(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 30

BAVA BASRA 29 & 30 - anonymously dedicated by an Ohev Torah and Marbitz Torah in Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.


(a) On what grounds did Reuven, who had sold Shimon all the fields that he had purchased from Bei bar Sisin, refuse to give Shimon one particular field, even though it was also called 'de'Bei bar Sisin'?

(b) Rav Nachman placed that field in the possession of Shimon.
What did Rava hold? On what grounds did he disagree with Rav Nachman?

(c) How do both Rava and Rav Nachman appear to have switched their opinions from their previous Machlokes (regarding the case of 'Ana be'Shechuni Gava'i Hava'i')?

(d) How do we resolve the apparent discrepancy ...

  1. ... in Rava, by making a distinction between who currently owns the property?
  2. ... in Rav Nachman? Why does he go after the purchaser in the case of Bei bar Sisin, and after the seller in the case of 'Ana bi'Shechuni Gava'i Hava'i'?
(e) Like whom do we rule in both of the above cases?
(a) In another case, what did Shimon counter, when Reuven claimed that he was unable to make a Mecha'ah, because he had been overseas ('Ana be'Bati Bera'i Hava'i') during the three years that Shimon was making a Chazakah on his house?

(b) And how did Reuven counter Shimon's claim?

(c) Alternatively, we might explain 'Ana be'Bati Bera'i Hava'i' to pertain to a time of war, where it would have been more difficult to get news from one place to another, even in the same country.
Why is this interpretation preferable to the previous one? Why would the Chazakah most likely have taken effect had Reuven merely gone overseas (as we learned originally)?

(d) What did Rava rule in this case?

(a) What did Reuven counter when Shimon claimed that he had purchased his field from Levi, who claimed that he had purchased it from him (Reuven)?

(b) Why did Shimon not claim that he had eaten the fruit for three years?

(c) What did Rava rule in this case? Would it have made any difference whether Shimon produced a Sh'tar or whether he claimed on the basis of a Chazakah?

(d) Seeing as Reuven's right to the field came from the mouth of Shimon, why did we not believe the latter on the basis of a 'Migu' (that he could have said that he purchased the field directly from Reuven)?

Answers to questions



(a) What did Shimon counter when Reuven claimed that Levi, from whom Shimon had purchased his field on which he since made a Chazakah, had stolen the field from him?

(b) How did Reuven then justify what he said?

(c) We learned in a Mishnah in Kesuvos, that if after Reuven claims Shimon's field to be his, it is discovered that he actually signed on the Sh'tar as one of the witnesses, Admon justifies his action on the same basis as Rava in the current case ('ha'Sheini No'ach Li ... ').
What do the Chachamim say?

(d) How do we reconcile Rava with the Chachamim? Why might they concede that, in Rava's case we will say 'ha'Sheini No'ach Lo ... '?

5) Why, in the current case, does Shimon's Chazakah not help him to acquire Reuven's field? Why did Reuven not lose out for failing to make a Mecha'ah?


(a) When Reuven claimed that Levi, from whom Shimon had purchased his field, had stolen it from him, Shimon countered that he had witnesses who had heard him say 'Zavnah Neheli'!
What did he mean by that? What does it prove?

(b) And what did Reuven mean, when he justified that statement with the words 'Izbun Dina'i'?

(a) When Reuven challenged Shimon's rights to his field, Shimon replied that he had bought it from Levi and that he had subsequently made a Chazakah.
What did he counter, when Reuven claimed that he had a Sh'tar proving that he had purchased the very same field from Levi four years ago?

(b) And on what grounds did Rava justify Shimon's claim?

(c) Why would we otherwise have thought that Shimon's claim ought to be disqualified?

(a) How does Rava then go on to qualify his initial ruling? In which case would Shimon lose the field to Reuven?

(b) What gives rise to the mistaken theory that Shimon only needs to prove the last three years of his Chazakah, but that he is believed on the previous four?

(c) Why can this theory not be correct?

(d) In that case, why did Rava say 'Avid Inash de'Kari li'Shenei Tuva Sh'nei Chazakah'?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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