Showing posts with label tosfos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tosfos. Show all posts
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Coerced Admission
The Gemora establishes that there is a difference between the child of craftsman and a child of a robber in the case where there are witnesses that saw the father admit that he sold the property.
Tosfos asks on this that if witnesses saw an admission, even a craftsman and a sharecropper themselves would be believed!?
He therefore emends the text of the Gemora to read that the children claim that the original owner admitted to them that the land was sold to their father. In the case of the child of the sharecropper and craftsman, this claim is believed. In the case of the robber, however, it can be assumed that the owner admitted to the son because he was afraid of the father.
Rabbeinu Yonah defends the original text. He says that the case of the craftsman/sharecropper, and the case of the robber are not identical. The case of the craftsman/sharecropper is when they claim to have bought the property. In such a case, they are not believed. The case of the robber is when there are witnesses who saw the owner admit. This is teaching us a bigger novelty - that even when the owner admits in front of witnesses, which is a serious admission, it is still considered to be a false admission motivated by fear.
Posted by Avromi at 10/08/2009 03:43:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: coerced admission, Gemora Bava Basra 47, tosfos
Kosher Judges the Entire Time
By: Reb Avi Lebowitz
The Gemora says that when a Sefer Torah is stolen from a city, the judges of that city may serve as judges to convict the thief so long as they would relinquish their portion in the Sefer Torah. However, the Gemora concludes that by a Sefer Torah where they will anyway be benefiting from the reading, it is not sufficient to relinquish their ownership since they will still be considered biased (nogei’ah b’davar) because they are ultimately benefiting from the Sefer being returned to the city.
Tosfos asks that the Gemora holds that for items other than a Sefer Torah, it would help to relinquish their ownership thereby removing their negi’os. Why don’t we require techilaso v’sofo b’kashrus? Meaning, we should require the judges to be kosher not only at the time of the judgment, but even at the time of the crime?
Tosfos answers that the requirement of techilaso v’sofo b’kashrus only applies to a passul in the guf, such as a relative, but doesn’t apply to a monetary passul.
Tosfos in Niddah (50a) makes a distinction between a witness where we have such a requirement, and a judge, where we don’t have such a requirement.
The Ramban explained by the Nemukei Yosef has a very interesting approach to this question. When one testifies on a monetary issue, he is not testifying on the money, rather he is testifying for the owner of the money. While it is true that we require techilaso v’sofo b’kashrus, and therefore one, who was a relative through marriage at the time he witnessed a crime, cannot testify on that crime even if he has divorced, since then and is no longer a relative. The rationale is that at the time one witnesses the crime he must be kosher for testimony. But with a monetary issue, such as a communal item that is stolen, he is considered kosher for testimony for all those that he is not related to, and passul for testimony for the share of all those he is related to, including himself. Therefore, by removing himself from this money, he is no longer testifying for himself, rather, he is testifying for others and for them he was kosher all along to serve as a witness.
The R"I Mi’gash answers that one who is passul as a nogei’a, is not considered a witness at all. He is not like a relative who is considered a passul witness, rather, he is not in the subject of testimony. Therefore, when he removes himself and becomes a valid witness, he is considered techilaso b’kashrus, since that is the first moment that he assumes a status as a witness. This seems to be an exact opposite logic from Tosfos. Tosfos considers the negi’ah of money so mild that we don’t apply the din of techilaso b’kashrus, whereas the R"I Mi’gash considers it so severe that we don’t even consider him to be a witness. [In truth, there is a lot of discussion as to why a nogei’ah is passul. He is only passul to testify l’zechuso, but kosher l’chovaso, so he is not like a regular passul who is passul for chov and zechus. Some say it is a din of karov eitzel atzmo, some say it is a chashash meshaker, and some say he is not an eid at all - the latter seems to be the opinion of the R"I Mi’gash.]
Read more!
The Gemora says that when a Sefer Torah is stolen from a city, the judges of that city may serve as judges to convict the thief so long as they would relinquish their portion in the Sefer Torah. However, the Gemora concludes that by a Sefer Torah where they will anyway be benefiting from the reading, it is not sufficient to relinquish their ownership since they will still be considered biased (nogei’ah b’davar) because they are ultimately benefiting from the Sefer being returned to the city.
Tosfos asks that the Gemora holds that for items other than a Sefer Torah, it would help to relinquish their ownership thereby removing their negi’os. Why don’t we require techilaso v’sofo b’kashrus? Meaning, we should require the judges to be kosher not only at the time of the judgment, but even at the time of the crime?
Tosfos answers that the requirement of techilaso v’sofo b’kashrus only applies to a passul in the guf, such as a relative, but doesn’t apply to a monetary passul.
Tosfos in Niddah (50a) makes a distinction between a witness where we have such a requirement, and a judge, where we don’t have such a requirement.
The Ramban explained by the Nemukei Yosef has a very interesting approach to this question. When one testifies on a monetary issue, he is not testifying on the money, rather he is testifying for the owner of the money. While it is true that we require techilaso v’sofo b’kashrus, and therefore one, who was a relative through marriage at the time he witnessed a crime, cannot testify on that crime even if he has divorced, since then and is no longer a relative. The rationale is that at the time one witnesses the crime he must be kosher for testimony. But with a monetary issue, such as a communal item that is stolen, he is considered kosher for testimony for all those that he is not related to, and passul for testimony for the share of all those he is related to, including himself. Therefore, by removing himself from this money, he is no longer testifying for himself, rather, he is testifying for others and for them he was kosher all along to serve as a witness.
The R"I Mi’gash answers that one who is passul as a nogei’a, is not considered a witness at all. He is not like a relative who is considered a passul witness, rather, he is not in the subject of testimony. Therefore, when he removes himself and becomes a valid witness, he is considered techilaso b’kashrus, since that is the first moment that he assumes a status as a witness. This seems to be an exact opposite logic from Tosfos. Tosfos considers the negi’ah of money so mild that we don’t apply the din of techilaso b’kashrus, whereas the R"I Mi’gash considers it so severe that we don’t even consider him to be a witness. [In truth, there is a lot of discussion as to why a nogei’ah is passul. He is only passul to testify l’zechuso, but kosher l’chovaso, so he is not like a regular passul who is passul for chov and zechus. Some say it is a din of karov eitzel atzmo, some say it is a chashash meshaker, and some say he is not an eid at all - the latter seems to be the opinion of the R"I Mi’gash.]
Posted by Avromi at 10/08/2009 03:32:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: Gemora Bava Basra 43, Gemora Niddah 50, noge'a b'eidus, Reb Avi Lebowitz, tosfos, witnesses
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Chazakah on a Sukkah
Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.
By: Reb Avi Lebowitz
The Gemora says that generally, if a person builds a hut which infringes on his friend’s property, there is a grace period of thirty days in which the owner graciously permits the hut owner to use the area and doesn’t have to protest. But, after that grace period has passed, if the owner doesn’t protest, the hut owner will have an established right to be able to claim that he purchased the rights of use. But, if the hut is built for a sukkah on Sukkos, then immediately after the seven days of s Sukkos passes, the lack of the owners protest enables the builder to claim that he purchased the right to leave it there permanently. [This is according to Rashi, but the Hagahos Ashri cites other opinions that it is seven days in addition to the thirty days.]
Tosfos points out that in truth, the builder doesn’t have a chazakah after seven days; he only has a chazakah after eight days since on the eighth day, which is Shemini Atzeres, it wasn’t possible to remove the sukkah.
The Ya’avetz asks: What compelled Tosfos to say that he will not have a chazakah until the eighth day is over. Perhaps we assume that the owner would have allowed him to use the space for the mitzvah, but as soon as the mitzvah ends, the owner is expected to protest. The fact that the owner fails to protest would not enable the builder to claim that he has acquired permanent rights to this area!?
It would seem that Tosfos holds that although the owner can protest the sukkah immediately after the seven days pass, even before the eighth day ends, he is not expected to do so. Why? It is because he is well aware that his protest is futile. The owner can claim that for the duration of Sukkos, he allowed the hut owner to fulfill his mitzvah. On the eighth day he also did not protest because he knew that his protest would be in vain, since the hut owner could not remove the sukkah until after Sukkos. Therefore, Tosfos holds that the owner has the right to protest through eight days.
From this we can learn that even after one has been machzik for enough time to create a chazakah, it is only effective if by the owner protesting he could have forced the hut owner to leave. But in a situation, where the owner could not have forced the hut owner to leave, such as when the chazakah concludes on a Shabbos or Yom Tov, the owner is not expected to protest and is given an extra day to voice his protest.
Read more!
By: Reb Avi Lebowitz
The Gemora says that generally, if a person builds a hut which infringes on his friend’s property, there is a grace period of thirty days in which the owner graciously permits the hut owner to use the area and doesn’t have to protest. But, after that grace period has passed, if the owner doesn’t protest, the hut owner will have an established right to be able to claim that he purchased the rights of use. But, if the hut is built for a sukkah on Sukkos, then immediately after the seven days of s Sukkos passes, the lack of the owners protest enables the builder to claim that he purchased the right to leave it there permanently. [This is according to Rashi, but the Hagahos Ashri cites other opinions that it is seven days in addition to the thirty days.]
Tosfos points out that in truth, the builder doesn’t have a chazakah after seven days; he only has a chazakah after eight days since on the eighth day, which is Shemini Atzeres, it wasn’t possible to remove the sukkah.
The Ya’avetz asks: What compelled Tosfos to say that he will not have a chazakah until the eighth day is over. Perhaps we assume that the owner would have allowed him to use the space for the mitzvah, but as soon as the mitzvah ends, the owner is expected to protest. The fact that the owner fails to protest would not enable the builder to claim that he has acquired permanent rights to this area!?
It would seem that Tosfos holds that although the owner can protest the sukkah immediately after the seven days pass, even before the eighth day ends, he is not expected to do so. Why? It is because he is well aware that his protest is futile. The owner can claim that for the duration of Sukkos, he allowed the hut owner to fulfill his mitzvah. On the eighth day he also did not protest because he knew that his protest would be in vain, since the hut owner could not remove the sukkah until after Sukkos. Therefore, Tosfos holds that the owner has the right to protest through eight days.
From this we can learn that even after one has been machzik for enough time to create a chazakah, it is only effective if by the owner protesting he could have forced the hut owner to leave. But in a situation, where the owner could not have forced the hut owner to leave, such as when the chazakah concludes on a Shabbos or Yom Tov, the owner is not expected to protest and is given an extra day to voice his protest.
Posted by Avromi at 8/27/2009 07:13:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: chazakah, daf yomi, Gemora Bava Basra 6, Rav Yaakov Emden, sukkah, sukkos, tosfos
Thursday, August 06, 2009
B'tuvo
Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.
Rav Nachman says: A person can ask his friend to borrow something “b’tuvo” -- “when good,” and (if his friend acquiesces) borrow it anytime thereafter (even after he returns it, provided that it is in good condition, for that is what he meant when he said “b’tuvo” ).
Rav Mari, the son of the daughter of Shmuel, said: This is only if they made a kinyan to this effect.
The Ritva writes that the main novelty of this halachah, according to Rashi’s explanation, is that we expound his language. We assume that this was the borrower’s intent when he used the word “b’tuvo.”
Tosfos cites an Aruch, who offers a different explanation. If the borrower did a favor for the lender, the borrower may use the borrowed utensil forever.
The Ritva explains: The borrower, after doing a favor to the lender, requests of him to borrow his utensil in exchange for the favor that he did. The novelty of this halachah is that he is not regarded as a renter, even though the utensil is being lent to him in exchange of the favor which he provided. He is, nevertheless, regarded as a borrower.
The Rif suggests an alternative explanation of the Gemora: The borrower said to the lender, “Lend me, on account of your goodness, this utensil that I can use it.” Since a term limit was not mentioned, he may borrow it forever, or until it breaks. The novelty of this ruling is that by adding the words, “your goodness,” he may borrow it forever. This is unlike an ordinary unspecified borrowing, which is only for thirty days.
The Rosh asks: Why do these words make a difference? It is extremely common for someone to say to his fellow, “Can you do me a favor please and lend me a utensil?”
The Sm”a answers that we are referring to a case where the borrower said to the lender, “You are such a good person, one who is not particular at all as to the amount of time your utensil is lent out.” In this case, we assume that he is lending it forever.
Read more!
Rav Nachman says: A person can ask his friend to borrow something “b’tuvo” -- “when good,” and (if his friend acquiesces) borrow it anytime thereafter (even after he returns it, provided that it is in good condition, for that is what he meant when he said “b’tuvo” ).
Rav Mari, the son of the daughter of Shmuel, said: This is only if they made a kinyan to this effect.
The Ritva writes that the main novelty of this halachah, according to Rashi’s explanation, is that we expound his language. We assume that this was the borrower’s intent when he used the word “b’tuvo.”
Tosfos cites an Aruch, who offers a different explanation. If the borrower did a favor for the lender, the borrower may use the borrowed utensil forever.
The Ritva explains: The borrower, after doing a favor to the lender, requests of him to borrow his utensil in exchange for the favor that he did. The novelty of this halachah is that he is not regarded as a renter, even though the utensil is being lent to him in exchange of the favor which he provided. He is, nevertheless, regarded as a borrower.
The Rif suggests an alternative explanation of the Gemora: The borrower said to the lender, “Lend me, on account of your goodness, this utensil that I can use it.” Since a term limit was not mentioned, he may borrow it forever, or until it breaks. The novelty of this ruling is that by adding the words, “your goodness,” he may borrow it forever. This is unlike an ordinary unspecified borrowing, which is only for thirty days.
The Rosh asks: Why do these words make a difference? It is extremely common for someone to say to his fellow, “Can you do me a favor please and lend me a utensil?”
The Sm”a answers that we are referring to a case where the borrower said to the lender, “You are such a good person, one who is not particular at all as to the amount of time your utensil is lent out.” In this case, we assume that he is lending it forever.
Posted by Avromi at 8/06/2009 01:15:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: borrower, daf yomi, Gemora Bava Metzia 103, Rif, Rosh, tosfos
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Ma'aser on Purchased Produce
by: Reb Avi Lebovitz
Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.
There is a fundamental argument between Rabbeinu Tam and Rivam quoted by Tosfos regarding the exemption from ma’aser on produce that Reuven sold to Shimon.
Rabbeinu Tam holds that if Reuven processed the produce prior to selling and it became obligated in ma’aser and assumes a status of tevel, by selling it to Shimon, the tevel status is removed and it is exempt once again. But if Reuven never processed it, when Shimon does the processing, he will be Biblically obligated in ma’aser because it is considered his own produce.
Rivam says exactly the opposite. If Reuven processed the produce prior to selling it, since it has become obligated in ma’aser and assumes a status of tevel, this status cannot be removed. Therefore, when he sells it to Shimon, Shimon will have a Biblical obligation to separate ma’aser. But if Reuven sold it to Shimon prior to processing it and it was processed in the home of Shimon, then it is not subject to a ma’aser obligation.
When the produce was grown by an idolater (assuming his acquisition in Eretz Yisroel will not remove the ma’aser obligation), the Gemora says in Bechoros (11b) that if the idolater processed them and then sold them to a Jew, they are exempt from ma’aser, but if the Jew processed them, they are obligated.
Rabbeinu Tam holds that if the produce was processed by the original farmer, it makes no difference if he were a Jew or an idolater, the buyer would be exempt. But, if they weren’t processed by the original farmer, the buyer would be obligated.
The Rivam holds that when the original farmer was an idolater, the halachah is exactly the opposite from when the original farmer would be a Jew. An idolater farmer who processes and sells would be exempt since it was processed by the idolater and it will remain exempt even after it is sold. But if an idolater farmer didn’t process it, it is not considered his at all, so that when he sells it to the Jew and the Jew processes it, it is obligated.
The greatest difficulty with Rabbeinu Tam is that produce that is tevel can be sold and revert back to being exempt from ma’aser (and then if sold back to Reuven would revert back to being obligated in ma’aser)! The greatest difficulty in the Rivam is that produce of an idolater is not considered to be his unless he processed it, so that if sold to a Jew, it is as if the Jew grew it himself and is obligated in ma’aser.
Another hybrid approach (possible Reb Chaim’s explanation in a Rambam) is that it is not dependent on who processed it, but rather what the intent was when it was processed. If Reuven processed it for personal use and it becomes obligated, nothing can remove that status of tevel (like the Rivam). If Reuven did not process it; rather he sold it to Shimon who processed it, then it is also obligated (like Rabbeinu Tam). Only if Reueven processed it with the intent of selling it to Shimon, it will be exempt.
Read more!
Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.
There is a fundamental argument between Rabbeinu Tam and Rivam quoted by Tosfos regarding the exemption from ma’aser on produce that Reuven sold to Shimon.
Rabbeinu Tam holds that if Reuven processed the produce prior to selling and it became obligated in ma’aser and assumes a status of tevel, by selling it to Shimon, the tevel status is removed and it is exempt once again. But if Reuven never processed it, when Shimon does the processing, he will be Biblically obligated in ma’aser because it is considered his own produce.
Rivam says exactly the opposite. If Reuven processed the produce prior to selling it, since it has become obligated in ma’aser and assumes a status of tevel, this status cannot be removed. Therefore, when he sells it to Shimon, Shimon will have a Biblical obligation to separate ma’aser. But if Reuven sold it to Shimon prior to processing it and it was processed in the home of Shimon, then it is not subject to a ma’aser obligation.
When the produce was grown by an idolater (assuming his acquisition in Eretz Yisroel will not remove the ma’aser obligation), the Gemora says in Bechoros (11b) that if the idolater processed them and then sold them to a Jew, they are exempt from ma’aser, but if the Jew processed them, they are obligated.
Rabbeinu Tam holds that if the produce was processed by the original farmer, it makes no difference if he were a Jew or an idolater, the buyer would be exempt. But, if they weren’t processed by the original farmer, the buyer would be obligated.
The Rivam holds that when the original farmer was an idolater, the halachah is exactly the opposite from when the original farmer would be a Jew. An idolater farmer who processes and sells would be exempt since it was processed by the idolater and it will remain exempt even after it is sold. But if an idolater farmer didn’t process it, it is not considered his at all, so that when he sells it to the Jew and the Jew processes it, it is obligated.
The greatest difficulty with Rabbeinu Tam is that produce that is tevel can be sold and revert back to being exempt from ma’aser (and then if sold back to Reuven would revert back to being obligated in ma’aser)! The greatest difficulty in the Rivam is that produce of an idolater is not considered to be his unless he processed it, so that if sold to a Jew, it is as if the Jew grew it himself and is obligated in ma’aser.
Another hybrid approach (possible Reb Chaim’s explanation in a Rambam) is that it is not dependent on who processed it, but rather what the intent was when it was processed. If Reuven processed it for personal use and it becomes obligated, nothing can remove that status of tevel (like the Rivam). If Reuven did not process it; rather he sold it to Shimon who processed it, then it is also obligated (like Rabbeinu Tam). Only if Reueven processed it with the intent of selling it to Shimon, it will be exempt.
Posted by Avromi at 7/23/2009 04:54:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: Gemora Bava Metzia 88, goy, maaser, Rabbeinu Tam, Reb Avi Lebowitz, tevel, tosfos
Monday, June 29, 2009
What is Interest?
Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.
The Gemora states that living rent free in a debtor's house seems like interest, and is therefore forbidden.
Tosfos discusses the parameters of this prohibition. The Gemora states that living rent free is categorically prohibited, even if the debtor would have allowed the creditor to do so independent of the loan. Tosfos questions how a debtor can do any favors to his creditor, since these also would appear to be interest. Tosfos states that the prohibition only includes conspicuous activities, like living in someone's house, but not things like renting out tools.
The Shach (Y”D 166:1) rules that any inconspicuous favors that the debtor would have done anyway for the creditor may be done. In addition, if they were known to all to be such close friends that they would have allowed each other to dwell rent free, this also may be done.
The Maharshal, however, states that any conspicuous favor may not be done, even if all knew that they would have done this favor without the loan in place.
Posted by Avromi at 6/29/2009 01:58:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: daf yomi, Gemora Bava Kamma 97, Gemora Bava Metzia 64, interest, Maharshal, ribbis, Shach, tosfos
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Is it Mutar to Cheat (just a little)?
Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.
The braisa had stated: If it is an issar less, it is forbidden.
Abaye explains this to mean that the coins cannot be used at its face value if the sela became lacking by an issar more than its price fraud limit.
Rava challenges this interpretation, for if it is even a little more than the limit, it cannot be used at its face value!?
Rather, Rava understands it to mean that if the sela became deficient by an issar to a dinar, it cannot be used any longer at its face value. This would be an anonymous ruling which follows Rabbi Meir’s viewpoint.
Tosfos understands in Rashi that one would be permitted to defraud his fellow if it is less than a sixth, even in a case where he does not intend to return the overcharge. This is because the defrauded party, because it is insignificant, is immediately mochel the “cheater.” It would be permitted to charge exactly a sixth more than its price only if he intends to return the overchatge within the time it would take the other party to show the purchase to a merchant.
The Ritva writes that it is forbidden to defraud your fellow in cases where it is precisely a sixth. This is because people are generally particular regarding these things.
The Ramban maintains that it is forbidden even if it is less than a sixth, for one is not allowed to defraud his fellow whatsoever. If it was less than a sixth, the sages ruled that he is exempt from paying it back. That does not make it permitted.
The Chinuch holds that there is no Biblical prohibition when one defrauds his fellow less than a sixth.
Posted by Avromi at 6/17/2009 12:32:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: chinuch, daf yomi, Gemora Bava Metzia 52, ona'ah, price fraud, ramban, Rashi, Ritva, tosfos
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Shomer Rulings
Money Matters
The Gemora begins by stating that a custodian should keep deposited money on his body, and then later quotes Shmuel’s statement that money must be buried. The Rambam (She’eila u’Pikadon 4:6) explains that when the money is deposited with the custodian at home, he must bury it, while if the deposit was to transport the money somewhere, he must keep it on his body.
Shmuel states that a custodian must guard money entrusted to him by burying it, and anything short of that is negligence.
The Rosh quotes Ri Barceloni that says that Shmuel is only discussing a situation where burglary is common. However, if it is not common, a custodian need only guard the money as he guards his own. The Gemora implies this in its follow up discussion of different ways of storing the money, which the Gemora explicitly ties to the prevailing form of burglars at the time.
The Rambam (She’eila u’Pikadon) seems to imply that Shmuel’s statement is not subject to variation in different times and situations.
The Shulchan Aruch (HM 291:18) rules like the Rosh. See the Gra (HM 291:28) for a discussion of how this debate depends on differing texts in our Gemora.
The Sma (C”M 291:24) says that now that our houses are much more solid than in the Gemora’s time, and therefore a custodian may store the money in a locked house.
Shmuel is also implicitly stating that if the custodian did bury the money, and it was stolen, he is not liable.
The Rishonim debate what the rule for a paid custodian is. Unlike an unpaid custodian, a paid custodian is fundamentally liable for theft, but he is also not liable for unavoidable loss of the deposited item.
The Gemora states a number of times that a paid custodian is not liable for an item that is taken through armed robbery, since that is unavoidable. When a paid custodian buries money, but it is still stolen, he may be liable, since it is theft, but he may not be liable, since it seems like an unavoidable loss.
Rabbi Akiva Eiger (HM 303:2) lists three positions of the Rishonim on this question:
1. Tosfos (BK 57a K’gon) and the Rosh (BM 3:21) say that a paid custodian is liable, even if he buried the money, since that is included in the liability for theft. Every theft is akin to an unavoidable loss, so a theft that is more unavoidable is still a theft. Only in the case of an armed robber, where the paid custodian was present and powerless to stop the theft is considered truly unavoidable.
2. The Ramban says that a paid custodian must keep the money in his presence. Therefore, theft of buried money is not considered unavoidable, and a paid custodian is liable. However, if something unavoidable occurred to the paid custodian, making it impossible to keep the money with him (e.g., a sudden severe sickness), he is not liable.
3. Tosfos (BM 42a Amar Shmuel) says that a custodian is not liable for unavoidable theft, which includes buried money, as well as an unavoidable event which prevented his guarding.
The Rambam (She’eila uPikadon 4:4) applies Shmuel’s statement to any item that has two things in common with money:
1. Valuable enough that burglars look for it
2. Not ruined by being underground
Therefore, blocks of precious metals and stones also must be buried when being guarded.
Diversification
Rav Yitzchak says that one should split his assets in three, with one third going to land. The Maharshsa offers two explanations for this:
1. Buried underground, as Shmuel requires of the custodian
2. Invested in real estate
Unobserved Blessings
The Gemora says that blessing only occurs to items that are not measured and observed.
The Meiri explains that the Gemora is referring to the blessing of successful returns on investments.
Rabbeinu Manoach says that the Gemora means that the blessing will be that the ultimate measure will be larger than the original estimate, in a miraculous fashion.
The Sfas Emes echoes this position, by explaining that Hashem does not make miracles that openly subvert nature, and therefore this blessing only occurs before the produce is measured.
The Ritva quotes the Ramban who says that one makes a brachah on this occurrence only when measuring produce for the purpose of separating tithes, since Hashem promised us a blessing for fulfilling this mitzvah. When otherwise measuring, one is not certain a blessing will occur, so he may not make a brachah.
Household Custodians
The Gemora states that a custodian may entrust his deposited item with members of his household.
The Rishonim debate what the rule is if the ones entrusted were negligent.
Rabbeinu Tam (42b kol) says that the custodian is ultimately liable for the negligence of members of his household, while the Ramban, Rashba (BM 36a) and Rambam (She’eila u’Pikadon 4:9) say that the member entrusted with the item is liable.
The Ox who couldn’t Eat
Rami bar Chama debates how to judge the case of an estate administrator who gave an ox without teeth to a herdsman, where it died. The Gemora explained that the orphans had already voided the sale, so the potential litigant is the seller.
Tosfos (42b Hacha) explains that Rami bar Chama is assuming that we rule like Rabbi Yosi (35b), who says that an owner of an item can directly deal with a custodian appointed by his custodian. Within Rabbi Yossi’s position, Rami bar Chama was unsure whether the seller can address the herdsman via his appointment by the orphans, or whether the orphans are removed from the transaction, since the sale was retroactively voided. Rami bar Chama’s conclusion is that the orphans are considered unpaid custodians, and the seller does have legal standing vis a vis the herdsman.
Rami bar Chama says that the herdsman must pay the seller the value of the ox, when sold for discounted meat.
Rashi explains that this is a compromise. Technically, the herdsman is not truly at fault and not liable, but he does compensate the herdsman minimally for his loss.
Rabbeinu Tam (42b Demai) says that this rule was a bona fide legal obligation. The herdsman should have notified the seller of the ox’s lack of teeth, and therefore is liable for its death. However, since an ox without teeth must be sold for meat, and may not even wait until the day of the market, it would have only been worth the price of discounted meat.
Read more!
The Gemora begins by stating that a custodian should keep deposited money on his body, and then later quotes Shmuel’s statement that money must be buried. The Rambam (She’eila u’Pikadon 4:6) explains that when the money is deposited with the custodian at home, he must bury it, while if the deposit was to transport the money somewhere, he must keep it on his body.
Shmuel states that a custodian must guard money entrusted to him by burying it, and anything short of that is negligence.
The Rosh quotes Ri Barceloni that says that Shmuel is only discussing a situation where burglary is common. However, if it is not common, a custodian need only guard the money as he guards his own. The Gemora implies this in its follow up discussion of different ways of storing the money, which the Gemora explicitly ties to the prevailing form of burglars at the time.
The Rambam (She’eila u’Pikadon) seems to imply that Shmuel’s statement is not subject to variation in different times and situations.
The Shulchan Aruch (HM 291:18) rules like the Rosh. See the Gra (HM 291:28) for a discussion of how this debate depends on differing texts in our Gemora.
The Sma (C”M 291:24) says that now that our houses are much more solid than in the Gemora’s time, and therefore a custodian may store the money in a locked house.
Shmuel is also implicitly stating that if the custodian did bury the money, and it was stolen, he is not liable.
The Rishonim debate what the rule for a paid custodian is. Unlike an unpaid custodian, a paid custodian is fundamentally liable for theft, but he is also not liable for unavoidable loss of the deposited item.
The Gemora states a number of times that a paid custodian is not liable for an item that is taken through armed robbery, since that is unavoidable. When a paid custodian buries money, but it is still stolen, he may be liable, since it is theft, but he may not be liable, since it seems like an unavoidable loss.
Rabbi Akiva Eiger (HM 303:2) lists three positions of the Rishonim on this question:
1. Tosfos (BK 57a K’gon) and the Rosh (BM 3:21) say that a paid custodian is liable, even if he buried the money, since that is included in the liability for theft. Every theft is akin to an unavoidable loss, so a theft that is more unavoidable is still a theft. Only in the case of an armed robber, where the paid custodian was present and powerless to stop the theft is considered truly unavoidable.
2. The Ramban says that a paid custodian must keep the money in his presence. Therefore, theft of buried money is not considered unavoidable, and a paid custodian is liable. However, if something unavoidable occurred to the paid custodian, making it impossible to keep the money with him (e.g., a sudden severe sickness), he is not liable.
3. Tosfos (BM 42a Amar Shmuel) says that a custodian is not liable for unavoidable theft, which includes buried money, as well as an unavoidable event which prevented his guarding.
The Rambam (She’eila uPikadon 4:4) applies Shmuel’s statement to any item that has two things in common with money:
1. Valuable enough that burglars look for it
2. Not ruined by being underground
Therefore, blocks of precious metals and stones also must be buried when being guarded.
Diversification
Rav Yitzchak says that one should split his assets in three, with one third going to land. The Maharshsa offers two explanations for this:
1. Buried underground, as Shmuel requires of the custodian
2. Invested in real estate
Unobserved Blessings
The Gemora says that blessing only occurs to items that are not measured and observed.
The Meiri explains that the Gemora is referring to the blessing of successful returns on investments.
Rabbeinu Manoach says that the Gemora means that the blessing will be that the ultimate measure will be larger than the original estimate, in a miraculous fashion.
The Sfas Emes echoes this position, by explaining that Hashem does not make miracles that openly subvert nature, and therefore this blessing only occurs before the produce is measured.
The Ritva quotes the Ramban who says that one makes a brachah on this occurrence only when measuring produce for the purpose of separating tithes, since Hashem promised us a blessing for fulfilling this mitzvah. When otherwise measuring, one is not certain a blessing will occur, so he may not make a brachah.
Household Custodians
The Gemora states that a custodian may entrust his deposited item with members of his household.
The Rishonim debate what the rule is if the ones entrusted were negligent.
Rabbeinu Tam (42b kol) says that the custodian is ultimately liable for the negligence of members of his household, while the Ramban, Rashba (BM 36a) and Rambam (She’eila u’Pikadon 4:9) say that the member entrusted with the item is liable.
The Ox who couldn’t Eat
Rami bar Chama debates how to judge the case of an estate administrator who gave an ox without teeth to a herdsman, where it died. The Gemora explained that the orphans had already voided the sale, so the potential litigant is the seller.
Tosfos (42b Hacha) explains that Rami bar Chama is assuming that we rule like Rabbi Yosi (35b), who says that an owner of an item can directly deal with a custodian appointed by his custodian. Within Rabbi Yossi’s position, Rami bar Chama was unsure whether the seller can address the herdsman via his appointment by the orphans, or whether the orphans are removed from the transaction, since the sale was retroactively voided. Rami bar Chama’s conclusion is that the orphans are considered unpaid custodians, and the seller does have legal standing vis a vis the herdsman.
Rami bar Chama says that the herdsman must pay the seller the value of the ox, when sold for discounted meat.
Rashi explains that this is a compromise. Technically, the herdsman is not truly at fault and not liable, but he does compensate the herdsman minimally for his loss.
Rabbeinu Tam (42b Demai) says that this rule was a bona fide legal obligation. The herdsman should have notified the seller of the ox’s lack of teeth, and therefore is liable for its death. However, since an ox without teeth must be sold for meat, and may not even wait until the day of the market, it would have only been worth the price of discounted meat.
Posted by Avromi at 6/07/2009 12:07:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: daf yomi, Gemora Bava Metzia 42, Rashi, talmud, tosfos
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Majority of Jews
And Rabbi Shimon ben Elozar also said: If one rescues anything from a lion, a bear, a leopard, a hyena, or from the tide of the sea, or from the flood of a river, or if one finds anything on the highway, or in a big public square, or in any place where many people are commonly found, it belongs to the finder because the owner has given it up from recovering them.
They inquired: Did Rabbi Shimon ben Elozar state his halachah (that one may keep a lost object when he finds it in any place where many people are commonly found) only in a place where the majority of the people are Canaanites (for one is not obligated to return a Canaanite’s lost object, and even if it belongs to a Jew, he would have given up hope of recovering it), or did he state his halachah even in a place where the majority of the people are Jews?
Tosfos explains that since it was found in a place where there are many people, there are certainly dishonest people amongst them who will not be concerned about the mitzvah of returning a lost article; therefore, the owner will despair of recovering it.
The Raavad explains that it is because the minority of Canaanites that reside in the area are regarded as significant, and we may assume that it fell from them. And even if it fell from a Jew, the Jew will despair from recovering it, for he will assume that a Canaanite will find it and keep it for himself.
Tosfos asks: Why are these reasons necessary? Could we not apply the principle that we do not follow the majority with respect to monetary law? Let the finder say that perhaps it fell from a Canaanite, and it cannot be taken away from him, for he is a muchzak (he is presently holding it, and there is no proof against him)!?
Tosfos answers that this principle only applies in cases where the money came into his hands with permission; however, in our case, the owner had no knowledge that it entered his possession – the finder’s chazakah is not stronger than the majority.
Read more!
They inquired: Did Rabbi Shimon ben Elozar state his halachah (that one may keep a lost object when he finds it in any place where many people are commonly found) only in a place where the majority of the people are Canaanites (for one is not obligated to return a Canaanite’s lost object, and even if it belongs to a Jew, he would have given up hope of recovering it), or did he state his halachah even in a place where the majority of the people are Jews?
Tosfos explains that since it was found in a place where there are many people, there are certainly dishonest people amongst them who will not be concerned about the mitzvah of returning a lost article; therefore, the owner will despair of recovering it.
The Raavad explains that it is because the minority of Canaanites that reside in the area are regarded as significant, and we may assume that it fell from them. And even if it fell from a Jew, the Jew will despair from recovering it, for he will assume that a Canaanite will find it and keep it for himself.
Tosfos asks: Why are these reasons necessary? Could we not apply the principle that we do not follow the majority with respect to monetary law? Let the finder say that perhaps it fell from a Canaanite, and it cannot be taken away from him, for he is a muchzak (he is presently holding it, and there is no proof against him)!?
Tosfos answers that this principle only applies in cases where the money came into his hands with permission; however, in our case, the owner had no knowledge that it entered his possession – the finder’s chazakah is not stronger than the majority.
Posted by Avromi at 5/19/2009 08:39:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: daf yomi, ein holchin b'mamon achar ha'rov, Gemora Bava Metzia 24, majority minority, Raavad, tosfos
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Ba'al Tashchis
Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.
The Gemora (Bava Kamma 115b) says that it is forbidden to drink from water that has been left uncovered for there is a concern that a poisonous snake drank from it and left its venom inside. Te Gemora rules that one cannot give this water to an animal.
Rashi explains that the rationale is that we are concerned that one may slaughter the animal and it will be dangerous to the person who eats from this animal.
Tosfos points out that Rashi’s approach would only apply to a kosher animal, but in truth this halachah should apply to a non-kosher animal as well, because there is a violation of ba’al tashchis - the killing of an animal for no reason at all.
Tosfos proves this from a Gemora in Avoda Zara 30b that it is only permitted to feed it to a cat (snake eater) which will not be damaged by the venom. This implies that it would be forbidden to feed it to other non-kosher animals that will be poisoned by the venom.
Reb Avi Lebowitz points out something interesting from Tosfos regarding ba’al tashchis. Usually we refer to something as wasteful because it has a function to serve a human and it is being wasted. But in a case where the object provides no direct benefit to a human being, one can argue that it is permitted to waste it without any violation of ba’al tashchis. Tosfos says that this is not true, because even a non-kosher animal, similar to a cat that is not designated to assist people in carrying loads or plowing a field, nevertheless, it cannot be killed for any reason and would constitute a violation of ba’al tashchis.
It is noteworthy that the Halachah L’Moshe writes that according to Tosfos, who maintains that the prohibition against giving these animals to drink from the uncovered water is because of ba’al tashchis, this would apply only to one’s own animal and an animal belonging to his fellow. However, it would be permitted to give this water to an ownerless animal, for this prohibition is not applicable to animals which are hefker.
Posted by Avromi at 4/22/2009 07:28:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: ba'al tashchis, daf yomi, Gemora Avodah Zarah 30, Gemora Bava Kamma 115, Rashi, Reb Avi Lebowitz, tosfos
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Hekdesh and a Lien
Hekdesh vs. Lien
The Gemora cited Rava’s statement, that a lien can be broken by three mechanisms: hekdesh (consecration), chametz on Pesach, and shichrur (freeing a slave). The Rishonim discuss the parameters of hekdesh breaking a lien.
Type of Hekdesh
Rashi states that this is only true for hekdesh haguf – consecration of an item itself, and not just its value. If someone consecrates an animal as a sacrifice, the animal itself is to be used for the sacrifice, and is therefore considered hekdesh haguf. If someone consecrates other items, they will be sold, with their value being used by hekdesh. This is called hekdesh damim (monetary consecration).
Tosfos explains that since hekdesh haguf is not redeemed (unless the animal becomes unfit), once it applies to an animal, a lien does not remove it. However, just as hekdesh damim can be removed via redemption, it is removed by the lien.
The Rambam (Malve v’lo’ve 18:7) holds that both types of hekdesh remove a lien.
Rabbeinu Tam (Tosfos Gittin 40b hekdesh) says that on movable items, both types of hekdesh remove a lien, but on real estate, only hekdesh haguf removes a lien, since real estate is considered to currently be property of the lien holder.
The Meiri states that the type of hekdesh is immaterial, and the only issue is whether the borrower has any more assets for the lien holder to collect from. If there are more assets, the hekdesh removes the lien, but if there are no more assets, the hekdesh does not affect the lien.
How?
Tosfos (Gittin 40b hekdesh) state that Rava is consistent with his opinion (Pesachim 30b) that a creditor is considered an owner of property he collects only from the time of collection. Therefore, until that time, the assets are still the property of the borrower, and he has the power to consecrate it.
Konam
The Rishonim discuss whether forbidding an item through a konam (vow) can also break a lien, inasmuch as a konam is akin to a personal consecration. Most Rishonim say that only a konam that forbids everyone from benefiting from the item can break the lien, since such a konam is similar to consecration in it universal application. Some Rishonim (Meiri, Ran, Nimukei Yosef) hold that even a konam only prohibiting the creditor from benefit breaks a lien, but we pressure the borrower to undo his konam, since he unfairly has harmed the creditor alone by his action.
Posted by Avromi at 3/31/2009 12:47:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: daf yomi, Gemora Bava Kamma 90, Gemora Gittin 30, Gemora Pesachim 30, hekdesh, Meiri, nedarim, rambam, tosfos
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Night before Execution
It is an accepted tradition that the lengthy Tosfosim in the seventh perek of Bava Kamma were authored by the Baalei HaTosfos the night before they were murdered al pi Kiddush Hashem. While they were imprisoned, knowing that they would be killed the next day, they occupied themselves by delving into the depths of Torah. It is said that they cut their fingers and used the blood for ink. “Mi k’amcha Yisroel?”
Read more!
Posted by Avromi at 3/18/2009 03:37:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: daf yomi, Gemora Bava Kamma 77, mesiras nefesh, tosfos
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Insights on Bava Kamma - 76
Too late to redeem?
Tosfos (76a shechitah) asks why we consider the slaughtering of a sacrifice outside of the Temple to be unusable. Rabbi Shimon holds that an animal with a blemish can be redeemed as long as it is moving, even after slaughtering. Once the animal is slaughtered, the slit throat is a definite blemish, and should be grounds for redemption.
Tosfos answers that only blemishes that were present before an animal died are grounds for redemption, but that redemption can occur as long as the animal is still moving.
Tosfos answers that only blemishes that were present before an animal died are grounds for redemption, but that redemption can occur as long as the animal is still moving.
Tahi bah
The Rishonim discuss the exact meaning of this word, used to describe Rabbi Elozar’s objection to the cases offered by Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish.
Rashi explains that the word is a borrowed term from wine inspection. The Gemora in Bava Basra refers to someone who smelled wine, and uses the same verb tahi . Similarly, Rashi explains that Rabbi Elozar was inspecting the statements, and delving into them, to understand them better.
The Shitah Mekubetzes, on the other hand, quotes an opinion that explains this word as a form of the more common matma - he was amazed.
Rashi explains that the word is a borrowed term from wine inspection. The Gemora in Bava Basra refers to someone who smelled wine, and uses the same verb tahi . Similarly, Rashi explains that Rabbi Elozar was inspecting the statements, and delving into them, to understand them better.
The Shitah Mekubetzes, on the other hand, quotes an opinion that explains this word as a form of the more common matma - he was amazed.
Sacrificial slaughtering
Rashi states that Rabbi Elozar was challenging both Rish Lakish, who offered the case of a sacrifice with a blemish, as well as Ravin, who offered the case of a sacrifice that was successfully brought (including splashing of the blood), but not for the sake of its owner. Rashi understands Rabbi Elozar’s objection to apply even to Ravin, because even in a case where the sacrifice turned out to be valid and edible, the fact remains that as of the time of the slaughtering, it was not yet edible, since the splashing was not done.
Tosfos (76b v’halo zrika) states that Rabbi Elozar was challenging Rish Lakish, but only Rav Dimi’s version of Rabbi Yochanan’s answer – the case of the sacrifice whose blood was spilled before being splashed. Tosfos explains that their understanding of the Gemora in Chulin 80b is that the need for splashing blood can invalidate a slaughtering only if it was not ultimately done. Splashing of blood which was ultimately done will definitely make the slaughtering an edible one, retroactively.
Rashi, on the other hand, has a different text in the Gemora in Chulin, and therefore holds that even slaughtering a sacrifice which was successfully completed, including splashing the blood, does not render the slaughtering re’uyah since at the time of slaughtering, the animal was not edible.
See Pnei Yehoshua for a discussion of whether Rashi holds that Rabbi Elozar was also challenging Rav Dimi.
Tosfos (76b v’halo zrika) states that Rabbi Elozar was challenging Rish Lakish, but only Rav Dimi’s version of Rabbi Yochanan’s answer – the case of the sacrifice whose blood was spilled before being splashed. Tosfos explains that their understanding of the Gemora in Chulin 80b is that the need for splashing blood can invalidate a slaughtering only if it was not ultimately done. Splashing of blood which was ultimately done will definitely make the slaughtering an edible one, retroactively.
Rashi, on the other hand, has a different text in the Gemora in Chulin, and therefore holds that even slaughtering a sacrifice which was successfully completed, including splashing the blood, does not render the slaughtering re’uyah since at the time of slaughtering, the animal was not edible.
See Pnei Yehoshua for a discussion of whether Rashi holds that Rabbi Elozar was also challenging Rav Dimi.
Just as if...
The Gemora stated that Rabbi Shimon holds a general rule of kol ha’omed - anything destined for a specific action is considered as if the action were already done. Tosfos (76b v’halo zrika) narrows the scope of Rabbi Shimon’s rule to cases where the subsequent action is mandated – a mitzvah. In that case, since the action not just may be performed, but is supposed to be performed, we can act as if it’s already done.
The halachah rules like the Chachamim. The Aruch Hashulchan infers from this topic a number of halachic conclusions. One of them is in the halachos of a shofar. The Gemora states that a shofar that is cracked is unfit. There is debate in the Rishonim on what extent of a crack invalidates a shofar, both for vertical and horizontal cracks. The Rosh (R”H 3:6) cites an opinion that any sized vertical crack (i.e., along the pathway of the air flow), no matter how small, invalidates the shofar, since the more it is blown, the larger the crack will become. The Aruch Hashulchan (O”H 586:15) states that this opinion does not invalidate it from the Torah, since we rule like the Chachamim. Rabbi Shimon can hold that a shofar that will become fully cracked is considered currently cracked, as part of his general opinion of kol ha’omed. The Chachamim, however, do not agree with this rule, and therefore would not consider the shofar already cracked. Since we do not rule like Rabbi Shimon, the invalidation must be on a Rabbinic level, lest we use a fully cracked shofar. [According to Tosfos’s limitation of Rabbi Shimon, it is debatable if Rabbi Shimon would apply kol ha’omed to a cracked shofar. There is no mitzvah of cracking the shofar, per se, but there is a mitzvah to blow in it, which would crack it further.]
Read more!
The halachah rules like the Chachamim. The Aruch Hashulchan infers from this topic a number of halachic conclusions. One of them is in the halachos of a shofar. The Gemora states that a shofar that is cracked is unfit. There is debate in the Rishonim on what extent of a crack invalidates a shofar, both for vertical and horizontal cracks. The Rosh (R”H 3:6) cites an opinion that any sized vertical crack (i.e., along the pathway of the air flow), no matter how small, invalidates the shofar, since the more it is blown, the larger the crack will become. The Aruch Hashulchan (O”H 586:15) states that this opinion does not invalidate it from the Torah, since we rule like the Chachamim. Rabbi Shimon can hold that a shofar that will become fully cracked is considered currently cracked, as part of his general opinion of kol ha’omed. The Chachamim, however, do not agree with this rule, and therefore would not consider the shofar already cracked. Since we do not rule like Rabbi Shimon, the invalidation must be on a Rabbinic level, lest we use a fully cracked shofar. [According to Tosfos’s limitation of Rabbi Shimon, it is debatable if Rabbi Shimon would apply kol ha’omed to a cracked shofar. There is no mitzvah of cracking the shofar, per se, but there is a mitzvah to blow in it, which would crack it further.]
Posted by Avromi at 3/17/2009 06:09:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: daf yomi, Gemora Bava Kamma 76, Gemora Chulin, korban, redemption, shected, shofar, slaughtering, tosfos, zerikas hadam
Whose Money is it?
By: Reb Yechezkel Khayyat
The Gemora (Bava Kamma 76a) discusses the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that something that can cause someone monetary loss is tantamount to being that person’s money. The Ra’avad rules like Rabbi Shimon, and therefore considers hekdesh for which the makdish is responsible (harei alai) to be the property of the makdish. Therefore, according to the Ra’avad, if someone steals such hekdesh, he must pay full damages (including kefel and dv’h) to the makdish.
The Rambam (Geneivah 2:1), however, rules like the Chachamim, as this is the anonymous Mishna’s position. Therefore, in all cases of hekdesh articles that are stolen, the thief is not liable to pay any damages to the makdish. The Rambam first states that one who steals from hekdesh does not pay kefel, and quotes the verse yeshalem shnaim l’reyeyhu’ – he should pay double to his peer, excluding hekdesh, which is not his peer. Then, the Rambam applies this equally to all hekdesh – irrespective of the makdish’s responsibility – and quotes the verse of v’gunav mibeis ha’ish – and it was stolen from the home of the man, excluding hekdesh, which is not a man.
Tosfos (63a rayayhu) ask why the Gemora on 62b uses reyeyhu to exclude hekdesh, while our Gemora uses the verse of ha’ish to exclude hekdesh. While Tosfos explains that both are actually being learned from reyeyhu, the Lechem Mishnah states that the Rambam was implicitly addressing this question by quoting the different verses. The verse of reyeyhu is the fundamental source for excluding hekdesh from theft payments. However, the extra verse of ha’ish is the source for our ruling that this applies to all hekdesh – whether the makdish is responsible for it or not.
The Rishonim and Achronim discuss the exact formulation and rationale behind Rabbi Shimon’s opinion. Some of the facets discussed are:
1. At what point is it considered money? Does this begin while it’s in the responsible person’s property, simply because it can cause him to lose money, or is it only once it’s been removed from his property?
2. Is the obligation of one who harms such an item simply because he has caused a monetary loss, or because the holder’s responsibility created a status of money in the abstract? Another formulation of this question is – when one pays for damage to such an article, is it because of the damage done (which now includes monetary loss), or because the item is considered the property of the holder?
3. The Gemora in Pesachim (5b-6a) discusses Rabbi Shimon’s opinion in the context of chametz on Pesach. The rule established by the braisa quoted there is that the chametz of a non Jew in a Jew’s possession is considered the Jew’s only if the Jew is responsible for it. The Gemora debates whether this is a function of Rabbi Shimon’s opinion, or an exception to the ruling of the Chachamim. The exact application of this rule in the case of Chametz may depend on this debate. If chametz is a function of Rabbi Shimon’s opinion, it may be subject to the possible limitations and definitions of Rabbi Shimon’s general position on such items. If, however, it is an exception to the ruling of the Chachamim, the Torah is telling us a more sweeping statement about how we determine ownership for chametz on Pesach. One ramification of this may be how responsible for the Chametz a Jew must have in order to be obligated to remove it.
See the Ketzos Hachoshen 386:7 and Afikei Yam 2:10 for more detailed discussion of these topics.
Posted by Avromi at 3/17/2009 07:38:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: chametz, daf yomi, Gemora Bava Kamma 76, Gemora Pesachim 6, hekdesh, money, rambam, tosfos
Friday, March 13, 2009
Migu
It was stated (Bava Kamma 72): Abaye said: A zomeim witness is disqualified (for any other testimony) retroactively (from the time that he testified). Rava said: He is only disqualified from the time that he is found to be a zomeim.
The Gemora explains: Abaye said that he is disqualified retroactively, for it is at that time that he became an evildoer, for the Torah states: Do not place your hand with an evildoer to be a corrupt witness. Rava said that he is only disqualified from the time that he is found to be a zomeim, for his disqualification is itself a novelty (so why should we stretch it). This is because the two sets of witnesses are two against two, so why should we listen to the second set more than the first? Accordingly, we can only apply the disqualification novelty from the time that they become zomemin.
Tosfos asks: Why is it such a novelty that we believe the second set of witnesses over the first? They should be believed, for they have a migu that they could have disqualified the first set by testifying that the initial witnesses are thieves (“believe us when we say that they were with us, for if we would have wanted to lie, we could have said that they are thieves!”)!?
Tosfos answers that we do not apply the principle of “migu” by two witnesses, for each one of them is not aware as to what the other one is thinking.
Furthermore, it is similar to a “migu against witnesses,” where the migu is not effective, and since in this case, the first set of witnesses are testifying that they did in fact witness the event, they are clashing with the migu of the second set. In such types of cases, a migu is not effective.
The Tzlach answers that this is a migu for half a claim and that is why it is not effective. If they would have only testified that the initial witnesses were thieves, they would become disqualified, but they would not be liable to pay at all. However, if they would testify that the first set was not there at the time that they said the event took place, they would be disqualified and they would be liable to pay. Accordingly, the migu principle would not apply in this case.
Read more!
The Gemora explains: Abaye said that he is disqualified retroactively, for it is at that time that he became an evildoer, for the Torah states: Do not place your hand with an evildoer to be a corrupt witness. Rava said that he is only disqualified from the time that he is found to be a zomeim, for his disqualification is itself a novelty (so why should we stretch it). This is because the two sets of witnesses are two against two, so why should we listen to the second set more than the first? Accordingly, we can only apply the disqualification novelty from the time that they become zomemin.
Tosfos asks: Why is it such a novelty that we believe the second set of witnesses over the first? They should be believed, for they have a migu that they could have disqualified the first set by testifying that the initial witnesses are thieves (“believe us when we say that they were with us, for if we would have wanted to lie, we could have said that they are thieves!”)!?
Tosfos answers that we do not apply the principle of “migu” by two witnesses, for each one of them is not aware as to what the other one is thinking.
Furthermore, it is similar to a “migu against witnesses,” where the migu is not effective, and since in this case, the first set of witnesses are testifying that they did in fact witness the event, they are clashing with the migu of the second set. In such types of cases, a migu is not effective.
The Tzlach answers that this is a migu for half a claim and that is why it is not effective. If they would have only testified that the initial witnesses were thieves, they would become disqualified, but they would not be liable to pay at all. However, if they would testify that the first set was not there at the time that they said the event took place, they would be disqualified and they would be liable to pay. Accordingly, the migu principle would not apply in this case.
Posted by Avromi at 3/13/2009 03:14:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: daf yomi, Gemora Bava Kamma 72, migu, tosfos, Tzlach, witnesses
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Insights on Bava Kamma - 69
Bittul
Tosfos (69a kol hanilkat) discusses how the part of the vineyard that grew after the Tznuim’s declaration did not prohibit the rest of the vine. Tosfos assumes that the regular rules of bittul – nullification of a prohibition in a larger mixture – would not apply, since the fourth year vineyard is a davar sheyesh lo matirin – a prohibition which will become permitted. See the Rama YD 102:4 for a conflicting opinion.
Cuthean produce vs. D’mai
There is a dispute among the Tannaim whether Cutheans are Halachically Jewish, but just less trustworthy, or not Jewish at all. This depends on whether we classify them as Geirei Arayos - converts only due to fear of lions - or Geirei Emes - true converts. (See Tosfos Chulin on how to reconcile the second opinion with the verses in Melachim that state the history of the Cutheans). The Rishonim explain that the author of the braisa in our Gemora holds that the Cutheans are Jews, but just not trustworthy. Their produce is still different than D’mai, the produce of Amei Haaretz, on which there is a doubt as to some of the tithes. D’mai is most likely tithed, but the Sages instituted an assumption of some tithes not taken. Since it’s a special stringency, there are areas where the Sages allowed leniency (e.g., poor people can eat it, it can be separated on twilight Friday night). However, the produce of the Cutheans are considered definitely not tithed, and these leniencies do not apply.
Ye’ush vs. Hefker
The Rishonim question why a person should have to declare the extra fallen sheaves to be hefker for the poor people. Presumably, the owners - who are ready to declare hefker on these sheaves - have given up on them, and such despair (ye’ush) is sufficient for someone to take ownership. Even those opinions earlier in the perek who do not accept ye’ush to transfer ownership, will agree that changing possession together with ye’ush will. Tosfos (69a kol shelaktu) answers that ye’ush will effectuate ownership, but not remove the need for tithes. Tithes are not necessary for hefker, since the Torah states that tithes should be given to the Levi "ki ein lo chelek v’nachala imach" - because he does not have a portion and inheritance with you. This implies that hefker, where the Levi has equal rights with you and everyone else, will not require tithes. Ye’ush, however, will only transfer the grain to the poor, but not give the Levi (or anyone else) rights to the sheaves. In addition, Tosfos states that the ye’ush here is only vis a vis the poor people, and is no better than hefker only to the poor, which is not considered hefker at all.
