Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

View Top 200 Chart

Back to Rankings Page

Judaism
**Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran**

Hadran.org.il is the portal for Daf Yomi studies for women.

Hadran.org.il is the first and only site where one can hear a daily Talmud class taught by a woman. The classes are taught in Israel by Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber, a graduate of Midreshet Lindenbaum’s scholars program with a BA in Talmud and Tanach from Bar-Ilan University. Michelle has taught Talmud and Halacha at Midreshet Lindenbaum, Pelech high school and MATAN. She lives in Ra’anana with her husband and their five children. Each morning the daf yomi class is delivered via ZOOM and then immediately uploaded and available for podcast and download.

Hadran.org.il reaches women who can now have access to a woman’s perspective on the most essential Jewish traditional text. This podcast represents a revolutionary step in advancing women’s Torah study around the globe.

Latest Episodes:

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?

Yevamot 86 - June 1, 2 Sivan Jun 01, 2022

Show notes

Presentation

Today's daf is sponsored by Don Nadel in loving memory of his mother Rhoda Nadel, Zisa Risa bat Aliya haCohen on her 25th yahrzeit.

The Mishna is based on the fact that a non-levite can't eat maaser. This is according to Rabbi Meir's opinion as found in a braita. From where does he derive this? What do the rabbis, who disagree with him, derive from that verse? The Gemara, however, questions the understanding that the Mishna is based on Rabbi Meir as that does not fit with the last case in the Mishna where a levite woman is engaged to a kohen or the reverse and the wife cannot eat either truma or maaser- the kohen should be allowed to eat maaser as all kohanim are also levites. Rav Sheshet explains the last line of the Mishna to mean something else - that she cannot give permission to a messenger to take truma from the maaser. Mar son of Rabana explained it differently - that she can't collect the maaser in the granary. Does this fit with the two explanations for this issue in general - concerns for yichud in the granary or that she will continue to collect even once she is divorced? There is a debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria about to whom the truma and maaser are given is brought - is maaser given only to the levi or can be given also to the kohen. They disagree on how to read the verse referring to levites - does that include kohanim or not? A story is brought about Rabbi Akiva who blocked Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria (who was a kohen) from taking maaser in a particular field by moving the entrance to the side where there was a cemetery. There is a debate among amoraim about why the levites were penalized and lost the rights to eat maaser in the time of Ezra. What was the reason for this? And to whom was the maaser given instead? How does this work with the story told about Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria. The Mishna goes through a situation where a woman married men of different statuses and had children with each of them - at every given point in the story, can she eat truma, maaser or not? What happens when each of the children die? What is the situation if she was a daughter of a kohen?

Yevamot 85 - Rosh Chodesh Sivan, May 31 - 1 Sivan May 31, 2022

Show notes

This month's learning is sponsored by Michelle and Bill Futornick in honor of Shira's 18th birthday and high school graduation. "Shira was born on Shavuot, and has always been connected to Torah, especially through her more than 1,000 hours of community service in high school, the majority of which were with Friendship Circle. We are so proud of our daughter (and chevruta) and the mensch that she is."

Today's daf is sponsored by Michelle and Laurence Berkowitz in loving memory of Joy Rochwarger Balsam upon the 18th Yahrzeit of her passing. "Joy was a pioneer in women's torah learning and would be so proud of Rabbanit Farber and the Hadran project as it has provided a forum for gemara learning for many women."

Today's daf is sponsored anonymously on behalf of Memorial Day in America and in memory of all those who gave their lives to protect our freedom.

From where is it derived that women are commanded just as men are not to engage in a prohibited relationship with a kohen? Does it need its own unique verse as the issue is for a specific limited population or can it be derived from the verse in Bamidbar 5:6 "a man or woman who perform a sin…" from which is derived that men and women are equal as regards all Torah prohibitions? A discussion took place between Rav Papa and Rav Huna son of Rabbi Yehushua regarding the issue of whether a daughter of a kohen can marry a chalal. Rav Papa tried to prove it from a Mishna in Kiddushin about ten types of lineages that came from Babylonia and who is allowed to marry who. There it lists chalalim with Israelites and Levites but not Kohanim. Rav Huna rejects this claim as the Mishna only refers to cases that apply equally to men and women. Male kohanim cannot marry a chalala, but a female kohenet can marry a chalal. They asked Rav Sheshet whether a woman could get a ketuba from her yabam if she was married to a man forbidden by rabbinic law, but his brother (the yabam) was permitted to her? He answered that since the ketuba from a yabam is from the first husband, she would not be able to get her ketuba, as one who marries someone forbidden by rabbinic law forfeits her ketuba. Rabbi Elazar asked Rabbi Yochanan if those forbidden to marry a kohen who marry a kohen, even though they can get their ketuba, can they get mezonot, payment for sustenance? First, the Gemara clarifies precisely in which case the question is asked. Then they answer that she does not get mezonot. That answer does not correspond to a braita but an explanation is brought. Why in the rabbinic prohibition, the woman forfeits her ketuba but in the forbidden marriages to a kohen, she gets her ketuba. Two different answers are brought. What are the practical differences between the two opinions? The Gemara brings five different practical differences, but difficulties are raised against the first four. The Mishna discusses different connections between a woman and a Kohen or a Levi or a Yisrael that would not entitle her to eat truma or maaser or if she was a kohenet, would not permit her to eat truma or maaser in her father's house. The Gemara questions why one cannot eat maaser? Isn't a non-levi allowed to eat maaser?

Yevamot 84 - May 30, 29 Iyar May 30, 2022

Show notes

Study Guide Yevamot 84

Presentation in PDF format

Today's daf is sponsored by David Wenner in honor of Yaffa (Wenner) joining Hadran's Daf Yomi. "From your loving family."

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak brings further support for the assertion made that even though Rabbi Eliezer ruled that an androgynous is considered a male for truma, regarding animals for sacrifices, he views them as incapable of being sanctified. A braita tells about Rebbe, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that when he went to Rabbi Eliezer ben Arach, the students made a lot of ruckus to prevent him from learning and all he managed to do was to learn the line in our Mishna of Rabbi Eliezer regarding the punishment received by an androgynous for engaging in relations with a man. The ninth chapter begins with a reorganization of cases previously learned. The Mishna shows that there are cases where a woman is permitted to her husband but forbidden to her yabam (her husband's brother), forbidden to her husband but permitted to her yabam, permitted to both and forbidden to both. While the Mishna lists specific cases, the Gemara questions why specifically were certain cases were written in a particular manner, when they could have been described in other ways. Further, they suggest that perhaps the Mishna doesn't hold by a certain opinion regarding the offspring of an Egyptian convert (that it follows the mother) as otherwise, it would have listed a particular case in the Mishna. However, in the end, they conclude that it is inconclusive as the Mishna left off other cases as well. What else was left out? Were they really considered left out? Rav holds that a daughter of a kohen can marry a chalal. Can this be proven from our Mishna? A difficulty is raised against this halacha of Rav from a braita, but Rava interprets the braita differently.

Yevamot 83 - Yom Yerushalayim, May 29, 28 Iyar May 29, 2022

Show notes

Today's daf is dedicated in honor of the city of Jerusalem for Yom Yerushalayim. Celebrating 55 years since its unification.

Today's daf is sponsored by Rebecca Darshan in loving memory of her mother, Helene Isaacs, Chana bat Avraham David and Esther Rachel on her 22nd yahrzeit. "She was immersed in Torah learning and encouraged others to learn and teach. She lived life to its fullest, and the last 10 years of her life were in Jerusalem!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Batsheva Pava. "With gratitude to Hkbhu on the birth of a new grandson, Kol Lev Moshe, and for the Hanachat tefillin of his cousin, David Yakir. Also, in honor of Rabbanit Michelle, who day in, day out, gets up early to teach us the daf. May you have continued strength!"

In the Mishna, Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon ruled that a kohen who was an androgynous could feed his wife truma. This opinion treats an androgynous like a male. However in a braita, Rabbi Yosi says that an androgynous is a unique category and the rabbis didn't know if to treat it like a male or female. Rav holds that the braita reflects a later position of Rabbi Yosi's after he changed his mind. Shmuel holds that the correct version is the Mishna. Rav Huna says in the name of Rav that we hold like Rabbi Yosi regarding the androgynous and grafting before the shmita year. Shmuel holds like Rabbi Yosi regarding how much time before labor can one attribute blood that comes with labor pains as relating to labor and not to zava blood. He also holds like him regarding laws of mixed breeds (kilaim) in a field - if one mixed his vine with another's crop, he cannot forbid someone else's crops and therefore his part is considered kilaim but the friend's is not. The Gemara asks what did Shmuel hold regarding the issues in which Rav held like Rabbi Yosi. And what did Rav hold in the issues that Shmuel held like Rabbi Yosi. Some can be answered by another statement of theirs and some are unable to be answered. Rabbi Yehuda holds that a tumtum is a saris. If so, what would he have to say about the tumtum that was opened up and found to be a man and gave birth to seven children? He claims the mother must have borne children from another man. Rabbi Yiso son of Rabbi Yehuda had a slightly different version of the law regarding a tumtum. What is the difference between them? In what case is the androgynous liable to stoning when engaging in relations with another man? The Gemara brings different opinions on the matter. What is the source for each opinion? Even though in our Mishna, Rabbi Eliezer treats an androgynous as a male, when it comes to animals for sacrifices, it is not considered male or female and therefore can't be used for a sacrifice. With birds, it can be, as male or female is not specified by bird sacrifices. The rabbis disagree with him regarding the birds and disqualify the androgynous as well.

Yevamot 82 - Shabbat May 28, 27 Iyar May 27, 2022

Show notes

Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagreed regarding an androgynous – could he permit his wife to eat the breast and calf (chaze v'shok) of the animal? Or only truma? Reish Lakish permits only truma, was because he holds that truma was only a rabbinic law after the Temple was destroyed and that is why it is permitted to her. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with Reish Lakish's assumption about truma and holds that it is still a Torah law even after the destruction of the Temple. Rabbi Yochanan proves it from a braita about a piece of sacrificial meat that is impure that is mixed with pure meat. How does Reish Lakish explain that braita? Three different explanations are brought. Difficulties are raised with each of them – on the first explanation, the difficulties are resolved. On the other two, they are not. Does Rabbi Yochanan really hold that truma nowadays is obligated by Torah law? In a braita, there is a case with two boxes, one of chulin and one of truma, and two baskets, one with chulin and one with truma, and each basket falls into a box. Rabbi Yochanan is more lenient than Reish Lakish here and permits each one as we can assume the truma fell into truma and the chulin into chulin, even if there wasn't a majority of the chulin in the box before the contents of the box fell in. How can Rabbi Yochanan explain his lenient opinion here if truma is a Torah law? After explaining that Rabbi Yochanan was explaining the braita as corresponding to an opinion he doesn't hold by, a further question is raised. If the source follows one who says truma is only rabbinic, why is there no need for a majority, while in a similar case of a mikveh there is a need for a majority? The Gemara brings two answers. In the Mishna it says that an androgynous can get married to a woman but cannot be betrothed by a man. Is the first part of that sentence ab initio or de facto?

Yevamot 81 - May 27, 26 Iyar May 27, 2022

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Valerie Adler in honor of her daughter, Anoushka. "Congratulations to our amazing daughter Anoushka who is today officially an MD. May you be blessed to heal many people and be a source of comfort to all those in need. Ima and Abba."

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of the Kolodny family on the occasion of Avidan's Bar Mitzva.

The end of the Mishna mentioned actions taken by a saris or to an aylonit that would disqualify the woman from marrying a kohen. By inferring certain things from these statements, can one say that the Mishna disagrees with certain positions held by Rav Hamnuna (an amora) or Rabbi Yehuda (a tanna)? A saris from birth can marry and therefore if he is a kohen, his wife can eat truma. What is the status of an androgynous regarding marriage to a woman/man? Are they treated like a male or a female? Can they permit their wife to eat truma, if they are a kohen? Are they liable for engaging in relations with a man? There is a debate between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan regarding Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon's position that an andrgynous can permit his wife to eat truma. Reish Lakish holds that this applies only to truma and not to the breast and calf (chaze v'shok) of the animal. Rabbi Yochanan holds that she can eat both. Reish Lakish permits only truma, was because he holds that truma was only a rabbinic law after the Temple was destroyed and that is why it is permitted to her. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with Reish Lakish's assumption about truma and holds that it is still a Torah law even after the destruction of the Temple and since that is permitted, so is the chaze v'shok, which is also a Torah law. Reish Lakish proves that truma is a rabbinic law by bringing a source regarding a mixture of truma and chulin fig cakes and showing that laws of nullification apply even though the item is a dvar chashuv, something of significance (as the object usually sell by the unit), that laws of nullification should not apply to. Thus he infers, truma must be only a rabbinic law. Rabbi Yochanan rejects this argument by bringing a braita about a piece of sacrificial meat that is mixed with other meat and is nullified, even though it is an important item (generally sold by the unit) and sacrificial meat is obviously a Torah law! Additionally, he claims that the Mishna that teaches that laws of nullification do not apply to objects sold by the unit (Orla 3:6-7), was referring only to objects exclusively sold by the item and not ones that are usually sold by the item but sometimes sold by weight or estimation. How does Reish Lakish explain that Mishna? The Gemara goes back to the braita quoted by Rabbi Yochanan about a piece of meat and quotes the braita in its entirety and then asks how Reish Lakish can reconcile his opinion with that braita.

Yevamot 80 - May 26, 25 Iyar May 26, 2022

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy and Jerel Shapiro in memory of their dear cousin Judy Greenberg Hirsch of Chatsworth, CA, who passed away this week. "Judy was an early member of the Chavurah movement in LA, and was an amazing person. Zichrona L'vracha."

Today's daf is sponsored by Shira Krebs in honor of Rena Berger's birthday. "Today is the special birthday of my sister and number one daf yomi supporter, Rena Berger. Happy Birthday!"

How can we determine if someone is a saris chama (from birth)? Rabbi Eliezer in the Mishna held that a saris chama would do chalitza as he can potentially be healed. However, in a braita, he is quoted as describing a saris chama who does not do yibum or chalitza. Two suggestions are made to resolve the contradiction - either he changed his mind (if so, which way?) or his words in the braita were referring to a different law about a saris chama and not yibum and chalitza. One who has sign of being a saris or aylonit and then later grows two pubic hairs, Rav holds retroactively they are considered a saris/aylonit and therefore are already considered having reached maturity at age 13/12. Shmuel says they are considered mature at a later stage (according to some interpretations, when they grow hairs, according to others, when they reach the age of /18 (female)/20 (male) and it becomes clear they are a saris/aylonit. If so, then why does Rav not think that an aylonit who is raped gets to collect the kenas, 50 kesef, which according to Rav is not given only if the girl is a minor. They answer that the kenas is given to a girl who is a naara - between 12 and 12 and a half. The aylonit skips that stage and goes immediately from a minor to a bogeret (full adulthood). Both the determination of a saris/aylonit and whether a baby born in the eighth month is going to survive, happens only at the age of 20. How can an eighth-month baby survive at all? Rebbe holds that it could be a seven-month baby that waited an extra month before coming out. A story is brought of a woman whose husband went abroad for 12 months and she gave birth and they attributed the baby to the father, in order to show that we can assume the baby sometimes waits to come out. Is this the majority or a minority opinion? What are signs of a saris/aylonit? Regarding a saris - is it enough to have one of the signs or does one need to have all of the signs in order to be considered a saris? The line in the Mishna that seems to repeat that a saris cannot perform chalitza is brought to show that they side like Rabbi Akiva that a saris is one who is born with the condition, as it is juxtaposed to an aylonit.

Yevamot 79 - May 25, 24 Iyar May 25, 2022

Show notes

Presentation in PDF format

Today's daf is sponsored by Caroline and Victor Ofstein in honor of their son Shalom's wedding to Yocheved Davidowitz today. "May their home be filled with Torah, learning and mitzvot, and bracha and simcha always".

Today's daf is sponsored by Ruth Leah Kahan, Jessica Shklar, and Emily Michelson in loving memory of their mother Kadimah Michelson, Kadima bat HaRav Avraham Zvi Ben-Tzion v'Chaya, on her fourth yahrzeit.

Today's daf is dedicated to the memory of all those young children murdered in the shooting yesterday in an elementary school in Texas.

The end story of the Netinim is explained and why King David forbid them to marry Jews even though they had converted. As an act of revenge against King Saul, they insist on murdering seven of his descendants. How were those seven people chosen? After they were killed, their bodies were left to hang for half a year as a kiddush Hashem - to show everyone what is done even to sons of kings who don't treat converts properly, even those who have converted for ulterior motives. Ritzpa bat Aya, the concubine of King Saul, two of whose kids were among those murdered, protected the bodies from the birds and animals. Only after the rains began did King David allow them to be buried. As a result of this incident, 150,000 people converted to Judaism. From where is this derived? Was it really David who forbade them? Wasn't it already alluded to by Moshe in the Torah or by Joshua in the book of Joshua? In the time of Rebbe, they wanted to repeal this decree against the Netinim, but they were unsuccessful - why? Two different answers are given. There were two traditions regarding a man incapable of having children, a saris, regarding chalitza - one that he does perform chalitza and that chalitza is performed on his wife, and one that says the opposite. There are different tannatic opinions about which one refers to a man who was born like this and which one refers to a man who became this way later in life. An aylonit does not do chalitza or yibum. Rabbi Akiva holds that a man who became a saris does chalitza - but if Rabbi Akiva also holds that all negative commandments (which would include marriage to a saris - patzua daka) are like ones liable for karet, how could one possibly be obligated in chalitza or yibum? Rabbi Ami limits it to a case where the yevama was a convert and according to those who hold that a convert can also marry those who are forbidden to marry. Two questions are raised against Rabbi Ami's position. Raba brings a different answer - that he does chalitza only if he was not yet a saris when his brother died but became a saris before yibum was performed. A difficulty is raised against this position as well. A third answer is brought by Rav Yosef who rejects the question as he brings a different understanding of Rabbi Akiva's position regarding negative commandments - only those that are ones forbidden due to a close relation are like those liable for karet. Why is he even part of the mitzva of chalitza and yibum if the whole point of the mitzva is to carry on the name and he is not capable of that?

Yevamot 78 - May 24, 23 Iyar May 24, 2022

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Faye Schwartz in loving memory of her mother, Baila bat HaRav Elimelech whose yahrzeit was yesterday. "She instilled in us that it was our responsibility to advocate for those who were unable. Nothing made her prouder than having children whose lives were imbued with the learning and transmission of Torah."

Rabbi Yehuda held that female Egyptian and Edomite converts were forbidden just as the men were from marrying in the community. This fits well with a different statement of Rabbi Yehuda that converts are considered like "the community of Jews" and therefore can't marry those who can't marry within the community, such as mamzerim, and if the female converts were permitted to marry, they would not be able to marry the male Egyptian converts and there would be no third-generation Egyptian converts that are permitted to marry within the community. Why does the verse mention both the words 'children' and 'generations' (Devarim 23:9)? Why is the word "to them" mentioned twice? Why is the word "to him" also needed in the mamzer verse? Two different versions of Rabbi Yochanan's opinion are brought regarding the status of a child whose parents are each from different generations of Egyptian converts (first and second) - does the child follow the mother or the father? Two difficulties are raised against the first opinion that holds it follows the father, however, they are resolved. The second opinion is that it follows the mother, as a fetus is considered an extension of the mother's body. Abaye raises a difficulty on that ruling from a different sugya entirely, but he himself resolves it by saying that there is a unique law here based on the verse. A further question is raised on Abaye's answer but it too is resolved. Ravin said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that with nations of the world, we follow the father and if they converted, we go by the more disqualified parent - to what was he referring in each part of this statement? Mamazerim and Netinim are forbidden forever, both males and females, according to the Mishna. Reish Lakish holds that females are only forbidden for the first ten generations based on a gezeira shava from the verses about converts from Amon and Moav. How does he disagree with the Mishna? When Rabbi Eliezer was asked about this, he said that mamzerim are known to die out and would never make it even to a third generation. Why? And how does this match the Mishna that forbade them forever? They distinguish between mamzerim who are known to be mamzerim who can live for generations as all will make sure not to marry them and those whose problematic lineage is not known and will therefore die so that no one will accidentally marry them, which could lead to a huge increase in the number of mamzerim. The background to the story of why the Netinim were forbidden to marry Jews in the time of King David is brought.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected