Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Ketubot 97 - October 11, 16 Tishrei Oct 11, 2022

Show notes

When a woman sells her late husband's property for food payments, how much land can she sell at a time, and in what type of installments does she receive the money? Two opinions are brought and support from braitot are brought for each position. If she sold the land for food payments and then when she wanted to receive her ketuba payment, there was no land left in the estate, could she collect the ketuba payment from the buyer, as there was a lien on the property for her ketuba? Rav Sheshet answers that she cannot as can be derived from a braita. If one sells property as one needs the money for something else, but in the end, does not need the money, can they renege on the deal, even if the reason they were selling it was not made explicitly clear during the transaction? Two sources are brought to answer the question. The first one is rejected. It is unclear whether the second one is rejected or upheld (there are different interpretations of the Gemara). The Gemara rules that one can renege on the deal. If a woman sells her husband's land, does it have to be sold in court? Does it depend on whether she sells it for food or her ketuba payment? There is a debate between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis. Why do the rabbis not require it for her ketuba? Ulla says it is because of hina, to enable marriage. Rabbi Yochanan says it is because a husband wouldn't want to humiliate his wife to make her go in front of a court. Two questions are raised against Ulla, but are resolved. If a woman sells her late husband's land to receive part of her ketuba payment or uses it as collateral for the value of her ketuba or less than the full value, does that prevent her from being able to collect food payments (as is the case when she collects her entire ketuba payment)? If she then proceeds to sell more land of her late husband's does it have to be done in a court or not? Also regarding these issues, there is a debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon. Even though the Mishna didn't mention Rabbi Shimon by name, the Gemara concludes that the unnamed opinion is Rabbi Shimon. The rabbis hold that if part of the marriage contract is not collected, it is as if the whole contract is not collected. Rabbi Shimon holds the opposite. If so, their opinions here appear to be the opposite of their opinions regarding the definition of a virgin for marrying a kohen gadol.

Ketubot 96 - 1st Day of Sukkot - October 10, 15 Tishrei Oct 09, 2022

Show notes

A question is asked regarding the language in the Mishna. Is it saying that "all widows get supported by the orphans" (as was the custom in the Galilee) or "a widow who gets supported by the orphans…" (as was the custom in Judea as the orphan could insist she stop taking food payments and they could just pay her the ketuba money and end the relationship). The Gemara tries to prove this from a statement of Shmuel's regarding our Mishna. However, the proof is inconclusive. What responsibilities does the woman have toward the orphans – is it the same as the woman toward her husband? Even though she can't collect her food stipend from moveable items, if she does, is it valid or can the court take it away from her? Is it the same for a ketuba? After a certain amount of time passes and she hasn't demanded food payments, she can no longer collect them. After how much time and on what does that depend? Rabbi Yochanan asked about a case where there is a disagreement between the widow and the orphans about whether or not they gave her money for food, upon who lies the burden of proof? A braita is brought to prove that the burden of proof is on the orphans. Rav Shimi son of Ashi brings a Tosefta in an attempt to show that it is a tannaitic debate. However, the Gemara rejects his explanation of the debate and brings two alternative explanations.

Ketubot 95 - October 9, 14 Tishrei Oct 09, 2022

Show notes

Study Guide Ketubot 95

Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Spinner in loving memory of her mother and mother-in-law. The Mishna discusses a situation where a man is married to two wives and sells his property. If the first wife tells the buyer that she waives her rights to the property for collecting her ketuba, the second wife can collect it from the buyer, then the first wife can collect it from the second wife as she has first rights to the ketuba, and then the buyer can demand it from the second wife (as she waived her rights to ) and then the first wife can take the property for her ketuba and it can keep going on like this until the three of them come to a compromise. First, the Gemara questions the language used for the first wife to waive her rights as the same language appears in a discussion regarding a partnership agreement and that same language is not effective. After resolving that, the Gemara raises a contradiction from a Mishna in Gittin 55b where a wife can claim she waived her rights to the land just to appease her husband. Three possible resolutions are brought. One cannot collect from liened property when there is property in the hands of the debtor to collect from. But what if that property was damaged? Can the answer to this question be derived from Rabbi Meir's opinion in a braita quoted in the previous discussion regarding a woman who waived her rights to the second buyer but not the first? Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak and Rava each reject this comparison in different manners. Rav Yeimar tries to bring an answer from a different seemingly similar situation where the courts rule in general that the land can be collected from later buyers, but his comparison is also rejected. In the end, the Gemara simply rules that it can be done. They quote two rulings of Abaye regarding a woman who received a gift from someone who said "This gift is for you and when you die, it will go to someone else (a named person)." In one case, the husband gets rights to it and not the other person and in the other, the other person does. What is the difference between the cases? The second case seems to go against our Mishna. How can this be explained?

Ketubot 94 - Shabbat October 8, 13 Tishrei Oct 07, 2022

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Jordana Hyman in loving memory of Ruth Philips, Rut Michal Bat Sara Feige and Aryeh A"H, who would have celebrated her birthday today. "Ruth sparked my spiritual journey at age 15, and opened my heart and soul to Hashem and Torah. May our learning bring an aliyah to her soul."

Ben Nanas and the rabbis disagree about whether the last wife needs to swear in order to get her ketuba money in the case of the Mishna on Keutbot 93b. Three options are brought to explain what the root of their debate is. If two siblings or partners have a disagreement in court with someone and one partner goes to court, can the other later claim that he/she wants to make their own claim for their half is it considered that one acted as the messenger of the other? Can the law be derived from our Mishna? On what may it depend? Rav and Shmuel disagree about a case where two people bring a document of sale of the same property with the same date – do we split it 50/50 or do the judges assess who it is more likely the rightful owner and give it to one of them? Is their debate linked to the debate in Masechet Gittin between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Elazar about whether the witnesses' signatures on the get is the essential part of the get or is it the passing of the get to the wife? A contradiction is brought to Shmuel from a braita. How is it resolved? A case was brought with two brothers whose mother each gave them a document on the same day (one in the morning and the other in the afternoon) promising him all her possessions. The first one came to Rav Sheshet and he ruled in his favor. The second one came to Rav Nachman and he ruled in his favor. The conversation/argument that ensued between Rav Sheshet and Rav Nachman is brought, including the logic behind each position. How do we rule if one document has the month and the day of the month, and another document has the month but not the day of the month?

Ketubot 93 - October 7, 12 Tishrei Oct 07, 2022

Show notes

Study Guide Ketubot 93

Today's daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in honor of her granddaughter Tamar's bat mitzvah (named after her mother), grandson Amitai's bar mitzvah (named after her nephew), and for the birth of her two new grandsons Shmuel and Avyatar Chayim. "I feel a great hakarat hatov for this month's blessings. To my Hadran Zoom family who is always there in good times and in trying times, may we all have many more smachot and good health this coming year inspired by our mentor, Rabannit Michelle ad 120. שוש אשיש בד' תגל נפשי באלוקי

If a husband has several wives and the amount of their ketuba is not equal - one's was one hundred, one two hundred and one three hundred, and he does not have enough money in his estate, how is the money divided? The Mishna cites cases where the estate is one hundred, two hundred and three hundred and explains the division in each case. The amoraim had difficulty understanding the second case of the Mishna and brought two different explanations to understand, each one explaining that the Mishna is dealing with a particular case (ukimta). At the end of the Mishna, these cases are compared to cases where people invested money together but each invested a different amount - the profits are divided similarly. Shmuel said that the profits are divided equally. To what type of case was he referring? Rabba and Rav HaManuna agree on this issue. The Gemara brings a difficulty against Rabba from a braita and resolves the difficulty. Then they point out that the Mishna itself contradicts Shmuel and therefore interpret our Mishna in a different way to correspond to Shmuel. If a husband has several wives, and they have ketubas with different dates, the one with an earlier date gets paid first. But she had to swear to the woman who follows her before she can collect her ketuba.

Ketubot 92 - October 6, 11 Tishrei Oct 06, 2022

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Medinah Korn in memory of Reuven Cohn, HaRav Reuven Zvi ben HaRav Moshe Yeshaya HaCohen uDevorah Breina, on his fifth Yahrzeit. Reuven was a dear family friend and master teacher. We miss his warmth, humor and zest for engaging with people. Yehi Zichro Baruch.

Two rulings of Rami bar Chama are brought in which someone sells a field with a lien on it. In one case, the seller bought back the land and then it was taken by one of his creditors. Rami bar Hama allows him to demand the money back from the one he bought it back from - why? Rava disagrees with his ruling. In the second case, the buyer didn't have the money and borrowed the money (as a loan) from the seller. The seller then died. When a creditor of the seller came to claim the land back, the buyer paid for it in exchange for his loan. Rami bar Hama ruled that he has no right to do that. Why? Rava adds his advice for the buyer to protect himself in this situation. Raba discusses what happens when one sells all of one's fields to one person and then the buyer sells one field to another. Can a creditor collect from the second buyer or only from the first? On what does it depend? Abaye ruled that if one sold a field to another with a guarantee, and the creditor of the debtor came straight to the buyer instead of first going to the debtor to claim the land, the debtor can intervene and pay the creditor back without involving the buyer and the creditor cannot try to claim that the debtor is an uninvolved party. Others say that it would be the same ruling even if it was sold without a guarantee as the buyer will still have a complaint against the seller and therefore, that is enough reason to claim that he is an involved party. Another ruling brought by Abaye: if one bought a field and then found out that there were those who claimed the field was theirs originally and not the seller's, at what point can the buyer back out of the deal? On what does it depend? Two different versions of Abaye's ruling are brought.

Ketubot 91 - Yom Kippur - October 5, 10 Tishrei Oct 04, 2022

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Gitta and David Neufeld in loving memory of Marvin Stokar, Meir ben Aryeh Leib haLevi a"h. "Marvin was our honorary Zaidy, a role model in his love of Eretz Yisrael, Torah and our dear Bubby Fran. He was so proud of learning the Daf in Yerushalayim! May our learning be a zechut and source of nachat for his neshama."

Is the braita that Rav Yosef quoted actually reflecting the same debate that Rabbi Akiva and Ben Nanas were arguing about – whether in a case where one wife died before the husband died and another after the husband died, can the sons of the first one collect their ketuba of male children? Several alternative explanations are brought for the debate in the braita. Mar Zutra brings a ruling on this issue and the Gemara explains why he needed to rule about two issues – why couldn't we have inferred one from the other? To collect the ketuba of male children, there needs to be one dinar more than the ketubas that need collecting. The orphans cannot try to inflate the amount to try to collect their ketuba. What if the amount of the estate went up or down in value after the death and there was/was not an extra dinar? Two stories are brought related to inflation of the value of a property (not in a case regarding orphans) and there were those who wanted to rule from our Mishna that inflation of property is not allowed. However, others differentiated between the case at hand and the one in the Mishna.

Ketubot 90 - October 4, 9 Tishrei Oct 04, 2022

Show notes

If a woman has more than one get (divorce document) or more than one ketuba, can she collect two ketuba payments? Under what circumstances? If one gives a wife a ketuba when one is still a minor and it still married to her when he turns matures or is not Jewish and then converts, the ketuba can be collected as well as the assumption is that when he matured/coverted he intended to continue to be married to her under the conditions of the original ketuba. If there was an amount greater than the basic ketuba, there is a debate about whether or not she can collect that amount. A difficulty is raised against the opinion that she can collect the extra and it is not resolved. The Mishna brings two cases. In the first one, the husband dies and leaves two wives. The one who was married first, gets to claim her ketuba first. The second case is one who had two wives and one wife died before the husband died and then the husband died, the second wife or her heirs have the first claim on her ketuba and then the sons of the first wife can collect. Two versions of an inference from the first case in the Mishna are brought - can one derive from here that if one seized property that another creditor was supposed to collect before, we force the one who seized to give it back or not? Three laws were inferred from the second case in the Mishna: 1. in a case where one wife died before the husband died and another after the husband died, the sons of the first one collect their 'ketuba of male children'. 2. The ketuba of the one wife (collected by her heirs can be considered 'extra' to allow the collection of the 'ketuba of male children' by the other wife's heirs. 3. 'Ketuba of male children' can't be collected from liened property. Rav Ashi questions the first two assumptions. The Gemara points out that the first inference (whether or not the 'ketuba of male children' can be collected in this case) is actually a tannaitic debate between Rabbi Akiva and Ben Nanas. Raba claims this is not the root of the debate, but Rav Yosef rejects Rava's claim and brings another braita that suggests that another group of tannaim also debated whether or not there is 'ketuba of male children' in this case.

Ketubot 89 - October 3, 8 Tishrei Oct 03, 2022

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Rachael Bentley. " May you be blessed with a sweet, healthy New Year!"

What happens when a woman wants to collect her ketuba but she only has a get (divorce document) in hand and no ketuba? Since the court determined that every woman is deserving of a ketuba, even if she doesn't have one, she can collect the ketuba with the get. What about the opposite case where she only has a ketuba and not a get? Because she doesn't have a get, we assume she already received the money and it was ripped up and therefore she is not believed, even if she claimed she lost it, if the husband claims he lost his receipt that he paid her. According to Rashbag, the halacha changed because of the danger from the gentiles and they would immediately tear up the get even without her collecting the ketuba. Is it possible to infer from the Mishna that it is necessary to write a receipt for the debtor in cases of a ketuba or loans? Rav and Shmuel say that we do not need to infer this from the Mishna and each explains the case in the Mishna differently and why we are not concerned that she will claim her ketuba money twice. Rav also changed his position and brought a different way of understanding things. Some questions are raised against the second position of Rav, but are answered.

Ketubot 88 - October 2, 7 Tishrei Oct 02, 2022

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Heather Stone in loving memory of her mother, Ellie Stone, Esther Bina bat Avraham Halevy ve'Rachel Leah on her 11th yahrzeit. "She taught us by example to protect the Jewish community. May her neshama have an aliyah." Today's daf is sponsored by Debbie Pine and Mark Orenshein in loving memory of Florence Pine, Fayga bat Sarah Rivkah, on her 2nd yahrtzeit. "The memory of her warm smile and kind heart inspires us every day. May her neshama have an aliyah!" If a woman claims her ketuba and one witness testifies that she already received it, she needs to take an oath in order to receive her ketuba money. The Gemara had concluded that this oath is a rabbinic oath and not one required by Torah law. Rav Papa suggests how the husband can create a situation where the oath required will be one by Torah law (which is more strict and therefore better for the husband as the woman is less likely to lie). However, a difficulty is raised and another suggestion is put forward. Another difficulty is raised against the second suggestion and a third suggestion is brought. A Mishna from Shevuot 45a is quoted where it says that orphans also need to take an oath. The sages try to determine what is the case in which orphans need to take an oath. A woman can collect her ketuba from the husband's property, even if he is out of town, but she is required to take an oath. Is the law the same for a creditor? Should the law be more lenient for a woman on account of hina, so that women get married, or is the issue of ensuring that people loan money just as important and therefore the same would be true for a creditor? Rabbi Shimon in the Mishna distinguished between women collecting their ketuba who need to take an oath and women not collecting their ketuba who do not need to take an oath. Rabbi Yirnia, Rav Sheshet, Abaye, and Rav Papa each have different interpretations of Rabbi Shimon and on what issue he disagrees with the rabbis. Each opinion raises a difficulty with and rejects the previous one.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected