(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 103

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



(a) In a case where Reuven produces an undated Sh'tar that he has rented Shimon's house for ten years, Rava Amar Rav Nachman rules that if Shimon claims that he has already been in the house for five years and Reuven argues that he has been there for only three, Shimon is believed - because he has a Chezkas Karka (which resolves every Safek).

(b) Rav Acha subsequently asked Ravina - whether the same would apply if Reuven produced a Sh'tar that he had lent Shimon a hundred Zuz, and the latter claimed that he had already paid back half (seeing as there too, Shimon is Muchzak in the money).

(c) Ravina replied - that the two cases were simply not comparable - because whereas in the first case the purpose of the Sh'tar is merely to prevent the hirer from staking a claim to the house (see Tosfos), in the second, is in order to claim with it. Consequently, had Shimon paid half, he should have safeguarded himself by recording the payment, either on the back of the Sh'tar (with the Beis-Din's stamp of approval) or by insisting on a receipt.

(a) When Rav Nachman says 'Sho'el Adam be'Tuvo Le'olam', he means - that if Reuven borrows a vessel from Shimon using the expression 'be'Tuvo', it gives him an ongoing right to borrow it whenever he needs it.

(b) Rav Mari B'rah de'Bas Shmuel qualifies this ruling - by restricting it to where he reinforced the contract with an independent Kinyan, failing which, Shimon has the right to retract.

(c) Should the object break however - Rav Mari B'rah de'Bas Shmuel obligates Reuven, who was not given the object a gift, must return the broken pieces to Shimon.

(a) Rava rules - that if someone asks to borrow a spade to dig 'this orchard', he may only dig that particular orchard; 'an orchard', then he is permitted to dig any orchard, irrespective of size (see also Hagahos ha'G'ra).

(b) If he stipulated 'orchards', then he is permitted to dig all the orchards that he owns. If Rava had not taught us this Halachah - we might have thought that the principle 'Miy'ut Rabim Shenayim' applies here, and that he is allowed to dig two orchards but no more.

(c) Rav Papa rules - that if someone asks to borrow ...

1. ... 'this fountain' and it caves in, then he has no right to dig a new one; 'a fountain', he does have that right.
2. ... Whereas if he stipulated 'a place to dig a fountain' - he has the right to dig as many fountains in the owners grounds as he pleases.
(d) We qualify this final case (see Ritva) however - by restricting it to where he made a Kinyan, failing which, the owner is entitled to retract.
(a) Our Mishnah rules - that if a rented apartment collapsed, the owner must provide the hirer with a substitute apartment.

(b) The owner is forbidden to change from ...

1. ... a small apartment to a large one or vice-versa, or from ...
2. ... a one-room apartment to a two-room one or vice-versa.
(c) He is also forbidden to change - the number of windows in the apartment.
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah not be speaking when the owner originally agreed to rent the hirer ...
1. ... 'this apartment' - because then, why would he be obligated to replace the one that collapsed?
2. ... 'an apartment' - because then, why would he not be permitted to make any changes regarding its size ... ?
(b) We object to Resh Lakish, who initially establishes the Mishnah when he stipulated that the apartment that he is renting him was such and such a size ... - on the grounds that this would not be a Chidush.

(c) Ravin quoting Resh Lakish finally establishes our Mishnah - when he stipulated that he is renting him a apartment 'like this one', and where that apartment is standing in an attractive location (e.g. by the river-bank). If not for our Mishnah, we may have understood 'an apartment like this one' to refer to its location by the river bank, rather than to its specifications.

***** Hadran Alach 'ha'Sho'el' *****

***** Perek ha'Mekabel *****


(a) The Tana of our Mishnah rules that someone who is Mekabel a field - is obligated to cut the crops or to uproot them according to local cust, and to plow afterwards, if that is what is normally done.

(b) By ...

1. ... 'Mekabel' the Tana means - either as an Aris (who pays the owner a percentage of the crops that the field yields) or as a Choker (who pays a fixed amount of crops per annum)
2. ... 'La'charosh Acharehah' - he means to plow after he has completed the harvesting or the uprooting, in order to destroy the roots of the weeds that remain in the ground.
(c) In a case where he received the field be'Kablanus' and they divide the produce, or the wine in the case of a vineyard - they also divide the straw and the stubble, and the cut branches and the canes.

(d) Initially - they both provide the canes.




(a) The owner - cannot force the Mekabel to change any of the above Minhagim, any more than the Mekabel can change the Minhag without the owner's consent.

(b) If one of them wants the crops to be uprooted where the Minhag is to cut them ...

1. ... the owner can object - on the grounds that he wants the roots to remain in the ground, for fertilizer the following year.
2. ... the Mekabel can object - because it is too much work.
(c) And if either of them wants to cut the crops where the Minhag is to uproot them ...
1. ... the owner can object - on the grounds that he wants his field to be neat and clean.
2. ... the Mekabel can object - on the grounds that he needs the roots as fodder for his animals.
(d) When the Tana concludes 'u'Sheneihem Me'akvin Zeh al Zeh', he is coming to teach us (not a new Halachah, but) the reason for the previous rulings, that each party has a sound reason to object to a change of Minhag, in both cases.
(a) The Tana needs to tell us that where the Minhag is for the Mekabel to plow after the cutting, he is obligated to plow - even if, in a place where it is not customary to weed whilst the crops are growing, he did, and he now argues that he specially weeded before the harvest, to absolve himself from the need to plow afterwards.

(b) Nevertheless, he remains Chayav to plow again afterwards - because, since he changed from the Minhag ha'Makom, he should have voiced his thoughts and stipulated accordingly at the time of the contract.

(c) The Tana of our Mishnah adds 'ha'Kol ke'Minhag ha'Medinah' - to teach us that in a place where the Minhag is to rent fruit-trees that line the border of the field, to the Mekabel of a field of crops, then he is obligated to do so, and where it is not, then he is not. The significance of these trees is - that, unlike the produce, which require a lot of tending to, the fruit constitutes an easy profit.

(d) The Tana needs to teach us that in a place where the Minhag is ...

1. ... to rent these fruit-trees, then the owner is obligated to do so - in a place where the owner undertook to accept a quarter of the annual produce, instead of the regular third. If not for our Mishnah, we would have thought that he can claim that he took less than everybody else, in order not to have to rent out the trees.
2. ... not to do so, then he is not - in a place where the Mekabel undertook to give the owner a third of the produce instead of the regular quarter. If not for our Mishnah, we would have thought that he can claim that he paid more than everybody else, thinking that he would be compensated by renting the trees.
(e) We do not accept both sets of arguments - on the basis of their not having expressed their intentions and stipulated accordingly.
(a) Rav Yosef says that ...
1. ... in Bavel, it was the Minhag not to give straw to an Aris. He needs to tell us this - so that even if we come across someone who does, we cannot go by that to form the Minhag (since the Minhag has already been established).
2. ... it is the job of the owner to arrange Buchra, Tafsa, Arkavta and Kani de'Chizra. Buchra is - the first row of earth that one piles around the ditch from which one extracted it; Tafsa is the second (after the first has been trodden underfoot), and Arkavta, the third.
(b) Although, as we just explained, Rav Yosef obligates the owner to arrange the Kani de'Chizra, the Aris arranges the Chizra itself.
1. ... 'Kani de'Chizra' are - the closely-arranged poles, through which they would 'weave' the thorn-bushes or the boards that completed the fence.
2. ... 'Chizra' is - the thorn-bushes or the boards themselves, that complete the protection of the field.
(c) The underlying principle behind this distinction is - that the onus of providing whatever is needed for the basic protection of the field lies on the owner, whereas any extra protection, which only serves to make life easier for the Mekabel, must be provided by him.

(d) Rav Yosef obligates ...

1. ... the owner to provide the hoe and the shovel, the bucket and the water-pitcher ...
2. ... the Mekabel, the irrigation ditches.
(a) We also learned in our Mishnah that the owner and the Mekabel share the canes (not growing canes, which have no use in a vineyard, but) - split canes which are used to hold up the vines.

(b) Having taught us that the owner and the Mekabel share the canes, the Tana adds that initially, they both supply them (not to teach us an additional Halachah, but) - to provide the reason for the initial Halachah.

1. A 'Beis ha'Shalachin' - is a dry field that needs to be watered manually, over and above the rain that waters it.
2. A 'Beis ha'Ilan' - is a field with a tree growing in it.
(b) If the fountain dried up or the tree died, the Mekabel remains obligated to pay his full dues - if he received the field S'tam, without stipulating anything, but if initially, he specifically asked for that 'Sadeh Beis ha'Shalachin' or that 'Sadeh Beis ha'Ilan', then he deducts from his Chakirus.

(c) The Reisha of our Mishnah cannot be speaking when the main river dried up - because then, on the grounds that it is a communal disaster, he would be entitled to deduct from his Chakirus (as we shall see later).

(d) Rav Papa therefore establish it - when the tributary leading from the main river to the field dried up, and the reason that the Mekabel remains obligated to pay the owner is - because he ought to have watered the field with buckets.

Next daf


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