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 32
BAVA BASRA 31 & 32 - these Dafim have been dedicated anonymously
l'Iluy Nishmas Tzirel Nechamah bas Tuvya Yehudah.
1) CONCERN FOR THE HONOR OF BEIS DIN
(a) Question: R. Elazar and R. Shimon ben Gamliel say the
2) A MIGO SUPPORTING A DOCUMENT
1. R. Elazar says that even one person can challenge
his lineage, R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, two are
(b) Answer #1: Rather, they argue in a case when two
2. Rejection: R. Yochanan taught, all agree that two
are needed to challenge.
1. The case is, we know that David's father is a Kohen;
there were rumors that David's mother was divorced
or a Chalutzah,
(c) Objection (Rav Ashi): The Mishnah implies that two
witnesses always suffice to establish someone to be a
2. Beis Din put David's status in question until it
would be researched; one witness said that David is
a valid Kohen, and he was re-established as a Kohen.
3. Two witnesses then came and said that his mother was
divorced or a Chalutzah, so Beis Din declared that
he is not a Kohen; another witness came and said
that David is a Kohen.
4. All agree that the first and last witnesses, in
general, could be joined; they argue if we are
concerned for disgrace to Beis Din.
5. R. Elazar says, we are concerned - since Beis Din
disqualified him, they do not reinstate him;
6. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, they reinstate him, we
are not concerned for disgrace to Beis Din.
1. If R. Elazar is concerned for disgrace to Beis Din,
even if two witnesses come together (after others
disqualified him), we would not reinstate him!
(d) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): Rather, all agree that we are not
concerned for disgrace to Beis Din;
1. They argue about when we can join witnesses, as R.
Noson and Chachamim argue (in the end of this
2. (Beraisa): Two witnesses cannot testify together
unless they saw the testimony together; R. Yehoshua
ben Korchah says, even if they saw the testimony at
different times, they join.
3. We cannot join the testimony of two witnesses unless
they testify together;
4. R. Noson says, they can testify at different times.
(a) Reuven challenged Shimon 'What are you doing on my
field?' Shimon said 'I bought it - here is the document'.
(b) Reuven: That is a forgery!
3) BORROWING BACK MONEY THAT WAS PAID UP
(c) Shimon whispered to Rabah (who was judging the case):
'Indeed, it is a forgery, but I had a proper document and
lost it.' (The case is, Shimon could have validated the
(d) Rabah: Shimon is believed - if he wanted to lie, he could
have insisted that it is a proper document!
(e) Rav Yosef: We cannot rule in Shimon's favor because of
the document, we now know that the document is a forgery!
(f) Levi asked Yehudah to pay the money he owes, and showed
the loan document.
(g) Yehudah: That is a forgery!
(h) Levi whispered to Rabah: 'Indeed, it is a forgery, but I
had a proper document and lost it.'
(i) Rabah: Levi is believed, for he could have insisted that
it is a proper document!
(j) Rav Yosef: We cannot rule in his favor because of the
document, we now know that it is a forgery!
(k) (Rav Idi bar Avin): The Halachah follows Rav Yosef
regarding a dispute over money, the Halachah follows
Rabah in a dispute over land. (Rashbam - we are in doubt
whom the Halachah follows, so we leave the property where
it is; Tosfos - we only apply Migo to keep property, not
to take it.)
1. The Halachah follows Rabah in a dispute over land -
Shimon is now on the land, we leave him there;
2. The Halachah follows Rav Yosef regarding a dispute
over money - we leave the money where it is (by
(a) Reuven (the cosigner) told Shimon (the borrower) 'I paid
up your loan, here is the document - pay me back'.
(b) Shimon: I already paid you back!
(c) Reuven: But you borrowed the money back again!
(d) Shimon denied this.
(e) Question (Rav Idi bar Avin): What is the law?
1. Question (Abaye): Why are you asking? You yourself
said, the Halachah follows Rabah regarding land and
Rav Yosef regarding money!
i. (Since this is a case of money), we leave the
money where it is (with Shimon)!
ii. This is only if Reuven claims that Shimon
borrowed the money again, but if he says that
he never accepted the coins because they were
rubbed out or reddish, the document is still in
force, Shimon must pay.