Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Bava Metzia 108 - Shabbat June 15, 9 Sivan Jun 14, 2024

Show notes

Those who own land near the river should cut all trees along the river's edge to allow those who pull in the boats to have space to do so. A story is told of Raba bar Rav Huna who refused to cut his trees down. Although he was justified in his argument, Raba bar Rav Nachman came by without checking into the situation properly and had them cut down. Raba bar Rav Huna cursed him and the curse was fulfilled. Which communal responsibilities are rabbis exempt from and for which are they liable? Those who benefit from a river or a gutter need to share in the expenses to fix it up if it directly affects their field. A neighbor has the right to buy the property adjacent to his house/field and can even force a purchaser to sell it to him/her. This law is derived from the verse in Devarim 6:18, "Do what is right and good in the eyes of God." The Gemara discusses in detail the nuances of this law. In which cases does this law not apply? If the neighbor does not want to purchase the land, who else receives higher priority for purchasing the land?

Bava Metzia 107 - June 14, 8 Sivan Jun 14, 2024

Show notes

If a landowner expects the sharecropper to plant a certain crop, can the sharecropper change to a different crop? This question hinges on whether the change benefits or harms the field in the long term. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees with the rabbis and forbids any change. The Gemara suggests possible explanations of why he forbids it. The first explanation is rejected but the second is accepted. Rav Yehuda teaches Ravin three halakhot/advice regarding fields. One can steal cress that grows between flax plants, as it is detrimental to the growth of the flax. Another teaching addresses trees that grow on the border between two neighbors, explaining who has the right to eat the fruits and on what does it depend. Additionally, he advises that it is best not to have a field close to the city. There are contradictory sources regarding whether or not it is preferable to have fields close to the city. One source says it will bring an ayin hara, implying that proximity to the city might attract jealousy or negative attention. Another source says it is preferable as it is convenient, providing easier access. The reconciliation of these sources depends on whether one has put up a wall around the field, blocking the view of others. Verses from Devarim 28:3 and 6 regarding blessings that come upon a person in the city, in the field, when returning home and when leaving, are extrapolated with advice and recommendations. These verses provide practical guidance for living a blessed and healthy life. Five explanations are brought for the verse in Devarim 7:15 - "God will remove all disease" - to elucidate what is meant by "all disease." Rav says it refers to the ayin hara. Shmuel says it is the wind that gets into the body. Rabbi Chanina says it is the cold. Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chanina says it is excrement of the nose and ear. Rabbi Eliezer says it is the gall bladder. If one eats bread and water in the morning, it prevents sickness of the gall bladder. They attribute thirteen benefits to eating bread in the morning, highlighting this practice's importance in maintaining health. Rav Yehuda advised Rav Ada who was a measurer. Make sure to be exacting, as any piece of land, even small, can be used to plant something valuable. Four cubits of space should be left bare near the irrigation channel, but since it is only for individual use, one can estimate it, and it can be even less than four cubits. However, on the edge of one's field near the side of the river, one must leave four cubits of space for public use and should estimate generously. Those who own land near the river should cut all trees along the river's edge to allow those who pull in the boats to have space to do so.

Bava Metzia 106 - June 13, 7 Sivan Jun 13, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Jill and Jeff Shames in loving memory of Jill's father, Bill Baker, Zev Velvel ben Reuven v'Chana. "We were blessed to have him in our lives until three years ago. Dad, may you continue to shepp nachat from your children, your children's children and your children's children's children. We miss you."

A sharecropper (chokher) who cultivates another's land may face scenarios where the agreed-upon payment is adjusted if a plague of locusts or a windblast ruins the crops. Various theological arguments, generally protecting the landowner, influence these adjustments. For instance, if the sharecropper plants a different crop than agreed upon, the landowner can argue that their prayers were for the original crop, suggesting divine intervention might have spared it. A tannaitic source on the laws of repurchasing an ancestral field, raises a difficulty about the definitions of what is considered a natural disaster (according to Rav Yehuda and Ulla) but these are resolved. Shmuel's ruling highlights that a sharecropper is not exempt from paying if the sharecropper did not plant the field, as the landowner can claim it might have been spared due to the landowner's merits. This contrasts with the case of a shepherd abandoning a flock, where liability depends on whether the shepherd could realistically have saved the flock, without expecting miraculous intervention. Regarding the sharecropper's duty to replant, the debate between Rebbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel on chazaka (establishment through occurrences) is relevant. Depending on their views, the sharecropper would be exempt from replanting after two or three destructive events. If crops fail to grow at all, the sharecropper must replant repeatedly until the planting season ends. Rabbi Yehuda stated that a sharecropper committed to pay in money, not crops, does not deduct for regional disasters. However, Rava clarified that this view is not upheld. The sharecropper's payment comes from the field's crops, regardless of their quality compared to market standards - for better or for worse.

Bava Metzia 105 - Shavuot - June 12, 6 Sivan Jun 11, 2024

Show notes

Rava discusses more issues regarding a heiter iska. If a sharecropper who pays a fixed amount to the owner is not permitted to decide not to weed the field, for various reasons cited in the Mishna and Gemara. If one sharecrops for percentages and there is very little yield, the sharecropper does not assume responsibility. However, there is a minimum amount. What is that amount? The Gemara digresses to measurements in other areas of halakha including ritual impurity, particularly cases in which Rabbi Yannai takes a position. One who works in another's land as a chokher and a plague or windblast ruins the crops - in which scenarios can the chokher pay less than the agreed upon amount?

Bava Metzia 104 - June 11, 5 Sivan Jun 11, 2024

Show notes

If a sharecropper agrees to work an irrigated field and the river dries up, can the sharecropper deduct something from the payment to the owner, as the work is more difficult than expected? On what does it depend? If one agrees to sharecrop for a percentage of the yield and decides not to work the land, one still needs the landowner according to the agreed-upon percentage calculated at what the field should have yielded. Rabbi Meir says this is common law that became halakha as it is derived from the commonly used language in sharecropper contracts, as we doresh lashon hedyot. There are various interpretations of what this means and several cases in which this principle is used. If a sharecropper said, "If I don't work the land I will pay you one thousand zuzim," there is a disagreement about whether this is binding, as it seems like it was just an exaggeration, asmachta, which would render it meaningless. Rava explains several details regarding a heiter iska - how it works and how it is meant to protect the investor's rights. A heiter iska allows one to invest money for someone else in a way that they can share the profits while avoiding issues of interest. It is set up in a way that a loss will be split 50/50 but gains 2/3 to the borrower (the one investing the money) and 1/3 to the investor. Therefore, if one splits one investment into two documents, there can be a loss for the investor if one yields profits and the other a loss. If two investment are combined into one document, it can cause a loss for the borrower.

Bava Metzia 103 - June 10, 4 Sivan Jun 10, 2024

Show notes

If the landlord claims that the tenant hasn't paid rent and the tenant claims they already paid, the tenant takes an oath verifying their claim and is exempt from payment. If a rental contract was written for a specific amount of years, but no date was included in the contract, even though the contract is in the hands of the tenant, since the landlord is the one who has original rights to the land, if the landlord and tenant disagree about the end date of the contract, the landlord is believed. Why does this case differ from one where the lender brings a promissory note to the borrower who claims that half was already paid? If one lends a vessel to a friend to be used by the friend while the vessel is "in good shape" forever, the friend can continue to borrow it multiple times, even after returning it, if they performed a kinyan sudar regarding the arrangement. Rava and Rav Papa discuss other cases where one lent items to another to be used in a specific manner - what is included within each phrase? If one rents a house to another, and the house falls, the landlord needs to provide another house. In what ways does it need to be the same as the original house that was rented? The month chapter begins with the laws of sharecroppers - both arisim and chakhirim. The expectations of how they will work in the field depend on the local custom. Which costs are to be covered by the landowner and which by the sharecropper?

Bava Metzia 102 - June 9, 3 Sivan Jun 09, 2024

Show notes

This week's learning is sponsored by Joy Benatar in loving memory of Miriam Quint David on her 8th yahrzeit. "Proud mother and grandmother; passionate Jewish educator; pastry, ice cream and needlework enthusiast."

Today's daf is sponsored by Batsheva Pava in loving memory of her father's family who arrived at Auschwitz only a few days before Shavuot. "His mother, Batsheva, and son, Moshe Meshel and daughter, Adle, were taken to the crematoria only hours after arrival. My grandmother was a big baalat tzedaka. My father used to say that if he did not hide his pants at night she would give them away to a poor person. Hashem yinkom damam."

Today's daf is dedicated to Noa Argamani, Almog Meir Jan, Andrey Kozlov and Shlomi Ziv who were rescued from captivity, and in memory of Arnon Zemira who was killed in the rescue mission. We are thrilled at the return of the hostages, but, at the same time, we mourn the loss of Arnon and pray for the safe return of the remaining 120 hostages.

The responsibility for putting up a mezuza is on the renter, and the renter cannot remove the mezuza when leaving, unless the house belongs to a gentile. Items that come into the courtyard of the landlord, such as dung of animals who come into the courtyard, belong to the landlord, even if someone is renting the house, as the standard house rental does not include the courtyard. This explanation of the Mishna can be used to support Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Chanina's statement that an item that enters one's courtyard is acquired by the owner, even without their knowledge. Three tannaitic sources are quoted to raise a difficulty with Rabbi Yossi's opinion. If one rents for a year and the year becomes a leap year, is the rental of the extra month included in the original price or does the renter need to pay extra? According to the Mishna, this depends on whether the agreement was for months or a year. If the agreement mentions both months and years, the Mishna rules that the money of the leap year month is divided. Rav disagrees with this opinion and Shmuel and Rav Nachman offer opinions as well.

Bava Metzia 101 - Shabbat June 8, 2 Sivan Jun 07, 2024

Show notes

If a river uprooted a tree and placed it in someone else's field, can the owner take it back? What if someone planted a tree on someone's property without the owner's knowledge? Does the one who planted receive payment for their work and how much? Would the law be the same for a house one built in someone else's ruin without the property owner's knowledge? How much advance notice is required for a landlord to a renter before kicking out the renter from the landlord's property? The answer depends on the time of year (affected by supply and demand), whether it was in a city or village, whether it was a store or a residence, and what type of store it was. What cases are exceptions to the rule in which no notice is required?

Bava Metzia 100 - Rosh Chodesh Sivan - June 7, 1 Sivan Jun 07, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Lesley Glassberg Nadel in loving memory of her mother, Theresa Glassberg, Tova bat Tzvi Hirsch and Bayla on her 20th yahrzeit, on Rosh Chodesh Sivan. "May her memory be for a blessing."

If one traded animals or slaves and the animal/slave gave birth and each side claimed the offspring as their own (born before or after the sale), the offspring is split between the buyer and the owner. If one had two animals or slaves - one small and one large and each side claims they bought/sold the bigger/smaller one, what is the law? The Mishna delineates different possibilities depending on whether each side brought a definitive claim (bari) or a non-definitive claim (shema) and rules in each case. In the case of the animal/slave, why is it divided? Why does it not remain where it is presently? After resolving this question by assuming the case is where it is not in the hands of either side, the Gemara raises another question - why does it not remain in the original owner's possession where is the last place where it had presumptive ownership? The Mishna must be according to Sumchus who holds that money in doubt is split without swearing. But, there is a debate about whether Sumchus held that position even in a case where both cases have definitive claims. Therefore, the Mishna is explained according to each position - either they have non-definitive or definitive claims. Two difficulties are raised against Raba bar Rav Huna's explanation of the Mishna. In the case of the two slaves/two pieces of land, if each claims definitively which slave/piece of land they bought/sold, why do they take an oath? There are three reasons why there should not be an oath in this case. To resolve this, they suggest four possible answers and analyze whether these answers are feasible.

Bava Metzia 99 - June 6, 29 Iyar Jun 06, 2024

Show notes

Today's learning is sponsored by Lori Schuldiner Schor, on the occasion of her 65th birthday. "With gratitude for access to meaningful learning, and with appreciation for the love and support of my family and friends, throughout the years, to this very day (ad haYom haZeh)."

Today's daf is sponsored by Dianne Kuchar in loving memory of Dennis. "Today was Dennis' birthday. He was 6 months older than me, both being born in 56. He died at 65, two years ago. On June 6, in two years time, we will complete the daf yomi learning cycle of 7 1/2 years. I thank Hadran, Rabbanit Michelle, and all the daffers for their support."

At what point does a borrower assume responsibility for unanticipated damage? The Mishna rules that if the borrower agrees that the lender can send the object to them with someone else, the borrower is already responsible, even if the lender sends it with their slave. Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether this law relates to a Jewish slave or a Canaanite slave. The Gemara questions Rav's position that it refers to a Canaanite slave, as a Canaanite slave is considered an extension of the owner. However, the issue is resolved by employing an ukimta, establishing the Mishna in a particular situation. There are different opinions about when an owner can change their mind and decide not to loan out a borrowed item. Shmuel rules on a different issue: if one steals an item that can be sold in bulk at a lower price or sold by unit at a higher price, what price does the thief need to reimburse the owner? He holds that a robber would pay the higher amount if it is hekdesh (consecrated item) and the lower amount if it is to an individual. However, a difficulty is raised as Shmuel in a different context equates hekdesh and non-hekdesh. To resolve the difficulty, they say that Shmuel changed his mind about the latter source.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected