Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran Michelle Cohen Farber

If a river uprooted a tree and placed it in someone else's field, can the owner take it back? What if someone planted a tree on someone's property without the owner's knowledge? Does the one who planted receive payment for their work and how much? Would the law be the same for a house one built in someone else's ruin without the property owner's knowledge? How much advance notice is required for a landlord to a renter before kicking out the renter from the landlord's property? The answer depends on the time of year (affected by supply and demand), whether it was in a city or village, whether it was a store or a residence, and what type of store it was. What cases are exceptions to the rule in which no notice is required?

Today's daf is sponsored by Lesley Glassberg Nadel in loving memory of her mother, Theresa Glassberg, Tova bat Tzvi Hirsch and Bayla on her 20th yahrzeit, on Rosh Chodesh Sivan. "May her memory be for a blessing."
If one traded animals or slaves and the animal/slave gave birth and each side claimed the offspring as their own (born before or after the sale), the offspring is split between the buyer and the owner. If one had two animals or slaves - one small and one large and each side claims they bought/sold the bigger/smaller one, what is the law? The Mishna delineates different possibilities depending on whether each side brought a definitive claim (bari) or a non-definitive claim (shema) and rules in each case. In the case of the animal/slave, why is it divided? Why does it not remain where it is presently? After resolving this question by assuming the case is where it is not in the hands of either side, the Gemara raises another question - why does it not remain in the original owner's possession where is the last place where it had presumptive ownership? The Mishna must be according to Sumchus who holds that money in doubt is split without swearing. But, there is a debate about whether Sumchus held that position even in a case where both cases have definitive claims. Therefore, the Mishna is explained according to each position - either they have non-definitive or definitive claims. Two difficulties are raised against Raba bar Rav Huna's explanation of the Mishna. In the case of the two slaves/two pieces of land, if each claims definitively which slave/piece of land they bought/sold, why do they take an oath? There are three reasons why there should not be an oath in this case. To resolve this, they suggest four possible answers and analyze whether these answers are feasible.

Today's learning is sponsored by Lori Schuldiner Schor, on the occasion of her 65th birthday. "With gratitude for access to meaningful learning, and with appreciation for the love and support of my family and friends, throughout the years, to this very day (ad haYom haZeh)."
Today's daf is sponsored by Dianne Kuchar in loving memory of Dennis. "Today was Dennis’ birthday. He was 6 months older than me, both being born in 56. He died at 65, two years ago. On June 6, in two years time, we will complete the daf yomi learning cycle of 7 1/2 years. I thank Hadran, Rabbanit Michelle, and all the daffers for their support."
At what point does a borrower assume responsibility for unanticipated damage? The Mishna rules that if the borrower agrees that the lender can send the object to them with someone else, the borrower is already responsible, even if the lender sends it with their slave. Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether this law relates to a Jewish slave or a Canaanite slave. The Gemara questions Rav's position that it refers to a Canaanite slave, as a Canaanite slave is considered an extension of the owner. However, the issue is resolved by employing an ukimta, establishing the Mishna in a particular situation. There are different opinions about when an owner can change their mind and decide not to loan out a borrowed item. Shmuel rules on a different issue: if one steals an item that can be sold in bulk at a lower price or sold by unit at a higher price, what price does the thief need to reimburse the owner? He holds that a robber would pay the higher amount if it is hekdesh (consecrated item) and the lower amount if it is to an individual. However, a difficulty is raised as Shmuel in a different context equates hekdesh and non-hekdesh. To resolve the difficulty, they say that Shmuel changed his mind about the latter source.

Presentation Bava Metzia 98
Today's daf is sponsored by Rebecca and Ezra Darshan in loving memory of Helene Isaacs on her 24th yahrzeit, on Yom Yerushalayim. "She was an optimist who loved learning, and would be so proud of all of the women learning daf."
To resolve the difficulty raised against Rav Nachman and Rabbi Yochanan, the cases in the Mishna must be explained as a situation in which the borrower admitted to part of the lender's claim. The Gemara explains that an extra cow must be added to each case and delineates each party's claim. According to Rami bar Hama, two cows must be added to each case, as Rami requires any case of shomrim to have both a partial acceptance of the claim and a partial admission by the shomer. The Mishna ruled that if both are definite in their claim, the borrower/renter needs to take an oath - this oath can only be explained by gilgul shevua, rolling over another oath. If each is unsure of their claim, the money is divided - this follows Sumchus' position, but the rabbis disagree. Questions are asked regarding cases where one borrows an item "with the owner" and then before the rental time is up, he/she decides to rent it without the owner or the reverse. Does the exemption of "with the owner" apply because the agreement is viewed as a continuation of the first agreement or not?  What about from renting to borrowing or from borrowing to renting to borrowing or vice versa. If an item is sent via messenger to the borrower, at what point does the borrower assume responsibility for the item?

A borrower is not liable for accidental damage that occurs from using the item in the manner it is meant to be used, however, if it was used in an atypical manner, the borrower is responsible. Various cases are presented to explain further what is and is not considered damage or death from typical use. Rava discusses additional scenarios in which the exemption of shmira b'baalim would apply, such as if the borrower asks the lender to bring them a cup of water while borrowing the item, or if the lender holds a public position. The rabbis told Rava that if he lent them items, they would not be responsible as he "works for them." Rava retorted that they are subjugated to him, as he can choose what material to teach and they have no choice but to learn it. The Mishna describes cases where an animal is rented for some time and borrowed for some time, or where there are two animals—one rented and one borrowed. If the animal dies and there is doubt as to whether it was during the time it was rented or borrowed, or which animal was rented or borrowed, the halakha changes depending on what each side claims (whether they are sure in their claim or unsure). This is based on the principle that if one has a sure claim and the other side is unsure, we hold by the one who has the sure claim. The Mishna poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Nachman and Rabbi Yochanan, who hold that one is exempt even if one has an unsure claim, as the status quo remains and the burden of proof is on the one trying to get money from the other. They resolve the difficulty by claiming that the Mishna refers to a case where there is an obligation on the borrower to swear, and since one who is unsure of one's claim cannot take an oath, the borrower must pay. However, the borrower would be exempt if the case does not require an oath.

Abaye, Rava and Rav Ashi each bring a different derivation for the rule that shmira b'baalaim is a valid exemption only when the owner was working for the borrower at the moment of the act of borrowing. Rami bar Hama asks four questions regarding the borrower's liablity for unexpected damages (oness). Then he asks three questions, and Ravina asks a fourth regarding the exemption of shmira b'baalim. Each of these eight questions relates to a unique case and asks whether the general halakha applies in these exceptional circumstances. The last two questions, regarding a husband/wife and an agent are answered: they depend on amoraic debates. Is there a difference if the agent is the owner's slave? Rami bar Hama asks a question regarding a husband's level of responsibility for his wife's usufruct property and about who is responsible for meila for her property if it was sanctified. Rava answers both questions. A borrower is not liable for depreciation or for an animal dying from use as the borrower can claim: "I didn't borrow it just to leave it on the windowsill!"