Skip to main content

Shiur Supplement - Daf 96a

Text file

 

A. Sha'al mi-shutfin... palga de-shayli mihat miftar [lines 32-35] The gemara records two further questions of Rami bar Chama that deal with the issue of partners who are involved in a borrowing-lending relationship. In the first instance, a jointly owned object is lent out by the partners but ONLY ONE of them is contracted to work by the sho'el. In the second instance, one lends an object to partners but is contracted to work for ONLY ONE of them. Both these case exhibit partial characteristics of be-ba'alim. It is, however, questionable whether this is significant or not.

 

B. Sha'al mei-ha-isha... ke-kinyan guf dami o lo [lines 35-37] BACKGROUND: According to the mishna [Ketubot 46b] the husband is entitled to all profits that accrue from his wife's property during their marriage. However, the capital remains the wife's. For example, should the wife own an orchard, all the fruit produced (peirot) belong to the husband. Nonetheless, the wife retains sole ownership of the property (guf).

 

            The gemara records two further questions of Rami bar Chama that deal with the issue of a husband and wife who are involved in a borrowing-lending relationship with a third party. In the first instance, one borrows an object belonging to a married woman and contracts her husband to work for him. In the second instance, one lends an object to a married woman and is contracted to work for her husband. In both instances the object is linked with the wife and the contract with the husband. The question is whether the nature of the husband-wife relationship allows for the application of "ba'alav imo" in these two scenarios.

 

            In theory, since we are dealing with TWO separate people (husband and wife) the din of ba'alav imo should be irrelevant. Nonetheless, since the husband receives all the profits from his wife's property, there may be room to consider him the ba'alim of her property (even though he has no legal rights over it). The gemara posits that this is dependent on whether "kinyan peirot ke-kinyan guf dami" or not. In other words, in general, is the one who receives the profits considered to be the owner of the capital as well, or not. This will be dealt with more thoroughly later on in the gemara.

 

C. Tosafot s.v. Sha'al  As mentioned above, the husband has control over his wife's assets during their marriage. If so, how is it possible for her to lend out an object to a third party when her husband is entitled to receive all benefits from this object? (By lending it out she is preventing him from utilising it which is a denial of his rights.)

 

            Tosafot mention two possible answers:

1. It is the husband who lends out the object to the third party. Nonetheless, since he is unable to do so without his wife's permission, the gemara terms such a transaction as 'borrowing from the WOMAN.'

2. The husband IS entitled to  lend out his wife's assets without her consent. The gemara terms the transaction as 'borrowing from the WOMAN' to indicate that it is HER property that is being lent out, albeit by virtue of her husband's doing.

 

D. Ba'al pelugta de-Rav Yochanan ve-Raish Lakish... lav ke-kinyan ha-guf dami [lines 40-43] BACKGROUND: The Torah requires one to bring the first fruits of his produce (bikkurim) to the Temple and give them to the kohein. Part of the ceremony involves a prescribed recitation of thanksgiving (Devarim 26:3-10) for the bounties that have been bestowed by God. Only the OWNER of the property can thank Hashem for the land that he has been given.

 

            In a case where one purchased the produce to be grown a strip of land (but not the land itself) what are his obligations vis-a-vis the mitzva of bikkurim? The answer to this question would depend on whether or not he is considered the owner of the land: According to R. Yochanan, not only must he bring the bikkurim, he must also recite the passage of thanksgiving as he is considered to be the owner of the land (kinyan peirot KE-kinyan ha-guf). According to Reish Lakish however, he does NOT recite the passage of thanksgiving as he is NOT considered to be the owner of the land (kinyan peirot LAV ke-kinyan ha-guf).

 

            By comparison, therefore, R. Yochanan would consider the husband to be the owner of his wife's property, since all profits accrued are his. Reish Lakish, on the other hand, would NOT consider the husband to be the owner of his wife's assets.

 

E. Shali'ach pelugta de-Rav Yonatan ve-Rav Yoshiya... she-shlucho shel adam ke-moto [lines 43-47] BACKGROUND: A person who verbally obligates himself with an oath to behave in a certain manner is required to fulfill his declaration. (For example, one who vows to abstain from alchohol is forbidden to consume anything that contains alchohol.) It is possible to nullify one's vow under certain circumstances which are beyond the scope of this discussion. However, the point that is relevant to our gemara can be found in Bamidbar(30:7-10) where the Torah rules that a husband may nullify the vows made by his wife, on the day that he hears of them.

 

            Our gemara discusses whether or not a shaliach can take the husband's place in nullifying the wife's vows. 

 

This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!