ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 84
BAVA BASRA 82-85 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor.
Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and
prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
(a) We refer to a case where Reuven sells Shimon something worth ...
1. ... five Dinrim for six as - 'Sh'tus Ma'os'.
(b) In fact, 'Sh'tus Ma'os' means - a fifth more (or less) than the price,
whereas 'Sh'tus Mekach' means - a sixth less (or more) than the price.
2. ... six Dinrim for five as - 'Sh'tus Mekach'.
(c) The Seifa of our Mishnah rules that when Reuven sold Shimon an article
worth six Dinrim for five, Reuven is permitted to retract. In fact - the
Tana might just as well have presented the case where he sold him one worth
seven, for six, because, as we just learned, there is no difference between
Sh'tus Ma'os and Sh'tus Mekach.
(d) This opinion is - not unanimous. It is the opinion of Rav Chisda in our
Sugya, who holds like Shmuel in Perek ha'Zahav.
(a) Rav Huna rules that in a case where Reuven sells Shimon something worth
five Dinrim for six, and then the price rises to eight, it is Shimon who has
the right to retract - because he is the one to have been cheated initially;
and not Reuven, since it is only because he overcharged Shimon in the first
place that the sale is not already concluded, so to allow him to then
retract after the price rises, would be akin to rewarding the sinner.
(b) The Chidush would be exactly the same if the price rose to seven Dinrim
(instead of eight), because Reuven would still be overcharged.
(c) 've'Tana Tuna' means - and we have a proof from our Mishnah' ('Tuna' is
equivalent to 'Tana Didan').
(d) His proof from our Mishnah 'Yafos ve'Nimtze'u Ra'os, Loke'ach Yachol
Lachzor Bo ve'Lo Mocher' is - from the fact that, if we did not establish
the Mishnah in a case when the price of wheat went up, there would be no
Chidush (since it is obvious that only the purchaser can retract, seeing as
he is the one who was cheated).
(a) In a case where he sells him something worth six Dinrim for five, and
the price drops to three, Rav Huna rules - that only the seller can retract,
and not the purchaser (based on the same argument as the previous case).
(b) And his proof is from the Seifa of our Mishnah - 'Ra'os ve'Nimtze'u
Yafos, Mocher Yachol Lachzor Bo, ve'Lo Loke'ach' (based on the same logic as
the previous proof from the Reisha).
(c) Even though both rulings seem to be contained in our Mishnah, we
nevertheless need Rav Chisda to teach them - because we might otherwise have
thought that in Rav Chisda's case both parties are permitted to retract
(seeing as at the end of the day, both of them are being overcharged).
(d) And our Mishnah, which is speaking when the price did not rise, would
then be teaching us ...
1. ... in the Reisha (where the wheat turned out to be inferior [according
to our text 'Ha Asa le'Ashme'inan de'Loke'ach Yachol Lachzor Bo']) - that
the purchaser can retract (and that we do not say that just as the purchaser
always claims that the article is inferior, so too, does the seller claim
that it is superior, and that consequently, even though the seller promised
him superior wheat, he anticipated that it would be inferior (in which case,
it ought not to be considered Ona'ah [M'lo ha'Ro'im]).
2. ... in the Seifa (where the wheat turned out to be superior) that the
seller can retract (and that we do not say that the purchaser always claims
that the article is inferior, but that really, the seller intended to give
him superior wheat [in which case, it is not considered Ona'ah]).
(a) Rav Papa extrapolates from our Mishnah 'Shechamtis ve'Nimtzas Levanah'
that the sun is red - since there are only two known color-species of wheat,
white and red.
(b) Otherwise, we would have thought that 'Shechamtis' means - black.
(c) We prove that the sun is really red - from the fact that that is how we
see it in the mornings and evenings.
(d) It appears white to us during the day - only because its brightness
distorts the color in our eyes.
(a) We cite a Beraisa in connection with Tzara'as "u'Mar'eihu Amok min
ha'Or", 'ke'Mar'eh Chamah min ha'Tzeil'. The Tana means - that the Tzara'as
appears deeper than the skin, like the sun appears deeper than the shade.
(b) We reconcile Rav Papa with the Beraisa, bearing in mind that Tzara'as is
white and not red - by restricting the comparison of Tzara'as to the sun to
the corollary between sun and shade (but not to its color).
(c) If, as we believed, when we asked on Rav Papa from the Beraisa, the sun
is really white, we would then ascribe the fact that it is red in the
mornings and evenings - to the fact that it passes the rose-garden in Gan
Eden (which is in the east) in the morning, and the entrance to Gehinom
(which is in the west) in the evening.
(d) 'Ika de'Amri Ipcha' means - that according to others, the sun is appears
red in the morning, because its rays shine westwards where it catches a
reflection of Gehinom; whereas in the evening it turns red because its rays
shine eastwards, catching the reflection of the rose-garden in Gan Eden.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Yayin ve'Nimtza Chometz, Sheneihen Yecholin
Lachzor Bahen'. We attempt to establish the author as Rebbi, because he says
in a Beraisa - that 'Yayin ve'Nimtza Chometz' is considered two species (and
if one takes Ma'asros from one on the other, the Ma'asros are invalid).
(b) The Tana Kama - considers them one species.
(c) To establish our Mishnah even like the Rabbanan, we cite Rebbi Ila'a,
who (after inferring from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Sis'u Alav Chet ba'Harimchem es
Chelbo Mimenu" that if one takes from the bad on the good, one has performed
a sin) - extrapolates that for a sin to have been performed (for separating
from bad wine (vinegar) on good wine, the Ma'aser must be valid (see Ritva,
who explains why we need to come on to Rebbi Ilai at all), which means that
they are considered the same species.
(d) What makes wine and vinegar two species in the realm of buying and
selling is - the fact that some people prefer wine and others, vinegar
(unlike inferior and superior wheat, which are definitely one and the same
species, as regards buying and selling).
(a) Our Mishnah validates a Meshichah on 'fruit' (which incorporated grain)
even though it has not yet been measured - because measuring is merely a
formality, and is not a Kinyan.
(b) The Meshichah must take place - either in a Simta or in a Chatzer that
is jointly owned by the seller and the purchaser.
(c) For the Kinyan to be effective, Pisuk Damim must already have taken
place. This constitutes determining the price of the fruit (either by
following the standard price, or by fixing a price of their own ['e.g. so
much per Eifah'].
(d) Prior Pisuk Damim is crucial to the Kinyan - because without it, the
parties will end up arguing over the price, and the purchaser will refuse to
pay the price demanded by the seller.
(a) If, for whatever reason, Meshichah is hard for him to do - the Tana
advises a smart purchaser who wants to acquire fruit that is lying in the
owner's domain - to rent the location of the fruit (in which case he will
acquire the fruit simultaneously).
(b) When the Tana requires the purchaser of flax to 'move it from one place
to another, he means - that he is obligated to pick it up and acquire it
with Hagbahah, because Chazal only instituted Meshichah by things that are
too heavy to acquire with Hagbahah (such as the Reisha of our Mishnah, which
is speaking about large, heavy bundles).
(c) He then states - that one acquires flax that is still attached to the
ground by detaching some of it (though this will be explained later in the
(d) 'Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan 'Madad ve'Hini'ach al-Gabei Simta,
Kanah'. A 'Simta' is - a private path (or a small area at the side of the
road designated for people to put down their loads and rest a while).
(e) The reason for this ruling is - because a Simta is considered like the
purchaser's own domain in this regard.
(a) When Rebbi Zeira suggested that maybe Rebbi Yochanan was referring
specifically to when the seller poured the fruit into a receptacle belonging
to the purchaser, Rebbi Asi retorted - that Rebbi Zeira was talking like a
novice, because then Rebbi Yochanan would not have been teaching contained
(b) According to Rebbi Zeira's contention - the purchaser would not acquire
the fruit, if the seller poured it ...
1. ... on to the floor of the Simta.
(c) We try to prove from the statement of Rebbi Yanai Amar Rebbi 'Chatzar
ha'Shutfin Konin Zeh mi'Zeh' that Rebbi Zeira must have conceded that Rebbi
Asi was right - by presuming that he speaks when the owner poured the fruit
on to the floor of the Chatzer.
2. ... into a receptacle belonging to the purchaser that was lying in the
(d) The connection between this ruling and the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan
currently under discussion is - that Rebbi Yanai happened to be the latter's
Rebbe (and we assume that he follows his opinion).
(a) We refute the proof from Rebbi Yanai, by establishing his statement when
the owner poured it into the purchaser's receptacle (and not on the floor of
the Chatzer). And we prove this from a statement of Rebbi Ya'akov Amar Rebbi
Yochanan, who ruled - that if a seller measured out fruit for the purchaser
and placed it in a Simta (which must now mean on to the floor of the
Simta) - the purchaser does not acquire it.
(b) This actually clashes with Rebbi Asi's opinion - who must have erred in
his understanding of Rebbi Yochanan.
(c) We ask another Kashya on Rebbi Asi from our Mishnah 'Madad ve'Lo
Mashach, which presumes that this took place in a Simta. This cannot be
speaking when the owner poured the fruit into the purchaser's receptacle -
because then the Kashya would not be confined to Rebbi Asi, but would extend
to all the Amora'im in the Sugya, including Rebbi Yanai Rebbi Ya'akov and
(d) Rebbi Asi reconciles the Mishnah with his own opinion by establishing it
(not in a Simta but) - in a Reshus ha'Rabim (where even the vessels
belonging to the purchaser do not acquire).
(a) We could then extrapolate from the Reisha 'Mashach ve'Lo Madad Kanah' -
that Meshichah acquires in the Reshus-ha'Rabim.
(b) The problem with this is from a series of rulings by Abaye and Rava
cited earlier in the Perek. According to them ...
1. ... one acquires - a ship and a large species of animal with Mesirah.
(c) Consequently, Abaye and Rava will establish ...
2. ... the major distinction between Mesirah and Meshichah (location-wise)
is - that whereas Mesirah acquires even in the Reshus ha'Rabim or in a
domain that belongs to neither of the parties, Meshichah only acquires in a
Simta or in a domain that belongs to both of them.
1. ... the Reisha of our Mishnah - when the purchaser pulled the fruit from
the Reshus ha'Rabim into his own domain.
2. ... the Seifa 'Im Hayah Pike'ach, Socher es Mekomo' - by amending it to
read 've'Im bi'Reshus Ba'alim Hi, Im Hayah Pike'ach, Socher es Mekomo'.