Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Sanhedrin 62 - February 17, 19 Shvat Feb 17, 2025

Show notes

Today's daf is dedicated to the release of Sagui Dekel-Chen, Alexandre Troufanov, and Iair Horn after 498 days in captivity. Wishing them a refuah shleima and praying for the safe release of the rest of the hostages.

Rabbi Zakai brought a braita which stated that one who performs multiple acts of idol worship in a single lapse of awareness is only liable for one sin offering. Rabbi Yochanan told him to teach this braita outside the study hall because the braita was corrupted. Rabbi Abba tried to justify Rabbi Zakai's words based on Rabbi Yosi's opinion in his dispute with Rabbi Natan regarding the laws of Shabbat - whether the prohibition of kindling fire was singled out as a negative commandment or to divide liability. However, Rav Yosef rejects this comparison as even Rabbi Yosi holds that if one does several actions in a single lapse of awareness, one will be liable to bring a sin offering for each one. The Gemara raises another difficulty and resolves it.

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda brought a different version of the braita that Rabbi Zakai had presented to Rabbi Yochanan, which also dealt with someone who performs multiple acts and is only liable for one sin offering. The Gemara brings four possible explanations to understand the braita, concluding with the final one, and explaining why Rabbi Yochanan did not accept this braita from Rabbi Zakai.

Sanhedrin 61 - February 16, 18 Shvat Feb 16, 2025

Show notes

Rabbi Yirmiya explains that there are two verses about idol worship - one about bowing and one about slaughtering - each teaching different principles. The verse about slaughtering teaches that if someone performs any Temple-like ritual for idols, they are punished by stoning, even if that's not the typical way to worship that particular idol. The verse about bowing teaches that bowing specifically is punishable even if it's not the usual way to worship that idol, while other acts are only punishable by stoning if done in the manner that particular idol is typically worshipped.

Rava bar Rav Chanan challenges Rabbi Yirmiya's interpretation. He suggests the opposite - that we should learn from the bowing verse that any act of idol worship is forbidden regardless of whether it's the typical way of worship. He argues that this must be the only relevant verse, since the slaughtering verse could be teaching a different law: that someone who slaughters an animal for their own use but intends to use its blood for idol worship is liable for the death penalty. This challenge only works according to Reish Lakish's view that the animal remains permitted despite such intent, making the verse necessary to teach about the person's punishment. However, according to Rabbi Yochanan, who holds the animal becomes forbidden (based on the laws of pigul), no verse would be needed to teach about punishing the person. Yet Rav Papa suggests the question works even according to Rabbi Yochanan's view. Rav Acha dismisses the entire question, arguing that both Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish were only discussing the animal's status - the person's liability for the death penalty would clearly follow from the laws of pigul, making this verse unnecessary for that purpose.

The Gemara raises and resolves two additional challenges to Rava bar Rav Chanan's question.

Rava asks Rav Hamnuna about an apparent contradiction in our chapter's mishnayot: one Mishna indicates that while actual idol worship is forbidden, merely declaring an intention to worship is not, while another Mishna states that simply saying "I will worship idols" is enough to make one liable. Seven different resolutions are offered to resolve this contradiction.

There's a debate about whether someone who worships idols out of love or fear for another person is liable. Rava and Abaye disagree on this point, with Abaye presenting three proofs to support his position that such a person is indeed liable.

Sanhedrin 60 - Shabbat February 15, 17 Shvat Feb 14, 2025

Show notes

Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer each proposed an additional Noahide law – sorcery and kilayim (forbidden mixtures) respectively. From where did they derive this? .

The Mishna details the courtroom procedure for cases involving blasphemy. It describes how witnesses testify about someone cursing God's name and how the judges must respond. Several key questions are examined: Which divine name must be blasphemed to incur the death penalty? What is the biblical source requiring judges to stand when hearing the testimony? What is the textual basis for the requirement to tear one's garments upon hearing God's name blasphemed? Is this rending of garments also required when hearing a non-Jew blaspheme?

How is it permissible for a second witness to simply confirm "I heard the same" without repeating the blasphemous statement, when such indirect testimony is typically not accepted in Jewish courts?

Which specific acts of idol worship are capital offenses and how these are derived from Torah verses? Which forms of idolatrous worship merit lashes rather than capital punishment for violating a negative commandment?

Sanhedrin 59 - February 14, 16 Shvat Feb 14, 2025

Show notes

Rabbi Yochanan holds that a gentile is not permitted to learn Torah. He views it as part of the Noahide laws - either under theft or forbidden sexual relations. This is derived from Devraim 33:4 as the Torah is considered morasha, an inheritance, and that is either understood that it belongs exclusively to the Jewish people, or it is understood as a reference to meurasa, that we are betrothed to God.

A contradiction to Rabbi Yochanan is brought from a statement of Rabbi Meir that a gentile who learns Torah is like a kohen gadol, a high priest. The resolution is to differentiate between learning the seven Noahide laws and the rest of the Torah.

What is the source in the Torah for Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel's position that blood from a live animal is forbidden as part of the Noahide laws?

If a commandment was given to the sons of Noah and then repeated when the Torah was received, that is an indicator that the rule is meant both for the sons of Noah and for the Jewish people. But a commandment sons of Noah and then not repeated after the Torah was given, is meant to be for Jews only. this is Rabbi Chanina's position. First, the Gemara questions these rules as they seem counter-intuitive. After explaining the logic, they proceed to raise difficulties from actual commandments. Those, too, as resolved.

Noach was permitted to eat meat but Adam was not. The Gemara raises four difficulties on this and through the questions, several interesting issues are raised including, why did the snake seduce Adam and Chava? What is the status of meat that falls from the sky - can it be presumed to be kosher?

Sanhedrin 58 - February 13, 15 Shvat Feb 13, 2025

Show notes

Study Guide Sanhedrin 58

Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of David's grandmother, Sara Hene Rabinowitz Geffen, on her Tu b'Shevat yahrzeit. "She and her husband, Rav Tuvia Geffen, Rabbi of Sherith Israel Synagogue in Atlanta for 60 years, brought up their eight children with love and learning. Seven of their grandchildren made aliyah and many great, great-great, and great-great-great grandchildren live in Israel."

Rabbi Meir states that only forbidden relations that are punishable by death by the court are forbidden by Noahide laws. However, in a different braita it says that Rabbi Meir holds that certain forbidden relations not punishable by death in the court are forbidden to gentiles (sister through one's mother) and one that is punishable by death in the court is permitted to gentiles (father's wife). This is reconciled by explaining that there are two different versions of Rabbi Meir's position - one passed down by Rabbi Eliezer and one by Rabbi Akiva. Each derives his position from the verse in Bereishit 2:24, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother," implying that certain relations are forbidden to him. Several questions are asked of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva on each of their derivations, suggesting that perhaps they should have derived other prohibited relations instead. Other difficulties are raised against their positions (one against Rabbi Eliezer and two against Rabbi Akiva) from verses in the Torah from before the Torah was given - Amram who married Yocheved, Avraham's words to Avimelech about his relationship to Sara and why Adam did not marry his daughter, but gave her to Cain instead. All of the difficulties are resolved.

Four laws are stated by different rabbis relating to either forbidden or permitted sexual relations regarding a gentile and one about the severity of the action of a gentile who hits a Jew. Three more laws are brought by Reish Lakish, the first one referring to the previous law by stressing the severity of one who even holds up one's hand to hit another. Other rabbis mention punishments or names that they would call a person who raises one's hand to hit another. The second law is that one who works hard cultivating one's land will have plenty of bread and one who does not, will not. The third is that a gentile must not rest on the Sabbath as they are commanded to work every day. Rava adds that even to make any day of the week into a day of rest would be forbidden.

Sanhedrin 57 - February 12, 14 Shvat Feb 12, 2025

Show notes

Study Guide Sanhedrin 57

This week's learning is sponsored by Efrat Avraham for the refuah shleima of a very brave soldier, Itamar Avraham ben Merav.

A braita from the school of Menashe taught a different version of the seven Noahide laws, replacing the establishment of courts and cursing God with the prohibitions of castration and forbidden mixtures (kilayim). From what verses in the Torah are these seven laws derived?

A debate follows between Rav Yosef and Rav Sheshet, who share a tradition from Rav that not all Noahide laws carry the death penalty. They disagree on the number - either three or four are capital offenses. Contrasting this, Rav Yehuda and Rav Huna cite Rav as saying all Noahide laws are punishable by death. The Gemara raises a challenge from a braita about theft, but resolves it. This braita discusses legal distinctions between cases of gentiles stealing from other gentiles or Jews, and Jews stealing from gentiles. The braita mentions theft, the beautiful captive woman (eshet yefat toar), and "similar cases" - prompting questions about what cases are considered similar to theft and similar to the beautiful captive woman.

The legal requirements for convicting a gentile are less stringent than those for convicting a Jewish person. A single judge can render the verdict, testimony from one witness is sufficient, even if the witness is related to the accused, and no formal warning is required beforehand. However, testimony from women is not accepted. Rabbi Yishmael holds that a gentile who strikes a pregnant woman causing fetal death is subject to capital punishment. What are the scriptural sources of these legal principles?

There are two different verses used to establish that forbidden sexual relations are included in the Noahide laws, and the Gemara explains why two separate sources are necessary, as there are some cases where a Noahide will be judged according to Jewish law.

Sanhedrin 56 - February 11, 13 Shvat Feb 11, 2025

Show notes

This week's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha and Rabbi Hayim Herring in loving memory of Terri's father Judge Norman Krivosha, Nachum Meir ben David Beer v'Malka on his 4th yahrzeit. "Our dad was a mentor to all who knew him and exemplified the words of Micah: "עשות משפט, ואהבת חסד, והצנע לכת עם אלוקיך" - "do justice, love goodness and walk humbly with God."

Today's daf is sponsored by Bracha Stuart in loving memory of her father Simcha haKohen ben Shlomo on his first yahrzeit.

Under what circumstances is one obligated the death penalty for cursing God? How do the witnesses testify in this situation as we do not want them to say exactly what they saw as that would require uttering a curse against God?

One incurs the death penalty for cursing God only if one cursed God in God's name. Shmuel derives this from Vayikra 24:16 "V'nokev shem Hashem mot yumat...b'nokvo shem yumat." Nokev means to curse, as is found in a verse regarding Bilam, Bamidbar 23:8. The Gemara raises other possibilities for defining nokev, to reject Shmuel's derivation, but then explains why each would not be relevant to the verse, "v'nokev shem Hashem." A different possible source is brought to prove that nokev means to curse from Vayikra 24:14 in the context of the person who cursed God in the desert, "Vayikov... vayikalel."

Cursing God is also one of the Noachide laws. This is derived from the repeated words in Vayikra 24:15, "A man a man who curses God." Why is this not derived from Bereishit 2:16, the verse from which all of the seven Noachide laws are derived? Rabbi Yitzchak Nafcha explains that the basic commandment is derived from Bereishit, but the added verse in Vayikra is meant to add that a Gentile, like a Jew gets the death penalty even if they curse using a nickname of God. This accords with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. The rabbis disagree with rabbi Meir and hold that both a Jew and Gentile are forbidden to curse God using a nickname, but would not receive the death penalty. However, Rabbi Meyasha disagrees with Rabbi Yitzchak Nafcha and holds that the rabbis distinguish between Jew and Gentile. A Jew would not get punished for cursing with a nickname, but a Gentile would. He derives this from Vayikra 24:16 from the words, "k'ger k'ezrach."

What are the seven Noachide laws? There are different opinions regarding which commandments they are obligated to keep. Some hold that there are more than seven. Rabbi Yochanan explains that they are all derived from Bereishit 2:16. Rabbi Yitzchak derives them also from the same verse but differently.

Sanhedrin 55 - February 10, 12 Shvat Feb 10, 2025

Show notes

Study Guide Sanhedrin 55

Today's daf is sponsored by Adam Plunka in loving memory of his grandfather, Yirachmil Hersh ben Yisrael, Harry Plunka.

Today's daf is sponsored by Blima Shorchein in loving memory of her father, Yitzchak Tzvi ben Blima v'Chaim Shimon.

Today's daf is sponsored by Raya, Lily, Kyra, Aliza, Lucy, and Eden, students of Abby Sosland, in loving memory of her mother, Judy Sosland z"l. "Though we did not know your mother personally, we know that her love, compassion, and wisdom made you the role model you are for us today, and for every student you've taught. We hope to be here for you and want to celebrate your mother's life with all of our timbrels."

The Gemara delves into more issues regarding both homosexual relations and bestiality.

They asked Rav Sheshet: If a gentile has relations with an animal, is the animal killed? Does there need to be both a calamity (sin) and shame or is it enough for there just to be a calamity? Rav Sheshet brings an answer from one source and the Gemara suggests another source, but the Gemara's suggestion is rejected. That suggestion leads to another question they asked of Rav Hamnuna: If a Jew has relations with an animal unwittingly, is the animal killed as there is no calamity, but there is shame. Three sources are brought to answer that question, but all are inconclusive.

Sanhedrin 54 - February 9, 11 Shvat Feb 09, 2025

Show notes

Study Guide Sanhedrin 54

Today's daf is sponsored by Roslyn Jaffe in loving memory of her mother, Dita Muhlrad, Duba Feiga bat Menachem. "My mom was a true Yiddishe mama who instilled Torah values in her children. She was so proud of all my academic accomplishments and would have gotten much nachat from my Daf Yomi studies."

Today's daf is dedicated to the release of Ohad Ben Ami, Or Levy and Eli Sharabi after 491 days in captivity. Wishing them a refuah shleima and praying for the safe release of the rest of the hostages.

Rabbi Yehuda according to the version in our Mishna, holds (against the rabbis) that if one has relations unwittingly with one's mother who is also one's father's wife, he is only obligated one sin offering. How are the verses in Vayikra that relate to the forbidden relations with one's mother/father's wife understood according to Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis?

The Mishna then discusses homosexual relations and bestiality and the Gemara proceeds to extrapolate the verses relating to those situations - from where do we learn the punishment and the warning for both the initiator and the one to whom relations were initiated?

Sanhedrin 53 - Shabbat February 8, 10 Shvat Feb 07, 2025

Show notes

What specific transgressions are punished by stoning? For some transgressions, the punishment is explicitly mentioned in the Torah, while for others it is derived from a gezeira shava using the words "demaihem bam" that appear in the context of a necromancer and a sorcerer. Why is the derivation is not made from the words "mot yumatu" instead.

According to the version in the Mishna, Rabbi Yehuda holds a different view from the rabbis regarding a specific case: if a man has intercourse with his mother who is also his father's wife, he is only obligated once (in an accidental scenario, he would bring only one sin offering). The Gemara first presents an alternative version of Rabbi Yehuda's position, stating that if the mother was forbidden to marry the father, then the son is only obligated once for relations with his mother, not because she was his father's wife. To properly understand this interpretation, it seems that Rabbi Yehuda follows Rabbi Akiva's opinion that a marriage to someone forbidden by a negative prohibition is invalid.

The version of Rabbi Yehuda in the Mishna is subsequently confirmed by Rabbi Yitzchak. Abaye, Rav Acha, and Rava each provide explanations for this version of Rabbi Yehuda. However, both Abaye and Rav Acha's suggestions are ultimately rejected.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected