Menachot 43 - February 23, 6 Adar
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
The braita explains that there is no way to test techelet (blue dye), and therefore one should only purchase it from an expert. Initially, the Gemara suggested this meant there was no way to distinguish between authentic techelet and kala ilan (a vegetable-based fake). However, this was rejected because there are indeed chemical tests available, as the Gemara explains. Ultimately, the conclusion is that there is no way to test if the strings were dyed "for the sake of the mitzva" (l'shma) or merely "for a tasting" (to test the color). The Gemara then addresses: From whom may one buy tzitzit...
info_outline
Menachot 42 - February 22, 5 Adar
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
The rabbis disagree on the required length of tzitzit strings, which implies that a specific length is necessary. However, this appears to contradict a ruling by the elders of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel that there is no requisite amount. This contradiction is reconciled by explaining that their statement refers to the maximum length. A braita emphasizes the importance of the strings hanging down, as proven by the usage of the word "tzitzit" in a different context (Yechezkel 8:3). How are tzitzit prepared? Specifically, how far from the garment's edge should they be, and how many...
info_outline
Menachot 41 - Shabbat February 21, 4 Adar
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
info_outline
Menachot 40 - February 20, 3 Adar
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree regarding the law of a sadin (a linen garment) in the context of tzitzit. While Beit Shammai exempts a linen garment from the obligation of tzitzit to avoid the prohibition of shaatnez (mixing wool and linen), Beit Hillel holds it is obligated. Their reasoning is based on the textual juxtaposition of the laws of shaatnez and tzitzit, which teaches that the positive commandment (aseh) of tzitzit overrides the negative prohibition (lo taaseh) of shaatnez. Although the halakha follows Beit Hillel, Rabbi Eliezer ben Rabbi Tzadok testifies that anyone who...
info_outline
Menachot 39 - February 19, 2 Adar
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
Rava explains that the top knot on the tzitzit (after all the windings) must be of Torah origin. If it were not, the attachment would be considered temporary, and there would be no need for the Torah to permit the use of mixed types (shatnez—wool and linen) in tzitzit. Raba bar Rav Ada transmitted in the name of Rav that if a single thread is torn at its base (the top of the tzitzit), the tzitzit are no longer valid. When Rav Nachman taught this, Rava raised a challenge from a braita, but Rav Nachman reinterpreted the source in a way that resolved the contradiction. Raba stated in the name...
info_outline
Menachot 38 - Rosh Chodesh Adar - February 18, 1 Adar
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
Link to website. The Gemara brings two different versions of the incident involving Mar bar Rav Ashi, whose tzitzit were torn on Shabbat while he was walking home. This raises the subject of "kevod haberiyot" (human dignity), which overrides a "lo ta'aseh" (negative commandment) in the Torah. Both versions bring the explanation of Rav bar Shaba, who explained that this law refers specifically to the negative commandment of "lo tasur" (do not stray from the words of the Sages), meaning that it only overrides Rabbinic prohibitions. For tzitzit, one must place two strings of techelet and two...
info_outline
Menachot 37 - February 17, 30 Shvat
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
There are three different ways that Tannaim derive the source for wearing tefillin on the left hand. However, left-handed people wear them on the right. There are three different ways that Tannaim derive the source for wearing tefillin shel yad on the upper part of the arm. There are two different ways that Tannaim derive the source for wearing tefillin shel rosh on the top of the head. There is a Tannatic debate between Rabbi Yishmael and the rabbis about whether each tzitzit is a distinct mitzva (Rabbi Yishmael), or if one cannot fulfill the mitzva without having tzitzit on all four corners....
info_outline
Menachot 36 - February 16, 29 Shvat
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
Rav Chisda explains that if one speaks between placing the tefillin shel yad and the tefillin shel rosh, an additional blessing must be recited upon the shel rosh. From this, one can infer that if no interruption occurs, only one blessing is required. However, this poses a difficulty in light of Rabbi Yochanan’s statement that there are separate blessings for the shel yad and shel rosh. Abaye and Rava resolve this conflict, yet their resolution is interpreted differently by Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam, resulting in two distinct customs. The tefillin shel yad is placed first, followed by the shel...
info_outline
Menachot 35 - February 15, 28 Shvat
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
The exact order of the four biblical passages (parshiot) within the tefillin shel rosh is critical; if they are not arranged in their specific sequence, the tefillin are disqualified. Abaye and Rava debate the specifics of this requirement, questioning the validity of the tefillin if the two "outer" sections (the first and last) or the two "inner" sections are transposed. Several physical elements of the tefillin are classified as halakha l’Moshe m’Sinai: the embossed letter Shin on the Shel Rosh, the requirement for the boxes to be perfectly square, the titura (the base), and the...
info_outline
Menachot 34 - Shabbat February 14, 27 Shvat
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
Rav Huna states that a closed-in staircase opening (lul) between a house and an upper story requires one mezuza if it has one entrance and two mezuzot if it has two. Rav Papa infers from this that a room (indrona) with four doors requires four mezuzot, even if the resident typically utilizes only one of them. Amemar rules that a doorway situated at a corner is obligated in a mezuza; though Rav Ashi questions this due to the lack of formal doorposts (patzim), Amemar maintains that the edges of the walls themselves serve as the post. Rav Papa observes a doorway in Mar Shmuel's house that had...
info_outlineRav Huna holds that the one who claims the item was lost or stolen, must swear that the item is no longer in their possession. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a braita and suggests four, one of which is rejected. A case is brought where one claimed jewels were lost and Rav Nachman's court seized his palace to replace the lost jewel. When he then produced the "lost" item which had gone up in value, Rav Nachman said to give him his palace back and return the jewels to the owner. Rava tried to argue with this ruling based on our Mishna saying that he should have acquired rights to the appreciation by having paid for the jewels. But then he realizes the difference between the cases and explains that. In connection with this, the Gemara raises the issue regarding a loan - if it gets repaid by foreclosing on land, if and when the borrower has the money to pay, can the borrower get his/her land back? In Nehardea they ruled that one can get back the land and there is a debate about whether or not there is a time limit. The ruling is that there is no time limit because of l'fnim meshurat ha'din, it is the right thing to do, even if not required by the letter of the law. However, there are different permutations of the case in which the law would not apply. At what point of foreclosure does the creditor get rights to the proceeds of the land? If one rents an animal and then lends it to someone else and it dies in a typical manner (for which a borrower is responsible and a renter is not), there is a debate about to whom the borrower pays - to the renter (after the renter swears that it died in a typical manner) or to the original owner. The Gemara questions exactly by what mechanism the renter acquires rights to the animal. A creative, extreme case is discussed in which an owner can borrow from a renter their item and incur payment for four animals. Some disagree and hold it would only be two animals. What is the case?