Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

View Top 200 Chart

Back to Rankings Page

Judaism
**Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran**

Hadran.org.il is the portal for Daf Yomi studies for women.

Hadran.org.il is the first and only site where one can hear a daily Talmud class taught by a woman. The classes are taught in Israel by Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber, a graduate of Midreshet Lindenbaum’s scholars program with a BA in Talmud and Tanach from Bar-Ilan University. Michelle has taught Talmud and Halacha at Midreshet Lindenbaum, Pelech high school and MATAN. She lives in Ra’anana with her husband and their five children. Each morning the daf yomi class is delivered via ZOOM and then immediately uploaded and available for podcast and download.

Hadran.org.il reaches women who can now have access to a woman’s perspective on the most essential Jewish traditional text. This podcast represents a revolutionary step in advancing women’s Torah study around the globe.

Latest Episodes:

Introduction to Masechet Bava Metzia with Dr. Ayelet Hoffmann Libson Feb 28, 2024

Show notes

Introduction to Masechet Bava Metzia

Bava Kamma 118 - February 28, 19 Adar 1 Feb 28, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 118

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in gratitude to Hedy and Mendy Klein and their daughter, our friend and co-learner, Malkie Klein for sponsoring the Long Island in-person Siyum on Wednesday evening. "The Siyum allows us to come together, share our thoughts and experiences, and celebrate another milestone in our monumental journey. Malkie has graciously opened her home to us on many occasions. Her parents have cheered us on. May they continue to reap nachat from their wonderful family and from us!"

Does one need to return stolen or borrowed items to the owner in a city or can he/she return them in an uninhabited place (unguarded, less safe)? Claims where the borrower/robber/watchman is unsure of their claim - "I stole but don't remember if I paid it back" or "I am unsure if I stole," what is the law? If the owner says that one stole/borrowed/watched an item but did not pay it back and the claimant says "I don't remember," the amoraim debate whether or not one needs to return the money. How does this fit with the case in the Mishna? If one steals, can one return the item without the owner knowing? If he/she returned the item without the owner knowing, and the animal dies or is stolen again, is the thief responsible? Does it depend on whether or not the owner knew it was stolen in the first place? There are four different possibilities offered. There are certain people that one cannot buy certain items from because there is a strong reason to believe they are stolen. It may also depend on the quantity they are selling.

Bava Kamma 117 - February 27, 18 Adar 1 Feb 27, 2024

Show notes

One who passes on information about other people's property to non-Jews who are looking to seize/steal it - is this considered theft? Is the informant liable to return the value of the item? On what does it depend? The Gemara brings a series of cases where Jews informed Gentiles about the whereabouts of others' possessions and the rulings of the rabbis are brought. In the context of a story about a Jew who wanted to inform about another, we are told of a famous story of the showdown between Rav Kahana and Rabbi Yochanan when Rav Kahana ran away to Israel from Babylonia. This story highlights the dangers of misjudging others, and holding oneself in high regard, and also highlights the power struggle between Babylonia and Israel, particularly in the second generation of amoraim, in terms of determining where the real center of authority is. Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree about whether land is "acquired" by a thief or not.

Bava Kamma 116 - with Dr. Ayelet Hoffman Libson - February 26, 17 Adar 1 Feb 26, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Meryl and Harold Sasnowitz in loving memory of their mothers, Malka bat Chaya Etle & Mordechai, and Toby Raizel bat Rechel & Tzvi whose yahrzeits both fall on 16 Adar. "They left a legacy of Yiddishkite that has grown through multiple generations."

Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree about whether one can keep impure truma wine in one's house to be used over time for creating a good smell in the house (ziluf) or does one need to be concerned that it may cause transgression as one may forget that the wine is impure and may drink it. Rabbi Yishamel son of Rabbi Yosi suggests a compromise approach, however, others did not like the suggestion. If honey is dripping from a vessel and the honey owner promises the wine owner that if he/she spills the wine, the honey owner will compensate him/her for the loss of wine, then the honey owner must pay. However, from a different braita it seems that one can claim, "I never really meant what I said, I was just fooling with you." How is this resolved? Why does the Mishna not only bring a case of honey/wine but also a case with two people who each have a donkey (one worth more than the other) that gets swept away by a river and one asks the other to save his/hers instead of saving their own donkey? Two questions are asked about variations on the donkey case. What if one saves the other donkey and is promised to be compensated for his/her donkey but then their donkey comes out of the river on its own - do they still receive compensation as promised? What if one tries to save the donkey but is unsuccessful? The Tosefta Bava Metzia 7:7 is quoted where there are several cases of distribution of expenditures for a group of people traveling together if for example robbers come or if they need to hire someone for the group. What are the criteria used for determining the method of dividing? The Tosefta continues with a case of people on a boat that is beginning to sink - how do they determine how much each person needs to throw off the boat to save themselves? If one steals a field and then gives it to thugs who come to seize property, does the thief need to return the land or can he/she say to the owner, "Go get it from the thugs?" On what does it depend?

Bava Kamma 115 with Rabbanit Hamutal Shoval - February 25, 16 Adar 1 Feb 25, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her mother, Carolyn Barnett-Goldstein, on her 5th yahrzeit. "She was passionately dedicated to the Jewish People and the arts. We miss her larger-than-life presence every day, and struggle to understand that she is gone."

Today's daf is sponsored by Abby Flamholz's daughter-in-law, Sigal Spitzer Flamholz and her two granddaughters Nitzan and Orlie Flamholz in honor of Abby's birthday. "Thanks for paving the way for Talmud Torah in our family!"

If one recognizes items belonging to them in someone's house and the owner of the house claims they purchased them, the owner of the house takes an oath about the purchase price and returns the item to the original owner for the value of the item. But this is only if it is known that the person was robbed. If not, there is a concern that the claimant sold the item and now regrets the sale and wants the item back. The Gemara asks why knowing the person was robbed is enough to allay the fear that they are just trying to renege on a sale? Rav explains that there needs to be some sort of circumstantial evidence that the item in question was stolen. If a thief sells a stolen item, can the one who was robbed demand the item back from the buyer or only from the thief? Rav and Rabbi Yochanan disagree. Four explanations are brought to explain the basis of their debate. The rabbis instituted takanat hashuk to protect buyers. The takana is that if someone claims that the item is theirs, they can take it back but they need to reimburse the buyer the amount that they paid so that the buyer does not need to find the thief who sold him/her the item. In what cases does the takana apply/not apply? If two people are walking and one has honey in a jar that is breaking, and the other has wine (less expensive than honey) and the wine owner dumps the wine to help save the honey, what compensation does the wine owner receive? The Gemara questions why we do not assume that the honey was already hefker (ownerless) as the owner knew it would be gone in a minute and gave up ownership of it in which case it can be considered acquired by the wine owner, as can be inferred from braita? to resolve this, they limit the case in the Mishna. The Gemara then questions the halakha in the braita based on a different braita which seems to contradict. How are they reconciled?

Bava Kamma 114 - Shabbat February 24, 15 Adar 1 Feb 23, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her grandmother, Ann Barnett, on her 13th yahrzeit. "She was dedicated to the Jewish People and was a lifelong Zionist, and we miss her every day."

Rava brings another law that relates to non-Jewish courts - a Jew cannot testify about a monetary case against a Jew if the court accepts the testimony of one witness as that is against Jewish law. One who does this is excommunicated. One is also excommunicated for selling a property to a gentile if it borders on the property of a Jew. For what reason is this prohibited? The Mishna says if someone steals and gives you a different item in return, or if a tax collector seized an item and replaced it with another, one can keep the item as one can assume that the original owner despaired of ever getting it back (had ye'ush), as ye'ush with a change of domain (shinui reshut) is effective to make one the owner of the item. But in other cases, the Mishna mentions that only if we know the owner despaired, then the item is acquired. How can we reconcile the difference between these two lines in the Mishna? The Mishna doesn't distinguish between genieva and gezeila and it can be derived from the first line in the Mishna that if we don't know that the owners despaired, we assume they have, in either case. This (and a braita) seem to contradict Raba's reading of a different argument in Masechet Keilim between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis who each think that there is reason to distinguish between genieva and gezeila in this issue (each in a different way). Various answers are brought, among them they introduce a new opinion of Rebbi who equates the genieva and gezeila. Does Rebbi hold that they are the same regarding ye'ush and follow Rabbi Shimon's view on gezeila or the rabbis' opinion? The two sources brought before (our Mishna and the braita) are brought to answer the question but are rejected. A third source is brought where it proves that Rebbi holds that genieva and gezeila have the same law - like gezeila according to Rabbi Shimon and we can assume the owner despaired. A woman and minor are believed to testify about who is the owner of a swarm of bees. However, this is limited to the case where they did not testify in court but mentioned it in the context of a conversation (mesiach lefi tumo). When else can people be believed when saying something in the context of a conversation?

Bava Kamma 113 - Purim Katan - February 23, 14 Adar 1 Feb 23, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Sylvia Klein in loving memory of Marion Pickens. "Marion is the beloved mother of my friend, Pamela Elisheva. She was committed to education, she instilled a love of learning in her daughter. May her memory be a blessing."

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the birth of a grandson to our friend and co-learner Malkie Klein. "May the entire family enjoy great נחת as he grows לתורה ולחופה ולמעשים טובים, emulating your love of learning, passion for equity and care and concern for all"

When a subpoena is sent with a woman or neighbor, under what circumstances, can we assume they relayed the message? In what cases can we not assume that the subpoena was delivered as there is reason to believe they did not think they were being relied on? This would affect whether or not we can excommunicate the person subpoenaed if he/she does not show up to court. There are certain times of year and times of the week when people are busy and therefore shouldn't be subpoenaed to court. The next mishna deals with things one should avoid doing with non-Jewish tax collectors who were suspected of having stolen money from others. When questioned by Shmuel's statement dina d'malchuta dina, the law of the land is the law, the rabbis differentiate between tax collectors who collect by law and those who work independently of the government or are known to collect more than they are supposed to. Another case is brought which leads to the question of whether stealing from a non-Jew is considered stealing or not. One source says it is forbidden while another says it is forbidden on account of kiddush Hashem, indicating that it is permitted by the letter of the law. How are these two sources reconciled? Rabbi Shimon Chasida said that stealing from a gentile is forbidden but there is no obligation to return a lost item to a gentile. Rav Huna and Rav bring sources from the Torah to support these rulings. Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair says that Jews are obligated to return lost items of gentiles if by refraining from doing so, there will be a chilul Hashem. If one makes a mistake in paying a Gentile, one does not need to correct the mistake. Rava makes several statements regarding Gentiles and tax collectors. The first proves Shmuel's statement of dina d'malchuta dina from the fact that we are allowed to benefit from bridges built with tax money. Abaye argues with this proof. Some of the others relate to cases where gentiles collect from one person the portion of the other - in what circumstances is this not considered theft?

Bava Kamma 112 - February 22, 13 Adar 1 Feb 22, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the engagement to Shai Laniado, son of our friend and co-learner Sami Groff, to Lily Snyder. "May the home that they build together be filled with the passion for truth, clarity and equity and love for the Jewish nation that you model for all of us!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Avi Jencmen in loving memory of Menachem ben Tzvi haCohen.

Rami bar Hama holds that orphans are considered like purchasers. Was his statement derived from our Mishna or from a braita on a different issue - interest that a father collected and then passed on through inheritance to his children? What is the relevance of whether it was derived from our Mishna or the braita? The Gemara quotes two other braitot regarding stolen items consumed by a third party or passed on through inheritance. According to these braitot, do we distinguish between younger/older children? Are the older children believed if they claim they are certain the father returned the item? If a man borrows an item and then dies and the children use the item, what is their level of responsibility? What if they did not realize it was a borrowed item and consumed it? How does it affect the situation if the father leaves them land as inheritance? Do Rava and Rav Papa disagree about this case? Rav Papa's approach is premised on the understanding that a borrower takes on responsibility for accidents from the moment the accident happens, not from the moment the borrower borrows the item. According to some, Rava holds that it begins the moment the borrower borrows the item. Sumchus and the rabbis debate whether or not minors can be brought to court. Rabbi Yirmia has an issue with property rights to land of his father-in-law that he claimed was given to him but the orphans claimed they inherited it from their father (Rabbi Yirmia's father-in-law. Rabbi Avin was unsure about whether the case could be judged as the children were minors. Rabbi Avahu brought proof from a different situation where they ruled against minors, but the Gemara rejected the comparison. Can testimony be accepted without the presence of the litigant? What about the ratification of documents? Different opinions about the matter are mentioned and the amoraim explain the circumstances under which one can have a court session without the other side present.

Bava Kamma 111 - February 21, 12 Adar 1 Feb 21, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the marriage of the granddaughter of our friend and co-learner Rookie Billet. "As the new couple builds their בית נאמן בישראל, continuing the paradigm that you and Rabbi Heshie have established, we are certain that they will be a source of nachat to you, your family and the Jewish nation."

When someone steals from a convert who then dies, if the thief wants to repent, he/she must pay the principal, one-fifth and bring a sacrifice. All are given to the family of kohanim working at the Temple on the week that the thief comes to bring the sacrifice. The principal must be paid before the sacrifice. What if the money and the sacrifice are brought to two different families of kohanim on two different weeks? If they were brought the same week but one to a family who was not serving, one is penalized and needs to give the item received to the other - who is penalized and why? This is a subject of debate among Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis. The guilt offering brought after stealing is compared to the guilt offering brought for meila - misuse of consecrated property. Three braitot each quote Rebbi (Rabbi Yehuda haNasi) explaining Rabbi Yehuda's position in particular cases. The Gemara helps to better understand each braita. The tenth chapter starts with a discussion of someone who eats the stolen item from the thief or passes it on by inheritance to the heirs - can the owner demand the money back from the one who consumed it or the heirs, or only from the thief? The Mishna rules that the owner cannot demand it from a third party. Rav Chisda holds that it depends on whether or not the owner has given up on getting his item back (ye'ush). In the case where there was ye'ush, the owner cannot demand it from the one who consumed it as the combination of the owner's ye'ush and passing it on to someone else allows it to change ownership and therefore the original owner has no claim with the third party - he/she can only claim it from the thief. But if the original owner has not given up, then the one who consumed is considered as if he/she stole it from the original owner as it was still in the owner's possession at the time of consumption. He understands that the Mishna must be referring to a case where there was ye'ush. Are heirs viewed as buyers (meaning that when the item passes to them, it is considered moving into another's domain) or not? Rami bar Hama and Rava disagree about this which leads them to a disagreement about how to understand the case in the Mishna regarding the heirs.

Bava Kamma 110 - February 20, 11 Adar 1 Feb 20, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 110

Today's daf is sponsored by Mona Fishbane in loving memory of her beloved daughter-in-law, Leah Levitz Fishbane, Leah Gavriella bat Yaakov v'Etta Beya. "Leah was a beautiful neshama. May her memory be a blessing."

A kohen can choose to bring a sacrifice (guilt or sin offering) when it is not his week to be on duty (mishmar) and the meat and hide will be for him, and not given to the kohanim working in the Temple that week. However, does a kohen have the right to choose that a particular kohen will do the sacrificing and receive the meat and hide or does it automatically get given to the kohanim on duty that week? On what does it depend? If one steals from a convert, and the convert dies, the thief returns the item to the kohanim working in the Temple that week when the thief brings the guilt offering. The money needs to be given before the guilt offering. What if the thief died before giving the money or after giving the money but before bringing the sacrifice, what happens to the money - does it go to the kohanim or is it given back to the heirs of the thief? Since the returning of the item (the principal) to the kohen is called by the Torah "an asham," a word that is also used in general to mean the guilt offering, there are various halachot that treat this payment with the same rules as the guilt offering. For example, it can't be paid at night just as sacrifices cannot be brought at night. Rava asks various questions about this comparison. Rava asks if the payment to the kohanim is viewed as an inheritance (as they are in place of the convert's inheritors) or as a gift? What are the ramifications of this question? They conclude that it is viewed as a gift.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected