Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Bava Metzia 49 - April 17, 9 Nissan Apr 17, 2024

Show notes

Rav and Rabbi Yochanan hold differing views on the implications of a down payment in a transaction. Must both parties fulfill the entire agreement, risking a curse upon breach, or does the down payment bind them only to the part already transacted? The Gemara suggests that a similar debate arises in a tannaitic discussion regarding loan cancellation during the shmita year, when an object taken as collateral doesn't cover the loan's full value. However, in conclusion, the debate is explained differently - does the collateral act as payment or merely a reminder of the debt? Further questions emerge: Can one party unilaterally dissolve a verbal agreement? Rav and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about whether or not this action constitutes dishonesty. Two difficulties are raised against Rav from tannaitic sources and one against Rabbi Yochanan from a different statement he made. Most, if not all the difficulties are resolved. The Mishna delves into laws of ona'ah, addressing overcharging or underpaying. What percentage triggers ona'ah, and within what timeframe can a buyer claim fraud? Rav and Shmuel offer different opinions on whether this percentage is based on market value only, or also on the item's purchase price. Moreover, what recourse exists for a buyer/seller over/undercharged beyond or below the ona'ah threshold?

Bava Metzia 48 - April 16, 8 Nissan Apr 16, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by the Sosland family in loving memory of Rabbi Henry Sosland, z"l. "Dad, we strive every day to live by your values, especially your devotion to family, to learning, and to am Yisrael. Am Yisrael Chai!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in honor of her beloved daughter Beki on her birthday. "With love, gratitude, and appreciation for your very existence! May your journey in the world of daf yomi continue to give you knowledge, strength, and the satisfaction of being part of an incredible Jewish learning endeavor!"

Rava tries to prove Reish Lakish's position, that money cannot effect a transaction by Torah law, by verses in the Torah (Vayikra 5:21, 23) and from a braita. In Vayikra 5:21, the verse mentions tsumet yad, which is understood as a borrower who has committed to giving a particular object to the lender as payment for a loan, and then later denies it. Even though this is forbidden, this situation does not reappear among the other situations in verse 23 where the Torah requires one to return the object. Rava proves Reish Lakish's position from here as the borrower only received money and the creditor did not pull the object and therefore the object was not considered owned yet by the creditor. Rav Papa raises a difficulty but Rava resolves it. The braita brought to prove Reish Lakish's position discusses laws of me'ila, misuse of consecrated property. If one pays with consecrated property (unintentionally) for another's services, like an attendant in the bathhouse, the payment effects the transaction and one cannot change their mind. But Rav infers from the braita that if the service charge includes also payment for objects that the service provider uses, then the payment does not effect the transaction the buyer pulls the object, proving Reish Lakish's position. A difficulty is raised against this proof but they resolve it. When the Mishna states that the rabbis said about one who paid money for an item and then canceled the transaction that God will punish them, is this a curse or is it meant that the rabbis inform the person that God may punish him/her? Rava and Abaye disagree about this. Rava brings proof for his position (curse) from a story about Rabbi Chiya bar Yosef who was given a deposit/down payment for purchasing salt and when the price went up, he wanted to cancel the transaction. However, this proof is rejected as only a deposit was given and the issue was: it is considered that by giving the deposit, he had committed to the entire transaction or just for the part that his deposit covered? This issue is a debate between Rav and Rabbi Yochanan. An attempt to question Rav's opinion is brought. However, the case dealt with land and the Gemara explained that since land can be acquired through money, the deposit is sufficient to require both sides to follow through with the entire transaction. The same would not apply to moveable items as they cannot be acquired through money. Therefore one must only keep a commitment for the part already paid for.

Bava Metzia 47 - April 15, 7 Nissan Apr 15, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in loving memory of her husband's friend and chavruta, Avraham ben Shlomo Baime on his 7th yahrzeit. " A true eved Hashem who founded the Elazar English Kollel which delves into the intricacies of the Talmud. I have the z'chut to be learning with his gemarot which inspire me to reach greater heights through the guidance of our trailblazer R. Michelle who provides clarity and daily introspection to our learning."

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran zoom group for a refuah shleima of Yaakov Yitzchak ben Miriam Esther, the son of our dear friend Miriam. "Yitz should have a speedy and full recovery."

Rav Huna ruled that one can acquire an item through chalipin if the buyer has a pile of coins and says to the seller, "Sell it to me for this pile of money." Since the seller did not care to count how much money was in the pile, the sale would be final as soon as the seller took the money. Would regular laws of onaah be effective here, if the buyer underpaid by a sixth? There are two different versions of what Rav Huna said regarding onaah in this case. If one sold an item through a chalipin transaction but made it clear that he/she wanted the chalipin item to be valued at the value of the item he/she was selling, would the chalipin item be considered like money and therefore there will be no acquisition by the chalipin item, but only when the sold item is pulled by the buyer, or not? Can one infer from Rav Huna's ruling that a coin can be used for effecting a chalipin transaction? Is it the buyer or the seller that gives the chalipin item? This is both a debate among amoraim and also tannaim. These opinions are derived from Rut 4:7 when Naomi's relative sells his rights to Boaz to redeem Naomi and Ruth's property. What is the basis for the debate between Rav Sheshet and Rav Nachman about what items can be used to effect a kinyan chalipin? What is an asimon that is mentioned in the Mishna? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish have a debate, as mentioned previously, does money effect a transaction by Torah law or not. From where in the Torah do they derive their opinions? Two parts of our Mishna are brought to raise a difficulty against Reish Lakish's position, but are resolved.

Bava Metzia 46 - April 14, 6 Nissan Apr 14, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is dedicated to the safety of Israel from the Iranian attack.

Today's daf is sponsored by Mitzi and David Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi's mother, Ruth Toll Lock, Rut bat Miriam and Avraham z"l on her 38th yahrzeit. "She was a loving wife, mother, and mother-in-law; a devoted Zionist and wonderful educator in Harrisburg, PA. All 4 of her children made Aliyah and her many grandchildren and great-grandchildren, as well as her great-great-grandchild, all live in Israel!"

Rav Papa holds that a coin be acquired through a kinyan chalipin. A Minsha in Maaser Sheni 4:5 is raised as a difficulty on Rav Papa's position. Rav Papa eventually switches his position as is proven by Rav Papa's actions in a particular situation when he was trying to get back money from a loan. The Gemara returns to the previous discussion of whether or not a coin can be used to effect a kinyan chalipin (symbolic kinyan). Ulla, Rabbi Asi and Rabbi Yochanan ruled that money cannot be used. Rabbi Abba raises a difficulty from a braita against Ulla and Rabbi Abba himself suggests one possible resolution and Rav Ashi suggests another. Another source (Mishna in Kiddushin) is brought to raise a difficulty with Ulla, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yochanan's positions but is resolved. However, the resolution is only consistent with Rav Sheshet's position that chalipin can be effected with produce (and other moveable items that are not considered a kli), but not with Rav Nachman's position that chalipin cannot be effected with produce. How can the Mishna be explained according to Rav Nachman? The explanation given for Rav Nachman accords with Rabbi Yochanan's opinion in his debate with Reish Lakish about whether money effect a kinyan (acquisition) by Torah law. Both agree that practically money does not effect a transaction, however, Rabbi Yochanan holds that it is only because of a rabbinic decree, that does not apply in rare circumstances. Reish Lakish's explanation of a line in our Mishna is bought as a third source to raise a difficulty against the position that money cannot be used as chalipin. This difficulty is resolved as well.

Bava Metzia 45 - Shabbat April 13, 5 Nissan Apr 12, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Metzia 45

Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel have a debate regarding trading maaser sheni coins from silver to gold coins. There are three versions of the debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish about what the basis of the debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish is. The first version links their debate to the issue of whether silver or gold is considered a currency or commodity com[pared to the other. However, the other two version think the issue is exclusively a maaser sheni issue and does not relate to the currency/commodity debate. Rav and Levi debate whether money can be used for a kinyan chalipin, a symbolic act of acquiring. Chalipin must be performed with an item that has inherent value. Does money have inherent value because it is made from metal or is it viewed only in terms of the image on the coin which will eventually wear away?

Bava Metzia 44 - April 12, 4 Nissan Apr 12, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Metzia 44

Today's daf is sponsored by Ariella and Michael Radwin in honor of Sivan's bat mitzvah this coming Shabbat. "Mazel tov to Sivan! May you lead a life of Torah and ma'asim tovim, and may you someday be blessed to stand under the chuppah"

Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree about whether one is obligated in shlichut yad by merely intending to use the object. On what words in the Torah does each one rely upon to support his opinion? If one tilted the barrel and took out some wine to drink, and then the barrel broke, one would be liable to replace only the wine taken. However, if one lifted the whole barrel to take some wine, and then the barrel broke (unexpected damages), one must replace the value of the entire barrel. When one purchases an item the transaction takes effect when buyer pulls or lifts the item. However, if the buyer merely paid the money, the transaction is not yet effective. If one purchases currency with a different currency, one currency will be considered the currency of the transaction and the other the commodity. The Mishna lists several examples and establishes which is considered the currency and which is the commodity. When changing gold with silver, Rebbi has two opposite opinions about which is considered the currency and which is the commodity - one when he was younger and one later in life. Rav Ashi attempts to prove his earlier opinion, that gold is the currency. Rabbi Chiya held that way as well, and Rava quotes a braita and proves that the tanna of the braita also held by that position. Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel have a debate regarding trading maaser sheni coins from silver to gold coins. This debate seems to connect with the aforementioned issue of which of the two is considered currency and which is the commodity? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish each have a different understanding of the debate.

Bava Metzia 43 - April 11, 3 Nissan Apr 11, 2024

Show notes

If one gives money to a money changer, if it is not bound and sealed, the money changer is permitted to use it and is thereby responsible if the money gets lost. There is a debate whether the money changer is also responsible for oness (accidental damage). Regarding shlichut yad, if one decides to use an item they are watching and it then breaks, if the item changes in value from the time the shomer decides to use it until the time it breaks, what value is the shomer obligated to pay? Beit Shammai, Beit Hillel, and Rabbi Akiva have a debate regarding this issue. The Gemara brings five attempts, four of which are rejected, to understand the disagreement between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel. According to the conclusion, the debate is not regarding a fluctuation in the market price, but the value of the animal itself increases or decreases by having offspring/wool to be sheared. According to who do we pasken?

Bava Metzia 42 - April 10, 2 Nissan Apr 10, 2024

Show notes

What level of shmira is needed for various items? How did people watch money? How did that change over time? Various cases are brought which relate to cases with different issues - tchilato b'pshia v'sofo b'oness, a shomer that gave to a family member to watch and did not tell them it was someone else's item, or a steward that bought an animal without teeth and gave it to a cowherd to watch without informing him that the animal had no teeth and could not eat.

Bava Metzia 41 - Rosh Chodesh Nissan - April 9, 1 Nissan Apr 09, 2024

Show notes

If a shomer moves an item that he/she is watching and it subsequently breaks by unexpected circumstances (oness), is the shomer liable? Using an item that one is watching is called shlichut yad and the shomer is considered like a thief and becomes obligated even for oness until the item is returned. However, several factors determine whether or not the shomer is responsible. For what purpose did the shomer move the item - for the item or the shomer's use? Did it break before it was returned to a protected place or not? Was there a designated place where the item was supposed to be? Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree on whether the owner needs to know the item was returned. There is a disagreement about whether the first part of the Mishna accords with Rabbi Yishmael and the latter part with Rabbi Akiva or perhaps the whole Mishna can be explained according to Rabbi Yishmael. Within the latter interpretation, there are three opinions about why the shomer moved the item - to use part of it (shilchut yad), to steal the whole thing, or to borrow it. The difference between the first two opinions is based on a difference of opinion regarding the case of shlichut yad where one becomes responsible even for unanticipated damages - is it only if the item depreciates in value or even if there is no loss? Rav and Levi disagree about this issue. Who holds which opinion? They conclude that Levi holds that one is obligated in shlichut yad even if there is no loss. This is derived from the repetition of the verses where shlichut yad is mentioned as it seems unnecessarily mentioned both by a shomer chinam and a shomer sachar.

Bava Metzia 40 - April 8, 29 Adar 2 Apr 08, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Sara Berelowitz in honor of the engagement of Sara's daughter, Estie Brauner, to Tina Lamm's nephew, Jason Ast. May we have many more Hadran family smachot!

After Mari bar Isak's 'brother' brought witnesses, Rav Chisda ruled that the brother could receive his portion. Rav Chisda also ruled that the brother could receive 50% of the profits from Mari's investment in the land after the father's death, based on a Mishna in Bava Batra 143b. Abaye and Rabbi Ami raised difficulties with the latter's ruling. Rav Chisda responds and answers Rabbi Ami's question. If one gives a shomer produce to watch, the shomer can deduct a certain amount when returning the produce as one can assume that mice ate some or that some was lost over time. What percentage? The calculation is based on the item in question, the amount of time it was being watched, and the quantity. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri holds that quantity is not a factor as mice eat the same amount regardless of how much is in the pile. The Tosefta limits these laws to a case when the shomer mixed the produce with his/her produce. Rabbi Yehuda holds that if the shomer watched a large measure of produce, the depreciation would be offset by the expansion of the grains. Based on an alternate reading of a braita, Rav Nachman limits this to a particular case where the grains were given to be watched in the summer and returned in the winter. How much deduction is there for oil and wine? On what point does Rabbi Yehuda disagree with the rabbis regarding deducting the sediment in oil? What is the basis of their debate? The Gemara brings two different suggestions.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected