(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 78

BAVA BASRA 78 & 79 - dedicated by an admirer of the work of the Dafyomi Advancement Forum, l'Iluy Nishmas Mrs. Gisela (Golda bas Reb Chaim Yitzchak Ozer) and Reb Yisroel Shimon (ben Reb Shlomo) Turkel, A"H.


(a) According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, the accessories of a donkey (which will be explained in the Sugya) are not automatically sold together with the donkey. What does Nachum ha'Madi say?

(b) Rebbi Yehudah makes a compromise.
What will be the Din according to him, if Shimon, pointing to Reuven's donkey, says 'Sell me ...

  1. ... this donkey of yours (Chamorcha Zeh)'?
  2. ... this donkey, assuming it is yours (Chamorcha Hu)'?
(c) What is the basis for this distinction?
(a) Ula establishes the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Nachum ha'Madi by 'Sak, Diskaya and Kumni'. A Diskaya is a type of sack (see Rabeinu Gershom).
How does Rav Papa bar Shmuel translate 'Kumni'?

(b) What would the Tana'im hold in the case of a saddle, a saddle-cloth, or the strap or breast strap that tie them in place?

(c) What is the reason for this distinction? What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(d) Why then, does the Din of Kumni differ from a regular saddle?

(a) The Beraisa incorporates the saddle and the saddle-cloth ... (but not the sacks and the Kumni) in the sale of the donkey, in a case where the owner specifically stated 'the donkey and its accessories'.
In which case does the Tana concede that even the sacks and the Kumni are included in the sale too?

(b) What can we extrapolate from there that poses a Kashya on Ula's interpretation of our Mishnah?

(c) How do we reconcile the Beraisa with Ula? Why might the Tana refer to 'Chamor ve'Keilav' even if the saddle and the saddle-cloth ... were included in the sale anyway?

(a) We ask whether the Tana Kama and Nachum ha'Madi argue when the donkey is actually 'wearing' the accessories at the time of the sale.
What would the Tana'im then hold if it was not?

(b) What is the alternative explanation?

(c) We learned in a Beraisa 'u'vi'Zeman she'Amar Lo Hu ve'Chol Mah she'Alav, Harei Kulan Mechurin'.
Which side of the She'eilah do we initially think this proves? Who is then the author of the Beraisa?

(d) How do we reconcile it even if we establish the Machlokes when the donkey is not wearing the accessories? How would we then amend the Lashon of the Beraisa to concur with the opinion of the Rabbanan?

(a) How do we then attempt to resolve the She'eilah by quoting Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah 'Pe'amim Mechurin, Pe'amim Einan Mechurin ... '? What does Rebbi Yehudah's statement have to do with the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Nachum ha'Madi?

(b) How do we refute that proof?

(c) How will we then correlate Rebbi Yehudah with the Tana'im who preceded him?

Answers to questions



(a) How did Rebbi Avahu reconcile the Beraisa, which rules 'Machar es ha'Karon, Machar es ha'Perados', with our Mishnah, which rules 'Lo Machar es ha'Perados'?

(b) How do we try and resolve our current She'eilah from there?

(c) We query this proof however, from the Reisha (the Mishnah before) 'Machar es ha'Sefinah ... Aval Lo Machar es ha'Avadim ve'es ha'Antiki'.
How did Rav Papa there interpret 'Antiki'?

(d) How do we therefore query the proof from 'Machar es ha'Karon ... '?

(e) So what are we forced to conclude?

(a) What does Abaye say about Rebbi Eliezer, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, Rebbi Meir, Rebbi Nasan, Sumchus and Nachum ha'Madi? What do they all have in common?

(b) In which Perek will we find the respective Mishnahs of Rebbi Eliezer ('ha'Mocher es Beis ha'Bad, Machar es ha'Koreh') and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel ('ha'Mocher es ha'Ir, Machar es ha'Santer')?

(c) In what way does Rebbi Meir's ruling ('Machar es ha'Kerem, Machar Tashmishei Kerem') differ technically from the other Tana'aim?

(d) Where will we find Rebbi Nasan and Sumchus, and Nachum ha'Madi?

(a) Does Abaye mean to say that all the above Tana'im agree with each other?

(b) Abaye said 'Kulhu Sevira Lehu'.
What would he have said had the Tana'im all been fully of one accord?

(c) Which of the above Tana'im agrees with the rulings of all the others?

(a) What distinction does our Mishnah make between the sale of a donkey and the sale of a cow with regard to their young? What is a 'Si'ach'?

(b) What do the sale of a trash-heap, a water-pit, a bee-hive and a dove-cot have in common? How does the Tana equate them?

(c) What sort of trash-heap is the Tana referring to?

(d) What is the reasoning behind this ruling? Will the same apply in the reverse case?

(a) What would be the Din (with regard to a cow and a donkey) if the owner of the animal specifically stated that he was selling ...
  1. ... the animal with its young one?
  2. ... the animal (period)?
(b) Then in which case does our Mishnah (which draws a distinction between a donkey and a cow) speak?

(c) Then what is the reason for the difference? How, in this context, does Rav Papa explain ...

  1. ... Parah Menikah?
  2. ... Chamor Menikah?
(d) Why is a young donkey called 'Si'ach'? Why not an older one?
(a) Rav Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan explains the Pasuk in Chukas "Al-kein Yomru ha'Moshlim ... ". He interpreted "Al-kein Yomru ha'Moshlim Bo'u Cheshbon" to be an invitation to come and make a reckoning.
Who are the "Moshlim"?

(b) What sort of reckoning was he referring to?

(c) What did he mean by 'Cheshbono shel Olam'?

(d) And how did he interpret ...

  1. ... "Tibaneh ve'Sikonen"?
  2. ... "Ir Sichon. Ki Eish Yatz'ah' me'Cheshbon"?
  3. ... "ve'Lehavah mi'KiryAas Sichon"? What does 'Sichin' refer to in this context?
(a) What did he mean by "Achlah Or Mo'av"? Whom did the flame from the Tzadikim consume?

(b) "Ba'alei Bamos Arnon" refers to conceited people.
What did Resh Lakish say about someone who is conceited?

(c) And how does Rebbi Yonasan explain the continuation of the Pasuk ...

  1. ... "va'Niram, Avad Cheshbon"?
  2. ... "ad Divon"?
  3. ... "va'Nashim ad Nofach"?
(d) "ad Meidva" might mean 'until it hurts'.
What else might it mean?
13) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, fire will consume someone who separates from Torah-study.
What does Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan say?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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