Gemara Markings Daf Yomi
Bava Metzia 41a
then on the days, about seven lines from the bottom, there's a new Mishnah. Let's say I have a barrel of wine, and I don't have a place to put it, so ha'mafgid. I deposit hoves et sechaveri, deposit in Bob's house. Now there's two possibilities, either I designated a place for the barrel of wine, or I didn't. So lo yichadu, I put a box around lo yichadu, and two lines later, the last one in the line is yichadu, I put a box around that. So if lo yichadu la bylim malgaim, if there was not a particular place where I said, "Hey, Bob, I'm going to use this particular place for my barrel down," rather, I just put it down somewhere, and then comma, at some point later, vittiltala v'nishtabra, the barrel was moved, and it actually broke, now is Bob responsible for that, or not colon? Well, it depends. Im mitoy ich yadu'i nishbara, if it broke while he was handling it, or moving it, then it depends. Colon, A and B, A, le sorchoy, if he was using the barrel for his own purposes, for Bob's own purposes, like I don't know, he needed a steps tool or something, then he would be, Bob would be high of responsible for compensation, whereas B, if it was le sorchoy, for the purposes of the barrel, like let's say the barrel was in a place that was, who knows, maybe it was exposed to the sunlight, or is it just something that was problematic, and he was moving it for the barrel's benefit, then it would be, Bob would be putter, comma, however, even if Bob took it, apparently, to use it for his own purposes, if he returns it, I underline these three words, im mitoy ich yadnishbara, after he returned it to the place, it broke, then colon, B, le sorchoy, B, le sorchoy, whether he took it for his own purposes, originally to use it, where he took it for its benefit, it would be putter, I not underlined, B, le sorchoy, and the word putter. Now, a different situation if yi hadu laha baile maqin, if there was a clearly designated place where this barrel was going to be, like let's say, in the northeast corner of the room, vetilta lavanishbara, and then the Bob, like he moved it, and it broke, bein mitoy ich yadnishbara, he was dealing with it, whether it broke afterwards, when he put it into its place, well, le sorchoy hadu lahaif, I down underlined le sorchoy hadu lahaif, if it was for his own needs, like Bob wanted to use the barrel for whatever he wanted to use it for, then he's responsible to compensate, le sorchoy hadu lahaif was for the good of the barrel itself, then putter, bah would be putter, that's the end of the Mishnah, the Gomorro wants to know ha mani, specifically focusing on the earlier part of the Mishnah, of the Mishnah, who would be the author of such an opinion, that would basically say even though Bob took the barrel to use it for some purposes, if he returns it, then it is going to be not his responsibility should something happen to it, who would say that even though he didn't let me know that, even though he didn't let the owner of the barrel know ha mani, who would be in opinion, now this, again, this focusing just on the opening case of the Mishnah, the ratio of the Mishnah, it's Rabbi Yishmauli, there's a maklokas, we'll see shortly Rabbi Yishmaulr bhikim, it's Rabbi Yishmaulr, Rabbi Yishmaulr is the one who's of the opinion, that if you're returning something to its rightful owner, it's not necessary that the rightful owner knows about it, and once this return, this isn't a return, and then there's a much lower level of liability responsibility, desanya, as we see in the following Brice that takes us till the first three words on the next ambush, the Brice starts here, hagon ifslaminae there, let's say Jim stole a sheep from someone's flock, or salami nakiss, he stole a $20 bill from somebody's money pouch, le maklim shagon of Yaxar, he should return it to the same place he stole it, that's it, divribhishmaul, it's not necessary that he let the owner, the rightful owner of this item, know that it was even stolen or returned, there's Rabbi Kiva who he blocks, oh no, if he wants to have no more liability, this thief Jim, Rabbi Kiva imerzara das bhilim, if he doesn't let the rightful owner know, even though he's returned it back to the place he stole it, he's still going to be responsible should something happen, okay, so who then is the author of our Mishnah, it would be Rabbi Yishmaul, who indicates you to return an item that you kind of took when you shouldn't have as long as he returns the right place, you're off the hook, well the same years though, it says the morning, you're Rabbi Yishmaul, my erya la yikadu, why would it be necessary if the Mishnah is Rabbi Yishmaul, to say that the scenario where you could return it, and you're no longer responsible, is where there was not a specific place designated for the barrel. Afe le yikadunami, even if there was a specific place that should be the case, and yet the Mishnah didn't say that, well the style or the structure of the ratio of the Mishnah is a lo me bia ka amar, colon, and it goes like this, lo me bia, we don't even have to tell you Yishmaul, where there was a designated place where the barrel was supposed to be, the makkaimahi, where that is its place, so you can imagine when it's returned, it's returned to its place, alafe le lo yikadu, even when there wasn't a specific place where the barrel was supposed to be, delaf makkaimahi, where it's not so to speak its place, because it doesn't have a place even there, once it's returned, lo bia yinandas bialim, you do not need the knowledge of the owner, okay, well, now we're going to go to the safea though, the safea ima safea, that's re-quoted, it goes, the quote goes for two words, plus two lines, put the right angles in, in the safea yikadulaha bialimakkaim, if there is a specific place with the barrel of wine, you know, the north east corner of the room over there, vittiltala, and then the homeowner moves it, and vanishbiran, and the barrel breaks, obviously then all the wine spills out, and it's ruined, bain mitoy jiadai, whether he was still handling or dealing with it or moving it or touching it, ben michihi nih hei, squiggle underline ben mich nihi, even if it's after he put it back apparently in its place, if he had taken it litsar kai for his own needs, like to use as a step-tool or something, then he would be haiv, kama litsar kai, if it was though for the benefit of the barrel itself, he would be potter, that's the end of the sonic source, now that clearly seems to indicate that if he used it for his own purposes, even though he put it back, he'd be haiv, now why is that, well, says that it must be asan will establish that that part of the mission is going according to a bikiva, da amar, who's of the opinion, bain an das bialim, if you use somebody else's thing and you want to give it back to them and not have reliability and responsibility, you have to let them know, well, one second then, ira bikiva, if we're going to say the mission is according to a bikiva, which, by the way, I thought we said it was according to a rabi shmall, but, okay, ira bikiva, my ira, then why, in the saifah, does it have to be ikhatu, where there was a designated spot for it, afilo lo ikhatu, nami, even if there wasn't a designated spot for it, that should still be the case, well, just like we did by rabi shmall, when we wanted to say rabi shmall was the ratio, we'll do it in the saifah now, loy mibaya kammar, the style or structure of the mission is loy mibaya, and it goes like this colon, loy mibaya, ay, the author of the mission don't even need to tell you a case of lo ikhatu, where a place was not specified where this bear was going to be dilav mikaimi, where it's being returned, it's not being returned to, like, its place, al-afilo, even when it was understood that the bear was going to be ikhatu, let's just say the northeast corner of the room, nami di mikaimi he, where's the place for the barrel, the northeast corner of the room, maybe if the person took it, and he returned it to the northeast corner of the room that he's off the hook for the liability, nope, he has to inform bainan das biling the owner of the barrel, that he took it and returned it. Okay, well then it seems like we're saying the mission is going according to two saig opinions, a rabi shmall of a saifah bikiva, we prefer always if there's no indication otherwise to say a mission is according to one saig opinion, should we say that it's rabi shmall saifah bikiva, and we're going to have four approaches here to deal with this, the first is here, I put a number one in the margin, two lines later, put a number two in the margin, two lines below that, first where the line is the goi's, I put a number three in the margin, and about seven lines later, first where the line is shish, I put a number four in the margin, there are going to be four different amoreic approaches to answer this, the first is, none other than rabi okhanaan in, that's right, amrabi okhanaan, the rabi okhanaan, the ratio has to be rabi shmall, the saif has to be rabi aikiva, and rabi a yokanaan say even more than that, manta matar gamly, anyone who's able to explain to me the mission that we just read talking about the chavis, the barrel of wine deposited by somebody else, I'll leave it to katana and explain it all going according to the same take opinion, mow, bill mama nay basser, it will be misusa, I will carry his towel and his clothes after him to the bath house, in other words yokanaan, found great difficulty understanding the mission in any way other than that it's two different katanaim, interesting though the more continues with three more amoreic opinions, rebentive baraba, who I circled and a line later in the middle line is rebenasim baraba, not sure if they were brothers or not, I circled him and then about six, seven lines later, last word in line is rav, and the first one on the line, the next line is shacious, abir shacious, so this is going to be the second, third, and fourth approach, the way that ravyakov baraba suggested, um, understanding this mission a tirgama, ravyankov baraba, kameid darav, in the presence of rav, what happened, shanatla almanas, leguiz law, um, the whole missiona can be rebi yishmall, and there's two different reasons going on, in the ratio, when it was returned to its place, where any way you return it is its place, because there was no place designated, and that's fine, so every place is where it's returned to its place, but the safea, you know what's going on, is the person who took it, took it, having in mind that he wanted to steal it, now once he had a mind he wanted to steal it, that requires a much more significant returning to the owner, the person actually uses the word veshiv, now the fact that he put it back into a particular place really doesn't indicate any significant return, because if he didn't let the owner know, that's not a return, tirgama, ravyakov baraba, again, I don't know if, uh, yakov and nason were brothers, um, their fathers were both called vaba, but he was another person who had tried to explain this kameid in the presence of rav, uh, different, um, this, uh, explanation, shanatla almanas, lee schloyach, baayat, um, he didn't have in mind that he wanted to steal the whole thing, he had in mind that he wanted to maybe use part of it, or take part of it, but not steal the whole thing, okay, that one asks, but my kameid flegi, okay, well, and they're both saying the same thing, he basically took it with the intention of either stealing the whole thing, or part of it, what is the essential point of makhlokas then between ravyakov baraba versus ravnasa baraba? well, bishli kusiad sri kusi saran, which is going to be a soya that we'll deal with extensively a little bit later on, uh, in this, on this dav, shli kusiad, um, that which I'm touching something, moving, using something that's not mine, does it have to have been that there was some sort of loss caused to it to make me totally, uh, liable and responsible, or not. kola manda, marla goyuzla, ravyakov baraba, who suggested that the case was where he intended to steal the whole thing, kesavar, that's because he's of the opinion, that yeah, shli kusiad, just moving or touching it, sri kusi saran requires a fisaran, and it can be no greater fisaran than the person, uh, at the time he's taking it, thinking that he's going to steal it, that's like a fisaran of the whole thing, or manda mishlok bariad, and the other manda member says that the issue is not that he wanted to steal it, just wanted to use it, kesavar of the opinion, sri kusiad, ina sri kusi saran, does not require any actual real loss, just an intention that you're going to use something, uh, improperly. masqifla ravshesus, ravshesus, uh, I think this is both ravyakov baraba, abba, and of nasambar, abba, he says, but that the mission doesn't sound like that, because it doesn't say that he was taking it, which indicated taking it to use, part of it taking it for all of it, um, medi, one word in phrase marking, not lugga tani, does it say not the mission, oh no, uh, one word in right angles, what it does say is tiltala, tiltala's word just indicates moving it, not the person's moving it, has any intention of taking it, using part of it, stealing it, not at all, tiltala katani, alla, I'm a ravshesus, we had circle of shasus, he's the fourth approach, hakonayeski, none, what is the case here, you're going to tiltala, la haviela hagoizalayes, let's say he wants to get some baby birds that are sort of high up somewhere, he moved it to be able to step on it, to get the baby birds because sauvar, now he's not stealing it, he doesn't want to take all of it or part of it, he just wants to borrow it, however you can't borrow something that's not yours, uh, without asking, and therefore a shulaymi das, shulaymi das, uh, borrowing something without the knowledge of the person that you're borrowing it from is actually a ghazan, having considered a ghazan, semicolon, now we had our four approaches, reveal from this approach was, the most straightforward, you just say the mission is two different, um, tanoim, but, uh, the approach number two, three, and four, the ravakal approach, nasan approach, shasus approach, um, would say that the entirety of the mission of a kula rabbishmahi, not only the ratio, but even the saifah, and what's the saifah's case? The saifah, shayni habamaklam, shayni habamaklam, in the saifah, where there wasn't a place for it, it must be that when it was returned, it was returned to a place other than that, kama, verabiyya'ihanana was the first approach, uh, what would he say the term 'hihniha' means, rabiyya'ihan would tell you that the term 'hihniha', I put them in right angles, that was when it was returned in the saifah, oh no, that, to him, indicates, been the kaimamashm back to its original place, I think we had called it the northeast corner of the room, period. It, Marl, just introduced this, uh, next case, and then we'll, uh, pause for the moment, uh, makhokas rav and lay vietmar rav white double underlined, and lay vie white double underlined. Um, this idea that if a person other than the owner is shawilayak yad, he, he touches, he moves, he uses the thing that's not his, um, whether it is he now have a high level of liability or not, khadai squiggle in an amar, one of the two of them says shushu'syad, to make the person who used or touched the item, uh, libel now should something happen, requires that there be a kisaran, some sort of use or lacking in the item itself, the khadam, our another one says no, shushu'syad, just touching it and moving it is enough to make him very liable, and, and it's recently, sorry, doesn't even require any loss to the item itself. Uh, the gamora suggests that maybe we could match up one of these two names with one of these two opinions, tistayim, uh, let us try to conclude that it's rav who says shushu'syad, anas yu kisaran, disaniyam. I put a long point marking in the margin from this line till, uh, four lines before the bottom, when it says first one line is shushu's, that would be the end of this, uh, suggestion, here's a shim, uh, next year we will continue.