Start now

Nedarim 35

11.29.2022 | ה׳ בכסלו תשפ״ג

Zoom @ 07:15AM (IST)

Masechet Intro old

Masechet Intro

Zoom @ 07:15AM (IST)

Share this shiur:

11.28.2022 | ד׳ בכסלו תשפ״ג

Calendar View

Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:

Learn more

11.28.2022 | ד׳ בכסלו תשפ״ג

Calendar View

English

עברית

0:00

Summary

Download for offline learning

Today’s daf is sponsored by Tova and David Kestenbaum in honor of the marriage of their son Gilad to Noa Goldrich, today. “May they be zoche to build a Bayit Neeman b’Yisrael, in good health until 120.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Emma Rinberg in loving memory of her dear friend Helen Taylor whose yahrzeit is today and in honor of her dear friend Tova Kestenbaum whose son is getting married today.

If one says, “My loaf is forbidden to you,” and then gave it to them as a gift, Rava held that it was still forbidden to them. The Gemara brings a braita to raise a difficulty against Rava as it says there that if it was given to them as a gift, it is permitted. However, they resolve the difficulty by explaining the braita to be in a case where first it was given to someone else and then that person gave it to the other as a gift. In that case, since it didn’t belong to the original person at the time the gift was given, it was no longer included in the words of the vow. Rava asks Rav Nachman if the language of konam creates a situation that the item is like a sanctified item for the one forbidden and therefore if one accidentally benefits, would they be liable for meila? Rav Nachman proves from our Mishna that the answer is yes. However, the Gemara points out that it is a tannaitic debate. According to the understanding that there is meila for a konam, if one says, “My loaf will be forbidden to you,” and then gives it to them as a gift, upon who is the meila transgression? For the original owner, it was not forbidden and the one receiving the gift could claim that they certainly wouldn’t have wanted to receive the gift if they had known it was forbidden! Rav Ashi answers that while the receiver can claim they didn’t want it if that would only exclude them from laws of meila while receiving the gift but once they actually use it, they are no different from a person who didn’t know an item was sanctified and used it, who is liable for meila. The Mishna lists more actions one can do for another even if they are forbidden to benefit from the other – take truma and maaser for them with their knowledge, sacrifice bird offerings of zav, zava and a woman after childbirth, teach one midrash, halacha and agada, but not Torah, or teach their children Torah. The Gemara asks: When kohanim perform the sacrificial rites in the Temple are they operating as messengers of the one obligated to bring the sacrifice or as messengers of God? Can our Mishna be used to answer this question?

Nedarim 35

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ, אָמַר לוֹ: ״הַשְׁאִילֵנִי פָּרָתְךָ״, אָמַר לוֹ: ״קֻוֽנָּם פָּרָה שֶׁאֲנִי קָנוּי לָךְ״, ״נְכָסַי עָלֶיךָ אִם יֵשׁ לִי פָּרָה אֶלָּא זוֹ״. ״הַשְׁאִילֵנִי קַרְדּוּמְּךָ״, אָמַר לוֹ: ״קֻוֽנָּם קַרְדּוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי שֶׁאֲנִי קָנוּי״, ״נְכָסַי עָלַי אִם יֵשׁ לִי קַרְדּוֹם אֶלָּא זֶה״, וְנִמְצָא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ — בְּחַיָּיו אָסוּר, מֵת אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְּנָה לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּתָּר.

The Gemara raised an objection to Rava. If another person said to him: Lend me your cow, and the owner answered and said to him: Every cow that I purchased other than this one, which I need, is konam for you; or if he said: My property is forbidden to you if I have a cow other than this one, and in fact, he owns other cows; or if another said to him: Lend me your spade, and the owner of the spade said to him: Every spade that I have that I purchased is konam for you; or if he said: My property is forbidden to me if I have a spade other than this one, and it is discovered that he has another spade and the konam takes effect, then during the life of the one who vowed, the cow or the spade is forbidden to the subject of the vow. If the one who vowed died or if the cow or the spade was given to the subject of the vow as a gift, it is permitted. Apparently, the konam is in effect only as long as the property is in his possession.

אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: שֶׁנִּיתְּנָה לוֹ עַל יְדֵי אַחֵר.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: It is referring to a case where it was given to the subject of the vow by another person. The one who vowed did not give him the gift directly. He sold or transferred the item to a third party, who gave it to the subject of the vow as a present. Since the property left the possession of its owner before it was given to the subject of the vow, the prohibition does not take effect upon it.

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי דְּקָתָנֵי ״שֶׁנִּיתְּנָה לוֹ״, וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״שֶׁנְּתָנָהּ לוֹ״.

The Gemara states that Rav Ashi said: The language is also precise, as it teaches: That was given to him, and it is not taught: That he gave it to him. This indicates that this halakha applies specifically to a gift that was given to him by a third party, but not by the one who vowed.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן: יֵשׁ מְעִילָה בְּקוּנָּמוֹת, אוֹ לָא?

§ Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: Is there liability for misuse of consecrated property in cases of konamot or not? Since the legal status of an item that was rendered a konam is like that of consecrated property in that it is forbidden to the one who one vowed, is it like consecrated property in every sense, including liability for misuse of consecrated property?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: מְקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹטְלִין עָלֶיהָ שָׂכָר — תִּיפּוֹל הֲנָאָה לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ. לְמֵימְרָא כִּי הֶקְדֵּשׁ, מָה הֶקְדֵּשׁ יֵשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה — אַף קוּנָּמוֹת יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מְעִילָה.

Rav Naḥman said to him: You learned this halakha from a mishna (33a): In a place where one takes payment for returning a lost item, that benefit that he receives for returning the item should fall into the category of consecrated Temple property. That is to say, an item forbidden by a konam is like consecrated property. Just as with regard to consecrated property there is liability for misuse, so too with regard to konamot there is liability for misuse.

כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״קֻוֽנָּם כִּכָּר זוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ״ וַאֲכָלָהּ, בֵּין הוּא וּבֵין חֲבֵירוֹ — מָעַל, לְפִיכָךְ יֵשׁ לָהּ פִּדְיוֹן. ״כִּכָּר זוֹ עָלַי לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ״ וַאֲכָלָהּ, הוּא — מָעַל, חֲבֵירוֹ — לֹא מָעַל. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לָהּ פִּדְיוֹן. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

The Gemara comments on this. This dilemma is like a dispute between tanna’im. If one said: This loaf is konam to all like consecrated property, and he ate it, then, whether he ate it or whether another ate it, the one who ate it misused consecrated property. Therefore, since its status is that of consecrated property, it has the possibility of desanctification through redemption. If one said: This loaf is konam for me like consecrated property and he eats it, he misused consecrated property. If another eats it, he did not misuse consecrated property, as he said: To me. Therefore, it does not have the possibility of desanctification through redemption, since its status is not that of full-fledged consecrated property. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ לֹא מָעַל, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מְעִילָה בְּקוּנָּמוֹת.

And the Rabbis say: In the case of both vows taken in this manner and vows taken in that manner, no one misused consecrated property because there is no liability for misuse of consecrated objects in cases of konamot. Rabbi Meir disagrees and holds that there is liability for misuse in konamot.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: ״כִּכָּרִי עָלֶיךָ״ וּנְתָנָהּ לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה, מִי מָעַל? לִמְעוֹל נוֹתֵן — הָא לָא אֲסִירָא עֲלֵיהּ! לִמְעוֹל מְקַבֵּל — יָכוֹל דְּאָמַר: הֶיתֵּירָא בְּעֵיתִי, אִיסּוּרָא לָא בְּעֵיתִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְקַבֵּל מָעַל לִכְשֶׁיּוֹצִיא, שֶׁכׇּל הַמּוֹצִיא מְעוֹת הֶקְדֵּשׁ לְחוּלִּין, כְּסָבוּר שֶׁל חוּלִּין הוּא — מוֹעֵל. אַף זֶה — מוֹעֵל.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: If one said to another: My loaf is konam for you, and he then gave it to him as a gift, which of them misused consecrated property? If you say: Let the one who gives the loaf be liable for misuse, why would he be liable; the loaf is not forbidden to him? If you say: Let the one who receives the loaf be liable for misuse, he can say: I wanted to receive a permitted item; I did not want to receive a forbidden item. Since the loaf is forbidden, if I accepted it from you, it was not my intention to do so. Rav Ashi said to him: The one who receives the loaf is liable for misuse when he utilizes the loaf, as the principle with regard to misuse is that anyone who utilizes consecrated money for non-sacred purposes, when he is under the impression that it is non-sacred, misuses consecrated property. This person who received the loaf also misuses consecrated property.

מַתְנִי׳ וְתוֹרֵם אֶת תְּרוּמָתוֹ וּמַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו לְדַעְתּוֹ, וּמַקְרִיב עָלָיו קִינֵּי זָבִין, קִינֵּי זָבוֹת, קִינֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת, חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת. וּמְלַמְּדוֹ מִדְרָשׁ הֲלָכוֹת וְאַגָּדוֹת, אֲבָל לֹא יְלַמְּדֶנּוּ מִקְרָא. אֲבָל מְלַמֵּד הוּא אֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת בְּנוֹתָיו מִקְרָא.

MISHNA: The mishna proceeds to list other tasks that one may perform for someone who is prohibited by vow from benefiting from him. And he separates his teruma and his tithes, provided that it is with the knowledge and consent of the owner of the produce. And he sacrifices for him the bird nests, i.e., pairs of birds, pigeons and turtledoves, of zavin (see Leviticus 15:13–15); the bird nests of zavot (see Leviticus 15:28–30); the bird nests of women after childbirth (see Leviticus 12:6–8); sin-offerings; and guilt-offerings. And he teaches him midrash, halakhot, and aggadot, but he may not teach him Bible. However, he may teach his sons and daughters Bible.

גְּמָ׳ אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הָנֵי כָּהֲנֵי, שְׁלוּחֵי דִידַן הָווּ, אוֹ שְׁלוּחֵי דִשְׁמַיָּא? לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ — לְמוּדָּר הֲנָאָה. אִי אָמְרַתְּ דִּשְׁלוּחֵי דִידַן הָווּ, הָא מְהַנֵּי לֵיהּ וְאָסוּר. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ שְׁלוּחֵי דִשְׁמַיָּא — שְׁרֵי. מַאי?

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Are these priests our agents or agents of Heaven when they perform the Temple service? The Gemara elaborates: What is the practical difference whether they are our agents or God’s agents? The Gemara answers: The difference is with regard to one prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from another. If you say that the priests are our agents, don’t the priests provide benefit for the one for whom benefit is forbidden by vow, and therefore, sacrificing that person’s offering is prohibited? And if you say that they are agents of Heaven, it is permitted. What is the status of priests?

תָּא שְׁמַע, דִּתְנַן: מַקְרִיב עָלָיו קִינֵּי זָבִין כּוּ׳. אִי אָמְרַתְּ שְׁלוּחֵי דִידַן, קָא מְהַנֵּי לֵיהּ?

Come and hear proof to resolve the dilemma, as we learned in the mishna: And he sacrifices for him the bird nests of zavin, etc. The Gemara infers: If you say that the priests are our agents, the priests would thereby provide benefit to one for whom benefit from them is forbidden. Based on the ruling in the mishna, apparently, priests are agents of Heaven.

וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, לִיתְנֵי: מַקְרִיב עָלָיו קׇרְבָּנוֹת! אֶלָּא, מְחוּסְּרֵי כַפָּרָה שָׁאנֵי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכֹּל צְרִיכִין דַּעַת, חוּץ מִמְּחוּסְּרֵי כַפָּרָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי אָדָם מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל בָּנָיו וְעַל בְּנוֹתָיו הַקְּטַנִּים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַזָּב״, בֵּין גָּדוֹל בֵּין קָטָן.

The Gemara rejects the proof: And according to your reasoning, that the mishna holds that priests are agents of Heaven, let the mishna teach in general: He sacrifices for him offerings. Why did the mishna list these particular offerings? Rather, perforce, offerings brought by those lacking atonement are different from other offerings, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Everyone who brings an offering requires knowledge and intent in order to bring the offering, except for those lacking atonement, who bring the offering in order to complete their purification. This can be proven from the fact that a person brings a purification offering for his minor sons and daughters, although they lack halakhic intelligence, as it is stated: “This is the law of the zav” (Leviticus 15:32). This apparently superfluous verse comes to teach that the halakhot of the zav apply to both an adult and a minor.

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַיֹּלֶדֶת וְגוֹ׳״, בֵּין קְטַנָּה וּבֵין גְּדוֹלָה? קְטַנָּה בַּת לֵידָה הִיא?! וְהָא תָּנֵי רַב בִּיבִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: שָׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹת בְּמוֹךְ: קְטַנָּה וּמְעוּבֶּרֶת וּמְנִיקָה. קְטַנָּה — שֶׁמָּא תִּתְעַבֵּר וְתָמוּת.

The Gemara asks: However, if that is so according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, with regard to that which is written: “This is the law of a woman after childbirth” (Leviticus 12:7), would he interpret that the halakhot of a woman after childbirth apply to both an adult and a minor? Is a minor capable of giving birth? But didn’t Rav Beivai teach a baraita before Rav Naḥman: It is permitted for three women to engage in intercourse with a contraceptive resorbent: A minor, and a pregnant woman, and a nursing woman; a minor may do so lest she conceive and die. Apparently, a minor is incapable of giving birth, as she would die first.

הַהִיא ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַיֹּלֶדֶת״, בֵּין פִּקַּחַת בֵּין שׁוֹטָה, שֶׁכֵּן אָדָם מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ שׁוֹטָה,

The Gemara explains: That verse: “This is the law of a woman after childbirth,” does not come to include a minor. Rather, it comes to teach that the halakhot of a woman after childbirth apply to both a halakhically competent woman and a woman who is an imbecile, as a man brings an offering for his wife who is an imbecile.

כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אָדָם מֵבִיא קׇרְבַּן עָשִׁיר עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְכׇל קׇרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁחַיֶּיבֶת,

This halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: A man brings the offering of a wealthy person for his wife, as well as all offerings that she is obligated to bring. A wealthy woman after childbirth brings a lamb as a burnt-offering and a dove or turtledove as a sin-offering. A poor woman brings two turtledoves or two pigeons, one as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering. Even if the woman is poor, and based on her usufruct property, she would bring the offering of the poor; if her husband is wealthy, he brings the offering of a wealthy person on her behalf. And he must bring on her behalf all the offerings for which she is obligated.

שֶׁכָּךְ כּוֹתֵב לָהּ: וְאַחְרָיוּת דְּאִית לִיךְ עֲלַי מִן קַדְמַת דְּנָא.

The fact that he is obligated to bring a wealthy person’s offering on her behalf is due to the fact that this is what he writes in her marriage contract: And responsibility to pay any financial obligations that you have incurred before this moment is incumbent upon me. Offerings that she is obligated to bring are included in those obligations, irrespective of her degree of halakhic competence. The offering of a woman after childbirth is one of the offerings brought by those lacking atonement. Therefore, even if priests are our agents, they may sacrifice the offering on behalf of the woman; since they may do so without her knowledge and intent, no agency is required. Therefore, there is no proof from the mishna that priests are agents of Heaven.

11.28.2022 | ד׳ בכסלו 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

I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…

Miriam Eckstein-Koas

Huntington, United States

I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!

Dena Lehrman

אפרת, Israel

I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!

Shira Jacobowitz

Jerusalem, Israel

Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .

Jill Felder

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 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

In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!

Beth Kissileff

Pittsburgh, United States

After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.

Madeline Cohen

London, United Kingdom

A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul

Phyllis Hecht

Hashmonaim, Israel

The start of my journey is not so exceptional. I was between jobs and wanted to be sure to get out every day (this was before corona). Well, I was hooked after about a month and from then on only looked for work-from-home jobs so I could continue learning the Daf. Daf has been a constant in my life, though hurricanes, death, illness/injury, weddings. My new friends are Rav, Shmuel, Ruth, Joanna.

Judi Felber

Raanana, Israel

In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.

Rhondda May

Atlanta, Georgia, United States

I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.

Caroline Ben-Ari

Karmiel, Israel

I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.

Yafit Fishbach

Memphis, Tennessee, United States

I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot! Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.

Yael Merlini

Berlin, Germany

I graduated college in December 2019 and received a set of shas as a present from my husband. With my long time dream of learning daf yomi, I had no idea that a new cycle was beginning just one month later, in January 2020. I have been learning the daf ever since with Michelle Farber… Through grad school, my first job, my first baby, and all the other incredible journeys over the past few years!

Sigal Spitzer Flamholz

Bronx, United States

I started learning Daf Yomi because my sister, Ruth Leah Kahan, attended Michelle’s class in person and suggested I listen remotely. She always sat near Michelle and spoke up during class so that I could hear her voice. Our mom had just died unexpectedly and it made me feel connected to hear Ruth Leah’s voice, and now to know we are both listening to the same thing daily, continents apart.

Jessica Shklar

Philadelphia, United States

I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.

Terri Krivosha

Minneapolis, United States

In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!

Sharona Guggenheim Plumb

Givat Shmuel, Israel

In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).

Sara Averick

Jerusalem, Israel

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

As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.

Sue Parker Gerson

Denver, United States