Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Hadran.org.il is the portal for Daf Yomi studies for women. Hadran.org.il is the first and only site where one can hear a daily Talmud class taught by a woman. The classes are taught in Israel by Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber, a graduate of Midreshet Lindenbaum’s scholars program with a BA in Talmud and Tanach from Bar-Ilan University. Michelle has taught Talmud and Halacha at Midreshet Lindenbaum, Pelech high school and MATAN. She lives in Ra’anana with her husband and their five children. Each morning the daf yomi class is delivered via ZOOM and then immediately uploaded and available for podcast and download. Hadran.org.il reaches women who can now have access to a woman’s perspective on the most essential Jewish traditional text. This podcast represents a revolutionary step in advancing women’s Torah study around the globe.

Menachot 69 - Shabbat March 21, 3 Nisan 03/20/2026

Menachot 68 - March 20, 2 Nisan 03/20/2026

Menachot 67 - Rosh Chodesh Nisan - March 19, 1 Nisan 03/19/2026

Menachot 66 - March 18, 29 Adar 03/18/2026

Menachot 65 - March 17, 28 Adar 03/17/2026

Menachot 64 - March 16, 27 Adar 03/16/2026

Menachot 63 - March 15, 26 Adar 03/15/2026

Menachot 62 - Shabbat March 14, 25 Adar 03/13/2026

Menachot 61 - March 13, 24 Adar 03/13/2026

Menachot 60 - March 12, 23 Adar 03/12/2026

Menachot 59 - March 11, 22 Adar 03/11/2026

Menachot 58 - March 10, 21 Adar 03/10/2026

Menachot 58 - March 10, 21 Adar The verse in Vayikra 2:12 regarding the unique case where one can bring leaven and honey to the Temple on Shavuot uses the phrase “As an offering of the first produce you can offer them.” Rabbi Elazar derived that the word “them” is exclusionary. It means that only regarding the two loaves and the bikkurim the ramp of the altar is considered like the altar (as derived from the words following that phrase). Items that came from an item that was burned on the altar are forbidden to be burned on the altar, but can be brought onto the ramp. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with him and forbids even those items to be brought on the ramp. He must have a different drasha on the word “them.” To explain his reading of the verse, the Gemara quotes a braita which derives from “them” that even the community cannot bring two loaves as a voluntary sacrifice. The Gemara brings a contradictory braita that seems to say that the two loaves can be brought as a voluntary offering, but this understanding is ultimately rejected. Rami bar Hama asked Rav Chisda whether the words “you shall not burn any of it as an offering made by fire” (Vayikra 2:11) only excludes items from which part of it was burned on the altar, or does it exclude any item that is considered a korban (offering) but was not meant to be burned on the altar, such as a bird sin offering or the oil of the leper. Rav Chisda responded that this is a tannaitic debate between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva. A drasha on the words “because all leaven and all honey” teaches that one is liable for offering even a small amount and even in a mixture. Rava and Abaye disagree about what is meant by a “small amount.” Abaye says it is half an olive-bulk, while Rava holds it is half a handful. Their difference of opinion derives from whether they hold a handful needs to be at least the size of two olives and is it only considered a halakhically significant burning on the altar if the item burned is the size of an olive (Rava), or if the handful can be less than two olives and burning less than one olive is considered halakhically significant (Abaye). If one offered leavened dough and honey together on the altar, how many sets of lashes (if any) would one receive? Rava holds that one would receive four sets - one for leaven, one for honey, one for a mixture with leaven, and one for a mixture with honey. Abaye explains that this is a “lav shebikhlalot” - a negative prohibition including many prohibitions - and one does not receive lashes for this type of negative prohibition. Some explain Abaye to be saying that there would be no sets of lashes for this action, while others explain that one would receive lashes for the leaven and the honey but not for the mixture. /episode/index/show/hadran/id/40378610

Menachot 57 - March 9, 20 Adar 03/09/2026

Menachot 57 - March 9, 20 Adar Rabbi Ami rules that one is liable for placing a leavening agent onto a meal offering dough and leaving it to leaven on its own, just as one is liable on Shabbat for an act of cooking in the same manner. The Gemara questions this, noting Rabbi Yochanan's ruling that on Shabbat, one who places meat on coals is generally only liable if they actively turn the meat. Rava explains that Rabbi Ami’s comparison means one is liable for the result even without active intervention, provided the leavening reaches a certain minimum level. The Gemara delves into Rabbi Yochanan’s statement regarding turning the meat and establishes the case as one where the meat would not cook on both sides to the minimum level of ben Drosai (1/3 cooked) if not turned. Rava adds that if a portion the size of a fig-bulk were cooked fully on one side, in one place, one would be liable. A Mishna regarding building on Shabbat is brought as a difficulty for Rava’s statement, but the challenge is ultimately rejected. Some have a version where Rava said that even if not in one place, and the Mishna is brought to support, but the support is rejected. A braita derives from Vayikra 2:11 that the leavening prohibition applies to the entire mincha, not just the kometz burned on the altar. However, it also derives that this applies only to a valid offering, not a disqualified one. This leads to two unresolved inquiries. Rav Papa asks: if one leavened a dough, took it outside the Temple courtyard, and then leavened it further, is there liability for the second stage? Or, is removing it not considered a disqualification since it was already leavened and invalid? Rav Meri asks if one is liable for leavening an offering already on top of the altar, or if the act of "bringing" is considered complete at that point. The Gemara discusses which additional offerings are included in the prohibition. According to a corrected version, Rabbi Yosi haGelili includes the showbread, while Rabbi Akiva includes the mincha libation accompanying sacrifices. This dispute hinges on whether dry-measure vessels possess the inherent sanctity to disqualify an offering if it leavens within them. This is linked to a debate between Rabbi Yoshiya and Rabbi Yonatan regarding the sanctification of liquid versus dry-measure vessels in the Temple. The Torah prohibits offering leaven or honey as a fire-offering, and Vayikra 2:11 further teaches that leftovers of various offerings cannot be offered on the altar if a portion has already been burned. Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree on whether one is liable for offering these prohibited substances on the ramp (kevesh) of the altar. /episode/index/show/hadran/id/40363205

Menachot 56 - March 8, 19 Adar 03/08/2026

Menachot 56 - March 8, 19 Adar The word “oto” (it) in the verse describing the sin offering of the Nasi, "and he slaughters it in the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered" (Vayikra 4:24), is seemingly redundant. The Gemara offers four possible suggestions for what this word is intended to teach. The first suggestion is that the word excludes a different goat sin offering from the requirement of being slaughtered in the north - specifically, the goat offerings brought by the tribal leaders during the consecration of the Tabernacle. This is rejected because there is no logical reason to assume those goats would have required slaughter in the north, making an exclusionary verse unnecessary. The second suggestion is that the word teaches that while the animal must be in the north during slaughter, the slaughterer does not. However, this is initially rejected because Rabbi Achiya derives this law from a different source. The third suggestion is that only animals require slaughter in the north, excluding bird offerings. This is also rejected because birds do not require a knife for their preparation; since their procedure is entirely different, there is no reason to think they would have been subject to the northern requirement. The final suggestion is that the Pesach offering does not need to be performed in the north. This is rejected because one would not logically derive rules for lower-level sanctity offerings, such as the Pesach, from higher-level sanctity offerings that require the north. In conclusion, the Gemara returns to the second answer and explains Rabbi Achiya’s source differently. Regarding leavening, one is obligated if one continues any part of the leavening process of a meal offering, even if the dough had already leavened. An example of this is baking a dough that was already leavened during the kneading stage. Rav Papa adds that a person who bakes such dough is liable for two sets of lashes because the act of baking also serves as the final stage of shaping the dough. Although a difficulty is raised from a braita, the Gemara provides a resolution. For the sake of comparison, a braita is brought regarding a firstborn animal that has a blood-related ailment requiring bloodletting. Since this animal is already considered blemished, the question arises whether it is permitted to inflict a further blemish during the procedure. Rabbi Meir, the rabbis, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Yehuda each hold different positions on this issue. The Gemara focuses specifically on the first two opinions regarding whether this is legally defined as inflicting a blemish on an already blemished animal. This topic is compared to the obligation for continuing the leavening process through a new action or to the prohibition of castrating an animal that is already castrated. In those instances, there is no debate because the biblical verses indicate liability for each individual action. However, regarding a blemished animal, Rabbi Meir and the rabbis each derive their opinions from different words in the verse, leading them to their respective conclusions. /episode/index/show/hadran/id/40355050

Menachot 55 - Shabbat March 7, 18 Adar 03/06/2026

Menachot 54 - March 6, 17 Adar 03/06/2026

Menachot 54 - March 6, 17 Adar There is a debate regarding whether apple juice can be used to leaven the dough for the two mincha offerings that are required to be chametz. In Mishna Terumot 10:2, it is explained that apples of teruma that leaven a dough are significant and cannot be nullified; this is because leavening is considered a transformative action that fundamentally alters the dough. While it may initially appear that the Mishna supports the position that apple juice is a valid leavening agent for these offerings, the text can also be reconciled with the opposing view. One can distinguish between different levels of leavening, suggesting that the "leavening" mentioned in the Mishna may be chametz nukshe, which does not satisfy the specific leavening requirements for the mincha offerings. Rabbi Ila and Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi debate whether the mincha of a sinner, which is offered without oil, may contain water. Initially, the Gemara assumes the root of this debate is whether we determine the measurement of an item that has changed form based on its original state or its current state. If we follow the current size, water may be added because the kometz (handful) is measured based on the substance in its present form. However, if it must be measured by its original size, adding water would mean the handful no longer contains the required amount of flour, as the volume has been altered by the liquid. Ultimately, the Gemara rejects this explanation and concludes that both sages agree items are measured by their current state; their actual debate concerns how to interpret the requirement for a sinner’s mincha to be "dry"—whether this means it must be completely dry of all liquid, or merely dry of oil. The Gemara continues to delve into whether the halakhic measurements of items that have changed in size are determined by their present state or their original state. A Mishna in Uktzin 2:8 is cited regarding the laws of ritual impurity (tumah) for a piece of meat that has shrunk to less than the size of an egg (kebeitzah)—the minimum volume required to transmit impurity. Two groups of sages disagree over the correct version of this Mishna: one asserting that we assess the item based on its original size, and the other maintaining we assess it by its current size. The Gemara raises a difficulty against the opinion that items are measured by their original size; specifically, in a case where meat expanded to exceed the size of an egg, it is ruled to transmit impurity. This challenge is resolved by explaining that the law in that specific source is Rabbinic in nature, rather than a Torah law. A second difficulty is raised from a braita discussing the opposite case: if meat shrinks below the required volume, it no longer transmits impurity. However, Raba rejects this proof, explaining that all would agree an item cannot transmit impurity if its current state is too small. He clarifies that the sages were only stringent in cases where an item was originally too small but later expanded to the requisite volume. The true point of disagreement, according to Raba, is a case where the item originally met the requirement, shrunk, and then expanded again. The question is whether the item was "rejected" (nidcheh) during its middle stage - thereby losing its ability to transfer impurity permanently - or if it regains its ability to transmit impurity upon re-expanding. A difficulty is then raised against the position that it remains pure even after re-expanding. A challenge from Tosefta Terumot 4:2 is brought against Raba’s premise that everyone agrees a shrunken item is measured by its current state. This challenge involves the laws of separating tithes from fresh figs for dried ones; however, the difficulty is ultimately resolved by explaining that the case does not concern standard tithes, but rather terumat ma'aser (the tithe of the tithe). Unlike regular ma’aser, terumat ma'aser does not require an exact measurement, and it is considered preferable to err on the side of generosity by giving more to the Kohen. /episode/index/show/hadran/id/40338390

Menachot 53 - March 5, 16 Adar 03/05/2026

Menachot 52 - Shushan Purim - March 4, 15 Adar 03/04/2026

Menachot 52 - Shushan Purim - March 4, 15 Adar Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda disagree about whether the communal sin offering is paid for by the Temple treasury or if there is a new dedicated collection from the people. Two different versions are brought regarding who held which position, and the Gemara assumes that they switched their positions at some point and concludes that Rabbi Shimon holds it is paid for by the Temple treasury, and Rabbi Yehuda by a new collection. Rabbi Yochanan asked about the situation described in the Mishna that the kohen gadol died and there is no one yet appointed and a full issaron is brought. Is this brought twice daily in both the morning and afternoon, or only once a day? Rava brings a proof that it is brought twice daily, which is mentioned to Rabbi Yirmia, and he scoffs at it, insulting Rava as a "Bavlai tipshai" (stupid Babylonian). Rava then brings a different proof from a verse in the Torah that calls it tamid, comparing it to the tamid sacrifice which is brought twice daily. The Gemara concludes that Rava is correct, as can be seen from a braita that says so explicitly. In a regular case where a kohen gadol brings one issaron and divides it between the morning and afternoon, there is a debate between Abba Yosi ben Dostai and the rabbis about whether two handfuls of frankincense are brought or only one. Rabbi Yochanan asks whether the frankincense would be doubled according to the rabbis in a case when the community or heirs bring it (if the kohen gadol had died) and whether the oil would be doubled according to both opinions. A braita is brought from which they understand that neither is doubled, according to both opinions. Most mincha offerings are matza, other than the special sacrifice brought on Shavuot and ten of the loaves of the thanksgiving offering which are chametz. How was the leavening agent measured in the measuring of the flour for the offering? /episode/index/show/hadran/id/40309030

Menachot 51 - Purim - March 3, 14 Adar 03/03/2026

Menachot 50 - March 2, 13 Adar 03/02/2026

Menachot 49 - March 1, 12 Adar 03/01/2026

Menachot 48 - Shabbat February 28, 11 Adar 02/27/2026

Menachot 47 - February 27, 10 Adar 02/27/2026

Menachot 46 - February 26, 9 Adar 02/26/2026

Menachot 45 - February 25, 8 Adar 02/25/2026

Menachot 44 - February 24, 7 Adar 02/24/2026

Menachot 43 - February 23, 6 Adar 02/23/2026

Menachot 42 - February 22, 5 Adar 02/22/2026

Menachot 41 - Shabbat February 21, 4 Adar 02/20/2026

Menachot 40 - February 20, 3 Adar 02/20/2026

Menachot 40 - February 20, 3 Adar 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 attached tchelet (wool) to a linen garment in Jerusalem was viewed with wonder - as it caused onlookers to mistakenly believe shaatnez was generally permitted. Rabbi explains that the Sages eventually prohibited this practice because people did not know about the drasha permitting shaatnez and would come to think that shaatnez was permitted in general. Since difficulties were raised against Rabbi’s explanation, Rava and Rabbi Zeira offer four alternative reasons for why the Sages prohibited wool tzitzit on linen garments: Decree of "kala ilan": There is a concern that one might use a dye that looks like techelet but is not the authentic wool dyed with snail secretions. In such a case, the wearer violates the prohibition of shaatnez (wool and linen) without having fulfilled the mitzvah that allows it. Decree of "teima" (testing): A concern regarding the validity of the tzitzit - lest the techelet used was dyed during the "testing" of the color, which is invalid because it was not dyed specifically for the sake of the mitzva (lishma). Concern of "ta’aseh ve’lo min he-asui ": Rava and Rabbi Zera explain a concern that if the linen garment tears within three fingerbreadths of its edge, a person might sew it back up and leave the sewing threads to serve as tzitzit. This would be invalid because the Torah requires the mitzva to be actively made by attaching the strings to the garment, rather than utilizing threads that were already there for a different purpose. Decree of night garments: Since a garment worn exclusively at night is exempt from tzitzit, wearing wool strings on a linen night garment would constitute a shaatnez violation without any mitzva to permit it. The Gemara discusses the definition of a garment obligated in tzitzit regarding a hybrid garment made of leather and fabric. Rava rules that we follow the primary material of the garment: if the body of the garment is fabric and the corners are leather, it is obligated; if the body is leather and the corners are fabric, it is exempt. Rav Achai disagrees, arguing that the status follows the material of the corners themselves. Regarding the construction of the tzitzit, Rav Huna rules that if one attached tzitzit to a garment while it only had three corners and then completed the fourth corner afterward, the tzitzit is invalid due to "ta’aseh ve’lo min he-asui" (Make it, and not from that which is already made). The Gemara challenges this from the practice of the "Early Pious Ones," who would attach techelet after weaving only three fingerbreadths of the garment (when only two corners were in existence). The Gemara resolves this by understanding the custom of the pious ones to be performed at the end, when there were only three fingerbreadths left to weave (when the four corners were already in existence). Finally, the Gemara challenges the invalidation of "ta’aseh ve’lo min he-asui" based on Rabbi Zera’s ruling, which validates attaching new tzitzit onto a garment that already has tzitzit (and then removing the old ones). Rava suggests that because of the prohibition of "bal tosif" (do not add to the mitzvot), the act of attaching the strings before the obligation exists is not considered a significant "act." However, Rav Papa challenges Rava’s reasoning, explaining that it depends on human intent: if one intends to cancel the first set of strings and replace them with the new ones, it is considered a significant act. This raises the question: if intent makes it a valid act, why was the case of attaching tzitzit before the garment was finished invalid in light of Rabbi Zeira permitting the case of the extra strings? /episode/index/show/hadran/id/40172810

Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

TOPICS