ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 100
BAVA METZIA 100 (18 Adar) - Reb Gedalya Weinberger of Brooklyn, N.Y., has
dedicated this Daf in memory of his father, Reb Chaim Tzvi ben Reb Shlomo
Weinberger, on his Yahrzeit. Reb Chaim Tzvi, who miraculously survived the
holocaust, raised his children with a strong dedication to Torah and its
(a) Our Mishnah discusses a case of 'ha'Machlif Parah ba'Chamor
ve'Yaldah' - where the buyer claims that the baby was born after the
purchase, and the seller counters that it was born beforehand.
(b) The Tana presents the case of '*ha'Machlif* Parah ba'Chamor ... ' yet
follows it with that of '*ha'Mocher* Shifchaso ... ' - because, whereas on
the one hand, one acquires a Shifchah who has the Din of Karka) with money,
even if the Shifchah is not actually present at the sale, a cow (which is
Metaltelin) can only be acquired with Meshichah, in which case, one would
see immediately if its calf was already born, and there would be nothing to
(c) In a case where Reuven claims that he purchased the bigger of Shimon's
two Avadim or fields, and the latter counters that he doesn't know which of
the two he sold him, the Tana rules that he receives the bigger one. In a
case where ...
1. ... Shimon claims that he sold Reuven the smaller one, and Reuven
counters that he doesn't know, he rules - that Reuven receives the smaller
(d) Whereas in a case where each one claims that he doesn't know - the Din
2. ... Reuven claims that he purchased the bigger of Shimon's two Avadim or
fields, and the latter counters that he sold him the smaller one - the
seller swears that he sold the smaller one, and that is what the purchaser
(a) The problem with he Tana's ruling in the case of 'ha'Machlif Parah
ba'Chamor ... ' is - that, due to the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero, Alav
ha'Re'ayah' the baby ought to belong to the one in whose domain the cow is
currently standing, unless the other party can prove his claim.
Rava proves that Sumchus speaks exclusively by 'Shema ve'Shema' from the
last case in the Mishnah (regarding two Avadim and two fields, where the
Tana concludes) 'Zeh Omer Eini Yode'a ve'Zeh Omer Eini Yode'a, Yachloku'.
According to Rabah bar Rav Huna - even though Sumchus has already taught us
(in the Reisha) 'Yachloku' by 'Bari u'Bari', he needs to repeat the same
ruling in the Seifa by 'Shema ve'Shema' - because, if he hadn't, we would
have established the Reisha (which is not clearly spelt out) by 'Shema
ve'Shema' (like Rava). But now that Sumchus teaches us the Din of Yachloku
by 'Shema ve'Shema' in the Seifa, it indicates that the Reisha is speaking
by 'Bari u'Bari'.
(b) Rebbi Chiya bar Avin Amar Shmuel therefore establishes the case of ...
1. ... 'ha'Machlif Parah ba'Chamor' - when the cow is standing in a public
(c) We do not place the cow and the Shifchah on the Chazakah of the seller
(who was the original owner ['Chezkas Marah Kama']) - because the author of
our Mishnah is Sumchus, who holds 'Mamon ha'Mutal be'Safek, Cholkin.
2. ... 'ha'Mocher Shifchaso - when the Shifchah is currently in a Simta (the
side of the road specifically designated for the sale of animals and
(d) It seems, says Rabah bar Rav Huna, that Sumchus holds 'Cholkin' even
when both parties are sure of their claim. Rava disagrees. He establishes
the Mishnah - when the one claims 'Shema ad she'Lo Macharti Yaldah' and the
other counters, 'Shema mi'she'Lakachti Yaldah' (but by 'Bari u'Bari',
Sumchus concedes that 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro, Alav ha'Re'ayah.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Zeh Omer Gadol, ve'Zeh Omer Katan, Yishava
ha'Mocher she'Katan Machar', posing a problem on Rabah bar Rav Huna - who
maintains that Sumchus holds 'Yachloku' even by 'Bari u'Bari'.
(b) Rabah bar Rav Huna will answer - by pointing out that Sumchus concedes
to the Chachamim that wherever there is a Shevu'ah d'Oraysa, such as here,
the Shevu'ah overrides the ruling of 'Yachloku'.
(c) Despite the fact that this appears to be a case of 'Heilech' (which does
not require a Shevu'ah) - we will later establish it when the seller cut off
the hand of the Eved (one of a number of possible explanations that will be
presented - see Maharam).
(d) And as far as the dual problems of a. the principle 'Ein Nishba'in al
ha'Avadim', and b. 'Ta'ano Chitin ve'Hodeh Lo bi'Se'orin, Patur' is
concerned - our Tana holds 'Nishba'in al ha'Avadim' and 'Ta'ano Chitin
ve'Hodeh Lo bi'Se'orin, Chayav'.
(a) Initially, Rav answers the Kashya of Heilech (which we just discussed)
by establishing our Mishnah by 'D'mei', when the bone of contention concerns
(not the actual Eved or the field, but) the value - where the buyer claims
that he gave the seller money for a large Eved or field, and the seller
counters that he only gave him money for a small one.
(b) Shmuel disagrees. According to him, the Tana is speaking when the
argument is whether the buyer paid for the garment of a big Eved or the
garment of a small one.
(c) Both Rav and Shmuel have also resolved the problem of 'Ein Nishba'in al
ha'Avadim. The question of 'Ta'ano Chitin ve'Hodeh Lo Se'orin' however,
still remains, according to Shmuel.
(d) Rav Papa dispenses with the problem by establishing the Mishnah when the
cloth for the garment is still attached to the roll, and they are arguing
over how much cloth the one sold the other (see Tosfos DH 'K'sus', regarding
(a) Rebbi Hoshaya objects to Shmuel's establishing our Mishnah by the
garment of an Eved and the sheaves in the field, on the grounds that the
Tana is discussing an Eved, and not his clothes. He therefore establishes
it - when the dispute is over the Eved together with his garment and the
field together with the sheaves that are lying in it.
(b) And the the problem 'Mah she'Ta'ano Lo Hodeh Lo ... ' Rav Papa
resolves - by establishing the Mishnah when the cloth is still attached to
the roll, as we explained earlier.
(c) Rav Sheishes refutes Rav Hoshaya's explanation on the grounds that
'Zokekin Asa le'Ashme'inan?', meaning that - we do not need to learn
'Zokekin' (a shortened name for Kinyan Agav [the acquiring of Metaltelin by
means of a Kinyan on Karka]).
(a) To resolve the problems of 'Ein Nishba'in al ha'Avadim' and 'Mah
she'Ta'ano, Lo Hodeh ... ', Rav Sheishes himself establishes our Mishnah
like Rebbi Meir (who holds - 'Avdi ki'Metalteli Dami') and like Raban
Gamliel (who holds - 'Ta'ano Chitin ... Chayav')
(b) And he resolves the problem of 'Heilech' regarding the case of ...
1. ... Eved - by establishing the Mishnah when the seller cut off the Eved's
arm (as we explained earlier).
(c) the Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Bava Kama rules - that if someone stole
an animal or an Eved which subsequently grew old, he must pay the owner
their original value.
2. ... Sadeh - by establishing it when he dug holes in it.
(d) According to Rebbi Meir - the Ganav may say to the owner 'Harei
she'Lecha Lefanecha' because he holds 'Avdi ki'Metalteli Dami'.
(a) We reconcile this Mishnah with Rav Sheishes, who just established that
Rebbi Meir holds 'Avdi ki'Metalteli Dami', by citing Rabah bar Avuhah, who
in turn, cites a Beraisa - which switches their opinions.
(b) Bearing in mind that the Tana of our Mishnah also obligates a Shevu'ah
in the case of Sadeh, the remaining problem is - if Rebbi Meir obligates a
Shevu'ah on Avadim, because he considers them like Metaltelin; on what basis
would he also obligate a Shevu'ah on Karka?
(c) The Beraisa, largely echoing the Reisha of our Mishnah, discusses the
various computations by 'ha'Machlif Parah ba'Chamor' and 'ha'Mocher
Shifchaso'. In the case of 'Zeh Omer bi'Reshusi, ve'Zeh Omer bi'Reshusi',
Rebbi Meir obligates the seller to swear - because (based on the Pasuk in
Mishpatim "ve'Lakach Be'alav ve'Lo Yeshalem") it is always the defendant who
swears, in order to exempt himself from paying.
(a) We try to extrapolate from the Chachamim, who counter Rebbi Meir's
S'vara 'Ein Nishba'in Lo al ha'Avadim ve'Lo al ha'Karka'os' - that Rebbi
Meir holds that one swears on Karka as well as on Avadim.
(b) We reject this proof however, on the grounds that what the Rabbanan are
saying to Rebbi Meir is - that 'just as you concede that one does not swear
on Karka, won't you also concede that one does not swear on Avadim either'.
(c) In the Mishnah in Shevu'os, Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim argue over a
case where Reuven claims that he sold Shimon ten laden vines, and Shimon
argues that he only sold him five. Rebbi Meir obligates Shimon to pay ('Yesh
Devarim she'Hein ke'Karka, ve'Einan ke'Karka'); the Chachamim say - 'Kol
ha'Mechubar le'Karka, Harei Hu ke'Karka' (and Karka is not subject to a
(d) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina establishes their Machlokes - by grapes that
are ripe and ready to pick. And they argue over whether they are considered
Metaltelin (Rebbi Meir) or Karka (the Chachamim).
(a) From the Mishnah in Shevu'os, we prove conclusively - that Rebbi Meir
concedes to the Rabbanan that one does not swear on Karka.
(b) Consequently, in order to accommodate both the case of Avadim and that
of Sados, we reinstate Rebbi Hoshaya's interpretation of our Mishnah, when
the two parties are arguing over the Eved together with his garment and the
field together with the sheaves. And we resolve the Kashya that we asked
earlier (that we do not need this Mishnah to teach us 'Zokekin') - by
proposing that, were it not for our Mishnah, we would have thought that the
garment of an Eved and the sheaves in the field are (considered Karka) like
the Eved and the field.
(c) In the Beraisa which echoes our Mishnah, the author of the statement
'Zeh Omer Eini Yode'a, ve'Zeh Omer Eini Yode'a, Yachloku' too must be -
(d) In that case, Rabah bar Rav Huna, who establishes Sumchus even by 'Bari
u'Bari', will ascribe the ruling in the Seifa 'Zeh Omer bi'Reshusi, ve'Zeh
Omer bi'Reshusi, Yishava ha'Mocher ... ' - to the fact that the Shevu'ah is
d'Oraysa (as we explained earlier).
(e) This is not a case of 'Heilech' - because Rava establishes the Beraisa
when the seller cut off the hand of the Eved and the foot of the cow (like
he explained the Mishnah earlier).
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah rules that in a case where someone sells his
olive-trees for firewood, and they produce ...
When Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi says 'Chutz min ha'Hotza'ah', he means that, when
our Mishnah says 'Revi'is le'Sa'ah ... Yachloku' (because people are fussy
about a Sa'ah), that Sa'ah refers to the profit, over and above the cost of
the picking and the pressing.
1. ... less than a Revi'is (ha'Lug) per Sa'ah - the oil goes to the
purchaser of the trees.
(b) If a river sweeps away one's olive-trees and deposits them in someone
else's field, where they subsequently produce olives - the owner of the
trees and the owner of the field divide the oil between them?
2. ... more than a Revi'is per Sa'ah - they divide the oil, since the oil
was produced jointly by the trees of the one and the ground of the other.
(c) If the seller stipulated that the purchaser ...
1. ... was to remove his trees immediately - then even less than a Revi'is
per Sa'ah would belong to the owner of the field.
(d) When our Mishnah rules that if the trees produce less than a Revi'is per
Sa'ah, the oil goes to the purchaser, and more, to the seller, the Tana is
speaking - when he sold them to him S'tam, in which case people tend to be
less fussy about less than a Revi'is per Sa'ah than if he had demanded that
he remove his trees immediately, and more fussy than if he had allowed him
to leave them there indefinitely.
2. ... could leave his trees there indefinitely - then even more than a
Revi'is per Sa'ah would belong to the owner of the trees.