(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 95

BAVA METZIA 91-95 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.


(a) The Torah specifically obligates a Sho'el to pay for Shevurah u'Meisah. Why can we not learn Geneivah va'Aveidah from them?

(b) How does the Berasa in fact, learn them from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Shomer Sachar?

(c) The Tana concludes 've'Zu Hi 'Kal va'Chomer' she'Ein Alav Teshuvah'. What Pircha might we otherwise have asked? When does the Chumra of Kefel apply to a Shomer Sachar but not to a Sho'el?

(d) The Tana dismisses this Kashya for one of two reasons, one of them because 'Karna be'Lo Shevu'ah Adifa mi'Kefeila bi'Shevu'ah'.
What is the other reason?

(a) What do we mean when we ask (with regard to Geneivah va'Aveidah by a Sho'el) 'Ashkechan le'Chumra, le'Kula Minalan'? What does 'le'Kula' mean?

(b) Why can we not learn it from Shevurah u'Meisah, where the Torah specifically exempts a Sho'el be'Ba'alim?

(c) So we learn it from the equivalent case by Shomer Sachar.
How do we initially learn the P'tur of Geneivah va'Aveidah be'Ba'alim by a Shomer Sachar?

(d) We cannot learn this latter Din from Sho'el with a 'Mah Matzinu' (for the reason that we just explained by Sho'el itself).
So how do we learn it?

(a) Why can we not now learn the P'tur of Geneivah va"Aveidah be'Ba'alim by Sho'el from a 'Mah Matzinu' from Shomer Sachar?

(b) So we learn it from the Chiyuv of Geneivah va'Aveidah by a Sho'el, which as we learned earlier, we derive from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a Shomer Sachar.
How do we learn the P'tur of be'Ba'alim from there, too ...

  1. ... initially?
  2. ... even according to those who do not hold of 'Dayo'?
(c) Why can we not query this Limud with the Kashya 'Mah le'Shomer Sachar she'Kein Patur bi'Shevurah u'Meisah'?
(a) Rav Acha and Ravina argue over Peshi'ah be'Ba'alim. One of them maintains that the Shomer is Chayav.
What is his source for this Chumra?
Why does the Din of Shemirah be'Ba'alim not extend to a Shomer Chinam?

(b) From where do we know the Chiyuv of Peshi'ah by Shomer Sachar and Sho'el?

(c) So why does the P'tur of Peshi'ah be'Ba'alim (which is written by them) not pertain to Peshi'ah as well?

(d) On what basis does the other one include Peshi'ah in the Din of be'Ba'alim?

(a) What do we try and prove from our Mishnah, which presents all the cases of Shemirah be'Ba'alim by Sho'el, but does not mention a Shomer Chinam?

(b) How do we counter this proof?

(c) Why indeed, does the Tana not discuss the Din of be'Ba'alim by the other Shomrim?

Answers to questions



(a) The Beraisa, discussing the P'tur of Ba'alim, lists all the combinations of borrowing and hiring, regarding both the cow and the owner. What do we prove from there, assuming that the author is Rebbi Yehudah (who holds Socher ke'Shomer Sachar)?

(b) On what grounds do we begin with such a presumption?

(c) We counter this proof however, by nevertheless establishing the author as Rebbi Meir.
How could we establish it even according to Rebbi Yehudah?

(d) Why are we not concerned that the Tana now omits Shomer Sachar?

(a) What do we mean when we say that, according to Rav Hamnuna, "Ba'alav Imo" refers to everything? Which two stringencies does this statement incorporate?

(b) How do we initially explain the Beraisa's statement 'Af-al-Pi she'ha'Ba'alim Osin Melachah *be'Makom Acher*', according to Rav Hamnuna?

(c) What does the Seifa add to 'Sha'alah ve'Achar-Kach Sha'al Ba'alah Imah ... u'Meisah, Chayav' to increase the Chidush?

(d) On what grounds do we object to the proposal that the Chidush in the Reisha is the fact that the owner is working ahead of his cow, and the Chidush in the Seifa that he is actually leading it?

(a) So how are we forced to explain the Chidush in the Reisha? What does this prove?

(b) Another Beraisa points out how, the Torah having written "Im Be'alav Imo, Lo Yeshalem", the inference is obvious.
How does the Tana then justify the Torah's need to add "Be'alav Ein Imo, Shalem Yeshalem"?

(c) What does another Beraisa learn from the fact that, after having written "Be'alav Ein Imo, Shalem Yeshalem", the Torah finds it necessarily to add "Im Be'alav Imo, Lo Yeshalem"?

(d) What does all this prove conclusively?

(a) What do we mean when we say that Abaye explains the above discrepancy in the Pesukim like Rebbi Yoshiyah, and Rava, like Rebbi Yonasan.
Which Rebbi Yoshiyah and Rebbi Yonasan are we referring to?

(b) Bearing in mind that the Pesukim are referring to both the time of She'eilah and that of Shevurah u'Meisah, how does Abaye then interpret ...

  1. ... "*Be'alav Ein Imo*, Shalem Yeshalem"?
  2. ... "*Im Be'alav Imo* Lo Yeshalem"?
(c) And how does Rava interpret ...
  1. ... "*Im Be'alav Imo* Lo Yeshalem"?
  2. ... "*Be'alav Ein Imo*, Shalem Yeshalem"?
(d) Is Rava explaining the two Pesukim in the reverse order to Abaye due to the fact that Abaye holds like the first Beraisa quoted above, and Rava, like the second?
Answers to questions

Next daf


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