Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Bava Metzia 29 - March 28, 18 Adar 2 Mar 28, 2024

Show notes

What is a person's level of responsibility toward the lost item once one picks it up and begins searching for its owner? If it is an animal, the finder needs to feed the animal. But if the animal is not producing enough to cover its cost, the owner can sell the animal and will return the money when they find the owner. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva debate whether this money can be used or needs to be set aside - this then affects their level of responsibility for the money in the event of loss/theft. The Gemara assumes that they both agree the responsibility is dependent upon whether or not they can use the object, meaning in a case where they cannot use the object (like a regular case of a lost item), both agree that the finder is not liable for loss/theft. However, this raises a difficulty with Rav Yosef who ruled that one watching a lost item (the finder, who is not permitted to use the object) is considered like a shomer sachar, who is liable for loss/theft. To resolve this difficulty, one can answer that their debate is regarding oness, unexpected damages, and not loss/theft, and regarding loss/theft all would agree that the finder is responsible. A difficulty is raised against this explanation from the language of the Mishna, but is resolved. There was a case where Rav Yosef tried to rule like Rabbi Tarfon and allow one who was watching money of orphans to use the money, but Abaye challenged his ruling by differentiating between a case of a regular shomer and our case where the finder took care of the animal and then sold it. Details regarding taking care of lost items are discussed - how should the finder take care of the object? What kind of use is permitted, if any? Shmuel rules that one who finds tefillin there is a unique ruling that one is allowed to sell the tefillin and use them - why? A braita compares laws of one who borrows a sefer Torah to one who finds a sefer Torah. The Gemara goes through the different parts of the braita and raises questions and answers them. The Mishna rules that two people cannot read together from a book that was found, but a braita rules that two can, but three cannot. How do they resolve this contradiction? The Mishna rules that if one finds clothing, one must shake it out once every thirty days. However, a statement from Rabbi Yochanan implies that shaking out clothing can ruin it. Several resolutions are suggested.

Bava Metzia 28 - March 27, 17 Adar 2 Mar 27, 2024

Show notes

As another difficulty is raised against Rava's explanation for simanim being a rabbinic law, Rava concludes that one can retrieve a lost item by bringing simanim by Torah law. What if two people bring simanim or one person brings simanim and the other witnesses or the other one witness? Rava explains cases where two people bring different identifying details and explains which is the stronger one. For how long does the finder need to announce the lost object? Rabbi Meir holds until the neighbors know. The Gemara explains that "the neighbors" refers to the neighbors in the neighborhood where the lost item was found. Rabbi Yehuda says one must announce it on the three regalim, holidays, and for seven days after the last one to allow people to go home, see that they lost the item, and come back to claim it. This amount of time mentioned contradicts a Mishna in Taanit 10a regarding when we start to pray for rain as there it states that it takes fifteen days for the people who live farthest to get home. How is this contradiction resolved? Once the Temple was destroyed, the finder would announce in the shuls and the batei midrash. But at a certain point in history, the lost items were given to the authorities so people would spread the word more quietly among their neighbors. In the Temple, the finders would announce lost items in a place called the even hatoen and the ones who had lost items would go there to retrieve their lost items. Even when one brought simanim, they would question them even further to ensure they weren't lying. Rav Yehuda and Rav Nachman disagree about whether one would announce "I found a lost item" or "I found a cloak (for example)." Can we find support for one of the opinions from the Mishna? Originally, they were not concerned that people would lie about lost items and take items of others, but as time went on, people took advantage. As a result, the Sages instituted that to retrieve an item with simanim, one would have to bring witnesses attesting to the person's honesty. If the lost item is an animal that can work and generate revenue, the finder should keep the animal if the revenue exceeds the upkeep costs. If not, the finder can sell the animal and return the money to the owner. Can the finder use the money? If yes, the finder is responsible for replacing it, if the money gets lost. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva disagree about this issue. Even an animal that generates more revenue than cost, after twelve months pass, the finder can sell it. Two braitot list different amounts of time necessary to wait before selling calves and foals, and geese and roosters, as they do not generate enough income. How are the contradictory braitot reconciled?

Bava Metzia 27 - March 26, 16 Adar 2 Mar 26, 2024

Show notes

The Mishna rules that if one finds money among fruits that one has purchased, one can keep the money. Rabbi Yannai limits this to what circumstances? A braita is brought which also corresponds to Rabbi Yannai's limitation. The verses in the Torah relating to lost items list several items that are lost that should be returned. What is derived from each of these terms? Rabbi Yehuda and Tana Kamma disagree about whether to derive the halakha that one does not need to return an item that is less than the value of a pruta from the words "that get lost" or from the word "and it was found." Is there a practical ramification between the two opinions or is it just a matter of which words to derive it from? What does each derive from the other word? Is the ability to retrieve a lost item by providing simanim a Torah law or rabbinic? The ramifications for this question: would a lost get be able to be returned to the woman if she brought simanim? Four sources are brought in an attempt to prove that lost items can be retrieved by simanim by Torah law or rabbinic law, but all are rejected. Is this issue a tannaitic debate, as can be found in a debate regarding the identification of a dead man based on a mole, to permit his wife to remarry? However, the Gemara suggests three other possibilities for the reasoning for the debate that are not based on whether or not simanim are a Torah law. Rava explains that if simanim are not a Torah law, on what basis can the rabbis institute that items can be returned by simanim if perhaps it may allow for the "wrong person" to collect a lost item if he/she happens to be able to provide simanim? After Rav Safra raises a difficulty with Rava's reasoning, Rava offers an alternative explanation. The Gemara raises a difficulty with that as well but then resolves the difficulty.

Bava Metzia 26 - Shushan Purim - May 25, 15 Adar 2 Mar 25, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored in memory of haRav Shmaryahu Yosef Chaim ben Yaakov Yisrael, Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt"l.

When one finds an object in a wall, what clues are there in the placement of the object that can attest to whether it belonged to the owner or to someone from the street who left it there? If the object was placed in a part close to the house, but the house was rented to others, there is no obligation to return the object. How does this halacha fit with the Mishna in Shekalim 19 where we assume that money found on the streets of Jerusalem during the holiday season was second tithe money and not from money that may have been left there from the week before? Reish Lakish quotes Bar Kapara and explains that it refers to a room rented to three Jews. How can one explain that in light of the issue in Bava Metzia 24 where they grappled with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar's opinion and were unable to decide whether or not there is despair when there is a majority of Jews. There are two resolutions to this question. Rav Menashia bar Yaakov explains that there were three gentiles, not Jews. But Rav Nachman differentiates between the case that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar was relating to and this case. Rav Nachman's explanation of this case is consistent with another teaching of his. Raba limits the case of the teaching of Rav Nachman. Raba describes three cases where there is a combination of theft and restitution of lost property and explains what offenses the one who found lost property committed. The Mishna rules in cases where money is found in a store or in a money changer's store. What are the guidelines for keeping the lost item? Rabbi Elazar rules about a case that was not mentioned in the Mishna. Is it possible to raise a difficulty on his ruling from the wording of the Mishna? What in the Mishna motivated him to understand the halakha in this way?

Bava Metzia 25 - Purim - March 24, 14 Adar 2 Mar 24, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of Ilai David Garfinkel of the Duvdevan commando unit who was killed on Friday.

The Mishna lists various items that if found, one should announce in order to return to its owner. The Gemara explains in more detail some of the cases and how the item needs to be found, i.e. fruits in a basket but not next to the basket, money in a particular formation. Contradictory sources are brought and resolved. The next Mishna describes various items that if found in a particular location, the item would not be considered lost, but perhaps placed there by the owner. Therefore, one is not allowed to take the item, even to try to return it. These are items without identifiable signs that are left in a semi-protected area. Since the items have no identifiable signs, the owner will have no way to retrieve his/her item. One of the semi-protected areas is a garbage dump. After bringing a contradictory braita, Rav Zevid and Rav Papa offer different resolutions - either to distinguish between items that were likely placed there or likely fell there by accident, or between garbage dumps that are cleared/not cleared. If an item is found inside a wall, what guidelines are given to know whether or not it belongs to the owner or is ownerless, as they were left by some previous owner or by someone on the street who forgot about it?

Bava Metzia 24 - Shabbat March 23, 13 Adar 2 Mar 22, 2024

Show notes

Shmuel listed three areas in which we can assume Torah scholars may be dishonest. Why? Can we assume they are honest in all other areas? Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that if something is lost in a public place, we can assume the owner despaired (has given up hope of ever getting the item back) and the finder can take the item. The Gemara questions whether he meant this only in a place where the majority of the people are Gentiles or even in a place where the majority are Jews. If he included also a place where the majority are Jews, do the rabbis agree, or do they disagree with him about both, or only in a case where the majority are Jews? Do we hold like Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and if so, in both cases or only in the case where the majority are Gentiles? The Gemara tries to answer these questions by bringing various tannaitic sources and cases from the amoraim but most attempts to answer the questions are inconclusive.

Bava Metzia 23 - March 22, 12 Adar 2 Mar 22, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Metzia 23

Today's daf is sponsored in memory of Rav Moshe ben David, Rav Moshe Feinstein zt"l.

Today's daf is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for a refua shleima for her husband Hayim Herring, HaRav Hayim Yehuda ben Tzippora.

Raba and Rava disagree about simanim - can the location be a siman, and is something a siman if it can be stepped on and ruined? How do they each explain the braita in which the law distinguishes between lost bundles and sheaves? Is the disagreement between them regarding simanim that can be ruined by stepping on them also the same disagreement between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda in our Mishna in the case of a shard found in a fig cake or a coin in a loaf of bread? At first they suggest that it is, then they reject that explanation and explain the debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir in a different way - according to Rava and Raba. There is another version of the discussion in which it is not suggested at first that the dispute between them is related to the debate between Rava and Raba, but that it depends on whether or not we assume that people will step on food. That is rejected as well. The Gemara goes over other cases listed in the Mishna and explains why there is no need to return strings of fish and pieces of meat. There is a contradiction between a braita and a Mishna regarding barrels of wine and oil - should they be returned or not? How is the contradiction resolved? What is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar's opinion at the end of the Mishna that anaphoria vessels do not need to be returned? What is anaphoria?

Bava Metzia 22 - March 21, 11 Adar 2 Mar 21, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Metzia 22

Today's daf is sponsored by Nancy Kolodny in honor of the birthday of her daughter-in-law Lisa Kolodny. "Wife, mother, daughter, learner, teacher, athlete, friend extraordinaire."

Today's daf is being sponsored by Betsy Mehlman in loving memory of her father, Harold Mondshein, Zvi Menahem Mendel ben Shlomo, on his 40th yahrzeit. "He would have been proud to see how his grandchildren and Israeli great-grandchildren are thriving in Israel."

There are five more attempts to support either Rava or Abaye's position in their debate regarding ye'ush shelo mida'at, when one picks up a lost item without any identifiable features, if the owner has not yet despaired of the item (because the owner doesn't even know yet that it was lost), can we assume that since the owner will despair when he/she realizes it is lost, the finder can acquire the item now. After rejecting all of the attempted proofs, only the last one is brought as clear support for Abaye's position. This is one of six cases where the ruling is like Abaye over Rava. An abbreviation for the six cases is Ya'AL Ka'GaM. Raba and Rava disagree about whether a siman that can get trampled is a siman and whether location can be considered a siman. Then our Mishna and a braita are brought and the Gemara explains how the source can be understood according to Raba and Rava's opinions.

Bava Metzia 21 - March 20, 10 Adar 2 Mar 20, 2024

Show notes

The Gemara raises two more difficulties against Rav's ruling that a receipt of payment is not returned to the borrower if found among documents of the creditor, and resolves them. The second chapter begins with a list of items that if one finds them on the street in a particular manner, they can assume the owner lost them and is not expected to retrieve them and can therefore keep them. One of the items listed is scattered fruits - how were they left? How many and in what size space is this referring to? Rabbi Yirmia asks questions on the answer to these questions to understand whether it is because the amount of these fruits is not significant or because it is too much trouble to collect. Abaye and Rava disagree on the subject of 'despair that is not known' - if it is not known that the owner has despaired on finding their lost item, when they later despair, can we view it as if they despaired from the beginning and the finder can keep the object? Rava rules that the finder can keep the object, and Abaye rules that the finder cannot. The Gemara explains that in certain cases both will agree that there is certainly immediate despair or no despair at all. Then they bring a series of questions against Abaye from tannaitic sources, most of them from our Mishna. Abaye explains all the difficulties against him as cases where we can be certain the owner knows immediately that it is lost and is sure to have given up. One difficulty from a braita is raised on Rava and is resolved.

Bava Metzia 20 - March 19, 9 Adar 2 Mar 19, 2024

Show notes

A braita states that if a receipt is found saying that the husband (or his heirs) paid his ex-wife the money from her ketuba, , if the woman agrees, we return it to the husband as proof he paid. Why are we not concerned that perhaps the the money was not repaid on the date written on the receipt, but was paid later, and the couple is conspiring to retrieve her ketuba that she sold after the date written on the receipt, but before the actual payment? Rava and Abaye each suggest answers. The Mishna lists types of documents that if found on the street can be returned as there is no concern that one could collect money not due to them. The list includes igrot shum, documents assessing land of a debtor to be seized by a creditor, the commitment of a husband to pay for food of his wife's daughter, documents attesting that a chalitza or mi'un was performed, and others. If documents were bundled up together or found in a way that one could claim it by offering identifiable markings (simanim), they can be retrieved as well. If a receipt of payments is found, even by the creditor, it is given to the debtor as proof of payment. Rav Huna did not permit a get found in the street to be used as he was concerned that perhaps it belonged to people with the same names who lived in a city with the same name as written in the get. Raba disagreed with Rav Huna based on our Mishna which permits returning documents ratified by the court and is not concerned that the documents belonged to other people. This led to an argument between Raba and Amram who responded disrespectfully to the other, which then caused a pillar to break in Rav's beit midrash. The Gemara defines a number of the objects mentioned in the Mishna - chafisa, dluskima, and documents that are krukhin and agudim. One who finds a bunch of documents bundled together announces that he/she found documents and the one who lost them can retrieve them by identifying how many and how they are bound. Rav ruled that if a receipt attesting to payment of a loan is found with the creditor's documents, we cannot assume it was paid as the creditor may have written it so that when the borrower is ready to pay, the receipt will be ready. However, this contradicts a ruling in our Mishna that a simpon (receipt of payment) found in the creditor's papers is returned to the debtor. To resolve this, they bring a differentiation Rav Safra made regarding a different source that it depends on if it was found with ripped papers of the creditor or with the creditor's regular papers. Two other Mishnayot are brought to raise the same type of difficulty against this statement of Rav and are all resolved in the same manner.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected