(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 102

BAVA METZIA 101-105 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.



(a) The Beraisa permits the hirer to take his Mezuzah with him when he leaves the apartment - only if the owner (i.e. the person who moves into the apartment after him) is a Nochri.

(b) When a certain hirer took his Mezuzah with him leaving the apartment - his wife and two sons died.

(c) Although the Tana cites this incident after having taught us the concession of taking down one's Mezuzah should a Nochri rent the apartment after him - it really refers to the first Halachah in the Mishnah, which forbids taking the Mezuzah down when one moves.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that the droppings in the courtyard belong to the owner - assuming that is, that the courtyard was not rented out to the tenant and the droppings came from Hefker animals that entered the courtyard from outside.

(b) The Chidush coincides with a statement of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who states - that someone's Chatzer acquires for him even without his knowledge (which explains why the tenant cannot take the droppings).

(c) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina will establish the Beraisa 'Kol Metzi'os she'Yava'o le'Tocho ha'Yom, Tikneh Li Chatzeri, Lo Amar K'lum' - by an unguarded Chatzer.

(d) Nevertheless, the Seifa states 'Yatza Lo Shem Metzi'a ba'Ir, Devarav Kayamin' - because since everyone knows that the Metzi'a has landed in his Chatzer, they will not take it, effectively turning it into a guarded Chatzer.

(a) Another Beraisa declares the droppings that he finds in the oven and those that he collects in a vessel from the air in the Chatzer (as it drops from the animal) to be the hirer's. The droppings that the hirer finds in the stable or in the Chatzer however - belong to the owner.

(b) To reconcile Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina with the middle Din (of droppings in the air, which ought to belong to the owner, according to him), Abaye establishes the Beraisa when the hirer places his vessel right next to the cow, so that the droppings fall immediately into it. According to Rava, this is not necessary, because seeing as the droppings are not destined to fall into the Chatzer anyway, the owner does not acquire them.

(c) Rava himself (in the first Perek) asked what the Din will be if someone throws a Hefker purse through the front door of a house, and the purse flies through the house and out the back door - whether the owner acquires it because the air belongs to the house, or not, because the purse was not destined to reach the floor of the house.

(d) In spite of that, he currently holds that the owner definitely does not acquire the droppings from the animal - because whereas there is nothing in that case dividing between the purse and the ground, here there is a vessel that prevents the droppings from falling to the ground.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa is actually not teaching us that both the droppings in the Chatzer and in the stable belong to the owner - because we erase the 'Vav' in 'she'be'Refes ve'she'be'Chatzer', amending it to read 'she'be'Refes she'be'Chatzer'.

(b) Rav Ashi extrapolates from the fact that the Tana presents the case of 'Refes she'ba'Chatzer', and not that of she'be'Chatzer' alone - that someone who rents out a Chatzer, does not automatically include the stable.

(c) The Tana of yet another Beraisa states that the birds that one finds in somebody's dovecote ...

1. ... are subject to the Mitzvah of Shilu'ach ha'Ken ...
2. ... and to the Aveirah of Gezel, though only because of Darkei Shalom (mi'de'Rabbanan).
(d) We learn from the Pasuk "Ki Yikarei" - that one is only obligated to perform Shilu'ach ha'Ken with birds that one comes across, but not with birds that are prepared (which belong to someone). Now, according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, these birds ought to belong to the owner of the Chatzer, in which case they should not be subject to Shilu'ach ha'Ken?
(a) Rava replies that the Tana is speaking when most of the egg has emerged from the chicken, but not all of it - in which case the egg is subject to the Mitzvah of Shilu'ach, though it does not belong to the owner of the Chatzer until it leaves its mother completely.

(b) We suggest that, if that is so, 'Chayavos Mishum Gezel' refers (not to the eggs, but) to the mother, which the owner acquires because of Darkei Shalom - since he expects it to return to the dovecote each evening, but not min ha'Torah, because it is not guarded (it can come and go as it wishes).

(c) The Tana might be referring even to the eggs, which the owner acquires because of Darkei Shalom - because once the majority of the egg has emerged, he has the specific intention of acquiring it, and the Chachamim therefore decreed it to be his.

(a) Alternatively, we establish the Beraisa even when the eggs are already lying in the Chatzer, yet the owner still does not acquire them min ha'Torah. This is due to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, who learns from the Pasuk there "Shale'ach Teshalach es ha'Eim (ve'Hadar) ve'es ha'Banim Tikach Lach" - that one is not allowed to take eggs on which a mother is sitting.

(b) So the Tana must therefore be speaking when the owner of the Chatzer has not yet sent the mother away. Nevertheless, he acquires the eggs because of Darkei Shalom - because the Tana is referring to a Katan, who is not bound by the Mitzvah to send the mother away.

(c) And even though a Katan is not subject to 'Darkei Shalom' - his father is.

(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah rules that if Reuven rents his Chatzer to Shimon for a year, and it turns out to be a leap year - the extra month goes to the hirer (because the thirteenth month is included in the year).

(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Yossi ruled there, in a case that occurred in Tzipori, when someone hired a bath-house at twelve golden Dinrim per annum, one Dinar per month - that they split the extra month.




(a) We reconcile the Seifa of our Mishnah, where the episode brought there clashes with the Reisha, which grants the right of the thirteenth month to the hirer - by first adding 've'Im Amar Lo bi'Sheneim-Asar Dinar le'Shanah, Dinar le'Chodesh, Yachloku'.

(b) Had Rav been there, he would have given the rights of the thirteenth month entirely to the owner, in the Seifa - because he holds 'T'fos Lashon Acharon' (when a person makes two contradictory statements [such as here], we accept the latter one).

(c) We ask on Rav - that seeing as he has already taught us this elsewhere, why does he need to repeat it here?

(a) In a case where someone agrees to pay for a certain article ...
1. ... 'Astira Me'ah Ma'i', Rav ruled - that he is obligated to pay a hundred Ma'ah.
2. ... 'Me'ah Ma'i Astira' - that he pays an Astira.
1. An Astira is - an eighth of a Sela Tzuri (which is the equivalent of half a Dinar Medinah).
2. A Ma'ah in this Sugya, is - a P'rutah.
(c) If the reason there had not been because of 'T'fos Lashon Acharon', then it would have been - because of 'Pirushei ka'Mefaresh' (meaning that since the second statement does not necessarily clash with the first (as it does in our Sugya) it could come to explain it.

(d) When the owner then said ...

1. ... 'Astira Me'ah Ma'i', he would have meant - a good quality Astira, worth a hundred Ma'i (instead of the regular ninety-six).
2. ... 'Me'ah Ma'i Astira', he would have meant - a hundred poor-quality Ma'ah, which are only worth ninety-six regular Ma'ah (like an Astira).
(a) Shmuel establishes the Seifa of our Mishnah when the owner comes in the middle of the thirteenth month and asks the hirer to leave. If he came at ...
1. ... the beginning of the month - the law would be on the side of the owner (and the hirer would have to leave or to pay for that month).
2. ... the end of the month - the law would be on the side of the hirer (and the owner could not claim payment for that month).
(b) Shmuel is uncertain whether 'T'fos Lashon Rishon' or 'T'fos Lashon Acharon'. Consequently. the reason for his ruling ...
1. ... in our Mishnah is - because as far as the first half of the month is concerned, the hirer is Muchzak in the money that the owner is now claiming from him, whereas as far as the second half is concerned, it is the owner who is Muchzak in his bath-house, so the hirer has to leave.
2. ... in each of the other two cases is - because if the owner asks him to leave at the beginning of the month, he has a Chazakah on the bath-house, whereas if he claims the money at the end of the month, the hirer has a Chazakah on his money.
(c) Rav and Shmuel rule that in a case where Reuven sells Shimon a Kur of wheat ...
1. ... for thirty Sela'im - Reuven has the right to retract up to the last Sa'ah.
2. ... for thirty Sela'im, but adds 'Sa'ah be'Sela' - he acquires each Sa'ah independently and the seller cannot retract from it.
(d) This is not a proof however, that Shmuel agrees with Rav and holds 'T'fos Lashon Achron' - because perhaps there too, Shmuel is uncertain which Lashon to accept, and the reason that the seller cannot retract in the Seifa is due to the Chazakah of the purchaser, who now has those Sa'im in his Reshus.
(a) Rav Nachman rules that 'Karka be'Chezkas Ba'alehah Omedes' (meaning that the law is on the side of the owner). This does not mean that he agrees with Rav (who holds 'T'fos Lashon Acharon'). Perhaps he too, is uncertain which Lashon to follow, and he would establishes the bath-house in the Reshus of the owner even if the owner had switched the order and said 'mi'Dinar Zahav le'Chodesh, mi'Sh'neim-Asar Zehuvim le'Shanah'.

(b) According to Rav Nachman, even if the owner comes only at the end of the month - he can claim the rental for the thirteenth month, because the Safek began at the beginning of the month, and already then, we paced the bath-house in the owner's Chazakah.

(a) They asked Rebbi Yanai what the Din will be if the hirer claims to have paid his rental, and the owner countered that he has not. This She'eilah pertain neither to the middle of the term of rental nor to after its termination, because both of these cases are already contained in a Mishnah. In fact, the She'eilah pertains to - the day when the contract ends (where the owner claimed the money in the afternoon, and the hirer claims that he already paid in the morning).

(b) The Mishnah in Bechoros rules that a Bechor whose father died ...

1. ... before the thirty-first day - is assumed not to be redeemed (and he remains obligated to redeem himself when he grows up), unless he can prove otherwise.
2. ... after that - is assumed to be redeemed ...
(c) ... unless the neighbors testify that the father stated otherwise on his death-bed.

(d) The two sides of the She'eilah they asked Rebbi Yanai are - whether a person tends to pay on the final day of a contract or not.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan resolved the She'eilah from a Mishnah in the next Perek, where the Tana rules that if an employee claims on the day that his contract terminates, that he has not yet been paid, and the employer counters that he paid earlier - he swears and claims his wages.

(b) The reason that the employee swears and not the employer, as is normally the case (as we learned earlier) is - because we suspect that the employer might be confused, because he has many workers to pay, and will therefore erroneously swear falsely.

(c) In any event, Rebbi Yochanan extraplolates from there - that in other cases, such as our's, the defendant (the hirer) is believed with a Shevu'ah, and is exempt from paying.

(d) The sort of Shevu'ah Rebbi Yochanan is referring to is - a Shevu'as Hesses which the Rabbanan imposed on every Kofer ba'Kol (someone who totally denies a claim).

Next daf


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