Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Bava Kamma 29 - December 1, 18 Kislev Dec 01, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Beth Hait in loving memory of Julie Adler, Golda Zahava Chana bat Harav Pinchas Eliezer v'Faiga Rosa. "May her spirit of warmth and kindness continue to shine through her children and grandchildren."

Today's daf is sponsored by Helen Danczak in honor of her father's yahrzeit. "Remembering him and his love and care of our family."

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom Family in honor of our dear friend Ruth Leah Kahan and her husband, David. "We are praying for his full and quick recovery and for the recovery of the individual who received his kidney! The idea of reciprocity and payback is central to what we're learning now in Daf Yomi. But the idea of a chesed that cannot be repaid is something we always strive for. Ruth, we are in awe of the chesed that you and your husband, David, embody in donating his kidney. We should all merit to live this life of giving."

There are several different ways to explain the two opinions (Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda) in the Mishna regarding one who breaks a jug in the public thoroughfare and the broken pieces or the water that spilled damage someone else. Issues raised relate to - is an accident/careless behavior considered negligence or unintentional damage? If one leaves items in a public space and renounces ownership, is the person responsible for any damage it may cause, or is one responsible only if one still owns the item? Is there a difference if the items were there because they were placed intentionally or on account of an accident? Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree about one who renounces one's property in the public thoroughfare - do they pay damages or not? However, it is not clear who holds which position. Different statements of Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yochanan are brought to conclude who held which opinion. In doing so, they analyze different cases and make distinctions between cases where one may or may not be held responsible.

Bava Kamma 28 - November 30, 17 Kislev Nov 30, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 28

Today's daf is sponsored by Cheryl Goldschmidt in loving memory of her father, Edward Tager, Yitzchak Isaac Simcha ben Yechiel Mechel, on his 10th yahrtzeit.

Today's daf is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs in loving memory of Shira's father, Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib haKohen v'Menucha Sara on his 2nd yahrzeit.

Can one take the law into one's own hands? Under what circumstances? Rav Yehuda and Rav Nachman both agree that if there will be a financial loss from waiting to go to court, then one is allowed to, but if not, they disagree. Rav Yehuda does not allow it, Rav Nachman does. Several sources are brought in an attempt to determine which answer is correct, but each source is inconclusive. If one dropped one's pitcher in the public thoroughfare and it broke and someone slipped and got injured, is the person responsible for damage caused to vessels? For damage caused to a person? Does it matter if the damage was from the ground or from the shards or water itself that slipped out of the pitcher? Rav limits liability to a case where vessels/clothes were damaged as if a person was injured, it was from the ground, not the water. However, Shmuel views the water as bor-type damages which are exempt from damaging vessels. Rav views the water as shor-type damages, as the water belongs to the owner, and distinguishes between a case where the owner made the water ownerless (would be exempt) or did not (liable). A braita is brought which raises a difficulty with both Rav and Shmuel's position but is resolved. In the case of the water spill, Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with Rabbi Meir (the unnamed tana in the Mishna) and says one is liable only if there was intent. Raba explains the intent - intent to lower the jug down and then it fell and broke. Rabbi Meir who disagrees would then hold, that even if it just broke without any action on the part of the one holding it, one would be liable. How can this be true if the Torah exempted one when the circumstances are completely out of one's control (oness).

Bava Kamma 27 - November 29, 16 Kislev Nov 29, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Ruth Leah Kahan in honor of her husband, David, who is currently in surgery donating a kidney altruistically. "I wish him and whoever receives it skilled surgeons, and speedy and complete recoveries. I am very proud of him."

Today's daf is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs in loving memory of Shira's grandfather, Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber haKohen v'Malkah.

If someone throws something out a window and on its way down, someone smashes it with a baseball bat, who is responsible? What if it were a child that was thrown? What if an ox gored it on the way down and not a person? If someone falls off a roof onto someone, depending on whether the person fell from a typical wind or an atypical wind will affect the level of responsibility and what will be the compensation. What type of intent is required to fulfill the mitzva of yibum? Even though people are always responsible for their actions, there is a debate among the commentaries as to whether or not there is an exemption for a situation that was completely out of one's control. The Mishna discusses a case where one leaves a jug in the middle of the street and someone breaks it, the one who broke it is exempt. If the person gets hurt by it, the owner of the jug is responsible for paying damages. First, the Gemara questions the language in the Mishna - it first used the term kad, a jug, then switched to chavit, a barrel. What can be derived from this? The rabbis have trouble understanding why the person who broke it is not held responsible for breaking someone else's jug. Four answers are given and those answers have important ramifications in understanding when one would be held liable. Can one take the law into one's own hands? Under what circumstances?

Bava Kamma 26 - November 28, 15 Kislev Nov 28, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 26

The Gemara suggests a number of kal v'chomer arguments to reach conclusions opposite of what is known to be the case, such as, one should be obligated for shen and regel damages in the public domain as can be derived from keren in the public domain. Each suggestion is rejected based on inferences from the verses in the Torah. Is there a ransom payment only by keren damages or would one also pay a ransom payment if an animal killed a person by trampling them on the property of the one who was killed? From a braita, they derived that Rabbi Tarfon holds that there can be a ransom payment for one who kills by trampling. The Mishna discusses the responsibility of a person for damages. A person is always responsible, even if it was an accident or someone damaged while sleeping. Raba brings a list of cases where an act was done unintentionally and discusses the law for different areas of law - damages, melacha on Shabbat, going to a refuge city for killing unintentionally, and damage to a Caananite slave on account of which a slave may go free.

Bava Kamma 25 - November 27, 14 Kislev Nov 27, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 25

Today's daf is dedicated for a refuah shleima to Alma Avraham, a hostage who was returned yesterday to Israel in critical condition. We are praying also for the health of all the other hostages who returned home and for the health and safety of the many who are still being held hostage.

Rabbi Tarfon and the rabbis disagree about whether one is liable for keren damages in the property of the nizak (the one who was damaged) half or full damages. To prove his opinion, Rabbi Tarfon bring a kal v'chomer argument from shen and regel (exempt) in the public domain and keren (half damages)in the public domain. The rabbis say that since it is derived from a case of half damages, one is not able to learn full damages as kal v'chomer arguments cannot be used to teach a law that is stricter than the original case (dayo). Rabbi Tarfon holds that this principle is not used in a case where if one were to employ dayo (limit the law), it would obviate the need for the kal v'chomer. Is there an opinion that does not think the principle of dayo is true in any case? Two tannaitic sources are brought to try to raise a difficulty and show that there is a tana who does not employ the principle dayo in any case. However, both sources are not able to show that there is a tana who holds that way.

Bava Kamma 24 - Shabbat November 26, 13 Kislev Nov 26, 2023

Show notes

This week's learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of Irving "poppy" Mauskopf, Yechezchel Ben Avrohom and Rachel. "A man who had complete Emunah. In good and bad times. And exemplified the meaning of 'Who is rich? A person that is happy with his lot.' May his neshama have an aliyah."

This week's learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of my grandfather, Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z"l. "My grandfather was hard working, loved to sing, especially as a chazan and brought up his family to be committed to the mesora."

Today's daf is sponsored by Rhona Fink in memory of her brother Yisrael Tzvi ben Chaim v'Malca on his 15th yahrzeit. His memory continues to inspire me to make the world a better place.

How does an animal become a shor muad? Do the three occurrences need to be on separate days or can they be all on the same day? Can this be derived from laws of a zava or are those laws derived from unique wording of the Torah and therefore only relevant for a zava? According to the opinion that the occurrences need to be on three separate days, is the purpose to show that the animal is prone to dangerous behavior or is it for the purposes of warning the owner to watch his/her animal? The Gemara derives from a Tosefta Bava Kamma 2:3 that the purpose is for the animal. If one incites a dog and the dog bites someone else, the inciter is exempt but is the owner of the dog liable? Two sources are brought (including our Mishna) to answer this question but difficulties are raised against each one. If one incites a dog and the dog bites that person, Rava exempts the dog's owner as the inciter instigated the dog. The Mishna delves into keren damages. What falls under that category? Rabbi Tarfon and the rabbis disagree regarding keren damages of a shor tam that occurred on the property of the one who was damaged - does the owner of the animal pay full damages or only half?

Bava Kamma 23 - Shabbat November 25, 12 Kislev Nov 24, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Ruthie, Ira, Elsa, Julianna, Reuben, Elia, Adele, Emanuel, and Arianne in honor of Elana Storch's birthday. "Mom/Savte, We so admire the example you set for all of us in your commitment to Talmud Torah. We love you. Happy birthday."

Rabbi Yochanan's approach that fire is like a person shooting arrows is questioned and it is explained that he holds that it is both like arrows and because it is owner's property. What then is the difference between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish? When a cow eats someone else's food and brings the food into its mouth, is it considered that it is now in the property of the cow (the one who is doing the damage) and therefore since it is eating (shen) and shen is exempt if it takes place not in the property of the one who is damaged, the owner of the cow is exempt or do we say that if the cow is standing in the property of the one who he is causing damage to, the cow's mouth is considered in the property of the one who is causing damage to and the owner would be liable? When does an animal become muad? What circumstances would need to happen for a muad to revert back to being a tam?

Bava Kamma 22 - November 24, 11 Kislev Nov 24, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 22

Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree regarding the nature of the reason for one's liability for damage caused by fire. Is the damage caused by the fire similar to a person shooting arrows or is it like damage caused by their property, i.e. the fire is seen as the property of the one who lit it and therefore similar to a person's ox or pit damaging? The Gemara attempts, unsuccessfully, to prove Rabbi Yochanan's approach - fire is like a person shooting an arrow.

Bava Kamma 21 - November 23, 10 Kislev Nov 23, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Diana Bloom in loving memory of her grandmother, Ita Rosa Sonabend Marmurek, on her yahrzeit. "Her strong character, fierce dedication to her family, unwavering Zionism and commitment to the Jewish community both in Buenos Aires and globally continue to serve as a role model and inspiration."

The rabbis continue to debate the issue of a squatter, one who lives on someone else's property without the owner's knowledge - is there an obligation to pay rent? Some explain that the squatter is helping the owner because living on the property prevents an evil spirit called shi'iya from possessing the house and helps prevent deterioration as the squatter will find issues and fix them up. A man built a palace on the garbage heap of orphans and Ran Nachman confiscated his palace until he paid rent to the orphans. On what basis did he rule this way? The Mishna differentiated between shen damages (eating) in the public domain and on the sides of the public domain. Rav and Shmuel debate what the law is if the animal is in the middle of the public thoroughfare but turns its head to the side and eats from the sides of the public domain. Others say that their debate was regarding a different situation - where one designated area in their private domain to be open and accessible to the public - is it treated as public property (exempt if the animal eats food) or private property (liable for eating)? Would they have the same debate regarding a pit dug in one's private domain that was then opened to the public? A dog or goat who jumps off the roof and breaks vessels is considered expected damage and the owner pays full damage. However, the owner would be exempt if the dog or goat fell off. This seems to imply that if one began with an act of negligence and ended with unexpected damage, one is exempt. The Gemara tries to explain how the Mishna could be explained according to the position that one who begins with an act of negligence, is responsible even if in the end the damage was from unexpected damage.

Bava Kamma 20 - November 22, 9 Kislev Nov 22, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 20

Today's daf is sponsored by Tina & Shalom Lamm with gratitude to HKB"H on the occasion of the brit and naming of their new grandson, Nadav Oz, born to their children, Bracha & Akiva Berger.

If an animal eats in the public domain, the owner is not liable. However, there are some exceptions where something in the public domain can be considered private, such as taking food off the back of another animal. Also if the animal takes the food in an atypical manner, the owner will be liable (half damages as it is considered keren). If eating is exempt in the public domain, what is the law if the animal rolled the food from a private domain into the public domain and then ate it (or from public to private)? The owner is exempt if the animal eats food in the public domain. However, if there was a benefit to the animal/owner, the owner is responsible for compensating the amount that was benefitted. How is this amount determined? This leads the Gemara to raise a basic question about a squatter, one who lives on another's property without the owner's knowledge. If one benefits and the other has not lost anything by that - is there a need to compensate? Several sources are brought to try to reach an answer but all are rejected.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected