Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Nazir 57 - March 21, 28 Adar Mar 21, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Nancy Kolodny in honor of Lisa Kolodny on her birthday. "With appreciation and love to my amazing daughter-in-law. May your learning and chesed continue to grow in the new year".

Today's daf is sponsored by Rikki & Alan Zibitt in loving memory of Helen Zibitt, Hena bat Yaacov v' Rachel Leah on her 23rd yahrzeit. "Mom, we miss your warmth and love every day. And in honor of the birthdays of our dear daughter-in-law, Dvora Cohen Zibitt, and son-in-law, Jay Blumenreich, who have enriched our family in countless beautiful ways. We love you both so very much."

When Rabbi Yehoshua told Rabbi Akiva that his logic was good, but there is a tradition which overrides the conclusion of the logical argument, was the tradition that a nazir who becomes impure to a quarter-log of blood by touching is not required to shave or that a nazir who touches a bone the size of a barley grain would require shaving? If someone tells two nazirs that they saw one of them become impure but they aren't sure which one, what do they do? After thirty days they both shave and bring two sacrifices while stipulating that one will count for the impurity of one and the other will be for the completion of the other. They each continue with the prohibitions of a nazir for another thirty days and bring one set of sacrifices, stipulating that it go for the one who was impure as completion now of the nazirite term. If there were three people there (the two nazirs and the one who saw one become impure), why isn't this a case of doubt regarding impurity in a public domain in which we rule that one is pure? That principle is derived from a Sotah who was in a case of doubt in a private domain (with only two people) and there we rule she is impure. They explain that the person who saw must have seen it from a distance and was not actually in the direct area where the nazirs were, thus making it a private space. How can the nazirs shave in a case of doubt? Isn't it forbidden to shave off one's sidelocks unless one is obligated to as a nazir as only then will it override the prohibition! Shmuel answers that the shaving was speaking of a woman and a minor who are not commanded not to remove their sidelocks. From here one can infer that he held that shaving off all the hair on one's head is forbidden. Some say that Shmuel's answer about the minor and the woman was said about an upcoming Mishna of one who is a nazir who maybe was impure and maybe was a leper and shaves four times. Rav Ada bar Ahava and Rav Huna disagree about whether it is forbidden for someone to shave the sidelocks of a minor. Rav Ada bar Ahaha permits and Rav Huna forbids. Rav Ada questions Rav Huna according to his own opinion as Rav Huna's own children's sidelocks were shaven, to which Rav Huna responds that his wife, Chova, had done it. Rav Ada's reaction is that Chova will bury her children. While Rav Ada was alive, any children of Rav Huna and Chova did not survive on account of his statement. Rav Huna permitted his wife to do it, as he understood that it was only forbidden for one to shave the sidelocks of a minor if they themselves were prohibited from removing their own sidelocks. Rav Ada held that it all depends on the one whose sidelocks were being shaved - if they are forbidden, then it is forbidden for others, but if they are permitted (like minors) then it is permitted for anyone, even men.

Nazir 56 - March 20, 27 Adar Mar 20, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Nazir 56

Today's daf is sponsored by Ruth Leah Kahan with gratitude to HKB"H for her recovery and return to health one year after being caught in a chlorine gas leak. "Thanks to my family and friends around the world for their unstinting encouragement and support."

Two further questions are raised against Rav Chisda's understanding of our Mishna from tannaitic sources. One relates to a case where one is a nazir and possibly became impure and possibly was a leper but is unsure. The other relates to the source for the law that the days of leprosy are not counted as days of the nazirite's term. There are no resolutions to the difficulties. Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua that the impurities for which the nazir needs to shave are the same impurities that one is liable by the punishment of karet for entering the Temple. Impurities that the nazir does not need to shave for, are not punishable by karet if one enters the Temple with that state of impurity. Rabbi Meir raises a question on that - why would the latter category of impurity be more lenient than the light impurity of a sheretz, one of the eight creeping creatures who pass on impurity when dead? Why does our Mishna say that Rabbi Elazar quoted this law in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua when in the Tosefta it says that he learned it from Rabbi Yehoshua bar Mamel who heard it from Rabbi Yehoshua? We learn from here that when passing down a halacha in the name of a middle person who heard it from the source, one mentions the source and not the middle person from whom he learned it. Rabbi Akiva questions a law learned previously in the chapter - that a quarter-log of blood does not make a nazir shave. The question is a logical one: if a bone the size of a barley grain causes a nazir to shave, even though it only passes on impurity by touching or carrying, wouldn't a quarter-log of blood pass that passes on impurity also in a tent, also be a cause for the nazir to shave if he touches or carries it? Rabbi Yehoshua answered that while Rabbi Akiva's logic may be sound, the tradition passed down is not that way.

Nazir 55 - March 19, 26 Adar Mar 19, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Nazir 55

Today's daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz to commemorate the yartzeit of her aunt, Rose Rubelow, Rochel Leah bat Rav Moshe and Tzippora Mashbaum. Yehi zichra baruch.

There is a tannaitic debate regarding one who enters a place outside of Israel in a box. Is the debate based on whether the impurity outside of Israel instituted by the rabbis was regarding the earth (concern for graves or bones of Jewish bodies) or regarding the air (preventative measure so people don't leave Israel)? The Gemara rejects this suggestion and brings three other possible explanations of the debate, the first of which is rejected. The Mishna stated that if a nazir became a leper, the leper days don't count as days of nazir, but don't cancel the previous days. Rav Chisda explains that this is only true if one was a nazir for a short time (30 days), but if one took on a long period of being a nazir, the days when the nazir was a leper count toward the days of being a nazir. Rav Shrevia shows that the Mishna doesn't fit with Rav Chisda's statement as the Mishna says the leper days don't count as days of nazir, but don't cancel the previous days and according to Rav Chisda, there is no case where those two things will hold true: if one was a nazir for thirty days, the previous days would be canceled as one would need a full thirty days of hair growth after the shaving of the nazir, and if one was a nazir for longer than thirty days, Rav Chisda would say the days of being a leper count as nazir days. The Gemara answers that there is a case that can fit with the Mishna - in a case of a fifty-day term where twenty days were finished before the nazir became a leper as the days of being a leper wouldn't count as one would need a full thirty days of hair growth after shaving on account of being a leper and none of the previous twenty days would need to be canceled as there will be a thirty-day growth.

Nazir 54 - Shabbat March 18, 25 Adar Mar 17, 2023

Show notes

Regarding a limb from a dead or live body without enough flesh, that Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about, how large is it? The Gemara proves how Reish Lakish thinks the nazir shaves even if it is less than the size of a barley and it is a uniquely derived halacha from a drasha on a verse. When the Mishna says that one begins the count from the beginning, it in unclear whether they mean on day seven of purification or day eight. The Gemara derives from the language of the next Mishna that in this Mishna, the count begins on the eighth day after the sacrifices are brought, in accordance with the opinion of the rabbis, against Rabbi Eliezer. The Mishna now lists all the cases that the nazir doesn't shave and within that, there are two categories - one where the days aren't counted as nazirite days, even though the days beforehand aren't cancelled and a second where it has no effect on the counting of the nazirite days. The Gemara begins to define the cases in the Mishna - what are sechachot and praot? One of the items on the list is one who goes outside of Israel and the rabbis deemed all territory outside of Israel impure. Can we learn from our Mishna the answer to the following question - did the rabbis deem it impure for concerns of graves (gusha) or was it a deterrent to prevent people from leaving Israel (avira)? This attempt is rejected.

Nazir 53 - March 17, 24 Adar Mar 17, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Nazir 53

Rami bar Hama asked: Is one stricter with the spinal cord or skull that if one has a quarter kav of bones from them, does the nazir need to shave on account of them, as opposed to other bones where a half kav is needed? The first answer, given by Rava from our Mishna is rejected. A second answer is brought from an opinion of Shamai brought on Nazir 52b, but is rejected as well. Rabbi Eliezer explains that at an earlier stage, there was a debate about whether only half a kav/log or a even quarter kav/log would make one impure, but no distinction was made between nazir and other issues. At a later stage, the courts distinguished between a nazir needing to shave/one not being able to do the Pesach sacrifice (a half kav/log) and the ability to eat truma and kodashim (a quarter kav/log). Why is the language "on these" used in the Mishna twice - what can be learned from those words? Even though a nazir doesn't shave for a quarter kav of bones in a tent, he would shave if he touched or carried them. This is derived from the language in the next Mishna or perhaps the language at the end of our Mishna). But if so, wouldn't that already be derived from the law of a bone the size of a barley? They explain that it means if they are ground into a powder-lie substance, they will be impure if they are a quarter kav. The Mishna mentions a limb from a dead body or a live body that has enough flesh on it. What if it does not? Since it is not mentioned in the upcoming Mishna, Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about whether a nazir would have to shave or not. How does each prove his approach? Two questions are raised Rabbi Yochanan's argument from the next Mishna, but are resolved. What size limb is being argued about here? If it is larger than the size of a barley, how can Rabbi Yochanan say that the nazir doesn't shave? If it is smaller, how can Reish Lakish say that the nazir shaves?

Nazir 52 - March 16, 23 Adar Mar 16, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Nazir 52

Today's daf is sponsored by Mark and Rena Septee Goldstein in memory of Moe Septee. "A wonderful man, on the occasion of his 26th yahrzeit."

The entire Hadran zoom family is devastated by the loss of our dear friend and chevruta, Carol Robinson Gould. Her gentle and warm presence was a perfect start to our day. We already miss her. With love and comfort to Art and to the whole family.

Rava asked: if an ant is missing a leg, is it still considered a complete creature that would render one liable for eating it, even if it is not the size of an olive? An attempt is made to answer the question from laws regarding the minimum size for impurity of a chomet, one of the eight creatures considered shratzim in the Torah. However, the comparison is rejected. The Mishna stated that bones from the spinal column and of the skull disqualify a nazir due to impurity. Does the Mishna mean both of them or either one of them? Four tannaitic sources are brought to answer the question but all are deemed inconclusive. Rami bar Hama asked: Is one stricter with the spinal cord or skull that if one has a quarter kav of bones from them, does the nazir need to shave on account of them, as opposed to other bones where a half kav is needed? The first answer is brought by Rava who proves from our Mishna that the answer is no.

Nazir 51 - March 15, 22 Adar Mar 15, 2023

Show notes

This week's learning is sponsored by Sara Averick and Jose Rosenfeld in memory of Ildiko Rosenfeld, צביה רחל בת מרדכי הלוי ומרים. "She embodied elegance, grace, and wisdom."

Today's daf is sponsored by Caroline Ben-Ari on the 6th yahrzeit of her mother, Daphne Rhodes, דפנה דבורה בת אברהם וחנה. "Mum was a loving, vivacious woman with a great sense of humor, and was determined to be a better mother to her children than her own mother had been to her. Later in life, when she and Dad retired to Netanya, she indulged her love of singing and dramatics in the Netanya AACI Musical Theatre Group עורי עורי דבורה, עורי עורי דברי שיר."

Today's daf is sponsored by Risa Tzohar in loving memory of her mother Florence Rich z"l.

The impurity of rakav, dust from a corpse is limited, as noted in a braita and several statements of amoraim. The body must be without any clothing, on a floor of stone or marble, alone (not with another body) with flesh, bones and sinews, not buried with hair, nails or teeth that were removed from the body. A question is asked regarding dust that comes from the heel as even in one's lifetime the heel is somewhat of a dead zone in the body as its flesh is callous. After suggesting an answer, the Gemara reinterprets the question. Another set of questions is asked regarding rakav - since it is not applicable when there are two bodies that decompose together, what about a pregnant woman who died with the fetus in her womb? What about if there was semen in the woman's body, or feces or skin? After all these questions, Rav Shmuel bar Acha says that if we limit all these cases, there will be no impurity of rakav!! To which, Rav Papa answered how there could be a case. Rakav is only when the dust is from a decomposed body and not if the body was ground into dust. What if it was ground up and then decayed? Rakav also does not apply to a body that is not whole. Two other halachot also do not apply to an incomplete corpse - tefusa (when moving a grave, one must dig up the surrounding earth as well)and a graveyard (if one finds three bodies, one needs to search the area as there may likely be the site of an ancient cemetery). A Mishna in Eduyot 6:3 is brought to raise a difficulty against this but it is resolved. Rava asks another question that the Mishna in Eduyot is brought as an answer, but that answer is rejected.

Nazir 50 - March 14, 21 Adar Mar 14, 2023

Show notes

Rabbi Yehuda questioned the law in our Mishna as quoted by Sumchus "on a corpse and on an olive bulk from a dead corpse" - if an olive bulk is enough to make the nazir shave, obviously a whole corpse. Since Rabbi Yehuda was angry at this, Rabbi Yosi tries to explain the Mishna. However, his answer is rejected, but the Gemara quotes Rabbi Yochanan and Rava who each bring different ways to understand this phrase - either it was from a miscarried fetus whose limbs were not yet joined or it was bones from a very small corpse that did not contain the minimum size (1/4 kav) to pass on impurity, but they formed the majority of the limbs in the body or the majority of the structure of the body. Netzel is defined as liquid from a corpse that congealed. Why does it need to congeal? Is the law of netzel (liquid from a dead body carries impurity) also applicable to impurity of dead animals? If one holds that high-level impurity of a neveila (dead animal) is only for food that is fit to be eaten by humans, then netzel is clearly not impure in animals, but if one holds it must be fit to be eaten by a dog, then it may apply to animals as well. They try to answer the question from a braita about liquid cooked by the sun which does not carry impurity, but they conclude that it is so rotten that it is not even fit to be eaten by a dog and therefore can't be used to answer the question. Rami bar Hama asks a question on a Mishna in Machshirin 5:9 regarding thick liquids that when poured, both parts are considered as one and one part can make the other impure in this way. Rami bar Hama asks whether the rabbis disagree with Beit Shamai, do they hold that one part makes the other impure only if the substance flows backwards when the pouring stops or is it when the substance is so thick and sticky that it is viewed as one unit? The Tosefta in Ohalot 4:3 and our Mishna are quoted to answer the question, however, both attempts are rejected. How much is the requisite amount "melo tarvad" (a ladleful) mentioned in the Mishna? Two opinions are brought. A difficulty is raised against one of the opinions from a braita but it is resolved in two possible ways.

Nazir 49 - March 13, 20 Adar Mar 13, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Nazir 49

Today's daf is sponsored by Gershon, Jack, Rivka, Itzik, Yoni, Rafi and Tami in honor of Naomi Cohen's birthday. "We are all so proud and inspired by your dedication to and love of Torah."

According to Rabbi Akiva why was it necessary for the verse to include both a father and a mother - why couldn't we learn one from the other? The Gemara explains differences between the two. What does Rabbi Akiva learn from the verse, "he shall not go in to any dead bodies" that is mentioned in the verses of the kohen gadol? If the nazir comes in contact with a dead body in a way that makes him impure by Torah law, he stops his count toward nezirut, purifies himself, brings sacrifices and then begins his count toward nezirut from the beginning. The Mishna lists all the ways of becoming impure that would make the nazir impure at this level. When Rabbi Meir died, Rabbi Yehuda requested that his students not allow students of Rabbi Meir to come into the beit midrash as they were only coming to question Rabbi Yehuda with their halakhot. Sumchus pushed his way in and began quoting the beginning of our Mishna. Rabbi Yehuda immediately questioned his language as he said an olive bulk of flesh from a dead body and a dead body. Obviously, the dead body was unnecessary as it was included in the olive bulk from a dead body!

Nazir 48 - March 12, 19 Adar Mar 12, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Nazir 48

Today's daf is sponsored by Gabrielle & Daniel Altman in memory of the 18th yahrzeit of our treasured mother, Honorable Myriam J. Altman, z"l, loved and missed forever, and still our North Star."

Both by the kohen gadol and the nazir, the verses give a list of all the relatives to whom they cannot become impure. In the kohen gadol verses, the word "to his father" comes to exclude a met mitzva, to which he can become impure. The word "to his mother" is used to a gezeira shava to learn from a nazir that he can become impure to them in a different way, as long as they are not dead, i.e. zav or leper. From where do we derive that a nazir can become impure to a met mitzva? A braita brings the drashot of both Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. First, Rabbi Yishmael tries to derive it from the words "to his father and his mother" by nazir, but after a number of difficulties (that mostly are resolved, other than the last one), they realize that "to his father" is needed for the simple reading that one cannot become impure to his father and they derive met mitzva from the word "and to his brother." What does Rabbi Yishmael derive from the other words in the verse? Rabbi Akiva derives the law of met mitzva from "to his father and his mother" as he uses a different word "dead" to derive that the nazir cannot become impure to relatives. What does he derive from the other words of that verse?

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected