Daf Yomi for Women – דף יומי לנשים

If one moves a barrel that one is supposed to watch and it broke, the mishna depends the halacha upon why it was moved (for the sake of the item or for the shomer’s use of the item) and at what point it broke (while in the shomer’s hand or after it was returned) and was it a case where the owner had specified where the shomer should keep it.  The gemara attempts to explain the logic behind the mishna and as it especially relates to something contradictory.  One approach is to say that the mishna is composed of two different opinions.  A different approach is to bring in an additional parameter not mentioned explicitly in the mishna – was it returned to its proper place or returned to a different location.  within the latter interpretation there are 3 opinions about why the shomer moved the item – to use part of it (shilchut yad), to steal the whole thing or to borrow it?  The difference between the first two opinions is based on a difference of opinion regarding the case of shlichut yad where one becomes responsible even for unanticipated damages – is it only if the item depreciates in value or even if there is no loss?   Derivations from the repetition of the verses where shlichut yad is mentioned are brought as it seems unnecessarily mentioned both by a shomer chinam and a shomer sachar.  4 different derivations are brought.

Study Guide Bava Metzia 41

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

If one is watching an item and it begins to rot, should he sell it or does he need to leave it as is and return in whatever condition it is?  Is there a difference if the item has totally rotted?  What if it is wine that turned to vinegar or honey or oil that totally spoiled?  Different opinions are brought and also different explanations.  Is there a connection between this issue and whether or not a one is allowed to go into a relative’s field who has been taken captive and work the field or not?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Some unique cases are brought where the owner rentout out an animal and subsequently borrowed it for part of the time and then rented out for part of the time and then borrowed it again for part of the time.  If the animal dies during the borrowing period, one can be obligated to pay 3 or 4 cows to the renter.  Others disagree with this.  Can a shomer give an item to someone else to watch?  Different reasons are given to explain why this would be a problem.  They thought that Rav held it was ok, but it was later explained that it was based on a misunderstanding from a psak of Rav’s.  If one was negligent and brought the animal to a marsh (where thieves could come or predators) but the animal died in a typical manner, Abaye and Rava debate what Raba held – whether he would be exempt or obligated.  They each explain in their own way how this case is different from a classic case of tchilato b’pshia vesofo b’ones (one who does a negligent act but in the end there is accidental damage.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS