Search

Bava Batra 79

Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:

podcast placeholder
0:00
0:00



Summary

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran zoom family in loving memory of the beloved mother of their dear Hadran learner and friend, Rhona Fink – Millie Laxer, Malka bat Sarah v’Avraham z”l, who passed away yesterday. “May her family be comforted among aveilei Zion v’Yerushalayim.

What is the punishment for those who separate themselves from the words of Torah?

A Mishna in Meila is brought which discusses one who consecrates an item that generally holds something else like a pit with water, or a field with crops. If one consecrates the pit, is the water consecrated as well? Does it depend on whether it was full of water when it was consecrated or if it was empty? In which items do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi disagree? After reconciling the disagreement between them with the words of Rebbi in a braita, the Gemara proceeds to bring a different braita also regarding this issue. In that braita, there is a debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon. First Raba explains the debate to be parallel to that of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi, but this is rejected in light of the latter case in the braita where Rabbi Elazar. In conclusion, they explain the debate differently. The debate in the first part of the braita is based on a debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis about whether one can acquire items that are not yet in existence. A difficulty is raised, but it is resolved. The debate in the second part depends on whether we learn laws of consecrated items from laws of sales. A difficulty is raised with the explanations of each of these. A difficulty is raised on this explanation, as well, from our Mishna but it is resolved, as is proven from a braita, that the position in our Mishna is a minority opinion.

Bava Batra 79

עַד נֹפַח״ – עַד שֶׁתָּבֹא אֵשׁ שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה נִיפּוּחַ, ״עַד מֵידְבָא״ – עַד שֶׁתַּדְאִיב נִשְׁמָתָן. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: עַד דְּעָבֵיד מַאי דְּבָעֵי.

even until Nophah,” meaning until the fire comes that does not require fanning [nippuaḥ], i.e., the fire of Gehenna, which will consume them. “Until Medeba [Medeva]”; this means until their souls are pained [tadiv]. And some say an alternative explanation: It means until God does what He wishes [mai deva’ei] with them and punishes them as they deserve.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה – אֵשׁ אוֹכַלְתּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנָתַתִּי [אֶת] פָּנַי בָּהֶם, מֵהָאֵשׁ יָצָאוּ וְהָאֵשׁ תֹּאכְלֵם״.

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to anyone who separates himself from matters of Torah, a fire consumes him, as it is stated: “And I will set My face against them; out of the fire they come forth, and the fire shall devour them” (Ezekiel 15:7). The Torah is likened to fire in the verse: “Is not My word like fire?” (Jeremiah 23:29). The verse in Ezekiel teaches: “Out of the fire they come forth,” referring to those who separate themselves from the fire of Torah; “and the fire shall devour them,” i.e., they are consumed by the fire of Gehenna.

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: כׇּל הַפּוֹרֵשׁ עַצְמוֹ מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה – נוֹפֵל בְּגֵיהִנָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אָדָם תּוֹעֶה מִדֶּרֶךְ הַשְׂכֵּל, בִּקְהַל רְפָאִים יָנוּחַ״. וְאֵין רְפָאִים אֶלָּא גֵּיהִנָּם – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא יָדַע כִּי רְפָאִים שָׁם, בְּעִמְקֵי שְׁאוֹל קְרֻאֶיהָ.

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yonatan says: Anyone who separates himself from the matters of Torah falls into Gehenna. As it is stated: “The man who strays out of the way of understanding shall rest in the congregation of the spirits” (Proverbs 21:16). “The way of understanding” is the way of the Torah. And one who departs from the Torah arrives in the place of the spirits, which is nothing other than Gehenna, as it is stated: “But he does not know that the spirits are there; that those whom she has called are in the depths of the netherworld” (Proverbs 9:18).

מָכַר אַשְׁפָּה – מָכַר זִבְלָהּ וְכוּ׳. תְּנַן הָתָם: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְלֹא לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת; לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת וְלֹא לַמִּזְבֵּחַ; לֹא לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְלֹא לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן וּבְמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן.

§ The mishna teaches: One who sold a dunghill has sold its manure, and one who sold a cistern has sold its water. We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Me’ila 12b): With regard to any item that is fit to be sacrificed on the altar but is not fit for Temple maintenance, or is fit for Temple maintenance but not for the altar, or items that are fit neither for the altar nor for Temple maintenance in their current state and are slated to be sold with the profit used for the Temple, in all these cases if one consecrates these items and then derives benefit from them or their contents for a non-sacred purpose, he thereby is liable for misuse of consecrated property and is obligated to bring an offering as atonement.

כֵּיצַד? הִקְדִּישׁ בּוֹר מְלֵאָה מַיִם; אַשְׁפּוֹת מְלֵאוֹת זֶבֶל; שׁוֹבָךְ מָלֵא יוֹנִים; שָׂדֶה מְלֵאָה עֲשָׂבִים; אִילָן נָשׂוּי; פֵּירוֹת – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן וּבְמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן.

How so? One who consecrated a cistern filled with water, dunghills filled with manure, a dovecote filled with doves, a field filled with plants, or a tree bearing fruit, and subsequently derived benefit from them or their contents is liable for misuse of consecrated property.

אֲבָל הִקְדִּישׁ בּוֹר וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְמַלֵּא מַיִם; אַשְׁפָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְמַלְּאָה זֶבֶל; שׁוֹבָךְ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְמַלֵּא יוֹנִים; אִילָן וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָשָׂא פֵּירוֹת; שָׂדֶה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְמַלְּאָה עֲשָׂבִים – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בְּמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: הִקְדִּישׁ אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה וְאֶת הָאִילָן – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן וּבְגִידּוּלֵיהֶם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן גִּידּוּלֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ.

But with regard to one who consecrated a cistern and it was later filled with water, a dunghill and it was later filled with manure, a dovecote and it later was filled with doves, a tree and it later bore fruit, or a field and it was later filled with plants, if he derives benefit from them he is liable for misuse of consecrated property but he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property by deriving benefit from its contents. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to one who consecrated a field or a tree, he is liable for misuse of consecrated property if he derives benefit from them or that which grows from them, because they are growths of consecrated property.

תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – בְּבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ, וְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי – בְּשָׂדֶה וְאִילָן. הַאי מַאי? בִּשְׁלָמָא ״נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ״ – מִכְּלָל דִּפְלִיג אַשָּׂדֶה וְאִילָן,

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote, i.e., if one consecrated an empty cistern or dovecote, the water or doves that later fill it do not become consecrated. And the statement of Rabbi Yosei appears to be correct in the cases of a field and a tree. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of this statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Granted, when he says that the statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote, by inference this means that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with Rabbi Yosei in the cases of a field and a tree, and Rabbi Yehuda does explicitly disagree in those cases.

אֶלָּא ״נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּשָׂדֶה וְאִילָן״ – מִכְּלָל דִּפְלִיג בְּבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ?! וְהָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי ״שָׂדֶה וְאִילָן״ קָאָמַר!

But when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the statement of Rabbi Yosei appears to be correct in the cases of a field and a tree, this indicates by inference that Rabbi Yosei disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote. But Rabbi Yosei stated his opinion solely in the cases of a field and a tree, as only plants and fruit grow directly from consecrated property, and this reasoning is not relevant in the case of a cistern or dovecote.

וְכִי תֵּימָא: לִדְבָרָיו דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קָאָמַר; וְהַתַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אֵין אֲנִי רוֹאֶה דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּשָׂדֶה וְאִילָן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן גִּידּוּלֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ. בְּשָׂדֶה וְאִילָן הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה, הָא בְּבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ – רוֹאֶה!

And if you would say that Rabbi Yosei stated his opinion in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, whereas he himself holds that even the items found in a dovecote or a cistern are consecrated, this is difficult: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: I do not see the statement of Rabbi Yehuda as correct in the cases of a field and a tree, because the plants and the fruit are the growths of consecrated property? Infer from here that it is in the cases of a field and a tree that Rabbi Yosei does not see and accept the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. But in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote, he does see and accept his opinion.

הָכִי קָאָמַר: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, בְּבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ – שֶׁאַף רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לֹא נֶחְלַק עָלָיו אֶלָּא בְּשָׂדֶה וְאִילָן, אֲבָל בְּבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ.

The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to Rabbi Yosei to be correct in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote. In other words, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying that even Rabbi Yosei disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda only in the cases of a field and a tree. But in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote, he concedes to him that the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property does not apply to items that were added afterward and were not present at the time of the consecration.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הִקְדִּישָׁן רֵיקָנִין וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְמַלְּאוּ – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בְּמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף מוֹעֲלִין בְּמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן.

The Sages taught: In the case of cisterns, with regard to one who consecrated them when they were empty and they were later filled, if one derives benefit from them he is liable for misuse of consecrated property, but he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property if he derives benefit from their contents. This ruling will be clarified below. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: One is liable for misuse of consecrated property even by deriving benefit from their contents.

אָמַר רַבָּה: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּשָׂדֶה וְאִילָן – דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי; אֲבָל בְּבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בְּמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן.

Rabba says: This dispute in the baraita applies only in the cases of a field and a tree, as the first tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. But in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote, everyone agrees that if one derives benefit from them he is liable for misuse of consecrated property but he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property if he derives benefit from their contents.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי, וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: הִקְדִּישָׁן מְלֵאִין – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן וּבְמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַחְלִיף;

Abaye said to him: But consider that which is taught in the continuation of the baraita: If one consecrated them when they were full and then derives benefit from them or from their contents, he is liable for misuse of consecrated property. And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, reverses his previous ruling in this case and holds that if the items were consecrated when full their contents are not subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property.

וְאִי בְּשָׂדֶה וְאִילָן, אַמַּאי מַחְלִיף? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ, אֲבָל בְּשָׂדֶה וְאִילָן – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן וּבְמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן.

And if their dispute is referring to a field and a tree, why does Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, reverse his opinion? Rather, Rabba’s statement must be adjusted, and this is what Rabba said: This dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, applies only in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote. But in the cases of a field and a tree, everyone agrees that one is liable for misuse of consecrated property if one derives benefit from them or their contents.

וּבְבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ – בְּרֵיקָנִין בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי, וּבִמְלֵאִין בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי? בְּרֵיקָנִין – פְּלִיגִי בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבָּנַן;

The Gemara asks: And in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote, where the cistern and the dovecote are empty, with regard to what matter do they disagree? And similarly, where the cistern and the dovecote are full, with regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: In the cases of a cistern and a dovecote that are empty, they disagree with regard to the matter that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis.

דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: אֵין אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם; וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם.

The first tanna and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, disagree because the first tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: A person cannot transfer ownership of an object that has not yet come into the world, i.e., that one does not currently own. Therefore, one cannot consecrate water or doves that will enter the cistern or dovecote only in the future. And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: A person can transfer ownership of an object that has not yet come into the world.

אֵימוֹר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר – כְּגוֹן פֵּירוֹת דֶּקֶל, דַּעֲבִידִי דְּאָתוּ; הָנֵי – מִי יֵימַר דְּאָתוּ? אָמַר רָבָא: מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בְּמַיִם הַבָּאִין דֶּרֶךְ חֲצֵרוֹ לַבּוֹר, וְיוֹנִים הַבָּאִין דֶּרֶךְ שׁוֹבָכוֹ לַשּׁוֹבָךְ.

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this answer: You can say that you heard Rabbi Meir express this opinion in a case such as the fruit of palm trees, which are likely to come into existence, as the trees naturally produce fruit. But with regard to these doves and water, who can say that they will come? Rava said: You can find cases where one consecrates water or doves that are likely to arrive, e.g., in the case of water that comes by way of his courtyard into the cistern when it rains, so that he does not need to fill the cistern. And similarly with regard to doves that come by way of his other, full dovecote into this empty dovecote.

וּבִמְלֵאִים בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי? אָמַר רָבָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ בּוֹר סְתָם; וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר לַהּ כַּאֲבוּהּ, דְּאָמַר: דָּנִין דִּין גָּבוֹהַּ מִדִּין הֶדְיוֹט,

The Gemara asks: And in cases where the cistern and the dovecote are full, with regard to what matter do they disagree? Rava said: This dispute concerns a case where he consecrated a cistern without specification. And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of his father, who says: One infers the halakha of consecration to the Most High from the halakha of transactions between one ordinary person [hedyot] and another.

מָה דִּין הֶדְיוֹט – מָצֵי אֲמַר: בֵּירָא זַבֵּינִי לָךְ, מַיָּא לָא זַבֵּינִי לָךְ; אַף דִּין גָּבוֹהַּ – בֵּירָא אַקְדֵּישׁ, מַיָּא לָא אַקְדֵּישׁ. וְתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: אֵין דָּנִין דִּין גָּבוֹהַּ מִדִּין הֶדְיוֹט.

The Gemara elaborates: Just as the halakha with regard to transactions between one ordinary person and another is that one can say: I sold you the cistern but I did not sell you the water it contains, so too, the halakha in the case of consecration to the Most High is that one can say: I consecrated the cistern but I did not consecrate the water within it. And the first tanna holds that one does not infer the halakha of consecration to the Most High from the halakha of transactions between one ordinary person and another. Rather, one who consecrates property does so generously, i.e., the most expansive meaning is assumed for his vow of consecration, and therefore even if he did not say so explicitly, he consecrated the water together with the cistern.

וְדִין הֶדְיוֹט לָא?! וְהָתְנַן: מָכַר בּוֹר – מָכַר מֵימָיו! אָמַר רָבָא: מַתְנִיתִין יְחִידָאָה הִיא – דְּתַנְיָא: מָכַר בּוֹר – לֹא מָכַר מֵימָיו. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: מָכַר בּוֹר – מָכַר מֵימָיו.

The Gemara asks: And does the halakha concerning a transaction with an ordinary person say that one does not sell the water along with the cistern? But didn’t we learn in the mishna (78b) that one who sold a cistern has sold its water? Rava said: The ruling in the mishna is an individual opinion, as it is taught in a baraita: One who sold a cistern has not sold its water. Rabbi Natan says: One who sold a cistern has sold its water.

New to Talmud?

Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you. 

The Hadran Women’s Tapestry

Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories. 

It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.

Jeanne Yael Klempner
Jeanne Yael Klempner

Zichron Yaakov, Israel

I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.

Karena Perry
Karena Perry

Los Angeles, United States

When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!

Wendy Dickstein
Wendy Dickstein

Jerusalem, Israel

My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.

Diana Bloom
Diana Bloom

Tampa, United States

I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!

Silke Goldberg
Silke Goldberg

Guildford, United Kingdom

I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!

Dena Lehrman
Dena Lehrman

אפרת, Israel

I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.

Gila Loike
Gila Loike

Ashdod, Israel

Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .

Goldie Gilad
Goldie Gilad

Kfar Saba, Israel

I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.

Laura Major
Laura Major

Yad Binyamin, Israel

Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!

Rhona Fink
Rhona Fink

San Diego, United States

I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.

Caroline-Ben-Ari-Tapestry
Caroline Ben-Ari

Karmiel, Israel

I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!

Dena Lehrman
Dena Lehrman

אפרת, Israel

I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.

Patti Evans
Patti Evans

Phoenix, Arizona, United States

I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.

Rachel Rotenberg
Rachel Rotenberg

Tekoa, Israel

I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!

Khaya Eisenberg
Khaya Eisenberg

Jerusalem, Israel

In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.

Reena Slovin
Reena Slovin

Worcester, United States

I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!

Mona Fishbane
Mona Fishbane

Teaneck NJ, United States

See video

Susan Fisher
Susan Fisher

Raanana, Israel

I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.

Adina Hagege
Adina Hagege

Zichron Yaakov, Israel

In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).

Sara-Averick-photo-scaled
Sara Averick

Jerusalem, Israel

Bava Batra 79

עַד נֹפַח״ – עַד שֶׁתָּבֹא אֵשׁ שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה נִיפּוּחַ, ״עַד מֵידְבָא״ – עַד שֶׁתַּדְאִיב נִשְׁמָתָן. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: עַד דְּעָבֵיד מַאי דְּבָעֵי.

even until Nophah,” meaning until the fire comes that does not require fanning [nippuaḥ], i.e., the fire of Gehenna, which will consume them. “Until Medeba [Medeva]”; this means until their souls are pained [tadiv]. And some say an alternative explanation: It means until God does what He wishes [mai deva’ei] with them and punishes them as they deserve.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה – אֵשׁ אוֹכַלְתּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנָתַתִּי [אֶת] פָּנַי בָּהֶם, מֵהָאֵשׁ יָצָאוּ וְהָאֵשׁ תֹּאכְלֵם״.

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to anyone who separates himself from matters of Torah, a fire consumes him, as it is stated: “And I will set My face against them; out of the fire they come forth, and the fire shall devour them” (Ezekiel 15:7). The Torah is likened to fire in the verse: “Is not My word like fire?” (Jeremiah 23:29). The verse in Ezekiel teaches: “Out of the fire they come forth,” referring to those who separate themselves from the fire of Torah; “and the fire shall devour them,” i.e., they are consumed by the fire of Gehenna.

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: כׇּל הַפּוֹרֵשׁ עַצְמוֹ מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה – נוֹפֵל בְּגֵיהִנָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אָדָם תּוֹעֶה מִדֶּרֶךְ הַשְׂכֵּל, בִּקְהַל רְפָאִים יָנוּחַ״. וְאֵין רְפָאִים אֶלָּא גֵּיהִנָּם – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא יָדַע כִּי רְפָאִים שָׁם, בְּעִמְקֵי שְׁאוֹל קְרֻאֶיהָ.

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yonatan says: Anyone who separates himself from the matters of Torah falls into Gehenna. As it is stated: “The man who strays out of the way of understanding shall rest in the congregation of the spirits” (Proverbs 21:16). “The way of understanding” is the way of the Torah. And one who departs from the Torah arrives in the place of the spirits, which is nothing other than Gehenna, as it is stated: “But he does not know that the spirits are there; that those whom she has called are in the depths of the netherworld” (Proverbs 9:18).

מָכַר אַשְׁפָּה – מָכַר זִבְלָהּ וְכוּ׳. תְּנַן הָתָם: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְלֹא לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת; לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת וְלֹא לַמִּזְבֵּחַ; לֹא לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְלֹא לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן וּבְמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן.

§ The mishna teaches: One who sold a dunghill has sold its manure, and one who sold a cistern has sold its water. We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Me’ila 12b): With regard to any item that is fit to be sacrificed on the altar but is not fit for Temple maintenance, or is fit for Temple maintenance but not for the altar, or items that are fit neither for the altar nor for Temple maintenance in their current state and are slated to be sold with the profit used for the Temple, in all these cases if one consecrates these items and then derives benefit from them or their contents for a non-sacred purpose, he thereby is liable for misuse of consecrated property and is obligated to bring an offering as atonement.

כֵּיצַד? הִקְדִּישׁ בּוֹר מְלֵאָה מַיִם; אַשְׁפּוֹת מְלֵאוֹת זֶבֶל; שׁוֹבָךְ מָלֵא יוֹנִים; שָׂדֶה מְלֵאָה עֲשָׂבִים; אִילָן נָשׂוּי; פֵּירוֹת – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן וּבְמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן.

How so? One who consecrated a cistern filled with water, dunghills filled with manure, a dovecote filled with doves, a field filled with plants, or a tree bearing fruit, and subsequently derived benefit from them or their contents is liable for misuse of consecrated property.

אֲבָל הִקְדִּישׁ בּוֹר וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְמַלֵּא מַיִם; אַשְׁפָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְמַלְּאָה זֶבֶל; שׁוֹבָךְ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְמַלֵּא יוֹנִים; אִילָן וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָשָׂא פֵּירוֹת; שָׂדֶה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְמַלְּאָה עֲשָׂבִים – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בְּמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: הִקְדִּישׁ אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה וְאֶת הָאִילָן – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן וּבְגִידּוּלֵיהֶם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן גִּידּוּלֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ.

But with regard to one who consecrated a cistern and it was later filled with water, a dunghill and it was later filled with manure, a dovecote and it later was filled with doves, a tree and it later bore fruit, or a field and it was later filled with plants, if he derives benefit from them he is liable for misuse of consecrated property but he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property by deriving benefit from its contents. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to one who consecrated a field or a tree, he is liable for misuse of consecrated property if he derives benefit from them or that which grows from them, because they are growths of consecrated property.

תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – בְּבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ, וְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי – בְּשָׂדֶה וְאִילָן. הַאי מַאי? בִּשְׁלָמָא ״נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ״ – מִכְּלָל דִּפְלִיג אַשָּׂדֶה וְאִילָן,

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote, i.e., if one consecrated an empty cistern or dovecote, the water or doves that later fill it do not become consecrated. And the statement of Rabbi Yosei appears to be correct in the cases of a field and a tree. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of this statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Granted, when he says that the statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote, by inference this means that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with Rabbi Yosei in the cases of a field and a tree, and Rabbi Yehuda does explicitly disagree in those cases.

אֶלָּא ״נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּשָׂדֶה וְאִילָן״ – מִכְּלָל דִּפְלִיג בְּבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ?! וְהָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי ״שָׂדֶה וְאִילָן״ קָאָמַר!

But when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the statement of Rabbi Yosei appears to be correct in the cases of a field and a tree, this indicates by inference that Rabbi Yosei disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote. But Rabbi Yosei stated his opinion solely in the cases of a field and a tree, as only plants and fruit grow directly from consecrated property, and this reasoning is not relevant in the case of a cistern or dovecote.

וְכִי תֵּימָא: לִדְבָרָיו דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קָאָמַר; וְהַתַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אֵין אֲנִי רוֹאֶה דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּשָׂדֶה וְאִילָן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן גִּידּוּלֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ. בְּשָׂדֶה וְאִילָן הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה, הָא בְּבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ – רוֹאֶה!

And if you would say that Rabbi Yosei stated his opinion in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, whereas he himself holds that even the items found in a dovecote or a cistern are consecrated, this is difficult: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: I do not see the statement of Rabbi Yehuda as correct in the cases of a field and a tree, because the plants and the fruit are the growths of consecrated property? Infer from here that it is in the cases of a field and a tree that Rabbi Yosei does not see and accept the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. But in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote, he does see and accept his opinion.

הָכִי קָאָמַר: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, בְּבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ – שֶׁאַף רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לֹא נֶחְלַק עָלָיו אֶלָּא בְּשָׂדֶה וְאִילָן, אֲבָל בְּבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ.

The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to Rabbi Yosei to be correct in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote. In other words, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying that even Rabbi Yosei disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda only in the cases of a field and a tree. But in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote, he concedes to him that the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property does not apply to items that were added afterward and were not present at the time of the consecration.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הִקְדִּישָׁן רֵיקָנִין וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְמַלְּאוּ – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בְּמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף מוֹעֲלִין בְּמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן.

The Sages taught: In the case of cisterns, with regard to one who consecrated them when they were empty and they were later filled, if one derives benefit from them he is liable for misuse of consecrated property, but he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property if he derives benefit from their contents. This ruling will be clarified below. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: One is liable for misuse of consecrated property even by deriving benefit from their contents.

אָמַר רַבָּה: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּשָׂדֶה וְאִילָן – דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי; אֲבָל בְּבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בְּמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן.

Rabba says: This dispute in the baraita applies only in the cases of a field and a tree, as the first tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. But in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote, everyone agrees that if one derives benefit from them he is liable for misuse of consecrated property but he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property if he derives benefit from their contents.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי, וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: הִקְדִּישָׁן מְלֵאִין – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן וּבְמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַחְלִיף;

Abaye said to him: But consider that which is taught in the continuation of the baraita: If one consecrated them when they were full and then derives benefit from them or from their contents, he is liable for misuse of consecrated property. And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, reverses his previous ruling in this case and holds that if the items were consecrated when full their contents are not subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property.

וְאִי בְּשָׂדֶה וְאִילָן, אַמַּאי מַחְלִיף? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ, אֲבָל בְּשָׂדֶה וְאִילָן – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן וּבְמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן.

And if their dispute is referring to a field and a tree, why does Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, reverse his opinion? Rather, Rabba’s statement must be adjusted, and this is what Rabba said: This dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, applies only in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote. But in the cases of a field and a tree, everyone agrees that one is liable for misuse of consecrated property if one derives benefit from them or their contents.

וּבְבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ – בְּרֵיקָנִין בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי, וּבִמְלֵאִין בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי? בְּרֵיקָנִין – פְּלִיגִי בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבָּנַן;

The Gemara asks: And in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote, where the cistern and the dovecote are empty, with regard to what matter do they disagree? And similarly, where the cistern and the dovecote are full, with regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: In the cases of a cistern and a dovecote that are empty, they disagree with regard to the matter that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis.

דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: אֵין אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם; וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם.

The first tanna and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, disagree because the first tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: A person cannot transfer ownership of an object that has not yet come into the world, i.e., that one does not currently own. Therefore, one cannot consecrate water or doves that will enter the cistern or dovecote only in the future. And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: A person can transfer ownership of an object that has not yet come into the world.

אֵימוֹר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר – כְּגוֹן פֵּירוֹת דֶּקֶל, דַּעֲבִידִי דְּאָתוּ; הָנֵי – מִי יֵימַר דְּאָתוּ? אָמַר רָבָא: מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בְּמַיִם הַבָּאִין דֶּרֶךְ חֲצֵרוֹ לַבּוֹר, וְיוֹנִים הַבָּאִין דֶּרֶךְ שׁוֹבָכוֹ לַשּׁוֹבָךְ.

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this answer: You can say that you heard Rabbi Meir express this opinion in a case such as the fruit of palm trees, which are likely to come into existence, as the trees naturally produce fruit. But with regard to these doves and water, who can say that they will come? Rava said: You can find cases where one consecrates water or doves that are likely to arrive, e.g., in the case of water that comes by way of his courtyard into the cistern when it rains, so that he does not need to fill the cistern. And similarly with regard to doves that come by way of his other, full dovecote into this empty dovecote.

וּבִמְלֵאִים בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי? אָמַר רָבָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ בּוֹר סְתָם; וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר לַהּ כַּאֲבוּהּ, דְּאָמַר: דָּנִין דִּין גָּבוֹהַּ מִדִּין הֶדְיוֹט,

The Gemara asks: And in cases where the cistern and the dovecote are full, with regard to what matter do they disagree? Rava said: This dispute concerns a case where he consecrated a cistern without specification. And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of his father, who says: One infers the halakha of consecration to the Most High from the halakha of transactions between one ordinary person [hedyot] and another.

מָה דִּין הֶדְיוֹט – מָצֵי אֲמַר: בֵּירָא זַבֵּינִי לָךְ, מַיָּא לָא זַבֵּינִי לָךְ; אַף דִּין גָּבוֹהַּ – בֵּירָא אַקְדֵּישׁ, מַיָּא לָא אַקְדֵּישׁ. וְתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: אֵין דָּנִין דִּין גָּבוֹהַּ מִדִּין הֶדְיוֹט.

The Gemara elaborates: Just as the halakha with regard to transactions between one ordinary person and another is that one can say: I sold you the cistern but I did not sell you the water it contains, so too, the halakha in the case of consecration to the Most High is that one can say: I consecrated the cistern but I did not consecrate the water within it. And the first tanna holds that one does not infer the halakha of consecration to the Most High from the halakha of transactions between one ordinary person and another. Rather, one who consecrates property does so generously, i.e., the most expansive meaning is assumed for his vow of consecration, and therefore even if he did not say so explicitly, he consecrated the water together with the cistern.

וְדִין הֶדְיוֹט לָא?! וְהָתְנַן: מָכַר בּוֹר – מָכַר מֵימָיו! אָמַר רָבָא: מַתְנִיתִין יְחִידָאָה הִיא – דְּתַנְיָא: מָכַר בּוֹר – לֹא מָכַר מֵימָיו. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: מָכַר בּוֹר – מָכַר מֵימָיו.

The Gemara asks: And does the halakha concerning a transaction with an ordinary person say that one does not sell the water along with the cistern? But didn’t we learn in the mishna (78b) that one who sold a cistern has sold its water? Rava said: The ruling in the mishna is an individual opinion, as it is taught in a baraita: One who sold a cistern has not sold its water. Rabbi Natan says: One who sold a cistern has sold its water.

Want to follow content and continue where you left off?

Create an account today to track your progress, mark what you’ve learned, and follow the shiurim that speak to you.

Clear all items from this list?

This will remove ALL the items in this section. You will lose any progress or history connected to them. This is irreversible.

Cancel
Yes, clear all

Are you sure you want to delete this item?

You will lose any progress or history connected to this item.

Cancel
Yes, delete