Bava Basra Daf 175 - Shibud Nechasim
Summary
- The shiur identifies the location on Bava Batra 174b near “אמר רב הונא שכיב מרע” and presents sponsored dedications, then sets out the sugya’s core: the credibility of a dying person’s admission of debt when it reduces heirs’ or consecrated property’s assets, the conditions under which heirs claiming repayment are believed, and the required language and formalities for such admissions. It explains how “תנו” can transform an admission into enforceable payment, when a creditor’s document must be validated, and how the principle אין אדם עושה קנוניא על הקדש shapes rulings. It then presents the Mishnah on collection from encumbered property, distinguishes oral loans, document-backed loans, and handwriting acknowledgments, analyzes the liability of a guarantor signed after the witnesses, and records Rabbi Yishmael’s praise of דיני ממונות and of Shimon ben Nanas. It concludes with the core dispute whether שעבודא is דאורייתא (Ula) or דרבנן (Rava), and the policy considerations of פסידא דלקוחות and כדי שלא תנעול דלת בפני לווין.
- The shiur opens by locating the learning on Bava Batra 174b near “אמר רב הונא שכיב מרע,” and by noting that today’s דף is בבא בתרא דף קע"ה on the second-to-last דף of the מסכת. It lists sponsorships by Dr. David Lander לעילוי נשמת גולדה בת שמחה עליו השלום, by Daniel Sedin for the success of כל ישראל and the safety of soldiers and captives, for the marriage of Ariella Newman to Eitan Suss, and by Rabbi and Ellen Wexelbaum לעילוי נשמת פנחס יואל בן ירחמיאל צבי (Mr. Eugene Silverstein) whose fifth יארצייט is today.
- Rav Huna rules that when a dying person consecrates all property and then admits “מנה לפלוני בידי,” he is believed and the stated sum is given to that person because אין אדם עושה קנוניא על הקדש. He explains that since consecration cannot attach to what is owed to others, the admission removes that part from consecration and we are not חושש for a scheme against הקדש.
- Ri Migash and Raavad derive from Rav Huna that the earlier doubt on 148b is resolved, indicating that if he recovers the consecration is not automatically voided and thus the trust in his admission must rest on the presumption about הקדש. Tosafot, followed by Ramban and Rashba, rejects that derivation by reading Rav Huna as a case where he consecrated while healthy and admitted later when dying. Ritva denies the proof on different grounds, asserting אמירתו לגבוה כמסירתו להדיוט, so even if recovery would void, one cannot retract from הקדש like from a gift to a hedyot.
- Tosafot explains that Rav Huna speaks of a dying person because a healthy person is suspect of קנוניא against הקדש, while a dying person fits אין אדם חוטא ולא לו (per Arachin 23 and Bava Metzia), so he will not sin without benefit. This frames the ne’emanut uniquely in terminal circumstances.
- Rav Nachman challenges: just as one would not do קנוניא על בניו, we find that when a father says “מנה לפלוני בידי תנו” heirs must pay, but if he did not say “תנו” they do not pay. He attributes the denial to אדם עשוי שלא להשביע את בניו, as Rabbeinu Gershom explains due to עין הרע and Yad Ramah due to fear of robbers, meaning the admission may be to reduce apparent wealth rather than to obligate payment, and Rashba limits מצוה לקיים דברי המת to actual instructions of transfer, not mere admissions.
- The Gemara answers that Rav Huna’s case involves the creditor holding a document, raising a difficulty with Rav and Shmuel about “תנו” when no document exists and about oral loans from heirs and purchasers. Rashbam clarifies that the obligation cannot rest on מצוה לקיים דברי המת because payment is required even during the father’s life, so it rests on the admission’s ne’emanut; Rav Nachman then harmonizes by saying both cases involve a document, with Rav Huna’s being מקויים and Rav and Shmuel’s not, so “תנו” functions as קיום השטר.
- Tosafot asks what Rav Huna adds if a validated document already suffices and answers that the chiddush is that, due to the dying person’s ne’emanut, the creditor collects without taking an oath, even when collection reduces הקדש.
- Rava’s reported formulation is corrected: when the father said “מנה לפלוני בידי” and orphans say the father later told them “פרעתי,” they are believed because his initial omission of “תנו” signals doubt and he could have claimed payment now with a מיגו of immediate repayment. When the father said “תנו,” the orphans are not believed to claim he later said “פרעתי,” since had payment been possible he would not have directed “תנו.”
- Rava asks whether a dying person must say “אתם עדי” when admitting after a claim and whether he must say “כתבו” for witnesses to write. He resolves both that אין אדם משטה בשעת מיתה and that דברי שכיב מרע ככתובים וכמסורים דמי, while Tosafot and Rashba specify that here this functions as if he authorized writing, not as an immediate kinyan like classic מתנת שכיב מרע.
- The Mishnah states that a loan with a signed document allows collection from encumbered properties because a document has a קול that alerts buyers, while an oral loan is collectible only from free assets. A handwriting acknowledgment without witnesses permits collection only from free assets due to the absence of a קול to protect purchasers.
- Rambam (Malveh veLoveh 11:3), as explained by Ramban in Milchamot, holds that a borrower can claim פרעתי against a handwriting acknowledgment because it is a שטר גרוע that does not reach encumbered property, so borrowers are not always makpid to retrieve it upon payment. Baal HaMaor, Rashba, and Yad Ramah disagree and treat it like a witnessed document regarding “שטרך בידי מאי בעי.”
- The Mishnah rules that a guarantor who signs after the witnesses exposes only his free assets, not encumbered property, since there was no קול about his liability. Ben Nanas tells Rabbi Yishmael that such a case is not collectible at all, analogizing to “הרי החונק את חבירו בשוק” where someone says “הנח לו ואני אתן לך” and is פטור, and he defines a binding guaranty as “הלווהו ואני נותן לך” which precedes and induces the loan.
- Rabbi Yishmael says “הרוצה שיחכים יעסוק בדיני ממונות… והן כמעיין הנובע,” and he recommends serving Shimon ben Nanas to gain expertise. Tiferet Yisrael explains that דיני ממונות uniquely demand decisive human judgment because המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה and ממון המוטל בספק חולקין prevent default stringencies and force resolution.
- Ula says מדאורייתא both document-backed and oral loans collect from encumbered property, and the Sages restricted oral loans only משום פסידא דלקוחות while leaving documents collectible because “התם אינהו דאפסידו אנפשייהו.” Rava says מדאורייתא no loan collects from encumbered property because שעבודא לאו דאורייתא, and the Sages enabled collection with a document כדי שלא תנעול דלת בפני לווין, excluding oral loans because לית ליה קלא.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions