Menachot 11 - January 22, 4 Shvat
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
When a Kohen performs the kemitza, the presence of a pebble, a grain of salt, or a shard of frankincense within the handful renders the offering invalid. This is because the Torah requires a precise "handful," and these foreign objects either displace the necessary flour (making it "missing"). The Gemara explains the need for the Mishna to bring all these examples. Rava explains that kemitza is performed with all five fingers. Abaye questions this from a braita that explains the need for all five fingers, as can be seen from the name of each of the fingers. The fourth finger is called kemitza,...
info_outline
Menachot 10 - January 21, 3 Shvat
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
The section of the Torah concerning the metzora (leper) details two distinct tracks for sacrifices: one for the wealthy, who bring three animal offerings, and a modified track for the poor. The purification process involves pouring oil into the kohen’s left hand, followed by sprinkling it toward the parochet and placing it on the leper’s right ear, thumb, and toe. Notably, the text contains several seemingly superfluous phrases in the wealthy leper’s section, as well as extensive repetitions in the poor leper’s section that could have been simplified with a cross-reference like "as...
info_outline
Menachot 9 - January 20, 2 Shvat
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
Earlier, Rabbi Yochanan employed the principle that something that takes place in the Temple courtyard can obviously also be performed in the Sanctuary (such as slaughtering the peace offering), as the Sanctuary is more sanctified. However, in a different situation, a verse is needed to derive that items permitted to be eaten in the courtyard can also be eaten in the Sanctuary (in unique circumstances). Why was a verse needed if the principle of Rabbi Yochanan could have been used? The Gemara answers by distinguishing between a ritual (slaughtering) and eating. There are three debates between...
info_outline
Menachot 8 - Rosh Chodesh Shvat - January 19, 1 Shvat
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
Rabbi Eliezer holds that when the Kohen accepts the blood from a sacrifice into a sanctified vessel, there must be enough collected in that single bowl to be used for placing the blood on the altar. If one collects some blood in one bowl and some in another, and later mixes them together before performing the placements, the blood is not sanctified. The Gemara suggests that Rabbi Eliezer contradicts himself, as regarding the Kohen Gadol’s griddle-cake offering (minchat chavitin), he holds that it is sanctified even if placed in two separate bowls. To resolve this, the Gemara first suggests...
info_outline
Menachot 7 - January 18, 29 Tevet
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
According to Yosi ben Yasiyan and Rabbi Yehuda the Baker, ben Beteira permits returning a kometz taken in a disqualified manner to the original dough, provided it has not yet been placed in a sanctified vessel. Rav Nachman challenges this ruling: if taking the kometz is a significant ritual, the act should be irreversible; if it is not, placing it in a sanctified vessel should be meaningless. Rav Nachman resolves this by explaining that while taking the kometz is indeed a ritual act, it is not complete until the kometz is placed in the vessel. If so, the Gemara objects, returning the kometz to...
info_outline
Menachot 6 - Shabbat January 17, 28 Tevet
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
Rav Sheisha brings a fifth explanation of an ambiguous line in the braita brought on Menachot 5b, “If you had raised a difficulty on the logical argument.” As in all the previous explanations, also this one is rejected. Rav Ashi suggests that one could knock out the logical argument from the beginning as perhaps one could not even bring a kal v’chomer from blemished animals as they have a stringency. This suggestion of Rav Ashi is modified a few times and ultimately his explanation is that if one were to make a kal v’chomer with both blemished animals and ones born not through natural...
info_outline
Menachot 5 - January 16, 27 Tevet
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
There are three different opinions about the status of the mincha offering of the omer that is offered for the sake of a different offering. Rav says it is completely disqualified, Reish Lakish holds it is valid, but the obligation to bring the mincha is not fulfilled and a new one must be brought, and Rava holds that it is valid and the obligation is fulfilled. Rav added another disqualified case to the list – a guilt offering of the nazir and leper. After a discussion about why he would distinguish between that guilt offering and a guilt offering for theft or misuse of consecrated...
info_outline
Menachot 4 - January 15, 26 Tevet
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
What was clear to Raba on one hand and Rava on the other - regarding how to understand Rabbi Shimon’s words and whether a noticeably incorrect intent (machshava nikeret) disqualifies or not - was not clear to Rav Hoshaya, who deliberated on how to interpret Rabbi Shimon’s position. The Gemara explains why he did not accept the opinions of Raba, Rava, or Rav Ashi as a sufficient explanation for his doubt. The Mishna mentions two exceptions to the rule of a meal offering (mincha) that was perfomed for the wrong purpose (where the offering is valid but the owner has not fulfilled their...
info_outline
Menachot 3 - January 14, 25 Tevet
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
There are three ways to resolve the contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Shimon in two braitot: in one, he states that a meal-offering (mincha) brought for a different purpose than its original intent is valid and fulfills the owner's obligation, while in the other, he states that it is valid but does not fulfill the owner's obligation. Raba, Rava, and Rav Ashi each offer different resolutions to this contradiction. Raba explains Rabbi Shimon’s words according to their simple meaning - that when it is evident from a person's actions that their stated thought was not sincere (or was...
info_outline
Menachot 2 - January 13, 24 Tevet
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
If one takes a dough of a mincha that was designated for a specific type of meal offering and takes the kemitza with the intention that it be offered for a different type of mincha, the sacrifice is not invalidated. It must still be offered according to its original designation. However, it does not fulfill the obligation of the person who brought the mincha. There are exceptions to this rule - cases in which the wrong intent completely disqualifies the offering - specifically in a mincha of a sinner and of the sotah. The Gemara raises a question: Why does the Mishna use the word "ela"...
info_outlineToday's daf is sponsored by Caroline Ben-Ari in honour of her father, Ivor Rhodes, ישראל בן מאיר ושרה, on his 14th yahrzeit. "Dad was a quiet, undemonstrative man who had a deep love for his family, strong values, and unimpeachable integrity. He also had a wicked sense of humour and was the King of the Puns. All Dad jokes and bad puns sent to me today will be greatly appreciated."
Rav Nachman believed that forgiveness (mechila) by mistake in a sale is considered forgiveness. Rava challenged him from the law of ona'ah (overcharging), but Rav Nachman responded to him from the law of aylonit. But in truth, ona'ah cannot serve as a difficulty and aylonit cannot serve as an answer because these two cases are not similar to the case Rav Nachman was dealing with regarding forgiveness. When a lender takes land as collateral, if the lender consumed its fruits as interest, is the lender obligated to return the fruits? Is there a way to consume the fruits and it will not be considered interest? The Gemara distinguishes between places where it is customary that the borrower can remove the lender from the land at any point (if the money is returned) and places where the borrower cannot remove the lender until the time stipulated in the loan.
https://youtu.be/aJWVVdLnvuk