Daf Yomi for Women – דף יומי לנשים

The case of stealing from a convert who subsequently dies and the money as well as the sacrifice is brought to the kohen.  Cases are brought where the money and the sacrifice are brought to 2 different rotations of kohanim and what is done is discussed and argued depending on the situation.  The asham brought after stealing is compared to the asham brought for meila – misuse of consecrated property.  The tenth perek starts with a discussion of someone who eats the stolen item from the robber – can the owner demand the money back from the one who consumed it or only from the robber himself.  It depends on whether or not the owner has given up on getting his item back or not.  In the case where he gave up, the owner cannot demand it from the one who consumed it as the combination of the owner having given up and the change of ownership allows it to change ownership and therefor the original owner has no claim with the third party – he can only claim it from the robber.  But if he had not given up, then the one who consumed is considered as if he stole it from the original owner as it was still in his possession at the time of consumption.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

There is a three-way argument regarding the relationship between shlichut yad (where the shomer used the item he was watching) to the case where the shomer claims the item was stolen.  If the shomer used the item and then claimed it was stolen, is he obligated in the double payment or do we say that first he was obligated for shlichut yad in which case he acquires the object and is now responsible even for accidental damage or do we say that the obligation for stealing is only in a case where there is shlichut yad.  Or possibly both are options.  Various questions are brought (some are answered some are not) regarding the mechanisms by which one may be obligated only in the double payment and the one fifth payment is cancelled out by it.  If a shomer chinam opts to not swear that an item was stolen and pays for it, he gains the rights to the double payment in the event that the robber is caught.   But there is disagreement regarding a case where he swore and then paid.  Other questions are raised about who is responsible for finding the robber in the event that the shomer paid.  Various ramifications are brought.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Rav Sheshet holds that once one denies a claim regarding an item he was watching, he becomes a robber and is obligated to pay even for accidental damages.  Others question his opinion and counter that the change from shomer to robber happens only once he swears falsely.  Various sources are brought to question Rav Sheshet but are resolved.  Rav learns from the verse “the owner takes and he doesn’t need to pay” that once one swears, even if witnesses come and prove that he was lying, he will no longer need to pay.  Various sources are brought to question Rav.  As a result of one question on Rav, Rava reinterprets Rav’s statement and limits it to a case where the shomer claimed it was  lost, and then swore.  He did not admit he was lying but witnesses came and proved he was lying.  In that case he does not need to pay.  But in any case where he came forward and admitted or in a case where he claimed it was stolen and then witneses came, he would be obligated to pay (as the verses in the Torah clearly state that).

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

The mishna assumes that one who swears falsely is the one who needs to ensure that he gets what he stole directly to the one who he stole from.  But that if he stole but didn’t swear about it, it would be sufficient to send in the hands of a messenger.  The gemara questions how this fits in or doesn’t with an argument Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva have regarding one who stole and five people claim he stole from them and he doesn’t know which one is the one he stole from.  Three different answers are brought.  The gemara then discusses an argument between Rav Hisda and Rabba about a case where one sent a messenger to receive his loan payment (for example) and appointed the messenger in front of witnesses, would this mean that the messenger is receiving it on his behalf and the borrower is no longer responsible if something happens to the money on the way or is the messenger just there to make it easier for the borrower to get the money back to the original owner but is not in fact assuming responsibility.  and if the item gets lost/stolen on the way the borrower would need to repay the loan.  The nature of the payment of the one fifth is discussed – is it a gift to the one who was robbed in order to effect atonement for the robber or is it a financial payment?  Ramifications are also brought.

Study Guide Bava Kamma 103

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

The gemara asks whether the value of wool that is dyed is considered like it is wool with dye in it or do we say that since the dye isn’t tangible, we don’t view it as being made up of dye and wool.  The gemara then proceeds to explain in what case there is relevance to the question.  A number of attempts are rejected and then a number of cases are brought in which the question is relevant.  They attempt to answer the question by bringing in sources relating to dyeing using shmita and orla produce, but in the end these proofs are rejected.  Rava then raises a contradiction of the orla case and a tumah case and it is resolved.  And in a tangent, Rava brings two contradictory sources relating to whether or not kedushat shviit (shmita) applies to tree not used to eating.  That contradiction is also resolved.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS