Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Bava Batra 39 - Shabbat August 3, 28 Tamuz Aug 02, 2024

Show notes

If the original owner protests if a possessor is profiting from the land, but tells the witnesses not to let the possessor know, is the protest effective? The Gemara brings several variations of this type of situation and the rulings of different rabbis in each one, depending on the language used. In front of how many people does one need to protest - two or three? Is it similar to the laws of lashon hara? What is at the root of the debate? Is it sufficient to protest once in the first year or does one need to protest once every three years? What other actions need to be performed in the presence of two people and which require three?

Bava Batra 38 - August 2, 27 Tamuz Aug 02, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Batra 38

There are three different regions for creating a chazaka on land, meaning that if the land is in one region and the owner is in a different region, one cannot prove ownership by benefitting from the produce for three years. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and explains the reason for three years is exactly for this type of scenario - to allow enough time for someone living far away to hear and return to protest. Does tana kamma hold that one does need/does not need to protest in the presence of the possessor? Rav explained that one does not need to protest in the presence of the possessor and explained the Mishna to be referring to a time of emergency when people were forbidden from traveling between regions. A question is raised from a different statement of Rav and is resolved. There are two different versions of the discussion regarding Rav's additional statement. What is the wording necessary for a protest to be considered a legitimate protest?

Bava Batra 37 - August 1, 26 Tamuz Aug 01, 2024

Show notes

The Gemara continues to discuss whether plowing can create a chazaka on land. This issue was a subject of debate by many rabbis. If one benefits from only 10 out of 30 trees (that are growing in a field of three beit sea) each year (and each year a different ten), one can still create a chazaka on the whole field, both according to the rabbis and Rabbi Yishmael. However, there are two limitations to this halakha. If one sold all one's property to two people - one the trees and the other, the land, does the one who purchased the trees also acquire the land under/around the trees? How does that differ from one who sold the rights to the trees in one's property? Or if one sold the land but kept the trees? How does that case relate to the argument of Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis regarding one who sold a field but kept a pit or cistern for him/herself - did one leave oneself a path to get there or does one need to buy a path from the buyer to get there?

Bava Batra 36 - July 31, 25 Tamuz Jul 31, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Ariele Mortkowitz for the refuah shleima of Aliza Yehudit bat Malka Esther. "For the merit of healing and continued health and long life."

Several assumptions about human behavior are used to determine ownership. One generally doesn't bring tools and harvest in a field that is not one's own. One wouldn't protest land that is unlikely to grow crops or unprotected land whose produce will likely be eaten by the animals, or produce that is forbidden to sell by law (orla, shmita, kelaim). According to the Mishna, there is presumptive ownership for slaves after three years. How can Reish Lakish's statement that possession of livestock cannot be used as proof of ownership as they are free to move on their own, be understood in light of the Mishna? Rava ruled that one can establish presumptive ownership on a small slave immediately - on what basis? There is a debate regarding whether or not plowing would be considered an act of chazaka if the owner did not protest. The Gemara first assume that this issue is the source of debate between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva in the Mishna, but then rejects that understanding.

Bava Batra 35 - July 30, 24 Tamuz Jul 30, 2024

Show notes

Two people claimed they had each inherited a particular piece of land from their fathers. Rav Nachman ruled that the stronger one prevails. How is this case different from two people claiming ownership of an item by having a document of sale or gift issued on the same date where Rav and Shmuel disagree - one holds it is divided and the other that it is given to the judges' discretion? How is it different from a case where a cow is traded for a donkey or a maidservant is sold and the cow/maidservant has offspring and it is unclear if the birth happened before or after the sale and the ruling is that the offspring is split between the two parties? In a case where the verdict is that the strongest one prevails, what happens if a third party comes and seizes the item? In what situations is presumptive status established immediately? Gentiles can only establish ownership with a document, not with a chazaka. Rav ruled that a Jew who claims that he/she bought property from a gentile, must prove it with a document.

Bava Batra 34 - July 29, 23 Tamuz Jul 29, 2024

Show notes

The Gemara rejects the comparison of the case that came before Abaye where there was only one witness to the case of the naska (silver bricks) of Rabbi Abba.

There was a case in which two people claimed ownership over a boat and the law of "may the stronger one prevail (kol d'alim g'var)," was applicable. But one of them asked the court to seize the property to prevent that law from kicking in to buy time in which he could find evidence to support his claim. Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda disagreed about whether the court could intervene. If one were to rule that the court does seize it, can they release it if no further proof is brought?

There was a case where two claimed ownership of land and each claimed they inherited it from their fathers, but neither could prove it. Rav Nachman ruled that the stronger one prevails.

Bava Batra 33 - July 28, 22 Tamuz Jul 28, 2024

Show notes

More cases regarding disagreements about land ownership are discussed. Rava bar Sharshom was living on property that others claimed belonged to orphans. What did he do to try to prove he was the owner? Was his claim accepted? Another involved a disagreement about heirs - which was the closer relative who was supposed to inherit the property? Since neither had proof, one went to live on the land based on the principle of kol d'alim gvar, whoever is stronger, wins. When he later admitted he was not the closer relative, there was a debate about whether he needed to return all the produce he had eaten or to only return the land at the time of the admission.

A case is brought where the possessor brought testimony that he had eaten produce for two years and couldn't produce a witness for the third year. Rav Nachman ruled that the possessor needed to return the land and the value of the produce he ate. Rav Zevid held that he did not need to return the value of the produce if he were to say that he possessed the right to eat the fruit (like a sharecropper) but not the land.

A case is brought where a possessor brought one witness to support his claim that he ate produce for three years. One witness's testimony is not sufficient to prove ownership, but can the witness be used against him and the court will rule that he now needs to pay for the produce that he ate, based on the law that one witness requires him to swear, and since in this case he cannot swear (because he already said he ate the produce), he needs to pay? Is this like the case of the naska d'Rabbi Abba?

Bava Batra 32 - Shabbat July 27, 21 Tamuz Jul 26, 2024

Show notes

Rav Nachman was not concerned that overturning a court ruling based on new testimony would cause a lack of respect for the courts in the future. He relied on the ruling of Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who disagreed with other tannaim in a case involving a kohen about whom there was concern that he was the son of a kohen and a divorcee. As the details of this debate are clarified, Rav Ashi concludes that both hold that the court can overturn a ruling and they disagree about a different issue: can two individual witnesses testify separately? From here, the conclude that Rav Nachman was relying on two great scholar, Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

In another case of contested property, one brought a document, and the other accused him of presenting a false document. Then, the one who brought the document admitted it was a forgery but claimed there was a real document but he lost it. Rava held that his claim was valid under the principle of "ma li leshaker" since he could have lied and maintained it was a valid document. But Rav Yosef disagreed as the document was a complete forgery. Which opinion do we pasken like? Rav Idi distinguished in his ruling between land and money.

Bava Batra 31 - July 26, 20 Tamuz Jul 26, 2024

Show notes

The Gemara brings several cases that came before the courts regarding property ownership claims. In the first case, Rava ruled that the possessor's claim is believed since if the possessor was lying, he could have made a better claim (ma li l'shaker). But Abaye said this wasn't accepted as witnesses testified against the claim and a ma li l'shaker isn't accepted in this situation. After that, the possessor modified his claim. Can one modify one's claim? Ulla and the rabbis of Nehardea disagreed regarding this issue. In which cases did each side acquiesce to the other?

Rava and Rav Nachman disagreed in a case where part of the testimony was contradicted by other testimony but the other part wasn't. Is the entire claim canceled, or is the part that wasn't contradicted still valid? In that same case, new evidence was brought that contradicted the court's ruling. Should the court reverse its decision and take the land away, or should the court stick with its original decision to prevent people from losing respect for the courts?

Bava Batra 30 - July 25, 19 Tamuz Jul 25, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Rina Bar David in loving memory of Daniel Natan ben Yocheved and Binyamin.

A debate between Rav Nachman and Rava is brought to contradict their ruling in the previous case. However, distinctions are made between the two cases and they conclude that there are no inconsistencies in their positions. Rava rules that if the original owner did not protest within three years of possession because they were out of town, and even when they were in town, they were busy with their business, their claim is accepted and there is no presumption of ownership for the possessor. Four cases are brought where the possessor claims presumption of ownership as they purchased the land and then lived there for three years. In each case, the original owner claims the seller had stolen the land and wasn't the rightful owner. Each case varies slightly from the previous one. Rava ruled in each of these cases, usually siding with the one who claimed it was stolen property.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected