Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Bava Kamma 89 - January 30, 20 Shvat Jan 30, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Gabrielle Altman in loving memory of Honorable Myriam Altman. "She was a beloved wife, mother and grandmother, and an unforgettable role model and jurist. A Holocaust survivor, she would have been so proud of her family and Am Yisrael, today and every day."

Two sources, one of them our Mishna, are brought to prove that there was a takana instituted in Usha that a woman cannot sell her usufruct (melog) property while she is still married. However, both proofs are rejected. The first source is a case where witnesses lied and said a woman was divorced and received her ketuba money. Once it was proven they were zomemim and that the woman was still married, the witnesses do not pay her the full amount of the ketuba, but the amount she could have sold it for while she was married (tovat hana'a). A woman can sell the rights to her ketuba to someone else for less than its value, as it is not clear that it has monetary value since it will only be worth money if the husband predeceases the wife. If she dies first, her husband inherits everything. If there was no takana of Usha, she can sell part of the ketuba that includes property she brought into the marriage, and therefore it does have value regardless of whether she or the husband die first. However, this is rejected as the property in the ketuba is nichsei tzon barzel, which cannot be sold in any case as the husband has right to the produce and to the principal, and the takana was regarding nichsei melog. Abaye infers from the ruling regarding the witnesses, that if a woman sells her ketuba, the money would go to her and not to her husband. Rav Shalman rejects Abaye's proof but Rava rules like Abaye. The second proof is from our Mishna, that a woman is exempt from paying damages she inflicts on others (until her husband dies or divorces her) as she has no money of her own. If there was no takana of Usha, she could sell her usufruct property and pay damages. To reject this proof, they suggest that the Mishna is referring to a case where the woman has no usufruct property. However, the Gemara begins to raise other questions on the Mishna. Why doesn't the woman sell her ketuba for its market value (tovat hana'a)? Three different answers are brought. What if the woman injured her husband, could she not give him the ketuba as payment? And if so, why does the Tosefta rule that she does not? A few questions are asked on the Tosefta. The Gemara suggests that whether or not the takana of Usha was instituted is a tanaitic debate. The case is one where there is a slave that is usufruct property of the woman - in one braita they rule that the slave goes freed if the woman breaks his arm; in the other, he does not get freed either by the woman or by the husband breaking his arm as neither fully owns him (the woman does not, as per the takana of Usha). However, this is rejected as the reason for the disagreement is not necessarily related to our issue.

Bava Kamma 88 - January 29, 19 Shvat Jan 29, 2024

Show notes

The rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree about whether a humiliation payment is paid by one who humiliates a Canaanite slave. The basis of their debate depends on whether a Caananite slave falls under the term 'your brother' that is used in the verse in the Torah regarding the humiliation payment. How do their interpretations of 'brother' fit in with other Torah verses that use that term as well, such as false witnesses (eidim zomeim) who testify against 'their brother', a king that is chosen from among 'your brothers', and who is qualified to be a witness. The Gemara brings two different ways to learn that slaves cannot be witnesses. How is it different than a convert whose testimony is accepted? The mother of Rav Shmuel bar Abba wanted him to inherit her property when she died instead of her husband so she wrote a document bequeathing it to him. Since her husband had rights to the produce of the property while they were married when she wrote the document, did she have the right to pass on the property to her son? The rabbis disagreed about this and the Gemara explains the basis of their positions.

Bava Kamma 87 - January 28, 18 Shvat Jan 28, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 87

Rabbi Yehuda's opinion regarding blind people appears in several braitot. In one braita, Rabbi Yehuda extends the exemption of blind people to judgment and in another one, he extends it to all mitzvot. Rav Yosef, who was blind, was, at first, thrilled to hear about this opinion and said that if we were to hold that way he would celebrate as it meant he was keeping mitzvot for which he was exempt and he assumed that meant he would get a greater reward. After he heard Rabbi Chanina say that one who is commanded gets a greater reward, he was hopeful that the halakha did not follow Rabbi Yehuda's opinion. The Mishna compares the laws for a person who damages another person and an animal who damages a person. The Mishna also sets out cases where one is exempt from paying damages as one is liable for the death penalty as well, such as hitting one's parents and causing an injury. What are the laws for one who injures a Jewish slave or a Caananite slave? What if the one who hits a minor, shoteh, or deaf-mute? What is the law if those people hit a different person? What if the one who hits is a woman or Caananite slave who doesn't have their own money? Rabbi Elazar asked Rav if a minor girl gets injured, does the money go to her father or her? Rav answers that it goes to her. Rabbi Elazar raises two difficulties against Rav - one from our Mishna and one from a braita. After Rav's response, the Gemara raises a contradiction against the braita from another braita and resolves it. Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree regarding the answer to Rabbi Elazar's question.

Bava Kamma 86 - Shabbat January 27, 17 Shvat Jan 26, 2024

Show notes

Raba asks if there is a requirement to pay for damages for causing a temporary injury (the injury will eventually heal completely). Rava and Abaye each have different positions on this question. They disagree as well in a case of permanent damage to a Jewish slave - to whom does the payment go - to the slave or the owner? According to which tanaitic opinion in our braita does the Mishna follow when it rules that regarding payment for humiliation, it depends on both the one who did the action of humiliating and the one who was humiliated? A different braita regarding humiliation payment is quoted, and the Gemara suggests two ways to understand it - according to Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Yehuda. The Mishna deals with cases where one embarrassed a person who was naked, blind or sleeping and rules that in all these cases, the one who embarrassed needs to pay. What is meant by embarrassing a naked person? Rabbi Abba bar Mamal asks a question regarding one who was embarrassed while sleeping and died before waking up, does one need to pay humiliation payment to the heirs? Rav Zevid and Rav Papa each explain the question differently. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the ruling of the Mishna regarding a blind person and exempts the one who embarrasses the blind person from payment. He also rules that a blind person is not obligated to go to a refuge city, and does not get lashes or death as a punishment. From where does he derive these laws?

Bava Kamma 85 - January 26, 16 Shvat Jan 26, 2024

Show notes

Two different suggestions are offered to explain according to which opinion the Mishna accords when it rules that there is payment for pain even when there is no financial damage. It depends on how a debate between Rebbi and Ben Azai about Shmot 21:25 is understood. How is pain assessed when there is financial damage? There are three different opinions regarding payments for growths that developed on account of the injury - does one pay only medical bills, also loss of employment, or both? The Gemara discusses the specific case in which they argue. Part of the debate between them centers around the double language used in the verse - v'rapo yerapei - which could be understood as including an additional case where medical costs are paid or perhaps coming to teach the doctors have a right to practice medicine and it does not conflict with our belief in God. When compensating for medical costs, the one who cause the injury cannot insist that he/she heal the injured or a doctor from afar or one who will provide services for free. The one who caused the injury can insist that the one injured use a doctor, as further complications may arise and then the injured person will demand more money in damages. Also, the one who was injured cannot insist on a set price, as they may save the money and not use it for healing, making the one who caused the damage look bad. From where do we derive that all four payments are relevant also when there are damages to pay as well? What are examples of cases where each of the four payments would be paid even if there was no financial compensation? Why is the loss of wages for one who cuts off a hand paid as if they were a cucumber watcher - what if the person had a higher-paying job? The loss of wage payment depends on what damage was done and what work the person is now capable of doing.

Bava Kamma 84 - Tu B'Shvat - January 25, 15 Shvat Jan 25, 2024

Show notes

Today's Daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of David's grandmother, Rabbanit Sara Hene Rabinowitz Geffen, on her Tu B'Shevat yahrzeit. "She and her husband, Rav Tuvia Geffen, Rabbi of Sherith Israel Synagogue in Atlanta for 60 years, brought up their eight children with love and learning. Seven of their grandchildren made aliyah and many great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren live in Israel."

Today's daf is sponsored by Debbie Pine and Mark Orenshein in loving memory of Debbie's father Harry Pine, Noach Aharon ben Yakov v'Devora on his 22nd yahrzeit. "We miss him every day and especially on Tu B'Shvat."

Today's daf is sponsored for the refua shleima of Nadav Efraim ben Shulamit Leah who will be undergoing surgery this morning.

Several more sources are brought to prove that "an eye for an eye" is not to be taken literally but is meant to be understood as monetary compensation. However, five of them are rejected. Rabbi Eliezer has a different understanding of "an eye for an eye." How is his opinion understood? What types of payments were not able to be collected in Babylonia, as the Babylonian rabbis were not properly ordained? Penalty payments (k'nas) were not collected there, as well as monetary payments that needed assessment, unless they were both common and were compensating for a financial loss. Therefore, damages to oxen, that were common, were able to be ruled in Babylonia, but not damages to a person, as that was uncommon. Who is the tana of our Mishna who holds that there is a payment for tzaar, pain, even if there are no damages to be paid?

Bava Kamma 83 - January 24, 14 Shvat Jan 24, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Betsy and Tevie Mehlman in honor of the birth of their grandson Lavi to Hillel and Shaked. "His name symbolizes strength. May he be a continuing source of pride and joy to his parents and his entire family."

Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Kotz for the refuah shleima of Yonatan Yitzchak Ben Ateret, an IDF soldier critically injured in his tank in Gaza on Friday.

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of the twenty-one soldiers who were killed in Gaza on Monday. Our thoughts are with their families.

Is it really forbidden to teach Greek wisdom, doesn't it say in a braita that the Greek language is better than the Sorsi language!? To answer, they distinguish between Greek language and Greek wisdom. But even this is challenged by a braita that tells about Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and his family who studied Greek wisdom. They were allowed because of political reasons – so they could interact with the Romans. It is allowed to raise a dog at home only if it is chained so as not to cause damage. The Mishna states that one cannot spread nets to catch pigeons unless it is a distance of thirty ris (8,000 cubits) from a settlement. The Gemara cites sources that seemingly contradict this source and then resolves the difficulties. One who damages another must pay five payments - damage, pain, doctor bills, the loss of employment, and humilation. How are these payments evaluated? Why do we think that the one who harms his friend pays damage, after all, it is written in the Torah an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc.! The Gemara brings different drashot to prove that even though it is written in the Torah an eye for an eye, the obligation is to pay money.

Bava Kamma 82 - January 23, 13 Shvat Jan 23, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Terri Krivosha and Rabbi Hayim Herring in loving memory of Terri's father Nachum Meir ben David and Malka, Judge Norman Krivosha, on his 3rd yahrzeit, and in honor of their granddaughter, Orli Nessa bat Avi and Sheyna, named in his memory. And in memory of those killed in the war, for the release of the hostages and the refuah shleima of all those who have been wounded. "My dad taught me it is my job as a lawyer to figure out the questions the client doesn't ask because once you know the questions, the answers are obvious. Though he never studied Talmud he would have loved its intellectual rigor."

Today's daf is sponsored in memory of my mother-in-law, Esther Farber, on her 21st yahrzeit. She would have loved to be part of Hadran and would be learning the daf with us if she were alive today.

Ezra instituted ten takanot, among them Torah reading on Mondays, Thursdays and Shabbat at Mincha, doing laundry on Thursday, eating garlic on Friday, combing or washing hair before going to the mikveh, men doing to the mikveh after a seminal emission before learning Torah, and others. Some of these are still practiced today and others are no longer practiced. There are ten unique laws relating to Jerusalem, many of them based on the fact that Jerusalem was not given to any particular tribe. Laws of selling a house in a walled city don't apply, as well as egla arufa, leprous house, and ir hanidachat. Other laws relate to it being a city where many holy items and kohanim are passing through and minimizing impurities is necessary. The Mishna mentioned a prohibition on raising pigs. The Gemara tells the story of two Hasmonean brothers, Horkanus and Aristoblus, who fought against each other and one put a siege on the other in the city of Jerusalem. A terrible incident occurred and as a result, they decreed a prohibition to raise pigs and to teach one's son Greek wisdom.

Bava Kamma 81 - January 22, 12 Shvat Jan 22, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran family for the refuah shleima of our wonderful Hadran chevruta Rhona Fink, Chana bat Malka, and her family. "Ill with a heavy case of influenza which has disrupted the tail end of a lovely shared vacation. Wishing Rhona, Ray and the entire family much strength and full recovery - soon, b'ezrat Hashem.

Yehoshua instituted ten takanot upon entering the land of Israel, most of them allowing for a fair share of resources, such as water, grass, fish, paths, etc. The Gemara goes through each one and either explains it, limits it, or raises and resolves a contradiction regarding it. There are several other takanot that Yehoshua instituted - what are they, and why are they not included in this list?

Bava Kamma 80 - January 21, 11 Shvat Jan 21, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Rozy & Larry Jaffe in loving memory of Rozy's mother, Dita Muhlrad, Doba Faiga bat Menachem on her 8th yahrzeit. "Although she's gone 8 years, "nana" continues to inspire us all daily by recalling her elegance, generosity, and sharp witticisms. Born on Simchat Torah, she always smiled and exuded simcha to all who knew her."

Under what circumstances can one raise small animals in Israel? Rabban Gamliel took a more lenient approach, however, in the Tosefta there is a more stringent approach. The Tosefta also rules the one who raises many small animals and wants to repent does not need to sell them all at once. Similarly, a convert who inherits dogs and pigs can sell them over time. Similarly, one who vowed to marry a woman or buy a house does not need to marry/buy the first woman/house he finds but can take his time to find the right one. A story is told of a widow who was desperate to marry to help discipline her son and vowed to marry the first man who proposed, but when inappropriate men proposed, the rabbis permitted her to wait until an appropriate man proposed. What kind of animals can one raise in the home and why? Cats are permitted, along with others, as they eat mice and worms. However, in a contradictory story, Rav rules that cats should be killed and it is forbidden to keep them, as they are dangerous! To resolve this, they distinguish between black and white cats. Rav Papa's sons mentioned three laws/ideas - when there is a plague of sores, people can cry out publicly in prayer on Shabbat (or perhaps it means they can declare fast days on account of it), a door that is closed, does not open very easily (understood metaphorically - how?) and one who purchases a house in Israel from a gentile can write a deed on Shabbat (by asking a gentile to write it for them). The Gemara raises a contradiction on the first, brings two suggestions to understand the second and better explains in what way the third is permitted.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected