Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Michelle Cohen Farber


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.

Available on


1494 episodes

Bava Kamma 37 - Shabbat Chanuka - December 9, 26 Kislev

If an animal is (forewarned, as the animal already gored that type of animal three times) for damaging other animals of its type, does that make the animal for all types of animals? If the animal is for people, then is the animal also considered for animals? If it is for small animals, is it for large animals? There are two alternative readings of the Mishna, which lead to different answers to those questions. The two different readings are brought and analyzed. Other situations of determining patterns are brought and difficulties are raised. Comparisons are made to similar issues and rules used for determining whether a woman has a set pattern for her menstrual cycle. An animal that belongs to the temple is exempt from damages. But the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasia disagree regarding liability for a privately owned animal that gores a temple-owned animal - is the owner fully exempt or liable to pay full damages, even if the animal is .

Dec 08
Bava Kamma 36 - 1st Day of Chanuka - December 8, 25 Kislev

Study Guide Bava Kamma 36 THIS WEEK'S LEARNING IS SPONSORED BY ADINA AND DANNY GEWIRTZ IN HONOR OF THE NEWEST MEIR IN THEIR FAMILY, MEIR AMICHAI, AND IN LOVING MEMORY OF THE ORIGINAL MEIR, ADINA'S FATHER, MELVIN RISHE, ON HIS 22ND YAHRTZEIT. "DAD WAS A MAN OF MANY TALENTS, A GREAT , COMMUNITY LEADER, AND A STAUNCH DEFENDER OF ISRAEL IN BOTH HIS PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL LIFE, BUT FOR US, HE IS MOST REMEMBERED FOR THE LOVE HE SHOWERED ON HIS FAMILY AND FRIENDS. THE MANY CHILDREN NAMED AFTER HIM ATTEST TO HOW MUCH HE IS LOVED AND MISSED. HE WOULD BE SO PROUD TO HAVE THIS NEWEST MEMBER OF THE FAMILY NAMED AFTER HIM AND ALSO WITH THE HOPE THAT THE NAME MEIR AMICHAI EXPRESSES. AM YISRAEL CHAI!"  TODAY’S DAF IS SPONSORED BY ARTHUR GOULD IN AND CAROL ROBINSON IN IN LOVING MEMORY OF CAROL’S FATHER LOUIS ROBINSON, YEHUDA LEIB BEN MOSHE Z”L. “TODAY, THE FIRST DAY OF HANUKKAH, WE MARK HIS 24TH YAHRZEIT. LOUIS WAS A DEVOTED FAMILY MAN AND ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN HIS SYNAGOGUE. LOU WAS THE CONSUMMATE DAD; HE NEVER WENT TO BED UNTIL HIS DAUGHTERS CAME SAFELY HOME FROM DATES AND OUTINGS. FOR SURE HE IS WITH CAROL RIGHT NOW. WE LOVED HIM AND MISS HIM VERY MUCH."  When there is a doubt about which ox injured another, but both the oxen who potentially caused the injury are owned by the same owner, the Mishna rules that they are both liable. Is this a case of a short muad or a short tam? Why is the language "both are liable" used when it seems to mean the owner is responsible? The fourth chapter begins with a debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon about a who attacks 4 or 5 times in a row. Who gets paid what? What is the reasoning behind their opinions and how do they fit in with the broader approaches of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael regarding whether the owner of the damaged one has rights to the animal who caused the damage or is more like a creditor who is owed money? Can we derive from our Mishna whether or not when a Mishna refers to a , they mean the , higher valued currency (4 ) or the , lower valued currency, (half a ) one-eighth the value of the ?

Dec 08
Bava Kamma 35 - December 7, 24 Kislev

The Mishna brings cases comparing situations where an animal and a person may do the same damage but one would be obligated to pay damages and the other would not. If a person burns a field on Shabbat the person is exempt from payment of damages as when one does an action punishable by death, one is exempt from monetary payment. This Mishna raises a question against Rabbi Yochanan's view that one who burns as a destructive act has not desecrated Shabbat since one is only liable for creative acts performed on Shabbat. Two alternative readings of the Mishna are brought to answer this question. If an ox was chasing another ox and one ox was injured but there are different claims made by each of the owners about whether the damage was caused by the animal or by a rock, or if there were three animals and each owner claims the other's ox caused the damage, or the owner has two oxen, one large and one small or one and one , and each owner claims it was a different ox that caused the damage, the burden of proof lies with the one trying to claim the money from the other. Rabbi Chiya bar Abba holds that Sumchus would disagree in these cases and say that the money in question is split between the two sides. The Gemara tries to assess whether the case is where each is confident in their claim () or one is confident and the other is not ().

Dec 07
Bava Kamma 34 - December 6, 23 Kislev

TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY DEBORAH HOFFMAN-WADE IN LOVING MEMORY OF SIMCHA COLLINS ON HER FIRST YAHRZEIT. "BELOVED SCHOLAR, ROMANTIC, AND DEEP SEARCHER, HER LOVE OF TORAH WAS NOT EVEN CLOSELY SATISFIED BY OUR TWICE WEEKLY MEETING TO STUDY AND LEARN. MY HAVRUTA OF MANY YEARS, SIMCHA, HAD A DEEP NEED TO TURN TORAH, TO BE FIERCELY FEMINIST, AND HAVE A MULTILAYERED MYSTIC BELIEF IN HASHEM. I MISS YOU EVERY DAY." What rights does the owner of a or a have to sell their animal after it caused damage, designate it to the temple, slaughter it, or give it as a gift? Does it matter if it is before standing before the court? What if a creditor collected the animal as payment? Does it matter if the creditor had a lien on the animal before or after it caused the damage? Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree on how to explain the payment for damages in the classic case of described in the Torah - it says both owners split the value of the animal that caused damage and the value of the carcass of the dead animal. They disagree about whether the owner of the has rights also to the carcass of the animal the ox gored. There is a discussion regarding what is the practical difference between the two opinions since both agree that in a typical case, the bottom line payment is the same. In particular cases, it seems Rabbi Yehuda could potentially hold that the owner of the ox who damaged can gain on the deal or, on the other extreme, pay more than the damage the ox caused. Therefore, it is explained that Rabbi Yehuda would not interpret the verse to apply in those cases. The Mishna states that there are some cases where one is liable to pay for damages done by their ox, but not by a person as a person would be exempt on account of , if the action comes with a death penalty, there is no obligation to pay. Alternatively, there are cases where a person would be liable for damages that the owner of an ox would not be, as oxen who embarrass someone are not liable to pay for that.

Dec 06
Bava Kamma 33 - December 5, 22 Kislev

Study Guide Bava Kamma 33 TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY NINA BLACK IN HONOR OF JANE SHAPIRO'S BIRTHDAY. "TO MY FRIEND, , CHEVRUTA, AND ESSENTIAL PIECE OF MY LIFE, HAPPY BIRTHDAY. I AM SO LUCKY TO HAVE KNOWN YOU SINCE I WAS THREE, AND TO SHARE COMMUNITY, GRANDCHILDREN AND LIFE WITH YOU. HAPPY BIRTHDAY, עד 120 !" If one enters a workshop and gets injured by the person working there, is the workshop owner obligated in the four payments for damages, and if there is an accidental death, does the owner need to go to a refuge city? Does it depend on whether the injured/dead person entered with permission or not? Is this the case where Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chanina made his statement that one is obligated in four payments of damages but exempt from going to a refuge city? Or did he say it about a case where one threw a rock in a public domain and after it was thrown, someone stuck their head out a window and was injured/killed by the rock? If one went to one's employer's house to get paid and was attacked by an animal of the employer, is the employer obligated or not? On what does it depend? How do we calculate damages in a case where two animals attacked each other, or two people attacked each other, or a person and an animal? If a attacks, since the owner needs to pay up to the value of his/her animal, does that mean that the ox is designated payment for the loan or not? There is an argument about this between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael and the ramifications of this argument are discussed and various sources are brought to try to see whose opinion they fit in with.

Dec 05
Bava Kamma 32 - December 4, 21 Kislev

Study Guide Bava Kamma 32 The Mishna brings a case of two people who are walking in the street - one with a beam and the other with a jug, if the beam breaks the jug, is the one walking with the beam responsible? On what does it depend? Raba bar Natan asks Rav Huna a question about a husband who injures his wife while having intercourse - does he need to compensate her or not? Rav Huna answers that we can learn from our Mishna that if he is permitted to be there, he does not need to pay for damages. Rava disagrees because he compares it to one who killed someone accidentally and is obligated to go to a refuge city even though the murderer had permission to be there. In addition, the Mishna referred to a case where the damage happened without any action taken on behalf of the one carrying the beam. Reish Lakish distinguishes between a case where two cows were on the road - one walking (typical behavior) and the other was crouching (atypical behavior) and one kicked the other. In which case is the owner obligated and in which case is the owner exempt? The Gemara tries to provide support for his ruling from two of the cases in our Mishna, but both attempts are unsuccessful. What is the law if one person is running in the public domain and one is walking and they bump into each other and cause damage? What if they are both running? Is there a difference if it happens on erev Shabbat when people are permitted to run to prepare for Shabbat? If one is chopping trees in one domain and the chips fly into another domain and injure, is the one chopping obligated? A braita compares a similar case with a store owner and someone walks into the store with/without permission. What is the difference in the ruling? Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chanina said that one is obligated four types of payments for damages and is exempt from going to a refuge city. Was his statement qualifying the case in the braita where one was obligated or the case where one was exempt?

Dec 04
Bava Kamma 31 - December 3, 20 Kislev


Dec 03
Bava Kamma 30 - Shabbat December 2, 19 Kislev

Study Guide Bava Kamma 30 If one spills water in public, the Mishna holds that person responsible for damages it incurs. Rav again limits this to damage to clothing, not to a person. If so, what does this Mishna add to the previous Mishna? What are the laws regarding one who conceals thorns or broken glass in their own wall? What if they conceal it in someone else's wall and the owner of the wall breaks it? If one wants to be pious, there is a debate about whether one should learn nezikin, avot or berakhot. If one lays out straw/hay in the public domain to create fertilizer, and it causes damage, one is liable for the damages and the rabbis penalized the one who put it out and declared it ownerless. However, there is a debate between tana kama and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and it is unclear what they disagree about. Can the Mishna be explained according to Rabbi Yehuda who seems to think that one can create fertilizer in the public domain? Does the fact that one is allowed to do something, remove the responsibility for damage it may cause? Rav and Zeiri disagree about whether the straw itself becomes ownerless or only the amount that it increased in value by turning into fertilizer. Is this a debate among tanaim as well? Is that the issue that the rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagree about in our Mishna?

Dec 01
Bava Kamma 29 - December 1, 18 Kislev

Study Guide Bava Kamma 29 TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY BETH HAIT IN LOVING MEMORY OF JULIE ADLER, GOLDA ZAHAVA CHANA BAT HARAV PINCHAS ELIEZER V'FAIGA ROSA. "MAY HER SPIRIT OF WARMTH AND KINDNESS CONTINUE TO SHINE THROUGH HER CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN." TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY HELEN DANCZAK IN HONOR OF HER FATHER'S YAHRZEIT. "REMEMBERING HIM AND HIS LOVE AND CARE OF OUR FAMILY." TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY THE HADRAN ZOOM FAMILY IN HONOR OF OUR DEAR FRIEND RUTH LEAH KAHAN AND HER HUSBAND, DAVID. "WE ARE PRAYING FOR HIS FULL AND QUICK RECOVERY AND FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO RECEIVED HIS KIDNEY! THE IDEA OF RECIPROCITY AND PAYBACK IS CENTRAL TO WHAT WE'RE LEARNING NOW IN DAF YOMI. BUT THE IDEA OF A THAT CANNOT BE REPAID IS SOMETHING WE ALWAYS STRIVE FOR. RUTH, WE ARE IN AWE OF THE  THAT YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND, DAVID, EMBODY IN DONATING HIS KIDNEY. WE SHOULD ALL MERIT TO LIVE THIS LIFE OF GIVING." There are several different ways to explain the two opinions (Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda) in the Mishna regarding one who breaks a jug in the public thoroughfare and the broken pieces or the water that spilled damage someone else. Issues raised relate to - is an accident/careless behavior considered negligence or unintentional damage? If one leaves items in a public space and renounces ownership, is the person responsible for any damage it may cause, or is one responsible only if one still owns the item? Is there a difference if the items were there because they were placed intentionally or on account of an accident? Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree about one who renounces one's property in the public thoroughfare - do they pay damages or not? However, it is not clear who holds which position. Different statements of Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yochanan are brought to conclude who held which opinion. In doing so, they analyze different cases and make distinctions between cases where one may or may not be held responsible.

Dec 01
Bava Kamma 28 - November 30, 17 Kislev

STUDY GUIDE BAVA KAMMA 28 TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY CHERYL GOLDSCHMIDT IN LOVING MEMORY OF HER FATHER, EDWARD TAGER, YITZCHAK ISAAC SIMCHA BEN YECHIEL MECHEL, ON HIS 10TH YAHRTZEIT.  * TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY RON AND SHIRA KREBS IN LOVING MEMORY OF SHIRA'S FATHER, GERSHON PINYA BEN YITZCHAK LEIB HAKOHEN V'MENUCHA SARA ON HIS 2ND YAHRZEIT. Can one take the law into one's own hands? Under what circumstances? Rav Yehuda and Rav Nachman both agree that if there will be a financial loss from waiting to go to court, then one is allowed to, but if not, they disagree. Rav Yehuda does not allow it, Rav Nachman does. Several sources are brought in an attempt to determine which answer is correct, but each source is inconclusive. If one dropped one's pitcher in the public thoroughfare and it broke and someone slipped and got injured, is the person responsible for damage caused to vessels? For damage caused to a person? Does it matter if the damage was from the ground or from the shards or water itself that slipped out of the pitcher? Rav limits liability to a case where vessels/clothes were damaged as if a person was injured, it was from the ground, not the water. However, Shmuel views the water as -type damages which are exempt from damaging vessels. Rav views the water as -type damages, as the water belongs to the owner, and distinguishes between a case where the owner made the water ownerless (would be exempt) or did not (liable). A braita is brought which raises a difficulty with both Rav and Shmuel's position but is resolved. In the case of the water spill, Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with Rabbi Meir (the unnamed tana in the Mishna) and says one is liable only if there was intent. Raba explains the intent - intent to lower the jug down and then it fell and broke. Rabbi Meir who disagrees would then hold, that even if it just broke without any action on the part of the one holding it, one would be liable. How can this be true if the Torah exempted one when the circumstances are completely out of one's control ().

Nov 30
Bava Kamma 27 - November 29, 16 Kislev

TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY RUTH LEAH KAHAN IN HONOR OF HER HUSBAND, DAVID, WHO IS CURRENTLY IN SURGERY DONATING A KIDNEY ALTRUISTICALLY. "I WISH HIM AND WHOEVER RECEIVES IT SKILLED SURGEONS, AND SPEEDY AND COMPLETE RECOVERIES. I AM VERY PROUD OF HIM." TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY RON AND SHIRA KREBS IN LOVING MEMORY OF SHIRA'S GRANDFATHER, YITZCHAK LEIB BEN DAVID BER HAKOHEN V'MALKAH. If someone throws something out a window and on its way down, someone smashes it with a baseball bat, who is responsible? What if it were a child that was thrown? What if an ox gored it on the way down and not a person? If someone falls off a roof onto someone, depending on whether the person fell from a typical wind or an atypical wind will affect the level of responsibility and what will be the compensation. What type of intent is required to fulfill the mitzva of ? Even though people are always responsible for their actions, there is a debate among the commentaries as to whether or not there is an exemption for a situation that was completely out of one's control. The Mishna discusses a case where one leaves a jug in the middle of the street and someone breaks it, the one who broke it is exempt. If the person gets hurt by it, the owner of the jug is responsible for paying damages. First, the Gemara questions the language in the Mishna - it first used the term , a jug, then switched to , a barrel. What can be derived from this? The rabbis have trouble understanding why the person who broke it is not held responsible for breaking someone else's jug. Four answers are given and those answers have important ramifications in understanding when one would be held liable. Can one take the law into one's own hands? Under what circumstances?

Nov 29
Bava Kamma 26 - November 28, 15 Kislev

Study Guide Bava Kamma 26 The Gemara suggests a number of arguments to reach conclusions opposite of what is known to be the case, such as, one should be obligated for and damages in the public domain as can be derived from in the public domain. Each suggestion is rejected based on inferences from the verses in the Torah. Is there a ransom payment only by damages or would one also pay a ransom payment if an animal killed a person by trampling them on the property of the one who was killed? From a braita, they derived that Rabbi Tarfon holds that there can be a ransom payment for one who kills by trampling. The Mishna discusses the responsibility of a person for damages. A person is always responsible, even if it was an accident or someone damaged while sleeping. Raba brings a list of cases where an act was done unintentionally and discusses the law for different areas of law - damages, on Shabbat, going to a refuge city for killing unintentionally, and damage to a Caananite slave on account of which a slave may go free.

Nov 28
Bava Kamma 25 - November 27, 14 Kislev

Study Guide Bava Kamma 25 TODAY'S DAF IS DEDICATED FOR A REFUAH SHLEIMA TO ALMA AVRAHAM, A HOSTAGE WHO WAS RETURNED YESTERDAY TO ISRAEL IN CRITICAL CONDITION. WE ARE PRAYING ALSO FOR THE HEALTH OF ALL THE OTHER HOSTAGES WHO RETURNED HOME AND FOR THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE MANY WHO ARE STILL BEING HELD HOSTAGE. Rabbi Tarfon and the rabbis disagree about whether one is liable for k damages in the property of the (the one who was damaged) half or full damages. To prove his opinion, Rabbi Tarfon bring a argument from and (exempt) in the public domain and (half damages)in the public domain. The rabbis say that since it is derived from a case of half damages, one is not able to learn full damages as arguments cannot be used to teach a law that is stricter than the original case (). Rabbi Tarfon holds that this principle is not used in a case where if one were to employ (limit the law), it would obviate the need for the . Is there an opinion that does not think the principle of is true in any case?  Two tannaitic sources are brought to try to raise a difficulty and show that there is a who does not employ the principle in any case. However, both sources are not able to show that there is a tana who holds that way. 

Nov 27
Bava Kamma 24 - Shabbat November 26, 13 Kislev

THIS WEEK'S LEARNING IS SPONSORED BY AUDREY MONDROW IN LOVING MEMORY OF IRVING “POPPY” MAUSKOPF, YECHEZCHEL BEN AVROHOM AND RACHEL. "A MAN WHO HAD COMPLETE EMUNAH. IN GOOD AND BAD TIMES. AND EXEMPLIFIED THE MEANING OF 'WHO IS RICH? A PERSON THAT IS HAPPY WITH HIS LOT.' MAY HIS HAVE AN ."  THIS WEEK’S LEARNING IS SPONSORED BY ROBERT AND PAULA COHEN IN LOVING MEMORY OF MY GRANDFATHER, JOSEPH COHEN, YOSEF BEN MOSHE HACOHEN, Z”L. "MY GRANDFATHER WAS HARD WORKING, LOVED TO SING, ESPECIALLY AS A AND BROUGHT UP HIS FAMILY TO BE COMMITTED TO THE ."  TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY RHONA FINK IN MEMORY OF HER BROTHER YISRAEL TZVI BEN CHAIM V'MALCA ON HIS 15TH YAHRZEIT. HIS MEMORY CONTINUES TO INSPIRE ME TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE. How does an animal become a ? Do the three occurrences need to be on separate days or can they be all on the same day? Can this be derived from laws of a or are those laws derived from unique wording of the Torah and therefore only relevant for a ? According to the opinion that the occurrences need to be on three separate days, is the purpose to show that the animal is prone to dangerous behavior or is it for the purposes of warning the owner to watch his/her animal? The Gemara derives from a Tosefta Bava Kamma 2:3 that the purpose is for the animal. If one incites a dog and the dog bites someone else, the inciter is exempt but is the owner of the dog liable? Two sources are brought (including our Mishna) to answer this question but difficulties are raised against each one. If one incites a dog and the dog bites that person, Rava exempts the dog's owner as the inciter instigated the dog. The Mishna delves into damages. What falls under that category? Rabbi Tarfon and the rabbis disagree regarding damages of a that occurred on the property of the one who was damaged - does the owner of the animal pay full damages or only half?

Nov 26
Bava Kamma 23 - Shabbat November 25, 12 Kislev

TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY RUTHIE, IRA, ELSA, JULIANNA, REUBEN, ELIA, ADELE, EMANUEL, AND ARIANNE IN HONOR OF ELANA STORCH'S BIRTHDAY. "MOM/SAVTE, WE SO ADMIRE THE EXAMPLE YOU SET FOR ALL OF US IN YOUR COMMITMENT TO TALMUD TORAH. WE LOVE YOU. HAPPY BIRTHDAY."  Rabbi Yochanan's approach that fire is like a person shooting arrows is questioned and it is explained that he holds that it is both like arrows and because it is owner's property. What then is the difference between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish? When a cow eats someone else's food and brings the food into its mouth, is it considered that it is now in the property of the cow (the one who is doing the damage) and therefore since it is eating () and is exempt if it takes place not in the property of the one who is damaged, the owner of the cow is exempt or do we say that if the cow is standing in the property of the one who he is causing damage to, the cow's mouth is considered in the property of the one who is causing damage to and the owner would be liable? When does an animal become ? What circumstances would need to happen for a to revert back to being a ?

Nov 24
Bava Kamma 22 - November 24, 11 Kislev

Study Guide Bava Kamma 22 Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree regarding the nature of the reason for one's liability for damage caused by fire. Is the damage caused by the fire similar to a person shooting arrows or is it like damage caused by their property, i.e. the fire is seen as the property of the one who lit it and therefore similar to a person's ox or pit damaging? The Gemara attempts, unsuccessfully, to prove Rabbi Yochanan's approach - fire is like a person shooting an arrow.

Nov 24
Bava Kamma 21 - November 23, 10 Kislev

TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY DIANA BLOOM IN LOVING MEMORY OF HER GRANDMOTHER, ITA ROSA SONABEND MARMUREK, ON HER YAHRZEIT. "HER STRONG CHARACTER, FIERCE DEDICATION TO HER FAMILY, UNWAVERING ZIONISM AND COMMITMENT TO THE JEWISH COMMUNITY BOTH IN BUENOS AIRES AND GLOBALLY CONTINUE TO SERVE AS A ROLE MODEL AND INSPIRATION."  The rabbis continue to debate the issue of a squatter, one who lives on someone else's property without the owner's knowledge - is there an obligation to pay rent? Some explain that the squatter is helping the owner because living on the property prevents an evil spirit called shi'iya from possessing the house and helps prevent deterioration as the squatter will find issues and fix them up. A man built a palace on the garbage heap of orphans and Ran Nachman confiscated his palace until he paid rent to the orphans. On what basis did he rule this way? The Mishna differentiated between damages (eating) in the public domain and on the sides of the public domain. Rav and Shmuel debate what the law is if the animal is in the middle of the public thoroughfare but turns its head to the side and eats from the sides of the public domain. Others say that their debate was regarding a different situation - where one designated area in their private domain to be open and accessible to the public - is it treated as public property (exempt if the animal eats food) or private property (liable for eating)? Would they have the same debate regarding a pit dug in one's private domain that was then opened to the public? A dog or goat who jumps off the roof and breaks vessels is considered expected damage and the owner pays full damage. However, the owner would be exempt if the dog or goat fell off. This seems to imply that if one began with an act of negligence and ended with unexpected damage, one is exempt. The Gemara tries to explain how the Mishna could be explained according to the position that one who begins with an act of negligence, is responsible even if in the end the damage was from unexpected damage.

Nov 23
Bava Kamma 20 - November 22, 9 Kislev

Study Guide Bava Kamma 20 TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY TINA & SHALOM LAMM WITH GRATITUDE TO HKB"H ON THE OCCASION OF THE AND NAMING OF THEIR NEW GRANDSON, NADAV OZ, BORN TO THEIR CHILDREN, BRACHA & AKIVA BERGER. If an animal eats in the public domain, the owner is not liable. However, there are some exceptions where something in the public domain can be considered private, such as taking food off the back of another animal. Also if the animal takes the food in an atypical manner, the owner will be liable (half damages as it is considered ). If eating is exempt in the public domain, what is the law if the animal rolled the food from a private domain into the public domain and then ate it (or from public to private)? The owner is exempt if the animal eats food in the public domain. However, if there was a benefit to the animal/owner, the owner is responsible for compensating the amount that was benefitted. How is this amount determined? This leads the Gemara to raise a basic question about a squatter, one who lives on another's property without the owner's knowledge. If one benefits and the other has not lost anything by that - is there a need to compensate? Several sources are brought to try to reach an answer but all are rejected.

Nov 22
Bava Kamma 19 - November 21, 8 Kislev

Study Guide Bava Kamma 19 TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY ROCHELLE CHEIFETZ IN LOVING MEMORY OF HER FATHER, SHRAGAI COHEN, SHRAGA FAIVEL BEN AVRAHAM BEN-TZION HALEVI ON HIS YAHRZEIT. "HIS VOCATION, AVOCATION AND LOVE WERE CENTERED AROUND ISRAEL. HE INSTILLED THAT LOVE IN HIS CHILDREN AND IT HAS BEEN PASSED DOWN TO THE NEXT GENERATION." TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY MIRIAM TANNENBAUM, MEDINAH KORN AND CAROLINE OFSTEIN SGT. BINYAMIN MEIR BEN ZEV DAVID VE-RACHEL PESSI, HYD, BINYAMIN AIRLEY, SON OF OUR DEAR FRIENDS JEN AND ROB AIRLEY. THE QUALITY OF AND MODESTY PERSONIFIED HIM IN LIFE AND EVEN IN DEATH, AS HE FELL DEFENDING AM YISRAEL AND ERETZ YISRAEL, BOTH OF WHICH HE LOVED DEEPLY. HIS SENSE OF MISSION WAS BORNE OUT OF THE HOME OF HIS PARENTS, WHOSE STRENGTH AND ARE FORMIDABLE AND A MODEL TO ALL. A series of questions are asked regarding indirect damages called . Is there a concept of if the action was done in an atypical manner (like ) and a would only pay one-quarter damages? Would Sumchus agree that if the act was more indirect, i.e. the animal moves pebbles that flew and hit an object which then damages another object, the owner would be liable only for half the damages? The Mishna set up two cases where one is liable for half damages - the animal kicked  () and caused damage or pebbles from under the animal's feet damaged vessels. In the latter case, were the pebbles kicked by the animal purposely or did they just move as the animal walked? What is the relevance? Is one liable for in the public domain (like ) or exempt (like )? What if they were kicked in the public domain but flew into a private domain and damaged? If an animal wags its tail and causes damages in the public domain, the owner is exempt as it is a subcategory of . The Mishna stated that the owner of a chicken who caused damage from a rope tied around its leg pays half the damages. Rav Huna limits this to a case where it got tied to the chicken on its own. The Gemara struggles to understand who is responsible according to this reading and is pushed to understand Rav Huna as adding a case and not limiting the Mishna. What are the main rules of the category of ? If an animal eats atypical foods, the owner only pays half the damages - but where do we draw the line between typical/atypical?

Nov 21
Bava Kamma 18 - November 20, 7 Kislev

STUDY GUIDE BAVA KAMMA 18 TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY LESLEY NADEL IN LOVING MEMORY OF HER SISTER RUTH LEWIS - RACHEL BAT HERSHEL HALEVI V'TOVA, ON HER 10TH YAHRZEIT. "AN  WHO LEFT US TOO SOON, BEFORE SEEING HER CHILDREN'S WEDDINGS AND MEETING HER GRANDDAUGHTER. SHE IS MISSED EVERY DAY. MAY HER MEMORY BE FOR A BLESSING."  TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY JUDY SHAPIRO IN LOVING MEMORY OF HER FATHER, ALBERT TYCHMAN'S 16TH YAHRZEIT. "HE WAS A TIRELESS AND PASSIONATE ADVOCATE AND VOLUNTEER FUNDRAISER FOR THE STATE OF ISRAEL DURING HIS FIVE DECADES WITH THE MINNEAPOLIS JEWISH FEDERATION."  Rava asked three questions regarding indirect damages. If an animal stepped on a vessel and as a result it rolled and then broke, do we rule based on the first action of the animal and make the owner responsible for full damages or do we say it was on account of the rolling that it broke and the owner will only pay half damages? Second question: For the half damage payment for an animal who kicks rocks that then damages a vessel, is it paid from the body of the animal that damaged () or does the owner have to pay the complete value () even above and beyond the value of the animal? Third question: Is there a concept of in the law of ? The Gemara provides sources in an attempt to answer Rava's questions.  

Nov 20
Bava Kamma 17 - November 19, 6 Kislev

What was unique about the respect given to Chizkiyahu upon his death? What is more important - learning Torah or keeping mitzvot? Learning Torah or teaching Torah? What rewards are given to those who learn Torah and do acts of kindness, ?  What are the details of the main category called regel? Where and how is one liable? What are the subcategories? If the animal kicks up pebbles while walking and the pebbles damage something, that is called . The rabbis had a tradition that one only pays half damages for . However, Sumchus did not have that tradition and held that the owner pay full damages. All these rules apply to chickens as well, not only animals. The first two sentences in the Mishna seem to be saying the same thing. The same phenomenon happens in the next Mishna regarding , damage through eating. How is each Mishna explained? Rava compared indirect damages of to laws of impurity for a . If a would move something and it would be impure, laws of damages would apply as well. If it would not be impure by that movement, the owner would be liable for half the damages for that type of movement. This is understood to be referring to a wagon pulled by an animal.

Nov 19
Bava Kamma 16 - Shabbat November 18, 5 Kislev

Study Guide Bava Kamma 16 There are four different ways to understand the Mishna and whether it follows Rabbi Tarfon’s position regarding (atypical) damages for a animal in a private domain (one pays full damages) or the rabbis' position (half damages). Damage by the animal crouching is considered atypical. But is this only for crouching on large items or also on small ones as well? There are different versions of what Rabbi Elazar ruled regarding this issue and whether a braita was brought to prove or raise a difficulty with his opinion. What is a mentioned in the Mishna? Shmuel differentiated between a lion who clawed another and ate it and one who attacked an animal with its teeth and ate it. The former was considered typical (exempt in the public domain) and the latter atypical (liable in the public domain). Is it really atypical for a lion to attack another animal and eat it? How is this resolved? How is the payment structure different for a and a ?

