Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Nedarim 32 - Shabbat November 26, 2 Kislev Nov 25, 2022

Show notes

Was Moshe negligent when he did not take care of giving his son a brit milah on his way back to Egypt? Who was the angel trying to kill - Moshe or his son? How did Tzippora understand that the issue was not having circumcised him? After Tzippora circumcized him and the danger subsided, what did Moshe do? The Gemara brings more statements about the importance of the mitzva of brit milah and from there, tangents off to questions about Avraham, such as, why was he punished that his children would suffer in Egypt before coming back to the land of Israel? Malki-Tzedek was supposed to get the kehuna, but instead, it was given to Avraham. Why? What is the difference between one who says in a language of a vow, "I will not benefit from someone" and one who says, "I will not eat from someone"?

Nedarim 31 - Rosh Chodesh Kislev - November 25, 1 Kislev Nov 25, 2022

Show notes

Study Guide Nedarim 31

This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs in loving memory of Shira's grandfather, Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka, on his 73rd yahrzeit, for Shira's father, Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara, on his 1st yahrzeit, and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on shas Mishnayot this month and will become a bar mitzvah on his great grandfather's yahrzeit). Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah and Michael Dickson on the occasion of the bar mitzvah of their son Dan, this Shabbat. Today's daf is sponsored by Audrey and Jake Levant. "Mazel Tov to Michael and Deborah Dickson on the occasion of their son, Dan's, bar mitzvah this Shabbat in Raanana." The next few Mishnayot discuss language used in a vow that would refer to Jews, Cutim (Samaritans) or gentiles. What language refers to which groups of people? If one vows not to benefit from Jews, one cannot purchase or sell items for them for the actual price but must need to take a loss. How does this law fit with Shmuel's law regarding the responsibility of a potential buyer for accidental damage, which indicates that the buyer always benefits, and not the seller? This would mean that the seller could sell for the actual price as the real benefit is not the seller's. How is this issue resolved? If one vows not to benefit from circumcised people, the vow obviously refers to all Jews, even those who are not circumcised. Likewise, uncircumcised refers to all gentiles, even if they are circumcised. The Mishna quotes several verses proving this and also several statements stressing the importance of the Mitzva of brit milah, circumcision.

Nedarim 30 - 1st Day of Rosh Chodesh Kislev - November 24, 30 Cheshvan Nov 24, 2022

Show notes

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of Aryeh Schupak who was murdered in yesterday's terror bombing and for a refuah shleima to all the injured.

Some sages tried to compare Bar Pada's understanding of the Mishna to a case of a man who betroths a woman by saying "With this, I will betroth you today and with this, I will betroth you after I divorce you," to say that she will be automatically betrothed after the divorce. However, Rabbi Yirmia responded that they are not comparable as our Mishna is a case where the owner redeemed it themselves and the betrothal case is considered as if others redeemed her and therefore the second betrothal would not be able to happen automatically. The next few Mishnayot relate to the specific language used to relate to a group of people in the vow to whom the person vowing is forbidding oneself, and explains what the scope of that particular language is. The cases brought are seafarers, those who live on dry land, those who see the sun, dark-headed people, those who are born, and those who will be born. The language of 'noladim,' will be born, discussed in the Mishna is compared to the same word used in the Torah/Prophets where the word is used to mean both has been born and will be born. So why is the Mishna understanding that it refers to the future? The answer is that vows follow the common usage of the word at the time the vow is made, not necessarily the way it is used in the Tanach.

Nedarim 29 - November 23, 29 Cheshvan Nov 23, 2022

Show notes

Study Guide Nedarim 29

Today's daf is sponsored by Debbie Aschheim Weiss (NYC) and Racheli Weiss (Givat Shmuel) in loving memory of Sarah Yehudit Sharf A"H on her first yahrzeit. "She left the world too early. Her abounding love and commitment to Judaism and Israel left a lasting mark on many." The Mishna brought a case where one a sapling until it is cut. Once it is cut, it cannot be redeemed. Ulla and Bar Pada disagree about the meaning of this law. According to bar Pada, once they are cut, one can redeem them and use them. According to Ulla, there is no need to redeem them. How could Ulla hold that the sanctity leaves them without any redeeming. Rav Hamnuna, in questioning Ulla, compares it to a married woman who needs a get to remove the sanctity of the marriage. Rava answers by distinguishing the cases as marriage is a case of inherent sanctity (k'dushat haguf) and the sapling is only sanctified for its value (k'dushat damim). Abaye questions Rava's answer by bringing a braita to prove that even items with inherent sanctity can be removed when there is a time factor stipulated at the beginning. The Gemara answers Abaye's difficulty but then rejects it. The braita Abaye quoted is not used to question Bar Pada's position. Rav Papa responds on behalf of Bar Pada using a different understanding of the case in the braita. Again, they make a comparison to laws of marriage to explain this position in the braita according to the new understanding.

Nedarim 28 - November 22, 28 Cheshvan Nov 22, 2022

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Martin Gaynor in loving memory of Dr. Jerry Rabinowitz, z"l.

Today's daf is sponsored by Tova and David Kestenbaum in loving memory of their dear Aunt Esther Press, Esther Faigel bat Raphael Zev v'Chaya Chasha. "She was who a role model of a life of Torah and Chesed. She cared so much about family and we all felt very close to her."

Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel have three disputes in the Mishna – one can make a vow to murderers, thieves, and tax collectors that is untrue but is it also permitted to swear? Can one decide on their own to vow to the murderer, thief, or tax collector or is it only permitted if they suggest the vow? If the murderer, etc. insisted that the person vow about something in particular, if the person vows about that and something else, is the other part also permitted or only the part about which they were forced to vow? How can one make a vow that is untrue to avoid taxes – didn't Shmuel says that the law of the land is the law (dina d'malchuta dina) and therefore one cannot avoid paying taxes? The second vow mentioned in the Mishna was one who vowed that items belonged to the king. They explain this vow as: "Fruits will be forbidden to me if these are not the king's possessions. If so, why is it not a valid vow and the fruits should be forbidden? The Gemara quotes a braita with a debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel that seems to be on a similar issue to our Mishna – regarding initiating a claim by oath. However, this braita seems to contradict our Mishna in two ways. Two resolutions are suggested. The Mishna brings a case where one made a declaration that if these saplings are not destroyed (from some impending storm), they will be like a sacrifice, they are in fact sanctified (if they are not destroyed) and need to be redeemed. If one declares: these saplings will be like a sacrifice until they are cut down, they are not able to be redeemed. Why is the language in the first part of the Mishna: 'they need to be redeemed' and not 'they are sanctified'? The second case mentioned in the Mishna leads to a question – what exactly is the wording of the vow and what specific case is the Mishna concerned about? What does the Mishna mean when it says: They can't be redeemed?

Nedarim 27 - November 21, 27 Cheshvan Nov 21, 2022

Show notes

Study Guide Nedarim 27

A final difficulty is raised against Rava's explanation of the debate between Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai about the case where one cancels part of a vow. This difficulty is resolved as well. A braita is brought that is explained both according to Raba and according to Rava. The Mishna describes what is a vow of onasim, a vow that can't be fulfilled because of circumstances beyond one's control Rav Huna ruled in a case of one who was involved in a dispute with someone and when he went to search for more evidence in his favor, he handed in documents to the court that supported his claim and declared: If I don't come back in thirty days, these documents will be void. In the end, he didn't return due to circumstances beyond his control. Rav Huna ruled that the documents were void. Why is this case different from our Mishna - where circumstances beyond one's control are enough to dissolve the vow? Rava held that circumstances beyond one's control exempt one from responsibility. Why in a case of a get, though, is this not the case (when one says - this will be a get if I don't return and he died)? Or why is it different from a case when the man gives a get if he doesn't return within thirty days and on the thirtieth day he tries to get there but there is no ferry with which to cross the river? In both those cases, the get is valid. Returning to Rav Huna's ruling, the Gemara asks why is it not considered asmachta, a transaction where one does not fully consent to the arrangement as the outcome is unclear, which is considered not to be a valid acquisition. Is it different as the court is already in possession of the documents? Is that a relevant factor? Or is it different because he explicitly said that the documents should be canceled? The Gemara concludes that regarding asmachta, we rule that it is a valid acquisition as long as there was no oness, unexpected circumstance, and an act of acquisition was performed in an important court. There are certain circumstances where one can make a vow that one never intends to keep, such as, to a tax collector or to a murderer.

Nedarim 26 - November 20, 26 Cheshvan Nov 20, 2022

Show notes

Study Guide Nedarim 26

This week's learning is sponsored by Paula and Robert Cohen in loving memory of Paula's mother, Sonja Waschitz, Sara bat Yitzchak z"l. This week's learning is sponsored by Jason Friedman and family in honor of Danielle Novetsky Friedman. "Happy birthday week to you. Your husband and kids are very proud of you and your dedication to learning. We love you." Rava and Raba disagree about the nature of the debate between Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai in the Mishna when someone partially changes what they meant to say. In what case does Beit Hillel (and Rabbi Akiva) hold that once part of the vow is invalid, the rest is invalid as well? Does Beit Shamai agree to that principle in certain situations or not at all? Is the disagreement about whether or not a vow that is partially dissolved is completely dissolved or is it about whether we follow the first part of one's declaration or the second part? Rav Papa raises a difficulty against Rava's understanding based on a Mishna in Nedarim 66a, but Rava resolves it. Rav Ada bar Ahava raises a difficulty to Rava about his and Raba's explanation from a different case in that same Mishna but Rava resolves that as well.

Nedarim 25 - Shabbat November 19, 25 Cheshvan Nov 18, 2022

Show notes

Can we assume that when people take an oath/vow in a particular language, they use it in the typical way that those words are generally used and therefore cannot try to explain that they meant it in a unique manner and it wasn't a valid vow/oath? Two attempts are made to derive from sources that one can claim they meant the language in a unique manner, however, both attempts are rejected. The second attempt relates to a source about Moshe who had the Jews swear in his name and in the name of God. Why did he not use some other language that would have made his point just as clearly? What is the meaning of the reference in the Mishna of one who swore they saw a snake like the beam of an olive press? What is a neder shegaga, one where one was unwitting, where the vow will be considered invalid? Does the same apply to oaths? What is an example of an oath of this category? The Mishna mentions a debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel about one who saw people eating in his field and took a vow that they would not be able to benefit from him. Later, he found out that his father and brother were among them and he certainly hadn't included them in the vow. Is the vow completely invalid or only partially? Do we hold that a vow that has been made partially invalid is completely invalid? Raba and Rava deliberate about exactly which case Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree.

Nedarim 24 - November 18, 24 Cheshvan Nov 18, 2022

Show notes

Study Guide Nedarim 24

Today's daf is sponsored by Silke Goldberg in loving memory of her mother, Leoni Kimmel on her 3rd yahrzeit. "She was a fantastic teacher and strong believer in learning and equality for women."

Do the sages disagree with R. Eliezer ben Yaakov and think that prompting one's friend to eat with them is not a vow of zeruzin? The Gemara cites four different sources to prove the sages disagree with him. The proof from each of these sources is rejected except for the last one. In any case, the amoraim rule with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. The Mishna gives two examples of the neder havai, vows of exaggeration/meaningless vows. The Gemara brings a braita in which they compare the vows of exaggeration with the oaths of exaggeration. What is an example of an oath of this type? Rava and Abaye disagree on the matter. Ravina asks about the case of an oath dependent on having seen the number of those that left Egypt (600,000). Why is that viewed as an exaggeration and not that he saw a nest of 600,000 ants?

Nedarim 23 - November 17, 23 Cheshvan Nov 17, 2022

Show notes

Another story is told of Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yosi who went to dissolve a vow but any petach the rabbis suggested wasn't working. The rabbis were upset that they couldn't resolve this and a launderer came and hit Rabbi Yishmael since he was upsetting the rabbis. Rabbi Yishmael then used that as his petach, as had he realized he would have gotten beaten, he never would have vowed. Why is that not considered nolad, a new reason that he never would have thought of at the time of making the vow, as nolad is not able to be used for a petach. Abaye and his wife each wanted to marry her daughter off to one of their own relatives. In order to insist that she obey him, he vowed her to not benefit from him if she married her off to her own relatives. When she actually does that, he goes to dissolve the vow, using the petach suggested by Rav Yosef that had he realized she was actually going to marry off her daughter to her own relatives, he never would have taken the vow. A similar story of a man who vowed that his wife should not go on the pilgrimage to Jerusalem is brought to prove that this type of petach works. The Mishna quotes Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov saying that if you vow to insist that a friend eats at your house, you can make a declaration before that you is nullifying a vow that you are about to make. This works as long as they remember the declaration at the time of the vow. The Mishna is unclear - if the friend knows about the declaration, then the vow is anyway ineffective to encourage the friend to eat. Therefore, they reinterpret the Mishna by splitting it into two. The first part is to say that a vow to encourage a friend to eat at one's house is a neder zeruzin and not even effective at all. Secondly, one should make a declaration at the beginning of the year that all vows they make will be nullified. Abaye and Rava disagree about whether this is effective only if one doesn't remember the declaration at the time of the vow or can there even be a case where one somewhat remembers and yet, it can still be effective. Rav Huna bar Chinina wanted to institute that everyone makes this declaration but Rava discouraged it so that people do not treat vows lightly. Is it from here that the custom arose to say kol nidrei on Yom Kippur night or to annul our vows on erev Rosh Hashana? Do the rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov or not?

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected