Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Bava Batra 129 - !st Day Rosh Chodesh Cheshvan - November 1, 30 Tishrei Nov 01, 2024

Show notes

This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in loving memory of her father, Rabbi Avraham Yair Groff, whose Yahrzeit was this week and Rabbi Raymond Harari, who sadly passed away this week. "Both Rabbis taught me that a woman's place in Judaism is in the Shul and in the Bet Midrash. To my father, Rabbi Avraham Yair Groff, who passed a Torah to the women's section every Simchat Torah. And to Rabbi Raymond Harari, who taught us Gemara in Yeshiva of Flatbush, who challenged his female students to delve into the Talmud and make it our own and whose Thursday night Mishmar class after school, we were excited to voluntarily stay late to attend. Rabbi Harari's legacy in inspiring women to learn lives on directly in the hundreds of women taught by Rabbanit Michelle Farber every day."

Today's daf is sponsored by Rachel and Oren Seliger in loving memory of her mother Rifka Esther bat Sara Gitel and Yishaya Halevi. "14 years and I still see your beautiful smile and your shine in your eyes, also in memory of the fallen soldiers friends of my son from the tank brigade 401/52 that have fallen this week. ברק ישראל ,אלישי יונג, אופיר ברקוביץ, אחסאן דקסה, גיא ניזרי may their memory be a comfort to all of am yisrael עם של גיבורי על"

When Mar Zutra stated that we follow Rabbi Abba's rulings, to which cases was he referring?

The Mishna discusses what constitutes valid gift language at the beginning, middle, and end of a statement, that would allow one to pass on property to those who were not his direct heirs. In what cases would this work? There are four different opinions about this: - Does it only work with one field and one person? - Does it also work with two fields and one person? - Does it work with two people and one field? - Or does it even work with two fields and two people?

Both amoraim from Israel and Babylonia disagreed on this matter. Rav Sheshet tries to prove his position but then rejects his proof. Rav Ashi does succeed in proving Rav Sheshet's approach. However, we also rule according to Reish Lakish. How can we explain this apparent contradiction?

Bava Batra 128 - October 31, 29 Tishrei Oct 31, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari who inspired me to love learning Gemara in high school. He brought each case in the Gemara to life, making the material engaging and relevant. He was a master teacher who cared deeply about his students and their growth. He was a true role model whose legacy will live on in the countless lives he touched. Tanchumim to his wife, Vicky, a Hadran learner, and to the entire family. Yehi zichro baruch.

Today's daf is sponsored by Miri Kadosh in memory of her dear friend Yafit Yaffa bat Yitzchak Mazal who passed away this morning.

Seven teachings of Rabbi Abba from Israel are sent to Babylonia on various topics and Mar Zutra in the name of Rav Shimi bar Ashi paskens like him.

If one claims that the person in another's house is his/her slave and it was stolen. The accused denies the claim and says that the slave was given as a gift/sold by the accuser. If the accused offers the accuser to take an oath that the slave is owned by him/her, then the accused can no longer reclaim the slave. The Gemara explains that the unique teaching of Rabbi Abba here is that the rabbis hold this even when money/property is being taken away from one side and given to the other (change of status quo). Others hold that this only in a case where the status quo is maintained.
Creditors of a deceased can only collect from land that the father left the orphans. Rabbi Abba ruled that slaves are considered like land. Rav Nachman disagrees and does not equate slaves with land for this purpose.
A person can testify for their father's first cousin as their connection is somewhat removed. It is called a third-generation testifying for a second-generation relative as they are both connected through brothers who are first-generation relatives. Rava holds that even a first-generation can testify for a third, i.e. a person and his great-uncle. Mar bar Rav Ashi even held that a person and his grandfather, but the ruling is not like his position as they are direct relatives.
If one knew testimony about land borders and then became blind, one cannot testify. Shmuel rules that if the blind person can identify markers in the field, his testimony is accepted. Rav Sheshet and Rav Pappa extend this to other cases as well where one can identify items by size or weight (cloak and bar of silver). A braita is brought to raise a difficulty with Shmuel, Rav Sheshet and Rav Pappa.
There are two interpretations of the fifth ruling of Rabbi Abba. One is he ruled like Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka that one can choose to bequeath all of one's property to one of the heirs (a son among sons or daughter among daughters). The other is that if a father identifies one of the sons to be the oldest, when a different one was presumed to be the oldest, he is believed, as per the position of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with Rabbi Abba on this ruling and holds by the rabbis' position (either in their disagreement with Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka or with Rabbi Yehuda).
If a man says that his wife will inherit among the sons, this is effective. However, this would only include items owned by the man at that point and does not include possession he acquires later. And if there were more sons born later, the wife would have to divide the property with them as well.
If a creditor puts out a promissory note and the borrower says that half was already paid back and then witnesses come and testify that the entire loan was paid back, Rabbi Abba rules that the borrower takes an oath (modeh b'miktzat) and pays the other half but the creditor can only collect from property in the borrower's possession and not from liened property as the buyers can rely on the witnesses' testimony. Mar bar Rav Ashi disagrees and views the borrower as one returning a lost item who would be exempt from an oath.

