Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Bava Metzia, 109

1) THE NATURE OF AN ACQUISITION OF LAND DURING THE TIME WHEN "YOVEL" IS IN EFFECT

QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Beraisa which teaches that when a person purchased a field and then the Yovel year arrives, the purchaser must return the field to its original owner, but he is not required to return the improvements that he made to the field (and thus when he returns the field, the original owner must pay him for the improvements). The Gemara asks that we should learn from that law that when a sharecropper ("Mekabel") finishes working on one's land, the owner of the land should pay him for the improvements that he made to it. The Gemara answers that there is a basic difference between a buyer who must return a field when Yovel arrives, and a sharecropper (renter) who must return a field when the term of the rental ends. In the case of a buyer who must return the field at Yovel, the buyer's purchase of the land was a valid, permanent sale, which gives to the buyer the full ownership of the field. The buyer must return the field only because Hashem decreed that the sale becomes annulled and the field returns to its original owner. In the case of a rental, though, the field was the possession of the original owner the entire time, and therefore the sharecropper is not entitled to receive payment for the improvements to the field.

(The MINCHAS CHINUCH (339:10) deduces from our Gemara that, at Yovel, when the field returns to the original owner, he does not need to make a new Kinyan to acquire the field, because Hashem decreed that it should be returned to him and that the Kinyan of the buyer should be annulled.)

Our Gemara clearly implies that the Kinyan of the buyer is a valid Kinyan, and the Yovel is a special decree that returns the land to its original owner. This seems to contradict the Gemara in Gitin (48a). The Gemara there says that when one buys a field (in a time when Yovel is in effect), his purchase is not a full purchase of the field, but rather it is a "Kinyan Peros" -- he has bought the field only for the fruit that it produces; the original owner still owns the "Guf" of the field. The Gemara there discusses whether a Kinyan Peros is considered to be a Kinyan ha'Guf or not. According to all opinions in the Gemara there, one who buys a field (when Yovel is in effect) has bought only the Kinyan Peros. Our Gemara, though, implies that the buyer has a complete Kinyan, and when Yovel arrives it annuls the Kinyan and returns the field to the original owner!

ANSWER: The SHO'EL U'MESHIV (of RAV YOSEF SHAUL NATANSOHN, whose Yahrzeit is today; 4:3:58) answers that even though the buyer has a full-fledged Kinyan, nevertheless -- since the seller will receive the field back without a new Kinyan (by virtue of the Torah's decree that grants it to him) -- the buyer's Kinyan is deemed to be a Kinyan Peros. This means as follows. The Gemara in Gitin says that before the arrival of the first Yovel year in history, people sold their lands with absolute intention that the sale be permanentlyı binding. When the first Yovel came, it activated the decree of the Torah that the buyer's Kinyan be annulled and that the land return to its original owner. After the first Yovel, people knew that Yovel would return the fields to their owners and thus they bought fields with the knowledge that the sale would last only until Yovel. Hence, their "Da'as" makes the Kinyan into a Kinyan Peros. (Y. Marcus)

OPINIONS: Rava rules that a teacher of young children, a professional field-planter, a butcher, an "Uman," and a "Safar Masa" (see following Insight) are all considered to be forewarned with regard to the proper execution of their tasks, since any mistake that they make causes an irrevocable loss. Consequently, if they err, they lose their position without further warning.

When Rava mentions an "Uman," to what profession is he referring?

(a) RASHI explains that when Rava mentions an "Uman," he is referring to a Mohel. According to Rashi's explanation, we can deduce that Rashi permits a Mohel to receive payment for his services. This is because Rava is teaching a law relevant to financial matters; he is teaching that these workers are removed from their positions and do not receive their outstanding pay. It is clear, then, that these positions are paid positions, because, otherwise, it would make no difference to them if they lose their work. Accordingly, it seems from the Gemara that the position of Mohel is a paid position.

(b) The YA'AVETZ does not agree with the implication from Rashi's words. He says that one is *not* permitted to receive payment for performing Milah. The RASHBA (in Teshuvos ha'Rashba I:475) says that a Mohel who receives payment "is not acting in accordance with the proper conduct expected from a descendent of Avraham Avinu." He writes that throughout the generations it was understood that the father was doing the Mohel the greatest kindness by allowing him to perform the Milah. The Rashba concludes by saying that Beis Din should admonish a Mohel who takes payment.

The YA'AVETZ, therefore, suggests that when Rava mentions an "Uman," he is referring to a blood-letter ("Meikiz Dam"), as we find in a number of places throughout the Gemara that "Uman" refers to a blood-letter.

The TOSFOS HA'ROSH also says that "Uman" refers to a blood-letter, as Rashi himself explains the word earlier (97a). (The HAGAHOS HA'GRA to Shulchan Aruch CM 306:21 says that both explanations of "Uman" here are true, since the errors of both of them involve losses that cannot be corrected.) (Y. Marcus)

109b

OPINIONS: Rava rules that a teacher of young children, a professional field-planter, a butcher, an "Uman" (see previous Insight), and a "Safar Masa" are all considered to be forewarned with regard to the proper execution of their tasks, since any mistake that they make causes an irrevocable loss. Consequently, if they err, they lose their position without further warning.

When Rava mentions a "Safar Masa," to what profession is he referring?

(a) RASHI earlier (97a) explains that "Safar Masa" means the town barber. This is also one of the explanations of RABEINU YEHONASAN (cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes here), who explains that the reason why his error involves an irrevocable loss (when it seems that his error does not involve an irrevocable loss, since his victim's hair will eventually grow back) is because when he cuts too much hair off, his customer experiences intense embarrassment, which constitutes an irreparable loss.

(b) RASHI in Bava Basra (21b) explains that a "Safar Masa" is a Sofer who writes Sifrei Torah. TOSFOS there asks, though, why is his error considered an irrevocable loss? If he makes a mistake in writing a letter in a Sefer Torah, it can easily be corrected!

Tosfos there answers that the Gemara is referring to when the Sofer makes a mistake in writing the Name of Hashem, which is a mistake that cannot be corrected.

The RAN and other Rishonim answer that the Gemara is referring to a Sofer who makes five mistakes on a single parchment of the Sefer Torah. The Gemara in Menachos (29b) says that a parchment with five mistakes must be buried and cannot be used.

The MALEI HA'RO'IM in Bava Basra answers that the Gemara is referring to a Sofer who writes Tefilin and Mezuzos. Since the text inside of Tefilin and Mezuzos must be written in order, if he makes a mistake he cannot correct it and he must start anew.

The P'NEI SHLOMO cited by the D'VAR YAKOV answers that the irreparable loss that results from the Sofer's mistake is that the Tzibur unknowingly reads from a Sefer Torah that is not valid.

(c) TOSFOS in Bava Basra (21a) and the ME'IRI explain that the Gemara refers to a Sofer who writes legal documents.