REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 76
BAVA METZIA 76-79 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the
Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal
(a) What do we extrapolate from the fact that our Mishnah uses the Lashon
'Hit'u Zeh es Zeh', rather than 'Chazru Zeh ba'Zeh'?
(b) Why do we initially reject the suggestion that the employer instructed
an employee to employ a worker for ...
(c) On which Beraisa is the latter ruling based?
- ... four Zuzim, and he employed him for three?
- ... three Zuzim, and he employed him for four, giving him to understand that *he* was the employer?
(a) So how *do* we then establish the case? What *did* the Sheli'ach say?
(b) But surely, if the going rate is four Zuzim, the employer will have to
pay him four anyway?
(c) And what is his complaint?
(d) Alternatively, we establish the Mishnah when the employee is a Balabos.
What does that mean?
(a) In yet a third answer, we again establish the Mishnah by a working-class
employee, who claims that because the Sheli'ach hired him for four Zuzim, he
performed better quality work (in which case he would be entitled to receive
four Zuzim anyway.
Why can his claim not be substantiated?
(b) In our final answer, we revert to the very first suggestion, that the
employer instructed an employee to employ a worker for four Zuzim, and he
employed him for three.
What is his complaint (based on a Pasuk) despite
the fact that he accepted to work for three?
(c) What will be the Din if the employer instructed the Sheli'ach to offer
the worker three Zuzim, and he went and offered him four, if the worker
responded with 'Whatever the employer said', assuming that the Sheli'ach
told them ...
(d) We ask what the Din will be in the reverse case, where the employer said
four, and the Sheli'ach, three, and where the worker gave the same response.
What are the two sides of the She'eilah?
- ... that *he* would pay him?
- ... that the employer would pay?
(a) To resolve the She'eilah, we quote a case where a woman appoints a
Sheli'ach to 'fetch her Get', and the Sheli'ach quotes her as having asked
her to 'receive her Get on her behalf', and the husband handed the Sheli'ach
the Get adding the stipulation 'as she said'.
Answers to questions
What are the ramifications
of the Sheli'ach's change of Lashon?
(b) What do we try to prove from Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah Amar Rav,
who rules there that the woman is not divorced? What ought he otherwise to
(c) On what grounds does Rav Ashi refute this proof? What is the real reason
that the woman is not divorced, irrespective of whom the husband believes?
(d) Why, if he subsequently brought the woman the Get, do we not say that he
changed his mind and accepted to be a Sheli'ach le'Holachah?
(a) We would have been able to resolve our She'eilah had Rav presented the
What would the case then have been?
(b) What would Rav then have ruled had he maintained that the husband relies
(c) Why do we not rule in the former case, that having informed the husband
that the woman had asked him to become a Sheli'ach le'Holachah, the
Sheli'ach clearly declined to be a Sheli'ach le'Kabalah, like we just
explained in the case of Rav (in which case, she ought not to be divorced at
- ... what the woman really said?
- ... the Sheli'ach?
(a) Although we have explained 've'Hit'u Zeh es Zeh' in many ways, how do we
finally explain it, based on the Beraisa 'ha'Socher es ha'Umnin ve'Hit'u es
Ba'al ha'Bayis ... ', Ein Lahem Ela Tar'umos'? How do we resolve our
original problem concerning the Lashon 've'Hit'u Zeh es Zeh'?
(b) Should he retract, what will the ...
(c) How does the Tana qualify this ruling? When would the worker have a
monetary claim against the employer? How much would he be obligated to pay
- ... employer say to the worker?
- ... worker say to the employer?
(d) What does the Tana mean when he says 'Aval Eino Domeh ha'Ba Ta'un le'Ba
Reikan ... '?
(a) The Beraisa then switches to the Din of a contractor (see Maharsha) who
retracts after having begun to work.
What will be the Din if a worker who
was hired to reap a field of corn or to weave a garment for two Sela'im,
retracts half way, assuming the worker who replace him ...
(b) With which point does Rebbi Dosa disagree? What does he say?
- ... also asks the same price?
- ... asks six Dinrim (one and a half Sela'im) for the second half of the work?
(a) And what does the Tana say in a case where their retraction causes the
employer a loss?
(b) 'Socher Aleihen O Mata'an'.
How do we interpret 'Mata'an'?
(c) Up to how much is the employer permitted to employ new workers at their
(d) In which case does the employer not have anything more than complaints
against workers who retract, even if their retraction causes a loss?
(a) How did the Beraisa-expert explain the above-mentioned Beraisa ('Aval
Halchu Chamarim ve'Lo Matz'u Tevu'ah ... , Nosen Lahen S'charan mi'Shalem')?
(b) What did Rav comment on this?
(c) Why did the Beraisa-expert ignore the continuation of the Beraisa, which
supports Rav's opinion?
(a) In the second Lashon, the Beraisa-expert did cite the continuation of
Answers to questions
What did Rav then comment on that?
(b) How do we reconcile Rav with the Beraisa?
(c) What does Rava say about someone who hires workers to dig in his field,
and then it rains heavily.
In which case do the workers bear the loss, and
in which case must the employer pay them like a Po'el Batel?