Oct 062016
 

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.

Oct 052016
 

Rav Yehuda holds that one riding on an animal does not effect acquisition of the animal.  3 tannaitic sources are brought to support his opinion and one to disprove it but all ttempts can be explained otherwise and not contradict.  Can one acquire vessels that are on an animal by pulling the animal if he is not actually acquiring the animal?

Oct 022016
 

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.

Sep 302016
 

The gemara concludes that the kal va’chomer from which Rabbi Chiya derived that two witnesses who testify to half a claim can obligate the defendant to swear about the rest t was referring to was learned out jointly (by a b’meh hatzad) from both one who admits to part of a claim (modeh bemiktzat) and from one witness who both need to swear.  The gemara questions the proof for this halacha that Rabbi Chiya brought from our mishna and concludes that our mishna was brought for proof for a different halacha – one where one admits to half a claim and then says “heilach“.  Rabbi Chiya hold that in that case one is still obligated to swear and that halacha can be proven from our mishna.  An opposing opinion is brought by Rav Sheshet.  Then the gemara brings a braita to first disprove Rabbi Chiya but reconciles it.  Then brings the same braita to prove Rabbi Chiya (or question Rav Sheshet) but rejects it.  Then brings another question on Rav Sheshet;s opinion from a mishna but also rejects it.

Sep 292016
 

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.

Sep 282016
 

Two people are holding onto a tallit – each one claiming he found it.  Each one says it’s all mine.  The mishna rules that each one swears that no less than half is his and they split it (or sell it and split the value).  The gemara struggles with the double language (“I found it” and “it’s all mine”) and suggests that either there is only one case here and the double language is coming to teach that if you find something with your eyes, without physically taking it, you have not acquired any rights to it.  The second explanation given is that there are 2 cases: one regarding a lost item and one regarding a purchased item that each side claims he purchased it however the seller gave it to one and not the other (even though both paid the money).  Comparisons are then made to other tannitic debates regarding money claimed by two people in an attempt to show who the tanna of our mishna sides with; however the gemara rejects the comparisons as it claims the cases are not similar.