Talking Talmud

The daf explores the idea of Mi Sh’Para and what happens of someone reneges on a sale and the beit din cannot enforce the sale.

Defining "kinyan sudar" - a handkerchief version of halipin. Plus, "kinyan agav," where the act of acquisition is secondary and along the way of the acquisition of something else, usually movable items along with a purchase of land. Also, using exchange when you have no money or anything else of value to use for purchase.

More on exchange - including the question of using a coin as an indication of a formal act of acquisition. For it to work, he has to already have the coins in hand. Otherwise, it's too close to a sale. Also, Rav Nachman's opinion, the idea that money does effect the purchase by Torah law, and the exchange of money bags.

One who redeems ma'aser sheni on coins, and the desacralizes the coins to use them to buy the food in Jerusalem - how those coins can be exchanged, a dispute between Beit Shammai vs. Beit Hillel. Plus, the sourcing of the word "money" twice in the biblical verse. Also, when money is an exchange instead of a sale or a purchase payment.

The third perek finished with a discussion about whether intent to misappropriate a deposit is misappropriation. The fourth perek begins with a mishnah discussing how objects are acquired.

2 mishnayot! Additional cases of an object left with a guardian, and how various variables change the guardian's liability. Note the differences between a store keeper, a money changer, and a guardian. Plus, the complications of a change in value and the obligation to replace an unprotected item. Also, when one has to pay the increased value, for wine, for example. Plus, Rabbi Akiva's opinion upheld.

A new mishnah! When a guardian doesn't take good care to protect coins... when is he liable? With a focus on the verses that insist on proper supervision. Also, the blessing that only appears in that which is not obviously visible. Plus, storing money in a place that is protected from one potential threat, but subject to another one. Likewise, the question of whether negligence is relevant when a guardian puts the thing he's protecting under the protection of another. With a slew of cases to explore.

The daf discusses the last mishnah on 40 about whether a barrel being watched may be moved. A disagreement is presented between Rav and Levi if an act is considered misappropriation only if there is actual depletion of the object’s value

Two mishnahs detail how a shomer may deduct from the quantity of produce or liquids left with the shomer when it is returned to the owner.

More on the property of captives. When it's time to harvest from a captives crops, the court appoints a supervisor to take care of that, and then a relative takes care of future planting, and so on. But that kind of administrator would rarely be appointed for an adult. Also, the story of an old woman who has 3 daughters, and she and one of the daughters are taken into captivity. One of the other daughters has died, and left a minor heir. How does the old woman's property get handled? How does an apotropos fit in here, to help the minor?

A new mishnah! One who gives produce to another to watch - if it's lost or off, etc., the guardian can't touch the produce because he doesn't own it. But if he can sell it beforehand, he can preserve the value. But why can't he touch it? Plus, one small discussion about the tzedakah collectors when they don't have any poor people in need. Also, what are the responsibilities with regard to the property of those who have been taken captive.

A new mishnah! When a thief acknowledges the theft, but he's not sure from whom. Likewise, a deposit. Plus, a discussion of how far can one take the deceit? Also, what how can a thief pay back when he doesn't know from whom he stole?

When a guardian transfers the item he's watching to another guardian, without the knowledge or permission of the owner. Plus, a story about an elderly woman who watches the gardener's hose - how long does it take to establish trust for a second shomer? Also, a guardian who loses an animal, which then dies of natural causes. Is the guardian responsible for paying? It's a clear and clean dispute between Abaye and Rava.

The guardian who has lost something left in his protection can take an oath or pay back the value of the item that's been lost. Or in this case, when there are witnesses that the watched item was stolen. The burden of oath switches parties - and sometimes, they both swear. And then the question is, which swears first. Plus, the case of giving jewels to another person for safekeeping. Which carries its own drama. Also, a series of interesting cases once the property is seized. For example, creditor to creditor, as compared to an heir or a buyer. Plus, a new mishnah! Including borrowing and le sing cows, with all the responsibility involved.

The third perek of Bava Metzia is a classic yeshiva perek of HaMafkid. The perek deals laws of watching or borrowing someone’s object and what happens if that object is lost, stolen, or broken. The halachot of this perek are based on verses in Exodus chapter 22:6-14.

A mishnah asks whose lost item is more important for one to return - your father or your teacher. The Gemara discussed the merits of studying mikra, mishnah, and talmud and where one should concentrate one’s learning.

If one finds an animal's in a barn... when is one obligated to return it to the owner of the barn. Plus, a kohen doesn't have to become impure for returning a lost object. Plus, nobody needs to listen to parents who are instructing their children not to follow through on a Torah commandment. Also, take the burden off the overloaded animal. Also, "tza'ar ba'alei chayim" - the prohibition against causing harm to animals. But if the animal's well-being is the issue, what happens when there's also monetary loss? That is, once the values are competing, which takes priority? What about the biblical vs. rabbinic level of concern?

When you've returned a lost animal, and the animal runs away again, and you find it again, you have to return it multiple times - as understood from the biblical verse. Plus, the fact that the person who finds answers returns the lost item or animals doesn't have to make his identity known. Plus, the doubling of verbs in many cases in the Torah, and how the sages relate to that compound verb.

Found items of different materials - silver, copper, wood, and so on - can be used by the finder in different ways, depending on the substance. Plus, when can a finder disregard the lost item? Also, the sages' discussion of acting beyond the letter of the law, and why people should do so. Plus, relevance for agunot. Also, a new mishnah - with animals who have moved out of their usual spaces.

A dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva, about whether one can use the funds from the sale of a found animal that isn't monetarily helpful. Also, one who finds scrolls... read them! Or roll them, if need be. Plus, what to do with things made from different materials. Plus, what to do with found tefillin? And what is one's responsibility to a Torah scroll?

More on distinguishing marks - and whether they are a Torah requirement or a rabbinic one. Also, how long must one hold on to a lost object? Also, pilgrims to Jerusalem could reclaim their lost items from a particular place. Plus, the formal lost and found location and process for the 3 pilgrimage festival - and why Jerusalem is special in this regard. Also, the process of declaring and proclaiming that you've found a lost object, and how Jewish history (and the rule of Persia and Rome) changed that process.

The biblical text for the requirements of returning lost objects, including which objects require returning. How, then, does the question of distinguishing marks come into play? The discussion begins with the documents of divorce, which may or may not be bound by the rabbinic enactment of distinguishing marks (when the divorce is a Torah command).

The daf has a few mishnahs dealing with a few halachot around lost objects? Does the location where a lost object is found determine ownership or if it lost? Does a lost object need a minimum value for it to be considered worthy of returning? Rava finally explains which mitzvot in the Torah are involved with a lost object.

A new mishnah - with a list of when a finder has to proclaim and declare the found item(s), so that the original owner can come forward. With debates over whether an item has a siman (demarcating the item) is near an item that doesn't have the mark. How did they settle these relatively ordinary cases? One example being a basket with or without a rim. Also, when one drops coins, and they are in a small (very small) organized pile of coins - vs. a scattered pile of kinds. Plus, a whole lot of conditions and configurations of the coins to be required to proclaim the find in case the original owner comes forward. Plus, one more mishnah and a question about the halakhic expertise of regular people.

A story about Mar Zutra the Pious, when a silver cup was stolen, and Mar Zutra finds the guilty party. Unidentifiable items go to the finder - if the finder found isolated objects, but several together require declaring the find in the hopes of the original owner coming forward. Someone who saves an object from wild animals - keeps it, because it would have been lost anyway. Likewise, finding an item in a public thoroughfare where hopes of recovery are immediately dashed. 5 questions are asked to determine whether to publicize the find or not. Plus several cases of application and apparent contradiction as to whether the finder keeps the found item or has to publicize that it's been found - notably, in the marketplace and in the Biran River.

The daf discusses objects found that may or may not have a purposeful siman.

Several sages were in an orchard, and a worker there gave them samples of fruit, but Mar Zutra did not eat. And then it seems that the orchard owner (Mar bar Isak, for a mini-Who's Who) may not really have wanted to provide fruit for his guests after all. Also, if one finds small sheaves in the public domain, the finder can keep them - even if they have an identifying mark. But when does the ye'ush - that despair of ever getting your lost object back - kick in?

The daf begins the second perek of the masechet which starts with a mishnah discussing lost objects and when the finder does or does not have to find the owner. Two key concepts are involved: ye'ush and siman. The Gemara presents a fundamental machloket between Abaye and Rava.

A new mishnah, still on returning lost documents. Beginning with letters that attest to a commitment of obligation or a repossession of property by the court, and more.
Plus, when the matters are not clear and they will be set aside until Elijah the Prophet returns. Also, two towns of the same name - which is intended on a document?! Also, what happens when you find more than one document, whether in a bundle or a cluster? Whom do you return it to, and why?

The daf describes a variety of scenarios where documents are found and the different types of fraud that can be committed with a found document

A new mishnah! One who finds documents - bills of divorce, papers that free slaves, receipts, etc. - don't return them to the apparent recipient, in case they weren't actually given. Also, when the documents include names belonging to more than one couple - especially in a place where the caravans pass frequently vs. a place with few travelers, and less likely to find two couples of the same name. Plus, the question of whether she has received the ketubah... did she already receive her get? That may well depend on what the husband has to say - and maybe the time factor in how long since the get has been lost. Note that the dispute here is between texts, where the mishnah outranks a beraita.

Bringing property disputes to court, especially when one part denies part of the terms or what is owed. Plus, the role of witnesses. But we do people trust that the disputant/denier isn't lying? Plus, a concrete case. Also, if one claimed that there were no witnesses, then the claim is fundamentally (likely to be) meaningless. Plus, the role of the ketubah, in an era when it wasn't yet universal. Plus, how the ketubah functions in the discussion of debts, denials, and other economic transactions.

A robber who wants to go back and uphold the sale - so that he'll no longer be called a robber. Or so he'll be known as reliable and trustworthy). The question is what is the practical difference between these expressions of his goal? Also, if one finds a document of acquisition, one should return it to the owner, not the debtor. Plus, a payment plan as required in Neharde'a.

The case of one who buys land from a robber - what happens when the land has been improved? Who pays for that? Note that the robber may be able to pay back his theft with his land. Also, what if the buyer knows that the land itself does not belong to the seller (and then the owner comes to reclaim his or her land).

The case of repossessing property that has been sold, with or without a guarantee to the buyer. Plus, two accounts of each case, each of which turns the case around. Also, to what extent does the seller have the responsibility to ensure that the funds reach the right people, but don't look like interest. Plus, making sure that the buyer can legitimately buy the property without having to give it back to the seller's creditor.⁰

Found documents (eg, promissory notes) that show a lien on property - in the Gemara's commentary on the mishnah, trying to determine the specifics of the case of the mishnah. Plus, the impact of the case of the loan - where the document calls it into question. Plus, R. Eleazar and R. Yochanan dispute how to understand the dispute between R. Meir and the sages, about the promissory note.

Two mishnahs on this daf. The first deals with children, slaves, and one’s wife finding an ownerless object and to whom does it belong. The second deals with the case of a found document with a loan and to whom is it returned.

A new mishnah - on the acquisition effected by a courtyard. How does the transfer of ownership take effect? What if the "courtyard" is an open field? What if the owner isn't present to demonstrate intent and/or to guard it? Plus, the case of a divorce, where the husband's intent acquires the bill of divorce to the woman - unless her courtyard is sufficient.

One who does a formal act of acquisition to acquire something for someone else - the Gemara now says that won't work, in contrast to the previous Gemara. The comparison to a debtor and creditor explains why. Plus, a rider asking for the reins of the animal he's riding - where the language used makes the difference. Also, a new mishnah: one finds an item and another party seizes it - who has acquired it? Plus, proximity isn't enough to acquire an object. The illustration case is pe'ah, acquiring the produce from the corners of a field - where the acquisition might be accomplished by proximity, but it's private property, so that won't work. Plus, how the 4 amot (proximity) acquisition takes effect.

How does one NOT acquire an animal, using formal acts of acquisition that are effective in other circumstances. With a focus on animals. Also, how the formal act of acquisition for some property can be combined with the one for other property (for example, acquiring utensils together with the acquisition of an animal). Plus, the acquisition by one's property of other property, like a courtyard or a boat.

Using a formal act of acquisition to take possession of an object on behalf of someone else - works! (Pending discussion whether it really does, and how that connects to the 2 who have taken hold of the talit in the first mishnah of Bava Metzia. Also, the formal kinyan of taking hold of an animal's bridle - which is complicated when that animal had been the property of a convert who didn't have heirs. Thus, the real difference between taking possession of something that had a previous owner, as compared to found property.

The daf continues to explore the question if one cab consecrate an item not in one’s reshut. A baraita has an opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel that explains how a document can be split.

What if one complainant grabbed more of the disputed object before the judges? It depends, to some degree, on the reaction of the other party. What if they are making other claims of ownership before the court? Can one be considered an owner if the item is not in that party's possession? The answer is no, the burden of proof falls on the one who can't lay physical claim. But what happens if one party consecrates the item? As it happens, one party consecrated a bathhouse, which led the sages to bathe elsewhere, lest they violate consecrated property. But that's a difficult conclusion, practically speaking, so they tried to get a better answer, exploring the question of a possible bekhor - first born.

More on Rabbi Hiya and the kal va-chomer of agreeing to part of a claim - with an actual case! (including a partial agreement to a claim as established by testimony, which would require him to swear... unless he's a thief, and therefore exempt from swearing). Plus, "shevuat heseit." Also, the potential of shepherds to steal, tacitly, while the flocks graze elsewhere (but that's a private shepherd, not a public shepherd). Also, the fact that one who is suspected of thievery is trusted to take an oath (or maybe not).

When two people claim ownership of an object, the "solution" is for both parties to swear an oath that each has nothing of the other's. Complicated by possible witnesses, and also the logic of a kal va-chomer. How much can testimony bring about - with regard to punishment and/or offerings on the part of the subject of the testimony.

An introduction to Bava Metzia, and to the first chapter. Plus, the famous first mishnah - with 2 people laying apparently equal claim to a found object. Or two are riding on an animal and both claim ownership of the animal. They both swear and divide the item - to the extent possible, when there's no other way to ascertain the accuracy of each's claim.

Stealing from another is like taking a part of the soul of the owner of the item stolen. With proof texts, of course - including the biblical term, "hamas," which is not the meaning we know nowadays. More, extortion. In the context of the story of King Saul, the city of Nov, and the killing of kohanim. [Where's Where: Mehoza] Also, a new mishnah, on who owns the remnants of things when handled by specialists (the launderer, the carder of wool, a carpenter or chiseler, for example). With possible implications for where the crafting was done. Plus, the growing of certain plants and using them or not. And there the tractate ends, in medias res, so to speak.

4 mishnayot: Paying back an original owner should not take place in a deserted area. And: does one have to pay when one can claim ignorance of a need to pay back (certainty vs. unsure bring relevant). And: Stealing a lamb from a flock and returning it before anything happens to it - what happens if the owners knew? What happens if they didn't know? Rav, Shmuel, R. Yochanan, and R. Hisda has answers. And: The assumption that a wife isn't lying to her husband when selling animals in the marketplace - but let the buyer beware!

Case reports and the rabbis' rulings: what happens when one Jew turns in another Jew to the authorities (specifically, objects). [Who's Who: Rav Kahana] A story: one who wants to show another's straw to the authorities, against better advice, and pays for that intent with his life. Which leads to a discussion of why the harsh response, including a window into the ways of the rabbinic academy. Plus, the drama between R. Yochanan and R. Kahana. Also, more cases of informants and thieves and the need (or not) to pay back. Plus, a new mishnah with an overflowing river.