Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Nedarim 13 - November 7, 13 Cheshvan Nov 07, 2022

Show notes

The Gemara rejects the possibility of the answer to Rami bar Hama's question (about whether a vow that was attached to the meat of a peace offering applies to the object as it is now or as it was previously) is a tannaitic debate (the case of a firstborn animal). The debate about the firstborn is due to a difference in perspective of the firstborn – is it considered a vowed item or a forbidden item? A braita says that if one used any language relating to a sacrifice, if one finishes with the words, "that I will eat from you," it is forbidden, "that I will not eat from you," it is permitted. The braita seems to follow Rabbi Meir, however, it also seems not to follow Rabbi Meir's position. How is this resolved? The Mishna discusses more languages of sacrifices that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda debate. The Gemara raises some questions about Rabbi Meir's positions in light of his opinion in other places and then resolves the difficulties. If one says to another that one's mouth is konam from speaking to the other, or one's hands will be konam to not produce anything for the other or one's legs are konam from walking with the other, the vow is valid. How can this be reconciled with a braita that states the differences between vows and oaths and states that vows do not apply to non-tangible items? The Mishna says that if one takes a vow and says that something is forbidden like a forbidden item such as non-kosher food or something used for idol worship, it is not a valid vow. If one forbid's one's wife from deriving benefit from him by saying "like my mother is forbidden to me," even though it is not a valid vow, he must go to a chacham to annul the vow by a petach, by explaining that had he known…, he never would have taken the vow. This is used as a preventative method so that he doesn't take vows like this again. According to whose opinion does the Mishna follow?

Nedarim 12 - November 6, 12 Cheshvan Nov 06, 2022

Show notes

Study Guide Nedarim 12

This week's learning is sponsored by Dahlia Farber-Zohar in honor and appreciation of Esther Meisels. "Thank you for your friendship and inspiration, and for introducing me to Rabbanit Michelle's amazing Daf Yomi podcast. Mazal tov on your new beautiful baby boy."

Rami bar Hama asked about one who vowed about an item that originally was forbidden due to a vow but was now permitted – is the person referring to its original status as a vowed item or is it referring to its status presently as a permitted item. Three sources are brought to try to answer his question – each one used to show that one is referring to the original status and the vow would be valid. However, each proof is rejected. In the end, they suggest that there is a tannaitic debate about Rami bar Hama's issue.

Nedarim 11 - Shabbat November 5, 11 Cheshvan Nov 04, 2022

Show notes

The Mishna discusses various languages of a vow that are valid such as, lachulin, understood as 'not chulin' meaning a sacrifice. If that is a valid vow, it must not follow Rabbi Meir's opinion as Rabbi Meir holds that one cannot infer a positive from a negative, as he holds that conditions must be stipulated like the stipulation of the sons of Gad and Reuven that were said both in a positive and negative formulation. However, the Mishna also doesn't fit with Rabbi Yehuda as can be seen from the structure of the Mishna (the first tana disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda). In order to resolve this issue, the Mishna is read in a different manner, that the whole Mishna is Rabbi Yehuda's opinion. This answer is questioned by a different braita, but the difficulty is resolved. A different braita is quoted and a question is raised. The first part of the braita seems to follow Rabbi Meir and yet the second part doesn't seem to correspond to a different opinion of Rabbi Meir. Two resolutions are suggested. Rami bar Hama asks: What if someone used the language of "This will be to me like the meat of a peace offering after the blood was sprinkled on the altar," which is something that is actually permitted to eat? The Gemara first clarifies what exactly is the case that he is asking about.

Nedarim 10 - November 4, 10 Cheshvan Nov 04, 2022

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Sara Berelowitz in loving memory of her father, Tzvi Ben Moshe on his 14th yahrzeit.

Today's daf is sponsored by Risa Tzohar in loving memory of her grandmother, Rose Schwartz Wittels.

The Gemara interprets the Mishna that distinguished between neder and nedava according to Rabbi Yehuda's opinion and explains why he distinguishes between them. In the process, they brought a braita with Rabbi Yehuda's opinion which spoke about the early pious people who took on being a nazir in order to be able to bring a sin offering. In this braita, Rabbi Shimon's opinion is presented. He disagrees and explains that every nazir is considered a sinner. Abaye cites three people (Shimon the Tzadik in his story on Nedarim 9b, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Elazar the Kapar) who viewed nazirs as sinners. What is the sin of being a nazir, according to them, and from which verse in the Torah did they derive this? The Mishna lists what words are kinui of vows, cherem, nazir and oaths. Regarding a kinui, Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree - is it the language of the gentiles or the language of the sages that was made up for us to use? According to Reish Lakish, why would the rabbis make up words to use in place of the actual words? It was to avoid using God's name in vain. Is their dispute the same as the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel regarding a kinui of a kinui? Some examples of a kinui of a kinui are brought? The Mishna says that using the language of something that is forbidden or related to sacrifices would be a valid language of a vow.

Nedarim 9 - November 3, 9 Cheshvan Nov 03, 2022

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Lesley & Don Nadel for the refuah shleima of Don's brother Al, Eliyahu Shlomo ben Zisa Risa who is undergoing brain cancer treatment.

If one takes a vow using the wording "like the vows of the wicked" that is a valid vow. The nature of the vow will depend upon what it was said about, as Shmuel later explains. For example, if there was food in front of the person when the statement was made, it is understood to be an oath forbidding the food. If a nazir passed before the person, then the statement is understood as taking upon oneself to be a nazir. If there was an animal, it is understood to be designated for a sacrifice. Shmuel adds that in order for it to be valid, another word must be added, indicating that there was intent to take a vow like "I will be" or "on me." If one used the language "vows (nedarim) of kosher ones (virtuous people)" it is an invalid statement, but "voluntary offerings (nedavot) of kosher ones" is a valid statement and understood to be either a nazir or for a sacrifice. Why is there a difference in the Mishna if one uses the language of neder or nedava and according to whose opinion does this correspond? The Gemara first explains according to Rabbi Meir's approach. To highlight the difference between neder and nedava, an example is brought of Hillel the Elder who took particular care when he would bring a voluntary offering as a sacrifice. An example of nedava of a nazir is brought as well.

Nedarim 8 - November 2, 8 Cheshvan Nov 02, 2022

Show notes

This week's learning is sponsored by Michael and Ariella Radwin in honor of Danny Sadinoff and Rebecca Perlin on the 30th anniversary of the invention of Hebcal. "Danny and Rebecca, your commitment to Torah learning and Israel continue to be an inspiration to the Radwin family."

Rav Gidal said in the name of Rav three more things (in addition to one in Nedarim 7b). 1. One can swear to fulfill a mitzva even though theoretically we are already "sworn in" from Matan Torah and a swear cannot be valid if one has already sworn to do something. If so, how does this work? 2. One can say they will get up early to learn something specific and it will be a valid vow. How can this be understood in light of the issue raised above? 3. One who says to one's friend: "I will get up early and learn this chapter" should show up before the friend. One who saw in a dream that they were ex-communicated need ten learned people to dissolve the ex-communication. What are they to do if they can't find ten people who are learned? If one saw in the dream the person who ex-communicated them, can they find this person and not need to find ten learned people to dissolve it? If in the dream the ex-communication was dissolved, one still has to go through the process to dissolve it. Why? Ravina's wife took a vow and he asked Rav Ashi if he could be a messenger to explain her reasons for regret to get the vow annulled. Rabbi Ashi said that he could but only if he went to a court already in existence. The Gemara learns three laws from this story. Regarding permitting ex-communication, the law is less strict. Why? They cite a drasha in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai in which he extrapolates a verse in Malachi 3:20 that the sun will come and heal those who do not use God's name in vain. Reish Lakish interprets the verse in a different way - it is referring to the righteous and the wicked in the world to come - there is no place called hell, but the righteous and the wicked will be in the same place and God will take out the sun and it will heal the righteous and burn the wicked.

Nedarim 7 - November 1, 7 Cheshvan Nov 01, 2022

Show notes

Study Guide Nedarim 7

Today's daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz in loving memory of her paternal grandmother's yahrzeit, Esther bat Avraham.

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Meir Shapiro, the Daf Yomi visionary, on his 89th yahrzeit.

Rav Papa continues to ask whether yadot are effective for charity or for declaring one's possessions ownerless. Ravina asks if yadot are effective when designating an area as a bathroom? Ravina was actually unsure in general whether designating an area as a bathroom is effective to forbid one from reciting kriat shema there. And then he deliberated that even if one were to say it is effective, were one to designate it with cut-off language (a yad), would it be effective as well. There is no answer to all the questions asked. Rabbi Akiva (in the Mishna) was inclined to rule stringently if one said "I am menudeh to you," and treated it as a vow. Abaye claims that Rabbi Akiva would not give someone lashes if they broke this vow as the language of the Mishna indicates that he is not sure what the law is and therefore rules stringently, but one would therefore not get punished for it. In what wording exactly is there a dispute between him and the sages? Rav Papa and Rav Chisda disagree on this matter. Because they mentioned the language of ex-communication, the Gemara discusses several laws related to ex-communication. If one dissolves an ex-communication, do they do that in the presence of the person who was excommunicated or not? On what does it depend? He who uses God's name in vain should be excommunicated. Some laws of ex-communication are derived from a story about a woman who uses God's name in vain and was excommunicated, but they immediately dissolved the ex-communication. A scholar who has put himself into ex-communication can also dissolve his own ex-communication. This is proven from a case with Mar Zutra the Chasid.

Nedarim 6 - October 31, 6 Cheshvan Oct 31, 2022

Show notes

Study Guide Nedarim 6

Abaye holds that yadot (cut-off sentence) of a vow is considered a vow. The Gemara raises two difficulties against Abaye from braitot. The questions are each resolved in different manners. Rav Papa asks if yadot are effective in kiddushin, betrothal, or peah, designated a corner of your field for the poor. In what case is the question asked? No answer is given. Can we infer from the example brought for peah that one can make one's entire field peah? Why is there deliberation regarding yadot for peah?

Nedarim 5 - October 30, 5 Cheshvan Oct 30, 2022

Show notes

Study Guide Nedarim 5

Today's daf is sponsored by Eden Prywes: "In honor of my wife Adele Druck and her mother Susan Fishbein." Today's daf is sponsored by Naomi Cohen for the refuah shleima of Chava bat Ilana Shoshana. Shumel explained the cases in the Mishna of "I am avowed from you" and "That I will eat of yours" as needing to be combined in order to be effective. However, after a difficulty was raised with this explanation, the Gemara suggests three other possibilities of how to understand Shmuel. Only the last one remains without difficulties. The conclusion is that Shmuel holds like Rabbi Yehuda that a statement that can be understood in more than one way (ambiguous) is not a valid statement. Therefore the vow would not be effective unless one said "I am avowed to you that which I eat of yours." Rabbi Yehuda's opinion relates to a man who gives a get to his wife in which it is written "You are permitted to all men." Since it wasn't clear whether he intended his words to permit her and the get was just documenting what he did or did he mean the document to effect the get, this is ineffective. According to Rabbi Yehuda, he needs to write that the document is effecting the get. The rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda. What motivated Shmuel to understand our Mishna in line with Rabbi Yehuda and not the rabbis? Rava and Abaye also disagree about yadot that are ambiguous. The Gemara tries to line up their opinions with Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis, however, this is rejected as there are reasons to distinguish in this area between get and vows.

Nedarim 5 - October 30, 5 Cheshvan Oct 30, 2022

Show notes

Study Guide Nedarim 5

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected