Start now

Bava Batra 171

December 13, 2024 | י״ב בכסלו תשפ״ה

Zoom @ 07:15AM (IST)

Masechet Intro old

Masechet Intro

Zoom @ 07:15AM (IST)

Share this shiur:

12.12.2024 | י״א בכסלו תשפ״ה

Calendar View

Bava Batra

Masechet Bava Batra is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z”l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z”l.

Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:

Learn more

12.12.2024 | י״א בכסלו תשפ״ה

Calendar View

0:00

Summary

Download for offline learning

Today’s daf is sponsored by Meir and Ahuva Balofsky in loving memory of Ahuva’s grandmother, Basia Chava bat Yirmiyahu, on her shloshim, and in honor of their son Moshe’s engagement to Maya Wind. “May Bubbie Chava’s legacy carry on in this auspicious new beginning.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sigal Spitzer in loving memory of her Grandma “GG” Rhoda, Raizel Bat Gital, whose first yahrzeit is today. “I love you and miss you. May her neshama have an aliyah.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi’s father, Jack Lock, of Harrisburg PA, who passed away four years ago. “He was so proud that all four of his children made aliya to Israel, and that his “tribe” grew during his lifetime to nearly 100 family members, spanning three generations (now four!) all in Israel. He was a generous and loving husband, father, grandfather, uncle, and brother who is sorely missed.”

When a borrower pays back part of a loan, two tannaitic opinions are proposed to prevent the creditor from attempting to collect the full original amount. Rabbi Yehuda suggests writing an entirely new loan document that reflects the reduced outstanding balance, replacing the original document to ensure clarity about the remaining debt. Rabbi Yosi recommends creating a receipt that the borrower keeps as proof of partial payment, serving as evidence that a portion of the loan has already been repaid and protecting the borrower from potential future claims.

Rav diverges from both opinions, requiring a new document to be written specifically by the court and pre-dated to the original loan’s date. This position is challenged by a braita that allows witnesses to rewrite and predate the document. However, Rav maintains his stance, arguing that witnesses lack the court’s authority to create a lien on the buyer’s property from the original date.

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi also disagree about post-dated documents, specifically in cases where the post-dating is not explicitly clear. Rabbi Yehuda’s position stems from his earlier view that receipts cannot be written, thus allowing post-dating as it cannot lead to deceit. Rabbi Yosi, who permits writing receipts, warns that a receipt pre-dating the post-dated document could potentially enable the creditor to collect on the loan twice.

A broader question emerges regarding receipts: Are they applicable only for partial loan payments or also for fully paid loans? The conclusive view is that if a creditor claims a lost document cannot be torn, they may demand payment upon providing a receipt to the borrower. This approach is justified by the creditor’s initial act of kindness in providing the loan.

A Mishna in Shviit 10:5 distinguishes between pre-dated and post-dated documents. Since documents create property liens, pre-dated documents are disqualified for incorrectly placing liens on lands sold after the document’s date. Post-dated documents, however, are acceptable.

Rav Hamnuna limits post-dating to loan documents but raises concerns about post-dated bills of sale that could facilitate deception. He warns that a seller could repurchase land before the sale date, and the buyer might then use the deed to prove incorrect ownership. When questioned about why similar concerns do not apply to loans, the Gemara suggests that Rav Hamnuna must not permit receipts.

Subsequently, post-dated documents became permitted, and people were also writing receipts. To prevent potential deceit, Rabbi Abba advised his scribes that when they wrote post-dated documents they should add to the document that it was post-dated, while Rav Safra suggested avoiding dating the receipts.

Bava Batra

Masechet Bava Batra is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z”l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z”l.

Bava Batra 171

בִּשְׁלָמָא בֵּי דִינָא – אַלִּימֵי לְאַפְקוֹעֵי מָמוֹנָא. אֶלָּא עֵדִים שֶׁעָשׂוּ שְׁלִיחוּתָן – חוֹזְרִין וְעוֹשִׂין שְׁלִיחוּתָן?!

Granted, a court can write a new document, because the court has the power to confiscate money. A creditor has the right to seize any property that the debtor had owned on the day the promissory note was written, even if that property was subsequently sold to others; the earlier the date on the note, the more properties it applies to. By dating the new document on the date of the original document the creditor is once again given the right to seize properties from those who had purchased land from the debtor in between the date of the original loan and the date the new promissory note is actually written. The court has such confiscatory power. But with regard to witnesses, who already performed their agency, i.e., fulfilled their assigned role, the first time they wrote the promissory note, can they return and perform their agency again by writing a second promissory note?

וְלָא?! וְהָא אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: עֵדִים כּוֹתְבִין אֲפִילּוּ עֲשָׂרָה שְׁטָרוֹת עַל שָׂדֶה אַחַת!

The Gemara asks: And is it so that witnesses are not empowered to do so? But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav says: Witnesses who were commissioned to write a deed for the transfer of property may write even ten deeds for one field? If the original deed is lost or destroyed, the witnesses may write a replacement deed for the purchaser, even if the deed is lost many times.

רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: בִּשְׁטַר מַתָּנָה,

Rav Yosef says an answer to this question: Rav Yehuda’s statement was concerning a deed of gift, not a bill of sale. A gift of land has no guarantee; if it is repossessed from the recipient by the giver’s creditor to repay the giver’s debt, the recipient has no recourse and cannot collect any money from anyone. Therefore, in this case no one is jeopardized by the writing of many replacement deeds, which are intended only to serve as a proof that the recipient is actually entitled to the land.

וְרַבָּה אָמַר: בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת.

And Rabba says: It is possible to say that Rav Yehuda’s statement applied even with regard to a bill of sale that does not have a guarantee in it. In that case as well, there is no potential loss to any purchasers of land. By contrast, in the case of a promissory note, which can be used to repossess property from those who have purchased land from the debtor, witnesses do not have the authority to predate a document and thereby subject more purchasers to possible land seizures due to the predating of the document.

מַאי בָּרַיְיתָא? דְּתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיוּ נוֹשִׁין בּוֹ אֶלֶף זוּז, וּפָרַע מֵהֶן חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת זוּז – עֵדִים מְקָרְעִין אֶת הַשְּׁטָר, וְכוֹתְבִין לוֹ שְׁטָר אַחֵר מִזְּמַן רִאשׁוֹן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: שְׁטָר זֶה יְהֵא מוּנָּח בִּמְקוֹמוֹ, וְיִכְתְּבוּ שׁוֹבָר.

The Gemara cited an excerpt from a baraita earlier. It now cites it in full: What is the full text of the baraita? As it is taught: If one thousand dinars are owed by a debtor, and the debt is recorded in a promissory note, and the debtor repaid five hundred dinars out of the total, the witnesses tear the original promissory note and write another promissory note for him, dated from the time of the first note. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: This original promissory note shall remain in its place, in the custody of the creditor, and witnesses write a receipt for the five hundred dinars that were repaid. This receipt is given to the debtor to protect himself against a possible attempt by the creditor to use the promissory note to collect the entire one thousand dinars.

וּמִפְּנֵי שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים אָמְרוּ כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר – אַחַת, כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹף לְפוֹרְעוֹ; וְאַחַת, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּגְבֶּה מִזְּמַן רִאשׁוֹן.

Rabbi Yosei continues: And there are two reasons why the Sages said that they write a receipt, as opposed to writing a new promissory note: One reason is so that the creditor can coerce the debtor to repay him, i.e., the psychological pressure for the debtor of knowing that the creditor has a promissory note with a larger amount listed than what he owes him will induce the debtor to repay the remainder promptly. And the other one is so that he, the creditor, should be able to collect liened property from the first date, that of the original document.

וְהָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה נָמֵי מִזְּמַן רִאשׁוֹן קָאָמַר! הָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אִי מִזְּמַן רִאשׁוֹן קָאָמְרַתְּ – פְּלִיגְנָא עֲלָךְ בַּחֲדָא; אִי מִזְּמַן שֵׁנִי קָאָמְרַתְּ – פְּלִיגְנָא עֲלָךְ בְּתַרְתֵּי.

