(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 47

BAVA BASRA 46 & 47 - dedicated by Reb Gedalia Weinberger of New York, an Ohev Torah and Marbitz Torah whose tireless efforts on behalf of Klal Yisroel have produced enormous benefits for the Lomdei Hadaf over the years.


(a) We learned in our Mishnah that an Uman and an Aris do not have a Chazakah.
What does the Beraisa say about their sons? Do they have a Chazakah?

(b) In the Seifa, the Beraisa teaches us that a Gazlan does not have a Chazakah either.
What does the Tana say about his son?

(c) To reconcile ...

  1. ... the Seifa with the Reisha, why can we not establish the Beraisa when the son claims that he inherited the field from his father?
  2. ... the Reisha with the Seifa, why can we not establish it when they claimed that they had purchased the field directly from the owner?
(a) So we establish the Beraisa when witnesses testified that the owner had admitted to their respective fathers that he had sold him the field before his death.
How does this explain the Reisha? Why do we now believe the son of the Uman and the Aris?

(b) We do not however, believe the son of the Gazlan, because of a statement of Rav Kahana.
What does Rav Kahana say about a ruthless Gazlan?

(a) Why then, is the Gazlan's grandson able to establish a Chazakah?

(b) When would even he not be able to do so?

(c) How will we explain the alternative version of this ruling (that sometimes, even the son of a Gazlan can establish a Chazakah)? What is the reason for this ruing?

(d) If the Beraisa is speaking when witnesses testify that the owner admitted that he sold the donkey to the Machzik, why are the Uman and the Aris themselves not believed?

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Gazlan referred to by the Tana is the one who stole the field on which he is now tying to establish a Chazakah.
How does Rav Chisda explain 'Gazlan' in the Beraisa?

(b) What is the difference between the two opinions?

(a) What does the Beraisa say about an Uman and an Aris who changed their professions?

(b) We learned earlier in a Mishnah that a husband and wife, a father and son cannot establish a Chazakah on each other's property.
When will this Din change?

(a) What Chidush is Ben she'Chilek' coming to teach us?

(b) What is the Chidush? Why might we have thought otherwise?

(c) What problem do we have with the Tana's ruling that after a man divorces his wife, they can establish a Chazakah on each other's property?

(a) We answer the current Kashya by establishing the case by a Safek Megureshes.
What is the case?

(b) The answer itself is based on a statement of Rebbi Zeira Amar Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba Amar Shmuel.
What did Shmuel say about every case of Safek Megureshes?

(c) How does this help us to explain the Beraisa?

(d) Then why do we not say that?

Answers to questions



(a) What does Rav Nachman, quoting Rav Huna say about an Uman, an Aris, a husband and wife and a father and son? When are they all believed when claim that they purchased a field, even though we just learned that they cannot establish a Chazakah?

(b) What is the one exception to the rule?

(c) Why is that? Why for example, if the Gazlan produces a Sh'tar that the owner sold him the field, is he nevertheless not believed?

(a) The source for this ruling is the Mishnah in Gitin 'Lakach mi'Sikrikun ve'Chazar ve'Lakach mi'Ba'al ha'Bayis, Mekcho Bateil'.
What is the case?

(b) How do we derive our case from there?

(c) In spite of the Mishnah, Rav Huna needs to teach us this in order to preclude from the opinion of Rav.
How does Rav qualify the Mishnah in Gitin? In which cases would the purchaser acquire from the Sikrikun according to Rav?

(a) Rav Huna holds like Shmuel.
When will Shmuel concede that the purchaser does acquire the article in the case of Lakach mi'Sikrikun'?

(b) Rav Bibi concludes in the name of Rav Nachman 'Karka Ein Lo, Aval Ma'os Yesh Lo'.
What does he mean by that? Which case is he referring to?

(c) What is Rav Nachman's Chidush?

(d) Rav Bibi confines this to where the witnesses actually saw the Gazlan hand the money to the Nigzal, but not to where they testify that the Nigzal admitted that he received the money or even if they wrote this in the Sh'tar. On what basis does Rav Nachman rule ...

  1. ... in the latter case that the Nigzal is not obligated to return the money?
  2. ... in the former case that he is?
(a) What does Rav Huna hold in a case of 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin'? What is the case?

(b) Will Rav Nachman agree with Rav Huna?

(c) On what grounds do we refute the suggestion that the reason for this is because in any event, a person only sells his personal effects because he has to, and not because he wants to?

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with bringing one's Korban) ...
  1. ... "Yakriv Oso"?
  2. ... "li'Retzono"?
(b) How do we reconcile the two seemingly conflicting D'rashos?

(c) Why is this not a good source from which to learn that someone who accedes to external pressure is called 'willing' ('Talyuhu ve'Zavin')?

(d) And why can we not learn it from the equivalent Halachah by someone who has to be beaten before agreeing to give his wife a Get?

13) Then what is ultimately the source of 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin, Z'vineih Z'vini'?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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