(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 40

BAVA BASRA 39 & 40 - dedicated by an admirer of the work of the Dafyomi Advancement Forum, l'Iluy Nishmas Mrs. Gisela (Golda bas Reb Chaim Yitzchak Ozer) Turkel, A"H.


(a) In the list issued by Rava Amar Rav Nachman, both Mecha'ah and Moda'ah require two witnesses.
What is Moda'ah?

(b) What does he mean when he says that in neither case, is it necessary to say 'Kesuvu'? What is the reason for this?

(c) Which third item belongs together with the above two?

(d) Why did Rava state all the three cases separately, as if they were three different Halachos? Why did he not put them all together?

(a) He also issues the ruling 'Hoda'ah bi'Fenei Shenayim ve'Tzarich Lomar Kesuvu', because Hoda'ah is a Chov (to his detriment).
Seeing as the debtor has admitted to owing the creditor money, what difference does the Sh'tar make? Why would the debtor prefer the debt to be an oral one?

(b) The sole case cited by Rava that requires three people and not two is Kiyum Sh'taros.
What is the procedure regarding Kiyum Sh'tar? Why does the creditor normally initiate it?

(c) What do we normally hold there where two Dayanim judged a case of money-matters?

(d) Does this also extend to Kiyum Sh'taros?

(a) Rava had a problem with Rav Nachman's ruling regarding Kinyan.
What makes Kinyan appear to be a Ma'aseh Beis-Din?

(b) Then what is the problem?

(c) And what will be the problem if it is not a Ma'aseh Beis-Din?

(d) Rava later concludes that Kinyan is not a Ma'aseh Beis-Din, and the reason that we write the Sh'tar even without Reuven's consent is because of the principle 'Stam Kinyan li'Chesivah Omed'.
What is the logic behind this principle?

(a) What would be the Din if Reuven had not made a Kinyan?

(b) Would the fact that he had specifically instructed the witnesses to write the Sh'tar make any difference?

(a) How did Rabah and Rav Yosef qualify the Din of Moda'ah? Under which specific circumstances do we write one?

(b) What did Abaye and Rava both say?

(c) What is the basis of the Machlokes?

Answers to questions



(a) What does one have to insert in a Sh'tar Moda'ah, according to the Neherda'i, for the Sh'tar to be valid?

(b) What do we mean when we argue that the Neherda'i cannot be referring to Sh'tarei Gitin and Matanah, because it is only a Giluy Milsa? What is a 'Giluy Milsa'?

(c) What Takanah did the Chachamim issue with regard to Moda'ah by Gitin?

(d) They also ruled that any Moda'os that are not the result of an O'nes are not valid.
When is this the case, and when is it not?

(a) And why can they not be referring to Sh'tarei Zevini (Mechirah)?

(b) What is the reason for this ...

  1. ... by Sadeh S'tam?
  2. ... by Sadeh Zu?
(c) With which of these cases does Rav Huna disagree?
(a) Then what kind of Sh'tar *are* the Neherda'i referring to?

(b) What is the case?

(c) What makes this case more eligible for a Moda'ah than the case of Talyuhu ve'Zavin by Sadeh S'tam?

(a) Bearing in mind that the witnesses must know about the O'nes, we have a problem with the current case.
Why can the witnesses not know about the O'nes through having heard Shimon's threats to Reuven?

(b) Rabeinu Chananel therefore establishes the case, starting with the fact that, after informing the witnesses of Shimon's intentions, he then asked Shimon for the return of the field in their presence, and he retorted that he had purchased it (and had already eaten the fruit for three years).
What happened next?

(c) How did the case end?

(d) How did the witnesses discover that Reuven was an O'nes?

(a) Rav Yehudah invalidates a Matnasah Temirtah.
What is a 'Matnasah Temirtah' according to ...
  1. ... the first Lashon?
  2. ... the second Lashon?
(b) What is the difference between the two Leshonos?

(c) On what grounds do we reject Rabeinu Chananel's version of the second Lashon ('a Sh'tar Matanah which the donor specifically asks the witnesses not to write in a public place')?

(a) What did Rava mean when he said, with regard to the previous case, that it serves as a Moda'ah for 'its friend'?

(b) What are the implications of Rav Papa's statement that Rava did not really say that, but that we imply it from his ruling in a case that came before him?

(c) What condition did Sarah make when Reuven asked her to marry him?

(d) How did Reuven react, when after accepting and writing her a document to that effect, his oldest son complained? What has 'Eiver Yemina' got to do with it?

(a) What did Rava rule when the case was brought before him? To whom did he grant the man's property?

(b) Why is there no proof from here that Rava holds that the hidden Sh'tar is a Moda'ah for any subsequent Matanah?

(c) Then what will Rava hold in the case of a regular Matnasa Temirta?

(a) We ask what the Din will be by S'tam (in the case of Matnasa Temirta).
Why can we not be asking whether perhaps, even though a Matnasa Temirta is not a Moda'ah for its friend, maybe a Matanah that is given S'tam is?

(b) Then what is the She'eilah?

(c) Ravina validates it. Rav Ashi says 'Lo'Chayshinan'.
What does he mean by that?

(d) What is the Halachah?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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