(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 74

BAVA METZIA 71-74 - Mrs. Estanne Abraham-Fawer has dedicated two weeks of Dafyomi study material to honor the second Yahrzeit of her father, Reb Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Weiner, who passed away 18 Teves 5761). May the merit of supporting and advancing the study of the Talmud be l'Iluy Nishmaso.


(a) What does Rava say about three people who handed one person money to buy something on their behalf?

(b) When will Rava's ruling not apply?

(a) Rav Papi ruled in the name of Rava that Situmta acquires.
What is 'Situmta'?

(b) Rav Chaviva explains Rava's statement literally.
How do the Rabbanan explain it?

(c) We rule like the Rabbanan.
But what is the final comment on this ruling?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that someone who arrives early at the haystack is permitted to pay for wheat that he will only receive later, even before the official price has been fixed, because the seller has grain (albeit not yet ready for consumption).
What does Rav mean when he restricts this concession to where 'two are missing but not three'?

(b) Shmuel has a totally different criterion.
What does he say?

(c) How does ...

  1. ... Rav explain the previous Halachah in our Mishnah, seeing as the wheat would normally still require spreading out in the sun to dry, threshing and winnowing (three Melachos)?
  2. ... Shmuel explain it, seeing as it still requires winnowing (which in turn, needs a wind)?
(d) Our Mishnah also permits paying for wine 'by the pot of grapes'.
How will Rav explain this, seeing as ...
  1. ... the grapes still require heating, carrying to the press, pressing and running the wine from the press to the pit (four Melachos)?
  2. ... even after that, there are still three Melachos missing?
(a) The Tana also permits paying for oil 'by the pot of olives'. Here too, the oil is still missing ...
  1. ... heating, taking to the press, threshing and running the oil from the press to the pit (four Melachos)? What is the source for this amendment?
  2. ... three Melachos?
(b) And he also permits paying for pots 'by the balls of clay of the potter'.
How will Rav explain the fact that the clay still requires ...
  1. ... shaping into pots, drying, taking to the oven, baking and removing from the oven (five Melachos)?
  2. ... three Melachos?
(c) Our Mishnah also permits paying for lime from the time that the materials have been placed in the furnace.
How will Rav explain this, seeing as it still requires burning, removing from the furnace and adding water to melt the lime-bricks (three Melachos)?

(d) According to Shmuel, who permits purchasing goods even if a hundred Melachos still need to be performed, why does the Tana require the materials to have already been placed in the furnace? How does Shmuel therefore explain 'mi'she'Yeshak'enu be'Kivshan'?

(a) Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, forbids paying for balls of clay until they have actually been manufactured. Rebbi Yossi agrees with him with regard to pots made of white earth, but not of black earth.
What sort of earth did they used to use in the village of Chananyah and Shichin?

(b) What is the reason for Rebbi Yossi's distinction?

(a) Ameimar gave money for balls of clay after the potter had gathered the earth.
What sort of earth are we talking about?

(b) Why ...

  1. ... can he not hold like Rebbi Meir?
  2. ... does he not seem to hold like Rebbi Yossi either?
(c) How do we finally reconcile Ameimar with Rebbi Yossi? What is the significance of the fact that 'Ashik Afra'? What does this mean?

(d) The Tana Kama permits paying money now to receive manure the whole year round. Rebbi Yossi requires the seller to have manure, and the Chachamim argue with him.
In what point do the Chachamim argue with the Tana Kama?

Answers to questions



(a) What does the Tana of our Mishnah mean when he concludes 'u'Posek Imo ke'Sha'ar ha'Gavohah'? What is 'Sha'ar ha'Gavohah'?

(b) What happened to that man who gave money on behalf of his father-in-law for ornaments (clothes ...) for his sister-in-law's dowry? How did his father-in-law react to that?

(c) On what grounds did the Rabbanan query Rav Papa's ruling that, if the Sheli'ach did not specifically stipulate to take from the Sha'ar ha'Gavohah, he was obligated to accept them at the original price?

(d) How did Rav Papa explain his ruling? What did he mean when he said that ...

  1. ... if he stipulated, he takes like the Sha'ar ha'Gavohah?
  2. ... if he did not stipulate, he must accept like the original Sha'ar?
(a) Rav Papa assumes that the author of our Mishnah (which requires the purchaser to stipulate for the Sha'ar Gavohah) is the Rabbanan of Rebbi Shimon, who hold that money is not Koneh. Ravina asked Rav Papa how we know that the author is not specifically Rebbi Shimon.
What would then be the reason that if the Sheli'ach did not stipulate, he would have to accept the goods according to the original price?

(b) And what would the Rabbanan then hold in the same case?

(c) To answer the Rabbanan's Kashya, Rav Papa establishes Rebbi Shimon exclusively by one Sha'ar, but not by two.
What does he mean by that? Why would money not acquire by two She'arim, even according to Rebbi Shimon?

(d) How does this now explain why our Mishnah must go like the Rabbanan, too?

(a) What did Rav Acha B'rei de'Rava mean to ask, when he posed the question to Rav Ashi 've'Teipuk Lei di'Sheli'ach Shavyeih Me'ikara'? What problem did he have with the Mi she'Para?

(b) Why did Rav Papa not then threaten the father-in-law with a Mi she'Para?

(c) Rav Ashi replied 'be'Tagra de'Zavin u'Mazbin'.
What does he mean by that?

(a) What does the Tana of our Mishnah mean when he permits lending one's Aris 'Chitin be'Chitin'?

(b) How does he qualify this concession?

(c) Rebbi found it necessary to insert this Mishnah because of Raban Gamliel.
What did Raban Gamliel used to do?

(d) Why did he do that?

(a) What qualifier does the Tana of the Beraisa add to 'Chitin be'Chitin by an Aris', that our Mishnah deliberately omits?

(b) What basic difference between the two cases does Rava in the name of Rav Idi present, that explains this distinction?

(c) How does this explain the fact that our Mishnah permits 'Sa'ah be'Sa'ah', which is normally forbidden?

(d) And why is there no problem of 'Sa'ah be'Sa'ah' before the Aris has gone down to the field, even according to the Beraisa?

(a) The Tana of a Beraisa begins with the statement that Reuven can ask Shimon to lend him a Kur of wheat on the express condition that he repays the loan with money.
At which price will he pay him, should the price of wheat change?

(b) The continuation of the Beraisa however, appears to clash with the Reisha.
What does the Tana then say?

(c) How does Rav Sheishes amend the Seifa, to resolve the contradiction?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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