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.

Bava Metzia 17: חָיְישִׁינַן לִשְׁנֵי שְׁוִירֵי

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 17

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The rabbis teach about debtors who first deny their debt, but when faced with witnesses, amend their statements, and admit that they already repaid that debt. These debtors are held to the presumptive status of one who denies that they owe a debt. Any subsequent claims are ignored. Similar consequences face those who claim that they are completely innocent when it comes to other cases - money, a cloak, an oath.

The rabbis wonder whether oaths should be treated with the same gravitas as the other claims. One might say that he will take an oath but later he reconsiders and does not take the oath.

The Rabbis stated this ruling before Rabbi Abbahu. He said to them: Rabbi Avin’s statement is reasonable in a case where one was obligated by a court to take an oath. But if one voluntarily obligated himself to take an oath, and he later claims that he took the oath, he is deemed credible. This is because a person is prone to say incidentally that he will take an oath and then change his mind; this does not render him a liar. The Rabbis then brought Rabbi Abbahu’s analysis back to Rabbi Avin and presented it before him. Rabbi Avin said to them: I also said this halakha specifically with regard to one who was obligated by a court to take an oath, as Rabbi Abbahu explained.

We explore the circumstances around lying in Halacha.

Bava Metzia 16: וְעָשִׂ֛יתָ הַיָּשָׁ֥ר וְהַטּ֖וֹב

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 16

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf explains If the debtor pays his debt, he can reclaim his property at any point. Consequently, even bills of foreclosure or authorization might be obsolete, and nevertheless the mishna states that one who finds them must return them to the creditor.

Rather, Rava said that the mishna is not proof for the ruling of Shmuel for a different reason: There, this is the reason that the documents are returned: As I can say that if the debtor has already repaid his debt, it is he who caused the loss to himself, as at the time he repaid his debt he should have either ripped up the document, or alternatively, he should have demanded of the creditor to write another document for the debtor’s redeemed property, returning it to him.

The reason for a new document to be written is that according to the letter of the law, the land need not be returned by the creditor to the debtor, and it is due to the verse:

“You shall do that which is right and good in the eyes of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:18), that the Sages said that the land should be returned. Therefore, it is as though the debtor is purchasing it anew, and the creditor must write a bill of sale.

This leads us to an analysis of the struggle between the letter and the spirit of the law…and the biography of Prof Yosef Faur.

Bava Metzia 15: הָתָם הַלְוָאָה, הָכָא זְבִינֵי

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 15

To download, click/tap here: PDF

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.

Our Gemara examines a position put forward by Shmuel who rules that if the borrower cannot pay, then the lender can collect not only from the guaranteed field itself, but also from any increase in the value of the field that derives from the investment that the third-party purchaser made in the field. Rava explains that this rule is based on the standard contract that was written at the time that a field was sold, where the seller guarantees to the purchaser that he will make sure that the purchaser will be fully reimbursed should there be any problem with the purchase, the investment or the profits stemming from the sale.

We continue our exploration of scribal errors as well as the history of the textual emendation and redaction of the Mishnah.

Bava Metzia 14: סָבְרִי אַחְרָיוּת טָעוּת סוֹפֵר הוּא

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 14

To download, click/tap here: PDF

§ Shmuel said: What is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that one can collect a debt from liened property even if the promissory note does not include a property guarantee? They hold that omission of the property guarantee from the promissory note is a scribal error, as one would certainly not lend money without a property guarantee.

It is important to distinguish between scribal errors and scribal corrections. The Talmud was copied by professional scribes and students in a centuries-long process. One manuscript was copied from another (sometimes more than one), and mistakes, known as scribal errors, crept in during copying. Sometimes copyists read the text incorrectly, while on other occasions, they accidentally omitted entire words, phrases, and whole lines. Thus, one class of variants derives from scribal errors.

We explore some examples of textual transmission and the effort to prevent scribal errors.

Bava Metzia 13: כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר לַלֹּוֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מַלְוֶה עִמּוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 13

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Beginning with the Mishna on yesterday’s daf (12b), the focus in our perek is on what to do what you find a shetar – a legal document – which contains information about a transaction between two people. Since it is not clear who was holding the shetar when it was lost, it is unknown to whom it should be returned; perhaps, it cannot be returned to either of them.

For shelichut to work, it typically requires a DIRECT appointment by the ba'al davar, the person who will dispatch the shaliach and who will absorb the halakhic consequences of the action performed. However, several gemarot assert the ability to represent another person without direct appointment. If the given activity is overwhelmingly beneficial, a “zekhut,” it can be performed by an agent who has not been explicitly appointed. This ability is known as “zachin le-adam shelo be-fanav.” The Rishonim differ as to the relationship between classic shelichut and zachin, and this debate affects to the nature of shelichut itself.

We explore the notion of “zachin le-adam shelo be-fanav.” Where it applies especially regarding the sale of chametz on Pesach.

A Shtar may be written for a borrower even without the presence of the lender; nonetheless if the lender protests not to write the Shtar for the borrower we do not write the Shtar against his will.

However a Shtar may not be written for the lender if the borrower is not present. (Shulchan Aruch CM 39:13)