Talmud Jerusalem
Talmud Jerusalem

Talmud for Bava Metsia 5:1

עוד היא בשלא אמר יזכו לי בד' אמות שלי. והתנינן קרוב לה מגורשת קרוב לו אינה מגורשת מחצה למחצה מגורשת ואינה מגורשת. חזקיה אמר בשכר הליבלר היא מתניתא. התיבון והכתיב ואני בעוניי הכינותי וגו' והיכי אם בנתונין בתוך ידו עשיר הוא אי בשאינן נתונין לתוך ידו יש אדם מקדיש דבר שאינו שלו הוי אומר בנתונין בתוך ד' אמות שלו.

R. Hanina says: The sun must have gone down and the moon have commenced to rise. In effect R. Samuel says: The moon cannot shine as long as the sun still lightens, neither can the moon shine after the sun has darted his (morning) beams. R. Samuel bar-Hiya, in the name of R. Hanina, says: If a man, when the sun has begun to set, descends from the summit of Mount Carmel to bathe in the sea, and re-ascends to partake of the oblations, he has certainly bathed during the daytime. It is, however, only a certainty in the case of one taking cross-roads to shorten the route; but not in the case of one who follows the high road (Strata). What is meant by "the intermediate period "? R. Tanhooma says: It resembles the delay of a drop of blood placed on the edge of a sword, i.e. the time required for the drop of blood to divide and run down on either side of the blade, is equivalent to the period of transition. According to R. Nehemiah, it means the time it would require for a man to run half a mile, after sunset. R. Yosse says: This twilight lasts no longer than the twinkling of an eye, and not even the men of science could measure it. Whilst the R. Yosse and R. Aha were together, the former said to the latter: Does it not seem to you that the passage of this half a mile (twilight) lasts but a second? It is certainly my opinion, said R. Aha. However, R. Hiya does not say so, but each twinkling of an eye, measured by the duration of the passage of half a mile (as R. Nehemiah), is doubtful. R. Mena says : I have made an objection in the presence of R. Aha: Have we not learnt elsewhere, that if an impurity is seen, once during the day and again during the intermediate period, or once in the twilight and again on the morrow, when the certainty exists that the impurity dates partly from this day and partly from the next day, there is a certainty as to the circumstances of the impurity, and the sacrifice is obligatory.

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: There120Mishnah 5, which forbids handing over calves to be raised unless the rancher is paid for his work. you say that a paid trustee who would be responsible for accidents is forbidden. But here121Mishnah 6, which allows such contracts for adult animals without restrictions. you say that a paid trustee who is responsible for accidents is permitted. Does it not happen that an unpaid trustee agrees to be like a borrower81,An agent is not liable for accidents only if he strictly acts in the principal’s interest. If he is permitted to use the other’s money for his own trades, be becomes liable as a borrower while remaining an agent (Babli 94a).122The quote from Halakhah 5 is slightly out of place here. Since the rancher is supposed to use the animal for his purposes, he cannot be under the rules of the unpaid trustee; he is a paid trustee. But this is really irrelevant for the question; the main point is that the transaction involves an element of risk which shields it from the laws of interest, Note 115.? Rebbi Jeremiah asked: There123Mishnah Bekhorot 2:4, quoted in the Babli 70b. The offspring of a Gentile’s mortmain animals in the hands of a Jewish tenant farmer are not subject to the laws of the firstling since the mothers are considered the Gentile’s property. you say that mortmain belongs to the first, but here you say to the second124In the Halakhah here, the offspring is defined as the tenant’s property.. Rebbi Yose said, there since the essence belongs to the first, the offspring are counted for the first125Since the owner can repossess the mother if the tenant is in arrears with his payment, the Gentile retains a monetary interest in the mother. This is enough to free the offspring from the rules of firstlings.. But here the essence belongs to the second since the offspring belong to the second126As explained in the Halakhah. For the majority opinion in Mishnah Bekhorot 2:4, the offspring’s offspring is subject to the rules of firstlings for the same reason..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: There120Mishnah 5, which forbids handing over calves to be raised unless the rancher is paid for his work. you say that a paid trustee who would be responsible for accidents is forbidden. But here121Mishnah 6, which allows such contracts for adult animals without restrictions. you say that a paid trustee who is responsible for accidents is permitted. Does it not happen that an unpaid trustee agrees to be like a borrower81,An agent is not liable for accidents only if he strictly acts in the principal’s interest. If he is permitted to use the other’s money for his own trades, be becomes liable as a borrower while remaining an agent (Babli 94a).122The quote from Halakhah 5 is slightly out of place here. Since the rancher is supposed to use the animal for his purposes, he cannot be under the rules of the unpaid trustee; he is a paid trustee. But this is really irrelevant for the question; the main point is that the transaction involves an element of risk which shields it from the laws of interest, Note 115.? Rebbi Jeremiah asked: There123Mishnah Bekhorot 2:4, quoted in the Babli 70b. The offspring of a Gentile’s mortmain animals in the hands of a Jewish tenant farmer are not subject to the laws of the firstling since the mothers are considered the Gentile’s property. you say that mortmain belongs to the first, but here you say to the second124In the Halakhah here, the offspring is defined as the tenant’s property.. Rebbi Yose said, there since the essence belongs to the first, the offspring are counted for the first125Since the owner can repossess the mother if the tenant is in arrears with his payment, the Gentile retains a monetary interest in the mother. This is enough to free the offspring from the rules of firstlings.. But here the essence belongs to the second since the offspring belong to the second126As explained in the Halakhah. For the majority opinion in Mishnah Bekhorot 2:4, the offspring’s offspring is subject to the rules of firstlings for the same reason..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Full Chapter