Daf Yomi for Women – דף יומי לנשים

Cases are discussed relating to converts paying interest after they converted or taking interest from a loan they had lent before they converted.  Various cases are brought in which something about the shtar (document) is invalid (i.e. it was a loan with interest) – does it invalidate the entire document or can the part that is true/good, still be valid.   Differences between the different cases are analyzed.  The mishna discusses the halachot about buying produce up front in the beginning of the season but only to receive the produce later – in what circumstances is this forbidden because it may be interest (if the produce goes up in value) and in what circumstances is it permitted (if the seller has the produce in his property at the time of the sale or the market value has already been set).

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

More types of investments are discussed and in what situations and with what stipulations are they allowed.  There are certain things allowed to orphans that are forbidden to others.  What exactly these are are a matter of discussion in the gemara.  Suggestions are given as to how best to deal with an orphan’s money.  Is it considered a good thing to take interest from non Jews or is it frowned upon, despite the fact that it is permitted by Torah law?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Does the law that asmachta is not a valid sale apply only to land or also to moveable property?  If someone is allows someone to take something of theirs without complaining (mechila) and later finds out that it was a mistake, is this valid or not?  Does it depend on the situation?  Cases are discussed regarding one who eats fruit off of property given to him as collateral – does it need to be returned or not (is it interest from the rabbis or from the Torah)?  Does depend on the whether it is a place where the borrower can kick the lender off the property as soon as he pays back his loan or whether it is a place where the borrower does not have rights to kick the lender off his property until the time of the loan has ended.  What other differences are there between land in the hands of the lender in each of these places?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

If one takes interest forbidden by the Torah, according to rabbi Elazar, the court can force him to return it.  Various cases are brought in which the interest was different than they had agreed upon.  In each case, does the lender need to return what was agreed upon or what he actually received?   The mishna distinguishes between rentals and sales in terms of agreeing to a higher price if the buyer/renter pays at a later date.  In rental contracts it is allowed because generally rentals are paid at the end so there is no benefit to paying at the end as that is what is expected.  This is different from a sale where money is generally paid from the beginning.  Some rabbis each try to explain cases from their business practices explaining how they justify that they charge a higher rate to those who pay at a later date.  If a buyer pays only part of the money and says he will pay the rest later, what happens in the interim period?  Can either side eat the produce?  A braita is brought which explains that there are 4 possible options – depending on what the wording of the agreement was.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

After 2 failed attempts at understanding the case in the mishna where interest is forbidden by rabbinic decree, Rava brings an explanation according to Rabbi Oshaya’s braita and according to Rabii Yannai’s opnion – that one can turn a loan of money into a loan of produce and not be worried that prices will fluctuate if the borrower has the item in his possession.  However, if he does not, then it appears like interest since the price may rise and in the end he will receive a higher value.  Rav disagrees with Rabbi Yannai adn thinks that one cannot turn a loan for one item inot the value of the item to then transfer it into money or a different item (like wheat for wine – as in the braita of Rabbi Yoshaya).  Two explanatinos are given as to how he can go against the braita of Rabbi Oshaya.  One of them is that it follows the unique opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that a transaction where there is potential for interest but it is not clear that there will be an interest payment (maybe prices will stay the same or go down and the lender will not receive more value), is allowed.  Rabba and Rav Yosef distinguish between and loan and a sale and allow in a sale to pay up front and only receive produce at a later date even if the seller doesn’t have them yet in his possession.  Rav Nachman teaches that any case of getting payment for waiting is considered interest and a case is brought to illustrate.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS