Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran Michelle Cohen Farber

Today's daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz in loving memory of her mother, Chana Cohen, Chana bat Moshe and Tzipora on her 3rd yahrzeit. "Your warmth and beauty created a bubble of caring around you and all you met. The hole of your absence feels irreparable. Tehi zichra baruch."
Rav Papa's ruling allowed for paying rent and compensating for depreciation, akin to the practice of the sons of Kufra, backed by a braita cited in Bava Metzia 69b. Rav Anan, citing Shmuel, asserted that orphans could collect interest. However, Rav Nachman raised doubts, prompting further investigation. It turned out that Rav Anan had observed Shmuel renting out a kettle on behalf of orphans, collecting both rent and depreciation, which he mistakenly perceived as interest collection. Yet, this wasn't deemed as interest, even for non-orphans, given the significant depreciation incurred with each use of the kettle, warranting compensation for the loss. Orphans are permitted to invest in a manner where they enjoy profits without bearing losses. Raba, Rav Yosef, and Rav Ashi proposed various suggestions for managing orphan funds. Investing in a guaranteed investment with a Jew is prohibited, but permissible with a non-Jew. Does this imply that the guaranteed item invested is entirely in the recipient's domain? This notion conflicts with a Mishna concerning laws of firstborn animals. Abaye and Rava offered explanations, with Abaye's being dismissed. While it's permissible to charge interest on a loan with a non-Jew, is this practice viewed unfavorably?

How can individuals engage in profit-sharing investment arrangements without entangling themselves in collecting interest in a forbidden manner? The Gemara delves into this topic, explaining what type of compensation must the invertor pay for the venture. They examine real-life scenarios where such methods were employed. If someone invests an animal and it begets offspring, how and when should these offspring be divided? Furthermore, when one divides profits, how it is the process different when dealing with money as opposed to tangible assets like objects or animals? Regarding the rental of coins, the question arises whether such an arrangement constitutes a loan with interest. It is permissible to charge rent and adjust it based on additional investments made by the owner. However, laws governing rentals differ for items like stores or boats, and the reasons behind these differences are elucidated. Moreover, when renting an item, is it permissible to pay rent and assume responsibility for depreciation, or does this constitute interest?

Today's daf is dedicated in commemoration of Yom HaShoah, in memory of all those who perished in the Holocaust.
Rava mentions three common business practices that he forbade due to usury concerns. What considerations should one bear in mind when entering into a profit-sharing investment arrangement with another individual to steer clear of usury? Besides both parties assuming responsibility for their respective roles, the investing party must compensate the other for their labor to prevent receiving undue benefit, akin to taking interest. How should this compensation be determined? There are various opinions on this matter.

Today's daf is sponsored by Caroline Ben-Ari in honour of her father, Ivor Rhodes, ישראל בן מאיר ושרה, on his 14th yahrzeit. "Dad was a quiet, undemonstrative man who had a deep love for his family, strong values, and unimpeachable integrity. He also had a wicked sense of humour and was the King of the Puns. All Dad jokes and bad puns sent to me today will be greatly appreciated."
Rav Nachman believed that forgiveness (mechila) by mistake in a sale is considered forgiveness. Rava challenged him from the law of ona'ah (overcharging), but Rav Nachman responded to him from the law of aylonit. But in truth, ona'ah cannot serve as a difficulty and aylonit cannot serve as an answer because these two cases are not similar to the case Rav Nachman was dealing with regarding forgiveness. When a lender takes land as collateral, if the lender consumed its fruits as interest, is the lender obligated to return the fruits? Is there a way to consume the fruits and it will not be considered interest? The Gemara distinguishes between places where it is customary that the borrower can remove the lender from the land at any point (if the money is returned) and places where the borrower cannot remove the lender until the time stipulated in the loan.
https://youtu.be/aJWVVdLnvuk

In cases where someone makes an exaggerated commitment during or after a transaction, is this commitment deemed valid? Is it assumed that the person never truly intended to commit and was merely making statements to bolster confidence? Various instances are presented concerning such declarations and their effectiveness in legal contexts.

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy and Jerel Shapiro for the yahrzeits of Arnold Shapiro, Jerel's father z”l, and their grandson Edan Shai, z”l. And in honor of the birth just before Pesach of their new granddaughter in Kiryat Tivon, Israel, whose name is Tohar Libi.
If a lender collects interest, Rabbi Elazar asserts that the court can compel the lender to return the money. Various scenarios are presented where the interest collected deviates from the agreed terms. In each instance, the question arises: should the lender return what was originally agreed upon or what was actually received? Concerning the practice of offering different prices for upfront versus deferred payments in transactions such as renting or buying a house, the Mishna delineates that while it is permissible for rentals, it is prohibited in sales. This discrepancy stems from the nature of rental charges, which are incurred only at the end of the agreed period, thus avoiding issues of benefiting from delayed payments. In contrast, in a sale, payment obligations arise at the time of the transaction. Rav Nachman, Rav Papa, and Rav Chama each attempt to justify their business practice of imposing higher rates on deferred payments. If land is sold with a partial payment upfront and a commitment to pay the remainder later, who is entitled to the produce during the interim period before full payment? A braita provides four potential resolutions based on the initial terms of the sale. After expounding on these cases, Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yehoshua, contends that the braita does not align with the stance of Rabbi Yehuda, who permits interest if it's not explicitly defined from the outset. Furthermore, Rav Huna identifies two additional cases that diverge from Rabbi Yehuda's position.