Bava Metzia 46: אֵין מַטְבֵּעַ נַעֲשֶׂה חֲלִיפִין

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 46

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsaltz "How can someone purchase or take possession of something according to Jewish law?

This is one of the central issues dealt with by Perek HaZahav, the fourth perek of Massekhet Bava Metzia. The first Mishna in the perek (44a) discusses the purchase of moveable objects, and specifically the status of money (i.e. coins) that is used to buy things.

Somewhat surprisingly, Jewish law does not recognize the validity of a kinyan – a purchase – made with money, unless the buyer also takes possession – at least symbolically – of the object that he purchased.

We review the sugya of Kinyan chalipin.

Bava Metzia 45: שָׁאנֵי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 45

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara cites a Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni 2:7) in which Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue as to whether one may redeem silver coins of Ma'aser Sheni with gold coins. Beis Shamai forbids it and Beis Hillel allows it.

The Gemara explains this Mishnah in three different ways. According to all three explanations, Beis Hillel views gold as merchandise in relation to silver, as Beis Hillel permits one to redeem silver coins of Ma'aser Sheni with gold coins even though Ma'aser Sheni may be redeemed only with currency (outside of Yerushalayim) and not with Peros (merchandise).

The view of Beis Hillel (whose view is almost always accepted as the Halachah) in this regard clearly conflicts with the ruling of all of the Poskim.

We explore the development of Maaser Sheni a uniquely rabbinic law.

Bava Metzia 44: בְּיַלְדוּתֵיהּ מַאי סְבַר, וּבְזִקְנוּתֵיהּ מַאי סָבַר

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 44

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In this new Perek (IV) , several conclusions were reached with regard to the halakhot of transactions. One conclusion is that, by Torah law, monetary transactions are proper transactions.

By rabbinic law, a commodity can be acquired only by pulling it or lifting it, i.e., modes of transaction that involve physically taking possession of the item. Evidently, what is defined as money is not fixed.

Even coins used in commerce are not always considered currency, but rather a commodity. The principle is that market value is calculated based on the price of silver, and even other coins are considered commodities vis-à-vis silver.

At the same time, all coins have the legal status of currency relative to commodities.

We explore the halachic definitions of currency as well as example of contracts from the Dead Sea scrolls as a window into first century trading.

Bava Metzia 43: חַיָּיב עַל הַמַּחְשָׁבָה כְּמַעֲשֶׂה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 43

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel disagree about the law in the case of a Shomer who "thinks" about using a Pikadon for his personal use without permission of the owner, but who has not yet actually used it. Beis Shamai says that the Shomer is considered as though he was "Shole'ach Yad" and he has the status of a Ganav, even though he has not actually used the object but merely "thought" about using it.

Does Beis Shamai literally require only that the Shomer think about using the object, or must the Shomer do more than just think about using the object in order to become Chayav?

We struggle with the idea that mere intention alone without any deed, may cause liability.

Bava Metzia 42: בְּדָבָר הַסָּמוּי מִן הָעַיִן

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 42

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The entirety of our daf is made up of the Gemara on this Mishna. The rabbis discuss the proper duties of a bailee. The conversation turns to the blessings found in one's storehouses; one's savings. Often savings were buried in the ground or hidden in a wall.

The Mishna discusses one who gives an unpaid custodian money to guard. If the custodian guarded it as is customary, he is not liable for a loss of theft, but if he was derelict in guarding it – by hanging it over his back, or giving it to his little children, and not properly locking it up – he is liable for loss or theft. The Gemora explains that the way to guard money is to keep them visible, and therefore one who hangs coins over his back is negligent. The Gemora quotes three statements of Rav Yitzchak:

1. One should keep his money accessible, so he can take advantage of investment opportunities. The Torah says in relation to the money used to redeem ma’aser sheini – v'tzarta hakesef b’yadcha – you should wrap the money in your hand, indicating that even wrapped money should be kept in your hands.

2. One should split his assets into three portions – one third in land (i.e., long term investments), one third in short term investments (trade), and one third liquid, to be able to take advantage of good investment opportunities. [This last third is what Rav Yitzchak was referring to in his first statement.]

3. Blessings occur only in things that are not visible. The verse says that Hashem will bless you ba’asamecha – in your silo. The word used for silo is similar to the word for hidden, hinting that only things that are hidden can receive full blessing.

We explore the blessings that come from hidden places and spaces.

Bava Metzia 41: רֵישָׁא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 41

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsaltz "The Mishna (40b) teaches about cases where a shomer (someone paid to watch an object for his friend) accidentally breaks the object.

As explained in the Gemara on our daf, the Mishna opens by teaching that if a havit – a jug or a barrel – falls from the shomer‘s hand and he had picked it up planning to use it, he would be held liable, but if he picked it up to protect it, he would not be responsible. If, however, it broke after he put it down, he would not be held responsible under any circumstances.

According to the second clause of the Mishna, whether it fell from his hand or broke after he replaced it, he will be held liable if he planned to use it but will be free of responsibility if he moved it in order to protect it.

Our Gemara explains the discrepancy in the Mishna by saying that the first half of the Mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who believes that once someone returns his theft he is no longer responsible for it, even if its owner was unaware that it was returned.

The second half of the Mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Akiva who believes that a thief remains responsible for the object until he informs the owner that he has returned it.

This forces us to explore authorial structure of the Mishnah and look to the prior texts before the final redaction of Rebbe. We delve once more into the Akiva/Ishmael differences in exegesis.

Bava Metzia 40: מָה אִכְפַּת לָהֶן לָעַכְבָּרִין

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 40

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new MISHNA states : In the case of one who deposits produce with another, and the bailee provides him with different produce in return, that bailee deducts from the produce that he returns an amount equal to the standard decrease of the produce.

The entire calculation of decay is according to the measure, and the entire calculation is according to the time elapsed.

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: And what do the mice care how much produce the bailee is safeguarding? Don’t they eat the same amount whether it is from much produce and whether it is from little produce?

We explore the history of rodents in antiquity , in contagion, in laboratory science and the curious case of the half flesh half earth rodent (Mishnah Hulling 9:) defended by the Tiferes Yisrael as late as the 19th century.

Bava Metzia 39: וְהֵם לֹא הִכִּרֻהוּ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 39

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara relates: Mari bar Isak, who was a wealthy and powerful man, had a brotherwhom he did not previously know, come to him from Bei Ḥozai, which was distant from central Babylonia. His brother said to him: Divide the property that you inherited from our father and give half to me, as I am your brother. Mari said to him: I do not know who you are.

The case came before Rav Ḥisda. He said to the brother: Mari bar Isak spoke well to you, as it is stated: “And Joseph knew his brothers and they knew him not” (Genesis 42:8)

This teaches that Joseph left Eretz Yisrael without the trace of a beard, and he came with the trace of a beard. This proves that it is possible for brothers not to recognize each other. Mari bar Isak may be telling the truth when he claims he does not recognize you.

We explore the episode of reconciliation of Yosef and his brothers and what we may learn.

Bava Metzia 38: שָׁבוּי שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 38

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 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.