Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Nazir 27 - February 19, 28 Shevat Feb 19, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson and Art Gould in memory of Art's mother Shirley, Sarah bat Avraham v'Ziche Reicha. Today is her 9th yahrtzeit. "She was a life-long learner and a striver; a woman born before her time. She sewed, she made mosaics; she was always busy with something. She lives on in the tallitot and quilts she made for so many members of her family and her synagogue." Rav Shimi bar Ashi raised a difficulty with those who limited the law about unspecified money for the nazirite sacrifices being used for voluntary burnt offerings for money only and not animals, pieces of silver, or piles of beams. Rav Shimi showed that also birds can remain unspecified until a later stage. Rav Papa responded with a source showing that animals do not remain unspecified, even in a case where one didn't specifically designate each one for each particular sacrifice as when a nazir set aside a female sheep, male sheep, and ram, but did not specify which sacrifice each one is for, it is as if they are already specified. Rav Shimi rejects Rav Papa's response as when one specifies those particular animals, it is clear which was meant for which sacrifice since the Torah specifically says that a female sheep is brought as a sin offering, the male sheep for a burnt offering and the ram for a peace offering and therefore, it is as if they were specifically designated. Earlier, Rav Nachan stated that even though the law of unspecified money does not apply to an animal, it would apply to an animal with a blemish, as it could be sold immediately and was therefore considered like money. Rav Hamnuna and Rava bring tannaitic sources to raise a difficulty against Rav Nachman.

Nazir 26 - Shabbat February 18, 27 Shevat Feb 17, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Catriella Freedman in memory of her father, Zvi Stein, Zvi ben Harav Mordechai David, on his 3rd yahrzeit. "There isn't a day that goes by that I don't think of you, your warmth, your humor and smile, your optimism." Today's daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson and Art Gould in memory of Art's father Joseph, Yosef ben Shlomo Shabtai v'Rachel z"l. Today is his 24nd yahrzeit. "Joe was an ordinary man of extraordinary dignity, decency and dedication. After WWII he worked for the INS welcoming immigrants to membership in America. I miss him and wish we had had more time together." Rabbi Yochanan had said that the law regarding unspecified funds can be used for voluntary offerings (if the person is no longer obligated in the sacrifice) even though there is money for a sin offering mixed in, is a unique halakha for a nazir. However, this seems to be true in other cases as well. How can Rabbi Yochanan's statement be explained? Rav Ashi defines (two different version of his definition) what is considered specified/unspecified. Rava explains that this law of unspecified being used for voluntary offerings is only true if the sin offering money is still mixed in and a braita is brought to support his claim. A number of rabbis bring statements that the unspecified law is only true for money and not other things such as animals, a block of silver, and a pile of beams. There is a debate about exactly which ones are excluded from this law. Rav Shimi bar Ashi raises a question on this list of exceptions as he brings Rav Chisda who holds that birds can remain unspecified.

Nazir 25 - February 17, 26 Shevat Feb 17, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Esther Chazon in memory of her mother, Dorothy Sobel Glickler on her 12th yahrzeit. "Mom loved studying Torah and doing chesed, she encouraged us to follow that path." Today's daf is sponsored by Elisheva Gray in memory of her dear teacher and friend Gidi Nahshon, Yoel Melech ben Moshe v'Sarah, z''l on his eighth yahrzeit. "Gidi's family made Aliyah from Prague. He had a deep love for Israel and for Jewish texts and traditions. He was a wonderful teacher and caring friend. I have no doubt he would be pleased to see that I found my way to Hadran, am learning daf yomi and am still in the hands of an excellent teacher." How can unspecified funds designated for sacrifices for a nazir who no longer needed them (such as a woman whose husband nullified her vow) be used to buy voluntary offerings? Isn't their money in there designated to a sin offering which should be thrown in the Dead Sea and should not be able to be used at all. Rabbi Yochanan says this is a unique halacha (halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai) that was passed down regarding a nazir. Reish Lakish holds that is it derived from a verse in Vayikra 22:18 that vows can be turned into voluntary burnt offerings. If it is derived from the verse, why is it only unspecified funds and not specified? The reason given is because Rabbi Yishmael already taught in a braita from verses in Devarim 12:26-27 that sin offerings cannot be turned into burnt offerings and that must be referring to specified funds. After answering the question, the Gemara raises three questions on sections of the braita and explains them.

Nazir 24 - February 16, 25 Shevat Feb 16, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Savta Becki Goldstein in honor of her two eldest grandsons chayalim Eitan Efrayim and Gilad Yoel on their twentieth birthdays. "With gratitude to Hashem for the z'chut of reaching this milestone with them. Our wishes for briut and simcha and hatzlacha in their endeavors and may Hashem keep them safe and all our chayalim. Amen."

A woman who was a nazir and separated animals for her sacrifice and then her husband nullified the vow, what happens to those animals? It depends on whether the money used to purchase the animals was her husband's money or her own. If it was his, the animals are no longer sanctified. If it was her own money, the one designated for the sin offering is left to die, the burnt and peace offerings are offered as voluntary offerings. But the peace offering has unique laws - it can only be eaten for one day, like the nazirite peace offering but is not eaten with loaves of unleavened bread that usually accompany the nazirite offering. If she had just designated money for the animals, all that money is used to purchase voluntary offerings. If she had designated money and specified what would be purchased with the money, the same concept applies as before - the money for the sin offering is sent to the Dead Sea as it cannot be used for anything, the money for the burnt and peace offerings are used to buy voluntary burnt and peace offerings as per the details in the earlier case. There is a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis about whether a husband is obligated to pay for his wife's sacrifices by a commitment written in the ketuba. Which one of these opinions fits in with our Mishna regarding the husband who gave money to his wife for sacrifices? Two different versions are brought of a debate regarding this issue between Rav Chisda and Rava. What would be a scenario where she would have her own money to purchase the sacrifices? Avuha bar Ihi listed four cases in which a nazir peace offering is brought without the accompanying loaves. What are the four cases? Are there not more? What about a nazir sacrifice that was slaughtered incorrectly (either not for the sake of the right sacrifice or it was a an animal in its first year, instead of its second year of life.

Nazir 23 - February 15, 24 Shevat Feb 15, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the refuah shleima of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah and their daughter, Tamar Davida bat Sarah Leah.

If a woman becomes a nazir and her husband nullifies the vow without her knowledge and she drinks wine not knowing that she is no longer a nazir, she does not get lashes by Torah law. However, Rabbi Yehuda adds that she gets lashes by rabbinic law as she intended to go against the law. A braita brings a verse from which this law is derived and Rabbi Akiva learns from there that since one who intended to sin but didn't sin is punished, how much more so one who intended to sin and actually sinned. Two other verses are brought to show how severe it is for one who intentionally sinned from that fact that one needs to atone for sins that one is not even sure they committed as in a case of doubt whether one ate a piece of permitted fat or forbidden fat from an animal (both in a case where there was one piece and it wasn't clear if it was permitted or forbidden, and a case where there were two pieces, one permitted and one forbidden and the person isn't sure which one they ate from). Why was it necessary to mention all three cases? Regarding intent, sometimes different people can do that same action but for righteous people, it will be a righteous act and for the sinner it will be a sinful act. There is a debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish about what would be a good example of this. After raising an issue with Reish Lakish's opinion, a suggestion is made that the episode with Lot and his daughters is a good example of this as they did it with good intentions and he did not. How do we know that he did not have the right intentions? Wasn't he forced into it as he was drunk? They prove how we know that Lot sinned intentionally and he is ultimately punished by Jews not being allowed to marry males from Amon and Moab, his descendants. Tamar and Zimri are brought as further examples of how the same action could be used for a positive reason and for a negative reason. Tamar was rewarded with kings and prophets and Zimri was punished as thousands of Jews were killed. A discussion ensues about one who sins for the sake of Heaven and one who does a mitzva not for the sake of Heaven - which is more valuable? The example of Yael and Sisra is brought regarding a sin for the sake of Heaven.

Nazir 22 - February 14, 23 Shevat Feb 14, 2023

Show notes

This week's learning is sponsored by Ruth Rotenberg "in commemoration of our daughter, Tanielle Gavre'ea Margalit's yahrzeit. Hard to believe it is 18 years. You continue to live within us and inspire us and so many others. Thank you to Rabbanit Farber for your tireless and inspired teaching and leadership."

Two more sources (altogether five. including the sources on Nazir 21) are brought to answer the question - when a husband nullifies his wife's vow - is it uprooted from when she took the vow or only from the moment of the nullification. The fourth source proves that it is nullified from the beginning but the last source clearly shows that it is only nullified from the moment of nullification. Mar Zutra tried to argue that one could derive from here an answer to a question Rami bar Hama raised about one who forbids an item by connecting it to a piece of meat of a peace offering. Just as the woman's status changes when the husband nullifies her vow (first she is prohibited then permitted), so does the status of the meat change as it is forbidden at first and is permitted to be eaten once the blood is sprinkled. However, there are differing opinions about whether this is an accurate comparison as the meat still maintains a certain level of sanctity, while the woman does not. In the braita previously quoted, Rabbi Shimon differentiated between two cases - one where a woman's friend said "and me" and one where she said, "I will be like you." The Gemara asks what would be the halacha if the friend said "b'ikvayich, in your footsteps?" They try to answer the question from a case in our Mishna where the woman says she will be a nazir and her husband says "and me" (which is equated to "in your footsteps" according to Tosafot as the power to nullify it is in his hands), he cannot nullify it, as if he nullifies, it will cancel his own vow, thus proving that "b'ikvayich, in your footsteps" would cause the second person's vow to be nullified as well. This proof is rejected as it is possible to understand why he can't nullify because when he says "and me" he is ratifying her vow. A difficulty is raised on the case in our Mishna where the husband says "I am a nazir and you?" - if the woman answers yes and he nullifies her vow, he is still a nazir. However, in a braita it says the opposite. This is resolved in two ways.

