Bava Metzia 37: גָּזֵל אַגָּזֵל. פִּקָּדוֹן אַפִּקְדוֹן

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 37

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsaltz : "According to the Mishna on our daf, if a person approaches two people and admits that he stole 100 zuz from one of them, but that he does not remember from whom he stole, he will have to pay each of them 100 zuz. The Mishna rules similarly in a case where he tells two people that he received 100 zuz from one of their fathers to watch, but he doesn’t remember whose father gave him the money.

The Mishna’s explanation for this is she-hodah mi-pi atzmo – that he admitted his obligation on his own. That is to say, since he desires to make amends, this is the only way to be sure that he is repaying his debt. According to the letter of the law, since he only owes one of them money, and neither of them has a claim against him, he is only obligated to pay 100 zuz one time, and the two people should split the money (see the Rambam in his Mishneh Torah Hilkhot Gezeila VaAveda 4:10).

We explore theft from a spiritual viewpoint and the effect of theft using the Yetzer Hara’s strategies.

Bava Metzia 36: שׁוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּסַר לְשׁוֹמֵר

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 36

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A shomer hinam agrees to watch the object without receiving any payment. Although he is responsible for the object and will have to pay for it if he does not take care of it properly, if it is lost or stolen he can simply take an oath that he watched the object in a reasonable fashion and he is free of any further obligation.

A shomer sakhar gets paid for his efforts. If the object is lost or stolen he will have to pay for it, although if an ones – something beyond his control – takes place, he will not be held responsible.

Can someone charged with watching an object pass it on to a third party who agrees to watch it?

There were these gardeners who each day would deposit their spades with a certain old woman. One day they deposited their spades with one of gardeners. He heard noise from a wedding hall and set out and went there. He deposited the spades with that old woman. In the time that he went and came back from the wedding, their spades were stolen.

One who observed Rav’s ruling thought that Rav issued that ruling due to the fact that a bailee who conveyed a deposit to another bailee is exempt. But that is not so. There, in the case of the spades, it is different, as the gardeners themselves would deposit their spades with that old woman. Since the gardeners cannot claim that it is not their desire for their deposit to be in the possession of this old woman, the gardener who did so is exempt.

We explore the motif of the old woman in Ancient Greece vs Talmud ending with the Gardner by Kipling.

Bava Metzia 35: וּשְׁבוּעָה כְּדֵי לְהָפִיס דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 35

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnah describes a scenario of a renter who lends an animal to a third person to use during the term of his rental.

While the animal was in the possession of the borrower, it died. The ruling of the Tanna Kamma is that the renter may take an oath that the animal died of natural causes, for which he is exempt from paying, and the borrower pays the value of the animal to the renter, who is the one who lent it to him.

Ritva explains that the original renter must take an oath to verify that the animal died, and it is not sufficient for him to summon the borrower to come to court and testify on his behalf that the animal died naturally.

Although the rule is that a single witness can require that an oath be taken to counteract his testimony

cid:clip_image001.png

we do not find that a single witness can exempt one from taking an oath.

With different rules for different types of shomrim one can potentially take advantage of such distinctions to make a few dollars. The propriety of such is the subject of debate of our Mishna.

We explore the notion of Sh’tikah Ke-Hoda’ah and when is silence complicity.

When is silence and integral part of the spiritual experience?

Bava Metzia 34: אֵין אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 34

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Perek III begins with:

If a man delivers unto his neighbor money or vessels to keep, and it is stolen out of the man's house; if the thief is found, he shall pay double. If the thief is not found, then the master of the house shall approach the judges, to see whether he has not misappropriated his neighbor's goods. For every matter of sin, whether it is for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for garment, or for any manner of lost item, whereof one says: This is it, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; he whom the judges shall condemn shall pay double unto his neighbor. (Exodus 22:6–8)

Screenshot 2024-03-29 at 2.25.50 PM.png

One fundamental issue concerns the matter of ownership of the stolen deposit. Is the bailee who compensated the owner for the loss of his item considered the owner of the item immediately? If so, if the thief is found, he returns the item to the bailee and pays him the fine. Or perhaps the depositor remains the owner of the item, and when the thief is located, the owner recieves the item and the fine.

We explore the life and legacy of the Tosafos Yom Tov, Reb Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller.

Bava Metzia 33: שֶׁל רַבּוֹ קוֹדֶמֶת

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 33

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In returning lost objects, must a person put others’ interests before his own? The Mishna on our daf clearly rules that a person must look out for his own financial interests. Thus, a person must take care of his own property before returning a lost object to others – even to his father or to his teacher.

Nevertheless, the Mishna teaches that his teacher will take precedence over his father with regard to these laws, since his father brought him into this world but his teacher has prepared him for the World to Come.

However, if one’s father is also a Torah scholar, the finder should return the object of the father. The wording of the Mishnah does not differentiate whether the father is a greater scholar than the rebbe, or if he is less of a scholar than the rebbe. Once the father is qualified as a scholar in his own right, the halacha is that his son must give priority to his lost object over that of the rebbe.

We explore the competing claims of kibud av vs discipleship.

Bava Metzia 32: נִלְמַד צַעַר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 32

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemora explains this to mean that it is a mitzvah to help someone unload his animal for free, but he is not obligated to help him load for free; if he wishes, he may charge him for this. Rabbi Shimon holds that it is a mitzvah to help him load for free as well.

Rava notes: It is evident from these Tannaim that they both hold that there exists a Biblical prohibition against causing an animal distress, for they stated the following kal vachomer: If the Torah would have taught the halachah (of helping out) only by loading the animal, I would certainly have known the halachah by unloading as well, for there is suffering to the animal and there is a monetary loss to the owner.

We explore the halachic approach to animal cruelty צַעַר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים.

Bava Metzia 31: הָקֵ֥ם תָּקִ֖ים עִמּֽוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 31

To download, click/tap here: PDF

How is a finder to determine whether the objects he has found are truly lost? If he found a donkey or a cow grazing by the road, this is not considered a lost object.

This is a lost object: if he found a donkey with its gear overturned or a cow running through the vineyards.

We explore the biblical command in Ex and Deut regarding helping another

And the parameters of this Good Samaritan act. The Sefer HaChinuch says that we learn from this mitzvah to have compassion on others and try to help those who are suffering. When we have mercy on others, Hashem will have mercy on us.

The Aruch HaShulchan (siman 272) says the mitzvah applies also to a vehicle such as a wagon. In our days, we can extend this to a car or any other motorized vehicle.

Bava Metzia 30: וְלָא עֲבַדוּ לִפְנִים מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 30

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemora asks: Wasn’t Rabbi Yishmael an elder about whom the Torah says that he is not obligated to do this if it is not according to his honor?

The Gemora answers: Rabbi Yishmael the son of Rabbi Yosi was acting beyond the letter of the law.

Rabbi Yochanan stated: Yerushalayim was destroyed because they judged according to Torah law.

The Gemora asks: What law should they have judged like - the law of the thugs!? PastedGraphic-1.png

The Gemora answers: Rather, it means that they acted according to the strict letter of the law with each other and did not go beyond the letter of the law.

וְלָא עֲבַדוּ לִפְנִים מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין.

We explore the limitations of the strict letter of the law in Halacha and law courts.

Bava Metiza 29: בְּחָדָשׁ – שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, בְּיָשָׁן – שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 29

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In the new Mishna, seforim (usually translated as “books” but in this case they are scrolls, like a Torah scroll) should be opened and read once every thirty days.

If the individual does not know how to read, he should open them and roll them, but only in a manner that would be ordinary use, i.e. he should not study something that he had never learned before, since it would wear out a specific page, nor should he study with a partner, who might pull the scroll towards him, leading it to tear.

We explore the history of the Torah Scroll and compare with the other ancient transmission vehicle, the codex.

Bava Metzia 28: בְּמִקְדָּשׁ רִאשׁוֹן, כָּאן – בְּמִקְדָּשׁ שֵׁנִי

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 28

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The first Mishna on our daf asks: how long must the finder persist in announcing his find? Rabbi Meir rules that he must be sure to inform the local residents in the area where the object was found. According to Rabbi Yehuda the finder must announce it at the Temple in Jerusalem over a period of three pilgrimage festivals (regalim) and then give people time to return to their homes to see if the object that was described was theirs and that it was missing.

Clearly this Mishna describes a situation when the Temple was standing and there was an opportunity to announce information to the entire Jewish community. The baraitot describe that during different historical periods, announcements were made according to the needs of the times:

Rabbi Yehuda says: "He is obligated to proclaim his find for three pilgrimage Festivals and for seven days after the last of the three pilgrimage Festivals, so that its owner will go to his home, a trip lasting up to three days, will ascertain that he in fact lost the item, and will return to Jerusalem, a trip lasting up to three days, and proclaim his loss for one day.”

From another Gemoroh (Taanit 10a) apparently, it takes fifteen days for those who came for the pilgrimage Festivals to return home, not three days.

Rav Yosef says: This is not difficult. Here, in the mishna in tractate Ta’anit, Rabban Gamliel’s statement is referring to the duration of the journey during the First Temple period, which took fifteen days; whereas there, Rabbi Yehuda’s statement is referring to the duration of the journey during the Second Temple period, which took three days.

We explore the differences in talmudic thought between the first and second temples.

Bava Metzia 27: וְהִתְעַלַּמְתָּ֖ מֵהֶ֑ם

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 27

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our next mishna is an excerpt from a halakhic midrash concerning lost items, based on the verse: “You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep wandering, and disregard them; you shall return them to your brother…And so shall you do with his donkey; and so shall you do with his garment; and so shall you do with every lost item of your brother, which shall be lost from him, and you have found it; you may not disregard it”(Deuteronomy 22:1, 3).

The garment was also included in the generalization that one must return all of these items.

The Halacha of hashavas Aveidah is a motivating force in saving another’s life (Sanhedrin 73) which prompts our exploration of the ethics of hostage rescue.

Bava Metzia 26: כְּגוֹן שֶׁעֲשָׂאוֹ פּוּנְדָּק לִשְׁלֹשָׁה נָכְרִים

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 26

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara previously raised a dilemma with regard to the halakha stated by Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar that a lost item found in a location frequented by the multitudes belongs to the finder.

We explore the attitudes towards gentiles in rabbinic literature.

Bava Metzia 25: כְּאַבְנֵי בֵּית קוּלִיס

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 25

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf discusses objects that cannot have a siman on them, e.g. fruits or coins, and whether a siman can be created for them by collecting them in a bag or by placing them in a certain pattern.

For example, the Mishna teaches that three coins placed one upon another can be considered a siman, and if they are found placed that way they must be announced and returned.

Rav Ashi raises one further situation – ke-avnei beit kulis– and the Gemara concludes that such a case would need to be announced and returned.

Beit kulis was a house of worship dedicated to the Roman god Mercurius (referred to as kulis in the Talmud), which was considered the god of trade and commerce.

There was a common practice to set up icons on the roads in his honor, and the accepted manner of worship was for the traveler to add a rock to the pile that was placed there in his honor.

We examine the presence of Roman gods (on coins) in Palestine of the period form an archeological and cultural perspective and specifically Mercury (Hermes).

Bava Metzia 24: כַּפְתֵיהּ וְאוֹדִי

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 24

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemora relates an incident: A silver cup was stolen from the host of Mar Zutra the Pious. Mar Zutra saw a certain student wash his hands and dry them on his friend’s garment. He said: Someone who is not concerned for his friend’s property is a prime suspect on the thievery. He was bound to a post until he eventually confessed to the crime.

We analyze the literary motifs in this story and the similarity to the goblet “stolen” in the Jospeh story.

We then examine the troubling history of torture to Jews and by Jews.

Bava Metzia 23: כָּל כְּלֵי אֶנְפּוֹרְיָא אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְהַכְרִיז ἐμπορία

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 23

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If one finds any anpurya vessels he is not obligated to proclaim his find. The Gemara asks: What are anpurya vessels? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: They are new vessels, as the eye of its purchaser has not yet sufficiently seen them to be able to recognize them. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If there is a distinguishing mark on the vessels, when the eye of its purchaser has not yet sufficiently seen them, what of it?

