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 102
BAVA METZIA 101-105 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the
Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal
1) FOR WHOM DOES THE CHATZER ACQUIRE?
(a) (Mishnah): The dung belongs to Reuven; Shimon only gets
(ashes) from the oven.
2) CONTRADICTORY WORDING
(b) Question: What is the case?
1. If Shimon rents the Chatzer and the dung is from his
own animals, why does Reuven get it?
(c) Answer: The case is, Reuven did not rent out the Chatzer,
the dung is from animals that pass through.
2. If Reuven did not rent out the Chatzer and the dung
is from his animals, obviously he gets it!
(d) This supports R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina
1. (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): A person's Chatzer
acquires for him without his knowledge.
(e) Question (Beraisa): Reuven said 'Whatever lost (i.e.
Hefker) objects enter my Chatzer today, I hereby acquire
them' - this does nothing.
1. According to R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina, his Chatzer
should acquire for him!
(f) Answer: The case is, his Chatzer is not guarded.
(g) Question (end of the Beraisa): If there is talk that a
lost object, (e.g. a lame deer or fish deposited by the
river) entered his yard, his words take effect.
1. If his Chatzer is not guarded, why does he acquire?
(h) Answer: Since there is talk that a lost object entered
his yard, other people will not take it, it is as if his
Chatzer is guarded.
(i) Question (Beraisa): Shimon gets ashes from the oven and
dung that falls through the air (in a vessel he
suspended); Reuven gets dung deposited in the pen and the
1. According to R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina, just as
Reuven's Chatzer acquires for him, its airspace
should acquire for him!
(j) Answer #1 (Abaye): The case is, Shimon hung a vessel by
the animal's rump to collect the dung (it never entered
(k) Answer #2 (Rava): We only consider something in the air
to be resting on the ground if it is standing to land on
the ground (but here, it will fall in the vessel).
(l) Question: But Rava was unsure about this!
1. Question (Rava): Someone threw a wallet through a
yard; it left the yard before landing:
(b) Answer: There, nothing separates between it and the
ground - here, the vessel separates.
i. Being suspended in the air, in a domain in
which the object will not land - is this like
resting on the ground, or not?
(m) (Beraisa): Reuven gets dung deposited in the pen and the
(c) Version #1 (Rashi) Question: Why must the Beraisa teach
two cases? (Since Reuven owns both, they teach the same
(d) Version #2 (Tosfos) Question: This is a contradiction!
(Clearly, one who rents a house has no rights to the pen
- surely, the Beraisa teaches that Reuven gets the dung
in the pen to exclude dung in the Chatzer!)
(e) Answer (Abaye): The Beraisa says, dung in the pen in the
Chatzer belongs to Reuven (even though Shimon rented the
(f) (Rav Ashi): This teaches that one who rents a Chatzer
does not rent a pen inside it.
(g) Question (Beraisa): Doves of a dovecote or an upper
story: (if one finds the mother on eggs or chicks), he
must send the mother before taking her offspring; to take
is considered theft on account of the ways of Shalom.
1. According to R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina, a person's
Chatzer acquires for him without his knowledge - he
owns the eggs, he should not have to send the
(h) Answer #1 (Rava): Once the majority of the egg leaves the
mother, one (who wants to take it) is obligated to send
the mother; the Chatzer only acquires it when it lands.
2. "Ki Yikarei" - to exclude if they are prepared (i.e.
1. In this case, the Beraisa obligates one to send the
(i) Rav Yehudah's law suggests another answer (to Question
2. Question: If so, why is it considered theft to take
the eggs (the Chatzer did not acquire them yet)!
3. Version #1 (Rashi) Answer #1: It is theft to take
the (eggs, just as it is forbidden to take the)
mother - on account of the ways of Shalom, they are
considered to belong to the dovecote's owner.
4. Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer #1: The Beraisa only
forbids taking the mother (on account of the ways of
5. Answer #2: It is considered theft to take (Rashi -
only) the eggs on account of the ways of Shalom,
because once the majority of an egg is born, the
owner of the Chatzer anticipates getting it.
1. (Rav Yehudah): "Shale'ach...v'Es ha'Banim Tikach" -
you may acquire the eggs only after sending the
(j) Answer #2: Even if the eggs are fully born, the Chatzer
does not acquire them when the owner could not acquire
them (i.e. while the mother is on them).
(k) Question: Why is it considered theft to take the eggs on
account of the ways of Shalom?
1. If the mother was sent - the owner of the Chatzer
acquires them, this is absolute theft?
(l) Answer: The Beraisa speaks of a minor, who is not
commanded to send the mother.
2. If the mother was not sent - the Torah forbids
taking the eggs!
(m) Question: Nor is a minor commanded on account of the ways
(n) Answer: The Beraisa teaches that the father of the minor
must return the eggs on account of the ways of Shalom.
(a) (Mishnah): Reuven rented a house to Shimon for a year; it
was made a leap year - Shimon need not pay extra for the
1. If he rented it for 12 months, Shimon must pay for
the added month (if he wants to stay for the full
(b) There was a case in Tzipori, Levi rented a bathhouse to
Yehudah for 12 Dinarim for the year, a Dinar per month;
R. Shimon ben Gamliel and R. Yosi ruled that he pays half
for the added month.
(c) Question: The case contradicts the law!
3) IS A RENTER BELIEVED TO SAY THAT HE PAID?
(d) Answer: The Mishnah is abbreviated, it should say thusly:
if he rented it for 12 Dinarim for the year, a Dinar per
month, they split the added month;
1. There was a case in Tzipori...R. Shimon ben Gamliel
and R. Yosi ruled that he pays half for the added
(e) (Rav): I would have ruled that he must pay for the entire
1. Question: Does Rav come to teach that (when someone
says two contradictory things) the latter is binding
- he already taught this elsewhere!
(f) (Shmuel): The Mishnah is when they come to Beis Din (for
a ruling) in the middle of the 13th month - but if Levi
said at the beginning of the month 'You must pay extra
for this month', Yehudah must pay for the entire month;
i. (Rav Huna citing Rav): If Reuven sold something
for 'Istira (half a Zuz, 96 Perutos), 100
Ma'os' - the price is 100; if he sold for '100
Ma'os, Istira', the price is 96.
2. Version #1 (Rashi) Answer: Had Rav only said that,
one might have thought that there the latter
language explains the former (a big Istira worth
100, or 100 small Ma'os worth 96).
3. Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer: Had Rav only said that,
one might have thought that here, the latter
language explains the former (12 Dinarim for the
year, to be paid a Dinar each month, not all at the
1. If Levi made no claim until the end of the month,
Yehudah need not pay.
(g) (Rav Nachman): The owner is Muchzak in his land (even if
Levi claims at the end of the month, Yehudah must pay).
2. Question: Doesn't Shmuel also say that the latter
phrase is binding?
i. (Rav and Shmuel): 'I sell you a Kor for 30
(Sela'im)' - he can retract until he measures
out the full amount (Rashi - until the buyer
does Meshichah on the full amount);
3. Answer: Really, Shmuel is unsure whether the latter
phrase is binding, we follow Chazakah:
ii. 'I sell you a Kor for 30, a Sa'ah for a Sela' -
the buyer acquires each Sa'ah as it is measured
out (Rashi - as he is Moshech it).
i. There, he cannot retract because the buyer is
Muchzak in what he holds;
ii. Here, Levi is Muchzak in his bathhouse - Shimon
cannot use it (from now on) without proving
that he is entitled to; Shimon is Muchzak in
his money - Levi cannot make him pay for what
he used of the extra month.
(h) Question: Rav Nachman must hold, the latter phrase is
binding - he merely says like Rav!
(i) Answer: No - Rav Nachman is in doubt which phrase we
1. The owner is Muchzak and the renter must pay, even
if the phrase favoring the renter was said last.
(a) Question: If Yehudah says that he paid, and Levi says
that he was not paid, who must bring proof?
1. Question: Whether this is before or after the time
the rent is due, a Mishnah teaches the law!
(b) Answer (R. Yochanan - Mishnah): A worker who claims (on
the day he worked) that he was not paid, he swears and
i. (Mishnah): If a man died within 30 days of the
birth of a firstborn son, we assume that he did
not redeem him (the son must redeem himself
when he matures), unless he proves that he was
2. Answer: The owner and renter are arguing on the day
the rent is due; the question is, does a person pay
on the day it is due.
ii. If he died more than 30 days after the birth,
we assume that he redeemed him, unless
(neighbors) say that he was not redeemed.
1. Chachamim only believe a worker to swear and collect
- since the employer is distracted with his workers,
we assume that the employer erred;
2. Here, we allow the renter to swear that he paid.