(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 41

BAVA BASRA 41 & 42 - these Dafim have been dedicated anonymously l'Iluy Nishmas Tzirel Nechamah bas Tuvya Yehudah.


(a) We learn in our Mishnah that a 'Chazakah she'Ein Imah Ta'anah' is not a Chazakah. What is a 'Chazakah she'Ein Imah Ta'anah'?

(b) Is this ruling confined to a three-year Chazakah?

(c) What does a plausible Ta'anah achieve?

(d) 've'ha'Ba Mishum Yerushah Eino Tzarich Ta'anah'.
Does this mean that he is completely believed when he claims that the land had previously belonged to his father?

(a) Why does the Tana find it necessary to rule that a Chazakah without a Ta'anah is not a Chazakah? Is this not obvious?

(b) Is the Machzik believed if he himself interprets his Ta'anah in this way?

(a) What did Rav Anan do when a flood swept away the wall that divided between his field and his neighbor's?

(b) What did he reply when Rav Nachman obligated him to move his wall back to its original location?

(c) On what grounds did Rav Nachman reject this reply, even though it was based on the opinions of Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yishmael in the previous Mishnahs?

(d) And what did Rav Nachman finally reply when Rav Anan claimed that his ne ighbor had been Mochel?

Answers to questions



(a) When a torrent swept away Rav Kahana's dividing wall, he too, rebuilt it inside his neighbor's field (though unlike the previous case, Rav Kahana denied this).
What did Rav Yehudah rule when one witness testified that he had encroached two rows of his neighbor's field, and a second witness said it was three?

(b) Rav Kahana queried this ruling on the grounds that it conformed with Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar's interpretation of the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel.
What do Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel holds, in his opinion, in a case where ...

  1. ... one pair of witnesses testify that Reuven owes Shimon one Manah, whereas a second pair say that he owes him two?
  2. ... one witness testifies that Reuven owes Shimon one Manah, whereas a second witness says that he owes him two?
(c) What was the basis Rav Kahana's objection? What do Beis Hillel hold in the opinion of Rav Kahana?

(d) What did Rav Yehudah reply?

(a) How did Reuven substantiate his Chazakah on an attic in Kashta when Shimon asked him what he was doing there? What was his Ta'anah?

(b) What did Rebbi Chiya rule?

(c) What principle absolved Reuven from having to prove that Levi had purchased the land?

(d) What objection did Rav raise to Rebbi Chiya's ruling? Why ought he to have been absolved even from proving that Levi had lived there for one day?

(a) Why did Rav refer to Rebbi Chiya as 'Chavivi'?

(b) Why would Rebbi Chiya have believed Reuven even if he had claimed that Levi had purchased the land from Shimon in his presence?

(c) Would he also be believed if he claimed that Levi told him that he had purchased it from Shimon?

(d) How does Rava prove Rebbi Chiya right from our Mishnah 'ha'Ba Mishum Yerushah Eino Tzarich Ta'anah'? What did he extrapolate from there?

(a) On what grounds do we refute Rava's proof?

(b) Even assuming Rava's inference to be correct, why does this not necessarily reflect the ruling by a purchaser? Why might a purchaser be different in this regard than a Yoresh?

(c) We ask what the Din will be if Levi (the seller) was seen in Shimon's field.
What exactly is the She'eilah? What was he doing there?

(d) According to Abaye, that is sufficient proof to establish Reuven's Chazakah.
What does Rava say?

(a) We discuss a case where Shimon, Levi and Yehudah (one year each) make a combined Chazakah on Reuven's field.
What is the problem? How might Reuven justify not making a Mecha'ah?

(b) We rule that in spite of Reuven's claim, the Chazakah is indeed valid. How does Rav qualify this ruling? To whom is he referring when he requires the sale to be documented?

(c) What is then his reason? Why would the Chazakah not be valid if they had purchased the field without a Sh'tar?

(a) What does Rav say about someone who sells his property with witnesses (accepting responsibility [but without a Sh'tar])?

(b) How do we reconcile Rav's two conflicting rulings? Is there a Kol with witnesses alone or is there not?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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