Nazir 21 - February 13, 22 Shevat Feb 13, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Nazir 21

Reish Lakish held that if one says "I will be a nazir" and another said "and me" and another said "and me", it is effective only if it was said immediately after (toch k'dei dibur). Support for this is brought from a braita. They also try to prove it from the fact that our Mishna listed only two people who responded "and me" and not more. But that answer is rejected as the tanna is not expected to count cases exactly as a peddlers count their wares. If so, why did the tanna not just list one person who said "and me"? Two questions are asked and sources, including our Mishna, are brought to try to answer the question. First question: when each person says "and me" are they connecting their statement to the first person who said they will be a nazir or to the person who said "and me" just before them? The second question is: when a husband nullifies the vows of his wife does it nullify them from the beginning, as if she never vowed, or is it cutting off the vow from right now? Most sources brought to answer the questions are rejected, but in the first question, they find the answer eventually in a braita.

Nazir 20 - February 12, 21 Shevat Feb 12, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Nazir 20

There were different traditions about whether Helene the Queen was a nazir for fourteen years or twenty-one. According to Rabbi Yehuda's version that it was fourteen, was it that she kept seven outside of Israel and then seven more when she got to Israel (and did not become impure to a dead person) as per Beit Hillel's opinion or was it based on Beit Shamai that she added another thirty days when she got to Israel but became impure and then ended to start all over again from the beginning and do seven more? The Gemara first proves it from the language of our Mishna and then also from a braita that it was according to Beit Hillel. If two groups of witnesses disagreed about whether a particular person took upon themselves two terms of being a nazir or five, does that person need to keep two terms as each set of witnesses agreed that the person at least took upon themselves two terms or do we view this as contradictory testimony and no set is believed? Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree. However, there was a different version of the debate that it was in a case where the disagreement was between two witnesses and not two sets of witnesses. But if it were two sets of witnesses, all would agree that they would be required to keep two terms. Rav held that they both agree in a case where the witnesses counted the terms. Rav Hama questions this statement of Rav and the rabbis of Israel agreed with his rejection fo Rav. The Mishna beginning the fourth chapter discusses cases of one who took on being a nazir by saying "and me" to someone who just took upon themselves to be a nazir. If the first one dissolved their vow, the others are dissolved as well. What happens when the situation involves a husband and wife? In what case can or can he not nullify her vow? Reish Lakish says that if one wants to take on being a nazir by saying "and me," it needs to be said immediately after the first person says "I will be a nazir." Rabbi Yehuda Nesia questioned this.

Nazir 19 - Shabbat February 11, 20 Shevat Feb 10, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Nazir 19

Today's daf is dedicated l'ilui nishmat Chana bat Reb Shimon by her sons, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and all who knew and loved her.

A braita states that a woman who became a nazir, became impure to a dead person and then her husband nullified her vow, after she had separated birds for her sacrifice, she brings the sin offering but not the burnt offering. Rav Chisda connects this source to Rabbi Yishmael's opinion. A further question is asked on the braita: when the husband nullifies her vow, it is retroactive but why does she still need to bring the sin offering? It must accord also with Rabbi Elazar the Kapar who held that anyone who refrains from things such as drinking wine has sinned as one should not cause oneself to suffer. The Gemara refers back to and resolved a language issue in the Mishna and explains important details that weren't spelled out. Rabbi Eliezer required a minimum of two days of being a nazir before becoming impure. Ulla says that he was only referring to a case of one who accepted nezirut in impurity and then left and came back. But if one was a nazir and then became impure, that is not required. Abaye raises a difficulty against Ulla and it is not resolved. Does Rabbi Eliezer mean two full days or partial days? If one took upon oneself a long period of nezirut outside the land of Israel, when one comes to Israel to bring the sacrifices, one has to redo the entire period (Beit Hillel) or perhaps only thirty days (Beit Shamai) in purity in Israel as the rabbis decreed that all land outside of Israel is impure. A story is brought of Helene the Queen who ended up with an incredibly long period of nezirut on account of this law. What is the root of the debate between Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai?

Nazir 18 - February 10, 19 Shevat Feb 10, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Nazir 18

In the fourth attempt to answer Rabbi Ashi's question, we find a source explicitly stating that one who vowed to be a nazir while impure does not shave one's hair on the seventh day of purification. Rav Chisda attributes a braita we saw on a previous page a Mishna in Keritut 20b - one to Rebbi and one to Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda - regarding their debate about when a nazir who becomes impure begins their count of nezirut again - on the seventh day of purification or the eighth. What is the basis for their debate? From Rav Chisda's explanation of the Mishna in Keritut, is it possible to understand what he holds about whether the obligation of the sacrifice begins on the night of the eighth or in the morning? A braita is quoted where two more opinions appear in connection with the dispute we saw between Rebbi and Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda - from when do you start counting the days? Is it after the sin offering was brought or after the sin and the guilt offering? What is the basis for each opinion and how does each one deal with the verses that the other uses to prove his position?

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected