REVACH L'DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
daf@dafyomi.co.il http://www.dafyomi.co.il
& Revach l'Neshamah - http://www.revach.net
|
|
SUMMARY
1. The Gemara discusses a case in which a person explicitly excluded one of his large old trees from the sale of his field.
2. The Gemara says that none of the large old trees are included.
3. Rav Amram discusses a case of a person who has a legal document showing that he deposited money with his friend.
4. Rav Chisda answered that the guardian is believed to say that he gave the money back if he swears that this is the case.
5. Rav Huna agrees that this is the law.
|
A BIT MORE
1. The Gemara asks: Do we say that this implies that he sold all of the other large old trees along with the field, even though they are not normally included in the sale of a field, or do we say that this is just an example of the type of tree that is not included in the sale?
2. Another version of this question concerns a person who explicitly excluded half of a large old tree from the sale. The Gemara concludes that not only are the other large old trees not included in the sale, but even the other half of the tree that was mentioned is not included.
3. Rav Amram asks: Do we say that since the guardian could claim that the money was forcibly taken from him ("Ones"), he is believed to say that he already gave back the money, or do we say that since the depositor still has the document, this is an invalid claim, similar to the case of a lender who is holding the loan document?
4. Since the document would not have helped the depositor collect if the guardian claimed that the money was forcibly taken from him, it does not stop the guardian from claiming that he returned the money (as long as he swears to this effect, just as he would do if he claimed the money was forcibly taken).
5. The Gemara proceeds to quote other cases similar to this case, and compares Rav Huna's ruling in those cases to Rav Huna's ruling in this case.
|
Next Daf
Index to Revach for Maseches Bava Basra
|
