Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Nedarim 41 - December 5, 11 Kislev Dec 05, 2022

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi's brother, Jerry Lock of Efrat, who passed away three years ago. "He was the first in the family to make Aliyah to Israel and was a loving husband, father, grandfather, uncle and brother who is sorely missed." Today's daf is sponsored by Rhona Fink in honor of the birth of her granddaughter Leora Galit on the 19th of Cheshvan. "May she grow to be like a Lior, a light unto others, and like a Galit, a wave, adaptable, powerful and flexible." The rabbis deliberate: What are the signs of punishment from God, as described in the Torah that the nation will be "in want of things" - what things are being referred to in that verse? Other verses are brought to teach that before a person heals, one is pardoned from all their sins. Another verse explains that the person returns to a state of youth. Another verse teaches that a sick person forgets the Torah they learned - this is proven from Rav Yosef who got sick and forgot a lot of the Torah he learned and taught and is reminded by Abaye on many occasions of the Torah that he taught Abaye before he fell ill. A similar story is told of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Chiya. When someone's time has come to pass, God's messenger can appear in any shape or form. The Gemara brings a few stories to illustrate this point. Shmuel said that one should only visit a sick person when they have a fever. What diseases is he excluding from visits and why? What foods are good for a sick person to eat? The Mishna had stated that one could heal another, even if they were forbidden to benefit from them, healing of the soul, but not healing of property. What does that mean? Can one sleep in the same bed, share the same table or eat from the same dish with someone that they are vowed to not benefit from? On what does it depend? Can they work in the same furrow?

Nedarim 41 - December 5, 11 Kislev Dec 05, 2022

Show notes

Nedarim 40 - December 4, 10 Kislev Dec 04, 2022

Show notes

This week's learning is sponsored by Naomi and Adam Ferziger in memory of Naomi's father David Weiss, Chaim Zeev ben Pessel and Yoel Greenblatt, to commemorate his 10th yahrzeit. "He was a Holocaust Survivor who proudly rebuilt his life. Kind, generous, and with a good sense of humor, he was devoted to his family and community." This week's learning is sponsored by Romi and Josh Sussman "in honor of our second son who will be joining his older brother in the IDF this week, in defense of our country and our people." Today's daf is sponsored by Diana Bloom in loving memory of her Bobe, Ita Rosa Sonabend Marmurek on her yahrzeit. Today's daf is sponsored by Debbie Engelen-Eigles in honor of the bris of her first grandchild. "May he have a long, happy, and healthy life and bring joy to all who know him." Why is it important to visit sick people and what did we learn from Rabbi Akiva about the importance of this mitzva? Should you let people know that you are sick? Why? What rewards does one receive from this mitzva in this world and in the next world? What times of day should one not visit the sick? A few drashot on the verse in Tehillim 41:3 are brought relating to God's presence around a sick person and how does that affect where one can sit when visiting? Rav and Shmuel have a debate about whether the Euphrates being full is mainly from rainwater from Israel or does it fill up from its banks. This has halakhic relevance for using it as a mikveh as water that is flowing can only be used for a mikveh if the majority of its contents are from spring water, not from rainwater. Shmuel's opinion (it fills up from its banks) contradicts a statement of his regarding using the Euphrates as a mikveh as he only permitted it in the month of Tishrei, as otherwise, one needs to be concerned that the rainwater is greater than the spring water.

Nedarim 39 - Shabbat December 3, 9 Kislev Dec 02, 2022

Show notes

The Mishna rules that one can visit a sick person if they are forbidden to benefit from them, as long as they stand and do not sit. The Gemara tries to figure out who was forbidden to who and why the sit/stand distinction? Three answers are brought – each explaining the reason for the split differently (two hold that the case is referring to when the sick person is forbidden to benefit from the visitor and one explains the reverse case). The Gemara raises a difficulty from a braita on Shmuel's interpretation, but it is resolved. What is the source for visiting the sick in the Torah? Interestingly, it is learned from Moshe's words to Korach and his followers. Rava extrapolates the verses in that scene. What seven things were created before the world was created and how does that raise a question against Rava's drasha? What did the sun and moon do during the Moshe/Korach showdown? What was God's reaction to them? Bikur cholim, visiting the sick, has no limits. What does that mean? One who visits the sick reduces their pain by 1/60. If so, why should we have 60 people visit each sick person and they will be healed?

Nedarim 38 - December 2, 8 Kislev Dec 02, 2022

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz in loving memory of her father, Shragai Cohen, Shraga Feivel ben Avraham Ben-Tzion on his 20th yahrzeit and her maternal grandparents, Rav Moshe, on the 4th of Kislev and Tzipora Mashbaum, on the 23 of Kislev. "They are greatly missed."

Today's daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson in gratitude for the loving support she has received from Hadran and its students during her illness. So many of her fellow students have been in contact and brought comfort and strength to Carol during this challenging time.

If Moshe didn't get paid from teaching Torah, what was the source of his wealth? Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chanina said that the Torah was given to Moshe for him and his family, but Moshe decided to give it to the Jewish people. Rav Chisda raises several questions against this theory until it is reinterpreted to fit with the verses. What were Moshe's great qualities that must be found in one who God chooses to communicate with? The Gemara goes on to prove from where we see that Moshe had each of these qualities. We learn from Moshe, Shmuel, Amos, and Yona that prophets are wealthy. Verses are brought to prove this. One who is vowed not to benefit from another, his wife and children can be sustained by them, but one cannot feed his/her kosher animals. There is a debate regarding non-kosher animals. Rav Huna said that one can marry off one's daughter to another if one is forbidden to benefit from another. To what case is he referring – when the father of the bride is forbidden to the future husband or when the future husband is forbidden to the father of the bride? Rabbi Yaakov said that one who forbids one's son benefit to learn Torah (different explanations regarding the exact case and who is forbidden to whom), certain basic/easy actions are permitted, like filling up water, lighting a candle. Rabbi Yitzchak adds: roasting a small fish. Rabbi Yochanan said that one can pour a cup of peace for another, even if the other is forbidden to benefit from them. What is a cup of peace? Can one feed one's Canaanite slaves? Is that considered benefit?

Nedarim 37 - December 1, 7 Kislev Dec 01, 2022

Show notes

Study Guide Nedarim 37

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom group in honor of Shira Farber 's army service and with gratitude to your parents for raising you with such strong values. "As Shira Farber drafts to צה"ל, defending the Jewish people and ensuring our security, we are reminded of what we learned with her mother in Masechet Berachot: "Rav Zutra bar Toviya said that Rav said: What is the meaning of that which is written: "He has made everything beautiful in its time?" This teaches that each and every individual, God has made their work (umanut) pleasant for them in their own eyes." Shira, we wish you years of meaningful and impactful service, and that your umanut will bring you great satisfaction."

Today's daf is dedicated to Mimi and Rafi Schachat on the birth of a baby boy last night!

Why did the Mishnah differentiate and say that it is possible to teach Midrash, Halakha and Aggada from one who is prohibited to benefit from them, but not Torah? Shmuel establishes the Mishna in the case that a fee is charged for studying the Torah and not for studying Midrash. As a difficulty is raised, the Gemara explains that the Mishna comes to teach us that it is forbidden to charge a fee for learning Midrash, but it is permitted for studying Torah. However, why should it be permitted to charge for teaching Torah if the reason that it is forbidden to receive a salary for studying Midrash is learned from several verses from Moshe Rabbeinu - as he didn't charge money, we shouldn't either? Rav and Rabbi Yochanan give two different explanations - it is possible to charge a fee for watching (babysitting) the children or for learning the punctuation of the text with the ta'amim (cantillation). The Gemara brings two difficulties about Rav's explanation (babysitting) - one from our Mishna and one from a braita. To resolve the difficulty from the Mishna, they suggest that the Mishna is referring only to minors and add words to make the Mishna work with that explanation. To resolve the difficulty from the braita, they explain the braita two other possible ways. Why didn't Rav hold like Rabbi Yochanan and why didn't Rabbi Yochanan hold like Rav?

Nedarim 36 - November 30, 6 Kislev Nov 30, 2022

Show notes

Today's daf is dedicated to my daughter Shira in honor of her drafting into the Israeli army. Wishing you much success and a meaningful service!

Two difficulties are raised against the Gemara's previous assumption that the kohen when dealing with the sacrifice of another is acting as their messenger. One question is from our Mishna and the other from a different source relating to the laws of pigul. Both difficulties are resolved. Rabbi Yochanan stated previously that all sacrifices must be performed with the intent of the one needing a sacrifice other than a particular category which can be performed by a parent for a child and therefore does not require knowledge, as a minor has no 'understanding' from a halakhic perspective. This shows that one can learn from a case where it is not possible (impossible for the child to know) to a case where it is possible (a regular person who needs to bring a sacrifice). This assumption that Rabbi Yochanan makes is challenged by two statements of Rabbi Elazar. However, both are resolved as well. If one takes trumot and ma'asrot from one's own produce to "fix" someone else's produce, can that be done without the friend's knowledge? Can this be derived from our Mishna that allows one who cannot benefit from another to have them take trumot and ma'asrot on their behalf with their knowledge? In order to ascertain this, the Gemara must figure out the details of the case in the Mishna - whose produce are the trumot and ma'asrot taken from and whose knowledge is needed? The conclusion is that the case in the Mishna is not the same case that the question is referring to. Another question is asked - if one takes trumot and ma'asrot from one's own produce to "fix" someone else's produce, who gets to choose which kohen to give the produce to, in order to be able to get "benefit" from the kohen knowing that you chose to give your truma to him? Rabbi Zeira tries to prove from our Mishna that is it the owner of the produce who chooses. However, again the Gemara proves that the Mishna is not referring to this type of case. Rabbi Yochanan holds the opposite - that it is the one whose produce it is. Why did the Mishna distinguish and say that one can teach midrash, halacha and agadda to one who can't benefit, but not Torah?

Nedarim 35 - November 29, 5 Kislev Nov 29, 2022

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Tova and David Kestenbaum in honor of the marriage of their son Gilad to Noa Goldrich, today. "May they be zoche to build a Bayit Neeman B'yisrael, in good health until 120."

Today's daf is sponsored by Emma Rinberg in loving memory of her dear friend Helen Taylor whose yahrzeit is today and in honor of her dear friend Tova Kestenbaum whose son is getting married today.

If one says, "My loaf is forbidden to you," and then gave it to them as a gift, Rava held that it was still forbidden to them. The Gemara brings a braita to raise a difficulty against Rava as it says there that if it was given to them as a gift, it is permitted. However they resolve the difficulty by explaining the braita to be in a case where first it was given to someone else and then that person gave it to the other as a gift. In that case, since it didn't belong to the original person at the time the gift was given, it was no longer included in the words of the vow. Rava asks Rav Nachman if the language of konam creates a situation that the item is like a sanctified item for the one forbidden and therefore if one accidentally benefits, would they be liable for meila? Rav Nachman proves from our Mishna that the answer is yes. However, the Gemara points out that it is a tannaitic debate. According to the understanding that there is meila for a konam, if one says, "My loaf will be forbidden to you," and then gives it to them as a gift, upon who is the meila transgression? For the original owner, it was not forbidden and the one receiving the gift could claim that they certainly wouldn't have wanted to receive the gift if they had known it was forbidden! Rav Ashi answers that while the receiver can claim they didn't want it if that would only exclude them from laws of meila while receiving the gift but once they actually use it, they are no different from a person who didn't know an item was sanctified and used it, who is liable for meila. The Mishna lists more actions one can do for another even if they are forbidden to benefit from the other - take truma and maaser for them with their knowledge, sacrifice bird offerings of zav, zava and a woman after childbirth, teach one midrash, halacha and agada, but not Torah, or teach their children Torah. The Gemara asks if when kohanim perform the sacrificial rites in the Temple are they operating as messengers of the one obligated to bring the sacrifice or as messengers of God? Can our Mishna be used to answer this question?

Nedarim 34 - November 28, 4 Kislev Nov 28, 2022

Show notes

Study Guide Nedarim 34

Today's daf is sponsored by Elliot Hearst in loving memory of his father, Moshe ben Pincus v'Flora on his 32nd yahrzeit yesterday. "He always was and continues to be a shining light in his loved ones' lives."

There are two versions of the debate between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi's understanding of our Mishna. In the first version, one holds the Mishna allows the item to be returned only in the case where the returner's property was forbidden to the one who lost their item and the other holds the Mishna is referring to both. In the second version, one holds that the case of the Mishna is only when the possessions of the one who lost an item are forbidden to the returner but not in the reverse case and the other holds the Mishna is referring to both. In each version, the Gemara raises a question from the Mishna's last line: "If it is in a place where people get paid for returning lost items, the money goes to the Temple." In the first version, the question is resolved. In the second version, it is not. Rava brings a law regarding the transgression of meila, misuse of consecrated property, in a case where one sanctified an ownerless item and then picked it up to either eat it or promised it as an inheritance to one's children. What is the difference between the cases? Rav Chiya bar Avin asked Rava a question: If one says "My loaf is forbidden to you," and then gifted it to that person, did they mean to forbid it only as long as it was their own and not if they gave it as a gift? Or was the focus of the sentence, it will be forbidden to you, and will therefore be forbidden forever and the person was saying it so as not to have the other pestering them to gift the item to them? Rava answers that the latter is the case, by providing a logical proof, but Rav Chiya questions his logic.

Nedarim 33 - November 27, 3 Kislev Nov 27, 2022

Show notes

If one says in a language of a vow, "I will not eat from someone" they are forbidden from benefitting from their food or even borrowing utensils that are used to prepare food. Why is this the case if one specified eating and not preparing the food? How far is this taken - is one forbidden to borrow a bag in which to put food one is purchasing or a horse to ride on to get the food, jewelry to wear to make one look important so they will get food, use one's house as a shortcut to get to a place where they will get food? Can we find an answer for this question in the language of our Mishna? The next Mishna says that if the item one is borrowing is not a food-related item but generally is rented, then that is forbidden as well, as the person can now use the money they saved to buy food. The Gemara derives from here that the food-related items mentioned in the previous Mishna that is forbidden must be forbidden even if they generally don't rent them out for money, which would then mean that the Mishna follows Rabbi Eliezer who holds that even items that don't have an actual monetary value are forbidden. One who is forbidden to benefit from another, the other person can give their half shekel to the Temple treasury, can pay back their loan, and can return their lost item. However, if generally one gets paid for returning a lost item and the person did not demand the money, the money must be given to the Temple so as to not allow the person to benefit from the other. The Gemara connects this Mishna with a debate between Chanan and the sons of the high priests that appeared in Ketubot 107b. Does the Mishna follow Chanan as he held that preventing someone from a financial loss is not considered benefit? Or can it be explained according to the sons of the high priests as well? There is a debate between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi about whether in the reverse case of returning lost items, if the returner was forbidden to benefit from the one who lost something, would it be forbidden or permitted because while returning the lost item, the returner is exempt from giving charity to a poor person. Is that considered a benefit, or is it too uncommon that the poor person would come looking for money at exactly that moment and therefore not considered a benefit?

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected