Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Yevamot 96 - Shabbat June 11, 12 Sivan Jun 10, 2022

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Leah Ackner and Jonathan Loring in honor of their daughter, Meira Raizel's Bat Mitzvah "16 years ago, we were called to the Torah to celebrate our marriage. Today, we are proud to watch you be called to the Torah as a Bat Mitzvah, chanting the very same verses mommy chanted at our aufruf. We are so proud of the person you are becoming. May you continue to learn and grow in Torah - we love you!"

The Gemara brings a number of other resolutions to how Shmuel could hold like Rabbi Yosi and also say that a yevama is not treated like a married woman. The Mishna describes a case where a man married multiple half-sisters thinking their sister had died, but in fact, they hadn't. To which is he considered married and to which not? Laws regarding yibum with a boy 9 years old are discussed. What is the difference between actions of his relating to yibum and one who has already reached puberty? If he engages in intercourse with the yevama, what is the strength of that relationship? What is two brothers each over nine but haven't yet reached maturity, perform yibum with the yevama, how do we treat that? What if the nine-year-old performed yibum and then died, what would be the laws for his wife? What are the issues at stake?

Yevamot 95 - June 10, 11 Sivan Jun 10, 2022

Show notes

Presentation in PDF format

Why is a woman forbidden to go back to her husband after being with another man unwittingly (one witness testified that he had died) while a man whose wife went abroad and he married her sister, thinking his wife was dead, is not penalized and can return to his original wife? The answer comes from a drasha, because logic would state that it was forbidden. There is a debate regarding a similar situation with his mother-in-law – is he then forbidden to go back to his original wife or not? What is the logic mentioned previously? It mentions there an issur kal, lighter prohibition. What is the case of the lighter prohibition? Several suggestions are brought until they conclude that it is talking about a married woman. Why is that considered an issur kal? The Gemara brings two explanations for Rabbi Yosi's ambiguous line in the Mishna. Shmuel holds like Rabbi Yosi. A question is raised against this from a debate between Rav and Shmuel. How can this be resolved?

Yevamot 94 - June 9, 10 Sivan Jun 09, 2022

Show notes

Presentation in PDF format

There are three attempts to answer a question asked of Rav Sheshet (version 2) about whether one witness to allow a woman to be exempt from yibum. If one's wife went abroad and he was told she was dead and married her sister, what is the law?

Yevamot 93 - June 8, 9 Sivan Jun 08, 2022

Show notes

Reish Lakish suggested that the Mishna quoted by Rabbi Yochanan could be explained as Rabbi Akiva's opinion. But this is rejected as Rabbi Akiva holds that one can acquire things that are not yet in existence and the Mishna was based on the principle that things that are not yet in existence cannot be acquired. Some hold that Rabbi Akiva holds this way and others disagree. Rav Nachman brought a list of rabbis, including Rabbi Akiva, who all hold that one can acquire something that is not yet in existence. The Gemara then lists all of the sources in which we see each one's opinion. Two versions are brought of a question that Rav Sheshet was asked. Either the question was – can one witness be accepted to permit a woman to marry a yabam. Or can one witness be accepted to permit a woman to marry someone other than the yabam (that the son died after the father)?

Yevamot 92 - June 7, 8 Sivan Jun 07, 2022

Show notes

Presentation in PDF format

Today's daf is sponsored by Dianne Kuchar marking the shloshim today of our beloved husband, father and grandfather Dennis, Shimon Avraham Ben Yisrael Moshe. It is harder to believe each day. Today he would be turning 66."

Today's daf is sponsored by Tina & Shalom Lamm with gratitude to Hashem for a new grandson, Nachum Betzalel. "Mazal tov to his parents, Shlomit & Ari Lamm!"

If a woman remarries based on one witness testifying to her husband's death, and it is rumored that he is alive, we do not act based on the rumor, as she is already married. If the court rules the husband is dead based on one witness' testimony and then the husband is alive, is that considered a mistake of the court and the woman is exempt from bringing a sacrifice, or is it considered a mistake, and then the woman needs to bring a sin offering? The Mishna stated that a woman who is permitted to marry by the court, but then she ruins it, needs to bring a sacrifice. Two explanations are brought to explain what the Mishna is referring to in this line. If the woman received information that her husband and son died, but the order in which they died was incorrect and there are ramifications for laws of yibum, what is the law? What if he in fact died, but witnesses testify that he was still alive at the time she remarried? What is the status of children born from the second husband before and after she found out. If she received testimony that her husband died but was only betrothed before she found out he was alive, she can go back to her original husband and even if she received a get from the second husband, it is an invalid get and she can still marry a kohen. The Mishna is attributed to Rabbi Akiva who says that if a woman trangresses a negative prohibition (marrying someone else instead of the yabam). the offspring is a mamzer. Rav and Shmuel debate whether or not betrothal is effective in this case and therefore whether she could require a get from the second husband. Rav Ashi explains that after receiving the get from the second husband, she can go back and perform yibum, as long as the brother is not a kohen. Rav held that betrothal of a yevama by someone else is not effective, but marriage is. The Gemara brings three different explanations to that unclear statement. Rabbi Yanai says that they ruled like Shmuel that betrothal is not effective for a yevama who married someone else. Rabbi Yochanan claims that this could have been derived from a Mishna. Could it have been?

Yevamot 91 - June 6, 7 Sivan Jun 06, 2022

Show notes

Study Guide Yevamot 91

Presentation in PDF format

The Mishna listed several different opinions regarding the penalties for a woman who remarried based on the testimony of one witness. Do each of them build on the one before or on the one after him? Two different approaches to this are brought. Rav Huna says in the name of Rav that in a case of two witnesses who testify he died and the court was not involved, the halacha follows the Mishna that she can stay married to the first husband. Rav Nachman is bothered by this statement as he should have stated "The halacha is like Rabbi Shimon" as he assumes the Mishna reflects that position and the rabbis disagree. Rav Sheshet questions Rav as he doesn't think there is an argument at all regarding this issue and doesn't, therefore, understand why Rav says "The halacha is like this." He brings a braita to support his claim that there is no debate, however, the Gemara brings four alternative readings of that braita. Ulla also raises a question on the logic behind Rav Sheshet's position (the woman is clearly not to blame) from six different Mishnayot in which we penalize the woman. However, explanations are brought for each one, as in each source there was a reason why the woman was to blame.

Yevamot 90 - Shavuot - June 5, 6 Sivan Jun 03, 2022

Show notes

Rav Chisda brings six more attempts to prove that rabbis can override Torah law. Each time Raba rejects his claim. The first is from a law regarding truma, the second regards impure blood that was sprinkled on the altar. The third is a list of laws that the rabbis instituted a decree that prevented the fulfillment of a mitzva. These and the previous case were rejected by Raba as they are not cases where a prohibition is permitted, it just prevents the fulfillment of a mitzva. This is known as "shev v'al taase" – sit and do nothing. If one cancels a get in a way that Rabban Gamliel prohibited, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says the get is not a valid get – thus again proving the power of the courts to override Torah law. Raba rejects this as he says in this case, the rabbis are uprooting the marriage. The last source is cases in which rabbis instituted the death penalty or lashes to someone who went against a rabbinic law. Raba rejected it as each case was a unique circumstance. The Gemara then continues to go through the list of laws (rights to various things) that are affected by the fact that the woman (whose husband went abroad and she thought he was dead and remarried...) is not considered the wife of either of the two men and explains each one and why it is that way.

Yevamot 89 - Shabbat June 4, 5 Sivan Jun 03, 2022

Show notes

A woman who was told by one witness that her husband died and she remarried and later found out that her first husband was still alive, needs a get from each of them. The get from the second is not really needed but the rabbis were concerned people would see and think that one can get out of marriage without a get. If so, then if she was engaged only to the second husband, one would need a get as well. Therefore, they suggest that even though the Mishna didn't say so, it must be a get is needed. In the end, though, the Gemara rejects this and explains why a get would be needed only if she was married, but not if she was only betrothed to the second husband. Why doesn't the woman have rights to the ketuba of the first husband or produce from her property she brought into the marriage or food or shreds of clothes of hers that she brought into the marriage? The Gemara brings a Mishna in Trumot 2:2 that explains what happens in a case where someone took truma from impure produce on behalf of fruits that were pure. Rav Chisda and Rabbi Oshaya differ in their understanding of what happens if it was done on purpose. The braita says "He did not do anything." Does this mean that it is not truma (Rav Chisda) or it is considered truma but he needs to take truma again on the pure produce? Rav Chisda explains his opinion that the rabbis decided it wouldn't be truma as they were concerned that if they declared it truma (as it is actually by Torah law), the person would likely not take truma from the pure produce as well. Several sources are brought to question both Rav Chisda and Rav Oshaya's positions and they are answered by distinguishing between the different cases. Raba questions Rav Chisda by raising a very basic question – how can the rabbis override Torah law and basically allow a non-kohen to eat truma (as they declared something that is actually truma by Torah law not to be considered truma). Rav Chisda is not bothered by the questions and begins to bring sources where we see the rabbis can overturn Torah law. The first source is from our Mishna as they state the children from her first and second husband are all mamzerim even though by Torah law she is married to the first husband. By issuing this penalty they are permitting someone who is a regular Israelite by Torah law (the child) to marry a mamzer! Raba rejects this by quoting those who say he cannot marry a mamzeret. The second source regards a minor who is betrothed only by rabbinic law and yet she is considered married for certain basic laws. Raba rejects each part for different reasons.

Yevamot 88 - June 3, 4 Sivan Jun 03, 2022

Show notes

On what basis is one witness believed in this case to permit the woman to remarry? Four answers are brought - the first three try to prove it from Torah laws, but are unsuccessful. In the end, the Gemara concludes that she can marry based on one witness because the rabbis decided to be lenient in order to prevent an aguna situation. That explains why in the end, they are very strict with her if she is wrong - they assume that she will not only rely on the one witness but will do everything she can to make sure that he is really not alive. Rav and Shmuel each state a limitation on the Mishna and the Gemara tries to understand what they each meant by their statements. The Mishna said she needs a get from both husbands - why from the second - wasn't her marriage to him invalid?

Yevamot 87 - June 2, 3 Sivan Jun 02, 2022

Show notes

Study Guide Yevamot 87

Presentation in PDF format

This week's learning is sponsored by Shira Daniel in loving memory of her father, Shlomo Yosef ben Chaim Shmuel.

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family in honor of Shira Futornik. "Shira! All your self-assumed aunts (and a few uncles) are inspired by your daily commitment to learning the Daf and are a bit farklempt watching you sit daily with your dad to do so. You are realizing a dream that so many of us waited years to achieve. In Masekhet Brakhot, R. Michelle taught us the story of R. Elazar Ben Azarya, at a young age already knew as much as a 70-year-old (הרי אני כבן 70 שנה), but he was always open to learning more. Our wish is that you enjoy the learning you achieve in your youth, and continue to always find a fresh perspective in your learning. Happy (belated) 18th birthday from your Hadran Zoom Family."

By what rights can a woman married to a kohen and then subsequently married someone else, go back to eating truma at her husband's house after her second husband's death (and any sons she had with him), upon condition that she has a child left from the marriage with a kohen? These laws are derived from the laws of a bat kohen who can return to her father's house to eat truma. A bat kohen cannot go back to eating the breast and thigh if the sacrifice upon her return. Five different drashot are brought that teach this halacha. However, a woman who returns to her husband's house can eat the breast and thigh. Although there is a debate regarding this point as if the basic law is derived from the bat kohen, how can the law be more inclusive? A bat kohen who is pregnant with a non-kohen or one waiting for yibum cannot return to her father's house to eat truma. These laws are derived from verses. Why isn't the law of a pregnant woman obvious from a kal vachomer learned out from laws of yibum? The kal vachomer is rejected and that explains why the verse was needed. Why is there a verse to teach that a bat kohen can't go back if she has children and another one if she is pregnant? The Gemara suggests many possible kal vachomers that could have been made to teach certain laws by truma or yibum and then shows why a verse was needed as the law is not as one could have concluded from the kal vachomer. If a man goes abroad and the witnesses come and say he died, and she marries someone else and has children. What is the law? On what does it depend? What are the different opinions?

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected