{"id":3631,"date":"2016-09-11T08:23:28","date_gmt":"2016-09-11T06:23:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.dafyomi4women.org\/daf\/?p=3631"},"modified":"2016-09-11T08:23:28","modified_gmt":"2016-09-11T06:23:28","slug":"bava-kamma-103","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dafyomi4women.org\/daf\/2016\/09\/bava-kamma-103\/","title":{"rendered":"Bava Kamma 103"},"content":{"rendered":"

An opinion of the people in Israel is brought that claims that if a middleman changes from what the buyer wants, the buyer cannot acquire the item because the seller had no intent to give rights to the buyer – his intent was on the middleman. \u00a0A braita is brought to contradict that claim – however it is explained that the issue in the braita was not the same. \u00a0A case with Rav was brought to support their opinion but then it was explained that the issue was a different one and was unrelated. \u00a0The ishna discusses an asham gezeila <\/em>– in a case where someone steals and swears that he didn’t and later regrets it and admits that he lied, he must make sure to return the item to the original owner, even if it means it will cost him money to travel to find the owner.<\/p>\n

\n