ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 96
BAVA METZIA 96 (14 Adar) - l'Iluy Nishmas Harav Ze'ev Wolf Rosengarten of
Zurich, Switzerland, host to the Brisker Rav and a person of "Sheleimus" in
every way. Dedicated in honor of his Yahrzeit by his nephew and Talmid, Mr.
Eli Rosengarten of Zurich.
(a) We just concluded that, in order to be She'eilah be'Ba'alim, the owner
must work for the Sho'el at the time of the She'eilah, but not necessarily
when the O'nes occurs. And we learn this from a superfluous Pasuk. The
problem with this conclusion is - how we know that it is not the other way
round (that the owner must work for the Sho'el at the time the O'nes occurs,
and not necessarily at the time of the She'eilah)?
(b) Despite the fact that the She'eilah would not obligate the Sho'el
without the O'nes, we nevertheless place the criterion on the time of the
She'eilah - because it has an advantage over the O'nes, inasmuch as it
obligates the Sho'el to feed the animal.
(c) Rav Ashi extrapolate that from the Pasuk "ve'Chi Yish'al Ish me'Im
Re'eihu ... Shalem Yeshalem" - by Darshening "me'Im Re'eihu", 've'Lo Re'eihu
(d) According to Rav Ashi, the Torah nevertheless needs the two Pesukim
"Be'alav Ein Imo ... " and "Im Be'alav Imo" - because without them, we would
have treated "me'Im Re'eihu" as a manner of speech (not worthy of a
(a) Rami bar Chama asks a series of She'eilos. He asks about ...
1. ... someone who borrowed an animal for sinful purposes, who might be
Patur from Onsin - because it is unusual to borrow a cow for something like
(b) This latter She'eilah must assume in the case of the previous She'eilah,
where he borrowed a cow to work for less than a Perutah - that he is Patur.
2. ... someone who borrowed it in order to appear wealthy so that merchants
should sell him goods on credit, who may be exempt from paying for Onsin -
because he has not actually made direct use of the animal.
3. ... someone who borrowed two cows to work to the value of one Perutah,
who might be exempt because although he borrowed a P'rutah's-worth from the
owner, neither article that he borrowed is worth a P'rutah.
(c) He also asks what the Din will be if someone borrows from two partners
together with one of the partners, whether "Be'alav" must be total or the
borrower will at least be Patur from the half pertaining to the partner who
is working for him. In the reverse case, where partners borrowed someone's
cow together with the owner who was to work for only one of them, a major
difference between the work of the cows and that of the owner will be - that
whereas the partners borrowed it to plow a joint field, the owner was
borrowed to work privately for one of the partners.
(a) Finally, Rami bar Chama asks two She'eilos. One of them, is 'Sha'al min
ha'Ishah, ve'Nish'al Ba'alah, Mahu'. The case is - if someone borrowed a
woman's Nechsei Milug together with her husband.
(b) The She'eilah is - whether the Kinyan Peiros of the husband makes him
the owner, in which case, the borrower will subsequently be Patur should
anything happen to the cow, or not.
(c) His last She'eilah is the reverse case of the previous case - where a
woman borrowed a cow to plow her Nechsei Milug, but the owner worked for her
husband (whether the woman will be Patur or not, should anything happen to
(d) Ravina asked Rav Ashi about someone who instructed his Sheli'ach to lend
someone the owner's cow together with himself - whether, in spite of the
principle 'Shelucho shel Adam Kamoso', this might not be considered
'She'eilah be'Ba'alim', because here the Torah requires She'eilah be'Ba'alim
Davka (and not a Sheli'ach [see Tosfos DH 'Sheli'ach']).
(a) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ivya remarked to Rav Ashi that each of the two
previous (sets of) She'eilos is rooted in a Machlokes. The last set of
She'eilos of Rami bar Chama is in fact a Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan
and Resh Lakish. The bone of contention regarding Bikurim in the case where
Reuven sells Shimon his field for two or three years is - whether Shimon,
who owns the Peiros, is called the owner of the field or not.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan says 'Meivi ve'Korei' - because he holds 'Kinyan Peiros
(c) Resh Lakish says - 'Eino Meivi ve'Korei', because he holds 'Kinyan
Peiros La'av ke'Kinyan ha'Guf'.
(d) Rami bar Chama's last set of She'eilos too, depend upon whether a
husband, who has a Kinyan Peiros on his wife's Nechsei Milug, is considered
their owner or not.
(a) Ravina's She'eilah is rooted in the Machlokes between Rebbi Yonasan and
Rebbi Yoshiyah. Rebbi Yoshiyah learns from the Pasuk "Iyshah Yekimenu,
ve'Iyshah Yeferenu" - that if a man appoints an Apotropus to annul his
wife's Nedarim, the latter's nullification is inaffective (because the
Lashon overrides the principle 'Shelucho shel Adam Kamoso').
(b) Rebbi Yonasan maintains - that the Din of 'Shelucho shel Adam Kamoso'
(c) Likewise, if a man says to his Sheli'ach 'Tzei ve'Hisha'el Im Parasi',
Rebbi Yonasan will apply 'Shelucho shel Adam Kamoso'; whereas according to
Rebbi Yoshiyah, the Pasuk "Be'alav Imo" and "Be'alav Ein Imo" overrides the
principle (see Tosfos DH 'Sheli'ach').
(a) Rav Ilish asked Rava what the Din will be if a man says to his Eved Tzei
ve'Hisha'el Im Parasi'. This might ...
1. ... not be considered She'eilah be'Ba'alim even according to Rebbi
Yonasan - because a Sheli'ach is a bar Mitzvah (like the Meshale'ach),
whereas an Eved is not.
(b) Rava replied - 'Mistabra Yad Eved ke'Yad Rabo'.
2. ... be considered She'eilah be'Ba'alim even according to Rebbi Yoshiyah -
because of the principle 'Yad Eved ke'Yad Rabo'.
(a) Rami bar Chama asks whether a man is considered a Sho'el or a Socher on
his wife's property. Rava objects on the grounds - that it makes no
difference which one, since, bearing in mind that a woman is Meshubad to
work for her husband, he will always be Patur, because it is either
She'eilah be'Ba'alim or Sechirus be'Ba'alim.
(b) He answers by establishing the case where a man hired a cow from a woman
and then married her - in which case the Sechirus will continue as before if
he is a Socher, but will turn into She'eilah be'Ba'alim, if he is a Sho'el.
(c) We object to this explanation too however, on the grounds - that even if
he is a Socher, the S'chirus that begins when he marries her is a new one,
in which case, it is S'chirus be'Ba'alim ... (like we asked before).
(a) We finally establish the case of Rami bar Chama's She'eilah where a
woman hired a cow from a third party, and after she married, an O'nes
occurred. The She'eilah is now according to Rebbi Yossi, who holds in
Hamafkid - that if a Socher lends out the cow that he hired and it dies, the
borrower pays a cow to the owner. Consequently, if the husband is a Sho'el
with respect to his wife's Nechsei Milug, then, in the event of an O'nes, he
will be liable to pay the owner (but will be Patur, if he is a Socher).
(b) The She'eilah will not apply according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yossi,
who hold in Hamafkid - that the Sho'el pays the Socher. Consequently, in our
case, where the Socher happens to be the man's wife, he will be Patur,
because even if he is a Sho'el, it is She'eilah be'Ba'alim.
(c) Rava resolved the She'eilah - by citing Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who
quotes the Chachamim in Usha as having ruled - that if a woman sold her
Nechsei Milug during her husband's lifetime, then after her death, he has
the right to claim the property from the purchasers, because he is the first
(a) Rami bar Chama asks who is Mo'el if a man who receives his wife's
property containing some Hekdesh.
1. ... The case is - when the women inherited the property after they were
married, and ...
(b) Rava ruled that neither of them is Mo'el - because neither does the man,
who did nothing, wish to acquire forbidden property, nor does the woman want
him to acquire even the property that is permitted (and Me'ilah only applies
to someone who *willingly* transfers Hekdesh from one domain to another).
2. ... the She'eilah is - who is Mo'el for transferring the Hekdesh to the
(c) Neither are Beis-Din (who are responsible for all Takanos in their
generation) Mo'el, for placing the woman's property in her husband's
domain - because their Takanah is confined to property that is permitted,
not to property of Hekdesh. Note, that according to this, the previous
explanation seems unnecessary.
(d) This means - that there is no Me'ilah on the property in question at
that stage. The moment however, the husband spends the money of Hekdesh or
gives away the articles of Hekdesh, he is Mo'el.
(a) They asked in the Beis-Hamedrash whether if a borrowed animal becomes
worn out through regular work, the Sho'el is liable to pay, from which Rav
Chilkiyah B'rei de'Rav Ivya inferred - that if the animal die, he would
certainly be liable.
(b) He was surprised by the She'eilah however (and by the inference) - since
a person borrows an animal (not to place in the stable, but) to use (so,
assuming he did not abuse the article, why should he be liable?).
(c) Rava concluded - that in both of the above cases, the borrower is exempt
(a) Rava ruled - that a borrower who broke the borrowed ax, must bring
witnesses that he had not abused it and is Patur from paying.
(b) In a similar case where there were no witnesses, Rav obligated the
borrower to replace the broken ax with a new one. His Talmidim, Rav Kahana
and Rav Asi - expressed surprise that Rav did not permit him to pay the
broken pieces and to add the balance from his pocket.
(c) Rav reacted to their surprise - with silence.
(d) The Halachah is - like Rav Kahana and like Rav Asi.