(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 81

BAVA METZIA 81-85 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.


(a) What does Rav Nachman bar Papa extrapolate from the Beraisa 've'Chulan she'Amru Tul es she'Lecha ve'Havei Ma'os, Shomer Chinam' that clashes with Rav Chisda, who just said that once the days of Shemirah have come to an end, the Shomer is no longer even a Shomer Sachar?

(b) We answer that the inference from the Beraisa is 'Ha Havei Ma'os ve'Tul es she'Lecha, Shomer Sachar', but 'Gemartiv' has the same Din as 'Tul es she'Lecha ve'Havei Ma'os'.
In that case, why did the Tana not present the bigger Chidush of 'Gemartiv'? Why did he see fit to present the case of 'Tul es she'Lecha ve'Havei Ma'os'?

(c) Why does the case in our Mishnah require the Uman to inform the owner 'Gemartiv', whereas a Sho'el does not?

(a) In the second Lashon, Rav Nachman bar Papa comes (not to ask a Kashya on Rav Chisda, but) to support his statement, to which end, he asks 'Mai La'av, Hu ha'Din Gemartiv'?
How do we refute his proof?

(b) Assuming that 'Gemartiv' is equivalent to 'Tul es she'Lecha ve'Havei Ma'os' (like the conclusion of the first Lashon), Huna Mar bar Mereimar asked Ravina how to reconcile this with the Mishnah 've'Chein be'Sha'ah she'Machzirah', which implies that as long as the owner has not asked the Sho'el to return the article, he remains liable.
How did Rafram bar Papa Amar Rav Chisda resolve the problem?

(a) They asked whether, when Rafram bar Papa said 'Patur', he meant Patur from being a Sho'el, but he remains a Shomer Sachar, or whether he is not even a Shomer Sachar either.
What did Ameimar reply?

(b) The Beraisa discusses the case of someone who purchases vessels from a factory, intending to send them as gifts to his betrothed.
What does he stipulate with the manufacturer?

(c) What will be the Din if the vessels are destroyed by means of an O'nes that occurred ...

  1. ... on the outward journey?
  2. ... on the way back? What reason does the Tana give for this ruling?
(d) What does Shmuel say (in Bava Basra) about someone who buys vessels on the understanding that if, after inspection, they meet with his approval, and if not, he will return them, if an O'nes then occurs, and they are destroyed?
(a) In any case, we have proved Ameimar's ruling, as we explained.
Why is there even a 'Kal va'Chomer' from there on to the case of a Sho'el?

(b) In a case similar case, where Reuven stipulated that if he was unable to sell a donkey (or wine), he would return it, what did Rav Nachman rule, when an O'nes occurred on the return journey?

(c) What did Rav Nachman reply when Rava asked him how this case differed from the previous one, where he was Patur from Onsin on the return journey?

(a) Our Mishnah rules 'Sh'mor Li ve'Eshmor Lach, Shomer Sachar'.
What forces Rav Papa to explain this to mean 'You guard for me today and I will guard for you *tomorrow*'? Why not *today*?

(b) We repeat the same Kashya on the Beraisa 'Sh'mor Li ve'Eshmor Lach, Hash'ileini, ve'Ash'ilcha (with reference to borrowing vessels), Sh'mor Li ve'Ash'ilcha ... ', 've'Ha Havi Shemirah be'Ba'alim?' (like we asked on the Mishnah, and Rav Papa repeats the same answer).
Why can the Kashya only pertain to the first case, and not to the other cases?

(a) In the case of those Ahalu'i, it was customary for one of them to bake each day for all of them.
What, besides a kind of washing soap, might the 'Ahalu'i' have sold?

(b) What did one of their group respond, when they asked him to bake that day?

(c) When the coat was stolen, due to the Ahalui's negligence, Rav Papa obligated the Ahalu'i to pay.
Why must the coat have been stolen specifically due to their negligence?

(a) What did the Rabbanan point out that caused Rav Papa to become embarrassed?

(b) What did they discover that removed Rav Papa's embarrassment?

(c) This answer will not work out however- according to those who hold 'Peshi'ah be'Ba'alim' is not included in the P'tur of Shemirah be'Ba'alim. What is the problem, according to them?

(d) How do we therefore amend the case to turn the 'Ahalu'i' into Shomrei Sachar, rather than Shomrei Chinam? What other adjustment do we have to make to the case?

Answers to questions



(a) In the case of the two co-travelers, the tall man was riding a donkey whilst the short one walked. The tall one had 'a Sadina', and the short one, 'a Sarb'la'. When they had to cross a river, the short man put on the Sadin and placed the Sarb'la on the donkey.
Why did he do that?

(b) What did Rava rule when they came to him for a Din Torah, after the Sadin sunk?

(c) If Rava was embarrassed when the Rabbanan pointed out that it was Shemirah be'Ba'alim (because the man on the donkey was transporting his Sarb'la at the time, what did he subsequently discover that set his mind at rest?

(a) Reuven rented Shimon a donkey, warning him to take the route of Neresh, and not of Nahar Pakud.
Why not?

(b) Shimon took the forbidden route and the donkey died.
What argument did he present upon his return?

(c) On what grounds did Rabah want to exempt him from paying?

(d) Why did Abaye object?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that 'Sh'mor Li, ve'Amar Lo, Hanach Lefanai, Shomer Chinam'.
What does Rav Huna say about a case of 'Hanach Lefanecha'?

(b) What do we try and infer from our Mishnah ('Sh'mor Li, ve'Amar Lo Hanach Lefanai, Shomer Chinam')? What She'eilah do we attempt to resolve from here?

(c) We refute the proof from there by citing Rav Huna.
How does Rav Huna's ruling repudiate the proof?

(d) So what do we do when the inference from the Reisha clashes with the inference from the Seifa?

(a) We learned in a Mishnah in Bava Kama (concerning a potter who takes his pots into Reuven's field and Reuven's ox subsequently breaks them) 'Im Hichnis bi'Reshus, Ba'al Chatzer Chayav'.
Why is that?

(b) What does Rebbi say?

(c) What do we try to prove from this Machlokes Tana'im?

(d) How do we refute the proof.
Why might ...

  1. ... the Rabbanan's ruling be confined to the case of Chatzer, but will not extend to our case of placing the article in the street?
  2. ... Rebbi's ruling too, be confined to the case of Chatzer?
(a) Rebbi Eliezer says in a Beraisa 'ha'Malveh es Chaveiro al ha'Mashkon, ve'Avad ha'Mashkon, Yishava ve'Yitol Ma'osav'.
Why is that? What does he swear?

(b) What does Rebbi Akiva say?

(c) In which case does Rebbi Eliezer concede that if he loses the Mashkon, he loses his money?

(d) Who (do we initially think) will then be the author of our Mishnah, 'Hilveihu al ha'Mashkon Shomer Sachar'?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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