ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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
(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
(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.
(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.
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.
(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 ...
(c) He is also forbidden to change - the number of windows in the apartment.
2. ... a one-room apartment to a two-room one or vice-versa.
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah not be speaking when the owner originally agreed
to rent the hirer ...
***** Hadran Alach 'ha'Sho'el' *****
1. ... 'this apartment' - because then, why would he be obligated to replace
the one that collapsed?
(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.
2. ... 'an apartment' - because then, why would he not be permitted to make
any changes regarding its size ... ?
(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
***** 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)
(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.
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.
(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
(b) If one of them wants the crops to be uprooted where the Minhag is to cut
1. ... the owner can object - on the grounds that he wants the roots to
remain in the ground, for fertilizer the following year.
(c) And if either of them wants to cut the crops where the Minhag is to
uproot them ...
2. ... the Mekabel can object - because it is too much work.
1. ... the owner can object - on the grounds that he wants his field to be
neat and clean.
(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
2. ... the Mekabel can object - on the grounds that he needs the roots as
fodder for his animals.
(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.
(e) We do not accept both sets of arguments - on the basis of their not
having expressed their intentions and stipulated accordingly.
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
(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).
(b) Although, as we just explained, Rav Yosef obligates the owner to arrange
the Kani de'Chizra, the Aris arranges the Chizra itself.
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.
1. ... 'Kani de'Chizra' are - the closely-arranged poles, through which they
would 'weave' the thorn-bushes or the boards that completed the fence.
(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.
2. ... 'Chizra' is - the thorn-bushes or the boards themselves, that
complete the protection of the field.
(d) Rav Yosef obligates ...
1. ... the owner to provide the hoe and the shovel, the bucket and the
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.
(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
2. A 'Beis ha'Ilan' - is a field with a tree growing in it.
(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