Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Bava Batra 119 - October 22, 20 Tishrei Oct 22, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Blima Sztorchain in loving memory of her sister, Rivka Sara Rina bat Tina and Yitzhak Tzvi.

The daughters of Tzlofchad inherited Tzlofchad's double portion from his father, even though one only inherits a double portion that was in the deceased's property at the time of death (muchzak). The reason is that the land of Israel was considered as if it had already been owned by those who left Egypt.

Earlier, a braita had explained that the sons of the spies and those with Korach, whose fathers did not get land in Israel, received land through their grandparents. However, a different braita explains that they received land on their own merit. The Gemara brings two explanations for how to reconcile these seemingly contradictory braitot.

Raba explains, as was explained above, that the land of Israel was considered already possessed by those leaving Egypt, which explains why Tzlofchad's daughters inherited his double portion. However, a braita is brought against Raba as it explains that Moshe knew that they should inherit but was unsure regarding the double portion. This issue is resolved by explaining that the law is still clear that the land was possessed by the generation that left Egypt and that is exactly what Moshe was unsure of, and was then clarified. In that braita, they compare the case of Tzlofchad's daughters and the one who was chopping trees on Shabbat, as in both cases Moshe does not know the law and turns to God. The law in each case could have been transmitted directly but was told through the lens of Tzlofchad's daughters/the wood chopper to teach that merits are brought by one who is meritorious and liability by one who is liable.

Why does it say in the verse that Tzlofchad's daughters went before Moshe, Elazar the princes (nesi'im), and the entire congregation? Two opinions are brought and each reflects different approaches - do we give respect to a student before his rabbi or not? The halakha accords with both - how can this be explained?

The virtues of the daughters of Tzlofchad are explained - their wisdom, their ability to interpret the verses in the Torah, and their righteousness. From where can we see these traits?

Bava Batra 118 - October 21, 19 Tishrei Oct 21, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Tina & Shalom Lamm in honor of their new grandson. "With hakarat hatov to Hashem for the blessing of a new grandson, Ayal Nachum, born on Yom Kippur and entered into the brit of Avraham Avinu on Shabbat Chol HaMoed Sukkot. Mazal tov to our children, the proud parents, Sara and Shmuel Lamm of Modiin."

Today's daf is sponsored by Debbie and Yossi Gevir in honor of their two sons, Elazar and Eliav, and their son-in-law Boaz who are now serving in the army. "They are serving Am Yisrael from the Lebanon border and beyond. May Hashem continue to protect all of Am Yisrael and medinat yisrael. והעמידנו לשלום ופרוס עלינו סוכת שלומך, כן יהי רצון!"

Rav Papa raises a second and third difficulty with the opinion that the land was divided among those entering the land. Firstly, why did the daughters of Tzlofchad complain - their father was not worthy of receiving any portion since he was no longer alive when they entered the land? Secondly, why in the book of Yehoshua 17:14, did the sons of Yosef complain that they did not have enough land for the people of their tribe as they were a large tribe? If the land was divided among those who entered, the tribe of Yosef should have received more land, according to the number of people! Abaye answers both of these questions.

From both the stories of the daughters of Tzlofchad and the sons of Yosef, Abaye concludes that everyone else received a portion upon coming into the land, as if some did not, they would have complained. However, the Gemara concludes that it is possible others complained but since their complaints were ineffective, there was no need to record them. The sons of Yosef's complaint was also ineffective but was brought for a different reason - to teach that people should try to avoid the evil eye, ayin hara. They explain the exchange between the sons and Yosef and Yehoshua relating to that issue.

Did the people who complained and those who joined Korach receive a portion of the land but it was given to Yehoshua and Caleb just like the spies' portion or did they not receive a portion at all? This is a source of debate and one of the opinions is derived from the verse Bamidbar 27:3, from the words of the Tzlofchad's daughters. Rav Papa raises a difficulty with the opinion that Yehoshua and Caleb inherited all their portions, as they would have inherited most of the Jews' property, since so many complained in the desert! Abaye responds that the complainers were those who complained with Korach.

Rav Papa's fifth question is again against the opinion that the land was divided among those entering the land, based on a verse from Yehoshua 17:5 - that Menashe received ten portions, six for each family and four for the daughters of Tzlofchad. This makes the most sense with the opinion that the land was divided among those leaving Egypt. However, Abaye explains the four also to fit with the opinion that the land was divided among those entering the land.

Bava Batra 117 - October 20, 18 Tishrei Oct 20, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of Professor Paul Haberfield, father of Shulie Mishkin, who passed away on Thursday. Tanchumim from the whole Hadran family.

How were the portions distributed when the Jews entered the land of Israel? There are three different answers to this question, each based on a different interpretation of the verses in Bamidbar 26:53, 55. One approach (Rabbi Yoshia) is that an equal portion was given to all those who left Egypt above the age of twenty. A second approach (Rabbi Yonatan) is that an equal portion was given to all those going into the land, but those portions were then redivided by families, according to how many had left Egypt. The third approach (Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar) is that a portion was given to each person who went into the land and also to each person who left Egypt.

There were various people who didn't receive portions such as the spies and those who followed Korach. The spies' portion was given to Yehoshua and Caleb. The sons of the people from these groups inherited land through their grandparents, provided the grandparents had been at least twenty years old at the Exodus from Egypt.

Rav Papa raises a difficulty against Rabbi Yonatan from the verse in Bamidbar 26:54, "To the more you shall give the more inheritance and to the fewer you should give the less inheritance." What is the need for this verse if it was divided equally between those coming into the land, since, of course, a large family will receive more portions?

Bava Batra 116 - Shabbat Chol haMoed Sukkot - October 19, 17 Tishrei Oct 16, 2024

Show notes

Rabbi Yochanan quotes an opinion of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai saying if one dies without sons, it is a sign of God's wrath. Rabbi Yochanan himself and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi disagree about whether it is the lack of a son or lack of a student that is a sign that one is not truly God-fearing. Who held which position? On what basis can that be concluded? Three statements of Rabbi Pinchas ben Hama are quoted - the first relates to the importance of fathers leaving male children to follow in their ways.

Rami bar Hama has some questions regarding cases of inheritance when there are no sons, daughters, or father. Does it go to the grandfather or the uncle? If the two heirs left are the grandfather and the brother of the deceased, who comes first? His questions derive from the last line in the Mishna, "the father comes before all those who come from him." Does it mean all his descendants or only before his own children, but not his grandchildren? Rava thought the answers to his questions were clear - the grandfather comes before any of his descendants.

Bava Batra 115 - 2nd Day of Sukkot - October 18, 16 Tishrei Oct 16, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Batra 115

Rabbi Yochanan quotes a statement of Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi Shimon that a mother inherits her son. However, Rabbi Yochanan rejects this statement as it is contradicted by our Mishna which clearly states that a mother does not inherit her son. Rabbi Yehuda responded that he doesn't know who the author of the Mishna is and therefore is not concerned with the contradiction. The Gemara first explains why the Mishna cannot be explained according to Rabbi Zacharia ben haKatzav and then proceeds to explain that the Mishna has an inner contradiction regarding the drasha of the word 'matot'. However, they resolve the contradiction.

The Mishna discusses the order of inheritance - at each stage, if the person who should inherit is not alive, it does to their descendants before moving on to the next in line. There was a big debate between the Saducees and the rabbis. In a case where there are two siblings, a son and daughter, and the son is no longer alive but has a daughter, the rabbis ruled that the son's daughter precedes his sister for their father's inheritance. The Saducees held that the sister and the granddaughter split it 50/50. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai debates them and wins and sets the law according to the rabbis' understanding.

Bava Batra 114 - 1st Day of Sukkot - October 17, 15 Tishrei Oct 16, 2024

Show notes

If one performs a transaction with a kinyan chalipin, a symbolic act of acquiring, until what point can each side renege on the agreement? Raba and Rav Yosef differ on this point. Rav Yosef supports his opinion from the statement of Rav Yehuda regarding three who went to visit a dying person who can function as a court regarding dividing up the dying person's property. However, Raba rejects his proof.

Why did the Mishna need to list the people who inherit but do not bequeath to each other, as it can be derived from the previous section of those who bequeath but do not inherit? The answer is that they wanted to teach something additional by connecting two of the three cases - a woman from her son and a woman from her husband - just as a husband does not inherit property the wife inherits after her death (property she would have inherited, were she still alive), a son does not inherit property from his mother if he is no longer alive to pass to his paternal brothers.

Rabbi Yochanan quotes a statement of Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi Shimon that a mother inherits her son.

Bava Batra 113 - October 16, 14 Tishrei Oct 16, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Laurence and Michelle Berkowitz in loving memory of Laurence's mother, Eleanor Lasson Berkowitz, on her 22nd yartzeit. "A perfect mother, who as a social worker knew how to bring people together despite their differences. May her memory be blessed for the support of her many grandchildren serving in Tzahal."

When a husband inherits his wife's property, he inherits land that she owned at the time of her death (muchzak) but not property that is passed on to her after her death (ra'uy), i.e. her father dies after her and she has no brothers. What is the source of this law? Some of the verses that were used in the earlier braita are now explained differently).

The Mishna listed that the sons of the sister inherit from their uncle. The Gemara derives from these words that the ruling is for males, not females. Rav Sheshet explains this to mean that the nephews inherit before the nieces and such is true for all the stages of inheritance - first, it is given to the males and only if there are none, then it is passed to the females. What is the source of this law?

One cannot divide inheritance at night. This statement is explained based on a braita and a statement of Rav Yehuda and Rav Hisda.

Bava Batra 112 - October 15, 13 Tishrei Oct 15, 2024

Show notes

Study Guide Bava Batra 112

Today's daf is sponsored by Joanna Rom in loving memory of her mother, Rose Rom, Sura Razel, on her sixteenth yahrzeit. "She is still with me every day, my inner teacher."

Where in the Torah is a source for the law that a husband inherits from his wife? Two different opinions are suggested. Rabbi Yishmael proves it from five different verses and the Gemara explains why all five verses are needed.

Abaye raises a difficulty with the verse Bamidbar 37:8 which is explained as referring to a daughter who inherits from two tribes (her father and mother). The verse explains that she must marry within her father's tribe to ensure that land will not be passed to another tribe. But if her mother is from another tribe and she inherits from her mother, how does it help her to marry someone from her father's tribe - in any case, land will move from her mother's tribe to her father's. Rav Yeimar and Abaye each resolve this question in a different manner.

There are two braitot that each explain the two different verses that forbid a woman to marry from another tribe - one referring to the concern that her son will inherit from her and land will pass to another tribe and the other concerned that the same will happen but because her husband will inherit from her.

Bava Batra 111 - October 14, 12 Tishrei Oct 14, 2024

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Geelit and Eric Sommer in honor of Shai Seliger, his wife Hadar, to his parents, our dear friends and fellow daf learners Oren and Rachel Seliger upon Shai's safe return from a year of fighting in Gaza. "Am Yisrael is grateful to you and all the other men and women fighting to protect us and to their spouses and families for all their sacrifices."

Today's daf is sponsored by Sara Sacks "in honor of Rabbanit Michelle Farber who has made daf yomi accessible to me and a pleasure to learn."

Our learning will also be in memory of those killed in Ba"ch Golani yesterday and for the refuah shleima of all the injured soldiers.

Where in the Torah is a source for the law that a son or daughter inherits from their mother? The law is derived from a verse about a daughter and then learned for the son by a kal v'chomer argument from the inheritance from a father. The rabbis and Rabbi Zecharia ben haKatzav disagree about whether the laws of inheriting from the mother are the same as the father, and the son precedes the daughter, or whether they divide her property equally. The argument for the latter (Rabbi Zecharia ben haKatzav's opinion) employs the dayo principle, laws derived by kal v'chomer cannot be stronger than the original law. Since the law is stated by the daughter and learned by kal v'chomer to the brother, the brother can't have more strength than the daughter to inherit in place of her. The dayo principle is derived from God's punishment of Miriam when she spoke lashon hara about Moshe. How can the rabbis not employ dayo here if dayo is derived from the Torah? Some rabbis held like Rabbi Zecharia and even some who held that Rav held that way. But Rav Nachman was adamantly against this position as he believed that neither Rav nor Shmuel held that way.

Rabbi Yehuda Nesia had an encounter with Rabbi Yanai where he asked the source for the law that a son precedes the daughter in their mother's inheritance. When Rabbi Yanai responded with a heikesh, comparison, between one who inherits from a mother and one who inherits from the father from the word 'matot', Rabbi Yehuda questioned why doesn't a firstborn doesn't get a double portion from his mother's inheritance just as he does from his father? Rabbi Yanai was so offended by the question that he did not respond. Abaye, Rav Nachman and Rava each bring verses to explain why it was obvious to Rabbi Yanai that a firstborn would not get a double portion from his mother, but only Rava's is accepted.

Where in the Torah is a source for the law that a husband inherits from his wife? Two different drashot are brought (in braitot) and Rava and Abaye each explain the first one in a different manner.

Bava Batra 110 - October 13, 11 Tishrei Oct 13, 2024

Show notes

This week's learning is sponsored by Rhona Fink in loving memory of my mother, Malca bat Avraham v'Sarah, on her shloshim. "My mother was a woman of honor, modest and accomplished, a great listener, who was so proud that I was studying the Daf. And in honor of the Hadran daffers who have been so supportive during my difficult time."

Rava recommends that in choosing a wife, one should check out her brothers as it will be an indication of how their future sons will behave, as sons are often similar in behavior to their maternal uncle. This is derived from the verse describing Aharon's marriage to Elisheva who is introduced as the daughter of Aminadav, sister of Nachshon.

Yonatan, the Levi who helped Micah in the story of Micah's idol, was descended from Moshe, according to an interpretation of the verse. When the people questioned his behavior and why he worked with idols if he was a descendant of Moshe, he explained that he was taught that it is better to work with idols than to depend on others for sustenance. However, he misinterpreted that lesson as its true interpretation is that it is better to work in a strange job (avoda zara), meaning, even something demeaning, than to take charity. A verse in Chronicles is assumed to refer to Yonatan and indicates that he repented in the time of King David and was given the job of the head of the treasury.

Where in the Torah is the source that a daughter only inherits if there are no sons? The Gemara analyzes four different possibilities—two are rejected.

Where in the Torah is the source that only brothers who share the same father inherit and bequeath to/from each other?

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected