(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 P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Bava Metzia 116

BAVA METZIA 116-117 - anonymously dedicated by an Ohev Torah and Marbitz Torah in Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.


(a) Support (for Rav Yehudah - Beraisa #1): If one takes as security a pair of scissors or a two-part yoke (to harness cows), he is lashed twice, once for each part; (Tosfos - this is like Rav Yehudah, for Rav Huna would obligate three times; Rashi - the support requires the next Beraisa as well, which shows that the two lashes here are for Rechayim and Rechev, hence there are no lashes for "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel")
1. If he only takes one blade of the scissors or one part of the yoke, he is lashed only once.
(b) (Beraisa #2): If one takes as security a pair of scissors or a two-part yoke, one might have thought that he is lashed only once - therefore, it says "Lo Yachavol Rechayim va'Rachev";
1. Just as Rechayim and Rechev are two vessels that do one task, and one is liable for each by itself - also any two vessels that do one task, one is liable for each by itself.
(c) A case arose, Reuven took a security from Shimon, it was a knife that butchers use to chop meat.
(d) Abaye: Since it is used for food, you must return it; you can claim your loan in Beis Din (if you have witnesses, or if Shimon will admit).
(e) Rava: Since witnesses did not see Reuven take it, he need not return it until Shimon pays.
(f) Question: Why does Abaye argue with Rava?
1. Why is this different than the following case?
2. Some goats ate peeled barley in Neharda'a; the owner of the barley seized the goats, and was claiming a large loss.
3. (Shmuel's father): He can claim up to the goats' value.
(g) Answer: Goats are not normally lent or rented, therefore the one who seized them has a Migo, he could have said that he bought them;
1. A knife is normally lent or rented, Reuven has no Migo, for he would not be believe to say that he bought it.
2. (Rav Huna bar Avin): Things that are normally lent or rented, one who holds them and claims that he bought them, (if we know that they belonged to someone else) is not believed.
(h) Question: Does Rava argue with this?
1. But Rava took shearing scissors and a Sefer of Agadic teachings from orphans, because these are normally lent and rented!
(i) Answer: A chopping knife can get blunted, people do not normally lend or rent it.



(a) (Mishnah): If Reuven owned a house and Shimon owned its upper story and it fell, they divide the wood, rocks and dirt;
1. If we estimate that the upper rocks would have broken, Reuven gets the whole rocks and Shimon takes an equal amount of broken ones.
2. If either recognizes some of his rocks, he takes them, the other takes an equal amount of other ones.
(b) (Gemara) Inference: Since it says 'we estimate', this implies that we can tell if the bottom collapsed, or if the attic broke;
1. Why do they divide equally in the first clause? The one whose dwelling broke should get the broken rocks!
(c) Answer: It fell at night, no one saw how it fell.
1. Question: The next day we can determine how it fell!
2. Answer: The case is, the rocks were cleared away.
3. Question: We can ask the people who cleared them away!
4. Answer: The case is, we do not know them, and they left.
(d) Question: Whoever's domain the rocks are in, he is Muchzak, the other cannot take (whole rocks) from him without proof!
(e) Answer #1: The case is, the rocks are in their joint yard, or in the public domain.
(f) Answer #2: Even if the rocks are in the domain of one of them, partners freely lend their domain to each other (so the rocks are considered to be in the domain of both).
(g) (Mishnah): If either recognizes some of his rocks...(we shall call him Reuven, it could just as well be Shimon).
(h) Question: What does Shimon claim?
1. If he admits - the law is obvious!
2. If he argues - why does Reuven keep the whole ones?
(i) Answer: Rather, he says that he does not know.
(j) Suggestion: This refutes Rav Nachman!
1. (Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah): Levi claims 100 from Yehudah, Yehudah does not know whether he owes - he must pay;
2. (R. Yochanan and Rav Nachman): He is exempt.
(k) Rejection: No - the case is as Rav Nachman explained elsewhere.
1. (Rav Nachman): The case is, Yehudah was obligated to swear to Levi. (Since Yehudah does not know, he cannot swear, he must pay).
2. Here also, the Shimon was obligated to swear!
(l) Question: What is the case of being obligated to swear?
1. Answer (Rava): Yehudah admitted that he owed 50, he did not know about the other 50. Since he cannot swear, he must pay. (Here also, Shimon admits that half the rocks are not his.)
(m) (Mishnah): Shimon takes an equal amount of other ones.
(n) Opinion #1 (Rava): He takes an equal amount of broken rocks.
1. Because he does not recognize his rocks, we assume that his are the broken ones.
(o) Objection (Abaye): Just the contrary! Since Reuven only recognizes some of his rocks, we assume that his other rocks are broken, all the whole rocks belong to Shimon!
(p) Opinion #2 (Abaye): Rather, Shimon takes an equal amount of whole rocks.
(q) Question: If so, what does Reuven gain by recognizing some of his rocks?
(r) Answer #1: Some rocks are wider than others.
(s) Answer #2: The mud of some bricks is kneaded better than that of others.
(a) (Mishnah): Shimon was renting Reuven's attic. If the attic floor fell in and Reuven does not want to fix it, Shimon may live in the house downstairs until Reuven fixes it;
(b) R. Yosi says, Reuven must supply the ceiling, Shimon supplies the plaster.
(c) (Gemara) Question: How much of the roof must fall in (for the law of the Mishnah to apply)?
(d) Answer #1 (Rav): The majority.
(e) Answer #2 (Shmuel): Four Tefachim.
1. Rav says the majority, but not four Tefachim, for a person can manage with part of his dwelling at a lower level.
2. Shmuel says four Tefachim, for a person cannot live if part of his dwelling is at a lower level.
(f) Question: What was the rental agreement?
1. If he rented 'this attic' - it is no longer intact (he has no right to demand another)!
2. If he rented 'an attic' - Reuven can find another attic for Shimon to live in (why is Shimon entitled to dwell in Reuven's house)?
(g) Answer #1 (Rava): Reuven rented 'this attic' to him, saying 'if it sinks, you may live in the house'.
(h) Objection: If so, what is the Chidush?!
(i) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): Reuven rented 'this attic on top of this house' - this language gives Shimon a 'lien' on the house to support his attic.
1. Ravin bar Rav Ada: There was a case, Levi sold to Yehudah 'the vine draped over this peach tree'; the tree was uprooted.
2. R. Chiya: Levi must supply a peach tree to support the vine for the life of the vine.
Next daf


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