Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) [line 1] ASIKIN - protesters [claiming that they had a lien on the field for a loan given to Reuven or that the field does not belong to Reuven]

2) [line 1] AD SHE'LO HECHZIK BAH (KINYAN CHAZAKAH)
(a) When a person buys or sells an object, he must make a Ma'aseh Kinyan (a formal Halachically-binding act denoting the change in status). The forms of Ma'aseh Kinyan that may be used are: for Metaltelin (mobile items) - 1. Hagbahah, i.e. lifting an item; 2. Meshichah (lit. pulling), i.e. causing an item to move; 3. Chatzer, i.e. bringing the item into one's domain; 4. Chalipin (barter); 5. Mesirah, i.e. handing over the reigns of an animal or the tie lines of a boat; for Mekarka'in (immobile items) - 1. Kesef, i.e. paying money; 2. Shtar, (a document specifying the sale or gift of the land -- this Kinyan is only applicable to certain cases -- see Kidushin 26a); 3. Chalipin (lit. barter -- see Background to Kidushin 13:10); 4. Chazakah, i.e. performing an act that is normally performed by an owner.
(b) Examples of Chazakah for real estate are Na'al (locking), Gadar (fencing in) and Paratz (making a breach in a fence to create an entrance) or any act that is done to *enhance* the land, such as digging to improve a field and the like (MISHNAH Bava Basra 42a).

3a) [line 3] CHAYESA D'KITREI - (a) a small tied pouch that contains only air (RASHI); (b) a small pouch that is tied with many knots, indicating that it contains something significant, but in reality it does not. The purchaser did not check its contents, thinking it contained pieces of silver or the like (RASHI to Kesuvos 93a, RABEINU YEHONASAN here); (c) this is a parable about a person who buys a full bag that is tied, making it impossible to tell what is inside, wine, oil or water. Afterwards the purchaser finds out that it contains only water (RABEINU CHANANEL)
b) [line 3] SAVRAS V'KIBALT - (lit. you thought [it over] and accepted [to buy it]) you have committed yourself to buying a Chayesa d'Kitrei; i.e. you agreed to take a chance of losing your money

4) [line 4] MI'KI DAYISH A'MITZREI - (a) from when he walks along the boundaries of the field (RASHI, 1st edition, cited by the SHITAH MEKUBETZES to Kesuvos 93a); (b) from when he raises the boundary markings of the field and/or fixes them (RASHI to Bava Metzi'a 14b); (c) from when he removes the boundary markings of the field, incorporating it with his own fields (in the event that he has a field that borders this one) (RAN to Kesuvos ibid., see Chidushei Anshei Shem ibid.)

5) [line 5] V'IKA D'AMREI AFILU B'ACHRAYUS NAMI - some say that even if the seller obligated himself with Achrayus (see Background to Bava Kama 8:18), still the fact that a protest was registered against the land prevents the buyer from asking for his money back. Although eventually he might lose the property, still the buyer's claim does not have any effect until the land is actually repossessed, at which point he may return to the seller and ask for his money back

6) [line 6] ACHAVI TIRPACH VA'ASHALEM LACH - show me the document signed by Beis Din confirming that the purchased property was seized, giving you the right to be compensated for the value of the property, and only then shall I pay you

7) [line 23] V'HA AMARAH RAV ASI CHADA ZIMNA? - Rav Asi has already taught us this Chiddush elsewhere

8) [line 26] VITER - he has lost his rights
9) [line 26] NOTEL REVI'A B'KARKA U'REVI'A B'MA'OS - he gets back from his brother one quarter of what he lost either in land or in cash

10) [line 28, 29] HA'ACHIN SHE'CHALKU K'YORSHIM / LEKUCHOS HAVU
(a) When a person dies, his estate is divided up among his sons. The Amora'im argue whether the way the estate is ultimately divided can retroactively determine what each brother inherited at the time of the father's death, or not. Rebbi Yochanan (Gitin 48a) is of the opinion that even when the brothers later divide the estate, we *cannot determine retroactively* that the land each brother now has is the same land he inherited at the time of death. Rather, we say that by dividing up the property, the brothers agree to "trade" their true portions, wherever they are, with each other for portions of equal value elsewhere ("ha'achin she'Chalku Lekuchos Havu").
(b) There is a Halachic difference between whether the inheritance is retroactive or not. If the inheritance is retroactive ("k'Yorshin Havu"), no purchase or trading has occurred. Therefore, in the year of the Yovel they need not return the land to each other and re-divide the estate. However, if the inheritance is not retroactive and a trade *has* occurred, when Yovel arrives the brothers must return to each other their portions, after which they re-divide the estate, as if they had purchased their shares from each other.

11) [last line] B'MITZVAH AD SHELISH - a person must pay up to a third for a Mitzvah. The Gemara first assumes that this means that one must spend a third of his assets on a single Mitzvah. The Gemara then asks if so, someone who has three Mitzvos to do will forgo all of his money [which is unthinkable]!?

12) [line 3] B'HIDUR MITZVAH AD SHELISH B'MITZVAH - one should pay up to a third more to do a Mitzvah with Hidur such as a nice Esrog or Sefer Torah

13a) [line 4] SHELISH MIL'GAV - a third of the original price, or 33% more
b) [line 4] SHELISH MIL'VAR - a third of the ensuing total, or 50% more

14) [line 5] TEIKU
The Pri Megadim (in his Igeres preceding his introduction to Orach Chaim, #9) quotes and discusses various explanations for the word Teiku:

1. It is sealed in its container ("Tik") (ARUCH, Erech Tik).
2. Tehei Ka'i - "Let it (the question) stand" (MUSAF HA'ARUCH).
3. Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos v'Ibayos - "Eliyahu ha'Navi will answer difficulties and questions" (TOSFOS YOM TOV, end of Eduyos).

16a) [line 7] KOL SHE'CHAVTI BI'SHEMIRASO - anything that I became liable to watch
b) [line 8] HICHSHARTI ES NIZKO - (a) it is as if I personally caused the damage that it caused; (b) I must set right the damage that it caused, i.e. I am liable to pay

17a) [line 8] HICHSHARTI B'MIKTZAS NIZKO - if I was partially responsible for the damage
b) [line 9] CHAVTI B'SASHLUMEI NIZKO K'HECHSHER KOL NIZKO - I am responsible as if I caused the entire damage. The Gemara brings specific cases where someone who was only partly responsible can be totally liable

18) [line 9] NECHASIM SHE'EIN BAHEM ME'ILAH - one is Chayav to pay only if he damaged items that are either non-Hekdesh or Hekdesh for which there is no Chiyuv Me'ilah, such as Kodshim Kalim (ME'ILAH)
(a) It is forbidden to derive personal benefit from anything that is Hekdesh, as the Torah states, "Lo Suchal le'Echol b'Sha'arecha...u'Nedarecha Asher Tidor" - "You may not eat in your settlements... and your pledges [to Hekdesh] that you will pledge" (Devarim 12:17) (RAMBAM Hilchos Me'ilah 1:1-3). The minimum amount for which one transgresses this prohibition is a Perutah's worth of benefit.
(b) If someone benefited from Hekdesh intentionally, he receives Malkos and must pay to Hekdesh the amount that he benefited. However, the object from which he benefited remains Hekdesh.
(c) If someone benefited from Hekdesh unintentionally, the object loses its Kedushah. He must bring a Korban Me'ilah and repay Hekdesh the value of his benefit plus an additional *fifth* (of the ensuing total, or a *quarter* of the original value). This is true of any object that has Kedushas Damim (i.e. its value is consecrated to Hekdesh). An object that has Kedushas ha'Guf (i.e. an object with intrinsic Kedushah, such as the utensils used in the Beis ha'Mikdash or a live Korban that is used in the Beis ha'Mikdash "as is") does not lose its Kedushah under any circumstances (Rosh Hashanah 28a).

19) [line 10] BENEI BRIS - Jews
20) [line 11] NECHASIM HA'MEYUCHADIM - property that has an owner

21a) [line 16] CHERESH - a deaf mute

b) [line 16] SHOTEH - (lit. a fool) a person who is mad or deranged

(a) A person is classified as a Shoteh if he regularly, because of madness, destroys or loses that which is given to him, sleeps in a cemetery, goes out alone at night or tears his clothes (Chagigah 3b). According to the RAMBAM (Hilchos Edus 9:9), a person is a Shoteh if he regularly exhibits any form of irrational behavior.
(b) A Shoteh is exempt from performing Mitzvos, is not punished for his transgressions and is not liable for the damages that he causes. His purchases and sales are meaningless and are not binding.

c) [line 16] KATAN - a minor (a boy under the age of 13 and a girl under the age of 12)

22) [line 19] GACHELES - a coal
23) [line 20] SHOR MUTAR - an untied bull
24) [line 21] SHALHEVES - a burning coal or flame
25) [line 23] LIBAH - set a glowing coal aflame
26a) [line 27] DARCHEI LINTUKEI - will naturally get untied
b) [line 27] DARCHEI LINTUREI - will naturally become uncovered
c) [line 28] ME'AMYA AMYA V'AZLA - will gradually burn out

27) [line 31] TZAVSA D'CHERESH KA GARIM - (a) the [irresponsible] *grip* of the Cheresh caused [the fire to do damage]; (b) according to the Girsa *TZAVSA* (same pronunciation but with two letters Vav instead of the Veis) - the *company* of the Cheresh caused [the fire to do damage]. The case of damage by the fire is considered more of direct result of the actions of the Cheresh as opposed to the case of the Shor or the Bor, where the Cheresh did not actually bring about the damage but rather he merely did not prevent it.

28) [line 34] KOFER
(a) SHOR HA'MU'AD - An ox that gores two times is still referred to as a Tam. The owner only pays half the value of the damages that his ox causes through goring. If the ox gored three times and the owner was informed and warned to guard his ox each time, the ox is termed a Mu'ad and from then on the owner has to pay the full value of the damages that his ox causes through goring.
(b) CHIYUV KOFER - If a person's Shor ha'Mu'ad kills another person, the owner of the ox is Chayav Misah b'Yedei Shamayim and the ox is put to death by stoning. He can *redeem* himself by paying Kofer to the children or heirs of the dead man, as the verse states, "v'Im Kofer Yushas Alav, v'Nasan Pidyon Nafsho." (Shemos 21:30). The amount paid as Kofer is defined as either the owner's value, or the dead man's value, according to the various opinions of the Tana'im (Makos 2b).

29) [line 35] SHELOSHIM SHEL EVED
If one's ox kills an Eved Kena'ani (a Nochri slave), thirty Shekalim are given to the master of the slave, as stated in Shemos 21:32.

30) [line 35] NIGMAR DINO - (lit. [after] its case was finished) after the death sentence was issued (SHOR HA'NISKAL)
The term Shor ha'Niskal refers to any animal or bird that is stoned to death by Beis Din. Such an animal is Asur b'Hana'ah after the death sentence is issued. One of the instances of Shor ha'Niskal is an animal that killed a person, as described in Shemos 21:28-31 and in Sanhedrin 2a. In the event that an animal killed a person, only if two witnesses saw the act is the animal stoned by Beis Din and Asur b'Hana'ah. If only one witness saw it, or if there were no witnesses but the owner told Beis Din of the incident, the animal is not stoned and is Mutar b'Hana'ah but is unfit to be brought as a Korban.

Next daf