Folgen
-
Today’s daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in loving memory of her husband's friend and chavruta, Avraham ben Shlomo Baime on his 7th yahrzeit. " A true eved Hashem who founded the Elazar English Kollel which delves into the intricacies of the Talmud. I have the z'chut to be learning with his gemarot which inspire me to reach greater heights through the guidance of our trailblazer R. Michelle who provides clarity and daily introspection to our learning."
Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran zoom group for a refuah shleima of Yaakov Yitzchak ben Miriam Esther, the son of our dear friend Miriam. "Yitz should have a speedy and full recovery."
Rav Huna ruled that one can acquire an item through chalipin if the buyer has a pile of coins and says to the seller, "Sell it to me for this pile of money." Since the seller did not care to count how much money was in the pile, the sale would be final as soon as the seller took the money. Would regular laws of onaah be effective here, if the buyer underpaid by a sixth? There are two different versions of what Rav Huna said regarding onaah in this case. If one sold an item through a chalipin transaction but made it clear that he/she wanted the chalipin item to be valued at the value of the item he/she was selling, would the chalipin item be considered like money and therefore there will be no acquisition by the chalipin item, but only when the sold item is pulled by the buyer, or not? Can one infer from Rav Huna's ruling that a coin can be used for effecting a chalipin transaction? Is it the buyer or the seller that gives the chalipin item? This is both a debate among amoraim and also tannaim. These opinions are derived from Rut 4:7 when Naomi's relative sells his rights to Boaz to redeem Naomi and Ruth's property. What is the basis for the debate between Rav Sheshet and Rav Nachman about what items can be used to effect a kinyan chalipin? What is an asimon that is mentioned in the Mishna? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish have a debate, as mentioned previously, does money effect a transaction by Torah law or not. From where in the Torah do they derive their opinions? Two parts of our Mishna are brought to raise a difficulty against Reish Lakish's position, but are resolved.
-
Today's daf is dedicated to the safety of Israel from the Iranian attack.
Today's daf is sponsored by Mitzi and David Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi's mother, Ruth Toll Lock, Rut bat Miriam and Avraham z"l on her 38th yahrzeit. "She was a loving wife, mother, and mother-in-law; a devoted Zionist and wonderful educator in Harrisburg, PA. All 4 of her children made Aliyah and her many grandchildren and great-grandchildren, as well as her great-great-grandchild, all live in Israel!"
Rav Papa holds that a coin be acquired through a kinyan chalipin. A Minsha in Maaser Sheni 4:5 is raised as a difficulty on Rav Papa's position. Rav Papa eventually switches his position as is proven by Rav Papa's actions in a particular situation when he was trying to get back money from a loan. The Gemara returns to the previous discussion of whether or not a coin can be used to effect a kinyan chalipin (symbolic kinyan). Ulla, Rabbi Asi and Rabbi Yochanan ruled that money cannot be used. Rabbi Abba raises a difficulty from a braita against Ulla and Rabbi Abba himself suggests one possible resolution and Rav Ashi suggests another. Another source (Mishna in Kiddushin) is brought to raise a difficulty with Ulla, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yochanan's positions but is resolved. However, the resolution is only consistent with Rav Sheshet's position that chalipin can be effected with produce (and other moveable items that are not considered a kli), but not with Rav Nachman's position that chalipin cannot be effected with produce. How can the Mishna be explained according to Rav Nachman? The explanation given for Rav Nachman accords with Rabbi Yochanan's opinion in his debate with Reish Lakish about whether money effect a kinyan (acquisition) by Torah law. Both agree that practically money does not effect a transaction, however, Rabbi Yochanan holds that it is only because of a rabbinic decree, that does not apply in rare circumstances. Reish Lakish's explanation of a line in our Mishna is bought as a third source to raise a difficulty against the position that money cannot be used as chalipin. This difficulty is resolved as well.
-
Fehlende Folgen?
-
Study Guide Bava Metzia 45
Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel have a debate regarding trading maaser sheni coins from silver to gold coins. There are three versions of the debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish about what the basis of the debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish is. The first version links their debate to the issue of whether silver or gold is considered a currency or commodity com[pared to the other. However, the other two version think the issue is exclusively a maaser sheni issue and does not relate to the currency/commodity debate. Rav and Levi debate whether money can be used for a kinyan chalipin, a symbolic act of acquiring. Chalipin must be performed with an item that has inherent value. Does money have inherent value because it is made from metal or is it viewed only in terms of the image on the coin which will eventually wear away?
-
Study Guide Bava Metzia 44
Today's daf is sponsored by Ariella and Michael Radwin in honor of Sivan's bat mitzvah this coming Shabbat. "Mazel tov to Sivan! May you lead a life of Torah and ma’asim tovim, and may you someday be blessed to stand under the chuppah"
Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree about whether one is obligated in shlichut yad by merely intending to use the object. On what words in the Torah does each one rely upon to support his opinion? If one tilted the barrel and took out some wine to drink, and then the barrel broke, one would be liable to replace only the wine taken. However, if one lifted the whole barrel to take some wine, and then the barrel broke (unexpected damages), one must replace the value of the entire barrel. When one purchases an item the transaction takes effect when buyer pulls or lifts the item. However, if the buyer merely paid the money, the transaction is not yet effective. If one purchases currency with a different currency, one currency will be considered the currency of the transaction and the other the commodity. The Mishna lists several examples and establishes which is considered the currency and which is the commodity. When changing gold with silver, Rebbi has two opposite opinions about which is considered the currency and which is the commodity - one when he was younger and one later in life. Rav Ashi attempts to prove his earlier opinion, that gold is the currency. Rabbi Chiya held that way as well, and Rava quotes a braita and proves that the tanna of the braita also held by that position. Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel have a debate regarding trading maaser sheni coins from silver to gold coins. This debate seems to connect with the aforementioned issue of which of the two is considered currency and which is the commodity? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish each have a different understanding of the debate.
-
If one gives money to a money changer, if it is not bound and sealed, the money changer is permitted to use it and is thereby responsible if the money gets lost. There is a debate whether the money changer is also responsible for oness (accidental damage). Regarding shlichut yad, if one decides to use an item they are watching and it then breaks, if the item changes in value from the time the shomer decides to use it until the time it breaks, what value is the shomer obligated to pay? Beit Shammai, Beit Hillel, and Rabbi Akiva have a debate regarding this issue. The Gemara brings five attempts, four of which are rejected, to understand the disagreement between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel. According to the conclusion, the debate is not regarding a fluctuation in the market price, but the value of the animal itself increases or decreases by having offspring/wool to be sheared. According to who do we pasken?
-
What level of shmira is needed for various items? How did people watch money? How did that change over time? Various cases are brought which relate to cases with different issues - tchilato b'pshia v'sofo b'oness, a shomer that gave to a family member to watch and did not tell them it was someone else's item, or a steward that bought an animal without teeth and gave it to a cowherd to watch without informing him that the animal had no teeth and could not eat.
-
If a shomer moves an item that he/she is watching and it subsequently breaks by unexpected circumstances (oness), is the shomer liable? Using an item that one is watching is called shlichut yad and the shomer is considered like a thief and becomes obligated even for oness until the item is returned. However, several factors determine whether or not the shomer is responsible. For what purpose did the shomer move the item - for the item or the shomer's use? Did it break before it was returned to a protected place or not? Was there a designated place where the item was supposed to be? Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree on whether the owner needs to know the item was returned. There is a disagreement about whether the first part of the Mishna accords with Rabbi Yishmael and the latter part with Rabbi Akiva or perhaps the whole Mishna can be explained according to Rabbi Yishmael. Within the latter interpretation, there are three opinions about why the shomer moved the item - to use part of it (shilchut yad), to steal the whole thing, or to borrow it. The difference between the first two opinions is based on a difference of opinion regarding the case of shlichut yad where one becomes responsible even for unanticipated damages - is it only if the item depreciates in value or even if there is no loss? Rav and Levi disagree about this issue. Who holds which opinion? They conclude that Levi holds that one is obligated in shlichut yad even if there is no loss. This is derived from the repetition of the verses where shlichut yad is mentioned as it seems unnecessarily mentioned both by a shomer chinam and a shomer sachar.
-
Today's daf is sponsored by Sara Berelowitz in honor of the engagement of Sara’s daughter, Estie Brauner, to Tina Lamm’s nephew, Jason Ast. May we have many more Hadran family smachot!
After Mari bar Isak's 'brother' brought witnesses, Rav Chisda ruled that the brother could receive his portion. Rav Chisda also ruled that the brother could receive 50% of the profits from Mari's investment in the land after the father's death, based on a Mishna in Bava Batra 143b. Abaye and Rabbi Ami raised difficulties with the latter's ruling. Rav Chisda responds and answers Rabbi Ami's question. If one gives a shomer produce to watch, the shomer can deduct a certain amount when returning the produce as one can assume that mice ate some or that some was lost over time. What percentage? The calculation is based on the item in question, the amount of time it was being watched, and the quantity. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri holds that quantity is not a factor as mice eat the same amount regardless of how much is in the pile. The Tosefta limits these laws to a case when the shomer mixed the produce with his/her produce. Rabbi Yehuda holds that if the shomer watched a large measure of produce, the depreciation would be offset by the expansion of the grains. Based on an alternate reading of a braita, Rav Nachman limits this to a particular case where the grains were given to be watched in the summer and returned in the winter. How much deduction is there for oil and wine? On what point does Rabbi Yehuda disagree with the rabbis regarding deducting the sediment in oil? What is the basis of their debate? The Gemara brings two different suggestions.
-
This week’s learning is dedicated to Dr. Joseph Walder z"l who supported Torah study across the Jewish world.
A relative is supposed to take care of the property of a relative who is taken captive or abandons their land. However, it depends on how they abandoned the land. Upon their return, the relative who tended the land receives a percentage, like a sharecropper, of the produce that will grow from their investment. Why is this different from a husband with his wife's usufruct property where once the marriage is over, he does not receive a percentage of the profits of his investment? Rav Huna ruled that a minor cannot take over his relative's property, nor can a relative take over a minor's property. Why? Are there circumstances under which the latter can be permitted? There was a woman taken captive with her daughter and left behind two daughters - one who died and left a child. Rava and Abaye disagreed about how to divide the land and who should tend to it. Later, they heard the mother had died. since it was still unclear if the daughter who had been taken captive was still alive, Rava and Abaye also disagreed about how to divide up the land. Another case is brought of Mari bar Isak who inherited land from his father and then someone came claiming to be his brother and therefore claiming 50% of the land. After demanding witnesses from the brother, the brother claimed that since Mari is a bully, no witnesses will testify against him. Rav Chisda then demanded that Mari prove that the 'brother' was not his brother. Mari brought two claims against this ruling, but Rav Chisda did not accept them.
-
If one is watching an item and it begins to rot, should the shomer sell it or leave it and return it in whatever condition it is? There is a debate in the Mishna regarding this issue and amoraim disagree about the reason for the rabbis' opinion. Rabbi Yochanan claims that the tannaitic debate is not relevant if the item has rotted. Two difficulties are raised against Rabbi Yochanan and are resolved. Is there a connection between this issue and whether or not one is allowed to go into a relative's field who has been taken captive and work the field or not? Rav and Shmuel disagree about the relative using the property of the captive. Was there a tannaitic debate about this as well?
-
Rabbi Yosi holds that one cannot profit from someone else's object. Does he also disagree with the rabbis about the case in the first Mishna of the chapter regarding the shomer who pays for the item and acquires the double payment if the robber is found? The next Mishna raises cases regarding doubts about whose money was stolen from or who gave which amount of money to the shomer to watch. The Gemara raises contradictions between the two cases and with other mishnayot and other principles regarding money in doubt and reconciles the differences.
-
Study Guide Bava Metzia 36
Rabbi Yirmia brings various situations where one borrows and lends to another and they can both be obligated to bring either a sin or a guilt offering or one a sin and one a guilt. What are the various situations? Can a shomer give an item to someone else to watch? Different reasons are given to explain why this would be a problem. Some thought that Rav held it was permissible, but it was later explained that it was based on a misunderstanding of a situation where Rav ruled. If a shomer was negligent and brought the animal to a marsh (where there could be thieves or predators) but the animal died in a typical manner, Abaye and Rava debate what Raba held – whether the shomer would be exempt or obligated. They each explain how this case differs from a classic case of tchilato b’pshia vesofo b’ones (one who does a negligent act but in the end, the damage was accidental).
-
Rav Huna holds that the one who claims the item was lost or stolen, must swear that the item is no longer in their possession. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a braita and suggests four, one of which is rejected. A case is brought where one claimed jewels were lost and Rav Nachman's court seized his palace to replace the lost jewel. When he then produced the "lost" item which had gone up in value, Rav Nachman said to give him his palace back and return the jewels to the owner. Rava tried to argue with this ruling based on our Mishna saying that he should have acquired rights to the appreciation by having paid for the jewels. But then he realizes the difference between the cases and explains that. In connection with this, the Gemara raises the issue regarding a loan - if it gets repaid by foreclosing on land, if and when the borrower has the money to pay, can the borrower get his/her land back? In Nehardea they ruled that one can get back the land and there is a debate about whether or not there is a time limit. The ruling is that there is no time limit because of l'fnim meshurat ha'din, it is the right thing to do, even if not required by the letter of the law. However, there are different permutations of the case in which the law would not apply. At what point of foreclosure does the creditor get rights to the proceeds of the land? If one rents an animal and then lends it to someone else and it dies in a typical manner (for which a borrower is responsible and a renter is not), there is a debate about to whom the borrower pays - to the renter (after the renter swears that it died in a typical manner) or to the original owner. The Gemara questions exactly by what mechanism the renter acquires rights to the animal. A creative, extreme case is discussed in which an owner can borrow from a renter their item and incur payment for four animals. Some disagree and hold it would only be two animals. What is the case?
-
Study Guide Bava Metzia 34
Today's daf is sponsored by Rena and Mark Goldstein in loving memory of Rena’s father, Moe Septee, Moshe ben haRav Elazar Shmuel on his 27th yahrzeit.
A shomer who can be exempt from payment and decides voluntarily to pay, acquires rights to the double payment (or the 4 or 5 payment for an animal that the robber slaughtered and sold) if the robber is later caught and returns the item. How does this mechanism work if the owner gives rights to the double from the beginning to the shomer in the event that it is stolen, and that the shomer pays, the thief is found - isn't that considered something that is not yet in existence, which cannot be acquired? Rava answers the question but there are two different version of the answer. Is it enough if the shomer just says he/she will pay or does the shomer actually need to pay to acquire the double payment? If the shomer changes his/her claim from "I will not pay" to "I will pay" or the reverse, do we assume that we rule by the second statement or perhaps the second statement in the latter case was just meant to push off paying temporarily? If some of the case details were different, such as, the shomer died and the heirs say, "We will pay," do we assume that the owner only gave rights to the shomer, but not to the heirs? Various similar scenarios are brought to question whether or not the owner would give rights to the double payment to the shomer in those cases. All the questions raised are left unanswered. A halacha is brought that in that case discussed above, the shomer must swear that the item is not in their possession to ensure that they haven't taken a liking to the object and decided to pay for it in order to keep it.
-
Today's daf is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in loving memory of his beloved bride and best friend of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v’Yehuda Tzvi, on the occasion of her first yahrzeit. "You will be in my heart forever."
There are two more attempts to prove that tza'ar ba'alei chayim is a rabbinic law, but they are rejected. Within what distance from the animal is one obligated to help load/unload? What is the order of precedence in dealing with people's lost items between oneself, one's father, and one's rabbi? What is the definition of 'one's rabbi'? Is it better to learn Torah, Mishna, or Gemara? What are the dangers of learning Mishna without learning Gemara? What are the dangers of learning Gemara without learning Mishna? If one is watching another's item (an animal or vessels) and is not getting paid (shomer chinam), and the item is stolen, the shomer can take an oath and is exempt. If they find the thief and retrieve the item, the thief pays the double payment to the original owner. But if the shomer decides to pay for the stolen item, the thief will pay the double payment to the shomer. Why was it necessary to mention both an animal and vessels?
-
If one who finds a lost item does not want to lose out on getting compensated for their full wages while attending to the lost item, one can stipulate this in front of a court (three men) and then the one who lost the item will need to compensate the finder the full amount. Raba bar Rav Huna wanted to apply this law to a case where Rav Safra took his half of a shared business deal in front of witnesses, but not three men. Rav Safra rejected this proof, but Abaye brought proof from a different source that indeed Rav Safra was required to divide the money in front of three men. If one finds an animal in a cowshed, it is not considered a lost item but in a public thoroughfare, it is. Is this within the borders of the city or outside the borders? If one's parent tells one to do something against what the Torah commands, one cannot listen to the parent. For example, if a parent tells their child not to return a lost item, the child must disobey the parent. This is derived from Vayikra 19:3 where the commandment to fear one's parent is followed by a commandment to keep Shabbat. Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis have a debate regarding the laws of helping another to load a burden - can one demand compensation for lost wages or not? What is the basis of the debate? Both would agree however, that theoretically one could have derived laws of unloading from laws of loading from a kal v'chomer argument. Rava tries to derive from this that the mitzva of tzaar baalei chayim, the commandment to prevent suffering to animals is a Torah law, as the kal v'chomer argument would be that if one is obligated to help load, when there is no suffering to the animal, kal v'chomer they are obligated to unload, where the animal is suffering. This is rejected as the kal v'chomer argument could be based on the fact that loading does not involve a financial loss and unloading does. But then the Gemara rejects that, as in loading, there is also a financial loss. Various sources are brought to determine if Rava is correct in assuming that tzaar baalei chayim is a Torah law.
-
Today's daf is sponsored by Malka Abraham in loving memory of her mother, Yehudit bat Mshalem Ziza v'Chanah. "My mom always encouraged women to be lifelong learners and a love of Yiddishkeit."
If one finds an animal wandering, how does one determine if it is lost or if the owner knows its whereabouts? Rava explains that helping to protect another’s field from being destroyed is also included under the commandment to return lost items. Can this be proven from a braita? The Mishna which differentiated between cases of an animal grazing on a path and an animal running in a vineyard leads to inferences that contradict each other regarding grazing in a field and running on a path. Rava and Abaye each resolve the contradiction differently. One needs to return an item multiple times if need be. From where is this derived? Various drashot are brought regarding places in the Torah where a double language is used, such as lost items, sending away the mother bird, rebuking, charity, and others. What is derived from the double language in each verse? How do we assess the compensation one receives for stopping one’s work to attend to a lost item?
-
Today's daf is sponsored by Bat-Sheva Maslow in honor of her daughter Yakira becoming a Bat Mitzvah and making her first siyum. "I'm so proud of your dedication to learning and the amazing talmida chachama you are growing into."
Today's daf is sponsored by Lisa Kolodny in honor of Nancy Kolodny's milestone birthday tomorrow. "May you keep striving for personal and spiritual growth, reaching new heights, and enriching the lives of all of us around you!"
According to the Mishna one can stretch out a cloth for its own sake (if it needs airing out) but not for the finder's use. What if the finder does it for both at the same time? The Gemara brings three sources to answer this question but each is rejected. What type of care is needed for the finder of various utensils? What type of use is not permitted with each type of utensil? There are certain cases where one is exempt from returning a lost item. A braita lists three exceptions - a kohen is exempt if the lost item is in a cemetery, an elderly person as it is not within his dignity, and a person whose value of his/her labor is greater than the value of the lost item. A case is brought in which a rabbi acted beyond the letter of the law. The concept of going beyond the letter of the law is derived from a verse (Shmot 18: 20) and Rabbi Yochanan explains the importance of this concept. When we see an object, how do we determine if it is lost or the owner knows about it?
-
What is a person's level of responsibility toward the lost item once one picks it up and begins searching for its owner? If it is an animal, the finder needs to feed the animal. But if the animal is not producing enough to cover its cost, the owner can sell the animal and will return the money when they find the owner. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva debate whether this money can be used or needs to be set aside - this then affects their level of responsibility for the money in the event of loss/theft. The Gemara assumes that they both agree the responsibility is dependent upon whether or not they can use the object, meaning in a case where they cannot use the object (like a regular case of a lost item), both agree that the finder is not liable for loss/theft. However, this raises a difficulty with Rav Yosef who ruled that one watching a lost item (the finder, who is not permitted to use the object) is considered like a shomer sachar, who is liable for loss/theft. To resolve this difficulty, one can answer that their debate is regarding oness, unexpected damages, and not loss/theft, and regarding loss/theft all would agree that the finder is responsible. A difficulty is raised against this explanation from the language of the Mishna, but is resolved. There was a case where Rav Yosef tried to rule like Rabbi Tarfon and allow one who was watching money of orphans to use the money, but Abaye challenged his ruling by differentiating between a case of a regular shomer and our case where the finder took care of the animal and then sold it. Details regarding taking care of lost items are discussed - how should the finder take care of the object? What kind of use is permitted, if any? Shmuel rules that one who finds tefillin there is a unique ruling that one is allowed to sell the tefillin and use them - why? A braita compares laws of one who borrows a sefer Torah to one who finds a sefer Torah. The Gemara goes through the different parts of the braita and raises questions and answers them. The Mishna rules that two people cannot read together from a book that was found, but a braita rules that two can, but three cannot. How do they resolve this contradiction? The Mishna rules that if one finds clothing, one must shake it out once every thirty days. However, a statement from Rabbi Yochanan implies that shaking out clothing can ruin it. Several resolutions are suggested.
-
As another difficulty is raised against Rava's explanation for simanim being a rabbinic law, Rava concludes that one can retrieve a lost item by bringing simanim by Torah law. What if two people bring simanim or one person brings simanim and the other witnesses or the other one witness? Rava explains cases where two people bring different identifying details and explains which is the stronger one. For how long does the finder need to announce the lost object? Rabbi Meir holds until the neighbors know. The Gemara explains that "the neighbors" refers to the neighbors in the neighborhood where the lost item was found. Rabbi Yehuda says one must announce it on the three regalim, holidays, and for seven days after the last one to allow people to go home, see that they lost the item, and come back to claim it. This amount of time mentioned contradicts a Mishna in Taanit 10a regarding when we start to pray for rain as there it states that it takes fifteen days for the people who live farthest to get home. How is this contradiction resolved? Once the Temple was destroyed, the finder would announce in the shuls and the batei midrash. But at a certain point in history, the lost items were given to the authorities so people would spread the word more quietly among their neighbors. In the Temple, the finders would announce lost items in a place called the even hatoen and the ones who had lost items would go there to retrieve their lost items. Even when one brought simanim, they would question them even further to ensure they weren't lying. Rav Yehuda and Rav Nachman disagree about whether one would announce "I found a lost item" or "I found a cloak (for example)." Can we find support for one of the opinions from the Mishna? Originally, they were not concerned that people would lie about lost items and take items of others, but as time went on, people took advantage. As a result, the Sages instituted that to retrieve an item with simanim, one would have to bring witnesses attesting to the person's honesty. If the lost item is an animal that can work and generate revenue, the finder should keep the animal if the revenue exceeds the upkeep costs. If not, the finder can sell the animal and return the money to the owner. Can the finder use the money? If yes, the finder is responsible for replacing it, if the money gets lost. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva disagree about this issue. Even an animal that generates more revenue than cost, after twelve months pass, the finder can sell it. Two braitot list different amounts of time necessary to wait before selling calves and foals, and geese and roosters, as they do not generate enough income. How are the contradictory braitot reconciled?
- Mehr anzeigen