The Mishnah uses the term as ἐμπορία emporia or Merchandise. New items that aren't familiar looking, and the owner hasn't gotten used to how they look. This is because sometimes lost items are returned just from recognizing them, for example to a scholar who doesn't lie. These items that are known that their owner's haven't gotten used to how they look aren't obligated to be announced.

We explore the emporia or marketplaces of antiquity with special reference to commerce in Roman Palestine.

Bava Metzia 22: אֲבֵידָה שֶׁשְּׁטָפָהּ נָהָר

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 22

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Of all the amora’im, Abaye and Rava are presented as epitomizing the discussions that take place in the Gemara. In all of their arguments in the Gemara, the halakha always follows Rava’s opinion, with only six exceptions. Those six are referred to by the Gemara by the acronym YAL KGM:

Yeush shelo mida’at (our daf today) – When a person does not realize that he has lost an object until after it is picked up by someone else, and he gives up ownership when he realizes it, can we apply it retroactively? Abaye rules that despair that is not conscious is not despair, and despair is needed for the ownership to transfer.

We turn our attention to the halachot of hashoas aveidah and its applications and restrictions.

Bava Metzia 21: אִי דֶּרֶךְ נְפִילָה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 21

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We begin Perek II the most famous perk which all your bochruim begin talmud, with the following question:

The mishna teaches as an example of items that one finds without any distinguishing mark: If one found scattered produce.

The Gemara asks: And how much produce in how large an area constitutes scattered produce?

Rabbi Yitzḥak says: It is considered scattered produce when it has a dispersal ratio of one kav in an area of four by four cubits.

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If he found the produce scattered in a manner indicating that it came there by falling and was not deliberately placed there, then even if the volume of produce in that area was greater than this limit, it should also belong to him, because there is no distinguishing mark that would enable the owner to reclaim it.

Falling rather than deliberately placing allows us to examine the history of gravity and th resistance of some latter day Rabbis to the implications of modern science.

Bava Metzia 20: אִם יֵשׁ עִמָּהֶן סִמְפּוֹנוֹת Συμφωνία

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 20

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The mishna teaches: If there are cancellations of contracts [simponot] among one’s documents, he should do what is stated in the simponot. The Gemara cites that which Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: With regard to a simpon that emerges from the possession of a creditor, even if it is written in his own handwriting and is clearly not forged, it is considered as though he were merely jesting and the simpon is invalid.

The Gemara explains: It is not necessary to state this halakha in a case where it is written in the handwriting of a scribe, as it can be said that he happened to have an opportunity to have the scribe write the simpon, and therefore he had him write it before the debt was repaid.

We examine the etymology of the Greek loan word Συμφωνία and its transformation into the modern understanding of both harmonic musicality and contracts.

Bava Metzia 19: διαθήκη

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 19

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If a person finds a document in the marketplace, must it be returned to its owner? And which owner, the person receiving or the person selling?

Our daf focuses on specific documents that might be lost and then found. These include a get, b a bill of manumission, and a will. The rabbis compare these documents to found promissory notes. They also consider gifts and notes written when a person is healthy or unhealthy.

"the Gemara raises a contradiction to that inference from a baraita that states that if one found wills, or deyaytiki deeds of designated repayment, or deeds of gift, even if both the one who wrote the deed and its intended recipient agree that it is valid, he should return it neither to this person nor to that person."

διαθήκη deyaytiki is a will or a deed of gift given by one on his/her deathbed acquired after the death.

We examine the etymology of this Greek loan word and its use in the Bible, Septuagint and in ancient wills and testaments.

Bava Metzia 18: חָיְישִׁינַן לִשְׁנֵי שְׁוִירֵי

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 18

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the new Mishna, in all of these cases the document cannot be returned to either of the people mentioned, because it is possible that the individual who arranged for the document to be written changed his mind and did not do so. If that is the case, then what was written in the document never took effect, since a divorce or a present, for example, only takes place when the document is handed over by the person who has the power to effect the divorce or the present. If the document is given to them by the finder, the recipient may lie and use the document as proof to the falsehood.

Today we review the scholarship of Prof David Weiss Halivni and the radical new way of understanding the development of the Talmud.