Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Bava Batra 168 - December 10, 9 Kislev Dec 10, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Miriam Benson in loving memory of her mother, Evelyn Benson, Yocheved bat Avram Leiv v'Chaya Batya. "She died on October 20th, 2024 at the age of 100. She was a wonderful mother and role model. I miss her terribly and am deeply grateful for her life. How lucky I am to have a mom such as this mom."

Why did the Mishna need to specify which side needs to pay for the document in each case - is it not obvious? The Gemara brings explanations for each case.

The Mishna explains that if one pays back part of a loan and both sides agree to give the document to a third party (instead of writing a receipt that part was paid) and the borrower declares, "I will the balance by a particular date and if not, return the document to the creditor," there is a debate about whether or not the creditor can claim the whole amount (if the loan is not paid back on time). This is a case of asmachta, an exaggerated claim, and Rabbi Yosi and the rabbis disagree about whether asmachta is valid or not. Even though Rav and Rabbi Yochanan held by Rabbi Yosi, that asmachta is valid, the Gemara ruled that we do not rule that way.

If a document is erased/partially erased, if witnesses can testify that they saw the document, they can write a new document testifying to the validity of the erased one. How does one treat a torn document - under what circumstances is it valid? If one claims a document is lost, can a new one be written instead?

Bava Batra 167 - December 9, 8 Kislev Dec 09, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Gila Pollack in loving memory of her father, Moshe Pollack, on his 7th yahrzeit. "He is missed greatly by all his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren."

Abaye suggests never to sign at the bottom of a blank page, someone can forge a document by adding a line saying that the person who signed borrowed money from them. Since a document signed by the borrower is admissible in court and can be collected from 'free' (not liened) property, this forged document could be used. Abaye also suggests not to put numbers from three to ten at the end of a line as the letters yud and nun can be added to turn 3 into 30, 4 into 40, and so forth.

Two cases were brought before Abaye where one erased part of a letter or added a letter to change the document's meaning. As this messed up the spacing, Abaye realized the issue and forced the one who tampered with the document to confess. In another case, someone forged Rava's signature and Rava realized it was forged as his name appeared before Rav Acha bar Ada, the other witness, and since Rav Acha was more senior, Rava never would have signed before him, out of respect.

The Mishna lists several cases of documents written for arrangements between two people. In each case, the Mishna explains who can write the document not in the presence of the other, and who cannot. It also explains who is the one obligated to pay for the document to be written.

The first case listed regards a get, divorce document, and a receipt that the woman received her ketuba money. The Mishna adds that the scribe must recognize them to ensure that the person will not pass the document to someone else to use for collecting money. The reason for this is that the man can the get written not for himself but to give to a different woman to claim her ketuba money, even though she may still be married and the woman can get a receipt written to give to a different man who can claim he already paid his wife her ketuba money. Rav explains that the need for the scribe to recognize is for the man for the get and the woman for the receipt for the reason described above. However, some rabbis were sitting with Abaye and questioned why Rav did not require the scribe to recognize both, since even if the scribe knows the man/woman, it is still possible the man will pass it to a woman/man married to a man/woman with the same name? Abaye responds that Rav actually required the scribe to know them both. However, there is still a possibility that the man/woman can pass the document on to someone who has the same name as their wife/husband and the spouse has the same name as them. That possibility is avoided by a ruling that if two couples in the same town share the same names, they can only get divorced in the presence of both couples.

Bava Batra 166 - December 8, 7 Kislev Dec 08, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Shapiro in loving memory of her father Albert Tychman, z"l on his 17th yahrzeit. "He would love that on this day of his yahrzeit, my husband and I are enroute to Israel to visit our daughter and her family. He was very proud of all his grandchildren."

Today's daf is sponsored by Lesley Glassberg Nadel in loving memory of her sister Ruth Lewis, Rachel bar Berel haLevi v'Tova, whose yahrzeit is Kislev 7. "May her memory be blessed."

Today's daf is sponsored by Shira Dishon in memory of her son, Eitan Ben Shira, hy"d, on his first yahrzeit. 'Eitan was a student at the Kiryat Shmona Yeshiva, which he loved so much. In a wonderfully symbolic way, a day after the memorial, the Kiryat Shmona Yeshiva, which was evacuated to the center of the country for more than a year, returns to Kiryat Shmona with joy and dancing. Surely Eitan will join the joyful dancing from above."

The Gemara continues to examine the details of a braita discussing different interpretations of unclear language in a document regarding dinarim, specifically whether the document was referring to silver or gold dinarim. In resolving a difficulty with the braita, a distinction is drawn between 'dinarei' (gold) and 'dinarim' (silver). To further support this distinction, a Mishna in Keritut is cited, which describes how Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel modified a law, relating to the sacrifices of a mother who had given birth and a zava, to break the market price on birds that had risen to an astronomical level.

The Mishna explains a principle regarding document interpretation: when there is a contradiction between the text at the top and bottom of a document, the bottom text is followed. This is based on the assumption that the change was intentional, reflecting a deliberate modification by the seller or creditor. The purpose of writing the top section is to assist in deciphering any missing letters or numbers in the bottom section. A braita further qualifies this principle, limiting such corrections to a single letter or number. If two letters or numbers are changed, it would be interpreted as a deliberate modification from the document's outset, and the text at the end would be followed or perhaps the document would be deemed invalid.

In a specific case, a document came before the court stating "six hundred and one zuz." The precise denomination of the six hundred was unclear. Abaye ruled that it did not refer to prutot, as large numbers of prutot are typically not written in documents but are converted to larger denominations. Given the remaining possibilities of sela (four dinarim) coins or zuzim (one dinar), Abaye ruled to follow the lesser amount. This decision was based on the principle that the party holding the document has a weaker position and cannot demand money from the other side without clear proof.

Bava Batra 165 - Shabbat December 7, 6 Kislev Dec 06, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Leah Caroline in loving memory of her brother Baruch Binyamin z"l ben Tzvi Thaler on his shloshim. "Baruch encouraged my learning and often asked where I was up to in the Gemara. We all miss you very much."

When Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said in the Mishna "it goes by the local custom" what did he mean? In what case does he disagree with the tana kamma? Abaye categorizes Rashbag's opinion with two other rabbis who ruled in different cases based on the same approach.

Why does the Mishna need to specify that one witness in a get pashut is invalid - isn't that obvious? Two answers are brought. According to one answer, the case is where there is one witness on the document and one who is not signed on the document but testifies about what is written in the document. There is a debate about whether or not this case is valid. Abaye ruled that it is invalid, which Ameimar ruled that it is valid. Ameimar brings proof from a question that was asked to Rabbi Yirmia and on account of his answer, he was permitted to reenter the Beit Midrash after being kicked out. There are four versions regarding the question they asked Rabbi Yirmia.

The Mishna discusses cases where there is a contradiction in the amount of money mentioned in the document. Depending on the situation, there are different ways of deciding which amount is "correct." What is done if the amount of money is not specified, but just the coin, or just "silver" or "gold"?

Bava Batra 164 - December 6, 5 Kislev Dec 06, 2024

Show notes

If, as Rav holds, a document comes before the court that has been completely erased and written over and signed, it is acceptable, why is there not a concern that the text was erased a second time and the signatures of the witness were on a version that was erased? The reason is that it is noticeable if a document is erased once or twice. To answer a follow-up question about another concern for forgery, Abaye also explains that if witnesses are to sign on an erased document, they must also be present when the document is erased. A difficulty is raised against Rav's ruling from a braita, but is resolved. However, two difficulties are raised against the resolution but are resolved as well.

On a tied document (get mekushar) the dating system differed from a regular document. Based on that, Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel's opinion in the Mishna is questioned by Rabbi Yehuda haNasi as he said that a tied document can be turned into a straight one and if the dating system is different, that could lead to issues of one collecting a debt that has already been repaid. How can this be resolved? Other issues regarding the dating system are discussed which include references to the Greek numbering system.

In the context of a story showing that Rabbi Yehuda haNasi was not familiar with a tied document, he reprimands his son for speaking lashon hara. The Gemara digresses to discuss different types of lashon hara, some of which include just speaking about a person, not even saying something negative, or even complimenting someone. This is called avak lashon hara, as it can lead to lashon hara. Rav Amram in the name of Rav explains that three sins are unavoidable daily - having sinful thoughts, thoughts during prayer, and lashon hara. As it is difficult to say that people daily speak negatively about others, Rav's words are explained to be referring to avak lashon hara.

Bava Batra 163 - December 5, 4 Kislev Dec 05, 2024

Show notes

A braita established that one can leave one blank line in a document before the signatures, but not two. Several issues are raised regarding the lines discussed. Is it two lines with a space above and below and if so, how much? What size font - the size of a scribe or the size of witnesses?

Rav and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about whether one can leave a space between the witnesses' signatures and the judges' ratification. Rav says more space can be left than before the witnesses's signature and Rabbi Yochanan says no space can be left. The Gemara is concerned according to each interpretation for possible forgeries and discusses why there is no concern and if there is, how it can be detected.

Bava Batra 162 - December 4, 3 Kislev Dec 04, 2024

Show notes

This week's learning is sponsored by Debbie and Yossi Gevir for the refuah shleima of Eitan Asher ben Dvora v'Haim Zelig. "Eitan was wounded while protecting Am Yisrael in Lebanon two and a half weeks ago. May he and his buddies continue to heal steadily along with all of Tzahal's wounded soldiers."

Rav Amram explained the reasoning behind Rabbi Yochanan's ruling that the last line of a document should contain a review of the main part of the document. Since there is often a bit of space between the end of the document and the signatures, there is concern that the last line could have been added after the witnesses signed. Therefore, nothing new is added, as it would not be upheld, and instead, the last line should include a review of the document's content.

Rav Amram supports his explanation from a braita that permitted one line of space but forbade leaving two lines of space between the end of a document and the signatures. He explains that one line is permitted because the last line contains only a review, but two would be a problem as something additional can be added.

A question was then raised about leaving a line and a half. Initially, they attempted to answer the question from the braita, but inferences could be made in either direction. They quoted another braita from which it was clearly stated that anything less than two lines would be valid.

The braita continues with another ruling about witnesses' signatures. If four or five witnesses signed on a document and some were disqualified witnesses or relatives, those signatures are ignored and the document is validated by the other signatures. This supports Chizkiya's ruling that if more than two lines were left blank before the signatures but were subsequently filled in with disqualified witnesses' signatures, the document is still valid. He draws a parallel to the laws of s'chach in a sukka, where a space of three handsbreadths disqualifies the sukka, but if the space is filled with disqualified s'chach, it is only problematic if it is four handsbreadths wide.

Bava Batra 161 - December 3, 2 Kislev Dec 03, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik & Adi Wyner in honor of their first grandchild, Azriel David's first birthday today, son of Ariel Wyner & Sofia Chiarandini, and in honor of their daughter, Eva Wyner, upon her engagement to Reuven Rosen. "We love Reuven and look forward to welcoming him into our family!"

According to Rabbi Yirmia bar Abba, the witnesses' signatures in a tied document (mekushar) would be at the bottom of the document (as opposed to Rav Huna who held they were at the top, on the tied part), ensuring that no extra lines were added. There would be no need to then add the words "hakol sharir v'kayam" at the end of the document. However, this could still lead to forgery as an extra line could be added and an additional witness could sign at the bottom. Therefore, they then explain that Rabbi Yirmia bar Abba must hold that the signatures are on the back and run perpendicular to the text, beginning at the bottom opposite where the text ends, thus preventing the possibility of a forgery. However, this can still lead to forgery as it is assumed at first that only the first signature starts at the bottom and the others are higher up. If so, there is concern that one could cut out a line in the document and it could be accepted as valid by the court as a partial signature (son of...) is valid. After some back and forth, Gemara explained why this was not a concern. However, Mar Zutra explains that all the signatures must line up at the bottom, thereby precluding the possibility that one could cut off a line (as all the names would never be able to be cut in a way that would go unnoticed).

Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef brings two laws in the name of Rabbi Yochanan. If one erases something in a document, one must write a note testifying to the change at the bottom. The last line before the end should always include a review of the content of the document since if something new is written in the last line, it is not upheld, as there is a concern it was added after the signatures.

Bava Batra 160 - 2nd Day of Rosh Chodesh - December 2, 1 Kislev Dec 02, 2024

Show notes

The tenth chapter begins with a comparison between two different types of documents - a regular one (pashut) and one that has folds (mekushar). The differences include the number of witnesses required and where they sign. Several verses are brought to find a source for these two documents and their differences in the Torah and in Yirmiyahu. However, since these verses can be explained in another manner, the Gemara concludes that these differences are rabbinic and are merely connected to verses as an asmachta.

The get mekushar was instituted in a particular place where many kohanim lived who were known to be short-tempered and would decide in a moment of anger to divorce their wives. Since kohanim cannot remarry their wife after divorcing her, the rabbis instituted a takana that the kohanim would need to give their wives a get mekushar, which is very time-consuming. This would buy time so they could calm down from their anger and hopefully decide not to divorce their wives.

Rav Huna and Rav Yirmia bar Abba debate where the witnesses sign on a get mekushar, either between the folds or on the back of the document opposite the writing. Rami bar Hama asked about Rav Huna's opinion, why are we not concerned that someone will add words to the text below after the witnesses sign.

Bava Batra 159 - 1st Day Rosh Chodesh Kislev - December 1, 30 Cheshvan Dec 01, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Rabbi Heshie and Rookie Billet in honor of the bar mitzva of their grandson Elihai Yonah Jacobson in Neve Daniel. "May you continue to grow in Torah learning, middot tovot, chesed, and identification with Klal Yisrael. So proud of you!"

A ruling was sent from Israel to Babylonia with a halakhic ruling that was said to be one of the more difficult monetary laws to understand. However, the Gemara initially does not understand the details of the case and offers five suggestions. After rejecting each suggestion because there was no real difficulty with the logic of the ruling, they reinstate the first suggestion and explain the difficulty. The first two suggestions relate to a grandson inheriting from a grandfather directly as the father had previously died. Does inheritance go through the father to the grandson or does it go directly from the grandfather to the grandson. If it goes through the father, does the grandson inherit the double portion that was meant to be given to his father? The last three suggestions relate to one who signs a document and later becomes a disqualified witness (for different reasons). Is there an issue with ratifying that document?

They asked Rav Sheshet: does a son who predeceases his mother inherit from his mother "in his grave" thereby passing on the inheritance to his half brothers through his father or does her inheritance stay with her father's family? Rav Sheshet answers it from a braita and Rav Acha bar Minyumei answers it from our Mishna. Both conclude that the son does not inherit his mother in the grave, but her money is given to her heirs from her father's family. The reason for this law is derived from a gezeira shava in the Torah from Bamidbar 36:7, 9.

The chapter ends with a sale where there was a doubt regarding what was sold and the two sides each claim that the land in question belongs to them. Rava and Rav Nachman disagree. The Gemara raises a different debate between Rava and Rav Nachman where they seem to side the other way. However, the issue is resolved as one can differentiate between the two cases and see that the logic of each of their positions is consistent.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected