Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Bava Kamma 69 - January 10, 29 Tevet Jan 10, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Marcia Baum in loving memory of Helena K Baum, Chaya Chana Alter bat Chana and Yekutiel Yehuda on her 8th yahrzeit. "My mom was a lover of Torah, Yahadut and Am Yisrael. She was a lifelong learner who instilled a love of learning in her daughters. She is missed every day. I hope that I am doing her proud." Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island for a refuah shleima for Yehuda Aharon ben Rachel, husband of our friend and co-learner, Sharon Gabin Lichtman b'toch she'ar cholei Yisrael. May he and all cholei Yisrael merit the blessing of "וקווי ה' יחליפו כח יעלו אבר כנשרים".

Rabbi Yochanan said that you cannot dedicate anything that is not in your possession, as, someone stole it. If Rabbi Yochanan holds like all unattributed Mishnas, this statement contradicts a Mishna in Maaser Sheni 5:1, where one can redeem fruits that were stolen from him/her after they are no longer in their possession. After a long attempt to change the version in the Mishna to conform to Rabbi Yochanan (that the redemption of the fruits happens before it was stolen), this possibility is rejected because of another opinion of Rabbi Yochanan that contradicts this as well (there is no retroactive designation). To resolve the issue, they explain that Rabbi Yochanan holds by a different unattributed Mishna (our Mishna). What motivated him to rule like our Mishna and not the Mishna in the Maaser Sheni? In the discussion with Rabbi Yochanan regarding the Mishna in Masser Sheni, the Gemara brought a different statement of Rabbi Yochanan that Rabbi Dosa and the modest ones (tznuim) said the same thing. Three amoraim that if Rabbi Yohanan had not said this sentence, we would have come to different conclusions on several matters. What are these conclusions?

Bava Kamma 68 - January 9, 28 Tevet Jan 09, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 68

Rav holds that ye'ush alone of the original owner causes the item to become the possession of the thief. Rav Sheshet disagrees and three sources are brought to challenge Rav but all are resolved. Rav Sheshet holds that if it is not a complete sale, i.e. if the owner did not despair, there is no four/five payment. Rav Nachman disagrees with Rav Sheshet and also with Rav and requires a thief to pay the four/five payment regardless of whether the owner did/did not despair of the stolen item. Rav holds that since despair of the owner turns the object into the property of the thief, if the sale happened after ye'ush, there is no four/five payment. Rabbi Elazar, Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish also weigh in on this discussion - Rabbi Elazar holds like Rav Sheshet, Rabbi Yochanan like Rav Nachman, and Reish Lakish like Rav.

Bava Kamma 67 - January 8, 27 Tevet Jan 08, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 67

Today's daf is sponsored by Naomi and Adam Ferziger in celebration of the birth of their granddaughter Sylvie Ayala, daughter of Emily and Benzion, sister of Akiva. " בשבח והודיה להשם"

After resolving the first difficulty against Rav Yosef who held that when the original owner despairs of their stolen item, the thief does not acquire the item, the Gemara brings a second source to challenge Rav Yosef's position, but the challenge is resolved. Does Rabbi Yonatan disagree with Rabba who holds that when the thief changes the item it is acquired by the thief or does he agree with him? Ulla and Rava agree with Rav Yosef's position regarding ye'ush (despair) and bring sources to prove it. Why is the four or five times the payment only for a bull or sheep? This is because the words bull and sheep appear twice in the verse. Which mention of them is unnecessary? Rav holds that when the Mishna rules that a thief who steals from a thief does not pay the double payment, it is only in a case where the original owner did not despair of receiving the item back. Rav Sheshet raises a difficulty with Rav's qualification.

Bava Kamma 66 - January 7, 26 Tevet Jan 07, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 66

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family in loving memory of Sgt. Ephraim ben haRav Shmuel v'Liat, HYD, Ephraim Yachman, son of Liat and Sammy, and grandson of our friend and fellow learner Harriet Hartman. "Even as he fought valiantly to defend Am Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael, his sincerity, commitment to Ahavat Yisrael and Torat Yisrael, and devotion to family and friends shone through as they did throughout his life. May Hashem comfort and give strength to his entire family. Yehi zichro baruch."

Rabbi Il'ah and Rabbi Chanina disagreed about an animal that was stolen while still a calf and at the time of judgment was fully grown - is there a requirement to pay four or five times the animal? However, they both seem to agree that the double payment is assessed by its value at the time of the theft. Rav, however, held that the double payment is assessed based on its value at the time of judgment. How can these two approaches be reconciled? Rabba states that both from the Torah and a Mishna we learn that a thief who changes an item after stealing it, acquires the item and is only required to return the value of the item at the time it was stolen. But Rabba and Rav Yosef disagree regarding yei'ush, if the owner despairs of receiving the stolen item back, does the thief acquire it? Two sources are brought as difficulties against Rabba's position and one against Rav Yosef's. All are resolved.

Bava Kamma 65 - Shabbat January 6, 25 Tevet Jan 05, 2024

Show notes

Rav held that a thief repays a stolen item based on the price of the item at the time of the theft and the double payment and the four/five times payment based on the price at the judgment. Rav Sheshet raises two difficulties against Rav from braitot, but they are resolved. Rav's ruling is limited after resolving the difficulties. A braita is brought in support of Rav, but Rava rejects the proof. Rabbi Il'ah rules on the payment in a case where an animal was stolen as a calf but becomes a grown animal before the payment. Rabbi Chanina raises a difficulty on Rabbi Il'ah's ruling from a braita. What is the basis of their disagreement?

Bava Kamma 64 - January 5, 24 Tevet Jan 05, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 64

Today's daf is sponsored by Lisa Malik & Adi Wyner in honor of the birth of their first grandchild, Azriel David son of Ariel and Sofia. "Azi was named in memory of Sofia's great-grandmother, Alexina, and Ariel's grandfather, David Malik z"l. Our grandson's name is also a tribute to R. Azriel David Fastag, who composed the "Ani Maamin" melody on a train to Treblinka."

Today's daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in loving memory of her grandson Ephraim Yachman. "He learned Daf Yomi daily in the army (+Rashi and Tosafot), even in his "namer."

From what verse and how can we derive that a thief pays double for stealing movable items with inherent monetary value? The Gemara brings a braita from the school of Chizkiya to explain the source. After a difficulty is raised against the braita, Rava brings an alternative explanation of the braita. In Rava's version, the braita ends with a difficulty: What are the words "im himatzei timatzei" needed for? The Gemara answers this question by explaining that those words stand as the basis of a klal, prat u'klal drasha from which we derive the application of the basic law of double payment to movable items with inherent monetary value. However, this is rejected as well and instead a riboi, miut, riboi drasha is employed, using the same words. A different braita derives double payment from a different verse - according to that version, what is derived from the words "im himatzei timatzei"?

Bava Kamma 63 - January 4, 23 Tevet Jan 04, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 63

Today's daf is sponsored by Laurence and Michelle Berkowitz in loving memory of Dr. Jesse Berkowitz on his shloshim. "A man of extreme passion for Medinat Yisrael who brought his whole family on Aliya. Thanks to Hashem for saving Yair Berkowitz and granting him the strength for his heroic efforts during the Golani battle of December 12 in Gaza and for continuing to give protection to Amitai, Yair, and Ayelet. And in honor of the engagement of our daughter Ariella to Amitai Abouzaglo."

Today's daf is sponsored by Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the birth of Hallel Rus, granddaughter of our friend and co-learner Suri Davis Stern. "May the entire family see much nachat as Hallel grows in a world of peace and learning. תזכו לגדלה לתורה ולחופה ולמעשים טובים"

From where do we derive that you pay double payment for all items that are alive and movable? If the only living beings mentioned in the verse are animals and not birds, how do we know that birds are included? If one is safeguarding another's item (for free - shomer chinam) and claims it was stolen and takes an oath, he/she is liable to pay the double payment if witnesses testify that the one safeguarding kept it. But if the one safeguarded claimed it was lost, there is no double payment. The double payment is only incurred if one took an oath - from where is this derived? The Gemara quotes two contradictory braitot to prove this and later delves into the contradictions between them regarding the subject of the verse in Shmot 22:6.

Bava Kamma 62 - January 3, 22 Tevet Jan 03, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Devorah Zlochower in honor of her talmidim.

Today's daf is sponsored by Debbie Pine and Mark Orenshein in honor of their new granddaughter, Shalva Tzofia, born to their children Leora and Zachary Orenshein in Jerusalem. "We pray for her good health and safety and that she follows her parents in their commitment to Torah, am Yisrael and Medinat Yisrael."

If one borrows space in another's field to put a stack of grains and hid items in the stack, and the field owner burns it, the owner is liable only for the grains and not for the hidden items, even according to Rabbi Yehuda. What if the borrower asked to borrow space for a stack of barley, but instead put a stack of wheat? The braita delineates several different examples similar to this case and explains that in all cases, the owner only needs to pay the value of a stack of barley and no more in the event of a fire. According to Rabbi Yehuda, one is liable for hidden items. Shmuel explains that according to this opinion, the owner of the stack could take an oath regarding what was hidden and would be able to demand that amount from the one who lit the fire, even though there is no proof of this. The basis for this is takanat nigzal, a takana instituted for those who were robbed to be able to take an oath regarding what was stolen from them. Ameimar asked if the same would apply to an informer who turned in another to the authorities who then confiscated items from that person. The question can only be asked if one holds that one is liable for garmi (partially indirect damages), as the damages caused by an informer are considered garmi. One threw another's safe into a body of water and the owner of the safe claimed there were pearls in there. Was he able to get compensated for them? Was his claim accepted? Why? What is the difference between a gazlan and a chamsan? A gazlan does not pay for the item when stealing while the chamsan does. If so, why is it called stealing? Isn't it true that if one forces another to sell them an item, it is a valid sale (talyuha v'zabin)? One is liable for accidental fires such as a spark coming from the blacksmith as he works or a camel's burden of flax catching fire from a candle from inside a store. Only if the candle was outside the store, is the camel exempt, except for on Chanuka as the candles are there for a mitzva. Is it possible to infer from the Mishna that one needs to place Chanuka candles within ten handbreadths from the ground? The seventh chapter discusses the laws of theft. If one steals an animal and slaughters and sells it, there is an extra payment, beyond the double payment (kefel) for regular theft of four or five times the value. This is only applicable for bulls and sheep, while double payment is for animals and inanimate objects as well. From where is this derived? On what items is there no double payment? Neither payment is applicable if one steals from one who stole. Is the four or five times payment applicable in a case where one kept the item for oneself and claimed it was stolen?

Bava Kamma 61 - January 2, 21 Tevet Jan 02, 2024

Show notes

This week's learning is sponsored in honor of Shoshana Baker. "Mazal tov on completing 4.039 daf yomi cycles of marriage! With love and joy, Mark."

Today's daf is sponsored by Suri Stern in honor of the birth of a granddaughter Hallel Rus, daughter of Esther and Shai Goldman and in loving memory of her father Harav Reuvain ben Chaim, whose yahrzeit was on the 17th Tevet. "My father completed Shas many times and was an anav as gabbai rishon for the white shul."

Today's daf is sponsored by Susan Cashdan in loving memory of her father יצחק בן משה חונה ז"ל and for the refua shleima of their little grandson Ziv Shimon ben Shulamit Chaya and Shulamit Chaya bat Sara Devora.

In Shmuel 2 Chapter 23, David desires water from Beit Lechem and three of his warriors bring water for him from inside the Philistine camp in Beit Lechem. When they return, David refuses to accept the water as they endanger their lives unnecessarily. This story is understood by the sages homiletically - that David was looking for an answer to a halakhic question and refused to accept the answer. What was the halakhic question and why did he refuse to accept the answer? The Gemara brings three different suggestions and analyzes them based on the story in the text of Shmuel 2 and Chronicles. Regarding laws of fire, the Mishna discusses cases where one is exempt from damage caused by a fire, such as, if there is a non-flammable fence between the fire and the neighbor's property four cubits high, or a public thoroughfare or river in between. If the fire is in a field of thorns, the four cubits of the fence are measured from the height of the thorn bushes. Rav and Shmuel disagree about what type of fire one is exempt from in the Mishna - one that blazes high or one that blazes low. The Mishna quotes a debate between several tannaim - if one lights a fire in one's field, up to what distance can the fire travel and the owner will still be liable for damages? The final opinion in the Mishna, Rabbi Shimon, seems to say that there is no limit and one is always responsible for damages caused by his fire. Is it possible that Rabbi Shimon said this as elsewhere he says there is a limit? Rav Nachman explains that Rabbi Shimon's statement in the Mishna meant something else - that it all depends on the height of the fire. Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis disagree on whether or not there is an exception from paying damages for a fire that burns something hidden. Items inside a building are not considered hidden, whereas items in a stack of grains would be. Rav Kahane holds that the debate is only when one lights a fire on one's own property and it spreads to a neighbor's property, but if one lit a fire on someone else's property, all agree that one is liable for hidden items as well. Rava disagrees and holds that they disagree in both cases. However, he distinguishes within the case of one who lit a fire in another's property between items typically and non-typically hidden.

Bava Kamma 60 - January 1, 20 Tevet Jan 01, 2024

Show notes

This month's learning is sponsored by Tzippora Chwat in loving memory of Leeba bat Chaim.

This week's learning is sponsored by Tamar Orvell.

Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree in which case the one who passes fire to a deaf-mute, shoteh, or minor will be exempted by human law and obligated by the law of heaven. If a person fans a coal together with the wind, if the wind played a significant role (if the person would not have been able to fan it into a fire without the wind), the person is exempt. How is it different from the zoreh, winnowing, in the Shabbat laws where one is liable even though the action is only completed with the help of the wind? There are four answers to this question. Why are all these words listed in the verse regarding damages from fire - thorns, pile, standing grain, and field? From this verse, the rabbis learn that when misfortune comes to the world due to evil people, it attacks the righteous ones first. From there the Gemara deviates into theological issues regarding the righteous and the wicked and why bad things happen to good people. During the plague of the firstborn, the Jews were commanded to stay inside as the destroyer was in the land and would not be able to distinguish between those deserving of death and those not deserving of death. This verse teaches several things about times when the Angel of Death is more rampant and how one should act to avoid it.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected