(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 Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Metzia 19



(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah lost the Get - that he was bringing from a husband to his wife, in the Beis ha'Medrash.

(b) Based on the fact that he gave a clear Si'man, he harbored doubts as to whether they returned it to him - because of the Simanim, or because he also had Tevi'as Ayin (he recognized it generally, even though it had no marks of identification).

(c) The difference between Si'manim and Tevi'as Ayin is - that anyone will receive their articles via the former, whereas the latter is confined to Talmidei-Chachamim.

(a) We cited the Beraisa 'Matza Get Ishah be'Shuk bi'Z'man she'ha'Ba'al Modeh Yachzir la'Ishah'. If the husband claimed that he had already paid - the Tana rules 'Lo Yachzir Lo la'Zeh ve'Lo la'Zeh'.

(b) The problem with returning the Sh'tar in the Reisha lies in the possibility - that the Get was written in Nisan but only handed to the woman in Tishri, and we are afraid that the husband will then eat the fruit (legally it transpires), but the wife will subsequently claim the fruit that he ate between Nisan and Tishri (claming that he ate it after the divorce), causing an illegal loss to the purchasers.

(c) We can we easily answer this Kashya - according to the opinion that forbids the husband to eat the Peiros of his wife's Nechsei Milug from the moment he makes up his mind to divorce her.

(d) According to those who permit him to, we solve this problem - by insisting that a woman (whose Get was lost and found, and who comes to claim from the purchasers) must prove that she actually received the Get in Nisan before being permitted to claim from the purchasers.

(a) The Mishnah earlier in the Masechta rules in a case where someone finds Sh'tarei Chov which contain Acharayus Nechasim 'Lo Yachzir' (even though the debtor admits that he has not yet paid) - because we are afraid that the Sh'tar may have been written in Nisan, though the loan only took place in Tishri, and the creditor will (illegally) claim from Meshubadim that the purchaser bought between Nisan and Tishri.

(b) We do not permit him to return the Sh'tar there too (like we do here), and when the creditor claims from the purchaser, order him to bring proof as to when he received the Sh'tar, before being permitted to claim - because the purchaser will have no reason to suspect Beis-Din of returning the lost Sh'tar for any ulterior motive other than that the Sh'tar is Kasher. Consequently, it will not enter his mind to make such a demand of the creditor.

(c) And the reason we are lenient in the case of the woman is - because, there the purchaser will suspect that Beis-Din only returned the Sh'tar to enable the woman to remarry, but not because it is Kasher. Consequently, when she produces the Sh'tar, he will challenge her, and Beis-Din will order to bring proof of when she received it.

(a) We learned in a Beraisa that someone who finds Shichrurei Avadim in the street, should return them to the Eved as long as his master admits that he set him free, but not if he denies it. We might suspect - that the master wrote the Sh'tar in Nisan, but only handed it to the Eved in Tishri. Meanwhile, the Eved went and bought property between Nisan and Tishri, which the master subsequently sold, and which the Eved now claims, after producing his Sh'tar Shichrur which predates the sale.

(b) We could reply that this Tana holds that it is a Z'chus for the Eved to go free - because he is subsequently permitted to marry a Kasher bas Yisrael.

(c) We would also need to establish the Beraisa like Abaye - who holds 'Eidav ba'Chasumav Zachin Lo'. Consequently, the property really did belong to the Eved at the time that his master sold it.

(a) The problem will be if the Tana holds like those who consider it detrimental for an Eved to go free - due to the fact that he cannot eat Terumah (which is cheap and comes in abundance) should his master be a Kohen, and if he is a Yisrael, it is because he becomes forbidden to live with a Shifchah Cana'anis, who is 'cheap' in his eyes (he can do with her as he pleases), is always available to him and has no inhibitions.

(b) The problem will then be - that even according to Abaye, the Eved will not acquire the property retroactively, because of the principle 'Ein Chavin le'Adam she'Lo be'Fanav'.

(c) We solve the problem - in exactly the same way as we solved that of returning a Get, by demanding that the Eved must bring proof that he received the Get Shichrur in Nisan, before he will be able to claim the property (and here it is obvious that the purchaser will demand this from the Eved, since he will want to know why the Eved is claiming property, which he purchased from the master).

(a) The acronym of 'Da Tehei le'Meikam ve'li'Heyos' is - 'Dayteki'.

(b) The basic difference between ...

1. ... a Matnas Shechiv-Mera and a Matnas Bari - is the fact that the former is valid with words alone and does not require a Kinyan ('Divrei Shechiv-Mera ki'Chesuvin ve'chi'Mesurin Dami').
2. ... the time that each one takes effect is - that the former takes effect after the donor's death, the latter, during his lifetime.
(c) The Tana describes a Matnas Bari (the gift of a healthy person) as 'Kol she'Kasuv Bo me'Hayom u'le'Achar Miysah'. The connotations of 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Miysah' are - the Guf (the actual property as from today, and the Peyros (the right to benefit from it) after the owner's death.

(d) The ramifications of the statement 'me'Hayom' are - that the donor no longer has the right to sell it, give it or bequeath it to anybody else.

(a) To describe a Matnas Bari (the gift of a healthy person) as 'Kol she'Kasuv Bo me'Hayom u'le'Achar Miysah' makes no sense - because it implies that if he would not have added 'u'le'Achar Miysah', the Matanah would not take effect, whereas it is obvious that if Reuven gives Shimon both the Guf and the Peiros from today, all the more so, will the gift be effective.

(b) What the Tana is coming to teach us, says Abaye, is - a case of a Matnas Bari that, like that of a Shechiv-Mera, will only take effect after the death of the giver (which is only possible if the donor adds 'me'Hayom', giving him the Guf from today. Otherwise, a Matnas Bari cannot take effect after death).




(a) The Tana of our Mishnah ('Matza Gitei Nashim ve'Dayteki ... Lo Yachzir, *she'Ani Omer'*) implies that if the donor were to say 'T'nu', the Dayteki would be returned. The Beraisa says that the finder of 'Dayteka'os, Apoteka'os (a Sh'tar designating a specific field as repayment for an oral loan) and Matanos' - may not return them even with the consent of both parties.

(b) Rebbi Aba bar Mamal resolves the obvious discrepancy by establishing the Mishnah by a Matnas Shechiv-Mera and the Beraisa by a Matnas Bari. The basic difference between ...

1. ... them as regards this Sugya is - that whereas the former may retract, the latter may not.
2. ... the wording of a Matnas Shechiv-Mera and of a Matnas Bari is - that in the former, they would add that the Sh'tar was written when the donor was lying on his death-bed.
(c) The scenario that worries us if the Sh'tar is a Matnas Bari, but not if it is a Matnas Shechiv-Mera is - that the donor may have written this Sh'tar for Reuven and not given it to him, but that he had given a second Sh'tar (irrespective of whether it was a Matnas Shechiv-Mera or Bari), to Shimon, and that he now wants the first Sh'tar (the one that was lost) to be give to Reuven.

(d) We...

1. ... return the Sh'tar if it is a Matnas Shechiv-Mera - because, seeing as the first Sh'tar (which he wants returned to Reuven now) is predated, even assuming that he did give a later Sh'tar to Shimon, we have nothing to fear. This is due to the fact that, seeing as a Shechiv-Mera is permitted to retract, Shimon, whose Sh'tar is dated later than Reuven's, will be the one to (rightfully) receive the gift.
2. ... not return the Sh'tar if it is a Matnas Bari - since a Bari is not permitted to retract, we are afraid that Reuven (who will be the last one to receive the Sh'tar) will produce his pre-dated Sh'tar and (illegally) claim the field.
9) In the previous case, assuming that the donor is genuine and that there is no Shimon, then to satisfy Beis-Din (who do not know this) - he should write Reuven a fresh Sh'tar with today's date (in which case, even if there is a Shimon, he will not be threatened by Reuven's Sh'tar, seeing as his Sh'tar predates it).


(a) The problem Rav Z'vid has with Rebbi Aba bar Mamal's interpretation of the Beraisa is - that the Tana says 'Dayteka'os', so how can we interpret this as 'Matnos Bari'?

(b) Rav Z'vid therefore explains the *Mishnah* in the same way as Rebbi Aba bar Mamal did, but the *Beraisa* he establishes when it is the son of the now deceased Shechiv-Mera who agrees to the return of the Sh'tar. We ought not to return it - in case it was written on behalf of Reuven, but never given to him, and then, after his father's death, the son handed a Sh'tar presenting Shimon with the same field. And he now wishes to retract from his (valid) gift, by giving his father's (pre-dated) Sh'tar to Reuven.

(c) Assuming that the son did not give the field to Shimon, and his father's Sh'tar is therefore valid, to satisfy Beis-Din - he should write a fresh Sh'tar for Reuven (which will now not threaten Shimon, even if he did, as we explained earlier).

(d) Our Mishnah states 'she'Ani Omer ... ', implying that if he said 'T'nu', then we do return the Sh'tar. Bearing in mind that the Tana also incorporates Matanos in the Mishnah - we confine the inference to a Matnas Shechiv-Mera where the Go'ses himself said 'T'nu', but not to a Matnas Bari, or even to Matnas Shechiv-Mera where it was the son who said 'T'nu'.

Next daf


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