(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 174


(a) What does Rav Huna say about the following? What do they all have in common: 'Hilveihu va'Ani Areiv'; 'Hilveihu va'Ani Pore'a'; 'Hilveihu va'Ani Chayav'; 'Hilveihu va'Ani Etein'?

(b) And what do the following have in common: 'Ten Lo va'Ani Kabkan'; 'Ten Lo va'Ani Pore'a; 'Ten Lo va'Ani Chayav', 'Ten Lo va'Ani Etein'?

(c) Why the difference?

(d) They asked what the Din will be if he said 'Hilveihu va'Ani Kablan' or 'Ten Lo va'Ani Areiv'.
What did Rebbi Yitzchak answer?

(a) Rav Chisda disagrees with Rav Huna. In his opinion, all the above cases imply Kablanus except for one.
Which one?

(b) Rava too, disagrees with Rav Huna, though he goes to the other extreme. What does he say? How many cases imply Kablanus?

(c) Like whom do we rule?

(a) Which case was Mar bar Ameimar referring to when he quoted his father as saying that the creditor has no claim on the borrower whatsoever?

(b) What did Rav Ashi retort? When would that ruling be correct?

(a) When a certain Dayan sent a creditor to claim from the debtor's property before he had claimed from the debtor himself, why did Rav praise Rav Chanin B'rei de'Rav Yeiva? What did he do?

(b) Why did he do that?

(c) Which Mishnah served as the basis of his ruling?

(d) What is the reason behind it?

(a) An Areiv of Yesomim paid their debt without their knowledge.
Whose debt had he really paid?

(b) Were the Yesomim obligated to reimburse the Areiv?

(c) Rav Papa absolved them on the grounds that paying one's debts is a Mitzvah, and Yesomim are not obligated to perform Mitzvos.
Does this mean that they were permanently Patur from paying him?

(a) On what grounds did Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua absolve them from paying?

(b) And on what grounds did he disagree with Rav Papa? Since when is a Katan obligated to perform Mitzvos?

(c) Is the fact that the debt that the Areiv is claiming is an oral one significant, according to ...

  1. ... Rav Papa?
  2. ... Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua?
(d) How do we reconcile this with the Sugya later which rules that one can claim an oral loan from Yesomim?
(a) Rava rules in Erchin that one only claims from Yesomim (a debt which is not tied up with Ribis) if their father said 'T'nu' before he died. Does he argue with Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua, who holds that they are Chayav only if their father admitted that he was Chayav before he died?

(b) Bearing in mind that even when one does claim a father's debt from his Yesomim, that is only from Karka (since 'Metalteli de'Yasmi Lo Mishtabdi le'Ba'al-Chov'), on what grounds is it customary to claim even from Metaltelin nowadays?

(c) One of the two differences between Rav Papa and Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua is where the father admitted that he owed the money, in which case, the Yesomim will be Chayav, according to Rav Huna, but will remain Patur, according to Rav Papa.
What is the other difference?

(d) Like whom did the B'nei Ma'arva rule?

Answers to questions



(a) What does the Berasa say about an Areiv who produces a Sh'tar-Chov ...
  1. ... that he claims to have paid on the Yesomim's behalf?
  2. ... on which is also written 'Hiskabalti mi'Mecha'?
(b) Why is this Beraisa not a Kashya on Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua?

(c) What problem does the Beraisa create according to Rav Papa?

(d) How do we resolve it?

(a) In a similar case to the previous one, only where the creditor was a Nochri, Rav Mordechai quoted Avimi from Hagrunya in the name of Rava, who ruled in such a case that even according to Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua, the Yesomim would have to pay.
Why is that?

(b) Rav Ashi disagreed. On what grounds did he counter that, to the contrary, even Rav Papa would concede that, in this case, they would be Patur, even if their father had admitted to not having paid before he died?

(a) What wish did Abaye express in the case where Moshe bar Atzri was the Areiv for his daughter's Kesuvah, and Rav Huna his son, a Talmid-Chacham hit hard times?

(b) On what grounds did Rava query that?

(c) How did Abaye counter Rava's Kashya?

(d) What did Abaye comment when it was discovered that Rav Huna was a Kohen?

(a) What title did Abaye in 'Yesh Nochlin' confer upon someone who advises the recipient of a gift with the Lashon 'Nechasai Lach ve'Acharecha li'Peloni' to sell the property (to prevent P'loni from obtaining it), according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (who holds 'Mah she'Asah Asuy')? Why did he say that?

(b) How do we reconcile that statement of Abaye, with his opinion here? Why would the person to advise Rav Huna not be considered a Rasha too?

(a) We will see shortly that basically, an Areiv of a Kesuvah, unlike other Areivim in similar circumstances, is not Meshubad.
Then how do we initially explain Moshe bar Atzri's Arvus?

(b) Why will not everyone agree with this answer? In which case might even a Kablan not be Meshubad to the Kesuvah?

(c) We give two answers to this Kashya. One answer is that Rav Huna may have had property at the time when the Shibud came into effect, only it was destroyed later.
What is the other?

(a) Which ...
  1. ... Areiv does everyone agree is not Meshubad?
  2. ... Kablan does everyone agree is?
(b) A Kablan of a Kesuvah and an Areiv of a Ba'al-Chov is a Machlokes Amora'im (though we do not know the names of the disputants).
Under which circumstances do they ...
  1. ... agree?
  2. ... argue?
(c) What is the reason of those who hold that he is not Meshubad?

(d) We rule that although an Areiv is Meshubad even if the debtor has no property, an Areiv of a Kesuvah is not Meshubad, even if he has.
Why is that?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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