ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 35
(a) We just asked how, according to Rav Huna, who rules that the creditor
has to swear that the security is not in his possession, the Beraisa can
contend with the possibility that the creditor will produce it. Rabah's
suggestion that there are witnesses that it got burned (absolving him from
the Shevu'ah) is unacceptable - because if we know that it got burned, the
question remains 'How can the creditor produce it?
(b) Rav Yosef's answer (that there are witnesses that it got lost) is
acceptable however - because it is possible for the creditor to find the
Ganav and produce the article.
(c) We are not equally concerned that if the creditor swears, the debtor
will go and find the Ganav - because the debtor does not know who frequents
the creditor's home, and who the potential Ganavim are.
(a) Abaye answers (the Kashya on Rav Huna from the Beraisa) - that if the
debtor swears how much it is worth, we are afraid that even if the creditor
has sworn that the Pikadon is not in his possession, he will say that he
found it after the Shevu'ah.
(b) When Rav Ashi answers that they both swear, he means - that the creditor
swears that he does not have the Pikadon in his possession and the debtor
swears that it is worth a Sela.
(c) And when the Tana concludes 'Mi Nishba, Mi she'ha'Pikadon Etzlo ... ' -
what he means is 'Who swears first?', to which his answer is clear.
(a) Rav Huna bar Tachlifa asks on Rav Huna from the Reisha of the Seifa
(which exempts the creditor from swearing how much the Pikadon was worth
because he is a Kofer ba'Kol) - a Kashya on Rav Huna who obligates him swear
that the article is not in his possession. In that case, we ought to make
him swear through a Gilgul Shevu'ah, how much it is worth.
(b) When Rav Ashi asked Rav Kahana the same Kashya, he answered - that the
Tana speaks when the debtor believes the creditor when he claims that the
Pikadon is not in his possession (thereby absolving him of having to swear).
(c) The debtor does not believe the creditor when he claims that the Pikadon
was worth a Sela however - because he knows the value of the article better
than the creditor.
(d) In the Reisha, the creditor does not believe the debtor regarding the
value of the article - because, seeing as Hashem is 'giving the latter a
hard time', he assumes him to be a Rasha, who deserves Divine retribution,
with the result that he looks down on him and doesn't trust him.
(a) We translate the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Tumas Yesharim Tanchem" to mean - 'the honesty of the straight ones
will lead them'.
(b) When the owner of the precious nose-rings asked him to return them - the
Shomer claimed that he had lost them.
2. ... "ve'Selef Bogdim Yeshadem" - 'and the crookedness of the treacherous
ones will topple them'.
(c) Rav Nachman ruled ...
1. ... there - that 'lost' falls under the category of 'Peshi'ah'
(negligence), and that he was therefore obligated to pay.
2. ... when he refused to pay - that he was to give him his mansion instead.
3. ... when the value of the rings rose significantly - that he should
return the rings in exchange for his mansion.
(a) When Rava queried Rav Nachman's latest ruling from our Mishnah (that
once the Shomer pays, the owner grants him all the benefits [including an
increase in price]), Rav Nachman didn't bother to answer him. In fact - Rava
conceded that Rav Nachman was right in not answering, because the Shomer had
not paid of his own accord, but had to be forced to do so at the hand of
Beis-Din, something which would hardly elicit feelings of gratitude on the
part of the owner (as an spontaneous confession would).
(b) 'Shuma Hadar' means - that when Beis-Din assess the debtor's property
and force the debtor to pay a certain piece of Karka in lieu of his debt,
the debtor is able to redeem that Karka should he offer the creditor money
in its place.
(c) There no proof from Rav Nachman's previous ruling that he holds 'Shuma
Hadar' - because it transpired that the Shomer had not lost the rings in the
first place (but had only mislaid them). Consequently, the Shuma had been
done in error.
(d) Neherda'i hold that 'Shuma Hadar' up to twelve months, on which Ameimar
commented - that although he too, was from Neherda'a, he held that the owner
could redeem the Shuma forever, on the basis of the Pasuk ('ve'Asisa
ha'Yashar ve'ha'Tov' - a Mitzvah to go beyond the letter of the law).
(a) If Reuven receives from Shimon his debtor a field, which he in turn,
received from *his* debtor by means of a Shumas Beis-Din, we tell him - that
he is no better than Shimon, who would have had to relinquish the field,
should his debtor come to redeem it. So he must relinquish it too.
(b) And if, instead of giving it to Reuven in lieu of his debt, Shimon sold
it to him, bequeathed it to him or gave it to him as a gift - he is not
obligated to return it should Reuven's debtor offer them money, because
unlike a creditor, whose claim is really money, and to whom the Pasuk
"ve'Asisa ... " pertains, they paid for the field (not for money), and the
Pasuk does not apply to them.
(c) We will not apply "ve'Asisa ha'Yashar ve'ha'Tov" in a case where
Beis-Din assessed the field ...
1. ... of a woman's debtor, and, after marrying, she dies - because, as we
just explained, the Din of "ve'Asisa ... " is confined to a creditor, not to
an heir or a purchaser.
(d) 'Takanas Usha' cited by Rebbi Yossi bar Chanina is - the Takanah
instituted by the Sanhedrin in Usha, giving a husband the status of the
first purchaser of his deceased wife's estate, which in turn, gives him the
right, after his wife's death, to claim any property that she sold between
their marriage and her death.
2. ... belonging to a woman, to pay her creditor, and she marries and then
dies, and her husband wishes to redeem her field - because whereas the Pasuk
will extend to the debtor's heir who wishes to redeem the field, it does not
extend to a husband, who is not an heir, but a purchaser, as we shall now
(a) In a case where the debtor paid the creditor a field of his own accord
(not through a Shumas Beis-Din), Rav Acha and Ravina argue whether he can
redeem it or not. The reason of the one who rules that ...
1. ... he cannot is - because, since he did not pay through Beis-Din, he
obviously intended the payment to be a fait accompli (unlike the Shumas
Beis-Din, which is only arbitrary).
(b) According to Rabah, the creditor takes possession of the Shumas Beis-Din
(and may eat its fruit) from the moment they give him the Sh'tar Adrachta -
ninety days after they obligated the debtor to pay (as we learned in the
2. ... he can is - because, he too, only gave the field arbitrarily, and the
reason that he did not do it through Beis-Din is because he was embarrassed
to do so.
(c) According to Abaye, he might even be allowed to eat before he actually
receives the Adrachta - because he holds 'Eidav ba'Chasumav Zachin Lo'.
Consequently, he will be able to eat from the date on the Sh'tar, even if
Beis-Din only handed it to him later.
(d) And according to Rava, he cannot even eat when he has the Adrachta -
until the 'Yemei Achrazta' have terminated, which is only after the creditor
picks a filed, and Beis-Din announce that it is for sale. Then, if after a
certain period elapses, the creditor is willing to accept the field at a
higher price than the highest bidder, the field becomes his.
(a) The Tana Kama rules in a case where Reuven hires a cow from Shimon which
he lends to Levi (with Shimon's consent - Bartenura), and the cow dies a
natural death - that Reuven swears to Shimon that it died a natural death,
and Levi then pays Reuven.
(b) Rebbi Yossi objects on the grounds - that it makes no sense for Reuven
to make money on Shimon's cow. Consequently, Levi pays Shimon.
(c) Based on the assumption that Reuven acquires the cow from Levi with the
Shevu'ah that he makes to Shimon - we ask why Shimon cannot refuse to accept
the Shevu'ah in the first place and deal with Levi directly.
(d) We answer - that in fact, Reuven acquired the cow from the moment it
died, and the Shevu'ah is only to satisfy Shimon that the animal really did
die be'O'nes and not in a way that would render him (Reuven) liable to pay.
(a) Rebbi Zeira states a case where Shimon (the owner) would be obligated to
pay Reuven (the hirer) a number of cows. The case is - if Reuven hired
Shimon's cow for a hundred days, and Shimon borrowed it back for ninety of
those hundred. Reuven then hired it from him for eighty of the ninety days
and Shimon borrowed it back for seventy of the eighty, and the cow then died
during the days of borrowing.
(b) If the cow died during ...
1. ... the second stage, after Shimon had borrowed it back for ninety days -
the Socher would have to swear to the owner, who would then give him one cow
for the borrowing (which would be his to keep) and one for the hiring (which
he would only be allowed to use until the term of hiring expired - see
(c) Rav Acha mi'Difti asked Ravina why he would have to pay more than one
cow (for the borrowing and one, for the hiring [see also Maharam Shif]),
seeing as it is really the same cow that was borrowed twice and hired
twice - to which Ravina replied that his Kashya would have some
justification if the cow was still alive, but now that the cow was dead, he
was claiming for the transactions, and not the cow.
2. ... the third stage, after Reuven had hired it for eighty days - the Din
would be exactly the same as in the previous case.
3. ... the fourth stage, after Shimon had borrowed the cow for seventy out
of the eighty days - Shimon would be obligated to pay Reuven - four cows,
two for the two sets of borrowing and two for the two sets of hiring, which
he would only be allowed to use until the term of hiring expired.
(d) Mar bar Rav Ashi obligates Shimon to pay the hirer a maximum of two
cows, one for the two sets of borrowing (which Reuven may keep) and one for
the two sets of hiring (which he may use until the terms of hiring have
expired) - because he agrees with Rav Acha mi'Difti (see Maharam Shif).