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 Metzia 7
1) THE DOUBTFUL CASES
(a) Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti): What are the doubtful
2) HEKDESH OF PROPERTY NOT IN ONE'S CONTROL
1. If doubtful firstborn animals - "(The tenth) will be
Kodesh", Ma'aser cannot already have been Kodesh!
(b) Answer: Rather, doubtful redemptions of firstborn
1. (Rav Nachman): A Yisrael that has 10 doubtful
firstborn donkeys, he sets aside 10 sheep or goats
and tithes them; they all belong to him.
(a) Question: What was the conclusion regarding the
3) HOW WE SPLIT THE GARMENT
(b) Answer (R. Chiya bar Avin): Any property that a man
cannot obtain through Beis Din, if he makes it Hekdesh,
it is not Hekdesh.
(c) Inference: Any property he can obtain through Beis Din,
he can make it Hekdesh, even before receiving it.
(d) Question: But R. Yochanan taught, stolen property that
the owner did not despair from - neither the owner nor
the thief can make it Hekdesh;
1. The thief cannot, because it is not his; the owner
cannot, because it is not in his domain (even though
he can obtain it through Beis Din)!
(e) Answer: The bathhouse is not movable, rather, it is land
- land obtainable through Beis Din, it is as if it is in
(a) (Rav Tachlifa bar Ma'arava): Two that are holding a
garment - each gets up to where he is holding; the rest
they split evenly.
4) TWO HOLDING A DOCUMENT
(b) R. Avahu gestured to him - through an oath.
(c) Question: The Mishnah says that they divide (equally), it
does not say that each gets up to where he is holding -
what is the case?
(d) Answer (Rav Papa): Each is holding it by the fringes.
(e) (Rav Mesharshiya): We learn from this, one who grabs 3
fingers by 3 fingers of a garment (given for Chalipin) -
this fulfills "he gave to his fellowman" (he acquires),
for we consider the garment to be cut (and he owns what
he is holding).
(f) Question: Why is this different than Rav Chisda's law?
1. (Rav Chisda): A man gave a Get to his wife, but he
still holds a string attached to it - she is
divorced only if he is unable to pull it out of her
(g) Answer: There, the Torah requires "separation"; if he can
retrieve it, he is still attached;
1. By Chalipin, we require giving - this is given.
(h) (Rava): By a golden garment, we split it.
(i) Question: This is obvious!
(j) Answer: The case is, the gold is in the middle.
(k) Question: Still, this is obvious!
(l) Answer: The case is, it is closer to one than to the
1. One might have thought, we cut the garment widthwise
(i.e. along the middle between where they are
i. We hear, this is not so; the one further from
the gold can suggest we cut it lengthwise.
(a) (Beraisa #1 - Rebbi): The lender and borrower are holding
the loan document. Each claims 'I dropped it' - we
validate the document;
1. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, they divide it;
(b) If it came to the judge, he never gives it back;
1. R. Yosi says, it remains in its Chazakah.
(c) Rebbi said, 'We validate the document' - implying, the
lender collects the full value.
(d) Question: Does Rebbi argue on our Mishnah (which says
that they divide it)?
(e) Answer (Rava): If the document was validated, all agree
that they divide it;
1. They argue when it was not validated. Rebbi says
that when a borrower who admits that a document was
written for a loan (but claims to have paid it), the
lender must validate the document;
(f) Question (Beraisa #1): If it came to the judge, he never
gives it back - why is this different?
i. (Since they both hold it), after it is
validated, he collects half;
2. R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds, if the borrower admits
that the document was written properly, the lender
need not validate it; (since both hold it, he
ii. Question: Why must he validate it?
iii. Answer: An invalidated document is worthless.
If our only source to accredit it is the
borrower - he says that it was paid!
(g) Answer (Rava): The Beraisa means, one who finds a
document that came to a judge, he never gives it back.
5) HOW WE SPLIT THE DOCUMENT
(h) Question: What is the case (that he knows it came to a
(i) Answer: It has been validated.
(j) (Beraisa #1): 'He never gives it back' - not only when it
is not validated, perhaps it was never even given;
1. Even if it was validated, surely it was given -
perhaps the loan was paid.
(k) R. Yosi says, it remains in its Chazakah - we are not
concerned that it was paid.
(l) Question: But R. Yosi is concerned that a document was
1. (Beraisa #2): A Kesuvah was found in the market - if
the husband admits (that his wife lost it), we
return it to her;
(m) Answer #1: The opinions in Beraisa #1 must be switched -
R. Yosi says, 'He never gives it back'; Chachamim say, it
remains in its Chazakah.
i. If he does not admit, we do not return it to
2. R. Yosi says, if she is still married, we return it
to her; if she was widowed or divorced, we do not
return to either of them.
1. Question: But then Chachamim contradict themselves!
(n) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): We need not switch the opinions; in
Beraisa #2, R. Yosi speaks according to Chachamim's
2. Answer: R. Yosi taught all of Beraisa #2; it is
abbreviated, it should say thusly: ...If he does not
admit, we do not return it to either; this is when
she was widowed or divorced;
i. But if she is still married, we return it to
her, for R. Yosi says, if she is still married,
we return it to her; if she was widowed or
divorced, we do not return it to either.
1. I say that even if she was widowed or divorced, we
do not suspect payment; you say that we are - but
you should admit to me, if she is still married that
we return it to her, for the husband would not pay
her during the marriage!
(o) (Ravina): Really, we switch the opinions in Beraisa #1;
in Beraisa #2, Chachamim are concerned that 2 Kesuvos
were written, R. Yosi is not concerned for this.
2. Chachamim are concerned - perhaps he gave her money
to hold, so when she is entitled to her Kesuvah so
she will not have problems collecting it.
(a) (R. Elazar): In Beraisa #1, R. Shimon ben Gamliel said
that they divide equally - this is only when both are
holding the Toref (the vital information particular to
this document) or both are holding the Tofes (the
standard text which is the same by all loan documents);
1. But if 1 holds the Toref and the other holds the
Tofes; each gets what he is holding.
(b) (R. Yochanan): They always divide equally, even if 1
holds the Tofes and 1 the Toref.
(c) Question (Beraisa): Each gets what he is holding.
(d) Answer: The case is, the Toref is in the middle.
(e) Question: If so, each gets half - what else could we have
1. Answer: The case is, the Toref is closer to 1 than
the other. One might have thought, we divide the
document widthwise (i.e. the 1 closer to the Toref
gets the Toref);
(f) Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti): According to R. Elazar -
the one closer to the Tofes gets the Tofes - what is it
good for, to plug up his bottle?!
i. We hear, this is not so; the one further away
can suggest we divide it lengthwise.
(g) Answer (Ravina): (A document with a date is worth more
than one without a date, since it can be used to collect
from sold property). The one holding the Toref (which
includes the date) gets this difference; the rest they
split equally (since the other vital information
particular to the document also appears in the Tofes).
1. Support: Also when it says that 2 holding a garment
divide it, this means the value - if they would cut
the garment, this would ruin it!
2. Rejection: No - the halves would be fit for
3. Question: But Rava said, by a golden garment, they
divide it - what would the halves be fit for?
4. Answer: For children of kings.
5. Question (Mishnah): Two people were riding on an
animal...- how could they divide it?
i. By a Tahor animal, they could split the meat -
but by a Tamei animal, splitting it would be a
6. Rather, we must say that they split the value - and
similarly, by the document.