ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 8
(a) Rav Chisda too, establishes the middle case of the Beraisa ('Beinonis
ve'Ziburis, Nizakin u'Ba'al Chov be'Beinonis') when the borrower had Idis at
the time of the debt. We attempt to prove this from a second Beraisa
'Beinonis ve'Ziburis, Nizakin be'Beinonis, Ba'al Chov u'Kesuvas Ishah
be'Ziburis' - which clearly speaks when he did not have Idis at the time of
the debt (thereby resolving the discrepancy between the two Beraisos). Both
Beraisos however, agree - that 'be'Shelo Hein Shamin'.
(b) Alternatively, we establish both Beraisos ...
1. ... when the borrower did not have Idis. In that case - both Beraisos
hold 'be'Shel Olam Hein Shamin', and the first Beraisa speaks when the
borrower's Beinonis was not on a par with the world's Idis, whereas the
second Beraisa speaks when it was.
(c) And an alternative text to the final suggestion is that both Beraisos
speak when his Beinonis was on a par with the world's Idis and when he had
Idis at the time of the debt - the first Beraisa now holds 'be'Shelo Hein
Shamin', whereas the second Beraisa holds be'Shel Olam Hein Shamin'.
2. ... the borrower did not have Idis at the time of the debt, and in
addition, his Beinonis was on a par with that of world - the Tana of the
first Beraisa now holds 'be'Shel Olam Hein Shamin', the Tana of the second,
'be'Shelo Hein Shamin'.
(a) According to Ravina, the two Beraisos argue over Ula, who learns from
the Pasuk "ba'Chutz Ta'amod, ve'ha'Ish Asher Atah Nosheh Bo Yotzi Eilecha es
he'Avot" - that a debtor only needs to pay Ziburis (because that is what one
would expect him to bring out to the bailiff).
(b) Ula then adds - that the Rabbanan changed the creditor's Din to Beinonis
because of 'Ne'ilas Deles' (so as not to close the door on future debtors,
as we explained earlier).
(c) Ravina now explains the Machlokes between the two Beraisos -
establishing the first Tana like Ula, who authorizes the creditor to claim
Beinonis, whereas the second Tana does not hold of the Takanah of 'Ne'ilas
Deles' (even if the debtor had Idis, too.
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa rules in the event that the debtor sold his
fields to one person, or to three people simultaneously - that the
purchasers re-place the debtor, and the Nizak, the creditor and the woman
all claim their respective dues.
(b) If he sold the three fields to three different people on three different
occasions - they all claim from the last one.
(c) The reason for this is - because each of the first two purchasers can
say 'I left you property from which to claim'(This in turn, is based on the
principle that one can never claim from Meshubadim when there are B'nei
(d) The Reisha cannot be speaking when the debtor sold the purchaser the
three fields in one Sh'tar - because since the Tana then goes on to teach
this same Din by three people, it would not have been necessary to insert
the same Din by one person (which is obvious).
(a) In the previous case, had he purchased the Ziburis last - he could have
forced them all to claim from Ziburis (as we just explained).
(b) The Tana says 'Kulan Nichnesu Tachas ha'Ba'alim' - because the Beraisa
speaks when he purchased Idis last.
(c) And the reason that they cannot all claim from Idis is - because he can
argue that unless they are silent, he will return the Sh'tar Ziburis to the
seller, and they will be forced to take Ziburis.
(a) The purchaser would be able to force the Nizak to take Beinonis using
the same argument.
(b) The reason that the Tana authorizes the Nizak to take Idis is - because
he is speaking when the debtor is no longer alive. Consequently - the
purchaser can no longer threaten the Nizak with 'I Shaskas Shaskas ... ',
because Yesomim who purchase land after their father's demise, are not
obligated to pay their father's debts'. Consequently, the Shibud remains on
(c) And as for the Kashya that we asked earlier (Why can all three not claim
from Idis, seeing as that was the last field that he purchased?) the answer
is - because (on the grounds that this Takanah was instituted for the
benefit of the subsequent purchasers) the current purchaser can argue that
he, as the subsequent purchaser, he does not want the Takanah.
(d) The right to forgo a Takanas Chachamim that as instituted for one's
benefit, is taught by Rava, who was referring to the case stated by Rav
Huna - who said that a woman has the right to decline being sustained by her
husband so that she will not be obligated to give him the work that she
produces (because Chazal instituted this Takanah on her behalf).
(a) If the man who bought all three fields (and the Idis last) subsequently
sold the Beinonis and the Ziburis - all three claimants receive Idis.
(b) Abaye thought that, in the event that he sold Idis, leaving himself with
Beinonis and Ziburis, they would all claim from Idis. Rava's objection to
this ruling was - that the seller always sells all the rights that he has in
the object to the purchaser together with the object. In our case, one of
those rights was the right to give the claimants the Beinonis and the
Ziburis (even though he purchased the Idis last). Consequently, the second
purchaser receives that right too.
(a) In a case where Reuven sold all his fields to Shimon, and Shimon then
sold one field to Levi - Rava ruled that Reuven's creditor is permitted to
claim from whichever of the two he chooses.
(b) We qualify Rava's ruling - by confining it to where Levi bought
Beinonis, but in the event that he bought Idis and Ziburis, he can say to
Reuven's creditor 'That's why I made a point of buying Idis and Ziburis
(fields to which you have no claim), so that you should not claim from me'.
(c) The same ruling will apply even if he purchased Beinonis - provided he
left some Beinonis with Shimon, because then he can say to him 'I specially
left some Beinonis with Shimon for you to claim'.
(a) Abaye rules that if Reuven sold Shimon a field with Acharayus (the
undertaking to reimburse him should his creditor claim it from him), Reuven
is permitted to appear in Beis-Din to assist Shimon to ward off the his
creditor, should he indeed claim the field. We might have thought
otherwise - because the creditor can argue 'You are not my disputant! It's
none of your business!'
(b) He is permitted to do so - because he can counter that it is very much
his business, due to the fact that, if Shimon loses the field, he will have
to reimburse him.
(c) Others permit it even if he sold him the field without Acharayus -
because he can say that he doesn't want Shimon to hold it against him.