Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Ketubot 27 - August 2, 5 Av Aug 02, 2022

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Emma Rinberg in loving memory of her mother, Marjorie Glick, Miriam Chana bat Menachem Mendel and Rachel who died one year ago. "I miss her smile, her support, her love and the fun times we had together. As a child she taught me, as an adult she taught all of us. She lived her long life with happiness, stoicism, culture and intelligence. A proud Jew, a staunch Zionist and to me, Mummy. I think of her every day with love."

Ketubot 26 - August 1, 4 Av Aug 01, 2022

Show notes

Ketubot 25 - July 31, 3 Av Jul 31, 2022

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Audrey Goldstein Levant in honor of her sister-in-law, Stacy Goldstein. "She is learning her first masechet with Hadran in Ottawa, Canada. Bubby Geri and I are so proud of you. Welcome to the club."

Ketubot 24 - Shabbat July 30, 2 Av Jul 29, 2022

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in loving memory of her beloved mother-in-law Bernice R. Cohen Schwartz, רחל בילא בת ר' שלום חיים ודרייזע גנסה, who celebrated her 99th birthday this year and is being buried today in NY. "She loved learning; always wanted to study Talmud as a girl and wasn't allowed to. May her neshama have an aliyah."

Today's daf is sponsored by Jane Shapiro in honor of Nina Black, her in-law and daf yomi friend. "May we be able to celebrate more Smachot together, including Siyum HaShas."

Ketubot 23 - Rosh Chodesh Av, July 29, 1 Av Jul 29, 2022

Show notes

This week's learning is dedicated by Marcia Baum in loving memory of Chaim Simcha ben Aharon Halevi and Liba on his 19th yahrzeit today. "My father was a larger than life individual whose impact is still felt many years after his petirah. He is missed every day."

The daughters of Shmuel were taken captive and yet knew how to save themselves from being prohibited to marry a kohen. If two women testify each about the other that they were not raped in captivity are they believed? Do we need to be concerned that they are lying for each other? What about two men testifying each about the other that he is a kohen?

Ketubot 22 - July 28, 29 Tamuz Jul 28, 2022

Show notes

Today's daf is dedicated by Tova and David Kestenbaum in honor of the engagement of their son, Gilad, to Noa Goldrich, daughter of Adina (ob"m) and Rafi Goldrich of Chashmonaim.

Today's daf is sponsored by Manes and Silvia Kogan in honor of their children, Daniela, Ilan and Abby. יהי רצון שה׳ ימלא משאלות לבם לטובה.

A number of situations are raised where judges may testify about each other in which they are not believed or it may just look like there is some untruth. If a woman says she was married but divorced or she was taken into captivity but not raped by a gentile, in what circumstances is she believed/not believed? If there were witnesses that she was married/taken into captivity, she is not believed. But if she was already remarried, we allow her to stay married. What is the source for believing her in the case that there were no witnesses and since she is the one who forbade herself, we believe her when she says she is now permitted? If a woman said she was married and then said she is single, we do not believe her, unless she can provide us with a good reason as to why she said she was married, as in the case of a woman who was trying to avoid inappropriate suitors. There is a debate regarding a case where there is contradictory testimony about whether the husband died or divorced her – if she already remarried, can she stay remarried? Rabbi Yochanan distinguishes between the case of death and divorce – why? Three different explanations are brought.

Ketubot 21 - July 27, 28 Tamuz Jul 27, 2022

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Ilana Friedman for the shloshim of her grandmother, Henna Malka bat Harav Yaakov Yitzchak, yesterday. "She was a descendant of the Noam Elimelech, student of Sarah Schneirer, she survived Schindler's list, illegally immigrated to Israel in 1946, and helped build the fledgling State of Israel. She merited to live just shy of 103 years and see 5 generations of descendants. May our learning give her neshama comfort and may we continue to have hatzlacha in our learning."

When witnesses verify their own signatures, do they need another witness as well? Rebbi and the rabbis disagree – what is the root of the debate? The Gemara points out that it needed to be stated what the debate was so that we wouldn't assume that Rebbi was just being stringent out of uncertainty. In what case would there be a relevant ramification if Rebbi was ruling out of uncertainty? Rav Yehuda quoted Shmuel's ruling that he held like the rabbis. Why was it necessary for him to say this – don't we always hold by the majority. Did Shmuel really hold this way? Wasn't there a case with a document of orphans in which Shmuel ratified it by having each witness testify about his own signature and that of the other!? Why was that case unique and not indicative of Shmuel's general policy? Another halacha that Rav Yehuda quoted in the name of Shmuel was that one can ratify a document if one witness testifies about himself and one of the judges testifies about his signature on the document called a henpeik that the judges issue when they ratify a document. While Rami bar Hama praised this ruling, Rava rejected it as each one is validating something different and therefore the two cannot be combined. Rav Safra ruled on how to handle a case where of the three judges who were ratifying the document, two recognized the signatures and were able to validate them. The Gemara derives three different halachot from there and Rav Ashi raises questions against the last two as it is not clear that they can be derived from his ruling. The first halacha derived was that a witness can become a judge. Is this really true? In determining the new moon, it is not the case. Why is there a distinction made between that case and the verification of documents. If a question is raised about one of the judges, can the other judges vouch for him? On what does it depend?

Ketubot 20 - July 26, 27 Tamuz Jul 26, 2022

Show notes

One cannot accuse witnesses to be zomemim unless they are present. However, there is a debate regarding witnesses who come to contradict a different group of witnesses – can they be done not in their presence? This affects a case where the witnesses signed on a document die. It is derived from a braita that to verify the signatures of witnesses from other documents, it must be from a document that one had raised doubts about its veracity. Other criteria for verification of documents are brought. If one writes down something one witnessed, can one testify years later, based on their written testimony? On what does it depend? What other methods of jogging one's memory can be/not be employed? If there are mounds of dirt near the city or the roads, one needs to be concerned that there are bodies buried there. What is considered near? If the mounds are far from the city, it depends if they are old or new. This is because regarding the old ones, we can assume that if people were buried there, no one would remember. After how many years can we assume that people no longer remember? Can witnesses verify their own signatures? Do they need another witness together with them in order to verify their signature?

Ketubot 19 - July 25, 26 Tamuz Jul 25, 2022

Show notes

If a person is told that they must sign this document as a false witness or else they will be killed, they should not sign. The Gemara tries to use this to explain Rabbi Meir's opinion in the braita that if witnesses verify their signatures but say they were forced, we do not believe them as that is a statement that is self-incriminating. But it is rejected as the law is that one does not need to give one's life if forced to sign a false document. One only needs to give one's life for three things – murder, idol worship and forbidden sexual relations. Rabbi Meir's opinion is explained in a different manner. If one says that the document is a document of trust, he is not believed. Is this said about the creditor, the borrower or the witnesses who are claiming it is a document of trust? Three different sages explain this is three different manners. What is a document of trust? A creditor should never leave a document of a loan that was already paid back in their house as it could allow the creditor to try to collect the loan twice. One should not have in one's house a document of trust or a pasim document as these documents are false documents and could enable one to collect money that isn't theirs. What is a pasim document? If witnesses who are signed on the document say it was a document of trust or they issue a declaration that the document was signed under duress, are they believed? If they say the document is valid, but was given upon a condition that was never met, do we believe them? What if one of the witnesses signed on the document says it was given upon and condition and the other says it was not?

Ketubot 18 - July 24, 25 Tamuz Jul 24, 2022

Show notes

Why didn't the Mishna mention a case of one who claimed that they borrowed money from another, but already paid it back? Why didn't it mention the case of one who said "Your father lent me money but I paid him back half." Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and the rabbis disagree regarding that case – what does each hold and why? Why is it different than a standard case of modeh b'miktzat, one who admits to part of the claim, who is obligated to swear regarding the half in question? The Mishna brings another case where one is believed as we only know of the claim at all from what the person told us and therefore, they are believed about the rest. The case is regarding verification of signature on a document. When the witnesses verified their signatures, they claimed they were forced into it or were too young to testify or were disqualified witnesses. Rami bar Chama limits one of the cases of the Mishna but there are two versions as to which one he is limiting. How does the Mishna work with the principle that once one has testified, one can no longer change their testimony? How does it work with the principle that a person does not come to court and self-incriminate themselves? A braita brings a debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding the law in our Mishna. The Gemara raises a difficulty with Rabbi Meir's opinion.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected