ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 15
BAVA METZIA 11-17 - This study material has been produced with the help of
the Israeli ministry of religious affairs.
(a) What causes us to comment that according to both Rava and Rabah bar Rav
Huna, who establish the Beraisa by a Gazlan and Nigzal, the loan is only an
oral one - is the fact that nobody writes a Sh'tar for a Ganav.
(b) The problem then is - that one cannot claim an oral loan from Meshubadim
(so how can the Nigzal claim his stolen field from Meshubadim?)
(c) We answer that, before selling the field (or before the Nochrim claimed
it) they had been to Beis-Din. Bearing in mind that the reason that one
cannot claim an oral loan from Meshubadim is because there is no 'Kol' (and
the purchaser has no way of safeguarding himself against the Ba'al-Chov) -
going to Beis-Din creates a 'Kol', giving subsequent claims the strength of
a written loan.
(d) And the reason that the owner may claim the Peiros only from
B'nei-Chorin is because they had abjugated on the Keren but not on the
Peiros. We justify establishing the Beraisa like this - on the grounds that
it is quite normal to first abjugate on the Keren and only later on the
(a) The three things Shmuel instructed Rav Chin'na bar Shilas (who was a
Sofer) to consult with the debtor before inserting them in the Sh'tar - were
Shufra (Idis), Sh'vach and Peiros.
(b) This cannot be referring to a case of Ba'al-Chov - because Shmuel holds
that a Ba'al-Chov claims the Sh'vach, but not the Peiros.
(c) He must therefore be referring to - a purchaser from a Gazlan.
(d) Rav Yosef reconciles this with Shmuel's own ruling that a purchaser from
a Gazlan does not take the Sh'vach - by establishing the case when the
Gazlan had Karka at the time of the sale and that is what now he
subsequently gave him. Since he did not compensate him with money, it looks
less like Ribis.
(a) Abaye objects to Rav Yosef's answer however - inasmuch as if,
Lechatchilah, Chazal forbade 'Sa'ah be'Sa'ah (lending a Sa'ah against the
value of a Sa'ah) due to the fact that the price might rise, and it looks
like Ribis, then it should certainly be forbidden in our case to give the
purchaser more than he received.
(b) In answer to Abaye's Kashya, Rav Yosef explains - it is only by Sa'ah
be'Sa'ah, which is in the form of a loan (whose basic Ribis is d'Oraysa),
that Chazal decreed in all cases, but not by the case of Shmuel, which is in
the form of a purchase (whose basic Ribis is de'Rabbanan). There, Chazal
permitted such a transaction provided the 'seller' gave the purchaser Karka.
(c) Alternatively, Rav Yosef makes the same distinction in the case where
they made a Kinyan when obligating the 'seller' to accept Achrayus, which
will be effective here, but not in the case of Sa'ah be'Sa'ah.
(a) The seller writes in the Sh'tar of sale 'Ana Eikum, ve'Ashpi, ve'Adki,
ve'Amrik Z'vini Ilein'.
1. 've'Ashpi' means - 'and I will silence (any claimant).
(b) We prove from the continuation 'Inun, ve'Amleihon *u'Shevacheihon'* -
that the Ba'al-Chov claims the Sh'vach (because otherwise, why would the
seller need to compensate him).
2. 've'Adki '(which is smilar in meaning to 've'Amrik') - means 'and I will
cleanse it (of any protestations').
(c) And from the fact that this is omitted from a Sh'tar Matanah - Rava
extrapolates that he cannot claim it from the recipient of a gift.
(d) Rav Chiya bar Avin asked Rava whether a gift was really more powerful
than a sale in this regard - to which Rava replied in the affirmative.
(a) Rav Nachman proves Shmuel right from a Beraisa which rules (in
connection with a field which is taken away from Shimon, after he bought it
from Reuven) that he - the Shimon claims from Reuven, the Keren from
Meshubadim and the Sh'vach from B'nei Chorin.
(b) Rav Huna explains the Beraisa in connection with someone who purchased
from a Gazlan, and it is - the purchaser who is now claiming from the
(c) According to Rav Huna, the purchaser would not claim in the case of a
Ba'al-Chov - because it would not be necessary, seeing as the Ba'al-Chov is
not permitted to claim the Sh'vach from *him*.
(d) What gives a Nigzal more rights than the Ba'al-Chov (according to him)
is - the fact that the Nigzal previously owned the field, in which case he
can claim that it is his field which improved; whereas the Ba'al-Chov never
owned the field.
(a) Another Beraisa discusses a case where a purchaser had improved the
field, when the Ba'al-Chov claimed the entire field including the Sh'vach.
The Tana differentiates between where the Sh'vach amounts to more that the
expenses and vice-versa. Assuming that ...
1. ... the Sh'vach amounts to more than the expenses - the purchaser claims
the Sh'vach from the owner, and the Sh'vach from the Ba'al-Chov.
(b) The Kashya on Shmuel from the Reisha ...
2. ... the expenses amount to more than the Sh'vach - he claims the expenses
to the value of the Sh'vach from the Ba'al-Chov.
1. ... if we establish the case by a purchaser from a Gazlan is - that
according to Shmuel, someone who purchases from a Gazlan is not entitled to
claim the Sh'vach.
(c) The two possible conditions under which we might establish the Beraisa
by a purchaser from a Gazlan are - if either the Gazlan gave him Karka, or
if they made a Kinyan (as we explained above).
2. ... and from the Seifa, if we establish it by a Ba'al-Chov is - that a
Ba'al-Chov is entitled to the Sh'vach (so why should he have to pay the
purchaser his expenses to the value of the Sh'vach)?
(a) Alternatively, we even establish the Beraisa by a Ba'al-Chov. To
reconcile Shmuel with the Tana, we differentiate between 'Sh'vach ha'Magi's
li'Kesafim' and 'Sh'vach she'Eino Magi's li'Kesafim'. 'Sh'vach ha'Magi's
li'Kesafim' - is Sh'vach which still needs the ground but which has almost
attained its full ripeness, and is therefore considered Peiros.
(b) We establish ...
1. ... the Beraisa - by 'Sh'vach ha'Magi's li'Kesafim', which the Ba'al-Chov
is not entitled to claim unless he pays the expenses. Note, that the Sugya
is speaking exclusively about Sh'vach that is attached to the ground and
that still needs the ground. The Ba'al-Chov has no claim whatsoever on
detached crops, and crops that no longer need the ground are considered as
if they were detached.
(c) When Shmuel would regularly authorize the Ba'al-Chov to claim even
'Sh'vach ha'Magi'a li'Kesafim' without having to pay the expenses - that was
when the debt amounted to the combined value of the field plus the Sh'vach,
whereas our Sugya is talking when the debt is covered by the value of the
2. ... Shmuel - by 'Sh'vach she'Eino Magi'a li'Kesafim', which the Ba'al
Chov takes as part of the field.
(d) The reason the Tana say that the purchaser takes the Yetzi'ah ...
(rather than that he takes the equivalent of his debt from the owner and the
rest from the Ba'al-Chov) is - to teach us that even though the expenses
exceed the Sh'vach, he only takes as much of the expenses as are equivalent
to the Sh'vach.
(a) Some say that even if the purchaser has money, he is obligated to give
the Ba'al-Chov the field that is Meshubad to him. Others say - that he has
the right to pay the Ba'al-Chov money.
(b) The problem this creates with the Beraisa's ruling (that the Ba'al-Chov
takes the field and pays the purchaser money for his Sh'vach) - is why the
purchaser cannot then claim part of the field in lieu of the Sh'vach, on the
grounds that if he would have had money, he could have given him money and
retained the field.
(c) We answer by establishing the Beraisa, 'K'gon she'As'o *Apotiki'*- a
field which the debtor specifically designated for the creditor.
(d) This answers the Kashya - inasmuch as everyone agrees that the purchaser
cannot pay the Ba'al-Chov money, when the field that is Meshubad is an
Apotiki. Consequently, he has no claim to Karka whatsoever.
(a) According to Rav, if the purchaser bought the field from the 'seller'
knowing that it was stolen, he is entitled to claim the value of the field
but not the Sh'vach. According to Shmuel - he cannot even claim the value of
(b) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether the money that he paid is
considered a Pikadon (Rav), or a gift (Shmuel).
(c) According to ...
1. ... Rav, the purchaser did not say that he gave the money as a Pikadon -
because he the purchaser, he figured, would decline to accept it.
2. ... Shmuel, he did not say that he gave the money as a gift - because he
was too embarrassed to say so.
(a) We find the same Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel - in connection with
someone who betroths his sister (since everyone knows that such a Kidushin
is not valid).
(b) Had they only presented their Machlokes ...
1. ... here, we would have thought that, in Kidushin, Rav would concede that
the money is a gift - because it is only in our Sugya that he considers the
money a Pikadon, because one doesn't tend to give gifts to a stranger,
whereas in Kidushin, it is his sister who is involved, and not a stranger.
(c) When we ask, according to both Rav and Shmuel, how the purchaser can
possibly eat the fruit - we are actually querying the basis of their
Machlokes, because if it is a question of what we consider the money to be,
how will that authorise the purchaser to eat the fruit?
2. ... in Kidushin, we would have thought that Shmuel would concede here
that the money is a Pikadon - using the reverse logic (because whereas there
it is his sister who is involved, here it is a stranger).
(d) And we reply - that the purchaser eats the fruit (not because it is
legal to do so, but) because he thinks that he is no worse than the Gazlan,
who also ate it.
(a) We conclude 've'Hilch'sa Yesh Lo Ma'os, ve'Yesh Lo Sh'vach' - (like Rav)
with regard to the first Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel (on the previous
Daf), in the case where someone purchased a field which was subsequently
found to have been stolen.
(b) With regard to ...
1. ... our current Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel, we rule that the money
is a Pikadon (like Rav).
(c) We ask what the Din will be if, after selling the stolen field to the
purchaser, the Gazlan buys it from the owner - whether the Gazlan's initial
sale will be invalid (as would be the case if a third person were to
purchase the field from the owner), or whether for some reason, the sale
will remain valid.
2. ... Ach'rayus - we rule 'Ach'rayus Ta'us Sofer Hu' (not like Shmuel, who
holds that the Sofer must also consult the debtor about Shibud). And this
ruling extends to purchases too.
(d) We rule that the Gazlan cannot claim the field from the purchaser -
because the Gazlan sold the purchaser all the rights (not only those that he
already had, but also those) that he would have in the field.
(a) According to Mar Zutra, this is because of a Chazakah that he does not
wish to be called 'a Gazlan' - because he took back the field that he sold
(b) Rav Ashi says - that it is because he wants to remain on good terms with
(c) Initially, we take the ramifications of this Machlokes to be when the
purchaser died, where, we think, the first reason will no longer apply (and
the Gazlan will then be able to take the field), whereas the second one
will. We refute ...
1. ... this suggestion however, on the grounds - that if the sale were to be
nullified, then the purchaser's heirs would refer to the 'seller' as a
Gazlan (no less than the purchaser himself). So either way, the sale will
(d) The ramifications, we finally conclude of the Machlokes between Mar
Zutra and Rav Ashi - are manifest in a case where the Gazlan (did not sell
the field to the recipient, but) gave it to him as a gift. In that case, he
will still want to remain on good terms with the purchaser (by not negating
the sale when he buys the field from the owner) on the one hand, but on the
other, he has no reason to be afraid of being called a Gazlan, since he has
not stolen anything from him.
2. ... the suggestion that the difference will be when the Gazlan died,
where again the first reason will no longer apply, but the second one will
(since the children will still want to be in the good books of the
purchaser), on the grounds that - here too, if the sale were to be annulled,
the purchaser would still refer to the heirs as 'sons of a Gazlan'. So in
this case too, either way, the sale will stand.