The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi Yosei’s second reason: But doesn’t Rabbi Yehuda also say that the new document must be dated from the time of the first document? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei did not hear a full explanation of Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion; he heard only that Rabbi Yehuda prescribed writing a new promissory note recording the new balance. And this is what Rabbi Yosei is saying to Rabbi Yehuda: If you mean to say that the new promissory note is dated from the time of the first document, I disagree with you on one count, as I hold a receipt should be written to pressure the debtor. If you mean to say that the second promissory note is dated from the second date, i.e., from when the second promissory note was written, I disagree with you on two counts.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁטַר שֶׁזְּמַנּוֹ כָּתוּב בְּשַׁבָּת אוֹ בַּעֲשָׂרָה בְּתִשְׁרִי – שְׁטָר מְאוּחָר הוּא, וְכָשֵׁר; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי פּוֹסֵל. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: וַהֲלֹא מַעֲשֶׂה בָּא לְפָנֶיךָ בְּצִפּוֹרִי, וְהִכְשַׁרְתָּ! אָמַר לוֹ: כְּשֶׁהִכְשַׁרְתִּי – בָּזֶה הִכְשַׁרְתִּי.

§ The Gemara discusses a related halakha. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Makkot 1:3): If there is a promissory note whose date is written as a Shabbat or as the tenth of Tishrei, i.e., Yom Kippur, it is assumed to be a postdated promissory note, as writing is forbidden on Shabbat and Yom Kippur, and it is therefore valid. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei deems the promissory note invalid. Rabbi Yehuda said to Rabbi Yosei: But didn’t such an incident come before you in Tzippori, and you yourself deemed the promissory note valid? Rabbi Yosei said to him: When I deemed the promissory note valid, it was in a case like this, where the date was a Shabbat or Yom Kippur, that I deemed it valid.

וְהָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה נָמֵי בָּזֶה קָאָמַר!

The Gemara is puzzled by Rabbi Yosei’s response at the end of the baraita: But Rabbi Yehuda was also speaking in a case like this, where the date was a Shabbat or Yom Kippur, and yet Rabbi Yosei’s opinion was that the promissory note is invalid.

אָמַר רַבִּי פְּדָת: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים שֶׁאִם הוּזְקַקְנוּ לְעוֹנָתוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר, וְנִמְצֵאת עוֹנָתוֹ מְכֻוֶּונֶת בְּשַׁבָּת אוֹ בַּעֲשָׂרָה בְּתִשְׁרִי – שֶׁשְּׁטָר מְאוּחָר הוּא, וְכָשֵׁר;

Rabbi Pedat says: All parties to this dispute agree that if we engaged in an investigation of the date of the document, and its date was found to be exactly on Shabbat or on the tenth of Tishrei, that it is self-evident that it is a postdated promissory note and is valid.

לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁטָר מְאוּחָר בְּעָלְמָא –

The two Sages disagree only with regard to a case of a postdated promissory note in general, i.e., one in which the fact that it is postdated is not readily discernible from the dating of the document, as opposed to one dated on Shabbat or Yom Kippur.

דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר, וְלָא נָפֵיק מִינֵּיהּ חוּרְבָּא;

As Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his line of reasoning, as he says: One does not write a receipt for a debtor when he pays his debt; rather, the original document is torn, and in the case of partial repayment a new document is written, attesting to the balance due. And consequently, no harm can emerge from a postdated document. There is no concern that the date on the postdated document may have been recorded after the writing of a receipt.

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר, וְנָפֵיק מִינֵּיהּ חוּרְבָּא.

And Rabbi Yosei conforms to his line of reasoning, as he says: One writes a receipt for a debtor when he pays his debt, in lieu of tearing the promissory note. And consequently, harm can emerge from a postdated promissory note. Harm can occur in a case such as the following: The loan was given on the first of Nisan. The debt was paid on the following day and, rather than tearing the promissory note, a receipt was written and dated on the second of Nisan. If the original note had been postdated to the third of Nisan or thereafter, the creditor could use it to collect his debt a second time, arguing that the debtor’s receipt is irrelevant, as its date is prior to the date in the promissory note.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר, הָנֵי מִילֵּי אַפַּלְגָא, אֲבָל אַכּוּלֵּיהּ – לָא.

§ Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: Even according to the one who says that one writes a receipt for the debtor when he pays, in lieu of tearing the promissory note, this statement applies only with regard to a case where the debtor pays half, i.e., a portion, of the debt. But with regard to a case where the debtor comes to repay all of the debt and the creditor has lost the promissory note and cannot tear it, all agree that one does not write a receipt. Rather, the debtor will not be required to repay the loan unless the creditor can produce the promissory note.

וְלָא הִיא, אֲפִילּוּ אַכּוּלֵּיהּ כָּתְבִינַן.

The Gemara rejects this opinion: But it is not so; we write a receipt even in a case where the debtor pays all of the debt.

כִּי הָא דְּרַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף הֲוָה מַסֵּיק בֵּיהּ זוּזִי בְּרַבִּי אַבָּא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פַּפֵּי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״הַב לִי זוּזַיי״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״הַב לִי שְׁטָרַאי, וּשְׁקוֹל זוּזָךְ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״שְׁטָרָךְ אִירְכַס לִי, אֶכְתּוֹב לָךְ תְּבָרָא״. אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״הָא רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר!״

The Gemara proves its assertion: This is like that case where Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef was owed money by Rabbi Abba. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef came before Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi, and said to Rabbi Abba: Give me my money. Rabbi Abba said to him: First give me my promissory note, and then take your money. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef said to him: I lost your promissory note; instead, I will write a receipt for you. Rabbi Abba said to him: Isn’t there the opinion of Rav and Shmuel, who both say that the halakha is that one does not write a receipt?

אֲמַר: ״מַאן יָהֵיב לַן מֵעַפְרֵיהּ דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל, רָמִינַן בְּעַיְינִין; הָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְהָא רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר״.

Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi, the judge, thereupon said: Who will give us some of the dust of Rav and Shmuel, and I will place it on my eyes, so highly do I regard them. Nevertheless, isn’t there the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, who both say that one writes a receipt?

וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר.

And similarly, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Ilai says: The halakha is that one writes a receipt.

וּמִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּכוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר; דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּא אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר, אָבַד שְׁטָרוֹ שֶׁל זֶה – יֹאכַל הַלָּה וְחָדֵי?!

The Gemara concludes: And it stands to reason that one writes a receipt. As, if it would enter your mind that one does not write a receipt, then if the promissory note of this creditor is lost, should this debtor eat and rejoice? Is it fair that he should keep money that he knows he owes the creditor?

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְאֶלָּא מַאי, כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר?! אָבַד שׁוֹבָרוֹ שֶׁל זֶה – יֹאכַל הַלָּה וְחָדֵי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִין, ״עֶבֶד לֹוֶה לְאִישׁ מַלְוֶה״.

Abaye objects to this line of reasoning: Rather, what should the halakha be, that one writes a receipt when the creditor cannot find the promissory note? If the receipt of the debtor is lost, should this creditor eat and rejoice? Once the debtor has lost his receipt, there is nothing to prevent the creditor from collecting the debt a second time. This, too, is unfair. In either case, whether a receipt is written or not, an injustice could result. Why should it be preferred that the potential of suffering an injustice should be borne by the debtor rather than the creditor? Rava said to Abaye: Yes, it is preferable, because, as it is written: “The borrower is a servant to the lender” (Proverbs 22:7). The debtor’s interests are subordinated to those of the creditor.

תְּנַן הָתָם: שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב הַמּוּקְדָּמִין – פְּסוּלִין, וְהַמְאוּחָרִין – כְּשֵׁרִין.

§ We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Shevi’it 10:5): Promissory notes that are antedated are not valid, but those that are postdated are valid.

אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שְׁטָרֵי הַלְוָאָה, אֲבָל שְׁטָרֵי מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר – אֲפִילּוּ מְאוּחָרִין נָמֵי פְּסוּלִין. מַאי טַעְמָא? זִימְנִין דִּמְזַבֵּין לֵיהּ אַרְעָא בְּנִיסָן וְכָתֵיב לֵיהּ בְּתִשְׁרִי, וּמִתְרְמֵי לֵיהּ זוּזֵי בֵּינֵי בֵּינֵי וְזָבֵין לַיהּ מִינֵּיהּ, וְכִי מָטֵי תִּשְׁרִי – מַפֵּיק לֵיהּ, וְאָמַר לֵיהּ: הֲדַר זְבֵנְתַּהּ מִינָּךְ!

Rav Hamnuna says: They taught this halakha only with regard to promissory notes, but with regard to deeds of buying and selling property, even postdated documents are not valid. What is the reason for this stringency in the case of bills of sale? If postdated documents were allowed, there could be times that the seller sells land to the purchaser in the month of Nisan of a particular year and writes a postdated deed for him stating that the sale took place in the following Tishrei, and some money happens to reach the seller between Nisan and Tishrei and he purchases the land back from the purchaser. And then, when Tishrei arrives, the purchaser takes out the original bill of sale and says to the seller: It is true that you purchased the field from me, but I then purchased it from you again now, in Tishrei, as stated in this document.

אִי הָכִי, שְׁטָרֵי הַלְוָאָה נָמֵי – זִמְנִין דְּיָזֵיף בְּנִיסָן וּכְתִיב לֵיהּ שְׁטָרָא בְּתִשְׁרִי; וּמִתְרְמֵי לֵיהּ זוּזֵי בֵּינֵי בֵּינֵי וּפָרַע לֵיהּ, וְאָמַר לֵיהּ: הַב לִי שְׁטָרַאי, וְאָמַר לֵיהּ: אִירְכַס לִי, וְכָתֵיב לֵיהּ תְּבָרָא; וְכִי מָטֵי זִמְנֵיהּ, מַפֵּיק לֵיהּ וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָנֵי הַשְׁתָּא הוּא דִּיזַפְתְּ מִינַּאי!

The Gemara asks: If so, a similar scenario could occur with promissory notes as well: There could be times that one borrows money in Nisan and writes a promissory note for the creditor stating that the loan took place in the following Tishrei, and some money happens to reach the debtor between Nisan and Tishrei and he repays his debt to the creditor early and says to him: Give me my promissory note. And the creditor says to him: I lost it, and he writes him a receipt instead. And then, when the time written in the note arrives, the creditor takes out the supposedly lost promissory note and says to the debtor: It is true that you repaid me previously, but it is now, after you repaid that loan, that you borrowed from me these dinars recorded in this document, which is dated in Tishrei.

קָסָבַר: אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר.

The Gemara answers: Rav Hamnuna holds that one does not write a receipt, so that scenario cannot occur. Like Rabbi Yehuda, Rav Hamnuna maintains that if a creditor loses his promissory note the debtor does not have to repay the loan. Rabbi Yosei, who does allow the creditor to collect his debt in such a case and write a receipt for the debtor, is concerned about that scenario, and consequently he holds that postdated promissory notes are not valid.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יֵימַר לְרַב כָּהֲנָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב יִרְמְיָה מִדִּיפְתִּי לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: וְהָאִידָּנָא דְּכָתְבִינַן שְׁטָרֵי מְאוּחָרֵי וְכָתְבִינַן תְּבָרָא, אַמַּאי קָעָבְדִינַן הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, בָּתַר דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְסָפְרֵיהּ: כִּי כָּתְבִיתוּ שְׁטָרֵ[י] מְאוּחָרֵי, כְּתֻבוּ הָכִי: ״שְׁטָרָא דְּנַן לָא בְּזִמְנֵיהּ כְּתַבְנֵיהּ, אֶלָּא אַחַרְנוֹהִי וּכְתַבְנוֹהִי״.

Rav Yeimar said to Rav Kahana, and some say it was Rav Yirmeya of Difti who said this to Rav Kahana: And today, when we write postdated promissory notes, and we also write a receipt in cases where the creditor loses his promissory note, why do we do this? The combination of allowing postdated promissory notes and allowing the writing of a receipt instead of producing the promissory note would enable double collection of the loan to take place. Rav Kahana said to him: The problem was rectified after Rabbi Abba told his court scribe: When you write postdated promissory notes, write as follows: We did not write this document on its date, i.e., on the date written within the document; rather, we postdated it and wrote it. Since it is clear from the text of the document that it was postdated, double collection of the loan is avoided.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: וְהָאִידָּנָא – דְּלָא קָא עָבְדִינַן הָכִי? בָּתַר דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב סָפְרָא לְסָפְרֵיהּ: כִּי כָּתְבִיתוּ הָנֵי תְּבָרֵי; אִי יָדְעִיתוּ זִימְנָא דִשְׁטָרָא – כְּתֻבוּ, אִי לָא – כְּתֻבוּ סְתָמָא, דְּכׇל אֵימַת דְּנָפֵיק – לַרְעֵיהּ.

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: But what about today, when we do not do this, i.e., we do not follow Rabbi Abba’s instructions? How do we avoid double collection of the loan? Rav Kahana replied: The problem was rectified after Rav Safra said to his court scribe: When you write these receipts for debtors who pay debts without the original promissory note being torn, if you know the date written in the missing promissory note, write it into the receipt. But if you do not know the date written in the promissory note, write the receipt without specification, i.e., do not write any date at all in the receipt, so that whenever the creditor produces the promissory note, the undated receipt can weaken it, i.e., exempt the debtor from payment.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב כָּהֲנָא:

Ravina said to Rav Ashi, and some say it was Rav Ashi who said to Rav Kahana:

12.12.2024 | י״א בכסלו תשפ״ה

Calendar View

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.

How to get started

The Hadran Women’s Tapestry

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

View our tapestry

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

Rachel Rotenberg

Tekoa, Israel

Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .

Jill Felder

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States

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

Karena Perry

Los Angeles, United States

Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.

Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.

Carolyn Hochstadter and Margo Kossoff Shizgal

Merion Station, USA

Beit Shemesh, Israel

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

At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.

Deborah Hoffman-Wade

Richmond, CA, 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!!

Lisa Lawrence

Neve Daniel, Israel

My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!

Tina Lamm

Jerusalem, Israel

I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.

Miriam Pollack

Honolulu, Hawaii, United States

I learned Talmud as a student in Yeshivat Ramaz and felt at the time that Talmud wasn’t for me. After reading Ilana Kurshan’s book I was intrigued and after watching the great siyum in Yerushalayim it ignited the spark to begin this journey. It has been a transformative life experience for me as a wife, mother, Savta and member of Klal Yisrael.

Elana Storch

Phoenix, Arizona, United States

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

Khaya Eisenberg

Jerusalem, Israel

My first Talmud class experience was a weekly group in 1971 studying Taanit. In 2007 I resumed Talmud study with a weekly group I continue learning with. January 2020, I was inspired to try learning Daf Yomi. A friend introduced me to Daf Yomi for Women and Rabbanit Michelle Farber, I have kept with this program and look forward, G- willing, to complete the entire Shas with Hadran.

Lorri Lewis

Palo Alto, CA, United States

I saw an elderly man at the shul kiddush in early March 2020, celebrating the siyyum of masechet brachot which he had been learning with a young yeshiva student. I thought, if he can do it, I can do it! I began to learn masechet Shabbat the next day, Making up masechet brachot myself, which I had missed. I haven’t missed a day since, thanks to the ease of listening to Hadran’s podcast!

Judith Shapiro

Minnesota, United States

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

Diana Bloom

Tampa, United States

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

Adina Hagege

Zichron Yaakov, Israel

I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.

Yafit Fishbach

Memphis, Tennessee, United States

I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!

Lori Stark

Highland Park, United States

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

Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!

Elisheva Brauner

Jerusalem, 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