Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Bava Metzia 39 - April 7, 28 Adar 2 Apr 07, 2024

Show notes

This week's learning is dedicated to Dr. Joseph Walder z"l who supported Torah study across the Jewish world.

A relative is supposed to take care of the property of a relative who is taken captive or abandons their land. However, it depends on how they abandoned the land. Upon their return, the relative who tended the land receives a percentage, like a sharecropper, of the produce that will grow from their investment. Why is this different from a husband with his wife's usufruct property where once the marriage is over, he does not receive a percentage of the profits of his investment? Rav Huna ruled that a minor cannot take over his relative's property, nor can a relative take over a minor's property. Why? Are there circumstances under which the latter can be permitted? There was a woman taken captive with her daughter and left behind two daughters - one who died and left a child. Rava and Abaye disagreed about how to divide the land and who should tend to it. Later, they heard the mother had died. since it was still unclear if the daughter who had been taken captive was still alive, Rava and Abaye also disagreed about how to divide up the land. Another case is brought of Mari bar Isak who inherited land from his father and then someone came claiming to be his brother and therefore claiming 50% of the land. After demanding witnesses from the brother, the brother claimed that since Mari is a bully, no witnesses will testify against him. Rav Chisda then demanded that Mari prove that the 'brother' was not his brother. Mari brought two claims against this ruling, but Rav Chisda did not accept them.

Bava Metzia 38 - Shabbat April 6, 27 Adar 2 Apr 05, 2024

Show notes

If one is watching an item and it begins to rot, should the shomer sell it or leave it and return it in whatever condition it is? There is a debate in the Mishna regarding this issue and amoraim disagree about the reason for the rabbis' opinion. Rabbi Yochanan claims that the tannaitic debate is not relevant if the item has rotted. Two difficulties are raised against Rabbi Yochanan and are resolved. Is there a connection between this issue and whether or not one is allowed to go into a relative's field who has been taken captive and work the field or not? Rav and Shmuel disagree about the relative using the property of the captive. Was there a tannaitic debate about this as well?

Bava Metzia 37 - April 5, 26 Adar 2 Apr 05, 2024

Show notes

Rabbi Yosi holds that one cannot profit from someone else's object. Does he also disagree with the rabbis about the case in the first Mishna of the chapter regarding the shomer who pays for the item and acquires the double payment if the robber is found? The next Mishna raises cases regarding doubts about whose money was stolen from or who gave which amount of money to the shomer to watch. The Gemara raises contradictions between the two cases and with other mishnayot and other principles regarding money in doubt and reconciles the differences.

Bava Metzia 36 - April 4, 25 Adar 2 Apr 04, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Metzia 36

Rabbi Yirmia brings various situations where one borrows and lends to another and they can both be obligated to bring either a sin or a guilt offering or one a sin and one a guilt. What are the various situations? Can a shomer give an item to someone else to watch? Different reasons are given to explain why this would be a problem. Some thought that Rav held it was permissible, but it was later explained that it was based on a misunderstanding of a situation where Rav ruled. If a shomer was negligent and brought the animal to a marsh (where there could be thieves or predators) but the animal died in a typical manner, Abaye and Rava debate what Raba held – whether the shomer would be exempt or obligated. They each explain how this case differs from a classic case of tchilato b'pshia vesofo b'ones (one who does a negligent act but in the end, the damage was accidental).

Bava Metzia 35 - April 3, 24 Adar 2 Apr 03, 2024

Show notes

Rav Huna holds that the one who claims the item was lost or stolen, must swear that the item is no longer in their possession. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a braita and suggests four, one of which is rejected. A case is brought where one claimed jewels were lost and Rav Nachman's court seized his palace to replace the lost jewel. When he then produced the "lost" item which had gone up in value, Rav Nachman said to give him his palace back and return the jewels to the owner. Rava tried to argue with this ruling based on our Mishna saying that he should have acquired rights to the appreciation by having paid for the jewels. But then he realizes the difference between the cases and explains that. In connection with this, the Gemara raises the issue regarding a loan - if it gets repaid by foreclosing on land, if and when the borrower has the money to pay, can the borrower get his/her land back? In Nehardea they ruled that one can get back the land and there is a debate about whether or not there is a time limit. The ruling is that there is no time limit because of l'fnim meshurat ha'din, it is the right thing to do, even if not required by the letter of the law. However, there are different permutations of the case in which the law would not apply. At what point of foreclosure does the creditor get rights to the proceeds of the land? If one rents an animal and then lends it to someone else and it dies in a typical manner (for which a borrower is responsible and a renter is not), there is a debate about to whom the borrower pays - to the renter (after the renter swears that it died in a typical manner) or to the original owner. The Gemara questions exactly by what mechanism the renter acquires rights to the animal. A creative, extreme case is discussed in which an owner can borrow from a renter their item and incur payment for four animals. Some disagree and hold it would only be two animals. What is the case?

Bava Metzia 34 - April 2, 23 Adar 2 Apr 02, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Metzia 34

Today's daf is sponsored by Rena and Mark Goldstein in loving memory of Rena's father, Moe Septee, Moshe ben haRav Elazar Shmuel on his 27th yahrzeit.

A shomer who can be exempt from payment and decides voluntarily to pay, acquires rights to the double payment (or the 4 or 5 payment for an animal that the robber slaughtered and sold) if the robber is later caught and returns the item. How does this mechanism work if the owner gives rights to the double from the beginning to the shomer in the event that it is stolen, and that the shomer pays, the thief is found - isn't that considered something that is not yet in existence, which cannot be acquired? Rava answers the question but there are two different version of the answer. Is it enough if the shomer just says he/she will pay or does the shomer actually need to pay to acquire the double payment? If the shomer changes his/her claim from "I will not pay" to "I will pay" or the reverse, do we assume that we rule by the second statement or perhaps the second statement in the latter case was just meant to push off paying temporarily? If some of the case details were different, such as, the shomer died and the heirs say, "We will pay," do we assume that the owner only gave rights to the shomer, but not to the heirs? Various similar scenarios are brought to question whether or not the owner would give rights to the double payment to the shomer in those cases. All the questions raised are left unanswered. A halacha is brought that in that case discussed above, the shomer must swear that the item is not in their possession to ensure that they haven't taken a liking to the object and decided to pay for it in order to keep it.

Bava Metzia 33 - April 1, 22 Adar 2 Apr 01, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in loving memory of his beloved bride and best friend of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v'Yehuda Tzvi, on the occasion of her first yahrzeit. "You will be in my heart forever."

There are two more attempts to prove that tza'ar ba'alei chayim is a rabbinic law, but they are rejected. Within what distance from the animal is one obligated to help load/unload? What is the order of precedence in dealing with people's lost items between oneself, one's father, and one's rabbi? What is the definition of 'one's rabbi'? Is it better to learn Torah, Mishna, or Gemara? What are the dangers of learning Mishna without learning Gemara? What are the dangers of learning Gemara without learning Mishna? If one is watching another's item (an animal or vessels) and is not getting paid (shomer chinam), and the item is stolen, the shomer can take an oath and is exempt. If they find the thief and retrieve the item, the thief pays the double payment to the original owner. But if the shomer decides to pay for the stolen item, the thief will pay the double payment to the shomer. Why was it necessary to mention both an animal and vessels?

Bava Metzia 32 - March 31, 21 Adar 2 Mar 31, 2024

Show notes

If one who finds a lost item does not want to lose out on getting compensated for their full wages while attending to the lost item, one can stipulate this in front of a court (three men) and then the one who lost the item will need to compensate the finder the full amount. Raba bar Rav Huna wanted to apply this law to a case where Rav Safra took his half of a shared business deal in front of witnesses, but not three men. Rav Safra rejected this proof, but Abaye brought proof from a different source that indeed Rav Safra was required to divide the money in front of three men. If one finds an animal in a cowshed, it is not considered a lost item but in a public thoroughfare, it is. Is this within the borders of the city or outside the borders? If one's parent tells one to do something against what the Torah commands, one cannot listen to the parent. For example, if a parent tells their child not to return a lost item, the child must disobey the parent. This is derived from Vayikra 19:3 where the commandment to fear one's parent is followed by a commandment to keep Shabbat. Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis have a debate regarding the laws of helping another to load a burden - can one demand compensation for lost wages or not? What is the basis of the debate? Both would agree however, that theoretically one could have derived laws of unloading from laws of loading from a kal v'chomer argument. Rava tries to derive from this that the mitzva of tzaar baalei chayim, the commandment to prevent suffering to animals is a Torah law, as the kal v'chomer argument would be that if one is obligated to help load, when there is no suffering to the animal, kal v'chomer they are obligated to unload, where the animal is suffering. This is rejected as the kal v'chomer argument could be based on the fact that loading does not involve a financial loss and unloading does. But then the Gemara rejects that, as in loading, there is also a financial loss. Various sources are brought to determine if Rava is correct in assuming that tzaar baalei chayim is a Torah law.

Bava Metzia 31 - Shabbat March 30, 20 Adar 2 Mar 29, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Malka Abraham in loving memory of her mother, Yehudit bat Mshalem Ziza v'Chanah. "My mom always encouraged women to be lifelong learners and a love of Yiddishkeit."

If one finds an animal wandering, how does one determine if it is lost or if the owner knows its whereabouts? Rava explains that helping to protect another's field from being destroyed is also included under the commandment to return lost items. Can this be proven from a braita? The Mishna which differentiated between cases of an animal grazing on a path and an animal running in a vineyard leads to inferences that contradict each other regarding grazing in a field and running on a path. Rava and Abaye each resolve the contradiction differently. One needs to return an item multiple times if need be. From where is this derived? Various drashot are brought regarding places in the Torah where a double language is used, such as lost items, sending away the mother bird, rebuking, charity, and others. What is derived from the double language in each verse? How do we assess the compensation one receives for stopping one's work to attend to a lost item?

Bava Metzia 30 - March 29, 19 Adar 2 Mar 29, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Bat-Sheva Maslow in honor of her daughter Yakira becoming a Bat Mitzvah and making her first siyum. "I'm so proud of your dedication to learning and the amazing talmida chachama you are growing into."

Today's daf is sponsored by Lisa Kolodny in honor of Nancy Kolodny's milestone birthday tomorrow. "May you keep striving for personal and spiritual growth, reaching new heights, and enriching the lives of all of us around you!"

According to the Mishna one can stretch out a cloth for its own sake (if it needs airing out) but not for the finder's use. What if the finder does it for both at the same time? The Gemara brings three sources to answer this question but each is rejected. What type of care is needed for the finder of various utensils? What type of use is not permitted with each type of utensil? There are certain cases where one is exempt from returning a lost item. A braita lists three exceptions - a kohen is exempt if the lost item is in a cemetery, an elderly person as it is not within his dignity, and a person whose value of his/her labor is greater than the value of the lost item. A case is brought in which a rabbi acted beyond the letter of the law. The concept of going beyond the letter of the law is derived from a verse (Shmot 18: 20) and Rabbi Yochanan explains the importance of this concept. When we see an object, how do we determine if it is lost or the owner knows about it?

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected