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 61
BAVA METZIA 61,63,64,65 - Mrs. Estanne Abraham-Fawer has dedicated two weeks
of Dafyomi study material to honor the second Yahrzeit of her father, Reb
Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Weiner, who passed away 18 Teves 5761). May the
merit of supporting and advancing the study of the Talmud be l'Iluy
1) BOTH LAVIN APPLY TO BOTH
(a) (Beraisa): "Es Kaspecha Lo Siten Lo b'Neshech uve'Marbis
Lo Siten Ochlecha" - we only find Neshech by money and
Tarbis by food;
2) THE LAVIM OF ROBBERY
(b) Question: How do we know that Neshech also applies to
(c) Answer #1: "Neshech Ochel".
(d) Question: How do we know that Tarbis also applies to
(e) Answer #1: "Neshech Kesef" - we could have learned
Neshech by money (regarding the borrower) had it said "Lo
Tashich...(anything that bites)" - Neshech Kesef is extra
to teach Tarbis by money.
1. Question: These are written by the borrower - how do
we know that the lender also transgresses Neshech by
food and Tarbis by money?
(f) Answer #2 (to questions (b) and (d) - Ravina): We already
learn Neshech by food and Tarbis by money from "Es
Kaspecha Lo Siten Lo b'Neshech uve'Marbis Lo Siten
2. Answer: We learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Neshech-Neshech"
- just as by the borrower, both Lavim apply to both,
also by the lender.
3. Question: How do we know to include everything else
(as well as money and food)?
4. Answer: "Neshech Kol Davar Asher Yishach".
1. Indeed, had it said 'Es Kaspecha Lo Siten Lo
b'Neshech v'Ochlecha b'Tarbis', we would need
(g) Question: But the Tana learns from a Gezeirah Shavah!
2. But the verse reversed the order, in order that we
expound "Es Kaspecha Lo Siten Lo b'Neshech
uve'Marbis" (both apply to money), and "B'Neshech
uve'Marbis Lo Siten Ochlecha" (both apply to food).
(h) Answer: The Tana teaches, had the verse not put Neshech
and Tarbis next to each other, we could have learned from
the Gezeirah Shavah;
1. Since Neshech and Tarbis are written next to each
other, we do not need the Gezeirah Shavah.
(i) Question: What does the Gezeirah Shavah teach?
(j) Answer: "Neshech Kol Davar Asher Yishach" (everything
else), for this was only written by the borrower.
(a) Question (Rava): Why must the Torah write Lavim by usury,
robbery and Ona'ah?
(b) Answer (Rava): It must teach all three:
1. If it only taught usury - we could not learn to the
others, for usury is a Chidush - the borrower is
forbidden to give!
(c) Suggestion: We cannot learn the others from one - but
perhaps one could be learned from the other two!
2. If it only taught robbery - that is against the will
of the victim, we could not learn to Ona'ah, where
the victim (buys or sells) willingly.
3. If it only taught Ona'ah - we could not learn to the
others, for a victim of Ona'ah does not know he was
cheated, he cannot pardon it - by the others, the
victim can pardon his loss.
(d) Question: Which could be learned from the others?
1. We could not learn usury, for the victim willingly
gives his money!
(e) Answer: We could learn robbery.
2. We could not learn Ona'ah, for one might have
thought, it is normal to overcharge or undercharge
1. We could not learn from usury, because it is a
Chidush - Ona'ah is not a Chidush, we can learn from
(f) Question: So why did the Torah write a Lav by robbery?
2. We could not learn from Ona'ah, because the victim
does not know he was cheated - we can learn from
usury, where the victim knows what he paid!
3. The stringency of each is unlike the stringency of
the other; the common side of both is that he steals
- we can learn to robbery!
(g) Answer: For withholding wages.
(h) Question: There is a Lav for withholding wages - "Lo
(i) Answer: The Lav of robbery is a second Lav forbidding
(j) Question: We can say, it is a second Lav for usury and
(k) Answer: We learn it from context, the Torah speaks
(there) of a worker.
(l) Question: What do we learn from "Lo Tignovu"?
3) FALSE WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
(m) Answer (Beraisa): "Lo Tignovu" - in order to cause pain,
or in order to pay double.
(a) Question (Rav Yemar): Why is there a Lav by (false)
4) FIXED USURY
(b) Answer (Rav Ashi): To forbid putting one's weights in
salt (Rashi - to make them heavier, to get more when
buying; R. Tam - to make them lighter, to give less when
(c) Objection: That is pure robbery, no extra verse is
(d) Answer: One transgresses the Lav of weights from the time
he puts them in salt, even before he uses them.
(e) (Beraisa): "Avel be'Mishpat be'Midah" - this is measuring
1. Land that should be divided equally, one may not
measure to one party in winter (Rashi - when the
rope is moist and stretches out properly; R.
Chananel - when the land contracts) and to the other
party in summer.
(f) Question (Rava): Why does the Torah mention the Exodus
from Mitzrayim by usury, Tzitzis, and weights?
2. "Be'Mishkal" - this forbids putting one's weights in
3. "Uva'Mesurah" - one who sells wine may not make it
foam (to make it look like the buyer's vessel is
i. We may learn a Kal va'Chomer: Mesurah is a tiny
measure, a 36th of a Log, the Torah warns about
it - all the more so, one who steals a larger
(g) Answer (Rava): Just as in Mitzrayim, Hash-m knew
everyone's true father to kill the firstborns, Hash-m
knows (and will punish) one who falsely claims that his
money belongs to a non-Jew in order to lend it with
usury, one who puts his weights in salt, and one who uses
blue tree sap to (cheaply) feign the Mitzvah of putting
threads dyed with Techeles on the corners of his garment.
(h) Question (Rav Chanina of Sura): Why does the Torah
mention the Exodus from Mitzrayim by rodents?
(i) Answer (Ravina): Just as in Mitzrayim, Hash-m knew the
fathers and could kill the firstborns, Hash-m knows (and
will punish) one who mixes innards of Tamei fish
(mentioned in that Parshah) with those of Tahor fish and
sells them to Yisrael.
(j) Question (Rav Chanina of Sura): My question was, why does
the Torah say "Ha'Ma'aleh" (who brings you up (from
Mitzrayim)) by rodents?
(k) Answer (Ravina - Beraisa - Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): The
merit that Yisrael would not become Teme'im through
rodents was sufficient for Hash-m to redeem them from
(l) Question: Is the reward for refraining from Tum'ah of
rodents greater than that of refraining from usury and
false weights and fulfilling Tzitzis?
(m) Answer: Even though the reward is not greater, they are
exceedingly disgusting to eat.
(a) (Mishnah): What is Tarbis? One who increases produce:
Reuven bought a Kor of wheat...
(b) Question: Were the previous examples not Tarbis?! (We
concluded that every case of Neshech is Tarbis!)
(c) Answer (R. Amah and Rava): The previous cases were
mid'Oraisa usury, the coming cases are mid'Rabanan;
1. In the previous cases, "Yachin v'Tzadik Yilbash" (if
the lender died, his heir may keep the usury).
(d) (R. Elazar): Beis Din forces the lender to return fixed
usury, but not Avak usury.
i. Question: But in the later cases (mid'Rabanan
usury), the heir must return it?!
2. The previous cases are fixed usury - the coming
cases are Avak (dust of) usury.
ii. Correction: Rather, even in the previous cases,
the heir may keep it.
(e) (R. Yochanan): Beis Din does not force the lender to
return even fixed usury.
(f) (Question: What is R. Yochanan's source?)
(g) Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak): "Ba'Neshech Nosan v'Tarbis
Lakach va'Chai Lo Yichyeh" - he will die (at the hands of
Heaven), it will not help to return the usury.
(h) Answer #2 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): "...v'Yaresa me'Elokecha"
- one returns usury because he fears Hash-m, Beis Din
does not force him.
(i) Answer #3 (Rava): He learns from the end of the first
verse "(Lo Yichyeh) Mos Yumas Damav Bo" - those who lend
on usury are compared to murderers;
1. Just as one cannot undo murder, one cannot undo
usury by returning it.