(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Kama 99


(a) What do we extrapolate from the next Mishnah 'ha'Nosen Tzemer le'Tzove'a ve'Hikdicho Yoreh, Nosen Lo D'mei Tzimro'? What do we try and prove from there?

(b) How does Shmuel refute this proof?

(c) Shmuel appears to argue with Rav Asi (and to hold 'Ein Uman Koneh bi'Shevach K'li').
Why is it important to know his opinion in this matter?

(a) We initially reject the suggestion that Shmuel argues with Rav Asi, by establishing the Mishnah when the wool and the dye both belong to the owner.
So what if it does?

(b) On what grounds do we reject this answer?

(c) How do we nevertheless reconcile Shmuel with Rav Asi?

(a) What is the La'av of "Lo Salin"?

(b) Why does the owner not transgress this La'av if the laundryman to whom he handed his cloak for cleaning informs him that it is ready for collection, and he failed to pay until ten days later?

(c) When will the owner transgress, according to the Tana of the Beraisa, if he collects his cloak at midday?

(d) Why does this Beraisa appear to pose a Kashya on Rav Asi?

(a) We try to answer that he handed the laundryman the cloak, not to wash, but to comb, in which case there is no Sh'vach.
Why is this suggestion unacceptable?

(b) Rav Mari B'rei de'Rav Kahana finally establishes the Beraisa 'de'Agra li'Bitushi ... '.
What does this mean?

(c) How do we explain this to answer the Kashya?

(a) Originally, we thought that the laundryman is a Kablan.
What is a Kablan?

(b) This interpretation of the Beraisa supports Rav Sheishes' ruling.
What did Rav Sheishes say about a Kablan?

(c) Rav Sheishes appears to argue with Rav Asi, according to whom, the laundryman in the Beraisa ought to acquire the cloak (and be Patur from the damage).
How does Rav Shmuel bar Acha reconcile Rav Sheishes with Rav Asi?

(a) If a woman asks a man to betroth her with the bracelets, nose-rings and finger-rings that he makes her, Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa validates the Kidushin as soon as they are completed.
What do the Chachamim say?

(b) When the Chachamim say 'Ad she'Yagi'a Mamon le'Yadah', why can they not be referring to the finished product?

(c) We assume therefore, that they mean other money.
What then, is the basis of their Machlokes? What are we trying to prove by citing this Beraisa?

(d) According to this interpretation of the Beraisa, what will both Tana'im hold with regard to ...

  1. ... 'S'chirus' (do they hold 'Yeshnah li'Sechirus mi'Techilah ve'Ad Sof' or 'Ein li'Sechirus Ela be'Sof'?
  2. ... 'ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh (Mekudeshes or Einah Mekudeshes')?
(a) We counter this by establishing the Machlokes by 'S'chirus' (Rebbi Meir holds 'Ein li'Sechirus Ela be'Sof', and the Rabbanan, 'Yeshnah li'Sechirus mi'Techilah ve'Ad Sof').
What will they then hold with regard to 'Uman Koneh ... '?

(b) Alternatively, both Tana'im hold 'Yeshnah li'Sechirus mi'Techilah ve'Ad Sof', and they argue over 'Mekadesh be'Milveh'. What does each Tana hold?

(c) According to Rava, both Tana'im hold 'Yeshnah li'Sechirus mi'Techilah ve'Ad Sof', ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh Einah Mekudeshes' and Ein Uman Koneh bi'Shevach K'li'.
What then is the source of their Machlokes?

Answers to questions



(a) According to Rava, Rebbi Meir holds 'ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh u'Perutah, Da'atah a'P'rutah'.
What do the Rabbanan say?

(b) In another Beraisa, the Tana Kama differentiates between 'bi'S'char she'Asisi Imach' and 'bi'S'char she'E'eseh Imach'.
Why do they say ...

  1. ... 'Einah Mekudeshes', in the former case?
  2. ... 'Mekudeshes', in the latter case?
(c) What does Rabbi Nasan say?

(d) In which point does he argue ...

  1. ... with the Tana Kama?
  2. ... with Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi, who concedes that she is not Mekudeshes in either case? What does Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi add to that?
(a) What does Shmuel say about a skilled Shochet who rendered an animal Neveilah with his Shechitah?

(b) Having said 'Mazik Hu', why does he need to add 'Poshe'a Hu'?

(c) What would he say in a case where the Shochet was not skilled?

(d) What does a Beraisa quoted by Rav Chama bar Guri'a say about the above case? What distinction does the Tana make between a skilled Shochet and an unskilled one?

(a) How did Shmuel react when ...
  1. ... Rav Chama bar Guri'ah asked on him from this Beraisa?
  2. ... another Talmid-Chacham asked him the same question?
(b) Why was he so annoyed with them? Why was this not really a Kashya at all?

(c) Why can Shmuel not have been referring to Rebbi Meir in the Mishnah ...

  1. ... in 'Shor she'Nagach Daled ve'Hey' 'Kashro Be'alav be'Moseiro ve'Na'al be'Fanav Kara'uy ve'Yatza ve'Hizik, Bein Tam Bein Mu'ad Chayav'?
  2. ... later in this Perek 'Litz'bo'a Lo Adom, ve'Tzav'o Shachor ... Rebbi Meir Omer Nosen Li D'mei Tzimro'?
(d) In fact, he was referring to the Mishnah in ha'Meni'ach.
What does Rebbi Meir say there regarding 'Nishberah Kado ... , Nafal Gamlo ... '?
(a) What does Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan say about 'Tabach Uman she'Kilkel'?

(b) How do we reconcile this ruling with the episode in the Beis ha'Kenesses of Ma'on, where Rebbi Yochanan told a Shochet who rendered an animal a Neveilah, that if he could prove that he was a skilled Shochet, he would be Patur from paying?

(c) What did Rebbi Zeira advise anyone who wants to ensure that the Shochet accepts responsibility, should he render the animal a Neveilah?

(a) What does the Beraisa say about a grinder who failed to soak the grains in boiling water, and ended up making inferior-quality bread and a Shochet who rendered the animal a Neveilah?

(b) The Beraisa concludes 'Mipnei she'Hu *ke*'Nosei Sachar'.
Why is this a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan?

(c) How do we amend this Beraisa?

(a) A Magrumta came before Rav.
What is a Magrumta?

(b) What was the Safek that Rav had to decide? What did Rav rule?

(c) Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to the owner of the animal 'Avid Bach Tarti', which for a fleeting moment, we take to mean that Rav issued two incorrect rulings.
What were they?

(d) Why can they not possibly have meant that? Which sin would it involve?

(e) So they must have meant that Rav did him two favors.
Which two favors?

(a) We learned two Beraisos regarding a banker who validates a coin which is later found to be Pasul. One Beraisa rules that an expert banker is Patur, whereas one who is not an expert is liable.
What does the second Beraisa say?

(b) In establishing the first Beraisa, Rav Papa mentions Danku and Isur.
What is the significance of Danku and Isur?

(c) If they were such experts, how could they possibly err in their assessment?

(d) The woman whose coin Rebbi Chiya (who was an expert banker) had declared to be a good coin, informed him on the following day that it had been proven to be Pasul (under circumstances similar to those that we desribed by Danko and Isur).
Considering that Rebbi Chiya was no less an expert than Danko and Isur, why did he instruct Rav to replace the Dinar and to mark in his ledger that this had been a bad deal?

Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,