Nov 022016
 

Is Rabbi Yossi’s opinion that one can’t make money off someone else’s item, also what he holds in the first mishna regarding the shomer who pays for the item and acquires the double payment in the event the robber is found?  The next mishna raises cases regarding doublts about who money was stolen from or whose pikadon it was?  The gemara questions the cases up against each other and up against other mishnayot and other principles regarding money in doubt and tries to reconcile the differences.

Nov 012016
 

Some unique cases are brought where the owner rentout out an animal and subsequently borrowed it for part of the time and then rented out for part of the time and then borrowed it again for part of the time.  If the animal dies during the borrowing period, one can be obligated to pay 3 or 4 cows to the renter.  Others disagree with this.  Can a shomer give an item to someone else to watch?  Different reasons are given to explain why this would be a problem.  They thought that Rav held it was ok, but it was later explained that it was based on a misunderstanding from a psak of Rav’s.  If one was negligent and brought the animal to a marsh (where thieves could come or predators) but the animal died in a typical manner, Abaye and Rava debate what Raba held – whether he would be exempt or obligated.  They each explain in their own way how this case is different from a classic case of tchilato b’pshia vesofo b’ones (one who does a negligent act but in the end there is accidental damage.

Oct 312016
 

Rav Huna holds that the one who claims the item was lost of stolen, must swear that the item is no longer in his possession.  The gemara raises a contradiction from a braita and 4 answers are given (one is rejected).  A case is brought where one claimed jewels were lost and they took a palace of his instead (when he refused to pay).  When he then produced the “lost” item which had gone up in value, Rav Nachman said to give him his palace back and return the jewels to the owner.  Rava tried to agrue with this psak based on our mishna saying that he should have acquired rights to the appreciation by having paid for them.  But then he himself realizes why the cases are different.  In connection with this, the gemara raises the issue regarding a loan – if it gets repaid by foreclosing on land and when the borrower gets the money to pay, can he gets his land back?  Is there a time limit?  The gemara holds that one can get back his land and there is no time limit.  However the gemara explains in what cases this law applies and in which circumstances it would not apply.  The last issue on this topic is at what point of a foreclosure does the creditor get rights to proceeds of the land?  One who rents an animal and then lends it to someone else and it dies in a typical manner (for which a borrower is responsible and a renter is not) – there is a debate about to whom the borrower pays – to the renter (in the event that he swears that it died in a typical manner) or to the original owner.  The gemara questions exactly by what mechanism does he acquire rights to the animal?

Study Guide Bava Metzia 35

Oct 302016
 

A shomer who can be exempt from payment and decides to pay anyway, acquires rights to the double payment (or the 4 or 5 payment for an animal that the robber slaughtered and sold) in the event that the robber is caught down the road.  The gemara discusses how this mechanism works if it mean that the owner is giving him rights to something that is not yet in existence.  The gemara also discusses whether it is enough if he just says he will pay or if he actually needs to pay in order to exempt himself.  Various scenarios are brought to question whether or not in those scenarios the owner would give rights to the double payment to the shomer (for example is the shomer died and it was to his sons – maybe he only gave rights to the shomer himself).  All the questions raised are left unanswered.  A halacha is brought that one must swear before

Study Guide Bava Metzia 34

Oct 282016
 

If one loses money from his work by taking a lost item, how do we determine what compensation he receives from the owner?  According to the mishna, if he wants to get his full salary, he needs stipulate that in front of three men.  A story is brought about a different case where there was a debate about whether it needed to be done before 3 men like the case in our mishna or two is sufficient.  If one finds an animal in a cowshed, it is not considered a lost item but in a public thoroughfare, it is.  More details of this are discussed in the gemara.  If one’s parent tells you to do something against what the Torah prescribes, one cannot listen to one’s parent.  The differences between loading and unloading are discussed.  Within the context of that conversation, Rava claims that the mitzva of tzaar baalei chayim is prescribed by the Torah.  Various proofs and contradictory sources are brought.

Oct 272016
 

If you find an animal wandering, how do you determine if an animal is lost or if it is just wandering and the owner is aware that is has wandered?  Various drashot are brought regarding places in the Torah where a double language is used and what can be derived from there.

Oct 262016
 

According to the mishna one can stretch out a cloth for its own sake (if it needs airing out) but not for the finder’s use.  What if he does it for both at the same time?  The gemara brings various sources to try to answer the question but each is rejected.  Various types of utensils are listed and it is explain what must be done with them to care for them and what is not allowed?  There are certain cases where one is exempt from returning a lost item and these are discussed.  A case is brought in which a rabbi acted beyond the letter of the law.  The gemara then derives it from a verse and stresses the importance of going beyond the letter of the law.

Oct 252016
 

What is a person’s level of responsibility toward the lost item once it is in his possession?  He needs to feed an animal, air out parchment, etc.  But if the animal is not producing enough to pay for its food, the owner should sell the animal.  Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva debate whether this money can be used or needs to be set aside – this then affects their level of responsibility for the money if something were to happen to it.  What level of responsibility they are arguing about is a subject of debate in the gemara?  Are they arguing about if the item gets lost or do they all agree that he is responsible for that and they argue over a case of ones, accidental damage (like a  borrower because if he can use this money, it is viewed as a loan and one who takes out a loan assumes responsibility for accidental damage).  Details regarding taking care of lost items are discussed – what is one’s obligation and what is not allowed?  How often?

Oct 222016
 

In a store or at a money changer, the location of where the item is found will determine if it clearly belongs to the owner or if it can be taken by the finder.  Various drashot are made from the items mentioned in the verses relating to lost items that need to be returned.  A question is raised about whether being able to retrieve a lost item by providing identifying mark is a Torah law or rabbinic.  various sources are brought to attempt to answer the question.

Oct 212016
 

The mishna lists various items that one needs to announce if he finds them.  The gemara proceeds to explain some of the cases and in what way they need to be found, .i.e fruits in a basket but not next to the basket, money in a particular formation.  Some contradictory sources are brought and explanations are given.  The next mishna describes cases where an item without identifiable signs is left in a semi protected area and it is unclear if it was left there on  purpose and the owner is planning to return for it or if it is left by accident.  In that case, one is unable to pick it up as the owner will have no way to retrieve his item since it has no signs.