Gemara Clarity

Bava Metzia 116a

בבא מציעא קט״ז ע״א

Learn Bava Metzia 116a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Metzia 116a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Extra wording that adds a לאו for taking millstones as collateral, counting liability for working pairs, and whether holding a seized slaughtering knife lets a lender claim his debt.

Overview

This amud opens in the middle of an answer. The גמרא explains why the phrase ״כִּי נֶפֶשׁ הוּא חֹבֵל״ counts as an extra לאו for the millstones: the words are extra in the verse. By קרבן פסח, ״כִּי אִם צְלִי אֵשׁ״ is different, because a ברייתא needs those words for another teaching. Two ברייתות then discuss taking a pair of tools as collateral. The first supports רב יהודה: a full pair brings two sets of מלקות, and one piece alone brings one. The second learns from ריחיים ורכב that any two separate tools doing one job bring a liability for each. Next comes a real case of a slaughtering knife taken as collateral. אביי says to return it and go to court, while רבא says the lender can claim up to the knife's value. The גמרא shows that both accept רב הונא בר אבין's rule that holding an item usually lent or rented gives no credibility. They argue only about whether people lend slaughtering knives. The amud ends with הדרן עלך, closing פרק המקבל.

Opening lines

יַתִּירָא הוּא,

It is superfluous,

כֵּיוָן דְּיַתִּירָא הוּא –

since it is superfluous –

שִׁדְיֵיהּ אַרֵיחַיִם וָרָכֶב.

apply it to the lower and upper millstones.

אֲבָל הָכָא, ״כִּי אִם צְלִי אֵשׁ״

But here, "but roasted with fire"

The steps (12)

  1. ResolutionThe general verse is extra, so it is applied to the millstones
  2. ResolutionWhy roasting the קרבן פסח is different
  3. ProofA ברייתא that supports רב יהודה
  4. ProofLearning from the millstones: two tools for one job bring two liabilities
  5. StatementA slaughtering knife taken as collateral: אביי says return it and go to court
  6. Statementרבא: no need for court, he can claim up to the knife's value
  7. ChallengeWhy does אביי reject this? The goats case says the opposite
  8. ResolutionGoats are not lent out, but knives are
  9. ProofSupport from רב הונא בר אבין: holding a lendable item proves nothing
  10. ChallengeDoesn't רבא himself accept the rule about lendable items?
  11. Resolutionרבא: people do not lend slaughtering knives, because they get damaged
  12. ConclusionHadran — Closing פרק המקבל