Bava Metzia 101

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Jan 052017
 

Cases are brought where a tree belongs to one person and the land to another.  In what situations do we assume the fruits belong exclusively to one of them and in which cases do we split them 50/50?  If a tree got uprooted by a river and placed in someone else’s field, can the owner take it back?  What if someone planted a tree in someone’s property without the owner’s knowledge?  Does he receive payment for it and how much?  Would the law be the same for a house that one built in someone else’s ruin without the property owner’s knowledge?  How much notice does a landlord need to give the renter that he wants him to move out?  The amount depends on what season he rented it for (depends on supply), whether it was in a city or village, whether it was a store or a residence and what type of store it was.  What cases are exceptions to the rule in which no notice is required?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

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

 Newer Entries