Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Today's daf is dedicated by the Hadran Zoom family to Catriella in memory of her sister, Rebecca Miria Work z"l. "With a tefilla that through your learning and ours you will find comfort. With love, from Hadran Zoom family."

If brothers split their inheritance and a creditor of the father comes and seizes the land of one of them, can that brother demand half the land of the other brother? Three opinions are brought - Rav says the land is redivided, as when brothers divide land, they are viewed as heirs, meaning they share responsibility for their father's debts. Shmuel holds that the brother whose property was seized loses out and cannot demand anything from the other brother, as brothers who divide property are considered as if they bought their portion from the other without a guarantee. Rav Asi rules that the other brother must give a quarter of his portion to the other (as per Sumchus's position that money that is in doubt is divided by the two parties), but he can decide if to give it in land or in cash, meaning, he has the upper hand, as Rav Asi is not sure if brothers are considered like heirs or purchasers.

If three judges assess land at different amounts, by which judge do we hold? Tana Kamma holds that we follow the median position. Rabbi Eliezer b'Rabbi Tzadok follows the average between the lower two amounts. Others hold that one calculates the difference between the highest and lowest assessments, divides it by three and adds that amount to the lowest assessment. The Gemara explains the logic of each of these positions. Tana Kamma holds that we don't assume that all of the judges erred and therefore assume that the middle opinion is the correct one. The other two opinions hold that everyone erred but disagree about whether the highest assessment is taken into consideration when calculating the error. Both these positions give heavier weight to the lower two assessments.

If one sold half one's land to another, the seller can give the buyer lean land and keep the better land but the seller must give the buyer land that is valued at half the entire property.

Today's daf is sponsored by Heather Stone in loving memory of her mother, Ellie Stone, Esther Bina bat Rachel Leah v’Avraham haLevy on her 13th yahrzeit. "She was always a strong and fierce advocate for the Jewish community." 

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family for a refuah shleima to the grandson of our daf friend, Becki, Eitan Efraim ben Ayelet, who was wounded in Gaza on Monday and a tefilla for all soldiers. "מי שברך אבותינו...הוא יברך את חיילי צבא הגנה לישראל. שה' ישלח לו רפואה שלמה בגוף ובנפש בתוך שאר חולי ישראל"

If one sells land and says it is a specific size but also says "according to its markers and borders" and shows the buyer the land, if the difference between the size stated and the actual size is off by less than 1/6, the sale is valid. But if it is off by more than 1/6, the buyer/seller can demand/take back the difference. At the exact measurement of 1/6, what is the halakha? Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda disagree and a source is brought to question Rav Huna’s position. However, they resolve the difficulty.

A case was brought in which Abaye ruled against Rav Papa (the buyer) even though the difference was more than 1/6. Abaye explains that since it was clear Rav Pappa knew the property and knew it wasn't the size the seller mentioned, the seller could have meant that it was such a good property that it's as if it were larger (marketing technique).

Brothers who split inherited property acquire the property when the first brother picks his lot in a lottery. How can the lottery be a method of acquiring land without a kinyan? There is a debate between Rav and Shmuel about a case where two brothers divided property and later a third brother shows up and claims a third of the inheritance. Do they cancel the division and redivide all the property or do they each give the third brother part of their portion?

If a seller says "I am selling you land the size of a beit kor measured out with a rope, more or less" - is the second part of the statement indicating a change of mind, or was it meant to keep open both possibilities? Ben Nanas says we hold by the last words.

Rav points out that the rabbis disagree and hold that they split the difference since it is unclear what the seller intended. Why was it necessary for Rav to point this out when there is already a case in a Mishna regarding a rental agreement for "twelve months for twelve gold dinarim, one dinar per month" and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yosi ruled in a case of a leap year that the rent for the thirteenth month was to be split between the owner and the renter? The Gemara distinguishes between the two cases, explaining why it may not have been clear that the law would be the same in both cases.

Shmuel held that those who disagree and think that the language is unclear hold that the seller has the upper hand as the land is in the seller's possession (in a case of doubt, the burden of proof lies on the one trying to take something from the possession of another). When Shmuel pointed out that some disagreed with Ben Nanas, did he mean to say that he held like the others or not? The Gemara brings other similar cases to assess whether Shmuel held like/against Ben Nanas and after differentiating between the cases, concludes that Shmuel held like the rabbis.

Rav Huna explains that Rav rules like Ben Nanas in a different, but similar case. Why was it necessary for him to teach that ruling, if Rav's ruling was known from a different case?

Picture

Today is October 7. It’s hard to believe it has been a year since that tragic day. Sadly, we are still grappling with its aftermath. We continue to pray for the release of all the hostages, the safety of the soldiers on the front lines, the safe return of all those displaced from their homes, the full recovery of injured soldiers, and comfort for those mourning the loss of close family or friends. We also pray for the safety of those living under constant rocket attacks, and the list goes on… May this year bring peace and better days for Am Yisrael.

If a seller sells a field and does not specify anything further, do we allow for a margin of error? First, the Gemara tries to answer this question from our Mishna, but it is inconclusive. Then they derive from a braita that there is a margin of error, just like one who adds the words "more or less." The Mishna explains that if the amount given to the buyer is greater than the margin of error (1/4 of a kav per se'ah, 1/24), the seller can insist that the buyer pay for all the land greater than the amount agreed upon. The buyer cannot insist on giving back the land to the seller as a small piece of land is useless to the seller. This gives power to the seller over the buyer. However, according to a braita, the buyer can insist that the seller sell the land if it is more than the margin of error, giving the buyer power over the seller. To resolve this contradiction, the case of the braita is understood to be one in which the price fluctuated from the time of the sale and the time they realized there was a mistake in the size of the land given to the buyer. While the buyer cannot insist on buying it (as per the Mishna), if the seller chooses to sell it to the buyer, the buyer is forced to pay but can insist on paying the lower price, either the one at the time of the sale or the current price (as per the braita).

If the amount of land given to the buyer is nine kav more than agreed upon, the buyer can insist on returning the land to the seller, as nine kav of property is the minimum size of a field. Rav Huna and Rav Nachman disagree about whether this is an absolute amount (Rav Huna) and even if the field is larger than thirty se'ah, the buyer returns the amount to the seller (as there is no presumption of mechila for the amount of nine kav, even in a large field) or is it a relative amount (Rav Nachman) - nine kav for a field of 30 se'ah, as at that amount there is no presumption of mechila, but if it were in a larger field, there would be mechila by the seller on the error (as per 1/4 kav per se'ah). Rava raises difficulties with Rav Nachman's position, but they are resolved.

Rav Ashi asks: If a field was sold with a surplus of more than seven and a half, but less than nine kav, and when the surplus was measured, the field became potentially used as a garden, can the buyer return the surplus land to the seller? What about the reverse case? These questions remain unanswered.

If the seller owns the adjacent field to the one being sold, the buyer can return the land, even if the surplus is less than nine kav. What if there is a pit, water channel, road, or row of palm trees separating the surplus land from the seller's field?

This month's learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Shim, Zoe and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v'Binyamin Benzion for her shloshim. "She was an elegant, smart, hardworking, "outspoken" person, who survived the shoah alone, and came to Montreal and built a family and a business. She learned from her parents to be observant, honest, and a giver of tzedaka anonymously. She loved going to shul on the Yamim Noraim, especially when there was a good chazan! Ma, Savta, and Great- Savta - "Ateret Rosheinu" - we will try to emulate you and carry on your and Dad's legacy. With much love and admiration, we miss you." 

Today's daf is sponsored by Heather Stone in loving memory of her Grandma Rose, Rachel Leah bat Aharon v’Golda on her 39th yahrzeit. "She taught me to light Shabbat candles and I still use her grandmother’s candlesticks." 

Today's daf is sponsored by Jane Leiser in honor of Nicki's birthday "Happy birthday!!! I am so proud of you for doing this incredible learning!!! Love you very much, Mom."

If one sells a field of a particular size, if there are parts with cracks or rocks, they are included in the measurement of the field if they are less than ten handbreadths in depth/height. But if they are ten handbreadths in depth/height, they are not considered part of the field and more land must be given to the buyer to complete the measurement. A Mishna from Arakhin explains that if one consecrates a field from an ancestral field with cracks and rocks, they are included in the amount given to the Temple only if the cracks/rocks are less than ten handbreadths in depth/height. After asking why the cracks that are more than ten handbreadths deep aren't consecrated as an independent unit worthy of planting, the Gemara explains that the Mishna is referring only to cracks that are filled with water as they are not able to be used for planting. However, our Mishna can be referring to any kind of cracks, as cracks that are ten handbreadths deep are a hindrance for a buyer as they makes it difficult for the owner to plow.

The Mishna discussed the height of the rocks but not the area of space they take up. Rabbi Yitzchak explains that if they take up a space in which four kav of seeds can be planted, they are not part of the measurement of the field even if they are less than ten handbreaths in height. However, there is a debate about whether these rocks (of four kav in size) are spread in a part of the field where five kav can be planted or even if they are not spread in the majority of the field. A series of questions are asked about what the law would be if they are spread not in the majority, but most of the four kav are in the majority or they are in a circle, or a row, or a zigzag, etc. These questions remain unanswered. If they are on the border, they are also not included, even if they are not ten in height.

The Mishna delineates the margin of error in the measurement of a piece of land sold, which depends on the language used at the time of the sale. If the seller said "beit kor as measured by a rope, any extra amount given to the buyer needs to be returned to the seller. But if the seller said "give or take" the margin of error is a quarter kav per se'ah (1/24). The Gemara asks: What would be the law if the seller simply said, "a beit kor"?

A Mishna is brought from Ohalot and Nazir which seems to have measurements of burial caves that don't match either Tanna Kamma or Rabbi Shimon’s opinions in our Mishna. The Gemara tries to figure out how to connect the opinion in the Mishna with one of the two opinions.

If someone sells a field and specifies the size but some of the field is not worthy of planting, is that space included in the size of the field? On what does it depend?

If someone buys a burial cave or hires someone to build them a burial cave, what are the minimum measurements assumed and how many burial spots should there be? The rabbis and Rabbi Shimon each have different answers to these questions. Rabbi Shimon held that each cave holds thirteen spaces for bodies, of them one was to the right of the entranceway and one to the left. Where exactly were those two graves? Several explanations are suggested, and some of them are rejected. According to the last explanation, they overlapped with other graves but were placed deeper into the ground. A proof that bodies were buried below other graves is brought from Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that there were four caves around each courtyard, as that would clearly lead to overlapping graves. However, Rav Huna son of Rabbi Yehoshua attempts to reject this proof by suggesting the graves were set up on an angle like branches of a palm tree and did not overlap. But the Gemara rejects Rav Huna’s rejection as it could not work out mathematically. Rav Shisha brings an alternative explanation for the extra two graves by the entrance – they did not overlap at all with the others as they were made for stillborn babies and were therefore shorter. 

One is not allowed to block public access from a path in one’s property that has been used by the public. However, if the owner designated an alternate path, the owner cannot block the public from using that path either. Why is that the case? Are there different opinions regarding this issue?

The Mishna delineated the minimum size for an individual's path, public path, etc. The Gemara quotes some alternate opinions, some other cases not mentioned in the Mishna, and explanations for some of the sizes.

There is a custom to stand and sit at least seven times on the way back from a funeral. Details of this custom are discussed.

If someone buys a burial cave or hires someone to build a burial cave, what are the minimum measurements assumed and how many burial spots should there be?

Rabbi Levi explains that the cherubs (kruvim) miraculously did not take up space in the kodesh h’kodashim. This statement is supported by Shmuel’s resolution to the contraction in the verses. However, other rabbis provided alternate suggestions to explain how they fit in the room in a non-miraculous manner. Did the cherubs face one other or did they face the heichal?

When one has a pit in another's property and has an access route or an inner garden within an outer one, what are that person’s right to that path - when can they use it, for what can they use it? If one had a public path going through one’s property and took it back and provided a different public path on the side of the property, both paths remain public property. Why is the owner not allowed to block off access to the old road, isn’t one allowed to take the law into one’s own hand in a case of financial loss?! Three different rabbis each suggest a different interpretation. 

The Mishna rules that if one sells wine and it turns to vinegar, the seller is not responsible. However, there are certain circumstances where the buyer can make the seller responsible. Rabbi Yosi b’Rabbi Chanina limits the ruling of the Mishna to a case where the buyer put the wine in his/her jugs, as then the buyer can be blamed. Rav Chiya bar Yosef disagrees as he deems the wine’s owner responsible for the wine souring, as wine turning sour is understood to be a punishment for arrogance, as can be found in Chabakuk 2:5.

If one sells a small house for a young couple or widowed daughter, what is the minimum size? What about other types of houses? A cowshed? A banquet hall? There is a debate regarding the minimum height for a house and whether or not it should be derived from the height of the heichal, sanctuary. There are contradictory verses regarding the size of the kodesh h'kodashim in the Temple.