ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 151
BAVA BASRA 151 - Dedicated by Dr. and Mrs. Moshe & Rivka Snow of Queens,
N.Y., in memory of Rabbis Israel Snow and Baruch Mayer Rabinowitz -- both of
whose Yahrzeits are 8 Elul.
(a) The Mishnah in Shekalim discusses a case where someone declares his
property (Nechasav) Hekdesh. According to Rebbi Eliezer, animals that are
fit to go on the Mizbe'ach ...
1. ... must be sold as Olos (burnt-offerings) if they are male, and Olos
must be purchased with the proceeds.
(b) Wine, oil and birds have the same Din as the previous cases - they must
be sold for what they are fit, and with the proceeds, burnt-offerings must
be purchased that are brought on the Mizbe'ach.
2. ... must be sold as Shelamim (peace-offerings) if they are female, and
Olos must be purchased with the proceeds.
(c) We prove from these two Halachos - that animals and birds are also
included in 'Nechasim'.
(d) And the Mishnah there says - that if the property includes Tefilin, they
must be assessed and the Makdish must pay that amount to Hekdesh Bedek
ha'Bayis, a proof that Tefilin too, are included in Nechasim.
(a) One is not generally permitted to sell a Seifer-Torah, yet it might be
included in 'Nechasav' - because one may sell it in order to learn Torah or
to get married.
(b) The outcome of this She'eilah is -Teiku.
(c) The mother of Rav Zutra bar Tuvya wrote all her property to her son - in
order that Rav Z'vid, whom she was about to marry, should not inherit it, a
fact which she specifically stated at the time.
(d) When, after she was divorced, she reclaimed her property from her son -
Rav Bibi bar Abaye ruled that, since she stipulated that she was giving it
to him on condition that she got married, which she did, her son had
acquired it, and she had no further claim to it.
(a) Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua - asked whether it was because Rav Bibi
descended from 'Mulai (the name of the town from which Eli ha'Kohen's
descendants lived [though others say that it means 'blemished', see Rashi
Eruvin 25b], because Abaye's family descended from Beis Eli) that he issued
(b) When he said 'even those who hold that 'Mavrachas' acquires, will agree
here that Rav Zutra bar Tuvya did not - he was referring to the Rabbanan of
Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who say that the beneficiary can have a good laugh
and keep the gift.
(c) He cannot have been referring to the case of the mother of Rav Shmuel
bar Aba from Akrunya in Perek ha'Chovel, where they ruled that the purchaser
of the property that the wife sold him was entitled to keep it - because the
case there concerned a woman who sold her Nechsei Milug to her son during
her lifetime to inherit after her death, and has nothing to do with our
(d) He refuted Rav Bibi bar Abaye's ruling - on the grounds that (unlike the
case of the Rabbanan of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel) the mother of Rav Zutra
bar Tuvya had clearly indicated her intentions (that she only gave her
property to her son because of her marriage to Rav Z'vid), and that we are
obligated to follow her stated intentions.
(a) In the evening, the mother of Rami bar Chama wrote her property to her
son Rami and in the morning she wrote it to her other son Rav Ukva (though
others reverse the times). After Rav Sheishes had placed the property in the
Reshus of Rami bar Chama - Rav Nachman placed it in the Reshus of Rav Ukva
(sparking off Rav Sheishes' objection).
(b) Rav Nachman justified his ruling however, despite the fact that the
mother had died, by citing Shmuel, who said -that as long as a Shechiv-Mera
can retract if he recovers, he can retract even if he doesn't.
(c) When Rav Sheishes suggested that this was confined to where the Shiyur
was for Shechiv-Mera himself, but not when it was for the benefit of the
benefit of a third person, Rav Nachman replied - that Shmuel had
specifically said that there was no difference.
(a) In a similar case cited in Kesuvos involving the same characters, Rav
Sheishes and Rav Nachman issued the same rulings. The outcome of the Sugya
however, is 'Shuda de'Dayna', which means - that Beis-Din assesses to whom
the owner would have wanted to give the gift, or just to give it to whoever
they see fit.
(b) The ruling there differs from the ruling here - because it was that of a
(c) The reason for that ruling is because - even though we would normally
grant right of ownership to the first beneficiary, that does not apply
there, since the two gifts were given on the same day (and no distinction
appears on the Sh'tar).
(a) Before she died, the mother of Rav Amram Chasida stated that a Melugma
di'Shetara should go to her son. A 'Melugma di'Shetara' is - a bundle or a
bag-full of Sh'taros.
(b) When Rav Amram's brother complained, and it was ascertained that Rav
Amram had not made a Meshichah to acquire the Sh'taros, Rav Nachman replied
with the principle - 'Divrei Shechiv-Mera ki'Chesuvin ve'chi'Mesurin Dami'
(the words of a Shechiv-Mera acquire without a Kinyan).
(c) In the morning Rav Achdevu'i bar Masna's sister declared her property in
his domain. In the evening, his brother came to plead with her - on the
grounds that people would now say that their brother was a Talmid-Chacham,
but he was not.
(d) She reacted to that - by promptly declaring the property in the domain
of the latter.
(e) Rav Nachman cited Shmuel's principle - 'as long as a Shechiv-Mera can
retract if he recovers, he can retract even if he doesn't'.
(a) Whenever when she fell ill - Rav Dimi bar Yosef's sister would be Makneh
her piece of vineyard to her brother.
(b) She did not own anything else - rendering her gift a Matnas Shechiv-Mera
(c) Eventually, he refused to accept the gift - because each time she
recovered, she retracted from the gift. leaving him with nothing.
(a) He ultimately accepted her next offer and acquired the piece of
vineyard - on condition that she retained part of the vineyard for herself
(thereby transforming it into a Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas).
(b) Following Rav Dimi's sister's recovery, she again reclaimed the piece of
property in the Beis-Din of Rav Nachman.
(c) When Rav Dimi refused to appear before Beis-Din - Rav Nachman threatened
to prick him with a thorn that does not draw blood (another term for placing
a person in Niduy).
(d) Rav Nachman substantiated the sister's claim, in spite of Rav Dimi's
precautions - on the grounds of the witnesses' testimony that, whilst her
brother was acquiring the property, she was moaning about her imminent death
(thus rendering it a case of Metzaveh Machmas Miysah, from which she was
able to retract).
(a) Mar Zutra B'rei de'Rav Nachman said in his father's name that a Matnas
Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas resembles ...
1. ... a Matnas Bari - inasmuch as, should he recover, he is unable to
(b) Rava reminded Mar Zutra - that he had told him before not to misquote
2. ... a Matnas Shechiv-Mera - inasmuch as it does not require a Kinyan.
(c) According to Rava, what Rav Nachman had really said was - that a Matnas
Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas resembles a Matnas Bari even as regards the need for
a Kinyan, too.
(d) There is no difference regarding a Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas,
between whether the Shechiv-Mera recovered or died - either way, if a Kinyan
was made, the gift is final, whereas if it was not, it is invalid.
(a) Rav Nachman explain our Mishnah 'Shiyer Karka Kol-she'Hu Matanaso
Matanah', from which Rava queried him - by establishing it when he made a
(b) To answer Rava's Kashya from the Seifa 'Lo Shiyer Karka Kol-she'Hu, Ein
Matanaso Kayemes', which seems hard to understand, if the Tana is talking
when the Shechiv-Mera made a Kinyan, Rav Nachman cites Shmuel, who said -
that a Shechiv-Mera who gives away all his property can always retract (even
he made a Kinyan).
(a) Rav Mesharshaya asked Rava from the Beraisa concerning the mother of the
sons of Ruchel, who bequeathed her brooch worth twelve Manah to her
daughter, and where the Rabbanan - validated the gift.
(b) We know that no Kinyan had taken place - because the Beraisa says that
the Chachamim carried out *her words*, implying that no Kinyan had taken
(c) Rav Mesharshaya's Kashya was - why, having just concluded that a Matnas
Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas is not Koneh without a Kinyan, the daughter acquired
the brooch, which was certainly only a Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas.
(d) Rava replied - that this was different because it speaks when the woman
moaned about her death when she gave her daughter the brooch (Metzaveh
(a) Ravina asked Rava from the Beraisa, where the Tana rules that if
someone died after saying ...
We finally rule like Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua regarding Matnas
Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas. Metzaveh Machmas Miysah ...
1. ... 'T'nu Get Zeh le'Ishti, u'Sh'tar Shichrur Zeh le'Avdi' - *they should
not carry out his instructions*, because a Get cannot become valid after the
(b) We know that the Seifa is speaking when no Kinyan was made - because of
the Reisha, where, had a Kinyan been made, why was the Get not valid?
2. ... 'T'nu Manah li'Peloni' - they *should*.
(c) Rava answers Ravina's Kashya from the Seifa, despite the fact that a
Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas without a Kinyan is not Koneh - like we
answered the previous Kashya (of Rav Mesharshaya), by establishing the case
by Metzaveh Machmas Miysah.
(d) Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua disagrees. In his opinion, even Metzaveh
Machmas Miysah requires a Kinyan - and the Beraisa must be speaking when the
Shechiv-Mera was in the process of distributing *all* his property (which
does not require a Kinyan).
1. ... if the Shechiv-Mera died - acquires even without a Kinyan.
2. ... if he recovered - he is permitted to retract even if a Kinyan did