POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Bava Metzia 38
1) A DEPOSIT OF PRODUCE
(a) (Mishnah): Reuven deposited produce by Shimon. Even if it
is rotting, Shimon should leave it;
2) AFTER IT ROTTED TOO MUCH
(b) R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, he should sell it in front of
Beis Din - this is as returning a lost object.
(c) (Gemara) Question: Why (should Shimon let it rot)?
(d) Answer #1 (Rav Kahana): A person prefers one Kav of his
own produce more than nine Kavim of others' produce.
(e) Answer #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): We cannot sell
them, for maybe Reuven made them Terumah or Ma'aser on
(f) Question (Beraisa): Reuven deposited produce by Shimon;
even if it is rotting, Shimon should leave it -
therefore, Reuven may make it Terumah or Ma'aser on other
1. According to Rav Kahana, 'therefore' makes sense,
but not according to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak!
(g) Answer: It means, after Chachamim ruled that Shimon must
leave the produce (even if rotting) because Reuven may
have made it Terumah or Ma'aser on other produce, Reuven
is permitted to do this.
(h) (Rabah bar bar Chana): The Tana'im argue when the loss
(due to rotting) is within the specified amount (in the
Mishnah 40A) - if the loss exceeds this, all agree that
Shimon should sell it in Beis Din.
(i) Surely, this argues on Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak (if we
are concerned that they were made Terumah, they may never
(j) Question: Must we say that this argues on Rav Kahana?
(k) Answer: No - Rav Kahana agrees that only a small loss
should be endured?
(l) Question: But he said that a person prefers one Kav of
his own to nine Kavim of another - Shimon should not sell
until the loss is 90 percent!
(m) Answer: Nine Kavim is an exaggeration.
(a) Question (against Rabah bar bar Chana - Beraisa):
Therefore, Reuven may make it Terumah or Ma'aser on other
1. We should be concerned that the loss exceeded the
specified amount, and it was sold in Beis Din (so
the Terumah is invalid, and Reuven will eat Tevel
(b) Answer: It is rare that the loss would exceed the
specified amount, we are not concerned for this.
(c) Question: And if it occurs, why may the produce be sold?
Perhaps Reuven made them Terumah or Ma'aser!
(d) Answer: We sell it to Kohanim who pay for it (and eat it)
as if it is Terumah.
(e) Question: According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, we are
concerned that it was made Terumah - still, we should
sell it to Kohanim as if it is Terumah!
(f) Answer: They argue as follows: Rabah bar bar Chana says
that it is rare that the loss would exceed the specified
amount; surely, he did not leave the produce as Tevel so
long (he either separated Terumah on it or made it
1. Either way, this was before we sell it.
(g) Question (Beraisa - R. Meir): Reuven deposited produce by
Shimon and it rotted, wine or honey and it soured, oil
and it stank - Shimon should not touch it;
2. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak says that the loss often
exceeds the specified amount, in a short time;
perhaps he did not yet tithe it, and he will later
make it Terumah (therefore, we cannot sell it, less
Reuven's separation will be invalid).
1. Chachamim say, he should fix the situation and sell
them in Beis Din.
(h) Answer: No, it was no more than the specified amount.
2. He only sells them to others, not to himself.
3. Similarly: if collectors of Tzedakah have no poor
people to give Perutos to (and they fear that the
coins will rust), they exchange them for bigger
coins with other people, not themselves.
4. If collectors of Tamchuy (food collected to be given
to the poor) have no one to give it to, they sell
the food to other people, not to themselves.
5. Summation of question - suggestion: It says, produce
that rotted - this is even if it rotted more than
the specified amount.
(i) Question: But it teaches wine or honey that soured, and
oil that stank - these are more than the specified
(j) Answer: Those are different - once they soured or stank,
no further loss will come - but produce will rot more!
(k) Question: What use is there for stinking oil or soured
honey (the Beraisa said, we sell them)!
(l) Answer: The oil can be used to anoint leather, the honey
for a wound on a camel's back.
3) APPOINTING RELATIVES OVER PROPERTY
(m) Question (Beraisa): Chachamim say, he should fix the
situation and sell them in Beis Din - what does he fix
(wine, honey and oil will not spoil any further!)?
(n) Answer (Rav Ashi): The vessels (so they will not rot).
(o) Question: On what do the Tana'im argue?
(p) Whether we are concerned for a small loss (produce that
rots less than the specified amount, or the vessels) -
Chachamim are concerned, R. Meir is not.
(a) (Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): He sells them in Beis
Din - this is like returning a lost object.
(b) (R. Aba b'Rebbi Yakov citing R. Yochanan): The Halachah
follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel.
(c) (Rava): The Halachah follows Chachamim.
(d) Question: R. Yochanan already taught this in another way!
1. (Rabah bar bar Chana citing R. Yochanan): The
Halachah always follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel in a
Mishnah, with 3 exceptions: the Mishnayos of a
cosigner, the Get in Tzidon, and a litigant that
found witnesses after the allotted time.
(e) Answer: Amora'im argue about the opinion of R. Yochanan
(R. Aba says that R. Yochanan never gave such a general
rule, Rabah says that R. Yochanan never (had to) rule on
our particular Mishnah.)
(f) Inferences: From R. Shimon ben Gamliel, we learn that
when a person is captured, (Beis Din) appoints a relative
(an heir) over his property; from Chachamim, we learn
that we do not appoint a relative over property of a
minor (these will be explained).
(g) Rejection #1: Perhaps R. Shimon ben Gamliel only permits
selling in our case, for the principal will be lost - but
he would not permit appointing a relative for the sake of
(h) Rejection #2: Perhaps R. Shimon ben Gamliel only forbids
selling in our case, for the reason of Rav Kahana or Rav
Nachman bar Yitzchak - but they would not permit
appointing a relative!
(i) Question: But Shmuel said, the Halachah follows R. Shimon
ben Gamliel, and he also permitted appointing a relative
over property of a captured person!
1. Suggestion: Because he rules as R. Shimon, he
permits appointing a relative.
(j) Answer: No - neither law follows from the other.
(k) Support: Rav Nachman said, the Halachah follows R.
Shimon, and he permits appointing a relative over
property of a captured person!
1. This shows that the reasons for the two laws are not
(l) (Rav): We do not appoint a relative over property of a
(m) (Shmuel): We do appoint a relative.
1. If we heard that the captive died, all agree that we
appoint a relative; they argue when we did not hear.
(n) Question (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): "V'Haragti
Eschem...v'Hayu Nesheichem Almanos u'Vneichem Yesomim" -
obviously, if they will die, their wives and children
will be widows and orphans!
2. Rav is concerned that he will cause a loss to the
property, by overplanting, since he is afraid that
he has the field only for a limited time;
3. Shmuel says, since he is paid as a sharecropper (if
the owner returns and the land reverts to him), we
are not concerned that he will cause a loss.
1. Rather, this teaches that the widows will not get
permission to remarry (because their husbands were
captured and we do not know if they died, and for
the same reason), the orphans will not be given
their father's property.
(o) Answer (Rava): That teaches that the orphans will not be
given permission to sell it, but they will be allowed to
(p) Rav Sheshes ruled on a case in Nehardai based on this
Beraisa (and forbade an heir to use the property).
(q) Question (Rav Amram): Perhaps the Beraisa teaches that
the orphans may not sell it, but they may use it!
(r) Rejection (Rav Sheshes): Only Chachamim of Pumbadisa
would establish the Beraisa in such a difficult way!
1. Presumably, the orphans are as the widow: just as
she is not permitted (to marry) at all, also the
orphans are not given the land at all.
(s) Tana'im argue whether we appoint a relative over property
of a captive.
1. (Beraisa): Reuven started working on property of a
captive - we do not remove it from him;
i. Even if he heard that the owner is coming, and
he harvested and consumed the produce - he
profits from his zealousness.
2. One who starts working on Netushim (abandoned)
property - we remove it from him.
ii. The case of property of a captive: Shimon went
overseas, and we heard that he died - his son,
brother or heir started working on the
i. The case of Netushim property: Shimon went
overseas, and we did not hear that he died -
his son, brother or heir started working on the
3. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, Netushim property is as
property of a captive - but one who started working
on Retushim (another kind of abandoned property) -
we remove it from him.
i. The case of Retushim property: we do not know
where Shimon went - his son, brother or heir
started working on the property.
4. Question: Why is the former called Netushim, and the
5. Answer: Netushim connotes against his will -
"Tishmetena u'Netashta (You will refrain from
working the land in Shemitah, and it will be
abandoned)" - the King commanded so;
i. Retushim connotes willingly - "Em Al Banim
Rutashah (they abandoned their wives and