michelle

Bava Metzia 100

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Jan 042017
 

If one buys (or trades) animals or slaves and the animal has offspring or he sold 2 animals or slaves – one small and one large and it’s unclear whether it was before the sale or after the sale or he sold 2 animals or slaves – one small and one large, various cases are brought (each one gives clear claims, each one says maybe it was born before/after the sale, or one is clear and the other not) and the halacha is determined for each case.  The gemara concludes that the mishna is in according with Sumchus who holds that money is doubt is split without swearing.  However, the gemara has further questions on that and to resolve those questions, suggests 4 possible readings of the mishna.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 99

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Jan 032017
 

At what point does a borrower assume responsibility for unanticipated damage?  At what stage can the owner change his mind and take back the borrowed item?  Cases regarding paying damages when there is discrepancy of price rates are raised.  Shmuel holds that a robber would pay the higher rate if it is hekdesh (consecrated items) and a lower rate if it is to a regular person.  The gemara questions Shmuel based on a different place where he equates hekdesh and non hekdesh.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 98

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Jan 022017
 

Study Guide Bava Metzia 98

The mishna’s cases about combined rental/borrowing situations are explained in 3 different ways according to varying opinions.  Questions are asked regarding cases where one borrows an item “with the owner” and then before the rental time is up, he decides to rent it without the owner,  Does the exemption of “with the owner” apply because the agreement is just continued from the original borrow or is it viewed as a new agreement?  What about from renting to borrowing or from borrowing to renting to borrowing or vice versa.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 97

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Jan 012017
 

A borrower is not liable for accidental damage that occurs from using the item in the manner it is meant to be used but it was used in an atypical manner, the borrower is responsible.  Possible exceptions to this rule are brought.  Various other cases are brought to further define the exception of the owner being “with” the shomer.   The mishna describes bases where an animal is rented for a period of time and borrowed for a period of time or two animal are being dealt with – one rented and one borrowed.  The animal dies and there is doubt as to whether it was rented at the time or borrowed.  Depending on what each side claims (are they sure in their claim or unsure), the halacha changes.  This is based on the principal that if one has a sure claim and the other side is unsure, we hold by the one who has the sure claim.  The gemara says that the mishna poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Nachman and Rabbi Yochanan who hold that one is exempt even if he has an unsure claim.  The gemara resolves the difficulty by claiming that the mishna is referring to a case where there is an obligation on the borrower to swear and since he can’t (as he is unsure), he is obligated.  But if he didn’t have to swear, he would be exempt.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 95

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Dec 302016
 

From where do we derive various halachot about a borrower that are not mentioned in the verses explicitly: That “captivity” is also included in cases where the borrower is obligated?  That a borrower is responsible for theft and loss?  That the exemption of the owner being “with the borrower” applies also for theft and loss?  If the shomer was negligent and the owner was “with the shomer” is he exempt?  There is a debate about this.  Rav Hamnuna has a narrow view of the exemption of  “the owner is with the borrower”. He claims it is a case where the owner was working with the animal itself at the time of its break or death and was also with him from the time of borrowing until the time of its death.  The gemara knocks down each of these statements and rejects this explanation.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 94

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Dec 292016
 

Study Guide Bava Metzia 94

What is considered unanticipated circumstances beyond one’s control that a shomer would be exempt from?  One animal attcking?  or 2 animals?  Does it depend what type of animal?  One can stipulate that he will be a shomer but will not be obligated to pay according to the Torah laws.  How is this different from a condition that goes against Torah law that generally we say is not a valid condition?  Other laws of conditions are discussed.  The mishna discusses in which circumstances one is exempt as a borrower because the owner was “with him” (she’eila b’baalim).  The gemara then discusses the derivation of the laws of shomrim from the verses in the Torah.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 93

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Dec 282016
 

The gemara concludes that it is a tannaitic debate whether the worker’s rights to eat on the job are considered an added wage or a God given gift.  Is a watcher of a field considered “working” to the extent that he can eat from the field or not?  There is  debate about how to view his work.  The mishna discusses the 4 types of watchmen.  One who gets paid for watching is responsible for circumstances beyond his control.  Rabba and Abaye about what level of “out of his control” is necessary in order for him to be exempt.  Is he expected to go beyond what is expected of a regular watchman since he is getting paid (Abaye) or not (Rabba)?

Study Guide Bava Metzia 93

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 92

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Dec 272016
 

How much is a worker allowed to eat?  Can he eat more than the value of his wages?  Is the food allowance views as an addition to his wages – meaning it belongs to him and can be transferred to others – or is it a “gift” from God which would therefore be for his use only.  One can view the latter option as a basic human right – to allow one to eat from the produce he is working with.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 91

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Dec 262016
 

Can one be obligated for muzzling one’s animal or crossbreeding animals if he caused it to happen by speaking to the animal and not by doing any action?  Details regarding a worker eating on the job are further discussed.  Does one need to be working with both one’s hands and  legs (like the ox who can’t be muzzled)?  If one is working with one type, can one eat a different type in the field?  Can one eat from the same type in a different area?  Can one eat while one is walking from one place to another?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

 Older Entries  Newer Entries