(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 118


(a) In the case in our Mishnah (where the Tana the owner of the vegetable-garden to plant in the area of the oil-press, if the floor of his garden caved in), Rav confines 'caved in' to the majority of the ceiling. What does Shmuel say?

(b) What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(c) Having argued over the same point with regard to ...

  1. ... the ceiling of a two-story apartment that collapsed, why do they find it necessary to repeat the Machlokes here?
  2. ... here, why do they need to repeat the Machlokes in the case of a two-story apartment that collapsed?
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if, after Shimon accepts Reuven's offer, the latter then offers to pay the former for his expenses and wants his stones back, Shimon is entitled to refuse.
What do we extrapolate from the fact that the Tana refers specifically to such a case?

(b) This appears to clash with a statement by Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina.
Why is that? What did Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina say about a person's field acquiring for him?

(c) How do we reconcile Rebbi Yossi with our Mishnah?

(a) Our Mishnah presents two cases where Reuven cannot force Shimon to accept the goods that he offers, and that, once Shimon has accepted them, Reuven cannot retract.
Having taught us these two Chidushim in the case of ...
  1. ... the wall that fell into Shimon's vegetable-garden, why does the Tana need to repeat them by the case of the laborer and the haystack?
  2. ... the laborer and the haystack, why does he need to repeat them by the case of the wall that fell into Shimon's vegetable-garden?
(b) We learned in a Beraisa that an employer can force his employee to accept goods as payment, seemingly clashing with our Mishnah. We cannot establish the Beraisa when the employer employed someone to work for him, but then took him to someone else's field, Rav Nachman explained to Rava, because of another Beraisa.
What does the Tana there say about such a case?

(c) We therefore establish it by Hefker instead.
On what basis can he then force him to accept the goods as payment?

(d) Why does the principle 'ha'Magbi'a Metzi'ah la'Chavero, Kanah Chavero' not apply here?

(a) Rava then queries Rav Nachman from another Beraisa. What distinction does the Tana make there between an employer who says 'Weed or dig with me today' or 'Work with me today'? Why is this a Kashya on Rav Nachman?

(b) So Rav Nachman finally establishes both the Mishnah and the Beraisa by Hefker.
How must the Beraisa, which authorizes the employer to force the employee to take what he made as wages, be speaking? On what principle is this answer based?

(a) We learned in a Mishnah in Shekalim 'Shomrei S'fichei Shevi'is Notlin S'charan mi'Terumas ha'Lishkah'.
What are the Shomrei S'fichei Shevi'is guarding?

(b) What does Rebbi Yossi say?

(c) What do the Chachamim counter?

(d) How does Rav Nachman establish the basis of their Machlokes?

(a) Rava disagrees with Rav Nachman. In the first Lashon, he maintains, everyone holds 'Habatah be'Hefker Kani'.
Then what does *he* consider the basis of their Machlokes? What did the Rabbanan mean when they said 'Atah Omer Kein! li'Devarecha Ein Ba'in mi'Shel Tzibur'?

(b) In which major issue does the second Lashon of Rava differ from the first?

(c) What is then the basis of their Machlokes?

(d) And what do the Rabbanan now mean when they say 'Atah Omer Kein! li'Devarecha Ein Ba'in mi'Shel Tzibur'?

(e) Why do we have good reason to rule like the second Lashon?

Answers to questions



(a) What does the Tana of our Mishnah mean when he says (with regard to someone who is clearing manure out into the street) 'ha'Motzi Motzi, ve'ha'Mezabel Mezabel'.

(b) If the Tana permits mixing cement in the street, why does he forbid ...

  1. ... soaking cement there?
  2. ... manufacturing bricks?
(c) Under what conditions may a builder place his bricks in the street?

(d) Even if he does however, he will be liable, should his bricks cause damage.
What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel say?

(a) We establish that the author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Yehudah.
What does Rebbi Yehudah say about placing manure in the street?

(b) How do we initially try to reconcile Rebbi Yehudah with our Mishnah?

(c) How do we then attempt to explain Rebbi Yehudah's statement in the Mishnah in Bava Kama 'Rebbi Yehudah Poter Mipnei she'Hu Asah *bi'Reshus*' to conform with our previous statement?

(d) We are forced to retract however, due to a statement of his in another Beraisa. What does Rebbi Yehudah say there in response to the Rabbanan, who obligate even those who are permitted to temporarily spoil the Reshus ha'Rabim, to pay?

(a) Which two Tana'im have we now quoted who hold 'Kol Makom she'Nasnu Chachamim Reshus, ve'Hizik, Patur'?

(b) Abaye adds Rebbi Shimon to the list.
What does the Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Bava Basra say about Reuven who lives in the attic, and who wants to fix an oven in his apartment (assuming that Shimon lives on the ground floor),? What is the minimum thickness of cement that he is obligated to use to fix it to the floor, in the case of a ...

  1. ... Tanur?
  2. ... a Kirah (a slightly cooler version of a Tanur)?
(c) What is the Machlokes there between Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan?
(a) If someone mines a stone and hands it to the stone-cutter, or if the latter hands it to the ass-driver ... to the porter ... to the builder ... to the foreman, whom does the Beraisa consider liable should the stone cause damage or itself fall and become damaged?

(b) Who will be liable, if, after the foreman put the stone in place on the building, it fell off and caused damage?

(c) Why is the foreman alone not liable?

(d) How do we reconcile this Beraisa with another Beraisa, which obligates specifically the foreman in the latter case?

(a) Rebbi Meir rules that vegetables growing on the wall that divides between Reuven's upper garden and Shimon's lower one belong to Reuven.
Why is that?

(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah, they belong to Shimon.
How does he counter Rebbi Meir's argument?

(c) How does Rebbi Meir counter Rebbi Yehudah's argument?

(d) Rebbi Shimon draws a distinction between vegetables that grow within Reuven's reach and those that grow lower down.
Why is that? Like whom does he hold?

(a) How does Rava qualify our Mishnah? What distinction does he draw between the roots and the 'branches' (that protrude into Shimon's air-space?

(b) What is then the basis of their Machlokes?

(a) In which other regard does the Tana of the Beraisa cite the same Machlokes?

(b) Why does the ground on which the tree stands not automatically belong to Reuven?

(c) Why will Rebbi Meir (who holds that whatever grows from the branches belongs to the owner of the field) concede that Shimon is nevertheless forbidden to cut off the branches that spread over his field, even though the shade is bad for it?

(d) Up to what height from the foot of the tree are new branches that grow, subject to Orlah?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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