Podcasts about ketubot

Study Guide Avodah Zarah 23 Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in honor of her daughter Rina. "With love to my incredible daughter who started me on my Daf journey with Hadran. I am continuously in awe of her, with gratitude for who she is and what she contributes to the world." Two additional explanations (three in total) are presented to resolve the contradiction between our Mishna and the braita concerning whether one should be concerned that pagans engage in bestiality with animals. Ravina proposes that ideally, one should not place an animal in a secluded area with a pagan. However, if the animal is already with the pagan, there is no concern that they engaged in bestiality. Ravina attempts to support this distinction by resolving a similar contradiction: our Mishna prohibits a woman from being secluded with a pagan, while a Mishna in Ketubot 26b does not express concern that a captive woman engaged in relations with her captor. This proof, however, is dismissed for two reasons. Rabbi Pedat addresses the contradiction by suggesting that each source follows a different viewpoint—either that of Rabbi Eliezer or the rabbis—who disagree about whether a red heifer may be purchased from a pagan. The Gemara explores three alternate explanations of this debate in an effort to refute Rabbi Pedat’s comparison, but all three are ultimately rejected. The Gemara draws an inference from the debate between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis regarding the red heifer, as interpreted by Rabbi Pedat. Their discussion revolves around a case where it is uncertain whether the animal was involved in bestiality. If it were known with certainty, the animal could not be used for the purification process. This suggests that the red heifer carries the sanctity of offerings made on the altar, rather than the sanctity of bedek habayit—items designated for Temple maintenance. However, this conclusion is rejected on two grounds.

Study Guide Avodah Zarah 23 Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in honor of her daughter Rina. "With love to my incredible daughter who started me on my Daf journey with Hadran. I am continuously in awe of her, with gratitude for who she is and what she contributes to the world." Two additional explanations (three in total) are presented to resolve the contradiction between our Mishna and the braita concerning whether one should be concerned that pagans engage in bestiality with animals. Ravina proposes that ideally, one should not place an animal in a secluded area with a pagan. However, if the animal is already with the pagan, there is no concern that they engaged in bestiality. Ravina attempts to support this distinction by resolving a similar contradiction: our Mishna prohibits a woman from being secluded with a pagan, while a Mishna in Ketubot 26b does not express concern that a captive woman engaged in relations with her captor. This proof, however, is dismissed for two reasons. Rabbi Pedat addresses the contradiction by suggesting that each source follows a different viewpoint—either that of Rabbi Eliezer or the rabbis—who disagree about whether a red heifer may be purchased from a pagan. The Gemara explores three alternate explanations of this debate in an effort to refute Rabbi Pedat’s comparison, but all three are ultimately rejected. The Gemara draws an inference from the debate between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis regarding the red heifer, as interpreted by Rabbi Pedat. Their discussion revolves around a case where it is uncertain whether the animal was involved in bestiality. If it were known with certainty, the animal could not be used for the purification process. This suggests that the red heifer carries the sanctity of offerings made on the altar, rather than the sanctity of bedek habayit—items designated for Temple maintenance. However, this conclusion is rejected on two grounds.

The Mishna discusses the laws of a rodef (pursuer), addressing when it is permissible to kill someone pursuing another person – either to kill or to rape. A fundamental question emerges: Is this permission based on preventing the pursuer from committing a grave offense, or is it specifically aimed at protecting the potential victim? The Mishna rules that one is not about to pursue one who is going to commit idolatry, violate Shabbat or engage in bestiality. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his son Rabbi Elazar extended this rule to include some of these cases.  The Gemara examines several potential scriptural sources for the law permitting the killing of a rodef who intends to murder someone. After rejecting two initial suggestions, the law is ultimately derived through a hekeish (textual comparison) involving the rape of a betrothed young woman. The Gemara then explores which verses establish the obligation to save someone facing mortal danger, whether from drowning, wild animal attacks, or armed assailants. A braita expands upon the Mishna's teachings, and the Gemara provides derivations for the various categories where the law of rodef applies. Two additional cases from the braita are analyzed in detail: First, the debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda regarding a woman who, facing imminent rape, fears that intervention could lead to her death and therefore tells potential rescuers not to intervene. Second, the Gemara addresses an apparent contradiction between this braita and a Mishna in Ketubot 29a, offering several resolutions to reconcile the texts.

Two more answers (altogether five) are brought to reconcile the contradiction between the braita and the Mishna in Ketubot 29a. From where does Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul learn that if one can neutralize the pursuer, one is not allowed to kill him? When one is pursuing another and either the pursuer, the pursued or the one trying to stop the pursuer causes damage - who is exempt from payment and who is liable to pay? Why?  What is the basis for the opinions of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his son Rabbi Eliezer who add more cases to the list where one can kill one who is about to commit a certain transgression? Rabbi Yochanan quotes Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak saying that the rabbis sat in an attic in Lod and ruled that if one is threatened by death unless they transgress one of the commandments, they should transgress the commandment and not be killed, as the commandments were given to "live by them." However, there are three exceptions to the rule - idol worship, inappropriate sexual relations and murder (yehareg v'al yaavor). What is the source for the three exceptions? There are also certain circumstances in which one must give oneself over to be killed rather than transgress any commandment - if it is in public and if it is a time of religious persecution. What is the definition of public? How was Esther permitted to engage in relations with Achashverosh if it was public? Rava and Abaye each provide an answer.  Are Bnei Noach also commanded to give themselves over to be killed if asked to transgress one of the Noahide laws in public? 

The Mishna discusses the laws of a rodef (pursuer), addressing when it is permissible to kill someone pursuing another person – either to kill or to rape. A fundamental question emerges: Is this permission based on preventing the pursuer from committing a grave offense, or is it specifically aimed at protecting the potential victim? The Mishna rules that one is not about to pursue one who is going to commit idolatry, violate Shabbat or engage in bestiality. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his son Rabbi Elazar extended this rule to include some of these cases.  The Gemara examines several potential scriptural sources for the law permitting the killing of a rodef who intends to murder someone. After rejecting two initial suggestions, the law is ultimately derived through a hekeish (textual comparison) involving the rape of a betrothed young woman. The Gemara then explores which verses establish the obligation to save someone facing mortal danger, whether from drowning, wild animal attacks, or armed assailants. A braita expands upon the Mishna's teachings, and the Gemara provides derivations for the various categories where the law of rodef applies. Two additional cases from the braita are analyzed in detail: First, the debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda regarding a woman who, facing imminent rape, fears that intervention could lead to her death and therefore tells potential rescuers not to intervene. Second, the Gemara addresses an apparent contradiction between this braita and a Mishna in Ketubot 29a, offering several resolutions to reconcile the texts.

Two more answers (altogether five) are brought to reconcile the contradiction between the braita and the Mishna in Ketubot 29a. From where does Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul learn that if one can neutralize the pursuer, one is not allowed to kill him? When one is pursuing another and either the pursuer, the pursued or the one trying to stop the pursuer causes damage - who is exempt from payment and who is liable to pay? Why?  What is the basis for the opinions of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his son Rabbi Eliezer who add more cases to the list where one can kill one who is about to commit a certain transgression? Rabbi Yochanan quotes Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak saying that the rabbis sat in an attic in Lod and ruled that if one is threatened by death unless they transgress one of the commandments, they should transgress the commandment and not be killed, as the commandments were given to "live by them." However, there are three exceptions to the rule - idol worship, inappropriate sexual relations and murder (yehareg v'al yaavor). What is the source for the three exceptions? There are also certain circumstances in which one must give oneself over to be killed rather than transgress any commandment - if it is in public and if it is a time of religious persecution. What is the definition of public? How was Esther permitted to engage in relations with Achashverosh if it was public? Rava and Abaye each provide an answer.  Are Bnei Noach also commanded to give themselves over to be killed if asked to transgress one of the Noahide laws in public? 

Rebecca Hornstein serves as executive director of Boston Workers Circle: Center for Jewish Culture & Social Justice, but she is also a talented artist who creates ketubot (Jewish marriage contracts, often crafted to be beautiful art pieces), through a project called Rituals for Revolutionaries. She joins Dan and Lex for a conversation that covers ketubot, the power of Jewish ritual moments, and a magical Yiddish word that may be new to you: “veltlich” (“secular” or “worldly”). This episode is the 6th conversation in an ongoing Judaism Unbound mini-series exploring Jewish weddings.Sign up for Apocry-Fest: Hanukkah Unbound and Un-Canonized by heading to www.JudaismUnbound.com/apocryfest. Do so, and we'll send you all sorts of cool Apocryphal (ApocryFUN!) stuff, during Hanukkah, to help enrich your experience of this holiday! Access full shownotes for this episode via this link. If you're enjoying Judaism Unbound, please help us keep things going with a one-time or monthly tax-deductible donation -- support Judaism Unbound by clicking here!

