Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Bava Kamma 59 - December 31, 19 Tevet Dec 31, 2023

Show notes

This week's learning is sponsored by Elisheva Gray. "We learn the daf but we also learn so much more, thanks to the wisdom of Rabbanit Michelle and to the wonderful community that has built up around our daily daf. Todah raba!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Leah Brick in loving memory of her great niece Nava Tova bat Yehoshua Yisrael Leib v'Liora Charna Cherney, on her second yahrzeit. In her zechut may we see shalom in Israel soon.

Abaye quotes a braita with different opinions regarding laws of evaluating payment to a field that was damaged during different stages of development of the fruits. Using this, he challenges Rava's assumption that there is a difference between damages incurred by a person and by one's animal. Various sections of the braita are analyzed and explained. The Mishna rules that if someone gives a fire to a person without knowledge, and it spreads - the one who gave him the fire is exempt in a court of law but obligated in a heavenly court. Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree regarding the type of fire the Mishna is referring to.

Bava Kamma 58 - Shabbat December 30, 18 Tevet Dec 29, 2023

Show notes

The Mishna rules that if an animal falls into someone's property and benefits, the owner pays for the benefit but not the damage caused. What type of benefit is the Mishna discussing - eating or that the produce softened the fall, or both? How does this (softening the fall) differ from one who chases a lion away from destroying another's property, for which one receives no compensation at all? If the animal moved to a different garden bed and ate there - is the owner still exempt from damages and only pays what the owner benefited? There are several different opinions about what stage the owner becomes liable for damages. How does one assess the payment for damages of produce growing in a field? One opinion is that it is evaluated based on that produce being in a field of a beit seah which is in a field that can hold sixty seah sixty seah. Others hold something similar but with minor adaptations. The rabbis question whether this assessment method is used also for a person who damages another's field or only if it is damage caused by property.

Bava Kamma 57 - December 29, 17 Tevet Dec 29, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Cheryl & Avi Savitsky and family in loving memory of Cheryl's father, Dr. Steven F. Stein, Shimon Feivish Ben Yisroel Yitzchak, on his 40th yahrzeit. "He is missed by all who knew him. Steve was a brilliant surgeon and loved his family and friends and had a true simchat ha'chaim that was palpable to anyone who met him."

If someone finds a lost item that he is obligated to return, what level of obligation does he have for the item - is he considered like a shomer who watches an item for free or like one who gets paid? Raba and Rav Yosef disagree about this. Rav Yosef raises two difficulties against Raba. Raba and Abaye each raise difficulties against Rav Yosef. The second difficulty against Rav Yosef is resolved by explaining that a claim of armed robbery is considered theft for purposes of double payment. Two difficulties are raised against this argument and are resolved. They also try to strengthen this argument with a tannaitic source, but this is also rejected in three ways.

Bava Kamma 56 - December 28, 16 Tevet Dec 28, 2023

Show notes

This week's learning is sponsored by Miriam Adler in honor of their new grandson, Neta, whose family was evacuated from Kibbutz Saad. "His name symbolizes the hope that there will be rejuvenated life and growth in the otef and all of Israel."

A braita lists four situations where one causes damages and yet is not liable in a court of law but is liable in a heavenly court. The Gemara defines the specific circumstances of each case. However, they ask why the list is limited to these four and does not mention others that have the same law. A distinction is made - the cases listed in this braita are all situations where one may have thought one would not even be obligated in a heavenly court. If the gate opens at night - what is the case? Did the animal try to sneak out underneath and break the wall, or did it fall on its own? What type of wall? If the robber takes the animal, the robber is liable. Isn't this obvious as a thief gains ownership over a stolen item and is responsible for damages? There are two suggested explanations of the case. If it is given to a shepherd, the shepherd is responsible for damages. Isn't this obvious as it was taught already in a Mishna? The case is explained to be regarding a shomer who gave it to another shomer. Does this contradict a ruling of Rava in this case? Is one who watches over a lost item liable like a shomer chinam or a shomer sachar? What is the logic behind each possibility?

Bava Kamma 55 - December 27, 15 Tevet Dec 27, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Earl Norman in honor of the first responders of the State of Israel. "Their dedication, professionalism and compassion often in the face of danger is an inspiration."

Why does the word 'good' appear in the context of the commandment to respect your parents only in the ten commandments in the book of Devarim and not in the book of Shmot ("so that it will be good for you")? If one sees the letter tet in a dream, it is a sign of good things to come. Once the Mishna has established the prohibition of k'elaim (crossbreeding or coworking two animals), different rabbis bring examples where the prohibition applies to animals that are from the same species but not the same type, such as a rooster, peacock, and pheasant. The sixth chapter begins with laws regarding one who watched his animal properly but the animal escaped and ate or trampled a field. If the wall was breached at night or was broken by robbers, the owner is exempt, as are the robbers (indirect damages). If the robbers took the animals out and the animals caused damage, the robbers are liable as they are directly responsible. |If the owner gave the animal to another person to watch, is the owner no longer responsible and the liability shifts to the other person? On what does it depend? If the animal accidentally falls into another's field and damages (eats or tramples), the owner only pays the benefit they received, but if the animal went in intentionally the owner has to compensate for the damages. The Gemara explains that the level l of protection (shmira) mentioned in the case in the Mishna is light protection (able to withstand a regular wind). This leads to the suggestion that the Mishna corresponds only to Rabbi Yehuda's position that a shor muad is exempt if the owner safeguarded the animal by putting up a standard wall, as an animal is always considered forewarned regarding eating and trampling. However, this is rejected as perhaps the debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is only relevant for keren damages where there is intent to damage, and not applicable to eating a trampling. Further proof is brought from a tannaitic source that there are four cases where the Torah required only basic safeguarding - a pit, fire, eating and trampling. The Gemara brings a source for each from the Torah. Further proof is brought from the language of the Mishna. There are four cases where one is exempt from liability in a court of law, but liable in a heavenly court - one is the case in our Mishna where one breaches a fence of another and lets out the owner's animals.

Bava Kamma 54 - December 26, 14 Tevet Dec 26, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 54

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Adina Hagege's birthday last week (7 Tevet) by her siblings. "The words of Bava Kamma aptly describe her: whoever engages in the study of Torah and in the performance of acts of kindness merits reward equal to the portion of two tribes."

Today's daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in loving memory of her father Yoel ben Meir Fromme. "For all his guidance and sage advice, a lone kindertransport survivor he rebuilt his family in Montreal where his Torah life inspired mine, and as a child I sat riveted by his telling of midrashim. His devotion to limmud Torah, we passed down to his grandchildren and great-grandchildren and are zoche to have three children who have done several cycles of the Shas. I know he looks down on us with pride and thanksgiving to Hashem. May he be a melitz yosher for all of klal yisroel and keep us all safe. Yehi zichro baruch!

Today's daf is sponsored by Yael Klempner for the refuah shleima of her dear friend, Sara Shoshana bat Sara, Sara Shiffman.

One is not responsible for vessels that fall in but Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says one is responsible. The verse mentions just animals - an ox and a donkey. From there the rabbis derive their position that humans and vessels are excluded from damages. How does Rabbi Yehuda derive his opinion from the verse? Drashot are brought to explain from where it is derived that the owner of a bor is liable for damage caused to all animals including birds. The first two suggestions are rejected but the third is accepted. The Mishna explained that one is obligated for an ox that is deaf, shoteh, or young. That seemed to imply not if the animal was older and not blemished (i.e. with knowledge). Rabbi Yimia suggests that the Mishna also includes that case but after raising difficulties from braitot, Rava concludes that one is not responsible for that case as an ox should also be paying attention (like a person) and therefore the owner is not responsible. The Mishna brings other cases in the Torah where specific animals are mentioned and yet the reference is to all animals, including birds. From where it derived in each situation that all are included?

Bava Kamma 53 - December 25, 13 Tevet Dec 25, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 53

Today's daf is sponsored by Suri Stern. "Hakarat hatov to knafayim, an amazing organization that no one should ever need, but that everyone should know about, helping families through difficult baby deliveries and their partner organization, Neshama."

Today's daf is sponsored by Ronit and Shlomo Eini in honor of the marriage of their daughter Tehila to Niria and for a refuah shleima to Lilly bat Victoria and to all those injured, for the safe return of the hostages, and for the protection of our soldiers.

Rav and Shmuel disagree about how to understand the case in the Mishna where the ox fell "forward" or "backward." Are both cases where the ox fell into the pit or not necessarily? How does this fit Rav and Shmuel's general positions about bor? If the ox fell into the pit because of the sounds made by someone working in the pit, the owner of the pit is fully liable. Why is it not partially the responsibility of the one inside the pit and even if the one in the pit doesn't pay damages, as it is indirect damages, the owner of the pit should only be liable for half the damages? Therefore, it must be that the Mishna holds like Rabbi Natan who holds that when an ox pushes another ox into a pit, in a case where the ox is a shor tam, and only pays a quarter of the damages, the owner of the pit compensates and pays the remainder (three-quarters). Rava and others bring other cases where the rabbis and Rabbi Natan disagree - where one leaves a stone that causes an ox to fall into a pit, two oxen gore a third ox, and a person and an ox push a person into a pit.

Bava Kamma 52 - December 24, 12 Tevet Dec 24, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 52

This week's learning is sponsored by Michelle Feiglin in loving memory of her father, Natan ben Devorah v'Shlomo Elimelech on his 8th yahrzeit and for the refuah shleima of her grandson, Neriya Yosef Hoshea ben Avital. "My father was liberated from Buchenwald and rebuilt his life in Melbourne, Australia. He inspired my love of learning Torah and every lunchtime in the middle of his working day could be found in front of his Gemara. He had great success in business, but he always said that his biggest success was his family."

This week's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Shelly bat Sara Nina.

Land can be acquired in three ways, by money, a document or chazaka (using the land in a way that shows ownership). When can a pit or a house, which are both considered like land) be acquired by passing over an item? Does it depend on what item? How can this be effective? A flock of animals can also be acquired by passing a particular item - what item and how does the kinyan work? If two people own a cistern and the first person covered it and the second one passed by and found it uncovered but didn't cover it, the second owner is responsible. At what point would the first owner revert to being responsible for it together with the second owner? Would it be only if the first person sees it or hears it is uncovered or do they also get extra time to hire people to close it once the first owner hears about it? The Mishna explains that if the owner covers it and the animal falls in, the owner is not responsible. If it was covered, how can this be? Rabbi Yitzchak says that the cover must have rotted. Two different versions of a question are brought and the Gemara attempts to answer the question from our Mishna but is unsuccessful. The first version of the question is about one who covered a cistern with a cover that could withstand oxen but not camels. If a camel weakened it and then the ox fell in, is the owner held responsible? The second version is that the question was about a cover that could withstand both oxen but not camels, and camels commonly pass by. However, the cover was not weakened by camels but rotted. Is the law that since the owner was negligent as the cover could not withstand camels, the owner is considered negligent regarding rotting, even though it is highly unlikely that the cover would rot? Or is the law that since rotting was unexpected, the owner is exempt? The second version of the question is ultimately answered from a braita.

Bava Kamma 51 - Shabbat December 23, 11 Tevet Dec 22, 2023

Show notes

A bor of less than ten handbreadths does not kill. If so, why did Rav Nachman rule that an animal that had fallen into a pit less than ten handbreadths (six) and was then slaughtered, was not kosher for eating as he must have been a treifa (going to die anyway)? Rava brings our Mishna and two other tannaitic sources to raise a difficulty with Rav Nachman's ruling. In cases where two people own the bor or a responsible for it, who assumes responsibility? How is it possible to have a bor owned by two people? At what point does the responsibility shift from one to the other?

Bava Kamma 50 - December 22, 10 Tevet Dec 22, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 50

Today's daf is sponsored by Shira and Dori Dishon in loving memory of their son, Eitan Dishon, who heroically fought in Gaza. "He loved learning Torah and encourage his father to learn daf yomi with him. We will b'ezrat Hashem complete that for him."

Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael debate what the classic case of bor is - in public property or in private property that was made public but the owner retains ownership of the bor. Raba and Rav Yosef each hold that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael agree about the law in one case (public/private) and disagree about the other. Raba holds that they agree about public property and Rav Yosef holds the opposite. Rav Yosef's opinion is questioned by two braitot but they are resolved. A story is brought about a reservoir digger, Nehunia ben haKane, who dug cisterns for public use and whose daughter fell into a pit and was saved. A theological statement is made about why she never would have died in that way because of her father's actions. However, Rav Acha points out that his son died from thirst, even though his father had dug the cisterns so people would have water to drink on the way to Jerusalem for the holidays. He explains that God is particular with righteous people in a very exacting manner. What is the source of this? One should not remove stones from their property and place them in the public domain. Rav and Shmuel argue about whether one is responsible for bor because the fumes of the bor can kill/injure or also because of the impact of the hit on the floor of the bor. Two sources are brought to raise a difficulty with Rav's position (fumes). Within the response to the first difficulty, the Gemara explains why the Mishna needed to bring a long list of different types of items that fall under the category of bor - what is unique about each one?

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected