(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 169


(a) We already quoted Rav Safra wo says 'Ein Kosvin Sh'nei Sh'taros al Sadeh Achas'.
To what was Rav Safra referring when he made this statement?

(b) Seeing as the purchaser has already paid the creditor who claimed the field from him, on what basis would he be able to claim again from other purchasers, even if the Sofer did write Acharayus in the Sh'tar?

(a) We have a problem however, with the fact that the creditor is able to claim again later, from Rav Nachman's statement concerning a Tirfa that fails to record that the Sh'tar concerned was torn by Beis-Din, or an Adrachta that fails to record that the Tirfa was torn by Beis-Din.
What is ...
  1. ... a 'Tirfa'?
  2. ... an 'Adrachta'?
(b) And he says the same about a Shuma that fails to record that the Adrachta was torn by Beis-Din.
What is a 'Shuma'?

(c) What did Rav Nachman say about them?

(d) What is then the problem?

(a) If the Beraisa (and Rav Safra) is not concerned about a creditor claiming from the *purchaser* twice, then what is concerned about?

(b) Rav Acha from Difti asks Ravina why the purchaser needs to ask the creditor to postpone his claim.
What is he really asking him?

(c) What does Ravina reply?

(d) On what grounds do we query even Ravina's explanation? How would it be possible to block the purchaser's second claim?

4) What did the Rabbanan in the presence of Rav Papa (or Rav Ashi) extrapolate from the previous Kashya? What major ruling did they learn from this Sugya?


(a) Rav Papa (or Rav Ashi) disagrees. He holds that as a rule, 'Kosvin Shover'.
Then why do we not write one here? What are we afraid of?

(b) What do we mean when we add 'I Nami, le'Loke'ach she'Lo be'Acharayus'?

(c) Then why do we write a receipt in the case of a loan? Why are we not worried there too that the borrower paid and the creditor will subsequently from the purchasers who do not have a receipt?

(d) Why do we not say the same here, in the case of a purchaser?

Answers to questions



(a) We learned in the Beraisa that if someone claims that he lost a Sh'tar Mekach u'Memkar, they write him a new one 'Chutz min ha'Acharayus'.
How does Rav Nachman explain this? What exactly does he have to write?

(b) What principle does Rafram extrapolate from there?

(c) Rav Ashi however, argues disagrees with Rav Nachman (and Rafram).
How does he interpret the Beraisa?

(a) In a case where a woman gave a man money to purchase a field on her behalf, what did he go and do?

(b) What did the woman claim?

(c) So what did Rav Nachman rule?

(a) We already cited the Beraisa in which Raban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that when a Sh'tar Matanah is returned, the Matanah goes back with it.
What objection does Rabah raise to Rav Asi's explanation that when Reuven gives Shimon a gift together with a Sh'tar, it is as if he stipulated that the gift is his only as long as he has the Sh'tar?

(b) In fact, says Rabah, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbanan argue over whether 'Osiyos Niknos bi'Mesirah' or not, as we explained.
Does this Machlokes also extend to the Sh'tar of a sale?

(c) Rabeinu Chananel rules like the Chachamim, based on the principle 'Yachid ve'Rabim, Halachah ke'Rabim'.
Why might the Halachah nevertheless be like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel?

(d) What is Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's Chidush? On what basis do the Chachamim argue with him?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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