(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Metzia 11

BAVA METZIA 11-17 - This study material has been produced with the help of the Israeli ministry of religious affairs.


(a) According to the Tana of our Mishnah, if someone sees people running after a deer or fledglings, and, as they enter his field, he declares 'Zachsah Li Sadi', under which circumstances will he acquire them and under which, will he not?

(b) What is the reason for this distinction?

(c) What statement does Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina make with regard to Kinyan Chatzer?

(d) In that case, why does Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel require the owner of the field to be standing beside his field, before he will acquire the deer or the fledglings?

(a) The Beraisa, discussing the case of an owner who declares in town that the sheaves which he knows his workers forgot in the field should not be Shikchah, states 'Yachol Lo Yehei Shikchah, Talmud Lomar "ve'Shachachta Omer ba'Sadeh", 'be'Sadeh ve'Shachachta, ve'Lo Ba'Ir'.
What is strange about this Beraisa?

(b) How do we resolve this apparent contradiction? When is Zachur ve'li'Besof Shachu'ach considered Shikchah, and when is it not? What does 'Zachur ve'li'Besof Shachu'ach' mean?

(c) What do we prove from this distinction? Why should Shikchas ha'Ir of the owner be any worse than Shikchas ha'Sadeh?

(d) After changing the text to ('Yachol Yehei Shikchah' - see Tosfos DH 'Dilma') we ask that perhaps what the Beraisa means is that once the owner reaches town, the Din of Shikchah simply does not apply.
How do we refute this suggestion? What do we learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Lo Sashuv Le'kachto"?

(a) Seeing as we need the Pasuk "Lo Sashuv Le'kachto" for a La'av, how can we also use it to include Shikchas ha'Ir?

(b) We persist however, in discarding this Pasuk, citing a Mishnah in Pe'ah. What does the Tana there learn from "Lo Sashuv Le'kachto"?

(c) How does Rav Ashi finally solve our problem? If we do not learn Shikchas ha'Ir from "Lo Sashuv Le'kachto", from where do we learn it?

Answers to questions



(a) Ula and Rabah bar bar Chanah too, agree with Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel and require the owner to stand beside his unguarded field in order to acquire. Rebbi Aba queries Ula from a Beraisa, which relates an episode that occurred whilst Raban Gamliel was traveling with the elders in a boat.
What problem concerning Ma'asros, was Raban Gamliel faced with?

(b) It seems that he had already separated Terumah Gedolah, and he decided to give his Ma'aser Rishon to Rebbi Yehoshua.
How do we know that Rebbi Yehoshua was a Levi? Was he a singer or a gatekeeper?

(c) Why did he choose to give his Ma'aser Ani to Rebbi Akiva?

(d) Why was he taking Ma'aser Ani and not Ma'aser Sheini?

(a) Bearing in mind that the produce was not in front of them, how was Raban Gamliel Makneh the respective Ma'asros to the two men?

(b) Ho did Rebbi Aba query Ula from this Beraisa?

(c) Was Ula impressed with his Kashya?

(d) When Rebbi Aba arrived in Sura, they explained to him why.
What sort of Kinyan had Raban Gamliel used, according to Ula? What advantage does that Kinyan have over Kinyan Chatzer?

(a) Although Rebbi Zeira accepted this explanation, Rava agreed with Rebbi Aba, who did not.
On what grounds did he reject it?

(b) He based this on the fact that Raban Gamliel did not use Kinyan Sudar (which follows Kinyan Chatzer in this regard).
What advantage would Kinyan Sudar have had over Kinyan Agav?

(c) So what has Rava proved with this?

(d) But Rava (and Rebbi Aba) is wrong.
What basic difference exists between Kinyan Agav and Kinyan Sudar (based on the fact that the Torah writes (with regard to Matnos Kehunah) "ve'Nasata la'Levi ... "?

(a) According to Rav Papa, the Tana'im may well have acquired the Ma'asros with Kinyan Chatzer, in spite of Ula and the other Amora'im, who require the owner to stand beside the property.
Why would that not have been necessary in this case?

(b) We prove this distinction from Rebbi Aba bar Kahana, who supported Rebbi Yirmiyah's distinction between Hefker and a gift. This is based on a statement by Rebbi Yirmiyah Amar Rebbi Yochanan.
What did Rebbi Yochanan state about the case in our Mishnah, when the owner of the field spied people chasing a deer or fledglings which entered his field, and which the Tana rules, he is Koneh?

(c) What She'eilah did Rebbi Yirmiyah then pose to Rebbi Yochanan?

(d) And what does Rebbi Aba bar Kahana conclude?

(a) Rav Shimi asked Rav Papa from Get, which the woman receives from her husband, yet Ula requires her to be standing next to her field when he throws the Get into it.
What Rav Papa reply?

(b) On what grounds does Rav Sheishes Brei de'Rav Idi refute Rav Papa's reply?

(a) Rav Ashi too, bases the difference between Get and Matanah on the fact that Get is 'Ba'al Korchah', but from a totally different perspective.
What does he first of all point out with regard to Kinyan Chatzer, which we learn from Yad, as we explained earlier?

(b) How will that determine the fact that ...

  1. ... by Get the women must be standing beside his field?
  2. ... by Matanah, this is not necessary?
(c) How can we apply 'Anan Sahadi', and assume that a person wants his field to acquire a Matanah on his behalf, in view of the Pasuk in Mishlei "Sonei Matanos Yichyeh"?

(d) Why will the previous S'vara by Matanah not apply to when one acquires an article from Hefker?

Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,