Beyond the Daf - Hadran

On Second Thought: Delving Into the Sugya with Rabbanit Yafit Clymer Masechet

⁠Sources⁠

Bava Metzia 42

Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain

Din & Daf: Borrowing without Permission: Why is it Problematic?

source sheet

The Gemara in BM 41a and 43b claim that one who uses another person’s items without permission is a thief and she is liable for damages if someone happens to the item even after she finished using it! Why should this be so, especially where the “borrower” returned the item to where she found it before anything happened to it? Is this categorization always relevant? In this shiur, we will examine the logic behind this categorization of thief, especially what it suggests about personal ownership in halakhah.

Gefet: Gemara, Perushim and Tosfot

An in-depth (Iyun) Gemara shiur with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni and Shalhevet Schwartz

A shomer sachar (paid guardian) digs a hole deep in the ground to bury the money that he is safekeeping -- and then the money is stolen. Is he liable? What do you think? Explore a heated debate among the Rishonim that emerges from Tosafot on our Daf.

Bava Metzia 42

Gefet with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni and Shalhevet Schwartz is in collaboration with Yeshivat Drisha

Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain

Negligence, followed by unavoidable interference: Who’s at fault?

Dr. Elana Stein Hain – [email protected]

source sheet

Bava Metzia 36a-b discusses the concept of תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס, damage that resulted from a process that began with negligence but most immediately was caused by unavoidable interference. Should the person who was negligent originally be liable for compensation, does the unavoidability of the immediate cause of the damage change the equation of guilt? This is a great test case for considerations of responsibility!

Gefet: Gemara, Perushim and Tosfot

An in-depth (Iyun) Gemara shiur with Shalhevet Schwartz

This week, we will address the question of when a litigant can take back voluntary commitments that he took upon himself in beit din. In general, beit din is a place where judges act coercively, but sometimes a litigant is willing to take on commitments beyond those of the black letter law -- in such cases, do those litigants have the option to back out?

Sources

Bava Metzia 34

On Second Thought: Delving Into the Sugya with Rabbanit Yafit Clymer Masechet

Sources

Bava Metzia 33-34

Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain

Bava Metsia 30b

source sheet

The Gemara introduces the concept of lifnim mi-shurat ha-din, often described as going above and beyond the letter of the law. But what does this category actually mean? Does this mean that a person can choose whether or not to do it? If so, what are the ramifications of that? And if it can be forced, who can and enforce it, and how is it still considered going beyond the letter of the law?

On Second Thought: Delving Into the Sugya with Rabbanit Yafit Clymer

⁠⁠⁠Source Sheet⁠⁠⁠

Bava Metzia 23

Gefet: Gemara, Perushim and Tosfot

An in-depth (Iyun) Gemara shiur with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

If I find a coat out on the sidewalk and try to return it to its rightful owner, do I have to keep it in my home until Eliyahu comes, even if it’s clear that its owner has given up on it? According to the Ramban in our sugya, the answer to that question is “yes.” Why would the Ramban think so? And why would our sugya refer to a good man, someone who is trying to return lost objects, as though he picked up the object illegally? What does Tosafot think? What do we conclude l’halakhah? This week, we will answer all of these questions except for the final one. Next week, bli neder, we will also discuss the halakhah. Join us to familiarize yourself with a fascinating classic discussion and debate among the Rishonim on our Daf.

Learn more on hadran.org.il

Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain

Acting in Someone Else’s Interest without their Knowledge - זכין לאדם שלא בפניו

Source sheet

We have seen a few mentions of the principle that one may effectuate binding transactions on someone else’s behalf without the latter’s knowledge. How does this work? What does this tell us about human interest and about human connection from a legal point of view?