Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Nazir 37 - March 1, 8 Adar Mar 01, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by the Tannenbaum family in loving memory of Miriam's father, Jacob Zemsky, Yaakov Yitchak ben Moshe Nachum HaLevi z"l on his 19th yahrzeit. "He embodied Ahavat Yisrael, as was manifested in causes for both the klal and even more so, through his helping so many on the prat level. May his inspiration continue to guide us. תהא נשמתו צרורה בצרור החיים."

Today's daf is sponsored in memory of Dr. Atarah Twersky, z"l who passed away this past week. Yehi zichra baruch.

After the third difficulty of Abaye against Rav Dimi (who held that the law of heiter mitztaref l'issur is unique only to nazir) is resolved, Abaye shifts gears and questions Rav Dimi by suggesting that perhaps the verse relating to bread soaked with wine is teaching a different halacha of ta'am k'ikar, that if the taste of a forbidden item is in a food, even if the actual forbidden item is no longer in the food, it is forbidden. He quotes a braita where this law is derived from nazir and applied to all forbidden items in the Torah. Rabbi Avahu responds for Rav Dimi by saying that he holds like Rabbi Akiva who held that heiter mitztaref l'issur by nazir. A discussion ensues about questions on the debate between Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis about this, beginning with: From where does Rabbi Akiva derive the laws of ta'am k'ikar? And if he learns it from somewhere else (according to the conclusion, from kashering pots of the gentiles), why don't the rabbis learn it from there? The Rabbis view that as a unique halacha and therefore cannot learn it from there. Another question is asked against Rabbi Akiva - why does he not learn heiter mitztaref l'issur that appears by nazir can be applied to all other cases, as the rabbis say regarding ta'am k'ikar? From the answer to that, a question is thrown back at the rabbis, then back at Rabbi Akiva, etc. Another question is then raised against Rabbi Akiva from a braita but is resolved.

Nazir 36 - February 28, 7 Adar Feb 28, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Nazir 36

Today's daf is sponsored by Lianne Philipp in honor of her daughter, Nechama Sarah, on the occasion of her first birthday. "We have listened to the podcast together since before she was even born. May we continue to learn Talmud together for years to come. Happy birthday!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Sylvia (Sara Devora) Simmons in memory of her father, Avraham Nachum ben Yisrael Simmons z"l on his yahrzeit. A survivor of Kovno ghetto, "a brand plucked from burning fire."

Today's daf is sponsored anonymously in memory of Moshe ben Amram, Moshe Rabbeinu.

Today's daf is sponsored in memory of Elan Ganeles who was murdered yesterday.

Rabbi Yochanan says that the concept of heiter mitztaref l'issur, which means that even if there is not a requisite amount of a forbidden item but it is mixed with a permitted item and one ate a requisite amount of the combination, one would be liable by Torah law, is true only in the case of a nazir who eats bread soaked in wine. This is derived from the verse which says it explicitly by the nazir. Zeiri disagrees and brings another case where it is true as well - offering chametz on the altar, based on a drasha on the word "all." A difficulty is raised against Zeiri as there are more cases as well and why did he not mention them, but that difficulty is resolved. Rav Dimi ruled like Rabbi Yochanan. Abaye raises a question on this ruling from a Mishna in Tvul Yom 2:3 regarding a combination of chulin and truma and Rabbi Yochanan's explanation of the Mishna where he explains why the ruling is strict there as a non-kohen would be liable for eating an olive bulk. Abaye's assumption is that Rabbi Yochanan meant an olive bulk of the combination, as per heiter mitztaref l'issur. However, Rav Dimi explains that Rabbi Yochanan meant that if in the mixture, there was an olive bulk of the forbidden item that if eaten together, one would eat an entire olive bulk of the forbidden item in the time it takes to eat half a loaf of bread, that would make one liable on a Torah level as an olive bulk of forbidden item was eaten. Abaye questions whether that halacha is by Torah law and Rav Dimi responds that it is. Abaye brings three tannaitic sources from which to prove that it is not a Torah law. However, Rav Dimi has resolutions to Abaye's questions.

Nazir 35 - February 27, 6 Adar Feb 27, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Nazir 35

This week's learning is sponsored by Hilary & Eric Rothman in memory of Dr. Simra Shein, z"l, Simcha Ezra Ben Noach. "A beloved husband, father and grandfather, an accomplished surgeon and a highly respected gentleman. He loved his family, learning Torah and helping people."

Today's daf is sponsored by Risa Tzohar in loving memory of her daughter Esther Deena Harari z"l.

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of Hillel and Yagel Yaniv.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria used the words "seeds to skin" for his own halacha so how does he learn about rules of prat, klal and prat that are derived from there? Either he holds only by ribui and miut or perhaps he can learn two things from that verse. From where would Rabbi Eliezer learn prat, klal and prat? Three other examples are suggested. An example is brought of klal, prat and klal. Then several questions are asked comparing the different methods of extrapolation.

Nazir 34 - February 26, 5 Adar Feb 26, 2023

Show notes

This month's learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen for a refuah shleima for Refael Itamar Tzvi ben Devorah Esther. "A doctor who has healed thousands of people with his medical expertise, providing endless care and love at all hours of the day and night. May Hashem give him the same attention and grant him a full and speedy recovery."

This week's learning is sponsored by Natanya Slomowitz in honor of the birth of their two newest granddaughters, Yahav Ahuva bat Shifra and Gal Slomowitz and Keshet Naomi bat Sivan and Ariel Sheleg.

The Mishna stated that if the person they were betting on turned around and was never identified, none of them are nezirim. This implies that if they identified the person, those who are right would be nezirim. The Gemara proves that this opinion must be Rabbi Yehuda who held that if there was a pile and one said, "I will be a nazir if there are 100 kur in the pile," and the pile gets lost or stolen, the person is not a nazir. A similar, but different Mishna is brought regarding those who bet on a koi, an animal that it is unclear if it is a domesticated on a non-domesticated animal. Six people bet they will be a nazir if it is a domesticated animal or not, is a domesticated animal or not, is both, is neither, and then three people bet on whether any of the previous are or are not or are all nezirim. The Mishna rules that they are all nezirim. There could also be a case where one person took on nine terms of nezirut in this way. How? If a nazir ate an olive bulk of grapes, grape seeds, and skins together, one would get lashes as those can combine for the requisite amount. Is the amount needed for wine different from grapes? The earlier tradition was that the amount was a quarter-log of wine. Rabbi Akiva ruled that if one soaked bread with wine, and ate bread the size of an olive bulk, one would also get lashes. Some think that he disagrees also about the requisite amount and says it is an olive bulk. One can be obligated separate sets of lashes if one eats an olive bulk of grapes and also an olive bulk of grape seeds, etc. but Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria disagrees. He also obligates differently for grape seeds and skins as he does not require an olive bulk but requires two seeds and one skin as per the verse in the Torah. Which word in the Torah means seeds and which skins? There is a tannaitic debate about this. Our Mishna doesn't follow Rabbi Eliezer who prohibited also the leaves and edible tendrils of the vine. Their debate is based on a different method of extrapolating the verse ribui and miut or prat, klal and prat. The Gemara delves farther into the prat, klal and prat drasha to better understand why they reached the exact conclusion that they reached and also to define the terms mentioned in the drasha.

Nazir 33 - Shabbat February 25, 4 Adar Feb 24, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of a big yom huledet sameach to Safta Abby Flamholz on her half-century birthday! From Sigal, Zach & Nitzan.

Beit Hillel's language in the Mishna is difficult as he says "The one whose words do not come to be is a nazir." Shouldn't it be the opposite? Rav Yehuda suggests changing the language to read "The one whose words come true." Abaye leaves the original language and suggests that Beit Hillel is referring to a case where one switched one's original statement and added to it that even if the opposite is true, they will still become a nazir. The Mishna is then teaching that we follow the end of the person's statement. If the person they were betting on turned around, the tanna kama rules that none of them become a nazir. The Gemara infers that if we identify who it is, the one whose statement came true is a nazir. According to whose opinion is this?

Nazir 32 - February 24, 3 Adar Feb 24, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Sarah Zahavi in honor of her sister Hasya and her love of learning. Today's daf is sponsored by Hinda Herman in memory of her dear mother Ethel Bat Chaim on her yahrzeit. Today's daf is sponsored by Linda Freedman in memory of her father Leon Pultman on his 8th yahrzeit. Husband of Thelma Pultman and father of Linda, Sheila and Gwen. "Dad had a special love of learning about Jewish history and our people. May his neshama have an aliyah." Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in memory of her father, Melvyn Goldstein, on his third yahrzeit. "Only now that you are gone am I understanding the wisdom of your ways." The Mishna says that if one drank wine while being a nazir, those days still count as their nazirite days. This does not seem to follow either the rabbis or Rabbi Yosi's position as the rabbis require one to add as many days as one spent drinking wine while a nazir, and Rabbi Yosi requires a minimum of thirty days without drinking wine, regardless of how long the nazirite period was supposed to be. However, the Gemara explains that one can explain the Mishna according to each opinion. From the fact that Beit Shamai hold hekdesh by mistake is hekdesh and yet one who dissolved his nazirite vow, the sacrifices are no longer sanctified, we can learn to Beit Hillel that even though substitution by mistake is sanctified, if one dissolved the sanctity of the first animal, the sanctity would be canceled as well. In animal tithes, if one calls the 9th or 11th animal tenth by mistake, the animal is sanctified. Is this true as well if one intentionally called the 9th or 11th the tenth? Can we infer the answer to this question from our Mishna which makes reference to this law? If one vowed to become a nazir, assuming the animal in their possession would be used for the sacrifice, but it gets stolen, can one dissolve the vow on that basis? It depends upon whether the animal was stolen before or after the vow as if it was only stolen later, that is nolad (something unexpected that was not in existence at the time) and one cannot dissolve a vow using nolad. This is what confused Nachum HaMadi when he permitted nezirim who came to Israel after the destruction and when they realized there was no Temple in which to bring their sacrifices, they tried to dissolve their vows and he dissolved them based on the fact that had they realized the Temple would have been destroyed and they would have no way to finish their nazirite term, they never would have vowed. Isn't this nolad? Rav Yosef raises a question on the Mishna because of a verse from Yirmiyahu 7:4 that alludes to the fact that the temple will be destroyed and therefore the nezirim should have known! If two people are walking and see someone from afar and bet on who it is by taking upon being a nazir and then others take a bet and take on being a nazir if one of them, both of them, or neither of them are nezirim, there are three opinions in the Mishna about which of them are nezirim. Beit Hillel's language in the Mishna is difficult as he says "The one who's words do not come to be is a nazir." Shouldn't it be the opposite? Rav Yehuda suggests changing the language to read "The one whose words come true."

Nazir 31 - February 23, 2 Adar Feb 23, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of Faye Darack, one of Hadran's dedicated learners who passed away yesterday. Yehi zichra baruch.

Beit Shamai holds that if one sanctified something by mistake, it is effective. Beit Hillel disagree. An example is brought in the Mishna of one who said that the first black ox to leave my house will be sanctified and a white ox left the house first. Or the first gold coin to come in my hand, or the first wine barrel and silver came first or a barrel of oil. Beit Shamai holds it is sanctified, Beit Hillel says it is not. There are three explanations in the Gemara regarding the details of the case and what in fact becomes sanctified according to Beit Shamai - is it the white one or the first black one that came out? What is the "mistake"? Was the declaration referring to what will happen or what did happen? Difficulties are raised on each of the interpretations and are resolved. Rav Chisda said that white bulls are superior to black bulls. This assumption is questioned from our Mishna and also from a different statement of Rav Chisda. In order to reconcile this, they distinguish between bulls in the Kerman Province where white bulls are superior, and everywhere else where black bulls are superior. The Mishna discusses what happens to animals that were sanctified by someone who was a nazir but then dissolved his vow. The halacha is that the animals are no longer sanctified. Beit Hillel uses this to argue against Beit Shamai as they claimed that mistaken sanctification is effective. Beit Shamai retorts that how can Beit Hillel explain the law regarding animal tithes as if one mistakenly counts the 9th or 11th as the tenth, it is sanctified. Beit Hillel claims that it is derived from a verse in the Torah and is therefore specific just for that specific type of error.

Nazir 30 - 2nd Day of Rosh Chodesh Adar - February 22, 1 Adar Feb 22, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Nazir 30

This month's learning is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father, Professor Dov Zlotnick who taught his five girls the love of learning! "We miss you!" Today's daf is sponsored by Leah Goldford on the first yahrzeit of her father, Moshe ben Mayer known as Moe. "We miss your humor, your daily check-in calls, and mostly your amazing hugs. Still can't quite believe you're gone. We love you."

In what situation can a child take the money his father set aside for nazir offerings and use it for his own nazir sacrifices? Rabbi Yosi says it is only when following the father's death the son decided to become a nazir and use his father's money, but not if the father and son were both nazirs before the father's death. This rule applies only to sons and not to daughters. According to Rabbi Yochanan it is a halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai. Why does Rabbi Yochanan need to explain this, isn't it obvious that this halacha relates to sons and not to daughters as sons can inherit and daughters do not? It is necessary to apply the law in a case when a man only had daughters to teach that it is not based on inheritance laws but on halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai. Do the rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yosi? A source is brought to prove that they disagree and permit both scenarios. Are these laws connected to inheritance in some way? If two sons both want to take on being a nazir, do they share the money or does the first one to become a nazir and say he will use the money get exclusive rights? If one is a firstborn does he get a double portion? Do these laws only apply to a regular type of nazir or is it also applicable to one who takes on a nazir olam? If the father set aside the money for the completion of his nazirite term before he died and the son became an impure nazir and wanted to use it for the sacrifices brought for a nazir who became impure or vice-versa, could he? All these questions remain unanswered.

Nazir 29 - 1st Day of Rosh Chodesh Adar - February 21, 30 Shevat Feb 21, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Nazir 29

This week's learning is dedicated by Phyllis & Yossie Hecht in memory of Phyllis's father's 14th yahrzeit, l'zecher HaRav Yerachmiel Binyanim ben Zalman Tzvi Witkin. "Jerry Witkin, as he was affectionately known to all, was a true source of nachat to his friends, family and clal yisrael. Dad was a friend to all, activist and champion of causes and sameach b'chelko. As this week is Parshat Terumah, Dad only knew had to give and never learned how to take. It is so appropriate to commemorate this part of Adar in your memory as the yahrzeit is the first day of Rosh Chodesh Adar. Meshenichnas Adar Marbim B'Simcha! Dad was a baal koreh par excellence since he was 11 years old-and on Purim was the baal koreh of Megilat Esther which brought joy to so many. Your legacy of 6 children, 29 grandchildren and ever growing great-grandchildren - all Torah Jews continues to live on. You are so missed and we have been so blessed. Yehi Zichro Baruch."

Why can a man make his son become a nazir but a woman cannot? Rabbi Yochanan says it is a halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai. Reish Lakish says it is because it is part of the father's obligation of chinuch (education) for his son. Seven questions are brought against Reish Lakish's opinion including, why wouldn't a woman also be obligated to educate her child, why wouldn't it apply to daughters as well, and how can the relatives protest the father's educating of his child. In answer to the seventh question, the Gemara assumes that Reish Lakish holds like Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda that by Torah law one does not need to slaughter birds. A question is raised against that as it seems from another source that Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda does hold birds need proper slaughtering by Torah law. But, in the end, it can be explained that the other source was referring to rabbinic law. It is suggested that Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish's debate between Rebbi and Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda regarding the cut-off age at which a father can no longer take on a nazirite vow for his son. But that suggestion is rejected. Rebbi and Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda have the same debate as Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yosi as found in the Tosefta Nidda 5:6.

Nazir 28 - February 20, 29 Shevat Feb 20, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Nazir 28

Today's daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson and Arthur Gould in memory of Carol's mother, Irma Robinson, Hudda Bat Moshe, z"l. Today is her 8th yahrtzeit. "Irma moved from New Haven to Chicago to marry Lou and build a rich life there including lifelong friends, work she loved at a nearby high school library, and active participation in her synagogue. She lived with Alzheimer's for seven years with dignity and strength and never forgot Carol or her sister. She would be proud of Carol studying daf yomi." Rava brings a long braita to raise a difficulty with Rav Nachman who differentiated between blemished and unblemished animals - if so, the braita should have mentioned that as well. The Gemara answers the question in the same way they answered Rav Hamnuna's question that preceded Rava's question. There is a debate between three - tanna kama, Rabbi Akiva and Rebbi (or Rabbi Meir). The Gemara even brings a fourth opinion. Is it until the blood is sprinkled, as that permits the woman to drink wine and therefore the husband can no longer claim that it is in the category of vows he can nullify? Or is it until the animal is slaughtered as it will cause the animal to be left to burn and we don't like to destroy sanctified items? Or is it until she shaves as he can claim shaving her head will be disgusting and therefore it is in the category of vows he can nullify? Or is it until shaving for a different reason as the shaving permits her to drink wine, not the sacrifices? A question is asked about destroying the sacrifice as sacrifices slaughtered for the wrong reason can be brought on the altar? It is resolved by saying they were referring to the sin offering which cannot be offered. The debate about shaving her hair being disgusting to her husband is based on a debate about how one perceives wearing a wig - is that a good alternative or not? A father can make his son into a nazir but a mother cannot. Why? What happens when a father makes his son a nazir and the son or relatives protest? What happens to money or animals that were already set aside for the sacrifice?

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected