Today’s daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim in loving memory of her mother Edith Aschheim A”H. “She left us too young; but she left a lasting and loving legacy, including a love of Yiddishkeit. She was born in Vienna in 1926, went on the Kindertransport to London and was blessed to be reunited with her parents in USA in December 1940. She embraced all that NYC had to offer. Mommy, you are forever in my heart.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Helen Danczak. “My dear uncle Phil passed on August 27 with family at hand. He was the kind of uncle that the kids (of all ages) gravitated to. I am not alone in saying he was my favorite uncle. He is missed. May his neshama have an aliyah.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Summary
This week’s learning is sponsored by Helen Danczak. “My dear uncle Phil passed on August 27 with family at hand. He was the kind of uncle that the kids (of all ages) gravitated to. I am not alone in saying he was my favorite uncle. He is missed. May his neshama have an aliyah.”
Ketubot 31
וְקָרַע שִׁירָאִין שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ.
and at the same time he tore another’s silk [shira’in]. The question is whether the liability to receive the death penalty exempts him from the liability for payment incurred at precisely the same moment.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא בֶּן הַקָּנָה בְּגוֹנֵב חֶלְבּוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ וַאֲכָלוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב, שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְחַיֵּיב בִּגְנֵבָה קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבֹא לִידֵי אִיסּוּר חֵלֶב. לֵימָא פְּלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי אָבִין. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין: הַזּוֹרֵק חֵץ מִתְּחִילַּת אַרְבַּע לְסוֹף אַרְבַּע, וְקָרַע שִׁירָאִין בַּהֲלִיכָתוֹ — פָּטוּר. שֶׁעֲקִירָה צוֹרֶךְ הַנָּחָה הִיא. הָכָא נָמֵי: הַגְבָּהָה צוֹרֶךְ אֲכִילָה הִיא!
§ The Gemara analyzes the matter itself. Rav Ḥisda said: Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana concedes in the case of one who steals another’s forbidden fat and eats it that he is obligated to pay for the fat, as he is already liable for theft before he comes to violate the prohibition against eating forbidden fat. The Gemara comments: Let us say that Rav Ḥisda disagrees with Rabbi Avin, as Rabbi Avin said: One who shoots an arrow from the beginning of four cubits to the end of four cubits in the public domain on Shabbat, thereby performing a prohibited labor for which he is liable to receive a court-imposed death penalty, and the arrow ripped silk as it proceeds, is exempt from the obligation to pay for the silk because he is liable for the more severe punishment for desecrating Shabbat. Although the silk was ripped prior to completion of the prohibited labor, as the arrow had not yet come to rest, he is nevertheless exempt, as lifting is a prerequisite for placement. The prohibited labor of carrying on Shabbat is comprised of lifting of the object and placement. Once he shot the arrow, its movement through the air is a continuation of his act of Shabbat desecration, for which he is liable to be executed. Here, too, say that lifting the fat is a prerequisite for eating, and therefore he should be exempt from payment.
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם, אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְהַנָּחָה בְּלֹא עֲקִירָה. הָכָא, אֶפְשָׁר לַאֲכִילָה בְּלֹא הַגְבָּהָה, דְּאִי בָּעֵי, גָּחֵין וְאָכֵיל. אִי נָמֵי: הָתָם אִי בָּעֵי לְאַהְדּוֹרַהּ — לָא מָצֵי מַהְדַּר לַהּ. הָכָא — מָצֵי מַהְדַּר לַהּ.
The Gemara refutes this argument: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the arrow, placement is impossible without lifting, as placement without lifting is not a labor prohibited on Shabbat. Therefore, lifting and placement are a single unit. In contrast, here, eating is possible without lifting as, if one wishes, he could bend down and eat without lifting the food to his mouth. Alternatively, there is another difference between the cases: There, in the case of the arrow, even if he seeks to take back the arrow after shooting it, he cannot take it back; therefore, lifting and placement constitute one action. Here, he could replace the fat after lifting it.
מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין הַאי לִישָּׁנָא לְהַאי לִישָּׁנָא? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ הַמַּעֲבִיר סַכִּין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְקָרַע שִׁירָאִין בַּהֲלִיכָתוֹ. לְהָךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְהַנָּחָה בְּלֹא עֲקִירָה — הָכָא נָמֵי אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְהַנָּחָה בְּלֹא עֲקִירָה. לְהָךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ לָא מָצֵי מַהְדַּר לַהּ — הָכָא מָצֵי מַהְדַּר לַהּ.
The Gemara asks: What practical difference is there between this formulation, where the criterion is whether the second stage could be performed independent of the first stage, and that formulation, where the criterion is whether the second stage is inevitable after performing the first stage? The Gemara responds: There is a practical difference between them with regard to one who carries a knife in the public domain and tears silk as he proceeds. According to that formulation, where you said: Lifting is a prerequisite for placement, here too, lifting is a prerequisite for placement. As these two stages are inexorably connected, they constitute one action, and the one carrying the knife is exempt from paying the damages. Conversely, according to that formulation where you said: He cannot take back the arrow and that is why they are considered one action, here, he can take back the knife; therefore, lifting and placement are separate actions and he is not exempt from punishment for the damages that he caused.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין: הַזּוֹרֵק חֵץ מִתְּחִלַּת אַרְבַּע לְסוֹף אַרְבַּע וְקָרַע שִׁירָאִין בַּהֲלִיכָתוֹ — פָּטוּר, שֶׁעֲקִירָה צוֹרֶךְ הַנָּחָה הִיא. מֵתִיב רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: הַגּוֹנֵב כִּיס בְּשַׁבָּת — חַיָּיב, שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְחַיֵּיב בִּגְנֵיבָה קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבֹא לִידֵי אִיסּוּר סְקִילָה. הָיָה מְגָרֵר וְיוֹצֵא, מְגָרֵר וְיוֹצֵא — פָּטוּר, שֶׁהֲרֵי אִיסּוּר שַׁבָּת וּגְנֵיבָה בָּאִין כְּאֶחָד.
§ The Gemara analyzes the matter itself. Rabbi Avin said: With regard to one who shoots an arrow from the beginning of four cubits to the end of four cubits and the arrow rips silk as it proceeds, he is exempt, as lifting is a prerequisite for placement. Rav Beivai bar Abaye raised an objection from that which is taught in a baraita: One who steals a purse on Shabbat is liable for the theft because he was already liable for theft as soon as he lifted the purse. This took place before he came to violate the prohibition against performing prohibited labor on Shabbat by carrying it into the public domain, a violation punishable by stoning. However, if he did not lift the purse but was dragging it on the ground and exiting the private domain, dragging and exiting, he is exempt, as the prohibition against theft and the prohibition of Shabbat are violated simultaneously when he drags the purse out of the owner’s property and into the public domain.
וְאַמַּאי? הָכָא נָמֵי, לֵימָא: הַגְבָּהָה צוֹרֶךְ הוֹצָאָה הִיא! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִגְבִּיהוֹ עַל מְנָת לְהַצְנִיעוֹ, וְנִמְלַךְ עָלָיו וְהוֹצִיאוֹ.
Rav Beivai concludes: But why is he liable if he carried the purse? Here, too, let us say that lifting is a prerequisite for carrying out, and therefore the theft was performed in the course of performance of the prohibited labor and he is exempt. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he lifted the pouch in order to conceal it in the same domain, not to carry it out into the public domain, and he reconsidered his plan with regard to the purse and carried it out. In that case the act of lifting was not performed for the purpose of carrying out. Therefore, he is not exempt from the obligation to pay for the theft.
וְכִי הַאי גַּוְונָא מִי חַיָּיב? וְהָאָמַר רַב סִימוֹן אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמְפַנֶּה חֲפָצִים מִזָּוִית לְזָוִית, וְנִמְלַךְ עֲלֵיהֶם וְהוֹצִיאָן — פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה עֲקִירָה מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה לְכָךְ!
The Gemara asks: And in a case like that, where he reconsidered, is one liable for carrying out an object on Shabbat? But didn’t Rav Simon say that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who moves objects from one corner of his house to another corner on Shabbat, and he reconsidered his plan in their regard after lifting them and carried them out into the public domain, he is exempt, as the act of lifting was not initially performed for that purpose of carrying from one domain to another. Here, too, since the thief did not lift the pouch with the intention of carrying it out, he is not liable to be stoned.
לָא תֵּימָא עַל מְנָת לְהַצְנִיעוֹ, אֶלָּא אֵימָא עַל מְנָת לְהוֹצִיאוֹ, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּשֶׁעָמַד.
The Gemara emends the previous answer: Do not say that he lifted it in order to conceal it; rather, say that he lifted it in order to carry it out. Nevertheless, the case of shooting the arrow and the case of stealing the purse are different, as with what case are we dealing here? It is a case where he stopped in the courtyard before taking the pouch out to the public domain. Therefore, the initial lifting is exclusively theft and not the start of a prohibited labor, as by stopping, he separated the lifting from the carrying out.
עָמַד לְמַאי? אִי לְכַתֵּף — אוֹרְחֵיהּ הוּא! אֶלָּא בְּעוֹמֵד לָפוּשׁ. אֲבָל לְכַתֵּף מַאי?
The Gemara asks: This is a case where he stopped. For what purpose did he stop? If he stopped in order to adjust the burden on his shoulder, that is the typical manner of proceeding and would not be considered an interruption in the process of carrying out the object. Rather, it must be in a case of one who stopped to rest, and when he resumes moving he initiates a separate action. The Gemara infers: But if he stopped in order to adjust the burden on his shoulder, what is the halakha?
פָּטוּר. אַדְּתָנֵי: הָיָה מְגָרֵר וְיוֹצֵא מְגָרֵר וְיוֹצֵא פָּטוּר, נִפְלוֹג וְנִיתְנֵי בְּדִידַהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּעוֹמֵד לָפוּשׁ, אֲבָל לְכַתֵּף — פָּטוּר.
He would be exempt. If that is the case, rather than teaching: If he was dragging and exiting, dragging and exiting, he is exempt, let the tanna distinguish and teach the distinction within the case of carrying itself, as follows: In what case are these matters stated? It is in a case where he stopped to rest; however, if he stopped to adjust the burden on his shoulder, he is exempt.
אֶלָּא: הָא מַנִּי — בֶּן עַזַּאי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מְהַלֵּךְ כְּעוֹמֵד דָּמֵי. אֲבָל זוֹרֵק מַאי — פָּטוּר? נִיפְלוֹג [וְנִיתְנֵי] בְּדִידַהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בִּמְהַלֵּךְ, אֲבָל זוֹרֵק — פָּטוּר!
Rather, the Gemara explains why one is liable in the case where he carries the purse. In accordance with whose opinion was this halakha taught? It is in accordance with the opinion of ben Azzai, who said: The legal status of one who walks is like that of one who stops, as each step constitutes a pause between the actions of lifting and placement. Therefore, the initial lifting is not part of the prohibited labor of carrying out. The Gemara infers: But if one throws the object into another domain, what is the halakha? He would be exempt from payment, as the lifting is the start of the prohibited labor of carrying out. If so, let the tanna distinguish and teach the distinction within the case itself, without resorting to the case of dragging and exiting, as follows: In what case are these matters stated? It is in the case of one who walks, so that there is separation between lifting and carrying out, and therefore the theft and the desecration of Shabbat are not simultaneous. However, one who throws is exempt from payment, as liability for carrying out and for theft are incurred simultaneously.
מְגָרֵר וְיוֹצֵא אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא אֵין דֶּרֶךְ הוֹצָאָה בְּכָךְ. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of ben Azzai, that would in fact be a more appropriate distinction; however, the case of one who was dragging and exiting was necessary for the tanna to teach because it includes a novel element, as it might enter your mind to say that this is not a typical manner of carrying out, and one is not liable to be executed for performing a prohibited labor in an atypical manner. Therefore, it teaches us that this too is a manner of carrying out.
וּבְמַאי? אִי בְּרַבְרְבֵי — אוֹרְחֵיהּ הוּא. אִי בְּזוּטְרֵי — לָאו אוֹרְחֵיהּ הוּא. אֶלָּא בְּמִיצְעֵי.
And the Gemara asks: In what case is this so? If it is in the case of large purses, obviously dragging is its typical manner, and there is nothing novel in this. If it is in the case of small purses, dragging is certainly not its typical manner, and one would certainly not be liable. Rather, it must be referring to intermediate-sized purses. Although they are not always carried out in this manner, since they are sometimes dragged, the novelty is that he is liable for desecrating Shabbat and exempt from the payment.
וּדְאַפְּקֵיהּ לְהֵיכָא? אִי דְּאַפְּקֵיהּ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — אִיסּוּר שַׁבָּת אִיכָּא, אִיסּוּר גְּנֵיבָה לֵיכָּא. אִי דְּאַפְּקֵיהּ לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד — אִיסּוּר גְּנֵיבָה אִיכָּא, אִיסּוּר שַׁבָּת — לֵיכָּא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאַפְּקֵיהּ לְצִידֵּי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים.
The Gemara continues: And in this case, to where did he carry out the pouch? If he carried it out from the owner’s private domain to the public domain, there is violation of the prohibition of Shabbat; however, there is no violation of the prohibition against theft, as one does not acquire an item by pulling it into the public domain. If he carried it out from the owner’s private domain to his own private domain, there is violation of the prohibition against theft; however, there is no violation of the prohibition of Shabbat. The Gemara answers: This ruling is necessary only in a case where he carried it out to the sides of the public domain. This is referring to the area in the public domain adjacent to the houses located on its sides, demarcated from the thoroughfare by small pegs and not by a full-fledged partition.
וּכְמַאן? אִי כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דְּאָמַר צִידֵּי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים כִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים דָּמוּ — אִיסּוּר שַׁבָּת אִיכָּא, אִיסּוּר גְּנֵיבָה לֵיכָּא! אִי כְּרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי צִידֵּי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לָאו כִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים דָּמוּ — אִיסּוּר גְּנֵיבָה אִיכָּא, אִיסּוּר שַׁבָּת לֵיכָּא!
The Gemara asks: And in accordance with whose opinion is this taught? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: The legal status of the sides of the public domain is like that of the public domain, there is violation of the prohibition of Shabbat; however, there is no violation of the prohibition against theft. If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who said: The legal status of the sides of the public domain is not like that of the public domain, there is violation of the prohibition against theft; however, there is no violation of the prohibition of Shabbat.
לְעוֹלָם כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְכִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר צִידֵּי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים כִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים דָּמוּ — הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְעִנְיַן חִיּוּבָא דְשַׁבָּת, דְּזִימְנִין דְּדָחֲקִי רַבִּים וְעָיְילִי לְהָתָם. אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן מִיקְנֵא — קָנֵי. מַאי טַעְמָא — דְּהָא לָא שְׁכִיחִי רַבִּים.
The Gemara answers: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and when Rabbi Eliezer said: The legal status of the sides of the public domain is like that of the public domain, that applies only with regard to the liability for performing prohibited labor on Shabbat, as occasionally the multitudes crowd and enter there. However, with regard to the matter of acquiring an object, one acquires it by dragging it there. What is the reason for this halakha? It is due to the fact that the public is not typically found there, and acquisition can be effected in a place where the multitudes are not typically found.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁצֵּירַף יָדוֹ לְמַטָּה מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה וְקִיבְּלוֹ. כִּדְרָבָא. דְּאָמַר רָבָא: יָדוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם חֲשׁוּבָה לוֹ כְּאַרְבָּעָה עַל אַרְבָּעָה. רַב אַחָא מַתְנִי הָכִי.
Rav Ashi said: Actually, one is exempt when one dragged the object into the public domain in a case where he joined his hand to his other hand at a height below three handbreadths off the ground and received the purse by passing it from one hand into the other as soon as he brought it into the public domain. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: A person’s hand is considered like four by four handbreadths for him. Therefore, an object placed in one’s hand is considered placed with regard to Shabbat, and since his hand is his personal domain he has also acquired the stolen item. Rav Aḥa taught the entire discussion this way, as above.
רָבִינָא מַתְנֵי: לְעוֹלָם דְּאַפְּקֵיהּ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וּבִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים נָמֵי קָנָה, וְתַרְוַיְיהוּ בְּדִיּוּקָא דְּהָא מַתְנִיתִין קָמִיפַּלְגִי. דִּתְנַן: הָיָה מוֹשְׁכוֹ וְיוֹצֵא וּמֵת בִּרְשׁוּת בְּעָלִים — פָּטוּר. הִגְבִּיהוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהוֹצִיאוֹ מֵרְשׁוּת בְּעָלִים וּמֵת — חַיָּיב.
Ravina taught otherwise: Actually, it is a case where one carried out the object to the public domain, and in the public domain he also acquires the stolen object by removing it from the owner’s domain, even if he does not transfer it to his own domain. The Gemara comments: And the two of them, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree with regard to the inference of this mishna, as we learned in a mishna (Bava Kamma 79a) with regard to one who stole an animal: If he was pulling the animal and exiting, and it died in the domain of the owner, the thief is exempt from payment because he did not yet acquire the animal and therefore did not assume liability for its death through circumstances beyond his control. If he lifted it or took it out of the owner’s domain, thereby acquiring the animal, and it died, the thief is liable to pay its value because it died in his possession.
רָבִינָא דָּיֵיק מֵרֵישָׁא, רַב אַחָא דָּיֵיק מִסֵּיפָא. רָבִינָא דָּיֵיק מֵרֵישָׁא: הָיָה מוֹשְׁכוֹ וְיוֹצֵא וּמֵת בִּרְשׁוּת בְּעָלִים — פָּטוּר. טַעְמָא דְּמֵת בִּרְשׁוּת בְּעָלִים, הָא הוֹצִיאוֹ מֵרְשׁוּת בְּעָלִים וָמֵת — חַיָּיב. רַב אַחָא דָּיֵיק מִסֵּיפָא: הִגְבִּיהוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהוֹצִיאוֹ. הוֹצָאָה דּוּמְיָא דְּהַגְבָּהָה: מָה הַגְבָּהָה — דְּאָתֵי לִרְשׁוּתֵיהּ, אַף הוֹצָאָה נָמֵי — דְּאָתֵי לִרְשׁוּתֵיהּ.
Ravina inferred his conclusion from the first clause of the mishna, and Rav Aḥa inferred his conclusion from the latter clause. Ravina inferred his conclusion from the first clause: If he was pulling the animal and exiting, and it died in the domain of the owner, the thief is exempt from payment. The reason that the thief is exempt is that the animal died in the owner’s domain; by inference, if he took it out of the owner’s domain and it died, he is liable because the thief acquires the item by its very removal from the owner’s property, even to the public domain. Rav Aḥa inferred his conclusion from the latter clause of the mishna: If he lifted it or took it out of the owner’s domain, he is liable. Based on the juxtaposition of the two, taking the animal out is similar to lifting it: Just as lifting is an act of acquisition through which the animal comes into his domain, so too, taking it out is referring to a case where it comes into his domain.
לְרַב אַחָא קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא, לְרָבִינָא קַשְׁיָא סֵיפָא! רֵישָׁא לְרַב אַחָא לָא קַשְׁיָא: כַּמָּה דְּלָא אָתֵי לִרְשׁוּתֵיהּ, רְשׁוּת בְּעָלִים קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ. סֵיפָא לְרָבִינָא לָא קַשְׁיָא: הוֹצָאָה דּוּמְיָא דְּהַגְבָּהָה לָא אָמְרִינַן.
The Gemara observes: For Rav Aḥa the first clause of the mishna is difficult, while for Ravina the latter clause is difficult. The Gemara answers: The first clause is not difficult for Rav Aḥa, as he could explain it as follows: As long as the animal has not come into one’s domain, even if it has left the owner’s property, we continue to call it the owner’s domain. Similarly, the latter clause is not difficult for Ravina, as in his opinion we do not say: Taking the animal out is similar to lifting it. Therefore, the mishna’s ruling is that the thief acquires the animal merely through its removal from the owner’s property.
הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ וְעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו כּוּ׳. וּרְמִינְהוּ, אֵלּוּ הֵן הַלּוֹקִין: הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו, וְעַל הַנִּדָּה.
§ The mishna continues: Similarly, one who has forced relations with his sister, i.e., he rapes her, or with his father’s sister, or with his mother’s sister, or with his wife’s sister, or with his brother’s wife, or with his father’s brother’s wife after they divorced, or with a menstruating woman, there is a fine paid. And the Gemara raised a contradiction from the following mishna (Makkot 13a): And these people are flogged: One who has relations with his sister, or with his father’s sister, or with his mother’s sister, or with his wife’s sister, or with his brother’s wife, or with his father’s brother’s wife, or with a menstruating woman. Anyone who intentionally has relations with any of these women is punished with lashes.
Follow
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Ketubot 112: Honey, I Shrunk the Fruit
Anne Gordon and Yardaena Osband
10.26.2022 | א׳ במרחשוון תשפ״ג
Ketubot: 107-112 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time
Dr. Tamara Spitz
10.26.2022 | א׳ במרחשוון תשפ״ג
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.
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
Dena Heller
New Jersey, United States
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Leah Herzog
Givat Zev, Israel
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Shira Jacobowitz
Jerusalem, Israel
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Sarene Shanus
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Naomi Niederhoffer
Toronto, Canada
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Renee Braha
Brooklyn, NY, United States
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Rochel Cheifetz
Riverdale, NY, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Caroline Levison
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
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
Jerusalem, Israel
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Denise Neapolitan
Cambridge, United Kingdom
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot!
Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Anne Mirsky
Maale Adumim, Israel
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Marian Frankston
Pennsylvania, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Shira Eliaser
Skokie, IL, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Susan Vishner
Brookline, United States
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
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Caroline Levison
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
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
Guildford, United Kingdom
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Shira Jacobowitz
Jerusalem, Israel
Ketubot 31
וְקָרַע שִׁירָאִין שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ.
and at the same time he tore another’s silk [shira’in]. The question is whether the liability to receive the death penalty exempts him from the liability for payment incurred at precisely the same moment.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא בֶּן הַקָּנָה בְּגוֹנֵב חֶלְבּוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ וַאֲכָלוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב, שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְחַיֵּיב בִּגְנֵבָה קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבֹא לִידֵי אִיסּוּר חֵלֶב. לֵימָא פְּלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי אָבִין. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין: הַזּוֹרֵק חֵץ מִתְּחִילַּת אַרְבַּע לְסוֹף אַרְבַּע, וְקָרַע שִׁירָאִין בַּהֲלִיכָתוֹ — פָּטוּר. שֶׁעֲקִירָה צוֹרֶךְ הַנָּחָה הִיא. הָכָא נָמֵי: הַגְבָּהָה צוֹרֶךְ אֲכִילָה הִיא!
§ The Gemara analyzes the matter itself. Rav Ḥisda said: Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana concedes in the case of one who steals another’s forbidden fat and eats it that he is obligated to pay for the fat, as he is already liable for theft before he comes to violate the prohibition against eating forbidden fat. The Gemara comments: Let us say that Rav Ḥisda disagrees with Rabbi Avin, as Rabbi Avin said: One who shoots an arrow from the beginning of four cubits to the end of four cubits in the public domain on Shabbat, thereby performing a prohibited labor for which he is liable to receive a court-imposed death penalty, and the arrow ripped silk as it proceeds, is exempt from the obligation to pay for the silk because he is liable for the more severe punishment for desecrating Shabbat. Although the silk was ripped prior to completion of the prohibited labor, as the arrow had not yet come to rest, he is nevertheless exempt, as lifting is a prerequisite for placement. The prohibited labor of carrying on Shabbat is comprised of lifting of the object and placement. Once he shot the arrow, its movement through the air is a continuation of his act of Shabbat desecration, for which he is liable to be executed. Here, too, say that lifting the fat is a prerequisite for eating, and therefore he should be exempt from payment.
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם, אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְהַנָּחָה בְּלֹא עֲקִירָה. הָכָא, אֶפְשָׁר לַאֲכִילָה בְּלֹא הַגְבָּהָה, דְּאִי בָּעֵי, גָּחֵין וְאָכֵיל. אִי נָמֵי: הָתָם אִי בָּעֵי לְאַהְדּוֹרַהּ — לָא מָצֵי מַהְדַּר לַהּ. הָכָא — מָצֵי מַהְדַּר לַהּ.
The Gemara refutes this argument: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the arrow, placement is impossible without lifting, as placement without lifting is not a labor prohibited on Shabbat. Therefore, lifting and placement are a single unit. In contrast, here, eating is possible without lifting as, if one wishes, he could bend down and eat without lifting the food to his mouth. Alternatively, there is another difference between the cases: There, in the case of the arrow, even if he seeks to take back the arrow after shooting it, he cannot take it back; therefore, lifting and placement constitute one action. Here, he could replace the fat after lifting it.
מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין הַאי לִישָּׁנָא לְהַאי לִישָּׁנָא? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ הַמַּעֲבִיר סַכִּין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְקָרַע שִׁירָאִין בַּהֲלִיכָתוֹ. לְהָךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְהַנָּחָה בְּלֹא עֲקִירָה — הָכָא נָמֵי אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְהַנָּחָה בְּלֹא עֲקִירָה. לְהָךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ לָא מָצֵי מַהְדַּר לַהּ — הָכָא מָצֵי מַהְדַּר לַהּ.
The Gemara asks: What practical difference is there between this formulation, where the criterion is whether the second stage could be performed independent of the first stage, and that formulation, where the criterion is whether the second stage is inevitable after performing the first stage? The Gemara responds: There is a practical difference between them with regard to one who carries a knife in the public domain and tears silk as he proceeds. According to that formulation, where you said: Lifting is a prerequisite for placement, here too, lifting is a prerequisite for placement. As these two stages are inexorably connected, they constitute one action, and the one carrying the knife is exempt from paying the damages. Conversely, according to that formulation where you said: He cannot take back the arrow and that is why they are considered one action, here, he can take back the knife; therefore, lifting and placement are separate actions and he is not exempt from punishment for the damages that he caused.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין: הַזּוֹרֵק חֵץ מִתְּחִלַּת אַרְבַּע לְסוֹף אַרְבַּע וְקָרַע שִׁירָאִין בַּהֲלִיכָתוֹ — פָּטוּר, שֶׁעֲקִירָה צוֹרֶךְ הַנָּחָה הִיא. מֵתִיב רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: הַגּוֹנֵב כִּיס בְּשַׁבָּת — חַיָּיב, שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְחַיֵּיב בִּגְנֵיבָה קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבֹא לִידֵי אִיסּוּר סְקִילָה. הָיָה מְגָרֵר וְיוֹצֵא, מְגָרֵר וְיוֹצֵא — פָּטוּר, שֶׁהֲרֵי אִיסּוּר שַׁבָּת וּגְנֵיבָה בָּאִין כְּאֶחָד.
§ The Gemara analyzes the matter itself. Rabbi Avin said: With regard to one who shoots an arrow from the beginning of four cubits to the end of four cubits and the arrow rips silk as it proceeds, he is exempt, as lifting is a prerequisite for placement. Rav Beivai bar Abaye raised an objection from that which is taught in a baraita: One who steals a purse on Shabbat is liable for the theft because he was already liable for theft as soon as he lifted the purse. This took place before he came to violate the prohibition against performing prohibited labor on Shabbat by carrying it into the public domain, a violation punishable by stoning. However, if he did not lift the purse but was dragging it on the ground and exiting the private domain, dragging and exiting, he is exempt, as the prohibition against theft and the prohibition of Shabbat are violated simultaneously when he drags the purse out of the owner’s property and into the public domain.
וְאַמַּאי? הָכָא נָמֵי, לֵימָא: הַגְבָּהָה צוֹרֶךְ הוֹצָאָה הִיא! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִגְבִּיהוֹ עַל מְנָת לְהַצְנִיעוֹ, וְנִמְלַךְ עָלָיו וְהוֹצִיאוֹ.
Rav Beivai concludes: But why is he liable if he carried the purse? Here, too, let us say that lifting is a prerequisite for carrying out, and therefore the theft was performed in the course of performance of the prohibited labor and he is exempt. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he lifted the pouch in order to conceal it in the same domain, not to carry it out into the public domain, and he reconsidered his plan with regard to the purse and carried it out. In that case the act of lifting was not performed for the purpose of carrying out. Therefore, he is not exempt from the obligation to pay for the theft.
וְכִי הַאי גַּוְונָא מִי חַיָּיב? וְהָאָמַר רַב סִימוֹן אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמְפַנֶּה חֲפָצִים מִזָּוִית לְזָוִית, וְנִמְלַךְ עֲלֵיהֶם וְהוֹצִיאָן — פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה עֲקִירָה מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה לְכָךְ!
The Gemara asks: And in a case like that, where he reconsidered, is one liable for carrying out an object on Shabbat? But didn’t Rav Simon say that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who moves objects from one corner of his house to another corner on Shabbat, and he reconsidered his plan in their regard after lifting them and carried them out into the public domain, he is exempt, as the act of lifting was not initially performed for that purpose of carrying from one domain to another. Here, too, since the thief did not lift the pouch with the intention of carrying it out, he is not liable to be stoned.
לָא תֵּימָא עַל מְנָת לְהַצְנִיעוֹ, אֶלָּא אֵימָא עַל מְנָת לְהוֹצִיאוֹ, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּשֶׁעָמַד.
The Gemara emends the previous answer: Do not say that he lifted it in order to conceal it; rather, say that he lifted it in order to carry it out. Nevertheless, the case of shooting the arrow and the case of stealing the purse are different, as with what case are we dealing here? It is a case where he stopped in the courtyard before taking the pouch out to the public domain. Therefore, the initial lifting is exclusively theft and not the start of a prohibited labor, as by stopping, he separated the lifting from the carrying out.
עָמַד לְמַאי? אִי לְכַתֵּף — אוֹרְחֵיהּ הוּא! אֶלָּא בְּעוֹמֵד לָפוּשׁ. אֲבָל לְכַתֵּף מַאי?
The Gemara asks: This is a case where he stopped. For what purpose did he stop? If he stopped in order to adjust the burden on his shoulder, that is the typical manner of proceeding and would not be considered an interruption in the process of carrying out the object. Rather, it must be in a case of one who stopped to rest, and when he resumes moving he initiates a separate action. The Gemara infers: But if he stopped in order to adjust the burden on his shoulder, what is the halakha?
פָּטוּר. אַדְּתָנֵי: הָיָה מְגָרֵר וְיוֹצֵא מְגָרֵר וְיוֹצֵא פָּטוּר, נִפְלוֹג וְנִיתְנֵי בְּדִידַהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּעוֹמֵד לָפוּשׁ, אֲבָל לְכַתֵּף — פָּטוּר.
He would be exempt. If that is the case, rather than teaching: If he was dragging and exiting, dragging and exiting, he is exempt, let the tanna distinguish and teach the distinction within the case of carrying itself, as follows: In what case are these matters stated? It is in a case where he stopped to rest; however, if he stopped to adjust the burden on his shoulder, he is exempt.
אֶלָּא: הָא מַנִּי — בֶּן עַזַּאי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מְהַלֵּךְ כְּעוֹמֵד דָּמֵי. אֲבָל זוֹרֵק מַאי — פָּטוּר? נִיפְלוֹג [וְנִיתְנֵי] בְּדִידַהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בִּמְהַלֵּךְ, אֲבָל זוֹרֵק — פָּטוּר!
Rather, the Gemara explains why one is liable in the case where he carries the purse. In accordance with whose opinion was this halakha taught? It is in accordance with the opinion of ben Azzai, who said: The legal status of one who walks is like that of one who stops, as each step constitutes a pause between the actions of lifting and placement. Therefore, the initial lifting is not part of the prohibited labor of carrying out. The Gemara infers: But if one throws the object into another domain, what is the halakha? He would be exempt from payment, as the lifting is the start of the prohibited labor of carrying out. If so, let the tanna distinguish and teach the distinction within the case itself, without resorting to the case of dragging and exiting, as follows: In what case are these matters stated? It is in the case of one who walks, so that there is separation between lifting and carrying out, and therefore the theft and the desecration of Shabbat are not simultaneous. However, one who throws is exempt from payment, as liability for carrying out and for theft are incurred simultaneously.
מְגָרֵר וְיוֹצֵא אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא אֵין דֶּרֶךְ הוֹצָאָה בְּכָךְ. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of ben Azzai, that would in fact be a more appropriate distinction; however, the case of one who was dragging and exiting was necessary for the tanna to teach because it includes a novel element, as it might enter your mind to say that this is not a typical manner of carrying out, and one is not liable to be executed for performing a prohibited labor in an atypical manner. Therefore, it teaches us that this too is a manner of carrying out.
וּבְמַאי? אִי בְּרַבְרְבֵי — אוֹרְחֵיהּ הוּא. אִי בְּזוּטְרֵי — לָאו אוֹרְחֵיהּ הוּא. אֶלָּא בְּמִיצְעֵי.
And the Gemara asks: In what case is this so? If it is in the case of large purses, obviously dragging is its typical manner, and there is nothing novel in this. If it is in the case of small purses, dragging is certainly not its typical manner, and one would certainly not be liable. Rather, it must be referring to intermediate-sized purses. Although they are not always carried out in this manner, since they are sometimes dragged, the novelty is that he is liable for desecrating Shabbat and exempt from the payment.
וּדְאַפְּקֵיהּ לְהֵיכָא? אִי דְּאַפְּקֵיהּ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — אִיסּוּר שַׁבָּת אִיכָּא, אִיסּוּר גְּנֵיבָה לֵיכָּא. אִי דְּאַפְּקֵיהּ לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד — אִיסּוּר גְּנֵיבָה אִיכָּא, אִיסּוּר שַׁבָּת — לֵיכָּא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאַפְּקֵיהּ לְצִידֵּי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים.
The Gemara continues: And in this case, to where did he carry out the pouch? If he carried it out from the owner’s private domain to the public domain, there is violation of the prohibition of Shabbat; however, there is no violation of the prohibition against theft, as one does not acquire an item by pulling it into the public domain. If he carried it out from the owner’s private domain to his own private domain, there is violation of the prohibition against theft; however, there is no violation of the prohibition of Shabbat. The Gemara answers: This ruling is necessary only in a case where he carried it out to the sides of the public domain. This is referring to the area in the public domain adjacent to the houses located on its sides, demarcated from the thoroughfare by small pegs and not by a full-fledged partition.
וּכְמַאן? אִי כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דְּאָמַר צִידֵּי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים כִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים דָּמוּ — אִיסּוּר שַׁבָּת אִיכָּא, אִיסּוּר גְּנֵיבָה לֵיכָּא! אִי כְּרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי צִידֵּי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לָאו כִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים דָּמוּ — אִיסּוּר גְּנֵיבָה אִיכָּא, אִיסּוּר שַׁבָּת לֵיכָּא!
The Gemara asks: And in accordance with whose opinion is this taught? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: The legal status of the sides of the public domain is like that of the public domain, there is violation of the prohibition of Shabbat; however, there is no violation of the prohibition against theft. If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who said: The legal status of the sides of the public domain is not like that of the public domain, there is violation of the prohibition against theft; however, there is no violation of the prohibition of Shabbat.
לְעוֹלָם כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְכִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר צִידֵּי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים כִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים דָּמוּ — הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְעִנְיַן חִיּוּבָא דְשַׁבָּת, דְּזִימְנִין דְּדָחֲקִי רַבִּים וְעָיְילִי לְהָתָם. אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן מִיקְנֵא — קָנֵי. מַאי טַעְמָא — דְּהָא לָא שְׁכִיחִי רַבִּים.
The Gemara answers: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and when Rabbi Eliezer said: The legal status of the sides of the public domain is like that of the public domain, that applies only with regard to the liability for performing prohibited labor on Shabbat, as occasionally the multitudes crowd and enter there. However, with regard to the matter of acquiring an object, one acquires it by dragging it there. What is the reason for this halakha? It is due to the fact that the public is not typically found there, and acquisition can be effected in a place where the multitudes are not typically found.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁצֵּירַף יָדוֹ לְמַטָּה מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה וְקִיבְּלוֹ. כִּדְרָבָא. דְּאָמַר רָבָא: יָדוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם חֲשׁוּבָה לוֹ כְּאַרְבָּעָה עַל אַרְבָּעָה. רַב אַחָא מַתְנִי הָכִי.
Rav Ashi said: Actually, one is exempt when one dragged the object into the public domain in a case where he joined his hand to his other hand at a height below three handbreadths off the ground and received the purse by passing it from one hand into the other as soon as he brought it into the public domain. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: A person’s hand is considered like four by four handbreadths for him. Therefore, an object placed in one’s hand is considered placed with regard to Shabbat, and since his hand is his personal domain he has also acquired the stolen item. Rav Aḥa taught the entire discussion this way, as above.
רָבִינָא מַתְנֵי: לְעוֹלָם דְּאַפְּקֵיהּ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וּבִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים נָמֵי קָנָה, וְתַרְוַיְיהוּ בְּדִיּוּקָא דְּהָא מַתְנִיתִין קָמִיפַּלְגִי. דִּתְנַן: הָיָה מוֹשְׁכוֹ וְיוֹצֵא וּמֵת בִּרְשׁוּת בְּעָלִים — פָּטוּר. הִגְבִּיהוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהוֹצִיאוֹ מֵרְשׁוּת בְּעָלִים וּמֵת — חַיָּיב.
Ravina taught otherwise: Actually, it is a case where one carried out the object to the public domain, and in the public domain he also acquires the stolen object by removing it from the owner’s domain, even if he does not transfer it to his own domain. The Gemara comments: And the two of them, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree with regard to the inference of this mishna, as we learned in a mishna (Bava Kamma 79a) with regard to one who stole an animal: If he was pulling the animal and exiting, and it died in the domain of the owner, the thief is exempt from payment because he did not yet acquire the animal and therefore did not assume liability for its death through circumstances beyond his control. If he lifted it or took it out of the owner’s domain, thereby acquiring the animal, and it died, the thief is liable to pay its value because it died in his possession.
רָבִינָא דָּיֵיק מֵרֵישָׁא, רַב אַחָא דָּיֵיק מִסֵּיפָא. רָבִינָא דָּיֵיק מֵרֵישָׁא: הָיָה מוֹשְׁכוֹ וְיוֹצֵא וּמֵת בִּרְשׁוּת בְּעָלִים — פָּטוּר. טַעְמָא דְּמֵת בִּרְשׁוּת בְּעָלִים, הָא הוֹצִיאוֹ מֵרְשׁוּת בְּעָלִים וָמֵת — חַיָּיב. רַב אַחָא דָּיֵיק מִסֵּיפָא: הִגְבִּיהוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהוֹצִיאוֹ. הוֹצָאָה דּוּמְיָא דְּהַגְבָּהָה: מָה הַגְבָּהָה — דְּאָתֵי לִרְשׁוּתֵיהּ, אַף הוֹצָאָה נָמֵי — דְּאָתֵי לִרְשׁוּתֵיהּ.
Ravina inferred his conclusion from the first clause of the mishna, and Rav Aḥa inferred his conclusion from the latter clause. Ravina inferred his conclusion from the first clause: If he was pulling the animal and exiting, and it died in the domain of the owner, the thief is exempt from payment. The reason that the thief is exempt is that the animal died in the owner’s domain; by inference, if he took it out of the owner’s domain and it died, he is liable because the thief acquires the item by its very removal from the owner’s property, even to the public domain. Rav Aḥa inferred his conclusion from the latter clause of the mishna: If he lifted it or took it out of the owner’s domain, he is liable. Based on the juxtaposition of the two, taking the animal out is similar to lifting it: Just as lifting is an act of acquisition through which the animal comes into his domain, so too, taking it out is referring to a case where it comes into his domain.
לְרַב אַחָא קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא, לְרָבִינָא קַשְׁיָא סֵיפָא! רֵישָׁא לְרַב אַחָא לָא קַשְׁיָא: כַּמָּה דְּלָא אָתֵי לִרְשׁוּתֵיהּ, רְשׁוּת בְּעָלִים קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ. סֵיפָא לְרָבִינָא לָא קַשְׁיָא: הוֹצָאָה דּוּמְיָא דְּהַגְבָּהָה לָא אָמְרִינַן.
The Gemara observes: For Rav Aḥa the first clause of the mishna is difficult, while for Ravina the latter clause is difficult. The Gemara answers: The first clause is not difficult for Rav Aḥa, as he could explain it as follows: As long as the animal has not come into one’s domain, even if it has left the owner’s property, we continue to call it the owner’s domain. Similarly, the latter clause is not difficult for Ravina, as in his opinion we do not say: Taking the animal out is similar to lifting it. Therefore, the mishna’s ruling is that the thief acquires the animal merely through its removal from the owner’s property.
הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ וְעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו כּוּ׳. וּרְמִינְהוּ, אֵלּוּ הֵן הַלּוֹקִין: הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו, וְעַל הַנִּדָּה.
§ The mishna continues: Similarly, one who has forced relations with his sister, i.e., he rapes her, or with his father’s sister, or with his mother’s sister, or with his wife’s sister, or with his brother’s wife, or with his father’s brother’s wife after they divorced, or with a menstruating woman, there is a fine paid. And the Gemara raised a contradiction from the following mishna (Makkot 13a): And these people are flogged: One who has relations with his sister, or with his father’s sister, or with his mother’s sister, or with his wife’s sister, or with his brother’s wife, or with his father’s brother’s wife, or with a menstruating woman. Anyone who intentionally has relations with any of these women is punished with lashes.
Follow
