 Study Guide Nazir 18 In the fourth attempt to answer Rabbi Ashi's question, we find a source explicitly stating that one who vowed to be a nazir while impure does not shave one's hair on the seventh day of purification. Rav Chisda attributes a braita we saw on a previous page a Mishna in Keritut 20b - one to Rebbi and one to Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda - regarding their debate about when a nazir who becomes impure begins their count of nezirut again - on the seventh day of purification or the eighth. What is the basis for their debate? From Rav Chisda's explanation of the Mishna in Keritut, is it possible to understand what he holds about whether the obligation of the sacrifice begins on the night of the eighth or in the morning?  A braita is quoted where two more opinions appear in connection with the dispute we saw between Rebbi and Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda - from when do you start counting the days? Is it after the sin offering was brought or after the sin and the guilt offering? What is the basis for each opinion and how does each one deal with the verses that the other uses to prove his position?  

Nazir 18 - February 10, 19 Shevat

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

 Study Guide Bava Metzia 50 Today's daf is sponsored by Rikki and Alan Zibitt in loving memory of Frieda Carlin, Fraydl bat Meir z"l, on her 9th yahrzeit yesterday; and in honor of the birthday of their son, Elon Yitzhak. "Mom, we celebrate your gentleness, fierce love of family and strong moral code, which your grandson has inherited." Various proofs are brought to support Shmuel's opinion that the percentage for ona'ah, exploitation, can be determined based on the market price and also on the amount paid. Two are rejected and one is accepted. The Mishna discusses only the percentage at which there is exploitation. What happens if the amount is less than or more than? If it's less, we assume the parties agreed and they cannot get their money back. However, the Gemara questions whether they also have the same window of opportunity to claim they were overcharged and get the money back that they were overcharged. If they were overcharged more than 1/6, the deal can be canceled. But the Gemara also asks whether that is within the same time frame or is there no statute of limitations. They try to answer both questions from our Mishna, focusing on the fact that first the merchants in Lod were happy with Rabbi Tarfon's ruling and after they heard about his extension of the time limitation, they chose to accept the rabbis' position. However, they were ultimately unsuccessful in reaching an answer to either of the two questions.    

Bava Metzia 50 - April 18, 10 Nissan

  Rav and Rabbi Yochanan hold differing views on the implications of a down payment in a transaction. Must both parties fulfill the entire agreement, risking a curse upon breach, or does the down payment bind them only to the part already transacted? The Gemara suggests that a similar debate arises in a tannaitic discussion regarding loan cancellation during the shmita year, when an object taken as collateral doesn't cover the loan's full value. However, in conclusion, the debate is explained differently - does the collateral act as payment or merely a reminder of the debt? Further questions emerge: Can one party unilaterally dissolve a verbal agreement? Rav and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about whether or not this action constitutes dishonesty. Two difficulties are raised against Rav from tannaitic sources and one against Rabbi Yochanan from a different statement he made. Most, if not all the difficulties are resolved. The Mishna delves into laws of ona'ah, addressing overcharging or underpaying. What percentage triggers ona'ah, and within what timeframe can a buyer claim fraud? Rav and Shmuel offer different opinions on whether this percentage is based on market value only, or also on the item's purchase price. Moreover, what recourse exists for a buyer/seller over/undercharged beyond or below the ona'ah threshold?

Bava Metzia 49 - April 17, 9 Nissan

Today's daf is sponsored by the Sosland family in loving memory of Rabbi Henry Sosland, z"l. "Dad, we strive every day to live by your values, especially your devotion to family, to learning, and to am Yisrael. Am Yisrael Chai!" Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in honor of her beloved daughter Beki on her birthday. "With love, gratitude, and appreciation for your very existence! May your journey in the world of daf yomi continue to give you knowledge, strength, and the satisfaction of being part of an incredible Jewish learning endeavor!"  Rava tries to prove Reish Lakish's position, that money cannot effect a transaction by Torah law, by verses in the Torah (Vayikra 5:21, 23) and from a braita. In Vayikra 5:21, the verse mentions tsumet yad, which is understood as a borrower who has committed to giving a particular object to the lender as payment for a loan, and then later denies it. Even though this is forbidden, this situation does not reappear among the other situations in verse 23 where the Torah requires one to return the object. Rava proves Reish Lakish's position from here as the borrower only received money and the creditor did not pull the object and therefore the object was not considered owned yet by the creditor. Rav Papa raises a difficulty but Rava resolves it. The braita brought to prove Reish Lakish's position discusses laws of me'ila, misuse of consecrated property. If one pays with consecrated property (unintentionally) for another's services, like an attendant in the bathhouse,  the payment effects the transaction and one cannot change their mind. But Rav infers from the braita that if the service charge includes also payment for objects that the service provider uses, then the payment does not effect the transaction the buyer pulls the object, proving Reish Lakish's position. A difficulty is raised against this proof but they resolve it. When the Mishna states that the rabbis said about one who paid money for an item and then canceled the transaction that God will punish them, is this a curse or is it meant that the rabbis inform the person that God may punish him/her? Rava and Abaye disagree about this. Rava brings proof for his position (curse) from a story about Rabbi Chiya bar Yosef who was given a deposit/down payment for purchasing salt and when the price went up, he wanted to cancel the transaction. However, this proof is rejected as only a deposit was given and the issue was: it is considered that by giving the deposit, he had committed to the entire transaction or just for the part that his deposit covered? This issue is a debate between Rav and Rabbi Yochanan. An attempt to question Rav's opinion is brought. However, the case dealt with land and the Gemara explained that since land can be acquired through money, the deposit is sufficient to require both sides to follow through with the entire transaction. The same would not apply to moveable items as they cannot be acquired through money. Therefore one must only keep a commitment for the part already paid for.

Bava Metzia 48 - April 16, 8 Nissan

Today’s daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in loving memory of her husband's friend and chavruta, Avraham ben Shlomo Baime on his 7th yahrzeit. " A true eved Hashem who founded the Elazar English Kollel which delves into the intricacies of the Talmud. I have the z'chut to be learning with his gemarot which inspire me to reach greater heights through the guidance of our trailblazer R. Michelle who provides clarity and daily introspection to our learning." Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran zoom group for a refuah shleima of Yaakov Yitzchak ben Miriam Esther, the son of our dear friend Miriam. "Yitz should have a speedy and full recovery." Rav Huna ruled that one can acquire an item through chalipin if the buyer has a pile of coins and says to the seller, "Sell it to me for this pile of money." Since the seller did not care to count how much money was in the pile, the sale would be final as soon as the seller took the money. Would regular laws of onaah be effective here, if the buyer underpaid by a sixth? There are two different versions of what Rav Huna said regarding onaah in this case. If one sold an item through a chalipin transaction but made it clear that he/she wanted the chalipin item to be valued at the value of the item he/she was selling, would the chalipin item be considered like money and therefore there will be no acquisition by the chalipin item, but only when the sold item is pulled by the buyer, or not? Can one infer from Rav Huna's ruling that a coin can be used for effecting a chalipin transaction? Is it the buyer or the seller that gives the chalipin item? This is both a debate among amoraim and also tannaim. These opinions are derived from Rut 4:7 when Naomi's relative sells his rights to Boaz to redeem Naomi and Ruth's property. What is the basis for the debate between Rav Sheshet and Rav Nachman about what items can be used to effect a kinyan chalipin? What is an asimon that is mentioned in the Mishna? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish have a debate, as mentioned previously, does money effect a transaction by Torah law or not. From where in the Torah do they derive their opinions? Two parts of our Mishna are brought to raise a difficulty against Reish Lakish's position, but are resolved.   

Bava Metzia 47 - April 15, 7 Nissan

Today's daf is dedicated to the safety of Israel from the Iranian attack.  Today's daf is sponsored by Mitzi and David Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi's mother, Ruth Toll Lock, Rut bat Miriam and Avraham z"l on her 38th yahrzeit. "She was a loving wife, mother, and mother-in-law; a devoted Zionist and wonderful educator in Harrisburg, PA. All 4 of her children made Aliyah and her many grandchildren and great-grandchildren, as well as her great-great-grandchild, all live in Israel!" Rav Papa holds that a coin be acquired through a kinyan chalipin. A Minsha in Maaser Sheni 4:5 is raised as a difficulty on Rav Papa's position. Rav Papa eventually switches his position as is proven by Rav Papa's actions in a particular situation when he was trying to get back money from a loan. The Gemara returns to the previous discussion of whether or not a coin can be used to effect a kinyan chalipin (symbolic kinyan). Ulla, Rabbi Asi and Rabbi Yochanan ruled that money cannot be used. Rabbi Abba raises a difficulty from a braita against Ulla and Rabbi Abba himself suggests one possible resolution and Rav Ashi suggests another. Another source (Mishna in Kiddushin) is brought to raise a difficulty with Ulla, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yochanan's positions but is resolved. However, the resolution is only consistent with Rav Sheshet's position that chalipin can be effected with produce (and other moveable items that are not considered a kli), but not with Rav Nachman's position that chalipin cannot be effected with produce. How can the Mishna be explained according to Rav Nachman? The explanation given for Rav Nachman accords with Rabbi Yochanan's opinion in his debate with Reish Lakish about whether money effect a kinyan (acquisition) by Torah law. Both agree that practically money does not effect a transaction, however, Rabbi Yochanan holds that it is only because of a rabbinic decree, that does not apply in rare circumstances. Reish Lakish's explanation of a line in our Mishna is bought as a third source to raise a difficulty against the position that money cannot be used as chalipin. This difficulty is resolved as well. 

Nazir 18 - February 10, 19 Shevat

Download our free app to listen on your phone