Daf Yomi for Women – דף יומי לנשים

Certain exceptions are brought – one relating to a talmid chacham who is not known to be dishonest.  He can get a lost item back by merely identifying it by sight.  Another exception is that even though in a situation where the owner definitely despaired, if he realizes you found it, while there is no need to return it to him by the letter of the law, there are those who returned the items anyway – lifnim meshurat hadin – because it was the right thing to do.  Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that if something is lost in a public place, we can assume the owner despaired.   The gemara questions whether this is only in a place where the majority of the people are non Jews or even in a place where the majority of Jews.  And if he meant also Jews, do the rabbis disagree with him about both or only in a case where the majority are Jews.  And do we hold like Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and if so, in both cases or only in the case where the majority are non Jews.  The gemara tries to answer these questions by bringing various tannaitic sources and cases from the amoraim but are unable to find conclusive answers.

Study Guide Bava Metzia 24

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Rava and Abaye have a disagreement about when one picks up a lost item without any identifiable features, if the owner has not yet despaired of the item (because he doesn’t even know he lost it), can we assume that since he will despair when he realizes it’s lost, the finder can acquire the item now (Rava).  Or do we hold that since at this point he has not despaired, the item does not belong to the one who found it (Abaye).  This is one of 6 cases where we hold like Abaye in his disagreements with Rava.  The gemara tries to bring proofs for each side from tannaitic sources.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

The gemara rejects Abaye’s support of Rabbi Yochanan’s statement that was derived from the mishna in Gitin that one cannot claim that a maaseh beit din was already paid – even if the person doesn’t provide documentation.  His support was based on the fact that an engaged woman whose husband dies can demand her ketuba even if there was no ketuba written.  In the end this cannot be proven to be a fact so the gemara assumes Abaye must have provided proof from a different direction and proceeds to explain from where.  The mishna says if one finds a get or will or other such docuemnts, he cannot return it because maybe the person who was giving it changed his mind and decided not to give it.  This implies that if he says now that he wants to give it (after we find it) he can, even if time has elapsed.  This contradicts a mishna in Gittin that one can only give a get that was found immediately and not after time has elapsed as maybe soemone else with the same name wants to use the get and is claiming it as his own.  Raba brings an answer and then the gemara narrows a bit the focus of his answer.  Then Rabbi Zeira asks a similar question from the mishna in Gittin but on a braita, not on our mishna.  He resolves it in the same way as Raba.  However it is unclear about whether he also narrows the focus of his answer or not.  2 further answers are brought to resolve the contradiction between the braita and the mishna in Gittin.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Shmuel’s opinions relating to shevach are discussed.  If one buys from a robber and invests in the property, he loses his investment because if the robber returns him his investment, it will look like interest.  Various sources are brought to contradict this but are resolved.  According to Shmuel, a ba’al chov who comes to demand land from liened property, he can take the shevach, (the investment).  Various sources are brought to prove or question his opinion and as a result some distinctions are made.  If one buys property and knows it is stolen, Rav and Shmuel debate whether or not he can get his money back.  THe basis of their argument is discussed and compared to another case where they also debate the same issue.

Study Guide Bava Metzia 15

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

If someone finds a document of a loan in the street and it is unclear if it was paid back or not, can he return it to the lender?  According to Rabbi Meir, it depends on whether or not there was property liened to the loan written in the document.  The gemara debates whether or not the mishna was referring to a case where the borrower admitted there was a loan or not.  The rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir and hold that no matter what we don’t return the document.  There is a debate among Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar about in what case Rabbi Meir and the rabbis disagree and what their disagreement is about.

Study Guide Bava Metzia 13

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS