Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Bava Metzia 118 - June 25, 19 Sivan Jun 25, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Tzippy Wolkenfeld in loving memory of Yakira Leeba bat Avrohom Yosef Yehuda v'Sara Gita. "Tomorrow marks the first yahrzeit of our beautiful granddaughter Yakira Leeba bat Avrohom Yosef Yehuda v'Sara Gita, a glorious little person who inspired tefilla and chesed around the world."

If one has an olive press built into a rock and another has a garden above it, if the ceiling of the olive press collapses, the garden owner can plant on the floor of the olive press. How big must the hole in the ceiling be to allow for this arrangement? Rav and Shmuel disagree here in the same way as they disagreed in the previous Mishna regarding the hole in the floor of the second floor. Why was there a need to mention their debate in both cases - why couldn't we have learned one from the other? If one's tree or wall collapsed and fell onto another's property, if the other is not interested in keeping the debris, the owner of the wall must remove it. But if the owner offered the neighbor to remove and keep the debris and the neighbor agreed, the owner cannot change their mind later and take the debris. Why doesn't the neighbor's courtyard acquire the debris automatically as we have learned that a courtyard of a person acquires objects? The Mishna taught a similar halakha regarding paying wages from the produce the worker is dealing with. If the worker insists on being paid wages, the employer must pay in money. But if the worker agrees to accept the produce, the employer can not change their mind. Why was it necessary to teach this case as well if the ruling was the same as the case of the debris? A contradiction is brought between our mishna and a braita about whether or not an employer can insist that the worker takes his wages in produce. Rav Nachman brings three different explanations (the first two are rejected) to explain the contradiction. Can one acquire items from hefker by watching them (without lifting them)? If one puts items in the public domain, how long can they be left there? Even if one is allowed to leave them there by law, is the person who left them responsible to pay for damages if they damage another? If a group of people work together to build something, each doing a different part of the work, and after it is built, it breaks and damages someone, who is responsible for paying? If one field is higher than another and something grows from the side of the raised area that borders the two fields, to whom does it belong?

Bava Metzia 117 - June 24, 18 Sivan Jun 24, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Metzia 117

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the birth of a granddaughter, daughter of Aliza and Chesky Gewirtz, to our friend and co-learner Deena Rabinovich. "May the Rabinovich and Gewirtz families see much nachat as the new "Hadran Daf Addition" grows to Torah (and Daf), chuppa and maasim tovim, and may this simcha bring joy, peace, and healing to the Jewish nation and the world."

If the landlord lives downstairs and the tenant lives upstairs and there is a hole in the upstairs floor, the tenant can move downstairs. Does the owner need to move out? If not, is the tenant allowed to use the same entrance or can only enter from the upstairs? What if there were three floors, if the hole is in the middle floor, can the tenant be moved upstairs? If two people share a house (one upstairs and one downstairs) if the limestone that covers the floor upstairs wears away and there is a leak from the upstairs to the downstairs, who is responsible for fixing it? Is it connected to the debate in our Mishna between the rabbis and Rabbi Yosi about a tenant/landlord and who fixes the plaster when there is a hole in the floor upstairs? The Gemara rejects the comparison to the Mishna but connects it to a different debate in Bava Batra 25b about whose responsibility it is to prevent future damage - the one who may damage or the one whose items may become damaged? If a house collapses and the lower owner does not want to rebuild, what options does the upper floor owner have? Is there a pattern that can be found in various halachic decisions of Rabbi Yehuda that he holds that one cannot benefit from the money/property of another without the other's consent? The Gemara first brings three opinions of Rabbi Yehuda in different contexts to prove this, but each is then explained based on different reasoning. In rebuilding a house that fell apart, the upstairs and downstairs owners must each be careful to use the same type of bricks/ceilings/height/number of windows as before unless the change will not negatively affect the other owner. What changes are good/bad for each owner? If one has an olive press built into a rock and another has a garden above it, if the ceiling of the olive press collapses, the garden owner can plant on the floor of the olive press. If one's tree or wall fell/collapsed into the street, the owner is not responsible for damages, unless the owner was warned by the court and did not take it down. If it fell onto another's property, what are the rights of the owner/neighbor regarding the debris?

Bava Metzia 116 - June 23, 17 Sivan Jun 23, 2024

Show notes

This week's learning is sponsored by the Storch, Joseph, and Cohen families for the refuah shleima of their dear friend Jenny, Esther Gittel Bat Miriam v''Asher Anshel. "We love you Jenny."

If one seizes as collateral any item that is used for one purpose but made up of two parts, one transgresses two negative commandments. This is learned from the verse about the millstone, which is made of two parts. There was a case where one seized a slaughtering knife for collateral. Rava and Abaye disagreed about whether the creditor was able to keep it for repayment of the loan. Abaye ruled that since it was needed for food, the creditor had to return it and could turn to the court to get his money back. Rava ruled that since he could have lied and said the knife was his, the creditor could keep the knife as repayment of the loan. If a jointly owned house (one lives on the main floor and one upstairs) collapsed, how do they split the pieces that fell? If one rents out the upstairs of the house and the floor gets ruined, the owner must fix it. Rabbi Yosi thinks both sides need to pay part. If the owner doesn't fix it, the renter can move in downstairs. Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether this is true if most of the floor is destroyed or even a small part of 4x4 handbreadths. The root of their debate is whether or not we assume a person can live upstairs while having some of their vessels downstairs.

Bava Metzia 115 - Shabbat June 22, 16 Sivan Jun 21, 2024

Show notes

In the event of the borrower's death, if one had taken a collateral, the creditor can keep it as payment for the loan. The lender would lose their money if there was no collateral and no land to collect from. Does the collateral need to be in the hands of the creditor at the time of death or is it enough that it was originally taken as collateral, but could have been temporarily returned at the time of death? Can we expound the reason for mitzvot in the Torah or not? There is an argument between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda about this regarding not taking collateral from a widow. Is it only a poor widow (so that when the creditor returns it every day, people won't speak negatively about the widow that a man is visiting her house or it is relevant for even a wealthy widow? The Gemara questions this as the opinions seem switched in a different area (a king not being allowed many wives). The issue is resolved. It is forbidden to take the millstone as collateral and the verse adds "because he is taking his soul (livelihood)." Is that adding on an extra negative commandment or is it coming to include other items that are essential to the borrower's existence? There is an argument about this and the Gemara tries to see whether this argument matches the argument between Rava and Abaye regarding not eating the Pesach sacrifice raw or uncooked as the verse also adds "because it needs to be roasted" - if one eats it raw, is one transgressing two commandments or one. The comparison is rejected.

Bava Metzia 114 - June 21, 15 Sivan Jun 21, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the birth of a grandson, son of Dovid and Ahuva Lewis, to our friend and co-learner Debbie Portnoy. May the Portnoy and Lewis families see much nachat as the new arrival grows to Torah (and Daf), chuppah and maasim tovim, and may this simcha bring joy, peace, and healing to the Jewish nation and the world.

If a borrower gives an object as collateral to guarantee repayment of the loan, if it is used to repay the loan and the lender needs the item for basic needs, does the creditor need to sell the object and leave the borrower with a more basic form of the object? This is called mesadrim, a concept that applies in the laws of arakhin (valuations) when one promises the value of a person to the Temple. Would the law also apply to hekdesh (a case where one promises the value of an object to the Temple. The similarities and differences between these three cases are discussed and various opinions are brought regarding loans and hekdesh. Raba bar Avuha met Eliyahu in a non-Jewish cemetery and asked him a few questions including the law of mesadrim for a creditor and why it was permitted for Eliyahu who was a kohen to be in a non-Jewish cemetery. Several laws regarding collaterals are derived from the verses in the Torah.

Bava Metzia 113 - June 20, 14 Sivan Jun 20, 2024

Show notes

This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.

The employer is trusted to deny a worker's claim that the worker was not yet paid, once the date for paying salary has passed. The assumption is that on the day one is supposed to be paid, the employer will remember to pay to avoid transgressing the prohibition of delaying a salary payment. Why is the worker's claim not accepted based on an assumption that the worker would not steal? The Gemara explains that the employer has two chazakas in their favor (would not transgress delaying salary payment and that the worker would demand the salary on the given day, and the worker only has one. The creditor can take a collateral if one does not pay a loan on time, however, the creditor may not enter the borrower's house to seize an item. Instead, an agent of the court collects the collateral on behalf of the creditor. Shmuel rules that an agent of the court is also not permitted to enter the borrower's house but can seize the borrower's item in the marketplace. Three sources are raised as difficulties against Shmuel's position. Eventually, they explain that whether or not the court can enter the borrower's house is a subject of a tannaitic debate. A braita rules that when taking an item for collateral, the court's agent must ensure that the borrower is left with basic needs for himself, but not for his wife and children. What are these basic needs? This is derived by a gezeira shava from laws of valuations to the Temple. Rav Nachman raises a difficulty against this from Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel's position in the Mishna that thirty days after the loan, the creditor can sell the item seized as collateral. If it can be sold, it is clear that one does not need to leave the borrower with basic needs.

Bava Metzia 112 - June 19, 13 Sivan Jun 19, 2024

Show notes

A braita extrapolates the verse in Devarim 24:15 that holding back salary is considered like taking away his/her soul. Whose soul - the worker or the employer? Rav Chisda and Rav Huna each bring different answers and explanations, based on verses in Proverbs. From the word "with you" in Vayikra 19:13, they derive three cases where the prohibition to delay salary does not apply. One exception is if the employer passed over the responsibility to pay to a store owner or money changer. If the store owner does not pay the worker, can the worker demand payment from the employer or is the employer no longer responsible? Rav Sheshet and Raba disagree on this issue. Does the prohibition of delaying payment also apply to a contracted worker (kablan) - one who gets paid for the job and not per hour? This depends on a different debate about whether a contracted worker assumes ownership of the item they are fixing or not. If there is a disagreement between the employer and the worker about whether the worker was paid, if it was before the expected day or payment, the worker takes an oath that he/she did not get paid and collects their salary. This goes against the general principle that the oath is usually for one to be exempt from payment (maintain the status quo). Why is this case an exception to that rule? Is there a reason to protect the worker more than the employer? Various arguments are brought and rejected as the issue is complex. The conclusion is that an employer is busy with work/worker and does not remember whether or not the worker was paid.

Bava Metzia 111 - June 18, 12 Sivan Jun 18, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Metzia 111

This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

Today's daf is sponsored by Nina Black in loving memory of her mother, Sophie Black, Sophia bat Avram, z"l whose yahrzeit is today. "Mom was a committed Jew, a deep thinker, a lover of learning and would be happy that I took on the commitment to do Daf Yomi. I miss her every day."

What is the time frame in which one must pay one's worker? It depends on whether the person was hired for work during the day or at night and whether the job was for the day or per hour. There are five negative prohibitions associated with delaying of payment for salary and one positive commandment. Do the same rules apply for a rental payment for one who rents animals or vessels? Do they apply to a ger toshav (one who keeps the seven Noachide commandments)? Three tannaitic opinions are brought relating to these two questions which is based on different approaches to extrapolating the verses in Devarim 24:14-15 and Vayikra 19:13.

Bava Metzia 110 - June 17, 11 Sivan Jun 17, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored in loving memory of Eilon Weiss, brother of Tzippy Huri, one of our learners, who was killed on Shabbat in Gaza. Eilon also learned daf yomi daily, even while he was serving in Gaza.

Bava Metzia 109 - June 16, 10 Sivan Jun 16, 2024

Show notes

This week's learning is sponsored by Bob & Paula Cohen in loving memory of Helen Cohen, Henna bat Yitzchak Nechemia whose yahrzeit is on Friday.

This week's learning is sponsored by Sara Averick & Jose Rosenfeld in loving memory of Sara's mother, Leah bat Rav Yehuda Leib Chaikel v'Chaya Masha. "She made sure her children got an excellent Jewish education."

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of the eight soldiers who were killed yesterday in Gaza, and in memory of Yair Roitman who was injured a few days ago and died yesterday.

A sharecropper who pays a set amount (chokher) cannot plant something that will weaken the land or will not regrow for seven years, such as flax or cut a sycamore tree, unless they will be cultivating the land for seven years. Abaye and Rava disagree on whether the enhancement to the sycamore tree goes to the sharecropper. Rav Papa worked as a sharecropper for growing hay, but a palm tree grew instead. He wanted to get money for the enhancement of the tree when he left the field, as the tree prevented him from planting hay, but Rav Sheisha entered into a debate with him and eventually ruled that he could only get the value of the tree if he had cut it for its wood. Another similar case is brought but since the tree grew on the border, where they wouldn't have planted anything, the sharecropper did not receive money for the enhancement of the tree. Rav Yosef had a planter working in his field who died and left five sons-in-law who all wanted to replace him. However, Rav Yosef threatened them to leave his land as he did not want five people working the land, as each would think another person would do the work and no one would take full responsibility. If a planter says, "If I cause a loss to the owner, I will leave without taking the enhancements," does the planter forfeit any enhancements there were, or is this a case of asmachta? A case is brought of a planter who left in the middle of a job to move to Israel. Rav Papa bar Shmuel and Rava disagreed about whether he could receive the full enhancements to the field that he would have received or whether he had to compensate the owner for his loss, as now the owner will need to find a sharecropper to finish the job. Rav Ashi understood the ruling in one way, but Rav Acha questioned his understanding.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected