(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 112

BAVA METZIA 112-115 - these Dafim have been dedicated anonymously l'Iluy Nishmas Tzirel Nechamah bas Tuvya Yehudah.


(a) The Beraisa's second Lashon (regarding the Pasuk "ve'Eilav Hu Nosei es Nafsho") reads 'Kol ha'Kovesh S'char Sachir, Ke'ilu Notel Nafsho Mimenu'. Rav Huna and Rav Chisda argue over the meaning of 'Nafsho'.
What are the two possible interpretations of the word?

(b) How does each one now explain the latter half of the Pasuk?

(c) The one proves his point from the Pasuk in Mishlei "Such is the way of anyone who robs, he takes the soul of the owner", which he interprets to mean literally 'the soul of the poor man'.
How does the other one explain it?

(d) The other one proves his point from the Pasuk there "Do not rob a poor man ... because Hashem will take his part and will rob the soul of *the one who robbed him*".
How does the first one interpret this last phrase?

(a) From where does the Tana of the Beraisa learn that the La'av of "Lo Salin" is subject to the laborer claiming his wages?

(b) He also learns from "Itcha" that the hirer only transgresses if he has the money with which to pay.
What third D'rashah does he learn from there?

(c) According to Rav Sheishes, once the laborer has agreed to receive his wages from the storekeeper, he cannot retract.
What are the ramifications of this statement?

(d) What does Rabah say?

3) Rabah proves his ruling from our Mishnah, which states that in such a case, the hirer does not transgress, implying that he may retract (since the Tana does not say to the contrary).
How does Rav Sheishes counter this proof?
How does he interpret the Mishnah's statement?


(a) They asked Rav Sheishes whether Kablanus is subject to 'bal Talin' or not.
What did they mean by 'Kablanus'?

(b) Given that the She'eilah is based on whether 'Uman Koneh bi'Sh'vach K'li' or not, what are the two sides of the She'eilah?

(c) Rav Sheishes replied 'Over'.
How did he then establish the Beraisa which says 'Eino Over'?

(a) What does another Beraisa say about someone who gives his cloak to a craftsman, if he ...
  1. ... completed the job and informed the owner that it is ready?
  2. ... returned the cloak at midday?
(b) What do we try to prove with this?
(a) Rav Mari B'rei de'Rav Kahana refutes the proof by establishing the Beraisa by a teasler (whose job is to soften the cloth).
How does this ostensibly refute the proof?

(b) We ask on this however, that when all's said and done, the garment is improved, inasmuch as it is warmer, and we therefore establish the Beraisa when the owner gave the Uman the garment 'le'Bitushi'.
What does this mean?

(c) And how does this answer the Kashya? Why would 'Uman Koneh bi'Sh'vach K'li not apply here in any case?

Answers to questions



(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Sachir bi'Zemano Nishba ve'Notel'. What problem do we have with ...
  1. ... this ruling?
  2. ... with Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's initial explanation 'Halachos Gedolos Shanu Ka'an'? What does 'Halachos' imply?
  3. ... his second answer 'Takanos Gedolos Shanu Ka'an'?
(b) Rav Nachman finally cites Shmuel, who answers 'Takanos Kevu'os Shanu Ka'an'. What does 'Kevu'os' mean?

(c) We initially ascribe this switch to the need for the Sachir to earn a Parnasah.
What is wrong with this answer?

(d) And what is wrong with answering that ...

  1. ... the Socher himself is only too pleased with this Takanah, because it will encourage potential laborers to hire themselves out?
  2. ... we cannot use this argument with regard to the laborer, because he has no option but to hire himself out?
(a) So to what do we finally attribute the Takanah? Why *did* Chazal switch the Shevu'ah?

(b) In that case, why is a Shevu'ah necessary? Let the laborer claim without a Shevu'ah?

(c) Then why did Chazal not dispense with the need to swear, by requiring the Socher to pay ...

  1. ... with witnesses (failing which, the Sachir will be believed)?
  2. ... in the morning before he begins working (in which case, the Sachir will certainly not have been paid yet)?
(a) Whom does the Tana of the Beraisa believe in a case where the Sachir claims two Dinrim, and the Socher says that he promised him only one?

(b) How do we explain this in light of the statement 'Socher Tarud be'Po'alav'? Perhaps he forgot here too?

(c) And why did the Tana of our Mishnah then say 'Avar Zemano, Eino Nishba ve'Notel'? Why did the Chachamim not believe the laborer there, too?

(d) Why do we believe the Socher in this case more than the Sachir? Surely if he already received his wages, he would not claim a second time?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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