(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 37

BAVA METZIA 37 - dedicated in honor of the birth of Miriam Breina Katz to Gidon and Rivka Katz of Bnei Brak.


(a) Like which Tana in our Mishnah does Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rule?

(b) What does Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah quote Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel as saying with regard to the previous Mishnah ('Shilem ve'Lo Ratzah Lishava')?

(c) He asked Rav Yehudah like whom the Halachah will be in the previous Mishnah. What did Rav Yehudah reply?

(a) Rebbi Elazar agrees with Rav Yehudah's opinion with regard to his previous ruling.
What does Rebbi Yochanan say?

(b) The latter gives his reason as 'she'K'var Shilem'.
Why is this unacceptable?

(c) So what did Rebbi Yochanan really say?

(a) What does our Mishnah say in a case where Reuven admits that ...
  1. ... he stole from one of five men, but he doesn't know from which one?
  2. ... the father of one of them gave him a Pikadon to look after, and he cannot remember whose father?
(b) And what does the Tana Kama say in a case where Reuven and Shimon deposited by Levi, one of them, one Manah, the other, two, if later, each of them claims that *he* gave the two?

(c) What does Rebbi Yossi say?

(d) In which similar case do they also argue?

(a) Which principle do we at first extrapolate from our Mishnah, which obligates Reuven to pay both men though he only from one of them?

(b) This seems to contradict the case in the Seifa, where two people deposited by a third. What do we extrapolate from there?

(c) What distinction do we initially draw between the Reisha and the Seifa?

(d) This answer is not adequate however, since the Reisha also cites a case of Pikadon.
How do we therefore distinguish between the Reisha and the Seifa, based on the fact that the fathers of the two men who deposited the Manah with Reuven did not see each other, whereas in the Seifa, Reuven and Shimon did?

(a) We also ask from Gezel on to Gezel.
What does Rebbi Tarfon say in the Mishnah in Yevamos about someone who stole from one of five men, all of whom claim from him but he doesn't know from which one he stole?

(b) And how do we know that the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Tarfon?

(c) So how do we finally reconcile the two rulings?

(d) How do we support this answer from the words in our Mishnah?

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav establishes the case of the Mishnah in Yevamos where one stole from five, even when the Ganav is silent.
What does Rav Masna Amar Rav say?

(b) According to Rav Masna, the Ganav's silence would constitute admission (as it usually does).
What does Rav Yehudah say about that?

Answers to questions



(a) We just cited Rebbi Tarfon who says 'Meni'ach Gezeilah Beinehem u'Mistalek'. We ask on this however, from Rebbi Aba bar Zavda Amar Rav (whom we already quoted in the second Perek).
What does Rav say regarding 'Safek Hinu'ach'?

(b) What is his reason for saying 've'Im Natal, Lo Yachzir'? What does 'Lo Yachzir' mean"?

(c) How does Rav Safra therefore interpret 'Meni'ach Gezeilah Beinehem u'Mistalek'?

(a) Rebbi Akiva disagrees with Rebbi Tarfon in Yevamos.
What does he say about someone who does know from which of the five men he stole?

(b) In the Mishnah in Bava Basra, the Tana discusses a case where a house fell on a man and his mother. What do each one's heirs claim?

(c) Both Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai (who argue on other cases there, agree that they divide the property.
What does Rebbi Akiva say?

(a) How does Rava reconcile the two seemingly contradictory rulings of Rebbi Akiva? Why does he rule in Bava Basra 'Uki Mamona be'Chezkas Marei', and in Yevamos 'mi'Sefeika Mafkinan Mamona'?

(b) We ask from this ruling from our Mishnah, where the Tana obligates the Ganav and the Shomer to pay both claimants, even though that too, is a case of Shema ve'Shema.
How do we know that ...

  1. ... the author is Rebbi Akiva?
  2. ... that the Tana is speaking in a case of Shema ve'Shema?
(c) How do we then reconcile Rebbi Akiva's ruling in Bava Basra with the Reisha of our Mishnah, where the Gazlan has to pay both claimants? Why do we not say in the latter case too, 'Uki Mamona be'Chezkas Marei'?

(d) And if, as we explained earlier, wherever the two depositors handed their deposits to the Shomer separately, the onus to remember who gave what lies on the Shomer, why does Rava (or Rav Papa) state 'ha'Kol Modim bi'Shenayim she'Hifkidu Eitzel Ro'eh, she'Meni'ach Ro'eh Beinehem u'Mistalek'? Why is the shepherd not obligated to give each one two sheep?

(a) Having taught in the Seifa, that the Shomer is obligated to pay both claimants in the case of one Manah and two Manah, why does he find it necessary to repeat this ruling in the case of a small vessel and a large one?

(b) Why can we not say that, having presented the case of the vessels, he finds it necessary to add the case of the money to teach us that even there, Rebbi Yossi says 'ha'Kol Munach'?

(c) Then why does the Tana need to mention the case of the money?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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