One who passes on information about other people’s property to non-Jews who are looking to seize/steal it – is this considered theft? Is the informant liable to return the value of the item? On what does it depend? The Gemara brings a series of cases where Jews informed Gentiles about the whereabouts of others’ possessions and the rulings of the rabbis are brought. In the context of a story about a Jew who wanted to inform about another, we are told of a famous story of the showdown between Rav Kahana and Rabbi Yochanan when Rav Kahana ran away to Israel from Babylonia. This story highlights the dangers of misjudging others, and holding oneself in high regard, and also highlights the power struggle between Babylonia and Israel, particularly in the second generation of amoraim, in terms of determining where the real center of authority is. Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree about whether land is “acquired” by a thief or not.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Tina Lamm in loving memory of her father, Mr. Mike Senders, A”H, Yitzchak Meir ben HaRav Tzvi Aryeh v’Esther Bayla, on his shloshim. “Reaching the age of 101 was not only a personal milestone for my father, but also a testament to the fullness of his life. He used those years well – building Torah institutions, nurturing family and living in intimacy with Hakadosh Baruch Hu. יְהִי זִכְרוֹ בָּרוּךְ”
Bava Kamma
Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Tina Lamm in loving memory of her father, Mr. Mike Senders, A”H, Yitzchak Meir ben HaRav Tzvi Aryeh v’Esther Bayla, on his shloshim. “Reaching the age of 101 was not only a personal milestone for my father, but also a testament to the fullness of his life. He used those years well – building Torah institutions, nurturing family and living in intimacy with Hakadosh Baruch Hu. יְהִי זִכְרוֹ בָּרוּךְ”
Bava Kamma
Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.
Bava Kamma 117
אִי דִּינָא אִי קְנָסָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי דִּינָא – גָּמְרִינַן מִינֵּיהּ, אִי קְנָסָא – לָא גָּמְרִינַן מִינֵּיהּ.
if it is the halakha or if it is a fine? Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said to him: If it is the halakha, we learn from it and apply this ruling to other cases, but if it is a fine, we do not learn from it, as it is possible that Rav Naḥman had a specific reason to impose a fine in this case.
וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּמִקְּנָסָא לָא גָּמְרִינַן? דְּתַנְיָא, בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: הַמְטַמֵּא וְהַמְנַסֵּךְ; חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר: אַף הַמְדַמֵּעַ.
The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that we do not learn from the imposition of a fine in one case and apply the ruling in other cases? The Gemara answers that the source is as it is taught in a baraita: Initially, the Sages would say that one who renders another’s food ritually impure, thereby rendering it unfit for him to consume, and one who pours another’s wine as a libation for idol worship, thereby rendering it an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited, are liable to pay the owner for the financial loss they caused despite the fact that damage is not evident. Subsequently, they added to this list, to say that even one who intermingles teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, with another’s non-sacred produce, thereby rendering the non-sacred food forbidden to non-priests, is liable to compensate the owner for the loss of value of the produce, as fewer people will be willing to buy it from him.
חָזְרוּ – אִין, לֹא חָזְרוּ – לָא; מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דִּקְנָסָא הוּא, וּקְנָסָא לָא גָּמְרִינַן מִינֵּיהּ?
The Gemara comments: It may be inferred from the baraita that it is only because the Sages subsequently added to the list that yes, one who intermingles teruma with another’s non-sacred produce must compensate him. But if they had not subsequently added to the list, he would not be liable. What is the reason that we do not learn that he is liable from the cases of one who renders another’s food impure or pours wine as a libation for idol worship, as this is also a case in which one causes damage that is not evident? Is it not due to the fact that his payment is a fine, and with regard to a fine, we do not learn from one case that it may be imposed in other circumstances?
לָא; מֵעִיקָּרָא סָבְרִי: לְהֶפְסֵד מְרוּבֶּה חָשְׁשׁוּ, לְהֶפְסֵד מוּעָט לֹא חָשְׁשׁוּ; וּלְבַסּוֹף סָבְרִי: לְהֶפְסֵד מוּעָט נָמֵי חָשְׁשׁוּ.
The Gemara answers: No, this is not the reason. Rather, initially the Sages maintained that they were concerned with regard to a large financial loss, e.g., the cases of one who renders another’s food impure or pours his wine as a libation for idol worship, but with regard to a small financial loss, e.g., one who intermingles teruma with another’s non-sacred produce, they were not concerned. And ultimately the Sages maintained that they were concerned with regard to a small loss as well and imposed liability.
אִינִי?! וְהָא תָּנֵי אֲבוּהּ דְּרַבִּי אָבִין, בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: הַמְטַמֵּא וְהַמְדַמֵּעַ; חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר: אַף הַמְנַסֵּךְ. חָזְרוּ – אִין, לֹא חָזְרוּ – לָא!
The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t the father of Rabbi Avin teach the baraita as follows: Initially they would say that one who renders another’s produce impure and one who intermingles teruma with another’s non-sacred produce are both liable to pay for the financial loss that they caused, despite the fact that the damage is not evident. Subsequently, they added to this list, to say that even one who pours another’s wine as a libation for idol worship is also liable to pay a fine for the loss that he caused. It may be inferred that it is only because the Sages subsequently added to the list, that yes, one who pours the libation is liable. But if they had not subsequently added to the list, he would not be liable.
מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא גָּמְרִינַן מִקְּנָסָא?
The Gemara comments: Since one who offers libations for idol worship causes a large financial loss, the rationale offered previously cannot apply to this version of the baraita. Accordingly, what is the reason that the liability for pouring another’s wine as a libation could not be extrapolated from the fine imposed for rendering another’s food impure or intermingling it with teruma? Is it not due to the fact that we do not learn from the imposition of a fine in one case that a fine may be imposed in other cases?
לָא; מֵעִיקָּרָא סָבְרִי כְּרַבִּי אָבִין, וּלְבַסּוֹף סָבְרִי כְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה.
The Gemara answers: No, this is not the reason. Rather, the reason is that initially the Sages held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Avin, and ultimately they held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya.
מֵעִיקָּרָא סָבְרִי כְּרַבִּי אָבִין – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין: זָרַק חֵץ מִתְּחִילַּת אַרְבַּע לְסוֹף אַרְבַּע, וְקָרַע שִׁירָאִין בַּהֲלִיכָתוֹ – פָּטוּר; שֶׁהֲרֵי עֲקִירָה צוֹרֶךְ הַנָּחָה הִיא, וּמִתְחַיֵּיב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ.
The Gemara elaborates: Initially they held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Avin, as Rabbi Avin says: If one stood in the public domain on Shabbat and shot an arrow from the beginning of an area measuring four cubits to the end of an area measuring four cubits, and the arrow tore another’s silks [shira’in] in the course of its travel through the air, the one who threw it is exempt from paying for the cloth. The reason for this is that lifting an item is a necessity for placing it elsewhere, and therefore the entire process, from when one shoots the arrow until it comes to a rest, is considered to be a single act. The one performing it is liable to receive the death penalty for violating Shabbat. One who performs a single act for which he is liable to receive the death penalty and is also liable to pay money receives only the death penalty. Similarly, one who pours another’s wine as a libation for idol worship incurs the death penalty, and is therefore exempt from paying for the wine.
וּלְבַסּוֹף סָבְרִי כְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מִשְּׁעַת הַגְבָּהָה קַנְיֵיהּ, אִיחַיַּיב לֵיהּ מָמוֹן; מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ לָא הָוֵי עַד שְׁעַת נִיסּוּךְ.
And ultimately they held that the liabilities are not incurred simultaneously, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya, as Rabbi Yirmeya says: From the time of the lifting, the thief acquires the wine and is therefore immediately liable to pay money to the owner. But he is not liable to receive the death penalty until the time that he pours the libation. Once the Sages concluded that the liabilities are not incurred simultaneously, they ruled that one who pours another’s wine as a libation for idol worship is liable to reimburse him.
רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי אֶבְיוֹנֵי. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּלוּם מַעֲשֶׂה בָּא לִידָךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֲנָסוּהוּ גּוֹיִם וְהֶרְאָה מָמוֹן חֲבֵירוֹ בָּא לְיָדִי, וְחִיַּיבְתִּיו.
§ The Gemara returns to the matter of one who showed another’s field to thugs. Rav Huna bar Yehuda happened to come to the town of Bei Abiyonei and came before Rava, who said to him: Did any legal incident come to you for judgment recently? Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to him: There was a case of a Jew whom gentiles coerced and, as a result he showed them property belonging to another, which the gentiles later seized. He came to me for judgment, and I deemed him liable to compensate the owner for the loss.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַהְדַּר עוֹבָדָא לְמָרֵיהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֲנָסוּהוּ גּוֹיִם וְהֶרְאָה מָמוֹן חֲבֵירוֹ – פָּטוּר, וְאִם נָטַל וְנָתַן בַּיָּד – חַיָּיב!
Rava said to Rav Huna bar Yehuda: Reverse your decision in this case and return the money to its owner, i.e., the thug, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a Jew whom gentiles coerced and, as a result he showed them property belonging to another that the gentiles later seized, he is exempt from reimbursing the owner of the property. But if he actively took the property and gave it to the gentiles by his own hand, he is liable to compensate the owner.
אָמַר רַבָּה: אִם הֶרְאָה מֵעַצְמוֹ, כְּנָשָׂא וְנָתַן בַּיָּד דָּמֵי.
The Gemara adds that Rabba says: If he showed the gentiles the property of his own volition, it is as though he actively took the property and gave it to the gentiles by his own hand, and he is liable to compensate the owner.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּאֲנָסוּהוּ גּוֹיִם, וְאַחְוִי אַחַמְרָא דְּרַב מָרִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב פִּנְחָס בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: ״דְּרִי וְאַמְטִי בַּהֲדַן״, דְּרָא וְאַמְטִי בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי, פַּטְרִינֵּיהּ.
The Gemara recounts another incident: There was a certain man that gentiles had coerced and so he showed them the wine of Rav Mari, son of Rav Pineḥas, son of Rav Ḥisda, and the gentiles said to him: Carry the wine and bring it with us. Complying with the gentiles, he carried and brought it with them. The case came before Rav Ashi, and he exempted the man from compensating Rav Mari for the wine.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַב אָשֵׁי, וְהָתַנְיָא: אִם נָשָׂא וְנָתַן בַּיָּד – חַיָּיב! אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא אוֹקְמֵיהּ עִילָּוֵיהּ מֵעִיקָּרָא, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאוֹקְמֵיהּ עִילָּוֵיהּ מֵעִיקָּרָא – מִיקְלֵי קַלְיֵיהּ.
The Rabbis said to Rav Ashi: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If he took the property and manually transferred it to the gentiles, he is liable to compensate the owner? Rav Ashi said to them: That statement applies only in a case where the Jew did not bring the gentiles to the property at the outset; but if he brought the gentiles to the property at the outset, it is as though he already burned it, as the gentiles then had access to the property. Since the damage inflicted by the Jew was committed by merely showing the wine to the gentiles, he is exempt from payment even though he later actively carried the wine with his hands.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אָמַר לוֹ אַנָּס ״הוֹשֵׁיט לִי פְּקִיעַ עָמִיר זֶה, אוֹ אֶשְׁכּוֹל עֲנָבִים זֶה״, וְהוֹשִׁיט לוֹ – חַיָּיב! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן דְּקָאֵי בִּתְרֵי עֶבְרֵי נַהֲרָא.
Rabbi Abbahu raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Ashi from a baraita: In a case where a ruffian said to a Jew: Pass me this bundle of grain, or this cluster of grapes, and the Jew passed it to him, the Jew is liable to pay the owner of the grain or the grapes. Since the ruffian was already present, it is evident from this baraita that one who hands over another’s property to a third party is liable despite the fact that the latter already had access to it. Rav Ashi answered: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the Jew and the ruffian were standing on two different sides of a river, so that the ruffian did not have access to the item when the Jew passed it to him.
דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״הוֹשֵׁיט״ וְלָא תָּנֵי ״תֵּן״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara points out that the language of the baraita is also precise according to this explanation, as it teaches its ruling using the term: Pass, which indicates that the ruffian could not have reached the item himself, and it did not teach using the term: Give, which would indicate that the ruffian was standing next to the other individual. The Gemara concludes: Learn from the language of the baraita that Rav Ashi’s interpretation is correct.
הָהוּא שׁוּתָא דַּהֲווֹ מִנְּצוּ עֲלַהּ בֵּי תְרֵי. הַאי אָמַר: דִּידִי הוּא, וְהַאי אָמַר: דִּידִי הוּא. אֲזַל חַד מִנַּיְיהוּ וּמַסְרַהּ לְפַרְהַגְ[בָּ]נָא דְמַלְכָּא. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, יָכוֹל לוֹמַר: אֲנָא כִּי מְסַרִי – דִּידִי מְסַרִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְכׇל כְּמִינֵּיהּ?! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: מְשַׁמְּתִינַן לֵיהּ עַד דְּמַיְיתֵי לֵיהּ וְקָאֵי בְּדִינָא.
The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain fishing net over which two people were quarreling. This one said: It is mine, and that one said: It is mine. One of them went and gave it to an officer [lefarhagna] of the king. Abaye said: He is exempt from payment because he can say to the court: When I gave it to the official, I gave what is mine. Rava said to Abaye: And is it in his power to do so when the ownership of the net is the subject of dispute? Rather, Rava said: We excommunicate him until he brings the net back and stands in court for adjudication.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה בָּעֵי אַחְווֹיֵי אַתִּיבְנָא דְחַבְרֵיהּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לָא תַּחְוֵי וְלָא תַּחְוֵי!״ אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״מַחְוֵינָא וּמַחְוֵינָא!״ יָתֵיב רַב כָּהֲנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, שַׁמְטֵיהּ לְקוֹעֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ.
The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain man who desired to show another individual’s straw to the gentile authorities, who would seize it. He came before Rav, who said to him: Do not show it and do not show it, i.e., you are absolutely prohibited from showing it. The man said to him: I will show it and I will show it, i.e., I will certainly show it. Rav Kahana was sitting before Rav, and, hearing the man’s disrespectful response, he dislodged the man’s neck from him, i.e., he broke his neck and killed him.
קָרֵי רַב עִילָּוֵיהּ: ״בָּנַיִךְ עֻלְּפוּ שָׁכְבוּ בְּרֹאשׁ כׇּל חוּצוֹת כְּתוֹא מִכְמָר״; מָה תּוֹא זֶה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּפַל בְּמִכְמָר – אֵין מְרַחֲמִין עָלָיו; אַף מָמוֹן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּפַל בְּיַד גּוֹיִם – אֵין מְרַחֲמִין עָלָיו.
Seeing Rav Kahana’s action, Rav read the following verse about him: “Your sons have fainted, they lie at the head of all the streets, as an antelope in a net” (Isaiah 51:20). Just as with regard to this antelope, once it falls into the net, the hunter does not have mercy upon it, so too with regard to the money of a Jew, once it falls into the hand of gentiles, they do not have mercy upon him, i.e., the Jew. Since gentiles who seek a Jew’s money will kill him in order to seize the property, Rav Kahana acted appropriately when he broke the miscreant’s neck, as he protected the Jew’s property and, by extension, the Jew himself.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב: ״כָּהֲנָא, עַד הָאִידָּנָא הֲווֹ פָּרְסָאֵי – דְּלָא קָפְדִי אַשְּׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, וְהַשְׁתָּא אִיכָּא יַוְונָאֵי – דְּקָפְדוּ אַשְּׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, וְאָמְרִי ׳מַרְדִּין, מַרְדִּין׳. קוּם סַק לְאַרְעָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְקַבֵּיל עֲלָךְ דְּלָא תַּקְשֵׁי לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן שֶׁבַע שְׁנִין״.
Rav then said to Rav Kahana: Kahana, until now there were Persian rulers who were not particular about bloodshed. But now there are Greeks who are particular about bloodshed, and they will say: Murder [meradin], murder, and they will press charges against you. Therefore, get up and ascend to Eretz Yisrael to study there under Rabbi Yoḥanan, and accept upon yourself that you will not raise any difficulties to the statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan for seven years.
אֲזַיל, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּיָתֵיב וְקָא מְסַיֵּים מְתִיבְתָּא דְיוֹמָא לְרַבָּנַן. אֲמַר לְהוּ: רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ הֵיכָא? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אַמַּאי? אֲמַר לְהוּ: הַאי קוּשְׁיָא וְהַאי קוּשְׁיָא, וְהַאי פֵּירוּקָא וְהַאי פֵּירוּקָא. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. אֲזַל רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״אֲרִי עָלָה מִבָּבֶל, לְעַיֵּין מָר בִּמְתִיבְתָּא דְּלִמְחַר״.
Rav Kahana went to Eretz Yisrael and found Reish Lakish, who was sitting and reviewing Rabbi Yoḥanan’s daily lecture in the academy for the Rabbis, i.e., the students in the academy. When he finished, Rav Kahana said to the students: Where is Reish Lakish? They said to him: Why do you wish to see him? Rav Kahana said to them: I have this difficulty and that difficulty with his review of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s lecture, and this resolution and that resolution to the questions he raised. They told this to Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish then went and said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: A lion has ascended from Babylonia, and the Master ought to examine the discourse he will deliver in the academy tomorrow, as Rav Kahana may raise difficult questions about the material.
לִמְחַר אוֹתְבוּהּ בְּדָרָא קַמָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אָמַר שְׁמַעְתְּתָא – וְלָא אַקְשִׁי, שְׁמַעְתְּתָא – וְלָא אַקְשִׁי; אַנְחֲתֵיהּ אֲחוֹרֵי שְׁבַע דָּרֵי, עַד דְּאוֹתְבֵיהּ בְּדָרָא בָּתְרָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: ״אֲרִי שֶׁאָמַרְתָּ – נַעֲשָׂה שׁוּעָל!״
The next day, they seated Rav Kahana in the first row, in front of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rabbi Yoḥanan stated a halakha and Rav Kahana did not raise a difficulty, in accordance with Rav’s instruction. Rabbi Yoḥanan stated another halakha and again, Rav Kahana did not raise a difficulty. As a result, they placed Rav Kahana further back by one row. This occurred until he had been moved back seven rows, until he was seated in the last row. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: The lion you mentioned has become a fox, i.e., he is not knowledgeable.
אָמַר: יְהֵא רַעֲוָא דְּהָנֵי שְׁבַע דָּרֵי לִהְווֹ חִילּוּף שְׁבַע שְׁנִין דַּאֲמַר לִי רַב. קָם אַכַּרְעֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״נֶהְדַּר מָר בְּרֵישָׁא״. אֲמַר שְׁמַעְתְּתָא, וְאַקְשִׁי. אוֹקְמֵיהּ בְּדָרָא קַמָּא. אָמַר שְׁמַעְתְּתָא, וְאַקְשִׁי.
Rav Kahana said to himself: May it be God’s will that these seven rows I have been moved should replace the seven years that Rav told me to wait before raising difficulties to the statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan. He stood up on his feet and said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Let the Master go back to the beginning of the discourse and repeat what he said. Rabbi Yoḥanan stated a halakha and Rav Kahana raised a difficulty. Therefore, they placed him in the first row, and again, Rav Yoḥanan stated a halakha, and he raised a difficulty.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֲוָה יָתֵיב אַשְּׁבַע בִּסְתַּרְקֵי, שָׁלְפִי לֵיהּ חֲדָא בִּסְתַּרְקָא מִתּוּתֵיהּ. אֲמַר שְׁמַעְתְּתָא – וְאַקְשִׁי לֵיהּ, עַד דְּשָׁלְפִי לֵיהּ כּוּלְּהוּ בִּסְתַּרְקֵי מִתּוּתֵיהּ, עַד דְּיָתֵיב עַל אַרְעָא. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן גַּבְרָא סָבָא הֲוָה וּמְסָרְחִי גְּבִינֵיהּ, אֲמַר לְהוּ: דַּלּוֹ לִי עֵינַי וְאֶחְזְיֵיהּ. דַּלּוֹ לֵיהּ בְּמַכְחַלְתָּא דְכַסְפָּא.
Rabbi Yoḥanan was sitting upon seven cushions [bistarkei] so that he could be seen by all the students, and since he could not answer Rav Kahana’s questions, he removed one cushion from under himself to demonstrate that he was lowering himself out of respect for Rav Kahana. He then stated another halakha and Rav Kahana raised another difficulty. This happened repeatedly until Rabbi Yoḥanan removed all the cushions from underneath himself until he was sitting on the ground. Rabbi Yoḥanan was an old man and his eyebrows drooped over his eyes. He said to his students: Uncover my eyes for me and I will see Rav Kahana, so they uncovered his eyes for him with a silver eye brush.
חֲזָא דִּפְרִיטָה שִׂפְווֹתֵיהּ, סְבַר אַחוֹכֵי קָמְחַיֵּיךְ בֵּיהּ. חֲלַשׁ דַּעְתֵּיהּ, וְנָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ. לִמְחַר אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַבָּנַן: חָזֵיתוּ לְבַבְלָאָה הֵיכִי עָבֵיד? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: דַּרְכֵּיהּ הָכִי. עָל לְגַבֵּי מְעָרְתָּא, חֲזָא דַּהֲוָה
Once his eyes were uncovered, Rabbi Yoḥanan saw that Rav Kahana’s lips were split and thought that Rav Kahana was smirking at him. As a result, Rabbi Yoḥanan was offended, and Rav Kahana died as punishment for the fact that he offended Rabbi Yoḥanan. The next day, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to the Rabbis, his students: Did you see how that Babylonian, Rav Kahana, behaved in such a disrespectful manner? They said to him: His usual manner of appearance is such, and he was not mocking you. Hearing this, Rabbi Yoḥanan went up to Rav Kahana’s burial cave and saw that it was
הָדְרָא לֵיהּ עַכְנָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״עַכְנָא, עַכְנָא, פְּתַח פּוּמָּיךְ וְיִכָּנֵס הָרַב אֵצֶל תַּלְמִיד״, וְלָא פְּתַח. ״יִכָּנֵס חָבֵר אֵצֶל חָבֵר״, וְלָא פְּתַח. ״יִכָּנֵס תַּלְמִיד אֵצֶל הָרַב״, פְּתַח לֵיהּ. בְּעָא רַחֲמֵי וְאוֹקְמֵיהּ.
encircled by a serpent [akhna], which had placed its tail in its mouth, completely encircling the cave and blocking the entrance. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to it: Serpent, serpent, open your mouth and allow the teacher to enter and be near the disciple, but the serpent did not open its mouth to allow him entry. He then said: Allow a colleague to enter and be near his colleague, but still the serpent did not open its mouth. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Allow the disciple to enter and be near the teacher, referring to Rav Kahana as his own teacher. The snake then opened its mouth for him to allow him entry. Rabbi Yoḥanan requested divine mercy from God and raised Rav Kahana from the dead.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אִי הֲוָה יָדַעְנָא דְּדַרְכֵּיהּ דְּמָר הָכִי, לָא חָלְשָׁא דַּעְתִּי; הַשְׁתָּא לֵיתֵי מָר בַּהֲדַן״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אִי מָצֵית לְמִיבְעֵי רַחֲמֵי דְּתוּ לָא שָׁכֵיבְנָא – אָזֵילְנָא, וְאִי לָא – לָא אָזֵילְנָא, הוֹאִיל וַחֲלֵיף שַׁעְתָּא, חֲלֵיף״.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rav Kahana: Had I known that this was the Master’s manner of appearance, I would not have been offended. Now let the Master come with me to the study hall. Rav Kahana said to him: If you are able to request divine mercy so that I will not die again, I will go with you, and if not, I will not go with you. The Gemara comments: Since the time decreed for his death had passed, it had passed.
תַּיְּירֵיהּ אוֹקְמֵיהּ. שַׁיְילֵיהּ כֹּל סְפֵיקָא דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ, וּפַשְׁטִינְהוּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ. הַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״דִּילְכוֹן אֲמַרִי; דִּילְהוֹן הִיא״.
Rabbi Yoḥanan then completely awakened him and stood him up. Thereafter, he asked him about every uncertainty that he had, and Rav Kahana resolved each of them for him. And this is the background to that which Rabbi Yoḥanan says to his students on several occasions: What I said was yours is in fact theirs, i.e., I thought that the Torah scholars in Eretz Yisrael were the most advanced, but in fact the scholars of Babylonia are the most advanced, as evidenced by Rav Kahana’s knowledge.
הָהוּא דְּאַחְוִי אַמְּטַכְסָא דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא. יְתֵיב רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פַּפִּי וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא, וְיָתֵיב רַבִּי אִילְעָא גַּבַּיְיהוּ.
§ The Gemara relates another incident pertaining to one who informed gentiles of the whereabouts of another Jew’s property. There was a certain individual who showed Rabbi Abba’s silk [ametakesa] to gentiles, who later seized it. Rabbi Abbahu and Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa sat together to determine whether Rabbi Abba was entitled to compensation from the informer, and Rabbi Ile’a sat next to them.
סְבוּר לְחַיּוֹבֵיהּ מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: דָּן אֶת הַדִּין – זִיכָּה אֶת הַחַיָּיב וְחִיֵּיב אֶת הַזַּכַּאי, טִימֵּא אֶת הַטָּהוֹר וְטִיהֵר אֶת הַטָּמֵא – מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי, וִישַׁלֵּם מִבֵּיתוֹ.
The judges thought to deem the informer liable to reimburse Rabbi Abba based upon that which we learned in a mishna (Bekhorot 28b): If a judge issued a judgment and erred, and he acquitted one who was in fact liable, or deemed liable one who should have in fact been acquitted, or if he ruled that a pure item is impure, or ruled that an impure item is pure, and by doing so he caused a litigant a monetary loss, what he did is done, i.e., the judgment stands, and the judge must pay damages from his home, i.e., from his personal funds. This indicates that one is liable to pay for a financial loss that he causes even if his involvement was only through speech.
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי אִילְעָא, הָכִי אָמַר רַב: וְהוּא שֶׁנָּשָׂא וְנָתַן בַּיָּד. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: זִיל לְגַבֵּי דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְיָקִים וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן פְּדָת, דְּדָיְינִי דִּינָא דִגְרָמֵי.
Rabbi Ile’a said to them: This is what Rav says: And that mishna is discussing a case where the judge not only issued a ruling, but actively took the money from the one whom he found liable, and gave it to the other party by his own hand. Consequently, it cannot serve as a precedent to render the informer liable in this case. The Sages serving as judges said to Rabbi Abba: Go to Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim and Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat, who rule that there is liability for damage caused by indirect action.
אֲזַל לְגַבַּיְיהוּ, חַיְּיבֵיהּ מִמַּתְנִיתִין – אִם מֵחֲמַת הַגַּזְלָן, חַיָּיב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ שָׂדֶה אַחֵר; וְאוֹקִימְנָא דְּאַחְוִי אַחְווֹיֵי.
Rabbi Abba went to them, and they deemed the informer liable to reimburse Rabbi Abba, as it is taught in the mishna: If the thugs seized the field due to the robber, he is liable to provide the owner with a different field. And it was established that the mishna is referring to a case where an individual showed the field to thugs who later seized it. The halakha stated in the mishna would apply to this case as well.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה מִפְּקִיד לֵיהּ כָּסָא דְכַסְפָּא. סְלִיקוּ גַּנָּבֵי עִילָּוֵיהּ, שַׁקְלַהּ יַהֲבַהּ לְהוּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה, פַּטְרֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הַאי מַצִּיל עַצְמוֹ בְּמָמוֹן חֲבֵירוֹ הוּא! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: חָזֵינַן; אִי אִינִישׁ אֲמִיד הוּא – אַדַּעְתָּא דִידֵיהּ אֲתוֹ, וְאִי לָא – אַדַּעְתָּא דְכַסְפָּא אֲתוֹ.
The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain man with whom a silver cup was deposited. Thieves came upon him in his home and he took the cup and gave it to them. The case came before Rabba, and Rabba exempted him from payment. Abaye said to him: This individual is saving himself with another’s property, and he should therefore be liable. Rather, Rav Ashi said, in explanation of Rabba’s ruling: We look at his financial status: If the bailee is a wealthy man, the thieves came with the intent to steal his property, and he is therefore liable to pay, as he saved himself from financial loss by handing over another’s property. And if he is not wealthy, the thieves presumably came with the intent to steal the silver cup, and he is therefore exempt from liability.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה מִפְּקִיד גַּבֵּיהּ אַרְנְקָא דְּפִדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִים. סְלִיקוּ גַּנָּבֵי עִילָּוֵיהּ, שַׁקְלַהּ יַהֲבַהּ נִיהֲלַיְיהוּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, פַּטְרֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא מַצִּיל עַצְמוֹ בְּמָמוֹן חֲבֵירוֹ הוּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין לְךָ פִּדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִים גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה.
The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain man with whom the purse containing funds collected for the redemption of captives was deposited. Thieves came upon him and he took the purse and gave it to them. The case came before Rabba, and Rabba exempted him from payment. Abaye said to him: But this individual is saving himself with another’s property, and he should therefore be liable to pay. Rabba said to him: You have no greater redemption of captives than this. Since the man used the money to avoid being harmed by the thieves, Rabba considered the money to have been used for its intended purpose.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאַקְדֵּים וְאַסֵּיק חֲמָרָא לְמַבָּרָא, קַמֵּי דִּסְלִיקוּ אִינָשֵׁי בְּמַבָּרָא. בָּעֵי לְאַטְבּוֹעֵי, אֲתָא הָהוּא גַּבְרָא, מְלַח לֵיהּ לַחֲמָרָא דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא וְשַׁדְיֵיהּ לְנַהֲרָא, וּטְבַע. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה, פַּטְרֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא מַצִּיל עַצְמוֹ בְּמָמוֹן חֲבֵירוֹ הוּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַאי – מֵעִיקָּרָא רוֹדֵף הֲוָה.
The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain man who hastened and brought his donkey onboard a ferry [lemavra] before other people boarded the ferry. The donkey began to move around and was about to cause the boat to sink. A certain other man came and pushed the donkey of that first man into the river, and it drowned. The case came before Rabba, and Rabba exempted him from payment. Abaye said to him: But this individual is saving himself with another’s property, and he should therefore be liable to pay. Rabba said to him: This owner of the donkey was considered a pursuer from the outset, as he endangered the other travelers. It is permitted to stop a pursuer by any means necessary, including by destroying his property.
רַבָּה לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: רוֹדֵף שֶׁהָיָה רוֹדֵף אַחַר חֲבֵירוֹ לְהוֹרְגוֹ, וְשִׁיבֵּר אֶת הַכֵּלִים, בֵּין שֶׁל נִרְדׇּף בֵּין שֶׁל כׇּל אָדָם – פָּטוּר, שֶׁהֲרֵי מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ.
The Gemara notes that Rabba conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rabba says: In the case of a pursuer who was chasing after another in order to kill him and the pursuer broke vessels during the chase, whether they belonged to the pursued party or to anyone else, he is exempt from reimbursing the owner of the vessels. This is because he is liable to receive the death penalty for attempted murder and is consequently exempt from any monetary liability he incurs simultaneously.
וְנִרְדׇּף שֶׁשִּׁיבֵּר אֶת הַכֵּלִים שֶׁל רוֹדֵף – פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא מָמוֹנוֹ חָבִיב עָלָיו מִגּוּפוֹ. אֲבָל שֶׁל כׇּל אָדָם – חַיָּיב, דְּאָסוּר לְהַצִּיל עַצְמוֹ בְּמָמוֹן חֲבֵירוֹ.
And a pursued individual who broke the vessels of the pursuer is also exempt from payment, as the pursuer’s property shall not be cherished more than his body, i.e., his life. Since it is permitted to kill the pursuer in order to save his intended victim, it is permitted to destroy his property for that purpose. But if he destroyed property belonging to anyone else, he is liable to reimburse them, as it is prohibited for him to save himself with another’s property.
וְרוֹדֵף שֶׁהָיָה רוֹדֵף אַחַר רוֹדֵף לְהַצִּיל, וְשִׁבֵּר כֵּלִים, בֵּין שֶׁל נִרְדׇּף בֵּין שֶׁל כׇּל אָדָם – פָּטוּר. וְלֹא מִן הַדִּין, אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן – אֵין לְךָ אָדָם שֶׁמַּצִּיל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ מִן הָרוֹדֵף.
And with regard to a pursuer who was chasing after another pursuer in order to save the latter’s intended victim, and he broke vessels during the chase, whether they belonged to the pursued individual, i.e., the individual attempting murder, or to anyone else, he is exempt from payment. The Gemara notes: And this is not the halakha by Torah law, but if you do not say so, you will not have any person that saves another from a pursuer. In order to encourage people to attempt to save the lives of others, the Sages instituted that one who damages another’s property in the process of saving a life is exempt from payment.
מַתְנִי׳ שְׁטָפָהּ נָהָר, אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ״.
MISHNA: If a river flooded a misappropriated field, the robber may say to its owner: That which is yours is before you, and no compensation is required. Since the field would have been flooded in any case, the robber has not caused the damage to the field, and is therefore exempt.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַגּוֹזֵל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וּשְׁטָפָהּ נָהָר – חַיָּיב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ שָׂדֶה אַחֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ״.
GEMARA: The Sages taught: In the case of one who robbed a field from another and a river then flooded it, the robber is liable to provide the field’s owner with a different field. This is the statement of Rabbi Elazar. And the Rabbis say: He is exempt from doing so, as he can say to the owner: That which is yours is before you.
בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דָּרֵשׁ רִיבּוּיֵי וּמִיעוּטֵי; ״וְכִחֵשׁ בַּעֲמִיתוֹ״ – (רִיבּוּי) [רִיבָּה], ״בְּפִקָּדוֹן״ – מִיעֵט, ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׁבַע עָלָיו לַשֶּׁקֶר״ – חָזַר וְרִיבָּה.
The Gemara analyzes this dispute: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Elazar interpreted the verses: “If any one sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and deal falsely with his neighbor in a matter of deposit…or anything about which he has sworn falsely, he shall restore it in full” (Leviticus 5:21–24), according to the hermeneutical principle of amplifications and restrictions. The phrase: “If any one sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and deal falsely with his neighbor,” is an amplification. When the verse states: “In a matter of deposit,” it has restricted the halakha to the case of a deposit. When the verse then states: “Or anything about which he has sworn falsely, he shall restore it in full,” it has then amplified the halakha again.
רִיבָּה וּמִיעֵט וְרִיבָּה – רִיבָּה הַכֹּל; וּמַאי רַבִּי? רַבִּי כֹּל מִילֵּי.
Accordingly, as the Torah amplified and then restricted and then amplified again, it has amplified the halakha to include everything, with only a single exception. And what is included due to the fact that the verse has amplified the halakha? The verse has amplified the halakha to include everything that one steals.
וּמַאי מִיעֵט? מִיעֵט שְׁטָרוֹת.
And what is excluded due to the fact that the verse restricted the halakha? It restricted the halakha in order to exclude financial documents, which are dissimilar to a deposit in that their value is not intrinsic, but rather due to their function. Consequently, according to Rabbi Elazar, land that was stolen is included in the halakhot stated in these verses, and one who steals land must reimburse the field’s owner.
וְרַבָּנַן דָּרְשִׁי כְּלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי; ״וְכִחֵשׁ״ – כָּלַל, ״בְּפִקָּדוֹן״ – פָּרַט, ״אוֹ מִכֹּל״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל. כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל – אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְעֵין הַפְּרָט;
And the Rabbis interpreted these verses according to the hermeneutical principle of generalizations and details. The phrase: “And deal falsely with his neighbor,” is a generalization, while the subsequent phrase: “In a matter of deposit,” is a detail. When the verse then states: “Or anything about which he has sworn falsely, he shall restore it in full,” it has then generalized again. In a case of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail.
מָה הַפְּרָט – דָּבָר הַמִּיטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן, אַף כֹּל דָּבָר הַמִּיטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן. יָצְאוּ קַרְקָעוֹת – שֶׁאֵין מִטַּלְטְלִין; יָצְאוּ עֲבָדִים – שֶׁהוּקְּשׁוּ לְקַרְקָעוֹת; יָצְאוּ שְׁטָרוֹת – שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּטַּלְטְלִין, אֵין גּוּפָן מָמוֹן.
Accordingly, just as the detail, i.e., a deposit, is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value, so too, the verse includes anything that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value. Consequently, land has been excluded, as it is not movable property. Slaves have been excluded, as they are compared to land with regard to many areas of halakha. Financial documents have been excluded because, although they are movable property, they do not have intrinsic monetary value.
וְהָדְתַנְיָא: הַגּוֹזֵל אֶת הַפָּרָה וּשְׁטָפָהּ נָהָר – חַיָּיב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ פָּרָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ״. הָתָם בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי?
The Gemara asks: And there is that which is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who robbed another of a cow and a river washed it away, the robber is liable to provide the owner with another cow; this is the statement of Rabbi Elazar. And the Rabbis say: The robber can say to the owner: That which is yours is before you, and he would consequently be exempt. The Gemara asks: There, in the baraita, with regard to what do they disagree? The rationale offered previously cannot apply, as a cow is movable property and has intrinsic value, and yet Rabbi Elazar and the Rabbis still disagree.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָתָם בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁגָּזַל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וְהָיְתָה
Rav Pappa said: There, with what are we dealing? We are dealing with a case where he had robbed another of a field, and there was
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Din & Daf: How Should We Understand the Central Role of Blood in the World of Korbanot?
A Daf Of Their Own –Intent and Action
כוונה ומעשה בקורבנות- דף משלהן
האם חייבים לתת צדקה? ולחזור בתשובה?
תשובה אמיתית: מתי היא מתקבלת? ואיך יודעים שהיא נענתה?
Din & Daf: What is the Concept of שלא לשמה All About?
Horayot Daf 2-8 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
A Daf Of Their Own – Intro To Kodashim
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.
Los Angeles, United States
Tel Aviv, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, 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.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
Blacksburg, United States
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
See video
Raanana, Israel
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!
Teaneck NJ, United States
Bava Kamma 117
אִי דִּינָא אִי קְנָסָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי דִּינָא – גָּמְרִינַן מִינֵּיהּ, אִי קְנָסָא – לָא גָּמְרִינַן מִינֵּיהּ.
if it is the halakha or if it is a fine? Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said to him: If it is the halakha, we learn from it and apply this ruling to other cases, but if it is a fine, we do not learn from it, as it is possible that Rav Naḥman had a specific reason to impose a fine in this case.
וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּמִקְּנָסָא לָא גָּמְרִינַן? דְּתַנְיָא, בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: הַמְטַמֵּא וְהַמְנַסֵּךְ; חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר: אַף הַמְדַמֵּעַ.
The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that we do not learn from the imposition of a fine in one case and apply the ruling in other cases? The Gemara answers that the source is as it is taught in a baraita: Initially, the Sages would say that one who renders another’s food ritually impure, thereby rendering it unfit for him to consume, and one who pours another’s wine as a libation for idol worship, thereby rendering it an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited, are liable to pay the owner for the financial loss they caused despite the fact that damage is not evident. Subsequently, they added to this list, to say that even one who intermingles teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, with another’s non-sacred produce, thereby rendering the non-sacred food forbidden to non-priests, is liable to compensate the owner for the loss of value of the produce, as fewer people will be willing to buy it from him.
חָזְרוּ – אִין, לֹא חָזְרוּ – לָא; מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דִּקְנָסָא הוּא, וּקְנָסָא לָא גָּמְרִינַן מִינֵּיהּ?
The Gemara comments: It may be inferred from the baraita that it is only because the Sages subsequently added to the list that yes, one who intermingles teruma with another’s non-sacred produce must compensate him. But if they had not subsequently added to the list, he would not be liable. What is the reason that we do not learn that he is liable from the cases of one who renders another’s food impure or pours wine as a libation for idol worship, as this is also a case in which one causes damage that is not evident? Is it not due to the fact that his payment is a fine, and with regard to a fine, we do not learn from one case that it may be imposed in other circumstances?
לָא; מֵעִיקָּרָא סָבְרִי: לְהֶפְסֵד מְרוּבֶּה חָשְׁשׁוּ, לְהֶפְסֵד מוּעָט לֹא חָשְׁשׁוּ; וּלְבַסּוֹף סָבְרִי: לְהֶפְסֵד מוּעָט נָמֵי חָשְׁשׁוּ.
The Gemara answers: No, this is not the reason. Rather, initially the Sages maintained that they were concerned with regard to a large financial loss, e.g., the cases of one who renders another’s food impure or pours his wine as a libation for idol worship, but with regard to a small financial loss, e.g., one who intermingles teruma with another’s non-sacred produce, they were not concerned. And ultimately the Sages maintained that they were concerned with regard to a small loss as well and imposed liability.
אִינִי?! וְהָא תָּנֵי אֲבוּהּ דְּרַבִּי אָבִין, בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: הַמְטַמֵּא וְהַמְדַמֵּעַ; חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר: אַף הַמְנַסֵּךְ. חָזְרוּ – אִין, לֹא חָזְרוּ – לָא!
The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t the father of Rabbi Avin teach the baraita as follows: Initially they would say that one who renders another’s produce impure and one who intermingles teruma with another’s non-sacred produce are both liable to pay for the financial loss that they caused, despite the fact that the damage is not evident. Subsequently, they added to this list, to say that even one who pours another’s wine as a libation for idol worship is also liable to pay a fine for the loss that he caused. It may be inferred that it is only because the Sages subsequently added to the list, that yes, one who pours the libation is liable. But if they had not subsequently added to the list, he would not be liable.
מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא גָּמְרִינַן מִקְּנָסָא?
The Gemara comments: Since one who offers libations for idol worship causes a large financial loss, the rationale offered previously cannot apply to this version of the baraita. Accordingly, what is the reason that the liability for pouring another’s wine as a libation could not be extrapolated from the fine imposed for rendering another’s food impure or intermingling it with teruma? Is it not due to the fact that we do not learn from the imposition of a fine in one case that a fine may be imposed in other cases?
לָא; מֵעִיקָּרָא סָבְרִי כְּרַבִּי אָבִין, וּלְבַסּוֹף סָבְרִי כְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה.
The Gemara answers: No, this is not the reason. Rather, the reason is that initially the Sages held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Avin, and ultimately they held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya.
מֵעִיקָּרָא סָבְרִי כְּרַבִּי אָבִין – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין: זָרַק חֵץ מִתְּחִילַּת אַרְבַּע לְסוֹף אַרְבַּע, וְקָרַע שִׁירָאִין בַּהֲלִיכָתוֹ – פָּטוּר; שֶׁהֲרֵי עֲקִירָה צוֹרֶךְ הַנָּחָה הִיא, וּמִתְחַיֵּיב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ.
The Gemara elaborates: Initially they held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Avin, as Rabbi Avin says: If one stood in the public domain on Shabbat and shot an arrow from the beginning of an area measuring four cubits to the end of an area measuring four cubits, and the arrow tore another’s silks [shira’in] in the course of its travel through the air, the one who threw it is exempt from paying for the cloth. The reason for this is that lifting an item is a necessity for placing it elsewhere, and therefore the entire process, from when one shoots the arrow until it comes to a rest, is considered to be a single act. The one performing it is liable to receive the death penalty for violating Shabbat. One who performs a single act for which he is liable to receive the death penalty and is also liable to pay money receives only the death penalty. Similarly, one who pours another’s wine as a libation for idol worship incurs the death penalty, and is therefore exempt from paying for the wine.
וּלְבַסּוֹף סָבְרִי כְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מִשְּׁעַת הַגְבָּהָה קַנְיֵיהּ, אִיחַיַּיב לֵיהּ מָמוֹן; מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ לָא הָוֵי עַד שְׁעַת נִיסּוּךְ.
And ultimately they held that the liabilities are not incurred simultaneously, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya, as Rabbi Yirmeya says: From the time of the lifting, the thief acquires the wine and is therefore immediately liable to pay money to the owner. But he is not liable to receive the death penalty until the time that he pours the libation. Once the Sages concluded that the liabilities are not incurred simultaneously, they ruled that one who pours another’s wine as a libation for idol worship is liable to reimburse him.
רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי אֶבְיוֹנֵי. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּלוּם מַעֲשֶׂה בָּא לִידָךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֲנָסוּהוּ גּוֹיִם וְהֶרְאָה מָמוֹן חֲבֵירוֹ בָּא לְיָדִי, וְחִיַּיבְתִּיו.
§ The Gemara returns to the matter of one who showed another’s field to thugs. Rav Huna bar Yehuda happened to come to the town of Bei Abiyonei and came before Rava, who said to him: Did any legal incident come to you for judgment recently? Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to him: There was a case of a Jew whom gentiles coerced and, as a result he showed them property belonging to another, which the gentiles later seized. He came to me for judgment, and I deemed him liable to compensate the owner for the loss.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַהְדַּר עוֹבָדָא לְמָרֵיהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֲנָסוּהוּ גּוֹיִם וְהֶרְאָה מָמוֹן חֲבֵירוֹ – פָּטוּר, וְאִם נָטַל וְנָתַן בַּיָּד – חַיָּיב!
Rava said to Rav Huna bar Yehuda: Reverse your decision in this case and return the money to its owner, i.e., the thug, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a Jew whom gentiles coerced and, as a result he showed them property belonging to another that the gentiles later seized, he is exempt from reimbursing the owner of the property. But if he actively took the property and gave it to the gentiles by his own hand, he is liable to compensate the owner.
אָמַר רַבָּה: אִם הֶרְאָה מֵעַצְמוֹ, כְּנָשָׂא וְנָתַן בַּיָּד דָּמֵי.
The Gemara adds that Rabba says: If he showed the gentiles the property of his own volition, it is as though he actively took the property and gave it to the gentiles by his own hand, and he is liable to compensate the owner.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּאֲנָסוּהוּ גּוֹיִם, וְאַחְוִי אַחַמְרָא דְּרַב מָרִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב פִּנְחָס בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: ״דְּרִי וְאַמְטִי בַּהֲדַן״, דְּרָא וְאַמְטִי בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי, פַּטְרִינֵּיהּ.
The Gemara recounts another incident: There was a certain man that gentiles had coerced and so he showed them the wine of Rav Mari, son of Rav Pineḥas, son of Rav Ḥisda, and the gentiles said to him: Carry the wine and bring it with us. Complying with the gentiles, he carried and brought it with them. The case came before Rav Ashi, and he exempted the man from compensating Rav Mari for the wine.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַב אָשֵׁי, וְהָתַנְיָא: אִם נָשָׂא וְנָתַן בַּיָּד – חַיָּיב! אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא אוֹקְמֵיהּ עִילָּוֵיהּ מֵעִיקָּרָא, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאוֹקְמֵיהּ עִילָּוֵיהּ מֵעִיקָּרָא – מִיקְלֵי קַלְיֵיהּ.
The Rabbis said to Rav Ashi: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If he took the property and manually transferred it to the gentiles, he is liable to compensate the owner? Rav Ashi said to them: That statement applies only in a case where the Jew did not bring the gentiles to the property at the outset; but if he brought the gentiles to the property at the outset, it is as though he already burned it, as the gentiles then had access to the property. Since the damage inflicted by the Jew was committed by merely showing the wine to the gentiles, he is exempt from payment even though he later actively carried the wine with his hands.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אָמַר לוֹ אַנָּס ״הוֹשֵׁיט לִי פְּקִיעַ עָמִיר זֶה, אוֹ אֶשְׁכּוֹל עֲנָבִים זֶה״, וְהוֹשִׁיט לוֹ – חַיָּיב! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן דְּקָאֵי בִּתְרֵי עֶבְרֵי נַהֲרָא.
Rabbi Abbahu raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Ashi from a baraita: In a case where a ruffian said to a Jew: Pass me this bundle of grain, or this cluster of grapes, and the Jew passed it to him, the Jew is liable to pay the owner of the grain or the grapes. Since the ruffian was already present, it is evident from this baraita that one who hands over another’s property to a third party is liable despite the fact that the latter already had access to it. Rav Ashi answered: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the Jew and the ruffian were standing on two different sides of a river, so that the ruffian did not have access to the item when the Jew passed it to him.
דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״הוֹשֵׁיט״ וְלָא תָּנֵי ״תֵּן״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara points out that the language of the baraita is also precise according to this explanation, as it teaches its ruling using the term: Pass, which indicates that the ruffian could not have reached the item himself, and it did not teach using the term: Give, which would indicate that the ruffian was standing next to the other individual. The Gemara concludes: Learn from the language of the baraita that Rav Ashi’s interpretation is correct.
הָהוּא שׁוּתָא דַּהֲווֹ מִנְּצוּ עֲלַהּ בֵּי תְרֵי. הַאי אָמַר: דִּידִי הוּא, וְהַאי אָמַר: דִּידִי הוּא. אֲזַל חַד מִנַּיְיהוּ וּמַסְרַהּ לְפַרְהַגְ[בָּ]נָא דְמַלְכָּא. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, יָכוֹל לוֹמַר: אֲנָא כִּי מְסַרִי – דִּידִי מְסַרִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְכׇל כְּמִינֵּיהּ?! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: מְשַׁמְּתִינַן לֵיהּ עַד דְּמַיְיתֵי לֵיהּ וְקָאֵי בְּדִינָא.
The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain fishing net over which two people were quarreling. This one said: It is mine, and that one said: It is mine. One of them went and gave it to an officer [lefarhagna] of the king. Abaye said: He is exempt from payment because he can say to the court: When I gave it to the official, I gave what is mine. Rava said to Abaye: And is it in his power to do so when the ownership of the net is the subject of dispute? Rather, Rava said: We excommunicate him until he brings the net back and stands in court for adjudication.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה בָּעֵי אַחְווֹיֵי אַתִּיבְנָא דְחַבְרֵיהּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לָא תַּחְוֵי וְלָא תַּחְוֵי!״ אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״מַחְוֵינָא וּמַחְוֵינָא!״ יָתֵיב רַב כָּהֲנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, שַׁמְטֵיהּ לְקוֹעֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ.
The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain man who desired to show another individual’s straw to the gentile authorities, who would seize it. He came before Rav, who said to him: Do not show it and do not show it, i.e., you are absolutely prohibited from showing it. The man said to him: I will show it and I will show it, i.e., I will certainly show it. Rav Kahana was sitting before Rav, and, hearing the man’s disrespectful response, he dislodged the man’s neck from him, i.e., he broke his neck and killed him.
קָרֵי רַב עִילָּוֵיהּ: ״בָּנַיִךְ עֻלְּפוּ שָׁכְבוּ בְּרֹאשׁ כׇּל חוּצוֹת כְּתוֹא מִכְמָר״; מָה תּוֹא זֶה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּפַל בְּמִכְמָר – אֵין מְרַחֲמִין עָלָיו; אַף מָמוֹן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּפַל בְּיַד גּוֹיִם – אֵין מְרַחֲמִין עָלָיו.
Seeing Rav Kahana’s action, Rav read the following verse about him: “Your sons have fainted, they lie at the head of all the streets, as an antelope in a net” (Isaiah 51:20). Just as with regard to this antelope, once it falls into the net, the hunter does not have mercy upon it, so too with regard to the money of a Jew, once it falls into the hand of gentiles, they do not have mercy upon him, i.e., the Jew. Since gentiles who seek a Jew’s money will kill him in order to seize the property, Rav Kahana acted appropriately when he broke the miscreant’s neck, as he protected the Jew’s property and, by extension, the Jew himself.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב: ״כָּהֲנָא, עַד הָאִידָּנָא הֲווֹ פָּרְסָאֵי – דְּלָא קָפְדִי אַשְּׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, וְהַשְׁתָּא אִיכָּא יַוְונָאֵי – דְּקָפְדוּ אַשְּׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, וְאָמְרִי ׳מַרְדִּין, מַרְדִּין׳. קוּם סַק לְאַרְעָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְקַבֵּיל עֲלָךְ דְּלָא תַּקְשֵׁי לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן שֶׁבַע שְׁנִין״.
Rav then said to Rav Kahana: Kahana, until now there were Persian rulers who were not particular about bloodshed. But now there are Greeks who are particular about bloodshed, and they will say: Murder [meradin], murder, and they will press charges against you. Therefore, get up and ascend to Eretz Yisrael to study there under Rabbi Yoḥanan, and accept upon yourself that you will not raise any difficulties to the statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan for seven years.
אֲזַיל, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּיָתֵיב וְקָא מְסַיֵּים מְתִיבְתָּא דְיוֹמָא לְרַבָּנַן. אֲמַר לְהוּ: רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ הֵיכָא? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אַמַּאי? אֲמַר לְהוּ: הַאי קוּשְׁיָא וְהַאי קוּשְׁיָא, וְהַאי פֵּירוּקָא וְהַאי פֵּירוּקָא. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. אֲזַל רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״אֲרִי עָלָה מִבָּבֶל, לְעַיֵּין מָר בִּמְתִיבְתָּא דְּלִמְחַר״.
Rav Kahana went to Eretz Yisrael and found Reish Lakish, who was sitting and reviewing Rabbi Yoḥanan’s daily lecture in the academy for the Rabbis, i.e., the students in the academy. When he finished, Rav Kahana said to the students: Where is Reish Lakish? They said to him: Why do you wish to see him? Rav Kahana said to them: I have this difficulty and that difficulty with his review of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s lecture, and this resolution and that resolution to the questions he raised. They told this to Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish then went and said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: A lion has ascended from Babylonia, and the Master ought to examine the discourse he will deliver in the academy tomorrow, as Rav Kahana may raise difficult questions about the material.
לִמְחַר אוֹתְבוּהּ בְּדָרָא קַמָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אָמַר שְׁמַעְתְּתָא – וְלָא אַקְשִׁי, שְׁמַעְתְּתָא – וְלָא אַקְשִׁי; אַנְחֲתֵיהּ אֲחוֹרֵי שְׁבַע דָּרֵי, עַד דְּאוֹתְבֵיהּ בְּדָרָא בָּתְרָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: ״אֲרִי שֶׁאָמַרְתָּ – נַעֲשָׂה שׁוּעָל!״
The next day, they seated Rav Kahana in the first row, in front of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rabbi Yoḥanan stated a halakha and Rav Kahana did not raise a difficulty, in accordance with Rav’s instruction. Rabbi Yoḥanan stated another halakha and again, Rav Kahana did not raise a difficulty. As a result, they placed Rav Kahana further back by one row. This occurred until he had been moved back seven rows, until he was seated in the last row. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: The lion you mentioned has become a fox, i.e., he is not knowledgeable.
אָמַר: יְהֵא רַעֲוָא דְּהָנֵי שְׁבַע דָּרֵי לִהְווֹ חִילּוּף שְׁבַע שְׁנִין דַּאֲמַר לִי רַב. קָם אַכַּרְעֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״נֶהְדַּר מָר בְּרֵישָׁא״. אֲמַר שְׁמַעְתְּתָא, וְאַקְשִׁי. אוֹקְמֵיהּ בְּדָרָא קַמָּא. אָמַר שְׁמַעְתְּתָא, וְאַקְשִׁי.
Rav Kahana said to himself: May it be God’s will that these seven rows I have been moved should replace the seven years that Rav told me to wait before raising difficulties to the statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan. He stood up on his feet and said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Let the Master go back to the beginning of the discourse and repeat what he said. Rabbi Yoḥanan stated a halakha and Rav Kahana raised a difficulty. Therefore, they placed him in the first row, and again, Rav Yoḥanan stated a halakha, and he raised a difficulty.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֲוָה יָתֵיב אַשְּׁבַע בִּסְתַּרְקֵי, שָׁלְפִי לֵיהּ חֲדָא בִּסְתַּרְקָא מִתּוּתֵיהּ. אֲמַר שְׁמַעְתְּתָא – וְאַקְשִׁי לֵיהּ, עַד דְּשָׁלְפִי לֵיהּ כּוּלְּהוּ בִּסְתַּרְקֵי מִתּוּתֵיהּ, עַד דְּיָתֵיב עַל אַרְעָא. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן גַּבְרָא סָבָא הֲוָה וּמְסָרְחִי גְּבִינֵיהּ, אֲמַר לְהוּ: דַּלּוֹ לִי עֵינַי וְאֶחְזְיֵיהּ. דַּלּוֹ לֵיהּ בְּמַכְחַלְתָּא דְכַסְפָּא.
Rabbi Yoḥanan was sitting upon seven cushions [bistarkei] so that he could be seen by all the students, and since he could not answer Rav Kahana’s questions, he removed one cushion from under himself to demonstrate that he was lowering himself out of respect for Rav Kahana. He then stated another halakha and Rav Kahana raised another difficulty. This happened repeatedly until Rabbi Yoḥanan removed all the cushions from underneath himself until he was sitting on the ground. Rabbi Yoḥanan was an old man and his eyebrows drooped over his eyes. He said to his students: Uncover my eyes for me and I will see Rav Kahana, so they uncovered his eyes for him with a silver eye brush.
חֲזָא דִּפְרִיטָה שִׂפְווֹתֵיהּ, סְבַר אַחוֹכֵי קָמְחַיֵּיךְ בֵּיהּ. חֲלַשׁ דַּעְתֵּיהּ, וְנָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ. לִמְחַר אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַבָּנַן: חָזֵיתוּ לְבַבְלָאָה הֵיכִי עָבֵיד? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: דַּרְכֵּיהּ הָכִי. עָל לְגַבֵּי מְעָרְתָּא, חֲזָא דַּהֲוָה
Once his eyes were uncovered, Rabbi Yoḥanan saw that Rav Kahana’s lips were split and thought that Rav Kahana was smirking at him. As a result, Rabbi Yoḥanan was offended, and Rav Kahana died as punishment for the fact that he offended Rabbi Yoḥanan. The next day, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to the Rabbis, his students: Did you see how that Babylonian, Rav Kahana, behaved in such a disrespectful manner? They said to him: His usual manner of appearance is such, and he was not mocking you. Hearing this, Rabbi Yoḥanan went up to Rav Kahana’s burial cave and saw that it was
הָדְרָא לֵיהּ עַכְנָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״עַכְנָא, עַכְנָא, פְּתַח פּוּמָּיךְ וְיִכָּנֵס הָרַב אֵצֶל תַּלְמִיד״, וְלָא פְּתַח. ״יִכָּנֵס חָבֵר אֵצֶל חָבֵר״, וְלָא פְּתַח. ״יִכָּנֵס תַּלְמִיד אֵצֶל הָרַב״, פְּתַח לֵיהּ. בְּעָא רַחֲמֵי וְאוֹקְמֵיהּ.
encircled by a serpent [akhna], which had placed its tail in its mouth, completely encircling the cave and blocking the entrance. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to it: Serpent, serpent, open your mouth and allow the teacher to enter and be near the disciple, but the serpent did not open its mouth to allow him entry. He then said: Allow a colleague to enter and be near his colleague, but still the serpent did not open its mouth. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Allow the disciple to enter and be near the teacher, referring to Rav Kahana as his own teacher. The snake then opened its mouth for him to allow him entry. Rabbi Yoḥanan requested divine mercy from God and raised Rav Kahana from the dead.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אִי הֲוָה יָדַעְנָא דְּדַרְכֵּיהּ דְּמָר הָכִי, לָא חָלְשָׁא דַּעְתִּי; הַשְׁתָּא לֵיתֵי מָר בַּהֲדַן״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אִי מָצֵית לְמִיבְעֵי רַחֲמֵי דְּתוּ לָא שָׁכֵיבְנָא – אָזֵילְנָא, וְאִי לָא – לָא אָזֵילְנָא, הוֹאִיל וַחֲלֵיף שַׁעְתָּא, חֲלֵיף״.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rav Kahana: Had I known that this was the Master’s manner of appearance, I would not have been offended. Now let the Master come with me to the study hall. Rav Kahana said to him: If you are able to request divine mercy so that I will not die again, I will go with you, and if not, I will not go with you. The Gemara comments: Since the time decreed for his death had passed, it had passed.
תַּיְּירֵיהּ אוֹקְמֵיהּ. שַׁיְילֵיהּ כֹּל סְפֵיקָא דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ, וּפַשְׁטִינְהוּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ. הַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״דִּילְכוֹן אֲמַרִי; דִּילְהוֹן הִיא״.
Rabbi Yoḥanan then completely awakened him and stood him up. Thereafter, he asked him about every uncertainty that he had, and Rav Kahana resolved each of them for him. And this is the background to that which Rabbi Yoḥanan says to his students on several occasions: What I said was yours is in fact theirs, i.e., I thought that the Torah scholars in Eretz Yisrael were the most advanced, but in fact the scholars of Babylonia are the most advanced, as evidenced by Rav Kahana’s knowledge.
הָהוּא דְּאַחְוִי אַמְּטַכְסָא דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא. יְתֵיב רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פַּפִּי וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא, וְיָתֵיב רַבִּי אִילְעָא גַּבַּיְיהוּ.
§ The Gemara relates another incident pertaining to one who informed gentiles of the whereabouts of another Jew’s property. There was a certain individual who showed Rabbi Abba’s silk [ametakesa] to gentiles, who later seized it. Rabbi Abbahu and Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa sat together to determine whether Rabbi Abba was entitled to compensation from the informer, and Rabbi Ile’a sat next to them.
סְבוּר לְחַיּוֹבֵיהּ מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: דָּן אֶת הַדִּין – זִיכָּה אֶת הַחַיָּיב וְחִיֵּיב אֶת הַזַּכַּאי, טִימֵּא אֶת הַטָּהוֹר וְטִיהֵר אֶת הַטָּמֵא – מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי, וִישַׁלֵּם מִבֵּיתוֹ.
The judges thought to deem the informer liable to reimburse Rabbi Abba based upon that which we learned in a mishna (Bekhorot 28b): If a judge issued a judgment and erred, and he acquitted one who was in fact liable, or deemed liable one who should have in fact been acquitted, or if he ruled that a pure item is impure, or ruled that an impure item is pure, and by doing so he caused a litigant a monetary loss, what he did is done, i.e., the judgment stands, and the judge must pay damages from his home, i.e., from his personal funds. This indicates that one is liable to pay for a financial loss that he causes even if his involvement was only through speech.
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי אִילְעָא, הָכִי אָמַר רַב: וְהוּא שֶׁנָּשָׂא וְנָתַן בַּיָּד. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: זִיל לְגַבֵּי דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְיָקִים וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן פְּדָת, דְּדָיְינִי דִּינָא דִגְרָמֵי.
Rabbi Ile’a said to them: This is what Rav says: And that mishna is discussing a case where the judge not only issued a ruling, but actively took the money from the one whom he found liable, and gave it to the other party by his own hand. Consequently, it cannot serve as a precedent to render the informer liable in this case. The Sages serving as judges said to Rabbi Abba: Go to Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim and Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat, who rule that there is liability for damage caused by indirect action.
אֲזַל לְגַבַּיְיהוּ, חַיְּיבֵיהּ מִמַּתְנִיתִין – אִם מֵחֲמַת הַגַּזְלָן, חַיָּיב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ שָׂדֶה אַחֵר; וְאוֹקִימְנָא דְּאַחְוִי אַחְווֹיֵי.
Rabbi Abba went to them, and they deemed the informer liable to reimburse Rabbi Abba, as it is taught in the mishna: If the thugs seized the field due to the robber, he is liable to provide the owner with a different field. And it was established that the mishna is referring to a case where an individual showed the field to thugs who later seized it. The halakha stated in the mishna would apply to this case as well.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה מִפְּקִיד לֵיהּ כָּסָא דְכַסְפָּא. סְלִיקוּ גַּנָּבֵי עִילָּוֵיהּ, שַׁקְלַהּ יַהֲבַהּ לְהוּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה, פַּטְרֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הַאי מַצִּיל עַצְמוֹ בְּמָמוֹן חֲבֵירוֹ הוּא! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: חָזֵינַן; אִי אִינִישׁ אֲמִיד הוּא – אַדַּעְתָּא דִידֵיהּ אֲתוֹ, וְאִי לָא – אַדַּעְתָּא דְכַסְפָּא אֲתוֹ.
The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain man with whom a silver cup was deposited. Thieves came upon him in his home and he took the cup and gave it to them. The case came before Rabba, and Rabba exempted him from payment. Abaye said to him: This individual is saving himself with another’s property, and he should therefore be liable. Rather, Rav Ashi said, in explanation of Rabba’s ruling: We look at his financial status: If the bailee is a wealthy man, the thieves came with the intent to steal his property, and he is therefore liable to pay, as he saved himself from financial loss by handing over another’s property. And if he is not wealthy, the thieves presumably came with the intent to steal the silver cup, and he is therefore exempt from liability.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה מִפְּקִיד גַּבֵּיהּ אַרְנְקָא דְּפִדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִים. סְלִיקוּ גַּנָּבֵי עִילָּוֵיהּ, שַׁקְלַהּ יַהֲבַהּ נִיהֲלַיְיהוּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, פַּטְרֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא מַצִּיל עַצְמוֹ בְּמָמוֹן חֲבֵירוֹ הוּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין לְךָ פִּדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִים גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה.
The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain man with whom the purse containing funds collected for the redemption of captives was deposited. Thieves came upon him and he took the purse and gave it to them. The case came before Rabba, and Rabba exempted him from payment. Abaye said to him: But this individual is saving himself with another’s property, and he should therefore be liable to pay. Rabba said to him: You have no greater redemption of captives than this. Since the man used the money to avoid being harmed by the thieves, Rabba considered the money to have been used for its intended purpose.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאַקְדֵּים וְאַסֵּיק חֲמָרָא לְמַבָּרָא, קַמֵּי דִּסְלִיקוּ אִינָשֵׁי בְּמַבָּרָא. בָּעֵי לְאַטְבּוֹעֵי, אֲתָא הָהוּא גַּבְרָא, מְלַח לֵיהּ לַחֲמָרָא דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא וְשַׁדְיֵיהּ לְנַהֲרָא, וּטְבַע. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה, פַּטְרֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא מַצִּיל עַצְמוֹ בְּמָמוֹן חֲבֵירוֹ הוּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַאי – מֵעִיקָּרָא רוֹדֵף הֲוָה.
The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain man who hastened and brought his donkey onboard a ferry [lemavra] before other people boarded the ferry. The donkey began to move around and was about to cause the boat to sink. A certain other man came and pushed the donkey of that first man into the river, and it drowned. The case came before Rabba, and Rabba exempted him from payment. Abaye said to him: But this individual is saving himself with another’s property, and he should therefore be liable to pay. Rabba said to him: This owner of the donkey was considered a pursuer from the outset, as he endangered the other travelers. It is permitted to stop a pursuer by any means necessary, including by destroying his property.
רַבָּה לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: רוֹדֵף שֶׁהָיָה רוֹדֵף אַחַר חֲבֵירוֹ לְהוֹרְגוֹ, וְשִׁיבֵּר אֶת הַכֵּלִים, בֵּין שֶׁל נִרְדׇּף בֵּין שֶׁל כׇּל אָדָם – פָּטוּר, שֶׁהֲרֵי מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ.
The Gemara notes that Rabba conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rabba says: In the case of a pursuer who was chasing after another in order to kill him and the pursuer broke vessels during the chase, whether they belonged to the pursued party or to anyone else, he is exempt from reimbursing the owner of the vessels. This is because he is liable to receive the death penalty for attempted murder and is consequently exempt from any monetary liability he incurs simultaneously.
וְנִרְדׇּף שֶׁשִּׁיבֵּר אֶת הַכֵּלִים שֶׁל רוֹדֵף – פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא מָמוֹנוֹ חָבִיב עָלָיו מִגּוּפוֹ. אֲבָל שֶׁל כׇּל אָדָם – חַיָּיב, דְּאָסוּר לְהַצִּיל עַצְמוֹ בְּמָמוֹן חֲבֵירוֹ.
And a pursued individual who broke the vessels of the pursuer is also exempt from payment, as the pursuer’s property shall not be cherished more than his body, i.e., his life. Since it is permitted to kill the pursuer in order to save his intended victim, it is permitted to destroy his property for that purpose. But if he destroyed property belonging to anyone else, he is liable to reimburse them, as it is prohibited for him to save himself with another’s property.
וְרוֹדֵף שֶׁהָיָה רוֹדֵף אַחַר רוֹדֵף לְהַצִּיל, וְשִׁבֵּר כֵּלִים, בֵּין שֶׁל נִרְדׇּף בֵּין שֶׁל כׇּל אָדָם – פָּטוּר. וְלֹא מִן הַדִּין, אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן – אֵין לְךָ אָדָם שֶׁמַּצִּיל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ מִן הָרוֹדֵף.
And with regard to a pursuer who was chasing after another pursuer in order to save the latter’s intended victim, and he broke vessels during the chase, whether they belonged to the pursued individual, i.e., the individual attempting murder, or to anyone else, he is exempt from payment. The Gemara notes: And this is not the halakha by Torah law, but if you do not say so, you will not have any person that saves another from a pursuer. In order to encourage people to attempt to save the lives of others, the Sages instituted that one who damages another’s property in the process of saving a life is exempt from payment.
מַתְנִי׳ שְׁטָפָהּ נָהָר, אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ״.
MISHNA: If a river flooded a misappropriated field, the robber may say to its owner: That which is yours is before you, and no compensation is required. Since the field would have been flooded in any case, the robber has not caused the damage to the field, and is therefore exempt.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַגּוֹזֵל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וּשְׁטָפָהּ נָהָר – חַיָּיב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ שָׂדֶה אַחֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ״.
GEMARA: The Sages taught: In the case of one who robbed a field from another and a river then flooded it, the robber is liable to provide the field’s owner with a different field. This is the statement of Rabbi Elazar. And the Rabbis say: He is exempt from doing so, as he can say to the owner: That which is yours is before you.
בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דָּרֵשׁ רִיבּוּיֵי וּמִיעוּטֵי; ״וְכִחֵשׁ בַּעֲמִיתוֹ״ – (רִיבּוּי) [רִיבָּה], ״בְּפִקָּדוֹן״ – מִיעֵט, ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׁבַע עָלָיו לַשֶּׁקֶר״ – חָזַר וְרִיבָּה.
The Gemara analyzes this dispute: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Elazar interpreted the verses: “If any one sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and deal falsely with his neighbor in a matter of deposit…or anything about which he has sworn falsely, he shall restore it in full” (Leviticus 5:21–24), according to the hermeneutical principle of amplifications and restrictions. The phrase: “If any one sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and deal falsely with his neighbor,” is an amplification. When the verse states: “In a matter of deposit,” it has restricted the halakha to the case of a deposit. When the verse then states: “Or anything about which he has sworn falsely, he shall restore it in full,” it has then amplified the halakha again.
רִיבָּה וּמִיעֵט וְרִיבָּה – רִיבָּה הַכֹּל; וּמַאי רַבִּי? רַבִּי כֹּל מִילֵּי.
Accordingly, as the Torah amplified and then restricted and then amplified again, it has amplified the halakha to include everything, with only a single exception. And what is included due to the fact that the verse has amplified the halakha? The verse has amplified the halakha to include everything that one steals.
וּמַאי מִיעֵט? מִיעֵט שְׁטָרוֹת.
And what is excluded due to the fact that the verse restricted the halakha? It restricted the halakha in order to exclude financial documents, which are dissimilar to a deposit in that their value is not intrinsic, but rather due to their function. Consequently, according to Rabbi Elazar, land that was stolen is included in the halakhot stated in these verses, and one who steals land must reimburse the field’s owner.
וְרַבָּנַן דָּרְשִׁי כְּלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי; ״וְכִחֵשׁ״ – כָּלַל, ״בְּפִקָּדוֹן״ – פָּרַט, ״אוֹ מִכֹּל״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל. כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל – אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְעֵין הַפְּרָט;
And the Rabbis interpreted these verses according to the hermeneutical principle of generalizations and details. The phrase: “And deal falsely with his neighbor,” is a generalization, while the subsequent phrase: “In a matter of deposit,” is a detail. When the verse then states: “Or anything about which he has sworn falsely, he shall restore it in full,” it has then generalized again. In a case of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail.
מָה הַפְּרָט – דָּבָר הַמִּיטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן, אַף כֹּל דָּבָר הַמִּיטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן. יָצְאוּ קַרְקָעוֹת – שֶׁאֵין מִטַּלְטְלִין; יָצְאוּ עֲבָדִים – שֶׁהוּקְּשׁוּ לְקַרְקָעוֹת; יָצְאוּ שְׁטָרוֹת – שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּטַּלְטְלִין, אֵין גּוּפָן מָמוֹן.
Accordingly, just as the detail, i.e., a deposit, is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value, so too, the verse includes anything that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value. Consequently, land has been excluded, as it is not movable property. Slaves have been excluded, as they are compared to land with regard to many areas of halakha. Financial documents have been excluded because, although they are movable property, they do not have intrinsic monetary value.
וְהָדְתַנְיָא: הַגּוֹזֵל אֶת הַפָּרָה וּשְׁטָפָהּ נָהָר – חַיָּיב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ פָּרָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ״. הָתָם בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי?
The Gemara asks: And there is that which is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who robbed another of a cow and a river washed it away, the robber is liable to provide the owner with another cow; this is the statement of Rabbi Elazar. And the Rabbis say: The robber can say to the owner: That which is yours is before you, and he would consequently be exempt. The Gemara asks: There, in the baraita, with regard to what do they disagree? The rationale offered previously cannot apply, as a cow is movable property and has intrinsic value, and yet Rabbi Elazar and the Rabbis still disagree.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָתָם בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁגָּזַל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וְהָיְתָה
Rav Pappa said: There, with what are we dealing? We are dealing with a case where he had robbed another of a field, and there was