Read more!
Tosfos (69a kol hanilkat) discusses how the part of the vineyard that grew after the Tznuim’s declaration did not prohibit the rest of the vine. Tosfos assumes that the regular rules of bittul – nullification of a prohibition in a larger mixture – would not apply, since the fourth year vineyard is a davar sheyesh lo matirin – a prohibition which will become permitted. See the Rama YD 102:4 for a conflicting opinion.
Cuthean produce vs. D’mai
There is a dispute among the Tannaim whether Cutheans are Halachically Jewish, but just less trustworthy, or not Jewish at all. This depends on whether we classify them as Geirei Arayos - converts only due to fear of lions - or Geirei Emes - true converts. (See Tosfos Chulin on how to reconcile the second opinion with the verses in Melachim that state the history of the Cutheans). The Rishonim explain that the author of the braisa in our Gemora holds that the Cutheans are Jews, but just not trustworthy. Their produce is still different than D’mai, the produce of Amei Haaretz, on which there is a doubt as to some of the tithes. D’mai is most likely tithed, but the Sages instituted an assumption of some tithes not taken. Since it’s a special stringency, there are areas where the Sages allowed leniency (e.g., poor people can eat it, it can be separated on twilight Friday night). However, the produce of the Cutheans are considered definitely not tithed, and these leniencies do not apply.
Ye’ush vs. Hefker
The Rishonim question why a person should have to declare the extra fallen sheaves to be hefker for the poor people. Presumably, the owners - who are ready to declare hefker on these sheaves - have given up on them, and such despair (ye’ush) is sufficient for someone to take ownership. Even those opinions earlier in the perek who do not accept ye’ush to transfer ownership, will agree that changing possession together with ye’ush will. Tosfos (69a kol shelaktu) answers that ye’ush will effectuate ownership, but not remove the need for tithes. Tithes are not necessary for hefker, since the Torah states that tithes should be given to the Levi "ki ein lo chelek v’nachala imach" - because he does not have a portion and inheritance with you. This implies that hefker, where the Levi has equal rights with you and everyone else, will not require tithes. Ye’ush, however, will only transfer the grain to the poor, but not give the Levi (or anyone else) rights to the sheaves. In addition, Tosfos states that the ye’ush here is only vis a vis the poor people, and is no better than hefker only to the poor, which is not considered hefker at all.
Posted by Avromi at 3/12/2009 05:14:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: cutheans, daf yomi, demai, Gemora Bava Kamma 69, hefker, leket, poor man, tosfos, yi'ush
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Chasing Away a Lion
By: Rabbi Avrohom Adler
Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.
The Mishna had stated: If it fell into a garden and benefitted from it, he must pay for what it benefitted.
Rav said (Bava Kamma 58a) that the Mishna’s ruling does not only apply if the animal eats, and therefore pays what it benefited. One might think that if it fell and was struck by the produce (reducing the impact of the fall) that the produce which was damaged should be akin to a case of chasing away a lion from his friend’s possessions (for the owner of the produce is doing a mitzvah by saving his fellow’s animal from injury), and therefore he should not even have to pay what he benefited. This is why the Mishna says that even in a case where the animal fell, the owner must pay for its benefit.
The Gemora asks: Indeed, why don’t we say that this is akin to a case of chasing away a lion from his friend’s possessions (where the friend does not have to pay for the chasing)?
The Gemora answers: The case of chasing away the lion was done (knowingly and) willingly, unlike the produce acting as a cushion that was not done with the consent of the owner of the produce.
Alternatively, the Gemora answers: When one chases away a lion, he does not incur a loss, as opposed to this case where he did incur a loss (as his produce was crushed by the animal’s fall).
Tosfos rules that the lion chaser is not entitled for compensation only in cases where it is not definite that the lion will cause a loss, for instance, where the lion is far away from the sheep, but he is concerned that it might come closer. However, if he would chase away the lion when the damage is imminent, for instance, where the sheep is already in the mouth of the lion, he is entitled for compensation.
Tosfos cites several proofs for this. One of the proofs is from a Gemora in Bava Metzia (31b) which rules that one who is returning a lost article is entitled to be compensated for his time. This, explains Tosfos, is because of the fact that if the finder will not get involved with the lost article, it will cause a definite loss to the owner.
The Rashba disagrees with the proof: He says that the only time he is not entitled to be compensated is if he gets involved willingly. By the case of returning a lost article, he has no choice, for the Torah commands him to pick it up and return it. The Torah does not instruct people to lose their own money in order to return someone else’s.
Read more!
Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.
The Mishna had stated: If it fell into a garden and benefitted from it, he must pay for what it benefitted.
Rav said (Bava Kamma 58a) that the Mishna’s ruling does not only apply if the animal eats, and therefore pays what it benefited. One might think that if it fell and was struck by the produce (reducing the impact of the fall) that the produce which was damaged should be akin to a case of chasing away a lion from his friend’s possessions (for the owner of the produce is doing a mitzvah by saving his fellow’s animal from injury), and therefore he should not even have to pay what he benefited. This is why the Mishna says that even in a case where the animal fell, the owner must pay for its benefit.
The Gemora asks: Indeed, why don’t we say that this is akin to a case of chasing away a lion from his friend’s possessions (where the friend does not have to pay for the chasing)?
The Gemora answers: The case of chasing away the lion was done (knowingly and) willingly, unlike the produce acting as a cushion that was not done with the consent of the owner of the produce.
Alternatively, the Gemora answers: When one chases away a lion, he does not incur a loss, as opposed to this case where he did incur a loss (as his produce was crushed by the animal’s fall).
Tosfos rules that the lion chaser is not entitled for compensation only in cases where it is not definite that the lion will cause a loss, for instance, where the lion is far away from the sheep, but he is concerned that it might come closer. However, if he would chase away the lion when the damage is imminent, for instance, where the sheep is already in the mouth of the lion, he is entitled for compensation.
Tosfos cites several proofs for this. One of the proofs is from a Gemora in Bava Metzia (31b) which rules that one who is returning a lost article is entitled to be compensated for his time. This, explains Tosfos, is because of the fact that if the finder will not get involved with the lost article, it will cause a definite loss to the owner.
The Rashba disagrees with the proof: He says that the only time he is not entitled to be compensated is if he gets involved willingly. By the case of returning a lost article, he has no choice, for the Torah commands him to pick it up and return it. The Torah does not instruct people to lose their own money in order to return someone else’s.
Posted by Avromi at 2/25/2009 06:16:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: chasing away a lion, daf yomi, Gemora Bava Kamma 58, Gemora Bava Metzia 31, returning a lost object, tosfos
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Haman and his Daughter
Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here. We now have a “less than ten minute” audio summary as well.
Rava inquired (Bava Kamma 17) : If an animal pounced upon a utensil but it didn’t break, and it rolled to another place and broke there, what is the halachah? Do we consider the beginning of the process, and it is regarded as if the animal itself broke the utensil (in which case the owner will be liable to pay in full), or do we look at when the utensil actual broke, and then it would be regarded as a case of “pebbles” (in which case the owner will only be liable to pay for half the damages)?
The Gemora attempts to resolve this from that which Rabbah said: If one threw a utensil from the top of a roof and someone else comes and breaks it with a stick, the second person is exempt from liability, for we can say to him (the owner of the utensil), “He broke a broken utensil.” [Evidently, Rabbah considers the beginning of the process, and that is why the utensil is regarded as broken even before it actually hits the ground and breaks!]
The Gemora rejects the proof, by saying that although it was clear to Rabbah (that we consider the beginning of the process), it was still a matter of inquiry to Rava.
Tosfos writes that if one throws a stone or shoots an arrow onto a utensil, and someone else comes and breaks the utensil first, the second person is definitely liable to pay for the damages. We cannot say in this case that “he broke a broken utensil,” for if the utensil would be considered broken immediately, there would never apply the halachah of “pebbles,” for we would always consider the utensil to be broken as soon as the pebbles shoot out from the animal. Tosfos concludes that the logical distinction between throwing a stone at a utensil and throwing the utensil itself is a simple matter.
The Rogatchover Gaon uses this Tosfos to explain a Gemora in Megillah (16a). As Haman was leading Mordechai through the streets, they passed by Haman’s house. Haman’s daughter witnessed the scene and thought that Mordechai was leading her father. She took the bowl from the bathroom and threw it on her father’s head. When she realized that it was her father, she fell off the roof and died. This explains that which is written: And Haman hurried to his house, mourning and with his head covered. He was in “mourning” on account of his daughter, and “his head was covered” because of what occurred to him.
The question is asked that the sequence is reversed!? The verse should have stated that “his head was covered” and then he was in “mourning” Why was he mourning before his head was covered?
The Rogatchover Gaon suggests the following: Immediately after Haman’s daughter threw the bowl down, she realized her mistake, and she threw herself off the roof before the bowl landed on her father’s head. According to Tosfos, who distinguishes between when the utensil was set into motion, and when the stone was set into motion, we can explain as follows: She (like the utensil) was considered dead at the beginning of her descent; however, Haman’s head was not covered until the bowl actually landed on his head. This explains why the verse mentions that he was in mourning even before his head was covered.
Rava inquired (Bava Kamma 17) : If an animal pounced upon a utensil but it didn’t break, and it rolled to another place and broke there, what is the halachah? Do we consider the beginning of the process, and it is regarded as if the animal itself broke the utensil (in which case the owner will be liable to pay in full), or do we look at when the utensil actual broke, and then it would be regarded as a case of “pebbles” (in which case the owner will only be liable to pay for half the damages)?
The Gemora attempts to resolve this from that which Rabbah said: If one threw a utensil from the top of a roof and someone else comes and breaks it with a stick, the second person is exempt from liability, for we can say to him (the owner of the utensil), “He broke a broken utensil.” [Evidently, Rabbah considers the beginning of the process, and that is why the utensil is regarded as broken even before it actually hits the ground and breaks!]
The Gemora rejects the proof, by saying that although it was clear to Rabbah (that we consider the beginning of the process), it was still a matter of inquiry to Rava.
Tosfos writes that if one throws a stone or shoots an arrow onto a utensil, and someone else comes and breaks the utensil first, the second person is definitely liable to pay for the damages. We cannot say in this case that “he broke a broken utensil,” for if the utensil would be considered broken immediately, there would never apply the halachah of “pebbles,” for we would always consider the utensil to be broken as soon as the pebbles shoot out from the animal. Tosfos concludes that the logical distinction between throwing a stone at a utensil and throwing the utensil itself is a simple matter.
The Rogatchover Gaon uses this Tosfos to explain a Gemora in Megillah (16a). As Haman was leading Mordechai through the streets, they passed by Haman’s house. Haman’s daughter witnessed the scene and thought that Mordechai was leading her father. She took the bowl from the bathroom and threw it on her father’s head. When she realized that it was her father, she fell off the roof and died. This explains that which is written: And Haman hurried to his house, mourning and with his head covered. He was in “mourning” on account of his daughter, and “his head was covered” because of what occurred to him.
The question is asked that the sequence is reversed!? The verse should have stated that “his head was covered” and then he was in “mourning” Why was he mourning before his head was covered?
The Rogatchover Gaon suggests the following: Immediately after Haman’s daughter threw the bowl down, she realized her mistake, and she threw herself off the roof before the bowl landed on her father’s head. According to Tosfos, who distinguishes between when the utensil was set into motion, and when the stone was set into motion, we can explain as follows: She (like the utensil) was considered dead at the beginning of her descent; however, Haman’s head was not covered until the bowl actually landed on his head. This explains why the verse mentions that he was in mourning even before his head was covered.
Read more!
Posted by Avromi at 1/15/2009 07:52:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: daf yomi, damaging, Gemora Bava Kamma 17, Gemora Megilah 16, haman, Rogatchover Gaon, tosfos
Assessments
Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here. We now have a “less than ten minute” audio summary as well.
by Reb Avi Lebovitz http://www.hearos.blogspot.com
The Gemora (Bava Kamma 11) concludes that if one steals an item and ruins it, he is not able to simply return the broken item and pay for the damage; rather, he has to pay in cash for the entire item, or replace it with an equivalent item. However, when one damages, or borrows an item and it gets damaged by accident, he can simply return the item and pay the depreciation amount. Why? Tosfos explains that when one steals an item, they immediately acquire the item by removing it from the domain of its owner, and therefore are liable to reimburse the owner for the entire item (not just the difference from the time it was stolen and the time it is returned). But, when one damages, he is only responsible for the amount that the item depreciated due to the damage, but whatever remains still belongs to the original owner. Based on this, a borrower, who is responsible if an accident happens, since he is regarded as acquiring the object when he borrows it, he therefore is responsible for the entire item.
Why do we say that a borrower is making a kinyan and acquiring the object at the time that he accepts responsibility? Just as a paid custodian is only responsible for what was stolen but he can return whatever remains and just pay the difference, a borrower should be able to do the same? Tosfos understands that since a borrower is responsible for unavoidable accidents, his responsibility cannot begin at the time that the accident occurs because one cannot be liable for a complete accident. The only way that a borrower can be responsible for an accident is because he makes a kinyan on the object when he borrows it. Based on this, there is a major difference between the liability of a (paid or unpaid) custodian and that of a borrower. A custodian is responsible for their negligence in not protecting the object, and that obligation begins at the time of the incident. A borrower, on the other hand, is not responsible for the incident, but responsible at the moment he borrows it to return the item as it is at that moment.
by Reb Avi Lebovitz http://www.hearos.blogspot.com
The Gemora (Bava Kamma 11) concludes that if one steals an item and ruins it, he is not able to simply return the broken item and pay for the damage; rather, he has to pay in cash for the entire item, or replace it with an equivalent item. However, when one damages, or borrows an item and it gets damaged by accident, he can simply return the item and pay the depreciation amount. Why? Tosfos explains that when one steals an item, they immediately acquire the item by removing it from the domain of its owner, and therefore are liable to reimburse the owner for the entire item (not just the difference from the time it was stolen and the time it is returned). But, when one damages, he is only responsible for the amount that the item depreciated due to the damage, but whatever remains still belongs to the original owner. Based on this, a borrower, who is responsible if an accident happens, since he is regarded as acquiring the object when he borrows it, he therefore is responsible for the entire item.
Why do we say that a borrower is making a kinyan and acquiring the object at the time that he accepts responsibility? Just as a paid custodian is only responsible for what was stolen but he can return whatever remains and just pay the difference, a borrower should be able to do the same? Tosfos understands that since a borrower is responsible for unavoidable accidents, his responsibility cannot begin at the time that the accident occurs because one cannot be liable for a complete accident. The only way that a borrower can be responsible for an accident is because he makes a kinyan on the object when he borrows it. Based on this, there is a major difference between the liability of a (paid or unpaid) custodian and that of a borrower. A custodian is responsible for their negligence in not protecting the object, and that obligation begins at the time of the incident. A borrower, on the other hand, is not responsible for the incident, but responsible at the moment he borrows it to return the item as it is at that moment.
Read more!
Posted by Avromi at 1/15/2009 06:58:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: borrower, custodian, daf yomi, Gemora Bava Kamma, Gemora Bava Kamma 11, kinyan, shomer, tosfos
Deriving Benefit from a Corpse
Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here. We now have a “less than ten minute” audio summary as well.
By Reb Avi Lebovitz Hearos on the Daf
Tosfos (Bava Kamma 10) asks: Why do we need a special verse to exempt a person who is killed by falling in a pit? It should be included in the exposition of “and the corpse shall belong to him”!? This means that the owner of the pit is only liable when the corpse can belong to the owner of the animal. Just as we exclude an animal that is a disqualified sacrifice, which cannot belong entirely to its owner (since certain restrictions apply to it even after it is redeemed), we should exclude man as well, since it is forbidden to derive pleasure from a corpse!?
Tosfos answers that from this verse alone, I would have said that the owner of the pit is liable for damaging a gentile, since one is permitted to derive pleasure from his corpse, so we need a verse to exempt the pit owner for the death of all people.
Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 349:1) writes that it is forbidden to derive benefit even from a gentile corpse. The Nekudas Hakesef quotes this from a Teshuvas Harashba. But, the Nikudas Hakesef points out that both our Tosfos and the Magid Mishnah hold that only a Jewish corpse is forbidden to derive pleasure from.
The Vilna Gaon proves that Tosfos is correct from David who used the foreskins from the Philistines to betroth the daughter of King Shaul. He also points out that the Rashba in his commentary on the Daf says like Tosfos.
However, the Pischei Teshuva reconciles Tosfos and the Rashba by saying that it is not Biblically forbidden, and that is why a special verse is needed to exempt the pit owner when a person is killed in a bor, but it is Rabbinically forbidden to derive pleasure from any corpse.
By Reb Avi Lebovitz Hearos on the Daf
Tosfos (Bava Kamma 10) asks: Why do we need a special verse to exempt a person who is killed by falling in a pit? It should be included in the exposition of “and the corpse shall belong to him”!? This means that the owner of the pit is only liable when the corpse can belong to the owner of the animal. Just as we exclude an animal that is a disqualified sacrifice, which cannot belong entirely to its owner (since certain restrictions apply to it even after it is redeemed), we should exclude man as well, since it is forbidden to derive pleasure from a corpse!?
Tosfos answers that from this verse alone, I would have said that the owner of the pit is liable for damaging a gentile, since one is permitted to derive pleasure from his corpse, so we need a verse to exempt the pit owner for the death of all people.
Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 349:1) writes that it is forbidden to derive benefit even from a gentile corpse. The Nekudas Hakesef quotes this from a Teshuvas Harashba. But, the Nikudas Hakesef points out that both our Tosfos and the Magid Mishnah hold that only a Jewish corpse is forbidden to derive pleasure from.
The Vilna Gaon proves that Tosfos is correct from David who used the foreskins from the Philistines to betroth the daughter of King Shaul. He also points out that the Rashba in his commentary on the Daf says like Tosfos.
However, the Pischei Teshuva reconciles Tosfos and the Rashba by saying that it is not Biblically forbidden, and that is why a special verse is needed to exempt the pit owner when a person is killed in a bor, but it is Rabbinically forbidden to derive pleasure from any corpse.
Read more!
Posted by Avromi at 1/15/2009 06:51:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: corpse, daf yomi, deriving benefit, Gemora Bava Kamma, Gemora Bava Kamma 10, nikudas hakesef, pischei teshuva, rashba, Shulchan Aruch, tosfos, Vilna Gaon
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)