Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Bava Metzia 98 - Yom Yerushalayim - June 5, 28 Iyar Jun 05, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Rebecca and Ezra Darshan in loving memory of Helene Isaacs on her 24th yahrzeit, on Yom Yerushalayim. "She was an optimist who loved learning, and would be so proud of all of the women learning daf."

To resolve the difficulty raised against Rav Nachman and Rabbi Yochanan, the cases in the Mishna must be explained as a situation in which the borrower admitted to part of the lender's claim. The Gemara explains that an extra cow must be added to each case and delineates each party's claim. According to Rami bar Hama, two cows must be added to each case, as Rami requires any case of shomrim to have both a partial acceptance of the claim and a partial admission by the shomer. The Mishna ruled that if both are definite in their claim, the borrower/renter needs to take an oath - this oath can only be explained by gilgul shevua, rolling over another oath. If each is unsure of their claim, the money is divided - this follows Sumchus' position, but the rabbis disagree. Questions are asked regarding cases where one borrows an item "with the owner" and then before the rental time is up, he/she decides to rent it without the owner or the reverse. Does the exemption of "with the owner" apply because the agreement is viewed as a continuation of the first agreement or not? What about from renting to borrowing or from borrowing to renting to borrowing or vice versa. If an item is sent via messenger to the borrower, at what point does the borrower assume responsibility for the item?

Bava Metzia 97 - June 4, 27 Iyar Jun 04, 2024

Show notes

A borrower is not liable for accidental damage that occurs from using the item in the manner it is meant to be used, however, if it was used in an atypical manner, the borrower is responsible. Various cases are presented to explain further what is and is not considered damage or death from typical use. Rava discusses additional scenarios in which the exemption of shmira b'baalim would apply, such as if the borrower asks the lender to bring them a cup of water while borrowing the item, or if the lender holds a public position. The rabbis told Rava that if he lent them items, they would not be responsible as he "works for them." Rava retorted that they are subjugated to him, as he can choose what material to teach and they have no choice but to learn it. The Mishna describes cases where an animal is rented for some time and borrowed for some time, or where there are two animals—one rented and one borrowed. If the animal dies and there is doubt as to whether it was during the time it was rented or borrowed, or which animal was rented or borrowed, the halakha changes depending on what each side claims (whether they are sure in their claim or unsure). This is based on the principle that if one has a sure claim and the other side is unsure, we hold by the one who has the sure claim. The Mishna poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Nachman and Rabbi Yochanan, who hold that one is exempt even if one has an unsure claim, as the status quo remains and the burden of proof is on the one trying to get money from the other. They resolve the difficulty by claiming that the Mishna refers to a case where there is an obligation on the borrower to swear, and since one who is unsure of one's claim cannot take an oath, the borrower must pay. However, the borrower would be exempt if the case does not require an oath.

Bava Metzia 96 - June 3, 26 Iyar Jun 03, 2024

Show notes

Abaye, Rava and Rav Ashi each bring a different derivation for the rule that shmira b'baalaim is a valid exemption only when the owner was working for the borrower at the moment of the act of borrowing. Rami bar Hama asks four questions regarding the borrower's liablity for unexpected damages (oness). Then he asks three questions, and Ravina asks a fourth regarding the exemption of shmira b'baalim. Each of these eight questions relates to a unique case and asks whether the general halakha applies in these exceptional circumstances. The last two questions, regarding a husband/wife and an agent are answered: they depend on amoraic debates. Is there a difference if the agent is the owner's slave? Rami bar Hama asks a question regarding a husband's level of responsibility for his wife's usufruct property and about who is responsible for meila for her property if it was sanctified. Rava answers both questions. A borrower is not liable for depreciation or for an animal dying from use as the borrower can claim: "I didn't borrow it just to leave it on the windowsill!"

Bava Metzia 95 - June 2, 25 Iyar Jun 02, 2024

Show notes

This week's learning is sponsored by Helen Danczak in loving memory of Lucille Fliegler on her yahrzeit. "Thinking about her warmth and her love of family. We honor her memory with our learning."

This week's learning is sponsored by Rachel Savin in honor of the upcoming marriage of her daughter Lior to Daniel this Thursday.

The various halakhot about a borrower (sho'el) that are not explicitly mentioned in the Torah are derived from rabbinic interpretations and extrapolations from the biblical text. First, the borrower's responsibility for items that are captured. While the Torah explicitly states that a borrower is responsible if an item is damaged or dies (Shmot 22:13-14), the rabbis extend this responsibility to cases where the item is captured from the extra word "or". Second, the borrower is responsible for theft and loss. Although the Torah mentions a borrower being liable for damages and death, the rabbis also include theft and loss under the borrower's responsibility. This inclusion is based on a kal v'chomer argument from a paid bailee who is liable for theft or loss, as a borrower takes on a higher level of responsibility since they benefit from using the item without paying for it. Third, the exemption of she'ela b'baalim (borrowing while the owner is working for the borrower) also applies to theft and loss. The rabbis derive this from a paid bailee, but need to also explain the source for this law for a paid bailee and what method of derivation is used to extend the exemption from a paid bailee to a borrower. Regarding shmira b'baalim, there is a debate about whether the exemption applies if the shomer (bailee) was negligent and the owner was working for the shomer. Two difficulties are raised against the position that one is exempt. However, both difficulties are resolved. Rav Hamnuna holds a narrow view of this exemption, limiting it to cases where the owner was working with the borrowed item at the time of its break or death and was with the borrower from the time of borrowing until the time of its death. However, the Gemara discusses and ultimately rejects Rav Hamnuna's limitations, suggesting that the exemption can apply in broader circumstances.

Bava Metzia 94 - Shabbat June 1, 24 Iyar May 31, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Ruth Leah Kahan, Jessica Shklar, and Emily Michelson in loving memory of their mother, Kadimah Michelson, Kadimah bat haRav Avraham Tzvi Bentzion v'Chaya, on her 6th yahrzeit. "May her memory be a blessing."

What is considered circumstances beyond one's control that a shomer would be exempt from? One animal attacking or two animals? Does it depend on what type of animal? One can stipulate that one will be a shomer but will not be obligated to pay according to the Torah laws. How is this different from a condition that goes against Torah law that is not a valid condition? Other laws of conditions are discussed. The Mishna discusses in which circumstances one is exempt as a borrower because the owner was "with the shomer" - she'eila b'baalim. The Gemara then discusses the derivation of the laws of shomrim from the verses in the Torah.

Bava Metzia 93 - May 31, 23 Iyar May 31, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Metzia 93

Today's daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in honor of a double family simcha. "My cousin became a kalla and her brother and sister-in-law, Rabbi Zvi and Laurie Engel are celebrating the bat mitzvah of Aderet Bina in Chicago. During these trying days, we are grateful for the loving kindness bestowed on us all. May we continue to learn and grow together and see soon geula shleima. Mazel tov!"

The Gemara concludes that it is a tannaitic debate whether the worker's rights to eat on the job are considered an added wage or a gift awarded by the Torah. Is one who guards a field considered "working" to the extent that the guard can eat from the field or not? The Torah did not permit it but the rabbis did. Rav and Shmuel disagree about which type of field (at what stage of development) is the case in which the Torah did not permit but the rabbis did. What is at the root of their debate? Two difficulties are raised against Shmuel's position. The Mishna discusses the four types of shomrim and what is the level of responsibility of each of them. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree about the level of responsibility of a renter - is it the same as one who guards an item for free or one who gets paid? There is a disagreement about who holds which position. One who gets paid for guarding is responsible for circumstances beyond their control. Rabba and Abaye disagree about what is the level of "out of one's control" necessary to be exempt. Is one expected to go beyond what is expected of a regular person since the shomer is getting paid (Abaye) or not (Rabba)? Other rabbis sided with Abaye and ruled accordingly. The Mishna delineates what cases are considered beyond one's control and what are not.

Bava Metzia 92 - May 30, 22 Iyar May 30, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the birth of a granddaughter to our friend and co-learner Tzippy Wolkenfeld, born to her children Hannah and Jacob Finkel. "May the new princess grow l'Torah, l'chuupa ul'maasim tovim and may the joy of her arrival be a harbinger of smachot for all."

Is a worker limited to being able to eat only up to the value of the worker's wages? Tana kama and the rabbis permit this, but Rabbi Elazar Chasama does not. The Gemara offers three possible suggestions to explain the disagreement between tana kama and the rabbis. Is the food that one is allowed to eat while working viewed as an addition to a worker's wages - meaning it belongs to the worker and can be transferred to others, as in a salary - or a separate right granted by the Torah (a gift from God) which would be permitted only to the worker and cannot be passed on to others? Nine sources are quoted, each in an attempt to get to an answer to this question, but all are inconclusive.

Bava Metzia 91 - May 29, 21 Iyar May 29, 2024

Show notes

If someone rents an animal and muzzles it while it is threshing, they must receive lashes as punishment and also compensate the owner for the food the animal should have eaten while working. The Gemara questions how this can be allowed since it appears to be a double punishment, and the court cannot give one a double punishment for one action. Abaye, Rava and Rav Papa each suggest a possible answer. Rav Papa rules on two unrelated issues - one prohibiting baking bread that is dairy or meat, and another prohibiting putting a male and female animal of different species in the same pen to prevent mating between different species, even though this latter ruling is not explicitly prohibited by the letter of the law. Rav Achdevoi bar Ami raises a difficulty against Rav Papa's second ruling, but this difficulty is resolved. He also brings the same source to question a ruling of Rav Yehuda on animal mating, but it is also resolved. The Mishna discusses the laws regarding a worker eating while on the job, including whether the obligation to allow them to eat is only if they are engaged in work with both hands and legs like an ox who can't be muzzled and works with all fours. If one works with one type of produce, one cannot eat a different type of produce in the field. Even though workers are only permitted by Torah law to eat while actively working, the rabbis permitted them to eat while walking between rows to prevent financial loss for the employer. The Gemara raises a question about whether a worker can eat from the same type of produce in a different area and attempts to answer this from three different rulings in the Mishna, but rejects each suggestion.

Bava Metzia 90 - May 28, 20 Iyar May 28, 2024

Show notes

Two contradictory sources are brought regarding the prohibition to muzzle an animal while the animal is threshing trauma and maaser produce. One source suggests it's not prohibited, while another asserts it is. Various explanations attempt to reconcile this contradiction, suggesting differences in the type of truma/maaser or differing opinions. If the food on the threshing floor is causing the animal to be sick, is it still prohibited to muzzle - is the prohibition meant for the best interest of the animal or is it meant to not be cruel to the animal? Is it prohibited to tell a non-Jew to muzzle the animal and thresh with it as with laws of Shabbat or is it forbidden only on Shabbat on account of the stringency of Shabbat laws? Two sources are brought to answer this question, but in the end are not conclusive. Rami bar Hama asks a series of questions about whether there is a prohibition of muzzling in a case where there is some external factor that is in place (not put there by the owner) that may prevent the animal from eating. His questions remain unanswered. Rabbi Yonatan asked if one muzzled another's animal and then brought it to the threshing floor, is that forbidden? Rabbi Simai answered from the case of kohanim coming into the Temple drunk that obviously, the verse did not mean only when drinking as one goes into the Temple. If one person muzzles and the other brings it to thresh, the second one gets lashes. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish debate about whether one gets lashes for muzzling an animal by words alone, i.e. telling the animal not to eat.

Bava Metzia 89 - May 27, 19 Iyar May 27, 2024

Show notes

Ravina adds an additional method to derive that a worker is permitted to eat while working with detached produce and that it is prohibited to muzzle an ox even from attached produce. Four tannaitic sources are cited that derive details of the laws regarding the employer allowing a worker to eat from the produce. Each source derives a different detail from the word "thresh" in the verse about the ox - that it refers to items that grow from the ground, at a stage that the produce is ready to be picked and until the stage that it is obligated in tithing or separating challa. A question is asked whether one can toast grains or produce to sweeten them. Is this considered like eating grapes with another substance, which is not permitted, or not? Four sources are cited to address this question, but each is rejected as inconclusive, and the question remains unanswered. The last source states that one may not add salt to fruit, but this contradicts another source that permits it. Abaye and Rava each reconcile the contradiction differently, but both understand the salt issue to be relating to the obligation to tithe and not to what is permitted/not permitted for a worker to eat.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected