Gemara Clarity

Bava Metzia 38b

בבא מציעא ל״ח ע״ב

Learn Bava Metzia 38b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Metzia 38b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Spoiled deposits and the guardian's duty, and whether בית דין lets a relative manage the property of a captive or absent owner

Overview

The amud continues the case of a deposit of produce that has spoiled. The גמרא explains that spoiled oil and honey still have uses, so selling them makes sense. It shows that the 'remedy' of the חכמים in the ברייתא is about saving the jars. It then explains that רבי מאיר and those חכמים disagree over whether even a small loss matters. Next the גמרא brings רבן שמעון בן גמליאל from the משנה, who says to sell the produce because doing so is like returning a lost item. It records two opposing rulings on the הלכה and settles an apparent problem with רבי יוחנן's view. The גמרא asks whether this dispute also decides if בית דין lets a relative manage a captive's property, and concludes that the two questions rest on separate reasons. It then brings the dispute of רב and שמואל on a captive's property, a challenge from a ברייתא and רב ששת's ruling, and a ברייתא about three kinds of absent owners' property. The amud ends by asking why two of these kinds are called נטושים and רטושים, and the answer comes on the next amud.

Opening lines

לְמַאי חֲזוּ?

For what are they fit?

שֶׁמֶן חֲזֵי לְגִלְדָּאֵי,

Oil is fit for tanners,

דְּבַשׁ לִכְתִישָׁא דְגַמְלֵי.

honey, for the wound of camels.

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים:

And the Sages say:

The steps (31)

  1. QuestionWhat are spoiled oil and honey good for?
  2. ResponseOil for tanners, honey for camel wounds
  3. QuestionWhat remedy do חכמים mean?
  4. ResponseThe remedy is for the jars
  5. QuestionWhat exactly is the dispute?
  6. ResponseBig loss versus small loss
  7. Statementרבן שמעון בן גמליאל: sell it, like returning a lost item
  8. Statementרבי יוחנן: the הלכה follows רבן שמעון בן גמליאל
  9. Statementרב נחמן: the הלכה follows חכמים
  10. ChallengeWhy did רבי יוחנן need to rule here at all?
  11. ResolutionTwo אמוראים report רבי יוחנן differently
  12. StatementLinking our מחלוקת to a captive's property
  13. RejectionThe link is rejected: each side's reason may not apply there
  14. ChallengeDoesn't שמואל show the two rules share one reason?
  15. ResolutionNo, שמואל has two separate reasons
  16. Proofרב נחמן proves the two rules are separate
  17. ConclusionConclusion: two separate reasons
  18. Statementרב and שמואל argue about a captive's property
  19. StatementIf we heard he died, everyone agrees
  20. StatementWhere רב and שמואל really argue, and why
  21. ChallengeA ברייתא says the children may not go down to their father's property
  22. Resolutionרבא: the ברייתא only forbids going down to sell
  23. Proofרב ששת rules on a real case from the ברייתא
  24. Challengeרב עמרם: maybe the ברייתא only means selling
  25. Resolutionרב ששת: the children are like the wives, so it means not at all
  26. StatementManaging a captive's property is an old dispute
  27. ProofA relative on a captive's property is not removed
  28. ProofA relative on abandoned property is removed
  29. Statementרבן שמעון בן גמליאל: abandoned property is like captives' property
  30. StatementA relative on forsaken property is removed
  31. QuestionWhy the names 'abandoned' and 'forsaken'?