ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 114
BAVA METZIA 112-115 - these Dafim have been dedicated anonymously l'Iluy
Nishmas Tzirel Nechamah bas Tuvya Yehudah.
(a) When Ravin asked his Rebbes whether 'Mesadrin le'Ba'al-Chov' from a
'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Michah" Michah", they answered nothing.
(b) He did however, receive a clear indication from the answer to a
She'eilah that was asked in the Beis ha'Medrash regarding Hekdesh - namely,
whether we are Mesader by Hekdesh.
(c) We do not assess the Noder according to his wealth - because that is a
concept ('Heseg Yad') that is written by Erchin exclusively (though we do
find it in certain areas of Kodshim, such as a Korban Oleh ve'Yored).
(d) Rebbi Ya'akov in the name of bar Pada (or Rebbi Yirmiyah in the name of
Ilfa) resolved the She'eilah with a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a Ba'al-Chov, who
has to return the Mashkon, yet 'Ein Mesadrin' (after thirty days, according
to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel). In that case, Hekdesh, which does not return a
Mashkon, should certainly not be subject to Sidur.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan does not argue with bar Pada with regard to a Ba'al-Chov.
He does however, learn from the Pasuk "Ish Ki Yafli *Neder be'Erk'cha*
Nefashos" - that the Neder of Hekdesh is compared to that of Erchin, in
which case the Din will be 'Mesadrin'.
(b) bar Pada learns from that Pasuk - the Din of Nidun bi'Chevodo', meaning
that if someone promises to give the value of his heart (or of any other
limb without which he could not live) to Hekdesh ('Dami Alai'), he is
obligated to give his full value (assessed like an Eved) to Hekdesh.
(c) If one promises to give the value of his leg to Hekdesh - then we assess
him as an Eved with his leg and without it, and he pays the difference to
(d) We try to learn 'Mesadrin' by Ba'al-Chov with a 'Kal va'Chomer from
Erchin - from the fact that we hold 'Ein Machzirin' by Erchin, yet we say
'Mesadrin'. In that case, by a Ba'al Chov, where we hold 'Machzirin', we
should certainly say 'Mesadrin'.
(a) We counter this proof (Mesadrin by Ba'al-Chov with a 'Kal va'Chomer'
from Erchin) however, from the Pasuk (in connection with Erchin) "ve'Im Mach
*Hu* me'Erkecha" - "Hu", 've'Lo Ba'al-Chov'.
(b) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah (who holds 'Mesadrin le'Ba'al-Chov' see
also Tosfos 've'Idach']), learns from this Pasuk - that in order to pay a
lower rate by Erchin, he must be poor from beginning to end (but should he
be wealthy at the time the Kohen assesses him, he becomes obligated to pay
the Erech of a rich man).
(a) We try and learn the Din of Machzirin (returning the Mashkon) by Hekdesh
(where we hold 'Mesadrin') with a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Ba'al-Chov (where we
hold 'Ein Mesadrin'), yet the Din is 'Machzirin', 'Kal va'Chomer' by
(b) We initially refute this proof from the Pasuk "ve'Shachav be'Salmaso
u'Veracheka" (the reason for Machzirin) - because Hekdesh does not require a
B'rachah (negating the 'Kal va'Chomer').
(c) We reject this argument however, from the Pasuk in Eikev "ve'Achalta
ve'Sava'ata u'Verachta", from which we learn that Hekdesh *does* require a
B'rachah. We finally explain why 'Ein Machzirin' by Hekdesh from the Pasuk
"u'Lecha Tih'yeh Tzedakah" - because Hekdesh certainly does not need
Tzedakah (because everything belongs to Hashem anyway).
(a) Rabah bar Avuhah met Eliyahu ha'Navi in a Beis ha'Kevaros. When he asked
1. ... whether 'Mesadrin le'Ba'al-Chov' or not, he replied - with the
'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Michah" "Michah", from which we learn 'Mesadrin'.
(b) Rebbi Shimon's source for this ruling (based on the fact that the Torah
opens the Parshah of Tum'as Ohel with the words "*Adam* Ki Yamus be'Ohel")
is the Pasuk in Yechezkel - "va'Eten Tzoni Tzon Mar'isi *Adam* Atem", from
which Rebbi Shimon Darshens 'Atem Keruyin "Adam", ve'Ein Ovdei-Kochavim
2. ... from where the Mishnah in T'rumos learns that a naked person should
not separate Terumah, he replied - with the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "ve'Lo
Yir'eh B'cha Ervas Davar", which teaches us that talking holy things is
prohibited in front of nakedness. Consequently, the separation is not
intrinsically forbidden, but because one loses the B'rachah.
3. ... what he was doing in a Beis ha'Kevaros, seeing as he was a Kohen - he
replied with Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, who declares that the graves of
Nochrim are not subject to Tum'as Ohel (although they are subject to Tum'as
(a) Rabah bar Avuhah knew that Eliyahu was a Kohen - because of the
tradition (of which many hold) that Pinchas became Eliyahu, and Pinchas of
course, was a Kohen.
(b) When Eliyahu asked Rabah bar Avuhah whether he had not learned the
Beraisa in Taharos that he quoted him he replied - that he had not completed
the four Sedarim (Mo'ed, Nashim, Nezikin and Kodshim), let alone Taharos
(which was not applicable at that time).
(c) Mo'ed, Nashim and Nezikin (as opposed to Zera'im and Taharos) were
certainly applicable. In fact, Kodshim was applicable too - because we have
learned in Menachos that when Talmidei-Chachamim study Kodshim, it is as if
they were sacrificing them in the Beis-Hamikdash.
(d) Rabah bar Avuhah had not completed the four Sedarim - due to dire
(a) To alleviate Rabah bar Avuhah's situation - Eliyahu took him to Gan
Eden, and told him to spread out his coat and help himself to some of the
leaves that were growing there.
(b) What caused the latter to throw the leaves away - was the Heavenly Voice
that announced that he was receiving the reward that was stored away for him
in the World to Come, already in this world.
(c) He nevertheless became rich - when he sold his coat, which had absorbed
some of the smell of Gan Eden ...
(d) ... for twelve thousand Dinrim. This he divided among his sons-in-law.
(a) We query the Beraisa which extrapolates from the Pasuk "ve'Im Ish Ani Hu
Lo Sishkav ba'Avoto", 'ha Ashir Shachiv', which we initially understand to
mean - that although one is forbidden to sleep on the bed-clothes of a poor
man, one may do so on those of someone who is rich.
(b) The problem with this explanation is - why this should be permitted,
since it constitutes Ribis.
(c) So we finally explain that it refers to - returning the article, which
is not necessary if the debtor is a rich man, because he does not need it.
(a) The Beraisa states 'ha'Malveh es Chaveiro, Eino Rashai Le'mashkeno,
ve'Eino Chayav La'hachzir Lo, ve'Over al Kol ha'Sheimos Halalu'. This last
phrase refers to - "Hashev Tashiv", "ve'Lo Sishkav ba'Avoto" and "ve'ad Bo
ha'Shemesh Teshivenu Lo".
(b) The Beraisa states 'ha'Malveh es Chaveiro, Eino Rashai Le'mashkeno,
ve'Eino Chayav La'hachzir Lo, ve'Over al Kol ha'Sheimos Halalu'. Rav
Sheishes amends 've'Eino Chayav Le'hachzir Lo' to read 'Chayav La'hachzir
Lo', and it refers to where he did take the Mashkon. According to him, the
continuation of the Beraisa 've'Over al Kol ha'Sheimos Halalu' - pertains to
the Seifa (where he did take the Mashkon).
(a) Rava objects to Rav Sheishes explanation - because he amended 've'Eino
Chayav La'hachzir Lo' to 've'Chayav Le'hachzir Lo', which he considered a
Dochek (a pushed answer).
(b) He therefore prefers to add a piece to the Beraisa, which begins with
the same text as Rav Sheishes, but which continues 'Bameh Devarim Amurim
She'Mashkeno she'Lo be'Sha'as Halva'aso, Aval be'Sha'as Halva'aso, Eino
Chayav Le'hachzir Lo; ve'Over ... '.
(c) And he explains the Tana's final phrase 've'Over ... on the Reisha (in
the same way as Rav Sheishes does, only Rav Sheishes refers to it as the
(d) The Tana knows that the Mitzvah of returning a Mashkon does not extend
to a Mashkon be'Sha'as Halva'ah - because "Im Chavol Sachbol", which is the
opening phrase of the Halachah under discussion, implies against the will of
the debtor, which does not apply to a Mashkon be'Sha'as Halva'ah.
(a) The Pasuk ...
1. ... "Ad Bo ha'Shemesh Teshivenu Lo" implies - that he must return the
article in the morning, until the evening when he may take it back.
(b) When Rav Shizbi quoted a Beraisa "Ad Bo ha'Shemesh Teshivenu Lo", 'Zu
K'sus Laylah'. "Hashev Tashiv Lo es he'Avot ke'Vo ha'Shemesh", 'Zu K'sus
Yom' - Rava queried why on earth the debtor would need a night garment
during the day, and a day garment during the night.
2. ... "Hashev Tashiv Lo es he'Avot ke'Vo ha'Shemesh" - implies that he
returns it at sunset (and takes it back in the morning).
(c) It was unnecessary to erase the Beraisa, Rava told Rav Shizbi because
K'sus Laylah' and 'K'sus Yom' mean (not a day garment and a night garment,
as we thought, but) - a garment that needs to be returned in the day and one
that needs to be returned in the night, respectively.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan rules that if the creditor returned the Mashkon, and the
debtor then died - the former is even permitted to strip the Mashkon off the
(b) This ruling does not clash with the principle that the Metaltelin of
Yesomim are not Meshubad to the Ba'al-Chov - because of a second principle
'Ba'al-Chov Koneh Mashkon', which overrides it, because it makes him the
owner, and not the Yesomim.
(a) Rebbi Meir in the Beraisa asks why, after taking a Mashkon, the creditor
is obligated to return it. This Kashya makes no sense - because the Torah
specifically obligates him to return it. So what is there to ask?
(b) We amend Rebbi Meir's Kashya to read that having returned it, why does
he take it back, to which he answers - so that Shevi'is should not cancel
the debt and so that it should not have the Din of Metaltelin in the Reshus
of the Yesomim.
(c) This implies - that if he did not take it back, it would have the Din of
'Metalteli de'Yasmi' (which are not Meshubad to the Ba'al-Chov), a Kashya
on Rebbi Yochanan.
(d) Rav Ada bar Masna answers that, seeing as the Beraisa anyway needs to be
amended, we may as well amend it further. So he amends it to read - 've'Chi
me'Achar she'Machzirin, Lamah Memashkenin Me'ikara ... ', which now conforms
with Rebbi Yochanan's ruling.