Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran Michelle Cohen Farber

This week's learning is sponsored by the Storch, Joseph, and Cohen families for the refuah shleima of their dear friend Jenny, Esther Gittel Bat Miriam v’’Asher Anshel. "We love you Jenny."
If one seizes as collateral any item that is used for one purpose but made up of two parts, one transgresses two negative commandments. This is learned from the verse about the millstone, which is made of two parts. There was a case where one seized a slaughtering knife for collateral. Rava and Abaye disagreed about whether the creditor was able to keep it for repayment of the loan. Abaye ruled that since it was needed for food, the creditor had to return it and could turn to the court to get his money back. Rava ruled that since he could have lied and said the knife was his, the creditor could keep the knife as repayment of the loan. If a jointly owned house (one lives on the main floor and one upstairs) collapsed, how do they split the pieces that fell? If one rents out the upstairs of the house and the floor gets ruined, the owner must fix it. Rabbi Yosi thinks both sides need to pay part. If the owner doesn't fix it, the renter can move in downstairs. Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether this is true if most of the floor is destroyed or even a small part of 4x4 handbreadths. The root of their debate is whether or not we assume a person can live upstairs while having some of their vessels downstairs.

In the event of the borrower's death, if one had taken a collateral, the creditor can keep it as payment for the loan. The lender would lose their money if there was no collateral and no land to collect from. Does the collateral need to be in the hands of the creditor at the time of death or is it enough that it was originally taken as collateral, but could have been temporarily returned at the time of death? Can we expound the reason for mitzvot in the Torah or not? There is an argument between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda about this regarding not taking collateral from a widow. Is it only a poor widow (so that when the creditor returns it every day, people won't speak negatively about the widow that a man is visiting her house or it is relevant for even a wealthy widow?  The Gemara questions this as the opinions seem switched in a different area (a king not being allowed many wives). The issue is resolved. It is forbidden to take the millstone as collateral and the verse adds "because he is taking his soul (livelihood)."  Is that adding on an extra negative commandment or is it coming to include other items that are essential to the borrower's existence? There is an argument about this and the Gemara tries to see whether this argument matches the argument between Rava and Abaye regarding not eating the Pesach sacrifice raw or uncooked as the verse also adds "because it needs to be roasted" - if one eats it raw, is one transgressing two commandments or one. The comparison is rejected. 

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the birth of a grandson, son of Dovid and Ahuva Lewis, to our friend and co-learner Debbie Portnoy.  May the Portnoy and Lewis families see much nachat as the new arrival grows to Torah (and Daf), chuppah and maasim tovim, and may this simcha bring joy, peace, and healing to the Jewish nation and the world. 
If a borrower gives an object as collateral to guarantee repayment of the loan, if it is used to repay the loan and the lender needs the item for basic needs, does the creditor need to sell the object and leave the borrower with a more basic form of the object? This is called mesadrim, a concept that applies in the laws of arakhin (valuations) when one promises the value of a person to the Temple. Would the law also apply to hekdesh (a case where one promises the value of an object to the Temple.   The similarities and differences between these three cases are discussed and various opinions are brought regarding loans and hekdesh. Raba bar Avuha met Eliyahu in a non-Jewish cemetery and asked him a few questions including the law of mesadrim for a creditor and why it was permitted for Eliyahu who was a kohen to be in a non-Jewish cemetery. Several laws regarding collaterals are derived from the verses in the Torah. 

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.