(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 57


(a) Rav Ami asked whether the four things in our Mishnah not subject to Ona'ah, are nevertheless subject to Bitul Mekach.
What are the ramifications of saying that they are?

(b) The reason for saying that they are, is because they are not included in "Al Tonu", the Pasuk which precludes them (but fall under the independent category of Mekach Ta'us).
Why on the other hand, might they not?

(c) Rav Nachman, quoting Rav Chasa, informs us that Rav Ami himself later resolved the She'eilah.
What did he decide?

(a) Rebbi Yonah quoting Rebbi Yochanan says 'Ona'ah Ein Lahem, Bitul Mekach Yesh Lahem' with regard to Hekdesh.
What does Rebbi Yirmiyah quoting Rebbi Yochanan say?

(b) On what grounds do we say that ...

  1. ... Rebbi Yonah certainly agrees with Rebbi Yirmiyah?
  2. ...Rebbi Yirmiyah will not agree with Rebbi Yonah?
(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah's opinion is based on Shmuel, who said 'Hekdesh Shaveh Manah she'Chilelo al Shaveh P'rutah, Mechulal'.
What is his reason?
(a) The Mishnah in Temurah says that someone who declares on a blemished Hekdesh animal 'Harei Zu Mechulal al Zu', Yotzei le'Chulin, ve'Tzarich La'asos Lo Damim'.
What does the latter statement mean?

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan, 've'Tzarich La'asos Lo Damim' is only mi'de'Rabbanan.
What does Resh Lakish say?

(c) Their Machlokes is based on the interpretation of "Erk'cha". How does each one interpret it?

(d) Why can they not be arguing over ...

  1. ... 'bi'Ch'dei Ona'ah?
  2. ... 'Yoser mi'Ch'dei Ona'ah? On whose opinion would this pose a Kashya?
(a) How do we therefore reestablish the Machlokes, according to Rebbi Yonah?

(b) Initially, we base the Machlokes on Shmuel.
What will then be the reasoning of ...

  1. ... Resh Lakish?
  2. ... Rebbi Yochanan?
(c) And how will we explain the Machlokes, assuming that both opinions hold like Shmuel?
(a) Alternatively, they argue over bi'Ch'dei Ona'ah, and it is not necessary to switch their opinions. And we answer the original Kashya (that Hekdesh is not subject to Ona'ah) by establishing the Machlokes like Rav Chisda.
What does Rav Chisda say? How does he explain 'Ein Lahem Ona'ah'?

(b) What is then the reasoning of ...

  1. ... Resh Lakish?
  2. ... Rebbi Yochanan?
(c) Why is it not even possible to switch Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, according to this opinion?
Answers to questions



(a) How will Rav Chisda explain ...
  1. ... the Reisha of the Beraisa 'Ribis ve'Ona'ah le'Hedyot, ve'Ein Ribis ve'Ona'ah le'Hekdesh'?
  2. ... the Seifa 'Zeh Chomer be'Hedyot mi'be'Hekdesh'?
(b) Then why does the Tana not add 'Zeh Chomer be'Hekdesh mi'be'Hedyot' with regard to Ona'ah (since Hekdesh there is more stringent than Hedyot)?
(a) What is the problem with establishing Ribis by Hekdesh when the treasurer lent someone a hundred Zuz for a hundred and twenty?

(b) But Me'ilah is only be'Shogeg.
What makes that a Shogeg?

(c) Who has to pay Hekdesh?
How much does he have to pay?

(a) We establish the case of Ribis by someone who undertook to supply flour for the Menachos and the price rose from four Sa'ah per Sela to three, or dropped from three to four.
How much will the supplier be obligated to supply in either case?

(b) Why does the Tana refer to this as Ribis, seeing as no loan took place?

(a) Rav Papa establishes the case when the Gizbar lent someone stones for building, on interest. He is not Mo'el because of a statement of Shmuel.
What did Shmuel say about the building of Hekdesh? Why is it not subject to Me'ilah?

(b) Why did they employ this method?

(c) Why did Rav Papa prefer this explanation to the previous one?

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah also precluded the four things (Karka'os, Avadim, Sh'taros and Hekdesh) from the Din of Kefel, and he learns the first three from a 'K'lal u'Prat u'K'lal', from the Pasuk in Mishpatim. (in connection with To'en Ta'anas Ganav or Ganav himself). "al Kol D'var Pesha" is the first 'K'lal', and "al Kol Aveidah Asher Yomar" is the second.
How does the Tana learn from the P'rat "al Shor, al Chamor, al Seh al Salmah" to preclude ...
  1. ... Karka'os?
  2. ... Sh'taros?
(b) From where does he then learn to preclude Avadim?

(c) What does he learn from the Pasuk there "ve'Chi Yigach Ish es Shor Re'eihu"?

(d) And from where does he then learn to preclude all of the above from the Din of Arba'ah va'Chamishah?

(a) What does the Tana learn from ...
  1. ... a 'K'lal u'Prat u'K'lal' from the Pasuk (also in Mishpatim, in connection with a Shomer Chinam) "Ki Yiten Ish el Re'eihu (K'lal) Kesef O Keilim (P'rat) Li'shmor (P'rat)"?
  2. ... "el Re'eihu"?
(b) And what does he learn from a 'K'lal u'Prat u'K'lal' from the Pasuk (also in Mishpatim, in connection with a Shomer Sachar) "Ki Yiten Ish el Re'eihu (K'lal), "Chamor O Shor O Seh" (P'rat), ve'Chol Beheimah Li'shmor" (K'lal)?
Answers to questions

Next daf


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