Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Thu, 10 Sep 2009 05:20:08 -0700
x-mailing-list: daf-disc...@shemayisrael.com (Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.) _________________________________________________________________
THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
d...@dafyomi.co.il
[REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________
Bava Basra 039: Rebbi Yehudah's "Eitzah Tovah"
Yankel Levitow asked:
This question arises from the weekly Gemore shir in which I participate-- we're
not synchronized with Daf Yomi. We're on B"B 39a. In the Mishna on 38a, R
Yehuda states the opinion that "khazake" requires three years in case the owner
of the land is in "Aspamye," and he needs time to get back to protest. As the
discussion in the Gemore makes clear, this seems to imply that according to
R"Y, "mekho'e sheloy befanav eynoy mekhoe" -- that you have to be in front of
the makhzik to make an effective protest.
On 39b, however, the Gemore concludes that R Yehuda is only giving an "eytze
toyve" -- good advice, since if the owner goes back, he can keep the "makhzik"
from using up the land's produce.
Fine -- except all along, it has appeared that R Yehuda is in fact proposing a
different "shite" than the one presented in rest of the Mishna. Rashbam says
on the Mishna that R Yehuda "lekhok ba" -- he comes to disagree with the
Mishna. We have found the Toysefes on this question difficult, but the
conclusion of "Sharey Toysefes" on d"h "Eyn makhzikin beNikhsey boyreakh" is
also that R Yehuda's "shite" is different from that in the Misha. The
Meforshim think so too -- The Rambam takes the trouble to say that the halakha
is not with R Yehuda -- and I could go on quoting.
The question is, if there's a makhaloykes here, and R Yehuda has a different
view than the rest of the Mishna on the question of "mekhoe sheloy befanav,"
why does the Gemore conclude that he's only giving an "eytze toyve?" Are we
missing something? Toysefes d"h leysev adukhtey velimkhey seems particularly
shver, but one theory we have is that the assumption that R Yehuda had a
different "shite" than the Mishna turns out to be only a "hava amina" -- we
thought he did, but he doesn't.
However, in that case, why does the Rambam need to pasken the way he does?
Plus, why do none of the meforshim comment on this particular issue, that it's
not clear whether R"Y is merely giving advice or not?
It's a difficult masekhta, but this daf in particular has been a challenge.
Thank you for help.
Yankel Levitow, Los Gatos CA
----------------------------------------------
The Kollel replies:
(1) Yes, this is a tricky Sugya. The key to it is to see that there are 2
separate disputes between Chachamim and Rebbi Yehudah:
(a) Rebbi Yehudah maintains that a person does not allow someone to eat up his
field even for one hour without permission, and three years is only required in
order for him to arrive home from Spain.
(b) Is a protest not in the presence of the occupier valid?
It is correct that (b) is only a Havah Amina while according to the conclusion
of the Gemara everyone agrees that Mechaa she'Lo Befanav is effective. However
(a) remains a dipute between Rebbi Yehuda and Chachamim.
(2) Now I will try and explain this a litle more. Look at the Nimukei Yosef 19b
DH Matn in Rif pages, on the Mishnah. He writes that Rebbi Yehudah maintains
that if the owner of the field is in town and does not protest about the field
being used this means he has given up on his field immediately. The Nimukei
Yosef continues and wries that when the Mishnah states that Rebbi Yehudah
requires that he should come back for one year this is not to be taken
literally (but is only an Eitzah Tovah) because everyone agrees that Machaa
does not have to be made in the presence of the occupier.
(3) What this means is that even though the Gemara 39a attempted to suggest
that Rebbi Yehudahs reasoning is that Mechaa she'Lo Befanav is innefective,
nevertheless the Gemara rejected this and concluded that coming to the field is
only an Eitzah Tovah. So at the end of the day there is only one dispute
between the Chachamim and Rebbi Yehudah: does the fact that a person does not
protest immediately if he is in town mean that he gives up on the field
immmediately (Rebbi Yehudahs position) or does he only give up after 3 years
(the Chachamims position).
(4) The Nimukei Yosef concludes that the Gemara rules that the Halachah does
not follow Rebbi Yehudah. This is referring to the Gemara below 41a which
states that the Halachah does not follow Rebbi Yehuda and Rebbi Yishmael who
maintain that if the owner is present and does not protest, this would mean
that he immediately indicates that he lets the occupier own the field.
(5) So when the Rashbam 38a writes that Rebbi Yehuda Lachclok Ba he means
that he disagrees with the reason one needs three years it is not because a
person only looks after his deed for three years like the Chachamim maintain,
but is instead because if a person is quiet for one hour that means he gave up.
The Rashbam does mention that the Gemara explains whether Rebbi Yehudah
requires Machaa in front of the occupier or not, but if you look carefully he
does not write that this is the dispute between Rebbi Yehudah and the Chachamim
but rather he writes that the dispute between them is whether a person gives up
only after three years or even after one hour and at the end of the day
everyone agrees that three years is only an Eitzah Tovah according to Rebbi
Yehudah.
Kol Tuv and a Kesivah uChasimah Tovah,
Dovid Bloom
>>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<<
The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Write to us at d...@dafyomi.co.il or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il
Fax(US): (206) 2020-DAF; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004
_______________________________________________
Daf-discuss mailing list
Daf-discuss@shemayisrael.co.il
http://shemayisrael.co.il/mailman/listinfo/daf-discuss_shemayisrael.co.il