(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 76

BAVA METZIA 76-79 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.


(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 ...

  1. ... four Zuzim, and he employed him for three?
  2. ... three Zuzim, and he employed him for four, giving him to understand that *he* was the employer?
(c) On which Beraisa is the latter ruling based?
(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 ...

  1. ... that *he* would pay him?
  2. ... that the employer would pay?
(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?
(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'.
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 have ruled?

(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?

Answers to questions



(a) We would have been able to resolve our She'eilah had Rav presented the reverse case.
What would the case then have been?

(b) What would Rav then have ruled had he maintained that the husband relies on ...

  1. ... what the woman really said?
  2. ... the Sheli'ach?
(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 all)?
(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 ...

  1. ... employer say to the worker?
  2. ... worker say to the employer?
(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 him?

(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 ...
  1. ... also asks the same price?
  2. ... asks six Dinrim (one and a half Sela'im) for the second half of the work?
(b) With which point does Rebbi Dosa disagree? What does he say?
(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 expense?

(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 the Beraisa.
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?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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