Start now

Nazir 43

03.07.2023 | י״ד באדר תשפ״ג

Zoom @ 07:15AM (IST)

Masechet Intro old

Masechet Intro

Zoom @ 07:15AM (IST)

Share this shiur:

03.06.2023 | י״ג באדר תשפ״ג

Calendar View

Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:

Learn more

03.06.2023 | י״ג באדר תשפ״ג

Calendar View

English

עברית

0:00

Summary

Download for offline learning

Today’s daf is sponsored by Betsy Mehlman in memory of her father, Zvi Menachem Mendel ben Shlomo z”l, Harold Mondshein, on his 39th yahrzeit that was on the 11th of Adar.

Today’s daf is sponsored in memory of Shael Bellows who passed away this week.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her sister Cindy Navah whose yahrzeit is today. “I can’t believe it’s been 18 years since your passing. I remember you learning Gemara with Abba zichrono livracha with just so much zest! Love you and miss you so much!”

Raba had said that one could be liable twice only if after becoming impure one went into a tent with a dead body as there are two negative prohibitions – one to not become impure and another not to go into a tent. But this goes against Raba’s approach that if one is already impure, how can they be liable for another contraction of impurity, as here too, one was already impure before entering the tent! Rabbi Yochanan distinguishes between a house and a field. In the house, one was pure when they went in but became impure and also entered at the same time – therefore they are liable twice. But one who became impure in a field and then entered an enclosure would not be liable twice for the reason stated above. However, this answer is problematic and several questions are raised one after another, such as, when one enters the house, doesn’t one’s hand enter first or one’s nose, etc. thereby having the impurity come first and not at the same time as most of the body entering. Eventually, Rav Papa answers that if one came in while inside an enclosure and then another person opened it (presumably with the nazir’s instructions, consent or help) while they were inside the house with impurity, then the impurity and entering would happen at the same time. Mar bar Rav Ashi gives a different answer – that the nazir entered when the person was about to die but was not yet dead. Tanna Kama and Rebbi disagree about which verse teaches that a kohen gadol and nazir can be with someone until they actually die. Rabbi Yochanan thinks their debate is only about semantics – from where in the verses is it derived. But Reish Lakish holds that one holds actual death and the other holds it is forbidden even as they dying, but not yet dead. Rav Chisda says in the name of Rav that a regular kohen can become impure to his relatives but not if a limb was severed. This is derived from the word “to his father” – only if he is whole. The Gemara raises a question from two braitot that indicate that a son can become impure to relatives whose bodies are not whole. The resolution is that the braitot follow Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion and Rav does not follow that opinion.

Nazir 43

בְּבַיִת נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּאַעֵיל יְדֵיהּ — אִיסְתָּאַב, כִּי עָיֵיל כּוּלֵּי, הַאי טָמֵא הוּא!

The Gemara asks: With regard to one who enters into a house too, why should he be liable twice? Since one typically enters a place with his hands before his body, once he inserts his hand he immediately becomes ritually impure. This means that when all the rest of him enters, this person is already impure.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: צֵירַף יָדוֹ, מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה — אִיכָּא, מִשּׁוּם בִּיאָה — לֵיכָּא. וְצֵירַף גּוּפוֹ — טוּמְאָה וּבִיאָה בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתוּ. הָא אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא עָיֵיל חוֹטְמוֹ בְּרֵישָׁא, וְנָחֵית לֵיהּ טוּמְאָה!

Rather, Rabbi Elazar said: If he inserted his hand into the house first, there is liability due to contracting ritual impurity; however, there is no liability due to entering the enclosure. But if he joined his body and his hands, i.e., all of him entered at once, contraction of impurity and entering the enclosure occur simultaneously, and in that case he is liable twice. The Gemara objects: It is impossible that his nose would not enter first, and once it does, impurity would descend to it and thereby to this person immediately, before the rest of his body entered the house.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הִכְנִיס יָדוֹ, מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה — אִיכָּא, מִשּׁוּם בִּיאָה — לֵיכָּא. הִכְנִיס גּוּפוֹ — טוּמְאָה וּבִיאָה בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָא אָתְיָין. וְהָא אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא עָיֵיל אֶצְבְּעָתָא דְכַרְעֵיהּ בְּרֵישָׁא וְנָחֵת לְהוּ טוּמְאָה!

Rather, Rava said: If he entered with only his hand there is liability due to contracting ritual impurity, but there is no liability due to entering an enclosure with a corpse, as he cannot be considered inside the house. If he entered with his body by standing upright so that his head would not enter first, contraction of impurity and entering the enclosure occur simultaneously. The Gemara asks: But even so, it is impossible that his toes would not enter first, and once they do, impurity would thereby descend to them, causing him to become impure before his entire body enters the house.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּכְנַס בְּשִׁידָּה תֵּיבָה וּמִגְדָּל, וּבָא חֲבֵירוֹ וּפָרַע עָלָיו אֶת הַמַּעֲזִיבָה, דְּטוּמְאָה וּבִיאָה בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתְיָין. מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כְּגוֹן דְּעָיֵיל כְּשֶׁהוּא גּוֹסֵס, וּנְפַק נִשְׁמְתֵיהּ אַדְּיָתֵיב. דְּטוּמְאָה וּבִיאָה בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתְיָין.

Rather, Rav Pappa said: We are dealing with a case where one entered into a house in a chest, a box, or a cabinet, which are not susceptible to ritual impurity and which protect their contents from impurity when they can hold more than forty se’a, and another came and opened the cover of the vessel from over him. In that case contracting impurity and entering the enclosure occur simultaneously. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: It is referring to a case where one entered the house when someone there was dying, and the latter’s soul departed when he was sitting there. In that case too, contracting impurity and entering the enclosure with a corpse occur simultaneously. Since there was no corpse in the enclosure when he entered, he is considered to have entered an enclosure with a corpse at the moment the person died.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לְהֵחַלּוֹ״, עַד שָׁעָה שֶׁיָּמוּת. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״בְּמוֹתָם יִטַּמָּא״, עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת.

§ With regard to the ritual impurity of a corpse, the Sages taught: The Torah states concerning a priest’s exposure to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse: “He shall not become impure, a chief among his people, to profane himself” (Leviticus 21:4), from which it is derived that the prohibition does not apply until the time that the person with whom he comes into contact dies. A priest does not become impure or profane his priesthood at any earlier stage. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the verse stated with regard to a nazirite: “He shall not become impure for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die” (Numbers 6:7), from which one can infer that when they die, one contracts ritual impurity from them, i.e., not until the other person actually dies.

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַשְׁמָעוּת דּוֹרְשִׁין אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: גּוֹסֵס אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִ״לְּהֵחַלּוֹ״ — אֲפִילּוּ גּוֹסֵס, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״בְּמוֹתָם״ — עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת אִין, גּוֹסֵס לָא.

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between these two derivations? They apparently state the same halakha from different verses. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The interpretation of the meaning of the verse is the difference between them. There is no practical difference between them; rather, they derive the halakha from different verses. Reish Lakish said: The difference between them is with regard to a dying person: According to the one who says that one derives the halakha from “He shall not become impure, a chief among his people, to profane himself,” even a dying person is included in the prohibition of impurity. According to the one who says that it is derived from “when they die,” once he dies, yes there is impurity, whereas a dying person, no, he does not impart impurity.

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִ״לְּהֵחַלּוֹ״, הָכְתִיב ״בְּמוֹתָם״! מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בְּמוֹתָם אֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא, אֲבָל מִטַּמֵּא בְּנִגְעָתָם וּבְזִיבָתָם.

The Gemara asks with regard to Reish Lakish’s opinion: And according to the one who says that it is derived from “to profane himself,” isn’t it written: “When they die”? What does he derive from that verse? The Gemara answers: He requires that verse for that which was taught by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the verse stresses “when they die,” to teach: In a case when they die he may not become impure; however, he may become impure from their leprosy or from their gonorrhea-like discharge. A nazirite is prohibited from contracting ritual impurity only if it is from a corpse.

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״בְּמוֹתָם״, הָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְהַאי סְבָרָא! אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא ״בְּמוֹת״, מַאי ״בְּמוֹתָם״ — שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that the earliest time the prohibition takes effect is derived from the phrase “when they die,” he also requires that verse for this reason; how does he derive two halakhot from the same verse? The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse state: When he dies; what is the reason for the emphasis of “when they die”? You can learn from this verse two halakhot, that one does not impart impurity until he is actually dead, and that a nazirite is prohibited from contracting only the impurity of a corpse.

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״בְּמוֹתָם״, הָכְתִיב ״לְהֵחַלּוֹ״! ״לְהֵחַלּוֹ״ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא, בְּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּלָּל, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁמְּחוּלָּל וְעוֹמֵד.

The Gemara asks the reverse question: And according to the one who says that the source for the earliest time of the impurity of a corpse is the verse “when they die,” isn’t it written: “To profane himself”? What does he derive from that verse? The Gemara answers: “To profane himself” comes for this purpose, that the prohibition against becoming impure apply only to one who is not profaned, excluding one who is already profaned. There is no prohibition against a ritually impure priest becoming impure from a corpse.

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִ״לְּהֵחַלּוֹ״, הָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְהַאי סְבָרָא! אִם כֵּן לֵימָא קְרָא ״לְהֵחֵל״, מַאי ״לְהֵחַלּוֹ״ — שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that the source for the commencement of impurity imparted by a corpse is “to profane himself,” he also requires that verse for this reason; how does he derive two halakhot from the same verse? The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse state: To profane; what is the reason for the emphasis of “to profane himself”? You can learn from this verse two halakhot, that a nazirite is prohibited from becoming impure even through contact with a dying person, and that there is no prohibition against contracting impurity a second time for one who is already impure.

מֵיתִיבִי: אָדָם אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא (אֶלָּא) עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשׁוֹ. וַאֲפִילּוּ מְגוּיָּיד וַאֲפִילּוּ גּוֹסֵס. וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִ״לְּהֵחַלּוֹ״ הָא קָתָנֵי דְּאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא! לְעִנְיַן טַמּוֹיֵי — עַד דְּנָפְקָא נַפְשֵׁיהּ, לְעִנְיַן אִתַּחוֹלֵי — הָא אִיתַּחִיל.

The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Oholot 1:6): A person renders others impure only when his soul departs from him, even if he has severe lacerations [meguyyad], and even if he is dying. But according to the one who says that the commencement of the impurity of a corpse is derived from “to profane himself,” this baraita is difficult, as it teaches that a dying person does not impart impurity. The Gemara answers: With regard to imparting impurity, he does not impart impurity until his soul departs, but with regard to profaning the sanctity of the priesthood, a priest is profaned by a dying person.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב: נִקְטַע רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו — אֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא לוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא — אָמַר קְרָא: ״לְאָבִיו״, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא שָׁלֵם, וְלֹא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא חָסֵר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הַמְנוּנָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, קָאָזֵיל בְּפַקְתָּא דַּעֲרָבוֹת, וּפַסְקוּהּ גַּנָּבֵי לְרֵישֵׁיהּ, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא לִיטַמֵּא לֵיהּ?

§ Rav Ḥisda said that Rav said: If the head of his father, or any other relative for whom a priest becomes impure, was severed, he may not become impure to bury him. What is the reason for this? The verse states: “None shall become impure for the dead among his people, except…for his father” (Leviticus 21:1–2), which indicates that this applies when his father is whole, and not when he is lacking. Rav Hamnuna said to Rav Ḥisda: If that is so, then in a case where one was walking in the valley [pakta] of Aravot, a place frequented by bandits, and robbers severed his head, will you also say that his son the priest does not become impure to bury him because he is not whole?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מֵת מִצְוָה קָאָמְרַתְּ? הַשְׁתָּא יֵשׁ לוֹמַר: בְּאַחְרִינֵי מִיחַיַּיב, בְּאָבִיו לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

Rav Ḥisda said to him: Do you speak of a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva]? This halakha certainly does not apply to a case of this kind. For now consider, if one can say that to bury others, i.e., non-relatives, he is obligated to become ritually impure, as even priests and nazirites must become impure to bury an unattended corpse, then with regard to a met mitzva who is his father is it not all the more so the case that he must become impure to bury him even if his head is severed?

וְהַאי מֵת מִצְוָה הוּא? וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵיזֶהוּ מֵת מִצְוָה — כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קוֹבְרִין. קוֹרֵא וַאֲחֵרִים עוֹנִין אוֹתוֹ — אֵין זֶה מֵת מִצְוָה. וְהָא אִית לֵיהּ בְּרָא! כֵּיוָן דְּקָאָזֵיל בְּאוֹרְחָא — כְּמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קוֹבְרִים דָּמֵי.

The Gemara asks: And is this a met mitzva? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Which is a met mitzva for whom a priest must become impure? It is anyone who does not have people to bury him apart from this priest. If the corpse is in a place where if he would call, others would answer him, that is not considered a met mitzva. And if this dead father has a son who was with him, it means the father is not classified as a met mitzva, and therefore his son the priest must ensure that others tend to his burial, without doing so himself. The Gemara answers: Since he was walking along the way, he is considered like one who does not have people to bury him.

מֵיתִיבִי: ״לָהּ יִטַּמָּא״, לָהּ הוּא מִטַּמֵּא, וְאֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא לְאֵיבָרֶיהָ. לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא לְאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי שֶׁל אָבִיו. אֲבָל מְחַזֵּיר הוּא עַל עֶצֶם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה.

The Gemara raises an objection against Rav Ḥisda’s opinion. The superfluous term “for her” in the verse “And for his sister a virgin who is near to him, who has no husband, for her he becomes impure” (Leviticus 21:3) teaches that it is to bury her in her whole state that he becomes impure, but he does not become impure to bury her limbs. If a limb was severed from her during her lifetime he does not tend to it, because he may not become impure to bury a limb severed from one of his living relatives, including that of his father. However, he may search for a bone that is a barley-grain-bulk. If he was already impure from his father’s body, he may search for and bury a bone that was detached from the corpse, even if it is large enough to impart impurity itself.

מַאי ״מְחַזֵּיר הוּא עַל עֶצֶם כִּשְׂעוֹרָה״? לָאו לְמֵימְרָא דְּאִי מִיחַסַּר פּוּרְתָּא?

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: He may search for a bone that is a barley-grain-bulk? Isn’t this to say that if the deceased father is lacking a small part, i.e., a single bone, his son the priest becomes impure to bury him? This would contradict Rav Ḥisda’s statement in the name of Rav that he becomes impure to bury his father only if he is whole.

לָא, הָהִיא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לָהּ מִיטַּמֵּא, וְאֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא לְאֵבָרֶיהָ. שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא עַל אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי שֶׁל אָבִיו, אֲבָל מִיטַּמֵּא הוּא לְאֵבֶר מִן הַמֵּת שֶׁל אָבִיו.

The Gemara answers: No, this presents no difficulty, as that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: “For her he becomes impure” (Leviticus 21:3), this indicates that to bury her he becomes impure but he does not become impure to bury her limbs, as he does not become impure to bury a limb severed from one of his living relatives, including that of his father. However, he does become impure to bury a limb from his dead father. Rav Ḥisda disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and rules in accordance with the Rabbis, who maintain that a priest may become impure only to bury his relative’s whole body.

וְהָתַנְיָא, רַב כָּהֲנָא בְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: לָהּ מִיטַּמֵּא, וְאֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא לְאֵבָרִים. פְּרָט לִכְזַיִת מִן הַמֵּת, וּכְזַיִת נֶצֶל, וּמְלֹא תַרְווֹד רָקָב.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rav Kahana, son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, said: The words “for her he becomes impure” (Leviticus 21:3) indicate that to bury her he becomes impure when she is whole, but he does not become impure to bury her limbs. This serves to exclude an olive-bulk of solid material from a corpse, and an olive-bulk of fluid from a corpse, and a full spade of dust from a corpse.

יָכוֹל לֹא יִטַּמֵּא לַשִּׁדְרָה וְלַגּוּלְגּוֹלֶת וּלְרוֹב בִּנְיָינָהּ וּלְרוֹב מִנְיָינָהּ — כְּתִיב: ״וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם״, הוֹסִיף לְךָ הַכָּתוּב טוּמְאָה אַחֶרֶת.

One might have thought that he may not become impure for a spine and a skull, or for most of the skeleton or most of the number of bones from his sister’s corpse. Therefore, it is written at the beginning of this passage dealing with the impurity of priests: “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them” (Leviticus 21:1). The repetition of “speak” and “say” indicates that the verse added a different form of impurity permitted to a priest.

03.06.2023 | י״ג באדר תשפ״ג

Calendar View

New to Talmud?

Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.

How to get started

The Hadran Women’s Tapestry

Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.

View our tapestry

Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.

Shira Eliaser

Skokie, IL, United States

I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.

Meira Shapiro

NJ, United States

After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.

Susan Vishner

Brookline, United States

I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.

Talia Haykin

Denver, United States

Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba

Marsha Wasserman

Jerusalem, Israel

I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.

Patti Evans

Phoenix, Arizona, United States

I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.

Beth Elster

Irvine, United States

3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!

Lisa Kolodny

Raanana, Israel

I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!

Pamela Elisheva

Bakersfield, United States

While vacationing in San Diego, Rabbi Leah Herz asked if I’d be interested in being in hevruta with her to learn Daf Yomi through Hadran. Why not? I had loved learning Gemara in college in 1971 but hadn’t returned. With the onset of covid, Daf Yomi and Rabbanit Michelle centered me each day. Thank-you for helping me grow and enter this amazing world of learning.

Meryll Page

Minneapolis, MN, United States

My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid

Renee Braha

Brooklyn, NY, United States

I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!

Lori Stark

Highland Park, United States

I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.

Emma Rinberg

Raanana, Israel

I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!

Mona Fishbane

Teaneck NJ, United States

In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.

Reena Slovin

Worcester, United States

When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.

Shira Krebs

Minnesota, United States

It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.

Jeanne Yael Klempner

Zichron Yaakov, Israel

I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.

Anne Rubin

Elkins Park, United States

Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.

Nancy Kolodny

Newton, United States

After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.

Janine Rubens

Virginia, United States