(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 67


(a) When Rav Nachman made his statement conceding that the seller cannot reclaim any fruit that the purchaser actually picked and ate (because he holds 'Mechilah be'Ta'us Havya Mechilah') - what did Rava have in mind to ask him from Ona'ah?

(b) Rav Nachman however, preempted his Kashya, by proving from Aylonis that 'Mechilah be'Ta'us is indeed Mechilah.
What does the Tana of the Mishnah in Kesuvos say about a Mema'enes, a Sheniyah and an Aylonis with regard to Kesuvah (including her Nechsei Tzon Barzel), Peiros, Mezonos or Bela'os (her worn-out clothes that her husband used)?

(c) What is the reason for this, regarding ...

  1. ... a Mema'enes?
  2. ... a Sheniyah?
  3. ... an Aylonis?
(d) How does Rav Nachman prove his point from here?
2) Rava concludes however, that neither is Ona'ah a Kashya on Rav Nachman, nor does Aylonis prove him right.
Why is ...
  1. ... Ona'ah not a Kashya? Why is it not considered Mechilah be'Ta'us?
  2. ... Aylonis not a proof.
    Why is it not considered a Mechilah be'Ta'us?
(a) After Reuven purchased a field on behalf of a woman called Navla, what did he reply when Shimon the seller asked him whether Navla would return the field if he obtained the money with which to buy it back?

(b) What else might 'At ve'Navla Achi' mean?

(c) What initial ruling did Rabah bar Rav Huna issue in this case?

(d) The field certainly had to be returned.
What did he eventually rule with regard to the Peiros that Navla had eaten in the meantime? Who concurred with Rabah bar Rav Huna's ruling?

(a) Abaye asked Rabah what the Din would be in the equivalent case of Mashkanta.
What is the case of Mashkanta?

(b) We might consider the fruit Avak Ribis, like in the previous case, because there was no stipulation permitting the creditor to eat the fruit. Why might we nevertheless obligate the creditor to return the fruit as if it was Ribis Ketzutzah?

(c) How do we reconcile Rabah, who replied that here too, the fruit is considered Avak Ribis, with Rav Nachman, who ruled earlier (with regard to our Mishnah, 'Hadri Ar'a, ve'Hadri Peiri')?

(d) Ravina is even more stringent than Rabah bar Rav Huna.
What does Rav Papi quote him as having ruled?

(a) Mar B'rei de'Rav Yosef rules in the name of Rava 'be'Asra de'Mesalki, Achal Shiur Zuzi, Mesalkinan Lei'.
What does Rava mean by ...
  1. ... 'be'Asra de'Mesalki'?
  2. ... 'Achal Shiur Zuzi, Mesalkinan Lei'?
(b) And what does Rava ...
  1. ... rule in a case where the creditor ate in excess of the loan?
  2. ... mean when he adds 've'Lo Mechashvinan mi'Sh'tara li'Sh'tara'?
(c) What did Rava rule with regard to the two latter Dinim if the field belonged to Yesomim?

(d) Why is that?

(a) Why does Rava confine the above rulings to a place where *it is customary* for the debtor to redeem his field with money ('be'Asra de'Mesalki')? How will the Din differ in a place where *it is not*?

(b) We just learned that Rava obligates the creditor to return the field, before he continues to eat any more fruit (if the debtor so claims).
What does Rav Ashi say?

(c) Why does he not reckon the fruit that the creditor ate as the payment of the debt, like Rava holds?

(d) What does Rav Ashi rule with regard to Yesomim? In which point does he disagree with Rava's previous ruling?

Answers to questions



(a) Rava B'rei de'Rav Yosef in the name of Rava only permits a creditor to eat from a Mashkon be'Asra de'Mesalki by means of Nachyasa.
What is 'Nachyasa'? Why is it not considered Ribis?

(b) And he adds that a Tzurba mi'de'Rabbanan (a Talmid-Chacham) should avoid doing so.
Why is that?

(c) Why does Rava restrict the initial ruling to Asra de'Mesalki? How will the Din differ in an Asra de'Lo Mesalki?

(a) Initially, we advise a Tzurba mi'de'Rabbanan to accept a Mashkon 'be'Kitzusa', according to those who permit it (in fact, it is a Machlokes between Rav Acha and Ravina - see Tosfos DH 'Ravina'). According to the first Lashon, 'Kitzusa' means that the creditor eats the fruit for five years without deducting from the loan, but from then on, he assesses all the fruit that grows and deducts it from the loan.
With which point does the second Lashon disagree?

(b) How does the second Lashon then define 'Kitzusa'?

(c) According to the first Lashon, everyone will agree that 'Kitzusa', the way the second Lashon defines it, is permitted even for a Talmid-Chacham. What is the only concession for a Talmid-Chacham according to the one who is strict in the second Lashon? What is 'Mashkanta de'Sura'?

(a) Rav Papa and Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua state that the Ba'al-Chov (creditor) of a creditor who has a Mashkon be'Asra de'Mesalki and who died, cannot claim the field or the Peiros from his heirs.
Why not?

(b) Why on the other hand, could he have claimed the Peiros from their father in his lifetime?

(c) Similarly, they said that, in the event of the creditor's death, his Bechor does not receive a double portion from that field, and Sh'mitah cancels the debt.
Why does ...

  1. ... the Bechor not receive a double portion?
  2. ... Sh'mitah cancel the debt (in spite of the Mashkon)?
(d) Why do Rav Papa and Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua then rule that in the case of a Mashkon be'Asra de'Lo Mesalki, the creditor's Ba'al-Chov can claim the Mashkon from the creditor's heirs, the Bechor receives double and Sh'mitah does not cancel the debt?
(a) Mar Zutra quoting Rav Papa rules that regarding a Mashkon of date-palms in an Asra de'Mesalki, the debtor can even reclaim mi'Tamri de'Abudya.
What are 'Tamri de'Abudya'?

(b) At which stage however, could he no longer claim them?

(c) And according to which opinion would he no longer be able to claim even before the creditor picked them up?

(a) If, be'Asra de'Mesalki, the debtor undertakes not to 'redeem' the land by paying, no Kinyan is required to clinch the stipulation.
If it were, when would it have taken place? What form would it have taken?

(b) What would have been the point of the Kinyan anyway? What would it have achieved?

(c) If, be'Asra de'Lo Mesalki, the creditor undertakes to allow the debtor to pay and 'redeem' his land, Rav Papa does not require a Kinyan to clinch the stipulation.
What does Rav Shisha B'rei de'Rav Idi say? Like whom is the Halachah?

(d) What does the Kinyan achieve in this case?

(a) What will be the Din if, be'Asra de'Mesalki, the debtor informs the creditor that he is going to fetch the money to pay him?

(b) In which case then does Ravina say that the creditor may eat and Mar Zutra B'rei de'Rav Mari say that he may not?

(c) Like whom is the Halachah?

(a) Rav Kahana, Rav Papa and Rav Ashi did not eat the fruit of a Mashkon 'be'Nachyasa' (as we learned above). When Mar Zutra asked Ravina why he did, he replied that it was no different than S'dei Achuzah.
What did he mean by S'dei Achuzah? Which Din of S'dei Achuzah was he referring to?

(b) And what did he mean by the comparison to Mashkanta?

(c) On what grounds then, did Ravina's colleagues disagree with him? What distinction do they draw between S'dei Achuzah and Mashkanta?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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