(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 8


(a) On the assumption that each of the two men picked up the Talis on behalf of both of them (we will see later from which part of the Mishnah he derives this), how does Rami bar Chama extrapolate from our Mishnah that if Reuven picks up a Metzi'a for Shimon, Shimon acquires it automatically ('ha'Magbihah Metzi'ah la'Chavero, Kanah Chavero')?

(b) How does Rava refute Rami bar Chama's proof. If we were to hold 'Lo Kanah Chavero', on what grounds would they still acquire the Talis?

(c) How does Rava prove the distinction between the two above concepts from partners who stole? What is the Din regarding a Sheli'ach who steals on behalf of the Meshale'ach?

(a) How do we refute Rava's proof from 'Migu de'Zachi le'Nafsheih . ... ' that if a Cheresh and a Pike'ach pick up a Metzi'ah together, since the Cheresh acquires half, so does the Pike'ach? On what grounds is a Cheresh Koneh?

(b) So we assume that the Cheresh is Koneh but not the Cheresh. Which 'Migu' would we then ascribe to Rava?

(c) On what grounds do we refute this explanation too? Why would even the Cheresh not be Koneh? How do we finally interpret Rava's 'Migu' (see Maharam)?

(d) Then why did Chazal institute that two Charashin should be Koneh?

(a) When Rami bar Chama extrapolates from our Mishnah 'ha'Magbihah Metzi'ah la'Chavero, Kanah Chavero' (and Rava 'Migu de'Zachi le'Nafsheih ... '), why can it not be from ...
  1. ... the Reisha 'Shenayim Ochzin be'Talis'?
  2. ... the second case 'Zeh Omer Kulah she'Li ve'Zeh Omer Kulah she'Li'?
(b) Why can he not be referring to the case of 'Zeh Omer Kulah she'Li, ve'Zeh Omer Chetzyah she'Li'? What would be the Chidush even assuming that the Tana is speaking in a case of purchasing?

(c) Why is he indeed not believed without a Shevu'ah (like a Meishiv Aveidah)?

(d) And why can Rami bar Chama (and Rava) not be referring to the case of 'Hayu Sheneihem Rochvin al-Gebei Beheimah ... '?

(a) From where do we finally learn 'ha'Magbihah Metzi'ah la'Chavero, Kanah Chavero' or 'Migu de'Zachi le'Nafsheih ... '?

(b) How do we know that the Tana is referring to a case of Metzi'ah, and not of purchase?

Answers to questions



(a) Rav Yehudah heard two things from Shmuel concerning Rachuv and Manhig (riding the animal and leading it).
What were they? What is it that he couldn't remember about them?

(b) We initially think that it cannot have been a question of one being Koneh independently and the other one, not.
Why not?

(c) Then what did he hear from Shmuel? What advantage does ...

  1. ... the Rachuv enjoy over the Manhig?
  2. ... the Manhig enjoy over the Rachuv?
(a) Rav Yosef, quoting Rav Yehudah himself, resolved the Safek.
What does the Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Kil'ayim say about someone who is leading an ox and a donkey that are harnessed together, and someone who is sitting on the wagon they are pulling?

(b) Rebbi Meir exempts the latter.
Why did Shmuel reverse the two opinions?

(c) What did Rav Yehudah extrapolate from that statement of Shmuel?

(a) In what way did Abaye query Rav Yosef 's quotation of Rav Yehudah?

(b) Rav Yosef proved that he had heard it from Rav Yehudah (though in all likelihood Rav Yosef, who is known to have suffered a memory loss, had forgotten to mention it to his Talmidim) from the Kashya he had asked him. What did he ask him (based on the fact that the Mishnah is talking about 'Yoshev be'Karon' and not about 'Rachuv')?

(c) What was Rav Yehudah's reply? What did Rav and Shmuel say about 'Mosirah'?

(d) How does the second Lashon quote this question and answer? Who queried Rav Yehudah's proof, and who gave the answer? Who is Idi?

(a) The ruling regarding Mosirah is corroborated by Rebbi Chelbo Amar Rav Huna.
What distinction did he make between a sale on the one hand, and a Metzi'ah and acquiring from a deceased Ger, on the other?

(b) How did Idi prove this distinction from the very word 'Mosirah'?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if the two disputants claimed the animal they were riding or leading, they divide it with a Shevu'ah.
Why, according to Shmuel, can the author of the Mishnah not be Rebbi Meir (of the Mishnah in Kil'ayim)?

(b) Assuming then, that the author is the Rabbanan, this poses a Kashya on Shmuel, who holds that Rochev is not Koneh.
How does Shmuel therefore establish the Mishnah?

(c) If he is leading the animal with his legs then, having mentioned 'Manhig, why does the Tana find it necessary to add 'Rachuv' (which is always a kind of Manhig)?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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