Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the father of Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi, is commended for his humility, a trait shared by Yonatan, the son of King Saul, and the descendants of Bnei Beteira. Rabbi Yehuda haNasi himself endured significant suffering, which eventually abated. His suffering was attributed to his actions, and likewise, his healing was credited to his actions. Following Rabbi Elazar's passing, Rabbi Yehuda haNasi sought out Rabbi Elazar's estranged son and guided him back to the path of Torah learning. He extended the same attention to the grandson of Rabbi Tarfon, nurturing him into a Torah scholar. Numerous statements underscore the significance of Torah study, emphasizing its paramount importance. Rabbi Chiya distinguished himself by disseminating Torah knowledge among numerous students, empowering them to become teachers in their own right. Stories abound of Rabbi Chiya's exceptional greatness and his impactful contributions to the spread of Torah.

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of our fellow daf Sister, Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld on the marriage of her granddaughter Esti to Baruch. "Having four generations at the wedding is a tremendous zechut. May Gitta together with David have continued nachat from Esti and all of their children and grandchildren." The story of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, leads to discussions about his obesity, alongside those of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosi. Rabbi Yochanan, renowned for his beauty, used to sit by the mikveh, hoping that women who saw him would conceive and bear children as beautiful and learned as he was. One day, while bathing in the Jordan River, Reish Lakish, a bandit, mistook Rabbi Yochanan's reflection for that of a woman and leaped in after him. Rabbi Yochanan, recognizing potential, encouraged Reish Lakish to channel his strength into Torah, becoming his esteemed student-colleague. Yet, a rift formed when in the context of a halakhic debate, Rabbi Yochanan's remarks about Reish Lakish's past led to a fatal argument, resulting in Reish Lakish's demise, and ultimately, Rabbi Yochanan's own death due to the loss of his closest companion. The Gemara then revisits Rabbi Elazar's story, haunted by his past deeds, he beseeches God for suffering as penance. The narrative follows his remaining years, culminating in his passing, where he requests to be left in an attic, anticipating reluctance from fellow rabbis to bury him. Eventually, approximately two decades later, he is interred in a cave adjacent to his father's resting place. Rabbi Yehuda haNasi proposes to Rabbi Elazar's wife, who rejects the offer as he cannot compare to Rabbi Elazar in greatness.

Today's daf is sponsored by Max Shapiro in honor of his mother Judy Shapiro. "Your daf yomi learning motivates me to continue doing so daily!" Another issue of Rabbi Elazar on Rabbi Meir's opinion is elucidated through the viewpoint of Isi ben Yehuda, who asserts that in cases with witnesses, one cannot simply take an oath to absolve oneself; instead, witnesses must be brought forward. Rabbi Chiya bar Abba quoting Rabbi Yochanan provides a second explanation for the seeming discrepancy between Rabbi Meir's stance in our Mishna and in the sugya in Bava Kamma regarding the liability of one who trips. According to him, the oath mentioned in our Mishna, which exempts one from damages, is a rabbinic provision aimed at ensuring that individuals won't refrain from moving barrels for others due to fear of potential compensation obligations in case of breakage. Several anecdotes illustrate instances where Rava aligned with Isi ben Yehuda's requirement for witnesses to establish innocence. Additionally, a narrative recounts the expectations placed on Torah scholars (or perhaps others as well) to uphold standards beyond mere legal requirements (lifnim meshurat hadin). The seventh chapter delves into labor relations, exploring questions such as the typical duration of a workday, an employer's authority to mandate longer hours, and the obligation of the employer to provide food. It also addresses whether travel time is considered part of the standard workday. Within this discourse, a verse from Tehillim is invoked, drawing parallels between the eventual retribution for evildoers and the reward awaiting the righteous in the afterlife. An anecdote featuring Rabbi Elazar, the son of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, illustrates his methods for identifying and punishing sinners. Despite facing criticism for his actions from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha, he remains resolute.

The Mishna rules that one who loans with collateral has the level of responsibility for the collateral akin to a paid worker. It seems that the Mishna does not follow the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that if the collateral is lost, the lender can take an oath and be exempt, like a shomer chinam. The Gemara then attempts in two different ways to reconcile the Mishna's ruling even according to Rabbi Eliezer. However, this is rejected because Rabbi Akiva disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer, and since most unattributed Mishnayot accord with Rabbi Akiva's opinion, the Gemara prefers to reconcile the Mishna according to Rabbi Akiva. There are four different explanations suggested to explain the situation in which Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva disagree and the basis of their disagreement. The halakha follows Abba Shaul, as quoted in the Mishna, that one can rent out a collateral of a poor person and deduct the rent amount from the loan. If one is moving a barrel of another and it breaks, there is a debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda about whether the halakha distinguishes between one who was paid for the job and one who was not. Rabbi Meir rules that both are exempt if it was not intentional. However, this contradicts Rabbi Meir's opinion in Bava Kamma that one who trips is considered negligent. Rabbi Elazar explained that there are two different opinions about what Rabbi Meir held. Rabbi Yehuda considers one who broke the barrel as similar to an item getting lost or stolen and therefore distinguishes between one who was paid and one who did it for free. Rabbi Elazar claims the ruling is like Rabbi Meir, but he does not understand how each can swear and exempt themselves.

The Mishna rules that once a contracted worker says to the owner, "Pick up the item and then pay me," the worker transitions from being responsible for the item as a paid guardian (shomer sachar) to being responsible as an unpaid guardian (shomer chinam). This situation is compared to another Mishna which states that a borrower is responsible for oness (unforeseeable) damages until the item is returned. Rav Chisda qualifies this by stating that the borrower is only liable for unforeseeable damages if the item is returned within the borrowing period; if the period has ended and the borrower is no longer using the item, the borrower is no longer responsible for unforeseeable damages. The Gemara presents three different versions of how these sources are compared. Ameimar rules that while the borrower may no longer be responsible for unforeseeable damages after the borrowing period, they are still considered a shomer sachar and are thus responsible for loss or theft. A braita is brought to support this ruling. The concept of shmira b'baalim, where one is exempt from liability for an item belonging to their employer, is brought up to question the Mishna which ruled that if one says "Watch my item and I will watch yours," both parties are considered a shomer sachar. To resolve this, it is explained that the case in the Mishna involves each person watching the other's item on different days. Two cases are brought where guardians were held responsible despite seemingly being cases of shmira b'baalim. These cases are clarified to not be instances of shmira b'baalim. Additionally, there is a discussion about the interpretation when someone says, "put it down" in response to a request to watch an item: does it mean "put it down and I will watch it" or "put it down and take care of it yourself"? This is compared to a Mishna in Bava Kamma 47 to suggest that this issue is the subject of a tannaitic debate, but the comparison is ultimately rejected.

The Mishna continues to deal with cases where one rented an item under certain conditions and then used the item differently, resulting in damage. If the damage occurred because of the change in use, the renter is responsible. For example, what happens if the renter loaded more weight on an animal than standard, or if the renter used a different item that is lighter but results in a greater volume, such as barley instead of wheat? Abaye and Rava disagree on the details of the ruling in the latter case. The Mishna discusses various laws related to the responsibility of a worker regarding an item the worker is fixing or working on, or received as collateral, as well as other laws concerning shomrim. The implications of these discussions help clarify the extent of liability and responsibility in cases of damage under differing conditions and the specific usage of rented or borrowed items. The Gemara attempts to see if the first part of the Mishna can be attributed to Rabbi Meir, as at first glance it seems not the case.

If one rents a donkey or a boat and the animal dies or the boat sinks halfway through the journey, what is the law? What are the circumstances of the cases discussed? In the context of this discussion, a debate between Rav and Shmuel addresses whether one can sell the carcass of a rented animal in a way that the principal (the original animal) will no longer exist—specifically, whether the renter can sell it and use the money from the sale to rent a new animal. Rav's opinion is questioned by a Tosefta, which is then resolved. A case is brought regarding a boat rented to carry wine, which sinks. The Gemara examines the specifics of the rental agreement: whether the renter rented "this boat" or "a boat" and whether it was to carry "this wine" or "any wine." This distinction is crucial for determining the renter's obligations and rights. Two additional cases clarify other rights of the renter: How much can the renter load on a donkey that was rented for riding, and how much can the driver load? If the donkey was rented to a man to ride, can a woman ride instead, or vice versa? Is there a difference if the woman is pregnant or nursing? These discussions provide detailed insights into the legal nuances of rental agreements, the responsibilities of renters, and the permissible uses of rented property.

The Mishna brings cases where an individual rents an item, such as an animal, for a specific purpose and then uses it for a different purpose. The renter is held responsible if the animal dies because of this change. The first line of the Mishna states that the renter is responsible in all cases where a change was made. However, in the second line, the Mishna's ruling depends on the circumstances—specifically, how the animal died and the nature of the change made by the renter. The Gemara explores four possible answers to reconcile these two lines. The first three answers establish that the first line in the Mishna refers to a case where the animal died directly because of the change, regardless of whether the change was from mountain to valley or the reverse. The fourth answer differentiates the two lines of the Mishna as representing the opinions of different authorities. According to this view, the first line reflects Rabbi Meir's opinion, while the second line represents the rabbis' stance. Rabbi Meir holds a stringent view that anyone who goes against the owner's wishes is considered a thief, thus making them automatically liable for any resulting damage or death. The Gemara then seeks to find tannaitic sources to substantiate that this is indeed Rabbi Meir's position. The first two sources examined are rejected, but the third source is accepted, affirming that Rabbi Meir considers any deviation from the owner’s instructions to be considered theft. A case referred to as 'hivrika,' has two different interpretations. The Mishna describes a scenario where a donkey rented by an individual is seized by the king's men (angaria). In such a case, the renter is left without the animal, and the owner is not required to provide a replacement. Rav and Shmuel disagree about the specifics of this case. A Tosefta is brought to challenge Shmuel's interpretation, and two explanations are offered to resolve this difficulty.

If a worker is hired to do a job, such as irrigating a field, but circumstances change, like rainfall, rendering the job unnecessary, where does the responsibility rest, and what factors influence it? Rabbi Dosa and the rabbis hold differing views on whether a worker who backs out midway should receive full compensation for work already performed, or if the worker must reimburse the employer if the employer now incurs higher costs to complete the remaining task. Rav aligns with Rabbi Dosa's stance, although this contradicts another statement attributed to him. The Gemara proposes a solution to this contradiction but identifies two challenges with the proposed resolution, both of which are resolved. Within this discourse, a braita is cited regarding a seller or buyer reneging after the buyer has made a partial payment. Various segments of this braita are elucidated further.

Study Guide Bava Metzia 76 Our learning today is in honor of the State of Israel celebrating 76 years of independence. We also continue to pray for the swift and safe return of the hostages, and for the safety and success of our soldiers. What are the rules surrounding a worker or employer retracting from an agreement? When the Mishna mentions one party "deceiving" the other, what does this mean? Is it referring to a worker canceling on the employer, the reverse scenario, or does it involve an instance where an employer directs an agent to hire workers, but the agent communicates a wage different from what the employer had stipulated? While seven potential scenarios of the latter circumstance are delineated, only certain ones conform to the legal principles expounded in the Mishna.

Is it permissible to borrow grains with the agreement to return them later in the season when their value is expected to increase? Typically, such arrangements are viewed as involving interest since the value of the grains is likely to rise. However, it is allowed if the borrower already possesses grains, even if they are not readily accessible. Should the borrower only borrow against the grains they presently own, or can it be a nominal amount? Hillel prohibited lending a loaf of bread, fearing that the price of wheat might surge before the loaf is repaid. What rationale led the rabbis to disagree with Hillel's position? Shmuel asserted that Torah scholars could lend money to one another on interest – why? Rav sanctioned a father lending to his child on interest for educational purposes, yet the Gemara dismissed this, citing the potential for sending the wrong message to children. Can a person work for a friend one day and vice-versa without incurring usury issues? Under what circumstances is this permissible? Transgressions of interest extend beyond monetary transactions to include conveying information or offering greetings. What infractions do both borrower and lender commit when doing loaning with interest? Numerous statements underscore the severe repercussions for those involved in interest-based lending. It is cautioned against lending money without witnesses, as Rav fears it may prompt the borrower to deny the loan, while Reish Lakish is apprehensive about inviting curses upon the lender due to erroneous perceptions of dishonesty.

This week’s learning is dedicated for the refuah shleima of Pesha Etel bat Sara who is undergoing surgery this week. This week's learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of her mother Bessie “nanny” Mauskopf, Basha Leah bat Tzivia Chaya and Meir Yehudah. "A kind and devoted wife, daughter, mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She always embraced family and was so proud of all my learning. She exemplified good middot by just being herself. May her neshama have an aliyah." This week's learning is sponsored by Rhona Fink. "With gratitude to Hashem, we welcome our first grandson, Ezra Lev, born on the first day of Pesach to our son and daughter-in-law, Daniel Fink and Abbey Marks. May Ezra Lev grow up to be a helper with an open and warm heart, and a blessing to the Jewish people." What is a "situmta," and does it finalize a deal once completed? Rav and Shmuel hold differing views on a scenario where a product is sold and payment is received before the product's completion. They debate the number and nature of remaining steps in the process that still consider the item in the seller's possession, thus circumventing usury concerns. Several difficulties are raised with the different opinions based on the details brought in our Mishna and are resolved. The Mishna presents a debate on selling manure as fertilizer even if one does not have any. How many different opinions are there and what is the debate between them? Regarding prepayment at a set rate, if prices subsequently drop, can the buyer withdraw from the deal to avoid loss? Here, the Mishna records a dispute: the tana kamma asserts withdrawal is permissible only if initially stipulated, while Rabbi Yehuda dissents, allowing withdrawal regardless. In a case involving a son-in-law purchasing dowry jewelry on behalf of his father-in-law, paying upfront, then witnessing price reductions, Rav Papa bars withdrawal without initial stipulation. Despite money not constituting an act of acquisition, reneging is met with a "mi she'para," a curse for breaching one's word. The rabbis and Rav Acha raise objections to Rav Papa's ruling, which are subsequently resolved. The Mishna permits lending grains to a sharecropper for planting, even if prices rise. A related braita endorses the practice but restricts it to instances where the sharecropper hasn't commenced work. Rava elucidates the disparity: the Mishna concerns scenarios where the sharecropper typically provides seeds, rendering pre-planting agreements contractual rather than loans. Conversely, the braita pertains to situations where the owner typically supplies seeds, meaning that once the sharecropper begins work, the subsequent loan of grains is no longer part of the work contract, but an actual loan, which is forbidden, as any loan of grains for grains.

What are the various methods through which individuals can engage in business transactions where payment or goods are exchanged upfront, with the agreement set at a fixed or reduced price? The Gemara delves into diverse scenarios, providing rulings on the permissibility, prohibition, or contentious nature of each. In some documented instances, Rabbis faced accusations of involvement in transactions resembling usury. Yet, on each occasion, they provided clarifications demonstrating why such actions did not constitute usury.

Today's daf is sponsored by Brooke & Yossi Pollak in honor of their daughter Avital Adin's bat mitzvah. "We are so proud of your devotion to Torah, mitzvot, and maasim tovim. Ima loves learning Mishna Yomi with you and can't wait to keep going for the next several years. Consistency, Consistency, Consistency! Mazal tov!" If a Jew lends money of a non-Jew to another Jew on interest, or if a non-Jew lends money of a Jew to a Jew, under which circumstances is it permissible? Ravina proposes a third explanation to elucidate the distinction in legal rulings between these scenarios, but his explanation is dismissed. If a convert engaged in borrowing or lending with interest prior to converting and then, before conversion, amalgamated the interest-bearing loan into one encompassing the entire sum, the convert is entitled to collect the full amount. Rabbi Yosi contends that if the convert was the borrower, the interest cannot be collected under any circumstances, as this might incentivize non-Jews to convert solely to evade high interest payments. The rabbis and Rabbi Meir debate whether a lender who loaned on interest can recover the principal amount only, without the interest, or if they are penalized and cannot recover any part of the loan. Various scenarios are examined where an aspect of the document is invalidated (akin to a loan involving interest), raising the question of whether the entire document becomes void or if the valid parts remain enforceable. Distinctions between different cases are analyzed, such as errors in a document versus situations where the document is based on false premises like the seller not actually owning the item being sold. The Mishna addresses the halachot concerning purchasing produce upfront at the start of the season but deferring receipt of the produce until later. This practice is often prohibited due to usury concerns, as the value of the produce may rise. It is permitted when the seller possesses the produce at the time of sale or when the market value has already been established.

Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of David's father, Dr. Abraham Geffen, on his 9th yahrzeit. "The youngest of the 8 children of Rav Tuvia and Sara Hene Geffen of Atlanta, he was devoted to his wife Ethel, parents, siblings, children, extended family; and synagogue community of Beth El in New Rochelle, New York. He was a dedicated physician and served for years as the Director of Radiology at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City." Today's daf is sponsored by Goldie Gilad in loving memory of her mother, Rivka Leah bat Sara on her 5th yahrzeit. "A woman of valor, a caring mother, a fighter and brave lone holocaust survivor who jumped out of a 2nd floor window to save herself from being attacked by Russian soldiers at the end of the war. Yehi zichra baruch." Can one loan on interest from non-Jews? Under what circumstances? A verse is brought to show that one who does not loan on interest or take bribes will retain their wealth, implying that those who loan on interest will lose their wealth. The Gemara questions that against reality where one sees righteous people who lose their money as well, grappling with the question of 'why do bad things happen to good people.' Rebbi raises two issues in verses from Vayikra Chapter 25, in a section related to people who become poor and those who get sold into slavery on account of their poverty. The Torah says that a Jewish slave can be sold to be a slave to a convert and that does not seem to match halakha. It also says that one cannot loan on interest to a ger toshav (one who keeps the seven Noahide laws) and it is permitted in our Mishna. They resolve both issues and explain the verses to match the halakha. A Jew can be a guarantor on a loan from a non-Jew to a Jew with interest. Why would this potentially be a problem and under what circumstances is it permitted? The Gemara explains the cases in the Mishna where a Jew loans money of a non-Jew to a Jew on interest. There are four possible cases - two of which are permitted and two are not. A question is raised based on the law that a Jew cannot be a messenger for a non-Jew and a non-Jew cannot be a messenger for a Jew. Three answers are given, however, the second one (two different versions of Rav Ashi's answer) is rejected.

Today's daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz in loving memory of her mother, Chana Cohen, Chana bat Moshe and Tzipora on her 3rd yahrzeit. "Your warmth and beauty created a bubble of caring around you and all you met. The hole of your absence feels irreparable. Tehi zichra baruch." Rav Papa's ruling allowed for paying rent and compensating for depreciation, akin to the practice of the sons of Kufra, backed by a braita cited in Bava Metzia 69b. Rav Anan, citing Shmuel, asserted that orphans could collect interest. However, Rav Nachman raised doubts, prompting further investigation. It turned out that Rav Anan had observed Shmuel renting out a kettle on behalf of orphans, collecting both rent and depreciation, which he mistakenly perceived as interest collection. Yet, this wasn't deemed as interest, even for non-orphans, given the significant depreciation incurred with each use of the kettle, warranting compensation for the loss. Orphans are permitted to invest in a manner where they enjoy profits without bearing losses. Raba, Rav Yosef, and Rav Ashi proposed various suggestions for managing orphan funds. Investing in a guaranteed investment with a Jew is prohibited, but permissible with a non-Jew. Does this imply that the guaranteed item invested is entirely in the recipient's domain? This notion conflicts with a Mishna concerning laws of firstborn animals. Abaye and Rava offered explanations, with Abaye's being dismissed. While it's permissible to charge interest on a loan with a non-Jew, is this practice viewed unfavorably?

How can individuals engage in profit-sharing investment arrangements without entangling themselves in collecting interest in a forbidden manner? The Gemara delves into this topic, explaining what type of compensation must the invertor pay for the venture. They examine real-life scenarios where such methods were employed. If someone invests an animal and it begets offspring, how and when should these offspring be divided? Furthermore, when one divides profits, how it is the process different when dealing with money as opposed to tangible assets like objects or animals? Regarding the rental of coins, the question arises whether such an arrangement constitutes a loan with interest. It is permissible to charge rent and adjust it based on additional investments made by the owner. However, laws governing rentals differ for items like stores or boats, and the reasons behind these differences are elucidated. Moreover, when renting an item, is it permissible to pay rent and assume responsibility for depreciation, or does this constitute interest?

Today's daf is dedicated in commemoration of Yom HaShoah, in memory of all those who perished in the Holocaust. Rava mentions three common business practices that he forbade due to usury concerns. What considerations should one bear in mind when entering into a profit-sharing investment arrangement with another individual to steer clear of usury? Besides both parties assuming responsibility for their respective roles, the investing party must compensate the other for their labor to prevent receiving undue benefit, akin to taking interest. How should this compensation be determined? There are various opinions on this matter.

Today's daf is sponsored by Caroline Ben-Ari in honour of her father, Ivor Rhodes, ישראל בן מאיר ושרה, on his 14th yahrzeit. "Dad was a quiet, undemonstrative man who had a deep love for his family, strong values, and unimpeachable integrity. He also had a wicked sense of humour and was the King of the Puns. All Dad jokes and bad puns sent to me today will be greatly appreciated." Rav Nachman believed that forgiveness (mechila) by mistake in a sale is considered forgiveness. Rava challenged him from the law of ona'ah (overcharging), but Rav Nachman responded to him from the law of aylonit. But in truth, ona'ah cannot serve as a difficulty and aylonit cannot serve as an answer because these two cases are not similar to the case Rav Nachman was dealing with regarding forgiveness. When a lender takes land as collateral, if the lender consumed its fruits as interest, is the lender obligated to return the fruits? Is there a way to consume the fruits and it will not be considered interest? The Gemara distinguishes between places where it is customary that the borrower can remove the lender from the land at any point (if the money is returned) and places where the borrower cannot remove the lender until the time stipulated in the loan. https://youtu.be/aJWVVdLnvuk

In cases where someone makes an exaggerated commitment during or after a transaction, is this commitment deemed valid? Is it assumed that the person never truly intended to commit and was merely making statements to bolster confidence? Various instances are presented concerning such declarations and their effectiveness in legal contexts.