Nov 17
Bava Kamma 15 - November 17, 4 Kislev

Study Guide Bava Kamma 15 TODAY’S DAF IS SPONSORED BY THE HADRAN WOMEN OF LONG ISLAND IN HONOR OF THEIR CO-LEARNER AND FRIEND, DEBBIE SCHREIBER, ON THE BIRTH OF HER GRANDSON THIS WEEK. "MAY THE NEW ARRIVAL BRING THE FAMILY AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE MUCH JOY AND NACHAT! תזכו לגדלו לתורה לחופה ולמעשים טובים" TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY SARA BERELOWITZ IN HONOR OF HER NEW GRANDSON AMIAZ, SON OF TANI AND MORIYA STERMAN. "THE NAME AMIAZ - AMI (MY PEOPLE, MY NATION) AND AZ (STRENGTH, MIGHT AND BRAVERY) - SYMBOLIZES THE STRENGTH OF OUR NATION." TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY THE HADRAN ZOOM FAMILY "WE ARE SO HAPPY TO CELEBRATE THE BIRTH OF SO MANY NEW GRANDCHILDREN IN THIS YEAR, תשפ"ד, AN ACRONYM FOR תהא שנת פתיחת דלתות. MAZAL TOV TO TINA, SARA, PHYLLIS, TOVA, AND ANYONE ELSE WE MISSED. כן ירבו!" Who can testify in cases of damages? From where in the Torah do we derive that women are responsible for damages as men and if one damages a woman or her property, they are liable to pay damages as well? In what way does the one whose property was damaged also have to "pay"? In a case where an ox gores () and is a (has not behaved in this way three times), the owner needs to pay half the amount of damages. There is a basic disagreement about the nature of paying half damages. One understanding (Rav Papa) is that an ox is naturally a hazard and it is the owner's responsibility to watch their oxen. Payment for damages is a monetary obligation and the owner should pay in full. However, the Torah reduced the payment by half as the owner was not forewarned. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua understands half payment as a penalty. He believes that an ox is not naturally prone to gore and therefore doesn't need protection. Theoretically, the owner should not be responsible at all if he wasn't forewarned. However, to incentivize owners to watch their animals, the Torah instituted a fine that they pay half the damages. There are four attempts to bring sources to prove Rav Papa's position that half payment is a monetary obligation, but in the end, the Gemara concludes that it is a fine/penalty. Since by law, only in Israel can the courts rule on penalties, cases of cannot be ruled on in Babylonia. However, if the damaged person were to seize payment from the damager, the courts leave it in his hands. In addition, he can insist that they meet in court in Israel. Furthermore, the court can insist that the one whose animal attacked take action to ensure that the animal does not cause further damage. The Mishna states that there are five shur tam cases and five  What are they?

Nov 17
Bava Kamma 14 - November 16, 3 Kislev

Study Guide Bava Kamma 14 TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY DEBBIE ENGELEN-EIGLES IN HONOR OF THE FIRST BIRTHDAY OF HER GRANDSON TOMER, עד מאה ועשרים, AND FOR THE SAFE RETURN FROM BATTLE OF HIS FATHER AND ALL OUR CHAYALIM AND CHAYALOT. "MAY HASHEM STRENGTHEN THEM, BRING THEM VICTORY, AND BRING THEM AND THE HOSTAGES HOME TO THEIR FAMILIES SAFELY AND SOON."  According to one interpretation of the Mishna, the last line "when one damages, the one who pays needs to pay from the best land" is coming to include . What is the exact case it is including? What are the levels of responsibility of jointly owned property? What if it was shared property for produce but not for animals? The next mishna lists rules of how one is to pay for the damages. The details of the mishna are unclear and the Gemara works on explaining them. With what does one pay? Who evaluates? 

Nov 16
Bava Kamma 13 - November 15, 2 Kislev

Study Guide Bava Kamma 13 Rabbi Yosi h'Gelili holds that are considered the property of the owner and not the property of God. The Gemara concludes that this is true even during the time of the Temple when they can be brought as sacrifices. Ben Azai holds that this is limited to only some types of kodashim, however, there is a debate about which ones he excluded. Rava offers a different explanation for the phrase in the Mishna "property that does not have " that it excludes any sanctified item. Rabbi Abba, holding like Rabbi Yosi h'Gelili explains that if an animal designated for a peace offering causes damage, the payment is from the meat that can be eaten and not from the part burned on the altar. What does he mean by this and how does it relate to the debate between Rabbi Natan and the rabbis regarding an animal who pushed someone else's animal into a pit dug by a third person? What is meant in the Mishna when it limits damages payment to "those part of the covenant"? What is meant by "assigned property?" Some hold it is excluding a case when it is unclear whose animal caused the damage. Others hold that it excludes a case where the animal who damaged was ownerless. There is a debate about what situation this is referring to. If one's animal caused damage in the property of its owner, the owner is not liable as the owner can say, "What were you doing in my property!" If it was jointly owned by both people (the damager and the damaged), is the owner exempt or liable? There is a tannaitic debate on this issue and it all depends on different ways to read the end of our Mishna. What case is included by the line at the end of the Mishna - "in a case where one is liable, one needs to pay from the best of the land?"

Nov 15
Bava Kamma 12 - Rosh Chodesh Kislev - November 14, 1 Kislev

Study Guide Bava Kamma 12 Rav Nachman and other amoraim disagree about categorizing Cannanite slaves - are they treated like land or like movable property? The Gemara suggests that perhaps there is a tannaitic debate as well regarding this issue, however, two versions of Rav Ika suggest that perhaps there is no tannaitic debate. Even if one were to compare them to land or movable property, in the end, there are differences in certain situations as movable property and land do not move on their own, whereas slaves do. The Mishna said that one must pay damages for items that do not have laws of (misuse of consecrated property). This would include and therefore, the Mishna must hold like Rabbi Yosi h'Geleli who held that are considered property of its owner and not the temple's property. The Gemara raises a contradiction between his opinion and a Mishna and resolves it in two ways. A question is raised against the second resolution. 

Nov 14
Bava Kamma 11 - November 13, 29 Cheshvan

Study Guide Bava Kamma 11 THIS WEEK'S LEARNING IS SPONSORED BY JASON AND DANIELLE FRIEDMAN IN HONOR OF OLIVER FRIEDMAN'S UPCOMING BAR MITZVA.  Even without the verse "and the body will be his," it would have been clear that the one whose animal was killed is left with the carcass of the animal and the one who damaged only pays the difference. If so, the verse must be teaching that if the carcass of the animal went down in value over time after the animal was killed, the one who damaged does not need to compensate for that, but pays according to the price at the time of the death. The Gemara suggests that whether the depreciation is a loss for the one damaged or the one who caused the damage is a tannaitic debate. However, this suggestion is rejected as the debate may be regarding which side is responsible for bringing the carcass to court to assess its value. According to this understanding, all agree that the one who was damaged takes a loss if the carcass depreciates. This is true for damages but if one steals, the loss is on the thief. What about a borrower whose object she is borrowing breaks? Some compare it to one who stole and others to one who damaged. Ulla quotes Rabbi Elezar on this issue - only a thief assumes the depreciation, not a borrower. Five other rulings of Ulla in the name of Rabbi Elazar are brought. One is regarding when a woman counts days of impurity when one miscarries over two days without seeing a clear fetus. The second is that one is not obligated to redeem one's firstborn son if the child was killed before thirty days passed from birth. The third is about acquiring large animals which is performed by pulling. The fourth - when brothers divide their father's inheritance, if they had previously purchased clothing from the estate's money, is that deducted from their share? One what does it depend on? The last regards a person watching another's item - if they pass it on to someone else to watch without consulting with the original owner, and the item is damaged, who is responsible?

Nov 13
Bava Kamma 10 - November 12, 28 Cheshvan

Study Guide Bava Kamma 10 THE WEEK'S LEARNING IS DEDICATED BY PHYLLIS AND YOSSIE HECHT. "WITH FOR FINISHING MASECHET KIDDUSHIN AND HAVING OUR FIRST GRANDCHILD, LIAM YISRAEL. BORN IN THESE DAYS OF MUCH NEEDED TEFILLOT, LIAM YISRAEL SHOULD CONTINUE TO BRING LIGHT AND HAVE THE TO BE A GUARDIAN FOR AS HE CONTINUES TO GROW AND - AS THIS IS THE SUSTENANCE OF OUR . MAY WE BE TO THE IN HIS DAYS AND CONTINUE TO HEAR ONLY ." TODAY'S LEARNING IS SPONSORED FOR A REFUAH SHLEIMA FOR SHLOMO GAVRIEL BEN ESTHER AND DAVID YOSEF BEN ESTHER.  In what way is the law regarding an ox who damaged more stringent/unique than the other cases? In what way is the law regarding a pit more stringent? In what way are the laws of fire more stringent? The Mishna stated a case: "If one is partially responsible for damages, one needs to pay full damages." A braita explains the case: If one digs a pit nine handbreadths deep and someone digs it one more (which now makes it fit to kill) and then an animal falls in and dies or is injured, only the last person is responsible. Can this explanation match Rebbi's opinion as well or does it only fit with the rabbis? Different rabbis suggest other cases that have a similar possible joint responsibility and question why the braita did not mention them as well. The language of the Mishna in the above-mentioned case stated: "One is responsible for " The Gemara derives from the use of the words , that the intent is to complete the payment, and this supports a braita which rules meaning that if one's animal was damaged, one gets to keep the carcass of that animal (which has value) and the payment is only meant to be the difference between the value of the animal when it was alive and its value now. There are three potential sources from which one can derive this law. Why is there a need for all three? The Gemara questions why is there even a need for a verse to prove this law, shouldn't it be obvious!?

Nov 12
Bava Kamma 9 - Shabbat November 11, 27 Cheshvan

Study Guide Bava Kamma 9 If one is purchasing land from another and others lay claim that the land was originally theirs, at what point and under what circumstances can the buyer renege on the deal? Rav Huna resolves a previous contradiction (on Bava Kamma 7) by saying that one who needs to pay damages can pay either with money or property. A challenge is raised against this statement but is resolved. Rav Asi says the same thing but the Gemara first challenges that assumption and tries to explain Rav Asi's statement in a different manner. Another teaching of Rav Huna is brought regarding how far should one go to beautify a (). The Mishna rules that if one was responsible for watching the item. one is responsible for the damages. A braita explains this case to be one in which one passed an object to a minor or a person who isn't responsible. The braita distinguishes which compares fire to the ox and pit cases and distinguishes between them according to law. In what case would there be a distinction and why? 

Nov 10
Bava Kamma 8 - November 10, 26 Cheshvan

Study Guide Bava Kamma 8 TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY RABBI HAYIM HERRING AND TERRI KRIVOSHA IN LOVING MEMORY OF SGT. ELISHEVA ROSE LUBIN, ROSE ELISHEVA BAT CHAIM DAVID AND NECHAMA RACHEL, GREAT-NIECE OF THEIR FRIENDS EDDIE AND MINDA SNITKOFF, WHO WAS MURDERED ON MONDAY MORNING NOVEMBER 6, 2023 IN JERUSALEM. "MAY HER SHORT LIFE AND RADIANT AND EXUBERANT SPIRIT BE A MEMORY AND SOURCE OF STRENGTH TO ALL THOSE WHO LOVED HER." TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY YAIR AND ILANA ZINN FOR THE REFUAH SHLEIMA OF OZ YEHOSHUA BEN TALIA BAT-TZION AND ALL THOSE INJURED AND FOR A SAFE RETURN OF ALL THE HOSTAGES.  Is the term "best land" relative to the world or relative to one's own land? Raba Abba answers that it is the best on the land of the one who damaged, irrespective of the value compared to the rest of the world. Rav Shmuel bar Abba raised a difficulty against this answer from a braita. A possible answer is suggested. However several other alternative explanations are brought. If one sells 3 different types of property to 3 different people either all on the same day or separate days, does the one claiming the land in return for a loan, ketuba, or damages claim it based on the order in which it was sold (they get the last property sold) or do they claim it based on the type of land - poor quality, middle or best)?

Nov 10