Bava Metzia 4

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Sep 302016
 

The gemara concludes that the kal va’chomer from which Rabbi Chiya derived that two witnesses who testify to half a claim can obligate the defendant to swear about the rest t was referring to was learned out jointly (by a b’meh hatzad) from both one who admits to part of a claim (modeh bemiktzat) and from one witness who both need to swear.  The gemara questions the proof for this halacha that Rabbi Chiya brought from our mishna and concludes that our mishna was brought for proof for a different halacha – one where one admits to half a claim and then says “heilach“.  Rabbi Chiya hold that in that case one is still obligated to swear and that halacha can be proven from our mishna.  An opposing opinion is brought by Rav Sheshet.  Then the gemara brings a braita to first disprove Rabbi Chiya but reconciles it.  Then brings the same braita to prove Rabbi Chiya (or question Rav Sheshet) but rejects it.  Then brings another question on Rav Sheshet;s opinion from a mishna but also rejects it.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 3

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Sep 292016
 

The gemara continues to compare the law in our mishna to other tannatic opinions relating to other cases of disputed money which seem to reach different conclusions.  Each time the gemara distinguishes between the cases and explains that they could potentially agree with the law in our mishna.  Then the gemara compares two of the cases brought to each other showing that neither of the opinions work together.  But again the gemara distinguishes between the cases.  Rabbi Chiya bring s a halacha about a case where the defendant denies a clim but witnesses testify about half of the amount.  The law requires the defendant to pay the half and swear that he doesn’t owe the other half.  This is learned by a kal vachomer from modeh bemiktzat (one who admits half a claim).  The gemara brings our mishna as a proof for this law of rabbi Chiya and then proceed to try to figure what is the kal vachomer that Rabbi Chiya was referring to.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 2

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Sep 282016
 

Two people are holding onto a tallit – each one claiming he found it.  Each one says it’s all mine.  The mishna rules that each one swears that no less than half is his and they split it (or sell it and split the value).  The gemara struggles with the double language (“I found it” and “it’s all mine”) and suggests that either there is only one case here and the double language is coming to teach that if you find something with your eyes, without physically taking it, you have not acquired any rights to it.  The second explanation given is that there are 2 cases: one regarding a lost item and one regarding a purchased item that each side claims he purchased it however the seller gave it to one and not the other (even though both paid the money).  Comparisons are then made to other tannitic debates regarding money claimed by two people in an attempt to show who the tanna of our mishna sides with; however the gemara rejects the comparisons as it claims the cases are not similar.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Kamma 119 – Siyum

 Bava Kamma  No Responses »
Sep 272016
 

Different situations are described where the seller could possibly be selling stolen items and it would be then forbidden to purchase them from him/her.  The masechet ends with a description of what materials workers are allowed to keep for themselves and what parts they need to return, alluding to the fact that in regular everyday situations, one could become a thief just by not being careful enough.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Kamma 118

 Bava Kamma  No Responses »
Sep 262016
 

If someone stole someone’s land and it got destroyed by an overflowing river, does he return the land as is since land does not have the same laws as movable property and is considered something that “can’t be stolen”. Or do we say that land is treated the same as movable property and he needs to return the value of what he stole.  Does one need to return stolen or borrowed items to the owner in a city or can he return them in an uninhabited place (unguarded, less safe)?  Claims where the borrower/robber/watchman is unsure of his claim – whether or not he paid is back – are discussed. It depends on what the counter claim was.  If one steals, can one return the item without the owner knowing? And if he does and the animal dies, is he responsible to replace it with a new one? Does it depend on whether or not the owner knew it was stolen in the first place? There are certain people that you can’t buy certain items from because there is a strong reason to believe they are stolen. It may also depend on the quantity they are selling.
Study Guide Bava Kamma 118

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Kamma 117

 Bava Kamma  No Responses »
Sep 252016
 

Laws relating to those who pass on information about other people’s property to non Jews who are looking to take it for themselves – is this considered theft?  On what circumstances does it depend?  The famous story of the showdown between Rav Kahana and Rabbi Yochanan when Rav Kahana came to Israel from Babylonia is told in the context of this halacha as a case of one who was going to turn in property of another precipitated Rav Kahana’s move.  This story highlights the dangers of misjudging others, holding oneself in high regard and also highlights the power struggle between Babylonia and Israel, particularly in the second generation of amoraim, in terms of determining where the real center of authority is.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Kamma 115

 Bava Kamma  No Responses »
Sep 232016
 

The rabbis instituted takanat hashuk to protect buyers from responsibility from buying stolen items.  The takana is that if someone claims that the item is theirs, they can take it back but need to reimburse them the amount that they paid for the item.  Does this apply also in the case where the thief was caught?  Can we always believe the original owner when he claims it was stolen?  What other evidence does their need to be to allow him to take the item he claims is his?  If two people are walking and one is losing his expensive item and the other dumps his item to help the other save his more expensive item – if he does it without being asked, he can only demand back money for his time but not for the item he dumped.  The gemara questions why we don’t assume that the first item (the expensive one) was already hefker (ownerless) as the owner knew if would be gone in a minute and gave up ownership of it), in which case the other one could take it as his own.  VArious braitot are brought which seemingly contradict each other regarding items that are about to be lost – and the gemara reconciles them.

Study Guide Bava Kamma 115

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Kamma 114

 Bava Kamma  No Responses »
Sep 222016
 

More laws relating to dealings with non Jews – do you need to return items to non Jews, do you need to correct a mistake that he made in your favor?  Rava brings 5 laws that relate to how we view the halacha of Shmuel that the law of the land is the law – if a non Jewish regime takes money from one person when they weren’t the ones who owed the money (or not by Jewish law), is it considered that they own the money or not?  The mishna says if someone steals and gives you a different item in return, if the owner despaired of getting it in return, you can keep the item.  The mishna doesn’t distinguish between theft and robbery and it can be derived from the mishna that if we don’t know that the owners despaired, we assume they haven’t.  This (and a another mishna that is brought) seems to contradict Raba’s reading of a different argument in masechet keilim between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis who each think that there is reason to distinguish between theft and robbery in this issue.  various answers are brought, among them they introduce a new opinion of Rebbi who equates the two.  The mishna also brought a a swarm of bees who fly into someone else’s property and that is discussed.  A woman and minor are believed in this case.  As a result, the gemara gets into a discussion of why they are believed in this case when in general we don’t accept their testimony.

Study Guide Bava Kamma 114

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Kamma 113

 Bava Kamma  No Responses »
Sep 212016
 

If someone doesn’t show up in court or says the document is false (after it was proven to be a good document), how much time to you give someone before you allow the other side to demand the money from his property?  What does it depend on?  An adrachta is the document they write allowing him to demand the money from the other person’s property.  Once this is written, the person needs to be informed that is has been written.  Details of how one is informed and how long we need to wait to ensure he is informed are discussed.  When a subpoena is send with a woman or neighbor, under what circumstances, can we assume they relayed the message and when can we assume that they didn’t think they were being relied on to deliver it and maybe never did?  There are certain times of year and times of the week when people are busy and therefore shouldn’t be subpoenaed to court.  The next mishna deals with non Jewish tax collectors and various things one can do to avoid paying taxes.  When questioned by Shmuel’s statement dina demalchuta dina, the law of the land is the law, the gemara differentiates between tax collectors who collect by law and those who don’t.  THe another case is brought which leads to the question of whether stealing from a non Jew is considered stealing or not.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Kamma 112

 Bava Kamma  No Responses »
Sep 202016
 

The different opinions of amoraim regarding whether or not the owner gave up or whether an inheritor is considered like a buyer (that if the owner gives up on getting the item back and it changes hands from the robber to another person, he acquires the item legally) are questioned based on tannaitic sources on this topic.  Since the tannaitic sources raise the issue of cases in which minors would or wouldn’t be responsible, the issue of whether one can have a judgement without one side appearing is raised (since a minor cannot appear in court).  There are different opinions about the matter and the amoraim explain the circumstances under which one can have a court session without the other side appearing.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

 Older Entries