BAVA BASRA 48 (8 Av) - Dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Mrs. Lily (Leah bas Pinchas) Kornfeld, who passed away on 8 Av 5765, by her daughter and son-in-law, Diane and Andy Koenigsberg and family. May Lily and her husband's love for Torah and for Eretz Yisrael continue in all of their descendants.
1)
(a)
We learned in a Beraisa 'Get ha'Me'useh be'Yisrael Kasher'. What is a 'Get Me'useh'?
(b)
The Beraisa concludes 'be'Akum Pasul'. How do we initially interpret this Beraisa? What is the reason for the distinction between the Reisha and the Seifa?
(c)
To reconcile the Beraisa with Rav Huna, who holds 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin, Zevineih Z'vini', we cite Rav Masharshaya. How does he explain 'be'Akum Pasul'?
1)
(a)
We learned in a Beraisa 'Get ha'Me'useh be'Yisrael Kasher' - a Get that a man is forced to write by a Yisrael (e.g. by Beis-Din), provided he declares 'Rotzeh Ani'.
(b)
The Beraisa concludes 'be'Akum Pasul', which we initially think is - because, when he is forced by Nochrim (even by a Nochri court), he is not performing a Mitzvah, unlike the Reisha, where he is (as we explained a little earlier).
(c)
To reconcile the Beraisa with Rav Huna, who holds 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin, Zevineih Z'vini', we cite Rav Masharshaya, who explains 'be'Akum Pasul' to mean that - min ha'Torah, the Get is valid even if it is a Nochri who forced the man to write it, and the Tana invalidates it mi'de'Rabbanan, so that any woman who wants a Get should not hire a Nochri to coerce her husband into writing her a Get.
2)
(a)
Rav Hamnuna queries this from the Beraisa (which we discussed on the previous Amud) 'Lakach mi'Sikrikun, ve'Chazar ve'Lakach mi'Ba'al ha'Bayis, Mekcho Bateil', which we reconcile with Rav Huna by citing Rav. How does Rav qualify the Beraisa?
(b)
How can we answer the Kashya according to Shmuel, who says 'Af bi'Shetar nami Lo Kanah'?
2)
(a)
Rav Hamnuna queries this from the Beraisa (already discussed on the previous Amud) 'Lakach mi'Sikrikun, ve'Chazar ve'Lakach mi'Ba'al ha'Bayis, Mekcho Bateil', which we reconcile with Rav Huna by citing Rav - who restricts the Beraisa's ruling to where the seller said 'Lech Chazek u'Keni', but if he goes so far as to write a Sh'tar Mechirah, the sale is valid.
(b)
Even according to Shmuel, who says 'Af bi'Sh'tar Nami Lo Kanah', we will answer that - the Tana will validate the sale once the purchaser has paid.
3)
(a)
What does Rav Bibi, quoting Rav Nachman mean when, in a case of 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin', he rules 'Karka Ein lo, Ma'os Yesh lo'?
(b)
What will Rav Huna say to that?
(c)
What would we have answered had Rav Bibi made this statement in his own name (and not in the name of Rav Nachman)?
3)
(a)
When Rav Bibi, quoting Rav Nachman, in a case of 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin', rules 'Karka Ein lo, Ma'os Yesh lo', he means that - although the Nigzal may keep the money that the Gazlan gave him, the latter does not receive the field (because he holds 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin, La'av Zevineih Zevini'.
(b)
To which Rav Huna will answer that since Rav Bibi only quotes Rav Nachman, and not a Beraisa, he (Rav Bibi) is entitled to disagree.
(c)
Had Rav Bibi made this statement in his own name (and not in the name of Rav Nachman) we would have answered - 'Gavra a'Gavra Karamis' (How can you ask from one Amora on to another)?
48b----------------------------------------48b
4)
(a)
Rava rules 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin Zevineih Z'vini', but he qualifies it. In which case will the sale not be valid?
(b)
Even in the case of 'Sadeh Zu' however, Rava concedes that the sale will be valid on one of two conditions. One of them is if the seller (in spite of his predicament) then counts the money that he received as payment for the field. What is the other?
(c)
The Halachah however, is not like Rava. What then, is the Halachah?
(d)
And we prove this from a statement by Ameimar. What did Ameimar say about 'Talyuhah ve'Kadish'?
(e)
How does that clash with Rava's previous ruling?
4)
(a)
Rava rules 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin Zevineih Z'vini', but he qualifies it restricting it to 'Sadeh S'tam' (where the seller chooses the field that he wants to sell), but in a case of 'Sadeh Zu' (where the purchaser chooses it), the sale will be invalid.
(b)
Even in the case of 'Sadeh Zu', Rava concedes that the sale will be valid on one of two conditions: 1. where the seller (in spite of his predicament) then counts the money that he receives as payment for the field; 2. where he could have got out of selling the field or of delaying the sale, but declined to do so.
(c)
The Halachah however, is not like Rava but that - the sale is valid, even in a case of 'Sadeh Zu'.
(d)
And we prove this from a statement by Ameimar, who ruled - 'Talyuhah ve'Kadish Kidushav Kidushin' ...
(e)
... even though the man wants specifically that woman and no other (making it a case of 'Ishah Zu').
5)
(a)
Mar bar Rav Ashi (or Rav Ashi) agrees with the ruling 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin Zevineih Z'vini'. What does he say about 'Talyuhah ve'Kadesh'?
(b)
Why is that?
(c)
What problem does this create regarding Kidushei Bi'ah?
5)
(a)
Mar bar Rav Ashi (or Rav Ashi) agrees with the ruling 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin Zevineih Z'vini', but regarding Talyuhah ve'Kadish' he holds that - the Kidushin is not valid ...
(b)
... because 'since he (the man) behaved unconventionally', the Chachamim figured, they would deal with him unconventionally' and negate the Kidushin.
(c)
The problem this creates regarding Kidushei Bi'ah is that - if, due to the principle of 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker', the Chachamim have the power to negate Kidushei Kesef, how can they negate Kidushei Bi'ah?
6)
(a)
How do we answer the current Kashya?
(b)
Why can we not answer that Kidushei Kesef is easier to negate, since it is only mi'de'Rabbanan, whereas Kidushei Bi'ah is d'Oraysa?
6)
(a)
We answer the current Kashya - based on the fact that when a person betroths a woman, he does so according to the Rabbanan's specifications. Consequently, in certain cases, the Chachamim automatically invalidate the Kidushin (even Kidushei Bi'ah), rendering the Bi'ah a Bi'as Z'nus (an immoral act).
(b)
We cannot answer that Kidushei Kesef is easier to negate, since it is only mi'de'Rabbanan, whereas Kidushei Bi'ah is d'Oraysa - since the Kashya then remains, how can the Chachamim negate a Torah institution?
7)
(a)
Why did Tavi suspend Papi on a Kinra-tree, forcing him to sell him his field? Who was Tavi?
(b)
What else might 'Tavi Tala Papi be'Kinra' mean?
(c)
Besides signing on the Moda'a, Rabah bar bar Chanah also signed on the Ashkalta. What is an 'Ashkalta'?
7)
(a)
Tavi a tough guy, suspended Papi on a Kinra-tree - to coerce him into selling him his field.
(b)
'Tavi Tala Papi be'Kinra' might also mean - 'to force him to sell him his harp'.
(c)
Besides signing on the Moda'a, Rabah bar bar Chanah also signed on the Ashkalta - another name for a Sh'tar Mechirah.
8)
(a)
What did Rav Huna mean when he said that whoever signed on the Moda'a did well, and whoever signed on the Ashkalta did well?
(b)
And what do we mean when we say 'Rav Huna le'Ta'ameih'?
(c)
But did Rava not rule earlier that we do not write a Moda'a on a sale, unless the seller is under threat of losing his field without receiving payment?
8)
(a)
When Rav Huna said that whoever signed on the Moda'a did well, and whoever signed on the Ashkalta did well, he meant that - if he had not signed on the Moda'a, he would have done well to sign on the Ashkalta.
(b)
And when we say 'Rav Huna le'Ta'ameih', we mean that - what Rav Huna is then coming to tell us is that 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin, Zevineih Z'vini' (like he said earlier).
(c)
Rava did indeed rule earlier that we do not write a Moda'a on a sale, unless the seller is under threat of losing his field without receiving payment - We do not rule like Rava howevef (as we saw earlier, when we disagreed with his distinction between Sadeh S'tam and Sadeh Zu regarding the Din of 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin').
9)
(a)
What is 'Amanah'?
(b)
What did Rav Nachman say about witnesses who said ...
1.
... 'Amanah hayu Devareinu'?
2.
... 'Moda'a hayu Devareinu'?
9)
(a)
'Amanah' is - when witnesses testify that the Sh'tar produced by the creditor was handed to him by the debtor (whom he trusted not to produce it unless the loan actually took place) in advance of the loan, so that when the debtor requires money, he will just have to ask the creditor for it.
(b)
According to Rav Nachman, witnesses who said ...
1.
... 'Amanah hayu Devareinu' - are not believed
2.
... 'Moda'a hayu Devareinu' - are not believed either.
10)
(a)
Why is a Sh'tar Amanah not a Sh'tar Mukdam (pre-dated), and therefore Pasul anyway?
(b)
'Amanah Hayu Devareinu' is certainly not believed if the witnesses signatures were substantiated from another source. But how does Rava explain why the witnesses are not believed with a 'Peh she'Asar hu ha'Peh she'Hitir', if they substantiate their own signatures?
(c)
We know that 'Keyvan she'Higid ... ' applies even in the case of a Sh'tar (which we may otherwise have thought, is not Kasher until it is substantiated), on the basis of a statement by Resh Lakish. What did Resh Lakish say about witnesses who sign on a Sh'tar?
(d)
Rav Ashi in Kesuvos gives another reason to explain why we cannot believe witnesses who say 'Amanah hayu Devareinu', in spite of the 'Peh she'Asar', based on a statement of Rav Kahana. What did Rav Kahana say about keeping a Sh'tar Amanah?
(e)
How does this explain why witnesses who say 'Amanah hayu Devareinu' cannot be believed?
10)
(a)
A Sh'tar Amanah is not a Sh'tar Mukdam (pre-dated), and therefore Pasul anyway - because the debtor is Meshabed his property from the time he writes the Sh'tar retroactively, should the loan take place.
(b)
'Amanah Hayu Devareinu' is certainly not believed if the witnesses signatures were substantiated from another source. Neither are the witnesses believed with a 'Peh she'Asar hu ha'Peh she'Hitir', if they substantiate their own signatures - because they do not have the power to negate their own testimony ('Keyvan she'Higid, Shuv Eino Chozer u'Magid').
(c)
We know that 'Keyvan she'Higid ... ' applies even in the case of a Sh'tar (which we may otherwise have thought is not Kasher until it is substantiated), on the basis of a statement by Resh Lakish, who stated that once witnesses sign on a Sh'tar, it is as if their testimony has already been examined in Beis-Din.
(d)
Rav Ashi in Kesuvos gives another reason to explain why we cannot believe witnesses who say 'Amanah hayu Devareinu', in spite of the 'Peh she'Asar', based on a statement of Rav Kahana who rules that - it is forbidden to keep such a Sh'tar in one's possession ...
(e)
... witnesses who say 'Amanah hayu Devareinu' cannot be believed - due to the principle 'Ein Adam Meisim Atzmo Rasha' (a person is not believed when he issues a statement that renders himself a Rasha).
11)
(a)
How do we reconcile Rav Nachman's latter statement ('Moda'a hayu Devareinu', Ein Ne'emanim) with Rabah bar bar Chanah, who signed on a Sh'tar Moda'a?
(b)
On what grounds is 'Moda'a hayu Devareinu' in a Sh'tar believed? Why do we not apply here as well, the principle 'Keyvan she'Higid ... '?
11)
(a)
We reconcile Rav Nachman's latter statement ('Moda'a Hayu Devareinu', Ein Ne'emanim) with Rabah bar bar Chanah, who signed on a Sh'tar Moda'a - by differentiating between an oral Moda'a (Rav Nachman) and a written one (Rabah bar bar Chanah).
(b)
'Moda'a hayu Devareinu' in a Sh'tar is believed - because it was written before the Sh'tar Mechirah, in which case 'Keyvan she'Higid ... ' will not apply.
