Mesechtas Bava Metzia

From Chabadpedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Part of a series on
Toras HaNigla
Tanach
Tanach
Meforshim: Rashi
Mishnah and Talmud
Seder Zeraim:

BerachosPeahDemaiKilayimShevi'itTerumotMa'aserotMa'aser SheniChallaOrlahBikkurim

Seder Moed:

ShabbosEruvinPesachimShekalimYomaSukkahBeitzahRosh HashanahTaanitMegillahMoed KatanChagigah

Seder Nashim:

YevamotKetubotNedarimNazirSotahGittinKiddushin

Seder Nezikin:

Bava KamaBava MetziaBava BatraSanhedrinMakkotShevuotEduyotAvodah ZarahAvotHorayot

Seder Kodshim:

ZevachimMenachotChulinBekhorotArachinTemurahKreitotMeilahTamidMidotKeinim

Seder Taharos:

KeilimOhalotNegaimParahTaharotMikvaotNiddahMachshirinZavimTevul YomYadayimUktzin

Midrash and Halacha
Shulchan Aruch
VT

Tractate Bava Metzia is the second tractate in the Order of Nezikin (Damages) in the Mishnah. Its name in Aramaic means "The Middle Gate," and it is called this because it is the middle one of the three "Bavas" - tractates dealing with the laws of damages: Bava Kamma, Bava Metzia, and Bava Batra. The tractate includes ten chapters, 117.5 pages.

The tractate deals with laws of monetary doubt, returning lost objects, guardians, interest, purchasing objects, laborers and sharecroppers. Several books of our Rebbes' novellae have been published on this tractate, including: The list of "Two Who Hold" from the Rebbe's notes, the novellae of the Tzemach Tzedek (published by the "Ohalei Lubavitch" Institute) edited by Rabbi Avraham Baruch Pevzner, and others.

This tractate is one of the Gemara tractates studied in Chabad yeshivas.

Explanations of the Tzemach Tzedek[edit | edit source]

Yeush (giving up hope) is a halachic state in which a person has given up hope of recovering his property that is not in his possession, thereby relinquishing his ownership of the object. "Yeush shelo midaat" (unconscious abandonment) is a situation where it is known that if the person had known that the object was lost, he would certainly have given up hope, but he has not yet heard about it and therefore has not consciously given up hope.

There is a dispute between Abaye and Rava regarding the status of such an object. According to Abaye, it is not considered as if the person has given up hope, even though immediately upon hearing about it he would give up hope - this does not retroactively reveal that this was his true intention previously. But according to Rava, since it is clearly known that this would have been his intention (for he immediately gave up hope when he heard about it), and it is clear that in the previous situation he would have given up hope as well, it is considered as if he had actually given up hope earlier.

Although there is a general dispute in the Talmud regarding whether "ein breira" (there is no retroactive designation) or "yesh breira" (there is retroactive designation), which relates to the general question of whether a later action can clarify a previous situation, such as setting aside terumah (priestly gifts) with the intention that what will be set aside in the future is what is designated as terumah now - despite this, the question of "yeush shelo midaat" is a separate issue and does not depend on that dispute.

The reason for this is that with terumah, there is no reason to say that the terumah set aside later is the same terumah that would have been set aside earlier, and therefore the separation of terumah is a new designation and cannot clarify the past - according to the view that "ein breira." The situation with "yeush shelo midaat" is different, because here it is clear that even earlier, if he had heard about it, he certainly would have given up hope.

The Rebbe's Explanations[edit | edit source]

  • 2a. Two who are holding a garment. List of "Two who hold a garment"
  • 2a. This one swears etc. and they divide. Hitvaaduyot 5745 Vol. 2 p. 1299 (p. 615)
  • 3b. Admission of a litigant (only in monetary cases and not in capital cases). Likkutei Sichos Vol. 34 p. 106 (p. 118)
  • 30b. "They shall go" refers to visiting the sick, which is gemilut chasadim (acts of kindness). Likkutei Sichos Vol. 20 p. 63 note 16 (p. 76)
  • 58b. Tosafot beginning with "And this with his body." Likkutei Sichos Vol. 32 p. 113
  • 85a. He fasted one hundred fasts to forget the Babylonian Gemara. Likkutei Sichos Vol. 34 p. 24 (p. 36) Hitvaaduyot 5742 Vol. 4 p. 2080 (p. 334)
  • 85b. Why was the master delayed. Sichos Kodesh 5740 Vol. 1 p. 24 (p. 67)
  • 87b. The verse speaks of a laborer. Likkutei Sichos Vol. 38 p. 129 (p. 141)
  • 71b. Is there agency for a gentile or not? Likkutei Sichos Vol. 33 p. 113 onwards.
  • 92a. Does a worker eat from his own or from Heaven? Likkutei Sichos Vol. 38 p. 130 (p. 142)
  • 93a. Explanation of the concept of the four guardians in divine service. Likkutei Sichos Vol. 31 Parshat Mishpatim
  • 94b. Father without mother, mother without father, from where? Likkutei Sichos Vol. 18 p. 117 (p. 108)

External Links[edit | edit source]

  • Bava Metzia
  • Nitzutzot Shel Kedusha (Sparks of Holiness) films on topics from the chapters 'Eilu Metziot' and 'HaMafkid'