Revach L'Neshama http://revach.net/ RSS feed for - Section: DAF YOMI Copyright 2007, Revach L'Neshama en-US Revach L'Neshama Logo 144 31 http://revach.net/img/small_header.jpg http://revach.net/ info@revach.net Fri, 02 Dec 2016 03:00:00 -0800 240 Bava Metzia 68 - SUMMARY Even in a place that the Minhag is that the borrower may repay the loan and take back the Mashkon at any time he may not take back the Mashkon within a year. If a borrower sells the Mashkon to the lender the Din of Bar Mitzra doesn’t apply and the neighbors may not take the land from him. R. Papa says it is permitted to sell merchandise on credit and to charge an inflated amount if the item is non-perishable and he is not in desperate need of the money, but only if he doesn’t give the buyer an option to pay immediately at a discounted price. (1) If someone gives his friend merchandise on condition that the profit will be divided between them it is forbidden to evaluate the future profit and write in the Shtar that his friend owes the principle plus half of the anticipated profit because maybe there won’t be any profit. (2) If a person is given a field as a Mashkon he may not subsequently lease the land back to the borrower because it is Ribis. A person may not give a storekeeper merchandise or money to buy merchandise on condition that they will divide the profits between them unless he pays him for his effort. (3) R. Me'ir says even if he is paid a small fee it is sufficient, R. Yehudah says even if he only eats wit him one fig it is sufficient while R. Shimon Bar Yochai holds he must be paid the amount that a person would take in return for being idle from his usual difficult work and work as a storekeeper instead. (4) A person may not give eggs to an owner of a hen so that the hen will be placed on the eggs and he will raise the chicks on condition that they will divide the eggs, or calves and baby donkeys to his friend to raise and when they are grown they will split the animals between them unless he pays him for his work and for food for the hens or the animals. (5) A person may not give goats and sheep to raise and the when they are grown they will split the animals between them if his friend is given the milk and wool as payment for his effort. If his friend is not given the milk and the wool and he is only given the whey and the wool that comes off the wool that comes off the animal when it is washed the Tana Kama holds it is forbidden while R. Yosi Bar Yehudah holds it is permitted. (6) A person may give calves and baby donkeys to his friend to raise until the calf grow to a third of its full size and the donkey is big enough to carry a load and divide the animals between them if the friend is not responsible if the animal dies. A woman may rent a hen to her friend and the friend will place the hen on the eggs and raise the chicks and she will be given two chicks, since she is using a Lashon of rental it is permitted even though she is not being paid for her effort. If a woman says to her friend the hen is mine and the eggs are yours let us split the chicks it is permitted according to R. Yehudah if she takes the eggs that do not produce chicks, while R. Shimon argues. (7)
 
**A BIT MORE**
1. Since he wasn’t forced to sell the item immediately and he could have waited until the price went up it is not considered Ribis for him to overcharge in return for allowing the buyer time to pay for the item. However, the Halachah is not like R. Papa because even though the seller could afford to wait and sell it later on at the higher price, however the buyer needs it right now and if he would have the money he would not agree to pay an inflated price and therefore he is paying an inflated price he because in return for holding on to his money until a later date and therefore it is Ribis. 2. When merchandise is given on condition that the profit will be divided between them it is half loan and half Pikadon and if there is no profit and he pays the estimated profit anyway it is Ribis. Even if the lender will believe the borrower if he says that there is no profit and will not charge him for the anticipated profit, however maybe the lender will die and the children will not trust the person that he did not make a profit and will charge him for the anticipated profit and it will be Ribis . 3. The merchandise is given as half loan and half Pikadon and if the storekeeper is not paid he is making the effort to sell the half Pikadon for the lender in return for being given the other half as a loan and it is Ribis. 4. R. Me'ir holds he must be paid a fee however the fee may be a small amount, while R. Yehudah is more lenient and he holds that it is not necessary to pay him a fee at all and as long as he receives some benefit it is sufficient. 5. The person who raises the chicks or the animals receives half of the eggs or half of the animals, however he also is responsible for half of the loss if the chicks or animals die as it is half loan and half Pikadon and therefore unless he receives a fee for his services the effort that he is putting in for the half Pikdon is Ribis. 6. The Tana Kama holds like R. Shimon Bar Yochai that he must be paid the amount that a person would take in return for being idle from his usual difficult work and therefore the whey and wool and comes out when it is washed is not sufficient, while R.Yosi Bar Yehudah holds like his father that he only needs to receive a small benefit. 7. R. Yehudah holds that it is sufficient that he receives a small benefit, while R. Shimon holds that he must be paid a more significant amount.

]]>
Bava Metzia 68 - INSIGHTS LEASING A MASHKON If a person is given a field as a Mashkon he may not subsequently lease the land back to the borrower. Rashi says that if he leases the and back to the borrower it is absolute Ribis. The Rashba explains that the reason it is Ribis d’Oraysah is that since he leased it back to the borrower it appears that this was the intention of the borrower at the time that that he took the loan and he is paying for the lease in return for the loan. [Nimukei Yosef]

]]>
Bava Metzia 68 - HALACHA BAR MITZRA If someone gives a piece of land as a Mashkon and he subsequently sells it to the lender who is holding the Mashkon the neighbors do not have a right to take the land with the Din of Bar Matzra. However, if the borrower sells the land to another person even if he is not a neighbor the lender doesn’t have the right to take the land from him. (Shulchan Aruch CM 175:57)

]]>
Bava Metzia 68 - LAMDAN A person may give calves and baby donkeys to his friend to raise until the calf grow to a third of its full size and the donkey is big enough to carry a load and divide the animals between them if the friend is not responsible if the animal dies. If the friend is not responsible if the animal dies of course it is permitted! What reason could there be that that it is forbidden? Author’s Comment on Yesterday's Lamdan A Kinyan requires Da’as and therefore if it was done b’Taus it is not a Kinyan, however if he is Makneh an item with Da’as even though he subsequently was Mochel without Da’as it is a Mechilah because once he was Makneh it with Da’as the Mechilah doesn’t require Da’as. [Nimukei Yosef]

]]>
Bava Metzia 67 - SUMMARY If someone sells a product for a sixth more than its value it is Ona’ah and the extra money must be returned because he doesn't know that he overpaid and he is not Mochel. If girl does Mi’un or someone divorces his wife because she is an Aylonus (a woman who is infertile), or a Shniyah (a woman who is forbidden d'Rabbanan) they do not receive a Kesuvah, or Peiros, or Ba’alus (clothing of the dowry). (1) If someone sells land on condition that if he attains the money the land will be returned to him the land shall be returned to him and the fruit that the buyer ate is Ribis d'Rabbanan and Bais Din doesn’t force the buyer to give it back. (2) If land was given as a Mashkon and the lender ate the fruit of the land it is a Safek if the Bais Din forces the lender to give the fruit back If land was given as a Mashkon in a place where the Minhag is that the borrower may take the land back whenever he repays the money if the lender ate fruit of the land that was worth the amount of the Chov the borrower may take the land and keep the money and the fruit that he ate is payment for the Chov. (4) R. Ashi holds that even though he ate fruit that was worth the entire amount of the loan it is not subtracted and the borrower must repay the money. If the lender ate more that the amount of the Chov he is not obligated to pay the borrower for the fruit that he ate and even if he is owed additional money from a different Shtar by the same borrower the extra fruit that he ate is not subtracted from the loan. If the borrower is an orphan and the lender ate more that the amount of the Chov he must pay for it and if he is owed additional money from a different Shtar by the same borrower the extra fruit that he ate is subtracted from the loan. If a person gives land as a Mashkon in a place that the Minhag is that he has the right at any time to repay the loan and take back the land the lender may only eat the fruit of the land if he pays a yearly fee that he subtracts from the loan. (5) A Talmid Chacham should not eat the fruit of a Mashkon even if he pays a yearly fee that he subtracts from the loan. (6) According to the first Lashon if the lender eat the fruit of the Mashkon for five years without paying a yearly fee and beyond five years he must subtract from the loan all of the fruit that he eats it is a Machlokes between R. Acha and Ravina if it is permitted. According to the second Lashon if the lender pays a yearly fee for eating the fruit of the Mashkon for five years and beyond five years he must subtract from the loan all of the fruit that he etas it is a Machlokes between R. Acha and Ravina if it is permitted. (7) Everyone agrees if the parties stipulate that after a certain number of years the Mashkon will be returned to the borrower without any payment it is not Ribis and it is permitted even for a Talmid Chacham. (8) If a Mashkon is given in a place where the Minhag is that he has the right at any time to repay the loan and take back the land if the lender dies the Ba’al Chov of the father may not collect the fruit of the Mahkon from the orphans and the Bechor doesn’t take a second portion from the fruit and Shvi’is is Meshamet the Chov. (9) In a place where the Minhag is that the borrower may not take back the land any time that he repays the loan the Ba’al Chov of the father may collect the fruit of the land and the Bechor takes a second portion and Shvi’is is not Meshamet the Chov. If a person gives land as a Mashkon in a place that the Minhag is that he has the right at any time to repay the loan and take back the land when he takes the land back he takes even the dates that were harvested and were put laid out to dry on mats. (10) If the lender picked up the dates to place them in baskets he is Koneh with Hagba’ah and the borrower my not take them back and according to the opinion that the utensils of a buyer is Koneh on the Reshus of the seller is Koneh even if he didn’t pick them up he is Koneh. If a Mashkon is given in a place where the Minhag is that the borrower may repay the loan and take back the land at any time if the borrower stipulates at the time of the loan that he will not take back the land no Kinyan is necessary. (12) If a Mashkon is given in a place where the Minhag is that the borrower may not take back the land at any time if the borrower stipulates at the time of the loan that he will has the right to take back the land at any time it is a Machlokes if a Kinyan is necessary. If a Mashkon is given in a place where the Minhag is that the borrower may take back the land at any time once the borrower states that he is ready to give the money the lender may not continue to eat the fruit of the Mashkon. If the borrower states that he is ready to make the effort to get the money it is a Machlokes if the lender may continue to eat the fruit of the Mashkon until he is actually given the money.
 
**A BIT MORE**
1. They do not do even receive the dowry that they brought into the marriage and was written in the Kesuvah nor do they receive the fruit of the Nichsei Melug that the husband ate nor do they receive the clothing of the dowry even if they are still in existence. A girl that did Mi’un doesn't receive a Keshiav because she left him on her own initiative, a Shniyah doesn't receive a Kesuvah because the Chachamim penalize her so that she will not persuade someone who is forbidden to her to marry her and an Aylonus doesn't receive a Kesuvah because it is a Mekach Ta’us. 2. It is forbidden to sell a field on condition that it will be returned to him because it is tantamount to a loan and the fruit that the buyer eats is Ribis. . 3. Because the Bais Din is regarded as the father of orphans and they are not Mochel the extra fruit that was eaten 4. Since the lender is not paying a yearly fee that he is subtracting from the Chov for the right to eat the fruit the fruit that he eats is Ribis. 5. Since he subtracts a fee from the Chov even if the land doesn’t produce any fruit at all therefore even if he eats more fruit than the value of the loan it is not Ribis. However, in a place that the Minhag is that the borrower may not repay the loan at any time and take back the loan it is not necessary for the lender to pay a fee every year because it is akin to a sale and it is not Ribis. 6. Even though it is permitted for everyone else, however a Talmid Chacham must act above reproach lest others learn from him to treat prohibition lightly. 7. According to this Lashon if the lender doesn’t pay a yearly fee for the first five years every one agrees it is forbidden. 8. It is not Ribis because it doesn't appear like a loan it appears that the lender is buying the fruit of the land for the money that he gave. 9. Since the borrower may take back the land at any time the only thing the lender has in the land is a Shibud for the Chov and a Ba’al Chov may not collect Mitaltlin from the orphans and a Bechor may not take a second portion because a Bechor doesn’t take a second portion from a loan that is owed to the father and since all the father had was a Shibud for the fruit it is no better than a loan that is owed to him and Shvi’is is Meshmanet even though a loan with a Mahkon Shvi’is is not Meshamet. 10. The mats are placed directly underneath the trees and the dates that are harvested fall onto the mats and therefore the lender is not Koneh with Hagba’ah. 11. The exchange of money is a sufficient Kinyan because Karka is Nikneh with Kesef and therefore no further Kinyan is necessary.

]]>
Bava Metzia 67 - INSIGHTS REBUYING A SOLD FIELD A person sold his land to one of his relatives and he made a condition that if he attains the money the land will be returned to him, the land shall be returned to him and the fruit that the buyer ate is Ribis d'Rabbanan and Bais Din doesn’t force the buyer to give it back. The Pnei Yehoshua explains that the seller made this condition before the sale and therefore it is exactly the same case that was mentioned previously and it is forbidden because it is Ribis and the only question is if it is Ribis Min ha'Torah or d'Rabbanan. However if the condition was made only after the sale was made it is as if he said if I want I will return it to you and there is no difference whether the condition was made by the seller or the buyer and it is not Ribis.

]]>
Bava Metzia 67 - HALACHA A SALE WITH A CONDITION Someone who instructs his friend to buy him a field from Ploni and the seller tells the Shli’ach I will sell to you on condition that when I have the money you will return it to me and the Shli’ach responds that you and the buyer are good friends and decide among yourselves the condition is valid with and the field must be returned and he must return the fruit that he ate. (Shulchan Aruch YD 174:3)

]]>
Bava Metzia 67 - LAMDAN R. Nachman holds that Mechilah b’Taus is a Mechialh. A Kinyan b’Taus is not a Kinyan so why is a Mechilah b’Taus a Mechilah? Author’s Comment on Yesterday's Lamdan When the seller makes a condition the buyer doesn't take it seriously and he thinks that the seller is simply trying to pacify him. [Rosh]

]]>
Bava Metzia 66 - SUMMARY If someone sells a field without a guarantee and when he sees the buyer is sad he tells him that if it is taken from him he will compensate him from Idiyos his words are meaningless. (1) If someone sells a house or a field and he makes a condition that when he attains the money it shall be returned to him it is forbidden. (2) If the buyer offers to return the house or field when the seller has the money but he doesn't make it a condition in the sale it is permitted. (3) If a Shechiv Mera gives a Get to his wife and his wife sees that he is distressed and she says don’t worry if you survive I am yours it is not a valid condition and her words are meaningless. (4) If someone lends money on his field and he tells the lender that if I don’t repay within three years the field shall be yours it is permitted. R. Huna says if the condition was made at the time that the he lent the money the buyer is Koneh the entire field even if it is worth much more than the amount of the land, but if the condition was made at a later time he is only Koneh part of the field in accordance with the the money that was given. R. Nachman says even if he made the condition at a later time he is Koneh the entire field. R. Nachman retracted later on and he said even if the condition was made at the time he lent the money he is not Koneh at all because an it is an Asmachta and an Asmachta is not Koneh. (5) If the borrower tells the lender that if he doesn't pay back within three years he may keep his field the lender is not Koneh because it is an Asmachta even if the borrower tells the lender prior to the due date of the loan that he shall be Koneh the field. (6) R. Papa says if on the due date of the loan the lender found the borrower sitting and drinking beer he is Koneh the Asmachta, but if he was attempting to come up with the money he is not Koneh. (7) Ravina says the lender is Koneh the Asmachta if on the due date of the loan the borrower was not willing to sell his assets for less than its value. R. Papa says if the lender is definitely Koneh the Asmachta if on the due date of the loan the borrower was not willing to sell any of his land at all even for fair value. R. Papa says if the borrower tells the lender that if he doesn't pay back within three years he may keep his field and if he pays back within three years his payment will only be from this field the field is an Aputiki for the loan. (8) If someone sells a field with a guarantee and he tells him if the field is taken from him by his Ba’al Chov although he may not collect from Idi Idiyos he may collect from Idiyos and subsequently his Idi Idiyos was flooded it is a Machlokes if the buyer may collect from his Idiyos or only from Beinonus. (9) If a borrower tells the lender that if he doesn't pay back within three years he may keep his field the lender is not Koneh because it is an Asmachta and if he ate the fruit he must return it even though the borrower was Mochel because it appears like Ribis. If someone sells the fruit of his tree to his friend R. Huna says he may retract before the fruit come into existence while R. Nachman holds he may retract even after the fruit come into existence (10) R. Nachman admits that if he did not retract and the buyer ate the fruit he is not obligated to return it. (11)
 
**A BIT MORE**
1. The buyer is the one who should have made the condition, not the seller, and since the seller made the condition instead it is not a valid condition. 2. Since the seller will buy it back as soon as he has the money it is a loan not a sale and the buyer is eating the fruit of the field in the interim as a reward for the right of the seller to hold on to the money in the interim and it is Ribis. 3. Since the seller should have made the condition not the buyer it is not a valid condition and it is as if the buyer said if I want I will sell it back it to you therefore since the seller can’t force him in Bais Din to give it back it is a sale, not a loan, and if he does give it back he is reselling it and it is not Ribis. 4. She was not accepting a condition she was just trying to comfort him. 5. It is an Asmachta because the borrower is promising to give a field that is worth more than the loan in the event that he doesn’t pay back the loan. 6. Because he is telling him to keep the field out of embarrassment; even in the case that it is it not yet time to repay the loan he is saying it out of embarrassment because he doesn't want that the lender shall have to go through the trouble of claiming the loan when it is due. 7. If he is drinking beer it is obvious that he is not even attempting to raise the money in order pay back the loan and he doesn’t care if the lender takes the field. 8. Even though he may not collect the entire field if the loan is not repaid because an Asmachta is not Koneh, however the field is an Aputiki and he may collect a piece of the field that is equal to the amount of the loan. 9. According to one opinion that buyer may only collect from Beinonus because the remaining Idiyos is in place of the Idi Idiyos that was flooded and he may not collect from it. 10. R. Huna holds like the opinion that a person may be Makneh something that has not yet come into existence however even according to that opinion he may retract if it is not yet in existence, while R. Nachman holds like the opinion a person may not be Makneh something that has not yet come into existence. 11. Because the seller was Mochel and even though he was Mochel b’Taus as he didn’t know he had the right to retract even so it is a valid Mechilah according to R. Nachman.

]]>
Bava Metzia 66 - INSIGHTS A MEANINGLESS CONDITION If someone sells a field without a guarantee and when he sees the buyer is sad he tells him that if it is taken from him he will compensate him from Idiyos his words are meaningless. If a Shechiv Mera gives a Get to his wife and his wife sees that he is distressed and she says don’t worry if you survive I am yours it is not a valid condition and her words are meaningless. Tosfos expalsin the condition is menaingles because the buyer had already agreed to buy it without a guarantee and even though he was sad he wasn’t about to retract from the purchase even though there was no guarantee, therefore the offer of a guarantee by the seller is meaningless. However, if at the very beginning the seller offered to guarantee the purchase it is a valid condition since the buyer was only willing to buy it with the guarantee. The same logic applies to the case of the Get that it is only a meaningless condition if he had already decided to give the Get without a condition and she was simply trying to comfort him, but if he in the beginning before he decided to give a Get she said that if you survive it shall not be a Get it is a valid condition.

]]>
Bava Metzia 66 - HALACHA AN ASMACHTA If someone lends his friend money on a field that is worth more than the amount of the loan (according to someone opinions even if it is not worth more than the amount of the loan it is an Asmachta) and the lender says if you don’t repay within three years the field shall be mine it is an Asmachta and he is not Koneh. But if he tells him if you don’t pay me within three years it shall be mine from now he is Koneh. (Shulchan Aruch CM 207:9)

]]>
Bava Metzia 66 - LAMDAN If someone sells a field without a guarantee and when he sees that the buyer is sad he tells him that if it is taken from him he will compensate him from Idiyos, his words are meaningless because the buyer is the one who should have made the condition, not the seller, and since the seller made the condition instead it is not a valid condition. What is the difference if the buyer made the condition or the seller? Author’s Comment on Yesterday's Lamdan A purchase must be paid for immediately because as soon ads a Kinyan is made he may not retract however regarding a rental he may retract therefore the renter doesn’t have to pay in advance.

]]>