Daf Yomi for Women – דף יומי לנשים

Shmuel’s opinions relating to shevach are discussed.  If one buys from a robber and invests in the property, he loses his investment because if the robber returns him his investment, it will look like interest.  Various sources are brought to contradict this but are resolved.  According to Shmuel, a ba’al chov who comes to demand land from liened property, he can take the shevach, (the investment).  Various sources are brought to prove or question his opinion and as a result some distinctions are made.  If one buys property and knows it is stolen, Rav and Shmuel debate whether or not he can get his money back.  THe basis of their argument is discussed and compared to another case where they also debate the same issue.

Study Guide Bava Metzia 15

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

If someone finds a document of a loan in the street and it is unclear if it was paid back or not, can he return it to the lender?  According to Rabbi Meir, it depends on whether or not there was property liened to the loan written in the document.  The gemara debates whether or not the mishna was referring to a case where the borrower admitted there was a loan or not.  The rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir and hold that no matter what we don’t return the document.  There is a debate among Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar about in what case Rabbi Meir and the rabbis disagree and what their disagreement is about.

Study Guide Bava Metzia 13

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

The mishna discusses someone who sees an item and asks someone to pick it up for him.  As long as he hasn’t yet handed it to the person who asked him to pick it up, the person can claim that it is his own.  The gemara tries to reconcile this with a mishna in Peah that describes someone who takes part of the corner of another’s field on behalf of a poor person.  There is a concept that one who takes money from a debtor for a friend when the debtor also owes others and may not have enough funds to go around cannot acquire the money for his friend.  The question is does the same thing apply to a lost item since potentially it is causing everyone else not to acquire it or do we say since there is no potential financial loss for anyone as the lost item wasn’t something they are owed, then he can acquire it for the friend.  The mishna then discusses that one who jumps on an item also doesn’t acquire it.  Reish Lakish brings a halacha that one acquires everything within 4 cubits surrounding a person.  The gemara then questions this from a mishna in Peah and also our mishna and two answers are brought for each source to explain why it doesn’t contradict.  Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan debate whether a minor girl’s divorce document can be given to her by placing in her courtyard or in the 4 cubits surrounding her.  The gemara explains that the argument is based on whether a courtyard functions as an extension of one’s hand or as a messenger.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

The gemara questions Rabbi Yochanan’s understanding that the reason the mishna required the two people holding the tallit to swear was because the rabbis wanted to prevent people from grabbing other people’s tallit and claiming it as their own.  The question is: if there is concern one is lying about money (stealing), shouldn’t we suspect that he will swear falsely?  The gemara brings 3 proofs from other cases where one can swear but disproves them as each case can be explained that the one obligated to swear is not actually stealing because his claim can be justified.   Then the gemara brings 3 proofs that are accepted.  Abaye brings a different explanation for the reason the mishna requires the two to swear.  The gemara then raises a question about a case where after the two people were holding the tallit in the court, one grabbed it from the other.  Does he have full rights to it?  Under what circumstances is this question valid?  What are the arguments for and against?  Assuming we hold that he gets to keep it, would the same hold true if one consecrated the whole tallit because speech by consecration is the same as taking it in hand.  In order to sanswer this question, they bring a story about a bathhouse that two people claimed rights to and then one consecrated it.  Rav Hamnuna ruled that the consecration worked and learned it from a mishna about a sefak bechor but Raba rejected his proof.  Abaye first questions Raba’s understanding but then proves that he is correct.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

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