ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 69
(a) In a Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini, the Tana describes how they used to mark
different areas with different markings to warn different people to keep
away. They would mark ...
1. ... a Kerem Reva'i by surrounding it with clods of earth - because just
as one could derive benefit from a clod of earth, so too, was one permitted
to derive benefit from a Kerem Revai (by redeeming the fruit).
(b) Before applying the lime - they would add water, to increase its
2. ... a Kerem of Orlah by surrounding it with broken pieces of tiles -
because the latter, like the former, was not subject to benefit.
3. ... a grave by surrounding it with lime - because the white lime was
reminiscent of the dead bones.
(c) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel restricts these practices to the Sh'mitah
year - when people were permitted to enter the fields and the vineyards to
take fruit, but not to other years, where entry into private fields was
forbidden, and those people who did enter and help themselves were Resha'im
who did not deserve assistance to prevent them from sinning.
(d) The Tzenu'in - used to put down a sum of money and declare that whatever
had already been picked was redeemed on that money.
(a) This S'tam Mishnah poses a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan - because in his
opinion, one cannot declare Hekdesh an article that is not in one's
jurisdiction. Therefore, bearing in mind that Rebbi Yochanan always follows
the opinion of a S'tam Mishnah, the owner should not be able to redeem
Revai fruits which are currently in the Ganav's jurisdiction.
(b) We refute the answer that the author of the Mishnah is Raban Shimon ben
Gamliel (in which case it is no longer a S'tam Mishnah but a minority
opinion) - because even if it is, Rebbi Yochanan tends to follow the opinion
of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, when it appears in a Mishnah.
(c) In fact, only three cases in the whole of Shas is the Halachah not like
Raban Shimon ben Gamliel ('Arev', 'Tzidon' and 'Re'ayah Acheronah').
(d) Initially, in order to accommodate Rebbi Yochanan, we amend the
Mishnah - from 'Kol ha'Nilkat' to 'Kol ha'Mislaket' (which means that the
owner is declaring whatever is going to be picked redeemed on the designated
money, in which case the fruit *is* still in his juristiction (See Tosfos DH
(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, the owner would declare Hefker
each morning 'Kol she'Yilketu' (all Leket that the poor would collect in the
course of the day). This was necessary - because, even though all Leket is
Hefker anyway, that only pertains to *two* grains that the man collects
finds. Three is not Hefker, and it is to prevent a poor man, who unwittingly
picked up three grains together (or even one of three), that the owner would
declare them Hefker. The sin of course, is that believing the grains to be
Hefker, he would eat them without Ma'asering them.
(b) According to Rebbi Dosa, the owner would say (not 'Kol she'Yilketu' each
morning, but) 'Kol ha'Nilkat' in the evening (pertaining to whatever the
poor had already picked that day).
(c) Rebbi Yochanan said that the Tzenu'in and Rebbi Dosa were of the same
thing ('Kol ha'Nilkat'), refuting our amendment of the Mishnah in Ma'aser
Sheini (which changed 'Kol ha'Nilkat' to 'Kol ha'Mislaket').
(d) We answer that the Beraisa too, needs to be amended, and that we must
switch the opinions of Rebbi Dosa and Rebbi Yehudah (in which case Rebbi
Dosa and the Tzenu'in both hold 'Kol she'Yilketu' [which is the equivalent
of 'Kol ha'Mislaket']). We query this answer however, on the grounds that -
in that case, why do we not rather amend Rebbi Yochanan's statement to read
that 'the Tzenu'in and Rebbi Yehudah (and not Rebbi Dosa) say one and the
same thing (rather than emend two Beraisos)?
(a) We reply that in any event we are forced to switch the opinions of Rebbi
Yehudah and Rebbi Dosa, because the stated opinion of Rebbi Yehudah with
regard to 'Bereirah' creates a problem with another statement of his in
another Beraisa. If, as we initially quoted him, Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Kol
she'Yilketu', then he automatically holds 'Yesh Bereirah'.
(b) Rebbi Meir holds that if someone buys wine from a Kuti late on Friday
afternoon, he declares Terumah, Ma'aser and Ma'aser Sheini in advance of the
actual separation. Sure it will be a matter of Bereirah when he later
separates them - but Rebbi Meir holds 'Yesh Bereirah'.
(c) The owner separates from a hundred Lugin of wine ...
1. ... two Lugin for Terumah ...
(d) Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon - forbid him to do this,
because we currently believe, they hold 'Ein Bereirah'.
2. ... ten Lugin (in reality, 9.8 will suffice) for Ma'aser Rishon ...
3. ... and nine, for Ma'aser Sheini.
(a) We may have now resolved Rebbi Yehudah's statements, concluding that he
holds 'Ein Bereirah'. But we are still faced with a contradiction in Rebbi
Yochanan (in whose opinion both the Tzenu'in and Rebbi Dosa hold 'Yesh
Bereirah') because Rav Asi says in his name - that if brothers divide their
deceased father's property, they are like purchasers from one another (since
he holds 'Ein Bereirah'), and the property must be redistributed in the
(b) We finally conclude - that Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Kol ha'Mislaket' ...
(c) ... despite the Tzenu'in who hold 'Kol ha'Nilkat - because Rebbi
Yochanan has the support of none other than our Mishnah (as we shall now
(a) Rebbi Yochanan extrapolates from our Mishnah 'Ein ha'Gonev Achar
ha'Ganav Meshalem Tashlumei Kefel' that the owner cannot declare Hekdesh an
article over which he has no jurisdiction (i.e. he is not currently
considered the owner) - from the fact that otherwise, granted he is exempt
from paying Kefel to *the Ganav* (due to the Pasuk "ve'Gunav mi'Beis
ha'Ish"), but why is he Patur from paying the owner?
(b) We reconcile Rebbi Yehudah (whose initial statement of 'Kol she'Yilketu'
we have reinstated) with his opinion in the Beraisa in D'mai, where he
forbids the owner to declare Ma'aser on Erev Shabbos and to Ma'aser it after
he has drunk it (not because he holds 'Ein Bereirah', as we thought until
now, but) - because of a decree in case the jar which contains the Tevel,
breaks before he has managed to Ma'aser the contents, in which case all
those who drank from the wine will have drunk Tevel retroactively.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan extrapolate the opinion of our S'tam Mishnah (rather than
the S'tam Mishnah of Tzenu'in) from the Pasuk "ve'Ish Ki Yakdish es Beiso
Kodesh" - 'Mah Beiso bi'Reshuso' (because of the principle 'Karka Einah
Nigzeles'), Af Kol bi'Reshuso' (preculding the possibility of declaring
Hekdesh, Metaltelin over which he has no jurisdiction).
(a) Abaye points out that had Rebbi Yochanan not equated the opinion of the
Tzenu'in with that of Rebbi Dosa, he would have said that Rebbi Dosa (who
talks about the poor collecting Leket), disagrees with the Tzenu'in (who
talk about a Ganav picking fruit from a Kerem Revai) - because it is one
thing to make a Takanah on behalf of poor people who inadvertently collect
what they are not entitled to, but quite another, to make one on behalf of
(b) The Tzenu'in, on the other hand, agree wholeheartedly with Rebbi Dosa -
because if they hold that Chazal made a Takanah on behalf of thieves, then
they certainly made one for the poor.
(a) In similar style, Rava points out that, were it not for Rebbi Yochanan's
statement, he would have established the Tzenu'in like Rebbi Meir, who holds
'Ma'aser Mamon Gavohah Hu'. And we subsequently learn from the Pasuk "ve'Im
Yig'al Ish mi'Ma'asro" - that even though the Ma'aser belongs to Hekdesh and
not to the owner, the Torah considers him the owner (by differentiating
between him and someone else who comes to redeem it).
And in similar style again, Ravina states that, if not for Rebbi Yochanan,
he would have established the author of the Beraisa of Tzenu'in as Rebbi
Dosa. What he would have gained by doing so is - that the Mishnah of
Tzenu'in would no longer be a S'tam Mishnah, but an individual opinion, in
which case the original Kashya we asked on Rebbi Yochanan would fall away.
(b) Rava then connects the Tzenu'in with Rebbi Meir via the Pasuk (in
connection with Neta Revai) "Kodesh Hilulim", by means of the
'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Kodesh" and "ve'Chol Ma'aser ha'Aretz ... *Kodesh*", to
teach us that Neta Revai, like Ma'aser Sheini, is considered the owner's,
even though it is not under his jurisdiction.
(c) The Tzenu'in would then hold - that in the case of Rebbi Dosa (who says
'Kol ha'Nilkat ... '), the owner would not have the power to declare his
crops Hefker, once they have been picked.
(d) Rebbi Yochanan therefore informs us that this is not so, but that
'Tzenu'in ve'Rebbi Dosa Amru Davar Echad', because these Tana'im hold that
one never needs one's articles to be in one's jurisdiction to be considered
the owner. Consequently, it even extends to declaring Hefker the Leket which
the poor had already collected, too (provided the owner has not despaired
from retrieving it).