Bava Metzia 81 - May 19, 11 Iyar
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
The Mishna rules that once a contracted worker says to the owner, "Pick up the item and then pay me," the worker transitions from being responsible for the item as a paid guardian (shomer sachar) to being responsible as an unpaid guardian (shomer chinam). This situation is compared to another Mishna which states that a borrower is responsible for oness (unforeseeable) damages until the item is returned. Rav Chisda qualifies this by stating that the borrower is only liable for unforeseeable damages if the item is returned within the borrowing period; if the period has ended and the borrower...
info_outline
Bava Metzia 80 - Shabbat May 18, 10 Iyar
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
The Mishna continues to deal with cases where one rented an item under certain conditions and then used the item differently, resulting in damage. If the damage occurred because of the change in use, the renter is responsible. For example, what happens if the renter loaded more weight on an animal than standard, or if the renter used a different item that is lighter but results in a greater volume, such as barley instead of wheat? Abaye and Rava disagree on the details of the ruling in the latter case. The Mishna discusses various laws related to the responsibility of a worker regarding an...
info_outline
Bava Metzia 79 - May 17, 9 Iyar
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
If one rents a donkey or a boat and the animal dies or the boat sinks halfway through the journey, what is the law? What are the circumstances of the cases discussed? In the context of this discussion, a debate between Rav and Shmuel addresses whether one can sell the carcass of a rented animal in a way that the principal (the original animal) will no longer exist—specifically, whether the renter can sell it and use the money from the sale to rent a new animal. Rav's opinion is questioned by a Tosefta, which is then resolved. A case is brought regarding a boat rented to carry wine, which...
info_outline
Bava Metzia 78 - May 16, 8 Iyar
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
The Mishna brings cases where an individual rents an item, such as an animal, for a specific purpose and then uses it for a different purpose. The renter is held responsible if the animal dies because of this change. The first line of the Mishna states that the renter is responsible in all cases where a change was made. However, in the second line, the Mishna's ruling depends on the circumstances—specifically, how the animal died and the nature of the change made by the renter. The Gemara explores four possible answers to reconcile these two lines. The first three answers establish that the...
info_outline
Bava Metzia 77 - May 15, 7 Iyar
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
If a worker is hired to do a job, such as irrigating a field, but circumstances change, like rainfall, rendering the job unnecessary, where does the responsibility rest, and what factors influence it? Rabbi Dosa and the rabbis hold differing views on whether a worker who backs out midway should receive full compensation for work already performed, or if the worker must reimburse the employer if the employer now incurs higher costs to complete the remaining task. Rav aligns with Rabbi Dosa's stance, although this contradicts another statement attributed to him. The Gemara proposes a solution to...
info_outline
Bava Metzia 76 - Yom Haazmaut - May 14, 6 Iyar
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
Our learning today is in honor of the State of Israel celebrating 76 years of independence. We also continue to pray for the swift and safe return of the hostages, and for the safety and success of our soldiers. What are the rules surrounding a worker or employer retracting from an agreement? When the Mishna mentions one party "deceiving" the other, what does this mean? Is it referring to a worker canceling on the employer, the reverse scenario, or does it involve an instance where an employer directs an agent to hire workers, but the agent communicates a wage different from what the...
info_outline
Bava Metzia 75 - Yom Hazikaron - May 13, 5 Iyar
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
Is it permissible to borrow grains with the agreement to return them later in the season when their value is expected to increase? Typically, such arrangements are viewed as involving interest since the value of the grains is likely to rise. However, it is allowed if the borrower already possesses grains, even if they are not readily accessible. Should the borrower only borrow against the grains they presently own, or can it be a nominal amount? Hillel prohibited lending a loaf of bread, fearing that the price of wheat might surge before the loaf is repaid. What rationale led the rabbis to...
info_outline
Bava Metzia 74 - May 12, 4 Iyar
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
This week’s learning is dedicated for the refuah shleima of Pesha Etel bat Sara who is undergoing surgery this week. This week's learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of her mother Bessie “nanny” Mauskopf, Basha Leah bat Tzivia Chaya and Meir Yehudah. "A kind and devoted wife, daughter, mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She always embraced family and was so proud of all my learning. She exemplified good middot by just being herself. May her neshama have an aliyah." This week's learning is sponsored by Rhona Fink. "With gratitude to Hashem, we welcome...
info_outline
Bava Metzia 73 - Shabbat May 11, 3 Iyar
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
What are the various methods through which individuals can engage in business transactions where payment or goods are exchanged upfront, with the agreement set at a fixed or reduced price? The Gemara delves into diverse scenarios, providing rulings on the permissibility, prohibition, or contentious nature of each. In some documented instances, Rabbis faced accusations of involvement in transactions resembling usury. Yet, on each occasion, they provided clarifications demonstrating why such actions did not constitute usury.
info_outline
Bava Metzia 72 - May 10, 2 Iyar
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
Today's daf is sponsored by Brooke & Yossi Pollak in honor of their daughter Avital Adin's bat mitzvah. "We are so proud of your devotion to Torah, mitzvot, and maasim tovim. Ima loves learning Mishna Yomi with you and can't wait to keep going for the next several years. Consistency, Consistency, Consistency! Mazal tov!" If a Jew lends money of a non-Jew to another Jew on interest, or if a non-Jew lends money of a Jew to a Jew, under which circumstances is it permissible? Ravina proposes a third explanation to elucidate the distinction in legal rulings between these scenarios, but...
info_outlineToday’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in loving memory of Joan Behrmann a”h, beloved mother of our friend and co-learner Marcy Behrmann Farrell. "Marcy’s passion for truth and equity has deep roots, and we daven that our learning will serve as a merit for the entire family. המקום ינחם אותם בתוך שאר אבלי ציון וירושלים."
After two failed attempts at understanding the case in the Mishna where interest is forbidden by rabbinic law, Rava brings an explanation according to Rabbi Oshaya's braita and according to Rabbi Yannai's opinion - that one can turn a loan of money into a loan of produce. If the borrower has the item in his/her possession, even if the price goes up, there is no concern for interest. Rav disagrees with Rabbi Yannai and holds that one cannot turn a loan for an item into the value of that item and return the value in money as it appears like interest. How can Rav explain the braita of Rabbi Oshaya per his opinion? Two explanations are given - either the braita is referring to a case where the borrower designated a corner and placed the produce there or 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 is permitted, as perhaps maybe prices will stay the same or go down and the lender will not receive more. Rava infers from Rabbi Yannai's position why it is permitted to pay in advance for produce and receive it later, even if the seller does not have it yet in his/her possession. Since the seller has the money and could potentially buy produce with that money, it is considered as if the seller has the produce. This, however, would only work in a sale, not a loan. Rabba and Rav Yosef give a different reason why this kind of sale works even if the price goes up and the buyer will receive produce later at a higher value. The benefit of receiving produce at a higher value is not a benefit as the buyer can say, "If I hadn't given the money to the seller (to receive the produce at a later date), I could have bought the produce from a different seller at the time and they would have increased in value in my possession." Two difficulties are raised with Rabba and Rav Yosef. Why wouldn't this argument permit loaning a seah of grain for a seah of grain? Isn't it a benefit to the buyer that there was no extra payment for a middleman? Both difficulties are resolved. Rabba and Rav Yosef require a buyer who pays in advance to receive produce later, at the current rate, to meet the seller on the threshing floor. For what purpose? Rav Nachman teaches that any case of getting payment for waiting is considered interest and he brings an example of one who discounts a price for receiving the money upfront. This would be permitted only if the seller has the items in his/her possession.