Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Gittin 22 - June 7, 18 Sivan Jun 07, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island as a zechut for a refua shelaima bikarov for Yakira Liba bat Sara Gita, beloved granddaughter of our friend Tzippy Wolkenfeld. May our learning be a zechut for her and all cholei Yisrael.

Can a man give a get to his wife written on a perforated pot? Can he write it on the leaves of a plant that are in a perforated pot? What are the laws of kinyan (acquiring) regarding plants in a perforated pot when the plant is owned by a different person than the pot? If they are both owned by the same person, can an act of acquiring one also work to include the other? Plants in perforated pots that are on the border of Israel and are both in Israel and outside of Israel - do the laws of Israel apply or not? On what does it depend? What are different types of processes done to the hides in preparation for leather and what are the leathers that are tanned in each different process used for? The Rabbis in the Mishna permit parchment that can potentially be forged. This must follow the opinion of Rabbi Elazar (the tana) that the witnesses that see the giving of the get are the important ones and therefore if there was a stipulation in the get that was erased, they will know and testify about it when they go to the court to testify that she is divorced. Rabbi Elazar (amora) and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about whether this is only if they went to the court immediately or even if they went much later - can we assume they will remember the stipulation or not. Did the rabbis permit this parchment only for a get but not for other documents? Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar also disagree about this. Anyone can write a get, even one who is not considered to have knowledge like a minor, but Rav Huna limits that to a case where there is an adult supervising. A woman can write her get and a husband can write the receipt that he paid his wife her ketuba.

Gittin 21 - June 6, 17 Sivan Jun 06, 2023

Show notes

English Study Guide Gittin 21

Can we assume that a woman knows that if she provides the object on which the get will be written, she needs to first give it to her husband with a kinyan (an act of acquiring) so that he can own it when he gives it to her? If a husband writes the get on his servant and then gives his slave as a gift to his wife, is the get effective immediately (before the slave reaches the wife)? Rava rules that the slave functions like the courtyard of a woman and the divorce is effective immediately. But isn't this like a moving courtyard that is not able to acquire the get on behalf of the wife? Therefore, they understand it to be when the slave's feet are bound and he is not mobile. Rava also says the same ruling for a husband who puts the get in a courtyard and gives her the courtyard as a gift. Why does he need to rule in both cases - why can't we learn one from the other? Abaye raises a question on Rava's rulings. What is the root of the disagreement between Rabbi Yossi HaGelili who doesn't permit a get to be written on a live being or on food and the tana kamma who permits it? How do they each read the verses differently? The Mishna rules that one cannot write a get on something attached to the ground, but if one did and uprooted it and then signed it, it is valid. The Gemara brings two different ways to read the Mishna - Shmuel, Rabbi Oshaya and Rabbi Yochanan holding one way and Reish Lakish another. Each one reads the Mishna either according to Rabbi Elazar (the witnesses who witness the giving of the get are the main witnesses) or according to Rabbi Meir (the witnesses who sign the get are the main witnesses).

Gittin 20 - June 5, 16 Sivan Jun 05, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Meryll Levine Page in loving memory of her father, Yosef Michael haLevi, on his 14th yahrzeit. "Our dad set us on the derekh by modeling and encouraging both study and tzedakah."

A man gave a sefer Torah to his wife and said it was her get. Rav Yosef indicated that there were three reasons why this could not possibly be effective. Rav Chisda attempted to connect a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis about a sefer Torah where God's name was not written without the proper intent - can one go over it with ink or not - to the question of fixing a get that was not written li'shma. However, this connection is rejected as the Torah requires beautification, which is not required for a get. Rav Chisda said that he could theoretically disqualify all gittin. Rava attempted to understand what he was referring to. One suggestion was that since the rabbis instituted that the women pay the scribe (to prevent agunot situations - that the husband may not want to pay the money for the divorce), and therefore the get was not written by the husband as prescribed by the Torah. The second suggestion is that the husband does not actually give the woman anything of value and perhaps when the Torahg stated "he gives her," it meant an item of value. Both these suggestions are rejected and it is unclear what Rav Chisda was referring to. Is chiseling considered writing? It depends on whether it was done by chiseling the area surrounding the letters (considered writing) or chiseling the areas where the letters are, causing the writing to protrude. (not considered writing). How then was the tzitz considered 'written' if it was chiseled "like a coin"? A husband needs to give the get to his wife and cannot say that the paper/parchment it is written on still belongs to him, as in that case the letters are just considered 'hanging in the air' and not written. If one gives a get to his wife on a piece of gold and tells her to keep the gold as her ketuba money - is this effective - is it considered that the letters are hanging in the air or not? Rami bar Hama asked: if they find a slave in the woman's possession with a get written on his arm, but no one witnessed the husband giving the get to his wife, can we assume she is divorced or is it possible the slave went to her on his own? He also asked another question: if she owned a slate and the get was written on that, can we assume that she transferred ownership of the slate to the husband before he gave it to her and divorce would be effective, or do we assume that women do not know how to do that properly?

Gittin 19 - June 4, 15 Sivan Jun 04, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Gittin 19

This week's learning is sponsored by Bob & Paula Cohen in loving memory of Henna bat Yitzchak Nechemia.

Today's learning is dedicated in memory of the three soldiers killed yesterday on the Egyptian border - Ori Yitzchak Iluz, Lia Ben Nun and Ohad Dahan. Yehi Zichram Baruch.

With what types of ink can you write a get? I get can be written on a leaf that is detached from the ground, a horn of a cow and an arm of a slave, in which case the husband would give the cow/slave to the wife. If one writes with ink on top of other ink, does it work? In a case where one can't find witnesses who know how to sign, what possible solutions are there? Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yochanan if one writes out their names in red ink and the witnesses go over letters with black ink, does that count? When Rabbi Yochanan says no, Reish Lakish questions him from laws of Shabbat as one who does that is liable for erasing |(the red ink) and for writing (with the black ink). Rabbi Yochanan responds that just because we are concerned it may be considered writing on Shabbat, it doesn't mean we should act upon it and permit a get signed in that manner! If witnesses do not know how to read or write, can they sign a regular document or a get? Is the law the same for both a get and other documents? If one gives a blank piece of paper to a woman saying, "This is your get," and then it gets destroyed and he claims it was not a get, is he believed?

Gittin 18 - Shabbat June 3, 14 Sivan Jun 02, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Gittin 18

What if time elapses between the writing of the get and the giving of the get? How does that affect how long a woman must wait after a divorce before remarrying? Does the clock start ticking from the signing or from the giving? From what point does the financial obligation of the husband to the wife in a ketuba go from being an obligation to being a loan, in which case it would then be canceled during a shmita year? There is a disagreement about in which case Rabbi Shimon allows time to elapse between the writing of the get and the signing. What if more than one day elapsed? There is another disagreement about a case where someone asked ten people to all write the get - what is the function of all of their signatures - are two viewed as witnesses and the others as fulfilling the husband's stipulation or are all considered witnesses? What are the practical ramifications of each of the opinions?

Gittin 17 - June 2, 13 Sivan Jun 02, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Martin Gaynor in loving memory of Rivkeh Gershgorn on her yahrzeit.

Today's daf is sponsored by Ruth and David Kahan in honor of Paul Gompers and Dr. Jody Dushay and in gratitude for their hospitality.

When the rabbis asked Raba bar bar Hana about whether two messengers who bring a get need to say "in front of me it was written…", a Persian Habar came and took their candle. Raba bar bar Hana's reaction was that better the Romans than the Persians. How can this be true if they derive from a verse in Iyov that God sent us to exile in Babylonia (where the Persians ruled) to spare us the terrors of the Romans? In the case in the Mishna where one says it was written in front of me and two testify about the signatures, the get is valid, Rabbi Ami explains that this is only in the case where the messenger testified about the writing. This shows we are concerned about li'shma and therefore even if two messengers deliver the get, one still would need to make the declaration. However, in another instance, Rabbi Ami explained the exact opposite, as he changed his mind. The Mishna ruled that if the get was written during the day and signed at night - on a different date - the get is invalid. Rabbi Shimon permits this kind of document specifically for a get, not for other documents. Why does the date need to be written in the get? Rabbi Yochanan holds that it is a concern that one may be married to his sister's daughter who may engage in relations with another man and to protect her from getting the death penalty, he will give her a get and claim that it was given before the adulterous incident. Reish Lakish holds that the concern is for a financial disagreement about the proceeds from the usufruct property of the woman (the husband has rights to it during the marriage and the woman has rights to it from the divorce). Why doesn't each hold like the other? How can we understand the debate between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis based on each interpretation? Abaye raises a number of difficulties with this takana, both according to Rabbi Yochanan and according to Reish Lakish. Rav Yosef resolves each difficulty.

Gittin 16 - June 1, 12 Sivan Jun 01, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Gittin 16

This week's learning is dedicated by Sara Averick and Jose Rosenfeld in memory of Sara's mother, Leah Shifrin Averick, Leah bat HaRav Yehuda Leib Chaikel and Chaya Masha, who showed us to love Hashem, klal Yisrael, Medinat Yisrael, and learning Torah, b'chol levaveinu, b'chol nafsheinu, u'b'chol meodeinu.

Today's daf is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Shifra's father, Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzchak on his yahrzeit.

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Ilana Miriam in honor of her birthday and in admiration of her perseverance in her learning.

How is Ilfa's question regarding splitting up washing one's hands for impurity purposes explained? The rabbis decreed that a tvul yom who goes into drawn water (even just the head and majority of the body) or pours three log of water over one's body after going in a mikveh will be considered impure. Likewise, a pure person who pours three log of water over one's body is deemed impure. Rabbi Yirmia asks what if half the body was in a mikveh and one poured water over the other half? A man who had a seminal emission is impure and from the times of Ezra, they also were not allowed to learn Torah. In order to permit Torah learning to one who was too sick to go into a mikveh, they permitted them to pour nine kav of water over their body. What if half the body was in a mikveh and they poured water on the other half? There are two versions are brought to understand the machloket between Tanna Kama and Rabbi Yehuda in the Mishna where two different people come and one testifies about the signing and the other about the writing. Is the case (and the cases that follow) one where two messengers brought the get or only one? What does this tell us about the need for the declaration when two messengers are sent to deliver the get?

Gittin 15 - May 31, 11 Sivan May 31, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Gittin 15

Today's daf is dedicated to Maggie and Rafi Sandler on the birth of a baby boy! Mazal tov!

Today's daf is dedicated by Helene Santo in memory of Marianne Santo on her 39th yahrzeit. She dedicated her life to Na'amat, the State of Israel and the Jewish people. We think of her always.

The tannaitic debate brought to suggest that tannaim disagree about whether or not a messenger who is sent with the words "Take this to..."(heilech) acquires the rights to the object for the receiver or not, is explained differently. Perhaps the debate is based on a different tannaitic debate about whether the words of a person on their deathbed are taken seriously even if there was no act of acquisition, and whether or not there is a commandment to fulfill the wishes of one who died. Discussions continue about whether or not the tannaim disagreed about if one sends a messenger to deliver something, does the messenger acquire rights to the object from the moment he receives it or only when it gets to the hands of the receiver? The second chapter begins with a messenger bringing a get from abroad who did not say the entire statement "in front of me it was written, in front of me it was signed." The Gemara begins by explaining the first few cases of the Mishna. If he said, "In front of me half of it was written and all of it was signed" - to which half is it referring? If he said, "In front of me all of it was written but half of it was signed," the get is also invalid. Rav Chisda, Rava and Rav Ashi each add a case regarding the second signature (what type of evidence there is about the second one) in which we would also rule like the Mishna that the get is invalid. The Gemara explains the logic behind each opinion, and difficulties are raised with Rav Chisda and Rava's positions. A further difficulty is raised on Rav Chisda from our Mishna but it is resolved. Since the Mishna deals with a case where half the testimony came from one person and half from another, they bring up sugyot in other unrelated issues where there is a question about whether or not one can join two halves together, like with a mechitza (for laws of carrying) and washing hands for purification.

Gittin 14 - May 30, 10 Sivan May 30, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Gittin 14

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island group in loving memory of Yitzchak HaLevi Staum, beloved father of their friend Estair Staum Katz. "May our learning be a zechut for the Aliya of his neshama. תהא נשמתו צרורה בצרור החיים"

On what basis does Rav hold that saying one should return a loan to a third person in the presence of all three people is as if it was acquired by the third person? After raising two suggestions that are rejected, they conclude that it can't be fully understood why he held this way. The Gemara brings two stories that are associated with this principle of Rav. If someone sends a messenger to repay a loan or return an item, who is responsible if something happens to the money/item before the messenger delivers it? Can the sender change his mind after he sends the messenger? Rav and Shmuel both hold that the one who sent the messenger is responsible until the item gets back to the owner/creditor, but they disagree about whether or not the sender can change his/her mind. First, they suggest the debate is whether or not when someone says, "Take this to..." did the messenger already acquire it on their behalf or not. However, this suggestion is rejected and they conclude that the debate is connected to responsibility - do we say that since the sender is responsible for the item still, they can change their mind or not? Two cases are brought to highlight this issue. If one sends a gift to another but before it gets there, the one receiving the gift dies, to whom does the gift go? Can we see from a debate regarding this issue that there is a tannaitic debate about whether "take this to..." is considered as if the recipient already received it or not. Another tannaitic debate is brought to prove this point as well, but both debates are explained in other ways.

Gittin 13 - May 29, 9 Sivan May 29, 2023

Show notes

A braita brings a more expanded version of the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding whether it is only a benefit for a slave to be freed or is it also to his detriment. If one said to give a get to his wife or an emancipation document to his slave and he then died, they would not give the document as one cannot give a document once the person is no longer alive. However, regarding one who said to give money to another, they would give the money even if the owner died. It was passed down in the name of Rav that the money is given only if it was in a pile in a corner. They suggest two different explanations for Rav's limitation. Rav Zevid says it is referring to a healthy person and it is effective as it was done in the presence of all three relevant people, as Rav said elsewhere that if one says to another to give the money he owes him to a third person, the third person acquires it if the statement was made in front of all three of them. Rav Papa says it is referring to one on his deathbed and if the money was not in a pile, there would be a concern that he was referring to money that was hidden somewhere. Why didn't each hold by the other's explanation? There is a debate regarding Rav's statement about one who says to give the money another owes to a third person and if it was said in the presence of all three of them, the money is acquired by the third party. Is this only in a deposit case or also regarding a loan? It seems that Rav held it applies in a loan as well. How does that work? Ameimar suggests an explanation, but Rav Ashi rejects it.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected