POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Bava Kama 102
1) CRAFTSMEN THAT DEVIATED
(b) (Mishnah): R. Yehudah says, Reuven pays the increased
value or Shimon's expenses, whichever is smaller.
2) DEVIATING FROM ONE'S MISSION
(a) (Rav Huna): The law is as R. Yehoshua ben Korchah and as
(b) Rav Yosef: I understand why you must rule as R. Yehoshua
ben Korchah - one might have thought, the law is as the
1. Question: To which teaching of R. Yehoshua ben
Korchah do they refer?
(c) Question (Rav Yosef): Why must you rule as R. Yehudah -
we have a general rule, when an anonymous Mishnah comes
after a Mishnah in which Tana'im argue, the law is as the
2. Answer (Beraisa - R. Yehoshua ben Korchah): Reuven
lent money to a Nochri. If Reuven has no document,
he is in danger of losing the loan, so he may
collect the loan within 3 days before the Nochri
i. If Reuven has a document, he may not collect it
during those 3 days (lest the Nochri thank his
folly for helping him pay his debts).
1. (Our Mishnah, in Bava Kama): If he was told to dye
it red, and he died it black, or vice-versa - R.
Meir says, Shimon pays the value of the wool he
i. R. Yehudah says, Reuven pays the increased
value or Shimon's expenses, whichever is
1. (Anonymous Mishnah, in Bava Metzi'a): Anyone who
deviates or retracts - he has the lower hand (to pay
or receive the change in value or the expenditures).
(d) Answer (Rav Huna): One might have thought that we do not
know the order of the Mishnayos, perhaps the anonymous
Mishnah came first.
(e) Question (Rav Yosef): If so, we can never apply the rule
of an anonymous Mishnah after a Mishnah in which Tana'im
(f) Answer (Rav Huna): We can apply it within 1 tractate
(which surely is in order).
(g) [Version #1 - Question (Rav Yosef): All 3 Bavas (Kama,
Metzi'a and Basra) are 1 tractate (so we know the
(h) [Version #2 - Objection (Rav Yosef): Clearly, the law is
as the anonymous Mishnah, because it gives general rules
(Anyone who deviates...or retracts, he has the lower
(a) Reuven gave money to a moneychanger (Shimon) to buy
wheat; he bought barley with it (or vice-versa).
(b) Beraisa #1: If the grain went up or down in value, Shimon
takes the gain or loss.
3) A FIELD BOUGHT IN ANOTHER'S NAME
(c) Contradiction (Beraisa #2): If the grain went down in
value, Shimon suffers the loss; if it went up in value,
they share the gain.
(d) Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): Beraisa #1 is as R. Meir, who
holds that one acquires through change; Beraisa #2 is as
R. Yehudah, who holds that one does not acquire through
(e) Objection (R. Elazar): Perhaps R. Meir only holds that
change acquires when Reuven wanted something for his own
use, for then something else does not help him;
1. But when Reuven wanted something to resell at a
profit - he is happy with anything that goes up in
(f) Answer #2 (R. Elazar): Both Beraisos are as R. Meir;
Beraisa #1 is when Reuven wanted grain to eat.
(g) In Eretz Yisrael people derided R. Yochanan's answer -
according to R. Yehudah, how does Reuven acquire half the
grain (to share the profit) - the seller did not know
(that Shimon deviated) to intend that Reuven should
(h) Question (R. Shmuel bar Sasarti): If so, even when he
bought as requested, how does Reuven acquire?
(i) Answer (R. Avahu): Then, Shimon acts as an agent of
Reuven, it is as if Reuven bought it.
1. (Mishnah): If Levi made (all) his property Hekdesh,
or pledged his Erech value to Hekdesh, the Gizbar
has no rights to take (to be Hekdesh or as
collateral) the clothing of Levi's wife and
children, nor dye or shoes that Levi bought for
(j) Rejection #1 (and Answer #2 to question i:2 - R. Aba): We
need not says Levi was their agent (and they own the dye
and shoes) - rather, one who makes Hekdesh does not
intend for the clothing of his wife and children.
2. Question: Why don't we say that the seller of dye
(or shoes) did not know to intend that the wife (or
children) should acquire!
3. Answer #1: Rather, Levi acts as an agent of his wife
and children, it is as if they bought them;
i. Also by the grain, Shimon acts as an agent of
Reuven, it is as if Reuven bought it.
1. Question (R. Zeira): One who makes property Hekdesh
- does he intend for his Tefilin?!
(k) Rejection #2 (and Answer #3 to question i:2 - R. Aba):
(We need not says Levi was their agent, therefore they
own the dye and shoes -) rather, one who makes his
property Hekdesh, it is as if he gave his wife and
children ownership of their clothing before he made his
i. (Mishnah): Yehudah made all his property
Hekdesh - we evaluate his Tefilin, he borrows
their value and gives it to Hekdesh so he can
keep his Tefilin.
2. Answer (Abaye): Yes, one who makes property Hekdesh
intends for his Tefilin - he reasons, I am doing a
i. He does not intend for the clothing of his wife
and children, for this would cause animosity.
3. Question (R. Oshiya): But the Mishnah also spoke of
i. (Mishnah): One who is obligated to give Erchin,
we take pledges from them (against his will).
ii. Does a person intend that we take pledges from
him against his will?!
(a) (Beraisa): Reuven bought a field for the sake of Shimon -
we do not force him to sell it to Shimon;
1. If he told the seller that he is buying it for
Shimon, we force him.
(b) Question: What does this mean?
(c) Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes): Moshe bought a field, and told
the seller that he is buying it for the Reish Galusa
(intending to prevent people from contesting the sale;
they wrote the document of sale in the Reish Galusa's
name) - we do not force the Reish Galusa to sell the
property to Moshe;
1. If he told the seller that he only intends to
prevent controversy, we force the Reish Galusa to
sell it to Moshe.
(d) Objection: Rav Sheshes continued, 'If he told the seller
that he only intends to prevent controversy, we force the
Reish Galusa to sell it to Moshe' - why is this?
2. Inference: Rav Sheshes said that if Moshe bought a
field in the Reish Galusa's name, we do not force
the Reish Galusa to sell it to Moshe - this implies
that the Reish Galusa acquired it.
3. Suggestion: This argues on the people of Eretz
Yisrael, who said (2:g) 'The seller did not know to
intend that Reuven (whose money was given) should
4. Rejection: No - here, Moshe told the seller and
witnesses to write the document in the name of the
1. The Reish Galusa can say, I didn't ask you to use my
name, nor do I want the disgrace of selling
(e) Answer #2 (Abaye): Reuven bought a field in the name of
the Reish Galusa (the Rosh explains - in the name of a
commoner) - we do not force the seller to write another
document in Reuven's name.
1. If he told the seller from the beginning, we force
(f) Question: The first law is obvious!
(g) Answer: One might have thought, Reuven can say, you knew
that I was buying for myself, and I was just protecting
myself - I would not spend money without getting a
document in my name!
1. We hear, this is not so - the seller can say, I
assumed you made a deal with him, and he will write
a document selling it to you.
(h) Question: Abaye's second law - if he told the seller from
the beginning, we force him - is obvious!
(i) Answer: The case is, he told the witnesses in front of
the seller that he will want another document.
1. One might have thought, the seller can say, I
thought you meant from the one in whose name you
2. We hear, this is not so - he told the witnesses in
front of the seller to make clear that the next
document will also be from the seller.