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.
info_outline
Bava Metzia 59 - Shabbat Chol Hamoed Pesach - April 27, 19 Nissan
04/26/2024
Bava Metzia 59 - Shabbat Chol Hamoed Pesach - April 27, 19 Nissan
It is regarded as a grave transgression to humiliate another person. Some emphasize the prohibition against verbally abusing one's spouse, noting that maintaining food (financial stability) in the household is advisable to preserve harmony. While many prayers may not always find immediate acceptance, the prayers of those who have suffered verbal abuse will always be heard, and God will punish the perpetrators. The story of the oven of Achnai illustrates the potency of prayers from those who have endured verbal abuse. Rabbi Eliezer, who stood against the majority opinion of the rabbis and was subsequently excommunicated and mistreated, serves as a prime example. Despite presenting miraculous signs and even a heavenly voice affirming the correctness of his stance, Rabbi Yehoshua asserted, "It is not in heaven." This narrative underscores the authority of the rabbinic system to establish its own truths, even if they diverge from the absolute truth of God. However, mentioning this story in this context highlights the impact of words and how the mistreatment of Rabbi Eliezer ultimately led to the death of Rabban Gamliel through his prayers. The prohibition against abusing converts is emphasized, with the Torah warning against it in thirty-six (or forty-six) instances. This underscores the severity of the offense and the importance of treating converts with respect and dignity.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30897403
info_outline
Bava Metzia 58 - 4th Day of Pesach - April 26, 18 Nissan
04/26/2024
Bava Metzia 58 - 4th Day of Pesach - April 26, 18 Nissan
The Mishna established that in cases involving hekdesh (sanctified property), a shomer who watches for free is exempt from taking an oath, while a paid shomer is exempt from liability in cases of theft or loss. However, there are tannaitic sources that appear to contradict the Mishna, prompting various proposed resolutions. Rabbi Shimon distinguishes between different categories of sanctified items, arguing that some are subject to exploitation laws. Rabbi Yehuda excludes specific items from exploitation laws altogether. The Gemara elucidates both positions. The Mishna asserts that alongside the Torah prohibition against exploitation in monetary matters, there exists a Torah injunction against verbal abuse. Various examples are cited to underscore the severity of this offense, highlighting its gravity in Jewish law.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30897343
info_outline
Bava Metzia 57 - 3rd Day of Pesach - April 25, 17 Nissan
04/25/2024
Bava Metzia 57 - 3rd Day of Pesach - April 25, 17 Nissan
Although certain categories are exempt from exploitation laws, does this exemption extend to cases where one party exploits another at a higher rate (bitul mekach)? Rabbi Yona and Rabbi Yirmia each offer different answers in the name of Rabbi Yochanan. A challenge is posed to Rabbi Yirmia's position based on another statement attributed to Rabbi Yochanan. Several proposed explanations are offered to reconcile this discrepancy. Additionally, the derivations for the exclusion of these categories in other Mishnaic laws, such as double payment and laws governing the responsibilities of shomrim, are explored.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30884263
info_outline
Bava Metzia 56 - 2nd Day of Pesach - April 24, 16 Nissan
04/24/2024
Bava Metzia 56 - 2nd Day of Pesach - April 24, 16 Nissan
Different rabbis offer an opinion about whether or not Rabbi Meir believes that the rabbis made rabbinic laws stringent like Torah laws. They cite various sources to support their positions. Abaye analyzes the comments of the different rabbis, arguing that different levels of rabbinic laws exist, including those punishable by human courts, divine punishment, and negative prohibitions. Thus, he contends that comparing these various levels to prove Rabbi Meir's stance is flawed. The Mishna enumerates specific categories exempt from the general laws of ona’ah, such as land, slaves, documents, and sanctified items. Similarly, laws concerning double payment and the responsibilities of shomrim do not apply to these categories. Additional distinctions are made by other tannaim, expanding the list further. The exceptions to ona’ah are derived from specific passages in the Torah.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30881203
info_outline
Bava Metzia 55 - 1st Day of Pesach, April 23, 15 Nissan
04/22/2024
Bava Metzia 55 - 1st Day of Pesach, April 23, 15 Nissan
If one misuses consecrated property unknowingly, one must repay the value and add one-fifth (chomesh). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi held that the additional one-fifth payment is not added if one is redeeming a secondary hekdesh, an item that was sanctified from an item that was already sanctified (via hatpasa). The Gemara questions a statement made in a braita that was brought to support Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and resolves it. Another braita is brought as support for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. The Mishna lists the minimum amount of money for ona’ah and partial admission (modeh b’miktzat). It also lists five laws for which the minimum amount is a pruta. Levi has a different list of the five laws and the Gemara discusses why each list differs from the other. The Mishna lists 5 cases where one needs to add one fifth. One of the items is d’mai – a case where there is reason to think that ma’asrot (tithes) may not have been taken and the rabbis required one to separate the tithes just in case. Rabbi Elazar questions why the Mishna lists that one would add one-fifth if a non-kohen ate truma taken from d’mai, which is only truma by rabbinic law. Why would it be treated as stringently as a Torah obligation? They answer that the Mishna is according to Rabbi Meir’s approach that the rabbis make their decrees as strong as the Torah as is proven from a case of divorce law where Rabbi Meir is stringent. However, they raise a difficulty with saying that this is Rabbi Meir’s position.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30881083
info_outline
Bava Metzia 54 - April 22, 14 Nissan
04/22/2024
Bava Metzia 54 - April 22, 14 Nissan
Today's daf is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz. "Sara proudly shared that her father taught her some Talmud at a time when that was not done. He came to Chicago from Stashov Poland and was known for delivering the laundry along with a dvar Torah. Sara was a highly respected Jewish educator in Chicago. May both their memories be for 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 Leah Brick. "May the entire family be zoche to raise him לתורה ולחופה ולמעשים טובים and may this simcha be one of many we will celebrate together." When redeeming maaser sheni, the owner must add one-fifth more than the value of the produce. Is this one-fifth of the principal or one-fifth of the total once the one-fifth is added (1/4 of the principal)? After proving it is 1/4 from a tannatic source, a braita is quoted showing there is a tannaitic debate on how to calculate the one-fifth. If one does not add the one-fifth, is the produce considered redeemed? After answering this question from a tannaitic source proving that the one-fifth is not essential and the produce can be considered redeemed even without the one-fifth, the Gemara suggests that perhaps it is a tannaitic debate. However, this suggestion is rejected as all agree it is not essential but the rabbis deliberate about whether or not one can eat the produce by rabbinic law if the one-fifth has not been added as a way to prevent negligence. Regarding redeeming hekdesh, sanctified items, there is no concern for negligence as the treasurers collect the one-fifth payment. It is still not considered redeemed until one-fifth is added, but if it were Shabbat, one could eat the hekdesh item on account of the mitzva of oneg Shabbat. Rami bar Hama lists three rules relating to one-fifth payment in hekdesh, truma and maaser - do the same rules apply to the one-fifth payment as for the principal - if hekdesh, can it be redeemed on land, if for truma that one stole, does it need to be paid in produce, and if for maaser, can it be redeemed on an asimon? One who stole and denied it or a non-kohen who ate truma, can potentially pay one-fifth on a one-fifth payment. Is the same true for maaser and hekdesh? Is there a connection between this issue and the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that the additional one-fifth payment is not added if one is redeeming a secondary hekdesh, an item that was sanctified from an item that was already sanctified (via hatpasa)?
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30928038
info_outline
Bava Metzia 53 - April 21, 13 Nissan
04/21/2024
Bava Metzia 53 - April 21, 13 Nissan
This week's learning is sponsored by Lynne Cassouto in loving memory of her mother, Ann Cassouto, Chana bat Moshe v'Henneh, as her 11 months of kaddish ends on Pesach. "She was deeply devoted to Jewish tradition, prayer, and text, and made sure her children received a strong Jewish education. She is forever missed, may her memory be a blessing for clal Yisrael." Today's daf is sponsored in loving memory of Anita Dinerstein, from her children and grandchildren on her first yahrzeit. “Her commitment to learning and the Jewish people continue to inspire us.” Today's daf is sponsored by Mona & David Schwartz and family in loving memory of their mother and grandmother Mary Horowitz, Miriam Etel bat Aharon Halevi & Mirel on her 30th yahrzeit. "A woman whose home personified hachnasat orchim. May her neshama have an aliyah." Chizkiya says that maaser sheni produce that has less than the value of a coin can be redeemed on a coin that was used previously to redeem maaser sheni because there must be a little bit of value still left on the coin from the last time, as people aren't exacting in their calculations and generally use a bigger coin than what is needed. The Gemara questions this by bringing in a Mishna that implies that maaser sheni that gets mixed with non-maaser items is nullified in a majority. If Chizkiya is correct, then maaser should always be something that can never be nullified in a mixture because it can be fixed by redeeming, as per Chizkiya's suggestion, in which case it is a davar sheyesh lo matirin which can never be nullified. The Gemara tries to answer this question. A braita quoted in the discussion mentions two cases of maaser sheni that are nullified in a majority - less than and pruta and maaser sheni that was brought into Jerusalem and left Jerusalem. Why is maaser sheni brought into Jerusalem and then left unable to be redeemed (and therefore nullified in a majority)? After answering this question by establishing the details of the situation, Rav Huna bar Yehuda suggests an alternative reading of the braita. There is an amoraic debate regarding the premise of Chizkiya's ruling that maaser sheni that is less than a pruta cannot be redeemed onto a coin - is it when the principal is less than a pruta or the one-fifth is less than a pruta? In general, how is the one-fifth payment calculated - one-fifth of the principal or one-fifth of the total once the amount of the one-fifth is added (1/4)?
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30916183
info_outline
Bava Metzia 52 - Shabbat April 20, 12 Nissan
04/19/2024
Bava Metzia 52 - Shabbat April 20, 12 Nissan
Can one use money that is devalued? At what percentage would it be considered ona’ah and one can claim back the amount he/she was exploited by the devaluation of the coin? There is a debate between Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon. Why is this different from ona’ah with clothing where there is no debate? Once a coin is devalued to more than half its original value, the coin must be destroyed. Why? There is a debate about whether one needs to destroy the coin from the rate of ona’ah until half of its value or just below half its value. Two difficulties are raised against Rav Huna who held by the first option. What is the time frame allotted for getting back the exploited money? Is it the same as for clothing or different? The Mishna mentions an exception to the rule – a case where one can return it even over a year later. How is this case understood by Rav Chisda? A coin that is devalued can be used for redeeming maaser sheni produce. How does this work?
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30880853
info_outline
Bava Metzia 51 - April 19, 11 Nissan
04/19/2024
Bava Metzia 51 - April 19, 11 Nissan
Today's daf is sponsored by Jeffrey and Jill Shames in loving memory of Jill's Mom, Seena Baker, שפרה בת סול וברכה who passed away 9 years ago. "Mom, we pray that wherever you are you experience the reflection of your wisdom and love in your children, your children's children and your children's children's children." Is the time allotted for getting your money back in a case of over/undercharging the same for the buyer and the seller? Do the laws of exploitation apply only to businesses and not to individuals? Does it depend on what they are selling? Are there certain merchants to whom laws of exploitation do not apply or are there certain laws of exploitation that do not apply to any merchants? The answer to these questions depends upon how one understands Rabbi Yehuda's opinion in the Mishna. If one sells an item upon condition that the buyer will not bring a claim of exploitation, is that a valid condition? Rav and Shmuel disagree. Do their approaches perfectly align with the debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda in a case where one betroths a woman and conditions it upon not giving her the financial rights that a wife has in a marriage? Does it depend on whether the buyer agrees with or without knowing that he/she was overcharged?
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30896598
info_outline
Bava Metzia 50 - April 18, 10 Nissan
04/18/2024
Bava Metzia 50 - April 18, 10 Nissan
Today's daf is sponsored by Rikki and Alan Zibitt in loving memory of Frieda Carlin, Fraydl bat Meir z"l, on her 9th yahrzeit yesterday; and in honor of the birthday of their son, Elon Yitzhak. "Mom, we celebrate your gentleness, fierce love of family and strong moral code, which your grandson has inherited." Various proofs are brought to support Shmuel's opinion that the percentage for ona'ah, exploitation, can be determined based on the market price and also on the amount paid. Two are rejected and one is accepted. The Mishna discusses only the percentage at which there is exploitation. What happens if the amount is less than or more than? If it's less, we assume the parties agreed and they cannot get their money back. However, the Gemara questions whether they also have the same window of opportunity to claim they were overcharged and get the money back that they were overcharged. If they were overcharged more than 1/6, the deal can be canceled. But the Gemara also asks whether that is within the same time frame or is there no statute of limitations. They try to answer both questions from our Mishna, focusing on the fact that first the merchants in Lod were happy with Rabbi Tarfon's ruling and after they heard about his extension of the time limitation, they chose to accept the rabbis' position. However, they were ultimately unsuccessful in reaching an answer to either of the two questions.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30880213
info_outline
Bava Metzia 49 - April 17, 9 Nissan
04/17/2024
Bava Metzia 49 - April 17, 9 Nissan
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?
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30859418
info_outline
Bava Metzia 48 - April 16, 8 Nissan
04/16/2024
Bava Metzia 48 - April 16, 8 Nissan
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.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30842618
info_outline
Bava Metzia 47 - April 15, 7 Nissan
04/15/2024
Bava Metzia 47 - April 15, 7 Nissan
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.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30823148
info_outline
Bava Metzia 46 - April 14, 6 Nissan
04/14/2024
Bava Metzia 46 - April 14, 6 Nissan
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.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30812578
info_outline
Bava Metzia 45 - Shabbat April 13, 5 Nissan
04/12/2024
Bava Metzia 45 - Shabbat April 13, 5 Nissan
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?
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30793508
info_outline
Bava Metzia 44 - April 12, 4 Nissan
04/12/2024
Bava Metzia 44 - April 12, 4 Nissan
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.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30793433
info_outline
Bava Metzia 43 - April 11, 3 Nissan
04/11/2024
Bava Metzia 43 - April 11, 3 Nissan
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?
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30776538
info_outline
Bava Metzia 42 - April 10, 2 Nissan
04/10/2024
Bava Metzia 42 - April 10, 2 Nissan
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.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30760173
info_outline
Bava Metzia 41 - Rosh Chodesh Nissan - April 9, 1 Nissan
04/09/2024
Bava Metzia 41 - Rosh Chodesh Nissan - April 9, 1 Nissan
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.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30743723
info_outline
Bava Metzia 40 - April 8, 29 Adar 2
04/08/2024
Bava Metzia 40 - April 8, 29 Adar 2
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.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30725278
info_outline
Bava Metzia 39 - April 7, 28 Adar 2
04/07/2024
Bava Metzia 39 - April 7, 28 Adar 2
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.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30713683
info_outline
Bava Metzia 38 - Shabbat April 6, 27 Adar 2
04/05/2024
Bava Metzia 38 - Shabbat April 6, 27 Adar 2
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?
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30647848
info_outline
Bava Metzia 37 - April 5, 26 Adar 2
04/05/2024
Bava Metzia 37 - April 5, 26 Adar 2
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.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30639543
info_outline
Bava Metzia 36 - April 4, 25 Adar 2
04/04/2024
Bava Metzia 36 - April 4, 25 Adar 2
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).
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30639373
info_outline
Bava Metzia 35 - April 3, 24 Adar 2
04/03/2024
Bava Metzia 35 - April 3, 24 Adar 2
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?
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30657093
info_outline
Bava Metzia 34 - April 2, 23 Adar 2
04/02/2024
Bava Metzia 34 - April 2, 23 Adar 2
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.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30637538
info_outline
Bava Metzia 33 - April 1, 22 Adar 2
04/01/2024
Bava Metzia 33 - April 1, 22 Adar 2
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?
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30619328
info_outline
Bava Metzia 32 - March 31, 21 Adar 2
03/31/2024
Bava Metzia 32 - March 31, 21 Adar 2
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.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30609398
info_outline
Bava Metzia 31 - Shabbat March 30, 20 Adar 2
03/29/2024
Bava Metzia 31 - Shabbat March 30, 20 Adar 2
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?
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30358538
info_outline
Bava Metzia 30 - March 29, 19 Adar 2
03/29/2024
Bava Metzia 30 - March 29, 19 Adar 2
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?
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/30591918