Bava Metzia 118a

בבא מציעא קי״ח ע״א

Learn Bava Metzia 118a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Metzia 118a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

End of the משנה (stones of a fallen wall; paying a פועל with hay and straw) and the opening of the גמרא: the מחלוקת between רב and שמואל on how big a break in the roof of the בית הבד must be, and why that מחלוקת had to be stated in two places.

Overview

The amud opens at the end of a משנה. If a wall falls into a neighbor's garden, its owner cannot force the stones on the neighbor, and an employer cannot force a פועל to take the hay or straw he worked on as pay. But once the other side accepts, the deal cannot be undone. The גמרא then explains the earlier case of a בית הבד whose roof broke: רב says most of it must break, שמואל says four טפחים is enough, and their מחלוקת had to be taught both here and for a house. רבי יוחנן says the court's standard time to remove a danger is thirty days. The גמרא shows that the garden owner gets the stones only if he cleared them, because a field acquires only when the giver truly means to give. It explains why both cases of the משנה were needed. It then settles a contradiction between the משנה and a ברייתא about paying in straw: after רבא knocks down two answers, רב נחמן distinguishes lifting from merely watching. Finally רבה and רבא give different readings of a משנה about guards of שמיטה grain: is the argument about whether watching acquires ownerless property, about trusting an unpaid guard, or about scaring off violent people?

Opening lines

The steps (31)

1. StatementThe fallen stones: before and after the garden owner accepts them
2. StatementPaying a worker with the hay he worked on
3. StatementHow big a break counts: רב versus שמואל
4. StatementThe reasons behind each view
5. StatementWhy the house case alone would not be enough
6. ConclusionWhy the olive press case alone would not be enough
7. QuestionHow much time does the court give?
8. Responseרבי יוחנן: thirty days
9. StatementInference: the stones are his only because he cleared them
10. ChallengeShouldn't his field acquire the stones for him?
11. ResolutionA field acquires only when the giver means to give
12. StatementQuoting the straw case and announcing that both cases are needed
13. StatementWhy the stones case alone would not teach the straw case
14. StatementWhy the straw case alone would not teach the stones case
15. ChallengeA ברייתא says the court does listen to the employer
16. Resolutionרב נחמן: the employer's own straw versus someone else's
17. Challengeרבא: the employer owes the wage even for work on someone else's property
18. ProofProof: the employer pays a worker who worked in someone else's field
19. Resolutionרב נחמן's new answer: own straw versus ownerless straw
20. Challengeרבא: a hired worker's finds go to the employer
21. ResolutionFinal answer: lifting the straw versus just watching it
22. Statementרבה: Watching Ownerless Property Is a Dispute of תנאים
23. ProofThe משנה About Guards of Sabbatical Aftergrowth
24. ProofReading the Dispute as About Whether Watching Acquires
25. QuestionWhat Did the Rabbis Mean by 'You Say So'?
26. ResponseCombining His Ruling With Our View
27. Rejectionרבא: Everyone Agrees Watching Acquires; The Worry Is Wholehearted Transfer
28. Rejectionרבי יוסי's side of רבא's explanation
29. QuestionWhat did the Sages mean by 'you say so'?
30. ResponseCombining both views means the offerings are not communal
31. StatementSecond version: the payment scares off violent people