ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 72
BAVA METZIA 71-74 - 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
(a) If a Nochri who lent a Jew money on interest, issues a new document
converting the Keren (the principle) and the Ribis into one joint loan, and
also converts to Judaism - he will be permitted to claim the Ribis, provided
he converted the loan before he converted to Judaism, but not if he
(b) And the same will apply in the equivalent case, if a Jew who lent a
Nochri money on interest, issues a new document converting the Keren and the
Ribis into one joint loan, and the Nochri converts to Judaism. He will he
permitted to claim the Ribis - as long as he converted the loan before he
himself converted, but not if he converted first.
(c) The above is the opinion of the Tana Kama in a Beraisa. Rebbi Yossi
argues with him in the latter case - permitting the Jewish creditor from
claiming either way, to prevent people from saying that the Nochri only conv
erted in order to get out of paying the Ribis that he owed the Jew.
(d) Rav Chisda Amar Rav Huna rules like Rebbi Yossi.
(a) According to Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, the creditor cannot even claim the
*Keren* with a Sh'tar which includes Ribis. The Rabbanan however - restrict
the prohibition to claiming the Ribis; but they permit him to claim the
(b) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether Chazal decreed on the part of
the Sh'tar that is permitted, on account of the part that is forbidden
(Rebbi Meir) or not (the Rabbanan).
(a) Sh'tarei Chov ...
1. ... ha'Mukdamin are - pre-dated documents.
(b) The Mishnah in Shevi'is invalidates the former - because that will
enable the creditor to claim from fields which the purchaser's bought before
the loan took place, which is unlawful; but not the former, since no harm
will come from the creditor claiming from the debtor's fields which the
purchasers bought *after* the loan took place.
2. ... ha'Me'ucharin are - post-dated documents.
(c) Resh Lakish establishes the author of this Mishnah as Rebbi Meir -
because according to the Rabanan, Sh'tarei Chov ha'Mukdamin ought at least
to be valid as far as claiming the debt from after the date that the loan
took place is concerned.
(d) Rebbi Yochanan however establishes the Mishnah even according to the
Rabbanan - who will concede here that the Sh'tar is totally invalid (not
because we decree what is permitted on account of what is not, but) because,
due to the fact that the second date is not written in the Sh'tar, we are
afraid that the creditor will claim from the date written in the Sh'tar (and
the purchaser, unaware that the loan took place after the date on the
Sh'tar, will not object either).
(a) Three years after the debtor gave him a field as a security - that
creditor threatened the debtor that, unless he sold him the field, he would
quash the document declaring the field to be a security, and claim that he
had purchased it from him and that he had lost the document of purchase.
(b) This threat was based on the principle - that, after three years, a
person who makes such a claim is believed.
(c) To counteract this - the debtor donated the field to his young son
before selling it to his creditor.
(d) The sale was obviously invalid. The query then arose whether (bearing in
mind that he had sold him the field with Achrayus),
the money that the debtor now owed the creditor (and which was contained in
the document of sale) was considered a documented loan or an oral one. The
ramifications of the She'eilah are - whether the creditor was now permitted
to claim from the Meshubadim that the debtor had sold in the interim or not.
(a) Abaye tried to resolve the She'eilah by quoting Rebbi Asi, who stated
that, if a debtor admitted to the validity of the Sh'tar that the creditor
produced against him - the creditor may subsequently claim even from the
debtor's Meshubadim, without having to search for witnesses to substantiate
(b) In our case too - the debtor admitted that the Sh'tar of sale was valid,
in which case, by the same token, the creditor ought to be able to claim
from the debtor's Meshubadim.
(c) Rava refuted Abaye's comparison to Rebbi Asi's case - on the grounds
that, whereas there, in the case of Rebbi Asi, the Sh'tar was legitimate,
the field here had already been donated to the seller's son, and its sale
was therefore illegal.
(a) We just cited Rava, who draws a distinction between a regular Sh'tar,
which is legal, and the field in our case, which had already been donated to
the seller's son, in which case its sale was illegal. A little earlier, we
cited Rebbi Yochanan, who attributed the prohibition on the creditor to
claim even from Meshubadim, even from the date of the loan to the fact that
he might claim from the date on the Sh'tar. Why, Ravina asked Mereimar, did
he not rather attribute it to the fact that the Sh'tar was written
illegally, to which Mereimar relied - that there, granted the Sh'tar was
illegal as far as the earlier date was concerned, it was however, perfectly
legal from the date that the loan took place?
(b) The Mishnah rules in Gitin that one cannot claim Sh'vach Karka'os from
Meshubadim, which the Beraisa establishes as Reuven who steals a field from
Shimon, which he sells to Levi. When Shimon claims his field, which Levi has
in the meantime improved, he claims the Keren from Meshubadim (Levi's
purchasers) and the Sh'vach from B'nei Chorin (fields that Levi still has in
(c) We explained earlier (in the first Perek, that Reuven will make every
effort to persuade Shimon to sell him the field, so as not to be termed a
Gazlan, or that he will do so - in order to remain in the good graces of
Levi (to whom he sold the field with Achrayus).
(d) That explains why the Sh'tar is legal there, enabling Levi to claim the
Keren from Shimon's Meshubadim. Neither of those reasons would apply in our
case (of the creditor after three years) however - because the debtor's very
intention is to ensure that the creditor should lose the field.
(a) Our Mishnah permits Reuven to give Shimon money at the beginning of the
season, for a Sa'ah of wheat that he will only receive at the end of the
season, once the price is fixed - because even though the seller doesn't
have wheat, someone else does (in which case theoretically, he could have
purchased it and given it to the buyer immediately).
(b) The Tana permits someone who arrives early at the haystack to do this
even before the official price has been fixed - because the seller has grain
(albeit not yet ready for consumption), in which case there is no Ribis
because it is as if the purchaser has already acquired it. Alternatively,
the Tana speaks when the seller sells the buyer the grain at the Sha'ar
ha'Lekutos (a special price that the harvesters fix among themselves - see
Rosh Si'man 60).
(c) The Tana's leniency here (even though we might have expected him to
consider this Avak Ribis) is based on the fact - that Ribis by way of buying
and selling (as opposed to lending and borrowing) is in the first instance,
(d) The Tana says the same about someone who arrives early at ...
1. ... the Avit of grapes - which is a large pot in which the grapes are
placed before pressing, to let them become hot, allowing the wine to flow
more freely from the grapes.
2. ... the Ma'atan of olives - which is the same thing, only regarding
(a) The other two cases that the Tana adds to the list are a purchaser who
arrives early - a. at the pottery, where the potter has already formed balls
of clay (with which to make his pots), and b. at the lime-maker, who has
already placed the lime-stones and the wood into the furnace to manufacture
(b) The Tana Kama permits paying money in advance for manure all the year
round. The Chachamim seem to agree with this. Rebbi Yossi - requires the
seller to have manure in his trash-heap for this transaction to be
(c) 'u'Poskin Imo ke'Sha'ar ha'Gavohah' - which means a price fixing of more
fruit for less money (i.e. fruit at a cheaper price).
(d) Rebbi Yehudah - permits this even without the purchaser actually
specifying it (as the Tana Kama does).
(a) Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan forbids paying for corn in advance relying
on the 'Sha'ar she'ba'Shuk'. Rebbi Zeira asked Rebbi Asi whether Rebbi
Yochanan was referring to 'ke'Durmus ha'Zeh', by which he meant - even the
price fixed by the large stores where the wheat is sold in bulk.
(b) According to Rebbi Zeira's suggestion, when our Mishnah permits such a
sale once the Sha'ar has been fixed - it would be referring to the price
that is fixed when all the big owners open their store-houses to sell to the
public and the boats arrive from up-river with wheat for sale, because that
is a Sha'ar that remains constant for a long time.
(c) Rebbi Asi answered Rebbi Zeira - that, in fact, Rebbi Yochanan was
referring to a smaller Sha'ar, namely that of the town Sha'ar which still
permits individuals to sell at their own price (Shitah Mekubetzes).
(a) The Beraisa forbids purchasing corn in advance as long as the new wheat
are sold at four Sa'ah per Sela, and the old wheat, at three. The new crops
would be sold for a lower price than the old crops - because they are not
yet completely dry.
(b) The reason for the prohibition is - that seeing as the old crops are
sold at three Sa'ah per Sela, it looks as if the seller is giving the
purchaser more new crops, because of the money that he received in advance.
(c) The Tana permits it - from the moment that both are sold at four Sa'ah
(d) He repeats the same Halachah with regard to purchasing wheat from
Lekutos if their wheat is sold at four Sa'ah per Sela, and the regular
crops, at three. What makes the wheat of the Lekutos inferior to that of
other sellers is - the fact that the quality of crops sold by the Lekutos is
inferior, since they tend to purchase from many different fields, and in the
process they mix rye stalks together with the wheat stalks.
(a) Rav Nachman permits Lekutos to pay one another in advance. Rava's
problem with this is - that if Lekutos are permitted to do this, because
since their Sha'ar is already out, they can borrow crops from their Lakut
friends, why should an ordinary Balabos not also be permitted, since he too,
can borrow from a Lakut?
(b) Rav Nachman gives Rava two answers, one of them, that a regular seller
would be embarrassed to borrow the inferior wheat that the Lakut sells, the
other - because whoever gives a Balabos money for wheat, expects
good-quality crops, and not the poor quality grain offered by the Lekutos.
(c) When Rav Sheishes quotes Rav Huna as saying 'Ein Lovin al Sha'ar
she'ba'Shuk', he might mean that Reuven is forbidden to stipulate when
borrowing money from Shimon that, should he fail to return the loan by a
specific date, he will be obligated to give him fruit at the current price.
Even though Sa'ah be'Sa'ah is permitted in this way, it is nevertheless
forbidden here - because Chazal were more stringent by loans, where the
Ribis is basically d'Oraysa (as we have already explained).
(d) The Behag explains the case - by Sa'ah be'Sa'ah.
(a) When they asked Rav Huna about Talmidei-Chachamim borrowing money in
Tishri (or wheat, according to the Behag) to pay back wheat in Teives - he
ruled that it was permitted.
(b) To reconcile the two conflicting rulings of Rav Huna, we cite Rav Shmuel
bar Chiya Amar Rebbi Elazar - who permits it.
(c) It was when Rav Huna heard Rebbi Elazar's ruling - that he retracted
from his original stance.