Daf Yomi for Women – דף יומי לנשים

The gemara continues to differentiate between different actions whether or not they can affect acquisition.  How is it done, how much is done, etc. all help to determine whether or not there was a chazaka.  Since laws regarding how one can acquire land are different in Torah law for Jews and non Jews, the can be a situation where a Jew buys land from a non-Jew by paying him (which affects acquisition for non-Jews but for Jews it doesn’t – until there is a document) and before the document is written or the Jew takes possession, one can come along and possess the land by a kinyan chazaka.  A question is asked – how can Shmuel who brought this halacha say this when he also holds dina d’malchuta dina – we must abide by the law of the land – which says that one can only acquire land with a document.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

One should not accept to watch over an item given to them by a woman, Caananite slave or child as they are suspected that the item is the husband/owner/father’s.  But if one did, it can be returned to the one who gave it to him.  If a son is independent from a father, then he can create a chazaka on the father’s property.  If one’s brother is in charge of all the inheritance property and there are documents that say he has ownership on part of the property and he claims it came to him through inheritance on his mother’s side, Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether or not the burden of proof lies on him (as he is suspect) or the burden of proof lies on the brothers (as he has a document of ownership).

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

The mishna says that a man can’t create a chazaka on his wife’s usufruct property.  This seems to imply that if he brought a document attesting to ownership, he could prove purchase of the land.  This is questioned from another mishna (regarding a different case) that a wife can claim she agreed to the sale only because she wanted to make her husband happy and can thus invalidate the document of sale.  The gemara explains why that mishna is referring to a different case and would not be relevant here.  The inference is also questioned by Ameimar’s statement that a man and woman who sell usufruct property did not do anything – the sale is invalid.  2 possible answers are given.  Another question on the mishna itself is brought from Rav who says that a married women needs to protest (otherwise one can create a chazaka on her property).  At first the gemara thinks this is referring to her husband and then needs to provide an answer.  Rav Yosef explains that it could be referring to another man in which case his statement has nothing to do with our mishna.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Raba’s opinion – that a worker (like a launderer) can claim that a contested item in his possession is his own if it was not given to him in the presence of witnesses – is disproved from our mishna. If one gets the wrong item back from the worker, can one use it?  What if one takes the wrong jacket after a party?  A sharecropper cannot have a chazaka on land even if he received the full produce for 3 years.  This case is limited to a sharecroper who has worked on the field for years.  Other cases  specific sharecroppers and whether or not they can create a chazaka are brought.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

In front of how many people does one need to lodge a protest?  2 or 3?  What is the at the root of the debate?  Is it sufficient to lodge a protest once in the first year or does one need to protest once every 3 years?  What other things require the presence of 2 people and which require 3?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS