Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran Michelle Cohen Farber

This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.
The employer is trusted to deny a worker's claim that the worker was not yet paid, once the date for paying salary has passed. The assumption is that on the day one is supposed to be paid, the employer will remember to pay to avoid transgressing the prohibition of delaying a salary payment. Why is the worker's claim not accepted based on an assumption that the worker would not steal? The Gemara explains that the employer has two chazakas in their favor (would not transgress delaying salary payment and that the worker would demand the salary on the given day, and the worker only has one. The creditor can take a collateral if one does not pay a loan on time, however, the creditor may not enter the borrower's house to seize an item. Instead, an agent of the court collects the collateral on behalf of the creditor. Shmuel rules that an agent of the court is also not permitted to enter the borrower's house but can seize the borrower's item in the marketplace. Three sources are raised as difficulties against Shmuel's position. Eventually, they explain that whether or not the court can enter the borrower's house is a subject of a tannaitic debate. A braita rules that when taking an item for collateral, the court's agent must ensure that the borrower is left with basic needs for himself, but not for his wife and children. What are these basic needs? This is derived by a gezeira shava from laws of valuations to the Temple. Rav Nachman raises a difficulty against this from Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel's position in the Mishna that thirty days after the loan, the creditor can sell the item seized as collateral. If it can be sold, it is clear that one does not need to leave the borrower with basic needs.

A braita extrapolates the verse in Devarim 24:15 that holding back salary is considered like taking away his/her soul. Whose soul - the worker or the employer? Rav Chisda and Rav Huna each bring different answers and explanations, based on verses in Proverbs. From the word "with you" in Vayikra 19:13, they derive three cases where the prohibition to delay salary does not apply. One exception is if the employer passed over the responsibility to pay to a store owner or money changer. If the store owner does not pay the worker, can the worker demand payment from the employer or is the employer no longer responsible? Rav Sheshet and Raba disagree on this issue. Does the prohibition of delaying payment also apply to a contracted worker (kablan) - one who gets paid for the job and not per hour? This depends on a different debate about whether a contracted worker assumes ownership of the item they are fixing or not. If there is a disagreement between the employer and the worker about whether the worker was paid, if it was before the expected day or payment, the worker takes an oath that he/she did not get paid and collects their salary. This goes against the general principle that the oath is usually for one to be exempt from payment (maintain the status quo). Why is this case an exception to that rule? Is there a reason to protect the worker more than the employer?  Various arguments are brought and rejected as the issue is complex. The conclusion is that an employer is busy with work/worker and does not remember whether or not the worker was paid.

Study Guide Bava Metzia 111
This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg. 
Today's daf is sponsored by Nina Black in loving memory of her mother, Sophie Black, Sophia bat Avram, z"l whose yahrzeit is today. "Mom was a committed Jew, a deep thinker, a lover of learning and would be happy that I took on the commitment to do Daf Yomi. I miss her every day."
What is the time frame in which one must pay one's worker? It depends on whether the person was hired for work during the day or at night and whether the job was for the day or per hour. There are five negative prohibitions associated with delaying of payment for salary and one positive commandment. Do the same rules apply for a rental payment for one who rents animals or vessels? Do they apply to a ger toshav (one who keeps the seven Noachide commandments)? Three tannaitic opinions are brought relating to these two questions which is based on different approaches to extrapolating the verses in Devarim 24:14-15 and Vayikra 19:13.

Today's daf is sponsored in loving memory of Eilon Weiss, brother of Tzippy Huri, one of our learners, who was killed on Shabbat in Gaza. Eilon also learned daf yomi daily, even while he was serving in Gaza. 
 

This week’s learning is sponsored by Bob & Paula Cohen in loving memory of Helen Cohen, Henna bat Yitzchak Nechemia whose yahrzeit is on Friday.
This week's learning is sponsored by Sara Averick & Jose Rosenfeld in loving memory of Sara’s mother, Leah bat Rav Yehuda Leib Chaikel v’Chaya Masha. "She made sure her children got an excellent Jewish education."
Today's daf is dedicated in memory of the eight soldiers who were killed yesterday in Gaza, and in memory of Yair Roitman who was injured a few days ago and died yesterday. 
A sharecropper who pays a set amount (chokher) cannot plant something that will weaken the land or will not regrow for seven years, such as flax or cut a sycamore tree, unless they will be cultivating the land for seven years. Abaye and Rava disagree on whether the enhancement to the sycamore tree goes to the sharecropper. Rav Papa worked as a sharecropper for growing hay, but a palm tree grew instead. He wanted to get money for the enhancement of the tree when he left the field, as the tree prevented him from planting hay, but Rav Sheisha entered into a debate with him and eventually ruled that he could only get the value of the tree if he had cut it for its wood. Another similar case is brought but since the tree grew on the border, where they wouldn't have planted anything, the sharecropper did not receive money for the enhancement of the tree. Rav Yosef had a planter working in his field who died and left five sons-in-law who all wanted to replace him. However, Rav Yosef threatened them to leave his land as he did not want five people working the land, as each would think another person would do the work and no one would take full responsibility. If a planter says, "If I cause a loss to the owner, I will leave without taking the enhancements," does the planter forfeit any enhancements there were, or is this a case of asmachta? A case is brought of a planter who left in the middle of a job to move to Israel. Rav Papa bar Shmuel and Rava disagreed about whether he could receive the full enhancements to the field that he would have received or whether he had to compensate the owner for his loss, as now the owner will need to find a sharecropper to finish the job. Rav Ashi understood the ruling in one way, but Rav Acha questioned his understanding.

Those who own land near the river should cut all trees along the river's edge to allow those who pull in the boats to have space to do so. A story is told of Raba bar Rav Huna who refused to cut his trees down. Although he was justified in his argument, Raba bar Rav Nachman came by without checking into the situation properly and had them cut down. Raba bar Rav Huna cursed him and the curse was fulfilled. Which communal responsibilities are rabbis exempt from and for which are they liable? Those who benefit from a river or a gutter need to share in the expenses to fix it up if it directly affects their field. A neighbor has the right to buy the property adjacent to his house/field and can even force a purchaser to sell it to him/her. This law is derived from the verse in Devarim 6:18, "Do what is right and good in the eyes of God." The Gemara discusses in detail the nuances of this law. In which cases does this law not apply? If the neighbor does not want to purchase the land, who else receives higher priority for purchasing the land?