(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 45

BAVA BASRA 44-55 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of love for the Torah and for those who study it.


(a) We discussed earlier the ruling of Ravin bar Shmuel 'ha'Mocher Sadeh la'Chavero she'Lo be'Achrayus Ein Me'id Lo Alehah speaking when Shimon (the seller) owned other fields?

(b) If, on the other hand, Shmuel is speaking when the disputed field was Shimon's only property, why should it concern him that it remains in Levi's possession?

(c) The Kashya remains however. Even if the claimant would win the case, why will Levi not then accuse Shimon of being "a Loveh Rasha ve'Lo Yeshalem"? So why is he prejudiced?

(a) Rava (or Rav Papa) made an important announcement, which he wanted everyone to know.
What did he mean when he said 'de'Salkin le'Eila, u'de'Nachsin le'Tata'?

(b) What did he announce about Reuven who sold Shimon a donkey, which a Nochri took by force?

(c) This will only apply however, if the Nochri took the donkey but not the saddle.
Why is that?

(d) Which second condition will be required before Reuven will be obligated to make this effort on behalf of Shimon? When will he not be obligated to do so?

(a) Why will Reuven not be obligated to talk the Nochri into returning the donkey to Shimon if either of the two conditions is not met?

(b) How would the Din have differed if it had been a Yisrael who coerced Shimon into handing him the donkey?

(c) Ameimar disagrees with Rava.
What does he say, based on the Pasuk in Tehilim "Asher Pihem Diber Shav, vi'Yeminam Yemin Shaker"?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that an Uman has no Chazakah. Rabah restricts this to where the owner handed the article with witnesses.
What is the reason for this? Will it make any difference whether the article was seen in his possession or not?

(b) Would he be believed if he claimed that he gave the article back in front of witnesses, who then left for overseas?

(c) Then why is he not believed to say that he returned the article without witnesses since he could have claimed that he returned it in front of two witnesses who then went overseas?

(a) On what grounds will the Uman be believed if the article was handed over to him without witnesses?

(b) Will it make any difference whether the article was seen in his possession or not?

(c) Abaye asked Rabah why the 'Migu' was not applicable even if the owner handed the Uman the article with witnesses.
What did Rabah reply? What is the basis of their Machlokes?

Answers to questions



(a) What does the Beraisa say about a case where Reuven queries the Uman about his Eved, whom witnesses find training with him, or his cloak which they spot with the laundryman, assuming that the latter replies ...
  1. ... 'You gave him to me as a gift?
  2. ... 'You asked Levi to give him/it to me as a gift?
(b) Even though, in the case of the cloak, the Tana is speaking about an immediate Chazakah, the case of the Eved must be speaking about one of three years.
Why is that?

(c) Rava establishes the Seifa when they found the Eved or the cloak in the Reshus of Levi, from whom Reuven now claims it.
What is the case?

(d) How does this explain why he is believed, even though in the Reisha, he is not?

(a) The Reisha presents the case of 'Ra'ah'.
What Kashya does Rava now ask from the Reisha, 'Ra'ah Avdo be'Yad Uman ... Lo Amar K'lum' on Rabah, assuming that there were witnesses who saw that the article was handed over for repairs?

(b) What does Rava try to extrapolate from there? What will be the Kashya on Rabah if we establish the Beraisa when there are no witnesses?

(c) Why is this a Kashya on Rabah?

(d) How does Rabah answer the Kashya? Is the Tana speaking when there are witnesses or not?

(a) In which point are Rabah and Abaye now arguing?

(b) In a case where the Uman claims that Reuven fixed a price of two Zuz to repair his cloak, whereas Reuven counters that he promised him only one, what does the Tana rule as long as the Uman still has the cloak in his possession?

(c) Why is that?

(d) What does the Tana rule if the dispute arises after the Uman has already returned it? What distinction does he draw between Toch Zemano and le'Achar Zemano? What is considered 'Toch Zemano'?

(a) Bearing in mind the principle 'Ein Nishba'in ve'Notlin', what is the significance of the Tana's ruling in the case of 'Toch Zemano'?

(b) The reason that the Uman is believed is because he has a 'Migu' (because he could have claimed that he bought the cloak).
How does Rava attempt to prove Rabah's viewpoint from there?

(c) How do we refute Rava's proof?

(a) What does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak extrapolate from our Mishnah 'Uman Ein Lo Chazakah'?

(b) Why can the Beraisa not be speaking when the article was handed to the Uman without witnesses?

(c) How does Rava finally prove Rabah wrong from there?

(d) Why can we not refute this proof by establishing the Mishnah when the article was not seen in the Reshus of the Uman?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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