Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran Michelle Cohen Farber

Can one use money that is devalued? At what percentage would it be considered ona’ah and one can claim back the amount he/she was exploited by the devaluation of the coin? There is a debate between Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon. Why is this different from ona’ah with clothing where there is no debate? Once a coin is devalued to more than half its original value, the coin must be destroyed. Why? There is a debate about whether one needs to destroy the coin from the rate of ona’ah until half of its value or just below half its value. Two difficulties are raised against Rav Huna who held by the first option. What is the time frame allotted for getting back the exploited money? Is it the same as for clothing or different? The Mishna mentions an exception to the rule – a case where one can return it even over a year later. How is this case understood by Rav Chisda? A coin that is devalued can be used for redeeming maaser sheni produce. How does this work?

Today's daf is sponsored by Jeffrey and Jill Shames in loving memory of Jill's Mom, Seena Baker, שפרה בת סול וברכה who passed away 9 years ago. "Mom, we pray that wherever you are you experience the reflection of your wisdom and love in your children, your children's children and your children's children's children."
Is the time allotted for getting your money back in a case of over/undercharging the same for the buyer and the seller?  Do the laws of exploitation apply only to businesses and not to individuals? Does it depend on what they are selling?  Are there certain merchants to whom laws of exploitation do not apply or are there certain laws of exploitation that do not apply to any merchants? The answer to these questions depends upon how one understands Rabbi Yehuda's opinion in the Mishna. If one sells an item upon condition that the buyer will not bring a claim of exploitation, is that a valid condition? Rav and Shmuel disagree. Do their approaches perfectly align with the debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda in a case where one betroths a woman and conditions it upon not giving her the financial rights that a wife has in a marriage?  Does it depend on whether the buyer agrees with or without knowing that he/she was overcharged?

Study Guide Bava Metzia 50
Today's daf is sponsored by Rikki and Alan Zibitt in loving memory of Frieda Carlin, Fraydl bat Meir z"l, on her 9th yahrzeit yesterday; and in honor of the birthday of their son, Elon Yitzhak. "Mom, we celebrate your gentleness, fierce love of family and strong moral code, which your grandson has inherited."
Various proofs are brought to support Shmuel's opinion that the percentage for ona'ah, exploitation, can be determined based on the market price and also on the amount paid. Two are rejected and one is accepted. The Mishna discusses only the percentage at which there is exploitation. What happens if the amount is less than or more than? If it's less, we assume the parties agreed and they cannot get their money back. However, the Gemara questions whether they also have the same window of opportunity to claim they were overcharged and get the money back that they were overcharged. If they were overcharged more than 1/6, the deal can be canceled. But the Gemara also asks whether that is within the same time frame or is there no statute of limitations. They try to answer both questions from our Mishna, focusing on the fact that first the merchants in Lod were happy with Rabbi Tarfon's ruling and after they heard about his extension of the time limitation, they chose to accept the rabbis' position. However, they were ultimately unsuccessful in reaching an answer to either of the two questions.  
 

 
Rav and Rabbi Yochanan hold differing views on the implications of a down payment in a transaction. Must both parties fulfill the entire agreement, risking a curse upon breach, or does the down payment bind them only to the part already transacted? The Gemara suggests that a similar debate arises in a tannaitic discussion regarding loan cancellation during the shmita year, when an object taken as collateral doesn't cover the loan's full value. However, in conclusion, the debate is explained differently - does the collateral act as payment or merely a reminder of the debt? Further questions emerge: Can one party unilaterally dissolve a verbal agreement? Rav and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about whether or not this action constitutes dishonesty. Two difficulties are raised against Rav from tannaitic sources and one against Rabbi Yochanan from a different statement he made. Most, if not all the difficulties are resolved. The Mishna delves into laws of ona'ah, addressing overcharging or underpaying. What percentage triggers ona'ah, and within what timeframe can a buyer claim fraud? Rav and Shmuel offer different opinions on whether this percentage is based on market value only, or also on the item's purchase price. Moreover, what recourse exists for a buyer/seller over/undercharged beyond or below the ona'ah threshold?

Today's daf is sponsored by the Sosland family in loving memory of Rabbi Henry Sosland, z"l. "Dad, we strive every day to live by your values, especially your devotion to family, to learning, and to am Yisrael. Am Yisrael Chai!"
Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in honor of her beloved daughter Beki on her birthday. "With love, gratitude, and appreciation for your very existence! May your journey in the world of daf yomi continue to give you knowledge, strength, and the satisfaction of being part of an incredible Jewish learning endeavor!" 
Rava tries to prove Reish Lakish's position, that money cannot effect a transaction by Torah law, by verses in the Torah (Vayikra 5:21, 23) and from a braita. In Vayikra 5:21, the verse mentions tsumet yad, which is understood as a borrower who has committed to giving a particular object to the lender as payment for a loan, and then later denies it. Even though this is forbidden, this situation does not reappear among the other situations in verse 23 where the Torah requires one to return the object. Rava proves Reish Lakish's position from here as the borrower only received money and the creditor did not pull the object and therefore the object was not considered owned yet by the creditor. Rav Papa raises a difficulty but Rava resolves it. The braita brought to prove Reish Lakish's position discusses laws of me'ila, misuse of consecrated property. If one pays with consecrated property (unintentionally) for another's services, like an attendant in the bathhouse,  the payment effects the transaction and one cannot change their mind. But Rav infers from the braita that if the service charge includes also payment for objects that the service provider uses, then the payment does not effect the transaction the buyer pulls the object, proving Reish Lakish's position. A difficulty is raised against this proof but they resolve it. When the Mishna states that the rabbis said about one who paid money for an item and then canceled the transaction that God will punish them, is this a curse or is it meant that the rabbis inform the person that God may punish him/her? Rava and Abaye disagree about this. Rava brings proof for his position (curse) from a story about Rabbi Chiya bar Yosef who was given a deposit/down payment for purchasing salt and when the price went up, he wanted to cancel the transaction. However, this proof is rejected as only a deposit was given and the issue was: it is considered that by giving the deposit, he had committed to the entire transaction or just for the part that his deposit covered? This issue is a debate between Rav and Rabbi Yochanan. An attempt to question Rav's opinion is brought. However, the case dealt with land and the Gemara explained that since land can be acquired through money, the deposit is sufficient to require both sides to follow through with the entire transaction. The same would not apply to moveable items as they cannot be acquired through money. Therefore one must only keep a commitment for the part already paid for.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in loving memory of her husband's friend and chavruta, Avraham ben Shlomo Baime on his 7th yahrzeit. " A true eved Hashem who founded the Elazar English Kollel which delves into the intricacies of the Talmud. I have the z'chut to be learning with his gemarot which inspire me to reach greater heights through the guidance of our trailblazer R. Michelle who provides clarity and daily introspection to our learning."
Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran zoom group for a refuah shleima of Yaakov Yitzchak ben Miriam Esther, the son of our dear friend Miriam. "Yitz should have a speedy and full recovery."
Rav Huna ruled that one can acquire an item through chalipin if the buyer has a pile of coins and says to the seller, "Sell it to me for this pile of money." Since the seller did not care to count how much money was in the pile, the sale would be final as soon as the seller took the money. Would regular laws of onaah be effective here, if the buyer underpaid by a sixth? There are two different versions of what Rav Huna said regarding onaah in this case. If one sold an item through a chalipin transaction but made it clear that he/she wanted the chalipin item to be valued at the value of the item he/she was selling, would the chalipin item be considered like money and therefore there will be no acquisition by the chalipin item, but only when the sold item is pulled by the buyer, or not? Can one infer from Rav Huna's ruling that a coin can be used for effecting a chalipin transaction? Is it the buyer or the seller that gives the chalipin item? This is both a debate among amoraim and also tannaim. These opinions are derived from Rut 4:7 when Naomi's relative sells his rights to Boaz to redeem Naomi and Ruth's property. What is the basis for the debate between Rav Sheshet and Rav Nachman about what items can be used to effect a kinyan chalipin? What is an asimon that is mentioned in the Mishna? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish have a debate, as mentioned previously, does money effect a transaction by Torah law or not. From where in the Torah do they derive their opinions? Two parts of our Mishna are brought to raise a difficulty against Reish Lakish's position, but are resolved.