(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 3


(a) If Reuven and Shimon deposit money by Levi, one of them deposits one Manah, the other, two, and each one then claims that the two is his, the Tana Kama in the Mishnah in ha'Mafkid rules that each one takes a Manah and the third Manah is put away until Eliyahu comes.
What does Rebbi Yossi say?

(b) What makes us think that the author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Yossi?

(c) Why is this not a problem according to the Rabbanan, who, when all's said and done, require the third Manah (over which they are arguing), to be put away)?

(a) According to Rebbi Yossi however, who holds that all three Manah are put away until Eliyahu comes (and not divided), even though one Manah definitely belongs to Reuven and one, to Shimon, then here, where the Talis might belong either to one or to the other, it should certainly be put away (and not divided).
How do we nevertheless reconcile Rebbi Yossi with our Mishnah?

(b) Alternatively, we try to answer that the K'nas is applicable in the case of the Pikadon, it is not applicable in the case of Metzi'ah, because there is nothing with which to force the hand of the one who is lying.
On what grounds do we refute this answer?

(c) What problem do we now have with the case of 'Chenvani al Pinkaso', where according to both the Rabbanan and Rebbi Yossi, both the worker and the storekeeper claim their dues from the Balabos (according to one with a Shevu'ah, according to the other, without one)?

(d) On what basis do they both agree that in that case, we cannot say 'Yehei Munach ad she'Yavo Eliyahu'?

(a) What does Rebbi Chiya in a Beraisa, rule in a case where Shimon denies the Manah that Reuven claims from him, but witnesses testify that he owes him fifty Zuz?

(b) What is the reasoning behind this ruling?

(c) How does he prove it from our Mishnah? What is 'Anan Sahadi'?

(a) Initially, we think that the defendant's own admission is more reason to obligate him to swear than witnesses, because of Rabah.
According to Rabah, why would we hesitate to obligate a 'Modeh be'Miktzas' (someone who admits to half the claim) from a Shevu'ah?

(b) Why does the Torah not, in fact, consider this a 'Migu'?

(c) If he really then wants to admit to the entire claim, as Rabah goes on to say, why doesn't he?

(d) Why does Rabah need to add that he now wants to admit to the entire claim?

(a) What do we initially set out to prove from Rabah regarding Rebbi Chiya's Din of Hoda'as Eidim?

(b) How do we actually prove it?

Answers to questions



(a) So Rebbi Chiya learns that Hoda'as Eidim obligates a Shevu'ah with a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Hoda'as Piv.
What is the 'Kal va'Chomer'?

(b) What is the Halachah regarding a 'Ho'da'as Ba'al-Din' (someone who admits that he owes money), and how does that create a Pircha on the 'Kal va'Chomer'?

(c) If Rebbi Chiya cannot learn the 'Kal va'Chomer from Hoda'as Piv of Mamon, then from where does he learn it? What do we learn from the Pasuk "Asher Yarshi'un Elohim"?

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "*ve'Hisvadah* Asher Chata, ve'Heivi".

(b) Then why is this not a Pircha on Rebbi Chiya?

(c) This Machlokes is based on a Mishnah in K'riysus, where the Chachamim exempt someone from a Chatas if witnesses testify that he ate Cheilev (be'Shogeg).
On what basis does Rebbi Meir obligate him?

(d) On what grounds do the Chachamim disagree with him?

(a) We cannot ask on the 'Kal va'Chomer from Asham, because Asham too, is a Korban (and Rebbi Chiya holds like Rebbi Meir, as we just explained).
What Pircha do we then ask from the Chomesh that accompanies an Asham Gezeilos?

(b) How do we refute this Pircha too?

(a) We finally refute the previous version of the 'Kal va'Chomer' on the grounds that 'Hakchashah and Hazamah apply to Eidim but not to Piv, and that is the edge that Piv has over Eidim.
Why should Hakchashah and Hazamah not apply to Piv?

(b) So we switch the 'Kal va'Chomer' from Piv to Eid Echad.
What is now the 'Kal va'Chomer'?

(c) What Pircha do we ask on this? What basic distinction differentiates between the testimony of one witness and that of two witnesses?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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