Show notes
Today's daf is sponsored by Laura Warshawsky in loving memory of her mother, Evelyn Margolis, Chaya Gittel bat Avram Yitzchak v'Rut, on her first yahrzeit. "My mother was a role model for me and I owe much of who I am and what I do to her example, including learning daf yomi."
Rav Acha bar Rav Huna asked Rav Sheshet: If something generally not included in a sale of a field - like grafted carob trees or mature sycamore trees - is excluded by the seller, does that mean that all the other carob trees are included, or are none of the trees part of the sale? Rav Sheshet answered: Since, without saying anything, the tree would not have been sold, adding words does not weaken the seller's position. An alternative version of the question involves a seller stating, "I am selling you this field, except for half of one carob tree." Does the buyer acquire the other half of that tree? As before, they ruled that the seller retains full rights to the tree, even if the seller's language seems ambiguous.
Rav Amram asked Rav Chisda: If one gives an item to a shomer (watchman) and there's a document proving the arrangement, can the shomer claim it was returned, even if the document remains with the owner, using a migo? The shomer could claim it was lost or damaged and be exempt, so should we believe the claim that it was returned? Or, since the document is still in the owner's possession, should we assume it was not returned? Rav Chisda responded that a migo exists, and the shomer is believed if an oath is taken. Rav Amram disagreed.
It is suggested that this debate is parallel to a tannaitic dispute regarding an investor seeking to reclaim funds from the heirs of a business partner. The debate concerns whether the investor could reclaim half or all of the funds upon swearing that the money wasn't returned. Since joint ventures are viewed as half-loan, half-deposit (to avoid interest issues), the dispute centers on whether the heirs can claim it was returned based on a migo, or if the investor is believed because they hold a document. This explanation is rejected, and an alternative is proposed: Whether the deceased would have informed his heirs if he had repaid the investment before dying, or if we are concerned he died before telling them.
Rav Huna bar Avin ruled like Rav Chisda in the case of the shomer (the shomer is believed via migo) and against the orphans in the case of the investment (the investor can reclaim all the funds). Although this appears contradictory, the Gemara resolves the issue by explaining that the ruling against the orphans assumes the father would have informed them if the money had been returned.
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
Stay Connected
