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 Basra 43
BAVA BASRA 43 - dedicated by an admirer of the work of the Dafyomi
Advancement Forum, l'Iluy Nishmas Mrs. Gisela (Golda bas Reb Chaim Yitzchak
Ozer) Turkel, A"H.
|
1) ONE WHO MAY GAIN FROM HIS TESTIMONY
(a) (Shmuel): Reuven can testify for his partner Shimon.
(b) Question: Why is this, the testimony affects Reuven!
(c) Answer: The case is, Reuven wrote to Shimon 'I have no
claim to this field'.
(d) Question (Beraisa): Levi wrote to Yehudah 'I have no
claim to this field, I have no business in it, my hand is
removed from it' - this has no effect.
(e) Answer: The case is, Shimon made an acquisition
(Chalipin) to make Reuven's pardon binding.
(f) Question: Still, the testimony affects Reuven - if we
establish that the property used to belong to them,
Reuven's creditor (from before he pardoned his share) can
collect from it!
1. (Ravin bar Shmuel): One who sells his field without
Achrayus cannot testify about it (to establish
ownership), since this can enable his creditor to
collect it.
(g) Answer: The case is, Reuven accepted Achrayus for his
share (therefore, it does not matter to him if a creditor
takes it, for then he will owe Shimon).
(h) Question: Regarding whom (that might take the field) did
Reuven accept Achrayus?
1. If from anyone who claims 'This was my field', the
testimony saves Reuven from having to compensate
Shimon!
(i) Answer: Rather, Reuven accepted Achrayus if his creditor
will collect it.
(j) Question: Does pardoning one's share really enable him to
testify?!
1. (Beraisa): If the Sefer Torah of a city was stolen,
people of the city cannot judge or testify about it
(since it affects them).
2. We do not say that one can forfeit his share in it
and judge the case!
(k) Answer: A Sefer Torah is different, for everyone (who
will remain in the city) must hear it read.
(l) Question (Beraisa): If Reuven (allegedly) pledged to give
a Maneh (money) for needs of the city, people of the city
cannot judge or testify about it.
1. We do not say that one can forfeit his share in it
and judge the case!
(m) Answer: The case is, he pledged to give the Maneh to buy
a Sefer Torah (all must hear it, as above).
(n) Question (Beraisa): If Reuven (allegedly) pledged to give
a Maneh for poor people of the city, people of the city
cannot judge or testify about it.
1. Objection: The poor stand to receive it, why is
everyone disqualified?
2. Correction: Rather, poor people of the city cannot
judge or testify about it.
3. We do not say that one can forfeit his share in it
and judge the case!
(o) Answer #1: The case is, he pledged to give the Maneh to
buy a Sefer Torah.
1. Question: But the Beraisa says that he pledged to
give the poor!
2. Answer: People without a Sefer Torah are considered
poor.
(p) Answer #2 (and another answer to Objection n:1): Really,
he pledged to give to the poor; the rich are affected,
for this lightens their responsibility to support the
poor.
(q) Question: What is the case?
1. If everyone was assigned to give a certain amount
for the poor - one can give his quota, and then
judge the case (for he does not stand to gain)!
(r) Answer #1: The case is, it was not assigned how much each
person must give.
(s) Answer #2: It was assigned how much each person must
give; still, the judges gain if the poor will receive a
Maneh, for then they are less likely to need more
Tzedakah later.
2) PARTNERS THAT GUARD FOR EACH OTHER
(a) (Shmuel): A partner is considered a Shomer Sachar when
watching the common property.
43b---------------------------------------43b
(b) Question: Why is he liable? He is a Shomer b'Ba'alim (for
one's employee, for each guards part of the common
property for the other), who is always exempt!
(c) Answer (Rav Papa): The case is, they alternate, each day
one partner watches all the property.
3) TESTIMONY THAT MAY HELP THE WITNESS
(a) (Beraisa): If Reuven sold a house or field, he cannot
testify about it, for there is Achrayus (therefore, he is
partial);
1. If he sold a cow or garment, he can testify about
it, for there is no Achrayus.
(b) Question: What is the difference between the clauses?
(Why does the Tana assume that there is Achrayus by a
house or field, and not by a cow or garment?)
(c) Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes): The first clause is when Reuven
stole Shimon's field and sold it to Levi, and Yehudah
claims that it was his;
1. The Tana teaches that Shimon cannot testify for
Levi, for this will aid Shimon to get back his
field.
2. Question: If he testifies that it is Levi's, he
cannot later claim that it is his!
3. Answer: He testifies, 'I know that Yehudah does not
own the field'.
4. Question: If Shimon can (bring proof to) get his
field back from Levi, he could also get it from
Yehudah, why would he prefer that Beis Din give the
field to Levi?
5. Answer #1: It is possible that Yehudah is powerful,
and it is easier to oppose Levi in Beis Din than
Yehudah.
6. Answer #2: Shimon and Yehudah each have witnesses
supporting his claim to the field;
i. In such a case, the land remains by the
Muchzak; therefore, Shimon does not want
Yehudah to become Muchzak.
Next daf
|