BAVA METZIA 112-116 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to Rav Weiner -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.

1)TAKING FOR A SECURITY A KLI USED WITH FOOD

(a)Support (for Rav Yehudah - Beraisa #1): If one takes for a security a pair of scissors or a yoke made of two parts (to harness cows), he is lashed twice, once for each part; (Tosfos - this is like Rav Yehudah, for Rav Huna would obligate three times; Rashi - the support requires the next Beraisa as well, which shows that the two lashes here are for Rechayim and Rechev, hence there are no lashes for "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel".)

1.If he only takes one blade of the scissors or one part of the yoke, he is lashed only once.

(b)(Beraisa #2): If one takes for a security a pair of scissors or a two-part yoke, one might have thought that he is lashed only once. Therefore, it says "Lo Yachavol Rechayim va'Rachev";

1.Just like Rechayim and Rechev are two Kelim that do one task, and one is liable for each by itself, also any two Kelim that do one task, one is liable for each by itself.

(c)A case arose in which Reuven took a security from Shimon. It was a knife that butchers use to chop meat.

(d)Abaye: Since it is used for food, you must return it. You can claim your loan in Beis Din (if you have witnesses, or if Shimon will admit.)

(e)Rava: Since witnesses did not see Reuven take it, he need not return it until Shimon pays.

(f)Question: Why does Abaye argue with Rava? This should be like the following case!

1.Some goats ate peeled barley in Neharda'a. The owner of the barley seized the goats, and was claiming a large loss.

2.(Shmuel's father): He can claim up to the goats' value.

(g)Answer: Goats are not normally lent or rented, therefore the one who seized them has a Migo. He could have said that he bought them;

1.A knife is normally lent or rented. Reuven has no Migo, for he would not be believed to say that he bought it.

2.(Rav Huna bar Avin): If an item is normally lent or rented, and Ploni holds it and claims that he bought it (if we know that it belonged to someone else), he is not believed.

(h)Question: Does Rava argue with this?!

1.Rava took shearing scissors and a Sefer of Agadic teachings from orphans, because these are normally lent and rented!

(i)Answer: A chopping knife can get blunted, so people do not normally lend or rent it.

116b----------------------------------------116b

PEREK HA'BAYIS VEHA'ALIYAH

2)DIVIDING THE BUILDING MATERIALS OF A FALLEN HOUSE

(a)(Mishnah): If Reuven owned a house and Shimon owned its upper story and it fell, they divide the wood, rocks and dirt;

1.If we estimate that the upper rocks would have broken, Reuven gets the whole rocks and Shimon takes an equal amount of broken ones.

2.If either recognizes some of his rocks, he takes them, and the other takes an equal amount of other ones.

(b)(Gemara) Inference: 'We estimate' implies that we can tell whether the bottom collapsed, or the attic broke;

1.Why do they divide equally in the Reisha? The one whose dwelling broke should get the broken rocks!

(c)Answer: It fell at night, and no one saw how it fell.

1.Question: The next day we can determine how it fell!

2.Answer: The case is, the rocks were cleared away.

3.Question: We can ask the people who cleared them away!

4.Answer: The case is, we do not know them, and they left.

(d)Question: Whoever's premises the rocks are in, he is Muchzak. The other cannot take (whole rocks) from him without proof!

(e)Answer #1: The case is, the rocks are in their joint yard, or in the Reshus ha'Rabim.

(f)Answer #2: Even if the rocks are in the premises of one of them, partners freely lend their premises to each other (so the rocks are considered to be in the premises of both).

(g)(Mishnah): If either recognizes some of his rocks... (we shall call him Reuven).

(h)Question: What does Shimon claim?

1.If he admits, the law is obvious!

2.If he argues, why does Reuven keep the whole ones?

(i)Answer: Rather, he says that he does not know.

(j)Suggestion: This refutes Rav Nachman!

1.(Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah): If Levi claims 100 from Yehudah, and Yehudah does not know whether he owes, he must pay;

2.(R. Yochanan and Rav Nachman): He is exempt.

(k)Rejection: No, the case is like Rav Nachman explained elsewhere;

1.(Rav Nachman): The case is, Yehudah was obligated to swear to Levi. (Since Yehudah does not know, he cannot swear, he must pay).

2.Here also, Shimon was obligated to swear!

(l)Question: What is the case in which he was obligated to swear?

(m)Answer (Rava): Yehudah admitted that he owed 50, but he did not know about the other 50. Since he cannot swear, he must pay. (Here also, Shimon admits that half the rocks are not his.)

(n)(Mishnah): Shimon takes an equal amount of other ones.

(o)Opinion #1 (Rava): He takes an equal amount of broken rocks.

1.Since he does not recognize his rocks, we assume that his are the broken ones.

(p)Objection (Abaye): Just the contrary! Since Reuven recognizes only some of his rocks, we assume that his other rocks are broken, and the rest of the whole rocks belong to Shimon!

(q)Opinion #2 (Abaye): Rather, Shimon takes an equal amount of whole rocks.

(r)Question: If so, what does Reuven gain by recognizing some of his rocks?

(s)Answer #1: Some rocks are wider than others.

(t)Answer #2: The mud of some bricks is kneaded better than that of others.

3)THE OBLIGATION TO REBUILD AN UPPER STORY

(a)(Mishnah): If Shimon was renting Reuven's Aliyah, and the floor fell in and Reuven does not want to fix it, Shimon may live in the house downstairs until Reuven fixes it;

(b)R. Yosi says, Reuven must supply the ceiling, Shimon supplies the plaster.

(c)(Gemara) Question: How much of the floor must fall in (for the law of the Mishnah to apply)?

(d)Answer #1 (Rav): It must be the majority.

(e)Answer #2 (Shmuel): It must be four Tefachim.

1.Rav requires the majority. The law does not apply if only four Tefachim fell, for one can manage with part of his dwelling at a lower level.

2.Shmuel holds that four Tefachim suffices, for one cannot live if part of his dwelling is at a lower level.

(f)Question: What was the rental agreement?

1.If he rented 'this Aliyah', it is no longer intact (he has no right to demand another)!

2.If he rented 'an Aliyah', Reuven may find another Aliyah for Shimon to live in! (Why is Shimon entitled to dwell in Reuven's house?)

(g)Answer #1 (Rava): Reuven rented 'this Aliyah' to him, and said 'if it sinks, you may live in the house.'

(h)Objection: If so, what is the Chidush?!

(i)Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): Reuven rented 'this Aliyah on top of this house.' These words give Shimon a 'lien' on the house to support his Aliyah.

1.Ravin bar Rav Ada: A case occurred in which Levi sold to Yehudah 'the vine draped over this peach tree'; and the tree was uprooted. R. Chiya ruled that Levi must supply a peach tree to support the vine for the life of the vine.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF