POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Bava Basra 44
BAVA BASRA 44-55 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of
love for the Torah and for those who study it.
1) TESTIMONY THAT MAY HELP THE WITNESS (cont.)
(a) Question: Why not establish the Beraisa even simpler,
Reuven stole Shimon's field (and did not sell it), and
Yehudah claims that it was his; Shimon cannot testify for
Reuven, as we explained above.
(b) Answer: We establish the beginning of the Beraisa
regarding a sale for parallel structure with the end of
the Beraisa, regarding a cow or garment;
1. The case of a cow or garment can only be established
regarding a sale, since Shimon (the original owner)
despaired and it changed domain (so the buyer keeps
(c) Question: Regarding a cow or garment, even if he despairs
from getting back the stolen object, he does not despair
of getting back his money (so he stands to gain from his
testimony, why can he testify?)!
2. If it was not sold, it would revert to the owner, so
Shimon could not testify about it.
(d) Answer: The case is, the thief (Reuven) died;
1. (Mishnah): David stole from Moshe and fed the stolen
object to his sons, or left it to them and died -
they need not return it to Moshe or pay Moshe (if
Moshe despaired before David died (so the sons
acquire through despair and change of domain), or if
they already ate it).
(e) Question: Once we establish the Beraisa when Reuven died,
even if he did not sell it, Shimon can testify for
(f) Answer #1: According to the opinion that the domain of an
heir is unlike the domain of a buyer, the heir would have
to return it, (we understand why) Shimon could not
(g) Question #1: According to the opinion that the domain of
an heir is like the domain of a buyer, also the heir need
not return it, the question remains;
(h) Question #2 (against Rav Sheshes - Abaye): The Beraisa
explains that the difference between the cases is whether
there is Achrayus (i.e. the seller must compensate the
buyer if the land is taken) - according to Rav Sheshes,
the difference is whether or not Shimon gets back his
(i) Answer #2 (to Question 3:c, 43B - Ravin bar Shmuel): The
Beraisa says, if Reuven sold a house or field (even
without Achrayus), he cannot testify about it, for this
will enable his creditor to collect it;
1. If he sold a cow or garment, he can testify about
it, for a creditor cannot collect it (from the
2. This is even if the loan document empowers the
creditor to collect 'from the shirt off his back',
that only applies when the borrower still owns it;
(j) Question: We should be concerned that Reuven gave his
creditor a lien on the cow or garment Agav (along with)
land (for then the creditor can collect from them, so
Reuven gains from his testimony)!
3. This is even if Reuven made the cow or garment an
Apotiki from which the loan will be collected,
because of Rava'a law.
i. (Rava): If one made his slave an Apotiki and
sold him, the creditor collects him; if an
animal was made an Apotiki and sold, the
creditor does not collect it.
ii. Question: What is the reason?
iii. Answer: A sale of a slave has publicity, a sale
of an animal does not (so the buyer did not
know to beware).
1. (Rabah): Metaltelim are acquired Agav land (not only
absolutely, but also regarding a lien).
(k) Answer: The case is, he sold a cow or garment right after
buying it (surely, he did not borrow in between).
2. (Rav Chisda): This is only if the document says
'this is not Asmachta (an exaggerated, insincere
promise) nor a mere form document (from which one
copies the text).'
(l) Question: Perhaps he (borrowed before he bought it, and)
gave the creditor rights to collect from 'd'Ikni (what I
1. Suggestion: This teaches that a stipulation 'd'Ikni'
does not enable the creditor to collect the property
from one who bought or inherited it from the
borrower (only as long as it is still in the domain
of the borrower)!
(m) Answer: No, the case is that witnesses say that Reuven
never owned land (so we need not worry that he gave a
lien Agav land).
(n) Question: But Rav Papa taught, even though one who sells
land without Achrayus, the buyer has no claim against the
seller if it is taken by a creditor, if it the seller did
not own it! (Therefore, Reuven profits from his
(o) Answer: The case is, the buyer admits that Reuven owned
the cow or garment.
(p) (Rav Zvid): One who sells land without Achrayus, the
buyer has no claim against the seller even if the seller
did not own it (and the true owner takes it from the
1. The buyer can say, this is why I sold it without