Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Nedarim 89 - January 22, 29 Tevet Jan 22, 2023

Show notes

This week's learning is sponsored by Cindy Dolgin for the yahrzeits of Mira and Avram Dolgin. "Loving in-laws of Cindy and dedicated public servants of The Zionist and Democratic State of Israel."

Today's daf is sponsored by Sari Esserman in memory of her father Moshe ben Yosef Hakohen.

Today's daf is sponsored by Marcia Baum in loving memory of her mother Helen Baum, Chaya Chana Alter bat Chana v'Yekutiel Yehudah on her 7th yahrzeit. "Mom was a lover of learning and yahadut who instilled those values in her daughters. She is sorely missed!"

The Mishna rules that if a vow is made by a woman to start in thirty days, if she gets married before the vow takes effect, her husband cannot nullify the vow. If she was married at the time she made the vow (to start at a later date) and her husband nullified the vow but she got divorced before the vow took effect, the nullification is still valid. This Mishna rules that the nullification follows the time the vow was made and not the time it takes effect. This issue also was raised in a similar case of a woman who vows to be a nazir when she gets married or when she gets divorced. There, Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva debate whether we follow the time the vow was made or the time it takes effect. Is this the same debate or can we distinguish between the cases? The Mishna stated at the end that if a woman vowed and on the same day got divorced and remarried to the same person, her husband would not be able to nullify the vow she made earlier that day before they were remarried. The Mishna ended with the words: "This is the rule..." What do those words come to include in our Mishna and what do they come to include in a Mishna that appeared previously on Nedarim 71a on a similar topic but regarding a woman who was betrothed both times and not married? The Mishna lists nine cases where a father cannot nullify his daughter's vows. The main reasons why he cannot nullify are: 1. if she is already a bogeret (has reached maturity), 2. if she was married already (and now widowed or divorced), and 3. if her father died. The Mishna rules that if she makes a vow on condition that she will not benefit from others if she does work for her husband or the reverse, the husband can nullify the vow even though it the condition has not been fulfilled and the vow has not yet taken effect. The Gemara quotes a braita which shows there is a tannaitic debate regarding one of these cases and a different case. Rabbi Natan holds that since the vow has not yet taken effect, he cannot nullify it.

Nedarim 88 - Shabbat January 21, 28 Tevet Jan 20, 2023

Show notes

The contradiction between Rabbi Meir in the Mishna and Rabbi Meir regarding a city of refuge is resolved by distinguishing between the cases and showing that the debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir was derived specifically from the words in the verses of the Torah on that topic. If one vows to not let his son-in-law benefit from him, in what way can he give a gift to his daughter so that the son-in-law won't benefit? The Mishna proscribes what to do according to Rabbi Meir's approach who holds that whatever a woman accepts the right to use the item goes straight to her husband. Rav and Shmuel rule differently on this topic. A contradiction is brought against Rav from laws of eruv, but is resolved as a distinction is made between the cases. Ravina raises a question from a braita and Rav Ashi resolves it.

Nedarim 87 - January 20, 27 Tevet Jan 20, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Gordon Marx in honor of Sara Marx's Hebrew birthday. "Happy birthday!"

If the Mishna teaches us that one needs to know exactly whose vow he is nullifying from the verse in the Torah saying "her", why when it comes to a mourner, a braita rules that tearing clothing for a relative, if the tearing is done with the wrong person in mind, it is valid, even though it is learned from a verse "for Shaul and for Yonatan" which would seem to also indicate the need one to know for whom they are tearing. Two different answers are brought to resolve the contradiction between the Mishna and the braita. The first answer is to distinguish between a case (the braita) where one did it generally or was told generally about a relative and then intended when tearing for the wrong person, and a case (our Mishna) where one was told or did the action specifically for a particular person and it turns out it was the wrong person. The second answer is that in the braita, he realized the mistake within a few seconds (toch k'dei dibur) and therefore it was valid and the Mishna was in a case where he realized his error beyond that short time frame. A braita is brought to support each response. If one forbade two things in one vow, if the husband/father ratifies part, the whole thing is ratified. But if he nullified only part, neither part is nullified. The Gemara explains that the Mishna goes according to Rabbi Yishmael and then brings Rabbi Akiva and the rabbi's positions who each disagree with Rabbi Yishmael and with each other. From where do they each derive their opinions? If one didn't know that he could nullify his wife's/daughter's vows, even if he heard the vow earlier, he can nullify it on the day he learns that he can nullify it. But if he knew he could nullify but not that it was a vow that needed to be/could be nullified, Rabbi Meir and the rabbis disagree about whether he can/cannot nullify it later when he discovers that. Rabbi Meir's opinion here contradicts his opinion regarding a blind accidental murderer who is punished by having to go to a refuge city even though his knowledge was only partial, whereas, in our Mishna, Rabbi Meir agrees with the rabbis in the first case and considered partial knowledge only partial.

Nedarim 86 - January 19, 26 Tevet Jan 19, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Sharon Mink in honor of the 40th anniversary of their Aliya.

Rav Huna son of Rabbi Yehoshua answered the contradiction in Shmuel's rulings by explaining that Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri's position is not a case where the woman is forbidding something that is not yet in the world as her vow refers to her hands and what they can create, and her hands are in this world. However, the Gemara points out that she is still referring to what her hands will create at a potential future point if and when she gets divorced and therefore it still should be considered something that is not yet in this world. In order to answer this question, several different rabbis suggest making comparisons to other cases. Each rejects the comparison of the previous one and suggests an alternative. In the end, all the comparisons are rejected as a woman getting divorced is not something that is clear will happen and not something in the woman's control. Rav Ashi suggests a different answer. Although the woman does not own her produce fully, she has the rights to forbid it as Rava said that three things can remove a lien that is on one's possessions: sanctifying it (which is similar to forbidding something by a vow), chametz on Pesach and freeing a slave. Even if one were to say the rabbi's strengthened the husband's rights to be more like a buyer's still the vow will take effect if and when he divorces her. If a man nullified his wife's/daughter's vow but was under a misimpression such as, he thought it was his wife who vowed, but it was in fact his daughter, or he thought she vowed to be a nazir but she vowed something else or he thought she vowed not to eat a certain type of food, but it was a different type, when he realizes his mistake, he needs to nullify the vow again.

Nedarim 85 - January 18, 25 Tevet Jan 18, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Nedarim 85

Today's daf is sponsored by Emma Rinberg in honor of the 70th birthday of her husband Richard. "May Hashem bless you with good health and happiness for many years to come to enjoy our family - learning, teaching and inspiring us." Today's daf is sponsored by Laura Shechter in memory of her dear friend Daniel Maurice Ulmer, Moshe ben Shmuel and Sarah, on the occasion of his 3rd yahrzeit. "Daniel, your light lives on in the hearts of those who knew and loved you." Today's daf is sponsored by Leah Herzog in loving memory of her father, Dr. Rudolf Frisch, Reuven Abiya ben Mordechai v'Leah, on his 30th yahrzeit. "He was a brilliant man of pristine integrity who encouraged intellectual curiosity. Daddy, I miss you and love you. Yehi zichro baruch." In trying to resolve the apparent contradiction between two lines in the Mishna, Rav Hoshaya suggests that each line reflects a different tannaitic opinion (found in a different source) regarding whether or not the benefit received from giving a gift to a Kohen/Levite can be considered to have financial value. However, the Gemara explains that the root of the debate in the other source is not about whether the benefit is considered to have financial value or not. First, the debate is explained differently, however, that interpretation is rejected as well. But finally, the debate is explained differently. Rava then answers the apparent contradiction in the Mishna in a different manner. If a woman forbids anything she produces to a particular individual, the husband cannot nullify that vow as it is neither affliction nor relating to his relationship with her. But if she vows that he will not benefit from anything she produces, there is a debate about whether he does not need to nullify, as she has committed in the marriage that he receives her produce, or he can nullify because what she produces beyond the basics is her own, or he can nullify now in case they later divorce. Shmuel holds by the last opinion. A contradiction is raised as this seems to imply one can sanctify something that does not yet exist and that contradicts a ruling of Shmuel elsewhere. A possible answer is suggested but immediately rejected. Rav Yosef brings an answer but Abaye rejects it. Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua brings a different answer.

Nedarim 84 - January 17, 24 Tevet Jan 17, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Nedarim 84

Today's daf is sponsored by Adrienne Robb-Fund in honor of her friend and chavruta, Joanna Rom, on her birthday!

Today's daf is sponsored by Idana Goldberg on the first yahrzeit of Meyer Weitz, Meir Ben Yehoshua v'Leah. "An Orthodox feminist, my grandfather was so proud of my gemara knowledge and even in his 101st year always asked what masechet I was learning."

Rava challenged Rav Nachman from a different Mishna in the chapter which seemed to imply that the husband was included in a vow made against 'all people'. The difficulty is resolved by distinguishing between the two Mishnayot. From our Mishna it has been established that a woman who vows to not benefit from others can collect the produce left in the fields but cannot collect produce from the tithe of the poor people. However, in the Tosefta the tithe for the poor people is added to the list with the other gifts for the poor. Rav Yosef suggests that the contradiction between the Mishna and the Tosefta can be resolved by connecting each source to a different tannaitic opinion. To prove this, he quotes a Mishna in Demai 4:3 which relates a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis regarding the obligation to separate the tithe for the poor from produce taken from an am haaeretz. He connects their opinions there to whether or not the one who separates the tithe for the poor can decide who they want to give it to which would then translate as still being "owned" by them. But Abaye rejects Rav Yosef's explanation because he does not see the point of contention between them as Rav Yosef did. Rava offers a different resolution in that the Mishna and the Tosefta refer to two different cases of the tithe for the poor - one who set aside it from in the house and the one who set it aside in the threshing floor/field. From the one at home, the owner can choose who to give it to but the one in the field has to be left ownerless for anyone to come to take. In the Mishna, there were two laws regarding a woman who vows that Kohanim/Levites won't benefit from her. From the first case, it can be inferred that getting to choose who to give the gifts to is not considered financial value. From the second case, the opposite can be inferred. Rav Hoshaya suggests that each case represents a different tannaitic opinion and he quotes a braita where those opinions appear and explains how the root of the debate there is the same as here.

Nedarim 83 - January 16, 23 Tevet Jan 16, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Nedarim 83

Today's daf is sponsored by Sari Esserman in memory of her aunt Miriam bat Yosef Hakohen.

Today's daf is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to their son Eliav and his wife Noia on becoming parents! "Celebrating the Shabbat brit together was very meaningful yehi ratzon that Shachar Yosef will always reach out to Hashem, in the spirit of the pasuk that his parents related to in choosing his name - in Yeshayahu Chapter 26 "נפשי אויתיך בלילה אף רוחי אשחרך", coupled with the memory of Debbie's father – Yosef Gindsberg z"l, a unique and loving individual who epitomized the concept of Torah U'madda and beyond."

According to a second version, Rav Asi asked Rabbi Yochanan about a case where a woman vowed not to eat two loaves of bread and refraining from eating one is considered suffering, but from the other is not. Rabbi Yochanan answered that he only nullifies the one that causes her d suffering and not the other. A mishna and braita from Nazir are brought to raise difficulties with Rabbi Yochanan's answer, but the difficulties are resolved. Rav Yosef explains the first difficulty, by saying there is a unique law by a nazir that there is no taking on bring a nazir in a partial manner. Abaye makes an inference from Rav Yosef's words and questions them and clarifies the statement Rav Yosef made. The Gemara then questions Abaye's reading as well but resolves it. The second difficulty is answered that both abstaining from drinking wine and refraining from becoming impure to the dead is considered suffering because he who eulogized, buries, cries for others, others will do it for them as well. If a woman forbids herself from benefitting from all people, the husband cannot nullify the vow because he is not included in all people, and in addition to that, she can take from gifts for the poor. This is one way to understand the words of the Mishna and that is assuming that the husband is not included in 'all people.' But there are two more ways to understand the words of the Mishna. In one they understand that the husband is included in 'all people' and she is actually forbidden to him as well and in the second it is assumed that the husband is not included in 'all people' and the two parts of the sentence in the Mishna speak of two different situations (a woman within the marriage and a woman after she has been divorced). If a woman has vowed that the Kohanim and Levites cannot benefit her, what happens to the gifts meant to be given to them from her produce?

Nedarim 82 - January 15, 22 Tevet Jan 15, 2023

Show notes

Study Guide Nedarim 82

Today's daf is sponsored by Shaindy Kurzmann in loving memory of her mother A"H, Rivkah bat HaRav Simcha Bunim, on her 24th yahrzeit. "With deep appreciation for her encouragement to always keep learning."

Rava asks Rav Nachman if, according to the rabbis, a vow to refrain from sexual relations is considered an affliction of the soul or something that affects the relationship between the husband and wife. Rav Nachman tries to answer it from a Mishna that appears later in our chapter, but Rava rejects the proof based on Rav Huna's assertion that the rest of the chapter is all Rabbi Yosi's opinion. Shmuel says in the name of Levi that if a woman forbids herself from someone in particular the husband can nullify the vow. Two difficulties are raised against this from cases in our Mishna which seem very similar, yet the husband can nullify them. An answer is brought but is rejected. In the end, the answer is that the Mishna is Rabbi Yosi's opinion and Levi held by the rabbis. Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about a case where a woman vowed not to eat two loaves and refraining from eating one was considered affliction for her, but the other was not. One says that he nullifies the entire vow and the other says he only nullifies the one that was considered affliction.

Nedarim 81 - Shabbat January 14, 21 Tevet Jan 13, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in memory of her mother Shirley Tydor, Sara Raizel bat Mordechai Yitzchak and Freida Sima on what would have been her 94th birthday. "May she be a melitzat yosher for her beloved granddaughters zivug hagun bikarov mamash."

How is the contradiction between what Rabbi Yosi says in our Mishna and what Rabbi Yosi says regarding a spring shared by two cities reconciled? A distinction is made between the importance of having clean clothes, as dirty clothes can lead to madness, and a clean body, which does not cause the same. In the context of problems that arise from dirt, a statement was sent from Israel stating the importance of three things - cleanliness, good company, and teaching Torah to poor people. Why is it that many Torah scholars do not have sons who become Torah scholars? There are five different answers to this question. Isi bar Yehuda did not understand how Rabbi Yosi could have held that one city's laundry can take precedence over the other's life. Rabbi Yosi's son found a verse from which this can be derived. If Rabbi Yosi doesn't hold that refraining from bathing is an affliction of the soul, can the husband nullify that kind of vow anyway as it is something that can affect the relationship between husband and wife? Or does he not put it in that category? There is a debate among amoraim about this. A braita is brought to support the opinion that Rabbi Yosi would allow the husband to nullify that vow. Some questions arise from the braita quoted and they are answered. Rava asks Rav Nachman if a vow to refrain from sexual relations is considered an affliction of the soul or something that affects the relationship between the husband and wife.

Nedarim 80 - January 13, 20 Tevet Jan 13, 2023

Show notes

Today's daf is dedicated in honor of our daughter, Chani, upon finishing three and a half years of army service. We are proud of you daily for the dedication and hard work you have put in toward serving our country.

Today's daf is sponsored by Heather Stone in memory of her father, Robert Stone, Yehuda Leib ben Naphtali Halevy marking eleven months since his death. "May his neshama have an aliya, b'zchut our continued learning."

Today's daf is sponsored by Wendy Proskin on the occasion of her daughter, Orli Zucker's bat mitzvah this Shabbat, Parshat Shemot. "May you always be as brave as Shifrah and Puah. Thank you for being my chevruta! We love you, Mommy and Abba."

The Gemara continues to detemine what the cases are in the Mishnah on which there is a debate "If I wash, if I don't wash, if I adorn myself, if I don't adorn myself." Eventually, it is explained that the cases of "if I do" is where she vows "Konam to me the pleasure of washing/adornin myself, if I will wash/adorn myself today" and the cases of "if not..." is an oath - an oath that I will not wash/adorn myself. How can rabbis claim that washing is torture for the soul when on Yom Kippur you don't receive a karet if you bathe? How can Rabbi Yosi say that refraining from bathing is not torture of the soul, when in Tosefta Bava Metzia in a different matter, he says that refraining from washing clothes is considered torture for the soul to the extent that he puts the same weight on that as on water for surviving?

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected