Talking Talmud

This daf is the (or a) talmudic source for several of prominent midrashim about the patriarch Abraham and matriarch Sarah. Also, back to halakhah - dealing with the harvest. Plus, special terms for harvesting from a vineyard, and how they extend to other crops and produce that grow from the ground.

The daf shares the story of Rabbah bar Nachmani and his mysterious death. The Genara tries to understand why Rabbi Yochanom ben Matya uses the image of the Solomon’s banquet.

More aggadah - the suffering of R. Elazar, and not bring buried properly. With Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi's reaction, and his own suffering. Plus, other experiences of suffering and empathy in the context of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. Also, the question of people dying "before" their time. Plus, burial practices of these sages and families. Also, the exceptional scholarship and Torah commitment of Rabbi Hiyya. Plus, a hierarchy of other sages.

The daf shares the poignant story of Rabbi Yochanon and Reish Leikish: hiw they met and ultimately how they both die because of slight. The daf also shares about the life of Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai.

The daf poses a question about a person who finds a lost object and is the finder considered to be an unpaid shomer or a paid shomer. A new mishnah dealing with the laws around a broken keg but the Gemara has trouble reconciling a barita with our mishnah.

A dilemma - when one is exempt from the liability of a borrower, does that mean he has no liability or just as one who is paid to watch over it. Plus, why a donkey who isn't sold is a different case from a gift of pottery, for example. Also, the parameters of the paid guardian, and the requirements of an unpaid guardian, and the interaction with the one who owns the item being guarded. The formulation of statements may make the difference.

3 mishnayot! 1 - If one rents a cow to plow a mountain, but plows in a valley... how does that difference (and the reverse) make a difference in terms of liability? 2 - Renting a donkey to transport wheat, but barley is transported instead - and how either weight or volume may make a difference in terms of the renter's liability. 3 - Terms of renting vs. a paid guardian, plus terms of helping a poor person in this regard.

If a rented donkey dies midway through the journey, the renter pays a partial fee, and complains about the experience. But what if that donkey can be replaced? Plus, what if a donkey is rented for a man to ride, but a woman rides? She's considered heavier on the donkey... Also, renting a boat that doesn't make the journey, but sinks - the questions whether the rental was specific to that boat or any boat, which makes a difference for liability.

A new mishnah discusses what happens when something to a rented animal and who is responsible for unavoidable injuries. The gemara tries to determine if the first part of the mishnah is the opinion of Rabbi Meir

Rava's rulings in employment, in terms of setting norms, and what goes beyond all reasonable expectations. Plus, how people were trained not to renege on a contract, even an unwritten one.

The daf begins the sixth perek which discusses issues that may come up between an employer and worker. Plus Rav Nachmun tries to create a halakhic parallel with gitin which the Gemara does not think is a good parallel.

The last daf of the fifth perek wraps up the discussion of interest with two final mishnahs. The Genara after the first mishnah shares an opinion if Hillel that is not followed. Why does the Gemara share this opinion? The second mishnah discusses multiple transactions that could be seen as having an interest payment. The perek ends with a discussion of three groups of people who cannot find justice in the courts.

Contracting for produce in advance - even when the harvest or processing isn't finished, but the raw goods are already in the offing, and some number of steps are needed to complete the product. But whose process? Human handling or natural (or divine) ripening, etc.? Also, a series of cases to back the respective views of Rav and Shmuel. Plus, a new mishnah on lending seed wheat to one's sharecroppers.

Surcharges for sharecroppers - is that interest or not? Plus, real cases vs. theoretical ones. And the details of how those real cases are manifest.

The daf asks the question what happens if a non-Jew converts and was charged interest by a Jew - can the interest still be collected. A new mishnah discussed forward contracting and price setting of produce.

Some reflections by the sages on how bad it is to lend with interest - where the mishnah seemed to allow it after all, at least with regard to non-Jews. The distinction between righteous people and regular people provides good food for thought. Also, what happens when one has lend funds with a guarantor, and how interest can apparently become part of the transaction, including when a non-Jew decides to function in accord with Jewish law. But a Jew can lend out a non-Jew's money with the non-Jew's consent.

How being an orphan (minor) changes the terms of the prohibition against interest. Also, a new mishnah: fixed costs on what becomes a loan (via caring for an animal as an investment) cannot be paid back differently - to a Jew. When dealing with a non-Jew, extra payment is indeed allowed.

More on the partnerships of yesterday's daf, but in story form. Plus, a new mishnah on appraising animals and their progeny, and when adding sums to the costs smacks of interest and when it doesn't at all.

Rav Ashi shares a halacha about pledged property from the sages of Mechoza and explains the root of the word mishkanta. A new mishnah introduces iska and how it relates to a concern about interest.

A case where a woman instructs a man to go buy property from her relatives on her behalf, which gives rise to the relative's question whether he'll be able to buy the property back, if and when he gets the money to do so. Which in turn gives rise to a discussion of whether that re-purchase can happen, and then the fruits of the field in the interim is either fully fixed interest or possibly a "hint" or the "dust" of interest (which is a rabbinic prohibition). Plus, how does the sale compare to a loan under comparable terms? Also, delving into a case of fixed interest and, over time, a reduction of debt. Plus, loans canceled due to the shemittah year.

The daf discusses different scenarios where a states condition may or may not be binding. The terms asmachta is used but in a way that is different than how it has been used before.

The daf has two mishnayiot. The first describes circumstances when a higher price is allowed to be paid. The second discusses partial payment on a field and does the buyer or seller have access to the produce.

More on advance payments... Where the product has to already be in one's tradition (in contrast to gourds, for example, that still need to grow). Plus, a specified amount as an advance discount that isn't used immediately is later considered interest. Also, a new mishnah! One who borrows money from another cannot allow the lender to stay in his courtyard, for example, lest it smack of interest (with some exception, based on the circumstances).

Who is Rabbi Oshaya l, an amora, and what is his relationship with tannaitic literature. The daf discusses how a seller can use produce to pay a debt.

Is interest recoverable? It's a machloket, of course. Plus, how that plays out in the Jewish vs. non-Jewish courts, and the ways they functioned differently. Also, elaborating on the mishnah's case of rising market price, and a trade for another product, which (in this specific case) turns the seller into the borrower...

Chapter 5! A new mishnah, a new topic - moneylending, and the prohibition against taking interest. Also, the sidebar explanation for addressing the exodus from Egypt in the context of interest.

The final two mishnahs of the fourth perek deal with deceptive practices shopkeepers may not do because they hurt the buyer.

The daf tells one of the most famous stories in the Gemara - Tanur Shel Akhnai. But why this story appears and the lessons to be learned from the disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and the sages are often misunderstood. So why does this story appear in Bava Metzia and what does it teach us?

Consecrated items for which one bears responsibility are subject to price fraud, but when one is not responsible, price fraud is irrelevant. But what does it mean for the consecrated property to belong to God? What about the human dimension? Plus, taking advantage of market demands, for better and worse. Also, a new mishnah - on "ona'at devarim" -- oppression or exploitation or just plain obnoxious speech.

When is the capacity to take advantage of another not relevant? And if there's no risk of exploitation, is there any recourse to cancel the transaction for other reasons? Note the exceptions of consecrated property (hekdesh) and land... Also, what if transactions or loans are made in conjunction with consecrated property? The Temple has some flexibility with fluctuations in the costs of things - without it being exploitative.

A Mishnah lists cases where onaah does not apply and the Gemara discusses the scriptural sources for these categories.

2 mishnayot - Mishnah 1: Determining the differential to be considered exploitative, the amount to swear, and the amount to admit to owing money. Plus, 5 cases that depend on the equivalent of one perutah. Also, Mishnah 2: 5 halakhic categories for which "one-fifth" is relavant as an element of the halakhah.

The daf discusses a variety if different aspects about the chomesh.

The daf discusses what to do if one’s maaser sheini produce is worth less thana perutah and need to deconsecrate it onto coins.

A new mishnah! The erosion of minted coins, and its diminished value, with the potential for fraud in using it, as the metal is worn away. Subject to a dispute between our mishnah and a beraita. Also, the Gemara in the second part of the mishnah - garments vs. coins, and how they're handled in the village vs. cities, where the moneylenders were available to check the coins. Plus, the application of a "generosity of spirit."

A mishnah discusses if there is a time limit to claim price fraud. Also discussed if fraud can be committed by a person irrespective of a business or both? Rav and Shmuel debate if a seller can make a stipulation about price fraud in a sale.

Establishing ona'ah at pricing that is a sixth over the value - with that time frame to consult and complain as temporary recourse. When is the sale considered final? Is that time limit really necessary? Also, once there's fraud, does it matter how extreme the fraud is? (Yes) Or how long the deadline really is? A close reading of the mishnah helps explain the overcharge.

Reneging on a verbal commitment toward a sale - illustrative stories. Also, a new mishnah! On "ona'ah" - cases of taking advantage of another in a measurable way that is already determined to be problematic. Plus, terms whereby a customer can walk back terms that smack of ona'ah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deriving the kal va-chomer reasoning got the stringent and lenient cases in testimony - and the strength of 2 witnesses (against the statement of the main person in question, eg, a defendant), in establishing the need for the party in question to take an oath regarding his claim. Also, different ways that one can confirm a partial claim and deny the rest - what happens then? When must an oath be taken? When must one may back what they've said they've paid (or the rest of it)? Plus, what happens when part of the terms are about a loan of land and part is vessels or utensils - when oaths for the sake.of one's claim about the transfer of land are not in use, without much explanation.

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

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

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

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

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

The daf discussed what are the obligations when traveling with a caravan. Bonus: the daf instructs us on what to do if your caravan is being trailed by a lion.

The decree of the marketplace - takanat ha-shuk. Where something stolen in the marketplace leads to ye'ush (despair) and new ownership, and difficulty in requiring payback by the new owner to the original owner. Also, a new mishnah - when one has a barrel of wine and another has a barrel of honey, and the wine owner pours out the wine to offer the barrel to the slavage the honey. That wine owner can't claim the honey owner owes him for the wine, unless there was a stipulation and agreement in advance. Also, donkeys crossing a river, where one leaves his own donkey to help save the other more expensive donkey....

A case of a Jew who is excommunicated because he's caused harm to another Jew, but via a non-Jew: selling a field that borders the property of Jew to a non-Jew. Plus, bees! And what happens when an aviary is on the border of one's property. Also, the Gemara's read of the mishnah's case of the bees. And to what extent casual conversation may count as testimony. And a second mishnah: When you see your stuff in someone else's possession. To what extent is robbery an issue in the place? That will determine whether the current owner needs to swear that he didn't steal them.

The daf describes when and how people are excommunicated if they do not listen to the beit din. A new mishnah discussed using funds we assume are stolen. The daf discusses if one may steal from a non-Jew.

When a thief steals food and feeds it to his children... they don't have to pay back. If he leaves it to the children, and they haven't eaten it yet, the question of how much they have to pay, or return, is subject to a dispute. Also, the case with an urgency to be resolved, which provides exceptions for who pays what back to whom, with apparent compassion for the one(s) who has to pay back.

More on the priestly watch families - Yehoyariv and Yedaya - and why each gains or loses, in the event of a robber who swore falsely giving the guilt-offering via one family and the monetary payback via the other. Also, a new mishnah to start the final chapter, chapter 10: When one steals an object, and that object ends up with a third party - that third party doesn't owe the original owner. Plus, the relevance of ye'ush, despair, with regard to lost (or stolen) objects.

A new mishnah which discusses the case on a previous daf of a robbed convert and the asham, principal, and chomesh that mist be brought. The Gemara lists the 24 gifts that are given to the Kohanim.

A new mishnah reviews cases where the principal and chomesh are paid. The daf later discusses the unique case of a thief who steals from a convert with no heirs.

More cases of false oaths, paying double, paying a fifth... yet not paying both double and a fifth (only one kind of fine per instance). Also, a case of an unpaid guardian, where the object he's guarding is stolen, and he can take an oath that he wasn't negligent or he can go to court, toe to toe with the thief.

One who falsely claims that a thief stole collateral - the obligation to pay fines for that false claim only once the false claim is proven. Which leads into a discussion of "agreeing to part" of a claim. The discussion is based on the biblical words, "ki hu zeh," which the Gemara explains needs rephrasing. Which is a dramatic statement for us to learn. Also, a review/introduction of the 4 shomerim (guardians, custodians).