - Sh'tarei Mechirah, whose Shibud takes
effect immediately with the Kinyan (as we shall see shortly).
(b) He give them instructions - to date the Sh'tar from the time of the
Kinyan if they knew it. Otherwise (rather than try and guess that date
[Rabeinu Gershom]), they should write the date of the day on which the the
Sh'tar was being written.
(c) It is preferable to write the date on which the Kinyan took place - to
negate any sale that the owner may have effected after that date.
(a) Rabah bar Rav Shiloh cannot have been talking about Sh'tarei-Chov -
because to write an earlier date than the current one would turn it into a
Sh'tar Mukdam. Consequently, in such a case, he would have instructed the
Sofrim to write the current date.
(b) It is not also a Sh'tar Mukdam in the case of a Sh'tar Mechirah -
because there, the Eidei Mechirah create a Kol even if there is no Sh'tar
(thereby protecting the purchasers from buying a Meshubad field without any
chance of knowing that it is Meshubad).
(c) A Sh'tar that is written in the day and signed at night is Pasul -
because the creditor will claim already from that day, from the purchasers
who bought fields from the debtor, whereas really, the Shibud only began
from the night, when witnesses signed.
(d) Rabeinu Chananel disagrees with this. He learns from the Din of Rabah
bar Rav Shiloh - that a Sh'tar (even a Sh'tar Halva'ah) that is written on
the day that the Kinyan takes place, but signed only later is Kasher,
because no Sh'tar other than a Get requires signatures.
(a) A Get would be Kasher if it was written by day but signed at night,
according to Rebbi Shimon.
(b) In a case where the Sofrim wrote a Sh'tar (no matter which) in Shili,
that they were commissioned to write in Hini, or vice-versa, Rav and Rav
Huna instructed their respective Sofrim to - note in the Shtar that they
were writing in Shili what they saw take place in Hini (or vice-versa).
(c) The reason for this ruling is - that otherwise, it looks like a lie.
(a) Rava rules that if either the debtor or the creditor wants a Sh'tar of a
hundred Zuz to be converted into two of fifty, we will not let them. We will
1. ... the debtor from doing so - because one Sh'tar of a hundred is to the
creditor's advantage, seeing as it forces the debtor to pay quickly (as we
(b) This does not mean that the reverse will then be permitted - because, as
Rava explains, two Sh'taros of fifty remain to the advantage of both, for
the reverse reasons (the creditor does not need to swear and the borrower is
not pressured to pay quickly).
2. ... the creditor - because it is to the debtor's advantage, inasmuch as
anyone who claims with a Sh'tar that has been partially paid, is obligated
to swear, as we learned in a Mishnah in Kesuvos.
(c) Rav Ashi rules that we do not comply with a creditor who claims that the
debtor has paid half his debt of a hundred Zuz and asks for a new Sh'tar of
fifty, and to tear the old one - because we are afraid that really the
debtor paid up his debt completely, and when the creditor claimed that he
had lost his Sh'tar, he wrote him a receipt. And now, he is trying to pull a
fast one on the debtor, by writing a new Sh'tar and claiming that it is a
(a) In a case where two brothers, one rich and one poor, inherit a bathhouse
or an oil-press that their father used to rent out, our Mishnah rules - that
they continue to do likewise, and share the profits.
(b) In a case where he tended to use them for his own personal use - the
problem is that the poor man does not have the means to run the bathhouse,
or the olives that need to be pressed. So he requests that, from now on, it
should be rented out.
(c) The rich brother can reply - that he doesn't want total strangers on
(d) We cannot apply the principle 'Gud O Agud' (either you take it and pay
me half, or I will take it and pay you half), like we learned in the first
Perek with regard to a shared Chatzer which is too small to divide - because
that is only if both options are open to both parties, whereas in this case,
the poor brother is unable to buy his brother out.
(a) Our Mishnah rules that two Yosef ben Shimons who reside in the same town
cannot produce a Sh'tar-Chov against each other - because the defendant can
always reply that the reason that the claimant has the Sh'tar is because
when he repaid the money that he originally owed him, he (the defendant)
returned him the Sh'tar.
(b) Neither can anyone else produce a Sh'tar-Chov against them - because
each one can claim that it is the other one who owes the money, and not him.
(c) They can however, produce a Sh'tar-Chov against someone else, as we
shall see in the Sugya.
(d) If someone finds a receipt that states that Yosef ben Shimon has paid -
both Yosef ben Shimons are Patur from paying.
(a) One avoids all the above problems - by adding their grandfather's name,
thereby enabling both Yosef ben Shimons to function regularly in the
(b) If ...
1. ... their grandfathers shared the same name, too (perhaps they were
cousins) - then they add distinguishing identification marks (short, white
or red ... ).
2. ... they even share the same distinguishing marks, too - then they add
Kohen or Levi.
(a) A Sh'tar came before Rav Huna in which was written "Ani P'loni bar
P'loni, Lavisi Manah Mimcha'. Rav Huna ruled 'Mimcha, Afilu me'Resh Galusa,
va'Afilu mi'Shavur Malka' - by which he meant that the Sh'tar may well have
referred to the Resh Galusa or the King (who subsequently lost it).
(b) We know that he did not mean to validate the Sh'tar, and to permit the
person holding the Sh'tar to claim with it - because then he shoulf have
said so specifically (like Rabah a little later).
(c) By learning this way, we would otherwise gain - that 'Afilu me'Resh
Galusa ... ' would now mean even if the person holding the Sh'tar was
someone who did not usually borrow, such as the Resh Galusa ... '.
(d) Rav Chisda told Rabah - to look into the matter, because on the
following day, Rav Huna would question him about it.
(a) Rabah discovered a Beraisa. Normally, a Get without a date - is Pasul
Lechatchilah, but Kasher Bedi'eved.
(b) Aba Shaul rules that a Get with witnesses, which states 'Gerashtihah
Ha'yom' - is Kasher, because 'today' refers to the current day.
(c) By the same token, Rabah argues, 'Mi'mecha should refer to the person
holding the Sh'tar.
(a) Abaye asked Rabah whether Aba Shaul's reason might not be because he
follows the opinion of Rebbi Elazar, who holds - 'Eidei Mesirah Karsi',
dispensing with any need for a date on the Sh'tar.
(b) That will vindicate Rav Huna, who invalidates the Sh'tar in the previous
case - because we are afraid that the rightful owner may have lost it, and
the current holder found it.
(c) Even though Aba Shaul holds like Rebbi Elazar, he nevertheless requires
'Gerashtihah Ha'yom' in the Get - because in his opinion, it must be clear
that the man means to divorce his wife upon receipt of the Get.
(d) According to Rebbi Elazar, the obligation to write the date in a Get -
is a Takanas Chachamim (because of 'Peiros' or 'ben Achoso', as we learned
(a) In reply to Abaye's Kashya, Rabah cites our Mishnah. He infers from the
Din of two Yosef ben Shimon's claiming from each other or others claiming
from them - implying that they can claim from others (as we explained in our
Mishnah), a clear proof that we are not afraid that the Sh'tar may have been
(b) Even though Abaye does suspect that a Sh'tar may have been lost, he
nevertheless refutes Rabah's proof - because even though we do not suspect
that someone with the same name found the very Sh'tar that his namesake
lost, we do suspect that one of any amount of people (the holder of the
Sh'tar, who could be anybody) found a Sh'tar that someone lost.
(c) Rabeinun Chananel explains Abaye's answer from the point of view of the
loser. That someone found a Sh'tar that an unknown person lost is feasible,
according to him, but not when someone whom we know lost it - because if
Yosef ben Shimon had lost his Sh'tar, we should have heard about him looking