(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 6

BAVA METZIA 6 - Dedicated in honor of the Yahrzeit of Eliezer ben Reb Shraga Feivel Marmorstein (6 Kislev) by his nephew, whom he raised like his own child after the war, Mr. D. Kornfeld.


(a) What do we finally prove from ...
  1. ... Rav Nachman, who obligates every Kofer ba'Kol to swear a Shevu'as Hesses?
  2. ... Rebbi Chiya's Beraisa of Chenvani al Pinkaso (where both the worker and the storekeeper swear and take from the Balabos)?
(b) And we draw the same conclusion from Rav Sheishes, who obligates a Shomer Chanim who claims that the article was stolen, to make three Shevu'os.
Besides Shevu'as ha'Shomrim and a Shevu'ah that he does not have the article in his possession, which other Shevu'ah does he make?
(a) According to Abaye, the reason for the Shevu'ah in our Mishnah is because we assume that the one who grabbed the Talis is claiming an old debt.
On what grounds does Abaye argue with Rebbi Yochanan? Why does he not want to ascribe it to the fact that Chazal instituted it in order to prevent people from grabbing other people's Taleisim?

(b) Why is claiming an old debt without the debtor's consent not also considered 'Chashid a'Mamona'?

(c) We ask that if we assume the one who grabbed the Talis to be claiming an old debt, then he ought to take half the Talis without a Shevu'ah.
How do we therefore amend Abaye's reason?

(d) What is then the point of making him swear? If he is willing to *take money that is perhaps not his*, what leads us to believe that he will not also *swear* on money that is perhaps not his?

(a) Rebbi Zeira asked what the Din will be if one of the two men holding the Talis grabbed it in front of Beis-Din.
What will be the Din assuming the second man ...
  1. ... remained silent?
  2. ... immediately protested?
(b) Then what is Rebbi Zeira's She'eilah?

(c) The Beraisa establishes our Mishnah when the two men (Reuven and Shimon) were actually holding on to the Talis, but not if it was in the hands of Reuven alone. What do we try to prove from here? Why can the Beraisa not be understood the way it stands?

(a) We refute this proof by establishing the Beraisa when they came into Beis-Din holding the Talis. Then after being told to divide it, they left, only to return a short while later with Reuven holding it. If he claims that Shimon had admitted that it belonged to him, what does Shimon now claim?

(b) Why do we believe Reuven?

(c) How else might we interpret the Beraisa (to avoid establishing it when Reuven grabbed the Talis)?

(d) What do we mean when we say that even Sumchus will agree with this ruling?

(a) Assuming that, in the previous She'eilah, Reuven's grabbing is ineffective, what will be the Din if either before or after the grabbing, he declares it Hekdesh? Will the Hekdesh be valid?

(b) We ask what the Din will be if instead of grabbing it, Reuven declares it Hekdesh, assuming that grabbing would have been effective. Why might the Hekdesh ...

  1. ... be valid?
  2. ... not be valid?
Answers to questions



(a) To resolve the She'eilah, we cite the case of the bath-house over which two people were arguing.
What did all the Rabbanan do when one of them declared it Hekdesh?

(b) Although Rav Oshaya instructed Rabah to ask Rav Chisda in Kafri what status the bathhouse had, whom did he ask when he stopped in Sura on his way to Kafri?

(a) Rav Hamnuna cited a Mishnah in Taharos.
What does the Tana there say about a Safek Bechor? Is he referring to a Bechor Adam or a Bechor Beheimah, a Tahor Bechor or one that is Tamei?

(b) What is the case of ...

  1. ... a Safek Bechor Beheimah?
  2. ... a Safek Bechor Adam?
(c) The Beraisa adds 'Asurin be'Gizah u'va'Avodah'.
What did Rav Hamnuna try to prove from here? How did he understand the Mishnah's ruling 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah'?

(d) How did Rabah refute Rav Hamnuna's proof? Why might there be no proof at all from 'Takfah Kohen' (by Bechor) for the case of the bathhouse?

(a) The Mishnah in Bechoros states 'ha'Sefeikos Nichnasin le'Dir'.
What does 'Sefeikos' refer to?

(b) How does Rav Chananyah prove Rabah (who assumes that 'Takfah Kohen Motzi'in Oso mi'Yado') right from this Mishnah?

(c) What does Abaye gain by establishing the Mishnah when the owner had only nine sheep besides the Safek?

(d) On what grounds does Abaye withdraw his rejection of Rav Chananyah's proof?

(a) And he proves this from a Mishnah in Bechoros.
What does the Tana there rule in a case where one of the counted sheep jumped back into the pen, joining those waiting to be counted? How many sheep had already been counted?

(b) Why do we exempt the sheep that ...

  1. ... have not yet been counted from Ma'aser?
  2. ... have already been counted? What is 'Minyan ha'Ra'uy'?
(a) What does Rava mean when he says 'Minyan ha'Ra'uy Poter'? How many sheep were being counted and what happened to the one sheep?

(b) What happens to the three remaining sheep?

(c) How do we now prove from the Mishnah in Bechoros that a Safek is not subject to Ma'aser?

(d) If a Safek is not subject to Ma'aser, because we Darshen "Asiri Vaday", 've'Lo Asiri Safek', what makes all the un'Ma'asered sheep in the pen a Safek?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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