Bava Metzia 58: הַמַּלְבִּין פְּנֵי חֲבֵירוֹ בָּרַבִּים

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 58

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf teaches that ona’a – a term that we have defined as “monetary exploitation” or “unfair business transactions” – applies not only to buying and selling, but to other areas of personal interaction, as well. Thus, it is prohibited for a person to ask a shopkeeper for the price of an object that he has no interest in purchasing. This ona’at devarim (verbal mistreatment) applies in a range of other situations, as well – the Mishna includes reminding a ba’al teshuva (a penitent) of his earlier sins, or the child of a convert of the sins of his parents.

We discuss verbal abuse and shame and humiliation form the rabbinic perspective.

Bava Metzia 57: כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 57

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Sages conclude from the pasuk in Vayikra (25:14) – which is the source for the prohibition of ona’a – that ona’a applies only when something is sold or bought me-yad amitekhah – from your fellow’s hand.

Thus we conclude that ona’a does not apply in a number of cases, including the purchase of slaves, contracts, real estate, and things consecrated to the Temple.

Our daf further discussed these exceptions to ona’ah...

The mishna teaches: An unpaid bailee does not take an oath if these items were stolen or lost. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse that discusses an unpaid bailee:

“When a man delivers to his neighbor money or vessels to safeguard, 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 judge” (Exodus 22:6–7).

“When a man delivers to his neighbor” is a generalization; “money or vessels” is a detail. And when the verse states: “And it is stolen out of the man’s house,” it then generalizes again.

We explore this hermenutical principle of klal Pratt klal….כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל

Bava Metzia 56: אִם הִמָּצֵא תִמָּצֵא בְיָדוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 56

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The first rule of the Mishna is that the rules of ona’ah (exploitation) – rules that forbid overcharging or undercharging at the time of sale – do not apply in any of the four cases.

The Gemara explains that this is learned from the passage that is the source of the prohibition of ona’ah (Vayikra 25:14), where the Torah teaches that ona’ah is forbidden when something is sold or bought me-yad amitekhah – from your fellow’s hand.

This is understood to exclude real estate which does not transfer from hand to hand.

The other cases are derived by the Gemara from the law about real estate.

We continue our exploration of canonized texts, early rabbinic authority and transmission.

Bava Metzia 55: שְׁבוּעַת הַדַּיָּינִין

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 55

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishna reminds us that an ona'a is defined as at least four silver me'a from the twenty-four silver me'a that make up a sela, or one-sixth. The smallest monetary court claim where a person can require an accused to take an oath is two silver me'a. A person is required to go to court only if their wrongdoing was worth at least one peruta.

The Gemara wonders whether demai, doubtful produce, should be in the same category as the other halachot which are Torah-given laws. They are reminded of Rabbi Meir's ruling regarding divorce. Laws regarding divorce were considered to be as important as Torah-derived laws.

We examine the notion of עָשׂוּ חֲכָמִים חִיזּוּק לְדִבְרֵיהֶם כְּשֶׁל תּוֹרָה and the development of rabbinic authority after the priesthood.

Bava Metzia 54: הַדְּמַאי – אֵין לוֹ חוֹמֶשׁ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 54

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Second tithe is the section of produce separated after a farmer has already separated and given teruma of their harvests to the priests and then first tithe to the levis. That second tithe is another tenth of the farmer's harvest.

On years one, two, four and five, it is brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. It is given to the poor on years three and six (year seven is shemita and farms are not harvested).

Because it may not be practical to bring that much produce to Jerusalem, farmers are allowed to redeem their second tithe for money which is spent on food bought and eaten only in Jerusalem. It costs an additional one-fifth to bring that money to Jerusalem. But is this payment required? Is a person punished for eating food paid for with the second tithe money if that person has not paid the additional fee?

TheMishnah (Demai) states The [second tithe of] demai is not subject to [the rules of adding a] fifth. It has no mandated time of removal. It may be eaten by an onen. It may be brought into Jerusalem and taken out again. They may allow a small amount to be lost on the road. One may give it to an am haaretz and consume its equivalent in Jerusalem. [Second tithe money of demai] may be redeemed silver [coins] for [other] silver [coins], copper [coins] for [other] copper [coins], silver for copper, and copper for produce, provided that the produce is again redeemed for money, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the produce itself must be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem.

Maimonides states "In the age of Yochanan the High Priest who served after Shimon the Just, the High Court sent emissaries who searched throughout the entire territory of Israel. They discovered that everyone was careful with regard to the great terumah and would separate it. But with regard to the first tithe, the second tithe, and the tithe for the poor, the common people among Israel would be lax and would not separate it. “

Which brings us to the Yochanan kohen Gadol ….He forced Idumaea to convert to Judaism, the first example of conversion imposed by the Jews in their history.

Bava Metzia 53: דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא וּדְרַבָּנַן לָא מִצְטָרְפִי

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 53

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf cites a Mishna that teaches a number of halakhot regarding bikkurim and teruma.

For example, someone who is not a kohen who eats them will be liable to receive the death penalty if he consumes them with malicious intent or will have to pay restitution and add a 20% penalty if he eats them accidentally.

Nevertheless, they are considered the property of the kohen (i.e. he can sell them to another kohen), and if they were to fall into a mixture, they would become nullified at a ratio of 100:1 (ordinary forbidden foods become nullified at a ratio of 60:1).

The Mishna points out that all this is in contrast to the laws of ma’aser rishon, which has no unique holiness to it; it is simply a portion of the harvest that must be separated and given to the levi to do with it as he sees fit.

We further explore the need for bringing ties to Jerusalem and the inner biblical development of the halachot of trumot and ma'aserot.

Bava Metzia 52: Dupondium

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 52

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf discusses ona’ah – unfair business transactions (see above, daf 50) – in a case where a coin had less value than its true weight. In this case, while Rabbi Shimon rules that ona’ah remains at one-sixth the value of the coin, other tanna’im suggest that it is a smaller amount. Rabbi Meir suggests that ona’ah will be at one-twenty-fourth the value of the coin and Rabbi Yehuda suggests one-twelfth.

Coins erode with use and using them as if new could constitute fraud.

Coins that still circulate, albeit with difficulty, should be accepted, and the one who doesn't is called stingy. After this, they should be used for necklaces or destroyed.

We explore the depreciation and devaluation of currency in antiquity.

Bava Metzia 51: ״אוֹ קָנֹה ... אַל תּוֹנוּ״

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 51

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The source for this discussion of ona’ah appears on our daf. In truth, it is not only a question of whether a person can make an agreement to dispense with the rules of the Torah with regard to money matters, but also a more basic question of how to define the law of ona’ah. Some argue that ona’ah has two sides to it. On the one hand there is a question of money, on the other hand there are elements of issur – of forbidden practices – involved, as well.

We explore the dimensions of the prohibition Lev 25:14 :"וְכִֽי־תִמְכְּר֤וּ מִמְכָּר֙ לַעֲמִיתֶ֔ךָ א֥וֹ קָנֹ֖ה מִיַּ֣ד עֲמִיתֶ֑ךָ אַל־תּוֹנ֖וּ אִ֥ישׁ אֶת־אָחִֽיו׃

When you sell property to your neighbor, or buy any from your neighbor, you shall not wrong one another.

As it applies to business practices.

Bava Metzia 50: יוֹתֵר עַל שְׁתוּת – בִּיטּוּל מִקָּח

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 50

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsaltz "Beginning with the Mishna on daf 49b, the rest of the perek focuses on issues of ona’ah. Ona’ah is a biblical prohibition (see Vayikra 25:14), which forbids someone to take unfair advantage of another by overcharging or undercharging when negotiating a business deal. There are three different levels of ona’ah established by the Sages:

1. When the ona’ah – the amount that is overcharged – must be returned

2. When the ona’ah is so small that we assume the parties do not care about it, and it does not have to be returned

3. When the ona’ah is so large that the entire transaction is nullified."

The amount that is set by the Mishna as ona’ah is one-sixth of the value of the transaction. Therefore, if the overcharge is exactly one-sixth, that money is returned; if it is more than one-sixth the transaction is nullified; if it is less than one-sixth the transaction stands and the money need not be returned.

We continue our review of the halachot of price fraud.

Bava Metzia 49: הָאוֹנָאָה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 49

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna discusses the details of ona’ah – a sale that is not at a fair price. The Sages says that unfair selling is defined at a difference of a sixth in the price (e.g., 4 coins out of 24), and one may return an item on such a sale until the time it would take to show it to a merchant or relative.

Rabbi Tarfon says the difference is a third (e.g., 8 coins out of 24). When the merchants of Lod heard this, they were happy, since it allowed them a larger margin above the fair price. However, when Rabbi Tarfon told them that he also allowed a day for the buyer to return the item, they went back to following the Sages’ opinion.

We review the halachot of unfair business practices.

Bava Metzia 48: מִי שֶׁפָּרַע מֵאַנְשֵׁי דוֹר

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 48

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rabbi Shimon says: Even though the Sages said that when one party takes possession of a garment, the other party acquires a gold dinar, but when one party takes possession of a gold dinar, the other party does not acquire a garment, in any case, that is what the halakha would be.

But the Sages said with regard to one who reneges on a transaction where one party pulled the gold dinar into his possession: He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the people of the generation of the dispersion, and from the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and from the Egyptians in the Red Sea, will in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement.

We explore this strange expression: מִי שֶׁפָּרַע מֵאַנְשֵׁי דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל וּמֵאַנְשֵׁי דּוֹר הַפְּלַגָּה וּמֵאַנְשֵׁי סְדוֹם וַעֲמוֹרָה וּמִמִּצְרַיִם בַּיָּם

As a kind of curse for reneging on financial commitments…

Bava Metzia 47: עַל־הַגְּאֻלָּ֤ה וְעַל־הַתְּמוּרָה֙

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metiza 47

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to Levi, a Kinyan Chalipin is accomplished by the seller giving an object to the buyer.

The Gemara explains that the pleasure that the seller receives as a result of the buyer's acceptance of his object causes the seller to have full intent (Gemiras Da'as) to transfer ownership of the second object to the buyer.

The prooftext used to identify a tannaitic dispute comes from Ruth 4:7

“Redemption” refers to a sale. This is the verse states, “It should not be redeemed” (Vayikra 27:27) when referring to a sale.

“Exchange” is a chalifin exchange, as the verse states, “He should not exchange it nor switch it.” “To uphold everything. A man would take off his shoe and would give it to his friend.”

We explore the notions of kinship and acquisition in the book of Ruth.

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.