(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 10


(a) Rav Nachman and Rav Chisda both hold 'ha'Magihah Meti'ah la'Chavero, Lo Kanah Chavero'.
What reason do they give for this ruling?

(b) What does the Beraisa say about an employee who picks up a Metzi'ah, assuming he is employed ...

  1. ... to dig or to weed, shall we say?
  2. ... for the day to do whatever is required of him?
(c) What Kashya did Rava ask Rav Nachman from the Seifa?
(a) When Rav Nachman answered Rava that an employee is different, because his hand is like the hand of his employer, Rava initially rejected it on the basis of a statement by Rav.
What did Rav say about an employee being able to retract?

(b) How did Rav Nachman reconcile his ruling with Rav? What did he learn from the Pasuk in Behar "Ki Li B'nei Yisrael Avadim, Avadai Heim"?

(c) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan 'ha'Magbihah Metzi'ah la'Chavero, Kanah Chavero'.
Then why, according to the Tana of our Mishnah, does Shimon acquire the article that he picked up at Reuven's request?

(a) What does our Mishnah say about someone who sees a Metzi'ah and falls on it?

(b) Resh Lakish quoting Aba Kohen Bard'la rules that the four Amos in which a person stands acquire for him automatically. Why is that?

(c) What are the ramifications of this Takanah?

(a) The Mishnah in Pe'ah says that a poor man who threw Pe'ah that he had already acquired on some standing Pe'ah (or Leket or Shik'chah) in order to acquire it, has nothing (not even the Pe'ah that he already acquired and threw).
What does the Tana say about a case where he threw his Talis on the standing Pe'ah to acquire it?

(b) What did Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef ask from this Mishnah on Resh Lakish?

(c) We answer that the Mishnah speaks when the poor man did not specifically declare that he wanted the four Amos to acquire for him.
Why should such a declaration be necessary? Why will the Takanas Chachamim not suffice?

Answers to questions



(a) Rav Papa does not require any such declaration. According to him, the Chachamim only issued the Takanah of four Amos in certain locations.
Which locations?

(b) But did the Torah not already grant the poor rights in the rich man's field?

(c) Seeing as the Torah already gave him some rights in the field, why did the Rabbanan not add the Takanah of four Amos there too, like they did in other domains?

(a) Rav Ya'akov bar Idi asked the same Kashya on Rav Nachman as Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef, but from our Mishnah (why if someone falls on a Metzi'ah, our Tana rules that he does not acquire it? Why do his four Amos not acquire it anyway?). Our Sugya follows the same pattern as in the previous case, only Rav Sheishes answer differs slightly from that of Rav Papa.
Bearing in mind that the case of Metzi'ah is not talking about a field, what does he answer?

(b) What is the reason for this?

(a) According to Resh Lakish quoting Aba Kohen Bard'la, a Ketanah has neither the Din of Chatzer nor of four Amos.
What are the ramifications of these two Halachos?

(b) What does Rebbi Yochanan say in the name of Rebbi Yanai?

(c) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei (in connection with Get) "ve'Nasan be'Yadah"?

(d) How does 'Yad' come to have connotations of Chatzer"?

(a) From where do we know that ...
  1. ... a Ketanah has a 'Yad'?
  2. ... a Ketanah cannot appoint a Sheli'ach?
  3. ... a Gedolah can appoint a Sheli'ach to receive her Get?
(b) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Im *Himatzei Simatzei* be'Yado"?

(c) What problem do we have with this if Chatzer stems from the Din of Shelichus?

(d) How does Ravina resolve this problem? Why will 'Ein Sheli'ach li'D'var Aveirah' not apply to a Chatzer?

(a) Are a woman and an Eved who steal obligated to pay?

(b) Does this mean that, according to Ravina, if they steal on behalf of a man, he is obligated to pay?

(c) Rav Sama resolves the above problem differently than Ravina.
How does he restrict 'Ein Sheli'ach li'D'var Aveirah"? How does he resolve the problem with Chatzer?

(a) One of the differences between Ravina's explanation and that of Rav Sama is a Kohen who asks a Yisrael to betroth a divorcee on his behalf (where the Sheli'ach is not obligated and therefore Patur [Ravina], but he is able to desist and Chayav [Rav Sama]).
What is the other difference?

(b) What is the significance of the fact that the person whose Pei'os the woman was asked to cut off was a Katan?

(a) The Torah writes in Ki Seitzei (in connection with a Get) "ve'Nasan be'Yadah". "be'Yadah" means literally 'in her hand'.
What does "ve'Nasan" come to include?

(b) How does this prove that Chatzer must be a Din in Yad (and not in Shelichus)?

(c) What prompts us to make such a D'rashah from the word "ve'Nasan"?

(d) In that case, how will we justify Rebbi Yochanan, who holds that a Ketanah has a Chatzer?

(e) On what grounds does Resh Lakish then hold that a Ketanah does not?

(a) Others maintain that even Resh Lakish concedes that a Ketanah has a Din Chatzer, because we learn Metzi'ah from Yad.
Then in what regard did he say 'Ketanah Ein Lah Yad'? What did he really mean?

(b) And when, as a third alternative, we suggest that Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish are not even arguing, what do we mean by that?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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