Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Bava Kamma 49 - December 21, 9 Tevet Dec 21, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored l'ilui nishmat David ben Avraham v'Naomi on his 6th yahrzeit.

An animal who attacks a pregnant woman and she miscarries does not pay the value of the fetus but a person who attacks a pregnant woman does pay. This is because the verse in the Torah only mentions payment for a fetus regarding a case where a man attacked a pregnant woman. How is the amount evaluated? Is it possible there is some case where one would pay the value of an animal fetus? Rashbag disagrees with the rabbis of the Mishna but two different interpretations are brought regarding the point of contention. The payment of the fetus goes to the husband. If the husband is no longer alive, it goes to his heirs, but what if he is a convert or a freed Caananite servant and has no inheritors, does the payment go to the wife? A distinction is also made (according to one opinion) between the value of the fetus and the value of the woman who is now larger from eating more as a result of the pregnancy. The Gemara brings other laws regarding the property of converts after their death. Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree over what is the classic case of bor in the Torah?

Bava Kamma 48 - December 20, 8 Tevet Dec 20, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 48

Today's daf is sponsored by Suri Stern in loving memory of her grandmother Esther Davis on her yahrtzeit. "May she watch over her namesakes and continue to be a melitzat yosher for her family and all klal Yisrael."

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family for the continued full and speedy recovery of Netanel Yaakov ben Yehudit Sara, who bravely and heroically defends Am Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael, בתוך שאר חולי ישראל. ה' עוז לעמו יתן, ה' יברך את עמו בשלום.

If one brings in an animal or item to another's domain with permission and the owner accepts responsibility, does the responsibility include protecting from damage by someone else's animal that was trespassing or only from animals/items of the owner? Rava brings two other laws about related cases where the animal in another's field becomes a bor (pit) case and one more case where a person comes into another's property with/without permission and the owner attacks the other, is the owner liable for damages or not? The next case in the Mishna is analyzed - when the animal falls into a pit in the owner's property and contaminates the water or kills a person inside the pit. Exactly in what scenario is the water case - when the animal contaminates on the way down into the pit or after falling there? In the case of killing, the owner pays kofer, ransom. Three possible explanations are given to explain why one is obligated. 1. It must be a shur muad. 2. It can be a shor tam according to the opinion that a shor tam pays half the ransom (Rabbi Yosi haGelili). 3. It can be a shor tam, Rabbi Yosi haGelili, it can owe a ransom payment, and according to Rabbi Tarfon's opinion that goring in the owner's property always pays full damages and would therefore be liable to pay the full ransom.

Bava Kamma 47 - December 19, 7 Tevet Dec 19, 2023

Show notes

What is a homeowner's liability if someone brings in items without permission or with permission? What is the liability of damages caused by the item by the one who brought it in? By permitting to bring in the item, the homeowner assumes responsibility for any damages to the item. Rebbi disagrees and says unless the owner explicitly said he/she would watch it, the owner has not accepted the responsibility of a shomer. Suppose fruits are left without permission and the animal gets damaged from eating them. Rav holds the owner of the fruits is not responsible (only if the animal tripped on the fruits) because he/she can say, "What was the animal doing eating my fruits?" Three difficulties are raised against Rav but are resolved.

Bava Kamma 46 - December 18, 6 Tevet Dec 18, 2023

Show notes

From where does Rabbi Eliezer derive his position that the only way to "protect" a shor muad from damaging others is to kill him? The Mishna in the beginning of the fifth chapter sets up two cases with a cow and her fetus - in the first case, the cow is gored by an ox (shor tam) and killed and the dead fetus is beside her also dead. However, it is unclear whether the death occurred before the goring or after and therefore unclear whether the owner of the ox owes damages for the fetus. In the second case, the cow gored and ox and is found with a newborn calf beside her and again it is unclear whether the calf was born before or after. If it was born after, the fetus is used to pay for damages as well. In both cases, the fetus is a case of doubt so a quarter damage is paid by/for the fetus instead of half. This is based on Sumchus' position that when in doubt regarding money, both parties split the amount. The rabbis disagree and hold the burden of proof lies on the one who is requesting money from the other party (hamotzi mechavero alav hareaya). They say that this is an important principle. Why was it necessary to say that? The Gemara brings two possible situations to answer that question. One is that even if the one who was damaged makes a definitive claim (bari) and the other side is not making a definitive claim (shema), we still hold by the principle (that the burden of proof is on the one who was damaged). The second is that even though in general we follow the majority, in cases of monetary this, this principle overrides that. What is the source of this principle? In the second case of the Mishna, the owner pays half the value of the cow and a quarter of the value of the newborn calf. The Gemara asks, why does the owner of the ox get three-quarters of the damage in this case when they should only be getting half? In response, Abaye understands the Mishna differently - 'half' means a quarter, 'a quarter' means an eighth, which amounts to three-eighths, as there were two animals responsible so each only covers half the amount that they should have had to pay if they acted by themselves. They explain Abaye's case only if the cow and its offspring had different owners. Rava rejects Abaye's explanation as it doesn't fit with the words of the Mishna and suggests an alternative explanation.

Bava Kamma 45 - December 17, 5 Tevet Dec 17, 2023

Show notes

The month of Tevet is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in honor of his nephews Brian and Michael Racer, and to all the members of tzahal who put their lives on the line to defend our country every day.

This week's learning is sponsored by Tal Clein. "I love learning Daf with Hadran."

Today's daf is sponsored by Judi Felber in loving memory of Yovel MorYosef and Yossi Cohen on their 5th yartzeit, who were killed in a terror attack (ה' טבת) at Givat Assaf, and for the continued refuah sheleima of her son, Netanel Ilan ben Shayna Tzipora, who was critically injured in the attack.

Today's daf is sponsored in memory of the three hostages killed by mistake on Friday - Yotam Chaim, Alon Shamriz and Samar Talalka.

If an animal kills a person and is sentenced to death, one cannot derive any benefit from the animal. Therefore at that point, if one sells it or dedicates it to the Temple, the sale/dedication is invalid. If one slaughters it, the meat is forbidden. However, before the court's ruling, all those acts are valid. If someone is watching (shomer) someone else's animal and the animal kills a person and is sentenced to death - can they return the animal to the owner after the sentencing or not? The Rabbis and Rabbi Yaakov disagree. The Gemara first suggests that the debate is about whether one can fulfill one's obligation to return a stolen/guarded item if the item is now forbidden to benefit from (are damages that can't be seen considered damages). But this is rejected based on a Mishna in Bava Kamma 96b where it seems that all agree that chametz that was stolen can be returned after Pesach (in the event it was not sold) even though it is now forbidden to benefit from. Instead, the argument is about whether or not the animal has to appear in court - if he does, then the original owner can blame the shomer for bringing it to court and claim that had the animal been returned before the animal was brought to court, the original owner would have sent the animal to a marsh to avoid the death sentence. What is the level of responsibility of shomrim for damages? A braita is brought and then it is determined according to which opinion is the braita holding. There is a four-way argument regarding what level of watching is expected of an owner of a shor tam and a shor muad and is sufficient to exempt the owner from paying damages. Is the halacha the same for both types of animals (tam and muad) or different?

Bava Kamma 44 - Shabbat December 16, 4 Tevet Dec 15, 2023

Show notes

Why was it necessary for the verses in the Torah to specify that an animal is killed even if it killed a minor? Is this the case also if it was a shor tam? If an animal kills without intent to kill or with intent to kill an animal and killed a person and other such cases, the animal is not killed, but Rav and Shmuel have a debate about whether or not the ransom needs to be paid. The Gemara brings in the opinion of Rabbi Shimon who holds that even if a person tried to kill someone but killed someone else instead, he is not punished by death. He would hold the same to be true for an animal who kills. And this would disagree with the tana of our mishna. From where in the Torah is each opinion derived? Once an animal is sentenced to death, it is forbidden to benefit from it. Therefore, if one sells it, the sale is invalid and likewise if one dedicates it to the Temple, it is not sacred and if one slaughters it, the meat is forbidden. However, before the sentence, all those acts are valid.

Bava Kamma 43 - December 15, 3 Tevet Dec 15, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 43

Why does the verse regarding a shor muad mention that the shor killed either a man or a woman? Rabbi Akiva learned from here that the ransom (kofer) payment for a woman goes to her heirs and not to her husband. This is because a husband inherits his wife's property that was owned by her at the time of death, but not money that will be coming to her after her death. There is a discussion about money that is owed to the woman - is that considered in her hands at the time of death or not? Does it depend on if it is money or property? There is a three-way argument about whether there is a ransom payment for a case where an animal killed a person without intent and is there the payment of the fine of thirty shekalim if one killed a slave without intent? Is the ransom payment/fine for a slave integrally connected to the obligation to stone the animal (meaning, if the animal does not get stoned, there is no ransom or fine)? If there is no ransom payment or fine, would there also be an obligation to financially compensate the family for their loss?

Bava Kamma 42 - December 14, 2 Tevet Dec 14, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Rachel Savin in honor of the engagement of her daughter Lior to Daniel Machlof from New Jersey. "May they build a beit neeman b'Yisrael, a house of Torah and ahavat chinam. We are praying for the safe return of the hostages and all of our soldiers, and for nechama for the families of those who have fallen, and for a refuah shleima for all those injured."

Today's daf is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Avigdor ben Hinda Eila.

Two more explanations (in addition to the three in Bava Kamma 41) are brought to explain what the words in the verse regarding a shor tam "and the owner of the ox is clean (exempt)" come to exclude/teach. Rabbi Yosi haGelili holds that it exempts payment for an animal that causes a woman to miscarry. Rabbi Akiva holds that it exempts payment for a shor tam who kills a slave. Each is questioned as they seem unnecessary at first but then explained.

Bava Kamma 41 - Rosh Chodesh Tevet - December 13, 1 Tevet Dec 13, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Ellie Gellman in honor of Becky Portnoe's retirement. "Wishing you a healthy, relaxing and interesting new stage of life. And of course, now you will have lots more time for the daf!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Rabbi Nicki Greninger in loving memory of Rabbi David Ellenson. "Beloved teacher, rabbi, leader, colleague, friend who brought so much light and love to the world and to the Jewish people. He was a fierce supporter of Israel, dedicated in the core of his neshama to teaching and learning, one of the greatest leaders of our generation. His menschlekeit was unparalleled. On this Chanukah and Rosh Chodesh, when we desperately need light, may his wisdom, leadership, and enormous heart continue to light our paths."

According to the Torah, both a shor tam and a shor muad who kill a person get stoned, but the kofer (ransom) payment is only for a shur muad. If a shor tam who kills get stoned, how can the animal become a shor muad who kills someone? Different rabbis suggest eight different scenarios of how this can be - however many of the answers are rejected. The Gemara then brings a braita that explains what is learned from the words in the verse regarding the stoning of the animal, "and its flesh should not be eaten." Do we derive from those words that it is forbidden to eat the animal if one slaughtered it before it was stoned or that one cannot benefit from the meat after the animal is stoned? What is derived from other phrases in that verse? In the verse regarding the shor tam, it says, "And the owner of the ox shall be clear." Some derive from this that one cannot benefit from the ox, others that they cannot benefit from the hide, but Rabbi Eliezer learns from the phrase that there is no ransom payment for the owner of a shor tam who kills a person. Rabbi Akiva questions why there is even a need for a drasha teaching this, as since the ox would be killed, and half payment of a shor tam is from the body of the animal, presumably the ransom payment would be as well, and in this case, there is no body from which to pay! Rabbi Eliezer offers several possible suggestions of cases where the animal would not get killed, and in those cases a verse is needed to say that there is also no ransom payment.

Bava Kamma 40 - December 12, 29 Kislev Dec 12, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 40

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Shapiro and Shira Krebs in memory of Ari Yehiel Zenilman, Ari Yechiel ben Avraham Reuven v'Miriam HY"D, who fell in battle yesterday. May his family know no more sorrow.

Rava and Abaye each gave different explanations for Rabbi Yaakov's opinion regarding an animal owned by one who is deaf, not mentally capable, or a minor - the guardian pays half damages. Why did Rava not choose a more simple straightforward explanation? A guardian can be obligated to pay the full payment but does not pay ransom payment in the event the animal kills a person. This is because a minor is not obligated in this payment as it is for atonement purposes and not for compensation. Is the nature of the ransom payment a tannaitic debate? Some other questions regarding the nature of the ransom payment are raised by Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov and he stumps Rav Nachman on them. His questions were: Can joint owners share it and if so, how? Can we assume one would take it as seriously as one who is obligated a sin or guilt offering? Two issues are raised in a braita about an animal who is borrowed - one where the borrower thinks he is a shor tam but he was a shor muad - the law is that they share the full payment (each pays half). If the ox became a shor muad while he was borrowed but when he is returned to the original owner, he reverts to being a shor tam. What is the reasoning behind these laws and how can a seeming contradiction between the two be resolved? Can an animal used for bullfights who kills a person be used for a sacrifice?

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected