(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 34


(a) We just cited Rami bar Chama's Kashya on our Mishnah, where the owner grants the Shomer the right to the Kefel, even though it appears to be a 'Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam', which is not acquirable.
How does Rava initially answer the Kashya? When does the owner actually 'give' the Shomer the Kefel?

(b) What problem does Rebbi Zeira then have with the shearings and the babies?

(c) How do we know that he doesn't take them?

(d) So he amends Rava's answer, adding 'Chutz mi'Gizosehah u'V'ladosehah'.
How does he justify this distinction between the Kefel itself and the Gizos and V'lados?

(a) What is the second version of Rava's answer?

(b) Beside the fact that it dispenses with Rebbi Zeira's Kashya, what other difference exists between the two versions?

(c) Why is the initial Meshichah that he made when receiving the cow for safeguarding not good enough?

(a) Does the Shomer have to actually pay in order to acquire the Kefel? What if he declares willingness to pay, but, before he has a chance to do so, the Ganav is found?

(b) Why is the Reisha of our Mishnah 'Shilem ve'Lo Ratzah Lishava ... ' not a proof that he has to actually pay?

(c) What does the Beraisa say about a Socher who admits that the Pikadon was stolen (and who therefore has to pay) rather than swear that an O'nes happened?

(a) What does Rav Papa say about ...
  1. ... a Shomer Chinam who admits that he was negligent?
  2. ... a Shomer Sachar who admits that the Pikadon was stolen?
  3. ... a Sho'el who offers to pay?
(b) Why does the owner not also grant the Sho'el the Kefel, since he could have claimed 'Meisah Machmas Melachah' (that it died naturally due to regular work)?

(c) What does Rav Papa say in the second Lashon?

(d) Rav Z'vid, quoting Abaye disagrees.
On what grounds does he hold that the owner does not grant a Sho'el the Kefel until he has actually paid?

(a) What do we prove from the Beraisa which states 'ha'Sho'el Parah me'Chaveiro ve'Nignevah, ve'Kidam ha'Sho'el ve'Shilem ve' ... Nimtza ha'Ganav, Meshalem ... Kefel le'Sho'el'?

(b) This Beraisa certainly poses no problem with the first Lashon of Rav Papa (see Tosfos DH 'le'Lishna').
What is the problem with the second? (c) How do we refute the suggestion that ...

  1. ... just like our Mishnah says 'Shilem', yet we interpret it to mean 'Amar', so too can we interpret the Beraisa in the same way?
  2. ... the change in Lashon does not prove anything, since the Beraisos may have been learned by two different Tana'im (one of whom uses the Lashon 'Shilem', the other, 'Kidem ve'Shilem')?
Answers to questions



(a) The Halachah in the case of a Shomer who first denies liability, and then admits that he is Chayav is clear-cut.
What is it? Does he receive the Kefel or not?

(b) What She'eilah do we ask in the reverse case? Why might he receive the Kefel even though he currently denies liability?

(c) We ask what the Din will be if, after the Shomer admitted that he is Chayav, he dies and his sons deny liability.
What is the She'eilah? How does it reflect on the previous one?

(d) On the assumption that the sons really mean to retract, what She'eilah do we ask next?

(a) And what She'eilah do we ask in a case where the owner died, and the Shomer paid (or agreed to pay) his sons?

(b) Assuming that, in these two cases, the owner or his son is Makneh the Kefel, what do we ask next? Why might the Din here differ from the previous cases?

(c) We ask whether, if a Sho'el paid half the animal, he receives half the Kefel. What must we assume in that case, when we then do on to ask what the Din will be if he paid for one of two animals? Why might the Din in this case be different?

(d) What do we then ask about ...

  1. ... a Sho'el who paid one of the joint owners his half?
  2. ... one of the joint borrowers who paid the owner for his half?
(a) Finally, we ask what the Din will be if someone borrowed a cow of Nichsei Milug belonging to a woman from her husband and pays the husband, or if a woman borrowed a cow to plow her Nichsei Milug and her husband pays.
What is the ...
  1. ... first She'eilah? Why might the Sho'el receive or not receive the Kefel if the Ganav is found?
  2. ... second She'eilah?
(b) What is the outcome of all these She'eilos?
(a) What does Rav Huna say in all of the above cases where the Shomer volunteers to pay?

(b) In a case where the creditor loses the security he received against the loan and claims that the loan was a Sela, and the security was worth a Shekel (half a Sela), what does the Beraisa rule if the debtor counters that it was worth ...

  1. ... a Sela, and that he therefore owes him nothing?
  2. ... three Dinrim and he owes him only one Dinar?
(c) And what does the Tana say in a case where the debtor claims that the security was worth two Sela'im (in which case it is the creditor who owes him a Sela), and the creditor counters that it was worth only ...
  1. ... one, and that they are quits?
  2. ... five Dinrim and that he therefore owes him only one Dinar?
(d) What sort of a Shomer does this Tana consider a creditor to be vis-a-vis the security?
(a) The Beraisa concludes that it is the creditor who swears how much the security is worth, and not the debtor.
What reason does the Tana give for that?

(b) Why can this final statement not refer to the (Seifa of the) Seifa?

(c) Then to which case does it refer?

(d) What Kashya does this pose on Rav Huna?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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