Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 31, 2016 | ื›ืดื˜ ื‘ืชืฉืจื™ ืชืฉืขืดื–

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Metzia 35

Rav Huna holds that the one who claims the item was lost of stolen, must swear that the item is no longer in his possession. ย The gemara raises a contradiction from a braita and 4 answers are given (one is rejected). ย A case is brought where one claimed jewels were lost and they took a palace of his instead (when he refused to pay). ย When he then produced the “lost” item which had gone up in value, Rav Nachman said to give him his palace back and return the jewels to the owner. ย Rava tried to agrue with this psak based on our mishna saying that he should have acquired rights to the appreciation by having paid for them. ย But then he himself realizes why the cases are different. ย In connection with this, the gemara raises the issue regarding a loan – if it gets repaid by foreclosing on land and when the borrower gets the money to pay, can he gets his land back? ย Is there a time limit? ย The gemara holds that one can get back his land and there is no time limit. ย However the gemara explains in what cases this law applies and in which circumstances it would not apply. ย The last issue on this topic is at what point of a foreclosure does the creditor get rights to proceeds of the land? ย One who rents an animal and then lends it to someone else and it dies in a typical manner (for which a borrower is responsible and a renter is not) – there is a debate about to whom the borrower pays – to the renter (in the event that he swears that it died in a typical manner) or to the original owner. ย The gemara questions exactly by what mechanism does he acquire rights to the animal?

Study Guide Bava Metzia 35

ืื™ืชื ืœื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืžืฉืชื‘ืข ืžืœื•ื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื• ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืฆื™ ืžืคื™ืง ืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืฉื™ืฉ ืขื“ื™ื ืฉื ืฉืจืคื”

the statement of Rav Huna is so, once the creditor takes an oath that the collateral is not in his possession, how can he produce it thereafter? Rava said: The mishna is referring to a case where there are witnesses that the collateral was burned. Therefore, the creditor need not take an oath that it is not in his possession.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžื”ื™ื›ื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื” ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืฉื™ืฉ ืขื“ื™ื ืฉื ื’ื ื‘ื” ืกื•ืฃ ืกื•ืฃ ืžื”ื™ื›ื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื” ื“ื˜ืจื— ื•ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื”

The Gemara asks: If so, the question remains: Why is the obligation to take the oath transferred from the debtor to the creditor? There is no concern that the creditor will produce the collateral. From where will he bring it if it was burned? Rather, Rav Yosef said: The mishna is referring to a case where there are witnesses that the collateral was stolen. The Gemara asks: Ultimately, in that case too, from where will the creditor bring the collateral if it was stolen? The Gemara answers: Although the collateral had been stolen, it is possible the creditor will exert himself to locate the thief and bring the collateral, thereby proving that the debtor took a false oath.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื›ื™ ืžืฉืชื‘ืข ืžืœื•ื” ื ืžื™ ืœื˜ืจื— ืœื•ื” ื•ืœื™ืชื™ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืžืœื•ื” ื™ื“ืข ืžืืŸ ืงื ืขื™ื™ืœ ื•ื ืคืง ื‘ื‘ื™ืชื™ื” ื•ืื–ื™ืœ ื•ื˜ืจื— ื•ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื” ืืœื ืœื•ื” ืžื™ ื™ื“ืข ืžืืŸ ืขื™ื™ืœ ื•ื ืคื™ืง ื‘ื‘ื™ืชื™ื” ื“ืžืœื•ื”

The Gemara asks: If so, in a case where the creditor takes an oath as well, let the debtor exert himself and bring the collateral, thereby proving that the creditor took a false oath. The Gemara answers: This is unlikely. Granted, there is concern that the creditor will recover the stolen collateral, as he knows who enters and exits his house, so he may have some inkling of the identity of the thief. And therefore, he goes and exerts himself and brings the collateral. But with regard to the debtor, does he know who enters and exits the creditorโ€™s house? He has no inkling who the thief might be.

ืื‘ื™ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉืžื ื™ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืœื• ืื—ืจ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืžืฆืืชื™ื” ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ื–ื” ื ืฉื‘ืข ื•ื–ื” ื ืฉื‘ืข ื–ื” ื ืฉื‘ืข ืฉืื™ื ื” ื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื• ื•ื–ื” ื ืฉื‘ืข ื›ืžื” ื”ื™ื” ืฉื•ื” ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืžื™ ื ืฉื‘ืข ืชื—ื™ืœื” ืžืœื•ื” ื ืฉื‘ืข ืชื—ื™ืœื” ืฉืžื ื™ืฉื‘ืข ื–ื” ื•ื™ื•ืฆื™ื ื”ืœื” ืืช ื”ืคืงื“ื•ืŸ

Abaye says: Although the creditor takes an oath that the collateral is not in his possession, the obligation to take an oath for partial admission is transferred from the debtor to the creditor, as the Sages issued a decree lest the debtor take the oath for his partial admission and the creditor claim and say to him: I found the collateral after you took the oath. Rav Ashi says: This party, the creditor, takes an oath and that party, the debtor, takes an oath. This party, the creditor, takes an oath that the collateral is not in his possession. And that party, the debtor, takes an oath as to how much the collateral was worth. And this is what the mishna is saying: Who takes an oath first? The creditor takes an oath first that the collateral is not in his possession, lest this party, i.e., the debtor, take an oath and the other party, i.e., the creditor, produce the deposit.

ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจ ืชื—ืœื™ืคื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉื ื“ืกื™ืคื ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื ืœืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืกืœืข ื”ืœื•ื™ืชื ื™ ืขืœื™ื• ืฉืชื™ื ื”ื™ื” ืฉื•ื” ื•ื”ืœื” ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื›ื™ ืืœื ืกืœืข ื”ืœื•ื™ืชื™ืš ืขืœื™ื• ืกืœืข ื”ื™ื” ืฉื•ื” ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ืื ืื™ืชื ืœื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืžื’ื• ื“ืžืฉืชื‘ืข ืžืœื•ื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื• ืœื™ืฉืชื‘ืข ื ืžื™ ืื’ื™ืœื’ื•ืœ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื›ืžื” ื”ื™ื” ืฉื•ื”

Rav Huna bar Taแธฅlifa said in the name of Rava: The first part of the latter clause of the mishna is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna, who said that the creditor is obligated to take an oath that the collateral is not in his possession. In that clause, the debtor said: You loaned me a sela on the basis of that collateral, and the collateral was worth two sela, so now you owe me a sela. And the other party, i.e., the creditor, said: That is not the case, rather, I loaned you a sela on the basis of that collateral and the collateral was worth a sela. In this case, the creditor is exempt. And if the statement of Rav Huna is so, once the creditor takes an oath that the collateral is not in his possession, let him also take an oath by means of extension of an oath as to how much the collateral was worth, as one obligated to take an oath can be forced to take other oaths as well.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจื™ืชื” ืœืฉืžืขืชื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื•ืืžืจ ืœื™ ืชื”ื ื‘ืžืืžื™ื ื• ื•ื ื”ืžื ื™ื” ืœื•ื” ืœืžืœื•ื” ื ืžื™ ื‘ื”ื ื›ืžื” ื”ื•ื” ืฉื•ื” ืœื ืงื™ื ืœื™ื” ื‘ื’ื•ื™ื” ื•ื ื”ืžื ื™ื” ืžืœื•ื” ืœืœื•ื” ื“ืงื™ื ืœื™ื” ื‘ื’ื•ื™ื” ืœื ืžื”ื™ืžืŸ ืœื™ื”

Rav Ashi said: I stated this halakha before Rav Kahana, and he said to me: Let the halakha in the mishna be understood with regard to a case where the debtor trusts the creditor that the collateral is no longer in his possession. The Gemara challenges: But if so, let the debtor trust the creditor with regard to this matter of how much the collateral was worth. The Gemara explains: The creditor is not certain about the value of the collateral, as the item did not belong to him, which is why the debtor does not rely upon him to take an oath concerning its value. The Gemara challenges: But let the creditor trust the debtor, as the debtor is certain about the value of the collateral, as it is his. The Gemara answers: The creditor does not trust the debtor.

ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืœื•ื” ื“ืžื”ื™ืžืŸ ืœื™ื” ืœืžืœื•ื” ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืžืœื•ื” ื“ืœื ืžื”ื™ืžืŸ ืœื™ื” ืœืœื•ื” ืœื•ื” ืžืงื™ื™ื ื‘ื™ื” ื‘ืžืœื•ื” ืชืžืช ื™ืฉืจื™ื ืชื ื—ื ืžืœื•ื” ืžืงื™ื™ื ื‘ื™ื” ื‘ืœื•ื” ื•ืกืœืฃ ื‘ื•ื’ื“ื™ื ื™ืฉื“ื

The Gemara asks: And what is different so that the debtor trusts the creditor that the collateral is not in his possession, and what is different that the creditor does not trust the debtor to accurately assess the value of the collateral? The Gemara answers: The debtor sees in the creditor fulfillment of the verse: โ€œThe integrity of the upright shall guide themโ€ (Proverbs 11:3). He believes that God blesses the creditor with wealth to lend because he is an upright person. The creditor sees in the debtor fulfillment of the end of that verse: โ€œBut the perverseness of the faithless shall destroy themโ€ (Proverbs 11:3). The creditor believes that God made the debtor poor because he is a deceitful person.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ื“ืืคืงื™ื“ ื›ื™ืคื™ ื’ื‘ื™ื” ื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื‘ ืœื™ ื›ื™ืคื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื ื™ื“ืขื ื ื”ื™ื›ื ืื•ืชื‘ื™ื ื”ื• ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื›ืœ ืœื ื™ื“ืขื ื ืคืฉื™ืขื•ืชื ื”ื™ื ื–ื™ืœ ืฉืœื™ื ืœื ืฉื™ืœื ืื–ืœ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืื’ื‘ื™ื” ืœืืคื“ื ื™ื” ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืœืกื•ืฃ ืื™ืฉืชื›ื— ื›ื™ืคื™ ื•ืื™ืงื•ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืจื™ ื›ื™ืคื™ ืœืžืจื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ื”ื“ืจื ืืคื“ื ื ืœืžืจื”

ยง The Gemara relates: A certain man deposited jewels [keifei] with another. When the period of the deposit was complete, the owner of the jewels said to the bailee: Give me the jewels. The bailee said to him in response: I do not know where I placed them. The matter came before Rav Naแธฅman, who said to the bailee: Every circumstance where a bailee claims: I do not know where I placed them, is in and of itself negligence. Go pay him for the jewels. The bailee did not pay. Rav Naแธฅman went and gave instructions to repossess his palace and sell it to pay for the jewels. Ultimately, not only were the jewels found, but they had also increased in value. Rav Naแธฅman said: The jewels return to their initial owner, and the palace returns to its owner, and the bailee does not profit from the increase in the value of the jewels.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื•ื” ื™ืชื™ื‘ื ื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื•ืคืจืงื™ืŸ ื”ืžืคืงื™ื“ ื”ื•ื” ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืฉื™ืœื ื•ืœื ืจืฆื” ืœื™ืฉื‘ืข ื•ืœื ืื”ื“ืจ ืœื™

Rava said: I was sitting at that time studying before Rav Naแธฅman, and our chapter of study was this chapter: One who deposits, which is relevant to this case. And I said to Rav Naแธฅman: Isnโ€™t this the case of a bailee who paid the owner and did not wish to take an oath? And it is the bailee who receives the double payment, ostensibly because once he paid, the owner transfers ownership of the item to him. And Rav Naแธฅman did not answer me, and he did well that he did not answer me, as the question was not worthy of an answer.

ื•ืฉืคื™ืจ ืขื‘ื“ ื“ืœื ืื”ื“ืจ ืœื™ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื”ืชื ืœื ืื˜ืจื—ื™ื” ืœื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ื”ื›ื ืื˜ืจื—ื™ื” ืœื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื

Rava continues: What is the reason he did not answer me? The reason is that the cases cannot be compared. There, in the case of the mishna, the bailee paid at his own initiative. He did not inconvenience the owner by compelling him to go to court. Therefore, the owner transfers ownership of the deposit to the bailee. Here, in the case involving the jewels, the bailee inconvenienced the owner and compelled him to go to court. Consequently, the owner does not transfer ownership of the deposit to the bailee.

ืœืžื™ืžืจื ื“ืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื“ืฉื•ืžื ื”ื“ืจ ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ืฉื•ืžื ื‘ื˜ืขื•ืช ื”ื•ื” ื“ืงื ื”ื•ื” ื›ื™ืคื™ ืžืขื™ืงืจื

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Rav Naแธฅman holds that after property is repossessed in order to pay an unpaid debt based on the courtโ€™s appraisal of the articleโ€™s value, it is returned if the debtor pays the debt? The Gemara rejects that conclusion: In general, the item is not returned. But it is different there, in the case of the jewels, as it was an erroneous appraisal, in that the jewels were in the possession of the bailee from the outset and he was merely unable to locate them.

ืืžืจื™ ื ื”ืจื“ืขื™ ืฉื•ืžื ื”ื“ืจ ืขื“ ืชืจื™ืกืจ ื™ืจื—ื™ ืฉืชื ื•ืืžืจ ืืžื™ืžืจ ืื ื ืžื ื”ืจื“ืขื ืื ื ื•ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ ืฉื•ืžื ื”ื“ืจ ืœืขื•ืœื ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ืฉื•ืžื ื”ื“ืจ ืœืขื•ืœื ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืขืฉื™ืช ื”ื™ืฉืจ ื•ื”ื˜ื•ื‘

With regard to the reversal of an appraisal, the Sages of Nehardeโ€™a say: After property is repossessed in order to pay an unpaid debt based on the courtโ€™s appraisal of the articleโ€™s value, it is returned to the debtor, provided he repays the debt from the time of the appraisal until the twelve months of the year have passed. And Ameimar said: I am from Nehardeโ€™a, and nevertheless, I hold that repossession based on an appraisal of an articleโ€™s value can always be returned. If the debtor pays his debt, he can reclaim his property at any point. The Gemara rules: And the halakha is that repossession based on an appraisal can always be returned, due to the fact that it is stated: โ€œAnd you shall do that which is right and goodโ€ (Deuteronomy 6:18). The owner of property appreciates his property more than another person would. Therefore, once the debtor repays his debt to the creditor, legal formalism should not prevent return of the debtorโ€™s property.

ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืฉืžื• ืœื™ื” ืœื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื•ืื–ืœ ืื™ื”ื• ื•ืฉืžื” ืœื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืœื ืขื“ื™ืฃ ืืช ืžื’ื‘ืจื ื“ืืชื™ืช ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื–ื‘ื ื” ืื•ืจืชื ื•ื™ื”ื‘ื” ื‘ืžืชื ื” ื•ื“ืื™ ื”ื ื™ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืื“ืขืชื ื“ืืจืขื ื ื—ื•ืช ื•ืœืื• ืื“ืขืชื ื“ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื ื—ื•ืช

ยง The Gemara clarifies related matters. It is obvious that if the court appraised property to repay a debt to a creditor, and this creditor went and had the property appraised and repaid his debt to his creditor, we say to the second creditor: Your rights are not superior to those of the man through whom you came to possess the property. Just as the first debtor can repay the debt and reclaim his property from his creditor, he can also reclaim the property from the creditor of his creditor. If a creditor who received appraised land sold it or bequeathed it to his heirs or gave it as a gift, the debtor cannot reclaim the land from those who acquired their land. It is certain that from the outset, when those people acquired the land, it was with the intent to acquire the land itself that they descended to it, and it was not with the intent to receive money that they descended to the land.

ืฉืžื• ืœื” ืœืืฉื” ื•ืื™ื ืกื™ื‘ื ืื• ืฉืžื• ืžื™ื ื” ื“ืืฉื” ื•ืื™ื ืกื™ื‘ื ื•ืžืชื” ื‘ืขืœ ื‘ื ื›ืกื™ ืืฉืชื• ืœื•ืงื— ื”ื•ื™ ืœื ืžื™ื”ื“ืจ ื•ืœื ืžื”ื“ืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื”

If the court appraised property to repay a debt to a woman and she then married, or if the court appraised property from a woman to repay her debt and she then married and died, since the legal status of a husband with regard to his wifeโ€™s property is that of a buyer, he does not return property that was appraised and repossessed to pay his wifeโ€™s debt. And we do not return to him property that was repossessed from his wife if he pays her debt.

ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืื•ืฉื ื”ืชืงื™ื ื• ื”ืืฉื” ืฉืžื›ืจื” ื‘ื ื›ืกื™ ืžืœื•ื’ ื‘ื—ื™ื™ ื‘ืขืœื” ื•ืžืชื” ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื™ื“ ื”ืœืงื•ื—ื•ืช

This is as Rabbi Yosei bar แธคanina said: In Usha the Sages instituted that in the case of a woman who sold part of her usufruct property during the life of her husband and she died, the husband repossesses the property from the purchasers. The property belongs to the wife, while the profits accrued after marriage belong to the husband. Therefore, the woman does not have the right to sell the property as long as they are married. If she sold the property and died, and her husband is her heir, the Sages instituted that his legal status is that of a buyer and not an heir. His rights to the land precede those of the subsequent buyers. He repossesses the land and reimburses them the sale price of the property.

ืื’ื‘ื™ื” ืื™ื”ื• ื‘ื—ื•ื‘ื• ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื•ืจื‘ื™ื ื ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ื”ื“ืจื” ื•ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ืœื ื”ื“ืจื”

With regard to a case where the debtor, not the court, authorized his creditor to repossess the land for his debt, and now he seeks to pay his debt and reclaim it, Rav Aแธฅa and Ravina disagree. One says: If he pays the debt, the repossession based on the appraisal is reversed and he reclaims the land. And one says: The repossession based on the appraisal is not reversed.

ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื ื”ื“ืจื” ืกื‘ืจ ื”ืื™ ื–ื‘ื™ื ื™ ืžืขืœื™ื ื”ื™ื ื“ื”ื ืžื“ืขืชื ื“ื ืคืฉื™ื” ืื’ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื“ืจื” ืกื‘ืจ ืœื ื–ื‘ื™ื ื™ ืžืขืœื™ื ื”ื•ื ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ืื’ื‘ื™ื” ืžื“ืขืชื™ื” ื•ืœื ืืชื ืœื“ื™ื ื ืžื—ืžืช ื›ื™ืกื•ืคื ื”ื•ื ื“ืื’ื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara elaborates: The one who says that the repossession based on the appraisal is not reversed holds that this is a full-fledged sale, as he authorized the repossession at his own initiative. Consequently, he cannot retract it. And the one who says that the repossession based on the appraisal is reversed holds that it is not a full-fledged sale. And the fact that he authorized the repossession at his initiative and did not wait to come to court for a ruling that his land be repossessed does not make it a full-fledged sale. It was only due to his desire to avoid embarrassment that he authorized the repossession.

ื•ืžืื™ืžืช ืื›ื™ืœ ืคื™ืจื™ ืจื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืžื›ื™ ืžื˜ื™ื ืื“ืจื›ืชื ืœื™ื“ื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืขื“ื™ื• ื‘ื—ืชื•ืžื™ื• ื–ื›ื™ืŸ ืœื•

The Gemara clarifies the halakhot of repossession: And when a creditor repossesses the debtorโ€™s land, from when does he consume the produce of that land? Rabba said: He consumes the produce from the time when the document of authorization reaches his possession. This is a document that authorizes him to repossess the property of the debtor in payment of the debt wherever that property is located. Abaye said: He need not wait until he receives that document. Rather, the documentโ€™s witnesses, with their signatures, acquire the debtorโ€™s land on his behalf. From the moment they sign the document, the land is his.

ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืžื›ื™ ืฉืœื™ืžื• ื™ืžื™ ืื›ืจื–ืชื

Rava said: He consumes the produce from the time when the days of proclamation conclude. After property belonging to the debtor is located, the court proclaims that the property will be auctioned to raise funds to repay the debt. Therefore, even after the document of authorization reaches him, the creditor is not entitled to the produce, as someone else may purchase it. If the creditor enters the highest bid, he is entitled to the produce.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืฉื•ื›ืจ ืคืจื” ืžื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ื”ืฉืื™ืœื” ืœืื—ืจ ื•ืžืชื” ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื™ืฉื‘ืข ื”ืฉื•ื›ืจ ืฉืžืชื” ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื•ื”ืฉื•ืืœ ื™ืฉืœื ืœืฉื•ื›ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ืœื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืกื—ื•ืจื” ื‘ืคืจืชื• ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืืœื ืชื—ื–ื•ืจ ืคืจื” ืœื‘ืขืœื™ื

MISHNA: In the case of one who rents a cow from another, and this renter then lends it to another person, and the cow dies in its typical manner, i.e., of natural causes, in the possession of the borrower, the renter takes an oath to the owner of the cow that the cow died in its typical manner, and the borrower pays the renter for the cow that he borrowed. A renter is exempt in a case of damage due to circumstances beyond his control, including death, but a borrower is liable to compensate the owner even for damage due to circumstances beyond his control. Rabbi Yosei said: How does the other party, i.e., the renter, do business with and profit from anotherโ€™s cow? Rather, the value of the cow should be returned to the owner. The renter need not take an oath, but the borrower must compensate the owner of the cow.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืื‘ื™ื™ ืžื›ื“ื™ ืฉื•ื›ืจ ื‘ืžืื™ ืงื ื™ ืœื”ืื™ ืคืจื” ื‘ืฉื‘ื•ืขื”

GEMARA: Rav Idi bar Avin said to Abaye: After all, with regard to the renter, with what does he acquire this cow to the extent that one who borrows the cow from him is liable to compensate him if it dies? He acquires it with an oath that he took to the owner of the cow that the cow died of natural causes.

ื•ื ื™ืžื ืœื™ื” ืžืฉื›ื™ืจ ืœืฉื•ื›ืจ ื“ืœ ืื ืช ื•ื“ืœ ืฉื‘ื•ืขืชืš ื•ืื ื ืžืฉืชืขื™ื ื ื“ื™ื ื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ืฉื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ ืกื‘ืจืช ืฉื•ื›ืจ ื‘ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืงื ืงื ื™ ืœื” ืžืฉืขืช ืžื™ืชื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืงื ื™ ื•ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื›ื“ื™ ืœื”ืคื™ืก ื“ืขืชื• ืฉืœ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช

The Gemara asks: But since the acquisition is effected by the renterโ€™s oath, let the one who rented his animal for hire say to the renter: Remove yourself and remove your oath. I do not want to deal with you at all in this case, and I will litigate with the borrower to recover my cow. Abaye said to Rav Idi bar Avin: Do you hold that it is with an oath that the renter acquires the cow? That is not so, as from the moment of the cowโ€™s death, the renter acquires the cow. From the moment the cow dies in the possession of the borrower, the renter has the right to receive another cow in exchange. And this oath that the renter takes to the owner of the cow is not required by the halakha. Rather, he takes the oath to alleviate the concerns of the owner, so that the owner will not suspect him of negligence. Consequently, the owner of the cow cannot litigate with the borrower, and even if he waives his right to demand an oath from the renter, he is unable to receive a cow from the borrower.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ื›ืžื” ืคืจื•ืช ืœืฉื•ื›ืจ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื’ืจื” ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืžืื” ื™ื•ืžื™ ื•ื”ื“ืจ ืฉื™ื™ืœื” ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืชืฉืขื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื™ ื”ื“ืจ ืื’ืจื” ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืชืžื ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื™ ื•ื”ื“ืจ ืฉื™ื™ืœื” ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืฉื‘ืขื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื™ ื•ืžืชื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ื™ืžื™ ืฉืืœืชื” ื“ืื›ืœ ืฉืืœื” ื•ืฉืืœื” ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื—ื“ื ืคืจื”

Rabbi Zeira says: According to the halakha in the mishna, there are times when the owner pays several cows to the renter. What are the circumstances? In a case where the renter rented a cow from him for one hundred days, and the owner of the cow then borrowed that cow from the renter for ninety days, and the renter then rented that cow from the owner for eighty days, and the latter then borrowed that cow from the renter for seventy days, and that cow died within the seventy-day period of its borrowing, then for each and every occasion of borrowing of the cow, the owner, who then became the borrower, owes one cow. Since there were two discrete acts of borrowing and two discrete acts of rental, the owner owes him four cows, two outright as compensation for the borrowed cows that died, and two cows for the renter to use for the duration of his rental periods.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ืžื“ื™ืคืชื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ื ื ืžื›ื“ื™ ื—ื“ื ืคืจื” ื”ื™ื ืขื™ื™ืœื” ื•ืืคืงื” ืืคืงื” ืžืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืขื™ื™ืœื” ืœืฉืื™ืœื” ืืคืงื” ืžืฉืื™ืœื” ื•ืขื™ื™ืœื” ืœืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ืžื™ ืื™ืชื ืœืคืจื” ื‘ืขื™ื ื ื“ื ื™ืžื ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื™

Rav Aแธฅa of Difti said to Ravina concerning this halakha: After all, it is one cow, and he introduced it into one legal status and removed it from another legal status. He removed it from the status of rental and he introduced it into the status of borrowing; he removed it from the status of borrowing and introduced it into the status of rental. How then does the owner pay multiple cows for one cow? Ravina said to Rav Aแธฅa: And is the cow intact so that the owner could say this to the renter: Here is your cow? Since the borrower cannot return the cow to the creditor, he is liable to return that which he committed to return, and he committed to return two cows, not one.

ืžืจ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ืืœื ืฉืชื™ ืคืจื•ืช ื—ื“ื ื“ืฉืืœื” ื•ื—ื“ื ื“ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ืฉื•ื ืฉืืœื” ืื—ืช ื”ื™ื ื•ืฉื•ื ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ืื—ืช ื”ื™ื ื“ืฉืืœื” ืงื ื™ ืœื’ืžืจื™ ื“ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ืขื‘ื“ ื‘ื” ื™ืžื™ ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืชื™ื” ื•ืžื™ื”ื“ืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืžืจื”

Mar bar Rav Ashi said a third opinion: The renter has against the owner only a claim of two cows, one for the borrowing done by the owner, and one for fulfillment of his rental agreement. This is because the category of borrowing is one and the category of rental is one. As for the cow that is repayment for the borrowing, the renter acquires it completely. And as for the one for the rental, he works with it for the duration of its rental period and then he returns it to its owner.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉืฉื ื™ื”ื ื‘ื—ื˜ืืช

Apropos the situations described in the mishna, Rabbi Yirmeya says: If the renter and the borrower each took a false oath and are liable to bring offerings for their false oaths, there are times that both are liable to bring a sin-offering;

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Metzia 35

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 35

ืื™ืชื ืœื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืžืฉืชื‘ืข ืžืœื•ื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื• ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืฆื™ ืžืคื™ืง ืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืฉื™ืฉ ืขื“ื™ื ืฉื ืฉืจืคื”

the statement of Rav Huna is so, once the creditor takes an oath that the collateral is not in his possession, how can he produce it thereafter? Rava said: The mishna is referring to a case where there are witnesses that the collateral was burned. Therefore, the creditor need not take an oath that it is not in his possession.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžื”ื™ื›ื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื” ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืฉื™ืฉ ืขื“ื™ื ืฉื ื’ื ื‘ื” ืกื•ืฃ ืกื•ืฃ ืžื”ื™ื›ื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื” ื“ื˜ืจื— ื•ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื”

The Gemara asks: If so, the question remains: Why is the obligation to take the oath transferred from the debtor to the creditor? There is no concern that the creditor will produce the collateral. From where will he bring it if it was burned? Rather, Rav Yosef said: The mishna is referring to a case where there are witnesses that the collateral was stolen. The Gemara asks: Ultimately, in that case too, from where will the creditor bring the collateral if it was stolen? The Gemara answers: Although the collateral had been stolen, it is possible the creditor will exert himself to locate the thief and bring the collateral, thereby proving that the debtor took a false oath.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื›ื™ ืžืฉืชื‘ืข ืžืœื•ื” ื ืžื™ ืœื˜ืจื— ืœื•ื” ื•ืœื™ืชื™ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืžืœื•ื” ื™ื“ืข ืžืืŸ ืงื ืขื™ื™ืœ ื•ื ืคืง ื‘ื‘ื™ืชื™ื” ื•ืื–ื™ืœ ื•ื˜ืจื— ื•ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื” ืืœื ืœื•ื” ืžื™ ื™ื“ืข ืžืืŸ ืขื™ื™ืœ ื•ื ืคื™ืง ื‘ื‘ื™ืชื™ื” ื“ืžืœื•ื”

The Gemara asks: If so, in a case where the creditor takes an oath as well, let the debtor exert himself and bring the collateral, thereby proving that the creditor took a false oath. The Gemara answers: This is unlikely. Granted, there is concern that the creditor will recover the stolen collateral, as he knows who enters and exits his house, so he may have some inkling of the identity of the thief. And therefore, he goes and exerts himself and brings the collateral. But with regard to the debtor, does he know who enters and exits the creditorโ€™s house? He has no inkling who the thief might be.

ืื‘ื™ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉืžื ื™ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืœื• ืื—ืจ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืžืฆืืชื™ื” ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ื–ื” ื ืฉื‘ืข ื•ื–ื” ื ืฉื‘ืข ื–ื” ื ืฉื‘ืข ืฉืื™ื ื” ื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื• ื•ื–ื” ื ืฉื‘ืข ื›ืžื” ื”ื™ื” ืฉื•ื” ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืžื™ ื ืฉื‘ืข ืชื—ื™ืœื” ืžืœื•ื” ื ืฉื‘ืข ืชื—ื™ืœื” ืฉืžื ื™ืฉื‘ืข ื–ื” ื•ื™ื•ืฆื™ื ื”ืœื” ืืช ื”ืคืงื“ื•ืŸ

Abaye says: Although the creditor takes an oath that the collateral is not in his possession, the obligation to take an oath for partial admission is transferred from the debtor to the creditor, as the Sages issued a decree lest the debtor take the oath for his partial admission and the creditor claim and say to him: I found the collateral after you took the oath. Rav Ashi says: This party, the creditor, takes an oath and that party, the debtor, takes an oath. This party, the creditor, takes an oath that the collateral is not in his possession. And that party, the debtor, takes an oath as to how much the collateral was worth. And this is what the mishna is saying: Who takes an oath first? The creditor takes an oath first that the collateral is not in his possession, lest this party, i.e., the debtor, take an oath and the other party, i.e., the creditor, produce the deposit.

ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจ ืชื—ืœื™ืคื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉื ื“ืกื™ืคื ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื ืœืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืกืœืข ื”ืœื•ื™ืชื ื™ ืขืœื™ื• ืฉืชื™ื ื”ื™ื” ืฉื•ื” ื•ื”ืœื” ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื›ื™ ืืœื ืกืœืข ื”ืœื•ื™ืชื™ืš ืขืœื™ื• ืกืœืข ื”ื™ื” ืฉื•ื” ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ืื ืื™ืชื ืœื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืžื’ื• ื“ืžืฉืชื‘ืข ืžืœื•ื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื• ืœื™ืฉืชื‘ืข ื ืžื™ ืื’ื™ืœื’ื•ืœ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื›ืžื” ื”ื™ื” ืฉื•ื”

Rav Huna bar Taแธฅlifa said in the name of Rava: The first part of the latter clause of the mishna is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna, who said that the creditor is obligated to take an oath that the collateral is not in his possession. In that clause, the debtor said: You loaned me a sela on the basis of that collateral, and the collateral was worth two sela, so now you owe me a sela. And the other party, i.e., the creditor, said: That is not the case, rather, I loaned you a sela on the basis of that collateral and the collateral was worth a sela. In this case, the creditor is exempt. And if the statement of Rav Huna is so, once the creditor takes an oath that the collateral is not in his possession, let him also take an oath by means of extension of an oath as to how much the collateral was worth, as one obligated to take an oath can be forced to take other oaths as well.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจื™ืชื” ืœืฉืžืขืชื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื•ืืžืจ ืœื™ ืชื”ื ื‘ืžืืžื™ื ื• ื•ื ื”ืžื ื™ื” ืœื•ื” ืœืžืœื•ื” ื ืžื™ ื‘ื”ื ื›ืžื” ื”ื•ื” ืฉื•ื” ืœื ืงื™ื ืœื™ื” ื‘ื’ื•ื™ื” ื•ื ื”ืžื ื™ื” ืžืœื•ื” ืœืœื•ื” ื“ืงื™ื ืœื™ื” ื‘ื’ื•ื™ื” ืœื ืžื”ื™ืžืŸ ืœื™ื”

Rav Ashi said: I stated this halakha before Rav Kahana, and he said to me: Let the halakha in the mishna be understood with regard to a case where the debtor trusts the creditor that the collateral is no longer in his possession. The Gemara challenges: But if so, let the debtor trust the creditor with regard to this matter of how much the collateral was worth. The Gemara explains: The creditor is not certain about the value of the collateral, as the item did not belong to him, which is why the debtor does not rely upon him to take an oath concerning its value. The Gemara challenges: But let the creditor trust the debtor, as the debtor is certain about the value of the collateral, as it is his. The Gemara answers: The creditor does not trust the debtor.

ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืœื•ื” ื“ืžื”ื™ืžืŸ ืœื™ื” ืœืžืœื•ื” ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืžืœื•ื” ื“ืœื ืžื”ื™ืžืŸ ืœื™ื” ืœืœื•ื” ืœื•ื” ืžืงื™ื™ื ื‘ื™ื” ื‘ืžืœื•ื” ืชืžืช ื™ืฉืจื™ื ืชื ื—ื ืžืœื•ื” ืžืงื™ื™ื ื‘ื™ื” ื‘ืœื•ื” ื•ืกืœืฃ ื‘ื•ื’ื“ื™ื ื™ืฉื“ื

The Gemara asks: And what is different so that the debtor trusts the creditor that the collateral is not in his possession, and what is different that the creditor does not trust the debtor to accurately assess the value of the collateral? The Gemara answers: The debtor sees in the creditor fulfillment of the verse: โ€œThe integrity of the upright shall guide themโ€ (Proverbs 11:3). He believes that God blesses the creditor with wealth to lend because he is an upright person. The creditor sees in the debtor fulfillment of the end of that verse: โ€œBut the perverseness of the faithless shall destroy themโ€ (Proverbs 11:3). The creditor believes that God made the debtor poor because he is a deceitful person.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ืจื ื“ืืคืงื™ื“ ื›ื™ืคื™ ื’ื‘ื™ื” ื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื‘ ืœื™ ื›ื™ืคื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื ื™ื“ืขื ื ื”ื™ื›ื ืื•ืชื‘ื™ื ื”ื• ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื›ืœ ืœื ื™ื“ืขื ื ืคืฉื™ืขื•ืชื ื”ื™ื ื–ื™ืœ ืฉืœื™ื ืœื ืฉื™ืœื ืื–ืœ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืื’ื‘ื™ื” ืœืืคื“ื ื™ื” ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืœืกื•ืฃ ืื™ืฉืชื›ื— ื›ื™ืคื™ ื•ืื™ืงื•ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื”ื“ืจื™ ื›ื™ืคื™ ืœืžืจื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ื”ื“ืจื ืืคื“ื ื ืœืžืจื”

ยง The Gemara relates: A certain man deposited jewels [keifei] with another. When the period of the deposit was complete, the owner of the jewels said to the bailee: Give me the jewels. The bailee said to him in response: I do not know where I placed them. The matter came before Rav Naแธฅman, who said to the bailee: Every circumstance where a bailee claims: I do not know where I placed them, is in and of itself negligence. Go pay him for the jewels. The bailee did not pay. Rav Naแธฅman went and gave instructions to repossess his palace and sell it to pay for the jewels. Ultimately, not only were the jewels found, but they had also increased in value. Rav Naแธฅman said: The jewels return to their initial owner, and the palace returns to its owner, and the bailee does not profit from the increase in the value of the jewels.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื•ื” ื™ืชื™ื‘ื ื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื•ืคืจืงื™ืŸ ื”ืžืคืงื™ื“ ื”ื•ื” ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืฉื™ืœื ื•ืœื ืจืฆื” ืœื™ืฉื‘ืข ื•ืœื ืื”ื“ืจ ืœื™

Rava said: I was sitting at that time studying before Rav Naแธฅman, and our chapter of study was this chapter: One who deposits, which is relevant to this case. And I said to Rav Naแธฅman: Isnโ€™t this the case of a bailee who paid the owner and did not wish to take an oath? And it is the bailee who receives the double payment, ostensibly because once he paid, the owner transfers ownership of the item to him. And Rav Naแธฅman did not answer me, and he did well that he did not answer me, as the question was not worthy of an answer.

ื•ืฉืคื™ืจ ืขื‘ื“ ื“ืœื ืื”ื“ืจ ืœื™ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื”ืชื ืœื ืื˜ืจื—ื™ื” ืœื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ื”ื›ื ืื˜ืจื—ื™ื” ืœื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื

Rava continues: What is the reason he did not answer me? The reason is that the cases cannot be compared. There, in the case of the mishna, the bailee paid at his own initiative. He did not inconvenience the owner by compelling him to go to court. Therefore, the owner transfers ownership of the deposit to the bailee. Here, in the case involving the jewels, the bailee inconvenienced the owner and compelled him to go to court. Consequently, the owner does not transfer ownership of the deposit to the bailee.

ืœืžื™ืžืจื ื“ืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื“ืฉื•ืžื ื”ื“ืจ ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ืฉื•ืžื ื‘ื˜ืขื•ืช ื”ื•ื” ื“ืงื ื”ื•ื” ื›ื™ืคื™ ืžืขื™ืงืจื

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Rav Naแธฅman holds that after property is repossessed in order to pay an unpaid debt based on the courtโ€™s appraisal of the articleโ€™s value, it is returned if the debtor pays the debt? The Gemara rejects that conclusion: In general, the item is not returned. But it is different there, in the case of the jewels, as it was an erroneous appraisal, in that the jewels were in the possession of the bailee from the outset and he was merely unable to locate them.

ืืžืจื™ ื ื”ืจื“ืขื™ ืฉื•ืžื ื”ื“ืจ ืขื“ ืชืจื™ืกืจ ื™ืจื—ื™ ืฉืชื ื•ืืžืจ ืืžื™ืžืจ ืื ื ืžื ื”ืจื“ืขื ืื ื ื•ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ ืฉื•ืžื ื”ื“ืจ ืœืขื•ืœื ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ืฉื•ืžื ื”ื“ืจ ืœืขื•ืœื ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืขืฉื™ืช ื”ื™ืฉืจ ื•ื”ื˜ื•ื‘

With regard to the reversal of an appraisal, the Sages of Nehardeโ€™a say: After property is repossessed in order to pay an unpaid debt based on the courtโ€™s appraisal of the articleโ€™s value, it is returned to the debtor, provided he repays the debt from the time of the appraisal until the twelve months of the year have passed. And Ameimar said: I am from Nehardeโ€™a, and nevertheless, I hold that repossession based on an appraisal of an articleโ€™s value can always be returned. If the debtor pays his debt, he can reclaim his property at any point. The Gemara rules: And the halakha is that repossession based on an appraisal can always be returned, due to the fact that it is stated: โ€œAnd you shall do that which is right and goodโ€ (Deuteronomy 6:18). The owner of property appreciates his property more than another person would. Therefore, once the debtor repays his debt to the creditor, legal formalism should not prevent return of the debtorโ€™s property.

ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืฉืžื• ืœื™ื” ืœื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื•ืื–ืœ ืื™ื”ื• ื•ืฉืžื” ืœื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืœื ืขื“ื™ืฃ ืืช ืžื’ื‘ืจื ื“ืืชื™ืช ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื–ื‘ื ื” ืื•ืจืชื ื•ื™ื”ื‘ื” ื‘ืžืชื ื” ื•ื“ืื™ ื”ื ื™ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืื“ืขืชื ื“ืืจืขื ื ื—ื•ืช ื•ืœืื• ืื“ืขืชื ื“ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื ื—ื•ืช

ยง The Gemara clarifies related matters. It is obvious that if the court appraised property to repay a debt to a creditor, and this creditor went and had the property appraised and repaid his debt to his creditor, we say to the second creditor: Your rights are not superior to those of the man through whom you came to possess the property. Just as the first debtor can repay the debt and reclaim his property from his creditor, he can also reclaim the property from the creditor of his creditor. If a creditor who received appraised land sold it or bequeathed it to his heirs or gave it as a gift, the debtor cannot reclaim the land from those who acquired their land. It is certain that from the outset, when those people acquired the land, it was with the intent to acquire the land itself that they descended to it, and it was not with the intent to receive money that they descended to the land.

ืฉืžื• ืœื” ืœืืฉื” ื•ืื™ื ืกื™ื‘ื ืื• ืฉืžื• ืžื™ื ื” ื“ืืฉื” ื•ืื™ื ืกื™ื‘ื ื•ืžืชื” ื‘ืขืœ ื‘ื ื›ืกื™ ืืฉืชื• ืœื•ืงื— ื”ื•ื™ ืœื ืžื™ื”ื“ืจ ื•ืœื ืžื”ื“ืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื”

If the court appraised property to repay a debt to a woman and she then married, or if the court appraised property from a woman to repay her debt and she then married and died, since the legal status of a husband with regard to his wifeโ€™s property is that of a buyer, he does not return property that was appraised and repossessed to pay his wifeโ€™s debt. And we do not return to him property that was repossessed from his wife if he pays her debt.

ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืื•ืฉื ื”ืชืงื™ื ื• ื”ืืฉื” ืฉืžื›ืจื” ื‘ื ื›ืกื™ ืžืœื•ื’ ื‘ื—ื™ื™ ื‘ืขืœื” ื•ืžืชื” ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื™ื“ ื”ืœืงื•ื—ื•ืช

This is as Rabbi Yosei bar แธคanina said: In Usha the Sages instituted that in the case of a woman who sold part of her usufruct property during the life of her husband and she died, the husband repossesses the property from the purchasers. The property belongs to the wife, while the profits accrued after marriage belong to the husband. Therefore, the woman does not have the right to sell the property as long as they are married. If she sold the property and died, and her husband is her heir, the Sages instituted that his legal status is that of a buyer and not an heir. His rights to the land precede those of the subsequent buyers. He repossesses the land and reimburses them the sale price of the property.

ืื’ื‘ื™ื” ืื™ื”ื• ื‘ื—ื•ื‘ื• ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื•ืจื‘ื™ื ื ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ื”ื“ืจื” ื•ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ืœื ื”ื“ืจื”

With regard to a case where the debtor, not the court, authorized his creditor to repossess the land for his debt, and now he seeks to pay his debt and reclaim it, Rav Aแธฅa and Ravina disagree. One says: If he pays the debt, the repossession based on the appraisal is reversed and he reclaims the land. And one says: The repossession based on the appraisal is not reversed.

ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื ื”ื“ืจื” ืกื‘ืจ ื”ืื™ ื–ื‘ื™ื ื™ ืžืขืœื™ื ื”ื™ื ื“ื”ื ืžื“ืขืชื ื“ื ืคืฉื™ื” ืื’ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื“ืจื” ืกื‘ืจ ืœื ื–ื‘ื™ื ื™ ืžืขืœื™ื ื”ื•ื ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ืื’ื‘ื™ื” ืžื“ืขืชื™ื” ื•ืœื ืืชื ืœื“ื™ื ื ืžื—ืžืช ื›ื™ืกื•ืคื ื”ื•ื ื“ืื’ื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara elaborates: The one who says that the repossession based on the appraisal is not reversed holds that this is a full-fledged sale, as he authorized the repossession at his own initiative. Consequently, he cannot retract it. And the one who says that the repossession based on the appraisal is reversed holds that it is not a full-fledged sale. And the fact that he authorized the repossession at his initiative and did not wait to come to court for a ruling that his land be repossessed does not make it a full-fledged sale. It was only due to his desire to avoid embarrassment that he authorized the repossession.

ื•ืžืื™ืžืช ืื›ื™ืœ ืคื™ืจื™ ืจื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืžื›ื™ ืžื˜ื™ื ืื“ืจื›ืชื ืœื™ื“ื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืขื“ื™ื• ื‘ื—ืชื•ืžื™ื• ื–ื›ื™ืŸ ืœื•

The Gemara clarifies the halakhot of repossession: And when a creditor repossesses the debtorโ€™s land, from when does he consume the produce of that land? Rabba said: He consumes the produce from the time when the document of authorization reaches his possession. This is a document that authorizes him to repossess the property of the debtor in payment of the debt wherever that property is located. Abaye said: He need not wait until he receives that document. Rather, the documentโ€™s witnesses, with their signatures, acquire the debtorโ€™s land on his behalf. From the moment they sign the document, the land is his.

ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืžื›ื™ ืฉืœื™ืžื• ื™ืžื™ ืื›ืจื–ืชื

Rava said: He consumes the produce from the time when the days of proclamation conclude. After property belonging to the debtor is located, the court proclaims that the property will be auctioned to raise funds to repay the debt. Therefore, even after the document of authorization reaches him, the creditor is not entitled to the produce, as someone else may purchase it. If the creditor enters the highest bid, he is entitled to the produce.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืฉื•ื›ืจ ืคืจื” ืžื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ื”ืฉืื™ืœื” ืœืื—ืจ ื•ืžืชื” ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื™ืฉื‘ืข ื”ืฉื•ื›ืจ ืฉืžืชื” ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื•ื”ืฉื•ืืœ ื™ืฉืœื ืœืฉื•ื›ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ืœื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืกื—ื•ืจื” ื‘ืคืจืชื• ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืืœื ืชื—ื–ื•ืจ ืคืจื” ืœื‘ืขืœื™ื

MISHNA: In the case of one who rents a cow from another, and this renter then lends it to another person, and the cow dies in its typical manner, i.e., of natural causes, in the possession of the borrower, the renter takes an oath to the owner of the cow that the cow died in its typical manner, and the borrower pays the renter for the cow that he borrowed. A renter is exempt in a case of damage due to circumstances beyond his control, including death, but a borrower is liable to compensate the owner even for damage due to circumstances beyond his control. Rabbi Yosei said: How does the other party, i.e., the renter, do business with and profit from anotherโ€™s cow? Rather, the value of the cow should be returned to the owner. The renter need not take an oath, but the borrower must compensate the owner of the cow.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืื‘ื™ื™ ืžื›ื“ื™ ืฉื•ื›ืจ ื‘ืžืื™ ืงื ื™ ืœื”ืื™ ืคืจื” ื‘ืฉื‘ื•ืขื”

GEMARA: Rav Idi bar Avin said to Abaye: After all, with regard to the renter, with what does he acquire this cow to the extent that one who borrows the cow from him is liable to compensate him if it dies? He acquires it with an oath that he took to the owner of the cow that the cow died of natural causes.

ื•ื ื™ืžื ืœื™ื” ืžืฉื›ื™ืจ ืœืฉื•ื›ืจ ื“ืœ ืื ืช ื•ื“ืœ ืฉื‘ื•ืขืชืš ื•ืื ื ืžืฉืชืขื™ื ื ื“ื™ื ื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ืฉื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ ืกื‘ืจืช ืฉื•ื›ืจ ื‘ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืงื ืงื ื™ ืœื” ืžืฉืขืช ืžื™ืชื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืงื ื™ ื•ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื›ื“ื™ ืœื”ืคื™ืก ื“ืขืชื• ืฉืœ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช

The Gemara asks: But since the acquisition is effected by the renterโ€™s oath, let the one who rented his animal for hire say to the renter: Remove yourself and remove your oath. I do not want to deal with you at all in this case, and I will litigate with the borrower to recover my cow. Abaye said to Rav Idi bar Avin: Do you hold that it is with an oath that the renter acquires the cow? That is not so, as from the moment of the cowโ€™s death, the renter acquires the cow. From the moment the cow dies in the possession of the borrower, the renter has the right to receive another cow in exchange. And this oath that the renter takes to the owner of the cow is not required by the halakha. Rather, he takes the oath to alleviate the concerns of the owner, so that the owner will not suspect him of negligence. Consequently, the owner of the cow cannot litigate with the borrower, and even if he waives his right to demand an oath from the renter, he is unable to receive a cow from the borrower.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ื›ืžื” ืคืจื•ืช ืœืฉื•ื›ืจ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื’ืจื” ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืžืื” ื™ื•ืžื™ ื•ื”ื“ืจ ืฉื™ื™ืœื” ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืชืฉืขื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื™ ื”ื“ืจ ืื’ืจื” ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืชืžื ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื™ ื•ื”ื“ืจ ืฉื™ื™ืœื” ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืฉื‘ืขื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื™ ื•ืžืชื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ื™ืžื™ ืฉืืœืชื” ื“ืื›ืœ ืฉืืœื” ื•ืฉืืœื” ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื—ื“ื ืคืจื”

Rabbi Zeira says: According to the halakha in the mishna, there are times when the owner pays several cows to the renter. What are the circumstances? In a case where the renter rented a cow from him for one hundred days, and the owner of the cow then borrowed that cow from the renter for ninety days, and the renter then rented that cow from the owner for eighty days, and the latter then borrowed that cow from the renter for seventy days, and that cow died within the seventy-day period of its borrowing, then for each and every occasion of borrowing of the cow, the owner, who then became the borrower, owes one cow. Since there were two discrete acts of borrowing and two discrete acts of rental, the owner owes him four cows, two outright as compensation for the borrowed cows that died, and two cows for the renter to use for the duration of his rental periods.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ืžื“ื™ืคืชื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ื ื ืžื›ื“ื™ ื—ื“ื ืคืจื” ื”ื™ื ืขื™ื™ืœื” ื•ืืคืงื” ืืคืงื” ืžืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืขื™ื™ืœื” ืœืฉืื™ืœื” ืืคืงื” ืžืฉืื™ืœื” ื•ืขื™ื™ืœื” ืœืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ืžื™ ืื™ืชื ืœืคืจื” ื‘ืขื™ื ื ื“ื ื™ืžื ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื™

Rav Aแธฅa of Difti said to Ravina concerning this halakha: After all, it is one cow, and he introduced it into one legal status and removed it from another legal status. He removed it from the status of rental and he introduced it into the status of borrowing; he removed it from the status of borrowing and introduced it into the status of rental. How then does the owner pay multiple cows for one cow? Ravina said to Rav Aแธฅa: And is the cow intact so that the owner could say this to the renter: Here is your cow? Since the borrower cannot return the cow to the creditor, he is liable to return that which he committed to return, and he committed to return two cows, not one.

ืžืจ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ืืœื ืฉืชื™ ืคืจื•ืช ื—ื“ื ื“ืฉืืœื” ื•ื—ื“ื ื“ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ืฉื•ื ืฉืืœื” ืื—ืช ื”ื™ื ื•ืฉื•ื ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ืื—ืช ื”ื™ื ื“ืฉืืœื” ืงื ื™ ืœื’ืžืจื™ ื“ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืช ืขื‘ื“ ื‘ื” ื™ืžื™ ืฉื›ื™ืจื•ืชื™ื” ื•ืžื™ื”ื“ืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืžืจื”

Mar bar Rav Ashi said a third opinion: The renter has against the owner only a claim of two cows, one for the borrowing done by the owner, and one for fulfillment of his rental agreement. This is because the category of borrowing is one and the category of rental is one. As for the cow that is repayment for the borrowing, the renter acquires it completely. And as for the one for the rental, he works with it for the duration of its rental period and then he returns it to its owner.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉืฉื ื™ื”ื ื‘ื—ื˜ืืช

Apropos the situations described in the mishna, Rabbi Yirmeya says: If the renter and the borrower each took a false oath and are liable to bring offerings for their false oaths, there are times that both are liable to bring a sin-offering;

Scroll To Top