(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 49

BAVA BASRA 48 & 49 - these Dafim have been dedicated anonymously l'Iluy Nishmas Tzirel Nechamah bas Tuvya Yehudah.


(a) We just cited Rav Nachman, who rules that both 'Amanah Hayu Devareinu' and 'Moda'a Hayu Devareinu' are not believed.
What does Rav Ashi hold?

(b) We already cited Mar bar Rav Ashi (or Rav Ashi)'s reason by 'Amanah Hayu Devareinu'.
From which Pasuk does he learn it?

(c) How do we know that he disagrees with Rav Nachman's reasoning in this case (that the witnesses cannot negate a Sh'tar), even though he agrees with his ruling?

(d) How does he define the difference between the two rulings in a nutshell?

(a) With regard to Mar bar Rav Ashi's ruling validating 'Moda'a Hayu Devareinu' (even if they testify orally), on what grounds does he say 'Zeh Nitan Likasev'?

(b) Are the witnesses believed even if their signatures are substantiated from another source?

(c) Why is it not considered 'Chozer u'Magid?

(d) Which case *would* be considered 'Chozer u'Magid'?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Ein le'Ish Chazakah be'Nechsei Ishto', and we ask why it is not obvious that, since he is permitted to eat the Peiros of his wife's Nechsei Milug, he cannot establish a Chazakah on them.
What is the difference between this case and Mashkanta de'Sura, where the debtor needs to make a Mecha'ah (despite the fact that there too, the creditor is permitted to eat the Peiros)?

(b) How do we establish our Mishnah to answer the Kashya why it is not obvious?

(c) In that case, why do we initially think, can he not establish a Chazakah?

(a) What does the Beraisa say about someone who says to his friend 'Din u'Devarim Ein Li al Sadeh Zeh' (or a similar Lashon of withdrawal), intending to give him the field as a gift?

(b) Then how will it help to rrelinquish one's rights on his wife's Nechsei Milug in this way?

(c) de'Bei Rebbi Yanai, who gives this answer, bases it on a statement of Rav Kahana.
What did Rav Kahana say about a Nachalah ha'Ba'ah Lo le'Adam mi'Makom Acher? What is a 'Nachalah ha'Ba'ah Lo le'Adam mi'Makom Acher'?

Answers to questions



(a) Rav Kahana's statement is based on a broader principle presented by Rava.
What did he say?

(b) Rava, in turn, made his statement in connection with a ruling of Rav Huna Amar Rav.
What did Rav Huna Amar Rav say about a woman who does not want to work for her husband?

(c) Why did Rava present his principle specifically on Rav Huna Amar Rav's ruling?

(d) What is the reason for the principle?

(a) On what basis can woman ...
  1. ... decline to work for her husband, seeing as he is the one who will be losing out and not her?
  2. ... retract, even after they are married, when the Takanah is already in effect?
(b) Why might the man relinquish his claim on the Peiros of his wife's Nechsei Milug? What did they obligate him to do in return?
(a) What can we extrapolate from our Mishnah 'Ein le'Ish Chazakah be'Nechsei Ishto'?

(b) The Mishnah in Gitin rules that if Rueven purchased all Shimon's fields (which were automatically Meshubad to his wife's Kesuvah) and then paid his wife a token fee for her rights in the fields, 'Mikcho Bateil'.
What does this mean?

(c) What is the reason for this ruling?

(a) We reconcile this with the previous inference from our Mishnah, by citing Rabah bar Rav Huna.
How does Rabah bar Rav Huna establish the Mishnah in Gitin to tally with our Mishnah?

(b) What is the difference between a field 'she'Kasav Lah bi'Kesuvasah', and 'she'Yiched Lah bi'Kesuvasah'?

(c) Which is the third field upon which a woman implicitly relies?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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