(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 50

BAVA BASRA 50 (27 Iyar) - Dedicated by Gitle Bekelnitzky in honor of the Yahrzeit of her father, Zev ben Ephraim v'Chaya Krause


(a) We just established the Mishnah in Gitin 'Lakach min ha'Ish ve'Chazar ve'Lakchah min ha'Ishah, Mekcho Bateil' (because the woman can say 'Nachas Ru'ach Asisi le'Ba'ali'), when the husband sold one of the three fields that we just discussed.
On what grounds do we refute the initial implication that in the case of all other fields, 'Mekcho Kayam'?

(b) Then which case does Rabah bar Rav Huna (the author of the previous ruling) come to exclude?

(c) What makes Nechsei Milug different than all the other fields?

(a) What did Ameimar say about 'Ish ve'Ishah she'Machrah be'Nechsei Milug'?

(b) How will Rabah bar Rav Huna explain Ameimar's ruling (seeing as, according to him, if a woman sells her Nechsei Milug after her husband, the sale is valid)?

(c) In which case, other than when they both sold the Nechsei Milug, is the sale valid?

(a) In the case where the woman alone sold her Nechsei Milug, the husband can re-claim the field from the purchaser because of a statement of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina.
What did Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina say about what they instituted in Usha.

(b) Will this Takanah apply even if she sold the field (over which the husband has no rights in his wife's lifetime), and died? Is he nevertheless permitted to claim the field from the purchaser?

(c) Does this mean that the woman's sale is completely invalid?

(a) Alternatively, when Ameimar says 'Ish ve'Ishah', he means even if both of them sold the Nechsei Milug, and he holds like Rebbi Elazar, who discusses in a Beraisa the Din of Yom O Yomayim.
What is the Din of 'Yom O Yomayim'?

(b) What does Rebbi Elazar say in a case where Reuven sold his Eved to Shimon on condition that he may still continue to use him for thirty days, and then, after one of them struck him, he survived twenty-four hours?

(c) How does Rava derive this from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Ki Kaspo Hu"?

(d) How does this affect Ameimar's ruling regarding a man and his wife who sold her field of Nechsei Milug?

(a) How will Ameimar now reconcile his opinion with our Mishnah, which validates a man's sale of his wife's Nechsei Milug should she substantiates the sale?

(b) What is the reasoning of ...

  1. ... Rebbi Meir, who holds in the Beraisa of Rebbi Elazar, that the seller is subject to the Din of Yom O Yomayim, but not the buyer?
  2. ... Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that the buyer is subject to the Din of Yom O Yomayim, but not the seller?
(c) Rebbi Meir's opinion is based on the Pasuk "u'Meis Tachas Yado".
What is Rebbi Yehudah's source?
(a) What does Rebbi Yossi hold?

(b) What is his reason?

Answers to questions



(a) We learned in our Mishnah 've'Lo Ish Chazakah be'Nechsei Ishto'.
What did Rav say that seems to clash with this?

(b) How do we know that when Rav says ...

  1. ... 'Eishes Ish Tzerichah Li'mchos', he is not referring to a third party attempting to establish a Chazakah on the woman's property?
  2. ... 'Ein Machzikin be'Nechsei Eishes Ish', he is not referring to her husband's to do so?
(c) We finally establish 'Eishes Ish Tzerichah Li'mchos' with regard to her husband.
How does Rava then establish Rav so as not to clash with our Mishnah? What sort of field is he talking about?
(a) What did Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah say about someone establishing a Chazakah through damaging?

(b) How do we reconcile this with Rav?

(c) Alternatively, even digging pits in a field is subject to a three-year Chazakah.
How do we then establish Rav Nachman's ruling? What is *he* referring to?

(d) Rav Mari gives an example of Rav Nachman's ruling as producing smoke. What example does Rav Z'vid give?

(a) Rav Yosef establishes Rav's statement 'Eishes Ish Tzerichah Li'mchos' with regard to a third party (other than her husband). We asked earlier from here on to Rav's other ruling 'Ein Machzikin be'Nechsei Eishes Ish'.
In this latter case, why is the Machzik not believed when he claims that he bought the field from the husband?

(b) How does Rav Yosef establish Rav's statement 'Eishes Ish Tzerichah Li'mchos', with regard to a third party, to reconcile the two statements of Rav?

(c) Should the woman fail to make a Mecha'ah, the man will establish a Chazakah on the basis of a 'Migu'.
Which 'Migu'?

(a) If not for Rav's ruling, we would have otherwise compared this case to that of an Aris, who cannot establish a Chazakah on the field of Arisus. What is the basis of this connection?

(b) On what grounds does Rav differentiate between the two cases? In which way is our case different than that of an Aris?

(a) The Daynei Golah disagree with Rav.
Who are the Daynei Golah?

(b) What do they say with regard to Rav's ruling 'Ein Machzikin be'Nechsei Eishes Ish'?

(c) When Rav ruled like the Daynei Golah, Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asked him whether he had retracted.
What was his reply?

(d) Does this mean that the Daynei Golah were also referring to Rav Yosef's case?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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