 Study Guide Bava Kamma 107 Rabbi Chiya bar Abba's third statement in the name of Rabbi Yochanan is that one in not liable to payment for claiming an item one is watching is stolen unless there is a partial confession and partial denial (modeh b'miktzat). This is a subject of debate between him and Rabbi Chiya bar Yosef who holds that modeh b'miktzat is not relevant in this type of case - only in a loan. What is the logic behind his distinction? There is a three-way argument regarding the relationship between shlichut yad (where the shomer used the item he was watching) and the case where the shomer claims the item was stolen. If the shomer used the item and then claimed it was stolen, is he/she obligated in the double payment or do we say that first he/she was obligated for shlichut yad in which case he/she acquires the object and is now responsible even for accidental damage or do we say that the obligation for claiming it was stolen is only in a case where there is shlichut yad? Or possibly both are options. 

Bava Kamma 107 - Shabbat February 17, 8 Adar 1

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

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of our fellow daf Sister, Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld on the marriage of her granddaughter Esti to Baruch. "Having four generations at the wedding is a tremendous zechut. May Gitta together with David have continued nachat from Esti and all of their children and grandchildren." The story of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, leads to discussions about his obesity, alongside those of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosi. Rabbi Yochanan, renowned for his beauty, used to sit by the mikveh, hoping that women who saw him would conceive and bear children as beautiful and learned as he was. One day, while bathing in the Jordan River, Reish Lakish, a bandit, mistook Rabbi Yochanan's reflection for that of a woman and leaped in after him. Rabbi Yochanan, recognizing potential, encouraged Reish Lakish to channel his strength into Torah, becoming his esteemed student-colleague. Yet, a rift formed when in the context of a halakhic debate, Rabbi Yochanan's remarks about Reish Lakish's past led to a fatal argument, resulting in Reish Lakish's demise, and ultimately, Rabbi Yochanan's own death due to the loss of his closest companion. The Gemara then revisits Rabbi Elazar's story, haunted by his past deeds, he beseeches God for suffering as penance. The narrative follows his remaining years, culminating in his passing, where he requests to be left in an attic, anticipating reluctance from fellow rabbis to bury him. Eventually, approximately two decades later, he is interred in a cave adjacent to his father's resting place. Rabbi Yehuda haNasi proposes to Rabbi Elazar's wife, who rejects the offer as he cannot compare to Rabbi Elazar in greatness. 

Bava Metzia 84 - May 22, 14 Iyar

Today's daf is sponsored by Max Shapiro in honor of his mother Judy Shapiro. "Your daf yomi learning motivates me to continue doing so daily!" Another issue of Rabbi Elazar on Rabbi Meir's opinion is elucidated through the viewpoint of Isi ben Yehuda, who asserts that in cases with witnesses, one cannot simply take an oath to absolve oneself; instead, witnesses must be brought forward. Rabbi Chiya bar Abba quoting Rabbi Yochanan provides a second explanation for the seeming discrepancy between Rabbi Meir's stance in our Mishna and in the sugya in Bava Kamma regarding the liability of one who trips. According to him, the oath mentioned in our Mishna, which exempts one from damages, is a rabbinic provision aimed at ensuring that individuals won't refrain from moving barrels for others due to fear of potential compensation obligations in case of breakage. Several anecdotes illustrate instances where Rava aligned with Isi ben Yehuda's requirement for witnesses to establish innocence. Additionally, a narrative recounts the expectations placed on Torah scholars (or perhaps others as well) to uphold standards beyond mere legal requirements (lifnim meshurat hadin). The seventh chapter delves into labor relations, exploring questions such as the typical duration of a workday, an employer's authority to mandate longer hours, and the obligation of the employer to provide food. It also addresses whether travel time is considered part of the standard workday. Within this discourse, a verse from Tehillim is invoked, drawing parallels between the eventual retribution for evildoers and the reward awaiting the righteous in the afterlife. An anecdote featuring Rabbi Elazar, the son of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, illustrates his methods for identifying and punishing sinners. Despite facing criticism for his actions from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha, he remains resolute.

Bava Metzia 83 - May 21, 13 Iyar

The Mishna rules that one who loans with collateral has the level of responsibility for the collateral akin to a paid worker. It seems that the Mishna does not follow the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that if the collateral is lost, the lender can take an oath and be exempt, like a shomer chinam. The Gemara then attempts in two different ways to reconcile the Mishna's ruling even according to Rabbi Eliezer. However, this is rejected because Rabbi Akiva disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer, and since most unattributed Mishnayot accord with Rabbi Akiva's opinion, the Gemara prefers to reconcile the Mishna according to Rabbi Akiva. There are four different explanations suggested to explain the situation in which Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva disagree and the basis of their disagreement. The halakha follows Abba Shaul, as quoted in the Mishna, that one can rent out a collateral of a poor person and deduct the rent amount from the loan. If one is moving a barrel of another and it breaks, there is a debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda about whether the halakha distinguishes between one who was paid for the job and one who was not. Rabbi Meir rules that both are exempt if it was not intentional. However, this contradicts Rabbi Meir's opinion in Bava Kamma that one who trips is considered negligent. Rabbi Elazar explained that there are two different opinions about what Rabbi Meir held. Rabbi Yehuda considers one who broke the barrel as similar to an item getting lost or stolen and therefore distinguishes between one who was paid and one who did it for free. Rabbi Elazar claims the ruling is like Rabbi Meir, but he does not understand how each can swear and exempt themselves.

Bava Metzia 82 - May 20, 12 Iyar

    The Mishna rules that once a contracted worker says to the owner, "Pick up the item and then pay me," the worker transitions from being responsible for the item as a paid guardian (shomer sachar) to being responsible as an unpaid guardian (shomer chinam). This situation is compared to another Mishna which states that a borrower is responsible for oness (unforeseeable) damages until the item is returned. Rav Chisda qualifies this by stating that the borrower is only liable for unforeseeable damages if the item is returned within the borrowing period; if the period has ended and the borrower is no longer using the item, the borrower is no longer responsible for unforeseeable damages. The Gemara presents three different versions of how these sources are compared. Ameimar rules that while the borrower may no longer be responsible for unforeseeable damages after the borrowing period, they are still considered a shomer sachar and are thus responsible for loss or theft. A braita is brought to support this ruling. The concept of shmira b'baalim, where one is exempt from liability for an item belonging to their employer, is brought up to question the Mishna which ruled that if one says "Watch my item and I will watch yours," both parties are considered a shomer sachar. To resolve this, it is explained that the case in the Mishna involves each person watching the other's item on different days. Two cases are brought where guardians were held responsible despite seemingly being cases of shmira b'baalim. These cases are clarified to not be instances of shmira b'baalim. Additionally, there is a discussion about the interpretation when someone says, "put it down" in response to a request to watch an item: does it mean "put it down and I will watch it" or "put it down and take care of it yourself"? This is compared to a Mishna in Bava Kamma 47 to suggest that this issue is the subject of a tannaitic debate, but the comparison is ultimately rejected.     

Bava Metzia 81 - May 19, 11 Iyar

The Mishna continues to deal with cases where one rented an item under certain conditions and then used the item differently, resulting in damage. If the damage occurred because of the change in use, the renter is responsible. For example, what happens if the renter loaded more weight on an animal than standard, or if the renter used a different item that is lighter but results in a greater volume, such as barley instead of wheat? Abaye and Rava disagree on the details of the ruling in the latter case. The Mishna discusses various laws related to the responsibility of a worker regarding an item the worker is fixing or working on, or received as collateral, as well as other laws concerning shomrim. The implications of these discussions help clarify the extent of liability and responsibility in cases of damage under differing conditions and the specific usage of rented or borrowed items. The Gemara attempts to see if the first part of the Mishna can be attributed to Rabbi Meir, as at first glance it seems not the case.

Bava Kamma 107 - Shabbat February 17, 8 Adar 1

Download our free app to listen on your phone