Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Rav Nachman was not concerned that overturning a court ruling based on new testimony would cause a lack of respect for the courts in the future. He relied on the ruling of Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who disagreed with other tannaim in a case involving a kohen about whom there was concern that he was the son of a kohen and a divorcee. As the details of this debate are clarified, Rav Ashi concludes that both hold that the court can overturn a ruling and they disagree about a different issue: can two individual witnesses testify separately? From here, the conclude that Rav Nachman was relying on two great scholar, Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

In another case of contested property, one brought a document, and the other accused him of presenting a false document. Then, the one who brought the document admitted it was a forgery but claimed there was a real document but he lost it. Rava held that his claim was valid under the principle of "ma li leshaker" since he could have lied and maintained it was a valid document. But Rav Yosef disagreed as the document was a complete forgery. Which opinion do we pasken like? Rav Idi distinguished in his ruling between land and money. 

The Gemara brings several cases that came before the courts regarding property ownership claims. In the first case, Rava ruled that the possessor's claim is believed since if the possessor was lying, he could have made a better claim (ma li l'shaker). But Abaye said this wasn't accepted as witnesses testified against the claim and a ma li l'shaker isn't accepted in this situation. After that, the possessor modified his claim. Can one modify one's claim? Ulla and the rabbis of Nehardea disagreed regarding this issue. In which cases did each side acquiesce to the other?

Rava and Rav Nachman disagreed in a case where part of the testimony was contradicted by other testimony but the other part wasn't. Is the entire claim canceled, or is the part that wasn't contradicted still valid? In that same case, new evidence was brought that contradicted the court’s ruling. Should the court reverse its decision and take the land away, or should the court stick with its original decision to prevent people from losing respect for the courts?

Today's daf is sponsored by Rina Bar David in loving memory of Daniel Natan ben Yocheved and Binyamin.

A debate between Rav Nachman and Rava is brought to contradict their ruling in the previous case. However, distinctions are made between the two cases and they conclude that there are no inconsistencies in their positions. Rava rules that if the original owner did not protest within three years of possession because they were out of town, and even when they were in town, they were busy with their business, their claim is accepted and there is no presumption of ownership for the possessor. Four cases are brought where the possessor claims presumption of ownership as they purchased the land and then lived there for three years. In each case, the original owner claims the seller had stolen the land and wasn't the rightful owner. Each case varies slightly from the previous one. Rava ruled in each of these cases, usually siding with the one who claimed it was stolen property. 

Today's daf is sponsored by Masha and Yisroel Rotman in loving memory of Masha's father, Solomon Maltz, Shlomo Emanuel ben Yaakov Yitzchok, on his 20th yahrzeit. “It was very important to Ta that his daughters receive a good Jewish education, and he respected Torah learning immensely. He would have been proud that I am learning the Daf Yomi.”

Rava gives a third interpretation of why one can claim ownership over land one has been benefiting from for three years. After a few comments by Abaye, Rava modifies his answer, concluding that after three years, people are not careful to keep their documents. Therefore, if the owner did not protest within three years, the possessor can prove ownership. Rav Huna explains that the three years need to be consecutive. Difficulties are raised against Rav Huna, as well as qualifying statements. Two rabbis purchased a female slave together and she worked for each one on alternative years. When the original owner raised doubts regarding their ownership, Rava ruled that they did not create a chazaka as she only worked for each on alternative years. If one benefited from the produce from a field for three years, but not from a certain small piece of the property (size of a beit rova, for planting a quarter of a kav of seeds, or more), they do not have ownership rights to the small area. Rav Huna son of Rabbi Yehoshua limits this to a case where the land was suitable for planting, but Rav Bivi disagrees. There was a case where one tried to kick someone off the land, claiming he was the real owner. The possessor claimed he bought the land from the other and benefited from the produce for three years without the original owner protesting. The original owner explained that he had a legitimate reason why he had not protested and Rav Nachman ruled that the possessor had to prove that this was not the case. Rava disagreed based on the principle hamotzi m'chavero alav haraya, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.

Today's daf is sponsored by Mark Goldstein in honor of Rena Septee Goldstein's birthday! "Happy birthday to my wonderful wife and daf partner!"

After three years of uncontested use of land or property, a possessor's claim of purchase or gift is sufficient to prove ownership without documentation (chazaka). For non-irrigated fields, partial use in the first and last years suffices. A tannaitic debate discusses the required duration. Concerning fields with trees, Rabbi Yishmael is lenient and requires only three harvests of different fruits, even within one year.

The three-year rule's origins are debated. Rabbi Yochanan, citing Usha rabbis, derives it from shor muad (an ox established as dangerous after three gorings). However, the Gemara raises and resolves several objections to the shor muad comparison, though the final resolution aligns only with Rabbi Yishmael's position in the Mishna. Therefore Rav Yosef brings an explanation for the rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yishmael from Yirmiyahu 32:44, interpreting the prophet's advice to keep documents to prove ownership of land after the destruction, which was to happen in the upcoming year, implying that one would need documentation to prove ownership for possessing land that one had possessed for only two years, but not for three.  Abaye dismisses Rav Yosef's proof as Yirmiyahu's suggestion can be viewed as good advice, rather than law.

Ulla ruled that one does not bring bikurim from a fruit tree growing within sixteen cubits of a neighboring field as it is "stealing" nutrients from the neighbor's soil. From where does Ulla derive the number sixteen? Four sources are brought to contradict Ulla's amount of sixteen cubits, but all the sources are explained also according to Ulla. If sixteen cubits is the proper amount, why does the Mishna rule that a tree needs to be distanced twenty-five cubits from a pit? The issue there is not the same as Ulla is relating to sapping the soil of nutrients, while the issue with the pit is the roots destroying the pit's wall, which can happen even if the roots are not absorbing nutrients. Rabbi Yochanan's opinion on the issue has two versions - either agreeing or disagreeing with Ulla. When can a neighbor cut the trees leaning over into their property? What about trees jutting out into the public domain?

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in honor of her daughter Rina. "Rina got me started on my journey of Daf Yomi with Hadran. You are a magnificent person who does incredible chessed for Am Yisrael and serves as an example to all of us. With love and admiration for who you are."

People in the Bar Marion household were pounding flax, and the flax waste flew in the wind to the neighbor and caused damage. Is this considered damages (giri didei) for which Rabbi Yosi would obligate? Can we learn from the laws of Sabbath (winnowing with the wind's assistance)?

One needs to distance one's tree from another's property by four cubits to leave room for the neighbor to plow. If one's roots grow into a neighboring field, one can cut them to a certain depth, depending on why one is cutting them (what one needs the space for). Various cases are brought discussing these halakhot.  The Mishna says that when one is allowed to cut the roots of a neighbor's tree, the roots go to "him."  The Gemara tries to figure out whether the "him" refers to the owner of the tree or the owner of the neighboring field. Ravina and Ulla each understand that the first sixteen cubits of the roots are considered part of the tree, but beyond that, they are not. Based on that, Ulla rules that a tree within sixteen cubits of a neighboring field is considered to be stealing from the neighbor's field and one should therefore not bring bikurim from such a tree. The Gemara tries to bring tannaitic sources to prove how Ulla arrived at the number sixteen.

As part of a discussion about the Mishna which described in which direction of the city may/may not one set up a tannery due to the bad smell and the direction that the winds travel, the Gemara discusses the strengths of each of the winds (winds from each of the four directions). A braita attempts to explain why we only see the sun during the day and also why summer days and winter days have different amounts of sunlight/daytime hours. One must distance a tree from a neighbor's pit as the roots will damage the pit. Details of this law are discussed.

Today's daf is sponsored by Mindy Sollisch. "Thank you to Hadran for generously welcoming all to learn Talmud from a brilliant Talmudic scholar who has made daf yomi a highlight of each of my days."

Today's daf is sponsored by Daniel and Sara Berelowitz in honor of the marriage of their daughter, Estie Sterman to Jason Ast (nephew of Tina Lamm fellow dafferette). "A big Mazal Tov. Wishing Estie and Jason mazal and bracha ad 120!"

Today's daf is sponsored in memory of Dr. Ilana (Hefter) Feuerstein who passed away this week. 

Abaye brings proof for Rabbi Chanina's statement that the law goes by the majority over proximity from a Mishna in Nidda about blood found in the cervical canal which is rendered impure, as the majority of blood comes from the uterus (impure blood), but there is a closer chamber whose blood is pure. Rava disagrees with Abaye's comparison because he says the majority of uterine blood is different from a regular majority because of the frequency. In the end, though, Rava changes his mind and agrees that this case would support Rabbi Chanina. A debate between Rav and Shmuel is brought in an attempt to prove that they deliberated about the same issue and one held like Rabbi Chanina and the other did not. However, this suggestion is rejected. Two rulings are brought regarding situations with a safek (doubt), suggesting that one ruling follows Rabbi Chanina's opinion and the other does not, but both comparisons are rejected. 

A tree must be distanced from the city a certain amount of space for aesthetic reasons. The law is different depending on whether the city was there when the tree was planted, if the city was not there when the tree was planted, or if it was unknown which came first. The Gemara compares the law here to the law in the case of a different mishna regarding a tree planted near a neighbor's pit and explains the differences between the cases.

A threshing floor must be distanced fifty cubits from a city and neighboring fields. The last line in the Mishna is unclear and two explanations are brought - whether it is a different distance or simply explains the reason for the law already stated in the Mishna.

Today's daf is sponsored by Gabrielle Altman in loving memory of Yechezkel Yitzhak Ben Shlomo Zev, Honorable Herbert Altman z”l on his Shloshim. "Beloved husband, father, grandfather and great grandfather, brilliant jurist, and wonderful Jew. He will be forever cherished, missed, and loved. Yehi Zichro Baruch."

Today's daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in honor of the marriage of her cousin Aviva Engel to Mickey Fankhauser, the Aliyah of her parents from Montreal to Modiin, and welcomes her brother Rabbi Zvi Engel from Chicago who will be the mesader kiddushin. "My heart is full of thanksgiving to Hashem for all his chasadim. והריקותי לכם ברכה והצלחה בלי די."

A story is told about Rav Yosef who has bloodletters that worked under his tree and attracted ravens that ruined his tree. He wanted to get rid of the bloodletters. Abaye questioned this as the damages were indirect, but Rav Yosef answered that even indirect damages are forbidden. Did the bloodletters have a legitimate claim that they had been doing this already for a while (chazaka) and Rav Yosef would not be able to kick them out? Can one create a chazaka for damages?

One needs to distance one's dovecote from a city and other fields a certain distance to prevent one's doves from eating seeds or grains of others. But if one purchased a field with a dovecote within a short distance from one's neighbor, one can assume that it was done within the law (the neighbor allowed it or was compensated financially). What is the distance needed? How does this correspond to the distance mentioned regarding setting up traps for trapping doves? The Mishna discusses laws relating to a chick found in a certain area - how does one determine to whom the chick belongs? Rabbi Chanina says that in determining uncertainties, if there is a majority factor and a proximity factor that lead each to different conclusions, one follows the majority. Difficulties are raised from three sources (including our Mishna) which indicate that proximity is the more determining factor. Each one is resolved. In the context of those difficulties, Rabbi Yirmia asked a question on account of which he was kicked out of the Beit Midrash!