Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Bava Kamma 19 - November 21, 8 Kislev Nov 21, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz in loving memory of her father, Shragai Cohen, Shraga Faivel ben Avraham ben-Tzion Halevi on his yahrzeit. "His vocation, avocation and love were centered around Israel. He instilled that love in his children and it has been passed down to the next generation."

Today's daf is sponsored by Miriam Tannenbaum, Medinah Korn and Caroline Ofstein l'ilui nishmat Sgt. Binyamin Meir ben Zev David ve-Rachel Pessi, HYD, Binyamin Airley, son of our dear friends Jen and Rob Airley. The quality of gevura and modesty personified him in life and even in death, as he fell defending Am Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael, both of which he loved deeply. His sense of mission was borne out of the home of his parents, whose strength and emunah are formidable and a model to all. Yehi zichro baruch.

A series of questions are asked regarding indirect damages called tzrorot. Is there a concept of tam/muad if the action was done in an atypical manner (like keren) and a tam would only pay one-quarter damages? Would Sumchus agree that if the act was more indirect, i.e. the animal moves pebbles that flew and hit an object which then damages another object, the owner would be liable only for half the damages? The Mishna set up two cases where one is liable for half damages - the animal kicked (keren) and caused damage or pebbles from under the animal's feet damaged vessels. In the latter case, were the pebbles kicked by the animal purposely or did they just move as the animal walked? What is the relevance? Is one liable for tzrorot in the public domain (like keren) or exempt (like regel)? What if they were kicked in the public domain but flew into a private domain and damaged? If an animal wags its tail and causes damages in the public domain, the owner is exempt as it is a subcategory of regel. The Mishna stated that the owner of a chicken who caused damage from a rope tied around its leg pays half the damages. Rav Huna limits this to a case where it got tied to the chicken on its own. The Gemara struggles to understand who is responsible according to this reading and is pushed to understand Rav Huna as adding a case and not limiting the Mishna. What are the main rules of the category of shen? If an animal eats atypical foods, the owner only pays half the damages - but where do we draw the line between typical/atypical?

Bava Kamma 18 - November 20, 7 Kislev Nov 20, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 18

Today's daf is sponsored by Lesley Nadel in loving memory of her sister Ruth Lewis - Rachel bat Hershel haLevi v'Tova, on her 10th yahrzeit. "An aishet chayil who left us too soon, before seeing her children's weddings and meeting her granddaughter. She is missed every day. May her memory be for a blessing."

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Shapiro in loving memory of her father, Albert Tychman's 16th yahrzeit. "He was a tireless and passionate advocate and volunteer fundraiser for the State of Israel during his five decades with the Minneapolis Jewish Federation."

Rava asked three questions regarding indirect damages. If an animal stepped on a vessel and as a result it rolled and then broke, do we rule based on the first action of the animal and make the owner responsible for full damages or do we say it was on account of the rolling that it broke and the owner will only pay half damages? Second question: For the half damage payment for an animal who kicks rocks that then damages a vessel, is it paid from the body of the animal that damaged (gufo) or does the owner have to pay the complete value (aliya) even above and beyond the value of the animal? Third question: Is there a concept of shor tam/shor muad in the law of tzrorot? The Gemara provides sources in an attempt to answer Rava's questions.

Bava Kamma 17 - November 19, 6 Kislev Nov 19, 2023

Show notes

What was unique about the respect given to Chizkiyahu upon his death? What is more important - learning Torah or keeping mitzvot? Learning Torah or teaching Torah? What rewards are given to those who learn Torah and do acts of kindness, chesed? What are the details of the main category called regel? Where and how is one liable? What are the subcategories? If the animal kicks up pebbles while walking and the pebbles damage something, that is called tzrorot. The rabbis had a tradition that one only pays half damages for tzrorot. However, Sumchus did not have that tradition and held that the owner pay full damages. All these rules apply to chickens as well, not only animals. The first two sentences in the Mishna seem to be saying the same thing. The same phenomenon happens in the next Mishna regarding shen, damage through eating. How is each Mishna explained? Rava compared indirect damages of tzrorot to laws of impurity for a zav. If a zav would move something and it would be impure, laws of damages would apply as well. If it would not be impure by that movement, the owner would be liable for half the damages for that type of movement. This is understood to be referring to a wagon pulled by an animal.

Bava Kamma 16 - Shabbat November 18, 5 Kislev Nov 17, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 16

There are four different ways to understand the Mishna and whether it follows Rabbi Tarfon's position regarding keren (atypical) damages for a tam animal in a private domain (one pays full damages) or the rabbis' position (half damages). Damage by the animal crouching is considered atypical. But is this only for crouching on large items or also on small ones as well? There are different versions of what Rabbi Elazar ruled regarding this issue and whether a braita was brought to prove or raise a difficulty with his opinion. What is a bardelas mentioned in the Mishna? Shmuel differentiated between a lion who clawed another and ate it and one who attacked an animal with its teeth and ate it. The former was considered typical (exempt in the public domain) and the latter atypical (liable in the public domain). Is it really atypical for a lion to attack another animal and eat it? How is this resolved? How is the payment structure different for a shor tam and a shor muad?

Bava Kamma 15 - November 17, 4 Kislev Nov 17, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 15

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of their co-learner and friend, Debbie Schreiber, on the birth of her grandson this week. "May the new arrival bring the family and the Jewish people much joy and nachat! תזכו לגדלו לתורה לחופה ולמעשים טובים"

Today's daf is sponsored by Sara Berelowitz in honor of her new grandson Amiaz, son of Tani and Moriya Sterman. "The name Amiaz - Ami (my people, my nation) and Az (strength, might and bravery) - symbolizes the strength of our nation."

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family "We are so happy to celebrate the birth of so many new grandchildren in this year, תשפ"ד, an acronym for תהא שנת פתיחת דלתות. Mazal Tov to Tina, Sara, Phyllis, Tova, and anyone else we missed. כן ירבו!"

Who can testify in cases of damages? From where in the Torah do we derive that women are responsible for damages as men and if one damages a woman or her property, they are liable to pay damages as well? In what way does the one whose property was damaged also have to "pay"? In a case where an ox gores (keren) and is a tam (has not behaved in this way three times), the owner needs to pay half the amount of damages. There is a basic disagreement about the nature of paying half damages. One understanding (Rav Papa) is that an ox is naturally a hazard and it is the owner's responsibility to watch their oxen. Payment for damages is a monetary obligation and the owner should pay in full. However, the Torah reduced the payment by half as the owner was not forewarned. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua understands half payment as a penalty. He believes that an ox is not naturally prone to gore and therefore doesn't need protection. Theoretically, the owner should not be responsible at all if he wasn't forewarned. However, to incentivize owners to watch their animals, the Torah instituted a fine that they pay half the damages. There are four attempts to bring sources to prove Rav Papa's position that half payment is a monetary obligation, but in the end, the Gemara concludes that it is a fine/penalty. Since by law, only in Israel can the courts rule on penalties, cases of shor tam cannot be ruled on in Babylonia. However, if the damaged person were to seize payment from the damager, the courts leave it in his hands. In addition, he can insist that they meet in court in Israel. Furthermore, the court can insist that the one whose animal attacked take action to ensure that the animal does not cause further damage. The Mishna states that there are five shur tam cases and five shur muad. What are they?

Bava Kamma 14 - November 16, 3 Kislev Nov 16, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 14

Today's daf is sponsored by Debbie Engelen-Eigles in honor of the first birthday of her grandson Tomer, עד מאה ועשרים, and for the safe return from battle of his father and all our chayalim and chayalot. "May HaShem strengthen them, bring them victory, and bring them and the hostages home to their families safely and soon."

According to one interpretation of the Mishna, the last line "when one damages, the one who pays needs to pay from the best land" is coming to include shomrim. What is the exact case it is including? What are the levels of responsibility of jointly owned property? What if it was shared property for produce but not for animals? The next mishna lists rules of how one is to pay for the damages. The details of the mishna are unclear and the Gemara works on explaining them. With what does one pay? Who evaluates?

Bava Kamma 13 - November 15, 2 Kislev Nov 15, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 13

Rabbi Yosi h'Gelili holds that kodshim kalim are considered the property of the owner and not the property of God. The Gemara concludes that this is true even during the time of the Temple when they can be brought as sacrifices. Ben Azai holds that this is limited to only some types of koshei kodashim, however, there is a debate about which ones he excluded. Rava offers a different explanation for the phrase in the Mishna "property that does not have meila," that it excludes any sanctified item. Rabbi Abba, holding like Rabbi Yosi h'Gelili explains that if an animal designated for a peace offering causes damage, the payment is from the meat that can be eaten and not from the part burned on the altar. What does he mean by this and how does it relate to the debate between Rabbi Natan and the rabbis regarding an animal who pushed someone else's animal into a pit dug by a third person? What is meant in the Mishna when it limits damages payment to "those part of the covenant"? What is meant by "assigned property?" Some hold it is excluding a case when it is unclear whose animal caused the damage. Others hold that it excludes a case where the animal who damaged was ownerless. There is a debate about what situation this is referring to. If one's animal caused damage in the property of its owner, the owner is not liable as the owner can say, "What were you doing in my property!" If it was jointly owned by both people (the damager and the damaged), is the owner exempt or liable? There is a tannaitic debate on this issue and it all depends on different ways to read the end of our Mishna. What case is included by the line at the end of the Mishna - "in a case where one is liable, one needs to pay from the best of the land?"

Bava Kamma 12 - Rosh Chodesh Kislev - November 14, 1 Kislev Nov 14, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 12

Rav Nachman and other amoraim disagree about categorizing Cannanite slaves - are they treated like land or like movable property? The Gemara suggests that perhaps there is a tannaitic debate as well regarding this issue, however, two versions of Rav Ika suggest that perhaps there is no tannaitic debate. Even if one were to compare them to land or movable property, in the end, there are differences in certain situations as movable property and land do not move on their own, whereas slaves do. The Mishna said that one must pay damages for items that do not have laws of meila (misuse of consecrated property). This would include kodshim kalimand therefore, the Mishna must hold like Rabbi Yosi h'Geleli who held that kodshim kalim are considered property of its owner and not the temple's property. The Gemara raises a contradiction between his opinion and a Mishna and resolves it in two ways. A question is raised against the second resolution.

Bava Kamma 11 - November 13, 29 Cheshvan Nov 13, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 11

This week's learning is sponsored by Jason and Danielle Friedman in honor of Oliver Friedman's upcoming bar mitzva.

Even without the verse "and the body will be his," it would have been clear that the one whose animal was killed is left with the carcass of the animal and the one who damaged only pays the difference. If so, the verse must be teaching that if the carcass of the animal went down in value over time after the animal was killed, the one who damaged does not need to compensate for that, but pays according to the price at the time of the death. The Gemara suggests that whether the depreciation is a loss for the one damaged or the one who caused the damage is a tannaitic debate. However, this suggestion is rejected as the debate may be regarding which side is responsible for bringing the carcass to court to assess its value. According to this understanding, all agree that the one who was damaged takes a loss if the carcass depreciates. This is true for damages but if one steals, the loss is on the thief. What about a borrower whose object she is borrowing breaks? Some compare it to one who stole and others to one who damaged. Ulla quotes Rabbi Elezar on this issue - only a thief assumes the depreciation, not a borrower. Five other rulings of Ulla in the name of Rabbi Elazar are brought. One is regarding when a woman counts days of impurity when one miscarries over two days without seeing a clear fetus. The second is that one is not obligated to redeem one's firstborn son if the child was killed before thirty days passed from birth. The third is about acquiring large animals which is performed by pulling. The fourth - when brothers divide their father's inheritance, if they had previously purchased clothing from the estate's money, is that deducted from their share? One what does it depend on? The last regards a person watching another's item - if they pass it on to someone else to watch without consulting with the original owner, and the item is damaged, who is responsible?

Bava Kamma 10 - November 12, 28 Cheshvan Nov 12, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 10

The week's learning is dedicated by Phyllis and Yossie Hecht. "With hakarat hatov l'Hashem for finishing Masechet Kiddushin and having our first grandchild, Liam Yisrael. Born in these days of much needed tefillot, Liam Yisrael should continue to bring light and have the zechut to be a guardian for Am Yisrael as he continues to grow l'chuppah, l'Torah and l'maasim tovim - as this is the sustenance of our Am Yisrael b'Eretz Yisrael- ad mesh v'esrim shana. May we be zoche to the geula in his days and continue to hear only bsorot tovot."

Today's learning is sponsored for a refuah shleima for Shlomo Gavriel ben Esther and David Yosef ben Esther.

In what way is the law regarding an ox who damaged more stringent/unique than the other cases? In what way is the law regarding a pit more stringent? In what way are the laws of fire more stringent? The Mishna stated a case: "If one is partially responsible for damages, one needs to pay full damages." A braita explains the case: If one digs a pit nine handbreadths deep and someone digs it one more (which now makes it fit to kill) and then an animal falls in and dies or is injured, only the last person is responsible. Can this explanation match Rebbi's opinion as well or does it only fit with the rabbis? Different rabbis suggest other cases that have a similar possible joint responsibility and question why the braita did not mention them as well. The language of the Mishna in the above-mentioned case stated: "One is responsible for tashlumei nizko." The Gemara derives from the use of the words tashlumei, that the intent is to complete the payment, and this supports a braita which rules meaning that if one's animal was damaged, one gets to keep the carcass of that animal (which has value) and the payment is only meant to be the difference between the value of the animal when it was alive and its value now. There are three potential sources from which one can derive this law. Why is there a need for all three? The Gemara questions why is there even a need for a verse to prove this law, shouldn't it be obvious!?

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected