Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) CRAFTSMEN THAT DEVIATED

(b) (Mishnah): R. Yehudah says, Reuven pays the increased value or Shimon's expenses, whichever is smaller.
(a) (Rav Huna): The law is as R. Yehoshua ben Korchah and as R. Yehudah.
(b) Rav Yosef: I understand why you must rule as R. Yehoshua ben Korchah - one might have thought, the law is as the majority (Chachamim);

1. Question: To which teaching of R. Yehoshua ben Korchah do they refer?
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 festival;

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).

(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 anonymous Mishnah!

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 received;

i. R. Yehudah says, Reuven pays the increased value or Shimon's expenses, whichever is smaller.

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 argue!
(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 order)!]
(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 hand).]

(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.
(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 change.
(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 price!

(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 acquire!
(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 them.
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.

(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.

1. Question (R. Zeira): One who makes property Hekdesh - does he intend for his Tefilin?!

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 Mitzvah;

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 Erchin!

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?!

(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 property Hekdesh.

(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.
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 acquire'
4. Rejection: No - here, Moshe told the seller and witnesses to write the document in the name of the Reish Galusa.

(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?

1. The Reish Galusa can say, I didn't ask you to use my name, nor do I want the disgrace of selling property!

(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 him.

(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 bought;
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.