ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 16
BAVA METZIA 11-17 - This study material has been produced with the help of
the Israeli ministry of religious affairs.
(a) If the Gazlan ...
1. ... before buying the stolen field (which he had already sold to Shimon -
see Hagahos ha'G'ra), sold it to Levi, bequeathed it to him in an
inheritance or gave it to him as a gift - it is clear that he is no longer
interested in remaining on good terms with Shimon, in which case the latter
will not be permitted to keep the field after the Gazlan buys it from the
(b) If he received the very same field as a Matanah, Rav Acha and Ravina
argue over whether it is as has the Din of an inherited field, or of a
purchased one. Despite the fact that he did nothing to procure it, the field
might nevertheless have the Din of a purchased one - because if the owner
gave it to the Gazlan as a gift, he must have done a favor first (which we
presume, was an effort on his part to keep in the purchaser's good books).
2. ... inherited the field that he stole and sold to Shimon - the latter
will not be permitted to keep the field, since this is not the result of the
Gazlan's efforts (and does not therefore prove that he is interested in
remaining on good terms with Shimon).
3. ... claimed the field in lieu of a debt (that the Nigzal owed him) - it
depends on whether the owner owned other fields (and the Gazlan made a point
of choosing the one that he sold to Shimon [a sure sign that he wants to
remain on good terms with Shimon]) or not (in which case it will have the
same Din as an inherited field).
(a) When Rav Huna says that it is only until 'Ha'amadah ba'Din' that the
Gazlan wishes to remain in the purchaser's good books, he means - until
Shimon takes him to Beis-Din to claim compensation for the field (because
the fact that the Gazlan allowed it to go so far, makes it clear that he is
not interested on remaining on good terms with Shimon).
(b) Chiya bar Rav says until he receives the Adrachta - the Sh'tar that
Beis-Din gives Shimon authorizing him to seize a suitable field as
compensation, should the Gazlan refuse to comply with their ruling to pay.
This normally takes place sixty days after the initial ruling.
(c) Rav Papa has a third opinion. He gives the Gazlan - another thirty days
to show his goodwill, up to the time that Beis-Din actually put the field
that Shimon chooses for sale on the market.
(a) Rami bar Chama asked how, according to Rav, the purchaser will acquire
the field. The problem is - that the Sh'tar with which he originally
acquired the field is now useless, so with which Kinyan does he acquire it?
(b) Rava replied that the fact that, under the circumstances, the Gazlan
went on his own initiative and bought the field on behalf of the purchaser
is evidence that he was Makneh the field with all his heart, in which case
no Kinyan is necessary.
(c) Rav Sheishes asked on Rav from a Beraisa. The Tana states there that, in
a case where someone sells ...
1. ... what he stands to inherit from his father or the animals that his
traps will catch - his words are in vain.
2. ... what he stands to inherit from his father *today* or the animals that
his traps will catch *today* - the Kinyan takes effect.
(a) Rami bar Chama remarked that the Kashya befitted the man who asked it,
to which Rava responded - that Rav Sheishes was indeed a great man, but that
he did not agree with his Kashya. In our case, he explained, the purchaser
had good reason to rely that the Gazlan would purchase the field (in order
to remain on good term's with him), whereas the purchaser in the Beraisa
would not rely on the seller, because he had no guarantee that the seller's
father would die, or that his traps would catch anything.
(b) When Rebbi Aba bar Zavda heard of Rav Sheishes Kashya, he exclaimed 'Zu
Einah Tzerichah le'Panim!' by which he meant - that there was no point in
even bringing the Kashya to the Beis-ha'Medrash, since no-one would be able
to answer it anyway.
(c) Rava's reaction was to reiterate what he had said to Rami bar Chama.
When Rav Yosef followed in the footsteps of Rebbi Aba bar Zavda - Abaye gave
the same answer as Rava.
(d) Rebbi Yochanan explains that, in the Seifa of the Beraisa (regarding the
man who sells what he stands to inherit from his father or the animals that
his traps will catch),where the seller added the word 'today', the Tana
validates the sale in the case of ...
1. ... 'Mah she'Irash me'Aba ... ' - because of 'Kavod Aviv' (since we
assume that he will need the money urgently to enable him to pay for his
2. ... 'Mah she'Ta'aleh Metzudasi ... ' - because it involves that day's
Parnasah (to have the means to feed himself and his family that day). Both
cases are in fact, a Takanas Chachamim).
(a) Rav Huna Amar Rav rules that if about Reuven sells Shimon the field that
he is about to purchase as from now - he acquires it.
(b) Rava qualifies Rav's statement - by restricting it to where the seller
sold him a S'tam field (since there are plenty of fields available, and the
purchaser relies on the seller keeping his word), but not to where he said
'Sadeh Zu' (where the seller is at the mercy of the current owner).
(c) He does not however, accept this qualification as Halachah - because he
concedes that Rav cannot have said it (as we shall now see).
(a) The reason that Rava does not accept his own qualification is because
Rav Huna, he points out, holds like Rebbi Meir, who rules - that if
someone betroths a woman as from now 'after he or she converts, after he or
she is set free, after her husband divorces her, or her Yavam performs
Chalitzah with her or after her sister dies' - the Kidushin is valid.
(b) This proves that Rav statement must have incorporated 'Sadeh Zu' -
because regarding most of the cases in the Beraisa, the Mekadesh is
dependent upon someone else's actions (to set him or her free ... ), which
is similar to 'Sadeh Zu', yet Rebbi Meir holds 'Mekudeshes'.
(a) We have already cited Shmuel, who permits the return of a Sh'tar
Hakna'ah that someone finds in the street. He is not afraid that ...
1. ... in fact, the loan never took place - because, even if it didn't, the
debtor obligated himself to pay.
(b) Rav Nachman recalled such a case with his father, who worked with
Shmuel's Beis-Din in Neherda'a - in the capacity of Sofer, and where they
announced that Sh'tarei Hakna'ah had been found.
2. ... the borrower already repaid the loan - because had the debtor paid,
he would have torn up the Sh'tar immediately.
(c) Rav Nachman was - six or seven years old at the time.
(a) Rav Amram attempts to prove from the Mishnah later 'Kol Ma'aseh
Beis-Din, Harei Zeh Yachzir' - that such a Sht'ar is indeed not subject to
the claim of 'Para'ti' (as we just explained).
(b) Rebbi Zeira tries to refute Rav Amram's proof by establishing the
Mishnah by Sh'tarei Chaltasa and Adrachta. A Sh'tar Chaltasa - concerns
Beis-Din's choice of a field belonging to a defiant debtor, which they
document and hand to the creditor, whereas a Sh'tar Adrachta is the Sh'tar
that they hand to him, following their failure to find a suitable field,
authorizing him to search himself for one himself (as we explained above).
(c) Rebbi Zeira presumes that these two Sh'taros are not subject to
'Para'ti'. Rava refutes this contention by quoting the Neherda'i, who
say - that 'Shuma' (a field belonging to the debtor assessed by the Beis-Din
on behalf of the creditor) can be redeemed with money up to twelve months.
(d) According to Ameimar, who was himself from Neherda'a - it can be
redeemed forever. Either way, we see that Shuma is subject to the claim of
(a) Rava refutes Rav Amram's argument in a slightly different way than Rebbi
Zeira. We learn from the Pasuk 've'Asisa ha'Yashar ve'ha'Tov' - that even
though strictly speaking, the creditor is under no obligation to return a
field once Beis-Din authorize him to claim it, it is nevertheless the right
thing to do should the debtor subsequently come up with the money ('Shuma
(b) This negates the debtor's chances of claiming 'Para'ti' - because, based
on the above, the creditor's return of the land to the debtor, is considered
a new transaction, in which case, he should have insisted that either the
creditor returns the Sh'tar Adrachta, or he writes him a fresh Sh'tar of
sale. Consequently, if he has no such Sh'tar, he has only himself to blame
for not being believed.
(c) On the other hand, in the case of a regular Sh'tar Hakna'ah, the debtor
might be believed to claim 'Para'ti' - because, when he asks for the Sh'tar
to be returned, the creditor sometimes fails to comply; either because he
claims to have mislaid it and will give it to him later, or against payment
of the Sh'tar, which the debtor ought to have paid, but which the creditor
(d) Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules that the finder is not permitted
to return a Sh'tar-Chov that he found in the street. The reason for this,
assuming that ...
1. ... it was not stamped by Beis-Din is - in case the Sh'tar was written
but not handed over (in which case the creditor will claim from the debtor
2. ... it was - because the debtor may have already paid.
(a) When Rebbi Yirmiyah queried Rebbi Avahu's previous ruling from the
Mishnah that we cited earlier 'Kol Ma'aseh Beis-Din Yachzir' - the latter
replied by establishing the Mishnah by 'Huchzak Kafran' (when the debtor was
proven on a previous occasion to have lied in Beis-Din), in which case he is
never again believed to deny a claim.
(b) Rava objects to this interpretation of the Mishnah however, on the
grounds - that the fact that he lied on another occasion is not sufficient
grounds to disqualify him from subsequently denying other claims claims.
(c) So *he* establishes the Mishnah by Sh'tarei Chaltasa and Adrachta (like
Rebbi Zeira did above), which are not subject to Para'ti (like he explained