ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 42
BAVA METZIA 42 (19 Teves) - has been dedicated to the memory of Hagaon Rav
Yisrael Avraham Abba ben Harav Chaim Binyamin Ze'ev Krieger ZT"L, author of
Yad Yisrael (on Rambam) and many other Sefarim, by his son, Benayahu
We already discussed (earlier in the Perek) our Mishnah 'sha'Mafkid Ma'os
Eitzel Chaveiro, ve'Tzareran ve'Hifshilan la'Achorav ... '. The Mishnah
concludes that a Shomer who guarded the Pikadon in the regular way - is
(a) Rebbi Yitzchak, explaining the Pasuk in Re'ei (in connection with
Ma'aser Sheini money) "ve'Tzarta ha'Kesef *be'Yadcha*" ...
1. ... literally - states that the only way to guard the money that one is
transporting, is by holding it in one's hand (even if it is wrapped).
(b) Rebbi Yitzchak advises a person to invest his money - one third in land
and one third in business, and the remaining third, he should hold in cash.
2. ... metaphorically - states that one should always have one's money on
hand (and not give it for safekeeping to someone who lives in another town),
in case a lucrative deal comes his way unexpectedly and he needs the money
(c) From the Pasuk "Yetzav Hashem Itcha es ha'B'rachah *ba'Asamecha*" he
learns - that Hashem's blessing is likely to occur only if the commodity in
question is hidden from the eye (meaning that the owner does not know how
much there is).
(d) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael explains the same Pasuk to mean - that the
blessing will only occur if it cannot be seen (i.e. it is locked away out of
(a) The Beraisa instructs someone who goes to measure the grain in his
granary (in order to Ma'aser it), should pray that Hashem sends a blessing
to those crops. As he begins to measure it - he should recite a B'rachah
blessing Hashem for complying.
(b) A B'rachah that he recites after having measured his crops - is
valueless, because it is not 'Samuy min ha'Ayin'.
(c) 'Ein ha'B'rachah Metzuyah Ela be'Davar ha'Samuy min ha'Ayin'
incorporates - something hat has been weighed, measured or counted.
(a) Shmuel rules that money that one is not transporting - must be buried in
the ground for safekeeping.
(b) Shmuel will agree that this is not necessary - on Erev Shabbos at dusk,
when the Chachamim did not obligate a Shomer to take the trouble, since it
so close to Shabbos.
(c) He will however, be held liable on Motza'ei Shabbos, should anything
happen to the money that he hid on Friday late afternoon - if he had time to
bury it after Shabbos, but failed to do so.
(d) He will he be Patur even after that time lapse on Motza'ei Shabbos - in
the event that the depositor is a Talmid-Chacham, who, he thinks, may need
the money for Havdalah (which is why he did not bury it).
(a) After they discovered ...
1. ... Geshusha'i (who would poke the earth with metal spit-rods to find out
whether money was hidden there) at work - Rava instituted that the place to
hide money for safeguarding was among the rafters.
(b) The Shiur Raban Shimon ben Gamliel gives to exempt the owner of Chametz
from searching for Chametz on top of which a wall collapsed - is three
Tefachim, the minimum depth that a hungry dog would be unlikely to pull it
2. ... F'ruma'i (roof-breakers) - he changed this to inside the walls.
3. ... T'fucha'i (wall-tappers) - he changed it again to the top or bottom
Tefach of the wall (where the money is difficult to locate).
(c) That depth would not be necessary in the case of hiding money (according
to Shmuel, says Rav Ashi,) - because money, unlike food, will not attract
dogs by its smell.
(d) Consequently, says Rafram from Sichra, the depth in the ground required
by Shmuel is one Tefach (so that it should be invisible).
(a) The money that a Shomer had been given for safekeeping and which he hid
in a hunter's hut - was stolen.
(b) Despite the fact that the hunter's hut was a good Shemirah against
thieves, Rav Yosef nevertheless obligated the Shomer to pay - because it was
considered negligence as far as fire was concerned, and (coupled with the
fact that, had he placed it somewhere else [where it was safe from fire], it
would not have been stolen), we apply the principle 'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah,
ve'Sofo be'O'nes, Chayav'.
(c) Others say that he exempted him from paying - but the Halachah is
'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah, ve'Sofo be'O'nes, Chayav', like the first Lashon.