Our Gemara cites a mishnah from Ketubot regarding not determining status, specifically of a kohen, when there is testimony from only one witness - with caveats and those who say we do trust the one witness, depending. Refining the dispute - can witness testimony be combined (that is, when the witnesses are not testifying together). Plus, a dispute over an IOU, which turns out to be forged - though the debt is real.

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Audrey Mondrow from her children and grandchildren. "You are an example of a lifetime learner." Today's daf is sponsored by Gabrielle and Daniel Altman in honor of the marriage of their daughter, Sophia Altman today, and also the recent marriage of their son, Isaac Altman, and the yahrtzeit of Moshe Rabbeinu. "Sending brachot that the ultimate Shadchan find matches for all of those who are looking." Today's daf is sponsored by Sylvia (Sara Devora) Simmons in loving memory of her father, Avraham Nachum ben Yisroel Simelis z"l on his yahrzeit today. "Survivor of the Kovno ghetto, "a brand plucked from burning fire" he planted the seeds of Torah learning with his enduring faith still inspiring today and in the future." There is another unsuccessful attempt to find a source to show that a betrothed woman who is widowed receives the ketuba money, even if she did not have a written ketuba. Therefore, Abaye's support for Rabbi Yochanan's reading of the Mishna in Ketubot 88b is edited and is derived directly from the words of the Mishna by rejecting the possibility that the Mishna was referring only to a place where in general they did not write ketubot and women used their get documents to collect their ketuba money. Therefore the Mishna is referring even to a case where a ketuba was written and yet we allow the woman to collect her ketuba money even without producing the ketuba document and do not trust the husband to claim it was already paid. The Mishna says if one finds a get or will or gift document, one cannot return it because maybe the person changed their mind and decided not to give it. This implies that if the husband/owner says now that he wants to give it (after we find it) he can, even if time has elapsed. This contradicts a Mishna in Gittin 27 that rules that one can only give a get that was found immediately and not after time has elapsed, as perhaps someone else with the same name lost it and it is not the get written for this man and this woman. Raba resolves this by distinguishing between a place where there are caravans and it is known that there are two couples with the same names. Rabbi Zeira raises the same contradiction but between the Mishna in Gittin and a Tosefta, not from an inference from our Mishna. He resolves it in the same way as Raba, however, it is unclear if he limits the Mishna to a case where there are caravans or also when it is known that there are two people with the same names. If he disagrees with Raba on that issue, what is the root of their debate? Why did Raba choose to bring the contradiction from our Mishna and Rabbi Zeira to bring it from the Tosefta? Rabbi Yirmia and Rav Ashi each bring two other resolutions to the contradiction between the Tosefta and the Mishna in Gittin.

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Audrey Mondrow from her children and grandchildren. "You are an example of a lifetime learner." Today's daf is sponsored by Gabrielle and Daniel Altman in honor of the marriage of their daughter, Sophia Altman today, and also the recent marriage of their son, Isaac Altman, and the yahrtzeit of Moshe Rabbeinu. "Sending brachot that the ultimate Shadchan find matches for all of those who are looking." Today's daf is sponsored by Sylvia (Sara Devora) Simmons in loving memory of her father, Avraham Nachum ben Yisroel Simelis z"l on his yahrzeit today. "Survivor of the Kovno ghetto, "a brand plucked from burning fire" he planted the seeds of Torah learning with his enduring faith still inspiring today and in the future." There is another unsuccessful attempt to find a source to show that a betrothed woman who is widowed receives the ketuba money, even if she did not have a written ketuba. Therefore, Abaye's support for Rabbi Yochanan's reading of the Mishna in Ketubot 88b is edited and is derived directly from the words of the Mishna by rejecting the possibility that the Mishna was referring only to a place where in general they did not write ketubot and women used their get documents to collect their ketuba money. Therefore the Mishna is referring even to a case where a ketuba was written and yet we allow the woman to collect her ketuba money even without producing the ketuba document and do not trust the husband to claim it was already paid. The Mishna says if one finds a get or will or gift document, one cannot return it because maybe the person changed their mind and decided not to give it. This implies that if the husband/owner says now that he wants to give it (after we find it) he can, even if time has elapsed. This contradicts a Mishna in Gittin 27 that rules that one can only give a get that was found immediately and not after time has elapsed, as perhaps someone else with the same name lost it and it is not the get written for this man and this woman. Raba resolves this by distinguishing between a place where there are caravans and it is known that there are two couples with the same names. Rabbi Zeira raises the same contradiction but between the Mishna in Gittin and a Tosefta, not from an inference from our Mishna. He resolves it in the same way as Raba, however, it is unclear if he limits the Mishna to a case where there are caravans or also when it is known that there are two people with the same names. If he disagrees with Raba on that issue, what is the root of their debate? Why did Raba choose to bring the contradiction from our Mishna and Rabbi Zeira to bring it from the Tosefta? Rabbi Yirmia and Rav Ashi each bring two other resolutions to the contradiction between the Tosefta and the Mishna in Gittin.

Ketubot 13:11 - Nedarim 1:1 | Tuesday, February 20th 2024 | 11 Adar I 5784

Ketubot 13:9-10 | Monday, February 19th 2024 | 10 Adar I 5784

Ketubot 13:7-8 | Sunday, February 18th 2024 | 9 Adar I 5784

Ketubot 13:5-6 | Saturday, February 17th 2024 | 8 Adar I 5784

Ketubot 13:3-4 | Friday, February 16th 2024 | 7 Adar I 5784

Ketubot 13:1-2 | Thursday, February 15th 2024 | 6 Adar I 5784

Ketubot 12:3-4 | Wednesday, February 14th 2024 | 5 Adar I 5784

Ketubot 12:1-2 | Tuesday, February 13th 2024 | 4 Adar I 5784

Ketubot 11:5-6 | Monday, February 12th 2024 | 3 Adar I 5784

Ketubot 11:3-4 | Sunday, February 11th 2024 | 2 Adar I 5784

Ketubot 11:1-2 | Saturday, February 10th 2024 | 1 Adar I 5784

Ketubot 10:5-6 | Friday, February 9th 2024 | 30 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 10:3-4 | Thursday, February 8th 2024 | 29 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 10:1-2 | Wednesday, February 7th 2024 | 28 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 9:8-9 | Tuesday, February 6th 2024 | 27 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 9:6-7 | Monday, February 5th 2024 | 26 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 9:4-5 | Sunday, February 4th 2024 | 25 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 9:2-3 | Saturday, February 3rd 2024 | 24 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 8:8-9:1 | Friday, February 2nd 2024 | 23 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 8:6-7 | Thursday, February 1st 2024 | 22 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 8:4-5 | Wednesday, January 31st 2024 | 21 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 8:2-3 | Tuesday, January 30th 2024 | 20 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 7:10-8:1 | Monday, January 29th 2024 | 19 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 7:8-9 | Sunday, January 28th 2024 | 18 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 7:6-7 | Saturday, January 27th 2024 | 17 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 7:4-5 | Friday, January 26th 2024 | 16 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 7:2-3 | Thursday, January 25th 2024 | 15 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 6:7-7:1 | Wednesday, January 24th 2024 | 14 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 6:5-6 | Tuesday, January 23rd 2024 | 13 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 6:3-4 | Monday, January 22nd 2024 | 12 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 6:1-2 | Sunday, January 21st 2024 | 11 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 5:8-9 | Saturday, January 20th 2024 | 10 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 5:6-7 | Friday, January 19th 2024 | 9 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 5:4-5 | Thursday, January 18th 2024 | 8 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 5:2-3 | Wednesday, January 17th 2024 | 7 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 4:12-5:1 | Tuesday, January 16th 2024 | 6 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 4:10-11 | Monday, January 15th 2024 | 5 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 4:8-9 | Sunday, January 14th 2024 | 4 Shevat 5784

Ketubot 4:6-7 | Saturday, January 13th 2024 | 3 Shevat 5784

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas' website.THE QUESTION: Why did the man Jesus come to earth? Why not a woman: the daughter of God—a female Messiah?JESUS CAME AS A SON NOT BECAUSE:Male is better -- Galatians 3:28 contradicts this.God is only analogically masculine, not sexually masculine. When we pray Our Father, it's not because God is male – since he isn't a sexual being. If this intrigues you, please hear the podcast on The Shack.Random genetics (50/50).LAMENTABLY, WOMEN WERE DISCOUNTED IN THE ANCIENT WORLDChristianity hadn't transformed attitudes towards minorities, the disenfranchised, foreigners, the needy, women--since Christianity did not exist yet. Jesus entered a Jewish world.Would be discounted in Roman eyes:“Only foolish and low individuals, and persons devoid of perception, and slaves, and women, and children, of whom the teachers of the divine word wish to make converts” -- Celsus in Origen, Contra Celsus, 3.49"...Augustus confined women to the back rows even at gladiatorial shows: the only ones exempt from this rule being the Vestal Virgins… No women at all were allowed to witness the athletic contests…" -- Suetonius, Twelve Caesars, Augustus 44.Would be discounted by Judaism:"... happy is he whose children are males, and woe to him whose children are females." -- Talmud Kiddushim 82b"But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex, not let servants be admitted to give testimony on account of the ignobility of their soul, since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment." -- Josephus Antiquities 4.8.15"Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt than delivered to women." -- Talmud Sotah 19a"Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid, also they are not valid [to offer]. This is equivalent to saying that one who is accounted by the rabbis as a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a woman." -- Talmud Rosh Hashannah 1.8Yet some Talmudic passages are more positive towards women, like Niddah 45 and Ketubot 2.6-7.(Compare to Islamic view: Female legal witness worth half that of a male “because of deficiencies of a woman's mind.”  -- Hadith of Bukhari, 3.826) BUT BECAUSE ONLY A MAN COULD FREE BOTH MEN AND WOMENLiberates males from stereotype (and rut) of maleness: "strong, dominating, independent, self-sufficient"Jesus taught Paul the important lesson, that "Christ's power is perfected in weakness" (2 Corinthians 12:9).Jesus taught, and lived out, servant leadership (Mark 10, John 13).Jesus was emotionally vulnerable (e.g. John 11:35).He was connected to others, not a lone wolf.Delayed his ministry till he was in his 30s—as oldest of 8 or more children and head male in a family.Worked with and through others. He knew men need friends, support. Jesus in this way is the paradigmatic male--showing us men how God meant for us to live all along.Doesn't just model it, but walks us through it.Women typically understand this better than men—they're more relational.Probably “macho” isn't the word you'd first apply to Jesus, but in a way he was far more masculine than most men today who are viewed as powerful.It takes strength not to go with the flow (get drunk at a party).Physical fitness – manual labor as stonemason or carpenter; then walking all over Palestine for 3 years!Jesus also showed great emotional strength:It takes strength to forgive (Luke 23).It takes strength to be patient when others repeatedly let you down.It takes strength to receive ugly censure without lashing back, or at least defending yourself.Jesus taught that true greatness doesn't lie in how others serve you, but in how you serve others.We need this message to sound out not only in our communities, in the government, and in the workplace, and evenin the church, where the charismatic alpha-male senior pastor paradigm is dominant!In short, women were expected to be nurturing, caring. One not expected to behave this way—namely, a man—was able to create a more subversively powerful example of love in action.Jesus frees women too, in several ways.He shows that gender doesn't determine worth or rank.Treated women with highest respect – unlike the world.Completely pure in how he viewed women: they were not objects, but subjects.Traditional way of blessing women depended on childbirth – Luke 11:27 – Jesus contradicts this.Discipleship:Luke 10 – called women to spend some time away from daily chores to sit at his feet as disciples. See also Luke 8.John 4 – the Samaritan woman is more the evangelist than the 12 apostles!CONCLUSIONOf course there's more to be said:We haven't even discussed the doctrine of the Trinity – how Jesus Christ was eternally the Son of God. (God couldn't send a "daughter" if he didn't have one.)or the scandal that would have surrounded an itinerant woman preacher gathering disciples…And we've only just begun to work through the implications for the current feminist controversy.I acknowledge the influence of Stanley Grentz's Theology for the Community of God, pp.289-292. For me his work was seminal, and helped me begin to think through this issue.In short, Jesus, in order to accomplish his mission, had to be a man.Not because men are better than women,but because otherwise life-bringing his message would have been:discounteddiluted or obscuredAnd the most effective modeling could only take place—in a patriarchal society—by a man.Hopefully this perspective will prove useful to you in your evangelism, in answering questions from outsiders but also from insiders.