(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Bava Metzia 67

1a) [line 2] V'ODIK CHAZISAN AILONIS - and when he (Rav Nachman, who rules Mechilah b'Ta'us Havyah Mechilah) noticed [that I was going to object by referring to the case of Ona'ah -- in which the money of Ona'ah must be returned, even though it appears to be a case of Mechilah b'Ta'us,] he pointed out to us [the case of] Ailonis

b) [line 2] AILONIS
(a) An Ailonis is a woman who is incapable of conception. This word is derived from the word "Ayil," a ram, which is a male sheep that does not have a womb (Kesuvos 11a). If a woman is found to be an Ailonis after she is married, she does not receive the value of a Kesuvah (see below, entry #4), Peiros (see below, entry #5), Mezonos (see below, entry #6) or Bela'os (see below, entry #7) (Mishnah Kesuvos 100b).
(b) Rav Nachman proved from Ailonis that Mechilah b'Ta'us is indeed Mechilah since, despite the fact that the woman was Mochel be'Ta'us (thinking that her Kidushin was valid), her Mechilah nevertheless stands.

2) [line 5] HA'MEMA'ENES (MI'UN)
(a) The Torah gives a father the right to marry off his daughter at any age before she is twelve years old.
(b) If she was divorced or widowed or her father died without marrying her off, the Chachamim gave the girl's mother and/or oldest brother the right to marry her off. In these cases the marriage is only mid'Rabanan and she must be at least ten years old, or at least six years old if she has an understanding of the concept of marriage.
(c) According to the RAMBAM and the RA'AVAD, in the above circumstances, the Chachamim also gave *her* the right to get married by herself. This marriage is also mid'Rabanan. According to the Rambam, she must be at least ten years old, or at least six years old if she has an understanding of the concept of marriage. According to the Ra'avad, however, her Kidushin is valid even if she has enough sense to guard the object given to her for her Kidushin (and she realizes that it was given to her for Kidushin).
(d) In the instances of marriage mid'Rabanan, before she reaches Halachic puberty and becomes a Na'arah (through the growth of two pubic hairs), she has the option of annulling the marriage through a procedure known as Mi'un (refusal). She says before two witnesses, "I do not want him," and the marriage is annulled retroactively. There is no need for her to receive a Get (a bill of divorce). A girl who is married off by her father cannot annul the marriage through Mi'un. (RAMBAM Hilchos Ishus 4:7-8)
(e) Since a Mema'enes leaves her husband against his will, she does not receive the value of a Kesuvah (see below, entry #4), Peiros (see below, entry #5), Mezonos (see below, entry #6) or Bela'os (see below, entry #7) (Mishnah Kesuvos 100b).

(a) In addition to the forbidden relationships (Isurei Ervah) prohibited by the Torah and punishable with Kares (Vayikra 18:6-30, 20:10-22, et. al.), the Chachamim decreed to prohibit certain relatives who are permitted mid'Oraisa. This decree of Sheniyos (lit. "secondaries") was meant to distance a person from engaging in relationships that are prohibited by the Torah. Although the Chachamim lent severity to this Isur by showing hidden inferences to Sheniyos from various verses in the Torah (Yevamos 21a), nevertheless the prohibition of Sheniyos is only mid'Rabanan. Therefore, if a man betroths a Sheniyah, his Kidushin is valid, and the resulting child is not a Mamzer as the child of an Ervah mid'Oraisa would be. If a Yevamah is a Sheniyah of the Yavam, she and her Tzarah (co-wife) must do Chalitzah and not Yibum.
(b) In some cases Sheniyos were prohibited only in a single generation, while in other cases they were prohibited in subsequent generations as well. For example, not only is one's mother's mother a Sheniyah, his mother's mother's mother is a Sheniyah as well; not only is one's son's daughter-in-law a Sheniyah, his son's son's daughter-in-law is a Sheniyah as well. The general rule is that if there is an Ervah mid'Oraisa in one generation (in the above example, one's mother or daughter-in-law) the associated Sheniyah was prohibited in all previous generations and subsequent generations as well; that is, the Sheniyah was prohibited "without a Hefsek" (RASHI to Yevamos 21a DH v'Eshes Achi ha'Av -- There are several exceptions to this rule; see Chart #6 to Yevamos 21a-22a and footnotes 2, 3.)
(c) There are those who prohibited Sheniyos based on the principle that "any relative who, as a female, is Asur as an Ervah, as a male his wife is Asur mid'Rabanan (i.e. a Sheniyah)." For example, since a man's daughter's daughter is prohibited to him, the Chachamim decreed that the daughter-in-law of his daughter is prohibited to him as a Sheniyah (GEMARA Yevamos 21b; see TOSFOS ibid. DH Lo Asru).
(d) Since Chazal assume that a Sheniyah persuaded her husband to perform the sin of marrying her, they penalized her that she does not receive the value of a Kesuvah (see next entry), Peiros (see below, entry #5), Mezonos (see below, entry #6) or Bela'os (see below, entry #7) (Mishnah Kesuvos 100b).

4) [line 6] KESUVAH (the Jewish marriage contract)
(a) When a man marries a woman who was a Besulah (virgin) at the time of her Kidushin, he must write her a Kesuvah document in which he promises that she will receive 200 Zuz (the value of 960 grams of silver) from him or his estate if he divorces her or dies. The Tana'im argue whether this obligation is mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan (Kesuvos 10a). (See Insights to Kesuvos 10:1.)
(b) When a man marries a widow or a divorcee who had once been married in the past (i.e. she was a Nesu'ah and was not just an Arusah) he must write her a Kesuvah document in which he promises that she will receive 100 Zuz from him or his estate if he divorces her or dies. Even if the woman is still a virgin, the woman is classified as a "Be'ulah" with regard to the amount of her Kesuvah because she was once married and she is not given the Kesuvah of a Besulah (Kesuvos 11a). The obligation to write a Kesuvah for a widow or divorcee is only mid'Rabanan (Kesuvos 10b -- The Gemara there explains that the term for "widow," "Almanah," alludes to her Kesuvah of a "Manah," or 100 Zuz).
(c) When a man marries a woman who was less than three years old at the time that he was Mekadesh (betrothed) her, he must write her the Kesuvah of a Besulah and promise her 200 Zuz from him or his estate if he divorces her or dies. A girl less than three years of age is considered a Besulah whether or not she was married or had relations in the past, since her Besulim return to their original state (Kesuvos 11b).

5) [line 6] V'LO PEIROS - these women do not receive "Din Peiros," i.e. the benefit that a wife gets from her husband in exchange for providing him with the fruits (Peiros) of her Nichsei Milug (see below, entry #7:a:2), which is that he must redeem her if she is captured, *and* they are not repaid for the Peiros of Nichsei Milug that the husband ate during the time that they were married (RASHI here, but see Rashi to Kesuvos 100b, where these are two separate explanations)

6) [line 7] MEZONOS
As long as they are married, a husband must provide his wife with Mezonos (sustenance). According to some Tana'im, this obligation is mid'Oraisa and is learned from the verse "She'erah...Lo Yigra" (Shemos 21:10). Other Tana'im maintain that the obligation to provide one's wife with Mezonos is only mid'Rabanan. It is one of the Tena'ei Kesuvah (stipulations of the Jewish marriage contract) which are imposed by Beis Din upon every Jewish man and wife (Kesuvos 47b, see Background to Gitin 48:24).

7) [line 7] BELA'OS
(a) A woman brings into her marriage two types of possessions, as follows:

1. Possessions that the wife owned before marriage, the values of which were estimated and written in the Kesuvah, to be returned to her in full upon divorce or the husband's death. These are called Nichsei Tzon Barzel ("Iron Flock Properties") because their value does not change between the time of marriage and the time of divorce or the husband's death.
2. Possessions that were not estimated and their values were not specified in the Kesuvah. Upon divorce or the husband's death, the property is returned as is, regardless of its appreciation or depreciation (or deterioration) over the years. These are referred to as Nichsei Milug ("Properties that are Plucked"), because for the duration of the marriage the husband may take ("pluck") the produce (Peiros) of these possessions (e.g. reaping the fruit of a field, or plowing with an ox). However, he may not "use up" the property itself (e.g. by digging trenches in the field or slaughtering the ox).
(b) The Rishonim disagree as to what the term Bela'os in this Mishnah refers: (a) RASHI (here and to Yevamos 84a, 87b, Kesuvos 100b, Gitin 79b, Nidah 12b) explains that it refers to the remnants of the *Nichsei Tzon Barzel* that the husband *did not* as of yet entirely deplete, such as articles of clothing that became partially worn out; (b) TOSFOS (here and to Yevamos 85a DH Bela'os and to Kesuvos and Gitin ibid.) explains that it refers to the wife's property that the husband *already depleted*. However, he must indeed return to his wife the part that remains even if she is a Sheniyah etc. Tosfos points out that the Gemara (Kesuvos Daf 101a) explains that with regard to a Mema'enes and Ailonis, "Bela'os" is referring to what the husband depleted either unjustly from his wife's Nichsei mi'Lug or justly from his wife's Nichsei Tzon Barzel, while with regard to Sheniyah it only refers to what the husband unjustly depleted from his wife's Nichsei mi'Lug (and not to what he justly depleted from his wife's Tzon

8) [line 10] D'NICHA LAH D'SEIPUK ALAH SHMA D'ISHUS - it is in her best interests for the word to get out that she was married (at least at one point)

9) [line 12] ZIL, ZAVIN LI AR'A MI'KERIVAI - Go and buy for me a piece of land from my relative

10) [line 13] A"L [AMAR LEI] - he (the relative) said to him (the agent who bought the land for the woman) [at the time of the sale -- RITVA]

11) [line 14] MEHADRAS LAH NIHILI - I would have it returned to me (i.e. I would buy back the land)

12) [line 14] AT V'NAVLA ACHEI - you and she (the woman) are "siblings," i.e. she will surely restore the field to you whenever you are able to redeem it. (This follows the explanation of the Ga'onim, that "Navla" is a preposition referring to either a man or a woman, and the phrase can mean "you and he" or "you and she." RASHI, however, feels that the name of the woman was "Navla.")

13) [line 15] KOL "AT V'NAVLA ACHEI" (AMAR) SAMCHA DA'TEI V'LO GAMAR U'MAKNEI - in every case similar to the case of "At v'Navlah Achei", the sale is not binding, [and the seller expects the buyer to let him redeem his land]

14) [line 16] HADRAH PEIRI MAI? - Does the buyer (the woman, in this case) have to return the produce that he eats during the time that the land is in his possession?

15) [line 22] MASHKANTA MAI? - When a creditor takes a field as collateral and works it and eats the produce in the interim, what is the Halachah? (The debtor did not stipulate that the creditor should take the produce as interest payments; rather, the debtor made no conditions and the creditor sowed the field and ate the produce on his own volition.)

16) [line 24] HASAM TA'AMA MAI? MISHUM D'LO KATZ LEI; HACHA NAMI LO KATZ LEI - that is, since eating the produce was not a prior stipulation, it also remains at the level of Avak Ribis, and the creditor does not have to reimburse the debtor for the produce that he ate.

17a) [line 26] V'CHASHIV - and he calculated [how much the buyer ate]
b) [line 26] V'APIK PEIRI - and he forced the buyer to pay for the produce eaten
c) [line 27] D'LO K'RABAH BAR RAV HUNA - Ravina rules even more stringently than Rabah bar Rav Huna. Rav Papi cites Ravina as having ruled in the case of a purchase that the purchaser was obligated to return the produce that he ate (see TOSFOS DH Peiri).

18) [line 29] B'ASRA D'MESALKEI - in a place where the debtor has the right to evict the creditor from the land that he put up as collateral for a loan, as soon as he has the money to repay the loan. (This also refers to a case where the debtor did not stipulate that the creditor should take the produce as interest payments; rather, the debtor made no conditions and the creditor sowed the field and ate the produce on his own volition.)

19) [line 30] LO MAFKINAN MINEI - in a case where the creditor ate in excess of the loan, the debtor cannot claim what he ate, since it is Avak Ribis

20) [line 30] LO MECHASHVIAN MI'SHTARA LI'SHTARA - if the debtor owes another loan to the creditor, the produce above and beyond the value of the first loan that the creditor ate is not counted as partial payment of the second loan; rather, payments extracted from the land that was designated as collateral for the first loan only apply to the first loan

21) [line 31] UBED'YASMEI - and in a case where the field used as collateral belongs to orphans

22) [line 35] LO MESALKINAN LEI B'LO ZUZEI - the creditor is not evicted from the land without repayment of his loan, i.e. he keeps the produce that he ate and the debtor must still repay the loan


23) [line 2] LO NIKUL ELA BI'NACHYAISA - the creditor shall not eat the produce of the land put up as collateral unless he deducts a fixed sum from the debt each year

24) [line 4] KITZUSA - see the following entries, #25 and #26

25a) [line 9] AD CHAMESH SHENIN ACHILNA LAH B'LO NACHYAISA - I (the creditor) will eat the produce for five years without deducting from the loan
b) [line 9] MI'KAN VA'EILACH, SHAYIMNA LACH KULHU FEIRI - but from then on, I will assess all the produce that grows and deduct it from the loan.

26a) [line 13] AD CHAMESH SHENIN ACHILNA B'NACHYAISA - for the first five years, I will deduct the produce that I eat from the loan
b) [line 13] MI'KAN VA'EILACH, SHAYIMNA LACH KULHU FEIRI - and from then on, I will assess all the produce that grows and deduct it from the loan.

27a) [line 14] KAMAISA - the definition of Kitzusa according to the first Lashon, i.e. entry #25 above
b) [line 15] BASRAISA - the definition of Kitzusa according to the second Lashon, i.e. entry #26 above

28) [line 16] MASHKANTA D'SURA - "The Mashkon of Sura," i.e. when the two parties specifically stipulate that when the years of the Mashkon terminate, the field will go back to the debtor and the debt is settled [giving the appearance that the produce has been sold -- see also Tosfos DH 'be'Mishlam'].

29) [line 17] B'MISLAM SHANYA ILEIN, TEIPUK AR'A DA B'LO KESAF - at the end of this time period (lit. these years), this land will go out [of the creditor's possession] without any additional payments [on the part of the debtor]

30) [line 19] HAI MASHKANTA - this [field of] collateral [that was in the hands of the creditor when he died and left the field to his sons in an Asra d'Mesalkei]

31) [line 20] EIN BA'AL CHOV GOVEH HEIMENU - a creditor [of the creditor who died] cannot claim the field or the produce [from his heirs, because a creditor only acquires the produce, but not the field, and the Metaltelin (movable goods) of orphans are not Meshu'abad to their father's creditor]

(a) The first viable male born to a father inherits a double portion of the estate upon his father's death (Mishnah Bechoros 46a). For example, if there are two brothers, the money is divided into three, and the Bechor receives two thirds; if there are three brothers, the money is divided into four, and the Bechor receives two quarters.
(b) A Bechor only receives a double portion from the assets that were in the possession of the father at the time of death, as it states, "Ki Es ha'Bechor Ben ha'Senu'ah Yakir, Lases Lo Pi Shenayim *b'Chol Asher Yimatzei Lo*." - "He must recognize the first-born son of the hated wife to give him a double portion *of everything in his possession* (lit. that is found with him)." (Devarim 21:17). Assets that will come into the possession of the estate after the father's death are termed "Ra'uy," i.e. "expected [to come into his possession]." The following are two examples of assets that are Ra'uy, in which a Bechor does *not* receive a double portion:

1. If one of the father's relatives dies after the father, the Bechor does not receive a double portion of that inheritance.
2. If the father is owed money, even if the debt was written in a document that was in the possession of the father, the Bechor does not receive a double portion of the debt if it is paid after the father's death. (SEFER HA'CHINUCH #400; see Background to Bava Kama 43:3 for more examples).
(c) In our Sugya, the Bechor of the creditor does not receive a double portion from the Mashkanta field because the field and the produce are considered only a loan (that will later be returned).

(a) The Torah requires that all loans shall be canceled every seventh year, as it states in Devarim 15:2, "Shamot Kol Ba'al Masheh Yado" - "Every creditor who lends anything to his neighbor shall release it." To demand payment of a loan after the Shemitah year is a violation of the prohibition of "Lo Yigos Es Re'ehu v'Es Achiv" - "he shall not exact it of his neighbor or of his brother" (ibid.). Most Rishonim rule that the Shemitah year cancels loans at the *end* of the year, on the last day of the month of Elul. (RAMBAM Hilchos Shemitah v'Yovel 9:1-4).
(b) Hashmatas Kesafim applies mid'Oraisa only when the Yovel year is in practice. Mid'Rabanan it applies today, whether inside or outside of Eretz Yisrael.
(c) Shemitah does not cancel debts if they can be considered to have been already collected. As such, if a loan is placed in the hands of Beis Din (see Background to Bava Kama 36:16:c-d) or if collateral is taken for the loan, it is not cancelled. The latter only applies to collateral of Metaltelin (moveable goods) that are already considered to belong to the creditor. In an Asra d'Mesalkei, the creditor does not acquire a Mashkon of real estate, since it stands to be returned. As such, Shemitah does cancel the debt, in spite of the Mashkon.

34) [line 26] TAMREI D'A'BUDYA - dates [that have been harvested and have fallen] on the collection mats (even though they are no longer attached to the ground)

35) [line 26] V'IY AGBAHINHU B'SISANEI, KANANHU - but if he (the creditor) lifts them up in collection baskets, he has acquired them with the Kinyan of Hagba'ah

36) [line 27] KEILAV SHEL LOKE'ACH BI'RSHUS MOCHER, KANAH LOKE'ACH - the utensils of a buyer acquire the objects put into them, even in the domain of the seller

37a) [line 36] IZEIL V'AISI ZUZEI - I will go and bring the money
b) [line 36] IZEIL V'ETRACH V'AISI ZUZEI - I will go and make an effort to procure the money

38) [line 42] SEDEH ACHUZAH
(a) A Sedeh Achuzah is a field that came into the possession of its owner's family after the conquest and division of Eretz Yisrael, at the time of Yehoshua bin Nun.
(b) If a person was Makdish (consecrated to the possession of the Beis ha'Mikdash) his Sedeh Achuzah, everyone has the right to redeem it from Hekdesh from that day until Yom ha'Kipurim of the Yovel year. If the Makdish redeems it, he must pay to Hekdesh an additional *fifth* (of the ensuing total, or a *quarter* of the original value) of the value of the field. If the Makdish does not redeem his field by Yom ha'Kipurim of the Yovel year, but rather it is not redeemed, or another person redeems it, it is given to the Mishmar of Kohanim who are on duty at that time (Vayikra 27:15-21).
(c) When redeeming a Sedeh Achuzah from Hekdesh, its "value" is determined according to the fixed endowment value stated in Vayikra 27:16, i.e. 50 silver Shekels for every parcel of land that is normally sown with a Chomer (1 Chomer = 1 Kur = 30 Se'ah or approximately 216, 248.9 or 432 liters, depending upon the differing Halachic opinions) of barley seed (75,000 sq. Amos -- see Background to Kidushin 60:17). However, fifty Shekels are given only if the field was redeemed at the beginning of a new Yovel cycle; the amount decreases proportionally with every year that passes until it is less than two years before the next Yovel. At that point, it is once again redeemed for fifty Shekels per Chomer (ibid. 25a).
(d) In our Sugya, Ravina compared a Mashkanta to a Sedeh Achuzah. Just as in a Sedeh Achuzah, the owner eats the fruit even if it is far in excess of the money that he pays (and is not considered Ribis), so too, a creditor is permitted to eat the fruit of the Mashkanta under the same circumstances. (Note that although Hekdesh from Hedyot is not subject to Ribis, Hedyot from Hekdesh is -- see RITVA).

Next daf


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