Gemara Markings Daf Yomi
Bava Metzia 67b, 68a
Samak Zion, how about bays about 40% of the way down the Ummud, first word on the line is "Ara" in the middle of that line is "Rapapa". So we underlined "Rapapa" and "Rafunabrahdriyaishua". Amritra Valu, the two of them together said, "Hi Mashkanta", when you're dealing with a Mashkaran, that is something that is put down, like pledged, take a loan, sort of like collateral for the loan, pledged the loan. It depends, is it a type of place where if the borrower comes up with the money, he can pay back the money and get it back immediately? Or no, there's a certain period of time before which he cannot pay, oh, he can pay off the loan if he wants, but he doesn't get the Mashkaran back. So "Hi Mashkanta baastra de mesalki", I squiggle under and baastra de mesalki, and two lines later, the second and third word, and fourth word is baastra de lo mesalki. So if it's in a place where the one who borrowed the money, he can pay back whenever he wants and get that back, then it's sort of like even though the Malva's holding it, it's not really the Malva's, and therefore, three didn't him. Number one, "Ain baqhayv goi ve hai manna", number two, "Ain habihornotso baapishthayam", and number three, "Shvius Mishamatata", let's go over those three. Number one, "Ain baqhayv", let's say the Malva lent out the money, he dies and as all the estate falls to his kids, his sons, a ball-ho of their father, in other words, somebody who held the debt against their father is not able to collect from that field. You know why? Because a father doesn't actually own that field. Also, "Ain habihornotso baapishthayam", same situation where the Malva, he passed away, leaves a bunch of kids, one of them is a firstborn, normally the firstborn gets a double portion of the assets that are really there. Do we consider that as an assets really there? Well, maybe, maybe, no, because who says it's necessarily going to be his, and therefore, the firstborn would get a portion, but not a double portion of it. And finally, "Shvius Mishamatata", if you have a loan, this is not considered a Malva Allah moshgrain that the Shmita year will come and release that loan. It's not considered one of those because, again, it's a place where the lender can pay back whenever he wants and get it right back. However, if you're in an also a place to lo misalki, where the standard practice is that a field, which is pledged to a loan, is not able, let's say guaranteed for an hour, a year or three years, then all three of those didn't and would be different. Number one, "Ain habihornotso baapishthayam", and number three, "Ain shvius Mishamatata". So, we go over those three also. "Ain habihornotso" will collect from it because it's basically considered like a mechar, and that would be the same of all of these, and since it's guaranteed to be, at least for a certain period of time, in the possession of the Malva, Bauchal would be able to collect from it like any asset. A bhor would get a pishnayam, a double portion of it, and shmita would not come and free that loan because, again, it's sort of like a real asset, semicolon. "Ain habihornotso" mishmaedirafpapa. "Ain habihornotso" if you're dealing with another one of these fields that's pledged. "Ain sabihornotso" it's in a place where the one who borrowed the money can pay back any time and take it back. "Mishmaedirafpapa" "Ain filumi tarmi de abudya". He can take it back, and that one can take back the field, let's say it was a bunch of date palm trees. He can even take back the date palm trees and even take back the dates, which the way they would pick dates from a date palm tree is, shake the tree violently, or climb up to the top, and drop a bunch of them down, and they would have these mats that were set out, and the dates would fall into the mats. Essentially, we're saying that the person wants to take his date palm field back, can do it, and he even gets the dates that are on the mats. However, "vihi agbhahanhu" bit "sistni kano" if, however, the lender, the malva who is holding these as a guarantee, forgetting the loan paid back, if, however, he had put them into the dates, into baskets, already, and taken them off of the mats, then "kano" then he already acquired the dates. "Lamandamar", according to an opinion, though, that says, "kalaf shaluik'aik'aik", "birishus maik'aik'aik'aik'aik'aik'aik'aik'aik'aik'. If my kalim are in your rishus, we actually look at my kalim as being independent entities, and therefore, they can acquire for me, then "afilo deloy agbhahanhu" bit "sistni kano" even if they hadn't been placed into baskets, they just fell onto the mats, well, those mats are owned by the malva, and therefore the malva would be able to keep those dates, period. "Pjita", we have a case as "pashu" in a case which is not so clear. "Pjita", a comma connector, "a" and "b", "a", "baasu" to "masalki" in a place where the borrower, at any time he wants, can pay back the loan, and get back the field, or the "mashkran", the "amar", and he says as part of the deal, "loi mis talakna", that he's not going to use that option, well, "ha kamar tala mis talakna", even though everyone else does it, if that was part of the deal, that's part of the deal, and that is a valid part of the deal, he cannot prepay early. "Kama", how about this though, "la" case "b", "baasu" to "loi mis talaki" in a place where the standard practice is, let's say you use a field for a year or three years, and there's no ability for the "loi" to get it back, "va amar mis talakna", and he says that he wants to be able to get it back early. "My", what do we say? Now, they can never make that condition, but does that have to be like a separate acquisition for that right or not? "Cola" does they have to make like a special deal that that should be effective or not? Well, "maklokas", or "papa", we underline "amar", "loi sura klamiknainé", no, that's a valid condition, you don't have to make a separate acquisition on it. "Roshasius braider of eddy", who we underline says "sara klamiknainé", no, you would have to make a separate acquisition, but "hillosa", you actually have a series of these, they mark the "hillosa" marking, the "gomorapaskan", "sara klamiknainé", there would have to be a separate sort of acquiring of that right, period. Another "a" and "b", "amar", if somebody who had borrowed money says the following "a", "azil vaisisusia", I'm just gonna go and got the money, I'm just going to get it, then "loachil", you who were holding his, let's say, field that had produce on it, you can't eat the produce anymore, even though he hasn't actually technically paid it back, but he said he's going to get the money right now, so you can no longer eat the Paris, however, be, if he says similar, but it's different, "azil etra", I squiggle on it on the word "etra" the "aisili", he says "I'm gonna go and I'm gonna make an attempt, so I'm gonna make my best effort to bring the money", well, is he going to bring it or not? I don't know, "maklokas", "colon", "ravinu anjalain amar aachil", the "malva" can still consume the "peros" from that field, "mar sujibrader" of "muri", who anjalain amar, "loachil", no, he cannot, any more the "malva" eat the "peros" from that field, the "hilhasa" and "laklama isa gomorapaskan", "loachil", he can no longer eat those "peros". Period. Now, we've mentioned "nakaiso", which is you lend up money to someone, they give you a field with which you can subtract a certain amount of the money owed and eat whatever producers in that field. We see now that in a half box, in one big half box of "khanorapapa" and "ravashi", put them all in the same half box, "loachil binakaiso", they, their personal practice, was not to have a deal like that. We had mentioned a sermon in Rabban and there were certain things that maybe they shouldn't do, whereas Ravina, who gets his own half box, "aukhl binakaiso", he would, make an arrangement like that, lend out money, get the field, and eat the "peros" of the field each year, as long as there was a set amount that was being subtracted from the money's owed. Okay, now, "mar sujibrader" comes along and wants to try to explain both of the opinions. "ar mar sujibr", my time, "demanda akhl", I squeal underline, "demanda akhl binakaiso", what's the reason of the one who would, in other words, "ravina", and then when we get to the second line on "samh" class, "amad alif", I squeal underline that word "man", and we'll see their reasoning. So, what's the reason of the "banda akhl binakaiso", in other words, like "ravina", who would do that? Well, he views it being similar to "midididaha" they are "stay akhusa". If you have a ancestral field that "hectish", it was donated to "hectish", you can purchase back from "hectish", and there's a set amount per size of the field, per year that you have to pay, just like a "stay akhusa", "lava falghav", isn't it? So, "de ka akhil pirituva", that "hectish", while they have it, could be consuming an enormous amount of "heiro" so to speak, yet "amar rachmana", the merciful one in the "taira", gives a set amount per unit that it should be redeemed, that haparek "lava arba zuzi", it's for zuz per year, in other words, a "cella" per year per field of a certain size, hahana miseo's who over here, "loishna", "ravina" felt there should be no difference in lending out money with a "nakhasa" on the field that he gets as a "mashkran". "Uman da asura" is called "lana in the man", the other approach, "ravkhan" or "papa" or "vashi", "amar lach", they would say to you, well, one second, "stay akhusa" is wonderful, but "stay akhusa", if you have one of those fields that was dedicated to "hectish" and then you're buying it back, "hectish" he, that's a case of where you are marketed, it's not a loan issue, it's sort of like a gift to "hectish" or a donation to "hectish" and that depends on redeeming it, so the Torah gave a a price per unit that you would have to redeem it at, "varachmana ukhme hapijein" whereas "haka" over here, "halvahi", it's, we're talking about in the context of a loan, "umexic ribis" and like we've seen over and over again, if it looks like ribis in the loan, it would be problematic. Period. "amar havashi", I underlined "ravashi" here and then we'll see about, let's say three lines later, at the end of the line is the word "rav" and the first word on the next line is "ashi", I'll underline him again, so "ravashi" is going to tell us a couple, "a couple denim", says "ravashi", "amrolli sabi den matamikasya, the elders of the city of mikasya" said to me, "stam mashkanta shasa", unless otherwise stipulated, the typical "mashkrain" is one year, meaning like one year, the "malva" is able to consume the "peros" of it, "lamaynafkamina", so okay, whatever this is making, with a practical application of that, well, here it is, "dihi akhla shasa" or "shasa", "matsim missaliklavi", "ilo", "lamatsim missaliklavi", that if the "malva" had already had the "mashkanta" for a year and each and whatever the "peros" were, got in the benefit of it, then "matsim missaliklavi", the "lova", if he wants to, even apparently, let's say, if the terms and conditions of the loan were for longer, he's able to be missaliklavi, he could come pay up whatever he owes and get it back, tell the "malva" to get lost, well, I don't get lost, but to leave the field, "vilo" and if not, "lo" "matsim missaliklavi", if the time wasn't up, let's say it's only been like four months or six months, then he would not be able to during that first year, because "mashkrain" is for one year, "vamuravashi" and "lova" is his name again, he has another pearl to tell us from the "sabi" to "mashkanta" I'm really, the "sabi" to "mashkanta" told me, "my mashkanta", that word, the etymology of that word, what is the "mashkanta", what's the word from? Well, "de shihunah", like a "shachain", like a neighbor, "gabe" that is kind of like a neighborly or becomes kind of like the one next to you, okay, that's wonderful, well, the "mai nafkimino", what's the practical halakh application of that? Well, there's a big one, "ladina debar mezra", "dina debar mezra" is the concept that if you have a property that the neighboring properties have the first rights to your property before you sell to somebody else, essentially over here when you're holding a property of "mashkrain" there is no closer neighbor, so to speak, than the one who it might actually be, his property. "amuravah" with this "ravah's point", we're going to, well, we'll take us down to the "mashkna", so we'll get to there and then pause for the moment. "amuravah", lace, he comes three things to kind of sum up what we've seen in the last four or five deaths, that the halakh is not like what we saw. "amuravah lace", I double it on lace, "hill casa", "low ke tarshi papunayi", "low ke shari", "mihus noi", "low ke khakire narshoy", it's not like the "ravapah's tarsha" type of arrangement that we saw back on "daaf samayi", it's not like the documents that were done in the city of Muhusen, it's not like the khakire arrangements that you have in the city of narshaw, "colon" and now the good more, we'll go over each one of these three, I underline now "ke tarshi papunayi", one line later, I underlined "shari mihus noi" and two, four, six lines later, first word on the line is "venach", in the middle line is "chakire narshoy", so let's go over these three and we'll see what each one is that we'll then, I guess, know that the "laka's not like that", so the "tarsha" of "papunayi", we saw that back on "daaf samayi", it was where a "ravapah" would sell his beer for a higher price, even though it was six months before the season, he would sell it for the price of what it would cost six months later, the "halaka's not like that", so "ke tarshi papunayi", "ke tarshi de revpapa", so basically we don't pass like that, you would not be able to charge more for a commodity that in six months from now is going to be more, because as far as "ravapah" was concerned there was no problem, but if you look at it from the perspective of the purchasers, they're basically willing to pay more for something and only get it later. "Stari makhus noi", I don't know, "Stari makhus noi", what is the documents of the city of "makhusa", "dizak phile la ravcha acarna ve cas phile be stara", the problem with that is let's say you have a bunch of partners, a wealthy partner who is putting all of the money up and the other people are going to work in that deal, so the way that Rashi explains it is let's say they were going to go to purchase some merchandise, those are going to purchase, I don't know, $10,000 of merchandise and then have a bunch of sales people try to sell it and they'll get half of the profit, the sellers, they'll get half of the profit, so you make an assessment of how much profit they'll be and actually right into the document is part of the principle which is owed by the other partners to the one who put up the money, let's say 50% as though it's owed like a real money that was put up, now you can definitely have money that's owed that's real money that was put up, so if you put up $10,000 you go $10,000, but if they put up $10,000 and they're assuming the profit was going to be $12,000 you can't put the document together as though it was an $11,000 that was owed, so I'll read that again, "a sharma" "dizak phile", you established the ravcha, the part of the profit that would go to the one putting up the cash, "a karna" and make it part of the principle of the castile bistara, you know why, because "mi yaymar" "dahavirafcha" who says necessarily that there's going to be a profit and if there's not, then that would be a ribous issue. "amoule mar bar amé maré" circled mar bar amé mar emphasizing that he was not just mar but he was the son of amé mar, he said to ravashi, "well, you know, ravashi, my father does deals like that, abba ofed hachihi" and you know what my father does? Basically, if there's a profit grade and if there's not, he doesn't collect the larger amount, but he also l'chame when they come before him and they say, let's say a particular deal that there wasn't a profit, "manoule" he believes them and doesn't collect that much money. "amoule" says ravashi, "back to mar, the son of amé mar" well, "tena recha de isse la die day" that's great as long as he's still alive, but what happens if somebody's father were to, let's say, drop dead, the kids wouldn't necessarily know that, they'd get a document, it was said that, you know, X amount of money was owed to them, they wouldn't know that was really a combination of the money that was owed to them as well as the potential profits which are happened to binan in that case. So, "ischre" what would happen if somebody's father passed away, Vinuffle Staracami asked me and the document fell to the children and they don't know that that was the "amoule" what would we say? And unfortunately, sometimes words that we say, even if it's non-intended, have consequences and seems like this was one of those cases, "have" this was like a "shkaga", this is a quote for words of a person can tell us, like a "shkaga" shows in me, leave me, I'll show it from a, like a mistaken thing that was said by the ruler, like the ruler of the region, which even is a mistake, you kind of go with it, "vinachnashte da maimar", "nashte da maimar" passed away, "kama", "chakire narshoy" was the last in the list, "chakire" is a type of where you at least somebody's, let's say, field. So, the way the "narshian" "chakiras" would work is you would have a, like a wealthy members of society, they would lend out money to poor people and the poor people would give their fields as collateral for paying back that loan to the wealthy people and then the wealthy people would turn right around and lease those lands out to the poor people for a guaranteed income of, let's say, I don't know, a thousand pounds of wheat. Again, this is going to be a problem of ribbess, the "chakire narshoy" "de kasvihakir", they would write out the following type of arrangement. "Mashgein lei plania "arei leplania" so, you know, Bob and Steve and John, the poor people, are putting up their land to daddy big bucks and the "chakramine" and then daddy big bucks is turning right around and leasing out that same land to those same people. The reason it's a problem is because Amos Kenah de Akne, nearly, when exactly did daddy big bucks acquire, in this case he's the mouth of the land, that he could turn around and transfer it back to them. That's the problem. The ha'idna nowadays though, "de kakasvihakir" was a different text that is used in this type of arrangement and the text says something to the extent of, here's a one line quote, "kanina "meine" the "shahina" "kama" "idnim" "bada kakra" where they would write that, well, the daddy big bucks is acquiring the land from them as a "mashgein" and then he's going to use it for a few seasons or a few years himself and then he's going to turn around and lease it out to them, then it would actually be okay and the reason why it would be okay is because we want to encourage society, wealthy members of society, to lend out to poor members of society, and this would search the "encouraged" that "kadeshalitin" will tell us "bifne love" and so it's not to slam the proverbial door in the face of those who need to borrow money. I put the next words in brackets or in parentheses, "the love milce he" however, the Gomor turns right around at the end and says that's actually not the case, even if it stays by the lender for a season or two, for a year or two, it would still be a problem of ribbess and therefore would be forbidden. Adkhan.