Daf Yomi for Women – דף יומי לנשים

Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish debate whether money can acquire an item from the Torah but the rabbis decreed that it doesn’t or that only pulling works to acquire an item by Torah law.  Sources are brought to try to prove each side.  If you give a deposit and then want to change your mind, it is considered that you committed to the entire transaction or just for the part that your deposit covered?  Rav and Rabbi Yochanan debate this point.  An attempt to question Rav’s opinion is brought but the case dealt with land and the gemara explained that since land can be acquired through money, the deposit is sufficient to require both sides to follow through with the whole transaction but the same would not apply to moveable items as they cannot be acquired through money – therefore one must only keep his commitment for the part that he already paid for.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

A debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel regarding trading maaser sheni coins from silver to gold is brought up in connection with our mishna.  Amoraim debate both whether or not the debate applies to using gold coins in general to redeem maaser sheni fruits or only to changing silver coins (that were already used for redeeming the fruits) to gold coins.  The gemara brings 3 explanations for the debate – the first one being connected to the same issue as our mishna; the others think the issue is a maaser sheni issue exclusively and has nothing to do with the currency vs. commodity debate.  Two amoraim debate whether money can be used for a kinyan chalipin, a symbolic kinyan.  Chalipin must be done with something that has inherent value.  Does money have inherent value because it is made form a metal or is it viewed only in terms of the image on the coin which will eventually wear away.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

If one gives money to a money changer, the assumption is he is expecting he will use it (unless he seals it) and then the money changer is responsible if the money gets lost.  There is a debate whether he is responsible also for ones (accidental damage).   Beit Shammai, Beit Hillel and Rabbi Akiva debate regarding an item that is worth a different value at the time the shomer used it and the time he breaks it and is then brought to court.  What price does he need to pay?  The gemara debates what exactly is the opinion of Beit Hillel and what is their point of disagreement with Beit Shammai.  Eventually the mishna is understood in a different manner.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

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