Bava Metzia 60

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Nov 252016
 

What is allowed and not allowed in a competitive business environment?  The fifth chapter analyzes the laws of interest.  It begins with a description of interest forbidden by the Torah and interest forbidden by rabbinic law.  Then the gemara translates the terms neshech (loss for the borrower) and marbit (gain for the lender) and explains that both terms of used to teach that there are two negative commandments associated with interest but there are no cases where one would apply without the other.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 59

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Nov 242016
 

The gemara discusses how severe it is to embarrass another.  There are those who stress one should not verbally abuse one’s wife and it is mentioned that having food in the house (financial security) is advisable in order to keep peace in the house.  In the context of the discussion of verbal abuse, it is said that even though many tefillot are not always accepted, one who prays about verbal abuse will always be heard and God will punish those who did it.  This was meant as a scare tactic to prevent abuse.  Then the story of the oven of achnai is brought to show the power of tefillot of those who were verbally absued.  Rabbi Eliezer was abused by the rabbis by being excommunicated for standing up to them and disagreeing with the mainstream position.  Even though he was able to prove through signs and even a heavenly voice that his position was the correct one, Rabbi Yehoshua declared: “lo bashamayim hi – it is not in the heavens.”  This story stands at the basis of the halachic system and the power of the rabbis to create their own truth as they see it even if it doesn’t correspond with the absolute truth of God.  However, bringing up the story in this sugya is to show the power of words and how the abuse against Rabbi Eliezer eventually caused the death of Rabban Gamliel (through his prayers).  Rabbi Eliezer himself also was sinned through speech by using his words to teach against the mainstream position.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 58

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Nov 232016
 

The mishna states that in hekdesh cases, a shomer who watches for free doesn’t have to swear to be exempt and a shomer who watches for pay doesn’t have to pay in cases of theft or loss.   Sources are brought that seem to contradict and various resolutions are brought.  Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda’s positions are brought and explained.  The mishna then explains that in addition to exploitation of money that has been discussed at length in this chapter, there is also a Torah commandment against verbal abuse.  Various examples are brought and the gemara stresses how serious an offense it is.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 57

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Nov 222016
 

While the various categories are excluded from laws of exploitation, does this mean that it is only at the halachic level of explioitation (1/6) or would it also apply if one exploited another to a higher degree (bitul mekach – where we generally say the sale is cancelled)?  Various answers are given.  One of the answers passed down in the name of Rabbi Yochanan seems to contradict soemthing he holds elsewhere.  Various answers are provided.  Derivations for the exclusions of these categories in the other laws in the mishna (double payment, laws of shomrim) are brought.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 56

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Nov 212016
 

The Rabbis debate whether or not Rabbi Meir holds that the rabbis made their laws stringent like the Torah laws.  Various sources are brought to prove or disprove.  Abaye questions many of the stages of the debate claiming that there should be levels of rabbinic laws – ones that are prone to death by the court, death by the heavens, a lo taase and therefore the proofs and disproofs are comparing things that should not be compared.  The mishna cites certain things that the general laws of exploitation (ona’ah) do not apply to – land, slaves, documents and hekdesh.  Also other laws like double payment and laws of shomrim don’t apply to those same categories.  There are some distinctions made by other tannaim and a few more added to the list.  The gemara shows the derivation of the exemption to the laws of exploitation.

Study Guide Bava Metzia 56

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 55

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Nov 202016
 

Is the additional one fifth payment added when redeeming an item that you designated for the beit hamikdash also added to a secondary hekdesh (something you bought with that coin and then want to redeem that item also)?  The mishna lists minimum amount of money for various laws.  And 5 laws for which the minimum amount is a pruta.  Levi has a different list of what are the five items and the gemara disucsses why they each differ from each other.  The mishna lists 5 cases where one needs to add one fifth.  One of the items if d’mai – which is a rabbinic obligation (a case where it is doubtful if trumot and maasrot were taken).  The gemara questions why the rabbis would insist that one would add a fifth if one ate d’mai – why would it be treated as stringently as a Torah obligation?  They answer that it is according to rabbi Meir’s approach that the rabbis do make their decrees as strong as the Torah and it is proven from a case of divorce law where Rabbi Meir is stringent.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 53

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Nov 182016
 

Chizkiya says that maaser sheni that has less than the value of a coin can be redeemed on a coin that was used previously to redeem maaser sheni because there must be a little bit of value still left on the coin from the last time (as people aren’t exacting in their calculations).  The gemara questions this by bringing in a mishna that seems to imply that maaser sheni that gets mixed up with non maaser items is cancelled by majority.  If Chizkiya is correct, then maaser should always be something that can never be cancelled in a mixture because it can be fixed – davar sheyesh lo matirin.  The gemara tries to answer this question.  How do we calculate the one fifth payment?  Is it one fifth of the principle or one fifth of the total once the amount is added (1/4)?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 52

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Nov 172016
 

Can one use money that is devalued?  At what percentage would it be fraud that one can claim back the amount he was defrauded by the devaluation of the coin?  If a coin deteriorates more than that amount, can it still be used as per its new value?  There is a debate about whether this would work from the percentage of fraud until half of its value or just at half its value.  In a case where it can work, the coin must be destroyed so as not to allow room for people to trick others.   What is the time frame allotted for getting back the defrauded money?  Is it the same as for items or different?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 51

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Nov 162016
 

Is the time allotted for getting your money back in a case of over/undercharging the same for the buyer and the seller?  Do the laws of fraud apply only to businesses and not to individuals?  Does it depend on what they are selling?  Are there certain merchants to whom laws of fraud do not apply or are there certain laws of fraud that do not apply to any merchants?  The answer to this questions depends upon the explanation of Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion in the mishna.  If one agrees that he is willing to buy/sell an item and will not make a fraud claim, is that a valid condition?  Is it the same as a case where one betroths a woman and conditions it upon not giving her the financial rights that a wife has in a marriage?  Does it depend on whether he says it with or without knowing that he was overcharged/underpaid?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Metzia 50

 Bava Metzia  No Responses »
Nov 152016
 

Various proofs are brought to support Shmuel’s opinion that fraud percentage is determined based on the market price and also on the amount actually paid.  Two are rejected and one is accepted.  The mishna discusses only the percentage at which there is fraud.  What happens if it’s less than or more than?  If it’s less, we assume the parties agreed and they cannot get their money back.  However the gemara questions whether they also have a window of opportunity where they can get the money back that they were overcharged.  If they were overcharged more than  1/6, the deal can be cancelled.  But again, is there a certain time frame in which that can be done or is there no statute of limitations?  The gemara tries to answers there questions from our mishna but in the end if unsuccessful.  Then Rava paskens and explains both the answers to these questions and also brings an alternative psak to what our mishna held regarding fraud (at 1/6).

Study Guide Bava Metzia 50

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

 Older Entries  Newer Entries