(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 48


(a) What does Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, add to the fact that although a Talis acquires a Dinar Zahav, a Dinar Zahav does not acquire a Talis?

(b) Which nations does he add to the wording of the 'Mi she'Para', besides the Dor ha'Mabul and the Dor Haflagah mentioned by the Tana of our Mishnah?

(c) And what does he say about a transaction that is concluded with words alone, and which is not Koneh?

(d) What does Rava comment on this?

(a) How do we reconcile Rava's comment with Resh Lakish, who just stated that the Mi sha'Para according to Rebbi Shimon, is for retracting from one's promise, and not because of a Kinyan?

(b) Seeing as both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish agree that money does not acquire, what are the ramifications of their Machlokes?
What difference does it make whether one does not acquire d'Oraysa or de'Rabbanan?

(a) The Pasuk writes in Vayikra "ve'Chichesh ba'Amiso be'Pikadon, O bi'Sesu'mes Yad, O be'Gazel O Ashak es Amiso".
What is the Pasuk talking about?

(b) 'Sesu'mes Yad' refers to the denial of a loan, and 'Oshek' to the denial of an employee's wages.
How does Rav Chisda explain both cases?

(c) Why would the borrower or the employer otherwise not be Chayav a Korban Shevu'ah for denying the loan or the worker's wages?

(a) What does Rava prove from the fact that, when the Torah goes on to speak about returning the objects, it does not mention Sesu'mes Yad?

(b) Rav Papa asked Rava why, seeing as the case of Oshek too, speaks when the employee did not acquire the article, as we explained earlier, why we cannot learn that Sesu'mes Yad does not require Meshichah (like Rebbi Yochanan), from Oshek.
What did Rava reply?

(c) Had the Torah *repeated Sesu'mes Yad* (like it repeats Oshek), Rava concedes that he would not have been able to prove anything.
What does he extrapolate now that it does *not*?

(a) What does Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah Amar Rav learn from the Pasuk "O mi'Kol Asher Yishava Alav la'Shaker"?

(b) Now that the Torah *does* repeat Sesu'mes Yad, why does Rava's proof not fall away?

(c) What have we now proved?

(d) Rava also proves Resh Lakish right from a Mishnah. The Tana say that if the treasurer of Hekdesh mistakenly gave a P'rutah of Hekdesh to a bath-attendant for a bath, he is Mo'el immediately.
What does Rav comment on this?

(a) How do we reconcile this with the Beraisa which states that if the treasurer gave a P'rutah to a barber for a haircut he is Mo'el, even though there are scissors with which to make a Meshichah?

(b) We prove this by citing another Beraisa.
What does the Tana say there in the case where the treasurer gave a Perutah to a barber, a sailor or to any other professional?

(c) How do we reconcile the two Beraisos?

(a) Rav Nachman too, holds that money is Koneh. Levi proves this from the Beraisa, 'Nasnah le'Si'ton, Ma'al'.
What is a Si'ton?

(b) How does Levi prove that money is Koneh (mi'd'Oraysa) from there and not Meshichah?

(c) How does Resh Lakish reconcile his opinion with this Beraisa?

Answers to questions



(a) According to Abaye, Beis-Din do not immediately pronounce the Mi sha'Para on the one who wants to retract, but they warn him that they will if he persists.
From which Pasuk does he learn this?

(b) From which word in the same Pasuk does Rava extrapolate that they pronoune it immediately?

(c) Rava derives his opinion from an incident that took place with Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef.
Why did he want to retract from the sale of salt for which he had already received payment? What did Rebbi Yochanan rule?

(d) How does Rava attempt to extrapolate his ruling from this incident?

(a) How do we counter Rava's proof?

(b) So we conclude that Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef had received an Eravon.
What is an Eravon?

(c) How does this explain the case? What did Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef think?

(d) What did Rebbi Yochanan inform him?

(a) In a Machlokes with Rav, Rebbi Yochanan maintains that an Eravon acquires the entire amount, but only as regards a 'Mi she'Para'.
In which case would it fully acquire the entire amount?

(b) What does Rav say?

(c) The Beraisa discusses a case where one of two men entering into a business deal, hands his friend a security, assuring him that, should he retract from the deal, he will forego the security.
What does his friend say?

(d) On what basis does Rebbi Yossi rule that the agreement is valid? What is 'Asmachta'?

(a) Rebbi Yehudah qualifies Rebbi Yossi's ruling.
What does he say?

(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel qualifies Rebbi Yehudah's ruling.
What does he say? In which case will the Eravon acquire completely?

(c) How do we try and prove Rebbi Yochanan's previous ruling from here?

(d) We counter this however, by differentiating between a S'tam Eravon by Karka and S'tam Eravon by Metaltelin.
Why the difference?

(a) We suggest that this last point is a Machlokes Tana'im. The Beraisa cites Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who rules that if Reuven lends Shimon money against a security which is worth only half the loan, Sh'mitah does not cancel the loan.
Why not?

(b) What does Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi say?

(c) Why can Raban Shimon ben Gamliel not mean that the security does not cancel as much of the loan as it is worth?

(a) So what does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel mean?

(b) In that case, what is the basis of his Machlokes with Rebbi?

(c) We refute this interpretation however, and revert to the original suggestion.
How do we then explain Rebbi? If the security does not even prevent half the debt from being canceled, then what is the point of giving it to the creditor?

(d) Like whom will Rebbi Yochanan and Rav respectively then hold?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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