(d) When a Shomer claimed that he could not remember where he placed the
money that someone gave him for safekeeping - Rava ruled that 'I don't know'
(or 'I don't remember') is always considered negligence, and obligated him
(a) When the Shomer to whom a sum of money was given for safekeeping gave to
his mother - she placed it in a box and it was stolen.
(b) Rava did not consider ...
1. ... the Shomer liable for giving the money to his mother - because of the
principle 'Kol ha'Mafkid, al Da'as Ishto u'Vanav Hu Mafkid' (as we learned
earlier in the Perek).
(c) So Rava obligated the Shomer to swear that he handed the money to his
mother, and the mother that she had placed the money in a box, and that it
was stolen from there.
2. ... the mother liable for placing the money in a box rather than in the
ground - because she thought that the money belonged to him (and that was
where he usually put his money [see Tosfos Rabeinu Peretz]).
3. ... the Shomer liable for not informing his mother that the money was not
his - because he figured that if his mother believed the money to be his,
she would be even more careful.
(a) When a certain Apotropus purchased on behalf of Yesomim - he handed it
to a cowhand. However, the cow had no teeth, and because it was unable to
eat, it died.
(b) This time it was Rami bar Chama who was in a quandary. He did not
1. ... the Apotropus liable - because, he claimed, he handed it to the
cowhand (whom he assumed was an expert).
(c) The cowhand would have been liable had the Yesomim sustained a loss -
because, in his capacity as the Yesomim's Shomer Sachar, he should have
checked that the cow was eating.
2. ... the cowhand liable - because the cowhand claimed that he placed it
together with the other cows and gave it food. How was he to know that it
didn't eat the food?
(d) The reason that they did not sustain a loss is - because they found the
seller and claimed their money back.
(a) The claimant was the middle man who had bought the cow from the original
owner and sold it to the Apotropus, without knowing that it had no teeth
(something which the original owner must have known, and could therefore not
have claimed from the cowhand).
(b) He was claiming - that the cowhand should have informed him of the
'Mekach Ta'us' before the animal died, in which case he could have Shechted
the animal and eaten it, or returned it to its original owner and claimed
his money back.
(c) Rami bar Chama therefore - obligated the middle-man to swear that he did
not know that the cow had no teeth, and the cowhand to pay him for the cow
'D'mei Basar be'Zol (as if it was cheap meat).
(d) 'D'mei Basar be'Zol' means - two thirds of the regular price.
(a) Despite the fact that the cowhand was not the Shomer of the middle-man,
he was nevertheless obligated to pay him (and could not refuse to deal with
him on the basis of 'La'av Ba'al Devarim Didi At') - because we rule like
Rebbi Yossi, who says at the beginning of the Perek, that under similar
circumstances, the Sho'el has to pay the owner of the cow, who stands in for
the Socher (who is the real claimant, but who lost nothing), so too, the
seller stands in for the Yesomim (the real claimant, but who lost nothing),
to claim from the cowhand.
(b) Had the Yesomim sustained a loss - the cowhand would have had to pay
them in full.
(c) The reason for the difference is - because on the one hand, the
cowhand's negligence was not absolute (as we just explained), so Rami bar
Chama made a compromise; on the other hand, one does not compromise when it
comes to the money of Yesomim Ketanim, since Yesomim Ketanim are not 'B'nei
Mechilah' (they cannot be Mochel).
(a) When Reuven handed Shimon a pile of hops to look after, and Shimon
instructed his servant to fetch him some hops from his own pile - the
servant brought him hops from the pile that belonged to Reuven.
(b) Rav Amram did not obligate ...
1. ... Shimon to pay - because he clearly instructed his servant to bring
him hops from his own pile.
(c) Rav Amram would have held Shimon liable - had his own pile been close
by, and Reuven's far, if the servant would have then taken a long time to
fetch the hops and he would have remained silent (a clear indication that he
was satisfied with the servant's mistake).
2. ... the servant - because Shimon did not say 'Take from this pile but
not from that one.' (leaving open the possibility that 'this pile' was
nothing more than an indication ['Mar'eh Makom Hu Lo'], but that he did not
mind him taking from the other one).
(a) The problem we have with the fact that, when all's said and done, Shimon
benefited from Reuven's hops is - why he was not obligated to pay for the
Hana'ah, even though he was not liable to pay for carelessness.
(b) Rav Ashi answers - that Reuven's hops contained thorns, and his beer
turned out to be inferior. And for that he did indeed pay (see Tosfos DH