(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 95

BAVA BASRA 91-95 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.


(a) What does the Beraisa rule in a case where Reuven cheated Shimon ...
  1. ... Pachos mi'Sh'tus?
  2. ... Sh'tus (according to Rebbi Nasan)?
  3. ... Yeser al Sh'tus?
(b) What can we extrapolate from here? Which case/s seem to corroborate Rav Huna (according to the Lashon of Mamon)?

(c) How do we differentiate between Rav Huna and the Beraisa? What makes that case worse in this regard than that of Rav Huna?

(a) How many infertile trees must Reuven expect, if he hires Shimon to plant trees in his field?

(b) What does the Beraisa say in a case where eleven out of a hundred trees turn out to be infertile?

(c) How does Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua refute the proof for Rav Huna from here, by differentiating between the two cases?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Martef shel Yayin, Mekabel Alav Eser Kos'sos le'Me'ah'.
According to the Beraisa, what would be the Din in this case if Reuven stipulated 'Martef ...
  1. ... shel Yayin S'tam'?
  2. ... Zeh shel Yayin'?
  3. ... Zeh'?
(b) According to our current understanding of the Beraisa, why is the case of Yayin S'tam any different than crops and figs, where the purchaser must expect ten 'bad' ones per hundred?

(c) How will we then reconcile our Mishnah with the Beraisa? Which of the three cases will we have to amend to accomodate our Mishnah?

(a) Another Beraisa Cited by Rebbi Chiya learns 'ha'Mocher Chavis Yayin la'Chavero, Nosen Lo Yayin she'Kulo Yafeh' (and not Yayin Koses).
In light of the previous Beraisa, what is the Chidush of this Beraisa?

(b) How do we reconcile this with what we just learned (that by Yayin S'tam, the purchaser must accepted one in ten Yayin Kos'sos)?

(a) We still have a problem based on a Beraisa of de'Bei Oshaya cited by Rav Z'vid. The Tana there reiterates the Din cited in the previous Beraisa with regard to Yayin S'tam, only he repeats the same Halachah with regard to 'Martef Zeh shel Yayin' (whereas in the previous Beraisa, the Tana held 'Mocher Lo Yayin ha'Nimkar ba'Chanus').
In which case does he add 'u'Mekabel Alav Eser Kos'sos le'Me'ah'?

(b) What does he then mean when he concludes 've'Zehu Otzar she'Shanu be'Mishnaseinu'?

(c) So how do we finally establish our Mishnah?

Answers to questions



(a) How do we establish Rav Z'vid's Beraisa which rules 'Martef Zeh shel Yayin, Nosen Lo Yayin she'Kulo Yafeh, u'Mekabel Alav ... Kos'sos' to reconcile it with the Beraisa that we learned earlier 'Nosen Lo Yayin ha'Nimkar ba'Chanus' (which are all Kos'sos)?

(b) In the first Beraisa, what did Reuven mean to preclude when he stipulated 'shel Yayin' (seeing as Shimon must accept as many Kos'sos as he receives)?

(a) Why, if Reuven stipulated 'le'Mikpah', must he give Shimon good wine, even if it is customary to use vinegar for the purpose of 'Mikpah'?

(b) Why does Rav Z'vid's Beraisa not insert the case of 'Martef Zeh Ani Mocher Lach'?

(c) What is the Machlokes between Rav Acha and Ravina regarding 'Martef shel Yayin' without mentioning 'shel Mikpah'?

(d) What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(a) Both Rav Acha and Ravina extrapolate their respective views from one of the two main Beraisos currently under discussion, both of which state 'Martef Zeh shel Yayin Ani Mocher Lach, Nosen Lo Yayin she'Kulo Yafeh'. What does the one extrapolate ...
  1. ... from Rav Z'vid's Beraisa, which we established when Reuven stipulated that he was selling the wine 'le'Mikpah'?
  2. ... from the earlier Beraisa, which we established when Reuven did not stipulate that he was selling the wine 'le'Mikpah'?
(b) How will the first opinion (which insists on 'le'Mikpeh' by 'Yayin Zeh' to obligate the seller to sell all good wine) then interpret the Reisha of the first Beraisa?

(c) How can the Tana switch from case to case in one Beraisa?

(d) And how will the second opinion (which does not require 'le'Mikpeh' by 'Yayin Zeh' to obligate the seller to sell all good wine) interpret the Reisha of Rav Z'vid's Beraisa?

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav requires the B'rachah of 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen' for wine that is sold in the store.
What sort of wine is Rav talking about?

(b) What does Rav Chisda say?

(a) What does the Beraisa say about bread that has gone moldy, wine that has turned into vinegar and a dish that has changed its appearance (turned sour)? What do all of these have in common?

(b) Rav reconciles his opinion with the Beraisa by establishing the latter by 'Purtz'ma de'Mizdavin a'Karn'sa'.
What does this mean?

(c) Rabeinu Chananel has the text 'be'Pirtzufa de'Mizdavin a'Karn'sa'.
What is 'Pirtzufa'?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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