Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Yevamot 9 - March 16, 13 Adar 2 Mar 16, 2022

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Professor Jonathan Ben-Ezra in honor of his wife, Dr. Robin Zeiger. "I am so proud that we were able to finish Seder Moed together."

Today's daf is sponsored by Jennifer and Joshua Lankin in loving memory of Jennifer's brother, Avigdor Chai Avraham ben Rachel Leah and Meir Tzvi, in honor of her grandma Marilyn Kaiman, daughter Adi and all agunot on this international agunah day. "My grandmother is an inspiration through her daf learning & I pray my daughter Adi will grow up to love learning Torah."

Presentation in PDF format

Rebbi and the rabbis each learn out the laws of our Mishna from different verses in the Torah. The rabbis derived it from Vayikra 18 from the verse regarding one's wife's sister (from the word "aleha"). Rebbi derived it from the verse in Devarim 25 regarding yibum. If so, what does Rebbi derive from the verse regarding one's wife's sister from the word "aleha"? He derives from there through a gezeira shava to the verses about a bull offering brought when the community sins and needs to bring a sin offering. They derive from one's wife's sister, that in order to be obligated to bring the bull sin offering, it needs to be that the community sinned on a transgression that is punishable by karet and if done unwittingly, one would bring a sin offering. From there it is derived that the same holds true for other sin offerings such as an individual who makes a mistake or a nasi, a kohen gadol, and one who sins by worshipping idols (both for the individual and the community). How are each of these derived from the verses? From where do the rabbis derive this? What does Rebbi derive from the verses that the rabbis used? Why does the Mishna list 15 cases when they could have listed 16? Rebbi explained that the Mishna only listed cases that are not subjects of dispute. Is this really true? The Gemara raises a number of questions against this explanation. But answers are brought.

Yevamot 8 - March 15, 12 Adar 2 Mar 15, 2022

Show notes

Presentation

Study Guide Yevamot 8

Today's daf is sponsored for a refuah Shleima to Dr. Joakim Isaacs, Avraham Chaim ben Fruma, a seasoned Daf Yomi learner, from the Isaacs and Darshan Families.

Today's daf is sponsored anonymously in loving memory of Moshe ben David Rav Moshe Feinstein.

Today's daf is dedicated by Marcia Baum in honor of the birth of her granddaughter Moriah Nava born to her children Jessica and Jeremy Miles. "How wonderful that this little girl has been born in an age when Gemara learning for girls is acceptable and encouraged by many!"

The Gemara rejects the comparison of Ulla of yibum to a leper who has a seminal emission because the leper has a moment where he is permitted before he has the seminal emission, whereas in the case of yibum there is not always a time when the woman is permitted to do yibum with the brother (depending on the order of events). It is possible the drasha of "aleha" is necessary in a case where it can be compared, in which the woman fell to yibum before her sister married the brother. Another suggestion as to why the drasha was necessary is that one could have learned from a heikeish that all forbidden relationships are compared to his brother's wife, in which yibum would be permitted in them all. Alternatively, Rava suggests that the verse did not even come to forbid the forbidden relative – that was clear - the drasha was meant for the tzara, the second wife. A number of questions are raised against Rava, but are answered. If it is so clear that they will not allow forbidden relations in yibum, why should it not be clear (why a drasha is needed) to teach that even the second wife can't do yibum? Rami Bar Hama also raises a question against Rava and there is a back and forth between them. Rav Ashi asks about the drasha of "aleha" and asks maybe the drasha should come to teach that when there is a mitzvah, yibum, both the forbidden relative and the second wife will be permitted? What is derived from the expressions "and he shall take her" and "he shall perform levirate marriage with her" both according to the Rebbe and according to the rabbis?

Yevamot 7 - March 14, 11 Adar 2 Mar 14, 2022

Show notes

Study Guide Yevamot 7

Today's daf is sponsored by Betsy Mehlman in loving memory of her father Harold Mondshein, Zvi Menachem Mendel ben Shlomo on his 38th yahrzeit. "He was a kind, loving man with an optimistic outlook on life and a baal koreh with a beautiful voice."

Today's daf is sponsored by Julie Landau in loving memory of Melvin Landau. "My father loved all kinds of learning and knew something about every topic. He never hesitated to help those in need. Twelve years on, he is sorely missed."

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Naomi Cohen on her birthday. "Happy Birthday from all your family in celebration of your birthday but also to celebrate your dedication to Talmud study and general Jewish knowledge."

Rav Shimi suggests that the reason that a drasha was needed to teach that one cannot light a fire on Shabbat even to administer a court related punishment was because it could have been derived from a kal va'chomer that it would override Shabbat. What is the kal va'chomer? The braita which in the end teaches that one cannot administer court death penalties on Shabbat is explained both according to the interpretation on 6b that without the drasha, one would have assumed it was permitted as a positive commandment overrides a negative one even when it is punishable by karet, and according to Rav Shimi's explanation. After not being able to find a conclusive source to learn that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment, even when punishable by karet, the Gemara continues to search for a reason for why if there wasn't a drasha, we would have assumed that yibum could be performed even if it meant a man marrying his wife's sister. One suggestion is that since yibum overrides the prohibition to marry one's brother's wife and that is singled out, we can apply the principle that if something is singled out, it comes to teach about the whole group. This, however is rejected as the general rule is by a prohibition and it is singled out by yibum to permit it. That is not the typical use of a generalization and a detailed case. Another suggestion is the one's brother's wife would serve as the paradigm for all forbidden relationships – since yibum overrides that, it would then override all the others. That suggestion is rejected as well as all yibum situations are with the brother's wife, but if one would permit another forbidden relationship, it would permit two forbidden relationships. Why don't we say, since it was permitted for the brother's wife, we can permit everything as is the case by a leper whose eighth days falls on erev Pesach and he has a seminal emission that day – since he was permitted that day to put his hands, ears and toe into the azara as a leper, he is permitted to do it as well, even though he had a seminal emission. But is this really a fair comparison?

Yevamot 6 - March 13, 10 Adar 2 Mar 13, 2022

Show notes

Study Guide Yevamot 6

This week's learning is sponsored by Bracha Ehrman. "Mazal tov to Esther Ehrman, the Bet Shemesh women's daf yomi group and the Hadran community on finishing seder moed!

Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim in loving memory of her grandmother, Sarah Pfeffer Aschheim. "Omama, your sudden passing in Hannover, Germany in 1931 created a void that is still felt to this day. You would be so proud of your descendants."

Can we learn from the laws of honoring one's parents that in general, a positive commandment can override a negative one, even if the negative one is punishable by karet? In the end, this too is rejected. They try to derive it also from the commandment to build the Temple and from the laws of kindling on Shabbat. Both those answers are rejected as well.

Yevamot 5 - Shabbat March 12, 9 Adar 2 Mar 11, 2022

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Rachel Lopatin in honor of Cara Lopatin. "With lots of love, Eema and Abba."

From where do we learn that a positive commandment override s a negative commandment, according to the rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yishmael and hold that the words "wool and linen" in the verse next to the verse about tzitzit is necessary for itself and not free to learn this principle? The Gemara suggests three other answers – first, from a leper who is commanded to shave all his hair on his head, even though the Torah states a man can't shave his peot, the corners of his head. This answer is rejected as the negative commandment is one that is limited only to men and therefore not as strong as a regular negative commandment. The second attempt is from a kohen who is a leper who also shaves all of his head, including his whole bread, even though there is a commandment for kohanim not to shave the corners of their beards. Even though this too is limited, the Gemara thinks it was added to teach us also about all cases (as one could have learned from the previous case about the positive commandment overriding a negative one in limited prohibitions, therefore, this much teach something additional). But that too is rejected as it is still limited only to men (and kohanim) and can't be learned from the previous case as kohanim have many extra prohibitions so one may have thought to be strict here. The next attempt is from a nazir who is a leper and is commanded to cut his hair, despite the fact that a nazir is commanded not to cut his hair. However, that too is rejected as a nazir can undo his promise and not be a nazir if he wants and will be permitted to cut his hair. That weakens the negative commandment and therefore we cannot learn from there to other cases. The Gemara goes back to the verses about tzitzit and shaatnez and tries to derive it from certain words that may be unnecessary, until they finally conclude that it is derived from the word shaatnez, as that word is not necessary and can therefore be used to teach that a positive commandment can override a negative one. Next, the Gemara wants to prove that this principle applies as well to negative commandments that are punishable by karet. They try to learn it from brit milah, the Paschal sacrifice, daily Tamid sacrifice, a combination of some of the previous ones, and honoring one's parents, but all attempts are rejected.

Yevamot 4 - March 11, 8 Adar 2 Mar 11, 2022

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Ronit Eini on behalf of her son Yair Ezra on finishing Masechet Megillah.

Today's daf is sponsored anonymously for the refuah shelaima of Devorah bat Eta Elka Michla.

From where do we derive that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment? The first answer is to learn it from the juxtaposition of tzitztit and shaatnez which comes to teach that the positive commandment of tzitzit overrides the negative commandment of shaatnez. From where do we learn that we can derive laws from the juxtaposition (smuchin) of texts? Rabbi Yehuda only permits this in the book of Devarim. From where is this learned? Some explain that when Rabbi Yehuda derives juxtaposition, it is because it is obvious from the context that the verse is here for this purpose. Others say it is because the verse is unnecessary in its context. These two options are explained both regarding the prohibition for a man to engage in sexual relations with his father's rape victim and regarding the tzitzit and shaatnez case. The Gemara questions the argument by shaatnez that it was unnecessary to repeat a section that came up in Vayikra as it does seem like it was necessary in order to clarify the laws. In the end, they suggest that the words wool and linen were unnecessary as explained by the school of Rabbi Yishmael that clothing in the Torah always means wool and linen. But if it didn't say wool and linen, we would have anyway understood that tzitzit are wool and linen as it says, "make tzitzit on the corner of your garments" and it should be techelet, which is wool. From there it is obvious that wool strings are put on a linen garment! This is not a concern as that verse could be explained differently, as Rava explains it.

Yevamot 3 - March 10, 7 Adar 2 Mar 10, 2022

Show notes

Study Guide Yevamot 3

Today's daf is sponsored by Tina Lamm with gratitude to Hashem for a new granddaughter, Dahlia Hadar. "Mazal tov to her parents, Bracha and Akiva Berger!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Sylvia Simmons in loving memory of her father, Avrom Simmons, Avraham Nachum ben Yisrael on his yahrzeit. "'Brand plucked from fire,' survivor of Kovno ghetto, he planted the seeds for my studies with Hadran community of Talmud learners."

Today's daf is sponsored by Susan Shabsels. "I would like to dedicate my learning today to the success of The Hamptons Synagogue's brilliant Rabbi Marc Schneier in his tireless efforts on behalf of interreligious and ethnic understanding between Muslims and Jews as evidenced by his brokering the meeting between Turkey's president Erdogan and Israel's president Herzog."

Today's daf is sponsored anonymously in memory of Moshe ben Amram, Moshe Rabbenu.

All the cases in the Mishna are derived from the case of "his wife's sister" - if so, why does the Mishna start with "his daughter" and not that case? Is it because "his daughter" is learned from a drasha? No! It is because "his daughter" is the closest to him and therefore the Mishna began with that case. The order and categorization of the cases in the Mishna is explained. Why is the word "exempt" used in the Mishna and not "forbidden"? Why does the Mishna specify the number fifteen at the beginning of the Mishna and then again mentions them at the end "and these"? It is coming to limit the cases where the second wife is exempt to those 15 alone and not to two other cases mentioned by Rav and Rav Asi (who held they also exempt the second wife). How would Rav and Rav Asi then explain our Mishna - what is excluded by the number fifteen and why doesn't the Mishna mention the other two cases that they claim has the same laws as the cases in the Mishna? The laws of the Mishna are all derived from the case of his wife's sister in the Torah. How? It can be understood from the derivation that if we didn't have the derivation, one could have thought that a brother would be permitted to perform levirate marriage with his wife's sister - why? Is it because a positive commandment overrides a negative one? Does that principle apply to a negative commandment punishable by karet?

Yevamot 2 - March 9, 6 Adar 2 Mar 09, 2022

Show notes

Presentation in PDF format (for the proper effect, open with a Reader such as Adobe and view in Read or Presentation mode)

Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren."

This week's learning is sponsored by Suri Davis-Stern in honor of her son's engagement and daughter's wedding. "Hakarat hatov to Hkbh on the engagement of my son, Yosef Stern to Rivka Cohen and the forthcoming wedding of my daughter, Esther Stern to Shai Goldman."

Today's daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in loving memory of Professor Dianne Ashton "She was taken from us suddenly in January of this year. A strong woman who beat all odds for her years and strongly advocated for woman's achievements and spirituality and modeled them herself."

Today's daf is sponsored by Naomi Ferziger and Debbie Gevir in loving memory of their friend Ruti Greenberg. "Ruti was our wonderful, vivacious and beautiful friend who died on Pesach 8 years ago. Ruti's chessed, which is exemplified in her name "Rut", was just one of her special characteristics. Her optimism and strength coupled with her joie de vivre, wit and beauty continue to live in our hearts. Ruti, we miss you so much and think of you often. Yehi zichra baruch."

If a married man died without having children, his wife would be designated to enter into a levirate marriage with his brother in order to fulfill the name of the dead brother (continue his legacy). However, if he has one brother and that brother happens to be forbidden to the wife due to one of 15 forbidden relationships described in the Mishna, she would be exempt from levirate marriage and would be permitted to marry anyone else. Not only is she permitted without levirate marriage, but if he had other wives, they would be permitted as well. If there was a third brother to whom the wife was not related to in a forbidden manner, and the second wife (tzara) entering into a levirate marriage with him and then he died without children, the first wife, the second wife (the one who is now married to the third brother, and if the third brother had another wife, they would all be exempt from levirate marriage with the other brother (the one to whom the first wife was forbidden to in the first place). However, if the first wife were to die before the husband, then the forbidden relationship is no longer in existence and the other wives would be permitted (and therefore obligated) to enter into a levirate marriage with the brother. All these laws are derived from the case of "his wife's sister" - if so, why does the Mishna start with "his daughter" and not that case?

Chagigah 27 - Siyum - March 8, 5 Adar 2 Mar 08, 2022

Show notes

Siyum Chagiga & Moed is sponsored by the Ahuza Women's Shabbat Shiur in loving memory of Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen, who passed away on Sunday February 13. "She was a woman ahead of her time. She taught a Gemara class to women in Haifa, starting in 1978, way before any other class of women studying Talmud. Courageously, she made Aliyah alone at the age of 19, right after the war of independence. She was a university professor, a mother, a founding member of Kolech, an educator, and also a rabbanit: the wife of the chief rabbi of Haifa Sha'ar Yeshuv Cohen. Our study group, who had the great honor to study with the Rabbanit on Shabbat afternoons, and in some cases, learn with her Gemara, believe that sponsoring a siyum in her memory a fitting tribute to an amazing woman. May all women studying at Hadran find Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen a role model and may her memory be a blessing to all."

Siyum Chagiga & Moed is sponsored by Michael Fishbane and sons, Eitan Fishbane and Elisha Russ-Fishbane in honor of Mona Fishbane's 75th birthday. "With gratitude to Michelle Farber for the wonderful daily podcasts which guide Mona on her daf yomi journey."

A verse is brought from Ezekiel 41:22 to show that the table is considered wood even though it is covered in gold. The verse there opens by calling the table "altar" and ends by calling it a table. We can learn from here that when there is no Temple, the table is our altar, meaning opening our table to guests, etc. is our way to receive atonement. All the vessels in the Temple have substitute vessels other than the altars as they are considered like the ground. From where is this derived? The rabbis said the altars are covered and therefore didn't have substitutes. The Gemara tries to understand that cryptic line and suggests some other possibilities as to how to read it. The Masechet ends with two different statements about types of people to whom the fire of hell does not reach – either Torah scholars as their bodies burn from the fire of Torah or the sinners of Israel as despite their being sinners, they all full of mitzvot/good deeds like a pomegranate is full of seeds.

Hadran Text for the Siyum

Introduction to Masechet Yevamot - by Dr. Ayelet Hoffman Libson Mar 07, 2022

Show notes

This shiur is sponsored by Valerie Adler in honor of her niece, Dr. Ayelet Hoffman Libson. "Like all of us who have listened to Ayelet's wonderful introductions in previous masechot, I am looking forward with anticipation to hear her overview of Yevamot. This is an added pleasure for me in my journey with Hadran."

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected