Today's daf is sponsored by Caroline Ben-Ari in honour of her father, Ivor Rhodes, ישראל בן מאיר ושרה, on his 14th yahrzeit. "Dad was a quiet, undemonstrative man who had a deep love for his family, strong values, and unimpeachable integrity. He also had a wicked sense of humour and was the King of the Puns. All Dad jokes and bad puns sent to me today will be greatly appreciated." Rav Nachman believed that forgiveness (mechila) by mistake in a sale is considered forgiveness. Rava challenged him from the law of ona'ah (overcharging), but Rav Nachman responded to him from the law of aylonit. But in truth, ona'ah cannot serve as a difficulty and aylonit cannot serve as an answer because these two cases are not similar to the case Rav Nachman was dealing with regarding forgiveness. When a lender takes land as collateral, if the lender consumed its fruits as interest, is the lender obligated to return the fruits? Is there a way to consume the fruits and it will not be considered interest? The Gemara distinguishes between places where it is customary that the borrower can remove the lender from the land at any point (if the money is returned) and places where the borrower cannot remove the lender until the time stipulated in the loan. https://youtu.be/aJWVVdLnvuk

Bava Metzia 67 - May 5, 27 Nissan

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.

Religion & Spirituality

Other

Spirituality

Christianity

Buddhism

Hinduism

Judaism

Islam

This week's learning is sponsored by Helen Danczak in loving memory of Lucille Fliegler on her yahrzeit. "Thinking about her warmth and her love of family. We honor her memory with our learning." This week's learning is sponsored by Rachel Savin in honor of the upcoming marriage of her daughter Lior to Daniel this Thursday. The various halakhot about a borrower (sho'el) that are not explicitly mentioned in the Torah are derived from rabbinic interpretations and extrapolations from the biblical text. First, the borrower's responsibility for items that are captured. While the Torah explicitly states that a borrower is responsible if an item is damaged or dies (Shmot 22:13-14), the rabbis extend this responsibility to cases where the item is captured from the extra word "or". Second, the borrower is responsible for theft and loss. Although the Torah mentions a borrower being liable for damages and death, the rabbis also include theft and loss under the borrower's responsibility. This inclusion is based on a kal v'chomer argument from a paid bailee who is liable for theft or loss, as a borrower takes on a higher level of responsibility since they benefit from using the item without paying for it. Third, the exemption of she'ela b'baalim (borrowing while the owner is working for the borrower) also applies to theft and loss. The rabbis derive this from a paid bailee, but need to also explain the source for this law for a paid bailee and what method of derivation is used to extend the exemption from a paid bailee to a borrower. Regarding shmira b'baalim, there is a debate about whether the exemption applies if the shomer (bailee) was negligent and the owner was working for the shomer. Two difficulties are raised against the position that one is exempt. However, both difficulties are resolved. Rav Hamnuna holds a narrow view of this exemption, limiting it to cases where the owner was working with the borrowed item at the time of its break or death and was with the borrower from the time of borrowing until the time of its death. However, the Gemara discusses and ultimately rejects Rav Hamnuna's limitations, suggesting that the exemption can apply in broader circumstances.

Bava Metzia 95 - June 2, 25 Iyar

Today's daf is sponsored by Ruth Leah Kahan, Jessica Shklar, and Emily Michelson in loving memory of their mother, Kadimah Michelson, Kadimah bat haRav Avraham Tzvi Bentzion v'Chaya, on her 6th yahrzeit. "May her memory be a blessing." What is considered circumstances beyond one's control that a shomer would be exempt from? One animal attacking or two animals?  Does it depend on what type of animal? One can stipulate that one will be a shomer but will not be obligated to pay according to the Torah laws. How is this different from a condition that goes against Torah law that is not a valid condition? Other laws of conditions are discussed.  The Mishna discusses in which circumstances one is exempt as a borrower because the owner was "with the shomer" - she'eila b'baalim.  The Gemara then discusses the derivation of the laws of shomrim from the verses in the Torah.  

Bava Metzia 94 - Shabbat June 1, 24 Iyar

 Study Guide Bava Metzia 93  Today's daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in honor of a double family simcha. "My cousin became a kalla and her brother and sister-in-law, Rabbi Zvi and Laurie Engel are celebrating the bat mitzvah of Aderet Bina in Chicago. During these trying days, we are grateful for the loving kindness bestowed on us all. May we continue to learn and grow together and see soon geula shleima. Mazel tov!"  The Gemara concludes that it is a tannaitic debate whether the worker's rights to eat on the job are considered an added wage or a gift awarded by the Torah. Is one who guards a field considered "working" to the extent that the guard can eat from the field or not? The Torah did not permit it but the rabbis did. Rav and Shmuel disagree about which type of field (at what stage of development) is the case in which the Torah did not permit but the rabbis did. What is at the root of their debate? Two difficulties are raised against Shmuel's position. The Mishna discusses the four types of shomrim and what is the level of responsibility of each of them. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree about the level of responsibility of a renter - is it the same as one who guards an item for free or one who gets paid? There is a disagreement about who holds which position. One who gets paid for guarding is responsible for circumstances beyond their control. Rabba and Abaye disagree about what is the level of "out of one's control" necessary to be exempt. Is one expected to go beyond what is expected of a regular person since the shomer is getting paid (Abaye) or not (Rabba)? Other rabbis sided with Abaye and ruled accordingly. The Mishna delineates what cases are considered beyond one's control and what are not.

Bava Metzia 93 - May 31, 23 Iyar

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the birth of a granddaughter to our friend and co-learner Tzippy Wolkenfeld, born to her children Hannah and Jacob Finkel. "May the new princess grow l'Torah, l'chuupa ul'maasim tovim and may the joy of her arrival be a harbinger of smachot for all." Is a worker limited to being able to eat only up to the value of the worker's wages? Tana kama and the rabbis permit this, but Rabbi Elazar Chasama does not. The Gemara offers three possible suggestions to explain the disagreement between tana kama and the rabbis. Is the food that one is allowed to eat while working viewed as an addition to a worker's wages - meaning it belongs to the worker and can be transferred to others, as in a salary - or a separate right granted by the Torah (a gift from God) which would be permitted only to the worker and cannot be passed on to others? Nine sources are quoted, each in an attempt to get to an answer to this question, but all are inconclusive.

Bava Metzia 92 - May 30, 22 Iyar

If someone rents an animal and muzzles it while it is threshing, they must receive lashes as punishment and also compensate the owner for the food the animal should have eaten while working. The Gemara questions how this can be allowed since it appears to be a double punishment, and the court cannot give one a double punishment for one action. Abaye, Rava and Rav Papa each suggest a possible answer. Rav Papa rules on two unrelated issues - one prohibiting baking bread that is dairy or meat, and another prohibiting putting a male and female animal of different species in the same pen to prevent mating between different species, even though this latter ruling is not explicitly prohibited by the letter of the law. Rav Achdevoi bar Ami raises a difficulty against Rav Papa's second ruling, but this difficulty is resolved. He also brings the same source to question a ruling of Rav Yehuda on animal mating, but it is also resolved. The Mishna discusses the laws regarding a worker eating while on the job, including whether the obligation to allow them to eat is only if they are engaged in work with both hands and legs like an ox who can't be muzzled and works with all fours. If one works with one type of produce, one cannot eat a different type of produce in the field. Even though workers are only permitted by Torah law to eat while actively working, the rabbis permitted them to eat while walking between rows to prevent financial loss for the employer. The Gemara raises a question about whether a worker can eat from the same type of produce in a different area and attempts to answer this from three different rulings in the Mishna, but rejects each suggestion.

Bava Metzia 67 - May 5, 27 Nissan

Download our free app to listen on your phone