Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Bava Kamma 79 - Shabbat January 20, 10 Shvat Jan 19, 2024

Show notes

Even though there is no agency for doing a transgression, there is an exception to the rule with slaughtering an animal that one stole and if the thief has an agent slaughter it, the thief will be liable to pay the four/five payment. To be liable for stealing, slaughtering/selling, the item must have been removed at some point from the original owner's property as an act of acquiring must be performed. The Mishna discusses various cases regarding this issue. Can it be derived from our Mishna whether a shomer (a person asked to watch an item or renting/borrowing an item) assumes responsibility for the item when pulling it or just upon agreeing to watch it? What is the difference between a ganav and a gazlan? Why was the Torah stricter with a ganav? Why is the payment for a sheep (four times) less than the payment for an ox (five times)? One cannot raise small animals in Israel - why? Why is it permitted for large animals? What other kinds of animals is it forbidden to raise and in what particular situations?

Bava Kamma 78 - January 19, 9 Shvat Jan 19, 2024

Show notes

Rava said that the word "se - sheep" in the Torah comes to exclude mixed breeds. To what halakha was this statement referring to? If one took upon oneself to bring a sacrifice of a burnt offering ("harei alai olah"), designated a bull and then someone stole it, does the thief have to replace it with a bull or can the thief replace it with a sheep or bird as the original owner can give one of those as an offering to fulfill their commitment? If a thief did not completely sell the animal or did not do a proper slaughter, there is no four/five payment. There are four different opinions regarding what part of the animal the thief would leave for him/herself which would render the animal still partially owned by the thief, thereby exempting the thief from the four/five payment. There are contradictory braitot regarding partners who stole and animal and one of them sold it - one says the one who sold it is liable and the other, exempt. How does Rav Nachman resolve this contradiction? Rav Yirmia and Rav Papa ask more questions regarding cases of partial sales of the animals. Their questions are left unanswered.

Bava Kamma 77 - January 18, 8 Shvat Jan 18, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Zeev Segal, Chaya Sara Nisan and Naomi Noi in loving memory of Rabbi Shmuel Halevi Segel.

Today's daf is sponsored by Sara Averick and Jose Rosenfeld in loving memory of Sara's brother, Moshe David ben Naftali Yosef Halevi v'Leah. "שהעמיד תלמידים הרבה"

We learn from the red heifer that an item that can be potentially redeemed is considered as if it is redeemed for certain issues, such as being considered edible to become susceptible to impurity of food. To explain a contradiction between how the Gemara understood Rabbi Shimon's position in our Mishna and a different statement of Rabbi Shimon that a non-valid slaughter is not considered slaughtering, Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish offered different answers in Bava Kamma 76. Why did each one not hold like the other? Rabbi Yochanan preferred to explain that the animals were unblemished. Reish Lakish's answer was based on an approach he held that if one is not liable for stealing and selling a particular animal, one would not be liable for stealing and slaughtering it (derived by juxtaposition in the verse between slaughtering and selling), and therefore preferred an interpretation that the animal was blemished, as it could be sold. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish elsewhere disagree on exactly this issue in the opposite case - can one be liable for selling a treifa according to Rabbi Shimon who holds that one would not be liable for slaughtering a treifa? Rabbi Yochanan raises a difficulty with Reish Lakish from a braita which remains somewhat unresolved. The braita that Rabbi Yochanan quoted against Reish Lakish mentioned a case of stealing and slaughtering an animal that is a mixed breed (born from two different types of animals). They raise a question against that case - since the verse regarding the four/five payment mentions the word "sheep" and that word is known to be meant to limit the law to only animals that are not mixed breeds. Why in this case are mixed breeds included?

Bava Kamma 76 - January 17, 7 Shvat Jan 17, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Jessica Shklar in honor of Ruth Leah Kahan. "It has been quite an experience learning Bava Kamma and hearing my impeccably-mannered older sister described as a thief who can't look after her oxen. I want to assure the Daf Yomi community that she is neither of those things."

Today's daf is also dedicated to the continued refuah shleima of Nadav Efraim ben Shulamit Leah.

The Mishna teaches that if one stole then sanctified and then sold/slaughtered an animal, the thief would not pay the four/five payment. But if it was sanctified, isn't that like selling to God as it transfers ownership, like a sale, and shouldn't the thief be liable? The Gemara brings three answers, as the first two are rejected. In conclusion, they say that the animal is still considered "the sacrifice of the owner" even if it belongs to the Temple. Because of a difficulty with Rabbi Shimon's position in the Mishna, Rabbi Shimon's distinction between sanctification that comes/doesn't come with responsibility to be referring to a different case - where the sanctification happened by the owner before it was stolen. How does this work with the position of Rabbi Shimon that a slaughter that is not kosher is not considered "slaughter" to be obligated for the four/five payment? Three answers are brought and Rabbi Elazar questions some or all of them. His question is answered by another position of rabbi Shimon that if the blood can potentially be sprinkled or the animal can be potentially redeemed, we view it as if it was done, thereby making the slaughtering in these cases be considered a kosher slaughtering.

Bava Kamma 75 - January 16, 6 Shvat Jan 16, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Joshua Waxman in loving memory of Alex Kahan, Eliyahu ben Shlomo ha-Kohen v'Aliza, father of Aimee Kahan, on his shloshim. "A passionate and gentle teacher who touched countless lives."

Today's daf is sponsored by Blima Slutksy in loving memory of Mazal (Tina) bat David and Rina.

Today's daf is dedicated to the refuah shleima of three boys from our community who were injured in the terrorist attack yesterday in Ra'anana, one of whom is still in critical condition - Nadav Efraim ben Shulamit Leah, Ilan Zvi ben Sharon Salon, Gilad David ben Sima Chana, among all the others injured in the attack.

Rav Huna taught in the name of Rav that one who admits to a fine and then witnesses come, the one who admitted is still exempt. Rav Chisda raises a difficulty against him from a braita with a story about Rabbi Gamliel and Tavi his slave, where Rav Papa admitted that he blinded his eye. There are two different versions of the story in two different braitot. The Gemara first suggests that there is a dispute between these braitot on our issue - if one admits to the fine and then witnesses come, is the person exempt or liable, but then they suggest that the difference can be explained differently. Shmuel disagrees with Rav and obligates. They bring a source for each opinion in the Torah and raise a difficulty on Shmuel's position from a braita. Shmuel resolves the difficulty. Rav Hamnuna limits the opinion of Rav and distinguishes between a case of confession that causes a financial obligation (such as theft, where one would have to pay the principal) and one with no financial obligation (such as one who was convicted for theft and admits to having slaughtered or sold. Rava raises a difficulty on this argument from the story with Rabbi Gamliel. But it is also quoted that Rabbi Yochanan makes the same distinction as Rav Hamnuna. And Rabbi Ashi brings proof from our Mishna and a braita. However, his proof from the braita was rejected. The Gemara suggests that Rav Hamnuna's distinction is a debate between tannaim, although it is somewhat rejected.

Bava Kamma 74 - January 15, 5 Shvat Jan 15, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 74

Rava and Abaye disagree on the understanding of a braita, which causes them to disagree about whether witnesses contradicted in court can later be convicted of being eidim zomemim. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yochanan also debated the same issue. The next Mishna brings cases where the thief will not be charged payments of four/five times. From the beginning of the Mishna one can infer that if one confesses (which would exempt them from the four/five payment as it is a penalty) and then witnesses come later, they would be liable to pay the four/five payment. This goes against Rav Huna who states in the name of Rav that once one admits to it in court, they will be exempt, even if witnesses come to court later.

Bava Kamma 73 - January 14, 4 Shvat Jan 14, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 73

This week's learning is sponsored anonymously in honor of our dear friend and gifted teacher Rabba Yaffa Epstein to pay tribute to the memory of her nephew Yakir Yamin Hexter z"l who was killed in Azza.

Today's learning is dedicated by the Hadran Zoom family in honor of the birthday of our very own "Rabbi Yirmiya", Becki Goldstein, whose pointed questions keep us on our toes always. Happy birthday! To many more years of curiosity, Becki, with lots of love.

Abaye and Rava disagree about whether an eid zomem is disqualified from being a witness when they testified falsely or when convicted to be an eid zomem. To understand why Rava holds they are disqualified only from when they are convicted, the Gemara brings two different explanations. Whaqt is the practical difference between the two? Rav Ashi ruled that we hold according to Abaye and this is one of the six exceptions to the rule where we hold like Abaye when he disagrees with Rava. A difficulty is raised against Abaye's position from our Mishna, but is resolved. The Gemara suggests that the argument between Rava and Abaye is also a subject of debate between two tannaim and brings a braita to prove it. However, this suggestion is rejected as inconclusive as it is possible the source of the debate there was regarding whether one views two different statements made in a very short time frame as if they are one unit (toch k'dei dibur k'dibur damei). If the debate is based on the latter, then Rabbi Yosi contradicts what he says in a sugya in Temura 26a where he rules we do not view two statements made one after the other as one unit. How is this resolved? Rava rules that if witnesses were first contradicted and then others came and made them into eidim zomemim, they are convicted as eidim zomemim as one cannot be convicted on contradictory testimony but it is viewed as a start toward making the witnesses zomemim. Rava proves this from a braita.

Bava Kamma 72 - Shabbat January 13, 3 Shvat Jan 12, 2024

Show notes

Rav Nachman changed his mind and ruled that if one slaughtered and sold an animal that was jointly owned and the thief admitted to one owner, the thief would have to pay a partial payment of four/five times to the other owner. If so, how does Rav Nachman understand the difference between the cases of one who stole an animal of one's father in this Mishna and the next Mishna – why in the case where the father died before it was slaughtered does the thief not need to pay the four/five payment to his brothers? The Mishna rules that if one slaughtered the animal as a non-sacred animal in the Temple, one would be liable to the four/five payment. Rav Chavivi infers from this a ruling on a different debate about whether the act of slaughtering is only considered significant at the end of the act or is it significant already from the beginning of the slaughtering. Rav Huna rejects Rav Chavivi's inference but Rav Ashi reinstates it. How can the other opinion be explained according to our Mishna? A different version of the inference Rav Chavivi is brought, in which they first quote the debate regarding slaughter and Rav Chavivi raises a question against Rabbi Yochanan from our Mishna. The Mishna brings various combinations of witnesses who become accused of being false witnesses in a theft case where the thief was accused of slaughtering and selling as well. What if one group was made zommemim and not the other? What if all of them? What if only one witness from one of the groups was made a zomem? Abaye and Rava disagree about whether an eid zomem is disqualified from being a witness from the moment they testified falsely or from the moment they are convicted to be an eid zomem? The Gemara brings the logic behind each position, but for Rava they bring two different suggestions.

Bava Kamma 71 - January 12, 2 Shvat Jan 12, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 71

Today's daf is sponsored by Karen Bloom in honor of the 5th anniversary of Aliza Gavriella's bat mitzvah on Parshat Vaera. "Your family is so proud of you and inspired by your commitment to learning the daf. We love you so very much."

The Mishna obligates those who slaughter or sell on Yom Kippur. The Gemara attributes the Mishna to Rabbi Meir who believes that a person liable to lashes must also pay. But if so, how can the following Mishna be explained as the next Mishna exempts one from death and payment? Rabbi Meir must distinguish between lashes and death - in the case of the death penalty and payments there is a law of kim lei b'draba minei, but in lashing and payments it does not apply. But if so, how can we explain braita where Rabbi Meir obligated one to pay if they slaughtered an animal (that they previously stole) on Shabbat? To resolve this, they explain that the braita was established as a case where someone else slaughtered the animal. But if someone else slaughtered, then how can the thief be charged with slaughter and sale, after all, there is no agency when it comes to a transgression?! They explain that in the case of slaughtering a stolen animal, there is an exception to the rule and there is agency for a transgression. The Gemara discusses the other parts of the braita- why the Sages exempt in all three cases (or possibly only two) and why Rabbi Meir obligates in the other two cases (an ox that is stoned and an ox that is slaughtered for foreign work. Rava asks Rav Nachman whether there is a partial payment for theft and slaughter, such as if he slaughtered an ox belonging to two partners and confessed to one of them.

Bava Kamma 70 - Rosh Chodesh Shvat - January 11, 1 Shvat Jan 11, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Randi Shuster in loving memory of her father. "He taught me to love Israel and love learning. He died too young but left a lasting impression on me and many generations to come."

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Auerbach in loving memory of her father's 35th yahrtzeit. "His wisdom, advice, love of Judaism, and general daily behavior still guide me all these years later."

Based on the principle of Rabbi Yochanan that one cannot sanctify an item that was stolen from him/her as it is not currently in their possession, the rabbi in Nehardea ruled that one cannot write a document allowing another to seize moveable property of theirs (orkheta) that is currently possessed by another (power of attorney). Some hold that the rabbis of Nehardea only forbade this in a case where the one in possession of the item denies the claim, as giving the power to another to collect it would look like a false document. The orkheta needs to be written in a way that the representative is given legal writes to the money/property in the claim, otherwise, the other side can argue that he/she has no legal connection to the case. Is the representative considered a messenger or a partner in the claim? The Mishna rules that if there were two witnesses for the theft and two others for the sale/slaughter of the animal, these can be combined to convict the thief. Does this Mishna not follow Rabbi Akiva who holds that witnesses on half (or part of) an act are not accepted? Or can one distinguish between this case and the case where Rabbi Akiva holds that way (chazaka on land - each set testifies about one year). The Mishna rules that if one sold the animal on Shabbat, one would still be obligated in the four/five payment. But a braita rules the opposite. Rami bar Hama and Rav Papa each bring different explanations of the case in the braita to find a way that one could be obligated the death penalty for a melacha on Shabbat at the same time as the sale took effect.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected