Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Michelle Cohen Farber

About

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.

Available on

Community

994 episodes

Ketubot 36 - August 11, 14 Av

Today's daf is sponsored by the Maybaum, Raye and Cohen families in loving memory of Miriam (Mim) Cohen, מרים בת מיכאל, on her shloshim. "Our kind-hearted, fun-loving and totally unique big sister. Devoted wife and mother, ardent Zionist and proud Jew. We miss you."

43m
Aug 11
Ketubot 32 - Tisha B'av - August 7, 10 Av

THIS MONTH'S SHIURIM ARE SPONSORED BY SHOSHANA SHUR FOR THE REFUAH SHLEIMA OF MEIRA BAT ZELDA ZAHAVA.

25m
Aug 05
Ketubot 31 - Shabbat August 6, 9 Av

TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY DEBORAH ASCHHEIM IN LOVING MEMORY OF HER MOTHER EDITH ASCHHEIM A"H. "SHE LEFT US TOO YOUNG; BUT SHE LEFT A LASTING AND LOVING LEGACY, INCLUDING A LOVE OF YIDDISHKEIT. SHE WAS BORN IN VIENNA IN 1926, WENT ON THE KINDERTRANSPORT TO LONDON AND WAS BLESSED TO BE REUNITED WITH HER PARENTS IN USA IN DECEMBER 1940. SHE EMBRACED ALL THAT NYC HAD TO OFFER. MOMMY, YOU ARE FOREVER IN MY HEART."

30m
Aug 05
Ketubot 30 - August 5, 8 Av

TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY ZE'EV SEGEL, CHAYA SARA NISSAN AND NAOMI NOY IN LOVING MEMORY OF THEIR MOTHER ZELTA ZEHAVA SEGEL.

25m
Aug 05
Ketubot 29 - August 4, 7 Av

TODAY’S DAF IS SPONSORED BY BELINDA KREIKE IN LOVING MEMORY OF AUBREY KREIKE, AVRAHAM BEN SHRAGGA PHAIVISH ON HIS 2ND YAHRZEIT. “HE IS REMEMBERED FONDLY BY ALL HIS FAMILY AND IS GREATLY MISSED FOR HIS WISDOM AND ADVICE.”

30m
Aug 04
Ketubot 27 - August 2, 5 Av

TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY EMMA RINBERG IN LOVING MEMORY OF HER MOTHER, MARJORIE GLICK, MIRIAM CHANA BAT MENACHEM MENDEL AND RACHEL WHO DIED ONE YEAR AGO. "I MISS HER SMILE, HER SUPPORT, HER LOVE AND THE FUN TIMES WE HAD TOGETHER. AS A CHILD SHE TAUGHT ME, AS AN ADULT SHE TAUGHT ALL OF US. SHE LIVED HER LONG LIFE WITH HAPPINESS, STOICISM, CULTURE AND INTELLIGENCE. A PROUD JEW, A STAUNCH ZIONIST AND TO ME, MUMMY. I THINK OF HER EVERY DAY WITH LOVE."

37m
Aug 02
Ketubot 25 - July 31, 3 Av

TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY AUDREY GOLDSTEIN LEVANT IN HONOR OF HER SISTER-IN-LAW, STACY GOLDSTEIN. "SHE IS LEARNING HER FIRST MASECHET WITH HADRAN IN OTTAWA, CANADA. BUBBY GERI AND I ARE SO PROUD OF YOU. WELCOME TO THE CLUB."

36m
Jul 31
Ketubot 24 - Shabbat July 30, 2 Av

TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY JUDY SCHWARTZ IN LOVING MEMORY OF HER BELOVED MOTHER-IN-LAW BERNICE R. COHEN SCHWARTZ, רחל בילא בת ר' שלום חיים ודרייזע גנסה, WHO CELEBRATED HER 99TH BIRTHDAY THIS YEAR AND IS BEING BURIED TODAY IN NY. "SHE LOVED LEARNING; ALWAYS WANTED TO STUDY TALMUD AS A GIRL AND WASN'T ALLOWED TO. MAY HER NESHAMA HAVE AN ALIYAH." TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY JANE SHAPIRO IN HONOR OF NINA BLACK, HER IN-LAW AND DAF YOMI FRIEND. "MAY WE BE ABLE TO CELEBRATE MORE SMACHOT TOGETHER, INCLUDING SIYUM HASHAS."

33m
Jul 29
Ketubot 23 - Rosh Chodesh Av, July 29, 1 Av

THIS WEEK'S LEARNING IS DEDICATED BY MARCIA BAUM IN LOVING MEMORY OF CHAIM SIMCHA BEN AHARON HALEVI AND LIBA ON HIS 19TH YAHRZEIT TODAY. "MY FATHER WAS A LARGER THAN LIFE INDIVIDUAL WHOSE IMPACT IS STILL FELT MANY YEARS AFTER HIS PETIRAH. HE IS MISSED EVERY DAY." The daughters of Shmuel were taken captive and yet knew how to save themselves from being prohibited to marry a kohen. If two women testify each about the other that they were not raped in captivity are they believed? Do we need to be concerned that they are lying for each other? What about two men testifying each about the other that he is a kohen? 

45m
Jul 29
Ketubot 22 - July 28, 29 Tamuz

TODAY'S DAF IS DEDICATED BY TOVA AND DAVID KESTENBAUM IN HONOR OF THE ENGAGEMENT OF THEIR SON, GILAD, TO NOA GOLDRICH, DAUGHTER OF ADINA (OB"M) AND RAFI GOLDRICH OF CHASHMONAIM. TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY MANES AND SILVIA KOGAN IN HONOR OF THEIR CHILDREN, DANIELA, ILAN AND ABBY. יהי רצון שה׳ ימלא משאלות לבם לטובה. A number of situations are raised where judges may testify about each other in which they are not believed or it may just look like there is some untruth. If a woman says she was married but divorced or she was taken into captivity but not raped by a gentile, in what circumstances is she believed/not believed? If there were witnesses that she was married/taken into captivity, she is not believed. But if she was already remarried, we allow her to stay married. What is the source for believing her in the case that there were no witnesses and since she is the one who forbade herself, we believe her when she says she is now permitted? If a woman said she was married and then said she is single, we do not believe her, unless she can provide us with a good reason as to why she said she was married, as in the case of a woman who was trying to avoid inappropriate suitors. There is a debate regarding a case where there is contradictory testimony about whether the husband died or divorced her – if she already remarried, can she stay remarried? Rabbi Yochanan distinguishes between the case of death and divorce – why? Three different explanations are brought.

37m
Jul 28
Ketubot 21 - July 27, 28 Tamuz

TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY ILANA FRIEDMAN FOR THE SHLOSHIM OF HER GRANDMOTHER, HENNA MALKA BAT HARAV YAAKOV YITZCHAK, YESTERDAY. "SHE WAS A DESCENDANT OF THE NOAM ELIMELECH, STUDENT OF SARAH SCHNEIRER, SHE SURVIVED SCHINDLER'S LIST, ILLEGALLY IMMIGRATED TO ISRAEL IN 1946, AND HELPED BUILD THE FLEDGLING STATE OF ISRAEL. SHE MERITED TO LIVE JUST SHY OF 103 YEARS AND SEE 5 GENERATIONS OF DESCENDANTS. MAY OUR LEARNING GIVE HER NESHAMA COMFORT AND MAY WE CONTINUE TO HAVE HATZLACHA IN OUR LEARNING." When witnesses verify their own signatures, do they need another witness as well? Rebbi and the rabbis disagree – what is the root of the debate? The Gemara points out that it needed to be stated what the debate was so that we wouldn’t assume that Rebbi was just being stringent out of uncertainty. In what case would there be a relevant ramification if Rebbi was ruling out of uncertainty? Rav Yehuda quoted Shmuel’s ruling that he held like the rabbis. Why was it necessary for him to say this – don’t we always hold by the majority. Did Shmuel really hold this way? Wasn’t there a case with a document of orphans in which Shmuel ratified it by having each witness testify about his own signature and that of the other!? Why was that case unique and not indicative of Shmuel’s general policy? Another halacha that Rav Yehuda quoted in the name of Shmuel was that one can ratify a document if one witness testifies about himself and one of the judges testifies about his signature on the document called a that the judges issue when they ratify a document. While Rami bar Hama praised this ruling, Rava rejected it as each one is validating something different and therefore the two cannot be combined. Rav Safra ruled on how to handle a case where of the three judges who were ratifying the document, two recognized the signatures and were able to validate them. The Gemara derives three different halachot from there and Rav Ashi raises questions against the last two as it is not clear that they can be derived from his ruling. The first halacha derived was that a witness can become a judge. Is this really true? In determining the new moon, it is not the case. Why is there a distinction made between that case and the verification of documents. If a question is raised about one of the judges, can the other judges vouch for him? On what does it depend?  

38m
Jul 27
Ketubot 20 - July 26, 27 Tamuz

One cannot accuse witnesses to be unless they are present. However, there is a debate regarding witnesses who come to contradict a different group of witnesses – can they be done not in their presence? This affects a case where the witnesses signed on a document die. It is derived from a braita that to verify the signatures of witnesses from other documents, it must be from a document that one had raised doubts about its veracity. Other criteria for verification of documents are brought. If one writes down something one witnessed, can one testify years later, based on their written testimony? On what does it depend? What other methods of jogging one’s memory can be/not be employed? If there are mounds of dirt near the city or the roads, one needs to be concerned that there are bodies buried there. What is considered near? If the mounds are far from the city, it depends if they are old or new. This is because regarding the old ones, we can assume that if people were buried there, no one would remember. After how many years can we assume that people no longer remember? Can witnesses verify their own signatures? Do they need another witness together with them in order to verify their signature?  

32m
Jul 26
Ketubot 19 - July 25, 26 Tamuz

If a person is told that they must sign this document as a false witness or else they will be killed, they should not sign. The Gemara tries to use this to explain Rabbi Meir’s opinion in the braita that if witnesses verify their signatures but say they were forced, we do not believe them as that is a statement that is self-incriminating. But it is rejected as the law is that one does not need to give one’s life if forced to sign a false document. One only needs to give one’s life for three things – murder, idol worship and forbidden sexual relations. Rabbi Meir’s opinion is explained in a different manner. If one says that the document is a document of trust, he is not believed. Is this said about the creditor, the borrower or the witnesses who are claiming it is a document of trust? Three different sages explain this is three different manners. What is a document of trust? A creditor should never leave a document of a loan that was already paid back in their house as it could allow the creditor to try to collect the loan twice. One should not have in one’s house a document of trust or a document as these documents are false documents and could enable one to collect money that isn’t theirs. What is a document? If witnesses who are signed on the document say it was a document of trust or they issue a declaration that the document was signed under duress, are they believed? If they say the document is valid, but was given upon a condition that was never met, do we believe them? What if one of the witnesses signed on the document says it was given upon and condition and the other says it was not? 

31m
Jul 25
Ketubot 18 - July 24, 25 Tamuz

Why didn’t the Mishna mention a case of one who claimed that they borrowed money from another, but already paid it back? Why didn’t it mention the case of one who said “Your father lent me money but I paid him back half.” Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and the rabbis disagree regarding that case – what does each hold and why? Why is it different than a standard case of , one who admits to part of the claim, who is obligated to swear regarding the half in question? The Mishna brings another case where one is believed as we only know of the claim at all from what the person told us and therefore, they are believed about the rest. The case is regarding verification of signature on a document. When the witnesses verified their signatures, they claimed they were forced into it or were too young to testify or were disqualified witnesses. Rami bar Chama limits one of the cases of the Mishna but there are two versions as to which one he is limiting. How does the Mishna work with the principle that once one has testified, one can no longer change their testimony? How does it work with the principle that a person does not come to court and self-incriminate themselves? A braita brings a debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding the law in our Mishna. The Gemara raises a difficulty with Rabbi Meir’s opinion.

26m
Jul 24
Ketubot 17 - Shabbat July 23, 24 Tamuz

What do they sing when they dance before a kallah? Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel have different approaches. Stories are told of words of praise they would say to rabbis as well. Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak would juggle before brides – was this viewed as a positive act or not? Other rabbis would carry brides on their shoulders – how was this permitted? Could everyone do this as well? Can and should one stop learning Torah to go to a wedding or a funeral? On what does it depend? What goes on at a wedding of a woman who is a virgin that can later be used as testimony that she was a virgin at her wedding and therefore had a ketuba of 200 . Rabbi Yehoshua agrees with Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer that one is believed in a case where they claim that they are living in a property that was owned by someone’s father, but that he purchased it from them. Why did the Mishna choose a case regarding a purchase from one’s father and not directly from the seller?

38m
Jul 22
Ketubot 16 - July 22, 23 Tamuz

There is a case where Rabbi Yehoshua agrees with Rabban Gamliel - if one is in possession of land and says to the other claimant, "It was your father's but I purchased it from him," the claim is accepted, as "the mouth that forbade (admitted that it belonged to the other) is the mouth that permitted (but I purchased it)." This is true only if there were no witnesses attesting to the fact that it originally belonged to his father. In the first case in the Mishna, regarding a woman whose ketuba is lost and she claims she was a virgin and should get 200 and the husband claims she was not and only gets 100, the ruling is that only is she brings witnesses, can we accept her claim. Is this not according to Rabban Gamliel or would he agree with Rabbi Yehoshua in this case? Can one prove from the language of the second case "Rabbi Yehoshua admits" that in the first case, Rabban Gamliel agreed with Rabbi Yehoshua? No! As that language is referring back to the previous chapter. To which case in the previous chapter? Why does Rabbi Yehoshua agree in our Mishna that since there is a (since a better claim could have been made and it wasn't, it is likely they are telling the truth), we can accept the claim, but in the case in Chapter One, he does not accept a claim? If we assume that most women are virgins, why do we need witnesses? If her ketuba is lost, why aren't we concerned that she is claiming her ketuba for the second time after she already collected it in a court earlier and now is lying that her ketuba is lost? Two answers are given. What were other customs that were practiced at the wedding of a virgin?

45m
Jul 22
Ketubot 15 - July 21, 22 Tamuz

Rav assumes that the Mishna ruled that the story of the rape in the Mishna took place on the day of the shuk in Tzippori when there were not only a majority of Jews in the city but also a majority of Jews passing through to sell their wares and the ruling followed Rabbi Yehoshua who ruled that in a case where there are two majorities, we can assume the rapist was Jewish and the woman can marry a kohen. The majority of those who pass through the city should be enough to permit the woman to marry a kohen as they are a passing majority, as opposed to the majority of the city which is set in its place and therefore, regular laws of majority do not apply. However, the rabbis made a decree not to permit passed on a majority of passersby so that we don't come to accidentally permit based on the majority of the city's inhabitants. This is different from law of nine kosher stores and one non-kosher store and there is a piece of meat that we are unsure from which store it came. If a piece of meat is on the street, we follow the majority of stores and permit it, even though we only have one majority. The reason for the stringency in our case if because the rabbis were strict when it came to who kohanim can marry. Rabbi Zeira held that when an item is in its place (like a piece of meat was purchased from one of the stores and we don't know from which one), we cannot follow rules of majority - instead, we say it is either kosher or not kosher - 50/50 chance, both to be strict and to be lenient, depending on the case. The Gemara finds a case where we rule leniently. They bring a verse from the Torah Devarim 19:11 as the source for this rule. Rav Chiya bar Ashi says that Rav ruled like Rabbi Yosi that the girl who was raped was permitted to marry a kohen. Rav Chanan bar Rava says in the name of Rav that it was a unique case and one cannot learn halacha from there to permit based on a majority. Rabbi Yirmia assumes at this point that Rav Chiya bar Ashi held that Rav ruled like Rabbi Yosi even in the case of only one majority and raises a difficulty against this from a statement Rav himself made regarding the Mishna in Machshirin 2:7 indicating that for marriage with a kohen, one needs two majorities. However, the Gemara reminds him that Rav himself understood that the case where Rabbi Yosi ruled was one with two majorities. If so, then Rav Chanan in the name of Rav must be ruling more leniently - in which case, he holds that Rabbi Yosi permitted only based on two majorities in this particular case, but in general, one majority is enough. This understanding does not fit in with the statement Rav made regarding the Mishna in Machshirin. The Gemara explains that Rav Chanan must have not held by Rav's explanation of the Mishna that it was in the day of the market, but held that there was only one majority and that's why the ruling here was unique - as otherwise, one would need two majorities. The Gemara delves into Shmuel understanding of the Mishna in Machshirin as well. If after death or divorce, the woman does not have her ketuba in hand and she and the husband make different claims regarding whether she was a virgin when she married and whether her ketuba was 200 or 100, how do we resolve this? 

44m
Jul 21
Ketubot 14 - July 20, 21 Tamuz

TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY AVI YONITZMAN FOR THE REFUAH SHLEIMA OF MOSHE DAVID BEN TZVIA. A case came before Rav Yosef with a pregnant fiancé - both she and the fiancé claimed that the child was his. Rav Yosef believed them since the man agreed with the woman and since we hold like Rabban Gamliel, even in a case where he didn’t agree, we believe the woman as we rely on her presumptive status (permitted to a kohen). Abaye raises a difficulty as Shmuel ruled like Rabban Gamliel only when there until there is a kosher majority. Rabbi Yosef replied Shmuel must have said that only ab initio but not post facto and our case is post facto as they are already betrothed and she is already pregnant. Abaye cites a Mishna in Eduyot 8:3 where Rabbi Yehushua had an opinion contradictory to his opinion here – regarding a widow (widow of a ). Raba resolves the contradiction, but Rava points out that he did not take into consideration that in the same Mishna, Rabban Gamliel also has an opinion that contradicts his opinion here. Therefore, Rava resolves the contradiction in a different manner. The Gemara brings a braita with a dispute between three regarding the . The Gemara raises three questions in understanding the braita and then explains all three opinions in a way that solves all the difficulties. The Mishnah brings up a case of a young woman that was raped and ruled that she should only be permitted to marry a kohen if the majority of people in the area are “kosher”. How can this be because it does not conform to the opinion of Rabban Gamliel who allows even if the majority are not kosher and not Rabbi Yehoshua who forbids even if the majority are kosher?!

43m
Jul 20
Ketubot 13 - July 19. 20 Tamuz

If the husband claims his wife is not a virgin and she says that it was from an injury () and he accuses her of having been with another man, again we have a debate between Rabbi Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer on one side and Rabbi Yehoshua on the other. Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree about whether the man claims 100 and woman 200 or the man claims that she deserves nothing and she claims 100 . Their debate is based on the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding a - whether she gets a ketuba or 100 or 200. It is also based on a disagreement regarding a man who finds out after the marriage that his wife was not a virgin, does she receive a ketuba or 100 or none at all. If a woman was "talking" to another man and there is concern she had relations with him, if she claims he was of "kosher" lineage, can we rely on her testimony and permit her to marry a kohen? Again, the same rabbis as above debate this issue. They also debate a case where the woman was pregnant and she testifies that the father is "kosher". What is the meaning of "talking" - was it that she went into a room alone with him or is it that we know she had intercourse with him? Zeiri and Rav Asi debate this issue and several sources are brought to raise difficulties against each of them and each difficulty is resolved, other than the last one which is left as a difficulty against Rav Asi. The last source was from the Tosefta Ketubot 1:9 which had a more detailed conversation between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer which ended with a confusing exchange regarding the differences/similarities between a woman taken into captivity and a pregnant woman or a woman who was seen in a secluded area with a man. Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree regarding whether each side holds their position also regarding the woman's testimony regarding the status of her daughter. Rabbi Eliezer raises a difficulty with Rabbi Yochanan from the Tosefta. Rabbi Yochanan responds by limiting what was meant by the designation in the Tosefta of the child being a .

47m
Jul 19
Ketubot 13 - July 19. 20 Tamuz

If the husband claims his wife is not a virgin and she says that it was from an injury () and he accuses her of having been with another man, again we have a debate between Rabbi Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer on one side and Rabbi Yehoshua on the other. Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree about whether the man claims 100 and woman 200 or the man claims that she deserves nothing and she claims 100 . Their debate is based on the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding a - whether she gets a ketuba or 100 or 200. It is also based on a disagreement regarding a man who finds out after the marriage that his wife was not a virgin, does she receive a ketuba or 100 or none at all. If a woman was "talking" to another man and there is concern she had relations with him, if she claims he was of "kosher" lineage, can we rely on her testimony and permit her to marry a kohen? Again, the same rabbis as above debate this issue. They also debate a case where the woman was pregnant and she testifies that the father is "kosher". What is the meaning of "talking" - was it that she went into a room alone with him or is it that we know she had intercourse with him? Zeiri and Rav Asi debate this issue and several sources are brought to raise difficulties against each of them and each difficulty is resolved, other than the last one which is left as a difficulty against Rav Asi. The last source was from the Tosefta Ketubot 1:9 which had a more detailed conversation between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer which ended with a confusing exchange regarding the differences/similarities between a woman taken into captivity and a pregnant woman or a woman who was seen in a secluded area with a man. Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree regarding whether each side holds their position also regarding the woman's testimony regarding the status of her daughter. Rabbi Eliezer raises a difficulty with Rabbi Yochanan from the Tosefta. Rabbi Yochanan responds by limiting what was meant by the designation in the Tosefta of the child being a .

1s
Jul 19
Ketubot 12 - July 18, 19 Tamuz

TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY JUDITH WEIL IN LOVING MEMORY OF ADINA HAGEGE'S BELOVED MOTHER-IN-LAW, KETTI (KAMUNA) PERETZ HAGEGE, WHO PASSED AWAY YESTERDAY ON THE 18TH OF TAMUZ. "MAY ADINA AND ERIC KNOW NO MORE SORROW." If a man marries a woman who was already married but still a virgin, he cannot take her to court and claim that he believed she was a virgin. The braita mentions that even if there are witnesses that she was not alone with him enough time to have intercourse, he still cannot take her to court regarding her virginity. Is it possible to learn from these sources that whoever believed his wife that she was a virgin and then found out she is not, would still have to give her a ketuba of 100 ? The customs in Judea and Galilee were different regarding the status of the engagement and whether the couple would be secluded in a room during the time of the engagement. Even in Judea, where they this would happen, there were different customs in the matter and not all permitted this. If they were to have secluded, though, the man would not be able to claim in the court after the wedding that his wife was not a virgin. In the court of the kohanim, they would give ketubot of 400 to daughters of kohanim who were not previously married and sages did not object to this custom. Did the widows also receive double the amount of a regular widow? Who else deserved a bigger ketuba? Why? If a man does not find his wife is a virgin and when they come to court, she claims that she was raped at the time of the engagement and he claims that she was not a virgin before the engagement and wants to lower her keuba to 100 , who is believed? There is a dispute between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer, who believe her, and Rabbi Yehoshua who believes him. Upon what halachic principles are their opinions based? Is this the same controversy that there is on the issue of disputed money where one claims they loaned someone money and the other claims that do not know?

47m
Jul 18
Ketubot 11 - July 17, 18 Tamuz

THIS WEEK'S LEARNING IS SPONSORED BY THE SARNA FAMILY IN THE ZECHUT OF A REFUAH SHLEIMA U'MEHIRAH FOR MAAYAN LIBA BAT BRYNA MINDI. The Mishna states that a convert, one taken captive, a maidservant who was converted/freed under the age of three has the presumptive status of a virgin and therefore has a ketuba of 200 . Rav Huna states that a convert can be converted with the consent of the court as one can act on behalf of another if it is in the person's best interest and converting is in the best interest of the minor. Why? Can our Mishna be used as proof for Rav Huna? According to Rav Yosef, the convert can decide when they become of age that they no longer want to be Jewish. Rava and Abaye each bring sources that would seem to go against this. How are the difficulties resolved? Why did each not bring the source that the other brought? If an adult male had relations with a minor or the reverse, she also receives a ketuba of 200 . Regarding a woman who tore her hymen from an accident ( there is a debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis - does she get a ketuba of 100 or 200 . If she was married but never had relations, she only receives a ketuba of 100 and if the husband finds that she was not a virgin, he cannot claim that he was misled. A convert, one taken captive, a maidservant who was converted/freed over the age of three is assumed not to be a virgin and her ketuba is 100 . Rav and Shmuel disagreed regarding a minor male who had relations with an adult woman - is she considered a non-virgin or a How does this work with our Mishna that seemed to say the debate was only regarding the , but not this case? Rava rereads the Mishna to resolve the issue. Do the rabbis and Rabbi Meir disagree only in a case where he knew she was a  but in a case where he didn't know before the wedding, she doesn't receive her ketuba at all? Rami bar Hama suggests this but is rejected by a Mishna. Rava says that Rabbi Meir doesn't distinguish between whether he knew or not and either way she gets 200 . But the rabbis distinguish and give her 100 if she told him before and nothing if she misled him. However, Rava changed his mind and holds that either way, the rabbis hold she gets 100 . The Gemara brings a braita and a discussion about that braita and Rava's rereading of it to prove that he changed his mind.

44m
Jul 17
Ketubot 10 - Shabbat July 16, 17 Tamuz

Is the requirement of having a ketubah a Torah law or rabbinic? This is a subject of debate. Shmuel holds that since the law is rabbinic, the rabbis believe a husband to claim that he found a “” and the woman was not a virgin. Rava explains that he is believed since he wouldn’t spend all this time and money on a wedding celebration for no reason. That gives him a presumption of telling the truth. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel held that ketuba is a Torah law. However, a braita is brought that contradicts and two resolutions are suggested, each requires emending the text of the braita. A number of actual cases that were brought in front of rabbis in different time periods are mentioned. In each case, the husband claimed there was no blood from the hymen and the woman claimed she was a virgin. In each case, the rabbi found a way to show that the woman was still a virgin. Each case it was proven in a different manner. The virgin’s ketuba is 200 zuz and a widow’s is 100, . Thus the word widow in Hebrew () is derived from that. If it was instituted by the rabbis, how can it be that the Torah used the word , referring to something that would be relevant only in the future? The meaning and source of a number of words are brought.

30m
Jul 15
Ketubot 9 - July 15, 16 Tamuz

TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY DR. ROBIN ZEIGER IN LOVING MEMORY OF HER MOTHER HELEN ZEIGER'S YAHRZEIT, AND THE FIRST WEDDING ANNIVERSARY OF HER SON AKIVA TO RIVKA. "MOM'S LOVE AND SUPPORT ENABLED ME TO BECOME RELIGIOUS AND BEGIN MY JEWISH LEARNING AT ICJA." TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY VITTI ROSENZWEIG KONES IN LOVING MEMORY OF HER MOTHER, SARA BAT DAVID V'VITTI WHO PASSED AWAY LAST FRIDAY, 9 TAMUZ. A RIGHTEOUS WOMAN WHO SURVIVED THE HOLOCAUST AND WENT ON TO BUILD A BEAUTIFUL FAMILY. YEHI ZICHRA BARUCH.  Rabbi Elazar holds that if a man claims his wife had a "," meaning that when they had relations for the first time, he could tell that she wasn't a virgin, he is believed to forbid her to him as once can testify in order to forbid something on oneself (). Why would this be be the case if it is only a sefek safeka (2 doubts) as she could have had relations before they were betrothed and she could have been raped. The Gemara brings two answers which narrow the case of Rabbi Elazar's statement either to a woman married to a kohen or one who was betrothed by her father before age 3. Why couldn't this law of Rabbi Elazar have been derived from a Mishna in Kiddushin 65a which is based on the same principle? What is the difference between the cases? Rabbi Elazar also said that a woman is only forbidden to her husband if there was a warning issued by the husband and the woman then was secluded with the man in question (like a Sotah) and like the Batsheva/David situation. What exactly does this mean and how does this correspond to Rabbi Elazar's previous statement which seems to contradict this? Why was Batsheva not forbidden to return to her husband? There are two possible answers. Abaye attempts to bring support for Rabbi Elazar's statement from our Mishna (Ketubot 2) but it is rejected by differentiating between the claim of and a claim that there was no blood. Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel that if a man claims his wife had a "" he can divorce her without having to give her the ketuba money, meaning she would get 100 like a non-virgin, instead of 200 . Rav Yosef questions: We can derive that law from a Mishna Ketubot 12a! The Gemara resolves his question by differentiating between the claim of and a claim that there was no blood.

45m
Jul 15
Ketubot 8 - July 14, 15 Tamuz

TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED IN LOVING MEMORY OF ROSALIND PINELES, WHO PASSED AWAY THIS WEEK. "ROSALIND LOVED FAMILY, TORAH AND ISRAEL, WAS A CHAMPION OF CHESED AND THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND WOMEN'S TORAH STUDY IN HER COMMUNITY. DEARLY MISSED AND REMEMBERED." TODAY'S DAF IS SPONSORED BY RINA BAUMEL WITH GRATITUDE TO RABBANIT MICHELLE, MAGGIE, MIMI AND THE WONDERFUL WOMEN OF THE HADRAN COMMUNITY - MY WORLDWIDE VIRTUAL CHEVRUTA. What is the actual of the blessings of the wedding (sheva brachot)? How many blessings are there? There is a debate about whether two of them are to be combined or said separately - the ones relating to the creation of humans. Are there separate as man and woman were created separately or are they together as they were created as two - at once. How many days are these blessings and the special zimun recited? Under what circumstances? The blessings for the mourner and for the wedding require a quorum of ten. Does the mourner/groom count as part of the ten? What is the language of the blessings for the mourner? To whom are each of the blessings addressed? A story is told of Reish Lakish where we learn the origins of these blessings. The rabbis instituted ten cups of wine for mourners and then added another four. But since it got people drunk, they reverted back to how it was previously. What did Rabban Gamliel do regarding burial shrouds that on account of him, they added an extra cup of wine (before they reverted back to the original)?

46m
Jul 14