Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Study Guide Gittin 25 There are four opinions about whether a get that was not written li’shma disqualifies the woman from being married to a kohen. The debate is about which cases of li’shma, if any, would disqualify and which would not. Why? Rabbi Yochanan’s opinion is consistent with his opinion regarding the distribution of inheritance property. Why was it necessary for him to teach both cases if theoretically, one could have learned from one case to the other? Rav Hoshaya asked a question regarding laws of retroactive designation (breira) for writing a get li’shma. Rav Yehuda answered him from our Mishna that laws of retroactive designation do not work. Rav Hoshaya questioned this answer from a Mishna in Pesachim where rules of retroactive designation seem to work. However, Rav Yehuda explains that the Pesachim case has nothing to do with the rules of breira. Abaye questions the whole discussion between Rav Hoshaya and Rav Yehuda as the cases are very different as some relate to a later decision made by the person himself, as opposed to others which are dependent on some other person and shouldn’t laws of breira be different in each of those types of cases? Rava disagrees and thinks there would be no reason to distinguish. Still, Rav Hamnuna tries to prove him wrong as both Rav Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon hold that breira does not apply in a case where the decision is made by the owner, as can be proven from the case of wine from which tithes weren’t taken, but does apply in cases where the decision was based on someone else.

The Gemara brings support for Abaye's explanation that our Mishna is referring to a case where the get was brought from outside of Israel from a braita and from the language in our Mishna. How can Rav Yosef explain our Mishna according to his approach? In which case would a woman bringing her own get from outside of Israel need to say "in front of me it was written..."? Why would she need to do that if the moment she receives the get from her husband, she is divorced? The new perek starts delving into the issue of li'shma and gives 4 different cases where a get is not considered li'shma and would be invalid. What is the difference between all four cases?  What are possible ramifications from here to other promissory notes? Can these really be inferred from here? Even though a get that is not li'shma is not a valid get, does it disqualify a woman from marrying a kohen (in the event that her husband dies and she wishes to remarry)?

Study Guide Gittin 23 Today's daf is sponsored by the Billets, Cohns and Hararis in loving memory of their dear friend Tova Rhein z"l on her yahrzeit.  How can we allow those without understanding (like a minor, deaf-mute) to write the get if it needs to be written li'shma?There are three different answers to resolve this difficulty. Who can be a messenger to bring a get? Why is a blind person not allowed to bring a get? Two rabbis who were blind, Rav Sheshet and Rav Yosef,  answer the question - each with his own answer. Can a Caananite slave be a messenger to deliver a get? Rav Ami infers from the Mishna that he can, but Rabbi Yochanan says he cannot. What is the logic behind each position? There are women who are not believed to testify that a woman's husband has died as there is a concern that they may have ulterior motives to lie so as to ruin the life of the wife (she will get remarried as a result of their testimony, then the husband will return and she will be forbidden to both husbands). These women are her mother-in-law, her husband's sister, her rival wife, her yevama (her husband's brother's wife after he died childless), and her husband's daughter (from another marriage). These women are believed to bring a get, as there is a written document to support them. However, there is a braita that says that cannot bring a get. Rav Yosef explains the contradiction by differentiating between a get written in Israel (as there is no need for any testimony so they are believed) and one written abroad (they are not believed as we need to rely on their testimony, "in front of me it was written...") and they cannot be trusted to testify. Abaye resolves the contradiction in the opposite manner, as in Israel the husband can still come and contest that the get is invalid, therefore there is concern the women are lying and the wife will get married based on the get, the husband will later contest the get, and the woman will be forbidden both to both husbands. But if it was written abroad, he cannot contest the get as it was immediately certified in court. Therefore there is no concern they will lie.

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island as a zechut for a refua shelaima bikarov for Yakira Liba bat Sara Gita, beloved granddaughter of our friend Tzippy Wolkenfeld. May our learning be a zechut for her and all cholei Yisrael. Can a man give a get to his wife written on a perforated pot? Can he write it on the leaves of a plant that are in a perforated pot? What are the laws of kinyan (acquiring) regarding plants in a perforated pot when the plant is owned by a different person than the pot? If they are both owned by the same person, can an act of acquiring one also work to include the other?  Plants in perforated pots that are on the border of Israel and are both in Israel and outside of Israel - do the laws of Israel apply or not? On what does it depend? What are different types of processes done to the hides in preparation for leather and what are the leathers that are tanned in each different process used for? The Rabbis in the Mishna permit parchment that can potentially be forged. This must follow the opinion of  Rabbi Elazar (the tana) that the witnesses that see the giving of the get are the important ones and therefore if there was a stipulation in the get that was erased, they will know and testify about it when they go to the court to testify that she is divorced. Rabbi Elazar (amora) and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about whether this is only if they went to the court immediately or even if they went much later - can we assume they will remember the stipulation or not. Did the rabbis permit this parchment only for a get but not for other documents? Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar also disagree about this. Anyone can write a get, even one who is not considered to have knowledge like a minor, but Rav Huna limits that to a case where there is an adult supervising. A woman can write her get and a husband can write the receipt that he paid his wife her ketuba.

English Study Guide Gittin 21 Can we assume that a woman knows that if she provides the object on which the get will be written, she needs to first give it to her husband with a kinyan (an act of acquiring) so that he can own it when he gives it to her? If a husband writes the get on his servant and then gives his slave as a gift to his wife, is the get effective immediately (before the slave reaches the wife)? Rava rules that the slave functions like the courtyard of a woman and the divorce is effective immediately. But isn't this like a moving courtyard that is not able to acquire the get on behalf of the wife? Therefore, they understand it to be when the slave's feet are bound and he is not mobile. Rava also says the same ruling for a husband who puts the get in a courtyard and gives her the courtyard as a gift. Why does he need to rule in both cases - why can't we learn one from the other? Abaye raises a question on Rava's rulings. What is the root of the disagreement between Rabbi Yossi HaGelili who doesn't permit a get to be written on a live being or on food and the tana kamma who permits it? How do they each read the verses differently? The Mishna rules that one cannot write a get on something attached to the ground, but if one did and uprooted it and then signed it, it is valid. The Gemara brings two different ways to read the Mishna - Shmuel, Rabbi Oshaya and Rabbi Yochanan holding one way and Reish Lakish another. Each one reads the Mishna either according to Rabbi Elazar (the witnesses who witness the giving of the get are the main witnesses) or according to Rabbi Meir (the witnesses who sign the get are the main witnesses).

Today's daf is sponsored by Meryll Levine Page in loving memory of her father, Yosef Michael haLevi, on his 14th yahrzeit. "Our dad set us on the derekh by modeling and encouraging both study and tzedakah." A man gave a sefer Torah to his wife and said it was her get. Rav Yosef indicated that there were three reasons why this could not possibly be effective. Rav Chisda attempted to connect a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis about a sefer Torah where God's name was not written without the proper intent - can one go over it with ink or not - to the question of fixing a get that was not written li'shma. However, this connection is rejected as the Torah requires beautification, which is not required for a get. Rav Chisda said that he could theoretically disqualify all gittin. Rava attempted to understand what he was referring to. One suggestion was that since the rabbis instituted that the women pay the scribe (to prevent agunot situations - that the husband may not want to pay the money for the divorce), and therefore the get was not written by the husband as prescribed by the Torah. The second suggestion is that the husband does not actually give the woman anything of value and perhaps when the Torahg stated "he gives her," it meant an item of value. Both these suggestions are rejected and it is unclear what Rav Chisda was referring to. Is chiseling considered writing? It depends on whether it was done by chiseling the area surrounding the letters (considered writing) or chiseling the areas where the letters are, causing the writing to protrude. (not considered writing). How then was the tzitz considered 'written' if it was chiseled "like a coin"? A husband needs to give the get to his wife and cannot say that the paper/parchment it is written on still belongs to him, as in that case the letters are just considered 'hanging in the air' and not written. If one gives a get to his wife on a piece of gold and tells her to keep the gold as her ketuba money - is this effective - is it considered that the letters are hanging in the air or not? Rami bar Hama asked: if they find a slave in the woman's possession with a get written on his arm, but no one witnessed the husband giving the get to his wife, can we assume she is divorced or is it possible the slave went to her on his own? He also asked another question: if she owned a slate and the get was written on that, can we assume that she transferred ownership of the slate to the husband before he gave it to her and divorce would be effective, or do we assume that women do not know how to do that properly?

Study Guide Gittin 19 This week's learning is sponsored by Bob & Paula Cohen in loving memory of Henna bat Yitzchak Nechemia.  Today's learning is dedicated in memory of the three soldiers killed yesterday on the Egyptian border - Ori Yitzchak Iluz, Lia Ben Nun and Ohad Dahan. Yehi Zichram Baruch. With what types of ink can you write a get? I get can be written on a leaf that is detached from the ground, a horn of a cow and an arm of a slave, in which case the husband would give the cow/slave to the wife. If one writes with ink on top of other ink, does it work? In a case where one can't find witnesses who know how to sign, what possible solutions are there? Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yochanan if one writes out their names in red ink and the witnesses go over letters with black ink, does that count? When Rabbi Yochanan says no, Reish Lakish questions him from laws of Shabbat as one who does that is liable for erasing |(the red ink) and for writing (with the black ink). Rabbi Yochanan responds that just because we are concerned it may be considered writing on Shabbat, it doesn't mean we should act upon it and permit a get signed in that manner! If witnesses do not know how to read or write, can they sign a regular document or a get? Is the law the same for both a get and other documents? If one gives a blank piece of paper to a woman saying, "This is your get," and then it gets destroyed and he claims it was not a get, is he believed?

Study Guide Gittin 18 What if time elapses between the writing of the get and the giving of the get?  How does that affect how long a woman must wait after a divorce before remarrying? Does the clock start ticking from the signing or from the giving?  From what point does the financial obligation of the husband to the wife in a ketuba go from being an obligation to being a loan, in which case it would then be canceled during a shmita year? There is a disagreement about in which case Rabbi Shimon allows time to elapse between the writing of the get and the signing. What if more than one day elapsed? There is another disagreement about a case where someone asked ten people to all write the get - what is the function of all of their signatures - are two viewed as witnesses and the others as fulfilling the husband's stipulation or are all considered witnesses? What are the practical ramifications of each of the opinions?  

Today's daf is sponsored by Martin Gaynor in loving memory of Rivkeh Gershgorn on her yahrzeit. Today’s daf is sponsored by Ruth and David Kahan in honor of Paul Gompers and Dr. Jody Dushay and in gratitude for their hospitality. When the rabbis asked Raba bar bar Hana about whether two messengers who bring a get need to say “in front of me it was written…”, a Persian Habar came and took their candle. Raba bar bar Hana’s reaction was that better the Romans than the Persians. How can this be true if they derive from a verse in Iyov that God sent us to exile in Babylonia (where the Persians ruled) to spare us the terrors of the Romans? In the case in the Mishna where one says it was written in front of me and two testify about the signatures, the get is valid, Rabbi Ami explains that this is only in the case where the messenger testified about the writing. This shows we are concerned about li’shma and therefore even if two messengers deliver the get, one still would need to make the declaration. However, in another instance, Rabbi Ami explained the exact opposite, as he changed his mind. The Mishna ruled that if the get was written during the day and signed at night - on a different date - the get is invalid. Rabbi Shimon permits this kind of document specifically for a get, not for other documents. Why does the date need to be written in the get? Rabbi Yochanan holds that it is a concern that one may be married to his sister's daughter who may engage in relations with another man and to protect her from getting the death penalty, he will give her a get and claim that it was given before the adulterous incident. Reish Lakish holds that the concern is for a financial disagreement about the proceeds from the usufruct property of the woman (the husband has rights to it during the marriage and the woman has rights to it from the divorce). Why doesn't each hold like the other? How can we understand the debate between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis based on each interpretation? Abaye raises a number of difficulties with this takana, both according to Rabbi Yochanan and according to Reish Lakish. Rav Yosef resolves each difficulty.

Study Guide Gittin 16 This week's learning is dedicated by Sara Averick and Jose Rosenfeld in memory of Sara's mother, Leah Shifrin Averick, Leah bat HaRav Yehuda Leib Chaikel and Chaya Masha, who showed us to love Hashem, klal Yisrael, Medinat Yisrael, and learning Torah, b'chol levaveinu, b'chol nafsheinu, u'b'chol meodeinu.  Today's daf is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Shifra's father, Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzchak on his yahrzeit. Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Ilana Miriam in honor of her birthday and in admiration of her perseverance in her learning.  How is Ilfa's question regarding splitting up washing one's hands for impurity purposes explained? The rabbis decreed that a tvul yom who goes into drawn water (even just the head and majority of the body) or pours three log of water over one's body after going in a mikveh will be considered impure. Likewise, a pure person who pours three log of water over one's body is deemed impure. Rabbi Yirmia asks what if half the body was in a mikveh and one poured water over the other half? A man who had a seminal emission is impure and from the times of Ezra, they also were not allowed to learn Torah. In order to permit Torah learning to one who was too sick to go into a mikveh, they permitted them to pour nine kav of water over their body. What if half the body was in a mikveh and they poured water on the other half?  There are two versions are brought to understand the machloket between Tanna Kama and Rabbi Yehuda in the Mishna where two different people come and one testifies about the signing and the other about the writing. Is the case (and the cases that follow) one where two messengers brought the get or only one? What does this tell us about the need for the declaration when two messengers are sent to deliver the get?  

Study Guide Gittin 15 Today's daf is dedicated to Maggie and Rafi Sandler on the birth of a baby boy! Mazal tov! Today's daf is dedicated by Helene Santo in memory of Marianne Santo on her 39th yahrzeit. She dedicated her life to Na'amat, the State of Israel and the Jewish people. We think of her always.  The tannaitic debate brought to suggest that tannaim disagree about whether or not a messenger who is sent with the words "Take this to..."(heilech) acquires the rights to the object for the receiver or not, is explained differently. Perhaps the debate is based on a different tannaitic debate about whether the words of a person on their deathbed are taken seriously even if there was no act of acquisition, and whether or not there is a commandment to fulfill the wishes of one who died. Discussions continue about whether or not the tannaim disagreed about if one sends a messenger to deliver something, does the messenger acquire rights to the object from the moment he receives it or only when it gets to the hands of the receiver? The second chapter begins with a messenger bringing a get from abroad who did not say the entire statement "in front of me it was written, in front of me it was signed." The Gemara begins by explaining the first few cases of the Mishna. If he said, "In front of me half of it was written and all of it was signed" - to which half is it referring? If he said, "In front of me all of it was written but half of it was signed," the get is also invalid. Rav Chisda, Rava and Rav Ashi each add a case regarding the second signature (what type of evidence there is about the second one) in which we would also rule like the Mishna that the get is invalid. The Gemara explains the logic behind each opinion, and difficulties are raised with Rav Chisda and Rava's positions. A further difficulty is raised on Rav Chisda from our Mishna but it is resolved. Since the Mishna deals with a case where half the testimony came from one person and half from another, they bring up sugyot in other unrelated issues where there is a question about whether or not one can join two halves together, like with a mechitza (for laws of carrying) and washing hands for purification.

Study Guide Gittin 14 Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island group in loving memory of Yitzchak HaLevi Staum, beloved father of their friend Estair Staum Katz. "May our learning be a zechut for the Aliya of his neshama. תהא נשמתו צרורה בצרור החיים" On what basis does Rav hold that saying one should return a loan to a third person in the presence of all three people is as if it was acquired by the third person? After raising two suggestions that are rejected, they conclude that it can't be fully understood why he held this way. The Gemara brings two stories that are associated with this principle of Rav. If someone sends a messenger to repay a loan or return an item, who is responsible if something happens to the money/item before the messenger delivers it? Can the sender change his mind after he sends the messenger? Rav and Shmuel both hold that the one who sent the messenger is responsible until the item gets back to the owner/creditor, but they disagree about whether or not the sender can change his/her mind. First, they suggest the debate is whether or not when someone says, "Take this to..." did the messenger already acquire it on their behalf or not. However, this suggestion is rejected and they conclude that the debate is connected to responsibility - do we say that since the sender is responsible for the item still, they can change their mind or not? Two cases are brought to highlight this issue. If one sends a gift to another but before it gets there, the one receiving the gift dies, to whom does the gift go? Can we see from a debate regarding this issue that there is a tannaitic debate about whether "take this to..." is considered as if the recipient already received it or not. Another tannaitic debate is brought to prove this point as well, but both debates are explained in other ways.  

A braita brings a more expanded version of the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding whether it is only a benefit for a slave to be freed or is it also to his detriment. If one said to give a get to his wife or an emancipation document to his slave and he then died, they would not give the document as one cannot give a document once the person is no longer alive. However, regarding one who said to give money to another, they would give the money even if the owner died. It was passed down in the name of Rav that the money is given only if it was in a pile in a corner. They suggest two different explanations for Rav's limitation. Rav Zevid says it is referring to a healthy person and it is effective as it was done in the presence of all three relevant people, as Rav said elsewhere that if one says to another to give the money he owes him to a third person, the third person acquires it if the statement was made in front of all three of them. Rav Papa says it is referring to one on his deathbed and if the money was not in a pile, there would be a concern that he was referring to money that was hidden somewhere. Why didn't each hold by the other's explanation? There is a debate regarding Rav's statement about one who says to give the money another owes to a third person and if it was said in the presence of all three of them, the money is acquired by the third party. Is this only in a deposit case or also regarding a loan? It seems that Rav held it applies in a loan as well. How does that work? Ameimar suggests an explanation, but Rav Ashi rejects it.

Study Guide Gittin 12 Today's daf is sponsored by Aviram and Micki Kadosh in honor of their son Yonatan's wedding to Yotal. Can a master say to his slave, "You work for me and I keep your proceeds, but you need to support yourself"? First, they try to infer this from the Mishna but they reject it and explain that the Mishna is referring to a case where the master can say to the slave, "Keep your proceeds for your food." Four other sources are brought to try to infer that the master can relinquish his responsibility to feed the slave, while keeping his proceeds. Each time, other than the last, they reject this explanation. But in the end, they do prove that it can be done from the last source.   

Today’s daf is sponsored by Jill and Jeff Shames. “In memory of avi mori, William Baker, Zeev Velvel ben Chana v'Reuven on his 2nd yahrzeit. Dad, still missing your loving embrace. Your memory is a blessing.”  What are names that are clearly gentile names? If according to Rabbi Shimon, the issue is really whether or not the names are clearly gentile names, why isn't that stated explicitly in the Mishna? Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis disagree regarding divorce and emancipation documents signed by gentiles, not in a gentile court. Rashbag adds a further distinction. What is the root of this debate? Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan have a further discussion regarding whether or not a get that comes from abroad and has signatures with gentile names but it is unclear if it was signed by Jews with gentile names or by gentiles. If one sent a get or emancipation document with a messenger, can they change their mind before the document reaches the recipient? The debate is depending on whether you view it as a good/bad thing for the recipient, as one can acquire something on behalf of others without their knowledge if it is good for them but not if it is bad for them (zachin l'adam she'lo b'fanav/ein chavin l''adam ela b'fanav) . Is this connected to the issue of one who seizes property from a debtor to return to a creditor without the creditor knowing? Is one allowed to do this? Is it permitted even if there are other creditors?

The Mishna rules that if a Kuti (Samaritan) is signed on a document, it is valid only for a divorce or emancipation document, but not other documents. Why? There are three opinions regarding the status of Kutim – according to whose opinion does the Mishna correspond? At first, it seems like it doesn’t fit with any of them, but then the Gemara figures out how to explain the Mishna according to Rabbi Elazar. What assumptions can be made about the signing of a divorce document from this answer? A document effected in a non-Jewish court is not accepted for divorce or emancipation but is for other documents. Does this include all other documents, including gifts whereby the ownership is transferred by the document alone? And if so, this can only be because of Shmuel’s opinion that we hold by the court system of the country as dina de’malchuta dina, the law of the land is the law! How can Rabbi Shimon accept the document of divorce from a gentile court if they don’t have the same divorce laws as us? Is it because Rabbi Shimon holds like Rabbi Elazar that we rely on the witnesses who witnessed the woman receiving the divorce document, not the witnesses who signed the document? However, this answer is difficult as well.

This week's learning is sponsored by Suri Stern in honor of her mother Susan Davis. "She gave birth to me this week, just a few years ago. And to all the women who are learning and teaching torah Shavuot night, in the beit medrash for women only, may Moshiach come so the men can gain insight into the Torah they are missing on the “other side” of the mechitzah. And to Rabbanit Michelle Farber who works tirelessly to tear down unnecessary barriers. Chag sameach!" Today's daf is sponsored by Meir & Ahuva Balofsky  in honor of Diana Bloom. "For your dedication to learning. May you never stop learning and never stop teaching." Why did Rava rule that when the slave brings his own emancipation document where he is also awarded money, he receives his freedom but not the money (until the signatures are verified), if Rav Nachman ruled like Rabbi Meir that we do not split a statement (palginan diburei)? The conclusion is that Rav Nachman held like Rabbi Meir for a different reason, not because we don't split his words) and a different ruling of his is brought where it is clear that he holds we can split someone's words. The Mishna had ruled that, in Israel, if there are those who raise doubt regarding the document's veracity, we verify the signatures of the witnesses. How many people are necessary to raise a doubt in order for us to take it seriously? The conclusion is that we are referring to the husband himself. If one brings a get from abroad and cannot say "in front of me..." we verify the signatures. "One who cannot say" refers to a person who brought the get, but before making the declaration became a deaf-mute. The Mishna mentions one similarity between a get of a woman and an emancipation document of a slave - that if one brings it from abroad to Israel or the reverse, one needs to say "in front of me it was written..." The Gemara brings a braita with three or four (according to Rabbi Meir) similarities. Why did Tanna Kama and Rabbi Meir give a number? Each was to exclude it from an additional case. What case was Rabbi Meir excluding? Aren't there other issues that are the same for a get and an emancipation document, like they can't be given after death of the husband/master, and li'shma?

This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll.  "As we start Masechet Gittin, the very first Daf expresses concern for the Aguna. I want to dedicate this month’s learning in honor of Shoshana and Chochmat Nashim, whose tireless work and inspiring dedication, forge new paths to make sure those aren’t just sentiments on an ancient page but that the rabbis, poskim and batei din of today take actual steps to protect Agunot and put an end to this abuse in the name of halakha. Baruch Matir Assurim."  Are the laws regarding plants on boats in waters in/near Israel the same as plants in a perforated pot raised off the ground in Israel regarding laws of tithes and shmita? The earlier debate regarding whether if one writes a get on a boat does one need to say "in front of me it was written..." is not regarding rivers in Israel - all agree that is considered Israel. The debate is about the Meditteranean - which parts are considered Israel and which parts are not. What are the different options for where are the borders in the water? This is similar to modern disputes over territorial waters. Is "Suria" (Northern Syria of today) considered Israel or not?  For certain issues, it is considered like Israel, and for others not.  One wanting to purchase land in Israel from a non-Jew is allowed to have a non-Jew do it (unclear whether it relates only to writing the contract or also to the actual purchase) for him on Shabbat due to the importance of a mitzva. A Caananaite slave who brings his own emancipation document needs to say "in front of me it was written..." But if the document also said that the owner gave him money, two people need to validate the witnesses' signatures (his declaration is not sufficient) for him to be able to demand the money. But if the documents said, "All of my possessions are given to you" - can we split the two and say that the slave is free but the money does not transfer hands until we validate the witnesses properly? Abaye and Rava disagree. First Abaye thinks the whole document can be effective, but after Rava's argument (that they must be split and the money does not transfer hands), Abaye switches positions to say that the entire document is ineffective, as he does not think that you can split the statement to make it effective halfway.

Today's daf is sponsored by Malka Abraham in honor of her 66th birthday! "Thank you Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community for all that you do!!"  There are various statements and a story warning people of the potential dangers of imposing excessive fear on people in one's household. The Gemara brings a number of letters that rabbis wrote to each other regarding what to do with people in the community who are behaving inappropriately, not playing music, singing and not wearing the crown of grooms after the destruction, and the importance of charity giving, even for those who don't have a lot of money. In each letter, they quoted a verse and the person writing the letter drew lines on the page (sirtut). Is Acco really the Northern border of Israel? What about K'ziv? If one writes a get on a boat in the waters right outside of Israel, is it considered from abroad and one would need to say "in front of me..." or not? The Gemara quotes two contradictory braitot and suggests two possible resolutions.  

Study Guide Gittin 6 Is Babylonia considered like Israel for gittin and therefore one who brings from place to place in Babylonia would not need to say "in front of me it was written..."? Rav and Shmuel disagree about this. First, they suggest that the root of the debate is based on the debate between Rava and Raba, but they reject it and explain that it is because there are now yeshivot in Babylonia. Rav holds that since they now travel from place to place to learn, they recognize signatures. Shmuel holds that they are busy learning and therefore do not recognize the signatures of others. What are the boundaries of Babylonia? Some places have unique laws related to this that are dependent on the nature of the places and whether or not people from one place would recognize signatures of the other. Rav Kahana brought a get from one big city in Babylonia to the other and Rav told him that he did not need to say "In front of me it was written..." but if he did, it would help - in the event that the husband will try to claim it was not a valid get, as can be learned from a different story told in a braita of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Evyatar ruled that there is no need to say the declaration if bringing a get from Babylonia to Israel as there are always people traveling from one place to the other. Is Rabbi Evyatar someone who can be relied on in his rulings?  

Today's daf is sponsored by Ruth & Stuart Pilichowski in loving memory of Rabbi Dov Greenstone.  Today's daf is sponsored by Lesley Glassberg Nadel in loving memory of her mother Theresa Glassberg, Tova bat Tzvi Hirsch and Bayla, on her 19th yahrzeit. "May her name be for a blessing."  Three sources are brought to question Raba's opinion and are resolved by explaining that at a certain point, even people abroad knew the rule of li'shma and the need for saying "in front of me it was written..." was only a rabbinic decree just in case they forget this law sometime in the future, and therefore it is not applicable in rare situations or if the woman already remarried. The same argument between Raba and Rava was also argued by two Rabbis, amoraim from an earlier generation in Israel. There is another debate regarding in front of how many people the messenger needs to be to deliver the get and recite "in front of me it was written and signed" - two or three. They suggest that this also is linked to the previous argument of Raba/Rava, however, this suggestion is rejected and they explain it to be a question of can a witness also function as a judge - if yes, then in front of two is enough as the witness also counts as a judge and there are three, and if not, then it needs to be said in front of three. However, the Gemara questions this as in rabbinic issues, all agree that a witness can be a judge also. So the argument is refined to be specifically a debate here as a woman's testimony is accepted, however, she cannot become a judge - is there a reason for concern that if in general one can say it in front of two, they may accidentally think to do the same when a woman is the messenger and think that she can function as a judge or is it clear that everyone knows that she cannot and therefore two is enough in a case where a man is the messenger. The Gemara brings a braita to support Rabbi Yochanan's position that the messenger needs to bring the get in front of two witnesses. In order to be able to say "in front of me it was written...," how much does the messenger need to see of the get being written? There are different positions on this issue.

Study Guide Gittin 4 The Gemara continues to ascertain according to which tanna does the Mishna correspond, according to Raba's understanding, when it requires that both the writing and the signing of the get needs to be li'shma? The possibility of it being Rabbi Meir is rejected. However there is a possible way to explain the Mishna like Rabbi Elazar - while he may not require signatures, if they are there, they need to be done li'shma. However, the Gemara brings in a third opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who holds that both the writing and the signing need to be li'shma. If so, why didn't the Gemara simply bring Rabbi Yehuda at the beginning of the sugya? There are two tannaitic debates in the Mishna - one regarding towns on the border with Israel and another regarding whether one who brings a get from Israel abroad needs to say "before me it was written...signed." The Gemara first attempts to line up each of these opinions in the debate with the opinions of Raba and Rava but in the end concedes that it is not the case. After raising an additional question from the Mishna against Raba's opinion, they concede that Raba must hold that both are issues - making sure the get was done li'shma and that witnesses may not be around to verify the signatures. If so, what is the practical difference between Raba and Rava?

Study Guide Gittin 3 Today's daf is sponsored by Rebecca and Ezra Darshan in loving memory of her mother, Helene Isaacs, Chana bat Abraham David and Esther Rachel, on her 23rd yahrzeit. "My mother would have been so happy and proud to see so many women learning on such a high level. Torah learning was such an important part of her life." Today's daf is sponsored by Eric Sommer in honor of Rabbanit Michelle and his fellow morning daf learners. This week's siyum was a great reminder what an incredible achievement Hadran is. Rabbanit Michelle's vision and teaching style, along with the solidarity and dedication of the learners, creates a feeling of being part of something special. It's a privilege to be a part of it, one that I do not take for granted. In order to explain why one witness is sufficient according to Raba (li'shma), they explain that really there is not such a concern that the get wasn't written li'shma but the rabbis required it. Since that is the case, one witness will be enough, because if they require him to send the get with two witnesses, he may decide not to send the get at all and the wife will become an aguna. However, instead of helping the woman, this could actually create more problems as only one witness verified it and if the husband were to later come and claim it was not a valid get, it would be his word against the messenger's. The Gemara explains that this is not a concern as the declaration of the messenger needs to be said in front of two or three people and therefore this gives the witness more credibility and if the husband were to come later and raise doubts about the get, he would not be believed. The same question they asked Raba about one witness is now asked of Rava. They answer the same answer, raise the same difficulty and resolve the issue in a very similar manner. Why didn't Rava hold like Raba and why didn't Raba hold like Rava? Since according to Raba, the issue is li'shma, according to who does the Mishna correspond when  it required the messenger to say both "it was written before me and it was signed before me?" It seems that both the writing and the signing needs to be li'shma and this doesn't fit with Rabbi Meir who requires the signing to be li'shma and Rabbi Elazar who requires the writing to be li'shma.

Study Guide Gittin 2 Gittin bookmark and checklist Masechet Gittin in sponsored by Elaine and Saul Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law, Daniela Schreiber. "Kol Hakavod on receiving your Masters of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy! We are so proud of you!"  This week's learning is dedicated in honor of Daniela Bellows Schreiber. "In honor of your completion of your Masters of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy. Daniela, you inspire us every day, with your focus and determination. We know firsthand how lucky your clients will be to have you in their lives. Love, Your Mah Jong Friends"  Today's daf is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of Rabbanit Michelle. "Thank you for guiding me on the path of Daf Yomi (and life) for the past 2711 pages!"  Today's daf is sponsored by Lynn Kaye, Joe Nadis and Maya Zanger-Nadis in honor of the shloshim of their grandma Marylin Kurtz Zanger. "Grandma always kept us in line, making sure we understood our intellectual and cultural heritage and quietly sneaking us sugar cereal when we came to visit. She passed away at 97 after being the head of the family for decades. Grandma, we love you and miss you."  In what cases does a messenger delivering a divorce document from the husband to the wife need to say a declaration that it was written and signed before him? In general, this is needed if they are coming from abroad to Israel. Does this apply to cities on the border of Israel? What exactly are the borders? Is it necessary when bringing a get (divorce document) from Israel to abroad? Raba and Rava each offer different explanations for the reason that the messenger needs to make this declaration. Raba says the concern is that people abroad are not careful about making sure the get is written li'shma, specifically for this particular man and this particular woman. Rava says the concern is that we won't be able to verify the signatures later since the witnesses are from abroad. What is the practical difference between the two opinions? According to Raba that the messenger needs to testify that the get was written li'shma, why it is enough to have only his testimony, don't we generally need two witnesses to prove something in court? The answer given is that in prohibitions, one witness is enough.

For the text of the Hadran ceremony, click here. For more information about What is a Siyum, click here. Siyum Masechet Sotah is sponsored by Ilana Friedman for the continued refuah shleima of Chana Sarah bat Ettel Sima. "May your trajectory of recovery continue speedily. Sponsored for the continued refuah of Yitzchak Ben Esther. You have helped so many to facilitate their recovery, may HaShem repay you in kind and restore you to good health quickly." Rabbi Ilai bar Yivrechia makes a number of statements regarding the power of the prayer. King David and Habakuk were both able through their prayers to improve the situation of the nation/Torah scholars. He also talks about the importance of Torah scholars speaking Torah with each other and also not fighting against each other regarding halakha. Torah scholars who study even though they struggle to make ends meet, will get rewarded. The Mishna brings a number of statements describing the difficult historical-political situation in the periods following the destruction and the loss of great leaders. It also describes all sorts of takkanot the rabbis instituted regarding wedding ceremonies in the periods during and after the destruction of the Temple, and another takkana, not to learn Greek wisdom, which came about because of a particular incident. Are there situations where this is permitted? If so, what are they? After quoting another braita describing all that was lost since the death of many of the great rabbis of then, the masechet ends on a more optimistic note with two rabbis claiming that they have the characteristics that the braita had said no longer exist once a particular rabbis had died.

Introduction to Masechet Gittin

Today's daf is dedicated by Goody Weil "in honor of my amazing father, Rabbi Yitz Greenberg, on his 90th birthday. May Hashem give him the strength to continue learning, guiding, thinking, and doing עד 120 שנה והלאה! Why did Yochanan the kohen gadol cancel the confession of the tithes? There were two issues - some were not giving the tithes to the levites and those that were giving tithes, would give to the kohanim instead of the levites, as was instituted by Ezra. He also canceled the orarim and the nokfim. What are these and why were they canceled? He also stopped people from using hammers to work on chol hamoed and people no longer needed to check if tithes had been taken from produce they bought from others. Why? Once there was no longer the Sanhedrin, they outlawed singing with drinking. What manner of singing is permitted and what manner is not? Once there were no longer early prophets, there was no longer the urim v'tumim. Who were the "early" prophets? When prophecies ended, the rabbis would use heavenly voices as a replacement. Different tannaim lament the destruction by describing all sorts of things that we no longer have since the destruction of the Temple. One of them is the 'shamir.' What is it and what was it used for?

Today's daf is sponsored by Ruth Leah Kahan, Jessica Shklar, and Emily Michelson in loving memory of their mother, Kadimah Michelson, Kadimah bat haRav Avraham Tzvi benZion, on her 5th yahrzeit. "We miss you."  Fourty-two children were killed in the episode with Elisha and the children who cursed him. This is a later fulfillment of Balak's attempt to curse the Jews by bringing forty-two sacrifices. Elisha was punished for this as he got sick three times - once for this, once for pushing off Geichazi entirely and a third time at the time of his death. It is learned from Elisha and Yehushua ben Perachia and his student (Jesus of Nazarene) that one should not entirely push someone away. What happened between Elisha and Geichazi and between Yehushua ben Perachia and his student? In the egla arufa ceremony, if the murderer is found before the calf is killed or after, what is done with the calf? What if there are contradictory witnesses regarding whether or not that person is the murderer? The Mishna brings a list of statements with the following structure: When the number of X increased, the ritual of Y was nullified. When the number of murderers increased, they canceled the egla arufa ceremony. When the number of adulterers increased, they sotah water no longer worked. The Mishna brings a number of other changes as well. If the murderer is found after the calf has been killed, the murderer is still convicted to death as the atonement of the calf is only until such time that the murderer is found. One witness is believed regarding the murderer in order to stop the egla arufa ceremony. If so, there seems to be a problem with the cases in the Mishna regarding contradictory testimony. How is this resolved? The Gemara explains the connection between the murderers and adulterers increasing and the egla arufa and sotah ceremony being canceled. They add more statements with the same structure referring to the perversion of the court system and lack of trust in judges.

Study Guide Sotah 46   Today's daf is sponsored by Helen Danczak in loving memory of her mother, Lucille Fliegler. "We think of you often, always with a smile." The kohanim say the final line in the egla arufa ceremony relating to atonement. The Gemara compares details regarding the criteria for the animal used for the egla arufa ceremony to those used for the para aduma (red heifer) ceremony. Which elements are similar? Which are different? Which are derived one from the other? Why is the egla arufa ceremony performed by a stream? The Torah says it needs to be done near an 'eitan' stream. What is the meaning of 'eitan'? Some say it means strong and others say it means old. There are verses to prove each option. The animal is killed by breaking its neck from the back. This is derived from a gezeira shava from a bird sin offering where melika is performed by killing the bird from the back of its neck and the same root of araf appears there. One cannot plant or work the ground where the egla arufa ceremony is performed. However, there is a debate if this also means that it can't be performed in a place where the ground was worked/used for planting? The elders of the city wash their hands in the place where the calf was killed. Then they say the declaration that they were not responsible for the death. They could have been responsible if they had seen the person and not escorted them. They stress the importance of escorting people and derive it from verses in the beginning of the book of Shoftim. Other statements discuss the importance of escorting and advising one who does not have an escort to learn Torah as a means of protection. How far should one go when escorting another? On what does it depend? The story of the prophet Elisha in Melachim 2 2:43 when children called him names and were then killed by bears could have been avoided if the people of the city has escorted Elisha. The verses of the story are extrapolated.

Study Guide Sotah 45 Today's daf is sponsored by Geri Goldstein Guedalia in honor of her daughter, Audrey Saipe Goldstein Levant, on her birthday. "I am so proud of you and I love doing the daf with you each morning." Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Dickson in honor of Audrey Levant. "Wishing her a very happy birthday! Keep inspiring, striving and shtaygn ad 120." Is it possible one can derive from the verses that there are more than three or five judges who need to do the measure for the egla arufa ceremony? Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov has a different opinion that the kohen gadol and the king need to measure as well. Is it possible that he agrees with Rabbi Yehuda or Rabbi Shimon about the number of judges or is it possible that he holds that the whole Sanhedrin (all 71!) need to come? Rav Yosef brings a source to try to answer this question, but Abaye raises a difficulty with this proof. Since there is no law of egla arufa if the body is hidden, the Gemara compares a debate regarding the laws of shichikha (when one forgets sheaves in the field, they need to be left for the poor) to the laws of egla arufa regarding hidden items. Would the rabbis who holds that hidden items are not exempt from shichikha also hold the same thing as regards egla arufa? Rabbi Yirmiya asks a different question regarding laws of shichikha - does it apply to items that are not directly on the ground? Abaye was in the marketplace when someone asked him if there is a body on top of another, is the bottom one considered hidden even though it is under the same type of item (another body) and is the top one considered on the floor since it is on something of the same type which is on the floor? A braita lists more cases  (different ways of having died) where the laws of egla arufa would not apply. Could there be a case where two cities bring an egla arufa? What do we do if the head is severed from the body and isn't found in the same place? Which part is moved and for what purpose? From which part of the body do we measure - there is a three-way debate. After the measuring, the elders of the closest city take a calf, bring it to a stream and break the back of its neck with a cleaver. They then recite a declaration (the one that needs to be in Hebrew) that they are not responsible for the death of this person.

A final statement of Rabbi Yochanan quoting Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov is regarding the rabbinic ordinance that one who is within four cubits of a dead person is considered impure as it is likely one may have put one's hand over the dead body without realizing. However, an exception is made in the courtyard of a burial cave as there is a separation between the courtyard and the burial area, assuming it is a certain minimum size. Beit Hillel holds that the size needed is only 4x4 handbreadths. However, this size needed depends on how one enters the courtyard of the cave - from above or from the side. The same types of drashot that were taught regarding the house and the vineyard are taught regarding the betrothal of a woman - what cases are included and which are excluded and where is it derived from the verses? From the order in the Torah of house, vineyard, wife, they derive that first one should build a house, then plant a vineyard and only after that, find a wife and get married. A verse from Proverbs 24:27 is brought to teach the same idea, however, there are several different ways to extrapolate that verse - perhaps referring to order of learning (Torah, then Mishna then Talmud) or learning that will then lead to good deeds. More details regarding the exemption from war for those just married are explained and connected to verses. The Mishna discusses the third speech that is given to the people before going out to war, sending home those who are soft-hearted. Who is considered soft-hearted? There are a number of different opinions. What are the practical differences between them? There were officers who stood in the front and in the back of the nation to ensure that no one try to run away from war, as running away is demoralizing and leads to defeat. Which type of war are these exemptions for? All wars? Just optional wars? There is a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the tana kama and the Gemara explains the difference between them. The new chapter deals with the egla arufa ceremony. If one finds a dead body and they don't know who killed the person, judges from the central Sanhedrin (of 71 judges) come and measure to find the closest city. How many judges? Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree about whether it is five or three. from where in the verses do they each derive their opinion? The body must be found on the ground and not buried under something or hanging from a tree or floating in the water. The ceremony must be performed in Hebrew - from where is this derived?

Study Guide Sotah 43 Today's daf is sponsored by Elisheva Rappoport in loving memory of her beloved sister Raizel Zucker on her 3rd yahrzeit. "May the neshama of Tova Raizel bat Yosef Yitzchok have an Aliya." We learn from the verses regarding the war with the Midyan that the Ark went out to war with the nation. They extrapolate from the verses that Pinchas was descended from Yitro and from Joseph through his mother. How? Who is exempt from war? What type of house, vineyard, wife? At what stage? What do they do while the others are at war? Does it matter if they purchased it, or received it as a gift or inheritance? Which parts of the speech are said by whom? A contradiction between two tannaitic sources leads to a discussion about tree grafting and whether it is considered a new growth that will exempt one from going to war. The sages provide two different answers to resolve the contradiction. Several statement are brought in the name of Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov about laws that are affected not by reality but by the way it appears.  

Today's daf is sponsored by Lenny Levin in loving memory of Carol Robinson. "Carol was a vivacious, caring presence in our lives, whether near or far. Her aura lingers despite her passing. Her example will continue to inspire us to face our continuing life challenges with hope and courage."  There are two more statements about the dangers of flattery and then a statement about four types of people who are not able to greet the divine presence and among them, those who flatter. The new chapter deals with the speech that the designated kohen gives to the people before going out to war, which needs to be in Hebrew only. There are two parts to the speech - one is to list who is exempt from war and the other is to encourage those who are going not to be fearful because God is with them. The Mishna brings examples comparing gentile nations that relied on humans, such as Goliath, to Israel who relies on God. The kohen who makes this speech is appointed, as is derived from the verses. The kohen's speech begins with the words "Shema Yisrael," literally, hear me Israel. But it is understood to be referring to the salvation of the Jews being dependent on saying shema twice a day. A braita establishes that the kohen's speech split into two - part was said on the border of Israel and part just before beginning the war. The Gemara brings several drashot on the David and Goliath narrative. How did Goliath bring his own downfall? How was he trying to wear down the Jews? Why was he called "ish habeinayim"? The sages connect Orpah, Naomi's daughter-in-law, and Harafa, Goliath's mother, and claim they are the same person. How are the names extrapolated? The Amonites relied on Shovach who was also known as Shovach. Which was the real name and which was meant for extrapolating? Some other verses are brought in which there was a debate about how to extrapolate the verse, such as, if one is worried one should "yashchena" - does that means "yaschenu" distract oneself by thinking of other things or "yaschenu" talk it out.

Study Guide Sotah 41 Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Noa ben Shoshan and Ariel Katuf's marriage. The kohen gadol reads from the Torah on Yom Kippur. However, he skips from one section to another - how can this be done as one can only skip sections when reading from the Prophets, not from the Torah! Abaye resolves this as one can skip even Torah sections within the same topic as long as one can get to the other section within the time the translator reads the verse in Aramaic. The kohen reads the other section by heart as it is too far to get to and also it is not appropriate to roll a safer Torah in public. Why not use more than one sefer Torah? That is only permitted when it is different readers, but when just one person reads and he moves to another book, people will think the first one was missing section and thus, disqualified. What blessings does the kohen gadol say after he reads from the Torah? After he would read, people would bring their own personal sefer Torah and read from it. The king reads from the Torah at the hakhel ceremony once every seven years after the shmita year on the first day of Chol Hamoed Sukkot. One year King Agripas was reading and began crying when he got to the section saying that gentile kings cannot be king as he was presumed to have been descended from slaves as he was descended from Herod who was descended from a slave, according to the rabbis. The people told him not to be concerned and cried out, "You are our brother! You are our brother." The king reads a number of sections in the book of Devarim. A number of questions, some similar to what was asked about the kohen gadol's reading, are raised and resolved. Why did King Agripas stand while reading if the king is supposed to sit? It is known that a king who wants to relinquish the honor due to him cannot! Since this was for a mitzva, it is permitted. On account of the story of the Jews flattering Agripas, the Gemara launches into a series of statements regarding flattery.  

Today's daf is sponsored by Lori Schuldiner Schor in loving memory of her father, on his 51st yahrzeit, and in celebration of her three grandchildren. "I honor the circle of life and the cycles of life. I celebrate the love of learning that flows organically through the generations of my family." Today's daf is sponsored in loving memory of Anita Dinerstein, by her children and grandchildren, on her shloshim. "May her love of Jewish learning and community continue to inspire us." There is a debate about whether or not one is allowed to say verses while the kohanim are saying birkhat kohanim - is it disrespectful to recite something while they are blessing or is it disrespectful not to recite verses? Is it permitted only in the Temple? Rabbi Avahu compares his modesty to Rabbi Abba from Acco who was more modest than he. Other stories are brought to show how modest Rabbi Avahu was. There are many different opinions about what the congregation should recite when the chazan says modim. Rav Papa chose to combine them all into the prayer that we say today. One should have awe of the congregation upon them. The rabbis bring three different sources for this, two from the blessings of the kohanim, although one of those is rejected. The kohanim take off their shoes before blessing the people in case their strap opens up and as they lean down to fix it, they miss their chance to bless the people and they are suspected by others as being a son of a divorcee who cannot recite the blessings. In the Temple, one doesn't answer amen. why? On account of that, the three blessings of the kohanim are said as one. The Mishna describes what Torah portions the kohen gadol would recite on Yom Kippur and what blessings would he recite. The Torah was passed from one person to another with a higher rank. Can one derive from there that the students can get treated with respect even if their rabbi is there? Abaye rejects this suggestion and brings an alternate explanation for the passing of the Torah from one to the other. Can one infer from the Mishna that the kohen gadol sat in the azara? And if so, how could that be if only kings of the house of David were allowed to sit in the azara?  

When a sefer Torah is opened in shul, one is not allowed to speak, even to talk about halakha. Two different verses are suggested as possible derivations for this rule. A kohen must wash his hands before blessing the people - a verse is brought as proof. When Rabbi Elazar ben Shamoa was asked why he was rewarded with longevity, he answered that he was careful about three things - not making the shul a shortcut, not passing over people to get to his place in the beit midrash and not saying the priestly blessing without saying a brakha first. What is the brakha the kohanim say before blessing the people? What do they say before going up to say the blessing? What do they say after when they turn away from the people and toward the Ark? Other rules are listed regarding both the blessing of the kohanim and the Torah reading including waiting for each section to completely finish or all those to answer amen before continuing on to the next section. One who reads the haftorah, should first read from the Torah and the Torah must be fully rolled, before beginning the haftorah. How would they remove the Torah from shul - would it have to be removed before all the people? On what does that depend? What verses would the people recite when the kohanim would recite birkhat kohanim?

Study Guide Sotah 38 What are differences between birkhat kohanim that was performed in the Temple and the one that is performed outside the Temple? Seven braitot are brought which each derive laws of the birkhat kohanim from the words “this is how you should bless.” Each braita deals with a different issue, raises questions about it and makes derivations from other verses in order to explain the rule. The rules are - the blessing is done in Hebrew only, while standing, with hands lifted, using the special name of God (in the Temple only), women, converts and freed slaves are included in the blessing, the kohanim and the people face each other and it is said out loud. How are the kohanim called up and on what does it depend? Eight statements of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi are brought – four about birkhat kohanim and four showing the importance of not being stingy. What is done in a case where all the congregants are kohanim? There are two contradictory statements about this, but they are resolved. Those who stand behind the kohanim are not included in the blessing. What about those who are in front but there is some sort of barrier? What about those on the side?

Yehuda's name includes the letters of the name of God because he sanctified God's name in public. When was this? A braita is brought to answer the question in which two versions are brought regarding the question of who went into the Red Sea first - the tribe of Benjamin or Nachshon the son of Aminadav from the tribe of Judah? Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov explains how the Levites split up - the elders were in between the two mountains and the others were on top. Rabbi Yoshiya says it split between those who were able to work (to carry the Ark) and those who could not. Rebbi has a totally different understanding of where the people stood - he thinks that all the tribes were at the foot of the mountain - some at the foot of Mount Grizim and some at the foot of Mount Eival as when the verse says "on Mount..." it means next to, as is proven from other instances where on means next to. How were the blessings and curses recited? How many covenants were formed on that day? When else were there covenants formed as the ones on that day? There is a debate about what was received when - Rabbi Yismael holds that general rules were given at Sinai and details at the Tent of Meeting (ohel moed). Rabbi Akiva holds that both were received at Sinai and repeated at the Tent of Meeting and then a third time at Arvot Moav. Rabbi Yehuda ben Nachmani said that all the blessings and curses only relate to one who commits adultery. More details of how the blessings and curses were recited are derived from the verse regarding those who stand on Mount Grizim for the blessings and those who stand on Mount Eival for the curses.

Study Guide Sotah 36 The Gemara lists all the miracles that happened to the Jews on the day they crossed over the Jordan into Israel. When it is recorded in the book of Joshua about the blessings and curses it is written "half" went up to Mount Gerizim "and the half" went up to Mount Eival. Why is it written "and the half." Rav Kahane says this comes to teach that the division of the tribes on the two mountains was the same division that is in the two stones in which the names of all the tribes were written that were on the efod that would sit on the shoulders of the high priest. But in a braita there are two opinions regarding the distribution of the names in the efod and neither opinion is in accordance with Rav Kahana. So they reject his opinion and offer a different interpretation of "and the half" - that those who stood on Mount Gerizim were more numerous than those on Mpunt Eival even though the tribe of Levi was with them and some of them stood below, because the tribe of Joseph was also there and they were numerous. How do we know that Joseph's tribe was numerous? The Gemara continues with many drashot on Joseph.

The Gemara continues with drashot on the stories of the spies addressing various issues. At what stage did the spies have bad intent? How did Caleb get the people quieted to listen to him? The spies directly doubted the power of God. Why did they think it was a land that destroyed its inhabitants? Were they lying when they said that the spies appeared like grasshoppers in the eyes of the inhabitants? The day the nation cried after hearing the spies' descriptions was the ninth of Av and they were therefore punished many years later that on that same day, the Temple would be destroyed. How did the spies die and why? The Gemara then goes back to the topic of the crossing of the Jordan and explains more details of what happened. At the end of the passing through, the ark floated miraculously to the other side taking with it all the kohanim. Later in history, when Uza was worried the Ark would fall off the wagon as the ask was being returned to Jerusalem, he was punished because he forgot that the Ark can support itself, as happened at the crossing of the Jordan. King David was somewhat responsible as he should not have put it on a wagon, as the Levites in the desert were commanded to carry it on their shoulders. At an earlier time, when the Ark was returned by the Philistines, the people of Beit Shemesh were punished for not treating the Ark properly. What did they do? How many people died? Three months later, after the Ark was in the house of Oved Edom HaGiti, and Oved was blessed, David realized that the time has come to return the Ark to Jerusalem. How many animals were sacrificed during the procession? There were three sets of stones - one in the time of Moshe (learned out by gezira shava from the stones of Yehoshua), and two in the time of Yehoshua. On the last set, they wrote the Torah and put limestone. In what order? Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree. The purpose of writing the Torah in seventy languages was so that the nations would see and turn away from their bad actions. Rabbi Shimon said they added a line at the bottom, meant to cause people from the seven nations (perhaps only those living outside of Israel) to repent.

How high was the water in the Jordan River when the Israelites crossed? What are the three things that Joshua said/commanded to the people when they were standing in the Jordan? The stones they took from the Jordan weighed 40 seah. From this it is derived that a person can carry three times that weight if someone else loads the load onto their shoulder’s and hence the weight that the bunch of grapes that the spies took out of Israel was 960 seah because eight people carried it. What formation of poles were used to carry the huge cluster of grapes? Did Israel pass through Jordan in a way that they camped in the desert or did they walk one after the other? The Gemara begins a long series of drashot on the story of the spies - who asked to send spies (how can we resolve the contradiction between what it says in Bamidbar and what it says in Devraim on this issue)? How can we extrapolate the names of the spies? Why is it written "And they went up into the Negev" in the plural "And he came to Hebron" in the singular? What does this teach about Kaleb? How can we extrapolate the clean names of the giants they found in Israel? How do you explain the verse "Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt"?

Today's daf is sponsored by the Lebi family in honor of Maytal Melamed for finishing her year-long study of Masechet Megillah as part of her bat mitzvah preparation. "We're very proud of you!" Prayer can be said in any language as it needs to be meaningful and understood, as we are asking God for mercy. However, Rav Yehuda said that one cannot pray in Aramaic as the angels don't understand Aramaic! A distinction is made between individual prayer, where an angel is needed to bring the prayers to God, and prayer in a public forum which goes directly to God. A difficulty is raised against Rav Yehuda as a story is told of a heavenly voice that spoke from the Holy of Holies in Aramaic on two different occasions. Two possible solutions are suggested. Verses are brought to show how we derive that the other cases listed in the Mishna can be said in any language. The Mishna had derived from the case of the blessings and the curses that when the Torah uses the wording "and they answered and they said" it means it must be said in Hebrew. From here they derived the law for chalitza and bikurim. But from where do they derive that the blessings and the curses needed to be said in Hebrew only? There was a debate regarding the derivation for chalitza. How does each deal with the proof from the verse of the other opinion? What are the different opinions about the location of Mount Grizim and Mount Eival? How does each one explain the description of the location in Devarim 11:30? What did Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Yosi claim to the Shomronim (Kutim) against their traditions regarding the location of Mount Grizim and Mount Eival? How exactly did the Jews cross the Jordan River on their entry into Israel?

Today's daf is sponsored by Malka Svei in loving memory of her grandmother, Rachel Leah Bat R’ David. "She learned and taught Torah throughout her life. She loved and valued Torah above all else, and raised her children and grandchildren to do the same." Today's daf is sponsored by Lynn Kaye, Joe Nadis & Maya Zanger-Nadis in loving memory of Ted Kurtz on his shloshim. "A WWII veteran and savvy businessman, Uncle Ted stayed connected to his Hungarian Satmar roots. Although Ted never had children of his own, he took care to be present in our lives, and put several of us through college. Through him, we learned the importance of taking care of family. May his neshama have an aliyah." The Hadran Zoom family sponsors today's daf for a refuah shleima for Rabbi Hayim Herring, Harav Hayim Ben Zippora Riva, husband of their fellow daf learner and friend Terri Krivosha. "Wishing you renewed strength and a full recovery." In order to resolve the difficulty with Rabbi Chiya's opinion from the last two cases in the Mishna, the Gemara establishes that the Mishna is referring to cases where one or both of the sets are witnesses are disqualified and the rulings follow rabbi Nechemia who holds that in cases where disqualified witnesses are accepted, we follow the group with the larger number of witnesses. There are two different versions of Rabbi Nechemia's position. The seventh chapter begins with a list of cases where the law obligates a recitation of a text - which can be said in a language other than Hebrew and which can be said only in Hebrew? The words of the kohen to the sotah, confession of tithes, shema, tefilla (amida), grace after meals, an oath of testimony and an oath regarding a deposit - can all be said in any language (that one understands). The recitation of the bikkurim, chalitza, the blessings and the curses recited upon entry into Israel, the blessing of the kohanim, the blessing of the kohen gadol on Yom Kippur, the Torah reading of the king at hakhel, and the recitation at an egla arufa ceremony all need to be recited in Hebrew. The Mishna brings a source for a few of these cases, explaining why they need to be said in Hebrew. They then explain in details how the blessings and curses ceremony was performed. The Gemara begins by explaining how we know that sotah ceremony can be done in any language. What exactly does the kohen explain to the woman and why? From where do we derive that the confession of the tithes can be done in any language? We learn from the tithes ceremony that one should recite praise about oneself quietly and from the recitation of the bikkurim, we learn that things that are degrading, we say loudly. If this is true, we say prayer in a quiet voice so as not to embarrass ourselves when we spell out our sins! To resolve this, they correct the previous statement (what we recite loudly) to be referring to our pain, rather than something degrading, so that people will hear and pray for mercy. Regarding shema, there is a tannaitic debate about whether it should be recited in Hebrew only or not. What is the proof in the verses for each position?

Rabbi Yehoshua said in the Mishna that when it said “lo” in a verse about Iyov (Job), it was spelled with a vav and explained as having a vav, not with an alef which would have had the opposite meaning. Why was there even reason to think that it was spelled with a vav and read with an alef? Why did Rabbi Yehoshua believe that Iyov worshipped God out of love and not fear? What is the difference in the reward between one who worships out of love or out of fear? From where is this derived? One witness, even one who is generally not accepted in court, can be believed to say that the woman who was warned and went in the room alone with that man actually has relations. The woman would then not be able to drink the sotah water to prove her innocence. Why is one witness believed? Why are two needed to prove that they were in the room alone? What is the case if there was contradictory testimony regarding her having slept with the man – in which cases would she drink and in which cases not? How does this work with Ulla’s statement that in cases where one witness is believed, one witness is considered like two. Ulla and Rabbi Chiya each understand read the Mishna differently.

Study Guide Sotah 30 Today’s daf is sponsored by Raquel Lifshutz Pilzer and Jen Lifshutz Lankin in loving memory of their brother, Avigdor Chai Abraham, Z"L, on his second yartzeit. "Your incredible strength, bravery and laugh will always be with us. You are always in our hearts and on our minds. We miss you dearly and hope to continue to learn in your merit, and make you proud." 

Study Guide Sotah 29 The Gemara continues and explains the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva in the drasha on the verses about  with whom can she not have relations and what else is the sotah prohibited to do? There is another source for the rule that a  doubt regarding impurity is treated strictly only if there is a person involved who theoretically could have known if it was impure.  Why do we need two sources for this? Where did Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai learn that a second vessel defiles a third if not from the verse of Rabbi Akiva? He learned it from a kal vachomer from a tvul yom. If so, why did he fear that others would reject this? On what basis would they reject it? From where do we derive that there is a fourth degree of impurity in sacrificial items? Rabbi Yosi learns it from a kal vachomer from a mechusar kipurim. Rabbi Yochanan raises a difficulty with the kal vachomer.

Today's daf is sponsored by Laura Shechter in honor of her daughter, Kayla. "Behatzlacha to all of the contestants competing today in the Chidon HaTanach, most especially to Kayla. The learning we have done together as a family because of your commitment has brought us all so much joy. Kayla, you are our champion always. Mazal tov!" When the Mishna said that the man also dies when the woman drinks the sotah water, it could not be referring to her husband because if the husband has done wrongdoing, the sotah water doesn’t work to kill the woman. From where is this derived? From here they conclude it is the adulterer who will die when the sotah drinks the water. Is this derived from the word “and they came (referring to the waters)” which appears twice or because of the addition of the “and”? They conclude that Rabbi Akiva derives it from “and” and then proceed to explain the six drashot that Rabbi Akiva learns from the three mentions of “and they came” – as each one coming to teach two things. Rebbi doesn’t derive anything from “and” and therefore derives only three things from the fact that the same words appear three times. From where does he derive that the man gets punished as well? A braita is brought explaining what Rabbi Akiva learns from the three verses that say “and the woman was impure.” Rabbi Yishmael raises a question against Rabbi Akiva, although the Gemara will later have to explain the question as it is not very clear. He also shows how we derive that the sotah is forbidden to her husband until she drinks the water and proves her innocence. He then makes a kal vachomer argument from sotah to a sheretz that a sheretz should also be forbidden even in a case of doubt. However, this is limited to cases that are similar to sotah – where the doubt is in the private domain and theoretically there is someone who knows whether or not it became impure.

Today’s daf is dedicated to the memory of the fallen soldiers that were killed protecting the State of Israel and in memory of those that were killed in terrorist attacks and died by Kiddush Hashem.  Today's daf is sponsored by Jeanne Yael Klempner in loving memory of her father, Michael Cohen, Elimelech HaCohen ben Shlomo v'Malka, who passed away a month ago on the 4th of Nissan. "Dad, thank you for inspiring my love of learning Torah. I wish I'd been able to share my daf yomi journey with you over the last few difficult years of your life, but I take comfort in knowing you'd be proud of it." Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in loving memory of her nephew Larry Gerber, Lipa Chaim ben Yisrael Hakohen z"l, on his shloshim. "He was a wonderful, generous man who did much good for the world, passed away too young, and will be greatly missed by all who knew and loved him." Is it worse to marry a woman rumored to have committed adultery or the daughter of that woman? Is there an assumption that the daughter of such a woman is likely conceived from the husband or not? What is the basis of the debate between Rabbi Yosi and the rabbis about whether a husband can have his wife drink the sotah water if the court did the kinui in a case where he was temporarily incapacitated? The words 'wife' and 'husband' are juxtaposed in the verse and this is used to teach that the criteria for men are the same as for women and vice-versa. What laws are derived from this juxtaposition? The fifth chapter begins by deriving from a verse that just as the woman who committed adultery is killed by the sotah water, the man who had relations with her dies as well in the same manner. And just as she is forbidden to her husband, she is forbidden to the man under suspicion as well. There are two different manners in which this can be derived from the text - one by Rabbi Akiva and the other by Rabbi Yehoshua. The Mishna continues to list various other drashot by Rabbi Akiva and one by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Horkanus. The topics vary from an impure item of a second-degree being able to pass on impurity to create a third-degree of impurity, the area around the Levite cities, how the Jews sang with Moshe at the splitting of the Red Sea, and did Iyov worship God out of love or fear.

Today's daf is sponsored by Goody and Eric Weil in loving memory of the beloved Rav Dov Shabtai ben Yehoshua Leib and Ethel Greenstone after a short illness. 'He inspired so many of the women and men of his family to learn daf yomi. Many are part of the Hadran community that embraces them today and learns in his honor. Yehi Zichro Baruch!" Rabbi Elazar ruled in cases of a man who married a woman who can't have children that since he can have another wife, he is permitted to marry her, in which case, she can also be brought to drink the sotah water. Rav Nachman limits his opinion to a woman who at some point was able to have children, as an aylonit for sure cannot become a sotah. A difficulty is raised against Rav Nachman from a braita. Rav Nachman explains that there is a tannaitic debate about this based on the understanding of how to explain the verse "she shall be clean and will be able to retain seed." What are the different ways to understand this verse? The Gemara delves into many of the other cases mentioned in the braita that was quoted and explains them. The same is then done to the cases mentioned in our Mishna, such as the wife of a kohen or a eunuch. Each time the Gemara explains why it was necessary to explain the law in the braita/Mishna as it seems at first glance that it would be obvious. The Mishna excluded one who is a minor and one who is not a man from laws of kinui (one does not warn a wife about going into a room alone with them). What is "one who is not a man?" Three possibilities are raised, the first two (one who is impotent and a gentile) are rejected. The conclusion is that it means an animal as engaging in bestiality is not considered 'znut' (licentiousness).

Study Guide Sotah 25 The week's learning is sponsored by the Greenstone Family in loving memory of their dear husband, father and grandfather, Dov Shabtai Ben Yehoshua Lev. "Saba was a dedicated and committed learner of Torah. The fact that he was consistent in his learning speaks to his devotion to the study of Torah, and it's clear that he instilled that same passion in his children and grandchildren. Saba was always so proud to see his many of his children and grandchildren learn Daf Yomi." Today's daf is sponsored by Shelly and Avi Yonitzman in loving memory of Albert Kobny and wishing long life to Sarina Kovny.  A woman who behaves in a manner that is considered a breach of the marriage contract (dat yehudit), loses her ketuba. But is this only if she is warned or not? Three different sections of our Mishna are each brought to try to prove that she needs warning. The first two are rejected but the third is conclusive. If a wife violated dat yehudit but the husband doesn't care and wants to stay married to her, can he? They try to answer this question from a case in our Mishna, but that answer is rejected. If a husband warned his wife not to go into a room alone with another man (kinui), can he change his mind and rescind the warning? They try to answer the question from our Mishna and another Mishna in Sotah, but both are rejected. They find the answer in a braita, one can rescind the kinui. However, there is a debate about whether that can be done only before she is found in the room alone with the man (setira), or even after that. The Gemara strengthens the position of the opinion that it cannot be rescinded after setira. In the Mishna, Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree regarding a case of a sotah whose husband died before she drinks the water. Does she lose her ketuba money or not? The debate is based on whether one views a document that is meant to be collected as if it was already collected. If one views it as collected, then the woman gets her ketuba money as the burden of proof lies on the husband. If not, it is the reverse. There is another debate in the Mishna regarding a woman who can not have children - can she be brought to be a sotah? Is the husband forbidden to marry her in the first place? Rabbi Elazar holds that since he can have another wife, he is permitted to marry her, in which case, she can also be brought to drink the sotah water. Rav Nachman limits his opinion to a woman who at some point was able to have children, as an aylonit for sure cannot become a sotah based on a drasha from the verses of the sotah.

Study Guide Sotah 24 This is the daf for Shabbat. For Friday’s daf please click here. Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of David's father, Dr. Abraham Geffen, on his 8th  yahrzeit. "The youngest of the 8 children of Rav Tuvia and Sara Hene Geffen of Atlanta, he was devoted to his wife Ethel, parents and siblings, children, extended family and synagogue community and was a dedicated physician." Today's daf is sponsored by Pnina Grossman in honor of her mother, Naomi Grossman's birthday! "Happy birthday, Mommy! We're lucky and proud to have a cool and learned mother and mother-in-law like you!" A woman who is betrothed or waiting for levirate marriage does not drink the sotah water, but could be accused of being alone with a man (kinui and setira) and would lose her ketuba money. The same would be true if the marriage was forbidden from the start, such as a forbidden marriage for a priest, i.e. with a divorcee. The Mishna lists a number of other cases, some of which are a subject of debate about whether she can drink the water or whether she does or doesn't lose her ketuba money. There are some cases where the court can intervene and do the kinui in place of the man, in a case where he is incapable. The Gemara first deals with the case of betrothal and levirate marriage and explains that the Mishna follows Rabbi Yonatan's position as he disagrees with Rabbi Yoshiya who holds that a woman waiting for levirate marriage can drink the sotah water. What is the source in the Torah for each of their opinions and on what logic is each opinion based? The Gemara questions both of their opinions as they both say there is a verse to exclude a betrothed woman from drinking the sotah water, however, this can be learned from a different verse entirely. How is this resolved?