Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Bava Kamma 99 - Rosh Chodesh Adar 1 - February 9, 30 Shvat Feb 09, 2024

Show notes

This week's learning is dedicated by Phyllis & Yossie Hecht in loving memory of Phyllis's father's, HaRav Yerachmiel Binyanim ben Zalman Tzvi Witkin on his 15th yahrzeit yesterday. "Jerry Witkin, as he was affectionately known to all. He was a Yosher Lev, חבר לכל ראיך, שמח בחלקו, and a man who personified במקום שאין איש השתדל להיות איש. My father was an activist and a true source of nachat to his friends, family and klal Yisrael. Dad's legacy of 6 children, 28 grandchildren and ever-growing great-grandchildren – all Torah Jews continues to live on. You are so missed and we have been so blessed. Yehi Zichro Baruch."

Rav Asi holds that if one gives wood to a carpenter to build a closet and builds it but breaks it before giving it back to the owner of the wood, the carpenter is not responsible for the broken item because the object created (the enhancement of the raw materials) is considered in their possession and the carpenter is like a seller who sells the enhancement back to the original owner. Is Rav Asi's opinion agreed upon by everyone or is there another opinion? In attempting to see if tanaim debated this issue, an argument between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis is brought regarding a woman who says to a goldsmith to make her jewels with her materials and she will be betrothed to him with those jewels. The Gemara suggests four different possibilities as to what the principles are that stand behind each of the opinions and what is the debate about. Shmuel teaches that if a slaughterer makes a mistake and makes the animal not kosher, he/she is responsible whether or not it was done for free or for pay. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees and distinguishes between one who gets paid and one who does it for free. He compares it to laws of shomrim and just as one who gets paid to watch an item assumes more responsibility in the event of theft or loss, the same holds for the slaughterer or any professional. However, if there is no compensation, then they are like a shomer chinam who watches the item for free and is not obligated in a case of theft or loss. Is a professional damaging an item more similar to laws of shomrim because the item was given to the professional by the owner? Or is it more like adam hamazik - a person who damages another's item, in which case he is obligated even for unintentional damage, oness.

Bava Kamma 98 - February 8, 29 Shvat Feb 08, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Arthur Gould in loving memory of Carol's mother Irma Robinson, Hudda Bat Moshe on her 7th yahrzeit. "Irma built a rich life in the Chicago area including work she loved at a nearby high school library and active participation in her synagogue. She loved to have the entire family over for special events. Sadly, four years after she was widowed, Irma developed Alzheimer's. Carol and her sister Debbie were blessed that though her illness progressed, she never forgot who they were."

If the currency changes on an outstanding loan that was set for a particular amount of the old currency, does one pay the same number of coins in the new currency or does that look like interest? Raba brings four rulings on cases of indirect damage and rules in all four cases that the one who caused the damage is exempt. Rava raises difficulties on the first three. Different important halachic principles are discussed such as garmei and davar hagorem l'mamon - an item that can have monetary significance even if the item is not worth anything at the time. Does everyone hold that if one steals items that become forbidden to benefit from, but there is no noticeable damage, the thief can return the item itself or does the thief need to return the value at the time of the theft? Rav Chisda and Raba disagree about whether or not this is a debate or do all agree that one can return the item itself, even though it no longer has any monetary value, as the damages are not noticeable in the object. If one hires another to fix something and they break it, they are responsible for paying the value of it. Rav Asi holds that if one gives wood to a carpenter to build a closet and builds it but breaks it before giving it back to the owner of the wood, the carpenter is not responsible for the broken item because the object created (the enhancement of the raw materials) is considered in their possession and the carpenter is like a seller who sells the enhancement back to the original owner.

Bava Kamma 97 - February 7, 28 Shvat Feb 07, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 97

Today's daf is sponsored by Art Gould in loving memory of Art's mother Shirley, Sarah bat Avraham v'Ziche Reicha on her 8th yahrzeit. "She was a life-long learner, a striver, she sewed and made mosaics. Once her three children were old enough, she went back to school, earned a master's degree, created a new career doing social work and counseling, and published four books on raising a family. She lives on in the tallitot and quilts she made. She would be proud to see the stream of b'nai mitzvah that continues this year with the 2nd and 3rd of her great-grandchildren."

Rav holds like Rabbi Meir in the Mishna that slaves are considered like land and therefore they are not acquired by a thief. He holds like Rabbi Meir against the mainstream opinion of the rabbis either because his version of the Mishna has the opinions switched and it was the rabbis who held that position or because there were two braitot that showed Rabbi Meir holding the other position and therefore he switched the version in our Mishna to match the braitot. The first braita has the same rulings as our Mishna, but reverses who said what. The second braita involves a different case but where it is clear that Rabbi Meir holds slaves are considered like movable property and the rabbis hold they are like land. If one steals and slave and has the slave work, when they return the slave, does the thief need to compensate the owner for loss of work as well? If the original owner was anyway not using the slave to work, can this be compared to a case of a squatter, one who lives in an uninhabited house, as one benefits without causing a loss to the owner? Rav Yosef bar Chama would seize the slaves of those who owed him money and they would work for him. His son Rava raised several difficulties with this arrangement, both in terms of not compensating for the work and claiming that it looked like he was collecting interest. On account of the first issue, Rav Yosef defended his decision but on account of the second, he stopped his practice of doing this. If one uses another's boat without permission, does the thief just return the boat and add depreciation (as one pays the amount from the moment it was stolen) or does one need to add a rental fee? Rav and Shmuel disagree but Rav Pappa explains that they don't disagree, they are each referring to a different situation. The Mishna distinguishes between coins that are ruined physically and those that are removed from the currency. Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda debate what exactly is the case of 'removed from currency' - cannot be used in that country but can be used in another or cannot be used anywhere? A difficulty is raised against each position but is resolved. One who takes a loan with the agreement that the borrower will pay back a set amount of money in a particular currency, but before the loan is returned, the currency is no longer in use, Rav and Shmuel disagree about what currency is used to pay back the loan. Shmuel's opinion is questioned, particularly in light of how Rav Nachman understands Shmuel's ruling.

Bava Kamma 96 - February 6, 27 Shvat Feb 06, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Art Gould in loving memory of Art's father Joseph, Yosef ben Shlomo Shabtai v'Rachel on his 23rd yahrzeit. "Joe was an ordinary man of extraordinary dignity, decency and dedication. When my mother first saw him she was immediately interested. Then he removed his hat; she saw his bald head and concluded he was already married with children. He wasn't. The rest is family history. Joe was not one of those lucky people who "found what they love and never worked a day in his life." Instead, his career was "bring home a paycheck and support his family." I wish we had had more time together."

Today's daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in loving memory of her parents, Fruma (Florence) bat Ester v'Nachum Natan, and Baruch (Ben) ben Hinda Josepha v' Ze'ev Stillman, whose yahrzeits are only 4 days apart in Shvat. "They always encouraged me to pursue whatever interested me and supported me with unfailing love. Their love, solidarity and stability were models to all of my children despite our geographical distance in most of our everyday lives. I broadened their horizons, as they enabled my horizons to be broadened."

Contradictory statements of Shmuel regarding the collection of land by a creditor from a buyer are reconciled - in what situations does the creditor collect the enhancements as well? On what does it depend? Rava explains that if one steals an item and it increases in value while in the thief's possession, the increase goes to the thief, if the thief sells it or dies the buyer or the heirs get the enhancement as well. He asks about a case where the thief did not enhance the value of the item but the buyer/ heir did - do they get the enhancement as well? He then answers by saying that they do, as they acquired whatever rights the thief had. However, he asks if this would hold if a gentile had stolen and then sold the item to a Jew. Ravina clarifies the case in which Rava asked this question. His question is left unanswered. Rav Pappa and Rava bring various cases where some sort of change happens to the item and they determine whether this is a significant change that would enable the robber to acquire the item or not. If the name changes, that is generally considered a significant change, but only if the item cannot be returned to its original state. The Mishna ended with an unnecessary line summing up the principle behind the cases in the Mishna. The Gemara derives from here an additional halakha that if one stole a lamb and it became a ram, a calf and it became an ox while in the possession of the thief, the item is acquired by the thief and he/she returns the value of the younger animal and if the thief sold or slaughtered it, there would be no four/five payment as it is considered owned by the thief. In a similar case, one stole oxen and used them to work his field and when they returned the animals, Rav Nachman required him to pay the value of the enhancement of the field. When Rava questioned his ruling, Rav Nachman explained that he ruled stringently as this thief had stolen many times before. If an object decreases in value in the hands of the thief, the thief returns the item at the value at the time of the theft, However, if it decreases in value on account of damages that cannot be noticed, such as, teruma that became impure, chametz after Pesach that was not sold, the thief can return the item as is, even though it now has no value. Rav held like Rabbi Meir in the Mishna regarding slaves - they are considered like land that is not acquired by a thief. Why did he hold like Rav against the mainstream opinion of the rabbis?

Bava Kamma 95 - February 5, 26 Shvat Feb 05, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 95

If one steals a pregnant animal or a sheep with its wool and it increases in value in the hands of the thief, then gives birth or is sheared, does the thief need to compensate the owner for the increased value as well? Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree. There are two different versions brought of a question that was asked on Rabbi Meir's approach. The first version is that they ask whether his approach is based on the fact that shinui (a change) does not cause the animal to be acquired by the thief or is this a penalty instituted for a thief? Two sources are brought to try to answer the question. The second one successfully proves that it is a penalty. The second version starts with the premise that it is a penalty and questions whether the penalty is only for one who acts intentionally or even one who does it unwittingly. Two sources are brought to try to answer the question. The second one successfully proves that it is only if it is intentional. What is the difference of opinion between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon? Rav Zevid and Rav Pappa each bring different explanations of what is the root of their disagreement. A difficulty is raised against Rav Pappa and resolved and then a braita is brought to support his understanding.

Bava Kamma 94 - February 4, 25 Shvat Feb 04, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in loving memory of Uri (Uriel) Ben-Ami who passed away last Thursday. "Yehi zichro m'vurach. A strong Zionist with a lifetime of stories to tell, he was the husband of my dear friend Henrietta Ben-Ami."

Abaye brings halakhot of five different tanaim and claims that all agree that changing an item does not change the ownership over the item. Rava disagrees and explains why each case is unique and cannot be used to teach a general principle. A contradiction is brought between a ruling of Shmuel like one of those five tanaim (Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar who rules that if an item decreases in value, the thief can return the item at its present depreciated value) and a different statement of Shmuel's that the thief pays the value of the item at the time it was stolen. Two suggested resolutions are brought. Rabbi Yochanan holds that by Torah law one has to return the stolen item as is and only due to a rabbinic takana (takanat hashavim, to encourage thieves to repent), the can return the value of the item. The Gemara raises a difficulty on his opinion from the fact that Rabbi Yochanan always holds by an unattributed Mishna and in an unattributed Mishna in Chulin, if one colors the wool, one is no longer obligated to give it to the kohen as it is a changed item. To resolve this, they explain that when Rabbi Yochanan made his statement, it was a case where the change was reversible and the Mishna is Chulin is dealing with an irreversible change. Rabbi Yehuda haNasi instituted a takana that thieves and usurers who want to return from their bad ways should return the items they stole/collected but the ones they stole/collected from should not accept them. The reason for this ruling is to encourage repentance of thieves and usurers. The Gemara brings three sources that seem to contradict this halacha and resolves the contradictions.

Bava Kamma 93 - Shabbat February 3, 24 Shvat Feb 02, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Kamma 93

Today's daf is sponsored by Debbie Pine and Mark Orenshein in loving memory of Mark's mother, Sandy Orenshein, Zlata Rochel bat Dovid v'Malka on her 5th yahrzeit.

Rava and Raba bar Meri derive from the Torah one more expression that people use. Other rabbis derive other similar-type statements from the Torah. Why is there a distinction in the Mishna between a case where one exempts another for inflicting bodily damage to a case where one exempts another for destroying one's possessions? The Mishna rules that if one asks another to break something of theirs, the one who breaks it is liable to pay for it. This contradicts a braita regarding shomrim which says that if one gives one an item to break, the one who breaks it is not responsible. Two resolutions are suggested. One who is in charge of charity funds is not responsible if something happens to the money. Why? There is, however, an exception to this rule. The ninth chapter begins with a discussion of a thief and the thief's ultimate ownership over the stolen item if the thief changes the item or it changes on its own. What constitutes such a shinui (change) and what doesn't? Various mishnayot and braitot are brought which seem to contradict the Mishna and each other and various possibilities are brought to reconcile them.

Bava Kamma 92 - February 2, 23 Shvat Feb 02, 2024

Show notes

This week's learning is sponsored by Glenn Miller and Ruth Rotenberg in memory of their daughter Tanielle Miller's 19th yahrzeit. "This year embodying Tanielle's passions, the Tanielle Miller Foundation has blossomed into a hub for over six initiatives in Israel from civilian first responders to organizing ER doctors from around the world, all to support our victory in Israel. יחד ננצח May the learning through Hadran be a zechut for a swift and safe victory and healing for am Yisrael."

Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah & Michael Dickson on the occasion of their daughter, Ella's bat mitzvah this Shabbat.

Even though one pays the five damages payments, one is still required to ask for forgiveness from the injured person to fully atone. If one asks another to injure him/her or to damage their clothes, the person is still liable if they do it. However, if the person says "I will exempt you" the one who damaged the clothes is exempt but not if they inflicted bodily damage. But if that same statement was said about damaging someone else's property, there is no exemption. The importance of asking for forgiveness is learned from the exchange between Avimelech and Avraham in Breishet 20:7. The rest of that verse is explained as well. Rava quotes several different statements made by the rabbis or sentences that people generally say and asks Raba bar Meri where the source in the Torah is. The first derivation is learned from Avraham and Avimelech that one who prays for another regarding an issue that the person needs as well, will be answered first. Raba bar Meri suggests a different verse, but Rava learns it from Avraham who prayed for Avimelech to have children and then Sarah became pregnant. Fifteen other similar questions are asked by Rava to Raba bar Meri.

Bava Kamma 91 - February 1, 22 Shvat Feb 01, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in loving memory of her mother, Shoshana Rosa bat Shmuel and Minda Lea. "A self-made woman who at the age of 60 graduated high school with honors. She found fulfillment in the sanctuary of Torah learning which she bequeathed to her children and grandchildren. She was known for the trait of hakarat hatov. She was always the first to thank a lecturer and to express appreciation. We had the zechut to bring her on Aliyah at the age of 90. We miss her every day. Yehi zichra baruch."

If a shor muad kills someone and then injures, the court rules first on the injury for payment, then on the killing, and the ox will get killed. If first they rule on the killing, they can no longer judge the owner for the injury. This accords with Rabbi Shimon haTimni who ruled that the implement used for injuring needs to be brought before the court, as once the ox is subject to death, he is killed immediately and therefore cannot be brought to court. Another explanation is that the ruling is according to Rabbi Akiva, who disagrees with Rabbi Shimon haTimni, and the case is where the owner ran away, which is why we cannot judge the owner for the damages. Does the court need to evaluate whether the act of damage was sufficient to cause the damage that was on the one who was injured? Four sources are brought to answer this question. The first three are rejected but the last one proves that the court does need to do an evaluation. If the court assesses how much the doctor bills should be and it comes out to too much or too little, the court does not change the amount - why? The Mishna mentioned a case where the accused asked for time to delay the payment. In what cases is this permitted? Is it forbidden to cause personal injury to oneself? There seem to be contradictory sources on this topic. After trying unsuccessfully to reconcile these sources, they explain it as a tanaitic debate and attribute the opinion that it is forbidden to Rabbi Elazar haKapar who explains the sin offering of the nazir since the nazir causes him/herself to suffer by not drinking wine. Rabba bar bar Hanna brought a braita saying that if one accuses another of killing his ox or cutting his sapling, the other can claim, "You told me to do it." How can this be? Anyone can then exempt themselves in court by making this claim! Rav explained the braita in a case where the ox was going to be killed as it killed a person and the sapling was to be destroyed as it was used for idol worship. What types of fruit trees cannot be destroyed, and when is there an exception to this rule?

Bava Kamma 90 - January 31, 21 Shvat Jan 31, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island "as we share the simcha of our friend and co-learner Shoshana Shur and her family upon the engagement of her son Eli to Rochel Markel. May the joy of this new couple spread to encompass all of klal Yisrael - and may we all continue to share smachot!"

After rejecting the suggestion that the tanaim debate whether or not there was a takana in Usha for the usufruct property of a married woman, the Gemara suggests three other explanations for the tanaitic debate regarding a slave who is usufruct property of the woman - does he go free if the woman knocks out his eye or does he never go free from this type of situation? The third explanation is that the debate is about whether one who has access to the proceeds, does that mean they are also like the owner of the principal or not. A similar debate is mentioned regarding a slave who is hit by his owner but dies more than twenty-four hours later. If that slave was sold but kept by the original owner to still work for him for thirty days, and that owner killed him, is the original owner considered the actual owner since the slave is working for that master, however, they only have rights to the slave's work, not his body. There are four opinions given, two of which match the previous debate. Rabbi Elazar is the author of the fourth opinion and two other braitot on related issues are brought and attributed to Rabbi Elazar. The Mishna deals with humiliation payments and sets the amount for certain actions that cause humiliation only, such as pulling one's hair, spitting in one's face, and uncovering a woman's hair in the marketplace. A story is told of one who did the latter infringement and tried to get out of it by tricking the woman into uncovering her hair and then trying to prove that she doesn't care about having her hair uncovered in public. However, Rabbi Akiva did not accept this as there is a difference between one deciding to uncover one's hair and someone else doing it. Are the amounts mentioned in the Mishna for humiliation payment in the Tzuri or medina currency (valued at 1/8 of the Tzuri)? Based on a story with Rabbi Yehuda Nesia, it is Tzuri currency. Once the story was brought up, the Gemara grapples to understand Rabbi Yehuda's ruling in the story when he said, "This is me and this is Rabbi Yosi haGelili who held 100 Tzuri coins. When he said "This is me," did he mean, I saw it with my own eyes, thereby implying that a witness can also be a judge, as he ruled in the case? This would be difficult as Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva both hold that a witness cannot be a judge. There are two possible resolutions. Did Rabbi Akiva really hold that a witness cannot be a judge? A source seems to indicate otherwise. However, this is resolved.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected