About this episode
This week's learning is dedicated for the refuah shleima of Pesha Etel bat Sara who is undergoing surgery this week. This week's learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of her mother Bessie "nanny" Mauskopf, Basha Leah bat Tzivia Chaya and Meir Yehudah. "A kind and devoted wife, daughter, mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She always embraced family and was so proud of all my learning. She exemplified good middot by just being herself. May her neshama have an a liyah ." This week's learning is sponsored by Rhona Fink. "With gratitude to Hashem, we welcome our first grandson, Ezra Lev, born on the first day of Pesach to our son and daughter-in-law, Daniel Fink and Abbey Marks. May Ezra Lev grow up to be a helper with an open and warm heart, and a blessing to the Jewish people." What is a " situmta ," and does it finalize a deal once completed? Rav and Shmuel hold differing views on a scenario where a product is sold and payment is received before the product's completion. They debate the number and nature of remaining steps in the process that still consider the item in the seller's possession, thus circumventing usury concerns. Several difficulties are raised with the different opinions based on the details brought in our Mishna and are resolved. The Mishna presents a debate on selling manure as fertilizer even if one does not have any. How many different opinions are there and what is the debate between them? Regarding prepayment at a set rate, if prices subsequently drop, can the buyer withdraw from the deal to avoid loss? Here, the Mishna records a dispute: the tana kamma asserts withdrawal is permissible only if initially stipulated, while Rabbi Yehuda dissents, allowing withdrawal regardless. In a case involving a son-in-law purchasing dowry jewelry on behalf of his father-in-law, paying upfront, then witnessing price reductions, Rav Papa bars withdrawal without initial stipulation. Despite money not constituting an act of acquisition, reneging is met with a " mi she'para ," a curse for breaching one's word. The rabbis and Rav Acha raise objections to Rav Papa's ruling, which are subsequently resolved. The Mishna permits lending grains to a sharecropper for planting, even if prices rise. A related braita endorses the practice but restricts it to instances where the sharecropper hasn't commenced work. Rava elucidates the disparity: the Mishna concerns scenarios where the sharecropper typically provides seeds, rendering pre-planting agreements contractual rather than loans. Conversely, the braita pertains to situations where the owner typically supplies seeds, meaning that once the sharecropper begins work, the subsequent loan of grains is no longer part of the work contract, but an actual loan, which is forbidden, as any loan of grains for grains.