ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 157
(a) Our Mishnah discusses a case where a house fell on Reuven and his father
Ya'akov, or on Reuven and his Morishin - his next of kin other than his
father (e.g. his paternal uncle, or his brothers).
(b) The bone of contention between Ya'akov's heirs and Reuven's wife or
creditor (based on the fact that Reuven left nothing of his own) is - who
died first; Reuven (in which case, the father's heirs inherit everything,
and Reuven's creditors have no claim); or Ya'akov (in which case, Reuven
too, inherits part of Ya'akov's property, to which they now have rights).
(c) When Beis Hillel say 'Nechasim be'Chezkasan' - they mean in the Chazakah
of the father's heirs, who are considered heirs either way (and not to
Reuven's creditors, who only inherit in the event that Ya'akov died first
(and we have a principle 'Ein Safek Motzi Midei Vaday').
(d) Beis Shamai argue (and say 'Yachloku') - on the basis of their own
opinion elsewhere, that if someone has a Kasher Sh'tar, it is as if he had
already claimed it in Beis-Din, in which case, the property is as much in
the Chazakah of the creditors as of the heirs.
(a) The Mishnah in 'Get Pashut' teaches - that the creditor may claim a
Milveh bi'Sh'tar from Meshubadim (from the purchaser), but not a Milveh al
(b) The reason for this distinction - lies in the fact that where there is a
Sh'tar, there is a Kol, which enables the would-be purchaser to make the
necessary inquiries and spare himself a loss. In the case of a Milveh al Peh
on the other, where there is no Kol, the purchaser would be helpless, if the
creditor was able to claim from him.
(c) In the case of a Milveh bi'Sh'tar, the creditor may claim from the
Lekuchos, even if Acharayus was not inserted in the Sh'tar - because
creditors expects this form of insurance against loss, and the omission is
therefore an error on the part of the Sofer.
(d) The creditor may not however, claim from Meshubadim, if there are B'nei
(a) Shmuel asks whether 'de'Ikni ve'Kanah' is included in the Shibud, by
which he means to ask - whether property that the debtor subsequently
purchases and then sells is included in the Shibud, should the debtor
(b) Shmuel's She'eilah is not relevant according to Rebbi Meir - because if
one can acquire something that is not yet in the world, one can certainly
place a Shibud on it.
(c) His She'eilah, according to the Rabbanan, is - whether, even though one
cannot sell something that is not yet in the world, he can at least place a
Shibud on it.
(d) A Shibud might be different than a Kinyan in this regard - either
because the land was already in the world, even though he did not yet own
it, or because the Rabbanan strengthened the Shibud of the creditor, so that
people should be assured of retrieving their loans and therefore be willing
to lend money to the poor (a Takanah known as 'Ne'ilas Delles', which
describes what it prevents).
(a) The Mishnah in Kesuvos discusses a case where Reuven produces a
Sh'tar-Chov against Shimon, and Shimon counters this by producing a Sh'tar
that Reuven sold him a field. His argument is - that if as Reuven claims, he
(Shimon) still owes him money, why did he sell him a field, instead of
claiming the money directly to pay his debt?
(b) Admon accepts Shimon's argument. The Chachamim counter - that, on the
contrary, Reuven was smart in landing Shimon a field which he is now able to
claim in lieu of his debt.
(c) Rav Yosef tries to prove from the Chachamim that 'de'Ikni' is Meshubad
(seeing as Shimon purchased the field after the loan took place). Rava
however, refutes this proof - on the grounds that it is obvious that the
creditor can claim from the debtor himself (just like he can claim even 'the
shirt on his back', which is Metaltelin). Our She'eilah concerns claiming
from the Purchaser, which remains a She'eilah.
(d) Besides claiming a (later) field from the *Lekuchos*, the She'eilah also
incorporates - claiming a later field from the *heirs*.
(a) Rav Chana tries to resolve our She'eilah from the case of 'Naflah
ha'Bayis Alav ve'al Aviv' in our Mishnah, where the father died first - and
where the creditor now claims from the son, property which he inherited from
his father (which he did not own at the time of the loan), a clear proof
that 'de'Ikni ve'Kanah, Mishtabed'.
(b) Rav Nachman refutes the proof, quoting Ze'ira Chavrin, who points out
that our Mishnah is referring specifically to Yorshin, on whom there lies a
Mitzvah to pay their father's debts (even without having written 'de'Ikni'
in the Sh'tar). By Lekuchos, on the other hand, it is still possible to hold
'de'Ikni ve'Kamah, Lo Mishtabed'.
(c) Rav Ashi refutes this however, by quoting a statement of Rav and Shmuel,
who rule - that the creditor cannot claim a Milveh al Peh from the Yorshin,
as well as from the Lekuchos.
(d) And this case pertains to a Milveh al Peh - since the property was only
acquired later, and was therefore not included in the Sh'tar.
(a) We cannot answer that we do not hold like Rav and Shmuel - since it was
Shmuel who posed the She'eilah in the first place, and if 'de'Ikni' is not
Meshubad, he will be faced with a Kashya based on his own statement.
(b) We reconcile Shmuel's She'eilah with our Mishnah - by establishing the
author of the Mishnah as Rebbi Meir (who holds 'Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba
le'Olam'), whilst Shmuel asked his She'eilah according to the Rabbanan, as
we explained earlier.
(a) We have learned in the Mishnah in Shevi'is 'Sh'tarei-Chov ha'Mukdamin,
Pesulin, ve'ha'Me'ucharin Kesheirin'. A Sh'tar-Chov ...
1. ... Mukdam' is - a Sh'tar-Chov that is pre-dated, either retroactively at
the time of the loan, or because it was written before the loan took place.
(b) The former is Pasul - because the Lekuchos, who will purchase land from
the debtor without being aware of the as yet undocumented loan, have no way
of safeguarding themselves from the creditor.
2. ... Me'uchar' is - a Sh'tar-Chov that is post-dated, either at the time
of the loan, or because it was only written later.
(c) Rav Ya'akov from Nehar Pakud in the name of Ravina tries to prove from
the fact that a Sh'tar-Chov Me'uchar is Kasher - that de'Ikni Kanah
u'Machar, de'Ikni Kanah u'Mishtabed' must be Kasher.
(d) We refute Ravina's proof too - by establishing the author of the Mishnah
in Shevi'is as Rebbi Meir.
(a) According to Rebbi Meir, if they did not insert ...
1. ... Achrayus in the Sh'tar at all - the creditor cannot claim from
(b) We did not ask from this case on Shmuel - because it is uncommon to
insert Achrayus in a Sh'tar in halves (i.e. general Shibud, but not
2. ... 'de'Ikni' in a Sh'tar-Chov Me'uchar - the Sh'tar is Pasul (like our
(a) The Mishnah in Gitin discusses Sh'vach Karka'os - which is the
improvements that a purchaser made in a field before the seller's creditor
claimed it, and which the purchaser then reclaims from the seller.
(b) The Beraisa rules - that he may claim a. the Keren from Meshubadim, and
b. the Sh'vach, only from B'nei-Chorin.
(c) Rav Mesharshaya in the name of Rava tries to prove from here - that
de'Ikni Lo Mishtabed', because if it was, what right would the creditor have
to claim the Sh'vach from the purchaser in the first place?
(d) We refute this proof, too - by establishing the author as Rebbi Meir.
(a) On the assumption that 'de'Ikni ... Mishtabed', we ask - if he borrowed
twice and then acquired what the Din will be in a case where the borrower
borrowed twice and then acquired property - which of the two creditors has
the rights to it.
(b) According to Rav Nachman, this She'eilah was asked of the B'nei Eretz
Yisrael, who replied that the first creditor has the right to the
newly-acquired property. Rav Huna says 'Yachloku' - and Rabah bar Avuhah
says 'Yachloku, too.
(c) By 'Yachloku', they mean - in proportion to the loan.
(a) Ravina quotes the Mahadura Kama of Rav Ashi and the Mahadura Basra. The
significance of ...
1. ...Mahadura Kama with regard to Rav Ashi - is that it comprised the first
thirty years of his life, when he finished all his learning the first time
round, and Mahadura Basra, the second thirty years (Rav Ashi lived sixty
years), when he finished it the second time round.
(b) Rav Ashi ruled in ...
2. ... the Chodshei ha'Kalah - is that each Nisan and Tishri, he would
review all his current learning.
1. ... the Mahadura Kama - that the first creditor had the rights to the
property, but ...
(c) The Halachah is - 'Yachloku'.
2. ... in the Mahadura Basra - 'Yachlohu'.
(a) Quoting once more from the Beraisa 'li'Shevach Karka'os Keitzad ... ',
we query the previous ruling from the conclusion of the Beraisa 've'es
ha'Shevach mi'Nechasim B'nei-Chorin' - which the purchaser only did after
the loan, and which implies that the latter borrower (the purchaser, in this
case) has the rights, and not 'Yachloku', as we just ruled.
(b) We refute this Kashya however - by interpreting the Beraisa to mean half
(c) When Shmuel rules in Bava Metzi'a 'Ba'al-Chov Govah es ha'Shevach' - he
too means half the Sh'vach.
(d) And when in Bava Metzi'a, he rules 'Govin es ha'Shevach', whereas here
he remains with the She'eilah - he is either referring to the opinion of
Rebbi Meir, or resolving his own She'eilah (following the principle 'Divrei
Torah Aniyim be'Makom Echad va'Ashirim be'Makom Acher' [the Gemara sometimes
omits something in one place, and explains it somewhere else].