ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 56
(a) According to Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, it is a Sitton (Chaver)
exclusively who is permitted to sell to Chaverim without separating Ma'asros
first. A Sitton is a wholesaler who buys from many producers, and sells to
the stores in large quantities ('be'Midah Gasah').
(b) Rebbi Meir allows him this concession - because everyone knows that what
he is selling he bought from Amei ha'Aretz.
(c) He distinguishes between a Sitton and a Balabos who purchases from Amei
ha'Aretz and sells wholesale - because since he is not known to be a Sitton,
people will think that he is selling his own crops, and because he is a
Chaver, they will assume it all to be Ma'asered.
(d) The Chachamim - permit anyone who sells large quantities like a Sitton
does to sell without Ma'asering first (on the assumption that, whoever sells
in such large quantities, has not Ma'asered).
(a) The Shiur of 'Midah Gasah', that defines Sittoni'us is - three Kabin of
dry produce (twenty-four egg-volumes) and a Dinar (192 P'rutos)'s worth of
(b) We have proved that when it comes to *eating* Ma'aser Sheini of D'mai,
Rebbi Meir is more stringent than the Rabbanan.
(a) Rebbi Meir says in a Beraisa that someone who purchases hot loaves and
loaves that already cooled down from a baker - can Ma'aser the former to
cover the latter and vice-versa ...
(b) ... and he adds - that this even applies if they are of various shapes.
(c) There is no problem with Ma'asering a cold loaf on hot ones, due to a
statement of Rebbi Alai, who proves from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Sis'u Alav Chet,
be'Harimchem es Chelbo Mimenu" - that if one took T'rumah from inferior
produce to cover superior produce, one is Yotze (because otherwise, what sin
would he have performed?).
(d) Ravina has a problem with Rebbi Meir permitting the Ma'asering of one
shape loaf to cover another, because maybe the Nachtom (the retail bakery)
purchased his wares from different bakers, some of whom Ma'asered, and some
of whom did not. If he were to separate ...
1. ... min ha'Chiyuv al ha'P'tur - then he would be giving the Kohen Tevel.
2. ... min ha'P'tur al ha'Chiyuv - he would subsequently eat Tevel.
(a) Abaye will deal with Ravina's problem after he has reviewed the entire
Sugya. He justifies Rebbi Elazar's asking how it is that the Chachamim
decreed the same stringency on T'rumas Ma'aser shel D'mai as the Torah
decreed on T'rumas Ma'aser. The problem he has with ...
1. ... Shmuel, who established our Mishnah like Rebbi Meir, because we have
seen that he is stringent by Gitin is - that perhaps Rebbi Meir's stringency
is confined to Gitin, whose basic Chiyuv involves Miysah bi'Yedei Shamayim,
but not to Terumah, whose basic Chiyuv is only Miysah bi'Yedei Shamayim.
(b) About Rav Yosef, who answers Rav Sheishes Kashya by differentiating
between Pidyon and Achilah - he concedes that, even though Rav Sheishes'
Kashya was not justified, having asked it, the answer Rav Yosef gave is
2. ... Rav Sheishes, who then asked from Pidyon Ma'aser Sheini, where Rebbi
Meir is lenient - that perhaps Rebbi Meir is only lenient there, because the
basic Chiyuv is a La'av ("Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha"), but not in a
case which the basic Chiyuv is Miysah bi'Yedei Shamayim.
(a) Concerning Ravina's Kashya from a Nachtom (where Rebbi Meir is lenient),
Abaye says that he should rather have cited the Mishnah in D'mai concerning
a Palter - a wholesale bread merchant, who buys from many bakers and sells
to the stores (the equivalent of a Sitton regarding wheat).
(b) Rebbi Meir says there - that someone who buys different shape loaves
from a Palter, must Ma'aser from each shape that he buys individually.
(c) We will then answer Ravina's Kashya from a Nachtom - by differentiating
between him and a Paltar, because, whereas the latter buys from many
different bakers, the former only buys from one (irrespective of the fact
that his breads are a variety of shapes).
(d) Rava disagree with Abaye's statement regarding Shmuel. According to
him - there is no difference between Miysas Beis-Din and Miysah bi'Yedei
Shamayim. If they decreed on the one, they also decreed on the other.
(a) Our Mishnah lists three things, besides Hekdesh, that are not subject to
Ona'ah - Avadim, Sh'taros and Karka'os.
(b) 'Hekdesh' either refers to the treasurer of Hekdesh who sold a Tamei or
blemished animal, or the owner of a Hekdesh animal that the owner sold after
it became blemished.
(c) Besides Tashlumei Kefel of a Ganav, these four things are not subject
to -Tashlumei Arba'ah va'Chamishah, should the Ganav then sell or Shecht the
(d) Seeing as Arba'ah va'Chamishah are confined to an ox and a lamb, the
Tana needs to mention that these four things are not subject to it - because
(a) The Tana says ...
1. ... that a Shomer Chinam - is exempt from swearing (that he was not
negligent) over the four things listed in the Mishnah, and ...
(b) Rebbi Shimon disagrees with the Tana Kama's statement precluding all
Kodshim from Ona'ah - because he includes Kodshim she'Chayav
be'Achariyusan' (when the owner declared 'Harei Alai', and designated the
animal afterwards, in which case he will be responsible to bring another
animal, should anything happen to it).
2. ... that a Shomer Sachar is exempt from paying (should they get stolen or
(c) And he concede to the Tana Kama - Kodshim she'Eino Chayav ba'Achariyusan
(when he declared 'Harei Zu', in which case he will not be responsible to
(d) Rebbi Yehudah lists three things that are not subject to Ona'ah. One of
them is a Seifer-Torah, the other two are - an animal and a jewel.
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah derives the four things in our Mishnah from from
the Pasuk in Behar "ve'Chi Simkeru Mimkar la'Amisecha, O Kanoh mi'Yad
Amisecha, Lo Sonu ... '. He learns from ...
1. ... "mi'Yad" - that Karka, which cannot be held in the hand, is not
subject to Ona'ah.
(b) The Tana learns that Avadim are not subject to Ona'ah - from the fact
that Avadim are compared to Karka (in Behar, where the Torah writes
"ve'Hisnachaltem Osam li'V'neichem ... ").
2. ... "Mimkar" - that Sh'taros, which do not have an intrinsic value, are
not subject to Ona'ah.
3. ... "Al Tonu Ish es *Achiv* - that Hekdesh is not subject to Ona'ah
(c) It is sometimes possible for Sh'taros to be subject to Ona'ah if - they
are sold as paper (for example, if one sells them to a spice-merchant, who
uses them to wrap his powdered spices).
(d) The Chachamim deemed it necessary to teach us this - based on the fact
that the spice-merchants would only pay P'rutos for them, to preclude from
the opinion of Rav Kahana, who holds 'Ein Ona'ah li'P'rutos (as that is all
the spice-merchant would usually pay for the Sh'taros).
(a) Rabah bar Mamal asks from the Pasuk "va'Yikach es Kol Artzo *mi'Yado*" -
from which we see that the Torah's use of the word "Yad" is metaphorical
(meaning 'possession'), on the previous D'rashah, which precludes Karka from
Ona'ah, from the word "mi'Yad".
(b) We counter that by citing two other Pesukim. We learn from the Pasuk
1. ... "Im *Himatzei Simatzei* be'Yado ha'Geneivah" - that one even has to
pay Kefel for a stolen animal that the Ganav acquired by leading it on to
his roof, into his courtyard or into his enclosure.
(c) We now learn from these Pesukim - that "Yad" per se means specifically
2. ... "*ve'Nasan* be'Yadah" - that a woman is divorced even if her husband
places her Get in her garden, courtyard or enclosure.
(d) And we answer Rabah bar Mamal's Kashya - by pointing out that in that
particular instance (by "va'Yikach es Kol Artzo mi'Yado") only, 'Yad' is not
literal, because it is impossible to be, but wherever it can be, it is.
(a) Rebbi Zeira asks whether Sechirus is subject to Ona'ah or not - whether
"Mimkar" in the Pasuk must be taken literally (to preclude Sechirus, which
is not generally referred to as a sale) or not.
(b) Abaye resolves it - by interpreting "Mimkar" as an all-embracing word,
which incorporates a temporary sale (Sechirus) no less than a permanent one.
(a) Rava asked whether planted wheat is subject to Ona'ah. His She'eilah is
whether we consider planted wheat as a separate entity (as if it was placed
in a jar), or whether it is Batel to the ground (and Karka, as we have
already learned, is not subject to Ona'ah). The She'eilah applies
specifically to seeds that have not yet taken root; once they have, they are
certainly considered Karka.
(b) The She'eilah cannot pertain to a case where the seller claims to have
planted six Sa'ah, whereas witnesses testify that he planted only five,
because of another statement of Rava, where he said - 'Kol Davar
she'be'Midah, ve'she'be'Mishkal ve'she'be'Minyan Afilu Pachos mi'Ch'dei
Ona'ah Chozer' (in other words, even though Ona'ah does not apply to them,
Bitul Mekach does).
(c) The case of Rava's She'eilah of Ona'ah regarding the seeds is - if
Reuven agrees to sell Shimon a plot of land which is sown in the
conventional manner, but in which he had planted only five Sa'ah instead of
the conventional six.
(d) Rava also asks whether the Din Shevu'ah applies to planted seeds -
where Reuven claims that he gave Shimon six Sa'ah to plant and that he only
planted five, whereas Shimon counters that he planted five and a half.
(a) And finally, he asks whether the Omer (which was brought on the
sixteenth of Nissan) would permit planted seeds or not. He cannot be
referring to Gidulin - that grew from the seeds, because we know already
from the Mishnah in Menachos, that if the seeds took root before the Omer,
they are permitted, and if not, they are forbidden.
(b) He must therefore be referring to the seeds themselves, that have
neither taken root nor grown into wheat.
(c) The seeds might be ...
1. ... permitted - because we consider them as if they were lying in a jar
(as we explained earlier) and are permitted.
(d) The outcome of the She'eilah is - 'Teiku'.
2. ... forbidden - because they are Batel to the ground, in which case the
Omer will not permit them.