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 116
BAVA METZIA 116-117 - anonymously dedicated by an Ohev Torah and Marbitz
Torah in Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.
1) TAKING AS SECURITY AN ITEM THAT IS USED WITH FOOD
(a) Support (for Rav Yehudah - Beraisa #1): If one takes as
security a pair of scissors or a two-part yoke (to
harness cows), he is lashed twice, once for each part;
(Tosfos - this is like Rav Yehudah, for Rav Huna would
obligate three times; Rashi - the support requires the
next Beraisa as well, which shows that the two lashes
here are for Rechayim and Rechev, hence there are no
lashes for "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel")
1. If he only takes one blade of the scissors or one
part of the yoke, he is lashed only once.
(b) (Beraisa #2): If one takes as security a pair of scissors
or a two-part yoke, one might have thought that he is
lashed only once - therefore, it says "Lo Yachavol
1. Just as Rechayim and Rechev are two vessels that do
one task, and one is liable for each by itself -
also any two vessels that do one task, one is liable
for each by itself.
(c) A case arose, Reuven took a security from Shimon, it was
a knife that butchers use to chop meat.
(d) Abaye: Since it is used for food, you must return it; you
can claim your loan in Beis Din (if you have witnesses,
or if Shimon will admit).
(e) Rava: Since witnesses did not see Reuven take it, he need
not return it until Shimon pays.
(f) Question: Why does Abaye argue with Rava?
1. Why is this different than the following case?
(g) Answer: Goats are not normally lent or rented, therefore
the one who seized them has a Migo, he could have said
that he bought them;
2. Some goats ate peeled barley in Neharda'a; the owner
of the barley seized the goats, and was claiming a
3. (Shmuel's father): He can claim up to the goats'
1. A knife is normally lent or rented, Reuven has no
Migo, for he would not be believe to say that he
(h) Question: Does Rava argue with this?
2. (Rav Huna bar Avin): Things that are normally lent
or rented, one who holds them and claims that he
bought them, (if we know that they belonged to
someone else) is not believed.
1. But Rava took shearing scissors and a Sefer of
Agadic teachings from orphans, because these are
normally lent and rented!
(i) Answer: A chopping knife can get blunted, people do not
normally lend or rent it.
***** PEREK HA'BAYIS VEHA'ALIYAH *****
2) DIVIDING THE BUILDING MATERIALS OF A FALLEN HOUSE
(a) (Mishnah): If Reuven owned a house and Shimon owned its
upper story and it fell, they divide the wood, rocks and
3) THE OBLIGATION TO REBUILD AN UPPER STORY
1. If we estimate that the upper rocks would have
broken, Reuven gets the whole rocks and Shimon takes
an equal amount of broken ones.
(b) (Gemara) Inference: Since it says 'we estimate', this
implies that we can tell if the bottom collapsed, or if
the attic broke;
2. If either recognizes some of his rocks, he takes
them, the other takes an equal amount of other ones.
1. Why do they divide equally in the first clause? The
one whose dwelling broke should get the broken
(c) Answer: It fell at night, no one saw how it fell.
1. Question: The next day we can determine how it fell!
(d) Question: Whoever's domain the rocks are in, he is
Muchzak, the other cannot take (whole rocks) from him
2. Answer: The case is, the rocks were cleared away.
3. Question: We can ask the people who cleared them
4. Answer: The case is, we do not know them, and they
(e) Answer #1: The case is, the rocks are in their joint
yard, or in the public domain.
(f) Answer #2: Even if the rocks are in the domain of one of
them, partners freely lend their domain to each other (so
the rocks are considered to be in the domain of both).
(g) (Mishnah): If either recognizes some of his rocks...(we
shall call him Reuven, it could just as well be Shimon).
(h) Question: What does Shimon claim?
1. If he admits - the law is obvious!
(i) Answer: Rather, he says that he does not know.
2. If he argues - why does Reuven keep the whole ones?
(j) Suggestion: This refutes Rav Nachman!
1. (Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah): Levi claims 100 from
Yehudah, Yehudah does not know whether he owes - he
(k) Rejection: No - the case is as Rav Nachman explained
2. (R. Yochanan and Rav Nachman): He is exempt.
1. (Rav Nachman): The case is, Yehudah was obligated to
swear to Levi. (Since Yehudah does not know, he
cannot swear, he must pay).
(l) Question: What is the case of being obligated to swear?
2. Here also, the Shimon was obligated to swear!
1. Answer (Rava): Yehudah admitted that he owed 50, he
did not know about the other 50. Since he cannot
swear, he must pay. (Here also, Shimon admits that
half the rocks are not his.)
(m) (Mishnah): Shimon takes an equal amount of other ones.
(n) Opinion #1 (Rava): He takes an equal amount of broken
1. Because he does not recognize his rocks, we assume
that his are the broken ones.
(o) Objection (Abaye): Just the contrary! Since Reuven only
recognizes some of his rocks, we assume that his other
rocks are broken, all the whole rocks belong to Shimon!
(p) Opinion #2 (Abaye): Rather, Shimon takes an equal amount
of whole rocks.
(q) Question: If so, what does Reuven gain by recognizing
some of his rocks?
(r) Answer #1: Some rocks are wider than others.
(s) Answer #2: The mud of some bricks is kneaded better than
that of others.
(a) (Mishnah): Shimon was renting Reuven's attic. If the
attic floor fell in and Reuven does not want to fix it,
Shimon may live in the house downstairs until Reuven
(b) R. Yosi says, Reuven must supply the ceiling, Shimon
supplies the plaster.
(c) (Gemara) Question: How much of the roof must fall in (for
the law of the Mishnah to apply)?
(d) Answer #1 (Rav): The majority.
(e) Answer #2 (Shmuel): Four Tefachim.
1. Rav says the majority, but not four Tefachim, for a
person can manage with part of his dwelling at a
(f) Question: What was the rental agreement?
2. Shmuel says four Tefachim, for a person cannot live
if part of his dwelling is at a lower level.
1. If he rented 'this attic' - it is no longer intact
(he has no right to demand another)!
(g) Answer #1 (Rava): Reuven rented 'this attic' to him,
saying 'if it sinks, you may live in the house'.
2. If he rented 'an attic' - Reuven can find another
attic for Shimon to live in (why is Shimon entitled
to dwell in Reuven's house)?
(h) Objection: If so, what is the Chidush?!
(i) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): Reuven rented 'this attic on top of
this house' - this language gives Shimon a 'lien' on the
house to support his attic.
1. Ravin bar Rav Ada: There was a case, Levi sold to
Yehudah 'the vine draped over this peach tree'; the
tree was uprooted.
2. R. Chiya: Levi must supply a peach tree to support
the vine for the life of the vine.