Online Shiurim

Blog

Rabbi Baruch Bodenheim's shiurim

 by 

Rabbi Baruch Bodenheim: Wednesday Night Gemara Shiur Bava Metzia 27B Amar Rava (04/25/2012).

Learn Gemara 27b from “Amar Rava” (middle of the wide lines) until 28a “Ella Amar Rava”. Basic Questions 1) A. Why did the gemara initially think that the interest of the finder has any relevance? B. After the Gemara’s response that it is in the best interest of the owner of the item, does that imply that the interest of the finder is no longer relevant? Ritva “Amar Rava” 2) How could the Gemara say the Takana Drabanan applies by Siman Muvhak when the Gemara 18b said clearly that Siman Muvhak is an acceptable Siman from the Torah? Tosfos “Vana” 3) Why would the loser of an item agree to have it returned based on Simanim yet would not want this to be so by a lost Shtar (document)? Ritva “Nicha”

Rabbi Baruch Bodenheim's shiurim

 by 

Rabbi Baruch Bodenheim: Monday Night Gemara Shiur Bava Metzia 27B Ta Shema (04/16/2012)

Monday Night Gemara Shiur Bava Metzia 27B Ta Shema

Learn 1) Gemara 27b 3rd Ta Shma “Vhaya” until 1st wide line “Leima Ktanai”  2) Tosfos “Dorshuhu”  3) Major Question; If we are worried an object was lent and therefore do not accept Simanim there should never be a case that one could return an item since we should be concerned even if the claimant can give proper identification that the item was once his but was subsequently sold or gifted? Ritva 27a “Keilav”  4) Question; Why does the Gemara not bring a proof from the Mishna on 20a and 24b that we are not worried items were lent?  See end of Tosfos 20b “Matza”, Rosh end of First Perek Siman 50

Rabbi Baruch Bodenheim's shiurim

 by 

Rabbi Baruch Bodenheim: Wednesday Night Gemara Shiur Bava Metzia 27B Chaishinan (4/18/2012)

Wednesday Night Gemara Shiur Bava Metzia 27B Chaishinan

1) Major Question; If we are worried an object was lent and therefore do not accept Simanim there should never be a case that one could return an item since we should be concerned even if the claimant can give proper identification that the item was once his but was subsequently sold or gifted? Ritva 27a “Keilav”  2) Question; Why does the Gemara not bring a proof from the Mishna on 20a and 24b that we are not worried items were lent?  See end of Tosfos 20b “Matza”, Rosh end of First Perek Siman 50. 3) Learn Gemara 27b 3rd 1st wide line “Leima Ktanai” until “Amar Rava”  4) Fundemental Question (Chakira); What is the reason Simanim would not be accepted according to the Torah? Is it because we are concerned A. the person is lying, or B. there is another item with exactly the same Siman therefore the Siman is not conclusive proof to whom is the real owner? Bring a proof

Rabbi Baruch Bodenheim's shiurim

 by 

Rabbi Baruch Bodenheim: Monday Night Gemara Shiur Bava Metzia 27B Laima KiTanaee

 

1) Learn Gemara 27b 3rd 1st wide line “Leima Ktanai” until “Amar Rava”  2) Fundamental Question (Chakira); What is the reason Simanim would not be accepted according to the Torah? Is it because we are concerned A. the person is lying, or B. there is another item with exactly the same Siman therefore the Siman is not conclusive proof to whom is the real owner? Bring a proof. 3) Continue the Gemara from “Amar Rava” until bottom of the Amud. 4) Tosfos “Viana”

Rabbi Baruch Bodenheim's shiurim

 by 

Rabbi Baruch Bodenheim: Monday Night Gemara Shiur Bava Metzia 27A Tanu Rabbanan

1) Gemara from 2 dots “Tanu Rabanan .. until “Rava amar 2) Question; The gemara listed three scenarios which are  excluded from the obligation to return:  1. A lost item that is worth less then a Pruta, 2. Aveida of an Akum is 3. Item lost by banks of river.  Is it also permitted to keep these items? & if it is, Why is in not considered stealing? What removed the ownership of the original owner?