(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 110

BAVA METZIA 109-110 - anonymously dedicated by an Ohev Torah and Marbitz Torah in Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.


(a) In the case of a Sh'tar Mashkanta (de'Sura') in which it was written 'years', but not how many, the creditor claimed that they had agreed on three years, and the debtor said, two.
What happened next?

(b) The question is who is now believed.
Who would have been believed had the creditor not eaten the fruit?

(c) According to Rav Yehudah, the creditor is obligated to pay the debtor for the third year, according to Rav Kahana, he is not.
What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(a) What did Rav Nachman say in 'ha'Sho'el' in a case where someone rents a bathhouse for twelve gold Dinrim per annum, at one gold Dinar monthly, and it turns out to be a leap-year? How much must the hirer pay, even assuming that he comes to pay at the end of the month?

(b) Bearing in mind that Rav Nachman is not sure whether we go after the first Lashon or the last, what is the basis of his ruling?

(c) How do we reconcile Rav Kahana (whose opinion is Halachah) with Rav Nachman (whose opinion is Halachah too)?

(a) In another case, where the creditor claims that they agreed on five Dinrim, the debtor says three (which have already passed), the debtor asked the creditor to produce his Sh'tar.
What did he reply?

(b) On what basis did Rav Yehudah believe him?

(c) Rav Papa told Rav Ashi that Rav Z'vid and Rav Avira did not agree with Rav Yehudah.
Why not? Why, according to them, can we not believe the creditor when he claims that he lost the Sh'tar, even with a 'Migu'?

(a) What did Ravina ask Rav Ashi on Rav Yehudah from every case of Mashkanta de'Sura?

(b) What did Rav Ashi ...

  1. ... mean when he answered that the Rabbanan instituted that the owner pays the land-tax and digs the irrigation ditch around the field?
  2. ... reply when Ravina asked him what will happen in a case where for some reason, there is no tax to pay and no ditch that needs digging?
(c) If an Aris claims that the owner promised him half the annual produce and the owner claims, a third, Rav Yehudah believes the owner.
What does Rav Nachman say?
(a) How do we try to reconcile the opinions of Rav Yehudah and Rav Nachman?

(b) But Rav Mari B'rah de'bas Shmuel cites Abaye who disagrees, and who holds that, Rav Yehudah believes the owner even if it is customary for the Aris to take half.
Why is that?

(c) How do we need to qualify the term 'Ne'eman' throughout the Sugya?

Answers to questions



(a) We cite a case where the Ba'al-Chov comes to claim a field from his debtor's Yesomim.
What are the two parties disputing?

(b) Rebbi Chanina thought that, seeing as the land belongs to the Yesomim, the onus of proof lies with the Ba'al-Chov.
What did that old man quote Rebbi Yochanan as saying?

(c) Abaye proves this from a Mishnah in Bava Basra. We learned there that, if a tree is growing near a pit, assuming that the tree was there first, it is not necessary to cut it down.
What will be the Din if the pit was there first?

(a) In a case where a tree is growing within fifty Amos of a town, the Tana rules that if the town was there first, the owner must cut down the tree and does not receive compensation.
What would be the Din if the tree was there first?

(b) What distinction does the Tana now make between the case of a tree near a pit and that of a tree near a town, if there is a Safek as to which was there first?

(c) Why, in the latter ruling, does the owner not receive compensation?

(d) How does the latter ruling reflect on the previous case of where the Ba'al-Chov comes to claim a field from his debtor's Yesomim? How does this prove Rebbi Yochanan's ruling?

(a) In the event that the Yesomim succeed in proving that they initiated the improvements, what did Rav Chanina initially think that they are entitled to claim?

(b) We refute this however, on the basis of a statement of Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel, who speaks about 'Bechor le'Pashut, Ba'al-Chov le'Loke'ach and Ba'al-Chov u'Kesuvas Ishah li'Yesomim'.
What are they are all paying back?

(c) What common ruling does Rav Nachman issue? Why is that?

(d) What is the case of 'Bechor le'Pashut'?

(a) Shmuel appears to hold that the Ba'al-Chov must return the Sh'vach to the purchasers.
How do we reconcile this with his own ruling that the Ba'al-Chov is entitled to claim the Sh'vach? What is 'Sh'vach ha'Magi'a li'Kesafim'?

(b) Why can 'Sh'vach ha'Magi'a li'Kesafim' not be defined as fruit that no longer needs the ground at all?

(c) Under which circumstances then, did Shmuel authorise the Ba'al-Chov to claim even 'Sh'vach ha'Magi'a li'Kesafim'?

(a) We ask a Kashya on Rav Nachman (who permits the Ba'al-Chov to pay the back money), from those who permit a purchaser to pay the Ba'al-Chov money in the first place.
What is the reasoning that renders the ruling plausible according to those who forbid it?

(b) What is the gist of the Kashya?

(c) How will we then establish the ruling according to those who do normally permit the purchaser to pay the Ba'al-Chov money?

(a) What distinction does our Mishnah make between someone who is Mekabel a field for a Shavu'a (what is 'a Shavu'a') for seven hundred Zuz, and one who is Mekabel it for seven years?

(b) If a day-laborer may claim all night, when is the time to claim for ...

  1. ... a night-laborer?
  2. ... a laborer who works only half a day?
(c) And when does a laborer who is hired for a week, a month, a year or seven years claim?
(a) What does the Tana of the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk ...
  1. ... in Kedoshim "Lo Salin Pe'ulas Sachir Itcha ad Boker"?
  2. ... in Ki Seitzei "be'Yomo Titen Secharo"?
  3. ... in Behar "ki'Sechir Shanah be'Shanah"?
(b) What is the relevance of this latter ruling to our Sugya? What might we otherwise have thought?

(c) Having written "Lo Salin ... ", why does the Torah need to add "ad Boker"? What is it coming to teach us?

(d) And what do we learn from the Pasuk in Mishlei "Al Tomar le'Re'acha Lech va'Shov, u'Machar Eten, ve'Yesh Itcha"?

(a) What does the Tana of a Beraisa say about Reuven who hires a laborer to work for him, but who then takes him to work on Shimon's property?

(b) How do we then establish another Beraisa, which states that if Reuven hires a laborer to work for Shimon, neither of them is subject to "Lo Salin"?

(c) What is the reasoning behind this latter ruling?

(d) What did Ameimar and Mar Zutra used to do when one of them wanted to hire a laborer?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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