Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Study Guide Sanhedrin 4 The Gemara suggests that the basis of the debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda about whether we rule monetary law by three judges or five judges is based on how they extrapolate the verse - is there em l'mikra, we rule by the way it is generally read, or em l'masoret, by the way it is actually written? According to Rabbi Yochanan there are five rabbis who all hold that when there is a contradiction between the way the text is read/pronounced and the way it is written, we follow the way it is pronounced. Each case where the rabbis ruled in this manner is brought and explained.   Rav Acha bar Yaakov challenges Rabbi Yochanan as he thinks that everyone holds yesh em l'mikra, as everyone follow the way it is generally read, as can be proven from the prohibition of cooking meat with milk. as it is read as milk - chalev - and not forbidden fat - cheilev. This assumption is disproven and a different explanation is brought to explain why everyone agrees in the milk/meat verse.

Study Guide Sanhedrin 3 This week's learning is sponsored by Helen Danczak in loving memory of her father on his yahrzeit.  Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Adina Hagege's birthday with love from her sisters and brother. "Her dedication and passion for learning are an inspiration to her family. With love from her whole family." Today's daf is sponsored by Heather Stone for the physical and psychological wellbeing of Yaacov (Kobi) Levy, ben Shaul v'Ruti, a war veteran who has PTSD and is assisted by Morpheus, a Labrador service dog. Kobi and Morpheus were terribly mistreated by a bus driver and the Israeli police this week, and are still recovering. There are three different ways to read the first six words of the Mishna: "Monetary laws are judged by three, theft and injuries by three." Are the first three coming to explain the second three or are they referring to a different case/different rule? All conclude the same bottom line law - that for loans and admissions, you would need three regular people to judge and for theft and injuries you would need three judges. However, how they read this into the words of the Mishna, what was the original Torah law, and how the Rabbis changed it, and why is a subject of debate. Why are damages and half damages listed in the Mishna - why aren’t they included in injuries? From where do we derive that monetary law is ruled in front of three judges? There is a debate between Rabbi Yoshia and Rabbi Yonatan - is there debate just about the derivation or do they have a different understanding of how judgments are decided? Rebbi holds that monetary laws are ruled by five judges. From where does he derive five?

Study Guide Sanhedrin 2 Sanhedrin bookmark Masechet Sanhedrin is sponsored by Jina Davidovich in loving memory of her father, Vladimir Davidovich, Zev ben Yitzchak v'Chana, on his first yahrzeit. "My father always encouraged my learning and was my greatest chevruta. He instilled within me, and his many students, a deep love of Torah. May his neshama have an aliyah."  Today's daf is sponsored by Norman Eliaser in honor of Shira Eliaser birthday. "Thank you for being an amazing study buddy, in addition to being the best wife in the world!" Today’s daf is sponsored by Lana Kerzner and Adina Hagege in memory of their grandmother, Ethel Wolinsky Greenstone, whose yahrzeit is this week. "Although she passed away 79 years ago, her legacy lived on through her children. They passed on to us a hunger for learning, a quest for equal rights for women and scholarship, and an analytic spirit that spans the generations. We believe that she would have taken such joy knowing that two of her granddaughters bear her name and her spirit, as they learn Daf Yomi virtually across oceans together." The court system was made up of different-sized courts. The Mishna delineates which types of cases would be brought in front of a court of three, twenty-three, and seventy-one. Some tannaim require five or seven judges for certain types of cases. The size of twenty-three and seventy-one are derived from the Torah - how? The Gemara notes that loans and admissions are excluded from the list, even though they also require three judges, like for theft and injuries. They are excluded because they do not require three expert judges, but can be ruled by any three people. The reason for this is to ensure that people are not deterred from loaning money to others. 

For the text of the Hadran ceremony, click here. For more information about What is a Siyum, click here Siyum Masechet Bava Batra is sponsored by Lesley Glassberg Nadel in loving memory of her father Bernie Glassberg, Berel ben Herschel haLevi, whose 50th yahrzeit is Kislev 17 - May his memory be blessed.

Introduction to Masechet Sanhedrin

Study Guide Bava Batra 155 If one says on one's deathbed that money is owed to someone - is that statement believed or should we assume that the person was only trying to make it look like their children do not have a lot of money? Would the same apply in a case where all the money was dedicated to the Temple rather than to the person's children? Can an heir claim that even though their bequeather may have said they owed someone money, they subsequently said they had paid them back? In what case are they believed and in what case are they not believed? What are the differences between a loan with a contract and a loan with an oral agreement? One who has a loan with a document can collect from liened property that has been sold, but an oral loan can only be collected from free (unsold) property. If a guarantor signs after the loan takes place, can one collect from the guarantor, and if so, are there any limitations? Is the property of a borrower liened to the creditor by Torah law or by rabbinic law? Raba and Ulla each take sides on this debate. Rav and Shmuel disagree with Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish whether an oral loan can be collected from orphans or from purchasers. Rav Papa comes up with a unique ruling - not fully matching either position, as he saw a need in society to prevent creditors from refusing to loan money and to prevent a breakdown in the market where buyers are hesitant to purchase land.  

Study Guide Bava Batra 174 Areivut and kablanut are two different methods of guaranteeing a loan. What is the difference between them? There are several different opinions about which language indicates one or the other. One's land acts as a guarantee for a loan and therefore the creditor cannot directly collect from the borrower's land before demanding repayment from the borrower. If a guarantor pays a debt on behalf of orphans for their father's debt, and then goes to get repaid from the orphans, they do not need to pay the money back until they are bar mitzva age. Two reasons are brought - what is the practical difference between them? A guarantor for a ketuba different than a guarantor for a loan - in what way and why?

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 chazan, and brought up his family to be strongly committed to Judaism.”  If two people have the same name, can they collect from other people if we cannot be sure that the document in their hand is really their own? It can be inferred from our Mishna that they can collect, but a braita rules that they cannot. The root of the debate is either regarding whether documents can be acquired by passing them from one to the other (otiyot niknot b'mesira) or perhaps both hold that they can, but the root of the debate is whether one needs to prove the document was passed to them from the other. Rava and Abaye debated the latter issue and a braita is quoted from which each one tries to prove his position. Another braita rules against both the Mishna and the previously quoted braita, holding that two people with the same name can pull out a loan document one on the other. The root of the debate is whether or not a borrower can have a scribe draft a promissory note not in the presence of the creditor. If it can be done, one can pretend to be the borrower, draft the note, and then use it to collect from the other. If a person tells one's children on their deathbed that one of their promissory notes in their possession is already collected, the children cannot claim any of the loans, as the burden of proof is on the one who collects. If there are two promissory notes for the same person, they can collect the one with the smaller amount. When one has a loan with a guarantor, can the creditor collect from the guarantor? If so, under what circumstances? What is the source from the Tanach for the responsibility of a guarantor? At first, they try to learn it from Yehuda and Reuven, when they each promised to take responsibility for bringing Binyamin to Egypt, but that source is rejected and instead, verses from Proverbs 20:16 and Proverbs 6:1-3 are used as the source. Ameimar views a guarantor's commitment as asmachta (a commitment that the guarantor never really meant to keep) and would then be a subject of debate between Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Yehuda if it is a valid commitment. Rav Ashi rejects this explanation and explains why it is not viewed as asmachta.

Rava and Rav made suggestions to scribes how to avoid writing documents that could raise suspicion of not being fully truthful. Rava did not allow a creditor to trade in promissory notes of large amounts to be divided in half, or two notes to be combined into one for the combined amount, as there is concern for deceit. Rav Ashi did not permit a credit even to trade a promissory note for a large amount into a smaller amount as also that could be used to cheat the borrower. If two brothers inherited an item, such as a bathhouse or an olive press that was more useful to one than the other, as one was wealthy and had more household members or more produce, can the poor brother have a claim on the rich brother? On what does it depend? What rules apply to documents when there are two people with the same name in the town? Is there a way to avoid confusion? And if not, what documents can/can't be collected? A person came into court before Rav Huna with a docuemnts that said that a certain person borrowed money from "him" and the "him" was not mentioned by name. Can the person holding the document collect it? Can the court assume that since it is in his possession, he is the one who the "him" is referring to? Rav Huna ruled that he could not collect the money, but Raba ruled that he could. On what basis? How does it relate to the case in the Mishna with two people with the same name?

Today's daf is sponsored by Meir and Ahuva Balofsky in loving memory of Ahuva's grandmother, Basia Chava bat Yirmiyahu, on her shloshim, and in honor of their son Moshe's engagement to Maya Wind. "May Bubbie Chava's legacy carry on in this auspicious new beginning."  Today's daf is sponsored by Sigal Spitzer in loving memory of her Grandma "GG" Rhoda, Raizel Bat Gital, whose first yahrzeit is today. "I love you and miss you. May her neshama have an aliyah."  Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi's father, Jack Lock, of Harrisburg PA, who passed away four years ago. "He was so proud that all four of his children made aliya to Israel, and that his “tribe” grew during his lifetime to nearly 100 family members, spanning three generations (now four!) all in Israel. He was a generous and loving husband, father, grandfather, uncle, and brother who is sorely missed."  When a borrower pays back part of a loan, two tannaitic opinions are proposed to prevent the creditor from attempting to collect the full original amount. Rabbi Yehuda suggests writing an entirely new loan document that reflects the reduced outstanding balance, replacing the original document to ensure clarity about the remaining debt. Rabbi Yosi recommends creating a receipt that the borrower keeps as proof of partial payment, serving as evidence that a portion of the loan has already been repaid and protecting the borrower from potential future claims. Rav diverges from both opinions, requiring a new document to be written specifically by the court and pre-dated to the original loan's date. This position is challenged by a braita that allows witnesses to rewrite and predate the document. However, Rav maintains his stance, arguing that witnesses lack the court's authority to create a lien on the buyer's property from the original date. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi also disagree about post-dated documents, specifically in cases where the post-dating is not explicitly clear. Rabbi Yehuda's position stems from his earlier view that receipts cannot be written, thus allowing post-dating as it cannot lead to deceit. Rabbi Yosi, who permits writing receipts, warns that a receipt pre-dating the post-dated document could potentially enable the creditor to collect on the loan twice. A broader question emerges regarding receipts: Are they applicable only for partial loan payments or also for fully paid loans? The conclusive view is that if a creditor claims a lost document cannot be torn, they may demand payment upon providing a receipt to the borrower. This approach is justified by the creditor's initial act of kindness in providing the loan. A Mishna in Shviit 10:5 distinguishes between pre-dated and post-dated documents. Since documents create property liens, pre-dated documents are disqualified for incorrectly placing liens on lands sold after the document's date. Post-dated documents, however, are acceptable. Rav Hamnuna limits post-dating to loan documents but raises concerns about post-dated bills of sale that could facilitate deception. He warns that a seller could repurchase land before the sale date, and the buyer might then use the deed to prove incorrect ownership. When questioned about why similar concerns do not apply to loans, the Gemara suggests that Rav Hamnuna must not permit receipts. Subsequently, post-dated documents became permitted, and people were also writing receipts. To prevent potential deceit, Rabbi Abba advised his scribes that when they wrote post-dated documents they should add to the document that it was post-dated, while Rav Safra suggested avoiding dating the receipts.