ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 78
BAVA BASRA 78 & 79 - dedicated by an admirer of the work of the Dafyomi
Advancement Forum, l'Iluy Nishmas Mrs. Gisela (Golda bas Reb Chaim Yitzchak
Ozer) and Reb Yisroel Shimon (ben Reb Shlomo) Turkel, A"H.
(a) According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, the accessories of a donkey
(which will be explained in the Sugya) are not automatically sold together
with the donkey. Nachum ha'Madi rules - that they are.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah makes a compromise. According to him, if Shimon, pointing
to Reuven's donkey, says 'Sell me ...
1. ... this donkey of yours (Chamorcha Zeh)' he means - to purchase the
donkey as is (together with the accessories).
(c) The basis for this distinction lies in the fact - that in the former
case, Shimon knows for certain that the donkey belongs to Reuven, whereas in
the latter, he is in doubt (as Rava will explain later in the Sugya).
2. ... this donkey, assuming it is yours (Chamorcha Hu)', he means - to
purchase the donkey only.
(a) Ula establishes the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Nachum ha'Madi
by 'Sak, Diskaya and Kumni'. A Diskaya is a type of sack (see Rabeinu
Gershom). Rav Papa bar Shmuel translate 'Kumni' as - a sort of saddle
specially manufactured for women.
(b) In the case of a saddle, a saddle-cloth, or the strap or breast strap
that tie them in place, the Tana'im would agree - that they are all included
in the sale ...
(c) ... because most donkeys are designated for riding and not for
(d) The Din of Kumni differs from a regular saddle - because it is generally
men who ride donkeys. Consequently, as far as the incidence of use is
concerned, to purchase a donkey for women to ride on is comparable to
purchasing one for transportation.
(a) The Beraisa incorporates the saddle and the saddle-cloth ... (but not
the sacks and the Kumni) in the sale of the donkey, in a case where the
owner specifically stated 'the donkey and its accessories' but not the sacks
and the Kumni - unless the owner specifically stated 'Hi ve'Chol Mah
she'Alehah', in which case they are all included.
(b) We can extrapolate from there - that if he had not specifically stated
'the donkey and its accessories', the purchaser would not even acquire the
saddle ... (a Kashya on Ula, who said that both Tana'im agree that he
(c) We reconcile the Beraisa with Ula however - by establishing the Halachah
in the Reisha of the Beraisa even where he did not state 'the donkey and its
accessories', and the Tana only referred to where h did state it to teach us
that even then, the purchaser does not acquire the sacks and the Kumni.
(a) We ask whether the Tana Kama and Nachum ha'Madi argue when the donkey is
actually 'wearing' the accessories at the time of the sale. If it was not -
even Nachum ha'Madi would agree that the purchaser would not acquire them.
(b) Alternatively - they argue when the donkey is not wearing the
accessories, but if it was, even the Rabbanan will agree that he would
(c) We learned in a Beraisa 'u'vi'Zeman she'Amar Lo Hu ve'Chol Mah she'Alav
Harei Kulan Mechurin'. Initially we think this proves - that our Mishnah
must be speaking when the animal is wearing the accessories, and the author
of the Beraisa is the Rabbanan.
(d) However, we reconcile it even if we establish the Machlokes when the
donkey is not wearing the accessories - and what the Tana really meant to
write was 'u'vi'Zeman she'Amar Lo Hu ve'Chol Mah *she'Ra'uy* Lih'yos Alav,
Harei Kulan Mechurin', to concur with the opinion of the Rabbanan.
(a) We then attempt to resolve the She'eilah by quoting Rebbi Yehudah in our
Mishnah ('Pe'amim Mechurin, Pe'amim Einan Mechurin ... '), who speaks
specifically when the donkey is actually wearing the accessories (and so,
we assume, do the Tana Kama and Nachum ha'Madi who precede him).
(b) We refute that proof however - by establishing the other Tana'im, when
the donkey is not wearing the accessories.
(c) In that case, we will correlate Rebbi Yehudah with the Rabbanan - with
reference to what we can infer from their Machlokes (that both agree that
they are sold), and he comes to teach us that even then, there are times
when the accessories are not sold.
(a) Rebbi Avahu reconciled the Beraisa, which rules 'Machar es ha'Karon,
Machar es ha'Perados', with our Mishnah, which rules 'Lo Machar es
ha'Perados' - by establishing the Beraisa when the mules are hitched to the
cart, and the Mishnah, when they are not.
(b) We try to resolve our current She'eilah from there - inasmuch as we
would expect the Seifa 'ha'Mocher es ha'Chamor ... ' (our case) to speak
likewise when the donkey is not wearing the accessories.
(c) We query this proof however, from the Reisha (the Mishnah before)
'Machar es ha'Sefinah ... Aval Lo Machar es ha'Avadim ve'es *ha'Antiki'*,
which Rav Papa interpreted to mean the goods that the ship is transporting.
(d) We therefore query the proof from 'Machar es ha'Karon ... ' - by asking
why we compare 'Machar es ha'Chamor' to 'Machar es ha'Karon' (where the mule
is not hitched to the wagon), and not to 'ha'Mocher es ha'Sefinah' (where
the goods *are* loaded)?
(e) So we are forced to conclude - that each case is independent in this
regard, and we cannot learn one from the other.
(a) Abaye says - that Rebbi Eliezer, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, Rebbi Meir,
Rebbi Nasan, Sumchus and Nachum ha'Madi all hold that in one way or another,
the accessories of a main object are automatically sold together with the
(b) We will find the respective Mishnahs of Rebbi Eliezer ('ha'Mocher es
Beis ha'Bad, Machar es ha'Koreh') and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel ('ha'Mocher
es ha'Ir, Machar es ha'Santer') in - 'ha'Mocher es ha'Bayis.
(c) Rebbi Meir's ruling ('Machar es ha'Kerem, Machar Tashmishei Kerem')
differs technically from the other Tana'im - inasmuch as it is a Beraisa,
whereas all the others are Mishnos.
(d) Rebbi Nasan and Sumchus (Bitzis and Dugis) and Nachum ha'Madi (in the
current Mishnah), all appear in Mishnos in this Perek, Mishnos that we have
(a) Abaye does not mean to say that all the above Tana'im agree with each
other - since that is not the case.
(b) Abaye said 'Kulhu Sevira Lehu'. Had the Tana'im all been fully of one
accord, he would have said - ' ... Amru Davar Echad'.
(c) The only Tana of the above Tana'im to agree with the rulings of all the
others is - Rebbi Meir.
(a) The distinction our Mishnah makes between the sale of a donkey and the
sale of a cow with regard to their young is - that whereas in case of the
former, its baby (a Si'ach) is sold together with it, in the case of the
latter, it is not.
(b) What the sale of a trash-heap, a water-pit, a bee-hive and a dove-cot
have in common is the fact - that the Tana declared their respective
contents sold together with them.
(c) The Tana is referring to a trash-heap - which is three Tefachim deep or
tall, and where the owner tends to place the manure of his animals.
(d) The reasoning behind this ruling is that the contents of each of the
above is Tafel (secondary) to them, and will not therefore apply in the
(a) If the owner of the animal specifically stated that he was selling ...
1. ... the animal with its young one - it is obvious that both respective
babies would be included in the sale.
(b) Consequently, our Mishnah (which draws a distinction between a donkey
and a cow) must speak - when he said 'Chamor Menikah or 'Parah Menikah, Ani
2. ... the animal (period) - it is obvious that neither would.
(c) The reason for the difference, in this context, lies is the respective
meanings of 'Chamor Menikah' and 'Parah Menikah', as Rav Papa explains.
1. Parah Menikah means - a cow that has milk (since he did not mention the
(d) A young donkey is called 'Si'ach' (which means quiet speech) - because
it docilely follows its master's instructions (as opposed to an older one,
which only responds to a stick).
2. Chamor Menikah can only mean - a feeding donkey (incorporating its baby),
seeing as donkey's milk is forbidden.
(a) Rav Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan explains the Pasuk "Al-kein
Yomru ha'Moshlim ... ". He interpreted "Al-kein Yomru ha'Moshlim Bo'u
Cheshbon" to be an invitation to the "Moshlim" - the Tzadikim who control
their Yetzer-ha'Ra to come and make a reckoning ...
(b) ... of the (temporary) losses incurred by a Mitzvah against the
(permanent) gains, and of the (temporary) gains to be won by sinning against
the (permanent) losses.
(c) By 'Cheshbono shel Olam', he meant - that this was a major reckoning
that encompasses the world (of gigantic proportions).
(d) He interpreted ...
1. ... "Tibaneh ve'Sikonen" to mean - that if they respond to the Torah's
call, they will be built in this world and established in the next.
2. ... "Ir Sichon. Ki Eish Yatz'ah' me'Cheshbon" - that on the other hand
if, like donkeys, they go after (the) sweet talk (of the Yetzer-ha'Ra), then
a fire will go out from those who do make a reckoning and consume those who
don't (as we learned above, that one person will be burned by the other's
3. ... "ve'Lehavah mi'Kiryas Sichon" to continue - that the flame will
emanate from the town of the Tzadikim who are compared to trees (as we find
often in T'nach).
(a) By "Achlah Or Mo'av" - he was referring to those who follow their
Yetzer-ha'Ra like the donkey that goes after sweet talk, who as we just
explained, will be consumed by the flames that emanate from the Tzadikim.
According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, fire will consume someone who separates
from Torah-study. Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan says - that he will fall
(b) "Ba'alei Bamos Arnon" refers to conceited people, about whom Resh Lakish
said - they are destined to fall into Gehinom (where they too, will get
(c) And Rebbi Yonasan explains the continuation of the Pasuk ...
1. ... "va'Niram, Avad Cheshbon" to mean - that the Rasha claims 'Ein Ram'
(there is no G-d [ke'va'Yachol]), and no-one will take him to task for his
(d) "ad Meidva" might mean 'until it hurts', and it might mean - 'ad de'Avid
Mai de'Ba'i (until He [Hashem] gives him what he deserves [because in this
world they have it good, so as to drive them out of the World to Come]).
2. ... "ad Divon" - 'ad she'Yavo Din' (until the final reckoning arrives).
3. ... "va'Nashim ad Nofach" - 'ad she'Tavo Eish she'Einah Tzerichah
Nifu'ach' (until the fire comes that does not need to be fanned [i.e. the
fire of Gehinom]).