Bava Batra 127 - October 30, 28 Tishrei Oct 30, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by the Greenstone cousins in honor of Lana Kerzner's birthday. "With love to our dear cousin Lana. Your commitment to learning is a profound tribute to the legacy of our parents, a testament to the values they instilled in us. May the merits of this learning bring you peace, joy, and health this year and every year, not only for yourself but as a blessing to all those around you."

Today's daf is sponsored by Gabrielle and Daniel Altman in loving memory of Lisa Altman z"l on her 20th yahrzeit. "We miss her love, warmth, kindness, wisdom and spirit. Her memory and legacy will remain with us always."

There are various halakhot relevant to males that do not apply to a tumtum (one whose genitals are covered up and it is unclear if they are male or female) whose skin is then perforated and is found to be a male. He cannot inherit as a firstborn, he cannot become a ben sorer u'moreh, his brit milah does not override Shabbat, and his mother does not have laws of impurity of a woman who gave birth. A difficulty is raised against two of these laws from a Mishna in Nidda 28a.

A braita is brought to support the position that a tumtum described above cannot inherit a double portion as a firstborn. The braita also derives that one cannot be a firstborn if it is doubtful whether or not he is the firstborn. The Gemara then explains why this was stated - to explain that if two brothers are born at around the same time (from two different mothers) but it was dark and it was impossible to determine who was born first, no one receives the double portion. Rava held otherwise - they could each write an authorization that "If I am the firstborn, I give you my share," and they can jointly receive the double portion. However, Rav Pappa raised a difficulty with Rava's position and Rava retracted.

A father is believed to say a particular son is the firstborn but what if there is a chazaka that a different child is the firstborn? Shmuel ruled that the two brothers write an authorization as mentioned above. The Gemara explains Shmuel's position that he was unsure whether the ruling is like Rabbi Yehuda, who believes a father in that case, or the rabbis who do not accept the father's testimony when there is a chazaka. If the rabbis don't accept the father's testimony, for what purpose did the verse in the Torah use the language of "yakir"? If the father could have given the son a double portion as a gift, it would have been effective, so of course then we can believe the father that this is the firstborn?! The answer is that the father could have only given a double portion as a gift to the son for property in his possession at the time or possibly for items that would later be in his possession (according to Rabbi Meir), but it would not have covered property that would be brought into the father's possession as he was dying. For this situation, the verse taught "yakir."

Regarding believing a father about the status of his son, Rabbi Yochanan describes a situation in which a father says that a person is his son and then says that he is his Caananite slave. He is not believed to render the person a slave as he would never have called his slave his son in the first place. However, if he first called him his slave and then his son, we accept his last words as it's possible he meant originally that the son served him like a slave. The reverse is true for one who made a statement in front of the tax authorities. They raise a difficulty against Rabbi Yochanan from a braita, but resolve it.

Bava Batra 126 - October 29, 27 Tishrei Oct 29, 2024

Show notes

Rav Asi ruled that a firstborn who protests, his protest is valid. There is a debate among the Rashbam and Rabbeinu Chananel, about what he is protesting. According to the Rashbam, he is protesting the brothers investing in the item before dividing the property, as he will not receive a double portion on the enhancements. Rabbeinu Chananel explains he is agreeing to receive an equal portion of this property/item but is not giving up on his rights to receive the double portion on other property/items. Rabba limits this statement to grapes that were picked but not if they were turned into wine. Why?

If a firstborn gives up his rights to a double portion when dividing a particular property, Rav Pappa and Rav Pappi debate (based on a situation where Rava gave a psak about in a different case) whether Rava held that he gave up rights to the double portion of all the properties or only of that particular property? This debate is based on whether one holds that the firstborn receives rights to his double portion immediately upon the death of the father, even before the land is divided, or whether he receives rights to it only once the property is divided.

The Mishna differentiates between a father who says he will not bequeath the double portion to his firstborn and a father who says he will equally divide his portion. The first is not allowed as it goes against the Torah and the second is allowed because it is viewed as a gift. One can use the language of a gift to divide property differently than stated by the Torah.

What type of proof can be used to prove one is the firstborn to enable him to receive the double portion?

Bava Batra 125 - October 28, 26 Tishrei Oct 28, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Glenda Sacks Jaffe in honor of Sari Esserman's birthday and on her first grandchild, and to Rhona Fink on the birth of another grandchild. "Yom huledet sameach and mazal tov!"

Does the firstborn receive a double portion of a loan due back to his father after his death? Raba and Rav Nachman each hold that the firstborn can receive a double portion but only if it is paid back in land, according to Raba or in cash according to Rav Nachman. Abaye raises two difficulties against each of their positions. Firstly, he sees no reason to distinguish - if the money "(or land) is not considered in the possession of the father, then the land (or money) should not be either. Secondly, he quotes a case for each of them where they held differently than they do here. Raba responds for himself and for Rav Nachman, claiming that they were both explaining the positions of the rabbis in Israel, but they do not actually agree with that position.

The difficulty raised against Raba was from a case where a person on their deathbed gave all their property to their grandmother, to be then given to his heirs (which was his daughter) upon the grandmother's death. However, the daughter died before the grandmother. When the grandmother died, the daughter's husband claimed the property as the heir of the daughter. The rabbis in Israel ruled that the property was not in the daughter's possession at the time of her death and the husband could not inherit the property, as a husband inherits land/items of his wife that were in her possession at the time of her death. Rav Huna held that the husband could inherit it as when the father promised the property to the daughter after it first went to the grandmother, it was as if he said, "It will be yours from now, but the grandmother will enjoy the proceeds until her death." Raba sided with the rabbis in Israel as he claimed that it clearly belonged to the grandmother since if she were to sell it, the sale would be valid, thus proving that it was considered in her possession, not the daughter's, until her death. This shows that Raba holds that land/items are not considered possessed by someone (muchzak) if another person can sell them.

Rav Pappa ruled: 1. a husband only inherits property that the wife possessed, not property due to her; 2. A firstborn only inherits the double portion of property that his father possessed, not property due to him; 3. A firstborn does not get a double portion of a loan due to his father, whether they collected land or money for the loan; 4. A loan that the firstborn borrowed from his father and did not repay until after the father's death is a case of doubt whether it is considered due to the father or in his possession and therefore the double portion is split between him and the brothers.

Bava Batra 124 - October 27, 25 Tishrei Oct 27, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of their friend and co-learner Debbie Weber Schreiber on the birth of a granddaughter. "May the new addition be a source of pride to the entire family and to Am Yisrael, and be a harbinger of simcha and shalom for us all. תזכו לגדלה לתורה ולחופה ולמעשים טובים"

A braita ruled that the firstborn gets a double portion of the enhancement of their father's property that happened on its own, without the orphans' intervention. However, the Gemara points out that this is Rabbi Yehuda haNasi's opinion as the rabbis disagree and hold that the firstborn does not get a double portion of any enhancement. Rabbi Yehuda haNasi brings an example of this - a promissory note that was paid back after the father's death. If the father's estate owed a debt, the firstborn would need to pay a double portion, but if he agreed to pass up on receiving a double portion of the inheritance, he would not have to pay double for the loan. The Gemara brings the verse in the Torah where the rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda haNasi derive their positions. Rav Papa limits the debate to a situation where the enhanced item is different from the original item, i.e. date flowers that became dates. There are four opinions about whether it is clear with whom the halakha accords or whether it is unclear and what we do with a case where a judge rules against the accepted opinion. Rav Nachman and Rami bar Hama each quote a Midrash Halakha (Sifrei) that accords with a different opinion on this issue.

Rav Yehuda quoted Shmuel's ruling that a firstborn does not get a double portion on a loan. The Gemara tries to assess whether this ruling follows the opinion of the rabbis or Rabbi Yehuda haNasi, and concludes that it follows the rabbis' position.

A ruling was sent from Israel to Babylonia that if a loan was paid back from a non-Jew, the firstborn would collect a double portion from the principal but not from the interest. This is understood to be the rabbis' opinion. Why would they distinguish between the principal and the interest? The principal is considered as if it is already collected, but the interest is not. The conclusion of this ruling seems to contradict Shmuel's ruling. Ameimar rules like the Israeli ruling and Rav Acha points out that he followed Rav Nachman's position as they were both from the same city, Nehardea. Raba and Rav Nachman each distinguish, in an opposite manner, between a loan that is paid back in land and one that is paid back in cash.

Bava Batra 123 - Shabbat October 26, 24 Tishrei Oct 25, 2024

Show notes

How is the double portion calculated - two times a portion that all the other brothers get or two-thirds of the whole property? The answer is derived from several verses and the Gemara explains why all are necessary. Many of the proofs are from Yosef's double portion.

Why did Yaakov take the double portion from Reuven and give it to Yosef? First, it should have been given to Rachel's son, (as is derived from Breishit 37:2), but Leah was worthy that her son be the firstborn because she pleaded for mercy. However, on account of Rachel's tzniut, it was returned to her son. To explain the mercy of Leah and the tzniut of Rachel, the Gemara elaborates in great detail on the story of how Yaakov wanted to marry Rachel but ended up first marrying Leah.

A braita describes various things of which the firstborn receives a double portion and the Gemara explains each case.

Bava Batra 122 - October 25, 23 Tishrei Oct 25, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Batra 122

Was the land divided into twelve equal portions, one for each tribe, or by equal portions for each Israelite? Some type of compensation (either in land or financial) took place by those who received better quality portions. At first, the Gemara understood that as better quality land, but later concluded that it meant a better location, closer to Jerusalem.

The land was divided by a lottery and the urim and tumim. A braita describes how the process worked. That braita also describes the distribution that is anticipated for the times of the Mashiach where everyone will get an equal portion of all different types of land, and it will be divided directly by God, as derived from a verse in Yechezkel 48:29, 31.

Yehoshua and Caleb did not inherit by a lottery, but by the word of God. From what verses is this derived?

The Mishna describes that the inheritance of sons and daughters is similar, other than a few differences. Four sages attempt to understand the Mishna - in what way are sons and daughters similar and how does that fit with the continuation of the Mishna where the differences described relate to differences between inheriting from a mother or a father, not the differences between a son and a daughter. Each answer is rejected, other than the last one.

Bava Batra 121 - Shmini Atzeret - October 24, 22 Tishrei Oct 22, 2024

Show notes

On a day that mixes different emotions – being both a holiday and a day of remembrance, today's daf is dedicated to the memory of those who were tragically taken from us one year ago today. May our learning be an aliyah for their neshamot, a tribute to their lives, and a reflection of the strength and resilience of our people in the face of the unimaginable pain we have all experienced since that day.

From where does Beit Shammai learn that hatarat nedarim can be done with three regular people, since he doesn't hold by the gzeira shava of "ze hadavar" from slaughtering outside the Temple?

Why was Tu B'av considered a day of celebration? The sages bring six different answers explaining what incident happened on that date to merit a celebration for generations.

Seven people together span all the generations, from Adam to Eliyahu Hanavi, who, based on tradition, never died. Who are they and how do we know each overlapped with the next?

Bava Batra 120 - October 23, 21 Tishrei Oct 22, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Batra 120

Today's daf is sponsored by Sylvia Klein in loving memory of her mother, Lila Klein, Leah bat Yosef v'Pasha. "She dedicated her life to her family, her students, Israel, and the Jewish people."

If the daughters of Tzlofchad got married after the age of forty, how did they have children, as according to a braita, women who marry after the age of forty cannot give birth? Just as Yocheved, the mother of Moshe, gave birth to him at age 130 because her body miraculously "rejuvenated," the same occurred to the daughters of Tzlofchad. The chronology of Yocheved's narrative is extrapolated from the verses to establish that she was 130 years old at the time of Moshe's birth.

The names of the daughters of Tzlofchad are mentioned twice in the Torah, each time in a different order—once in order of their intelligence (when they approached Moshe) and once in order of their age (when discussing who they could marry). In legal matters, respect is given to the wisest, while in social settings, it is accorded to the oldest. The daughters of Tzlofchad were permitted to marry anyone they chose, but it was recommended they marry within their tribe. However, other women in their generation who inherited land were prohibited from marrying outside their tribe. This prohibition applied only to that generation, as derived from the words "ze hadavar." The Gemara raises a difficulty because there are other places (such as the prohibition to slaughter sacrifices outside the Temple and the laws of vows) where these words are used, and the commandments apply to all generations. How can this be explained?

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected