Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Gittin 42 - June 27, 8 Tamuz Jun 27, 2023

Show notes

Rabba holds that the debate between Rebbi and the rabbis about whether one can free a slave partly is only when the owner frees part and remains owner over the other part, but if the owner sold the other part, all would agree that the slave would be partially free. Abaye raises a contradiction to Rabba from two contradictory braitot, claiming that the only resolution is to say that one holds like Rebbi and one like the rabbis. However, the Gemara suggests four other resolutions to the contradiction. If an ox gored a slave that was half free/half slave, the damages go to the master if it was a day he was working for the master, and if it was a day he was free, the damages go to the freed slave. Two questions are raised against this and are resolved. If one has freed one's slave but has not given the slave an emancipation document yet, does the owner receive payment if the slave was killed by someone's ox? Does the slave continue to eat teruma? What is their status? They bring sources to resolve these dilemmas, but all of them are inconclusive.

Gittin 41 - June 26, 7 Tamuz Jun 26, 2023

Show notes

If a slave is used as a designated payment for a loan (apotiki) and the master frees the slave, the slave has no responsibility to the creditor. However, the rabbis instituted a takana and force the master to free him. To compensate the creditor, the slave writes a promissory note for his value. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the one who frees the slave writes the promissory note. Rav and Ulla each explain this case differently. Which master freed the slave, which master needs to free the slave and who writes the promissory note according to Rashbag? What is the purpose of the takana and what is the root of the debate between tana kamma and Rashbag? If one designated a field to repay and loan and the field is damaged, can the creditor collect from other property of the debtor? On what does it depend? If a slave is half freed, Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree about whether or not the owner needs to free the other half. In the end, Beit Shamai convince Beit Hillel that we need to free the slave in order to permit him to marry a woman so he can fulfill the mitzva of procreation. Can one free a slave partially? There is a debate between Rebbi and the rabbis about whether this works. Raba and Rav Yosef disagree about whether the debate relates only to a slave freed by a document or also by money.

Gittin 40 - June 25, 6 Tamuz Jun 25, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Gittin 40

Today's daf is sponsored by Rabbi Joel and Shulamith Cohn in loving memory of Rabbi Dr. Akiba Predmesky on his yahrzeit.

What type of actions would be an indication that the master has freed the slave? If the owner gave up financial rights to the slave, can the owner or the son (in the case of the death of the owner) redeem the slave to permit marriage with a Jew or does they no longer have the right to do that as they no longer own the slave? What language should be used in an emancipation document? If one writes the language in the future tense, there is a debate about whether or not it is effective.

Gittin 39 - Shabbat June 24, 5 Tamuz Jun 23, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Gitta and David Neufeld in loving memory of Gitta's father, Yosef ben Menachem Mendal v'Pesha. "Tatty was so proud of learning, be it secular or Jewish. He always told us how he envied us our Jewish education, which the Nazis and Communists managed to deprive him of. Unbelievably, he left cheder - and formal Jewish education - when he started learning Mishna, yet his dedication to learning and striving, with a nightly chavruta (despite working a 12-hour day) and a never-missed weekly shiur in Shul, molded three generations of learners and strivers. It was a special zechut this year to learn the daf in Lizhensk, where he had his last formal Jewish learning experience. Yehi Zichro Baruch!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in loving memory of her husband, Moshe ben Yehuda Aryeh on his 4th yahrzeit. "How I would have liked to discuss many things we are learning in the daf with him! I am sure he would have had interesting insights that would help me understand better what his own training gave him. I hope he is benefitting from my own exposure and learning as I persist in this daily exploration of our tradition's wisdom and the ways in which our learned ancestors addressed problems in the context of halacha and gemara. Yehi zichro baruch."

Rav says that if one sanctifies one's slave, the slave goes free. The third question raised on Rav from a braita is resolved. Is this issue also a tannaitic debate? Rabbi Yochanan said that one who makes his slave ownerless still needs to give him an emancipation document to free him in order to allow him to marry a Jew. A difficulty is raised from a braita and resolved. The braita discussed a case of a convert who died and left slaves - who can acquire the slaves. There is a tannatic debate. The Gemara brings a few traditions of rabbis who ruled like one of the tannaitic opinions and then they try to assess did the rabbi rule that way explicitly or did they derive it from something else he said?

Gittin 38 - June 23, 4 Tamuz Jun 23, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Gittin 38

Today's daf is sponsored by Art Gould in loving memory of Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v'Yehudah Tzvi. "My beloved bride of almost 50 years. Tomorrow, Shabbat, we would have been married 50 years on the secular calendar. It's no accident that Joy was Carol's middle name. She brought joy to everyone who knew her. I will be forever grateful to HaShem for dropping Carol into my life like an angel from the heavens on an erev Shabbat in August of 1971. And I will love Carol forever. רַבּ֣וֹת בָּ֭נוֹת עָ֣שׂוּ חָ֑יִל וְ֝אַ֗תְּ עָלִ֥ית עַל־כֻּלָּֽנָה."

A gentile can acquire a gentile or a Jew for his labor either by paying money or even by chazaka. From where is this derived? Rabbi Yochanan ruled that a Caananite slave who escapes from prison is automatically freed (and becomes Jewish). How does this fit with his other ruling that whenever a Mishna quotes Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the halakha is like him other than three cases and in our Mishna, he ruled that the slave who is redeemed stays a slave. How can we distinguish between the two cases? The Gemara brings the stories of three maidservants of rabbis that were either taken into captivity or there was an issue with freeing her. Each story is explained according to the rules of redemption/freeing of slaves. One is not supposed to free a Caananite slave, as derived from a verse in the Torah. However, there is a debate whether that verse is obligatory or perhaps it is just permitting keeping a slave, but not forbidding freeing a slave. Also, there are exceptions to the rule, such as for the purposes of a mitzva, like needing a tenth for a minyan. Rav and Shmuel argue in a case where one is mafkir (makes ownerless) his slave, whether or not he also needs to give the slave an emancipation document freeing the slave in order to permit marriage with a Jew. Rav says that one who sanctifies one's slave is really just freeing the slave, but also needs to give an emancipation document to permit marriage with a Jew. Three other sources say that one who sanctifies a slave needs to bring the value of the slave to the Temple, thus indicating against Rav that one is not setting the slave free. Each difficulty is resolved.

Gittin 37 - June 22, 3 Tamuz Jun 22, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Natanya Slomowitz in loving memory of her mother, Haviva Lilka Bat Necha and Avraham.

Today's daf is sponsored by Tina Lamm in celebration of the engagement of her daughter, Devorah, to Daniel Battat of Jerusalem! Mazal tov!

What is the etymology of the word pruzbol? Orphans do not need a pruzbol to collect their father's loans as they are considered under the court's jurisdiction. Since one can only write a pruzbol if the borrower has land, the rabbis come up with ways to give people a minimum amount of land or allow other things to qualify as land in order to ensure a pruzbol can be written. Some allow pruzbol to be just said, without requiring a document. Some allow pruzbol if the guarantor to the loan has land or even if one who owes money to the lender has land, based on the principle of shiabuda d'Rabbi Natan that if one borrows money and subsequently lends that money to someone else, the creditor can collect the loan directly from the second borrower. There is a debate about whether shmita cancels loans that have a property guarantee. Despite the fact that Rabbi Yochanan held that the loan is not canceled, he was unwilling to act upon that and ruled that the loan was canceled. There are two major exceptions to the rule of cancellation of loans - one is if one gave one's promissory notes to the court and the other is one who loaned with collateral, as it is as if the loan is already collected. This follows Rabbi Yitzchak's opinion that the collateral is considered acquired by the creditor. In the event there was not a pruzbol, if the borrower comes to pay back the loan, the one creditor needs to say that shmita has canceled the loan, but then the borrower should say he wants to give him back the money anyway as a gift. Others allow one to claim he has a pruzbol but lost it, and they even ask those who came to court without one if perhaps they had one and lost it. If a Caananite slave is taken captive and redeemed not by its owner, what is the status of the slave? There is a debate about whether or not it depends on if the redeemer had in mind to redeem him to be a slave or with the intent to make him a free man. According to the Gemara, it also may depend on whether or not the original owner had "ye'ush" - had given up on ever getting the slave back or not. Rava and Abaye have different interpretations of the case in the Mishna. Each interprets both the takana itself and the need for the takana in an entirely different manner.

Gittin 36 - June 21, 2 Tamuz Jun 21, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Phyllis Hecht. "Mizmor l'todah- אוֹדְךָ ה' אלקי בְּכָל לְבָבִי וַאֲכַבְּדָה שִׁמְךָ לְעוֹלָם to my fabulous co-Chashmonaim Daffers, to my remarkable Hadran virtual chevrutas, to my mentor-one of a kind-Rabbanit Michelle. Thank you all from the bottom of my heart for all you have done for me over the past year. One year ago today was the first day of the rest of my life - I survived a critical surgery after a life-threatening diagnosis, which resulted from a miraculous car accident. Words are insufficient for the hakarat hatov to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. You have all been there for me in a myriad of ways by continuously davening, messaging and more. Our daily limudim on- and off-line continuously fill me with hope and strength. May Hashem allow me to celebrate this date yearly ad meah viesrim shana. May we continue together מדף לדף ומחיל לחיל. May we all merit to share in many bsorot tovot!"

There are differences of opinion regarding which vows can or cannot be nullified by a chacham to cancel the vow. The takana of having witnesses sign on the get is explained both according to Rabbi Elazar (who claims that according to the Torah there is no need for witnesses to sign the get) and according to Rabbi Meir (who claims that from the Torah you need witnesses to sign on the get). Pruzbol was instituted so that loan would not be canceled in the shmita year. How can the rabbis make a takana to go against a Torah law? Two explanations are given. According to one explanantion, shmita is only rabbinic as by Torah law there is no shmitat kesafim and it was instituted by the rabbis so people would remember that there is such a Torah law. How can the rabbis institute something like that if it goes against Torah law, as by Torah law, when there is no shmita, the money should be returned to the creditor? There are two answers to this question. Did Hillel institute prozbul for his generation only or for all future generations? Later Rabbis had different reactions to pruzbol about whether or not it was a positive development.

Gittin 35 - 2nd Day of Rosh Chodesh Tamuz - June 20, 1 Tamuz Jun 20, 2023

Show notes

A widow can only collect her ketuba money from orphans by taking an oath (just like all creditors who collect from orphans on their father's debts). However, the rabbis would not permit widows to take oaths as they were concerned about false oaths. Why were they specifically concerned about widows and not about divorcees? Rabban Gamliel instituted a takana that widows could collect ketuba money by making a vow forbidding something that the orphans would agree to. Why is a vow better than swearing in terms of concern for lying? Shmuel permitted oaths outside of a court as their level of severity is not as high. Rav would not permit any oaths and also would not allow women to collect their ketubot because he saw that people didn't take vows seriously. When Rav Huna ruled like this, the woman went ahead and swore anyway and was then permitted to collect her ketuba. In another situation with Rabba son of Rav Huna who also ruled like Rav, the woman then asked for her food allowance. However, Rabba told her that she is not eligible for her food allowance as Shmuel ruled that one who comes to court to claim her ketubah money is no longer eligible for food allowance. The woman was very frustrated and cursed Rabba for ruling by both Rav in one area and Shmuel in another, thus preventing her from getting any money. He subsequently died from the curse. Rav Yehuda made a public declaration endorsing Shmuel's opinion against Rav allowing widows to collect their ketubas. Why is there not a concern that a woman's husband will cancel her vow or she will go to a chacham to annul the vow? Some say she can only collect with a vow if she is not married and since people need to give the details of the vow when they go to a chacham, there is no chance this kind of vow will be canceled. Others permit it when she is married, but require her to take the vow in public as a public vow cannot be nullified by her husband. Rav Nachman and Rav Papa disagree about whether one needs to specify the vow when going to a chacham to permit a vow. What is the basis of their debate?

Gittin 34 - 1st Day of Rosh Chodesh Tamuz - June 19, 30 Sivan Jun 19, 2023

Show notes

Rav Nachman held like Rebbi on both issues - that one who cancels a get in a court, even after Rabban Gamliel's takana, the cancellation will be effective, and one can cancel some of the witnesses not in the presence of the others. A contradiction is raised against Rav Nachman , as elsewhere he rules the one needs to upholds the power of the court when it comes to dividing up the property of orphans. A distinction is made between monetary laws (orphan's property) and prohibitions (divorce). Rava and Abaye disagree about whether or not we accept gilui daat (where someone indicated his wishes but did not say them explicitly) in cases of divorce. This is one of the six cases (Y'AL K'GaM) where we hold like Abaye against Rava. The case in which they argue is when a messenger arrived with a get and the wife told him to come back tomorrow as she is busy weaving. When the messenger returns with this information to the husband, he responds, "Baruch hatov v'hameitiv," indicating that he was happy she did not receive the get, but not stating explicitly that the get was canceled. Abaye and Rava each bring cases to try to prove their position. The Gemara rules like Rav Nachman on two issues - one, that one cancels a get in front of two people and two, that we hold like Rebbi on both issues (see above). They also rule like Abaye that gilui daat is not effective in divorce. If people are known by different names in different places, originally, they would only write the name they were known as in their current city, but later they instituted that they should put in the get all the names they are known by (or perhaps just add the words "and any other name that they are known by). Rav Ashi limits this to a case where the person is known by both names in the place where the get is given (however, some understand Rav Ashi to be saying the reverse). A widow can only collect her ketuba money from orphans by taking an oath. However, the rabbis would not permit women to take oaths as they were concerned about false oaths. Therefore they instituted a takana that women could collect the money by making a vow that the orphans would agree to. Another two takanot were that witnesses need to sign a get and Hillel instituted prosbol to allow loans to be collected after the shmita year.

Gittin 33 - June 18, 29 Sivan Jun 18, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Gittin 33

This week's learning is sponsored by Bob & Paula Cohen in loving memory of Chaim Avraham HaKohen ben Alter Gershon HaKohen.

Today's daf is sponsored by Sylvia Klein in loving memory of her brother, Bobby Klein. "Bobby taught us love, acceptance, and compassion. We miss you all these years later."

What proof does Rav Nachman bring to show that two people can count as a beit din? What is the reason for the takana of Rabban Gamliel not permitting the cancellation of a get in front of a court and how does it connect to the debate between Rav Sheshet and Rav Nachman regarding the number of people who need to be present when one cancels a get. Is it to prevent mamzarim or agunot? If one goes against the takana of Rabban Gamliel and cancels a get in court is the get canceled or not? Do Rabbis have the power to override Torah law? The Gemara explains that the Rabbis have the power to uproot the marriage (afki'inhu rabanan l'kiddushin minei) in this case because the husband didn't keep to their rules regarding marriage and therefore didn't keep to his conditions of "k'dat moshe v'yisrael" that he accepted when he got married. If a husband told ten people to write a get to his wife, can he cancel it in front of some of them? Rebbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel debate this issue. There are two different explanations as to what is the debate between them and what is the basis for the debate. Either they debate whether testimony that is partially canceled is fully canceled or whether one who cancels testimony needs to cancel it in front of all those they testified before. According to who do we rule on these two debates between Rebbi and Rashbag?

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected