(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 148


(a) When Rava Amar Rav Nachman says 'Shechiv-Mera sha'Amar Halva'asi li'Peloni, Halva'aso li'Peloni', what kind of loan is he referring to?

(b) What is the problem with this statement, coming from Rava Amar Rav Nachman?

(a) Rav Papa answers 'Ho'il ve'Yoresh Yorshah'.
What does he mean by that?

(b) Rav Acha Brei de'Rav Ika answers differently. He cites Rav Huna Amar Rav.
What does Rav Huna Amar Rav say about 'Manah Li be'Yadcha, Teneihu li'Peloni'? How does this answer the Kashya?

(c) What other exception to the above rule stems from the Din of 'Halva'asi li'Peloni'?

(a) We ask what the Din will be if someone gives a date-palm to Reuven and the fruit to Shimon.
Why can this She'eilah not pertain to a Matnas Bari?

(b) Assuming then, that the She'eilah concerns a Matnas Shechiv-Mera, why do we ask it here?

(c) The She'eilah is based on the difference between a Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Kulo, and a Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzaso. Besides the fact that the latter requires a Kinyan, what is the difference between them?

(d) What then, is the She'eilah?

(a) What do we then ask, based on the assumption that the previous case is not considered a Shiyur and that the gift of the palm-tree is effective?

(b) Why might this case be different than the previous one?

(c) On what grounds do we refute the above version of the second She'eilah?

(d) So what is the alternative version of the She'eilah (see Maharam)?

(a) Rebbi Aba told Rav Ashi that he had learned the above distinction in connection with a statement of Resh Lakish (in 'ha'Mocher es ha'Bayis').
What did Resh Lakish say about someone who sells a house on condition that the Diyuta (the attic) still belongs to him?

(b) What She'eilah did they ask about a Bari who sells a house or a room (in a Chatzer) to Reuven and the Diyuta to Shimon?

(c) What did they then ask, on the assumption that, in the previous She'eilah, it is not considered a Shiyur?

(a) Rava Amar Rav Nachman resolves the She'eilah by quoting Rav Z'vid.
What did Rav Z'vid rule in such a case?

(b) Why might this latter case be different than the previous one?

Answers to questions



(a) What does Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman say about a Shechiv-Mera who distributes all his property to a number of people?

(b) How will the Din differ in a case where he changed his mind? What does this mean?

(c) How do we know that he changed his mind and was not just working out to whom to give his estate?

(a) Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman says that a Shechiv-Mera who distributes all his property and then recovers, cannot retract.
Why not?

(b) How do we then establish our Mishnah, which states 'Lo Shiyer Karka Kol she'Hu, Ein Matanaso Kayemes'?

(c) What second answer does Mar bar Rav Ashi give to explain our Mishnah?

(a) We ask whether 'Chazarah be'Miktzas Havya Chazarah' or not. Practically speaking, what does 'Chazarah be'Miktzas Havya Chazarah' mean?

(b) We try to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa 'Kulan le'Rishon, u'Miktzasan le'Sheini, Sheini Kanah, Rishon Lo Kanah'.
How do we initially establish the Beraisa, to resolve it?

(c) Why does the proof fall away, once we establish the Beraisa when he recovered?

(d) And we try to prove that the Tana speaks when he recovered, from the Seifa 'Miktzasan le'Rishon, ve'Kulan le'Sheini, Rishon Kanah, Sheini Lo Kanah'.
How do we prove that from there?

(a) Rav Yeimar however, queries Rav Ashi's proof (that the Tana might even hold 'Chazarah be'Miktzas Lo Havya Chazarah' and the Tana speaks when the Shechiv-Mera recovered).
How does he prove that, even if he does, he must still hold ' ... Havya Chazarah'?

(b) What is the Halachah with regard to Chazarah be'Miktzas?

(c) The Reisha of the Beraisa therefore rules 'Sheini Kanah, Rishon Lo Kanah' irrespective of whether the Shechiv-Mera recovered or not.
Why must the Seifa ('Rishon Kanah, Sheini Lo Kanah') speak specifically when he recovered?

(a) We ask what the Din will be with regard to a Shechiv-Mera who declared all his property Hekdesh and then recovered.
What is the She'eilah? Why might Hekdesh be different than Hedyot in this regard?

(b) What do we then ask about Hefker? Why might Hefker be no different than Hedyot?

(c) Why might they nevertheless be no different than Hedyot?

(d) What do we then ask about a Shechiv-Mera who distributed his estate to the poor? What is the She'eilah?

(e) What is the outcome of these She'eilos?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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