Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Gittin 32 - Shabbat June 17, 28 Sivan Jun 16, 2023

Show notes

How does a husband cancel a get? At what stage can it be canceled? Originally he could cancel the get (before it reached the wife) by going in front of the beit din but Rabban Gamliel instituted a takana that one could no longer cancel the get in that way, as the wife may not hear the get was canceled and would think she was divorced. Which wording is effective and which wording would not be effective to cancel? If he cancels the get that a messenger is sending, can he reuse the same get later if he decides later to divorce his wife or is the get itself canceled, meaning did he just cancel the messenger or did he cancel the get as well?

Gittin 31 - June 16, 27 Sivan Jun 16, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Hope Perry in honor of Katherine Bellilty. "Thank you for inspiring my learning and my neshama always. Much love!"

From where do we derive that the owner of the produce can separate the teruma of the maaser of a Levite even before it gets into the hands of the Levite? If one sets aside produce to use as teruma and maaser of the produce that they will bring in later on or money for the redemption of maaser sheni produce, one can assume that they have not spoiled/gotten lost and can continue to separate tithes using that pile without having to check on it. What happens when one finds the produce has rotted or the money is gone? Does one have to redo the tithes? There are three times of the year when the wine is likely to spoil due to weather changes. There are three times of the year when the price of grains rises due to high demand. For wine, there are also three times a year when prices rise. During these three times, one can sell without having to consult with a partner, as it is clear the partner would agree to sell for a higher price. The eastern wind is very hot and when it blows strongly after Sukkot, it causes the wine to spoil. Geneiva tells Rav Huna and Rav Chisda all about the different winds. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak tells Rava and Rav Nachman bar Yaakov about the damage that the eastern wind brings.

Gittin 30 - June 15, 26 Sivan Jun 15, 2023

Show notes

This week's learning is sponsored in loving memory of Miriam David, Malkah bat Michael v'Esther, on her 7th Yahrzeit, which took place on the 5th of Sivan. With love from her children and grandchildren.

If a husband makes a condition in the get, such as, if I do not come back within thirty days the get is effective, and he does not return due to circumstances beyond his control - is the get valid? The Mishna and a braita discuss the laws regarding one who loans money and stipulates that instead of getting paid back, the loan will be deducted the amount from teruma or maaser from the lender's produce (assuming the loan was given to a kohen, levi or poor person). What happens when the price of the produce fluctuates? If they lock in at a particular price and the value of the produce goes up, this is not considered interest. The loan is not canceled during the shmita year along with other loans as it does not require collection from the borrower. If the land of the lender got ruined and the lender gave up on ever getting the loan back (yei'ush), even if the field began producing again, he/she can no longer deduct the funds owed. What happens if the borrower dies? Can this arrangement continue with the children? On what does it depend? If it was done in a court, the original plan remains in place automatically, even if there are no heirs as other kohanim, levites or poor people theoretically take their place, as it is in their best interest as well so that people will be willing to lend them money. However, if a poor person became rich, this arrangement no longer works (as the tithe no longer belongs to the borrower) and the lender loses the ability to collect the loan. Why is there a distinction between death and becoming wealthy? In order to continue collecting loans in this manner from heirs, there must be land in the estate of the deceased. Does it matter if there is less land than the value of the loan itself? A braita discusses a case where one says, "I have maaser of yours in my possession." Is there a concern that there is trumat maaser within that? It is unclear exactly what the case is and what the concern is, and the Gemara suggests two possibilities that are then rejected until they bring a final valid explanation.

Gittin 29 - June 14, 25 Sivan Jun 14, 2023

Show notes

The Mishna said that one who is convicted in a court is not fully presumed dead. There are two versions of Rav Yosef's limitation of this Mishna - whether specifically in a Jewish court or specifically in a Gentile court. The sources that were brought to question one understanding are then brought to support the other. Can a messenger who is meant to deliver a get appoint a new messenger in his/her place? Does it depend on what motivated this - because the messenger is unable or simply doesn't want to? How is it different if they are bringing the get within Israel or from abroad? If the husband asked the messenger to bring something back from his wife, the messenger cannot appoint a different messenger to bring it instead as one does not necessarily trust others with his items. If the Mishna is specifically referring to a messenger who gets sick, what were the circumstances by which the husband send the messenger (i/e/ what wording did he use) and how can this be understood in light of the debate between the rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel regarding appointing a new messenger? In the Mishna in Gittin 66a, there is a case where the messengers cannot appoint another messenger. How can that case be reconciled with our Mishna? Can a messenger who was appointed by another messenger appoint a third messenger? Does the appointing of a new messenger need to take place in a court? What if the first messenger dies, does that cancel the other messengers? There are two stories in which messengers were appointed by the court on behalf of the original messenger and there were differences of opinion about whether this was legitimate or not because of the circumstances.

Gittin 28 - June 13, 24 Sivan Jun 13, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Gittin 28

The Mishna states that we presume one is alive even if one is sick, old, or went abroad. Therefore, a messenger can deliver a get without being concerned that the husband who was ill or elderly died in the interim, a woman can eat teruma even if her husband who was a kohen went abroad and perhaps died, and the kohanim can offer in the Temple a sin offering sent from abroad without concern the owner has died. Rava makes exceptions for an elderly person over eighty or one on their death bed. Abaye questions this from a braita where a one hundred-year-old is presumed to be still alive. Abaye raises a contradiction to the Mishna from a braita where a woman can no longer eat teruma if her husband said, "This will be your get an hour before my death if I die."She is forbidden to eat teruma immediately. This contradiction is resolved in three different manners. Why did the Mishna need to bring all three cases? Rabbi Elazar ben Parta distinguished between two cases - in a case where there is a danger to one's life but not immediate, we assume the person is still alive, but if the danger is imminent, we have to be strict in both ways, and presume the person is both alive and dead. One case mentioned is where one has been sentenced to the death penalty. Rav Yosef limits this case to one who was sentenced in a Jewish court and that's why there is a concern for both possibilities as perhaps they will reopen the case, however, in a gentile court we can presume he is dead and they will not reopen the case. They raise three different difficulties with Rav Yosef's opinion but resolve all of the issues.

Gittin 27 - June 12, 23 Sivan Jun 12, 2023

Show notes

If the messenger loses the get and then finds it, under what circumstances can we assume it was the same get and wasn't switched with another? Our Mishna rules that it must be found immediately or in a container into which the messenger had placed it, or if it had identifying signs. A Mishna in Bava Metzia 18a is brought as one can infer from there that if the husband wanted to use the get after it had been lost for a while, he could. This contradicts our Mishna which says it can only be used if it were found immediately. Raba resolves it by distinguishing between a place where caravans are/are not frequently found. However, even in a place with many caravans, it is not an issue unless there are two people with the same name as appears in the document. Rabbi Zeira brought a contradiction to our Mishna from a braita, as the braita says explicitly that the husband can decide to send the get to his wife after it was lost in the marketplace, even after a long time has passed. Again, it is resolved by distinguishing between a place where caravans are/are not frequently found. Why didn't Raba bring the contradiction from the braita and Rabbi Zeira from the Mishna in Bava Metzia? Rabbi Yirmia and Rav Ashi each resolve the same contradictions in a different manner, by providing more unique circumstances for the cases in the braita and the Mishna in Bava Metzia. Rabbi Yirmia: the witnesses signed on the get testified that they only signed on this particular get and identified the person for whom the get was written. Rav Ashi: it had clear identifying features (siman muvhak). However, if it was a regular siman, he would not permit it to be returned as perhaps simanim are only by rabbinic law and this would not be sufficient in the laws of a married woman to permit her to another man. What is considered "immediate" as mentioned in our Mishna? There are several different explanations.

Gittin 26 - June 11, 22 Sivan Jun 11, 2023

Show notes

This week's learning is sponsored by Judy and Zev Berman in honor of Michelle Greenberg-Kobrin on the occasion of her celebration of a significant birthday. "We take pride in having given her a shas on the occasion of her birthday over 3 decades ago and see how far Michelle and her family have taken the learning of Torah shebe'al pe. May she celebrate many more years of learning and avoda to klal Yisrael ad meah v'esrim.

This week's learning is sponsored by Mark and Semé Dewees-Cooper in loving memory of Mark's father Arvie Cooper, Arieh Leb ben Meyer Baruch on his 5th yahrzeit.

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of LI in loving memory of Yakira Leeba bat Avraham Yosef Yehuda b'Sara Gita. "A beloved granddaughter of our friend Tzippy Wolkenfeld. Our hearts are with you and your family at this difficult time. תהא נשמתה הטהורה צרורה בצרור החיים"

The Mishna brings three opinions regarding whether a get or other documents can be prepared in advance and if so, which parts. Does the first tanna's opinion reflect Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Elazar's opinion? Shmuel explains that the first opinion in the Mishna follows Rabbi Elazar's opinion. Why was it necessary for Shmuel to specify regarding three Mishnayot (on Gittin 21b, 22b and here) that they all follow Rabbi Elazar's opinion? Why couldn't we derive one from the other? According to Rabbi Yonatan, the takana mentioned in the Mishna is to allow the scribes to write the form part of the get to ease the work of the scribes, and correspond to Rabbi Elazar's opinion who requires the get be written li'shma. Rabbi Shabtai in the name of Chizkia holds that the takana is that scribes should not fill in all the details of the get in advance to prevent disputes between spouses, as a woman might hear a scribe reading out her and her husband's names and think that her husband is planning to divorce her. This understanding would mean that the Mishna follows Rabbi Meir's position, who does not require that the get be written li'shma. According to Rav Chisda the takana is to prevent agunot. This can be explained in two ways - both according to Rabbi Meir and according to Rabbi Elazar. For Rabbi Meir, the takana would be to not allow all the details to be filled in advance to prevent the husband from quickly divorcing his wife, leaving her stranded. For Rabbi Elazar, the takana was to allow the forms to be written so as not to have a situation where the husband is traveling and since it will take too much time to write the get from scratch, he will leave his wife without divorcing her, thus making her an aguna, bound because of her marriage. The date needs to be left blank as well. Since no distinction is made between divorce from betrothal or divorce from marriage, an explanation is brought of why a date is important even in divorce from engagement. Rav Amram explains that if he didn't divorce her right away and they first consummated the marriage and she got pregnant, if the date was written earlier, people would say that the child was born out of wedlock. Rabbi Zeira passed down in the name of Rav that we rule like Rabbi Elazar who holds that even the form part couldn't be written in advance. Does he hold like Rabbi Elazar regarding other documents that they can be written in advance? After suggesting from another similar ruling that the halakha is not like Rabbi Elazar in this regard, they reject the comparison and conclude that the ruling is like Rabbi Elazar.

Gittin 25 - Shabbat June 10, 21 Sivan Jun 09, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Gittin 25

There are four opinions about whether a get that was not written li'shma disqualifies the woman from being married to a kohen. The debate is about which cases of li'shma, if any, would disqualify and which would not. Why? Rabbi Yochanan's opinion is consistent with his opinion regarding the distribution of inheritance property. Why was it necessary for him to teach both cases if theoretically, one could have learned from one case to the other? Rav Hoshaya asked a question regarding laws of retroactive designation (breira) for writing a get li'shma. Rav Yehuda answered him from our Mishna that laws of retroactive designation do not work. Rav Hoshaya questioned this answer from a Mishna in Pesachim where rules of retroactive designation seem to work. However, Rav Yehuda explains that the Pesachim case has nothing to do with the rules of breira. Abaye questions the whole discussion between Rav Hoshaya and Rav Yehuda as the cases are very different as some relate to a later decision made by the person himself, as opposed to others which are dependent on some other person and shouldn't laws of breira be different in each of those types of cases? Rava disagrees and thinks there would be no reason to distinguish. Still, Rav Hamnuna tries to prove him wrong as both Rav Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon hold that breira does not apply in a case where the decision is made by the owner, as can be proven from the case of wine from which tithes weren't taken, but does apply in cases where the decision was based on someone else.

Gittin 24 - June 9, 20 Sivan Jun 09, 2023

Show notes

The Gemara brings support for Abaye's explanation that our Mishna is referring to a case where the get was brought from outside of Israel from a braita and from the language in our Mishna. How can Rav Yosef explain our Mishna according to his approach? In which case would a woman bringing her own get from outside of Israel need to say "in front of me it was written..."? Why would she need to do that if the moment she receives the get from her husband, she is divorced? The new perek starts delving into the issue of li'shma and gives 4 different cases where a get is not considered li'shma and would be invalid. What is the difference between all four cases? What are possible ramifications from here to other promissory notes? Can these really be inferred from here? Even though a get that is not li'shma is not a valid get, does it disqualify a woman from marrying a kohen (in the event that her husband dies and she wishes to remarry)?

Gittin 23 - June 8, 19 Sivan Jun 08, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Gittin 23

Today's daf is sponsored by the Billets, Cohns and Hararis in loving memory of their dear friend Tova Rhein z"l on her yahrzeit.

How can we allow those without understanding (like a minor, deaf-mute) to write the get if it needs to be written li'shma?There are three different answers to resolve this difficulty. Who can be a messenger to bring a get? Why is a blind person not allowed to bring a get? Two rabbis who were blind, Rav Sheshet and Rav Yosef, answer the question - each with his own answer. Can a Caananite slave be a messenger to deliver a get? Rav Ami infers from the Mishna that he can, but Rabbi Yochanan says he cannot. What is the logic behind each position? There are women who are not believed to testify that a woman's husband has died as there is a concern that they may have ulterior motives to lie so as to ruin the life of the wife (she will get remarried as a result of their testimony, then the husband will return and she will be forbidden to both husbands). These women are her mother-in-law, her husband's sister, her rival wife, her yevama (her husband's brother's wife after he died childless), and her husband's daughter (from another marriage). These women are believed to bring a get, as there is a written document to support them. However, there is a braita that says that cannot bring a get. Rav Yosef explains the contradiction by differentiating between a get written in Israel (as there is no need for any testimony so they are believed) and one written abroad (they are not believed as we need to rely on their testimony, "in front of me it was written...") and they cannot be trusted to testify. Abaye resolves the contradiction in the opposite manner, as in Israel the husband can still come and contest that the get is invalid, therefore there is concern the women are lying and the wife will get married based on the get, the husband will later contest the get, and the woman will be forbidden both to both husbands. But if it was written abroad, he cannot contest the get as it was immediately certified in court. Therefore there is no concern they will lie.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected