Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Gittin 12 - May 28, 8 Sivan May 28, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Aviram and Micki Kadosh in honor of their son Yonatan's wedding to Yotal.

Can a master say to his slave, "You work for me and I keep your proceeds, but you need to support yourself"? First, they try to infer this from the Mishna but they reject it and explain that the Mishna is referring to a case where the master can say to the slave, "Keep your proceeds for your food." Four other sources are brought to try to infer that the master can relinquish his responsibility to feed the slave, while keeping his proceeds. Each time, other than the last, they reject this explanation. But in the end, they do prove that it can be done from the last source.

Gittin 11 - Shabbat May 27, 7 Sivan May 25, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Jill and Jeff Shames. "In memory of avi mori, William Baker, Zeev Velvel ben Chana v'Reuven on his 2nd yahrzeit. Dad, still missing your loving embrace. Your memory is a blessing."

What are names that are clearly gentile names? If according to Rabbi Shimon, the issue is really whether or not the names are clearly gentile names, why isn't that stated explicitly in the Mishna? Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis disagree regarding divorce and emancipation documents signed by gentiles, not in a gentile court. Rashbag adds a further distinction. What is the root of this debate? Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan have a further discussion regarding whether or not a get that comes from abroad and has signatures with gentile names but it is unclear if it was signed by Jews with gentile names or by gentiles. If one sent a get or emancipation document with a messenger, can they change their mind before the document reaches the recipient? The debate is depending on whether you view it as a good/bad thing for the recipient, as one can acquire something on behalf of others without their knowledge if it is good for them but not if it is bad for them (zachin l'adam she'lo b'fanav/ein chavin l''adam ela b'fanav) . Is this connected to the issue of one who seizes property from a debtor to return to a creditor without the creditor knowing? Is one allowed to do this? Is it permitted even if there are other creditors?

Gittin 10 - Chag Shavuot - May 26, 6 Sivan May 25, 2023

Show notes

The Mishna rules that if a Kuti (Samaritan) is signed on a document, it is valid only for a divorce or emancipation document, but not other documents. Why? There are three opinions regarding the status of Kutim – according to whose opinion does the Mishna correspond? At first, it seems like it doesn't fit with any of them, but then the Gemara figures out how to explain the Mishna according to Rabbi Elazar. What assumptions can be made about the signing of a divorce document from this answer? A document effected in a non-Jewish court is not accepted for divorce or emancipation but is for other documents. Does this include all other documents, including gifts whereby the ownership is transferred by the document alone? And if so, this can only be because of Shmuel's opinion that we hold by the court system of the country as dina de'malchuta dina, the law of the land is the law! How can Rabbi Shimon accept the document of divorce from a gentile court if they don't have the same divorce laws as us? Is it because Rabbi Shimon holds like Rabbi Elazar that we rely on the witnesses who witnessed the woman receiving the divorce document, not the witnesses who signed the document? However, this answer is difficult as well.

Gittin 9 - May 25, 5 Sivan May 25, 2023

Show notes

This week's learning is sponsored by Suri Stern in honor of her mother Susan Davis. "She gave birth to me this week, just a few years ago. And to all the women who are learning and teaching torah Shavuot night, in the beit medrash for women only, may Moshiach come so the men can gain insight into the Torah they are missing on the "other side" of the mechitzah. And to Rabbanit Michelle Farber who works tirelessly to tear down unnecessary barriers. Chag sameach!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Meir & Ahuva Balofsky in honor of Diana Bloom. "For your dedication to learning. May you never stop learning and never stop teaching."

Why did Rava rule that when the slave brings his own emancipation document where he is also awarded money, he receives his freedom but not the money (until the signatures are verified), if Rav Nachman ruled like Rabbi Meir that we do not split a statement (palginan diburei)? The conclusion is that Rav Nachman held like Rabbi Meir for a different reason, not because we don't split his words) and a different ruling of his is brought where it is clear that he holds we can split someone's words. The Mishna had ruled that, in Israel, if there are those who raise doubt regarding the document's veracity, we verify the signatures of the witnesses. How many people are necessary to raise a doubt in order for us to take it seriously? The conclusion is that we are referring to the husband himself. If one brings a get from abroad and cannot say "in front of me..." we verify the signatures. "One who cannot say" refers to a person who brought the get, but before making the declaration became a deaf-mute. The Mishna mentions one similarity between a get of a woman and an emancipation document of a slave - that if one brings it from abroad to Israel or the reverse, one needs to say "in front of me it was written..." The Gemara brings a braita with three or four (according to Rabbi Meir) similarities. Why did Tanna Kama and Rabbi Meir give a number? Each was to exclude it from an additional case. What case was Rabbi Meir excluding? Aren't there other issues that are the same for a get and an emancipation document, like they can't be given after death of the husband/master, and li'shma?

Gittin 8 - May 24, 4 Sivan May 24, 2023

Show notes

This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll. "As we start Masechet Gittin, the very first Daf expresses concern for the Aguna. I want to dedicate this month's learning in honor of Shoshana and Chochmat Nashim, whose tireless work and inspiring dedication, forge new paths to make sure those aren't just sentiments on an ancient page but that the rabbis, poskim and batei din of today take actual steps to protect Agunot and put an end to this abuse in the name of halakha. Baruch Matir Assurim."

Are the laws regarding plants on boats in waters in/near Israel the same as plants in a perforated pot raised off the ground in Israel regarding laws of tithes and shmita? The earlier debate regarding whether if one writes a get on a boat does one need to say "in front of me it was written..." is not regarding rivers in Israel - all agree that is considered Israel. The debate is about the Meditteranean - which parts are considered Israel and which parts are not. What are the different options for where are the borders in the water? This is similar to modern disputes over territorial waters. Is "Suria" (Northern Syria of today) considered Israel or not? For certain issues, it is considered like Israel, and for others not. One wanting to purchase land in Israel from a non-Jew is allowed to have a non-Jew do it (unclear whether it relates only to writing the contract or also to the actual purchase) for him on Shabbat due to the importance of a mitzva. A Caananaite slave who brings his own emancipation document needs to say "in front of me it was written..." But if the document also said that the owner gave him money, two people need to validate the witnesses' signatures (his declaration is not sufficient) for him to be able to demand the money. But if the documents said, "All of my possessions are given to you" - can we split the two and say that the slave is free but the money does not transfer hands until we validate the witnesses properly? Abaye and Rava disagree. First Abaye thinks the whole document can be effective, but after Rava's argument (that they must be split and the money does not transfer hands), Abaye switches positions to say that the entire document is ineffective, as he does not think that you can split the statement to make it effective halfway.

Gittin 7 - May 23, 3 Sivan May 23, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Malka Abraham in honor of her 66th birthday! "Thank you Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community for all that you do!!"

There are various statements and a story warning people of the potential dangers of imposing excessive fear on people in one's household. The Gemara brings a number of letters that rabbis wrote to each other regarding what to do with people in the community who are behaving inappropriately, not playing music, singing and not wearing the crown of grooms after the destruction, and the importance of charity giving, even for those who don't have a lot of money. In each letter, they quoted a verse and the person writing the letter drew lines on the page (sirtut). Is Acco really the Northern border of Israel? What about K'ziv? If one writes a get on a boat in the waters right outside of Israel, is it considered from abroad and one would need to say "in front of me..." or not? The Gemara quotes two contradictory braitot and suggests two possible resolutions.

Gittin 6 - May 22, 2 Sivan May 22, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Gittin 6

Is Babylonia considered like Israel for gittin and therefore one who brings from place to place in Babylonia would not need to say "in front of me it was written..."? Rav and Shmuel disagree about this. First, they suggest that the root of the debate is based on the debate between Rava and Raba, but they reject it and explain that it is because there are now yeshivot in Babylonia. Rav holds that since they now travel from place to place to learn, they recognize signatures. Shmuel holds that they are busy learning and therefore do not recognize the signatures of others. What are the boundaries of Babylonia? Some places have unique laws related to this that are dependent on the nature of the places and whether or not people from one place would recognize signatures of the other. Rav Kahana brought a get from one big city in Babylonia to the other and Rav told him that he did not need to say "In front of me it was written..." but if he did, it would help - in the event that the husband will try to claim it was not a valid get, as can be learned from a different story told in a braita of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Evyatar ruled that there is no need to say the declaration if bringing a get from Babylonia to Israel as there are always people traveling from one place to the other. Is Rabbi Evyatar someone who can be relied on in his rulings?

Gittin 5 - Rosh Chodesh Sivan - May 21, 1 Sivan May 21, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Ruth & Stuart Pilichowski in loving memory of Rabbi Dov Greenstone.

Today's daf is sponsored by Lesley Glassberg Nadel in loving memory of her mother Theresa Glassberg, Tova bat Tzvi Hirsch and Bayla, on her 19th yahrzeit. "May her name be for a blessing."

Three sources are brought to question Raba's opinion and are resolved by explaining that at a certain point, even people abroad knew the rule of li'shma and the need for saying "in front of me it was written..." was only a rabbinic decree just in case they forget this law sometime in the future, and therefore it is not applicable in rare situations or if the woman already remarried. The same argument between Raba and Rava was also argued by two Rabbis, amoraim from an earlier generation in Israel. There is another debate regarding in front of how many people the messenger needs to be to deliver the get and recite "in front of me it was written and signed" - two or three. They suggest that this also is linked to the previous argument of Raba/Rava, however, this suggestion is rejected and they explain it to be a question of can a witness also function as a judge - if yes, then in front of two is enough as the witness also counts as a judge and there are three, and if not, then it needs to be said in front of three. However, the Gemara questions this as in rabbinic issues, all agree that a witness can be a judge also. So the argument is refined to be specifically a debate here as a woman's testimony is accepted, however, she cannot become a judge - is there a reason for concern that if in general one can say it in front of two, they may accidentally think to do the same when a woman is the messenger and think that she can function as a judge or is it clear that everyone knows that she cannot and therefore two is enough in a case where a man is the messenger. The Gemara brings a braita to support Rabbi Yochanan's position that the messenger needs to bring the get in front of two witnesses. In order to be able to say "in front of me it was written...," how much does the messenger need to see of the get being written? There are different positions on this issue.

Gittin 4 - Shabbat May 20, 29 Iyar May 19, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Gittin 4

The Gemara continues to ascertain according to which tanna does the Mishna correspond, according to Raba's understanding, when it requires that both the writing and the signing of the get needs to be li'shma? The possibility of it being Rabbi Meir is rejected. However there is a possible way to explain the Mishna like Rabbi Elazar - while he may not require signatures, if they are there, they need to be done li'shma. However, the Gemara brings in a third opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who holds that both the writing and the signing need to be li'shma. If so, why didn't the Gemara simply bring Rabbi Yehuda at the beginning of the sugya? There are two tannaitic debates in the Mishna - one regarding towns on the border with Israel and another regarding whether one who brings a get from Israel abroad needs to say "before me it was written...signed." The Gemara first attempts to line up each of these opinions in the debate with the opinions of Raba and Rava but in the end concedes that it is not the case. After raising an additional question from the Mishna against Raba's opinion, they concede that Raba must hold that both are issues - making sure the get was done li'shma and that witnesses may not be around to verify the signatures. If so, what is the practical difference between Raba and Rava?

Gittin 3 - Yom Yerushalayim - May 19, 28 Iyar May 19, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Gittin 3

Today's daf is sponsored by Rebecca and Ezra Darshan in loving memory of her mother, Helene Isaacs, Chana bat Abraham David and Esther Rachel, on her 23rd yahrzeit. "My mother would have been so happy and proud to see so many women learning on such a high level. Torah learning was such an important part of her life."

Today's daf is sponsored by Eric Sommer in honor of Rabbanit Michelle and his fellow morning daf learners. This week's siyum was a great reminder what an incredible achievement Hadran is. Rabbanit Michelle's vision and teaching style, along with the solidarity and dedication of the learners, creates a feeling of being part of something special. It's a privilege to be a part of it, one that I do not take for granted.

In order to explain why one witness is sufficient according to Raba (li'shma), they explain that really there is not such a concern that the get wasn't written li'shma but the rabbis required it. Since that is the case, one witness will be enough, because if they require him to send the get with two witnesses, he may decide not to send the get at all and the wife will become an aguna. However, instead of helping the woman, this could actually create more problems as only one witness verified it and if the husband were to later come and claim it was not a valid get, it would be his word against the messenger's. The Gemara explains that this is not a concern as the declaration of the messenger needs to be said in front of two or three people and therefore this gives the witness more credibility and if the husband were to come later and raise doubts about the get, he would not be believed. The same question they asked Raba about one witness is now asked of Rava. They answer the same answer, raise the same difficulty and resolve the issue in a very similar manner. Why didn't Rava hold like Raba and why didn't Raba hold like Rava? Since according to Raba, the issue is li'shma, according to who does the Mishna correspond when it required the messenger to say both "it was written before me and it was signed before me?" It seems that both the writing and the signing needs to be li'shma and this doesn't fit with Rabbi Meir who requires the signing to be li'shma and Rabbi Elazar who requires the writing to be li'shma.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected