Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Bava Batra 130 - Shabbat Rosh Chodesh - November 2, 1 Cheshvan Nov 01, 2024

The Mishna brings a debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka regarding one who wants to bequeath to one's heirs in a way different than the Torah law - is it allowed and if so, in what cases is it allowed? The Mishna can be understood in two different ways - that there is a debate or that there is just one opinion and that depends on whether Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka is referring to a person who wants to give one son all of the inheritance and nothing to the others sons (or prefer one daughter over the others, in a case where there are no sons) or to a case where one wants to bypass the heirs and give it to the next heir in line, i.e. daughter, instead of son.

The Gemara quotes various amoraim in Babylonia and in Israel who all ruled like Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka who allows one to favor one son over the others or one daughter over the others (in a case where there are no sons).

There is a debate regarding Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi's ruling - whether he said, "The halakha is like Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka" or whether he ruled in a case like Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka. This leads to a discussion regarding what the best way to learn the halakha - by what someone says or by case law? What are the pros and cons of each approach? A braita explains that one cannot learn from either unless the rabbi says "halakha l'maase," i.e. tthis is the halakha and you can act upon it.

Bava Batra 129 - !st Day Rosh Chodesh Cheshvan - November 1, 30 Tishrei Nov 01, 2024

Study Guide Bava Batra 129

This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in loving memory of her father, Rabbi Avraham Yair Groff, whose Yahrzeit was this week and Rabbi Raymond Harari, who sadly passed away this week. "Both Rabbis taught me that a woman’s place in Judaism is in the Shul and in the Bet Midrash. To my father, Rabbi Avraham Yair Groff, who passed a Torah to the women’s section every Simchat Torah. And to Rabbi Raymond Harari, who taught us Gemara in Yeshiva of Flatbush, who challenged his female students to delve into the Talmud and make it our own and whose Thursday night Mishmar class after school, we were excited to voluntarily stay late to attend. Rabbi Harari’s legacy in inspiring women to learn lives on directly in the hundreds of women taught by Rabbanit Michelle Farber every day."

Today's daf is sponsored by Rachel and Oren Seliger in loving memory of her mother Rifka Esther bat Sara Gitel and Yishaya Halevi. "14 years and I still see your beautiful smile and your shine in your eyes, also in memory of the fallen soldiers friends of my son from the tank brigade 401/52 that have fallen this week. ברק ישראל ,אלישי יונג, אופיר ברקוביץ, אחסאן דקסה, גיא ניזרי may their memory be a comfort to all of am yisrael עם של גיבורי על"

When Mar Zutra stated that we follow Rabbi Abba's rulings, to which cases was he referring?

The Mishna discusses what constitutes valid gift language at the beginning, middle, and end of a statement, that would allow one to pass on property to those who were not his direct heirs. In what cases would this work? There are four different opinions about this: - Does it only work with one field and one person? - Does it also work with two fields and one person? - Does it work with two people and one field? - Or does it even work with two fields and two people?

Both amoraim from Israel and Babylonia disagreed on this matter. Rav Sheshet tries to prove his position but then rejects his proof. Rav Ashi does succeed in proving Rav Sheshet's approach. However, we also rule according to Reish Lakish. How can we explain this apparent contradiction?

Bava Batra 128 - October 31, 29 Tishrei Oct 31, 2024

Today’s daf is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari who inspired me to love learning Gemara in high school. He brought each case in the Gemara to life, making the material engaging and relevant. He was a master teacher who cared deeply about his students and their growth. He was a true role model whose legacy will live on in the countless lives he touched. Tanchumim to his wife, Vicky, a Hadran learner, and to the entire family. Yehi zichro baruch.

Today's daf is sponsored by Miri Kadosh in memory of her dear friend Yafit Yaffa bat Yitzchak Mazal who passed away this morning.

Seven teachings of Rabbi Abba from Israel are sent to Babylonia on various topics and Mar Zutra in the name of Rav Shimi bar Ashi paskens like him.

If one claims that the person in another's house is his/her slave and it was stolen. The accused denies the claim and says that the slave was given as a gift/sold by the accuser. If the accused offers the accuser to take an oath that the slave is owned by him/her, then the accused can no longer reclaim the slave. The Gemara explains that the unique teaching of Rabbi Abba here is that the rabbis hold this even when money/property is being taken away from one side and given to the other (change of status quo). Others hold that this only in a case where the status quo is maintained.
Creditors of a deceased can only collect from land that the father left the orphans. Rabbi Abba ruled that slaves are considered like land. Rav Nachman disagrees and does not equate slaves with land for this purpose.
A person can testify for their father's first cousin as their connection is somewhat removed. It is called a third-generation testifying for a second-generation relative as they are both connected through brothers who are first-generation relatives. Rava holds that even a first-generation can testify for a third, i.e. a person and his great-uncle. Mar bar Rav Ashi even held that a person and his grandfather, but the ruling is not like his position as they are direct relatives.
If one knew testimony about land borders and then became blind, one cannot testify. Shmuel rules that if the blind person can identify markers in the field, his testimony is accepted. Rav Sheshet and Rav Pappa extend this to other cases as well where one can identify items by size or weight (cloak and bar of silver). A braita is brought to raise a difficulty with Shmuel, Rav Sheshet and Rav Pappa.
There are two interpretations of the fifth ruling of Rabbi Abba. One is he ruled like Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka that one can choose to bequeath all of one's property to one of the heirs (a son among sons or daughter among daughters). The other is that if a father identifies one of the sons to be the oldest, when a different one was presumed to be the oldest, he is believed, as per the position of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with Rabbi Abba on this ruling and holds by the rabbis' position (either in their disagreement with Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka or with Rabbi Yehuda).
If a man says that his wife will inherit among the sons, this is effective. However, this would only include items owned by the man at that point and does not include possession he acquires later. And if there were more sons born later, the wife would have to divide the property with them as well.
If a creditor puts out a promissory note and the borrower says that half was already paid back and then witnesses come and testify that the entire loan was paid back, Rabbi Abba rules that the borrower takes an oath (modeh b'miktzat) and pays the other half but the creditor can only collect from property in the borrower's possession and not from liened property as the buyers can rely on the witnesses' testimony. Mar bar Rav Ashi disagrees and views the borrower as one returning a lost item who would be exempt from an oath.

Bava Batra 127 - October 30, 28 Tishrei Oct 30, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by the Greenstone cousins in honor of Lana Kerzner's birthday. "With love to our dear cousin Lana. Your commitment to learning is a profound tribute to the legacy of our parents, a testament to the values they instilled in us. May the merits of this learning bring you peace, joy, and health this year and every year, not only for yourself but as a blessing to all those around you."

Today's daf is sponsored by Gabrielle and Daniel Altman in loving memory of Lisa Altman z"l on her 20th yahrzeit. "We miss her love, warmth, kindness, wisdom and spirit. Her memory and legacy will remain with us always."

There are various halakhot relevant to males that do not apply to a tumtum (one whose genitals are covered up and it is unclear if they are male or female) whose skin is then perforated and is found to be a male. He cannot inherit as a firstborn, he cannot become a ben sorer u'moreh, his brit milah does not override Shabbat, and his mother does not have laws of impurity of a woman who gave birth. A difficulty is raised against two of these laws from a Mishna in Nidda 28a.

A braita is brought to support the position that a tumtum described above cannot inherit a double portion as a firstborn. The braita also derives that one cannot be a firstborn if it is doubtful whether or not he is the firstborn. The Gemara then explains why this was stated - to explain that if two brothers are born at around the same time (from two different mothers) but it was dark and it was impossible to determine who was born first, no one receives the double portion. Rava held otherwise - they could each write an authorization that "If I am the firstborn, I give you my share," and they can jointly receive the double portion. However, Rav Pappa raised a difficulty with Rava's position and Rava retracted.

A father is believed to say a particular son is the firstborn but what if there is a chazaka that a different child is the firstborn? Shmuel ruled that the two brothers write an authorization as mentioned above. The Gemara explains Shmuel's position that he was unsure whether the ruling is like Rabbi Yehuda, who believes a father in that case, or the rabbis who do not accept the father's testimony when there is a chazaka. If the rabbis don't accept the father's testimony, for what purpose did the verse in the Torah use the language of "yakir"? If the father could have given the son a double portion as a gift, it would have been effective, so of course then we can believe the father that this is the firstborn?! The answer is that the father could have only given a double portion as a gift to the son for property in his possession at the time or possibly for items that would later be in his possession (according to Rabbi Meir), but it would not have covered property that would be brought into the father's possession as he was dying. For this situation, the verse taught "yakir."

Regarding believing a father about the status of his son, Rabbi Yochanan describes a situation in which a father says that a person is his son and then says that he is his Caananite slave. He is not believed to render the person a slave as he would never have called his slave his son in the first place. However, if he first called him his slave and then his son, we accept his last words as it's possible he meant originally that the son served him like a slave. The reverse is true for one who made a statement in front of the tax authorities. They raise a difficulty against Rabbi Yochanan from a braita, but resolve it.

Bava Batra 126 - October 29, 27 Tishrei Oct 29, 2024

Rav Asi ruled that a firstborn who protests, his protest is valid. There is a debate among the Rashbam and Rabbeinu Chananel, about what he is protesting. According to the Rashbam, he is protesting the brothers investing in the item before dividing the property, as he will not receive a double portion on the enhancements. Rabbeinu Chananel explains he is agreeing to receive an equal portion of this property/item but is not giving up on his rights to receive the double portion on other property/items. Rabba limits this statement to grapes that were picked but not if they were turned into wine. Why?

If a firstborn gives up his rights to a double portion when dividing a particular property, Rav Pappa and Rav Pappi debate (based on a situation where Rava gave a psak about in a different case) whether Rava held that he gave up rights to the double portion of all the properties or only of that particular property? This debate is based on whether one holds that the firstborn receives rights to his double portion immediately upon the death of the father, even before the land is divided, or whether he receives rights to it only once the property is divided.

The Mishna differentiates between a father who says he will not bequeath the double portion to his firstborn and a father who says he will equally divide his portion. The first is not allowed as it goes against the Torah and the second is allowed because it is viewed as a gift. One can use the language of a gift to divide property differently than stated by the Torah.

What type of proof can be used to prove one is the firstborn to enable him to receive the double portion?

Bava Batra 125 - October 28, 26 Tishrei Oct 28, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Glenda Sacks Jaffe in honor of Sari Esserman's birthday and on her first grandchild, and to Rhona Fink on the birth of another grandchild. "Yom huledet sameach and mazal tov!"

Does the firstborn receive a double portion of a loan due back to his father after his death? Raba and Rav Nachman each hold that the firstborn can receive a double portion but only if it is paid back in land, according to Raba or in cash according to Rav Nachman. Abaye raises two difficulties against each of their positions. Firstly, he sees no reason to distinguish - if the money "(or land) is not considered in the possession of the father, then the land (or money) should not be either. Secondly, he quotes a case for each of them where they held differently than they do here. Raba responds for himself and for Rav Nachman, claiming that they were both explaining the positions of the rabbis in Israel, but they do not actually agree with that position.

The difficulty raised against Raba was from a case where a person on their deathbed gave all their property to their grandmother, to be then given to his heirs (which was his daughter) upon the grandmother's death. However, the daughter died before the grandmother. When the grandmother died, the daughter's husband claimed the property as the heir of the daughter. The rabbis in Israel ruled that the property was not in the daughter's possession at the time of her death and the husband could not inherit the property, as a husband inherits land/items of his wife that were in her possession at the time of her death. Rav Huna held that the husband could inherit it as when the father promised the property to the daughter after it first went to the grandmother, it was as if he said, "It will be yours from now, but the grandmother will enjoy the proceeds until her death." Raba sided with the rabbis in Israel as he claimed that it clearly belonged to the grandmother since if she were to sell it, the sale would be valid, thus proving that it was considered in her possession, not the daughter's, until her death. This shows that Raba holds that land/items are not considered possessed by someone (muchzak) if another person can sell them.

Rav Pappa ruled: 1. a husband only inherits property that the wife possessed, not property due to her; 2. A firstborn only inherits the double portion of property that his father possessed, not property due to him; 3. A firstborn does not get a double portion of a loan due to his father, whether they collected land or money for the loan; 4. A loan that the firstborn borrowed from his father and did not repay until after the father's death is a case of doubt whether it is considered due to the father or in his possession and therefore the double portion is split between him and the brothers.

Bava Batra 124 - October 27, 25 Tishrei Oct 27, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of their friend and co-learner Debbie Weber Schreiber on the birth of a granddaughter. "May the new addition be a source of pride to the entire family and to Am Yisrael, and be a harbinger of simcha and shalom for us all. תזכו לגדלה לתורה ולחופה ולמעשים טובים"

A braita ruled that the firstborn gets a double portion of the enhancement of their father's property that happened on its own, without the orphans' intervention. However, the Gemara points out that this is Rabbi Yehuda haNasi's opinion as the rabbis disagree and hold that the firstborn does not get a double portion of any enhancement. Rabbi Yehuda haNasi brings an example of this - a promissory note that was paid back after the father's death. If the father's estate owed a debt, the firstborn would need to pay a double portion, but if he agreed to pass up on receiving a double portion of the inheritance, he would not have to pay double for the loan. The Gemara brings the verse in the Torah where the rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda haNasi derive their positions. Rav Papa limits the debate to a situation where the enhanced item is different from the original item, i.e. date flowers that became dates. There are four opinions about whether it is clear with whom the halakha accords or whether it is unclear and what we do with a case where a judge rules against the accepted opinion. Rav Nachman and Rami bar Hama each quote a Midrash Halakha (Sifrei) that accords with a different opinion on this issue.

Rav Yehuda quoted Shmuel's ruling that a firstborn does not get a double portion on a loan. The Gemara tries to assess whether this ruling follows the opinion of the rabbis or Rabbi Yehuda haNasi, and concludes that it follows the rabbis' position.

A ruling was sent from Israel to Babylonia that if a loan was paid back from a non-Jew, the firstborn would collect a double portion from the principal but not from the interest. This is understood to be the rabbis' opinion. Why would they distinguish between the principal and the interest? The principal is considered as if it is already collected, but the interest is not. The conclusion of this ruling seems to contradict Shmuel's ruling. Ameimar rules like the Israeli ruling and Rav Acha points out that he followed Rav Nachman's position as they were both from the same city, Nehardea. Raba and Rav Nachman each distinguish, in an opposite manner, between a loan that is paid back in land and one that is paid back in cash.

Bava Batra 123 - Shabbat October 26, 24 Tishrei Oct 25, 2024

How is the double portion calculated - two times a portion that all the other brothers get or two-thirds of the whole property? The answer is derived from several verses and the Gemara explains why all are necessary. Many of the proofs are from Yosef's double portion.

Why did Yaakov take the double portion from Reuven and give it to Yosef? First, it should have been given to Rachel's son, (as is derived from Breishit 37:2), but Leah was worthy that her son be the firstborn because she pleaded for mercy. However, on account of Rachel's tzniut, it was returned to her son. To explain the mercy of Leah and the tzniut of Rachel, the Gemara elaborates in great detail on the story of how Yaakov wanted to marry Rachel but ended up first marrying Leah.

A braita describes various things of which the firstborn receives a double portion and the Gemara explains each case.

Bava Batra 122 - October 25, 23 Tishrei Oct 25, 2024

Study Guide Bava Batra 122

Was the land divided into twelve equal portions, one for each tribe, or by equal portions for each Israelite? Some type of compensation (either in land or financial) took place by those who received better quality portions. At first, the Gemara understood that as better quality land, but later concluded that it meant a better location, closer to Jerusalem.

The land was divided by a lottery and the urim and tumim. A braita describes how the process worked. That braita also describes the distribution that is anticipated for the times of the Mashiach where everyone will get an equal portion of all different types of land, and it will be divided directly by God, as derived from a verse in Yechezkel 48:29, 31.

Yehoshua and Caleb did not inherit by a lottery, but by the word of God. From what verses is this derived?

The Mishna describes that the inheritance of sons and daughters is similar, other than a few differences. Four sages attempt to understand the Mishna - in what way are sons and daughters similar and how does that fit with the continuation of the Mishna where the differences described relate to differences between inheriting from a mother or a father, not the differences between a son and a daughter. Each answer is rejected, other than the last one.

Bava Batra 121 - Shmini Atzeret - October 24, 22 Tishrei Oct 22, 2024

On a day that mixes different emotions – being both a holiday and a day of remembrance, today's daf is dedicated to the memory of those who were tragically taken from us one year ago today. May our learning be an aliyah for their neshamot, a tribute to their lives, and a reflection of the strength and resilience of our people in the face of the unimaginable pain we have all experienced since that day.

From where does Beit Shammai learn that hatarat nedarim can be done with three regular people, since he doesn't hold by the gzeira shava of "ze hadavar" from slaughtering outside the Temple?

Why was Tu B'av considered a day of celebration? The sages bring six different answers explaining what incident happened on that date to merit a celebration for generations.

Seven people together span all the generations, from Adam to Eliyahu Hanavi, who, based on tradition, never died. Who are they and how do we know each overlapped with the next?

Bava Batra 120 - October 23, 21 Tishrei Oct 22, 2024

Study Guide Bava Batra 120

Today's daf is sponsored by Sylvia Klein in loving memory of her mother, Lila Klein, Leah bat Yosef v’Pasha. "She dedicated her life to her family, her students, Israel, and the Jewish people."

If the daughters of Tzlofchad got married after the age of forty, how did they have children, as according to a braita, women who marry after the age of forty cannot give birth? Just as Yocheved, the mother of Moshe, gave birth to him at age 130 because her body miraculously "rejuvenated," the same occurred to the daughters of Tzlofchad. The chronology of Yocheved’s narrative is extrapolated from the verses to establish that she was 130 years old at the time of Moshe’s birth.

The names of the daughters of Tzlofchad are mentioned twice in the Torah, each time in a different order—once in order of their intelligence (when they approached Moshe) and once in order of their age (when discussing who they could marry). In legal matters, respect is given to the wisest, while in social settings, it is accorded to the oldest. The daughters of Tzlofchad were permitted to marry anyone they chose, but it was recommended they marry within their tribe. However, other women in their generation who inherited land were prohibited from marrying outside their tribe. This prohibition applied only to that generation, as derived from the words "ze hadavar." The Gemara raises a difficulty because there are other places (such as the prohibition to slaughter sacrifices outside the Temple and the laws of vows) where these words are used, and the commandments apply to all generations. How can this be explained?

Bava Batra 119 - October 22, 20 Tishrei Oct 22, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Blima Sztorchain in loving memory of her sister, Rivka Sara Rina bat Tina and Yitzhak Tzvi.

The daughters of Tzlofchad inherited Tzlofchad's double portion from his father, even though one only inherits a double portion that was in the deceased's property at the time of death (muchzak). The reason is that the land of Israel was considered as if it had already been owned by those who left Egypt.

Earlier, a braita had explained that the sons of the spies and those with Korach, whose fathers did not get land in Israel, received land through their grandparents. However, a different braita explains that they received land on their own merit. The Gemara brings two explanations for how to reconcile these seemingly contradictory braitot.

Raba explains, as was explained above, that the land of Israel was considered already possessed by those leaving Egypt, which explains why Tzlofchad's daughters inherited his double portion. However, a braita is brought against Raba as it explains that Moshe knew that they should inherit but was unsure regarding the double portion. This issue is resolved by explaining that the law is still clear that the land was possessed by the generation that left Egypt and that is exactly what Moshe was unsure of, and was then clarified. In that braita, they compare the case of Tzlofchad's daughters and the one who was chopping trees on Shabbat, as in both cases Moshe does not know the law and turns to God. The law in each case could have been transmitted directly but was told through the lens of Tzlofchad's daughters/the wood chopper to teach that merits are brought by one who is meritorious and liability by one who is liable.

Why does it say in the verse that Tzlofchad's daughters went before Moshe, Elazar the princes (nesi'im), and the entire congregation? Two opinions are brought and each reflects different approaches - do we give respect to a student before his rabbi or not? The halakha accords with both - how can this be explained?

The virtues of the daughters of Tzlofchad are explained - their wisdom, their ability to interpret the verses in the Torah, and their righteousness. From where can we see these traits?

Bava Batra 118 - October 21, 19 Tishrei Oct 21, 2024

Today’s daf is sponsored by Tina & Shalom Lamm in honor of their new grandson. "With hakarat hatov to Hashem for the blessing of a new grandson, Ayal Nachum, born on Yom Kippur and entered into the brit of Avraham Avinu on Shabbat Chol HaMoed Sukkot. Mazal tov to our children, the proud parents, Sara and Shmuel Lamm of Modiin."

Today's daf is sponsored by Debbie and Yossi Gevir in honor of their two sons, Elazar and Eliav, and their son-in-law Boaz who are now serving in the army. "They are serving Am Yisrael from the Lebanon border and beyond. May Hashem continue to protect all of Am Yisrael and medinat yisrael. והעמידנו לשלום ופרוס עלינו סוכת שלומך, כן יהי רצון!"

Rav Papa raises a second and third difficulty with the opinion that the land was divided among those entering the land. Firstly, why did the daughters of Tzlofchad complain - their father was not worthy of receiving any portion since he was no longer alive when they entered the land? Secondly, why in the book of Yehoshua 17:14, did the sons of Yosef complain that they did not have enough land for the people of their tribe as they were a large tribe? If the land was divided among those who entered, the tribe of Yosef should have received more land, according to the number of people! Abaye answers both of these questions.

From both the stories of the daughters of Tzlofchad and the sons of Yosef, Abaye concludes that everyone else received a portion upon coming into the land, as if some did not, they would have complained. However, the Gemara concludes that it is possible others complained but since their complaints were ineffective, there was no need to record them. The sons of Yosef's complaint was also ineffective but was brought for a different reason - to teach that people should try to avoid the evil eye, ayin hara. They explain the exchange between the sons and Yosef and Yehoshua relating to that issue.

Did the people who complained and those who joined Korach receive a portion of the land but it was given to Yehoshua and Caleb just like the spies' portion or did they not receive a portion at all? This is a source of debate and one of the opinions is derived from the verse Bamidbar 27:3, from the words of the Tzlofchad's daughters. Rav Papa raises a difficulty with the opinion that Yehoshua and Caleb inherited all their portions, as they would have inherited most of the Jews' property, since so many complained in the desert! Abaye responds that the complainers were those who complained with Korach.

Rav Papa's fifth question is again against the opinion that the land was divided among those entering the land, based on a verse from Yehoshua 17:5 - that Menashe received ten portions, six for each family and four for the daughters of Tzlofchad. This makes the most sense with the opinion that the land was divided among those leaving Egypt. However, Abaye explains the four also to fit with the opinion that the land was divided among those entering the land.

Bava Batra 117 - October 20, 18 Tishrei Oct 20, 2024

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of Professor Paul Haberfield, father of Shulie Mishkin, who passed away on Thursday. Tanchumim from the whole Hadran family.

How were the portions distributed when the Jews entered the land of Israel? There are three different answers to this question, each based on a different interpretation of the verses in Bamidbar 26:53, 55. One approach (Rabbi Yoshia) is that an equal portion was given to all those who left Egypt above the age of twenty. A second approach (Rabbi Yonatan) is that an equal portion was given to all those going into the land, but those portions were then redivided by families, according to how many had left Egypt. The third approach (Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar) is that a portion was given to each person who went into the land and also to each person who left Egypt.

There were various people who didn’t receive portions such as the spies and those who followed Korach. The spies' portion was given to Yehoshua and Caleb. The sons of the people from these groups inherited land through their grandparents, provided the grandparents had been at least twenty years old at the Exodus from Egypt.

Rav Papa raises a difficulty against Rabbi Yonatan from the verse in Bamidbar 26:54, "To the more you shall give the more inheritance and to the fewer you should give the less inheritance." What is the need for this verse if it was divided equally between those coming into the land, since, of course, a large family will receive more portions?

Bava Batra 116 - Shabbat Chol haMoed Sukkot - October 19, 17 Tishrei Oct 16, 2024

Rabbi Yochanan quotes an opinion of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai saying if one dies without sons, it is a sign of God's wrath. Rabbi Yochanan himself and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi disagree about whether it is the lack of a son or lack of a student that is a sign that one is not truly God-fearing. Who held which position? On what basis can that be concluded? Three statements of Rabbi Pinchas ben Hama are quoted - the first relates to the importance of fathers leaving male children to follow in their ways.

Rami bar Hama has some questions regarding cases of inheritance when there are no sons, daughters, or father. Does it go to the grandfather or the uncle? If the two heirs left are the grandfather and the brother of the deceased, who comes first? His questions derive from the last line in the Mishna, "the father comes before all those who come from him." Does it mean all his descendants or only before his own children, but not his grandchildren? Rava thought the answers to his questions were clear - the grandfather comes before any of his descendants.

Bava Batra 115 - 2nd Day of Sukkot - October 18, 16 Tishrei Oct 16, 2024

Study Guide Bava Batra 115

Rabbi Yochanan quotes a statement of Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi Shimon that a mother inherits her son. However, Rabbi Yochanan rejects this statement as it is contradicted by our Mishna which clearly states that a mother does not inherit her son. Rabbi Yehuda responded that he doesn't know who the author of the Mishna is and therefore is not concerned with the contradiction. The Gemara first explains why the Mishna cannot be explained according to Rabbi Zacharia ben haKatzav and then proceeds to explain that the Mishna has an inner contradiction regarding the drasha of the word 'matot'. However, they resolve the contradiction.

The Mishna discusses the order of inheritance - at each stage, if the person who should inherit is not alive, it does to their descendants before moving on to the next in line. There was a big debate between the Saducees and the rabbis. In a case where there are two siblings, a son and daughter, and the son is no longer alive but has a daughter, the rabbis ruled that the son's daughter precedes his sister for their father's inheritance. The Saducees held that the sister and the granddaughter split it 50/50. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai debates them and wins and sets the law according to the rabbis' understanding.

Bava Batra 114 - 1st Day of Sukkot - October 17, 15 Tishrei Oct 16, 2024

If one performs a transaction with a kinyan chalipin, a symbolic act of acquiring, until what point can each side renege on the agreement? Raba and Rav Yosef differ on this point. Rav Yosef supports his opinion from the statement of Rav Yehuda regarding three who went to visit a dying person who can function as a court regarding dividing up the dying person's property. However, Raba rejects his proof.

Why did the Mishna need to list the people who inherit but do not bequeath to each other, as it can be derived from the previous section of those who bequeath but do not inherit? The answer is that they wanted to teach something additional by connecting two of the three cases - a woman from her son and a woman from her husband - just as a husband does not inherit property the wife inherits after her death (property she would have inherited, were she still alive), a son does not inherit property from his mother if he is no longer alive to pass to his paternal brothers.

Rabbi Yochanan quotes a statement of Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi Shimon that a mother inherits her son.

Bava Batra 113 - October 16, 14 Tishrei Oct 16, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Laurence and Michelle Berkowitz in loving memory of Laurence's mother, Eleanor Lasson Berkowitz, on her 22nd yartzeit. "A perfect mother, who as a social worker knew how to bring people together despite their differences. May her memory be blessed for the support of her many grandchildren serving in Tzahal."

When a husband inherits his wife's property, he inherits land that she owned at the time of her death (muchzak) but not property that is passed on to her after her death (ra'uy), i.e. her father dies after her and she has no brothers. What is the source of this law? Some of the verses that were used in the earlier braita are now explained differently).

The Mishna listed that the sons of the sister inherit from their uncle. The Gemara derives from these words that the ruling is for males, not females. Rav Sheshet explains this to mean that the nephews inherit before the nieces and such is true for all the stages of inheritance - first, it is given to the males and only if there are none, then it is passed to the females. What is the source of this law?

One cannot divide inheritance at night. This statement is explained based on a braita and a statement of Rav Yehuda and Rav Hisda.

Today's daf is sponsored by Laurence and Michelle Berkowitz in loving memory of Laurence's mother, Eleanor Lasson Berkowitz, on her 22nd yartzeit. "A perfect mother, who as a social worker knew how to bring people together despite their differences. May her memory be blessed for the support of her many grandchildren serving in Tzahal."

When a husband inherits his wife's property, he inherits land that she owned at the time of her death (muchzak) but not property that is passed on to her after her death (ra'uy), i.e. her father dies after her and she has no brothers. What is the source of this law? Some of the verses that were used in the earlier braita are now explained differently).

The Mishna listed that the sons of the sister inherit from their uncle. The Gemara derives from these words that the ruling is for males, not females. Rav Sheshet explains this to mean that the nephews inherit before the nieces and such is true for all the stages of inheritance - first, it is given to the males and only if there are none, then it is passed to the females. What is the source of this law?

One cannot divide inheritance at night. This statement is explained based on a braita and a statement of Rav Yehuda and Rav Hisda.

Bava Batra 112 - October 15, 13 Tishrei Oct 15, 2024

Study Guide Bava Batra 112

Today's daf is sponsored by Joanna Rom in loving memory of her mother, Rose Rom, Sura Razel, on her sixteenth yahrzeit. "She is still with me every day, my inner teacher."

Where in the Torah is a source for the law that a husband inherits from his wife? Two different opinions are suggested. Rabbi Yishmael proves it from five different verses and the Gemara explains why all five verses are needed.

Abaye raises a difficulty with the verse Bamidbar 37:8 which is explained as referring to a daughter who inherits from two tribes (her father and mother). The verse explains that she must marry within her father's tribe to ensure that land will not be passed to another tribe. But if her mother is from another tribe and she inherits from her mother, how does it help her to marry someone from her father's tribe - in any case, land will move from her mother's tribe to her father's. Rav Yeimar and Abaye each resolve this question in a different manner.

There are two braitot that each explain the two different verses that forbid a woman to marry from another tribe - one referring to the concern that her son will inherit from her and land will pass to another tribe and the other concerned that the same will happen but because her husband will inherit from her.

Bava Batra 111 - October 14, 12 Tishrei Oct 14, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Geelit and Eric Sommer in honor of Shai Seliger, his wife Hadar, to his parents, our dear friends and fellow daf learners Oren and Rachel Seliger upon Shai’s safe return from a year of fighting in Gaza. "Am Yisrael is grateful to you and all the other men and women fighting to protect us and to their spouses and families for all their sacrifices."

Today's daf is sponsored by Sara Sacks "in honor of Rabbanit Michelle Farber who has made daf yomi accessible to me and a pleasure to learn."

Our learning will also be in memory of those killed in Ba"ch Golani yesterday and for the refuah shleima of all the injured soldiers.

Where in the Torah is a source for the law that a son or daughter inherits from their mother? The law is derived from a verse about a daughter and then learned for the son by a kal v'chomer argument from the inheritance from a father. The rabbis and Rabbi Zecharia ben haKatzav disagree about whether the laws of inheriting from the mother are the same as the father, and the son precedes the daughter, or whether they divide her property equally. The argument for the latter (Rabbi Zecharia ben haKatzav's opinion) employs the dayo principle, laws derived by kal v'chomer cannot be stronger than the original law. Since the law is stated by the daughter and learned by kal v'chomer to the brother, the brother can't have more strength than the daughter to inherit in place of her. The dayo principle is derived from God's punishment of Miriam when she spoke lashon hara about Moshe. How can the rabbis not employ dayo here if dayo is derived from the Torah? Some rabbis held like Rabbi Zecharia and even some who held that Rav held that way. But Rav Nachman was adamantly against this position as he believed that neither Rav nor Shmuel held that way.

Rabbi Yehuda Nesia had an encounter with Rabbi Yanai where he asked the source for the law that a son precedes the daughter in their mother's inheritance. When Rabbi Yanai responded with a heikesh, comparison, between one who inherits from a mother and one who inherits from the father from the word 'matot', Rabbi Yehuda questioned why doesn't a firstborn doesn't get a double portion from his mother's inheritance just as he does from his father? Rabbi Yanai was so offended by the question that he did not respond. Abaye, Rav Nachman and Rava each bring verses to explain why it was obvious to Rabbi Yanai that a firstborn would not get a double portion from his mother, but only Rava's is accepted.

Where in the Torah is a source for the law that a husband inherits from his wife? Two different drashot are brought (in braitot) and Rava and Abaye each explain the first one in a different manner.

Bava Batra 110 - October 13, 11 Tishrei Oct 13, 2024

This week's learning is sponsored by Rhona Fink in loving memory of my mother, Malca bat Avraham v’Sarah, on her shloshim. "My mother was a woman of honor, modest and accomplished, a great listener, who was so proud that I was studying the Daf. And in honor of the Hadran daffers who have been so supportive during my difficult time."

Rava recommends that in choosing a wife, one should check out her brothers as it will be an indication of how their future sons will behave, as sons are often similar in behavior to their maternal uncle. This is derived from the verse describing Aharon's marriage to Elisheva who is introduced as the daughter of Aminadav, sister of Nachshon.

Yonatan, the Levi who helped Micah in the story of Micah's idol, was descended from Moshe, according to an interpretation of the verse. When the people questioned his behavior and why he worked with idols if he was a descendant of Moshe, he explained that he was taught that it is better to work with idols than to depend on others for sustenance. However, he misinterpreted that lesson as its true interpretation is that it is better to work in a strange job (avoda zara), meaning, even something demeaning, than to take charity. A verse in Chronicles is assumed to refer to Yonatan and indicates that he repented in the time of King David and was given the job of the head of the treasury.

Where in the Torah is the source that a daughter only inherits if there are no sons? The Gemara analyzes four different possibilities—two are rejected.

Where in the Torah is the source that only brothers who share the same father inherit and bequeath to/from each other?

Bava Batra 109 - Shabbat Yom Kippur - October 12, 10 Tishrei Oct 11, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Gitta and David Neufeld in loving memory of Meir ben Aryeh Leib HaLevi, Marvin Stokar. "Although his title of Zaidy was an honorary one, he and (lehavdil bein chayim lechayim) Bubby Fran were - and continue to be - an important part of our family. His love of all learning and of Eretz Yisrael were surpassed only by his love and care for our dear Bubby Fran. We are so grateful that we have now followed in their footsteps and made Aliya. May he continue to be a meilitz yosher for her and all of us!"

The Gemara raises questions on the braita from which they derived the father inherits after the children, before the brothers, suggesting that the braita could have derived it differently. Why doesn't the drasha teach that the father inherits first, before the son or that the brothers inherit before the father? A different braita is brought which derives from a different source the same law that the father inherits if there are no children and before the brothers and paternal uncle. The Gemara questions the drasha as one can say otherwise - that the brother comes before the father and not the reverse? all of the above questions are answered.

Each of the two braitot used to prove that the father inherits after the children of the deceased uses a verse not used by the other. What does the author or each braita learn from the other verse?

Bava Batra 108 - October 11, 9 Tishrei Oct 11, 2024

Study Guide and Pictures Bava Batra 108

What is the purpose of the small and large ditches around a field?

Laws of inheritance begin with a list of which family relations inherit from each other and which bequeath to another. Some do both, some do neither and some do one or the other. Why does the Mishna begin with a son dying and passing on inheritance to his father and not the reverse case? The Torah delineates the order of who is first in the line of inheritance but the father is left off the list. The order in the Torah is son, daughter, brother, uncle (father's brother). Since the law that the father inherits the son is derived from a drasha, the author of the Mishna listed it first. According to the drasha, a father inherits if there are no children (before it goes to the brothers). Why not before the son? The son is considered the closest relative, as the son replaces his father for two laws, ye'ud and a consecrated ancestral field. But also a brother can replace his brother in yibum, so why isn't a brother considered closer?

Bava Batra 107 - October 10, 8 Tishrei Oct 10, 2024

Today's daf is dedicated by the Hadran Zoom family to Catriella in memory of her sister, Rebecca Miria Work z"l. "With a tefilla that through your learning and ours you will find comfort. With love, from Hadran Zoom family."

If brothers split their inheritance and a creditor of the father comes and seizes the land of one of them, can that brother demand half the land of the other brother? Three opinions are brought - Rav says the land is redivided, as when brothers divide land, they are viewed as heirs, meaning they share responsibility for their father's debts. Shmuel holds that the brother whose property was seized loses out and cannot demand anything from the other brother, as brothers who divide property are considered as if they bought their portion from the other without a guarantee. Rav Asi rules that the other brother must give a quarter of his portion to the other (as per Sumchus's position that money that is in doubt is divided by the two parties), but he can decide if to give it in land or in cash, meaning, he has the upper hand, as Rav Asi is not sure if brothers are considered like heirs or purchasers.

If three judges assess land at different amounts, by which judge do we hold? Tana Kamma holds that we follow the median position. Rabbi Eliezer b'Rabbi Tzadok follows the average between the lower two amounts. Others hold that one calculates the difference between the highest and lowest assessments, divides it by three and adds that amount to the lowest assessment. The Gemara explains the logic of each of these positions. Tana Kamma holds that we don't assume that all of the judges erred and therefore assume that the middle opinion is the correct one. The other two opinions hold that everyone erred but disagree about whether the highest assessment is taken into consideration when calculating the error. Both these positions give heavier weight to the lower two assessments.

If one sold half one's land to another, the seller can give the buyer lean land and keep the better land but the seller must give the buyer land that is valued at half the entire property.

Bava Batra 106 - September 10, 7 Tishrei Oct 09, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Heather Stone in loving memory of her mother, Ellie Stone, Esther Bina bat Rachel Leah v’Avraham haLevy on her 13th yahrzeit. "She was always a strong and fierce advocate for the Jewish community."

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family for a refuah shleima to the grandson of our daf friend, Becki, Eitan Efraim ben Ayelet, who was wounded in Gaza on Monday and a tefilla for all soldiers. "מי שברך אבותינו...הוא יברך את חיילי צבא הגנה לישראל. שה' ישלח לו רפואה שלמה בגוף ובנפש בתוך שאר חולי ישראל"

If one sells land and says it is a specific size but also says "according to its markers and borders" and shows the buyer the land, if the difference between the size stated and the actual size is off by less than 1/6, the sale is valid. But if it is off by more than 1/6, the buyer/seller can demand/take back the difference. At the exact measurement of 1/6, what is the halakha? Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda disagree and a source is brought to question Rav Huna’s position. However, they resolve the difficulty.

A case was brought in which Abaye ruled against Rav Papa (the buyer) even though the difference was more than 1/6. Abaye explains that since it was clear Rav Pappa knew the property and knew it wasn't the size the seller mentioned, the seller could have meant that it was such a good property that it's as if it were larger (marketing technique).

Brothers who split inherited property acquire the property when the first brother picks his lot in a lottery. How can the lottery be a method of acquiring land without a kinyan? There is a debate between Rav and Shmuel about a case where two brothers divided property and later a third brother shows up and claims a third of the inheritance. Do they cancel the division and redivide all the property or do they each give the third brother part of their portion?

Bava Batra 105 - October 8, 6 Tishrei Oct 08, 2024

If a seller says "I am selling you land the size of a beit kor measured out with a rope, more or less" - is the second part of the statement indicating a change of mind, or was it meant to keep open both possibilities? Ben Nanas says we hold by the last words.

Rav points out that the rabbis disagree and hold that they split the difference since it is unclear what the seller intended. Why was it necessary for Rav to point this out when there is already a case in a Mishna regarding a rental agreement for "twelve months for twelve gold dinarim, one dinar per month" and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yosi ruled in a case of a leap year that the rent for the thirteenth month was to be split between the owner and the renter? The Gemara distinguishes between the two cases, explaining why it may not have been clear that the law would be the same in both cases.

Shmuel held that those who disagree and think that the language is unclear hold that the seller has the upper hand as the land is in the seller's possession (in a case of doubt, the burden of proof lies on the one trying to take something from the possession of another). When Shmuel pointed out that some disagreed with Ben Nanas, did he mean to say that he held like the others or not? The Gemara brings other similar cases to assess whether Shmuel held like/against Ben Nanas and after differentiating between the cases, concludes that Shmuel held like the rabbis.

Rav Huna explains that Rav rules like Ben Nanas in a different, but similar case. Why was it necessary for him to teach that ruling, if Rav's ruling was known from a different case?

Bava Batra 104 - October 7, 5 Tishrei Oct 07, 2024

Picture

Today is October 7. It’s hard to believe it has been a year since that tragic day. Sadly, we are still grappling with its aftermath. We continue to pray for the release of all the hostages, the safety of the soldiers on the front lines, the safe return of all those displaced from their homes, the full recovery of injured soldiers, and comfort for those mourning the loss of close family or friends. We also pray for the safety of those living under constant rocket attacks, and the list goes on… May this year bring peace and better days for Am Yisrael.

If a seller sells a field and does not specify anything further, do we allow for a margin of error? First, the Gemara tries to answer this question from our Mishna, but it is inconclusive. Then they derive from a braita that there is a margin of error, just like one who adds the words "more or less." The Mishna explains that if the amount given to the buyer is greater than the margin of error (1/4 of a kav per se'ah, 1/24), the seller can insist that the buyer pay for all the land greater than the amount agreed upon. The buyer cannot insist on giving back the land to the seller as a small piece of land is useless to the seller. This gives power to the seller over the buyer. However, according to a braita, the buyer can insist that the seller sell the land if it is more than the margin of error, giving the buyer power over the seller. To resolve this contradiction, the case of the braita is understood to be one in which the price fluctuated from the time of the sale and the time they realized there was a mistake in the size of the land given to the buyer. While the buyer cannot insist on buying it (as per the Mishna), if the seller chooses to sell it to the buyer, the buyer is forced to pay but can insist on paying the lower price, either the one at the time of the sale or the current price (as per the braita).

If the amount of land given to the buyer is nine kav more than agreed upon, the buyer can insist on returning the land to the seller, as nine kav of property is the minimum size of a field. Rav Huna and Rav Nachman disagree about whether this is an absolute amount (Rav Huna) and even if the field is larger than thirty se'ah, the buyer returns the amount to the seller (as there is no presumption of mechila for the amount of nine kav, even in a large field) or is it a relative amount (Rav Nachman) - nine kav for a field of 30 se'ah, as at that amount there is no presumption of mechila, but if it were in a larger field, there would be mechila by the seller on the error (as per 1/4 kav per se'ah). Rava raises difficulties with Rav Nachman's position, but they are resolved.

Rav Ashi asks: If a field was sold with a surplus of more than seven and a half, but less than nine kav, and when the surplus was measured, the field became potentially used as a garden, can the buyer return the surplus land to the seller? What about the reverse case? These questions remain unanswered.

If the seller owns the adjacent field to the one being sold, the buyer can return the land, even if the surplus is less than nine kav. What if there is a pit, water channel, road, or row of palm trees separating the surplus land from the seller's field?

Bava Batra 103 -Tzom Gedalia - October 6, 4 Tishrei Oct 06, 2024

This month's learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Shim, Zoe and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v'Binyamin Benzion for her shloshim. "She was an elegant, smart, hardworking, "outspoken" person, who survived the shoah alone, and came to Montreal and built a family and a business. She learned from her parents to be observant, honest, and a giver of tzedaka anonymously. She loved going to shul on the Yamim Noraim, especially when there was a good chazan! Ma, Savta, and Great- Savta - "Ateret Rosheinu" - we will try to emulate you and carry on your and Dad's legacy. With much love and admiration, we miss you."

Today's daf is sponsored by Heather Stone in loving memory of her Grandma Rose, Rachel Leah bat Aharon v’Golda on her 39th yahrzeit. "She taught me to light Shabbat candles and I still use her grandmother’s candlesticks."

Today's daf is sponsored by Jane Leiser in honor of Nicki's birthday "Happy birthday!!! I am so proud of you for doing this incredible learning!!! Love you very much, Mom."

If one sells a field of a particular size, if there are parts with cracks or rocks, they are included in the measurement of the field if they are less than ten handbreadths in depth/height. But if they are ten handbreadths in depth/height, they are not considered part of the field and more land must be given to the buyer to complete the measurement. A Mishna from Arakhin explains that if one consecrates a field from an ancestral field with cracks and rocks, they are included in the amount given to the Temple only if the cracks/rocks are less than ten handbreadths in depth/height. After asking why the cracks that are more than ten handbreadths deep aren't consecrated as an independent unit worthy of planting, the Gemara explains that the Mishna is referring only to cracks that are filled with water as they are not able to be used for planting. However, our Mishna can be referring to any kind of cracks, as cracks that are ten handbreadths deep are a hindrance for a buyer as they makes it difficult for the owner to plow.

The Mishna discussed the height of the rocks but not the area of space they take up. Rabbi Yitzchak explains that if they take up a space in which four kav of seeds can be planted, they are not part of the measurement of the field even if they are less than ten handbreaths in height. However, there is a debate about whether these rocks (of four kav in size) are spread in a part of the field where five kav can be planted or even if they are not spread in the majority of the field. A series of questions are asked about what the law would be if they are spread not in the majority, but most of the four kav are in the majority or they are in a circle, or a row, or a zigzag, etc. These questions remain unanswered. If they are on the border, they are also not included, even if they are not ten in height.

The Mishna delineates the margin of error in the measurement of a piece of land sold, which depends on the language used at the time of the sale. If the seller said "beit kor as measured by a rope, any extra amount given to the buyer needs to be returned to the seller. But if the seller said "give or take" the margin of error is a quarter kav per se'ah (1/24). The Gemara asks: What would be the law if the seller simply said, "a beit kor"?

Bava Batra 102 - Shabbat Shuva - October 5, 3 Tishrei Oct 02, 2024

A Mishna is brought from Ohalot and Nazir which seems to have measurements of burial caves that don't match either Tanna Kamma or Rabbi Shimon’s opinions in our Mishna. The Gemara tries to figure out how to connect the opinion in the Mishna with one of the two opinions.

If someone sells a field and specifies the size but some of the field is not worthy of planting, is that space included in the size of the field? On what does it depend?

Bava Batra 101 - 2nd Day of Rosh Hashana - October 4, 2 Tishrei Oct 02, 2024

If someone buys a burial cave or hires someone to build them a burial cave, what are the minimum measurements assumed and how many burial spots should there be? The rabbis and Rabbi Shimon each have different answers to these questions. Rabbi Shimon held that each cave holds thirteen spaces for bodies, of them one was to the right of the entranceway and one to the left. Where exactly were those two graves? Several explanations are suggested, and some of them are rejected. According to the last explanation, they overlapped with other graves but were placed deeper into the ground. A proof that bodies were buried below other graves is brought from Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that there were four caves around each courtyard, as that would clearly lead to overlapping graves. However, Rav Huna son of Rabbi Yehoshua attempts to reject this proof by suggesting the graves were set up on an angle like branches of a palm tree and did not overlap. But the Gemara rejects Rav Huna’s rejection as it could not work out mathematically. Rav Shisha brings an alternative explanation for the extra two graves by the entrance – they did not overlap at all with the others as they were made for stillborn babies and were therefore shorter.

Bava Batra 100 - 1st Day of Rosh Hashana - October 3, 1 Tishrei Oct 02, 2024

One is not allowed to block public access from a path in one’s property that has been used by the public. However, if the owner designated an alternate path, the owner cannot block the public from using that path either. Why is that the case? Are there different opinions regarding this issue?

The Mishna delineated the minimum size for an individual's path, public path, etc. The Gemara quotes some alternate opinions, some other cases not mentioned in the Mishna, and explanations for some of the sizes.

There is a custom to stand and sit at least seven times on the way back from a funeral. Details of this custom are discussed.

If someone buys a burial cave or hires someone to build a burial cave, what are the minimum measurements assumed and how many burial spots should there be?

Bava Batra 99 - October 2, 29 Elul Oct 02, 2024

Rabbi Levi explains that the cherubs (kruvim) miraculously did not take up space in the kodesh h’kodashim. This statement is supported by Shmuel’s resolution to the contraction in the verses. However, other rabbis provided alternate suggestions to explain how they fit in the room in a non-miraculous manner. Did the cherubs face one other or did they face the heichal?

When one has a pit in another's property and has an access route or an inner garden within an outer one, what are that person’s right to that path - when can they use it, for what can they use it? If one had a public path going through one’s property and took it back and provided a different public path on the side of the property, both paths remain public property. Why is the owner not allowed to block off access to the old road, isn’t one allowed to take the law into one’s own hand in a case of financial loss?! Three different rabbis each suggest a different interpretation.

Bava Batra 98 - October 1, 28 Elul Oct 01, 2024

The Mishna rules that if one sells wine and it turns to vinegar, the seller is not responsible. However, there are certain circumstances where the buyer can make the seller responsible. Rabbi Yosi b’Rabbi Chanina limits the ruling of the Mishna to a case where the buyer put the wine in his/her jugs, as then the buyer can be blamed. Rav Chiya bar Yosef disagrees as he deems the wine’s owner responsible for the wine souring, as wine turning sour is understood to be a punishment for arrogance, as can be found in Chabakuk 2:5.

If one sells a small house for a young couple or widowed daughter, what is the minimum size? What about other types of houses? A cowshed? A banquet hall? There is a debate regarding the minimum height for a house and whether or not it should be derived from the height of the heichal, sanctuary. There are contradictory verses regarding the size of the kodesh h'kodashim in the Temple.

Bava Batra 97 - September 30, 27 Elul Sep 30, 2024

If one makes wine with grapes that were already used for making wine, is it considered wine? What if it still tastes like wine? What are the rules for grapes that are truma, maaser sheni, or consecrated and are then reused to make wine a second and third time? Rabbi Yochanan said the rules that apply to those circumstances are the same for liquids that create susceptibility to impurity. To what was Rabbi Yochanan referring?

One of the criteria for wine that can be used for making kiddush is that it be a wine that can be used on the altar. What type of wine is being excluded by that statement?

Bava Batra 96 - September 29, 26 Elul Sep 29, 2024

Rav Yosef brings a braita to clarify whether we hold that wine that is turning to vinegar one should say borei pri hagafen or shehakol. However, the braita had several interpretations and it was therefore unclear which opinion Rav Yosef was trying to prove from the braita.

If one purchases wine and it goes bad soon after, is the seller responsible to give the buyer new wine?

What is the halakha regarding wine that was made from the leftover grapes that had already been used for making wine - is it considered wine or not?

Bava Batra 95 - Shabbat September 28, 25 Elul Sep 27, 2024

Study Guide Bava Batra 95

More tannaitic sources are quoted to prove Rav Huna's opinion that if the bad parts mixed in with the produce are more than the permitted percentage, one can demand compensation for the entire amount. However, each comparison is rejected and the Gemara explains why each case differs from the case that Rav Huna was referring to.

The Mishna lists a case of one who sold wine from a cellar. What exactly is the case and what language was used regarding the commitment of the seller to provide the wine - was it "wine in a cellar," "wine in this cellar" or "this cellar?" From a braita that lists the law in each of these three options, it looks as if the Mishna can’t be referring to any of the options. The Gemara suggests two different answers, the second based on a different version of the braita brought by Rav Zevid. These are discussed and reinterpreted to fit with the Mishna and with each other.

What blessing is made on wine that is sold in the stores, i.e. starting to turn to vinegar – some say borei pri hagafen and others say shehakol.

Bava Batra 94 - September 27, 24 Elul Sep 27, 2024

When one sells produce, what percentage of bad produce can we assume will be mixed in, and therefore the buyer has no right to claim compensation from the seller for it. According to Rav Huna, once one goes beyond that percentage, one has to compensate for all the bad produce - even the percentage that would have been allowed had the seller not gone beyond. Various sources are brought to either support or contradict Rav Huna - however, they are all rejected as the case can be looked at in various ways.

Bava Batra 93 - September 26, 23 Elul Sep 26, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Jason, Erica, and Raquel in honor of their mother, Patty Belkin's birthday. "Wishing a wonderful birthday to our amazing mother!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the 3rd yahrzeit of her mother, Yocheved bat Zvi and Sara.

One source is brought to support Shmuel’s position that if a buyer bought an item that has two main purposes and wasn’t specific about with what intent he/she bought the item, if it is unusable for that use, the sale cannot be canceled. But this proof is rejected. Is this debate between Rav and Shmuel based on a tannaitic debate? Even though at first it seemed to be, this suggestion is rejected. Our Mishna is brought to prove Shmuel’s position, but this suggestion is rejected as well, as our Mishna can be explained as Rav’s position and a different braita has a tannaitic position that corresponds to Shmuel's opinion.

If the seller needs to compensate the buyer for seeds that did not grow, does the seller need to reimburse the buyer for expenses incurred by the buyer for planting the seeds?

Bava Batra 92 - September 25, 22 Elul Sep 25, 2024

The Mishna rules that if one sold produce to another and the buyer planted it but nothing grew, the seller would have to compensate the buyer. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that this is only the case if the sale was for inedible seeds and it was thereby clear that the purpose of the purchase was for planting and not for eating.

If one buys an ox that can be sold for two different uses, either for plowing or for slaughtering, and the buyer doesn't specify for which purpose, and after the sale it becomes clear that the ox is a gorer and cannot be kept alive, can the buyer claim that it is not usable for the purposes for which it was purchased (plowing) or not? Does it depend on the majority, i.e. if the majority of people use it for the purpose that the buyer claims, can we believe the buyer and cancel the sale? Or do we say "the burden of proof is on the one trying to get the money from the other" in which case, the buyer is stuck with the item unless the buyer can prove with what intent the item was purchased? Rav rules that the sale can be cancelled and Shmuel rules that it cannot. A difficulty is raised against Rav from a Mishna but is resolved. A Tosefta is brought to support Rav, but it is rejected.

Bava Batra 91 - September 24, 21 Elul Sep 24, 2024

One cannot profit from selling basic food items in Israel. If so, how did Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria profit from wine and oil in Israel?

A braita ruled that one cannot profit from eggs twice. The Gemara brings two explanations for what this ruling means.

Under what circumstances of financial challenges is one permitted to leave Israel? Is it forbidden to leave Israel, even if prices are expensive for basic food items if one can afford the high prices? This is proven from the book of Ruth as Elimelech and his sons were punished for this. The Gemara tangents to various drashot on verses from the beginning of the book of Ruth as well as drashot on the connection between Boaz and Ivtzan - one of the judges mentioned in the book of Shoftim/Judges. After quoting a statement of Rav Chanan son of Rava regarding Elimelech, four other statements of his are quoted.

An alternative explanation of the sins of Elimelech and his family is that they should have stayed to help pray for everyone. Four statements of Rabbi Yochanan that all start with the word ‘nehirna,’ ‘I remember when’ are quoted. The sons of Elimelech, Machlon and Khilion were also mentioned in the Tanach by different names – Yoash and Saraph. Which was the real name and which was meant for extrapolation?

Bava Batra 90 - September 23, 20 Elul Sep 23, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Judith Shapiro in loving memory of her mother, Deera Tychman, z"l, on her 11th yahrzeit. "She would have been very proud of her daughter, her four grandchildren, and her eight great-grandchildren."

What size measuring cups are not permitted for one to use as they can be used to trick the buyer? Shmuel ruled that one cannot change a particular size by increasing it by more than a sixth. The Gemara grapples to understand the reason for this ruling and offers three different suggestions, all of which are rejected. Ultimately, Rav Chisda explains that Shmuel derived this law from a verse in Yechezkel 45:12.

Rav Papa enlarged a measurement size by more than a sixth – how could he have done this in light of Shmuel’s ruling?

A braita rules that one cannot save up a lot of produce to sell later in the season, thus causing a shortage in the market and a rise in prices. But this applies to one who purchases it for resale. One who grows the crops is permitted to store them.

Another braita distinguishes between storing produce that is an essential item that everyone buys and one that is not. If it is not essential, then one can store it and the aforementioned issue is no longer relevant as people who can’t afford it can manage without it.

A third braita rules that one cannot export oil, wine, and flour from Israel as these items are essential, and exporting them will cause a shortage in Israel and a rise in prices.

Bava Batra 89 - September 22, 19 Elul Sep 22, 2024

Eleven braitot are quoted that discuss the importance of honesty in business dealings (weights and measures) and keeping in line with the local customs. What are the measurements for building a balance beam? The measurements depend on what type of item one is measuring. A city needs to set up inspectors for checking that people have accurate weights but there is a debate about whether or not one needs inspectors for controlling prices. One needs to avoid actions with weights and measurements that could lead others to be suspicious of trickery.

Bava Batra 88 - Shabbat September 21, 18 Elul Sep 20, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the 7th yahrzeit of her father, Hershel Tzvi Shlomo Chaim ben Pesach and Dina Sara.

The Gemara brings two more possibilities of how to understand the Mishna and concludes that the last one is correct - the case is where the store owner used the father's flask for measuring for others and he became a borrower who borrows without asking permission from the owner. The debate in the Mishna is - do we view this kind of borrower as a borrower (who does not assume responsibility once the item is returned to the place it was borrowed from) or like a thief who is responsible until the item is returned to the original owner (or to a safe place).

The Gemara explains more in detail Shmuel's ruling that one who picks up an item to purchase is responsible for accidental damages.

How often does a seller need to clean out the measuring cups? It depends if the seller is the wholesaler, a homeowner, or a storekeeper. There is a law based on a verse from the Torah that when a seller weighs an item to sell, the seller needs to weigh it down a bit to favor the buyer. How much does one need to add? How much does it depend on the prevalent custom in that area? There is a discussion on the seriousness of the laws of weights and measurements and it is compared to illicit relations.

Bava Batra 87 - September 20, 17 Elul Sep 20, 2024

Another source is brought to raise a difficulty with Rav and Shmuel's ruling about acquiring items partway through the measuring if the wording of the sale was "separated it into parts. But this difficulty is resolved.

The Mishna discusses three different halachot. At what point of measuring is neither side allowed to change their mind? If an agent sells someone else's produce to the buyer, is the agent responsible if the vessel breaks and the merchandise is lost? What is the status of drops left in the jug after the liquid is measured out and poured into the buyer's utensils? Details of these cases are discussed in the Gemara.

The Mishna brings a scenario where a father sends a son to the store to buy oil and the utensil breaks, the oil is lost, as is the change that the son received for buying the oil. There is a debate about who is responsible. The Gemara brings several explanations to understand what exactly is the case in the Mishna and the source of the debate.

Bava Batra 86 - September 19, 16 Elul Sep 19, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Penina Lipskier in honor of her son's wedding, Daniel to Ella and in loving memory of his friends, Yakir Hexter and David Schwartz HY"D who were killed during the war. "May we only know smachot!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Beth Kissileff Perlman in honor of the occasion of their daughter Yael Perlman and her new husband Matt Shapiro making aliyah to Jerusalem on Sunday! "We are so proud of their decision and look forward to sharing their experiences of their new life in our holy land!"

Ravina suggests to Rav Ashi a fourth response to Rav Sheshet's question, can an item can be acquired by the buyer when it is placed in the buyer's vessels on the property of the seller? However, this too is rejected and the question is left unanswered.

The Mishna in Kiddushin Chapter 1, Mishna 5 established that moveable items can be acquired by pulling. However, it is limited by either Rav Chisda, Rav Kahana, or Rava to a case where the item cannot be lifted. When Abaye taught this qualification of the Mishna, Rav Ada bar Matna raised a difficulty against it from a tannaitic source. Three other sources are also brought to question this limitation, but all the difficulties are resolved.

Rav and Shmuel differentiate between a case where the seller says, "I am selling you a kor (30 se'ah) of wheat for 30 sela" and one where the seller says, "I am selling you a kor for 30 sela, each se'ah for a zuz." In the former, the sale is final only when the measuring is complete, in the latter, the sale is final for each se'ah as it goes into the measuring cup. A difficulty is raised against the first case from a braita quoted previously where the sale is final even before filling up the cup, provided the cup used was the buyer's. This difficulty is resolved by assuming the braita refers to a case more similar to the latter case of Rav and Shmuel.

Bava Batra 85 - September 18, 15 Elul Sep 18, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Tina Lamm. "With hakarat hatov to HKB"H for the zechut of celebrating the 100th birthday of my wonderful father, Mr. Mike Senders of Boca Raton, FL. May he go m'chayil el chayil and continue to enjoy nachat from his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, ad me'ah v'esrim shana!"

If an item is placed in the buyer's vessel, it is acquired by the buyer as a kinyan chatzer (courtyard). But does this depend on whether the vessel was in a private domain or is it effective also in a public domain? Rav and Shmuel hold that is not acquired in the public domain, while Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish hold that it is. However, Rav Pappa says that they do not disagree, as Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish refer to an alleyway and not an actual public domain. A proof is brought from the statement of Rabbi Yochanan. Then the Gemara brings a tannaitic source to suggest that perhaps they could mean a public domain, like the tana in the braita, but that source is explained also to be referring to an alleyway.

Rav Sheshet asks Rav Huna if an item can be acquired by the buyer if it is placed in the buyer's vessels in the property of the seller? Rav Huna brings three sources to answer the question, but his suggestions are rejected.

Bava Batra 84 - September 17, 14 Elul Sep 17, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by the Billets and Cohns for the refuah shleima for Dr. David Harari, David Yonatan Ben Reizel.

Rav Chisda explains that if there was a sale with ona'ah (over or undercharging) in which case the sale can be canceled, and then the price changed after the sale benefitting the one who over/undercharged, they cannot renege as the ability to cancel the agreement is only on the one who was cheated. Rav Chisda supported his statement from the Mishna. Why was his statement necessary if it could have been easily derived from the Mishna?

The Mishna described a sale where one ordered darker/reddish wheat and received white wheat or the reverse. The term used for the reddish wheat is shechamtit, from the root chama, sun. This word leads Rav Pappa to explain that the sun is red, as can be seen at sunrise and sunset, and only appears white during the day because of our limited vision. A difficulty is raised against Rav Pappa's assertion but is rejected.

There is a debate between Rebbi and the Rabbis in laws of teruma about whether wine and vinegar are considered two different types or the same type of item. If they are considered the same type, if one separates teruma from vinegar to wine, it is effective (even though it is prohibited) but not if they are considered two types. Our Mishna implies that wine and vinegar are two separate types of items for laws of sales - if one bought wine but received vinegar, either side can renege as they are two totally different items. Does this mean that our Mishna does not hold the opinion of the rabbis in teruma that they are the same type?

How does one acquire fruits? The Mishna discusses which methods are/are not effective. Rabbi Asi and Rabbi Zeira disagree about Rabbi Yochanan's position regarding one who measured and put the items in a side area off the main thoroughfare. Does the buyer acquire it if it is placed there or is it effective only if it is placed in the vessels of the buyer? A braita and our Mishna are brought to try to resolve this issue (did Rabbi Zeira accept Rabbi Asi's interpretation of Rabbi Yochanan's position) but both sources are rejected as inconclusive regarding this issue.

Bava Batra 83 - September 16, 13 Elul Sep 16, 2024

This week's learning is sponsored by an anonymous donor for the safety of our chayalim, the recovery of those wounded and for the safe and speedy return of the hostages.

If one purchases three trees, what is the minimum and maximum space needed between the trees to enable the purchaser to acquire the land in between as well? Rav Nachman holds 8-16 cubits and Rav Yosef holds 4-6 cubits. After Abaye questions Rav Yosef from a Mishna that clearly supports Rav Nachman, Rav Yosef supports his position based on a ruling of Rav Yehuda in a particular case. A Mishna is brought in support of Rav Yosef, as well, but Rav Nachman's position is stronger as the Mishna in support of his position had a situation where they ruled like his position. However, Rava explained that the halakha is from 4-16 cubits and a braita is brought in support of this position.

Rabbi Yirmiya asks whether we measure from the lower wider part of the trunk or the higher narrower part. He also asks if three branches grew from one tree and were subsequently covered up and then sold, if there was the minimum distance required between the growths, would the buyer acquire the land as well? Rav Geviha answers both questions. Several questions were asked about situations where the three trees had two different owners or two in the field and one on the border (which was higher or lower than the field), or what if some large object was in the middle of the three trees like a water channel, public domain, etc.? All of these questions remain unanswered. However, if a cedar tree was between the three trees, it would not block the buyer from acquiring the land and the buyer even acquires the cedar tree.

Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether the three trees are in a straight line or a triangular formation.

The Mishna explains that if one sells the head, legs, liver, or windpipe (with the lungs) of a large animal, the sale includes only the item mentioned. But in a small animal, the sale of the head would include the legs and the sale of the windpipe would include the liver, but not the reverse.

The Mishna lists four types of sales and explains in each case whether or not the buyer or the seller or both can renege on the agreement.

Bava Batra 82 - September 15, 12 Elul Sep 15, 2024

This week's learning is sponsored by Medinah Korn in loving memory of her mother, Rosalie Katchen, Shoshana Raizl bat Avraham Yehoshua ve-Baila Toibe, z"l, on her 24th yahrzeit. "She had a "נותן בעין יפה" approach to her interactions with everyone she encountered. She was generous of heart, of mind and of spirit, and we miss her. Yehi zichra baruch."

Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of David's mother, Ethel Petegorsky Geffen, Adina bat Aryeh Leib, on her 20th yahrzeit. "She was devoted to her husband, family, and the Beth El Synagogue community in New Rochelle, NY. Her two sons made Aliyah and her daughter has lived a professional life of service to the American Jewish community."

Today's daf is sponsored by Ayala Ginat in loving memory of Barak ben Lipa and Shulamit.

How does one determine if the branches grew out of the trunk or the ground to determine whether the growths belong to the owner of the tree or the owner of the land?

Rav Nachman rules that a palm tree does not have laws of geza, the trunk. Rav Zevid and Rav Papa each understand this statement differently.

If one purchases three trees, one acquires land with the trees. How much land does one acquire? Rabbi Yochanan rules that they acquire the land beneath each tree, between each tree, and, in addition, the amount of space needed for a fig gatherer to walk around with a basket. Rabbi Elazar raises a question about the space for the fig gatherer - if one does not get an access route, as per the rabbis' position that a seller sells sparingly (ayin ra'ah), how does the buyer get space for collecting?

The land underneath and in between the trees can be used by the tree's owner for planting, but who has the right to plant in the area around the trees for the fig gatherer and basket?

How much space can/should there be between the trees to consider them a field so that the purchaser will acquire the land? Rav Yosef and Rava disagree. Abaye raises a difficulty from a Mishna against Rav Yosef's position.

Bava Batra 81 - Shabbat September 14, 11 Elul Sep 13, 2024

If one purchases two trees, does the buyer acquire the land directly surrounding those trees? Rabbi Meir and the rabbis disagree. What are the ramifications of this debate? Does one bring the first fruits of a tree like this? According to the Mishna in Bikurim, Rabbi Meir and the rabbis also debate this point and according to the rabbis, one would bring the first fruits to the Temple but not say the recitation, as the obligation to bring bikurim is dependent on owning the land. Shmuel derives from the Mishna in Bikurim that Rabbi Meir would also obligate one to bring bikurim from fruit bought in the market. He derives this from the fact that there was no reason to mention Rabbi Meir's disagreement in the Mishna in Bikurim as it could have been easily derived from his opinion on our Mishna and must therefore be coming to teach something additional. However, this suggestion is rejected. Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim asks why in the case above (one tree according to Rabbi Meir and two according to the rabbis), is obligated to bring the first fruits but not say the recitation - one should either be obligated and then should do both, or not obligated and do neither! Rabba answers that we do it because of a doubt - the rabbis are unclear whether or not one acquires the land. Four difficulties are brought against Rabba's answer and are all resolved, but each resolution leads to a modification of how the bikurim are brought to the Temple in this situation.

Bava Batra 80 - September 13, 10 Elul Sep 13, 2024

If one buys the produce of a dovecote, a beehive, a honeycomb, or a tree for its wood, the buyer is entitled to the produce but must leave a certain amount for the seller to ensure continued growth. The Mishna and Gemara discuss the amounts for each item. Rav Kahana explained that honey while still in the honeycomb is considered food and is susceptible to impurity, even if the bees are eating it. However, in a braita, the opposite ruling is brought. Abaye and Rava resolve the contradiction each differently and the Gemara raises two difficulties against Rava's ruling. A braita is brought in support of Rav Kahan's ruling. A braita expands on the law in the Mishna regarding trees sold for their wood and distinguishes between different trees and the amounts that need to be left to ensure regrowth. Some sources are brought that contradict some laws in the braita but are resolved.

Bava Batra 79 - September 12, 9 Elul Sep 12, 2024

Study Guide Bava Batra 79

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran zoom family in loving memory of the beloved mother of their dear Hadran learner and friend, Rhona Fink - Millie Laxer, Malka bat Sarah v'Avraham z"l, who passed away yesterday. “May her family be comforted among aveilei Zion v’Yerushalayim.

What is the punishment for those who separate themselves from the words of Torah?

A Mishna in Meila is brought which discusses one who consecrates an item that generally holds something else like a pit with water, or a field with crops. If one consecrates the pit, is the water consecrated as well? Does it depend on whether it was full of water when it was consecrated or if it was empty? In which items do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi disagree? After reconciling the disagreement between them with the words of Rebbi in a braita, the Gemara proceeds to bring a different braita also regarding this issue. In that braita, there is a debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Shimon. First Raba explains the debate to be parallel to that of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi, but this is rejected in light of the latter case in the braita where Rabbi Elazar. In conclusion, they explain the debate differently. The debate in the first part of the braita is based on a debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis about whether one can acquire items that are not yet in existence. A difficulty is raised, but it is resolved. The debate in the second part depends on whether we learn laws of consecrated items from laws of sales. A difficulty is raised with the explanations of each of these. A difficulty is raised on this explanation, as well, from our Mishna but it is resolved, as is proven from a braita, that the position in our Mishna is a minority opinion.

Bava Batra 78 - September 11, 8 Elul Sep 11, 2024

Study Guide Bava Batra 78

When one sells a donkey, does it include the equipment of the donkey, and if so, which equipment? The debate regarding this matter depends on whether the main purpose of buying a donkey was for riding or for carrying. According to Rabbi Yehuda, it depends on the language used during the sale.

Are offspring included in the sale of one who specified they are buying a nursing cow or donkey? After extrapolating the use by the Mishna of the term "siyach" for a foal to teach that a foal obeys pleasant directives, while an older donkey does not, the Gemara quotes drashot on verses in Bamidbar 21:27-30 where a similar word is used. The content of the drashot relates to the rewards for the righteous and the destruction of the wicked.

Bava Batra 77 - September 10, 7 Elul Sep 10, 2024

Ameimar rules on how one can transfer a promissory note to another. There are two different versions of the text - each reaching the opposite conclusion. Although Amerimar explains that his ruling was learned by tradition, Rav Ashi explains the logic behind the ruling. The Gemara raises a difficulty with Rav Ashi's logical argument but then resolves the difficulty.

The Mishna continues with other purchases related to wagons and animals and rules on what items are included/not included in the sale. Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis disagree about whether the amount of money spent on the item can be a determining factor about what is included/not included in a purchase. The Gemara limits their debate to a more specific case.

Bava Batra 76 - September 9, 6 Elul Sep 09, 2024

Study Guide Bava Batra 76

This week's learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Shim, Zoe, and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred-Ephraim Hochstadter. "Dad & Saba - we miss you every day"

Today's daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz in loving memory of Lenny Cheifetz, z”l, whose 32nd yahrzeit is today. "You were loved by all and taken much too soon."

Is it possible to say that Rav and Shmuel's disagreement about how far one needs to pull a boat to acquire it is also a debate between tannaim—Rabbi Natan and tana kamma? This suggestion is made after several attempts to reread a braita regarding Rabbi Natan and the rabbi's debate regarding acquiring a boat and a promissory note. Ultimately, the suggestion is rejected as the Gemara assumes they agree regarding acquiring a boat and only disagree about the promissory note. The Gemara then suggests that the debate between Rabbi Natan and tana kamma regarding the promissory note is also the subject of debate between Rebbi and the rabbis. After resolving some difficulties regarding this suggestion, they conclude that, in fact, it is the same debate. What is the difference between acquiring objects in a private space/public space?

Bava Batra 75 - September 8, 5 Elul Sep 08, 2024

There are more stories about the awesomeness of the Leviathan and that it will ultimately be captured in the future (with the help of God) and will be used to serve the righteous people and the city of Jerusalem. The verses quoted throughout this section relate to verses in the Prophets and Iyov that are against haughtiness and remind the people that God is all-powerful. There are various statements describing the awesomeness of Jerusalem in the future.

How does one acquire a boat? Rav and Shmuel disagree? Is their debate parallel to a tannaitic debate about how to acquire an animal? At first, the Gemara suggests that it is, but this suggestion is rejected.

Bava Batra 74 - Shabbat September 7, 4 Elul Sep 06, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Jessica Jobanek and Harold Kingsberg in celebration of the second birthday of their beloved son Shmuel Meir (Sammy). "We love you and learn from you every day."

Rabba bar bar Chana tells stories about when an Arab showed him the people who died in the desert (dor hamidbar), Mount Sinai, and the earth where Korach and his followers were killed. Each place seemed to have magical powers associated with it. More stories are told about unique creatures that were seen by people when traveling on boats. After mentioning the tanin in a story, the Gemara digresses to discuss what kind of creature was the tanin. Some identify it as the leviathan. They also discuss the unusual power and the limitations of these and other gigantic or unique creatures.

Bava Batra 73 - September 6, 3 Elul Sep 06, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Sue Talansky in loving memory of her mother, Ruth Stromer. "Holocaust survivor and woman of valor. You left us very young but imprinted in us great confidence and strength. Making you proud was one of my greatest joys."

Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi's brother, Dr. Dennis Lock, Yochanan ben Yaakov, on his 2nd yahrzeit tomorrow. "He was a loving husband, father, uncle and grandfather; a devoted physician; and had a love of learning Talmud. He is sorely missed."

What parts are included/not included in the sale of the boat? Since boats were mentioned, Raba and Rabba bar bar Chana bring many stories about things they saw while traveling or stories that were told to them by those who came from the sea. The stories are very exaggerated and their meaning unclear. Many view these stories as allegorical.

Bava Batra 72 - September 5, 2 Elul Sep 05, 2024

Study Guide Bava Batra 72

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family. "In these turbulent days, where we lean on our routine of the daily Daf learning for comfort, we are thrilled with the piercing double joy of two of fellow Dafferette's smachot. To Julie Mendelssohn and her family, mazal Tov and joy on the marriage of her son Rafi to his bride, Adi. And to Miriam Tannenbaum and her family, on the marriage of her son Avrumy to his bride, Rochel. With a tefilla that this sasson v'simcha will herald in many more wonderful times. With lots of love from the Hadran Zoom family."

After reconciling Rav Huna's ruling (about one who sells a field but keeps two trees) with Rabbi Shimon's position by explaining that Rav Huna aligns with the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon with Rabbi Akiva, the Gemara raises a difficulty from braita. From the braita, which can only be explained according to Rabbi Shimon, it is clear that Rabbi Shimon does not hold that one sells generously, like Rabbi Akiva. Therefore the Gemara explains Rabbi Shimon's position in our Mishna differently - as a response to the rabbis according to their position and is not reflecting Rabbi Shimon's position. However, an additional issue is raised: the last line in the braita doesn't seem to match Rabbi Shimon's position, which undermines the conclusion of the previous section. This issue is resolved and the braita can be explained according to Rabbi Shimon.

Bava Batra 71 - 2nd Day of Rosh Chodesh Elul - September 4, 1 Elul Sep 04, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Terri Krivosha and Rabbi Hayim Herring in loving memory of Terri's mother, Helene Krivosha, Hanna Mindel bat Yerachmiel haKohen and Feiga Raba on her first yahrzeit. "A true eshet hayil."

If one sells a field, the sale does not include a pit, winepress, or dovecote in the field. Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis again disagree about whether the seller keeps an access route or needs to purchase one. However, if the field were given as a gift or to one of the brothers while dividing up an inheritance, or one who acquires an ownerless field (like from a deceased convert's property) the one who acquires the field would acquire everything in it, including the pit, winepress and dovecote. If one consecrated the field, the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon disagree about whether everything was consecrated or also the usual items are excluded, other than a grafted carob tree or sycamore.

A case happened where a person on their deathbed promised a house of a particular size to gift to someone, but they owned a house larger than that size. Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi each ruled differently how to fulfill the promise. Rav Ashi awarded the recipient the entire house based on the principle that one who gives a gift always gives generously, and the intent must have been for the entire house.

Rav Huna made a statement that one who sold one's land but kept two trees intended to keep the land around the trees. At first, it is assumed that this statement can be understood even according to Rabbi Akiva that one who sells, sells generously, as the trees need the land for nutrients and if the seller did not retain rights to the land, it would lead to problems down the road with the buyer who insist the seller uproot the trees as it is weakening the buyer's land. However, they raise a difficulty on this from an explanation given for Rabbi Shimon's opinion in our Mishna regarding one who consecrated a field, the grafted carob tree and sycamore are consecrated as well since they get nutrients from the ground. This implies that the one who consecrated may have intended not to consecrate the trees but did not retain rights to the land around them. Therefore, one must assume that Rabbi Shimon and Rav Huna do not agree, as Rabbi Shimon holds like Rabbi Akiva that one who sells/consecrates does so generously, and Rav Huna's statement only accords with the rabbis' position.

Bava Batra 70 - 1st Day Rosh Chodesh Elul - September 3, 30 Av Sep 03, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Laura Warshawsky in loving memory of her mother, Evelyn Margolis, Chaya Gittel bat Avram Yitzchak v'Rut, on her first yahrzeit. "My mother was a role model for me and I owe much of who I am and what I do to her example, including learning daf yomi."

Rav Acha bar Rav Huna asked Rav Sheshet: If something generally not included in a sale of a field - like grafted carob trees or mature sycamore trees - is excluded by the seller, does that mean that all the other carob trees are included, or are none of the trees part of the sale? Rav Sheshet answered: Since, without saying anything, the tree would not have been sold, adding words does not weaken the seller's position. An alternative version of the question involves a seller stating, "I am selling you this field, except for half of one carob tree." Does the buyer acquire the other half of that tree? As before, they ruled that the seller retains full rights to the tree, even if the seller's language seems ambiguous.

Rav Amram asked Rav Chisda: If one gives an item to a shomer (watchman) and there’s a document proving the arrangement, can the shomer claim it was returned, even if the document remains with the owner, using a migo? The shomer could claim it was lost or damaged and be exempt, so should we believe the claim that it was returned? Or, since the document is still in the owner’s possession, should we assume it was not returned? Rav Chisda responded that a migo exists, and the shomer is believed if an oath is taken. Rav Amram disagreed.

It is suggested that this debate is parallel to a tannaitic dispute regarding an investor seeking to reclaim funds from the heirs of a business partner. The debate concerns whether the investor could reclaim half or all of the funds upon swearing that the money wasn’t returned. Since joint ventures are viewed as half-loan, half-deposit (to avoid interest issues), the dispute centers on whether the heirs can claim it was returned based on a migo, or if the investor is believed because they hold a document. This explanation is rejected, and an alternative is proposed: Whether the deceased would have informed his heirs if he had repaid the investment before dying, or if we are concerned he died before telling them.

Rav Huna bar Avin ruled like Rav Chisda in the case of the shomer (the shomer is believed via migo) and against the orphans in the case of the investment (the investor can reclaim all the funds). Although this appears contradictory, the Gemara resolves the issue by explaining that the ruling against the orphans assumes the father would have informed them if the money had been returned.

Bava Batra 69 - September 2, 29 Av Sep 02, 2024

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of the six hostages Hersh Goldberg-Polin, Ori Danino, Eden Yerushalmi, Almog Sarusi, Alexander Lobanov, and Carmel Gat, who were murdered just a few days ago. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families and we continue to pray for the release of all the other hostages.

When one sells a field, the stones are included. What are the stones used for in the field and in what circumstances are they included in the sale? There are different interpretations offered. There is an opinion of Rabbi Meir brought in a braita on Bava Batra 78b that all items used for a vineyard are included in the sale of that vineyard. The rabbis disagree. Many of the cases brought in the Mishna that are included/not included in the sale of a field are explained according to Rabbi Meir's understanding and the rabbis' position.

Several questions are asked about items attached with pegs, such as a door frame or a window frame. Would they be included in the sale of a house? Would a stand for a leg of a bed be included in the sale of a bed (or maybe a house)? These questions are left unanswered.

A carob tree or sycamore tree is only included in the sale of a field if the carob tree is grafted and if the sycamore is large enough to cut wood from it. This is derived from a verse in the context of Avraham's purchase of maarat hamachpela from Efron haChiti (Breishit 23:17).

What trees are included in a sale can depend on the combination of the language used in the sale agreement and what actual trees are in the seller's possession. Several examples are brought to explain what would included in different scenarios.

Bava Batra 68 - September 1, 28 Av Sep 01, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Rikki and Alan Zibitt in loving memory of Rikki's father, Mickey Carlin, Shevach ben Avraham z"l on his 20th yahrzeit. "We miss his energy, his vibrant smile, and his fierce love of his children and grandchildren. May his neshama have an aliya."

Today's daf is dedicated to all the teachers and students returning to school!

Does the sale of an olive press include stores that sell other items and are also used for drying out sesame seeds before making sesame oil? On what does it depend? What is included in the sale of a privately owned city? Are Caananite slaves considered like land or movable property? Can we derive an answer to that question from the Mishna? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel included a santer in the sale of a city. There are two possible definitions for a santer - either a registrar who keeps track of the boundaries of the properties or fields outside the city. The Gemara attempts to resolve which definition is right from the case of beit hashlachin mentioned in the Mishna. However, this suggestion is rejected as there are two different ways to interpret the term beit hashlachin. Another source is brought to determine the correct definition for santer, but that attempt is also rejected. Which types of enclosures for animals are included in the sale of a city and which are not? What does the sale of a field include/not include?

Bava Batra 67 - Shabbat August 31, 27 Av Aug 30, 2024

An unmarried woman whose father died can claim her dowry from up to one-tenth of the father’s estate. However, this amount can only be collected from 1/10 of the land of the father’s estate. Rav Nechemia, the son of Rav Yosef accorded a woman one-tenth of her father’s estate for her dowry and permitted the value of the estate to include moveable items that were attached to the ground as they are considered like land itself. Rav Ashi also included rental income from the father’s properties in the calculation for a daughter's dowry. If one sold a courtyard, an olive press, or a bathhouse, what items are included in the sale, and what items are not included in the sale? Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the mainstream opinion.

Bava Batra 66 - August 30, 26 Av Aug 30, 2024

Study Guide Bava Batra 66

Today's daf is sponsored by Sarah & Inna Pasternak, in honor of their first wedding anniversary. "We fell in love studying the daf and look forward to remaining havrutas as we build a home full of Torah together." Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of their friend and co-learner Miriam Eckstein-Koas on the engagement of her son, Daniel. "May Daniel and Talia build a bayit neeman b'Yisrael firmly grounded in Torah and chesed, and may all of Am Yisrael see smachot!"

The Gemara continues to figure out which opinion of Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis doesn't seem to correspond to the Tosefta Mikvaot that distinguishes between a pipe that was constructed and then attached to the ground and one that was hollowed out from the ground or while it is attached to the ground. After rejecting the first two possibilities (the braita that related to our Mishna and a Mishna regarding a beehive), they find a Mishna Keilim 15:2 regarding a baker's board attached to a wall in which it seems that both Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree with the Tosefta Mikvaot. Since the Tosefta must fit with one of the two opinions, the Gemara then tries to assess which one. First, they attempt to reconcile it with Rabbi Eliezer, claiming that Rabbi Eliezer was more lenient in the baker's board case as it was only impure on a rabbinic level (a flat wood vessel). However, this is rejected on two accounts. One, mayim she'uvim disqualifies a mikveh by rabbinic law. Secondly, Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chanina's explained that the Mishna in Keilim refers to a metal baker's block, which would make it impure by Torah law. In conclusion, the Gemara establishes that the rabbi's opinion corresponds to the Tosefta Mikvaot, as the issue of mayim she'uvim is only rabbinic. Therefore the rabbis are more lenient there than in the case of a baker's board.

If rain falls on a movable item (vessel) that is detached from the ground and at the same time on food that is inside/on that item, if the owner wants the rain to fall on the item, the food also becomes susceptible to impurity. What if the moveable item was attached to the ground, would it be considered like the ground and the food inside it would not become susceptible to impurity, or would it be considered a vessel and the food inside it would become susceptible to impurity? The question is only asked according to the rabbis (and there is no answer), as according to Rabbi Eliezer, it would clearly be considered like the ground and the food would not become susceptible to impurity.

Bava Batra 65 - August 29, 25 Av Aug 29, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Esther's birthday. "To my big sister, thank you for introducing me to this shiur. I’m so proud of you. Many happy and healthy returns!"

Regarding the debate between Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis about whether a seller sells generously (Rabbi Akiva) or sparingly (the rabbis), Rav ruled like the rabbis, and Shmuel like Rabbi Akiva. The difference of opinion between Rav and Shmuel on this issue is compared to a different debate between Rav and Shmuel regarding the distribution of inherited property. However, the comparison is rejected as the circumstances are unique and not applicable in a regular sale. Rav Huna held like Rav, and Rav Nachman held like Shmuel, but Rav Huna deferred to Rav Nachman as he was an expert in monetary law. If one sells an inner house and an outer house to two different people, both Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis will hold that the inner resident cannot pass through the outer resident's house as the seller has no reason to favor one over the other. However, if the inner one received the house as a gift, there is an assumption that a gift is given generously and therefore the buyer would be able to pass through the outer house without having to purchase an access route. If one sells a house without specifying what parts are included, does it include the door, key, lock, mortar, millstone, oven, etc? The Mishna explains that items that are attached to the ground are included, while those that are moveable are not. The Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Meir who held that one who sells a vineyard, any objects that serve the vineyard are included in the sale, even if they are not attached to the ground. A braita similar to the Mishna is quoted, however, there are some differences. In the braita, Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree about an item attached to the ground after its construction. Tosefta Mikvaot 4:1 is brought regarding a pipe through which water is brought to the mikveh. If it is hollowed out (constructed) and then attached to the ground, it is considered a vessel and disqualifies the mivkeh as the water is considered 'mayim she'uvim,' water that is drawn with a vessel. The Gemara explains that this Tosefta doesn't correspond to Rabbi Eliezer's nor the rabbis' opinions. To which opinion of Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis is this statement referring? At first, the Gemara suggests it is referring to Rabbi Eliezer in the previous braita, but that suggestion is rejected. Then they suggest Rabbi Eliezer's opinion regarding a beehive as per the Mishna Shviit 10:4. This too, will be rejected.

Bava Batra 64 - August 28, 24 Av Aug 28, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the birth of a grandson to our friend and co-learner, Tzippy Wolkenfeld. "May the entire family rejoice as they are zoche to raise the new “daf yomi addition” to Torah, chuppah, and maasim tovim. Mazal tov!"

Another attempt is made from our Mishna to support Rav Dimi's position, that when one sells a house, it does not include the airspace above or below unless otherwise specified. However, this attempt is rejected. The Gemara then quotes an opinion of Rav Papa to show that he disagrees with Rav Dimi, but this also is rejected.

Selling a house doesn't include a pit or cistern if it is not specified in the agreement. But can we assume that the seller kept an accessway to get there or does the seller need to buy an access route through the house from the buyer? Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis disagree about this.

What is the difference between a pit and a cistern? A pit is dug in hard soil and is just dug up into the ground, while a cistern is dug in softer ground and therefore needs to be lined with stone to prevent it from collapsing.

The Gemara understands the debate between Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis in the Mishna to be the source of a well-known debate between them. Rabbi Akiva holds that a seller sells with a "good" eye (generously) and therefore does not keep an access route but completely sells the house. The rabbis hold that a seller sells with a "bad" eye (sparingly) and therefore keeps an access route to get to the pit. However, the Gemara suggests that perhaps their opinions in this Mishna are based on different reasoning. Eventually, the Gemara derives the well-known debate from the combination of our Mishna and a Mishna in Bava Batra 71.

Bava Batra 63 - August 27, 23 Av Aug 27, 2024

If one says yachlok, divide my portion with..., the person gets half, but what is the law if one says “give a chelek, portion, to...? Ravina bar Kisi brings an answer from a braita which rules in a similar case that one gets a quarter as there is a doubt whether the intent was half or a bit and Sumchus rules that when there is money in question, the money is split it between the two parties.

A braita explains that a Levite can sell one property and stipulate that the owner give the seller the Levite tithes. How can one do this if it means selling something that does not yet exist? To answer this question, the Gemara assumes that the seller retains rights to part of the land. Reish Lakish infers from this braita the law for a different case when the seller says he/she is selling the house but retaining the upper floor, as both are cases where there is no real meaning to the statement and it is therefore applied to mean something else. Regarding the Levite, there is no way to retain future produce, so the seller must have meant the land itself. With the house, since there is no need to retain the upper floor, so it must have been referring to something else. Rav Zevid and Rav Pappa each provide different interpretations in the case of the house as to what Reish Lakish understood to be retained by the original owner - either to hang a beam from the roof into the airspace of the courtyard (Rav Zevid) or building rights to build on the roof if the current roof is destroyed (Rav Papa). The Gemara raises a difficulty with Rav Papa’s explanation as it is more intuitive to derive it from the next Mishna (Bava Batra 64a) than from the braita. Rav Dimi discusses the difference between a sale with no specification, one where it was stipulated that the buyer acquires the depths and the heights, and one where the buyer acquired from the depths of the earth to the height of the sky. What items are included in each case? The Gemara tries to prove his statement from the next Mishna, but then rejects the proof.

Bava Batra 62 - August 26, 22 Av Aug 26, 2024

This week's learning is sponsored by Rozy Jaffe and family in loving memory of her father Mickey Muhlrad, משה יעקב בן ר׳ דוד ע״ה on his 11th yahrzeit. "My father was a humble man of incredible honesty and integrity. He never spoke Loshen Hara and though his cheder studies were cut short by WWII- he supported and encouraged Torah learning for his children and others throughout his lifetime!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Gitta and David Neufeld in loving memory of Harlene Appleman, Chaya bat Osna Rachel v’Shmuel. "Harlene, our cherished friend and mentor, was the consummate professional and the ultimate friend. Her clear sechel and her passion for Jewish education and identity continue to “whisper in my ear” as an expression of שפתי ישנים דובבות. May our learning be a zechut for her!"

If one designates the border of a field but one side extends farther than the other, what size field does the buyer get? Rav rules that a line is drawn from the shorter border, but Rav Kahana and Rav Asi say that a trapezoid shape is drawn from the shorter border to the longer one. In what case did Rav concede to the others? A question is asked about three similar cases – where the border delineated is just the corners of a field, or in the shape of an L, or there were two fields on each side and the border delineated skipped every other one. No answer is given to these questions. If three border strips were delineated but the fourth was not, does the seller get the field and the fourth border strip, the field without the fourth border strip, or just a strip of land alongside each of the three border strips? Rav, Shmuel, and Rav Asi each hold a different position. Rava rules and the Gemara brings two different versions of Rava’s ruling. The Gemara then summarizes the two different versions of Rava’s ruling. The Ramban and others comment that the summary is an addition of Rav Yehudai Gaon and not part of the original Gemara. Raba brings two rulings in which he differentiates between different wording used and their meaning. Abaye disagrees with both differentiations and holds that in each case, there is no difference in the law whether one language was used or another – the meaning is the same.

Bava Batra 61 - August 25, 21 Av Aug 25, 2024

When one sells a house, it does not include certain parts of the house, unless the seller specifies that the sale includes everything in the house. The Mishna lists the properties not included in the sale – the yetzia, for which the Gemara brings two possible definitions, an inner room used for storage, and a room with a parapet of ten handsbreadths. Rav Yosef quotes a braita that says there are two other synonyms for the word yetzia – tzela and ta – and sources from the Torah and tannaitic sources are brought to show where these words are used. Mar Zutra qualifies the yetzia exclusion to one where the yetzia was four cubits. Ravina questions this but Mar Zutra resolves the difficulty. Why was it necessary for the Mishna to add the case of the room if one could have derived the ruling for the storage room from the yetzia? It teaches that even if the seller designates a border, and the storage room is included in the border, if the seller says “house,” the room is not included. This accords with two statements of Rav Nachman that the Gemara proceeds to analyze and establish the circumstances of the cases. Why did Rav Nachman need to teach about both cases – why couldn’t we have derived one from the other? The Gemara mentions certain terms and explains what would be included in a sale if that particular term was used, such as ara, arata, zihara, and nichsei.

Bava Batra 60 - Shabbat August 24, 20 Av Aug 23, 2024

Bava Batra 59 - August 23, 19 Av Aug 23, 2024

Why can a resident of a courtyard insist on a gutter pipe being moved, but not a gutter itself? If a resident has an item that juts out into a neighbor's airspace or a window that faces the neighbor's property, can the resident create a chazaka if the neighbor has not complained? Creating a chazaka depends on whether or not it is something we would expect the neighbor to complain about. If they will unlikely complain, their lack of complaint doesn't enable the other to create a chazaka. What types of things does a neighbor not even have the right to complain about?

Bava Batra 58 - August 22, 18 Av Aug 22, 2024

Rabbi Bena'a measured burial caves to mark the locations of the graves for reasons of ritual purity. What happened when he reached Avraham's and Adam's graves? What was he allowed to see and what was he not allowed to see? A story is told of an amgosh (a Persian priest or magician) who entered the graves of others to take things or remove bodies from the caves. In a separate story about Rabbi Bena'a, he was imprisoned by non-Jewish authorities but later released due to his great intelligence and appointed as a judge. As a judge, he critiqued some signs hung at the entrance to their city, and they incorporated his edits into the signs.

The Mishna discusses various items that may or may not create a chazaka (presumptive right) depending on various factors, including sizes - such as a gutter, the spout of a gutter, a ladder, and windows.

Bava Batra 57 - August 21, 17 Av Aug 21, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim (Weiss) in loving memory of her father David Aschheim z"l, whose 44th yahrzeit is today. “You left us too soon at the age of 56. Although your Jewish education was interrupted because of WWII, you always ensured that I got a Jewish/Zionist education. You would be proud of the legacy you left: my aliyah, my continuous learning with Hadran and the achievements of Eitan and David in the International Little League championships, played in Kovno Poland. Eitan proudly carried the Israeli flag on the soil that our ancestors fled in 1900.”

In what type of a case can brothers both testify for someone regarding a three-year chazaka and in what type of case would their testimony not be accepted? The Mishna lists types of acts that can create a chazaka of possession in another's field and which actions can not. Different explanations are suggested to explain the difference between the actions that can/cannot create a chazaka. Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Bena'a make certian recommendations regarding appropriate behavior including: not looking at women when they launder their clothes, how men should dress, how to set the table in a way that will be neat and minimize mess, on which side of the table the ring should jut out so it doesn't harm others or cause children to play with it and what should one store under one's bed (only slippers so it shouldn't be cluttered).

Bava Batra 56 - August 20, 16 Av Aug 20, 2024

If there is no border, how does one determine how much of the field was acquired by the buyer? The sea quill was used by Yehoshua to demarcate borders between the tribes when they conquered the land of Israel. In the book of Yehoshua, some cities were listed but not others – why? The boundaries given to Moshe are those used to determine which land is obligated in tithes. The ones excluded from this are the lands that belonged to other neighbors (not from the seven nations) - the Kini, Knizi and Kadmoni. There is a debate among three rabbis about where geographically these lands were. The Mishna and Gemara discuss issues regarding testimony for one who is trying to establish a three-year chazaka. Can three groups of witnesses testify each about a separate year? Is this considered a whole unit of testimony (which is acceptable) or a part of a testimony (which is not acceptable)? If two witnesses testified about all three years but disagreed about which type of produce the person benefitted from, would their testimony be accepted?

Bava Batra 55 - August 19, 15 Av Aug 19, 2024

Rav Huna bought land from a gentile, but after he paid for the land and before a document was written, another Jew came and acquired the land through chazaka, by plowing a bit in the field. Rav Nachman ruled as per Shmuel’s ruling that the land belongs to the other Jew. Rav Huna challenged Rav Nachman by suggesting that if Rav Nachman were to hold by Shmuel, then he should also hold by Shmuel’s other ruling that if one plows in an ownerless field, one only acquires the area where one plowed. However, Rav Nachman responded that on that issue he holds like Rav Huna himself who held like Rav that the entire field belongs to the one who plowed, even if one plowed in a very small area. Rabba quoted three laws he heard from Ukvan bar Nechemia the exilarch in the name of Shmuel. The first is that dina d’mlachuta dina, that the law of the land is the law. The second and third are based on the first. In Persia, a chazaka can be created on land if one lives on a property for forty years. The commentaries disagree about the relevance of this halakha in Jewish law. If the king seizes the property of one who does not pay the land tax and sells it to another Jew, the sale is valid, as that is the law of the land. There is a debate about whether this applies only to land seized from those who did not pay the land tax or also to those who did not pay the head tax. If there is a border or a sea quill plant in the middle of a field, this is considered a separation for various laws. However, there is a debate whether the separation is only for the purposes of acquiring land that was ownerless, or also for pea’h and ritual impurity, and possibly also for laws of carrying on Shabbat. The Gemara explains the halakhic relevance of a separation between fields for pea’h, ritual impurity, and Shabbat.

Bava Batra 54 - August 18, 14 Av Aug 18, 2024

Bava Batra 53 - Shabbat August 17, 13 Av Aug 16, 2024

Bava Batra 52 - August 16, 12 Av Aug 16, 2024

Bava Batra 51 - August 15, 11 Av Aug 15, 2024

Bava Batra 50 - August 14, 10 Av Aug 14, 2024

Bava Batra 49 - Tisha b'Av - August 13, 9 Av Aug 12, 2024

Bava Batra 48 - August 12 , 8 Av Aug 12, 2024

Bava Batra 47 - August 11, 7 Av Aug 11, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim (Weiss) in loving memory of her mother, Edith Aschheim Z"L, on her 41st yahrzeit today. "You left us too soon at the age of 56. You left Vienna on the kindertransport on 1 September 1939 and eventually began a new life in NYC, lamenting your lack of Jewish education due to interruptions caused by World War II. You would be proud of the legacy you left: my aliyah a year ago with Robert and my continuous learning with Hadran since this daf cycle began.”

Regarding those incapable of creating a chazaka, can their sons create a chazaka? Why and in what case is there a difference between the son of a robber and the son of a craftsman or a sharecropper? For those who the Mishna mentions that they cannot create a chazaka, if they bring a proof, that would be effective. However, this does not hold true for a robber. Why? Rav Huna holds that if one forces another to sell an item, the sale is a good sale. The Gemara attempts to prove on what basis Rav Huna holds this way.

Bava Batra 46 - Shabbat August 10, 6 Av Aug 09, 2024

Bava Batra 45 - August 9, 5 Av Aug 09, 2024

Bava Batra 44 - August 8, 4 Av Aug 08, 2024

Bava Batra 43 - August 7, 3 Av Aug 07, 2024

Bava Batra 42 - August 6, 2 Av Aug 06, 2024

Bava Batra 41 - Rosh Chodesh Av - August 5, 1 Av Aug 05, 2024

Today’s daf is sponsored by Marcia Baum in loving memory of her father, Sam Baum, on his 21st yahrzeit. "Dad was a larger-than-life individual whose acts of chesed and tzedaka are remembered to this day. He was a proud Jew, lover of Israel, and a proud American. He is sorely missed by all who knew him."

For a chazaka of presumptive status to be effective, the possessor must bring a claim of how the land came into their possession. What would/would not be considered an effective claim? Why doesn't the court advise the possessor on a possible claim the possessor could make? In two stories, rabbis claimed they had a chazaka but were ruled against as the chazaka was not created properly. In a third story relating to chazaka, there is a debate among the rabbis about whether or not this was effective. If three different people owned the land for the three years of chazaka, each claimed to have purchased it from the previous owner, can the third one claim to have a chazaka on the land after the third year?

Bava Batra 40 - August 4, 29 Tamuz Aug 04, 2024

What other actions require the presence of two people and which require three? In the context of this discussion, the Gemara elaborates on the laws of moda'a, a preemptive declaration. Rav Yehuda ruled that a document gift that is "hidden" is not effective. Why? Can it be used as a preemptive declaration?

Bava Batra 39 - Shabbat August 3, 28 Tamuz Aug 02, 2024

If the original owner protests if a possessor is profiting from the land, but tells the witnesses not to let the possessor know, is the protest effective? The Gemara brings several variations of this type of situation and the rulings of different rabbis in each one, depending on the language used. In front of how many people does one need to protest - two or three? Is it similar to the laws of lashon hara? What is at the root of the debate? Is it sufficient to protest once in the first year or does one need to protest once every three years? What other actions need to be performed in the presence of two people and which require three?

Bava Batra 38 - August 2, 27 Tamuz Aug 02, 2024

Study Guide Bava Batra 38

There are three different regions for creating a chazaka on land, meaning that if the land is in one region and the owner is in a different region, one cannot prove ownership by benefitting from the produce for three years. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and explains the reason for three years is exactly for this type of scenario - to allow enough time for someone living far away to hear and return to protest. Does tana kamma hold that one does need/does not need to protest in the presence of the possessor? Rav explained that one does not need to protest in the presence of the possessor and explained the Mishna to be referring to a time of emergency when people were forbidden from traveling between regions. A question is raised from a different statement of Rav and is resolved. There are two different versions of the discussion regarding Rav's additional statement. What is the wording necessary for a protest to be considered a legitimate protest?

Bava Batra 37 - August 1, 26 Tamuz Aug 01, 2024

The Gemara continues to discuss whether plowing can create a chazaka on land. This issue was a subject of debate by many rabbis. If one benefits from only 10 out of 30 trees (that are growing in a field of three beit sea) each year (and each year a different ten), one can still create a chazaka on the whole field, both according to the rabbis and Rabbi Yishmael. However, there are two limitations to this halakha. If one sold all one's property to two people - one the trees and the other, the land, does the one who purchased the trees also acquire the land under/around the trees? How does that differ from one who sold the rights to the trees in one's property? Or if one sold the land but kept the trees? How does that case relate to the argument of Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis regarding one who sold a field but kept a pit or cistern for him/herself - did one leave oneself a path to get there or does one need to buy a path from the buyer to get there?

Bava Batra 36 - July 31, 25 Tamuz Jul 31, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Ariele Mortkowitz for the refuah shleima of Aliza Yehudit bat Malka Esther. "For the merit of healing and continued health and long life."

Several assumptions about human behavior are used to determine ownership. One generally doesn't bring tools and harvest in a field that is not one's own. One wouldn't protest land that is unlikely to grow crops or unprotected land whose produce will likely be eaten by the animals, or produce that is forbidden to sell by law (orla, shmita, kelaim). According to the Mishna, there is presumptive ownership for slaves after three years. How can Reish Lakish's statement that possession of livestock cannot be used as proof of ownership as they are free to move on their own, be understood in light of the Mishna? Rava ruled that one can establish presumptive ownership on a small slave immediately - on what basis? There is a debate regarding whether or not plowing would be considered an act of chazaka if the owner did not protest. The Gemara first assume that this issue is the source of debate between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva in the Mishna, but then rejects that understanding.

Bava Batra 35 - July 30, 24 Tamuz Jul 30, 2024

Two people claimed they had each inherited a particular piece of land from their fathers. Rav Nachman ruled that the stronger one prevails. How is this case different from two people claiming ownership of an item by having a document of sale or gift issued on the same date where Rav and Shmuel disagree - one holds it is divided and the other that it is given to the judges' discretion? How is it different from a case where a cow is traded for a donkey or a maidservant is sold and the cow/maidservant has offspring and it is unclear if the birth happened before or after the sale and the ruling is that the offspring is split between the two parties? In a case where the verdict is that the strongest one prevails, what happens if a third party comes and seizes the item? In what situations is presumptive status established immediately? Gentiles can only establish ownership with a document, not with a chazaka. Rav ruled that a Jew who claims that he/she bought property from a gentile, must prove it with a document.

Bava Batra 34 - July 29, 23 Tamuz Jul 29, 2024

The Gemara rejects the comparison of the case that came before Abaye where there was only one witness to the case of the naska (silver bricks) of Rabbi Abba.

There was a case in which two people claimed ownership over a boat and the law of "may the stronger one prevail (kol d'alim g'var)," was applicable. But one of them asked the court to seize the property to prevent that law from kicking in to buy time in which he could find evidence to support his claim. Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda disagreed about whether the court could intervene. If one were to rule that the court does seize it, can they release it if no further proof is brought?

There was a case where two claimed ownership of land and each claimed they inherited it from their fathers, but neither could prove it. Rav Nachman ruled that the stronger one prevails.

Bava Batra 33 - July 28, 22 Tamuz Jul 28, 2024

More cases regarding disagreements about land ownership are discussed. Rava bar Sharshom was living on property that others claimed belonged to orphans. What did he do to try to prove he was the owner? Was his claim accepted? Another involved a disagreement about heirs - which was the closer relative who was supposed to inherit the property? Since neither had proof, one went to live on the land based on the principle of kol d'alim gvar, whoever is stronger, wins. When he later admitted he was not the closer relative, there was a debate about whether he needed to return all the produce he had eaten or to only return the land at the time of the admission.

A case is brought where the possessor brought testimony that he had eaten produce for two years and couldn't produce a witness for the third year. Rav Nachman ruled that the possessor needed to return the land and the value of the produce he ate. Rav Zevid held that he did not need to return the value of the produce if he were to say that he possessed the right to eat the fruit (like a sharecropper) but not the land.

A case is brought where a possessor brought one witness to support his claim that he ate produce for three years. One witness's testimony is not sufficient to prove ownership, but can the witness be used against him and the court will rule that he now needs to pay for the produce that he ate, based on the law that one witness requires him to swear, and since in this case he cannot swear (because he already said he ate the produce), he needs to pay? Is this like the case of the naska d'Rabbi Abba?

Bava Batra 32 - Shabbat July 27, 21 Tamuz Jul 26, 2024

Rav Nachman was not concerned that overturning a court ruling based on new testimony would cause a lack of respect for the courts in the future. He relied on the ruling of Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who disagreed with other tannaim in a case involving a kohen about whom there was concern that he was the son of a kohen and a divorcee. As the details of this debate are clarified, Rav Ashi concludes that both hold that the court can overturn a ruling and they disagree about a different issue: can two individual witnesses testify separately? From here, the conclude that Rav Nachman was relying on two great scholar, Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

In another case of contested property, one brought a document, and the other accused him of presenting a false document. Then, the one who brought the document admitted it was a forgery but claimed there was a real document but he lost it. Rava held that his claim was valid under the principle of "ma li leshaker" since he could have lied and maintained it was a valid document. But Rav Yosef disagreed as the document was a complete forgery. Which opinion do we pasken like? Rav Idi distinguished in his ruling between land and money.

Bava Batra 31 - July 26, 20 Tamuz Jul 26, 2024

The Gemara brings several cases that came before the courts regarding property ownership claims. In the first case, Rava ruled that the possessor's claim is believed since if the possessor was lying, he could have made a better claim (ma li l'shaker). But Abaye said this wasn't accepted as witnesses testified against the claim and a ma li l'shaker isn't accepted in this situation. After that, the possessor modified his claim. Can one modify one's claim? Ulla and the rabbis of Nehardea disagreed regarding this issue. In which cases did each side acquiesce to the other?

Rava and Rav Nachman disagreed in a case where part of the testimony was contradicted by other testimony but the other part wasn't. Is the entire claim canceled, or is the part that wasn't contradicted still valid? In that same case, new evidence was brought that contradicted the court’s ruling. Should the court reverse its decision and take the land away, or should the court stick with its original decision to prevent people from losing respect for the courts?

Bava Batra 30 - July 25, 19 Tamuz Jul 25, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Rina Bar David in loving memory of Daniel Natan ben Yocheved and Binyamin.

A debate between Rav Nachman and Rava is brought to contradict their ruling in the previous case. However, distinctions are made between the two cases and they conclude that there are no inconsistencies in their positions. Rava rules that if the original owner did not protest within three years of possession because they were out of town, and even when they were in town, they were busy with their business, their claim is accepted and there is no presumption of ownership for the possessor. Four cases are brought where the possessor claims presumption of ownership as they purchased the land and then lived there for three years. In each case, the original owner claims the seller had stolen the land and wasn't the rightful owner. Each case varies slightly from the previous one. Rava ruled in each of these cases, usually siding with the one who claimed it was stolen property.

Bava Batra 29 - July 24, 18 Tamuz Jul 24, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Masha and Yisroel Rotman in loving memory of Masha's father, Solomon Maltz, Shlomo Emanuel ben Yaakov Yitzchok, on his 20th yahrzeit. “It was very important to Ta that his daughters receive a good Jewish education, and he respected Torah learning immensely. He would have been proud that I am learning the Daf Yomi.”

Rava gives a third interpretation of why one can claim ownership over land one has been benefiting from for three years. After a few comments by Abaye, Rava modifies his answer, concluding that after three years, people are not careful to keep their documents. Therefore, if the owner did not protest within three years, the possessor can prove ownership. Rav Huna explains that the three years need to be consecutive. Difficulties are raised against Rav Huna, as well as qualifying statements. Two rabbis purchased a female slave together and she worked for each one on alternative years. When the original owner raised doubts regarding their ownership, Rava ruled that they did not create a chazaka as she only worked for each on alternative years. If one benefited from the produce from a field for three years, but not from a certain small piece of the property (size of a beit rova, for planting a quarter of a kav of seeds, or more), they do not have ownership rights to the small area. Rav Huna son of Rabbi Yehoshua limits this to a case where the land was suitable for planting, but Rav Bivi disagrees. There was a case where one tried to kick someone off the land, claiming he was the real owner. The possessor claimed he bought the land from the other and benefited from the produce for three years without the original owner protesting. The original owner explained that he had a legitimate reason why he had not protested and Rav Nachman ruled that the possessor had to prove that this was not the case. Rava disagreed based on the principle hamotzi m'chavero alav haraya, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.

Bava Batra 28 - July 23 - 17 Tamuz Jul 23, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Mark Goldstein in honor of Rena Septee Goldstein's birthday! "Happy birthday to my wonderful wife and daf partner!"

After three years of uncontested use of land or property, a possessor's claim of purchase or gift is sufficient to prove ownership without documentation (chazaka). For non-irrigated fields, partial use in the first and last years suffices. A tannaitic debate discusses the required duration. Concerning fields with trees, Rabbi Yishmael is lenient and requires only three harvests of different fruits, even within one year.

The three-year rule's origins are debated. Rabbi Yochanan, citing Usha rabbis, derives it from shor muad (an ox established as dangerous after three gorings). However, the Gemara raises and resolves several objections to the shor muad comparison, though the final resolution aligns only with Rabbi Yishmael's position in the Mishna. Therefore Rav Yosef brings an explanation for the rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yishmael from Yirmiyahu 32:44, interpreting the prophet's advice to keep documents to prove ownership of land after the destruction, which was to happen in the upcoming year, implying that one would need documentation to prove ownership for possessing land that one had possessed for only two years, but not for three. Abaye dismisses Rav Yosef's proof as Yirmiyahu's suggestion can be viewed as good advice, rather than law.

Bava Batra 27 - July 22, 16 Tamuz Jul 22, 2024

Ulla ruled that one does not bring bikurim from a fruit tree growing within sixteen cubits of a neighboring field as it is "stealing" nutrients from the neighbor's soil. From where does Ulla derive the number sixteen? Four sources are brought to contradict Ulla's amount of sixteen cubits, but all the sources are explained also according to Ulla. If sixteen cubits is the proper amount, why does the Mishna rule that a tree needs to be distanced twenty-five cubits from a pit? The issue there is not the same as Ulla is relating to sapping the soil of nutrients, while the issue with the pit is the roots destroying the pit's wall, which can happen even if the roots are not absorbing nutrients. Rabbi Yochanan's opinion on the issue has two versions - either agreeing or disagreeing with Ulla. When can a neighbor cut the trees leaning over into their property? What about trees jutting out into the public domain?

Bava Batra 26 - July 21, 15 Tamuz Jul 21, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in honor of her daughter Rina. "Rina got me started on my journey of Daf Yomi with Hadran. You are a magnificent person who does incredible chessed for Am Yisrael and serves as an example to all of us. With love and admiration for who you are."

People in the Bar Marion household were pounding flax, and the flax waste flew in the wind to the neighbor and caused damage. Is this considered damages (giri didei) for which Rabbi Yosi would obligate? Can we learn from the laws of Sabbath (winnowing with the wind's assistance)?

One needs to distance one's tree from another's property by four cubits to leave room for the neighbor to plow. If one's roots grow into a neighboring field, one can cut them to a certain depth, depending on why one is cutting them (what one needs the space for). Various cases are brought discussing these halakhot. The Mishna says that when one is allowed to cut the roots of a neighbor's tree, the roots go to "him." The Gemara tries to figure out whether the "him" refers to the owner of the tree or the owner of the neighboring field. Ravina and Ulla each understand that the first sixteen cubits of the roots are considered part of the tree, but beyond that, they are not. Based on that, Ulla rules that a tree within sixteen cubits of a neighboring field is considered to be stealing from the neighbor's field and one should therefore not bring bikurim from such a tree. The Gemara tries to bring tannaitic sources to prove how Ulla arrived at the number sixteen.

Bava Batra 25 - Shabbat July 20, 14 Tamuz Jul 19, 2024

As part of a discussion about the Mishna which described in which direction of the city may/may not one set up a tannery due to the bad smell and the direction that the winds travel, the Gemara discusses the strengths of each of the winds (winds from each of the four directions). A braita attempts to explain why we only see the sun during the day and also why summer days and winter days have different amounts of sunlight/daytime hours. One must distance a tree from a neighbor's pit as the roots will damage the pit. Details of this law are discussed.

Bava Batra 24 - July 19, 13 Tamuz Jul 19, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Mindy Sollisch. "Thank you to Hadran for generously welcoming all to learn Talmud from a brilliant Talmudic scholar who has made daf yomi a highlight of each of my days."

Today's daf is sponsored by Daniel and Sara Berelowitz in honor of the marriage of their daughter, Estie Sterman to Jason Ast (nephew of Tina Lamm fellow dafferette). "A big Mazal Tov. Wishing Estie and Jason mazal and bracha ad 120!"

Today's daf is sponsored in memory of Dr. Ilana (Hefter) Feuerstein who passed away this week.

Abaye brings proof for Rabbi Chanina's statement that the law goes by the majority over proximity from a Mishna in Nidda about blood found in the cervical canal which is rendered impure, as the majority of blood comes from the uterus (impure blood), but there is a closer chamber whose blood is pure. Rava disagrees with Abaye's comparison because he says the majority of uterine blood is different from a regular majority because of the frequency. In the end, though, Rava changes his mind and agrees that this case would support Rabbi Chanina. A debate between Rav and Shmuel is brought in an attempt to prove that they deliberated about the same issue and one held like Rabbi Chanina and the other did not. However, this suggestion is rejected. Two rulings are brought regarding situations with a safek (doubt), suggesting that one ruling follows Rabbi Chanina's opinion and the other does not, but both comparisons are rejected.

A tree must be distanced from the city a certain amount of space for aesthetic reasons. The law is different depending on whether the city was there when the tree was planted, if the city was not there when the tree was planted, or if it was unknown which came first. The Gemara compares the law here to the law in the case of a different mishna regarding a tree planted near a neighbor's pit and explains the differences between the cases.

A threshing floor must be distanced fifty cubits from a city and neighboring fields. The last line in the Mishna is unclear and two explanations are brought - whether it is a different distance or simply explains the reason for the law already stated in the Mishna.

Bava Batra 23 - July 18, 12 Tamuz Jul 18, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Gabrielle Altman in loving memory of Yechezkel Yitzhak Ben Shlomo Zev, Honorable Herbert Altman z”l on his Shloshim. "Beloved husband, father, grandfather and great grandfather, brilliant jurist, and wonderful Jew. He will be forever cherished, missed, and loved. Yehi Zichro Baruch."

Today's daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in honor of the marriage of her cousin Aviva Engel to Mickey Fankhauser, the Aliyah of her parents from Montreal to Modiin, and welcomes her brother Rabbi Zvi Engel from Chicago who will be the mesader kiddushin. "My heart is full of thanksgiving to Hashem for all his chasadim. והריקותי לכם ברכה והצלחה בלי די."

A story is told about Rav Yosef who has bloodletters that worked under his tree and attracted ravens that ruined his tree. He wanted to get rid of the bloodletters. Abaye questioned this as the damages were indirect, but Rav Yosef answered that even indirect damages are forbidden. Did the bloodletters have a legitimate claim that they had been doing this already for a while (chazaka) and Rav Yosef would not be able to kick them out? Can one create a chazaka for damages?

One needs to distance one's dovecote from a city and other fields a certain distance to prevent one's doves from eating seeds or grains of others. But if one purchased a field with a dovecote within a short distance from one's neighbor, one can assume that it was done within the law (the neighbor allowed it or was compensated financially). What is the distance needed? How does this correspond to the distance mentioned regarding setting up traps for trapping doves? The Mishna discusses laws relating to a chick found in a certain area - how does one determine to whom the chick belongs? Rabbi Chanina says that in determining uncertainties, if there is a majority factor and a proximity factor that lead each to different conclusions, one follows the majority. Difficulties are raised from three sources (including our Mishna) which indicate that proximity is the more determining factor. Each one is resolved. In the context of those difficulties, Rabbi Yirmia asked a question on account of which he was kicked out of the Beit Midrash!

Bava Batra 22 - July 17, 11 Tamuz Jul 17, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Asher ben Riva.

Under what circumstances can outsiders come into a town and sell their wares? Special dispensations are made for those who learn. On account of that, the rabbis questioned Rav Dimi when he came to town to sell to determine whether or not he was a Torah scholar, and when he didn't know the answer, they assumed he wasn't all the dried figs he was trying to sell rotted. When he went to complain to Rav Yosef, Rav Yosef cursed those who did this and the rabbi, Rav Ada bar Abba, who had questioned Rav Dimi died. Upon Rav Ada's death, various rabbis assumed responsibility for his death (some connected to this particular incident and others to other incidents). The Mishna rules that one who has a wall next to another's wall and wants to build a wall, must leave a distance of four cubits. If the neighbor's wall has a window, one needs to distance one's wall from the window by four cubits (higher, lower, or opposite). It is unclear what the first ruling means, and the Gemara brings two explanations, the first one is rejected. The second explanation, Rava's, is that the first wall was also four cubits away and then fell. The Mishna rules that one needs to distance the new one four cubits away so that space is left for people to tread on the ground alongside the wall which will strengthen the neighbor's wall. Various difficulties are raised against this explanation of Rava - from the second part of the Mishna and the next Mishna. One needs to distance one's ladder from another's dovecote to not allow a creature to climb up and eat the birds. One needs to distance one's wall from another's roof gutter to give the neighbor enough space to set up a ladder to get to the gutter.

Bava Batra 21 - July 16, 10 Tamuz Jul 16, 2024

Why can courtyard residents prevent each other from turning their house into a store (first part of the Mishna) but not from loud noises of children, hammers, and a millstone (second part of the Mishna)? Abaye suggests that the second part of the Mishna refers to a different situation - residents of a different courtyard complaining about noise from a neighboring courtyard, but not their own. Rava rejects this suggestion and explains the second part of the Mishna as referring to creating a school in one's house to teach children Torah, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Gamla established the importance of having schools in local communities. The Gemara discusses several issues regarding education - what type is the best type of teacher (more knowledge vs. patience to correct mistakes of the children), how many children should be in a class, the responsibility of the city to set up teachers, does one fire a less good teacher for one who is better, etc. Can one open a store in an alleyway of the same type of store as another member of the alleyway? On what does it depend?

Bava Batra 20 - July 15, 9 Tamuz Jul 15, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Vitti Rosenzweig Kones in loving memory of Sara Rosenzweig bat Vitti and David Greenbaum.

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family in honor of so many great, joyful events in our Hadran family. "Mazal Tov to our friend and fellow learner, Ruth Leah Kahan, on the marriage of her son, Ariel Kahan to Miriam Holmes. May their house be a source of peace and love for Am Yisrael. A huge welcome home to our friends and fellow learners, Gitta Neufeld and Terri Krivosha, and wishes for an easy yishuv into your permanent home in Israel. Your move is an inspiration of hope to all of us!"

Shmuel ruled that a wafer placed in a window is not considered permanent and therefore does not reduce the size of the window to prevent impurities from passing through. the Tosefta Ohalot Chapter 14 is brought to contradict as it lists several items that if placed in a window would block impurity even though they also are not permanent. The Gemara goes over each item listed and explains why they differ from the wafer. If two people share a house - one living upstairs and the other downstairs, what does each have to do to prevent damage to the other? Residents of a shared courtyard can prevent each other from turning their house into a store, but they cannot prevent each other from making loud noises from hammering for work or crushing of a millstone or from children.

Bava Batra 19 - July 14, 8 Tamuz Jul 14, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Shira Dishon in loving memory of her son, Eitan Dishon, who was killed in Gaza on the 20th of November. "Today would have been his 22nd birthday. Among his belongings, they found his Gemara, with which he studied daf yomi, stained with his blood. I understood that this was his legacy and began to study daf yomi for the first time. I recently completed Bava Metzia, my first masechet, with Hadran."

The Mishna delineates items that need to be distanced from a neighbor's pit or wall. The Gemara delves into each of the sections of the Mishna. What is meant by a launderer's pool? In the first category of items, the Mishna rules that it must be distanced and plastered. Does the Mishna mean "and" or "or"? In comparing our Mishna to a Mishna in Shabbat 4:1 regarding items one cannot use for insulating food where a similar list appears of items that create heat, they notice that stones appear here and not there and sand appears there and not here. Why? Why is it necessary to mention both distancing seeds and a plow? Why do seeds need to be distanced? The Mishna rules that urine must be distanced from another's wall. However, Raba bar bar Hana rules that one can urinate next to another's wall. How can his statement be explained in light of the Mishna? Even though the Gemara suggests an explanation, they reject Raba bar bar Hana's statement in light of a braita. Shmuel ruled that a wafer placed in a window does not block impurities from a dead body from passing through. A contradiction is brought from a Mishna in Ohalot 6:2, but is resolved.

Bava Batra 18 - Shabbat July 13, 7 Tamuz Jul 12, 2024

Study Guide Bava Batra 18

Rava and Abaye debate whether one can dig a pit right near the border of another if, on the other side of the border, there is no pit right now - or does one need to be concerned that one may want to dig a pit there in the future. Abaye says he is allowed to and Rava disagrees. Eight questions from our Mishna and the upcoming mishnayot in the chapter are brought to question Rava's opinion. Each question is resolved (many of them in an identical manner).

Bava Batra 17 - July 12, 6 Tamuz Jul 12, 2024

Study Guide Bava Batra 17

Today's daf is sponsored by Batsheva & Daniel Pava in loving memory of her father, Reb Shlomo ben Yehuda Aryeh Vegh z'l on his first yahrzeit. "My father was a child survivor of Auschwitz. My father became a talmid of Reb Michel Ber Weismandel. My Dad was my hero. I miss him every single day!"

There are various ways to explain the blessing that Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov received from God that they had "everything." The second perek begins with rules instituted to prevent damage to one's neighbor's property. One needs to distance a pit three handbreadths from a neighbor's already-existing pit. Also, other substances or items that could damage a neighbor's wall or property (due to heat, vibration, or chemical reaction) must be distanced. Abaye and Rava debate whether or not one can dig a pit near the neighbor's border if the neighbor does not (yet) have a pit there. There are two versions regarding the debate - whether it relates to a case where the neighbor's field needs pits or not. Difficulties are raised against these different versions from our Mishna and another source, but are resolved.

Bava Batra 16 - July 11, 5 Tamuz Jul 11, 2024

This week's learning is sponsored by Debbie Pershan in loving memory of her mother Shirley Kaufman on her yahrzeit.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Hadran Women of LI in honor of the aliyah of our amazing and talented leader and co-learner Gita Neufeld and the birth of a granddaughter - we wish you lots of mazal on this newest addition and know that you will lead her in the ways of daf yomi as she grows up. We also wish you hatzlacha on making this amazing, long-awaited, move to Eretz Yisrael - as long as you know that this does not let you off the hook for planning and organizing our Long Island siyums!

The narrative of the Job story is explained in detail including the Satan's convincing of God to test Job and Job's reaction to the situation. Some explain that he was firm in his belief and others claim he had serious complaints against God. Is having a daughter seen as a blessing or not? Can this be learned from the last chapter of Iyov? There are different opinions regarding this issue. One source is brought to show that the debate is tannitic as the verse that Avraham was blessed "bakol" (Breishit 24:1) is interpreted in seven different ways, three relating to the issue of having daughters.

Bava Batra 15 - July 10, 4 Tamuz Jul 10, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Julie Mendelsohn and Adina Hagege in loving memory of their dear friend Yosef Yifrach z"l who passed away suddenly last week. "Yossi was a wonderful man who loved his family and toiled in Torah as well as in the law. Just a few weeks ago he spoke at the Beit Knesset about his love for daf yomi, encouraging everyone young and old to take up the daf. He was thrilled that he had recently finished his first year of the daf. We will keep learning in your memory as long as we can. Sending love and strength to the family."

Who wrote which book of Tanach? In some of the books, the author dies sometime in the book, including Moshe who dies in the last eight verses of the Torah. Who finished the writing of each of these books? When did Job (Iyov) live? Several opinions are brought, including one that he was not real and the story was meant to be understood allegorically. One suggestion is that Iyov was a Jew who returned after the destruction of the First Temple to Israel. Three sources are brought to raise a difficulty as they assume Iyov was a gentile. However, the difficulties are resolved. In Chapter 1 of Iyov, there is a discussion between God and the Satan regarding Iyov which led to Iyov being tested by losing everything precious to him. These verses are quoted and explained.

Bava Batra 14 - July 9, 3 Tamuz Jul 09, 2024

Study Guide Bava Batra 14

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of the marriage of Josh and Shira today by Lisa and Nancy Kolodny, daily daf learners and mother and grandmother of Josh. "May Shira and Josh's life together be filled with nachat and abundant love."

Today's daf is sponsored by Natanya Slomowitz in loving memory of her mother, Haviva Lilka Bat Necha and Avraham.

Can one write a scroll with Torah, Neviim, and Ketuvim together? Should one start a book at the beginning of a section of parchment? What is the ideal size for a Torah scroll to be? How does that size fit with the opinion that a sefer Torah was in the Ark of the Covenant? There is a debate regarding the size of the Ark and whether or not there was a Torah inside or adjacent to the Ark. Where were the broken tablets placed? What is the order of the books of Tanach? There are several differences between the order described in the Gemara and the order in the Tanach that we use today.

Bava Batra 13 - July 8, 2 Tamuz Jul 08, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in loving memory of her grandson, Ephraim Yachman, z'l who sacrificed his life in Gaza, December 2024.

Today's daf is sponsored by David Kahan in honor of Professor Paul Gompers and Dr. Jody Dushay. "Thank you for your magnificent hospitality."

If two people share a hall or other item that cannot be divided, can one insist that the other either buy the other half or sell their share? Rav Yehuda rules that the one who wants to split it gives the choice to the other to decide whether to buy or sell (gud o' agud). Rav Nachman rules that one cannot force the other to buy/sell and the item remains under joint ownership. Rava questions Rav Nachman in a case where a father left his firstborn and another son an animal and a slave, how can they be divided if the firstborn gets two portions? Rav Nachman responds that for two days the firstborn uses them and the next day the other son uses them. Two difficulties are raised against Rav Yehuda. The first is from the debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel about a slave that is freed by one master and not the other (half slave-half free). In the end, they both agree that because of tikun olam, to allow the slave to marry, the owner is forced to free the slave and gets paid for it. But were it not for that, the owner would not be forced, thus raising a difficulty with Rav Yehuda's position. Another difficulty is raised regarding a rich and poor brother who inherited a bathhouse. The rich one does not need to offer the poor one to buy him out. Both difficulties are resolved in the same manner - since in both cases, there is no possibility to offer both options - the slave can buy his freedom but cannot sell himself completely to be a slave (once freed a slave cannot go back to being a slave), and the poor brother can be bought out buy doesn't have the funds to buy his brother's share - therefore Rav Yehuda's solution can't be used. A final source is brought to raise a difficulty against Rav Nachman as it clearly states that if an item cannot be divided, one buys the whole item from the other. They attempt to suggest that the issue is a tannaitic debate, but that explanation is rejected and the difficulty on Rav Nachman remains. Abaye explained to Rav Yosef that Rav Yehuda's position was based on Shmuel's opinion as explained by dividing sifrei kodesh as Shmuel ruled that even though one volume cannot be divided, two volumes (for ex. Torah and the Prophets) could be, thus showing that forcing the other to buy/sell is possible as how else would the two volumes be divided (since each is worth a different amount). However, this suggestion is rejected as Shmuel's ruling regards a case where both agree to divide, not when one forces the other. Ameimar ruled like Rav Yehuda. However, they question this ruling from a case where two brothers inherited two maidservants (each knowing how to do something different - one cooked and one weaved) and Rava ruled that the brothers not divide them by each taking one and compensating the other for the difference in value. However, this case is different as the ruling of Rav Yehuda is only in a case where one receives the complete item and the other the money. In this case, each needed both maidservants and if they were to split them neither would receive something complete. Can one bind books of Torah with those of the Prophets and the Writings, as perhaps people will think that it is all one book? How much space must one leave between books of the Torah or the Prophets in a scroll?

Bava Batra 12 - Rosh Chodesh Tamuz - July 7, 1 Tamuz Jul 07, 2024

This week’s learning is sponsored by Bob & Paula Cohen in loving memory of Paula's father, Arthur Zwerin, Chaim Avraham ben Alter Gershon haKohen, whose yahrzeit is on Monday.

This week's learning is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in loving memory of her beloved parents, Shirley (Sarah Raizel) Kraus Tydor z"l and R. Chaskel Tydor z"l. "I miss them tremendously on my birthday week. They raised me with a love of Jews, Judaism, and Israel and would be proud of their granddaughters who learn daf yomi with Hadran."

Different situations are described where one can not block off entrances or pathways in their own property that others use, even where there are alternate paths. Are the rabbis viewed as replacements for prophets? Some stories are brought that show that children and shotim can prophesize. A firstborn can insist that his double portions be two pieces of adjacent lands. If one brother bought land adjacent to his father's property, can he insist on receiving the adjacent portion when dividing the inheritance? On what does it depend? Does this come under laws called "kofim al midat Sodom, compelling people to refrain from behavior similar to those of Sodom?"

Bava Batra 11 - Shabbat Rosh Chodesh Tamuz - July 6, 30 Sivan Jul 05, 2024

Two more stories are told regarding food distribution to poor people - one about Binyamin the Tzadik and one about Munbaz the king. What are the minimum sizes of courtyards, fields, and gardens for one resident to insist that the other person who shares the property split it into two separate parts? What about dividing a bathhouse, hall, tallit, and other similar items? Only a sefer Torah can never be split. A discussion ensues regarding the size of a courtyard (4 square cubits) - does it include the entranceway or not? Each house gets an additional four cubits outside their door for unloading. If one house has more doors, do they get more of the courtyard? How exactly does it get divided? Various other situations are discussed - what if there is a portico and one can use the portico for unloading, instead of the space outside one's entrance? Various issues are raised about shared courtyards that lead to an alley. Does one have the right to open an entrance to a different alley without the approval of those who already have access to the alley? Can one close up an entrance from one's courtyard to the alleyway because it may cause others to walk farther to get to the alley? Does it depend on whether or not the person lives in the inner part of the alley?

Bava Batra 10 - July 5, 29 Sivan Jul 05, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Sylvia Klein in loving memory of her brother, Bobby Klein. "Bobby had Down Syndrome. His presence in our lives taught us all about love. We learned compassion and acceptance. My his sweet memory be a blessing."

Rabbi Akiva and Turnusrufus engage in a debate about why if God loves the poor then why does God not support them, and if God makes them poor is it a good thing or not to go ahead and support them? More stories and statements are brought stressing the importance of the mitzva of giving charity. Can one collect charity from non-Jews? If so, for what reason and with what conditions?

Bava Batra 9 - July 4, 28 Sivan Jul 04, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Miriam & Meir Tannenbaum in honor of the engagement of their son, Avrumy to Rochel Schloss. "With gratitude to Hashem, may they be zoche to build a bayit ne'eman b'yisrael. שירבו שמחות בישראל!"

The community can create stipulations for its inhabitants and impose fines on people who do not keep to them. However, a story is brought to teach that if there is a prominent Torah scholar in the town, the conditions must be agreed upon in the presence of the Torah scholar. Tzedaka collectors and Temple treasurers should be trusted and people should not insist they give an accounting of the money collected. But Rabbi Elazar suggests that one giving money to another should count it out in front of the other and tie it up before handing it over. There is a debate about whether one needs to check whether a person is poor before giving money for food or clothing. What does the city need to provide to a poor person who comes into a city for the night or Shabbat? Does the city give from their charity fund to those willing to knock on doors asking for money? It is better to cause others to perform mitzvot than to do mitzvot. In the times of the Temple, the half-shekel payment atoned for the people - today, giving charity has taken the place of that and atones for people's sins. Rav Sheshet stressed the importance of every coin given to charity; many small coins together can add up to a lot. Rabbi Elazar stressed the importance of giving charity in secret. Rabbi Yitzchak used verses from Yeshayahu 58 to show all the blessings bestowed on those who give charity and console those suffering from poverty.

Bava Batra 8 - July 3, 27 Sivan Jul 03, 2024

When Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda collected taxes from Torah scholars, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak reprimanded him for not fulfilling verses from the Torah, Neviim and K'tuvim, and explained which verses indicate that Torah scholars are exempt from taxes. Rav Papa ruled that orphans should contribute to digging wells for water and Rav Yehuda ruled similarly, that prohans should contribute to taxes to protect the city. Rav Yehuda also ruled that while Torah scholars do not need to pay for protection, as their Torah protects them, they do need to contribute to digging wells. Rabbi Yehuda haNasi distributed food to needy people during a drought but only gave to Torah scholars, not to amei haaretz. His student Yonatan ben Amram did not want to benefit from the Torah so he disguised himself as an am haaretz and convinced Rabbi Yehuda haNasi to give him food anyway. When Rabbi Yehuda haNasi discovered what had happened, he changed his approach and distributed food to everyone. The Mishna ruled that one who lives in the city for twelve months has to pay for the protection of the city, but a different braita relating to laws of an ir hanidachat, a city where all inhabitants worship idols, only thirty days of living there consider one an inhabitant of the city. How is this reconciled? Another braita gives different amounts of time for people living in the city to be required to give different types of tzedaka funds. Raba collected tzedaka from orphans of a particular family. While Abaye questioned this practice, Raba explained why he insisted in this case. Ifra Hormiz, the mother of King Shapur, sent money to Rav Yosef for "mitzva raba" and Abaye explained to Rav Yosef that she must have meant for redeeming captives. Rava explains this based on a verse from Yirmiyahu 15:2. A braita explains that collection of charity must be done by two people and distribution by three. The charity food is collected and distributed by three people. Why is there a difference? Why are two or three people needed? The people of the city can take charity from one use and move it to a different use, if necessary. The braita refers to the collection of charity as serara, authority, since they would force people to give charity and even seize a collateral from those who would not give, even on erev Shabbat. Isn't this forbidden in a different source? The Gemara distinguishes between collecting from the wealthy and those who are not wealthy. What reward is promised to those who give charity? Charity collectors need to be cautious that they don't arouse suspicion that they are taking money for themselves.

Bava Batra 7 - July 2, 26 Sivan Jul 02, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Binyamin Cohen and Ranana Dine in honor of their first wedding anniversary. "We got together by learning Daf, and our chevruta eventually led to our chuppah. We are happy to be able to mark our anniversary by sharing our love of Talmud with others through the Hadran community."

Rav Chama brings four rulings - three relating to whether people have the right to make others living next door/on top of them tear down walls, houses, etc. to improve their living space. The fourth relates to concern over people taking advantage of orphans and forging documents to get out of repaying a loan. For what needs can we insist that members of a courtyard share in the costs? Do town residents need to share the costs for a wall, a door, and a lock to protect the city? Do all the residents need to partake equally or do the wealthy pay more (as the enemy generally comes for money), or does each household pay per person (as perhaps the enemy comes to kill), or do the ones living closer to the wall pay more (as they are closer to the danger and need more protection)? Are Torah scholars exempt from payment for the city walls as their Torah learning protects them? Rabbi Yehuda Nesia obligated them but Reish Lakish disagreed and exempted them. Reish Lakish brought a verse to prove his point. Rabbi Yochanan questioned why he chose that verse and not a different verse that illustrates the same point.

Bava Batra 6 - July 1, 25 Sivan Jul 01, 2024

Can one use a ma li l'shaker claim against a chazaka, as in the case where a creditor demands payment after the date of the loan was already due and the borrower claims that they returned a loan before loan's due date? Do we believe the borrower since a better claim could have been made (that he/she paid back the loan on time) or is this not accepted since there is a chazaka, assumption that people do not repay loans before the due date? Three tannaitic sources are brought, two of them from our Mishna, to try to answer the question, but all attempts are rejected. If a dividing wall in a courtyard between two neighbors fell and one only wanted to rebuild to a height of four cubits and the other wanted it higher, one cannot force the other to share in the cost of the higher part of the wall. But if the neighbor who did not want to pay for the higher wall built a wall in their courtyard opposite the other at a higher height, indicating they want to connect the walls with a ceiling, they need to share the original wall's cost. If the wall they built is shorter than the dividing wall (but above four cubits) or its length is shorter and only some of it is opposite the other wall, do they need to share the cost of the entire wall or only the part they will use? Rav Huna and Rav Nachman have different opinions on this issue. Although, there are particular cases where each side agrees with the other's position. Rav Nachman and Rav Yosef also discuss different situations where one can assume or not assume that a neighbor agreed to permit usage of their wall to their neighbor. For example, if one permitted one's neighbor to rest small beams on their wall (did not protest when the neighbor did that), does that mean they also would permit larger beams? If one rents a room in a large house, what other parts of the house can the renter use besides the room? If two neighbors live opposite each other, each is required to build a fence for the length of half their roof (each builds it on the half opposite the exposed half of the neighbor) to block the ability of each one to see into the other's roof. Why is there a concern for neighbors looking in and not for people in the public domain looking in? What are the laws when a roof and a courtyard are at the same level opposite each other?

Bava Batra 5 - June 30, 24 Sivan Jun 30, 2024

Seder Nezikin Kit - Order Form

Bava Batra bookmark

Ravina's property surrounded Runia's property on all four sides and Ravina put up a fence and insisted that Runia share in the cost, based on the ruling in the Mishna. Runia did not want to pay. They brought the case in front of Rava who ruled that Runia needed to pay at least the amount of money it would have cost him to bring a guard to protect the property. In another incident, Runia brought property adjacent to Ravina's field and Ravina wanted to kick him off the land and buy the property himself based on the law of dina d'bar metzra, that the person living adjacent to a property can insist on purchasing the field and takes priority to any other buyer. Rav Safra told him to let Runia have the property as Runia needed the land more than Ravina did. If a wall dividing a courtyard of two neighbors falls, even if the wall was higher before it fell, the minimum height needed to rebuild is four cubits. If one neighbor wants to rebuild the wall at its original height, they cannot insist that the other neighbor pay half. However, if the neighbor who does not want to pay to make the wall higher, builds an inner wall and plans to attach a roof from the high dividing wall to the new inner wall, that neighbor has shown that the high wall serves their needs and has to share the cost. If there is a debate between neighbors about whether one paid the other for the cost of the wall, who is believed? On what does it depend? Reish Lakish disagrees with Abaye and Rava regarding a case where the creditor and borrower each claim before the date the loan was due that the loan was/was not repaid. Reish Lakish assumes that people do not pay before the date it is due and therefore the borrower is not believed. Abaye and Rava trust the borrower's claim. First, a section of our Mishna is brought to raise a difficulty against Reish Lakish's position and then the next section is brought to raise a question on Abaye and Rava's position, but each difficulty is resolved. The Gemara concludes that we hold like Reish Lakish and even one who is collecting from orphans can collect even without taking an oath, if the father died before the date the loan was due.

Bava Batra 4 - Shabbat June 29, 23 Sivan Jun 28, 2024

Study Guide Bava Batra 4

How did Herod, who was a slave, become a king? How did he end up being the one who renovated the Temple? What are the rules for partitions in a garden or in a field where there is no established custom? When one resident cannot force the other to build a wall, the one who wants it builds it exclusively on their property and puts an identifying marker on it. Why does the marker go on the other side of the wall? Why, in the case where both build the wall, do they need to put a marker on both sides? If a neighbor is surrounded on three sides by one landowner and that landowner erected three walls, the inner neighbor does not need to share in the cost of the walls. But if they put up a fourth wall, the inner neighbor must share the costs. There is a debate about whether it matters who put up the fourth wall and whether or not the inner neighbor needs to share the costs of just the fourth wall or all the walls. Does the inner neighbor need to pay according to the actual cost of the wall, only according to the cheapest market rate for a wall, or possibly even only for what it would cost to hire a watchman to protect the field?

Bava Batra 3 - June 28, 22 Sivan Jun 28, 2024

Seder Nezikin Kit - Order Form

Bava Batra bookmark

After concluding that mechitza means a wall, the Gemara now brings an alternate version of the previous sugya in which the opposite conclusion is reached - that mechitza is a partition, concluding that one is responsible for preventing heizek re'iya, one neighbor looking into the other's courtyard. Two difficulties are raised against this explanation but are resolved. To resolve the second difficulty, Rabbi Asi brings Rabbi Yochanan's understanding of the Mishna that the case is a courtyard that is less than 4x4 cubits and too small to require dividing. Several difficulties are brought on that understanding and are resolved. The Gemara clarifies the differences between the bricks and stones mentioned in the Mishna. The Gemara infers from the Mishna's line that a wall four cubits high is built from gazit which is five handbreadths wide, then if it is eight cubits in height, the wall needs to be ten handbreadths wide to be sturdy. If so, in the first Temple, how did the wall of the ama taraksin (separating the kodesh from the kodesh kodashim), made of gazit, stand if it was thirty cubits in height and six handbreadths wide? Why did they use a parochet, not a wall, in the second Temple? Rav Chisda rules that one cannot knock down a shul unless one already has a new shul in its place. This leads to a story about Herod and the rebuilding of the Temple and his rise to power.

Bava Batra 2 - June 26, 21 Sivan Jun 27, 2024

Bava Batra bookmark

Study Guide Bava Batra 2

Masechet Bava Batra is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz. "Sara proudly shared that her father taught her some Talmud at a time when that was not done. He came to Chicago from Stashov Poland and was known for delivering the laundry along with a dvar Torah. Sara was a highly respected Jewish educator in Chicago. May both their memories be for a blessing."

Today's daf is sponsored by Rachel Reshet in memory of Shalom Elimelech ben Esther and Efraim Fishel Yehoshua.

If two neighbors share a courtyard and agree to divide it, they are each required to give space for the dividing wall and share the expenses of building it. Can one force the other to build a wall - both to help with paying for it and for using the space in his property to build it? The Mishna mentions the word mechitza. Does a mechitza mean a wall or a divider? If the word mechitza means a wall, then the Mishna is understood to mean "If both sides agree to build a wall, then there are the rules...," meaning that if they did not agree to build a wall, one can't insist the other build a wall. This reading assumes that damages caused by one looking into another's courtyard (heizek re'iya) are not considered damages. However, if mechitza means divider, then the Mishna is read differently. "If both sides agree to divide, then they need to build a wall." This reading assumes that damages caused by looking into another's courtyard are considered damages. Difficulties are raised against both interpretations, but the one against the second opinion is not resolved and therefore the Gemara concludes that heizek re'iya is not considered damages. However, the Gemara ten brings five tannaitic sources and one statement of an amora which all seem to indicate the opposite, that damages caused by looking into another's courtyard are considered damages. Each source is then explained differently to support the previous conclusion, that they are not considered damages.

Bava Metzia 119 - June 26, 20 Sivan Jun 26, 2024

Siyum Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by the Gewurz family in loving memory of their dear father and grandfather, Samuel Gewurz, Shmuel Ben Yehudah Leib v’Rachel Mirel, z”l. "He spent the last three years of his life learning Bava Metzia, with a chavruta, almost every day. Together, they made it to the middle of the eighth perek. We finished the eighth perek at the shiva. Now, we complete this study, as a community of learners, in his memory. Yehi Zichro Baruch."

If there is a vegetable growing in between two gardens, one below and one above, Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon disagree about whether the vegetable belongs to the upper garden, the lower garden, or if the upper garden owner gets what he/she can reach. The Gemara narrows down the dispute and brings a braita and a Mishna where there's a similar dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda as in the Mishna about a tree growing from another tree, regarding ownership and orla laws. Why is it necessary to mention both cases? They explain that one deals with monetary matters and the other with issurim, prohibited items, and we might not have thought to apply one to the other. Ephraim Safra quotes Reish Lakish, who rules according to Rabbi Shimon (up to what one can reach), and even Shabur Malka, the Persian king, praised Rabbi Shimon for his approach.

Introduction to Masechet Bava Batra with Dr. Ayelet Hoffmann Libson Jun 25, 2024

Introduction to Masechet Bava Batra

Bava Metzia 118 - June 25, 19 Sivan Jun 25, 2024

Today’s daf is sponsored by Tzippy Wolkenfeld in loving memory of Yakira Leeba bat Avrohom Yosef Yehuda v'Sara Gita. "Tomorrow marks the first yahrzeit of our beautiful granddaughter Yakira Leeba bat Avrohom Yosef Yehuda v'Sara Gita, a glorious little person who inspired tefilla and chesed around the world."

If one has an olive press built into a rock and another has a garden above it, if the ceiling of the olive press collapses, the garden owner can plant on the floor of the olive press. How big must the hole in the ceiling be to allow for this arrangement? Rav and Shmuel disagree here in the same way as they disagreed in the previous Mishna regarding the hole in the floor of the second floor. Why was there a need to mention their debate in both cases - why couldn't we have learned one from the other? If one's tree or wall collapsed and fell onto another's property, if the other is not interested in keeping the debris, the owner of the wall must remove it. But if the owner offered the neighbor to remove and keep the debris and the neighbor agreed, the owner cannot change their mind later and take the debris. Why doesn't the neighbor's courtyard acquire the debris automatically as we have learned that a courtyard of a person acquires objects? The Mishna taught a similar halakha regarding paying wages from the produce the worker is dealing with. If the worker insists on being paid wages, the employer must pay in money. But if the worker agrees to accept the produce, the employer can not change their mind. Why was it necessary to teach this case as well if the ruling was the same as the case of the debris? A contradiction is brought between our mishna and a braita about whether or not an employer can insist that the worker takes his wages in produce. Rav Nachman brings three different explanations (the first two are rejected) to explain the contradiction. Can one acquire items from hefker by watching them (without lifting them)? If one puts items in the public domain, how long can they be left there? Even if one is allowed to leave them there by law, is the person who left them responsible to pay for damages if they damage another? If a group of people work together to build something, each doing a different part of the work, and after it is built, it breaks and damages someone, who is responsible for paying? If one field is higher than another and something grows from the side of the raised area that borders the two fields, to whom does it belong?

Bava Metzia 117 - June 24, 18 Sivan Jun 24, 2024

Study Guide Bava Metzia 117

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the birth of a granddaughter, daughter of Aliza and Chesky Gewirtz, to our friend and co-learner Deena Rabinovich. "May the Rabinovich and Gewirtz families see much nachat as the new "Hadran Daf Addition" grows to Torah (and Daf), chuppa and maasim tovim, and may this simcha bring joy, peace, and healing to the Jewish nation and the world."

If the landlord lives downstairs and the tenant lives upstairs and there is a hole in the upstairs floor, the tenant can move downstairs. Does the owner need to move out? If not, is the tenant allowed to use the same entrance or can only enter from the upstairs? What if there were three floors, if the hole is in the middle floor, can the tenant be moved upstairs? If two people share a house (one upstairs and one downstairs) if the limestone that covers the floor upstairs wears away and there is a leak from the upstairs to the downstairs, who is responsible for fixing it? Is it connected to the debate in our Mishna between the rabbis and Rabbi Yosi about a tenant/landlord and who fixes the plaster when there is a hole in the floor upstairs? The Gemara rejects the comparison to the Mishna but connects it to a different debate in Bava Batra 25b about whose responsibility it is to prevent future damage - the one who may damage or the one whose items may become damaged? If a house collapses and the lower owner does not want to rebuild, what options does the upper floor owner have? Is there a pattern that can be found in various halachic decisions of Rabbi Yehuda that he holds that one cannot benefit from the money/property of another without the other's consent? The Gemara first brings three opinions of Rabbi Yehuda in different contexts to prove this, but each is then explained based on different reasoning. In rebuilding a house that fell apart, the upstairs and downstairs owners must each be careful to use the same type of bricks/ceilings/height/number of windows as before unless the change will not negatively affect the other owner. What changes are good/bad for each owner? If one has an olive press built into a rock and another has a garden above it, if the ceiling of the olive press collapses, the garden owner can plant on the floor of the olive press. If one's tree or wall fell/collapsed into the street, the owner is not responsible for damages, unless the owner was warned by the court and did not take it down. If it fell onto another's property, what are the rights of the owner/neighbor regarding the debris?

Bava Metzia 116 - June 23, 17 Sivan Jun 23, 2024

This week's learning is sponsored by the Storch, Joseph, and Cohen families for the refuah shleima of their dear friend Jenny, Esther Gittel Bat Miriam v’’Asher Anshel. "We love you Jenny."

If one seizes as collateral any item that is used for one purpose but made up of two parts, one transgresses two negative commandments. This is learned from the verse about the millstone, which is made of two parts. There was a case where one seized a slaughtering knife for collateral. Rava and Abaye disagreed about whether the creditor was able to keep it for repayment of the loan. Abaye ruled that since it was needed for food, the creditor had to return it and could turn to the court to get his money back. Rava ruled that since he could have lied and said the knife was his, the creditor could keep the knife as repayment of the loan. If a jointly owned house (one lives on the main floor and one upstairs) collapsed, how do they split the pieces that fell? If one rents out the upstairs of the house and the floor gets ruined, the owner must fix it. Rabbi Yosi thinks both sides need to pay part. If the owner doesn't fix it, the renter can move in downstairs. Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether this is true if most of the floor is destroyed or even a small part of 4x4 handbreadths. The root of their debate is whether or not we assume a person can live upstairs while having some of their vessels downstairs.

Bava Metzia 115 - Shabbat June 22, 16 Sivan Jun 21, 2024

In the event of the borrower's death, if one had taken a collateral, the creditor can keep it as payment for the loan. The lender would lose their money if there was no collateral and no land to collect from. Does the collateral need to be in the hands of the creditor at the time of death or is it enough that it was originally taken as collateral, but could have been temporarily returned at the time of death? Can we expound the reason for mitzvot in the Torah or not? There is an argument between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda about this regarding not taking collateral from a widow. Is it only a poor widow (so that when the creditor returns it every day, people won't speak negatively about the widow that a man is visiting her house or it is relevant for even a wealthy widow? The Gemara questions this as the opinions seem switched in a different area (a king not being allowed many wives). The issue is resolved. It is forbidden to take the millstone as collateral and the verse adds "because he is taking his soul (livelihood)." Is that adding on an extra negative commandment or is it coming to include other items that are essential to the borrower's existence? There is an argument about this and the Gemara tries to see whether this argument matches the argument between Rava and Abaye regarding not eating the Pesach sacrifice raw or uncooked as the verse also adds "because it needs to be roasted" - if one eats it raw, is one transgressing two commandments or one. The comparison is rejected.

Bava Metzia 114 - June 21, 15 Sivan Jun 21, 2024

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the birth of a grandson, son of Dovid and Ahuva Lewis, to our friend and co-learner Debbie Portnoy. May the Portnoy and Lewis families see much nachat as the new arrival grows to Torah (and Daf), chuppah and maasim tovim, and may this simcha bring joy, peace, and healing to the Jewish nation and the world.

If a borrower gives an object as collateral to guarantee repayment of the loan, if it is used to repay the loan and the lender needs the item for basic needs, does the creditor need to sell the object and leave the borrower with a more basic form of the object? This is called mesadrim, a concept that applies in the laws of arakhin (valuations) when one promises the value of a person to the Temple. Would the law also apply to hekdesh (a case where one promises the value of an object to the Temple. The similarities and differences between these three cases are discussed and various opinions are brought regarding loans and hekdesh. Raba bar Avuha met Eliyahu in a non-Jewish cemetery and asked him a few questions including the law of mesadrim for a creditor and why it was permitted for Eliyahu who was a kohen to be in a non-Jewish cemetery. Several laws regarding collaterals are derived from the verses in the Torah.

Bava Metzia 113 - June 20, 14 Sivan Jun 20, 2024

This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.

The employer is trusted to deny a worker's claim that the worker was not yet paid, once the date for paying salary has passed. The assumption is that on the day one is supposed to be paid, the employer will remember to pay to avoid transgressing the prohibition of delaying a salary payment. Why is the worker's claim not accepted based on an assumption that the worker would not steal? The Gemara explains that the employer has two chazakas in their favor (would not transgress delaying salary payment and that the worker would demand the salary on the given day, and the worker only has one. The creditor can take a collateral if one does not pay a loan on time, however, the creditor may not enter the borrower's house to seize an item. Instead, an agent of the court collects the collateral on behalf of the creditor. Shmuel rules that an agent of the court is also not permitted to enter the borrower's house but can seize the borrower's item in the marketplace. Three sources are raised as difficulties against Shmuel's position. Eventually, they explain that whether or not the court can enter the borrower's house is a subject of a tannaitic debate. A braita rules that when taking an item for collateral, the court's agent must ensure that the borrower is left with basic needs for himself, but not for his wife and children. What are these basic needs? This is derived by a gezeira shava from laws of valuations to the Temple. Rav Nachman raises a difficulty against this from Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel's position in the Mishna that thirty days after the loan, the creditor can sell the item seized as collateral. If it can be sold, it is clear that one does not need to leave the borrower with basic needs.

Bava Metzia 112 - June 19, 13 Sivan Jun 19, 2024

A braita extrapolates the verse in Devarim 24:15 that holding back salary is considered like taking away his/her soul. Whose soul - the worker or the employer? Rav Chisda and Rav Huna each bring different answers and explanations, based on verses in Proverbs. From the word "with you" in Vayikra 19:13, they derive three cases where the prohibition to delay salary does not apply. One exception is if the employer passed over the responsibility to pay to a store owner or money changer. If the store owner does not pay the worker, can the worker demand payment from the employer or is the employer no longer responsible? Rav Sheshet and Raba disagree on this issue. Does the prohibition of delaying payment also apply to a contracted worker (kablan) - one who gets paid for the job and not per hour? This depends on a different debate about whether a contracted worker assumes ownership of the item they are fixing or not. If there is a disagreement between the employer and the worker about whether the worker was paid, if it was before the expected day or payment, the worker takes an oath that he/she did not get paid and collects their salary. This goes against the general principle that the oath is usually for one to be exempt from payment (maintain the status quo). Why is this case an exception to that rule? Is there a reason to protect the worker more than the employer? Various arguments are brought and rejected as the issue is complex. The conclusion is that an employer is busy with work/worker and does not remember whether or not the worker was paid.

Bava Metzia 111 - June 18, 12 Sivan Jun 18, 2024

Study Guide Bava Metzia 111

This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

Today's daf is sponsored by Nina Black in loving memory of her mother, Sophie Black, Sophia bat Avram, z"l whose yahrzeit is today. "Mom was a committed Jew, a deep thinker, a lover of learning and would be happy that I took on the commitment to do Daf Yomi. I miss her every day."

What is the time frame in which one must pay one's worker? It depends on whether the person was hired for work during the day or at night and whether the job was for the day or per hour. There are five negative prohibitions associated with delaying of payment for salary and one positive commandment. Do the same rules apply for a rental payment for one who rents animals or vessels? Do they apply to a ger toshav (one who keeps the seven Noachide commandments)? Three tannaitic opinions are brought relating to these two questions which is based on different approaches to extrapolating the verses in Devarim 24:14-15 and Vayikra 19:13.

Bava Metzia 110 - June 17, 11 Sivan Jun 17, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored in loving memory of Eilon Weiss, brother of Tzippy Huri, one of our learners, who was killed on Shabbat in Gaza. Eilon also learned daf yomi daily, even while he was serving in Gaza.

Bava Metzia 109 - June 16, 10 Sivan Jun 16, 2024

This week’s learning is sponsored by Bob & Paula Cohen in loving memory of Helen Cohen, Henna bat Yitzchak Nechemia whose yahrzeit is on Friday.

This week's learning is sponsored by Sara Averick & Jose Rosenfeld in loving memory of Sara’s mother, Leah bat Rav Yehuda Leib Chaikel v’Chaya Masha. "She made sure her children got an excellent Jewish education."

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of the eight soldiers who were killed yesterday in Gaza, and in memory of Yair Roitman who was injured a few days ago and died yesterday.

A sharecropper who pays a set amount (chokher) cannot plant something that will weaken the land or will not regrow for seven years, such as flax or cut a sycamore tree, unless they will be cultivating the land for seven years. Abaye and Rava disagree on whether the enhancement to the sycamore tree goes to the sharecropper. Rav Papa worked as a sharecropper for growing hay, but a palm tree grew instead. He wanted to get money for the enhancement of the tree when he left the field, as the tree prevented him from planting hay, but Rav Sheisha entered into a debate with him and eventually ruled that he could only get the value of the tree if he had cut it for its wood. Another similar case is brought but since the tree grew on the border, where they wouldn't have planted anything, the sharecropper did not receive money for the enhancement of the tree. Rav Yosef had a planter working in his field who died and left five sons-in-law who all wanted to replace him. However, Rav Yosef threatened them to leave his land as he did not want five people working the land, as each would think another person would do the work and no one would take full responsibility. If a planter says, "If I cause a loss to the owner, I will leave without taking the enhancements," does the planter forfeit any enhancements there were, or is this a case of asmachta? A case is brought of a planter who left in the middle of a job to move to Israel. Rav Papa bar Shmuel and Rava disagreed about whether he could receive the full enhancements to the field that he would have received or whether he had to compensate the owner for his loss, as now the owner will need to find a sharecropper to finish the job. Rav Ashi understood the ruling in one way, but Rav Acha questioned his understanding.

Bava Metzia 108 - Shabbat June 15, 9 Sivan Jun 14, 2024

Those who own land near the river should cut all trees along the river's edge to allow those who pull in the boats to have space to do so. A story is told of Raba bar Rav Huna who refused to cut his trees down. Although he was justified in his argument, Raba bar Rav Nachman came by without checking into the situation properly and had them cut down. Raba bar Rav Huna cursed him and the curse was fulfilled. Which communal responsibilities are rabbis exempt from and for which are they liable? Those who benefit from a river or a gutter need to share in the expenses to fix it up if it directly affects their field. A neighbor has the right to buy the property adjacent to his house/field and can even force a purchaser to sell it to him/her. This law is derived from the verse in Devarim 6:18, "Do what is right and good in the eyes of God." The Gemara discusses in detail the nuances of this law. In which cases does this law not apply? If the neighbor does not want to purchase the land, who else receives higher priority for purchasing the land?

Bava Metzia 107 - June 14, 8 Sivan Jun 14, 2024

If a landowner expects the sharecropper to plant a certain crop, can the sharecropper change to a different crop? This question hinges on whether the change benefits or harms the field in the long term. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees with the rabbis and forbids any change. The Gemara suggests possible explanations of why he forbids it. The first explanation is rejected but the second is accepted. Rav Yehuda teaches Ravin three halakhot/advice regarding fields. One can steal cress that grows between flax plants, as it is detrimental to the growth of the flax. Another teaching addresses trees that grow on the border between two neighbors, explaining who has the right to eat the fruits and on what does it depend. Additionally, he advises that it is best not to have a field close to the city. There are contradictory sources regarding whether or not it is preferable to have fields close to the city. One source says it will bring an ayin hara, implying that proximity to the city might attract jealousy or negative attention. Another source says it is preferable as it is convenient, providing easier access. The reconciliation of these sources depends on whether one has put up a wall around the field, blocking the view of others. Verses from Devarim 28:3 and 6 regarding blessings that come upon a person in the city, in the field, when returning home and when leaving, are extrapolated with advice and recommendations. These verses provide practical guidance for living a blessed and healthy life. Five explanations are brought for the verse in Devarim 7:15 - "God will remove all disease" - to elucidate what is meant by "all disease." Rav says it refers to the ayin hara. Shmuel says it is the wind that gets into the body. Rabbi Chanina says it is the cold. Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chanina says it is excrement of the nose and ear. Rabbi Eliezer says it is the gall bladder. If one eats bread and water in the morning, it prevents sickness of the gall bladder. They attribute thirteen benefits to eating bread in the morning, highlighting this practice's importance in maintaining health. Rav Yehuda advised Rav Ada who was a measurer. Make sure to be exacting, as any piece of land, even small, can be used to plant something valuable. Four cubits of space should be left bare near the irrigation channel, but since it is only for individual use, one can estimate it, and it can be even less than four cubits. However, on the edge of one's field near the side of the river, one must leave four cubits of space for public use and should estimate generously. Those who own land near the river should cut all trees along the river's edge to allow those who pull in the boats to have space to do so.

Bava Metzia 106 - June 13, 7 Sivan Jun 13, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Jill and Jeff Shames in loving memory of Jill's father, Bill Baker, Zev Velvel ben Reuven v'Chana. "We were blessed to have him in our lives until three years ago. Dad, may you continue to shepp nachat from your children, your children's children and your children's children's children. We miss you."

A sharecropper (chokher) who cultivates another's land may face scenarios where the agreed-upon payment is adjusted if a plague of locusts or a windblast ruins the crops. Various theological arguments, generally protecting the landowner, influence these adjustments. For instance, if the sharecropper plants a different crop than agreed upon, the landowner can argue that their prayers were for the original crop, suggesting divine intervention might have spared it. A tannaitic source on the laws of repurchasing an ancestral field, raises a difficulty about the definitions of what is considered a natural disaster (according to Rav Yehuda and Ulla) but these are resolved. Shmuel's ruling highlights that a sharecropper is not exempt from paying if the sharecropper did not plant the field, as the landowner can claim it might have been spared due to the landowner's merits. This contrasts with the case of a shepherd abandoning a flock, where liability depends on whether the shepherd could realistically have saved the flock, without expecting miraculous intervention. Regarding the sharecropper's duty to replant, the debate between Rebbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel on chazaka (establishment through occurrences) is relevant. Depending on their views, the sharecropper would be exempt from replanting after two or three destructive events. If crops fail to grow at all, the sharecropper must replant repeatedly until the planting season ends. Rabbi Yehuda stated that a sharecropper committed to pay in money, not crops, does not deduct for regional disasters. However, Rava clarified that this view is not upheld. The sharecropper's payment comes from the field's crops, regardless of their quality compared to market standards - for better or for worse.

Bava Metzia 105 - Shavuot - June 12, 6 Sivan Jun 11, 2024

Rava discusses more issues regarding a heiter iska. If a sharecropper who pays a fixed amount to the owner is not permitted to decide not to weed the field, for various reasons cited in the Mishna and Gemara. If one sharecrops for percentages and there is very little yield, the sharecropper does not assume responsibility. However, there is a minimum amount. What is that amount? The Gemara digresses to measurements in other areas of halakha including ritual impurity, particularly cases in which Rabbi Yannai takes a position. One who works in another's land as a chokher and a plague or windblast ruins the crops - in which scenarios can the chokher pay less than the agreed upon amount?

Bava Metzia 104 - June 11, 5 Sivan Jun 11, 2024

If a sharecropper agrees to work an irrigated field and the river dries up, can the sharecropper deduct something from the payment to the owner, as the work is more difficult than expected? On what does it depend? If one agrees to sharecrop for a percentage of the yield and decides not to work the land, one still needs the landowner according to the agreed-upon percentage calculated at what the field should have yielded. Rabbi Meir says this is common law that became halakha as it is derived from the commonly used language in sharecropper contracts, as we doresh lashon hedyot. There are various interpretations of what this means and several cases in which this principle is used. If a sharecropper said, "If I don't work the land I will pay you one thousand zuzim," there is a disagreement about whether this is binding, as it seems like it was just an exaggeration, asmachta, which would render it meaningless. Rava explains several details regarding a heiter iska - how it works and how it is meant to protect the investor's rights. A heiter iska allows one to invest money for someone else in a way that they can share the profits while avoiding issues of interest. It is set up in a way that a loss will be split 50/50 but gains 2/3 to the borrower (the one investing the money) and 1/3 to the investor. Therefore, if one splits one investment into two documents, there can be a loss for the investor if one yields profits and the other a loss. If two investment are combined into one document, it can cause a loss for the borrower.

Bava Metzia 103 - June 10, 4 Sivan Jun 10, 2024

If the landlord claims that the tenant hasn't paid rent and the tenant claims they already paid, the tenant takes an oath verifying their claim and is exempt from payment. If a rental contract was written for a specific amount of years, but no date was included in the contract, even though the contract is in the hands of the tenant, since the landlord is the one who has original rights to the land, if the landlord and tenant disagree about the end date of the contract, the landlord is believed. Why does this case differ from one where the lender brings a promissory note to the borrower who claims that half was already paid? If one lends a vessel to a friend to be used by the friend while the vessel is "in good shape" forever, the friend can continue to borrow it multiple times, even after returning it, if they performed a kinyan sudar regarding the arrangement. Rava and Rav Papa discuss other cases where one lent items to another to be used in a specific manner - what is included within each phrase? If one rents a house to another, and the house falls, the landlord needs to provide another house. In what ways does it need to be the same as the original house that was rented? The month chapter begins with the laws of sharecroppers - both arisim and chakhirim. The expectations of how they will work in the field depend on the local custom. Which costs are to be covered by the landowner and which by the sharecropper?

Bava Metzia 102 - June 9, 3 Sivan Jun 09, 2024

This week's learning is sponsored by Joy Benatar in loving memory of Miriam Quint David on her 8th yahrzeit. "Proud mother and grandmother; passionate Jewish educator; pastry, ice cream and needlework enthusiast."

Today's daf is sponsored by Batsheva Pava in loving memory of her father's family who arrived at Auschwitz only a few days before Shavuot. "His mother, Batsheva, and son, Moshe Meshel and daughter, Adle, were taken to the crematoria only hours after arrival. My grandmother was a big baalat tzedaka. My father used to say that if he did not hide his pants at night she would give them away to a poor person. Hashem yinkom damam."

Today's daf is dedicated to Noa Argamani, Almog Meir Jan, Andrey Kozlov and Shlomi Ziv who were rescued from captivity, and in memory of Arnon Zemira who was killed in the rescue mission. We are thrilled at the return of the hostages, but, at the same time, we mourn the loss of Arnon and pray for the safe return of the remaining 120 hostages.

The responsibility for putting up a mezuza is on the renter, and the renter cannot remove the mezuza when leaving, unless the house belongs to a gentile. Items that come into the courtyard of the landlord, such as dung of animals who come into the courtyard, belong to the landlord, even if someone is renting the house, as the standard house rental does not include the courtyard. This explanation of the Mishna can be used to support Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Chanina's statement that an item that enters one's courtyard is acquired by the owner, even without their knowledge. Three tannaitic sources are quoted to raise a difficulty with Rabbi Yossi's opinion. If one rents for a year and the year becomes a leap year, is the rental of the extra month included in the original price or does the renter need to pay extra? According to the Mishna, this depends on whether the agreement was for months or a year. If the agreement mentions both months and years, the Mishna rules that the money of the leap year month is divided. Rav disagrees with this opinion and Shmuel and Rav Nachman offer opinions as well.

Bava Metzia 101 - Shabbat June 8, 2 Sivan Jun 07, 2024

If a river uprooted a tree and placed it in someone else's field, can the owner take it back? What if someone planted a tree on someone's property without the owner's knowledge? Does the one who planted receive payment for their work and how much? Would the law be the same for a house one built in someone else's ruin without the property owner's knowledge? How much advance notice is required for a landlord to a renter before kicking out the renter from the landlord's property? The answer depends on the time of year (affected by supply and demand), whether it was in a city or village, whether it was a store or a residence, and what type of store it was. What cases are exceptions to the rule in which no notice is required?

Bava Metzia 100 - Rosh Chodesh Sivan - June 7, 1 Sivan Jun 07, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Lesley Glassberg Nadel in loving memory of her mother, Theresa Glassberg, Tova bat Tzvi Hirsch and Bayla on her 20th yahrzeit, on Rosh Chodesh Sivan. "May her memory be for a blessing."

If one traded animals or slaves and the animal/slave gave birth and each side claimed the offspring as their own (born before or after the sale), the offspring is split between the buyer and the owner. If one had two animals or slaves - one small and one large and each side claims they bought/sold the bigger/smaller one, what is the law? The Mishna delineates different possibilities depending on whether each side brought a definitive claim (bari) or a non-definitive claim (shema) and rules in each case. In the case of the animal/slave, why is it divided? Why does it not remain where it is presently? After resolving this question by assuming the case is where it is not in the hands of either side, the Gemara raises another question - why does it not remain in the original owner's possession where is the last place where it had presumptive ownership? The Mishna must be according to Sumchus who holds that money in doubt is split without swearing. But, there is a debate about whether Sumchus held that position even in a case where both cases have definitive claims. Therefore, the Mishna is explained according to each position - either they have non-definitive or definitive claims. Two difficulties are raised against Raba bar Rav Huna's explanation of the Mishna. In the case of the two slaves/two pieces of land, if each claims definitively which slave/piece of land they bought/sold, why do they take an oath? There are three reasons why there should not be an oath in this case. To resolve this, they suggest four possible answers and analyze whether these answers are feasible.

Bava Metzia 99 - June 6, 29 Iyar Jun 06, 2024

Today's learning is sponsored by Lori Schuldiner Schor, on the occasion of her 65th birthday. "With gratitude for access to meaningful learning, and with appreciation for the love and support of my family and friends, throughout the years, to this very day (ad haYom haZeh)."

Today's daf is sponsored by Dianne Kuchar in loving memory of Dennis. "Today was Dennis’ birthday. He was 6 months older than me, both being born in 56. He died at 65, two years ago. On June 6, in two years time, we will complete the daf yomi learning cycle of 7 1/2 years. I thank Hadran, Rabbanit Michelle, and all the daffers for their support."

At what point does a borrower assume responsibility for unanticipated damage? The Mishna rules that if the borrower agrees that the lender can send the object to them with someone else, the borrower is already responsible, even if the lender sends it with their slave. Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether this law relates to a Jewish slave or a Canaanite slave. The Gemara questions Rav's position that it refers to a Canaanite slave, as a Canaanite slave is considered an extension of the owner. However, the issue is resolved by employing an ukimta, establishing the Mishna in a particular situation. There are different opinions about when an owner can change their mind and decide not to loan out a borrowed item. Shmuel rules on a different issue: if one steals an item that can be sold in bulk at a lower price or sold by unit at a higher price, what price does the thief need to reimburse the owner? He holds that a robber would pay the higher amount if it is hekdesh (consecrated item) and the lower amount if it is to an individual. However, a difficulty is raised as Shmuel in a different context equates hekdesh and non-hekdesh. To resolve the difficulty, they say that Shmuel changed his mind about the latter source.

Bava Metzia 98 - Yom Yerushalayim - June 5, 28 Iyar Jun 05, 2024

Presentation Bava Metzia 98

Today's daf is sponsored by Rebecca and Ezra Darshan in loving memory of Helene Isaacs on her 24th yahrzeit, on Yom Yerushalayim. "She was an optimist who loved learning, and would be so proud of all of the women learning daf."

To resolve the difficulty raised against Rav Nachman and Rabbi Yochanan, the cases in the Mishna must be explained as a situation in which the borrower admitted to part of the lender's claim. The Gemara explains that an extra cow must be added to each case and delineates each party's claim. According to Rami bar Hama, two cows must be added to each case, as Rami requires any case of shomrim to have both a partial acceptance of the claim and a partial admission by the shomer. The Mishna ruled that if both are definite in their claim, the borrower/renter needs to take an oath - this oath can only be explained by gilgul shevua, rolling over another oath. If each is unsure of their claim, the money is divided - this follows Sumchus' position, but the rabbis disagree. Questions are asked regarding cases where one borrows an item "with the owner" and then before the rental time is up, he/she decides to rent it without the owner or the reverse. Does the exemption of "with the owner" apply because the agreement is viewed as a continuation of the first agreement or not? What about from renting to borrowing or from borrowing to renting to borrowing or vice versa. If an item is sent via messenger to the borrower, at what point does the borrower assume responsibility for the item?

Bava Metzia 97 - June 4, 27 Iyar Jun 04, 2024

A borrower is not liable for accidental damage that occurs from using the item in the manner it is meant to be used, however, if it was used in an atypical manner, the borrower is responsible. Various cases are presented to explain further what is and is not considered damage or death from typical use. Rava discusses additional scenarios in which the exemption of shmira b'baalim would apply, such as if the borrower asks the lender to bring them a cup of water while borrowing the item, or if the lender holds a public position. The rabbis told Rava that if he lent them items, they would not be responsible as he "works for them." Rava retorted that they are subjugated to him, as he can choose what material to teach and they have no choice but to learn it. The Mishna describes cases where an animal is rented for some time and borrowed for some time, or where there are two animals—one rented and one borrowed. If the animal dies and there is doubt as to whether it was during the time it was rented or borrowed, or which animal was rented or borrowed, the halakha changes depending on what each side claims (whether they are sure in their claim or unsure). This is based on the principle that if one has a sure claim and the other side is unsure, we hold by the one who has the sure claim. The Mishna poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Nachman and Rabbi Yochanan, who hold that one is exempt even if one has an unsure claim, as the status quo remains and the burden of proof is on the one trying to get money from the other. They resolve the difficulty by claiming that the Mishna refers to a case where there is an obligation on the borrower to swear, and since one who is unsure of one's claim cannot take an oath, the borrower must pay. However, the borrower would be exempt if the case does not require an oath.

Bava Metzia 96 - June 3, 26 Iyar Jun 03, 2024

Abaye, Rava and Rav Ashi each bring a different derivation for the rule that shmira b'baalaim is a valid exemption only when the owner was working for the borrower at the moment of the act of borrowing. Rami bar Hama asks four questions regarding the borrower's liablity for unexpected damages (oness). Then he asks three questions, and Ravina asks a fourth regarding the exemption of shmira b'baalim. Each of these eight questions relates to a unique case and asks whether the general halakha applies in these exceptional circumstances. The last two questions, regarding a husband/wife and an agent are answered: they depend on amoraic debates. Is there a difference if the agent is the owner's slave? Rami bar Hama asks a question regarding a husband's level of responsibility for his wife's usufruct property and about who is responsible for meila for her property if it was sanctified. Rava answers both questions. A borrower is not liable for depreciation or for an animal dying from use as the borrower can claim: "I didn't borrow it just to leave it on the windowsill!"

Bava Metzia 95 - June 2, 25 Iyar Jun 02, 2024

This week's learning is sponsored by Helen Danczak in loving memory of Lucille Fliegler on her yahrzeit. "Thinking about her warmth and her love of family. We honor her memory with our learning."

This week's learning is sponsored by Rachel Savin in honor of the upcoming marriage of her daughter Lior to Daniel this Thursday.

The various halakhot about a borrower (sho'el) that are not explicitly mentioned in the Torah are derived from rabbinic interpretations and extrapolations from the biblical text. First, the borrower's responsibility for items that are captured. While the Torah explicitly states that a borrower is responsible if an item is damaged or dies (Shmot 22:13-14), the rabbis extend this responsibility to cases where the item is captured from the extra word "or". Second, the borrower is responsible for theft and loss. Although the Torah mentions a borrower being liable for damages and death, the rabbis also include theft and loss under the borrower's responsibility. This inclusion is based on a kal v'chomer argument from a paid bailee who is liable for theft or loss, as a borrower takes on a higher level of responsibility since they benefit from using the item without paying for it. Third, the exemption of she'ela b'baalim (borrowing while the owner is working for the borrower) also applies to theft and loss. The rabbis derive this from a paid bailee, but need to also explain the source for this law for a paid bailee and what method of derivation is used to extend the exemption from a paid bailee to a borrower. Regarding shmira b'baalim, there is a debate about whether the exemption applies if the shomer (bailee) was negligent and the owner was working for the shomer. Two difficulties are raised against the position that one is exempt. However, both difficulties are resolved. Rav Hamnuna holds a narrow view of this exemption, limiting it to cases where the owner was working with the borrowed item at the time of its break or death and was with the borrower from the time of borrowing until the time of its death. However, the Gemara discusses and ultimately rejects Rav Hamnuna's limitations, suggesting that the exemption can apply in broader circumstances.

Bava Metzia 94 - Shabbat June 1, 24 Iyar May 31, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Ruth Leah Kahan, Jessica Shklar, and Emily Michelson in loving memory of their mother, Kadimah Michelson, Kadimah bat haRav Avraham Tzvi Bentzion v'Chaya, on her 6th yahrzeit. "May her memory be a blessing."

What is considered circumstances beyond one's control that a shomer would be exempt from? One animal attacking or two animals? Does it depend on what type of animal? One can stipulate that one will be a shomer but will not be obligated to pay according to the Torah laws. How is this different from a condition that goes against Torah law that is not a valid condition? Other laws of conditions are discussed. The Mishna discusses in which circumstances one is exempt as a borrower because the owner was "with the shomer" - she'eila b'baalim. The Gemara then discusses the derivation of the laws of shomrim from the verses in the Torah.

Bava Metzia 93 - May 31, 23 Iyar May 31, 2024

Study Guide Bava Metzia 93

Today's daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in honor of a double family simcha. "My cousin became a kalla and her brother and sister-in-law, Rabbi Zvi and Laurie Engel are celebrating the bat mitzvah of Aderet Bina in Chicago. During these trying days, we are grateful for the loving kindness bestowed on us all. May we continue to learn and grow together and see soon geula shleima. Mazel tov!"

The Gemara concludes that it is a tannaitic debate whether the worker's rights to eat on the job are considered an added wage or a gift awarded by the Torah. Is one who guards a field considered "working" to the extent that the guard can eat from the field or not? The Torah did not permit it but the rabbis did. Rav and Shmuel disagree about which type of field (at what stage of development) is the case in which the Torah did not permit but the rabbis did. What is at the root of their debate? Two difficulties are raised against Shmuel's position. The Mishna discusses the four types of shomrim and what is the level of responsibility of each of them. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree about the level of responsibility of a renter - is it the same as one who guards an item for free or one who gets paid? There is a disagreement about who holds which position. One who gets paid for guarding is responsible for circumstances beyond their control. Rabba and Abaye disagree about what is the level of "out of one's control" necessary to be exempt. Is one expected to go beyond what is expected of a regular person since the shomer is getting paid (Abaye) or not (Rabba)? Other rabbis sided with Abaye and ruled accordingly. The Mishna delineates what cases are considered beyond one's control and what are not.

Bava Metzia 92 - May 30, 22 Iyar May 30, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the birth of a granddaughter to our friend and co-learner Tzippy Wolkenfeld, born to her children Hannah and Jacob Finkel. "May the new princess grow l'Torah, l'chuupa ul'maasim tovim and may the joy of her arrival be a harbinger of smachot for all."

Is a worker limited to being able to eat only up to the value of the worker's wages? Tana kama and the rabbis permit this, but Rabbi Elazar Chasama does not. The Gemara offers three possible suggestions to explain the disagreement between tana kama and the rabbis. Is the food that one is allowed to eat while working viewed as an addition to a worker's wages - meaning it belongs to the worker and can be transferred to others, as in a salary - or a separate right granted by the Torah (a gift from God) which would be permitted only to the worker and cannot be passed on to others? Nine sources are quoted, each in an attempt to get to an answer to this question, but all are inconclusive.

Bava Metzia 91 - May 29, 21 Iyar May 29, 2024

If someone rents an animal and muzzles it while it is threshing, they must receive lashes as punishment and also compensate the owner for the food the animal should have eaten while working. The Gemara questions how this can be allowed since it appears to be a double punishment, and the court cannot give one a double punishment for one action. Abaye, Rava and Rav Papa each suggest a possible answer. Rav Papa rules on two unrelated issues - one prohibiting baking bread that is dairy or meat, and another prohibiting putting a male and female animal of different species in the same pen to prevent mating between different species, even though this latter ruling is not explicitly prohibited by the letter of the law. Rav Achdevoi bar Ami raises a difficulty against Rav Papa's second ruling, but this difficulty is resolved. He also brings the same source to question a ruling of Rav Yehuda on animal mating, but it is also resolved. The Mishna discusses the laws regarding a worker eating while on the job, including whether the obligation to allow them to eat is only if they are engaged in work with both hands and legs like an ox who can't be muzzled and works with all fours. If one works with one type of produce, one cannot eat a different type of produce in the field. Even though workers are only permitted by Torah law to eat while actively working, the rabbis permitted them to eat while walking between rows to prevent financial loss for the employer. The Gemara raises a question about whether a worker can eat from the same type of produce in a different area and attempts to answer this from three different rulings in the Mishna, but rejects each suggestion.

Bava Metzia 90 - May 28, 20 Iyar May 28, 2024

Two contradictory sources are brought regarding the prohibition to muzzle an animal while the animal is threshing trauma and maaser produce. One source suggests it's not prohibited, while another asserts it is. Various explanations attempt to reconcile this contradiction, suggesting differences in the type of truma/maaser or differing opinions. If the food on the threshing floor is causing the animal to be sick, is it still prohibited to muzzle - is the prohibition meant for the best interest of the animal or is it meant to not be cruel to the animal? Is it prohibited to tell a non-Jew to muzzle the animal and thresh with it as with laws of Shabbat or is it forbidden only on Shabbat on account of the stringency of Shabbat laws? Two sources are brought to answer this question, but in the end are not conclusive. Rami bar Hama asks a series of questions about whether there is a prohibition of muzzling in a case where there is some external factor that is in place (not put there by the owner) that may prevent the animal from eating. His questions remain unanswered. Rabbi Yonatan asked if one muzzled another's animal and then brought it to the threshing floor, is that forbidden? Rabbi Simai answered from the case of kohanim coming into the Temple drunk that obviously, the verse did not mean only when drinking as one goes into the Temple. If one person muzzles and the other brings it to thresh, the second one gets lashes. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish debate about whether one gets lashes for muzzling an animal by words alone, i.e. telling the animal not to eat.

Bava Metzia 89 - May 27, 19 Iyar May 27, 2024

Ravina adds an additional method to derive that a worker is permitted to eat while working with detached produce and that it is prohibited to muzzle an ox even from attached produce. Four tannaitic sources are cited that derive details of the laws regarding the employer allowing a worker to eat from the produce. Each source derives a different detail from the word "thresh" in the verse about the ox - that it refers to items that grow from the ground, at a stage that the produce is ready to be picked and until the stage that it is obligated in tithing or separating challa. A question is asked whether one can toast grains or produce to sweeten them. Is this considered like eating grapes with another substance, which is not permitted, or not? Four sources are cited to address this question, but each is rejected as inconclusive, and the question remains unanswered. The last source states that one may not add salt to fruit, but this contradicts another source that permits it. Abaye and Rava each reconcile the contradiction differently, but both understand the salt issue to be relating to the obligation to tithe and not to what is permitted/not permitted for a worker to eat.

Bava Metzia 88 - Lag b'Omer - May 26, 18 Iyar May 26, 2024

This week’s learning is sponsored by Marcy Farrell in loving memory of her mother, Joan Behrmann, Yonina bat Shalom, on her shloshim. "We honor her memory with our collective learning."

Various halachot concerning how a worker can eat in the field they're laboring in stem from the verse regarding harvesting in a vineyard. According to one derivation from this verse, a worker is considered akin to the owner and is not required to tithe the produce if consumed before "g'mar melakha," the stage at which the produce becomes obligated in tithes. Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yochanan hold differing opinions on when precisely g'mar melakha occurs: one asserts it happens upon bringing the produce into the courtyard, while the other contends it is upon bringing it into the house. Each base their position on verses in the Torah elucidating the "vidui ma'asrot." Three tannaitic sources are introduced to challenge both Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yochanan's positions, as each assumes an obligation to tithe before bringing the food inside. However, each challenge is addressed and resolved. The verse allowing a worker to eat while working specifically pertains to labor on produce still attached to the ground, while the verse prohibiting the muzzling of animals pertains to labor on detached produce. From where do they derive the principle that one cannot prevent a worker from eating while working on detached produce or an animal while laboring on attached produce?

Bava Metzia 88 - Lag b'Omer - May 26, 18 Iyar May 26, 2024

This week’s learning is sponsored by Marcy Farrell in loving memory of her mother, Joan Behrmann, Yonina bat Shalom, on her shloshim. "We honor her memory with our collective learning."

Various halachot concerning how a worker can eat in the field they're laboring in stem from the verse regarding harvesting in a vineyard. According to one derivation from this verse, a worker is considered akin to the owner and is not required to tithe the produce if consumed before "g'mar melakha," the stage at which the produce becomes obligated in tithes. Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yochanan hold differing opinions on when precisely g'mar melakha occurs: one asserts it happens upon bringing the produce into the courtyard, while the other contends it is upon bringing it into the house. Each base their position on verses in the Torah elucidating the "vidui ma'asrot." Three tannaitic sources are introduced to challenge both Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yochanan's positions, as each assumes an obligation to tithe before bringing the food inside. However, each challenge is addressed and resolved. The verse allowing a worker to eat while working specifically pertains to labor on produce still attached to the ground, while the verse prohibiting the muzzling of animals pertains to labor on detached produce. From where do they derive the principle that one cannot prevent a worker from eating while working on detached produce or an animal while laboring on attached produce?

Bava Metzia 87 - Shabbat May 25, 17 Iyar May 24, 2024

In the expanded narrative of Avraham's encounter with the angels, numerous interpretations delve into the lessons embedded within his actions, offering insights into behaviors to emulate. Regarding the consumption of produce by a worker in the field where they toil, the Mishna lays out the conditions under which such consumption is permissible. What circumstances warrant this allowance? What are the boundaries to be observed? From where in the Torah are these laws derived?

Bava Metzia 86 - May 24, 16 Iyar May 24, 2024

Rabbi Yehuda haNasi and Rabbi Natan were the last from the Mishna period and Ravina and Rav Ashi were the last of the Talmudic period. This statement is likely referring to the editing of the Mishna and Talmud. Raba bar Nachmani was killed out of fear of the king. Raba bar Nachmani's tragic death is recounted and how it related to the need for him in the heavens to resolve a debate between God and the rabbis in the yeshiva in the heavens. The Mishna related to the custom in the land and a story about Rabbi Yochanan ben Matia and his son's commitment to their workers. On account of that story, the Gemara digresses into a series of drashot on the story of Avraham and the angels and the food that he served to them.

Bava Metzia 85 - May 23, 15 Iyar May 23, 2024

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the father of Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi, is commended for his humility, a trait shared by Yonatan, the son of King Saul, and the descendants of Bnei Beteira. Rabbi Yehuda haNasi himself endured significant suffering, which eventually abated. His suffering was attributed to his actions, and likewise, his healing was credited to his actions. Following Rabbi Elazar's passing, Rabbi Yehuda haNasi sought out Rabbi Elazar's estranged son and guided him back to the path of Torah learning. He extended the same attention to the grandson of Rabbi Tarfon, nurturing him into a Torah scholar. Numerous statements underscore the significance of Torah study, emphasizing its paramount importance. Rabbi Chiya distinguished himself by disseminating Torah knowledge among numerous students, empowering them to become teachers in their own right. Stories abound of Rabbi Chiya's exceptional greatness and his impactful contributions to the spread of Torah.

Bava Metzia 84 - May 22, 14 Iyar May 22, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of our fellow daf Sister, Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld on the marriage of her granddaughter Esti to Baruch. "Having four generations at the wedding is a tremendous zechut. May Gitta together with David have continued nachat from Esti and all of their children and grandchildren."

The story of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, leads to discussions about his obesity, alongside those of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosi. Rabbi Yochanan, renowned for his beauty, used to sit by the mikveh, hoping that women who saw him would conceive and bear children as beautiful and learned as he was. One day, while bathing in the Jordan River, Reish Lakish, a bandit, mistook Rabbi Yochanan's reflection for that of a woman and leaped in after him. Rabbi Yochanan, recognizing potential, encouraged Reish Lakish to channel his strength into Torah, becoming his esteemed student-colleague. Yet, a rift formed when in the context of a halakhic debate, Rabbi Yochanan's remarks about Reish Lakish's past led to a fatal argument, resulting in Reish Lakish's demise, and ultimately, Rabbi Yochanan's own death due to the loss of his closest companion. The Gemara then revisits Rabbi Elazar's story, haunted by his past deeds, he beseeches God for suffering as penance. The narrative follows his remaining years, culminating in his passing, where he requests to be left in an attic, anticipating reluctance from fellow rabbis to bury him. Eventually, approximately two decades later, he is interred in a cave adjacent to his father's resting place. Rabbi Yehuda haNasi proposes to Rabbi Elazar's wife, who rejects the offer as he cannot compare to Rabbi Elazar in greatness.

Bava Metzia 83 - May 21, 13 Iyar May 21, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Max Shapiro in honor of his mother Judy Shapiro. "Your daf yomi learning motivates me to continue doing so daily!"

Another issue of Rabbi Elazar on Rabbi Meir's opinion is elucidated through the viewpoint of Isi ben Yehuda, who asserts that in cases with witnesses, one cannot simply take an oath to absolve oneself; instead, witnesses must be brought forward. Rabbi Chiya bar Abba quoting Rabbi Yochanan provides a second explanation for the seeming discrepancy between Rabbi Meir's stance in our Mishna and in the sugya in Bava Kamma regarding the liability of one who trips. According to him, the oath mentioned in our Mishna, which exempts one from damages, is a rabbinic provision aimed at ensuring that individuals won't refrain from moving barrels for others due to fear of potential compensation obligations in case of breakage. Several anecdotes illustrate instances where Rava aligned with Isi ben Yehuda's requirement for witnesses to establish innocence. Additionally, a narrative recounts the expectations placed on Torah scholars (or perhaps others as well) to uphold standards beyond mere legal requirements (lifnim meshurat hadin). The seventh chapter delves into labor relations, exploring questions such as the typical duration of a workday, an employer's authority to mandate longer hours, and the obligation of the employer to provide food. It also addresses whether travel time is considered part of the standard workday. Within this discourse, a verse from Tehillim is invoked, drawing parallels between the eventual retribution for evildoers and the reward awaiting the righteous in the afterlife. An anecdote featuring Rabbi Elazar, the son of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, illustrates his methods for identifying and punishing sinners. Despite facing criticism for his actions from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha, he remains resolute.

Bava Metzia 82 - May 20, 12 Iyar May 20, 2024

The Mishna rules that one who loans with collateral has the level of responsibility for the collateral akin to a paid worker. It seems that the Mishna does not follow the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that if the collateral is lost, the lender can take an oath and be exempt, like a shomer chinam. The Gemara then attempts in two different ways to reconcile the Mishna's ruling even according to Rabbi Eliezer. However, this is rejected because Rabbi Akiva disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer, and since most unattributed Mishnayot accord with Rabbi Akiva's opinion, the Gemara prefers to reconcile the Mishna according to Rabbi Akiva. There are four different explanations suggested to explain the situation in which Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva disagree and the basis of their disagreement. The halakha follows Abba Shaul, as quoted in the Mishna, that one can rent out a collateral of a poor person and deduct the rent amount from the loan. If one is moving a barrel of another and it breaks, there is a debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda about whether the halakha distinguishes between one who was paid for the job and one who was not. Rabbi Meir rules that both are exempt if it was not intentional. However, this contradicts Rabbi Meir's opinion in Bava Kamma that one who trips is considered negligent. Rabbi Elazar explained that there are two different opinions about what Rabbi Meir held. Rabbi Yehuda considers one who broke the barrel as similar to an item getting lost or stolen and therefore distinguishes between one who was paid and one who did it for free. Rabbi Elazar claims the ruling is like Rabbi Meir, but he does not understand how each can swear and exempt themselves.

Bava Metzia 81 - May 19, 11 Iyar May 19, 2024

The Mishna rules that once a contracted worker says to the owner, "Pick up the item and then pay me," the worker transitions from being responsible for the item as a paid guardian (shomer sachar) to being responsible as an unpaid guardian (shomer chinam). This situation is compared to another Mishna which states that a borrower is responsible for oness (unforeseeable) damages until the item is returned. Rav Chisda qualifies this by stating that the borrower is only liable for unforeseeable damages if the item is returned within the borrowing period; if the period has ended and the borrower is no longer using the item, the borrower is no longer responsible for unforeseeable damages. The Gemara presents three different versions of how these sources are compared. Ameimar rules that while the borrower may no longer be responsible for unforeseeable damages after the borrowing period, they are still considered a shomer sachar and are thus responsible for loss or theft. A braita is brought to support this ruling. The concept of shmira b'baalim, where one is exempt from liability for an item belonging to their employer, is brought up to question the Mishna which ruled that if one says "Watch my item and I will watch yours," both parties are considered a shomer sachar. To resolve this, it is explained that the case in the Mishna involves each person watching the other's item on different days. Two cases are brought where guardians were held responsible despite seemingly being cases of shmira b'baalim. These cases are clarified to not be instances of shmira b'baalim. Additionally, there is a discussion about the interpretation when someone says, "put it down" in response to a request to watch an item: does it mean "put it down and I will watch it" or "put it down and take care of it yourself"? This is compared to a Mishna in Bava Kamma 47 to suggest that this issue is the subject of a tannaitic debate, but the comparison is ultimately rejected.

Bava Metzia 80 - Shabbat May 18, 10 Iyar May 17, 2024

The Mishna continues to deal with cases where one rented an item under certain conditions and then used the item differently, resulting in damage. If the damage occurred because of the change in use, the renter is responsible. For example, what happens if the renter loaded more weight on an animal than standard, or if the renter used a different item that is lighter but results in a greater volume, such as barley instead of wheat? Abaye and Rava disagree on the details of the ruling in the latter case. The Mishna discusses various laws related to the responsibility of a worker regarding an item the worker is fixing or working on, or received as collateral, as well as other laws concerning shomrim. The implications of these discussions help clarify the extent of liability and responsibility in cases of damage under differing conditions and the specific usage of rented or borrowed items. The Gemara attempts to see if the first part of the Mishna can be attributed to Rabbi Meir, as at first glance it seems not the case.

Bava Metzia 79 - May 17, 9 Iyar May 17, 2024

If one rents a donkey or a boat and the animal dies or the boat sinks halfway through the journey, what is the law? What are the circumstances of the cases discussed? In the context of this discussion, a debate between Rav and Shmuel addresses whether one can sell the carcass of a rented animal in a way that the principal (the original animal) will no longer exist—specifically, whether the renter can sell it and use the money from the sale to rent a new animal. Rav's opinion is questioned by a Tosefta, which is then resolved. A case is brought regarding a boat rented to carry wine, which sinks. The Gemara examines the specifics of the rental agreement: whether the renter rented "this boat" or "a boat" and whether it was to carry "this wine" or "any wine." This distinction is crucial for determining the renter's obligations and rights. Two additional cases clarify other rights of the renter: How much can the renter load on a donkey that was rented for riding, and how much can the driver load? If the donkey was rented to a man to ride, can a woman ride instead, or vice versa? Is there a difference if the woman is pregnant or nursing? These discussions provide detailed insights into the legal nuances of rental agreements, the responsibilities of renters, and the permissible uses of rented property.

Bava Metzia 78 - May 16, 8 Iyar May 16, 2024

The Mishna brings cases where an individual rents an item, such as an animal, for a specific purpose and then uses it for a different purpose. The renter is held responsible if the animal dies because of this change. The first line of the Mishna states that the renter is responsible in all cases where a change was made. However, in the second line, the Mishna's ruling depends on the circumstances—specifically, how the animal died and the nature of the change made by the renter. The Gemara explores four possible answers to reconcile these two lines. The first three answers establish that the first line in the Mishna refers to a case where the animal died directly because of the change, regardless of whether the change was from mountain to valley or the reverse. The fourth answer differentiates the two lines of the Mishna as representing the opinions of different authorities. According to this view, the first line reflects Rabbi Meir's opinion, while the second line represents the rabbis' stance. Rabbi Meir holds a stringent view that anyone who goes against the owner's wishes is considered a thief, thus making them automatically liable for any resulting damage or death. The Gemara then seeks to find tannaitic sources to substantiate that this is indeed Rabbi Meir's position. The first two sources examined are rejected, but the third source is accepted, affirming that Rabbi Meir considers any deviation from the owner’s instructions to be considered theft. A case referred to as 'hivrika,' has two different interpretations. The Mishna describes a scenario where a donkey rented by an individual is seized by the king's men (angaria). In such a case, the renter is left without the animal, and the owner is not required to provide a replacement. Rav and Shmuel disagree about the specifics of this case. A Tosefta is brought to challenge Shmuel's interpretation, and two explanations are offered to resolve this difficulty.

Bava Metzia 77 - May 15, 7 Iyar May 15, 2024

If a worker is hired to do a job, such as irrigating a field, but circumstances change, like rainfall, rendering the job unnecessary, where does the responsibility rest, and what factors influence it? Rabbi Dosa and the rabbis hold differing views on whether a worker who backs out midway should receive full compensation for work already performed, or if the worker must reimburse the employer if the employer now incurs higher costs to complete the remaining task. Rav aligns with Rabbi Dosa's stance, although this contradicts another statement attributed to him. The Gemara proposes a solution to this contradiction but identifies two challenges with the proposed resolution, both of which are resolved. Within this discourse, a braita is cited regarding a seller or buyer reneging after the buyer has made a partial payment. Various segments of this braita are elucidated further.

Bava Metzia 76 - Yom Haazmaut - May 14, 6 Iyar May 14, 2024

Study Guide Bava Metzia 76

Our learning today is in honor of the State of Israel celebrating 76 years of independence. We also continue to pray for the swift and safe return of the hostages, and for the safety and success of our soldiers.

What are the rules surrounding a worker or employer retracting from an agreement? When the Mishna mentions one party "deceiving" the other, what does this mean? Is it referring to a worker canceling on the employer, the reverse scenario, or does it involve an instance where an employer directs an agent to hire workers, but the agent communicates a wage different from what the employer had stipulated? While seven potential scenarios of the latter circumstance are delineated, only certain ones conform to the legal principles expounded in the Mishna.

Bava Metzia 75 - Yom Hazikaron - May 13, 5 Iyar May 13, 2024

Is it permissible to borrow grains with the agreement to return them later in the season when their value is expected to increase? Typically, such arrangements are viewed as involving interest since the value of the grains is likely to rise. However, it is allowed if the borrower already possesses grains, even if they are not readily accessible. Should the borrower only borrow against the grains they presently own, or can it be a nominal amount? Hillel prohibited lending a loaf of bread, fearing that the price of wheat might surge before the loaf is repaid. What rationale led the rabbis to disagree with Hillel's position? Shmuel asserted that Torah scholars could lend money to one another on interest – why? Rav sanctioned a father lending to his child on interest for educational purposes, yet the Gemara dismissed this, citing the potential for sending the wrong message to children. Can a person work for a friend one day and vice-versa without incurring usury issues? Under what circumstances is this permissible? Transgressions of interest extend beyond monetary transactions to include conveying information or offering greetings. What infractions do both borrower and lender commit when doing loaning with interest? Numerous statements underscore the severe repercussions for those involved in interest-based lending. It is cautioned against lending money without witnesses, as Rav fears it may prompt the borrower to deny the loan, while Reish Lakish is apprehensive about inviting curses upon the lender due to erroneous perceptions of dishonesty.

Bava Metzia 74 - May 12, 4 Iyar May 12, 2024

This week’s learning is dedicated for the refuah shleima of Pesha Etel bat Sara who is undergoing surgery this week.

This week's learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of her mother Bessie “nanny” Mauskopf, Basha Leah bat Tzivia Chaya and Meir Yehudah. "A kind and devoted wife, daughter, mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She always embraced family and was so proud of all my learning. She exemplified good middot by just being herself. May her neshama have an aliyah."

This week's learning is sponsored by Rhona Fink. "With gratitude to Hashem, we welcome our first grandson, Ezra Lev, born on the first day of Pesach to our son and daughter-in-law, Daniel Fink and Abbey Marks. May Ezra Lev grow up to be a helper with an open and warm heart, and a blessing to the Jewish people."

What is a "situmta," and does it finalize a deal once completed? Rav and Shmuel hold differing views on a scenario where a product is sold and payment is received before the product's completion. They debate the number and nature of remaining steps in the process that still consider the item in the seller's possession, thus circumventing usury concerns. Several difficulties are raised with the different opinions based on the details brought in our Mishna and are resolved. The Mishna presents a debate on selling manure as fertilizer even if one does not have any. How many different opinions are there and what is the debate between them? Regarding prepayment at a set rate, if prices subsequently drop, can the buyer withdraw from the deal to avoid loss? Here, the Mishna records a dispute: the tana kamma asserts withdrawal is permissible only if initially stipulated, while Rabbi Yehuda dissents, allowing withdrawal regardless. In a case involving a son-in-law purchasing dowry jewelry on behalf of his father-in-law, paying upfront, then witnessing price reductions, Rav Papa bars withdrawal without initial stipulation. Despite money not constituting an act of acquisition, reneging is met with a "mi she'para," a curse for breaching one's word. The rabbis and Rav Acha raise objections to Rav Papa's ruling, which are subsequently resolved. The Mishna permits lending grains to a sharecropper for planting, even if prices rise. A related braita endorses the practice but restricts it to instances where the sharecropper hasn't commenced work. Rava elucidates the disparity: the Mishna concerns scenarios where the sharecropper typically provides seeds, rendering pre-planting agreements contractual rather than loans. Conversely, the braita pertains to situations where the owner typically supplies seeds, meaning that once the sharecropper begins work, the subsequent loan of grains is no longer part of the work contract, but an actual loan, which is forbidden, as any loan of grains for grains.

Bava Metzia 73 - Shabbat May 11, 3 Iyar May 10, 2024

What are the various methods through which individuals can engage in business transactions where payment or goods are exchanged upfront, with the agreement set at a fixed or reduced price? The Gemara delves into diverse scenarios, providing rulings on the permissibility, prohibition, or contentious nature of each. In some documented instances, Rabbis faced accusations of involvement in transactions resembling usury. Yet, on each occasion, they provided clarifications demonstrating why such actions did not constitute usury.

Bava Metzia 72 - May 10, 2 Iyar May 10, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Brooke & Yossi Pollak in honor of their daughter Avital Adin's bat mitzvah. "We are so proud of your devotion to Torah, mitzvot, and maasim tovim. Ima loves learning Mishna Yomi with you and can't wait to keep going for the next several years. Consistency, Consistency, Consistency! Mazal tov!"

If a Jew lends money of a non-Jew to another Jew on interest, or if a non-Jew lends money of a Jew to a Jew, under which circumstances is it permissible? Ravina proposes a third explanation to elucidate the distinction in legal rulings between these scenarios, but his explanation is dismissed. If a convert engaged in borrowing or lending with interest prior to converting and then, before conversion, amalgamated the interest-bearing loan into one encompassing the entire sum, the convert is entitled to collect the full amount. Rabbi Yosi contends that if the convert was the borrower, the interest cannot be collected under any circumstances, as this might incentivize non-Jews to convert solely to evade high interest payments. The rabbis and Rabbi Meir debate whether a lender who loaned on interest can recover the principal amount only, without the interest, or if they are penalized and cannot recover any part of the loan. Various scenarios are examined where an aspect of the document is invalidated (akin to a loan involving interest), raising the question of whether the entire document becomes void or if the valid parts remain enforceable. Distinctions between different cases are analyzed, such as errors in a document versus situations where the document is based on false premises like the seller not actually owning the item being sold. The Mishna addresses the halachot concerning purchasing produce upfront at the start of the season but deferring receipt of the produce until later. This practice is often prohibited due to usury concerns, as the value of the produce may rise. It is permitted when the seller possesses the produce at the time of sale or when the market value has already been established.

Bava Metzia 71 - 2nd Day of Rosh Chodesh Iyar - May 9, 1 Iyar May 09, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of David's father, Dr. Abraham Geffen, on his 9th yahrzeit. "The youngest of the 8 children of Rav Tuvia and Sara Hene Geffen of Atlanta, he was devoted to his wife Ethel, parents, siblings, children, extended family; and synagogue community of Beth El in New Rochelle, New York. He was a dedicated physician and served for years as the Director of Radiology at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City."

Today's daf is sponsored by Goldie Gilad in loving memory of her mother, Rivka Leah bat Sara on her 5th yahrzeit. "A woman of valor, a caring mother, a fighter and brave lone holocaust survivor who jumped out of a 2nd floor window to save herself from being attacked by Russian soldiers at the end of the war. Yehi zichra baruch."

Can one loan on interest from non-Jews? Under what circumstances? A verse is brought to show that one who does not loan on interest or take bribes will retain their wealth, implying that those who loan on interest will lose their wealth. The Gemara questions that against reality where one sees righteous people who lose their money as well, grappling with the question of 'why do bad things happen to good people.' Rebbi raises two issues in verses from Vayikra Chapter 25, in a section related to people who become poor and those who get sold into slavery on account of their poverty. The Torah says that a Jewish slave can be sold to be a slave to a convert and that does not seem to match halakha. It also says that one cannot loan on interest to a ger toshav (one who keeps the seven Noahide laws) and it is permitted in our Mishna. They resolve both issues and explain the verses to match the halakha. A Jew can be a guarantor on a loan from a non-Jew to a Jew with interest. Why would this potentially be a problem and under what circumstances is it permitted? The Gemara explains the cases in the Mishna where a Jew loans money of a non-Jew to a Jew on interest. There are four possible cases - two of which are permitted and two are not. A question is raised based on the law that a Jew cannot be a messenger for a non-Jew and a non-Jew cannot be a messenger for a Jew. Three answers are given, however, the second one (two different versions of Rav Ashi's answer) is rejected.

Bava Metzia 70 - First Day of Rosh Chodesh Iyar - May 8, 30 Nissan May 08, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz in loving memory of her mother, Chana Cohen, Chana bat Moshe and Tzipora on her 3rd yahrzeit. "Your warmth and beauty created a bubble of caring around you and all you met. The hole of your absence feels irreparable. Tehi zichra baruch."

Rav Papa's ruling allowed for paying rent and compensating for depreciation, akin to the practice of the sons of Kufra, backed by a braita cited in Bava Metzia 69b. Rav Anan, citing Shmuel, asserted that orphans could collect interest. However, Rav Nachman raised doubts, prompting further investigation. It turned out that Rav Anan had observed Shmuel renting out a kettle on behalf of orphans, collecting both rent and depreciation, which he mistakenly perceived as interest collection. Yet, this wasn't deemed as interest, even for non-orphans, given the significant depreciation incurred with each use of the kettle, warranting compensation for the loss. Orphans are permitted to invest in a manner where they enjoy profits without bearing losses. Raba, Rav Yosef, and Rav Ashi proposed various suggestions for managing orphan funds. Investing in a guaranteed investment with a Jew is prohibited, but permissible with a non-Jew. Does this imply that the guaranteed item invested is entirely in the recipient's domain? This notion conflicts with a Mishna concerning laws of firstborn animals. Abaye and Rava offered explanations, with Abaye's being dismissed. While it's permissible to charge interest on a loan with a non-Jew, is this practice viewed unfavorably?

Bava Metzia 69 - May 7, 29 Nissan May 07, 2024

How can individuals engage in profit-sharing investment arrangements without entangling themselves in collecting interest in a forbidden manner? The Gemara delves into this topic, explaining what type of compensation must the invertor pay for the venture. They examine real-life scenarios where such methods were employed. If someone invests an animal and it begets offspring, how and when should these offspring be divided? Furthermore, when one divides profits, how it is the process different when dealing with money as opposed to tangible assets like objects or animals? Regarding the rental of coins, the question arises whether such an arrangement constitutes a loan with interest. It is permissible to charge rent and adjust it based on additional investments made by the owner. However, laws governing rentals differ for items like stores or boats, and the reasons behind these differences are elucidated. Moreover, when renting an item, is it permissible to pay rent and assume responsibility for depreciation, or does this constitute interest?

Bava Metzia 68 - May 6, 28 Nissan May 06, 2024

Today's daf is dedicated in commemoration of Yom HaShoah, in memory of all those who perished in the Holocaust.

Rava mentions three common business practices that he forbade due to usury concerns. What considerations should one bear in mind when entering into a profit-sharing investment arrangement with another individual to steer clear of usury? Besides both parties assuming responsibility for their respective roles, the investing party must compensate the other for their labor to prevent receiving undue benefit, akin to taking interest. How should this compensation be determined? There are various opinions on this matter.

Bava Metzia 67 - May 5, 27 Nissan May 05, 2024

Today'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

Bava Metzia 66 - Shabbat May 4, 26 Nissan May 03, 2024

In cases where someone makes an exaggerated commitment during or after a transaction, is this commitment deemed valid? Is it assumed that the person never truly intended to commit and was merely making statements to bolster confidence? Various instances are presented concerning such declarations and their effectiveness in legal contexts.

Bava Metzia 65 - May 3, 25 Nissan May 03, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy and Jerel Shapiro for the yahrzeits of Arnold Shapiro, Jerel's father z”l, and their grandson Edan Shai, z”l. And in honor of the birth just before Pesach of their new granddaughter in Kiryat Tivon, Israel, whose name is Tohar Libi.

If a lender collects interest, Rabbi Elazar asserts that the court can compel the lender to return the money. Various scenarios are presented where the interest collected deviates from the agreed terms. In each instance, the question arises: should the lender return what was originally agreed upon or what was actually received? Concerning the practice of offering different prices for upfront versus deferred payments in transactions such as renting or buying a house, the Mishna delineates that while it is permissible for rentals, it is prohibited in sales. This discrepancy stems from the nature of rental charges, which are incurred only at the end of the agreed period, thus avoiding issues of benefiting from delayed payments. In contrast, in a sale, payment obligations arise at the time of the transaction. Rav Nachman, Rav Papa, and Rav Chama each attempt to justify their business practice of imposing higher rates on deferred payments. If land is sold with a partial payment upfront and a commitment to pay the remainder later, who is entitled to the produce during the interim period before full payment? A braita provides four potential resolutions based on the initial terms of the sale. After expounding on these cases, Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yehoshua, contends that the braita does not align with the stance of Rabbi Yehuda, who permits interest if it's not explicitly defined from the outset. Furthermore, Rav Huna identifies two additional cases that diverge from Rabbi Yehuda's position.

Bava Metzia 64 - May 2, 24 Nissan May 02, 2024

Today’s daf is dedicated by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the birth of twin grandsons to our friend and co-learner Cindy Dolgin. "May the parents, Maya Dolgin and Or Shaked, as well as the extended family and the entire Jewish people see much nachat from the new arrivals, and may they be a source of blessing to all. תזכו לגדלם לתורה לחופה ולמעשים טובים!"

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran zoom family in celebration of our friend, Adina Hagege, and her husband, Eric, becoming grandparents. "May Shahari Moshe grow up surrounded with love and peace, and may he bring his grandparents much joy."

If someone lends coins to another person, or returns a loan of coins, and the recipient discovers more coins than originally agreed upon, the question arises: must they return the surplus, or can it be presumed that the excess was intended as a gift? This hinges on various factors. When small gourds are typically sold at ten for a zuz, and a seller undertakes to provide the buyer with ten large gourds for a zuz, Rav ruled that this arrangement is permissible only if the seller possessed large gourds at the time of the transaction. However, some argue that Rava dissented, allowing it even if the seller didn't currently have large gourds, since small gourds naturally mature into larger ones. Comparatively, how does this scenario differ from selling milk to be milked from a goat, wool to be sheared from a sheep, or honey to be harvested from a hive? Abaye maintains that one can pre-purchase wine at a set price, even if the seller assumes the risk of the wine turning into vinegar, provided the buyer agrees that a decrease in value won't alter the price. One who has lent money cannot reside in the borrower's house for free or at a discounted rate, as it resembles usury. Rav Yosef bar Manyumi, citing Rav Nachman, extends this prohibition even to a house that the borrower isn't utilizing or leasing. However, there is a different version of Rav Nachman's statement, forbidding it only if the rental arrangement is connected with the loan agreement. In another case, Rav Yosef bar Chama would seize the slaves of his debtors, employing them for his benefit. His son Rava raised concerns about this practice, citing the lack of compensation for their labor and the appearance of engaging in usury. While Rav Yosef initially justified his actions, he eventually ceased the practice due to the latter concern.

Bava Metzia 63 - May 1, 23 Nissan May 01, 2024

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in loving memory of Joan Behrmann a”h, beloved mother of our friend and co-learner Marcy Behrmann Farrell. "Marcy’s passion for truth and equity has deep roots, and we daven that our learning will serve as a merit for the entire family. המקום ינחם אותם בתוך שאר אבלי ציון וירושלים."

After two failed attempts at understanding the case in the Mishna where interest is forbidden by rabbinic law, Rava brings an explanation according to Rabbi Oshaya's braita and according to Rabbi Yannai's opinion - that one can turn a loan of money into a loan of produce. If the borrower has the item in his/her possession, even if the price goes up, there is no concern for interest. Rav disagrees with Rabbi Yannai and holds that one cannot turn a loan for an item into the value of that item and return the value in money as it appears like interest. How can Rav explain the braita of Rabbi Oshaya per his opinion? Two explanations are given - either the braita is referring to a case where the borrower designated a corner and placed the produce there or it follows the unique opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that a transaction where there is potential for interest but it is not clear that there will be an interest payment is permitted, as perhaps maybe prices will stay the same or go down and the lender will not receive more. Rava infers from Rabbi Yannai's position why it is permitted to pay in advance for produce and receive it later, even if the seller does not have it yet in his/her possession. Since the seller has the money and could potentially buy produce with that money, it is considered as if the seller has the produce. This, however, would only work in a sale, not a loan. Rabba and Rav Yosef give a different reason why this kind of sale works even if the price goes up and the buyer will receive produce later at a higher value. The benefit of receiving produce at a higher value is not a benefit as the buyer can say, "If I hadn't given the money to the seller (to receive the produce at a later date), I could have bought the produce from a different seller at the time and they would have increased in value in my possession." Two difficulties are raised with Rabba and Rav Yosef. Why wouldn't this argument permit loaning a seah of grain for a seah of grain? Isn't it a benefit to the buyer that there was no extra payment for a middleman? Both difficulties are resolved. Rabba and Rav Yosef require a buyer who pays in advance to receive produce later, at the current rate, to meet the seller on the threshing floor. For what purpose? Rav Nachman teaches that any case of getting payment for waiting is considered interest and he brings an example of one who discounts a price for receiving the money upfront. This would be permitted only if the seller has the items in his/her possession.

Bava Metzia 62 - April 30, 22 Nissan Apr 30, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Yechiel Berkowicz in loving memory of his mother Sara F. Berkowicz. "She was a holocaust survivor and strong supporter of Jewish education."

Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar engage in a debate over whether the court holds the authority to compel the return of interest payments collected at a fixed rate from the outset. Rabbi Eliezer supports his stance by referencing a verse from Vayikra 22:27, which concludes with "and your brother shall live with you," suggesting that one should return the interest to foster a harmonious relation with the borrower. However, Rabbi Yochanan interprets this verse differently, aligning it with Rabbi Akiva's opinion in his dispute with Ben Petura regarding the scenario of two individuals traveling with only one canteen of water. In this dilemma, where the water is insufficient for both to survive, is it preferable for each to consume half and neither will cause the death of the other, or for the canteen owner to drink it all and survive. Two sources are cited to challenge Rabbi Yochanan's view that the court lacks the authority to enforce the lender to return the interest collected. These objections are somewhat reconciled to support Rabbi Yochanan's position. Rav Safra, aligning with Rabbi Elazar, delineates between interest payments that the court can compel the lender to return and those that they cannot. Although Abaye and Ravina initially raise objections to Rav Safra's distinction, these concerns are eventually resolved. The initial Mishna of the chapter presents a case of interest prohibited by the rabbis. However, it conflicts with a subsequent Mishna within the same chapter. Raba and Abaye propose interpretations of the case details, but their explanations are ultimately rejected.

Bava Metzia 61 - 7th Day of Pesach - April 29, 21 Nissan Apr 28, 2024

What is the source indicating that both the borrower and lender are prohibited from borrowing or lending on interest? Why did the Torah find it necessary to delineate separate negative commandments for interest, theft, and exploitation (ona’ah), rather than deriving one from the other, considering their similarities in taking what isn't rightfully theirs? Furthermore, why does the Torah mention the Exodus from Egypt in verses concerning interest, tzitzit, and using fair measurements in business? Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar debate whether the court can compel individuals who have collected interest at a fixed rate from the outset (ribit k’tzutza) to return the interest payments they received.

Bava Metzia 60 - 6th Day of Pesach - April 28, 20 Nissan Apr 28, 2024

What practices are permissible in conducting an ethical business? Can one commingle produce from various fields or dilute wine before selling it? What criteria determine what is allowed or prohibited? What tactics are deemed acceptable or forbidden in a competitive commercial environment? Different rabbis offer varying perspectives on these questions. The fifth chapter delves into the laws of interest. The Mishna initiates the discussion by delineating what is interest that is prohibited by Torah law and by rabbinic law. The Gemara elucidates the terminology used in the Torah - neshech (interest causing a loss for the borrower) and marbit (interest generating gain for the lender) - and elucidates that both terms signify the existence of two negative commandments concerning lending or borrowing money with interest that both apply in all cases.

Bava Metzia 59 - Shabbat Chol Hamoed Pesach - April 27, 19 Nissan Apr 26, 2024

It is regarded as a grave transgression to humiliate another person. Some emphasize the prohibition against verbally abusing one's spouse, noting that maintaining food (financial stability) in the household is advisable to preserve harmony. While many prayers may not always find immediate acceptance, the prayers of those who have suffered verbal abuse will always be heard, and God will punish the perpetrators. The story of the oven of Achnai illustrates the potency of prayers from those who have endured verbal abuse. Rabbi Eliezer, who stood against the majority opinion of the rabbis and was subsequently excommunicated and mistreated, serves as a prime example. Despite presenting miraculous signs and even a heavenly voice affirming the correctness of his stance, Rabbi Yehoshua asserted, "It is not in heaven." This narrative underscores the authority of the rabbinic system to establish its own truths, even if they diverge from the absolute truth of God. However, mentioning this story in this context highlights the impact of words and how the mistreatment of Rabbi Eliezer ultimately led to the death of Rabban Gamliel through his prayers. The prohibition against abusing converts is emphasized, with the Torah warning against it in thirty-six (or forty-six) instances. This underscores the severity of the offense and the importance of treating converts with respect and dignity.

Bava Metzia 58 - 4th Day of Pesach - April 26, 18 Nissan Apr 26, 2024

The Mishna established that in cases involving hekdesh (sanctified property), a shomer who watches for free is exempt from taking an oath, while a paid shomer is exempt from liability in cases of theft or loss. However, there are tannaitic sources that appear to contradict the Mishna, prompting various proposed resolutions. Rabbi Shimon distinguishes between different categories of sanctified items, arguing that some are subject to exploitation laws. Rabbi Yehuda excludes specific items from exploitation laws altogether. The Gemara elucidates both positions. The Mishna asserts that alongside the Torah prohibition against exploitation in monetary matters, there exists a Torah injunction against verbal abuse. Various examples are cited to underscore the severity of this offense, highlighting its gravity in Jewish law.

Bava Metzia 57 - 3rd Day of Pesach - April 25, 17 Nissan Apr 25, 2024

Although certain categories are exempt from exploitation laws, does this exemption extend to cases where one party exploits another at a higher rate (bitul mekach)? Rabbi Yona and Rabbi Yirmia each offer different answers in the name of Rabbi Yochanan. A challenge is posed to Rabbi Yirmia's position based on another statement attributed to Rabbi Yochanan. Several proposed explanations are offered to reconcile this discrepancy. Additionally, the derivations for the exclusion of these categories in other Mishnaic laws, such as double payment and laws governing the responsibilities of shomrim, are explored.

Bava Metzia 56 - 2nd Day of Pesach - April 24, 16 Nissan Apr 24, 2024

Different rabbis offer an opinion about whether or not Rabbi Meir believes that the rabbis made rabbinic laws stringent like Torah laws. They cite various sources to support their positions. Abaye analyzes the comments of the different rabbis, arguing that different levels of rabbinic laws exist, including those punishable by human courts, divine punishment, and negative prohibitions. Thus, he contends that comparing these various levels to prove Rabbi Meir's stance is flawed. The Mishna enumerates specific categories exempt from the general laws of ona’ah, such as land, slaves, documents, and sanctified items. Similarly, laws concerning double payment and the responsibilities of shomrim do not apply to these categories. Additional distinctions are made by other tannaim, expanding the list further. The exceptions to ona’ah are derived from specific passages in the Torah.

Bava Metzia 55 - 1st Day of Pesach, April 23, 15 Nissan Apr 22, 2024

If one misuses consecrated property unknowingly, one must repay the value and add one-fifth (chomesh). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi held that the additional one-fifth payment is not added if one is redeeming a secondary hekdesh, an item that was sanctified from an item that was already sanctified (via hatpasa). The Gemara questions a statement made in a braita that was brought to support Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and resolves it. Another braita is brought as support for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. The Mishna lists the minimum amount of money for ona’ah and partial admission (modeh b’miktzat). It also lists five laws for which the minimum amount is a pruta. Levi has a different list of the five laws and the Gemara discusses why each list differs from the other. The Mishna lists 5 cases where one needs to add one fifth. One of the items is d’mai – a case where there is reason to think that ma’asrot (tithes) may not have been taken and the rabbis required one to separate the tithes just in case. Rabbi Elazar questions why the Mishna lists that one would add one-fifth if a non-kohen ate truma taken from d’mai, which is only truma by rabbinic law. Why would it be treated as stringently as a Torah obligation? They answer that the Mishna is according to Rabbi Meir’s approach that the rabbis make their decrees as strong as the Torah as is proven from a case of divorce law where Rabbi Meir is stringent. However, they raise a difficulty with saying that this is Rabbi Meir’s position.

Bava Metzia 54 - April 22, 14 Nissan Apr 22, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz. "Sara proudly shared that her father taught her some Talmud at a time when that was not done. He came to Chicago from Stashov Poland and was known for delivering the laundry along with a dvar Torah. Sara was a highly respected Jewish educator in Chicago. May both their memories be for a blessing."

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran women of Long Island in honor of the birth of a grandson to our friend and co-learner Leah Brick. "May the entire family be zoche to raise him לתורה ולחופה ולמעשים טובים and may this simcha be one of many we will celebrate together."

When redeeming maaser sheni, the owner must add one-fifth more than the value of the produce. Is this one-fifth of the principal or one-fifth of the total once the one-fifth is added (1/4 of the principal)? After proving it is 1/4 from a tannatic source, a braita is quoted showing there is a tannaitic debate on how to calculate the one-fifth. If one does not add the one-fifth, is the produce considered redeemed? After answering this question from a tannaitic source proving that the one-fifth is not essential and the produce can be considered redeemed even without the one-fifth, the Gemara suggests that perhaps it is a tannaitic debate. However, this suggestion is rejected as all agree it is not essential but the rabbis deliberate about whether or not one can eat the produce by rabbinic law if the one-fifth has not been added as a way to prevent negligence. Regarding redeeming hekdesh, sanctified items, there is no concern for negligence as the treasurers collect the one-fifth payment. It is still not considered redeemed until one-fifth is added, but if it were Shabbat, one could eat the hekdesh item on account of the mitzva of oneg Shabbat. Rami bar Hama lists three rules relating to one-fifth payment in hekdesh, truma and maaser - do the same rules apply to the one-fifth payment as for the principal - if hekdesh, can it be redeemed on land, if for truma that one stole, does it need to be paid in produce, and if for maaser, can it be redeemed on an asimon? One who stole and denied it or a non-kohen who ate truma, can potentially pay one-fifth on a one-fifth payment. Is the same true for maaser and hekdesh? Is there a connection between this issue and the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that the additional one-fifth payment is not added if one is redeeming a secondary hekdesh, an item that was sanctified from an item that was already sanctified (via hatpasa)?

Bava Metzia 53 - April 21, 13 Nissan Apr 21, 2024

This week's learning is sponsored by Lynne Cassouto in loving memory of her mother, Ann Cassouto, Chana bat Moshe v'Henneh, as her 11 months of kaddish ends on Pesach. "She was deeply devoted to Jewish tradition, prayer, and text, and made sure her children received a strong Jewish education. She is forever missed, may her memory be a blessing for clal Yisrael."

Today's daf is sponsored in loving memory of Anita Dinerstein, from her children and grandchildren on her first yahrzeit. “Her commitment to learning and the Jewish people continue to inspire us.”

Today's daf is sponsored by Mona & David Schwartz and family in loving memory of their mother and grandmother Mary Horowitz, Miriam Etel bat Aharon Halevi & Mirel on her 30th yahrzeit. "A woman whose home personified hachnasat orchim. May her neshama have an aliyah."

Chizkiya says that maaser sheni produce that has less than the value of a coin can be redeemed on a coin that was used previously to redeem maaser sheni because there must be a little bit of value still left on the coin from the last time, as people aren't exacting in their calculations and generally use a bigger coin than what is needed. The Gemara questions this by bringing in a Mishna that implies that maaser sheni that gets mixed with non-maaser items is nullified in a majority. If Chizkiya is correct, then maaser should always be something that can never be nullified in a mixture because it can be fixed by redeeming, as per Chizkiya's suggestion, in which case it is a davar sheyesh lo matirin which can never be nullified. The Gemara tries to answer this question. A braita quoted in the discussion mentions two cases of maaser sheni that are nullified in a majority - less than and pruta and maaser sheni that was brought into Jerusalem and left Jerusalem. Why is maaser sheni brought into Jerusalem and then left unable to be redeemed (and therefore nullified in a majority)? After answering this question by establishing the details of the situation, Rav Huna bar Yehuda suggests an alternative reading of the braita. There is an amoraic debate regarding the premise of Chizkiya's ruling that maaser sheni that is less than a pruta cannot be redeemed onto a coin - is it when the principal is less than a pruta or the one-fifth is less than a pruta? In general, how is the one-fifth payment calculated - one-fifth of the principal or one-fifth of the total once the amount of the one-fifth is added (1/4)?

Bava Metzia 52 - Shabbat April 20, 12 Nissan Apr 19, 2024

Can one use money that is devalued? At what percentage would it be considered ona’ah and one can claim back the amount he/she was exploited by the devaluation of the coin? There is a debate between Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon. Why is this different from ona’ah with clothing where there is no debate? Once a coin is devalued to more than half its original value, the coin must be destroyed. Why? There is a debate about whether one needs to destroy the coin from the rate of ona’ah until half of its value or just below half its value. Two difficulties are raised against Rav Huna who held by the first option. What is the time frame allotted for getting back the exploited money? Is it the same as for clothing or different? The Mishna mentions an exception to the rule – a case where one can return it even over a year later. How is this case understood by Rav Chisda? A coin that is devalued can be used for redeeming maaser sheni produce. How does this work?

Bava Metzia 51 - April 19, 11 Nissan Apr 19, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Jeffrey and Jill Shames in loving memory of Jill's Mom, Seena Baker, שפרה בת סול וברכה who passed away 9 years ago. "Mom, we pray that wherever you are you experience the reflection of your wisdom and love in your children, your children's children and your children's children's children."

Is the time allotted for getting your money back in a case of over/undercharging the same for the buyer and the seller? Do the laws of exploitation apply only to businesses and not to individuals? Does it depend on what they are selling? Are there certain merchants to whom laws of exploitation do not apply or are there certain laws of exploitation that do not apply to any merchants? The answer to these questions depends upon how one understands Rabbi Yehuda's opinion in the Mishna. If one sells an item upon condition that the buyer will not bring a claim of exploitation, is that a valid condition? Rav and Shmuel disagree. Do their approaches perfectly align with the debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda in a case where one betroths a woman and conditions it upon not giving her the financial rights that a wife has in a marriage? Does it depend on whether the buyer agrees with or without knowing that he/she was overcharged?

Bava Metzia 50 - April 18, 10 Nissan Apr 18, 2024

Study Guide Bava Metzia 50

Today's daf is sponsored by Rikki and Alan Zibitt in loving memory of Frieda Carlin, Fraydl bat Meir z"l, on her 9th yahrzeit yesterday; and in honor of the birthday of their son, Elon Yitzhak. "Mom, we celebrate your gentleness, fierce love of family and strong moral code, which your grandson has inherited."

Various proofs are brought to support Shmuel's opinion that the percentage for ona'ah, exploitation, can be determined based on the market price and also on the amount paid. Two are rejected and one is accepted. The Mishna discusses only the percentage at which there is exploitation. What happens if the amount is less than or more than? If it's less, we assume the parties agreed and they cannot get their money back. However, the Gemara questions whether they also have the same window of opportunity to claim they were overcharged and get the money back that they were overcharged. If they were overcharged more than 1/6, the deal can be canceled. But the Gemara also asks whether that is within the same time frame or is there no statute of limitations. They try to answer both questions from our Mishna, focusing on the fact that first the merchants in Lod were happy with Rabbi Tarfon's ruling and after they heard about his extension of the time limitation, they chose to accept the rabbis' position. However, they were ultimately unsuccessful in reaching an answer to either of the two questions.

Bava Metzia 49 - April 17, 9 Nissan Apr 17, 2024

Rav and Rabbi Yochanan hold differing views on the implications of a down payment in a transaction. Must both parties fulfill the entire agreement, risking a curse upon breach, or does the down payment bind them only to the part already transacted? The Gemara suggests that a similar debate arises in a tannaitic discussion regarding loan cancellation during the shmita year, when an object taken as collateral doesn't cover the loan's full value. However, in conclusion, the debate is explained differently - does the collateral act as payment or merely a reminder of the debt? Further questions emerge: Can one party unilaterally dissolve a verbal agreement? Rav and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about whether or not this action constitutes dishonesty. Two difficulties are raised against Rav from tannaitic sources and one against Rabbi Yochanan from a different statement he made. Most, if not all the difficulties are resolved. The Mishna delves into laws of ona'ah, addressing overcharging or underpaying. What percentage triggers ona'ah, and within what timeframe can a buyer claim fraud? Rav and Shmuel offer different opinions on whether this percentage is based on market value only, or also on the item's purchase price. Moreover, what recourse exists for a buyer/seller over/undercharged beyond or below the ona'ah threshold?

Bava Metzia 48 - April 16, 8 Nissan Apr 16, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by the Sosland family in loving memory of Rabbi Henry Sosland, z"l. "Dad, we strive every day to live by your values, especially your devotion to family, to learning, and to am Yisrael. Am Yisrael Chai!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in honor of her beloved daughter Beki on her birthday. "With love, gratitude, and appreciation for your very existence! May your journey in the world of daf yomi continue to give you knowledge, strength, and the satisfaction of being part of an incredible Jewish learning endeavor!"

Rava tries to prove Reish Lakish's position, that money cannot effect a transaction by Torah law, by verses in the Torah (Vayikra 5:21, 23) and from a braita. In Vayikra 5:21, the verse mentions tsumet yad, which is understood as a borrower who has committed to giving a particular object to the lender as payment for a loan, and then later denies it. Even though this is forbidden, this situation does not reappear among the other situations in verse 23 where the Torah requires one to return the object. Rava proves Reish Lakish's position from here as the borrower only received money and the creditor did not pull the object and therefore the object was not considered owned yet by the creditor. Rav Papa raises a difficulty but Rava resolves it. The braita brought to prove Reish Lakish's position discusses laws of me'ila, misuse of consecrated property. If one pays with consecrated property (unintentionally) for another's services, like an attendant in the bathhouse, the payment effects the transaction and one cannot change their mind. But Rav infers from the braita that if the service charge includes also payment for objects that the service provider uses, then the payment does not effect the transaction the buyer pulls the object, proving Reish Lakish's position. A difficulty is raised against this proof but they resolve it. When the Mishna states that the rabbis said about one who paid money for an item and then canceled the transaction that God will punish them, is this a curse or is it meant that the rabbis inform the person that God may punish him/her? Rava and Abaye disagree about this. Rava brings proof for his position (curse) from a story about Rabbi Chiya bar Yosef who was given a deposit/down payment for purchasing salt and when the price went up, he wanted to cancel the transaction. However, this proof is rejected as only a deposit was given and the issue was: it is considered that by giving the deposit, he had committed to the entire transaction or just for the part that his deposit covered? This issue is a debate between Rav and Rabbi Yochanan. An attempt to question Rav's opinion is brought. However, the case dealt with land and the Gemara explained that since land can be acquired through money, the deposit is sufficient to require both sides to follow through with the entire transaction. The same would not apply to moveable items as they cannot be acquired through money. Therefore one must only keep a commitment for the part already paid for.

Bava Metzia 47 - April 15, 7 Nissan Apr 15, 2024

Today’s daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in loving memory of her husband's friend and chavruta, Avraham ben Shlomo Baime on his 7th yahrzeit. " A true eved Hashem who founded the Elazar English Kollel which delves into the intricacies of the Talmud. I have the z'chut to be learning with his gemarot which inspire me to reach greater heights through the guidance of our trailblazer R. Michelle who provides clarity and daily introspection to our learning."

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran zoom group for a refuah shleima of Yaakov Yitzchak ben Miriam Esther, the son of our dear friend Miriam. "Yitz should have a speedy and full recovery."

Rav Huna ruled that one can acquire an item through chalipin if the buyer has a pile of coins and says to the seller, "Sell it to me for this pile of money." Since the seller did not care to count how much money was in the pile, the sale would be final as soon as the seller took the money. Would regular laws of onaah be effective here, if the buyer underpaid by a sixth? There are two different versions of what Rav Huna said regarding onaah in this case. If one sold an item through a chalipin transaction but made it clear that he/she wanted the chalipin item to be valued at the value of the item he/she was selling, would the chalipin item be considered like money and therefore there will be no acquisition by the chalipin item, but only when the sold item is pulled by the buyer, or not? Can one infer from Rav Huna's ruling that a coin can be used for effecting a chalipin transaction? Is it the buyer or the seller that gives the chalipin item? This is both a debate among amoraim and also tannaim. These opinions are derived from Rut 4:7 when Naomi's relative sells his rights to Boaz to redeem Naomi and Ruth's property. What is the basis for the debate between Rav Sheshet and Rav Nachman about what items can be used to effect a kinyan chalipin? What is an asimon that is mentioned in the Mishna? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish have a debate, as mentioned previously, does money effect a transaction by Torah law or not. From where in the Torah do they derive their opinions? Two parts of our Mishna are brought to raise a difficulty against Reish Lakish's position, but are resolved.

Bava Metzia 46 - April 14, 6 Nissan Apr 14, 2024

Today's daf is dedicated to the safety of Israel from the Iranian attack.

Today's daf is sponsored by Mitzi and David Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi's mother, Ruth Toll Lock, Rut bat Miriam and Avraham z"l on her 38th yahrzeit. "She was a loving wife, mother, and mother-in-law; a devoted Zionist and wonderful educator in Harrisburg, PA. All 4 of her children made Aliyah and her many grandchildren and great-grandchildren, as well as her great-great-grandchild, all live in Israel!"

Rav Papa holds that a coin be acquired through a kinyan chalipin. A Minsha in Maaser Sheni 4:5 is raised as a difficulty on Rav Papa's position. Rav Papa eventually switches his position as is proven by Rav Papa's actions in a particular situation when he was trying to get back money from a loan. The Gemara returns to the previous discussion of whether or not a coin can be used to effect a kinyan chalipin (symbolic kinyan). Ulla, Rabbi Asi and Rabbi Yochanan ruled that money cannot be used. Rabbi Abba raises a difficulty from a braita against Ulla and Rabbi Abba himself suggests one possible resolution and Rav Ashi suggests another. Another source (Mishna in Kiddushin) is brought to raise a difficulty with Ulla, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yochanan's positions but is resolved. However, the resolution is only consistent with Rav Sheshet's position that chalipin can be effected with produce (and other moveable items that are not considered a kli), but not with Rav Nachman's position that chalipin cannot be effected with produce. How can the Mishna be explained according to Rav Nachman? The explanation given for Rav Nachman accords with Rabbi Yochanan's opinion in his debate with Reish Lakish about whether money effect a kinyan (acquisition) by Torah law. Both agree that practically money does not effect a transaction, however, Rabbi Yochanan holds that it is only because of a rabbinic decree, that does not apply in rare circumstances. Reish Lakish's explanation of a line in our Mishna is bought as a third source to raise a difficulty against the position that money cannot be used as chalipin. This difficulty is resolved as well.

Bava Metzia 45 - Shabbat April 13, 5 Nissan Apr 12, 2024

Study Guide Bava Metzia 45

Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel have a debate regarding trading maaser sheni coins from silver to gold coins. There are three versions of the debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish about what the basis of the debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish is. The first version links their debate to the issue of whether silver or gold is considered a currency or commodity com[pared to the other. However, the other two version think the issue is exclusively a maaser sheni issue and does not relate to the currency/commodity debate. Rav and Levi debate whether money can be used for a kinyan chalipin, a symbolic act of acquiring. Chalipin must be performed with an item that has inherent value. Does money have inherent value because it is made from metal or is it viewed only in terms of the image on the coin which will eventually wear away?

Bava Metzia 44 - April 12, 4 Nissan Apr 12, 2024

Study Guide Bava Metzia 44

Today's daf is sponsored by Ariella and Michael Radwin in honor of Sivan's bat mitzvah this coming Shabbat. "Mazel tov to Sivan! May you lead a life of Torah and ma’asim tovim, and may you someday be blessed to stand under the chuppah"

Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree about whether one is obligated in shlichut yad by merely intending to use the object. On what words in the Torah does each one rely upon to support his opinion? If one tilted the barrel and took out some wine to drink, and then the barrel broke, one would be liable to replace only the wine taken. However, if one lifted the whole barrel to take some wine, and then the barrel broke (unexpected damages), one must replace the value of the entire barrel. When one purchases an item the transaction takes effect when buyer pulls or lifts the item. However, if the buyer merely paid the money, the transaction is not yet effective. If one purchases currency with a different currency, one currency will be considered the currency of the transaction and the other the commodity. The Mishna lists several examples and establishes which is considered the currency and which is the commodity. When changing gold with silver, Rebbi has two opposite opinions about which is considered the currency and which is the commodity - one when he was younger and one later in life. Rav Ashi attempts to prove his earlier opinion, that gold is the currency. Rabbi Chiya held that way as well, and Rava quotes a braita and proves that the tanna of the braita also held by that position. Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel have a debate regarding trading maaser sheni coins from silver to gold coins. This debate seems to connect with the aforementioned issue of which of the two is considered currency and which is the commodity? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish each have a different understanding of the debate.

Bava Metzia 43 - April 11, 3 Nissan Apr 11, 2024

If one gives money to a money changer, if it is not bound and sealed, the money changer is permitted to use it and is thereby responsible if the money gets lost. There is a debate whether the money changer is also responsible for oness (accidental damage). Regarding shlichut yad, if one decides to use an item they are watching and it then breaks, if the item changes in value from the time the shomer decides to use it until the time it breaks, what value is the shomer obligated to pay? Beit Shammai, Beit Hillel, and Rabbi Akiva have a debate regarding this issue. The Gemara brings five attempts, four of which are rejected, to understand the disagreement between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel. According to the conclusion, the debate is not regarding a fluctuation in the market price, but the value of the animal itself increases or decreases by having offspring/wool to be sheared. According to who do we pasken?

Bava Metzia 42 - April 10, 2 Nissan Apr 10, 2024

What level of shmira is needed for various items? How did people watch money? How did that change over time? Various cases are brought which relate to cases with different issues - tchilato b'pshia v'sofo b'oness, a shomer that gave to a family member to watch and did not tell them it was someone else's item, or a steward that bought an animal without teeth and gave it to a cowherd to watch without informing him that the animal had no teeth and could not eat.

Bava Metzia 41 - Rosh Chodesh Nissan - April 9, 1 Nissan Apr 09, 2024

If a shomer moves an item that he/she is watching and it subsequently breaks by unexpected circumstances (oness), is the shomer liable? Using an item that one is watching is called shlichut yad and the shomer is considered like a thief and becomes obligated even for oness until the item is returned. However, several factors determine whether or not the shomer is responsible. For what purpose did the shomer move the item - for the item or the shomer's use? Did it break before it was returned to a protected place or not? Was there a designated place where the item was supposed to be? Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree on whether the owner needs to know the item was returned. There is a disagreement about whether the first part of the Mishna accords with Rabbi Yishmael and the latter part with Rabbi Akiva or perhaps the whole Mishna can be explained according to Rabbi Yishmael. Within the latter interpretation, there are three opinions about why the shomer moved the item - to use part of it (shilchut yad), to steal the whole thing, or to borrow it. The difference between the first two opinions is based on a difference of opinion regarding the case of shlichut yad where one becomes responsible even for unanticipated damages - is it only if the item depreciates in value or even if there is no loss? Rav and Levi disagree about this issue. Who holds which opinion? They conclude that Levi holds that one is obligated in shlichut yad even if there is no loss. This is derived from the repetition of the verses where shlichut yad is mentioned as it seems unnecessarily mentioned both by a shomer chinam and a shomer sachar.

Bava Metzia 40 - April 8, 29 Adar 2 Apr 08, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Sara Berelowitz in honor of the engagement of Sara’s daughter, Estie Brauner, to Tina Lamm’s nephew, Jason Ast. May we have many more Hadran family smachot!

After Mari bar Isak's 'brother' brought witnesses, Rav Chisda ruled that the brother could receive his portion. Rav Chisda also ruled that the brother could receive 50% of the profits from Mari's investment in the land after the father's death, based on a Mishna in Bava Batra 143b. Abaye and Rabbi Ami raised difficulties with the latter's ruling. Rav Chisda responds and answers Rabbi Ami's question. If one gives a shomer produce to watch, the shomer can deduct a certain amount when returning the produce as one can assume that mice ate some or that some was lost over time. What percentage? The calculation is based on the item in question, the amount of time it was being watched, and the quantity. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri holds that quantity is not a factor as mice eat the same amount regardless of how much is in the pile. The Tosefta limits these laws to a case when the shomer mixed the produce with his/her produce. Rabbi Yehuda holds that if the shomer watched a large measure of produce, the depreciation would be offset by the expansion of the grains. Based on an alternate reading of a braita, Rav Nachman limits this to a particular case where the grains were given to be watched in the summer and returned in the winter. How much deduction is there for oil and wine? On what point does Rabbi Yehuda disagree with the rabbis regarding deducting the sediment in oil? What is the basis of their debate? The Gemara brings two different suggestions.

Bava Metzia 39 - April 7, 28 Adar 2 Apr 07, 2024

This week’s learning is dedicated to Dr. Joseph Walder z"l who supported Torah study across the Jewish world.

A relative is supposed to take care of the property of a relative who is taken captive or abandons their land. However, it depends on how they abandoned the land. Upon their return, the relative who tended the land receives a percentage, like a sharecropper, of the produce that will grow from their investment. Why is this different from a husband with his wife's usufruct property where once the marriage is over, he does not receive a percentage of the profits of his investment? Rav Huna ruled that a minor cannot take over his relative's property, nor can a relative take over a minor's property. Why? Are there circumstances under which the latter can be permitted? There was a woman taken captive with her daughter and left behind two daughters - one who died and left a child. Rava and Abaye disagreed about how to divide the land and who should tend to it. Later, they heard the mother had died. since it was still unclear if the daughter who had been taken captive was still alive, Rava and Abaye also disagreed about how to divide up the land. Another case is brought of Mari bar Isak who inherited land from his father and then someone came claiming to be his brother and therefore claiming 50% of the land. After demanding witnesses from the brother, the brother claimed that since Mari is a bully, no witnesses will testify against him. Rav Chisda then demanded that Mari prove that the 'brother' was not his brother. Mari brought two claims against this ruling, but Rav Chisda did not accept them.

Bava Metzia 38 - Shabbat April 6, 27 Adar 2 Apr 05, 2024

If one is watching an item and it begins to rot, should the shomer sell it or leave it and return it in whatever condition it is? There is a debate in the Mishna regarding this issue and amoraim disagree about the reason for the rabbis' opinion. Rabbi Yochanan claims that the tannaitic debate is not relevant if the item has rotted. Two difficulties are raised against Rabbi Yochanan and are resolved. Is there a connection between this issue and whether or not one is allowed to go into a relative's field who has been taken captive and work the field or not? Rav and Shmuel disagree about the relative using the property of the captive. Was there a tannaitic debate about this as well?

Bava Metzia 37 - April 5, 26 Adar 2 Apr 05, 2024

Rabbi Yosi holds that one cannot profit from someone else's object. Does he also disagree with the rabbis about the case in the first Mishna of the chapter regarding the shomer who pays for the item and acquires the double payment if the robber is found? The next Mishna raises cases regarding doubts about whose money was stolen from or who gave which amount of money to the shomer to watch. The Gemara raises contradictions between the two cases and with other mishnayot and other principles regarding money in doubt and reconciles the differences.

Bava Metzia 36 - April 4, 25 Adar 2 Apr 04, 2024

Study Guide Bava Metzia 36

Rabbi Yirmia brings various situations where one borrows and lends to another and they can both be obligated to bring either a sin or a guilt offering or one a sin and one a guilt. What are the various situations? Can a shomer give an item to someone else to watch? Different reasons are given to explain why this would be a problem. Some thought that Rav held it was permissible, but it was later explained that it was based on a misunderstanding of a situation where Rav ruled. If a shomer was negligent and brought the animal to a marsh (where there could be thieves or predators) but the animal died in a typical manner, Abaye and Rava debate what Raba held – whether the shomer would be exempt or obligated. They each explain how this case differs from a classic case of tchilato b’pshia vesofo b’ones (one who does a negligent act but in the end, the damage was accidental).

Bava Metzia 35 - April 3, 24 Adar 2 Apr 03, 2024

Rav 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?

Bava Metzia 34 - April 2, 23 Adar 2 Apr 02, 2024

Study Guide Bava Metzia 34

Today's daf is sponsored by Rena and Mark Goldstein in loving memory of Rena’s father, Moe Septee, Moshe ben haRav Elazar Shmuel on his 27th yahrzeit.

A shomer who can be exempt from payment and decides voluntarily to pay, acquires rights to the double payment (or the 4 or 5 payment for an animal that the robber slaughtered and sold) if the robber is later caught and returns the item. How does this mechanism work if the owner gives rights to the double from the beginning to the shomer in the event that it is stolen, and that the shomer pays, the thief is found - isn't that considered something that is not yet in existence, which cannot be acquired? Rava answers the question but there are two different version of the answer. Is it enough if the shomer just says he/she will pay or does the shomer actually need to pay to acquire the double payment? If the shomer changes his/her claim from "I will not pay" to "I will pay" or the reverse, do we assume that we rule by the second statement or perhaps the second statement in the latter case was just meant to push off paying temporarily? If some of the case details were different, such as, the shomer died and the heirs say, "We will pay," do we assume that the owner only gave rights to the shomer, but not to the heirs? Various similar scenarios are brought to question whether or not the owner would give rights to the double payment to the shomer in those cases. All the questions raised are left unanswered. A halacha is brought that in that case discussed above, the shomer must swear that the item is not in their possession to ensure that they haven't taken a liking to the object and decided to pay for it in order to keep it.

Bava Metzia 33 - April 1, 22 Adar 2 Apr 01, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in loving memory of his beloved bride and best friend of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v’Yehuda Tzvi, on the occasion of her first yahrzeit. "You will be in my heart forever."

There are two more attempts to prove that tza'ar ba'alei chayim is a rabbinic law, but they are rejected. Within what distance from the animal is one obligated to help load/unload? What is the order of precedence in dealing with people's lost items between oneself, one's father, and one's rabbi? What is the definition of 'one's rabbi'? Is it better to learn Torah, Mishna, or Gemara? What are the dangers of learning Mishna without learning Gemara? What are the dangers of learning Gemara without learning Mishna? If one is watching another's item (an animal or vessels) and is not getting paid (shomer chinam), and the item is stolen, the shomer can take an oath and is exempt. If they find the thief and retrieve the item, the thief pays the double payment to the original owner. But if the shomer decides to pay for the stolen item, the thief will pay the double payment to the shomer. Why was it necessary to mention both an animal and vessels?

Bava Metzia 32 - March 31, 21 Adar 2 Mar 31, 2024

If one who finds a lost item does not want to lose out on getting compensated for their full wages while attending to the lost item, one can stipulate this in front of a court (three men) and then the one who lost the item will need to compensate the finder the full amount. Raba bar Rav Huna wanted to apply this law to a case where Rav Safra took his half of a shared business deal in front of witnesses, but not three men. Rav Safra rejected this proof, but Abaye brought proof from a different source that indeed Rav Safra was required to divide the money in front of three men. If one finds an animal in a cowshed, it is not considered a lost item but in a public thoroughfare, it is. Is this within the borders of the city or outside the borders? If one's parent tells one to do something against what the Torah commands, one cannot listen to the parent. For example, if a parent tells their child not to return a lost item, the child must disobey the parent. This is derived from Vayikra 19:3 where the commandment to fear one's parent is followed by a commandment to keep Shabbat. Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis have a debate regarding the laws of helping another to load a burden - can one demand compensation for lost wages or not? What is the basis of the debate? Both would agree however, that theoretically one could have derived laws of unloading from laws of loading from a kal v'chomer argument. Rava tries to derive from this that the mitzva of tzaar baalei chayim, the commandment to prevent suffering to animals is a Torah law, as the kal v'chomer argument would be that if one is obligated to help load, when there is no suffering to the animal, kal v'chomer they are obligated to unload, where the animal is suffering. This is rejected as the kal v'chomer argument could be based on the fact that loading does not involve a financial loss and unloading does. But then the Gemara rejects that, as in loading, there is also a financial loss. Various sources are brought to determine if Rava is correct in assuming that tzaar baalei chayim is a Torah law.

Bava Metzia 31 - Shabbat March 30, 20 Adar 2 Mar 29, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Malka Abraham in loving memory of her mother, Yehudit bat Mshalem Ziza v'Chanah. "My mom always encouraged women to be lifelong learners and a love of Yiddishkeit."

If one finds an animal wandering, how does one determine if it is lost or if the owner knows its whereabouts? Rava explains that helping to protect another’s field from being destroyed is also included under the commandment to return lost items. Can this be proven from a braita? The Mishna which differentiated between cases of an animal grazing on a path and an animal running in a vineyard leads to inferences that contradict each other regarding grazing in a field and running on a path. Rava and Abaye each resolve the contradiction differently. One needs to return an item multiple times if need be. From where is this derived? Various drashot are brought regarding places in the Torah where a double language is used, such as lost items, sending away the mother bird, rebuking, charity, and others. What is derived from the double language in each verse? How do we assess the compensation one receives for stopping one’s work to attend to a lost item?

Bava Metzia 30 - March 29, 19 Adar 2 Mar 29, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Bat-Sheva Maslow in honor of her daughter Yakira becoming a Bat Mitzvah and making her first siyum. "I'm so proud of your dedication to learning and the amazing talmida chachama you are growing into."

Today's daf is sponsored by Lisa Kolodny in honor of Nancy Kolodny's milestone birthday tomorrow. "May you keep striving for personal and spiritual growth, reaching new heights, and enriching the lives of all of us around you!"

According to the Mishna one can stretch out a cloth for its own sake (if it needs airing out) but not for the finder's use. What if the finder does it for both at the same time? The Gemara brings three sources to answer this question but each is rejected. What type of care is needed for the finder of various utensils? What type of use is not permitted with each type of utensil? There are certain cases where one is exempt from returning a lost item. A braita lists three exceptions - a kohen is exempt if the lost item is in a cemetery, an elderly person as it is not within his dignity, and a person whose value of his/her labor is greater than the value of the lost item. A case is brought in which a rabbi acted beyond the letter of the law. The concept of going beyond the letter of the law is derived from a verse (Shmot 18: 20) and Rabbi Yochanan explains the importance of this concept. When we see an object, how do we determine if it is lost or the owner knows about it?

Bava Metzia 29 - March 28, 18 Adar 2 Mar 28, 2024

What is a person's level of responsibility toward the lost item once one picks it up and begins searching for its owner? If it is an animal, the finder needs to feed the animal. But if the animal is not producing enough to cover its cost, the owner can sell the animal and will return the money when they find the owner. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva debate whether this money can be used or needs to be set aside - this then affects their level of responsibility for the money in the event of loss/theft. The Gemara assumes that they both agree the responsibility is dependent upon whether or not they can use the object, meaning in a case where they cannot use the object (like a regular case of a lost item), both agree that the finder is not liable for loss/theft. However, this raises a difficulty with Rav Yosef who ruled that one watching a lost item (the finder, who is not permitted to use the object) is considered like a shomer sachar, who is liable for loss/theft. To resolve this difficulty, one can answer that their debate is regarding oness, unexpected damages, and not loss/theft, and regarding loss/theft all would agree that the finder is responsible. A difficulty is raised against this explanation from the language of the Mishna, but is resolved. There was a case where Rav Yosef tried to rule like Rabbi Tarfon and allow one who was watching money of orphans to use the money, but Abaye challenged his ruling by differentiating between a case of a regular shomer and our case where the finder took care of the animal and then sold it. Details regarding taking care of lost items are discussed - how should the finder take care of the object? What kind of use is permitted, if any? Shmuel rules that one who finds tefillin there is a unique ruling that one is allowed to sell the tefillin and use them - why? A braita compares laws of one who borrows a sefer Torah to one who finds a sefer Torah. The Gemara goes through the different parts of the braita and raises questions and answers them. The Mishna rules that two people cannot read together from a book that was found, but a braita rules that two can, but three cannot. How do they resolve this contradiction? The Mishna rules that if one finds clothing, one must shake it out once every thirty days. However, a statement from Rabbi Yochanan implies that shaking out clothing can ruin it. Several resolutions are suggested.

Bava Metzia 28 - March 27, 17 Adar 2 Mar 27, 2024

As another difficulty is raised against Rava's explanation for simanim being a rabbinic law, Rava concludes that one can retrieve a lost item by bringing simanim by Torah law. What if two people bring simanim or one person brings simanim and the other witnesses or the other one witness? Rava explains cases where two people bring different identifying details and explains which is the stronger one. For how long does the finder need to announce the lost object? Rabbi Meir holds until the neighbors know. The Gemara explains that "the neighbors" refers to the neighbors in the neighborhood where the lost item was found. Rabbi Yehuda says one must announce it on the three regalim, holidays, and for seven days after the last one to allow people to go home, see that they lost the item, and come back to claim it. This amount of time mentioned contradicts a Mishna in Taanit 10a regarding when we start to pray for rain as there it states that it takes fifteen days for the people who live farthest to get home. How is this contradiction resolved? Once the Temple was destroyed, the finder would announce in the shuls and the batei midrash. But at a certain point in history, the lost items were given to the authorities so people would spread the word more quietly among their neighbors. In the Temple, the finders would announce lost items in a place called the even hatoen and the ones who had lost items would go there to retrieve their lost items. Even when one brought simanim, they would question them even further to ensure they weren't lying. Rav Yehuda and Rav Nachman disagree about whether one would announce "I found a lost item" or "I found a cloak (for example)." Can we find support for one of the opinions from the Mishna? Originally, they were not concerned that people would lie about lost items and take items of others, but as time went on, people took advantage. As a result, the Sages instituted that to retrieve an item with simanim, one would have to bring witnesses attesting to the person's honesty. If the lost item is an animal that can work and generate revenue, the finder should keep the animal if the revenue exceeds the upkeep costs. If not, the finder can sell the animal and return the money to the owner. Can the finder use the money? If yes, the finder is responsible for replacing it, if the money gets lost. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva disagree about this issue. Even an animal that generates more revenue than cost, after twelve months pass, the finder can sell it. Two braitot list different amounts of time necessary to wait before selling calves and foals, and geese and roosters, as they do not generate enough income. How are the contradictory braitot reconciled?

Bava Metzia 27 - March 26, 16 Adar 2 Mar 26, 2024

The Mishna rules that if one finds money among fruits that one has purchased, one can keep the money. Rabbi Yannai limits this to what circumstances? A braita is brought which also corresponds to Rabbi Yannai's limitation. The verses in the Torah relating to lost items list several items that are lost that should be returned. What is derived from each of these terms? Rabbi Yehuda and Tana Kamma disagree about whether to derive the halakha that one does not need to return an item that is less than the value of a pruta from the words "that get lost" or from the word "and it was found." Is there a practical ramification between the two opinions or is it just a matter of which words to derive it from? What does each derive from the other word? Is the ability to retrieve a lost item by providing simanim a Torah law or rabbinic? The ramifications for this question: would a lost get be able to be returned to the woman if she brought simanim? Four sources are brought in an attempt to prove that lost items can be retrieved by simanim by Torah law or rabbinic law, but all are rejected. Is this issue a tannaitic debate, as can be found in a debate regarding the identification of a dead man based on a mole, to permit his wife to remarry? However, the Gemara suggests three other possibilities for the reasoning for the debate that are not based on whether or not simanim are a Torah law. Rava explains that if simanim are not a Torah law, on what basis can the rabbis institute that items can be returned by simanim if perhaps it may allow for the "wrong person" to collect a lost item if he/she happens to be able to provide simanim? After Rav Safra raises a difficulty with Rava's reasoning, Rava offers an alternative explanation. The Gemara raises a difficulty with that as well but then resolves the difficulty.

Bava Metzia 26 - Shushan Purim - May 25, 15 Adar 2 Mar 25, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored in memory of haRav Shmaryahu Yosef Chaim ben Yaakov Yisrael, Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt"l.

When one finds an object in a wall, what clues are there in the placement of the object that can attest to whether it belonged to the owner or to someone from the street who left it there? If the object was placed in a part close to the house, but the house was rented to others, there is no obligation to return the object. How does this halacha fit with the Mishna in Shekalim 19 where we assume that money found on the streets of Jerusalem during the holiday season was second tithe money and not from money that may have been left there from the week before? Reish Lakish quotes Bar Kapara and explains that it refers to a room rented to three Jews. How can one explain that in light of the issue in Bava Metzia 24 where they grappled with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s opinion and were unable to decide whether or not there is despair when there is a majority of Jews. There are two resolutions to this question. Rav Menashia bar Yaakov explains that there were three gentiles, not Jews. But Rav Nachman differentiates between the case that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar was relating to and this case. Rav Nachman’s explanation of this case is consistent with another teaching of his. Raba limits the case of the teaching of Rav Nachman. Raba describes three cases where there is a combination of theft and restitution of lost property and explains what offenses the one who found lost property committed. The Mishna rules in cases where money is found in a store or in a money changer’s store. What are the guidelines for keeping the lost item? Rabbi Elazar rules about a case that was not mentioned in the Mishna. Is it possible to raise a difficulty on his ruling from the wording of the Mishna? What in the Mishna motivated him to understand the halakha in this way?

Bava Metzia 25 - Purim - March 24, 14 Adar 2 Mar 24, 2024

Today’s daf is dedicated in memory of Ilai David Garfinkel of the Duvdevan commando unit who was killed on Friday.

The Mishna lists various items that if found, one should announce in order to return to its owner. The Gemara explains in more detail some of the cases and how the item needs to be found, i.e. fruits in a basket but not next to the basket, money in a particular formation. Contradictory sources are brought and resolved. The next Mishna describes various items that if found in a particular location, the item would not be considered lost, but perhaps placed there by the owner. Therefore, one is not allowed to take the item, even to try to return it. These are items without identifiable signs that are left in a semi-protected area. Since the items have no identifiable signs, the owner will have no way to retrieve his/her item. One of the semi-protected areas is a garbage dump. After bringing a contradictory braita, Rav Zevid and Rav Papa offer different resolutions - either to distinguish between items that were likely placed there or likely fell there by accident, or between garbage dumps that are cleared/not cleared. If an item is found inside a wall, what guidelines are given to know whether or not it belongs to the owner or is ownerless, as they were left by some previous owner or by someone on the street who forgot about it?

Bava Metzia 24 - Shabbat March 23, 13 Adar 2 Mar 22, 2024

Shmuel listed three areas in which we can assume Torah scholars may be dishonest. Why? Can we assume they are honest in all other areas? Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that if something is lost in a public place, we can assume the owner despaired (has given up hope of ever getting the item back) and the finder can take the item. The Gemara questions whether he meant this only in a place where the majority of the people are Gentiles or even in a place where the majority are Jews. If he included also a place where the majority are Jews, do the rabbis agree, or do they disagree with him about both, or only in a case where the majority are Jews? Do we hold like Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and if so, in both cases or only in the case where the majority are Gentiles? The Gemara tries to answer these questions by bringing various tannaitic sources and cases from the amoraim but most attempts to answer the questions are inconclusive.

Bava Metzia 23 - March 22, 12 Adar 2 Mar 22, 2024

Study Guide Bava Metzia 23

Today's daf is sponsored in memory of Rav Moshe ben David, Rav Moshe Feinstein zt"l.

Today's daf is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for a refua shleima for her husband Hayim Herring, HaRav Hayim Yehuda ben Tzippora.

Raba and Rava disagree about simanim - can the location be a siman, and is something a siman if it can be stepped on and ruined? How do they each explain the braita in which the law distinguishes between lost bundles and sheaves? Is the disagreement between them regarding simanim that can be ruined by stepping on them also the same disagreement between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda in our Mishna in the case of a shard found in a fig cake or a coin in a loaf of bread? At first they suggest that it is, then they reject that explanation and explain the debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir in a different way - according to Rava and Raba. There is another version of the discussion in which it is not suggested at first that the dispute between them is related to the debate between Rava and Raba, but that it depends on whether or not we assume that people will step on food. That is rejected as well. The Gemara goes over other cases listed in the Mishna and explains why there is no need to return strings of fish and pieces of meat. There is a contradiction between a braita and a Mishna regarding barrels of wine and oil - should they be returned or not? How is the contradiction resolved? What is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar's opinion at the end of the Mishna that anaphoria vessels do not need to be returned? What is anaphoria?

Bava Metzia 22 - March 21, 11 Adar 2 Mar 21, 2024

Study Guide Bava Metzia 22

Today's daf is sponsored by Nancy Kolodny in honor of the birthday of her daughter-in-law Lisa Kolodny. "Wife, mother, daughter, learner, teacher, athlete, friend extraordinaire."

Today's daf is being sponsored by Betsy Mehlman in loving memory of her father, Harold Mondshein, Zvi Menahem Mendel ben Shlomo, on his 40th yahrzeit. "He would have been proud to see how his grandchildren and Israeli great-grandchildren are thriving in Israel."

There are five more attempts to support either Rava or Abaye's position in their debate regarding ye'ush shelo mida'at, when one picks up a lost item without any identifiable features, if the owner has not yet despaired of the item (because the owner doesn't even know yet that it was lost), can we assume that since the owner will despair when he/she realizes it is lost, the finder can acquire the item now. After rejecting all of the attempted proofs, only the last one is brought as clear support for Abaye's position. This is one of six cases where the ruling is like Abaye over Rava. An abbreviation for the six cases is Ya'AL Ka'GaM. Raba and Rava disagree about whether a siman that can get trampled is a siman and whether location can be considered a siman. Then our Mishna and a braita are brought and the Gemara explains how the source can be understood according to Raba and Rava's opinions.

Bava Metzia 21 - March 20, 10 Adar 2 Mar 20, 2024

The Gemara raises two more difficulties against Rav's ruling that a receipt of payment is not returned to the borrower if found among documents of the creditor, and resolves them. The second chapter begins with a list of items that if one finds them on the street in a particular manner, they can assume the owner lost them and is not expected to retrieve them and can therefore keep them. One of the items listed is scattered fruits - how were they left? How many and in what size space is this referring to? Rabbi Yirmia asks questions on the answer to these questions to understand whether it is because the amount of these fruits is not significant or because it is too much trouble to collect. Abaye and Rava disagree on the subject of 'despair that is not known' - if it is not known that the owner has despaired on finding their lost item, when they later despair, can we view it as if they despaired from the beginning and the finder can keep the object? Rava rules that the finder can keep the object, and Abaye rules that the finder cannot. The Gemara explains that in certain cases both will agree that there is certainly immediate despair or no despair at all. Then they bring a series of questions against Abaye from tannaitic sources, most of them from our Mishna. Abaye explains all the difficulties against him as cases where we can be certain the owner knows immediately that it is lost and is sure to have given up. One difficulty from a braita is raised on Rava and is resolved.

Bava Metzia 20 - March 19, 9 Adar 2 Mar 19, 2024

A braita states that if a receipt is found saying that the husband (or his heirs) paid his ex-wife the money from her ketuba, , if the woman agrees, we return it to the husband as proof he paid. Why are we not concerned that perhaps the the money was not repaid on the date written on the receipt, but was paid later, and the couple is conspiring to retrieve her ketuba that she sold after the date written on the receipt, but before the actual payment? Rava and Abaye each suggest answers. The Mishna lists types of documents that if found on the street can be returned as there is no concern that one could collect money not due to them. The list includes igrot shum, documents assessing land of a debtor to be seized by a creditor, the commitment of a husband to pay for food of his wife's daughter, documents attesting that a chalitza or mi'un was performed, and others. If documents were bundled up together or found in a way that one could claim it by offering identifiable markings (simanim), they can be retrieved as well. If a receipt of payments is found, even by the creditor, it is given to the debtor as proof of payment. Rav Huna did not permit a get found in the street to be used as he was concerned that perhaps it belonged to people with the same names who lived in a city with the same name as written in the get. Raba disagreed with Rav Huna based on our Mishna which permits returning documents ratified by the court and is not concerned that the documents belonged to other people. This led to an argument between Raba and Amram who responded disrespectfully to the other, which then caused a pillar to break in Rav's beit midrash. The Gemara defines a number of the objects mentioned in the Mishna - chafisa, dluskima, and documents that are krukhin and agudim. One who finds a bunch of documents bundled together announces that he/she found documents and the one who lost them can retrieve them by identifying how many and how they are bound. Rav ruled that if a receipt attesting to payment of a loan is found with the creditor's documents, we cannot assume it was paid as the creditor may have written it so that when the borrower is ready to pay, the receipt will be ready. However, this contradicts a ruling in our Mishna that a simpon (receipt of payment) found in the creditor's papers is returned to the debtor. To resolve this, they bring a differentiation Rav Safra made regarding a different source that it depends on if it was found with ripped papers of the creditor or with the creditor's regular papers. Two other Mishnayot are brought to raise the same type of difficulty against this statement of Rav and are all resolved in the same manner.

Bava Metzia 19 - March 18, 8 Adar 2 Mar 18, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Allie Alperovich in loving memory of her grandmother, Frima Iosilevich who passed away this week a month shy of her 98th birthday.

Rav Ashi was uncertain whether the law that a person can retrieve lost items by giving an identifying mark (siman) is a Torah law or not. As a result, when he reconciled the contradiction between the Tosefta that permitted one to return a lost get to the wife when the husband agreed and Mishna that did not, he explained that it could be returned if the husband gave a siman muvhak, a very clear one, and not more generic siman. Raba bar bar Hanna lost a get that he was supposed to deliver. It was found and he retrieved it by giving a siman (a basic one) and also by tviut aina, visual recognition, which is specifically permitted to Torah scholars, but he was unsure if the rabbis permitted it to be returned to him on account of the siman or the visual recognition. The Tosefta Bava Metzia 1:5, quoted previously, ruled that a get for divorce or emancipation document for a slave can be returned to the wife/slave if the husband/owner agrees. Both documents have financial ramifications, as the produce of the woman's property becomes her own in the event of divorce, and items the slave purchases belong to his owner while he is a slave but are his own if he is a free man. If so, why are we not concerned that perhaps they were not divorced/freed, and by returning the document to the woman or slave, we may be allowing them to collect property that is not rightfully theirs? If one gives a gift using the language "now and after death," the body of the item is given as a gift, but the produce is still owned by the original owner until his/her death. There is another contradiction between our Mishna and a braita as our Mishna states that wills can be returned if the owner admits he/she gave it and we are not concerned that the owner wrote it and then changed his/her mind and never gave it to the recipient, and a braita states that even if both agree that it was given, we do not return the document to either one. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal resolves the contradiction by differentiating between the cases - the Mishna refers to a promise of one on one's deathbed (which one can rescind) and the braita refers to a gift of a healthy person (which can't be rescinded). The Gemara explains in detail the relevance of that distinction. Rav Zevid resolves the contradiction differently. He says that both the Mishna and braita refer to a gift on one's deathbed but the Mishna is in a case where the one who wants to return the deed is the person who wrote it and the braita is when it is his son (after the original owner's death).

Bava Metzia 18 - March 17, 7 Adar 2 Mar 17, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Audrey Mondrow from her children and grandchildren. "You are an example of a lifetime learner."

Today's daf is sponsored by Gabrielle and Daniel Altman in honor of the marriage of their daughter, Sophia Altman today, and also the recent marriage of their son, Isaac Altman, and the yahrtzeit of Moshe Rabbeinu. "Sending brachot that the ultimate Shadchan find matches for all of those who are looking."

Today's daf is sponsored by Sylvia (Sara Devora) Simmons in loving memory of her father, Avraham Nachum ben Yisroel Simelis z"l on his yahrzeit today. "Survivor of the Kovno ghetto, "a brand plucked from burning fire" he planted the seeds of Torah learning with his enduring faith still inspiring today and in the future."

There is another unsuccessful attempt to find a source to show that a betrothed woman who is widowed receives the ketuba money, even if she did not have a written ketuba. Therefore, Abaye's support for Rabbi Yochanan's reading of the Mishna in Ketubot 88b is edited and is derived directly from the words of the Mishna by rejecting the possibility that the Mishna was referring only to a place where in general they did not write ketubot and women used their get documents to collect their ketuba money. Therefore the Mishna is referring even to a case where a ketuba was written and yet we allow the woman to collect her ketuba money even without producing the ketuba document and do not trust the husband to claim it was already paid. The Mishna says if one finds a get or will or gift document, one cannot return it because maybe the person changed their mind and decided not to give it. This implies that if the husband/owner says now that he wants to give it (after we find it) he can, even if time has elapsed. This contradicts a Mishna in Gittin 27 that rules that one can only give a get that was found immediately and not after time has elapsed, as perhaps someone else with the same name lost it and it is not the get written for this man and this woman. Raba resolves this by distinguishing between a place where there are caravans and it is known that there are two couples with the same names. Rabbi Zeira raises the same contradiction but between the Mishna in Gittin and a Tosefta, not from an inference from our Mishna. He resolves it in the same way as Raba, however, it is unclear if he limits the Mishna to a case where there are caravans or also when it is known that there are two people with the same names. If he disagrees with Raba on that issue, what is the root of their debate? Why did Raba choose to bring the contradiction from our Mishna and Rabbi Zeira to bring it from the Tosefta? Rabbi Yirmia and Rav Ashi each bring two other resolutions to the contradiction between the Tosefta and the Mishna in Gittin.

Bava Metzia 17 - Shabbat March 16, 6 Adar 2 Mar 15, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Karen Carter in honor of Julie Hilton Danan's birthday! "Happy birthday to my first chevruta!"

In what cases is one no longer trusted to take an in court that he/she paid back the loan? Rav Nachman was quoted as differentiating between a case where the court had ruled "Give the money back" and "You are obligated to pay." However, there were two different versions of the situation in which Rav Nachman distinguished between the cases. Two statements of Rabbi Yochanan are brought where based on a false claim one makes regarding a case, they are no longer believed to be able to take an oath relating to that case. Rabbi Asi quotes Rabbi Yochanan as saying that if a promissory note stamped by the court is found with today's date, we can assume it was not yet paid back as people do not generally return loans on the same day. However, this contradicts another statement of Rabbi Yochanan that is premised on the fact that people could pay loans back on the same day. This is resolved in two possible ways. Rabbi Yochanan makes another statement that if something is deemed obligatory by the court, such as a ketuba, then one is not trusted to say "I already paid it back" (if they can't bring witnesses to prove it) even if the other side does not have a document in hand. Rabbi Chiya bar Abba questions Rabbi Yochanan by asking isn't that an explicit Mishna? Rabbi Yochanan responds by saying that without his statement, it would not have been clear from the Mishna. Abaye suggests that what Rabbi Yochanan said cannot be derived from the Mishna but then changes his mind and explains that it can be, using as proof a case of a widow from betrothal who receives ketuba money. Rav Keshisha tries to find a source for Abaye's halakha about a betrothed woman from a Mishna but rejects his own suggestion. own suggestion.

Bava Metzia 16 - March 15, 5 Adar 2 Mar 15, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Miriam Adler in honor of her children’s return to Kibbutz Saad. "May they have many healthy and safe years while building and planting in ארצנו הקדושה."

Rav holds that if the seller of stolen land subsequently purchased the land from the original owner, the assumption is that the seller originally sold the land and any rights to the land that the seller may have in the future. Therefore, the land is fully owned by the buyer. The logic behind Rav's ruling is a source of debate between Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi. Is it because the seller doesn't want the buyer to call him/her a thief or because the seller wants to be known as reliable? What is the practical difference between the two? Three answers are brought - the first two are rejected. The Gemara mentions variations on this case where Rav would theoretically rule that the seller did not intend to pass over rights to the buyer. At what stage in the judgment process is this ruling of Rav no longer relevant? Two questions are raised against Rav, but they are resolved. Another ruling of Rav on a related issue: If a seller says to a buyer, "This field will be yours from now, when I purchase it," the sale is effective. Rav holds by Rabbi Meir that one can acquire an item that is "not yet in the world." Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan debate whether a document in the street that was either ratified by the court or was a shtar hakna'a (in which the land is automatically liened from the date of the document regardless of whether the loan happened or not), gets returned to the credit. Can we assume that it was not yet paid, since if it was, the borrower would have ripped it up, or do we assume that it was paid back, since if it wasn't, the lender never would have lost it?

Bava Metzia 15 - March 14, 4 Adar 2 Mar 14, 2024

Study Guide Bava Metzia 15

Today's daf is sponsored by Barbara Goldschlag in honor of the engagement of Aliza Goldschlag and Sam Clarke.

If one sold a field that he/she stole, when the owner takes back the land and the buyer returns to the seller to retrieve the money from the sale, Shmuel holds that the seller does not need to reimburse the buyer for improvements to the field. The second difficulty raised against Shmuel is resolved in three possible ways. A third difficulty is raised as Shmuel himself said that the buyer receives a guarantee of the enhancements. To resolve this, Rav Yosef suggests a possible way that the buyer of stolen property can demand the value of the enhancements from the seller after the property is taken away. There are two different versions of Rav Yosef's answer. In the context of this discussion, they mentioned a different opinion of Shmuel that a creditor who seizes liened property for a loan can take the enhancements as well. Rava proves this from the language of a sale document which includes a guarantee for the enhancements. Why would there be a guarantee for enhancements for a sale and not for a gift? If one buys property knowing it is stolen and the owner takes back the land, Rav and Shmuel debate whether or not the buyer can get his/her money back from the seller. The basis of their argument is discussed and compared to another case where they also debate the same issue. Why is there a need to show they disagreed in both cases?

Bava Metzia 14 - March 13, 3 Adar 2 Mar 13, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her father, Melvyn Sydney Goldstein, on his 4th yahrzeit. "He was gone too soon, and his presence and good counsel are missed by many of his friends and family."

How does the braita previously quoted raise a difficulty with Shmuel on two counts? Another statement of Shmuel is brought explaining the rabbi's position - that even if a document doesn't say that the property is liened to the loan, the property is still liened to the loan, as we assume the scribe forgot to add it. Rava bar Itai raises a contradiction between that statement of Shmuel's and another statement of Shmuel's in a different context. The Gemara then distinguishes between the cases - one was a loan and the other was a sale. A story is brought to support this distinction. Abaye mentions a few laws about liened property. If a creditor collects from liened property, the debtor can get involved to bring a claim against the creditor even though the creditor seized it from the one who purchased it from the debtor, as the debtor is still considered an involved party. Can one back out of a deal if rumors are circulating that the land doesn't belong to the "owner"? At what stage, and does it depend if the land was sold with a guarantee? If one sold a field that he/she stole, when the owner takes back the land and the buyer returns to the seller to retrieve the money from the sale, Rav and Shmuel debate whether or not the seller needs to reimburse the buyer for improvements to the field. Shmuel does not allow the buyer to collect the money for improvements as it looks like an interest payment. Rava raises a difficulty with Shmuel but it is resolved. A further difficulty is raised against Shmuel but it is resolved as well.

Bava Metzia 13 - March 12, 2 Adar 2 Mar 12, 2024

Study Guide Bava Metzia 13

If someone finds a promissory note in the street and it is unclear if it was paid back or not, can it be returned to the creditor? According to Rabbi Meir, it depends on whether or not the document specified that there was property lein on the loan - if there was, the document is not returned, if there was not, it is. The rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir and hold that in both cases, the document is not returned. There are two suggestions to explain the case of the Mishna - is it a case where the debtor agrees that the loan was not yet repaid or does the debtor claim it was repaid? First, the Gemara suggests the former and explains the position of Rabbi Meir that there may be a problem with the date of the loan written in the contract. Therefore there is a concern that land will be collected improperly from a date that may have preceded the loan. However, a contradiction is brought from a Mishna in Bava Batra where no such concern exists. Rav Asi and Abaye resolve the contradiction in different ways. Difficulties against each position are raised and resolved. In the resolution of Abaye's opinion, they assume that Abaye holds that Rabbi Meir is concerned that if there is a property lien, the creditor and debtor may conspire together to lie in order to repossess and share land that the debtor sold. As Shmuel is not concerned about a conspiracy, he must either hold like Rav Asi or perhaps he understands the case in the Mishna differently - that the debtor claims the loan was repaid. If so, the basis for Rabbi Meir's distinction is that he holds if a document does not include a property lien, it cannot be collected at all. Therefore, if there is no property lien, it can be returned to the creditor without concern of it being collected. Still, it is returned so the creditor can use the paper for other uses, i.e. to cover a jug. If it has a property lien, we trust the debtor that the loan was already paid back and it is not returned to the creditor. There is a debate among Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar about whether Rabbi Meir and the rabbis disagree in a case where the debtor admits there is still a loan or one where the debtor denies it. They each explain according to their position the basis of the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis. The Gemara introduces a braita and explains that it supports Rabbi Yochanan's position and raises one difficulty with Rabbi Eleazar's position and two with Shmuel. However, a difficulty is raised as the braita disagrees on two issues with Rabbi Elazar!

Bava Metzia 12 - 2nd day of Rosh Chodesh - March 11, 1 Adar 2 Mar 11, 2024

This month's learning is sponsored in loving memory of Shay Uriel ben Carmit & Harav Shimon Pizam and Ayal Mevorach ben Shiri Chaya & Mordechai Moti Twito.

This week's learning is sponsored by Nira Feldman in loving memory of Faye Darack z"l, Finkel bat Baruch v'Dina in commemoration of her first yahrzeit.

Rav Ashi explains why if a husband puts a bill of divorce in his wife's courtyard, it is only effective if she is standing nearby, whereas, for a gift, there is no need to be standing near the courtyard. This is based on the principle that one can do something that is in a person's best interest (gift) not in their presence but one cannot do something bad for another (divorce) not in their presence. Rava asks about a case where someone throws a wallet and it goes through the airspace of another's property - is it acquired by the owner of the property as in the case of the Mishna? How is the case different from the case brought in the Mishna? The next Mishna teaches: If the following people find a lost item, the item goes to the father/husband/owner: a young child, a wife, and a Caananite slave. If the following people find a lost item, they can keep it for themselves: an older child, a Jewish slave, and a divorced woman even if she did not receive her ketuba. Shmuel explains that a child who finds a lost item goes to his/her father as it is common for children to give items they find to their parents. This implies that Shmuel holds that a child does not acquire items by Torah law. A difficulty is raised against Shmuel from a braita regarding a worker who leaves sheaves that fall in the field (leket) and his child can collect them. The sages suggest three possible resolutions. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with Shmuel as he understands the word "minor" in the Mishna not to be referring to a minor as one underage but one who is supported by his father, in which case the Mishna teaches nothing regarding the ability of a minor to acquire items. A braita states that a day worker who is hired to do everything for the owner and finds a lost item on the job, the item goes to the one who hired him. This contradicts the Mishna which states that a Jewish slave who finds lost items can keep them. The sages suggest three solutions. What is the case of a Jewish slave woman in the Mishna who gets to keep lost items - shouldn't they go to her father, and if he died, didn't Reish Lakish teach that she go free? To resolve this, they explain that the Mishna means the item goes to her father, not her master. Why does the Mishna need to teach that a divorced woman can keep items she finds? Isn't this obvious?! The case must be one where there is a doubt about whether or not she is divorced. If one finds promissory notes, are they returned to the creditor? On what does it depend? Why?

Bava Metzia 11 - Rosh Chodesh Adar 2 - March 10, 30 Adar 1 Mar 10, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Emma and Richard Rinberg in honor of the engagement of their son Joseph to Shachar, daughter of Ayelet and Amir Yefet of Shoham.

After concluding that everyone agrees that if a husband puts a get in his wife's courtyard, she is divorced because her courtyard is considered an extension of her hand, the Gemara brings three explanations as to what Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about regarding the acquiring of an item through the courtyard of a minor. If people are running after an animal with a broken leg who has entered into someone's field, the owner of the field can acquire it by saying "My field acquired it" since the animal is incapable of running away. But if the animal could run fast and escape, then that statement would be ineffective. Shmuel qualifies the Mishna that the field is unprotected and the owner is standing nearby. The Gemara brings proof from a braita that in an unprotected field, the owner must be nearby in order to acquire an ownerless item in the field. The braita contradicts itself and therefore an alternative reading is suggested which is used to prove Shmuel. However, the Gemara suggests an alternative reading of the braita to reject the proof, but that reading is not accepted. Ulla and Rabba bar bar Hana also qualified the Mishna in the same way as Shmuel. Rabbi Abba raises a difficulty against Ulla from a Mishna in Maaser Sheni 5:9 about Rabban Gamliel giving rights to maaser to Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva while they were on a boat by giving them rights to a piece of land on his property. Since they were not standing near the property, one can prove that they acquired it without being next to the property. One possible response to the difficulty is to explain that the act of acquiring was a kinyan agav, whereby one who acquires land and moveable items, acquires the land (through money) and the moveable items automatically become theirs. Rabbi Abba didn't accept this response and Rava explains why. Rava suggests that since there was an easier way to do it - by a kinyan sudar, and they did not use that method of acquiring, it must be because giving rights to maaser is not valued as money, since the maaser belongs to all the Levites/poor people and choosing which one is just considered a benefit. However, the Gemara rejects Rava's suggestion and explains that gifts of the tithes are considered money and explains why a symbolic act of acquisition would not have been effective, but kinyan agav is. Rav Papa offers a different answer to Rabbi Abba's difficulty by distinguishing between an ownerless item and one that is passed on by someone else. Is this an accurate distinction, as Ulla rules that when a husband passes a get to a wife's courtyard, it will only be effective if she is standing nearby?

Bava Metzia 10 - Shabbat March 9, 29 Adar 1 Mar 08, 2024

The Gemara quotes a Mishna in Peah 4:9 that describes someone who takes part in the corner of another's field on behalf of a poor person. Ulla and Rav Nachman disagree about whether the debate Mishna in Peah is only when a wealthy person takes the item for the poor person or even a poor person for a poor person. Rav Nachman raises a difficulty with Ulla’s ruling from our Mishna. How do Ulla and Rav Nachman understand the case in the Mishna differently to correspond to their understanding of the Mishna in Peah? A creditor cannot ask someone else to collect a debt when the debtor also owes others and may not have enough funds for all the creditors as they are causing a loss to others. Only the creditor him/herself can collect the loan. Does that concept apply to a lost item since potentially it is causing everyone else not to acquire it or since there is no potential financial loss for anyone as the lost item wasn't something they are owed, one can acquire it for a friend? Rav Nachman and Rav Chisda disagree with Rabbi Yochanan on this issue. The Mishna rules that one who jumps on an item does not acquire it. Reish Lakish brings a halakha in the name of Rabbi Abba Bardala Cohen that one acquires everything within the four cubits surrounding a person. A difficulty is raised against this statement from both a Mishna in Peah and our Mishna and three answers are brought for each source to explain why it does not contradict, the first is rejected and the last two are accepted. Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan debate whether a minor girl's divorce document can be given to her by placing it in her courtyard or in the four cubits surrounding her. The first suggestion is that the argument is based on whether a courtyard functions as an extension of one's hand or as a messenger. However, this is rejected.

Bava Metzia 9 - March 8, 28 Adar 1 Mar 08, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Rikki and Alan Zibitt in loving memory of Helen Zibitt on her 24th yahrzeit. "Mom was a devoted and loving mother, grandmother and great-grandmother, who lived a life filled with middot, chesed, learning and ahavat Yisrael. May her memory be a blessing."

Today’s daf is dedicated by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the birth of a grandson to Cheryl Savitsky. "A celebration of the inauguration of our friend and co-learner, Cheryl, into the grandparents’ club. No matter what the new prince (born to Eliana and Shimmy) will call you and Avi, we are certain of two things: that he has wonderful role models of Torah, avoda and gemilut chasadim, and that you will have enormous nachat from him and the entire family! תזכו לגדלו לתורה ולחופה ולמעשים טובים!"

Rav Yehuda holds that riding on an animal does not mean that one has acquired the animal. A braita is brought to support his opinion – first by an inference and then by a particular use of wording in the braita. But both attempts are rejected. Two braitot are brought to raise a difficulty against Rav Yehuda, but they are resolved. The first braita itself seems to be difficult and to resolve it, they change the wording of the braita. Rabbi Avahu explains the difficulty without changing the wording, but the Gemara rejects his explanation. The second braita explains that actions can create an acquisition of an animal when the action taken is a typical one such as riding an animal in a field or leading an animal in the city. Rabbi Elazar asks if one can acquire objects that are on an animal by pulling the animal if one does not intend to acquire the animal. His question presumes that if one acquires the animal, then one acquires the objects that are on the animal. Rava questions this presumption as the animal is like a “walking courtyard” that cannot acquire items in it. To resolve this, they assume that Rabbi Elazar’s question was only relevant in a case where the animal was tied up. Two difficulties are raised against Rava’s ruling that a “walking courtyard” does not acquire items, but are resolved. The Mishna says that if one sees a lost item and asks someone to pick it up for him/her, as long as the one who picks it up has not yet handed the lost item to the person who asked for it, the person can claim it as their own. The Gemara quotes a Mishna in Peah 4:9 that describes someone who collects part of the corner of another's field on behalf of a poor person. Ulla and Rav Nachman disagree about whether the debate in the Mishna in Peah is only when a wealthy person takes the item for a poor person or even a poor person for a poor person. Rav Nachman raises a difficulty with Ulla’s ruling from our Mishna.

Bava Metzia 8 - March 7, 27 Adar 1 Mar 07, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Rochel Cheifetz in loving memory of her aunt, Rose Rubelow, Rachel bat haRav Moshe v'Tzipora Mashbaum whose yartzeit was 26 Adar.

When the law is to split an item, the meaning is to split the market value. There are three attempts to prove this from our Mishna or tannatic sources. The first two are rejected but the last is accepted. Rami bar Hama teaches that one can derive from our Mishna that one who finds an item on the street and picks it up on behalf of another, is effective. Rava disagrees and only permits it in a case where the one who lifted it acquired part of it for him/herself and therefore can acquire the rest for someone else. But if one acquired it exclusively for someone else, it would not be effective. Rava proves this by comparing a case of one who stole on behalf of another and one who stole on behalf of oneself and another (partners). Rava teaches a halakha based on this principle but the Gemara modifies it as it is incomprehensible as transmitted. From which line in the Mishna did Rami bar Hama derive his opinion? The Gemara suggests five possibilities - all are rejected except the last one. Shmuel is quoted as having said about riding on an animal and leading it - one is an act of acquiring and the other is not. Which one is it? Rav Yehuda infers from a Mishna that riding is not an act of acquiring as holding the reigns will only work in a sale where one is passing to the other, but holding the reigns on an ownerless animal is not a valid act of acquiring. How does this all fit with our Mishna where it is clear that riding on the animal enables one to acquire a lost animal? To answer this, they explain the Mishna in a case where the one riding was also leading the animal with his/her feet. If so, why does the Mishna mention leading in two different ways?

Bava Metzia 7 - March 6, 26 Adar 1 Mar 06, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Eitan and Pnina Lipsker "in honor of all the women daf yomi learners, especially those who make an extra-human effort to join the Hebrew Zoom at 6:20 every morning. They add kedusha and Torah to Am Yisrael. May we be blessed to continue to learn Torah daily and l'hagdil Torah u'lehaadira."

After deliberations on Bava Metzia 6 regarding a contested item that was sanctified by one of the parties, the Gemara brings a ruling that the sanctification is not effective unless the one who sanctified had proof of ownership that would hold up in court. However, this is limited to land, as the sanctification of moveable items is ineffective unless the item is physically in the domain of the one sanctifying it. Rav Tachlifa brings a braita that states if two people are holding on to part of the tallit, each one gets to keep the part they are holding on to and the remainder is divided evenly. Rabbi Avahu added that this is only if they take an oath. In light of this braita, Rav Papa explains that our Mishna must refer to a case where each was holding onto the edge of the garment. Comparisons are made to other cases like a kinyan sudar or a get, divorce document, where two people are holding onto the object. Are these cases similar or different to our case and why? How is the garment divided if there is gold running through it? A braita discusses the case of two people holding a document - the creditor claiming ownership, such that the debtor still owes the money, and the debtor claiming ownership as the loan was already paid back. Rebbi says the document is validated if the witnesses' signatures can be confirmed. They explain this to mean that if it is validated, the document is split, but if not, since the debtor admits there was a loan, but claims it was paid, the debtor is believed as "the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted." Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says they split it in either case. The principle of "the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted" is not relevant here as there is a document as well. If the document is found near the judge (meaning, the judge validated it), the rabbis and Rabbi Yosi disagree - is it never able to be collected or does it remain valid for collecting? Rabbi Yosi holds it can be collected as we are not concerned that the debtor already paid back the loan. However, this is difficult in light of a different braita relating to a ketuba that is found and contested by the husband and wife, Rabbi Yosi rules (against the rabbis) that if the woman is divorced or widowed, we assume it was paid. The rabbis suggest three possible ways to resolve the contradiction. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yochanan differentiate between a typical case where two people are holding a document and a case in which one is holding the main part (toref) and one is holding the tofes (the summary at the end which does not include the date. What exactly is this case and how would it be divided? How do we assess the difference between the value of the toref and the tofes?

Bava Metzia 6 - March 5, 25 Adar 1 Mar 05, 2024

Since Rabbi Yochanan explained the reason for the oaths in the Mishna is to prevent one from grabbing the tallit from the other, the Gemara continues to prove that if one can be believed to take an oath even if we are concerned they have stolen. The third attempt to prove this is from a statement of Rav Huna regarding a shomer who claims something happened to the item which would exempt the shomer, but he/she chooses to pay for the item. They take an oath, even though there is a concern that perhaps they want to keep the item for themselves. Again, this proof is rejected as the shomer pays money for the item and can therefore justify keeping the item. Three other oaths - shevuat heiset, a case with a shopkeeper and workers, and the oath taken by a shomer chinam who claims the item was last or stolen can all prove that even one who perhaps is lying is trusted to take an oath. Abaye brings an alternative explanation for the oaths in the Mishna as he does not hold that we can trust one who perhaps is stealing to take an oath. According to Abaye, the concern is that there is a doubt about whether one owes money to the other and therefore the creditor grabs the tallit as payment for the loan in question. Why is Abaye not concerned in that case as well for a false oath? Rabbi Zeira asks: if the two people were holding the tallit in the court and one grabbed it from the other, does the one now holding the entire tallit have full rights to it? In what exact case was this question asked? What are the arguments for and against? Assuming the one holding it gets to keep it, would the same hold true if one consecrated the whole tallit without having grabbed it since regarding consecration, speech is considered the same as pulling an object. To answer this question, the Gemara brings a story about a bathhouse that two people claimed rights to, and then one of them consecrated the bathhouse. Rav Hamnuna ruled that the consecration worked and learned it from a Mishna about a safek bechor but Raba rejected his proof. Rav Chanania brings proof from a braita for Raba's explanation and Abaye first rejects the proof but then reinstates it.

Bava Metzia 5 - March 4, 24 Adar 1 Mar 04, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Abby Flamholz in honor of her daughter in law, Sigal. "She is a superwoman and inspirational wife, mother and Torah Jew!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Romi and Josh Sussman in honor of their oldest son finishing 3 years and 8 months of service in the IDF this week. "We have been in awe of how you carried yourself with grace, confidence, determination and leadership since the day your service started. Through countless nights in the shetach and months in Gaza, you have stayed true to yourself. We love you and couldn't possibly be more proud of your service!"

One more question is raised against Rav Sheshet who holds that one who partially admits a claim but says 'heilach' is exempt from taking an oath and one attempt is brought to prove Rabbi Chiya who held that an oath is required, but the question is answered and the proof rejected. The sugya goes back to the original statement of Rabbi Chiya that if there are witnesses to part of the claim, the claimant must take an oath on the second part. A contradiction is raised from a drasha on a verse in the Torah, but an alternative explanation is offered. There was a case with a shepherd who denied a claim and there were witnesses for part of the claim. Rabbi Zeira asked why did they not require the shepherd to take an oath according to Rabbi Chiya? Abaye questioned Rabbi Zeira as the shepherd should not be allowed to take an oath since two witnesses testified against the shepherd that he took items that were not his own, making him a thief who is not trusted to take an oath in court. Why did Abaye need to call the shepherd a thief, any shepherd is not believed in court as shepherds generally bring their animals to graze in other people's fields? Both Abaye's question and the Gemara's question on Abaye are resolved. An issue is raised with the language of the oath in the Mishna regarding the case of two people holding onto a tallit, "I do not have ownership of less than half" as the language is ambiguous and could lead to one taking the oath even though one does not have any rights at all to the tallit. Rav Huna therefore changes the language of the oath required to prevent abuse of the system. The Gemara suggests some other suggestions for the wording of the oath and explains why the Mishna did not choose them. Rabbi Yochanan explains the purpose of the oath is to prevent one of the people holding the tallit from grabbing a tallit that someone else found and claiming it as their own. If so, the purpose of the oath is to clarify that one of the parties is not lying. If we suspect the person may be lying, how can we trust them to take an oath? The answer is that people who are suspected of taking other people's items are not presumed to lie under oath as the latter is taken more seriously. The Gemara attempts to prove this assumption, first from one who admits to part of a claim (modeh b'miktzat), then from Rami bar Hama's position about the oath of the shomrim, but both are rejected as the concern in both those cases is not that the claimant is truly lying, but just trying to push off the creditor temporarily. They further try to prove this assumption from a statement of Rav Huna about a shomer who claims something happened to the item which would exempt the shomer, but he/she is choosing to pay for the item. They take an oath, even though there is a concern that perhaps they want to keep the item for themselves. Again, this is rejected.

Siyum Masechet Bava Kamma Mar 03, 2024

Finishing the end of the last daf with some insights about the last sugya.

Bava Metzia 4 - March 3, 23 Adar 1 Mar 03, 2024

Bava Metzia bookmark

Order your Nezikin Kit (printed bookmarks)

This week's learning is sponsored by Rachel Savin in loving memory of her father, Shalom ben Shmuel z"l.

Today's daf is sponsored by Miriam Tannenbaum in honor of Rina Yahalom and in memory of Rebecca Baruch. "Rina, a dear ‘former student’ & "bat bayit", and her close friend, Rebecca Baruch הי"ד had planned to be chevrutot as they started their daf yomi journey together. Honoring Rina as she begins her daf journey with Bava Metzia, in Rebecca’s memory. May Rina’s learning be a source of strength for her and a zechut for all of Am Yisrael."

The Gemara concludes that the kal va'chomer from which Rabbi Chiya derived that two witnesses who testify to half a claim can obligate the defendant to take an oath about the rest was learned out jointly from both one who admits to part of a claim, modeh bemiktzat, and from one witness, who both obligate an oath. Rabbi Chiya had also proven this halakha our Mishna. However, after raising a difficulty on this, the Gemara concludes that Rabbi Chiya brought our Mishna as proof for a different halakha - one where one admits to half a claim and then says 'heilach'. Rabbi Chiya holds that even in that case one is still obligated to take an oath and that halakha can be proven from our Mishna. Rav Sheshet disagrees with Rabbi Chiya and does not require one to take an oath in that case. A braita is brought to first raise a difficulty against Rabbi Chiya, but is resolved. Then a different version of that difficulty is brought, using the dissenting opinion in that same braita to raise a difficulty against Rav Sheshet, but is resolved. Another difficulty is brought from a Mishna in Shevuot 38b against Rav Sheshet's opinion but is also resolved.

Bava Metzia 3 - Shabbat March 2, 22 Adar 1 Mar 01, 2024

The Gemara continues to compare the law in our Mishna to tannatic opinions in other cases of disputed money that seem to reach different halakhic conclusions. Distinctions are made between the various cases to prove that our Mishna could match the opinions of the tannaim in those sources as the details of our case are different and would therefore lead to a different ruling. Rabbi Chiya rules that if the defendant denies a claim but witnesses testify that the defendant owes half the contested amount, the defendant must pay half and take an oath on the other half to be exempt from payment. He derives this from kal v'chomer from modeh bemiktzat (one who admits to half a claim, where the law is that he/she takes an oath on the other half to be exempt). The Gemara brings our mishna as proof for this law of Rabbi Chiya and then explains why there was a need for a kal v'chomer. As Rabbi Chiya did not explain the kal v'chomer from which he derived this law, the Gemara attempts to determine how it was derived. However, the first suggestion is that the lenient part of the kal v'chomer argument is a case of confession, but that is rejected as it is actually more stringent in one way than a case of witnesses. There are four attempts to explain why a confession is more stringent, but the first three are rejected. The final attempt to find a stringency in confession over witnesses is that other witnesses cannot undo it, and that answer is accepted. The second suggestion, one witness, is rejected as the case where one witness can obligate the claimant to take an oath is referring to an oath on the part the witness testified about, whereas the two witnesses in our case are obligating an oath on the part that they did not testify about. Therefore, one cannot learn from one to the other.

Bava Metzia 2 - March 1, 21 Adar 1 Mar 01, 2024

If two people are holding onto a tallit - each one claiming they found it or each claiming it belongs entirely to them, the Mishna rules that each one swears that no less than half is theirs and they split it (or sell it and split the value). If one claims it is entirely theirs and the other claims that half is theirs, one takes an oath that no less than three-quarters belongs to him/her and the other takes an oath on one-quarter and the item is split accordingly. The law would be the same if two people were arguing about an animal and both were riding on it or one was riding and one was leading it. The Gemara suggests two different explanations as to why the first case in the Mishna had each person making two different statements - "I found it" and "It is completely mine.” Are these considered one case and the extra statement is meant to teach something additional or are there two different cases? If it is one case, the extra wording of "I found it" is meant to teach that the finder does not acquire rights to an object if one sees a lost item but does not lift it. After rejecting this reading of the Mishna, Rav Papa explains that the Mishna refers to two different cases – the first is a lost item and the second is a purchased item that each side claims the seller sold to him/her. In the case of a sale, the seller only agreed to sell it to one of the two but both paid for it. The Gemara compares our ruling in the Mishna to other tannatic opinions brought in similar cases of disputed money where different methods are employed to resolve the dispute. The Gemara first suggests that our Mishna does not hold by those tannaim, but then concludes that the Mishna may hold by those opinions as the cases have significant differences that could explain why in one case the ruling would be different than in another.

Bava Kamma 119 + Siyum - February 29, 20 Adar 1 Feb 29, 2024

For the text of the Hadran ceremony, click here.
For more information about What is a Siyum, click here.

Siyum Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Shuster family in loving memory of Ozer's mother Devorah Shuster and as a zechut for complete lasting peace in Eretz Yisrael.

Siyum Bava Kamma is sponsored by Ilana Friedman in honor of the marriage today of her wonderful niece Adira Leah Barber to Yonatan Glicksman. "May HaShem grant you the zechut to build a strong Jewish household steeped in Torah values that will continue our family’s and nation’s mesora. Mazal tov!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Lisa Lowe with love and gratitude to David Denker and all of the chayalim of Hativa 55 who have and are defending Israel and our People. "May you be safe and go from strength to strength. "

Today's daf is sponsored by Susan Vishner in loving memory of her parents Ruth and Everett Gruber, Rivkah Rahel Bat Nachman Yair v'Menucha Baila, and Yehuda Gedalia Ben Sender Chaim v'Perl, on what would have been their actual 19th wedding anniversary. "They shared great love for one another, for their family and for Israel and Jewish learning."

Different situations are described where the seller could be selling stolen items and therefore it is forbidden to purchase them. In what cases/circumstances are we suspicious/not suspicious? From where do we learn that one who steals from another, is considered as if they took the soul of the one they robbed? The Masechet ends by delineating what remains of items workers are allowed to keep for themselves and what parts they need to return to the owner, alluding to the fact that in regular everyday situations, one could become a thief just by not being careful enough.

Introduction to Masechet Bava Metzia with Dr. Ayelet Hoffmann Libson Feb 28, 2024

Introduction to Masechet Bava Metzia

Bava Kamma 118 - February 28, 19 Adar 1 Feb 28, 2024

Study Guide Bava Kamma 118

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in gratitude to Hedy and Mendy Klein and their daughter, our friend and co-learner, Malkie Klein for sponsoring the Long Island in-person Siyum on Wednesday evening. "The Siyum allows us to come together, share our thoughts and experiences, and celebrate another milestone in our monumental journey. Malkie has graciously opened her home to us on many occasions. Her parents have cheered us on. May they continue to reap nachat from their wonderful family and from us!"

Does one need to return stolen or borrowed items to the owner in a city or can he/she return them in an uninhabited place (unguarded, less safe)? Claims where the borrower/robber/watchman is unsure of their claim - "I stole but don't remember if I paid it back" or "I am unsure if I stole," what is the law? If the owner says that one stole/borrowed/watched an item but did not pay it back and the claimant says "I don't remember," the amoraim debate whether or not one needs to return the money. How does this fit with the case in the Mishna? If one steals, can one return the item without the owner knowing? If he/she returned the item without the owner knowing, and the animal dies or is stolen again, is the thief responsible? Does it depend on whether or not the owner knew it was stolen in the first place? There are four different possibilities offered. There are certain people that one cannot buy certain items from because there is a strong reason to believe they are stolen. It may also depend on the quantity they are selling.

Bava Kamma 117 - February 27, 18 Adar 1 Feb 27, 2024

One who passes on information about other people's property to non-Jews who are looking to seize/steal it - is this considered theft? Is the informant liable to return the value of the item? On what does it depend? The Gemara brings a series of cases where Jews informed Gentiles about the whereabouts of others' possessions and the rulings of the rabbis are brought. In the context of a story about a Jew who wanted to inform about another, we are told of a famous story of the showdown between Rav Kahana and Rabbi Yochanan when Rav Kahana ran away to Israel from Babylonia. This story highlights the dangers of misjudging others, and holding oneself in high regard, and also highlights the power struggle between Babylonia and Israel, particularly in the second generation of amoraim, in terms of determining where the real center of authority is. Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree about whether land is "acquired" by a thief or not.

Bava Kamma 116 - with Dr. Ayelet Hoffman Libson - February 26, 17 Adar 1 Feb 26, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Meryl and Harold Sasnowitz in loving memory of their mothers, Malka bat Chaya Etle & Mordechai, and Toby Raizel bat Rechel & Tzvi whose yahrzeits both fall on 16 Adar. "They left a legacy of Yiddishkite that has grown through multiple generations."

Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree about whether one can keep impure truma wine in one's house to be used over time for creating a good smell in the house (ziluf) or does one need to be concerned that it may cause transgression as one may forget that the wine is impure and may drink it. Rabbi Yishamel son of Rabbi Yosi suggests a compromise approach, however, others did not like the suggestion. If honey is dripping from a vessel and the honey owner promises the wine owner that if he/she spills the wine, the honey owner will compensate him/her for the loss of wine, then the honey owner must pay. However, from a different braita it seems that one can claim, "I never really meant what I said, I was just fooling with you." How is this resolved? Why does the Mishna not only bring a case of honey/wine but also a case with two people who each have a donkey (one worth more than the other) that gets swept away by a river and one asks the other to save his/hers instead of saving their own donkey? Two questions are asked about variations on the donkey case. What if one saves the other donkey and is promised to be compensated for his/her donkey but then their donkey comes out of the river on its own - do they still receive compensation as promised? What if one tries to save the donkey but is unsuccessful? The Tosefta Bava Metzia 7:7 is quoted where there are several cases of distribution of expenditures for a group of people traveling together if for example robbers come or if they need to hire someone for the group. What are the criteria used for determining the method of dividing? The Tosefta continues with a case of people on a boat that is beginning to sink - how do they determine how much each person needs to throw off the boat to save themselves? If one steals a field and then gives it to thugs who come to seize property, does the thief need to return the land or can he/she say to the owner, "Go get it from the thugs?" On what does it depend?

Bava Kamma 115 with Rabbanit Hamutal Shoval - February 25, 16 Adar 1 Feb 25, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her mother, Carolyn Barnett-Goldstein, on her 5th yahrzeit. "She was passionately dedicated to the Jewish People and the arts. We miss her larger-than-life presence every day, and struggle to understand that she is gone."

Today's daf is sponsored by Abby Flamholz’s daughter-in-law, Sigal Spitzer Flamholz and her two granddaughters Nitzan and Orlie Flamholz in honor of Abby's birthday. "Thanks for paving the way for Talmud Torah in our family!"

If one recognizes items belonging to them in someone's house and the owner of the house claims they purchased them, the owner of the house takes an oath about the purchase price and returns the item to the original owner for the value of the item. But this is only if it is known that the person was robbed. If not, there is a concern that the claimant sold the item and now regrets the sale and wants the item back. The Gemara asks why knowing the person was robbed is enough to allay the fear that they are just trying to renege on a sale? Rav explains that there needs to be some sort of circumstantial evidence that the item in question was stolen. If a thief sells a stolen item, can the one who was robbed demand the item back from the buyer or only from the thief? Rav and Rabbi Yochanan disagree. Four explanations are brought to explain the basis of their debate. The rabbis instituted takanat hashuk to protect buyers. The takana is that if someone claims that the item is theirs, they can take it back but they need to reimburse the buyer the amount that they paid so that the buyer does not need to find the thief who sold him/her the item. In what cases does the takana apply/not apply? If two people are walking and one has honey in a jar that is breaking, and the other has wine (less expensive than honey) and the wine owner dumps the wine to help save the honey, what compensation does the wine owner receive? The Gemara questions why we do not assume that the honey was already hefker (ownerless) as the owner knew it would be gone in a minute and gave up ownership of it in which case it can be considered acquired by the wine owner, as can be inferred from braita? to resolve this, they limit the case in the Mishna. The Gemara then questions the halakha in the braita based on a different braita which seems to contradict. How are they reconciled?

Bava Kamma 114 - Shabbat February 24, 15 Adar 1 Feb 23, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her grandmother, Ann Barnett, on her 13th yahrzeit. "She was dedicated to the Jewish People and was a lifelong Zionist, and we miss her every day."

Rava brings another law that relates to non-Jewish courts - a Jew cannot testify about a monetary case against a Jew if the court accepts the testimony of one witness as that is against Jewish law. One who does this is excommunicated. One is also excommunicated for selling a property to a gentile if it borders on the property of a Jew. For what reason is this prohibited? The Mishna says if someone steals and gives you a different item in return, or if a tax collector seized an item and replaced it with another, one can keep the item as one can assume that the original owner despaired of ever getting it back (had ye'ush), as ye'ush with a change of domain (shinui reshut) is effective to make one the owner of the item. But in other cases, the Mishna mentions that only if we know the owner despaired, then the item is acquired. How can we reconcile the difference between these two lines in the Mishna? The Mishna doesn't distinguish between genieva and gezeila and it can be derived from the first line in the Mishna that if we don't know that the owners despaired, we assume they have, in either case. This (and a braita) seem to contradict Raba's reading of a different argument in Masechet Keilim between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis who each think that there is reason to distinguish between genieva and gezeila in this issue (each in a different way). Various answers are brought, among them they introduce a new opinion of Rebbi who equates the genieva and gezeila. Does Rebbi hold that they are the same regarding ye'ush and follow Rabbi Shimon's view on gezeila or the rabbis' opinion? The two sources brought before (our Mishna and the braita) are brought to answer the question but are rejected. A third source is brought where it proves that Rebbi holds that genieva and gezeila have the same law - like gezeila according to Rabbi Shimon and we can assume the owner despaired. A woman and minor are believed to testify about who is the owner of a swarm of bees. However, this is limited to the case where they did not testify in court but mentioned it in the context of a conversation (mesiach lefi tumo). When else can people be believed when saying something in the context of a conversation?

Bava Kamma 113 - Purim Katan - February 23, 14 Adar 1 Feb 23, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Sylvia Klein in loving memory of Marion Pickens. "Marion is the beloved mother of my friend, Pamela Elisheva. She was committed to education, she instilled a love of learning in her daughter. May her memory be a blessing."

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the birth of a grandson to our friend and co-learner Malkie Klein. "May the entire family enjoy great נחת as he grows לתורה ולחופה ולמעשים טובים, emulating your love of learning, passion for equity and care and concern for all"

When a subpoena is sent with a woman or neighbor, under what circumstances, can we assume they relayed the message? In what cases can we not assume that the subpoena was delivered as there is reason to believe they did not think they were being relied on? This would affect whether or not we can excommunicate the person subpoenaed if he/she does not show up to court. There are certain times of year and times of the week when people are busy and therefore shouldn't be subpoenaed to court. The next mishna deals with things one should avoid doing with non-Jewish tax collectors who were suspected of having stolen money from others. When questioned by Shmuel's statement dina d'malchuta dina, the law of the land is the law, the rabbis differentiate between tax collectors who collect by law and those who work independently of the government or are known to collect more than they are supposed to. Another case is brought which leads to the question of whether stealing from a non-Jew is considered stealing or not. One source says it is forbidden while another says it is forbidden on account of kiddush Hashem, indicating that it is permitted by the letter of the law. How are these two sources reconciled? Rabbi Shimon Chasida said that stealing from a gentile is forbidden but there is no obligation to return a lost item to a gentile. Rav Huna and Rav bring sources from the Torah to support these rulings. Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair says that Jews are obligated to return lost items of gentiles if by refraining from doing so, there will be a chilul Hashem. If one makes a mistake in paying a Gentile, one does not need to correct the mistake. Rava makes several statements regarding Gentiles and tax collectors. The first proves Shmuel's statement of dina d'malchuta dina from the fact that we are allowed to benefit from bridges built with tax money. Abaye argues with this proof. Some of the others relate to cases where gentiles collect from one person the portion of the other - in what circumstances is this not considered theft?

Bava Kamma 112 - February 22, 13 Adar 1 Feb 22, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the engagement to Shai Laniado, son of our friend and co-learner Sami Groff, to Lily Snyder. "May the home that they build together be filled with the passion for truth, clarity and equity and love for the Jewish nation that you model for all of us!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Avi Jencmen in loving memory of Menachem ben Tzvi haCohen.

Rami bar Hama holds that orphans are considered like purchasers. Was his statement derived from our Mishna or from a braita on a different issue - interest that a father collected and then passed on through inheritance to his children? What is the relevance of whether it was derived from our Mishna or the braita? The Gemara quotes two other braitot regarding stolen items consumed by a third party or passed on through inheritance. According to these braitot, do we distinguish between younger/older children? Are the older children believed if they claim they are certain the father returned the item? If a man borrows an item and then dies and the children use the item, what is their level of responsibility? What if they did not realize it was a borrowed item and consumed it? How does it affect the situation if the father leaves them land as inheritance? Do Rava and Rav Papa disagree about this case? Rav Papa's approach is premised on the understanding that a borrower takes on responsibility for accidents from the moment the accident happens, not from the moment the borrower borrows the item. According to some, Rava holds that it begins the moment the borrower borrows the item. Sumchus and the rabbis debate whether or not minors can be brought to court. Rabbi Yirmia has an issue with property rights to land of his father-in-law that he claimed was given to him but the orphans claimed they inherited it from their father (Rabbi Yirmia's father-in-law. Rabbi Avin was unsure about whether the case could be judged as the children were minors. Rabbi Avahu brought proof from a different situation where they ruled against minors, but the Gemara rejected the comparison. Can testimony be accepted without the presence of the litigant? What about the ratification of documents? Different opinions about the matter are mentioned and the amoraim explain the circumstances under which one can have a court session without the other side present.

Bava Kamma 111 - February 21, 12 Adar 1 Feb 21, 2024

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the marriage of the granddaughter of our friend and co-learner Rookie Billet. "As the new couple builds their בית נאמן בישראל, continuing the paradigm that you and Rabbi Heshie have established, we are certain that they will be a source of nachat to you, your family and the Jewish nation."

When someone steals from a convert who then dies, if the thief wants to repent, he/she must pay the principal, one-fifth and bring a sacrifice. All are given to the family of kohanim working at the Temple on the week that the thief comes to bring the sacrifice. The principal must be paid before the sacrifice. What if the money and the sacrifice are brought to two different families of kohanim on two different weeks? If they were brought the same week but one to a family who was not serving, one is penalized and needs to give the item received to the other - who is penalized and why? This is a subject of debate among Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis. The guilt offering brought after stealing is compared to the guilt offering brought for meila - misuse of consecrated property. Three braitot each quote Rebbi (Rabbi Yehuda haNasi) explaining Rabbi Yehuda's position in particular cases. The Gemara helps to better understand each braita. The tenth chapter starts with a discussion of someone who eats the stolen item from the thief or passes it on by inheritance to the heirs - can the owner demand the money back from the one who consumed it or the heirs, or only from the thief? The Mishna rules that the owner cannot demand it from a third party. Rav Chisda holds that it depends on whether or not the owner has given up on getting his item back (ye'ush). In the case where there was ye'ush, the owner cannot demand it from the one who consumed it as the combination of the owner's ye'ush and passing it on to someone else allows it to change ownership and therefore the original owner has no claim with the third party - he/she can only claim it from the thief. But if the original owner has not given up, then the one who consumed is considered as if he/she stole it from the original owner as it was still in the owner's possession at the time of consumption. He understands that the Mishna must be referring to a case where there was ye'ush. Are heirs viewed as buyers (meaning that when the item passes to them, it is considered moving into another's domain) or not? Rami bar Hama and Rava disagree about this which leads them to a disagreement about how to understand the case in the Mishna regarding the heirs.

Bava Kamma 110 - February 20, 11 Adar 1 Feb 20, 2024

Study Guide Bava Kamma 110

Today's daf is sponsored by Mona Fishbane in loving memory of her beloved daughter-in-law, Leah Levitz Fishbane, Leah Gavriella bat Yaakov v'Etta Beya. "Leah was a beautiful neshama. May her memory be a blessing."

A kohen can choose to bring a sacrifice (guilt or sin offering) when it is not his week to be on duty (mishmar) and the meat and hide will be for him, and not given to the kohanim working in the Temple that week. However, does a kohen have the right to choose that a particular kohen will do the sacrificing and receive the meat and hide or does it automatically get given to the kohanim on duty that week? On what does it depend? If one steals from a convert, and the convert dies, the thief returns the item to the kohanim working in the Temple that week when the thief brings the guilt offering. The money needs to be given before the guilt offering. What if the thief died before giving the money or after giving the money but before bringing the sacrifice, what happens to the money - does it go to the kohanim or is it given back to the heirs of the thief? Since the returning of the item (the principal) to the kohen is called by the Torah "an asham," a word that is also used in general to mean the guilt offering, there are various halachot that treat this payment with the same rules as the guilt offering. For example, it can't be paid at night just as sacrifices cannot be brought at night. Rava asks various questions about this comparison. Rava asks if the payment to the kohanim is viewed as an inheritance (as they are in place of the convert's inheritors) or as a gift? What are the ramifications of this question? They conclude that it is viewed as a gift.

Bava Kamma 109 - February 19, 10 Adar 1 Feb 19, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Idana Goldberg and Michael Kellman in honor of the marriage of their daughter Noam to Avichai Klugerman last night in Israel. "May these two chayalim build a bayit neeman b'yisrael and may the zechut of our learning keep all the soldiers safe."

If a shomer falsely claims an item was stolen or lost, what is the shomer responsible to pay if witnesses come and prove that the shomer lied? If the claim was theft, the thief pays a double payment, but if the claim was that the item was lost, just the principal is returned. If the shomer confesses, he/she pays the principal, adds one-fifth (chomesh) and brings a guilt offering. If a son steals from his father and then confesses after the father's death, he needs to return the item and the chomesh payment to the sons of his father or the father's brothers, but he cannot inherit it. However, if he has no money, he can borrow money to pay the heirs and the creditor can collect the loan from the estate, in which the thief is included. A similar solution is suggested when a father takes a vow not to allow his son to benefit from him in life and after death. Rav Yosef rules in the case of theft from a father, if there are no heirs, the son can give the money to charity. This statement assumes that there is no way to pardon the principal, as if there was, the son could pardon his own obligation to return the principal. However, a Mishna on Bava Kamma 103a explains that one can pardon the principal. Three possible answers are brought, connecting it with a debate between Rabbi Yosi haGalili and Rabbi Akiva regarding one who stole from a convert who then died without heirs. If one steals from a convert who has no heirs and denies the claim under oath, if the convert dies and then the thief confesses, the payment is given to the kohanim. From where do they derive that this law applies to female converts as well? Which kohanim receive it? It is given to the ones who are working in the Temple the week that the thief brings the guilt offering. If the thief is a kohen, they cannot take the lost item for themselves but must give it to the kohanim working in the Temple that week - from where is this derived?

Bava Kamma 108 - February 18, 9 Adar 1 Feb 18, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Yaffa Wenner in loving memory of her mom, Lea Steinlauf. "My mother enjoyed the pursuit of knowledge. She loved the challenge it presented. I think my learning Daf Yomi would make her smile and chuckle. How far we've come as women, in our journey."

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sylvia Klein in loving memory of her father, Sherman Israel Klein, Shnayor ben Yerachmiel v’Sara. “He loved learning, the Jewish people, Israel, and his family. Everything was “interesting” to him. We continue to learn from his example.”

Two questions are asked (one is answered, one is not) regarding the mechanism by which one may be obligated only in the double payment, canceling the one-fifth payment. Is it possible there could be situations where one could be obligated both? Can one person be obligated to pay the one-fifth payment twice on the same item? If a shomer chinam opts not to take an oath that the item was stolen and pays for it, the shomer gains the rights to the double payment if the robber is caught. However, there is a disagreement between Rava and Abaye regarding a case where the shomer first took an oath and then paid. What is the reason for each opinion and how does each prove his opinion from a Mishna in Bava Metzia 33b? If the shomer takes an oath, is the shomer still considered relevant to the case, and if the thief were to confess to the shomer, but deny the theft to the owner, and witnesses came, would the thief be exempt from the double payment on account of the confession to the shomer? On what does it depend? Other questions are raised about who is responsible for finding the thief if the shomer paid the owner for the value of the stolen item.

Bava Kamma 107 - Shabbat February 17, 8 Adar 1 Feb 16, 2024

Study Guide Bava Kamma 107

Rabbi Chiya bar Abba's third statement in the name of Rabbi Yochanan is that one in not liable to payment for claiming an item one is watching is stolen unless there is a partial confession and partial denial (modeh b'miktzat). This is a subject of debate between him and Rabbi Chiya bar Yosef who holds that modeh b'miktzat is not relevant in this type of case - only in a loan. What is the logic behind his distinction? There is a three-way argument regarding the relationship between shlichut yad (where the shomer used the item he was watching) and the case where the shomer claims the item was stolen. If the shomer used the item and then claimed it was stolen, is he/she obligated in the double payment or do we say that first he/she was obligated for shlichut yad in which case he/she acquires the object and is now responsible even for accidental damage or do we say that the obligation for claiming it was stolen is only in a case where there is shlichut yad? Or possibly both are options.

Bava Kamma 106 - February 16, 7 Adar 1 Feb 16, 2024

Study Guide Bava Kamma 106

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in loving memory of her parents, Yechezkel Shraga ben Yehuda Leib Halevi and Esther Tydor whose yahrzeit is 7 Adar, and Shirley K Tydor, Sara Reizel bat Mordechai Yitzchak and Freida Sima, whose yahrzeit was 23 Shevat. "They would have been thrilled to know their daughter and granddaughters learn daf yomi!"

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of Gitta’s granddaughter, Esti Rosenberg engagement to Baruch Lapidus. "May the couple be blessed with a lifetime of good health, happiness and nachat."

Today's daf is sponsored by the Tannenbaum family in loving memory of Miriam's father, -יעקב יצחק בן משה נחום הלוי ז"ל Jack Zemsky zl on his 20th yahrzeit tomorrow. "His life embodied a metaphoric reading of the pasuk, "ונקרב בעל הבית אל האלהים" He was one whose actions were infused with drawing closer to הקב"ה. His modeling of אהבת ה' & אהבת ישראל continue to inspire us יהי זכרו ברוך"

Rav Sheshet holds that once one denies a claim regarding an item he/she was watching, he/she is considered a robber and is obligated to pay even for accidental damages, even if they didn't take an oath denying the claim. Rami bar Chama contradicts Rav Sheshet's opinion from a braita, but it is resolved. Another contradiction is brought from a halakha of Ilfa and is resolved in two possible ways. Rav learns from the verse "the owner takes and he doesn't need to pay" that once a shomer (or debtor) takes an oath, even if witnesses come and prove is was stolen, the shomer will no longer be exempt from payment. Three rabbis raise difficulties against this statement of Rav. The first two are resolved. As a result of the last difficulty, Rava qualifies Rav's statement and limits it to a case where the shomer claimed it was lost, and then swore and witnesses came to contradict the oath. Only in that case, is one exempt from payment. But in all other cases where the shomer came forward and admitted or in a case where the claim was that it was stolen and then witnesses came, he/she would be obligated to pay as the verses in the Torah clearly state that. Rabbi Chiya bar Abba states in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that if one claims an item they were watching was stolen and they also slaughtered it, they would also be liable to pay the four/five payment. They raise difficulties with this opinion but resolve it. Rabbi Chiya bar Abba states in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that if one claims an item that one found was stolen from them, all the same laws apply as to a shomer. A difficulty is raised, but resolved in two ways.

Bava Kamma 105 - February 15, 6 Adar 1 Feb 15, 2024

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of all the soldiers who were killed this week and for a refuah shleima to all those injured.

Two answers are given to resolve the contradiction between the inference from our Mishna and a braita about whether or not heirs need to pay the chomesh. Since the Mishna establishes that the obligation to return the item directly to its owner only applies when the item owed is more than a pruta, Rava explains the law in a case where the price drops in value, but raises a question in a case where the value of the items stolen was a pruta and but half were already returned and what is left is no longer a pruta. Two other similar-type questions are brought that Rava asked about the shaving of a nazir and laws of impurity. Rava also asks about chametz that was stolen before Pesach and at the time the robber swore falsely, it was already after Pesach and the item no longer had value. Do the laws of swearing falsely for theft apply since the chametz has potential value as it can cause a monetary obligation or do they not apply since the chametz now has no inherent value, as it is forbidden to benefit from? Raba thought there was an obvious answer - one is obligated because of its potential value as he proves from a different case. Rav Amram questions his answer from a braita and Raba answers it by distinguishing between the chametz case and the case in the braita. Some clarifications are made regarding some of the cases mentioned in the braita quoted by Rav Amram. Ben Azai talks about three types of false claims one can swear about in denying one knows testimony about a lost item. Rabbi Chanina and Shmuel understand this source differently. The root of their debate is connected to the ideas discussed previously about a claim that could lead to a potential financial loss and whether or not laws of false oath denying monetary claims apply to those cases as well. Rav Sheshet holds that once one denies a claim regarding an item he/she was watching, he/she is considered a robber and is obligated to pay even for accidental damages, even if they didn't take an oath denying the claim. Rav Sheshet brings a source to prove his claim, but it is rejected. Rami bar Chama raises a contradiction to Rav Sheshet's opinion from a braita, but it is resolved.

Bava Kamma 104 - February 14, 5 Adar 1 Feb 14, 2024

Rava concludes that the Mishna relates to a different case than the Rabbi Tarfon/Rabbi Akiva debate in Yevamot 118b. Our Mishna is a case where the thief knows who he/she stole from. Therefore, whether or not one needs to return the item directly or one can let the person know that the stolen item is available to be picked up is dependent on the severity of the actions of the thief - whether or not the thief swore and admitted and needs repentance from that or not. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva's debate is not dependent on whether or not one swore as the issue there is because the thief does not know the identity of the one whom he/she stole from. If one appointed an agent in front of witnesses to receive a loan payment (for example), Rav Hisda and Rabba disagree about whether when the agent receives the payment, the borrower is no longer responsible if something happens to the money on the way or was the agent appointed to make it easier for the borrower to get the money back to the original owner but does not assume responsibility. Two difficulties are raised against Rav Chisda's opinion, that the agent assumes responsibility, one from a Mishna in Bava Metzia 98b and one from our Mishna. Both are resolved. Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar held like Rav Chisda as well. Shmuel was hesitant to allow people to send money with agents appointed by the creditor as they do not assume responsibility even if they carry a stamp and a signature of the creditor. How were people able to collect loans back from debtors who lived far away? How can it be done securely? Two stories are brought highlighting a possible method. The nature of the payment of the one-fifth, chomesh, is discussed - is it to effect atonement for the thief or is it a financial payment? If it is a financial payment, and the thief dies, the children are liable to pay it. This contradicts a braita which rules that they do not. How can that contradiction be resolved?

Bava Kamma 103 - February 13, 4 Adar 1 Feb 13, 2024

Study Guide Bava Kamma 103

In Israel, they raised a difficulty with Rabbi Yochanan's interpretation explaining one of the braitot like Rabbi Yehuda - how could a sale be valid when the agent changes what the buyer wanted as the seller intends to sell it to the agent, not knowing the agent is buying for someone else, and the agent is not acting as an agent, as the agent is purchasing a different item than the one the buyer wanted? A braita is quoted about one who buys land but uses someone else's name on the document of sale to discourage others from bringing claims against the property rights of the land. At first, it is suggested that the author of this braita disagrees with the opinion of the rabbis in Israel as the seller thinks the buyer is the other person (whose name appears in the sale document) when it is actually sold to the buyer. However, the braita is then explained differently and the ruling in the braita does not relate to the issue the rabbis in Israel were discussing. Rav Kahana bought flax from someone but hadn't yet received the flax. As the price of flax then increased, the seller sold Rav Kahan's flax and returned Rav Kahana the amount of money he received for selling it, which was more than Rav Kahana had given him originally. Is there an issue of interest here? Rav ruled that it depended on whether or not the one who bought the flax for the higher price knew that it was Rav Kahana's flax or thought it was the seller's. At first, the Gemara suggests that this distinction suggests that Rav held like the rabbis in Israel, but then they explain that the issue was a different one and was unrelated. The Mishna explained that one who steals, takes an oath denying it, and then admits their lie, must return the lost item directly to the hands of the one it was stolen from and adds an extra fifth (which is calculated as 25% of the value of the item) and brings a guilt offering, asham gezeila, to achieve atonement. The Mishna assumes that only if the thief took an oath it is necessary to return the lost item directly to the one who it was stolen to receive the atonement, but if one did not take an oath, but witnesses testified against the thief, then it is enough to put the item aside and wait for the one who it was stolen from to come and collect it. The Gemara questions that this seems to match neither Rabbi Tarfon's nor Rabbi Akiva's opinion about returning a stolen item as appears in the Mishna in Yevamot 118b regarding one who stole and five people claim he/she stole from them and the thief doesn't know which one is the one he/she stole from. Three different suggested answers are brought. The first two are rejected.

Bava Kamma 102 - February 12, 3 Adar 1 Feb 12, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Hinda Herman in loving memory of her mother, Ethel Rosenthal's yahrzeit. "Among the many mitzvot my mother performed, the mitzvah of Hachnasat Orchim was most dear to her. We miss you every day!!"

Baruch Matir Asurim. Today's daf is dedicated to the continued good health of the two hostages rescued last night, Fernanado Marman and Louis Har. We continue to pray for the safe return of all the others.

Does intent play a role in determining whether or not fruits have the sanctity of the shmita year, kedushat shviit? If wood is cut for firewood, since it is consumed before one benefits from it, it does not have the kedushat shviit in the shmita year, as is it different from food where one benefits as it is consumed. However if one cuts wood for heat or to make a flame, as its benefit comes with its consumption, does it have kedushat shviit? On the other hand, since wood is generally cut for firewood, is all wood treated as if it was cut for firewood, regardless of the intent? This issue is a subject of debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Yosi regarding different uses for wine. Rabbi Yosi rules that if grapes are picked for other uses, such as for soaking flax, where the benefit is after its consumption, the fruits do not have kedushat shviit, and can therefore be used for soaking flax and other uses. However, intent only plays a role if it is a use that is needed by everyone. If it is a use that is only for sick people or only for wealthy people, then even according to Rabbi Yosi, intent does not play a role and the fruits will have kedushat shviit. Rav Huna ruled like Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha on one issue and like Rabbi Yehuda in our Mishna. Rav Yosef heard his rulings and got upset at him for stating the obvious regarding Rabbi Yehuda as there is a rule that if there is a debate in one Mishna and then an unattributed (stam) Mishna states one of the opinions, it is clear we rule by that opinion. Since Rabbi Yehuda's ruling appears in Bava Metzia, the next Masechet, it is clear that we rule like Rabbi Yehuda. If so, how did Rav Huna explain the need to issue that ruling? If one hires a messenger to buy a type of grain and the messenger buys a different type, what is the law? Two braitot bring two different rulings and Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree on how to reconcile the two. Is it the same debate as between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda in our Mishna or are both according to Rabbi Meir but each braita is referring to a different purpose of the agency - in one it was for eating and in the other for investment/resale purposes. In Israel, they raised a difficulty with Rabbi Yochanan's interpretation explaining one of the braitas like Rabbi Yehuda - how could the sale be valid as the seller intends to sell it to the agent, not knowing the agent is buying for someone else, and the agent is not acting as an agent, as the agent is purchasing a different item than the one the buyer wanted? Rabbi Abahu explains why there is a distinction regarding this issue when the agent performs the action requested and when the agent doesn't perform the action requested and brings a tanaitic source to prove it. Rabbi Abba rejects his proof and two difficulties are raised against his rejection until he modifies his statement and succeeds in rejecting Rabbi Abahu's proof.

Bava Kamma 101 - February 11, 2 Adar 1 Feb 11, 2024

Today’s daf is dedicated by Di Kushar in honor of her granddaughter Ayala’s bat mitzva which took place this Shabbat. “We learned together long distance, online, laws of damages and compensation in Parshat Mishpatim which are developed further in the current dapim of Baba Kamma. Now at a family reunion, we will celebrate together. Mazal tov!”

A question is asked regarding the dyeing of wool - when the dye is added to the wool, does the dye enhance the wool or not? The Gemara questions the question's meaning/relevance and brings seven possible explanations - four of which are rejected and three of which are not. They attempt to answer the question by bringing in sources relating to dyeing using shmita and orla produce, but these proofs are rejected as the laws are unique to those situations based on the verses in the Torah. Rava then raises a contradiction between the orla case and a case of impurity case, which is resolved. Rava also brings two contradictory sources relating to whether or not kedushat shviit applies to plants/wood from a tree not used for eating. This contradiction is also resolved.

Bava Kamma 100 - Shabbat Rosh Chodesh Adar 1 - February 10, 1 Adar 1 Feb 09, 2024

If a money changer mistakenly tells a customer that a coin is valid and causes a loss to the customer, is the money changer responsible for reimbursing for the loss? If the money changer is a real professional, then he/she is exempt but if not, he/she is responsible. However, Rabbi Chiya reimbursed a woman for her loss based on his mistake, even though he was a professional as he decided to go beyond the letter of the law (lifnim meshurat hadin). There is a case with Rabbi Elazar and Reish Lakish and Reish Lakish explains to Rabbi Elazar that he is relying on his valuation of the coin. If Rabbi Elazar made a mistake, he would need to reimburse Reish Lakish as this would be a case of garmi, and Reish Lakish held by Rabbi Meir who obligates one for garmi-type damages. Where can we find Rabbi Meir's ruling on garmi? Four different sources are suggested - only the last is accepted as the answer. The Mishna discusses three different cases where the dyer did something different from what the customer asked - burned, did a poor job, or colored it the wrong color. What is the halakha in each case?

Bava Kamma 99 - Rosh Chodesh Adar 1 - February 9, 30 Shvat Feb 09, 2024

Study Guide Bava Kamma 99

This week’s learning is dedicated by Phyllis & Yossie Hecht in loving memory of Phyllis’s father’s, HaRav Yerachmiel Binyanim ben Zalman Tzvi Witkin on his 15th yahrzeit yesterday. “Jerry Witkin, as he was affectionately known to all. He was a Yosher Lev, חבר לכל ראיך, שמח בחלקו, and a man who personified במקום שאין איש השתדל להיות איש. My father was an activist and a true source of nachat to his friends, family and klal Yisrael. Dad's legacy of 6 children, 28 grandchildren and ever-growing great-grandchildren – all Torah Jews continues to live on. You are so missed and we have been so blessed. Yehi Zichro Baruch.”

Rav Asi holds that if one gives wood to a carpenter to build a closet and builds it but breaks it before giving it back to the owner of the wood, the carpenter is not responsible for the broken item because the object created (the enhancement of the raw materials) is considered in their possession and the carpenter is like a seller who sells the enhancement back to the original owner. Is Rav Asi's opinion agreed upon by everyone or is there another opinion? In attempting to see if tanaim debated this issue, an argument between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis is brought regarding a woman who says to a goldsmith to make her jewels with her materials and she will be betrothed to him with those jewels. The Gemara suggests four different possibilities as to what the principles are that stand behind each of the opinions and what is the debate about. Shmuel teaches that if a slaughterer makes a mistake and makes the animal not kosher, he/she is responsible whether or not it was done for free or for pay. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees and distinguishes between one who gets paid and one who does it for free. He compares it to laws of shomrim and just as one who gets paid to watch an item assumes more responsibility in the event of theft or loss, the same holds for the slaughterer or any professional. However, if there is no compensation, then they are like a shomer chinam who watches the item for free and is not obligated in a case of theft or loss. Is a professional damaging an item more similar to laws of shomrim because the item was given to the professional by the owner? Or is it more like adam hamazik - a person who damages another's item, in which case he is obligated even for unintentional damage, oness.

Bava Kamma 98 - February 8, 29 Shvat Feb 08, 2024

Today’s daf is sponsored by Arthur Gould in loving memory of Carol’s mother Irma Robinson, Hudda Bat Moshe on her 7th yahrzeit. "Irma built a rich life in the Chicago area including work she loved at a nearby high school library and active participation in her synagogue. She loved to have the entire family over for special events. Sadly, four years after she was widowed, Irma developed Alzheimer’s. Carol and her sister Debbie were blessed that though her illness progressed, she never forgot who they were."

If the currency changes on an outstanding loan that was set for a particular amount of the old currency, does one pay the same number of coins in the new currency or does that look like interest? Raba brings four rulings on cases of indirect damage and rules in all four cases that the one who caused the damage is exempt. Rava raises difficulties on the first three. Different important halachic principles are discussed such as garmei and davar hagorem l'mamon - an item that can have monetary significance even if the item is not worth anything at the time. Does everyone hold that if one steals items that become forbidden to benefit from, but there is no noticeable damage, the thief can return the item itself or does the thief need to return the value at the time of the theft? Rav Chisda and Raba disagree about whether or not this is a debate or do all agree that one can return the item itself, even though it no longer has any monetary value, as the damages are not noticeable in the object. If one hires another to fix something and they break it, they are responsible for paying the value of it. Rav Asi holds that if one gives wood to a carpenter to build a closet and builds it but breaks it before giving it back to the owner of the wood, the carpenter is not responsible for the broken item because the object created (the enhancement of the raw materials) is considered in their possession and the carpenter is like a seller who sells the enhancement back to the original owner.

Bava Kamma 97 - February 7, 28 Shvat Feb 07, 2024

Study Guide Bava Kamma 97

Today’s daf is sponsored by Art Gould in loving memory of Art’s mother Shirley, Sarah bat Avraham v’Ziche Reicha on her 8th yahrzeit. "She was a life-long learner, a striver, she sewed and made mosaics. Once her three children were old enough, she went back to school, earned a master’s degree, created a new career doing social work and counseling, and published four books on raising a family. She lives on in the tallitot and quilts she made. She would be proud to see the stream of b’nai mitzvah that continues this year with the 2nd and 3rd of her great-grandchildren."

Rav holds like Rabbi Meir in the Mishna that slaves are considered like land and therefore they are not acquired by a thief. He holds like Rabbi Meir against the mainstream opinion of the rabbis either because his version of the Mishna has the opinions switched and it was the rabbis who held that position or because there were two braitot that showed Rabbi Meir holding the other position and therefore he switched the version in our Mishna to match the braitot. The first braita has the same rulings as our Mishna, but reverses who said what. The second braita involves a different case but where it is clear that Rabbi Meir holds slaves are considered like movable property and the rabbis hold they are like land. If one steals and slave and has the slave work, when they return the slave, does the thief need to compensate the owner for loss of work as well? If the original owner was anyway not using the slave to work, can this be compared to a case of a squatter, one who lives in an uninhabited house, as one benefits without causing a loss to the owner? Rav Yosef bar Chama would seize the slaves of those who owed him money and they would work for him. His son Rava raised several difficulties with this arrangement, both in terms of not compensating for the work and claiming that it looked like he was collecting interest. On account of the first issue, Rav Yosef defended his decision but on account of the second, he stopped his practice of doing this. If one uses another's boat without permission, does the thief just return the boat and add depreciation (as one pays the amount from the moment it was stolen) or does one need to add a rental fee? Rav and Shmuel disagree but Rav Pappa explains that they don't disagree, they are each referring to a different situation. The Mishna distinguishes between coins that are ruined physically and those that are removed from the currency. Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda debate what exactly is the case of 'removed from currency' - cannot be used in that country but can be used in another or cannot be used anywhere? A difficulty is raised against each position but is resolved. One who takes a loan with the agreement that the borrower will pay back a set amount of money in a particular currency, but before the loan is returned, the currency is no longer in use, Rav and Shmuel disagree about what currency is used to pay back the loan. Shmuel's opinion is questioned, particularly in light of how Rav Nachman understands Shmuel's ruling.

Bava Kamma 96 - February 6, 27 Shvat Feb 06, 2024

Today’s daf is sponsored by Art Gould in loving memory of Art’s father Joseph, Yosef ben Shlomo Shabtai v’Rachel on his 23rd yahrzeit. "Joe was an ordinary man of extraordinary dignity, decency and dedication. When my mother first saw him she was immediately interested. Then he removed his hat; she saw his bald head and concluded he was already married with children. He wasn’t. The rest is family history. Joe was not one of those lucky people who “found what they love and never worked a day in his life.” Instead, his career was “bring home a paycheck and support his family.” I wish we had had more time together."

Today’s daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in loving memory of her parents, Fruma (Florence) bat Ester v’Nachum Natan, and Baruch (Ben) ben Hinda Josepha v’ Ze’ev Stillman, whose yahrzeits are only 4 days apart in Shvat. "They always encouraged me to pursue whatever interested me and supported me with unfailing love. Their love, solidarity and stability were models to all of my children despite our geographical distance in most of our everyday lives. I broadened their horizons, as they enabled my horizons to be broadened."

Contradictory statements of Shmuel regarding the collection of land by a creditor from a buyer are reconciled - in what situations does the creditor collect the enhancements as well? On what does it depend? Rava explains that if one steals an item and it increases in value while in the thief's possession, the increase goes to the thief, if the thief sells it or dies the buyer or the heirs get the enhancement as well. He asks about a case where the thief did not enhance the value of the item but the buyer/ heir did - do they get the enhancement as well? He then answers by saying that they do, as they acquired whatever rights the thief had. However, he asks if this would hold if a gentile had stolen and then sold the item to a Jew. Ravina clarifies the case in which Rava asked this question. His question is left unanswered. Rav Pappa and Rava bring various cases where some sort of change happens to the item and they determine whether this is a significant change that would enable the robber to acquire the item or not. If the name changes, that is generally considered a significant change, but only if the item cannot be returned to its original state. The Mishna ended with an unnecessary line summing up the principle behind the cases in the Mishna. The Gemara derives from here an additional halakha that if one stole a lamb and it became a ram, a calf and it became an ox while in the possession of the thief, the item is acquired by the thief and he/she returns the value of the younger animal and if the thief sold or slaughtered it, there would be no four/five payment as it is considered owned by the thief. In a similar case, one stole oxen and used them to work his field and when they returned the animals, Rav Nachman required him to pay the value of the enhancement of the field. When Rava questioned his ruling, Rav Nachman explained that he ruled stringently as this thief had stolen many times before. If an object decreases in value in the hands of the thief, the thief returns the item at the value at the time of the theft, However, if it decreases in value on account of damages that cannot be noticed, such as, teruma that became impure, chametz after Pesach that was not sold, the thief can return the item as is, even though it now has no value. Rav held like Rabbi Meir in the Mishna regarding slaves - they are considered like land that is not acquired by a thief. Why did he hold like Rav against the mainstream opinion of the rabbis?

Bava Kamma 95 - February 5, 26 Shvat Feb 05, 2024

Study Guide Bava Kamma 95

If one steals a pregnant animal or a sheep with its wool and it increases in value in the hands of the thief, then gives birth or is sheared, does the thief need to compensate the owner for the increased value as well? Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree. There are two different versions brought of a question that was asked on Rabbi Meir's approach. The first version is that they ask whether his approach is based on the fact that shinui (a change) does not cause the animal to be acquired by the thief or is this a penalty instituted for a thief? Two sources are brought to try to answer the question. The second one successfully proves that it is a penalty. The second version starts with the premise that it is a penalty and questions whether the penalty is only for one who acts intentionally or even one who does it unwittingly. Two sources are brought to try to answer the question. The second one successfully proves that it is only if it is intentional. What is the difference of opinion between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon? Rav Zevid and Rav Pappa each bring different explanations of what is the root of their disagreement. A difficulty is raised against Rav Pappa and resolved and then a braita is brought to support his understanding.

Bava Kamma 94 - February 4, 25 Shvat Feb 04, 2024

Today’s daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in loving memory of Uri (Uriel) Ben-Ami who passed away last Thursday. "Yehi zichro m’vurach. A strong Zionist with a lifetime of stories to tell, he was the husband of my dear friend Henrietta Ben-Ami."

Abaye brings halakhot of five different tanaim and claims that all agree that changing an item does not change the ownership over the item. Rava disagrees and explains why each case is unique and cannot be used to teach a general principle. A contradiction is brought between a ruling of Shmuel like one of those five tanaim (Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar who rules that if an item decreases in value, the thief can return the item at its present depreciated value) and a different statement of Shmuel's that the thief pays the value of the item at the time it was stolen. Two suggested resolutions are brought. Rabbi Yochanan holds that by Torah law one has to return the stolen item as is and only due to a rabbinic takana (takanat hashavim, to encourage thieves to repent), the can return the value of the item. The Gemara raises a difficulty on his opinion from the fact that Rabbi Yochanan always holds by an unattributed Mishna and in an unattributed Mishna in Chulin, if one colors the wool, one is no longer obligated to give it to the kohen as it is a changed item. To resolve this, they explain that when Rabbi Yochanan made his statement, it was a case where the change was reversible and the Mishna is Chulin is dealing with an irreversible change. Rabbi Yehuda haNasi instituted a takana that thieves and usurers who want to return from their bad ways should return the items they stole/collected but the ones they stole/collected from should not accept them. The reason for this ruling is to encourage repentance of thieves and usurers. The Gemara brings three sources that seem to contradict this halacha and resolves the contradictions.

Bava Kamma 93 - Shabbat February 3, 24 Shvat Feb 02, 2024

Study Guide Bava Kamma 93

Today's daf is sponsored by Debbie Pine and Mark Orenshein in loving memory of Mark's mother, Sandy Orenshein, Zlata Rochel bat Dovid v'Malka on her 5th yahrzeit.

Rava and Raba bar Meri derive from the Torah one more expression that people use. Other rabbis derive other similar-type statements from the Torah. Why is there a distinction in the Mishna between a case where one exempts another for inflicting bodily damage to a case where one exempts another for destroying one's possessions? The Mishna rules that if one asks another to break something of theirs, the one who breaks it is liable to pay for it. This contradicts a braita regarding shomrim which says that if one gives one an item to break, the one who breaks it is not responsible. Two resolutions are suggested. One who is in charge of charity funds is not responsible if something happens to the money. Why? There is, however, an exception to this rule. The ninth chapter begins with a discussion of a thief and the thief's ultimate ownership over the stolen item if the thief changes the item or it changes on its own. What constitutes such a shinui (change) and what doesn't? Various mishnayot and braitot are brought which seem to contradict the Mishna and each other and various possibilities are brought to reconcile them.

Bava Kamma 92 - February 2, 23 Shvat Feb 02, 2024

This week’s learning is sponsored by Glenn Miller and Ruth Rotenberg in memory of their daughter Tanielle Miller's 19th yahrzeit. “This year embodying Tanielle’s passions, the Tanielle Miller Foundation has blossomed into a hub for over six initiatives in Israel from civilian first responders to organizing ER doctors from around the world, all to support our victory in Israel. יחד ננצח May the learning through Hadran be a zechut for a swift and safe victory and healing for am Yisrael.”

Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah & Michael Dickson on the occasion of their daughter, Ella's bat mitzvah this Shabbat.

Even though one pays the five damages payments, one is still required to ask for forgiveness from the injured person to fully atone. If one asks another to injure him/her or to damage their clothes, the person is still liable if they do it. However, if the person says "I will exempt you" the one who damaged the clothes is exempt but not if they inflicted bodily damage. But if that same statement was said about damaging someone else's property, there is no exemption. The importance of asking for forgiveness is learned from the exchange between Avimelech and Avraham in Breishet 20:7. The rest of that verse is explained as well. Rava quotes several different statements made by the rabbis or sentences that people generally say and asks Raba bar Meri where the source in the Torah is. The first derivation is learned from Avraham and Avimelech that one who prays for another regarding an issue that the person needs as well, will be answered first. Raba bar Meri suggests a different verse, but Rava learns it from Avraham who prayed for Avimelech to have children and then Sarah became pregnant. Fifteen other similar questions are asked by Rava to Raba bar Meri.

Bava Kamma 91 - February 1, 22 Shvat Feb 01, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in loving memory of her mother, Shoshana Rosa bat Shmuel and Minda Lea. "A self-made woman who at the age of 60 graduated high school with honors. She found fulfillment in the sanctuary of Torah learning which she bequeathed to her children and grandchildren. She was known for the trait of hakarat hatov. She was always the first to thank a lecturer and to express appreciation. We had the zechut to bring her on Aliyah at the age of 90. We miss her every day. Yehi zichra baruch."

If a shor muad kills someone and then injures, the court rules first on the injury for payment, then on the killing, and the ox will get killed. If first they rule on the killing, they can no longer judge the owner for the injury. This accords with Rabbi Shimon haTimni who ruled that the implement used for injuring needs to be brought before the court, as once the ox is subject to death, he is killed immediately and therefore cannot be brought to court. Another explanation is that the ruling is according to Rabbi Akiva, who disagrees with Rabbi Shimon haTimni, and the case is where the owner ran away, which is why we cannot judge the owner for the damages. Does the court need to evaluate whether the act of damage was sufficient to cause the damage that was on the one who was injured? Four sources are brought to answer this question. The first three are rejected but the last one proves that the court does need to do an evaluation. If the court assesses how much the doctor bills should be and it comes out to too much or too little, the court does not change the amount - why? The Mishna mentioned a case where the accused asked for time to delay the payment. In what cases is this permitted? Is it forbidden to cause personal injury to oneself? There seem to be contradictory sources on this topic. After trying unsuccessfully to reconcile these sources, they explain it as a tanaitic debate and attribute the opinion that it is forbidden to Rabbi Elazar haKapar who explains the sin offering of the nazir since the nazir causes him/herself to suffer by not drinking wine. Rabba bar bar Hanna brought a braita saying that if one accuses another of killing his ox or cutting his sapling, the other can claim, "You told me to do it." How can this be? Anyone can then exempt themselves in court by making this claim! Rav explained the braita in a case where the ox was going to be killed as it killed a person and the sapling was to be destroyed as it was used for idol worship. What types of fruit trees cannot be destroyed, and when is there an exception to this rule?

Bava Kamma 90 - January 31, 21 Shvat Jan 31, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island "as we share the simcha of our friend and co-learner Shoshana Shur and her family upon the engagement of her son Eli to Rochel Markel. May the joy of this new couple spread to encompass all of klal Yisrael - and may we all continue to share smachot!"

After rejecting the suggestion that the tanaim debate whether or not there was a takana in Usha for the usufruct property of a married woman, the Gemara suggests three other explanations for the tanaitic debate regarding a slave who is usufruct property of the woman - does he go free if the woman knocks out his eye or does he never go free from this type of situation? The third explanation is that the debate is about whether one who has access to the proceeds, does that mean they are also like the owner of the principal or not. A similar debate is mentioned regarding a slave who is hit by his owner but dies more than twenty-four hours later. If that slave was sold but kept by the original owner to still work for him for thirty days, and that owner killed him, is the original owner considered the actual owner since the slave is working for that master, however, they only have rights to the slave's work, not his body. There are four opinions given, two of which match the previous debate. Rabbi Elazar is the author of the fourth opinion and two other braitot on related issues are brought and attributed to Rabbi Elazar. The Mishna deals with humiliation payments and sets the amount for certain actions that cause humiliation only, such as pulling one's hair, spitting in one's face, and uncovering a woman's hair in the marketplace. A story is told of one who did the latter infringement and tried to get out of it by tricking the woman into uncovering her hair and then trying to prove that she doesn't care about having her hair uncovered in public. However, Rabbi Akiva did not accept this as there is a difference between one deciding to uncover one's hair and someone else doing it. Are the amounts mentioned in the Mishna for humiliation payment in the Tzuri or medina currency (valued at 1/8 of the Tzuri)? Based on a story with Rabbi Yehuda Nesia, it is Tzuri currency. Once the story was brought up, the Gemara grapples to understand Rabbi Yehuda's ruling in the story when he said, "This is me and this is Rabbi Yosi haGelili who held 100 Tzuri coins. When he said "This is me," did he mean, I saw it with my own eyes, thereby implying that a witness can also be a judge, as he ruled in the case? This would be difficult as Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva both hold that a witness cannot be a judge. There are two possible resolutions. Did Rabbi Akiva really hold that a witness cannot be a judge? A source seems to indicate otherwise. However, this is resolved.

Bava Kamma 89 - January 30, 20 Shvat Jan 30, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Gabrielle Altman in loving memory of Honorable Myriam Altman. "She was a beloved wife, mother and grandmother, and an unforgettable role model and jurist. A Holocaust survivor, she would have been so proud of her family and Am Yisrael, today and every day."

Two sources, one of them our Mishna, are brought to prove that there was a takana instituted in Usha that a woman cannot sell her usufruct (melog) property while she is still married. However, both proofs are rejected. The first source is a case where witnesses lied and said a woman was divorced and received her ketuba money. Once it was proven they were zomemim and that the woman was still married, the witnesses do not pay her the full amount of the ketuba, but the amount she could have sold it for while she was married (tovat hana'a). A woman can sell the rights to her ketuba to someone else for less than its value, as it is not clear that it has monetary value since it will only be worth money if the husband predeceases the wife. If she dies first, her husband inherits everything. If there was no takana of Usha, she can sell part of the ketuba that includes property she brought into the marriage, and therefore it does have value regardless of whether she or the husband die first. However, this is rejected as the property in the ketuba is nichsei tzon barzel, which cannot be sold in any case as the husband has right to the produce and to the principal, and the takana was regarding nichsei melog. Abaye infers from the ruling regarding the witnesses, that if a woman sells her ketuba, the money would go to her and not to her husband. Rav Shalman rejects Abaye's proof but Rava rules like Abaye. The second proof is from our Mishna, that a woman is exempt from paying damages she inflicts on others (until her husband dies or divorces her) as she has no money of her own. If there was no takana of Usha, she could sell her usufruct property and pay damages. To reject this proof, they suggest that the Mishna is referring to a case where the woman has no usufruct property. However, the Gemara begins to raise other questions on the Mishna. Why doesn't the woman sell her ketuba for its market value (tovat hana'a)? Three different answers are brought. What if the woman injured her husband, could she not give him the ketuba as payment? And if so, why does the Tosefta rule that she does not? A few questions are asked on the Tosefta. The Gemara suggests that whether or not the takana of Usha was instituted is a tanaitic debate. The case is one where there is a slave that is usufruct property of the woman - in one braita they rule that the slave goes freed if the woman breaks his arm; in the other, he does not get freed either by the woman or by the husband breaking his arm as neither fully owns him (the woman does not, as per the takana of Usha). However, this is rejected as the reason for the disagreement is not necessarily related to our issue.

Bava Kamma 88 - January 29, 19 Shvat Jan 29, 2024

The rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree about whether a humiliation payment is paid by one who humiliates a Canaanite slave. The basis of their debate depends on whether a Caananite slave falls under the term ‘your brother’ that is used in the verse in the Torah regarding the humiliation payment. How do their interpretations of ‘brother’ fit in with other Torah verses that use that term as well, such as false witnesses (eidim zomeim) who testify against 'their brother', a king that is chosen from among 'your brothers', and who is qualified to be a witness. The Gemara brings two different ways to learn that slaves cannot be witnesses. How is it different than a convert whose testimony is accepted? The mother of Rav Shmuel bar Abba wanted him to inherit her property when she died instead of her husband so she wrote a document bequeathing it to him. Since her husband had rights to the produce of the property while they were married when she wrote the document, did she have the right to pass on the property to her son? The rabbis disagreed about this and the Gemara explains the basis of their positions.

Bava Kamma 87 - January 28, 18 Shvat Jan 28, 2024

Study Guide Bava Kamma 87

Rabbi Yehuda's opinion regarding blind people appears in several braitot. In one braita, Rabbi Yehuda extends the exemption of blind people to judgment and in another one, he extends it to all mitzvot. Rav Yosef, who was blind, was, at first, thrilled to hear about this opinion and said that if we were to hold that way he would celebrate as it meant he was keeping mitzvot for which he was exempt and he assumed that meant he would get a greater reward. After he heard Rabbi Chanina say that one who is commanded gets a greater reward, he was hopeful that the halakha did not follow Rabbi Yehuda's opinion. The Mishna compares the laws for a person who damages another person and an animal who damages a person. The Mishna also sets out cases where one is exempt from paying damages as one is liable for the death penalty as well, such as hitting one's parents and causing an injury. What are the laws for one who injures a Jewish slave or a Caananite slave? What if the one who hits a minor, shoteh, or deaf-mute? What is the law if those people hit a different person? What if the one who hits is a woman or Caananite slave who doesn't have their own money? Rabbi Elazar asked Rav if a minor girl gets injured, does the money go to her father or her? Rav answers that it goes to her. Rabbi Elazar raises two difficulties against Rav - one from our Mishna and one from a braita. After Rav's response, the Gemara raises a contradiction against the braita from another braita and resolves it. Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree regarding the answer to Rabbi Elazar's question.

Bava Kamma 86 - Shabbat January 27, 17 Shvat Jan 26, 2024

Raba asks if there is a requirement to pay for damages for causing a temporary injury (the injury will eventually heal completely). Rava and Abaye each have different positions on this question. They disagree as well in a case of permanent damage to a Jewish slave - to whom does the payment go - to the slave or the owner? According to which tanaitic opinion in our braita does the Mishna follow when it rules that regarding payment for humiliation, it depends on both the one who did the action of humiliating and the one who was humiliated? A different braita regarding humiliation payment is quoted, and the Gemara suggests two ways to understand it - according to Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Yehuda. The Mishna deals with cases where one embarrassed a person who was naked, blind or sleeping and rules that in all these cases, the one who embarrassed needs to pay. What is meant by embarrassing a naked person? Rabbi Abba bar Mamal asks a question regarding one who was embarrassed while sleeping and died before waking up, does one need to pay humiliation payment to the heirs? Rav Zevid and Rav Papa each explain the question differently. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the ruling of the Mishna regarding a blind person and exempts the one who embarrasses the blind person from payment. He also rules that a blind person is not obligated to go to a refuge city, and does not get lashes or death as a punishment. From where does he derive these laws?

Bava Kamma 85 - January 26, 16 Shvat Jan 26, 2024

Two different suggestions are offered to explain according to which opinion the Mishna accords when it rules that there is payment for pain even when there is no financial damage. It depends on how a debate between Rebbi and Ben Azai about Shmot 21:25 is understood. How is pain assessed when there is financial damage? There are three different opinions regarding payments for growths that developed on account of the injury - does one pay only medical bills, also loss of employment, or both? The Gemara discusses the specific case in which they argue. Part of the debate between them centers around the double language used in the verse - v’rapo yerapei - which could be understood as including an additional case where medical costs are paid or perhaps coming to teach the doctors have a right to practice medicine and it does not conflict with our belief in God. When compensating for medical costs, the one who cause the injury cannot insist that he/she heal the injured or a doctor from afar or one who will provide services for free. The one who caused the injury can insist that the one injured use a doctor, as further complications may arise and then the injured person will demand more money in damages. Also, the one who was injured cannot insist on a set price, as they may save the money and not use it for healing, making the one who caused the damage look bad. From where do we derive that all four payments are relevant also when there are damages to pay as well? What are examples of cases where each of the four payments would be paid even if there was no financial compensation? Why is the loss of wages for one who cuts off a hand paid as if they were a cucumber watcher - what if the person had a higher-paying job? The loss of wage payment depends on what damage was done and what work the person is now capable of doing.

Bava Kamma 84 - Tu B'Shvat - January 25, 15 Shvat Jan 25, 2024

Today's Daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of David's grandmother, Rabbanit Sara Hene Rabinowitz Geffen, on her Tu B'Shevat yahrzeit. "She and her husband, Rav Tuvia Geffen, Rabbi of Sherith Israel Synagogue in Atlanta for 60 years, brought up their eight children with love and learning. Seven of their grandchildren made aliyah and many great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren live in Israel."

Today's daf is sponsored by Debbie Pine and Mark Orenshein in loving memory of Debbie's father Harry Pine, Noach Aharon ben Yakov v'Devora on his 22nd yahrzeit. "We miss him every day and especially on Tu B'Shvat."

Today's daf is sponsored for the refua shleima of Nadav Efraim ben Shulamit Leah who will be undergoing surgery this morning.

Several more sources are brought to prove that "an eye for an eye" is not to be taken literally but is meant to be understood as monetary compensation. However, five of them are rejected. Rabbi Eliezer has a different understanding of "an eye for an eye." How is his opinion understood? What types of payments were not able to be collected in Babylonia, as the Babylonian rabbis were not properly ordained? Penalty payments (k'nas) were not collected there, as well as monetary payments that needed assessment, unless they were both common and were compensating for a financial loss. Therefore, damages to oxen, that were common, were able to be ruled in Babylonia, but not damages to a person, as that was uncommon. Who is the tana of our Mishna who holds that there is a payment for tzaar, pain, even if there are no damages to be paid?

Bava Kamma 83 - January 24, 14 Shvat Jan 24, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Betsy and Tevie Mehlman in honor of the birth of their grandson Lavi to Hillel and Shaked. "His name symbolizes strength. May he be a continuing source of pride and joy to his parents and his entire family."

Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Kotz for the refuah shleima of Yonatan Yitzchak Ben Ateret, an IDF soldier critically injured in his tank in Gaza on Friday.

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of the twenty-one soldiers who were killed in Gaza on Monday. Our thoughts are with their families.

Is it really forbidden to teach Greek wisdom, doesn't it say in a braita that the Greek language is better than the Sorsi language!? To answer, they distinguish between Greek language and Greek wisdom. But even this is challenged by a braita that tells about Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and his family who studied Greek wisdom. They were allowed because of political reasons – so they could interact with the Romans. It is allowed to raise a dog at home only if it is chained so as not to cause damage. The Mishna states that one cannot spread nets to catch pigeons unless it is a distance of thirty ris (8,000 cubits) from a settlement. The Gemara cites sources that seemingly contradict this source and then resolves the difficulties. One who damages another must pay five payments - damage, pain, doctor bills, the loss of employment, and humilation. How are these payments evaluated? Why do we think that the one who harms his friend pays damage, after all, it is written in the Torah an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc.! The Gemara brings different drashot to prove that even though it is written in the Torah an eye for an eye, the obligation is to pay money.

Bava Kamma 82 - January 23, 13 Shvat Jan 23, 2024

Today’s daf is sponsored by Terri Krivosha and Rabbi Hayim Herring in loving memory of Terri’s father Nachum Meir ben David and Malka, Judge Norman Krivosha, on his 3rd yahrzeit, and in honor of their granddaughter, Orli Nessa bat Avi and Sheyna, named in his memory. And in memory of those killed in the war, for the release of the hostages and the refuah shleima of all those who have been wounded. "My dad taught me it is my job as a lawyer to figure out the questions the client doesn’t ask because once you know the questions, the answers are obvious. Though he never studied Talmud he would have loved its intellectual rigor."

Today's daf is sponsored in memory of my mother-in-law, Esther Farber, on her 21st yahrzeit. She would have loved to be part of Hadran and would be learning the daf with us if she were alive today.

Ezra instituted ten takanot, among them Torah reading on Mondays, Thursdays and Shabbat at Mincha, doing laundry on Thursday, eating garlic on Friday, combing or washing hair before going to the mikveh, men doing to the mikveh after a seminal emission before learning Torah, and others. Some of these are still practiced today and others are no longer practiced. There are ten unique laws relating to Jerusalem, many of them based on the fact that Jerusalem was not given to any particular tribe. Laws of selling a house in a walled city don't apply, as well as egla arufa, leprous house, and ir hanidachat. Other laws relate to it being a city where many holy items and kohanim are passing through and minimizing impurities is necessary. The Mishna mentioned a prohibition on raising pigs. The Gemara tells the story of two Hasmonean brothers, Horkanus and Aristoblus, who fought against each other and one put a siege on the other in the city of Jerusalem. A terrible incident occurred and as a result, they decreed a prohibition to raise pigs and to teach one's son Greek wisdom.

Bava Kamma 81 - January 22, 12 Shvat Jan 22, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran family for the refuah shleima of our wonderful Hadran chevruta Rhona Fink, Chana bat Malka, and her family. "Ill with a heavy case of influenza which has disrupted the tail end of a lovely shared vacation. Wishing Rhona, Ray and the entire family much strength and full recovery - soon, b'ezrat Hashem.

Yehoshua instituted ten takanot upon entering the land of Israel, most of them allowing for a fair share of resources, such as water, grass, fish, paths, etc. The Gemara goes through each one and either explains it, limits it, or raises and resolves a contradiction regarding it. There are several other takanot that Yehoshua instituted - what are they, and why are they not included in this list?

Bava Kamma 80 - January 21, 11 Shvat Jan 21, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Rozy & Larry Jaffe in loving memory of Rozy's mother, Dita Muhlrad, Doba Faiga bat Menachem on her 8th yahrzeit. "Although she's gone 8 years, "nana" continues to inspire us all daily by recalling her elegance, generosity, and sharp witticisms. Born on Simchat Torah, she always smiled and exuded simcha to all who knew her."

Under what circumstances can one raise small animals in Israel? Rabban Gamliel took a more lenient approach, however, in the Tosefta there is a more stringent approach. The Tosefta also rules the one who raises many small animals and wants to repent does not need to sell them all at once. Similarly, a convert who inherits dogs and pigs can sell them over time. Similarly, one who vowed to marry a woman or buy a house does not need to marry/buy the first woman/house he finds but can take his time to find the right one. A story is told of a widow who was desperate to marry to help discipline her son and vowed to marry the first man who proposed, but when inappropriate men proposed, the rabbis permitted her to wait until an appropriate man proposed. What kind of animals can one raise in the home and why? Cats are permitted, along with others, as they eat mice and worms. However, in a contradictory story, Rav rules that cats should be killed and it is forbidden to keep them, as they are dangerous! To resolve this, they distinguish between black and white cats. Rav Papa's sons mentioned three laws/ideas - when there is a plague of sores, people can cry out publicly in prayer on Shabbat (or perhaps it means they can declare fast days on account of it), a door that is closed, does not open very easily (understood metaphorically - how?) and one who purchases a house in Israel from a gentile can write a deed on Shabbat (by asking a gentile to write it for them). The Gemara raises a contradiction on the first, brings two suggestions to understand the second and better explains in what way the third is permitted.

Bava Kamma 79 - Shabbat January 20, 10 Shvat Jan 19, 2024

Even though there is no agency for doing a transgression, there is an exception to the rule with slaughtering an animal that one stole and if the thief has an agent slaughter it, the thief will be liable to pay the four/five payment. To be liable for stealing, slaughtering/selling, the item must have been removed at some point from the original owner's property as an act of acquiring must be performed. The Mishna discusses various cases regarding this issue. Can it be derived from our Mishna whether a shomer (a person asked to watch an item or renting/borrowing an item) assumes responsibility for the item when pulling it or just upon agreeing to watch it? What is the difference between a ganav and a gazlan? Why was the Torah stricter with a ganav? Why is the payment for a sheep (four times) less than the payment for an ox (five times)? One cannot raise small animals in Israel - why? Why is it permitted for large animals? What other kinds of animals is it forbidden to raise and in what particular situations?

Bava Kamma 78 - January 19, 9 Shvat Jan 19, 2024

Rava said that the word "se - sheep" in the Torah comes to exclude mixed breeds. To what halakha was this statement referring to? If one took upon oneself to bring a sacrifice of a burnt offering ("harei alai olah"), designated a bull and then someone stole it, does the thief have to replace it with a bull or can the thief replace it with a sheep or bird as the original owner can give one of those as an offering to fulfill their commitment? If a thief did not completely sell the animal or did not do a proper slaughter, there is no four/five payment. There are four different opinions regarding what part of the animal the thief would leave for him/herself which would render the animal still partially owned by the thief, thereby exempting the thief from the four/five payment. There are contradictory braitot regarding partners who stole and animal and one of them sold it - one says the one who sold it is liable and the other, exempt. How does Rav Nachman resolve this contradiction? Rav Yirmia and Rav Papa ask more questions regarding cases of partial sales of the animals. Their questions are left unanswered.

Bava Kamma 77 - January 18, 8 Shvat Jan 18, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Zeev Segal, Chaya Sara Nisan and Naomi Noi in loving memory of Rabbi Shmuel Halevi Segel.

Today's daf is sponsored by Sara Averick and Jose Rosenfeld in loving memory of Sara's brother, Moshe David ben Naftali Yosef Halevi v'Leah. "שהעמיד תלמידים הרבה"

We learn from the red heifer that an item that can be potentially redeemed is considered as if it is redeemed for certain issues, such as being considered edible to become susceptible to impurity of food. To explain a contradiction between how the Gemara understood Rabbi Shimon's position in our Mishna and a different statement of Rabbi Shimon that a non-valid slaughter is not considered slaughtering, Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish offered different answers in Bava Kamma 76. Why did each one not hold like the other? Rabbi Yochanan preferred to explain that the animals were unblemished. Reish Lakish's answer was based on an approach he held that if one is not liable for stealing and selling a particular animal, one would not be liable for stealing and slaughtering it (derived by juxtaposition in the verse between slaughtering and selling), and therefore preferred an interpretation that the animal was blemished, as it could be sold. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish elsewhere disagree on exactly this issue in the opposite case - can one be liable for selling a treifa according to Rabbi Shimon who holds that one would not be liable for slaughtering a treifa? Rabbi Yochanan raises a difficulty with Reish Lakish from a braita which remains somewhat unresolved. The braita that Rabbi Yochanan quoted against Reish Lakish mentioned a case of stealing and slaughtering an animal that is a mixed breed (born from two different types of animals). They raise a question against that case - since the verse regarding the four/five payment mentions the word "sheep" and that word is known to be meant to limit the law to only animals that are not mixed breeds. Why in this case are mixed breeds included?

Bava Kamma 76 - January 17, 7 Shvat Jan 17, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Jessica Shklar in honor of Ruth Leah Kahan. "It has been quite an experience learning Bava Kamma and hearing my impeccably-mannered older sister described as a thief who can't look after her oxen. I want to assure the Daf Yomi community that she is neither of those things."

Today's daf is also dedicated to the continued refuah shleima of Nadav Efraim ben Shulamit Leah.

The Mishna teaches that if one stole then sanctified and then sold/slaughtered an animal, the thief would not pay the four/five payment. But if it was sanctified, isn't that like selling to God as it transfers ownership, like a sale, and shouldn't the thief be liable? The Gemara brings three answers, as the first two are rejected. In conclusion, they say that the animal is still considered "the sacrifice of the owner" even if it belongs to the Temple. Because of a difficulty with Rabbi Shimon's position in the Mishna, Rabbi Shimon's distinction between sanctification that comes/doesn't come with responsibility to be referring to a different case - where the sanctification happened by the owner before it was stolen. How does this work with the position of Rabbi Shimon that a slaughter that is not kosher is not considered "slaughter" to be obligated for the four/five payment? Three answers are brought and Rabbi Elazar questions some or all of them. His question is answered by another position of rabbi Shimon that if the blood can potentially be sprinkled or the animal can be potentially redeemed, we view it as if it was done, thereby making the slaughtering in these cases be considered a kosher slaughtering.

Bava Kamma 75 - January 16, 6 Shvat Jan 16, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Joshua Waxman in loving memory of Alex Kahan, Eliyahu ben Shlomo ha-Kohen v'Aliza, father of Aimee Kahan, on his shloshim. "A passionate and gentle teacher who touched countless lives."

Today's daf is sponsored by Blima Slutksy in loving memory of Mazal (Tina) bat David and Rina.

Today's daf is dedicated to the refuah shleima of three boys from our community who were injured in the terrorist attack yesterday in Ra'anana, one of whom is still in critical condition - Nadav Efraim ben Shulamit Leah, Ilan Zvi ben Sharon Salon, Gilad David ben Sima Chana, among all the others injured in the attack.

Rav Huna taught in the name of Rav that one who admits to a fine and then witnesses come, the one who admitted is still exempt. Rav Chisda raises a difficulty against him from a braita with a story about Rabbi Gamliel and Tavi his slave, where Rav Papa admitted that he blinded his eye. There are two different versions of the story in two different braitot. The Gemara first suggests that there is a dispute between these braitot on our issue - if one admits to the fine and then witnesses come, is the person exempt or liable, but then they suggest that the difference can be explained differently. Shmuel disagrees with Rav and obligates. They bring a source for each opinion in the Torah and raise a difficulty on Shmuel's position from a braita. Shmuel resolves the difficulty. Rav Hamnuna limits the opinion of Rav and distinguishes between a case of confession that causes a financial obligation (such as theft, where one would have to pay the principal) and one with no financial obligation (such as one who was convicted for theft and admits to having slaughtered or sold. Rava raises a difficulty on this argument from the story with Rabbi Gamliel. But it is also quoted that Rabbi Yochanan makes the same distinction as Rav Hamnuna. And Rabbi Ashi brings proof from our Mishna and a braita. However, his proof from the braita was rejected. The Gemara suggests that Rav Hamnuna's distinction is a debate between tannaim, although it is somewhat rejected.

Bava Kamma 74 - January 15, 5 Shvat Jan 15, 2024

Study Guide Bava Kamma 74

Rava and Abaye disagree on the understanding of a braita, which causes them to disagree about whether witnesses contradicted in court can later be convicted of being eidim zomemim. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yochanan also debated the same issue. The next Mishna brings cases where the thief will not be charged payments of four/five times. From the beginning of the Mishna one can infer that if one confesses (which would exempt them from the four/five payment as it is a penalty) and then witnesses come later, they would be liable to pay the four/five payment. This goes against Rav Huna who states in the name of Rav that once one admits to it in court, they will be exempt, even if witnesses come to court later.

Bava Kamma 73 - January 14, 4 Shvat Jan 14, 2024

Study Guide Bava Kamma 73

This week's learning is sponsored anonymously in honor of our dear friend and gifted teacher Rabba Yaffa Epstein to pay tribute to the memory of her nephew Yakir Yamin Hexter z”l who was killed in Azza.

Today’s learning is dedicated by the Hadran Zoom family in honor of the birthday of our very own “Rabbi Yirmiya”, Becki Goldstein, whose pointed questions keep us on our toes always. Happy birthday! To many more years of curiosity, Becki, with lots of love.

Abaye and Rava disagree about whether an eid zomem is disqualified from being a witness when they testified falsely or when convicted to be an eid zomem. To understand why Rava holds they are disqualified only from when they are convicted, the Gemara brings two different explanations. Whaqt is the practical difference between the two? Rav Ashi ruled that we hold according to Abaye and this is one of the six exceptions to the rule where we hold like Abaye when he disagrees with Rava. A difficulty is raised against Abaye's position from our Mishna, but is resolved. The Gemara suggests that the argument between Rava and Abaye is also a subject of debate between two tannaim and brings a braita to prove it. However, this suggestion is rejected as inconclusive as it is possible the source of the debate there was regarding whether one views two different statements made in a very short time frame as if they are one unit (toch k'dei dibur k'dibur damei). If the debate is based on the latter, then Rabbi Yosi contradicts what he says in a sugya in Temura 26a where he rules we do not view two statements made one after the other as one unit. How is this resolved? Rava rules that if witnesses were first contradicted and then others came and made them into eidim zomemim, they are convicted as eidim zomemim as one cannot be convicted on contradictory testimony but it is viewed as a start toward making the witnesses zomemim. Rava proves this from a braita.

Bava Kamma 72 - Shabbat January 13, 3 Shvat Jan 12, 2024

Rav Nachman changed his mind and ruled that if one slaughtered and sold an animal that was jointly owned and the thief admitted to one owner, the thief would have to pay a partial payment of four/five times to the other owner. If so, how does Rav Nachman understand the difference between the cases of one who stole an animal of one’s father in this Mishna and the next Mishna – why in the case where the father died before it was slaughtered does the thief not need to pay the four/five payment to his brothers? The Mishna rules that if one slaughtered the animal as a non-sacred animal in the Temple, one would be liable to the four/five payment. Rav Chavivi infers from this a ruling on a different debate about whether the act of slaughtering is only considered significant at the end of the act or is it significant already from the beginning of the slaughtering. Rav Huna rejects Rav Chavivi’s inference but Rav Ashi reinstates it. How can the other opinion be explained according to our Mishna? A different version of the inference Rav Chavivi is brought, in which they first quote the debate regarding slaughter and Rav Chavivi raises a question against Rabbi Yochanan from our Mishna. The Mishna brings various combinations of witnesses who become accused of being false witnesses in a theft case where the thief was accused of slaughtering and selling as well. What if one group was made zommemim and not the other? What if all of them? What if only one witness from one of the groups was made a zomem? Abaye and Rava disagree about whether an eid zomem is disqualified from being a witness from the moment they testified falsely or from the moment they are convicted to be an eid zomem? The Gemara brings the logic behind each position, but for Rava they bring two different suggestions.

Bava Kamma 71 - January 12, 2 Shvat Jan 12, 2024

Study Guide Bava Kamma 71

Today's daf is sponsored by Karen Bloom in honor of the 5th anniversary of Aliza Gavriella's bat mitzvah on Parshat Vaera. "Your family is so proud of you and inspired by your commitment to learning the daf. We love you so very much."

The Mishna obligates those who slaughter or sell on Yom Kippur. The Gemara attributes the Mishna to Rabbi Meir who believes that a person liable to lashes must also pay. But if so, how can the following Mishna be explained as the next Mishna exempts one from death and payment? Rabbi Meir must distinguish between lashes and death - in the case of the death penalty and payments there is a law of kim lei b’draba minei, but in lashing and payments it does not apply. But if so, how can we explain braita where Rabbi Meir obligated one to pay if they slaughtered an animal (that they previously stole) on Shabbat? To resolve this, they explain that the braita was established as a case where someone else slaughtered the animal. But if someone else slaughtered, then how can the thief be charged with slaughter and sale, after all, there is no agency when it comes to a transgression?! They explain that in the case of slaughtering a stolen animal, there is an exception to the rule and there is agency for a transgression. The Gemara discusses the other parts of the braita- why the Sages exempt in all three cases (or possibly only two) and why Rabbi Meir obligates in the other two cases (an ox that is stoned and an ox that is slaughtered for foreign work. Rava asks Rav Nachman whether there is a partial payment for theft and slaughter, such as if he slaughtered an ox belonging to two partners and confessed to one of them.

Bava Kamma 70 - Rosh Chodesh Shvat - January 11, 1 Shvat Jan 11, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Randi Shuster in loving memory of her father. "He taught me to love Israel and love learning. He died too young but left a lasting impression on me and many generations to come."

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Auerbach in loving memory of her father's 35th yahrtzeit. "His wisdom, advice, love of Judaism, and general daily behavior still guide me all these years later."

Based on the principle of Rabbi Yochanan that one cannot sanctify an item that was stolen from him/her as it is not currently in their possession, the rabbi in Nehardea ruled that one cannot write a document allowing another to seize moveable property of theirs (orkheta) that is currently possessed by another (power of attorney). Some hold that the rabbis of Nehardea only forbade this in a case where the one in possession of the item denies the claim, as giving the power to another to collect it would look like a false document. The orkheta needs to be written in a way that the representative is given legal writes to the money/property in the claim, otherwise, the other side can argue that he/she has no legal connection to the case. Is the representative considered a messenger or a partner in the claim? The Mishna rules that if there were two witnesses for the theft and two others for the sale/slaughter of the animal, these can be combined to convict the thief. Does this Mishna not follow Rabbi Akiva who holds that witnesses on half (or part of) an act are not accepted? Or can one distinguish between this case and the case where Rabbi Akiva holds that way (chazaka on land - each set testifies about one year). The Mishna rules that if one sold the animal on Shabbat, one would still be obligated in the four/five payment. But a braita rules the opposite. Rami bar Hama and Rav Papa each bring different explanations of the case in the braita to find a way that one could be obligated the death penalty for a melacha on Shabbat at the same time as the sale took effect.

Bava Kamma 69 - January 10, 29 Tevet Jan 10, 2024

Study Guide Bava Kamma 69

Today's daf is sponsored by Marcia Baum in loving memory of Helena K Baum, Chaya Chana Alter bat Chana and Yekutiel Yehuda on her 8th yahrzeit. "My mom was a lover of Torah, Yahadut and Am Yisrael. She was a lifelong learner who instilled a love of learning in her daughters. She is missed every day. I hope that I am doing her proud." Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island for a refuah shleima for Yehuda Aharon ben Rachel, husband of our friend and co-learner, Sharon Gabin Lichtman b'toch she'ar cholei Yisrael. May he and all cholei Yisrael merit the blessing of "וקווי ה' יחליפו כח יעלו אבר כנשרים".

Rabbi Yochanan said that you cannot dedicate anything that is not in your possession, as, someone stole it. If Rabbi Yochanan holds like all unattributed Mishnas, this statement contradicts a Mishna in Maaser Sheni 5:1, where one can redeem fruits that were stolen from him/her after they are no longer in their possession. After a long attempt to change the version in the Mishna to conform to Rabbi Yochanan (that the redemption of the fruits happens before it was stolen), this possibility is rejected because of another opinion of Rabbi Yochanan that contradicts this as well (there is no retroactive designation). To resolve the issue, they explain that Rabbi Yochanan holds by a different unattributed Mishna (our Mishna). What motivated him to rule like our Mishna and not the Mishna in the Maaser Sheni? In the discussion with Rabbi Yochanan regarding the Mishna in Masser Sheni, the Gemara brought a different statement of Rabbi Yochanan that Rabbi Dosa and the modest ones (tznuim) said the same thing. Three amoraim that if Rabbi Yohanan had not said this sentence, we would have come to different conclusions on several matters. What are these conclusions?

Bava Kamma 68 - January 9, 28 Tevet Jan 09, 2024

Study Guide Bava Kamma 68

Rav holds that ye'ush alone of the original owner causes the item to become the possession of the thief. Rav Sheshet disagrees and three sources are brought to challenge Rav but all are resolved. Rav Sheshet holds that if it is not a complete sale, i.e. if the owner did not despair, there is no four/five payment. Rav Nachman disagrees with Rav Sheshet and also with Rav and requires a thief to pay the four/five payment regardless of whether the owner did/did not despair of the stolen item. Rav holds that since despair of the owner turns the object into the property of the thief, if the sale happened after ye'ush, there is no four/five payment. Rabbi Elazar, Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish also weigh in on this discussion - Rabbi Elazar holds like Rav Sheshet, Rabbi Yochanan like Rav Nachman, and Reish Lakish like Rav.

Bava Kamma 67 - January 8, 27 Tevet Jan 08, 2024

Study Guide Bava Kamma 67

Today's daf is sponsored by Naomi and Adam Ferziger in celebration of the birth of their granddaughter Sylvie Ayala, daughter of Emily and Benzion, sister of Akiva. " בשבח והודיה להשם"

After resolving the first difficulty against Rav Yosef who held that when the original owner despairs of their stolen item, the thief does not acquire the item, the Gemara brings a second source to challenge Rav Yosef's position, but the challenge is resolved. Does Rabbi Yonatan disagree with Rabba who holds that when the thief changes the item it is acquired by the thief or does he agree with him? Ulla and Rava agree with Rav Yosef's position regarding ye'ush (despair) and bring sources to prove it. Why is the four or five times the payment only for a bull or sheep? This is because the words bull and sheep appear twice in the verse. Which mention of them is unnecessary? Rav holds that when the Mishna rules that a thief who steals from a thief does not pay the double payment, it is only in a case where the original owner did not despair of receiving the item back. Rav Sheshet raises a difficulty with Rav's qualification.

Bava Kamma 66 - January 7, 26 Tevet Jan 07, 2024

Study Guide Bava Kamma 66

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family in loving memory of Sgt. Ephraim ben haRav Shmuel v'Liat, HYD, Ephraim Yachman, son of Liat and Sammy, and grandson of our friend and fellow learner Harriet Hartman. "Even as he fought valiantly to defend Am Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael, his sincerity, commitment to Ahavat Yisrael and Torat Yisrael, and devotion to family and friends shone through as they did throughout his life. May Hashem comfort and give strength to his entire family. Yehi zichro baruch."

Rabbi Il'ah and Rabbi Chanina disagreed about an animal that was stolen while still a calf and at the time of judgment was fully grown - is there a requirement to pay four or five times the animal? However, they both seem to agree that the double payment is assessed by its value at the time of the theft. Rav, however, held that the double payment is assessed based on its value at the time of judgment. How can these two approaches be reconciled? Rabba states that both from the Torah and a Mishna we learn that a thief who changes an item after stealing it, acquires the item and is only required to return the value of the item at the time it was stolen. But Rabba and Rav Yosef disagree regarding yei'ush, if the owner despairs of receiving the stolen item back, does the thief acquire it? Two sources are brought as difficulties against Rabba's position and one against Rav Yosef's. All are resolved.

Bava Kamma 65 - Shabbat January 6, 25 Tevet Jan 05, 2024

Rav held that a thief repays a stolen item based on the price of the item at the time of the theft and the double payment and the four/five times payment based on the price at the judgment. Rav Sheshet raises two difficulties against Rav from braitot, but they are resolved. Rav's ruling is limited after resolving the difficulties. A braita is brought in support of Rav, but Rava rejects the proof. Rabbi Il'ah rules on the payment in a case where an animal was stolen as a calf but becomes a grown animal before the payment. Rabbi Chanina raises a difficulty on Rabbi Il'ah's ruling from a braita. What is the basis of their disagreement?

Bava Kamma 64 - January 5, 24 Tevet Jan 05, 2024

Study Guide Bava Kamma 64

Today's daf is sponsored by Lisa Malik & Adi Wyner in honor of the birth of their first grandchild, Azriel David son of Ariel and Sofia. "Azi was named in memory of Sofia's great-grandmother, Alexina, and Ariel’s grandfather, David Malik z"l. Our grandson’s name is also a tribute to R. Azriel David Fastag, who composed the "Ani Maamin" melody on a train to Treblinka."

Today's daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in loving memory of her grandson Ephraim Yachman. "He learned Daf Yomi daily in the army (+Rashi and Tosafot), even in his "namer."

From what verse and how can we derive that a thief pays double for stealing movable items with inherent monetary value? The Gemara brings a braita from the school of Chizkiya to explain the source. After a difficulty is raised against the braita, Rava brings an alternative explanation of the braita. In Rava's version, the braita ends with a difficulty: What are the words "im himatzei timatzei" needed for? The Gemara answers this question by explaining that those words stand as the basis of a klal, prat u'klal drasha from which we derive the application of the basic law of double payment to movable items with inherent monetary value. However, this is rejected as well and instead a riboi, miut, riboi drasha is employed, using the same words. A different braita derives double payment from a different verse - according to that version, what is derived from the words "im himatzei timatzei"?

Bava Kamma 63 - January 4, 23 Tevet Jan 04, 2024

Study Guide Bava Kamma 63

Today's daf is sponsored by Laurence and Michelle Berkowitz in loving memory of Dr. Jesse Berkowitz on his shloshim. "A man of extreme passion for Medinat Yisrael who brought his whole family on Aliya. Thanks to Hashem for saving Yair Berkowitz and granting him the strength for his heroic efforts during the Golani battle of December 12 in Gaza and for continuing to give protection to Amitai, Yair, and Ayelet. And in honor of the engagement of our daughter Ariella to Amitai Abouzaglo."

Today's daf is sponsored by Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the birth of Hallel Rus, granddaughter of our friend and co-learner Suri Davis Stern. "May the entire family see much nachat as Hallel grows in a world of peace and learning. תזכו לגדלה לתורה ולחופה ולמעשים טובים"

From where do we derive that you pay double payment for all items that are alive and movable? If the only living beings mentioned in the verse are animals and not birds, how do we know that birds are included? If one is safeguarding another's item (for free - shomer chinam) and claims it was stolen and takes an oath, he/she is liable to pay the double payment if witnesses testify that the one safeguarding kept it. But if the one safeguarded claimed it was lost, there is no double payment. The double payment is only incurred if one took an oath - from where is this derived? The Gemara quotes two contradictory braitot to prove this and later delves into the contradictions between them regarding the subject of the verse in Shmot 22:6.

Bava Kamma 62 - January 3, 22 Tevet Jan 03, 2024

Today's daf is sponsored by Devorah Zlochower in honor of her talmidim.

Today's daf is sponsored by Debbie Pine and Mark Orenshein in honor of their new granddaughter, Shalva Tzofia, born to their children Leora and Zachary Orenshein in Jerusalem. "We pray for her good health and safety and that she follows her parents in their commitment to Torah, am Yisrael and Medinat Yisrael."

If one borrows space in another's field to put a stack of grains and hid items in the stack, and the field owner burns it, the owner is liable only for the grains and not for the hidden items, even according to Rabbi Yehuda. What if the borrower asked to borrow space for a stack of barley, but instead put a stack of wheat? The braita delineates several different examples similar to this case and explains that in all cases, the owner only needs to pay the value of a stack of barley and no more in the event of a fire. According to Rabbi Yehuda, one is liable for hidden items. Shmuel explains that according to this opinion, the owner of the stack could take an oath regarding what was hidden and would be able to demand that amount from the one who lit the fire, even though there is no proof of this. The basis for this is takanat nigzal, a takana instituted for those who were robbed to be able to take an oath regarding what was stolen from them. Ameimar asked if the same would apply to an informer who turned in another to the authorities who then confiscated items from that person. The question can only be asked if one holds that one is liable for garmi (partially indirect damages), as the damages caused by an informer are considered garmi. One threw another's safe into a body of water and the owner of the safe claimed there were pearls in there. Was he able to get compensated for them? Was his claim accepted? Why? What is the difference between a gazlan and a chamsan? A gazlan does not pay for the item when stealing while the chamsan does. If so, why is it called stealing? Isn't it true that if one forces another to sell them an item, it is a valid sale (talyuha v'zabin)? One is liable for accidental fires such as a spark coming from the blacksmith as he works or a camel's burden of flax catching fire from a candle from inside a store. Only if the candle was outside the store, is the camel exempt, except for on Chanuka as the candles are there for a mitzva. Is it possible to infer from the Mishna that one needs to place Chanuka candles within ten handbreadths from the ground? The seventh chapter discusses the laws of theft. If one steals an animal and slaughters and sells it, there is an extra payment, beyond the double payment (kefel) for regular theft of four or five times the value. This is only applicable for bulls and sheep, while double payment is for animals and inanimate objects as well. From where is this derived? On what items is there no double payment? Neither payment is applicable if one steals from one who stole. Is the four or five times payment applicable in a case where one kept the item for oneself and claimed it was stolen?

Bava Kamma 61 - January 2, 21 Tevet Jan 02, 2024

This week's learning is sponsored in honor of Shoshana Baker. "Mazal tov on completing 4.039 daf yomi cycles of marriage! With love and joy, Mark."

Today's daf is sponsored by Suri Stern in honor of the birth of a granddaughter Hallel Rus, daughter of Esther and Shai Goldman and in loving memory of her father Harav Reuvain ben Chaim, whose yahrzeit was on the 17th Tevet. "My father completed Shas many times and was an anav as gabbai rishon for the white shul."

Today's daf is sponsored by Susan Cashdan in loving memory of her father יצחק בן משה חונה ז"ל and for the refua shleima of their little grandson Ziv Shimon ben Shulamit Chaya and Shulamit Chaya bat Sara Devora.

In Shmuel 2 Chapter 23, David desires water from Beit Lechem and three of his warriors bring water for him from inside the Philistine camp in Beit Lechem. When they return, David refuses to accept the water as they endanger their lives unnecessarily. This story is understood by the sages homiletically - that David was looking for an answer to a halakhic question and refused to accept the answer. What was the halakhic question and why did he refuse to accept the answer? The Gemara brings three different suggestions and analyzes them based on the story in the text of Shmuel 2 and Chronicles. Regarding laws of fire, the Mishna discusses cases where one is exempt from damage caused by a fire, such as, if there is a non-flammable fence between the fire and the neighbor's property four cubits high, or a public thoroughfare or river in between. If the fire is in a field of thorns, the four cubits of the fence are measured from the height of the thorn bushes. Rav and Shmuel disagree about what type of fire one is exempt from in the Mishna - one that blazes high or one that blazes low. The Mishna quotes a debate between several tannaim - if one lights a fire in one's field, up to what distance can the fire travel and the owner will still be liable for damages? The final opinion in the Mishna, Rabbi Shimon, seems to say that there is no limit and one is always responsible for damages caused by his fire. Is it possible that Rabbi Shimon said this as elsewhere he says there is a limit? Rav Nachman explains that Rabbi Shimon's statement in the Mishna meant something else - that it all depends on the height of the fire. Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis disagree on whether or not there is an exception from paying damages for a fire that burns something hidden. Items inside a building are not considered hidden, whereas items in a stack of grains would be. Rav Kahane holds that the debate is only when one lights a fire on one's own property and it spreads to a neighbor's property, but if one lit a fire on someone else's property, all agree that one is liable for hidden items as well. Rava disagrees and holds that they disagree in both cases. However, he distinguishes within the case of one who lit a fire in another's property between items typically and non-typically hidden.

Bava Kamma 60 - January 1, 20 Tevet Jan 01, 2024

This month's learning is sponsored by Tzippora Chwat in loving memory of Leeba bat Chaim.

This week's learning is sponsored by Tamar Orvell.

Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree in which case the one who passes fire to a deaf-mute, shoteh, or minor will be exempted by human law and obligated by the law of heaven. If a person fans a coal together with the wind, if the wind played a significant role (if the person would not have been able to fan it into a fire without the wind), the person is exempt. How is it different from the zoreh, winnowing, in the Shabbat laws where one is liable even though the action is only completed with the help of the wind? There are four answers to this question. Why are all these words listed in the verse regarding damages from fire - thorns, pile, standing grain, and field? From this verse, the rabbis learn that when misfortune comes to the world due to evil people, it attacks the righteous ones first. From there the Gemara deviates into theological issues regarding the righteous and the wicked and why bad things happen to good people. During the plague of the firstborn, the Jews were commanded to stay inside as the destroyer was in the land and would not be able to distinguish between those deserving of death and those not deserving of death. This verse teaches several things about times when the Angel of Death is more rampant and how one should act to avoid it.

Bava Kamma 59 - December 31, 19 Tevet Dec 31, 2023

This week's learning is sponsored by Elisheva Gray. "We learn the daf but we also learn so much more, thanks to the wisdom of Rabbanit Michelle and to the wonderful community that has built up around our daily daf. Todah raba!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Leah Brick in loving memory of her great niece Nava Tova bat Yehoshua Yisrael Leib v'Liora Charna Cherney, on her second yahrzeit. In her zechut may we see shalom in Israel soon.

Abaye quotes a braita with different opinions regarding laws of evaluating payment to a field that was damaged during different stages of development of the fruits. Using this, he challenges Rava's assumption that there is a difference between damages incurred by a person and by one's animal. Various sections of the braita are analyzed and explained. The Mishna rules that if someone gives a fire to a person without knowledge, and it spreads - the one who gave him the fire is exempt in a court of law but obligated in a heavenly court. Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree regarding the type of fire the Mishna is referring to.

Bava Kamma 58 - Shabbat December 30, 18 Tevet Dec 29, 2023

The Mishna rules that if an animal falls into someone's property and benefits, the owner pays for the benefit but not the damage caused. What type of benefit is the Mishna discussing - eating or that the produce softened the fall, or both? How does this (softening the fall) differ from one who chases a lion away from destroying another's property, for which one receives no compensation at all? If the animal moved to a different garden bed and ate there - is the owner still exempt from damages and only pays what the owner benefited? There are several different opinions about what stage the owner becomes liable for damages. How does one assess the payment for damages of produce growing in a field? One opinion is that it is evaluated based on that produce being in a field of a beit seah which is in a field that can hold sixty seah sixty seah. Others hold something similar but with minor adaptations. The rabbis question whether this assessment method is used also for a person who damages another's field or only if it is damage caused by property.

Bava Kamma 57 - December 29, 17 Tevet Dec 29, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Cheryl & Avi Savitsky and family in loving memory of Cheryl's father, Dr. Steven F. Stein, Shimon Feivish Ben Yisroel Yitzchak, on his 40th yahrzeit. "He is missed by all who knew him. Steve was a brilliant surgeon and loved his family and friends and had a true simchat ha'chaim that was palpable to anyone who met him."

If someone finds a lost item that he is obligated to return, what level of obligation does he have for the item - is he considered like a shomer who watches an item for free or like one who gets paid? Raba and Rav Yosef disagree about this. Rav Yosef raises two difficulties against Raba. Raba and Abaye each raise difficulties against Rav Yosef. The second difficulty against Rav Yosef is resolved by explaining that a claim of armed robbery is considered theft for purposes of double payment. Two difficulties are raised against this argument and are resolved. They also try to strengthen this argument with a tannaitic source, but this is also rejected in three ways.

Bava Kamma 56 - December 28, 16 Tevet Dec 28, 2023

This week's learning is sponsored by Miriam Adler in honor of their new grandson, Neta, whose family was evacuated from Kibbutz Saad. "His name symbolizes the hope that there will be rejuvenated life and growth in the otef and all of Israel."

A braita lists four situations where one causes damages and yet is not liable in a court of law but is liable in a heavenly court. The Gemara defines the specific circumstances of each case. However, they ask why the list is limited to these four and does not mention others that have the same law. A distinction is made - the cases listed in this braita are all situations where one may have thought one would not even be obligated in a heavenly court. If the gate opens at night - what is the case? Did the animal try to sneak out underneath and break the wall, or did it fall on its own? What type of wall? If the robber takes the animal, the robber is liable. Isn't this obvious as a thief gains ownership over a stolen item and is responsible for damages? There are two suggested explanations of the case. If it is given to a shepherd, the shepherd is responsible for damages. Isn't this obvious as it was taught already in a Mishna? The case is explained to be regarding a shomer who gave it to another shomer. Does this contradict a ruling of Rava in this case? Is one who watches over a lost item liable like a shomer chinam or a shomer sachar? What is the logic behind each possibility?

Bava Kamma 55 - December 27, 15 Tevet Dec 27, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Earl Norman in honor of the first responders of the State of Israel. "Their dedication, professionalism and compassion often in the face of danger is an inspiration."

Why does the word 'good' appear in the context of the commandment to respect your parents only in the ten commandments in the book of Devarim and not in the book of Shmot ("so that it will be good for you")? If one sees the letter tet in a dream, it is a sign of good things to come. Once the Mishna has established the prohibition of k'elaim (crossbreeding or coworking two animals), different rabbis bring examples where the prohibition applies to animals that are from the same species but not the same type, such as a rooster, peacock, and pheasant. The sixth chapter begins with laws regarding one who watched his animal properly but the animal escaped and ate or trampled a field. If the wall was breached at night or was broken by robbers, the owner is exempt, as are the robbers (indirect damages). If the robbers took the animals out and the animals caused damage, the robbers are liable as they are directly responsible. |If the owner gave the animal to another person to watch, is the owner no longer responsible and the liability shifts to the other person? On what does it depend? If the animal accidentally falls into another's field and damages (eats or tramples), the owner only pays the benefit they received, but if the animal went in intentionally the owner has to compensate for the damages. The Gemara explains that the level l of protection (shmira) mentioned in the case in the Mishna is light protection (able to withstand a regular wind). This leads to the suggestion that the Mishna corresponds only to Rabbi Yehuda's position that a shor muad is exempt if the owner safeguarded the animal by putting up a standard wall, as an animal is always considered forewarned regarding eating and trampling. However, this is rejected as perhaps the debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is only relevant for keren damages where there is intent to damage, and not applicable to eating a trampling. Further proof is brought from a tannaitic source that there are four cases where the Torah required only basic safeguarding - a pit, fire, eating and trampling. The Gemara brings a source for each from the Torah. Further proof is brought from the language of the Mishna. There are four cases where one is exempt from liability in a court of law, but liable in a heavenly court - one is the case in our Mishna where one breaches a fence of another and lets out the owner's animals.

Bava Kamma 54 - December 26, 14 Tevet Dec 26, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 54

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Adina Hagege's birthday last week (7 Tevet) by her siblings. "The words of Bava Kamma aptly describe her: whoever engages in the study of Torah and in the performance of acts of kindness merits reward equal to the portion of two tribes."

Today's daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in loving memory of her father Yoel ben Meir Fromme. "For all his guidance and sage advice, a lone kindertransport survivor he rebuilt his family in Montreal where his Torah life inspired mine, and as a child I sat riveted by his telling of midrashim. His devotion to limmud Torah, we passed down to his grandchildren and great-grandchildren and are zoche to have three children who have done several cycles of the Shas. I know he looks down on us with pride and thanksgiving to Hashem. May he be a melitz yosher for all of klal yisroel and keep us all safe. Yehi zichro baruch!

Today's daf is sponsored by Yael Klempner for the refuah shleima of her dear friend, Sara Shoshana bat Sara, Sara Shiffman.

One is not responsible for vessels that fall in but Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says one is responsible. The verse mentions just animals - an ox and a donkey. From there the rabbis derive their position that humans and vessels are excluded from damages. How does Rabbi Yehuda derive his opinion from the verse? Drashot are brought to explain from where it is derived that the owner of a bor is liable for damage caused to all animals including birds. The first two suggestions are rejected but the third is accepted. The Mishna explained that one is obligated for an ox that is deaf, shoteh, or young. That seemed to imply not if the animal was older and not blemished (i.e. with knowledge). Rabbi Yimia suggests that the Mishna also includes that case but after raising difficulties from braitot, Rava concludes that one is not responsible for that case as an ox should also be paying attention (like a person) and therefore the owner is not responsible. The Mishna brings other cases in the Torah where specific animals are mentioned and yet the reference is to all animals, including birds. From where it derived in each situation that all are included?

Bava Kamma 53 - December 25, 13 Tevet Dec 25, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 53

Today's daf is sponsored by Suri Stern. "Hakarat hatov to knafayim, an amazing organization that no one should ever need, but that everyone should know about, helping families through difficult baby deliveries and their partner organization, Neshama."

Today's daf is sponsored by Ronit and Shlomo Eini in honor of the marriage of their daughter Tehila to Niria and for a refuah shleima to Lilly bat Victoria and to all those injured, for the safe return of the hostages, and for the protection of our soldiers.

Rav and Shmuel disagree about how to understand the case in the Mishna where the ox fell "forward" or "backward." Are both cases where the ox fell into the pit or not necessarily? How does this fit Rav and Shmuel's general positions about bor? If the ox fell into the pit because of the sounds made by someone working in the pit, the owner of the pit is fully liable. Why is it not partially the responsibility of the one inside the pit and even if the one in the pit doesn't pay damages, as it is indirect damages, the owner of the pit should only be liable for half the damages? Therefore, it must be that the Mishna holds like Rabbi Natan who holds that when an ox pushes another ox into a pit, in a case where the ox is a shor tam, and only pays a quarter of the damages, the owner of the pit compensates and pays the remainder (three-quarters). Rava and others bring other cases where the rabbis and Rabbi Natan disagree - where one leaves a stone that causes an ox to fall into a pit, two oxen gore a third ox, and a person and an ox push a person into a pit.

Bava Kamma 52 - December 24, 12 Tevet Dec 24, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 52

This week's learning is sponsored by Michelle Feiglin in loving memory of her father, Natan ben Devorah v'Shlomo Elimelech on his 8th yahrzeit and for the refuah shleima of her grandson, Neriya Yosef Hoshea ben Avital. "My father was liberated from Buchenwald and rebuilt his life in Melbourne, Australia. He inspired my love of learning Torah and every lunchtime in the middle of his working day could be found in front of his Gemara. He had great success in business, but he always said that his biggest success was his family."

This week's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Shelly bat Sara Nina.

Land can be acquired in three ways, by money, a document or chazaka (using the land in a way that shows ownership). When can a pit or a house, which are both considered like land) be acquired by passing over an item? Does it depend on what item? How can this be effective? A flock of animals can also be acquired by passing a particular item - what item and how does the kinyan work? If two people own a cistern and the first person covered it and the second one passed by and found it uncovered but didn't cover it, the second owner is responsible. At what point would the first owner revert to being responsible for it together with the second owner? Would it be only if the first person sees it or hears it is uncovered or do they also get extra time to hire people to close it once the first owner hears about it? The Mishna explains that if the owner covers it and the animal falls in, the owner is not responsible. If it was covered, how can this be? Rabbi Yitzchak says that the cover must have rotted. Two different versions of a question are brought and the Gemara attempts to answer the question from our Mishna but is unsuccessful. The first version of the question is about one who covered a cistern with a cover that could withstand oxen but not camels. If a camel weakened it and then the ox fell in, is the owner held responsible? The second version is that the question was about a cover that could withstand both oxen but not camels, and camels commonly pass by. However, the cover was not weakened by camels but rotted. Is the law that since the owner was negligent as the cover could not withstand camels, the owner is considered negligent regarding rotting, even though it is highly unlikely that the cover would rot? Or is the law that since rotting was unexpected, the owner is exempt? The second version of the question is ultimately answered from a braita.

Bava Kamma 51 - Shabbat December 23, 11 Tevet Dec 22, 2023

A bor of less than ten handbreadths does not kill. If so, why did Rav Nachman rule that an animal that had fallen into a pit less than ten handbreadths (six) and was then slaughtered, was not kosher for eating as he must have been a treifa (going to die anyway)? Rava brings our Mishna and two other tannaitic sources to raise a difficulty with Rav Nachman's ruling. In cases where two people own the bor or a responsible for it, who assumes responsibility? How is it possible to have a bor owned by two people? At what point does the responsibility shift from one to the other?

Bava Kamma 50 - December 22, 10 Tevet Dec 22, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 50

Today's daf is sponsored by Shira and Dori Dishon in loving memory of their son, Eitan Dishon, who heroically fought in Gaza. "He loved learning Torah and encourage his father to learn daf yomi with him. We will b'ezrat Hashem complete that for him."

Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael debate what the classic case of bor is - in public property or in private property that was made public but the owner retains ownership of the bor. Raba and Rav Yosef each hold that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael agree about the law in one case (public/private) and disagree about the other. Raba holds that they agree about public property and Rav Yosef holds the opposite. Rav Yosef's opinion is questioned by two braitot but they are resolved. A story is brought about a reservoir digger, Nehunia ben haKane, who dug cisterns for public use and whose daughter fell into a pit and was saved. A theological statement is made about why she never would have died in that way because of her father's actions. However, Rav Acha points out that his son died from thirst, even though his father had dug the cisterns so people would have water to drink on the way to Jerusalem for the holidays. He explains that God is particular with righteous people in a very exacting manner. What is the source of this? One should not remove stones from their property and place them in the public domain. Rav and Shmuel argue about whether one is responsible for bor because the fumes of the bor can kill/injure or also because of the impact of the hit on the floor of the bor. Two sources are brought to raise a difficulty with Rav's position (fumes). Within the response to the first difficulty, the Gemara explains why the Mishna needed to bring a long list of different types of items that fall under the category of bor - what is unique about each one?

Bava Kamma 49 - December 21, 9 Tevet Dec 21, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored l'ilui nishmat David ben Avraham v'Naomi on his 6th yahrzeit.

An animal who attacks a pregnant woman and she miscarries does not pay the value of the fetus but a person who attacks a pregnant woman does pay. This is because the verse in the Torah only mentions payment for a fetus regarding a case where a man attacked a pregnant woman. How is the amount evaluated? Is it possible there is some case where one would pay the value of an animal fetus? Rashbag disagrees with the rabbis of the Mishna but two different interpretations are brought regarding the point of contention. The payment of the fetus goes to the husband. If the husband is no longer alive, it goes to his heirs, but what if he is a convert or a freed Caananite servant and has no inheritors, does the payment go to the wife? A distinction is also made (according to one opinion) between the value of the fetus and the value of the woman who is now larger from eating more as a result of the pregnancy. The Gemara brings other laws regarding the property of converts after their death. Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree over what is the classic case of bor in the Torah?

Bava Kamma 48 - December 20, 8 Tevet Dec 20, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 48

Today's daf is sponsored by Suri Stern in loving memory of her grandmother Esther Davis on her yahrtzeit. "May she watch over her namesakes and continue to be a melitzat yosher for her family and all klal Yisrael."

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family for the continued full and speedy recovery of Netanel Yaakov ben Yehudit Sara, who bravely and heroically defends Am Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael, בתוך שאר חולי ישראל. ה' עוז לעמו יתן, ה' יברך את עמו בשלום.

If one brings in an animal or item to another's domain with permission and the owner accepts responsibility, does the responsibility include protecting from damage by someone else's animal that was trespassing or only from animals/items of the owner? Rava brings two other laws about related cases where the animal in another's field becomes a bor (pit) case and one more case where a person comes into another's property with/without permission and the owner attacks the other, is the owner liable for damages or not? The next case in the Mishna is analyzed - when the animal falls into a pit in the owner's property and contaminates the water or kills a person inside the pit. Exactly in what scenario is the water case - when the animal contaminates on the way down into the pit or after falling there? In the case of killing, the owner pays kofer, ransom. Three possible explanations are given to explain why one is obligated. 1. It must be a shur muad. 2. It can be a shor tam according to the opinion that a shor tam pays half the ransom (Rabbi Yosi haGelili). 3. It can be a shor tam, Rabbi Yosi haGelili, it can owe a ransom payment, and according to Rabbi Tarfon's opinion that goring in the owner's property always pays full damages and would therefore be liable to pay the full ransom.

Bava Kamma 47 - December 19, 7 Tevet Dec 19, 2023

What is a homeowner's liability if someone brings in items without permission or with permission? What is the liability of damages caused by the item by the one who brought it in? By permitting to bring in the item, the homeowner assumes responsibility for any damages to the item. Rebbi disagrees and says unless the owner explicitly said he/she would watch it, the owner has not accepted the responsibility of a shomer. Suppose fruits are left without permission and the animal gets damaged from eating them. Rav holds the owner of the fruits is not responsible (only if the animal tripped on the fruits) because he/she can say, "What was the animal doing eating my fruits?" Three difficulties are raised against Rav but are resolved.

Bava Kamma 46 - December 18, 6 Tevet Dec 18, 2023

From where does Rabbi Eliezer derive his position that the only way to "protect" a shor muad from damaging others is to kill him? The Mishna in the beginning of the fifth chapter sets up two cases with a cow and her fetus - in the first case, the cow is gored by an ox (shor tam) and killed and the dead fetus is beside her also dead. However, it is unclear whether the death occurred before the goring or after and therefore unclear whether the owner of the ox owes damages for the fetus. In the second case, the cow gored and ox and is found with a newborn calf beside her and again it is unclear whether the calf was born before or after. If it was born after, the fetus is used to pay for damages as well. In both cases, the fetus is a case of doubt so a quarter damage is paid by/for the fetus instead of half. This is based on Sumchus' position that when in doubt regarding money, both parties split the amount. The rabbis disagree and hold the burden of proof lies on the one who is requesting money from the other party (hamotzi mechavero alav hareaya). They say that this is an important principle. Why was it necessary to say that? The Gemara brings two possible situations to answer that question. One is that even if the one who was damaged makes a definitive claim (bari) and the other side is not making a definitive claim (shema), we still hold by the principle (that the burden of proof is on the one who was damaged). The second is that even though in general we follow the majority, in cases of monetary this, this principle overrides that. What is the source of this principle? In the second case of the Mishna, the owner pays half the value of the cow and a quarter of the value of the newborn calf. The Gemara asks, why does the owner of the ox get three-quarters of the damage in this case when they should only be getting half? In response, Abaye understands the Mishna differently - 'half' means a quarter, 'a quarter' means an eighth, which amounts to three-eighths, as there were two animals responsible so each only covers half the amount that they should have had to pay if they acted by themselves. They explain Abaye's case only if the cow and its offspring had different owners. Rava rejects Abaye's explanation as it doesn't fit with the words of the Mishna and suggests an alternative explanation.

Bava Kamma 45 - December 17, 5 Tevet Dec 17, 2023

The month of Tevet is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in honor of his nephews Brian and Michael Racer, and to all the members of tzahal who put their lives on the line to defend our country every day.

This week's learning is sponsored by Tal Clein. "I love learning Daf with Hadran."

Today’s daf is sponsored by Judi Felber in loving memory of Yovel MorYosef and Yossi Cohen on their 5th yartzeit, who were killed in a terror attack (ה' טבת) at Givat Assaf, and for the continued refuah sheleima of her son, Netanel Ilan ben Shayna Tzipora, who was critically injured in the attack.

Today's daf is sponsored in memory of the three hostages killed by mistake on Friday - Yotam Chaim, Alon Shamriz and Samar Talalka.

If an animal kills a person and is sentenced to death, one cannot derive any benefit from the animal. Therefore at that point, if one sells it or dedicates it to the Temple, the sale/dedication is invalid. If one slaughters it, the meat is forbidden. However, before the court's ruling, all those acts are valid. If someone is watching (shomer) someone else's animal and the animal kills a person and is sentenced to death - can they return the animal to the owner after the sentencing or not? The Rabbis and Rabbi Yaakov disagree. The Gemara first suggests that the debate is about whether one can fulfill one's obligation to return a stolen/guarded item if the item is now forbidden to benefit from (are damages that can't be seen considered damages). But this is rejected based on a Mishna in Bava Kamma 96b where it seems that all agree that chametz that was stolen can be returned after Pesach (in the event it was not sold) even though it is now forbidden to benefit from. Instead, the argument is about whether or not the animal has to appear in court - if he does, then the original owner can blame the shomer for bringing it to court and claim that had the animal been returned before the animal was brought to court, the original owner would have sent the animal to a marsh to avoid the death sentence. What is the level of responsibility of shomrim for damages? A braita is brought and then it is determined according to which opinion is the braita holding. There is a four-way argument regarding what level of watching is expected of an owner of a shor tam and a shor muad and is sufficient to exempt the owner from paying damages. Is the halacha the same for both types of animals (tam and muad) or different?

Bava Kamma 44 - Shabbat December 16, 4 Tevet Dec 15, 2023

Why was it necessary for the verses in the Torah to specify that an animal is killed even if it killed a minor? Is this the case also if it was a shor tam? If an animal kills without intent to kill or with intent to kill an animal and killed a person and other such cases, the animal is not killed, but Rav and Shmuel have a debate about whether or not the ransom needs to be paid. The Gemara brings in the opinion of Rabbi Shimon who holds that even if a person tried to kill someone but killed someone else instead, he is not punished by death. He would hold the same to be true for an animal who kills. And this would disagree with the tana of our mishna. From where in the Torah is each opinion derived? Once an animal is sentenced to death, it is forbidden to benefit from it. Therefore, if one sells it, the sale is invalid and likewise if one dedicates it to the Temple, it is not sacred and if one slaughters it, the meat is forbidden. However, before the sentence, all those acts are valid.

Bava Kamma 43 - December 15, 3 Tevet Dec 15, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 43

Why does the verse regarding a shor muad mention that the shor killed either a man or a woman? Rabbi Akiva learned from here that the ransom (kofer) payment for a woman goes to her heirs and not to her husband. This is because a husband inherits his wife's property that was owned by her at the time of death, but not money that will be coming to her after her death. There is a discussion about money that is owed to the woman - is that considered in her hands at the time of death or not? Does it depend on if it is money or property? There is a three-way argument about whether there is a ransom payment for a case where an animal killed a person without intent and is there the payment of the fine of thirty shekalim if one killed a slave without intent? Is the ransom payment/fine for a slave integrally connected to the obligation to stone the animal (meaning, if the animal does not get stoned, there is no ransom or fine)? If there is no ransom payment or fine, would there also be an obligation to financially compensate the family for their loss?

Bava Kamma 42 - December 14, 2 Tevet Dec 14, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Rachel Savin in honor of the engagement of her daughter Lior to Daniel Machlof from New Jersey. "May they build a beit neeman b'Yisrael, a house of Torah and ahavat chinam. We are praying for the safe return of the hostages and all of our soldiers, and for nechama for the families of those who have fallen, and for a refuah shleima for all those injured."

Today's daf is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Avigdor ben Hinda Eila.

Two more explanations (in addition to the three in Bava Kamma 41) are brought to explain what the words in the verse regarding a shor tam "and the owner of the ox is clean (exempt)" come to exclude/teach. Rabbi Yosi haGelili holds that it exempts payment for an animal that causes a woman to miscarry. Rabbi Akiva holds that it exempts payment for a shor tam who kills a slave. Each is questioned as they seem unnecessary at first but then explained.

Bava Kamma 41 - Rosh Chodesh Tevet - December 13, 1 Tevet Dec 13, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Ellie Gellman in honor of Becky Portnoe's retirement. "Wishing you a healthy, relaxing and interesting new stage of life. And of course, now you will have lots more time for the daf!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Rabbi Nicki Greninger in loving memory of Rabbi David Ellenson. "Beloved teacher, rabbi, leader, colleague, friend who brought so much light and love to the world and to the Jewish people. He was a fierce supporter of Israel, dedicated in the core of his neshama to teaching and learning, one of the greatest leaders of our generation. His menschlekeit was unparalleled. On this Chanukah and Rosh Chodesh, when we desperately need light, may his wisdom, leadership, and enormous heart continue to light our paths."

According to the Torah, both a shor tam and a shor muad who kill a person get stoned, but the kofer (ransom) payment is only for a shur muad. If a shor tam who kills get stoned, how can the animal become a shor muad who kills someone? Different rabbis suggest eight different scenarios of how this can be - however many of the answers are rejected. The Gemara then brings a braita that explains what is learned from the words in the verse regarding the stoning of the animal, "and its flesh should not be eaten." Do we derive from those words that it is forbidden to eat the animal if one slaughtered it before it was stoned or that one cannot benefit from the meat after the animal is stoned? What is derived from other phrases in that verse? In the verse regarding the shor tam, it says, "And the owner of the ox shall be clear." Some derive from this that one cannot benefit from the ox, others that they cannot benefit from the hide, but Rabbi Eliezer learns from the phrase that there is no ransom payment for the owner of a shor tam who kills a person. Rabbi Akiva questions why there is even a need for a drasha teaching this, as since the ox would be killed, and half payment of a shor tam is from the body of the animal, presumably the ransom payment would be as well, and in this case, there is no body from which to pay! Rabbi Eliezer offers several possible suggestions of cases where the animal would not get killed, and in those cases a verse is needed to say that there is also no ransom payment.

Bava Kamma 40 - December 12, 29 Kislev Dec 12, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 40

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Shapiro and Shira Krebs in memory of Ari Yehiel Zenilman, Ari Yechiel ben Avraham Reuven v'Miriam HY"D, who fell in battle yesterday. May his family know no more sorrow.

Rava and Abaye each gave different explanations for Rabbi Yaakov's opinion regarding an animal owned by one who is deaf, not mentally capable, or a minor - the guardian pays half damages. Why did Rava not choose a more simple straightforward explanation? A guardian can be obligated to pay the full payment but does not pay ransom payment in the event the animal kills a person. This is because a minor is not obligated in this payment as it is for atonement purposes and not for compensation. Is the nature of the ransom payment a tannaitic debate? Some other questions regarding the nature of the ransom payment are raised by Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov and he stumps Rav Nachman on them. His questions were: Can joint owners share it and if so, how? Can we assume one would take it as seriously as one who is obligated a sin or guilt offering? Two issues are raised in a braita about an animal who is borrowed - one where the borrower thinks he is a shor tam but he was a shor muad - the law is that they share the full payment (each pays half). If the ox became a shor muad while he was borrowed but when he is returned to the original owner, he reverts to being a shor tam. What is the reasoning behind these laws and how can a seeming contradiction between the two be resolved? Can an animal used for bullfights who kills a person be used for a sacrifice?

Bava Kamma 39 - December 11, 28 Kislev Dec 11, 2023

What are the laws regarding an ox owned by a child, a deaf-mute or a shoteh? A guardian is appointed so that the ox can become a shor muad. If the ox becomes muad, does the guardian pay or the child/deaf-mute, shoteh? Once a guardian is appointed, if the ox gores, is the animal liable to damages as a shor tam? Or is the guardian established only to create a shor muad, a forewarned ox?

Bava Kamma 38 - December 10, 27 Kislev Dec 10, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Jeremy Booty in loving memory of Yehonatan Ezra ben Yarden Yehoshua v' Leah Deborah on his yahrzeit.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Mindy Feldman Hecht and family in loving memory of Dr. Charles Feldman z”l. "Beloved husband, father and Saba, devoted doctor and communal leader. He would have found light in these dark days from Torah learning and strength from his family members currently serving Medinat Yisrael. May HaShem protect them and bring all the hostages home safely. Chanukah sameach u’meir."

Today's daf is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to the refuah of their son-in-law Boaz Shlomo Ben Shulamit Sara who was lightly wounded in Gaza on Shabbat morning. Wishing him and all of our wounded in the war a refuah shlema. To all of Am Yisrael -Niflaot veyishuot, niflaot unehamot.

Today's daf is dedicated to the refuah shleima of Netanel Yaakov ben Yehudit Sara, who was injured in Gaza.

If one's animal injures a gentile's ox, the owner is exempt from payment. If a gentile's ox injured a Jew's ox, the owner pays a full payment, even if the animal was a shor tam. Why is this the case? Two different verses are brought to suggest that the gentiles were penalized by God for either not accepting the seven Noahide laws or the Torah. Since they had no system of law, were it not for the obligation to pay damages, their oxen would not be watched and would be a hazard to others. Would this apply to all gentiles? Does a gentile get rewarded for learning Torah? What is appropriate and not appropriate to be said to someone mourning a loss? Ulla disagreed with the Babylonian rabbis on this issue. A discussion of the merits of Amon and Moav is brought and what lesson can be learned from them. How do we treat the Samaritans in terms of laws of damages - like gentiles or like Jews? Why?

Bava Kamma 37 - Shabbat Chanuka - December 9, 26 Kislev Dec 08, 2023

If an animal is muad (forewarned, as the animal already gored that type of animal three times) for damaging other animals of its type, does that make the animal muad for all types of animals? If the animal is muad for people, then is the animal also considered muad for animals? If it is muad for small animals, is it muad for large animals? There are two alternative readings of the Mishna, which lead to different answers to those questions. The two different readings are brought and analyzed. Other situations of determining patterns are brought and difficulties are raised. Comparisons are made to similar issues and rules used for determining whether a woman has a set pattern for her menstrual cycle. An animal that belongs to the temple is exempt from damages. But the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasia disagree regarding liability for a privately owned animal that gores a temple-owned animal - is the owner fully exempt or liable to pay full damages, even if the animal is tam.

Bava Kamma 36 - 1st Day of Chanuka - December 8, 25 Kislev Dec 08, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 36

This week's learning is sponsored by Adina and Danny Gewirtz in honor of the newest Meir in their family, Meir Amichai, and in loving memory of the original Meir, Adina's father, Melvin Rishe, on his 22nd yahrtzeit. "Dad was a man of many talents, a great talmid chacham, community leader, and a staunch defender of Israel in both his personal and professional life, but for us, he is most remembered for the love he showered on his family and friends. The many children named after him attest to how much he is loved and missed. He would be so proud to have this newest member of the family named after him and also with the hope that the name Meir Amichai expresses. Am Yisrael Chai!"

Today’s daf is sponsored by Arthur Gould in Olam haZeh and Carol Robinson in Olam haBa in loving memory of Carol’s father Louis Robinson, Yehuda Leib ben Moshe z”l. “Today, the first day of Hanukkah, we mark his 24th yahrzeit. Louis was a devoted family man and active participant in his synagogue. Lou was the consummate dad; he never went to bed until his daughters came safely home from dates and outings. For sure he is with Carol right now. We loved him and miss him very much."

When there is a doubt about which ox injured another, but both the oxen who potentially caused the injury are owned by the same owner, the Mishna rules that they are both liable. Is this a case of a short muad or a short tam? Why is the language "both are liable" used when it seems to mean the owner is responsible? The fourth chapter begins with a debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon about a shor tam who attacks 4 or 5 times in a row. Who gets paid what? What is the reasoning behind their opinions and how do they fit in with the broader approaches of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael regarding whether the owner of the damaged one has rights to the animal who caused the damage or is more like a creditor who is owed money? Can we derive from our Mishna whether or not when a Mishna refers to a sela, they mean the sela tzuri, higher valued currency (4 zuzim) or the sela medina, lower valued currency, (half a zuz) one-eighth the value of the tzuri?

Bava Kamma 35 - December 7, 24 Kislev Dec 07, 2023

The Mishna brings cases comparing situations where an animal and a person may do the same damage but one would be obligated to pay damages and the other would not. If a person burns a field on Shabbat the person is exempt from payment of damages as when one does an action punishable by death, one is exempt from monetary payment. This Mishna raises a question against Rabbi Yochanan's view that one who burns as a destructive act has not desecrated Shabbat since one is only liable for creative acts performed on Shabbat. Two alternative readings of the Mishna are brought to answer this question. If an ox was chasing another ox and one ox was injured but there are different claims made by each of the owners about whether the damage was caused by the animal or by a rock, or if there were three animals and each owner claims the other's ox caused the damage, or the owner has two oxen, one large and one small or one tam and one muad, and each owner claims it was a different ox that caused the damage, the burden of proof lies with the one trying to claim the money from the other. Rabbi Chiya bar Abba holds that Sumchus would disagree in these cases and say that the money in question is split between the two sides. The Gemara tries to assess whether the case is where each is confident in their claim (bari) or one is confident and the other is not (shema).

Bava Kamma 34 - December 6, 23 Kislev Dec 06, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Hoffman-Wade in loving memory of Simcha Collins on her first yahrzeit. "Beloved scholar, romantic, and deep searcher, her love of Torah was not even closely satisfied by our twice weekly meeting to study and learn. My havruta of many years, Simcha, had a deep need to turn Torah, to be fiercely feminist, and have a multilayered mystic belief in Hashem. I miss you every day."

What rights does the owner of a shor tam or a shor muad have to sell their animal after it caused damage, designate it to the temple, slaughter it, or give it as a gift? Does it matter if it is before standing before the court? What if a creditor collected the animal as payment? Does it matter if the creditor had a lien on the animal before or after it caused the damage? Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree on how to explain the payment for damages in the classic case of shor tam described in the Torah - it says both owners split the value of the animal that caused damage and the value of the carcass of the dead animal. They disagree about whether the owner of the shor tam has rights also to the carcass of the animal the ox gored. There is a discussion regarding what is the practical difference between the two opinions since both agree that in a typical case, the bottom line payment is the same. In particular cases, it seems Rabbi Yehuda could potentially hold that the owner of the ox who damaged can gain on the deal or, on the other extreme, pay more than the damage the ox caused. Therefore, it is explained that Rabbi Yehuda would not interpret the verse to apply in those cases. The Mishna states that there are some cases where one is liable to pay for damages done by their ox, but not by a person as a person would be exempt on account of kim lei d'beraba minei, if the action comes with a death penalty, there is no obligation to pay. Alternatively, there are cases where a person would be liable for damages that the owner of an ox would not be, as oxen who embarrass someone are not liable to pay for that.

Bava Kamma 33 - December 5, 22 Kislev Dec 05, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 33

Today's daf is sponsored by Nina Black in honor of Jane Shapiro's birthday. "To my friend, machatenista, chevruta, and essential piece of my life, Happy Birthday. I am so lucky to have known you since I was three, and to share community, grandchildren and life with you. Happy Birthday, עד 120 !"

If one enters a workshop and gets injured by the person working there, is the workshop owner obligated in the four payments for damages, and if there is an accidental death, does the owner need to go to a refuge city? Does it depend on whether the injured/dead person entered with permission or not? Is this the case where Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chanina made his statement that one is obligated in four payments of damages but exempt from going to a refuge city? Or did he say it about a case where one threw a rock in a public domain and after it was thrown, someone stuck their head out a window and was injured/killed by the rock? If one went to one's employer's house to get paid and was attacked by an animal of the employer, is the employer obligated or not? On what does it depend? How do we calculate damages in a case where two animals attacked each other, or two people attacked each other, or a person and an animal? If a shor tam attacks, since the owner needs to pay up to the value of his/her animal, does that mean that the ox is designated payment for the loan or not? There is an argument about this between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael and the ramifications of this argument are discussed and various sources are brought to try to see whose opinion they fit in with.

Bava Kamma 32 - December 4, 21 Kislev Dec 04, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 32

The Mishna brings a case of two people who are walking in the street - one with a beam and the other with a jug, if the beam breaks the jug, is the one walking with the beam responsible? On what does it depend? Raba bar Natan asks Rav Huna a question about a husband who injures his wife while having intercourse - does he need to compensate her or not? Rav Huna answers that we can learn from our Mishna that if he is permitted to be there, he does not need to pay for damages. Rava disagrees because he compares it to one who killed someone accidentally and is obligated to go to a refuge city even though the murderer had permission to be there. In addition, the Mishna referred to a case where the damage happened without any action taken on behalf of the one carrying the beam. Reish Lakish distinguishes between a case where two cows were on the road - one walking (typical behavior) and the other was crouching (atypical behavior) and one kicked the other. In which case is the owner obligated and in which case is the owner exempt? The Gemara tries to provide support for his ruling from two of the cases in our Mishna, but both attempts are unsuccessful. What is the law if one person is running in the public domain and one is walking and they bump into each other and cause damage? What if they are both running? Is there a difference if it happens on erev Shabbat when people are permitted to run to prepare for Shabbat? If one is chopping trees in one domain and the chips fly into another domain and injure, is the one chopping obligated? A braita compares a similar case with a store owner and someone walks into the store with/without permission. What is the difference in the ruling? Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chanina said that one is obligated four types of payments for damages and is exempt from going to a refuge city. Was his statement qualifying the case in the braita where one was obligated or the case where one was exempt?

Bava Kamma 31 - December 3, 20 Kislev Dec 03, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 31

This week's learning is sponsored by Tova and David Kestenbaum in honor of the recent birth of their grandsons, Tsuri Amiad, born to their children Mira and Etan Kestenbaum, and Yehudah Shalom, born to their children Daniella and Amit Nistenpover. "May their parents merit raising them in the ways of Torah, Mitzvot and good deeds. And may this simcha be a blessing for Am Yisrael."

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of Dora Chana Haar and Evie. "As we share in our Daf sister Dora Chana Haar and family’s joy and gratitude as Evie (Chava Naami bat Daba Chana) completes her chemotherapy. May Evie, all cholei Yisrael and our brothers and sisters in captivity speedily experience רפואות וישועות!"

Bava Kamma 30 - Shabbat December 2, 19 Kislev Dec 01, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 30

If one spills water in public, the Mishna holds that person responsible for damages it incurs. Rav again limits this to damage to clothing, not to a person. If so, what does this Mishna add to the previous Mishna? What are the laws regarding one who conceals thorns or broken glass in their own wall? What if they conceal it in someone else's wall and the owner of the wall breaks it? If one wants to be pious, there is a debate about whether one should learn nezikin, avot or berakhot. If one lays out straw/hay in the public domain to create fertilizer, and it causes damage, one is liable for the damages and the rabbis penalized the one who put it out and declared it ownerless. However, there is a debate between tana kama and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and it is unclear what they disagree about. Can the Mishna be explained according to Rabbi Yehuda who seems to think that one can create fertilizer in the public domain? Does the fact that one is allowed to do something, remove the responsibility for damage it may cause? Rav and Zeiri disagree about whether the straw itself becomes ownerless or only the amount that it increased in value by turning into fertilizer. Is this a debate among tanaim as well? Is that the issue that the rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagree about in our Mishna?

Bava Kamma 29 - December 1, 18 Kislev Dec 01, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 29

Today's daf is sponsored by Beth Hait in loving memory of Julie Adler, Golda Zahava Chana bat Harav Pinchas Eliezer v'Faiga Rosa. "May her spirit of warmth and kindness continue to shine through her children and grandchildren."

Today's daf is sponsored by Helen Danczak in honor of her father's yahrzeit. "Remembering him and his love and care of our family."

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom Family in honor of our dear friend Ruth Leah Kahan and her husband, David. "We are praying for his full and quick recovery and for the recovery of the individual who received his kidney! The idea of reciprocity and payback is central to what we're learning now in Daf Yomi. But the idea of a chesed that cannot be repaid is something we always strive for. Ruth, we are in awe of the chesed that you and your husband, David, embody in donating his kidney. We should all merit to live this life of giving."

There are several different ways to explain the two opinions (Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda) in the Mishna regarding one who breaks a jug in the public thoroughfare and the broken pieces or the water that spilled damage someone else. Issues raised relate to - is an accident/careless behavior considered negligence or unintentional damage? If one leaves items in a public space and renounces ownership, is the person responsible for any damage it may cause, or is one responsible only if one still owns the item? Is there a difference if the items were there because they were placed intentionally or on account of an accident? Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree about one who renounces one's property in the public thoroughfare - do they pay damages or not? However, it is not clear who holds which position. Different statements of Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yochanan are brought to conclude who held which opinion. In doing so, they analyze different cases and make distinctions between cases where one may or may not be held responsible.

Bava Kamma 28 - November 30, 17 Kislev Nov 30, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 28

Today's daf is sponsored by Cheryl Goldschmidt in loving memory of her father, Edward Tager, Yitzchak Isaac Simcha ben Yechiel Mechel, on his 10th yahrtzeit.

Today's daf is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs in loving memory of Shira's father, Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib haKohen v'Menucha Sara on his 2nd yahrzeit.

Can one take the law into one's own hands? Under what circumstances? Rav Yehuda and Rav Nachman both agree that if there will be a financial loss from waiting to go to court, then one is allowed to, but if not, they disagree. Rav Yehuda does not allow it, Rav Nachman does. Several sources are brought in an attempt to determine which answer is correct, but each source is inconclusive. If one dropped one's pitcher in the public thoroughfare and it broke and someone slipped and got injured, is the person responsible for damage caused to vessels? For damage caused to a person? Does it matter if the damage was from the ground or from the shards or water itself that slipped out of the pitcher? Rav limits liability to a case where vessels/clothes were damaged as if a person was injured, it was from the ground, not the water. However, Shmuel views the water as bor-type damages which are exempt from damaging vessels. Rav views the water as shor-type damages, as the water belongs to the owner, and distinguishes between a case where the owner made the water ownerless (would be exempt) or did not (liable). A braita is brought which raises a difficulty with both Rav and Shmuel's position but is resolved. In the case of the water spill, Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with Rabbi Meir (the unnamed tana in the Mishna) and says one is liable only if there was intent. Raba explains the intent - intent to lower the jug down and then it fell and broke. Rabbi Meir who disagrees would then hold, that even if it just broke without any action on the part of the one holding it, one would be liable. How can this be true if the Torah exempted one when the circumstances are completely out of one's control (oness).

Bava Kamma 27 - November 29, 16 Kislev Nov 29, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Ruth Leah Kahan in honor of her husband, David, who is currently in surgery donating a kidney altruistically. "I wish him and whoever receives it skilled surgeons, and speedy and complete recoveries. I am very proud of him."

Today's daf is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs in loving memory of Shira's grandfather, Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber haKohen v'Malkah.

If someone throws something out a window and on its way down, someone smashes it with a baseball bat, who is responsible? What if it were a child that was thrown? What if an ox gored it on the way down and not a person? If someone falls off a roof onto someone, depending on whether the person fell from a typical wind or an atypical wind will affect the level of responsibility and what will be the compensation. What type of intent is required to fulfill the mitzva of yibum? Even though people are always responsible for their actions, there is a debate among the commentaries as to whether or not there is an exemption for a situation that was completely out of one's control. The Mishna discusses a case where one leaves a jug in the middle of the street and someone breaks it, the one who broke it is exempt. If the person gets hurt by it, the owner of the jug is responsible for paying damages. First, the Gemara questions the language in the Mishna - it first used the term kad, a jug, then switched to chavit, a barrel. What can be derived from this? The rabbis have trouble understanding why the person who broke it is not held responsible for breaking someone else's jug. Four answers are given and those answers have important ramifications in understanding when one would be held liable. Can one take the law into one's own hands? Under what circumstances?

Bava Kamma 26 - November 28, 15 Kislev Nov 28, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 26

The Gemara suggests a number of kal v'chomer arguments to reach conclusions opposite of what is known to be the case, such as, one should be obligated for shen and regel damages in the public domain as can be derived from keren in the public domain. Each suggestion is rejected based on inferences from the verses in the Torah. Is there a ransom payment only by keren damages or would one also pay a ransom payment if an animal killed a person by trampling them on the property of the one who was killed? From a braita, they derived that Rabbi Tarfon holds that there can be a ransom payment for one who kills by trampling. The Mishna discusses the responsibility of a person for damages. A person is always responsible, even if it was an accident or someone damaged while sleeping. Raba brings a list of cases where an act was done unintentionally and discusses the law for different areas of law - damages, melacha on Shabbat, going to a refuge city for killing unintentionally, and damage to a Caananite slave on account of which a slave may go free.

Bava Kamma 25 - November 27, 14 Kislev Nov 27, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 25

Today's daf is dedicated for a refuah shleima to Alma Avraham, a hostage who was returned yesterday to Israel in critical condition. We are praying also for the health of all the other hostages who returned home and for the health and safety of the many who are still being held hostage.

Rabbi Tarfon and the rabbis disagree about whether one is liable for keren damages in the property of the nizak (the one who was damaged) half or full damages. To prove his opinion, Rabbi Tarfon bring a kal v'chomer argument from shen and regel (exempt) in the public domain and keren (half damages)in the public domain. The rabbis say that since it is derived from a case of half damages, one is not able to learn full damages as kal v'chomer arguments cannot be used to teach a law that is stricter than the original case (dayo). Rabbi Tarfon holds that this principle is not used in a case where if one were to employ dayo (limit the law), it would obviate the need for the kal v'chomer. Is there an opinion that does not think the principle of dayo is true in any case? Two tannaitic sources are brought to try to raise a difficulty and show that there is a tana who does not employ the principle dayo in any case. However, both sources are not able to show that there is a tana who holds that way.

Bava Kamma 24 - Shabbat November 26, 13 Kislev Nov 26, 2023

This week's learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of Irving “poppy” Mauskopf, Yechezchel Ben Avrohom and Rachel. "A man who had complete Emunah. In good and bad times. And exemplified the meaning of 'Who is rich? A person that is happy with his lot.' May his neshama have an aliyah."

This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of my grandfather, Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. "My grandfather was hard working, loved to sing, especially as a chazan and brought up his family to be committed to the mesora."

Today's daf is sponsored by Rhona Fink in memory of her brother Yisrael Tzvi ben Chaim v'Malca on his 15th yahrzeit. His memory continues to inspire me to make the world a better place.

How does an animal become a shor muad? Do the three occurrences need to be on separate days or can they be all on the same day? Can this be derived from laws of a zava or are those laws derived from unique wording of the Torah and therefore only relevant for a zava? According to the opinion that the occurrences need to be on three separate days, is the purpose to show that the animal is prone to dangerous behavior or is it for the purposes of warning the owner to watch his/her animal? The Gemara derives from a Tosefta Bava Kamma 2:3 that the purpose is for the animal. If one incites a dog and the dog bites someone else, the inciter is exempt but is the owner of the dog liable? Two sources are brought (including our Mishna) to answer this question but difficulties are raised against each one. If one incites a dog and the dog bites that person, Rava exempts the dog's owner as the inciter instigated the dog. The Mishna delves into keren damages. What falls under that category? Rabbi Tarfon and the rabbis disagree regarding keren damages of a shor tam that occurred on the property of the one who was damaged - does the owner of the animal pay full damages or only half?

Bava Kamma 23 - Shabbat November 25, 12 Kislev Nov 24, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Ruthie, Ira, Elsa, Julianna, Reuben, Elia, Adele, Emanuel, and Arianne in honor of Elana Storch's birthday. "Mom/Savte, We so admire the example you set for all of us in your commitment to Talmud Torah. We love you. Happy birthday."

Rabbi Yochanan's approach that fire is like a person shooting arrows is questioned and it is explained that he holds that it is both like arrows and because it is owner's property. What then is the difference between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish? When a cow eats someone else's food and brings the food into its mouth, is it considered that it is now in the property of the cow (the one who is doing the damage) and therefore since it is eating (shen) and shen is exempt if it takes place not in the property of the one who is damaged, the owner of the cow is exempt or do we say that if the cow is standing in the property of the one who he is causing damage to, the cow's mouth is considered in the property of the one who is causing damage to and the owner would be liable? When does an animal become muad? What circumstances would need to happen for a muad to revert back to being a tam?

Bava Kamma 22 - November 24, 11 Kislev Nov 24, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 22

Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree regarding the nature of the reason for one's liability for damage caused by fire. Is the damage caused by the fire similar to a person shooting arrows or is it like damage caused by their property, i.e. the fire is seen as the property of the one who lit it and therefore similar to a person's ox or pit damaging? The Gemara attempts, unsuccessfully, to prove Rabbi Yochanan's approach - fire is like a person shooting an arrow.

Bava Kamma 21 - November 23, 10 Kislev Nov 23, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Diana Bloom in loving memory of her grandmother, Ita Rosa Sonabend Marmurek, on her yahrzeit. "Her strong character, fierce dedication to her family, unwavering Zionism and commitment to the Jewish community both in Buenos Aires and globally continue to serve as a role model and inspiration."

The rabbis continue to debate the issue of a squatter, one who lives on someone else's property without the owner's knowledge - is there an obligation to pay rent? Some explain that the squatter is helping the owner because living on the property prevents an evil spirit called shi'iya from possessing the house and helps prevent deterioration as the squatter will find issues and fix them up. A man built a palace on the garbage heap of orphans and Ran Nachman confiscated his palace until he paid rent to the orphans. On what basis did he rule this way? The Mishna differentiated between shen damages (eating) in the public domain and on the sides of the public domain. Rav and Shmuel debate what the law is if the animal is in the middle of the public thoroughfare but turns its head to the side and eats from the sides of the public domain. Others say that their debate was regarding a different situation - where one designated area in their private domain to be open and accessible to the public - is it treated as public property (exempt if the animal eats food) or private property (liable for eating)? Would they have the same debate regarding a pit dug in one's private domain that was then opened to the public? A dog or goat who jumps off the roof and breaks vessels is considered expected damage and the owner pays full damage. However, the owner would be exempt if the dog or goat fell off. This seems to imply that if one began with an act of negligence and ended with unexpected damage, one is exempt. The Gemara tries to explain how the Mishna could be explained according to the position that one who begins with an act of negligence, is responsible even if in the end the damage was from unexpected damage.

Bava Kamma 20 - November 22, 9 Kislev Nov 22, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 20

Today's daf is sponsored by Tina & Shalom Lamm with gratitude to HKB"H on the occasion of the brit and naming of their new grandson, Nadav Oz, born to their children, Bracha & Akiva Berger.

If an animal eats in the public domain, the owner is not liable. However, there are some exceptions where something in the public domain can be considered private, such as taking food off the back of another animal. Also if the animal takes the food in an atypical manner, the owner will be liable (half damages as it is considered keren). If eating is exempt in the public domain, what is the law if the animal rolled the food from a private domain into the public domain and then ate it (or from public to private)? The owner is exempt if the animal eats food in the public domain. However, if there was a benefit to the animal/owner, the owner is responsible for compensating the amount that was benefitted. How is this amount determined? This leads the Gemara to raise a basic question about a squatter, one who lives on another's property without the owner's knowledge. If one benefits and the other has not lost anything by that - is there a need to compensate? Several sources are brought to try to reach an answer but all are rejected.

Bava Kamma 19 - November 21, 8 Kislev Nov 21, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 19

Today's daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz in loving memory of her father, Shragai Cohen, Shraga Faivel ben Avraham ben-Tzion Halevi on his yahrzeit. "His vocation, avocation and love were centered around Israel. He instilled that love in his children and it has been passed down to the next generation."

Today's daf is sponsored by Miriam Tannenbaum, Medinah Korn and Caroline Ofstein l'ilui nishmat Sgt. Binyamin Meir ben Zev David ve-Rachel Pessi, HYD, Binyamin Airley, son of our dear friends Jen and Rob Airley. The quality of gevura and modesty personified him in life and even in death, as he fell defending Am Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael, both of which he loved deeply. His sense of mission was borne out of the home of his parents, whose strength and emunah are formidable and a model to all. Yehi zichro baruch.

A series of questions are asked regarding indirect damages called tzrorot. Is there a concept of tam/muad if the action was done in an atypical manner (like keren) and a tam would only pay one-quarter damages? Would Sumchus agree that if the act was more indirect, i.e. the animal moves pebbles that flew and hit an object which then damages another object, the owner would be liable only for half the damages? The Mishna set up two cases where one is liable for half damages - the animal kicked (keren) and caused damage or pebbles from under the animal's feet damaged vessels. In the latter case, were the pebbles kicked by the animal purposely or did they just move as the animal walked? What is the relevance? Is one liable for tzrorot in the public domain (like keren) or exempt (like regel)? What if they were kicked in the public domain but flew into a private domain and damaged? If an animal wags its tail and causes damages in the public domain, the owner is exempt as it is a subcategory of regel. The Mishna stated that the owner of a chicken who caused damage from a rope tied around its leg pays half the damages. Rav Huna limits this to a case where it got tied to the chicken on its own. The Gemara struggles to understand who is responsible according to this reading and is pushed to understand Rav Huna as adding a case and not limiting the Mishna. What are the main rules of the category of shen? If an animal eats atypical foods, the owner only pays half the damages - but where do we draw the line between typical/atypical?

Bava Kamma 18 - November 20, 7 Kislev Nov 20, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 18

Today's daf is sponsored by Lesley Nadel in loving memory of her sister Ruth Lewis - Rachel bat Hershel haLevi v'Tova, on her 10th yahrzeit. "An aishet chayil who left us too soon, before seeing her children's weddings and meeting her granddaughter. She is missed every day. May her memory be for a blessing."

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Shapiro in loving memory of her father, Albert Tychman's 16th yahrzeit. "He was a tireless and passionate advocate and volunteer fundraiser for the State of Israel during his five decades with the Minneapolis Jewish Federation."

Rava asked three questions regarding indirect damages. If an animal stepped on a vessel and as a result it rolled and then broke, do we rule based on the first action of the animal and make the owner responsible for full damages or do we say it was on account of the rolling that it broke and the owner will only pay half damages? Second question: For the half damage payment for an animal who kicks rocks that then damages a vessel, is it paid from the body of the animal that damaged (gufo) or does the owner have to pay the complete value (aliya) even above and beyond the value of the animal? Third question: Is there a concept of shor tam/shor muad in the law of tzrorot? The Gemara provides sources in an attempt to answer Rava's questions.

Bava Kamma 17 - November 19, 6 Kislev Nov 19, 2023

What was unique about the respect given to Chizkiyahu upon his death? What is more important - learning Torah or keeping mitzvot? Learning Torah or teaching Torah? What rewards are given to those who learn Torah and do acts of kindness, chesed? What are the details of the main category called regel? Where and how is one liable? What are the subcategories? If the animal kicks up pebbles while walking and the pebbles damage something, that is called tzrorot. The rabbis had a tradition that one only pays half damages for tzrorot. However, Sumchus did not have that tradition and held that the owner pay full damages. All these rules apply to chickens as well, not only animals. The first two sentences in the Mishna seem to be saying the same thing. The same phenomenon happens in the next Mishna regarding shen, damage through eating. How is each Mishna explained? Rava compared indirect damages of tzrorot to laws of impurity for a zav. If a zav would move something and it would be impure, laws of damages would apply as well. If it would not be impure by that movement, the owner would be liable for half the damages for that type of movement. This is understood to be referring to a wagon pulled by an animal.

Bava Kamma 16 - Shabbat November 18, 5 Kislev Nov 17, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 16

There are four different ways to understand the Mishna and whether it follows Rabbi Tarfon’s position regarding keren (atypical) damages for a tam animal in a private domain (one pays full damages) or the rabbis' position (half damages). Damage by the animal crouching is considered atypical. But is this only for crouching on large items or also on small ones as well? There are different versions of what Rabbi Elazar ruled regarding this issue and whether a braita was brought to prove or raise a difficulty with his opinion. What is a bardelas mentioned in the Mishna? Shmuel differentiated between a lion who clawed another and ate it and one who attacked an animal with its teeth and ate it. The former was considered typical (exempt in the public domain) and the latter atypical (liable in the public domain). Is it really atypical for a lion to attack another animal and eat it? How is this resolved? How is the payment structure different for a shor tam and a shor muad?

Bava Kamma 15 - November 17, 4 Kislev Nov 17, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 15

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of their co-learner and friend, Debbie Schreiber, on the birth of her grandson this week. "May the new arrival bring the family and the Jewish people much joy and nachat! תזכו לגדלו לתורה לחופה ולמעשים טובים"

Today's daf is sponsored by Sara Berelowitz in honor of her new grandson Amiaz, son of Tani and Moriya Sterman. "The name Amiaz - Ami (my people, my nation) and Az (strength, might and bravery) - symbolizes the strength of our nation."

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family "We are so happy to celebrate the birth of so many new grandchildren in this year, תשפ"ד, an acronym for תהא שנת פתיחת דלתות. Mazal Tov to Tina, Sara, Phyllis, Tova, and anyone else we missed. כן ירבו!"

Who can testify in cases of damages? From where in the Torah do we derive that women are responsible for damages as men and if one damages a woman or her property, they are liable to pay damages as well? In what way does the one whose property was damaged also have to "pay"? In a case where an ox gores (keren) and is a tam (has not behaved in this way three times), the owner needs to pay half the amount of damages. There is a basic disagreement about the nature of paying half damages. One understanding (Rav Papa) is that an ox is naturally a hazard and it is the owner's responsibility to watch their oxen. Payment for damages is a monetary obligation and the owner should pay in full. However, the Torah reduced the payment by half as the owner was not forewarned. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua understands half payment as a penalty. He believes that an ox is not naturally prone to gore and therefore doesn't need protection. Theoretically, the owner should not be responsible at all if he wasn't forewarned. However, to incentivize owners to watch their animals, the Torah instituted a fine that they pay half the damages. There are four attempts to bring sources to prove Rav Papa's position that half payment is a monetary obligation, but in the end, the Gemara concludes that it is a fine/penalty. Since by law, only in Israel can the courts rule on penalties, cases of shor tam cannot be ruled on in Babylonia. However, if the damaged person were to seize payment from the damager, the courts leave it in his hands. In addition, he can insist that they meet in court in Israel. Furthermore, the court can insist that the one whose animal attacked take action to ensure that the animal does not cause further damage. The Mishna states that there are five shur tam cases and five shur muad. What are they?

Bava Kamma 14 - November 16, 3 Kislev Nov 16, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 14

Today's daf is sponsored by Debbie Engelen-Eigles in honor of the first birthday of her grandson Tomer, עד מאה ועשרים, and for the safe return from battle of his father and all our chayalim and chayalot. "May HaShem strengthen them, bring them victory, and bring them and the hostages home to their families safely and soon."

According to one interpretation of the Mishna, the last line "when one damages, the one who pays needs to pay from the best land" is coming to include shomrim. What is the exact case it is including? What are the levels of responsibility of jointly owned property? What if it was shared property for produce but not for animals? The next mishna lists rules of how one is to pay for the damages. The details of the mishna are unclear and the Gemara works on explaining them. With what does one pay? Who evaluates?

Bava Kamma 13 - November 15, 2 Kislev Nov 15, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 13

Rabbi Yosi h'Gelili holds that kodshim kalim are considered the property of the owner and not the property of God. The Gemara concludes that this is true even during the time of the Temple when they can be brought as sacrifices. Ben Azai holds that this is limited to only some types of koshei kodashim, however, there is a debate about which ones he excluded. Rava offers a different explanation for the phrase in the Mishna "property that does not have meila," that it excludes any sanctified item. Rabbi Abba, holding like Rabbi Yosi h'Gelili explains that if an animal designated for a peace offering causes damage, the payment is from the meat that can be eaten and not from the part burned on the altar. What does he mean by this and how does it relate to the debate between Rabbi Natan and the rabbis regarding an animal who pushed someone else's animal into a pit dug by a third person? What is meant in the Mishna when it limits damages payment to "those part of the covenant"? What is meant by "assigned property?" Some hold it is excluding a case when it is unclear whose animal caused the damage. Others hold that it excludes a case where the animal who damaged was ownerless. There is a debate about what situation this is referring to. If one's animal caused damage in the property of its owner, the owner is not liable as the owner can say, "What were you doing in my property!" If it was jointly owned by both people (the damager and the damaged), is the owner exempt or liable? There is a tannaitic debate on this issue and it all depends on different ways to read the end of our Mishna. What case is included by the line at the end of the Mishna - "in a case where one is liable, one needs to pay from the best of the land?"

Bava Kamma 12 - Rosh Chodesh Kislev - November 14, 1 Kislev Nov 14, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 12

Rav Nachman and other amoraim disagree about categorizing Cannanite slaves - are they treated like land or like movable property? The Gemara suggests that perhaps there is a tannaitic debate as well regarding this issue, however, two versions of Rav Ika suggest that perhaps there is no tannaitic debate. Even if one were to compare them to land or movable property, in the end, there are differences in certain situations as movable property and land do not move on their own, whereas slaves do. The Mishna said that one must pay damages for items that do not have laws of meila (misuse of consecrated property). This would include kodshim kalimand therefore, the Mishna must hold like Rabbi Yosi h'Geleli who held that kodshim kalim are considered property of its owner and not the temple's property. The Gemara raises a contradiction between his opinion and a Mishna and resolves it in two ways. A question is raised against the second resolution.

Bava Kamma 11 - November 13, 29 Cheshvan Nov 13, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 11

This week's learning is sponsored by Jason and Danielle Friedman in honor of Oliver Friedman's upcoming bar mitzva.

Even without the verse "and the body will be his," it would have been clear that the one whose animal was killed is left with the carcass of the animal and the one who damaged only pays the difference. If so, the verse must be teaching that if the carcass of the animal went down in value over time after the animal was killed, the one who damaged does not need to compensate for that, but pays according to the price at the time of the death. The Gemara suggests that whether the depreciation is a loss for the one damaged or the one who caused the damage is a tannaitic debate. However, this suggestion is rejected as the debate may be regarding which side is responsible for bringing the carcass to court to assess its value. According to this understanding, all agree that the one who was damaged takes a loss if the carcass depreciates. This is true for damages but if one steals, the loss is on the thief. What about a borrower whose object she is borrowing breaks? Some compare it to one who stole and others to one who damaged. Ulla quotes Rabbi Elezar on this issue - only a thief assumes the depreciation, not a borrower. Five other rulings of Ulla in the name of Rabbi Elazar are brought. One is regarding when a woman counts days of impurity when one miscarries over two days without seeing a clear fetus. The second is that one is not obligated to redeem one's firstborn son if the child was killed before thirty days passed from birth. The third is about acquiring large animals which is performed by pulling. The fourth - when brothers divide their father's inheritance, if they had previously purchased clothing from the estate's money, is that deducted from their share? One what does it depend on? The last regards a person watching another's item - if they pass it on to someone else to watch without consulting with the original owner, and the item is damaged, who is responsible?

Bava Kamma 10 - November 12, 28 Cheshvan Nov 12, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 10

The week's learning is dedicated by Phyllis and Yossie Hecht. "With hakarat hatov l’Hashem for finishing Masechet Kiddushin and having our first grandchild, Liam Yisrael. Born in these days of much needed tefillot, Liam Yisrael should continue to bring light and have the zechut to be a guardian for Am Yisrael as he continues to grow l'chuppah, l’Torah and l'maasim tovim - as this is the sustenance of our Am Yisrael b'Eretz Yisrael- ad mesh v'esrim shana. May we be zoche to the geula in his days and continue to hear only bsorot tovot."

Today's learning is sponsored for a refuah shleima for Shlomo Gavriel ben Esther and David Yosef ben Esther.

In what way is the law regarding an ox who damaged more stringent/unique than the other cases? In what way is the law regarding a pit more stringent? In what way are the laws of fire more stringent? The Mishna stated a case: "If one is partially responsible for damages, one needs to pay full damages." A braita explains the case: If one digs a pit nine handbreadths deep and someone digs it one more (which now makes it fit to kill) and then an animal falls in and dies or is injured, only the last person is responsible. Can this explanation match Rebbi's opinion as well or does it only fit with the rabbis? Different rabbis suggest other cases that have a similar possible joint responsibility and question why the braita did not mention them as well. The language of the Mishna in the above-mentioned case stated: "One is responsible for tashlumei nizko." The Gemara derives from the use of the words tashlumei, that the intent is to complete the payment, and this supports a braita which rules meaning that if one's animal was damaged, one gets to keep the carcass of that animal (which has value) and the payment is only meant to be the difference between the value of the animal when it was alive and its value now. There are three potential sources from which one can derive this law. Why is there a need for all three? The Gemara questions why is there even a need for a verse to prove this law, shouldn't it be obvious!?

Bava Kamma 9 - Shabbat November 11, 27 Cheshvan Nov 10, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 9

If one is purchasing land from another and others lay claim that the land was originally theirs, at what point and under what circumstances can the buyer renege on the deal? Rav Huna resolves a previous contradiction (on Bava Kamma 7) by saying that one who needs to pay damages can pay either with money or property. A challenge is raised against this statement but is resolved. Rav Asi says the same thing but the Gemara first challenges that assumption and tries to explain Rav Asi's statement in a different manner. Another teaching of Rav Huna is brought regarding how far should one go to beautify a mitzva (hidur mitzva). The Mishna rules that if one was responsible for watching the item. one is responsible for the damages. A braita explains this case to be one in which one passed an object to a minor or a person who isn't responsible. The braita distinguishes which compares fire to the ox and pit cases and distinguishes between them according to law. In what case would there be a distinction and why?

Bava Kamma 8 - November 10, 26 Cheshvan Nov 10, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 8

Today's daf is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring and Terri Krivosha in loving memory of Sgt. Elisheva Rose Lubin, Rose Elisheva bat Chaim David and Nechama Rachel, great-niece of their friends Eddie and Minda Snitkoff, who was murdered on Monday morning November 6, 2023 in Jerusalem. "May her short life and radiant and exuberant spirit be a memory and source of strength to all those who loved her."

Today's daf is sponsored by Yair and Ilana Zinn for the refuah shleima of Oz Yehoshua ben Talia Bat-tzion and all those injured and for a safe return of all the hostages.

Is the term "best land" relative to the world or relative to one's own land? Raba Abba answers that it is the best on the land of the one who damaged, irrespective of the value compared to the rest of the world. Rav Shmuel bar Abba raised a difficulty against this answer from a braita. A possible answer is suggested. However several other alternative explanations are brought. If one sells 3 different types of property to 3 different people either all on the same day or separate days, does the one claiming the land in return for a loan, ketuba, or damages claim it based on the order in which it was sold (they get the last property sold) or do they claim it based on the type of land - poor quality, middle or best)?

Bava Kamma 7 - November 9, 25 Cheshvan Nov 09, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 7

Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Rubin in loving memory of Edith and Herb Rubin.

What did Rabbi Akiva mean by "kal vahomer l'hekdesh." How can we be sure that Rabbi Akiva disagrees with Rabbi Yishmael on the issue of whether the best land is evaluated by the land of the one who caused the damage or by the one who was damaged? Abaye raises a contradiction - on the one hand it's clear one needs to pay from the best of his land. On the other hand a braita says that one can even pay from bran. Four possible answers are brought - the first three are rejected. According to Rabbi Akiva, we evaluate by the best land of the one who damaged. Is this objective (based on the best land in the world in general) or subjective (based on the best land of the one who damaged)?

Bava Kamma 6 - November 8, 24 Cheshvan Nov 08, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 6

Today's daf is sponsored by Jeremy Booty in loving memory of Ari Chaim ben Yarden Yehoshua v' Leah Devorah.

The Gemara assumes that when the Mishna mentions the common denominator between all four categories of damages, it must intend to include an additional case that we would not have been able to learn from any of the categories. Four different rabbis each suggest a unique case that could be the one that the Mishna was including. Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael disagree about what it means to pay from the best of your land - from the best of the one you damaged or the best of the one who caused the damage. Their opinions are explained in the Gemara as well as their source.

Bava Kamma 5 - November 7, 23 Cheshvan Nov 07, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 5

Rabbi Oshaya listed thirteen categories of damages and Rabbi Chiya had twenty-four. Why did Rabbi Oshaya not include all of the categories that Rabbi Chiya included? The Mishna, Rabbi Oshaya and Rabbi Chiya each specified how many main categories there are (4, 13, 24). The assumption is that when one specifies a number it is there to preclude other items. The Mishna was saying four and not thirteen, Rabbi Oshaya was saying thirteen and not twenty-four. But what was Rabbi Chiya trying to preclude by stating twenty-four and no more? Why did Rabbi Oshaya and Rabbi Chiya refer to them as avot if the cases that they added don't have sub-categories? Did the Mishna delineate all the differences between the avot to show why we needed to list each one, as we could not have derived each from the other? Or could it have been possible to derive them from each other? If one could have derived them from each other, then the reason for delineating each one was to show that each av has unique halakhot.

Bava Kamma 4 - November 6, 22 Cheshvan Nov 06, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 4

Rav and Shmuel disagree about the word mav'e in the Mishna - is it damages a person causes or damages an animal causes while eating? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each position? How can the categories in the Mishna be understood according to each and how does it fit in with the words in the continuation of the Mishna when they compare each category to the other? There are two different explanations given (Rav Yehuda and Rava) to understand what the word "shur (ox)" in the Mishna refers to according to Shmuel. Difficulties are raised with each position and Rav Yehuda's explanation is rejected, Rava's is not. Rav Oshaya and Rabbi Chiya each have a much more extensive list of main categories of damages - Rav Oshaya had thirteen - adding shomrim and a person who injures another person. Rabbi Chiya listed twenty-four, adding others. Why did each keep a different list? Why did each decide to include/not include certain things?

Kiddushin 82 - Siyum Masechet Kiddushin Nov 05, 2023

For the text of the Hadran ceremony, click here.
For more information about What is a Siyum, click here.

The Siyum is dedicated to the safety of our soldiers, residents of the South and the North, and the whole country, to the safe return of the captives, in memory of those who have fallen, and for a refuah shleima to all those injured.

The Siyum is sponsored by Ilana Friedman in loving memory of her grandparents, Yehoshua and Malka Barber "After emerging from the fires of the Holocaust said, “We will never live in galut again!” They came to Israel through hunger strikes in 1946 and fought to establish the State of Israel. They sent their sons in 1967 to get our holiest site back and in 1973 to preserve our land. May their zechut be our zechut as a nation to defend and return our people to artzeinu. This siyum is also dedicated to Rabbanit Michelle and all of the women of the Hadran community. בזכות נשים צדקניות נגאלו אבותנו. May the merit of all the נשים צדקניות that have completed Seder Nashim hasten our geula."

What professions are ideal? Which ones are frowned upon? Why? If we are successful in our careers, we must understand that our success is dependent on God. Theoretically, we should be able to sustain ourselves easily as even animals can, but our sins caused us to have to work hard at it. Why is it more important to teach your son Torah than to teach him a profession? Torah learning is eternal - it gives us strength in our youth and rejuvenates us when we grow old.

Bava Kamma 3 - November 5, 21 Cheshvan Nov 05, 2023

Study Guide Bava Kamma 3

Today's daf is sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik in loving memory of her father, David Malik, David ben Aharon Tzvi Hersh v'Shayndel. "It is so fitting that we are also having the Siyum for Masechet Kiddushin & Seder Nashim on this day, because it was in my dad's honor that I made the commitment to participate in this Daf Yomi cycle, while I was saying kaddish for him in 5780/2019-2020. The daily spiritual practice of Daf Yomi, which initially overlapped with my aveilut period, continues to keep my father's memory alive. Thank you, Rabbanit Michelle, for your meaningful inspirational presence in my daily life- during times of personal and communal grief."

What are the toladot, sub-categories, of each av, main category, of damages? Which one is the one that Rav Papa was referring to when he said that the toladot are not as strict as the avot. In the end, after going through all the possibilities, the conclusion is that he was referring to rocks that a kicked by the animal as he walks that cause damage - in that situation, one pays only half damages. Rav and Shmuel have two basic debates - one regarding an item left in the public domain - under what circumstances is it considered/not considered like a pit (bor)? Another debate is what is meant by mav'e mentioned in the Mishna.

Bava Kamma 2 - Shabbat November 4, 20 Cheshvan Nov 03, 2023

Bava Kamma bookmark and checklist

Today's daf is sponsored by Caroline Ben-Ari in honour of her birthday, which falls today according to the Hebrew date and on Shabbat according to the civil date.

The Mishna lists four main categories of damages - an ox, a pit, maveh (either damage by humans or the teeth of an animal), and fire. The Mishna makes a few distinctions between the categories. The idea that there are main categories implies that there are subcategories as well. This is compared to the laws of Shabbat and impurity where there are also main categories and sub-categories. However, regarding Shabbat, the sub-categories have the same stringency as the main category, whereas regarding impurity they are more lenient. What about sub-categories of damages - are they as strict or more lenient than the main category? Rav Papa answered that some are as strict and some are not, but he did not clarify which are as strict and which are more lenient. To answer this question, they bring a braita with the main categories of damages of an ox - goring (keren), eating (shen), and trampling (regel). What is the source for these categories? What are the sub-categories of keren? After going through each of the four sub-categories, they conclude that they have the same nature as the main category of goring and therefore, they must be the ones that are as strict as the main category, and eating and trampling must have sub-categories that are more lenient.

Introduction to Masechet Bava Kamma with Dr. Ayelet Hoffmann Libson Nov 02, 2023

Introduction to Masechet Bava Kamma

Kiddushin 81 - November 2, 18 Cheshvan Nov 02, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Martin Gaynor in loving memory of Dr. Jerry Rabinowitz.

Today's daf is sponsored by Rivka and Martin Himmel in loving memory of her grandparents, Yechiel ben Meir and Feige bat Meir hy"d who were taken out to be murdered with many of the Jews of their town in Poland on the 18th of Cheshvan.

Today's daf is sponsored by Elisheva Gray in honor of all the hostages, our courageous chayalim and all their families. "Also with much appreciation to Rabbanit Michelle for her steady wisdom and unwavering dedication, continuing to bring the pages of the Talmud alive for us all even at such a difficult time."

Are laws of seclusion different when traveling outside the city? If so, why? Several stories are brought to show that rabbis also struggled with their desires for women. Does one receive lashes if one was secluded in a way that is forbidden? On what does it depend? The rabbis discuss other types of scenarios where there are/are not seclusion issues. What precautions did different rabbis take to prevent themselves from engaging in relations with a woman they were not married to? Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Akiva would mock those who sinned, but Satan decided to tempt them into sin so that they could understand why others sin. Pleimo would speak to Satan and say, "I will shoot arrows in the eyes of Satan." As a result, the Satan came to exact revenge. What transpired and what in the end did Satan want from Pleimo? A woman whose husband no longer had relations with her, couldn't understand why her husband would pray to be saved from the evil inclination. She disguised herself as a prostitute to see if he was tempted to sin, and he was tempted by the "prostitute" and had relations with her. When she then explains to him that it was her, he still spends the rest of his life depressed about the fact that he intended to sin, even though he did not sin. Rabbi Akiva cries while reading two verses that highlight that one who intends to sin but does not sin and one who sins without intending to still needs to atone for that sin. This indicates how severe it is when one sins with intent. Can one be secluded with a forbidden relative other than one's daughter/son? Shmuel even forbids seclusion with a daughter/son. Until what age are there no limitations with a parent/child? Is it determined by age, stage of development, or maturity?

Kiddushin 80 - November 1, 17 Cheshvan Nov 01, 2023

This month's learning is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit.

Today's daf is sponsored by Diana Bloom in loving memory of her Zeyde, Israel Marmurek. "The memory of his commitment to the State of Israel, and the Jewish community of Buenos Aires continues to serve as an inspiration."

Today's daf is sponsored in memory of the soldiers killed in yesterday's battle, among them, Sgt. Roei Wolf, Sgt, Lavi Lifschitz, and a close friend of my son's, Lieutenant Ariel Reich.

If a husband goes abroad with a wife or without a wife and returns with or without a wife and with kids - depending on the situation, he may have to prove that the wife's lineage is good and/or that the children belong to the wife. If the children are young and treat her as their mother, we can rely on this. However, Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about whether we can rely on this only for kodshei hagvul, but not for lineage or we can rely on this for both. They bring proof that Rabbi Yochanan is consistent in his position from other teachings regarding the strength of presumptive status. The next Mishna deals with laws of seclusion, yichud - how many men are permitted to be secluded with how many women? Can relatives who are forbidden from each other be secluded together? Abba Shaul permits going out to the cemetery (a secluded place outside the city) for an infant burial with one man and two women. Does our Mishna not follow his opinion as one man and two women are not permitted to be secluded, or is a case of burial different?

Kiddushin 79 - October 31, 16 Cheshvan Oct 31, 2023

Study Guide Kiddushin 79

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom Family. "With overwhelming joy and בחסדי ה', we learn today's daf in honor of the release of Ori Megidish by the IDF and the Shab"ak forces and with a Tefilla that all the hostages will be released quickly."

There is a debate between Rav and Shmuel regarding a case where a father betrothed a daughter on the same day that the daughter betrothed herself and then it became clear after that the daughter had reached the stage of maturity, which is a stage where the father can no longer betroth her. Rav says we assume she was already mature when the betrothal of the father took place and therefore she is only betrothed from her own betrothal. Shmuel holds that she is betrothed to both because we don't know what her status was at the time of the betrothal. Two other cases are brought to question Shmuel's ruling - one, a mikveh that was found to have less than the minimum amount, and another where wine that was used to separate trumot and maasrot turned to vinegar. The Gemara then explains why those cases are different. Two different tannaitic debates seem to match up to Rav and Shmuel's debate. However, they prove that this is not the case as in one, the circumstances are different as there is a clear chazaka, and in the other, there is no debate - each braita is regarding a different situation.

Kiddushin 78 - October 30, 15 Cheshvan Oct 30, 2023

Today's daf is dedicated for a refuah shleima to Naaran ben Rachel Perla who was injured yesterday and to all those injured over the past few weeks.

Rav Yehuda rules that a kohen gadol who betroths a widow (or a regular kohen with a woman who is forbidden to him) gets two sets of lashes - one for "do not take her" and one for "do not desecrate your seed" which is understood to be referring to making the woman a chalala. A few questions are raised against Rav Yehuda's statement. Abaye and Rava disagree about whether lashes are given even if one betrothed a woman without having relations with her or only if they also had relations. In what situations are there clear exceptions to the rules? What is the logical argument to support Rabbi Yehuda's opinion that the daughter of a male convert cannot marry a kohen? Rabbi Yehuda and those who disagree with him derive their positions from a verse in Ezekiel 44:22 - as each understands the verse differently. How is the continuation of that verse meant to be understood? There is a debate about whether a father is believed to say his son is a mamzer or if both parents say the child is a mamzer. Both opinions derive their opinions from the laws of 'yakir' the right of the father to declare which son is the firstborn - can we say this is true for disqualifying the child as well or not?

Kiddushin 77 - October 29, 14 Cheshvan Oct 29, 2023

This week’s learning is sponsored by the Greenstone family in honor of the birthday of their dear niece and cousin, Lana Kerzner. "Her Torah learning is entrenched in a love of tradition, connection to her mother and family, and her intellectual aspirations. החוט המשולש לא במהרה ינתק."

This week's learning is sponsored by Esther and Eliakim Katz in loving memory of Sarah bat Tzvi Hirsh and Meir Leiv ben Harav Yehoshua Zlig and Esther and for the safe homecoming of acheinu kol Beit Yisrael.

The Mishna rules that the daughter of a chalal cannot marry a kohen. However, her children are not chalalim. The male children of a chalal and are considered chalalim and pass it down to all male children for all future generations. However, Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda disagrees and holds that if either a clalal or a chalala marries someone of unflawed lineage (not a chalal), their children are not chalalim. There is a debate about whether a child of two converts or a child of a convert with a non-convert can marry a kohen. From where are the differences between male and female chalalim mentioned in the Mishna derived from the Torah? From where do we derive that the child of a forbidden kohen marriage is a chalal and the woman who married the kohen becomes a chalala? Why does the kohen himself not become a chalal? In which situations could a kohen or kohen gadol receive multiple sets of lashes for a marriage/having relations with one woman? If a woman is a widow and then divorced and then became a chalala and then became a zona in that order, and then the kohen gadol had relations with her, he would be liable four sets of lashes. Even though we hold that one is not liable for a prohibition that is added to an already existing prohibition, if the prohibition adds something new, then it would be added. In this case, each subsequent situation adds something to the previous one - i.e. a divorce is forbidden to all kohanim whereas the widow is only forbidden to the kohen gadol. A student brought a braita before Rav Sheshet that if a kohen gadol has relations with his widowed sister, he will receive lashes for relations with his sister but not on account of the prohibition for a kohen gadol. Rav Sheshet explained that this ruling is according to Rabbi Shimon who holds that a prohibition doesn't get added to another already existing prohibition but it cannot be explained according to the rabbis who disagree with him. However, the Gemara suggests that perhaps it can be explained according to the rabbis as well. A somewhat opposite version of the sugya is brought as well. From where do we derive that one becomes a chalala only from improper relations with a kohen and not from improper relations with a non-kohen?

Kiddushin 76 - Shabbat October 28, 13 Cheshvan Oct 27, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Rivka and Martin Himmel in honor of the birth of a grandson, son to Binyamin and Atara. ׳׳וראה בנים לבניך שלום על ישראל׳׳

Why did Rabbi Elazar hold that a cuti can't marry a cutit? How far back does a man need to check the lineage of the woman's family he is planning to marry? It depends on whether she is from the family of kohanim or not. Why does one need to check her family but she doesn't need to check the man's family? There are all sorts of people whose family lineage doesn't need checking. Why?

Kiddushin 75 - October 27, 12 Cheshvan Oct 27, 2023

Study Guide Kiddushin 75

Today's daf is dedicated to the safety of our soldiers and our country.

There are different opinions on whether having had any forbidden relationship forbids one from marrying a kohen or is it dependent on which type of forbidden relationship. In the last part of the Mishna, Rabbi Eliezer ruled that only a definite mamzer can marry a definite mamzer but if the status is one of doubt, they cannot marry a mamzer or another person whose lineage is in doubt. Rav holds by this opinion but Shmuel does not. This seems to contradict a different debate between Rav and Shmuel regarding an engaged woman whose child's father is unknown. Various explanations are brought to resolve the contradiction.Rabbi Eleazar ruled that a cuti can't marry a cutit. Several explanations are brought to understand this ruling.

Kiddushin 74 - October 26, 11 Cheshvan Oct 26, 2023

Study Guide Kiddushin 74

Today's daf is dedicated to all the families in Israel who are going through immeasurable suffering over the last few weeks.

Is a seller trusted to testify to identify the buyer when two people claim to have bought the item from him? On what does it depend? Is a judge trusted to testify who won a case in his court? Who is trusted to testify regarding a firstborn son? Why did Abba Shaul call a shtuki by the name 'beduki'? Abba Shaul's statement is explained - the mother is trusted to testify that the father’s lineage is unflawed. The Mishna explains that people who are forbidden to marry within the community are allowed to marry those with flawed lineage. The Gemara raises difficulties on this Mishna and four sages suggest four different interpretations which are each analyzed. Difficulties are presented against three of them.

Kiddushin 73 - October 25, 10 Cheshvan Oct 25, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Shapiro in loving memory of her brother, David Tychman, on his 10th yahrzeit. “David was a lover of Israel, a lifelong collector of Israeli stamps, and he would have been so saddened by the events of the past 2 1/2 weeks. Am Yisrael Chai!”

There is a debate about whether a convert can marry a mamzer. Rabbi Zeira taught in Mechoza, a city with many converts, that a convert can marry a mamzer and got pelted with etrogim as the converts were insulted by it. Rava then came up with a more sensitive way to teach the halakha. According to Rav, a shetuki (unknown father) and asufi (unknown parents - abandoned child) can marry a Jew by Torah law as it is unclear whether they have flawed lineage or not (safek), but the rabbis wanted to institute a higher standard for yochasin, lineage matters. An abandoned child is not always considered an asufi (flawed lineage) as it depends on where (and why) the baby/child was abandoned. If it seems clear the parents abandoned the child as they couldn't afford to feed the child, then the child is not considered to have a flawed lineage. What are potential signs that the child was abandoned in this way? If an abandoned child was picked up by people claiming to the the parents, they are trusted but not if the child was already picked up by someone else. This is similar to two other situations where one is believed only if they respond immediately - a midwife who testifies regarding twins about which child came out first (only while she is still in the room or hasn't turned around), and a woman who was with other women in a bed that was stained with blood and she claims it was from her and proves it through an internal check that was performed immediately after the stain was found.

Kiddushin 72 - October 24, 9 Cheshvan Oct 24, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family. "איך נפלו גיבורים. We share in the pain of our fellow learner, Geri Goldstein Guedalia on the tragic loss of her step-grandson, Sgt. Yosef Guedalia HYD who was among the first to fall and gave his life על קדושת השם העם והארץ. Yosef's life touched so many profoundly. May Hashem bring nechama to the Guedalia family and to all of Am Yisrael. ובלע המות לנצח ומחה ה' דמעה מעל כל פנים"

Are the boundaries delineating unflawed lineage in Babylonia the same as those for divorce documents, as a get that comes from Babylonia does not need the messenger to testify that it was written and signed in front of him? The rabbis mention the names of different cities and discuss whether or not they are considered like Babylonia and their inhabitants can be presumed of unflawed lineage. According to Rabbi Yochanan, some of these cities were alluded to in a verse in Daniel 7:5 in one of his visions of a bear (reference to Persia) subjugating the Jews of those cities. Rebbi on his death bed prophesized about various things including various cities with residents of flawed lineage and also about the birth of Rav Yehuda on the day of his death. A similar statement is made that when certain great rabbis died, another great rabbi was born - Rabbi Akiva and Rebbi, Rebbi and Rav Yehuda, Rav Yehuda and Rava, Rava and Rav Ashi to show that when a righteous person leaves the world, a different righteous person is born to replace him. There is a debate about whether the opinion brought that all other lands (other than Babylonia) have people with flawed lineage is just Rabbi Meir's opinion and the rabbis disagree and think all people are by default unflawed or do the rabbis agree with Rabbi Meir? There is a debate also brought about whether mamzerim will be purified in the future or not. rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Yehuda debate whether a convert can marry a mamzeret..

Kiddushin 71 - October 23, 8 Cheshvan Oct 23, 2023

Today's daf is dedicated to the safe return of the hostages, the safety of our soldiers, the residents of the South and the North, and the whole country, and in memory of those who were murdered and for a refuah shleima to all those injured.

A verse from Malachi 3:3 is explained in two different ways - that in the time of the Messiah, God will separate out all those from the tribe of Levi that have problematic lineage or that on account of wealth, mamzerim will intermarry and ultimately will be purified as no one will know who is a mamzer. According to the second interpretation, God will permit those mixed in to remain part of the nation and marry whomever they wish. Babylonia was known to have people of better lineage than in Israel, and in Israel it was better than outside of Israel. At certain times, some suggested that Jews in Israel had better lineage than in Babylonia but they were overruled. Rabbi Yochanan held that one should not try to find families with problematic lineage as even the leaders of the generation would be among them. There were some who told their children and students once or twice every seven years about which families one should not marry into. Another secret that was only revealed once or twice every seven years was the name of God with four letters. From where do we learn that it needs to be kept a secret? There are two other names of God - one with twelve letters and one with forty-two that were also kept a secret and only revealed to certain types of people. Can one rely on the presumptive status of 'kosher'/disqualified in Israel, in Babylonia, and in other places? What were methods used to determine if one was Babylonian in order to know their lineage was good? Zeira avoided Rabbi Yochanan as Rabbi Yochanan wanted to marry him to his daughter and Zeira didn't trust his lineage as he was from Israel. Rav Yehuda avoided marrying off his son as he was also concerned about marrying him off to a woman with a bad lineage. Ulla recommended he judge by the family's demeanor - if they are quiet and give in while arguing, it is a sign of a good family. Babylonia was known for good lineage, but the rabbis debated what are considered the borders of Babylonia for these purposes.

Kiddushin 70 - October 22, 7 Cheshvan Oct 22, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the Bar Mitzva of Kyle Lichtman, son of our daf friend, colleague and co-learner, Sharon Gabin Lichtman. "As Kyle becomes a full-fledged member of the Jewish nation, with all its privileges and obligations, we know that he will be a source of nachat to your entire family as he learns from your example of integrity, love for learning and passion for truth. May we continue to share many smachot!"

From where can it be proven that Ezra went up to the land of Israel with converts, slaves, and mamzerim? A braita rules that one who calls someone pasul is himself pasul. Shmuel understands that he is projecting onto someone else the pasul that is his own. Other statements are brought in the Gemara stressing the importance of marrying people with unflawed lineage. Can a man marry a woman for her money? Rav Yehuda took Shmuel literally and in a long and entertaining story, he declares someone a slave because he called others a slave. He is summoned to Rav Nachman's court and forced to explain his position. But all throughout, Rav Yehuda maintains the upper position and by the end of the story, he manages to declare many others in the town of Rav Nachman as having flawed lineage. Converts are considered like 'sapachat' which is a negative term. Is this statement understood as a criticism of converts or of those who are born Jewish?

Kiddushin 69 - Shabbat October 21, 6 Cheshvan Oct 20, 2023

A possible solution to resolving a mamzer problem is debated in the mishna based on a halacha learned in the previous mishna about the offspring of a Caananaite maidservant. Rabbi Tarfon explains that if the offspring goes by the mother, then a male mamzer can marry her and have the master free the offspring in which case the offspring would be Jewish and not a mamzer. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Tarfon allows this ab initio. The fourth chapter begins with a description of all the different lineages of the people who came to Israel in the time of Ezra and who were permitted to marry whom. There is a debate between Rava and Abaye about what happened historically. Did Ezra forcibly remove all those with problematic lineage when he went to Israel to ensure that proper records would be kept and people wouldn't marry in forbidden marriages or did he recommend it and most of them followed of their own free will?

Kiddushin 68 - October 20, 5 Cheshvan Oct 20, 2023

Study Guide Kiddushin 68

The derivation that there is no betrothal in a case of a forbidden relationship from the case of a man who marries his wife’s sister as the last verse compared all cases of forbidden relationships. But why would we not derive it from a man who betroths a woman who is a nidda where the betrothal would be valid as she is also one of the forbidden relationships? Even though the Gemara brings an answer to the question, Rav Acha Bar Yaakov offers a different source – derived from a yevama. Why then, wouldn’t we learn from there to all cases of negative prohibitions? There is a different verse from which we derive that a marriage that is forbidden by a negative prohibition is a valid marriage. Only Rabbi Akiva holds it is not – what does he do with that verse? From where do we that betrothal to a Canaanite slave or gentile woman is not valid and that the child follows the mother?

Kiddushin 67 - October 19, 4 Cheshvan Oct 19, 2023

Study Guide Kiddushin 67

We continue to learn for the safety of our soldiers, residents of the South and the North, and the whole country, the safe return of the captives, in memory of those who have fallen and for a refua shleima to all those injured.

What are the rules in determining the lineage of a child? The Mishna lists four different types of marriages. It depends on the situation - whether the betrothal was permitted or forbidden, as well as other criteria. But aren't there other cases that should be listed, such as a convert and a mamzeret, as Rabbi Yosi rules the child follows the father? The Mishna is explained in two different ways - like Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi. From where do we derive that a betrothal with one is who a forbidden relative will not be effective at all?

Kiddushin 66 - October 18, 3 Cheshvan Oct 18, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family in honor of our fellow learner, Tina Lamm, on the marriage of her daughter, Devorah to Daniel. "We are so happy to be able to celebrate virtually you. In the zechut of this wonderful marriage, Hashem should bring chesed to us just as "כחסד הניתן על פני חתן".

Today's daf is sponsored by Hadar Hecht in loving memory of Michal Rut bat Itamar Itzhak & Ada Etel and Tova bat Arye Itzhak & Sara.

Abaye holds that if one witness testifies and the person himself is silent, we accept the testimony of the witness to obligate one to bring a sacrifice, to declare items impure and to disqualify an animal from being used for a sacrifice. If one witness testifies that a married woman slept with a man and the husband is silent, Abaye and Rava disagree about whether the testimony is sufficient to forbid her from her husband. Both Abaye and Rava bring proofs from tannaitic sources and each contests the other's proofs. King Yannai killed all the sages other than Shimon ben Shatach as they raised a suspicion relating to his mother - whether or not she had been forbidden to marry a kohen, his father, and whether or not Yannai was fit to be a practicing kohen. This story is brought as the second proof of Abaye for his opinion. Does the status of the child follow the mother or the father - on what does it depend?

Kiddushin 65 - October 17, 2 Cheshvan Oct 17, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Hadar Hecht in loving memory of Michal Rut bat Itamar Yitzhak & Ada Etel and Tova bat Arye Yitzhak & Sara.

We are continuing to learn for the safety of our soldiers, residents of the South and the North, and the whole country, the safe return of the captives, in memory of those who have fallen and for a refua shleima to all those injured.

A man who says he betrothed his older daughter - if he has two sets of wives and daughters from both wives, there is a debate whether or not all of them except the youngest are considered betrothed out of doubt or only the oldest of the older group of sisters. Abaye clarifies that the debate would not apply in a case of three daughters all from the same mother - in that case, it would be clear that "older" would only include the oldest and not the middle daughter. Two difficulties are raised against Abaye's opinion, but they are resolved. The Mishna brings four cases - two where either the man or the woman admits to being betrothed but the other does not, and two more where they each disagree about who was the betrothed a woman or her daughter. Why was each case in the Mishna necessary? Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether we ask him to give the woman a get or force him to. Regarding which case is this debate? In the end, they explain that there is no debate between them - when Rav said we force, he meant that if the man gives the get on his own initiative, we can force him to pay her the ketuba money. Rav Nachman quoted a ruling of Shmuel that if there is only one witness to a betrothal, even if both the man and woman admit to the betrothal, they are not considered betrothed. This opinion is questioned by our Mishna and a Mishna in Gittin 81, but both difficulties are resolved. Rav and perhaps Rebbi both held this way as well. Another braita is brought to raise a difficulty against this opinion but is resolved. Rav Papa rules against Rav Kahana (who held like the others) and holds that even with one witness, one needs to be concerned that the betrothal was effective. Rav Ashi asks Rav Kahana why the principle of "when the plaintiff admits something (here, both the husband and wife admitted to the betrothal), it is as if there were one hundred witnesses" which applies in monetary law doesn't apply here as well. Rav Kahana answers that in this case, their confession limits others as well (relatives of the other are now forbidden to marry them) and therefore their admission is not accepted. Confessions are only accepted when they do not negatively affect others.

Kiddsuhin 64 - 2nd Day of Rosh Chodesh Cheshvan - October 16, 1 Cheshvan Oct 16, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family "We extend a heartfelt Mazal Tov to our fellow learner, Eric Sommer, on the marriage of his daughter, Ariel to Nitay. In the merit of their wedding, the words of the passuk should be realized quickly: מהרה ה' א-לוקינו ישמע בערי יהודה ובחוצות ירושלים קול ששון וקול שמחה."

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik in memory of the 7-month anniversary of the death of 12-year old Aryeh Kluger z”l and the second yahrzeit of 27-year old Jonathan Loeb on Rosh Chodesh MarCheshvan and in memory of all of the children and adults who were mercilessly murdered on Simchat Torah. May their memories be for a blessing.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rachel Savin in honor of my son Itai who is coming to Israel on aliya today. We are so proud of you.

A father is believed to testify about his daughter whether she is betrothed or betrothed and divorced but only if she is still a minor. A father is not believed to testify about his daughter to forbid her to marry a kohen (that she was taken into captivity and redeemed) What is the difference between the cases? A husband is believed to testify that his wife is exempt from yibum (he has sons or no brothers) but is not believed to obligate her in yibum (he has no sons/has brothers). Do these two rulings, that were said in the Mishna, not accord with Rabbi Natan’s approach who said in braita that a man is believed to obligate his wife in yibum. Rava and Abaye each bring explanations of how the case in braita is different from the case in the Mishna in order to prove that Rabbi Natan would also agree with the ruling in our. If one betrothed his daughter and did not say which daughter, it would not include an adult daughter. If he had two wives and two sets of daughters and he said that he betrothed the older (or the younger), there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yossi about whether all the daughters except the younger (older) are potentially betrothed or did he only mean the oldest (youngest) daughter?

Kiddushin 63 - 1st Day of Rosh Chodesh Cheshvan - October 15, 30 Tishrei Oct 15, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Doda Rochie, Unky Marc and the whole crew in honor of Ariel and her chatan, chayal Nitai on their wedding day and to Ariel's parents Eric and Geelit, and their entire family. "We are filled with joy that the long-awaited day is finally here. Although we are heartbroken that this war has prevented us from standing physically by your side today, we are standing with you, wishing you a wedding day filled with simcha and the bracha that you build a bayit neeman b'Yisrael, a land where there is only peace and contentment. It is our greatest hope that by your wedding day there will be peace and we will somehow be able to join you. Either way, please know that you are deeply loved and we are always here for you."

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the birth of a granddaughter in Jerusalem to their friend and co-learner (& hostess extraordinaire), Malkie Klein Spitz. "As Leora and Sammy welcome the new addition, we daven that the Jewish nation celebrate many smachot in peace.

More opinions are brought showing there are others who hold that one can acquire davar shelo ba l'olam - something not is existence at the time. The Mishna brings a case of a man who betroths a woman conditioned upon doing something of monetary value for her. There is a discussion in the Gemara about whether the Mishna is a standard case of conditional betrothal and it is a case where he also gave her an object of monetary value or is the betrothal effected through the value of the work he promised to do. The Mishna discusses what happens if the man conditions the betrothal on his father's consent. What if the father or the son dies before the father verbally consented? The Mishna brings cases where the father or the daughter say they are betrothed but don't remember to whom. What is the difference between the two cases?

Kiddushin 62 - Shabbat October 14, 29 Tishrei Oct 13, 2023

More verses are brought to raise questions against the different opinions regarding a tanai kaful. One cannot betroth a woman based on something that is not in existence. The Gemara brings different opinions as to what extent we say something is/is not in existence.

Kiddushin 61 - October 13, 28 Tishrei Oct 13, 2023

Today's daf is dedicated to the families of those killed, injured, missing, or taken hostage. We are praying for you and wishing you much continued strength.

If a man betroths a woman claiming he owns a piece of land a particular size or in a particular place, how do we determine that measurement - does it include rocks and clefts or not? The next Mishna raises a basic argument between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel regarding a condition - whether a tnai kaful is needed - does one need to state both sides of the condition - if x, then y and if not x then z? Or is it enough to say if x, then y, and one can infer what will happen if it is not fulfilled?

Kiddushin 60 - October 12, 27 Tishrei Oct 12, 2023

May our learning be in memory of all the soldiers and civilians that have been killed and for a zechut for a refuah shleima for all the injured. We continue to pray for the safety of our soldiers, captives and all the citizens of Israel.

If one betroths a woman and says from "today and after 30 days" what was his intent? Three different opinions are brought and comparisons are made to a parallel declaration made while giving a get (divorce document). If one conditions the betrothal on his giving her money, the betrothal takes effect as long as he gives her the money. There is a debate among Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda about whether the betrothal takes effect immediately (assuming the money is given to her at some point) or only when the money is actually given. Again, a comparison is made to a parallel case with a divorce. Why is it necessary to mention their argument in both cases?

Kiddushin 59 - October 11, 26 Tishrei Oct 11, 2023

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of Major Aryeh Ziering z"l who fell in battle this past Shabbat. Aryeh's parents, Mark and Debbie, are our closest friends and our children's lives have been intertwined since the day they were born. Aryeh was a role model for all my children. He was a natural leader whose modesty and love of life pervaded everything he did. May our learning be in memory of all those who have been killed and be a zechut to all our chayalim and for a refuah shleima to all the injured and for a safe and speedy return of all the hostages.

The Gemara cites three cases where someone bought/acquired something (a wife or land) that someone else intended to buy/acquire - is he considered an evil person for doing this? If someone betrothed a woman after thirty days and the object with which she was betrothed did not exist anymore on the thirtieth day, the betrothal is still valid - why? If another did not betroth her in those thirty days, but she changes her mind and doesn't want to be betrothed to him before the thirtieth day, can she change her mind? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree - can her words of changing her mind undo her words of acceptance of the betrothal? Following two difficulties brought against Reish Lakish, he explains that she cannot change her mind because there was also an action of the betrothal and speech cannot undo speech and an action. But another version of their debate is brought that Reish Lakish holds that speech cannot cancel even speech alone. But because of difficulty against Reish Lakish's position, they hold like Rabbi Yochanan (in both versions).

Kiddushin 58 - October 10, 25 Tishrei Oct 10, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Mindy Gerstman in loving memory of Dr. Esther Ehrman. "She founded the Bet Shemesh Ladies' Daf Yomi 15 years ago. She actively participated till Erev Sukkot. She passed away at age 98 on Sukkot. And for an Iluie Neshama for those who fell on Simchat Torah and the past few days; for a refuah shleima to the wounded. And for the safety and success of all our sons, daughters, nephews, nieces and all of those who are serving in Tzahal."

Today's daf is sponsored by Margaret Ekstein in loving memory of Dr. Esther Ehrman z"l, "She was an inspiration in her love of learning Torah and a true inspiration as a model of ושננתם לבנך ודברת בם בשבתך בביתך בלכתך בדרך בשכבך ובקומך."

A source is brought to show that one if forbidden to benefit from chulin (an animal not designated for a sacrifice) slaughtered in the Temple. Contradictory sources are brought regarding Rabbi Shimon's position on chulin that were slaughtered in the Temple. How do we derive that if one were to sell an item that is forbidden to derive benefit from, and then use that money to betroth a woman, would the marriage would be valid? If one betroths with truma, it is valid. Does that teach us that tovat hana’a (the right of a person to choose to whom to give the truma) has monetary value? Apparently it does not, as the Mishna is referring to a case where a kohen passed on as an inheritance to his non-kohen grandson (son of his daughter) produce that was untithed, but we viewed it as if it was already tithed and therefore the grandson owns the truma. Is the issue of whether or not tovat hana’a has monetary value a tannaitic debate? Apparently not – as the source brought to prove that can be understood in four other manners. It is not possible to get paid to be a judge, a witness, or to sprinkle or sanctify the para aduma waters. Does this contradict our Mishna that one who betroths a woman with the water or the ashes, the betrothal is valid? If a man sent a messenger to betroth a certain woman and the messenger went and betrothed her to himself, the betrothal is valid. If a man betroths a woman on the condition that the betrothal takes place in thirty days and another comes and betroths her in the meantime, she is sanctified to the other.

Kiddushin 57 - October 9, 24 Tishrei Oct 09, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Gail Licht in loving memory of her father, Harav Avraham Shaul Halevi Licht. "He would have been very proud of his children and grandchildren, all engaged in lives filled with Torah study and acts of chesed. Yasher Koach to my grandson Yaakov Stechler on his siyum of Mishnayot Seder Nezikin and to his dad, Rabbi Aryeh Stechler his siyum of Kiddushin in my dad's memory."

May our learning be in memory of all the soldiers and civilians that have been killed and for a zechut for a refuah shleima for all the injured. We continue to pray for the safety of our soldiers, those living in the South under direct attack, those taken captive and all the citizens of Israel.

From where do we derive that it is forbidden to derive benefit from the egla arufa? From what moment does it become forbidden? One cannot derive benefit from the birds brought by a leper. There is a debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish whether it is forbidden from the moment of purchasing the birds or from the moment of slaughter. The latter is derived from the egla arufa. Rabbi Yochanan raises three difficulties against Reish Lakish's position from tannitic sources. After the last question which is not resolved, Reish Lakish answers that it is a subject of debate among tannaim? Three different reasons are brought to explain why the slaughtered bird is the one that is forbidden to benefit from but the live one (that is sent away) is permitted. From where do we derive that it is forbidden to derive benefit from the hair of the nazir? Is the first-born donkey forbidden according to all opinions? From where do we derive the prohibition to derive benefit from milk and meat together? Whether or not it is forbidden is a subject of debate among tannaim. Two different explanations are brought for the source for chulin slaughtered in the Temple.

Kiddushin 56 - October 8, 23 Tishrei Oct 08, 2023

Study Guide Kiddushin 56

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of those killed yesterday and today in the murderous attacks in Israel, for a refuah shleima to all those who were injured, and for the safe return of those taken captive.

Today's daf is sponsored by Rivka Merzel in loving memory of Dr. Esther Erman. "Granny to all who knew her. At age 80 she started daf yomi and finished 2 complete cycles with siyums before she passed away on succot this year at age 97."

The Gemara brings different contradictory sources relating to Rabbi Yehuda's opinion that a man who betroths a woman and knowingly uses maaser sheni, the betrothal is valid. In the end, the contradictions are resolved by assuming that the woman is knowledgeable in the halacha and will use the maaser money properly. Anything that is forbidden to benefit from can't be used to betroth a woman. The Mishna lists all those items and the Gemara outlines the sources for the prohibition for deriving benefit from each item.

Kiddushin 55 - Shabbat Shmini Atzeret - October 7, 22 Tishrei Oct 05, 2023

In connection with the debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, the Gemara quotes a mishna in Shekalim 7:4 regarding what one can do if one finds an animal near Jerusalem as it is suspected to have been designated for a sacrifice. The Mishna offers a suggestion of what one can do if the finder wants to keep the animal. However, Rabbi Oshaya has trouble understanding this solution. He and Rabbi Yochanan each offer different suggestions as to how to understand the Mishna. Rabbi Oshaya's explanation works with Rabbi Meir's opinion that if one purposely used hekdesh for his own means, he could turn it into chulin. However, a difficulty is raised against that, yet is resolved. Several other questions are raised about the Mishna until a proper understanding of the Mishna is brought.

Kiddushin 54 - Hoshana Raba - Friday October 6, 21 Tishrei Oct 05, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Sylvia Klein in loving memory of her mother, Lila Klein, Leah bat Yosef v'Pasha, who passed away on Hoshana Raba in 2017. "A lifelong learner herself, she loved sharing the joys of Judaism with her preschoolers. And her wisdom and humor with us, her children."

Today's daf is sponsored by Blima Storchein Slotzki in loving memory of Rivka bat Tina and Yitzhak Tzvi.

There are two different interpretations of Rabbi Meir's opinion about a sale/betrothal performed with money unwittingly - is it considered meila or not and if so, is betrothal to a woman effective or not? Theiropinions are analyzed and questions are raised against them. The Gemara then determines the halakha for betrothal performed using maaser sheni and hekdesh - the former like Rabbi Meir and the latter like Rabbi Yehuda. Questions are raised against the ruling like Rabbi Yehuda in maaser, based on tannaitic sources that seem to indicate otherwise. The difficulties are resolved.

Kiddushin 53 - October 5, 20 Tishrei Oct 05, 2023

Study Guide Kiddushin 53

This week's daf is sponsored by Sarah Zahavi for the refuah shleima of Tinok ben Talia Nechama.

Today's daf is sponsored by Tova and David Kestenbaum in honor of the birth of their grandson Naveh Eitan, son of their children Avital and Dvir Gamliel. "May he grow in Torah, mitzvot and good deeds."

A braita states that the issue of whether a man can betroth a woman with his portion of the sacrificial items is a subject of debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi - each derives his opinion from the same verse. Rabbi Yochanan held that RAbbi Yehuda eventually conceded to Rabbi Yosi and Rav held that he did not. Two braitot are brought - one to support Rabbi Yochanan and one to support Rav. However, the one brought to support Rav's position is rejected. Rabbi Meir holds that a man cannot betroth a woman with maaser sheni produce as it is considered property of God. This is derived from a verse understood to be referring to maaser sheni - how? In the case of a man who unwittingly betrothed a woman with maaser sheni, Rabbi Meir holds that the betrothal is not effective, and in the case of a man who unwittingly betrothed a woman with hekdesh, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the betrothal is not effective. Regarding both these cases, Rabbi Yaakov said that he learned from Rabbi Yochanan that one is because the woman doesn't want this and the other is because both the man and the woman don't want it, but he was unsure which was which. Rabbi Yirmia and Rabbi Yaakov himself each offer opposite suggestions as to which one matches which opinion. Rava explains that according to Rabbi Meir, if the man betrothed with hekdesh and the betrothal is ineffective, it is a sign that the money does not become unsanctified by his action. Rav Chisda rules that this would be the same regarding a sale using money of hekdesh unwittingly - since neither side would want the sale to go through once they realize the money was hekdesh, the sale is invalid, the money is returned and the sanctity remains in the money as the item was in the end not use for a non-sacred purpose. Accordingly, there would be no obligation to bring a sacrifice for meila, misuse of consecrated property. A braita is brought to raise a difficulty with this understanding of Rabbi Meir, but it is resolved.

Kiddushin 52 - October 4, 19 Tishrei Oct 04, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Ira and Natanya Slomowitz in loving memory of their father and father-in-law, haRav Shlomo ben Mashsa v'haRav Dov Tzvi Slomowitz.

A final (sixth) source is brought in an attempt to raise a difficulty with Rava's opinion that a betrothal that cannot be consummated is not a betrothal, and this is the only one that is not resolved. The Gemara notes that this is one of the six arguments between Rava and Abaye where we hold like Abaye. Rav derives four halakhot from the case in the mishna regarding betrothal. 1. One can betroth with shemita fruits, even though they are generally only allowed to be eaten. 2. One cannot betroth with stolen property even stolen from the woman herself. 3. A woman can be a messenger in the betrothal of her husband to someone else. 4. The issue above that Rava and Abaye disagree about. The fourth one, Rav wasn't willing to conclude definitively from our Mishna whether it is effective or not as the Mishna can be explained both according to Rava and according to Abaye. A difficulty is raised against Rav regarding betrothing with stolen property as a braita teaches that it is effective. To resolve this, they suggest making a distinction between a case where they had/had not arranged the betrothal before. Three cases are brought where a man betrothed a woman using someone else's property and Rava ruled in each case that the betrothal was not valid as the item was not owned by the man and the original owner did not relinquish his rights to the object. The Mishna discusses betrothal using sacrificial items (a kohen giving his portion of the sacrifice to a woman for betrothal), maaser sheni, and hekdesh. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree about the halakha in these cases. When Rabbi Meir died, Rabbi Yehuda did not allow the students of Rabbi Meir into his Beit Midrash as he was concerned they were only coming to test Rabbi Yehuda. Sumchus anyway pushed his way in and quoted the halakha that Rabbi Meir taught which appears in our Mishna about a kohen betrothing a woman with sacrificial items. Rabbi Yehuda became angry at Sumchus saying, how can there be a case regarding those sacrificial items that can only be eaten in the azara as women do not go to the azara! Rabbi Yosi, feeling the need to make peace, intervened and explained the reality of the case in an attempt to calm down Rabbi Yehuda.

Kiddushin 51 - October 3, 18 Tishrei Oct 03, 2023

Study Guide Kiddushin 51

If one betrothed two women at the same time who are both forbidden to him on account of each other, such as a woman and her sister or a woman and her mother, neither betrothal is effective. Rami bar Hama and Raba each bring a different explanation for this. The basis for Raba's explanation is that if a man cannot marry another one after the other, then if he betroths them simultaneously, the betrothal is not effective. Difficulties are raised against this principle of Raba from three other areas of halakha (tithes on produce, animal tithes, and the breads of the thanksgiving offering, korban toda) where the same situation exists - that if one does an action one after the other, it would not be effective - however, when done simultaneously, it is effective! Rava and Abaye have a disagreement regarding a betrothal between two people in a situation where the couple cannot have relations (as in the case above where each wife is prohibited to the husband on account of the other - i.e. sister of a woman he is betrothed to). Rava holds that it is not effective and Abaye rules that it is. Five mishnayot, including our Mishna, are brought to raise a difficulty with Rava's position, but each difficulty is resolved.

Kiddushin 50 - October 2, 17 Tishrei Oct 02, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Elana Kermaier in loving memory of her father Moshe Fox z"l, Moshe Yehuda ben haRav Binyamin v'Chaya Tzipora on his sixth yahrzeit. "Your love of nature and the outdoors made Sukkot your favorite holiday. We so much miss celebrating this chag with you in our Sukkah.".

Today's daf is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs in loving memory of Shira's mother, Batya Rachel bat Yakov v'Rivkah, Brenda Katz, on her first yahrzeit.

If one sells a house with the intent to move to Israel but does not mention it as a condition of the sale and the move to Israel does not work out, can one cancel the sale of the house? Rava rules that "matters of the heart are not considered matters" and therefore the sale cannot be canceled. The sages bring five different sources to bring a source for this principle but the first four suggestions are rejected. Eventually, it is proven from a Mishna in Meila 6:1. A few other cases are mentioned regarding one who sold his house with the intent to move to Israel - in one case, he moved but then moved back as it didn't work out and in another, he never moved. In the first case, Rava ruled and in the second, Rav Ashi ruled, but there were two different versions regarding each of the rulings. If a man appoints an agent to betroth his wife in a specific location, the betrothal is only effective if the agent does exactly as he was told. But if the man tells the agent to betroth her and specifies where the agent can find her, if he finds her somewhere else and betroths her there, the betrothal is effective. Why does this need to be specified here by betrothal and also in Gittin regarding marriage? If a man betroths a woman with a condition that she does not have vows she has taken upon herself or blemishes and she in fact does, the betrothal is ineffective. But if he did not betroth her with that condition and yet finds out once betrothed that she has vows or blemishes, he can divorce her without having to give her the ketuba money. If a betrothal takes place but the husband does not do it with the value of a pruta and then later sends gifts that were traditionally sent to the bride's family after betrothal (sovlonot) to her house, the betrothal is ineffective as we assume the gifts were not meant for kiddushin. The Mishna lists three different types of cases where sending gifts would be ineffective - what is unique about each of the three cases that warranted each being mentioned? If the man only sent gifts (without a betrothal), do we need to be concerned that perhaps it was sent with the intent to betroth (or that there must have already been a betrothal - otherwise, why would he be sending the gifts)? Rav Huna and Raba hold that she is considered betrothed by safek (out of doubt) and will require a get before getting married to someone else. Two versions are brought about a discussion Raba and Abaye have regarding this ruling - in each version one supports and one disagrees. What does the Gemara conclude regarding this case? If one finds a ketuba of a woman in the marketplace and it is not known that she was betrothed, do we need to be strict and assume she must have been betrothed? On what does it depend? If one betrothed two women at the same time who are both forbidden to him on account of each other, such as a woman and her sister or a woman and her mother, neither betrothal is effective.

Kiddushin 49 - October 1, 16 Tishrei Oct 01, 2023

This week's learning is sponsored by Jonathan Aibel in honor of Natasha Shabat. "Giving in honor of my teacher, who has opened many doors of Torah for me."

Rava explained the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the Mishna to be referring to a case where the woman sent an agent to accept a betrothal for her and specified with what the husband would betroth her and the messenger accepted something else of higher value. He ruled that this betrothal is effective as she was merely suggesting a possible method. Abaye explains that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar each hold the same thing but in a different case - one regarding a regular document/tied document and the other regarding a woman who appoints an agent to receive her divorce document and also specifies the location where the agent is to go to receive it. Ula qualified the debate between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis as a case of differences in monetary value, but not differences in social status as not every woman would be happy to marry a man of higher status. A braita is brought to strengthen his qualification and it is derived from the Mishnayot here as well. Mar, the son of Rav Ashi raises a difficulty about the derivation from the Mishna but it is resolved in two possible ways. The Gemara brings in a braita with possible terms a husband can use as a condition when betrothing a wife and an explanation is brought for each as to what is meant by that, such as, "that I am a learner," what type of learner does he need to be, i.e. how do we check the veracity of his statement? Following a discussion on "on the condition that I am wise" which mentioned a number of examples of the best of the sages, the Gemara agra brings a series of statements: "Ten measures of...came down to the world and nine of them were taken by..."

Kiddushin 48 - First Day of Sukkot/ Shabbat September 30, 15 Tishrei Sep 29, 2023

The Gemara continues with suggestions by quoting tannaitic sources that Rav's statement that a man cannot betroth a woman by canceling a loan is a tannaitic debate. However, each source can be explained in several different ways, showing that the tannaitic debate in the source is not necessarily about the issue that Rav was discussing. If one betrothed woman and said with what item he was betrothing her and it turned out it was not what he said, is the betrothal effective? Does it depend on what item was stated and what item was actually used?

Kiddushin 47 - September 29, 14 Tishrei Sep 29, 2023

Rava holds that according to Rabbi Ami who thinks that the case in the Mishna where the woman ate each date as it was given to her is referring to the case of "this one and this one," it would be limited to that case only and not to one where the man said, "betroth me with all of these." A braita is brought to support this statement of Rava. After explaining how the braita supports Rava, they need to explain how to read the last line in the braita according to Rav and Shmuel and Rabbi Ami. Rav holds that a betrothal cannot be effected by canceling a loan that the woman owes the man because a loan is intended for spending and therefore the money owed is not considered owned by the man. Is this a subject of debate among tannaim? Two braitot are brought to attempt to show that what Rav said is a tannaitic debate. However, they reject both suggestions as each braita can be explained to be referring to a debate about a different subject. Another braita is brought to raise a difficulty against Rav. But, again, to resolve the difficulty, they suggest an alternative reading of the braita, which then again raises the possibility that Rav's statement is a subject of debate among tannaim, but this too is rejected.

Kiddushin 46 - September 28, 13 Tishrei Sep 28, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by The Hadran Zoom Family in honor of the marriage of Shirli Noiman to Amitai Levy, the son of our co-learner, Dahlia Levy. "בין כסה לעשור, we continue to learn and celebrate! Mazel tov!"

A minor who was betrothed and married to a kohen without her father’s consent, can she eat truma? How is this case different from the previous cases? A man who betrothed a woman with dates and with each date he gave her, said "You will be betrothed to me with this date, be betrothed to me with this date," if one of them is worth a pruta, it is a valid betrothal. If he said, "You will be betrothed to me with this date and this date and this date," then if there is a value of a pruta between all the dates, she is betrothed. If she ate each date as he gave it to her, there needs to be the value of a pruta in one of them. This last ruling is said about the first case or about the second case ("be betrothed to me with this date, be betrothed to me with this date," or "with this date and this date and this date"). If one betroths his sister, do we assume he gave her the money as a deposit (and she must return it) or as a gift (and she does not have to return it)? Rav and Shmuel disagree. A difficulty is raised against Shmuuel from a Mishna in Halla 2:5, but is resolved.

Kiddushin 45 - September 27, 12 Tishrei Sep 27, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Jason, Erica, and Raquel in honor of their mother, Patty Belkin on her birthday yesterday. "Wishing a very happy birthday to our amazing mother!"

Ulla held that if a minor girl accepted a betrothal and her father did not react, the betrothal is completely invalid. Two sources (a Mishna and a braita) are brought to raise a difficulty with his ruling, but the difficulties are resolved. Rav and Shmuel ruled that there is a doubt to whether or not the father agreed and therefore she must receive a get and do mi'un in order to be able to marry someone else. If the man who betrothed her died, and she became obligated in levirate marriage with the brother, and he performed maamar, Rav held that she needs to receive a get, perform chalitza and do mi'un with the brother of her deceased husband. If a father arranged a betrothal for his son, is there concern that perhaps the son agreed, just as there is concern that perhaps a father agreed to his minor daughter's betrothal? A story is told about a father who disagreed with his wife as to whether to marry off their daughter to his or her relatives. In the end, he conceded to his wife to marry her off to her relative, but at the betrothal ceremony, one of his relatives betrothed her in the attic. Is there concern that the father was pleased with this as it was his original desire? What is the ruling if a minor was betrothed by her father but then married him without the father's knowledge when the father was out of town? Can she eat truma if her husband is a kohen? How would the ruling be different if the father was in town and did not say anything when he heard of the marriage?

Kiddushin 44 - September 26, 11 Tishrei Sep 26, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Dahlia and Jack Levy on the marriage of their son, Amitai to Shirli Noiman.

There is a disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis about whether a naara can accept her own get or only her father can. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about whether the debate between them is also for kiddushin or do they both agree that the father must accept the kiddushin. What is the reason for Rabbi Yochanan who distinguishes between divorce and kiddushin? A braita states that a naara can accept maamar (which is like kiddushin for a yevama). How is this braita explained according to both Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish's positions? Our Mishna can also be used to raise a difficulty with Reish Lakish's position as only the father can appoint a messenger, not the naara. The first suggestion is to associate our Mishna with Rabbi Yehuda's position. However, this suggestion is rejected as the next Mishna does not follow Rabbi Yehuda's position. The conclusion is that both Mishnayot follow Rabbi Shimon who must hold like Rabbi Yehuda regarding the issue of the naara. Rabbi Avin testified that he was in the beit midrash when the rabbis voted to accept Rabbi Yochanan's position against Reish Lakish and permit only a father to accept the betrothal of a naara. Rava asked Rav Nachman: if a naara can accept her get, can she appoint an agent to accept it on her behalf or is it only the father that can do that? On what exactly is Rava's deliberation based? Rav Nachman answered that a naara cannot appoint an agent to accept her get. They raise a difficulty against his ruling from a Mishna in Gittin, but resolve it. If a minor girl accepted a betrothal on her own and when her father heard, he was silent, is that an indication that he accepted her actions and the betrothal is valid on a Torah level or not? Shmuel and Ulla disagree regarding this case.

Kiddushin 44 - September 26, 11 Tishrei Sep 26, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Dahlia and Jack Levy on the marriage of their son, Amitai to Shirli Noiman.

There is a disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis about whether a naara can accept her own get or only her father can. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about whether the debate between them is also for kiddushin or do they both agree that the father must accept the kiddushin. What is the reason for Rabbi Yochanan who distinguishes between divorce and kiddushin? A Mishna states that a naara can accept maamar (which is like kiddushin for a yevama). How is this Mishna explained according to both Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish's positions? Our Mishna can also be used to raise a difficulty with Reish Lakish's position as only the father can appoint a messenger, not the naara. The first suggestion is to associate our Mishna with Rabbi Yehuda's position. However, this suggestion is rejected as the next Mishna does not follow Rabbi Yehuda's position. The conclusion is that both Mishnayot follow Rabbi Shimon who must hold like Rabbi Yehuda regarding the issue of the naara. Rabbi Avin testified that he was in the beit midrash when the rabbis voted to accept Rabbi Yochanan's position against Reish Lakish and permit only a father to accept the betrothal of a naara. Rava asked Rav Nachman: if a naara can accept her get, can she appoint an agent to accept it on her behalf or is it only the father that can do that? On what exactly is Rava's deliberation based? Rav Nachman answered that a naara cannot appoint an agent to accept her get. They raise a difficulty against his ruling from a Mishna in Gittin, but resolve it. If a minor girl accepted a betrothal on her own and when her father heard, he was silent, is that an indication that he accepted her actions and the betrothal is valid on a Torah level or not? Shmuel and Ulla disagree regarding this case.

Kiddushin 43 - Yom Kippur - September 25, 10 Tishrei Sep 24, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Gitta and David Neufeld in loving memory of Meir ben Aryeh Leib HaLevi, Marvin Stokar. "Although his title of Zaidy was an honorary one, he and (lehavdil bein chayim lechayim) Bubby Fran were - and continue to be - an important part of our family. His love of all learning and of Eretz Yisrael were surpassed only by his love and care for our dear Bubby Fran. May he continue to be a meilitz yosher for her and all of us!"

Why do we say that a person who sends a messenger to commit a sin is not punished, but the messenger is? Even though there are some cases where the sender is liable, we do not build a paradigm from those cases to learn about all other commandments – why not? Shamai the elder has a different approach. There are three different interpretations explaining his opinion. Can a messenger also function as a witness in a case where he was also the messenger? Rav and Rabbi Shila disagree. What is at the root of their debate? A question is raised against Rav’s position from a Beit Shamai/Beit Hillel debate but is resolved. The ruling is that the messenger can function as a witness. Rav Nachman rules this way in marriage, divorce, and monetary law. Why did each need to be specified? Why was he not concerned in monetary law that the messenger is a party to the transaction? How did this change once the rabbis required a heiseit oath? Can a young woman (naara) accept a get for divorce or accept a marriage betrothal or only her father can? In what case is there a disagreement?

Kiddushin 42 - September 24, 9 Tishrei Sep 24, 2023

Study Guide Kiddushin 42

This week's learning is sponsored by Jennifer Baumer in honor of Rabbanit Michelle Farber. "As we approach the halfway mark in the daf yomi cycle. I do not think I would have made it past Eruvin without her insightful and patient daily teaching. Kol hakavod to everyone who has made it this far."

Today's daf is sponsored by Debbie Pine in loving memory of her mother, Florence Pine, Fayga bat Moshe Mordechai v'Sarah Rivka, on her 3rd yahrzeit. "Her presence is sorely missed every day and especially during the chagim. Ye'hi zichra baruch."

From where does Rabbi Yonatan derive laws of shlichut in kodashim if he uses the verse that was used previously to prove this for a different drasha? Rav is quoted as bringing a different source for shlichut. However, after raising two difficulties about this source, other suggestions are offered to understand these words of Rav. In conclusion, this comes to teach about the distribution of orphans of their father's property by guardians. Rav Nachman and Shmuel disagreed on the matter of guardians distributing orphans' property - can the orphans protest when they are older? Is there a contradiction between Rav Nachman ruling on this issue and his ruling on another issue regarding judges' evaluation? Rav Nachman holds that laws of onaah apply to orphans when distributing their father's property, but that there are laws of fraud in orphans who divide their property says their father, but Rava limits what Rav Nachman said. The Gemara brings in a braita that teaches that there is no messenger for sinning - if a messenger is sent to sin, the punishment is on the messenger and not the sender. But why isn't it derived from laws of meila, where there is a messenger for sinning, i.e. the sender gets punished and not the messenger?

Kiddushin 41 - Shabbat September 23, 8 Tishrei Sep 22, 2023

A woman and a man can each be present to effect the betrothal or they can each send messengers to effect the betrothal on their behalf. A father can betroth his daughter when she is a naara, even via a messenger. Why does the Mishna need to mention that the husband can do the betrothal himself? It is to teach that it is better for one to perform the mitzva themselves than to have someone do it on their behalf. Some people think it is forbidden to send a messenger as perhaps when he sees his wife after the betrothal, she will not find favor in his eyes and he will not want to marry her. This is not a concern for the woman as Reish Lakish understood that women would prefer always to be married than not married. The Mishna states that the father betroths the daughter when she is a naara, but not when she is a minor, even though he can also do it when she is a minor. They derive from here that a father should not betroth a woman so young as she should be at the age where she consents to the marriage. Can a messenger appoint another messenger? From where do we derive the concept of shlichut and that a messenger can 'fill the shoes' of the one who sent him/her and is considered as if the action was performed by the one who sent the messenger?

Kiddushin 40 - September 22, 7 Tishrei Sep 22, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Heather Stone in loving memory of her mother Ellie, Esther Bina bat Avraham v’Rachel Leah on her 12th yahrzeit. "I learned to be strong and resilient from mom. She used strength and resilience to serve the Jewish community of NJ for decades."

Today's daf is sponsored by Shira Dicker in honor of Ari's 74th birthday. "To Ari, my life partner, may your love of learning and Judaism grow and deepen and may all who engage in the study of the sacred books of our tradition find strength and sustenance therein. Mazel tov!!!!!"

Anyone who is tempted to sin and then refrains from committing the transgression receives a reward as one would have received for doing a mitzva. Three stories are given to illustrate this concept. Rava raises a difficulty on the Mishna in Peah 1:1 which mentions all the mitzvot for which one receives a reward in this world and in the next world - why is the sending of the mother bird not mentioned there as well? Rav Nachman answers that this refers only to mitzvot that are good for heaven (God) and good for others (humans), which is not the case with sending the mother bird, which is only a commandment that relates to God. The reward of a mitzvah is greater than the punishment for transgressions in several matters - in rewards there is a principle and fruits (extra/bonus) and in punishments only a principle, except for offenses that include blasphemy. By performing a mitzva, one is rewarded even for the thought of performing a mitzva even if in the end one is unable to fulfill the mitzva, and in punishments, one is not punished for the thought alone. However, there are some exceptions – a premeditated sin that one commits will come with a more severe punishment. One who thinks to worship idols is punished. According to Ulla, one is punished for the thought of committing an offense after one has already committed the same sin twice and it became thought of as permitted in one’s mind. There is power in one mitzvah to tip the scales - both personally and for the whole world. A righteous person who rebels at the end of his/her days or a wicked person who repents is judged by the end. On what does this depend? What is greater - learning Torah or actions? Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva disagree on the matter and the sages decided that the Talmud is greater because it leads to actions.

Kiddushin 39 - September 21, 6 Tishrei Sep 21, 2023

Different opinions are offered regarding whether or not laws of orla apply outside of Israel and if they do apply, does it apply to produce that is safek orla? Rabbi Yochanan ruled strictly both about orla and diverse kinds (kelaim) outside of Israel to the extent that he said that one who transgresses the prohibition of diverse kinds receives lashes. How could this be if diverse kinds outside of Israel are only forbidden by rabbinic law? To resolve this, they distinguish between tree grafting and planting seeds of diverse kinds. Rav Yosef was mixing seeds together and planting them. They raise a difficulty against this from the Mishna that holds that diverse kinds are forbidden by rabbinic law outside of Israel. To resolve this, they distinguish between diverse kinds in a vineyard (forbidden) and diverse seeds planted together (permitted). The Mishna states that one who performs one mitzva is rewarded with good things, long life and inherits the land. One who does not perform one mitzva, does not receive these blessings and does not inherit the land. How is this Mishna reconciled with the Mishna in Peah 1:1 that there are specific mitzvot for which one receives reward in this world? There are several ways to understand our Mishna - is it referring to reward in this world or the next world? Rabbi Yaakov, after seeing a child fulfilling both the mitzva of honoring his father and sending off the mother bird, both of which promise long life, and falling and dying on his way down the tree, he concluded that righteous people suffer in this world in order to receive more reward in the World-to-Come. This same story caused Elisha ben Avuya to leave the religion. Some suggest it was a different incident - that he saw the tongue of Chutzpit the translator being dragged on the floor by a pig after he was killed by the Romans.

Kiddushin 38 - September 20, 5 Tishrei Sep 20, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Prof. Jonathan Ben-Ezra in honor of Dr. Robin Zeiger, for completing half of Shas together today!! "To my better half, I am looking forward to completing the other half of our journey together. Also thank you to Rabbanit Michelle."

When the Jews entered the land of Israel after being in the desert, they stopped eating the manna on the 16th of Nisan and began eating from the new grains. Can this offer proof that when the Torah states "in your dwelling places" as it is mentioned regarding the prohibition to eat from the new grains, it is not referring to after having conquered and settled in the land? A number of braitot are brought regarding the manna and the date of Moshe's birth and death. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai offers his own explanation chadash, orla and kelaim are applicable also outside of Israel - chadash, based on the word "in your dwelling places," and the others by logical inference (kal vachomer) from chadash. His son, Rabbi Elazar, disagrees with the three exceptions and offers two different exceptions instead - cancellations of loans in the shmita year and release of slaves in the Jubilee year. Why are each of those cases considered part of the category of land-related commandments? A Mishna in Orla 3:9 explains that each of the three laws that are exceptions and apply outside of Israel are derived in different manners - one from the Torah, one halakha and one by the rabbis. What is meant by 'halakha'? Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel says it means the people took it upon themselves, while Ulla in the name of Rabbi Yochanan says it is 'halakha l'Moshe miSinai.' Ulla raises a difficulty on Rav Yehuda from the previous part of the Mishna in Orla 3:9.

Kiddushin 37 - September 19, 4 Tishrei Sep 19, 2023

Study Guide Kiddushin 37

Today's daf is sponsored by Heather Stone in loving memory of her grandmother, Rose, Rachel Leah bat Aharon v’Golda. "She taught me to light Shabbat candles and whose mother’s brass candlesticks I use."

Which mitzvot are only applicable in Israel and which ones are applicable everywhere? Many mitzvot in the Torah are introduced by the words "when you come into the land" and/or "in your dwelling places" - what words/combination of words indicate that the obligation is in the land of Israel only? This is a subject of debate between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva and there are also two different opinions regarding what Rabbi Yishmael held regarding this matter. If it is clear that mitzvot that are not connected to the land apply in all places and at all times, why was it necessary to use the words "in all dwelling places" in specific mitzvot like Shabbat, the prohibition to eat forbidden fats and blood, and the obligation to eat matza on the first night of Pesach?

Kiddushin 36 - September 18, 3 Tishrei Sep 18, 2023

This month's learning is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, whose yahrzeits are on Rosh Hashana. -Her father in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, whose yahrzeit is on Erev Yom Kippur, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, whose yahrzeit is on Hoshana Rabbah, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, whose yahrzeit is on Simchat Torah, and Sharon bat Yaakov, whose first yahrzeit is on 4 Tishrei. "All the myriad things they taught us serve as a testament to their memory and all these lessons are being passed on to the next generation giving meaning behind "May their memory be for a blessing". They brought us up to fear Hashem, walk in the ways of the Torah and Mitzvot, have courage through Emunah in the face of unspeakable odds, reflect on our midot, laugh, and love each and every person. Yehi Zicram Baruch.

Today's daf is sponsored by Debbie Baumgarten Kusnetz in honor of her daughter-in-law, Dvoranit Sussman Schwartz. "For all she does for her family and still makes time for learning the daf."

There are three different explanations given to explain why Isi added a fourth case to the list of negative commandments that don't apply to women - the prohibition of making oneself bald as a sign of mourning for a loved one. Why do each of them not accept the explanation of the others? There are several actions that are performed in the Temple relating to sacrifices that are traditionally performed by men and not women. The Mishna lists these actions and the Gemara explains from where in the Torah can we derive that each of these actions is meant to be performed only by men. There are two exceptions to the rule - the waving of the Sotah and the Nazirite meal offering. From where is this exception derived?

Kiddushin 35 - 2nd Day of Rosh Hashana - September 17, 2 Tishrei Sep 15, 2023

The Gemara continues to determine from where it is derived that women are obligated in positive commandments that are not time-bound and exempted from time-bound ones. There are three different sources to explain why women are obligated in all negative commandments - what are the differences between the three and why are all necessary? There are three negative commandments that women are exempt from. The derivation of these is discussed at length. Isi brings an additional one and a derivation is brought and analyzed.

Kiddushin 34 - 1st Day of Rosh Hashana - September 16, 1 Tishrei Sep 15, 2023

This week's learning is sponsored by Rachel Geballe and Ellen Werlin in loving memory of their father, Yaakov Eli ben Avraham v'Miriam. "An adventurous learner, dedicated to the Jewish community and to tzedakah, Jim showed by example that deep and wide intellectual exploration is the foundation of a strong character and a life devoted to chesed. We miss you every day."

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. "As the learning of Daf Yomi enters its second century, with deepest hakarat hatov to our dear teacher and friend. No matter how complicated the sugya, you get us through it! Your encyclopedic knowledge, your passion for equity and access, and your love of learning and teaching have combined to make you a role model for us all. May you and your family be blessed with a k'tiva v'chatima tova and may you continue to derive nachat from all of us!"

Women are exempt from time-bound positive commandments and obligated in non time-bound commandments. A braita brings examples of each. There are, however, a lot of exceptions to the rule. The derivations of these laws and their exceptions are discussed.

Kiddushin 33 - September 15, 29 Elul Sep 15, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Terri Krivosha and Rabbi Hayim Herring to mark the end of shloshim for Terri's mother, Cheni Mindyl bat Yerachmiel HaKohen v'Shima Feiga.

Today's daf is sponsored by Caroline Ofstein and Medinah Korn in loving memory of Helen Abelesz, z"l, on her shloshim. "She was a dearly cherished friend who gifted us with her strength, wisdom, inspiration and incredible emuna, and she is sorely missed by the many who loved her. Yehi zichrah baruch."

The commandment to honor your elders - does this mean someone who is old, someone who is learned and old or just someone who is learned (even if they are not old)? Does one need to spend money to observe this commandment? Does one need to interrupt one's work to stand for an elder? Does this apply to non-Jews? The elder has a responsibility not to walk in a place where too many people will need to stand up for him. Does a father need to stand for a child who is his teacher? Does that child need to stand in respect for his father?

er?

Kiddushin 32 - September 14, 28 Elul Sep 14, 2023

Today’s daf is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir in loving memory of their dear and wonderful friend Alvin Gordon. "Alvin returned his neshama to Hakadosh Baruch Hu on the 25th of Elul. His great wisdom, joy, ahavat ha’adam, love of Yahadut, generosity and humor will be sorely missed by all who knew and loved him. Yehi zichro baruch."

What is the difference between fear and honor of parents? One of the obligations of respect is to feed one's parents. Is the financial responsibility also on the child or is one to use the parent's money? Rav Yehuda says it is on the child and Rav Natan bar Oshaya says it is on the parents. Three sources are brought to raise a difficulty with these opinions. If honoring one's parent conflicts with performing a different mitzva, what takes precedence? If a parent or a teacher or a nasi or a king is willing to forego respect for him/herself, can he/she? Is the obligation to respect elders addressing elderly people, Torah scholars, or people who are both elderly and Torah scholars? What are the details of this law?

Kiddushin 31 - September 13, 27 Elul Sep 13, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Leah Goldford in honor of Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld. "A huge thank you and hakarat hatov for doing the needlework for my grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah. Gitta is so special (as we all know) a dedicated and decorated educator, a supportive and loving wife, mother, and bubby, an insightful and caring partner in this journey of ours in Daf Yomi. I know you all join me when I say - we love you Gitta!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Or Eliasian in loving memory of Michal bat Shasha Chava.

Today's daf is sponsored for a continued refuah shleima for Shlomo Gavriel ben Esther.

How is the commandment to honor one's parents linked to the commandment to honor God? Dama ben Netina was a gentile who respected his father in an exceptional manner and his actions are brought as an example of how to perform the mitzva. Other examples are brought of those others who fulfilled the mitzva of respecting their parents - some are praised and others are criticized. How does one respect one's parents when they are no longer alive?

Kiddushin 30 - September 12, 26 Elul Sep 12, 2023

What are the ideal ages when a child will listen to his/her parents? Is a grandfather obligated to teach his grandson Torah? One should split one's learning - a third Torah, a third Mishna, and a third Talmud - this is derived from the word v'shinantam. The early soferim would count all the letters in the Torah and knew which letter/word/verse was the middle one. This capability ceased to exist as the rabbis were no longer certain of which words were written with or without yuds and vavs and where to divide verses. V'shinantam is also used to teach that one should understand the Torah that one has learned very well. V'shinantam is also used to teach that learning Torah is an elixir to protect from the evil inclination. The Gemara continues to discuss the various other obligations a man has toward his son (that were mentioned in the braita in Kiddushin 29) - marrying him off, teaching him a trade, and how to swim. From where are each of these obligations derived? Mitzvot that are incumbent on children to do for their parents, men and women are obligated equally. This is derived from the commandment to fear one's parents. However, a married woman has an exception if her husband's needs conflict with her parent's needs and he insists on his needs superseding theirs.

Kiddushin 29 - September 11, 25 Elul Sep 11, 2023

In redeeming sanctified items, the item is acquired when paying money and not by meshicha, pulling. What is the law if the price changes between the paying of the money and the pulling of the item or between the pulling and the paying of the money? The Mishna explains that the mitzvot that a father is required to do for his son are only incumbent on men and not on women (mothers). The Mishna also explains which types of mitzvot are obligatory for women and which are women exempt from, including time-bound positive commandments. The Gemara brings a braita that gives examples of the mitzvot that the father is required to do to his son - circumcision, redeeming the firstborn son, teaching him Torah, marrying him off, teaching him a trade and some say swimming as well. The Gemara begins to go over the examples and brings sources from the Torah for the father’s obligation and the mother’s exemption. Who is obligated in the event that the father doesn’t take care of it?

Kiddushin 28 - September 10, 24 Elul Sep 10, 2023

This week's learning is sponsored by Elana Storch "Thank you to Rabbanit Michelle for guiding and navigating us through these complicated dapim and for creating this extraordinary and loving community of Hadran . Thank you all for the warm welcome in “real time” and in person here in Israel."

Today's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom group in honor of their dear friend and co-learner, Julie Mendelsohn, on her daughter Hannah's marriage to Daniel. "We wish Hannah and Daniel much happiness, in the spirit of what we learned together in Masekhet Sota: איש ואשה זכו -שכינה ביניהם."

The source for gilgul shvua is from the sotah. How do we know that it applies in monetary law as well? How do we know that we can obligate one in this type of oath, even if the claim against the person is not a definitive claim? Rav gives a case showing the extent to which we can use gilgul shvua and Rava explains to which case is Rav referring and why he specifically chose this case. Movable items can be acquired through chalipin which can mean bartering or a symbolic act where one of the parties lifts an object. Can this be done with money, produce, or only vessels? The Mishna discusses chalipin but there are three different suggestions brought as to how to read/understand the Mishna. Items acquired by the Temple treasury have different laws than regular items. Regular items can only be acquired through pulling while items for the Temple are acquired with money. Designating something with words for the treasury is as if it was pulled and it immediately considered the property of the Temple.

Kiddushin 27 - Shabbat September 9, 23 Elul Sep 08, 2023

Today’s daf is sponsored by Judi Felber in loving memory of her mother, Jan Abramson, Yocheved Bat Sara and Tzvi, on her 2nd yahrzeit. “Women playing a significant role in Judaism was always important to her.”

Today’s daf is dedicated by the Tannenbaum family in loving memory of Miriam’s mother, Ruth Zemsky z”l Rayzel bat Yehoshua haLevi and Chaya Kila on her 7th yahrzeit. "Following in the teaching of R’ Akiva, her home and Shabbat table were a model of her approach to life; one of being mezake aniyim literally and metaphorically. Her example continues to inspire us daily. Yehi zichra baruch."

A question was asked: can a kinyan agav be effected if the movable items are not found in the land that is being acquired? After several attempts to answer this question, the answer is learned from a source about a document being acquired with land. The conclusion is that it does not need to be physically present on the land. The Gemara raises several other questions regarding kinyan agav. What is the source for gilgul shvua - one who is obligated to take an oath about one thing, can become obligated to take an oath at the same time to swear regarding other things for which they would not otherwise be obligated to take an oath. The source is derived from the oath of a sotah, a woman accused of being unfaithful to her husband who undergoes the sotah process.

Kiddushin 26 - September 8, 22 Elul Sep 08, 2023

Study Guide Kiddushin 26

Land and movable property each have different mechanisms by which they can be acquired. What is the source for each of these methods and in what situations are these methods limited? A kinyan agav is when one acquires land and movable property in the same deal. He/she can acquire the land and automatically the movable items are acquired as well, even though the method by which one acquires the land is not a method that would generally work for movable property. A question was asked: can a kinyan agav be effected if the movable items are not found in the land that is being acquired? Several sources are brought to attempt to answer this question.

Kiddushin 25 - September 7, 21 Elul Sep 07, 2023

Today’s daf is sponsored by Jessica Jobanek and Harold Kingsberg in honor of the first birthday of their beloved son, Shmuel Meir. “We look forward to many more years learning with and from you, B'ezrat Hashem.”

If a master removes the eye of an already blind slave, will the slave be freed? Which types of blemishes are considered noticeable that a slave would go free if the master inflicted it? Would this include castrated testicles or cutting his tongue? Sources are brought from other areas of halacha where revealed blemishes are discussed. The Mishna discusses how larger and smaller animals are acquired. The Gemara raises a question according to a tana who requires lifting even large animals: how can an elephant be acquired?

Kiddushin 24 - September 6, 20 Elul Sep 06, 2023

Study Guide Kiddushin 24

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Shapiro for the 10th yahrzeit of her mother Deera Tychman, z"l".

Today's daf is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Shlomo Gavriel Ben Esther.

The rabbis and Rabbi Meir disagree regarding a non-Jewish slave about whether or not there is a way to give him money that will not automatically be transferred to his master (for the purposes of him using the money to free himself). The Gemara brings a source regarding a woman taking tithes on her husband's produce and shows that the opinions of Rabbi Meir and the rabbis on that issue seem to contradict what each of them holds in the case of the slave. Abaye and Rava each resolve the contradiction in a different manner. A non-Jewish slave is redeemed if the master knocks out his tooth, his eye or certain extremities of his body that do not regenerate. The derivation of these laws from the verses in the Torah is discussed. Does the slave go free if the eye is not knocked out but is non-functional or if was not functional before but the master actually knocked it out? What if the master was a doctor and damaged the eye/dentist and knocked out a tooth while performing a procedure that the slave requested?

Kiddushin 23 - September 5, 19 Elul Sep 05, 2023

Study Guide Kiddushin 23

Today's daf is sponsored by Yacova Mayberg in loving memory of the victims of terror in Israel, August 2023, and in honor of the remarkable Aviva Tessler. "She has dedicated her life to providing care and support to both the victims and their families through her organization, Operation Embrace."

Today's daf is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Anat Rachel bat Penina. "Hoping that the Hadran learners learning for her will bring chizuk and refuah."

A non-Jewish slave is freed by money or by a document. Is it a benefit for a non-Jewish slave to be redeemed or not? Does anything he receives while in slavery automatically become his owner's? If so, how can he be redeemed? How will he have money to pay his way out? How can he receive an emancipation document to gain his freedom if anything he receives automatically is owned by the master? There is a 3-way argument over how the slave can be freed and the argument is affected by how they rule regarding the various issues mentioned above.

Kiddushin 22 - September 4, 18 Elul Sep 04, 2023

Study Guide Kiddushin 22

Today’s daf is sponsored by Judi Felber in loving memory of her father, Armin Abramson, Hershel Tzvi Shlomo Chaim ben Dina Sara and Pesach, on his 6th yahrzeit. “He was always amazed by the topics the rabbis discussed and the details they considered.”

Today's daf is sponsored by Erica and Barry Kolatch in celebration of the Bar Mitzvah of their grandson, Alon Hillel Kolatch, son of Eliezer and Shoshana Covel Kolatch. "Mazal Tov also to Alon's other grandparents, Leah Covel, and James Covel."

Today's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family for a refuah shleima of Avi, Avraham Shraga Feivush ben Hilda, "the husband of our dear friend and co-learner, Goldie Gilad. With tefillot and wishes for a full and speedy recovery for Avi, b'toch she'ar cholei Yisrael."

Can a master give a Jewish slave who is a kohen a Caananite slave for bearing children? Is it permissible for a kohen to go through the process with an eshet yefat toar as prescribed by the Torah? In what way is it permissible to pierce the slave's ear and allow him to remain enslaved until the Jubilee year? The Gemara brings braitot with drashot on the verses of a slave whose ear gets pierced and limits the possibilities in which this can happen. Anyone who buys a Jewish slave is buying a master himself because he needs to be treated as one would treat oneself. The master also needs to provide food for his wife and children. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakhai explains that specifically the ear is pierced as a sign that the slave who wanted to remain a slave heard the words of the Torah at Mount Sinai that the sons of Yisrael are slaves to God and not slaves to slaves and transgressed this and sold himself into slavery. Rabbi Shimon b'Rebbi explains that the reason the ear is pierced near the door is to remember that God passed over the doorposts in Egypt showing that we would leave slavery behind and become slaves to God only and this slave is going against that. According to the Mishna, a Canaanite slave was bought with money, a document and chazaka. However, there are other ways as well and the Gemara explains what they are.

Kiddushin 21 - September 3, 17 Elul Sep 03, 2023

Study Guide Kiddushin 21

Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Cohn on the Yahrzeit of her father Rav Dov Chaim ben Zeev z"l, on his 9th yahrzeit, who taught all his five daughters Talmud and the love of Torah. "Abballe: Since I have been doing daf yomi with Rabanit Michelle I am reminded of many of your beautiful teachings and feel your presence every morning as I learn the daf!"

Can a house in a walled city be redeemed partially? Can this law be derived from laws of a field in a non-walled city that was sold which cannot be redeemed partially? Can a field that was sanctified be redeemed partially? Can a house in a walled city be redeemed by relatives? Can this be derived from laws of a field in a non-walled city that can be redeemed by relatives or is it a unique law there? Can a Jewish slave sold to a Jew be redeemed by relatives? Can this be derived from laws of a Jewish slave sold to a gentile owner that can be redeemed by relatives or is it a unique law there? The Gemara derives from the Torah laws regarding the piercing of the ear of a slave who wants to stay longer.

Kiddushin 20 - Shabbat September 2, 16 Elul Sep 01, 2023

Study Guide Kiddushin 20

Today's daf is sponsored by Marsha Wasserman in honor of her husband, Manny. " Happy anniversary to my beloved husband Manny. It’s been an amazing 61 years of marriage. May we be blessed to continue enjoying each other’s company, sharing daf yomi as we explore our new life in Israel. I love you."

Does the master have to be able to marry the maidservant? What if the father conditioned the sale upon a condition that he not marry her? What if the maidservant is forbidden to him by marriage by a negative commandment? What if he is a relative that is forbidden by the punishment of karet? If the slave wants to redeem himself and while he was a slave, his value either increased or decreased, at what value is he redeemed? The slave always gets the financial advantage. On what is this based? Can one partially redeem a slave? Can one partially redeem a house sold in a walled city?

Kiddushin 19 - September 1, 15 Elul Sep 01, 2023

Study Guide Kiddushin 19

Today's daf is sponsored by Talia Haykin in honor of Shira Fishman and her family for making Aliyah on August 27. "The Denver community will miss you all!"

When a master marries the maidservant, does it effect marriage or betrothal? What functions as the money for betrothal - is it the money that the father received for selling the daughter into slavery or is it the cancellation of the rest of the period she was meant to be working for him? There are two opinions about how to understand Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda's position on this issue. Can a master marry off his minor son to the maidservant or does he need to reach the age of maturity? Does the maidservant need to consent to the marriage? Until what point can the master marry the maidservant? CAn one sell his daughter under the condition that the master not be allowed to marry her? Is this considered making a condition against Torah law?

Kiddushin 18 - August 31, 14 Elul Aug 31, 2023

A convert's children, whether or not they converted with him, do not inherit his property as when a person converts, it is as if they are reborn. A braita lists more differences between Jewish male and female slaves and the Gemara explains the cases discussed in the braita as each line is hard to reconcile with other laws relating to slaves. One of the differences mentioned in the braita is that a father cannot sell his daughter more than once. But isn't that true for a male slave as well - that he can't be sold twice. How can this be explained? If the slave is worth more or less than the value of what he stole, can he be sold as a slave? Another difference mentioned in the braita is that a daughter can be redeemed against his will - whose will? The master or the father? It is explained to be against the father's will and is then explained according to Rabbi Shimon's opinion that a father can't sell his daughter more than once. If the master performs ye'ud with the female slave, does that change her status to betrothed or married? What is the relevance of this question? The Gemara brings tannaitic sources to try to find an answer to this question.

Kiddushin 17 - August 30, 12 Elul Aug 30, 2023

Today’s daf is dedicated by the Kerzner and Greenstone families in honor of Halleli Miriam Rosenblum, newly born to Rivka and Sruly Rosenblum. "You should raise Halleli in the spirit of Mom’s/Auntie Miriam’s memory: with love, happiness, and commitment to family, community, and to constant growth through learning."

The master is required to give gifts to a Jewish slave when he/she leaves (severance pay). In what cases does the slave not receive these gifts? If a Jewish slave misses work because he/she sick, does he/she have to make up sick days? What is the amount of the gift that is given to the slave upon leaving? There are three different opinions. From what other law does each derive his opinion? What types of items can/should be given? Do slaves get passed down as inheritance? A male slave is passed down to sons but not to daughters or brothers (in the event the owner has no sons). A female maidservant, a male whose ear is pierced, and a male slave sold to a gentile are passed down to sons and not to daughters or brothers. From where are these laws derived? By Torah law, a gentile inherits from his father. However, a convert only inherits from his gentile father by rabbinic law, not by Torah law. The rabbis ruled that he inherits from his father to prevent him from wanting to go back to being a gentile to receive an inheritance.

Kiddushin 16 - August 29, 12 Elul Aug 29, 2023

Study Guide Kiddushin 16

This week’s learning is sponsored by Medinah Korn in loving memory of her mother, Rosalie Katchen, Shoshana Raizl bat Avraham Yehoshua ve-Baila Toibe, z”l, on her 23rd yahrzeit. "She continues to teach me so much even though she has been gone for so long. Yehi zichrah baruch."

Today's daf is sponsored by Ginat family in loving memory of Barak ben Lifa and Shlomit.

Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of David's mother, Ethel Petegorsky Geffen, Adina bat Aryeh Leib on her 19th yahrzeit. "She, along with her beloved husband Abe, devoted her life to family and synagogue. Her two sons made Aliyah to Israel and her daughter has spent her professional life in service to the Jewish community."

Sources are brought for the derivation of the methods that Jewish slaves are acquired and freed. Reish Lakish adds another type to the list in our mishna and the Gemara tries to rectify his opinion with that of the mishna and other tannatic sources.

Kiddushin 15 - August 28, 11 Elul Aug 28, 2023

Study Guide Kiddushin 15

This week's learning is sponsored by Joshua Schor in honor of Lori Schuldiner Schor on their double Chai 36th anniversary last week. "Lori is my eternal teacher in “Darchei Noam” all ways pleasant and good. Her generosity and dedication to learning are models for me and our growing family. Lots of love."

Who is the tana who doesn’t hold by the gezeira shava of sakhir sakhir? The Gemara brings three different tannaitic sources to find a tana that matches this opinion, but each one is rejected as alternative explanations are suggested. In the context of these sources, the sages are grappling with which laws mentioned in the verses about Jewish slaves apply to which category of Jewish slave.

Kiddushin 14 - August 27, 10 Elul Aug 27, 2023

Study Guide Kiddushin 14

From where do we derive the ways in which a yevama is acquired (intercourse) and freed (chalitza or death of the yabam) from her first husband's brother? From where do we learn that a married woman is not released through chalitza and a yevama is not released by a get? How is a Jewish slave acquired and freed? How is a Jewish maidservant acquired and freed? How is a Jewish slave who gets his ear pierced in order to enable his to stay with his master beyond the six years acquired and freed? There are four types of Jewish slaves mentioned in the Torah - 1. One sold by the court (if he/she stole and did not have the money to repay the owner); 2. One who sold oneself out of poverty to a Jew; 3. One who sold oneself out of poverty to a gentile; 4. a maidservant sold by her father. From where do we derive that each type of Jewish slave is acquired by money?

Kiddushin 13 - Shabbat August 26, 9 Elul Aug 25, 2023

Study Guide Kiddushin 13

Kiddushin 12 - August 25, 8 Elul Aug 25, 2023

More opinions are brought about why Beit Shammai require a dinar for marriage. Beit Hillel's holds that a woman can be betrothed with a pruta. What is the value of that pruta? What if the item is something that fluctuates in value? What if it was worth less but somewhere else could be worth a pruta? What if after the fact there is a question about the marriage and the current value is a pruta but it may have been worth more earlier when the marriage took place? Several actual cases are brought. Rav instituted lashes for people who did various things including getting betrothed without prearranging, or in the marketplace, or by betrothal through intercourse. The latter, while permitted by the Torah, was frowned upon by the rabbis.

Kiddushin 11 - August 24, 7 Elul Aug 24, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Betsy Frank in honor of Penny's Daf Yomi Salon.

Today's daf is sponsored by Marilyn Katz in honor of Rebecca Koenigsberg. "She is a constant source for me of inspiration and knowledge, and whose constant observation of the mitzva of hachnassat orchim extends to regularly serving as the siyum mesaderet for our small local group of daf-yomi-ers."

Why does Beit Shammai hold that the money required for betrothal is significantly higher than the amount Beit Hillel says? Several answers are suggested.

Kiddushin 10 - August 23, 6 Elul Aug 23, 2023

Kiddushin 9 - August 22, 5 Elul Aug 22, 2023

Study Guide Kiddushin 9

Kiddushin 8 - August 21, 4 Elul Aug 21, 2023

Kiddushin 7 - August 20, 3 Elul Aug 20, 2023

Kiddushin 6 - Shabbat August 19, 2 Elul Aug 18, 2023

Kiddushin 5 - 2nd Day Rosh Chodesh Elul - August 18, 1 Elul Aug 18, 2023

Kiddushin 4 - 1st Day Rosh Chodesh Elul - August 17, 30 Av Aug 17, 2023

Kiddushin 3 - August 16, 29 Av Aug 16, 2023

Kiddushin 2 - August 15, 28 Av Aug 15, 2023

Introduction to Masechet Kiddushin with Dr. Ayelet Hoffmann Libson Aug 13, 2023

Introduction to Masechet Kiddushin

Gittin 90 - Siyum Masechet Gittin - August 14, 27 Av Aug 13, 2023

For the text of the Hadran ceremony, click here.
For more information about What is a Siyum, click here.

Siyum Gittin is sponsored by Sara Berelowitz in loving memory of her Mother Cleme Bonime, Kila bat Yehuda a"h, on her 10th yahrzeit. "May her neshama have an aliya b'zchut the learning of the wonderful Hadran Daffers and Rabbanit Michelle."

Siyum Gittin is sponsored by the Shuster family as a z'chut for the refuah shleima of Zev ben Chanah and Yisrael Ozer ben Devorah.

Gittin 89 - August 13, 26 Av Aug 13, 2023

Gittin 88 - August 12, 25 Av Aug 11, 2023

Gittin 87 - August 11, 24 Av Aug 11, 2023

Gittin 86 - August 10, 23 Av Aug 10, 2023

English Study Guide Gittin 86

Today's daf is sponsored by Natalie Weissman in honor of Tzippy Wolkenfeld. "Tzippy always inspires me." And in memory of the most precious Kiki."

Gittin 85 - August 9, 22 Av Aug 09, 2023

English Study Guide Gittin 85

Gittin 84 - August 8, 21 Av Aug 08, 2023

Gittin 83 - August 7, 20 Av Aug 07, 2023

Gittin 82 - August 6, 19 Av Aug 06, 2023

Gittin 81 - Shabbat August 5, 18 Av Aug 04, 2023

Gittin 80 - August 4, 17 Av Aug 04, 2023

Gittin 79 - August 3, 16 Av Aug 03, 2023

Gittin 78 - August 2, 15 Av Aug 02, 2023

Gittin 77 - August 1, 14 Av Aug 01, 2023

Gittin 76 - July 31, 13 Av Jul 31, 2023

Gittin 75 - July 30, 12 Av Jul 30, 2023

Gittin 74 - Shabbat July 29, 11 Av Jul 28, 2023

Gittin 73 - July 28, 10 Av Jul 28, 2023

Gittin 72 - Tisha b'Av - July 27, 9 Av Jul 26, 2023

The discussion from the last daf continues as to who the Mishna is according to - Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Yossi regarding whether or not messengers can set up other messengers to write and give the get. If a man divorces his wife conditioning it upon his death - does that work? Tana kama holds that it depends on the wording - if he said this is your get from now if I die, it works - upon his death, the get applies retroactively from the date he gave it. If not, it doesn't work. Rabbi Yossi holds that it works in any case because the get is dated from today and therefore the date proves that he meant the get to be effective upon his death retroactive to the date in the get. Rav Huna's statement about this Mishna is questioned and the Gemara struggles to explain according to who he was relating and to which case.

Gittin 71 - July 26, 8 Av Jul 26, 2023

According to Rav, a deaf person who can write can write a note instructing others to give a get to his wife. The Gemara points out that his law is debated among tanaim. The Gemara here is grappling with issues of people with disabilities and is aware of the fact that although people may be categorized into a particular group, there are shades within each group and there are those with higher intellectual capabilities.

Gittin 70 - July 25, 7 Av Jul 25, 2023

The Gemara continues to discuss remedies for various diseases as well as explain what causes some of the various diseases. The Mishna rules that a person who sent a messenger to write a get and then got kordiyakus and then said not to write the get, we ignore his later orders. There is an argument between Resh Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan about whether the messenger can write the get while the husband has the kordiyakus or does he wait until the husband gets better and then writes it based on his earlier instructions. This addresses the issue of the power of appointing a messenger. Is the messenger now acting independently of the one who sent them? Or is the messenger only an extension of the one who sent them and if the one who sends the messenger is longer of sound mind, then the messenger cannot perform the action?

Gittin 69 - July 24, 6 Av Jul 24, 2023

Gittin 68 - July 23, 5 Av Jul 23, 2023

Gittin 67 - Shabbat July 22, 4 Av Jul 21, 2023

Gittin 66 - July 21, 3 Av Jul 21, 2023

Gittin 65 - July 20, 2 Av Jul 20, 2023

There is halachic validity to various acts of children depending on their level of maturity. There are various stages mapped out in the Gemara for different acts. A minor however cannot appoint a messenger. If a man or woman appoints a messenger to deliver (man) or accept (woman) the get and specifies a location, if the messenger does it in a different location, is it valid? Does it depend if it was the man or the woman's messenger? Does it depend on how the request was worded? If a woman appointed a messenger to accept her get, from what point is she not allowed to eat truma in the event that she was married to a kohen? What types of commands would be clear that a man intends to send messengers to write and deliver a get? Which wording does not indicate such?

Gittin 64 - Rosh Chodesh Av - July 19, 1 Av Jul 19, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Marcia Baum in loving memory of Sam Baum, Chaim Simcha haLevi ben Aharon haLevi v'Liba on his 20th yahrzeit. "My dad was a larger-than-life individual who was steadfast in his love for family, Israel and yahadut. Stories of his escapades resound even twenty years after his petirah. He is sorely missed by those of us who knew and loved him!"

Can a messenger sent by the husband to deliver to a get to his wife also function as a messenger to accept the get for his wife? If the husband gave a get to a middleman and the middleman claims he was given the get to accept on behalf of the wife and the husband claims he gave it to him to hold for him but not to accept it, who is believed? Would the same laws regarding monetary issues and middlemen apply or is this case different? Can the father or the daughter accept the get in the case of a betrothed na'ara (in between stage between child and adult)?

Gittin 63 - July 18, 29 Tamuz Jul 18, 2023

Study Guide Gittin 63

A woman can only appoint a messenger to accept the get and a husband can only appoint a messenger to deliver the get. If the messenger is accepting the get, then the get is effective immediately. If the messenger is delivering the get then the get is effective once it reaches the woman. The relevance: whether or not the husband can change his mind. What happens when the husband uses wording of "accept" instead of "deliver"? What happens if the messenger is sent by the wife to deliver the get to her but he tells the husband that he was appointed to accept the get? In this case, no one properly appointed him to be a messenger so the get isn't good even once the wife receives it. If the term "heilach" - meaning "here it is" is used by the husband, does everyone agree that it means the get is effective immediately or is there a disagreement about it? Can a man send a messenger to deliver and the woman send a messenger to receive it from the husband's messenger?

Gittin 62 - July 17, 28 Tamuz Jul 17, 2023

Gittin 61 - July 16, 27 Tamuz Jul 16, 2023

Study Guide Gittin 61

Today's daf is sponsored by Suri Stern in honor of her mother’s birthday on July 20th. "She was a pioneer in the Five Towns community and baruch Hashem still enjoys those around her."

How can we understand the debate between Rabbi Yosi and the rabbis in the Mishna regarding stealing that is forbidden on account of theft by rabbinic law or because of darkhei shalom? One loan one's kitchen equipment of those who are suspected of storing shmita produce beyond the permitted time or amei haaretz (who are either suspected of not tithing their produce or of not keeping laws of purity) but there is a distinction between the two regarding helping grind their wheat. Why? Abaye and Rava each bring a different explanation and the Gemara raises several questions against Rava (contradictions from other tannitic sources) and resolves them. They bring another contradiction between two different Mishnas in Demai regarding one who brings his produce to an am haaretz to grind - does one need to be concerned that they switch their produce with their own? In which cases is there a reason for concern and why?

Gittin 60 - Shabbat July 15, 26 Tamuz Jul 14, 2023

What is the order for who receives aliyot to the Torah after the first two (kohen and levi)? Is one allowed to read from a parchment that includes only one book of the Torah? Is one permitted to write sections of the Torah for children to learn? Can the Oral Torah be written down? Other laws are discussed that were instituted because of darkhei shalom, which relate to where to put the food for the eruv and laws of precedence regarding filling up wells from an irrigation channel.

Gittin 59 - July 14, 25 Tamuz Jul 14, 2023

This week's learning is sponsored by Rena & Mark Goldstein in honor of their daughter, Jenny, who has been teaching Yeshiva students for 18 years, on the occasion of this important birthday.

The sale of a deaf-mute who signals and the sale of a child (who is mature enough to understand) is considered a good sale. The laws of the order of aliyot during Torah reading were instituted in order that people don't fight over who is more respected – first kohen, then levi, then yisrael. Other changes are brought in the Mishna that were instituted because of darkhei shalom and they will be discussed further in the Gemara. What is done when there is no kohen or levi in shul?

Gittin 58 - July 13, 24 Tamuz Jul 13, 2023

This week's learning is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in honor of her birthday. "Dedicated to the memory of my beloved mother, Sarah Raizel bat Freida Sima and Mordechai Yitzhak Kraus (Shirley K. Tydor), as in our family we give our mothers a present on our birthday! They did the hard work!"

More stories of the destruction, including the story of the children of Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha, the high priest, who were taken into captivity and put together in a room by their masters in order to bear children. Tzofnat bat Peniel taken captive and then while selling her to someone, she was almost stripped naked to show her beauty to him and she then rolled herself in ashes. One who buys from a sikrikon (a gentile who seized land) and then purchases the land from the original owner, the sale with the original owner is ineffective. Rav says this is only true if there was no document for the sale with the original owner. Shmuel disagrees and holds that even a document is not proof of a valid sale, but if in the document the owner guaranteed the land, then it is a valid sale. The law was changed in order to prevent land from remaining in the hands of the sikrikon - after twelve months, one could purchase the land and give the original owner a quarter of the value of the land. If the land was sold after to another and three years had passed since the original purchase from the sikrikon, what happens if the original owner claim to have not received the quarter? If the gentile who seized the land was just a regular thief (anparut), not one who was likely to murder, the laws of sikrikon do not apply and the land goes back to the original owner, even after twelve months. The laws of anparut do not apply in Babylonia - why not? The quarter that is given back to the original owner is that a third of the amount that the buyer spent or a quarter? Rav and Shmuel disagree about the percentage by which the sikrikon would decrease the price when selling the land when selling it, which led them to a different answer to the previous question.

Gittin 57 - July 12, 23 Tamuz Jul 12, 2023

Onkelos the convert was the nephew of Titus. He went and raised Titus, Bilam and others from the dead and asked them questions about the Jews and the punishments they each received for their actions. The Mount of the King was destroyed because of a rooster and a hen. How and why were the people of Kfar Sichniya in Egypt destroyed? Beitar was destroyed (during the Bar Kochva rebellion) on account of a shaft of a carriage. Zecharia the prophet was assassinated by the Jews who did not want to accept his rebuke. After his death, his blood was boiling and rising from the Temple floor and wouldn't stop. This led Nevuzaraden (in the destruction of the first Temple) to slaughter millions of Jews until his death was avenged. Nevuzaraden ultimately converted to Judaism as did the descendants of Haman and Sanchereb who became Torah scholars (among them, Shemaya and Avtalion). There are five different explanations of the verse "For you we have died all of the day" - some relate to stories of the destruction (the children who were taken by boat to engage in prostitution who committed suicide, seven sons of one woman who were killed for not bowing down to idols) and others to circumcision and learning Torah.

Gittin 56 - July 11, 22 Tamuz Jul 11, 2023

Stories of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza that caused the destruction of Jerusalem, Rabban Yochanan Ban Zakai and Vespasian who grants him three requests including sparing Yavne and its wise men, and Titus and the destruction of the Temple.

Gittin 55 - July 10, 21 Tamuz Jul 10, 2023

Rabbi Yochanan ben Gudgada testified about several laws, one pertaining to a takana, and the Gemara discusses each of the laws.

Gittin 54 - July 9, 20 Tamuz Jul 09, 2023

Study Guide Gittin 54

The discussion continues regarding the different opinions in different cases when one does something wrong unwittingly - is one held accountable? A kohen who ruins a sacrifice by pigul is held liable if it was intentional.

Gittin 53 - Shabbat July 8, 19 Tamuz Jul 07, 2023

Study Guide Gittin 53

Are damages that can't be seen considered damages?

Gittin 52 - July 7, 18 Tamuz Jul 07, 2023

Different laws are discussed regarding trustees of orphans. Can they sell the property, slaves, etc. of the orphans? Does it depend on whether they are selling it because they need to feed the orphans or they want to save up for them?

Gittin 51 - July 6, 17 Tamuz Jul 06, 2023

Gittin 50 - July 5, 16 Tamuz Jul 05, 2023

Gittin 49 - July 4, 15 Tamuz Jul 04, 2023

When one pays damages from land, is the type of land determined by the land of the one who was damaged or the one who has to pay damages. This is argued by Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. The Mishna is explained in two different manners - according to each opinion.

Gittin 48 - July 3, 14 Tamuz Jul 03, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in honor of her daughter Rina's birthday tomorrow! "Mazal tov our to our beloved Rina! You bring tremendous joy to our lives just by your being, and we are tremendously proud of you for all you do. Thank you for starting us on our Daf Yomi journey together!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Mitzi and David Geffen in loving memory of David's infant brother Azriel ben Avraham, on his 70th yahrzeit.

Today's daf is sponsored by Rhona Fink in honor of her fellow San Diego Daf learner Glenda Jaffe on her retirement from Hillel San Diego. "She has enriched the lives of Jewish students and supported their journeys for the past 15 years. Thank you for your dedication to our community."

When the jubilee year is practiced, the land goes back it its original owner in the jubilee year. Therefore, purchasing land is equivalent to purchasing land for its produce. Therefore, Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish have the same disagreement about bikurim - does the buyer recite the text when bringing the bikurim or not? Two sources are brought to support Rabbi Yochanan but are rejected in two different ways. They also suggest that the debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish is a tannaitic debate. But that suggestion is rejected. Two sources (one verse and one braita) are brought to support Reish Lakish's position. Different types of payments are to be collected from different qualities of land. One who has to pay damages, pays from the best land (idit), a borrower pays from the average quality land (beinonit), and a woman collects her ketuba from the poorest quality land (ziburit), but according to Rabbi Meir, she collects from average land. Orphans who owe money from their father's estate always pay from lower-quality land. Certain obligations cannot be collected from liened property. All these laws were instituted on account of tikkun olam. How can the Mishna be saying that one collects damages from high-quality land because of tikkun olam? Isn't that a verse in the Torah? The Gemara explains that the Mishna must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael and not Rabbi Akiva.

Gittin 47 - July 2, 13 Tamuz Jul 02, 2023

This month's learning is sponsored by C. S E. K for the refuah shleima of Sharona Rachel bat Miriam Chana.

Today's daf is sponsored by Hadran women on LI for a refuah shleima for Gittel Rivkah bat Golda Mariam.

One should not redeem a person who sells themselves a few times to a non-Jew to discourage them from doing it. The Gemara relates stories of Jews who sold themselves to non-Jews (cannibals or to be a gladiator), including one about Reish Lakish who managed to escape by outsmarting them. One who sells one's field to a non-Jew is responsible to buy back the bikurim (first fruits) from the non-Jew and bring them to the Temple - in order to prevent people from selling their land to non-Jews. If one sells a field to a non-Jew, and then a Jew buys fruits from that field, is one obligated to tithe the fruits? There is an argument between Rabba and Rabbi Elazar and the Gemara attempts to bring support for each opinion. If one sells one's land for its produce but retains ownership of the land itself, the purchaser brings the bikurim, but there is a debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding whether they read the text that is generally read by the one who brings them. They each raise difficulties against each other from tannaitic sources.

Gittin 46 - Shabbat July 1, 12 Tamuz Jun 30, 2023

Today's daf is dedicated by Hadran Women of Long Island for a refuah shleima for their fearless leader and inspiring daf sister, Gitta Neufeld, Gittel Rivka bat Golda Mariam. "We need you back here in good health quickly!!"

The rabbis instituted a takana that if a man divorces his wife due to suspicions about her promiscuous behavior or because of a vow she made, he is unable to remarry her. There are two different reasons given for the takana. The tannaim also disagree as to which types of vows are referred to here. There is a tannaitic debate about a man who divorces his wife because she is an aylonit (a woman who can't have children because she never fully develops), can he remarry her? The opinions of the tannaim here seem to contradict their opinions in the previous Mishna and the amoraim try to resolve these contradictions. The Mishna rules that we do not redeem one who sells himself or his son to gentiles. But we do redeem the sons after the death of their father. Rav Asi limits the first part of the Mishna and a story is brought to support his ruling.

Gittin 45 - June 30, 11 Tamuz Jun 30, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in loving memory of Professor Gene Moshe Schramm, Yochanan Moshe ben Meir v'Rivka. "Beloved father of our friend and co-learner Deena Rabinovitch. May our learning be a zechut for him. תהא נשמתו צרורה בצרור החיים"

If one lives in Israel and sells a slave to someone outside of Israel, the slave goes free. Why does the buyer get penalized? If a slave runs away from his master who was living abroad to live in Israel, we force the master to free the slave in order to allow the slave to keep the mitzvot that are dependent on living in Israel. Rabbi Achai b'Rabbi Yoshaya derives in from the verse in Devarim 23:16 "lo tasgir eved el adonav." The Gemara brings three other interpretations of this verse. Redeeming captives, sifrei Torah, mezuzot, and tefillin for more than they are worth are forbidden because of tikkun olam. What are the reasons given for this takana? The daughters of Rav Nachman were considered to be very righteous as they would stir a pot on the fire with their bare hands and not get burned. Rav Illish was taken into captivity with them and when he received a premonition from birds that he should escape, he thought to take them with him, but first wanted to check that they were really righteous. After eavesdropping on their conversation in the bathroom, he realized they were not righteous at all and therefore did not bring them with him to escape and accused them of engaging in witchcraft. Can one read from a Torah written by a gentile or found in the possession of a gentile? The Rabbis instituted a takana that if a man divorces his wife due to suspicions about her promiscuous behavior or because of a vow she made, he is unable to remarry her. Does this depend on what type of vow she took?

Gittin 44 - June 29, 10 Tamuz Jun 29, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Emma Rinberg in loving memory of her father, Dr. Eric Glick, Yitzhak Nisan Ben Etta Faiga v'Yaacov on his 33rd yahrzeit.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Elisa Hartstein in honor of her daughter Dalia who finishes 5 years of dedicated army service in the IAF today. "Also in grateful appreciation of all our chayalim and chayalot, past and present who make our lives here in Israel possible every single day."

One who sells his slave to a non-Jew or sells him to a Jewish owner outside of Israel is penalized because the slave will no longer be able to fulfill all the mitzvot. The slave is immediately freed. The Gemara discusses various situations and tries to determine if the owner should be penalized in those situations as well (e.g. if the non-Jew forced him to sell him the slave, etc. If the slave gave himself over to a non-Jewish army, and the owner has no way to redeem him, can he accept a monetary payment for the slave or is it not allowed since it may encourage others to actually sell the slave? Would the law be the same as for one whose house in Israel was taken over by non-Jews? In a case where the owner is obligated to redeem the slave, he is required to pay even up to ten or possibly one hundred times the value. Is it ten or is it one hundred? How does that amount differ from the amount required to redeem a large animal that one sold to a gentile? Why is there a difference? Does the penalty to redeem the slave apply to a son whose father sold the slave and subsequently died? If one sold a slave to someone who owns property in Israel and outside of Israel, the seller is penalized only if it was made clear in the contract that the slave was going to be brought to work outside of Israel. What if a woman from Israel married a man who was from Babylonia and was planning to go back there and she had slaves in her dowry, is it considered that she sold them to him? If a slave willingly went with his owner abroad and then the owner sold him there, does the slave go free? It depends on whether the owner planned to stay abroad or was planning to go back to Israel.

Gittin 43 - June 28, 9 Tamuz Jun 28, 2023

Can a master sell the potential k'nas (fine) payment that the master would receive in the event that an ox gored his/her slave and killed him? They bring a source to answer the question, but it is inconclusive. There is a debate regarding a half-slave/half-free man who betroths a woman or a man who betroths a woman who is half maidservant/half-free - is the kiddushin valid? Is it the same as one who betroths half a woman or is there reason to distinguish between the cases? If she was betrothed before she was entirely freed and then freed, does the emancipation cancel the kiddushin or complete it? There was a case where they forced an owner to release his half-maidservant/half-free woman. Was it because they held like Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka that also women are commanded to procreate or was it to protect her as men were taking advantage of her since she was unable to be married? The rabbis penalized those who sold their slaves to a Gentile or Jewish owner outside of Israel. Do they need to also give them an emancipation document? If one used a slave as collateral for a loan to a gentile, at what stage is the slave considered freed?

Gittin 42 - June 27, 8 Tamuz Jun 27, 2023

Study Guide Gittin 42

Rabba holds that the debate between Rebbi and the rabbis about whether one can free a slave partly is only when the owner frees part and remains owner over the other part, but if the owner sold the other part, all would agree that the slave would be partially free. Abaye raises a contradiction to Rabba from two contradictory braitot, claiming that the only resolution is to say that one holds like Rebbi and one like the rabbis. However, the Gemara suggests four other resolutions to the contradiction. If an ox gored a slave that was half free/half slave, the damages go to the master if it was a day he was working for the master, and if it was a day he was free, the damages go to the freed slave. Two questions are raised against this and are resolved. If one has freed one's slave but has not given the slave an emancipation document yet, does the owner receive payment if the slave was killed by someone's ox? Does the slave continue to eat teruma? What is their status? They bring sources to resolve these dilemmas, but all of them are inconclusive.

Gittin 41 - June 26, 7 Tamuz Jun 26, 2023

If a slave is used as a designated payment for a loan (apotiki) and the master frees the slave, the slave has no responsibility to the creditor. However, the rabbis instituted a takana and force the master to free him. To compensate the creditor, the slave writes a promissory note for his value. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the one who frees the slave writes the promissory note. Rav and Ulla each explain this case differently. Which master freed the slave, which master needs to free the slave and who writes the promissory note according to Rashbag? What is the purpose of the takana and what is the root of the debate between tana kamma and Rashbag? If one designated a field to repay and loan and the field is damaged, can the creditor collect from other property of the debtor? On what does it depend? If a slave is half freed, Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree about whether or not the owner needs to free the other half. In the end, Beit Shamai convince Beit Hillel that we need to free the slave in order to permit him to marry a woman so he can fulfill the mitzva of procreation. Can one free a slave partially? There is a debate between Rebbi and the rabbis about whether this works. Raba and Rav Yosef disagree about whether the debate relates only to a slave freed by a document or also by money.

Gittin 40 - June 25, 6 Tamuz Jun 25, 2023

Study Guide Gittin 40

Today's daf is sponsored by Rabbi Joel and Shulamith Cohn in loving memory of Rabbi Dr. Akiba Predmesky on his yahrzeit.

What type of actions would be an indication that the master has freed the slave? If the owner gave up financial rights to the slave, can the owner or the son (in the case of the death of the owner) redeem the slave to permit marriage with a Jew or does they no longer have the right to do that as they no longer own the slave? What language should be used in an emancipation document? If one writes the language in the future tense, there is a debate about whether or not it is effective.

Gittin 39 - Shabbat June 24, 5 Tamuz Jun 23, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Gitta and David Neufeld in loving memory of Gitta's father, Yosef ben Menachem Mendal v'Pesha. "Tatty was so proud of learning, be it secular or Jewish. He always told us how he envied us our Jewish education, which the Nazis and Communists managed to deprive him of. Unbelievably, he left cheder - and formal Jewish education - when he started learning Mishna, yet his dedication to learning and striving, with a nightly chavruta (despite working a 12-hour day) and a never-missed weekly shiur in Shul, molded three generations of learners and strivers. It was a special zechut this year to learn the daf in Lizhensk, where he had his last formal Jewish learning experience. Yehi Zichro Baruch!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in loving memory of her husband, Moshe ben Yehuda Aryeh on his 4th yahrzeit. "How I would have liked to discuss many things we are learning in the daf with him! I am sure he would have had interesting insights that would help me understand better what his own training gave him. I hope he is benefitting from my own exposure and learning as I persist in this daily exploration of our tradition’s wisdom and the ways in which our learned ancestors addressed problems in the context of halacha and gemara. Yehi zichro baruch."

Rav says that if one sanctifies one's slave, the slave goes free. The third question raised on Rav from a braita is resolved. Is this issue also a tannaitic debate? Rabbi Yochanan said that one who makes his slave ownerless still needs to give him an emancipation document to free him in order to allow him to marry a Jew. A difficulty is raised from a braita and resolved. The braita discussed a case of a convert who died and left slaves - who can acquire the slaves. There is a tannatic debate. The Gemara brings a few traditions of rabbis who ruled like one of the tannaitic opinions and then they try to assess did the rabbi rule that way explicitly or did they derive it from something else he said?

Gittin 38 - June 23, 4 Tamuz Jun 23, 2023

Study Guide Gittin 38

Today's daf is sponsored by Art Gould in loving memory of Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v'Yehudah Tzvi. "My beloved bride of almost 50 years. Tomorrow, Shabbat, we would have been married 50 years on the secular calendar. It's no accident that Joy was Carol's middle name. She brought joy to everyone who knew her. I will be forever grateful to HaShem for dropping Carol into my life like an angel from the heavens on an erev Shabbat in August of 1971. And I will love Carol forever. רַבּ֣וֹת בָּ֭נוֹת עָ֣שׂוּ חָ֑יִל וְ֝אַ֗תְּ עָלִ֥ית עַל־כֻּלָּֽנָה."

A gentile can acquire a gentile or a Jew for his labor either by paying money or even by chazaka. From where is this derived? Rabbi Yochanan ruled that a Caananite slave who escapes from prison is automatically freed (and becomes Jewish). How does this fit with his other ruling that whenever a Mishna quotes Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the halakha is like him other than three cases and in our Mishna, he ruled that the slave who is redeemed stays a slave. How can we distinguish between the two cases? The Gemara brings the stories of three maidservants of rabbis that were either taken into captivity or there was an issue with freeing her. Each story is explained according to the rules of redemption/freeing of slaves. One is not supposed to free a Caananite slave, as derived from a verse in the Torah. However, there is a debate whether that verse is obligatory or perhaps it is just permitting keeping a slave, but not forbidding freeing a slave. Also, there are exceptions to the rule, such as for the purposes of a mitzva, like needing a tenth for a minyan. Rav and Shmuel argue in a case where one is mafkir (makes ownerless) his slave, whether or not he also needs to give the slave an emancipation document freeing the slave in order to permit marriage with a Jew. Rav says that one who sanctifies one's slave is really just freeing the slave, but also needs to give an emancipation document to permit marriage with a Jew. Three other sources say that one who sanctifies a slave needs to bring the value of the slave to the Temple, thus indicating against Rav that one is not setting the slave free. Each difficulty is resolved.

Gittin 37 - June 22, 3 Tamuz Jun 22, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Natanya Slomowitz in loving memory of her mother, Haviva Lilka Bat Necha and Avraham.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Tina Lamm in celebration of the engagement of her daughter, Devorah, to Daniel Battat of Jerusalem! Mazal tov!

What is the etymology of the word pruzbol? Orphans do not need a pruzbol to collect their father's loans as they are considered under the court's jurisdiction. Since one can only write a pruzbol if the borrower has land, the rabbis come up with ways to give people a minimum amount of land or allow other things to qualify as land in order to ensure a pruzbol can be written. Some allow pruzbol to be just said, without requiring a document. Some allow pruzbol if the guarantor to the loan has land or even if one who owes money to the lender has land, based on the principle of shiabuda d'Rabbi Natan that if one borrows money and subsequently lends that money to someone else, the creditor can collect the loan directly from the second borrower. There is a debate about whether shmita cancels loans that have a property guarantee. Despite the fact that Rabbi Yochanan held that the loan is not canceled, he was unwilling to act upon that and ruled that the loan was canceled. There are two major exceptions to the rule of cancellation of loans - one is if one gave one's promissory notes to the court and the other is one who loaned with collateral, as it is as if the loan is already collected. This follows Rabbi Yitzchak's opinion that the collateral is considered acquired by the creditor. In the event there was not a pruzbol, if the borrower comes to pay back the loan, the one creditor needs to say that shmita has canceled the loan, but then the borrower should say he wants to give him back the money anyway as a gift. Others allow one to claim he has a pruzbol but lost it, and they even ask those who came to court without one if perhaps they had one and lost it. If a Caananite slave is taken captive and redeemed not by its owner, what is the status of the slave? There is a debate about whether or not it depends on if the redeemer had in mind to redeem him to be a slave or with the intent to make him a free man. According to the Gemara, it also may depend on whether or not the original owner had "ye'ush" - had given up on ever getting the slave back or not. Rava and Abaye have different interpretations of the case in the Mishna. Each interprets both the takana itself and the need for the takana in an entirely different manner.

Gittin 36 - June 21, 2 Tamuz Jun 21, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Phyllis Hecht. "Mizmor l’todah- אוֹדְךָ ה’ אלקי בְּכָל לְבָבִי וַאֲכַבְּדָה שִׁמְךָ לְעוֹלָם to my fabulous co-Chashmonaim Daffers, to my remarkable Hadran virtual chevrutas, to my mentor-one of a kind-Rabbanit Michelle. Thank you all from the bottom of my heart for all you have done for me over the past year. One year ago today was the first day of the rest of my life - I survived a critical surgery after a life-threatening diagnosis, which resulted from a miraculous car accident. Words are insufficient for the hakarat hatov to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. You have all been there for me in a myriad of ways by continuously davening, messaging and more. Our daily limudim on- and off-line continuously fill me with hope and strength. May Hashem allow me to celebrate this date yearly ad meah viesrim shana. May we continue together מדף לדף ומחיל לחיל. May we all merit to share in many bsorot tovot!"

There are differences of opinion regarding which vows can or cannot be nullified by a chacham to cancel the vow. The takana of having witnesses sign on the get is explained both according to Rabbi Elazar (who claims that according to the Torah there is no need for witnesses to sign the get) and according to Rabbi Meir (who claims that from the Torah you need witnesses to sign on the get). Pruzbol was instituted so that loan would not be canceled in the shmita year. How can the rabbis make a takana to go against a Torah law? Two explanations are given. According to one explanantion, shmita is only rabbinic as by Torah law there is no shmitat kesafim and it was instituted by the rabbis so people would remember that there is such a Torah law. How can the rabbis institute something like that if it goes against Torah law, as by Torah law, when there is no shmita, the money should be returned to the creditor? There are two answers to this question. Did Hillel institute prozbul for his generation only or for all future generations? Later Rabbis had different reactions to pruzbol about whether or not it was a positive development.

Gittin 35 - 2nd Day of Rosh Chodesh Tamuz - June 20, 1 Tamuz Jun 20, 2023

A widow can only collect her ketuba money from orphans by taking an oath (just like all creditors who collect from orphans on their father's debts). However, the rabbis would not permit widows to take oaths as they were concerned about false oaths. Why were they specifically concerned about widows and not about divorcees? Rabban Gamliel instituted a takana that widows could collect ketuba money by making a vow forbidding something that the orphans would agree to. Why is a vow better than swearing in terms of concern for lying? Shmuel permitted oaths outside of a court as their level of severity is not as high. Rav would not permit any oaths and also would not allow women to collect their ketubot because he saw that people didn't take vows seriously. When Rav Huna ruled like this, the woman went ahead and swore anyway and was then permitted to collect her ketuba. In another situation with Rabba son of Rav Huna who also ruled like Rav, the woman then asked for her food allowance. However, Rabba told her that she is not eligible for her food allowance as Shmuel ruled that one who comes to court to claim her ketubah money is no longer eligible for food allowance. The woman was very frustrated and cursed Rabba for ruling by both Rav in one area and Shmuel in another, thus preventing her from getting any money. He subsequently died from the curse. Rav Yehuda made a public declaration endorsing Shmuel's opinion against Rav allowing widows to collect their ketubas. Why is there not a concern that a woman's husband will cancel her vow or she will go to a chacham to annul the vow? Some say she can only collect with a vow if she is not married and since people need to give the details of the vow when they go to a chacham, there is no chance this kind of vow will be canceled. Others permit it when she is married, but require her to take the vow in public as a public vow cannot be nullified by her husband. Rav Nachman and Rav Papa disagree about whether one needs to specify the vow when going to a chacham to permit a vow. What is the basis of their debate?

Gittin 34 - 1st Day of Rosh Chodesh Tamuz - June 19, 30 Sivan Jun 19, 2023

Rav Nachman held like Rebbi on both issues - that one who cancels a get in a court, even after Rabban Gamliel's takana, the cancellation will be effective, and one can cancel some of the witnesses not in the presence of the others. A contradiction is raised against Rav Nachman , as elsewhere he rules the one needs to upholds the power of the court when it comes to dividing up the property of orphans. A distinction is made between monetary laws (orphan's property) and prohibitions (divorce). Rava and Abaye disagree about whether or not we accept gilui daat (where someone indicated his wishes but did not say them explicitly) in cases of divorce. This is one of the six cases (Y'AL K'GaM) where we hold like Abaye against Rava. The case in which they argue is when a messenger arrived with a get and the wife told him to come back tomorrow as she is busy weaving. When the messenger returns with this information to the husband, he responds, "Baruch hatov v'hameitiv," indicating that he was happy she did not receive the get, but not stating explicitly that the get was canceled. Abaye and Rava each bring cases to try to prove their position. The Gemara rules like Rav Nachman on two issues - one, that one cancels a get in front of two people and two, that we hold like Rebbi on both issues (see above). They also rule like Abaye that gilui daat is not effective in divorce. If people are known by different names in different places, originally, they would only write the name they were known as in their current city, but later they instituted that they should put in the get all the names they are known by (or perhaps just add the words "and any other name that they are known by). Rav Ashi limits this to a case where the person is known by both names in the place where the get is given (however, some understand Rav Ashi to be saying the reverse). A widow can only collect her ketuba money from orphans by taking an oath. However, the rabbis would not permit women to take oaths as they were concerned about false oaths. Therefore they instituted a takana that women could collect the money by making a vow that the orphans would agree to. Another two takanot were that witnesses need to sign a get and Hillel instituted prosbol to allow loans to be collected after the shmita year.

Gittin 33 - June 18, 29 Sivan Jun 18, 2023

Study Guide Gittin 33

This week's learning is sponsored by Bob & Paula Cohen in loving memory of Chaim Avraham HaKohen ben Alter Gershon HaKohen.

Today's daf is sponsored by Sylvia Klein in loving memory of her brother, Bobby Klein. "Bobby taught us love, acceptance, and compassion. We miss you all these years later."

What proof does Rav Nachman bring to show that two people can count as a beit din? What is the reason for the takana of Rabban Gamliel not permitting the cancellation of a get in front of a court and how does it connect to the debate between Rav Sheshet and Rav Nachman regarding the number of people who need to be present when one cancels a get. Is it to prevent mamzarim or agunot? If one goes against the takana of Rabban Gamliel and cancels a get in court is the get canceled or not? Do Rabbis have the power to override Torah law? The Gemara explains that the Rabbis have the power to uproot the marriage (afki'inhu rabanan l'kiddushin minei) in this case because the husband didn't keep to their rules regarding marriage and therefore didn't keep to his conditions of "k'dat moshe v'yisrael" that he accepted when he got married. If a husband told ten people to write a get to his wife, can he cancel it in front of some of them? Rebbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel debate this issue. There are two different explanations as to what is the debate between them and what is the basis for the debate. Either they debate whether testimony that is partially canceled is fully canceled or whether one who cancels testimony needs to cancel it in front of all those they testified before. According to who do we rule on these two debates between Rebbi and Rashbag?

Gittin 32 - Shabbat June 17, 28 Sivan Jun 16, 2023

How does a husband cancel a get? At what stage can it be canceled? Originally he could cancel the get (before it reached the wife) by going in front of the beit din but Rabban Gamliel instituted a takana that one could no longer cancel the get in that way, as the wife may not hear the get was canceled and would think she was divorced. Which wording is effective and which wording would not be effective to cancel? If he cancels the get that a messenger is sending, can he reuse the same get later if he decides later to divorce his wife or is the get itself canceled, meaning did he just cancel the messenger or did he cancel the get as well?

Gittin 31 - June 16, 27 Sivan Jun 16, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Hope Perry in honor of Katherine Bellilty. "Thank you for inspiring my learning and my neshama always. Much love!"

From where do we derive that the owner of the produce can separate the teruma of the maaser of a Levite even before it gets into the hands of the Levite? If one sets aside produce to use as teruma and maaser of the produce that they will bring in later on or money for the redemption of maaser sheni produce, one can assume that they have not spoiled/gotten lost and can continue to separate tithes using that pile without having to check on it. What happens when one finds the produce has rotted or the money is gone? Does one have to redo the tithes? There are three times of the year when the wine is likely to spoil due to weather changes. There are three times of the year when the price of grains rises due to high demand. For wine, there are also three times a year when prices rise. During these three times, one can sell without having to consult with a partner, as it is clear the partner would agree to sell for a higher price. The eastern wind is very hot and when it blows strongly after Sukkot, it causes the wine to spoil. Geneiva tells Rav Huna and Rav Chisda all about the different winds. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak tells Rava and Rav Nachman bar Yaakov about the damage that the eastern wind brings.

Gittin 30 - June 15, 26 Sivan Jun 15, 2023

This week's learning is sponsored in loving memory of Miriam David, Malkah bat Michael v'Esther, on her 7th Yahrzeit, which took place on the 5th of Sivan. With love from her children and grandchildren.

If a husband makes a condition in the get, such as, if I do not come back within thirty days the get is effective, and he does not return due to circumstances beyond his control - is the get valid? The Mishna and a braita discuss the laws regarding one who loans money and stipulates that instead of getting paid back, the loan will be deducted the amount from teruma or maaser from the lender's produce (assuming the loan was given to a kohen, levi or poor person). What happens when the price of the produce fluctuates? If they lock in at a particular price and the value of the produce goes up, this is not considered interest. The loan is not canceled during the shmita year along with other loans as it does not require collection from the borrower. If the land of the lender got ruined and the lender gave up on ever getting the loan back (yei'ush), even if the field began producing again, he/she can no longer deduct the funds owed. What happens if the borrower dies? Can this arrangement continue with the children? On what does it depend? If it was done in a court, the original plan remains in place automatically, even if there are no heirs as other kohanim, levites or poor people theoretically take their place, as it is in their best interest as well so that people will be willing to lend them money. However, if a poor person became rich, this arrangement no longer works (as the tithe no longer belongs to the borrower) and the lender loses the ability to collect the loan. Why is there a distinction between death and becoming wealthy? In order to continue collecting loans in this manner from heirs, there must be land in the estate of the deceased. Does it matter if there is less land than the value of the loan itself? A braita discusses a case where one says, "I have maaser of yours in my possession." Is there a concern that there is trumat maaser within that? It is unclear exactly what the case is and what the concern is, and the Gemara suggests two possibilities that are then rejected until they bring a final valid explanation.

Gittin 29 - June 14, 25 Sivan Jun 14, 2023

The Mishna said that one who is convicted in a court is not fully presumed dead. There are two versions of Rav Yosef's limitation of this Mishna - whether specifically in a Jewish court or specifically in a Gentile court. The sources that were brought to question one understanding are then brought to support the other. Can a messenger who is meant to deliver a get appoint a new messenger in his/her place? Does it depend on what motivated this - because the messenger is unable or simply doesn't want to? How is it different if they are bringing the get within Israel or from abroad? If the husband asked the messenger to bring something back from his wife, the messenger cannot appoint a different messenger to bring it instead as one does not necessarily trust others with his items. If the Mishna is specifically referring to a messenger who gets sick, what were the circumstances by which the husband send the messenger (i/e/ what wording did he use) and how can this be understood in light of the debate between the rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel regarding appointing a new messenger? In the Mishna in Gittin 66a, there is a case where the messengers cannot appoint another messenger. How can that case be reconciled with our Mishna? Can a messenger who was appointed by another messenger appoint a third messenger? Does the appointing of a new messenger need to take place in a court? What if the first messenger dies, does that cancel the other messengers? There are two stories in which messengers were appointed by the court on behalf of the original messenger and there were differences of opinion about whether this was legitimate or not because of the circumstances.

Gittin 28 - June 13, 24 Sivan Jun 13, 2023

Study Guide Gittin 28

The Mishna states that we presume one is alive even if one is sick, old, or went abroad. Therefore, a messenger can deliver a get without being concerned that the husband who was ill or elderly died in the interim, a woman can eat teruma even if her husband who was a kohen went abroad and perhaps died, and the kohanim can offer in the Temple a sin offering sent from abroad without concern the owner has died. Rava makes exceptions for an elderly person over eighty or one on their death bed. Abaye questions this from a braita where a one hundred-year-old is presumed to be still alive. Abaye raises a contradiction to the Mishna from a braita where a woman can no longer eat teruma if her husband said, "This will be your get an hour before my death if I die."She is forbidden to eat teruma immediately. This contradiction is resolved in three different manners. Why did the Mishna need to bring all three cases? Rabbi Elazar ben Parta distinguished between two cases - in a case where there is a danger to one's life but not immediate, we assume the person is still alive, but if the danger is imminent, we have to be strict in both ways, and presume the person is both alive and dead. One case mentioned is where one has been sentenced to the death penalty. Rav Yosef limits this case to one who was sentenced in a Jewish court and that's why there is a concern for both possibilities as perhaps they will reopen the case, however, in a gentile court we can presume he is dead and they will not reopen the case. They raise three different difficulties with Rav Yosef's opinion but resolve all of the issues.

Gittin 27 - June 12, 23 Sivan Jun 12, 2023

If the messenger loses the get and then finds it, under what circumstances can we assume it was the same get and wasn't switched with another? Our Mishna rules that it must be found immediately or in a container into which the messenger had placed it, or if it had identifying signs. A Mishna in Bava Metzia 18a is brought as one can infer from there that if the husband wanted to use the get after it had been lost for a while, he could. This contradicts our Mishna which says it can only be used if it were found immediately. Raba resolves it by distinguishing between a place where caravans are/are not frequently found. However, even in a place with many caravans, it is not an issue unless there are two people with the same name as appears in the document. Rabbi Zeira brought a contradiction to our Mishna from a braita, as the braita says explicitly that the husband can decide to send the get to his wife after it was lost in the marketplace, even after a long time has passed. Again, it is resolved by distinguishing between a place where caravans are/are not frequently found. Why didn't Raba bring the contradiction from the braita and Rabbi Zeira from the Mishna in Bava Metzia? Rabbi Yirmia and Rav Ashi each resolve the same contradictions in a different manner, by providing more unique circumstances for the cases in the braita and the Mishna in Bava Metzia. Rabbi Yirmia: the witnesses signed on the get testified that they only signed on this particular get and identified the person for whom the get was written. Rav Ashi: it had clear identifying features (siman muvhak). However, if it was a regular siman, he would not permit it to be returned as perhaps simanim are only by rabbinic law and this would not be sufficient in the laws of a married woman to permit her to another man. What is considered "immediate" as mentioned in our Mishna? There are several different explanations.

Gittin 26 - June 11, 22 Sivan Jun 11, 2023

This week's learning is sponsored by Judy and Zev Berman in honor of Michelle Greenberg-Kobrin on the occasion of her celebration of a significant birthday. "We take pride in having given her a shas on the occasion of her birthday over 3 decades ago and see how far Michelle and her family have taken the learning of Torah shebe'al pe. May she celebrate many more years of learning and avoda to klal Yisrael ad meah v'esrim.

This week's learning is sponsored by Mark and Semé Dewees-Cooper in loving memory of Mark's father Arvie Cooper, Arieh Leb ben Meyer Baruch on his 5th yahrzeit.

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of LI in loving memory of Yakira Leeba bat Avraham Yosef Yehuda b’Sara Gita. "A beloved granddaughter of our friend Tzippy Wolkenfeld. Our hearts are with you and your family at this difficult time. תהא נשמתה הטהורה צרורה בצרור החיים"

The Mishna brings three opinions regarding whether a get or other documents can be prepared in advance and if so, which parts. Does the first tanna's opinion reflect Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Elazar's opinion? Shmuel explains that the first opinion in the Mishna follows Rabbi Elazar's opinion. Why was it necessary for Shmuel to specify regarding three Mishnayot (on Gittin 21b, 22b and here) that they all follow Rabbi Elazar's opinion? Why couldn't we derive one from the other? According to Rabbi Yonatan, the takana mentioned in the Mishna is to allow the scribes to write the form part of the get to ease the work of the scribes, and correspond to Rabbi Elazar's opinion who requires the get be written li'shma. Rabbi Shabtai in the name of Chizkia holds that the takana is that scribes should not fill in all the details of the get in advance to prevent disputes between spouses, as a woman might hear a scribe reading out her and her husband's names and think that her husband is planning to divorce her. This understanding would mean that the Mishna follows Rabbi Meir's position, who does not require that the get be written li'shma. According to Rav Chisda the takana is to prevent agunot. This can be explained in two ways - both according to Rabbi Meir and according to Rabbi Elazar. For Rabbi Meir, the takana would be to not allow all the details to be filled in advance to prevent the husband from quickly divorcing his wife, leaving her stranded. For Rabbi Elazar, the takana was to allow the forms to be written so as not to have a situation where the husband is traveling and since it will take too much time to write the get from scratch, he will leave his wife without divorcing her, thus making her an aguna, bound because of her marriage. The date needs to be left blank as well. Since no distinction is made between divorce from betrothal or divorce from marriage, an explanation is brought of why a date is important even in divorce from engagement. Rav Amram explains that if he didn't divorce her right away and they first consummated the marriage and she got pregnant, if the date was written earlier, people would say that the child was born out of wedlock. Rabbi Zeira passed down in the name of Rav that we rule like Rabbi Elazar who holds that even the form part couldn't be written in advance. Does he hold like Rabbi Elazar regarding other documents that they can be written in advance? After suggesting from another similar ruling that the halakha is not like Rabbi Elazar in this regard, they reject the comparison and conclude that the ruling is like Rabbi Elazar.

Gittin 25 - Shabbat June 10, 21 Sivan Jun 09, 2023

Study Guide Gittin 25

There are four opinions about whether a get that was not written li’shma disqualifies the woman from being married to a kohen. The debate is about which cases of li’shma, if any, would disqualify and which would not. Why? Rabbi Yochanan’s opinion is consistent with his opinion regarding the distribution of inheritance property. Why was it necessary for him to teach both cases if theoretically, one could have learned from one case to the other? Rav Hoshaya asked a question regarding laws of retroactive designation (breira) for writing a get li’shma. Rav Yehuda answered him from our Mishna that laws of retroactive designation do not work. Rav Hoshaya questioned this answer from a Mishna in Pesachim where rules of retroactive designation seem to work. However, Rav Yehuda explains that the Pesachim case has nothing to do with the rules of breira. Abaye questions the whole discussion between Rav Hoshaya and Rav Yehuda as the cases are very different as some relate to a later decision made by the person himself, as opposed to others which are dependent on some other person and shouldn’t laws of breira be different in each of those types of cases? Rava disagrees and thinks there would be no reason to distinguish. Still, Rav Hamnuna tries to prove him wrong as both Rav Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon hold that breira does not apply in a case where the decision is made by the owner, as can be proven from the case of wine from which tithes weren’t taken, but does apply in cases where the decision was based on someone else.

Gittin 24 - June 9, 20 Sivan Jun 09, 2023

The Gemara brings support for Abaye's explanation that our Mishna is referring to a case where the get was brought from outside of Israel from a braita and from the language in our Mishna. How can Rav Yosef explain our Mishna according to his approach? In which case would a woman bringing her own get from outside of Israel need to say "in front of me it was written..."? Why would she need to do that if the moment she receives the get from her husband, she is divorced? The new perek starts delving into the issue of li'shma and gives 4 different cases where a get is not considered li'shma and would be invalid. What is the difference between all four cases? What are possible ramifications from here to other promissory notes? Can these really be inferred from here? Even though a get that is not li'shma is not a valid get, does it disqualify a woman from marrying a kohen (in the event that her husband dies and she wishes to remarry)?

Gittin 23 - June 8, 19 Sivan Jun 08, 2023

Study Guide Gittin 23

Today's daf is sponsored by the Billets, Cohns and Hararis in loving memory of their dear friend Tova Rhein z"l on her yahrzeit.

How can we allow those without understanding (like a minor, deaf-mute) to write the get if it needs to be written li'shma?There are three different answers to resolve this difficulty. Who can be a messenger to bring a get? Why is a blind person not allowed to bring a get? Two rabbis who were blind, Rav Sheshet and Rav Yosef, answer the question - each with his own answer. Can a Caananite slave be a messenger to deliver a get? Rav Ami infers from the Mishna that he can, but Rabbi Yochanan says he cannot. What is the logic behind each position? There are women who are not believed to testify that a woman's husband has died as there is a concern that they may have ulterior motives to lie so as to ruin the life of the wife (she will get remarried as a result of their testimony, then the husband will return and she will be forbidden to both husbands). These women are her mother-in-law, her husband's sister, her rival wife, her yevama (her husband's brother's wife after he died childless), and her husband's daughter (from another marriage). These women are believed to bring a get, as there is a written document to support them. However, there is a braita that says that cannot bring a get. Rav Yosef explains the contradiction by differentiating between a get written in Israel (as there is no need for any testimony so they are believed) and one written abroad (they are not believed as we need to rely on their testimony, "in front of me it was written...") and they cannot be trusted to testify. Abaye resolves the contradiction in the opposite manner, as in Israel the husband can still come and contest that the get is invalid, therefore there is concern the women are lying and the wife will get married based on the get, the husband will later contest the get, and the woman will be forbidden both to both husbands. But if it was written abroad, he cannot contest the get as it was immediately certified in court. Therefore there is no concern they will lie.

Gittin 22 - June 7, 18 Sivan Jun 07, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island as a zechut for a refua shelaima bikarov for Yakira Liba bat Sara Gita, beloved granddaughter of our friend Tzippy Wolkenfeld. May our learning be a zechut for her and all cholei Yisrael.

Can a man give a get to his wife written on a perforated pot? Can he write it on the leaves of a plant that are in a perforated pot? What are the laws of kinyan (acquiring) regarding plants in a perforated pot when the plant is owned by a different person than the pot? If they are both owned by the same person, can an act of acquiring one also work to include the other? Plants in perforated pots that are on the border of Israel and are both in Israel and outside of Israel - do the laws of Israel apply or not? On what does it depend? What are different types of processes done to the hides in preparation for leather and what are the leathers that are tanned in each different process used for? The Rabbis in the Mishna permit parchment that can potentially be forged. This must follow the opinion of Rabbi Elazar (the tana) that the witnesses that see the giving of the get are the important ones and therefore if there was a stipulation in the get that was erased, they will know and testify about it when they go to the court to testify that she is divorced. Rabbi Elazar (amora) and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about whether this is only if they went to the court immediately or even if they went much later - can we assume they will remember the stipulation or not. Did the rabbis permit this parchment only for a get but not for other documents? Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar also disagree about this. Anyone can write a get, even one who is not considered to have knowledge like a minor, but Rav Huna limits that to a case where there is an adult supervising. A woman can write her get and a husband can write the receipt that he paid his wife her ketuba.

Gittin 21 - June 6, 17 Sivan Jun 06, 2023

English Study Guide Gittin 21

Can we assume that a woman knows that if she provides the object on which the get will be written, she needs to first give it to her husband with a kinyan (an act of acquiring) so that he can own it when he gives it to her? If a husband writes the get on his servant and then gives his slave as a gift to his wife, is the get effective immediately (before the slave reaches the wife)? Rava rules that the slave functions like the courtyard of a woman and the divorce is effective immediately. But isn't this like a moving courtyard that is not able to acquire the get on behalf of the wife? Therefore, they understand it to be when the slave's feet are bound and he is not mobile. Rava also says the same ruling for a husband who puts the get in a courtyard and gives her the courtyard as a gift. Why does he need to rule in both cases - why can't we learn one from the other? Abaye raises a question on Rava's rulings. What is the root of the disagreement between Rabbi Yossi HaGelili who doesn't permit a get to be written on a live being or on food and the tana kamma who permits it? How do they each read the verses differently? The Mishna rules that one cannot write a get on something attached to the ground, but if one did and uprooted it and then signed it, it is valid. The Gemara brings two different ways to read the Mishna - Shmuel, Rabbi Oshaya and Rabbi Yochanan holding one way and Reish Lakish another. Each one reads the Mishna either according to Rabbi Elazar (the witnesses who witness the giving of the get are the main witnesses) or according to Rabbi Meir (the witnesses who sign the get are the main witnesses).

Gittin 20 - June 5, 16 Sivan Jun 05, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Meryll Levine Page in loving memory of her father, Yosef Michael haLevi, on his 14th yahrzeit. "Our dad set us on the derekh by modeling and encouraging both study and tzedakah."

A man gave a sefer Torah to his wife and said it was her get. Rav Yosef indicated that there were three reasons why this could not possibly be effective. Rav Chisda attempted to connect a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis about a sefer Torah where God's name was not written without the proper intent - can one go over it with ink or not - to the question of fixing a get that was not written li'shma. However, this connection is rejected as the Torah requires beautification, which is not required for a get. Rav Chisda said that he could theoretically disqualify all gittin. Rava attempted to understand what he was referring to. One suggestion was that since the rabbis instituted that the women pay the scribe (to prevent agunot situations - that the husband may not want to pay the money for the divorce), and therefore the get was not written by the husband as prescribed by the Torah. The second suggestion is that the husband does not actually give the woman anything of value and perhaps when the Torahg stated "he gives her," it meant an item of value. Both these suggestions are rejected and it is unclear what Rav Chisda was referring to. Is chiseling considered writing? It depends on whether it was done by chiseling the area surrounding the letters (considered writing) or chiseling the areas where the letters are, causing the writing to protrude. (not considered writing). How then was the tzitz considered 'written' if it was chiseled "like a coin"? A husband needs to give the get to his wife and cannot say that the paper/parchment it is written on still belongs to him, as in that case the letters are just considered 'hanging in the air' and not written. If one gives a get to his wife on a piece of gold and tells her to keep the gold as her ketuba money - is this effective - is it considered that the letters are hanging in the air or not? Rami bar Hama asked: if they find a slave in the woman's possession with a get written on his arm, but no one witnessed the husband giving the get to his wife, can we assume she is divorced or is it possible the slave went to her on his own? He also asked another question: if she owned a slate and the get was written on that, can we assume that she transferred ownership of the slate to the husband before he gave it to her and divorce would be effective, or do we assume that women do not know how to do that properly?

Gittin 19 - June 4, 15 Sivan Jun 04, 2023

Study Guide Gittin 19

This week's learning is sponsored by Bob & Paula Cohen in loving memory of Henna bat Yitzchak Nechemia.

Today's learning is dedicated in memory of the three soldiers killed yesterday on the Egyptian border - Ori Yitzchak Iluz, Lia Ben Nun and Ohad Dahan. Yehi Zichram Baruch.

With what types of ink can you write a get? I get can be written on a leaf that is detached from the ground, a horn of a cow and an arm of a slave, in which case the husband would give the cow/slave to the wife. If one writes with ink on top of other ink, does it work? In a case where one can't find witnesses who know how to sign, what possible solutions are there? Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yochanan if one writes out their names in red ink and the witnesses go over letters with black ink, does that count? When Rabbi Yochanan says no, Reish Lakish questions him from laws of Shabbat as one who does that is liable for erasing |(the red ink) and for writing (with the black ink). Rabbi Yochanan responds that just because we are concerned it may be considered writing on Shabbat, it doesn't mean we should act upon it and permit a get signed in that manner! If witnesses do not know how to read or write, can they sign a regular document or a get? Is the law the same for both a get and other documents? If one gives a blank piece of paper to a woman saying, "This is your get," and then it gets destroyed and he claims it was not a get, is he believed?

Gittin 18 - Shabbat June 3, 14 Sivan Jun 02, 2023

Study Guide Gittin 18

What if time elapses between the writing of the get and the giving of the get? How does that affect how long a woman must wait after a divorce before remarrying? Does the clock start ticking from the signing or from the giving? From what point does the financial obligation of the husband to the wife in a ketuba go from being an obligation to being a loan, in which case it would then be canceled during a shmita year? There is a disagreement about in which case Rabbi Shimon allows time to elapse between the writing of the get and the signing. What if more than one day elapsed? There is another disagreement about a case where someone asked ten people to all write the get - what is the function of all of their signatures - are two viewed as witnesses and the others as fulfilling the husband's stipulation or are all considered witnesses? What are the practical ramifications of each of the opinions?

Gittin 17 - June 2, 13 Sivan Jun 02, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Martin Gaynor in loving memory of Rivkeh Gershgorn on her yahrzeit.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Ruth and David Kahan in honor of Paul Gompers and Dr. Jody Dushay and in gratitude for their hospitality.

When the rabbis asked Raba bar bar Hana about whether two messengers who bring a get need to say “in front of me it was written…”, a Persian Habar came and took their candle. Raba bar bar Hana’s reaction was that better the Romans than the Persians. How can this be true if they derive from a verse in Iyov that God sent us to exile in Babylonia (where the Persians ruled) to spare us the terrors of the Romans? In the case in the Mishna where one says it was written in front of me and two testify about the signatures, the get is valid, Rabbi Ami explains that this is only in the case where the messenger testified about the writing. This shows we are concerned about li’shma and therefore even if two messengers deliver the get, one still would need to make the declaration. However, in another instance, Rabbi Ami explained the exact opposite, as he changed his mind. The Mishna ruled that if the get was written during the day and signed at night - on a different date - the get is invalid. Rabbi Shimon permits this kind of document specifically for a get, not for other documents. Why does the date need to be written in the get? Rabbi Yochanan holds that it is a concern that one may be married to his sister's daughter who may engage in relations with another man and to protect her from getting the death penalty, he will give her a get and claim that it was given before the adulterous incident. Reish Lakish holds that the concern is for a financial disagreement about the proceeds from the usufruct property of the woman (the husband has rights to it during the marriage and the woman has rights to it from the divorce). Why doesn't each hold like the other? How can we understand the debate between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis based on each interpretation? Abaye raises a number of difficulties with this takana, both according to Rabbi Yochanan and according to Reish Lakish. Rav Yosef resolves each difficulty.

Gittin 16 - June 1, 12 Sivan Jun 01, 2023

Study Guide Gittin 16

This week's learning is dedicated by Sara Averick and Jose Rosenfeld in memory of Sara's mother, Leah Shifrin Averick, Leah bat HaRav Yehuda Leib Chaikel and Chaya Masha, who showed us to love Hashem, klal Yisrael, Medinat Yisrael, and learning Torah, b'chol levaveinu, b'chol nafsheinu, u'b'chol meodeinu.

Today's daf is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Shifra's father, Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzchak on his yahrzeit.

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Ilana Miriam in honor of her birthday and in admiration of her perseverance in her learning.

How is Ilfa's question regarding splitting up washing one's hands for impurity purposes explained? The rabbis decreed that a tvul yom who goes into drawn water (even just the head and majority of the body) or pours three log of water over one's body after going in a mikveh will be considered impure. Likewise, a pure person who pours three log of water over one's body is deemed impure. Rabbi Yirmia asks what if half the body was in a mikveh and one poured water over the other half? A man who had a seminal emission is impure and from the times of Ezra, they also were not allowed to learn Torah. In order to permit Torah learning to one who was too sick to go into a mikveh, they permitted them to pour nine kav of water over their body. What if half the body was in a mikveh and they poured water on the other half? There are two versions are brought to understand the machloket between Tanna Kama and Rabbi Yehuda in the Mishna where two different people come and one testifies about the signing and the other about the writing. Is the case (and the cases that follow) one where two messengers brought the get or only one? What does this tell us about the need for the declaration when two messengers are sent to deliver the get?

Gittin 15 - May 31, 11 Sivan May 31, 2023

Study Guide Gittin 15

Today's daf is dedicated to Maggie and Rafi Sandler on the birth of a baby boy! Mazal tov!

Today's daf is dedicated by Helene Santo in memory of Marianne Santo on her 39th yahrzeit. She dedicated her life to Na'amat, the State of Israel and the Jewish people. We think of her always.

The tannaitic debate brought to suggest that tannaim disagree about whether or not a messenger who is sent with the words "Take this to..."(heilech) acquires the rights to the object for the receiver or not, is explained differently. Perhaps the debate is based on a different tannaitic debate about whether the words of a person on their deathbed are taken seriously even if there was no act of acquisition, and whether or not there is a commandment to fulfill the wishes of one who died. Discussions continue about whether or not the tannaim disagreed about if one sends a messenger to deliver something, does the messenger acquire rights to the object from the moment he receives it or only when it gets to the hands of the receiver? The second chapter begins with a messenger bringing a get from abroad who did not say the entire statement "in front of me it was written, in front of me it was signed." The Gemara begins by explaining the first few cases of the Mishna. If he said, "In front of me half of it was written and all of it was signed" - to which half is it referring? If he said, "In front of me all of it was written but half of it was signed," the get is also invalid. Rav Chisda, Rava and Rav Ashi each add a case regarding the second signature (what type of evidence there is about the second one) in which we would also rule like the Mishna that the get is invalid. The Gemara explains the logic behind each opinion, and difficulties are raised with Rav Chisda and Rava's positions. A further difficulty is raised on Rav Chisda from our Mishna but it is resolved. Since the Mishna deals with a case where half the testimony came from one person and half from another, they bring up sugyot in other unrelated issues where there is a question about whether or not one can join two halves together, like with a mechitza (for laws of carrying) and washing hands for purification.

Gittin 14 - May 30, 10 Sivan May 30, 2023

Study Guide Gittin 14

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island group in loving memory of Yitzchak HaLevi Staum, beloved father of their friend Estair Staum Katz. "May our learning be a zechut for the Aliya of his neshama. תהא נשמתו צרורה בצרור החיים"

On what basis does Rav hold that saying one should return a loan to a third person in the presence of all three people is as if it was acquired by the third person? After raising two suggestions that are rejected, they conclude that it can't be fully understood why he held this way. The Gemara brings two stories that are associated with this principle of Rav. If someone sends a messenger to repay a loan or return an item, who is responsible if something happens to the money/item before the messenger delivers it? Can the sender change his mind after he sends the messenger? Rav and Shmuel both hold that the one who sent the messenger is responsible until the item gets back to the owner/creditor, but they disagree about whether or not the sender can change his/her mind. First, they suggest the debate is whether or not when someone says, "Take this to..." did the messenger already acquire it on their behalf or not. However, this suggestion is rejected and they conclude that the debate is connected to responsibility - do we say that since the sender is responsible for the item still, they can change their mind or not? Two cases are brought to highlight this issue. If one sends a gift to another but before it gets there, the one receiving the gift dies, to whom does the gift go? Can we see from a debate regarding this issue that there is a tannaitic debate about whether "take this to..." is considered as if the recipient already received it or not. Another tannaitic debate is brought to prove this point as well, but both debates are explained in other ways.

Gittin 13 - May 29, 9 Sivan May 29, 2023

A braita brings a more expanded version of the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding whether it is only a benefit for a slave to be freed or is it also to his detriment. If one said to give a get to his wife or an emancipation document to his slave and he then died, they would not give the document as one cannot give a document once the person is no longer alive. However, regarding one who said to give money to another, they would give the money even if the owner died. It was passed down in the name of Rav that the money is given only if it was in a pile in a corner. They suggest two different explanations for Rav's limitation. Rav Zevid says it is referring to a healthy person and it is effective as it was done in the presence of all three relevant people, as Rav said elsewhere that if one says to another to give the money he owes him to a third person, the third person acquires it if the statement was made in front of all three of them. Rav Papa says it is referring to one on his deathbed and if the money was not in a pile, there would be a concern that he was referring to money that was hidden somewhere. Why didn't each hold by the other's explanation? There is a debate regarding Rav's statement about one who says to give the money another owes to a third person and if it was said in the presence of all three of them, the money is acquired by the third party. Is this only in a deposit case or also regarding a loan? It seems that Rav held it applies in a loan as well. How does that work? Ameimar suggests an explanation, but Rav Ashi rejects it.

Gittin 12 - May 28, 8 Sivan May 28, 2023

Study Guide Gittin 12

Today's daf is sponsored by Aviram and Micki Kadosh in honor of their son Yonatan's wedding to Yotal.

Can a master say to his slave, "You work for me and I keep your proceeds, but you need to support yourself"? First, they try to infer this from the Mishna but they reject it and explain that the Mishna is referring to a case where the master can say to the slave, "Keep your proceeds for your food." Four other sources are brought to try to infer that the master can relinquish his responsibility to feed the slave, while keeping his proceeds. Each time, other than the last, they reject this explanation. But in the end, they do prove that it can be done from the last source.

Gittin 11 - Shabbat May 27, 7 Sivan May 25, 2023

Today’s daf is sponsored by Jill and Jeff Shames. “In memory of avi mori, William Baker, Zeev Velvel ben Chana v'Reuven on his 2nd yahrzeit. Dad, still missing your loving embrace. Your memory is a blessing.”

What are names that are clearly gentile names? If according to Rabbi Shimon, the issue is really whether or not the names are clearly gentile names, why isn't that stated explicitly in the Mishna? Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis disagree regarding divorce and emancipation documents signed by gentiles, not in a gentile court. Rashbag adds a further distinction. What is the root of this debate? Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan have a further discussion regarding whether or not a get that comes from abroad and has signatures with gentile names but it is unclear if it was signed by Jews with gentile names or by gentiles. If one sent a get or emancipation document with a messenger, can they change their mind before the document reaches the recipient? The debate is depending on whether you view it as a good/bad thing for the recipient, as one can acquire something on behalf of others without their knowledge if it is good for them but not if it is bad for them (zachin l'adam she'lo b'fanav/ein chavin l''adam ela b'fanav) . Is this connected to the issue of one who seizes property from a debtor to return to a creditor without the creditor knowing? Is one allowed to do this? Is it permitted even if there are other creditors?

Gittin 10 - Chag Shavuot - May 26, 6 Sivan May 25, 2023

The Mishna rules that if a Kuti (Samaritan) is signed on a document, it is valid only for a divorce or emancipation document, but not other documents. Why? There are three opinions regarding the status of Kutim – according to whose opinion does the Mishna correspond? At first, it seems like it doesn’t fit with any of them, but then the Gemara figures out how to explain the Mishna according to Rabbi Elazar. What assumptions can be made about the signing of a divorce document from this answer? A document effected in a non-Jewish court is not accepted for divorce or emancipation but is for other documents. Does this include all other documents, including gifts whereby the ownership is transferred by the document alone? And if so, this can only be because of Shmuel’s opinion that we hold by the court system of the country as dina de’malchuta dina, the law of the land is the law! How can Rabbi Shimon accept the document of divorce from a gentile court if they don’t have the same divorce laws as us? Is it because Rabbi Shimon holds like Rabbi Elazar that we rely on the witnesses who witnessed the woman receiving the divorce document, not the witnesses who signed the document? However, this answer is difficult as well.

Gittin 9 - May 25, 5 Sivan May 25, 2023

This week's learning is sponsored by Suri Stern in honor of her mother Susan Davis. "She gave birth to me this week, just a few years ago. And to all the women who are learning and teaching torah Shavuot night, in the beit medrash for women only, may Moshiach come so the men can gain insight into the Torah they are missing on the “other side” of the mechitzah. And to Rabbanit Michelle Farber who works tirelessly to tear down unnecessary barriers. Chag sameach!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Meir & Ahuva Balofsky in honor of Diana Bloom. "For your dedication to learning. May you never stop learning and never stop teaching."

Why did Rava rule that when the slave brings his own emancipation document where he is also awarded money, he receives his freedom but not the money (until the signatures are verified), if Rav Nachman ruled like Rabbi Meir that we do not split a statement (palginan diburei)? The conclusion is that Rav Nachman held like Rabbi Meir for a different reason, not because we don't split his words) and a different ruling of his is brought where it is clear that he holds we can split someone's words. The Mishna had ruled that, in Israel, if there are those who raise doubt regarding the document's veracity, we verify the signatures of the witnesses. How many people are necessary to raise a doubt in order for us to take it seriously? The conclusion is that we are referring to the husband himself. If one brings a get from abroad and cannot say "in front of me..." we verify the signatures. "One who cannot say" refers to a person who brought the get, but before making the declaration became a deaf-mute. The Mishna mentions one similarity between a get of a woman and an emancipation document of a slave - that if one brings it from abroad to Israel or the reverse, one needs to say "in front of me it was written..." The Gemara brings a braita with three or four (according to Rabbi Meir) similarities. Why did Tanna Kama and Rabbi Meir give a number? Each was to exclude it from an additional case. What case was Rabbi Meir excluding? Aren't there other issues that are the same for a get and an emancipation document, like they can't be given after death of the husband/master, and li'shma?

Gittin 8 - May 24, 4 Sivan May 24, 2023

This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll. "As we start Masechet Gittin, the very first Daf expresses concern for the Aguna. I want to dedicate this month’s learning in honor of Shoshana and Chochmat Nashim, whose tireless work and inspiring dedication, forge new paths to make sure those aren’t just sentiments on an ancient page but that the rabbis, poskim and batei din of today take actual steps to protect Agunot and put an end to this abuse in the name of halakha. Baruch Matir Assurim."

Are the laws regarding plants on boats in waters in/near Israel the same as plants in a perforated pot raised off the ground in Israel regarding laws of tithes and shmita? The earlier debate regarding whether if one writes a get on a boat does one need to say "in front of me it was written..." is not regarding rivers in Israel - all agree that is considered Israel. The debate is about the Meditteranean - which parts are considered Israel and which parts are not. What are the different options for where are the borders in the water? This is similar to modern disputes over territorial waters. Is "Suria" (Northern Syria of today) considered Israel or not? For certain issues, it is considered like Israel, and for others not. One wanting to purchase land in Israel from a non-Jew is allowed to have a non-Jew do it (unclear whether it relates only to writing the contract or also to the actual purchase) for him on Shabbat due to the importance of a mitzva. A Caananaite slave who brings his own emancipation document needs to say "in front of me it was written..." But if the document also said that the owner gave him money, two people need to validate the witnesses' signatures (his declaration is not sufficient) for him to be able to demand the money. But if the documents said, "All of my possessions are given to you" - can we split the two and say that the slave is free but the money does not transfer hands until we validate the witnesses properly? Abaye and Rava disagree. First Abaye thinks the whole document can be effective, but after Rava's argument (that they must be split and the money does not transfer hands), Abaye switches positions to say that the entire document is ineffective, as he does not think that you can split the statement to make it effective halfway.

Gittin 7 - May 23, 3 Sivan May 23, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Malka Abraham in honor of her 66th birthday! "Thank you Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community for all that you do!!"

There are various statements and a story warning people of the potential dangers of imposing excessive fear on people in one's household. The Gemara brings a number of letters that rabbis wrote to each other regarding what to do with people in the community who are behaving inappropriately, not playing music, singing and not wearing the crown of grooms after the destruction, and the importance of charity giving, even for those who don't have a lot of money. In each letter, they quoted a verse and the person writing the letter drew lines on the page (sirtut). Is Acco really the Northern border of Israel? What about K'ziv? If one writes a get on a boat in the waters right outside of Israel, is it considered from abroad and one would need to say "in front of me..." or not? The Gemara quotes two contradictory braitot and suggests two possible resolutions.

Gittin 6 - May 22, 2 Sivan May 22, 2023

Study Guide Gittin 6

Is Babylonia considered like Israel for gittin and therefore one who brings from place to place in Babylonia would not need to say "in front of me it was written..."? Rav and Shmuel disagree about this. First, they suggest that the root of the debate is based on the debate between Rava and Raba, but they reject it and explain that it is because there are now yeshivot in Babylonia. Rav holds that since they now travel from place to place to learn, they recognize signatures. Shmuel holds that they are busy learning and therefore do not recognize the signatures of others. What are the boundaries of Babylonia? Some places have unique laws related to this that are dependent on the nature of the places and whether or not people from one place would recognize signatures of the other. Rav Kahana brought a get from one big city in Babylonia to the other and Rav told him that he did not need to say "In front of me it was written..." but if he did, it would help - in the event that the husband will try to claim it was not a valid get, as can be learned from a different story told in a braita of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Evyatar ruled that there is no need to say the declaration if bringing a get from Babylonia to Israel as there are always people traveling from one place to the other. Is Rabbi Evyatar someone who can be relied on in his rulings?

Gittin 5 - Rosh Chodesh Sivan - May 21, 1 Sivan May 21, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Ruth & Stuart Pilichowski in loving memory of Rabbi Dov Greenstone.

Today's daf is sponsored by Lesley Glassberg Nadel in loving memory of her mother Theresa Glassberg, Tova bat Tzvi Hirsch and Bayla, on her 19th yahrzeit. "May her name be for a blessing."

Three sources are brought to question Raba's opinion and are resolved by explaining that at a certain point, even people abroad knew the rule of li'shma and the need for saying "in front of me it was written..." was only a rabbinic decree just in case they forget this law sometime in the future, and therefore it is not applicable in rare situations or if the woman already remarried. The same argument between Raba and Rava was also argued by two Rabbis, amoraim from an earlier generation in Israel. There is another debate regarding in front of how many people the messenger needs to be to deliver the get and recite "in front of me it was written and signed" - two or three. They suggest that this also is linked to the previous argument of Raba/Rava, however, this suggestion is rejected and they explain it to be a question of can a witness also function as a judge - if yes, then in front of two is enough as the witness also counts as a judge and there are three, and if not, then it needs to be said in front of three. However, the Gemara questions this as in rabbinic issues, all agree that a witness can be a judge also. So the argument is refined to be specifically a debate here as a woman's testimony is accepted, however, she cannot become a judge - is there a reason for concern that if in general one can say it in front of two, they may accidentally think to do the same when a woman is the messenger and think that she can function as a judge or is it clear that everyone knows that she cannot and therefore two is enough in a case where a man is the messenger. The Gemara brings a braita to support Rabbi Yochanan's position that the messenger needs to bring the get in front of two witnesses. In order to be able to say "in front of me it was written...," how much does the messenger need to see of the get being written? There are different positions on this issue.

Gittin 4 - Shabbat May 20, 29 Iyar May 19, 2023

Study Guide Gittin 4

The Gemara continues to ascertain according to which tanna does the Mishna correspond, according to Raba's understanding, when it requires that both the writing and the signing of the get needs to be li'shma? The possibility of it being Rabbi Meir is rejected. However there is a possible way to explain the Mishna like Rabbi Elazar - while he may not require signatures, if they are there, they need to be done li'shma. However, the Gemara brings in a third opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who holds that both the writing and the signing need to be li'shma. If so, why didn't the Gemara simply bring Rabbi Yehuda at the beginning of the sugya? There are two tannaitic debates in the Mishna - one regarding towns on the border with Israel and another regarding whether one who brings a get from Israel abroad needs to say "before me it was written...signed." The Gemara first attempts to line up each of these opinions in the debate with the opinions of Raba and Rava but in the end concedes that it is not the case. After raising an additional question from the Mishna against Raba's opinion, they concede that Raba must hold that both are issues - making sure the get was done li'shma and that witnesses may not be around to verify the signatures. If so, what is the practical difference between Raba and Rava?

Gittin 3 - Yom Yerushalayim - May 19, 28 Iyar May 19, 2023

Study Guide Gittin 3

Today's daf is sponsored by Rebecca and Ezra Darshan in loving memory of her mother, Helene Isaacs, Chana bat Abraham David and Esther Rachel, on her 23rd yahrzeit. "My mother would have been so happy and proud to see so many women learning on such a high level. Torah learning was such an important part of her life."

Today's daf is sponsored by Eric Sommer in honor of Rabbanit Michelle and his fellow morning daf learners. This week's siyum was a great reminder what an incredible achievement Hadran is. Rabbanit Michelle's vision and teaching style, along with the solidarity and dedication of the learners, creates a feeling of being part of something special. It's a privilege to be a part of it, one that I do not take for granted.

In order to explain why one witness is sufficient according to Raba (li'shma), they explain that really there is not such a concern that the get wasn't written li'shma but the rabbis required it. Since that is the case, one witness will be enough, because if they require him to send the get with two witnesses, he may decide not to send the get at all and the wife will become an aguna. However, instead of helping the woman, this could actually create more problems as only one witness verified it and if the husband were to later come and claim it was not a valid get, it would be his word against the messenger's. The Gemara explains that this is not a concern as the declaration of the messenger needs to be said in front of two or three people and therefore this gives the witness more credibility and if the husband were to come later and raise doubts about the get, he would not be believed. The same question they asked Raba about one witness is now asked of Rava. They answer the same answer, raise the same difficulty and resolve the issue in a very similar manner. Why didn't Rava hold like Raba and why didn't Raba hold like Rava? Since according to Raba, the issue is li'shma, according to who does the Mishna correspond when it required the messenger to say both "it was written before me and it was signed before me?" It seems that both the writing and the signing needs to be li'shma and this doesn't fit with Rabbi Meir who requires the signing to be li'shma and Rabbi Elazar who requires the writing to be li'shma.

Gittin 2 - May 18, 27 Iyar May 18, 2023

Study Guide Gittin 2

Gittin bookmark and checklist

Masechet Gittin in sponsored by Elaine and Saul Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law, Daniela Schreiber. "Kol Hakavod on receiving your Masters of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy! We are so proud of you!"

This week's learning is dedicated in honor of Daniela Bellows Schreiber. "In honor of your completion of your Masters of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy. Daniela, you inspire us every day, with your focus and determination. We know firsthand how lucky your clients will be to have you in their lives. Love, Your Mah Jong Friends"

Today's daf is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of Rabbanit Michelle. "Thank you for guiding me on the path of Daf Yomi (and life) for the past 2711 pages!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Lynn Kaye, Joe Nadis and Maya Zanger-Nadis in honor of the shloshim of their grandma Marylin Kurtz Zanger. "Grandma always kept us in line, making sure we understood our intellectual and cultural heritage and quietly sneaking us sugar cereal when we came to visit. She passed away at 97 after being the head of the family for decades. Grandma, we love you and miss you."

In what cases does a messenger delivering a divorce document from the husband to the wife need to say a declaration that it was written and signed before him? In general, this is needed if they are coming from abroad to Israel. Does this apply to cities on the border of Israel? What exactly are the borders? Is it necessary when bringing a get (divorce document) from Israel to abroad? Raba and Rava each offer different explanations for the reason that the messenger needs to make this declaration. Raba says the concern is that people abroad are not careful about making sure the get is written li'shma, specifically for this particular man and this particular woman. Rava says the concern is that we won't be able to verify the signatures later since the witnesses are from abroad. What is the practical difference between the two opinions? According to Raba that the messenger needs to testify that the get was written li'shma, why it is enough to have only his testimony, don't we generally need two witnesses to prove something in court? The answer given is that in prohibitions, one witness is enough.

Sotah 49 - Siyum Masechet Sotah - May 17, 26 Iyar May 17, 2023

For the text of the Hadran ceremony, click here.
For more information about What is a Siyum, click here.

Siyum Masechet Sotah is sponsored by Ilana Friedman for the continued refuah shleima of Chana Sarah bat Ettel Sima. "May your trajectory of recovery continue speedily. Sponsored for the continued refuah of Yitzchak Ben Esther. You have helped so many to facilitate their recovery, may HaShem repay you in kind and restore you to good health quickly."

Rabbi Ilai bar Yivrechia makes a number of statements regarding the power of the prayer. King David and Habakuk were both able through their prayers to improve the situation of the nation/Torah scholars. He also talks about the importance of Torah scholars speaking Torah with each other and also not fighting against each other regarding halakha. Torah scholars who study even though they struggle to make ends meet, will get rewarded. The Mishna brings a number of statements describing the difficult historical-political situation in the periods following the destruction and the loss of great leaders. It also describes all sorts of takkanot the rabbis instituted regarding wedding ceremonies in the periods during and after the destruction of the Temple, and another takkana, not to learn Greek wisdom, which came about because of a particular incident. Are there situations where this is permitted? If so, what are they? After quoting another braita describing all that was lost since the death of many of the great rabbis of then, the masechet ends on a more optimistic note with two rabbis claiming that they have the characteristics that the braita had said no longer exist once a particular rabbis had died.

Introduction to Masechet Gittin with Dr. Ayelet Hoffmann Libson May 16, 2023

Introduction to Masechet Gittin

Sotah 48 - May 16, 25 Iyar May 16, 2023

Today's daf is dedicated by Goody Weil "in honor of my amazing father, Rabbi Yitz Greenberg, on his 90th birthday. May Hashem give him the strength to continue learning, guiding, thinking, and doing עד 120 שנה והלאה!

Why did Yochanan the kohen gadol cancel the confession of the tithes? There were two issues - some were not giving the tithes to the levites and those that were giving tithes, would give to the kohanim instead of the levites, as was instituted by Ezra. He also canceled the orarim and the nokfim. What are these and why were they canceled? He also stopped people from using hammers to work on chol hamoed and people no longer needed to check if tithes had been taken from produce they bought from others. Why? Once there was no longer the Sanhedrin, they outlawed singing with drinking. What manner of singing is permitted and what manner is not? Once there were no longer early prophets, there was no longer the urim v'tumim. Who were the "early" prophets? When prophecies ended, the rabbis would use heavenly voices as a replacement. Different tannaim lament the destruction by describing all sorts of things that we no longer have since the destruction of the Temple. One of them is the 'shamir.' What is it and what was it used for?

Sotah 47 - May 15, 24 Iyar May 15, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Ruth Leah Kahan, Jessica Shklar, and Emily Michelson in loving memory of their mother, Kadimah Michelson, Kadimah bat haRav Avraham Tzvi benZion, on her 5th yahrzeit. "We miss you."

Fourty-two children were killed in the episode with Elisha and the children who cursed him. This is a later fulfillment of Balak's attempt to curse the Jews by bringing forty-two sacrifices. Elisha was punished for this as he got sick three times - once for this, once for pushing off Geichazi entirely and a third time at the time of his death. It is learned from Elisha and Yehushua ben Perachia and his student (Jesus of Nazarene) that one should not entirely push someone away. What happened between Elisha and Geichazi and between Yehushua ben Perachia and his student? In the egla arufa ceremony, if the murderer is found before the calf is killed or after, what is done with the calf? What if there are contradictory witnesses regarding whether or not that person is the murderer? The Mishna brings a list of statements with the following structure: When the number of X increased, the ritual of Y was nullified. When the number of murderers increased, they canceled the egla arufa ceremony. When the number of adulterers increased, they sotah water no longer worked. The Mishna brings a number of other changes as well. If the murderer is found after the calf has been killed, the murderer is still convicted to death as the atonement of the calf is only until such time that the murderer is found. One witness is believed regarding the murderer in order to stop the egla arufa ceremony. If so, there seems to be a problem with the cases in the Mishna regarding contradictory testimony. How is this resolved? The Gemara explains the connection between the murderers and adulterers increasing and the egla arufa and sotah ceremony being canceled. They add more statements with the same structure referring to the perversion of the court system and lack of trust in judges.

Sotah 46 - May 14, 23 Iyar May 14, 2023

Study Guide Sotah 46

Today's daf is sponsored by Helen Danczak in loving memory of her mother, Lucille Fliegler. "We think of you often, always with a smile."

The kohanim say the final line in the egla arufa ceremony relating to atonement. The Gemara compares details regarding the criteria for the animal used for the egla arufa ceremony to those used for the para aduma (red heifer) ceremony. Which elements are similar? Which are different? Which are derived one from the other? Why is the egla arufa ceremony performed by a stream? The Torah says it needs to be done near an 'eitan' stream. What is the meaning of 'eitan'? Some say it means strong and others say it means old. There are verses to prove each option. The animal is killed by breaking its neck from the back. This is derived from a gezeira shava from a bird sin offering where melika is performed by killing the bird from the back of its neck and the same root of araf appears there. One cannot plant or work the ground where the egla arufa ceremony is performed. However, there is a debate if this also means that it can't be performed in a place where the ground was worked/used for planting? The elders of the city wash their hands in the place where the calf was killed. Then they say the declaration that they were not responsible for the death. They could have been responsible if they had seen the person and not escorted them. They stress the importance of escorting people and derive it from verses in the beginning of the book of Shoftim. Other statements discuss the importance of escorting and advising one who does not have an escort to learn Torah as a means of protection. How far should one go when escorting another? On what does it depend? The story of the prophet Elisha in Melachim 2 2:43 when children called him names and were then killed by bears could have been avoided if the people of the city has escorted Elisha. The verses of the story are extrapolated.

Sotah 45 - Shabbat May 13, 22 Iyar May 12, 2023

Study Guide Sotah 45

Today's daf is sponsored by Geri Goldstein Guedalia in honor of her daughter, Audrey Saipe Goldstein Levant, on her birthday. "I am so proud of you and I love doing the daf with you each morning."

Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Dickson in honor of Audrey Levant. "Wishing her a very happy birthday! Keep inspiring, striving and shtaygn ad 120."

Is it possible one can derive from the verses that there are more than three or five judges who need to do the measure for the egla arufa ceremony? Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov has a different opinion that the kohen gadol and the king need to measure as well. Is it possible that he agrees with Rabbi Yehuda or Rabbi Shimon about the number of judges or is it possible that he holds that the whole Sanhedrin (all 71!) need to come? Rav Yosef brings a source to try to answer this question, but Abaye raises a difficulty with this proof. Since there is no law of egla arufa if the body is hidden, the Gemara compares a debate regarding the laws of shichikha (when one forgets sheaves in the field, they need to be left for the poor) to the laws of egla arufa regarding hidden items. Would the rabbis who holds that hidden items are not exempt from shichikha also hold the same thing as regards egla arufa? Rabbi Yirmiya asks a different question regarding laws of shichikha - does it apply to items that are not directly on the ground? Abaye was in the marketplace when someone asked him if there is a body on top of another, is the bottom one considered hidden even though it is under the same type of item (another body) and is the top one considered on the floor since it is on something of the same type which is on the floor? A braita lists more cases (different ways of having died) where the laws of egla arufa would not apply. Could there be a case where two cities bring an egla arufa? What do we do if the head is severed from the body and isn't found in the same place? Which part is moved and for what purpose? From which part of the body do we measure - there is a three-way debate. After the measuring, the elders of the closest city take a calf, bring it to a stream and break the back of its neck with a cleaver. They then recite a declaration (the one that needs to be in Hebrew) that they are not responsible for the death of this person.

Sotah 44 - May 12, 21 Iyar May 12, 2023

A final statement of Rabbi Yochanan quoting Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov is regarding the rabbinic ordinance that one who is within four cubits of a dead person is considered impure as it is likely one may have put one's hand over the dead body without realizing. However, an exception is made in the courtyard of a burial cave as there is a separation between the courtyard and the burial area, assuming it is a certain minimum size. Beit Hillel holds that the size needed is only 4x4 handbreadths. However, this size needed depends on how one enters the courtyard of the cave - from above or from the side. The same types of drashot that were taught regarding the house and the vineyard are taught regarding the betrothal of a woman - what cases are included and which are excluded and where is it derived from the verses? From the order in the Torah of house, vineyard, wife, they derive that first one should build a house, then plant a vineyard and only after that, find a wife and get married. A verse from Proverbs 24:27 is brought to teach the same idea, however, there are several different ways to extrapolate that verse - perhaps referring to order of learning (Torah, then Mishna then Talmud) or learning that will then lead to good deeds. More details regarding the exemption from war for those just married are explained and connected to verses. The Mishna discusses the third speech that is given to the people before going out to war, sending home those who are soft-hearted. Who is considered soft-hearted? There are a number of different opinions. What are the practical differences between them? There were officers who stood in the front and in the back of the nation to ensure that no one try to run away from war, as running away is demoralizing and leads to defeat. Which type of war are these exemptions for? All wars? Just optional wars? There is a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the tana kama and the Gemara explains the difference between them. The new chapter deals with the egla arufa ceremony. If one finds a dead body and they don't know who killed the person, judges from the central Sanhedrin (of 71 judges) come and measure to find the closest city. How many judges? Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree about whether it is five or three. from where in the verses do they each derive their opinion? The body must be found on the ground and not buried under something or hanging from a tree or floating in the water. The ceremony must be performed in Hebrew - from where is this derived?

Sotah 43 - May 11, 20 Iyar May 11, 2023

Study Guide Sotah 43

Today's daf is sponsored by Elisheva Rappoport in loving memory of her beloved sister Raizel Zucker on her 3rd yahrzeit. "May the neshama of Tova Raizel bat Yosef Yitzchok have an Aliya."

We learn from the verses regarding the war with the Midyan that the Ark went out to war with the nation. They extrapolate from the verses that Pinchas was descended from Yitro and from Joseph through his mother. How? Who is exempt from war? What type of house, vineyard, wife? At what stage? What do they do while the others are at war? Does it matter if they purchased it, or received it as a gift or inheritance? Which parts of the speech are said by whom? A contradiction between two tannaitic sources leads to a discussion about tree grafting and whether it is considered a new growth that will exempt one from going to war. The sages provide two different answers to resolve the contradiction. Several statement are brought in the name of Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov about laws that are affected not by reality but by the way it appears.

Sotah 42 - May 10, 19 Iyar May 10, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Lenny Levin in loving memory of Carol Robinson. "Carol was a vivacious, caring presence in our lives, whether near or far. Her aura lingers despite her passing. Her example will continue to inspire us to face our continuing life challenges with hope and courage."

There are two more statements about the dangers of flattery and then a statement about four types of people who are not able to greet the divine presence and among them, those who flatter. The new chapter deals with the speech that the designated kohen gives to the people before going out to war, which needs to be in Hebrew only. There are two parts to the speech - one is to list who is exempt from war and the other is to encourage those who are going not to be fearful because God is with them. The Mishna brings examples comparing gentile nations that relied on humans, such as Goliath, to Israel who relies on God. The kohen who makes this speech is appointed, as is derived from the verses. The kohen's speech begins with the words "Shema Yisrael," literally, hear me Israel. But it is understood to be referring to the salvation of the Jews being dependent on saying shema twice a day. A braita establishes that the kohen's speech split into two - part was said on the border of Israel and part just before beginning the war. The Gemara brings several drashot on the David and Goliath narrative. How did Goliath bring his own downfall? How was he trying to wear down the Jews? Why was he called "ish habeinayim"? The sages connect Orpah, Naomi's daughter-in-law, and Harafa, Goliath's mother, and claim they are the same person. How are the names extrapolated? The Amonites relied on Shovach who was also known as Shovach. Which was the real name and which was meant for extrapolating? Some other verses are brought in which there was a debate about how to extrapolate the verse, such as, if one is worried one should "yashchena" - does that means "yaschenu" distract oneself by thinking of other things or "yaschenu" talk it out.

Sotah 41 - Lag B'amor - May 9, 18 Iyar May 09, 2023

Study Guide Sotah 41

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Noa ben Shoshan and Ariel Katuf's marriage.

The kohen gadol reads from the Torah on Yom Kippur. However, he skips from one section to another - how can this be done as one can only skip sections when reading from the Prophets, not from the Torah! Abaye resolves this as one can skip even Torah sections within the same topic as long as one can get to the other section within the time the translator reads the verse in Aramaic. The kohen reads the other section by heart as it is too far to get to and also it is not appropriate to roll a safer Torah in public. Why not use more than one sefer Torah? That is only permitted when it is different readers, but when just one person reads and he moves to another book, people will think the first one was missing section and thus, disqualified. What blessings does the kohen gadol say after he reads from the Torah? After he would read, people would bring their own personal sefer Torah and read from it. The king reads from the Torah at the hakhel ceremony once every seven years after the shmita year on the first day of Chol Hamoed Sukkot. One year King Agripas was reading and began crying when he got to the section saying that gentile kings cannot be king as he was presumed to have been descended from slaves as he was descended from Herod who was descended from a slave, according to the rabbis. The people told him not to be concerned and cried out, "You are our brother! You are our brother." The king reads a number of sections in the book of Devarim. A number of questions, some similar to what was asked about the kohen gadol's reading, are raised and resolved. Why did King Agripas stand while reading if the king is supposed to sit? It is known that a king who wants to relinquish the honor due to him cannot! Since this was for a mitzva, it is permitted. On account of the story of the Jews flattering Agripas, the Gemara launches into a series of statements regarding flattery.

Sotah 40 - May 8, 17 Iyar May 08, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Lori Schuldiner Schor in loving memory of her father, on his 51st yahrzeit, and in celebration of her three grandchildren. "I honor the circle of life and the cycles of life. I celebrate the love of learning that flows organically through the generations of my family."

Today's daf is sponsored in loving memory of Anita Dinerstein, by her children and grandchildren, on her shloshim. "May her love of Jewish learning and community continue to inspire us."

There is a debate about whether or not one is allowed to say verses while the kohanim are saying birkhat kohanim - is it disrespectful to recite something while they are blessing or is it disrespectful not to recite verses? Is it permitted only in the Temple? Rabbi Avahu compares his modesty to Rabbi Abba from Acco who was more modest than he. Other stories are brought to show how modest Rabbi Avahu was. There are many different opinions about what the congregation should recite when the chazan says modim. Rav Papa chose to combine them all into the prayer that we say today. One should have awe of the congregation upon them. The rabbis bring three different sources for this, two from the blessings of the kohanim, although one of those is rejected. The kohanim take off their shoes before blessing the people in case their strap opens up and as they lean down to fix it, they miss their chance to bless the people and they are suspected by others as being a son of a divorcee who cannot recite the blessings. In the Temple, one doesn't answer amen. why? On account of that, the three blessings of the kohanim are said as one. The Mishna describes what Torah portions the kohen gadol would recite on Yom Kippur and what blessings would he recite. The Torah was passed from one person to another with a higher rank. Can one derive from there that the students can get treated with respect even if their rabbi is there? Abaye rejects this suggestion and brings an alternate explanation for the passing of the Torah from one to the other. Can one infer from the Mishna that the kohen gadol sat in the azara? And if so, how could that be if only kings of the house of David were allowed to sit in the azara?

Sotah 39 - May 7, 16 Iyar May 07, 2023

When a sefer Torah is opened in shul, one is not allowed to speak, even to talk about halakha. Two different verses are suggested as possible derivations for this rule. A kohen must wash his hands before blessing the people - a verse is brought as proof. When Rabbi Elazar ben Shamoa was asked why he was rewarded with longevity, he answered that he was careful about three things - not making the shul a shortcut, not passing over people to get to his place in the beit midrash and not saying the priestly blessing without saying a brakha first. What is the brakha the kohanim say before blessing the people? What do they say before going up to say the blessing? What do they say after when they turn away from the people and toward the Ark? Other rules are listed regarding both the blessing of the kohanim and the Torah reading including waiting for each section to completely finish or all those to answer amen before continuing on to the next section. One who reads the haftorah, should first read from the Torah and the Torah must be fully rolled, before beginning the haftorah. How would they remove the Torah from shul - would it have to be removed before all the people? On what does that depend? What verses would the people recite when the kohanim would recite birkhat kohanim?

Sotah 38 - Shabbat May 6, 15 Iyar May 05, 2023

Study Guide Sotah 38

What are differences between birkhat kohanim that was performed in the Temple and the one that is performed outside the Temple? Seven braitot are brought which each derive laws of the birkhat kohanim from the words “this is how you should bless.” Each braita deals with a different issue, raises questions about it and makes derivations from other verses in order to explain the rule. The rules are - the blessing is done in Hebrew only, while standing, with hands lifted, using the special name of God (in the Temple only), women, converts and freed slaves are included in the blessing, the kohanim and the people face each other and it is said out loud. How are the kohanim called up and on what does it depend? Eight statements of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi are brought – four about birkhat kohanim and four showing the importance of not being stingy. What is done in a case where all the congregants are kohanim? There are two contradictory statements about this, but they are resolved. Those who stand behind the kohanim are not included in the blessing. What about those who are in front but there is some sort of barrier? What about those on the side?

Sotah 37 - May 5, 14 Iyar May 05, 2023

Yehuda's name includes the letters of the name of God because he sanctified God's name in public. When was this? A braita is brought to answer the question in which two versions are brought regarding the question of who went into the Red Sea first - the tribe of Benjamin or Nachshon the son of Aminadav from the tribe of Judah? Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov explains how the Levites split up - the elders were in between the two mountains and the others were on top. Rabbi Yoshiya says it split between those who were able to work (to carry the Ark) and those who could not. Rebbi has a totally different understanding of where the people stood - he thinks that all the tribes were at the foot of the mountain - some at the foot of Mount Grizim and some at the foot of Mount Eival as when the verse says "on Mount..." it means next to, as is proven from other instances where on means next to. How were the blessings and curses recited? How many covenants were formed on that day? When else were there covenants formed as the ones on that day? There is a debate about what was received when - Rabbi Yismael holds that general rules were given at Sinai and details at the Tent of Meeting (ohel moed). Rabbi Akiva holds that both were received at Sinai and repeated at the Tent of Meeting and then a third time at Arvot Moav. Rabbi Yehuda ben Nachmani said that all the blessings and curses only relate to one who commits adultery. More details of how the blessings and curses were recited are derived from the verse regarding those who stand on Mount Grizim for the blessings and those who stand on Mount Eival for the curses.

Sotah 36 - May 4, 13 Iyar May 04, 2023

Study Guide Sotah 36

The Gemara lists all the miracles that happened to the Jews on the day they crossed over the Jordan into Israel. When it is recorded in the book of Joshua about the blessings and curses it is written "half" went up to Mount Gerizim "and the half" went up to Mount Eival. Why is it written "and the half." Rav Kahane says this comes to teach that the division of the tribes on the two mountains was the same division that is in the two stones in which the names of all the tribes were written that were on the efod that would sit on the shoulders of the high priest. But in a braita there are two opinions regarding the distribution of the names in the efod and neither opinion is in accordance with Rav Kahana. So they reject his opinion and offer a different interpretation of "and the half" - that those who stood on Mount Gerizim were more numerous than those on Mpunt Eival even though the tribe of Levi was with them and some of them stood below, because the tribe of Joseph was also there and they were numerous. How do we know that Joseph's tribe was numerous? The Gemara continues with many drashot on Joseph.

Sotah 35 - May 3, 12 Iyar May 03, 2023

The Gemara continues with drashot on the stories of the spies addressing various issues. At what stage did the spies have bad intent? How did Caleb get the people quieted to listen to him? The spies directly doubted the power of God. Why did they think it was a land that destroyed its inhabitants? Were they lying when they said that the spies appeared like grasshoppers in the eyes of the inhabitants? The day the nation cried after hearing the spies' descriptions was the ninth of Av and they were therefore punished many years later that on that same day, the Temple would be destroyed. How did the spies die and why? The Gemara then goes back to the topic of the crossing of the Jordan and explains more details of what happened. At the end of the passing through, the ark floated miraculously to the other side taking with it all the kohanim. Later in history, when Uza was worried the Ark would fall off the wagon as the ask was being returned to Jerusalem, he was punished because he forgot that the Ark can support itself, as happened at the crossing of the Jordan. King David was somewhat responsible as he should not have put it on a wagon, as the Levites in the desert were commanded to carry it on their shoulders. At an earlier time, when the Ark was returned by the Philistines, the people of Beit Shemesh were punished for not treating the Ark properly. What did they do? How many people died? Three months later, after the Ark was in the house of Oved Edom HaGiti, and Oved was blessed, David realized that the time has come to return the Ark to Jerusalem. How many animals were sacrificed during the procession? There were three sets of stones - one in the time of Moshe (learned out by gezira shava from the stones of Yehoshua), and two in the time of Yehoshua. On the last set, they wrote the Torah and put limestone. In what order? Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree. The purpose of writing the Torah in seventy languages was so that the nations would see and turn away from their bad actions. Rabbi Shimon said they added a line at the bottom, meant to cause people from the seven nations (perhaps only those living outside of Israel) to repent.

Sotah 34 - May 2, 11 Iyar May 02, 2023

How high was the water in the Jordan River when the Israelites crossed? What are the three things that Joshua said/commanded to the people when they were standing in the Jordan? The stones they took from the Jordan weighed 40 seah. From this it is derived that a person can carry three times that weight if someone else loads the load onto their shoulder’s and hence the weight that the bunch of grapes that the spies took out of Israel was 960 seah because eight people carried it. What formation of poles were used to carry the huge cluster of grapes? Did Israel pass through Jordan in a way that they camped in the desert or did they walk one after the other? The Gemara begins a long series of drashot on the story of the spies - who asked to send spies (how can we resolve the contradiction between what it says in Bamidbar and what it says in Devraim on this issue)? How can we extrapolate the names of the spies? Why is it written "And they went up into the Negev" in the plural "And he came to Hebron" in the singular? What does this teach about Kaleb? How can we extrapolate the clean names of the giants they found in Israel? How do you explain the verse "Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt"?

Sotah 33 - May 1, 10 Iyar May 01, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by the Lebi family in honor of Maytal Melamed for finishing her year-long study of Masechet Megillah as part of her bat mitzvah preparation. "We're very proud of you!"

Prayer can be said in any language as it needs to be meaningful and understood, as we are asking God for mercy. However, Rav Yehuda said that one cannot pray in Aramaic as the angels don't understand Aramaic! A distinction is made between individual prayer, where an angel is needed to bring the prayers to God, and prayer in a public forum which goes directly to God. A difficulty is raised against Rav Yehuda as a story is told of a heavenly voice that spoke from the Holy of Holies in Aramaic on two different occasions. Two possible solutions are suggested. Verses are brought to show how we derive that the other cases listed in the Mishna can be said in any language. The Mishna had derived from the case of the blessings and the curses that when the Torah uses the wording "and they answered and they said" it means it must be said in Hebrew. From here they derived the law for chalitza and bikurim. But from where do they derive that the blessings and the curses needed to be said in Hebrew only? There was a debate regarding the derivation for chalitza. How does each deal with the proof from the verse of the other opinion? What are the different opinions about the location of Mount Grizim and Mount Eival? How does each one explain the description of the location in Devarim 11:30? What did Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Yosi claim to the Shomronim (Kutim) against their traditions regarding the location of Mount Grizim and Mount Eival? How exactly did the Jews cross the Jordan River on their entry into Israel?

Sotah 32 - April 30, 9 Iyar Apr 30, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Malka Svei in loving memory of her grandmother, Rachel Leah Bat R’ David. "She learned and taught Torah throughout her life. She loved and valued Torah above all else, and raised her children and grandchildren to do the same."

Today's daf is sponsored by Lynn Kaye, Joe Nadis & Maya Zanger-Nadis in loving memory of Ted Kurtz on his shloshim. "A WWII veteran and savvy businessman, Uncle Ted stayed connected to his Hungarian Satmar roots. Although Ted never had children of his own, he took care to be present in our lives, and put several of us through college. Through him, we learned the importance of taking care of family. May his neshama have an aliyah."

The Hadran Zoom family sponsors today's daf for a refuah shleima for Rabbi Hayim Herring, Harav Hayim Ben Zippora Riva, husband of their fellow daf learner and friend Terri Krivosha. "Wishing you renewed strength and a full recovery."

In order to resolve the difficulty with Rabbi Chiya's opinion from the last two cases in the Mishna, the Gemara establishes that the Mishna is referring to cases where one or both of the sets are witnesses are disqualified and the rulings follow rabbi Nechemia who holds that in cases where disqualified witnesses are accepted, we follow the group with the larger number of witnesses. There are two different versions of Rabbi Nechemia's position. The seventh chapter begins with a list of cases where the law obligates a recitation of a text - which can be said in a language other than Hebrew and which can be said only in Hebrew? The words of the kohen to the sotah, confession of tithes, shema, tefilla (amida), grace after meals, an oath of testimony and an oath regarding a deposit - can all be said in any language (that one understands). The recitation of the bikkurim, chalitza, the blessings and the curses recited upon entry into Israel, the blessing of the kohanim, the blessing of the kohen gadol on Yom Kippur, the Torah reading of the king at hakhel, and the recitation at an egla arufa ceremony all need to be recited in Hebrew. The Mishna brings a source for a few of these cases, explaining why they need to be said in Hebrew. They then explain in details how the blessings and curses ceremony was performed. The Gemara begins by explaining how we know that sotah ceremony can be done in any language. What exactly does the kohen explain to the woman and why? From where do we derive that the confession of the tithes can be done in any language? We learn from the tithes ceremony that one should recite praise about oneself quietly and from the recitation of the bikkurim, we learn that things that are degrading, we say loudly. If this is true, we say prayer in a quiet voice so as not to embarrass ourselves when we spell out our sins! To resolve this, they correct the previous statement (what we recite loudly) to be referring to our pain, rather than something degrading, so that people will hear and pray for mercy. Regarding shema, there is a tannaitic debate about whether it should be recited in Hebrew only or not. What is the proof in the verses for each position?

Sotah 31 - Shabbat April 29, 8 Iyar Apr 28, 2023

Rabbi Yehoshua said in the Mishna that when it said “lo” in a verse about Iyov (Job), it was spelled with a vav and explained as having a vav, not with an alef which would have had the opposite meaning. Why was there even reason to think that it was spelled with a vav and read with an alef? Why did Rabbi Yehoshua believe that Iyov worshipped God out of love and not fear? What is the difference in the reward between one who worships out of love or out of fear? From where is this derived? One witness, even one who is generally not accepted in court, can be believed to say that the woman who was warned and went in the room alone with that man actually has relations. The woman would then not be able to drink the sotah water to prove her innocence. Why is one witness believed? Why are two needed to prove that they were in the room alone? What is the case if there was contradictory testimony regarding her having slept with the man – in which cases would she drink and in which cases not? How does this work with Ulla’s statement that in cases where one witness is believed, one witness is considered like two. Ulla and Rabbi Chiya each understand read the Mishna differently.

Sotah 30 - April 28, 7 Iyar Apr 28, 2023

Study Guide Sotah 30

Today’s daf is sponsored by Raquel Lifshutz Pilzer and Jen Lifshutz Lankin in loving memory of their brother, Avigdor Chai Abraham, Z"L, on his second yartzeit. "Your incredible strength, bravery and laugh will always be with us. You are always in our hearts and on our minds. We miss you dearly and hope to continue to learn in your merit, and make you proud."

Sotah 29 - April 27 - 6 Iyar Apr 27, 2023

Study Guide Sotah 29

The Gemara continues and explains the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva in the drasha on the verses about with whom can she not have relations and what else is the sotah prohibited to do? There is another source for the rule that a doubt regarding impurity is treated strictly only if there is a person involved who theoretically could have known if it was impure. Why do we need two sources for this? Where did Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai learn that a second vessel defiles a third if not from the verse of Rabbi Akiva? He learned it from a kal vachomer from a tvul yom. If so, why did he fear that others would reject this? On what basis would they reject it? From where do we derive that there is a fourth degree of impurity in sacrificial items? Rabbi Yosi learns it from a kal vachomer from a mechusar kipurim. Rabbi Yochanan raises a difficulty with the kal vachomer.

Sotah 28 - Yom Haazmaut - April 26, 5 Iyar Apr 26, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Laura Shechter in honor of her daughter, Kayla. "Behatzlacha to all of the contestants competing today in the Chidon HaTanach, most especially to Kayla. The learning we have done together as a family because of your commitment has brought us all so much joy. Kayla, you are our champion always. Mazal tov!"

When the Mishna said that the man also dies when the woman drinks the sotah water, it could not be referring to her husband because if the husband has done wrongdoing, the sotah water doesn’t work to kill the woman. From where is this derived? From here they conclude it is the adulterer who will die when the sotah drinks the water. Is this derived from the word “and they came (referring to the waters)” which appears twice or because of the addition of the “and”? They conclude that Rabbi Akiva derives it from “and” and then proceed to explain the six drashot that Rabbi Akiva learns from the three mentions of “and they came” – as each one coming to teach two things. Rebbi doesn’t derive anything from “and” and therefore derives only three things from the fact that the same words appear three times. From where does he derive that the man gets punished as well? A braita is brought explaining what Rabbi Akiva learns from the three verses that say “and the woman was impure.” Rabbi Yishmael raises a question against Rabbi Akiva, although the Gemara will later have to explain the question as it is not very clear. He also shows how we derive that the sotah is forbidden to her husband until she drinks the water and proves her innocence. He then makes a kal vachomer argument from sotah to a sheretz that a sheretz should also be forbidden even in a case of doubt. However, this is limited to cases that are similar to sotah – where the doubt is in the private domain and theoretically there is someone who knows whether or not it became impure.

Sotah 27 - Yom HaZikaron - April 25, 4 Iyar Apr 25, 2023

Today’s daf is dedicated to the memory of the fallen soldiers that were killed protecting the State of Israel and in memory of those that were killed in terrorist attacks and died by Kiddush Hashem.

Today's daf is sponsored by Jeanne Yael Klempner in loving memory of her father, Michael Cohen, Elimelech HaCohen ben Shlomo v'Malka, who passed away a month ago on the 4th of Nissan. "Dad, thank you for inspiring my love of learning Torah. I wish I'd been able to share my daf yomi journey with you over the last few difficult years of your life, but I take comfort in knowing you'd be proud of it."

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in loving memory of her nephew Larry Gerber, Lipa Chaim ben Yisrael Hakohen z"l, on his shloshim. "He was a wonderful, generous man who did much good for the world, passed away too young, and will be greatly missed by all who knew and loved him."

Is it worse to marry a woman rumored to have committed adultery or the daughter of that woman? Is there an assumption that the daughter of such a woman is likely conceived from the husband or not? What is the basis of the debate between Rabbi Yosi and the rabbis about whether a husband can have his wife drink the sotah water if the court did the kinui in a case where he was temporarily incapacitated? The words 'wife' and 'husband' are juxtaposed in the verse and this is used to teach that the criteria for men are the same as for women and vice-versa. What laws are derived from this juxtaposition? The fifth chapter begins by deriving from a verse that just as the woman who committed adultery is killed by the sotah water, the man who had relations with her dies as well in the same manner. And just as she is forbidden to her husband, she is forbidden to the man under suspicion as well. There are two different manners in which this can be derived from the text - one by Rabbi Akiva and the other by Rabbi Yehoshua. The Mishna continues to list various other drashot by Rabbi Akiva and one by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Horkanus. The topics vary from an impure item of a second-degree being able to pass on impurity to create a third-degree of impurity, the area around the Levite cities, how the Jews sang with Moshe at the splitting of the Red Sea, and did Iyov worship God out of love or fear.

Sotah 26 - April 24, 3 Iyar Apr 24, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Goody and Eric Weil in loving memory of the beloved Rav Dov Shabtai ben Yehoshua Leib and Ethel Greenstone after a short illness. 'He inspired so many of the women and men of his family to learn daf yomi. Many are part of the Hadran community that embraces them today and learns in his honor. Yehi Zichro Baruch!"

Rabbi Elazar ruled in cases of a man who married a woman who can't have children that since he can have another wife, he is permitted to marry her, in which case, she can also be brought to drink the sotah water. Rav Nachman limits his opinion to a woman who at some point was able to have children, as an aylonit for sure cannot become a sotah. A difficulty is raised against Rav Nachman from a braita. Rav Nachman explains that there is a tannaitic debate about this based on the understanding of how to explain the verse "she shall be clean and will be able to retain seed." What are the different ways to understand this verse? The Gemara delves into many of the other cases mentioned in the braita that was quoted and explains them. The same is then done to the cases mentioned in our Mishna, such as the wife of a kohen or a eunuch. Each time the Gemara explains why it was necessary to explain the law in the braita/Mishna as it seems at first glance that it would be obvious. The Mishna excluded one who is a minor and one who is not a man from laws of kinui (one does not warn a wife about going into a room alone with them). What is "one who is not a man?" Three possibilities are raised, the first two (one who is impotent and a gentile) are rejected. The conclusion is that it means an animal as engaging in bestiality is not considered 'znut' (licentiousness).

Sotah 25 - April 23, 2 Iyar Apr 23, 2023

Study Guide Sotah 25

The week's learning is sponsored by the Greenstone Family in loving memory of their dear husband, father and grandfather, Dov Shabtai Ben Yehoshua Lev. "Saba was a dedicated and committed learner of Torah. The fact that he was consistent in his learning speaks to his devotion to the study of Torah, and it's clear that he instilled that same passion in his children and grandchildren. Saba was always so proud to see his many of his children and grandchildren learn Daf Yomi."

Today's daf is sponsored by Shelly and Avi Yonitzman in loving memory of Albert Kobny and wishing long life to Sarina Kovny.

A woman who behaves in a manner that is considered a breach of the marriage contract (dat yehudit), loses her ketuba. But is this only if she is warned or not? Three different sections of our Mishna are each brought to try to prove that she needs warning. The first two are rejected but the third is conclusive. If a wife violated dat yehudit but the husband doesn't care and wants to stay married to her, can he? They try to answer this question from a case in our Mishna, but that answer is rejected. If a husband warned his wife not to go into a room alone with another man (kinui), can he change his mind and rescind the warning? They try to answer the question from our Mishna and another Mishna in Sotah, but both are rejected. They find the answer in a braita, one can rescind the kinui. However, there is a debate about whether that can be done only before she is found in the room alone with the man (setira), or even after that. The Gemara strengthens the position of the opinion that it cannot be rescinded after setira. In the Mishna, Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree regarding a case of a sotah whose husband died before she drinks the water. Does she lose her ketuba money or not? The debate is based on whether one views a document that is meant to be collected as if it was already collected. If one views it as collected, then the woman gets her ketuba money as the burden of proof lies on the husband. If not, it is the reverse. There is another debate in the Mishna regarding a woman who can not have children - can she be brought to be a sotah? Is the husband forbidden to marry her in the first place? Rabbi Elazar holds that since he can have another wife, he is permitted to marry her, in which case, she can also be brought to drink the sotah water. Rav Nachman limits his opinion to a woman who at some point was able to have children, as an aylonit for sure cannot become a sotah based on a drasha from the verses of the sotah.

Sotah 24 - 2nd Day Rosh Chodesh Iyar - Shabbat April 22, 1 Iyar Apr 21, 2023

Study Guide Sotah 24

This is the daf for Shabbat. For Friday’s daf please click here.

Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of David's father, Dr. Abraham Geffen, on his 8th yahrzeit. "The youngest of the 8 children of Rav Tuvia and Sara Hene Geffen of Atlanta, he was devoted to his wife Ethel, parents and siblings, children, extended family and synagogue community and was a dedicated physician."

Today's daf is sponsored by Pnina Grossman in honor of her mother, Naomi Grossman's birthday! "Happy birthday, Mommy! We're lucky and proud to have a cool and learned mother and mother-in-law like you!"

A woman who is betrothed or waiting for levirate marriage does not drink the sotah water, but could be accused of being alone with a man (kinui and setira) and would lose her ketuba money. The same would be true if the marriage was forbidden from the start, such as a forbidden marriage for a priest, i.e. with a divorcee. The Mishna lists a number of other cases, some of which are a subject of debate about whether she can drink the water or whether she does or doesn't lose her ketuba money. There are some cases where the court can intervene and do the kinui in place of the man, in a case where he is incapable. The Gemara first deals with the case of betrothal and levirate marriage and explains that the Mishna follows Rabbi Yonatan's position as he disagrees with Rabbi Yoshiya who holds that a woman waiting for levirate marriage can drink the sotah water. What is the source in the Torah for each of their opinions and on what logic is each opinion based? The Gemara questions both of their opinions as they both say there is a verse to exclude a betrothed woman from drinking the sotah water, however, this can be learned from a different verse entirely. How is this resolved?

Sotah 23 - 1st Day of Rosh Chodesh Iyar - April 21, 30 Nissan Apr 21, 2023

Study Guide Sotah 23

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran zoom family in loving memory of the beloved father of their dear Hadran learner and friend, Adina Hagege - HaRav Dov Shabtai ben Yehoshua Lev v'Etel z"l. "May his family be comforted among aveilei Zion v'Yerushalayim. Through his kind, wise and constantly thoughtful daughter, it is evident that R' Greenstone was a special person who transmitted his values as heritage. Yehi Zichro Baruch."

Today's daf is sponsored by Rochel Cheifetz in loving memory of her mother, Chana Cohen, Chana bat Rav Moshe and Tzipora Mashbaum, on her 2nd yahrzeit. "A model to generations of Mashbaum and Cohen families with her grace, modesty, inspiration for the importance of family, and exuberant and unconditional love. Mommy, you are greatly missed by us all."

Today’s daf is sponsored by Yael Asher in memory of her husband Shlomo Chaim Asher ben Luna Sol z”l.

In which situations is the meal offering of the sotah burned in the beit hadeshen and not able to be sacrificed? One of the examples is when the sotah is married to a kohen, as it is partially his sacrifice and the meal offering of a kohen is meant to be burned entirely on the altar. However, since it is partially hers, the remainder is meant to be eaten. Therefore, after they burn the kometz, the remainder is left to be burned in the beit hadeshen. The same is true even if she is the daughter of a kohen as the law is different for male and female kohanim. The Mishna lists other laws where we distinguish between men and women who are kohanim. They also list cases in the law where there are differences between men and women (non kohanim). The Gemara will later bring sources for each of these differences. A braita is quoted that differs from the Mishna as it says the remainder of the meal offering of one married to a kohen gets burned on the altar after the kometz is taken and burned. The Gemara brings two different ways to explain this braita.

Sotah 22 - April 20, 29 Nissan Apr 20, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Dianne Kuchar in loving memory of her father, Moshe ben Avraham and her husband Dennis, Shimon Avraham ben Yisrael Moshe. "I find myself midway between the two yahrtzeits of the most significant men in my life, my dad and my Dennis. Dad would have been so proud of my learning, Dennis WAS very proud. We still can’t believe he is gone."

The sages frowned upon one who learned Torah and memorized mishnayot but did not serve Torah scholars. This is understood as one who recited them without understanding them. Different sages categorized them as other types of people in society that were not to be relied upon. Who is considered an am haaretz? The Gemara defines the other two terms that Rabbi Yehoshua brought in the Mishna - isha prusha and makot perushim. These, as well as others who are also viewed as those who destroy the world, are defined as those who pretend to be righteous but it is just a cover for their true nature which is evil or one who does good things but for ulterior motives, such as learning or doing mitzvot in order to receive a reward. Abaye and Rava disagreed with the latter statement as one who learns Torah or does mitzvot not for their own sake will ultimately do them for their own sake and therefore it is recommended to learn Torah even if it is done for ulterior motives. Rabbi Shimon doesn't think that a woman's merits will delay her death, as it will weaken the power of the waters to scare those who are guilty and it will cause innocent women to be perceived as guilty even after drinking the water. Rebbi holds that the woman's merits can delay her death but she will not get pregnant and her health slowly deteriorates until she dies as a sotah. If the meal offering becomes impure, what is done with it? It depends on if it was before or after it was sanctified in a holy vessel.

Sotah 21 - April 19, 28 Nissan Apr 19, 2023

Study Guide Sotah 21

Which merits help push off the death of the sotah? First, they suggest Torah learning, but that is rejected as women are not commanded to learn Torah. However, if it is mitzvot, we learn from a verse that mitzvot are like a candle, which last temporarily, and learning Torah is like light, which is constant. From here one can imply that mitzvot don't protect. Two explanations are brought to explain how mitzvot can protect from punishment, even if they are not as permanent as the reward for learning Torah. A third answer is that women receive a reward for Torah - not for their own learning but for enabling their husbands and sons to learn. A different interpretation is brought to explain the verse about Torah and mitzvot - transgressions override the merits of mitzvot but not the Torah. When Rabbi Eliezer says that a man should not teach his daughter Torah because it is teaching her tiflut, the Gemara understands that is it as if he is teaching her tiflut as obviously, the Torah itself is not tiflut. What verse can serve as the source for Rabbi Eliezer's approach and how does Ben Azai understand the verse if he disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer? In the Mishna, Rabbi Yehoshua makes a statement about a woman's preference - how does the Gemara explain this? He also said that there are four people that cause the world to be destroyed - among them, a chasid shoteh and a rasha arom. A chasid shoteh is defined as one who will not save a drowning woman as it will cause him to look at her. Seven different explanations are brought to define what is a rasha arom.

Sotah 20 - April 18, 27 Nissan Apr 18, 2023

Today’s daf is dedicated for Yom HaShoah in memory of all those who died in the Holocaust.

Today's daf is sponsored by Caroline Ben-Ari in loving memory of her father, Ivor Rhodes, Yisrael ben Meir and Sarah on his 13th yahrzeit. "Dad was hard-working, caring, generous and honest to a fault, with a wicked sense of humor and a lifelong addiction to puns. Today I pledge to make as many terrible puns as I can in his honor."

Another contradiction is noted between the two braitot that quote Rabbi Akiva's opinion. A woman who refuses to drink the water from a position of strength is generally viewed as admitting she is guilty and does not drink the water. But what if she changes her mind, do we then believe that she was not previously admitting her guilt and was just scared, or not? Something bitter is added to the water as is derived from a verse. What is done with the scroll and the meal offering if the woman refuses to drink before the scroll was erased? What if she admits she is guilty after the scroll is erased? If she refuses to drink after the scroll is erased, she is forced to drink. If her face turns green after drinking and her eyes start bulging, she is immediately removed from the Temple so as not to cause impurity. If she has merits, then she can live up to three years, depending upon what merits she has. Ben Azai says that one should teach his daughter Torah specifically because of this so that she won't mistakenly think that the sotah waters don't work. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and says that one who teaches his daughter Torah teaches her tiflut. Rabbi Meir was a scribe and would add copper sulfate to his ink when he would write a sefer Torah to make sure it wouldn't be erased. There are different versions regarding who was his teacher at first who didn't complain about this practice and which was his second teacher who was against this practice as the scroll of the sotah needs to be with ink that could be erased. In one version Rabbi Akiva is the first teacher and Rabbi Yishmael is the second and in the other, it is the reverse. Can the contradictions between the two versions be resolved? Two tannaim disagree about whether Rabbi Meir held one could add copper sulfate to the ink for writing a Torah, just not for the section about the sotah, or is the issue only for a scroll written for the sotah ceremony. The debate is really about whether or not one can take a section written for a Torah and use it for the sotah ceremony. Is this based on another tannaitic debate about whether the sotah scroll needs to be written lishma, for a particular woman? This suggestion is rejected in two ways. When the Mishna said they need to immediately remove the woman from the Temple after drinking the water, according to whose opinion was this stated? Initially, they suggest Rabbi Shimon who held the meal offering is sacrificed before the drinking of the water, but the part about the merits delaying her death is not Rabbi Shimon as he doesn't hold that merits can push off her death. They conclude the Mishna is like Rabbi Akiva who agreed with Rabbi Shimon about the first point and disagreed about the second. What impurity are they concerned about when they remove her from the Temple? It is not an impurity of death, since she is outside the azara and dead people are allowed to be in other areas of the Temple outside the azara. They conclude that it must be out of concern that the shock to the body may cause her to menstruate. The section in the Mishna about the merits delaying her death for up to three years doesn't seem to match any of the tannaitic opinions about this, as some say three months, some say nine months and others say twelve months, but none hold up to three years.

Sotah 19 - April 17, 26 Nissan Apr 17, 2023

Study Guide Sotah 19

The meal offering of the sotah is waved by the kohen and the sotah. From where is it derived that the woman also needs to wave it? Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis disagree about whether the woman drinks the sotah water before bringing the meal offering or brings the meal offering and then drinks the water. There are two verses that mention that the kohen makes the woman drink the water (Bamidbar 5:24,27) and in Bamidbar 5:26, it says “and after that, he makes the woman drink the water.” What do each of them derive from each of these verses that mention the drinking? Rabbi Akiva learns a different halacha from one of the extra verses – that after the scroll is erased, we force the woman to drink the water, even if she doesn’t want to. The Gemara raises a difficulty against Rabbi Akiva from a different source where Rabbi Akiva seems to say something different. The braita quoted has an inner contradiction and in resolving that contradiction, they explain the question raised against Rabbi Akiva.

Sotah 18 - April 16, 25 Nissan Apr 16, 2023

Study Guide Sotah 18

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy and Jerel Shapiro for the yahrzeits of Jerel's father Arnold Shapiro, z"l, and their sweet infant grandson Edan Shai Shapiro, z"l, who both passed away at the end of Nissan.

Rava asks a series of questions regarding a case where there were two sotahs, can they erase two scrolls (megillat sotah) into one cup; does the erasing need to be done with the intent for that particular woman or just the writing of the scroll? What if the erasing was done for each but the cups were combined into one? What if they were split after being combined? Does she need to drink in a normal manner or can she drink through a straw or tube? What if some or most of the water spills out? There are two oaths mentioned in the verses (Bamidbar 5:19 and 5:21). Why are there two oaths? Rav says one is before the scroll is erased and one after. Rava raises a difficulty on this and explains that one is with a curse and one without. What is the content of the one with the curse? Rava and Rav Ashi each explain it differently. When the woman answers amen to the oath, she answers amen for the oath and the curse. In addition, they can add a number of other oaths (gilgul shevua) such as making her swear she wasn't with a different man (other than the one she was warned against being with), that she didn't cheat on her husband when they were engaged, or when she was waiting to do yibum (if her husband was her yabam). Rabbi Meir adds that they can make her also swear that she won't cheat on her husband in the future. The Mishna gives a rule for what can be included - only situations where her being with another man would forbid her from her husband. Rav Hamnuna infers from here that a woman waiting to do yibum who is with another man is forbidden to the yabam. But this is rejected by the rabbis in Israel who claimed that the Mishna follows only Rabbi Akiva's position on the matter. According to Rabbi Meir, if she added an oath about cheating in the future, then in the event that she does cheat in the future, the water that she drank before will take effect (and kill her) at that later time. Can a woman drink sotah water twice? There are three different opinions regarding if and when this could happen.

Sotah 17 - Shabbat April 15, 24 Nissan Apr 14, 2023

Study Guide Sotah 17

What verses are written on the scroll that will get erased in the water? There are three different opinions. What is the root of their debate? A number of drashot are brought regarding the relationship between husband and wife, and the rewards given to the descendants of Avraham, which include, among other things, the sotah procedure. The text needs to be written on parchment and with ink that can be erased. There are six rules regarding the writing of the sotah parchment - it must be written during the day, in the correct order, after the woman answer amen to the oath of the kohen, on a lined parchment, on one piece and needs to be erased once it is all written.

Sotah 16 - April 14, 23 Nissan Apr 14, 2023

Study Guide Sotah 16

This week's learning is sponsored by Sarah Galasko to the memory of Lucy, Maia and Rina Dee. "Sending love and strength at this tough time to Leo, Keren, Tali and Yehuda, Richard, Ben, Gabrielle and Stephanie.

Today's daf is sponsored by Suzanne Minton in honor of Dr. Erin Arnold "Mazel tov to my wonderful havruta on our first year of learning Daf Yomi together! Thank you for your support and wonderful insights!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Beki Baumel in honor of her mother, Judy Shwartz. "She finds every opportunity to do Chessed and inspires everyone around her!"

Does earth/soil (efer) include ashes (afar)? First, the Gemara answers that it does not, as if so, it would be included in a list of halachot that override the Torah. The Gemara rejects this answer as it could have left it off the list. However, one can only make this argument if something else is left off the list. They suggest that the leper could have been on this list as the drasha from Rabbi Yishmael indicates that it is only some of the hair but the halacha is all the hair. However, this is rejected in three possible ways. Then they bring a different source to prove ashes can be used, but that is rejected. The soil used for the sotah needs to be seen in the water. This is true for the ashes in the red heifer, the saliva of the yevama and, according to Rabbi Yishmael, the bird's blood in the leper ceremony. What are the two different ways to read the verses according to Rabbi Yishmael and the rabbis who disagree with him? Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis disagree both by the sotah waters and the water of the red heifer whether the water must go in the vessel first and then the soil/ashes or does the order not matter? What is the basis in the text for each of the opinions?

Sotah 15 - Isru Chag/8th Day of Pesach - Thursday April 13, 22 Nissan Apr 09, 2023

Study Guide Sotah 15

Today’s daf is sponsored by Yechiel Berkowicz in loving memory of Sara F. Berkowicz on her yahrzeit. “She was a holocaust survivor, a fighter, and a lover of Torah."

More comparisons are made between the meal offering of the sotah and other meal offerings. The Mishna discusses the process of preparing the water that the sotah will drink. From where are these details derived?

Sotah 14 - 7th Day of Pesach - Wednesday April 12, 21 Nissan Apr 09, 2023

A number of drashot are brought about Moshe's burial place - how no one knew where exactly he was buried and why specifically was it in Baal Peor. Rabbi Chama bar Chanina taught that one should try to emulate the actions of God as God dressed Adam and Chava, visited Avraham when he was sick, comforted Yitzchak when Avraham died, and buried Moshe. The Torah begins and ends with the gemilut chesed of God. Why did Moshe want to go into Israel so badly and how did God respond to this? The second chapter begins with the mincha (meal) offering that the husband of the sotah brings in the Temple. How is this meal offering different from all other meal offerings? A contradiction is found between our Mishna and a braita as our Mishna says that regular meal offerings were brought in a sanctified vessel and the braita says they were not. How is this resolved? Since the braita mentioned many other details about meal offerings, the Gemara goes through the braita, bringing sources for the details listed.

Sotah 13 - 6th Day of Pesach - Tuesday April 11, 20 Nissan Apr 09, 2023

A story is told of the burial of Yaakov and the honor awarded to him by his distant relatives. However, another story is told of an argument that ensued between Esau and Yaakov's sons at Maarat Hamachpela. After some arguing and sending Naftali back to find a deed in Egypt, Chushim, the son of Dan, who was hard of hearing, takes charge of the situation and kills Esau on the spot. Moshe is rewarded for burying Joseph. How did he find where Joseph was buried? Moshe died on the day he was born - from where is this derived? Moshe did not die where he was buried - how do we know this and how did he get to his burial spot?

Sotah 12 - 5th Day of Pesach - Monday April 10, 19 Nissan Apr 09, 2023

More drashot are brought about the Jews in Egypt, including Moshe’s birth and Miriam’s role in his being conceived and watching out for him when he is sent off into the Nile and when he is taken by Pharoah's daughter.

Sotah 11 - Fourth day Pesach - Sunday April 9, 18 Nissan Apr 09, 2023

The drashot on Avshalom continue. The Gemara then moves to the other examples in the Mishna of measure for measure in a positive way, starting with Miriam and bringing many drashot about the enslavement, midwives, the righteous women who saved the Jews in Egypt by encouraging their husbands to continue to bring children into the world, and Miriam’s role in this narrative.

Sotah 10 - Shabbat Chol HaMoed Pesach - April 8, 17 Nissan Apr 02, 2023

The story of Shimson is discussed at length. Then the story of Yehuda and Tamar is analyzed. Avshalom was also listed as one who was punished measure for measure and therefore his story and downfall are discussed as well.

Sotah 9 - 2nd Day of Pesach - April 7, 16 Nissan Apr 02, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Aliza Avshalom in loving memory of her mother Sara Feiga bat Ester and Arieh Bellehsen. "She taught me to love and live Torah."

A braita is brought to elaborate on the theme of the Mishna that one can learn from the Sotah that punishment is meted out measure for measure. As a number of different verses were quoted at the beginning of the braita explaining this concept, the Gemara questions why all those verses were necessary. One is then used for a different drasha to teach how God metes out punishments to gentiles in a different manner than to Jews. Is this really the case or is it just for gentile kings? Another issue learned from the Sotah and others throughout Biblical history is that one who tries to get something that is not theirs to have will not only not attain it but will also lose what one has. The Mishna stated that the punishment is like the crime as she sinned first through her thighs and then her stomach and was punished in that order as well. However, the Gemara raises some contradictions in the verses there as some mention she will be punished in her thighs first, but others mention her stomach first. How are these verses explained? Shimshon and Avshalom were also punished according to their crime. That concept applies also to reward, as those who do positive actions, such as Miriam, Joseph and Moshe, were rewarded measure for measure. The Gemara starts on a long list of drashot on verses in the Shimshon narrative.

Sotah 8 - 1st Day of Pesach - Thursday April 6, 15 Nissan Apr 02, 2023

During the process of the Sotah, there are a number of things that are done in order to encourage her to confess that she is guilty, such as walking back and forth to tire her out. She is then brought to the Nikanor Gate, at the entrance to the azara, to drink the bitter water, which is also similar to a leper and a woman who gave birth, and others like her who are bringing sacrifices and stand there while their sacrifices are being brought. We do not have two Sotahs drinking at the same time so that one won’t influence the other to not confess. It is also derived from a verse. If there is no concern one will influence the other, can they both be done at the same time and if so, isn’t there an issue of not performing mitzvot in bundles? There is a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis about whether her clothes are mostly removed or not. However, their opinions appear to be reversed in a woman who is taken out to get stoned. This is resolved as the issues are different in each of these cases. As part of the process, she wears ugly clothing and removes her jewelry. An Egyptian rope is used to keep what is left of her clothes covering her private parts. Does it specifically need to be an Egyptian rope or can it be any type of belt? Men are allowed to watch the proceedings and women are encouraged so that they learn not to behave in this manner. The Sotah situation teaches us that punishment is meted out measure for measure. When the Temple is no longer standing, the Sages explain that God ensures that people get punished in the way the courts would have punished them.

Sotah 7 - Erev Pesach - April 5, 14 Nissan Apr 02, 2023

The Mishna describes the process of bringing the woman first to the court, then to the Temple. The husband must come with her to the Temple and two Torah scholars join them on the journey. Can we infer from here laws regarding seclusion between women and men? What is the role of the Torah scholars? Rabbi Yehuda thinks there is no need for Torah scholars as the husband can be trusted. On what basis does he hold this way? Is his opinion learned from logic or a verse in the Torah? When she arrives at the Temple, the court tries to encourage her to confess in order not to get to the part of the process where they need to erase the name of God. They remind her of others, Yehuda and Reuven who confessed their sins. What sins and from where do we know they confessed? They give her other, less nice clothing to wear, and remove her jewelry – all this to humiliate her. Then they bring her to the Nicanor Gate outside the azara and the kohen tears off her clothing and unties her hair. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees in a case where she is beautiful. They tie her ripped clothing over her heart with an Egyptian rope. Anyone who wants can come watch and especially women so that they learn not to behave in this manner. Only the woman’s slaves are forbidden to come as it will make her less likely to confess in their presence.

Sotah 6 - Tuesday April 4, 13 Nissan Apr 02, 2023

Today’s daf is sponsored by Mona & David Schwartz and family in loving memory of their mother and grandmother Mary Horowitz - Miriam Etel bat Aharon Halevi & Mirel on her 29th yahrzeit. “A woman whose home personified hachnasat orchim. May her neshama have an Aliyah.”

After bringing the third version of Rav Yosef’s explanation of the law regarding the brother of a man who accused his wife of being a sotah who died childless before she drank the water, who is obligated to do chalitza but cannot do yibum, Rava brings a different explanation. Abaye questions that as well, but Rava resolves the difficulty. The Mishna lists other cases where a woman will be disqualified from eating truma but will not be able to drink the Sotah water, such as a woman who admits to having had relations with the man in question, if witnesses came who witnessed the couple having relations, or if she refuses to drink or the husband refuses her to drink or he has relations with her on the way to the Temple. Rav Sheshet says a law that Rav Amram tries to prove from the Mishna. The sotah water doesn't work to prove the guilt or innocence of a sotah if there are witnesses abroad who saw she had relations. Rav Yosef rejects Rav Amram’s proof from the Mishna. What is the root of the debate between Rav Sheshet and Rav Yosef? Several questions are raised against Rav Sheshet’s position. The difficulties are resolved and a braita is brought to strengthen Rav Sheshet’s position.

Sotah 5 - Monday April 3, 12 Nissan Apr 02, 2023

Where can one find a warning not to be arrogant? What will happen to those who are arrogant? How does God reward those who are humble? The Mishna on Sotah 2a had said that the husband warns her not to speak with that man but if she does, she is still permitted to her husband. Since that doesn’t make any sense, Abaye adds words into the Mishna to explain that only if he warned her not to go into a closed room and then she did, will she become a Sotah. The Mishna says that if the husband dies at this point and they have no children, the brother does not do yibum but he needs to do chalitza. What is the reason for this? There are three different versions of the answer given by Rav Yosef and the question that Abaye raises against his opinion.

Sotah 4 - April 2, 11 Nissan Apr 02, 2023

Study Guide Sotah 4

This week's learning is sponsored by Naomi Clapman in honor of her birthday, which was on the 8th of Nissan. "With thanks to the Hadran team and Rabbanit Farber who prepare and teach the daf. Wishing all who listen to Hadran's daily daf yomi shiur a year of abundant and revealed brachot in all areas of life - physically, spiritually, mentally, and emotionally."

Today’s daf is sponsored by Jill and Jeff Shames in loving memory of Seena Baker, שפרה בת זאלה וברכה, on her 8th yahrzeit. "The days fly by, the years pass and you remain the wind beneath my wings.”

Today's daf is sponsored by Jordana Hyman in honor of their wonderful son Zvi Amichai Hyman Borowski, on his giyus today. "We are so proud of you, our first sabra, as we observe your sense of shlichut and commitment to serve our country and our people. May Hashem protect and bless you always, with your fellow soldiers. Mum and Dad."

Today's daf is sponsored by Susan Kurzmann l'iluy nishmat HaRav Yosef ben HaRav Shmuel Yitzchok Liebb, her father, A"H, on his 5th yahrzeit. "A brilliant yet humble man, a consummate teacher, and a wonderful father who showed me the importance of always learning and studying."

How long must the woman and man be alone in a room for the husband to be able to bring her to the court as a sotah? A braita is quoted in which several rabbis answer this question, each with their own answer. A similar but contradictory braita is brought and the Gemara goes through one by one resolving all the seeming contradictions. Why are there so many different opinions on this topic? A verse that was quoted in this context, connecting a prostitute and a loaf of bread is extrapolated in other ways - one having to do with one who does not wash hands before eating bread and another to say that poverty will befall one who sleeps with a married woman. Once on the topic of washing hands, a few other statements are made about one who does not wash one's hands and how it should be done. Another verse relating to one who commits adultery is extrapolated in two ways. One speaks of arrogance and the Gemara then diverges to talk about that and then circles back to the long-term effects of committing adultery.

Sotah 3 - Shabbat April 1, 10 Nissan Mar 31, 2023

A number of statements regarding sins in general are derived from the sotah. Rabbi Yishmael brings an explanation why one witness is believed to testify that the sotah had relations with the man she was warned against. What causes one to sin? What causes a husband to be jealous of his wife? Rabbi Yishmale and Rabbi Akiva debate whether it is permitted or an obligation for the husband to want his wife in a case where he suspects her of infidelity. They have similar arguments in a few other topics about whether it is permitted or an obligation. Rav Shmule bar Nachmani talks about the importance of a single mitzva vs. one transgression. Another braita is brought discussing why one witness is believed about testifying to her having committed adultery but not for the kinui and stira.

Sotah 2 - March 31, 9 Nissan Mar 31, 2023

Ketubot bookmark and checklist

Masechet Sotah is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag in honor of Dr. Bryna Levy. "She helped me fall deep in love with learning."

Today's daf is sponsored by Rikki and Alan Zibitt in loving memory of Rikki's mother, Frieda Carlin, Freydl bat Meir v'Rivka on her 8th yahrzeit. "May her neshama have an Aliyah. Mom, we love and miss you every day."

Today’s daf is sponsored by Dodi Lamm and Tina Lamm in loving memory of their wonderful aunt, Miriam Auslander, Miriam bat Meir Shmuel v’Perel, who passed away this week. "She was intelligent, creative, full of warmth and beloved by young and old. We will miss her!"

The first two parts of the process of a woman becoming a sotah are called kinui and stira. Kinui is a warning by the husband that his wife shouldn’t be alone in a room with a particular man. Stira is if she is then seen going into a room alone with that man. In the presence of how many witnesses does the husband need to do the kinui and how many witnesses are required to testify that she was in the room alone with that man after the warning was issued? Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree about the numbers and the Gemara later brings a third tannaitic opinion (Rabbi Yosi B’Rabbi Yehuda) as well. Why is Masechet Sotah in this placement among the masechtot? What does it teach us about the connection between a nazir and a sotah? Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak minimizes the blame placed on the sotah as he holds that it takes two to tango, meaning a woman who is not loyal is a reflection of the husband as well, as spouses are matched up to each other by their actions. Furthermore, Raba bar Rav Hanna says that when God makes matches it is as difficult as the splitting of the Red Sea. A difficulty is raised on Rav Shmuel from a statement of Rav that says that couples are matched up already from birth, before they have an opportunity to sin. How is that resolved? The Gemara points out that the debate about witnesses was only for kinui and setira, but if witnesses saw the couple engage in sexual relations, all agree that even with one witness, we can act on that testimony and forbid the wife to her husband and she will not be able to drink the sotah waters to try to prove her innocence. From where is this derived? After this is proven from verses, the Gemara questions this proof as it seems unnecessary, but eventually shows why it was necessary. What is the basis for the debate between Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Yosi b’Rabbi Yehuda? The rabbis raised an important critique against Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yosi that if we allow only the husband’s testimony in part of the process, there will be no end to the cases in which husbands will forbid their wives to them. Nowadays (after the destruction of the Temple) that there is no way for a woman to prove her innocence, Rav Chanina warned that men should make sure not to warn their wives not be with a particular man as according to Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda, even without witnesses this could forbid her to him if she ends up going into a closed room with that man. Why is it called kinui when he warns her? Two different suggestions are given.

Nazir 66 - Siyum Masechet Nazir Mar 30, 2023

For the text of the Hadran ceremony, click here.
For more information about What is a Siyum, click here.

Siyum Nazir is sponsored by Semé Dewees-Cooper "Special thanks to Rabbanit Michelle and all the Hadran staff who make our daily learning and this Siyum possible. Also mazel tov to each person who is completing this masechet!"

Siyum Nazir is sponsored by Randi (Sharona) Shuster in honor of her husband who believed in her and encouraged her to learn Gemara and in memory of her husband's principal at Maimonides, Rabbi Moses Cohen. "I would also like to thank Rabbanit Michelle for her help and guidance through learning all the masechtot I have learned. This is number 4!"

I would like to personally dedicate this Siyum to three dedicated Hadran learners who passed away during the course of our learning of Masechet Nazir: Carol Robinson, Miriam Kersner and Faye Darack. You will all be missed by the Hadran community.

The Gemara finishes explaining the way detailed in the previous Mishna in which we are more strict with a zav who already saw two zav discharges, than with one who only saw one. Was Shmuel a nazir? When his mother Chana promised that "mora will not go on his head," did she mean that he would be a nazir or did she mean that the fear of humans would not be upon him? Which is greater: the one who makes a blessing or the one who answers amen to a blessing? There is a tannaitic debate on this topic. Torah scholars bring peace to the world as is learned from a verse from Isaiah 54:13.

Introduction to Masechet Sotah with Dr. Ayelet Hoffmann Libson Mar 29, 2023

Introduction to Masechet Sotah

Nazir 65 - March 29, 6 Nissan Mar 29, 2023

Today’s daf is sponsored by Abby Sosland in memory of Rabbi Henry Sosland, z'l whose yahrzeit is tomorrow. “He always pushed his family to have a project, to study something on the side of everything we were doing. Dad, may our learning today help to give your neshama an aliyah!”

Today's daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in loving memory of Avraham ben Shlomo on his 6th yahrzeit "A trailblazer who through his great ahavat Torah and burning desire to spread it wherever he could founded the Elazar English kollel providing Anglos with an avenue to delve into the world of the Talmud and share in his great passion. I have the zchut to be learning my daf with this gemarot and each day his memory (and his comments) inspire me to reach greater heights. I thank Hashem for this great gift of an eved hashem, my husband's chevruta, and a wonderful friend. יהי זכרו ברוך"

Today's daf is sponsored by Lisa Kolodny in honor of Nancy Kolodny on her birthday tomorrow. "I am so glad we set out on this Daf Yomi journey together. I love our chevrutot and hope to celebrate many more siyums with you."

If one finds a grave buried on the road, one can move it in order to prevent a situation where there is impurity in unexpected places. However, this is true for one or two graves. But if there are three, this is considered an area where there was an ancient cemetery and one is not allowed to remove the bones and one needs to check the area up to twenty cubits around as there is a likelihood of finding more bones. There are some exceptions to these rules. When it is permitted to move bodies, one must remove the earth underneath the body - tefusa. There is a tannaitic debate about what exactly gets removed. What happens when one finds one body, removes it, then another and removes it, and then finds a third in the same area? Do we now consider it an ancient burial place and cannot remove the third or are we lenient and permit moving it for the sake of purifying Israel? What if only three graves are found and no more? If the kohen has a doubt about a leprous mark, if the person is not yet a leper, we are lenient. If the person is already a leper, we are strict. They try to find a source in a verse for this but in the end, they reject the proof and use that verse to teach a different halacha about lepers. In determining if one is a zav who saw once (impure one day), twice (needs seven clean days), or three times (also needs to bring a sacrifice), we differentiate between determining if it was a zav discharge between the first two and the third. This is because once someone is already a zav and needs seven clean days, we assume any discharge will be on account of zav and not from any external circumstance. But to determine the first and second, we need to know it was specifically from being a zav and not because or food, drink, activity, etc.

Nazir 64 - March 28, 6 Nissan Mar 28, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Avi Mimun in honor of his wife Joy on their 19th year anniversary. "Joy, your love for Torah learning is a source of inspiration and blessing for me and the kids. I’m so proud of your accomplishments and wish you to be able to complete the entire Shas. I’m lucky to be married to the most amazing woman in the world! Love you very much!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Julie Mendelsohn in honor of her son Raphael who is drafting into the army tomorrow. "May Hashem bless you and keep you, and may you return home safely along with all חיילי צבא הגנה לישראל. It was amazing to see you finish the Shas mishnayot last month. The next daf yomi cycle, you’re going to join me and finish the whole Talmud b’ezrat Hashem (and b’li neder)!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Mitzi and David Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi's mother, Ruth Toll Lock, Rut bat Miriam and Avraham z"l on her 37th yahrzeit. "She was a loving mother, mother-in-law, and wife; and a devoted Zionist and wonderful educator in Harrisburg, PA. All of her 4 children made Aliyah and her many grandchildren and great-grandchildren all live in Israel!"

If there is a doubt about whether one came in physical contact with an impurity that is floating in water, even in a private domain where one is generally strict about impurity that is in doubt, we are lenient. There is a debate about whether this only applies to water attached to the ground or even to water in a vessel. From where is this law derived and from where does each opinion find proof in the verses? Rami bar Hama asks a slew of questions regarding an impure item floating on top of something else that is floating - it is considered on solid ground (and one who was in doubt if they came in contact with it would be impure) or would it be considered floating (and would be pure). His questions remain unanswered. Rav Hamnuna limits the case in our Mishna where tumat tehom applies to one who is impure, to a case where they did not complete yet their purification process, but if they did, even if they were still waiting for the sunset to fully complete the process, they would not be considered to have the presumptive status of impurity. Abaye questions the issue about waiting for sunset as he thinks one would still be considered to have the presumptive status of impurity. Although, the Gemara points out that Abaye himself changed his mind on this issue and proves it from his comments on an entirely different situation regarding the sacrifices a woman brings after childbirth.

Nazir 63 - March 27, 5 Nissan Mar 27, 2023

If a nazir finds out after shaving that he had become impure before, the earlier days are canceled and the nezirut must be redone, but only if the impurity was known. However, if it was tumat tehom, then nothing is canceled. Tumat tehom is if one went to a mikveh in a cave and there was a dead body that sunk to the bottom and could not be seen. If one went into the mikveh to cool off and did not see the body, one would not be considered impure. But if one used it as a mikveh, it would not be effective as the person's presumptive status stays the same - if one was impure, they remain impure. What is the source for tumat tehom? Reish Lakish and Rabbi Elazar bring verses, but after raising two questions, one on Rabbi Elazar and another on both, they conclude that it is a halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai. The Mishna follows Rabbi Eliezer who holds that shaving the hair is necessary for finishing nezirut, as that is the determining factor for tumat tehom. Rami bar Hama asked: If one became impure during their nazirite term, but only found out after the term ended, before they shaved, does it cancel thirty days, as it goes by the day they became impure, or does it only cancel seven? After some back-and-forth answers and difficulties, they derive the answer from the Mishna. In Tosefta Zavim 2:5, they define what are cases of tumat tehom.

Nazir 62 - March 26, 4 Nissan Mar 26, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 62

The Gemara brings several possibilities to extrapolate the words "a man who expresses" in the verse about valuations. Each possibility is partially rejected until Rav Ada bar Ahava brings a drasha that is not rejected. The Gemara brings several possibilities to extrapolate the words "a man who expresses" in the verse about the nazir. Each possibility is partially rejected until the braita is brought to show that we can derive from there the law that one can nullify one's vows. The Mishna teaches that there is a stringency by slaves regarding nezirut that is not true for women - one can nullify his wife's vows, but if he breaks the nezirut of his slave (i.e. forcing him to drink wine), when he is freed, the prohibitions will come into effect again. The Gemara brings a braita with the following question: Why is it even permitted for a master to force his slave to drink wine when he is a nazir but if the slave takes an oath or vow, one cannot force him to go against it? After two failed attempts to answer the question, Abaye understands the braita differently - that one can force a slave to not keep his nazirite vow, but vows and oaths one does not need to force one's slave not to keep, as a vow or oath of a Canaanite slave is not valid at all. If a slave has been freed, his nezirut is reinstated, but what if he ran away? Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yossi disagree. What is their point of disagreement?

Nazir 61 - Shabbat March 25, 3 Nissan Mar 24, 2023

Another braita is brought to show the differences between the shaving of a nazir and the shaving of a leper. Is the shaving for an impure nazir just to remove the hair of impurity or the act of shaving a mitzva? What is the ramification and how do they learn the answer from the braita we learned earlier about the four shavings? A gentile cannot be a nazir. But a woman and a Canaanite slave can be. A woman appears explicitly in the verse. A Caananite slave is derived from a verse. A Gentile is excluded from the words “bnei yisrael” used to introduce the section about nazir. A question is raised from laws of valuations, as there the gentile is excluded from making valuations as it says “bnei yisrael” but they are included in a certain way as one can make a valuation on a gentile as is derived from the word “man.” Also by nazir we have both “bnei yisrael” and “man” so why are gentiles not at least partially included? The Gemara attempts in four ways to explain the difference. The first three derive it from the verse stating that a nazir cannot become impure to their mother or father so either the gentile doesn’t have a father or can’t become impure or doesn’t have laws of passing on slaves to his children and therefore not included here. The first and third are rejected but the fact that laws of impurity don’t apply to a gentile is eventually proven. Rava tries a fourth track where he suggests that perhaps nazir would be just like valuations that one is a nazir but not in the same way as a Jew. He then rejects each of those suggestions one by one thus showing that the nazir is different than the laws of valuations regarding gentiles.

Nazir 60 - March 24, 2 Nissan Mar 24, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 60

This week's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik and Adi Wyner in loving memory of Aryeh Natanel Kluger z"l, the 12-year-old son of Larry Kluger and Josie Glausiusz Kluger & the twin brother of Rena Amalya Kluger of Modi'in. Aryeh died on Rosh Chodesh Nisan 5783 at Shaare Zedek in Jerusalem due to complications from a brain tumor. In his short life, Aryeh was an award-winning software developer, Lego inventor, and entrepreneur who loved to play piano, read books, eat eclairs, hike, and hang out with his sister, his friends, and his family. Easily identifiable by his bright red hair, beaming smile, & boundless concern for others (expressed even during the last days of his life), Aryeh touched the lives of everyone he encountered. This week, the world feels a little darker without Aryeh; we pray that Aryeh's light will continue to shine in the hearts of those who loved him. May the neshama of Aryeh Natanel ben Lev v'Nechama Channah have an aliyah & may his memory inspire us to learn, to care, and to be grateful for the blessings in our lives.

If there is a doubt whether a nazir became impure to a dead body and became a leper, one has to shave four times and each time bring various sacrifices and actions. What is done at each stage and what stipulations need to be made? What is the procedure if a nazir was definitely a leper but possibly impure to a dead body? What if the impurity was clear but the leprosy was in doubt? Why can't one of the shavings count for two issues such as, completion on nezirut and leprosy? Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai spells out all the differences between the different types of shavings, thereby explaining why one can't count for both.

Nazir 59 - Rosh Chodesh Nissan - March 23, 1 Nissan Mar 23, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 59

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rochie Sommer in honor of Meryl Sasnovitz. "Happy gold plus silver birthday to Mama, Savti, and Savti Raba extraordinaire."

Today's daf is sponsored by Elisheva Gray. "With much gratitude and appreciation to Rabbanit Michelle, Rabbanit Leah Sarna and Maggie Sandler for the two wonderful supplementary courses these last weeks. It was all wonderful learning, each course in its own way. And if the stam is the connector of the Talmud, Maggie is the great Hadran connector, bringing all of the threads and all of us together and doing so much behind the scenes. Todah rabah to you all, and Chodesh Tov!"

What is included in the prohibition for a man not to wear things that a woman wears and for a woman not to wear things that a man wears? There are different opinions on this topic - does it forbid men from removing armpit and pubic hairs? Does it forbid women from carrying weapons? If there were two nezirim and one became impure and we do not know which one and then one of them died, how does the other resolve their situation of doubt? Rabbi Yehoshua suggests recruiting a friend to be a nazir alongside them for two thirty days periods in order to allow the sacrifices to be brought upon condition. But Ben Zoma thinks that this is absurd as how will someone find a person willing to do this? Ben Zoma suggests an alternative way to do this and in the end, Rabbi Yehoshua concedes. A nazir regarding whom there is a doubt whether the nazir became impure to a dead body and became a leper, needs to keep 120 days of nezirut and after each thirty-day interval, shaves for each of the issues - two for being a leper and then two for nezirut (first impurity, then purity).

Nazir 58 - March 22, 29 Adar Mar 22, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 58

The Gemara brings two different braitot that each derive something different from the word 'and his head' that the leper is commanded to shave. One learns that the commandment of a leper to shave overrides the prohibition of shaving off one's sidelocks. The other learns that it refers to a leper who is a nazir and even though a nazir is commanded by both a negative and positive commandment not to shave their hair, if they have leprosy, they can. The positive commandment here overrides both a negative and a positive commandment. It is suggested first that the dispute between the braitot is about whether the prohibition against cutting off sidelocks also applies in a case where one is cutting off all of his hair. Rava rejects this possibility and suggests that both agree that removing the sidelocks is only forbidden when one is not removing all the hair. But then they find it difficult to understand the first drasha and reject it and say they agree that removing all the hair is also forbidden. From here and on the basis of this understanding, the Gemara asks three questions about each braita and answers them all. Can a man shave hairs elsewhere on the body? Is there a prohibition in this based on the verse that forbids a man to wear women's clothing? Is this a prohibition by Torah or by rabbinic law?

Nazir 57 - March 21, 28 Adar Mar 21, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Rikki & Alan Zibitt in loving memory of Helen Zibitt, Hena bat Yaacov v' Rachel Leah on her 23rd yahrzeit. "Mom, we miss your warmth and love every day. And in honor of the birthdays of our dear daughter-in-law, Dvora Cohen Zibitt, and son-in-law, Jay Blumenreich, who have enriched our family in countless beautiful ways. We love you both so very much."

When Rabbi Yehoshua told Rabbi Akiva that his logic was good, but there is a tradition which overrides the conclusion of the logical argument, was the tradition that a nazir who becomes impure to a quarter-log of blood by touching is not required to shave or that a nazir who touches a bone the size of a barley grain would require shaving? If someone tells two nazirs that they saw one of them become impure but they aren’t sure which one, what do they do? After thirty days they both shave and bring two sacrifices while stipulating that one will count for the impurity of one and the other will be for the completion of the other. They each continue with the prohibitions of a nazir for another thirty days and bring one set of sacrifices, stipulating that it go for the one who was impure as completion now of the nazirite term. If there were three people there (the two nazirs and the one who saw one become impure), why isn’t this a case of doubt regarding impurity in a public domain in which we rule that one is pure? That principle is derived from a Sotah who was in a case of doubt in a private domain (with only two people) and there we rule she is impure. They explain that the person who saw must have seen it from a distance and was not actually in the direct area where the nazirs were, thus making it a private space. How can the nazirs shave in a case of doubt? Isn’t it forbidden to shave off one’s sidelocks unless one is obligated to as a nazir as only then will it override the prohibition! Shmuel answers that the shaving was speaking of a woman and a minor who are not commanded not to remove their sidelocks. From here one can infer that he held that shaving off all the hair on one’s head is forbidden. Some say that Shmuel’s answer about the minor and the woman was said about an upcoming Mishna of one who is a nazir who maybe was impure and maybe was a leper and shaves four times. Rav Ada bar Ahava and Rav Huna disagree about whether it is forbidden for someone to shave the sidelocks of a minor. Rav Ada bar Ahaha permits and Rav Huna forbids. Rav Ada questions Rav Huna according to his own opinion as Rav Huna's own children's sidelocks were shaven, to which Rav Huna responds that his wife, Chova, had done it. Rav Ada's reaction is that Chova will bury her children. While Rav Ada was alive, any children of Rav Huna and Chova did not survive on account of his statement. Rav Huna permitted his wife to do it, as he understood that it was only forbidden for one to shave the sidelocks of a minor if they themselves were prohibited from removing their own sidelocks. Rav Ada held that it all depends on the one whose sidelocks were being shaved - if they are forbidden, then it is forbidden for others, but if they are permitted (like minors) then it is permitted for anyone, even men.

Nazir 56 - March 20, 27 Adar Mar 20, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 56

Today's daf is sponsored by Ruth Leah Kahan with gratitude to HKB"H for her recovery and return to health one year after being caught in a chlorine gas leak. "Thanks to my family and friends around the world for their unstinting encouragement and support."

Two further questions are raised against Rav Chisda’s understanding of our Mishna from tannaitic sources. One relates to a case where one is a nazir and possibly became impure and possibly was a leper but is unsure. The other relates to the source for the law that the days of leprosy are not counted as days of the nazirite's term. There are no resolutions to the difficulties. Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua that the impurities for which the nazir needs to shave are the same impurities that one is liable by the punishment of karet for entering the Temple. Impurities that the nazir does not need to shave for, are not punishable by karet if one enters the Temple with that state of impurity. Rabbi Meir raises a question on that - why would the latter category of impurity be more lenient than the light impurity of a sheretz, one of the eight creeping creatures who pass on impurity when dead? Why does our Mishna say that Rabbi Elazar quoted this law in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua when in the Tosefta it says that he learned it from Rabbi Yehoshua bar Mamel who heard it from Rabbi Yehoshua? We learn from here that when passing down a halacha in the name of a middle person who heard it from the source, one mentions the source and not the middle person from whom he learned it. Rabbi Akiva questions a law learned previously in the chapter - that a quarter-log of blood does not make a nazir shave. The question is a logical one: if a bone the size of a barley grain causes a nazir to shave, even though it only passes on impurity by touching or carrying, wouldn't a quarter-log of blood pass that passes on impurity also in a tent, also be a cause for the nazir to shave if he touches or carries it? Rabbi Yehoshua answered that while Rabbi Akiva's logic may be sound, the tradition passed down is not that way.

Nazir 55 - March 19, 26 Adar Mar 19, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 55

Today's daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz to commemorate the yartzeit of her aunt, Rose Rubelow, Rochel Leah bat Rav Moshe and Tzippora Mashbaum. Yehi zichra baruch.

There is a tannaitic debate regarding one who enters a place outside of Israel in a box. Is the debate based on whether the impurity outside of Israel instituted by the rabbis was regarding the earth (concern for graves or bones of Jewish bodies) or regarding the air (preventative measure so people don't leave Israel)? The Gemara rejects this suggestion and brings three other possible explanations of the debate, the first of which is rejected. The Mishna stated that if a nazir became a leper, the leper days don't count as days of nazir, but don't cancel the previous days. Rav Chisda explains that this is only true if one was a nazir for a short time (30 days), but if one took on a long period of being a nazir, the days when the nazir was a leper count toward the days of being a nazir. Rav Shrevia shows that the Mishna doesn't fit with Rav Chisda's statement as the Mishna says the leper days don't count as days of nazir, but don't cancel the previous days and according to Rav Chisda, there is no case where those two things will hold true: if one was a nazir for thirty days, the previous days would be canceled as one would need a full thirty days of hair growth after the shaving of the nazir, and if one was a nazir for longer than thirty days, Rav Chisda would say the days of being a leper count as nazir days. The Gemara answers that there is a case that can fit with the Mishna - in a case of a fifty-day term where twenty days were finished before the nazir became a leper as the days of being a leper wouldn't count as one would need a full thirty days of hair growth after shaving on account of being a leper and none of the previous twenty days would need to be canceled as there will be a thirty-day growth.

Nazir 54 - Shabbat March 18, 25 Adar Mar 17, 2023

Regarding a limb from a dead or live body without enough flesh, that Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about, how large is it? The Gemara proves how Reish Lakish thinks the nazir shaves even if it is less than the size of a barley and it is a uniquely derived halacha from a drasha on a verse. When the Mishna says that one begins the count from the beginning, it in unclear whether they mean on day seven of purification or day eight. The Gemara derives from the language of the next Mishna that in this Mishna, the count begins on the eighth day after the sacrifices are brought, in accordance with the opinion of the rabbis, against Rabbi Eliezer. The Mishna now lists all the cases that the nazir doesn't shave and within that, there are two categories - one where the days aren't counted as nazirite days, even though the days beforehand aren't cancelled and a second where it has no effect on the counting of the nazirite days. The Gemara begins to define the cases in the Mishna - what are sechachot and praot? One of the items on the list is one who goes outside of Israel and the rabbis deemed all territory outside of Israel impure. Can we learn from our Mishna the answer to the following question - did the rabbis deem it impure for concerns of graves (gusha) or was it a deterrent to prevent people from leaving Israel (avira)? This attempt is rejected.

Nazir 53 - March 17, 24 Adar Mar 17, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 53

Rami bar Hama asked: Is one stricter with the spinal cord or skull that if one has a quarter kav of bones from them, does the nazir need to shave on account of them, as opposed to other bones where a half kav is needed? The first answer, given by Rava from our Mishna is rejected. A second answer is brought from an opinion of Shamai brought on Nazir 52b, but is rejected as well. Rabbi Eliezer explains that at an earlier stage, there was a debate about whether only half a kav/log or a even quarter kav/log would make one impure, but no distinction was made between nazir and other issues. At a later stage, the courts distinguished between a nazir needing to shave/one not being able to do the Pesach sacrifice (a half kav/log) and the ability to eat truma and kodashim (a quarter kav/log). Why is the language "on these" used in the Mishna twice - what can be learned from those words? Even though a nazir doesn't shave for a quarter kav of bones in a tent, he would shave if he touched or carried them. This is derived from the language in the next Mishna or perhaps the language at the end of our Mishna). But if so, wouldn't that already be derived from the law of a bone the size of a barley? They explain that it means if they are ground into a powder-lie substance, they will be impure if they are a quarter kav. The Mishna mentions a limb from a dead body or a live body that has enough flesh on it. What if it does not? Since it is not mentioned in the upcoming Mishna, Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about whether a nazir would have to shave or not. How does each prove his approach? Two questions are raised Rabbi Yochanan's argument from the next Mishna, but are resolved. What size limb is being argued about here? If it is larger than the size of a barley, how can Rabbi Yochanan say that the nazir doesn't shave? If it is smaller, how can Reish Lakish say that the nazir shaves?

Nazir 52 - March 16, 23 Adar Mar 16, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 52

Today’s daf is sponsored by Mark and Rena Septee Goldstein in memory of Moe Septee. “A wonderful man, on the occasion of his 26th yahrzeit.”

The entire Hadran zoom family is devastated by the loss of our dear friend and chevruta, Carol Robinson Gould. Her gentle and warm presence was a perfect start to our day. We already miss her. With love and comfort to Art and to the whole family.

Rava asked: if an ant is missing a leg, is it still considered a complete creature that would render one liable for eating it, even if it is not the size of an olive? An attempt is made to answer the question from laws regarding the minimum size for impurity of a chomet, one of the eight creatures considered shratzim in the Torah. However, the comparison is rejected. The Mishna stated that bones from the spinal column and of the skull disqualify a nazir due to impurity. Does the Mishna mean both of them or either one of them? Four tannaitic sources are brought to answer the question but all are deemed inconclusive. Rami bar Hama asked: Is one stricter with the spinal cord or skull that if one has a quarter kav of bones from them, does the nazir need to shave on account of them, as opposed to other bones where a half kav is needed? The first answer is brought by Rava who proves from our Mishna that the answer is no.

Nazir 51 - March 15, 22 Adar Mar 15, 2023

This week’s learning is sponsored by Sara Averick and Jose Rosenfeld in memory of Ildiko Rosenfeld, צביה רחל בת מרדכי הלוי ומרים. “She embodied elegance, grace, and wisdom.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Caroline Ben-Ari on the 6th yahrzeit of her mother, Daphne Rhodes, דפנה דבורה בת אברהם וחנה. “Mum was a loving, vivacious woman with a great sense of humor, and was determined to be a better mother to her children than her own mother had been to her. Later in life, when she and Dad retired to Netanya, she indulged her love of singing and dramatics in the Netanya AACI Musical Theatre Group עורי עורי דבורה, עורי עורי דברי שיר."

Today’s daf is sponsored by Risa Tzohar in loving memory of her mother Florence Rich z"l.

The impurity of rakav, dust from a corpse is limited, as noted in a braita and several statements of amoraim. The body must be without any clothing, on a floor of stone or marble, alone (not with another body) with flesh, bones and sinews, not buried with hair, nails or teeth that were removed from the body. A question is asked regarding dust that comes from the heel as even in one's lifetime the heel is somewhat of a dead zone in the body as its flesh is callous. After suggesting an answer, the Gemara reinterprets the question. Another set of questions is asked regarding rakav - since it is not applicable when there are two bodies that decompose together, what about a pregnant woman who died with the fetus in her womb? What about if there was semen in the woman's body, or feces or skin? After all these questions, Rav Shmuel bar Acha says that if we limit all these cases, there will be no impurity of rakav!! To which, Rav Papa answered how there could be a case. Rakav is only when the dust is from a decomposed body and not if the body was ground into dust. What if it was ground up and then decayed? Rakav also does not apply to a body that is not whole. Two other halachot also do not apply to an incomplete corpse - tefusa (when moving a grave, one must dig up the surrounding earth as well)and a graveyard (if one finds three bodies, one needs to search the area as there may likely be the site of an ancient cemetery). A Mishna in Eduyot 6:3 is brought to raise a difficulty against this but it is resolved. Rava asks another question that the Mishna in Eduyot is brought as an answer, but that answer is rejected.

Nazir 50 - March 14, 21 Adar Mar 14, 2023

Rabbi Yehuda questioned the law in our Mishna as quoted by Sumchus "on a corpse and on an olive bulk from a dead corpse" - if an olive bulk is enough to make the nazir shave, obviously a whole corpse. Since Rabbi Yehuda was angry at this, Rabbi Yosi tries to explain the Mishna. However, his answer is rejected, but the Gemara quotes Rabbi Yochanan and Rava who each bring different ways to understand this phrase - either it was from a miscarried fetus whose limbs were not yet joined or it was bones from a very small corpse that did not contain the minimum size (1/4 kav) to pass on impurity, but they formed the majority of the limbs in the body or the majority of the structure of the body. Netzel is defined as liquid from a corpse that congealed. Why does it need to congeal? Is the law of netzel (liquid from a dead body carries impurity) also applicable to impurity of dead animals? If one holds that high-level impurity of a neveila (dead animal) is only for food that is fit to be eaten by humans, then netzel is clearly not impure in animals, but if one holds it must be fit to be eaten by a dog, then it may apply to animals as well. They try to answer the question from a braita about liquid cooked by the sun which does not carry impurity, but they conclude that it is so rotten that it is not even fit to be eaten by a dog and therefore can't be used to answer the question. Rami bar Hama asks a question on a Mishna in Machshirin 5:9 regarding thick liquids that when poured, both parts are considered as one and one part can make the other impure in this way. Rami bar Hama asks whether the rabbis disagree with Beit Shamai, do they hold that one part makes the other impure only if the substance flows backwards when the pouring stops or is it when the substance is so thick and sticky that it is viewed as one unit? The Tosefta in Ohalot 4:3 and our Mishna are quoted to answer the question, however, both attempts are rejected. How much is the requisite amount "melo tarvad" (a ladleful) mentioned in the Mishna? Two opinions are brought. A difficulty is raised against one of the opinions from a braita but it is resolved in two possible ways.

Nazir 49 - March 13, 20 Adar Mar 13, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 49

Nazir 48 - March 12, 19 Adar Mar 12, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 48

Today’s daf is sponsored by Gabrielle & Daniel Altman in memory of the 18th yahrzeit of our treasured mother, Honorable Myriam J. Altman, z"l, loved and missed forever, and still our North Star."

Both by the kohen gadol and the nazir, the verses give a list of all the relatives to whom they cannot become impure. In the kohen gadol verses, the word "to his father" comes to exclude a met mitzva, to which he can become impure. The word "to his mother" is used to a gezeira shava to learn from a nazir that he can become impure to them in a different way, as long as they are not dead, i.e. zav or leper. From where do we derive that a nazir can become impure to a met mitzva? A braita brings the drashot of both Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. First, Rabbi Yishmael tries to derive it from the words "to his father and his mother" by nazir, but after a number of difficulties (that mostly are resolved, other than the last one), they realize that "to his father" is needed for the simple reading that one cannot become impure to his father and they derive met mitzva from the word "and to his brother." What does Rabbi Yishmael derive from the other words in the verse? Rabbi Akiva derives the law of met mitzva from "to his father and his mother" as he uses a different word "dead" to derive that the nazir cannot become impure to relatives. What does he derive from the other words of that verse?

Nazir 47 - Shabbat March 11, 18 Adar Mar 10, 2023

Today’s daf is sponsored by Bracha Stuart in loving memory of her brother Aryeh Leib ben Simcha HaKohen on his second yahrtzeit. “I miss you every day. May your neshama have an Aliyah on this day and also in the merit of my learning the daf with this holy Hadrian community.”

What happens when someone becomes impure after the blood of one of the sacrifices is sprinkled? Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree about whether the sacrifice needs to be brought again with the rest of the sacrifices after the nazir becomes pure or does that sacrifice count and after the purification process, the nazir only brings the rest of the sacrifices. The rabbis try to prove their opinion from the case of Miriam from Tarmod who was a nazir who became impure at that stage. A nazir and a kohen gadol are not allowed to become impure to anyone who died, unless it is a met mitzva, one who there is no one to bury them. If a nazir and a kohen gadol were walking together and there was a met mitzva, which of them should become impure? Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree. What is the reason for each opinion? The Gemara brings a hierarchy of kohanim gedolim and other high-ranking kohanim and asks who proceeds who in terms of impurity. When it comes to a kohen who goes out to war and a kohen who is in standby to be the kohen gadol, the higher one is the standby one. But this contradicts a different sugya where there is a need to save them and only one can be saved, it is the one who goes out to war who precedes the standby. Why is there a difference in the ruling in the two cases?

Nazir 46 - March 10, 17 Adar Mar 10, 2023

.Today’s daf is sponsored by Rachel Savin in memory of her father, Shalom ben Shmuel, on his first yahrzeit

At what point in the process is the nazir permitted to drink wine and become impure to dead people? There is a debate between tanna kama and Rabbi Shimon and from a braita, the rabbis hold like Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer like tanna kama. From where do each of them derive their opinions? Rav says that the waving of the nazir is critical and if it is not performed, the nazir is not permitted to drink wine, etc. There are two different versions of the discussion that ensued from this statement. In the first version, after questioning which opinion is Rav holding, they answer that he holds like Rabbi Eliezer and explains why you may have thought that the waving is not an essential part of other offerings and therefore Rav needs to tell you that here it is. The Gemara asks: Is the waving really critical, don't we see from a braita regarding a nazir who doesn't have hands that it is not an essential part as the braita compares one without hands to one with hands - just as one without hands can be a nazir, even though they can't do the waving, likewise, one with hand does not need to do the waving? This is resolved by bringing another braita regarding a nazir who is bald, and yet the shaving is still essential - the same can be said by the waving. Regarding shaving, they put a razor over the bald nazir's head and the waving can be done with the nazir's arms. In the second version, the question is asked according to who Rav's statement was made and issues are raised with each side as in the previous version. However, here no answer is given. The Gemara then proceeds to question the rabbi's position who would presumably say that waving is not essential, as the braita regarding a person with no hands can be understood in the following manner: one with no hands can never get out of being a nazir as they cannot do the waving, likewise, one who has hands but does not do the waving cannot finish being a nazir. They bring the braita with the bald nazir to resolve this question as in the braita Beit Hillel understands the comparison differently - it is not coming to talk about whether or not it is essential but how to do it. Just as a nazir with hair puts a razor on his head, likewise one who is bald. Rabbi Avina rejects this answer as he understands Beit Hillel in the opposite way as before, that one needs to shave but cannot and a bald nazir has no way to get out of being a nazir and likewise, one who has hair but doesn't shave does not end his nezirut. The same can be said for one without hands, thus reinstating the question against the rabbis. Since the nazir can only shave after at least one sacrifice is brought, what happens if one brought a sacrifice, shaved, brought the other sacrifices, and then the first sacrifice was disqualified? What if all the sacrifices were brought, then the nazir shaved and then one was disqualified?

Nazir 45 - March 9, 16 Adar Mar 09, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her dear mother, Carolyn Barnett-Goldstein, Chayah bat Modechai ve-Chanah, on her fourth yahrzeit. “I love you and miss you, Your love of Judaism, art and music lives on in all of your family.”

Today's daf is sponsored by Yiska and Shaul Weisband in memory of Menachem Yunitzman HaKohen ben Esther V'Tzvi.

Today's daf is sponsored by Medinah Korn in memory of Mrs. Devorah Cohn, Devorah Breina bat Harav Yaakov Zundel ve-Toibe Alta, whose 10th yahrzeit was this week. “Mrs. Cohn was a student of Sarah Schenirer in Poland, as well as a beloved and revered teacher in Boston's Maimonides School for over 40 years. Her warmth and wisdom inspired generations of children and endeared her to all who knew her. Yehi Zichrah Baruch.”

Abaye explains that a zav tvul yom (the sun hasn't yet set on the day he purified himself) can't go into the Levite camp (Temple mount) since he is both a tvul yom and he is mechusar kipurim, as he did yet bring his sacrifices. If, however, it is only one of those issues, he can enter into the Levite camp (up until the Nicanor gate) but not into the Shechina camp, the azara. From where does Abaye derive this? After which sacrifice does the nazir do the shaving of the hair - there is a debate about whether it is after the peace offering or the sin offering. The verse says that the nazir shaves at the entrance to the ohel moed (tent of meeting). Is this to be understood literally does this mean something else, as how can the nazir shave there - is it not an embarrassment? Only according to one opinion does a male nazir shave there (not a female nazir) but the others explain the verse is referring to something else. The hair of the nazir goes in the fire under the pot where the peace offering is cooking. However, if it was put under the sin or guilt offering, it would be valid as well. Also, some of the gravy from the peace offering is put on the hair before burning. These two laws are derived from the same word in the verse - how can that be? At what point in the process is the nazir permitted to drink wine and become impure to dead people? There is a debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon.

Nazir 44 - Shushan Purim - March 8, 15 Adar Mar 08, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 44

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of our fellow Hadran learner, Miriam Kerzner. In her eighties, Miriam was drawn into the world of Gemara’s intricacies and excitements, enchanted by Rabbanit Michelle’s teachings and enthralled with the intellectual challenges. Talmud became an integral and vibrant part of her life during the long days of Corona and nurtured her during her illness. She joined us in learning up to her last days. Yehi Zichra Baruch, with much comfort to her family from the Hadran Zoom family.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in memory of her grandmother, Ann Barnett. "Eishet Chayil who embodied qualities from each of the 4 Imahot. Your legacy lives on in your great-granddaughter."

Today’s daf is sponsored anonymously in memory of Shmaryahu Yosef Chaim ben Yaakov Yisrael, Rav Chaim Kanievsky.

Of the three prohibitions of nazir, there are stringencies in some that don't exist in the other(s). Impurity and shaving are strict as they cancel the previous days, whereas drinking wine does not. The prohibition to drink wine is stricter than the others as there is no situation in which drinking wine is permitted, whereas a nazir who becomes a leper can shave and if there is a met mitzva, the nazir can become impure. Another stringency of impurity over shaving is that impurity cancels all the days and requires a sacrifice, whereas shaving only cancels thirty days and there is no sacrifice. There is a long discussion in the Gemara full of many suggestions of why we wouldn't learn laws from one to the other, in the style of: "If this one is more lenient than this one in this way and yet more stringent in another, why isn't the other one that is stringent in the first way, also stringent in the second way!" Or the reverse. Each answer provides is either based on a verse or some other clear explanation as to why the logical inference is not followed. The Mishna explains what is the process for a nazir who becomes impure to a dead body. The shaving is to be done on the seventh day. But is it part of the purification process and therefore one can only bring the sacrifices on the following day, even if one pushed off the shaving to the eighth day, or not? Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon disagree. After Rabbi Akiva's explanation that it is different from the leper, does Rabbi Tarfon concede? A zav cannot go into the Levite camp on the seventh day or purification even after going to the mikveh (status of a tvul yom) as is derived from a verse. Abaye questions this drasha as the same thing appears by nazir and yet the halacha is not the same.

Nazir 43 - Purim - March 7, 14 Adar Mar 07, 2023

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 Gemera 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 42 - Taanit Esther - March 6, 13 Adar Mar 06, 2023

This month’s learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen. A doctor who has healed thousands of people with his medical expertise, providing endless care and love at all hours of the day and night. May his memory be blessed.

This week's learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen for a refuah shleima for their daughter (and my niece) Naama bat Yael Esther who is having surgery today. May Hashem grant her a full and speedy recovery.

In the spirit of לך כנוס את כל היהודים, "go and gather all the Jews" our global Hadran Zoom Family dedicates today's learning to Carol Robinson and Art Gould. Carol, your beautiful smile, kind heart and gentle determination inspire us in our daily learning. We send you love, strength and courage. Art, we send you continued strength, wisdom, and clarity, as we admire the loving way you care for Carol. Our hearts and tefillot are with you both.

A nazir who did not shave off all their hair and left two hairs did nothing. From this, we learn that this is a unique law for a nazir, but in other cases in the Torah, the majority is sufficient. Abaye and Raba ask questions about the issue of the two hairs, by raising "What if..." scenarios? Is a nazir allowed to wash, straighten out and brush their hair, and if so, how? How does this fit with Rabbi Shimon's opinion that one is not liable for something if that was not one's intent? If the nazir was warned every time before he went to do one of the prohibitions of a nazir, he can receive lashes several times - for each and every forbidden action. Is it possible to be liable for two sets of lashes if became impure to a dead body twice - after all, he has already become impure and has not defiled anything any more than he had from the first instance! There is a dispute between Rabba and Rav Yosef who both disagree about what Rav Huna held. Abaye raised a difficulty against Rav Yosef from a braita to show that it is impossible that one would get two sets of lashes as one is already defiled. Rav Yosef responds by saying that the braita he quoted contradicts our Mishna where one does get two sets of lashes for two instances of coming in contact with the dead. Rav Yosef resolves the contradiction by establishing each case in a different way of impurity - the braita is where one is still attached to the first dead body and the Mishna is where one is not. The Gemara questions his answer but resolves it as well.

Nazir 41 - March 5, 12 Adar Mar 05, 2023

Today’s daf is sponsored anonymously in memory of Moshe ben David, Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l.

After having suggested that according to the rabbis, one could still possibly not conclude from the word "his beard" that the only way for the leper to shave is with a razor, they reject this suggestion on two counts. Rabbi Eliezer derives from the word "his head," mentioned in a verse regarding the shaving of the leper, that a razor needs to be used for the shaving of the leper. What do the rabbis derive from that verse? They derive from it that the commandment to shave all his hair overrides the prohibition to remove (round) the corners of his head. Why can't that be derived from the word "his beard" which overrides the prohibition to remove the corners of his beard? Why are both necessary? From "the head" we learn both that the prohibition to remove (round) the corners of his head applies even to one who is removing all the hair on one's head and that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment (shaving of leper overrides removing the corners). From "the beard" we learn that a razor must be used for the leper's shaving. Rabbi Eliezer learns that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment from the juxtaposition of tzitzit and shaatnez.

Nazir 40 - Shabbat March 4, 11 Adar Mar 03, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 40

Today’s daf is sponsored by Abby Flamholz in honor of Sigal Spitzer Flamholz on her birthday. “An inspirational mom, wife, daughter, businesswoman, and daf learner.”

From where do we derive that the shaving of a nazir needs to be performed with a razor? Rav Chisda brings a number of rulings regarding shaving of a nazir at the end of the term and cutting hair during the term (regarding when one receives lashes and when one needs to restart the count). A Mishna in Negaim 14:4 lists three people who need to shave their hair with a razor - a nazir, leper and the levites in the desert (a one-time action - not for future generations). From where is derived that a razor is needed? Regarding the nazir and levites, there are verses that show this. Regarding the leper, they attempt to derive it from a logical inference from either nazir, or the levites, or both together, but they are unsuccessful. Rava bar Mesharshia asked Rava about this as in a braita quoted earlier (Nazir 39b) they unsuccessfully tried to derive the razor from the leper to the nazir and here it is the opposite. Rava answers the question by explaining that the braita followed the rabbis' opinion and the Gemara here followed Rabbi Eliezer regarding a debate they have about whether the prohibition on men to remove the corners of their beard is only with a razor or with other implements as well. The Gemara explains how the rabbis' opinion there that it is only forbidden with a razor proves that a leper needs to shave with a razor as his obligation overrides the Torah law.

Nazir 39 - March 3, 10 Adar Mar 03, 2023

Today’s daf is sponsored in honor of the birthday of Audrey Mondrow, a daf yomi learner, by her children and grandchildren. “Thank you for modeling for us how to always grow and learn.”

Today’s daf is sponsored in honor of the bat mitzvah of Avigayil bat Yonatan v'Ilana this weekend in Riverdale. “Avigayil, your whole family is so proud of you, of your love of Torah and your dedication to learning (including learning Talmud with your Ima). With love from your bubbe and aunts, uncles, and cousins."

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran zoom family in honor of the bar mitzva of Amitai, son of our fellow learner Devorah Kessner Bader. “We’re inspired by your dedication to learning, Amitai!”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sara Berelowitz in loving memory of her mother-in-law Sarah Berelowitz on her yahrzeit on 11 of Adar. “It's wonderful when your mother-in-law is also your friend. Missing you lots.”

Rav Papa retracts his difficulty against Abaye's opinion and admits that he added the word "five" from the braita to see if Abaye would back down from his opinion or not as he wanted to see if Abaye's opinion was based on a tradition or not. Does hair from the root or from the end? The relevance of this question is if a nazir gets their hair shaved on by bandits, but they leave enough to fold the hair over, would they be able to complete the process (from the end - as what was cut was the new growth) or does there need to be growth that was there from the beginning of the term and they would therefore need to wait until more hair grew (from the root)? The Gemara brings five attempts to get to an answer. Three are rejected but two are accepted and they prove that it grows from the roots. A difficulty is raised with this explanation in light of a braita, but it is resolved. Is it forbidden for a nazir to shave one's hair only with a razor or in other ways as well? A number of ways of extrapolating the verse "a razor shall not pass over his head" are brought.

Nazir 38 - March 2, 9 Adar Mar 02, 2023

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sylvia Klein in memory of her father, Sherman Israel Klein, Shnayor Yisroel ben Yerachmiel v'Sara, on his 11th yahrzeit, z''l. “He loved Torah, learning, and the Jewish people.”

There is a debate about whether the different types of items from the grapes join together for a requisite amount to make a nazir liable for eating them. How does each side understand what can be derived from the verse "anything that is made of the grapevine?" Rabbi Abahu quotes Rabbi Elazar saying that heiter mitztaref l'issur is only by the quarter-log of wine that the nazir is forbidden to drink. Rabbi Elazar himself says that there are ten issues for which a quarter-log is the relevant requisite amount. Rav Kahana gives it a mnemonic - 5 red and 5 white - and provides a sentence for each by which to remember the cases. Why aren't there others on his list that also have the same requisite amount? The Gemara assumes that he included only ones that were agreed upon by all. What is the root of the debate in the Mishna between Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis regarding whether or not the requisite amount for wine for a nazir is a quarter-log or an olive bulk? We learn from nazir to all other forbidden items that have different names, such as dried and fresh grapes, one is liable for each one independently. Abaye and Rava disagree about whether one gets an additional set of lashes when eating grape peels or any of the forbidden items that a nazir can't eat as one is also violating the verse "anything that is made of the grapevine" or since that is a lav shebiklalot, a general term that includes the specific cases, one does not receive lashes for it. Rav Papa raises a difficulty against Abaye's position but Abaye is able to resolve it.

Nazir 37 - March 1, 8 Adar Mar 01, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 37

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Tannenbaum family in loving memory of Miriam’s father, Jacob Zemsky, Yaakov Yitchak ben Moshe Nachum HaLevi z"l on his 19th yahrzeit. “He embodied Ahavat Yisrael, as was manifested in causes for both the klal and even more so, through his helping so many on the prat level. May his inspiration continue to guide us. תהא נשמתו צרורה בצרור החיים."

Today's daf is sponsored in memory of Dr. Atarah Twersky, z"l who passed away this past week. Yehi zichra baruch.

After the third difficulty of Abaye against Rav Dimi (who held that the law of heiter mitztaref l'issur is unique only to nazir) is resolved, Abaye shifts gears and questions Rav Dimi by suggesting that perhaps the verse relating to bread soaked with wine is teaching a different halacha of ta'am k'ikar, that if the taste of a forbidden item is in a food, even if the actual forbidden item is no longer in the food, it is forbidden. He quotes a braita where this law is derived from nazir and applied to all forbidden items in the Torah. Rabbi Avahu responds for Rav Dimi by saying that he holds like Rabbi Akiva who held that heiter mitztaref l'issur by nazir. A discussion ensues about questions on the debate between Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis about this, beginning with: From where does Rabbi Akiva derive the laws of ta'am k'ikar? And if he learns it from somewhere else (according to the conclusion, from kashering pots of the gentiles), why don't the rabbis learn it from there? The Rabbis view that as a unique halacha and therefore cannot learn it from there. Another question is asked against Rabbi Akiva - why does he not learn heiter mitztaref l'issur that appears by nazir can be applied to all other cases, as the rabbis say regarding ta'am k'ikar? From the answer to that, a question is thrown back at the rabbis, then back at Rabbi Akiva, etc. Another question is then raised against Rabbi Akiva from a braita but is resolved.

Nazir 36 - February 28, 7 Adar Feb 28, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 36

Nazir 35 - February 27, 6 Adar Feb 27, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 35

This week’s learning is sponsored by Hilary & Eric Rothman in memory of Dr. Simra Shein, z”l, Simcha Ezra Ben Noach. “A beloved husband, father and grandfather, an accomplished surgeon and a highly respected gentleman. He loved his family, learning Torah and helping people.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Risa Tzohar in loving memory of her daughter Esther Deena Harari z”l.

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of Hillel and Yagel Yaniv.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria used the words "seeds to skin" for his own halacha so how does he learn about rules of prat, klal and prat that are derived from there? Either he holds only by ribui and miut or perhaps he can learn two things from that verse. From where would Rabbi Eliezer learn prat, klal and prat? Three other examples are suggested. An example is brought of klal, prat and klal. Then several questions are asked comparing the different methods of extrapolation.

Nazir 34 - February 26, 5 Adar Feb 26, 2023

This month’s learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen for a refuah shleima for Refael Itamar Tzvi ben Devorah Esther. "A doctor who has healed thousands of people with his medical expertise, providing endless care and love at all hours of the day and night. May Hashem give him the same attention and grant him a full and speedy recovery."

This week's learning is sponsored by Natanya Slomowitz in honor of the birth of their two newest granddaughters, Yahav Ahuva bat Shifra and Gal Slomowitz and Keshet Naomi bat Sivan and Ariel Sheleg.

The Mishna stated that if the person they were betting on turned around and was never identified, none of them are nezirim. This implies that if they identified the person, those who are right would be nezirim. The Gemara proves that this opinion must be Rabbi Yehuda who held that if there was a pile and one said, "I will be a nazir if there are 100 kur in the pile," and the pile gets lost or stolen, the person is not a nazir. A similar, but different Mishna is brought regarding those who bet on a koi, an animal that it is unclear if it is a domesticated on a non-domesticated animal. Six people bet they will be a nazir if it is a domesticated animal or not, is a domesticated animal or not, is both, is neither, and then three people bet on whether any of the previous are or are not or are all nezirim. The Mishna rules that they are all nezirim. There could also be a case where one person took on nine terms of nezirut in this way. How? If a nazir ate an olive bulk of grapes, grape seeds, and skins together, one would get lashes as those can combine for the requisite amount. Is the amount needed for wine different from grapes? The earlier tradition was that the amount was a quarter-log of wine. Rabbi Akiva ruled that if one soaked bread with wine, and ate bread the size of an olive bulk, one would also get lashes. Some think that he disagrees also about the requisite amount and says it is an olive bulk. One can be obligated separate sets of lashes if one eats an olive bulk of grapes and also an olive bulk of grape seeds, etc. but Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria disagrees. He also obligates differently for grape seeds and skins as he does not require an olive bulk but requires two seeds and one skin as per the verse in the Torah. Which word in the Torah means seeds and which skins? There is a tannaitic debate about this. Our Mishna doesn't follow Rabbi Eliezer who prohibited also the leaves and edible tendrils of the vine. Their debate is based on a different method of extrapolating the verse ribui and miut or prat, klal and prat. The Gemara delves farther into the prat, klal and prat drasha to better understand why they reached the exact conclusion that they reached and also to define the terms mentioned in the drasha.

Nazir 33 - Shabbat February 25, 4 Adar Feb 24, 2023

Beit Hillel’s language in the Mishna is difficult as he says “The one whose words do not come to be is a nazir.” Shouldn’t it be the opposite? Rav Yehuda suggests changing the language to read “The one whose words come true.” Abaye leaves the original language and suggests that Beit Hillel is referring to a case where one switched one’s original statement and added to it that even if the opposite is true, they will still become a nazir. The Mishna is then teaching that we follow the end of the person’s statement. If the person they were betting on turned around, the tanna kama rules that none of them become a nazir. The Gemara infers that if we identify who it is, the one whose statement came true is a nazir. According to whose opinion is this?

Nazir 32 - February 24, 3 Adar Feb 24, 2023

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sarah Zahavi in honor of her sister Hasya and her love of learning. Today’s daf is sponsored by Hinda Herman in memory of her dear mother Ethel Bat Chaim on her yahrzeit. Today’s daf is sponsored by Linda Freedman in memory of her father Leon Pultman on his 8th yahrzeit. Husband of Thelma Pultman and father of Linda, Sheila and Gwen. "Dad had a special love of learning about Jewish history and our people. May his neshama have an aliyah." Today’s daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in memory of her father, Melvyn Goldstein, on his third yahrzeit. “Only now that you are gone am I understanding the wisdom of your ways.” The Mishna says that if one drank wine while being a nazir, those days still count as their nazirite days. This does not seem to follow either the rabbis or Rabbi Yosi's position as the rabbis require one to add as many days as one spent drinking wine while a nazir, and Rabbi Yosi requires a minimum of thirty days without drinking wine, regardless of how long the nazirite period was supposed to be. However, the Gemara explains that one can explain the Mishna according to each opinion. From the fact that Beit Shamai hold hekdesh by mistake is hekdesh and yet one who dissolved his nazirite vow, the sacrifices are no longer sanctified, we can learn to Beit Hillel that even though substitution by mistake is sanctified, if one dissolved the sanctity of the first animal, the sanctity would be canceled as well. In animal tithes, if one calls the 9th or 11th animal tenth by mistake, the animal is sanctified. Is this true as well if one intentionally called the 9th or 11th the tenth? Can we infer the answer to this question from our Mishna which makes reference to this law? If one vowed to become a nazir, assuming the animal in their possession would be used for the sacrifice, but it gets stolen, can one dissolve the vow on that basis? It depends upon whether the animal was stolen before or after the vow as if it was only stolen later, that is nolad (something unexpected that was not in existence at the time) and one cannot dissolve a vow using nolad. This is what confused Nachum HaMadi when he permitted nezirim who came to Israel after the destruction and when they realized there was no Temple in which to bring their sacrifices, they tried to dissolve their vows and he dissolved them based on the fact that had they realized the Temple would have been destroyed and they would have no way to finish their nazirite term, they never would have vowed. Isn't this nolad? Rav Yosef raises a question on the Mishna because of a verse from Yirmiyahu 7:4 that alludes to the fact that the temple will be destroyed and therefore the nezirim should have known! If two people are walking and see someone from afar and bet on who it is by taking upon being a nazir and then others take a bet and take on being a nazir if one of them, both of them, or neither of them are nezirim, there are three opinions in the Mishna about which of them are nezirim. Beit Hillel’s language in the Mishna is difficult as he says “The one who’s words do not come to be is a nazir.” Shouldn’t it be the opposite? Rav Yehuda suggests changing the language to read “The one whose words come true.”

Nazir 31 - February 23, 2 Adar Feb 23, 2023

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of Faye Darack, one of Hadran's dedicated learners who passed away yesterday. Yehi zichra baruch.

Beit Shamai holds that if one sanctified something by mistake, it is effective. Beit Hillel disagree. An example is brought in the Mishna of one who said that the first black ox to leave my house will be sanctified and a white ox left the house first. Or the first gold coin to come in my hand, or the first wine barrel and silver came first or a barrel of oil. Beit Shamai holds it is sanctified, Beit Hillel says it is not. There are three explanations in the Gemara regarding the details of the case and what in fact becomes sanctified according to Beit Shamai - is it the white one or the first black one that came out? What is the "mistake"? Was the declaration referring to what will happen or what did happen? Difficulties are raised on each of the interpretations and are resolved. Rav Chisda said that white bulls are superior to black bulls. This assumption is questioned from our Mishna and also from a different statement of Rav Chisda. In order to reconcile this, they distinguish between bulls in the Kerman Province where white bulls are superior, and everywhere else where black bulls are superior. The Mishna discusses what happens to animals that were sanctified by someone who was a nazir but then dissolved his vow. The halacha is that the animals are no longer sanctified. Beit Hillel uses this to argue against Beit Shamai as they claimed that mistaken sanctification is effective. Beit Shamai retorts that how can Beit Hillel explain the law regarding animal tithes as if one mistakenly counts the 9th or 11th as the tenth, it is sanctified. Beit Hillel claims that it is derived from a verse in the Torah and is therefore specific just for that specific type of error.

Nazir 30 - 2nd Day of Rosh Chodesh Adar - February 22, 1 Adar Feb 22, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 30

This month's learning is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father, Professor Dov Zlotnick who taught his five girls the love of learning! “We miss you!” Today’s daf is sponsored by Leah Goldford on the first yahrzeit of her father, Moshe ben Mayer known as Moe. “We miss your humor, your daily check-in calls, and mostly your amazing hugs. Still can't quite believe you're gone. We love you.”

In what situation can a child take the money his father set aside for nazir offerings and use it for his own nazir sacrifices? Rabbi Yosi says it is only when following the father’s death the son decided to become a nazir and use his father’s money, but not if the father and son were both nazirs before the father’s death. This rule applies only to sons and not to daughters. According to Rabbi Yochanan it is a halacha l’Moshe m’Sinai. Why does Rabbi Yochanan need to explain this, isn't it obvious that this halacha relates to sons and not to daughters as sons can inherit and daughters do not? It is necessary to apply the law in a case when a man only had daughters to teach that it is not based on inheritance laws but on halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai. Do the rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yosi? A source is brought to prove that they disagree and permit both scenarios. Are these laws connected to inheritance in some way? If two sons both want to take on being a nazir, do they share the money or does the first one to become a nazir and say he will use the money get exclusive rights? If one is a firstborn does he get a double portion? Do these laws only apply to a regular type of nazir or is it also applicable to one who takes on a nazir olam? If the father set aside the money for the completion of his nazirite term before he died and the son became an impure nazir and wanted to use it for the sacrifices brought for a nazir who became impure or vice-versa, could he? All these questions remain unanswered.

Nazir 29 - 1st Day of Rosh Chodesh Adar - February 21, 30 Shevat Feb 21, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 29

This week’s learning is dedicated by Phyllis & Yossie Hecht in memory of Phyllis’s father’s 14th yahrzeit, l'zecher HaRav Yerachmiel Binyanim ben Zalman Tzvi Witkin. "Jerry Witkin, as he was affectionately known to all, was a true source of nachat to his friends, family and clal yisrael. Dad was a friend to all, activist and champion of causes and sameach b'chelko. As this week is Parshat Terumah, Dad only knew had to give and never learned how to take. It is so appropriate to commemorate this part of Adar in your memory as the yahrzeit is the first day of Rosh Chodesh Adar. Meshenichnas Adar Marbim B'Simcha! Dad was a baal koreh par excellence since he was 11 years old-and on Purim was the baal koreh of Megilat Esther which brought joy to so many. Your legacy of 6 children, 29 grandchildren and ever growing great-grandchildren - all Torah Jews continues to live on. You are so missed and we have been so blessed. Yehi Zichro Baruch."

Why can a man make his son become a nazir but a woman cannot? Rabbi Yochanan says it is a halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai. Reish Lakish says it is because it is part of the father's obligation of chinuch (education) for his son. Seven questions are brought against Reish Lakish's opinion including, why wouldn't a woman also be obligated to educate her child, why wouldn't it apply to daughters as well, and how can the relatives protest the father's educating of his child. In answer to the seventh question, the Gemara assumes that Reish Lakish holds like Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda that by Torah law one does not need to slaughter birds. A question is raised against that as it seems from another source that Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda does hold birds need proper slaughtering by Torah law. But, in the end, it can be explained that the other source was referring to rabbinic law. It is suggested that Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish's debate between Rebbi and Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda regarding the cut-off age at which a father can no longer take on a nazirite vow for his son. But that suggestion is rejected. Rebbi and Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda have the same debate as Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yosi as found in the Tosefta Nidda 5:6.

Nazir 28 - February 20, 29 Shevat Feb 20, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 28

Rava brings a long braita to raise a difficulty with Rav Nachman who differentiated between blemished and unblemished animals - if so, the braita should have mentioned that as well. The Gemara answers the question in the same way they answered Rav Hamnuna's question that preceded Rava's question. There is a debate between three - tanna kama, Rabbi Akiva and Rebbi (or Rabbi Meir). The Gemara even brings a fourth opinion. Is it until the blood is sprinkled, as that permits the woman to drink wine and therefore the husband can no longer claim that it is in the category of vows he can nullify? Or is it until the animal is slaughtered as it will cause the animal to be left to burn and we don't like to destroy sanctified items? Or is it until she shaves as he can claim shaving her head will be disgusting and therefore it is in the category of vows he can nullify? Or is it until shaving for a different reason as the shaving permits her to drink wine, not the sacrifices? A question is asked about destroying the sacrifice as sacrifices slaughtered for the wrong reason can be brought on the altar? It is resolved by saying they were referring to the sin offering which cannot be offered. The debate about shaving her hair being disgusting to her husband is based on a debate about how one perceives wearing a wig - is that a good alternative or not? A father can make his son into a nazir but a mother cannot. Why? What happens when a father makes his son a nazir and the son or relatives protest? What happens to money or animals that were already set aside for the sacrifice?

Nazir 27 - February 19, 28 Shevat Feb 19, 2023

Today’s daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson and Art Gould in memory of Art’s mother Shirley, Sarah bat Avraham v’Ziche Reicha. Today is her 9th yahrtzeit. “She was a life-long learner and a striver; a woman born before her time. She sewed, she made mosaics; she was always busy with something. She lives on in the tallitot and quilts she made for so many members of her family and her synagogue.” Rav Shimi bar Ashi raised a difficulty with those who limited the law about unspecified money for the nazirite sacrifices being used for voluntary burnt offerings for money only and not animals, pieces of silver, or piles of beams. Rav Shimi showed that also birds can remain unspecified until a later stage. Rav Papa responded with a source showing that animals do not remain unspecified, even in a case where one didn't specifically designate each one for each particular sacrifice as when a nazir set aside a female sheep, male sheep, and ram, but did not specify which sacrifice each one is for, it is as if they are already specified. Rav Shimi rejects Rav Papa's response as when one specifies those particular animals, it is clear which was meant for which sacrifice since the Torah specifically says that a female sheep is brought as a sin offering, the male sheep for a burnt offering and the ram for a peace offering and therefore, it is as if they were specifically designated. Earlier, Rav Nachan stated that even though the law of unspecified money does not apply to an animal, it would apply to an animal with a blemish, as it could be sold immediately and was therefore considered like money. Rav Hamnuna and Rava bring tannaitic sources to raise a difficulty against Rav Nachman.

Nazir 26 - Shabbat February 18, 27 Shevat Feb 17, 2023

Nazir 25 - February 17, 26 Shevat Feb 17, 2023

Today’s daf is sponsored by Esther Chazon in memory of her mother, Dorothy Sobel Glickler on her 12th yahrzeit. “Mom loved studying Torah and doing chesed, she encouraged us to follow that path.” Today’s daf is sponsored by Elisheva Gray in memory of her dear teacher and friend Gidi Nahshon, Yoel Melech ben Moshe v'Sarah, z''l on his eighth yahrzeit. “Gidi's family made Aliyah from Prague. He had a deep love for Israel and for Jewish texts and traditions. He was a wonderful teacher and caring friend. I have no doubt he would be pleased to see that I found my way to Hadran, am learning daf yomi and am still in the hands of an excellent teacher.” How can unspecified funds designated for sacrifices for a nazir who no longer needed them (such as a woman whose husband nullified her vow) be used to buy voluntary offerings? Isn't their money in there designated to a sin offering which should be thrown in the Dead Sea and should not be able to be used at all. Rabbi Yochanan says this is a unique halacha (halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai) that was passed down regarding a nazir. Reish Lakish holds that is it derived from a verse in Vayikra 22:18 that vows can be turned into voluntary burnt offerings. If it is derived from the verse, why is it only unspecified funds and not specified? The reason given is because Rabbi Yishmael already taught in a braita from verses in Devarim 12:26-27 that sin offerings cannot be turned into burnt offerings and that must be referring to specified funds. After answering the question, the Gemara raises three questions on sections of the braita and explains them.

Nazir 24 - February 16, 25 Shevat Feb 16, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Savta Becki Goldstein in honor of her two eldest grandsons chayalim Eitan Efrayim and Gilad Yoel on their twentieth birthdays. "With gratitude to Hashem for the z'chut of reaching this milestone with them. Our wishes for briut and simcha and hatzlacha in their endeavors and may Hashem keep them safe and all our chayalim. Amen."

A woman who was a nazir and separated animals for her sacrifice and then her husband nullified the vow, what happens to those animals? It depends on whether the money used to purchase the animals was her husband's money or her own. If it was his, the animals are no longer sanctified. If it was her own money, the one designated for the sin offering is left to die, the burnt and peace offerings are offered as voluntary offerings. But the peace offering has unique laws - it can only be eaten for one day, like the nazirite peace offering but is not eaten with loaves of unleavened bread that usually accompany the nazirite offering. If she had just designated money for the animals, all that money is used to purchase voluntary offerings. If she had designated money and specified what would be purchased with the money, the same concept applies as before - the money for the sin offering is sent to the Dead Sea as it cannot be used for anything, the money for the burnt and peace offerings are used to buy voluntary burnt and peace offerings as per the details in the earlier case. There is a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis about whether a husband is obligated to pay for his wife's sacrifices by a commitment written in the ketuba. Which one of these opinions fits in with our Mishna regarding the husband who gave money to his wife for sacrifices? Two different versions are brought of a debate regarding this issue between Rav Chisda and Rava. What would be a scenario where she would have her own money to purchase the sacrifices? Avuha bar Ihi listed four cases in which a nazir peace offering is brought without the accompanying loaves. What are the four cases? Are there not more? What about a nazir sacrifice that was slaughtered incorrectly (either not for the sake of the right sacrifice or it was a an animal in its first year, instead of its second year of life.

Nazir 23 - February 15, 24 Shevat Feb 15, 2023

Today’s daf is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the refuah shleima of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah and their daughter, Tamar Davida bat Sarah Leah.

If a woman becomes a nazir and her husband nullifies the vow without her knowledge and she drinks wine not knowing that she is no longer a nazir, she does not get lashes by Torah law. However, Rabbi Yehuda adds that she gets lashes by rabbinic law as she intended to go against the law. A braita brings a verse from which this law is derived and Rabbi Akiva learns from there that since one who intended to sin but didn't sin is punished, how much more so one who intended to sin and actually sinned. Two other verses are brought to show how severe it is for one who intentionally sinned from that fact that one needs to atone for sins that one is not even sure they committed as in a case of doubt whether one ate a piece of permitted fat or forbidden fat from an animal (both in a case where there was one piece and it wasn't clear if it was permitted or forbidden, and a case where there were two pieces, one permitted and one forbidden and the person isn't sure which one they ate from). Why was it necessary to mention all three cases? Regarding intent, sometimes different people can do that same action but for righteous people, it will be a righteous act and for the sinner it will be a sinful act. There is a debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish about what would be a good example of this. After raising an issue with Reish Lakish's opinion, a suggestion is made that the episode with Lot and his daughters is a good example of this as they did it with good intentions and he did not. How do we know that he did not have the right intentions? Wasn't he forced into it as he was drunk? They prove how we know that Lot sinned intentionally and he is ultimately punished by Jews not being allowed to marry males from Amon and Moab, his descendants. Tamar and Zimri are brought as further examples of how the same action could be used for a positive reason and for a negative reason. Tamar was rewarded with kings and prophets and Zimri was punished as thousands of Jews were killed. A discussion ensues about one who sins for the sake of Heaven and one who does a mitzva not for the sake of Heaven - which is more valuable? The example of Yael and Sisra is brought regarding a sin for the sake of Heaven.

Nazir 22 - February 14, 23 Shevat Feb 14, 2023

This week's learning is sponsored by Ruth Rotenberg "in commemoration of our daughter, Tanielle Gavre'ea Margalit's yahrzeit. Hard to believe it is 18 years. You continue to live within us and inspire us and so many others. Thank you to Rabbanit Farber for your tireless and inspired teaching and leadership."

Two more sources (altogether five. including the sources on Nazir 21) are brought to answer the question - when a husband nullifies his wife's vow - is it uprooted from when she took the vow or only from the moment of the nullification. The fourth source proves that it is nullified from the beginning but the last source clearly shows that it is only nullified from the moment of nullification. Mar Zutra tried to argue that one could derive from here an answer to a question Rami bar Hama raised about one who forbids an item by connecting it to a piece of meat of a peace offering. Just as the woman's status changes when the husband nullifies her vow (first she is prohibited then permitted), so does the status of the meat change as it is forbidden at first and is permitted to be eaten once the blood is sprinkled. However, there are differing opinions about whether this is an accurate comparison as the meat still maintains a certain level of sanctity, while the woman does not. In the braita previously quoted, Rabbi Shimon differentiated between two cases - one where a woman's friend said "and me" and one where she said, "I will be like you." The Gemara asks what would be the halacha if the friend said "b'ikvayich, in your footsteps?" They try to answer the question from a case in our Mishna where the woman says she will be a nazir and her husband says "and me" (which is equated to "in your footsteps" according to Tosafot as the power to nullify it is in his hands), he cannot nullify it, as if he nullifies, it will cancel his own vow, thus proving that "b'ikvayich, in your footsteps" would cause the second person's vow to be nullified as well. This proof is rejected as it is possible to understand why he can't nullify because when he says "and me" he is ratifying her vow. A difficulty is raised on the case in our Mishna where the husband says "I am a nazir and you?" - if the woman answers yes and he nullifies her vow, he is still a nazir. However, in a braita it says the opposite. This is resolved in two ways.

Nazir 21 - February 13, 22 Shevat Feb 13, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 21

Reish Lakish held that if one says "I will be a nazir" and another said "and me" and another said "and me", it is effective only if it was said immediately after (toch k'dei dibur). Support for this is brought from a braita. They also try to prove it from the fact that our Mishna listed only two people who responded "and me" and not more. But that answer is rejected as the tanna is not expected to count cases exactly as a peddlers count their wares. If so, why did the tanna not just list one person who said "and me"? Two questions are asked and sources, including our Mishna, are brought to try to answer the question. First question: when each person says "and me" are they connecting their statement to the first person who said they will be a nazir or to the person who said "and me" just before them? The second question is: when a husband nullifies the vows of his wife does it nullify them from the beginning, as if she never vowed, or is it cutting off the vow from right now? Most sources brought to answer the questions are rejected, but in the first question, they find the answer eventually in a braita.

Nazir 20 - February 12, 21 Shevat Feb 12, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 20

There were different traditions about whether Helene the Queen was a nazir for fourteen years or twenty-one. According to Rabbi Yehuda's version that it was fourteen, was it that she kept seven outside of Israel and then seven more when she got to Israel (and did not become impure to a dead person) as per Beit Hillel's opinion or was it based on Beit Shamai that she added another thirty days when she got to Israel but became impure and then ended to start all over again from the beginning and do seven more? The Gemara first proves it from the language of our Mishna and then also from a braita that it was according to Beit Hillel. If two groups of witnesses disagreed about whether a particular person took upon themselves two terms of being a nazir or five, does that person need to keep two terms as each set of witnesses agreed that the person at least took upon themselves two terms or do we view this as contradictory testimony and no set is believed? Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree. However, there was a different version of the debate that it was in a case where the disagreement was between two witnesses and not two sets of witnesses. But if it were two sets of witnesses, all would agree that they would be required to keep two terms. Rav held that they both agree in a case where the witnesses counted the terms. Rav Hama questions this statement of Rav and the rabbis of Israel agreed with his rejection fo Rav. The Mishna beginning the fourth chapter discusses cases of one who took on being a nazir by saying "and me" to someone who just took upon themselves to be a nazir. If the first one dissolved their vow, the others are dissolved as well. What happens when the situation involves a husband and wife? In what case can or can he not nullify her vow? Reish Lakish says that if one wants to take on being a nazir by saying "and me," it needs to be said immediately after the first person says "I will be a nazir." Rabbi Yehuda Nesia questioned this.

Nazir 19 - Shabbat February 11, 20 Shevat Feb 10, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 19

Today’s daf is dedicated l'ilui nishmat Chana bat Reb Shimon by her sons, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and all who knew and loved her.

A braita states that a woman who became a nazir, became impure to a dead person and then her husband nullified her vow, after she had separated birds for her sacrifice, she brings the sin offering but not the burnt offering. Rav Chisda connects this source to Rabbi Yishmael's opinion. A further question is asked on the braita: when the husband nullifies her vow, it is retroactive but why does she still need to bring the sin offering? It must accord also with Rabbi Elazar the Kapar who held that anyone who refrains from things such as drinking wine has sinned as one should not cause oneself to suffer. The Gemara refers back to and resolved a language issue in the Mishna and explains important details that weren't spelled out. Rabbi Eliezer required a minimum of two days of being a nazir before becoming impure. Ulla says that he was only referring to a case of one who accepted nezirut in impurity and then left and came back. But if one was a nazir and then became impure, that is not required. Abaye raises a difficulty against Ulla and it is not resolved. Does Rabbi Eliezer mean two full days or partial days? If one took upon oneself a long period of nezirut outside the land of Israel, when one comes to Israel to bring the sacrifices, one has to redo the entire period (Beit Hillel) or perhaps only thirty days (Beit Shamai) in purity in Israel as the rabbis decreed that all land outside of Israel is impure. A story is brought of Helene the Queen who ended up with an incredibly long period of nezirut on account of this law. What is the root of the debate between Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai?

Nazir 18 - February 10, 19 Shevat Feb 10, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 18

In the fourth attempt to answer Rabbi Ashi's question, we find a source explicitly stating that one who vowed to be a nazir while impure does not shave one's hair on the seventh day of purification. Rav Chisda attributes a braita we saw on a previous page a Mishna in Keritut 20b - one to Rebbi and one to Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda - regarding their debate about when a nazir who becomes impure begins their count of nezirut again - on the seventh day of purification or the eighth. What is the basis for their debate? From Rav Chisda's explanation of the Mishna in Keritut, is it possible to understand what he holds about whether the obligation of the sacrifice begins on the night of the eighth or in the morning? A braita is quoted where two more opinions appear in connection with the dispute we saw between Rebbi and Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda - from when do you start counting the days? Is it after the sin offering was brought or after the sin and the guilt offering? What is the basis for each opinion and how does each one deal with the verses that the other uses to prove his position?

Nazir 17 - February 9, 18 Shevat Feb 09, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 17

Today's daf is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Benaya Chaim ben Avital Ora who is undergoing surgery this morning.

After raising several sources against Reish Lakish's opinion, and particularly one that couldn't be resolved, Mar son of Rav Ashi reinterprets the debate between him and Rabbi Yochanan. They both hold that a person who takes upon being a nazir in a cemetery is considered a nazir immediately but there is a debate whether or not they receive lashes if they are warned and do not leave the cemetery right away. The same sources as before are brought as difficulties against Reish Lakish's position. Two are resolved and the third is not. If one vows to be a nazir in the cemetery, Rava asks if there is a certain amount of time that must pass before leaving in order to incur a punishment of lashes (as is the case of one who became impure in the Temple) or is one liable as soon as one does not leave immediately? Rav Ashi asked of one who takes on to be a nazir in a cemetery, do they shave their hair when they finish the seven days of impurity? Two of the sources used against Reish Lakish are brought to try to answer the question but both are rejected. A third source comparing a nazir who became impure and a nazir who became a leper is brought also to answer the question. But, it too is rejected.

Nazir 16 - February 8, 17 Shevat Feb 08, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 16

Today’s daf is sponsored by Joyce Bendavid in honor of Rabbanit Michelle. “Thank you to Rabbanit Michelle Farber for the clarity of your teaching as you motivate us to continue learning the daily daf.”

If Rabbi Yossi holds that part of the day is considered a whole day regarding the impurity of a zava, how could one ever become a zava gedola? The Gemara brings two possible answers. The third chapter begins with a description of few different cases of one who took upon oneself to be a nazir either without a specified amount of time or with a specified amount of time. The Mishna explains in each case what is the ideal day for the sacrifices and shaving to take place and what is the law if it was done a day earlier. What if one became impure on the last day or on the day the sacrifices were to be brought? Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree in most cases. The Gemara explains the reasoning for Rabbi Eliezer in each of the different cases. If one takes upon oneself to be a nazir while they are in a cemetery, one is not considered that they became impure as a nazir and does not bring the sacrifices of a nazir who became impure as the nazirite status never began. But if one left and then came back in, even on the day that one became pure again, there is a debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer about whether or not they would be obligated in the sacrifices for one who becomes impure. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about a case where one took upon to be a nazir in a cemetery - would that be effective once they became pure again (Rabbi Yochanan) or would they need only become a nazir if they reaccepted to be a nazir once they became pure? Rabbi Yochanan brings a number of sources to raise difficulties with Reish Lakish's position. The first one is from our Mishna and it is resolved, the second is from a Tosefta and is resolved.

Nazir 15 - February 7, 16 Shevat Feb 07, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 15

Today’s daf is dedicated to our amazing mom and grandma - Patty Belkin! Love, Jason, Erica, Raquel, Eli, Ariel, and Gili.

Today's daf is dedicated for the rescue and healing of the victims of the earthquake. May we find more living and help more of those displaced. Our thoughts and prayer are with them and their families.

The Gemara proves the words of Rabbi Yossi bar Rabbi Hanina that if the days of a nazir have passed before but one has not yet done the shaving and sacrifices, one would not get lashes for any of the prohibitions – only for becoming impure to the dead. But then a braita is brought to contradict him as it appears there that one would receive lashes for all the prohibitions of a nazir. The Mishna cites a case where one said I will become a nazir when I have a child and I will be a nazir for a hundred days. There are different interpretations of the law of the Mishna. It all depends on whether the child was born before the seventieth day or after. If before, then one doesn't need to count extra days but if after, one does. Rav says that if the child is born on the seventieth day, this day can also be considered the first day of the nazir for the child - according to the law that part of the day can be considered a whole day, and therefore also for the nazir term of a hundred days, it will be counted as two days and one can perform the shaving and sacrifices on the hundredth day and not day one hundred and one. The Gemara brings two difficulties about his words from our Mishna - the first one is resolved but the second one is not. And they conclude that Rav does not agree with our Mishna. The Gemara tries to find a tanna that Rav's opinion corresponds to. First, they suggest Abba Shaul regarding matters of mourning, but that is not successful. Then they try Rabbi Yossi regarding a zav or zava and the Passover sacrifice. There are two ways to understand his opinion and according to one way, the words of a Rav will correspond to his opinion.

Nazir 14 - Tu B'Shevat - February 6, 15 Shevat Feb 06, 2023

Today’s daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of David's grandmother, Rabbanit Sara Hene Geffen on her Tu B'Shevat yahrzeit. "She and her husband Rav Tuvia Geffen, Rabbi of Sherith Israel in Atlanta, brought up their 8 children with love and learning."

Rava's question is explained as referring both to a case where one said they will be a nazir in twenty days and a nazir now and also if the second nazirite term was one hundred days instead of the usual thirty. The difference in the cases is whether or not if one starts counting the second term immediately and then stops to count the first term (after twenty days) will there be enough days for hair growth left at the end when finishing the second term? What if one said I will be a nazir after twenty days and now a nazir olam (forever)? Or nazir Shimshon? Nazir olam can be undone (by going to a chacham) but nazir Shimshon cannot - does that make a difference in these cases? If someone took on to be like Moshe on the seventh of Adar (his birthday and his date of death), what was meant by this? In the end, only the first question is answered about the twenty and one hundred days. The ruling is that one starts the one hundred days immediately and finishes up the eighth after the nazir term that starts on day twenty. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about two similar cases. First, if one took on two overlapping terms, as previously discussed and one became impure in the middle of the term that interrupted the other, would they need to start counting from the very beginning or does it only cancel the current term? Second, if one became a leper while being a nazir, one pauses the counting of nazirite days, but if one became impure to a dead person during those leper days, would that cancel the nazirite days? Why was it necessary to state both debates? If one's hair was cut during the nazirite term, one needs to wait until there is hair growth of thirty days to be able to shave and bring the sacrifices. What happens if one becomes impure during those days? Rav and Shmuel disagree. However, Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan wouldn't necessarily disagree about this case. Rav Chisda said that one who became impure after bringing sacrifices but before shaving one's hair cannot rectify the situation. What did he mean by this and according to whose opinion? One who finishes counting the days of being a nazir but did not yet finish the sacrifices and shaving, receives lashes if one becomes impure to a dead person but not if one drank wine or cut one's hair - from where is this derived?

Nazir 13 - February 5, 14 Shevat Feb 05, 2023

This month's learning is sponsored by Hadran of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok. “Nicki was creative, talented, and filled with so much love and goodness. She had an incredible attitude about life, family, and faith that every one of us should aspire to achieve. May her memory always be a blessing.”

This week's learning is sponsored in loving memory of Miriam Baumel who passed away last week on her 91st birthday. May her memory be a blessing. -From her loving granddaughters.

The Mishna talks about a case where one takes upon being a nazir in the event a child will be born, but the child dies either in childbirth or within the first thirty days. Since one can't be sure whether the child was viable and died by some other cause or was never viable to begin with, there is a doubt about whether or not the parent is a nazir. The rabbis rule leniently, as per Rabbi Yehuda that we are lenient in laws of nazir. But Rabbi Shimon rules stringently and suggests that one should say, if the child was viable, I am a nazir based on my previous declaration (obligatory) and if not, I will take on being a nazir voluntarily. If subsequently a child was born, one will need to do the same thing, in case the previous obligation was not fulfilled in the previous birth. First, the Gemara goes back to the cases in the Mishna on Nazir 12b where one said "son" or "child" and it was discussed which type of child is included in each term. The Gemara explains why the Mishna needed to spell that all out - why wasn't it obvious? Rabbi Abba asked Rav Huna: if one gave birth to a child who died soon after childbirth and the husband separated animals for the nazir sacrifice and then his wife gave birth to a second healthy child (presumably, the case is that there are twins), is the animal sanctified? This question is asked according to Rabbi Yehuda's opinion and the ramification is to know whether one can use the animals for work or shear them. Ben Rachumi asked Abaye about a case where one said he will be a nazir if he has a child and then a friend said "On me also." Did he mean that he will also be a nazir when the friend has a child or he will be a nazir when he has a child. This question leads to several other questions such as, would it change if he said "And me" instead of "On me"? Would it make a difference if the original person took on to be a nazir if a third person had a child. The Mishna brings up cases of one who took upon to be a nazir immediately and when he has a child. If after he starts counting the first term, the child is born, he completes the first term, including shaving/sacrifices and then starts counting the second term. But if he first said "I will be a nazir when I have a child and I will be a nazir, he starts counting the second term and when the child is born, if he hasn't finished, he stops the second term, starts counting the term for the child and when it ends, he finishes the first term. Rava asks about a different, but similar case.

Nazir 12 - Shabbat February 4, 13 Shevat Feb 03, 2023

Today’s daf is sponsored by Susan Gruber Vishner, in loving memory of her father, Everett Gruber, Yehudah Gedalia ben Sender Chaim v'Perl, on the 100th anniversary of his birth. “My father deeply loved Jewish learning, Torah study, and his family.”

Rabbi Yochanan explains that if one appointed a messenger to betroth a woman for him, without specifying which woman, and the messenger died before returning, one can assume he betrothed the woman before his death and the man who sent him can no longer betroth a woman as it is possible any woman he chooses will be a relative of the woman he is betrothed to who is a forbidden relative, such as mother, daughter, sister, etc. Reish Lakish raises a question against Rabib Yochanan from a Mishna in Kinnim 2:1 where there is a similar doubt and it is permitted. A distinction is made between the cases based on laws of majority and how the law is affected by the status of objects that are stationary and those that move. Rava says that Rabbi Yochanan will agree that if the man finds a woman without any relatives (that would be potentially forbidden to him) or with a sister who was married at the time he sent the messenger, even if she divorced by the time the messenger betrothed someone, he can marry her. On what basis is the woman with a sister divorced after he sent the messenger permitted? First, they think it is based on a particular assumption, but that is rejected on the basis of our Mishna with one who took on sacrifices of a nazir which can apply even to someone who is not a nazir yet. The Gemara then distinguishes between one who takes upon oneself an obligation and one who sends a messenger, as regarding laws of messengers one cannot send a messenger to do something one cannot do oneself. Is that really true? A source is brought to show it is not true, but that source is explained differently. If one takes on a vow for sacrifices of a half nazir or half of a nazir's sacrifices, what is the law? If one says I will be a nazir if I have a son, this means only a son, not a daughter, tumtum or androgynous. But if one used gender-neutral language then it includes all.

Nazir 11 - February 3, 12 Shevat Feb 03, 2023

Today’s daf is sponsored by Caroline Ben-Ari. “In honor of the 30th anniversary of the first time I read Torah, of the special birthday of my daughter Ilana, and of Tu B'Shvat, Chag La'ilanot.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Terri Krivosha in memory of her father, Nachum Meir ben Malka on his second yahrzeit. Yehi Zichro Baruch. And in honor of the first birthday of her granddaughter and her father’s namesake, Orli Nessa, daughter of Avi and Shaina Herring.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Blima Slutsky in memory of her father, Yitzchak Tzvi ben Blima and Chaim Shimon.

If one is in a situation where they are being encouraged to drink and they say, "I am a nazir from it," they become a nazir. However, there was a case with a woman who was drunk and when she said this, they ruled she was not a nazir as she was just trying to prevent them from pushing her to drink more. The Mishna lists three cases in which one takes upon being a nazir but expresses hesitation (each in a different way) from accepting being a nazir fully. In the first case, there is no debate. In the other two, Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis disagree, but in each one, one is strict and the other is lenient but who is strict and who is lenient switches from one case to the other. First, the Gemara questions whether or not they disagree in the first case. Then they try to understand why Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis switch positions between the second and the third case. Three solutions are offered. If one person says they will be a nazir and they will pay for the sacrifices of another, and a person nearby says "and I and I will pay for the sacrifices of another," they can each pay for each other's (and that would be wise on their part!). What would have been the responsibilities of the second one if they only said "and I" - would it apply to both statements or not? The Gemara fleshes out the possibilities and weighs in on the issue.

Nazir 10 - February 2, 11 Shevat Feb 02, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 10

Today’s daf is sponsored by Tina Lamm in memory of her grandfather, Gershon Katz, Gershon ben Yochanan HaCohen v’Chaya Toba, whose yahrzeit is today. If someone said, "My cow/door said I am a nazir if I stand up/open," Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree about whether the person becomes a nazir by this declaration. Rabbi Yehuda says, as in the previous Mishna, Beit Shamai meant this only if they explained it as referring to being a sacrifice and it then will be forbidden like a vow and not as a nazir. The Gemara questions how we can be discussing a talking cow/door? Rami bar Hama and Rava each bring explanations for the Mishna. Rava rejects Rami bar Hama's explanation as it doesn't match the wording of the Mishna. Rava's explanation is also rejected, but he tries another two attempts to explain it until he finds an explanation that is not rejected.

Nazir 9 - February 1, 10 Shevat Feb 01, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 9

One who vowed to be a nazir not to eat figs, is that person considered a nazir? Are they forbidden from eating figs? Or is it just an absurd statement that means nothing? Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai disagree about this case. There are three different explanations about what Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai actually hold. According to one of the interpretations, Beit Hillel's opinion is based upon an opinion of Rabbi Shimon in a Minha in Menachot 103a. That Mishna is brought and Chizkiya and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about two issues in that Mishna. Firstly, to whom does tanna kama's opinion correspond? What would be the case if the declaration there was made with lentils instead of barley (the Mishna's case is with barley)?

Nazir 9 - February 1, 10 Shevat Feb 01, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 9

One who vowed to be a nazir not to eat figs, is that person considered a nazir? Are they forbidden from eating figs? Or is it just an absurd statement that means nothing? Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai disagree about this case. There are three different explanations about what Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai actually hold. According to one of the interpretations, Beit Hillel's opinion is based upon an opinion of Rabbi Shimon in a Minha in Menachot 103a. That Mishna is brought and Chizkiya and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about two issues in that Mishna. Firstly, to whom does tanna kama's opinion correspond? What would be the case if the declaration there was made with lentils instead of barley (the Mishna's case is with barley)?

Nazir 8 - January 31, 9 Shevat Jan 31, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 8

Today’s daf is sponsored by Dalia Gamson in memory of Efraim ben Yitzchak Shmuel.

The Mishna lists several cases where one accepted to be a nazir for a time period based on an object, like the hair on my head, dush of the earth...). They are considered a nazir forever, but tana kama and Rebbi disagree about whether one meant an infinite number of separate terms of being a nazir (with haircuts and sacrifices at the end of each thirty-day term) or one long period of being a nazir that lasts forever. If one said one will be a nazir for the capacity of the house or the basket, we ask what the intent was - for the house/basket or for contents. If the intent was the house/basket, they are a nazir for thirty days. If the intent was the contents, we view it as if it was filled with mustard seeds and they are a nazir for the rest of their life. If one says they will be a nazir from here to a different location, we measure how many days' journey and use that to determine how long the term will be. If one says "like the number of the days in the solar year" they are a nazir for 365 30-day terms. Rabbi Yehuda recounts that someone did this and as he finished the last term, he died. The Gemara questions the case with the basket - why do we assume they meant full of mustard seeds and not something larger like gourds, which would mean a nazirite term for a period of time corresponding to the number of gourds. Does this issue depend on a debate between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda about whether we are stringent or lenient regarding vows? Chizkiya says yes, but Rabbi Yochanan distinguishes between the case where they disagree and our case and claims that Rabbi Yehuda would agree in the case of our Mishna as well. According to Rabbi Yochanan's explanation, one must explain that Rabbi Yehuda holds like Rebbi's opinion in our Mishna. However, that is difficult in light of Rabbi Yehuda's statement in our Mishna and in a braita. Those difficulties are resolved. Several braitot are quoted with more cases of specific wording used by one accepting to be a nazir and how long or how many terms that person would need to be a nazir.

Nazir 7 - January 30, 8 Shevat Jan 30, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 7

Today’s daf is sponsored by Jane and David Shapiro in honor of their Skokie daf yomi compatriots: Shira & Norman Eliaser, Nina Black, and Rav Marianne Novak. “You keep us engaged, enthusiastic, and inspired by the daf every day."

The Mishnayot discuss various languages used to accept a nazirite term and how many days one would be a nazir for each of the different languages used. If one says "one large term" or "one short term" or "from here until the end of the world," one is only a nazir for thirty days. Why is the last case only thirty days? The assumption is that one is saying it is so difficult to be a nazir for thirty days that it feels like forever. The Gemara raises a difficulty on this answer from a different Mishna where one says they will be a nazir "from here until a particular place" and the term of the nazir depends on the number of days it takes to get there. Why are the rulings in these two cases different? Two answers are given to answer this question. The Mishna lists several different cases where one said I will be a nazir and then added an additional amount of time. In each case, the person has to keep two periods of being a nazir. Why was it necessary for the Mishna to list all the different cases? The next Mishna lists a case where one said "I will be a nazir for thirty days and one hour." Since one can't be a nazir for an hour, the person is a nazir for thirty-one days. Rav rules that this is only if one did not say thirty days and one day, but thirty and one day as he holds like Rabbi Akiva that any extra word can be used to mean something additional. Rabbi Akiva's position is found in a Mishna in Bava Batra 64a regarding the ownership of a pit and a cistern on a property of a house that one sold to someone else.

Nazir 6 - January 29, 7 Shevat Jan 29, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 6

Today’s daf is sponsored by Blima Slutzky in memory of her mother, Mazal (Tina) bat Rina and David.

Today’s daf is dedicated in memory of those murdered in the terrorist attack on Friday night in Neve Yaakov and for a refuah shleima to those injured there and from the attack in Ir David.

Five Mishnayot from the third chapter of Nazir are brought to raise a question against Bar Pada's opinions (that a stam nezirut is twenty-nine days). Three of those were already brought on the previous page. There are all resolved, and some as they are resolved are thrown back to question Rav Matna's opinion. A further question is raised to explain Rabbi Eliezer's position regarding a nazir who became impure on the last day of nezirut. The Gemara suggests that the debate between Rav Matna and Bar Pada is based on a tannatic debate between Rabbi Yoshiya and Rabbi Yonatan. However, this suggestion is rejected.

Nazir 5 - Shabbat January 28, 6 Shevat Jan 27, 2023

We derive from Avshalom who was a nazir olam that if one's hair gets too long, one can trim it. But at what intervals did Avshalom cut his hair? Three opinions are brought and the GEmara both raises questions and explains these three approaches. If one accepts to be a nazir without specifying how much time, the Mishna rules that the timeframe is thirty days. Rav Matna learns this from gematria of the words "yihiye." Bar Pada derives that is it twenty-nine from the twenty-nine times in the chapter where the root n.z.r. appears. Two Mishnayot are brought to question Bar Pada but are resolved. After explaining the second one, that source is thrown back against Rav Matna. After that is resolved, another Mishna is brought to raise a difficulty against Bar Pada.

Nazir 4 - January 27, 5 Shevat Jan 27, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 4

Today's daf is sponsored by Goody and Eric Weil to our beloved mother/mother-in-law, Lili Weil z”l on the Shloshim since her passing. Aside from the many acts of chessed and philanthropic organizations she created, Lili was also a pioneer of women’s learning. Several years after making Aliya from France in 1970, she wanted to learn Gemara, but organizations like Hadran didn’t exist back then. So Lili and her friends started Matan around her kitchen table, helping generations of women deepen their Jewish learning and connection to our tradition. We honor her with our collective learning today.

After pointing out the derivations of Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis regarding their debate of one who accepts to be a nazir by only refraining from one particular prohibition of a nazir, the Gemara has a back-and-forth discussion of what each one does with the verse the other one uses and so on. Throughout the discussion, several verses in the section of the nazir are used to derive different halachot by each of them. What language needs to be used to accept upon oneself to be a nazir Shimshon? One who is a nazir Shimshon can never cut one's hair but can become impure to dead people. One who is a nazir olam (forever) can trim one's hair periodically but can never become impure to the dead. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree about nazir Shimshon as Rabbi Shimon holds that one cannot accept upon oneself to be a nazir in this way as Shimshon did not accept upon himself to be a nazir and a vow only works if one connects it to something that is vowed upon, not something that has inherent sanctity. A different tannaitic debate is brought and compared to this debate, but in the end, the comparison is rejected. From where do we derive that Shimshon was not forbidden to become impure to dead people?

Nazir 3 - January 26, 4 Shevat Jan 26, 2023

Study Guide Nazir 3

Today’s daf is dedicated to Rebecca Eisen and Joshua Adler on the birth of their first child, a daughter, Maya Sari Adler, born on Thursday, January 12, 2023 in Toronto. “May she grow up connected to Torah, Israel, and her Jewish identity. Mazel tov!” Today’s daf is dedicated for the refuah shleima of Hannah bat Peninah from her children and grandchildren. There are various phrases listed in the Mishna that can be used to become a nazir. The Gemara questions each one of them, suggesting that perhaps they could mean something else entirely. Shmuel responds to most of the questions by explaining that each case is a statement combined with an action - either a nazir walked by at exactly that moment or the person was holding their hair as they said it. Whoever says, "I will accept upon myself birds," there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis as to whether this is an acceptance of being a nazir or not. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about the reasoning behind each position. To Reish Lakish, it is a dispute as to whether a person says something, can we assume it is referring to a word that is juxtaposed to that word in a verse. Birds appear in a verse in Daniel next to the growth of hair, perhaps he meant growth of hair mentioned in that verse and meant I will grow my hair to be a nazir. Rabbi Yochanan thinks that the debate is – is this statement referring to the bird offering in the event that the person will be a nazir and will become impure and will become obligated to bring a bird sacrifice. One who takes upon to be a nazir by saying that one is taking upon only one of the prohibitions of nazir, Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis disagree about whether that person is considered a nazir (and then would be forbidden for all nazirite prohibitions) or is one not a nazir at all. What is the proof of each side for his position?

Introduction to Masechet Nazir with Dr. Ayelet Hoffman Libson Jan 25, 2023

Introduction to Masechet Nazir

Nazir 2 - January 25, 3 Shevat Jan 25, 2023

Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit. “Our father helped guide thousands of college students towards lives of Torah in his four decades of work as a Hillel professional. He instilled in his children an appreciation for Torah and its values while encouraging each of us to find meaning in our personal Jewish journeys.” What are expressions that if uttered, one would be considered a nazir, even if one did not explicitly say that one is taking it upon oneself to be a nazir? The Mishna discusses kinuyim, words synonymous with nazir and yadot, phrases that intimate that one wants to be a nazir, but are incomplete formulations. Why is Nazir in Seder Nashim? To answer this, the Gemara explains the connection between a nazir and a sotah - one who sees a sotah will realize that it was caused by drunkenness and will vow to become a nazir. Why did the Mishna begin with kinuyim and then move to explain yadot before going back to explain kinuyim? What can be learned about the literary structure from other mishnayot that have a similar or different order? What rules does the Gemara suggest? The Mishna said that if one says "I will be" that is a yad for nazir and that person is a nazir. Perhaps the person meant "I will be in a fast" and didn't mean to become a nazir? Shmuel explains that the case is one where a nazir was walking by at the time. Does this teach us what Shmuel holds about an unclear intimation (yad)? Perhaps the person meant to take on the sacrificial responsibilities of the passing nazir and not to actually become a nazir? The Gemara answers that the person must have thought in their heart that they intended to become a nazir. How could this work if generally, we say that things one says in the heart are meaningless if not uttered? The Mishna ruled that if one says "I will beautify myself" they are a nazir. Perhaps they meant to beautify themselves with mitzvot? Shmuel explains that they are holding their hair at the time they make the declaration. How could becoming a nazir be called beautiful if the rabbis did not approve of people becoming a nazir?

Nedarim 91 - Siyum Masechet Nedarim - January 24, 2 Shvat Jan 24, 2023

Siyum Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Sharona Shuster in memory of her father Eliyahu Chaim ben Harav Ephraim and mother-in-law Devorah bat Yisroel. “Both of whom have a legacy of Torah and Mitzvot among their children and grandchildren. And to my husband who believed in me and encouraged me to learn with Hadran. Also a mazel tov to Hadran community.” Siyum Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Miriam Kerzner (sister) and her children Lana and Sheldon and Jamie and Elayne Greenstone (wife) in honor of Barry (Dov) Greenstone. "With great determination, at the age of 15 in 1957 finished Masechet Nedarim with his Rebbi, Rabbi Herzl Kaplan, z"l at the Hebrew Theological College (Skokie)."

Nedarim 90 - Rosh Chodesh Shvat, January 23, 1 Shvat Jan 23, 2023

This month’s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky. “A talmida chachama who studied gemara ahead of her time. Baby Chiyenna will be 4 1/2 when her mother finishes shas, be'ezrat Hashem!” This week's learning is sponsored by Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker in loving memory of Stacey’s beloved father Jack Goodstein, Yaakov ben Asur Halevi z"l whose 12 months of mourning ends on Rosh Chodesh and in memory of her father-in-law Eliyahu Ashtamker, Eliyahu ben David z"l, whose first yahrzeit is this Shabbat. "May their memories be for a blessing." Today’s daf is dedicated in memory of HaRabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen zt"l, the wife of HaRav Shear Yashuv Hakohen zt"l. A woman ahead of her time who taught Gemara to women in Haifa. You are missed as a teacher, and as a special wise woman, we had the honor to study with.

Does the debate between Rabbi Natan and the rabbis regarding nullification of a vow that has not yet taken effect also apply to dissolving vows with a chacham? A story is brought of a man who took a vow of this kind and Rav Acha made sure the vow took effect so that it could be dissolved. Two explanations are brought up explaining why he needed the vow to take effect first. Sources are brought to support the second explanation but are each rejected. An alternate version of the second explanation is brought and the same sources are brought to raise a difficulty against it. One is resolved, and the other is not. Originally there were three different claims a woman could make and the rabbis would insist the husband divorce the wife and give her the ketuba money, but over time there were women who lied in order to get the husband to divorce her, and therefore the rabbis stopped believing them. What were these claims? After the rabbis changed their minds, what would they do if a woman made these claims? One of the claims is a woman married to a kohen claims that she was raped. The Gemara asks: if we no longer believe her to insist on divorce, can she continue to eat truma?

Nedarim 89 - January 22, 29 Tevet Jan 22, 2023

This week’s learning is sponsored by Cindy Dolgin for the yahrzeits of Mira and Avram Dolgin. "Loving in-laws of Cindy and dedicated public servants of The Zionist and Democratic State of Israel.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sari Esserman in memory of her father Moshe ben Yosef Hakohen.

Today's daf is sponsored by Marcia Baum in loving memory of her mother Helen Baum, Chaya Chana Alter bat Chana v’Yekutiel Yehudah on her 7th yahrzeit. “Mom was a lover of learning and yahadut who instilled those values in her daughters. She is sorely missed!"

The Mishna rules that if a vow is made by a woman to start in thirty days, if she gets married before the vow takes effect, her husband cannot nullify the vow. If she was married at the time she made the vow (to start at a later date) and her husband nullified the vow but she got divorced before the vow took effect, the nullification is still valid. This Mishna rules that the nullification follows the time the vow was made and not the time it takes effect. This issue also was raised in a similar case of a woman who vows to be a nazir when she gets married or when she gets divorced. There, Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva debate whether we follow the time the vow was made or the time it takes effect. Is this the same debate or can we distinguish between the cases? The Mishna stated at the end that if a woman vowed and on the same day got divorced and remarried to the same person, her husband would not be able to nullify the vow she made earlier that day before they were remarried. The Mishna ended with the words: "This is the rule..." What do those words come to include in our Mishna and what do they come to include in a Mishna that appeared previously on Nedarim 71a on a similar topic but regarding a woman who was betrothed both times and not married? The Mishna lists nine cases where a father cannot nullify his daughter's vows. The main reasons why he cannot nullify are: 1. if she is already a bogeret (has reached maturity), 2. if she was married already (and now widowed or divorced), and 3. if her father died. The Mishna rules that if she makes a vow on condition that she will not benefit from others if she does work for her husband or the reverse, the husband can nullify the vow even though it the condition has not been fulfilled and the vow has not yet taken effect. The Gemara quotes a braita which shows there is a tannaitic debate regarding one of these cases and a different case. Rabbi Natan holds that since the vow has not yet taken effect, he cannot nullify it.

Nedarim 88 - Shabbat January 21, 28 Tevet Jan 20, 2023

The contradiction between Rabbi Meir in the Mishna and Rabbi Meir regarding a city of refuge is resolved by distinguishing between the cases and showing that the debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir was derived specifically from the words in the verses of the Torah on that topic. If one vows to not let his son-in-law benefit from him, in what way can he give a gift to his daughter so that the son-in-law won't benefit? The Mishna proscribes what to do according to Rabbi Meir's approach who holds that whatever a woman accepts the right to use the item goes straight to her husband. Rav and Shmuel rule differently on this topic. A contradiction is brought against Rav from laws of eruv, but is resolved as a distinction is made between the cases. Ravina raises a question from a braita and Rav Ashi resolves it.

Nedarim 87 - January 20, 27 Tevet Jan 20, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Gordon Marx in honor of Sara Marx’s Hebrew birthday. “Happy birthday!”

If the Mishna teaches us that one needs to know exactly whose vow he is nullifying from the verse in the Torah saying "her", why when it comes to a mourner, a braita rules that tearing clothing for a relative, if the tearing is done with the wrong person in mind, it is valid, even though it is learned from a verse "for Shaul and for Yonatan" which would seem to also indicate the need one to know for whom they are tearing. Two different answers are brought to resolve the contradiction between the Mishna and the braita. The first answer is to distinguish between a case (the braita) where one did it generally or was told generally about a relative and then intended when tearing for the wrong person, and a case (our Mishna) where one was told or did the action specifically for a particular person and it turns out it was the wrong person. The second answer is that in the braita, he realized the mistake within a few seconds (toch k'dei dibur) and therefore it was valid and the Mishna was in a case where he realized his error beyond that short time frame. A braita is brought to support each response. If one forbade two things in one vow, if the husband/father ratifies part, the whole thing is ratified. But if he nullified only part, neither part is nullified. The Gemara explains that the Mishna goes according to Rabbi Yishmael and then brings Rabbi Akiva and the rabbi's positions who each disagree with Rabbi Yishmael and with each other. From where do they each derive their opinions? If one didn't know that he could nullify his wife's/daughter's vows, even if he heard the vow earlier, he can nullify it on the day he learns that he can nullify it. But if he knew he could nullify but not that it was a vow that needed to be/could be nullified, Rabbi Meir and the rabbis disagree about whether he can/cannot nullify it later when he discovers that. Rabbi Meir's opinion here contradicts his opinion regarding a blind accidental murderer who is punished by having to go to a refuge city even though his knowledge was only partial, whereas, in our Mishna, Rabbi Meir agrees with the rabbis in the first case and considered partial knowledge only partial.

Nedarim 86 - January 19, 26 Tevet Jan 19, 2023

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sharon Mink in honor of the 40th anniversary of their Aliya.

Rav Huna son of Rabbi Yehoshua answered the contradiction in Shmuel's rulings by explaining that Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri's position is not a case where the woman is forbidding something that is not yet in the world as her vow refers to her hands and what they can create, and her hands are in this world. However, the Gemara points out that she is still referring to what her hands will create at a potential future point if and when she gets divorced and therefore it still should be considered something that is not yet in this world. In order to answer this question, several different rabbis suggest making comparisons to other cases. Each rejects the comparison of the previous one and suggests an alternative. In the end, all the comparisons are rejected as a woman getting divorced is not something that is clear will happen and not something in the woman's control. Rav Ashi suggests a different answer. Although the woman does not own her produce fully, she has the rights to forbid it as Rava said that three things can remove a lien that is on one's possessions: sanctifying it (which is similar to forbidding something by a vow), chametz on Pesach and freeing a slave. Even if one were to say the rabbi's strengthened the husband's rights to be more like a buyer's still the vow will take effect if and when he divorces her. If a man nullified his wife's/daughter's vow but was under a misimpression such as, he thought it was his wife who vowed, but it was in fact his daughter, or he thought she vowed to be a nazir but she vowed something else or he thought she vowed not to eat a certain type of food, but it was a different type, when he realizes his mistake, he needs to nullify the vow again.

Nedarim 85 - January 18, 25 Tevet Jan 18, 2023

Study Guide Nedarim 85

Today’s daf is sponsored by Laura Shechter in memory of her dear friend Daniel Maurice Ulmer, Moshe ben Shmuel and Sarah, on the occasion of his 3rd yahrzeit. “Daniel, your light lives on in the hearts of those who knew and loved you.” Today’s daf is sponsored by Leah Herzog in loving memory of her father, Dr. Rudolf Frisch, Reuven Abiya ben Mordechai v'Leah, on his 30th yahrzeit. “He was a brilliant man of pristine integrity who encouraged intellectual curiosity. Daddy, I miss you and love you. Yehi zichro baruch.” In trying to resolve the apparent contradiction between two lines in the Mishna, Rav Hoshaya suggests that each line reflects a different tannaitic opinion (found in a different source) regarding whether or not the benefit received from giving a gift to a Kohen/Levite can be considered to have financial value. However, the Gemara explains that the root of the debate in the other source is not about whether the benefit is considered to have financial value or not. First, the debate is explained differently, however, that interpretation is rejected as well. But finally, the debate is explained differently. Rava then answers the apparent contradiction in the Mishna in a different manner. If a woman forbids anything she produces to a particular individual, the husband cannot nullify that vow as it is neither affliction nor relating to his relationship with her. But if she vows that he will not benefit from anything she produces, there is a debate about whether he does not need to nullify, as she has committed in the marriage that he receives her produce, or he can nullify because what she produces beyond the basics is her own, or he can nullify now in case they later divorce. Shmuel holds by the last opinion. A contradiction is raised as this seems to imply one can sanctify something that does not yet exist and that contradicts a ruling of Shmuel elsewhere. A possible answer is suggested but immediately rejected. Rav Yosef brings an answer but Abaye rejects it. Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua brings a different answer.

Nedarim 84 - January 17, 24 Tevet Jan 17, 2023

Study Guide Nedarim 84

Today’s daf is sponsored by Adrienne Robb-Fund in honor of her friend and chavruta, Joanna Rom, on her birthday!

Today’s daf is sponsored by Idana Goldberg on the first yahrzeit of Meyer Weitz, Meir Ben Yehoshua v’Leah. “An Orthodox feminist, my grandfather was so proud of my gemara knowledge and even in his 101st year always asked what masechet I was learning.”

Rava challenged Rav Nachman from a different Mishna in the chapter which seemed to imply that the husband was included in a vow made against ‘all people’. The difficulty is resolved by distinguishing between the two Mishnayot. From our Mishna it has been established that a woman who vows to not benefit from others can collect the produce left in the fields but cannot collect produce from the tithe of the poor people. However, in the Tosefta the tithe for the poor people is added to the list with the other gifts for the poor. Rav Yosef suggests that the contradiction between the Mishna and the Tosefta can be resolved by connecting each source to a different tannaitic opinion. To prove this, he quotes a Mishna in Demai 4:3 which relates a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis regarding the obligation to separate the tithe for the poor from produce taken from an am haaeretz. He connects their opinions there to whether or not the one who separates the tithe for the poor can decide who they want to give it to which would then translate as still being “owned” by them. But Abaye rejects Rav Yosef’s explanation because he does not see the point of contention between them as Rav Yosef did. Rava offers a different resolution in that the Mishna and the Tosefta refer to two different cases of the tithe for the poor - one who set aside it from in the house and the one who set it aside in the threshing floor/field. From the one at home, the owner can choose who to give it to but the one in the field has to be left ownerless for anyone to come to take. In the Mishna, there were two laws regarding a woman who vows that Kohanim/Levites won’t benefit from her. From the first case, it can be inferred that getting to choose who to give the gifts to is not considered financial value. From the second case, the opposite can be inferred. Rav Hoshaya suggests that each case represents a different tannaitic opinion and he quotes a braita where those opinions appear and explains how the root of the debate there is the same as here.

Nedarim 83 - January 16, 23 Tevet Jan 16, 2023

Study Guide Nedarim 83

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sari Esserman in memory of her aunt Miriam bat Yosef Hakohen.

Today’s daf is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to their son Eliav and his wife Noia on becoming parents! "Celebrating the Shabbat brit together was very meaningful yehi ratzon that Shachar Yosef will always reach out to Hashem, in the spirit of the pasuk that his parents related to in choosing his name - in Yeshayahu Chapter 26 "נפשי אויתיך בלילה אף רוחי אשחרך", coupled with the memory of Debbie’s father – Yosef Gindsberg z"l, a unique and loving individual who epitomized the concept of Torah U'madda and beyond."

According to a second version, Rav Asi asked Rabbi Yochanan about a case where a woman vowed not to eat two loaves of bread and refraining from eating one is considered suffering, but from the other is not. Rabbi Yochanan answered that he only nullifies the one that causes her d suffering and not the other. A mishna and braita from Nazir are brought to raise difficulties with Rabbi Yochanan’s answer, but the difficulties are resolved. Rav Yosef explains the first difficulty, by saying there is a unique law by a nazir that there is no taking on bring a nazir in a partial manner. Abaye makes an inference from Rav Yosef's words and questions them and clarifies the statement Rav Yosef made. The Gemara then questions Abaye's reading as well but resolves it. The second difficulty is answered that both abstaining from drinking wine and refraining from becoming impure to the dead is considered suffering because he who eulogized, buries, cries for others, others will do it for them as well. If a woman forbids herself from benefitting from all people, the husband cannot nullify the vow because he is not included in all people, and in addition to that, she can take from gifts for the poor. This is one way to understand the words of the Mishna and that is assuming that the husband is not included in 'all people.' But there are two more ways to understand the words of the Mishna. In one they understand that the husband is included in 'all people' and she is actually forbidden to him as well and in the second it is assumed that the husband is not included in 'all people' and the two parts of the sentence in the Mishna speak of two different situations (a woman within the marriage and a woman after she has been divorced). If a woman has vowed that the Kohanim and Levites cannot benefit her, what happens to the gifts meant to be given to them from her produce?

Nedarim 82 - January 15, 22 Tevet Jan 15, 2023

Study Guide Nedarim 82

Today’s daf is sponsored by Shaindy Kurzmann in loving memory of her mother A"H, Rivkah bat HaRav Simcha Bunim, on her 24th yahrzeit. “With deep appreciation for her encouragement to always keep learning.”

Rava asks Rav Nachman if, according to the rabbis, a vow to refrain from sexual relations is considered an affliction of the soul or something that affects the relationship between the husband and wife. Rav Nachman tries to answer it from a Mishna that appears later in our chapter, but Rava rejects the proof based on Rav Huna's assertion that the rest of the chapter is all Rabbi Yosi's opinion. Shmuel says in the name of Levi that if a woman forbids herself from someone in particular the husband can nullify the vow. Two difficulties are raised against this from cases in our Mishna which seem very similar, yet the husband can nullify them. An answer is brought but is rejected. In the end, the answer is that the Mishna is Rabbi Yosi's opinion and Levi held by the rabbis. Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about a case where a woman vowed not to eat two loaves and refraining from eating one was considered affliction for her, but the other was not. One says that he nullifies the entire vow and the other says he only nullifies the one that was considered affliction.

Nedarim 81 - Shabbat January 14, 21 Tevet Jan 13, 2023

Today’s daf is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in memory of her mother Shirley Tydor, Sara Raizel bat Mordechai Yitzchak and Freida Sima on what would have been her 94th birthday. “May she be a melitzat yosher for her beloved granddaughters zivug hagun bikarov mamash.”

How is the contradiction between what Rabbi Yosi says in our Mishna and what Rabbi Yosi says regarding a spring shared by two cities reconciled? A distinction is made between the importance of having clean clothes, as dirty clothes can lead to madness, and a clean body, which does not cause the same. In the context of problems that arise from dirt, a statement was sent from Israel stating the importance of three things - cleanliness, good company, and teaching Torah to poor people. Why is it that many Torah scholars do not have sons who become Torah scholars? There are five different answers to this question. Isi bar Yehuda did not understand how Rabbi Yosi could have held that one city's laundry can take precedence over the other's life. Rabbi Yosi's son found a verse from which this can be derived. If Rabbi Yosi doesn't hold that refraining from bathing is an affliction of the soul, can the husband nullify that kind of vow anyway as it is something that can affect the relationship between husband and wife? Or does he not put it in that category? There is a debate among amoraim about this. A braita is brought to support the opinion that Rabbi Yosi would allow the husband to nullify that vow. Some questions arise from the braita quoted and they are answered. Rava asks Rav Nachman if a vow to refrain from sexual relations is considered an affliction of the soul or something that affects the relationship between the husband and wife.

Nedarim 80 - January 13, 20 Tevet Jan 13, 2023

Today’s daf is dedicated in honor of our daughter, Chani, upon finishing three and a half years of army service. We are proud of you daily for the dedication and hard work you have put in toward serving our country.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Heather Stone in memory of her father, Robert Stone, Yehuda Leib ben Naphtali Halevy marking eleven months since his death. “May his neshama have an aliya, b’zchut our continued learning.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Wendy Proskin on the occasion of her daughter, Orli Zucker's bat mitzvah this Shabbat, Parshat Shemot. “May you always be as brave as Shifrah and Puah. Thank you for being my chevruta! We love you, Mommy and Abba.”

The Gemara continues to detemine what the cases are in the Mishnah on which there is a debate "If I wash, if I don't wash, if I adorn myself, if I don't adorn myself." Eventually, it is explained that the cases of "if I do" is where she vows "Konam to me the pleasure of washing/adornin myself, if I will wash/adorn myself today" and the cases of "if not..." is an oath - an oath that I will not wash/adorn myself. How can rabbis claim that washing is torture for the soul when on Yom Kippur you don't receive a karet if you bathe? How can Rabbi Yosi say that refraining from bathing is not torture of the soul, when in Tosefta Bava Metzia in a different matter, he says that refraining from washing clothes is considered torture for the soul to the extent that he puts the same weight on that as on water for surviving?

Nedarim 79 - January 12, 19 Tevet Jan 12, 2023

Today’s daf is sponsored by Linda Freedman in honor of her mother's birthday. “Happiest of birthdays to Mom, Buby Selmy, the great one, Thelma Pultman, for your 96th birthday and a healthy, happy year to come. From your 3 daughters, Linda Freedman, Sheila Strulowitz, and Gwen Lerner, your 9 grandchildren and their spouses, and your 28 great grands, with one in the oven." Another four difficulties are raised against Rabbi Chanina's position that a husband can push off nullifying vows of his wife for up to ten days in order to rebuke her. One of them is resolved and three remain as a difficulty. There is a debate between tanna kama and Rabbi Yosi as to what vows are considered i'nui nefesh, an affliction of the soul, that a husband can nullify. Is not washing or not adorning oneself considered an affliction of the soul? What is the difference between vows a husband can nullify because they are an affliction of the soul and vows he can nullify because they are negatively affecting the relationship between him and his wife? After some deliberation, they explain that the first category is nullified forever and the second is only nullified until he is no longer connected to her, which means, until they divorce and she marries someone us, thus prohibiting the first husband from being able to remarry her. The Mishna mentions a vow of affliction as "If I wash/adorn myself" "If I don't wash/adorn myself." The Gemara tries to ascertain what was the full language of the vow taken. One suggestion is raised and it is rejected.

Nedarim 78 - January 11, 18 Tevet Jan 11, 2023

Today’s daf is sponsored by Yaffa Wenner in memory of her father, David ben Rab Shaya Meir Hakohen on his 26th yahrzeit. “May his neshama have an aliya, b’zchut our continued learning.” Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family in memory of Leroy Muzzey, beloved father of Deborah Hoffman Wade and in memory of her chevruta, Simcha Elisheva bat Avraham v’Sarah. “May your memories and your learning bring you nechama.”

A gezeira shava (comparison of two different sections where the same words are used) is made between the section of vows and the section dealing with one who slaughters an animal for a sacrifice outside of the Temple/Tabernacle from the words ‘ze hadavar’ that appear in both sections. From the comparison, it is derived that vows can be annulled with three regular people (not judges) and that if one slaughters an animal that was sanctified, one can annul the sanctification and thus avoid the karet punishment. Beit Shamai doesn’t hold by the rule about annulling sanctification so they conclude that he must not hold by the gezeira shava. If so, what do they learn from ‘ze hadavar’ in each of these sections? From where do they derive the law that three regular people can annul vows? It is derived from the verses of the holidays – as the holidays are differentiated from vows – holidays require judges to determine their sanctity (by declaring the new moon) while vows do not. Rabbi Chanina brings an exception to the rule that the husband must cancel his wife’s vows on the day he hears them. If he wants to rebuke her first for vowing, he can push off the nullification for up to ten days. Rava raises a difficulty with Rabbi Chanina’s statement from the Tosefta, but it is resolved.

Nedarim 77 - January 10, 17 Tevet Jan 10, 2023

Today's daf is sponsored by Cheryl & Avi Savitsky and family on the occasion of the 39th yahrzeit of Cheryl's father – Dr. Steven F. Stein – Shimon Feivish ben Yisroel Yitzchak Ha'Cohen, whose simchat ha'chaim was palpable to anyone who met him and is something we strive to emulate that each and every day. Today’s daf is sponsored by Rachel and Oren Seliger in memory of Rachel’s father, Allen Kronisch, Avner Yosef Ben Yehuda Arye and Zlata Priva, on his 33rd yahrzeit. . “Too many years have passed. Always thinking of you! You would be so proud of your children learning Daf Yomi. Our father was a chozer b'teshuva and was always in admiration of those that learned the Daf.” One can only have their vows annulled (through a chacham/beit din) on Shabbat if it is for Shabbat. What about a husband/father who wants to nullify his wife's/daughter's vows on Shabbat? Is it also only permitted if necessary for Shabbat? A braita is brought which says they can only be nullified for the sake of Shabbat. however, Rav Ashi questions this from our Mishna. The conclusion is that it is a subject of debate among tannaim, and connects with the two opinions about whether one has twenty-four hours or just until nightfall to nullify her vows. One can nullify vows if it is for Shabbat, but does this include vows that could have been annulled before Shabbat and the person just didn't take care of it? A proof is brought from a story that it can still be done. Rav Yosef didn't want to allow people to annul in front of three men on Shabbat as this has the semblance of a court, which cannot convene on Shabbat. However, Abaye showed that since so many elements necessary for a court are not necessary for annulling vows, it does not have the semblance of a court. What are all those elements? Can one nullify vows at night? Another story is told of one who was reprimanded by the rabbis when he came to annul his vow that he is a sinner for taking vows in the first place. What wording can/cannot be used to nullify a wife's/daughter's vow? How does the wording need to be different on Shabbat? Why? What if the wording used for nullification was switched to the wording used to annulment or vice-versa?

Nedarim 76 - January 9, 16 Tevet Jan 09, 2023

English Study Guide Nedarim 76

Nedarim 75 - January 8, 15 Tevet Jan 08, 2023

English Study Guide Nedarim 75

Today's daf is sponsored by Anina, Plia, and Gordon Marx in honor of Sara Marx’s birthday. "We love you so much and are so inspired by your learning!"

Nedarim 74 - Shabbat January 7, 14 Tevet Jan 06, 2023

Study Guide Nedarim 74

Today’s daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in memory of her father Yoel Halevi ben Mayer & Rivka Fromm. “A teenage holocaust survivor from Buchenwald, Aba arrived alone in Canada searching for his schlichut in life. He had a beautiful voice which he pierced the heavens Shabbat, Chag & zmirot. He dedicated his life to Torah and gmilut chasadim. As a member of the Kashrut Committee was instrumental in importing many kosher items to Montreal. Any loving advice was spiced with midrashim. He challenged my thirst for learning. I miss his special nigunim. He was my guiding light."

If a woman is supposed to do levirate marriage with the brother of her deceased husband, does the yabam, the brother, allowed to nullify her vows? There are three opinions in the Mishna. The Mishna records a conversation between the three of them, each trying to prove his opinion. The Gemara explains each side, particularly as they relate to a debate in Yevamot about whether or not there is zika, a strong connection between the couple before levirate marriage is actually performed. However, Rabbi Eliezer's opinion is questioned as he permits the yabam to nullify even if there is only one brother. Rabbi Ami explains that Rabbi Eliezer holds this only if the yabam performed maamar (something similar to betrothal for a yibum situation). And that he holds by Beit Shamai who holds that maamar is a really act of acquiring. Two (or possibly three) difficulties are raised against Rabbi Ami but are resolved. The Tosefta is then quoted to support Rabbi Ami's understanding.

Nedarim 73 - January 6, 13 Tevet Jan 06, 2023

Today’s daf is sponsored by Catriella Freedman in memory of her mother Gerda Stein, Freida bat Fruma on her 5th yahrzeit. “Her dedication to scholarship and knowledge has been my inspiration.”

If one can nullify even vows they did not hear, can a deaf person nullify vows - does he need to be able to hear even if he didn't actually hear or is hearing not an issue at all? Can a husband nullify two wives' vows at the exact same time? The answers to both these questions are derived from the language used in the verses in the Torah. Rabbi Eliezer holds that a woman who has reached the stage of maturity called 'bogeret' or has waited the time after betrothal when the husband already assumes financial responsibility, he can nullify her vows. The rabbis disagree and only permit nullification after marriage. Rabbi says that Rabbi Eliezer matches the opinion of the early version of the Mishna in Ketubot 57a which states that after twelve months of betrothal, a woman betrothed to a kohen can eat truma. Abaye disagrees and explains why the two issues are not necessarily connected.

Nedarim 72 - January 5, 12 Tevet Jan 05, 2023

Study Guide Nedarim 72

Nedarim 71 - January 4, 11 Tevet Jan 04, 2023

Study Guide Nedarim 71

Today’s daf is sponsored by Elisa Hartstein in loving memory of her father Malcolm Minsk, Mordechai Nachum ben Tzvi v’Chaya Bluma, for whom she completes 11 months of kaddish today and who she misses very much. "Thanks to my kaddish buddies including daffers Judi and Emma for their support and companionship."

The Mishnah stated that if a woman vowed while betrothed then divorced and got engaged on the same day, her father and new husband can annul the vow. Shmuel brings a proof from a verse to show that this is also true for vows that the first fiancé already knew about. The Gemara brings the Tosefta to support Shmuel's opinion. It emerges from the Tosefta that Beit Shammai believes that it is not possible for a second fiancé to break vows known to the first fiancé, but Beit Hillel holds that he can. The Gemara asks a question: If a husband divorces his wife, is the divorce considered a ratification of the vow or as silence? In what case would there be relevance to this question?

Nedarim 70 - January 3, 10 Tevet Jan 03, 2023

If the husband/father ratified the vow by saying, "it will be ratified today," does that mean he means to nullify it for tomorrow? And if that is in fact the case, can he ratify for the day and then nullify for tomorrow? If that is not possible, as perhaps once ratified, it cannot be nullified, then if he says "It is nullified to you for tomorrow" did that mean 'I am ratifying it today and nullifying tomorrow' which is not valid or since he did not use any language of ratification, the nullification works? If it does not work, as it was ratified for the first day, which is the critical day, what if one ratified it only for an hour, would it be assumed that he meant that he was nullifying it after that and if so, would the nullification be able to work in that case as it is still the day he heard the vow? The Gemara tries to answer the last question from a Mishna in Nazir but the answer is rejected. The next Mishna compares the power of the father and fiance/husband when it comes to nullifying vows. If the husband dies, the father exclusively can nullify the vow, but if the father dies, the fiance cannot nullify vows that were made before his death. But when it comes to age, the husband is in a stronger position as he can nullify even once she is a bogeret and the father cannot. From what verse do we learn that the fiance doesn't get exclusive rights to nullify previous vows if the father dies? From what verse do we learn that the father does get exclusive rights to nullify previous vows if the fiance dies? What exactly is the case the Mishna is referring to where the husband can nullify exclusively if she is a bogeret? It is not a case where he betrothed her when she was not yet a bogeret and then she became a bogeret as the Gemara derives from a logical comparison of laws. But if the case is when he betrothed her when she was already a bogeret, that appears already in an upcoming Mishna? Two possible explanations are brought to explain why both Mishnayot are needed even though they teach the same halakha.

Nedarim 69 - January 2, 9 Tevet Jan 02, 2023

Today’s daf is sponsored by Mark Baker in honor his wife Shoshana on their 29th wedding anniversary. “Marriage is enhanced with daf yomi in the mix. Love Mark.”

Nedarim 68 - January 1, 8 Tevet Jan 01, 2023

Study Guide Nedarim 68

A braita is brought from the school of Rabbi Yishmael to bring an alternative source for the halacha in the Mishna, that the father and the fiance both (together) annul the vows of a betrothed woman. How does he explain the verse that Raba used for his proof? How does Raba explain the verse that Rabbi Yishmael used for his proof? When a fiance annuls part of the vow, is it that he annuls half the vow and the father will come and annul the second part or is it that he weakens the vow and the father then annuls what is left of the weakened vow? Before answering the question, the Gemara explains a case in which the question was asked, i.e. what would be the ramification. A braita that explains the upcoming Mishna is brought to answer the question. The subject of the braita is cases in which the father or the fiance died - in which cases can the one who is still alive annul a vow that happened before the death of the other on his own and in which cases is this not permitted?

Nedarim 67 - Shabbat December 31, 7 Tevet Dec 30, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 67

When a woman is betrothed, both her father and her finance together can annul her vows. From where is this derived? Raba learns it from a verse in Bamidbar 30:7. The Gemara raises three difficulties against his proof, but resolves them, while analyzing the three sections in that chapter regarding the annulment of a woman's vows at different stages of her life.

Nedarim 66 - December 30, 6 Tevet Dec 30, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Hannah Pasternak-Shames in honor of her sister Sarah. “She has been studying the daf since Brachot 2. Wishing her a happy birthday!”

If one vowed against a food or drink, a petach can be made regarding Shabbat and Yom Tov, such as, had I realized I would have to keep the vow also on those days, I never would have made the vow, then it can be dissolved specifically for those days. However, Rabbi Akiva ruled that once it is partially dissolved, the whole vow is dissolved. A number of examples are brought to illustrate cases in which this principle applies. The Mishna differentiated between a case where one vowed with a separate vow term (karban) against a group of people (each vow needs to be dissolved separately) and when one vowed against a group of people as a group (if one dissolved the vow partially, it is entirely dissolved). Which tannatic opinion does this follow? Another option of a petach is if one vowed against his wife and therefore he would need to divorce her. If he claims he didn't realize that it would affect the way people looked at him or his children, he can dissolve the vow on those grounds. A vow that was a mistake, such as vowing not to marry a woman because she is ugly, but it turned out that she was beautiful, there is no need even to dissolve the vow as it is not a vow. A story is told of Rabbi Yishmael who took a woman in a situation like this and made her beautiful so that the man would marry her. He believed that all women are beautiful and that poverty made them seem ugly. When he died, the woman of Israel sang a lamentation for him. Does the story of Rabbi Yishmael contradict the halacha in the Mishna? A number of different stories are brought of men who vowed against their wives if they did not do something either humiliating to them in front of rabbis or humiliating to the rabbis. In each of the cases, the rabbis acted humbly in order to rectify a situation of shalom bayit, relationship between husband and wife.

Nedarim 65 - December 29, 5 Tevet Dec 29, 2022

This week’s learning is sponsored by Naomi Oxman in honor of Rabbanit Michelle. “Toda Rabah to Rabbanit Michelle and the entire Hadran community for your energy, hard work, ongoing commitment and inspiration.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Judi Felber on the fourth yahrzeit of Yovel MorYosef and Yossi Cohen, who were killed in a terror attack at Givat Assaf and for the continued refuah shleima of her son, Netanel Ilan ben Shayna Tzipora, who was critically injured in the attack.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Patti Evans on the second yahrzeit of her mother, Gloria Weisman. "Mom's sparkle shines no less now than when she was with us. We feel her love and support all around, as her memory is indeed a blessing."

One who vows against another must dissolve the vow in the presence of the person. The Gemara brings two proofs for this: from Moshe Rabbeinu and Zedekiah the king who dissolved a vow he made to Nebuchadnezzar. The Mishna brings the opinion of Rabbi Meir who speaks of a different category in the dissolving of vows – using a petach of something that is considered nolad but not really considered nolad. What are examples of this category? Did the sages agree with him? The rabbis have two different interpretations to understand why Rabbi Meir permits this type of petach. The Gemara raises a difficulty for one of the opinions and there is no resolution. You can use a verse in the Torah for a petach such as: Did you know that by making the vow you went against the verse, "You shall not hate your brother in your heart." If the person one vowed against became poor, one can use a petach: Did you know that by making the vow you would violate the verse "and your brother will live with you." If someone made a vow against his wife that required him to divorce her, we can suggest a petach by mentioning the ketubah payment (if you knew that you had to pay her the amount in the ketubah, would you have made a vow). The Mishna brings a story that illustrates the use of this law. The Gemara raises several questions about the story from the law of ketubah and other monetary laws.

Nedarim 64 - December 28, 4 Tevet Dec 28, 2022

When one wants to dissolve a vow, one goes to a chacham and they can suggest possible reasons why one would never have made the vow in the first place had they known something that... This is called a petach. There is a debate between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis whether is it possible to offer a petach regarding the honor of one's father or mother (if you had known that your vow would have a negative effect on how people look at your father/mother...) and for something that was not in the world at the time of the vow and was not expected (nolad). The rabbis forbid and raise difficulty for Rabbi Eliezer that if they allow such a petach (for father and mother), one will also think that one can they will also allow an opening for respect of God and that surely that is impossible! Why is it impossible? There is a dispute between Abaye and Raba to explain. Rav Chisda brings a source to prove Rabbi Eliezer's permitting nolad from God who permitted Moshe's vow according to something that had not happened and was not expected: "For all the people who seek your soul have died." The rabbis understand that they didn't actually die, just became poor and if so, it is not a case of nolad. The Gemara cites a source that says there are four types of people who are likened to the dead - a person who has no children, a leper, a poor person and a blind person. What are the verses from which it can be proven that all of these are likened to the dead?

Nedarim 63 - December 27, 3 Tevet Dec 27, 2022

This month’s learning is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his grandfather Ya’akov ben Shlomo.

This week’s learning is sponsored by the Hadran Woman of Long Island for a refuah shleima for Dovid ben Aidel, husband to our leader and daf sister, Gitta.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Debra Antzis in memory of her father, Rabbi Norman Antzis, Menachem Nachum ben Yisrael and Blima Phrimit, whose yahrzeit is today. יש זהב ורב פנינים וכלי יקר שפתי דעת הנשמה לך והגוף פעלך חוסה על עמלך.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Laura and Mark Warshawsky in honor of the marriage of their son Avi to Malki Infield.

Today's daf is sponsored by Catriella Freedman in honor of Julie Mendelsohn and her family in celebration of Noah Mendelsohn and Hadas Koler's wedding Mazal tov!

There is a debate in the Mishna regarding one who vows "until the rains" - is it until the beginning of the second rain when they actually arrive or until the date known as the time for the second rain. Rabbi Zeira says they do not disagree in the case of one who vowed until 'the rain' (in singular form) as that certainly connotes the date the rains are supposed to come. A difficulty is raised against him from the Tosefta but is resolved. The Mishna deals with what happens in a leap year. If one vowed for this year, the leap month is included. If one vowed until Adar, it is referring to the first Adar. Does the Mishna only accord with Rabbi Yehuda's opinion that Adar without a descriptor is the first Adar? Or can the Mishna be explained according to Rabbi Meir as well? Rabbi Yehuda holds that if one vowed from wine until it will be Pesach, which usually means the end of Pesach, one is permitted to drink wine on Pesach as we assume because of the mitzva of drinking wine on the first night, one meant until the beginning of Pesach. Similarly, if one vowed not to eat meat until the night of the fast, they would be permitted to eat meat before the fast. Rabbi Yosi adds the same for garlic on Shabbat, based on the takana of Ezra that people should eat garlic on Friday nights. A number of examples are brought in the Mishna of vows that do not need a chacham to undo or only apply in a limited manner, as one can explain the fulfillment of the vow in some other way.

Nedarim 62 - December 26, 2 Tevet Dec 26, 2022

If one vows until the summer (kayitz), it is understood as referring to the fig harvest. If the language connotes the end of the season, the indicator of that is when they put aside the miktzuot to be used the next year. What are miktzuot? There are other laws connected to this putting aside the miktzuot - people can collect what was left in the fields and the food is exempt from tithes as it is considered ownerless. A number of stories are brought in which some people ate from other people’s fields at this time of the year but others were not willing to. Why not? Rabbi Tarfon was attacked and almost killed for eating in someone’s field at this time of the season. Why did the owner want to kill him if it was permitted for him to eat the produce? How did he save himself? Rabbi Tarfon in the end was upset with himself that he used the fact that he was a Torah scholar to save himself as one is not allowed to use the crown of Torah. What are the exceptions to this rule? In what ways are Talmud scholars treated like kohanim? What respect is awarded to kohanim and from where is this derived? If one vows until the harvest, it is assumed the vow was referring to the wheat harvest, unless it is more common in that area to be harvesting barley. If one vows until the rains, or until there will be rains, there is a debate whether this is referring to a particular time (when the second rains are expected) or until the second rains actually fall. If one vows until the end of the rains, there is a debate whether that means until the end of Passover or until the end of the month of Nissan.

Nedarim 61 - Rosh Chodesh Tevet, December 25, 1 Tevet Dec 25, 2022

If one vowed until the jubilee year, does that include the jubilee year or not? This is based on a more general debate regarding the jubilee year - is it considered both the end of the previous cycle of seven shmita cycles and as the first year in the next shmita cycle or only as the last year and not as the first year. How are the verses in the Torah used by each side to prove their opinion? If one said ‘until lifnei Pesach’ there is a debate whether that means until it starts or until it ends. Their debate is based on whether or not you hold that one puts oneself into situations of doubt. However, this stands in complete contradiction to a Mishna in Kiddushin 64b where each of the rabbis in our Mishna holds the opposite position. This is resolved by suggesting that the opinions in our Mishna are flipped. In what way do we differentiate between one who limited the time on one’s vow to something that has a set time (like a holiday) or something that does not have a set time (like the harvest)?

Nedarim 60 - Shabbat Rosh Chodesh December 24, 30 Kislev Dec 23, 2022

The Gemara raises a difficulty against Rabbi Yanai’s opinion about truma being nullified when planted. However, the difficulty is resolved. The seventh chapter begins with a discussion of vows that have a time limit. If the time limit is today, when does that end? If it is ‘one day’ when does that end? What about 'this month' or 'one month', etc.? Even though a vow for ‘today’ ends at nightfall, Rabbi Yirmia still required one to go to a chacham to permit the vow. Why? The Gemara questions some of the cases in the Mishna as they seem to be obvious. If one said it is forbidden for ‘day’ - is that treated like a vow for ‘one day’ or for ‘today’?

Nedarim 59 - December 23, 29 Kislev Dec 23, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 59

Today’s daf is sponsored by Valerie Farber in commemoration of her father's 9th yahrzeit, Dr. Lawrence Kaufman. “A man of Tora v’avoda. He was a renowned scientist and loved attending Rav Soleveitchik’s shiurim in Boston. Yehi Zichro Baruch. Rami bar Hama raises a question from our Mishna against those who hold that the growths nullify the original part that was planted. However, our Mishna is explained as a unique case as a neder can be undone, and therefore it is considered an item that will be permitted and rules of nullification do not apply. However, truma also can be undone and it is subject to laws of nullification. After two unsuccessful attempts to reexplain a Mishna in Trumot to be a case where the truma can’t be undone, in the end, the Gemara distinguishes between truma and vows as vows should be undone and that is not true by truma. Raba quotes Rabbi Yochanan also stating that the growths nullify the original. Rav Chisda questioned this but Raba proves Rabbi Yochanan’s opinion from a Mishna. However, Rav Chisda explained the Mishna differently in a way that would prove his point. But Raba was still able to support his claim by distinguishing between the cases.

Nedarim 58 - December 22, 28 Kislev Dec 22, 2022

A question was asked regarding nullification of sanctity of the sabbatical year when an onion picked in the seventh year was replanted in the eighth year. After a few sources were brought to answer the question in Nedarim 57, the Gemara continues to quote other sources in an attempt to answer the question. Most of the sources and rejected, however in the end, a source is brought from which one can learn that the sabbatical year onion is nullified if replanted in the eighth year. However, how can this be reconciled with the opinions of Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yonatan who brought sources proving the opposite in Nedarim 57? A distinction is made between shmita on the one hand and maaser, orla and mixed breeds.

Nedarim 57 - December 21, 27 Kislev Dec 21, 2022

What language of a vow will mean that not only the item is forbidden but if one trades it in, the other item will be forbidden and if one plants it, what grows from there will also be forbidden? What language will not be applied to the traded item or the growth? To what type of seeds is this referring? If a man forbade items his wife made until a certain period of time, if the time was associated with the use of the item, it will be permitted after that time. But if the time frame was about the creation of the item, then if it was created in that time frame, it will be forbidden forever. What happens when one made a vow upon condition – you will be forbidden to benefit from me for x amount of time if you do something for y period of time. The Mishna brings a case where x is shorter than y and one where y is shorter than x and explains the differences between the law in each case. A question was asked regarding the nullification of the sanctity of the sabbatical year when an onion picked in the seventh year was replanted in the eighth year. Is the sanctity that is in the small piece of onion that was planted nullified in the growth from the eighth year which does not have sanctity? Various opinions are brought regarding similar situations relating to laws of teruma, orla and mixed breeds. But some show nullification works and others show it does not work.

Nedarim 56 - December 20, 26 Kislev Dec 20, 2022

Today’s learning is dedicated by the Hadran Zoom group in honor of Miriam Kerzner. "Nearly every late night from Toronto, Canada, she joins us for the daily Daf Yomi. Miriam has inspired us, showing through example how a commitment to lifelong learning and Jewish values can be expressed at any age. We've missed your quiet presence and look forward to your rejoining us very soon! With love from the Hadran Zoom Family."

Today’s daf is sponsored by Naomi Oxman in memory of Bubaleh on her 4th yahrzeit. “You’d love this masechet, it’s about the importance of keeping your words. One of your core values. Miss you mucho!”

Today’s daf is dedicated for the refuah of Gidon ben Sima.

If one vows from the house, does that include the attic? What about the reverse? A comparison is made to laws of leprosy in the house. Can one distinguish between the cases? Why? Another comparison is made to laws of sales. Can these actually be compared? If one vows from using a bed, is a dargash permitted? What about the reverse? What is a dargash? Ulla suggests it is a good luck bed. However several difficulties are raised against this explanation. Some of the difficulties are resolved. Rav Tachlifa suggests a different explanation - that it is a leather bed. What is the difference then between a bed and a dargash? The difference lies in the way the leather is tied onto the wooden base. If one vows against entering into the city, does that include the techum (2,000 cubits outside the city) of the city or the ibur (70 and 2/3 cubits outside the city) of the city? If one vows against entering into the house, is the doorway outside the line of the door considered part of the house? We derive from verses in Yehoshua and the Torah that the ibur is considered part of the city but the techum is not. The Mishna's ruling on the doorway is questioned by laws of leprosy of the house. However, the comparison is not relevant as laws of leprosy are unique based on derivation from the verses, which would have no bearing on definitions of what is considered outside the house for laws of vows.

Nedarim 55 - December 19, 25 Kislev Dec 19, 2022

This week’s learning is sponsored by Rella Feldman in loving memory of Dr. Charles Feldman on his 11th yahrzeit, 2nd day of Chanuka. “Beloved husband, father & saba, devoted doctor & community leader. Learning sustained him during his illness & he’d be proud of his family members devoted to daily learning.” Today’s daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson and Arthur Gould in loving memory of Carol’s father Louis Robinson, Yehuda Leib ben Moshe z”l. “Today – the first day of Hanukkah – we mark his 23rd yahrzeit. Louis was a devoted family man and active participant in his synagogue. We love him and miss him very much."

Nedarim 54 - December 18, 24 Kislev Dec 18, 2022

This week's learning is sponsored by Jeremy Zucker in honor of his wife Wendy Proskin. "So proud of you during this season of Thanksgiving!" This week’s learning is sponsored by Ora Canter for a refuah shleima of Meir ben Mala. “Always so supportive of my learning – May HaShem give him the strength to endure and fully recover." Today's daf is sponsored by Elisheva Gray in honor of Hadran. “Todah rabah, Rabbanit Michelle, and the Hadran team, for illuminating the pages of Talmud through your dedicated and inspiring teaching. You bring so much light to our learning and to our lives. Chag Urim Sameach to everyone at Hadran and to all of my fellow learners.”

One who vowes from vegetables, can they eat gourd? There is a debate between Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis about this. All agree that if one was sent as a messenger to buy vegetables and they didn't have vegetables, but only gourd, they would ask the one who sent them saying, "They have no vegetables but they do have gourd. Would you like me to buy that instead?" The debate is: does that show that it is not a type of vegetable since they would need to ask (the rabbi's position), or does it show that it is a type of vegetable because if it was not, they wouldn't have been able to be suggested as a substitution (Rabbi Akiva's position)? A Mishna in Meila is quoted, regarding a case of a messenger who was sent to serve meat but served liver instead. If the liver was sanctified and the messenger didn't know, the meila transgression (misuse of consecrated property) would be on the messenger as the messenger did not do as he was supposed to. Can this be explained also according to Rabbi Akiva who would hold based on our Mishna that liver and meat are considered the same since if one was sent for meat, one would ask if they could get liver instead? Abaye explains how one could even read the Mishna to correspond to Rabbi Akiva's position as even Rabbi Akiva would expect the messenger to have at least checked first with the one who sent him and in this case, he did not. Therefore, the responsibility (and therefore the transgression) is on the messenger. A braita is brought to show that the position of the one who disagrees with Rabbi Akiva in our Mishna is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. The tanna who disagrees with him in the braita holds that if one vowed not to eat meat, one could not eat chicken as well, but could eat fish. The Gemara challenges this distinction. In order to answer the challenge, two possible suggestions are made for an ukimta to the Mishna, establishing it in a particular case where one would not be able to eat fish.

Nedarim 53 - Shabbat December 17, 23 Kislev Dec 16, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 53

If one vows not to eat dates, does that include date honey? Do “late grapes” include vinegar made from those kinds of grapes? There are three opinions in the Mishna regarding these cases. The language one uses for a vow matches the customary use of the word in the place where one lives. The Mishna and braitot provide several examples of this. One of the examples related to the word ‘vegetables’ and whether or not it included garden vegetables or vegetables grown in the wild. This depends on which year in the shmita cycle the vow was made. It also depends on whether one lived in a place where they brought in regular vegetables from abroad in the shmita year. Why did some places not bring in vegetables from abroad? The Mishna brings more cases of the wording of vows – a general term would include a more specific type, but a specific term would not include the general one. What is the difference between saying ‘wheat’ in the singular or in the plural form?

Nedarim 52 - December 16, 22 Kislev Dec 16, 2022

This month’s learning is sponsored by the Hadran women of LI for a refuah shleima of Meir ben Mala and Tinok ben Yarden.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Ira and Natanya Slomowitz for the 2nd yahrzeit of Ira’s mother, Ahuva bat Rivka and Asher Tzvi.

What are the laws regarding derivatives from items forbidden by a vow? If one vows on something in general, the derivatives are usually not forbidden unless one says "this particular piece of food" in which case, derivatives of that piece of food will be forbidden if the taste of is noticeable. The Ra"N has a very important interpretation of how laws of nullification work as he questions why if a vow is something that will ultimately be permitted, how can laws of nullification work? Rami bar Hama questions whether the language that would forbid derivatives is specifically "this piece of" or "that I won't taste"? The Gemara attempts to answer the question by bringing four different sources, but in the end, they do not find an answer.

Nedarim 51 - December 15, 21 Kislev Dec 15, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored by Margo Kossoff Shizgal in honor of the aliya of her parents, Sinclair and Helen Kossof.

After Rebbi invites bar Kapara to his son's wedding, he warns him not to make him laugh. Bar Kapara is not able to keep from not being funny and causes Rebbi to laugh. Then, at a party the following day for Rebbi's son's wedding, bar Kapara humiliates Rebbi with questions regarding the definition of words from the verses relating to forbidden relations. It is so infuriating how he humiliates Rebbi, that the daughter of Rebbi and her husband, Ben Elasa storm out. Ben Elasa, was a wealthy man who was known for having a unique haircut as the high priests did. The following Mishnas discuss the language of vows related to food preparation - which wording is considered more specific and limited to specific things and which is more general? When there is a difference between the interpretation of a word in the Bible and in the days of the Mishna/Gemara, we follow the usage of the word in the time of the Mishna/Gemara because vows followed the language used at the time.

Nedarim 50 - Secember 14, 20 Kislev Dec 14, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Helen Danczak in loving memory of her father on his 31st Yahrzeit. "When I think of him, I remember his gentle nature, his love of family, and his support of Jewish causes." Today’s daf is sponsored by Ilana Friedman in memory of her grandmother’s yahrzeit, Chaya Chana bat HaRav Avraham Yaacov. “She was a true eishet chayil and baalat chessed. I still miss her 38 years later." Today's daf is sponsored by Esther Kremer in memory of her father, Manny Gross, Yehuda Menachem ben Avraham to mark the end of his shloshim. A story is told of Rabbi Yehuda showing his poverty but also his pride in not wanting to take from anyone else and his satisfaction with what he had. Rabbi Akiva was also living in poverty with his wife as his father-in-law, Kalba Savua disowned his daughter (vowed that she not benefit from him) Rachel when she married the unlearned shepherd, Akiva. They also lived in poverty but were satisfied with what they had. Rabbi Akiva went away at her encouragement to learn for twelve years. Upon returning, he overheard her talking to an evil person who was advising her to divorce her husband, and she said that she would be happy if he went to learn for another twelve years. Rabbi Akiva heard this and went right back to learn for twelve more years. Upon his return with a huge entourage of people and 24,000 students, when they tried to push his wife away (as they didn't realize she was his wife), he said that she gets all the credit for his and his student's knowledge. Kalba Savua asked Rabbi Akiva to annul his vow, which he did. Rabbi Akiva then became rich and another five incidents, listed in the Gemara, also gave him more wealth. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chanania was very ugly and the emperor's daughter mocked him, saying that how can Torah be placed in such an ugly vessel. He answered that Torah is best kept in an ugly vessel, just as wine is best not stored in fancy gold and silver utensils. Another woman who was unhappy with a ruling of Rav Yehuda against her in court, mocked his rabbi, Shmuel about his appearance. Rav Yehuda excommunicated her and she subsequently died. What is an egg tortima, mentioned in the Mishna? How is it prepared and what unique healing capabilities does it have? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (Rebbi) made a wedding party for his son and didn't invite bar Kapara. After being reprimanded, he invited bar Kapara. The Gemara proceeds to tell other stories between Rebbi and bar Kapara to better understand the nature of their relationship.

Nedarim 49 - December 13, 19 Kislev Dec 13, 2022

Today's daf is dedicated to the refuah shleima of Avraham Pinchas ben Yaffa.

If someone vowed not to eat 'cooked' foods, what is included? What about a 'cooked dish'? What does it depend on? Abaye states that everything cooked and eaten with bread was called a 'cooked dish'. A braita is brought to strengthen his words and there it appears that it was recommended to sick people to eat cooked gourd. The Gemara tells a story about Rabbi Yirmia when he was sick where it is written that gourd is very unhealthy for one who is sick. The Gemara brings three possible resolutions. The Babylonians had different eating customs and would eat thick porridge with bread. From there, the Gemara delves into all kinds of eating customs - such as should you eat porridge with your fingers? There is a conversation between two rabbis who ate from the same bowl - one with his fingers and the other with a fork and each was angry with the other. There are three stories with Rabbi Yehuda that someone (a rabbi, Roman matron, and a heretic) asked him why his face is red and healthy - each asking in a different manner. To each one he answered something different. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon carried things to the Beit Midrash to sit on them and said "Great is labor that honors the one who labors." Rabbi Yehuda had one cloak that both he and his wife shared.

Nedarim 48 - December 12, 18 Kislev Dec 12, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored by Deborah Schabes in memory of her mother’s yahrzeit, Judith Schoenfeld Schabes. Today’s daf is sponsored by Ilana Friedman in memory of Yosef Eliezer Ben Chaim whose shloshim recently passed. “He was a devoted Torah scholar and my best friend’s father – someone dear to my heart." If one is forbidden to benefit from another, they can benefit from public spaces that were made ownerless, but not from ones that are owned by the people in the city. What can be done to rectify this situation? If one cannot benefit from another but needs food, the other person can give the food as a gift to someone else, and then the one who is vowed not to benefit can take the food from them. However, a story is told of a son whose father couldn't benefit from him and the son was marrying off his own son and wanted the father to attend the wedding. He gifted his meal and courtyard to someone else and said that he was doing it in order to allow his father to eat. The person he gave it to did not like being used in order to allow them to go against their vow and therefore sanctified it all to the Temple. After this, the rabbis said that if one gives a gift in a limited manner that the other will not be able to sanctify it if they want, then it is not a valid gift. The Gemara brings a story of a father who vowed that his son not benefit from him, but then wanted to give his property to his son in order to give it to his grandson in the event that the grandson becomes a Torah scholar. Is this possible? In Pumbedita they ruled that it didn't work and Rav Nachman ruled that it did. Rav Ashi and Rava raised difficulties for Rav Nachman. He answered Rava's question with two possible answers.

Nedarim 48 - December 12, 18 Kislev Dec 12, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored by Deborah Schabes in memory of her mother’s yahrzeit, Judith Schoenfeld Schabes. Today’s daf is sponsored by Ilana Friedman in memory of Yosef Eliezer Ben Chaim whose shloshim recently passed. “He was a devoted Torah scholar and my best friend’s father – someone dear to my heart." If one is forbidden to benefit from another, they can benefit from public spaces that were made ownerless, but not from ones that are owned by the people in the city. What can be done to rectify this situation? If one cannot benefit from another but needs food, the other person can give the food as a gift to someone else, and then the one who is vowed not to benefit can take the food from them. However, a story is told of a son whose father couldn't benefit from him and the son was marrying off his own son and wanted the father to attend the wedding. He gifted his meal and courtyard to someone else and said that he was doing it in order to allow his father to eat. The person he gave it to did not like being used in order to allow them to go against their vow and therefore sanctified it all to the Temple. After this, the rabbis said that if one gives a gift in a limited manner that the other will not be able to sanctify it if they want, then it is not a valid gift. The Gemara brings a story of a father who vowed that his son not benefit from him, but then wanted to give his property to his son in order to give it to his grandson in the event that the grandson becomes a Torah scholar. Is this possible? In Pumbedita they ruled that it didn't work and Rav Nachman ruled that it did. Rav Ashi and Rava raised difficulties for Rav Nachman. He answered Rava's question with two possible answers.

Nedarim 48 - December 12, 18 Kislev Dec 12, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored by Deborah Schabes in memory of her mother’s yahrzeit, Judith Schoenfeld Schabes. Today’s daf is sponsored by Ilana Friedman in memory of Yosef Eliezer Ben Chaim whose shloshim recently passed. “He was a devoted Torah scholar and my best friend’s father – someone dear to my heart." If one is forbidden to benefit from another, they can benefit from public spaces that were made ownerless, but not from ones that are owned by the people in the city. What can be done to rectify this situation? If one cannot benefit from another but needs food, the other person can give the food as a gift to someone else, and then the one who is vowed not to benefit can take the food from them. However, a story is told of a son whose father couldn't benefit from him and the son was marrying off his own son and wanted the father to attend the wedding. He gifted his meal and courtyard to someone else and said that he was doing it in order to allow his father to eat. The person he gave it to did not like being used in order to allow them to go against their vow and therefore sanctified it all to the Temple. After this, the rabbis said that if one gives a gift in a limited manner that the other will not be able to sanctify it if they want, then it is not a valid gift. The Gemara brings a story of a father who vowed that his son not benefit from him, but then wanted to give his property to his son in order to give it to his grandson in the event that the grandson becomes a Torah scholar. Is this possible? In Pumbedita they ruled that it didn't work and Rav Nachman ruled that it did. Rav Ashi and Rava raised difficulties for Rav Nachman. He answered Rava's question with two possible answers.

Nedarim 47 - December 11, 17 Kislev Dec 11, 2022

This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in memory of Robert’s father, my grandfather, Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. Today’s daf is sponsored by Racheli Mendelson in loving memory of her mother, Shoshana bat Shraga Fivel and Rivkah. Someone can forbid someone else's item to themselves even after the item no longer belongs to the other (they die or sell it). But if someone forbids an item of their own to someone else, will it continue to be forbidden even after the one who forbade dies or sells the item to someone else? Rava proves from a braita that it will continue to be forbidden. If one uses the language of "konam these fruit to my mouth" or similar language, not only are the fruits forbidden but also items they are traded for or anything that grows from them. If someone says "konam these fruits to your mouth" (forbidding to someone else), are items they are traded for also forbidden? Do we say that since one can forbid another's property to oneself, one can also forbid an item that is not yet in existence (the traded item) to oneself, but not to another? Or do we say that since items that grow from them would be forbidden, then also traded items would be forbidden as well? They try to answer the question from two different sources that show that one can benefit from a traded item. However, both answers are rejected as perhaps the ab initio law is that one cannot benefit but the sources reflect cases where it was already done.

Nedarim 46 - Shabbat December 10, 16 Kislev Dec 09, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Debbie Engelen-Eigles in memory of her father Hank Eigles, Henach ben Mendel z"l, to mark the end of his shloshim. May his neshama have an aliyah.

If two people share a courtyard, what are all the rules regarding the use of the courtyard when one is forbidden to benefit from the other or when each is forbidden to benefit from the other? The rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov in all the cases. Is there a difference if they forbade themselves through a vow or they were forbidden by a vow that the other person made? Is the debate in the Mishna regarding a courtyard that can be split or one that cannot be split? If one rented the space out to someone else, can the person who is forbidden to benefit from the owner be allowed to use the rented space? On what does it depend?

Nedarim 45 - December 9, 15 Kislev Dec 09, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 44-45a Today's daf is sponsored by Martin Gaynor in loving memory of Elaine Gaynor on her first yahrzeit. Today’s daf is sponsored by Dr. Bill and Malka Abraham in honor of the engagement of their daughter Alison, Chana Rivka Bracha to Aviv.

After another braita is brought to raise a difficulty against Reish Lakish’s explanation of the other braita regarding hefker, that it was entirely Rabbi Yosi’s opinion, the Gemara brings a second resolution in which they distinguish between hefker that is done in front of two people and hefker that is done in front of three. To strengthen the resolution, they bring Rabbi Yochanan's words, who quoted from Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzedek, who said that hefker made in front of two people is not hefker. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi disagrees and believes that the hefker even in front of one is hefker by Torah law, and only by rabbinic law, it must be done in front of three so that one will take the item and two can testify about that. If two people are forbidden to benefit from each other, and they live in the common yard, are they allowed to go into the courtyard? The rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov disagree on this matter.

Nedarim 44 - December 8, 14 Kislev Dec 08, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 44

Today's daf is sponsored by Elisa Hartstein in loving memory of her mom, Betty Minsk z"l (Batsheva Rut bat Shalom v'Fayge) on her third yahrzeit.

The Gemara brings in a braita that discusses the laws of hefker, rendering an item ownerless. The first part of the braita seems to fit with the rabbi's opinion in our Mishna and the second part with Rabbi Yosi, as understood by Rabbi Yohanan. Ulla explains both parts according to the rabbis and Reish Lakish explains both parts according to Rabbi Yosi. The Gemara still has a hard time understanding why in the first part of the braita they said that it doesn't become ownerless in the first three days. Raba explains that this is due to those who abused the law and used it to exempt themselves from paying tithes. The Gemara raises a difficulty about this as well and resolves it. The Gemara brings another difficulty on Reish Lakish from another barita where it is written that the hefker comes into effect immediately and not three days later. How can this be explained according to the Ulla and according to the Reish Lakish?

Nedarim 43 - December 7, 13 Kislev Dec 07, 2022

Why is it forbidden to not only borrow from but also to lend to someone one is forbidden by a vow to benefit from? If one won't lend one's cow to the other and the other vows never to use that cow to plow their field, is it only forbidden for the one who vowed, but others can do it for them? On what does it depend? The Mishna describes a number of different situations where one wants to help another in need when the needy one is forbidden by a vow to benefit from the other - in what way is one able to help in an indirect manner? In the last situation in the Mishna, two people are walking and one is in need of food. The other can put his food down, render it ownerless and the other can then take it. Rabbi Yosi disagrees and doesn't allow that. Rabbi Yochanan explains the basis for Rabbi Yosi's opinion - items that are rendered ownerless, only leave the possession of the owner when someone else picks them up, as with a gift. Rabbi Abba raises a difficulty with this, base don a braita, but he himself resolves the difficulty. Rava raises another difficulty and therefore explains Rabbi Yosi's opinion differently. He understands that the reason is due to an ordinance that rabbis instituted after a case that happened in Beit Horon that is discussed in a Mishna in Nedarim 48a. If one declares items ownerless, then can retract their declaration up to three days.

Nedarim 42 - December 6, 12 Kislev Dec 06, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 42

This week’s learning is sponsored by the Mondrow family in memory of Irving “poppy” Mauskopf, Yechezkel ben Rachel and Avraham. "A man who had complete faith in Hashem. He exemplified the quote: “Who is rich? One who is content with his lot. May his neshama had an Aliyah." Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi's father, Jack Lock, of Harrisburg PA, who passed away two years ago. "He was so proud that all 4 of his children made Aliyah to Israel, and that his “tribe” grew during his lifetime to nearly 100 family members, spanning 3 generations all in Israel. He was a generous and loving husband, father, grandfather, uncle and brother who is sorely missed.” Today's daf is sponsored by Alex Lipton in honor of his father, Richie. "Happy Hebrew birthday! Wishing you a great year ahead!" If one vowed to not benefit from another, one cannot go into the other's field and pick fruits. But if the vow was during the sabbatical (shmita) year, one still cannot go in the field but one can pick fruits that are hanging outside the field. If the wording of the vow included only food, then one can go into the field. Statements of Rav and Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish are quoted, regarding a particular issue in our Mishna. If the vow was made before the shmita year, and then the shmita year starts, since the fruits then become ownerless, are they still forbidden or are they no longer considered included in the vow? Initially, the Gemara thinks that the two groups of rabbis disagree with each other about whether or not one can forbid something now even when it is (at a later point) no longer in their domain. However, this does not take into account that each group of rabbis spoke about different language used - one had said "this property" and the other "my property." A further difficulty is raised but is resolved. A different way of understanding the debate is suggested but also rejected. Eventually, they explain that there is no debate at all - each group of rabbis was referring to a different case, and, in fact, they all agree! If one's field also becomes ownerless in the shmita year so that people can come into their field to collect fruits, why is one who is forbidden to benefit not permitted to come into the field to collect the fruits? Two possible answers are brought. If one vowed to not benefit from another, one cannot lend the other items, lend money or sell to them, neither can one borrow from the other items or money or buy from them.

Nedarim 41 - December 5, 11 Kislev Dec 05, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi's brother, Jerry Lock of Efrat, who passed away three years ago. "He was the first in the family to make Aliyah to Israel and was a loving husband, father, grandfather, uncle and brother who is sorely missed."

Nedarim 41 - December 5, 11 Kislev Dec 05, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi's brother, Jerry Lock of Efrat, who passed away three years ago. "He was the first in the family to make Aliyah to Israel and was a loving husband, father, grandfather, uncle and brother who is sorely missed."

Nedarim 40 - December 4, 10 Kislev Dec 04, 2022

This week’s learning is sponsored by Naomi and Adam Ferziger in memory of Naomi's father David Weiss, Chaim Zeev ben Pessel and Yoel Greenblatt, to commemorate his 10th yahrzeit. “He was a Holocaust Survivor who proudly rebuilt his life. Kind, generous, and with a good sense of humor, he was devoted to his family and community." This week’s learning is sponsored by Romi and Josh Sussman “in honor of our second son who will be joining his older brother in the IDF this week, in defense of our country and our people.” Today's daf is sponsored by Diana Bloom in loving memory of her Bobe, Ita Rosa Sonabend Marmurek on her yahrzeit. Today's daf is sponsored by Debbie Engelen-Eigles in honor of the bris of her first grandchild. "May he have a long, happy, and healthy life and bring joy to all who know him." Why is it important to visit sick people and what did we learn from Rabbi Akiva about the importance of this mitzva? Should you let people know that you are sick? Why? What rewards does one receive from this mitzva in this world and in the next world? What times of day should one not visit the sick? A few drashot on the verse in Tehillim 41:3 are brought relating to God's presence around a sick person and how does that affect where one can sit when visiting? Rav and Shmuel have a debate about whether the Euphrates being full is mainly from rainwater from Israel or does it fill up from its banks. This has halakhic relevance for using it as a mikveh as water that is flowing can only be used for a mikveh if the majority of its contents are from spring water, not from rainwater. Shmuel's opinion (it fills up from its banks) contradicts a statement of his regarding using the Euphrates as a mikveh as he only permitted it in the month of Tishrei, as otherwise, one needs to be concerned that the rainwater is greater than the spring water.

Nedarim 39 - Shabbat December 3, 9 Kislev Dec 02, 2022

The Mishna rules that one can visit a sick person if they are forbidden to benefit from them, as long as they stand and do not sit. The Gemara tries to figure out who was forbidden to who and why the sit/stand distinction? Three answers are brought – each explaining the reason for the split differently (two hold that the case is referring to when the sick person is forbidden to benefit from the visitor and one explains the reverse case). The Gemara raises a difficulty from a braita on Shmuel’s interpretation, but it is resolved. What is the source for visiting the sick in the Torah? Interestingly, it is learned from Moshe’s words to Korach and his followers. Rava extrapolates the verses in that scene. What seven things were created before the world was created and how does that raise a question against Rava’s drasha? What did the sun and moon do during the Moshe/Korach showdown? What was God’s reaction to them? Bikur cholim, visiting the sick, has no limits. What does that mean? One who visits the sick reduces their pain by 1/60. If so, why should we have 60 people visit each sick person and they will be healed?

Nedarim 38 - December 2, 8 Kislev Dec 02, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz in loving memory of her father, Shragai Cohen, Shraga Feivel ben Avraham Ben-Tzion on his 20th yahrzeit and her maternal grandparents, Rav Moshe, on the 4th of Kislev and Tzipora Mashbaum, on the 23 of Kislev. "They are greatly missed."

Today’s daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson in gratitude for the loving support she has received from Hadran and its students during her illness. So many of her fellow students have been in contact and brought comfort and strength to Carol during this challenging time.

If Moshe didn't get paid from teaching Torah, what was the source of his wealth? Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chanina said that the Torah was given to Moshe for him and his family, but Moshe decided to give it to the Jewish people. Rav Chisda raises several questions against this theory until it is reinterpreted to fit with the verses. What were Moshe's great qualities that must be found in one who God chooses to communicate with? The Gemara goes on to prove from where we see that Moshe had each of these qualities. We learn from Moshe, Shmuel, Amos, and Yona that prophets are wealthy. Verses are brought to prove this. One who is vowed not to benefit from another, his wife and children can be sustained by them, but one cannot feed his/her kosher animals. There is a debate regarding non-kosher animals. Rav Huna said that one can marry off one’s daughter to another if one is forbidden to benefit from another. To what case is he referring – when the father of the bride is forbidden to the future husband or when the future husband is forbidden to the father of the bride? Rabbi Yaakov said that one who forbids one’s son benefit to learn Torah (different explanations regarding the exact case and who is forbidden to whom), certain basic/easy actions are permitted, like filling up water, lighting a candle. Rabbi Yitzchak adds: roasting a small fish. Rabbi Yochanan said that one can pour a cup of peace for another, even if the other is forbidden to benefit from them. What is a cup of peace? Can one feed one’s Canaanite slaves? Is that considered benefit?

Nedarim 37 - December 1, 7 Kislev Dec 01, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 37

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom group in honor of Shira Farber 's army service and with gratitude to your parents for raising you with such strong values. "As Shira Farber drafts to צה"ל, defending the Jewish people and ensuring our security, we are reminded of what we learned with her mother in Masechet Berachot: "Rav Zutra bar Toviya said that Rav said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “He has made everything beautiful in its time?" This teaches that each and every individual, God has made their work (umanut) pleasant for them in their own eyes." Shira, we wish you years of meaningful and impactful service, and that your umanut will bring you great satisfaction."

Today's daf is dedicated to Mimi and Rafi Schachat on the birth of a baby boy last night!

Why did the Mishnah differentiate and say that it is possible to teach Midrash, Halakha and Aggada from one who is prohibited to benefit from them, but not Torah? Shmuel establishes the Mishna in the case that a fee is charged for studying the Torah and not for studying Midrash. As a difficulty is raised, the Gemara explains that the Mishna comes to teach us that it is forbidden to charge a fee for learning Midrash, but it is permitted for studying Torah. However, why should it be permitted to charge for teaching Torah if the reason that it is forbidden to receive a salary for studying Midrash is learned from several verses from Moshe Rabbeinu - as he didn't charge money, we shouldn't either? Rav and Rabbi Yochanan give two different explanations - it is possible to charge a fee for watching (babysitting) the children or for learning the punctuation of the text with the ta'amim (cantillation). The Gemara brings two difficulties about Rav's explanation (babysitting) - one from our Mishna and one from a braita. To resolve the difficulty from the Mishna, they suggest that the Mishna is referring only to minors and add words to make the Mishna work with that explanation. To resolve the difficulty from the braita, they explain the braita two other possible ways. Why didn't Rav hold like Rabbi Yochanan and why didn't Rabbi Yochanan hold like Rav?

Nedarim 36 - November 30, 6 Kislev Nov 30, 2022

Today's daf is dedicated to my daughter Shira in honor of her drafting into the Israeli army. Wishing you much success and a meaningful service!

Two difficulties are raised against the Gemara's previous assumption that the kohen when dealing with the sacrifice of another is acting as their messenger. One question is from our Mishna and the other from a different source relating to the laws of pigul. Both difficulties are resolved. Rabbi Yochanan stated previously that all sacrifices must be performed with the intent of the one needing a sacrifice other than a particular category which can be performed by a parent for a child and therefore does not require knowledge, as a minor has no 'understanding' from a halakhic perspective. This shows that one can learn from a case where it is not possible (impossible for the child to know) to a case where it is possible (a regular person who needs to bring a sacrifice). This assumption that Rabbi Yochanan makes is challenged by two statements of Rabbi Elazar. However, both are resolved as well. If one takes trumot and ma'asrot from one's own produce to "fix" someone else's produce, can that be done without the friend's knowledge? Can this be derived from our Mishna that allows one who cannot benefit from another to have them take trumot and ma'asrot on their behalf with their knowledge? In order to ascertain this, the Gemara must figure out the details of the case in the Mishna - whose produce are the trumot and ma'asrot taken from and whose knowledge is needed? The conclusion is that the case in the Mishna is not the same case that the question is referring to. Another question is asked - if one takes trumot and ma'asrot from one's own produce to "fix" someone else's produce, who gets to choose which kohen to give the produce to, in order to be able to get "benefit" from the kohen knowing that you chose to give your truma to him? Rabbi Zeira tries to prove from our Mishna that is it the owner of the produce who chooses. However, again the Gemara proves that the Mishna is not referring to this type of case. Rabbi Yochanan holds the opposite - that it is the one whose produce it is. Why did the Mishna distinguish and say that one can teach midrash, halacha and agadda to one who can't benefit, but not Torah?

Nedarim 35 - November 29, 5 Kislev Nov 29, 2022

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 if 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 34 - November 28, 4 Kislev Nov 28, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 34

Today's daf is sponsored by Elliot Hearst in loving memory of his father, Moshe ben Pincus v'Flora on his 32nd yahrzeit yesterday. "He always was and continues to be a shining light in his loved ones' lives."

There are two versions of the debate between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi's understanding of our Mishna. In the first version, one holds the Mishna allows the item to be returned only in the case where the returner's property was forbidden to the one who lost their item and the other holds the Mishna is referring to both. In the second version, one holds that the case of the Mishna is only when the possessions of the one who lost an item are forbidden to the returner but not in the reverse case and the other holds the Mishna is referring to both. In each version, the Gemara raises a question from the Mishna's last line: "If it is in a place where people get paid for returning lost items, the money goes to the Temple." In the first version, the question is resolved. In the second version, it is not. Rava brings a law regarding the transgression of meila, misuse of consecrated property, in a case where one sanctified an ownerless item and then picked it up to either eat it or promised it as an inheritance to one's children. What is the difference between the cases? Rav Chiya bar Avin asked Rava a question: If one says "My loaf is forbidden to you," and then gifted it to that person, did they mean to forbid it only as long as it was their own and not if they gave it as a gift? Or was the focus of the sentence, it will be forbidden to you, and will therefore be forbidden forever and the person was saying it so as not to have the other pestering them to gift the item to them? Rava answers that the latter is the case, by providing a logical proof, but Rav Chiya questions his logic.

Nedarim 33 - November 27, 3 Kislev Nov 27, 2022

If one says in a language of a vow, "I will not eat from someone" they are forbidden from benefitting from their food or even borrowing utensils that are used to prepare food. Why is this the case if one specified eating and not preparing the food? How far is this taken - is one forbidden to borrow a bag in which to put food one is purchasing or a horse to ride on to get the food, jewelry to wear to make one look important so they will get food, use one's house as a shortcut to get to a place where they will get food? Can we find an answer for this question in the language of our Mishna? The next Mishna says that if the item one is borrowing is not a food-related item but generally is rented, then that is forbidden as well, as the person can now use the money they saved to buy food. The Gemara derives from here that the food-related items mentioned in the previous Mishna that is forbidden must be forbidden even if they generally don't rent them out for money, which would then mean that the Mishna follows Rabbi Eliezer who holds that even items that don't have an actual monetary value are forbidden. One who is forbidden to benefit from another, the other person can give their half shekel to the Temple treasury, can pay back their loan, and can return their lost item. However, if generally one gets paid for returning a lost item and the person did not demand the money, the money must be given to the Temple so as to not allow the person to benefit from the other. The Gemara connects this Mishna with a debate between Chanan and the sons of the high priests that appeared in Ketubot 107b. Does the Mishna follow Chanan as he held that preventing someone from a financial loss is not considered benefit? Or can it be explained according to the sons of the high priests as well? There is a debate between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi about whether in the reverse case of returning lost items, if the returner was forbidden to benefit from the one who lost something, would it be forbidden or permitted because while returning the lost item, the returner is exempt from giving charity to a poor person. Is that considered a benefit, or is it too uncommon that the poor person would come looking for money at exactly that moment and therefore not considered a benefit?

Nedarim 32 - Shabbat November 26, 2 Kislev Nov 25, 2022

Was Moshe negligent when he did not take care of giving his son a brit milah on his way back to Egypt? Who was the angel trying to kill - Moshe or his son? How did Tzippora understand that the issue was not having circumcised him? After Tzippora circumcized him and the danger subsided, what did Moshe do? The Gemara brings more statements about the importance of the mitzva of brit milah and from there, tangents off to questions about Avraham, such as, why was he punished that his children would suffer in Egypt before coming back to the land of Israel? Malki-Tzedek was supposed to get the kehuna, but instead, it was given to Avraham. Why? What is the difference between one who says in a language of a vow, "I will not benefit from someone" and one who says, "I will not eat from someone"?

Nedarim 31 - Rosh Chodesh Kislev - November 25, 1 Kislev Nov 25, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 31

This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs in loving memory of Shira's grandfather, Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka, on his 73rd yahrzeit, for Shira's father, Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara, on his 1st yahrzeit, and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on shas Mishnayot this month and will become a bar mitzvah on his great grandfather's yahrzeit). Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah and Michael Dickson on the occasion of the bar mitzvah of their son Dan, this Shabbat. Today's daf is sponsored by Audrey and Jake Levant. "Mazel Tov to Michael and Deborah Dickson on the occasion of their son, Dan’s, bar mitzvah this Shabbat in Raanana." The next few Mishnayot discuss language used in a vow that would refer to Jews, Cutim (Samaritans) or gentiles. What language refers to which groups of people? If one vows not to benefit from Jews, one cannot purchase or sell items for them for the actual price but must need to take a loss. How does this law fit with Shmuel's law regarding the responsibility of a potential buyer for accidental damage, which indicates that the buyer always benefits, and not the seller? This would mean that the seller could sell for the actual price as the real benefit is not the seller's. How is this issue resolved? If one vows not to benefit from circumcised people, the vow obviously refers to all Jews, even those who are not circumcised. Likewise, uncircumcised refers to all gentiles, even if they are circumcised. The Mishna quotes several verses proving this and also several statements stressing the importance of the Mitzva of brit milah, circumcision.

Nedarim 30 - 1st Day of Rosh Chodesh Kislev - November 24, 30 Cheshvan Nov 24, 2022

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of Aryeh Schupak who was murdered in yesterday's terror bombing and for a refuah shleima to all the injured.

Some sages tried to compare Bar Pada's understanding of the Mishna to a case of a man who betroths a woman by saying "With this, I will betroth you today and with this, I will betroth you after I divorce you," to say that she will be automatically betrothed after the divorce. However, Rabbi Yirmia responded that they are not comparable as our Mishna is a case where the owner redeemed it themselves and the betrothal case is considered as if others redeemed her and therefore the second betrothal would not be able to happen automatically. The next few Mishnayot relate to the specific language used to relate to a group of people in the vow to whom the person vowing is forbidding oneself, and explains what the scope of that particular language is. The cases brought are seafarers, those who live on dry land, those who see the sun, dark-headed people, those who are born, and those who will be born. The language of 'noladim,' will be born, discussed in the Mishna is compared to the same word used in the Torah/Prophets where the word is used to mean both has been born and will be born. So why is the Mishna understanding that it refers to the future? The answer is that vows follow the common usage of the word at the time the vow is made, not necessarily the way it is used in the Tanach.

Nedarim 29 - November 23, 29 Cheshvan Nov 23, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 29

Nedarim 28 - November 22, 28 Cheshvan Nov 22, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Martin Gaynor in loving memory of Dr. Jerry Rabinowitz, z"l.

Today's daf is sponsored by Tova and David Kestenbaum in loving memory of their dear Aunt Esther Press, Esther Faigel bat Raphael Zev v'Chaya Chasha. "She was who a role model of a life of Torah and Chesed. She cared so much about family and we all felt very close to her."

Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel have three disputes in the Mishna – one can make a vow to murderers, thieves, and tax collectors that is untrue but is it also permitted to swear? Can one decide on their own to vow to the murderer, thief, or tax collector or is it only permitted if they suggest the vow? If the murderer, etc. insisted that the person vow about something in particular, if the person vows about that and something else, is the other part also permitted or only the part about which they were forced to vow? How can one make a vow that is untrue to avoid taxes – didn’t Shmuel says that the law of the land is the law (dina d’malchuta dina) and therefore one cannot avoid paying taxes? The second vow mentioned in the Mishna was one who vowed that items belonged to the king. They explain this vow as: "Fruits will be forbidden to me if these are not the king's possessions. If so, why is it not a valid vow and the fruits should be forbidden? The Gemara quotes a braita with a debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel that seems to be on a similar issue to our Mishna – regarding initiating a claim by oath. However, this braita seems to contradict our Mishna in two ways. Two resolutions are suggested. The Mishna brings a case where one made a declaration that if these saplings are not destroyed (from some impending storm), they will be like a sacrifice, they are in fact sanctified (if they are not destroyed) and need to be redeemed. If one declares: these saplings will be like a sacrifice until they are cut down, they are not able to be redeemed. Why is the language in the first part of the Mishna: ’they need to be redeemed' and not ‘they are sanctified’? The second case mentioned in the Mishna leads to a question – what exactly is the wording of the vow and what specific case is the Mishna concerned about? What does the Mishna mean when it says: They can’t be redeemed?

Nedarim 27 - November 21, 27 Cheshvan Nov 21, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 27

A final difficulty is raised against Rava's explanation of the debate between Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai about the case where one cancels part of a vow. This difficulty is resolved as well. A braita is brought that is explained both according to Raba and according to Rava. The Mishna describes what is a vow of onasim, a vow that can't be fulfilled because of circumstances beyond one's control Rav Huna ruled in a case of one who was involved in a dispute with someone and when he went to search for more evidence in his favor, he handed in documents to the court that supported his claim and declared: If I don't come back in thirty days, these documents will be void. In the end, he didn't return due to circumstances beyond his control. Rav Huna ruled that the documents were void. Why is this case different from our Mishna - where circumstances beyond one's control are enough to dissolve the vow? Rava held that circumstances beyond one's control exempt one from responsibility. Why in a case of a get, though, is this not the case (when one says - this will be a get if I don't return and he died)? Or why is it different from a case when the man gives a get if he doesn't return within thirty days and on the thirtieth day he tries to get there but there is no ferry with which to cross the river? In both those cases, the get is valid. Returning to Rav Huna's ruling, the Gemara asks why is it not considered asmachta, a transaction where one does not fully consent to the arrangement as the outcome is unclear, which is considered not to be a valid acquisition. Is it different as the court is already in possession of the documents? Is that a relevant factor? Or is it different because he explicitly said that the documents should be canceled? The Gemara concludes that regarding asmachta, we rule that it is a valid acquisition as long as there was no oness, unexpected circumstance, and an act of acquisition was performed in an important court. There are certain circumstances where one can make a vow that one never intends to keep, such as, to a tax collector or to a murderer.

Nedarim 26 - November 20, 26 Cheshvan Nov 20, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 26

This week's learning is sponsored by Paula and Robert Cohen in loving memory of Paula's mother, Sonja Waschitz, Sara bat Yitzchak z"l. This week's learning is sponsored by Jason Friedman and family in honor of Danielle Novetsky Friedman. "Happy birthday week to you. Your husband and kids are very proud of you and your dedication to learning. We love you." Rava and Raba disagree about the nature of the debate between Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai in the Mishna when someone partially changes what they meant to say. In what case does Beit Hillel (and Rabbi Akiva) hold that once part of the vow is invalid, the rest is invalid as well? Does Beit Shamai agree to that principle in certain situations or not at all? Is the disagreement about whether or not a vow that is partially dissolved is completely dissolved or is it about whether we follow the first part of one's declaration or the second part? Rav Papa raises a difficulty against Rava's understanding based on a Mishna in Nedarim 66a, but Rava resolves it. Rav Ada bar Ahava raises a difficulty to Rava about his and Raba's explanation from a different case in that same Mishna but Rava resolves that as well.

Nedarim 25 - Shabbat November 19, 25 Cheshvan Nov 18, 2022

Can we assume that when people take an oath/vow in a particular language, they use it in the typical way that those words are generally used and therefore cannot try to explain that they meant it in a unique manner and it wasn't a valid vow/oath? Two attempts are made to derive from sources that one can claim they meant the language in a unique manner, however, both attempts are rejected. The second attempt relates to a source about Moshe who had the Jews swear in his name and in the name of God. Why did he not use some other language that would have made his point just as clearly? What is the meaning of the reference in the Mishna of one who swore they saw a snake like the beam of an olive press? What is a neder shegaga, one where one was unwitting, where the vow will be considered invalid? Does the same apply to oaths? What is an example of an oath of this category? The Mishna mentions a debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel about one who saw people eating in his field and took a vow that they would not be able to benefit from him. Later, he found out that his father and brother were among them and he certainly hadn’t included them in the vow. Is the vow completely invalid or only partially? Do we hold that a vow that has been made partially invalid is completely invalid? Raba and Rava deliberate about exactly which case Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree.

Nedarim 24 - November 18, 24 Cheshvan Nov 18, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 24

Today's daf is sponsored by Silke Goldberg in loving memory of her mother, Leoni Kimmel on her 3rd yahrzeit. "She was a fantastic teacher and strong believer in learning and equality for women."

Do the sages disagree with R. Eliezer ben Yaakov and think that prompting one’s friend to eat with them is not a vow of zeruzin? The Gemara cites four different sources to prove the sages disagree with him. The proof from each of these sources is rejected except for the last one. In any case, the amoraim rule with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. The Mishna gives two examples of the neder havai, vows of exaggeration/meaningless vows. The Gemara brings a braita in which they compare the vows of exaggeration with the oaths of exaggeration. What is an example of an oath of this type? Rava and Abaye disagree on the matter. Ravina asks about the case of an oath dependent on having seen the number of those that left Egypt (600,000). Why is that viewed as an exaggeration and not that he saw a nest of 600,000 ants?

Nedarim 23 - November 17, 23 Cheshvan Nov 17, 2022

Another story is told of Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yosi who went to dissolve a vow but any petach the rabbis suggested wasn’t working. The rabbis were upset that they couldn’t resolve this and a launderer came and hit Rabbi Yishmael since he was upsetting the rabbis. Rabbi Yishmael then used that as his petach, as had he realized he would have gotten beaten, he never would have vowed. Why is that not considered nolad, a new reason that he never would have thought of at the time of making the vow, as nolad is not able to be used for a petach. Abaye and his wife each wanted to marry her daughter off to one of their own relatives. In order to insist that she obey him, he vowed her to not benefit from him if she married her off to her own relatives. When she actually does that, he goes to dissolve the vow, using the petach suggested by Rav Yosef that had he realized she was actually going to marry off her daughter to her own relatives, he never would have taken the vow. A similar story of a man who vowed that his wife should not go on the pilgrimage to Jerusalem is brought to prove that this type of petach works. The Mishna quotes Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov saying that if you vow to insist that a friend eats at your house, you can make a declaration before that you is nullifying a vow that you are about to make. This works as long as they remember the declaration at the time of the vow. The Mishna is unclear - if the friend knows about the declaration, then the vow is anyway ineffective to encourage the friend to eat. Therefore, they reinterpret the Mishna by splitting it into two. The first part is to say that a vow to encourage a friend to eat at one’s house is a neder zeruzin and not even effective at all. Secondly, one should make a declaration at the beginning of the year that all vows they make will be nullified. Abaye and Rava disagree about whether this is effective only if one doesn’t remember the declaration at the time of the vow or can there even be a case where one somewhat remembers and yet, it can still be effective. Rav Huna bar Chinina wanted to institute that everyone makes this declaration but Rava discouraged it so that people do not treat vows lightly. Is it from here that the custom arose to say kol nidrei on Yom Kippur night or to annul our vows on erev Rosh Hashana? Do the rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov or not?

Nedarim 22 - November 16, 22 Cheshvan Nov 16, 2022

A certain style of petach was used by a number of rabbis and yet, was discouraged by the Gemara for concern that people would not tell the truth. This petach took on different forms but the idea was that the chacham would say something like: "Had you known how terrible a sin it is to God to vow, would you have taken this vow?" Since it is unlikely someone would have the audacity to answer 'yes' to this question in front of a chacham, they ruled one cannot use it. There is a debate between Rava and Abaye regarding whether or not one can use this petach: "Had you known it was like building a bama and sacrificing a sacrifice, would you have vowed?" There is a debate regarding what part of that sentence they disagree about - the bama or the sacrifice? The Gemara brings several statements about the dangers of anger since the assumption is that most people vow in a moment of anger. A story is told of Ulla who witnessed a murder on his travels from Babylonia to Israel. Rabbi Yochanan questions a detail of the story - how one could have gotten angry in Israel and murdered another, as the verse says that God will bring anger outside of Israel. Anger causes one to dismiss the divine presence, causes folly and sin. Is it possible to dissolve a vow/oath if one vowed/swore in the name of God? Most of the amoraim say that it is not, but Rav Nachman rules at the end of the sugya that it is allowed. It is told about Rav Sechora who came to Rabbi Nachman to permit a vow and after Rav Nachman tried all kinds of openings without success, he became angry with Rav Sechora. When Rabbi Sechora left there, he came up with a petach himself that if he had known that it would make Rabbi Nachman angry with him, he would not have made a vow. Another similar story is told about the breaking of a vow of Rabbi Shimon the son of Rebbi.

Nedarim 21 - November 15, 21 Cheshvan Nov 15, 2022

There are four kinds of vows listed in the Mishna that are not considered valid vows and therefore one would not need to go to a chacham to dissolve them. The next few mishnayot will bring examples of each of the four types. The first type is zeiruzin, vows used in negotiation, such as a vow that I will not sell/buy for less/more than a certain amount. First, the Gemara suggests that the Mishna follows Rabbi Tarfon’s position as quoted by Rabbi Yehuda that a nazir vow will not be effective unless one makes a definitive statement. Rava, however, proves from the language of the Mishna that it could fit with the opposing position as well, as the language indicates that they never really meant what they said as, from the start, they intended to compromise. This would make the vow invalid as his intent does not match his words. Ravina asked about a case where one took a vow that he won’t sell for less than 5 dinarim and the other won’t buy for more than 1 dinar. Are these valid vows or not? Rav Ashi answered from a Mishna (Nedarim 63) where one said to a friend who was pushing an invitation to eat at their house, “I won’t even drink a drop of water in your house,” and the ruling is that one can drink a drop of water, as the intent was clearly not to eat a meal. People often exaggerate in these ways and don’t really mean exactly what they say. Ravina rejects the proof and we are left with his question. Two different versions of a statement of Rav Asi are brought which either say the four types of vows mentioned in the Mishna need to be dissolved by a chacham or that other vows need to be dissolved in the manner that these four vows don’t apply, meaning with a petach (the chacham suggests that if the person has realized at the time of the vow that ____, the person would never have made the vow) and not with regret. Several cases show different approaches to dissolving vows – can one use regret or only a petach? Does one need a more tangible form of regret, such as, “Where there ten people there who would have appeased you, would you have made the vow?” This is a tannaitic debate as well. Four cases are brought of rabbis who permitted vows based on regret or based on a petach.

Nedarim 20 - November 14, 20 Cheshvan Nov 14, 2022

This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

The Mishna brings examples of vows that when the one who took the vow explains that they never intended it to be a vow, we rule leniently and it is not a vow. For example, if one used the language of sacrifice but explained that one intended it to mean like gifts for a king, that is not a vow. Therefore there is no need to go to a chacham to dissolve the vow. But if one did go, Rabbi Meir rules that we are strict with them and they are punished. How does the Gemara understand this opinion in light of the earlier part of the Mishna that stated that it is not a vow at all? A distinction is made between a Torah scholar and an am haaretz. In what manner are they punished? The rabbis disagree somewhat and say that they require a petach from another place - how is this understood? - and we use this as a way to teach people not to take vows lightly. A braita is quoted with a list of things one should try to avoid, such as making vows, spending time with an am haaretz, speaking to women, etc. so as to avoid transgressing something more serious. From here, the Gemara discusses issues of tzniut/recommended between husband and wife, even during relations. Yochanan ben Dehavai is particularly stringent and, according to Rabbi Yochanan, the rabbis disagree with him.

Nedarim 19 - November 13, 19 Cheshvan Nov 13, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 19

Today's daf is sponsored by Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker in loving memory of my mother Arlene Goodstein's 7th yahrzeit. "My mother's love of Judaism and the land of Israel set the stage for my life. Missing her always."

In order to resolve a contradiction between our Mishna and the Mishna in Taharot 4:12, regarding the issue of whether we rule stringently or leniently with regard to vows, the Gemara suggested that each Mishna reflected a different tannaitic opinion. First, they try to establish that the lenient opinion matches Rabbi Elazar (Eliezer), but difficulties are raised against this suggestion, first from the continuation of the Mishna in Taharot and then from the Tosefta Taharot Chapter 5. The first difficulty is resolved but the second is not. The second suggestion is that the Mishnayot each represents a different tannaitic opinion regarding a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon about a case where one says "I will be a nazir if there are 100 kur in the pile." If the pile is lost or stolen before they measure it, Rabbi Yehuda ruled the person is not a nazir and Rabbi Shimon rules the opposite. Based on this understanding, Rabbi Yehuda's reasoning is based on the fact that when one vows, one does not put oneself into a situation of uncertainty. This contradicts an inference from a statement of Rabbi Yehuda in our Mishna regarding a case of doubt when one said a vow using the language of teruma where the ruling is to be stringent. Rava answers by explaining the case of the nazir differently as the case of doubt for a nazir is worse than a doubt regarding a regular vow as one has no way to end the nazir prohibitions. Therefore, we can assume the person did not want to get into a situation of becoming a nazir out of doubt. Two questions are raised against Rava and one is resolved, but the other is not. Rav Ashi answers that Rabbi Yehuda by nazir is not his own opinion but him stating Rabbi Tarfon's position that nazir can only be taken on by a definitive declaration. A difficulty is raised against Rav Ashi as well, but it is resolved. The Mishna has brought two cases where the law is different between those living in Judea and the Galilee. However, they seem to contradict each other and therefore the Gemara concludes that one is Rabbi Yehuda's position and the other is Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Tzadok.

Nedarim 18 - Shabbat November 12, 18 Cheshvan Nov 11, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Beth Kissileff Perlman in honor of the lives and in memory of the deaths of the 11 kedoshim killed at Tree of Life, New Light and Dor Hadash synagogues in Pittsburgh on October 27, 2018. Joyce Fienberg, Richard Gottfried, Rose Mallinger, Jerry Rabinowitz, Cecil Rosenthal, David Rosenthal, Bernice Simon, Sylvan Simon, Dan Stein, Mel Wax and Irving Younger.

The third question against Rav Huna is answered and a fourth question is raised and answered. When the Mishna stated that one is not liable for an oath on an oath, Rava infers that one is not liable but the oath exists, meaning that if the first oath is undone, the second will move into its place. If the language of a vow is unclear, one rules stringently. But if the language was ambiguous and the one who vowed explained the meaning of their words to be referring to a language that would not be a valid vow, then we can rule leniently and it is not considered a vow. The Mishna brings different examples of cases where one would rule leniently or stringently. This Mishna contradicts an explicit Mishna that one rules leniently in cases of nazir, which is a type of vow.

Nedarim 17 - November 11, 17 Cheshvan Nov 11, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 17

Today's daf is sponsored by Diana Bloom in loving memory of her zeide, Israel Marmurek, on the occasion of his yahrzeit. Today's daf is sponsored by Avi and Shelly Yonitzman in honor of their daughters' bat-mitzvah, Shira and Hallel. From where is it derived that an oath taken to not fulfill a mitzva is invalid? On Nedarim 16, it was derived from the word "devaro," his word, which refers to an oath about voluntary actions, excluding mitzvot. However, the Gemara brings a different source to teach the same law, "le'hara o le'heitiv" for good or for bad. From the juxtaposition of these words, they learn that it only refers to voluntary actions, as just a "to do good" which refers to positive actions (i.e. to eat) cannot include an oath that would cause one to not keep a mitzva (as inherently that is not good), also "to do bad" (i.e. to eat) would include an oath not to keep a mitzva. Why are both derivations necessary? Another stringency of vows over oaths is that if one makes a vow twice on the same thing, both vows are valid, whereas if one takes the same oath twice, the second oath is not valid. Rav Huna holds this is only true about a vow if they do not 100% overlap, such as, "I will be a nazir today" and "I will be a nazir tomorrow." Shmuel says it is true even if the second vow is 100% identical to the first, such as, "I will be a nazir today" and "I will be a nazir today." The Gemara raises difficulties with Rav Huna's opinion from four different sources (two from our Mishna). Three of the difficulties appear in this daf, one more in the continuation in Nedarim 18).

Nedarim 16 - November 10, 16 Cheshvan Nov 10, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 16

The Mishna mentioned different expressions of a vow using forms of the word korban, sacrifice, which would not be valid. This Mishna is attributed to Rabbi Meir, as it cannot be attributed to Rabbi Yehuda. The same expressions if used with the word shevua (oath), will be valid. One of the expressions mentioned was "shevua that I will eat from you, which is understood as "I am taking an oath that I will not eat from you." This contradicts a Mishna is Shevuot that lists four different kinds of oaths - and two of them are that I will eat or will not eat, understanding "I will eat" as its simple meaning and not as our Mishna understands is as "I will not eat." Abaye answers by saying that it depends on the context and one must rely on the context to establish what the meaning is in each particular situation. Rav Ashi answers by emending the text to read "shevua she'iy ochal", which mean "shevua that I will not eat." According to this reading, the reason the Mishna needs to list this case is that one not think that maybe it came out as a stutter and one really meant to say "that I will eat." Why do each of them (Abaye and Rav Ashi) not hold like the other? The Mishna refers back to a previous Mishna stating that there it was clear what are the stringencies of an oath that are not in a vow. To what Mishna was this referring? The Mishna then states the stringencies of a vow, if one vows to not do a mitzva, this is a valid vow and one must not go against the vow. Why does this not apply to oaths as well? Rava and Abaye both answer in a similar matter, that for the vow to be effective, it must be worded in a way that the vow applies to the object of the mitzva and not to the person fulfilling the mitzva. However, they differ on the exact wording of the vow - does it include the word "benefit" at all or not, as Rava argues that the performance of mitzvot is not considered a benefit.

Nedarim 16 - November 10, 16 Cheshvan Nov 10, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 16

The Mishna mentioned different expressions of a vow using forms of the word korban, sacrifice, which would not be valid. This Mishna is attributed to Rabbi Meir, as it cannot be attributed to Rabbi Yehuda. The same expressions if used with the word shevua (oath), will be valid. One of the expressions mentioned was "shevua that I will eat from you, which is understood as "I am taking an oath that I will not eat from you." This contradicts a Mishna is Shevuot that lists four different kinds of oaths - and two of them are that I will eat or will not eat, understanding "I will eat" as its simple meaning and not as our Mishna understands is as "I will not eat." Abaye answers by saying that it depends on the context and one must rely on the context to establish what the meaning is in each particular situation. Rav Ashi answers by emending the text to read "shevua she'iy ochal", which mean "shevua that I will not eat." According to this reading, the reason the Mishna needs to list this case is that one not think that maybe it came out as a stutter and one really meant to say "that I will eat." Why do each of them (Abaye and Rav Ashi) not hold like the other? The Mishna refers back to a previous Mishna stating that there it was clear what are the stringencies of an oath that are not in a vow. To what Mishna was this referring? The Mishna then states the stringencies of a vow, if one vows to not do a mitzva, this is a valid vow and one must not go against the vow. Why does this not apply to oaths as well? Rava and Abaye both answer in a similar matter, that for the vow to be effective, it must be worded in a way that the vow applies to the object of the mitzva and not to the person fulfilling the mitzva. However, they differ on the exact wording of the vow - does it include the word "benefit" at all or not, as Rava argues that the performance of mitzvot is not considered a benefit.

Nedarim 15 - November 9, 15 Cheshvan Nov 09, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 15

Today's daf is sponsored by Sylvia Simmons in loving memory of Rachel Wohl, Rachel Leah bat Avraham Mordechai z”l, her maternal grandmother, on her yahrzeit today.

Rav Yehuda holds that if one vows: “My eyes will be konam to sleep today if I do not sleep tomorrow," one cannot sleep today as they may not be careful tomorrow to make sure the condition isn't met. The Gemara raises six difficulties against Rav Yehuda's position from tannaitic sources and resolves each of them. The Mishna mentioned a case where a man vowed to forbid his wife from having relations with him. How can this kind of vow be effective if her rights to relations with him if by Torah law and therefore it is not within his ability to forbid it using a vow, just like one cannot forbid an item of someone else's on another person through a vow? The Mishna brings the language of an oath that would work for sleeping, eating, etc. wihch are not tangible items. However, there are other languages mentioned in the Mishna that would not be valid languages connoting a vow or an oath.

Nedarim 14 - November 8, 14 Cheshvan Nov 08, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 14

Today's daf is sponsored by Art Gould for the refuah shleima of his wife, Carol Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah. "This is dedicated to the healing of my beloved wife and in gratitude to our Hadran family for all the notes and messages of support and in general just holding us in their hearts as we go through this difficult period."

The Gemara gives two explanations as to how the Mishna can be explained according to Rabbi Yehuda's opinion, but the second explanation is rejected. What is the source of the halacha that one can take a vow by attaching it to another vowed item, but not a forbidden item? Why is it not possible to learn from the same verse to also include a forbidden item? The Mishna stated that the one who vows that he will not benefit from his wife with the words "She is forbidden to be like my mother" should be strict and undo the vow. But this is contradicted by an express braita. Abaye and Raba each resolve this in a different manner. Raba distinguished between a Torah scholar and an am haaeretz. Proof that the law sometimes distinguishes between these groups and requires annulling a vow only for an am haaretz can be learned from a braita about one who takes a vow on a Torah. The Gemara brings the braita in its entirety and discusses a difficulty with one of the lines of the braita and brings three resolutions. The Mishna says that one who says a vow not to sleep or not to talk or not to walk, must keep the vow. This Mishna will be further explained in Nedarim 15. The Gemara brings a dispute between Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav and Rav Nachman regarding one who said "I vow (konam) my eyes not to sleep today if I sleep tomorrow." Are they allowed to sleep today, and we will assume they will be careful tomorrow not to sleep so as not the break his vow, or do we tell them they cannot sleep today so that if they sleep tomorrow, the vow will not be broken? In the event that the declaration was said in the opposite direction "My eyes will be konam to sleep tomorrow if I sleep today" both agree that one need not be careful not to sleep today as the fulfillment of the vow is tomorrow and that we can assume people will be careful about. Whereas in the previous case, it was only fulfillment of the condition that was tomorrow and that, perhaps, people are less careful about.

Nedarim 13 - November 7, 13 Cheshvan Nov 07, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 13

The Gemara rejects the possibility of the answer to Rami bar Hama’s question (about whether a vow that was attached to the meat of a peace offering applies to the object as it is now or as it was previously) is a tannaitic debate (the case of a firstborn animal). The debate about the firstborn is due to a difference in perspective of the firstborn – is it considered a vowed item or a forbidden item? A braita says that if one used any language relating to a sacrifice, if one finishes with the words, “that I will eat from you,” it is forbidden, “that I will not eat from you,” it is permitted. The braita seems to follow Rabbi Meir, however, it also seems not to follow Rabbi Meir’s position. How is this resolved? The Mishna discusses more languages of sacrifices that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda debate. The Gemara raises some questions about Rabbi Meir’s positions in light of his opinion in other places and then resolves the difficulties. If one says to another that one’s mouth is konam from speaking to the other, or one’s hands will be konam to not produce anything for the other or one’s legs are konam from walking with the other, the vow is valid. How can this be reconciled with a braita that states the differences between vows and oaths and states that vows do not apply to non-tangible items? The Mishna says that if one takes a vow and says that something is forbidden like a forbidden item such as non-kosher food or something used for idol worship, it is not a valid vow. If one forbid’s one’s wife from deriving benefit from him by saying “like my mother is forbidden to me,” even though it is not a valid vow, he must go to a chacham to annul the vow by a petach, by explaining that had he known…, he never would have taken the vow. This is used as a preventative method so that he doesn’t take vows like this again. According to whose opinion does the Mishna follow?

Nedarim 12 - November 6, 12 Cheshvan Nov 06, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 12

Nedarim 11 - Shabbat November 5, 11 Cheshvan Nov 04, 2022

The Mishna discusses various languages of a vow that are valid such as, lachulin, understood as ‘not chulin’ meaning a sacrifice. If that is a valid vow, it must not follow Rabbi Meir’s opinion as Rabbi Meir holds that one cannot infer a positive from a negative, as he holds that conditions must be stipulated like the stipulation of the sons of Gad and Reuven that were said both in a positive and negative formulation. However, the Mishna also doesn’t fit with Rabbi Yehuda as can be seen from the structure of the Mishna (the first tana disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda). In order to resolve this issue, the Mishna is read in a different manner, that the whole Mishna is Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion. This answer is questioned by a different braita, but the difficulty is resolved. A different braita is quoted and a question is raised. The first part of the braita seems to follow Rabbi Meir and yet the second part doesn’t seem to correspond to a different opinion of Rabbi Meir. Two resolutions are suggested. Rami bar Hama asks: What if someone used the language of “This will be to me like the meat of a peace offering after the blood was sprinkled on the altar," which is something that is actually permitted to eat? The Gemara first clarifies what exactly is the case that he is asking about.

Nedarim 10 - November 4, 10 Cheshvan Nov 04, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Sara Berelowitz in loving memory of her father, Tzvi Ben Moshe on his 14th yahrzeit.

Today's daf is sponsored by Risa Tzohar in loving memory of her grandmother, Rose Schwartz Wittels.

The Gemara interprets the Mishna that distinguished between neder and nedava according to Rabbi Yehuda's opinion and explains why he distinguishes between them. In the process, they brought a braita with Rabbi Yehuda's opinion which spoke about the early pious people who took on being a nazir in order to be able to bring a sin offering. In this braita, Rabbi Shimon's opinion is presented. He disagrees and explains that every nazir is considered a sinner. Abaye cites three people (Shimon the Tzadik in his story on Nedarim 9b, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Elazar the Kapar) who viewed nazirs as sinners. What is the sin of being a nazir, according to them, and from which verse in the Torah did they derive this? The Mishna lists what words are kinui of vows, cherem, nazir and oaths. Regarding a kinui, Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree - is it the language of the gentiles or the language of the sages that was made up for us to use? According to Reish Lakish, why would the rabbis make up words to use in place of the actual words? It was to avoid using God's name in vain. Is their dispute the same as the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel regarding a kinui of a kinui? Some examples of a kinui of a kinui are brought? The Mishna says that using the language of something that is forbidden or related to sacrifices would be a valid language of a vow.

Nedarim 9 - November 3, 9 Cheshvan Nov 03, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Lesley & Don Nadel for the refuah shleima of Don's brother Al, Eliyahu Shlomo ben Zisa Risa who is undergoing brain cancer treatment.

If one takes a vow using the wording "like the vows of the wicked" that is a valid vow. The nature of the vow will depend upon what it was said about, as Shmuel later explains. For example, if there was food in front of the person when the statement was made, it is understood to be an oath forbidding the food. If a nazir passed before the person, then the statement is understood as taking upon oneself to be a nazir. If there was an animal, it is understood to be designated for a sacrifice. Shmuel adds that in order for it to be valid, another word must be added, indicating that there was intent to take a vow like "I will be" or "on me." If one used the language "vows (nedarim) of kosher ones (virtuous people)" it is an invalid statement, but "voluntary offerings (nedavot) of kosher ones" is a valid statement and understood to be either a nazir or for a sacrifice. Why is there a difference in the Mishna if one uses the language of neder or nedava and according to whose opinion does this correspond? The Gemara first explains according to Rabbi Meir's approach. To highlight the difference between neder and nedava, an example is brought of Hillel the Elder who took particular care when he would bring a voluntary offering as a sacrifice. An example of nedava of a nazir is brought as well.

Nedarim 8 - November 2, 8 Cheshvan Nov 02, 2022

This week's learning is sponsored by Michael and Ariella Radwin in honor of Danny Sadinoff and Rebecca Perlin on the 30th anniversary of the invention of Hebcal. "Danny and Rebecca, your commitment to Torah learning and Israel continue to be an inspiration to the Radwin family."

Rav Gidal said in the name of Rav three more things (in addition to one in Nedarim 7b). 1. One can swear to fulfill a mitzva even though theoretically we are already “sworn in” from Matan Torah and a swear cannot be valid if one has already sworn to do something. If so, how does this work? 2. One can say they will get up early to learn something specific and it will be a valid vow. How can this be understood in light of the issue raised above? 3. One who says to one’s friend: "I will get up early and learn this chapter" should show up before the friend. One who saw in a dream that they were ex-communicated need ten learned people to dissolve the ex-communication. What are they to do if they can't find ten people who are learned? If one saw in the dream the person who ex-communicated them, can they find this person and not need to find ten learned people to dissolve it? If in the dream the ex-communication was dissolved, one still has to go through the process to dissolve it. Why? Ravina's wife took a vow and he asked Rav Ashi if he could be a messenger to explain her reasons for regret to get the vow annulled. Rabbi Ashi said that he could but only if he went to a court already in existence. The Gemara learns three laws from this story. Regarding permitting ex-communication, the law is less strict. Why? They cite a drasha in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai in which he extrapolates a verse in Malachi 3:20 that the sun will come and heal those who do not use God’s name in vain. Reish Lakish interprets the verse in a different way - it is referring to the righteous and the wicked in the world to come - there is no place called hell, but the righteous and the wicked will be in the same place and God will take out the sun and it will heal the righteous and burn the wicked.

Nedarim 7 - November 1, 7 Cheshvan Nov 01, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 7

Today's daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz in loving memory of her paternal grandmother’s yahrzeit, Esther bat Avraham.

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Meir Shapiro, the Daf Yomi visionary, on his 89th yahrzeit.

Rav Papa continues to ask whether yadot are effective for charity or for declaring one’s possessions ownerless. Ravina asks if yadot are effective when designating an area as a bathroom? Ravina was actually unsure in general whether designating an area as a bathroom is effective to forbid one from reciting kriat shema there. And then he deliberated that even if one were to say it is effective, were one to designate it with cut-off language (a yad), would it be effective as well. There is no answer to all the questions asked. Rabbi Akiva (in the Mishna) was inclined to rule stringently if one said “I am menudeh to you,” and treated it as a vow. Abaye claims that Rabbi Akiva would not give someone lashes if they broke this vow as the language of the Mishna indicates that he is not sure what the law is and therefore rules stringently, but one would therefore not get punished for it. In what wording exactly is there a dispute between him and the sages? Rav Papa and Rav Chisda disagree on this matter. Because they mentioned the language of ex-communication, the Gemara discusses several laws related to ex-communication. If one dissolves an ex-communication, do they do that in the presence of the person who was excommunicated or not? On what does it depend? He who uses God’s name in vain should be excommunicated. Some laws of ex-communication are derived from a story about a woman who uses God’s name in vain and was excommunicated, but they immediately dissolved the ex-communication. A scholar who has put himself into ex-communication can also dissolve his own ex-communication. This is proven from a case with Mar Zutra the Chasid.

Nedarim 6 - October 31, 6 Cheshvan Oct 31, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 6

Abaye holds that yadot (cut-off sentence) of a vow is considered a vow. The Gemara raises two difficulties against Abaye from braitot. The questions are each resolved in different manners. Rav Papa asks if yadot are effective in kiddushin, betrothal, or peah, designated a corner of your field for the poor. In what case is the question asked? No answer is given. Can we infer from the example brought for peah that one can make one's entire field peah? Why is there deliberation regarding yadot for peah?

Nedarim 5 - October 30, 5 Cheshvan Oct 30, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 5

Nedarim 5 - October 30, 5 Cheshvan Oct 30, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 5

Nedarim 4 - Shabbat October 29, 4 Cheshvan Oct 28, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 4

What is a case where one can be held liable for delaying a nazirite vow? Two answers were suggesting in Nedarim 3b and three more suggestions are now brought. The last answer suggests that the prohibition of delaying relates to delaying the nazirite sacrifices. If this is so, why would that need to be derived from the juxtaposition (heikesh) of neder to nazir, when it could be simply derived from the laws of delaying all sacrifices, which include sin offerings (which is one of the sacrifices brought by a nazir)? Perhaps nazir is a chiddush, has unique laws, on account of which one would not be able to learn laws of nazir from laws of other sacrifices. Why would nazir be a chiddush? The Gemara brings four possibilities, two of which are rejected. One last question is asked on the braita from Nedarim 3a regarding the source for the law of annulment of nazir from a husband to a wife/father to a daughter. Shmuel has a unique way of reading the line of the Mishna relating to the details of yadot. However, the Gemara raises a question on his reading.

Nedarim 3 - October 28, 3 Cheshvan Oct 28, 2022

Nedarim 2 - October 27, 2 Cheshvan Oct 27, 2022

Study Guide Nedarim 2 Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l. Today's daf is sponsored by the Agus family in honor of Aviva Adler completing the Siyum HaShas. Today's daf is sponsored by Rabia and Oliver Mitchell in honor of their daughter Ellin Mitchell Cooper on becoming the Yoetzet Halacha for Manhattan. Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Bardack in loving memory of the 11 souls who were killed in the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting four years ago. Yehi Zichram Baruch. When someone takes a vow to forbid an item, that vow is effective. One can take a vow using the language of a vow (neder) or also using a similar term that has the same meaning (kinui). The same holds true for cherem (a type of vow performed by using the term cherem), oaths and vows to take upon oneself to become a nazir. If one uses a different language that indicates that one is distancing or separating from a friend or one will not eat from a friend, this is effective as well. The Gemara refers to this category as yadot, incomplete statements. If one uses a language of excommunication: "I am menuda (excommunicated) from you," Rabbi Akiva was unsure how to treat it and therefore ruled stringently. Masechet Nazir begins in the same manner, mentioning that if one uses a kinui (word similar to) of nazir, the vow is effective, but does not mention vow, oaths and cherem. The Gemara notes the difference between the two mishnayot and tries to figure out why. The answer leads to a further question regarding the order of our Mishna - vows, cherem, oaths and nazir. Another issue is raised regarding the structure of the Mishna. To resolve this issue, they explain that the Mishna is missing words. This leads to a further question as the order is troubling - it starts with kinuyim and then moves to yadot, then explains the yadot in detail and then goes back to explain kinuyim. Why? This can be explained as an ABBA structure as can be found in a number of other mishnayot. Why are some mishnayot written in that structure and others ABAB?

Ketubot 112 - Siyum Masechet Ketubot - October 26, 1 Cheshvan Oct 26, 2022

Click here for the Siyum Ceremony text Siyum Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Rhona Fink in honor of Rabbanit Michelle, the Hadran staff and all of the Hadran Daf Yomi learners. May we continue to go from strength to strength. Siyum Ketubot is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Keren Devorah bat Esther.

A number of stories are told, relating to the large size of fruits in Israel, the large quantity and the excellent quality. The land of Israel is compared to a deer - in what way is it similar to a deer and in what way it is not? Rabbi Elazar makes reference to three curses from Yechezkel 13:9 and explains how he avoided these curses by doing certain actions. Other stories are told of rabbis who viewed Israel in high regard and took actions appropriately, such as taking action to get there in the quickest way possible, kissing the rocks, repairing stumbling blocks, and even making sure to move from the sun to shade or the shade to the sun so as to never have to say that they are uncomfortable in Israel. A brief statement of Rabbi Zeira mentions the destruction that will come before the Messiah comes. The Masechet ends with a statement of Rav Chiya bar Ashi in the name of Rav that in the future all the non-fruit bearing trees in Israel will bring forth fruits.

Inroduction to Masechet Nedarim with Dr. Ayelet Hoffman Libson Oct 25, 2022

Introduction to the Masechet

Inroduction to Masechet Nedarim with Dr. Ayelet Hoffman Libson Oct 25, 2022

Introduction to the Masechet

Ketubot 111 - 1st Day of Rosh Chodesh Cheshvan - October 25, 30 Tishrei Oct 25, 2022

When Rabbi Zeira was planning to make aliya, he avoided seeing Rav Yehuda as he knew that Rav Yehuda was against moving to Israel, until God redeems us. First Rav Yehuda explained it from a verse saying that we will be sent to Babylonia and will not return until God redeems us, but Rabbi Zeira pointed out that the verse refers to the vessels of the Temple. Rav Yehuda then explained it from the verse in Shir HaShirim 2:7 about not stirring up the love for the beloved until the beloved requests. Rabbi Zeira understood that verse, as well as two other identical verses to be referring to the three oaths. One, that the Jews do not ascend to Israel "like a wall" (in a forceful manner, or as a large group). Two, that the Jews do not rebel against their enemies. Three, the nations of the world do not subjugate the Jews excessively. Therefore, Rabbi Zeira believed that individuals can move to Israel. Rav Yehuda understood from the words "do not awaken and do not stir up" that it includes both a group and individuals. Rabbi Zeira learned from there that there are an additional three oaths. What are they? Other statements are brought praising those who live in the land of Israel and also those who get buried there, although not as much as those who live there. Some of the rabbis praise those who live in Babylonia as compared to other places where there is little Torah and Rav Yehuda himself says that one who lives in Babylonia is considered like one who is living in Israel. The resurrection of the dead is limited to those living in Israel, other than righteous people who will get there through tunnels that will be created for this purpose. Rabbi Elazar held that amei haaretz will not be resurrected from the dead, only those who learn Torah. However Rabbi Yochanan was upset by this statement and Rabbi Elazar then explained that they could if they marry their daughters to a Torah scholar, do business dealings for Torah scholars, or help Torah scholars financially. A number of statements are brought telling of miraculous things that will happen in Israel in the future (when the dead are resurrected or in the World-to-Come). There are also a number of statements/stories about the miraculous nature of the fruits in Israel. These could be seen as exaggerated or perhaps meant to be understood symbolically.

Ketubot 110 - October 24, 29 Tishrei Oct 24, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Michael Radwin in honor of Ariella Radwin's 45th birthday. "Your dedication to Torah learning is the inspiration for me to begin studying daf yomi. Mazel Tov!"

Ketubot 109 - October 23, 28 Tishrei Oct 23, 2022

Today’s daf is dedicated with love by the Hadran Daf Yomi group of Hashmonaim to our wonderful friend and havruta Phyllis Hecht and her entire family on the occasion of the Bar Mitzvah of her son Caleb, celebrated this past Shabbat Breishit. May this special simcha bring joy and light as we pray for the good health of Phyllis (Gitel Pesha bat Masha Rahel)

Today’s daf is sponsored in honor of the marriage of David and Eve Farber's daughter, Allie.

The third debate between Admon and the rabbis is if a man commits money to his future son-in-law (one who is betrothed to his daughter) and then goes bankrupt, can the fiance delay the indefinitely or can the woman insist she either marry her or divorce her? A different version appears in the Tosefta where the debate is only regarding a case where the woman herself committed the money, but if it was the father, all agree that the woman can insist that he marry or divorce her as it is not she who made the commitment. Another braita limits the law to a grown woman, as if she is young and committed money, we do not take her commitment seriously as she is a minor. Rabban Gamliel supported Admon and Rabbi Yitzchak ben Elazar ruled like Rabban Gamliel where he sides like Admon. Rabbi Zeira made a ruling regarding the cases of Admon and Chanan and regarding which cases we hold by them. It seemed to contradict what Rabbi Yitzchak said, so they suggest a different reading/understanding of Rabbi Zeira's ruling. If one is signed on a document of sale between two people and then later claims that the field was stolen from him, Admon and the rabbi debate whether that person is believed. However, they both agree in a case where one signed a document regarding the sale of one field but mentioned that it bordered on the owner's field, that the signator cannot come and claim the bordering property was stolen from him. If it was a judge who signed verifying the signatures of the witnesses, this debate would be irrelevant as we assume that judges relate only to the signatures and not the content of the document. In the second case, regarding the bordering field, if the sale is to the one who later claims it was stolen, then the stolen claim can be accepted as one can say there was a reason for agreeing earlier to the border claim, in order to ensure that the sale go through. A case is brought where one claimed the land was stolen from him and then subsequently died, having appointed a steward in his place to plead the case for his orphans. The steward made one claim after another and succeeded in getting all the land for the orphans. If one went abroad and upon returning no longer remembered where one had a path that led from their property through the surrounding neighbor's property, Admon and the rabbis disagree about whether they get the shortest path or do they need to pay the owner of the surrounding territory to be able to pass through. Rava mentions a number of scenarios where there is no debate, depending on how many people own the surrounding territories. The debate is only in a case where it was originally owned by four different owners but now when the claim is made, there is only one. A case is brought up where a father promised his daughter upon his death one palm tree. Rav Yosef thought to compare it to our Mishna as each male heir can claim it is not in his territory, but his comparison is rejected. Another issue of that case is raised - if there are two separate half palms trees that they own (i.e. they have a partnership with someone's two palm trees), can they give her those, instead of one whole one, even though it will be more difficult for her to tend to them?

Ketubot 108 - Shabbat October 22, 27 Tishrei Oct 21, 2022

Study Guide Ketubot 108

The Mishna said that if someone else provides food for the woman while the husband is away, Chanan held that he cannot force the husband to reimburse him upon his return. A different Mishna regarding one who forbade another from benefitting from him/her and then did a number of actions on the person's behalf. This Mishna seems to follow Chanan's position in our Mishna. However, not all agree and provide a different explanation for the cases in the other Mishna. The next two Mishnas discuss laws of Admon that others disagreed with. In a case where the estate does not have enough to support both the sons and daughters, how is the money split? If one claims one's friend owes jugs of oil, and the friend admits to the jugs and not the oil, is that considered a case of one who is modeh b'miktzat, admits to half, or not? What is the root of the debate?

Ketubot 107 - October 21, 26 Tishrei Oct 21, 2022

Study Guide Ketubot 107

Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether the court can get involved and decide to award food payments to a wife from her husband's assets if he is abroad and she claims that he left her no money. Shmuel holds that they cannot, however, if they hear that he is dead, then they can award her money for food. Two explanations for Shmuel's position are brought. What is the practical difference between them? Seven sources, among them our Mishna, are brought to raise difficulties against Shmuel's approach but are all resolved. By which position do we hold? If someone else provides food for the woman while the husband is away, can he force the husband to reimburse him upon his return? This too is a debate between Chanan and the sons of the kohanim gedolim.

Ketubot 106 - October 20, 25 Tishrei Oct 20, 2022

Study Guide Ketubot 106

The last week of Masechet Ketubot learning is sponsored in honor of Aviva Adler’s Siyum HaShas by the members of her Navi chavura - Naomi, Tova, Vivi, Chani, Shoshana, Mindy and their spouses. "Aviva, we wish you many more years of learning in good health surrounded by all those who love you and continue to be inspired by you."

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of the marriage of Adina and Eric Hagege's son Eilon. Mazal tov! Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Noa - best wishes for an easy birth. The Gemara continues the story of Rav Anan and how someone who tried to give him a bribe indirectly caused a perversion of justice. Rav Anan is punished as his visits with Eliahu HaNavi are no longer as they were before. The difference is used to explain why there are two different works known as Seder Eliahu Raba and Seder Eliahu Zuta. As a verse regarding Elisha was mentioned previously (Kings 2 4:43), the Gemara brings another drasha on that verse explaining that Elisha had 2,200 scholars that he taught and fed daily. In the context of that statement, they then mention several rabbis and how many students they each fed. The number of students decreased with each rabbi mentioned. What else was paid for by the Temple treasury (trumat halishka - money collected from the half shekel)? There is a debate regarding the women who weaved the parochet – was it paid for by the Temple treasury or by the money collected for building and upkeep of the Temple (bedek habayit). A question is asked regarding the vessels in the Temple – are they needed for the sacrifices and therefore paid from the Temple treasury or are they needed for the altar and therefore paid for by the building/upkeep funds? Different opinions are brought and difficulties are raised. In the end, it is explained that it is a tannaitic debate.

Ketubot 105 - October 19, 24 Tishrei Oct 19, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Gail Licht and family in loving memory of her father's yahrzeit, HaRav Avraham Shaul Halevi ben Yaakov.

Admon and Chanan were two judges (dayanei gezeirot) who ruled on various matters in which the rabbis or others disagreed with them. The last chapter of Ketubot deals with two rulings of Chanan and seven of Admon. If a husband goes abroad and his wife demands sustenance, does she need to take an oath that he did not leave her any food? Chanan and the sons of the kohanim gedolim debate at what stage/s she needs to take an oath. Later tannaim debate how to rule on this issue - like Chanan or like the sons of the kohanim gedolim. The Gemara struggles with the language of the Mishna - firstly why does it say there were two dayanei gezeirot when there are other sources that say three? Also, they are called dayanei gezeilot in other sources. These judges would receive their salary from the temple treasury. Are judges allowed to take a salary? On what does it depend? Can they take money from the two sides that come to be judged? Is this like taking bribes? What is the danger of taking bribes? The Gemara brings various stories to show how far a judge needs to go to ensure that he does not show any favor to either one of the sides. One who is not able to do that in a particular case should insist on not being a judge for that case, as is highlighted in a number of the stories.

Ketubot 104 - October 18, 23 Tishrei Oct 18, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Jessica Shklar in honor of her sister, Hadran stalwart Ruth Leah Kahan. "In appreciation for hosting my boys and their miscellaneous friends who have been visiting Israel over the last few months. Thank you for giving them a home."

As Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was about to die, the rabbis decreed a fast, prayed for his recovery, and declared that anyone who says Rebbi died will be stabbed by a sword. His maidservant realized at a certain point that Rebbi was suffering terribly so she threw a jug from the roof to distract them from the prayers and as soon as they stopped praying for a moment Rebbi died. How did they declare his death if they had forbidden people from saying he was dead? What were Rebbi's final words and how was he accepted in the heavens? How are the righteous greeted by the angels in heaven and what about evil people? The Mishna discusses a widow's ability to receive the money of her ketuba after twenty-five years. Can she still demand it? According to Rabbi Meir, if she was living the whole time in her husband's house then after twenty-five years she can no longer get her ketuba. According to the rabbis, it is an issue only if she is living in her father's house. What is the logic of each position? Difficulties are raised against each position and are resolved. Rav and Rabbi Elazar disagree about the rabbi's position - is it that she has a ketuba in hand or only if she does not have a ketuba? Two difficulties are raised against Rav's position (that she does not have a ketuba) but are resolved. A braita is brought to support Rav's position. Another question is raised about the debate in the Mishna - is it referring to the whole ketuba or only to the main part of the ketuba? A story is told of a woman whose brother-in-law no longer wanted to pay for her food or ketuba as twenty-five years had passed. She succeeds in getting a court ruling to collect her ketuba but as he refuses to fulfill the court order, the story drags on and she tries to claim proceeds from the land from the time of the ruling in her favor to now and although she tries to bring good halachic arguments, the court brings counter-arguments and awards her only the ketuba, but not the proceeds.

Ketubot 103 - Shmini Atzeret, October 17, 22 Tishrei Oct 14, 2022

A case was brought regarding a man who rented a millstone and in exchange for payment, he ground the wheat for the owner. When the owner became rich and no longer needed the services of the grinder, he wanted to get paid money for the rental of the millstone. Can he force him to pay the money? Can we learn the answer to this question from the case in our Mishna with the two husbands who are forced to pay the value of the food they committed to give the daughter? Can one distinguish between the cases? Orphans need to allow the widow of their father to stay in their house and feed her. If she returns to her father’s house, they do not need to feed her. In what situations do we make exceptions to these rules? The Gemara brings a braita that tells what happened when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died. First, he told his sons to take care of his wife and show respect for her. Isn’t this a Torah obligation? He wanted his candle to be lit, and his table and bed to be set. Why? Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would come back (from the dead) every Friday night until one particular incident that caused him to stop coming. He told his sons who would serve him. They thought he meant at his burial but since they predeceased him, they realize he meant in heaven. He then called the sages and told them not to eulogize him in the cities, how long to mourn for him before reopening the yeshivot, and that Shimon his son is wise and Gamliel his son will take over as the Nasi, and Chanina bar Chama will be the head of the yeshiva. Why did he tell them each of these things? What happened as a result of not allowing eulogies for him in the small villages? How long did they in fact mourn for him? Chanina bar Chama did not sit at the head right away – as he first let Rabbi Afas be the head as he was older. While Rabbi Afas was the head, Rabbi Chanina would sit outside and learn with Levi. Once he died, Levi had no one to learn with and went to Babylonia. When Rav saw him come, he immediately understood that Rabbi Afas had died and Rabbi Chanina had become the head. How did he know this? Why wasn’t Rabbi Chiya chosen? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi then called in his children and passed on to them what they needed to know.

Ketubot 102 - Hoshana Raba - October 16, 21 Tishrei Oct 14, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Gitta Neufeld in loving memory of her mother-in-law, Alice Neufeld, Aidel bat Natan veSara. "She was the Naomi to my (I hope) Ruth. We were blessed to have Oma live with us when she could no longer live alone - at a feisty 90 - and continue to be blessed as we watch our children and grandchildren follow in her ways of Torah, Yirat Shamayim and Hatzneya Lechet. Yehi Zichra Baruch."

Today's daf is sponsored by Blima Slutsky in loving memory of her sister, Rivka Sara bat Tina and Yitzhak.

A debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish is brought regarding one who says to another “I owe you (a certain amount of) money.” If it was in writing, can we assume it is legitimate, even if there are no witnesses signed on the document? Two attempts to support Rabbi Yochanan's position are brought (one from our Mishna), but both are rejected. Rava suggests that perhaps their debate was also a debate between tannaim regarding an arev, a guarantor. But that suggestion is rejected as well. Why are agreements made between the family of the groom and the family of the bride considered as if there were written, even if they were not written? Ravina asks whether these agreements between the families can be written down or not. Rav Ashi answers that they cannot. Three sources are brought (including our Mishna) as difficulties on Rav Ashi but are resolved. Can we derive from our Mishna that the mother usually has precedence for custody over girls, even if they are older?

Ketubot 101 - Shabbat October 15, 20 Tishrei Oct 14, 2022

Rav and Shmuel differ on the case referred to in the Mishna regarding a minor who refuses. Is it referring to a minor who actually refused (mi’un) or is it referring to a minor who could potentially refuse? Shmuel said it is one who actually refused, which is consistent with a statement he made elsewhere which lists halachic differences between a minor who refused and a minor who was divorced. Why was it necessary to make that list if those differences can be derived from our Mishna (according to Shmuel’s version) and another Mishna (Yevamot 108a)? Shmuel added one new issue that wasn’t mentioned in either place and therefore mentioned the others as well. A suggestion is made that the debate between Rav and Shmuel is also a subject of debate among tannaim. However, the suggestion is rejected. The worn clothing does not go to “her” according to the Mishna. Which “her” is it referring to, meaning, which case in the Mishna? When it says in the Mishna that they do not receive their ketuba, to which part/s of the ketuba is this referring? If there are rumors about a woman that she was with another man, does she lose her worn clothing? If a man married an aylonit or a kohen gadol married a widow and he knew beforehand that she was an aylonit/widow, does she lose her ketuba anyway? Is there a distinction in this regard between the case of an aylonit and the case of the widow with a kohen gadol? Can we derive an answer to this question from the language of our Mishna? If a woman got married and made an agreement with her husband that he would support her daughter (from her previous marriage) for five years, and they get divorced, he still needs to continue to support her. This is even true if she remarries and makes her new husband commit the same. They both need to provide the support – one gives it in the form of food and the other gives the value of what he would have spent on her food. If the daughter gets married, her husband provides the food and the other two provide her with money at the value of the food they committed to her mother. She also has an advantage over the mother’s husband’s heirs as she is a creditor and can therefore collect her money from liened property whereas they can only collect it from unliened property. A debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish is brought regarding one who says to another “I owe you (a certain amount of) money.” Can we collect based on that statement alone or not? Can we bring support for one of the opinions from our Mishna?

Ketubot 100 - October 14, 19 Tishrei Oct 14, 2022

If the widow sells items of the orphans for a loss, the sale is invalid, but if the judges do it, they have a margin of error of up to a sixth. Rashbag holds even higher than that we do not invalidate the sale of the judges, as the courts have more power than individuals - in the words of the Mishna, "If not, what is the power of the courts?" What is the law regarding a messenger who sells an orphan's property- is it like a widow or a court? They quoted that Rav Nachman ruled like the rabbis regarding the court's sale. But didn't Rav Nachman say regarding court-appointed stewards (apotropos) who divided up the land of the orphans that the children cannot change the distribution when they get older because "If not, what is the power of the courts?" How is this resolved? A story is brought with Rebbi who ruled like the rabbis but Parta convinced him to change his mind and hold like Rashbag. A different version has Rebbi only considering holding like the rabbis and then Parta convinces him to rule like Rashbag. Do the two versions disagree with each other on halachic grounds (do we hold that one who makes a mistake on a ruling in the Mishna has to undo the ruling or not) or is it just a disagreement about what actually happened? When one sells an orphan's property, whether or not it was the widow or the courts, the orphans automatically assume the guarantee for the sale. Even though Rashbag said that even if the courts err, the sale is valid, Rav Sheshet limits this to an error of half the price or double the price. Ameimar ruled that the courts who sell an orphan's property need to announce it, in order to ensure a good price. A question is raised against Ameimar from our Mishna. Three different ukimtot are brought to explain the case in our Mishna so it would not contradict Ameimar. If the orphans have moveable items, do we sell them immediately or wait for an opportunity to get the best price? On what does it depend? There are certain women who don't receive a ketuba - one who refused a marriage (mi'un - when she was married off by her mother/brother), one who married someone who was forbidden to her by rabbinic law and an aylonit. These women also have no rights to the produce, to food, or to worn out clothing.

Ketubot 99 - October 13, 18 Tishrei Oct 13, 2022

Study Guide Ketubot 99

Today's daf is sponsored by Elana Kermaier in loving memory of her father Moshe Fox, Moshe Yehuda ben Harav Binyamin and Chaya Tzipora, on his 5th yahrzeit, which was yesterday. "I sorely miss his humor and warmth and the special relationship he had with his grandchildren."

The Gemara asks various questions regarding the laws of messengers who don't do exactly what they are asked to do, and tries to answer from our Mishna and other sources. But all attempts to answer are rejected. First question: If you ask a messenger to sell your land the size of a letech and instead the messenger sold a kor, double the area, is the sale of the land the size of the letech valid or void? Some explained that the question was the other way around - if they asked to sell a kor and instead the messenger sold a letech, is the sale void because maybe it hurts the owner that there will be two deeds on the land and not one? If someone sends a messenger to sell to one person (or they weren't specific at all as to how many people to sell to), can the messenger sell to more than one person?

Ketubot 98 - October 12, 17 Tishrei Oct 12, 2022

A case is brought to show that we don’t hold like Rabbi Shimon regarding his opinion that a woman who collects part of her ketuba cannot collect food payments anymore. If a woman sells her late husband’s property to collect from it her ketuba money and she does not make the sale in front of a court, does she need to swear to the orphans (there is a debate about what exactly she would need to swear)? Why didn’t they ask whether she needs to publicly announce the sale (to ensure that she gets a good price)? An unsuccessful attempt is made to try the first question. Even without having any answers, the Gemara tells us how we rule on both these issues. If the woman sold the land for more or less money than its value, what is the law? How does this law correspond to a similar case regarding a messenger? What if she sold more land than what was owed to her? A question is asked regarding a similar case regarding a messenger who sold more land than he was asked to. First, an attempt is made to get the answer from a Mishna in Meila 20a but is rejected. Then they try to derive the answer from the case in our Mishna of a woman who sold more than what she was owed.

Ketubot 97 - October 11, 16 Tishrei Oct 11, 2022

When a woman sells her late husband's property for food payments, how much land can she sell at a time, and in what type of installments does she receive the money? Two opinions are brought and support from braitot are brought for each position. If she sold the land for food payments and then when she wanted to receive her ketuba payment, there was no land left in the estate, could she collect the ketuba payment from the buyer, as there was a lien on the property for her ketuba? Rav Sheshet answers that she cannot as can be derived from a braita. If one sells property as one needs the money for something else, but in the end, does not need the money, can they renege on the deal, even if the reason they were selling it was not made explicitly clear during the transaction? Two sources are brought to answer the question. The first one is rejected. It is unclear whether the second one is rejected or upheld (there are different interpretations of the Gemara). The Gemara rules that one can renege on the deal. If a woman sells her husband's land, does it have to be sold in court? Does it depend on whether she sells it for food or her ketuba payment? There is a debate between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis. Why do the rabbis not require it for her ketuba? Ulla says it is because of hina, to enable marriage. Rabbi Yochanan says it is because a husband wouldn't want to humiliate his wife to make her go in front of a court. Two questions are raised against Ulla, but are resolved. If a woman sells her late husband's land to receive part of her ketuba payment or uses it as collateral for the value of her ketuba or less than the full value, does that prevent her from being able to collect food payments (as is the case when she collects her entire ketuba payment)? If she then proceeds to sell more land of her late husband's does it have to be done in a court or not? Also regarding these issues, there is a debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon. Even though the Mishna didn't mention Rabbi Shimon by name, the Gemara concludes that the unnamed opinion is Rabbi Shimon. The rabbis hold that if part of the marriage contract is not collected, it is as if the whole contract is not collected. Rabbi Shimon holds the opposite. If so, their opinions here appear to be the opposite of their opinions regarding the definition of a virgin for marrying a kohen gadol.

Ketubot 96 - 1st Day of Sukkot - October 10, 15 Tishrei Oct 09, 2022

A question is asked regarding the language in the Mishna. Is it saying that "all widows get supported by the orphans" (as was the custom in the Galilee) or "a widow who gets supported by the orphans…" (as was the custom in Judea as the orphan could insist she stop taking food payments and they could just pay her the ketuba money and end the relationship). The Gemara tries to prove this from a statement of Shmuel’s regarding our Mishna. However, the proof is inconclusive. What responsibilities does the woman have toward the orphans – is it the same as the woman toward her husband? Even though she can’t collect her food stipend from moveable items, if she does, is it valid or can the court take it away from her? Is it the same for a ketuba? After a certain amount of time passes and she hasn’t demanded food payments, she can no longer collect them. After how much time and on what does that depend? Rabbi Yochanan asked about a case where there is a disagreement between the widow and the orphans about whether or not they gave her money for food, upon who lies the burden of proof? A braita is brought to prove that the burden of proof is on the orphans. Rav Shimi son of Ashi brings a Tosefta in an attempt to show that it is a tannaitic debate. However, the Gemara rejects his explanation of the debate and brings two alternative explanations.

Ketubot 95 - October 9, 14 Tishrei Oct 09, 2022

Study Guide Ketubot 95

Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Spinner in loving memory of her mother and mother-in-law. The Mishna discusses a situation where a man is married to two wives and sells his property. If the first wife tells the buyer that she waives her rights to the property for collecting her ketuba, the second wife can collect it from the buyer, then the first wife can collect it from the second wife as she has first rights to the ketuba, and then the buyer can demand it from the second wife (as she waived her rights to ) and then the first wife can take the property for her ketuba and it can keep going on like this until the three of them come to a compromise. First, the Gemara questions the language used for the first wife to waive her rights as the same language appears in a discussion regarding a partnership agreement and that same language is not effective. After resolving that, the Gemara raises a contradiction from a Mishna in Gittin 55b where a wife can claim she waived her rights to the land just to appease her husband. Three possible resolutions are brought. One cannot collect from liened property when there is property in the hands of the debtor to collect from. But what if that property was damaged? Can the answer to this question be derived from Rabbi Meir's opinion in a braita quoted in the previous discussion regarding a woman who waived her rights to the second buyer but not the first? Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak and Rava each reject this comparison in different manners. Rav Yeimar tries to bring an answer from a different seemingly similar situation where the courts rule in general that the land can be collected from later buyers, but his comparison is also rejected. In the end, the Gemara simply rules that it can be done. They quote two rulings of Abaye regarding a woman who received a gift from someone who said "This gift is for you and when you die, it will go to someone else (a named person)." In one case, the husband gets rights to it and not the other person and in the other, the other person does. What is the difference between the cases? The second case seems to go against our Mishna. How can this be explained?

Ketubot 94 - Shabbat October 8, 13 Tishrei Oct 07, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Jordana Hyman in loving memory of Ruth Philips, Rut Michal Bat Sara Feige and Aryeh A"H, who would have celebrated her birthday today. "Ruth sparked my spiritual journey at age 15, and opened my heart and soul to Hashem and Torah. May our learning bring an aliyah to her soul."

Ben Nanas and the rabbis disagree about whether the last wife needs to swear in order to get her ketuba money in the case of the Mishna on Keutbot 93b. Three options are brought to explain what the root of their debate is. If two siblings or partners have a disagreement in court with someone and one partner goes to court, can the other later claim that he/she wants to make their own claim for their half is it considered that one acted as the messenger of the other? Can the law be derived from our Mishna? On what may it depend? Rav and Shmuel disagree about a case where two people bring a document of sale of the same property with the same date – do we split it 50/50 or do the judges assess who it is more likely the rightful owner and give it to one of them? Is their debate linked to the debate in Masechet Gittin between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Elazar about whether the witnesses’ signatures on the get is the essential part of the get or is it the passing of the get to the wife? A contradiction is brought to Shmuel from a braita. How is it resolved? A case was brought with two brothers whose mother each gave them a document on the same day (one in the morning and the other in the afternoon) promising him all her possessions. The first one came to Rav Sheshet and he ruled in his favor. The second one came to Rav Nachman and he ruled in his favor. The conversation/argument that ensued between Rav Sheshet and Rav Nachman is brought, including the logic behind each position. How do we rule if one document has the month and the day of the month, and another document has the month but not the day of the month?

Ketubot 93 - October 7, 12 Tishrei Oct 07, 2022

Study Guide Ketubot 93

Today's daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in honor of her granddaughter Tamar's bat mitzvah (named after her mother), grandson Amitai's bar mitzvah (named after her nephew), and for the birth of her two new grandsons Shmuel and Avyatar Chayim. "I feel a great hakarat hatov for this month's blessings. To my Hadran Zoom family who is always there in good times and in trying times, may we all have many more smachot and good health this coming year inspired by our mentor, Rabannit Michelle ad 120. שוש אשיש בד' תגל נפשי באלוקי

If a husband has several wives and the amount of their ketuba is not equal - one's was one hundred, one two hundred and one three hundred, and he does not have enough money in his estate, how is the money divided? The Mishna cites cases where the estate is one hundred, two hundred and three hundred and explains the division in each case. The amoraim had difficulty understanding the second case of the Mishna and brought two different explanations to understand, each one explaining that the Mishna is dealing with a particular case (ukimta). At the end of the Mishna, these cases are compared to cases where people invested money together but each invested a different amount - the profits are divided similarly. Shmuel said that the profits are divided equally. To what type of case was he referring? Rabba and Rav HaManuna agree on this issue. The Gemara brings a difficulty against Rabba from a braita and resolves the difficulty. Then they point out that the Mishna itself contradicts Shmuel and therefore interpret our Mishna in a different way to correspond to Shmuel. If a husband has several wives, and they have ketubas with different dates, the one with an earlier date gets paid first. But she had to swear to the woman who follows her before she can collect her ketuba.

Ketubot 92 - October 6, 11 Tishrei Oct 06, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Medinah Korn in memory of Reuven Cohn, HaRav Reuven Zvi ben HaRav Moshe Yeshaya HaCohen uDevorah Breina, on his fifth Yahrzeit. Reuven was a dear family friend and master teacher. We miss his warmth, humor and zest for engaging with people. Yehi Zichro Baruch.

Two rulings of Rami bar Chama are brought in which someone sells a field with a lien on it. In one case, the seller bought back the land and then it was taken by one of his creditors. Rami bar Hama allows him to demand the money back from the one he bought it back from - why? Rava disagrees with his ruling. In the second case, the buyer didn't have the money and borrowed the money (as a loan) from the seller. The seller then died. When a creditor of the seller came to claim the land back, the buyer paid for it in exchange for his loan. Rami bar Hama ruled that he has no right to do that. Why? Rava adds his advice for the buyer to protect himself in this situation. Raba discusses what happens when one sells all of one's fields to one person and then the buyer sells one field to another. Can a creditor collect from the second buyer or only from the first? On what does it depend? Abaye ruled that if one sold a field to another with a guarantee, and the creditor of the debtor came straight to the buyer instead of first going to the debtor to claim the land, the debtor can intervene and pay the creditor back without involving the buyer and the creditor cannot try to claim that the debtor is an uninvolved party. Others say that it would be the same ruling even if it was sold without a guarantee as the buyer will still have a complaint against the seller and therefore, that is enough reason to claim that he is an involved party. Another ruling brought by Abaye: if one bought a field and then found out that there were those who claimed the field was theirs originally and not the seller's, at what point can the buyer back out of the deal? On what does it depend? Two different versions of Abaye's ruling are brought.

Ketubot 91 - Yom Kippur - October 5, 10 Tishrei Oct 04, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Gitta and David Neufeld in loving memory of Marvin Stokar, Meir ben Aryeh Leib haLevi a"h. "Marvin was our honorary Zaidy, a role model in his love of Eretz Yisrael, Torah and our dear Bubby Fran. He was so proud of learning the Daf in Yerushalayim! May our learning be a zechut and source of nachat for his neshama."

Is the braita that Rav Yosef quoted actually reflecting the same debate that Rabbi Akiva and Ben Nanas were arguing about – whether in a case where one wife died before the husband died and another after the husband died, can the sons of the first one collect their ketuba of male children? Several alternative explanations are brought for the debate in the braita. Mar Zutra brings a ruling on this issue and the Gemara explains why he needed to rule about two issues – why couldn’t we have inferred one from the other? To collect the ketuba of male children, there needs to be one dinar more than the ketubas that need collecting. The orphans cannot try to inflate the amount to try to collect their ketuba. What if the amount of the estate went up or down in value after the death and there was/was not an extra dinar? Two stories are brought related to inflation of the value of a property (not in a case regarding orphans) and there were those who wanted to rule from our Mishna that inflation of property is not allowed. However, others differentiated between the case at hand and the one in the Mishna.

Ketubot 90 - October 4, 9 Tishrei Oct 04, 2022

If a woman has more than one get (divorce document) or more than one ketuba, can she collect two ketuba payments? Under what circumstances? If one gives a wife a ketuba when one is still a minor and it still married to her when he turns matures or is not Jewish and then converts, the ketuba can be collected as well as the assumption is that when he matured/coverted he intended to continue to be married to her under the conditions of the original ketuba. If there was an amount greater than the basic ketuba, there is a debate about whether or not she can collect that amount. A difficulty is raised against the opinion that she can collect the extra and it is not resolved. The Mishna brings two cases. In the first one, the husband dies and leaves two wives. The one who was married first, gets to claim her ketuba first. The second case is one who had two wives and one wife died before the husband died and then the husband died, the second wife or her heirs have the first claim on her ketuba and then the sons of the first wife can collect. Two versions of an inference from the first case in the Mishna are brought - can one derive from here that if one seized property that another creditor was supposed to collect before, we force the one who seized to give it back or not? Three laws were inferred from the second case in the Mishna: 1. in a case where one wife died before the husband died and another after the husband died, the sons of the first one collect their 'ketuba of male children'. 2. The ketuba of the one wife (collected by her heirs can be considered 'extra' to allow the collection of the 'ketuba of male children' by the other wife's heirs. 3. 'Ketuba of male children' can't be collected from liened property. Rav Ashi questions the first two assumptions. The Gemara points out that the first inference (whether or not the 'ketuba of male children' can be collected in this case) is actually a tannaitic debate between Rabbi Akiva and Ben Nanas. Raba claims this is not the root of the debate, but Rav Yosef rejects Rava's claim and brings another braita that suggests that another group of tannaim also debated whether or not there is 'ketuba of male children' in this case.

Ketubot 89 - October 3, 8 Tishrei Oct 03, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Rachael Bentley. " May you be blessed with a sweet, healthy New Year!"

What happens when a woman wants to collect her ketuba but she only has a get (divorce document) in hand and no ketuba? Since the court determined that every woman is deserving of a ketuba, even if she doesn't have one, she can collect the ketuba with the get. What about the opposite case where she only has a ketuba and not a get? Because she doesn't have a get, we assume she already received the money and it was ripped up and therefore she is not believed, even if she claimed she lost it, if the husband claims he lost his receipt that he paid her. According to Rashbag, the halacha changed because of the danger from the gentiles and they would immediately tear up the get even without her collecting the ketuba. Is it possible to infer from the Mishna that it is necessary to write a receipt for the debtor in cases of a ketuba or loans? Rav and Shmuel say that we do not need to infer this from the Mishna and each explains the case in the Mishna differently and why we are not concerned that she will claim her ketuba money twice. Rav also changed his position and brought a different way of understanding things. Some questions are raised against the second position of Rav, but are answered.

Ketubot 88 - October 2, 7 Tishrei Oct 02, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Heather Stone in loving memory of her mother, Ellie Stone, Esther Bina bat Avraham Halevy ve’Rachel Leah on her 11th yahrzeit. "She taught us by example to protect the Jewish community. May her neshama have an aliyah." Today's daf is sponsored by Debbie Pine and Mark Orenshein in loving memory of Florence Pine, Fayga bat Sarah Rivkah, on her 2nd yahrtzeit. "The memory of her warm smile and kind heart inspires us every day. May her neshama have an aliyah!" If a woman claims her ketuba and one witness testifies that she already received it, she needs to take an oath in order to receive her ketuba money. The Gemara had concluded that this oath is a rabbinic oath and not one required by Torah law. Rav Papa suggests how the husband can create a situation where the oath required will be one by Torah law (which is more strict and therefore better for the husband as the woman is less likely to lie). However, a difficulty is raised and another suggestion is put forward. Another difficulty is raised against the second suggestion and a third suggestion is brought. A Mishna from Shevuot 45a is quoted where it says that orphans also need to take an oath. The sages try to determine what is the case in which orphans need to take an oath. A woman can collect her ketuba from the husband's property, even if he is out of town, but she is required to take an oath. Is the law the same for a creditor? Should the law be more lenient for a woman on account of hina, so that women get married, or is the issue of ensuring that people loan money just as important and therefore the same would be true for a creditor? Rabbi Shimon in the Mishna distinguished between women collecting their ketuba who need to take an oath and women not collecting their ketuba who do not need to take an oath. Rabbi Yirnia, Rav Sheshet, Abaye, and Rav Papa each have different interpretations of Rabbi Shimon and on what issue he disagrees with the rabbis. Each opinion raises a difficulty with and rejects the previous one.

Ketubot 87 - Shabbat October 1, 6 Tishrei Sep 30, 2022

The Mishna discusses a case where a husband exempted his wife from swearing and vows. What type of swear is being referred to? Two opinions are brought. Rav Ashi’s version is that one of the opinions was referring to a different case in the Mishna. There are four different opinions as to which languages exempt her from vows to him, which exempt her from vows to the heirs and which do not exempt her at all. In which cases does a woman need to swear to receive her ketuba money. Are these obligations to swear by Torah law or by rabbinic law?

Ketubot 86 - September 30, 5 Tishrei Sep 30, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hebrew Hadran zoom learners in honor of the 1,000th daf of this cycle! "In honor of Rabbanit Michelle who paves the way for us by making the Talmud and its concepts accessible, by learning with us day in-day out, with a woman's perspective, unphased by difficulties along the way, and always with a smile." Rav Nachman had a female relative whose mother had sold her ketuba to someone else. He advised her to forgo the ketuba payment so that her father would keep the money and she would eventually inherit it. He later regretted advising her as he thought it was not befitting a prominent person to give this kind of advice to his relatives. If one buys a promissory note, what can be done to protect oneself from the creditor forgoing the loan? If one does forgo the loan, does the creditor need to compensate the one who purchased the promissory note? That depends on whether one holds that one is liable for causing damage indirectly. If a man who dies leaves money and land, and there are creditors and a widow who gets her ketuba, the creditor takes the money and the widow takes the land. If there is only one piece of land and not enough for both, the creditor gets it, so as not to prevent people in general from loaning money. Women don't need the same kind of encouragement to get married as women usually prefer to be married, even if it means they may have difficulty getting their ketuba money. Rav Papa had heard that Rav Chama had said in the name of Rava that a creditor can insist that the debtor sell his land and pay him in cash. However, it was incorrectly inferred from a particular situation that happened which had unique circumstances. If one holds that paying back a loan is only a mitzva, how can the courts enforce payment? Rav Papa explained that the law is more severe for one who does not fulfill a positive mitzva than for one who transgresses a negative commandment. If one gave a get to his wife to be valid in thirty days and the get was in the side of the public domain (and not in the wife's domain) on the thirtieth day, is the get valid? Rav and Shmuel disagree with Rav Nachman on this issue. What cases does each side bring to support their opinion? If a man appoints his wife to work in his store or manage his possessions, he can make her take an oath regarding financial issues whenever he wants. According to Rabbi Eliezer, he can even make her swear about wool she spun or dough she prepared (regular household duties). In what situation is Rabbi Eliezer referring to - a case where she needs to swear about something else for him (gilgul shevu'a) or even if not? The Mishna discusses a case where a husband exempted his wife from oaths and vows. Different wordings are mentioned as each one includes other situations, such as not allowing his heirs to make her take an oath or not permitting him to make her heirs take an oath.

Ketubot 85 - September 29, 4 Tishrei Sep 29, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Heather Stone in loving memory of her grandmother, Rose Shivak, Rachel Leah bat Aharon v’Golda on her 37th yahrzeit. "We use her brass candlesticks on Shabbat. May her neshama have an aliyah." More cases are brought that relate to cases where someone seized items that they believed they were owed. One has to do with a woman who had seized documents she had been watching. Since that case had to do with a woman, two other unrelated cases are brought where a disagreement about money was with a woman. The issues brought up in these other cases relate to trust/distrust of particular people, writing a document verifying something before it happens. Another series of cases are brought where one was watching an item and the person watching died without telling his heirs about the ownership of the item he was watching. The heirs wanted to prove it was theirs and the original owner wanted to prove it was his. In each case, they allowed the original owner to claim back their item. On what basis did they rule in his favor? How did they know that he was the actual owner? In a similar situation where different people come forward and claim rights to the item, who takes precedence for receiving the item - a relative, neighbor or Torah scholar? If one sold a promissory note to another and then forgave the debt, is that effective? If a wife brought a promissory note into a marriage, can she forgive the debt?

Ketubot 84 - Tzom Gedalia - September 28. 3 Tishrei Sep 28, 2022

Study Guide Ketubot 84

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that a man’s right to inherit his wife’s property is a Torah law and he cannot make a stipulation against a law in the Torah. It was said Rav held like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel but not for the same reason. The Gemara brings four explanations for Rav - about what that Rashbag said did he agree and about what did he not agree? The first three suggestions are rejected. If someone dies and is owed money by someone or has an object being watched by someone, and there are a number of people who are owed money by the deceased, such as his widow (ketuba), a creditor and the heirs. Who has the first right to collect the money/object from the third party? If there are fruits detached from the ground and not on the property of one of the heirs, who has the first right to collect them? Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon debate what is the law in these cases. Even though Rabbi Akiva doesn't allow the creditor or the widow to seize the money/object, that is limited to a case where the husband dies, but if they seized it when he was still alive, they can claim rights to it after his death. Rav and Shmuel disagree with Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish about the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon - where do the possessions need to be in order to allow one of them to take it for themselves? A case was brought where they ruled like Rabbi Tarfon and when Reish Lakish heard this, he made them return the money to the heirs. Rabbi Yochanan disagreed with overturning the ruling. What was the basis for their disagreement? The Gemara first suggested that it is a debate regarding judges who rule incorrectly regarding something stated explicitly in a Mishna - do they need to undo the judgment and return the money or not? This suggestion is rejected and three other possible explanations are suggested. Rabbi Yochanan's relatives were owed money from a deceased man and they seized his cow. They went to Rabbi Yochanan for advice and he supported them. However, the case was brought before Reish Lakish and he ruled like Rabbi Akiva and made them return the cow to the heirs. Three other actual cases are brought - what was the ruling in each case?

Ketubot 83 - 2nd Day of Rosh Hashana - September 27, 2 Tishrei Sep 25, 2022

The Mishna brings different statements a husband can make to relinquish his rights to her usufruct (nichsei melog) property. Which language exempts him from which rights? Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees regarding his right to inherit the property upon her death and holds that his right to inherit the property is a Torah law and he cannot make a stipulation against a law in the Torah. Why does it work for him to relinquish his rights by making a declaration, when in the case of a partnership, one who declares they want no share in the property does not relinquish one’s rights as it is likely one said it out of anger or frustration and didn’t actually mean it? How are the cases different? In the partnership case, what if they did a kinyan? Would it be effective? Why in the first case in the Mishna does the husband relinquish his rights only to the extent that she can sell the property? Why not the other rights instead or the other ones as well? Rabbi Yehuda states that to relinquish rights to the proceeds of the proceeds and the proceeds of those proceeds and so on, one needs to be very specific with the language. What aspect of the wording is the part that is critical – the words “proceeds or proceeds” or “forever?” If one only mentioned proceeds or proceeds and not proceeds alone, are the rights to the proceeds relinquished as well? Rav held like Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel but not for the same reason. What was Rav’s reason?

Ketubot 82 - First Day of Rosh Hashana - September 26, 1 Tishrei Sep 25, 2022

A case is brought in which a yabam committed to share his brother’s inheritance with his other brother but as opposed to that case in Ketubot 81, he did a kinyan to show he wanted to make sure it was effective. However, they still ruled that it was not effective as a kinyan cannot be effective when the item isn’t yours to sell. The property of his brother is not his, even once he married the yavama. Once a yabam marries his brother’s wife, she is his wife for all intents and purposes. Why was this necessary to say – for what halacha? Why does he not need to give her a ketuba, but she uses the one she has from his brother (the first marriage)? Shimon ben Shatach instituted that all the husband’s property be liened to the ketuba. What was before he instituted this and why was it a necessary takana?

Ketubot 81 - September 25, 29 Elul Sep 25, 2022

This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the refuah shleima of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah. "It was a zechut to be able to listen to Rabbanit Michelle’s live Daf zoom during the past three weeks while I was in Jerusalem."

Today's daf is sponsored by Jason, Erica, and Raquel in honor of their mother, Patty Belkin's birthday. "Wishing a happy birthday to our amazing mother. Mom you renew and inspire us every day."

Today's daf is sponsored for the shloshim of Howie Farkas, Shalom Tzvi ben Necha Dvora.

If a woman dies while she is waiting to do yibum, does her yabam (the brother of her husband who is supposed to marry her) responsible to bury her? Abaye tries to prove that he does, as he inherits her ketuba from her first husband, and if he doesn't bury her, then he should be required to pay her ketuba to her heirs. Rava argues against this claim as the inheritance is from the brother, not from her, and he has no responsibility to pay the ketuba as a ketuba is not meant to be collected in the lifetime of the husband (when the wife is not free to marry as she pleases) and therefore, since the yabam was still alive and the wife was supposed to be married to him, the ketuba was not up for collection. This is derived from the wording of the ketuba "And when you get married to someone else, you will take what it written to you." Abaye rejects Rava's retort by pointing out that only Beit Shamai expounds the wording of the ketuba and he also holds (derived from laws of the Sotah) that a document that was meant to be collected is as if it's collected and since her ketuba was meant to be collected upon her husband's death, it is if it is hers already and that's why the yabam would be obligated to pay it in this case. In order to explain the fulfillment of the line in the ketuba "And when you get married to someone else, you will take what it written to you," according to Abaye, Rav Ashi explains that the "someone else" can be the yabam himself. Rava responds to Abaye by bringing a braita showing that one cannot claim a ketuba from a yabam. The proof is based on the fact that the braita suggests certain suggestions for a yabam who wants to access his brother's possessions. From the fact that the braita doesn't suggest to set aside money for her to get her ketuba payment, it is clear that the wife is not able to receive her ketuba in his lifetime, as Rava suggested earlier. Before answering the question, the Gemara questions why Rava didn't raise the same question from our Mishna. That question is answered by suggesting that our Mishna is just "good advice" and not the law. Then Abaye answers Rava's question by giving a different explanation as to why he can't put aside the ketuba money, as that would cause the wife to think that the husband dislikes her and wants to divorce her - and that is not good for a marriage!! What rights does a yabam have to his brother’s property in the event that he married his widow? Since the woman ketuba is liened to the property, he cannot sell it or promise it to anyone else. A case was brought in which he committed to his brother half the property, however, it was not his right to do that. However, even if he was not allowed to do it, it is valid anyway? There is a debate between Rav Yosef and Abaye about this. Rav Yosef tries to prove his position (that the sale is not valid) from a braita. Rav Manyumai, in support of Abaye says that the source he quoted is not a reliable source. Why?

Ketubot 80 - Shabbat September 24, 28 Elul Sep 23, 2022

A husband has rights to the proceeds of his wife’s usufruct property (nichsei melog). However, once the marriage ends, he has no rights at all. He can get back the money invested only if he was not able to benefit at all from the proceeds. How much does he need to benefit to have it considered that he did not benefit? In the event that he does get back his investment, he needs to swear about how much he spent. Rav Asi says only if the investment is equal to the gain. What did he mean by this? Abaye and Rava each have different explanations. If a husband brought in sharecroppers and then the marriage is dissolved, do they have the exact same rights as the husband or not? On what does it depend? Can a husband sell his rights to the proceeds? If land is inherited or gifted to a woman while she is waiting for yibum, both Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel agree that she can sell it. What happens to her possessions if she dies? On what does it depend? A yabam or husband cannot designate items for the woman for her ketuba collection to free up their land. Who is responsible to bury a woman waiting for yibum?

Ketubot 79 - September 23, 27 Elul Sep 23, 2022

A woman gifted her property to her daughter in order that her husband not gain rights to the produce. When the marriage ended, she wanted her property back. Did the daughter need to return the property to the mother? Would the same hold true if she had gifted it to someone who wasn't her relative? On what does this depend? If the woman gets money or moveable items, she needs to sell them and buy land so that she retains the principle and the husband can have the produce from it. There is a debate regarding the status of produce attached to the ground at the time of the marriage - is it considered produce and given to the husband or is it considered the principle and they would need to evaluate its worth and purchase land with that amount. The Gemara raises issues with a number of different items - are they considered the principle or the produce? Who gets the double payment of a robber in a case where one robs the offspring of a melog animal? How does this correspond to a debate regarding the ownership of offspring of slaves and animals that are melog? There are proceeds that she can demand to get back when the marriage dissolves, as long as she pays for them, as they are important to her family. What happens with slaves that are old or trees/vines that are old? Do they need to be sold or can she claim that they are important to her family? Can the husband receive his investment expenditures back after the marriage if the profits didn't exceed the expenses? On what does it depend?

Ketubot 78 - September 22, 26 Elul Sep 22, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Malka Abraham. " Thank you to Rabbanit Michelle and the entire Hadran community. Shana Tova!"

Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel both agree that if a woman received usufruct property before she was betrothed, she had the rights to sell it. But they disagree regarding the usufruct property of a woman that comes to her possession when she is betrothed. Can she sell it? And if the answer is no, if she does it anyway, is the sale a valid sale? According to Rabbi Yehuda, a discussion ensued between the rabbis and Rabban Gamliel debating whether the husband during the betrothal should or should not be able to prevent his wife from being able to sell her property. In the case where she receives usufruct property during the marriage, all agree that if she were to sell it, the sale is not valid. However, Rabban Gamliel holds that if she received the property during or before the betrothal and sold it after she was married, the sale is valid. Rabbi Chanina ben Akavia holds explained that a discussion ensued between the rabbis and Rabban Gamliel debating whether the husband during the marriage should have full rights to the property she inherited before or not. Rabbi Shimon distinguishes between property the husband knew of (sale is not valid) and property he did not know of (sale is valid, even though ideally, she should not sell it). Why do Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel agree in the case before the betrothal but disagree after the betrothal? Was Rabbi Yehuda's description of the discussion between Rabban Gamliel and the rabbis referring to her ability to sell the property ab initio (Beit Shamai) or post facto (where both Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel agree)? To answer the question they quote the Tosefta Ketubot 8:1. In that source Rabbi Chanina is quoted there with a different version of the line of argumentation of Rabban Gamliel against the rabbis. Also there, he has a different opinion regarding the sale of property received before the wedding but sold during the marriage - he says it can be done ab initio. This contradicts our Mishna that says the sale is valid only after the fact, but ideally, she can't sell it. The contradiction is resolved by explaining that Rabbi Yehuda (the Mishna) and Rabbi Chanina (the Tosefta) disagree about what Rabban Gamliel held in this case. Rav and Shmuel have a third approach that in this case, the sale would be invalid. As this corresponds with no opinion we have seen thus far, how can they say that? Once she is married and inherits property, all agree that the sale is not valid. Is this the same as the takana they instituted in Usha? What did Rabbi Shimon mean by "property he knew about" and "property he did not know about"? Two explanations are brought.

Ketubot 77 - September 21, 25 Elul Sep 21, 2022

If the man has a blemish can the woman demand that he divorce her? On what does it depend? In what cases can the court force a man to give a get to his wife - by Torah law and by rabbinic law? Can they use force? In the context of blemishes, they mention a severe one - ba'alei ra'atan. As it is highly contagious, people would keep far away from them. However, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi went close to them and would teach them Torah, assuming that the Torah would protect him. As a reward for his selfless behavior, he managed to get into heaven without actually dying. The elaborate story and the negotiations between him and the angel of death are told and also contrasted with a similar story with Rabbi Chanina bar Papa, who was not deemed as worthy as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

Ketubot 76 - September 20, 24 Elul Sep 20, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored by Tina & Shalom Lamm "With hakarat hatov to Hashem for the blessing of a new granddaughter, Aluma Mindel. Mazal tov to the parents, Peninah and Eitan Kaplansky."

Ketubot 75 - September 19, 23 Elul Sep 19, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Judi Felber in loving memory of her mother, Jan Abramson, Yocheved Bat Sara and Tzvi, on her 1st yahrzeit. "Women playing a significant role in Judaism was always important to her." Today's daf is sponsored by the Tannenbaum family in loving memory of Miriam's mother Ruth Zemsky, Razel bat Yehoshua v'Chaya Keyla z"l, on her 6th yahrzeit. "Her example of avodat Hashem continues to inspire us in the days leading up to Yamim Noraim and throughout the year. Yehi zichra baruch."

There is a contradiction between two braitot regarding a stipulation about the woman not having vows – what if she annuls the vow with a chacham? In one source they rule, the marriage is valid, in the other, it is not. The Gemara resolves the contradiction in two ways. The first one is to say it is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Elazar as explained by a Mishna that mentioned their opinions. The second resolution is that one is talking about an important woman and the other is not. If she is an important woman, he made the stipulation to ensure that if there were an issue, there would be no marriage so as not to forbid him to her relatives. If so, why does it appear after that case that if the condition is that there were no vows on him, and he annulled them, the marriage is valid – wouldn’t we assume she would want the marriage dissolved to be free to marry his relatives? It's because women prefer to be married than to not be married. The Gemara cites several sayings to the effect that women prefer to be married. What are disqualifying blemishes in a woman? A braita says that there are blemishes that do not disqualify kohanim but are considered blemishes for women. Which? Are they really not blemishes for kohanim? The Gemara brings a contradiction from Mishna and resolves it in two ways. There are several other defects that are especially considered to be blemishes for women. If a woman is found with blemishes after the betrothal while still in her father's house, the burden of proof lies on her father to prove that the blemishes happened after the betrothal and the husband cannot claim it was a mekach tau’t – mistaken betrothal. But without this proof, the husband has the upper hand. If they find a blemish in the woman from the time of marriage while she is in the house of the husband, the husband must prove that it is from before the engagement. But without this proof, the father has the upper hand. There is a contradiction between the two parts of the Mishna. The Gemara provides two resolutions.

Ketubot 74 - September 18, 21 Elul Sep 18, 2022

After explaining Raba and Abaye's different explanations of Rav and Shmuel's debate regarding the case of a man who betrothed a woman with a stipulation that she not have any vows upon her and then married her without making the stipulation, Rabbi Yochanan's opinion is brought as well - the woman does not need a get as the marriage is not valid. A contradiction is raised against Rabbi Yochanan's position from a Tosefta Yevamot 12:10 and Rabbi Yochanan's explanation on it regarding the definition of a mistaken chalitza that is effective. The contradiction is resolved. Rabbi Elazar differs from Abaye and Raba and holds that both Rav and Shmuel agree that the marriage is valid in this case as well as in a few other similar cases. However, it is quoted in the name of Rabbi Ami that only in one of those cases it is valid, but in the others, including the case of a conditional betrothal, the marriage is invalid. Ulla ruled that a get is required and a dissenting opinion is brought. If a woman was betrothed upon condition that she not have vows or not have blemishes and she in fact does but goes to a chacham to annul her vows or goes to a doctor to fix her blemishes, is the marriage valid? Is there a reason to distinguish between vows and blemishes? There are contradictory sources regarding the case of the vows. The Gemara resolves the contradiction as there is a tannatic debate regarding the vows and brings a Mishna in Gittin 55b to prove it.

Ketubot 73 - Shabbat September 17, 21 Elul Sep 16, 2022

Rav and Shmuel disagree in a case where a man betroths a woman with a stipulation that she does not have vows. If he then marries her without making the same stipulation, and she is found to have vows, does she need a get from him or not? Abaye understands the debate in one way and Raba understands it differently. Questions are raised against each approach from tannaitic sources.

Ketubot 72 - September 16, 20 Elul Sep 16, 2022

This week's learning is sponsored by Judy Shapiro for the upcoming autumn yahrzeits of her mother, Deera Tychman, z"l; her brother, David Tychman, z"l; her father, Albert Tychman, z"l; and her mother-in-law, Margaret Shapiro, z"l. Today's daf is sponsored anonymously in memory of Elisheva Frist who tragically died this week at the age of 36. Elisheva, whose kindness touched so many lives, will be missed by her many friends and acquaintances. May her memory be an eternal blessing. Today's daf is sponsored in memory of Major Bar Falah who was killed this week while protecting our country, Israel. A husband cannot vow to forbid his wife to go to a house of mourning or celebration. Why is preventing her from going to a mourner's house constrictive for her in a negative way? What does it mean "to have her fill up and then dump in the garbage" - another vow he is not allowed to make. Two different interpretations are brought. He also can't prevent her from borrowing or loaning kitchen items from friends or she cannot vow that as well. She also cannot vow not to make her son's clothing, as these are all things that will reflect poorly on her/him in the community. The Mishna lists actions that if a woman does, her husband can divorce her without having to give her the ketuba money. There are two categories - dat Moshe and dat Yehudit. Dat Moshe includes actions that she does that affect him like doesn't tithe the produce he eats, has relations with him while she is a nidda and doesn't tell him, feeds him bread without taking out challa, or takes vows and doesn't keep them. Dat Yehudit relates to other issues such as going out in the marketplace with her hair uncovered or spinning threads in the marketplace, speaking with every man she meets, and according to some, cursing his parents in front of him and speaking loudly so that all her neighbors can hear. Regarding the first category, since these are things she does and he has no way of knowing about them, what is the scenario in which he can divorce her - how will he know that she "tricked" him? If she doesn't keep her vows, how does that affect her husband? There is a debate about whether it is better to try to resolve these issues or is it dangerous for the husband (as there are ramifications for these actions for him as well) and therefore best to divorce her. Dat Yehudit is relating to issues that are forbidden by Torah law - but isn't the law regarding hair covering for women a Torah law? The Gemara makes a distinction within the laws of hair covering that depends on the location. What is the issue with spinning threads in the marketplace? A few different explanations are brought to explain the cases of cursing his parents and a woman who speaks loudly.

Ketubot 71 - September 15, 19 Elul Sep 15, 2022

This month's learning is sponsored by Debbie Gevir and her husband Yossi. “Thank you to Rabbanit Michelle, Hadran and the Hadran Zoom community for their kindness, support and care during a medically challenging year. May you all be zoheh to a healthy and happy תשפ"ג!”

Rava and Abaye disagree about the difference between Rabbi Yehuda and the tanna kama in the Mishna regarding the first case of a man who vows to forbid his wife to derive benefit from him. Regarding the timeframe of 30 days, Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether it means that he took a vow to up to thirty days or was it without a time frame and the Mishna is saying that we give him a 30-day grace period to see if he will change his mind. They have the same disagreement on a previous Mishna where he forbids her from having intercourse with him. Why was it necessary to state both? A question is raised against Shmuel from the second case in the Mishna where he forbids her a type of fruit and there is no grace period. To which the Gemara answers that it must be that she was the one who took the vow and he ratified it. The opinion of the Mishna is that in that case, he is held responsible as without his ratification, the vow would not be valid. Unattributed opinions in the Mishna are generally attributed to rabbi Meir, However, in this case, it raises a problem as Rabbi Meir holds that in vows that a woman makes and the husband ratifies, the woman is the one responsible. The Gemara tries to reconcile this with a different source that shows who holds what on that issue. Some of the other opinions there also don't seem to correspond to opinions in our Mishna and the Gemara attempts to resolve them. Rabbi Yosi in the Mishna held that a poor woman whose husband vows that she cannot adorn herself indefinitely must divorce her and give her the ketuba money. This implies that a husband can annul those types of vows. However, elsewhere Rabbi Yosi holds that he cannot annul vows of this type - only ones that are considered affliction to the woman. The Gemara suggests that this could be in the category of matters between the husband and wife. It is not clear, however, that all would agree it goes into this category, in which case they suggest that we can explain the case somewhat differently - that he vowed to forbid her to have relations with him if she adorns herself. What is the time frame that would be permitted for them to stay married if she was poor (according to Rabbi Yosi) and why does he hold 30 days for a wealthy woman? If someone vows that his wife will be forbidden to visit her family - the amount of time before he would need to divorce her depends on whether her family lives in the city or not. If he vows that she will be forbidden to visit a house of mourning or house of celebration, he must divorce her immediately unless the crowd there is a "bad" crowd and he wants to keep her away from them. If he vows that she needs to do things that would embarrass her, he should divorce her immediately. In all these cases, she received her ketuba money. The Gemara brings two resolutions to a contradiction in the language of the Mishna in the case of the vow to forbid her from going to her father’s house.

Ketubot 70 - September 14, 18 Elul Sep 14, 2022

Ketubot 69 - September 13, 17 Elul Sep 13, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Rochie Sommer. "This is in honor of the start of shana baaretz learning of my daughter and my niece, granddaughters of Meryl Sasnowitz. May they deepen their connection to Eretz Yisrael and the passion for learning of their families, including their Safti."

Can a daughter collect her dowry money from assets sold or used as collateral by the brothers? Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi says yes. Rabbi Yohanan ruled no. Did he not know Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi's ruling (and if he had, he would change his mind) or did he know it and disagree? Does the daughter claim her dowry as an heir or as a debtor? What is the relevance of this question? Is it possible to recover the dowry from land or also from movables? It is told about Rabbi Anan who sent a question to Rabbi Huna and phrased his introduction in a disparaging manner. Rav Huna was angry with him and sent him back a disparaging reply. If the father said at the time of his death that he was designating money for his daughter and a specific person to buy her a field with that money, can she ask that the money be transferred to her husband instead of the person her father designated? To Rabbi Meir, the mitzvah is to fulfill the words of the person on one's deathbed and therefore she cannot decide who gets the money. Rabbi Yossi holds that she has the right to transfer it to her husband. Do they disagree regarding a woman who is engaged or married? A minor or a grown woman? When Rabbi Yochanan rose to prominence and Ilfa did not (see the story Ta'anit 21), Ifla wanted to prove his abilities and stood on the mast of a ship and announced that if anyone bring before him a braita from Rabbi Hiya or Rabbi Oshaya, he will find a Mishna to support it. And if not, he will fall off the ship and die. They brought him a braita regarding the ruling to fulfill the words of a person on one's deathbed, and Ilfa brought a proof from Rabbi Meir's opinion in our Mishna.

Ketubot 68 - September 12, 16 Elul Sep 12, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Ellen Segal on behalf of her daughter, Dr. Chana Shacham-Rosby's birthday. "May you continue to go from strength to strength as you begin your fellowship at the Halpern Center at Bar Ilan."

Are you allowed to ignore one who needs charity? What if they are lying about their situation? Does a poor person need to trade in their expensive house and utensils for less expensive items before taking charity? On what does it depend? The Mishna and Gemara deal with orphan girls and their rights to a dowry. If at the time of the marriage, they are given a small dowry and they do not protest, can they later claim that they deserve more? On what does it depend? What is the standard amount that an orphan should get? Does it depend on the amount in the estate or does it depend on an assessment of what we think the father would have given her - was he generous or stingy? Is there an age limit on the orphan for being able to collect the dowry from the father's estate? In what way is the payment of food different from the payment for the dowry?

Ketubot 67 - September 11, 15 Elul Sep 11, 2022

Study Guide Ketubot 67

Today's daf is sponsored by Debbie Schreiber in loving memory of Elliot Schreiber, her father-in-law, on his 1st yahrzeit. "He was my other father, personal rabbi & brilliant confidante. With semicha from Mercaz Harav he moved with the times & loved discussing halacha with my daughters as well as my sons. His opinion meant so much to me because he was fair, smart & never steered me wrong. When my father was niftar he helped me more than he could imagine & I am forever grateful." Today's daf is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Devora Shulamit bat Yocheved Chana.

What was wrong with the way that Nakdimon ben Gurion fulfilled the mitzva of tzedaka? If a woman brings gold bricks into her dowry, at what value does she get them back? Rabbi Yochanan says at their exact value. However, a braita is brought to contradict. How is it resolved? How much is the minimum amount for a dowry? What about if it is being paid for by charity? Who gets taken care of first, a male or female orphan? Rabbi Yochanan ruled If an orphan needs tzedakah to get married, what do we provide him with? Tzedaka is given according to what the person was used to before they became poor. What is the best way to give tzedaka? How do you give tzedakah to someone who doesn’t want to take tzedaka? What do you do with someone who has money but wants to take tzedaka anyway? Several stories are brought highlighting these different issues.

Ketubot 66 - Shabbat September 10, 14 Elul Sep 09, 2022

This week's learning is sponsored by Mark Ziering in loving memory of Lea Ziering.

There is a debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Akiva about a woman who finds a lost item – does she get to keep it for herself or does it go to her husband? There are different opinions about who held by which opinion. Is finding a lost item more like extra salary a woman makes that she works hard to make or that comes easily to her? Is a woman who multi-tasks and can do several jobs at once – is that categorized as hard work or something that comes easily to her? The Mishna had a debate regarding whether the husband gets part of the humiliation of his wife. The Gemara compares it to other situations where one may be humiliated on account of embarrassment caused to someone/thing else and yet the other person does not receive the humiliation payment. Why is the law different regarding one’s wife? If the father promised a dowry to his daughter’s fiancé and he died, he does not have to commit to give the dowry to the yabam, brother of the deceased who now needs to marry the widow. The husband commits in the ketuba to give the woman 50% more than the cash that she brought into the marriage in her dowry. However, any moveable items she brings, he commits to 1/5 less than their assessed value. Why? The Mishna brings several examples illustrating this past ruling. Why were all of the cases necessary? For every 100 dinar (maneh) the wife brings into the marriage, the husband needs to give her ten dinar for perfume. It is unclear how often he needs to give this to her. A story is told of the daughter of Nakdimon ben Gurion, a very wealthy man, who went to court to receive this money. Another story of her is told in the aftermath of the destruction in which she is incredibly impoverished and begs Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai to help feed her. Why did Nakdimon lose all his wealth?

Ketubot 65 - September 9, 13 Elul Sep 09, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Risa and Zev Gewurz in loving memory of Risa’s father, Rephael Ben Mordechai, Ralph Loebenberg, z”l on his 16th yahrzeit. If a husband is supporting his wife through a third party, they are not to provide her with wine. Support for this is brought from a verse about Chana (Shmuel 1 1:9). However, there are exceptions to this rule. A number of stories are brought of women who demanded wine, such as, Abaye's widow Choma who came to Rava's court to demand wine from the heirs, and accidentally revealed her arm, showing off her beauty. This led Rava to go back home to his wife desirous of her, but when his wife understood what had happened, she got angry at Choma and kicked her out of town. In addition to food, the husband also needs to provide his wife (when supporting through an agent), a bed, a soft mat and a hard mat. Why all three? There is a debate about whether he needs to provide her with a pillow and cushion. What is the root of the debate? Why does the woman get shoes three times a year and clothes only once? The amount of clothes is 50 zuz, but this amount refers to simple zuzim that are worth much less than the zuzim normally referred to in the Gemara (zuz tzuri). Leftover food belongs to the husband but leftover clothes belong to her - why? However, the law is different for a widow - why? According to the Mishna, even if the husband appoints someone to be in charge during the week, he eats with her on Friday night. Does "eat" mean food or having marital relations? A father needs to sustain one's children until the age of six as until that age, the child is considered an appendage of the mother and the husband needs to support the mother and therefore the child as well. Why? Can this be learned from the law in our Mishna regarding a nursing mother who is entitled to extra food - is it not for her child? No! It is for her as she needs to eat more since the nursing weakens her. The Mishna states that items a woman finds or salary she makes goes to her husband. Inherited property goes to her, but profits are his during his lifetime. There is a debate regarding payment of humiliation or damage caused to a woman - does she receive it all or does part go to her husband. Weren't most of these laws already taught in a Mishna in Chapter 4 (Ketubot 46b)?

Ketubot 64 - September 8, 12 Elul Sep 08, 2022

Study Guide Ketubot 64

This week’s learning is sponsored by Medinah Korn in loving memory of her mother, Rosalie Katchen, Shoshana Raizl bat Avraham Yehoshua ve-Baila Toibe, z"l, on her 22nd yahrzeit. “Missing her warmth and her wisdom, today and every day. Yehi zichrah Baruch.”

Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of Ethel Petegorsky Geffen, on her 18th yahrzeit. “Loving wife of Abraham Geffen z”l, her life was devoted to family and Jewish causes. Her two sons made Aliyah to Israel and her daughter had a distinguished synagogue career as a hazan.”

A woman who rebels against her husband does not get her ketuba money. But can she take her clothing that she brought into the marriage? Shmuel was quoted as saying for a betrothed woman we write a document of rebellion (if one refuses to go ahead with the marriage) but we do not write one for a woman who is supposed to marry the yabam. A contradiction is raised from a braita quoted on Ketubot 63 and the Gemara has several attempts at resolving it. What is the currency tarpik'in mentioned in the Mishna? The Mishna had two penalties for a rebellious spouse - 7 dinarim or tarpiki'in for the woman (deducted from her ketuba) or 3 dinarim or tarpiki'in (for the man - to pay to the wife) . Why is there a difference between the penalty for the man and the penalty for the woman? If the husband doesn't live with the wife and hires or appoints someone to be in charge of giving her food, how much food does he need to give her? If the husband doesn't give her a stipend of 100 dinar, then she doesn't need to give him the money she makes beyond the basic salary. How much is considered a basic salary (amount of production expected from her)? A nursing woman is expected to produce less and gets provided with more food. These laws were all meant for poor people but wealthier people need to provide food for the woman according to her status. The Mishna gave the amount of two kav for a week (14 meals worth). However, this doesn't seem to match either of the two opinions who disagree about the amount of food needed for an eruv techumim (which needs to be the amount for two meals). According to one opinion, a meal is 1/4 of a kav and according to the other, 1/9 of a kav. How can each of these opinions be explained to correspond to the Mishna?

Ketubot 63 - September 7, 11 Elul Sep 07, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Miriam and Lana Kerzner, Dov and Elayne Greenstone and families in loving memory of Denny Lock, beloved brother of Mitzi Geffen. "With love and much comfort from your cousins in Israel and abroad."

Today's daf is sponsored by Suri Davis-Stern for the yahrzeit of her grandfather, Rabbi Chaim Davis, HaRav Chaim ben Nesanel who brought daf yomi to the five towns in 1974 at the White Shul. May his neshama have an aliyah.

Rabbi Akiva was the shepherd of a rich man, Kalba Savua and married his daughter, Rachel, secretly, much to the chagrin of her father. Rachel wanted him to go to study and even after he came back after 12 years, he heard her tell someone else that he wished he would study more and therefore he went to learn for another 12 years. The story is a story of a rabbi who goes away from home successfully as it was the wish of his wife, as opposed to the other stories. Rabbi Akiva’s daughter did the same as her mother with Ben Azai. The Gemara ends the series of stories with Rav Yosef, son of Raba who went to study and returned in the middle of the time set for him on the eve of Yom Kippur to see his wife and Raba was angry with him. What is the ruling for a woman who rebels against her husband? What is the ruling for a man who rebels against his wife? According to the Mishna, we push off the divorce in other to see if there is a way to compromise and save the marriage. The Gemara asks what is considered "to rebel"? Is it by refusing to have marital relations or by refusing to do her jobs in the house? Although the law for an is spelled out in the Mishna, the rabbis changed the law and shortened the way to divorce in a case of rebellion. There were different opinions on whether to follow as stipulated in the Mishna or as to the change the rabbis made. If a woman says that her husband is "disgusting to me," does that fall into the religion of a rebel or is it something else? Why would there be a difference?

Ketubot 62 - September 6, 10 Elul Sep 06, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Jennifer Geretz in honor of Phyllis and Chaim Lauer

Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagreed in the Mishnah regarding the maximum time a man can vow to not have relations with his wife. Rav and Shmuel disagree in their understanding of the dispute. According to the Mishna, students can go to study Torah for thirty days. Is it possible to go for a longer time with his wife's consent? If so, is there a limit? Who are the 'tayalim' mentioned in the Mishna that their requirement is every day, if their wife wishes? Are workers obligated once or twice a week? On what does it depend? Can a person change their job from one who is home less time but makes more money? What can we assume the wife would prefer? All the amounts of time mentioned in the Mishna is R. Eliezer's opinion (including that a student can learn Torah for 30 days against the wishes of his wife) but the rabbis hold it is possible for two or three years. Raba says that many sages went with the opinion of the rabbis and paid for it with their souls. Several stories are told about rabbis who left their wives at home and went to study Torah for an extended period of time (some for a year/12 years) and when they did not return on time or returned without prior notice, they caused panic or the caused the death of the wife or himself. Stories are told about Rav Rahumi, Yehuda son of Rabbi Haya, Rabbi Hanina ben Hachinai and Rabbi Hama bar Bisa and others...

Ketubot 61 - September 5, 8 Elul Sep 05, 2022

What should be avoided during pregnancy or when conceiving? If there is a debate between the husband and wife about whether the woman should nurse the baby or hire a wet nurse, who do we side with? On what does it depend? If a woman has to do seven jobs for the household, why if she hires one maidservant, is she only exempted from three jobs? Why doesn't the maidservant do all seven? And furthermore, with two maidservants. What jobs does the woman need to do herself even if she has four maidservants? These are the same jobs that a woman cannot do for her husband when she is a nidda as they are considered intimate activities. The same Rabbi who brought that halacha also taught about making sure to give food to the waiter before the meal if they will cause him to crave the foods he is serving as cravings can be dangerous. Several stories are brought to stress the danger and seriousness of cravings. Can a husband make a vow to not have relations with his wife for a particular period of time? If so, for how long? What is the expectation of how often a husband needs to have relations with his wife, if she so wishes? There are different times depending on one's job. On what does it depend? A husband can leave home for thirty days to study Torah. how long can others go away for their work?

Ketubot 60 - September 4, 8 Elul Sep 04, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by the Levant and Dickson families. "Wishing our daughters, Dalia Dickson and Miriam Levant a giyus kal as they start the army today! May Hashem watch over them and may they have a safe and meaningful service."

Ketubot 59 - Shabbat September 3, 7 Elul Sep 02, 2022

Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter. "It is fitting that this milestone anniversary falls in the tractate of Ketubot, and the discussion of the marriage contract. Their marriage, which has been filled with love, respect, understanding, compassion, and of course lots of humor has been a blessing to watch and learn from. May they continue to enjoy many more years of a happy and healthy married life together until 120. Rav and Shmuel disagree with Rav Ada bar Ahava regarding the case in which Rabbi Meir is referring to when he says that when a man sanctifies his wife's earnings beyond her salary, it is effective. What is the root of the debate between them? Rabbi Yochanan the Sandlar says it is not effective. Shmuel holds like him. However, since Rabbi Yochanan's position is based on the assumption that one cannot sanctify items that are not yet in this world, how could Shmuel hold like him if he says elsewhere that one can sanctify things that are not in this world, as proven from a Mishna. The Gemara brings three possible resolutions - the first two are rejected. What are a wife's household responsibilities to her husband? The Mishna lists various things such as laundry, cooking, nursing their son, etc. If she brings in maidservants, what responsibilities can she be absolved of? Can she not work at all? Is it bad for her not to be working and sitting idly? Is it possible our Mishna disagrees with Beit Shamai who holds that a woman can vow to nurse her son?

Ketubot 58 - September 2, 6 Elul Sep 02, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz in loving memory of her husband, Leonard Cheifetz, Aryeh Leib ben Yehuda, z”l, on his 30th yahrzeit. "It is hard to believe it’s been so long. You are missed by all who had the privilege of knowing you." Mazel tov to the Agus and Weiss families on the wedding of Talya and Gavi. What are the different opinions regarding whether a kohen husband can give his soon-to-be-wife (once the twelve months have passed from the proposal) only truma, since there are times in the month when she will be impure and won't be able to eat truma. Abaye limits the debate between RAbbi Trafon and Rabbi Akiva in two ways. A few other opinions are brought from another tannaitic source. Why was the law changed regarding the right of the woman to eat truma after the twelve moth period has passed? The Mishna discusses whether or not a husband has the right to sanctify his wife's salary? Does he have the right to sanctify the money she makes that is beyond the basic designated salary amount (motar)? Rav holds that a woman can say to her husband, "I do not want you to give me food and I will keep my salary to myself." Can this be derived from the Mishna? Can it be inferred from Rabbi Meir's position in the Mishna that he holds that a person can sanctify/acquire something that is not yet in existence?

Ketubot 57 - September 1, 5 Elul Sep 01, 2022

Rami bar Hama's sister-in-law lost her ketuba. Rav Yosef wanted to let it go based on the rabbi's opinion who thought it was not a problem since anyway a ketuba is a stipulation of the court so she had a way to demand her ketuba money in the end. But Abaye quoted Rav Nachman saying that we hold like Rabbi Meir when he has a takana and he has held that one who stays with a woman without a ketuba is like one who engages in licentious behavior. Rav Dimi and Ravin each had a different tradition about a debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi regarding at what stage do Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Yehuda disagree about the ability of the woman to verbally forgo her ketuba. However, Rabbi Avahu has a different tradition that Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi don't disagree - they just used different terms to describe the same thing. Rav Papa accepts Rabbi Avahu's tradition, but points out a weakness regarding it and says that were it not for Rabbi Avahu's explanation, he would have preferred to say the debate was between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rav Dimi and Ravin said the same thing, just used different terms to describe the same thing. What is the amount of time given to the bride and groom to prepare for the wedding after the groom proposes marriage? Twelve months for a woman not previously married and thirty days for a woman previously married. Once that date is reached, the man is obligated to provide sustenance for the woman and if she is betrothed to a kohen, she can eat truma. Can he give her all her food from truma produce or only part, as some of the month she will be impure and cannot eat truma? What are the laws if the time period was split between a man and his yabam (in the event that he died)? The Mishna states that law regarding truma changed over time and now a woman can only eat truma after the chuppa. The twelve-month period derived from the verses about Rivka before she was taken to Yitzchak to be married. If the woman is a minor, she or her father can push off the marriage more than twelve months. Why? If the girl is a minor, the girl or the father can decided can decide not to get married even after the twelve months have past. Why would the father want to do that if the girl is willing to get married? Even though a father can betroth his daughter at a young age and marry her off, Rabbi Abba did not allow this until she is of age to be married. Rav Huna said that a woman who is a bogeret, only gets thirty days to prepare for the wedding. Three sources are brought against him - two are resolved but one is not. By Torah law, a woman betrothed to a kohen can eat truma but the rabbis forbade it. Two reasons are brought - either because her family may come to eat truma by accident, or because the husband may find blemish in the wife and will not in the end marry her.

Ketubot 56 - August 31, 4 Elul Aug 31, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Lisa Lowe Denker in honor of the engagement of Alissa Gold and Alexander Denker. "May the joy and love you have today always fill your life." What is the root of the debate between Rav and Rabbi Natan - whether or not they hold by Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria regarding the ketuba of a betrothed woman - does she receive only the 200/100 zuz, but not the additional amount? In later generations, they also grappled with the question of how to rule in this case. however, the Gemara concludes that we hold like Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria. Ravin asked about a case where they had the wedding but didn't yet have relations, would that be similar to the case of a betrothed woman or not? Rav Ashi asked what if she was a nidda at the time of the wedding and therefore couldn't have relations, would that also be similar to the case of a betrothed woman? Rabbi Yehuda said that a woman can write that she received part of her ketuba money, even if she hadn't. Two questions are raised against Rabbi Yehuda. Firstly, his opinion states that one can write a receipt. However, regarding a loan, Rabbi Yehuda doesn't allow a receipt to be written if the loan was partially paid off, in case the borrower loses it and the creditor will demand the full amount. Rabbi Yirmia and Abaye each bring a different resolution. The second question is based on an inference from the words of Rabbi Yehuda. He states that the woman can write a document, which presumes that she could not state it orally. Presumably, this is because she would be making a stipulation against what it says in the Torah. However, Rabbi Yehuda himself holds that regarding monetary laws, one can make a stipulation against what it says in the Torah. This is resolved by saying that a ketuba is rabbinic and the rabbis needed to strengthen rabbinic law more than Torah law so that people would take it seriously - therefore he was stricter with rabbinic laws than with Torah laws. Questions are raised against this answer from other sources and in order to resolve them, the answer is limited to specific cases of rabbinic law. Rabbi Meir disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda and doesn't allow one to give a woman a ketuba for less than the requisite amount in the way that Rabbi Yehuda permitted. From the language of Rabbi Meir in the Mishna, the Gemara infers that if he made a condition that was agreed to by the wife, the full ketuba can be collected as the condition is invalid, even though it is still considered a licentious relationship. This is because she thinks that she does not have a full marriage contract and is not protected from easy divorce and therefore views it as not a real marriage. A question is raised against Rabbi Meir who says that one cannot make a condition against what it says in the Torah, which would infer they can make a condition against rabbinic law? The answer is that Rabbi Meir holds that ketuba is a Torah law. A braita is brought which adds the opinion of Rabbi Yosi - that one can stipulate less in the ketuba. A contradiction is raised against him from another braita but a distinction is made between the cases.

Ketubot 55 - August 30, 3 Elul Aug 30, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sue Talansky in loving memory of her mother Ruth Stromer, Shifra Raizel bat Tzvi v'Sarah. “She was a Holocaust survivor whose first task upon arriving in America was to ensure that her daughters got a yeshiva education. It is my mom who began my journey into learning." The additional amount the husband can add to the ketuba has the same status as the ketuba itself. This has relevance for a woman who sells, forgoes, or receives part of or demands her ketuba, and various other situations. There are four issues upon which the rabbis of Pumbedita and Mata Mechasia disagreed. One, do the male children collect their mother's ketuba from their father's inheritance as an inheritance, which cannot be collected from liened property, or as buyers, which can be collected from liened property. Two, if the husband set aside moveable property for collection of the ketuba and they are no longer in existence or able to be found, can she collect her ketuba without needing to swear that she didn't receive any part of it yet? Three, if the husband delineated property from which the wife can collect her ketuba, but only identified one of the borders, does she need to swear that she didn't receive any part of her ketuba before collecting the full amount from the land? Four, if someone said to write and sign a deed of a gift and give the gift to a particular person but there was no kinyan (a formal act of acquiring), does the messenger need to check again with the giver that they actually intend to give the gift? There was a debate in the Mishna and Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria held that a woman who is betrothed and received a ketuba and then got divorced or widowed, she can only collect the 200 or 100 zuz, but not the additional amount. Rav and Rabbi Natan debated whether we hold that may or not. The Gemara derives that Rabbi natan must have held like him as in a different halacha it is clear he holds by umdena, making an assessment about what we believe the person's intentions must have been, which is exactly what Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria holds - we assess that the husband only promised her extra for the benefit of being married to her. That would mean that Rav doesn't hold by umdena. However, the Gemara brings a debate between Rav and Shmuel where Rav does seem to hold by umdena, making an assessment.

Ketubot 54 - August 29, 2 Elul Aug 29, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Leah Brick in loving memory of her great niece, Nava Tova, who was named after her mother, daughter of Liora and Josh Cherney. "Bet Elul would have been her first birthday. May her memory be a comfort to her parents."

Do the following women receive sustenance from their father's estate: the daughter born to a couple who is forbidden by rabbinic law to be married (shniyot l'arayot), the daughter born to a couple who was betrothed, and the daughter born to a woman who was married to the man who raped her? A stipulation of the ketuba is that the woman be able to reside in the house of the husband even after his death. Since the language used is a "house," they derive that if the heirs live in a hut, they are not required to have her live with them. Does this also mean that they are not required to sustain her in that case? There are various opinions brought regarding how it is determined when the orphans no longer need to give the widow money for sustenance. Is it from when she accepts a marriage proposal from someone else, when someone proposed but she doesn't accept it as she doesn't specifically like him, but she is interested in remarrying, when she engages in prostitution, when she puts on makeup, or when she claims her ketuba in court. In the Mishna it had stated varying customs between Jerusalem and the Galilee and Judea about whether or not the orphans could decide they no longer wanted to pay the widow's sustenance. In Babylonia different places ruled differently. Rav and Shmuel disagree regarding a widow or a hired worker about whether or not their clothing is deducted from their ketuba/salary. Rabbi Yochanan's relatives' father had a wife who ate a lot of food. They were worried that if she became widowed, it would be a drain on their inheritance so he suggested the father designate a specific piece of land for her to be used for her sustenance in the event that he die. Reish Lakish vehemently disagreed and wouldn't allow them to implement this solution as he didn't think it was effective halachically. In the end, Rabbi Yochanan modified his position. The Mishna states that one who wants to, can add money to the 200 or 100 zuz promised to the woman in the ketuba. It was necessary to state this as one may think this was limited so as not to embarrass one who is unable to add. There is a debate about whether a woman gets her ketuba money if she was widowed or divorce from a betrothal. Can the woman forgo part of the amount of her ketuba by writing that she received part of the money already, even if she really hadn't? Any additional sums committed to the wife in the ketuba or stipulations have the same status as the ketuba. What is the relevance of this?

Ketubot 53 - Rosh Chodesh Elul, August 28, 1 Elul Aug 28, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Rikki and Alan Zibitt in memory of Rikki's father, Mickey Carlin, Shevach ben Avraham v' Mita, whose 14th yahrzeit was on Thursday. "Daddy, we miss you every day." Rav Papa was marrying his son off to Abba Sura'ah's daughter when Yehuda bar Meriemar came to greet Rav Papa. Yehuda was hesitant to come in, as he was concerned Abba Sura'ah would raise the dowry on his account. After much insisting on the part of Rav Papa, Yehuda enters but remains silent. However, Abaa Sura'ah misunderstands the silence and in fact raises the dowry because of Yehuda's presence and gives all of his money to the dowry. When Yehuda finally speaks and explains himself, Abba Sura'ah wants to change his pledge, but Yehuda criticized him for turning back on his word. Rav Yeimar and Rava discuss the law in different cases where a woman sells her ketuba or rights to part of her ketuba to her husband. Would this mean that she forfeits the rights of her male children inheriting her ketuba in the event that she predeceases her husband? A woman who forgoes her rights to her ketuba to her husband, does she also lose her rights to receive continuous sustenance upon his death? If a woman is betrothed, is her fiance obligated to bury her (one of her rights of the ketuba)? Another right of the ketuba is that the estate of the husband will sustain the woman's daughters upon his death. Rav and Levi disagree about whether this ends at the time of their marriage or when they become a bogeret. Does the daughter give up her rights to sustenance at her betrothal or only at her marriage? Rav Yosef and Rav Chisda disagree and each prove their point with a logical argument. Two different versions are brought about who holds which position. A woman who "refuses" a marriage (mi'un), does she return to get sustained from the father's estate? Does the daughter of the yevama receive sustenance from the father's estate?

Ketubot 52 - Shabbat August 27, 30 Av, 1st Day Rosh Chodesh Elul Aug 27, 2022

Ketubot 51 - August 26, 29 Av Aug 26, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Tzivia Ross Korn for the refuah shleima of her father, Shlomo Yeshaya Ben Sarah Tzipporah. "My father has always inspired me to learn and has himself finished three cycles of daf Yomi. May he go from strength to strength!"

Ketubot 50 - August 25, 28 Av Aug 25, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Jennifer and Daniel Geretz in loving memory of Chela Geretz, a"h, whose 3rd yahrzeit is today.

Ketubot 49 - August 24, 27 Av Aug 24, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Gitta and David Neufeld in loving memory of Harlene Appelman, Chaya bat Osna Rachel v’Shmuel, who passed away on August 18. "A tenacious warrior who overcame all challenges, Harlene lived her life with dignity, grace and love. She was a passionate advocate for Jewish education and identity. Not only was she our mentor, she was our beloved friend. May the Torah learning we all engage in be a zechut for her and her cherished family and community. יהי זכרה ברוך

Today's daf is sponsored by Sara Berelowitz. “May our learning today be in memory of my beautiful Mom, קילא בת יהודה, who passed away 9 years ago on the 24th of Av. As the time passes, I miss her more and more.”

Ketubot 48 - August 23, 26 Av Aug 23, 2022

Ketubot 47 - August 22, 25 Av Aug 22, 2022

This week's learning is sponsored by Mark Goldstein in honor of his wife, Rena on the occasion of their 40th anniversary!

Ketubot 46 - August 21, 24 Av Aug 21, 2022

This month's learning is dedicated to Tsvi Landau by his wife Julie Landau in honor of their wedding anniversary. "Your joyful approach to Jewish learning and observance has always inspired me. וְאֵרַשְׂתִּ֥יךְ לִ֖י לְעוֹלָ֑ם."

This week’s learning is sponsored by Elana and Daniel Storch and family. We dedicate our week of learning with love for אילנה חנה בת גילה בריינלע as we continue to daven daily בלב מלא for your full and complete recovery."

This week’s learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Yehoshua Dov ben Gitel Sara.

Ketubot 45 - Shabbat August 20, 23 Av Aug 19, 2022

Ketubot 44 - August 19, 22 Av Aug 19, 2022

Ketubot 43 - August 18, 21 Av Aug 18, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Emily Croft on behalf of her Uncle Paul's yahrzeit.

Today's daf is sponsored by Natalie Taylor in loving memory of Sam Fink z”l whose shloshim is today. A warm and generous man, adored by his family and friends. Yehi zichro baruch.

Ketubot 42 - August 17, 20 Av Aug 17, 2022

Ketubot 41 - August 16, 19 Av Aug 16, 2022

This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v’Elana Malka. "ה נתן וה לקח. יהי שם ה מבורך"

Ketubot 40 - August 15, 18 Av Aug 15, 2022

Ketubot 39 - August 14, 17 Av Aug 14, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim in loving memory of her father, David Aschheim z”l. "He left us too young; but he left a lasting and loving legacy, including a love of Yiddishkeit and Torah. He was born in Hannover, Germany in 1919, and emigrated to Israel in 1935. In 1947 he came to NYC and embraced a wonderful new life in USA. He instilled a love of Torah, Eretz Yisrael and Medinat Yisrael. He would be very proud of his four grandchildren (two of whom made Aliyah) and of his six great-grandchildren, all of whom are getting a Torah education. Daddy, you are forever in my heart.”

Ketubot 38 - Shabbat August 13, 16 Av Aug 12, 2022

Ketubot 37 - August 12, 15 Av Aug 12, 2022

This week’s learning is sponsored by Chani Penstein and JJ Hornblass to commemorate the 2nd yahrzeit of their father Mayer Penstein z”l who loved daf yomi and was so proud of Michelle Farber.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Leeza Hirt Wilner in loving memory of her grandfather, Mayer Penstein. “He loved learning Torah with his grandchildren. He was especially proud to have a granddaughter with whom he could discuss the daf”.

Ketubot 36 - August 11, 14 Av Aug 11, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by the Maybaum, Raye and Cohen families in loving memory of Miriam (Mim) Cohen, מרים בת מיכאל, on her shloshim. "Our kind-hearted, fun-loving and totally unique big sister. Devoted wife and mother, ardent Zionist and proud Jew. We miss you."

Ketubot 35 - August 10, 13 Av Aug 10, 2022

Ketubot 34 - August 9, 12 Av Aug 09, 2022

Ketubot 33 - August 8, 11 Av Aug 08, 2022

Ketubot 32 - Tisha B'av - August 7, 10 Av Aug 05, 2022

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Ketubot 31 - Shabbat August 6, 9 Av Aug 05, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim in loving memory of her mother Edith Aschheim A"H. "She left us too young; but she left a lasting and loving legacy, including a love of Yiddishkeit. She was born in Vienna in 1926, went on the Kindertransport to London and was blessed to be reunited with her parents in USA in December 1940. She embraced all that NYC had to offer. Mommy, you are forever in my heart."

Ketubot 30 - August 5, 8 Av Aug 05, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Ze'ev Segel, Chaya Sara Nissan and Naomi Noy in loving memory of their mother Zelta Zehava Segel.

Ketubot 29 - August 4, 7 Av Aug 04, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored by Belinda Kreike in loving memory of Aubrey Kreike, Avraham Ben Shragga Phaivish on his 2nd yahrzeit. “He is remembered fondly by all his family and is greatly missed for his wisdom and advice.”

Ketubot 28 - August 3, 6 Av Aug 03, 2022

Ketubot 27 - August 2, 5 Av Aug 02, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Emma Rinberg in loving memory of her mother, Marjorie Glick, Miriam Chana bat Menachem Mendel and Rachel who died one year ago. "I miss her smile, her support, her love and the fun times we had together. As a child she taught me, as an adult she taught all of us. She lived her long life with happiness, stoicism, culture and intelligence. A proud Jew, a staunch Zionist and to me, Mummy. I think of her every day with love."

Ketubot 26 - August 1, 4 Av Aug 01, 2022

Ketubot 25 - July 31, 3 Av Jul 31, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Audrey Goldstein Levant in honor of her sister-in-law, Stacy Goldstein. "She is learning her first masechet with Hadran in Ottawa, Canada. Bubby Geri and I are so proud of you. Welcome to the club."

Ketubot 24 - Shabbat July 30, 2 Av Jul 29, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in loving memory of her beloved mother-in-law Bernice R. Cohen Schwartz, רחל בילא בת ר' שלום חיים ודרייזע גנסה, who celebrated her 99th birthday this year and is being buried today in NY. "She loved learning; always wanted to study Talmud as a girl and wasn't allowed to. May her neshama have an aliyah."

Today's daf is sponsored by Jane Shapiro in honor of Nina Black, her in-law and daf yomi friend. "May we be able to celebrate more Smachot together, including Siyum HaShas."

Ketubot 23 - Rosh Chodesh Av, July 29, 1 Av Jul 29, 2022

This week's learning is dedicated by Marcia Baum in loving memory of Chaim Simcha ben Aharon Halevi and Liba on his 19th yahrzeit today. "My father was a larger than life individual whose impact is still felt many years after his petirah. He is missed every day."

The daughters of Shmuel were taken captive and yet knew how to save themselves from being prohibited to marry a kohen. If two women testify each about the other that they were not raped in captivity are they believed? Do we need to be concerned that they are lying for each other? What about two men testifying each about the other that he is a kohen?

Ketubot 22 - July 28, 29 Tamuz Jul 28, 2022

Today's daf is dedicated by Tova and David Kestenbaum in honor of the engagement of their son, Gilad, to Noa Goldrich, daughter of Adina (ob"m) and Rafi Goldrich of Chashmonaim.

Today's daf is sponsored by Manes and Silvia Kogan in honor of their children, Daniela, Ilan and Abby. יהי רצון שה׳ ימלא משאלות לבם לטובה.

A number of situations are raised where judges may testify about each other in which they are not believed or it may just look like there is some untruth. If a woman says she was married but divorced or she was taken into captivity but not raped by a gentile, in what circumstances is she believed/not believed? If there were witnesses that she was married/taken into captivity, she is not believed. But if she was already remarried, we allow her to stay married. What is the source for believing her in the case that there were no witnesses and since she is the one who forbade herself, we believe her when she says she is now permitted? If a woman said she was married and then said she is single, we do not believe her, unless she can provide us with a good reason as to why she said she was married, as in the case of a woman who was trying to avoid inappropriate suitors. There is a debate regarding a case where there is contradictory testimony about whether the husband died or divorced her – if she already remarried, can she stay remarried? Rabbi Yochanan distinguishes between the case of death and divorce – why? Three different explanations are brought.

Ketubot 21 - July 27, 28 Tamuz Jul 27, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Ilana Friedman for the shloshim of her grandmother, Henna Malka bat Harav Yaakov Yitzchak, yesterday. "She was a descendant of the Noam Elimelech, student of Sarah Schneirer, she survived Schindler's list, illegally immigrated to Israel in 1946, and helped build the fledgling State of Israel. She merited to live just shy of 103 years and see 5 generations of descendants. May our learning give her neshama comfort and may we continue to have hatzlacha in our learning."

When witnesses verify their own signatures, do they need another witness as well? Rebbi and the rabbis disagree – what is the root of the debate? The Gemara points out that it needed to be stated what the debate was so that we wouldn’t assume that Rebbi was just being stringent out of uncertainty. In what case would there be a relevant ramification if Rebbi was ruling out of uncertainty? Rav Yehuda quoted Shmuel’s ruling that he held like the rabbis. Why was it necessary for him to say this – don’t we always hold by the majority. Did Shmuel really hold this way? Wasn’t there a case with a document of orphans in which Shmuel ratified it by having each witness testify about his own signature and that of the other!? Why was that case unique and not indicative of Shmuel’s general policy? Another halacha that Rav Yehuda quoted in the name of Shmuel was that one can ratify a document if one witness testifies about himself and one of the judges testifies about his signature on the document called a henpeik that the judges issue when they ratify a document. While Rami bar Hama praised this ruling, Rava rejected it as each one is validating something different and therefore the two cannot be combined. Rav Safra ruled on how to handle a case where of the three judges who were ratifying the document, two recognized the signatures and were able to validate them. The Gemara derives three different halachot from there and Rav Ashi raises questions against the last two as it is not clear that they can be derived from his ruling. The first halacha derived was that a witness can become a judge. Is this really true? In determining the new moon, it is not the case. Why is there a distinction made between that case and the verification of documents. If a question is raised about one of the judges, can the other judges vouch for him? On what does it depend?

Ketubot 20 - July 26, 27 Tamuz Jul 26, 2022

One cannot accuse witnesses to be zomemim unless they are present. However, there is a debate regarding witnesses who come to contradict a different group of witnesses – can they be done not in their presence? This affects a case where the witnesses signed on a document die. It is derived from a braita that to verify the signatures of witnesses from other documents, it must be from a document that one had raised doubts about its veracity. Other criteria for verification of documents are brought. If one writes down something one witnessed, can one testify years later, based on their written testimony? On what does it depend? What other methods of jogging one’s memory can be/not be employed? If there are mounds of dirt near the city or the roads, one needs to be concerned that there are bodies buried there. What is considered near? If the mounds are far from the city, it depends if they are old or new. This is because regarding the old ones, we can assume that if people were buried there, no one would remember. After how many years can we assume that people no longer remember? Can witnesses verify their own signatures? Do they need another witness together with them in order to verify their signature?

Ketubot 19 - July 25, 26 Tamuz Jul 25, 2022

If a person is told that they must sign this document as a false witness or else they will be killed, they should not sign. The Gemara tries to use this to explain Rabbi Meir’s opinion in the braita that if witnesses verify their signatures but say they were forced, we do not believe them as that is a statement that is self-incriminating. But it is rejected as the law is that one does not need to give one’s life if forced to sign a false document. One only needs to give one’s life for three things – murder, idol worship and forbidden sexual relations. Rabbi Meir’s opinion is explained in a different manner. If one says that the document is a document of trust, he is not believed. Is this said about the creditor, the borrower or the witnesses who are claiming it is a document of trust? Three different sages explain this is three different manners. What is a document of trust? A creditor should never leave a document of a loan that was already paid back in their house as it could allow the creditor to try to collect the loan twice. One should not have in one’s house a document of trust or a pasim document as these documents are false documents and could enable one to collect money that isn’t theirs. What is a pasim document? If witnesses who are signed on the document say it was a document of trust or they issue a declaration that the document was signed under duress, are they believed? If they say the document is valid, but was given upon a condition that was never met, do we believe them? What if one of the witnesses signed on the document says it was given upon and condition and the other says it was not?

Ketubot 18 - July 24, 25 Tamuz Jul 24, 2022

Why didn’t the Mishna mention a case of one who claimed that they borrowed money from another, but already paid it back? Why didn’t it mention the case of one who said “Your father lent me money but I paid him back half.” Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and the rabbis disagree regarding that case – what does each hold and why? Why is it different than a standard case of modeh b’miktzat, one who admits to part of the claim, who is obligated to swear regarding the half in question? The Mishna brings another case where one is believed as we only know of the claim at all from what the person told us and therefore, they are believed about the rest. The case is regarding verification of signature on a document. When the witnesses verified their signatures, they claimed they were forced into it or were too young to testify or were disqualified witnesses. Rami bar Chama limits one of the cases of the Mishna but there are two versions as to which one he is limiting. How does the Mishna work with the principle that once one has testified, one can no longer change their testimony? How does it work with the principle that a person does not come to court and self-incriminate themselves? A braita brings a debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding the law in our Mishna. The Gemara raises a difficulty with Rabbi Meir’s opinion.

Ketubot 17 - Shabbat July 23, 24 Tamuz Jul 22, 2022

What do they sing when they dance before a kallah? Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel have different approaches. Stories are told of words of praise they would say to rabbis as well. Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak would juggle before brides – was this viewed as a positive act or not? Other rabbis would carry brides on their shoulders – how was this permitted? Could everyone do this as well? Can and should one stop learning Torah to go to a wedding or a funeral? On what does it depend? What goes on at a wedding of a woman who is a virgin that can later be used as testimony that she was a virgin at her wedding and therefore had a ketuba of 200 zuz. Rabbi Yehoshua agrees with Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer that one is believed in a case where they claim that they are living in a property that was owned by someone’s father, but that he purchased it from them. Why did the Mishna choose a case regarding a purchase from one’s father and not directly from the seller?

Ketubot 16 - July 22, 23 Tamuz Jul 22, 2022

There is a case where Rabbi Yehoshua agrees with Rabban Gamliel - if one is in possession of land and says to the other claimant, "It was your father's but I purchased it from him," the claim is accepted, as "the mouth that forbade (admitted that it belonged to the other) is the mouth that permitted (but I purchased it)." This is true only if there were no witnesses attesting to the fact that it originally belonged to his father. In the first case in the Mishna, regarding a woman whose ketuba is lost and she claims she was a virgin and should get 200 zuz and the husband claims she was not and only gets 100, the ruling is that only is she brings witnesses, can we accept her claim. Is this not according to Rabban Gamliel or would he agree with Rabbi Yehoshua in this case? Can one prove from the language of the second case "Rabbi Yehoshua admits" that in the first case, Rabban Gamliel agreed with Rabbi Yehoshua? No! As that language is referring back to the previous chapter. To which case in the previous chapter? Why does Rabbi Yehoshua agree in our Mishna that since there is a migo (since a better claim could have been made and it wasn't, it is likely they are telling the truth), we can accept the claim, but in the case in Chapter One, he does not accept a migo claim? If we assume that most women are virgins, why do we need witnesses? If her ketuba is lost, why aren't we concerned that she is claiming her ketuba for the second time after she already collected it in a court earlier and now is lying that her ketuba is lost? Two answers are given. What were other customs that were practiced at the wedding of a virgin?

Ketubot 15 - July 21, 22 Tamuz Jul 21, 2022

Rav assumes that the Mishna ruled that the story of the rape in the Mishna took place on the day of the shuk in Tzippori when there were not only a majority of Jews in the city but also a majority of Jews passing through to sell their wares and the ruling followed Rabbi Yehoshua who ruled that in a case where there are two majorities, we can assume the rapist was Jewish and the woman can marry a kohen. The majority of those who pass through the city should be enough to permit the woman to marry a kohen as they are a passing majority, as opposed to the majority of the city which is set in its place and therefore, regular laws of majority do not apply. However, the rabbis made a decree not to permit passed on a majority of passersby so that we don't come to accidentally permit based on the majority of the city's inhabitants. This is different from law of nine kosher stores and one non-kosher store and there is a piece of meat that we are unsure from which store it came. If a piece of meat is on the street, we follow the majority of stores and permit it, even though we only have one majority. The reason for the stringency in our case if because the rabbis were strict when it came to who kohanim can marry. Rabbi Zeira held that when an item is in its place (like a piece of meat was purchased from one of the stores and we don't know from which one), we cannot follow rules of majority - instead, we say it is either kosher or not kosher - 50/50 chance, both to be strict and to be lenient, depending on the case. The Gemara finds a case where we rule leniently. They bring a verse from the Torah Devarim 19:11 as the source for this rule. Rav Chiya bar Ashi says that Rav ruled like Rabbi Yosi that the girl who was raped was permitted to marry a kohen. Rav Chanan bar Rava says in the name of Rav that it was a unique case and one cannot learn halacha from there to permit based on a majority. Rabbi Yirmia assumes at this point that Rav Chiya bar Ashi held that Rav ruled like Rabbi Yosi even in the case of only one majority and raises a difficulty against this from a statement Rav himself made regarding the Mishna in Machshirin 2:7 indicating that for marriage with a kohen, one needs two majorities. However, the Gemara reminds him that Rav himself understood that the case where Rabbi Yosi ruled was one with two majorities. If so, then Rav Chanan in the name of Rav must be ruling more leniently - in which case, he holds that Rabbi Yosi permitted only based on two majorities in this particular case, but in general, one majority is enough. This understanding does not fit in with the statement Rav made regarding the Mishna in Machshirin. The Gemara explains that Rav Chanan must have not held by Rav's explanation of the Mishna that it was in the day of the market, but held that there was only one majority and that's why the ruling here was unique - as otherwise, one would need two majorities. The Gemara delves into Shmuel understanding of the Mishna in Machshirin as well. If after death or divorce, the woman does not have her ketuba in hand and she and the husband make different claims regarding whether she was a virgin when she married and whether her ketuba was 200 zuz or 100, how do we resolve this?

Ketubot 14 - July 20, 21 Tamuz Jul 20, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Avi Yonitzman for the refuah shleima of Moshe David ben Tzvia.

A case came before Rav Yosef with a pregnant fiancé - both she and the fiancé claimed that the child was his. Rav Yosef believed them since the man agreed with the woman and since we hold like Rabban Gamliel, even in a case where he didn’t agree, we believe the woman as we rely on her presumptive status (permitted to a kohen). Abaye raises a difficulty as Shmuel ruled like Rabban Gamliel only when there until there is a kosher majority. Rabbi Yosef replied Shmuel must have said that only ab initio but not post facto and our case is post facto as they are already betrothed and she is already pregnant. Abaye cites a Mishna in Eduyot 8:3 where Rabbi Yehushua had an opinion contradictory to his opinion here – regarding a widow isa (widow of a safek chalal). Raba resolves the contradiction, but Rava points out that he did not take into consideration that in the same Mishna, Rabban Gamliel also has an opinion that contradicts his opinion here. Therefore, Rava resolves the contradiction in a different manner. The Gemara brings a braita with a dispute between three regarding the almanat isa. The Gemara raises three questions in understanding the braita and then explains all three opinions in a way that solves all the difficulties. The Mishnah brings up a case of a young woman that was raped and ruled that she should only be permitted to marry a kohen if the majority of people in the area are “kosher”. How can this be because it does not conform to the opinion of Rabban Gamliel who allows even if the majority are not kosher and not Rabbi Yehoshua who forbids even if the majority are kosher?!

Ketubot 13 - July 19. 20 Tamuz Jul 19, 2022

If the husband claims his wife is not a virgin and she says that it was from an injury (mukat etz) and he accuses her of having been with another man, again we have a debate between Rabbi Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer on one side and Rabbi Yehoshua on the other. Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree about whether the man claims 100 zuz and woman 200 zuz or the man claims that she deserves nothing and she claims 100 zuz. Their debate is based on the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding a mukat etz - whether she gets a ketuba or 100 or 200. It is also based on a disagreement regarding a man who finds out after the marriage that his wife was not a virgin, does she receive a ketuba or 100 or none at all. If a woman was "talking" to another man and there is concern she had relations with him, if she claims he was of "kosher" lineage, can we rely on her testimony and permit her to marry a kohen? Again, the same rabbis as above debate this issue. They also debate a case where the woman was pregnant and she testifies that the father is "kosher". What is the meaning of "talking" - was it that she went into a room alone with him or is it that we know she had intercourse with him? Zeiri and Rav Asi debate this issue and several sources are brought to raise difficulties against each of them and each difficulty is resolved, other than the last one which is left as a difficulty against Rav Asi. The last source was from the Tosefta Ketubot 1:9 which had a more detailed conversation between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer which ended with a confusing exchange regarding the differences/similarities between a woman taken into captivity and a pregnant woman or a woman who was seen in a secluded area with a man. Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree regarding whether each side holds their position also regarding the woman's testimony regarding the status of her daughter. Rabbi Eliezer raises a difficulty with Rabbi Yochanan from the Tosefta. Rabbi Yochanan responds by limiting what was meant by the designation in the Tosefta of the child being a shtuki.

Ketubot 13 - July 19. 20 Tamuz Jul 19, 2022

If the husband claims his wife is not a virgin and she says that it was from an injury (mukat etz) and he accuses her of having been with another man, again we have a debate between Rabbi Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer on one side and Rabbi Yehoshua on the other. Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree about whether the man claims 100 zuz and woman 200 zuz or the man claims that she deserves nothing and she claims 100 zuz. Their debate is based on the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding a mukat etz - whether she gets a ketuba or 100 or 200. It is also based on a disagreement regarding a man who finds out after the marriage that his wife was not a virgin, does she receive a ketuba or 100 or none at all. If a woman was "talking" to another man and there is concern she had relations with him, if she claims he was of "kosher" lineage, can we rely on her testimony and permit her to marry a kohen? Again, the same rabbis as above debate this issue. They also debate a case where the woman was pregnant and she testifies that the father is "kosher". What is the meaning of "talking" - was it that she went into a room alone with him or is it that we know she had intercourse with him? Zeiri and Rav Asi debate this issue and several sources are brought to raise difficulties against each of them and each difficulty is resolved, other than the last one which is left as a difficulty against Rav Asi. The last source was from the Tosefta Ketubot 1:9 which had a more detailed conversation between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer which ended with a confusing exchange regarding the differences/similarities between a woman taken into captivity and a pregnant woman or a woman who was seen in a secluded area with a man. Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree regarding whether each side holds their position also regarding the woman's testimony regarding the status of her daughter. Rabbi Eliezer raises a difficulty with Rabbi Yochanan from the Tosefta. Rabbi Yochanan responds by limiting what was meant by the designation in the Tosefta of the child being a shtuki.

Ketubot 12 - July 18, 19 Tamuz Jul 18, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Judith Weil in loving memory of Adina Hagege's beloved mother-in-law, Ketti (Kamuna) Peretz Hagege, who passed away yesterday on the 18th of Tamuz. "May Adina and Eric know no more sorrow."

If a man marries a woman who was already married but still a virgin, he cannot take her to court and claim that he believed she was a virgin. The braita mentions that even if there are witnesses that she was not alone with him enough time to have intercourse, he still cannot take her to court regarding her virginity. Is it possible to learn from these sources that whoever believed his wife that she was a virgin and then found out she is not, would still have to give her a ketuba of 100 zuz? The customs in Judea and Galilee were different regarding the status of the engagement and whether the couple would be secluded in a room during the time of the engagement. Even in Judea, where they this would happen, there were different customs in the matter and not all permitted this. If they were to have secluded, though, the man would not be able to claim in the court after the wedding that his wife was not a virgin. In the court of the kohanim, they would give ketubot of 400 zuz to daughters of kohanim who were not previously married and sages did not object to this custom. Did the widows also receive double the amount of a regular widow? Who else deserved a bigger ketuba? Why? If a man does not find his wife is a virgin and when they come to court, she claims that she was raped at the time of the engagement and he claims that she was not a virgin before the engagement and wants to lower her keuba to 100 zuz, who is believed? There is a dispute between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer, who believe her, and Rabbi Yehoshua who believes him. Upon what halachic principles are their opinions based? Is this the same controversy that there is on the issue of disputed money where one claims they loaned someone money and the other claims that do not know?

Ketubot 11 - July 17, 18 Tamuz Jul 17, 2022

This week's learning is sponsored by the Sarna Family in the zechut of a refuah shleima u'mehirah for Maayan Liba bat Bryna Mindi.

The Mishna states that a convert, one taken captive, a maidservant who was converted/freed under the age of three has the presumptive status of a virgin and therefore has a ketuba of 200 zuz. Rav Huna states that a convert can be converted with the consent of the court as one can act on behalf of another if it is in the person's best interest and converting is in the best interest of the minor. Why? Can our Mishna be used as proof for Rav Huna? According to Rav Yosef, the convert can decide when they become of age that they no longer want to be Jewish. Rava and Abaye each bring sources that would seem to go against this. How are the difficulties resolved? Why did each not bring the source that the other brought? If an adult male had relations with a minor or the reverse, she also receives a ketuba of 200 zuz. Regarding a woman who tore her hymen from an accident (mukat etz), there is a debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis - does she get a ketuba of 100 or 200 zuz. If she was married but never had relations, she only receives a ketuba of 100 zuz and if the husband finds that she was not a virgin, he cannot claim that he was misled. A convert, one taken captive, a maidservant who was converted/freed over the age of three is assumed not to be a virgin and her ketuba is 100 zuz. Rav and Shmuel disagreed regarding a minor male who had relations with an adult woman - is she considered a non-virgin or a mukat etz. How does this work with our Mishna that seemed to say the debate was only regarding the mukat etz, but not this case? Rava rereads the Mishna to resolve the issue. Do the rabbis and Rabbi Meir disagree only in a case where he knew she was a mukat etz but in a case where he didn't know before the wedding, she doesn't receive her ketuba at all? Rami bar Hama suggests this but is rejected by a Mishna. Rava says that Rabbi Meir doesn't distinguish between whether he knew or not and either way she gets 200 zuz. But the rabbis distinguish and give her 100 if she told him before and nothing if she misled him. However, Rava changed his mind and holds that either way, the rabbis hold she gets 100 zuz. The Gemara brings a braita and a discussion about that braita and Rava's rereading of it to prove that he changed his mind.

Ketubot 10 - Shabbat July 16, 17 Tamuz Jul 15, 2022

Is the requirement of having a ketubah a Torah law or rabbinic? This is a subject of debate. Shmuel holds that since the law is rabbinic, the rabbis believe a husband to claim that he found a “petach patuach” and the woman was not a virgin. Rava explains that he is believed since he wouldn’t spend all this time and money on a wedding celebration for no reason. That gives him a presumption of telling the truth. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel held that ketuba is a Torah law. However, a braita is brought that contradicts and two resolutions are suggested, each requires emending the text of the braita. A number of actual cases that were brought in front of rabbis in different time periods are mentioned. In each case, the husband claimed there was no blood from the hymen and the woman claimed she was a virgin. In each case, the rabbi found a way to show that the woman was still a virgin. Each case it was proven in a different manner. The virgin’s ketuba is 200 zuz and a widow’s is 100, maneh. Thus the word widow in Hebrew (almana) is derived from that. If it was instituted by the rabbis, how can it be that the Torah used the word almana, referring to something that would be relevant only in the future? The meaning and source of a number of words are brought.

Ketubot 9 - July 15, 16 Tamuz Jul 15, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Dr. Robin Zeiger in loving memory of her mother Helen Zeiger's yahrzeit, and the first wedding anniversary of her son Akiva to Rivka. "Mom's love and support enabled me to become religious and begin my Jewish learning at ICJA."

Today's daf is sponsored by Vitti Rosenzweig Kones in loving memory of her mother, Sara bat David v'Vitti who passed away last Friday, 9 Tamuz. A righteous woman who survived the Holocaust and went on to build a beautiful family. Yehi Zichra Baruch.

Rabbi Elazar holds that if a man claims his wife had a "petach patuach," meaning that when they had relations for the first time, he could tell that she wasn't a virgin, he is believed to forbid her to him as once can testify in order to forbid something on oneself (shavya nafsha chatichad'isura). Why would this be be the case if it is only a sefek safeka (2 doubts) as she could have had relations before they were betrothed and she could have been raped. The Gemara brings two answers which narrow the case of Rabbi Elazar's statement either to a woman married to a kohen or one who was betrothed by her father before age 3. Why couldn't this law of Rabbi Elazar have been derived from a Mishna in Kiddushin 65a which is based on the same principle? What is the difference between the cases? Rabbi Elazar also said that a woman is only forbidden to her husband if there was a warning issued by the husband and the woman then was secluded with the man in question (like a Sotah) and like the Batsheva/David situation. What exactly does this mean and how does this correspond to Rabbi Elazar's previous statement which seems to contradict this? Why was Batsheva not forbidden to return to her husband? There are two possible answers. Abaye attempts to bring support for Rabbi Elazar's statement from our Mishna (Ketubot 2) but it is rejected by differentiating between the claim of petach patuach and a claim that there was no blood. Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel that if a man claims his wife had a "petach patuach" he can divorce her without having to give her the ketuba money, meaning she would get 100 zuz like a non-virgin, instead of 200 zuz. Rav Yosef questions: We can derive that law from a Mishna Ketubot 12a! The Gemara resolves his question by differentiating between the claim of petach patuach and a claim that there was no blood.

Ketubot 8 - July 14, 15 Tamuz Jul 14, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored in loving memory of Rosalind Pineles, who passed away this week. "Rosalind loved family, Torah and Israel, was a champion of Chesed and the driving force behind women's Torah study in her community. Dearly missed and remembered."

Today's daf is sponsored by Rina Baumel with gratitude to Rabbanit Michelle, Maggie, Mimi and the wonderful women of the Hadran community - my worldwide virtual chevruta.

What is the actual nusach of the blessings of the wedding (sheva brachot)? How many blessings are there? There is a debate about whether two of them are to be combined or said separately - the ones relating to the creation of humans. Are there separate as man and woman were created separately or are they together as they were created as two partzufim - at once. How many days are these blessings and the special zimun recited? Under what circumstances? The blessings for the mourner and for the wedding require a quorum of ten. Does the mourner/groom count as part of the ten? What is the language of the blessings for the mourner? To whom are each of the blessings addressed? A story is told of Reish Lakish where we learn the origins of these blessings. The rabbis instituted ten cups of wine for mourners and then added another four. But since it got people drunk, they reverted back to how it was previously. What did Rabban Gamliel do regarding burial shrouds that on account of him, they added an extra cup of wine (before they reverted back to the original)?

Ketubot 8 - July 14, 15 Tamuz Jul 14, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored in loving memory of Rosalind Pineles, who passed away this week. "Rosalind loved family, Torah and Israel, was a champion of Chesed and the driving force behind women's Torah study in her community. Dearly missed and remembered."

Today's daf is sponsored by Rina Baumel with gratitude to Rabbanit Michelle, Maggie, Mimi and the wonderful women of the Hadran community - my worldwide virtual chevruta.

What is the actual nusach of the blessings of the wedding (sheva brachot)? How many blessings are there? There is a debate about whether two of them are to be combined or said separately - the ones relating to the creation of humans. Are there separate as man and woman were created separately or are they together as they were created as two partzufim - at once. How many days are these blessings and the special zimun recited? Under what circumstances? The blessings for the mourner and for the wedding require a quorum of ten. Does the mourner/groom count as part of the ten? What is the language of the blessings for the mourner? To whom are each of the blessings addressed? A story is told of Reish Lakish where we learn the origins of these blessings. The rabbis instituted ten cups of wine for mourners and then added another four. But since it got people drunk, they reverted back to how it was previously. What did Rabban Gamliel do regarding burial shrouds that on account of him, they added an extra cup of wine (before they reverted back to the original)?

Ketubot 7 - July 13, 14 Tamuz Jul 13, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Nina Black for the refuah shleimah of Devorah bat Layah.

Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of Azriel Geffen, Azriel ben Avraham z"l on his 69th yahrzeit.

After having discussed the issue extensively, the Gemara brings the decision of various rabbis who either forbade or permitted having relations for the first time on Shabbat. Is there a reason to distinguish between Yom Tov and Shabbat? There are seven blessings recited at a wedding ceremony and at meals during the seven days of celebration. What are the differences if the bride or groom is a widow/er? The brachot require a kehilla, the presence of ten. From where is this derived? Two different verses are suggested by different rabbis. What does each one do with the other's verse? There is a debate whether the seven blessings are recited at the chuppah or at the betrothal. How does Abaye explain this debate? What is the betrothal blessing? Does it begin and end with a blessing (like Kiddush) or is it like a blessing on fruits or on a mitzva?

Ketubot 6 - July 12, 13 Tamuz Jul 12, 2022

Is it forbidden or not to have relations for the first time on Shabbat? There are two different versions regarding what Rav and Shmuel held in its matter as it was known that one permitted and one forbade. If Rav holds like Rabbi Yehuda who prohibits "davar she'aino mitkaven" - doing a melacha when one was not intending to do that melacha, how does he permit (according to those who say he permits)? It must be that he holds that it is a destructive act and therefore permitted. Several sources are brought against Shmuel (who clearly holds like Rabbi Shimon that "davar she'aino mitkaven" is not forbidden) according to those who say that Shmuel forbade relations on Friday night for concern of bleeding. The first source is a Mishna in Nidda 64b that seems to indicate one could have relations on Friday night even if there is a likelihood that she may bleed from the tearing off the hymen. Rava resolves it by showing that in the case discussed, there is a decreased likelihood of bleeding as they already had relations for the first time and there is a chance she may bleed, but it is not clearly going to happen. The second question is from the groom's exemption from shema which lasts through Saturday night in the event that they did not have relations yet. Why would one be exempt on Shabbat unless one would be able to have relations? Rava and Abaye each provide answers. A third question is asked from a case of opening up a pimple on Shabbat which is permitted - why is that not the same as tearing the hymen?

Ketubot 5 - July 11, 12 Tamuz Jul 11, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Hannah Piotrkowski in honor of Amy Cohn and Karen Kirschenbaum for their gracious hosting and teaching at the Jerusalem Yevamot siyum.

One should not engage in relations with one's wife for the first time on Friday night or Saturday night. Friday night - out of concern for tearing her hymen and causing her to bleed, which is forbidden on Shabbat. Saturday night - out of concern one will do calculations on Shabbat of expenses for the wedding. Why is that an issue if one is allowed to do calculations for a mitzva? All sorts of things that are either mitzvot or have to do with communal needs are permitted on Shabbat. Therefore that explanation is rejected and a different one is brought. The concern is that one may slaughter a young bird on Shabbat. Why is this not a concern when Yom Kippur falls on a Monday? Two distinctions are made - regarding Yom Kippur, there is more time (Sunday) and it is for oneself and not for others. This explanation (concern about slaughtering a bird) could also explain why one shouldn't get married on Friday. If one is supposed to get married on Wednesday, can the marriage be consummated on Wednesday or should they wait until Wednesday night so that if she is not a virgin, he will not change his mind by the next day and not go to court? To answer the question, they bring in Bar Kapara's opinion that connects between the creation of the world (the commandment to be fruitful and multiply - to the fish on Thursday and to humans on Friday) and the days on which virgins and widows are to marry. Widows marry on Thursday for another reason - the rabbis instituted it so that the husband would have three days to spend celebration with his wife before he goes back to work. Other drashot of Bar Kapara are brought. One discusses the greatness of the actions of the righteous and the other, the importance of closing your ears to hearing things that are best not to be heard. When a woman's hymen tears during intercourse, is that considered inflicting a wound on someone and therefore forbidden to do on Shabbat or is it perceived that the blood was collected there and one is just allowing it to leave. Further questions are asked according to each option relating to famous debates between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon regarding melachot that one does on Shabbat that one did not intend or destructive acts.

Siyum Yevamot Jul 10, 2022

Rabbi Akiva claimed that one witness is accepted about a man’s death but not if it is not a “kosher” witness, such as a wife, slave, maidservant or relative. The rabbis raised a difficulty against Rabbi Akiva from a story where even a female innkeeper was believed to say that a man had died and they allowed his wife to remarry. Rabbi Akiva replied that the case with her was different from a normal case because there were signs that the man was dead because she took out his belongings. Why did the Mishna treat the surrogate with contempt? Do you need to seriously interrogate the witnesses in a case of testimony that a man has died to permit his wife to marry? There are two opposite versions of what Rabbi Tarfon held. Apparently this is a tannaitic dispute - is it categorized with the monetary law because of the ketubah or capital law because of the prohibition of a married woman?

Siyum Ceremony Text

Ketubot 4 - July 10, 11 Tamuz Jul 10, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Rebecca Samson in loving memory of her father, Shea Berger, Yehoshua Heschel ben Ephraim Yisroel HaLevi, on his second yahrzeit. Yihei Zichro Baruch.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Tamara Katz in memory of the yahrzeit of "my great grandmother Chaya bat Kayla Bracha and in appreciation of my mother who listened to my regular yevamot updates with patience - even when I wasn't always clear."

A braita had mentioned that in a case of "oness"one can marry even on Monday. One possibility brought to explain what the case was, suggested it was when the father of the groom or mother of the bride died just before the wedding. If the food was already prepared they would allow the couple to get married and have conjugal relations and then bury the parents, have seven days of celebration, followed by seven days of mourning. The couple would sleep separately during that time. Why did it specifically mention the father of the groom and not the mother, the mother of the bride and not the father? Rav Chisda limits it to a case of when the water was already poured on the meat, as it will be a loss as it cannot be sold. Others limit Rav Chisda's statement: in the city, even if they put water, it can still be sold, in the villages even if they didn't put water, it can't be sold. If so, in what type of place was Rav Chisda's limitation meant for? A braita is brought in support of Rav Chisda. The braita states as we saw earlier that the couple separated after consummating the marriage and also in a case where a woman was in nidda at the wedding, and this supports Rabbi Yochanan who held that aveilut in private is practiced even in a case like this where aveilut is pushed off because of the wedding celebrations. Rav Yosef quoted Rava as saying the couple separates only if they didn't have relations. How does that make sense if the braita stated that they had relations? They distinguish between the case of aveilut (they separate in any case) and if the bride is a nidda (they separate only if they did not have conjugal relations). The reason is that the couple will very careful if she is a nidda not to have relations, but if it is aveilut, they may not. A braita is brought to raise a difficulty against that distinction, but it is resolved in two different ways.

Ketubot 3 - Shabbat July 9. 10 Tamuz Jul 08, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Emma Rinberg in loving memory of her father, Dr Eric Glick, Yitchak Nissan ben Yaacov. "He died on the 10th of Tammuz, 32 years ago, aged 62. With his warm smile, beautiful voice and healing hand I think of him daily and am comforted that he watches over us."

For what reason did Rava claim that one cannot claim "oness" (it wasn't circumstances beyond my control) regarding a get? He claims it is on account of women who are overly humble or not at all. If the man really doesn't intend for the get to be valid and based on the rabbis, it is valid (as they decided not to accept a claim of oness), how can the rabbis uproot a Torah law? The answer is that they don't assume the get is valid - they uproot the kiddushin (annul the marriage). How do they have the power to do that? After answering this question, the Gemara brings a different version of Rava's statement claiming he said the opposite - one can claim ones in a case of get. All the sources they brought in Ketubot 2b to try to prove Rava's statement are now brought to question Rava's statement. All the explanations that were given to reject them as proven in Ketubot 2b are not used to respond to the difficulties. Since the takana of getting married on Wednesday is based on the court system instituted by Ezra of Mondays and Thursdays, it would not be relevant before that or in a time where courts meet any day. However, since there is the issue of having three days to prepare the meal, one can be flexible only if the meal is fully prepared. In order to properly explain the issue with preparing the meal, the Gemara brings a braita which explains it. The braita also describes an exception to the Wednesday rule. In a case of danger, one can get married on Tuesday and in a case of oness, one can even get married on Monday. What is meant by "danger" and "oness"?

Ketubot 2 - July 8, 9 Tamuz Jul 08, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Suri Stern in honor of Rabbanit Michelle Farber who rocked teaching this long and hard Masechet Yevamot and my sisters in Hadran Long Island who persevered through this difficult masechet w their usual humor. לכו מחיל אל חיל!

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Daf Yomi women of Hashmonaim to Phyllis, Gittel Pasha bat Masha Rachel for the continued refuah. "In addition to being a pillar of hesed and torah learning in our community, you have become so central in our daf learning, creating a whatsApp daf yomi group with daily posts and other related materials so we can access it all with the flick of a finger. You have left us with huge shoes to fill in your absence and are waiting for your return in good health and vigor, as we continue to daven daily for you. Ken Yihi Ratzon!"

On what day do people get married and why? If the woman was a virgin, then on Wednesday and widows on Thursday. Why? The Mishna explains why virgins on Friday - since the courts meet on Thursday, they would marry on Wednesday so that if she was not actually a virgin, the husband can bring her to court the following morning to claim that she had lied about being a virgin, as the courts meet on Thursday. But as courts also met on Monday, why don't they marry also on Sunday? To answer the question, they add that they wanted to give the husband three days (from Shabbat) to prepare the meal for the wedding in order to provide a proper feast for his wife. As a result, if the date passes after which the husband was already supposed to marry the wife (generally a year after the betrothal), the man needs to already provide sustenance for the woman, but only beginning from Wednesday as based on the takana of the rabbis that people should get married on Wednesday. If there was some reason beyond his control that the wedding was delayed, he does not need to start paying for her sustenance. What if the wedding was delayed because of the woman - a reason beyond her control? What would be/not be considered beyond her control? Rava said that this issue of making a claim that there were circumstances beyond's one control (ones), does not apply for a divorce document, a get, that was given upon condition. From where does he learn this? The Gemara makes several attempts to bring a source, but in the end, they are unable to prove it from sources and they explain that Rava came to this conclusion using his own reasoning.

Introduction to Masechet Ketubot - by Dr. Ayelet Hoffman Libson Jul 07, 2022

This shiur is sponsored by Valerie Adler. "Delighted to dedicate this introduction in honor of Ayelet and Adi Libson who are an example to all of us in our family of extreme chessed. Looking forward to your introduction."

Yevamot 122a - Part 1 - July 7, 8 Tamuz Jul 07, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Elisheva Gray. "Todah rabah, Rabbanit Michelle, for so patiently guiding us through this challenging masechet, and to everyone on the Hadran team for providing so many resources to help us along the way. Mazal tov to all of my fellow learners! We made it!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Caroline Ben-Ari in appreciation of Julie Landau. "When I was ill recently and needed to be hospitalized, Julie was there for me with practical help and emotional support, including going with me on two different days to the ER and advocating for me when I no longer had the energy to advocate for myself. I am blessed to have a friend like Julie."

If a gentile mentions in conversation that someone has died, we can allow his wife to marry, but only if we don't have a reason to think he is lying. The Gemara brings several cases and explains whether or not they relied in each case on the gentile's words or not. The Mishna lists some other leniencies regarding testimonies that generally are not accepted, but are in the case of allowing women to marry, such as one who saw the man dead by the light of the moon or candlelight or heard a voice stating he was dead. A few actual cases are also quoted where they relied on weaker testimonies. How can we insure that the voice is not coming from an evil spirit? Or perhaps it was the woman's rival wife who is not to be trusted? The Mishna quotes Rabbi Akiva who describes historically who first permitted allowing one witness to testify about a man's death in order to permit her wife to marry and how was his opinion later accepted by the rabbis. The Mishna lists the opinions that held otherwise before there was a decision made by all of them to permit it.

Yevamot 121 - July 6, 7 Tamuz Jul 06, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Judy Tydor Schwartz's birthday with love from her daughters! "Your care and devotion to our family, daily acts of chesed and endless learning are a true inspiration."

Today's daf is dedicated by Becki Goldstein on behalf of her new grandson. "With gratitude to the Almighty for our new grandson Shmuel. Like Shmuel Hanavi ze Shmuel hakaton Shmuel hagadol yihiye, with blessings of chochma, yirat shamayim, anava, love of Torah and ahavat habriot in good health and simcha and nachat to his whole family."

Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava understood that each situation is unique in terms of being able to identify a person after their death and did not accept the other opinion that within three days, one can be identified but not after that. Was he being more stringent or more lenient? If one fell into body of water and we cannot find them, can we presume they are dead and let their wife marry? Do we distinguish between water that "has an end to them" (we can see land on all sides) and water that "has no end to them"? This is a debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosi (and the rabbis). If it was water that has no visible end, but a leg was found, can he be presumed dead? Rav wanted to excommunicate Rav Shila for permitting a woman whose husband had drowned in a lake. Shmuel convinces him to ask first about the details of the case. Upon questioning him, they realize that Rav Shila made a mistake about the nature of the water of the lake and therefore ruled incorrectly. Rav is pleased that Shmuel preventing him from making a mistake in excommunicating Rav Shila. A story is brought of a man who was presumed dead but ended up being saved in a cave containing a pond of fish. If a person who is well known (a Torah scholar) falls into a body of water that has no visible end, Rav Ashi ruled that their wife can remarry as we can assume that if they got out, we would know about it. However, the Gemara rejects this. stories are told of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Meir who were traveling by boat and almost drowned, but managed to survive. What is the law regarding one who entered a lion's den, a pit full of snakes and scorpions, a fiery furnace? Is there a difference between one who fell into a vat full of burning oil or one full of wine? Whose testimony is accepted to be able to determine that one has died - children? Gentiles? On what does it depend?

Yevamot 120 - July 5, 6 Tamuz Jul 05, 2022

This week's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the refuah shleima of her cousin Shlomo ben Rivka and Shimon.

Today's daf is sponsored by Sharon Russ for a speedy refuah shleima for Chaya Esther bat Barbara, a young mother in serious condition. "Please have her in mind in your learning and prayers."

Sisters-in-law who could both fall to yibum to each other's husbands are not believed regarding each other. In a case where there are only two brothers and each of their wives claims that their husband has died - we only believe each woman about her own testimony and therefore each cannot remarry as from her perspective, the yabam may still be alive. However if there were more brothers and the wives performed yibum with them, and the yabam died, they would each be allowed to remarry, according to Rabbi Elazar. Is it because he trusts sisters-in-law who could potentially be rival wives, as he trusts rival wives as well to testify for each other. Or is it because he holds that a woman wouldn't mess herself up in the process of trying to ruin things for someone else and therefore, since they already did yibum in this case,e, based on their testimony, they must not be lying? They attempt to derive the answer from the language in our Mishna and from another braita, but the proofs are inconclusive. If one testifies to the death of another, they need to see from their nose and up in order to identify the body and not other simanim on the body. They need to see them actually dead and not on their way to dying. Do they need to identify the body within three days of death, as the body changes form and may not be identifiable after that or does it depend on the situation? Can one infer from the Mishna that simanim are not valid proof from the Torah? If so, that contradicts another source that seems to indicate they are! Abaye claims it is a tannaitic debate as can be seen from another source. Rava explains the taanitic debate as rooted in something else. Several versions of Rava's answer are brought - each of which explains that there is a more internal debate between the two, but it is not regarding whether or not simanim are by Torah/rabbinic law. If Rava thinks that all hold that simanim are by Torah law, how can our Mishna be explained? Why can't we rely on simanim to determine one's death? The Mishna had stated that one cannot determine one's death if they saw one in various situations where they would likely die but hadn't yet. How does the case of one cut open make sense in light of the Mishna is Ohalot 1:6 which seems to indicate in the same situation, we can assume the person will die? Abaye and Rava each provide answers.

Yevamot 119 - July 4, 5 Tamuz Jul 04, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

Today's daf is sponsored by Shelley and Jerry Gornish in loving memory of their dear grandson, Oz Wilchek, on his sixth yahrzeit.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in loving memory of Moshe Hartman. "In life, you expanded my horizons beyond all expectations. In your honor, I now feel my life expanding beyond all expectations through Hadran’s Daf Yomi. Thank you, and thanks to Rabbanit Michelle and Hadran for all the inspiration and insight."

Today’s daf is sponsored by Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld in loving memory of her father, Philip Jaroslawicz יוסף בן מנחם מענדל ופעשי ע"ה. “My father raised us to love learning and live Torah. While he may have said "no" when we asked for a new game, he never said "no" when we asked for books. His love of learning and passion for chessed are stamped strongly in the spiritual DNA of his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren."

Today's daf is sponsored by Adina Hagege in honor of Miriam Kerzner's birthday. "Your late-night dedication to learning the Daf Yomi with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle, intellectually immersing yourself in a whole new world of Talmud, is an ongoing testament to the inspiration you've been for us all your life. We wish you many more years of learning and spiritual growth. With lots of love from your brother and sister, Barry and Elayne Greenstone, and all your nieces and nephews, grand-nieces and nephews, and great-grand nieces and nephews".

Today’s daf is dedicated to Geelit Sommer by her children. "We wish our dear Ima a very happy birthday and a big שכויח for learning Masechet Yevamot. We are very proud of your dedication to learning and your openness to taking on this challenge, and we are inspired by you. עלי והצליחי!"

If one's husband went abroad with a rival wife and witnesses said that he died, the wife needs to wait until she finds out that his wife did not give birth to a child. She cannot do yibum or marry anyone else. Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees and permit her to marry. According to the rabbis, why don't we follow the majority and assume she got pregnant and had a child? A distinction is made between a majority of items in front of us. like "nine stores" and a statistical majority. Or is it because the Mishna holds like Rabbi Meir who is concerned for minority possibilities? The difficulty of saying the Mishna holds like Rabbi Meir is that the second case in the Mishna does not seem concerned with minority possibilities. How can this be explained? How long does the woman need to wait to see if the rival wife had a child? Why can't we allow her to perform chalitza out of doubt? Sisters-in-law who could both fall to yibum to each other's husbands are not believed regarding each other. What happens in a case where there are only two brothers and each of their wives claims that their husband has died - if we believe each one, there are no brothers left to do yibum, in which case they should be allowed to marry anyone else. What is the law? The Mishna brings a number of different scenarios within this case.

Yevamot 119 - July 4, 5 Tamuz Jul 04, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

Today's daf is sponsored by Shelley and Jerry Gornish in loving memory of their dear grandson, Oz Wilchek, on his sixth yahrzeit.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in loving memory of Moshe Hartman. "In life, you expanded my horizons beyond all expectations. In your honor, I now feel my life expanding beyond all expectations through Hadran’s Daf Yomi. Thank you, and thanks to Rabbanit Michelle and Hadran for all the inspiration and insight."

Today’s daf is sponsored by Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld in loving memory of her father, Philip Jaroslawicz יוסף בן מנחם מענדל ופעשי ע"ה. “My father raised us to love learning and live Torah. While he may have said "no" when we asked for a new game, he never said "no" when we asked for books. His love of learning and passion for chessed are stamped strongly in the spiritual DNA of his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren."

Today's daf is sponsored by Adina Hagege in honor of Miriam Kerzner's birthday. "Your late-night dedication to learning the Daf Yomi with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle, intellectually immersing yourself in a whole new world of Talmud, is an ongoing testament to the inspiration you've been for us all your life. We wish you many more years of learning and spiritual growth. With lots of love from your brother and sister, Barry and Elayne Greenstone, and all your nieces and nephews, grand-nieces and nephews, and great-grand nieces and nephews".

Today’s daf is dedicated to Geelit Sommer by her children. "We wish our dear Ima a very happy birthday and a big שכויח for learning Masechet Yevamot. We are very proud of your dedication to learning and your openness to taking on this challenge, and we are inspired by you. עלי והצליחי!"

If one's husband went abroad with a rival wife and witnesses said that he died, the wife needs to wait until she finds out that his wife did not give birth to a child. She cannot do yibum or marry anyone else. Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees and permit her to marry. According to the rabbis, why don't we follow the majority and assume she got pregnant and had a child? A distinction is made between a majority of items in front of us. like "nine stores" and a statistical majority. Or is it because the Mishna holds like Rabbi Meir who is concerned for minority possibilities? The difficulty of saying the Mishna holds like Rabbi Meir is that the second case in the Mishna does not seem concerned with minority possibilities. How can this be explained? How long does the woman need to wait to see if the rival wife had a child? Why can't we allow her to perform chalitza out of doubt? Sisters-in-law who could both fall to yibum to each other's husbands are not believed regarding each other. What happens in a case where there are only two brothers and each of their wives claims that their husband has died - if we believe each one, there are no brothers left to do yibum, in which case they should be allowed to marry anyone else. What is the law? The Mishna brings a number of different scenarios within this case.

Yevamot 118 - July 3, 4 Tamuz Jul 03, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

This week's learning is sponsored by Judy Tydor Schwartz in honor of her birthday. "With love and gratitude for my incredible daughters Beki and Rina who are learning Daf Yomi with Hadran, and in memory of my unforgettable mother, Shirley K. Tydor, who would have loved Hadran!"

In what cases do we accept the testimony of a rival wife to contradict the other wife's testimony that her husband has died? In which cases do Rabbi Meir and Rabbis Yehuda and Shimon disagree regarding this issue? If a woman testified about herself and her mother-in-law that both their husbands have died or about herself and she had a rival wife, she is only believed about herself. Can her mother-in-law/rival wife continue to eat truma, if she was married to a kohen? Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva disagree. If one betrothed a woman and it is unclear which woman (one of a few possible options), does he need to marry/divorce all of them? Does he need to give a ketuba to all of them? Or if one stole from someone and it is one of a possible number of people? Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva disagree. According to whose opinion is the Mishna stated (as there is a disagreement as to exactly which cases they disagree about). The Mishna lists various cases where a couple left town and they either didn't have a child or the husband didn't have a brother and the wife came and said there was a son (or brother) and both the husband and the son/brother died, do we believe her and permit her to do yibum or marry someone else based on her testimony? What if the son/brother was born before they left and he went with them? If one gives a get to someone else to accept it on behalf of his wife, can she be exempt from yibum? Is a get "good for the woman" and therefore effective or "bad for the woman" and therefore not effective? What if it was a case where it was known they had been fighting? The Gemara learns from Reish Lakish's statement that women would always prefer to be married, even if the marriage is not necessarily a good one.

Yevamot 117 - Shabbat July 2, 3 Tamuz Jul 01, 2022

A woman is believed to say that her husband died in order to remarry. But can she also get her ketuba money? On what does it depend? There are certain female relatives that are not trusted to testify about the death of one’s husband as there is enmity between them and they may testify falsely in order to ensure she will have to get divorced from her husband. Is there more than just the one listed in the Mishna? And if so, why are they not listed? The Mishna lists a number of cases where contradictory testimony came in regarding the death of the husband. In which cases do we allow her to marry? In which cases do we make her get divorced if she married based on the first testimony that was later contradicted?

Yevamot 116 - July 1, 2 Tamuz Jul 01, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Sara Berelowitz in honor of her granddaughter Avishag Sterman on her Bat Mitzvah!

Today's daf is sponsored by Susannah & Bernie Goldstein in honor of their children Eliana & Benny who went back to Camp Ramah in the Poconos this week, for the summer. "We’re so proud of you! Wishing you & all the tzevet and chanichim a fun, safe, & healthy summer.

Does one need to be concerned that there are two people with the same name when accepting testimony that one has died. Rava and Abaye disagree. Rava's proof was from a case of collecting money from a promissory note. Abaye explains why Rava's proof is irrelevant as the cases are not comparable. A case is brought regarding a get in which both Rava and Abaye rule in an opposite manner to what they held about the case of testimony regarding death - why? It seems that Rava is concerned in a case where it is known that there are two people with the same name; when it is not known, one need not be concerned. The Mishna had stated that a woman is not believed to testify that her husband died when it is known that there was a disagreement between them. What is considered 'a disagreement'? If they have a disagreement, is one witness believed to say he has died? Rabbi Yehuda disagreed with the rabbis and believed a woman's testimony about her husband's death only if she showed outward signs of mourning, such as crying, rending her garments. The rabbis explain why they think Rabbi Yehuda's opinion is incorrect. What was the case that on account of that case the rabbis realized that they needed to institute a law to accept a woman's testimony about her own husband's death? Based on that case, in what situations did they permit it (debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel)? There is a similar debate regarding a rabbinic decree about moving red heifer waters and ashes on a boat that was instituted after a particular event. Is that debate the same as here?

Yevamot 116 - July 1, 2 Tamuz Jul 01, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Sara Berelowitz in honor of her granddaughter Avishag Sterman on her Bat Mitzvah!

Today's daf is sponsored by Susannah & Bernie Goldstein in honor of their children Eliana & Benny who went back to Camp Ramah in the Poconos this week, for the summer. "We’re so proud of you! Wishing you & all the tzevet and chanichim a fun, safe, & healthy summer.

Does one need to be concerned that there are two people with the same name when accepting testimony that one has died. Rava and Abaye disagree. Rava's proof was from a case of collecting money from a promissory note. Abaye explains why Rava's proof is irrelevant as the cases are not comparable. A case is brought regarding a get in which both Rava and Abaye rule in an opposite manner to what they held about the case of testimony regarding death - why? It seems that Rava is concerned in a case where it is known that there are two people with the same name; when it is not known, one need not be concerned. The Mishna had stated that a woman is not believed to testify that her husband died when it is known that there was a disagreement between them. What is considered 'a disagreement'? If they have a disagreement, is one witness believed to say he has died? Rabbi Yehuda disagreed with the rabbis and believed a woman's testimony about her husband's death only if she showed outward signs of mourning, such as crying, rending her garments. The rabbis explain why they think Rabbi Yehuda's opinion is incorrect. What was the case that on account of that case the rabbis realized that they needed to institute a law to accept a woman's testimony about her own husband's death? Based on that case, in what situations did they permit it (debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel)? There is a similar debate regarding a rabbinic decree about moving red heifer waters and ashes on a boat that was instituted after a particular event. Is that debate the same as here?

Yevamot 116 - July 1, 2 Tamuz Jul 01, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Sara Berelowitz in honor of her granddaughter Avishag Sterman on her Bat Mitzvah!

Today's daf is sponsored by Susannah & Bernie Goldstein in honor of their children Eliana & Benny who went back to Camp Ramah in the Poconos this week, for the summer. "We’re so proud of you! Wishing you & all the tzevet and chanichim a fun, safe, & healthy summer.

Does one need to be concerned that there are two people with the same name when accepting testimony that one has died. Rava and Abaye disagree. Rava's proof was from a case of collecting money from a promissory note. Abaye explains why Rava's proof is irrelevant as the cases are not comparable. A case is brought regarding a get in which both Rava and Abaye rule in an opposite manner to what they held about the case of testimony regarding death - why? It seems that Rava is concerned in a case where it is known that there are two people with the same name; when it is not known, one need not be concerned. The Mishna had stated that a woman is not believed to testify that her husband died when it is known that there was a disagreement between them. What is considered 'a disagreement'? If they have a disagreement, is one witness believed to say he has died? Rabbi Yehuda disagreed with the rabbis and believed a woman's testimony about her husband's death only if she showed outward signs of mourning, such as crying, rending her garments. The rabbis explain why they think Rabbi Yehuda's opinion is incorrect. What was the case that on account of that case the rabbis realized that they needed to institute a law to accept a woman's testimony about her own husband's death? Based on that case, in what situations did they permit it (debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel)? There is a similar debate regarding a rabbinic decree about moving red heifer waters and ashes on a boat that was instituted after a particular event. Is that debate the same as here?

Yevamot 115 - June 30, 1 Tamuz Jun 30, 2022

This month’s learning is dedicated by Bracha Ollech in memory of her mother, Ruth Tager, Rachel Paya bat Feiga Baila.

This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka) who passed away last week, just a few weeks after a rousing celebration for her 95th birthday. "Known among the Daf Zoomers for her classic Passover recipes, she will be dearly missed by her children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Today's daf is sponsored by Ilana Friedman in loving memory of her cousin Dvora Ita bat Harav Azriel Zev Golowa on her 10th yahrzeit. "She was a champion of justice, a staunch advocate for women’s learning, and a devoted daughter, aunt and cousin.

If a woman claims that there was a war where they were and her husband died, can we believe her on the claim that if she wanted to lie, she could have omitted the fact that there was a war and would have been believed? Or do we not believe her as once we accept her claim that there was a war, we are concerned that she is just assuming he is dead (as we are generally concerned in a case of war). Two sources are brought to answer this question but both attempts are unsuccessful. A story is brought of a man who was seen burning in a house with his wife. Why is his wife not believed to say he died, even though a burned body was found there? Is one witness also not believed in a case of war? Again two sources are brought to answer the question, but they are rejected. In one of the cases, they explain that there were clear signs that they had died. Do we need to be concerned that one had items in one place but perhaps moved them and the ones that were originally there are no longer there? If one testifies that someone by the name of X died, that perhaps there were other people with that name. Rava and Abaye disagree. Each brings a proof for his opinion.

Yevamot 114 - June 29, 30 Sivan, 1st Day of Rosh Chodesh Tamuz Jun 29, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

A story is told of a case where they lost the keys to the Beit Midrash and they needed to carry keys on Shabbat from the public domain in order to open the Beit Midrash. They sent children to go to that area, intending for them to notice the keys and bring them. The rabbi who suggested this must hold that the courts are not commanded to prevent minors from transgressing. The Gemara brings eleven different tannaitic sources in an attempt to support or reject this opinion, however, each source can be explained in a way that would not allow us to infer from there that the court is/is not commanded to prevent minors from transgressing. If a couple went abroad and she comes back and says he has died, under what circumstances do we believe/not believe her?

Yevamot 113 - June 28, 29 Sivan Jun 28, 2022

Different types of marriages that have/do not have validity on a rabbinic level are compared to each other. Why is marriage with a deaf-mute considered marriage while one with a minor male is not? Why can one do mi'un from a marriage when the woman is a minor but not if she is deaf? Why can a minor eat truma if she is married to a kohen while a deaf-mute cannot? Why does a woman get a ketuba when she is a minor but not if she is a deaf-mute? Why does the wife of a deaf-mute male not get a ketuba? Two opposite versions are brought of a statement of Shmuel about whether the wife of a deaf-mute could be made to bring a guilt offering of uncertainty (if for example, she has relations with another man). If she is obligated to bring, that would show that we are uncertain if the marriage has validity on a Torah level or not. If she is not obligated, that would show that the marriage is clearly not valid on a Torah level. The Gemara attempts to either provide support or raise a difficulty with Shmuel from a Mishna in Terumot 1:1 where the truma of a deaf-mute is not considered truma at all. However, this is rejected as Rabbi Elazar disagrees and Shmuel's statement could be in accordance with that opinion. Rav Ashi raises two possibilities of how to understand how Rabbi Eliezer understands the doubt of Rabbi Eliezer regarding the deaf-mute and why his truma will be considered truma l'chumra? If one's wife became a shota, one who is not of sound mind, he can divorce her, but the rabbis forbade it so as not to allow others to take advantage of her. The Gemara establishes what type of level of shota this refers to. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri asked why there is a difference between a deaf-mute man and woman in the case where they were competent when they married and later one became a deaf-mute - why can he not divorce his wife but she can get divorced? Which part was clear to him and which part was not? Rabbi Yochanan ben Gudgoda testified about a marriage of a deaf-mute minor whose father enacted betrothal for her and she was able to get divorced by Torah law. Rava infers from his statement that if a man were to trick his wife when giving her a get, leading her to believe he was giving her some other document, and she accepted the get without realizing what it was, it is valid if he told witnesses as he was about to give it to her that they should witness that he is divorcing his wife with this get.

Yevamot 112 - June 27, 28 Sivan Jun 27, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

Today’s daf is sponsored by Tina Lamm in honor of the “Tzevet Yevamot.” "Their brilliant graphics, along with Rabbanit Michelle’s teaching, literally saved me as we learned this difficult, but rewarding, masechet. Someone ought to design for them a graphic with a superhero cape!"

If the yabam and yevama have moved in together with the purposes of performing the mitzvah of yibum, but she then claims that he did not have relations with her, and he claims he did, who is believed? According to the Mishna it depends if it was within thirty days or beyond as there is an assumption (chazaka) that if they were together for 30 days, one can assume they had intercourse. If we believe her, then we insist that the man do chalitza to enable her to remarry. Rav explains that the case being discussed is one in which he already gave her a get and that is why we insist he perform chalitza and not insist that he do yibum with her. A braita is quoted to raise a difficulty against Rav's explanation, however, two answers are brought. Women were once believed if they made a claim why they couldn't stay married - for example, my husband is incapable of having intercourse with me" and her husband would have to divorce her and give her the ketuba money, but once they say that women had set their eyes on another man and would make claims like this to get out of the marriage while receiving their ketuba money, they changed the law and either required proof when possible or requested from the husband to divorce her, but did not force him to. What is done if she makes a vow not to have intercourse with any Jewish man? Would this vow include the yabam as well, as during her marriage he was forbidden to her anyway (as her husband's brother)? Can we find an answer to this question from our Mishna? The Mishnayot of the fourteenth chapter describes various different situations regarding a deaf-mute, minor, etc. as it relates to marriage, divorce and yibum. What if someone was competent when they got married and then became a deaf-mute or lost his/her mental capacity? What happens to the marriage - can they get divorced?

Yevamot 111 - June 26, 27 Sivan Jun 26, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

This week’s learning is sponsored by the congregation of Keneseth Israel, located in Allentown, Pennsylvania, in honor of the retirement of Rabbi Seth Phillips.

This week's learning is sponsored by Joy Benatar in loving memory of her mother, Miriam Quint David, Malkah bat Michael v'Esther, on her sixth yahrzeit, a day before Shavuot. "A beloved wife, mother and grandmother. A passionate Jewish educator. We praise her and the works of her hands."

This week's learning is sponsored by my parents, Bob and Paula Cohen in memory of my maternal grandfather Chaim Avraham ben Alter Gershon HaKohen.

If a man was married to a minor and a deaf-mute, and died childless, yibum with one doesn't exempt the other. So what is his brother supposed to do to enable the women to remarry? Rav Chisda quoted Rav as saying that he should marry the deaf-mute and divorce her, then wait for the minor to reach maturity and do chalitza. Rav Chisda inferred from Rav's ruling that the deaf-mute is considered partially married and the minor is considered a case of doubt - either fully married or not married at all. How is that inferred and how does Rav Sheshet further prove this understanding from a different braita? They try to reject his proof by suggesting that perhaps the braita follows a minority opinion, however, this suggestion is rejected. The Mishna brings more cases where a man was married to two women who were minor or both deaf-mutes or of different unequal statuses like a minor and a mature woman, a deaf-mute and a woman who is not a deaf-mute. What is the yabam to do in these situations and is the woman permitted to remarry? Rabbi Elazar holds that when there is a minor and mature woman, we encourage the minor to do mi'un. The Gemara quotes amoraim who ruled like Rabbi Elazar. What if both the man and woman who were meant to do yibum are minors? The Mishna rules that if they have intercourse (and fulfill the mitzva of yibum), if they intend to divorce, they need to wait until they reach the age of maturity. The same holds if only the yabam is a minor. Is this Mishna not in accordance with Rabbi Meir who rules that a minor cannot do yibum as they need to be concerned that perhaps they are a saris or aylonit and therefore incapable of performing the mitzva of yibum? If the yabam claims he had intercourse with the yevama and she claims he did not, who is believed. On what does it depend?

Yevamot 110 - Shabbat June 25, 26 Sivan Jun 24, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

Does Rav really hold that a minor who reaches the age of maturity and does not have intercourse with her husband, is still only married to him on a rabbinical level? It seems from another source that he holds otherwise. But that source is explained as referring also to a case where he had relations with her and on account of that her marriage became a marriage by Torah law. What is the basis for his debate with Shmuel on this topic? Why is there a need to mention their disagreement in two different places. An actual case was brought where it seems that Rav ruled they needed a divorce even thought it seems they hadn’t yet had intercourse. Two explanations are brought. According to Rav Ashi, the rabbis uprooted/annulled the marriage as the husband acted in an inappropriate manner. If one married women of different statures and one is a marriage on a Torah level and one is rabbinic, can yibum with one exempt the other? It seems to be inferred from the Mishna that a deaf woman can do chalitza – but doesn’t it say in a different Mishna that she cannot? One answer is that the Mishna doesn’t allow for chalitza in that case. Raba brings a second answer – it is referring to a woman who was also deaf when she got married and therefore can undo the zika of that marriage (which was only rabbinic) with chalitza. Difficulties are raised against Raba from cases in the Mishna of the next chapter which seem to be referring to a woman deaf from before she was married and is not permitted to do chalitza. IF one is married to a minor and a deaf woman and they fall to yibum to the brother, each one’s yibum or chalitza does not exempt the other – why?

Yevamot 109 - June 24, 25 Sivan Jun 24, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Art Gould & Carol Robinson on the occasion of their 49th wedding anniversary. "We met each other at Hillel House in the summer of 1971 and have been inseparable since our very first Shabbat together. For once in his life Art knew the right thing to say - "Sit with me and I will get you a siddur."(She said yes!) We are grateful to HaShem and to Carol's medical team for bringing us to this day. And for Carol, who always knows the right thing to say and the right thing to do... רַבּ֣וֹת בָּ֭נוֹת עָ֣שׂוּ חָ֑יִל וְ֝אַ֗תְּ עָלִ֥ית עַל־כֻּלָּֽנָה"

There is a debate between Rabbi Elazar and the rabbis about a woman who remarries her husband after getting divorced - if he dies childless, can she do yibum. They have the same debate regarding a minor in this situation. If she was married off by her father and divorced, she is no longer considered under her father's responsibility (meaning that he can't marry her off), even if she is still a minor. So if the husband remarries her, all agree that there is no yibum as by Torah law, she is considered divorced, since her ability to remarry was only of rabbinical law, and one is forbidden to marry the brother of one's divorced husband. The Gemara brings four different explanations for Rabbi Elazar who forbids yibum in all the cases. According to Rabbi Elazar, the rival wife in these cases can do yibum. If two brothers are married to two minor sisters (married off by their mother or brother) or two deaf-mutes, if one dies, the other is exempt from yibum as she falls to yibum to her sister's husband. But if one sister was a minor and the deceased's wife was not a minor, what happens with yibum? Three opinions are brought in the Mishna. One suggestion is to encourage the minor to refuse him so that her sister can do yibum. The Gemara questions this with a braita that lists three actions one should pursue and three that one should avoid and refusal is listed with the actions to avoid - so how is it that we encourage this minor to refuse? An exception is made here because it is in order to allow the fulfillment of yibum. The six actions listed are discussed more in-depth. In the case where a minor's sister fell to yibum to her husband, Rabban Gamliel held that we wait until the minor gets older and then the yevama becomes exempt from yibum. Rav explains (in answer to a question from Rabbi Elazar) that the marriage of the minor becomes a Torah law marriage which will exempt the sister only when they engage in intercourse after she becomes of age. Based on this, Rabban Gamliel exempts the older sister as he must hold that one who betroths his yevama's sister, exempts the yevama. Rav Sheshet questions this assumption of Rav based on a braita but Ravin is able to explain the braita to work with Rav's understanding.

Yevamot 108 - June 23, 24 Sivan Jun 23, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

What is the text that they put in a mi'un document? Why was the original text shortened? The refusal of a minor can be done in many different ways - even if the girls somehow indicates that she is not interested in being married to him, without saying it directly, she is free from her marriage. several different examples of this are brought. According to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira if she went ahead and married someone else, that would be an indication that she did mi'un. What about betrothal to another? Do the rabbis disagree with him? Would Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira permit this kind of 'weak' refusal only if she was betrothed to the first husband or even if she was married to him? The Gemara raises all these questions. In the end, they rule like Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira even in the case where she was married to the first husband. Rabbi Eliezer doesn't consider marriage to the first husband valid at all, however, he does require mi'un. Shmuel likes his approach as he is consistent and does not consider her married at all (other than requiring mi'un). How is this different from Rabbi Yehoshua who fully considered a minor married, other than the fact that she can get out with mi'un alone - that also seems to be a mostly consistent position? The Gemara brings two different explanations for Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov's statement in the Mishna that if there is any obstruction due to the man, she is married and and obstruction not from the man, she is not married. If she does mi'un, she is permitted to his relatives and he to hers, as it as if they were never married. This differs from divorce, by which she is prohibited to his relative and he to hers. If they were married, he gave her a get, then remarried her and she did mi'un. the mi'un uproots the original marriage as well. Therefore, if she marries someone else after that and gets divorced or widowed, she can go back to the original husband, as it is if they were not married before. But if she did mi'un with one man, they got a get from the next husband, then mi'un with the next, etc. she cannot return to the man she got a get from. The Gemara assumes that the reason the mi'un in the first case, uproots the marriage entirely is because the mi'un indicated she was too young and when her mother or brother married her off, the marriage was never a real marriage. If so, then why does it only uproot her marriage with the same person and not if she was married and divorced from someone else? Shmuel says that the two parts of the Mishna reflect two different opinions. Rava distinguishes between the cases - it really should uproot the first marriage, even if it was to someone else, but for a different reason, the rabbis forbid her to return to the first husband, as they want to prevent him from trying to seduce her back while she is married to another in an attempt to get her to 'refuse' the other man. The Gemara raises another contradiction in the Mishna. Rabbi Elazar says that the two parts of the Mishna reflect two different opinions. Ulla distinguishes between the cases. Where do we find two different opinions regarding this issue, as stated by Rabbi Elazar? A story is told of how they brought this question to be asked to Rabbi Akiva when he was jailed by the Romans.

Yevamot 107 - June 22, 23 Sivan Jun 22, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Suri Stern in honor of her son's, Yosef Yeshaya's, marriage yesterday to Rivkah Cohen. "May they be zocheh to build a bayit neeman b’yisrael, a binyan adei ad."

Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree regarding mi'un (refusal) on five different issues: Can a girl only do mi'un only from engagement or also from marriage? Can she "refuse" the yabam also if her husband dies? Does it need to be done in her husband's presence? It is necessary to do it in a court? Can she do it to several different husbands or only one? Four different explanations are brought to explain why Beit Shamai holds that one cannot do mi'un after marriage. Is it due to concern that one may think one can do a marriage upon condition? Or because one does not want to engage in intercourse when in the end it will turn out to be znut, as they will retroactively not be married if she refuses him. Or because if he knows she may refuse him, he may use up even part of the principle of her assets she brings into the marriage. Or because he will not want to marry her out of concern that all the expenses on the wedding feast will go to waste if she later refuses. According to Beit Hillel, she can also do mi'un to the yabam. Rabbi Oshaya and Ulla disagree about whether her mi'un to a yabam can undo the zika or can only undo ma'amar. The reasoning behind each approach is explained and a difficulty is raised against each but is resolved. There is a three-way debate regarding the ramifications of refusing her yabam - is she forbidden now to do yibum with him, forbidden also to all the brothers, or permitted even to him? What is the reason behind each approach? Beit Hillel brings an actual case of Pishon the camel driver, who was refused not in his presence in order to disprove Beit Shamai's opinion. But they explain that he dealt with her inappropriately and therefore the rabbis were permitted to deal with him inappropriately and permit refusal even not in his presence. Regarding the debate about whether or not a court is required, what exactly are the different opinions? There is a debate regarding how to understand the last line in the Mishna regarding Beit Shamai's opinion about whether she refuses once, when can she remarry and what does she need to do before she remarries.

Yevamot 106 - June 21, 22 Sivan Jun 21, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Sara Berelowitz "Thank you to Rabbanit Michelle and all my chevrutot on the 7:15 zoom who teach, inspire and make me laugh. Hadran Daf Yomi is the anchor of my day. I am very thankful to you all."

A mistaken chalitza is valid. What is this mistaken chalitza? It is a case where he was promised that if he does chalitza with her, she will give him money, but in the end, she does not give him the money. This tactic was used to try to encourage men who were resistant to doing chalitza to go ahead with it, but in the end, the women would not have to pay the money. However, if he was told, "do chalitza and with that, you will be married to her," that is invalid. However, rabbis used this as well when the man insisted on doing yibum and the woman did not want to, they would tell him to do chalitza in order to marry her. This action would preclude him from being able to marry her (as it is chalitza l'chumra) and then he would have to do a proper chalitza. Rav Papa's sister-in-law needed chalitza and the case came before Abaye. Abaye and Rav Papa engage in a back and forth argument as to what is permitted to do in order to get him to do chalitza. In the end, Rav Papa thinks that she can commit to giving him money, but doesn't need to follow through with the payment as she can claim that she never really meant it, as is found as a legitimate claim in other cases. Abaye was jealous of Rav Papa's brilliance and caused the death of his parents with his jealously. One can also coerce a man to do chalitza as long as in the end he does it willingly, as is the case with a get. However, if a condition is not met in a get, the get is invalid, unlike chalitza. Can you do chalitza without checking that she is the yevama and he is the yabam? And if so, then one cannot write a receipt that the ceremony was done, as they may rely on that document without properly checking that she was really the yevama and he was the yabam. If one requires the courts to check into their identity before doing chalitza, then one can write a receipt for the chalitza. The same holds true for mi'un. What are the different stages of the chalitza ceremony? Who says and does what? In what order? The order is important, but if the order was switched, it is still valid. The recitation was done by having someone say the words and the yabam and yevama would repeat after them. One needs to be careful not to take a break in between certain words so as not to give the impression that one is saying the opposite of what should be said. If, for example, one stopped after the word "no" and then continued after with the rest of the sentence, one may think the word no was part of the previous statement. Does one really need to be so careful about this? It is a subject of debate. Can you write the words from the Torah that were recited at the ceremony in the document that testifies to the fact that chalitza was performed or is there an issue with writing a section of the Torah not as part of a whole Torah? If one is not concerned with this issue and permits it to be written, one must make sure the parchment has sirtut, lines. A number of details regarding the spitting are discussed. What if the saliva blows away? What if the saliva came from food she had eaten? The saliva needs to be seen by the judges. Who needs to call out "And his name shall be called the one whose shoe was taken off" - the judges or the students who are watching? There is a tannaitic debate regarding this issue.

Yevamot 105 - June 20, 21 Sivan Jun 20, 2022

This week's learning is sponsored by Judy and Zev Berman for the refuah shleima of our sister-in-law, Phyllis Hecht. Please say tehilim for גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל. May she have a complete recovery and may we all share b'sorot tovot.

The statement made to Shmuel's father that a woman who spits at her yabam only, forbids all the brothers from performing yibum, can be understood also according to Rabbi Akiva’s opinion. How? If Rabbi Akiva doesn’t think spitting is an essential part of the ceremony, why does he distinguish then between reading and spitting regarding disqualifying the brothers from yibum? A different version is brought regarding the halacha that was sent to Shmuel’s father - that if a yevama spit but didn't do chalitza, she should do chalitza and does not need to spit again. A situation like that happened and she did not spit a second time. What is the harm done in spitting a second time? Levi was asked three questions by people in the villages but he did not know the answers and went to the beit midrash to find out the answers. Two were about chalitza and one was about "writings of truth" mentioned in a verse in Daniel 10:21. From the writings of truth, the Gemara gets into a discussion regarding teshuva and what kind of decrees can be undone and which ones cannot. Even though Eli's family (in Samuel 1) were punished and God swore that they will not be atoned for with sacrifices, they can atone by learning Torah or doing acts of chessed. What is the difference between the power of the individual and the power of the community regarding prayers that can overturn a decree? What is the unique nature of the ten days of teshuva between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur? Another halacha sent to Shmuel's father was also relating to the question they asked Levi, if a yevama spat blood, it is effective as blood is mixed with saliva. A source is brought to contradict but it is resolved as there are different ways in which someone bleeds in one's mouth. There is a debate regarding the validity of a chalitza with a woman who is a minor. From where does each derive his opinion? In order to show that the tana kama's opinion is that of Rabbi Yosi, a story is brought which includes some tension between Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosi, and Avdan. The story ends with a number of punishments to Avdan for insulting Rabbi Yishmael. Why was it necessary to state both that the halacha is not like the pair of rabbis who said that chalitza can be performed in front of two people and that chalitza needs to be performed in front of three people? Some questions are asked regarding the case the Mishna had quoted of the chalitza in the jail. Is it possible no one witnessed it - don't we need testimony to confirm that it in fact took place? Was Rabbi Akiva in the prison or the couple themselves?

Yevamot 104 - June 19, 20 Sivan Jun 19, 2022

This week's learning is sponsored by Rebecca Koenigsberg "in honor of my Daf Yomi Buddies in New Haven Connecticut whose companionship has helped me through the more difficult moments in Daf Yomi."

This week's learning is sponsored by Rachel Recht in loving memory of her father, Shalom Elimelech ben Efraim Fishel Yehoshua and Esther Weinreb.

Today's daf is sponsored "in honor of our father and grandfather, Mark Goldstein. Happy father's day! - From your children and grandchildren."

Rava rules on a number of different types of shoes and whether they can be sued for chalitza. There is a debate regarding whether or not the chalitza is good if it is done on the left foot or at nighttime. What is the root of the debate regarding the night? Raba bar Chiya performed a chalitza at night with a slipper not made of leather and on his own, rather than in front of two or three people. Shmuel was upset when he heard this. What issue was he upset about? Two different possibilities are suggested. What is the root of the debate regarding the left foot? There are three main elements to the chalitza ceremony - taking off the shoe, spitting and reciting a text (found in the Torah). Which elements are absolutely necessary and which are not? There is a debate regarding the spitting. What is the law for a deaf-mute performing chalitza, or a minor? There is a tannaitic debate regarding chalitza performed in front of less than three people. Rava says that if the recitation is not critical, one can infer that a mute can perform chalitza. How does this fit with our Mishna that disqualifies the chalitza of a deaf-mute? Due to the difficulty, Rava's statement is changed to read the opposite (or perhaps the opposite statement was made by someone else). It was taught that if the yevama spit before one of the brothers, it disqualifies her from performing yibum with one of the brothers? According to whose opinion is this law stated?

Yevamot 103 - Shabbat June 18, 19 Sivan Jun 17, 2022

What types of shoes can be used for chalitza? What are the different opinions? In what situations with a defect in one’s feet/legs can a person not do chalitza? The laws for going to the Temple on the holidays seem to be different than the laws here – why? Why does the halacha distinguish between a leg cut off by the thigh and one cut off by the shin? Several verses in the Torah are brought to show that legs could also refer to the upper part of the leg, however, they are mostly understood to be used as euphemisms and therefore not relevant to the discussion. The verse relating to Yael’s seduction of Sisra is mentioned and a question is asked about her actions. One can use a shoe that isn’t his own – but it is not ideal. What is the best way to do it? Two versions are brought about Rava’s opinion regarding a leprous shoe – if it is used for chalitza, it is valid?

Yevamot 102 - June 17, 18 Sivan Jun 17, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of the inimitable Phyllis Hecht, whose spirit of determination, through challenges, inspires us all. Stay well, dear friend. With love from the Hadran Zoom Family.

In what situations can a convert serve as a judge? Can one use a shoe for chalitza ideally or is it less than ideal as ideally, a sandal should be used? It is a subject of debate among tannaim and amoraim. The reason for those who hold that a shoe is less ideal is because of concern that it may be torn (as shoes were made of soft leather and sandals made of hard leather) or because some shoes do not cover the majority of the foot, as is required in chalitza. A strap is used to fasten the sandal more firmly so that it won't fall off, but will be removed by the yevama. It is required for the yevama to untie the laces, remove the shoe it must be taken off most of the heel. Several unanswered questions are raised about the exact requirement of removing the shoe. There needs to be intent for chalitza by both the yevama and the yabam to perform the mitzva. The shoe must be made of leather - from where is this derived? The strap can be made of goat's hair, as it is also from an animal. Rav Kahane proves from a verse that the root ch.l.tz refers to removal; therefore, we learn that chalitza means removing the shoe. However other verses are quoted which indicate that the root ch.l.tz means to strengthen and perhaps the yevama needs to put the shoe on the yabam. This suggestion is rejected by extrapolating the verse that explains how chalitza is to be performed. A heretic brought a verse that indicates the God performed chalitza on the Jewish people and therefore they are no longer God's nation. Rabban Gamliel responds by proving him wrong. Can a soft shoe made a cloth (anpalia) be used? Is it considered a shoe? A contradiction is brought between a source regarding shoes in the Temple and shoes on Yom Kippur regarding the anpalia and whether or not it is considered a shoe. Rava and Abaye resolve the contradiction differently.

Yevamot 101 - June 16, 17 Sivan Jun 16, 2022

If a child was born to a woman who was married to two different men within three months and it is unclear who the father is, if the child cursed or hit both fathers, would he/she be liable? There is a debate whether it matters if he/she cursed them both at the same time or one after the other. If both fathers are kohanim, he must work in the Temple on the week that each father is supposed to work so as not to have people suspect that there is an issue with the kehuna in that family. He is only allowed to get a share of the sacrificial items of that week if both fathers were in the same rotation that week and within the same Beit Av, whose job would be to work in the Temple on the exact same day. How many judges are needed for chalitza? With what kind of shoe? Can you use someone else's shoe? What if one had a prostetic leg? Does the shoe need to fit properly? If you don't have judges but three regular people, they can be used, but they need to know how to read. The Gemara shows how Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yehuda extrapolate the verses differently to show whether three or five judges are needed. What does each do with the verses that the other uses to prove their point? In the end, they conclude that even Rabbi Yehuda, who require three judges, changed his mind and required only three. By mi'un we seem to hold differently and only require two judges, even though the tana kama there holds three just as in chalitza. Why do we distinguish between chalitza and mi'un? The judges also need to designate a place for the chalitza. After deciding that three judges are needed for chalitza, the Gemara brings actual situations where the rabbi required five judges. This was done to ensure people would know about it. From the situations that were brought, the issue is raised regarding a convert serving as a judge.

Yevamot 101 - June 16, 17 Sivan Jun 16, 2022

If a child was born to a woman who was married to two different men within three months and it is unclear who the father is, if the child cursed or hit both fathers, would he/she be liable? There is a debate whether it matters if he/she cursed them both at the same time or one after the other. If both fathers are kohanim, he must work in the Temple on the week that each father is supposed to work so as not to have people suspect that there is an issue with the kehuna in that family. He is only allowed to get a share of the sacrificial items of that week if both fathers were in the same rotation that week and within the same Beit Av, whose job would be to work in the Temple on the exact same day. How many judges are needed for chalitza? With what kind of shoe? Can you use someone else's shoe? What if one had a prostetic leg? Does the shoe need to fit properly? If you don't have judges but three regular people, they can be used, but they need to know how to read. The Gemara shows how Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yehuda extrapolate the verses differently to show whether three or five judges are needed. What does each do with the verses that the other uses to prove their point? In the end, they conclude that even Rabbi Yehuda, who require three judges, changed his mind and required only three. By mi'un we seem to hold differently and only require two judges, even though the tana kama there holds three just as in chalitza. Why do we distinguish between chalitza and mi'un? The judges also need to designate a place for the chalitza. After deciding that three judges are needed for chalitza, the Gemara brings actual situations where the rabbi required five judges. This was done to ensure people would know about it. From the situations that were brought, the issue is raised regarding a convert serving as a judge.

Yevamot 100 - June 15, 16 Sivan Jun 15, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

Today’s daf is sponsored by Meryll Page in loving memory of her father, George Levine, Yosef Michael HaLevi on his yahrzeit. “I'm grateful for his enthusiastic support of my Jewish learning. Dad was an expert in creative tzedakah. He was a mensch to emulate and a loving dad.”

There are ten types of people who can't collect teruma from the granary - why? Many of them can get the teruma brought to them in their house, other than some - why? Even though women were included in that list, a braita mentions that they are places where women were permitted to collect in the granary, and in those places, the women would be given first. The Gemara explains that they must be referring to the poor man's tithe and not teruma. They were given first so it would not be demeaning for them to wait on the line - "ladies first." When Rava would hold court, he would take the men first, so that they could be let out first to go fulfill their obligation in mitzvot, but when hearing this law, he changed his mind and let the women be judged first. In the case of the Mishna where the kohen was mixed up with a slave, the Gemara understands that when the Mishna mentioned what would happen if they free each other, this is seen as an imperative, in order to allow them each to marry. How would they bring a mincha offering - as a kohen or as a yisrael, as the way it is brought is different (the kohen's is burned entirely and in the yisrael's, a kmitza is burned and the rest if given to a kohen? Two possibilities are brought. If a woman got married within three months of being married to her previous husband and gave birth to a child whose lineage is now questionable (from the first husband of the second?) what are laws of yibum for that child? If one husband was a kohen and the other a yisrael, the child must keep the stringencies of both. But regarding financial issues, or punishments we are lenient. If both father's were kohanim, how does that change matter? Shmuel stated that if ten kohanim were together and one left the group and impregnated a woman, the offspring is a shtuki. They understand this to mean that he cannot work in the Temple as a kohen, even though it is clear he is a kohen. Why? They penalize him because of znut. A question is raised from our Mishna as they prove that the case of not waiting three months must have been after a relationship outside of marriage (znut) and the Mishna states that he can work in the Temple. In the end, the Gemara explains that one can understand the Mishna to be a case where the woman was a minor and was married off by her brother or mother and did mi'un, refusal. However, this possibility is rejected as well, as one young enough to do mi'un, would not be able to get pregnant as found in a Tosefta regarding women who are permitted to use birth control. An alternative explanation is that she was betrothed and married to the first husband but the betrothal was found to be a mistake (perhaps an unfulfilled condition).

Yevamot 99 - June 14, 15 Sivan Jun 14, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

Today's daf is dedicated by Dvoranit Shwartz in honor of the successful fundraising campaign for Shirat HaTamar shul in Efrat and with deep appreciation for the Rabbanit of the kehilla, Shira Merili Mirvis.

A braita lists several cases where one could potentially have to do chalitza for one's mother, sister or daughter out of doubt. Under what circumstances would this happen? Other unique situations are described in another braita - where a couple could have five children, each having a different status - convert, gentile, slave, mamzer and Israelite. How? Another riddle - one could have to sell his father, who is a slave, to pay back his mother's ketuba. How? What does this teach you about the status of slaves and can they be mortgaged for a ketuba? The Mishna described more situations in which two children are mixed up at birth, one is the nephew of the other. What are laws of yibum/chalitza for them and their brothers? If the son of a woman married to a kohen got mixed up with the son of a maidservant in his household, what is that son allowed/not allowed to do? He is considered a kohen out of doubt so he needs to be strict regarding stringencies of kohanim, however, with regard to monetary issues we are lenient based on the principle "hamotzi m'chavero alav hareaya", the burden of proof lies on the one trying to claim the money. Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Yehuda disagree about whether a slave can collect teruma from the granary. The concern is that people will see him and think he is a kohen and marry him off, not realizing he is a gentile slave who cannot marry a Jew. Rabbi Yosi permits as in his town, they don't allow people to marry based on seeing them on the line to collect teruma. Rabbi Yehuda forbids as they permit testimony from the teruma line for marriage purposes. Who else is not allowed to collect teruma from the granary?

Yevamot 98 - June 13, 14 Sivan Jun 13, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

The Gemara brings more sources to try to prove whether Rav Sheshet or Rav Acha were correct regarding their debate about a convert being able to marry his brother's wife. If a person was conceived before his mother converted but was born after his mother's conversion, which relative is he permitted/forbidden to marry? If five women's children got mixed at birth, and they all marry and then die without children, and all have brothers through their fathers but are unsure who is the brother of each one, how is the mitzva of yibum fulfilled?

Yevamot 97 - June 12, 13 Sivan Jun 12, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

This week's learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Helen Cohen, Hennah bat Yitchak Nechemia.

This week’s learning is sponsored by Shalom and Tina Lamm to commemorate the 2nd yahrzeit of their beloved father and father-in-law, Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm, zecher tzadik l’vracha, Harav Nachum ben Meir Shmuel v’Perel. “We are grateful to Hashem that our family was finally zocheh to fulfill your final wish and bring you and our wonderful matriarch, Mrs. Mindy Lamm, a’h, home to artzeinu hakedosha.” Today's daf is sponsored by Moshe and Nitzan Shiloni for the refuah shleima of Chanoch ben Sara.

Why was Rabbi Yochanan so upset at Rabbi Elazar when he didn't quote the halacha in Rabbi Yochanan's name? There is a debate regarding the relatives of a woman who engaged in relations with a man out of wedlock - is she forbidden to his son? All agree that she is permitted to his father. The Gemara brings several riddles regarding hypothetical cases of people who are related to each other in a number of different ways. Are brothers who converted obligated in yibum for each other's wives? Are regular laws of forbidden relationships applicable to them, i.e. can they marry each other's wives if their brother died/divorced her?

Yevamot 96 - Shabbat June 11, 12 Sivan Jun 10, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

Today's daf is sponsored by Leah Ackner and Jonathan Loring in honor of their daughter, Meira Raizel's Bat Mitzvah "16 years ago, we were called to the Torah to celebrate our marriage. Today, we are proud to watch you be called to the Torah as a Bat Mitzvah, chanting the very same verses mommy chanted at our aufruf. We are so proud of the person you are becoming. May you continue to learn and grow in Torah - we love you!"

The Gemara brings a number of other resolutions to how Shmuel could hold like Rabbi Yosi and also say that a yevama is not treated like a married woman. The Mishna describes a case where a man married multiple half-sisters thinking their sister had died, but in fact, they hadn’t. To which is he considered married and to which not? Laws regarding yibum with a boy 9 years old are discussed. What is the difference between actions of his relating to yibum and one who has already reached puberty? If he engages in intercourse with the yevama, what is the strength of that relationship? What is two brothers each over nine but haven’t yet reached maturity, perform yibum with the yevama, how do we treat that? What if the nine-year-old performed yibum and then died, what would be the laws for his wife? What are the issues at stake?

Yevamot 95 - June 10, 11 Sivan Jun 10, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

Why is a woman forbidden to go back to her husband after being with another man unwittingly (one witness testified that he had died) while a man whose wife went abroad and he married her sister, thinking his wife was dead, is not penalized and can return to his original wife? The answer comes from a drasha, because logic would state that it was forbidden. There is a debate regarding a similar situation with his mother-in-law – is he then forbidden to go back to his original wife or not? What is the logic mentioned previously? It mentions there an issur kal, lighter prohibition. What is the case of the lighter prohibition? Several suggestions are brought until they conclude that it is talking about a married woman. Why is that considered an issur kal? The Gemara brings two explanations for Rabbi Yosi’s ambiguous line in the Mishna. Shmuel holds like Rabbi Yosi. A question is raised against this from a debate between Rav and Shmuel. How can this be resolved?

Yevamot 94 - June 9, 10 Sivan Jun 09, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

There are three attempts to answer a question asked of Rav Sheshet (version 2) about whether one witness to allow a woman to be exempt from yibum. If one’s wife went abroad and he was told she was dead and married her sister, what is the law?

Yevamot 93 - June 8, 9 Sivan Jun 08, 2022

Reish Lakish suggested that the Mishna quoted by Rabbi Yochanan could be explained as Rabbi Akiva’s opinion. But this is rejected as Rabbi Akiva holds that one can acquire things that are not yet in existence and the Mishna was based on the principle that things that are not yet in existence cannot be acquired. Some hold that Rabbi Akiva holds this way and others disagree. Rav Nachman brought a list of rabbis, including Rabbi Akiva, who all hold that one can acquire something that is not yet in existence. The Gemara then lists all of the sources in which we see each one’s opinion. Two versions are brought of a question that Rav Sheshet was asked. Either the question was – can one witness be accepted to permit a woman to marry a yabam. Or can one witness be accepted to permit a woman to marry someone other than the yabam (that the son died after the father)?

Yevamot 92 - June 7, 8 Sivan Jun 07, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

Today's daf is sponsored by Dianne Kuchar marking the shloshim today of our beloved husband, father and grandfather Dennis, Shimon Avraham Ben Yisrael Moshe. It is harder to believe each day. Today he would be turning 66."

Today’s daf is sponsored by Tina & Shalom Lamm with gratitude to Hashem for a new grandson, Nachum Betzalel. "Mazal tov to his parents, Shlomit & Ari Lamm!"

If a woman remarries based on one witness testifying to her husband's death, and it is rumored that he is alive, we do not act based on the rumor, as she is already married. If the court rules the husband is dead based on one witness' testimony and then the husband is alive, is that considered a mistake of the court and the woman is exempt from bringing a sacrifice, or is it considered a mistake, and then the woman needs to bring a sin offering? The Mishna stated that a woman who is permitted to marry by the court, but then she ruins it, needs to bring a sacrifice. Two explanations are brought to explain what the Mishna is referring to in this line. If the woman received information that her husband and son died, but the order in which they died was incorrect and there are ramifications for laws of yibum, what is the law? What if he in fact died, but witnesses testify that he was still alive at the time she remarried? What is the status of children born from the second husband before and after she found out. If she received testimony that her husband died but was only betrothed before she found out he was alive, she can go back to her original husband and even if she received a get from the second husband, it is an invalid get and she can still marry a kohen. The Mishna is attributed to Rabbi Akiva who says that if a woman trangresses a negative prohibition (marrying someone else instead of the yabam). the offspring is a mamzer. Rav and Shmuel debate whether or not betrothal is effective in this case and therefore whether she could require a get from the second husband. Rav Ashi explains that after receiving the get from the second husband, she can go back and perform yibum, as long as the brother is not a kohen. Rav held that betrothal of a yevama by someone else is not effective, but marriage is. The Gemara brings three different explanations to that unclear statement. Rabbi Yanai says that they ruled like Shmuel that betrothal is not effective for a yevama who married someone else. Rabbi Yochanan claims that this could have been derived from a Mishna. Could it have been?

Yevamot 91 - June 6, 7 Sivan Jun 06, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 91

Presentation in PDF format

The Mishna listed several different opinions regarding the penalties for a woman who remarried based on the testimony of one witness. Do each of them build on the one before or on the one after him? Two different approaches to this are brought. Rav Huna says in the name of Rav that in a case of two witnesses who testify he died and the court was not involved, the halacha follows the Mishna that she can stay married to the first husband. Rav Nachman is bothered by this statement as he should have stated “The halacha is like Rabbi Shimon” as he assumes the Mishna reflects that position and the rabbis disagree. Rav Sheshet questions Rav as he doesn’t think there is an argument at all regarding this issue and doesn’t, therefore, understand why Rav says “The halacha is like this.” He brings a braita to support his claim that there is no debate, however, the Gemara brings four alternative readings of that braita. Ulla also raises a question on the logic behind Rav Sheshet’s position (the woman is clearly not to blame) from six different Mishnayot in which we penalize the woman. However, explanations are brought for each one, as in each source there was a reason why the woman was to blame.

Yevamot 90 - Shavuot - June 5, 6 Sivan Jun 03, 2022

Rav Chisda brings six more attempts to prove that rabbis can override Torah law. Each time Raba rejects his claim. The first is from a law regarding truma, the second regards impure blood that was sprinkled on the altar. The third is a list of laws that the rabbis instituted a decree that prevented the fulfillment of a mitzva. These and the previous case were rejected by Raba as they are not cases where a prohibition is permitted, it just prevents the fulfillment of a mitzva. This is known as “shev v’al taase” – sit and do nothing. If one cancels a get in a way that Rabban Gamliel prohibited, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says the get is not a valid get – thus again proving the power of the courts to override Torah law. Raba rejects this as he says in this case, the rabbis are uprooting the marriage. The last source is cases in which rabbis instituted the death penalty or lashes to someone who went against a rabbinic law. Raba rejected it as each case was a unique circumstance. The Gemara then continues to go through the list of laws (rights to various things) that are affected by the fact that the woman (whose husband went abroad and she thought he was dead and remarried...) is not considered the wife of either of the two men and explains each one and why it is that way.

Yevamot 89 - Shabbat June 4, 5 Sivan Jun 03, 2022

A woman who was told by one witness that her husband died and she remarried and later found out that her first husband was still alive, needs a get from each of them. The get from the second is not really needed but the rabbis were concerned people would see and think that one can get out of marriage without a get. If so, then if she was engaged only to the second husband, one would need a get as well. Therefore, they suggest that even though the Mishna didn’t say so, it must be a get is needed. In the end, though, the Gemara rejects this and explains why a get would be needed only if she was married, but not if she was only betrothed to the second husband. Why doesn’t the woman have rights to the ketuba of the first husband or produce from her property she brought into the marriage or food or shreds of clothes of hers that she brought into the marriage? The Gemara brings a Mishna in Trumot 2:2 that explains what happens in a case where someone took truma from impure produce on behalf of fruits that were pure. Rav Chisda and Rabbi Oshaya differ in their understanding of what happens if it was done on purpose. The braita says “He did not do anything.” Does this mean that it is not truma (Rav Chisda) or it is considered truma but he needs to take truma again on the pure produce? Rav Chisda explains his opinion that the rabbis decided it wouldn’t be truma as they were concerned that if they declared it truma (as it is actually by Torah law), the person would likely not take truma from the pure produce as well. Several sources are brought to question both Rav Chisda and Rav Oshaya’s positions and they are answered by distinguishing between the different cases. Raba questions Rav Chisda by raising a very basic question – how can the rabbis override Torah law and basically allow a non-kohen to eat truma (as they declared something that is actually truma by Torah law not to be considered truma). Rav Chisda is not bothered by the questions and begins to bring sources where we see the rabbis can overturn Torah law. The first source is from our Mishna as they state the children from her first and second husband are all mamzerim even though by Torah law she is married to the first husband. By issuing this penalty they are permitting someone who is a regular Israelite by Torah law (the child) to marry a mamzer! Raba rejects this by quoting those who say he cannot marry a mamzeret. The second source regards a minor who is betrothed only by rabbinic law and yet she is considered married for certain basic laws. Raba rejects each part for different reasons.

Yevamot 88 - June 3, 4 Sivan Jun 03, 2022

On what basis is one witness believed in this case to permit the woman to remarry? Four answers are brought - the first three try to prove it from Torah laws, but are unsuccessful. In the end, the Gemara concludes that she can marry based on one witness because the rabbis decided to be lenient in order to prevent an aguna situation. That explains why in the end, they are very strict with her if she is wrong - they assume that she will not only rely on the one witness but will do everything she can to make sure that he is really not alive. Rav and Shmuel each state a limitation on the Mishna and the Gemara tries to understand what they each meant by their statements. The Mishna said she needs a get from both husbands - why from the second - wasn't her marriage to him invalid?

Yevamot 87 - June 2, 3 Sivan Jun 02, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 87

Presentation in PDF format

This week’s learning is sponsored by Shira Daniel in loving memory of her father, Shlomo Yosef ben Chaim Shmuel.

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family in honor of Shira Futornik. “Shira! All your self-assumed aunts (and a few uncles) are inspired by your daily commitment to learning the Daf and are a bit farklempt watching you sit daily with your dad to do so. You are realizing a dream that so many of us waited years to achieve. In Masekhet Brakhot, R. Michelle taught us the story of R. Elazar Ben Azarya, at a young age already knew as much as a 70-year-old (הרי אני כבן 70 שנה), but he was always open to learning more. Our wish is that you enjoy the learning you achieve in your youth, and continue to always find a fresh perspective in your learning. Happy (belated) 18th birthday from your Hadran Zoom Family.”

By what rights can a woman married to a kohen and then subsequently married someone else, go back to eating truma at her husband's house after her second husband's death (and any sons she had with him), upon condition that she has a child left from the marriage with a kohen? These laws are derived from the laws of a bat kohen who can return to her father's house to eat truma. A bat kohen cannot go back to eating the breast and thigh if the sacrifice upon her return. Five different drashot are brought that teach this halacha. However, a woman who returns to her husband's house can eat the breast and thigh. Although there is a debate regarding this point as if the basic law is derived from the bat kohen, how can the law be more inclusive? A bat kohen who is pregnant with a non-kohen or one waiting for yibum cannot return to her father's house to eat truma. These laws are derived from verses. Why isn't the law of a pregnant woman obvious from a kal vachomer learned out from laws of yibum? The kal vachomer is rejected and that explains why the verse was needed. Why is there a verse to teach that a bat kohen can't go back if she has children and another one if she is pregnant? The Gemara suggests many possible kal vachomers that could have been made to teach certain laws by truma or yibum and then shows why a verse was needed as the law is not as one could have concluded from the kal vachomer. If a man goes abroad and the witnesses come and say he died, and she marries someone else and has children. What is the law? On what does it depend? What are the different opinions?

Yevamot 87 - June 2, 3 Sivan Jun 02, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 87

Presentation in PDF format

This week’s learning is sponsored by Shira Daniel in loving memory of her father, Shlomo Yosef ben Chaim Shmuel.

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family in honor of Shira Futornik. “Shira! All your self-assumed aunts (and a few uncles) are inspired by your daily commitment to learning the Daf and are a bit farklempt watching you sit daily with your dad to do so. You are realizing a dream that so many of us waited years to achieve. In Masekhet Brakhot, R. Michelle taught us the story of R. Elazar Ben Azarya, at a young age already knew as much as a 70-year-old (הרי אני כבן 70 שנה), but he was always open to learning more. Our wish is that you enjoy the learning you achieve in your youth, and continue to always find a fresh perspective in your learning. Happy (belated) 18th birthday from your Hadran Zoom Family.”

By what rights can a woman married to a kohen and then subsequently married someone else, go back to eating truma at her husband's house after her second husband's death (and any sons she had with him), upon condition that she has a child left from the marriage with a kohen? These laws are derived from the laws of a bat kohen who can return to her father's house to eat truma. A bat kohen cannot go back to eating the breast and thigh if the sacrifice upon her return. Five different drashot are brought that teach this halacha. However, a woman who returns to her husband's house can eat the breast and thigh. Although there is a debate regarding this point as if the basic law is derived from the bat kohen, how can the law be more inclusive? A bat kohen who is pregnant with a non-kohen or one waiting for yibum cannot return to her father's house to eat truma. These laws are derived from verses. Why isn't the law of a pregnant woman obvious from a kal vachomer learned out from laws of yibum? The kal vachomer is rejected and that explains why the verse was needed. Why is there a verse to teach that a bat kohen can't go back if she has children and another one if she is pregnant? The Gemara suggests many possible kal vachomers that could have been made to teach certain laws by truma or yibum and then shows why a verse was needed as the law is not as one could have concluded from the kal vachomer. If a man goes abroad and the witnesses come and say he died, and she marries someone else and has children. What is the law? On what does it depend? What are the different opinions?

Yevamot 86 - June 1, 2 Sivan Jun 01, 2022

Presentation

Today’s daf is sponsored by Don Nadel in loving memory of his mother Rhoda Nadel, Zisa Risa bat Aliya haCohen on her 25th yahrzeit.

The Mishna is based on the fact that a non-levite can't eat maaser. This is according to Rabbi Meir's opinion as found in a braita. From where does he derive this? What do the rabbis, who disagree with him, derive from that verse? The Gemara, however, questions the understanding that the Mishna is based on Rabbi Meir as that does not fit with the last case in the Mishna where a levite woman is engaged to a kohen or the reverse and the wife cannot eat either truma or maaser- the kohen should be allowed to eat maaser as all kohanim are also levites. Rav Sheshet explains the last line of the Mishna to mean something else - that she cannot give permission to a messenger to take truma from the maaser. Mar son of Rabana explained it differently - that she can't collect the maaser in the granary. Does this fit with the two explanations for this issue in general - concerns for yichud in the granary or that she will continue to collect even once she is divorced? There is a debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria about to whom the truma and maaser are given is brought - is maaser given only to the levi or can be given also to the kohen. They disagree on how to read the verse referring to levites - does that include kohanim or not? A story is brought about Rabbi Akiva who blocked Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria (who was a kohen) from taking maaser in a particular field by moving the entrance to the side where there was a cemetery. There is a debate among amoraim about why the levites were penalized and lost the rights to eat maaser in the time of Ezra. What was the reason for this? And to whom was the maaser given instead? How does this work with the story told about Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria. The Mishna goes through a situation where a woman married men of different statuses and had children with each of them - at every given point in the story, can she eat truma, maaser or not? What happens when each of the children die? What is the situation if she was a daughter of a kohen?

Yevamot 85 - Rosh Chodesh Sivan, May 31 - 1 Sivan May 31, 2022

This month’s learning is sponsored by Michelle and Bill Futornick in honor of Shira’s 18th birthday and high school graduation. “Shira was born on Shavuot, and has always been connected to Torah, especially through her more than 1,000 hours of community service in high school, the majority of which were with Friendship Circle. We are so proud of our daughter (and chevruta) and the mensch that she is.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Michelle and Laurence Berkowitz in loving memory of Joy Rochwarger Balsam upon the 18th Yahrzeit of her passing. “Joy was a pioneer in women's torah learning and would be so proud of Rabbanit Farber and the Hadran project as it has provided a forum for gemara learning for many women.”

Today’s daf is sponsored anonymously on behalf of Memorial Day in America and in memory of all those who gave their lives to protect our freedom.

From where is it derived that women are commanded just as men are not to engage in a prohibited relationship with a kohen? Does it need its own unique verse as the issue is for a specific limited population or can it be derived from the verse in Bamidbar 5:6 “a man or woman who perform a sin…” from which is derived that men and women are equal as regards all Torah prohibitions? A discussion took place between Rav Papa and Rav Huna son of Rabbi Yehushua regarding the issue of whether a daughter of a kohen can marry a chalal. Rav Papa tried to prove it from a Mishna in Kiddushin about ten types of lineages that came from Babylonia and who is allowed to marry who. There it lists chalalim with Israelites and Levites but not Kohanim. Rav Huna rejects this claim as the Mishna only refers to cases that apply equally to men and women. Male kohanim cannot marry a chalala, but a female kohenet can marry a chalal. They asked Rav Sheshet whether a woman could get a ketuba from her yabam if she was married to a man forbidden by rabbinic law, but his brother (the yabam) was permitted to her? He answered that since the ketuba from a yabam is from the first husband, she would not be able to get her ketuba, as one who marries someone forbidden by rabbinic law forfeits her ketuba. Rabbi Elazar asked Rabbi Yochanan if those forbidden to marry a kohen who marry a kohen, even though they can get their ketuba, can they get mezonot, payment for sustenance? First, the Gemara clarifies precisely in which case the question is asked. Then they answer that she does not get mezonot. That answer does not correspond to a braita but an explanation is brought. Why in the rabbinic prohibition, the woman forfeits her ketuba but in the forbidden marriages to a kohen, she gets her ketuba. Two different answers are brought. What are the practical differences between the two opinions? The Gemara brings five different practical differences, but difficulties are raised against the first four. The Mishna discusses different connections between a woman and a Kohen or a Levi or a Yisrael that would not entitle her to eat truma or maaser or if she was a kohenet, would not permit her to eat truma or maaser in her father’s house. The Gemara questions why one cannot eat maaser? Isn’t a non-levi allowed to eat maaser?

Yevamot 84 - May 30, 29 Iyar May 30, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 84

Presentation in PDF format

Today’s daf is sponsored by David Wenner in honor of Yaffa (Wenner) joining Hadran’s Daf Yomi. “From your loving family."

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak brings further support for the assertion made that even though Rabbi Eliezer ruled that an androgynous is considered a male for truma, regarding animals for sacrifices, he views them as incapable of being sanctified. A braita tells about Rebbe, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that when he went to Rabbi Eliezer ben Arach, the students made a lot of ruckus to prevent him from learning and all he managed to do was to learn the line in our Mishna of Rabbi Eliezer regarding the punishment received by an androgynous for engaging in relations with a man. The ninth chapter begins with a reorganization of cases previously learned. The Mishna shows that there are cases where a woman is permitted to her husband but forbidden to her yabam (her husband’s brother), forbidden to her husband but permitted to her yabam, permitted to both and forbidden to both. While the Mishna lists specific cases, the Gemara questions why specifically were certain cases were written in a particular manner, when they could have been described in other ways. Further, they suggest that perhaps the Mishna doesn’t hold by a certain opinion regarding the offspring of an Egyptian convert (that it follows the mother) as otherwise, it would have listed a particular case in the Mishna. However, in the end, they conclude that it is inconclusive as the Mishna left off other cases as well. What else was left out? Were they really considered left out? Rav holds that a daughter of a kohen can marry a chalal. Can this be proven from our Mishna? A difficulty is raised against this halacha of Rav from a braita, but Rava interprets the braita differently.

Yevamot 83 - Yom Yerushalayim, May 29, 28 Iyar May 29, 2022

Today's daf is dedicated in honor of the city of Jerusalem for Yom Yerushalayim. Celebrating 55 years since its unification.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rebecca Darshan in loving memory of her mother, Helene Isaacs, Chana bat Avraham David and Esther Rachel on her 22nd yahrzeit. “She was immersed in Torah learning and encouraged others to learn and teach. She lived life to its fullest, and the last 10 years of her life were in Jerusalem!”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Batsheva Pava. “With gratitude to Hkbhu on the birth of a new grandson, Kol Lev Moshe, and for the Hanachat tefillin of his cousin, David Yakir. Also, in honor of Rabbanit Michelle, who day in, day out, gets up early to teach us the daf. May you have continued strength!”

In the Mishna, Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon ruled that a kohen who was an androgynous could feed his wife truma. This opinion treats an androgynous like a male. However in a braita, Rabbi Yosi says that an androgynous is a unique category and the rabbis didn't know if to treat it like a male or female. Rav holds that the braita reflects a later position of Rabbi Yosi's after he changed his mind. Shmuel holds that the correct version is the Mishna. Rav Huna says in the name of Rav that we hold like Rabbi Yosi regarding the androgynous and grafting before the shmita year. Shmuel holds like Rabbi Yosi regarding how much time before labor can one attribute blood that comes with labor pains as relating to labor and not to zava blood. He also holds like him regarding laws of mixed breeds (kilaim) in a field - if one mixed his vine with another's crop, he cannot forbid someone else's crops and therefore his part is considered kilaim but the friend's is not. The Gemara asks what did Shmuel hold regarding the issues in which Rav held like Rabbi Yosi. And what did Rav hold in the issues that Shmuel held like Rabbi Yosi. Some can be answered by another statement of theirs and some are unable to be answered. Rabbi Yehuda holds that a tumtum is a saris. If so, what would he have to say about the tumtum that was opened up and found to be a man and gave birth to seven children? He claims the mother must have borne children from another man. Rabbi Yiso son of Rabbi Yehuda had a slightly different version of the law regarding a tumtum. What is the difference between them? In what case is the androgynous liable to stoning when engaging in relations with another man? The Gemara brings different opinions on the matter. What is the source for each opinion? Even though in our Mishna, Rabbi Eliezer treats an androgynous as a male, when it comes to animals for sacrifices, it is not considered male or female and therefore can't be used for a sacrifice. With birds, it can be, as male or female is not specified by bird sacrifices. The rabbis disagree with him regarding the birds and disqualify the androgynous as well.

Yevamot 82 - Shabbat May 28, 27 Iyar May 27, 2022

Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagreed regarding an androgynous – could he permit his wife to eat the breast and calf (chaze v’shok) of the animal? Or only truma? Reish Lakish permits only truma, was because he holds that truma was only a rabbinic law after the Temple was destroyed and that is why it is permitted to her. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with Reish Lakish’s assumption about truma and holds that it is still a Torah law even after the destruction of the Temple. Rabbi Yochanan proves it from a braita about a piece of sacrificial meat that is impure that is mixed with pure meat. How does Reish Lakish explain that braita? Three different explanations are brought. Difficulties are raised with each of them – on the first explanation, the difficulties are resolved. On the other two, they are not. Does Rabbi Yochanan really hold that truma nowadays is obligated by Torah law? In a braita, there is a case with two boxes, one of chulin and one of truma, and two baskets, one with chulin and one with truma, and each basket falls into a box. Rabbi Yochanan is more lenient than Reish Lakish here and permits each one as we can assume the truma fell into truma and the chulin into chulin, even if there wasn’t a majority of the chulin in the box before the contents of the box fell in. How can Rabbi Yochanan explain his lenient opinion here if truma is a Torah law? After explaining that Rabbi Yochanan was explaining the braita as corresponding to an opinion he doesn’t hold by, a further question is raised. If the source follows one who says truma is only rabbinic, why is there no need for a majority, while in a similar case of a mikveh there is a need for a majority? The Gemara brings two answers. In the Mishna it says that an androgynous can get married to a woman but cannot be betrothed by a man. Is the first part of that sentence ab initio or de facto?

Yevamot 81 - May 27, 26 Iyar May 27, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored by Valerie Adler in honor of her daughter, Anoushka. “Congratulations to our amazing daughter Anoushka who is today officially an MD. May you be blessed to heal many people and be a source of comfort to all those in need. Ima and Abba.”

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of the Kolodny family on the occasion of Avidan's Bar Mitzva.

The end of the Mishna mentioned actions taken by a saris or to an aylonit that would disqualify the woman from marrying a kohen. By inferring certain things from these statements, can one say that the Mishna disagrees with certain positions held by Rav Hamnuna (an amora) or Rabbi Yehuda (a tanna)? A saris from birth can marry and therefore if he is a kohen, his wife can eat truma. What is the status of an androgynous regarding marriage to a woman/man? Are they treated like a male or a female? Can they permit their wife to eat truma, if they are a kohen? Are they liable for engaging in relations with a man? There is a debate between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan regarding Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon's position that an andrgynous can permit his wife to eat truma. Reish Lakish holds that this applies only to truma and not to the breast and calf (chaze v’shok) of the animal. Rabbi Yochanan holds that she can eat both. Reish Lakish permits only truma, was because he holds that truma was only a rabbinic law after the Temple was destroyed and that is why it is permitted to her. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with Reish Lakish’s assumption about truma and holds that it is still a Torah law even after the destruction of the Temple and since that is permitted, so is the chaze v’shok, which is also a Torah law. Reish Lakish proves that truma is a rabbinic law by bringing a source regarding a mixture of truma and chulin fig cakes and showing that laws of nullification apply even though the item is a dvar chashuv, something of significance (as the object usually sell by the unit), that laws of nullification should not apply to. Thus he infers, truma must be only a rabbinic law. Rabbi Yochanan rejects this argument by bringing a braita about a piece of sacrificial meat that is mixed with other meat and is nullified, even though it is an important item (generally sold by the unit) and sacrificial meat is obviously a Torah law! Additionally, he claims that the Mishna that teaches that laws of nullification do not apply to objects sold by the unit (Orla 3:6-7), was referring only to objects exclusively sold by the item and not ones that are usually sold by the item but sometimes sold by weight or estimation. How does Reish Lakish explain that Mishna? The Gemara goes back to the braita quoted by Rabbi Yochanan about a piece of meat and quotes the braita in its entirety and then asks how Reish Lakish can reconcile his opinion with that braita.

Yevamot 80 - May 26, 25 Iyar May 26, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored by Judy and Jerel Shapiro in memory of their dear cousin Judy Greenberg Hirsch of Chatsworth, CA, who passed away this week. “Judy was an early member of the Chavurah movement in LA, and was an amazing person. Zichrona L'vracha.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Shira Krebs in honor of Rena Berger’s birthday. “Today is the special birthday of my sister and number one daf yomi supporter, Rena Berger. Happy Birthday!”

How can we determine if someone is a saris chama (from birth)? Rabbi Eliezer in the Mishna held that a saris chama would do chalitza as he can potentially be healed. However, in a braita, he is quoted as describing a saris chama who does not do yibum or chalitza. Two suggestions are made to resolve the contradiction - either he changed his mind (if so, which way?) or his words in the braita were referring to a different law about a saris chama and not yibum and chalitza. One who has sign of being a saris or aylonit and then later grows two pubic hairs, Rav holds retroactively they are considered a saris/aylonit and therefore are already considered having reached maturity at age 13/12. Shmuel says they are considered mature at a later stage (according to some interpretations, when they grow hairs, according to others, when they reach the age of /18 (female)/20 (male) and it becomes clear they are a saris/aylonit. If so, then why does Rav not think that an aylonit who is raped gets to collect the kenas, 50 kesef, which according to Rav is not given only if the girl is a minor. They answer that the kenas is given to a girl who is a naara - between 12 and 12 and a half. The aylonit skips that stage and goes immediately from a minor to a bogeret (full adulthood). Both the determination of a saris/aylonit and whether a baby born in the eighth month is going to survive, happens only at the age of 20. How can an eighth-month baby survive at all? Rebbe holds that it could be a seven-month baby that waited an extra month before coming out. A story is brought of a woman whose husband went abroad for 12 months and she gave birth and they attributed the baby to the father, in order to show that we can assume the baby sometimes waits to come out. Is this the majority or a minority opinion? What are signs of a saris/aylonit? Regarding a saris - is it enough to have one of the signs or does one need to have all of the signs in order to be considered a saris? The line in the Mishna that seems to repeat that a saris cannot perform chalitza is brought to show that they side like Rabbi Akiva that a saris is one who is born with the condition, as it is juxtaposed to an aylonit.

Yevamot 79 - May 25, 24 Iyar May 25, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

Today's daf is sponsored by Caroline and Victor Ofstein in honor of their son Shalom's wedding to Yocheved Davidowitz today. "May their home be filled with Torah, learning and mitzvot, and bracha and simcha always".

Today's daf is sponsored by Ruth Leah Kahan, Jessica Shklar, and Emily Michelson in loving memory of their mother Kadimah Michelson, Kadima bat HaRav Avraham Zvi Ben-Tzion v'Chaya, on her fourth yahrzeit.

Today's daf is dedicated to the memory of all those young children murdered in the shooting yesterday in an elementary school in Texas.

The end story of the Netinim is explained and why King David forbid them to marry Jews even though they had converted. As an act of revenge against King Saul, they insist on murdering seven of his descendants. How were those seven people chosen? After they were killed, their bodies were left to hang for half a year as a kiddush Hashem - to show everyone what is done even to sons of kings who don't treat converts properly, even those who have converted for ulterior motives. Ritzpa bat Aya, the concubine of King Saul, two of whose kids were among those murdered, protected the bodies from the birds and animals. Only after the rains began did King David allow them to be buried. As a result of this incident, 150,000 people converted to Judaism. From where is this derived? Was it really David who forbade them? Wasn't it already alluded to by Moshe in the Torah or by Joshua in the book of Joshua? In the time of Rebbe, they wanted to repeal this decree against the Netinim, but they were unsuccessful - why? Two different answers are given. There were two traditions regarding a man incapable of having children, a saris, regarding chalitza - one that he does perform chalitza and that chalitza is performed on his wife, and one that says the opposite. There are different tannatic opinions about which one refers to a man who was born like this and which one refers to a man who became this way later in life. An aylonit does not do chalitza or yibum. Rabbi Akiva holds that a man who became a saris does chalitza - but if Rabbi Akiva also holds that all negative commandments (which would include marriage to a saris - patzua daka) are like ones liable for karet, how could one possibly be obligated in chalitza or yibum? Rabbi Ami limits it to a case where the yevama was a convert and according to those who hold that a convert can also marry those who are forbidden to marry. Two questions are raised against Rabbi Ami's position. Raba brings a different answer - that he does chalitza only if he was not yet a saris when his brother died but became a saris before yibum was performed. A difficulty is raised against this position as well. A third answer is brought by Rav Yosef who rejects the question as he brings a different understanding of Rabbi Akiva's position regarding negative commandments - only those that are ones forbidden due to a close relation are like those liable for karet. Why is he even part of the mitzva of chalitza and yibum if the whole point of the mitzva is to carry on the name and he is not capable of that?

Yevamot 78 - May 24, 23 Iyar May 24, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Faye Schwartz in loving memory of her mother, Baila bat HaRav Elimelech whose yahrzeit was yesterday. "She instilled in us that it was our responsibility to advocate for those who were unable. Nothing made her prouder than having children whose lives were imbued with the learning and transmission of Torah."

Rabbi Yehuda held that female Egyptian and Edomite converts were forbidden just as the men were from marrying in the community. This fits well with a different statement of Rabbi Yehuda that converts are considered like "the community of Jews" and therefore can't marry those who can't marry within the community, such as mamzerim, and if the female converts were permitted to marry, they would not be able to marry the male Egyptian converts and there would be no third-generation Egyptian converts that are permitted to marry within the community. Why does the verse mention both the words 'children' and 'generations' (Devarim 23:9)? Why is the word "to them" mentioned twice? Why is the word "to him" also needed in the mamzer verse? Two different versions of Rabbi Yochanan's opinion are brought regarding the status of a child whose parents are each from different generations of Egyptian converts (first and second) - does the child follow the mother or the father? Two difficulties are raised against the first opinion that holds it follows the father, however, they are resolved. The second opinion is that it follows the mother, as a fetus is considered an extension of the mother's body. Abaye raises a difficulty on that ruling from a different sugya entirely, but he himself resolves it by saying that there is a unique law here based on the verse. A further question is raised on Abaye's answer but it too is resolved. Ravin said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that with nations of the world, we follow the father and if they converted, we go by the more disqualified parent - to what was he referring in each part of this statement? Mamazerim and Netinim are forbidden forever, both males and females, according to the Mishna. Reish Lakish holds that females are only forbidden for the first ten generations based on a gezeira shava from the verses about converts from Amon and Moav. How does he disagree with the Mishna? When Rabbi Eliezer was asked about this, he said that mamzerim are known to die out and would never make it even to a third generation. Why? And how does this match the Mishna that forbade them forever? They distinguish between mamzerim who are known to be mamzerim who can live for generations as all will make sure not to marry them and those whose problematic lineage is not known and will therefore die so that no one will accidentally marry them, which could lead to a huge increase in the number of mamzerim. The background to the story of why the Netinim were forbidden to marry Jews in the time of King David is brought.

Yevamot 77 - March 23, 22 Iyar May 23, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Aviva Adler in loving memory of her father, Professor Joseph Kahane's 6th yahrzeit, Yosef ben Rachel v'Tzvi HaKohen.

When Doeg the Edomite recommended to King Saul to look into David's lineage to disqualify him on account of his great grandmother Ruth, in the end, Yeter, the father of Amasa brought down a tradition he had learned from Shmuel that Moabite and Amonite women are permitted. There are two different tannaitic opinions explaining on what basis are the women excluded from the prohibition. Three different verses in Tehillim are explained to be connected to this incident as David is thanking God for saving him from those trying to attack his lineage and that of his grandson, Rechavam whose mother was Naama the Amonite. Ulla quotes Rabbi Yochanan as ruling that the daughter of a male convert from Amon is permitted to marry a kohen. According to who is this statement made? If it was said according to Rabbi Yehuda, he rules that the child of a convert is like the child of a chalal and is disqualified from marrying a kohen. If it was said according to Rabbi Yosi, he permitted the daughters of converts so it is obvious! In the end, they explain the case: if the child of a convert from Amon with a Jewish woman, which is a forbidden relationship and even according to Rabbi Yosi, one may have thought here that since the child was born from a forbidden union, perhaps she would be disqualified from marrying a kohen. Reish Lakish in fact holds that she is disqualified, but Rabbi Yochanan permits it. On what basis does Rabbi Yochanan permit it? He disagrees with Rabbi Zakkai on how to explain the words in the verse in Vayikra 21:14 that a kohen gadol can marry a virgin from his own people. What does "from his own people" refer to? Two different versions of Rabbi Yochanan's drasha are brought. There is an alternate version of his discussion and disagreement with Rabbi Zakkai. According to the second version, why would the child of an Egyptian convert with an Israelite be permitted to marry a kohen? What is the retort that the rabbis could have made to Rabbi Shimon's kal vachomer in the Mishna regarding the female Edomite and Egyptian converts?

Yevamot 76 - May 22, 21 Iyar May 22, 2022

Other issues regarding the details of a patzua daka and crut shufcha are discussed, such as, if there is a perforation that scabs and heals, how can we determine that it is fully healed? What can be done to help it to heal? Rabba son of Rav Huna and his father Rav Huna each rule on a different topic - one forbids a man from marrying if he urinates and it comes out from two different openings. The other forbids a woman to marry a kohen if she engages in sexual activity with another female. Rava rules against both of these rulings. A patzua daka and crut shufcha are permitted to marry a convert and a freed maidservant. Rav Sheshet was asked if a kohen who is a patzua daka is permitted to marry a convert or freed maidservant? He permitted it by learning it from a patzua daka yisrael who is permitted to marry a netina, which would only be permitted if the patzua daka is no longer considered "sanctified." Rava questioned this as he held that since one cannot marry a gentile as we are considered they will turn your child away from Judaism, netinim, who converted, are only forbidden by the rabbis and therefore a patzua daka who can have children was included in the rabbinic prohibition, but not a patzua daka who cannot have children. However, Rava himself rejects this and says that when the Torah said "You cannot marry them," it would have to be a situation where a marriage would be valid and therefore the verse itself must be referring to converts from the seven nations, which would include the netinim. Therefore it is forbidden on a Torah level and the reason it is permitted is as Rav Sheshet said because a patzua daka is no longer sanctified. Is there so that the language of marriage would not be used in a case where the marriage was invalid (i.e. if the woman was a gentile)? What about the daughter of Pharoah who married King Solomon? Perhaps she converted? Perhaps the verse doesn't mean that they actually married? One last attempt to show that a patzua daka kohen cannot marry a netina is derived from our Mishna, but it is an inconclusive derivation. A male convert from Amon and Moav is forbidden but a female is permitted. Can one learn from here that a female Egyptian or Edomite convert would be permitted as well? A story is told based on the verses in Shmuel 1 Chapter 17 when David fights against Goliath and King Saul asks who is David, which relates to the issue of whether one can marry a female covert from Amon and Moav.

Yevamot 75 - Shabbat May 21, 20 Iyar May 20, 2022

There are three verses in the Torah that refer to not eating truma when impure– why are all three necessary? To those who understand the verses relating to the zav and leper different from Rabbi Yishmael – that they need to still bring a sacrifice, the verse must be referring not the truma but to sacrificial meat. If so, why are two verses needed to say the same thing – that one cannot eat sacrificial meat until after one has brought their sacrifices? From where is the prohibition for touching truma when impure derived from? The Gemara delves into the cases of one with crushed or severed genitals. The Mishna states that their wives cannot eat truma – according to whose opinion is the Mishna stated? What situations put one in this category? Shmuel holds that one who was born like that is not disqualified from marrying. Where and how exactly does it being severed cause one to be/not to be disqualified.

Yevamot 74 - May 20, 19 Iyar May 20, 2022

After Rav Sheshet’s first failed attempt to prove that an uncircumcised man cannot partake in maaser sheni, the second tithe, the Gemara tries to bring three other sources to prove this as well. But all attempts are rejected – the first two because they can be explained as referring to maaser rishon, the first tithe and the last one as it can be attributed to Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yitzchak held as Rav Sheshet and proves it from a gezeira shava from Pesach, using the word mimenu. That gezeira shava can be difficult as Pesach is more stringent and therefore they must prove that one (or two, depending on how one holds on this issue) or the mentions of the word are unnecessary and therefore can be used for the gezeira shava. There are 3 mentions of the word mimeni in maazer sheni and in Pesach – what are they all needed for and which is unnecessary? Now that the Gemara finished dealing with the first word in the Mishna (that an uncircumcised man can’t eat truma), they move on to the next case – an impure person. From where is this derived? The verse in Vayikra 22:4 discusses an impure kohen who can’t eat sanctified items – the Gemara proves that it is referring to truma. The verse there says after they are purified, they can eat it – how do we know that it means until the sun sets and not until one brings a sacrifice, in the event that one is obligated to bring a sacrifice, as it the cases in the verse (zav and leper)? Rabbi Yishmael explains that it is a zav or leper that do not need a sacrifice (zav – saw only two discharged, leper that was not a definite leper, musgar – only quarantined). They further explain that in case one may have thought that in a case where there is a sacrifice, perhaps one would need to wait until the sacrifice is brought to be able to eat truma, the Gemara brings the sources in the Torah for the law stated in a Mishna Negaim 14:3) that differentiates between eating maaser - immediately after immersing in a mikveh – truma - after sunset - and sacrificial items – after the sacrifice is brought. From which verses are they derived and why is it clear that each one is referring to that specific issue (maaser, truma or kodesh) and not to a different one?

Yevamot 73 - May 19, 18 Iyar May 19, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 73

Today’s daf is sponsored by Lori Schuldiner Schor on the occasion of the 50th yahrzeit of her father, Rafael ben Breindl v’Avraham Yaakov, and to celebrate the medical school graduation of her daughter, Dr. Shayna Schor.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Joanna Rom in honor of Adrienne’s birthday. “Happy special birthday to my cherished long-time friend, and now chavruta, Adrienne. May you continue to go from strength to strength.”

Rav Sheshet was asked whether an uncircumcised male can eat maaser sheni, the second tithe. Do we derive from Pesach that he cannot just as we learn from maaser to Pesach that an onen can't eat the Pesach sacrifice? Or do we only learn from maaser to Pesach as maaser is more lenient, but not from Pesach to maaser as Pesach is more stringent? Rav Sheshet brings a Mishna from Bikurim 2:1 which lists the differences between truma and bikurim on the one hand and maaser on the other - since an uncircumcised person doesn't appear on this list, it must be that he is forbidden to eat maaser just as he is forbidden to eat truma and bikurim. The Gemara rejects this answer as it is possible the tanna left it off the list. If such an argument is to be used, one needs to prove that other details were left off the Mishna as well. To show this, the Gemara quotes the next Mishna Bikurim 2:2 (which compares maaser and bikurim to truma) and adds two items that are left off that list. The Gemara delves into some of the cases brought in the Mishna and the ones not mentioned and explains the source of these laws and the issues that led to a debate about some of them. Rav Ashi adds two differences that were left off the first Mishna as well.

Yevamot 72 - May 18, 17 Iyar May 18, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 72

Today’s daf is dedicated by Becki Goldstein in loving memory of Joe Aminoff, Yosef ben Reuven v'Leah. “Joe's way to extoll the glories of Hashem was to photograph His creations. Through his artistic and sharp eye for detail, his photographs of simple sights and scenes would translate into beautiful sublime paintings whether they were pictures of faraway places or landscapes of his beloved Gush Etzion. Every sunrise or sunset from a moving car felt like he was part of it and told a story coming alive as you witnessed it. He invoked in me feelings of "ma gadlu maasecha" with every new picture and for that gift I thank him. His photography books gracing his table during his shiva focused on his own personal journey for all to appreciate for that was the genuine quiet ish emunah he had become. Every scene depicts both a simple, beautiful and natural moment and at the same time he shares an intimate interpretation of what that picture meant to him and transcends to us, the observer. Blessed is his family left with all those beautiful picturesque memories, the legacy Joe left behind. Priceless. Yehi zichro baruch.

Why didn't the Jews circumcise themselves in the desert? There are two possible answers - because they were weak from the traveling (or concern that at any moment they could be traveling) or because the pleasant Northern wind wasn't present while they were in the desert. Rav Huna rules that one whose forseskin is pulled down and it looks like he is uncircumcised can't eat truma by rabbinic law. Two tannaitic sources are used to raise difficulties against his position. One is resolved, the other is not. The Gemara delves more in depth into the second source which talks about a tumtum and his wife/slaves and whether they can eat truma. From where does he have wives if he is a tumtum? Rava and Abaye each offer a possible answer. Is Rav Huna's ruling a subject of debate among tannaim? Can an uncircumcised person sprinkle the red heifer waters?

Yevamot 71 - May 17, 16 Iyar May 17, 2022

If the word "bo" comes to exclude other situations, the Gemara asks about other times this word appeared and what these verses came exclude. The same types of questions that were asked on Rabbi Eliezer's drasha regarding the geziera shava between Pesach and truma are asked about Rabbi Akiva who derived the halacha from “a man a man.” What each one do with the words that the other used to derive this halacha? Rabbi Chama Bar Ukva asked about a baby who was born and did not reach the age of eight days when the time came to sacrifice the Passover sacrifice - does this prevent the child from being rubbed with oil that is truma? They try to answer out of understanding a braita in a particular way, but then reject that answer and bring five other explanations for the braita, so there is no answer to the question. Rabbi Yochanan said that an uncircumcised male can be sprinkled with the red heifer waters as can be proven from the Jews who entered the land of Israel with Joshua and then purified, circumcised and then brought the Pesach sacrifice. It is clear from there that they did the first sprinkling (on day 3) when they were still uncircumcised because the circumcision was on the eleventh of the month and they sacrificed the Passover sacrifice on the 14th. The Gemara begins to discuss the circumcision they did. The first thing we learn is the law of priah was given then and they derive that from the verses.

Yevamot 70 - May 16, 15 Iyar May 16, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 70

There is a second version of the debate between Rava and Abaye in how to understand the debate between Rav and Shmuel regarding an engaged woman who has a child. In what case do we assume it belongs to the husband and in what case would the child be a mamzer/shtuki? Rava holds that if the man admits that he had relations with his fiancé, then the child is considered his, even if she is rumored to have been with other men. But if she is not rumored to have been with him and only with other men, the child is a mamzer, according to Rav. Abaye disagrees and if she is suspected of being with him and other men, we have to assume the child is a mamzer. Only if there are no rumors about her at all, and the man admits the child is his, then we can assume he is the father. Sources are brought to explain from where we learn the laws regarding one who has a grandson who is a slave, mamzer or kohen gadol that were mentioned in the Mishna. The Mishna had mentioned a case where the offspring born from a union of a Jewish woman and a gentile/slave is a mamzer and the Gemara tries to establish according to whose opinion the Mishna was stated. An uncircumcised or impure kohen can’t eat truma but their wives and slaves can. One with crushed testicles or his organ is severed – he and his slaves can eat truma but his wife cannot as he is not permitted to marry. The Mishna discusses details of these categories. From where do we derive that an uncircumcised man can’t eat truma? These laws are derived from Pesach as the same words are used in each “toshav” and “sachir.” This only works as one of the mentions of these words are unnecessary. Why are these words used specifically to teach about someone uncircumcised and not other possible laws that could have been derived from here?

Yevamot 69 - May 15, 14 Iyar May 15, 2022

From where do we derive that relations with a slave or gentile will disqualify a woman from eating truma and marrying a kohen? After an answer is brought the Gemara questions that answer as perhaps the verse means something else. The question is rejected. An alternative source is brought according to Rabbi Akiva and the Gemara asks what he would derive from the words used for the derivation in the first explanation. When it comes to disqualifying the woman, why does one who remarries his wife (after divorcing her and she married another man in the interim and is no longer married to that man), not disqualify his wife from eating truma? And according to that, why does a chalal disqualify a woman he had relations with. On Yevamot 68 there was a braita with three opinions regarding which women are disqualified from marrying a kohen on account of a sexual relationship with someone. After delving into details on the first one, now the Gemara tries to explain the differences between the second a third opinions from each other and from the first opinion. The Mishna lists cases of relationships that would not disqualify a daughter of a kohen from eating truma, like if two single people who theoretically could have married each other had intercourse. If the woman was a bat yisrael and he was a kohen, she would not be able to eat truma. However, if she became pregnant with his child and she was a bat kohen, she could not eat truma unless she lost the fetus. If she is a bat yisrael, she can't eat until the child is born. If there is a grandson who is a slave or a gentile, since they are not considered part of the family's lineage, they do not allow a woman to eat truma or disqualify her. However, a mamzer grandchild would. The Mishna describes how these cases play out. A woman can have a grandson who is a kohen and could even be a potential kohen gadol and his existence would disqualify his grandmother from eating truma, even though he also enables his mother (her daughter) to eat truma. How? If the Mishna had stated that when a woman is pregnant, she can't eat truma, then why if he dies do we enable a bat kohen to eat truma in her father's house - why are we not concerned that perhaps she is pregnant from him? Why is this different from the case of two men whose wives were switched at the chuppah who need to wait three months to be able to determine who the father of their children is? One can distinguish between lineage and truma. Do we not disqualify from truma in cases of doubt? A case is brought where they disqualify. The Gemara distinguishes between relations within marriage and without as when one has relations outside of marriage, women take precautions not to get pregnant. However, even if they were married, there is a case where there is no concern she got pregnant and can eat truma immediately following the death of her husband. Further distinctions are made to explain that case and how it fits in with what was said previously. If one engages in relations with her fiance in her father-in-law's house, what is the status of the child? Rav says the child is a mamzer, Shmuel says a shtuki (safek mamzer - one whose mother is known but unknown father). Rava says that Rav's opinion seems to be the correct one in a case where there were rumors about her having been with another man. But if there were no rumors, both would agree the child is legitimate. Rava derives this from the case in our Mishna of a kohen who engages in relations with a woman who then gets pregnant and can eat truma on account of him. Abaye disagrees and thinks that Rav will declare the child a mamzer even if she is only rumored to have slept with her fiance as that is an indication that she has likely slept with others as well. A different version of the debate between Rava and Abaye is brought.

Yevamot 68 - Shabbat May 14, 13 Iyar May 13, 2022

The Gemara continues to go through each of the cases in the Mishna where we are strict in both directions and will not allow a bat yisrael who is with a kohen to eat truma and at the same time, it will not allow a bat kohen to eat truma in her father’s house if she is in this situation with a yisrael. What is the case mentioned “a nine-year-old and a day”? What was the interaction between the woman and the man in that case? Two different explanations are suggested, after they rejected the first assumption that it was referring to a woman waiting to yibum. A braita was mentioned in this context about a man of this age (9 and a day) who is in the category of pusulei chitun, one who is not allowed to marry a Jewish woman, or a challal, engages in relations with a woman. The woman is disqualified from eating truma and banned from marrying a kohen. Two other opinions are brought as well, which will be explained in Yevamot 69. What is the source for this halacha? A discussion of the verse used is brought – isn’t that verse needed to teach other laws? What laws? Isn’t the verse referring only to the daughter of a kohen, what about other women? Isn’t the verse only relating to truma, from where do we learn she can’t marry a kohen?

Yevamot 67 - May 13, 12 Iyar May 13, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Leora & Jonathan Kukin and Cynthia & Abe Steinberger in honor of Rella Feldman and Curtiss Pulitzer. “In anticipation of a beautiful Shabbat shared with cherished friends. Thank you to our gracious hosts! Also commemorating the 35th yahrzeit of Rella’s beloved father a”h, Isak Levenstein."

Today's daf is sponsored by Julie Landau on the shloshim of her mother, Irene Landau. "We miss her so much already".

Today's daf is sponsored by Rikki and Alan Zibitt in honor of thier dear grandson, Noah Samuel Zibitt (Noah Shalom ben Elon Yitzhak haKohen) on the occasion of his Bar Mitzvah, Parshat Emor in chutz l'aretz.

The Gemara finishes up the discussion of a woman’s right to claim her tzon barzel property once she is no longer married. The Mishna brings up a case of a daughter of a yisrael who is married to a kohen and when he dies, she is pregnant. According to Rabbi Yosi, her slaves cannot eat truma because of the fetus, even if she has other children with the kohen. Is it because the fetus of a non-kohen is considered a “stranger” while in utero or is it because only a born child can allow one to eat truma, but not an unborn child? Rabba and Rav Yosef disagree on this issue. A question is raised against Rav Yosef. Rav Yehuda explained in the name of Shmuel both the opinion of Rabbi Yosi and the rabbis who disagree and hold that as long as there are other brothers or others that could inherit the father, the slaves could continue to eat truma. Is it clear who Shmuel held by? Did the rabbis really disagree with Rabbi Yosi or did they concede to his opinion? A braita is brought with two other alternative opinions to Rabbi Yosi. From the braita, it is not exactly clear what they hold and the Gemara spends time explaining each approach. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai holds that it depends on whether the other children of the kohen were sons or daughters. If sons, the slaves could eat and if daughters, then they could not. If the fetus were to turn out to be male, then the daughters would in the end not inherit anything from the father and therefore, they cannot allow the slaves to eat truma even now, before the child is born. Furthermore, even if the fetus turns out to be female, then she also disqualifies the slaves from eating truma as the fetus has a share also in the inheritance and a fetus does not allow slaves to eat truma. If so, why can they eat if there are male siblings? Two answers are brought. One is that we are not concerned for a minority and whether the child will actually be born and turn out to be male and therefore will have a part in the ownership of the slave is a minority, and we are not concerned for minorities. Or if one holds we are concerned for minorities, Rav Nachman held that when orphans collect from their father’s inheritance, each one gets an apotropos who chooses part of the inheritance for his and therefore they can insure that the slaves will go to the live brothers and not to the fetus. Rav Nachman’s position is that the division by the apotroposim is final and the children have no right when they get older to change is, as otherwise, it undermines court's power. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosi held that if the kohen had a daughter, the slaves could eat truma but if he had a son, they could not. Abaye attempts to explain it that it is a case where there is a small amount of money in the estate and therefore by rabbinic law, the daughters get what is left as they are entitled to money for food and the small amount that is left goes to them. Even if the fetus turns out to be a girl, the rabbis did not institute laws to give rights to the money to an unborn child. However, two questions are brought against this explanation – one is resolved but the other is not. An alternative explanation is brought. The “daughter” actually should be read as “mother.” Rabbi Yishmael’s position is explained like this: when a kohen dies, if there are children, the mother can continue to eat truma as well as her slaves who are melog property, but the sons cannot permit the slaves who are tzon barzel to eat since the fetus may be male and then he owns them as well and that prevents them from being able to eat truma. If so, his opinion is actually the same as his father’s Rabbi Yosi and is not coming as a separate opinion, but to explain. The Mishna lists several cases where we are strict in both directions and a particular situation will not allow a bat yisrael who is with a kohen (in a particular manner, as laid out in the Mishna) to eat truma. And at the same time, it will not allow a bat kohen to eat truma in her father’s house if she is in this situation with a yisrael. The Gemara begins to give explanations for each of the cases.

Yevamot 66 - May 12, 11 Iyar May 12, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

Today’s daf is sponsored by Peri Rosenfeld in loving memory of their father, Willie Rosenfeld, Yishayah Zev HaKohen’s 12th yahrzeit on the 11th of Iyar. “A man filled with love and dedication to his family, community and Israel. He is sorely missed.”

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of Joe Aminoff.

The Gemara makes one last attempt to disprove the opinion that women are really not obligated to have children from a case of a half-slave/half free woman whose owner was forced to free her, presumably because she could not get married and have children. But Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explained the reason differently - since she was unable to marry, men were taking advantage of her and that was why the owner was forced to free her, which would therefore not prove that women are obligated. If one who cannot marry a kohen marries him anyway, she cannot eat truma. But can slaves of hers eat truma? The Mishna distinguishes between two different types of property that she brings into the marriage - zton barzel and melog. What is the difference between them and why does that affect their ability to eat truma? Since all of the woman's property is considered the possession of the husband for the purposes of eating truma while they are married, why are slaves that are melog not able to eat truma? Three different answers are brought. One holds that it is by Torah law as the rights of the kohen to the truma of melog come from the woman and the woman herself can't eat truma and therefore he possessions as well can't. The other two answers assume that by Torah law the slave can eat truma but the rabbis forbade it. One possibility is because they want to encourage the husband to divorce her (as it is a forbidden marriage) - if her slave can't eat and she can't, it will make the woman lower in the eyes of her husband and he may divorce her. Another is due to concern in the case of a daughter of a kohen who after marrying the kohen, the kohen dies and when she goes back to her father's house the slave will mistakenly think he can continue to eat truma. If a woman brought into the marriage tzon barzel possessions assessed at a particular amount, can she demand them back upon death of the husband or divorce or does she only receive the monetary value? This is a debate between Rav Yehuda and Rabbi Ami. What is the reason behind each opinion and what sources are brought to support each position? How do we rule?

Yevamot 65 - May 11, 10 Iyar May 11, 2022

If a woman was married twice to two different men, each for ten years, and did not bear children, she should not marry a third (if he does not have children), as she is presumed to not be able to bear children. And if she does, he can divorce her without having to give her the money from her ketuba. If she married a third and did not have children, can the first two husbands claim that they want the ketuba money back - is it clear now that it was she who couldn't bear children and not the first husbands? No, as one can always claim that she got weaker now and previously was able to conceive. If she married a fourth and gave birth to children, can she claim her ketuba money from the third? No, because if she makes an issue, the third can claim they were never divorced as he divorced her under false pretenses (he thought she could not conceive) and that would make her child a mamzer. Rav Papa suggests that the court should intervene and cancel the previous get, however, they explain that perhaps she was cured in the meantime but actually couldn't conceive at the time she was married. If the wife claims the husband is infertile and the husband claims the wife is infertile, she is believed - why? If the husband wishes to marry another wife to prove that he is not the one who is infertile, can he do that? And if so, if he proves her wrong, he can then divorce her without having to pay the ketuba money. Other cases of opposite or different claims made by each side (husband and wife) are brought - who is believed and why? There is a tannaitic debate about whether or not a woman is obligated to have children. What is the source for each approach? As one of the sources was brought by Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Shimon, other statements of his on other topics are brought as well regarding the mitzva of reproaching one who won't accept it and lying for the sake of keeping peace. Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi disagreed regarding which opinion to hold by regarding women and the mitzva to have children. They try to determine who held which opinion. They are able to prove it from one story, but they attempt to bring a second proof, but it is rejected. Relating to the rejection of the second proof, several stories are brought regarding women who want to divorce their husbands on grounds that they were unable to conceive with that husband, and in each case the woman makes a claim that she needs children, despite the fact that she has no obligation. Her claim is accepted and the court issues a ruling to force the husband to divorce her. A final story is told of the wife of Rabbi Chiya who struggled in labor with twins and disguised herself before her husband to ask if she was obligated to have children as she did not want to go through labor again. When he told her she was not obligated, she drank a substance that made her infertile. When he heard, he was disappointed that she wasn't able to bring him more children.

Yevamot 64 - May 10, 9 Iyar May 10, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 64

Today’s daf is sponsored by Hyphen Huffmanparent in honor of her daughter’s teacher, Karen Moss. “This dedication is in honor of my daughter's teacher in day school and tutor for her bat mitzvah which took place this past Rosh Chodesh.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Ilana Cuttler in loving memory of her mother Marcia Lerner, Malka Leah bat Yitzchak Hillel, with appreciation for the love of learning she inspired.

If a man is married for ten years without children, he needs to take action - either divorce her or take another wife. This is derived from Avraham. What exceptions are there to this rule? Why don’t we learn that one waits twenty years like Yitzchak? Both Avraham and Yitzchak were infertile. From where do we know this? Why were so many of our fathers unable to have children? Sarah also was unable to conceive. Rav Yehuda says that once people began to live for fewer years, the number of years dropped to two and a half, the amount of time for three potential pregnancies. Raba said in the name of Rav Nachman three years but he himself held that even in their days, it was still ten years. If a man divorces a woman because they can’t have children, she still gets her ketuba money because we assume it wasn’t due to her sins that they do not have children as she is not obligated in the mitzva to have children. Is it really true that if one doesn’t have children after ten years, if they divorce, they will likely have children with the second wife? A situation is brought where Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said that if he was worthy to have kids, he would have had them from his first wife. This is not a good proof as he was one of sixty rabbis who became infertile from not being able to go to the bathroom during Rav Huna’s long shiurim. The Mishna seems to indicate that after marrying another woman, if he still doesn't have children, he doesn't need to marry a third time, as it must follow Rebbi's opinion who held that when something happens twice, it creates a chazaka. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds three times. Or is it the reverse? How do they determine which is the accurate tradition? According to which opinion do we hold? It depends on what the situation is. In certain types of issues, we hold like Rebbi and in others like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Yevamot 63 - May 9, 8 Iyar May 09, 2022

This week’s learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Hannah bat Peninah.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Adina Gewirtz in honor of her husband, Danny. “He encouraged me to start daf yomi when he started the new cycle. Thank you for opening the world of Gemara to me!”

Rabbi Elazar makes seven statements – some of them having to do with marriage and the importance for a man to have a good wife, some having to do with the importance of owning land or the value of investments. Better to eat your own produce than to be reliant on buying from others. Other financial and marriage advice is mentioned. Some stories are told of relationships between rabbis and their wives. What is considered a “good wife” and what is considered a “bad wife”? One who is married to a bad wife and her ketuba sum is large is in a difficult predicament. A number of verses are brought that highlight this predicament or other difficult situations. Quotes from the book of Ben Sira are brought relating to “good” and “bad” wives. A number of statements are brought regarding the severity of not bringing children into the world. Even though Ben Azai viewed it as a very serious issue, he did not marry as he spent his life exclusively learning Torah and left the mitzva of having children to others.

Yevamot 62 - May 8, 7 Iyar May 08, 2022

This week’s learning is sponsored by the Mondrow family in loving memory of Bessie “Nanny” Mauskopf, Basha Leah bat Meir Yehudah and Tzivyah Chayah. “She was a woman that exemplified the true meaning of Torah by the way she conducted herself. She was a wise kind and gentle person. May her neshama have an aliyah”.

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Gabrielle Altman by her children. “We are in awe of her commitment to learning Torah and the Daf. We love you so much and thank you for being a role model and showing us how to live with humility while giving to your community.”

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom group in memory of Dr. Dennis Kuchar. “Our hearts mourn with you, our dear friend Di Kuchar, on the loss of your husband of over 40 years. Di, you are a vibrant member of the Hadran Zoom community, the force behind our Pesach cookbook and a warm face we see at every Zoom shiur. Your love for Torah and your passion for impact, action, and מעשים טובים were undoubtedly also present in the home and life that you and Dennis built together. המקום ינחם אתכם... With love and comfort, your Hadran Zoom family.”

On what basis does Beit Shamai hold that one needs to have two sons in order to fulfill the mitzva of having children? On what basis does Beit Hillel hold one son and one daughter? Beit Shamai based his opinion on Moshe Rabbeinu who had two sons and then separated from his wife. Beit Hillel disagrees as he says that this is one of the three things that Moshe did on his own and afterward God supported his decision. The reason had nothing to do with having fulfilled the mitzva but he separated from Tzipora for a different reason. What are the other two things? Rabbi Natan had a different tradition about the debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel. Two versions of his tradition are brought. Can a convert fulfill the mitzva with children born before the conversion? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about this. Their opinions are consistent with a debate they have about whether a convert’s eldest son born after the conversion (in the event that he had sons previously) had the law of a bechor, firstborn. Rabbi Yochanan brings a source to raise a difficulty against Reish Lakish, but it is resolved. If one of one’s children dies, is the mitzva fulfilled anyway? Rav Huna and Rabbi Yochanan disagree on this issue. Two questions are raised against Rav Huna’s position from tannaitic sources discussing that one can fulfill one’s obligation through grandchildren. One is resolved, the other is not. Do grandchildren count in all cases? On what may it depend? What is the source for this? Rabbi Yehoshua has a third position regarding the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply – according to him, even after having two children, one needs to continue to have more children, as derived from a verse in Kohelet 11:6. The verse is used by Rabbi Akiva to stress the importance of learning and teaching Torah. Rabbi Akiva had 12,000 pairs of students and they all died in one period between Pesach and Shavuot because they did not respect each other. In the end, Rabbi Akiva passed on his Torah to five students – Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosi, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Elazar ben Shamoa. Rabbi Tanchum says in the name of Rabbi Chanilai that one who is without a wife is lacking many things, including peace, Torah, bracha, etc. From where are each of these derived? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi explains that there are certain situations when a husband is obligated to have intercourse with his wife, if she so desires. From where are these derived? One of them could be derived from another verse. What does the verse of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi add? A braita is brought which stresses the importance of treating one’s wife well, as well as other commendable behaviors.

Yevamot 61 - Shabbat May 7, 6 Iyar May 06, 2022

Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai ruled that the graves of gentiles do not pass on impurity "through a tent" - tuma't ohel. From where is this derived? If a kohen betrothed a widow and then was appointed kohen gadol, he could go ahead with the marriage, as in the case of Yehoshua ben Gamla and Marta bat Baitus. The same would not hold true for a woman who fell to yibum to a kohen and then he became of kohen gadol, even if he had already done maamar with her. Why is there a difference? If a kohen gadol's brother dies childless, he must do chalitza with the wife and not yibum, as she is a widow. Tih would hold true even if she was only engaged to the brother. Can a kohen marry an aylonit? On what does it depend? What about a yisrael? Rabbi Eliezer made a statement that a kohen cannot marry a ketana, a minor. Is this statement referring to a regular kohen or to a kohen gadol? And what is the issue. Five different readings of this statement are brought - the first two are rejected. There are a variety of different opinions about what is the definition of a zona, who is prohibited to marry a kohen. There is a mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, meaning, to have children. What is the minimum requirement for this? Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree.

Yevamot 60 - May 6, 5 Iyar May 06, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 60

This month's learning is sponsored by Bracha Rutner in loving memory of her mother, Anna Rutner, Sarah bat Yom Tov and Rachel, on her 5th yahrzeit. “She came to the US at a young age. She raised four children and was one of the most curious people who really cared about others and prioritized family.”

This month’s learning is sponsored by Yad Binyamin ladies for the refuah shleima of Asher ben Devorah Fayga.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Belinda Kreike in loving memory of her father, Jeffrey Rhodes, Yehuda Yiddel Ben Chaim Yerachmiel on his 53rd yahrzeit. “He died in 1969 as a young husband of Madalaine and father of Belinda. He never saw the legacy he left of his daughters and grandchildren Jonah, Noah and Dalia Kreike.”

Today’s daf is dedicated in memory of those murdered yesterday in a terrorist attack in Elad, Israel - Oren ben Yiftach, Yonatan Havakuk, and Boaz Gol - and for a refuah shleima for those injured.

What is the root of the debate between Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov regarding the status of a child born from a kohen gadol who marries a woman who was raped or seduced by someone else? Two suggestions are brought and one is rejected. After discussing the different opinions defining a "betula" who a kohen gadol is permitted to marry, the Gemara brings a debate regarding the definition of a betula in the context of a kohen who can become impure to his sister when she dies, only if she is a betula. Is it the same or different as for who the kohen gadol can marry? What are the different opinions and from where are their opinions derived? Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai permits a kohen to marry a woman who converted under the age of three years and a day. On what basis? Do we hold like him or not?

Yevamot 59 - Yom Haazmaut - May 5, 4 Iyar May 05, 2022

Our learning today will be in honor of the State of Israel celebrating 74 years of independence.

Today's daf is sponsored by Laura Shechter in honor of her daughter, Kayla, who has won her division of the USA Chidon HaTanach two years in a row and has now earned a spot to compete in next year's international competition. “Kayla, it has been such a pleasure doing our own learning side by side. Aba and I are so proud of your effort and accomplishments. L'shana haba'a b'Yerushalayim!”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Tina and Shalom Lamm with gratitude to Hashem for a new granddaughter, Tsofia Miriam. “Mazal tov to her parents, Sara and Shmuel Lamm!”

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran community in honor of Medinah Korn's birthday! "We would like to wish you a happy birthday and many more till 120. Thank you for all the work you have done for our Hadran community and filling in with the group zoom when Michelle records in advance."

According to some opinions, one of the limitations on who a kohen gadol can marry is related to age, which is derived from the word "betula" - virgin. Rabbi Chiya bar Yosef asked Shmuel: If a kohen gadol betroths a woman when she is young but by the time he married her she was already beyond the designated age permitted for him to marry her, can he go ahead with the marriage - is the age limit important for the betrothal or the marriage? Shmuel attempts to derive it from our Mishna, but after Rabbi Chiya raises an issue with that, Shmuel tried to derive it from a different Mishna in this chapter. Rabbi Chiya rejects that comparison as well. A kohen gadol can't marry a widow, even if she was only betrothed to someone else. From where is this derived? The issue of whether there is an age limitation (above twelve and a half - bogeret - is a subject of debate in the Mishna between Rabbi Meir and Rabbis Shimon and Elazar. How does each derive their opinion from the verses in the Torah (Vayikra 21:13)? Rav states that a woman that had relations in an atypical manner (which would not cause loss of virginity - tearing of the hymen) is also disqualified from marrying a kohen gadol. Rava raises a difficulty against Rav from a braita about a kohen gadol who raped a woman. The Gemara attempts to say the braita and Rav were each stated according to a different tannaitic opinion (Rabbi Meir/Rabbi Elazar), however, this answer is rejected. Rav Yosef limits the scope of Rav's statement in order to resolve the difficulty. A difficulty is raised with his answer as well and Rabbi Zeria brings a third answer. Is a woman who engages in bestiality prohibited from marrying a kohen gadol? If the kohen gadol had raped or seduced a woman, he is not permitted to marry her, but if he did, the marriage is valid. However, he must divorce her.

Yevamot 58 - Yom HaZikaron, May 4, 3 Iyar May 04, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 58

Today’s daf is dedicated in memory of the fallen soldiers that were killed protecting the State of Israel and in memory of those that were killed in terrorist attacks and died by Kiddush Hashem.

Today's daf is sponsored by Goldie Gilad in loving memory of Paul Weitson, son of her dear friends Rima and Harry. Paul fell on the 9th of Shevat 5735.

Dedicate your daf on Yom HaZikaron to the memory of one of the fallen soldiers.

Is the debate regarding the power of a forbidden chuppah to disqualify a woman from eating truma (between Rav and Shmuel) the same as the debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Elazar/Rabbi Shimon in the Mishna regarding kiddushin? It seems it is not! Could it be the same as the debate between the rabbis and R. Yochanan ben Broka that can be found in a braita? In the end, these two options are rejected. Rav Sheshet ruled like Rav that a chuppah can disqualify her. Rav Amram tried to prove this from a Mishnah in Sotah 18a where the Sotah swears that she did not stray from her husband also when she was betrothed. How can there be a Sotah from a betrothal? After bringing some options that are rejected, they explain the Mishna in a case of chuppah without relations. That proves chuppah can disqualify. Rava rejects the Mishnah because he says it is impossible to have a situation when she was suspected of being with another man before she even had relations with her husband. The Gemara brings three options on how to understand the Mishnah. There is a dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish in the case that yabam gave the yevama a get – does that disqualify her from eating truma?

Yevamot 57 - May 3, 2 Iyar May 03, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 57

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Cohen, Raye & Maybaum families in loving memory of their mother Elisabeth Maybaum, Elisheva bat Yehuda, on her 3rd yahrzeit. “You inspired us, you supported us, you made us laugh. We miss your wise counsel and insights. We miss you.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Abi Yonitzman in loving memory of Albert Kobney ben Adel and health to Serina Kobney bat Rachel.

Is the debate in the Mishnah regarding a man who betroths a bat kohen the same debate as a patzua daka who is a kohen who marries a bat Yisrael? The Gemara tries to distinguish between the cases, but Rava and Abaye prove (each in a different way) that they are similar. Why did each not interpret like the other opinion? Rabbi Yochanan asked Rabbi Oshaya a question he could not answer - a patzua daka who was married to the daughter or converts - could she eat truma? There is a dispute between three tannaim regarding the daughter of a convert - is she disqualified to marry a kohen and is she considered “within the community” and can’t marry a patzua daka? According to which opinion did Rabb Yochanan ask his question? What is the answer to the question? Rav and Shmuel disagree in a case where there is a chuppah without a betrothal of a woman forbidden to a kohen with a kohen, will she be disqualified from eating truma?

Yevamot 56 - 2nd Day of Rosh Chodesh - May 2, 1 Iyar May 02, 2022

Today’s day is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of David’s father, Dr. Abraham Geffen on his yahrzeit.

Today's daf is sponsored in memory of Rav Aharon Lichtenstein zt"l.

Rav and Shmuel disagree regarding whether yibum that is performed in a weaker manner (for example, if it was unwitting) is fully effective or only partially (meaning she would not be allowed to eat truma). Is their debate in a case where she fell to yibum from an engagement or from marriage? Two different versions of the debate are brought and according to each version a statement of Shmuel is brought to show either that he is consistent or that he contradicts himself and a tannaitic source is brought to raise a difficulty against Shmuel. According to the first version, there is a resolution to the difficulty, but according to the second, there is no resolution. Since the braita brought as a difficulty against Shmuel discussed a case of a kohen who became deaf between engagement and marriage, another braita builds on that case – even though the wife cannot eat truma, if they have a child, then she can. What if the child dies? Rabbi Natan and the rabbis disagree about whether or not she can eat truma still. What is the reasoning behind each approach? Raba and Rav Yosef each explain it differently and Abaye raises questions against each of their positions. Rav Sheshet tries to prove from our Mishna as it says “and likewise… those who are disqualified to kohanim, and that is referring to “whether unwitting or intentional, forced or by her will” that a woman who was married to a Yisrael and was raped cannot marry a kohen. But in the end, this word “and likewise” is understood to be referring to something else in the Mishna and can’t be used to prove this. Raba said that if a kohen returns to his wife after she was raped and has relations with her, he receives lashes for having relations with a zona. Why does he not receive lashes for impurity? Or perhaps he does? A different version of Raba’s statement is brought – he is liable to impurity and not for a zona, as a woman who is raped is not considered a zona. If a daughter of a kohen is a divorcee and marries a kohen, or any other woman who is forbidden to marry a kohen, she can no longer eat truma. What if she was only betrothed to him? Or was betrothed and then he died or divorced her before they even got married?

Yevamot 55 - First Day of Rosh Chodesh Iyar, May 1, 30 Nissan May 01, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz in honor of her mother, Chana Cohen, Chana bat Rav Moshe and Tzipora Mashbaum, on her first yahrzeit. "It is still hard to believe that my wonderful and beautiful mother is no longer here to fill her role as matron of our extended family. She dedicated herself to family and Israel. Her beautiful and warm smile, exuberance and guidance are strongly missed."

Today's daf is sponsored by Adi Levi Eitan for a refuah shleima for Chana Sara bat Esther.

The forbidden relationship of one's wife's sister applies to her sister from either her mother or her father. From where is this derived? After unsuccessfully attempting to learn it from one's sister (both) or one's aunt (only if the father and his brother share the same father), it is successfully derived from one's brother's wife who is forbidden both through the mother and the father. From where do we know that one's brother's wife is a brother from either side? It is derived from extra words in Vayikra 18:16. The Gemara suggests other possible derivations from the extra words in the verse, but in the end, conclude that all those can be learned from other verses and therefore this one is used to teach from the mother and the father. If so, why don't we say that yibum applies also to a brother from the mother? A series of drashot on verses from the section of forbidden relationships are brought. Why is karet mentioned by one's sister (Yayikra 20:17) when it could have been derived from the concluding verse in that section? Rabbi Yochanan holds that it teaches that if you performed several forbidden actions with people who were forbidden to you without realizing that it was forbidden, you would be liable to bring a separate sin offering for each one. Rabbi Yitzchak learns that you get karet but not lashes, even if you were warned that you would receive lashes. He derives separate sin offerings from the verse about nidda. Why does one verse say "you will be childless" and another says "you will die childless"? Each refers to a different situation - where you had children previously or you did not have children. Why are both needed? From where do we derive that for violating negative prohibitions involving forbidden relationships, negative prohibitions regarding relationships with kohanim and for violating positive commandments, if one engaged in the initial stages of intercourse, one would be liable? How do we know that initial stages of intercourse can be effective in performing the mitzva of yibum or kiddushin (some think it is referring to marriage)? Why is the term "shichvat zera," cohabitation with seed, mentioned by a designated maidservant, a married woman, and a sotah? Each one comes to exclude a particular case. What is the definition of haaraah, the initial stages of intercourse? Different opinions are brought.

Yevamot 54 - Shabbat April 30, 29 Nissan Apr 29, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

What is the case of yibum that could be forced, as yibum does require a level of intent? Several attempts are made to answer this question, most are rejected. From what verse is it derived that one can fulfill yibum even if the act of intercourse was performed unwittingly or under duress? Once the verse is brought, it is questioned by other drashot that are derived from those same words. In the end, the other laws are extrapolated from different verses. If one only engages in the initial part of intercourse with his yevama or with a woman who is forbidden to him, it is considered a valid act of intercourse. From where is this derived? The Gemara brings several options from which to derive it but has a hard time learning from these specific verses to other cases. Rabbi Yona in the end learns it from a woman who is a nidda, combined with a verse at the end of Vayikra Chapter 18 which teaches that all the cases are compared to each other. The Gemara then has to go back to the rejected answers (about his brother’s wife who is compared to a nidda and his father and mother’s sister) and explain what those verses are coming to teach.

Yevamot 54 - Shabbat April 30, 29 Nissan Apr 29, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

What is the case of yibum that could be forced, as yibum does require a level of intent? Several attempts are made to answer this question, most are rejected. From what verse is it derived that one can fulfill yibum even if the act of intercourse was performed unwittingly or under duress? Once the verse is brought, it is questioned by other drashot that are derived from those same words. In the end, the other laws are extrapolated from different verses. If one only engages in the initial part of intercourse with his yevama or with a woman who is forbidden to him, it is considered a valid act of intercourse. From where is this derived? The Gemara brings several options from which to derive it but has a hard time learning from these specific verses to other cases. Rabbi Yona in the end learns it from a woman who is a nidda, combined with a verse at the end of Vayikra Chapter 18 which teaches that all the cases are compared to each other. The Gemara then has to go back to the rejected answers (about his brother’s wife who is compared to a nidda and his father and mother’s sister) and explain what those verses are coming to teach.

Yevamot 53 - April 29, 28 Nissan Apr 29, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 53

If one performed chalitza and then betrothed her, Rabbi Akiva holds the betrothal is ineffective, the rabbis hold it is effective and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that it depends on whether he betrothed her for the purposes of marriage or yibum, as betrothal for purposes of yibum is effective only because of the zika, which in this case no longer exists. After two explanations were brought for the debate between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the rabbis at the end of Yevamot 52b, there are another four explanations. Each one explains the case in which they disagree a little bit differently. The Mishna had shown that if chalitza or intercourse was the first action taken, there would be nothing after that. However the language of the concluding sentence there only discussed chalitza, not intercourse. The Gemara questions this point and brings two answers. Several lines in the Mishna are compared to other tannaitic or amoraic positions in an attempt to either say our Mishna is not in accordance with that opinion or to say that it can provide support for a particular opinion. A number of these suggestions are rejected as they were based on a misreading and misunderstanding of the Mishna. Questions are also raised on parts of the Mishna that seem unnecessary. They seem to have been placed in the Mishna for stylistic purposes - to bring cases that are parallel to each other. Regarding the debate in the Mishna about intercourse - whether weakened intercourse (one that comes after maamar or get) is effective completely or not, there is a third opinion on the topic. The reasoning of each of the three opinions is explained. Yibum is effective even if any one of the sides performed it unwittingly or under duress. It is effective whether one engaged in the initial stages of intercourse or completed it. The same holds true for all cases of forbidden relations. The Gemara questions the language of the Mishna "even if he performed it unwittingly and she did it intentionally" - why the language "even"? What does it mean "under duress"?

Yevamot 52 - Yom HaShoah - April 28, 27 Nissan Apr 28, 2022

Today’s daf is dedicated for Yom HaShoah in memory of all those who died in the Holocaust.

Today's daf is sponsored by Suri (Lenore) Davis-Stern in honor of her parents, Rabbi Ruby Davis ztl and Susan Davis. "They prioritized torah learning in our home. With this daf, I complete Shas!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Caroline Ben-Ari on the 12th yahrzeit of her father, Ivor Rhodes (Yisrael ben Meir ve-Sara). "Dad was the quiet, undemonstrative member of the family. He was hard-working, caring, generous and honest to a fault--a true gentleman... with a wicked sense of humor and a lifelong addiction to puns. Today I pledge to make as many terrible puns as I can in his honor."

The Mishna stated that if one performed maamar and then had intercourse with his yevama, that is the mitzvah. What does it mean "that is the mitzva"? Does it show the Mishna supports Rav Huna's statement that this is the ideal way to perform the mitzvah? If not, how can that sentence be explained? Rav Huna also said that if one had intercourse and then performed maamar, it would also be effective. But doesn't one receive lashes if one skips maamar and goes straight to intercourse with the yevama? Yes, but the lashes are rabbinic so on a Torah level it would be effective. Rav would give lashes to men who betrothed through intercourse or betrothed on the street or without a rearrangement of the families or who canceled a get or gave a get with a declaration that the giving of the get was under duress, or one who acted brazenly to a messenger of the court, or didn't come to the court after 30 days to repeal an ex-communication, or lives in his father-in-law's house (for fear something may transpire between him and his mother-in-law. Nehardea had a different version of when Rav would give lashes. What would the ketuba of a yibum marriage include? If a get is written incorrectly (it says she is divorced from him and not permitted to any other man - which is normally not an effective get), and was given to a yevama, would it be effective to forbid her to his relatives and also forbid him and his brothers from performing yibum with her? A similar question is asked with regard to a case of a get with a stipulation given before marriage "When I marry you, this will be your get." What if a get is given specifically to remove the zika or only the maamar - is it effective or not? Rav establishes that the Mishna goes according to Rabbi Akiva who holds that in negative prohibitions, marriage is not effective. A question is raised against this from a different statement of Rabbi Akiva. That difficulty is resolved and a braita is brought to support Rav. If one performed chalitza and then betrothed her, Rabbi Akiva holds the betrothal is ineffective, the rabbis hold it is effective and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that it depends on whether he betrothed her for the purposes of marriage or yibum, as betrothal for purposes of yibum is effective only because of the zika, which in this case no longer exists. Rav Yosef compares Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's position to a case of one who hoes the property of a convert who died (ownerless property) thinking it was his own. Abaye rejects the comparison and suggests a comparison to a different case which is actually effective and therefore reinterprets Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's position.

Yevamot 51 - April 27, 26 Nissan Apr 27, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

Today's daf is sponsored by Ellie Gellman, In memory of her husband, Reuven Gellman, Reuven Shimon ben Shraga Dov whose yahrzeit was on Chol HaMoed Pesach. A talmid chacham, research scientist, and teacher, he loved the intersection of science and Torah learning and especially enjoyed the obscure and improbable sugiyot. I know he would have had something fascinating to say about every daf.

Rabban Gamliel and the rabbis debate whether get after get or maamar after maamar is effective. What is the reason behind each opinion? Rava brings an explanation for Rabban Gamliel but Abaye raises a difficulty and therefore provides a different explanation. Abaye explains further that according to Rabban Gamliel, a "weakened" intercourse - meaning, after a get was given to one yevama, the yabam had intercourse with another yevama (the co-wife), is stronger in one sense than maamar but weaker in another. A braita is brought which explains in further detail the opinions of Rabban Gamliel and the rabbis by providing specific cases. How do their opinions fit in with Shmuel and Rav regarding zika and "weakened" chalitza? If Rabban Gamliel holds there is no maamar after maamar, then why couldn't one do yibum with the first yevama? Rabbi Yochanan collected various statements made by various rabbis and showed that all of them hold similarly that maamar has the power to acquire.

Yevamot 50 - April 26, 25 Nissan Apr 26, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

Today's daf is dedicated in honor of Jon and Yael Cohen on their 24th wedding anniversary. Mazel tov!

How is the last issue Menashe had with Isaiah resolved? If the Torah said that one has a set amount of years to live and Isaiah said that Chizkiyahu was given fifteen extra years to live, how can that be? The answer is that there is a tanaitic debate on how to answer the question. One opinion is that one has a set amount of years and if one is worthy, one will live to that age, but if one is not, the number of years is reduced. Another opinion is that if one is worthy, one can get more than what was allotted. Rav Yosef comments on the last part of the Mishna which had many different cases of when a sister dies, her husband or ex-husband can marry her sister - by saying that here is an example of where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi added something that was unnecessary. Is there meaning to a get given to one wife after a get was already given to her co-wife or maamar performed on one wife after maamar was already performed on the other or intercourse to fulfill the mitzva of yibum after it was already done to the other or chalitza after chalitza? The rabbis and Rabban Gamliel disagree. The Mishna brings every possible permutation of get, maamar, intercourse and chalitza that were performed either by two brothers on one yevama or one yabam on two wives waiting for yibum. The main ramifications are - are the woman's relatives forbidden to the yabam? If a betrothal was performed, would it be valid? Does one still need to do chalitza or is the yibum obligation taken care of? How strong are each of these actions in removing the zika (connection) of the yevamot to the yabam? Chalitza or intercourse end the yibum requirement entirely - but is that only true if it was the first action done or it is even if it took place after another action such as maamar or get took place? This is also a subject of debate. Why is giving a get to a yevama effective to prohibit the brothers from performing yibum on her or any of the other wives, if they a get is not effective for someone who isn't married? Why is maamar effective to forbid the yabam from marrying any of the other wives? Why according to the rabbis are intercourse after get or maamar not enough to end the yibum obligation but chalitza after get or maamar would be sufficient?

Yevamot 49 - April 25, 24 Nissan Apr 25, 2022

What makes someone a mamzer? There are three different opinions about whether it is a child born from forbidden relationships that are just negative prohibitions (Rabbi Akiva), ones that are punishable by karet (Shimon HaTimni) and ones that are punishable by death by the court (Rabbi Yehoshua). The Mishna rules like Rabbi Shimon HaTimni but also brings a support for Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion from a book recording the lineage of people that mentioned a mamzer from a relationship of a man with a married woman which is punishable by the court. If one’s wife or one’s yevama dies, one can marry her sister. That is only permitted upon death, but is not permitted upon divorce or chalitza. There are three different ways to understand Rabbi Akiva’s opinion. How are these different ways, as well as the opinions of Rabbi Shimon HaTimni and Rabbi Yehoshua derived from the verses in the Torah? All opinions agree that one who sleeps with his wife when she is in nidda or his wife after she has been unfaithful, the child is not a mamzer. The reason is because bethrothal takes effect in these situations. Regarding a woman waiting for yibum who is betrothed by a different man, there is a debate if the betrothal is valid. Therefore, it wasn’t mentioned in the list of those whose offspring are not mamzerim. There were three things listed in this scroll with lineages that was mentioned in the Mishna: That a particular person was a mamzer (as mentioned in the Mishna), the Mishna of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov is kav v’naki, and that Menashe the king killed Isaiah. Why did Menashe kill Isaiah? He pronounced him guilty for going against three things that Moshe Rabbeinu said. What were the three things? What could Isaiah have answered to Menashe and why didn’t he? How was Isaiah killed?

Yevamot 48 - April 24, 23 Nissan Apr 24, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 48

The braita stated that the process for conversion is the same for a freed slave as for a convert. The Gemara assumes they meant that a freed slave also needs to accept mitzvot upon immersing in the mikveh. However, this contradicts a braita that states it is unnecessary. Rav Sheshet reconciles this by saying that there is a tannaitic debate on this topic as can be seen in a debate between Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and the rabbis regarding a female prisoner of war. What is the reason for each of their opinions? Rav Papa questions Rav Sheshet’s answer by doubting whether one can learn from a female prisoner of war to a Canaanite slave, as the cases are not the same – since the prisoner came from a place where she was not keeping mitzvot at all, and the slave was. A braita is brought to prove Rav Papa's assertion. The contradiction is resolved in a different manner - instead of explaining the line in the braita that states that conversion for a convert and a slave is the same regarding the acceptance of mitzvot, they explain that they are the same regarding immersion in the mikveh. There are some other tannaitic debates regarding details of what a female prisoner of war needs to go through if a Jewish man wishes to marry her. Does she grow her nails or cut them? Does she cry over her parents or over the idols she is leaving behind? How many days does she cry – 30 or 90? Can one keep Canaanite slaves if they don’t do a circumcision? There is a debate on this issue between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. From what verses in the Torah are their opinions derived? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that one who purchases a slave from a gentile and doesn’t want to be circumcised can be kept for a year but if after a year, he still doesn’t want to become circumcised, the owner must sell him back to a gentile. Does this fit only with Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion or can it be explained also according to Rabbi Akiva? Ravin said in the name of others that if one purchased a slave under the condition that he not be circumcised, then he can keep him uncircumcised. Does this fit only with Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion or can it be explained also according to Rabbi Akiva? Why do converts suffer in the world? The Gemara brings four answers.

Yevamot 47 - Shabbat April 23, 22 Nissan Apr 21, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored by Devorah Radomsky in honor of her daughter, Elisheva Yehudit on the occasion of her Bat Mitzvah.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Yechiel Berkowicz. “In loving memory of my mother Sara F. Berkowicz. She was a holocaust survivor, a fighter, and a strong believer in Jewish education.”

Article by Rabbi David Brofsky - The Role of Beit Din and the Immersion of Female Converts

Tshuva by Rabbi Jeffrey Fox

Article by Michal Tikochinsky (in Hebrew)

If someone says they are a convert, do we believe them? What type of proof is necessary and on what does it depend? Is there a difference between conversions in Israel and abroad? One needs to convert in front of a court - one cannot convert on one’s own. A case was brought where someone was assumed to be a Jew and then they said they converted on their own. Rabbi Yehuda ruled that they should accept his testimony about himself that he was no longer considered Jewish, but not to mess up his children. The Gemara questions Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling based on another ruling of his regarding a father’s testimony being accepted to mess up his child. Rav Nachman and Rava each bring different answers to resolve this contradiction. What is the procedure when someone comes forward saying that they wish to convert? First, we try to discourage them – why? But if they persist we accept them – this is derived from Naomi’s acceptance of Ruth. How many are needed to be present during the immersion in the mikveh? A Canaanite slave who is freed needs to immerse in a mikveh – but does he need to accept mitzvot when immersing?

Yevamot 46 - 7th Day of Pesach, April 22, 21 Nissan Apr 21, 2022

Rav said that one who purchases a Canaanite slave from a gentile does not yet have full rights to the slave and therefore if the slave goes to a mikveh for the sake of converting, he is considered a Jew and is freed from slavery. Why? A contradiction is brought, and is resolved. Rav Avia limits this to exclude a case where one purchases the slave directly from the slave himself, but his limitation is questioned. A Canaanite slave needs to go in a mikveh and is circumcised as he becomes part of the household of the Jewish owner. In order to prevent the slave from releasing himself during the process of going to the mikveh, Shmuel suggests doing that when putting him in the mikveh, one needs to make sure to make it clear that there is an owner/slave relationship. When Rabbi Chiya bar Abba came to a particular city, he saw a number of things that people were not doing properly. They had Jewish women impregnated by men who had become circumcised to convert but had not yet gone to the mikveh, Jews were drinking wine poured by gentiles and eating lupines cooked by gentiles. After consulting with Rabbi Yochanan, he reprimanded the people for all these actions. What was problematic about each of them? There is a three-way debate regarding partial acts of conversion – only circumcision, only mikveh – is one considered converted or not? What are the reasons for each opinion? By which opinion do we hold?

Yevamot 45 - April 21, 20 Nissan Apr 21, 2022

Today's daf is dedicated by Deborah Hoffman-Wade "in grateful appreciation for my 90-year-old mother, Geraldine Hoffman, who gave birth to me 69 years ago today. She continues to be a blessing!"

What is the status of a child born to a non-Jewish father or Canaanite slave and Jewish mother? Is the child a mamzer? Is the child not a mamzer, but disqualified from marrying a kohen? There were different opinions regarding this issue. Rabbi Yochanan said that all agree that the child is a mamzer. To who is he referring when he said "all agree"? First the Gemara suggests Rabbi Shimon Hatimni. But after a question was raised, Rav Yosef explains that it is Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi who ruled that the child is a mamzer. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who permitted this child, held that the child could not marry a kohen. Abaye challenges Rav Yosef by bringing a different tradition regarding Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi in which he rules leniently. A case was brought regarding a female captive who was pregnant. Rabbi Ami wanted to declare the child a mamzer based on the opinions of Rabbi Yochanan, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Chanina, but Rav Yosef countered him by saying: If you are holding that way because you have a lot of rabbis who say that, I can provide a longer list of rabbis who disagree - Rav and Shmuel in Babylonia and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Bar Kapara in Israel. However, Rav Yosef corrected Rabbi Ami by saying we rule the child is a mamzer because Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi ruled that way. Even though Rav did permit such a child to marry a Jew, a certain person (who was born from a non-Jewish father came before Rav and after hearing Rav's ruling to permit, he asked to marry Rav's daughter. But Rav would not agree to this. Rav was criticized for this as he was not willing to act on his word; however, Rav stood strong and explained why he was unwilling. Rav got upset at the one who asked him the question and caused his death. If someone is a half slave/half free man and has a child with a Jewish woman, what is the status of the child? This question was asked to Raba and he answered that the child is not a mamzer. Rav Yosef questioned this by stating that it must be based on Rav Yehuda who rules that a child of a slave and a Jewish woman is not a mamzer, but Rav Yehuda said elsewhere that the child of a half slave/half free man has no solution (meaning, the child is a mamzer). How can the contradiction be resolved? If a slave/gentile has relations with a married woman, is it treated like a married woman (i.e. child is a mamzer) or is there no issue of "married woman" status in relations with a gentile/slave? This is a subject of debate among different rabbis. Rava permitted Rav Meri the son of Rachel and a gentile (who later converted) to be an official in Babylonia as he considered him fully Jewish as it follows the mother. A gentile woman immersed in the mikveh by the slave of Rabbi Chiya bar Ami for purposes of nidda, but Rav Yosef said that it can count for her conversion as well. A few other similar cases are brought.

Yevamot 44 - April 20, 19 Nissan Apr 20, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 44

The Mishna explains that if there are four brothers who all die childless, the oldest brother can do yibum with each of their wives. How can one marry four wives – isn’t that not financially responsible? One who has two wives, only one of them needs to do yibum or chalitza. From where is this derived? Why wouldn’t both be required? Why not just have one do yibum and the other chalitza? Rabbi Akiva holds that one who marries someone who is forbidden by a negative commandment, the child born from that union is a mamzer. The rabbis hold that only when it is a union that is punishable by karet. The example brought in which the rabbis agree that the child is a mamzer is the case of one who marries the relative of their divorcee. The Mishna mentioned that Rabbi Akiva said that one who marries the relative of their chalutza, the child is a mamzer. But isn’t that only forbidden by rabbinic law? A suggestion is made to change the text to the relative of their divorcee. The Gemara tries to find support from this from the wording in the Mishna but this proof is rejected. A different answer is brought to explain why Rabbi Akiva says the relative of his chalutza can create a mamzer, as it can be derived from the Torah. Rav Yosef said that all agree that the child born from one who remarries his divorcee after she married someone else in the interim is disqualified from marrying a kohen. Three questions are raised against this – two are answered but one is not. Therefore, Rav Yosef’s statement is emended to say that all agree that if a man marries a woman who is forbidden to him by karet, the child cannot marry a kohen. Who is “all” who agree according to Rav Yosef? This is derived from a kal vachomer from a widow.

Yevamot 43 - April 19, 18 Nissan Apr 19, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 43

Rabbi Avahu said that whenever there is a Mishna with an unattributed opinion and the same topic has a debate in a braita, we hold by the Mishna. A difficulty is raised against this from an unattributed opinion in a Mishna in Kelim 13:8 and it is a source of debate in a braita and yet, we do not hold like the Mishna. Rabbi Avahu answered that this Mishna was an exception to the rule as Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish both held that the Mishna itself was inaccurate. What about the Mishna was inaccurate? The Gemara suggests a number of possibilities until it found an answer that worked – that the Mishna actually ended with the words “this is Rabbi Shimon’s opinion” and therefore was not an unattributed Mishna. There are varying opinions regarding exactly how long the waiting period is for a woman to get betrothed? Does one need three full months or can it be two and a half? If three full months are needed, is the day of death/day of the bethrothal included in the count? Rabbi Yosi said in the Mishna that a widow cannot get engaged immediately because she needs to mourn. A difficulty is raised from laws of Tisha B’av and the days leading up to it as laws of mourning are in effect and yet one can get betrothed. A number of solutions are suggested, some of which emend the text of the Mishna. However, questions are raised against the second emendation of the text. And ultimately all the answers brought are rejected and the difficulty from Tisha B’av is answered by saying there is a tannaitic debate and each source holds by a different opinion. Rav Ashi raises a question on this answer as well and responds by distinguishing between mourning on Tisha B’av and mourning for a dead relative as they are not the same type of mourning.

Yevamot 42 - April 18, 17 Nissan Apr 18, 2022

If chalitza was performed within the first three months after the husband’s death, the woman needs to wait three months before remarrying. Is it three months from the chalitza or from the death? What is the reason why all women need to wait three months before remarrying after death or divorce from their husband? The first explanation is that we want to be able to know who the son belongs to as God presents rests upon those who can trace their lineage. Rava says it is to prevent forbidden marriages – he brings four examples of issues that could arise, such as, marrying one’s sister without realizing. Also a convert needs to wait – why? The Gemara tries to figure out why a shorter time period would not have been sufficient. Why can’t we use other methods to determine whether or not the woman was pregnant? If we know she is pregnant, she still cannot get married as there is a different issue - that a man cannot marry a pregnant or nursing woman. Why is that prohibited? There were three opinions in the Mishna regarding which women need to wait three months before remarrying. According to which opinion do we hold? Rabbi Yochanan held like Rabbi Yosi who permitted women who were engaged to remarry, but it seems he changed his mind and required all women to wait three months. In what cases does Rabbi Yochanan hold like an unattributed opinion in a Mishna? What are the rules?

Yevamot 41 - April 17, 16 Nissan Apr 17, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

What is the reason why that a man can marry the relative of the tzara of a chalutza but not the tzara of the relative of his chalutza? If a man performs chalitza with his yevama or gets divorced, and his brother marries her sister and dies childless, he cannot do yibum, but is he obligated to perform chalitza with her? If one falls to yibum to two brothers and in the meantime, one betroths her sister, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira requires him to wait until the other brother deals with the yevama (does yibum or chalitza) and only then can he marry the sister. Alternatively, if the yevama dies, he can marry his wife. If the other brother dies, he must divorce his wife and perform chalitza with the yevama. A question was asked - what if the betrothed woman died, can he perform yibum with the yevama - is she forbidden to him because she was already forbidden at the time of the betrothal, or since the reason she was forbidden is no longer relevant, can we permit him to perform yibum with her? Rav and Rabbi Chanina permit. Shmuel and Rav Asi forbid. Rav Hamnuna questions Rav from a Mishna (Yevamot 29a) where a yevama was permitted and then forbidden and then remained forbidden. Rav didn't respond to the question. Rava suggests that Rav could have attributed the Mishna to Rabbi Elazar (Yevamot 109a). Can we really line up the opinions of Rabbi Elazar and the rabbis with Rav and Shmuel's opinions here? Are the cases similar or can one distinguish between them? A woman needs to wait three months before yibum or chalitza to make sure she isn't pregnant. Does this apply to all situations or are there exceptions? There is a debate in the Mishna regarding this issue. Why does she need to wait if chalitza is being done? Can this be used to question Rabbi Yochanan's opinion that the chalitza of a pregnant woman is a valid chalitza? The Gemara offers three answers, as the first two are rejected. Who is responsible for mezonot (providing sustenance) for the yevama until such time that yibum/chalitza is performed?

Yevamot 40 - Shabbat, First Day of Pesach, April 16, 15 Nissan Apr 15, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

A braita is brought regarding the leftovers of the meal offering which has a similar structure to the braita on Yevamot 39 regarding the mitzva of yibum. On the yibum braita we had two different interpretations. Which one fits better with the meal offering braita. And how can we read the braita according to the other interpretation? What is the connection between inheritance and yibum? Does the brother who does yibum always inherit the dead brother’s property? Does it depend if his father is still alive? Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis debate this issue. The rabbis forbade one who does chalitza to the relatives of the chalutza and forbade her to his relative, as if they were divorced. Which relatives of each are forbidden to the other? Does this apply to rabbinic relationships that are forbidden?

Yevamot 39 - April 15, 14 Nissan Apr 15, 2022

Why didn’t Abaye question Raba from the ketuba in our Mishna where the woman’s family has a non-definitive claim to her money while the yabam has a definitive claim (as the property is in his possession) and yet they split the proceeds according to Beit Shamai? To answer that question, they reread the Mishna and claim that Beit Shamai wasn’t relating to that case. Abaye brings a third explanation of the two parts of the Mishna by distinguishing between when the property came to the woman. The first part is referring to property given to her when she was waiting for yibum, therefore the yabam has no claim to the property. The second was referring to property that was given to her when she was married to the first husband, which would then go by default to the yabam upon the husband’s death. According to Abaye, the debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel regards whether or not the husband's hand is considered like the wife's hand in her possession or is it stronger than the wife's hand. The yabam's hand will always be weaker than the original husband - if so, he will either have as much power as the woman or less. Rava beings a fourth explanation of the Mishna - the first part is when the yabam did not yet do maamar and in the second part he did do maamar. Those who agree/disagree with Rava each have different understandings of Beit Shamai's position regarding maamar - did Beit Shamai just say it was strong enough to exempt her relative (i.e. if her sister fell to yibum to the yabam that she did maamar with). Or is it strong enough to give him rights to her property? Rav Papa thinks that the Mishna fits best with Abaye's reading, except for the fact that the second part is about the woman dying when it could have easily brought the case of her still alive and regarding the produce. The Mishna stated that she is his wife for all intents and purposes - for what purposes? Why is this necessary to have been mentioned? Ideally the oldest brother should do yibum. But if he does not, the court asks each of the brothers. In the event that no one wants to do it, the court goes back to the oldest brother and requires him to do it. One does not wait for a brother who is not available at present to do yibum if there are others to do it. There are two versions of a dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. The first version is if there is a younger brother who will do yibum or an older brother who will do chalitza, which is preferable. In the second version, all agree that a younger brother who will do yibum is preferable, but the debate is regarding chalitza - is there a preference for the older brother or is he and a younger brother equal if they are only doing chalitza? Our Mishna is brought according to each version to try to prove on or the other opinion but all attempts are unsuccessful. A Mishan is Bechorot 13a states that originally yibum was preferable, but now chalitza is preferable as people are not doing yibum with the intention of the mitzva. Rav stills holds, though, that the choice is up to the brother and we do not force him to do chalitza. Rami bar Hama holds that the law changed yet again and yibum is ideal. Why? The Gemara explains his position that they originally held like Abba Shaul that one cannot perform yibum unless one only intends to perform the mitzva, but not because he finds her beautiful or just wishes to marry her. But then they held like the rabbis who permitted yibum in any case. A braita is brought that is explained in two different ways - one way to match Abba Shaul and the other to match the rabbis.

Yevamot 38 - April 14, 13 Nissan Apr 14, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored by Elisa Hartstein in honor of her oldest daughter finishing her army service today "also in tremendous appreciation for all of our Chayalot and Chayalim, present and past, who make our lives here in Israel possible every single day."

Today's daf is sponsored by Mona & David Schwartz and family in loving memory of Mary Horowitz, Miriam Etel bat Aharon Halevi & Mirel Meltzer on her 28th yahrzeit. "She was a woman whose home exemplified hachanasat orchim".

Today's daf is sponsored by Medinah Korn in loving memory of her maternal grandmother, Betty Egert Landesman, Baila Toibe bat Avraham Aryeh ve-Tsirel Devorah, and her paternal grandfather, Jacob Katchen, Yaakov ben Meyer Zev ve-Malka Rashe, on their 40th yahrzeit. "Though we lost them too soon, and did not have an official shiva period that snowy Erev Pesach in 1982, their legacy of the centrality of family, commitment to community, tradition, and so much more, has stayed with us all these years. Yehi zichram baruch."

In a case where the child was potentially born to the first husband or to the yabam (if yibum was performed within three months of the death and she was pregnant soon after), in what cases can the child inherit from one father or the other or the grandfather? Mostly his claims are unsubstantiated, however, in cases where he has a definitive claim, he can collect. When a woman is waiting for yibum, what is the status of her property? Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel agree that she can sell her property at her will as her potential yabam has no rights to her possessions. But if she dies, they disagree about who inherits her property – does it go back to her family or does it go to the yabam? Four different explanations are brought to explain the Mishna and the difference between the two parts of the Mishna – why do they both agree about the first case that the woman has clear rights to the property, but disagree about the second? According to Ulla, they are each referring to a different situation – the first part is a woman who was only engaged to the man who died and the second part is one who is married. Her relationship to the yabam in the first part is considered safek (a case of doubt) engaged to her and in the second part, safek married. According to Raba, in both cases she was married; the difference is that in the first part she was still alive, in which case her claim to the property is stronger than in the second part when she is no longer alive and the people claiming rights to it each don’t have a clear claim to the property (even though the yabam is the one with a better claim on it as it is in his possession). Therefore, in the second part, Beit Shamai rules that they split the property. Abaye questions Raba - does Beit Shamai really hold that in a case where one has a definitive claim and the other’s claim is not definitive (safek), does the one with a definitive claim have full rights to the object in question? This question is strengthened by a Mishna in Bava Batra 157 regarding a house that falls and kills a man and his father, and it is unclear who died first and a dispute ensues between the heirs of the son and those to who he owes money. Beit Shamai rules that they split it. Why wouldn’t the heirs be considered as if they have a definitive claim while the creditors do not? Beit Shamai gives them rights to it for a different reason, which is proven by laws of a Sotah whose husband dies before drinking the Sotah waters. Beit Shamai rules that she can collect her ketuba even though she does not have a definitive claim. It seems it can be collected because a document that is ready to be collected is considered as if it is already collected. Why didn’t Abaye question Raba from the Sotah case? Perhaps a ketuba is different as it was instituted to protect the women in order to encourage them to get married and therefore it is able to be collected even without a definitive claim. Why didn’t Abaye question Raba from the ketuba in our Mishna where the woman’s family has a non-definitive claim to her money while the yabam has a definitive claim (as the property is in his possession) and yet they split the proceeds according to Beit Shamai? To answer that question, they reread the Mishna and claim that Beit Shamai wasn’t relating to that case. Abaye brings a third explanation of the two parts of the Mishna by distinguishing between when the property came to the woman. The first part is referring to property given to her when she was waiting for yibum, therefore the yabam has no claim to the property. The second was property that was given to her when she was married to the first husband, which would then go by default to the yabam upon the husband’s death.

Yevamot 37 - April 13, 12 Nissan Apr 13, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 37

This month's learning is sponsored by Dora Chana Haar and family for the refuah shleima of Chava Naami bat Daba Chana.

How do we rule with a baby who dies within the first month - is the baby considered viable and exempts the mother and brother from yibum or is it a case of doubt? What are the consequences for a woman who was betrothed to a man and hadn't done yibum? Is there a difference between one who was betrothed to a kohen or not? If they married immediately after the husband's death and did not wait the necessary three months and a child was born, the couple brings a hanging guilt offering? Why not go with the presumption that most women give birth after nine months and therefore require a definite sin offering? If a child is possibly a mamzer, but not definitively, can he marry a mamzeret (female mamzer)? Different opinions are presented. What are inheritance laws for this child who is potentially the son of either the first husband or his brother? The Gemara gives various examples where there will be an argument for each side to inherit and determines what is the law in each case.

Yevamot 36 - April 12, 11 Nissan Apr 12, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 36

Today's daf is sponsored by Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld "Thank you to my Hadran family for your care and concern after my recent accident. May we all share Smachot in good health!"

After rejecting Abaye's resolution to the difficulty against Rabbi Yochanan's position regarding yibum and chalitza of a pregnant woman, Rava answers the difficulty in a different manner. A braita is brought to support his position, which is then used to question Reish Lakish's position. That difficulty is resolved as well. Rabbi Elazar finds a Mishna that supports Reish Lakish's position, however, the support is rejected by the Gemara. A braita is brought to strengthen Reish Lakish's opinion and Rava paskens like Reish Lakish on this issue and on two others, relating to monetary law. Our Mishna said that if the child was not viable, then the couple could stay married. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and says they must divorce. Is this the same as Rabbi Meir's opinion regarding a man who marries a pregnant or nursing woman?

Yevamot 35 - April 11, 10 Nissan Apr 11, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 35

Two different versions of Shmuel's statement are brought regarding what case does a woman not need to wait three months before marrying. Is it regarding a Canaanite slave and a gentile who are minors or is referring to them, but over 12? If his statement is referring to older women, then one can infer that Jewish girls who are minors also do not have to wait three months and that it is regarding cases of znut, licentious relations. If so, why are we not concerned about gentile women engaging in licentious behavior? We assume they use birth control, as is found in the opinion of Rabbi Yosi. Why can we assume that? The Mishna mentioned that kohanot who were accidentally switched after the marriage are disqualified from the kehuna. What does this mean? The fourth chapter begins with a case where chalitza or yibum was performed and then they realized the woman was pregnant. Normally we wait three months before doing yibum or chalitza for this reason, but the Mishna discusses a case where they didn't wait. If the baby does not survive, the chalitza or yibum was retroactively valid. If the baby survived, it is invalid and has no ramifications for forbidding relationships with each of their relatives. However, if yibum was performed, they will need separate (without divorce, as the marriage was invalid) and bring a sin offering. If it is unclear to whom the child belongs, we make the couple separate, the child is fine no matter what as either way was born to a legitimate father and the couple needs to bring a hanging guilt offering. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish debate about whether the woman needs to do chalitza again if she was pregnant when she did chalitza and the baby didn't survive. Each explains their approach and questions are raised against each opinion from our Mishna.

Yevamot 34 - April 10, 9 Nissan Apr 10, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 34

This week's learning is sponsored by Sharon Hirsch in honor of her daughter, daughters-in-law and granddaughters.

Today's learning is sponsored by Rikki and Alan Zibitt in loving memory of Rikki's mother, Frieda Carlin, Fraidl bat Meir v'Rivka on the occasion of her 7th Yahrzeit. May her neshama have an Aliyah.

After discussing the different opinions of Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yosi regarding actions that could possibly incur multiple prohibitions, the Gemara associates our Mishna with the opinion of Rabbi Meir who holds that in cases of prohibitions that are inclusive (issur kollel) and ones that are expanded (issur mosif) and ones that happen at the same time, one is obligated for each one (issur chal al issur). This is proven by a Mishna in Keritot regarding an impure person who ate on Yom Kippur forbidden fats from a sacrifice that were leftover beyond their time (notar) – they are obligated to bring four sin offerings and one guilt offering. Rabbi Meir there adds that if it was Shabbat and the person was eating it as they walked out on one domain and into another, they would be obligated as well for carrying on Shabbat. This case includes all three types. How does the ruling regarding the mistake in the kiddushin relate to a debate regarding one who makes a mistake while performing a mitzva? The Gemara suggests that the Mishna could also be explained according to Rabbi Shimon if it can be explained that all the prohibitions came simultaneously. Rav Amram brings a possible scenario in which this could be. There is an assumption that women can’t (or likely do not) get pregnant the first time they have sexual relations. If so, why does the Mishna rule that the woman needs to wait three months before going back to her actual husband? An answer is brought to resolve the question. Didn’t Tamar get pregnant during her first time having relations? Firstly, the Gemara establishes how they know she was still a virgin. Then they resolve the question. Another issue regarding impurity that relates to the assumption that women don’t get pregnant from their first time having relations is discussed. Rabbi Yochanan said that a woman who was married and the marriage ended and she waited more than ten years before getting remarried, could no longer bear children. However, Rav Nachman limits this to one who did not have a desire to get remarried during that time. A few cases of this are brought including Rav Chisda's daughter’s marriage to Rava which was after ten years of her being married to Rami bar Hama, and yet she bore children from that marriage. What women do not have to wait three months before remarrying?

Yevamot 33 - Shabbat April 9, 8 Nissan Apr 08, 2022

There are three different interpretations brought to explain what the issue of debate was between Rabbi Chiya and Bar Kapara in the three cases in the braita. Were they debating whether issur chal al issur regarding an issur kollel according to Rabbi Yosi? Or was it regarding a case when both prohibitions came about at the same time and according to Rabbi Yosi? Or both at the same time, but according to Rabbi Shimon? The Gemara analyzes the different options and rejects the first two. What is the Shabbat prohibition in the case of a non-kohen who works in the Temple on Shabbat? If two men betrothed two women and they switched them after the kiddushin, what happens if each one takes home the other’s wife? The Gemara establishes that the Mishna must have been referring to a case where it was unintentional.

Yevamot 32 - April 8, Nissan 7 Apr 08, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 32

Presentation in PDF format

Today’s daf is sponsored by Belinda Kreike in loving memory of Esther Kreike, Esther Bas Yehuda Nossan Hacohen on her 8th yahrzeit. “She is remembered fondly by her family in Manchester and Israel.”

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Baumel-Schwartz in honor of her daughter, Beki's birthday! "I am constantly amazed by her enthusiasm for learning new things, and am thrilled that she has joined the Hadran Daf Yomi community. May all her dreams come true. Happy Birthday!"

If a woman does maamar in order to subsequently fulfill yibum with her deceased husband's brother, and then he dies, can she do yibum with a third brother? The rabbis say no as she is falling to yibum from two different men and this is not permitted. Rabbi Shimon permits as he does not view maamer as significant and therefore she is only performing yibum for her first husband. What if the husband undoes the maamar by giving a get, is she then permitted according to the rabbis or not? If two brothers marry two sisters and after the first brother dies childless, the sister married to the other brother dies. The first one's wife cannot do yibum as she was prohibited at the time she fell to yibum. Why is this Mishna mentioned - we already learned this in the Mishna on Yevamot 30?! If one has relations with a woman who is both his brother's wife and his wife's sister, is he obligated on two counts or one? Rabbi Shimon says one, Rabbi Yosi holds two. But elsewhere Rabbi Yosi says one only receives one punishment even if there were two transgressions as a prohibition cannot apply when there is another prohibition already there. How can we resolve this? Two answers are brought. Rabbi Avahu holds that Rabbi Yosi only holds this way in the case of issur mosif and not in the case of issur kollel. Rava explains it differently. Is this a source of debate among tannaim as well?

Yevamot 31 - April 7, 6 Nissan Apr 07, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

Today's daf is sponsored by Daniel and Sara Berelowitz in honor of their granddaughter, Chamutal Matalon's Bat Mitzvah.

Why did the Mishna not mention a case of doubt in divorce when he threw her the get and it is unclear if it was closer to him or closer to her? Raba answers, but Abaye tries to ascertain why the same issues wouldn't apply to kiddushin. The cases are different as in a case of doubt about divorce, the chazaka (presumptive status) is that the woman is married and would thereby exempt the co-wife, whereas, in the case of doubt about kiddushin, the chazaka is that she is unmarried and would not exempt the co-wife. Therefore, in kiddushin we are stringent and have the co-wife do chalitza and we are not worried that perhaps one may accidentally do yibum if chalitza is permitted, as based on the chazaka, the co-wife is obligating in yibum. Abaye questions the explanation that chazaka in a divorce would lead us to assume the woman was married and the co-wife exempt, so why in a case when a house fell on a husband and wife and killed them both and we are unsure who died first, we have the co-wife do chalitza (just in case the husband died first)? There is reason to distinguish between the two cases - two different suggestions are brought. A further question is raised from an explanation on a Mishna that states that in a case of doubt of divorce - when it is unclear if the get was closer to him or her - we have the co-wife do chalitza. The answer is that the case there had two sets of witnesses - one said it was closer to him and one said it was closer to her. On account of the witnesses, we no longer rely on the chazaka. How do we know that our Mishna is only one set of witnesses? And is it really the case that with two sets of witnesses, we don't rely on the chazaka? Based on a source that indicated otherwise, we reject this line of reasoning and suggest that the Mishna in fact included the case of a doubt of divorce when it is unclear if the get was closer to him or her and require chalitza. What is left to explain is why the Mishna uses the language "this is a case of..." which seems to exclude other cases. The answer given is that it excludes cases of kiddushin that are similar to the divorce cases - like a document that doesn't have a date as a date is not important in kiddushin. Why? Two answers are given.

Yevamot 30 - April 6, 5 Nissan Apr 06, 2022

Today's daf is sponsored by Bernie & Susannnah Goldstein in gratitude for their family recovering from COVID. "לולי תורתך שעשועיי, אז אבדתי בעוניי. Daf Yomi during the pandemic has been a real source of strength. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran team for making it accessible."

Several different variations are brought in the Mishnayot of three brothers, each married to two sisters and a third wife, unrelated. In each situation one brother dies, another does yibum and then dies as well. The order of events is different as to who died first, was someone divorced at some point, etc. The Gemara tries to establish the differences between the cases that necessitated the Mishna to bring each one and what halakhot can be derived from each Mishna. When Rav states something that seems to be clear from the Mishsna, the Gemara infers that he must be teaching us something further, that once a woman is unable to do yibum with the brother at the moment she falls to yibum to him, she is never permitted to him, even if during the first "fall to yibum" her sister dies. From the first Mishna here, Rav Nachman infers that there is no zika, but from another Mishna, Rav Ashi infers that there is zika. How can each explain the other Mishna to fit with their approach? An inference from a Mishna here contradicts the Mishna on Yevamot 2b, as here it seems if the sister dies before the second wife marries her husband, she is not considered her co-wife, but in Yevamot 2, it's clear that as long as she dies before yibum, she is not considered a co-wife to be exempted in the case of erva on account of the other wife. Two resolutions are suggested. If there is a doubt about whether the wife who is erva is maybe betrothed or maybe not to the husband or maybe divorced, maybe not, his other wife (to whom he is certainly married) needs to do chalitza. Why?

Yevamot 29 - April 5, 4 Nissan Apr 05, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

Study Guide Yevamot 29

What is the law if two women who are relatives of each other (to whom a man can't marry both) fall to one brother for yibum. Are they exempt or do they need chalitza? There is a debate in the Mishna. The Mishna lists outgrowths of this case that are very similar to those in the Mishna of Yevamot 26. Why are they repeated here? Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel have a debate about the strength of maamar. Rabbi Elazar tries to figure out how strong maamar is according to Beit Shamai - is it a complete act or is it just strong enough to prevent his wife's sister from becoming connected to him if he husband were his brother and died? A different version of Rabbi Elazar is brought suggesting that perhaps it is not even enough to get rid of the zika of her sister. However, that suggestion is rejected based on the case in our Mishna. Rabba asks if maamar according to Beit Shamai is like betrothal or marriage. What is the relevance of his question? They attempt to answer it but are unsuccessful.

Yevamot 28 - April 4, 3 Nissan Apr 04, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 28

Today's daf is sponsored by Tina Senders Lamm for a refuah shleima of Fruma Devorah bat Chana.

Rabbi Yochanan had answered the difficulty raised by Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chanina based on the Mishna by rejecting the Mishna. The Gemara suggests all sorts of other possibilities Rabbi Yochanan could have used without having to reject the reading of the Mishna and then explains the weakness of each suggestion. Another question is raised against Rabbi Yochanan from the continuation of our Mishna. To resolve this, the Gemara answers that the case in the Mishna happened in a particular order. There are different versions brought of the debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel mentioned in the Mishna regarding a case where both brothers went ahead (against the law) and married both sisters, do they need to divorce them? A comparison is made between the cases in our Mishna and cases brought in the Mishna on Yevamot 20. Since they are based on the same principle, why are the cases in our Mishna necessary? Why was it necessary for our Mishna to bring a case when two sisters are forbidden to both brothers to whom they fall to yibum, if it already brought a case of one forbidden to one brother? Couldn't we derive one from the other? Why was the second part of the Mishna brought (with two women who are forbidden to two brothers) when that could have been derived from the earlier case in the Mishna of one sister forbidden to one of the brothers? "This is the case of..." What is it coming to exclude and why? The braita of Rabbi Chiya is brought who connected the Mishna to the first Mishna in Yevamot and said that all of those cases of forbidden relationships (15) can have a case of two sisters who are each forbidden to one of the brothers and therefore can each do yibum with the other. There are three interpretations brought as to whether it can really apply to all the cases of the Mishna or not.

Yevamot 27 - April 3, 2 Nissan Apr 03, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 27

Presentation in PDF format.

Today's daf is dedicated by Natasha Shabat in memory of Miriam Chaya bat R'fael, taken from us too soon, on March 24th. "From St. Paul Academy, to Harvard, to my many trips back to Minneapolis over the years, I always looked up to you as a model of yirat shamayim and pure love of HaShem."

Two explanations are brought to explain Shmuel's position of what is done when three sisters fall to yibum to two brothers. The first explanation is that one brother can do chalitza for all three. A question is raised on this as Shmuel does not think that a weak chalitza will work - if so, how does he permit one brother to do chalitza for all the sisters when there is another brother who can do a better chalitza to the second sister. As a result of this difficulty, the first explanation is modified. Once Shmuel's second explanation is brought, the Gemara delves into the statement of Shmuel regarding a weakened chalitza and discusses various statements of Shmuel regarding situations where it is preferable to do chalitza with one wife over the other. Again, there are two different explanations brought to explain one of the cases that Shmuel brings. One assumes Shmuel doesn't hold by zika and the other assumes he does. Another question regarding preferences for chalitza is asked and answered. If two sisters fall to one brother, what is done? What if one of them dies? Does it matter which one? Rav and Rabbi Yochanan disagree on this matter. A question is raised on each opinion.

Yevamot 26 - Shabbat April 2, Rosh Chodesh Nissan, 1 Nissan Apr 01, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

If the men mentioned in the previous Mishnayot were married to other women at the time they testified/ruled, etc. and then their wife died, they would be allowed to marry the women mentioned. Is this the case only if they died and are not divorced? On what does it depend? Does this mean that if a woman had two husbands who die (as first he testified that her husband died, then her second husband died) she can still marry a third time, as we don’t hold like Rebbi who holds that a chazaka is created by two instances, not three? If the women were married to others in the interim, then also, they could marry. In the cases where they are forbidden to marry them, she is permitted to his son or brother. Why is this the case, when it says in a different case that when the wife is forbidden, her daughter, mother, and sister are forbidden as well? The third chapter starts with a case of four brothers of which two of them marry two sisters, and then die childless. The women must do chalitza and not yibum as each man theoretically has to marry two sisters and that is forbidden. The Gemara explains this in two possible ways. The first, because we hold there is zika (when she falls to yibum to him, it is as if they are married, and he has the zika of two sisters which is forbidden. The second, perhaps after the third brother does yibum with one, the fourth brother will die, and then there will be no opportunity to perform the mitzva of yibum (or chalitza) as she is forbidden to him on account of his wife, her sister and it is forbidden to cause the mitzva of yibum to be canceled. The Mishna also listed a number of unique cases of four brothers and two sisters where each one can marry one of the brothers or one can and the other cannot. What if they did yibum anyway? Do they have to get divorced or not? According to Rabbi Eliezer, it is a debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel. There is a debate between Rav and Shmuel regarding a case of three sisters who fell to yibum to three brothers. First, they understand Rav is talking about when all the brothers died at once. They correct it to a case of each of the brothers dying one after the other with the chalitza of each wife being performed before the next brother dies. Shmuel’s opinion will be explained in two ways in the continuation of this sugya.

Yevamot 26 - Shabbat April 2, Rosh Chodesh Nissan, 1 Nissan Apr 01, 2022

Presentation in PDF format

If the men mentioned in the previous Mishnayot were married to other women at the time they testified/ruled, etc. and then their wife died, they would be allowed to marry the women mentioned. Is this the case only if they died and are not divorced? On what does it depend? Does this mean that if a woman had two husbands who die (as first he testified that her husband died, then her second husband died) she can still marry a third time, as we don’t hold like Rebbi who holds that a chazaka is created by two instances, not three? If the women were married to others in the interim, then also, they could marry. In the cases where they are forbidden to marry them, she is permitted to his son or brother. Why is this the case, when it says in a different case that when the wife is forbidden, her daughter, mother, and sister are forbidden as well? The third chapter starts with a case of four brothers of which two of them marry two sisters, and then die childless. The women must do chalitza and not yibum as each man theoretically has to marry two sisters and that is forbidden. The Gemara explains this in two possible ways. The first, because we hold there is zika (when she falls to yibum to him, it is as if they are married, and he has the zika of two sisters which is forbidden. The second, perhaps after the third brother does yibum with one, the fourth brother will die, and then there will be no opportunity to perform the mitzva of yibum (or chalitza) as she is forbidden to him on account of his wife, her sister and it is forbidden to cause the mitzva of yibum to be canceled. The Mishna also listed a number of unique cases of four brothers and two sisters where each one can marry one of the brothers or one can and the other cannot. What if they did yibum anyway? Do they have to get divorced or not? According to Rabbi Eliezer, it is a debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel. There is a debate between Rav and Shmuel regarding a case of three sisters who fell to yibum to three brothers. First, they understand Rav is talking about when all the brothers died at once. They correct it to a case of each of the brothers dying one after the other with the chalitza of each wife being performed before the next brother dies. Shmuel’s opinion will be explained in two ways in the continuation of this sugya.

Yevamot 25 - April 1, 29 Adar 2 Apr 01, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored by Elisheva Gray in honor of Avivah Zornberg. “Mazal tov to my dear teacher and friend on the birth of your new book! Todah Rabah for continuing to illuminate the pages of Torah with your unique voice, your grace and your deep well of Jewish and worldly wisdom. Mazal tov, and may you go from strength to strength.”

If one is suspected of having had a sexual relationship with a married woman, she needs to get divorced from her husband and if she marries the other man, she is forced to get divorced. According to Rav, this is case where there were witnesses and it is clear that she committed adultery. On the previous daf, Rav Sheshet questions this understanding based on a braita and the Gemara answers for Rav. Another braita is also brought to raise a doubt on Rav. Two answers are brought – either the case is referring to a different scenario or the braita is Rebbi’s opinion but Rav disagrees. Rebbi is quoted in a braita as taking suspicions seriously when one has reason to think his wife has been with another man. The halacha is like Rebbi and Rav – how can that be? It depends on whether the rumor stops immediately or continues. What is considered “immediately”? The Mishna in Gitin 45b brings two cases – a husband who divorces his wife as he suspects her of cheating on him or because of vows she made. He is not allowed to remarry her if he wishes to. Raba bar Huna questions: What if he remarries her anyway, do they have to get divorced? Can we use the case in our Mishna (where we force the second husband – the one suspected of cheating with her - to divorce her) to answer the question? Are the cases comparable? If one brings a get from overseas and says it was written and signed in front of him (a requirement for a get brought from overseas) or he testifies that her husband died or he killed her husband on his own or with others, the woman is free to marry anyone except for him, since the evidence relies solely on him and therefore there is concern he is lying out of self-interest. Rabbi Yehuda doesn’t accept his testimony at all if he says “I killed her." How can we accept his testimony at all if he says “I killed her”, according to Tana Kama – as according to Rav Yosef, if one testifies that someone sodomized him willingly, his testimony is not accepted as he is making himself into a sinner and one who sins is not an acceptable witness! So why here, is his testimony acceptable? Do we need to say that RavYosef holds like Rabbi Yehuda or can it be explained in some other way? Perhaps we can distinguish between testimony to “free” a woman from being an aguna and the case of sodomy. Why does the Mishna mention both cases of “I killed her” and “we killed her”? What is the difference? If a chacham couldn’t nullify the vow of a woman who forbade herself to her husband, therefore causing them to divorce, he cannot marry her. But if he was on a court in front of which she refused marriage to her husband (miun) or performed chalitza, he can. Can we infer from here that on can nullify a vow before one person – if so, in what situation? Is it only in front of three people that we don’t suspect him of self-interest? In another source, it seems to indicate two is enough! In all these cases, if he married her anyway, does he have to divorce her? Can it be derived from the previous Mishna and if so, from what case?

Yevamot 24 - March 31, 28 Adar 2 Mar 31, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 24

Presentation in PDF format

The Gemara compares the case of the Mishna where after chalitza is performed with one sister, the other can do yibum and also if they both married the two sisters, we let them stay married, to the case of the Mishna in chapter 3 where both sisters can only do chalitza and if they do get marry the brothers, they must get divorced. The case here is one of doubt whereas the other is a case where each sister needs to do yibum, therefore we are stricter there as the connection of the yabam to the wives is stronger. A kohen is forbidden by rabbinic law to marry a woman who went through chalitza. Since it is only by rabbinic law, in our case, if he married the woman who underwent chalitza with the other husband’s brother, he can stay married. Preference is given to the older brother to do yibum. From where is this derived? Drashot on other parts of that verse are brought as well, such as the brother who does yibum inherits his brother’s property, one who is castrated is exempt from yibum. Why is the verse about the firstborn not used to derive other possible things, such as, only when there is a firstborn is yibum performed? If there is suspicion that one had a sexual relationship with a female slave or non-Jewish woman and the slave is freed or the non-Jewish woman converted, one cannot marry them. But if they did, they can stay married. However if one is suspected of having had a sexual relationship with a married woman, she needs to get divorced from her husband and if she marries the other man, she is forced to get divorced. Is this in a case where there were witnesses and it is clear that she committed adultery or not? Is it affected by whether or not she had children from her first marriage? Why?

Yevamot 23 - March 30, 27 Adar 2 Mar 30, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 23

Presentation in PDF format

Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda derived from the verse “the daughter of his father’s wife” to exclude a daughter of a union of his father and a Canaanite slave or a non-Jewish woman from being considered one’s sister. The drasha is based on the word “wife” which seems to imply proper marriage. The Gemara questions why that case was limited, but others were not, such as, a sister born out of wedlock or from a prohibited relationship (either regular negative commandment, or one punishable by karet). In the end, only the non-Jewish woman is derived from the verse regarding the “daughter of his father’s wife” and a different verse is used to derive a child from a Canaanite slave. From where do the rabbis derive the law about a non-Jewish woman (since they use the “daughter of his father’s wife” to teach that one who has relations with his sister who is also his father’s wife’s daughter is punished double)? They derive it from the verse that says not to marry off your daughters to gentiles as they will turn your son (grandson) away. This is the verse from where we learn that a child’s Jewishness goes by the mother. That leads us to say that if a man has a child with a non-Jewish woman, the child is not Jewish and therefore not considered one’s sister. If a person betrothed a woman and isn’t sure if he betrothed her or her sister, he needs to divorce them both. If he died childless before he divorces her, his brother does chalitza to each. If he has two brothers, one does chalitza with one of the women and then the other can do yibum with the other. What if both brothers went ahead and married the sisters (one to each)? What if all these scenarios took place with two different men who each betrothed one of the women but do not know which one? The Mishna plays out all the scenarios in the previous case, but with two and has some more permutations as well. The Gemara tries to see whether we can learn something from our Mishna about whether or not betrothal is valid in a case where the man and woman are not permitted to have sexual relations with each other.

Yevamot 22 - March 29. 26 Adar 2 Mar 29, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 22

Presentation in PDF format

Today's daf is sponsored by Rochel Cheifetz for the refuah shleima of Rabbi Chaim Wasserman, Rav Chaim Tzvi Ben Devora.

Today's daf is sponsored by Josh Blicker in honor of his wife, Atara on their wedding anniversary. "Here's to more years of depth in, marriage, Torah, and in life!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Brenda Coren and Achsah Weinberg in honor of their granddaughter, Talia Coren, on her 15th Birthday. "She started to learn Daf Yomi this past summer. We love you so much, and are proud of you too."

Is the wife of one’s paternal great uncle or one’s paternal great aunt (grandfather’s sister) forbidden? Even though it is not on the list of secondary forbidden relations in the braita, it seems to be among those left off the list. All the ones in Rabbi Chiya’s list were left off as well. Ameimar permits those cases (great aunts) and Rav Hillel questions him on this based on a list of Mar the son of Rabana who had 16 – eight of the braita, six of Rabbi Chiya and these two. In the end, they add another and connect these two to count as one (great aunt) but the list of Rabana is rejected as he hadn’t signed off on it and therefore it is considered unreliable. Rabbi Chiya’s list of forbidden relations by rabbinic law is brought and some questions are asked about it. Are the rabbinic laws about forbidden relationships relevant to converts, as once they convert, they are considered born again and not actually related to their relatives? Can one accept witnesses from a convert and his brother? Does it make a difference if they share the same mother or father? All brothers through the father are obligated in yibum, even mamzerim, but not ones born to a non-Jewish woman or a Caananite slave. Any child exempts the father’s wife from yibum, even if the child is a mamzer. He/she is considered his child for all intents and purposes. For example, a kohen can become impure to the child upon death and the child receives the death penalty for hitting or cursing one’s parent. But isn’t that law only true for ones who observe the laws, not ones who sin, such as one who gives birth to a mamzer? If one has relations with one’s sister who also shares both parents, is one obligated two sets of lashes, based on two different verses or only one? This is a subject of debate and the different readings of the verses according to each opinion are brought and explained.

Yevamot 21 - March 28, 25 Adar 2 Mar 28, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 21

Presentation in PDF format

Today's daf is sponsored by Rabbi Dan Ross and Rabbi Jade Sank Ross in honor of the birth of their daughter Adina Sydney Ross, Adina Sapir bat Harav Daniel Zalman v'harabah Yofi Channah. "May the joy of your arrival on Erev Purim follow you throughout your life, may you live to see your world fulfilled, may your destiny be for worlds still to come, and may you trust in generations past and yet to be."

If a high priest performs yibum with a widow, is the yibum effective to exempt a second wife? This is a debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar. A difficulty is raised against one of the opinions. From where can we find a hint in the Torah for the rabbinic extension of the prohibitions for forbidden relationships to other relatives? Four different verses are brought. A braita is brought which lists eight relatives that are included in the rabbinic decree. One of them mentioned is by Torah law – if so, why does it appear here? Rav says there are four relatives that are forbidden only that generation but it is not extended to earlier or later generations. What are the four cases? Also, one’s daughter-in-law is forbidden by Torah law. Therefore, it is assumed that it is referring to one’s daughter’s daughter-in-law, who is forbidden on account of one’s son’s daughter-in-law. Is the wife of one’s maternal half-uncle through their mother (the uncle and her mother have the same mother) forbidden? Why is this not considered a decree on a decree? To answer the question they bring a statement of Rav Yehuda bar Shila that any familial relationship where a woman is forbidden, if it is a man, his wife is forbidden as well. Since there are a number of exceptions to that rule that Rava states, the assumption is that he is referring to the case at hand. What is the difference between his case and the exceptions? What about the wife of one’s paternal great uncle or one’s paternal great aunt through his grandfather?

Yevamot 20 - March 27, 24 Adar 2 Mar 27, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 20

Presentation in PDF format

Rav Menashe raises a question on the reason for the rabbis' opinion regarding a brother who was born after the husband died. The Gemara then raises a similar type question on the reason for Rabbi Shimon's opinion. Both questions are resolved. The Mishna brings different categories or situations of a woman who can be in a forbidden relationship with her yabam. In some, there is no chalitza or yibum as the woman is exempt (as was learned in previous Mishnas). If it is isur mitzva or isur kedusha, they do chalitza. Isur mitzva is relationships that were forbidden by rabbinic law. Isur kedusha is ones that are only a negative transgression (lav), not one punishable by karet or by death in court. If two sisters fall to yibum to a brother, and one is forbidden to the brother, the other can do yibum or chalitza. An inference is made from wording in the Mishna (different versions are brought). Which type of forbidden relationship does the sister case relate to? Isur mitzva and isur kedusha are defined in an opposite manner by Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara explains the reasoning behind each one's explanation. One of the cases mentioned in the Mishna is a widow to a high priest. As it doesn't specify in the Mishna, the Gemara assumes it refers to a case of yibum, even if she was just engaged and not married to his brother. This raises a question - why doesn't the positive commandment of yibum override the negative commandment of a high priest to marry a widow? Five answers are brought to this question and questions are raised against each answer. According to some of the answers, it is by Torah law; according to others, it is a rabbinic decree.

Yevamot 19 - Shabbat March 26, 23 Adar 2 Mar 25, 2022

Presentation in PDF format.

Study Guide Yevamot 19

Did Rabbi Shimon disagree with the rabbis about an issue of a brother born after the death of the first husband in any case where the brother was born after the death of the first husband or only if he was born after the yibum of the brother to the first brother’s wife? Rabbi Oshaya holds that he disagrees about both, based on the principle that zika is strong – as if they are already married. Rav Yosef questions him by showing from other sources that Rabbi Shimon is in doubt whether zika and maamar are considered strong enough to connect her to the yabam? Abaye tries to answer the difficulty but his answer is rejected and the question against Rabbi Oshaya stands. Rav Oshaya raises another question against Rabbi Oshaya but the question is resolved. Rav Papa explains that Rabbi Shimon only disagreed with the rabbis in a case where first yibum was performed and then the child was born. A braita is brought to prove his opinion. After proving Rav Papa’s approach, the Gemara delves into different parts of the braita to explain them. What is the basis for the disagreement between the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon?

Yevamot 18 - March 25, 22 Adar 2 Mar 25, 2022

Presentation

Study Guide Yevamot 18

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Nachshon Shwartz on his Bar Mitzvah. Mazal tov to Pam and Yoav and all of his grandparents, aunts and uncles.

This week's learning is sponsored by Rena and Mark Goldstein in loving memory of Moe Septee on the occasion of his 25th yahrzeit. "He presented the Beatles and brought Yentl to Broadway. But, he would be most proud of the fact that his children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren are all committed Jews."

To what extent is there a connection (zika, meaning it is as if they were married) between the potential man and woman that are supposed to engage in yibum? Rav Huna in the name of Rav and Rav Yehuda disagree about this issue. Two questions are raised against Rav Yehuda who held that there is zika. Both questions are resolved. His opinion is attributed to Shmuel. Shmuel in fact had two instances in which he expressed this opinion - why were both necessary? The Mishna brings a debate between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis about a case where the husband died and after yibum was performed, a third brother was born. Rabbi Shimon permits that brother. Did Rabbi Shimon disagree with the rabbis if the brother was born after the death of the first husband in any case where the brother was born after the death of the first husband or only if he was born after the yibum? Rabbi Oshaya holds that he disagrees about both, based on the principle that zika is strong – it is as if they are already married. Rav Yosef questions him by showing from other sources that Rabbi Shimon is in doubt whether zika and maamar are considered strong enough to connect her to the yabam?

Yevamot 17 - March 24, 21 Adar 2 Mar 24, 2022

Presentation in PDF Format

Today’s daf is sponsored by Randi Shuster in honor of Sharona Shuster for finishing her first perek of Yevamot!

Today’s daf is sponsored by Ellen Golub & Steven Sass in memory of Leo Golub, Aryeh Leib ben Eliyahu and Massi on his 8th yahrzeit. “He was a native Yiddish speaker who loved the Jewish people and, despite a streak of atheism, insisted that his only daughter have an excellent Jewish education. He devoted his life to building a curious, creative, and loving Jewish family and is remembered joyfully by four grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren. Yehi zichrono livracha.”

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav Asi that if a gentile marries a Jewish woman, we have to be concerned that he is possibly Jewish (from the ten lost tribes) and the marriage is a valid marriage. From what areas is this an issue? Rabbi Yochanan forbade them to marry within the Jewish community as they may be considered mamzerim. When Shmuel heard this, he began to question this. Aren't children born from Jewish males and non-Jewish females, not considered Jews - therefore there is no concern that they are mamzerim? Why wasn't he concerned for those born to Jewish women? It must be that the women on the way to exile became barren. Others say that Shmuel reacted by calling for an immediate resolution to this issue by declaring them all to be non-Jews, even if they were actually Jews. The Gemara continues to discuss the cities of Tarmod and Harpania that were known to have Jews of mixed lineage there. The second chapter begins with delving into the case of a brother that was not alive at the death of the brother, who is then forbidden to the wife of the first brother, were he to die without children. If a different brother who was alive at the time performed maamar with the widow and then died, the other wife of this brother would need to do chalitza with the brother who was born later (and would not be permitted to engage in levirate marriage). This is because maamar is only rabbinic and therefore the second wife is a tzarat erva on a rabbinic level, but the only wife on a Torah level. The Gemara discusses a linguistic issue in the Mishna. Then it gets to the basis in the Torah for of the law exempting the woman from yibum with a brother that was not yet born. The same verse is used to limit yibum to brothers from the father. This is derived from a gezeira shava from the sons of Yaakov. Why isn't it derived from other places where "brother" is used? From where do we derive that it applies to half brothers through the father and not exclusively for those who share the same mother and father? To what extent is there a connection (zika, meaning it is as if they were married) between the potential man and woman that are supposed to engage in yibum? For example, if the woman were to die before the yibum was performed, would the brother be allowed to marry her mother? Is there a difference in the connection if he is the only brother or if there are others? Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda disagree about this issue. The Gemara questions why they used specific cases and didn't say explicitly "There is/is not zika."

Yevamot 16 - March 23, 20 Adar 2 Mar 23, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored by both Hadran and the Schoor family in loving memory of Julia Koschitzky. “Her contributions to the Jewish world and Torah learning are innumerable and her presence will be missed.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabbi Raymond Harari in honor of Vicky's special birthday and her studying many massekhtot together with Rabbanit Michelle.

Today's daf is dedicated to Ruth Leah bat Kadima Kahan for a refuah shleima. We, your Hadran chevrutot, look forward to seeing you as you get stronger and return to learning on your treadmill as you advance in the miles of daf yomi!

A final source is brought to prove that the followers of Beit Shamai acted upon his opinion. It is a story of Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas who was suspected of having ruled like Beit Shamai and permitted the tzara of an erva to do yibum. When the rabbis confront him about this, he explains that it is his sharp "satanic" brother who holds that way and not him. He holds like Beit Hillel, which is rooted in a tradition from Chagai the prophet. He mentions two other laws taught by Chagai - the land of Amon and Moav is not subject to laws of shemita as the sanctity of the conquest of Joshua did not last beyond the first exile and therefore they would bring the tithe for the poor in the shemita year to help the needy. And the people from Kardiom and Tarmod are accepted as converts and there is no reason to suspect that they are Jews and could possibly be mamzerim. Rabbi Yochanan and Savia (possibly elders) did not accept converts from Tarmod - why not? Did Rabbi Yochanan really hold this way? If a gentile marries a Jewish woman, do we have to be concerned that he is possibly Jewish and the marriage is a valid marriage?

Yevamot 15 - March 22, 19 Adar 2 Mar 22, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 15

Did Beit Shamai act according to what they held or not? The Gemara brings five different sources to try to reach an answer, but none is conclusive. Three additional sources are brought to raise a difficulty with the approach that Beit Shamai did not act upon their opinion, but the difficulties are resolved. Then two sources are brought that finally prove that Beit Shamai acted upon their opinion. The Gemara asks some questions on the last source that is brought to better understand it.

Yevamot 14 - March 21, 18 Adar 2 Mar 21, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 14

Today’s daf is sponsored by Nancy Kolodny in honor of her daughter-in-law and chevruta Lisa Kolodny on her birthday, and in honor of all the women and men of the Hadran community.

Reish Lakish questions: When the Megilla is read on different days in different cities, why is it not a concern of "lo titgoddo" - splitting the people into different factions? Rabbi Yochanan engaged in a debate with Reish Lakish wondering why he didn't mention other Mishnayot to question from there as well. One of the examples brought is our Mishna regarding the debate between Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai. Reish Lakish answers regarding that one that Beit Shamai actually didn't act upon their opinion and therefore there was no issue of factions. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees and holds that they did. If in fact Beit Shamai did go according to their opinion, according to Rabbi Yochanan, why is there not an issue of factions? The Gemara raised two questions on Reish Lakish regarding the issue of factions. Then they bring two different sources to try to determine whether or not Beit Shamai acted according to their opinion.

Yevamot 13 - March 20, 17 Adar 2 Mar 20, 2022

Presentation in PDF format Today's daf is dedicated by Tzivia Korn for a refuah shleima for Frieda Devra bat Rayzel Riva. What is the source for exempting the tzara of the tzara in the event that there was a third brother, mentioned in the first Mishna? When the Mishna states that if the wife (the one who was forbidden to the brother) died or divorced, etc. before the first husband died, the tzara is permitted. Is this even if she died, divorced, etc. after the second wife was married to him or only if it was before the second wife married the first husband? If it is the former, it seems to contradict a Mishna in the third chapter. Can it be inferred from the Mishna whether miun, refusal, to the yabam cannot retroactively invalidate her first marriage and therefore cannot permit her tzara to marry the yabam? The second Mishna of this chapter lists six cases of forbidden relationships that are different from the first Mishna as in all six situations, there is no case where the woman can marry any of the brothers. Therefore this law exempting the tzara from marrying the first wife's relatives is void. If there was a case without yibum, meaning the husband dies with children, if the tzara chooses to remarry a relative of the other wife, she may. Beit Shamai disagrees with the premise of the first Mishna and permits the tzarot to do yibum. Some ramifications of this debate are explained in the Mishna. Even though there are important ramifications for whose marriages are valid/not valid, Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel did not refrain from marrying women from the other school of thought. The same holds true for their disagreements regarding pure/impure vessels. What is the basis for the debate between them? Two different answers are brought. The Gemara brings a discussion between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan regarding the prohibition to break up the community into different factions - when is this relevant and when is it not?

Yevamot 12 - Shabbat March 19, 17 Adar 2 Mar 18, 2022

Presentation

The Gemara attempts unsuccessfully to answer the question of Rabbi Yochanan about whether yibum is permitted for a wife (or her tzara) who returned to her first husband after divorce (after being married to someone in the interim) and he died without children? The tzara of one who did "miun" (refusal) to her yabam (the brother with whom she was supposed to do yibum) is forbidden according to Shmuel to do yibum. To who is she forbidden - all the brothers or just the one who was 'refused'? Rav Asi ruled that the second wife of an aylonit is forbidden to do yibum. Two questions are raised against him. In the end, the Gemara brings the halacha regarding the last number of cases discussed and permits the tzarot (second wives) to do yibum. Rav Bivi brings a braita regarding three women who can use birth control - a minor, a pregnant woman and a nursing woman - each for different reasons. Regarding the reason for the minor, the Gemara questions this based on our Mishna.

Yevamot 11 - Shushan Purim, March 18, 15 Adar 2 Mar 18, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 11

This week's daf is sponsored by Ira and Natanya Slomowitz for the refuah shleima of Dvora Diener, Dvora Rachel bat Ahuva and Harav Shlomo.

Today's learning is sponsored by Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle for her leadership in furthering Talmud study and for inspiring us Long Island learners. We are not only virtual chevrutot, we have also become chaverot!

Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagreed about the status of a woman compared to the other brothers in a case where after she did chalitza with one of the brothers, is she forbidden to the others as their brother's wife, punishable by karet or is it only a negative commandment from "he did not build his brother's legacy" and therefore can no longer marry her. The braita that was brought by Rabbi Yochanan to raise a difficulty with Reish Lakish, but also had a line in there that was difficult for Rabbi Yochanan is explained in two different ways in order to align it with each opinion. To do this, they need to explain that the braita was a case of a brother that was not yet alive and each can be explained according to a different opinion in the debate between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis regarding that case. What is the punishment if one brother did a levirate marriage with one wife and another married the second wife? Rav Acha and Ravina disagree and their opinions align with Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish. A second wife of a woman who committed adultery is exempt from yibum. This is derived from the word "impurity" used by the Torah for a sotah, which puts it in the category of arayot, forbidden relationships. Two questions are raised against Rav and are resolved. Rav Yehuda asked Rav Sheshet regarding the second wife of a woman who was divorced, married someone else in between and then remarried the first husband and he died without children. Would the second wife be exempt from yibum on account of the fact that the first wife was not allowed to be married to her husband, like the adulterer in the previous case? First it is explained according to what opinion is the question asked. Then they try to answer the question from two different sources, but are unsuccessful. Rabbi Yochanan asks the same question as well and two different versions of his question are brought.

Yevamot 10 - Purim, March 17, 14 Adar 2 Mar 17, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 10

Presentation in PDF format

Today's daf is sponsored by Elisheva Gray. "Purim Sameach to Rabbanit Michelle, all of the Hadran teachers and staff and to my fellow students. Todah rabah, Rabbanit Michelle, for all of the joy and learning you bring to our lives. In the spirit of Queen Esther, perhaps this wonderful journey through Talmud together is our collective way of strengthening and perpetuating our faith and traditions. Purim Sameach to all!"

Several different explanations are brought to explain Rebbi's reaction to Levi and why it was clear to him that there are only 15 cases in the Mishna and no more. Levi in the end stays with his opinion and explains why there are really 16 cases. Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about a case where a woman does chalitza to one of the brothers. On what account is she forbidden to the brother she did chalitza with and the other brothers?

Yevamot 9 - March 16, 13 Adar 2 Mar 16, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 9

Presentation

Today's daf is sponsored by Professor Jonathan Ben-Ezra in honor of his wife, Dr. Robin Zeiger. "I am so proud that we were able to finish Seder Moed together."

Today’s daf is sponsored by Jennifer and Joshua Lankin in loving memory of Jennifer’s brother, Avigdor Chai Avraham ben Rachel Leah and Meir Tzvi, in honor of her grandma Marilyn Kaiman, daughter Adi and all agunot on this international agunah day. “My grandmother is an inspiration through her daf learning & I pray my daughter Adi will grow up to love learning Torah.”

Presentation in PDF format

Rebbi and the rabbis each learn out the laws of our Mishna from different verses in the Torah. The rabbis derived it from Vayikra 18 from the verse regarding one's wife's sister (from the word "aleha"). Rebbi derived it from the verse in Devarim 25 regarding yibum. If so, what does Rebbi derive from the verse regarding one's wife's sister from the word "aleha"? He derives from there through a gezeira shava to the verses about a bull offering brought when the community sins and needs to bring a sin offering. They derive from one's wife's sister, that in order to be obligated to bring the bull sin offering, it needs to be that the community sinned on a transgression that is punishable by karet and if done unwittingly, one would bring a sin offering. From there it is derived that the same holds true for other sin offerings such as an individual who makes a mistake or a nasi, a kohen gadol, and one who sins by worshipping idols (both for the individual and the community). How are each of these derived from the verses? From where do the rabbis derive this? What does Rebbi derive from the verses that the rabbis used? Why does the Mishna list 15 cases when they could have listed 16? Rebbi explained that the Mishna only listed cases that are not subjects of dispute. Is this really true? The Gemara raises a number of questions against this explanation. But answers are brought.

Yevamot 8 - March 15, 12 Adar 2 Mar 15, 2022

Presentation

Study Guide Yevamot 8

Today's daf is sponsored for a refuah Shleima to Dr. Joakim Isaacs, Avraham Chaim ben Fruma, a seasoned Daf Yomi learner, from the Isaacs and Darshan Families.

Today’s daf is sponsored anonymously in loving memory of Moshe ben David Rav Moshe Feinstein.

Today's daf is dedicated by Marcia Baum in honor of the birth of her granddaughter Moriah Nava born to her children Jessica and Jeremy Miles. "How wonderful that this little girl has been born in an age when Gemara learning for girls is acceptable and encouraged by many!"

The Gemara rejects the comparison of Ulla of yibum to a leper who has a seminal emission because the leper has a moment where he is permitted before he has the seminal emission, whereas in the case of yibum there is not always a time when the woman is permitted to do yibum with the brother (depending on the order of events). It is possible the drasha of "aleha" is necessary in a case where it can be compared, in which the woman fell to yibum before her sister married the brother. Another suggestion as to why the drasha was necessary is that one could have learned from a heikeish that all forbidden relationships are compared to his brother's wife, in which yibum would be permitted in them all. Alternatively, Rava suggests that the verse did not even come to forbid the forbidden relative – that was clear - the drasha was meant for the tzara, the second wife. A number of questions are raised against Rava, but are answered. If it is so clear that they will not allow forbidden relations in yibum, why should it not be clear (why a drasha is needed) to teach that even the second wife can’t do yibum? Rami Bar Hama also raises a question against Rava and there is a back and forth between them. Rav Ashi asks about the drasha of "aleha" and asks maybe the drasha should come to teach that when there is a mitzvah, yibum, both the forbidden relative and the second wife will be permitted? What is derived from the expressions "and he shall take her" and "he shall perform levirate marriage with her" both according to the Rebbe and according to the rabbis?

Yevamot 7 - March 14, 11 Adar 2 Mar 14, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 7

Today’s daf is sponsored by Betsy Mehlman in loving memory of her father Harold Mondshein, Zvi Menachem Mendel ben Shlomo on his 38th yahrzeit. “He was a kind, loving man with an optimistic outlook on life and a baal koreh with a beautiful voice."

Today's daf is sponsored by Julie Landau in loving memory of Melvin Landau. "My father loved all kinds of learning and knew something about every topic. He never hesitated to help those in need. Twelve years on, he is sorely missed."

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Naomi Cohen on her birthday. "Happy Birthday from all your family in celebration of your birthday but also to celebrate your dedication to Talmud study and general Jewish knowledge."

Rav Shimi suggests that the reason that a drasha was needed to teach that one cannot light a fire on Shabbat even to administer a court related punishment was because it could have been derived from a kal va’chomer that it would override Shabbat. What is the kal va’chomer? The braita which in the end teaches that one cannot administer court death penalties on Shabbat is explained both according to the interpretation on 6b that without the drasha, one would have assumed it was permitted as a positive commandment overrides a negative one even when it is punishable by karet, and according to Rav Shimi’s explanation. After not being able to find a conclusive source to learn that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment, even when punishable by karet, the Gemara continues to search for a reason for why if there wasn’t a drasha, we would have assumed that yibum could be performed even if it meant a man marrying his wife’s sister. One suggestion is that since yibum overrides the prohibition to marry one’s brother’s wife and that is singled out, we can apply the principle that if something is singled out, it comes to teach about the whole group. This, however is rejected as the general rule is by a prohibition and it is singled out by yibum to permit it. That is not the typical use of a generalization and a detailed case. Another suggestion is the one’s brother’s wife would serve as the paradigm for all forbidden relationships – since yibum overrides that, it would then override all the others. That suggestion is rejected as well as all yibum situations are with the brother’s wife, but if one would permit another forbidden relationship, it would permit two forbidden relationships. Why don’t we say, since it was permitted for the brother’s wife, we can permit everything as is the case by a leper whose eighth days falls on erev Pesach and he has a seminal emission that day – since he was permitted that day to put his hands, ears and toe into the azara as a leper, he is permitted to do it as well, even though he had a seminal emission. But is this really a fair comparison?

Yevamot 6 - March 13, 10 Adar 2 Mar 13, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 6

This week’s learning is sponsored by Bracha Ehrman. “Mazal tov to Esther Ehrman, the Bet Shemesh women's daf yomi group and the Hadran community on finishing seder moed!

Today’s daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim in loving memory of her grandmother, Sarah Pfeffer Aschheim. "Omama, your sudden passing in Hannover, Germany in 1931 created a void that is still felt to this day. You would be so proud of your descendants."

Can we learn from the laws of honoring one's parents that in general, a positive commandment can override a negative one, even if the negative one is punishable by karet? In the end, this too is rejected. They try to derive it also from the commandment to build the Temple and from the laws of kindling on Shabbat. Both those answers are rejected as well.

Yevamot 5 - Shabbat March 12, 9 Adar 2 Mar 11, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rachel Lopatin in honor of Cara Lopatin. “With lots of love, Eema and Abba.”

From where do we learn that a positive commandment override s a negative commandment, according to the rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yishmael and hold that the words “wool and linen” in the verse next to the verse about tzitzit is necessary for itself and not free to learn this principle? The Gemara suggests three other answers – first, from a leper who is commanded to shave all his hair on his head, even though the Torah states a man can’t shave his peot, the corners of his head. This answer is rejected as the negative commandment is one that is limited only to men and therefore not as strong as a regular negative commandment. The second attempt is from a kohen who is a leper who also shaves all of his head, including his whole bread, even though there is a commandment for kohanim not to shave the corners of their beards. Even though this too is limited, the Gemara thinks it was added to teach us also about all cases (as one could have learned from the previous case about the positive commandment overriding a negative one in limited prohibitions, therefore, this much teach something additional). But that too is rejected as it is still limited only to men (and kohanim) and can’t be learned from the previous case as kohanim have many extra prohibitions so one may have thought to be strict here. The next attempt is from a nazir who is a leper and is commanded to cut his hair, despite the fact that a nazir is commanded not to cut his hair. However, that too is rejected as a nazir can undo his promise and not be a nazir if he wants and will be permitted to cut his hair. That weakens the negative commandment and therefore we cannot learn from there to other cases. The Gemara goes back to the verses about tzitzit and shaatnez and tries to derive it from certain words that may be unnecessary, until they finally conclude that it is derived from the word shaatnez, as that word is not necessary and can therefore be used to teach that a positive commandment can override a negative one. Next, the Gemara wants to prove that this principle applies as well to negative commandments that are punishable by karet. They try to learn it from brit milah, the Paschal sacrifice, daily Tamid sacrifice, a combination of some of the previous ones, and honoring one’s parents, but all attempts are rejected.

Yevamot 4 - March 11, 8 Adar 2 Mar 11, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored by Ronit Eini on behalf of her son Yair Ezra on finishing Masechet Megillah.

Today’s daf is sponsored anonymously for the refuah shelaima of Devorah bat Eta Elka Michla.

From where do we derive that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment? The first answer is to learn it from the juxtaposition of tzitztit and shaatnez which comes to teach that the positive commandment of tzitzit overrides the negative commandment of shaatnez. From where do we learn that we can derive laws from the juxtaposition (smuchin) of texts? Rabbi Yehuda only permits this in the book of Devarim. From where is this learned? Some explain that when Rabbi Yehuda derives juxtaposition, it is because it is obvious from the context that the verse is here for this purpose. Others say it is because the verse is unnecessary in its context. These two options are explained both regarding the prohibition for a man to engage in sexual relations with his father's rape victim and regarding the tzitzit and shaatnez case. The Gemara questions the argument by shaatnez that it was unnecessary to repeat a section that came up in Vayikra as it does seem like it was necessary in order to clarify the laws. In the end, they suggest that the words wool and linen were unnecessary as explained by the school of Rabbi Yishmael that clothing in the Torah always means wool and linen. But if it didn't say wool and linen, we would have anyway understood that tzitzit are wool and linen as it says, "make tzitzit on the corner of your garments" and it should be techelet, which is wool. From there it is obvious that wool strings are put on a linen garment! This is not a concern as that verse could be explained differently, as Rava explains it.

Yevamot 3 - March 10, 7 Adar 2 Mar 10, 2022

Study Guide Yevamot 3

Today’s daf is sponsored by Tina Lamm with gratitude to Hashem for a new granddaughter, Dahlia Hadar. “Mazal tov to her parents, Bracha and Akiva Berger!”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sylvia Simmons in loving memory of her father, Avrom Simmons, Avraham Nachum ben Yisrael on his yahrzeit. “'Brand plucked from fire,' survivor of Kovno ghetto, he planted the seeds for my studies with Hadran community of Talmud learners.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Susan Shabsels. “I would like to dedicate my learning today to the success of The Hamptons Synagogue's brilliant Rabbi Marc Schneier in his tireless efforts on behalf of interreligious and ethnic understanding between Muslims and Jews as evidenced by his brokering the meeting between Turkey's president Erdogan and Israel's president Herzog.”

Today’s daf is sponsored anonymously in memory of Moshe ben Amram, Moshe Rabbenu.

All the cases in the Mishna are derived from the case of "his wife's sister" - if so, why does the Mishna start with "his daughter" and not that case? Is it because "his daughter" is learned from a drasha? No! It is because "his daughter" is the closest to him and therefore the Mishna began with that case. The order and categorization of the cases in the Mishna is explained. Why is the word "exempt" used in the Mishna and not "forbidden"? Why does the Mishna specify the number fifteen at the beginning of the Mishna and then again mentions them at the end "and these"? It is coming to limit the cases where the second wife is exempt to those 15 alone and not to two other cases mentioned by Rav and Rav Asi (who held they also exempt the second wife). How would Rav and Rav Asi then explain our Mishna - what is excluded by the number fifteen and why doesn't the Mishna mention the other two cases that they claim has the same laws as the cases in the Mishna? The laws of the Mishna are all derived from the case of his wife's sister in the Torah. How? It can be understood from the derivation that if we didn't have the derivation, one could have thought that a brother would be permitted to perform levirate marriage with his wife's sister - why? Is it because a positive commandment overrides a negative one? Does that principle apply to a negative commandment punishable by karet?

Yevamot 2 - March 9, 6 Adar 2 Mar 09, 2022

Presentation in PDF format (for the proper effect, open with a Reader such as Adobe and view in Read or Presentation mode)

Masechet Yevamot is sponsored by Ahava Leibtag and family in memory of her grandparents, Leo and Esther Aaron. "They always stressed the importance of a Torah life, mesorah and family. May their memory always be a blessing for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great grandchildren."

This week's learning is sponsored by Suri Davis-Stern in honor of her son’s engagement and daughter's wedding. “Hakarat hatov to Hkbh on the engagement of my son, Yosef Stern to Rivka Cohen and the forthcoming wedding of my daughter, Esther Stern to Shai Goldman."

Today’s daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in loving memory of Professor Dianne Ashton “She was taken from us suddenly in January of this year. A strong woman who beat all odds for her years and strongly advocated for woman's achievements and spirituality and modeled them herself.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Naomi Ferziger and Debbie Gevir in loving memory of their friend Ruti Greenberg. “Ruti was our wonderful, vivacious and beautiful friend who died on Pesach 8 years ago. Ruti's chessed, which is exemplified in her name "Rut", was just one of her special characteristics. Her optimism and strength coupled with her joie de vivre, wit and beauty continue to live in our hearts. Ruti, we miss you so much and think of you often. Yehi zichra baruch.”

If a married man died without having children, his wife would be designated to enter into a levirate marriage with his brother in order to fulfill the name of the dead brother (continue his legacy). However, if he has one brother and that brother happens to be forbidden to the wife due to one of 15 forbidden relationships described in the Mishna, she would be exempt from levirate marriage and would be permitted to marry anyone else. Not only is she permitted without levirate marriage, but if he had other wives, they would be permitted as well. If there was a third brother to whom the wife was not related to in a forbidden manner, and the second wife (tzara) entering into a levirate marriage with him and then he died without children, the first wife, the second wife (the one who is now married to the third brother, and if the third brother had another wife, they would all be exempt from levirate marriage with the other brother (the one to whom the first wife was forbidden to in the first place). However, if the first wife were to die before the husband, then the forbidden relationship is no longer in existence and the other wives would be permitted (and therefore obligated) to enter into a levirate marriage with the brother. All these laws are derived from the case of "his wife's sister" - if so, why does the Mishna start with "his daughter" and not that case?

Chagigah 27 - Siyum - March 8, 5 Adar 2 Mar 08, 2022

Siyum Chagiga & Moed is sponsored by the Ahuza Women’s Shabbat Shiur in loving memory of Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen, who passed away on Sunday February 13. “She was a woman ahead of her time. She taught a Gemara class to women in Haifa, starting in 1978, way before any other class of women studying Talmud. Courageously, she made Aliyah alone at the age of 19, right after the war of independence. She was a university professor, a mother, a founding member of Kolech, an educator, and also a rabbanit: the wife of the chief rabbi of Haifa Sha’ar Yeshuv Cohen. Our study group, who had the great honor to study with the Rabbanit on Shabbat afternoons, and in some cases, learn with her Gemara, believe that sponsoring a siyum in her memory a fitting tribute to an amazing woman. May all women studying at Hadran find Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen a role model and may her memory be a blessing to all.”

Siyum Chagiga & Moed is sponsored by Michael Fishbane and sons, Eitan Fishbane and Elisha Russ-Fishbane in honor of Mona Fishbane's 75th birthday. “With gratitude to Michelle Farber for the wonderful daily podcasts which guide Mona on her daf yomi journey.”

A verse is brought from Ezekiel 41:22 to show that the table is considered wood even though it is covered in gold. The verse there opens by calling the table “altar” and ends by calling it a table. We can learn from here that when there is no Temple, the table is our altar, meaning opening our table to guests, etc. is our way to receive atonement. All the vessels in the Temple have substitute vessels other than the altars as they are considered like the ground. From where is this derived? The rabbis said the altars are covered and therefore didn’t have substitutes. The Gemara tries to understand that cryptic line and suggests some other possibilities as to how to read it. The Masechet ends with two different statements about types of people to whom the fire of hell does not reach – either Torah scholars as their bodies burn from the fire of Torah or the sinners of Israel as despite their being sinners, they all full of mitzvot/good deeds like a pomegranate is full of seeds.

Hadran Text for the Siyum

Introduction to Masechet Yevamot - by Dr. Ayelet Hoffman Libson Mar 07, 2022

This shiur is sponsored by Valerie Adler in honor of her niece, Dr. Ayelet Hoffman Libson. "Like all of us who have listened to Ayelet’s wonderful introductions in previous masechot, I am looking forward with anticipation to hear her overview of Yevamot. This is an added pleasure for me in my journey with Hadran."

Chagigah 26 - March 7, 4 Adar 2 Mar 07, 2022

Study Guide Chagigah 26

Today’s daf is sponsored by Gila Loike in honor of her mother, Dr. Marian Stoltz-Loike. “She always sets aside time to expand her Torah knowledge and share her deep insights. Thank you, Imma, for sharing your love of learning and instilling that love in each of your children.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabbi Lee Wax in loving memory of Mitch Wax. “My father was a huge character, who brought fun and wisdom into people's lives, and who loved learning & teaching Yiddishkeit. May his memory always be a blessing.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Jeff Kronisch and family in honor of Rachel and Oren Seliger on their Siyum of Seder Moed. “May you continue to be role models. Mazal tov! And a thank you to Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber for your visionary leadership.”

The rabbis designated the area from Modiim to Jerusalem as a place where an am haaretz could sell earthenware vessels and be trusted regarding their purity under certain conditions. The Gemara quotes a braita specifying in which directions the potter and the buyer need to be going in order to permit a sale in Modiim itself. Abaye supports this braita from inferences in our Mishna. The law is limited however to small vessels, not large ones. How small? The vessels are pure but if they are filled with liquids, we do not trust them regarding the purity of the liquids, even though the vessel itself is considered pure. If am haaretz tax collectors or robbers came to one’s house, are they believed regarding items they touched or not? On what does it depend? In Jerusalem itself, vessels can be purchased from an am haaretz as well - special dispensations were made in Jerusalem as there were no kilns there. Also during the holiday season, they are even trusted regarding teruma. Why is there a unique halacha for the holidays? If an am haaretz who was trusted during the holiday season has leftovers, are they still considered pure after the holiday? There is a tannaitic debate regarding this. The rabbis do not permit it – however, does this mean they can leave it for the next holiday or can it never be considered pure? They would purify the Temple at the end of the holiday as anything an am haaretz touches is pure during the holidays but after the holiday it is retroactively impure. What if the holiday ended on Friday or Thursday, when would they purify everything? All the vessels would be purified except the table with the showbread, therefore, they would warn people not to touch the table. Was it only the table or also the Menorah. Why can’t the table go in the mikveh? Why does the table need purification, isn’t it wood that is not meant to be moved which cannot become impure? It seems the table was moved during the holiday to show people the miracle of the showbread. But why is it considered wood and not metal, as it is covered in gold?

Chagigah 25 - March 6, 3 Adar 2 Mar 06, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored by Linda Freedman in loving memory of her father Leon Pultman’s 7th yahrzeit. “May his neshama have an Aliyah. You are remembered lovingly by your whole family, your wife, Thelma Pultman, children, Linda Freedman, Sheila Strulowitz and Gwen Lerner.”

Today's daf is sponsored by Adina Hagege and family in honor of their Aunt Miriam Kerzner and cousin Lana Kerzner. “As we near the end of Seder Moed, we dedicate this daf in honor of our incredible and beloved Aunt Miriam Kerzner and cousin Lana Kerzner, who join the Zoom group from Toronto every night. Although they are without cameras, I see them in my mind's eye. I love sharing this passion for Talmud and learning, across oceans and pandemics in this miracle brought to life by Rabbanit Michelle and Hadran.”

An am haaretz from Judea is believed about purity regarding sacrificial items but not about teruma. Is this true only regarding those from Judea or also from the Galil? Why would there be a difference? The Mishna said that regarding teruma, we can trust an am haaretz if it is during the season of the pressing of the olives/wine. A contradiction is brought from a Mishna is Taharot 9:4 which seems to say they are not trusted. Two resolutions are brought, however, the second is rejected. One is not allowed to accept teruma from an am haaretz. What if one did anyway? Could they leave it for the next pressing season and eat it then? The Gemara tries to answer this question from a Mishna is Demai 6:9, but in the end, it is inconclusive. A Mishna is Ohalot 18:4 is brought regarding one who walks through a beit hapras, a field which was known that there were dead bodies buried underneath but it is unclear where and the field had been plowed and there is a concern that some bones surfaced and may pass on impurity to one who walks through. If one is passing through and is heading to eat the Pesach sacrifice, they can blow at the ground and walk through and not be concerned about bones, but if one passed through and wants to eat teruma after, that solution is not effective. Why is there a difference? If one went through to eat the Pesach sacrifice, can that person also eat teruma? Ulla permitted and Raba bar Ulla did not. A question is raised against Raba bar Ulla from our Mishna as it states that if one has sanctified items mixed in the barrel with teruma, since the am haaretz is believed about keeping the sacrificial items pure, we can assume all the contents are pure. Why, then, can't we say the same for the beit hapras? A braita states that an am haaretz is not believed regarding the purity of jugs or teruma. Jugs are understood to be ones emptied of sacrificial items all year long or full of teruma during the time of the pressing. Even though the food is considered pure, the vessels are not. A question is raised against this from our Mishna (jugs that include a mix of items, presumably teruma, are pure during the time of the pressing), and in the end, the Mishna is explained to be referring to a mixture of sacrificial items also and that is why the am haaretz is believed regarding the purity. In what geographical area can we trust an am haaretz selling vessels regarding the purity of vessels for sacrificial items. Under what conditions?

Chagigah 24 - Shabbat March 5, 2 Adar 2 Mar 04, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored by Elisheva Lightstone in honor of the birthday of her sister, Hadassah Fortinsky. “Hadassah inspired me to learn the Daf and inspires everyone with her acts of chessed. May you enjoy many happy healthy birthdays in the future ‘ad 120 shanah’."

If one item in a utensil is impure then all other sacrificial items in there are impure. If, According to Rabbi Chanin, it is derived from the Torah, how does that correspond with Rabbi Akiva who said it was rabbinic? Perhaps Rabbi Akiva was talking about items that were exceptions to the rule and by Torah law would not cause others in the same utensil to become impure. Or perhaps he was discussing items on a flat board and not in a utensil with a receptacle? In sacrificial items there is third-degree and fourth-degree impurity. Third-degree is derived from the Torah and fourth-degree from a kal vachomer. If one hand becomes impure, the other hand also does - for sacrificial items, but not teruma. In what situation is this? Can one cause another's hand to become impure in this way? What degree of impurity does the second hand carry? This is a source of debate among tanaim. One can eat dry foods with dirty hands if it is teruma but not sacrificial items. What is the concern here? Why does an onen and one who still needs to bring a sacrifice to finish his/her purification process need to immerse before eating sacrificial items?

Chagigah 23 - March 4, Rosh Chodesh Adar 2, 1 Adar 2 Mar 04, 2022

This month's shiurim are dedicated by Joshua and Judy Schwartz in honor of his beloved mother, Bernice Cohen Schwartz's 99th birthday. “As a teenager, Bernice wanted to study Talmud like the boys, but her grandfather said it wasn't for girls. Thanks to Hadran, now it is!”

This month’s shiurim are dedicated by Rabbi Perkins in honor and in memory of Rabbi Dr. Samuel T. Lachs. “Dr. Lachs taught Rabbinics at Gratz College in Philadelphia and at several other colleges and universities, including Bryn Mawr College, where he was Professor and Chair of the Department of the History of Religion. A scholar who studied the rabbinic background to Christian texts, Dr. Lachs inspired me and many others with his erudition and his commitment to the use of critical methodologies in the interpretation of Talmudic texts.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Abby Flamholz in honor of her daughter in law Sigal Spitzer Flamholz’s birthday. “She is an inspiration balancing motherhood work and her learning. Bli ayin hara.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of her father, Moe Furman z"l, Moshe ben Meir, on the completion of Shloshim. “He had a huge zest for life, filling every moment with laughter and activity/ He was a fearless adventurer traveling to China and South America when he was 95, and joining his family for trips to Mexico and Alaska. He was committed to consistency in his long life, and had a policy of never gossiping. These qualities and many more were passed down to me, his grandchildren, and great-grandchildren who were blessed to be able to live with him for the last 8 years. We miss him very much and can't quite believe he's gone. I am sure that he would be proud of all the Torah learning going on in his merit and of my dedication to Daf Yomi. We all love you, dad!”

The Gemara explains the next few cases listed in the Mishna. The first is one who holds an item that is impure as it was stepped on by a zav. At the time one is holding it, if one moves a sacrificial item, one passes on impurity. Why is this only true for sacrificial items and not teruma? The next case is utensils that were watched from impurities from the moment they became susceptible to impurity. If so, why would they need to be immersed in the mikveh before using it for sacrificial items? What exactly are the details of the case? The Mishna implies that they need immersion and can be used immediatelyת without waiting for sunset. Is this in disagreement with Rabbi Eliezer? The third case discussed is that a sacrificial item that is impure passed on impurity to any other item that is in the same utensil. Rabbi Chanin said this is derived from a verse in the Torah. If so, why does it seem that Rabbi Akiva held it was a decree of the rabbis?

Chagigah 22 - March 3, Rosh Chodesh Adar 1, 30 Adar 1 Mar 03, 2022

Study Guide Chagigah 22

Today’s daf is sponsored by Michelle Lewis in honor of the birth of her first grandchild, Neriya Shlomo. “Mazal tov to his parents Alex and Chen Lewis. May you merit to bring him up to a life of Torah, chuppa and maasim tovim."

Today's daf is sponsored by Manny and Marsha Wasserman in honor of their son Noam, and the birthday of their first grandchild, Talya. “Thank you to my son Noam who encourages me to continue learning to my amazing husband Manny who engages in discussions with me about the day, and to the fabulous team at Hadran who have changed my life. Thank you!”

There were two reasons given for why one can't immerse a vessel within another vessel. What is the practical difference between them? According to Rava, that the concern is for a vessel that has a very narrow opening, this issue is not a problem if the outer vessel is impure as the purification with then purify whatever is inside as well. According to both Rabbi Ila and Rava, the Gemara tries to figure out why one is allowed to immerse a vessel within another vessel for teruma. One can accept sanctified items from an am haaretz but not teruma. The reason for permitting it is so that one won't create animosity between people. Why is this not relevant for teruma as well? If one can immerse a vessel within a vessel for teruma, why are we not concerned that a chaver will borrow a vessel from an am haaretz and perhaps the am haaretz has seen the chaver who immersed his vessel one within the other and will do the same but will not be aware of the issue of chatziza and it will be impure? The Gemara delves into the laws regarding the outside, handles, etc of the vessel and the reasons for the law.

Chagigah 21 - March 2, 29 Adar 1 Mar 02, 2022

Study Guide Chagigah 21

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sam Kunin in honor of Helen Lewis’s birthday “Your incredible dedication to women’s learning, the Jewish community and beyond is a daily inspiration to us all. Thank you for all your guidance kindness and patience. Love, Mim, Nat, Toby and Sam.”

Why is one not allowed to immerse a vessel within a vessel for sacrificial items? The first answer given is that it is an issue of chatzitza, a separation between the item and the mikveh waters. If so, then there are two cases in the Mishna that relate to this issue - why would the Mishna find it necessary to list them both? The Gemara offers an explanation. A different answer is brought as well, which explains the issue differently. The concern is that one may put needles or something small into a utensil with a very small opening, which would not be a valid tevila as the opening is too narrow. Therefore they forbade any case of purifying in a mikveh one utensil inside another utensil.

Chagigah 20 - March 1, 28 Adar 1 Mar 01, 2022

Study Guide Chagigah 20

This month’s shiurim are sponsored by Heather Stone in loving memory of her father, Robert Stone, Yehuda Leib ben Naphtali HaLevy ve’Chaya, z”l, who passed away on 21 Adar 1. “He lived his Jewish values blending them with his fierce belief in democracy and feminism.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Ariella Slovin in honor of her mother, Reena Slovin's birthday. “With love from her three children and their spouses. We are so impressed by her unwavering dedication to daf yomi which reflects her dedication to Jewish education and Jewish practice. We love you!”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rikki and Alan Zibitt in loving memory of Alan's mother, Helen Zibitt, Henia bat Yaacov v' Rachel Leah on her 22nd yahrzeit. “Mom loved Israel and learning, and would have been active in Daf Yomi.”

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Miriam Tannenbaum on her English birthday. "In honor of our dear mother. Thank you for being a role model in everything you do. Whether your students, your family, your aspirations, or Torah, בליבו לשמרו, your full heart and efforts are felt always. We love you!

Rav Meri said that one can infer from the Mishna that those who treat their non-sacred items as if they are sacrificial meat, the laws of sacrificial meat actually apply to them. From where in the Mishna is this inferred? A number of laws are brought regarding one who has a lapse of thought in protecting an item from impurity and the item is therefore not considered protected and is treated as impure. Some of the cases are where one confuses one item for another. Is that really a case where we say there was a lapse of thought? In a braita, a case is brought where one confuses wine with oil and yet it is still considered pure! Before the Gemara answers the question, they ask a counter-question - why does the braita forbid one to eat the oil? Rabbi Yirmia answers that the case is one where it was watched from becoming impure in a way that it would pass on impurity (contact with a first or second-degree impurity - because of the stringency of the rabbi regarding liquids) but not from becoming disqualified/impure (contact with a t'vul yom). Is there really such a thing as watching an item partially? Yes, and a braita is brought to prove that. The Gemara goes back to the question about why a lapse of thought would cause an item to be impure and raises more questions from sources that indicate that if one intends to watch an item, it is considered protected from impurity. In the end, answers are brought to explain why these situations were unique. The Mishna lists many issues for which sacrificial meat is treated more severely than teruma.

Chagigah 19 - February 28, 27 Adar 1 Feb 28, 2022

Study Guide Chagigah 19

Today’s daf is sponsored by Deborah Hoffman-Wade in honor of Carol Robinson and Rabbi Art Gould. “Thank you for encouraging my path to Talmud and Hadran. As an elder and beginner I am radiant with joy at beginning a new and ongoing path of learning. Never too old to start!”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Miriam Almog in honor of the Hadran team and their wonderful learning programs.

From where do we learn that for non-sacred items, one does not need intent when purifying oneself? There is an attempt to learn it from a Mishna in Mikvaot 5:6, however the proof is rejected and a Mishna in Machshirin 4:7 is brought instead. Is it true that one does not need to intent when purifying oneself for non-sacred items, doesn't our Mishna indicate otherwise in two different places. Both are resolved. Rabbi Elazar says that if one went into a mikveh without intention to purify for something specific, one can specify after getting out of the mikveh. A difficulty is raised against this from a braita regarding one who still has one foot in the mikveh, which seems to indicate only if one's foot is still inside, one can change one's intent. A distinction is made between changing one's intent and having no particular intent in the first place. The braita brought regarding having one's foot still in the water is attributed to Rabbi Yehuda who holds that one can view water as "going up" if the person's foot is still in the water. How far does Rabbi Yehuda take that law? The Gemara raises a contradiction within the Mishna as in one place it distinguishes between non-sacred items and maaser sheni and in another it does not. How is this resolved? Two solutions are brought.

Chagigah 18 - February 27, 26 Adar 1 Feb 27, 2022

Study Guide Chagigah 18

This week’s learning is sponsored by the Futornick Family, in honor of Michelle and Bill Futornick's anniversary. “B"H, we will begin our celebration on the plane ride back from Israel on March 1!”

Reish Lakish brings a different proof that one can make up the chagigah and re'iya sacrifices for Shavuot on the 6 days after the holiday. Rabbi Yochanan rejects this proof, although the Gemara points out that both agree that work is forbidden on Chol Hamoed. From where is that derived? Three different answers are brought to answer that question. The next Mishna sets up different categories of items that require purity and ranks them in terms of severity. The Mishna explains laws in which the ranking has relevance. The Mishna required washing one's hands for chulin and maaser sheni - however, another source contradicts this as it indicates there is no need for washing hands for those items. How is this contradiction resolved?

Chagigah 17 - Shabbat February 26, 25 Adar 1 Feb 25, 2022

Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel debate what sacrifices can be brought on Yom Tov. If Shavuot falls on Friday, the sacrifices are brought on Sunday, according to Beit Shamai. If Shavuot falls on Shabbat, even Beit Hillel hold that the sacrifices are pushed off until Sunday. The Sadducees believed that Shavuot always came out on Sunday and therefore in the event that the sacrifice was pushed off to Sunday, other things were instituted to ensure that no one thought we were celebrating the holiday on Sunday, just the sacrifices. Rabbi Oshaya brings a drasha to explain that Shavuot has seven days (6 in addition to Shavuot) in which one can bring the Chagigah offerings and the burnt “appearance” offerings. Four sources are brought to raise doubts regarding his drasha, but they are all resolved. A second proof is brought by Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and the Gemara then explains why we needed both Rabbi Oshaya’s drasha and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s.

Chagigah 16 - February 25, 24 Adar 1 Feb 25, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sigal Spitzer in honor of Abby Flamholz. “Happy big birthday! May this just be the beginning of your Talmud Torah journey!”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Viti Rosenzweig Kuns for the refua shlema of Matityahi ben Rosa and Sarah bat Vita.

How was Rabbi Akiva able to see/identify God? Several verses are brought by various rabbis to try to answer this question. Comparisons are made between angels and demons, and angels and humans - in what ways are humans similar to angels and in what ways to animals? Why can't one ponder what happened before the creation? Two different explanations are brought to explain the line in the Mishna, whoever doesn't have concern for his/her Creator, better that he/she had never come into the world. Is it referring to one who looks at a rainbow (what is wrong with that?) or one who sins secretly. Not only should one not look at a rainbow, but also one should not look at a Nasi or at kohanim in the Temple when they are blessing the people. Do not believe the evil inclination if it tells you to sin and you will be pardoned. One who sins in private, who will testify against them that they sinned? Several answers are given. The Mishna brings the earliest debate that spanned all the generations of the zugot, the pairs, regarding whether or not one is allowed to do the mitzva of smicha, leaning on the animal on Yom Tov when offering the chagigah sacrifices. The last pair of rabbis was Hillel and Shamai - but before Shamia came there was Menachem, however, he was removed from his position - why? Rava and Abaye each bring a different explanation. The order the pairs are mentioned in the Mishna demonstrates which served as the Nasi and which as the Av Bet Din. However, there is a debate about one of the pairs - who held which position. A braita is brought which tries to be matched up with one of the opinions, but in the end it is inconclusive. The braita tells the story of Yehoshua ben Perachia who judged someone to death as an ed zomem (a type of false witness) incorrectly, in an attempt to make a point to the Saducees, and Shimon ben Shatach corrected him. From then on, he was only willing to rule in the presence of Shimon ben Shatach. Rabbi Yochanan proves from our Mishna that one should not take rabbinic ordinances lightly, such as using animals on Yom Tov/Shabbat. The Gemara tries to better understand why Rabbi Yochanan said that and what he really meant to say. Rami bar Hama infers from Rabbi Yochanan that smicha needs all one one's strength, The Gemara questions this by bringing a braita regarding the exemption of women from smicha and yet they permitted women to do it if they wanted to. If smicha is with all of one's strength, how could they have permitted women to "use" sanctified animals if they were actually not obligated?

Chagigah 15 - February 24, 23 Adar 1 Feb 24, 2022

They asked Ben Zoma if it is possible for there to be a woman who is pregnant without having had sexual relations and therefore, could she marry a kohen gadol (who can only marry a virgin)? Another story is told of Ben Zoma who was pondering creation and Rabbi Yehoshua said that he had erred in his understanding. The Gemara brings various stories of Elisha ben Avuya, otherwise known as “Acher” who “entered the orchard” but ended up not believing in God. What led him to this? Rabbi Meir, his closest student, kept up his relationship with him even after he no longer believed in God and continued to learn Torah from him. How was he able to do this? Rabbi Meir constantly tries to encourage Acher to repent, but Acher says that it has been decreed in the heavens that even though all can repent, Acher is not able to repent. Even in Rabbi Meir’s death, he tries to help Acher to get into the World to Come. Is he successful? Rabbi Yochanan tries as well. Is he successful?

Chagigah 14 - February 23, 22 Adar 1 Feb 23, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored Caroline Ben-Ari by in loving memory of her mother, Daphne Rhodes, Dafna Devora bat Avraham ve-Hana 5th yahrzeit. “Mum was a loving, vivacious woman with a great sense of humour, and was determined to be a better mother to her children than her own mother had been to her. Later in life, when she and Dad retired to Netanya, she indulged her love of singing and dramatics in the Netanya AACI Musical Theatre Group."

Today’s daf is sponsored by Risa Tzohar in loving memory of her mother, Florence Wittels Rich, on her yahrzeit.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Adira Sklar in honor of Rivka Yellin. “Happy 19th birthday! You have inspired me as well as so many others to start daf yomi and your burning passion for Talmud study is so pure and amazing to watch."

Verses in which God and angels are described are interpreted and contradictions are resolved. Isaiah prophesized about 18 curses that would befall the Jewish people. What were they? Even in the destruction, there were still honest people – how do we know that? More stories are brought of rabbis who understood the maase merkava. Who were they and where did they learn it from. Four entered into the Pardes – Ben Zoma, Ben Azai, Acher and Rabbi Akiva. What happened to each of them?

Chagigah 13 - February 22, 21 Adar 1 Feb 22, 2022

This month’s learning is sponsored by Maurice Heller in honor of Dena Heller. “Her exuberance for Daf Yomi is an inspiration. May she continue her learning for many years to come in good health.”

The different firmaments of the heavens are discussed further. What parts of maase merkava can be learned? What parts can be outlined? To whom can this be taught? Can one teach Torah to a gentile? Stories are told of rabbis who wanted to learn/teach maase merkava but were not given the opportunity. They wanted to conceal the book of Ezekiel because of contradictions between the Torah and some of the verses in Ezekiel. But Chanania ben Chizkia sat in his attic for many hours until he was able to resolve the contradictions. A child tried to learn maase markava and a fire came out and burned him. This raised further issues regarding the book but again, Chanania convinced them not to be concerned. What is the meaning of chashmal in the description in the first chapter of Ezekiel? Some other terms in that chapter as well as some of the verses are explained. Why is the description of the vision in Ezekiel different from the parallel description of the vision of Isaiah? Contradictory verses in Ezekiel are raised and resolved. One of the faces of the chayot described in Ezekiel was a cherub – what is a cherub? The seraphim in Isaiah have 6 wings and in Ezekiel only 4. Why?

Chagigah 12 - February 21, 20 Adar 1 Feb 21, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored by Geula Zamist in honor of the marriage of her daughter, Rachel Zamist to Avi Lermer and with never-ending thanks and appreciation to Rabbanit Michelle.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Leah Ackner in honor of her mother’s 74th birthday!

Today’s daf is sponsored by Marsha Levi to commemorate the shloshim of her mother Kitty Levi, Kayla bat Meir v’ Machla.

The Gemara brings all kinds of drashot on the creation of the world. Ten things were created on the first day - what are they? Was light created on the first day or the fourth day? Several drashot are brought to explain that God created certain things on a grand scale and then reduced them. What are they and why did God reduce them? Beit Hillel, Beit Shamai and the sages disagree - was the sky created first or the earth or both at once? How do they each prove their position through both logic and verses? Rabbi Yossi described that the earth is supported by pillars, and pillars on the water, water on the mountains, mountains on the wind, wind on the storm, storm on the arms of God - all this is derived from verses. The sages explain that there are twelve pillars representative of the twelve tribes. Some say seven pillars and others say on one – a tzaddik. Are there two levels of firmaments in the heavens or seven? Reish Lakish holds that there are seven firmaments and explains what is held/done in each one.

Chagigah 11 - February 20, 19 Adar 1 Feb 20, 2022

This week's learning is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in loving memory of her father Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Harav Reuven Halevi (Rabbi Pesach Levovitz) on his 10th yahrzeit that was on the 5th of Adar. “He was a lifelong Daf Yomi learner, a community rabbi for 57 years, an international Rabbinic leader, responsible for generations of Jewish souls. He was the patriarch of his family, he would be proud and somewhat bemused by both the female and male Daf Yomi learners amongst his children and grandchildren as well as the leadership role that his granddaughter, Shoshana Baker, has taken in the Hadran movement. May his neshama have an aliya in the zechut of their learning.”

This week’s learning is sponsored by Tuvia Hausdorff in loving memory of Moshe Aharon ben Eliezer Aryeh, Tuvia Levi ben David Meir, Tziona bat Sudia and Menucha bat Moshe Yechezkel.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Susie Handelman in loving memory of her grandfather, Shmuel Ben Meir HaCohen (Katzin) Z"l. “He was a talmid hacham who immigrated to the US from Kovno in 1900 and died in 1936 before I was born. He would be in awe to know he has a granddaughter living in Jerusalem studying Talmud! May he hear from above and take pleasure from the sweet sounds of Rabanit Michelle and her students studying today's daf.”

The Gemara finishes up the previous discussion regarding meila - what aspect of it is "like a mountain hanging by a hair"? A braita lists negaim and ohalot as also being in the category of few verses and many halakhot. Is that really so? The Mishna had listed several things that had verses to clearly rely upon in the Torah. This seem to imply that while they were more firmly based in the Torah than the previous sections, they still were not explicitly written in the Torah. The Gemara then questions each item on the list as they seem to be halakhot that were explicitly mentioned in the Torah. To answer the question, examples for each topic are brought that were not explicitly written in the Torah. The second chapter deals with topics that one needs to be cautious when teaching to others and should therefore limit the amount of students that one teaches it to. Topics include the forbidden sexual relationships, creation of the world, and maase merkava (in Ezekiel). One should also not delve into what is above, below, before and after. Where are these laws derived from?

Chagigah 10 - Shabbat February 19, 18 Adar 1 Feb 18, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rena Strauss in gratitude to Rabbanit Michelle Farber for enhancing my learning and in honor of completing Moed Katan.

One who switches from learning halakha to learning Torah or possibly also to learning Mishna or leaves the Talmud of Israel for the Talmud of Babylonia is considered a person who “has no peace” based on a translation of a verse in Zecharia 8:10. The Mishna categorizes certain mitzvot into ones that have no basis in verses in the Torah (annulling vows), ones that have a loose basis (Shabbat, Chagigah, and me'ila) and ones that are firmly based in the Torah. First, the Gemara brings a braita that disagrees regarding annulments of vows. Several verses are brought to show the foundation in the Torah. Then Shmuel also brings a verse and Rava raises questions against all the tanaim's verses but not against Shmuel. The Gemara then analyzes why Shabbat, Chagigah and me'ila all appear in the second category.

Chagigah 9 - February 18, 17 Adar 1 Feb 18, 2022

Study Guide Chagigah 9

Today’s daf is sponsored by Anne Mirsky in loving memory of her mother, Rhoda Polachek z"l. “She supported Jewish education and many organizations in Israel and the United States.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Bracha Stuart in loving memory of her dear brother, Aryeh Leib ben Simcha HaKohen (shlita) on his first yahrzeit which will be on Shabbat. May his neshama have an Aliya and his memory be for a blessing.

How does a make-up for a Chagigah sacrifice work? From where do we know that the Sukkot one can be made up even on Shmini Atzeret. The Gemara grapples with Rabbi Yochanan's approach to understanding the makeup of the Chagigah sacrifice based on other sugyot including a nazir and a zav. There are certain things that can't be rectified, such as, making up a Chagigah sacrifice once the holiday has ended. This is connected to a verse from Kohelet 1:15 that discussed things that can't be fixed and mixed opportunities. Other tanaim bring other examples that can be learned from this verse.

Chagigah 8 - February 17, 16 Adar 1 Feb 17, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored by Leah Shakdiel for the refuah shleima of Nili bat Esther and Moshe Tzvi.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Meryl and Harold Sasnowitz in loving memory of their mothers, Mollie Pollack and Toby Sasnowitz yahrzeit. “They would have shepped much nachat from the family's commitment to Torah, and today's vort of their great-granddaughter (our granddaughter) Chavi Sommer to Zecharya Runge (Runge).”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her mother.

Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree regarding whether or not the chagigah can be bought from maaser sheni money or not. Ulla explains Beit Hillel to be referring to adding on to the unsanctified money spent on the sacrifice. Chizkiya and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about whether this can be done by adding maaser sheni money to unsanctified money to purchase the chagigah sacrifices or by or adding animals for chagigah sacrifices bought from maaser sheni money in addition to animals bought from unsanctified money (each one holds that one is permitted and the other is not). Braitot are brought to support each position. From where do we derive that in order to fulfill the mitzva of rejoicing on the holiday, one needs to bring animal sacrifices? Two different possibilities are brought. The Mishna distinguishes between different types of people with different financial means and different numbers of people in their family and how that affects whether they should bring more burnt offerings (for appearing) or more chagigah peace sacrifices. One who doesn’t have a lot of money and has a lot of mouths to feed brings more peace offerings and few burnt offerings. But how does he have money even for the chagigah peace offerings? Rav Chisda explains that one can use one’s maaser sheni money to get a bigger animal. Since he uses the example of adding money to get a bigger animal and not adding on additional animals, Rav Sheshet asks why he didn’t give the option to add other animals since the rabbis permit that. The Gemara tries to understand this question in light of the debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Chizkiya but in the end, suggest that Rav Sheshet didn’t agree fully with either of them as he permitted both adding money to buy an animal and adding more animals with maaser sheni money. If one separates ten animals and only brings five on the first day and five on the second day, is that permitted or not? There is a debate on this issue, but the Gemara explains that they do not actually disagree but are each describing a different situation.

Chagigah 7 - February 16, 15 Adar 1 Feb 16, 2022

Study Guide Chagigah 7

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family in loving memory of Malcolm Minsk, father of their dear friend, Elisa Hartstein. “In the virtual Hadran Zoom room, you brought your father to life for us as you shared the beautiful story of his tireless activity on behalf of the Jewish community in Atlanta, and all with a charming Southern accent. His memory should be a comfort to you."

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rachel Lopatin in honor of Shayna Lopatin. “With lots of love, Eema and Abba.”

Today's daf is sponsored by the Levi family for a refuah shleima for Miriam bat Chana.

There are five things that have no requisite amount: peah, bikkurim, “appearing” at the temple, acts of loving-kindness, and Torah study. It is unclear from this Mishna if there is a maximum amount but there is a minimum and if there is no requisite amount for “appearance” means simply showing up at the Temple (particularly after the first day of the holiday) or if it means offering a sacrifice at the time of each “appearance.” Reish Lakish, who at first believes you have to offer a sacrifice each time your return to the Temple throughout the holiday challenges Rabbi Yochanan (who believes that showing up is enough) with three sources that seem to indicate that you need to offer a sacrifice. Rabbi Yochanan suggests that each of these sources relates to the first day of the holiday only. After Rabbi Yochanan raises a question against Reish Lakish, the Gemara reformulates its understanding of the debate between them: All agree that one can come to the Temple as many times as one wishes throughout the holiday, even without bringing a sacrifice. The debate is whether or not one is allowed to bring as many sacrifices (olot reiya - burnt offerings of appearance) as one wants or is one only able to bring one. Rabbi Yochanan raises a difficulty against Reish Lakish according to this understanding but it is resolved. The Gemara concludes by attempting to define what the braita meant by “the people cannot appear partially.” Some sacrifices (olot, burnt offerings) on the holidays must be purchased with unconsecrated money, while others (like shelamim, peace offerings) can be acquired with maaser sheni money. In an attempt to understand the nuances of which sacrifices can be brought on festivals, and which have to be purchased with unconsecrated money, the Gemara rereads (add words to) the Mishna, to make it comprehensible. The Mishna brings a debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel regarding the sacrifice on the first day of Pesach - why is that day unique?

Chagigah 6 - February 15, 14 Adar 1 Feb 15, 2022

Study Guide Chagigah 6

Today’s daf is sponsored by Eva Schweber in loving memory of her father, Ken Schweber on his yahrzeit. “His Talmud study was the inspiration for me to study daf yomi. My daily learning makes me feel deeply connected to him and that is a daily blessing to me.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her grandmother.

On the subject of Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel’s debate regarding a child, how could a child so young have gotten to Jerusalem? It must be the mother brought the child as she is obligated in simcha, even though she does not need to go to the Temple, she does go to Jerusalem. If young children went with their mothers to Jerusalem, why did Chana stay at home with Shmuel? If a young lame or blind child obligated according to Beit Shamai since they anyway are carried by their fathers? In what situation is this question asked? What is the root of the debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel whether one should spend more money on the burnt offering of seeing or the peace offering of Chagigah. Each brings two arguments and explains why they don’t agree with the other’s claims. Part of the debate revolves around what type of burnt offerings were sacrificed at Har Sinai when the Torah was given - were they burnt offerings of seeing or burnt offerings of the Tamid sacrifice. Abaye mentions other tanaim who held like Beit Shamai and others who held like Beit Hillel regarding the identity of the burnt offering at Har Sinai. Their statements where this is evident are brought.

Chagigah 5 - February 14, 13 Adar 1 Feb 14, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored by Caroline Ben-Ari in honor of the birth of Maeve Ray Winestock, “the ‘rainbow baby’ of my niece Gabi and her husband Benji.”

Rabbi Yochanan had a series of psukim that used to cause him to cry. If God is going to be incited to destroy us or if God doesn’t trust his righteous ones (as the verses in Job seem to indicate) what hope does humanity have? Once Rabbi Yochanan saw a man picking unripe figs, and the man explained that this was a metaphor for God sometimes killing the righteous before they sin. Another time, a young scholar died and the comment was made that he could have lived. However, in that instance, he acted irreverently. Another verse that causes Rabbi Yochanan to cry relates to Malachi 3:5, which seemingly says that God judges man and testifies against him, and the continuation of this verse was explained by other amoraim. Rabbi Yochanan also cried when he recited the verse from Kohelet 12:14 that speaks about God judging us for inadvertent sins, not just deliberate ones. The verse speaks about “hidden things” which are interpreted as things that a person does (like spitting) that offend others. The final part of that verse says “whether good or bad” which means good acts that have a bad side to them. Some examples are giving charity in public (which creates embarrassment), giving charity to a woman (which suggests impropriety) or even sending meat to one’s wife on Friday afternoon which hasn’t had the sciatic nerve removed – which might cause her to forget to remove it. Rabbi Yochanan also cried at the verses which said that God punishes us with “evils” and “troubles.” This doubling is interpreted as punishments that have mutually exclusive cures, or loans that come with burdensome payback plans. These verses also are explained to be referring to “hester panim” and financial burdens imposed by gentile regimes which the rabbis understood to be something every Jew must undergo. Rava, who seemingly had a great relationship with King Shapur and didn’t suffer very much explains that in fact, people didn’t know how he had to bribe King Shapur. “Hester panim” is counterbalanced by God continuing to protect us, and this was reflected in a public debate between Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hanania and a heretic in front of the Roman Caesar. There is a debate whether a man is accountable for frivolous conversations between himself and his wife during intimate moments, and Rav Kahana was so committed to learning from his teacher Rav, that he slept under his bed, until Rav reprimanded him. Though God hides Himself, there is a debate whether God cries for the Jews and for the Temple. In addition, God cries for bittul Torah. Various sages are lauded for their capacity to study Torah or see other sages even for a short time, highlighting the significance of every moment of Torah.

Chagigah 4 - February 13, 12 Adar 1 Feb 13, 2022

Study Guide Chagigah 4

This week’s learning is sponsored anonymously in honor of Rabbi Raymond Harari. “He has been teaching women Gemara for over 42 years (way before it was fashionable). May he be blessed with good health so that he may continue to inspire his students with the love of learning Talmud and Torah”.

This week’s learning is sponsored by Heather Stone for the refuah shleima of Robert Stone, Yehuda Leib ben Naftali HaLevi and Chaya.

From where do we derive the exemptions for women, a tumtum, an androgynous, and slaves from the mitzva of “seeing” God on the holidays? Why is a drasha needed to exclude each of them? That same verse is also explained to include children. How does that work with our Mishna that said children were excluded? From where is it derived that those who are sick, lame, blind, and elderly are also exempt? A braita states that an impure person and one who is uncircumcised is also exempt. From where is this derived? A list is brought of several verses that caused certain rabbis to cry when they read them – why?

Chagigah 3 - Shabbat February 12, 11 Adar 1 Feb 11, 2022

Study Guide Chagigah 3

Today’s daf is sponsored by Tracy Akner for a refuah shleima for Shifra Hadassah bat Chana and Shimon ben Tziporah.

The Gemara establishes that one who can hear but not speak and one who can speak but not hear is exempt from the mitzva of “seeing” – coming to the Temple and bringing holiday burnt offerings but obligated in the chagigah sacrifices. This exemption is derived by a gezeira shava from verses of Hakhel. How do we know that this person is also exempt from Hakhel? Rabbi Tanchum mentions other people who are exempt as well – one who is deaf in one ear, one who has one leg. Where are these derived from? A story is told (including within it a drasha about Hakhel) of rabbis who went to visit their rabbi, Rabbi Yehoshua, on the holiday and he wanted to know what drashot they heard in the Beit Midrash. At first, they are hesitant to say but after much coaxing, they tell him what they learned from Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria. The first drasha is why the children were also brought to Hakhel. The second drasha explains the unique 2-way relationship between God and the Jewish people. The third is an explanation of the verse in Kohelet 12:11 that compares the words of the rabbis to prodders and to nails. There is a beautiful description of the importance and beauty of learning Torah. The end of the verse refers to the multitude of different opinions among the rabbis. If that is the case, what is our job as a learner – how to make sense of it all? Why were those rabbis so hesitant to tell Rabbi Yehoshua the drashot they hear din the Beit Midrash? Their fear was due to a different story where someone was in a similar situation – went to visit Rabbi Eliezer - and after sharing what had happened in the Beit Midrash, Rabbi Eliezer prays that he be blinded and he is. Why?? The story ends with his vision restored. The Gemara goes back to analyzing the Mishna and asks how can we determine when someone is considered a shoteh and is exempt as well?

Chagigah 2 - February 11, 10 Adar 1 Feb 11, 2022

Study Guide Chagigah 2

Masechet Chagigah is sponsored in honor of Debra Rappaport Rosen by her family on the occasion of her finishing Shas at the end of this Masechet. “We are in awe at her incredible achievement of finishing all of Shas! Her seven-plus years of dedication and focus set a remarkable example and serve as a bold inspiration to our family and to Jewish women around the world. Our dear grandmothers--Pearl Modlin, Francine Friedland, Golda Rappaport, Tova Rosen, and Roslyn Brickman--are looking down at you with immense pride. May you continue to go from Chayil to Chayil! All our love, Michael, Eytan, Danya, Azriel, and Amalya Rosen; Michael Rappaport; Wendy Gordon; and Rena and Mordecai Rosen.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Margalit Frydman on behalf of her parents and parents-in-law.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sarah Galasko for the refuah shleima of Pesel Bayla bas Gitel.

Who is obligated in the mitzva of Aliya la’regel and who is exempt? A minor is excluded – who is considered a minor for this purpose? Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel debate this as well as what is the minimum amount of money required for the burnt offering for the holiday and for the chagigah offerings. The Mishna first states that all are obligated and then lists the exceptions to the rule. What does the word “all” come to include? Several answers are suggested and the Gemara raises difficulties with each option and then reinstates the first answer brought, that it is coming to include a Canaanite slave who is half slave/half free (he was owned by two owners and one freed him and the other did not). Another one who is exempt is someone who is deaf. Is it referring to someone who can’t hear and can’t speak or does the exemption also apply to one who either can’t hear, but can speak or can’t speak, but can hear?

Introduction to Masechet Chagigah Feb 10, 2022

Moed Katan 29 - Siyum Masechet Moed Katan - February 10, 9 Adar 1 Feb 10, 2022

Siyum Masechet Moed Katan is sponsored by Miriam Tannenbaum l'iluy nishmat Jack Zemsky, her father, Yaakov Yitzhak ben Moshe Nachum HaLevi and Miriam Esther z"l, whose 18th yahrzeit was yesterday, the 8th of Adar. “Our father’s life, like Moed Katan encompassed both the twinning of and the dialectic between simcha & aveilut. In dealing with life’s challenges, he both confronted them and chose to live a life of simcha. His service of Hashem was heavily influenced by those experiences and the teachings and simcha of Chassidut. Upon his passing in Chodesh Adar only days before Purim (that year), we felt it timely—as though he would have wanted the sadness to be somewhat muted at this joyous time of year. Yehi Zichro Baruch.”

Siyum Masechet Moed Katan is sponsored by Sara Berelowitz in memory of her mother-in-law, Sarah Tyba bat David Shlomo z"l.

The mourner gets treated with respect and is seated at the head – this derived from a verse in Job? A groom also sits at the head – this is derived from a verse comparing a groom to a kohen, who also sits at the head. The moment of death is described using imagery showing how difficult the moment is. What words should one use when parting with the dead? What words should be used when parting with one who is alive? These are derived from verses with God and Avraham, and Yitro and Moshe. The verse "Go from strength to strength" is explained in two different ways at the end of the Masechet - either one who goes from the shul to the Beit Midrash and the reverse or Torah scholars in general and it relates to this world and the next.

HADRAN ALACH MASECHET MOED KATAN - Download the text for the completion of the masechet: The Hadran.

Moed Katan 28 - February 9, 8 Adar 1 Feb 09, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored anonymously to those who maintain the Hadran website. “During Megillah we got way behind. We started to double and triple up on dapim and are managing to celebrate Siyum Moed Katan with everyone! I wish to encourage others to not be discouraged if they get in a similar situation.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Heather Stone for the refuah shlemah of Robert Stone, Yehuda Leib ben Naftali HaLevi v'Chaya, Heather Stone and Gwen Hermann’s father.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Samuel Ackerman in honor of Rachel Honeyman. “You are seen! So proud of everything you do.”

A woman's body before burial should not be left out any longer than needed – out of respect. Is this law specifically referring to pregnant women or to all women? Rabbi Elazar who holds it refers to all women derives this law from Miriam as they learn that she was buried immediately after her death. He also holds that Miriam died through a “kiss from God” like Moshe. Also, her death atones for the sins of the people as is derived from the juxtaposition of her death to the laws of the red heifer. A braita brings names for those who die immediately and those who get sick and die after a day, two days, three days, etc. One who dies at age fifty is death from karet (a God-given punishment), fifty-two is the death of Shmuel the prophet and sixty is considered death in its proper time. What about seventy or eighty? Raba died young and had many calamities in his family and lived in poverty while Rav Chisda lived a long life, celebrated many weddings, and had a lot of wealth. After seeing Raba and Rav Chisda, Rava stated that life, children and sustenance are based on luck rather than merit. Stories are told of exchanges that happened on the death beds of Rava and Rav Nachman, including each of them appearing in a dream after their death upon request by another before their death to tell them what the moment of death was like. Each of these stories, in addition to a few others, mentions encounters with the angel of death. The Mishna discusses different methods women would use to mourn/lament and which ones are permitted on holidays/Rosh Chodesh. The Gemara mentions different lamentations that were recited by women in a place called Shechnatziv. When Rabbi Yishmael’s two sons died, different rabbis came to give words of comfort. What did they each say? When one visits a mourner, one should not say anything until the mourner begins to speak. The mourner sits at the head – from where is this derived? A groom also sits at the head – this is derived from a kohen who also sits at the head.

Moed Katan 27 - February 8, 7 Adar 1 Feb 08, 2022

Pictures

Today’s daf is sponsored by Lisa Wolkenfeld for the continued refuah shleima of Yakira Leeba bat Sara Gita.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker in loving memory of her father in law Eliyahu Ashtamker on the shloshim and her father Jack Goodstein. “My father-in-law brought his young family including my husband on aliyah from India in 1970. He was a well-known Chazan in the B'nei Israel community. My father Jack Goodstein whose shiva ends today, was a kind, warm, smiling, smart man who will be missed by all who knew him. May both their neshamot have an aliyah.”

If someone left on a business trip and found out while away that a relative died, can he continue to do business? If so, in what manner? At what point do laws of mourning, such as turning over one's bed begin? The details of turning over beds is discussed - i.e. they are put back for Shabbat on Friday afternoon, which beds in the house need to be turned over and which do not. There are different types of beds - some need to be turned over and some need to be stood up on their sides. One such bed is called a dargash. There is a debate about what type of bed it is. Several questions are raised on Ulla's definition of the dargash, most are rejected but we are actually left with one difficulty and therefore an alternative is suggested. One can sweep and clean dishes in a mourner's house. What about putting spices and incense to use as air fresheners? People would bring food to the mourners for the seudat havraa. The weather people would bring it in fancy dishes and the poor in simple dishes. In order not to embarrass the poor, they instituted that only simple dishes would be permitted. A series of changes in mourning practices were instituted in order to protect the poor or others from embarrassment. For example, they used to show the body of the dead but since the poor had faces blackened from famine, they stopped this practice. Also burial shrouds became much simpler so as not to differentiate between rich and poor. Rabban Gamliel led the way on this and even in his own death was dressed in simple shrouds. Certain practices are different on chol hamoed and certain ones remain the same. For example, there is an attempt to limit eulogies. However, for a Talmud scholar, this is overridden. At what point should people visiting the mourners leave the house? A mourner or a sick person do not need to stand up in respect for the nasi. Mourners should eat food from others at the seudat havraa - from where is this derived? Until one is buried, the people of the city should not be working as they need to help deal with the burial. One should not mourn excessively over one's relative. A story is brought of a woman who mourned excessively over her son and was punished.

Moed Katan 26 - February 7, 6 Adar 1 Feb 07, 2022

Study Guide Moed Katan 26

Today’s daf is sponsored by Erica Kolatch in loving memory of her mother’s 6th yahrzeit, the Honorable Constance Glube, Chaya Rachel bat Shmuel z"l. “In later years she downplayed her brilliant career, but always lived by Tzedek Tzedek Tirdoff.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Gitta and David Neufeld for the refuah shleima of Rachel bat Golda Mariam.

For what relationships/situations does one tear kriya and is not allowed to properly fix it after? What is the source that one needs to rend one's garment in each situation? If one has more than one situation that requires rending one's garments, in what cases can one add to a tear that is already there and in what cases does one have to make a new tear in a different place? What is the requisite amount for the tear and for the added tear? It is a subject of debate whether one is allowed to add onto a tear torn over the loss of one's parent. If one keeps adding to a tear, how far can one go before needing to start a new tear in a different place? Can one only add to the tear after the shiva or after the shloshim? This too is a subject of debate. What is the root of the debate? If one borrows clothes and their relative dies, under what circumstances can they rend their friend's garments? If one is sick, we do not tell them of the death of a close relative as it may negatively affect their health. A few other laws regarding rending garments, mourning practices and the seudat havraa are brought.

Moed Katan 25 - February 6, 5 Adar I Feb 06, 2022

Study Guide Moed Katan 25

The Mishna establishes that only family members tear kriya, remove their shirt off their shoulder and partake in the meal immediately following the burial called the seudat havraa. Some explain this Mishna is referring to one who died on chol hamoed. The Gemara raises a number of questions from cases where others tear kriya and as well as keep other mourning practices, such as when a chacham dies or an upright person or one who is present when the person dies. Several stories are brought of the death of rabbis and the reactions of others to their death. When Rav Safra died, the sages did not tear kriya, however Abaye rebuked them. When Rav Huna died and Rav Chisda died, they wanted to put a sefer Torah on the bier, but it was deemed inappropriate. Rav Huna's bier was too wide to fit through the door - what options did they have and which did they choose? Rav Huna's body was brought to Israel and only some rabbis went out after his coffin - why? When Rav Chaga went to bury him next to Rabbi Chiya, a strange incident happened. Several other stories are brought of incidents or strange events in nature that occurred when certain rabbis died or eulogies that were recited for them.

Moed Katan 24 - Shabbat February 5 Feb 04, 2022

Pictures

Shmuel held there are no laws of mourning on Shabbat. The rabbis said that Shmuel held that a mourner who engages in sexual relations is liable for death at the hands of God. Rav Papa questions this as it merely says one can’t do it, but never says anything about the death penalty. He corrects them by saying that one who cuts one’s hair and doesn’t rend one’s garments is liable to the death penalty as can be derived from verses in the Torah when Nadav and Avihu died. Rav Papa's son quotes Masechet Avel Rabati that tells the story of a mourner who engaged in sexual relations and was killed by a pig. Which mourning practices can be observed on Shabbat and which cannot? A distinction is made between private and public. Rav and Shmuel debate which are private and which are public. Shmuel also held that rending one’s garments is only performed upon hearing of the person’s death but not the next day. If so, why did Shmuel rend 13 different garments when Rav died? What are the other exceptions to the rule? Is one permitted to fix the clothing that one tore? On Shabbat one either changes out of the torn garments or moves the tear to the back. Rava says that one can wear the torn garment in its regular way in one’s house. Rav Yosef covered his head in his house in the way of the mourners. Both of these are considered keeping mourning practices in private which are permitted on Shabbat. According to Rav Gidel bar Menashia, Shmuel ruled like Rabban Gamliel in the Mishna who held that all the holidays including Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur override shiva. Some say that his ruling was issued about infant burial. How many people need to bury the infant? An infant under 30 days is carried out by hand, over 30 days is put in a small coffin, over a year in a regular coffin, and according to Rabbi Akiva only if the child is two or has a body the size of a two-year-old. At thirty days a shura is done and the blessing of mourners and there is shiva. There is a debate regarding at what stage the community joins the funeral and the child is eulogized. It is regarding that debate that Rav Gidel passed down Shmuel’s psak. If one sat a day of shiva before Shavuot, when Shavuot ends, the mourner is considered at day fourteen as the holiday counts it as if shiva happened before and the one day of holiday counts as an additional seven days. The same is true for Rosh Hashana. Sukkot counts as 21 as Shmini Atzeret adds another 7. Kriya, revealing one’s shoulder after tearing and the meal called the seudat havraa are only for the actual mourners.

Moed Katan 23 - February 4, 3 Adar 1 Feb 04, 2022

Study Guide Moed Katan 23

Today's daf is dedicated by Debbie Gevir and her husband Yossi, in memory of Shimon ben Feiga Rayzel and Chaim Aryeh who passed away just as last Shabbat ended. “My uncle Shimmy was brilliant and talented with a strong love for Judaism, classical music, boating...and a great zest for life. He chose a different path than his orthodox family, becoming a prominent Reform Rabbi. He and his wife Judy -שתיבדל לחיים ארוכים always remained ever so respectful loving and close to his parents, sister- my mother, and to us. I already miss you, Uncle Shimmy and will always treasure the time we spent together throughout my life.”

Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her father, Melvyn Sydney Goldstein, on his 2nd yahrzeit. “We miss him. He was taken from us too swiftly. May his neshama have an aliyah.”

What are the rules of mourning for the community when a nasi dies? When a mourner finishes shiva, what are the stages one goes through week by week gradually getting life back to normal? How long after one’s wife dies can one remarry? On what does it depend? One doesn’t wear ironed clothes during shloshim. What clothes are included/not included in this prohibition? There is a debate about whether private mourning practices can be observed on Shabbat. How does each one prove his opinion from the wording of the Mishna? Is this debate between Amoraim also a tannaitic debate between the rabbis and Rabban Gamliel?

Moed Katan 22 - February 3, 2 Adar 1 Feb 03, 2022

Study Guide Moed Katan 22

Pictures

Today's daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson and Art Gould in gratitude to Hashem and Carol's medical team, and to the caring group of their Hadran Zoom friends. “After three months of scans, medical procedures and two surgeries, Carol has been declared - B"H - cancer free!”.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Tzippy and Mark Wolkenfeld to celebrate the birth and Brit Milah of their grandson born to Hannah and Jacob Finkel.

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom Family in loving memory of Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker and Leah Goldford’s fathers. “With deep sadness, we dedicate today’s learning to our dear friends, Stacey Goodstein Amshakar and Leah Goldford. We learn in memory of Stacey's father, Jack Goodstein. And we learn in memory of Leah's father, Moshe ben Bunia Bracha Bella. Our recent learning, so centered around the laws of mourning, highlighted for us the sensitivity with which the amoraim established mourning practices, to help us as we navigate the difficulties of loss. And, yet, even with all the well-stated customs and laws, the sadness of losing a loved one is overwhelming. Stacey and Leah, we stand in silence with you, virtually holding your hands, and offering our comfort. With much love and prayer for better times, your Hadran Zoom Family.”

The Gemara continues its discussion of situations where some family members may potentially sit shiva for a different number of days or the same amount of days but a different set of days. On what does it depend? According to Rava, in a case where the mourners do not go as far as the burial, the shiva starts when they turn away from the funeral procession to go back into the city to their homes. Rabbi Shimon holds that if the mourner lived nearby but joined the other mourners on the last day of shiva, they would count shiva with the other mourners. However, this is only if there are still people visiting the mourners. It was passed down that Rabbi Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that we hold like Rabbi Shimon on this issue and like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel on a treifa issue. But did he really say that? Several distinctions are made between customs for mourning for one’s parents or for others, such as rushing/not rushing the burial, working, removing one’s garment from one’s shoulders, cutting hair after the shloshim period ends, going to a simcha after the shloshim, how much and where to tear, which garments need to be torn, from where to tear, can the tear be fixed and how, and does one tear by hand or with a scissor. A nasi is treated the same as one’s parent. What are the differences in the laws regarding a nasi, talmid chacham, and the head of the court (av beit din) who die?

Moed Katan 21 - Rosh Chodesh Adar 1, February 2, 1 Adar I Feb 02, 2022

Study Guide Moed Katan 21

This month’s shiurim are dedicated by Ruth Rotenberg in loving memory of her daughter Tanielle Miller, a"h, on her 17th yahrzeit and David Ze’ev Rotenberg on his recent passing. “Today we celebrate and commemorate Tanielle’s short and powerful life. She loved learning, Israel, and doing chessed. We are grateful to family and friends who have shared how they bring Tanielle's essence into their lives as an inspiration. David Ze’ev Rotenberg exuded warmth and love and was so proud to be living in Israel with his family around him. Thank you to Rabbanit Michelle Farber for making daf so inspiring and meaningful on a daily basis.”

This month’s shiurim are dedicated by Sharon Bartel and David Form in honor of their daughter Mia’s Bat Mitzvah and her siyum of Seder Moed. “We are so proud of you and are impressed by your amazing accomplishment. Thank you for giving your family and friends something wonderful to celebrate."

Rav Ashi questions Ameimar on the fact that he stood while tearing kriya - did you derive this from Job 1:20 where Job stood when he tore kriya, as also in the chalitza ceremony, it says one stands and says “I am not interested in marrying her” and yet, one is not required there to stand. Ameimar distinguishes between the two references. Rami bar Chama also derives it from Job, however, a different question is raised against it and it is learned in the end from King David. Could it be he was acting stringently and not according to the law? A braita lists what is forbidden to a mourner. Even though a mourner can’t learn Torah, if the community needs him, he can teach, like Rabbi Yosi in Tzipori. One cannot teach in that situation directly through a translator. Why? Can one wear tefillin during shiva? What is the tannaitic debate regarding this? What verses are used to probe each opinion? Once it is permitted to wear them, even if new people come who don’t know what day of shiva it is, can he can leave on the tefillin or does he need to remove them? This is also a subject of debate. According to who does Ulla hold? The Gemara tries to better understand what he holds. Rava holds that after the first day one can wear tefillin. How does that work with his psak about mourning before Yom Tov - that one needs three days in order for the holiday to cancel the mourning period? Other laws of mourning become more lenient after the first three days. In what way? One cannot greet others in the first three days. If so, how did Rabbi Akiva do that on the first day after his sons’ death? The Gemara brings a number of different sources that discuss different time frames for a mourner greeting others and others greeting the mourner and tries to reconcile the differences between them. After a certain amount of time passes - a year for a loss of a parent and thirty days for a loss of a different relative - it is not appropriate to console the mourner as it reopens the wound. But one can mention it gently without being explicit about it. If one relative finds out about the death a bit later than the other relatives, does that person count their own count of seven days or with the others? On what factors does it depend?

Moed Katan 20 - Rosh Chodesh Adar 1, February 1, 29 Shvat Feb 01, 2022

Study Guide Moed Katan 20

Today’s learning is dedicated to Rabbanit Michelle Farber by the thousands of students around the world in honor of your birthday… בת חמישים לעצה. In Masechet Shabbat, you taught us that מֵילָתָא אַלָּבֵישַׁיְיהוּ יַקִּירָא. Fine wool is precious to she who wears it. That is, a student loves the teachings of her teacher. Rabbanit Michelle, we are honored and lucky to learn from you daily, we treasure and love all of your teaching. May we grow in learning with you from year to year for many more years to come. Happy Birthday!

According to Raba, if one is buried on the holiday, shiva starts after, but shloshim starts after the burial. Abaye raises a question on Raba from two different tannaitic sources. One is answered but the other difficulty remains. In the Tosefta, there is a tannaitic debate between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis regarding how many days of mourning does one need to observe before the holiday for shiva to be canceled by the holiday - three days or one hour? Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel also debated this issue. Amoraim also debate according to which opinion do we rule. Mourning being seven days is derived from the holidays that last seven days. Why is it not derived from Shavuot which is one day? One who hears about a relative who died a while ago, does one sit shiva for a week and observe shloshim or does one only observe one day of mourning. This is also a debate among tannaim. Is a distinction made between a parent who died and other relatives for whom one generally sits shiva? What is considered ‘a while ago’ - shemua rechoka? What if it was within the time when one heard but it was a day of the holiday when one can’t sit shiva and when the holiday ends it is beyond the designated time? What if it was Shabbat? Does one tear kriya in a case of shemua rechoka? Can you have kriya in a case where there aren’t seven days of shiva? Are the two inherently connected? For which relatives do people sit shiva? It is learned from people that a kohen cannot become impure to; however, two additional cases were added - siblings who share the same mother (not father) and one’s sister who is married. There is a tannitic debate regarding shiva for relatives of those relatives. Is it only when in the presence of the relative? What does one do when one’s in-laws die? What is the difference between that case and one where one’s brother-in-law dies? Ameimar stood while tearing kriya when his son was sitting shiva.

Moed Katan 19 - January 31, 29 Shvat Jan 31, 2022

Pictures

Today’s daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson and Arthur Gould in loving memory of Carol’s mother, Irma Robinson, Hudda Bat Moshe, z”l. “Today is her 7th yahrzeit. Irma moved from New Haven to Chicago to marry Lou and build a rich life there including lifelong friends, work she loved at a nearby high school library and active participation in her synagogue. She lived with Alzheimer’s for seven years with dignity and strength and never forgot Carol or her sister. She would be proud of Carol studying daf yomi.”

One cannot write a promissory note on chol hamoed unless the borrower is not trustworthy or the scribe needs money for food. One cannot write sifrei Torah, tefillin and mezuzot. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and permits one to write tefillin and mezuzot for oneself and to spin thread to make techelet threads for his tzitzit. A braita brings a few different opinions about how one could write tefillin and mezuzot for others as well. When spinning the wool, does one need to make a change and if so, how much of a change? In what situations does the holiday cancel shiva or shloshim? Does this apply to all holidays including Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur? Does the one day of Shavuot also work like the week-long holidays of Sukkot and Pesach? When the holidays cancel shloshim, it is entirely canceled? On all of these issues there are different opinions. Abba Shaul holds (against the rabbis) that the seventh day counts both as shiva and as shloshim as part of the day is considered like a whole day. The relevance would be if the eighth day was a holiday. Then since shloshim began on day 7, the holiday cancels shloshim. The rabbis agree that one can shave on the seventh if the holiday comes out on the 9th day and the day before the holiday was Shabbat. Do we hold like Abba Shaul or the rabbis for shiva and for shloshim? From where do we learn the concept of shloshim? If one is buried on the holiday, shiva starts after, but when does shloshim start (since laws of shloshim are the same as chol hamoed – i.e. no shaving)?

Moed Katan 18 - January 30, 28 Shvat Jan 30, 2022

This week’s learning is sponsored by Jay Levine in honor of Rabbi Nicki Greninger, on the occasion of her son Oren’s Bar Mitzvah. “Thank you for deepening my learning, sharing my enthusiasm for Daf Yomi, and bringing me back into Talmud study.” Today’s daf is sponsored by Arnold Shuster in loving memory of his mother Devorah Shuster. “Both her children attended Maimonides School and she was a firm believer that both boys and girls get a good education in Talmud and all limudei kodesh. Today’s daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson and Art Gould in loving memory of Art’s mother Shirley, Sarah bat Avraham v’Ziche Reicha z"l. “Today is her 8th yahrzeit. She was a life-long learner and a striver; a woman born before her time. She sewed, she made mosaics; she was always busy with something. She lives on in the tallitot and quilts she made for so many members of her family and her synagogue. Art sleeps every night under an official Shirley Gould quilt.”

Can one cut one’s nails on the holiday or when in mourning? Shmuel was lenient but his brother was not. When his brother sat shiva and Shmuel questioned him on it, his brother said, “If this happened to you, you would also not cut your nails!” Soon after, Shmuel became a mourner and Shmuel blamed his brother for bringing the situation upon him by the power of suggestion as is learned from Abraham’s words to his servants when arriving at the place for the binding of Isaac. Is there a difference between cutting fingernails and toenails? Can one use scissors or only one’s fingers or teeth? Does one need to bury fingernails? Why or why not? In what situation can one shave one’s mustache while in mourning? If one who only has one garment can do laundry on chol hamoed, why was that not listed in the Mishna? Flax clothes can be washed as they are easy to launder. What types of documents can be written on chol hamoed? All of the ones that are permitted are because there is a concern for a loss. Shmuel says that one can betroth a woman on chol hamoed to ensure that someone else doesn’t come along and betroth her instead. The Gemara tries to support Shmuel’s statement from various tannaitic sources, including our Mishna, that lists documents of betrothal. Or does the Mishna not permit the betrothal itself, just the writing of the monetary commitment of the two sides after the betrothal? Is Shmuel really concerned that someone else may betroth her? Didn’t Shmuel say that matches between men and women are decreed by God? Shmuel’s statement is reinterpreted. One who is suspected of wrongdoing must be somehow connected to what they are suspected of as there is no baseless suspicion. Is that really true? The Gemara raises several questions against this assumption. As a result, they bring a number of exceptions to this rule.

Moed Katan 17 - Shabbat January 29, 27 Shvat Jan 28, 2022

Pictures

Today’s daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson and Art Gould in loving memory of Art’s father Joseph, Yosef ben Shlomo Shabtai v’Rachel z”l. “Today is his 23nd yahrtzeit. Joe was an ordinary man of extraordinary dignity, decency and dedication. After WWII he worked for the INS welcoming immigrants to membership in America. I miss him and wish we had had more time together.”

The Gemara discusses excommunication of one who did not treat a Torah scholar with respect. What should the course of action be for Torah scholar for whom there were rumors spread of inappropriate behavior. Rav Yehuda deliberated and was advised to excommunicate him. Upon Rav Yehuda’s death, the Torah scholar asked the rabbis to repeal the excommunication. After looking into the issue, Rabbi Yehuda Nesia wanted to remove it, but Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani argued against him and convinced him not to. When the Torah scholar left the beit midrash, he got stung in his private parts by a hornet and died. Even in burial, they were unable to bury him with the pious people but did bury him with the judges. Why? In Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani’s argument, he brought the case of Rebbi’s maidservant who excommunicated someone for beating his older child, as it is modeling for him violent behavior. There is a debate regarding Torah scholars who sin, whether or not they should receive a public excommunication. Rav Papa would administer lashes to a Torah scholar instead of excommunicated him. Is excommunication something that permanently leaves a stain on a person or once it is removed, it is totally gone? A Torah scholar was bullied by someone but was to scared to excommunicate him as he was worried he would beat him up. What did he do instead? A leper can shave on chol hamoed - in what circumstances? A braita states that a kohen and a mourner can shave during the holiday - in what situation are each of these cases referring to? Can one cut one’s nails on the holiday or when in mourning?

Moed Katan 16 - January 28, 26 Shvat Jan 28, 2022

One gets excommunicated if one refuses a subpoena to the court. Rava explains various details of a subpoena to court. Who sends it? What details need to be there? Some of these laws are derived from the story of Korach. From where do we derive that someone can be excommunicated for not showing up to court and that we publicize their sins? That and other related issues are derived from verses in the Song of Deborah (Shoftim 5:23). An excommunicated person’s possessions are rendered ownerless. What else can be done to him/her? A story is told of a butcher who was excommunicated for acting brazen with a rabbi. Once they made peace, they wanted to undo the excommunication. There was a deliberation about whether or not that could be done. A distinction is made between one who is excommunicated over a monetary issue and disrespect for a Torah scholar. One could be excommunicated to a particular section of people but not to everyone - how? If one excommunicated someone and dies, can the excommunication be repealed by another? What is the standard amount of time for nidui and nezifa? What was the difference between the custom in Israel and Babylonia regarding this? Nezifa in Israel is seven days. However, this is difficult as in a story with Rebbi and Rabbi Chiya, it is thirty days. Rebbi decreed that teaching should only go on in the beit midrash. Rabbi Chiya taught Torah in the marketplace. They engage in a debate but Rebbi wins and Rabbi Chiya puts himself in nezifa. Nezifa in Babylonia is one day. This is proven from a story of Shmuel and Mar Ukva and another story of a woman who partially blocked the road when a Torah scholar was passing. A third story on this same topic relates to verses in Shmuel 2 Chapter 22 and 23 regarding songs of King David. After the story is told, the Gemara delves into verses from those chapters and explains them.

Moed Katan 15 - January 27, 25 Shvat Jan 27, 2022

Pictures

Today’s daf is sponsored by Terri Krivosha and Rabbi Hayim Herring in honor of the birth of their granddaughter Orly Nessa, named after Terri's father Nahum Meir. “May she bring light to the world as her Saba Raba did.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Catriella Freedman in loving memory of her father, Zvi Stein, on his 3rd Yahrzeit on Shabbat. “You taught us (in Yiddish) that you can't dance at every wedding, so learning אין מעברין שמחה לשמחה took on special meaning: be present and approach each moment with gratitude and joy.”

Today's daf is sponsored by the Tannenbaum family in loving memory of בריינא ברכה בת אריה יעקב ורינה Bryna Greenberg, a dear friend to so many, a model of a אהבת התורה, a young woman who was plucked away from us a few days ago at too young of an age. The juxtaposition of simcha & aveilut in Moed Katan feels particularly poignant at this time. May our learning be a zechut & aliyah for her neshama. Yehi Zichra Baruch.

The Gemara does through 13 different issues and tries to determine whether they are forbidden/relevant for a mourner, one who excommunicated and a leper. Issues such as laundry, work, readning one's garment, learning Torah, sexual relations, shoes, etc. Answers are brought from the Tanach or tannitic sources.

Moed Katan 14 - January 26, 24 Shvat Jan 26, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sondria Atkin in loving memory of her grandmother, Rochel bat Harry on her 39th yahrzeit.

Who is permitted to shave or launder during chol hamoed? Why it is forbidden to shave on chol hamoed? Rabbi Zeira asked: If due to circumstances beyond his’s control, he was not able to shave before the holiday, would he be permitted to shave on chol hamoed – should we say it wasn’t his fault or should we worry that others may not know that it wasn’t his fault and may learn from there that one could shave on chol hamoed? Abaye says, how can we distinguish between different people – if some cannot shave, then all cannot shave. Rav Ashi had a different version of Rabbi Zeira’s question and the answer that was given. The Mishna permits one who was abroad to shave on chol hamoed. The Mishna does not agree with Rabbi Yehuda who says one who was abroad did not leave with permission and therefore cannot shave. Rava limits the debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda to a case where one left to make a profit. A question is raised on Rava from a braita and is resolved. Shmuel taught that a child born on the holiday can get his hair cut on the holiday if it is needed. An inference is made and a question is raised against the inference. Rav Ashi resolves the issue. A different version of Shmuel’s statement and the ensuing discussion is brought. Mourning practices do not take place on the holiday whether or not they began before the holiday or after. Are excommunication laws practiced on the holiday? Rav Yosef brings a source to derive an answer but Abaye has a retort. Abaye brings our Mishna to answer the question, but Rava rejects his proof. Does a leper have to keep all the laws of distancing on the holiday? Abaye tries to prove it from our Mishna, but the proof is rejected. Rava brings his own source to find an answer.

Moed Katan 13 - January 25, 23 Shvat Jan 25, 2022

Study Guide Moed Katan 13

Pictu res

Today’s daf is sponsored by Ruth Rotenberg in loving memory of her daughter Tanielle Miller, on her 17th yahrzeit. “Today we celebrate and commemorate Tanielle’s short and powerful life. She loved learning, Israel, and doing chessed.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in loving memory of her parents' yahrzeits this week, Fruma bat Ester (Florence) and Baruch ben Hinda (Bernard) Stillman. “They always encouraged me to follow my dreams and believed I could do whatever I put my mind to. They would have supported my learning whole-heartedly, and my dad would have joined with me.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Judy (Esther Judith) Tydor Schwartz in loving memory of her grandmother Esther Laufer Tydor (Esther bat Sinai and Chaya Laufer) who lost her life in the Lodz ghetto on 23 Shevat 5701 (1941).

Today’s daf is sponsored by Beki and Rina Baumel in loving memory of their grandmother Shirly on her yahrzeit. “She was a pioneer of women's advanced education, a true adventurer and a devoted friend. Baba, we love you and miss you.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Helen Lewis in honor of her daughter Miriam Kunin’s birthday! “Happy birthday to my wonderful daughter Miriam Kunin and thank you to all her teachers at Machon Pardes, Drisha and Hadar and all her chavruta partners across the world for helping her to learn Torah with such enthusiasm and joy.”

If one pushes off one's work to chol hamoed, one cannot benefit from the work that was done. But if one dies, are the heirs penalized as well? Is the penalty on the person or on the possessions? Comparisons are made to other cases to arrive at an answer. If one prepared the land in the shmita year, can one plant after the shmita year? On what does it depend? One can purchase houses, slaves and animals if they are needed for the holiday or if the seller needs money to buy food. According to this one can sell items on chol hamoed if one needs money for food, but can one also work if one needs money for food? Sources are brought, including our Mishna, to try to answer the question. One cannot move items from house to house but can move items from a house to the courtyard as less effort is required. One cannot pick up items from a craftsman unless one is concerned they will be stolen from there, in which case, they can bring it to the nearest courtyard. A braita is brought which says one can bring to and bring home items from a craftsman. How can one resolve the contradiction? What can one do to protect figs that are drying, from the rains? Sellers can sell items needed for the holiday, provided they do it privately. Trapping, threshing and grinding can be done also in private for the holiday. Rabbi Yosi said they are being strict. To what was he referring? Rav Huna permitted spice sellers to sell in a normal manner. How could this be? In what situations is one allowed to shave on chol hamoed?

Moed Katan 12 - January 24, 22 Shvat Jan 24, 2022

Pictures

Today’s daf is sponsored by Judith Weil in loving memory of Rabbi Simcha Krauss who passed away this past Thursday. “A gadol hador who believed history will judge us on the issue of Agunot and so devoted his life and extraordinary knowledge and abilities to ameliorate their plight. Yehi zichro baruch.”

Today’s daf is sponsored anonymously to show love and support for women undergoing IVF.

If gentiles do work for a Jew on Yom Tov or Shabbat as a contract worker (one who gets paid for the job not per hour), they can do it only if the property is outside of techum Shabbat as otherwise people will think the Jew hired them as day workers on Shabbat. This is only if there is no other city right nearby that is inhabited by Jews. But on chol hamoed, since Jews can travel beyond the techum, it is forbidden even outside the techum. Several cases are brought where rabbis were stringent as they felt that since others look up to them, they have to keep to a higher standard. Several times the Gemara brings this to explain why someone was stringent when the halakha permitted it. If one gets paid for work on chol hamoed, then that work should not be done. One can give items to a gentile worker who is working as a contract worker in order for it to be returned after the holiday. One cannot mate animals on chol hamoed but can put them in an enclosed area, hoping they will mate. One cannot enclose animals in a field in order to fertilize the field on Shabbat, Yom Tov or chol hamoed. If one has a gentile shepherd, one cannot send the gentile any gentile workers to help. If the gentile works for the week/month/year, then one can send him workers to help. The Mishna brings a parallel case to the previous Mishna regarding a wine press instead of an olive press. Why are both necessary? Rav said that laws of chol hamoed are so complicated as the cases are very specific and it is hard to know what general rules can be learned from them. They are also compared to laws of Shabbat as many things are permitted and yet forbidden. A number of rabbis harvested their fields even though it says in a braita that one cannot deal with crops that are attached to the ground. How is this resolved? One can grind for the purposes of the holiday. Can one "pretend" that one needs more even if one does not really? What if there just happens to be extra? One can cut a palm tree even if one only needs the sawdust, however Abaye cursed anyone who did this. A story regarding Rav Ashi who did this is brought in the Gemara. One can bring in fruits to protect from theft and other items to protect from getting ruined, as long as one did not delay this in order to do it specifically on the holiday. This, however can only be done privately, which means during the day and not at night. Why is daytime considered more private?

Moed Katan 11 - January 23, 21 Shvat Jan 23, 2022

Study Guide Moed Katan 11

Pictures

This week’s learning is sponsored by Michael Gordon in honor of his wife Avigail and daughter Tzipora’s shared Hebrew birthday. “I am continually inspired by both of you.”

This week’s daf is sponsored by Tina Senders Lamm in loving memory of her mother, Peppy Senders, Pesha Rivka bat Gershon Ha’Cohen u’Bina, whose 18th yahrzeit will be on Shabbat. “She was wise, giving and compassionate. All who knew her, loved her.”

Pictures

More examples are brought of items that can be built/fixed as they are not considered work of a craftsman. If it is a matter of financial loss, even something that is considered work of a craftsman is permitted, as long as one did not push it off to be done on the holiday. One can preserve food only if it will be eaten on the holiday. A contradiction is brought between the Mishna that permitted fixing hinges and other parts of doors/locks and a Mishna in Maaser Sheni 5:15 that mentions Yochanan the Kohen Gadol who forbade hammering even in a case of financial loss, as it made a lot of noise and those who heard would not know whether or not it was a case of financial loss. There are several suggestions made to resolve the contradiction. There is a tannatic debate regarding issues with financial loss whether or not work can be done in its usual manner or does one need to do it in an unusual manner? A case is brought where they permitted preserving fish for after the holiday. Why? Rav mentions a number of tips he got from Ada the fisherman regarding fish preparation. If one turned over one's olives and they were ready for pressing and then one became a mourner or couldn't finish the process for some other reason and then the holiday came, one would be able on the holiday to put a beam over them to begin pressing them and finish after the holiday. That is Rabbi Yehuda's opinion, but Rabbo Yosi permits one to finish the process entirely. Two different versions of the Mishna are brought, each explaining differently the mourner and whether the mourner can work or not if there is a financial loss at stake. Are the laws of mourning the same as chol hamoed? A braita is brought to prove the opinion that one cannot work when one is in mourning. A few opinions are brought in the braita which delineate what work should one find others to do, what work can one do oneself and what work can't be done at all, even by others.

Moed Katan 10 - Shabbat January 22, 20 Shvat Jan 21, 2022

Pictures

In what ways is one allowed to sew on chol hamoed? What is the difference between how a regular person can sew and an expert? What is the test for determining if one is an expert? What actions regarding putting a bed together are permitted according to the different opinions? There are two opinions in the Mishna and the Gemara brings two different ways of understanding the two different opinions. Three questions are raised on one of the explanations. One can set up an oven or millstone on chol hamoed. Rabbi Yehuda does not permit “mechabshin” the millstone from the start – what is that? Two interpretations are brought. There is a debate about whether or not it is permitted and in what situation? And in which case is it not permitted? A number of other actions are raised by amoraim regarding actions that are permitted/forbidden on chol hamoed – some regarding dealing with animals, millstones, and building benches, troughs and other things. Rava lists a whole bunch of actions that can be permitted or forbidden depending on for what purpose it is done. One cannot do business transactions on chol hamoed unless there is a loss incurred. The Gemara brings two stories – one of someone who waited until after the holiday to sell something and was rewarded by selling for double the price and another who didn’t wait as there was a potential financial loss.

Moed Katan 9 - January 21, 19 Shvat Jan 21, 2022

Study Guide Moed Katan 9

Pictures

Today’s daf is sponsored by Adina Polak in loving memory of Shlomit Bat Bessi.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of her mother-in-law, Joyce Goldford, Zissel Pessel Bat Eliyahu Mordechai Ha-levi on her 11th yahrzeit. “Her motto was: “if you don't have anything good to say, say nothing." This wasn't a mere expression but the way she lived her life. Always having something nice to say with her soft voice, mild manner and beautiful smile, no Lashon hara ever came out of her mouth. I miss her and hold the sweet memories of her in my heart. I hope I have internalized her lessons and passed them on to my children and grandchildren. May her neshama have an Aliya and her memory be for a blessing.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Gabrielle & Daniel Altman in loving memory of Hon, Myriam Altman z”l. “She was a trailblazer for women’s equality, who would have been immensely proud of her 6 family members who are learning the Daf, and probably would have been learning it herself.”

Pictures

What is the source that one cannot mix two smachot? They try to derive it from the verses in Kings 1 Chapter 8 that describe the sanctification of the Temple that took place in the seven days before the holiday. The proof is rejected and in the end, they learn it from a different part of the verse. When the Temple was dedicated, they did not celebrate Yom Kippur that year. They permitted it based on a kal vachomer from Shabbat and the Tabernacle. Why couldn’t they have also fasted and also celebrated the Temple sanctification? From where do we derive that Shabbat is overridden by the Tabernacle? A different source is brought to prove that the sanctification of the Temple overrode Yom Kippur. How do we know that they didn't celebrate Yom Kippur that year? How do we know that God approved of this? Why does the verse there describe all the good that God did for King David? When King Solomon tried to bring in the Ark, the gates of the Holy of Holies stick to each other and wouldn’t open? Only when he prayed and eventually asked for mercy on the merits of David, then the gates opened and it became clear that David was forgiven for his sin with Batsheva. Stories are told of students who went to be blessed by rabbis and received blessings that sounded more like curses, but in the end, others explained it to them in a positive manner. What types of makeup are women allowed to use on chol hamoed? Do the same rules apply to younger women and older women? The Gemara brings a braita that shows Rabbi Yehuda’s stringency regarding putting lime on one’s skin to be more limited than it appeared in the Mishna. Does Rabbi Yehuda really hold that one can do something now that is uncomfortable as long as on the holiday one will be happy from the results of that initial action? It seems to contradict his opinion elsewhere on a different topic. What types of depilatory creams did women use?

Moed Katan 8 - January 20, 18 Shvat Jan 20, 2022

Study Guide Moed Katan 8

Pictures

Today’s daf is sponsored by Shira Eliaser in honor of Ellen Jaffe Cogan's birthday. “Happy birthday to a lifelong Torah learner, a devoted Jewish woman, and a very special Bubbie. With love from her children and grandchildren too.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Judy & David Gilberg in loving memory of Judy's sister, Hanna Cohn, Chana Sara Bat Meir Tuvyan v'Eshkah, on her 20th yahrzeit.

There were two different opinions about which verse teaches us that a person, clothing or house is not leprous until it is pronounced by the kohen to be leprous. Why does each not use the verse that the other brought? How does Rabbi Yehuda derive it from the verse “and on the day…”? Abaye and Rava each understand it differently and this affects whether or not they derive that the kohen must rule on a leprous mark during the day from this verse or from a different verse, which affects the derivations of other details of a leper as well. Can one do likut atzamot (collection of bones for burial after the flesh has disintegrated) on chol hamoed? Is it considered a happy occasion or one that stirs up sad emotions? One cannot bring a eulogizer to encourage others to be sad along with him/her if it is within thirty days of the holiday. What is the reason for this? One cannot dig burial crypts or graves on chol hamoed. But one can dig a water ditch (for what use?) and make a coffin. Do the boards for the coffin need to be ready before the holiday? One cannot get married or perform yibum (levirate marriage), but one can remarry one who he divorced. A woman can put on makeup but Rabbi Yehuda doesn’t think she should put on lime because it will cause her discomfort. The Mishna lists some laws about other types of work that will be dealt with more in-depth in the Gemara. Why can’t one get married on chol hamoed? One answer is that one cannot mix one happiness with another. The second answer is that one will ignore the mitzva to be happy on the holiday as one will be busy being happy with one’s spouse. A third answer is because of the hard work involved in preparing for a wedding. A fourth answer is that one may push off the wedding until the holiday so that one can combine the wedding and holiday feasts and this will cause a delay in fulfilling the mitzva to procreate.

Moed Katan 7 - January 19, 17 Shvat Jan 19, 2022

Study Guide Moed Katan 7

Pictures

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rochelle Sobel, in loving memory of her husband, Dr. Solomon (Sol) Sobel, Shalom ben HaRav Dov v’Chaya, on the occasion of his fourth Yahrzeit. “Sol was a lifelong learner who loved studying Daf Yomi, medicine, and anything else that interested his children and grandchildren. We miss you every day. Your wisdom, your kindness, and your gentle guidance. Yehi Zichro Baruch."

Today’s daf is sponsored by Miriam Adler in honor of Rabbanit Michelle and Hadran.

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family for a refuah shleima for Rachel Ophira bar Nechama Leah Esther, Emma’s daughter. “Emma, your daughter, Rachel, is in our thoughts and prayers and we dedicate today's learning to her full and speedy recovery. With lots of love from your Hadran Zoom family.”

What is considered a typical way of trapping a mole or mouse and what is atypical? In what situations can one trap it in a usual manner? Why? In what way can one fix a broken wall on chol hamoed? Rav Chisda said that a wall of a garden has to be fixed in an unusual manner but a wall of a courtyard can be fixed in a usual manner as there is a concern for a loss as robbers can get in. A source is brought to first prove that Rav Chisda is correct; however, it is rejected. A different version brings the source to challenge Rav Chisda but a response to the challenge is brought. In the end, our Mishna provides support for Rav Chisda. Can a kohen check a person who has a leprous mark on chol hamoed? Rabbi Meir says one can check in order to be lenient but if the determination is that the person is a leper, the kohen does not say anything. Rabbi Yosi says that the kohen can’t choose to either be lenient or silent, but one must say either yes or no, and therefore doesn’t permit a kohen to look at all at a potentially leprous mark on chol hamoed. In which stage of leprosy do they agree and in which stage do they disagree? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi held like Rabbi Meir in a particular stage and like Rabbi Yosi in a different one but two different versions are brought as to which stage he held like which opinion. What is the logic behind each option? Is a leper who is determined definitively to be leper permitted to be with their spouse? The premise of the Mishna is that until a kohen pronounces the person a leper, the person is not a leper. From there is this derived? Two different verses are brought. What is the practical difference between them?

Moed Katan 6 - January 18, 16 Shvat Jan 18, 2022

Study Guide Moed Katan 6

Pictures

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sara Berelowitz in honor of her son Tani Sterman who passed the bar exam!

Today’s daf is sponsored by Shira Hannah Fischer in honor of Rabbanit Michelle Farber and all the amazing women learning every day.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Debbie Aschheim & Robert Weiss (NYC) For a refuah shleima for Jackie Bitensky - Yaacova Ariella Bat Fruma. “Jackie: Your very recent FB posts embody what Rabbi Abbahu taught on yesterday’s (Tu b’Shevat) daf (Moed Katan 5a/Michelle Farber at 27:30 minutes) and provide an opportunity for the public to pray for mercy and healing on your behalf. May the prayers of multitudes, including those of the Hadran family, result in your speedy and complete recovery. Refuah shlema.”

Rabbi Yehuda says that one doesn’t assume a field had a body buried there that was plowed unless an elder or a Torah scholar says so. What do we learn from this about Torah scholars? If graves were marked by rocks and limestone, what can one learn from the particular formation about where the graves are located? The Mishna states that chol hamoed was a time when they would send messengers from the court to uproot diverse kinds that were growing in people’s fields that they themselves did not uproot. The Mishna in Shekalim says it was done on the 15th of Adar. What is each one referring to? Why specifically was this done on chol hamoed? What is the measurement for a diverse kind that needs to be uprooted? When the representative of the court come, what do they do? How did this change over time and why? The Mishna discusses debates between Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and the rabbis regarding certain watering issues - one can make a channel from one tree to another but not in a way that the whole field (a field that is usually sustained by rainwater) will get watered or is this also permitted? If a field is not used to being watered, does that mean that one cannot water is on chol hamoed as this may be defined as no financial loss? Rav Yehuda holds that even if one cannot water the whole field, if the field was moist but dried up, one can water it as it will be a loss. Can one sprinkle water on a field on chol hamoed? In the shmita year? Is it permissible to trap moles and mice so they don’t ruin the fields? On what does it depend?

Moed Katan 5 - January 17, 15 Shvat, Tu B'Shvat Jan 17, 2022

Study Guide Moed Katan 5

Pictures

Today’s daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of Rabbanit Sara Hene Rabinowitz Geffen on her yahrzeit. “She and her husband Rav Tuvia Geffen, Rabbi of Shearith Israel in Atlanta, brought up their 8 children in a life of learning. Seven of her grandchildren live in Israel.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Talia Kirshenbaum in honor of Arielle Frankston Morris. “Thank you for encouraging and inspiring us to jump back on the daf yomi bandwagon for Masechet Megillah. Tizki le'Mitzvot!”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Vered Wexler in loving memory of her grandmother, Morti Margret Renta Sara Bat Lilu.

One can fix a water channel that is broken but can one dig a new one on chol hamoed if it is needed for the public? Rabbi Yaakov in the name of Rabbi Yochanan permits, however, a question is raised against him from a braita that clearly states that digging is not permitted. However, it is unclear if the braita is referring to a case where it is needed by the public or not. There are different ways to read the braita. Can our Mishna provide support for Rabbi Yochanan as well? Where is the source in the Torah for the need to make a sign on a grave for kohanim to know not to pass over there? There are many different verses brought to answer this question. Places that have impurity that can be imparted by a tent need marking but not ones that only pass on impurity through touching or carrying. One cannot place markers on chol hamoed if it is clear to all there is a grave there. But if there is a doubt, such as overhanging trees and rocks, and a beit hapras, then markers can be put up on chol hamoed. What are the cases of overhanging trees and rocks and a beit hapras? There are three cases that can be considered a beit hapras. Rav Papa thinks that not all cases of a beit hapras require markers. Which one does not? Why?

Megillah 32 - January 13, 11 Shvat Jan 16, 2022

Siyum Masechet Megillah is sponsored by Sharon Goldberg in loving memory of her father, Yechezkel ben Yerachmiel, on the occasion of his yahrzeit on the 11th of Shevat. “He was a kind and gentle man, a devoted son and brother, and a wonderful father and grandfather. Yehi zichro baruch.”

Siyum Masechet Megilah is sponsored by Rina and Tzachi Goldberg in loving memory of Chaim Schalom Ben Aharon Mendel Kurz on his 46th yahrzeit on the 26th of Shvat, and to Penina Bat Yechezkel Goldberg on her 13th yahrzeit on the 21st of Adar. "She shares a yahrzeit with her ancestor, the Noam Elimelech."

Siyum Masechet Megillah is sponsored by Sharon Russ and family in memory of her mother, Sima bat Estreya, who just had her Shloshim. “My mother was taken from us suddenly and tragically. She was born in the Old City of Jerusalem, in 1942. She faced many challenges in her life, including her visual disability from birth, and persevered with profound faith, strength, and determination. Although she wasn't given the opportunity to study past 8thgrade, she was extremely wise, and all gravitated to her to get advice, love and support. She was totally devoted to her family, giving unconditional love (tough love if necessary. As kids we called her the drill sergeant). She was adventurous and full of life and spread joy and happiness to all. She touched the lives of so many and will be sorely missed. May her neshama have an aliya.”

Today's learning is sponsored by Emma and Richard Rinberg for a refuah shleima for their beloved daughter Rachel, Rachel Ophira bat Nechama Leah Esther.

What do you do to the Torah before and during the recitation of the blessings over the Torah? Does the Torah need to be covered during the blessing? If so, why? Who is chosen to be the one to roll the Torah? Is it considered a bigger honor than reading from the Torah? Can one rely on a voice one hears to help make a decision? What are two possible interpretations of a verse in Ezekiel 20:25 that God has given us "statutes that are not good and judgments whereby they shall not live"? From where do we learn that on each holiday a portion relating to that day should be read? The Gemara brings a braita that stresses the importance of learning on each holiday the laws connected with that holiday.

Download the text for the Siyum Masechet Megillah Ceremony.

Moed Katan 4 - January 16, 14 Shvat Jan 16, 2022

Study Guide Moed Katan 4

Pictures

This week’s learning is sponsored by Debbie Pine and Mark Orenshein in loving memory of their father’s Harry Pine, Noach Aharon ben Yaakov v’Devorah’s 20th yahrzeit on Tu B’shvat and Herb Orenshein, Tzvi ben Yehuda v’Minna’s shloshim, on the 19th Tevet. “Neither of our fathers had the benefit of a formal Jewish education and yet both of them were committed to providing that for us. They were proud of their families and our dedication to Torah-true Judaism. They would love our commitment to Daf Yomi and how we often learn the daf together. They would be especially appreciative of Rabbanit Michelle who has made the daf accessible to those didn’t grow up learning gemara through her intentionally inclusive style of teaching. We miss them every day. Yehi zichram Baruch”.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Ronnie Rom in honor of her sister, Joanna Rom’s 70th birthday. “Thank you for being my sister & may you go from strength to strength!”

Today's daf is dedicated by Becki Goldstein in memory of her mother Shoshana Rosa bat Shmuel and Minda Lea. My mother would be so proud and humbled to share this learning with all these special women men worldwide. A self-made woman who attained her high school diploma at the tender age of 70, she would strive all her life to deepen and expand her Torah learning and after she made aliyah she would encourage her children and grandchildren to share their store of knowledge with her. She thanked Hashem every day for the gift of being able to be here with us and we had the zchut to learn with her and from her and make many precious memories together. Yehi Zichra Baruch.

Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael differ on tosefet shviit (adding on time before and after the shmita year) whether it is a Torah law or a halakha l’Moshe mi’Sinai. Rabbi Akiva learns it from the verse “And one should rest from plowing and reaping.” Rabbi Yishmael holds that the verse is referring to Shabbat and it is coming to teach that only actions that are optional are forbidden on Shabbat but if the reaping is for a mitzva, such as the Omer, it is permitted on Shabbat. Rabbi Yochanan’s explanation of Rav Dimi’s statement is explained according to Rabbi Akiva that tosefet is from the Torah and one would have thought one would get lashes, but Rabban Gamliel learned by a gezeira shava that there is no law of tosefet. Rav Ashi questions this and explains Rabban Gamliel differently – he held like Rabbi Yishmael and that it was only for a time when the Temple was in existence. Once it was destroyed, there was no longer a law of tosefet. Why can’t a field be watered from a cistern filled with rainwater? Is it just because if we allow that, one may think it is permitted to use water drawn from a well. Or is it because the water level may drop to the point where one will need to draw it with a pail. A series of braitot are brought which have various cases of watering that are either permitted or forbidden. Comments of amoraim on each braita are brought. If the Mishna says one cannot dig circular ditches around a vine, why did Rav Yehuda allow the people of his city to do that? Why does Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria forbid digging a channel on the shmita year? Two answers are brought and questions are raised on each answer. One can fix a broken channel on Chol Hamoed. Under what circumstances?

Moed Katan 3 - Shabbat January 15, 13 Shvat Jan 14, 2022

Pictures

Today’s daf is sponsored by Adam Plunka in loving memory of his grandfather, Harry Reuben Plunka, Yerachmiel Herschel Ben Yisrael, father of Stanley Plunka.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Erica Kolatch in loving memory of her father Richard Glube, Hillel ben Yosef Calman on his 25th yahrzeit. “Learning the daf exemplifies my father's maxim, always try something new that interests you, it may lead to a lifelong love.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Terri Krivosha and Rabbi Hayim Herring in loving memory of Terri’s father, Judge Norman Krivosha, Nahum Mayer Ben Malka and Dovid on his first yahrtzeit. “Our dad was a lifelong learner and jurist who loved nothing better than a well-reasoned argument.”

How is watering allowed on the shmita year in a case of a financial loss if it is a subcategory of planting or plowing? Abaye holds the Mishna is according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who holds that shmita is only by rabbinic law nowadays. Rava's answer is that sub-categories are not forbidden by Torah law. Are they really not? What about a braita that derives many sub-categories from a verse in the Torah? Is plowing forbidden by Torah law and one would then receive lashes? Or not? Why would plowing be different than planting? Rav Dimi made a statement about an "addition" being possibly forbidden but the rabbis exempted. To what was he referring? Two possibilities are brought. Either he was referring to plowing on the shmita year or to tosefet shmita. From where is tosefet shmita derived? From when does it begin? And what changes were made to this law throughout the generations?

Moed Katan 2 - January 14, 12 Shvat Jan 14, 2022

Study Guide Moed Katan 2

Pictures

Today’s daf is sponsored by Blima Slutsky in loving memory of her father, Yitzhak Tzvi Ben Blima and Chaim Shimon.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Gabrielle Altman in loving memory her friend, Naomi Rosen on her second yahrzeit, and a Refuah Shlemah for Miriam Aliza bat Shifra Chana.

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Seth Farber's birthday from his brothers and sisters-in-law, David and Eve and Steven and Lynn, and their families.

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of the two soldiers killed two night ago in a terrible accident Rav Seren Ofek Aharon and Rav Seren Itamar Elcharar.

Can one water a field that needs irrigation on Chol Hamoed and in the Shmita year? On what does it depend? If there will be a financial loss, one can do actions that do not incur too much labor, or even if there is concern that one may end up having to do hard labor. However, not all agree with these rules. According to which tannaitic opinion is our Mishna? Watering is a sub-category of plowing or planting? Rava and Rav Yosef disagree on this issue. If it is a sub-category of their of those, how can the rabbis permit it to be done in the shmita year in a case of a financial loss if those actions are forbidden by Torah law?

Introduction to Moed Katan with Dr. Ayelet Hoffmann Libson Jan 13, 2022

Megillah 31 - January 12, 10 Shvat Jan 12, 2022

Study Guide Megillah 31

Today’s daf is dedicated by Linda Freedman, Sheila Strulowitz, Gwen Lerner, her 9 grandchildren and 28 great grandchildren for Thelma Pultman 95th birthday. “We wish you the happiest of birthdays and many more to come. All our love from your family. You have created a beautiful legacy.”

The Mishna lists which Torah readings are said on different days of the year. A braita is quoted which also lists the Torah readings and adds the haftorah readings. The Gemara interjects to either explain parts that are unclear or update regarding a reading that may have changed from the time of the braita to the time of the amoraim. Why do we read about the creation of the world during the maamadot? Why do we not split the curses into more than one aliya? Is this the case for the curses in Vayikra and in Devarim? We generally read the curses in Vayikra before Shavuot and the ones in Devarim before Rosh Hashana - why? There is a tannatic debate about whether the readings on Shabbat afternoon, Mondays and Thursdays all pick up where the last one left off or whether we read the same for each - the beginning of the upcoming Torah portion.

Megillah 30 - January 11, 9 Shvat Jan 11, 2022

Study Guide Megillah 30

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran zoom group in honor of Becki Goldstein’s grandson, Amitai. “Amitai finished Shas Mishnayot this week. As Becki wrote: "To fill the void felt in Bavel after the destruction of the Temple they found comfort in their mikdash me'at - batei knessiot u'batei midrashot. And we, her Hadran Zoom family, take joy in seeing the comfort and pride passed on."

What is done if Parshat Shekalim falls out on the Parsha of Tetzave, which ends just before the beginning of Ki Tisa, which is the reading for Shekalim according to Shmuel? Abaye and Rabbi Yitzchak Nafcha each have different solutions and questions are raised and support texts are brought. If Rosh Chodesh Adar falls on Friday, Rav and Shmuel debate whether or not we read Parshat Shekalim on the preceding Shabbat or the following Shabbat. Texts are brought to question/prove the different opinions. They have a similar debate regarding Parshat Zachor when Purim falls on Friday. What is the root of their debate? What weeks are the other parshiot read? What is read each of the four weeks? Were the parshiot read instead of the weekly Torah portion or only instead of the maftir and haftorah? What Torah portion is read on each of the holidays?

Megillah 29 - January 10, 8 Shvat Jan 10, 2022

Study Guide Megillah 29

Today’s daf is sponsored by Blima Slutsky in loving memory of her mother Tina (Mazal) Bat Rina and David.

Today’s daf is dedicated by Devorah Saban for the refuah shleima of Yosef Ezriel Ben Chaya Michal a young boy still in a come since the Meron tragedy who is having surgery today.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Chaya Nissan in loving memory of Rav Shmuel Halevi Segel.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Micki Kadosh in loving memory of Tal Aya bat Dafna Bahat.

One can stop learning Torah in order to go to a funeral or a wedding. Are there any limitations to this law? When the Jews went into exile, God went into exile with them. God’s presence in Babylonia can be found either in the shul in Hutzel or Shaf V’yativ. Some stories are told of those who encountered the presence of God in these places. In the future, these shuls will be brought to Israel – from where is this derived? Where does the word kapandaria, meaning shortcut, come from? In what circumstances can one use a shul as a kapandaria? What cannot be done in a cemetery out of respect for the deceased? When are the four parshiot that lead up to Pesach read? Why is Parshat Shekalim read before or on Rosh Chodesh Adar? What section of the Torah is read? There is a debate regarding this matter – either the section on collecting the shekalim for building the Tabernacle or the section read on Rosh Chodesh about the daily, Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh sacrifices, which were purchased from the shekalim that were collected. If the reading is the same as Rosh Chodesh, then how is the reading on Shabbat Parshat Shekalim different from the reading on a regular month when Rosh Chodesh falls on Shabbat? On Rosh Chodesh Adar that falls on Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh Tevet that falls on Shabbat, one takes out three sifrei Torah.

Megillah 28 - January 9, 7 Shvat Jan 09, 2022

Study Guide Megillah 28

This week's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of Hadran and her husband, Aryeh. “Two years of Daf Yomi have been but a second filled with learning and delight. May we continue on this journey together and may it remain but a sweet second in our hearts and minds and on our lips.”

Students asked various rabbis in what merit did they gain long life? If a shul is destroyed, the space where it once stood still has sanctity and cannot be used for certain things. One should also not pull out weeds so that others see and pray for the shul to be rebuilt. One has to treat a shul respectfully and not eat and drink there, eulogize people, and a number of other things. However, shuls in Babylonia were built with a stipulation that they may be used for other things. One still cannot use them for business dealings. In what cases can eulogies be done in a shul? One cannot be served by someone who is a Torah scholar unless it is one's student. One who studies halakha is promised a place in the World-to-Come.

Megillah 27 - Shabbat January 8, 6 Shvat Jan 07, 2022

Can a shul be sold to be a beit midrash or can a beit midrash sold to be a shul? Can an old sefer Torah be sold to buy a new one? The Gemara brings five sources to try to answer this question but all answers are rejected and there is no conclusion. Money leftover from a sale of sanctified items, after a new items has been purchased, has the same status as the whole sum of money. However, there are exceptions to this rule. If a group of people go from one city to another and are asked to give charity, when they leave the city, they can ask for the money back to give to poor people in their city. But this is not the case of an individual. Rabbi Meir holds that an item (or shul) belonging to many cannot be sold to be used for an individual. The rabbis disagree. If one sells a shul, is the sale final or do the original owners have rights to buy it back? If so, why is this not an issue of loaning on interest as when they buy it back for the same price, the seller gets his money back and also had use of the building in the meantime? This is called “tzad eched b’ribit” – interest that is not definitely going to be collected and according to Rabbi Yehuda this is permitted. A source is brought to prove Rabbi Yehuda holds this way, but the proof is rejected. Laws are brought regarding the sanctity of an area where one prays as regarding using the space as a bathroom. A number of rabbis were asked why they were blessed to have lived a long life and they each list a number of things they did for which they believed they were rewarded.

Megillah 26 - January 7, 5 Shvat Jan 07, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored by Shanna Winters in honor of Ruth Raskas. “Thank you for your friendship and for inspiring so many.”

If sanctified items are sold, what can be done with the money. There is a hierarchy of sanctified items and one can only go up the list, not down. Does the public square where prayers take place on a public fast have sanctity or since it is not used permanently, it does not? A shul in a city is considered owned by many people, even those not from the town, and therefore one cannot sell it as it belongs to the public. Why was Rav Ashi's shul in Mata Mechasia an exception to this rule? A contradiction to this rule is raised from a braita regarding the sale of a shul in Jerusalem. Why was the law different there? Another question is raised from a tannaitic debate regarding laws of a leperous house in Jerusalem - can it become leperous as it is a private space and only the Temple is not or can it not become leprous as it is all considered public space? If one holds that only the Temple is public, shuls are private! Perhaps what was meant was "holy spaces" and not only the Temple. The root of that debate is whether Jerusalem was divided between Benjamin and Judah or didn't belong to any particular tribe. The Gemara brings another tannaitic debate on that topic - one opinion holds that the Temple was divided between Benjamin and Judah - which parts belonged to who? Where is there a reference to this in the Torah? The other holds that one cannot rent out space in Jerusalem when people come to the Temple for aliya laregel as the space is owned by all. In that case, what was customarily taken by the hosts as compensation since they couldn't charge rent? What can be derived from here as good advice for one who is a guest in another's house? Even though sanctified items cannot be sold for something of lesser sanctity, there is an exception to the rule - if it is stipulated by seven people who are in charge of communal activities for the city and in front of the people of the city. It is forbidden to take apart bricks or beams from an old shul and put them in a new shul. Why? If one sells a shul, the money becomes sanctified and the sanctity leaves the shul and the space can be used for other lesser things. But can it be rented? Is the same true for the bricks and other parts? On what does it depend? If the shul is given as a gift, does the sanctity leave the space? There are different levels of sanctity to items that are used for a mitzva and items that are used for a sanctified item. What falls into which category and can those items be thrown away or do they need to be buried? What can be done with a safer Torah that has fallen apart?

Megillah 25 - January 6, 4 Shevat Jan 06, 2022

Study Guide Megillah 25

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rivkah Isseroff in loving memory of her mother, Gittel Bas Sarah v'Rav Zev Friedman Ha'levi, on the occasion of her Shloshim. “She was the sole survivor of her family of 8 who were murdered in the Shoah. She survived 2 years in Auschwitz between the ages of 14 and16, and went on to fulfill her father's tefillah asking for the survival of one family member so that the family would not be extinguished. She founded a new family now numbering 16 grandchildren and 30 great-grandchildren. May she be a Melitzat Yosher for all.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in loving memory of Baruch Wertzberger on his 3rd Yahrzeit “He was my husband’s (z’l) longest and best friend, whose devotion to Torah learning and Tefillah inspired me to grow closer to the depth of understanding what Daf Yomi brings.”

The Mishna lists phrases that if said in one's prayers, they could be misunderstood and therefore one is silenced. Some relate to things that may appear heretical (appearing to say there is more than one God) and others relate to misinterpretation of verses or of commandments. A few statements of Rabbi Chanina are brought. One should not add a list of praises to God in the first blessing of Shmone Esreh on top of the ones mentioned there. Why? In addition, he said that all is in the hands of God other than the fear of God. From where is this derived? There are certain texts from the Tanach that should not be read or can be read but not translated? For what reasons are there to censor parts of Tanach? A braita lists which sections can be read and translated can be read but not translated and neither. Why is it important to list ones that can be read and translated? Why would we have thought they couldn't be read or translated? Verses that use words that are obscene or harsh are replaced by a milder version of the word. However, if they are used to describe idol worship, one can use the more harsh form.

Megillah 24 - January 5, 3 Shvat Jan 05, 2022

Study Guide Megillah 24

Today’s daf is sponsored by Tzivia Ross Korn for the refuah shleima of Yenta Bat Zelda.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Devorah Saban for the refuah shleima of Neriya Yosef Hoshea Ben Avital.

One who reads from the Torah needs to read a minimum of three verses. But one who translates does that one verse at a time. For the prophets, one can translate three verses at a time, provided they are all within one section. One can skip to a different section in the prophets but not in the Torah. Are there qualifications to these rules? What benefits are given to the person who reads the haftarah? Why does he need these incentives? What parts of the prayer/Torah reading can a minor do? And what can he not do? If one’s legs are not covered, what prayers is one allowed/not allowed to say? Can a blind person say the blessings before Shema (poress shema) and say the translation of the Torah? Why or why not? A kohen who has a blemish cannot say the blessing of the kohanim. Rabbi Yehuda adds that one whose hands are red can also not, as both of these will attract attention and one is not supposed to look at the kohanim while they are blessing the people. The Gemara lists other issues that would prevent a kohen from being able to say the blessing of the kohanim. An exception is made for people who are well known in the city as they will no longer attract attention as people know them. There are certain actions that are indicative that one may be a heretic and therefore a person who does one of those things cannot be a chazan. One should not wear round tefillin as it is dangerous.

Megillah 23 - January 4, 2 Shvat Jan 04, 2022

Study Guide Megillah 23

Today’s daf is sponsored by Judy Auerbach in loving memory of her father, Shlomo ben Dov Beer on his 33rd yahrzeit. “His enjoyment when learning Gemara always impressed me and now, thanks to Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle, I am able to realize the same enjoyment in learning Gemara as he had. Thank you”.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Deborah Lewis dedicated to Janet Lachais.

Today's daf is sponsored in memory of the two pilots killed tragically last night.

What are the different opinions regarding aliyot on Shabbat, Yom Tov and Yom Kippur? Regarding services on those days – on which days should the prayers start later and end earlier/start later and end later/start earlier and end earlier? Why? Does this have anything to do with how many aliyot there are on those days? The three aliyot on Mondays, Thursdays, etc., the five on Yom Tov and the seven on Shabbat – to what do they correspond? What about the six on Yom Kippur? Women and children can be among the seven who read from the Torah but the rabbis said that women should not due to “respect for the community.” How can this be understood? The person who reads from the prophets, the maftir, also reads a part of the Torah so as not to show disrespect for the Torah. Since the whole reason is just out of respect for the Torah, is this Aliya in addition to the seven or can it be considered part of the seven? The haftorah must be a minimum of twenty-one verses. What is the significance of that number? Are there exceptions to this rule? What prayers must be done with a quorum (minyan) of ten? From where do we learn the number ten? From where do we derive that each of these prayers needs a minyan?

Megillah 22 - January 2, Rosh Chodesh Shvat, 1 Shvat Jan 03, 2022

Study Guide Megillah 22

This month’s shuirim are dedicated by Efrat Arnold in loving memory of Joshua Carr, Yehoshua Aryeh Leib ben Yonatan Chaim and Malka Esther HaCohen. "An inspiring young man who loved learning and had made his first siyum just a few weeks ago for Masechet Rosh Hashana."

This month’s shiurim are dedicated by Tova and David Kestenbaum in honor of their children and grandchildren. "May Hashem bless them to continue in the path of Torah handed down from Hashem to Moshe Rabbeinu at Har Sinai, from generation to generation."

How does one divide the Torah reading for Rosh Chodesh into four sections in a way that avoids issues such as ending an aliya while leaving less than three verses to the section? In order to answer the question, the Gemara brings a debate of Rav and Shmuel regarding how to divide the Torah readings for the maamadot. A difficulty on both approaches is brought from a braita with a debate between the tana kama and an anonymous tana about breaking up Torah portions for reading. However, the cases aren’t comparable. Is it more likely that people will show up late to shul, in the middle of the Torah reading, or that they will leave in the middle of the Torah reading? What relevance is there to this question? The Mishna did not mention how many aliyot there are on a fast day. Is it 3 like Mondays and Thursdays or four like Rosh Chodesh and Chol Hamoed? Several sources are brought to try to answer this question, including inferences from our Mishna, however, most are rejected. One of the sources related to an incident when Rav came to Bavel and read from the Torah and made a blessing before and not after. Also during the tachanun prayer he did not fall on his face. The Gemara tries to understand why acted in this way.

Megillah 21 - January 2, 29 Tevet Jan 02, 2022

Today’s daf is sponsored by Marcia Baum in loving memory of her mother Helen Baum, Chaya Chana Alter bat Chana v'Yekutiel Aryeh on her sixth yartzeit. “Mom was a lifelong learner and teacher and is sorely missed by those who knew and loved her. I hope we are doing her proud!”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sari Esserman in loving memory of her father Moshe Ben Yosef HaCohen.

Today's daf is sponsored anonymously in refuah shleima for Hannah bat Shmuel v'Esther and Breina Bracha bat Rina.

The Mishna stated the general rule behind the cases listed (that mitzvot that are meant to be done in the day can be performed all day long and one that can be done at night can be performed all night), even though the rule was obvious. Why? One can either sit or stand when reading the Megillah. One follows one's custom regarding the blessings of the Megillah - some recite the blessing after the Megillah while others do not. On Mondays, Thursdays and mincha on Shabbat, there are three aliyot to the Torah. On days when there is musaf, but it is not a Yom Tov, there are four aliyot. On a Yom Tov, there are 5, on Yom Kippur there are 6 and on Shabbat, 7. The first one to get an aliya makes the blessing before and the last one makes a blessing after the reading. Haftara is recited on holidays, Yom Kippur and Shabbat. When reading the Torah, one must stand. Is this true also for learning Torah? On what does it depend? Two people can read the Megillah together but that is not the case for reading from the Torah. Why? What are the blessings that are recited before and after the Megillah? What do the three aliyot on Mondays, Thursday and Shabbat mincha correspond to? In every Torah reading, there must be at least ten verses read from the Torah. To what do the ten correspond? Is it better for the first aliya to include four verses and the other two to have three? Or the middle one? Or the last one? Reasons are given to support each possibility. Why was it changed that each person who gets an aliya makes a blessing before and after? What is the complication with the breakdown of the aliyot on Rosh Chodesh?

Megillah 20 - Shabbat January 1, 28 Tevet Dec 31, 2021

Study Guide Megillah 20

Does Rabbi Yehuda think that ideally a deaf person can’t read the Megillah, but if one did not, one can still fulfill one’s obligation? Or is a deaf person able to read it ab initio? One suggestion is that he himself holds the latter and the former was said by him but in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria. The other option is that he holds the former and the sources that indicate one does not need to hear at all what one is saying, is the opinion of Rabbi Meir as appears in a braita regarding Shema. Rabbi Yehuda holds that a minor can read the Megillah and brings a proof that he read when he was young. However, since testimony cannot be accepted from minors, the rabbis refuse to accept his testimony regarding when he was young. Another attempt to prove Rabbi Yehuda from a story is brought but it too is rejected. The Mishna lists mitzvot that need to be done during the day and their obligation begins at sunrise. However, if one did it from the time the sun began to rise, amud hashachar, one fulfilled one’s obligation. The Gemara finds a source for each item on the list and how one knows that the obligation is during the day. Why does the Mishna list both those who go to the mikveh and a zava ketana who also needs to go to the mikveh? The next Mishna lists mitzvot that one is obligated to do during the day and one can do it all day long. Likewise, mitzvot that are done at night can be performed all night long. The Gemara goes through the list proving how one knows one needs to perform each of these mitzvot during the day.

Megillah 19 - December 31, 27 Tevet Dec 31, 2021

Study Guide Megillah 19

Today’s daf is sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima for her dear friend Shoshana Raizel bat Yaffa Sheindle.

What are different substances that can't be used to write the Megillah. From where do we learn that it specifically needs to be with ink and on parchment? If one lives in a non-walled city or a walled city and visits a different city on Purim, which day of Purim are they to celebrate? From which part of the Megillah do we begin reading? Several opinions are brought - from the beginning, from when Mordechai is introduced, from when Haman is introduced, from the night Acheshverosh couldn't sleep. what is the root of the debate between the different rabbis? What is the significance of the Megillah being called both a book and a letter? One needs to read from a Megillah that just contains the Megillah and doesn't include others books of the Writings. What qualifications are there to this rule? Who can and who cannot read the Megillah? When the Mishna says that a deaf person can't read the Megillah, is that Rabbi Yosi's opinion who holds that even after the fact it is no good, as one needs to hear what he is saying or is it Rabbi Yehuda's opinion who requires that one hear what he is saying only ab initio, but after the fact, it is fine. Is that really Rabbi Yehuda's opinion? If so, there is an issue with a braita regarding a deaf person making the blessing on trauma which one can do even ab initio. That braita doesn't hold like Rabbi Yosi or Rabbi Yehuda?

Megillah 18 - December 30, 26 Tevet Dec 30, 2021

Study Guide Megillah 18

Today’s daf is sponsored by Shikma Katz on behalf of her husband and children.

Today’s daf is dedicated for a refuah shleima to Netanel Ilan ben Shayna Tzipora who is undergoing surgery this morning.

The Gemara finishes explaining the order of Shmone Esreh. If the men of the Great Assembly put together Shmone Esreh, why did Shimon HaPakula need to organize it as well many years later? One is not allowed to add more to the prayer of Shmoneh Esreh that was put together by the rabbis as one cannot fully praise God so better not to say not enough or the wrong thing. The virtue of silence is praised by the rabbis. From where do we learn that the Megillah has to be read from a book? A translation is also no good - this means if it was written in another language and read in that language. But the Mishna also said that one who speaks a foreign language can read in that language! How can one resolve this contradiction? Rav and Shmuel say it is permitted only if it is in Greek. However, that also contradicts a braita that says that one who speak any language can read the Megillah in that language. Therefore Rav and Shmuel must have meant that Greek is permitted even if one doesn't speak Greek. One who doesn't understand Hebrew can still read the Megillah in Hebrew as just by reading it, one can fulfill publicizing the miracle of Purim. If one reads it in intervals, it is fine. The word for intervals is 'serugin' - it was a word unfamiliar to them and they learned the definition from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's maidservant. She also knew the definition of a number of other words that the Gemara lists. Rabbi Muna held that there is a time limit of the interval - that it not be longer than the time it takes to say the Megillah. Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether we hold like Rabbi Muna or not. What if the words are rubbed out? What does the reader do if he/she skips a verse? What if one walks in late? If one dozes off, one can still fulfill one's obligation. What is the definition of dozing? As one writes a Megillah and reads the verses as one is writing, can one fulfill one's obligation? On what does it depend? Can one write a book without using an existing book as one's guide? Are there any exceptions to this rule?

Megillah 17 - December 29, 25 Tevet Dec 29, 2021

Study Guide Megillah 17

Today's daf is sponsored by Laura Shechter in loving memory of her dear friend, Daniel Maurice, Moshe ben Shmuel v'Sarah, on the occasion of his 2nd yahrzeit. “Daniel would have turned 40 last week; despite his short years on this earth, he brought so much good to the world. Daniel, your memory continues to be a light to all who were blessed to know you.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Joakim Isaacs for a refuah shleima to Shulamit Tzivia bat Raizel.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Yael Klempner on behalf of her husband, Moshe, on their 30th wedding anniversary. “His love of learning Gemara is a continued inspiration to me.”

Talmud Torah is more important than respecting one's parents - this is learned from Yaakov who spent 14 years in the Yeshiva of Eiver and wasn't with his parents. How do we know that he spent 14 years there? The Gemara goes through all the years of Yaakov's life and realizes that 14 years are missing and those must have been spent in the Yeshiva of Eiver. Can one read the Megillah backward? Can it be read in any language? On what can it be written and with what type of ink? It can only be read in its proper order. From where is that derived? Hallel, Shema, and Shmone Esreh cannot be recited backward. From where is each one derived? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the rabbis disagree about whether Shema can be recited in any language. Do we say that Shema means to hear and therefore one must understand or do we derive from "and these should be" exactly as they are written, in Hebrew. According to each of them, if Shema has a special drasha to teach this, what does it indicate about the rest of the Torah? Would he who holds that Shema can be said in any language also hold that the Torah can be said only in Hebrew and vice-versa? Shmone Esreh must be said it its proper order. From where do we learn the order of each of the blessings in Shmone Esreh?

Megillah 16 - December 28, 24 Tevet Dec 28, 2021

Today’s daf is sponsored by Jonathan Stein in honor of Rina Goldberg on the occasion of her birthday from her children and grandchildren. “She is a role model for all of us”.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sari Esserman in loving memory of her aunt Miriam Monaver Bat Yosef HaCohen.

Acheshverosh found "it was written" about Mordechai having saved his life. The wording sounds like it had been recently written. What aggada is told about this and what can be learned from here? When his officers told him that nothing was done with Mordechai for saving the king's life, it was to point a finger at Haman for not having taken care of it. The rabbis expanded on the conversation between Haman and Achashverosh when Achashverosh told Haman to ride Mordechai on the king's horse, etc. What transpired when Haman reached Mordechai - what did Mordechai think? What conversation took place between Haman and the rabbis that were with Mordechai? How and why did Mordechai delay Haman? When Haman's daughter saw the scene of someone leading another on the king's horse, she assumed Mordechai was leading her father and she emptied the chamber pot on her father's head. When she realized her mistake, she fell from the roof and died. Haman's wise advisors understood that Haman was going to lose the battle to Mordechai - how did they know this? Haman came to the party in disarray as he did not have time after having the chamber pot dumped on him to clean himself up. Esther told Achashverosh at the party that Haman had advised him to kill Vashti and was now trying to kill her. Esther first wanted to point to Achashverosh to accuse him of being wicked but an angel came and moved her to point at Haman. Achashverosh felt threatened by Haman from a few different directions - what were they? In Egypt, Joseph send 5 extra clothes to Binyamin, which was a foretelling of the five clothes that Mordechai, a descendant of Binyamin wore when he left the king's palace. The Gemara brings drashot about Binyamin and Joseph meeting up after so many years as well as the interaction between Joseph and his brothers after Jacob's death. "For the Jews there was light, happiness, etc." What is that verse referring to? The ten sons of Haman in the megillah should be recited in one breath. They are also written in the form of poetry but different than the way most of the poetry in Tanach is written - in two columns one opposite the other, rather than a "half brick on top of a whole brick and a whole brick on a half brick." The parchment of the megillah needs scoring - where is this derived from? Why was Mordechai accepted by "most of his brothers" and not all of them? It seems that since he was busy with community needs and neglected Torah study, some were not pleased with him. the Gemara brings several statements about the importance of learning Torah.

Megillah 16 - December 28, 24 Tevet Dec 28, 2021

Today’s daf is sponsored by Jonathan Stein in honor of Rina Goldberg on the occasion of her birthday from her children and grandchildren. “She is a role model for all of us”.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sari Esserman in loving memory of her aunt Miriam Monaver Bat Yosef HaCohen.

Acheshverosh found "it was written" about Mordechai having saved his life. The wording sounds like it had been recently written. What aggada is told about this and what can be learned from here? When his officers told him that nothing was done with Mordechai for saving the king's life, it was to point a finger at Haman for not having taken care of it. The rabbis expanded on the conversation between Haman and Achashverosh when Achashverosh told Haman to ride Mordechai on the king's horse, etc. What transpired when Haman reached Mordechai - what did Mordechai think? What conversation took place between Haman and the rabbis that were with Mordechai? How and why did Mordechai delay Haman? When Haman's daughter saw the scene of someone leading another on the king's horse, she assumed Mordechai was leading her father and she emptied the chamber pot on her father's head. When she realized her mistake, she fell from the roof and died. Haman's wise advisors understood that Haman was going to lose the battle to Mordechai - how did they know this? Haman came to the party in disarray as he did not have time after having the chamber pot dumped on him to clean himself up. Esther told Achashverosh at the party that Haman had advised him to kill Vashti and was now trying to kill her. Esther first wanted to point to Achashverosh to accuse him of being wicked but an angel came and moved her to point at Haman. Achashverosh felt threatened by Haman from a few different directions - what were they? In Egypt, Joseph send 5 extra clothes to Binyamin, which was a foretelling of the five clothes that Mordechai, a descendant of Binyamin wore when he left the king's palace. The Gemara brings drashot about Binyamin and Joseph meeting up after so many years as well as the interaction between Joseph and his brothers after Jacob's death. "For the Jews there was light, happiness, etc." What is that verse referring to? The ten sons of Haman in the megillah should be recited in one breath. They are also written in the form of poetry but different than the way most of the poetry in Tanach is written - in two columns one opposite the other, rather than a "half brick on top of a whole brick and a whole brick on a half brick." The parchment of the megillah needs scoring - where is this derived from? Why was Mordechai accepted by "most of his brothers" and not all of them? It seems that since he was busy with community needs and neglected Torah study, some were not pleased with him. the Gemara brings several statements about the importance of learning Torah.

Megillah 15 - December 27, 23 Tevet Dec 27, 2021

Today’s daf is sponsored in honor of our dear friend Debbie Gvir from her Hadran zoom family with prayers for a speedy recovery. We are in awe of her courageous and inspirational commitment to the daf through trials and tribulations.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Jill Shames in honor of her 40th wedding anniversary and 25 years since making Aliyah! “As it is with learning, so it is with life: the things that elevate us the most may not be easy, but they are so worth it!”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rookie and Heshie Billet in memory of Rookie’s mother Phyllis Katz, Faiga bat David Yaakov a”h for her 11th yahrzeit. Mom was a courageous, charming, exciting, wise person and a lifelong learner. She would be so happy that more than a dozen of her descendants are learning Daf Yomi or studying Torah full time.

Rachav had eight prophets who descended from her and they are listed by name. The Gemara asks from where do we know that the people listed were prophets? Who was the prophet Malachi – was he Mordechai or was he Ezra? There were four very beautiful women – who were they? What was the interaction between Mordechai and Esther through Hatach after the decree was issued against the Jews? There are several statements made by Rabbi Elazar in the name of Rabbi Chanina – the first one about Esther and the others about all sorts of topics. Why did Mordechai upset Haman so much – after all, he was only one person? What happened to Esther on her way into Achashverosh when she passed in the room with the idols? When she walked into Achashverosh’s room, angels appeared to help her to find favor in his eyes and helped stretch the scepter in order to reach her. How far did they stretch the scepter? Why did Esther invite Haman to the party she made for Achashverosh? A long list of answers are brought. How many sons did Haman have? Why on that night was Achashverosh not able to sleep?

Megillah 15 - December 27, 23 Tevet Dec 27, 2021

Today’s daf is sponsored in honor of our dear friend Debbie Gvir from her Hadran zoom family with prayers for a speedy recovery. We are in awe of her courageous and inspirational commitment to the daf through trials and tribulations.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Jill Shames in honor of her 40th wedding anniversary and 25 years since making Aliyah! “As it is with learning, so it is with life: the things that elevate us the most may not be easy, but they are so worth it!”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rookie and Heshie Billet in memory of Rookie’s mother Phyllis Katz, Faiga bat David Yaakov a”h for her 11th yahrzeit. Mom was a courageous, charming, exciting, wise person and a lifelong learner. She would be so happy that more than a dozen of her descendants are learning Daf Yomi or studying Torah full time.

Rachav had eight prophets who descended from her and they are listed by name. The Gemara asks from where do we know that the people listed were prophets? Who was the prophet Malachi – was he Mordechai or was he Ezra? There were four very beautiful women – who were they? What was the interaction between Mordechai and Esther through Hatach after the decree was issued against the Jews? There are several statements made by Rabbi Elazar in the name of Rabbi Chanina – the first one about Esther and the others about all sorts of topics. Why did Mordechai upset Haman so much – after all, he was only one person? What happened to Esther on her way into Achashverosh when she passed in the room with the idols? When she walked into Achashverosh’s room, angels appeared to help her to find favor in his eyes and helped stretch the scepter in order to reach her. How far did they stretch the scepter? Why did Esther invite Haman to the party she made for Achashverosh? A long list of answers are brought. How many sons did Haman have? Why on that night was Achashverosh not able to sleep?

Megillah 14 - December 26, 22 Tevet Dec 26, 2021

This week of learning is sponsored anonymously for the refuah shleima of Tova Motel bat Chanah Etel.

The repentance of the Jewish people when Achashverosh took off his ring to sign the edict to kill the Jews was greater than all the repentance generated by the 48 male and 7 female prophets. All those prophets didn't add or detract from anything written in the Torah, except for instituting the reading of the Megillah. They instituted it as a form of song of praise of God. If so, why not Hallel? Three reasons are given. Aren't there more than 55 prophets? Elkana was from Ramatayim - isn't that a reference to 200 prophets? Two other ways of explaining the word Ramatayim are brought. Why were the seven female prophets? How do we know that each of them was a prophet? For some, there is a direct reference in the verse as they are called "the prophet." For others, it is derived from something she said that she predicted an event that would happen in the future. Why did they turn to Chulda in the time of Yoshiyahu and not to Yirmiyahu, the main prophet of the time? Devorah and Chulda both exhibited arrogance and therefore, their names are the names of creatures that are abhorred. Chulda was from Joshua's descendants. But wasn't she descended from Rachav, the prostitute? Rachav converted and married Joshua and Chulda was born from their descendants.

Megillah 13 - Shabbat December 25, 21 Tevet Dec 24, 2021

This is the daf for Shabbat. For Friday's daf, click here.

Today's daf is sponsored by Keren Sherrington on her birthday in loving memory of her grandfather Avraham and grandmothers Miriam and Chana. "I miss them and am honored that my daughters are named after them and keep their memories alive." Today’s daf is also sponsored by Susan Cashdan in loving memory of her father Yitzchak ben Moshe Chone.

Why is Mordechai called both Yehudi (presumably, from the tribe of Judah) and Yemini (from the tribe of Binyamin)? Several different explanations are brought. Yehudi could also refer to one who doesn’t worship idols, as can be proven from a verse in Chronicles 1 4:18 referring to Pharoah’s daughter. According to the verse, she was married to Caleb – what is similar about them on account of which they married each other? Why is Esther called Hadassah or why is Hadassah called Esther? What was her relationship with Mordechai? Why did she have seven young women serving her when she was preparing for the months leading up to her meeting Achashverosh? What type of special treatment did she get? What does it mean that she found favor in everyone’s eyes? Why was she brought to him in the month of Tevet? What different tactics did Achashverosh use to get Esther to tell him what nation she belonged to? Rachel and Shaul were rewarded for their tzniut – what did they do that showed their tzniut and what was their reward? Why did Bigtan and Teresh want to kill Achashverosh? To what other story does the Gemara compare it to? How did Mordechai know what they were plotting? Only after that story did Haman rise in stature – this teaches that God prepares the solution before bringing the bad decree upon us. However, with gentiles, it is the reverse. Why was Haman excited when the lottery fell on Adar? But why was he wrong? What were Haman’s arguments against the Jews by which he convinced Achashverosh to let him destroy them? They were classic anti-Semitic arguments. God commanded the Jews to give the half shekel for the Temple and this was traditionally announced on Rosh Chodesh Adar – this was God’s way of giving us a commandment to protect us from the money that Haman decreed that the Jews would need to pay.

Megillah 12 - December 24, 20 Tevet Dec 24, 2021

Today’s daf is sponsored by Shaindy Kurzmann in honor of the yahrzeit of her mother, Rivkah bat HaRav Simchah Bunim, this Shabbat, 21 Tevet. "My youngest sister, who lives in Neve Daniel, and I, who live in Monsey, have just found out this week – after two years! – that both of us have been learning Daf Yomi since the beginning of this cycle, and we can picture our mother asking us to share what we are learning, just as she had done when we were growing up in our childhood home. May our learning be a z’chus for the aliyah of our mother’s neshamah."

Today’s daf is also sponsored anonymously in memory of the Rambam, Moshe ben Maimon.

Even though the 70 years of exile were counted from the destruction of the Temple and the complete exile of the Jews in 586, the count that Balshezar has done, from the time of Nebuchadnezzar's reign was also somewhat true as it was the date used for Cyrus's (Coresh) proclamation permitting the Jews to rebuild the Temple. Was it a wise thing or a foolish thing that first Acheshvaerosh made a party for the people who lived farther away and then later for the ones who lived in his city, Shushan? Why were the Jews of that generation punished (that Haman was going to destroy them)? And why were they ultimately saved if they sinned? The party was in the court of the garden of the king's palace - was it in all three places? If so, why? All sorts of details of the party and what decorations there were are expounded by the rabbis. The rabbis also place Mordechai and Haman at the party based on drashot of the verses, even though according to the simple reading of the text, they were not mentioned. Vashti made her own party - where and why? Why was it specifically on the 7th day that the king asked Vashti to appear naked? This request was understood as punishment for what she did to Jewish women. Why did Vashti refuse? Why did Achashverosh get so angry? Achasverosh turned to the rabbis for advice - what was their quandary? They advised him to ask Amon and Moab instead. The names of the seven advisors are references to sacrifices and other Temple worship as a way of the angels saying to God - did these people ever serve you as the Jews did? Memuchan is a reference to Haman - why was he called Memuchan? Why was it beneficial to the Jews that Achashverosh sent our a proclamation that every man should wield authority in his house? Why is Mordechai called both Yehudi (presumably, from the tribe of Judah) and Yemini (from the tribe of Binyamin). Several different explanations are brought.

Megillah 12 - December 24, 20 Tevet Dec 24, 2021

Today’s daf is sponsored by Shaindy Kurzmann in honor of the yahrzeit of her mother, Rivkah bat HaRav Simchah Bunim, this Shabbat, 21 Tevet. "My youngest sister, who lives in Neve Daniel, and I, who live in Monsey, have just found out this week – after two years! – that both of us have been learning Daf Yomi since the beginning of this cycle, and we can picture our mother asking us to share what we are learning, just as she had done when we were growing up in our childhood home. May our learning be a z’chus for the aliyah of our mother’s neshamah."

Today’s daf is also sponsored anonymously in memory of the Rambam, Moshe ben Maimon.

Even though the 70 years of exile were counted from the destruction of the Temple and the complete exile of the Jews in 586, the count that Balshezar has done, from the time of Nebuchadnezzar's reign was also somewhat true as it was the date used for Cyrus's (Coresh) proclamation permitting the Jews to rebuild the Temple. Was it a wise thing or a foolish thing that first Acheshvaerosh made a party for the people who lived farther away and then later for the ones who lived in his city, Shushan? Why were the Jews of that generation punished (that Haman was going to destroy them)? And why were they ultimately saved if they sinned? The party was in the court of the garden of the king's palace - was it in all three places? If so, why? All sorts of details of the party and what decorations there were are expounded by the rabbis. The rabbis also place Mordechai and Haman at the party based on drashot of the verses, even though according to the simple reading of the text, they were not mentioned. Vashti made her own party - where and why? Why was it specifically on the 7th day that the king asked Vashti to appear naked? This request was understood as punishment for what she did to Jewish women. Why did Vashti refuse? Why did Achashverosh get so angry? Achasverosh turned to the rabbis for advice - what was their quandary? They advised him to ask Amon and Moab instead. The names of the seven advisors are references to sacrifices and other Temple worship as a way of the angels saying to God - did these people ever serve you as the Jews did? Memuchan is a reference to Haman - why was he called Memuchan? Why was it beneficial to the Jews that Achashverosh sent our a proclamation that every man should wield authority in his house? Why is Mordechai called both Yehudi (presumably, from the tribe of Judah) and Yemini (from the tribe of Binyamin). Several different explanations are brought.

Megillah 11 - December 23, 19 Tevet Dec 23, 2021

Study Guide Megillah 11

Today’s daf is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for a speedy and full recovery of her husband, Hayim ben Fage Rivah, Hayim Herring, from Covid.

Different rabbis would start their drashot on the Megillah from various verses from the Prophets and the Writings and connected them to the story of Purim. After mentioning various “beginnings” of these drashot, the Gemara moves to the first verses of the Megillah and begins to expound on them. How can the name Achashverosh be expounded? Several different options are brought. The verse says “He is Achashverosh” “he is” is explained to mean he was completely bad from the first day until the last. Other verses where this wording is used to describe people are also explained as being complete – some in a positive way and some negatively. “From Hodi to Cush” – were these states on opposite ends of the world or right near each other? Why does it say “seven and twenty and one hundred states”? Three people ruled over the whole world – Achav, Achashverosh and Nevuchadnetzer. Verses are brought to prove this. Why isn’t Solomon mentioned in this list? What about Sancheriv, Darius and Coresh? Why did Acheshverosh make a party in the third year of his reign? He mistakenly thought that the seventy years of the exile had ended and the Jews had not been redeemed and therefore he thought they would never be redeemed. He thought he was smarter than Balshetzar who also miscalculated the seventy years, but he also miscalculated. What calculation did each of them make and why were they wrong?

Megillah 10 - December 22, 18 Tevet Dec 22, 2021

Study Guide Megillah 10

Today’s daf is sponsored by Cheryl and Avi Savitsky in loving memory of Cheryl’s father Dr. Steven F. Stein, Shimon Feibush ben Yisrael Yitzchak HaKohen on his 38th yahrzeit.

Today’s daf is also sponsored by Ann Goldhirsch for a refuah shleimah for Sarah Nechah bat Leah.

What are the differences and similarities between Shilo and Jerusalem? One of the differences is that one can sacrifice in bamot after the destruction of the Tabernacle but not after the Temple is built in Jerusalem. However, Rabbi Yitzchak said that sacrifices were brought in Egypt at the Temple of Onais, Beit Chonyo, as the Temple was for worship of God, not idols, and the sanctity of the building of the First Temple was just for that time but once it was destroyed, the sanctity was gone and so was the prohibition to sacrifice outside the Temple. This is proven by a verse in the Torah. But Rava insists that Rabbi Yitzchak retracted this statement as it is clear that once the Jews built the Temple in Jerusalem, even after its destruction, one is not allowed to sacrifice in bamot. The issue of the sanctity remaining after the destruction of the First Temple is a subject of tannaitic debate. First the Gemara tries to prove that from a Mishna in Eduyot. However, it is not conclusive as it is not clear that they disagree on that issue. Two contradictory sources are brought, both in the name of Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yosi – one saying the first sanctity was only temporary and the other saying it was forever. This is resolved by saying that either there is a debate among tannaim about what Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yosi held, or one source lists his name by mistake and it was said in the name of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Yosi. A long list of drashot on the Megillah is brought. When the Megillah starts with the word “Vayehi” “And it was…,” that is foreshadowing that something bad will happen, as appear in many other places in the Tanach. After several verses are brought, others that have the same language but are not introductions to something bad happening and the Gemara then responds by saying that when it says “And it was in the time of…,” then it is an indicator of something bad about to happen. Rabbi Levi passed down traditions about a number of verses: Amotz, Isaiah’s father, was the bother of Amatzia the King of Judea. This is derived from Tamar as she was promised that kings and prophets would descend from her. Another tradition he passed down was that the Ark didn’t take up any space in the Holy of Holies as the room was 20x20 cubits and there were ten cubits between the Ark and the walls. A list of drashot are brought that different rabbis would start with when teaching the Megillah.

Megillah 9 - December 21, 17 Tevet Dec 21, 2021

Study Guide Megillah 9

Today’s daf is sponsored by Suri Stern in loving memory of her father Ruby Davis, Harav Reuvain ben Harav Chaim. “He was the first gabbai in the White Shul in Far Rockaway and completed Shas many times over and transmitted his ahvavat habriyot to his family.”

Can holy books be written in any language? According to the Mishna they can be, however tefillin and mezuzot can only be written in Ashurit script. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that holy books can only be written in Greek. The Gemara infers that all these things make one’s hands impure (according to a rabbinic decree) and all are sewn with animal sinews. A contradiction to our Mishna is brought from a braita that states that holy books must be written in Ashurit script as well. Five answers are brought to resolve the contradiction. Questions are raised against each of the answers. Rabbi Yehuda explains Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s opinion about Greek to be relating only to the Torah and because of the story of Ptolemy who took 72 elders and told them to translate the Torah into Greek. According to the story, each one of them was placed in a separate room and yet each of them translated in the exact same way. Regarding some verses, they each deliberately distorted certain passages in order to protect the integrity of the Jewish faith. From where can one derive from the Torah that it can be translated into Greek? A Kohen Gadol who is anointed with the special oil is different from one who was not anointed but became a Kohen Gadol by wearing the Kohen Gadol’s eight garments in that only he can bring a communal sin offering. A Kohen Gadol who is no longer a Kohen Gadol differs from a regular Kohen Gadol only in that he doesn’t perform the Yom Kippur service and doesn’t bring the daily mincha offering that the Kohen Gadol brings. Some disagree and say that even one who becomes a Kohen Gadol from wearing the garments can bring a communal sin offering. Rabbi Yosi disagrees with the end of the Mishna and holds that one who is no longer a Kohen Gadol can no longer work in The temple. What offerings could be brought on a small individual bama, a place meant for bringing sacrifices) and which ones could be brought on a large bama? Which were not able to be brought on a bama at all. What are the differences between the Tabernacle in Shilo and the Temple in Jerusalem?

Megillah 8 - December 20, 16 Tevet Dec 20, 2021

Study Guide Megillah 8

Today’s daf is sponsored by Yehudit Cohen in loving memory of Yitzchak Eitan ben Yehudit Shulamit.

The only difference between the one who vows not to benefit from another and one who vows not to benefit from one's food is walking within the other's territory and borrowing vessels that are not used for food preparation. Is walking through someone else's property considered a benefit, even if it doesn't bother the owner? The difference between vows of a neder and vows of a nedava and alms is in the matter of responsibility - if an animal is dead, stolen, or lost - does the one who made the vow need to bring another animal. A neder is when one says "I accept upon myself" and a nedava is when one says, "This animal will be brought." The differences between a zav who sees two discharges and a zav who sees three discharges are in the matter of bringing a sacrifice, but for other things - level of impurity and counting seven clean ones - both are the same. How does one learn these laws from the verses on the Torah in Vayikra chapter 15? The only difference between a quarantined leper (metzora musgar) who was determined not to be a leper and an absolute leper (metzora muchlat, who was determined to have leprosy) is that the musgar does not have to let his hair grow long or tear his clothes. As for the process of purification, only the muchlat needs to shave all his hair and bring the birds. From where in the verses are there laws derived?

Megillah 7 - December 19, 15 Tevet Dec 19, 2021

Today’s daf is sponsored by Norman Eliaser in honor of his wife, Shira Eliaser, on her birthday! “Happy birthday to Shira - my wife, favorite chevruta, and favorite teacher!"

Today’s daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in loving memory of her father Yoel Ben Meir Fromm. “He was a lone Holocaust survivor who although arriving in Canada with no family or emotional support at the age of 19, still believed that Hakol le tova. He dedicated his life to Torah and Gmilut Chasadim. Any advice he gave was always spiced with examples of Midrashim and Aggadot. He challenged my thirst for learning by encouraging my independent thinking. I miss his music, his nigunim, zmirot and his stories. He was my guiding light. Yehi zichru baruch.”

There were questions raised about Megillat Esther - should it be written down? If so, should it be included in the canonization of the Tanach? What other books were a subject of debate whether or not to be included? Was the Megillah said with Ruach HaKodesh, inspired by the Divine Spirit? What verses can be used to prove this? Is there a way to understand each of these verses in a different manner? How many Mishloach Manot and Matanot l'Evyonim is one required to give on Purim? Stories are told of Abaye who delivered mishloach manot for Raba and his reactions both to what Raba was sending and to Meri bar Mar who returned mishloach manot to Raba. When Abaye brought the mishloach manot to Meri, Meri offered him food and even though Abaye had left Raba's house and wasn't hungry, he ate a lot of food there. One can derive from here either that poor people are hungry and they don't even realize it or that there's always room for dessert!! There were two rabbis (brothers) who would exchange meals each year, presumably, to fulfill their obligation of mishloach manot. Rava says that one is obligated to drink on Purim until one no longer knows the difference between cursing Haman and blessing Mordechai. A story is brought of Raba and Rabbi Zeira who ate together and got drunk and Raba "slaughtered" Rabbi Zeira. The next day, he prayed for mercy and brought him back to life. The following year, he invited him again to eat together and Rabbi Zeira declined, saying that one cannot rely on miracles. Purim seudah must be eaten during the day. The next Mishna begins a set of mishnayot that compare two different things, as the previous Mishna compared Adar 1 to Adar 2. The only difference between Shabbat and Yom Tov is that on Yom Tov one is allowed to prepare food. The Gemara derives from the Mishna that one is not allowed to prepare items that facilitate the preparation of food, in which case it does not hold like Rabbi Yehuda who permits that. The only difference between Shabbat and Yom Kippur is that Shabbat is punishable by the court and Yom Kippur is punishable by God, karet. The Gemara derives from here that if there was an obligation from the melacha performed on Yom Kippur to pay someone for damages, one would be exempt on both cases based on the law of kim lei b'deraba minai, one gets only the harsher punishment, just as on Shabbat. This is in accordance with Rabbi Nechunia ben HaKane. According to the Mishna is Makkot, Rabbi Hanania ben Gamliel holds that if one receives lashes for a karet obligation in the event that there are witnesses and the person was warned, one is exempt from karet. Rabbi Yochanan claims that others disagree with him. Does this fit in with our Mishna?

Megillah 6 - Shabbat December 18, 14 Tevet Dec 17, 2021

Is the city Reket mentioned in Joshua 19:35 referring to Tiberias or is Chamat? Perhaps Rakat is Tzipori? What about Kineret? Rabbi Yochanan and Rava disagree about the identification of these cities. Zeira said that Kitron is Tzipori. However, since Kitron is in Zevulun’s land and Zevulun complained that they were not given good land, how could this be? Or is it just that the grass is always greener on the other side? Ekron is the city of Caesaria. It was a Roman stronghold. It is not possible for the Romans and the Jews to both be well established at the same time or both be destroyed at the same time – two different verses are brought to prove this. Drashot are brought on verses explaining conversations between Yitzchak and Yaakov with God about Esau, which is the father of Edom, from who the Romans are descended. If one says one is successful without hard work or works hard but is not successful, do not believe them. However, if one says one worked hard and was successful, that is to be believed. Is this only regarding Torah and only some type of Torah learning? Why? Can one provoke evildoers? Or should one stay away? On what does it depend? If there are two months of Adar, when do we read the Megillah – in the first month or the second? If one holds the second month and one reads it in the first and only after that, it was decided to add another month, does one need to read it again? What about other mitzvot like the four parshiot?

Megillah 5 - December 17, 13 Tevet Dec 17, 2021

Study Guide Megillah 5

Today’s daf is sponsored by Naomi and Adam Ferziger in honor of the engagement of their daughter Avital (a former student of Michelle’s) to Sefi Becker. Mazal tov!

Is it necessary to have ten people when reading the Megillah? Does it matter if it is read on time or not? What counts as a big city for determining the date for reading the Megillah? In the cases where the date of reading the Megillah is changed, it is only pushed earlier but other things such as Tisha B'Av which falls on Shabbat, and the chagiga sacrifice and Hakhel that fall on Shabbat get pushed offs. Why? Is it forbidden to work on Purim? Does it just depend on the custom of the place where one lives? Is Tiberias considered a walled city from the days of Joshua or not? What is the unique issue of Tiberias?

Megillah 4 - December 16, 12 Tevet Dec 16, 2021

Study Guide Megillah 4

Today’s daf is sponsored by Catriella Freedman in loving memory of her mother 5th Yahrzeit, Gerda Stein, Freida bat Fruma. “She died in Eretz Yisrael, the place she firmly believed was her spiritual home. I think of you every day and always hear your encouragement to pursue the intellectual and thoughtful life”.

The daf is also sponsored by Julie Mendelsohn in honor of her son who was sworn in as an Israeli air force officer today. "As usual the daf speaks to life. Not only are you now a “captain of the Army of G-d” but throughout your course you never gave up on your learning, your tefillah and your Torah lifestyle. During all of the hard training, you got up even earlier to pray, spent your free time on Shabbat learning, and were a great example for all of the other soldiers in your unit. I am so proud of you and wish you a safe and meaningful service."

There are four other laws of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi regarding Purim (in addition to the four mentioned at the end of Megillah 3): a list of a few cities that were walled from the time of Joshua, women are obligated in reading the Megillah as they too were part of the miracle, when Purim that falls on Shabbat, the Megillah should be studied, and the Megillah should be read both at night and in the morning. Rabbi Chanina explains why people in the villages can read on an earlier day - the rabbis were lenient with them in order to allow them to bring food and drink to the people in the cities. The Gemara asks several questions on this and reinterprets his statement to read "The rabbis were lenient with them since they brought food and drink" - meaning as a reward to them for doing this, they wanted to make their lives easier by allowing them to read it earlier on a day when they normally went to the city. If Purim falls on Friday, when do the different types of cities read the Megillah? The Mishna brings one opinion which matched Rebbi and Rabbi Yosi's opinion, however, there are two other opinions. What is the basis for each opinion? Why do we not read the Megillah on Shabbat? Two answers are brought - either so we don't accidentally carry in the public domain (as in Lulav and Shofar) or because we give charity at the same time as we read the Megillah and we can't do that on Shabbat.

Megillah 3 - December 15, 11 Tevet Dec 15, 2021

Study Guide Megilla 3

Today's daf is sponsored by Joel Silberstein in loving memory of Mazal Tov bat Shalom.

Several statements made in the name of either Rabbi Yirmia or Rabbi Chia bar Abba are brought. One related to the letters in the Hebrew alphabet that have a different form when they appear at the end of a word. Was that established by the Prophets? Or earlier? Another explained who first translated the Torah and the Prophets into Aramaic. Unkelos the covert translated the Torah and Yonatan ben Uziel did the Prophets. The earth shook when the Prophets were translated. Why? And why not when the Torah was translated? Why weren't the Writings translated? How could it be Unkelos was the first to translate the Torah when it appears already in a drasha on a verse from Nechemia that it was already translated then? Another statement from Rabbi Yirmia or Rabbi Chia bar Abba relates to a verse in Daniel where he saw something that other people with him did not and yet they were frightened and he was not. What exactly transpired there? What can we learn from it? From the words "mishpacha u'mishpacha" in the Megillah, we derive that families of kohanim, Levites and maamadot leave their jobs to hear Megillah. A hierarchy of mitzvot are discussed - what precedes what in terms of importance? A met mitzva, one who has died and there is no one to bury him/her. overrides everything, even a negative commandment, as human dignity overrides everything. Rabbi Yehushua ben Levi brings several statements defining what is considered a "big city" or "walled city."

Megillah 2 - December 14, 10 Tevet Dec 14, 2021

Study Guide Megillah 2

This month's learning is sponsored by Jordana and Kalman Schoor on behalf of their daughter Daria Esther who is completing Masechet Megilla in honor of her Bat Mitzva this month. "Daria attended the Hadran siyum and there is no doubt that her attendance inspired her to learn each chapter with a different family member and begin her journey into the world of Gemara learning." Mazal tov!

Today’s daf is sponsored by Jessica Shklar on behalf of her sister, Ruth Leah Kahan’s birthday “Happy Birthday to a Hadran stalwart, Ruth Leah Kahan, from her sister Jessica, who loves sharing daf yomi with you from across the ocean.”

Today's daf is sponsored by Sharon Russ and family, in loving memory of her father, David ben Avraham and Naomi, on his fourth yahrzeit. "May his memory be a blessing and his Neshama have an Aliya.”

On what days is it possible to read the Megillah? On what does it depend? Why is the law different for those who live in villages and why are they allowed to read it earlier than the dates specified in the Megillah? Where in the Megillah can one find an allusion to this? Is there an opinion that one is not allowed to read the Megillah before the 14th? From where do we know that walled cities read on the 15th and is it walled cities from the time of Yehoshua or from the time of Achashvarosh and the Purim story?

Introduction to Masechet Megillah with Dr. Ayelet Hoffman Libson Dec 13, 2021

Taanit 31 - Siyum Masechet Taanit - December 13, 9 Tevet Dec 12, 2021

Siyum Masechet Taanit is sponsored by Rella Feldman and family “In honor of all the Daf Yomi learners internationally and the dedicated teachers who make it possible. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle Farber for your daily inspiration and to Ilana Kurshan for your shiur today.”

Siyum Masechet Taanit is sponsored by Sara Averick and Jose Rosenfeld in loving memory of Leah & Nathan Averick and Rochel & Walter Mark.

Two more reasons are given as to the significance of the day of Tu b’Av. One is that the people who were killed in Beitar in the Bar Kochva rebellion were allowed to be buried on that day. The other is that it is the last day they were able to cut wood for the Temple before the days began to get shorter and the sun would not be strong enough to dry the wood. If the wood was not dry enough, it could attract worms, thereby disqualifying it for use on the altar. When the days got shorter one who studies into the night will add years to one’s life and one who does not, shortens one’s life. On Yom Kippur and Tu b’Av when the young women would go out dancing, they would borrow clothing one from the other. A braita specifies who would borrow from who. They would purify the clothing first in a mikveh, even if they were folded in the cabinet, just in case they were impure. What would they say to the men in order to encourage them to marry the women? It depended on what the woman’s strengths were – beauty or good family lineage. What would they say if she had neither? In the future, there will be a circle of tzadikim who will sit around with God in the Garden of Eden, pointing at God saying, “This is our God, our salvation.”

Taanit 30 - December 12, 8 Tevet Dec 12, 2021

This week’s learning is sponsored as a zechut for a refuah shleima for Chava Naami bat Daba Chana, Evie Haar, b'toch she'ar cholei Yisrael, by the Hadran Women of Long Island. May our learning be a source of strength and merit for the entire family.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Moshe & Aviva Schwartz in honor of their cousins, Amalia Gerber “Mazal tov for completing your first siyum of Mishnayot Nezikin in honor of your Bat Mitzvah” and Ilana Kurshan “for teaching us as part of siyum Masechet Ta'anit!”

One cannot eat two cooked items on erev Tisha B’av – is this only in the afternoon or only for the final meal before the fast? Or both? One cannot eat wine or meat at that meal and according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, one should change from the way one normally eats. What does this mean? Laws of mourning apply to Tisha B’av. One cannot eat, drink, wash, put on oils, wear shoes, engage in sexual relations, read passages from the Tanach, learn Mishna, Talmud, Midrash, halakha, and aggada as they are pleasurable activities. There is a debate whether or not one can learn a section that one has never learned before as perhaps it is less enjoyable. Children in school should not study. One is allowed to study passages that discuss the destruction of the Temple and passages from Job. Salted meat is no longer considered meat, although it depends on how long it was salted. At what point after pressing the grapes is wine considered a problem? What did Rav Yehuda do every erev Tisha B’av? Can one work on Tisha b’Av? It is dependent on one’s custom. Torah scholars do not work so as to fully experience the fast. However, the rabbis strongly encouraged everyone to refrain from working. Does one need to turn one’s bed over as mourners do? What about pregnant and nursing women? The Mishna stated that the happiest days of the year were the 15th of Av and Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur was a happy day because it is a day where our sins are forgiven. But what happened on the 15th of Av? Several answers are brought.

Taanit 29 - Shabbat December 11, 7 Tevet Dec 10, 2021

Study Guide Taanit 29

How do we know that the five events mentioned in the Mishna as having occurred on the 9th of Av, were actually on that date? The Romans decreed to kill Rabban Gamliel but a Roman officer saved him in exchange for a promise by Rabban Gamliel that he would be promised a place in the World to Come. A story is told of young children of kohanim that committed suicide during the destruction of the Temple. When Av enters, we limit happy things, but when Adar enters, we increase happy things. The mazal is with the Jews in Adar and is not with the Jews in Av, and therefore one should try to push off court cases with gentiles in Av and try to have them in Adar. One cannot do laundry or get a haircut on the week of Tisha B'av. Is it only laundry one wants to wear or even if it is left for later? Is it only the days of the week before Tisha B'av or is it the entire week including the days after Tisha B'av? What other opinions are there regarding the dates for these prohibitions?

Taanit 28 - December 10, 6 Tevet Dec 10, 2021

Study Guide Taanit 28

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sharon Raanan in loving memory of Menachem Yitzchak Ben Shaul and Susan Bat Rachel.

Today’s daf is also sponsored by Karen Kosowsky in loving memory of her mother, Elaine Ackerman, Esther Masha bat Aharon “She always loved learning and would have loved to be a part of the Hadran community.”

In which prayers of the maamadot would they read the Torah from a Torah scroll and in which would they read it by heart in the way they recited Shema. This depends on how to punctuate a line in the Mishna. Why are there differences regarding days where they skipped a prayer or more than one prayer of the maamadot between a day when there is Musaf and a day where there is a wood sacrifice? Why would they bring wood sacrifices? Who are the people mentioned in the Mishna by the name of those who deceived with a pestle and those who packed dried figs? These were people who were able to trick the authorities who didn't allow the Jews to bring wood and their first fruits to the Temple. Also, the Bnei Salmai did something similar to sneak in wood. Who were Pechat Moav ben Yehuda and Adin ben Yehuda - some say they were descendants of David and some say from Yoav ben Tzruya, David's nephew. According to which opinion does our Mishna hold? Mar Kashisha asks Rav Ashi why does Musaf not override only its maamad, as with Hallel which only overrides the morning service? Rav Ashi answers that Rabbi Yosi holds that way. The Mishna mentions the first of Tevet as a day that has all three - Hallel, musaf and wood sacrifice. What about the first of Nissan as well? It is inferred from here that Hallel on Rosh Chodesh is only a custom and that is why certain sections are omitted. On what days is Hallel recited by law? What was the order of events/dates from the receiving the Torah that would have the 17th of Tamuz be the day the tablets were broken? The Tamid sacrifice was canceled on 17 of Tamuz - that is learned by tradition. The city walls were breached on 17 Tamuz - wasn't it on the 9th according to the book of Yimriyahu (Jeremiah)? It must be referring to the Second Temple. From where do we derive that the Torah was burned on that day as well and an idol was placed in the Temple?

Taanit 27 - December 9, 5 Tevet Dec 09, 2021

Study Guide Taanit 27

Today’s daf is sponsored by Judi Felber on the third yartzeit of Yovel MorYosef and Yossi Cohen, who were killed in a terror attack at Givat Assaf and for the continued refuah sheleima of her son, Netanel Ilan ben Shayna Tzpora, who was critically injured in the attack.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Patti Evans in loving memory of her mother, Gloria Weisman's, first yahrzeit. “My mother loved that I was learning Daf Yomi, and always wished she had been able to learn more in her almost 99 years. She loved being Jewish and celebrated life each and every day. Her indomitable spirit is sorely missed by us all.”

Today's daf is also sponsored by Sylvia Simmons in loving memory of Pessy Simmons, Pessy bat Eliyahu Yitschak v'Rachel Leah. “Pessy - who inspired many with her enquiring mind and lifelong love of Jewish learning – would admire the growing community of female Talmud learners.”

Is the prohibition for kohanim to bless the people while drunk derived from laws of nazir or from a juxtaposition in the verse Devraim 10:8 between serving in the Temple and blessing the people? Why were the maamadot instituted? A braita states that 24 mishmarot of kohanim were in Israel and 12 were in Jericho. Does that mean there were 36!? And what exactly is meant in Israel/in Jericho? Kohanim and levites are essential for sacrifices. Are the maamadot also? What about the musical instruments? Is the important part of the music the voices or the instruments? Moshe set up eight rotations of kohanim but a different source says sixteen. Also, there are contradictory statements about how and when it became twenty-four. Which families of kohanim that were in the first Temple came back to Israel when the second Temple was built and served there as well. Why do we read the Torah portion of the creation of the world during the maamadot? The people in the maamadot would fast from Monday-Thursday of that week. Regarding the Torah portion, in a case where there are five verses in one part (one day of creation) and three in the other, the three are all read on one Aliya. But there is a debate between Rav and Shmuel regarding the five - is one verse is repeated in both aliyot or split in half, as one must read a minimum of three verses for each aliya. Difficulties are raised against the different opinions.

Taanit 26 - December 8, 4 Tevet Dec 08, 2021

Study Guide Taanit 26

Today’s daf is sponsored by Geri Goldstein Guedalia in loving memory of her mother, Helen Saipe, Tzippa Hinda bat Avraham v’Devora Draza on her shloshim.

Today’s daf is also sponsored by David and Jael Eichin on behalf of their daughter's first birthday. "Mazal Tov to our wonderful daughter Maayan Rachel. One year ago today you joined us in this world on the eve of the ninth day of Chanuka, as we now call it. This past year has been a journey of so much joy, awe to HaKadosh Baruch Hu, amazement, fun, and exhaustion. Even while you were still in my tummy, you got to hear the wonderful Michelle Farber. And in the first few months after you were born, we learned the daf together. May Torah be a guide to you and Derech Eretz your way of life. We love you and are immensely happy to be your parents. Thank you Michelle Farber for your amazing work!"

If it rains on the day of a fast, is Hallel to be recited before or after the people eat? On what does it depend? On public fasts, Yom Kippur and the prayers recited by the maamadTheot, rotations of people who prayed that the sacrificed would be accepted, the kohanim bless the people four times – shacharit, musaf, mincha and neila. Why were there maamadot? What was the Torah reading that the people who were in the maamadot would read on each day of the week when they were on duty? What days of the year were there no prayers are Torah reading of the maamadot or they were limited to certain prayers? There were nine days a year that were celebratory days for certain families as they would donate wood to the Temple on those days. The Mishna lists which family brought on which day. On those days the maamadot were also limited somewhat and were not said in either mincha or musaf (subject of debate between Rabbi Akiva and Ben Azai). Five tragic events happened on the 17th of Tamuz and five on Tisha B’av. What were they? What are things that should be limited from Rosh Chodesh Av, the week of Tisha B’av and erev Tisha B’av in the afternoon? The happiest days of the year were the fifteenth of Av and Yom Kippur. Why? The Mishna had stated that there are three days where the kohanim bless the people in four tefillot. However, this is not so accurate as on some of those days there is no musaf. How is this resolved? In addition, there is a debate about whether the kohanim bless the people in both mincha and neila. What is at the root of the debate? Who do we hold like? From where do we derive that a kohen who is drunk cannot bless the people? From the nazir.

Taanit 25 - December 7, 3 Tevet Dec 07, 2021

Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa was so poor that his wife would pretend that they had food. A story is brought to highlight this. One day she pushes Rabbi Chanina to pray to end their poverty but when their prayers are answered, they realize there is a price to pay and they request from God to take it back. A few stories tell of other miracles that Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa was known for, some of them involving neighbors of his. Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat was also very poor and has nothing to eat after bloodletting so he ate a clove of garlic. He gets weak and falls asleep and some strange things happen while he is asleep and when he wakes, the rabbis ask him to explain what transpired in his sleep. He recounts a conversation he had with God in his dream. A number of other stories are told of times of drought and different ways that the rabbis were eventually able to get the rain to come. Why are righteous people compares to a cedar and to a date (in Psalms 92:13). Why was Rabbi Akiva’s prayer for rain accepted when Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkanus’ prayers were not? How much rainfall is enough to cancel the fast? If it rains by what time of day do they cancel the fast for that day? There are three different opinions – sunrise, midday or nine hours into the day. Shmuel HaKatan thought that if it rains just before the fast starts or at the end of the day, that is a bad sign – that either God doesn’t want to hear our prayers or God wants to torment us. But if the rains comes as the chazzan says “bring down the rain,” that is a good sign. When the rains came during a fast in Lod, they broke their fast and then said Hallel. Why did they not recite Hallel before eating?

Taanit 24 - December 6, 2 Tevet Dec 06, 2021

Today's daf is sponsored by Earl Norman in honor of his wife Tamara Norman. "To my wife who is the embodiment of eishet chayyil."

Today’s daf is also sponsored by Gabrielle and Daniel Altman in honor of the 85th birthday of their father and grandfather, Hon. Herbert Altman.

Stories are told of Rabbi Yosi from Yokrat. Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Avin was his student but leaves him to learn with Rav Ashi as he was scared of him after he showed no sympathy for his children. One day when Rabbi Yosi didn't return in time to feed his workers, his son prayed to God to have the fruits ripen early in order to have food for them. When Rabbi Yosi heard what his son did, he got angry at him for bothering God to ripen the fruits early and said that as a result, he will die before his time. His daughter was beautiful and there was a man who was looking at her through the fence saying, "If I can't marry her, at least I can look at her." Rabbi Yosi got upset that she was causing men to be tormented and told her to return to the ground. His donkey was rented out to others and was sent back to him daily with money from the rental but if any amount was missing or added, the donkey would refuse to move. Elazar Ish Birta would give all his money to charity so the charity collectors would avoid him so as not to leave him with no money. One day he was in the market shopping for his daughter's dowry and saw the charity collectors and gave them all the money but one zuz that he used to buy wheat for the wedding. A miracle happened from the small amount of wheat that he bought, but he wouldn't let his family benefit from it as he declared that it was sanctified since it came from a miracle. A number of stories are told where the rabbis pray for rain and yet it doesn't help at first. Only after giving up does the rain come. Rabbi Oshaya blames the house of the Nasi and the people for the fact that the rain doesn't come and gets the Nasi's servants very upset and they try to torture him. However, the people stand up for him. Other stories are told of rabbis who pray for rain and their prayers are not answered but then a chazan comes and due to his merits, the rains come. What deeds did they do that enabled this? Raba's prayers for rain go unanswered and he wonders why Rav Yehuda was able to bring rain so easily and he was not. Rava also was unsuccessful at bringing rain even after the people fasted so he has them fast through the night and from a dream someone has, he realizes the time is ripe for prayer and he prays and the rains come. Rava gave lashes to someone who slept with a non-Jewish woman and the person died from the lashes. This upset Shavor Malka, the Persian ruler and he wanted to punish Rava, but his mother, Ifrah Hermiz, warns him not to start up with the Jews as God answers their prayers. Upon his mother's suggestion, he gives them a test to see if this is in fact the case. Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa asks God to stop the rain so he can get home safely, even though the rest of the world needs the rain. When he arrives at home, he asks God to bring the rain for those who need it and the rains come. Rav Yosef points out how strong his prayers were as they overrode the prayer of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur when he asks that God not heed the prayers of the travelers. Even though Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa brought rain for others, he himself lived in extreme poverty.

Taanit 23 - Rosh Chodesh Tevet, December 5, 1 Tevet Dec 05, 2021

This month’s daf is sponsored by Minneapolis Hadran group in memory of the father of their organizer Shira Krebs. “Shira’s father Jerry Katz, Gershon Pinya ben Yitzchak Lev haCohen z”l, loved learning and family beyond all else. He raised three daughters and a son to be dedicated to Torah learning, And his legacy lives on not only through his family, but through our Hadran Minneapolis group as well. He passed away two weeks ago, and he will be greatly missed”.

Today's daf is sponsored by Ellen Golub in loving memory of Ruth Calish Weiss on her first yahrzeit. "Ruth was a pillar of strength to Israel and the Jewish people. She was an inspiration to daughter Debra (& Robert) Finkel, and grandchildren, Max, Hannah & Aliya.

Today’s daf is also sponsored by Mindy and Eric Hecht and family in loving memory of Mindy’s father, Dr. Charles Feldman, Yitzchak Tzvi Ben Yaakov v’Leah, on the 10th yahrzeit, which was on the second night of Chanukah. “We miss him dearly and know that he would have loved to be part of this great learning endeavor.”

Today's daf is also dedicated from myself and the Hadran Zoomers to Sharon Russ on the sudden loss of her mother on Shabbat. Our thoughts are with you.

Rain on Tuesday nights and Friday nights is considered a good thing as people are generally not on the streets on those nights – why? A different version of the story of Honi the Circle Maker is brought. Another Honi story is told regarding Honi’s surprise when he saw a man planting a carob tree when the fruits will only grow after 70 years and he will not even see the fruits of his labor. Honi ends up sleeping for 70 years and awakening to seeing the grandson of the person who planted the trees enjoying the fruits. When he goes to see what happened to his family, no one recognizes him. In the Beit Midrash as well, he is unrecognizable, even though his magical powers still seem to be prevalent. He dies out of sadness. Stories are also told of Honi’s grandchildren and their role in also bringing rain. What is the difference between the strong ones of Israel and the pious ones of Babylonia? Other stories of told of Rabbi Yona and his son Rabbi Mani and the strength of their prayers.

Taanit 22 - Shabbat Rosh Chodesh Tevet, December 4, 30 Kislev Dec 03, 2021

Abaye is jealous of Abba the bloodletter and sends messengers to test him and see if he is really as good a person as he seems. Rava was jealous of Abaye as he heard from the yeshiva in the heavens once a week and Rava only once a year. Rabbi Broka meets Eliyahu in the market and asks him to point out people who are going to merit life in the World to Come. Eliyahu points out people who don’t exactly look the part and Rabbi Broka talks to them to find out what deeds they have done on account of which they are worthy. If a wild animal acts in an unusual manner, that is cause for instituting fasts, but if it is the usual manner, then they do not. What is considered un/usual? If one comes to the city with a sword, one declares fasts, even if it is a sword of peace as in the story of Pharoah Necho and Yoshiyahu as described in Chronicles 2 Chapter 35. The Gemara delves in more detail into the cases of the Mishna regarding blight, a case where wolves ate 2 children, on what issues one calls out in prayer on Shabbat, and the debate regarding pestilence on Shabbat. Why are we not allowed to pray if there is too much rain? Is there an exception to this rule?

Taanit 21 - December 3, 29 Kislev Dec 03, 2021

Rabbi Yochanan and Ilfa struggled with trying to learn in the Beit Midrash and also make a living. Ilfa chose to leave the Beit Midrash and get a job and Rabbi Yochanan, after overhearing a conversation among angels, decided to stay in the Beit Midrash. When Ilfa returned to the Beit Midrash, Rabbi Yochanan has become the head of the yeshiva and Ilfa wondered if he made the right decision and came up with a test to see. Stories about Nahum ish Gamzu are brought - he would always say, "This too is for the best." The first story is similar to stories from Taanit 20 as it concerns a wall that was about to collapse. What are the different opinions regarding the numbers for what constitutes pestilence for which fasts need to be instituted? Rav Nachman son of Rav Chisda begged Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak to move to live near him but he was not interested. There were some cities plagued by pestilence or fire but a certain neighborhood was spared. They thought it was due to an important rabbi living among them but that was not the case - it was on account of simple people who helped others in the community. In what cases does one need to be concerned that a calamity in a nearby city will possibly reach them as well? Abba the bloodletter would receive greetings from the yeshiva in the heavens daily, Abaye would receive every erev Shabbat, and Rava on erev Yom Kippur. What did Abba the bloodletter do in his life that merited this honor? Abaye was jealous of this.

Taanit 20 - December 2, 28 Kislev Dec 02, 2021

Today’s daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim Weiss in loving memory of Sara Yehudit Sharf (Sara Yehudit bat Sarah Imanu) on the Shloshim. “You inspired many with your commitment. You chose the Jewish Nation as your people, Hebrew as your language, and the land of Israel and Yerushalayim as your home, studying intensely along the way and marveling at the privilege. You touched the lives of so many around you. You will live on in the hearts and memories of many."

Nadimon ben Gurion is reaching the end of the day in which he needs to repay the loan of the water he borrowed from a wealthy gentile and the rain has still not come. He goes to the Temple to pray and the rain finally comes. However, the gentile claims that the sun has set and he has missed the deadline. However, the clouds move and the sun comes out and Nakdimon is able to repay the debt on time. He is likened to Moshe and Yehoshua who were able to change time. Yehoshua had the sun stand still in battle, but from where do we know that this happened with Moshe? Rav Yehuda had a tradition from Rav of translating certain verses in a manner that was the opposite of the simple reading – sometimes changing a positive verse to have a negative connotation and a negative one to have a positive connotation. A story is told of Rabbi Elazar, the son of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai who met an ugly man and treated him disrespectfully because of his looks. The ugly man reprimanded him and would not forgive him when Rabbi Elazar begged for forgiveness. Rabbi Elazar learned from this situation that one should be soft like a reed and not hard as a cedar tree. For that reason, a reed is used for writing a sefer Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot. One institutes fasts for buildings that collapse but only if it is something unnatural and unexpected. It seems that certain people had enough merits that if there was a wall that was about to fall, their merits would help to keep the wall from falling. A story is told of Rav and Shmuel who avoided a particular wall for years for concern it would fall but when Rav Ada bar Ahava was with them, they walked past the wall. Rav Huna needed to remove items from his house that was about to fall so he coaxed Rav Ada to go into the house so that Rav Huna could enter without concern it would fall on him. Rav Ada only later realized he was being used and gets upset with Rav Huna and tells him that even though he has merits, one should not rely on a miracle and also it will use up his merits! What did Rav Ada do to merit this? We are also told of good deeds Rav Huna was known to have done.

Taanit 19 - December 1, 27 Kislev Dec 01, 2021

If a calamity befalls a city or rain doesn't fall, does the nearby city also need to fast and blow the shofar? On what does it depend? When is something considered a plague on account of which fasting is needed - how many deaths in how many days? For what types of calamities can the community cry out in prayer even on Shabbat? One can pray for all sorts of things except if too many rains come and they want to ask for the rains to stop as in the story of Honi HaMaagel. The Mishna describes the whole story about Honi when he prayed for rain and how many stages he had to go through until the rains came in the way he wanted. When the rains were too great and the people asked him to pray for it to stop, he refused as one does not pray for rains to stop. Shimon ben Shetach was surprised by Honi brazen manner in which he demanded rain from God, but conceded that God in fact listened to Honi and therefore it is hard to say anything against him. If one's prayers are answered during the day in which one is fasting, does one continue to fast until the end of the day or is there no need? What is the difference between a famine and a drought? What are different types of rains that some can be good for crops but bad for trees or good for trees but bad for reservoirs, etc? On what issues does one not fast for during the shmita year? Once the Temple was destroyed, the amount of rain decreased and some years there is less rain than needed or the rains do not come in their proper time. A story is told of Nakdimon ben Gurion who borrowed water from a rich gentile for the Jews to have when they came to the Temple for the holiday. He committed to pay a lot of money in the event that he didn't return the water in time. The day the loan was due came and there was still no rain. The gentile began to mock Nakdimon, but Nakdimon claimed that he still had until the end of the day to pay back the loan. The story continues on the next daf...

Taanit 18 - November 30, 26 Kislev Nov 30, 2021

A number of aspects regarding the days mentioned in Megillat Taanit in the month of Nissan need clarification. Why is there an overlap of days? Regarding the debate in the Mishna about whether the days before or after are also days on which one cannot fast, who do we hold like? Different opinions are brought. Rabbi Yochanan is quoted as ruling on this issue like Rabbi Yosi. However, this seems to contradict an unattributed Mishna and it is known that Rabbi Yochanan always holds by unattributed Mishnayot. How is that resolved? In the context of all these discussions, several other days listed in Megillat Taanit come up and the Gemara explains why these days were days for celebration. The third chapter begins with a description of other calamities that would be reason to declare a fast. However, there is no waiting period for those, as there is by the rains.

Taanit 17 - November 29, 25 Kislev, 1st Day of Chanukah Nov 29, 2021

This week’s daf is sponsored by Rivka and Martin Himmel for the week of Chanuka.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson and Arthur Gould in loving memory of Carol’s father Louis Robinson, Yehuda Leib ben Moshe, z”l. “Today – the first day of Hanukah – we mark his 22nd yahrtzeit. Lou was devoted to his family and his synagogue. We love him and miss him very much.”

The language of some of the blessing is a subject of debate. What are the issues? What are the differences regarding laws such as not drinking wine for Kohanim whose rotation in the Temple is that week or who are part of the family that works on that particular day? The same laws apply even if the Kohanim do not come to the Temple or seemingly, even nowadays that there is no Temple. Why? What are the laws for someone who no longer knows what is the week he is supposed to be there - is he ever permitted to drink wine? How often does a king of a High Priest get a haircut? What are the issues regarding cutting hair for regular kohanim? Details are derived from the laws of the nazir. Are these laws still applicable today? From where are the laws of cutting hair and not drinking wine derived? Is there a reason to distinguish between them nowadays? Megillat Taanit specifies days one cannot eulogize. Rabbi Yosi holds that the day before and after are also forbidden. Two cases of a range of days mentioned in Megillat Taanit are quoted 1-8 of Nissan and 8-end of Pesach. Several questions are raised against these cases.

Taanit 16 - November 28, 24 Kislev Nov 28, 2021

Why is the Ark taken out to the streets? Several answers are given. Why are ashes placed on the heads of the leaders and on the heads of the people? If there is no elder, who makes the speech to encourage people to repent? Does an elder mean someone who is also a scholar? The speech includes mention of the people of Ninveh who repented. How did they repent? If someone repents without changing one's actions, it is like going to the mikveh with a sheretz in one's hand. What exactly are the criteria for the leader of the prayers? A discussion ensues about the exact text of the six additional blessings and also an addition is made to the blessing before the additions ('the redeemer of Israel'). What was done in the Temple differently?

Taanit 15 - Shabbat November 27, 23 Kislev Nov 26, 2021

How do the prayers work during the last set of fasts? The Ark is taken into the street - why? Ashes are placed on the heads of the leaders and then the people also put on their own heads. An elder gets up and stresses how God isn't interested in our fasts and sackcloth but in our actions. There are criteria for choosing who will lead the prayers. An extra six blessings are added into the shmoneh esreh prayer and the shofar is sounded for each extra blessing. What is said in the body of each blessing and how does each blessing end? In the time of Rabbi Chalafta and Rabbi Chanina ben Tradion, the people answered as they did in the Temple instead of answering amen is as done outside the Temple and the rabbis were not pleased with this. What are the rules regarding fasting for the Kohanim who are on duty to work in the temple that week when the fast comes out? What else are they prohibited to do on the week that they are working on the Temple. What exceptions are made? The dates mentioned in Megillat Taanit - can one fast the day before or after? On what does it depend and what are the different opinions? Fasts always are scheduled for Mondays and Thursdays but each set begins on a Monday, never on a Thursday - why? If fasts are declared and later they realize that one of the dates falls Rosh Chodesh or Chanuka or Purim, do they still fast? The Gemara discusses the placing of the ashes and why it is done in that order and in the particular manner discussed in the Mishna?

Taanit 14 - November 26, 22 Kislev Nov 26, 2021

The question against Rav Yitzchak's opinion regarding an individual who says the 'aneinu' prayer adds it in the blessing of 'shomea tefilla' is resolved. Do we hold like Rav Yitzchak? Do pregnant and nursing women fast on public fasts? When it says in the Mishna that on the third set of fasts, 'matri'in' - does that mean to blow the shofar or to pray 'aneinu'? In the time of Rabbi Yehuda Nesi'a there was no rain and even after the third set of fasts there was still no rain. He instituted more fasts. Rabbi Ami disagreed with this. Would one distinguish in this regard between rains and other calamities? If so, how and why? People who need rain in times that are opposite the ones where rain is needed in Israel, how should they add the prayer for rain - in the regular place or in the middle of the blessing of 'shomea tefilla'. What did the Mishna mean exactly regarding how and when stores are opened on Thursdays? If all the fasts pass and there is still no rain, the Mishna described a number of things that people do not do such as build, plant, etc. What type of building/planting is prohibited? One should not greet another. What if someone greets you who doesn't know this law, can you respond, and if so, in what manner? Not everyone can fall on their faces in prayer and not everyone can tear their clothes. Who can and who cannot and what are the issues with these actions?

Taanit 13 - November 25, 21 Kislev Nov 25, 2021

Study Guide Taanit 13

Today’s daf is sponsored by Bill and Shira Futornick in loving memory of their grandmother and great-grandmother Ruth, Rivka Rach bat Chaim Tzvi z”l, on her 39th yahrzeit. “She lost her husband at an early age and raised two daughters as a single mom. Grandma Ruth was the embodiment of kindness and chutzpah.”

Today’s daf is also sponsored by Naama Livner in loving memory of Gladis Livner, a loving mother and grandmother. “She learned Torah with love and dedication. She moved to Israel with her family and built a tribe. She loved Israel, the nation and Torah.”

Today’s daf is also sponsored by Tova and Tzvi Sinensky in loving memory of Aunt Bracha - Gloria Mehler. “She would have been overjoyed by the numbers of women who are studying daf yomi. She continues to inspire us to learn and educate our daughters and make them feel like full participants in our Mesorah."

What is the schedule on the public fast days - what needs to be done, when? Rav Chisda is quoted as saying that when washing is prohibited on account of mourning, one is prohibited to wash in warm or cold water but when one is prohibited to wash due to avoiding pleasure, such as on public fasts, one is permitted to wash in cold water. Several sources are brought to either support Rav Chisda's statement or to raise a question against it. In one version of Rava's statement, he is quoted as saying a mourner is permitted to bathe in cold water. A source is brought to question Rava and an additional one to provide support for Rava's opinion. A different version of Rava's statement says the opposite, that he holds that a mourner is forbidden to bathe in hot water. A source is brought to try to prove this version. There is a debate where the prayer of Aneinu is added to the prayers by an individual who accepted upon oneself a fast. Is it a separate blessing or is it added to the blessing of "shomea tefilla"?

Taanit 12 - November 24, 20 Kislev Nov 24, 2021

Study Guide Taanit 12

What does "fasting for hours" mean and how does Rav Chisda define this? Is it considered fasting if one does not fast until sunset? Rav Chisda held that it is not a fast and the Gemara brings three sources that raise a difficulty on his opinion. Shmuel says one who accepts upon oneself to fast should accept it beforehand. When? Shmuel says in the mincha prayer and Rav says during the time of mincha (and it is understood from him that it is possible to even a few days before). Rav Yosef tries to prove from the words of Megillat Ta'anit that Shmuel is correct but his proof is rejected as there is a debate about the wording of the Megillat Ta'anit. Individual fasts - are the laws severe as in Yom Kippur and Tisha B'av (and public fasts)? On what does it depend? Are there public fasts in Babylonia and what does this exactly mean? Is it possible to postpone an individual's fast to another day if necessary? What is the difference between a fast on a dream and the other fasts? The Mishna explains the severity of the second and third series of public fasts. What is forbidden on these days? What happens if after all the series of fasts (three series - thirteen days of fasting) they did not receive an answer? Why on these fasts is it forbidden to work? They compare, based on a verse in Yoel 1:14 fasts to holidays.

Taanit 11 - November 23, 19 Kislev Nov 23, 2021

Study Guide Taanit 11

Today’s daf is sponsored by Jason Friedman in honor of Danielle Novetsky Friedman’s birthday today. Wishing you all the best on this special day. Happy birthday!

One who is traveling should eat small amounts of food either because it is not good for one’s intestines or because the food will run out. In what cases will there be a difference in practice between these two reasons? In case of a famine, one should not engage in sexual relations, unless the couple has no children yet. If one has means while there is a famine in the community, it is forbidden to remove oneself from the community and ignore what others are going through. People like that will not be included when the community is ultimately consoled. The Gemara calls such a person ‘beinoni, middling’." Who is considered evil? An evil person's conduct in a famine, causes the death of the righteous. Why? What is the reward for one who does include oneself in the community’s suffering? An example is taken from Moshe in the Amalekite war. Who testifies against a person who does not act in this manner? Who will know what one does behind closed doors? There are several possibilities - the stones and beams of one’s house, the two angels who accompany a person, one’s soul, or one’s organs. The righteous are punished for minor transgressions, the wicked are rewarded for minor commandments, and a person justifies his judgment on the Day of Judgment at the end of his life. Is it considered a positive thing for a person to fast or is it something not recommended? There are two approaches to this and they are derived from the nazir. It says by a nazir, "who has sinned against the soul." Is he a sinner because he vowed not to drink wine or is it just referring to a nazir who became impure to a dead person? someone who is defiled to die? One suggests that there are 2 types of people - those who can tolerate fasting and those who can not and the law is different for each. Talmud scholars are not allowed to fast because it will prevent them from learning Torah. There are no severe level fast days Babylonia other than Tisha B'Av. If one, after fasting a whole day, decided to continue the fast until the next morning, would he/she say the prayer “aneinu” the next day? Does it depend on whether one holds there is/is not such a thing as fasting for a few hours?

Taanit 10 - November 22, 18 Kislev Nov 22, 2021

Today’s learning is dedicated in memory of Eliyahu Dovid Kay who was murdered yesterday in the Old City.

Today's daf is also sponsored anonymously for a friend for a full and speedy recovery.

The Gemara brings several statements about the uniqueness of Israel as compared to other countries in the world. A braita is brought regarding the rainwater and it is attributed to Rabbi Yehoshua as it assumes the rainwater comes from the heavens. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that the world gets all of its rain from the waters that overflow from Gan Eden. A comparison is made between different countries in the world to each other and then to gan Eden and ultimately to Gehenom. From when do we begin to ask for rain? Tana Kama says on 3 Marcheshvan and Rabban Gamliel says on the 7th. Who do we hold like? In Babylonia, we ask for rain much later (60 days after the autumnal equinox) as there is less need for rainfall at the earlier dates. If there is no rain by the 17 of Marcheshvan, individuals begin to fast 3 fasts. Most things, such as wearing leather shoes, etc. are permitted on these fast days as they are less serious. The fast begins in the morning. If it still doesn't rain by Rosh Chodesh Kislev, the court institutes public fast days. The severity of these fasts are the same as the first set. Who is considered an individual that is allowed to fast on the first set of fasts? If the issue resolved itself during the day that one was fasting, they still fast all day. If one goes from a place where they fast to a place where they are not fasting or the reverse, one acts more stringently in all cases. If one accidentally forgot and ate, one should not eat in a noticeable manner and shouldn't eat a lot of food. This is derived from a verse regarding Yaakov and his sons during the famine. When the brothers leave Egypt to go back home to get Yaakov, Joseph tells them "al tirgazi baderech." This is explained to mean don't speak Torah as you will get lost. But wasn't it said that if two Torah scholars are walking on the road and aren't learning, they should be burned? From where is this derived and how is the contradiction resolved? One should not take long strides and one should get into a city when it is still light.

Taanit 9 - November 21, 17 Kislev Nov 21, 2021

This week's daf is sponsored by Pamela Kaplan in loving memory of the 17th yahrzeit of her father, David Kaplan, David Abba ben Aharon.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Betsy and Tevie Mehlman in loving memory of Gitel Leah bat Moshe David (Gloria Mehlman) on her yahrzeit yesterday (16th Kislev). May her memory be blessed.

Today’s daf is also sponsored anonymously in loving memory of Avraham ben Victoria.

Today's daf is also sponsored in loving memory of my grandfather, Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaKohen z"l on his yahrzeit.

Rabbi Yochanan engages in a discussion with his nephew, Reish Lakish’s son, about the importance of giving charity and how giving charity causes one to become wealthy. Rabbi Yochanan tells him that one can even test God on this matter, even though in general one is not allowed to test God. Another statement of Rabbi Yochanan is that God brings rain for individuals, whereas God will only bring sustenance for the community. A difficulty is raised on this from a braita that talks about the well that was brought in Miriam’s merit, the cloud for Aharon, and the manna for Moshe. As manna is sustenance, how was it brought for the merit of one individual? When Rava died and Rav Papa took over, he was sensitive to those who either did not always agree with his opinions or raised questions that he couldn’t always answer. Sometimes God brings rain not only just for one individual but for one very specific area in a specific field. When it drizzles before the rain or after the rain, what does that tell of what is to come? When Ulla arrived in Babylonia, he saw the clouds porchot, thin ones under thick ones, which is a sign that the rain will come. He told everyone to bring everything inside as the rain was coming. When no rain came, he was embarrassed and said how the rains in Babylonia lie just as the Babylonians lie. He further criticized them for not learning enough Torah when they have such an abundance of good dates. He was also proven wrong about that as the dates he ate made him sick. Does the rainwater come from the ocean or from the heavens? This is a debate between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua.

Taanit 8 - Shabbat November 20, 16 Kislev Nov 19, 2021

Today’s daf is sponsored by Racheli Mendelson in loving memory of her mother Shoshana bat Shraga feibel and Rivka. “Studying was a big part of her life right until her last moments. She learned Gemara even when women did not think about studying Gemara and taught us to love Torah. May her memory be a blessing.”

After connecting a verse from Kohelet 10:10 to rains not coming, another explanation is brought connecting that verse to Torah scholars and the importance of studying properly is stressed, as well as the importance of teacher treating one's students properly. What should be done if the people don't pray properly for rains to come? Who is the right type of person whose prayers will be heard and how important is intent in prayer? God is stricter with those who adhere strictly to God. When the rains are stopped it is likened to labor pains. The Gemara brings three words that are used to describe a woman in childbirth or getting pregnant and rain. One cannot pray for two things at the same time so if there is a famine and a plague, what should one pray for? Why can one not pray for two things at one time? There was a time when fasts were prohibited by the gentile authorities. What did Rabbi Zeira suggest to do when there were no rains? On what basis? Rain is not always a good thing as sometimes it makes things inconvenient for people. Miracles can only happen in a place that is hidden from the eye. Another reason why God doesn't bring the rains is when people say they will give charity, but they don't.

Taanit 7 - November 19, 15 Kislev Nov 19, 2021

Study Guide Taanit 7

Today’s daf is sponsored by Meir & Ahuva Balofsky in loving memory of Meir's father, Yosef Menachem ben Reuven v'Shoshana.

Today’s daf is also sponsored by Rabbi Lee Wax in loving memory of her beloved mother's first yahrzeit, Myrna Wax z”l, Merna Miriam bat David v'Tzipporah. “Her stone-setting is also today. A woman of strength, courage, wisdom and love, who I miss. May her memory always be for a blessing.”

The Gemara brings several articles on the importance of a rainy day - like the day of the resurrection of the dead, the day in which Torah was given, the day heaven and earth were created or perhaps even greater than those days. Following the mention of a verse in the context of the day the Torah was given, the Gemara deviates from the subject to discussing Talmud scholars and comparing between one who studies Torah and has proper behavior and one who studies Torah and does not. Or one who studies Torah for its own sake, lishma (or for the sake of God), and one who does not study Torah lishma. It is important to study Torah together with others - the Gemara brings various statements by rabbis that prove this matter from verses and also stressing that teachers can learn not only from their teachers and colleagues but also from their disciples and actually can learn more from them than from others. The Torah flourishes only in one whose mind is humble and this is explained in a story about Rabbi Yehoshua with the emperor's daughter where she asked him why he has so much wisdom if he is so ugly. He told her that good things are stored in ugly vessels because of the importance of humility. When does it rain? When the iniquities of the people were forgiven. For what reasons does God not bring rain? There are all different answers brought that say there are specific sins that cause rains to stop. What should be done if there is no rain? Pray!

Taanit 6 - November 18, 14 Kislev Nov 18, 2021

Study Guide Taanit 6

Mazal tov to Daniel and Sara Berelowitz on the birth of a grandson - a son to Eliyahu and Hadar.

What is the source of the word “yoreh”, the first rains? Does it comes from “moreh” meaning teaching (to prepare for the rainy season), “marveh” meaning saturating the ground, or from “yored” meaning it comes down softly. Since the phrase yoreh comes together with the word malkosh, it is clear that these are both positive things, and that “yoreh” shouldn’t be taken as something negative (to rip of the fruits). Yoreh comes in Cheshvan, and Malkosh in Nisan and we know this from the phrase “be-ito” (in its time). What is the source of the word “Malkosh”? It either comes from “mal” meaning cutting where it cuts us to enable us to repent or from “maleh” meaning full since its fills the stalks, or from “melilot ve-kashin” meaning it falls on the full stalks. There are three potential dates for the yoreh. What are there? Three different opinions are brought. 3rd, 7th and 17th of Cheshvan, 7th, 17th and 23rd or 17th, 23rd, and the 1st of Kislev. Rav Chisda held like Rabbi Yosi who held by the last opinion. Ameimar had a different version of Rav Chisda’s psak (it is unclear whether it matches Rabbi Yehuda or Rabbi Yosi). Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that if rain falls for 7 days (twice in a row), it can include all three “yoreh” days. This latter statement can only be according to Rabbi Yosi (since he never has a gap of more than 7 days). Regarding yoreh, what is the halachic significance of each of the three? The first is the date to begin requesting rain, the third is to begin fasting. What is the middle one for? Four possibilities are suggested: 1. Regarding vows, if a person says “I won’t get benefit from so and so until the rains,” his vow expires at the second yoreh. 2. For olives: Gifts that are left for the poor can be reclaimed by the owners at a certain points. For olives, this is the second yoreh. 3. The rabbis gave permission for people to pass through other people’s fields as shortcuts “shvilei reshut.” But this permit expires at the second yoreh as it will ruin the crops. 4. At the second yoreh, one has to remove all Sabbatical fruits from his or her home (debate between Rambam and Ramban whether they need to be destroyed or simply removed from the house). Why is the rain called a reviah? It comes from the language of “roveh,” penetrating the land. Rain is called the husband of the earth. The first rain should saturate the earth. The second should make enough mud to create a cover for a barrel. If it starts raining before you say shema in the morning (i.e. before you say “and God will stop the rain,”) that is a good sign. Abaye says this is referring to the night shema. But there are other sources that say rain early in the morning is good. We can distinguish between rain with thick clouds and rain with thin clouds. If Tevet has no rain (it is an almana, widow), this is a good sign as people can still travel, or perhaps there is no plague on the plants. However, others think it is a good thing. It depends on whether there was or wasn’t rain earlier in the season. Rav Hisda says that if it rains in part of a country and not in another part, then this is not an indication that God is stopping the rain. However, it seems from verses in Amos that this is not a good sign. How is this reconciled? What blessing is said when a drought ends and at what point is it clear enough that the drought has ended?

Taanit 5 - November 17, 13 Kislev Nov 17, 2021

Study Guide Taanit 5

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rhona Fink in loving memory of her brother Elliot Laxer, Yisrael Tzvi ben Malca v'Chayim whose 13th Yartzeit is today. May his memory continue to be a blessing.

Today’s daf is also sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of Irving “Poppy” Mauskopf. Yechezkel Ben Avraham and Rachel. “A man who exemplifies 'Who is rich? One who is content with his lot' coupled with his complete Emunah in good and difficult times. May his neshama have an Aliyah.”

The Mishna brings up a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda as to until what date to ask for the rains - until the end of Pesach or until the end of the month of Nisan? This is contrary to the opinion that was brought in the previous Mishna of Rabbi Yehuda - until the first day of Pesach. Rav Nachman asked Rabbi Yitzchak six questions on various topics - the first refers to a verse they quoted in the Mishnah as proof of Rabbi Meir's opinion (or perhaps as proof of both opinions). In each question, Rabbi Yitzchak answers from the words of his rabbi, Rabbi Yochanan. In addition to the six questions, there are also three other cases where they were together and the Gemara tells of the conversation that took place. In one story, when they were eating and Rav Nachman asks for a dvar Torah from Rabbi Yitzchak, he tells him that one should not talk while eating as one may choke. In the third story, Rabbi Yitzchak blesses Rav Nachman that all his descendants will be like him - and told him a parable about a man - who was thirsty and tired and rested and drank under the tree that has a stream right beside it, and when he left he wanted to bless the tree and said, "Tree, tree, what will I bless you with?" After all, the tree has everything! He blessed the tree that all saplings that grow from the tree, be just like the tree.

Taanit 4 - November 16, 12 Kislev Nov 16, 2021

Study Guide Taanit 4

Today’s daf is sponsored by Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of her father Jack Lock, of Harrisburg PA, who passed away one year ago, 3 months shy of his 100th birthday. “He was an avid Zionist and so proud that all 4 of his children made Aliya to Israel, and that his “tribe” grew during his lifetime to nearly 100 family members, spanning 3 generations all in Israel. He was a generous and loving father, father-in-law, grandfather and great-grandfather, uncle and brother who is sorely missed.”

Today’s daf is also anonymously sponsored for the refuah shleima of Miriam Bat Malka.

The Gemara mentions several different statements regarding Talmudic scholars. In another statement, we are told that there were three people who asked something inappropriately of God. Two were answered fairly and one unfairly - Eliezer the servant of Avraham and Shaul in the battle with Goliath, and Yiftach. What could Yiftach have done to save his daughter? A verse is brought to emphasize that God never intended for Yiftach to slaughter his daughter. Another rabbis says that the Jewish people also asked inappropriately on two occasions. They asked that God be like the rain, which isn’t always good (as in the summer months). They were answered fairly that God will be to them like dew which is a blessing all year round. There was a second request as well. Are the times for requesting rain and praising God about rain the same? This is an issue that is not one hundred percent clear. There is a contradiction in the words of Rabbi Yehuda between our Mishna and the next Mishna. In our Mishna it is written that we stop mentioning rain on the first day of Pesach. In the next Mishna it says we stop asking for rain at the end of Pesach. The Gemara brings four resolutions but rejects three of them and concludes that these are two different traditions about what Rabbi Yehuda said. It was said that Rabbi Yochanan ruled like Rabbi Yehuda, that we mention rain on Shmini Atzeret. This contradicts his student, Rabbi Elazar, who ruled like Rabban Gamliel that we ask for rain on the 7th of Marcheshvan. Is this really a contradiction? And if so, how can it be resolved? Outside of Israel when the eighth day of Shmini Atzeret is possibly the 7th day of Sukkot, when do we mention rains in our prayer?

Taanit 3 - November 15, 11 Kislev Nov 15, 2021

Study Guide Taanit 3

What are the different possibilities to derive the source for the water libations on Sukkot? In the Mishna in Sukka, it says that we are obligated to do the water libations all seven days. That doesn’t seem to match any of the opinions in the braita which lists the possibilities for what day we begin to mention the rains in our prayers. Is the Rabbi Yehoshua quoted by Rabbi Yehuda in the braita (we begin only at musaf of Shmini Atzeret) the same Rabbi Yehoshua mentioned also in the braita (we begin in Shmini Atzeret)? They conclude that it is not the same as the opinions don’t match – why would Rabbi Yehoshua wait until musaf? Dew and winds and also clouds are not like rains because they are always in nature and God does not stop them from coming. Therefore we do not have to mention these in our prayers, but if we want to, we can. Is it really true that they are constants? Wind after the rain, sun after the rain, snow, etc. strengthen the positive effects of the rain on the crops. But other things such as lightning and being partly cloudy after the rains are considered to be bad for the crops.

Rosh Hashanah 35 - November 13, 9 Kislev Nov 14, 2021

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 35

The Siyum is sponsored by Valerie Adler to honor her niece Dr. Ayelet Libson “who we all admire and to Rabbanit Michelle for all the inspiring dapim so far. Mazal tov to all.”

Rabban Gamliel and the rabbis disagreed as to whether a chazzan can fulfill one’s personal duty to pray (Rabban Gamliel) or does each and every individual need to pray? It is said that Rabbi Yochanan said that rabbis, in the end, agreed with Rabban Gamliel, even though Rav thought they still disagreed. Also, Reish Lakish held that they continued to disagree. The Gemara questions the statement in the name of Rabbi Yochanan – from a different quote in his name, he says that we hold like Rabban Gamliel, which would indicate that they still disagree. Can one distinguish between Rosh Hashanah and other days in order to resolve the issue? Apparently not, as another source makes it clear that they disagree in both. The resolution is to say that “the rabbis” who agree with Rabban Gamliel was Rabbi Meir as is found in a braita that he in fact holds like Rabban Gamliel. Rosh Hashanah is different as there are many blessings, and not because you have to mention many verses in every blessing because you can say only "and in your Torah it is written" without mentioning the actual verses. Everyone should arrange their prayers before praying. But it is said that these are just prayers that are not prayed daily, such as holiday prayers. So why did Rav Yehuda arrange his prayers on a weekday? Rabbi Shimon Chasida said that Rabban Gamliel would say that the chazzan can fulfill the obligation even for those who are in the fields and cannot get to a synagogue. But the Gemara questions shouldn’t it be the opposite – the people in the city who can come to the synagogue, but don’t, should not be included and only those in the fields who can’t come to the synagogue because of circumstances beyond their control, should be included in the chazan’s prayers? In the end, they bring the statement in the name of Rabbi Shimon Chasida corrected - that Rabban Gamliel said that it only refers to the people in the fields who cannot get to the synagogue, but those in the city who can get to the synagogue and do not come, do not fulfill their obligation to pray by the chazan’s prayer.

Taanit 2 - November 14, 10 Kislev Nov 14, 2021

Study Guide Taanit 2

Today’s daf is sponsored by Diana Bloom in loving memory of her grandmother Ita Rosa Marmurek “Her intelligence, strong character, and independent nature are a constant inspiration to this day”.

Today's daf is also sponsored by Julia and Arielle in honor of Marian Frankston's birthday. “We are so impressed by your commitment to Torah learning, thank you for being an amazing example!"

On what date do we begin to mention the strength of God who brings the rains "mashiv haruach u’morid hageshem" in our prayers? The Mishna brings two opinions. This is different from the day we ask God to bring the rain. The Gemara asks about the fact that the Mishna begins with the question from when without first talking about the concept of mentioning rains in our prayers. In response, they reply that the Mishna addressed an earlier topic in Masechet Berakhot but then since Berakhot is an entirely different seder of Mishna, they add that in Masechet Rosh Hashanah Tractate they mentioned the subject in the Mishnah "and on the Feast of Judgment on the Water." Why in the Mishnah is it called "the strength of the rains”?" Where do we get that rains are strengths of God? The verses of the rains are connected to verses of the creation of the world where the strength of God is mentioned. There is a hint in the Torah that rains should be mentioned in prayer – derived from the verses in Shema that connected between prayer and the bringing of the rain. Rabbi Yochanan says that there are three keys that God keeps in his hand and are not given to an intermediary - rain, pregnancy/birth and the resurrection of the dead. Some also say livelihood. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua derive their opinions from the lulav – one says we begin the same day as lulav, one says when we finish the mitzva of lulav. Two other opinions derive it from the water libations and derive from the unique wording used in describing the libations on day number 2 and day number six of the holiday that one should begin on the second day or on the sixth day of Sukkot to praise God about bringing rain.

Rosh Hashanah 34 - November 12, 8 Kislev Nov 12, 2021

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 34

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz in loving memory of her father Shragai Cohen, Shraga Feivel ben Avraham Ben-Zion Halevi, on the occasion of his 19th yartzeit. “He would be both bemused and proud that his daughter is learning daf. You are terribly missed,” and also on the occasion of her maternal grandparents, Rav Moshe Mashbaum, Rav Moshe ben Rabbi Yehuda Leib, whose yartzeit is on the 4th of Kislev, and Tzippora Mashbaum, Chaya Tzipora bat Rabbi Yaakov Moshe, whose yartzeit is on the 23rd of Kislev.

According to one opinion, the verses of blowing the shofar on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee year teach us about why we blow a tekia before and after a tru'a. According to another opinion, it is derived from the verses about the trumpets in Bamidbar. Why does each one not hold by the other? From where is it derived that we blow three sets of tekia/tru'a/tekia blasts? Is it all from the Torah or are one or two of them rabbinic? The basis for our custom today of blow 30 blasts with different combinations of tekia/tru'a/shevarim/tekia is brought in the name of Rabbi Avahu as something he instituted in his community to consider all sorts of possibilities of what a tru'a is meant to be. Do the blasts need to be heard one after the other or can there be a break between them? Can one hear them all at the exact same time (meaning from 9 different people blowing simultaneously)? Does one have to hear them all from the same person? Are the shofar blasts and the blessings (malchuyot, zichronot and shofarot) all necessary - can one fill some without the others? Is there a difference in this issue between fast days and Rosh Hashanah? Does shofar have to be sounded with each of the blessings or can they be sounded separately? Is it the same for the community and for an individual? The Gemara establishes that hearing the shofar is more important than saying the blessings. There is a debate in the Mishna between Rabban Gamliel and the rabbis regarding individual prayer - is it necessary or can the chazan pray on behalf of the community? Each questions the others' opinion - if it is not necessary, then why do individuals pray and if it is not, why does the chazan repeat the amida prayer? Some held that the rabbis agreed in the end with Rabban Gamliel that individuals do not need to pray if the chazan prays for them. But others disagree.

Rosh Hashanah 33 - November 11, 7 Kislev Nov 11, 2021

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 33

Today’s daf is sponsored by Judy Tychman Shapiro in loving memory of her father, Albert Tychman and her mother-in-law, Margaret Shapiro in the hopes that “the efforts at Torah learning and Tzedaka by their children and grandchildren are helping to raise up their neshamot.”

Today’s daf is also sponsored by Lesley Glassberg Nadel in loving memory of her sister Ruth Lewis - Rachel bat Berel haLevi. May her memory be blessed.

One is not allowed to do something that is forbidden on Yom Tov in order to blow the shofar, even if it is only a rabbinic prohibition. Children are not prevented from blowing the shofar on Rosh Hashanah to practice. From this statement, it is possible to derive that women would be prevented as they are not obligated to blow the shofar as it is a time-bound commandment. However, this contradicts a braita which says one can also not prevent them from practicing. Resolution of the contradiction: This is a matter of controversy between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yossi regarding women and smicha, leaning on the animal before slaughtering for a sacrifice – Rabbi Yehuda does not permit, but Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon do. The debate related to all time-bound positive commandments that women are exempt from. If they can fulfill the mitzva, can they also make a blessing? This is a source of debate among the rishonim. Why nowadays is it viewed as if it’s an obligation on women as well, even though it seems clear here they are not obligated? Are kids not prevented from blowing, but also not encouraged? A different source says we encourage them to practice. How is this resolved? The Gemara derives other laws from the Mishna relating to intent by shofar blowing and then raises questions from the derivation. How many shofar blasts are necessary? How long are the blasts? What is the sound of the tru’a - is there a dispute whether it is three wails or three moans? Why do you use the shofar? And why should a teki’a be blown before and after each tru’a?

Rosh Hashanah 32 - November 10, 6 Kislev Nov 10, 2021

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 32

Today’s daf is sponsored by Barbara Goldschlag for a refuah shleima for Jeremy, Yirmiyahu ben Baila Frumit.

Today's daf is also sponsored by Rochie Sommer In loving memory of her Zayde, Aryeh Leib Ben Tzadok whose yahrzeit was on 30 Cheshvan. “I was not zoche to meet him. In his small neighborhood in Brooklyn, he was a role model for his community in his shul and through the standards he kept and his generosity to those in need amongst those who shopped at his butcher store. My mother, aunt and uncle have raised my Zayde's next generations with a love of Judaism and Eretz Yisrael.”

In the Mussaf prayer of Rosh Hashanah, there are 9 blessings. The three middle blessings include one for kedushat hayom, the sanctity of the day, one for zichronot, remembrance and one for shofarot. There is a debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri regarding the blessing of malchuyot, kingship of God, whether it is combined with the third blessing, kedushat HaShem, sanctity of God or with the fourth blessing, sanctity of the day. They also debate whether or not the shofar is blown with malchuyot. What is the source in the Torah for the first three blessings and for malchuyot, zichronot and shofarot? Rabbi Akiva says one needs ten verses for each of the middle blessings while Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri says only three. Only verses that are positive can be used and not ones speaking of bad times for the Jews. Remembrance of individuals is not used, only of the community. The ten verses are made up of 3 each from Torah, Prophets and Writings, and the final one from the Torah – or is it from the Prophets? The Gemara continues to analyze which verses can be used and which cannot. Shofar is blown in Mussaf while Hallel is recited by the chazan of Shacharit. Why? One is not allowed to do something that is forbidden on Yom Tov in order to blow the shofar, such as bring it from outside techum or climb up a tree to get it. Children are allowed to blow the shofar on Rosh Hashanah to practice.

Rosh Hashanah 31 - November 9, 5 Kislev Nov 09, 2021

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 31

Today’s daf is sponsored by David and Gitta Neufeld and family in honor of their dear Bubby Fran Stokar on her 90th birthday. “Your resilience, simchat hachaim and love for everyone make us proud to be your honorary children. May you continue to “shep nachas” from all!”

Today's daf is also sponsored anonymously for the refuah sheleima of Yosef ben Rina and the continued good health and blessings of Yaffa bat Miriam.

What is the song that was said on each day of the week in the temple? Why was each one chosen for that day? What song was sung on musaf and mincha of Shabbat? Just as the divine presence of God was exiled to ten places during the destruction of the first temple, so the Sanhedrin was exiled ten times in the destruction of the second temple. What were the ten places of each exile? Rabbi Elazar thinks there were only six exiles of the Sanhedrin and derives it from a verse in Isaiah 26:5. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai also instituted that if witnesses came to testify about the new moon and the head of the court was not there, the witnesses could testify in front of other judges and did not need to look for the head of the court. Ameimar had a situation with a woman who was brought to judgment regarding a loan. He excommunicated her for contempt of court since she did not follow him to find him in a different city to rule on the case. When Rav Ashi questioned him, based on the Mishna, he distinguished between the cases - with the new moon we don’t want to deter witnesses from coming next time; with a loan, the woman who took a loan subjugated herself to the one who loaned her the money and therefore they can force her to go to any court of the creditor's choice. What were the nine takkanot that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai instituted? The last one is a subject of debate.

Rosh Hashanah 30 - November 8, 4 Kislev Nov 08, 2021

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 30

Today’s daf is sponsored by Laura Shechter in loving memory of Cili Tzivia bat Moshe in honor of her 1st yahrtzeit. “She may have been my husband's grandmother in blood, but I loved her like my own. I know she would be proud of my continued learning of the daf, since she herself had the legacy of her grandmother teaching Torah weekly in her village in Czechia. I love you and miss you, Savta, and hope to honor your memory always.”

In what places can shofar be blown on Shabbat once the Temple is destroyed? The rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Elazar hold that either in Yavne or any place where there is a beit din. Rav Huna says it must be done with the beit din. This means in front of the beit din. Rava raises a question from the Mishna but it is answered. Others hold that Rav Huna was referring to the shofar blown on Yom Kippur in the jubilee year and “with beit din” meant the time that the beit din met. Rava raises a question on this as well from a braita, but the question is answered. Rav Sheshet raises a difficulty as well and it is resolved. Some other things that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai instituted after the destruction were that the lulav would be taken all seven days and that the day that the new crop of wheat would be forbidden for the entire day of the 16th of Nissan (the day that in the Temple the Omer sacrifice was brought). The lulav was as a remembrance that in the time of the Temple, the lulav was taken all seven days. Why was the new crop not permitted midday of the 16th of Nissan as was done in the time of the Temple for those living farther away who would not be able to know exactly when the sacrifice was brought? The concern is that if the Temple would be rebuilt on the 15th toward the end of the day or the night of the 16th, there will not be enough time to do prepare the Omer sacrifice by midday. They originally accepted the testimony of witnesses on the thirtieth day of Elul all day in the Temple to determine that it was Rosh Hashanah. But once witnesses came after mincha and the Levites said the wrong song as they hadn’t known it was Rosh Hashanah. As a result, they would no longer allow witnesses after mincha. When the Temple was destroyed Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai returned it to the original way and accepted witnesses all day. What had the Levites messed up – had they not said any song or had they said the wrong song – the song of the weekday? There is a debate between the Babylonians and Rabbi Zeira and attempts are brought to prove Rabbi Zeira’s side that they said the wrong song.

Rosh Hashanah 30 - November 8, 4 Kislev Nov 08, 2021

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 30

Today’s daf is sponsored by Laura Shechter in loving memory of Cili Tzivia bat Moshe in honor of her 1st yahrtzeit. “She may have been my husband's grandmother in blood, but I loved her like my own. I know she would be proud of my continued learning of the daf, since she herself had the legacy of her grandmother teaching Torah weekly in her village in Czechia. I love you and miss you, Savta, and hope to honor your memory always.”

In what places can shofar be blown on Shabbat once the Temple is destroyed? The rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Elazar hold that either in Yavne or any place where there is a beit din. Rav Huna says it must be done with the beit din. This means in front of the beit din. Rava raises a question from the Mishna but it is answered. Others hold that Rav Huna was referring to the shofar blown on Yom Kippur in the jubilee year and “with beit din” meant the time that the beit din met. Rava raises a question on this as well from a braita, but the question is answered. Rav Sheshet raises a difficulty as well and it is resolved. Some other things that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai instituted after the destruction were that the lulav would be taken all seven days and that the day that the new crop of wheat would be forbidden for the entire day of the 16th of Nissan (the day that in the Temple the Omer sacrifice was brought). The lulav was as a remembrance that in the time of the Temple, the lulav was taken all seven days. Why was the new crop not permitted midday of the 16th of Nissan as was done in the time of the Temple for those living farther away who would not be able to know exactly when the sacrifice was brought? The concern is that if the Temple would be rebuilt on the 15th toward the end of the day or the night of the 16th, there will not be enough time to do prepare the Omer sacrifice by midday. They originally accepted the testimony of witnesses on the thirtieth day of Elul all day in the Temple to determine that it was Rosh Hashanah. But once witnesses came after mincha and the Levites said the wrong song as they hadn’t known it was Rosh Hashanah. As a result, they would no longer allow witnesses after mincha. When the Temple was destroyed Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai returned it to the original way and accepted witnesses all day. What had the Levites messed up – had they not said any song or had they said the wrong song – the song of the weekday? There is a debate between the Babylonians and Rabbi Zeira and attempts are brought to prove Rabbi Zeira’s side that they said the wrong song.

Rosh Hashanah 29 - November 7, 3 Kislev Nov 07, 2021

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 29

Today’s daf is sponsored by Natalie Taylor in loving memory of Harav Professor Yaakov Ross who passed away this past week, on the 26th of Cheshvan.

Today's daf is also sponsored by Emma Rinberg in loving memory of her dear friend Helen Taylor’s stone setting. “Helen is missed by her husband, children , grandchildren and sisters. Also by her close friends - we think of her often and miss her very much. May her memory be blessed.”

Does the shofar blower need to intend for who he is blowing the shofar? Is there a difference between one blowing for the community or for an individual? Related to the issue of intent, the Mishna brings two incidents that happened in the desert where the Jewish people were saved only when they turned their minds and their hearts to believe in God – the war with Amalek and the copper serpent that saved the people from the snakes that God sent to punish them. Who is obligated in shofar blowing? Only one who is obligated can blow the shofar for others who are obligated. Which blessings can one make on behalf of others even if one has already fulfilled one’s obligation? In the Temple, they would blow the shofar on Shabbat. After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai institutes that the shofar is blown wherever there is a court. There is a debate regarding whether this was in Yavne only or anywhere where there was a court. Why don’t we blow shofar on Shabbat? Is it derived from the Torah? Rabbi Levi ben Lachma says it is, but Rava questions him as in the Temple they blew shofar on Shabbat and also because blowing the shofar is not a melacha. Rava holds as Raba that since everyone needs to hear the shofar blown, but not everyone knows how to, they may carry a shofar four cubits in the public domain to find someone to teach them how to blow, and therefore, the rabbis forbade shofar blowing on Shabbat. A story is told of a debate between Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai and Bnei Beteira about whether the shofar should be blown on Shabbat in Yavne. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai prevails and the shofar is blown. What are the opinions brought in the Mishna regarding the extent to which Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai permitted blowing the shofar on Shabbat? Only the court in Yavne, any established court, or even in one that was not established?

Rosh Hashanah 28 - Shabbat November 6, 2 Kislev Nov 05, 2021

Raba distinguishes between two cases of hearing half a shofar blast – in one he allows it (one who hears half a blast in a pit and half out of the pit) but not in the other (half before dawn and half after dawn). Why? In the case where it is permitted, the Gemara questions this based on other sources that seem to indicate that one cannot hear half a shofar blast. Raba statement is reinterpreted since the original understanding was rejected. Can one fulfill the mitzva of shofar if the shofar was taken from an animal sanctified for a sacrifice? On what does it depend? Different answers are brought. Rava concludes that all is permitted as when one fulfills a mitzva it is not considered that one benefitted. Therefore, one can hear a shofar from a person or a shofar to whom he vowed not to derive benefit from. Do mitzvot require intent? If not, then if one forced a person to eat matza, one fulfilled the mitzva and likewise if one blew a shofar for the music, one would fulfill the mitzva. Are these cases exactly the same? Rava said that mitzvot do not require intent. Several sources are brought to question this statement of Rava, one of them being the case in our Mishna of passing a shul when the shofar is being blown.

Rosh Hashanah 27 - Rosh Chodesh Kislev, November 5, 1 Kislev Nov 05, 2021

Pictures

Hadran Women of Minneapolis is sponsoring the month of Kislev in memory of our Daf Yomi study partner, Monica Howell. Most in our group were connected via our shul, our neighborhood, or just from around town. Monica showed up to our first Siyum pre-Covid and introduced herself to us, she was the only newcomer to our group. Soon after that Siyum the world turned virtual and we never saw Monica in person again, just over the zoom screen. Week after week Monica joined our group. We admired that Monica chose to be part of a group with folks she didn’t know and a topic she was just beginning to learn. Monica’s friend Andrew reached out to let us know that Monica was dying, he shared that even with her camera off, she found comfort in the words and discussion surrounding the Daf. May we all learn to be brave and fearless in our learning and may memories of Monica be for a blessing to all.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Emma Rinberg in loving memory of her mother-in-law Phyllis Rinberg - Fruma Sarah bat Reb Aharon and Mira on the occasion of her 50th yahrzeit which will take place tomorrow. “Phyllis died far too young, at age 45, and I was not privileged to know her. She was a talented teacher, headteacher, and lecturer in education. She was creative - loved gardening and sewing. She would, I am sure, be so proud of her son, my husband, and our family. She would certainly have appreciated the idea of us all learning Daf Yomi together, as education was very important to her. May her memory be blessed.”

Can the mouth of the shofar be covered in gold? How were they able to blow the shofar with the trumpets if one cannot hear two sounds at the same time? Perhaps that is why the shofar blasts are longer than the trumpet blasts. However, if we say that, it implies that one can fulfill one's obligation by hearing half of the shofar blast. The is questioned by two different sources that seem to indicate otherwise. One can be explained differently, but the second cannot. Therefore the Gemara explains that it must be that one can hear two sounds from different people but not from one person. However, another source is brought that shows that two people reading the targum on the Torah cannot be heard at the same time. This question is rejected because our case (shofar) is more similar to the cases at the end of that source that speaks about many people reading the megilla or reciting Hallel which is permitted, presumably because it is special as it is said on a special occasion and therefore people will make the effort to be able to hear it. The shofar for Rosh Hashana adorned with gold and on fasts with silver - either because gatherings are done with instruments of silver as it says in the Torah or because the Torah did not want us to have to spend too much money so only for the sake of Yom Tov was gold required. The shofar and trumpets blasts were performed only in the Temple. From what verse is this derived? Rav Shmuel bar Yitchak pointed out that our prayers match Rabbi Eliezer's opinion (that the world was created in Tishrei) as we say "Today is the day the world was created." Does this match with our Mishna? Although Rav Shisha brings a different version of the discussion. What are the laws regarding a broken shofar? If one blows the shofar in a pit, cistern, or barrel, can one fulfill one's obligation? If one passed by a place where they were blowing the shofar or reading megilla, one can fulfill one's obligation only if one has intent. The Gemara brings some braitot that add several other laws about whether one can blow a shofar where different types of changes/fixes were made to it. If one blows the shofar in a pit, the ones inside the pit hear it directly and therefore fulfill their obligation, but anyone standing on the edge of the pit, outside the pit, hear only the echo and not a direct sound and therefore, do not fulfill their obligation.

Rosh Hashanah 26 - November 4, 29 Cheshvan Nov 04, 2021

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 26

Pictures

Today’s daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein to celebrate her granddaughter Sarai’s eight birthday and the anniversary of her parents Kobi and Rotem. “Born at week 25 at 890 grams Parshat Chaye Sara, rabbanim suggested to name her Sarai, a stronger name than Sara. So began weeks of tfilot across the globe for a refua shlaima while Sarai tested our emunah and won our hearts. I know that her guardian angel has always been Sara Imenu”. Mazal tov!

This week's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for a refuah shleima for Elisheva bat Ora.

If someone was witness to an event, can he be a judge in that case? It appears from the Mishna that one can. But how does this fit in with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva who holds that one cannot? Perhaps there is a distinction between murder cases (which is where Rabbi Akiva stated his opinion) and the sanctification of the new moon. Tana Kama holds that a horn of a cow cannot be used as a shofar but all other animals’ horns can be used. He says it is because a horn of a cow is called a keren and not a shofar Rabbi Yossi disagrees, based on the verse "When the keren of the ram will sound" where shofar is also called a keren. His proof seems strong - if so, how would the sages respond to his claim? The gemara brings a possible explanation. Ulla and Abaye each bring an additional reason to explain the opinion of the Tana Kama, beyond what is already written in the Mishna. Ulla explains it is because of the sin of the golden calf, we do not want to use a shofar from the cow family so as not to have the “prosecutor become the advocate.” The Gemara brings a series of difficulties on Ulla and answers them. Why did Abaye and Ulla bring an explanation to the sages when their reason was already mentioned in the Gemara? Where does the Gemara explain to us that when it is written in the word hayovel, from the verse mentioned in the Mishna, it means ‘a ram.’ From there, they digress from the subject and talk about many words that they did not know what they meant and they explained from where they learned the definition. The Mishnah brings two different opinions regarding the type of shofar (from an ibex and straight or from a ram and bent) that should be used for Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur of the Jubilee year and for fast days. In the Temple on those days they also blew from trumpets. What was more central – shofar or trumpets? Levy brings an opinion that is slightly different from the two opinions in the Mishnah.

Rosh Hashanah 25 - November 3, 28 Cheshvan Nov 03, 2021

Today's daf is sponsored by Betsy Mehlman in memory of her beloved uncle Carl Feldman, Akiva ben Efraim vSarah, who passed away at the age of 93 last week. "A kind and loving person, Carl was dedicated to his family and the community. Always ready with a smile, he exemplified caring and compassion. May his memory be blessed."

There were a number of cases where the witnesses said something which didn’t seem to be accurate, such as the moon was in the east in the morning and the west in the evening or the new moon was seen on the night of the thirtieth but not the thirty-first. In each case, there was a rabbi who claimed they were false witnesses but Rabban Gamliel ruled that they were valid. In the second case, Rabbi Yehoshua took sides with Rabbi Dosa ben Horkanus against Rabban Gamliel. Rabban Gamliel sent him to appear before him on the day that according to Rabbi Yehoshua would fall on Yom Kippur with his staff and money, in order to make a point that Rabban Gamliel’s decision was binding on all. Rabbi Akiva offers Rabbi Yehoshua advice to listen to Rabban Gamliel as what’s done is done and Rosh Chodesh was determined by the court, whether or not it is accurate. Rabbi Dosa advises him to listen, explaining the importance of listening to the judges of the time. Rabbi Yehoshua appears as requested and is praised by Rabban Gamliel praises him. The Gemara explains why Rabban Gamliel accepted the witnesses’ testimony when the others would not. Other stories are told where there was confusion about whether or not the new moon was seen. A slightly different version of the end of the story with Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua appears in a braita that is brought. Another braita tells a slightly different version of the proof used by Rabbi Dosa to convince Rabbi Yehoshua to come before Rabban Gamliel as requested. The proof is from a verse comparing Moshe and Aharon to Shmuel, and another one comparing Shmuel to Gidon, Shimshon and Yiftach. Even though they were all not as great as Moshe, they are still compared to him as they were the leaders of their generation. The third chapter begins with a case where the witnesses came on day 30, but they didn’t manage to say “mekudash” before the day ended. In this case, Rosh Chodesh is on the next day. If only the judges in the court saw the new moon or only three of the judges saw, two of the judges testify before the others, at least before three others. The Gemara explains that the Mishna is teaching us that even if one began dealing with the witnesses during the day, one cannot finish at night (unlike monetary law that can be). We also learn from the Mishna that in this issue, we cannot accept one judge who is an expert in place of three. From where are these laws derived in the Torah?

Rosh Hashanah 24 - November 2, 27 Cheshvan Nov 02, 2021

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 24

Pictures

Today's daf is sponsored by my parents, Robert and Paula Cohen, myself and my siblings in memory of my grandmother, Sonja Waschitz, Sarah bat Yitchak and Yenta Rachel z"l, whose first yahrzeit is today. "My grandmother was a beautiful woman who rebuilt her life a number of times - first by leaving her family behind in Vienna in 1939 to create a new life for herself in America - at age 14. She valued education, hard work and never complained. We miss you!"

Today's daf is also sponsored by Minna Felig and Naomi Ferziger "in loving memory of Grandpa Asher Anschel ben Shaul Yehezkel and Rivka "Baba" Greenfield z"l, on the occasion of his 56th yahrzeit. He and Grandma Etta sent their three daughters to the pioneering Shulamith School for Girls in Boro Park, where they learned Torah, Derekh Eretz, and Ivrit."

What were the questions they asked the witnesses? What were the "right" answers? What discrepancies between the two witnesses' testimony would disqualify them as witnesses and what discrepancy could be overlooked as the difference was not so great? Testimony that the new moon was seen reflected off of something would not be accepted. If one happened to notice the new moon and went to look more properly to testify and didn't see it anymore, one cannot testify. The court would declare the new month by saying "mekudash" and the people would repeat "mekudash" twice. From where is all this derived? There are four different opinions regarding whether this ceremony is done only on a 29-day month or on both a 29 and 30-day month, or only on a 30-day month, or on neither. Rabban Gamliel had different shapes of the moon that he would use to question the witnesses.

Rosh Hashanah 23 - November 1, 26 Cheshvan Nov 01, 2021

Pictures

Why were beacons only lit on 29 days months and not 30 day months? Why not the reverse? How many times of cedar trees are there? Some say four and some say ten. One of them is coral wood and a statement of Rav is brought to explain the complicated manner in which they would be able to get it out of the water. It was considered very valuable. All the trees the gentiles uprooted in Jerusalem will be returned by God - this is derived from the verse mentioned in which the different types of cedar were listed. Rabbi Yochanan makes a number of statements about the importance of Torah scholars teaching and not only learning. And another statement about the gentiles being punished for killing Torah scholars such as Rabbi Akiva. The places mentioned in the Mishna where they lit the beacons are identified. An alternative list is brought - how does that connect with the one in the Mishna? Two possibilities are brought to explain. The distance between the mountains is explained to be shorter than it was in the time of the Amoraim. How can that be? In order to incentivize people to come to testify about the new moon, a festive meal was made in the courtyard in Beit Yazek, which is where the Beit Din would question the witnesses. If they came on Shabbat, they would not be allowed to go home, and not even leave the courtyard. as they had left their techum. However, since this deterred witnesses from coming, Rabban Gamliel permitted them to walk 2,000 cubits in each direction. This was instituted as well for other groups of people who need to be incentivized, such as, a midwife, firefighter, and others. What was the etymology of the name Beit Yazek - did it have a positive connotation or a negative one? What questions were asked of the witnesses to ensure they were telling the truth? Once they had good witnesses, they would still somewhat question the others so as to make them feel that they didn't waste their time coming to testify.

Rosh Hashanah 23 - November 1, 26 Cheshvan Nov 01, 2021

Pictures

Why were beacons only lit on 29 days months and not 30 day months? Why not the reverse? How many times of cedar trees are there? Some say four and some say ten. One of them is coral wood and a statement of Rav is brought to explain the complicated manner in which they would be able to get it out of the water. It was considered very valuable. All the trees the gentiles uprooted in Jerusalem will be returned by God - this is derived from the verse mentioned in which the different types of cedar were listed. Rabbi Yochanan makes a number of statements about the importance of Torah scholars teaching and not only learning. And another statement about the gentiles being punished for killing Torah scholars such as Rabbi Akiva. The places mentioned in the Mishna where they lit the beacons are identified. An alternative list is brought - how does that connect with the one in the Mishna? Two possibilities are brought to explain. The distance between the mountains is explained to be shorter than it was in the time of the Amoraim. How can that be? In order to incentivize people to come to testify about the new moon, a festive meal was made in the courtyard in Beit Yazek, which is where the Beit Din would question the witnesses. If they came on Shabbat, they would not be allowed to go home, and not even leave the courtyard. as they had left their techum. However, since this deterred witnesses from coming, Rabban Gamliel permitted them to walk 2,000 cubits in each direction. This was instituted as well for other groups of people who need to be incentivized, such as, a midwife, firefighter, and others. What was the etymology of the name Beit Yazek - did it have a positive connotation or a negative one? What questions were asked of the witnesses to ensure they were telling the truth? Once they had good witnesses, they would still somewhat question the others so as to make them feel that they didn't waste their time coming to testify.

Rosh Hashanah 22 - October 31, 25 Cheshvan Oct 31, 2021

Today's daf is sponsored by Leah Brick "in honor of my son, Shua Brick, on the occasion of his Chag Hasmicha from Yeshiva University. I am always so proud of you."

There are two versions of the story in which witnesses were detained in Lod on Shabbat and told not to continue because many witnesses had come. According to the version in the Mishnah, Rabbi Akiva did it and Rabban Gamliel rebuked him. According to the braita, it was the mayor of Geder (named Zefar) and Rabban Gamliel removed him from office. Can a father and son join testify together about the new moon? There is a debate about this in the Mishna between Rabbi Shimon and Tana Kama. Rabbi Yossi brings a case that happened to strengthen the Tana Kama’s opinion that we do not accept their testimony. Are freed slaves permitted – in the case brought in the Mishna there were two different opinions about it. Who else is disqualified to testify? The Mishnah brings a list of ineligible witnesses according to rabbinic law from the Mishna in Sanhedrin 24b such as the gamblers, those who loan with interest, etc. These witnesses can testify only in case that a woman can also testify. What are those cases? One can not only desecrate Shabbat to get to the court to testify but also others can come if he needs help or he can take sticks for protection or food as needed. Chapter two begins with the theme of the Baitusim who tried to disrupt the rabbis and bring in false witnesses who saw the moon. That is why on Shabbat they permitted them to bring a witness to testify to the credibility of a witness unknown who was unknown to the court. It follows from the Mishna that one witness can testify to his credibility but the Gemara explains that it definitely means two witnesses. But one witness can testify in the Diaspora that they declared in Israel that the month was on a certain date because it is something that will be revealed and there is a presumption that people do not lie about these things. It is told of a case in which the Beitusim tried to hire witnesses to lie about the testimony of the month, but failed because one of the witnesses told the court about it. At first, they would announce Rosh Chodesh by lighting beacons on certain mountain tops. But they stopped because the Cutim tried to disrupt them or and light beacons on the day they did not set as Rosh Chodesh (or possibly they did it not on purpose). So they then relied only on messengers. On which mountains were the beacons lit? There were beacons lit only in a month of twenty-nine days and not on a full month.

Rosh Hashanah 22 - October 31, 25 Cheshvan Oct 31, 2021

Today's daf is sponsored by Leah Brick "in honor of my son, Shua Brick, on the occasion of his Chag Hasmicha from Yeshiva University. I am always so proud of you."

There are two versions of the story in which witnesses were detained in Lod on Shabbat and told not to continue because many witnesses had come. According to the version in the Mishnah, Rabbi Akiva did it and Rabban Gamliel rebuked him. According to the braita, it was the mayor of Geder (named Zefar) and Rabban Gamliel removed him from office. Can a father and son join testify together about the new moon? There is a debate about this in the Mishna between Rabbi Shimon and Tana Kama. Rabbi Yossi brings a case that happened to strengthen the Tana Kama’s opinion that we do not accept their testimony. Are freed slaves permitted – in the case brought in the Mishna there were two different opinions about it. Who else is disqualified to testify? The Mishnah brings a list of ineligible witnesses according to rabbinic law from the Mishna in Sanhedrin 24b such as the gamblers, those who loan with interest, etc. These witnesses can testify only in case that a woman can also testify. What are those cases? One can not only desecrate Shabbat to get to the court to testify but also others can come if he needs help or he can take sticks for protection or food as needed. Chapter two begins with the theme of the Baitusim who tried to disrupt the rabbis and bring in false witnesses who saw the moon. That is why on Shabbat they permitted them to bring a witness to testify to the credibility of a witness unknown who was unknown to the court. It follows from the Mishna that one witness can testify to his credibility but the Gemara explains that it definitely means two witnesses. But one witness can testify in the Diaspora that they declared in Israel that the month was on a certain date because it is something that will be revealed and there is a presumption that people do not lie about these things. It is told of a case in which the Beitusim tried to hire witnesses to lie about the testimony of the month, but failed because one of the witnesses told the court about it. At first, they would announce Rosh Chodesh by lighting beacons on certain mountain tops. But they stopped because the Cutim tried to disrupt them or and light beacons on the day they did not set as Rosh Chodesh (or possibly they did it not on purpose). So they then relied only on messengers. On which mountains were the beacons lit? There were beacons lit only in a month of twenty-nine days and not on a full month.

Rosh Hashanah 21 - Shabbat October 30, 24 Cheshvan Oct 29, 2021

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 21

Whether or not one needs to keep two days of chag depends on whether or not messengers could reach there both in Nissan and in Tishrei. If in Tishrei there was not enough time to come, but in Nissan there was (due to many days in Tishrei where one cannot travel), even in Nissan one needs to keep two days of Pesach. Several stories/practices are told regarding Yom Kippur - what happens if they find out after Yom Kippur that they fasted on the wrong day? Rava would holds two days of fasting just to make sure, however, this was not the prevalent custom. On a year when the winter season will end by (or on) the 16th of Nissan, a leap year must be declared. How do those living on the sea determine when the holidays will be? Witnesses can desecrate Shabbat to testify about the new moon only on Nissan and Tishrei because of the holidays, so as not to delay the messengers. Messengers, however, cannot desecrate the Shabbat. From where is all this derived? In the time of the Temple, they could desecrate Shabbat every month because of the sacrifices for Rosh Chodesh. This was changed by Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai after the destruction. Witnesses can come on Shabbat even if the new moon was seen clearly. although some disagree and only permit them to come if it was not so clear.

Rosh Hashanah 20 - October 29, 23 Cheshvan Oct 29, 2021

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 20

Today's daf is sponsored by Diana Bloom "in loving memory of my Zeyde, Israel Marmurek Israel ben Manes, on the occasion of his yahrzeit on 17 Cheshvan."

The court in Israel sent a message to Mar Ukva in Babylonia that Nissan is always a 29 day month. They are two different version of Rav Nachman’s reaction to this – whether he questioned it or tried to prove it from a Mishna on Rosh Hashanah 21 that states that witnesses can desecrate Shabbat to testify about the new moon for Nissan and Tishrei. In both versions, the Gemara rejects his question/proof. Ulla came to the Babylonians to tell them that they had added a day to Elul and had done it for them. Why was this good for them and why specifically to the Babylonians and not to the Israelis? Shmuel wanted to set a calendar for those in Babylonia but Abba, the father of Rabbi Simlai asked him if he knew the connection between when the molad is seen and when the new moon can be seen. When Shmuel answered that he did not, he was told that there must be other things he does not know. Rabbi Zeira explains the connection between the molad and the new moon. He also said that when we add an extra day abroad, it’s always the day after the day assumed to be the holiday and not before.

Rosh Hashanah 19 - October 28, 22 Cheshvan Oct 28, 2021

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 19

There is a controversy over whether or not Megillat Taanit was canceled after the destruction of the Temple. Some amoraim raise a number of difficulties from tannaitic sources against the opinion of Rav and Rabbi Chanina that the Megillat Taanit was canceled. Through one of the sources brought, we learn that the Megillat Taanit forbade fasting and eulogies not only on the day of an event but also on the day before and after the event. This matter does not hold true for holidays and Sabbaths as the Sages needed to strengthen their own laws but not ones that were written in the Torah and also not to ones written in the Prophets, such as the fast days that were days of rejoicing in the time of the Temple. In response to the last question against Rav and Rabbi Chanina, the Gemara says that the issue was a source of debate among tannaim as well. The conclusion is that after the destruction, Megillat Taanit was canceled other than Purim and Hanukkah. Is Elul always a 29 day month? If so, why do messengers need to be sent in Tishrei? Is Adar always a 29 day month? If so, why do messengers need to be sent in Nissan? When there are two Adars, is it clear in advance how many days there will be in each month or not?

Rosh Hashanah 18 - October 27, 21 Cheshvan Oct 27, 2021

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 18

Today's Daf is sponsored by Rina Goldberg in memory of her aunt, Valley Densa, z"l, "who lived to the age of 100 plus. She, like her siblings, was educated in the Hildesheimer Yeshiva in Berlin and lived a life replete with Chesed." And by the Fortinskys "Mazal tov to Goody and Eric Weil, on Netanel and Adina's wedding."

Is repentance strong enough to repeal a divine decree that has been sealed, even for an individual? There is a tannaitic debate on this issue. Can one definitely repeal a divine decree for the community? There are verses that seem to suggest otherwise. How can this be understood? When they would sanctify the new moon and determine the first day of the month, they would send messengers to let people know of the date of the new moon so that they would know when to celebrate holidays and fast days. Since not all the months have holidays and fast days, they would only send out messengers six months of the year. Why not for Tevet and Tamuz that also have fast days? The nature of those fasts is different as derived from a verse in Zecharia as the nature of the day and the nature of the obligation changes in a time of peace, when the enemy rules, and when it is neither. There is a debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon regarding the dates of some of the fasts and what is the event for which we are fasting. Megillat Taanit was a book listing days on which miracles happened so that people would know that it is forbidden to fast and eulogize on those days. Was that book cancelled after the Temple was destroyed, just as the fast were reinstituted or not? It is a subject of debate. The Gemara raises questions against those who say that it was cancelled.

Rosh Hashanah 17 - October 26, 20 Cheshvan Oct 26, 2021

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks on his first yahrzeit. And for a refuah shleima to Hannah bat Hessa.

There is a Beit Shamai/Beit Hillel debate regarding what will happen to the middle person (beinoni) during the resurrection of the dead. Will they descend to Hell to achieve atonement and then after suffering there, will be raised up, based on the prayer of Chana, "God will bring down to sheol (the depths) and raise up"? Or will they not have to go through that suffering at all, and will be saved because of the compassion of God. Who falls into the category of the evil people who will remain in Hell forever? According to Beit Shamai who holds that the middle people will go to Hell first, they will forever have an imprint of that on their faces. According to Beit Hillel's approach, it is explained that the middle people split into three categories - one whose sins are greater than one's merits, one whose sins and merits are equal but have sinned with their bodies, and ones who are equal and have not sinned with their bodies. The destiny of each group is different. Beit Hillel's explanation was based on his understanding of one of the 13 divine attributes of God, rav chesed, full of compassion. How exactly does God employ this attribute to have the merits outweigh the sins? A few possibilities are suggested. A verse was quoted from Micha, referring to the divine attributes of God and this is used to also teach that one who overlooks one who did something bad to him/her, God will forgive their sins. A story of Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua is brought to prove this. Another explanation of the latter part of that verse is brought to teach the importance of humility. It is further taught that God first rules with justice and later with compassion and that is proven from several verses. God taught Moshe the thirteen attributes to be used anytime the people sinned and were in need of forgiveness. Rabbi Yochanan explains how great repentance is that it can overturn a divine decree. Several questions are raised against Rabbi Yochanan's statement and are resolved.

Rosh Hashanah 16 - October 25, 19 Cheshvan Oct 25, 2021

Today’s daf is sponsored by Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker in memory of her beloved mother Arlene Goodstein whose 6th yahrzeit is today. "My mother was a very special woman who loved to learn and who was especially committed to Judaism and built a strong Jewish home. She would be amazed that I began this daf yomi journey and that I have been studying the daf every day for close to 2 years. She is especially missed today, as tomorrow her oldest granddaughter Chana will marry Iddo in the holy city of Jerusalem. We are sure she is with us at this moment and will be dancing with us tomorrow night."

There are four times a year the world is judged – on Pesach for grain, on Shavuot for fruits, on Rosh Hashanah people appear before God like the benei maron (sheep) and on Sukkot for water. How exactly are we judged for grain on Pesach? Does this relate to the wheat that is already growing or for the new crop that will be planted later in the year? In the end, it is understood that each crop gets judged twice – each Pesach for the crop that is already growing as well as the crop that will be planted. The Gemara brings a braita with four different opinions about when the world is judged and none of these opinions matches the Mishna. To resolve this a braita is recorded in the name of Rabbi Yishmael that matches the opinion in the Mishna. Why does Rabbi Yosi (quoted in the braita) hold that people are judged every day and why did he not hold like Rabbi Natan who held that they are judged every hour? The same verse used to answer that question is used to teach that if a king and the community are going in front of the judge, the king goes first either because it’s not appropriate to make the king wait outside or better to let him go before the judge gets angry from dealing with all the sins of the others. If, according to most of the opinions, people are judged once a year, then why do we pray daily? Perhaps our prayers for the sick are only meaningful according to Rabbi Yosi who holds that we are judged on a daily basis? Our prayers also could also be understood according to others, as Rabbi Yitzchak holds that prayers can be effective even after God has decreed what will be. A braita connects between the offerings brought on the holidays and the item for which we are judged at that time. We use the shofar made from a ram on Rosh Hashanah to remind God of the akeida/binding of Yitzchak – blowing the shofar is as if we bound ourselves before God. Rabbi Yitzchak explained that some blasts are done sitting (before the silent prayer) and some standing (during the silent prayer) in order to confuse the Satan. A number of other statements of his are brought regarding a number of different issues including, one is judged only based on his deeds now, as learning from Yishmael in the Torah, what can be done to change a heavenly decree, one should visit one’s Rabbi as well as purify oneself on the holidays. Derivations from the verses are brought for each statement. On Rosh Hashanah three books are opened – for the righteous, the average and the evil people. Immediate decisions are made for the righteous and the evil, and the average people’s judgment is detained until Yom Kippur. Two different verses are brought as the source for the concept that there are three books. Beit Shamai discusses the same three categories of people in the context of the resurrection of the dead – what will happen to each type?

Rosh Hashanah 15 - October 24, 18 Cheshvan Oct 24, 2021

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 15

Today's daf is sponsored by Beth Kissileff ,on the 18 of Heshvan, in memory of the eleven Jews killed at Dor Hadash, New Light and Tree of Life synagogues in Pittsburgh in 2018. "They were all people who came early to shul and were concerned about creating community, in their individual ways and within their own limits and abilities. Hashem yikom damam." Joyce Fienberg, Richard Gottfried, Rose Mallinger, Jerry Rabinowitz, Cecil Rosenthal, David Rosenthal, Bernice Simon, Sylvan Simon, Daniel Stein, Melvin Wax, and Irving Younge.

This week's learning is dedicated by Martin Gaynor in memory of Jerry Rabinowitz, Yehuda ben Yekhezkel v'Selma, z"l, a kind, caring, and giving individual, who loved Yiddishkeit and loved learning.

There are four tannaitic opinions for how to treat etrogs regarding tithing and regarding shemita. According to Rabban Gamliel's approach, that in the matter of tithes, they go after the time of picking, like vegetables, is their Rosh Hashanah on Tishrei also like vegetables? No! The Rosh Hashanah for the tithes of etrogs is Tu B'Shvat. The Gemara brings the opinion of two amoraim and also then other tannatic opinions regarding produce that budded in one year and was picked in the next. One of the factors in the practical law here is that if fruits are declared ownerless (as happens with shmita produce), it is no longer obligated in tithes. The Gemara quotes a braita in the matter of fruit trees in general. Rabbi Nechemia’s position is brought who says that fruit trees follow budding only in trees whose fruits ripen at different times during the year. Rabbi Yochanan brings the custom of those who followed Rabbi Nechemia when it came to carob trees and Reish Lakish questioned him from a braita. Rabbi Yochanan was silent and didn’t respond. How can his silence be understood? After all, he had arguments he could have made against Reish Lakish!

Rosh Hashanah 14 - Shabbat October 23, 17 Cheshvan Oct 22, 2021

How do the three statements of Shmuel works together and can be explained in a way that his statements don't contradict each other? There is a debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yosi HaGalili about why vegetables are not treated like grains, grapes and olives regarding the stage at which maaser and shmita is determined. The Mishna brought a debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel regarding the date for the new year for trees. A case is brought with Rabbi Akiva who was stringent for both opinions and took maaser on an etrog based on two different years. However, Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda explains the Rabbi Akiva took two different years of maaser not because of the debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel but because of a different debate between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabban Gamliel regarding etrog - is it treated like a fruit or a vegetable for maaser. Questions are raised on each of the two explanations of Rabbi Akiva's action. If an etrog is treated like a vegetable for maaser, then does the date for the new year follow the date for vegetables or fruits?

Rosh Hashanah 13 - October 22, 16 Cheshvan Oct 22, 2021

Today's daf is sponsored by Debbie Gevir to commemorate the 3rd Yarzheit of her dear father, Joseph Gindsberg on the 17th of Cheshvan. "Amongst his many unique qualities, my father had a love for language and a particular expertise in using it to enhance Torah reading and liturgical practice. I am sure he would be proud to know that my Aramaic is improving daily by learning daf yomi with Rabbanit Michelle Farber, and my wonderful hevrutot! Yehi zichro Baruch." Any by Sylvia Simmons in memory of her grandmother Rachel Wohl (Rachel Leah bat Avraham Mordechai) on her yahrzeit today. And anonymously in memory of the Rav Shach, Elazar Menachem Man ben Ezriel.

From where do we know that the year for taking tithes of grains, grapes and olives is determined based on when they have reached a third of their growth? Rabbi Yirmiya questions how can the rabbis know exactly when a fruit has reached a third. Rabbi Zeira gets upset with him and insists that the rabbis can be precise in their measurements. Rabbi Yirmiya is convinced by Rabbi Zeira's answer and brings an example from the Omer sacrifice the first year the Jews were in the land of Israel and proves from there that they must have been precise about determining that the food had not reached a third of its growth the previous year when it was owned by gentiles. However, his proof is rejected as it is possible that food had not even reached a quarter of its growth before the new year had started. The proof brought earlier regarding the grains, grapes, and olives that the determining date is when they have reached a third of their growth, is rejected and a different proof text is brought. A Mishna from Shviit 2:7 establishes that rice, millet and other items are considered shmita produce if they took root during the shmita year. However, this doesn't seem to match what we have learned that trees go by when they budded, grains, grapes and olives when they reach a third. and vegetables by when they are cut. The time of taking root is a rabbinic law to prevent issues like one taking truma and maaser from produce that took root the previous year on produce that too root this year. Why can't they use a different solution - mix it all together and take tithes from the mixture and likely there will be some percentage of this year's produce and some from last and that should cover what is needed to be taken for both years (this process is called bila), as Rabbi Shimon Shezuri had suggested. Shmuel is quoted as saying that we rule like Rabbi Shimon Shezura. However, he is also quoted as saying we do not allow bila, other than for liquids. brings three different statements of Shmuel regarding this issue and they seem to contradict each other. A third statement of Shmuel is brought to resolve the contradiction, however, it is not yet clear how it resolves it.

Rosh Hashanah 12 - October 21, 15 Cheshvan Oct 21, 2021

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 12

Pictures

Today’s daf is sponsored anonymously in memory of the Chazon Ish, Avraham Yeshaya ben Shmaryahu Yosef.

Rabbi Eliezer said that on the 17th of Marcheshvan the flood began and that God changed the rules of nature. Two questions are asked about this: 1. It is written in the second month and that it is Iyar. 2. What is the change from the rules of nature - after all, rains fall in Marcheshvan and Kima rises during the day during this period and from there the rains came. They answer that second is second to the judgment (In Tishrei the previous year it was decreed that there would be a flood). And the change from nature was that boiling water came down. In a braita, it appears that the sages of Israel count the years from the creation of the world from Tishrei but for the tekufa, from Nissan. And the nations of the world count from Nissan. The Gemara goes back to the Mishna and discusses the next line: vegetables. A braita is brought, where both vegetables and tithes appear - if a vegetable means for tithing, why are both mentioned? The Gemara distinguishes between those who owe tithes from the Torah (grains, grapes, and olives) and those from rabbinic law (vegetables). Why is everything written in the plural form - vegetables, tithes? What is the relevance of the first of Tishrei being the Rosh Hashanah for tithes? One, one cannot tithe produce from one year to the next, and two, for determining years as to which tithe is brought - the second tithe or a poor tithe. Where do we learn that in a year when there is a tithe for the poor one does not take the second tithe but one still takes the first tithe to give to the Levites? In the braita quoted earlier, vows also were mentioned. What is this relevant for? And why did is it Tishrei and not Nissan? Because regarding vows we go by the language of people generally use and people generally consider Tishrei the first day of the year. The Gemara quotes a Mishna in the matter of tithes which discusses the stage of growth in which it is determined to which year it belongs. From where is this derived?

Rosh Hashanah 11 - October 20, 14 Cheshvan Oct 20, 2021

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 11

Pictures

This month of learning is sponsored in memory of Dr. Chaya R. Gorsetman, Chaya bat Esriel ה’Naomi z’l during the period of shloshim by her husband, children, and grandchildren. "We especially wanted to sponsor Talmud learning in honor of Chaya because Chaya learned gemara with her father, Esriel, starting in the sixth grade. This was an unusual opportunity for women at that time and Esriel loved Gemara and made it come alive for Chaya. This experience impacted her life's work, educating novice teachers to give children the tools to nurture their wonder and natural curiosity, in order to make them lifelong learners. As part of her educational philosophy and life, Chaya championed greater involvement and engagement of women in Orthodox Jewish life, so it feels especially meaningful to sponsor learning through Hadran, an organization dedicated to inspiring and enabling Jewish women across the world to learn Talmud.

What are the sources upon which both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua derive each of the dates of the events discussed - the creation of the world, birth and death date of Avraham and Yaakov, and of Yitchak, Sarah, Rachel, and Chana's prayers were answered (to have children), the release of Joseph from jail, Jews stopped being slaves in Egypt, the Exodus from Egypt, and the future redemption. They have another debate regarding the date of the flood which is dependent on their debate regarding the creation of the world. Rabbi Eliezer who holds that the world was created in Nissan holds that the flood began on 17 Cheshvan. Rabbi Yehuda who holds that the world was created in Tishrei holds that the flood began on 17 Iyar.

Rosh Hashanah 10 - October 19, 13 Cheshvan Oct 19, 2021

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 10

Today's daf is sponsored by Heather (Hadar) Stone in honor of her daughter, Hila bat Hadar ve’Yehezkel on her commission as a second lieutenant in the IDF Education command. "So proud of you and your accomplishments. Can’t wait to see where you lead next." And by Jordana Hyman "to our amazing daughter, Prielle Hyman Borowski, on her giyus today. We are bursting with pride and excitement as you begin your service. May Hashem protect you and bless you always, with your fellow soldiers. With love, Mum and Dad."

A braita explains that if a tree was planted 30 thirty days before Rosh Hashanah, it will be counted as its second year on the first of Tishrei. However, the fruits are still considered orla after the third year until the 15th of Shvat (of the fourth year) if they budded before then. And the same holds true for laws of neta revai on the fifth year. Does the braita not work with Rabbi Meir's opinion that even a day counts as a year when determining that an animal is a 3-year old bull (required for sacrifices that are to be brought with a bull), because the braita required thirty days? Perhaps one could distinguish between the end of a count (when the bull begins his third year - where one day counts) and the beginning of the count (planted before Rosh Hashanah - where one day would not count). The Gemara rejects this distinction based on a woman who is a Niddah who on the last day requires a complete day but on the first day, even a part of the day counts as a whole day. If the braita does not like Rabbi Meir, by default, it must hold like Rabbi Elazar who holds that the bull needs one month into its third year to be considered a bull. However, that is also difficult as then the braita should require 60 days - 30 for the tree to take root and 30 for it to be considered its own year. A braita is brought with different opinions regarding how much time is needed to take root - 30 days, 3 days or two weeks. None of the opinions match the original braita which seems to require no time for taking root, if in fact the thirty days are based on Rabbi Elazar. The braita is then explained according to Rabbi Meir who requires only one day for the year and thirty for it to take root. Why, then, does the braita not say 31? The thirtieth day counts for both. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Elazar both derive their opinions from the same verse from Breishit 8:13 about when the waters of the flood dried - in the 601st year on the first day of the first month. Each one uses it to prove his opinion. A braita is brought with a debate about whether the world was created on the first of Nissan or Tishrei. Various other events are given a date as well.

Rosh Hashanah 9 - October 18, 12 Cheshvan Oct 18, 2021

The words “It shall be a jubilee year the fiftieth year”(Vayikra 25:11) are derived by Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka to teach that one may have thought we add extra days onto the jubilee year at the end of the year in the same way that we added onto it in the beginning (between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur), however, the verse comes to exclude that possibility. The rabbis derive from the verse that the fiftieth year counts as the last year of the seven shmita cycles (year 50), but it does not also count as the first year of the new shmita cycle. This is to go against Rabbi Yehuda who held that it counts as both. The concept suggested previously of extending the sanctity of the jubilee year beyond the fiftieth year is derived by Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael each from one of two places – either from the words “And from plowing and harvesting one should rest” (Shmot 34:21) or from Yom Kippur “on the ninth one should afflict one’s soul” (Vayikra 23:32) and from “from eve to eve.” What does each derive from the verse that the other uses as his proof? A braita brings other drashot from the words “It shall be a jubilee year” that even if not all actions are taken by the people in the jubilee year, it is still considered the jubilee year. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi each derive differently which actions are referred to in the drasha and which are not, meaning, which are in fact necessary. According to Rabbi Yosi, one cannot have the jubilee year without blowing the shofar, but it can happen without freeing slaves. Two explanations are brought to explain why. On what basis does Rabbi Yehuda explain differently, that slaves must be freed, however, if they work the land or do not blow the shofar, the jubilee year will still happen. A third position of the rabbis is brought that all three actions are necessary. According to them, the words “It shall be a jubilee year” come to include places outside of Israel. The first of Tishrei is the new year also for planting – as regards laws of orla. This is derived from a gzeira shava from the verses. In order to count as a full year of orla, the tree must be planted at least a month before the end of the year.

Rosh Hashanah 8 - October 17, 11 Cheshvan Oct 17, 2021

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 8

This week of learning is sponsored by Beth Hait "in memory of Dr. Chaya Gorsetman, a lifelong learner and gifted educator who inspired me to start learning the daf at the beginning of this cycle."

Today's daf is sponsored by Adeena and Marc Haber for a refuah shleima for their son Yair Amitai ben Adeena Rachel who is undergoing a medical procedure today. And anonymously in honor of the yahrtzeit of Rachel Imeinu "Rachel bat Lavan".

What is the source of the debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon/Rabbi Elazar regarding the date for the animal tithes? First, it is suggested that they both derive it from the same verse (Tehillim 65:14) discussing what time of year sheep conceive sheep. However, after raising a question with the interpretations of Rabbi Shimon/Rabbi Elazar, they conclude that they each derive it from a comparison to tithes on food, each comparing it in a different manner. The Mishna had stated the first of Tishrei is Rosh Hashanah for years. Rav Papa says this refers to documents, and this is explained to be referring to ones written with the years of gentile kings, otherwise, it would conflict with the beginning of the Mishna. However, a question is raised against this as Rav Chisda, an amora, made the distinction between Jewish and gentile kings and why would an amora teach something already stated in the Mishna? The Gemara brings two answers. An alternate explanation is brought – that “years” means for judgment, that God judges us on the first of Tishrei for that year. This is derived from Tehillim 91:5. Several other drashot on that verse are brought. The first of Tishrei is Rosh Hashanah for Shmita. From what verse is this derived? It is also Rosh Hashanah for the jubilee year. This matches Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka’s opinion, as the rabbis hold that it starts on Yom Kippur. Two braitot that deal with the debate between them are brought.

Rosh Hashanah 7 - Shabbat October 16, 10 Cheshvan Oct 15, 2021

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 7

Today's daf is sponsored by Risa Tzohar in memory of her grandmother Rissel Schwartz Wittels, Rissel bat Dina v'Shmuel Lev on her yahrzeit today.

A braita states that the first of Nissan is the first of the year for other issues – for months, determining a leap year and for shekalim for the new year’s sacrifices. Another opinion there adds for rentals. The Gemara delves into the meaning of each of these and then explains why the Mishna didn’t mention them as well. The line in the Mishna about the animal tithes, first of Elul, matches Rabbi Meir’s opinion, as proven by a braita. However, the line before it is Rabbi Shimon (first of Nissan for the holidays, as explained on Rosh Hashanah 4a) and the line after it is Rabbi Shimon, so the structure seems strange. The answer given is that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi held like Rabbi Meir on one issue and Rabbi Shimon on another. But then, how does the number “four” mentioned in the Mishna fit, as there are five separate dates? Two explanations are brought – either the number is according to each Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon separately. Or the number goes by months and not by dates. A braita is brought where two more dates are mentioned, which should add either one or two more cases to the Mishna. Why were these not mentioned in the Mishna? Three answers are brought and questions are raised on each.

Rosh Hashanah 6 - October 15, 9 Cheshvan Oct 15, 2021

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 6

Today's daf is sponsored by Penny Gershman in memory of Shaindl Statman Stein. Shaindl started learning daf yomi this cycle and unfortunately passed away this week.

Why does the braita bring a verse to introduce the idea that if one does not bring the animal in a prescribed time, the person has committed a sin, however, the animal is not disqualified from being sacrificed. Isn't this learned out from other places? This appears both by a firstborn and Ben Azai learned it from the verse in pigul - that only there it is disqualified by not if one missed the time. The firstborn could be specifically there, but based on the question from pigul, the Gemara suggests emending the text to excluding one's wife from being held responsible. In what case is one's wife held responsible for her husband's actions? From where is this derived? Near the verse about the vows regarding one who does not bring one's vows in time, there is an additional verse in Devarim 23:24 relating to keeping one's vows. A braita states that there is a positive commandment, as well as a negative commandment in this verse and that the court can force one to fulfill this obligation. It also derives that it not only refers to vows but to other obligations as well. Several questions are raised on this braita, each one asking about a different aspect of the drashot as to why is the drasha needed if the same idea is derived from a different verse. The answer given is that each one is coming to relate to a different case - one where the person said they would bring a sacrifice but never designated and the other when one designated but did not bring it to the Temple. This is questioned because no such case exists that one would say without designating by a nedava offering, as a Mishna is brought to explain the differences between a neder and a nedava. This is answered as well. Rava brings a number of halakhot about the prohibition of delaying and each time a difficulty is raised against him from a braita and is resolved. In one of the braitot it mentions a case where a year could pass without all three holidays passing - how can this be? Several possibilities are brought based on different opinions in other related debates. Is one who inherits liable for delaying? Is a woman liable? In Rosh Hashanah 5b, a braita was brought discussing the age limit for a firstborn animal. From when is that counted - from birth or from the 8th day when it is able to be brought as a sacrifice?

Rosh Hashanah 5 - October 14, 8 Cheshvan Oct 14, 2021

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 5

Today's daf is sponsored by Jennifer in honor of Paul Corwin. "Thank you for introducing me to the Daily Daf and for making every step of this life journey a joy. You yourself are a Tree of Life. Your heart is full of all the warmth of Shabbat and wherever you go you leave Mitzvahs behind. All blessings to you my dear friend."

The Gemara continues the discussion from a braita regarding the five approaches regarding when one is obligated for delaying bringing a sacrifice. Those who derived from the verse “On the holiday of the matzot, on the holiday of Shavuot and on the holiday of Sukkot” an analogy from Pesach to Shavuot that one has seven days in which to bring the Chagiga sacrifice even on Shavuot, what do they derive from the reference to Sukkot in the verse? They make an analogy from Pesach to Sukkot that one needs to stay overnight in Jerusalem on the holiday. The ones who need the verse about the holidays to relate to delays in sacrifices, from where do they derive that on Shavuot one has seven says to bring the Chagiga sacrifice? They learn it from Rosh Chodesh. The Gemara refers back to the braita that mentioned all the types of sacrifices/promises in which the prohibition to delay is effective. In this braita, a Pesach sacrifice is mentioned. Why? Doesn’t it need to be brought on Pesach – how can one offer it on a different holiday. One answer is that it got there by mistake. Another is to say that it is referring to one who designated an animal for Pesach but did not sacrifice it – in that case, it becomes a peace offering. Another braita is brought which takes the verse where delaying is mentioned – only in reference to a vow – and derives from it the other types of items that we saw previously. Two other laws are derived from this verse. One is: “he" and not his exchange. The Gemara tries to determine what is meant by exchange. Another is: "And in thee was sin." From there they derive that the sin is upon the person but the sacrifice is not disqualified. A question is raised against this as it seems to be derived from a different verse by the firstborn.

Rosh Hashanah 4 - October 13, 7 Cheshvan Oct 13, 2021

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 4

Today's daf is sponsored by Sami Groff "in memory of my father, Rabbi Abner Groff. It is fitting that we are starting to learn Masechet Rosh Hashana at the time of your yahrzeit – the High Holiday tefillot were the highlight of your year as a Chazan- after weeks of preparation, your incredibly beautiful tefillot inspired all who had the privilege to hear them. We miss you always." And by Rachel Alexander Levy in honor of the birthday of Miriam Sophie Levy. "Happy 8th Birthday to my daughter! You inspire me to learn the daf every day."

The Gemara resolved the contradiction Rav Yosef raised in the two sets of verses about Darius (one seemed to have the count start from Nissan and the other from Tishrei) by saying that one took place when Darius was good to the Jews and the other once he became bad. Rav Kahana asks if it is true if Darius became a bad king. Four answers are brought to show that he did become bad. Questions are raised on these answers and some are resolved. Referring back to the Mishna where it said that the first of Nissan is the first for the holiday, what is the relevance of this? One who takes a vow cannot delay in bringing it. What is considered a delay? Rabbi Shimon held that after three holidays pass in their order - and the order begins with Nissan, Pesach. His opinion is one of five opinions regarding this halakha and all are brought in a braita. From where in the Torah is each opinion derived and what does each one do with the verses that the others use for their proof?

Rosh Hashanah 3 - October 12, 6 Cheshvan Oct 12, 2021

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 3

Today's daf is sponsored by Glenda Sacks Jaffe in honor of Rhona, Sharna & Diana "and my amazing San Diego Chavruta" and by Shmulik and Ronit Shavit in honor of the birth of their grandson, son of Lior and Yosi Weiss.

How do we know that Aharon died before Moshe began his speech, thereby proving that the counting from the Exodus began from the first of Nissan and not from the first of Tishrei? Because Moshe spoke after the killing of Sichon and the verse tells us that the Canaanite King of Arad came to attack upon hearing of Aharon’s death which had brought about the removal of the cloud of glory that had protected the Jews in the desert. What is the connection between the Caananite and Sichon? How do we know that it wasn’t from Iyar, Sivan, Tamuz, Av or Adar, all of which could have been the month the counting began and still the verses with Aharon and Moshe would have worked. Different verses, some from the Torah and one from Chronicles are brought to prove it. Rav Chisda says that the Rosh Hashana for kings that is on the first of Nissan is only for Jewish kings, but kings of other nations are counted from the first of Tishrei. He derives it from Nechemia 1:1 and Nechemia 2:1. Rav Yosef questions Rav Chisda based on verses from Chagai 1:15 and Chagai 2:1 regarding Darius’s (Daryavesh) reign. Rabbi Abahu answers by saying that Cyrus (Coresh) was a good king to the Jews as he allowed them to rebuild the Temple and therefore his years were counted like Jewish kings. Rav Yosef asks two questions – one, other verses about Darius in Ezra 6:15 and Ezra 7:8 seem to follow the calendar for kings of other nations and secondly, Rav Yosef was talking about Darius and Rabbi Abahu talked about Cyrus! The Gemara answers the second question by bringing a braita in which it states that they were the same person. The answer to the first question is that Darius was good to the Jews but then turned against them. Once things changed, his reign was counted like the kings of the nations of the world.

Rosh Hashanah 2 - October 11, 5 Cheshvan Oct 11, 2021

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 2

Masechet Rosh Hashana is sponsored anonymously in honor of Rabbanit Michelle Farber whose dedication to learning and teaching the daf continues to inspire so many people around the world.

This week of Masechet Rosh Hashanah is sponsored by Rabia and Oliver Mitchell in honor of their daughter Ellin Mitchell Cooper becoming a Yoetzet Halacha. "Ellin, we are so proud of you and your dedication to Klal Yisrael. We look forward to great things to come! Hazak Hazak v’ nithazek."

There are different dates that are considered the dates for the start of the year for different issues. First of Nissan is the first day of the year for kings and the holidays. First of Elul is for animal tithes, although Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say it’s the first of Tishrei. The first of Tishrei is for counting years, shmita and the jubilee, for orla and vegetable tithes. Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree about tithing fruit trees whether it’s the 1st or 15th of Shevat. The Gemara proceeds to explain the relevance of the cases in the Mishna. The first of the year for kings is relevant for documents to know if a document with the incorrect date will be disqualified or not. A braita is brought that has several laws related to king years. Even if a king were to begin his rule on the last day before Nissan, as soon as it becomes the first of Nissan, it is considered his second year. If two kings rule in the same year, one can count by either one. If one dies in Adar and the other takes over in Nissan, the first year is counted for the first king and the second year by the next. The Gemara questions all these cases? Aren’t they obvious? Each one is brought to teach a particular detail. Rabbi Yochanan brings a verse to teach the fact that we count from Nissan as it compares the counting of the reign of Solomon to the counting of the Exodus from Egypt, which is from Nissan. From where do we know that the counting of the Exodus is from Nissan and not Tishrei? That is derived from the description of the timing of the death of Aharon and the speech of Moshe before his death.

Beitzah 40 - Siyum Masechet Beitzah, October 10, 4 Cheshvan Oct 10, 2021

English Study Guide 40

If one wants to give guests food to take home, the food will be limited by the techum of the host, unless he/she had someone acquire it on erev Yom Tov on behalf of the others. The Gemara brings a debate between Rav and Shmuel regarding one who gives fruits to another to watch - according to whose techum can they be moved? The owner or the one watching? Do their opinions fit in with their opinions in a case of property damages? Or are the cases not comparable? The Gemara raises several questions on Rav's opinion from the cases in our Mishna. A case is brought of a piece of meat hung for a guest on a door. Rav Huna ruled that it depended on whether it was placed there by the guest or the innkeeper. The Gemara questions both aspects of his ruling based on laws regarding techumim and the Gemara concludes that the issue had nothing to do with techumim but rather whether one can assume the meat placed there was the same meat as was taken by the guest or does one need to be concerned that it may have been switched by non-kosher meat? One can water and slaughter domestic animals on Yom Tov but not desert animals. Why did they water the animals? Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi and the rabbis disagree about which animals fall into which category. One can infer from here that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds by laws of muktze. But didn't he answer a question about Rabbi Shimon's opinion that dates that won't ripen on a tree and are put in a basket to ripen are not muktze because there are no laws of muktze other than figs and grapes that are set aside to dry? The Gemara offers three answers.

Beitzah 39 - Shabbat October 9, 3 Cheshvan Oct 08, 2021

Today’s daf is sponsored anonymously in memory of Rav Ovadia Yosef, Ovadia Yosef ben Yaakov

According to Rabbi Yehuda, if one borrows water for one’s dough, one does not need to limit carrying one’s dough within the techum of the owner of the water. However, salt would limit it. How does this work with other tannaitic sources – one says that salt is nullified and therefore wouldn’t limit and another says that water is not nullified, and both are said in Rabbi Yehuda’s name. The Gemara resolves these contradictions by explaining that the salt in each source is referring to different kinds of salts and the cooked dish with water is referring to different types of sauces (more/less liquidy). There are five laws that differentiate between coals and a flame because a coal is something with substance and a flame is not. The laws relate to carrying them within techum, ones that are sanctified or used for idol worship, carrying to the public domain on Shabbat, and one who vowed not to benefit from someone. The law of carrying to the public domain contradicts a source that says one is liable for carrying out a flame. The response is that one is liable if the flame is attached to a wood chip or vessel. If one takes water from a cistern, how far can the water be taken? The law is different for different types of cisterns – private, public for the city, ones built on the road from Babylonia to Israel for those traveling that route to get to Israel. The Gemara concludes it must be dealing with water that is collected, not moving, as water that is moving, as in a stream, has no limitations. If one drew water from cisterns on the way to Israel from Babylonia for someone else, Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshet disagree about whether it would be limited by the person who drew the water or the person for whom it was drawn. The Gemara first suggests that the debate is based on whether one holds that this type of cistern was hefker, ownerless, or owned collectively. However, this is rejected by other tannaitic sources from which it seems clear that these cisterns were not viewed as being owned collectively. Therefore, the debate is understood differently – if one picks up a lost item for another, since one cannot acquire it for the other person, does one acquire it for oneself or not. If one’s fruits were in a different city, under what circumstances would one be able to get them into his city?

Beitzah 38 - October 8, 2 Cheshvan Oct 08, 2021

Study Guide Beitzah 38

Today's daf is sponsored by Sara and Danny Berelowitz "in honor of our newest granddaughter Avigayil Yova, daughter to Meyer and Chava Sterman."

The Gemara proves that Rabbi Yochanan does not hold by laws of breira, retroactive designation, even in rabbinic laws, by bringing a case of a condition made regarding an eruv techumim. Therefore, they revert back to saying that Rabbi Hoshaya was the one who holds by breira, but only in rabbinic laws, not Torah laws. Some questions are raised against parts of the Mishna as they seem to be obvious and therefore why would the Mishna need to state them. When Rabbi Abba went to Israel he wanted to make a good impression. However, they asked him a question about the woman who borrowed ingredients for her dough and wanted to know why the water and salt weren’t’ nullified into the dough. Rabbi Abba gave an example of one who has 10 kav of wheat and someone else’s kav of wheat got mixed in and it was not nullified. The rabbis in Israel laughed at him as they held that also regarding the wheat they would be nullified as the rabbis hold that even when something mixes with the type of item (min b’mino) it is nullified. Rav Safra defended Rabbi Abba’s position by comparing it to a case of one who takes pebbles out of a batch of wheat. One is required to replace them, even though one would say that the pebbles are nullified as the owner could have sold the wheat with the pebbles as if they were wheat. The same can be said for the dough – that the water and salt add volume and therefore are not nullified. However, Abaye rejects the comparison. Rav Safra tries to support his claim but Abaye continues to reject it. The Gemara goes back to answering the question of the rabbis in Israel – why are the water and salt not nullified. Three answers are brought.

Beitzah 37 - October 7, 1 Cheshvan Oct 07, 2021

The month of Cheshvan is sponsored by Tamara Katz in memory of her maternal grandparents, Sarah bat Chaya ve Tzvi Hirsh and Meir Leib ben Esther ve Harav Yehoshua Zelig whose yahrzeits are both this month.

Today's daf is sponsored by Lisa Denker in honor of David Denker and Ariel Bruce on the birth of their daughter, Nava Eliana. "May she grow to a life of Torah, a never-ending fascination with study and learning, a life of giving and receiving love, and a life of ma’asim tovim. All our unconditional and unending love, Savta Lisa and Saba Steve."

The Gemara continues one by one to discuss the cases listed in the Mishna, explaining why the ones in the category “optional” are not considered mitzvot and why the actions listed are forbidden on Shabbat/Yom Tov. They also question the language of the Mishna as really all of the categories are forbidden by Rabbinic law (shvut) and not just the first category. As such, the Mishna is explained as fitting into a structure of “lo mebaya” – the same is true for all, however, the first case is more obvious and then they bring more cases which are less obvious that they would be forbidden by rabbinic law. Our Mishna stated that the laws for Shabbat and Yom Tov are the same, other than for food needs; however, the previous Mishna distinguished between Shabbat and Yom Tov on other issues and permitted lowering the produce through the chimney. Rav Yosef answers that each Mishna holds by a different tanna and connects between these Mishnas and a braita referring to an animal and its offspring that fell into a pit on Yom Tov and one can only slaughter one of them as an animal and its offspring can’t be slaughtered in one day. Rabbi Eliezer permits only bringing one out – the other can be given food to survive until Yom Tov ends. Rabbi Yehoshua permits taking out the first one with the intent to slaughter, then one can decide that one is not interested in slaughtering it and prefers the other. In that way, one can save them both. Since Rabbi Eliezer is more strict, Rav Yosef connects our Mishna with his opinion and the previous Mishna with Rabbi Yehoshua. Abaye rejects the comparison and suggests reasons why what applies in the animal case would not apply in the case of the produce on the roof. Rav Papa suggests a different answer - that the two Mishnas follow different tannaitic opinions the stricter, Beit Shamai who does not permit carrying not for the purposes of eating and the lenient one Beit Hillel who permits carrying not only for food purposes. The Gemara tries to reject this answer by saying that issue of carrying in the public domain is not the same as moving fruits within a private domain (muktze issue). However, this is rejected as the prohibition for carrying in one's property was instituted by the rabbis so as to make sure people didn’t come to carry in the public domain. The next Mishna discusses Shabbat limits as they relate to items that are owned by a person. A person's limits of techum Shabbat apply to animals and vessels in one's possession as well. If one gives one's animal to one's shepherd or son, it still can only go as far as the owner. The Mishna discusses various other cases such as brothers who share an inheritance, one who borrows an item from a friend, or bread that was made partially from borrowed ingredients and partially from one's own ingredients. Does the Mishna disagree with Rabbi Dosa's opinion as he holds that the techum of the animal follows the shepherd? No! One can explain that the Mishna was dealing with a different case (2 shepherds in the area). Shared items can be moved only as far as the shared techum of both owners. Rav and Shmuel disagree regarding two people who purchase a barrel of wine and an animal to share (and divide). Rav holds the wine can be taken for each one according to his techum, but the animal can only be taken into the shared techum. Why the distinction? Since an animal before it is slaughtered on Yom Tov each of its body parts depends on the others, it is considered shared and not able to be subject to laws of breira, retroactive designation. Shmuel doesn't hold at all by retroactive designation and therefore limits both cases. What is the law regarding breira? It is also a debate between rabbi Hoshaya and Rabbi Yochanan. The Gemara questions the opinion attributed to Rabbi Hoshaya based on what he holds in a different sugya.

Beitzah 36 - October 6, 30 Tishrei Oct 06, 2021

Study Guide Beitzah 36

There are laws regarding clearing out an entire storage area, moving items from one roof to the next, or bringing items down from the roof using a rope that were forbidden either on Yom Tov or Shabbat and the Gemara ponders whether it would also be forbidden as well on Shabbat/Yom Tov, relying on the differences discussed at the end of Beitzah 35. The Mishna stated that one could cover fruits if there is water dripping on them. Ulla and Rabbi Yitzchak disagree about whether this is only true for fruits that are ready to be eaten or whether this would apply even to a pile of bricks. The Gemara tries to bring proofs for each of the opinions from our Mishna and other tannaitic sources. However, each proof is rejected as it can be explained according to the other opinion as well. One can put out a utensil to catch water dripping from the roof and can keep emptying it and letting it refill. A story is told of Abaye who didn't take the advice of Raba when water was dripping on his millstone and Raba suggested he bring out his bed and that will them create a situation where he can move the water as it is disgusting to sleep next to it (just as one can move a bowl full of bodily waste). Items that are disgusting are permitted to be moved on Shabbat, even if they are muktze. In the end, his millstone fell (as the water moistened the dirt that it was standing on), and was destroyed. He blamed himself for not heeding Raba's advice. A utensil used for bodily waste can be carried out and emptied into the garbage, but can it be brought back inside? If so, how? The Mishna lists different categories of things that are forbidden on both Shabbat and Yom Tov and provides examples of each. The categories divide into actions that are forbidden that have no mitzva associated with them, actions that are forbidden even though they are somewhat of a mitzva, and actions that are forbidden, even though they are a mitzvah. The Gemara starts going through the actions listed in the first category and explains why each action is forbidden. In the second category, the Gemara questions some of the cases as they actually seem to be a proper mitzva. Answers are given.

Beitzah 35 - October 5, 29 Tishrei Oct 05, 2021

This week's learning is sponsored by Eliana Gurfinkiel in memory of her grandmother, Alice Djamila Ventura Bat Moshe and Leah, who passed away this past December. She never had a chance to learn about her Jewish roots, not even talking about Torah. I'm sure that in the Olam Haemet she's delighted that her granddaughters learn Torah and do mitzvot in her honour. Her neshama should have an Aliyah."

And today's daf is sponsored for a refuah shleima for Chaya Sara bat Raitza.

Mar Zutra tried to prove from our Mishnah (from Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion) Rav Nachman’s response to Rava that designating something to eat on Shabbat brings with it an obligation to tithe the produce even if the produce is not completely ready (gmar melacha). The Gemara rejected his proof and claimed that Rabbi Eliezer in the Mishna implied that the produce must be tithed not due to Shabbat but due to the person’s statement indicated he/she planned to eat the produce. If so, the Gemara questions it as it is inconsistent with another statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Thus rejecting the difficulty against Mar Zutra and reinstating his proof for Rav Nachman. Rabbi Shimi Bar Ashi rejects Mar Zutra proof in a different way as he shows that Rabbi Eliezer disagreed with the rabbis concerning a similar issue – whether separating truma before gmar melacha would obligate one. And since the rabbis disagree there, they must disagree here, in which case we can’t learn halacha from Rabbi Eliezer. The Gemara tries to prove Rav Nachman’s answer from the words of the rabbis in the Mishnah, however, this too is rejected. The Gemara brings a contradiction to Mar Zutra’s understanding of Rabbi Eliezer in the Mishnah (that Shabbat brings with it an obligation to tithe the produce even if there isn’t gmar melacha) from Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion in a braita but e contradiction is resolved. Ravin brings the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan, who disagrees with Rav Nachman, and says that Shabbat, truma, courtyard, and a sale do not obligate one to tithe one’s produce if it is not at the stage of gmar melacha. The Gemara explains why Rabbi Yochanan had to refer to each category - in each matter he came to disagree with a certain opinion. The Gemara brings the opinion on which he disagrees on each subject. Chapter five begins with actions that are allowed to be performed on a Yom Tov even though it is burdensome work, as to avoid financial loss, such as lowering fruits through the chimney from the rains. The Gemara discusses different traditions regarding what is the first word in the Mishnah and proves that all possibilities can work. How much can be lowered through a chimney? Rabbi Yochanan derived it from Maseachet Shabbat – how many boxes can be removed from a storage house to make room for guests or a Beit Midrash. But the Gemara raises several possibilities to distinguish between the cases – some suggest being stricter on Yom Tov and some more lenient.

Beitzah 34 - October 4, 28 Tishrei Oct 04, 2021

Today’s daf is sponsored by Eran Bellin and Marcy Goldstein in memory of Rabbi David Eliach. He was a founding member of the Yeshivah of Flatbush and taught generations of students to love Torah and serious study.

A chicken that was trampled or thrown against a wall but managed to stay alive for 24 hours, can be slaughtered, but it should be checked after slaughtering that it had not become a treifa. Is it possible to slaughter on in that case on a Yom Tov? Should there be a concern that if it is found to be treifa, the slaughtering would have been performed for no reason, like the tiles that were heated up that may explode? A braita is brought regarding Shabbat, describing a case where there are several actions that if done by different people - one brings the fire, another the wood, the pot, the spices, etc., if you fire is brought first, all are liable – some for making a fire and some for cooking. The one who brought the pot – for what is he/she liable? This must be a new cauldron and like the tiles, by putting it on the fire, it is hardening it and preparing it for use. If there is a new oven, they are not muktze because it is possible to store things inside them, however, there are actions that should not be done with them because it is considered as preparing it for its first use. There are ways to remove animal hair but if done in the way the tanners do, it is forbidden. Do not cut vegetables with the type of scissors that are used to cut things from the ground because it will look like it was taken from the ground. But it is possible to do things that are a lot of work such as baking in a really big oven or cooking vegetables that require a lot of cooking. The Gemara brings a few more braitot that record permitted/forbidden actions in connection with food preparation. You can go to the muktze (the roof where the fruit is dried) before Shabbat even if the fruits are not fully dried and say that you want to eat from there the next day if it is the shemita year when you do not have to tithe the fruits. The Gemara brings two Mishnas that discuss what determines one's obligation to tithe the produce tithe – when the food is ready for use (gmar melacha), when it is brought into the courtyard, and also planning to eat them on Shabbat (because every meal on Shabbat is considered a meal, even if it is just a snack because of the verse "and you called Shabbat oneg"). Rava asks Rav Nachman - since bringing into the courtyard does not obligate one in tithes unless the fruit is ready for use, does Shabbat determine tithes only if the fruit is ready to be eaten? Rav Nachman says that Shabbat determines in any case. Mar Zotra tries to prove this from our Mishnah but the Gemara rejects his proof.

Beitzah 34 - October 4, 28 Tishrei Oct 04, 2021

Today’s daf is sponsored by Eran Bellin and Marcy Goldstein in memory of Rabbi David Eliach. He was a founding member of the Yeshivah of Flatbush and taught generations of students to love Torah and serious study.

A chicken that was trampled or thrown against a wall but managed to stay alive for 24 hours, can be slaughtered, but it should be checked after slaughtering that it had not become a treifa. Is it possible to slaughter on in that case on a Yom Tov? Should there be a concern that if it is found to be treifa, the slaughtering would have been performed for no reason, like the tiles that were heated up that may explode? A braita is brought regarding Shabbat, describing a case where there are several actions that if done by different people - one brings the fire, another the wood, the pot, the spices, etc., if you fire is brought first, all are liable – some for making a fire and some for cooking. The one who brought the pot – for what is he/she liable? This must be a new cauldron and like the tiles, by putting it on the fire, it is hardening it and preparing it for use. If there is a new oven, they are not muktze because it is possible to store things inside them, however, there are actions that should not be done with them because it is considered as preparing it for its first use. There are ways to remove animal hair but if done in the way the tanners do, it is forbidden. Do not cut vegetables with the type of scissors that are used to cut things from the ground because it will look like it was taken from the ground. But it is possible to do things that are a lot of work such as baking in a really big oven or cooking vegetables that require a lot of cooking. The Gemara brings a few more braitot that record permitted/forbidden actions in connection with food preparation. You can go to the muktze (the roof where the fruit is dried) before Shabbat even if the fruits are not fully dried and say that you want to eat from there the next day if it is the shemita year when you do not have to tithe the fruits. The Gemara brings two Mishnas that discuss what determines one's obligation to tithe the produce tithe – when the food is ready for use (gmar melacha), when it is brought into the courtyard, and also planning to eat them on Shabbat (because every meal on Shabbat is considered a meal, even if it is just a snack because of the verse "and you called Shabbat oneg"). Rava asks Rav Nachman - since bringing into the courtyard does not obligate one in tithes unless the fruit is ready for use, does Shabbat determine tithes only if the fruit is ready to be eaten? Rav Nachman says that Shabbat determines in any case. Mar Zotra tries to prove this from our Mishnah but the Gemara rejects his proof.

Beitzah 33 - October 3, 27 Tishrei Oct 03, 2021

Study Guide Beitzah 33

Today's daf is sponsored by Sagi Carmel in honor of Ashley Offenheim on their marriage today.

Is it permissible to use wood for other purposes or can it only be used for kindling on Yom Tov? Rabbi Shimon allows and sages forbid. Leading an animal by a stick on a Yom Tov is a dispute between Rabbi Elazar Bar Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis. The rabbis forbid it besides that it is muktze, also because it appears as if he is leading the animal to sell in the market – therefore, even rabbi Shimon would forbid it. There is a dispute between Rav Sheshet and Rav Nachman as to whether it is possible to use a wooden branch for a skewer. Do they disagree about a wet or dry branch? What is the root of their debate? Rava did not allow one to take a branch from the storage shed of wood to use as a coal stoker or to use one that broke on Yom Tov. Why? Is it because he held like Rabbi Yehuda that broken pieces are muktze? Does it not appear from another case that he does not hold like Rabbi Yehuda in this matter? There is a dispute between R. Eliezer and the rabbis – can one collect sliver from the yard for cooking? Can one take a sliver to use for cleaning one’s teeth? It is forbidden to light a fire from stones, trees, etc. because it is creating something new. Rav Yehuda said that if a vessel (such as a toothpick for example) is made from animal food, it is permitted because it is not considered that one has created a vessel. Rav Kahana raises a difficulty against him from a braita and the Gemara solves by differentiating between hard and soft. The hard ones are forbidden to be cut to use a toothpick to clean one’s teeth on a Torah level and therefore they are forbidden by rabbinic law to cut them for smelling purposes. But Rav Acha raises a contradiction between this and a Mishnah in Masechet Shabbat that it is permissible to break a barrel and remove fruit from it, provided that he does not intend to make a vessel and there is no concern that if we permit it not to create a vessel, one may come to break it also to make a vessel. Also, Rav Yehuda cut branches and distributed them. The contradiction is resolved by connecting these two approaches to a tannaitic dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis. Rabbi Eliezer thinks that creating a toothpick is forbidden from the Torah and therefore the rabbis forbade cutting it for smelling. The rabbis thought it was only forbidden by rabbinic law to cut to make a toothpick and therefore the rabbis did not forbid cutting for smelling or other permitted purposes. However, how could Rabbi Eliezer disagree with the Mishnah in Shabbat? They answer that he establishes the Mishnah in a case of Mustaki - a rickety barrel. According to the Mishnah, it is permissible according to Rabbi Eliezer to gather trees from the yard. There is controversy in a braita as to whether it is permissible to put in piles. The basis for the controversy is: do we fear that it seems he is doing it for tomorrow or do his actions prove that he is not.

Beitzah 32 - Shabbat October 2, 26 Tishrei Oct 01, 2021

Shmuel rules on undoing ropes that are fastened to the ground or to an object. He differentiates between the two regarding how one can do it, however, he does not distinguish between Shabbat and Yom Tov. The Gemara raises a difficulty against him from the braita where a distinction between Shabbat and Yom Tov is made regarding this issue. They answer that Samuel must hold like the tana of a different braita. But even on this, there is a difficulty because some of his words correspond to the words of the tana and some do not. To solve this problem, it is assumed that one part of the braita has to do with an unrelated reason as he holds like Rabbi Nehemiah who has a very strict definition of muktze and only allows the use of a vessel for its usual use and not for any other use. There is also a difficulty on that which the Gemara resolves. Creating a tool on a Yom Tov is forbidden. The Mishnah gives some examples and the Gemara discusses the controversy over what stage is it considered that the utensil is built/finished both for laws of impurity and for Shabbat/Yom Tov. According to Rabbi Yehuda, it is possible to cut a wick in two by using fire. How does this solve the problem that he is creating an object? Six laws were said regarding wicks - three stringencies and three leniencies. What are they? Rabbi Natan Bar Abba brings on behalf of Rav a harsh criticism of the wealthy Jews of Babylonia who showed no mercy. The Gemara brings a number of statements on how difficult it is for a person who has to rely on others for one’s livelihood. It is said about the following people that they “have no life" – one who relies on others for one’s livelihood, one whose wife rules over him, and one whose body is enduring suffering and some say also one who only has one garment to wear. The Mishnah continues with a list of other things that should not be done on Yom Tov because it is considered creating a vessel as well as some other prohibitions. One cannot rake the ashes from an oven unless it affects the quality of the food. It is forbidden to build a stove out of two barrels. Why is it forbidden to do this but it is permitted to take stones in the outhouse and form from it a chair to use as a toilet – is it not a similar type of “building”?

Beitzah 31 - October 1, 25 Tishrei Oct 01, 2021

Today's daf is sponsored by Gitta Neufeld in memory of Ha'Chaver Menachem ben Ha'Chaver Avraham and Chava a"h.

The Mishnah states that one is allowed to bring wood for kindling on Yom Tov from a pile of wood that was gathered in the fields or gathered or scattered wood from a karpaf, enclosure used for storage. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi disagree about whether the karpaf needs to be close to the city or can be farther away (within techum Shabbat) but in a locked space. Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel only permitted bringing from a pile of wood in a karpaf. Since this contradicts the Mishnah, the Gemara concludes that the Mishnah must be an individual's opinion, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar's, and the rabbis disagree. Was Rabbi Yosi ruling leniently that one can collect wood from near the city from an unlocked space and farther away only if it is locked and Rabbi Yehuda requires a locked space near the city only? Or does Rabbi Yehuda not require a locked space and Rabbi Yosi is being stringent in requiring a locked space, even though he permits it further away from the city? The Gemara accepts the first interpretation. One cannot chop wood from beams set aside for use for building, nor from a beam that broke on Yom Tov. But if one has wood that can be chopped, one must chop with a cleaver, not with an ax, saw or sickle which are normally used for chopping. According to Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel, the issue of the beams is because they are muktze, set aside. Is there a side of the ax that can be used or a side of the cleaver that cannot be used? There are two different versions of a statement of Rav Chinina regarding this. In one he limits the prohibition of using an ax, in the other, he limits the permissibility of a cleaver. If a house is filled with produce and there is no access to get in, one cannot take produce from there on Yom Tov but the wall broke and there was an access route, one could take from there. According to Rabbi Meir, one can even break the wall. Why is Rabbi Meir not concerned about breaking apart a structure, which is a melacha (soter)? It must be that they were not cemented together and the rabbis were more lenient on this issue for Yom Tov. Regarding the prohibition to break apart a structure, Shmuel rules on undoing ropes that are fastened to the ground or to an object. He differentiates between the two regarding how one can do it, however, he does not distinguish between Shabbat and Yom Tov. The Gemara raises a difficulty against him from the braita where a distinction between Shabbat and Yom Tov is made regarding this issue. The Gemara suggests that perhaps it is connected to the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis in our Mishnah, however, the suggestion is rejected.

Beitzah 30 - September 30, 24 Tishrei Sep 30, 2021

Study Guide Beitzah 30

Today's daf is sponsored by Hadassah and Michael Fortinsky in honor of Elisheva and Sam Lightstone, on their son Avishai's wedding today.

There are actions that should be done in a different manner on Yom Tov because they look like actions done normally on a weekday, such as carrying things like jugs of water, etc. However, when it is not possible to do them in a different manner, it can be done in the usual way, provided it is for the holiday. It is forbidden to clap and dance on Shabbat (rabbinic decree so that one doesn’t come to fix musical instruments), but we see that people do and no one stops them - how can this be explained? The answer is that it is better if they do not know and do things unwittingly than to tell them and since they won’t listen anyway, they will end up doing it intentionally and that will be much worse (mutav she’yihyu shogigin v’al yuhi mezidin). In what circumstances is this principle valid? The Mishnah allows one to take straw from the haystack but not from the trees that were placed in the muktze. Does the Mishnah follow the opinion of Rabbi Shimon or Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara brings two versions of Rav Kahana on the matter. According to the Mishnah, wood cannot be taken from the sukkah, but can be taken from next to it. What is "next to it" and why is it permitted? A braita is quoted with a debate between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis, however, they all agree that wood from a sukkah on the holiday of Sukkot is muktze unless one stipulated before. First, the Gemara questions whether one can stipulate on Sukkot and concludes that one cannot. Then a difficulty is raised from a source that says it is possible to make a condition on a sukkah of Sukkot. How is this explained? Another difficulty is raised from a source about etrogs where one can dedicate an etrog for only one day! How can one explain the difference between a sukkah and an etrog?

Beitzah 29 - September 29, 23 Tishrei Sep 29, 2021

Study Guide Beitzah 29

Today's daf is sponsored by Hannah Hashkes in memory of her mother-in-law Chaya Sarah (Sally) bat Genya and Mordechai Rubin on her birthday, Simchat Torah outside of Israel. "She was active in supporting women's Torah learning throughout her life."

Can one go to a store and ask for a utensil full of food if the utensil is a measuring utensil? Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis disagree – Shmuel and Rava bring two different explanations of their debate. Either way, their approach is the opposite of the Mishnah in Beitzah 28 where Rabbi Yehuda is more lenient, as here it is clear that Rabbi Yehuda is stricter. How does the Gemara resolve that contradiction? Abba Shaul ben Butnit would do all his measuring before Yom Tov. The Mishna tries to prove from here that he was strict but two other opinions are brought to show that he either did this on every day of Chol Hamoed as well or on all days for other reasons – to prevent any sort of stealing from his buyers. Can one measure flour for making bread in order to ensure the proper amount is removed to give to the kohen? Rav and Shmuel debate. A difficulty is raised against Shmuel as he quoted a braita saying it is permitted, however, he forbids it. How is this issue resolved? Can one sift flour a second time on Yom Tov, as there is no more removing the bad from the good, one is just trying to make the flour more refined? There are differing opinions about this and whether or not it can be done normally or with some sort of change. What if something external fell into the flour – can it be removed with a sifter or by hand? Which is better? According to the Mishna, one can ask a store owner for items by number, just not by weight or, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar not by mentioning money. What types of things can one not carry on Yom Tov and in what amount/manner does it appear as one does on a weekday? From where is one allowed/not allowed to take straw/wood for kindling on Yom Tov?

Beitzah 29 - September 29, 23 Tishrei Sep 29, 2021

Study Guide Beitzah 29

Today's daf is sponsored by Hannah Hashkes in memory of her mother-in-law Chaya Sarah (Sally) bat Genya and Mordechai Rubin on her birthday, Simchat Torah outside of Israel. "She was active in supporting women's Torah learning throughout her life."

Can one go to a store and ask for a utensil full of food if the utensil is a measuring utensil? Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis disagree – Shmuel and Rava bring two different explanations of their debate. Either way, their approach is the opposite of the Mishnah in Beitzah 28 where Rabbi Yehuda is more lenient, as here it is clear that Rabbi Yehuda is stricter. How does the Gemara resolve that contradiction? Abba Shaul ben Butnit would do all his measuring before Yom Tov. The Mishna tries to prove from here that he was strict but two other opinions are brought to show that he either did this on every day of Chol Hamoed as well or on all days for other reasons – to prevent any sort of stealing from his buyers. Can one measure flour for making bread in order to ensure the proper amount is removed to give to the kohen? Rav and Shmuel debate. A difficulty is raised against Shmuel as he quoted a braita saying it is permitted, however, he forbids it. How is this issue resolved? Can one sift flour a second time on Yom Tov, as there is no more removing the bad from the good, one is just trying to make the flour more refined? There are differing opinions about this and whether or not it can be done normally or with some sort of change. What if something external fell into the flour – can it be removed with a sifter or by hand? Which is better? According to the Mishna, one can ask a store owner for items by number, just not by weight or, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar not by mentioning money. What types of things can one not carry on Yom Tov and in what amount/manner does it appear as one does on a weekday? From where is one allowed/not allowed to take straw/wood for kindling on Yom Tov?

Beitzah 28 - Shmini Atzeret, September 28, 22 Tishrei Sep 27, 2021

Study Guide Beitzah 28

Is it permissible to weigh meat for sale on a Yom Tov? Under what conditions? And what are the different opinions? Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Shimon the son of Rebbe divided meat between each other by weighing each piece against the other to make sure it was divided evenly. According to whose opinion did they rule as it doesn’t match either opinion in the Mishnah. Apparently, it was according to Rabbi Yehoshua whose opinion is presented in a braita. Rav Yosef ruled like him as in the case of the firstborn animal who had a blemish, they ruled that it was possible to weigh a portion against a portion, even though it was forbidden to weigh it with weights. But Abaye argues that it is not clear whether the firstborn can be compared to weighing on a Yom Tov as the issues are not the same. In addition, another difficulty is raised against this case as it was described as it does not seem that Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Shimon the son of Rebbe would be so exacting with each other to weigh the meat and therefore the Gemara concludes that it was probably one of them with someone else. According to the Mishnah, it is forbidden to sharpen a knife but it is permissible to rub two knives against each other. Rav Huna says that the Mishnah is referring to sharpening it on a stone vessel but it would be permitted on a wooden one. There are four versions of what Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel – he either limited the first part of the words of Rav Huna, or the last part of his words or the first part of the Mishnah or the last part of the Mishnah and thus each version reaches a different conclusion about what kind of come to different conclusions about what kind of sharpening is allowed/forbidden and for what purpose (to sharpen or remove the fat). The one who allowed the sharpening of the knife was Rabbi Yehuda, who permitted on Yom Tov not only food preparation but also actions that facilitated the food preparation. The rabbis did not permit that. Although many ruled like Rabbi Yehuda, they did not want to teach publicly that it is permissible to sharpen a knife on a Yom Tov. How do Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbi derive their opinions from the verses in the Torah? Is it permitted to repair a broken skewer? Is it permissible to move a skewer after grilling? This is one of a few laws recited by Rav Malkiyo. The Gemara brings up a controversy as to which cases were recited by Rabbi Malkiyo and which by Rabbi Malkia.

Beitzah 27 - Hoshana Raba, September 27, 21 Tishrei Sep 27, 2021

Today's daf is sponsored by Jason, Erica, and Raquel in honor of the birthday of our mom, Patty Belkin. "Mom - you love, support, and inspire us every day. Mazel tov on your birthday!" And by Lisa Denker in honor of Steven Denker on his 70th Birthday “Happy 70th! All my love, Zis." And by Hannah Katzman "in memory of her brother, Shlom Pinchas ben Ben-Zion and Taibe Gittel Wachholder. And by Gitta Neufeld "in loving memory of my special mother-in-law, Alice Neufeld, Aidel bat Nathan a"h, who treated me like Naomi treated Ruth. She was so proud of her family and their dedication to the ideals of Torah with Derech Eretz. At a time when many chose to send their children to the NYC public schools, she and my father-in-law sacrificed joyfully to ensure that their two sons received a quality Yeshiva education, laying the foundations for four generations of Shomrei Torah u'Mitzvot across the globe. Ma, I miss you every day (especially when I set the table) and am certain that you celebrate my learning."

The Gemara starts by telling a story to demonstrate that one can examine firstborn animals for blemishes on Yom Tov. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia had a firstborn that he brought to Rabbi Ami on Yom Tov but Rabbi Ami refused to examine it. He then proceed to Rabbi Yitzchak Nafha who also refused. The insistence on refusing to examine the firstborns leads to a discussion about Rabbi Zeira who apparently once said that that we hold like Rabbi Shimon who forbids. The Gemara then notes that “someone “ (anonymously) once came to Rabbi Zeira to find out if he really ruled this way and that he told him that he didn’t say explicitly that the halakha was like Rabbi Shimon but rather, it appeared to him that this was the case. Ultimately who is right? The Gemara tries to derive this from a statement of Rabbi Meir who didn’t permit eating a firstborn who was examined for blemishes after it was already slaughtered. But Abaye says that really Rabbi Meir had no issue with examining on Yom Tov, rather it was forbidden as a penalty for those who did it. There was a concern that mistakes would be made in some types of blemishes (in the eyelids) that change after death and for this reason, all examinations were prohibited (a decree). In order to determine whether one can examine for blemishes on Yom Tov, the story is told about how Ami Vardena wouldn’t check in the house of the Nasi and Rabbi Ami approved of this. This is questioned as Rabbi Ami himself would examine blemishes on Yom Tov! However, it was explained that Rabbi Ami would look at blemishes before Yom Tov and issue his ruling on Yom Tov after having quizzed the animal’s owners about the facts of the case (to ensure the kohen hadn't inflicted the blemish himself). In fact, even causing a blemish indirectly (for example by placing dough behind the ears of a calf so a dog will bite it) is prohibited. The next Mishnah prohibits an animal that died on Yom Tov from being moved. This seems to only match Rabbi Yehuda's opinion in Masechet Shabbat in which there is a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon on feeding carcasses to dogs. However, it is possible that Rabbi Shimon agrees that in the case of a healthy animal where there was no indication the animal was going to die, the animal would be considered mukzeh. Alternatively, our Mishnah might be speaking about sanctified property only. In what way can meat be sold on Yom Tov and in what way is it not permitted?

Beitzah 26 - September26, 20 Tishrei Sep 26, 2021

Study Guide Beitzah 26

This week’s learning is sponsored by Dina Becker for a refuah shleima for Reuven Ephraim ben Shoshana (Ron Becker).

Today's daf is sponsored by Elana Kermaier in honor of her dear father Moshe Fox’s fourth yahrzeit - lilui nishmat Moshe Yehuda ben HaRav Binyaimin v'Chaya Tzipora. My father would be equally surprised and proud that I am learning the Daf. And by Ira and Natanya Slomowitz in memory of Ira’s father, Rabbi Shlomo Slomowitz, HaRav Shlomo ben HaRav Dov Tzvi v'Masha on his yahrzeit.

A bechor, firstborn, of an animal is given to the kohen and must be sacrificed. However, if it is blemished from before Yom Tov with a permanent blemish, the kohen can slaughter it and eat it. Only an expert can determine if it has a blemish that disqualifies it from being sacrificed. If a bechor falls into a pit on Yom Tov can an expert go down into the pit to check if the animal was blemished to then permit the owner to take it out and slaughter it? Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasia explains according to Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that there are three different cases. Rabba bar Rav Huna explains that in one case it is forbidden entirely, in another, one cannot send an expert but if one did and it was blemished, they are permitted to slaughter it, and in the third, they can check it ab initio. They raise a difficulty against his explanation from a braita that they taught in Israel and reject his explanation. Hillel asked Rava if there is muktze for half a Shabbat, meaning if something usable when Shabbat came in and then became not usable and then usable again, would it be considered muktze for the rest of Shabbat, even though it is usable again? The Gemara brings several sources to try to determine the answer to the question but in the end, is unsuccessful.

Betizah 25 - Shabbat Chol Hamoed Sukkot, September 25, 19 Tishrei Sep 24, 2021

Study Guide Beitzah 25

Today’s daf is dedicated to Judith Munk z"l by her children Naomi Samuel, Karen Frohlich and Matti Munk and families on her first yahrzeit 19 Tishrei. Judith was born in Hungary, survived the holocaust with only her mother and moved to England after the war. She was intelligent, kind, and knowledgeable in many different topics. She loved learning Torah and attending thought-provoking shiurim. She would be proud to know that her children learned daf yomi this year. Keeping mitzvot was important to her and she excelled particularly at kivud Aim looking after her mother until she passed away at 98, thereby fulfilling her father z"l''s request to her, from the labour camp, to look after her mother. She is sorely missed, may the learning of this daf be an ilui to her neshama.

The discussion about traping on Yom Tov continue. If one dammed a water channel before Yom Tov, one can take fish from there on Yom Tov. Can one derive from her that an animal who enters an orchard and gives birth there, the offspring is considered already trapped there and one can slaughter it on Yom Tov? Can one slaughter an animal on Yom Tov to prevent it from dying and becoming a neveila? Under what circumstances is this permitted? Rami bar Abba taught that a butcher should flay the hide of the animal and cut it up before eating for derech eretz. Was this just an etiquette issue or a halakhic issue? The Gemara concludes it was etiquette so one not look gluttonous. Other sources are brought that mention other related laws. Rami bar Abba also mentioned other things that one should learn regarding proper behavior. From here the Gemara segues to characteristics about the Jewish people and why they were the ones who received the Torah. One cannot carry the meat one has slaughtered on a pole or on poles on Yom Tov. Why not? Can one carry people in chairs? Under what circumstances?

Beitzah 24 - September 24, 18 Tishrei Sep 24, 2021

Study Guide Beitzah 24

Today’s daf is sponsored by Ahava Liebtag in memory of her grandmother, Hilda Morgenstern, a’h, on her yahrzeit, who often remarked at how much women’s learning had grown in her own lifetime. "I know she’d be thrilled about the Hadran community." And for her grandfather, Arthur Morgenstern, who shares her yahrzeit, "who cheered on his children and grandchildren to tackle any challenge. I miss you both."

There is a contradiction between our Mishna which permits trapping an undomesticated animal and birds from an enclosure on Yom Tov and a braita which does not permit it. The Gemara brings resolutions for each (the birds and the undomesticated animals). One solution is to distinguish between a small/large enclosure. What is the definition of each? Rav ashi brings three possible explanations. According to Rashbag, you are not liable for trapping on Yom Tov if the animal is already considered trapped. How is this defined? Is it possible to take an animal, chicken or fish from a trap or net that was set up before Yom Tov? Does one need to know it was trapped before? What if one is unsure? Rabban Gamliel and the rabbis disagree. Shmuel rules to be stringent like the rabbis, but it is not clear on what source Shmuel said this – our Mishna or possibly on one of two other braitot. Rav and Levi disagree regarding what Rabban Gamliel permitted in a case of doubt – to be allowed to carry it or also allowed to eat it. Rav claims that Levi disagreed with him and he left the beit midrash early one day and did not hear when Rebbe retracted his statement. Another difficulty is raised on Levi but it is resolved. If a gentile brought a gift to a Jew, how can one determine whether it was picked on Yom Tov and would be forbidden? One also has to check if it was brought from outside one’s boundaries that are permitted to him/her on Shabbat (techum Shabbat). In the item is forbidden, when after Yom Tov can it be eaten?

Beitzah 23 - September 23, 17 Tishrei Sep 23, 2021

Study Guide Beitzah 23

Today’s daf is sponsored anonymously in memory of Batsheva Esther bat Yosef Shalom, Rebbetzin Batsheva Kanievsky.

The Gemara discusses different opinions and different laws related to burning aromatic spices in other to produce scents on Yom Tob. Rabbi Gaviha permitted ketura. Ameimar wants to understand what ketura is and Rav Ashi answers him that it is smoking fruits and is permitted as it is similar to putting meat on coals. The rabbis forbade eating a goat mekulas (roasted in the way the Pesach sacrifice was roasted) on Passover night because it will cause people to think that after the destruction of the Temple, people can eat sacrificial meat outside of Jerusalem. The Mishnah lists three things that Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria permitted, even though the Sages did not. He permitted for a cow to go out on Shabbat with a decorative strap between its horns and did not forbid it because of the requirement for animals to rest as well. He permitted one to comb an animal on Yom Tov with a fine comb to remove ticks and lice. And to grind pepper in its mill. Rabbi Yehuda forbade combing an animal with a fine comb and the rabbis forbade it even with a thick wooden comb. What is the basis for the dispute between the three? The Mishnah explains the laws of impurity to the three parts of the mill - and why each part is susceptible to impurity. The Mishnah speaks of laws related to a child’s wagon in matters of impurity, of carrying it on Shabbat, and also in the matter of dragging it on the ground on Shabbat. The third chapter begins with a discussion of trapping on Yom Tov - when it is permitted/not permitted to trap fish/birds/animals on Yom Tov.

Beitzah 23 - September 23, 17 Tishrei Sep 23, 2021

Study Guide Beitzah 23

Today’s daf is sponsored anonymously in memory of Batsheva Esther bat Yosef Shalom, Rebbetzin Batsheva Kanievsky.

The Gemara discusses different opinions and different laws related to burning aromatic spices in other to produce scents on Yom Tob. Rabbi Gaviha permitted ketura. Ameimar wants to understand what ketura is and Rav Ashi answers him that it is smoking fruits and is permitted as it is similar to putting meat on coals. The rabbis forbade eating a goat mekulas (roasted in the way the Pesach sacrifice was roasted) on Passover night because it will cause people to think that after the destruction of the Temple, people can eat sacrificial meat outside of Jerusalem. The Mishnah lists three things that Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria permitted, even though the Sages did not. He permitted for a cow to go out on Shabbat with a decorative strap between its horns and did not forbid it because of the requirement for animals to rest as well. He permitted one to comb an animal on Yom Tov with a fine comb to remove ticks and lice. And to grind pepper in its mill. Rabbi Yehuda forbade combing an animal with a fine comb and the rabbis forbade it even with a thick wooden comb. What is the basis for the dispute between the three? The Mishnah explains the laws of impurity to the three parts of the mill - and why each part is susceptible to impurity. The Mishnah speaks of laws related to a child’s wagon in matters of impurity, of carrying it on Shabbat, and also in the matter of dragging it on the ground on Shabbat. The third chapter begins with a discussion of trapping on Yom Tov - when it is permitted/not permitted to trap fish/birds/animals on Yom Tov.

Beitzah 22 - September 22, 16 Tishrei Sep 22, 2021

Study Guide Beitzah 22

Rabban Gamliel was stringent like Beit Shamai in three laws related to Yom Tov. He did not allow one to warm up hot water and wrap it to keep warm on Yom Tov for Shabbat. In what situation was this – with an Eruv Tavshilin or without? Rabbi Huna, Rava and Abaye each explain it in a different way. Rabban Gamliel also was stringent to not allow a menorah that hadfallen to be picked up. An explanation is brought that the debate is regarding a cnadelbra made in parts and the issue is whether or not building vessels is part of the melacha of building or not. The Gemara continues to discuss various laws regarding the lighting of candles on Shabbat and Yom Tov. Is it permissible to use an eye salve on Yom Tov? Is it permissible on Shabbat by a gentile? On what does it depend? Is it allowed on the second good day of Rosh Hashanah? Rabban Gamliel's third stringency was that he did not permit a thick dough to be made. A braita is brought showing a debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel about making a thick dough on Pesach. Is it a leavening issue or a Yom Tov issue? Rabban Gamliel also was lenient against the rabbis in three laws – sweeping the floors on Yom Tov, putting spices on hot coals to make a nice smell in the room and eating a whole goat with the innards on the top or sides as the Pesach sacrifice was roasted. For what purpose did he allow the spices to be roasted - for a better smell for clothing or for people? Rabbi Asi first said the issue was for clothing but after raising a question from a braita, it was determined that the debate was for a smell for people. Is it permitted to smoke fruit – this is a matter of dispute between Rav and Shmuel.

Beitzah 21 - 1st Day of Sukkot, September 21, 15 Tishrei Sep 20, 2021

This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Noam Eliezer ben Yael Chaya v'Aytan Yehoshua.

Is it possible to slaughter an animal on Yom Tov if it is jointly owned by a Jew and a gentile? How is it different from vow and gift offerings? Is it different preparing a dough owned jointly by a Jew and a gentile? Can one invite a gentile for a meal on the holiday? Should there be a concern that he will cook more food because the gentile is coming? Is that an issue? If so, is the law more lenient on Shabbat where there is no such concern? There is a dispute between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel is whether it is possible to light a fire for heating or water for washing. Rabban Gamliel was stringent like Beit Shamai in three matters. What were they?

Beitzah 20 - September 20, 14 Tishrei Sep 20, 2021

Study Guide Beitzah 20

This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Noam Eliezer ben Yael Chaya v'Aytan Yehoshua.

Today's daf is sponsored by Danielle Barta in memory of Michelle Daman Wasserman - Gittel Frieda bat Sarah whose yahrzeit is tomorrow. "Michelle was taken from us too early, 15 years ago, leaving behind two little girls who have grown into beautiful young women who would, no doubt, make her very proud. Michelle, you will always be my inspiration to be my best both in my avodat Hashem and my bein adam l'chevero. I miss you and think about you every day."

Rabbi Elazar Bar Shimon did not allow the use of a thanksgiving sacrifice to also be used to fulfill his duty to bring peace offerings for the holiday (the obligatory ones), even if it was so explicitly stipulated when one designated the animal. Why not? The Gemara illustrates this by bringing an example of one on his death bed who told someone I will give you 400 zuzim and you can marry my daughter. In this case, the condition is not effective. However, if he said it in the reverse order, it would be. Why? A student brought a braita before Rabbi Yitzchak Bar Abba bringing a drasha to derive the obligation for semicha on an obligatory burnt offering. Rabbi Yitzchak questions him as it seems his braita was stated only according to Beit Shamai as per their opinion in our Mishna that semicha can’t be performed on Yom Tov for obligatory peace offerings as semicha is not required for them. Likewise, semicha would also not be obligatory in obligatory burnt offerings, thus obviating the need for a drasha. The Gemara ultimately explains that the need for a drasha could be explained according to Beit Hillel as well. Rabbi Yitzchak’s question was based on the fact that the reason in the Mishnah for Beit Shamai to not permit semicha on Yom Tov was because it was not obligatory. Howver it appears in a braita that the reason is because he didn’t hold the semicha has to be performed immediately before the slaughtering of the animal and therefore, better to do it the day before. The Gemara answers that there are two different traditions regarding the reason for the dispute between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel in the Mishnah. There are stories told of Hillel the elder and Shamai’s students who clashed in the Temple regarding their debate. The Tosefta is brought in which Beit Hillel and Shamai each bring various arguments to support their opinions. The tana and Abba Shaul have a different tradition regarding their arguments and this is because they disagreed as to whether vow and gift offerings can be brought on Yom Tov according to Beit Hillel. Rav Huna thinks that whoever says they cannot be brought, holds it is forbidden by Torah law and not just a rabbinic decree. What if one transgressed and slaughtered the animal for a vow or gift offering, would one be able to sprinkle the blood on the altar on Yom Tov? Rabba and Rabba Bar Rav Huna disagree as to why it would be permitted.

Beitzah 19 - September 19, 13 Tishrei Sep 19, 2021

Study Guide Beitzah 19

Today’s daf is sponsored by Joanna Rom in remembrance of her mother, Rose Rom (Sura Razel), on her thirteenth yahrzeit. “She is still with me every day, my inner teacher."

There is a controversy as to whether it is forbidden to purify a vessel bein hashmashot (twilight) on Yom Tov only or is it forbidden also on a weekday during twilight? What is the basis for the dispute? What is the meaning of the Mishna that one can purify a vessel from one use to another or one group to another? Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree on what sacrifices can be brought on Yom Tov. There is a tanaitic debate about which types of sacrifices Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel agree on and on which they disagree. Does everyone agree that vow and gift offerings are not allowed to be sacrificed on Yom Tov? The Gemara proves that there is a dispute among tannaim on this and brings braitot to prove it. One of the braitot deals with the laws of the thanksgiving sacrifice - on which holidays is it possible/not possible to offer it? Why? And what is the controversy that appears there regarding the prohibition to not delay bringing one’s vow and gift offerings?

Beitzah 18 - Shabbat September 18, 12 Tishrei Sep 17, 2021

Why is it forbidden to purify vessels in a mikveh on Shabbat? There are four answers to this question. Rabba says that it is a decree that one may come to carry the vessels four cubits in the public domain. On a Yom Tov, they decreed not to permit it as it may lead to people doing it on Shabbat. The Gemara cites five different sources to raise a difficulty against Raba’s explanation as there are cases that we do not issue a decree and if we issue in our case, why would they not issue the decree there as well? For each case, it is explained why there is no need to issue a decree - either because it is an uncommon case and the rabbis don’t issue a decree on uncommon cases or because there is no concern that if we permit that action, people will come to think it is permitted in a different case due to unique circumstances. Rav Yosef gives another reason for forbidding the immersion of vessels in the mikveh - a decree lest one squeeze out the water from the object. Rabbi Bibi says a decree lest one delay purifying the vessels purposely for Shabbat/Yom Tov. Rava says it is forbidden as it looks like one is fixing a utensil. If so, why is a person allowed to go to a mikveh? The answer given is that it can appear as if one is going in to cool off. What about dirty water, going in the winter, or on Yom Kippur? The Gemara brings an answer to each of these questions. Regarding Yom Kippur, Rava claims that since (ho’il) it is permitted on Shabbat, it also is permitted on Yom Kippur. The Gemara raises a question against this as regarding a different issue – sipping vinegar to cure a toothache on Shabbat – Rava does not use the “since/ho’il” argument. They conclude that Rava changed his position on the matter of Shabbat. The Mishnah said that it is permissible to put water into a mikvah to purify it but it is forbidden to use an impure vessel and have it become purified in the water. The Mishnah does not seem to conform to the method of Rebbi or the Sages as it appears in a braita that Rebbi forbids in both and Sages permit in both. The Gemara provides a response for how to explain the Mishnah according to both opinions - depending on whether the subject in each source/sentence refers to Shabbat or Yom Tov.

Beitzah 17 - September 17, 11 Tishrei Sep 17, 2021

Study Guide Beitzah 17

Today's learning is sponsored by Leora and Marty Fineberg, in memory of Miriam Adler, Leora's mother, on her third yahrzeit, whose yahrzeit was on Yom Kippur. As a young girl, she begged her father to teach her Gemara so she could expand her knowledge. She would have loved to know that her daughter and daughter-in-law are pursuing that path.

Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree about how many blessings should be said in Shmone Esreh when a Yom Tov falls on Shabbat - seven or eight? What is the final line of the blessing according to Beit Hillel? Rebbe explained the final line differently. There are two versions of what exactly Rebbe said. On Shabbat Rosh Chodesh, where in the prayer is Rosh Chodesh mentioned? There are three different opinions. Is there a difference between Mussaf and the other prayers? Is it possible to place an Eruv Techimim or Eruv Tashilin on a two-day Yom Tov in the Diaspora on one day to another upon condition? Is there a difference between these two Eruvs regarding this law? Although it is forbidden to bake from one Yom Tov to the next, how can this be done in a permitted manner? If one did not make an Eruv, is one only forbidden to cook or is one’s flour also forbidden – the relevance being can one or does one need to transfer rights of one’s flour to another so that someone else can cook for him/her? If one transgressed and baked without an Eruv for Shabbat, is it permissible to eat what one baked? The Gemara tries to bring an answer from five different sources but all the answers are rejected. The Gemara quotes Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar who understood the debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel regarding how many cooking dishes are needed for an Eruv Tavshilin in a different manner. The Mishnah discusses the purification of vessels and a person on Shabbat that falls on the eve of the holiday - is it permissible to purify oneself in honor of the holiday or should everything be done from before Shabbat? In what way can one purify water on Shabbat or Yom Tov?

Beitzah 16 - Yom Kippur, September 16, 10 Tishrei Sep 15, 2021

Today’s daf is sponsored by Gitta Neufeld in loving memory of our honorary Zaidy, Marvin Stokar, Meir ben Aryeh Leib HaLevi a"h. Zaidy Marvin's delight in Torah learning and particularly the daf yomi still resonate. May he be a meilitz yosher for our cherished Bubbie Fran and his entire family. We miss him so much!

A person’s livelihood for the year is allocated from Rosh Hashana until Yom Kippur except for Shabbat and Yom Tov expenses and Torah study expenses for his children. From where is this derived? What is the dispute between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel regarding our approach to food for Shabbat – if during the week, we see something good, should we leave it for Shabbat or can we eat and assume that we will find another one like it before Shabbat? One who gives a gift to one’s friend does not need to inform him. This is derived from Moshe who did not know that his face was radiant. But the Gemara raises a difficulty for this law from other sources that show that a gift should be made known. How does the Gemara distinguish between the cases? What foods can be used for Eruv Tavshilin? What are the criteria? There are different versions of the discussion. Rabbi Abba says it should be the size of an olive. Is it an olive for everyone and an olive for each person? The Gemara cites several sources to raise difficulties on Rabbi Abba but resolves them. One needs to have intent when doing an Eruv Tavshilin. Is it the intent of the person who made the Eruv or the intent of someone who is benefitting from another’s Eruv? Cases are brought to highlight that one can make an Eruv on behalf of others without their knowledge. But a story is told in which Samuel was not willing to let one person benefit from his Eruv - why? Rebbe and Sages disagree - is it possible to make an Eruv Chatzirot “(to permit carrying) on Yom Tov for Shabbat? There are two versions as to who forbids and who permits. How did Rava rule on the subject?

Beitzah 15 - September 15, 9 Tishrei Sep 15, 2021

Today's daf is sponsored by Odi and Judy, in honor of the birth of baby girl to Elana Perlin, her husband Steven, and her children, Shira and Avi. Tizku l'gadlah l'Torah, l'chupah u'l'ma'asim tovim. And Elana, continued hatzlacha learning the Daf Yomi -- so proud of you that you've been able to keep it up 'til now! And by Eden Prywes in honor of his wife Adele Druck and her mother Susan Fishbein.

It is permissible to send a gift with a material made out of wool and linen on Yom Tov. Why? What can it be used for? It is forbidden to give a gift of a spiked sandal because it is forbidden to wear this kind of sandal on Shabbat or Yom Tov - why was it forbidden? There was a tragedy that was mentioned in Shabbat 60 where Jews trampled each other and the decree was then instituted. What other types of shoes should not be gifted on Yom Tov? It is permissible to send tefillin even though they are not worn on Shabbat because they reread the Mishna to say that anything that will make a person happy even if it is not usable on that day, can be sent as a gift. If one was wearing tefillin and Shabbat came in, can one bring them back to one’s house? Under what circumstances? Chapter Two begins with a discussion of cooking from Yom Tov for Shabbat and Eruv Tavshilin that permits it. How many cooked dishes does one need for the eruv do you need? Dispute between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel. What is the source in the Torah for Eruv Tavshilin? And what is the reason for it? A story is told of Rabbi Eliezer who was teaching all day on Yom Tov and gradually students started leaving to observe the commandment of Simchat Yom Tov. He was angry with them for leaving the beit midrash. He was very upset with them – why? What about the mitzva of Simchat Yom Tov? There is a dispute between him and Rabbi Yehoshua - Do you dedicate either the whole day for God (learning Torah) or the whole day for yourselves (meaning to sanctify the day by eating)? Or half for you and half for God?

Beitzah 14 - September 14, 8 Tishrei Sep 14, 2021

Today’s daf is dedicated in honor of my brother Jon Cohen who started the daf in Masechet Nidda at the end of the last cycle and has kept it up since!! Happy birthday!

Is it possible to grind spices and salt on Yom Tov and if so, what is allowed/forbidden, and is a change necessary? There are two different opinions regarding the Beit Shamai/Beit Hillel dispute in this matter. What about grains? Is it only permitted in a small mortar and pestle or is even that a problem? How can one separate (borer) between food and waste on Yom Tov? It is a matter of dispute between Beit Shamai/Beit Hillel/Rabban Gamliel. Is it permitted to send gifts on a Yom Tov? What kind of things are permitted to send? Dispute between Beit Shamai/Beit Hillel/Rabbi Shimon. What limitations are there on how it can be sent? Clothes can be sent even if not sewn, even if they are mixed wool/linen (shaatnez). How can one send shaatnez if it is forbidden to wear them in any way and it is also forbidden to sit on them? What can they possibly be used for on Yom Tov? Unfinished sandals cannot be sent because they are not usable on Yom Tov as is.

Beitzah 13 - September 13, 7 Tishrei Sep 13, 2021

Study Guide Beitzah 13

This week of learning is sponsored in memory of Florence Pine, Fayga bat Moshe Mordechai v’Sara Rivka, on her first yartzeit, 7 Tishrei, by her daughter, Debbie Pine. "My mother was a passionate supporter of both education for women and Jewish education. She’d be awed by the enthusiasm and commitment of the women of Hadran. She is missed every day, but especially today. Yehi z’chra Baruch."

Today's daf is sponsored by Danny and Sara Berelowitz in honor of their newest granddaughter, Gaya Rachel, daughter of Yoel and Daniella Sterman.

In an attempt to explain Rava’s reading of a braita, that permitted husking kernels on Yom Tov, which would imply that one could take teruma (as one is not obligated in teruma until after that stage) with our mishna that says that one cannot separate teruma on Yom Tov, the gemara brings a debate between Rebbe and Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda and reconciles the mishna with Rabbi Yosi’s position and the braita with Rebbe’s. Their debate was about one who brought stalks into his house to husk them and eat the kernels, rather than to make it into flour and make a dough. According to Rabbi Yosi, one would not be obligated in teruma as they never become fully processed. Rebbe holds that since you want to eat the kernels, they are considered a finished product for the purpose you are intending and therefore would be obligated in teruma. Abaye holds that their debate is only regarding grains but legumes they would all agree. However, two different versions of Abaye are brought regarding legumes. Do they all agree legumes are obligated in tithes when they are bundled or do they both agree they are not obligated? For each version, the same braita is brought, either to support his claim or to refute. However, the support is disproven as it is inconclusive and the refutation is answered. In the second version, the law regarding a Levite who receives his tithe before the owner is even obligated to tithe the produce is discussed. As things were done out of the order (the kohen should have received teruma first) and before it was even obligated in teruma, what needs to happen? Can one compare the rules for what process is needed to obligated one to tithe their produce with what actions are forbidden on Shabbat? How exactly does one husk the kernels on Yom Tov, as it needs to be done in a way that is somewhat different from the usual manner?

Beitzah 12 - September 12, 6 Tishrei Sep 12, 2021

Study Guide Beitzah 12

Today’s daf is sponsored by Adrienne Robb Fund in honor of Michelle Farber "for all that she does to promote learning! Thanks for coming to Long Island!"

Can one carry on Yom Tov in the public domain items that are not needed for eating, such as a child, a lulav, or a Sefer Torah? Beit Shamai does not permit it but Beit Hillel does. Is the root of their debate whether or not they think there is no prohibition to carry on Yom Tov or is it whether we say that since carrying was permitted for eating purposes, we, therefore, permit it for other things as well? Another debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel is whether or not one can bring a kohen the gifts that are meant for him, such as challah and parts of the animal after it is slaughtered. There are several different opinions about exactly what case they disagree - is it regarding gifts that were separated both before and during Yom Tov, or only ones that were separated before Yom Tov and they are brought without ones that were separated on Yom Tov, or is the debate only regarding truma? According to which opinion is the one stated in the mishna? According to which opinion do we hold by? A case was asked of Rava whether one could crush mustard stalks to remove the mustard seed on Yom Tov. Rava permitted it. Abaye questions him both from a braita and then from our mishna.

Beitzah 11 - Shabbat September 11, 5 Tishrei Sep 10, 2021

If one designated birds from one nest and found birds in front of the nest on Yom Tov instead of in the nest, they are forbidden because they may not be the ones he designated. Is it because when there is "majority" and "proximity", we follow the majority? Rava and Abaye explain the case - each in a different way, each showing that this is not a case where proximity is different than the majority. What does the mishna means when it says that if there are no more chicks in the area, then it can be assumed that what one finds is what was designated? Isn't it obvious?! Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree on the matter of using a pestle on Shabbat for cutting meat, a permitted activity. Abaye derives from the mishna that only a pestle is forbidden by Beit Shammai, but a wooden anvil would be permitted. There is a slightly different version of Abaye’s opinion. According to the second version, Beit Shamai is not concerned that one will change one’s mind regarding the use of the anvil – however, this contradicts other cases where Beit Shami is concerned one will change one’s mind. What is the difference between the cases? How can one take care of the hide of an animal that is slaughtered on Yom Tov? Can one put it on the floor and people will trample on it? What can be done with the forbidden fats of the animal on Yom Tov? Is it possible to salt a few pieces of meat on a Yom Tov if you only need one for the holiday? Is it possible to remove shutters in a store on Yom Tov to sell items needed for the holiday? Is it possible to return them to their place after, to protect the goods? There is a dispute between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel on the issue. Ulla counts three cases and Rechava adds a fourth in which something is allowed because of its beginning - in order for people to perform another mitzvah, such as to ensure people will slaughter animals and fulfill the mitzvah of Simchat Yom Tov. Why did Ulla have to indicate these cases - what was not clear in the mishnayot in which all these cases were mentioned? Why did Ulla not mention the case of Rehava? How did Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar understand differently the dispute between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel regarding the shutters? And in which case did they agree - with/without a hinge? What kind of hinge?

Beitzah 10 - September 10, 4 Tishrei Sep 10, 2021

Study Guide Beitzah 10

Today’s daf is sponsored by Lydia Medwin in memory of her grandmother Helen Bloom. "We never met, but as I carry your name, I like to think that you'd be proud of how I carry our tradition and my new-found love of Talmud as well. I always think of you when I pull out your china for the holidays. May your soul be in perfect rest." And “A shout out to all the Daf Yomi learners in Santa Barbara, CA from Hazzan Mark Childs.”

The Gemara mentions a few more mishnayot in which Beit Shamai is stricter and Beit Hillel is lenient regarding Simchat Yom Tov and raises the contradiction from the first mishna where Beit Shamai is lenient and Beit Hillel is stricter (covering the blood). The structure of the answer is similar to the structure of the answers given earlier when asked the same question about other mishnayot. Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree about designation of the chicks beforehand - should they be taken in hand when summoned or it is sufficient to just point with one’s finger. Is the controversy in the first brood of birds or the second? What is the basis of the controversy? Why does Beit Hillel not think it is sufficient to say, “I will take birds from here tomorrow” and based on laws of retroactive designation, it should work. The Gemara rejects the possibility that Beit Hillel does not hold by retroactive designation. So how can his opinion be explained? If one designated birds and when one returned to take them, he/she found a different situation than was before, what is the law? If they were black and there were white ones or there were three and now only two or vice versa, is one permitted to take them? If there were three and now only two, it is permissible to assume that one flew and the two remained. Does this only correspond to the opinion of Rebbi and not the rabbis that disagree in the case of money from the second tithe that one placed aside and when he/she returned there was less money than he/she remembered leaving? The Gemara explains how the rabbis would still agree with our mishna, despite their opinion regarding the second tithe as the cases aren’t comparable.

Beitzah 9 - Tzom Gedalia, September 9, 3 Tishrei Sep 09, 2021

Study Guide Beitzah 9

Today’s daf is sponsored by Elimelech and Reena Lebowitz in honor of Zisi Turner Berkowitz on becoming a Yoetzet Halacha. "May all your decisions be strong and with love."

Is it possible to move a ladder from dovecote to dovecote to take out birds to eat on Yom Tov? Beit Shamai forbids and only allows tilting from window to window. Beit Hillel permits moving it. Rabbi Hanan Bar Ami limits the controversy to the public domain but in his opinion, but in private, all will permit it. Beit Shamai forbids in the public domain because of marit haayin, people will see and think one is moving in order to plaster his roof. And Beit Hillel believes that there is no concern about that because there is a different ladder that is used to climb to the roof. Rav Hanan’s opinion contradicts Rav who holds that where sages forbade because of marit haayin, they also forbade in private? The answer is that this issue is a tannitic debate and each holds by a different tanaitic opinion. There is another version in the words of Rabbi Hanan and the difficulty raised by Rav’s opinion and a different resolution to the question is brought. The Gemara brings a braita in which there is a different understanding in the dispute between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel. According to the braita they disagree regarding returning the ladder but to bring it, all agree that it is allowed. The braita also brings up other opinions regarding the type of ladder that is being debated and whether it is only permissible to tilt or even move slowly. It is told of the sons of Rabbi Chiya who permitted something with a ladder because they understood the braita in a certain way but Rabbi Chiya proved them wrong in their understanding and made them undo their ruling. There are two versions to the story regarding what they permitted and why they thought it was allowed and on what basis Rabbi Chiya disagreed with them. If Beit Shamai is strict here, even though it is for the purposes of Simchat Yom Tov, why is he lenient regarding covering the blood (in the first mishna)? And why is Beit Hillel lenient here and strict there? Rabbi Yochanan suggests exchanging their views on the issue of covering the blood. But the Gemara rejects these words and suggests that there are distinctions between the cases. The same question is raised from the next mishna and the same type of answers are given.

Beitzah 8 - Second Day of Rosh Hashana, September 8, 2 Tishrei Sep 06, 2021

The gemara deals with issues relating to covering the blood and laws of muktze of earth and ashes.

Beitzah 7 - 1st Day of Rosh Hashana, September 7, 1 Tishrei Sep 06, 2021

Study Guide Beitzah 7

Today's daf is sponsored by Ellen Werlin and Rachel Geballe in honor of the yartzeit of Jim Dinerstein who was a life long learner who taught his daughters to pursue learning and a sense you can always try a new challenge, two ways of many that he inspires them as they learn the daf.

The Gemara brings three more options to explain the sentence: An egg is completed when it exits. A creature who mates during the day will give birth during the day – this statement refers to chickens. What is the halakhic relevance of this sentence? The Gemara discusses the dispute between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel over the requisite amounts for chametz/seor. Where in the Torah did they derive their opinions? And what exactly is the subject of the controversy? What is their point of contention regarding the covering of the blood on Yom Tov?

v?

Beitzah 6 - September 6, 29 Elul Sep 06, 2021

How would they bury the dead on Yom Tov – what is the difference between the first day and the second? On the first day, by gentiles and the second by Jews. There is a discussion about burial on the second day of Rosh Hashanah - is it like Yom Tov in the Diaspora or not? Is it only permitted if the person died before Yom Tov or even on Yom Tov? Because of the fear that the chabarim (hostile gentiles) would see them burying and thinking that work was permitted as well, Ravina forbade burying the dead on the second day of Yom Tov. Is it possible to make an eruv tavshilin on Yom Tov in the Diaspora on condition (if today is Yom Tov…)? Is it the same for Rosh Hashanah? There is a dispute between Rav and Shmuel or Rabbi Yochanan regarding the law of a chick born on Yom Tov. According to Rav who forbids, what is the difference between this and a calf born that is allowed to be slaughtered on Yom Tov? There are braitot to strengthen the views of Rav and Shmuel/Rabbi Yochanan. Rav Huna said on behalf of Rav that an egg is completed when it exits. What is meant by that statement? The Gemara brings five possibilities to understand this (part on page 7).

Beitzah 5 - September 5, 28 Elul Sep 05, 2021

Study Guide Beitzah 5

Today’s daf is sponsored anonymously for the yahrzeit of Shaul ben Kish, Shaul Hamelech and Gershon Chaim Alter ben Shaul George Rosenberg, Rhona Plunka’s father.

An egg laid on the first day of Rosh Hashanah - is it permitted on the second day? Are two days of Rosh Hashanah one sanctity or two? Rav and Shmuel forbid the egg. To their understanding, because they kept instituted in the time of the Temple that they would not accept witnesses after the mincha offering was brought, two days of Rosh Hashanah became one long holiday – one sanctity. If so, an egg born on the first day would be forbidden on the second. Rabba disagrees and points out that after the ordinance of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, after the destruction, that witnesses will be received after mincha, it became a matter of doubt again and an egg born on the first day would be permitted on the second. The Gemara bring three more opinions - of Rav Yosef, Rabbi Ada and Rabbi Shalman, and Rava who all hold that despite the change of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, the egg is still forbidden. According to Rav Yosef, something determined by a vote of the Rabbis needs a new vote to repeal it and Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai changed the matter of setting the date but not the issue of the egg. From where does Rav Yosef prove this issue about repealing? Rav Ada and Rav Shalman forbid the egg because of concern the when the Temple will soon be built and we will return to the previous regulation that we do not accept witnesses from mincha, then again two days of Rosh Hashanah will be one sanctity and people will err and think that the egg is still allowed as it was the year before. Rava forbids because Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai only amended his regulation regarding determining the date but still the first regulation remains that they kept two days as was practiced in the time of the Temple. Raba stated that we rule like Rav in three cases regarding an egg and one of them is in the above case, that an egg laid on the first day of Rosh Hashana is forbidden on the second day.

Beitzah 4 - Shabbat September 4, 27 Elul Sep 03, 2021

Study Guide Beitzah 4

In trying to explain the braita regarding a case of doubt with an egg as relating to a doubt relating to an egg that possibly came from a treifa bird, the Gemara concludes that the braita must have been authored by the tana who appear in the Mishna/Tosefta in Terumot regarding a litra of pressed figs that are teruma that get mixed up with others. There is an opinion there that it is not nullified as it is sometimes sold by quantity. That would explain also the reason by the case of the treifa egg would also not be nullified. An entirely different explanation is brought by Rav Ashi to explain the braita - that it is, in fact, referring to an egg that was laid on Yom Tov and the reason why we are strict is that it is something that will be permitted tomorrow and therefore "one may as well just wait." A braita that holds like Beit Shamai is brought. The Gemara works to understand what case the braita is referring to. When Yom Tov falls adjacent to Shabbat, can we permit an egg born on the first day to be eaten on the second? Rav and Rabbi Yochanan disagree and some cases are brought showing how we rule. Rabbi Yochana rules differently regarding branches that fell from a tree - why does he distinguish between the two cases? What about two days on Yomi Tov in the Diaspora - would an egg be born on one day be permitted on the second? Rav and Rav Asi disagree - what is the root of their debate?

Beitzah 3 - September 3, 26 Elul Sep 03, 2021

Study Guide Beitzah 3

This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik in honor of her daughter, Rivkah Wyner, "who recently made aliyah, and in memory of Rivkah's namesake, Lisa's maternal grandmother, Regina Post z"l, a Holocaust survivor from Lubaczow, Poland who lived in Brooklyn, NY during the post-Shoah stage of her life. Babi Gina's yahrzeit was on the 24 Elul. It is very fitting that Rivkah's first day out of biddud after her flight from the States & her first day of work was on her great-grandmother's 22nd yahrzeit. It is also so special that 24 Elul 5781 coincided with the Daf Yomi Siyum of Masechet Sukkah! In Rabbi Malik's words, "Sukkot is the holiday that most reminds me of my grandmother, a true Eshet Chayil and my spiritual mentor, who used to serve her yummy fricassee, chicken soup, roast chicken, potato kugel, & broccoli kugel by placing the dishes in a bucket that was lowered by a pulley from the 2nd floor to the green faux malachite Sukkah in her backyard on East 8th Street and Avenue J in Midwood/Flatbush. My Babi Gina would be so proud of her great-granddaughter for making aliyah & the daily spiritual practice of Daf Yomi learning to which I have committed myself since January 2020. She would be especially proud that I am studying with a master teacher, the fabulous Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber, who also attended the Yeshivah of Flatbush. I look forward to completing the next 3 masechtot while spending time with Rivkah in Jerusalem over the next 3 months!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Dana Melzer in honor of her grandfather, Rev Ely Meltzer. "My grandfather was a devoted lifelong Talmud scholar and teacher." And by Deborah Dickson in honor of Ruby Levant's Bar Mitzvah this Shabbat. "Wishing a huge Mazal Tov to Audrey and Geri who are listening to the daf, and to the Levant family!"

The gemara raises some questions on the third explanation of the mishna – that the issue with an egg laid on Yom Tov is because it is similar to fruits that have fallen off a tree. Rabbi Yitzchak says that the egg is forbidden so that people don’t think that one is permitted to drink liquids that drip out of a fruit. The gemara raises questions with this answer as well. After all four explanations are brought, they explain what issue each of them had with the other answers. They conclude that Rabbi Yochanan held by the opinions of Rabbi Yitzchak based on the way he resolved a contradiction between two mishnayot. There are two other possible resolutions to that contradiction. A braita is introduced that says that in a doubtful situation regarding an egg, the egg is forbidden. This is brought as a question against Rav Yosef and Rabbi Yitzchak’s explanations of the mishna as the prohibition is rabbinic and as such, in a situation of doubt one should be lenient! The first answer given is that the case is not relating to an egg that is laid but an egg that there is a doubt whether it came from a chicken that was a treifa. A question is raised against this from the continuation of the braita regarding laws of nullification. This is eventually resolved as well.

Beitzah 2 - September 2, 25 Elul Sep 02, 2021

Study Guide Beitzah 2

Today’s daf is sponsored anonymously for the yahrzeit of Elazar ben Shimon, R. Elazar son of R. Shimon bar Yochai and Saadia ben Joseph, Rav Saadia Gaon.

There are three debates quoted in the first mishna between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel where Beit Shamai is more lenient. The topics are: an egg that was laid on Yom Tov – can it be eaten, what measurement of a leavening agent and chametz is one liable for if one ate it on Pesach, and can one slaughter an animal on Yom Tov if one does not have earth prepared to use for covering it? What type of hen is referred to in the mishna? Is it an egg from a hen that was designated for eating or for laying eggs? And if so, what is the point of contention between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel? The gemara will bring four answers. Rav Nachman says that this is a hen that is designated for laying eggs and Beit Shamai does not hold by laws of muktza/nolad. The gemara raises two questions against his position. One is resolved, the other is not. Raba said that the debate regarding the law of preparation – does things need to be prepared before Shabbat/Yom Tov and the problematic case is when Yom Tov falls after Shabbat. However, they instituted that even on a regular Yom Tov, not following Shabbat, they would forbid it so that people wouldn’t get confused and think it was permitted also when Yom Tov followed Shabbat. Rabbi Yosef gives a third answer - says that this is a decree because of fruits that fall from a tree on Shabbat – if we permit the egg, people will think the fruits are permitted as well. The fourth answer will be on page 3a.

Sukkah 56 - Siyum Masechet Sukkah - September 1, 24 Elul Sep 01, 2021

For the full Siyum Masechet Sukkah

English Study Guide Sukkah 56

Siyum Masechet Sukkah is dedicated by Miriam Tannenbaum in memory of her dear mother, Ruth Zemsky, רייזל בת יהושע הלוי וחיה קילא ז”ל whose 5th yahrzeit was observed yesterday, 23 Elul. In her life’s quest of Avodat Hashem, she embodied the oft-quoted motif in Masechet Sukkah of “דרכיה דרכי נעם” “her ways were ways of pleasantness”. Her example continues to inspire her children and grandchildren. Yehi Zichra Baruch.

On the holidays, all 24 groups of kohanim would work in the Temple. From where do we derive that they would divide the showbread equally among all of them and not the voluntary and peace offerings? On Shavuot, they would receive a part of the showbread and a part of the loaves of bread that accompanied the Shavuot sacrifice. The one distributing it would say “This is your matza” as he handed him the showbread, (which was unleavened) and “This is your chametz” as he handed him the bread from the Shavuot sacrifice. Why in that order? Does it connect with the debate between Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai regarding the order of the blessings of Kiddush: wine before the sanctification of the day or the day before the wine? Is it also similar to the debate regarding the order of the shehechiyanu blessing and the sitting the sukkah blessing? What parts of the sacrifice go to the group whose week fell out on the week of the holiday? How was the showbread distributed when the holiday fell out right after or finished right before Shabbat? Why? The showbread was usually distributed between the past week’s group and the upcoming week. Was it equal or did the incoming group get more? What is the debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis? Where did each group stand when they received their portion? Why? At what point in the day did they switch jobs? How were the sacrifices of Shabbat split between them? The family of Bilga was treated differently than the other groups of kohanim – in what way and why? Was it because of the action of Miriam, the daughter of Bilga who left Judaism and disgraced the Temple, or was it because they didn’t show up to work in the Temple?

Sukkah 55 - August 31, 23 Elul Aug 31, 2021

Study Guide Sukkah 55

Today’s daf is sponsored by David Tannor in honor of his wife, Naomi Shamah Esses. “I am so proud of you for having started and staying with daf yomi. B”H may we merit to share many more anniversaries together, ever increasing our study of Torah and basking in its light.” And for the yahrzeit of Yisrael Meir ben Aryeh Zev ha-Kohen, Rabbi Yisrael Meir ha-Kohen Kagan Chofetz Chaim which will be tomorrow.The gemara raises three questions against Rabbi Acha Bar Hanina’s position, that when there are several additional sacrifices, nine blasts are blown for each one. One is resolved, however the others remain difficult. But if Rabbi Acha relied on a verse and a braita, then how can one say that his opinion is difficult? The braita must be understood in a different manner. What do you say in the prayer abroad on the intermediary days of the holiday as it is unclear which day it actually is? Three opinions are presented in the Gemara - either skipping the second day or the seventh day or saying two every day. How was the sacrificial work on Sukkot divided into shifts by the mishmarot kehuna, the priestly groups? Every day the division was different because the number of bull offerings dropped every day by one. Rebbi and the rabbis disagree about the lottery for the bull on Shemini Atzeret - is it clear that the mishna holds by Rebbi or can it also be explained according to the rabbis? The seventy bulls sacrificed on the Sukkot are representative of the seventy nations and the one bull on Shmini Atzeret is representative of the Jewish people - and the Gemara brings a parable foo this idea. What priestly gifts were distributed to each shift on holidays and which gifts were intended only for that week’s shift? Where is this learned from?

Sukkah 54 - August 30, 22 Elul Aug 30, 2021

Study Guide Sukkah 54

The gemara compares the mishna that mentions the 48 trumpet blasts (according to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion) with a previous mishna that seemed to have a different calculation of the blasts. The mishna is attributed to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaacov who held that three of the blasts were done at the altar ceremony (at the time of the placing of the willow branch, according to Rashi). The earlier mishna held that there were no blasts at the altar ceremony, and instead, blasts were sounded during the procession “at the tenth step.” What is the rationale for this debate? Rabbi Acha bar Hanina holds that each musaf sacrifice engenders its own set of nine blasts. If this is the case, then our mishna which cites the case of Friday afternoon chol hamoed as the case where one has 48 blasts is problematic for there are other cases (such as Shabbat of chol hamoed) where one might also blow 48 because of the extra musaf blasts. Rabbi Zeira initially suggests that on Shabbat there were no blasts for the opening of the gates (which would mean there weren’t 48 blasts on Shabbat) but Rava rejects this for two reasons and notes that using the Shabbat case in the mishna would have advantages. Because of this, Rava suggests another explanation - that on Shabbat there were no blasts at the filling of the water as the water was filled the previous day. The gemara then notes a third case where there were 48 blasts, when Rosh Hashana fell on Shabbat, and ultimately comes to the conclusion that the example provides in our mishna was one of a few possible examples that could have been provided (tanna ve-shi'yer). What other case was left out? The gemara notes that the number 48 is not a maximum number of blasts because on the Passover holiday, there may have been more blasts in the temple - since the Passover sacrifice was offered in three groups and Hallel was recited by each group three times accompanied by blasts. This added another 27 blasts (3x3x3), thought Rabbi Yehuda held that the third group usually finished the sacrifice at the beginning of Hallel (thus engendering only 21 blasts). Together with the 3 blasts for the opening of the gates and the 18 for the daily sacrifices and the extra ones for the musaf, one might get to 51 or even 57 blasts, if the eve of Passover came out on a Shabbat. In order to save the integrity of the mishna (which said the maximum was 48), the gemara claims that the mishna was only talking about regular years and not atypical ones. This launches the gemara into a discussion whether it is possible to have the first day of Sukkot come out on a Friday, since such a year would also have Yom Kippur come out on a Sunday. This is a more fundamental debate between the rabbis and Acherim regarding whether the rabbis used a fixed calendar of days or fiddled with the calendar annually.

Sukkah 53 - August 29, 21 Elul Aug 29, 2021

Today’s daf is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of Arie Hochberg. You are a constant support in my journey of learning. Thank you for the encouragement and the joy.

What are the words of praise that would be said at the Simchat Bat Hashoeva? What would Hillel say to encourage people to keep in the way of God? Hillel, R. Yochanan, and also a story about King Solomon talk about how a person's feet lead him to the place he desires or to the place he is supposed to reach, sometimes against his will. There are stories about certain rabbis who are known to make special bows and knew how to juggle things like fire, knives, glasses full of wine, and eggs. The joy of the Simchat Bat Hashoeva lasted all night until the early morning when time the water was drawn from the Shiloach. They did not sleep all night- how was that possible? The fifteen stairs in the Temple corresponded to the fifteen chapters of Psalms that David sang in order to push back the waters of the depths that rose up to destroy the world when David dug the shitin, drainpipes. When the priests went down the stairs and blew the trumpets on the tenth step, Rabbi Yirmia asks: tenth from above or below? In the verse from Ezekiel that they would say at the ceremony, "Their backs to the temple of the Lord?" - what is the meaning of that? How could they say, "We are to God and to God our eyes" - it sounds like they are praying to two Gods? Blasts in the temple - There were between 21 and 48 trumpet blasts in the Temple - depending on the day. The mishna lists how many blasts were blown each day and for what purpose. On Sukkot on Friday afternoon, there would be 48. There is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the sages how to count blasts - is every tekia/terua/tekia considered one or three blasts?

Sukkah 52 - Shabbat August 28, 20 Elul Aug 27, 2021

Today’s daf is sponsored by Judy Shapiro for the 8th yahrzeit of her mother Deera Tychman, Tzvia Bracha bat Mordechai v'Chaya Tova. "I hope my mother's neshama is uplifted by my study of Torah and Daf Yomi."

How did they build a new structure for separating the men and women? Doesn't the Temple have to be built exactly the way it was handed down by tradition? The rabbis derived it from a verse in Zacharia which describes how the people will separate from each other during a great funeral that will be held in the future. Whose funeral? It is either the Meshaich who descends from Joseph or the evil inclination. Why would there be a funeral when God will "kill" the evil inclination? The gemara brings many statements regarding the evil inclination - how strong is it and how does it strengthen over time, by what names is it called, who has a bigger one, how often does it appear? Learning Torah is an antidote. God helps us also to overcome it. How are the four craftsmen described in Zecharia? Who are the seven shepherds and eight princes described in Micha? The gemara delves into the description in the mishna of the children of the kohanim who lit the lamps - how much oil did each of them carry?

Sukkah 51 - August 27, 19 Elul Aug 27, 2021

Study Guide Sukkah 51

Today’s daf is sponsored by Shulamit Tyberg-Isaacs in honor of her daughter, Dr. Shifra Tyberg. “Happy birthday! May your life continue to be enriched by your Torah study and may the blessings continue. With much love, Mommy and Kim." And in memory of Pinchas Mordechai ben Reuven Moshe who passed away tragically this week, by his brother-in-law and sister-in-law, Moshe and Jeanne Klempner. "Pinny was a tzaddik with a pure soul, who lived a life of Torah, chesed and mitzvot with absolute joy."

Is the central dimension of the ‘singing” in the temple performed by the person singing or is it the instrument? The gemara quotes the mishna Arakhin, Chapter 2, Mishnah 4, which focuses on the lineage of the people who sang during the temple service, and seeks to determine from this that there is a tannitic debate regarding what the main dimension of the signing is. Ultimately, the gemara rejects this line of reasoning and explains the controversy is simply a historical one with some legal ramifications regarding lineage. Rav Yosef (on Sukkah 50b) had suggested that the dispute between Rabbi Yossi Bar Yehuda and the sages relates to the flute played during the sacrificial sacrifices and not the flute of the Simchat Beit Hashoeva. In his theory, no one would claim that a flute could be used at a Simchat Bet Hashoeva on Shabbat. Rabbi Yirmiya bar Abba holds the opposite: The dispute is only about the “singing” of Simchat Bat Hashoeva, but as regards the “signing” at the time of a sacrifice, instruments could be used on Shabbat according to all. In order to support his opinion, the gemara brings a braita which in effect challenges both assumptions latent in Rabbi Yosef’s statement. In concluding this discussion, the gemara seeks proof texts (from the Book of Chronicles) for each of the two positions. The next mishna describes the drama of the Simchat Bet Hashoeva ceremony with the words “one who has not seen the joy of the joy of the Simchat Bet Hashoeva has never seen joy.” Candelabras were lit by children of kohanim, Levites stood on the steps playing musical instruments played and people would dance with torches. There were temporary structures placed in the temple for the Simchat Bet Hashoeva and two kohanim held a procession in which they blew trumpets as they exited the Temple. The gemara begins by describing other instances where the words "One who has not seen the... of... has not seen..." The structures described in the mishna that were built for the Simchat Beit Hashoeva were meant to separate men and women. The gemara describes the changes regarding these structures over time.

Sukkah 50 - August 26, 18 Elul Aug 26, 2021

Study Guide Sukkah 50

Today's daf is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the 4th yahrzeit of her father, Hershel Tzvi Shlomo Chaim ben Pesach and Dina Sara. When Judi was growing up in Pennsylvania, her family joked that it always rained on Sukkot. Her father passed away in Florida during Hurricane Irma. So it seems particularly fitting to remember him while learning Masechet Sukkah (even though it is not the rainy season in Israel). And for the yahrzeit of the Maharal, Judah Loew ben Bezalel.

The water libations override Shabbat, but there is one difference - the water is collected in a vessel that is not sanctified so that it will not be disqualified overnight. Why? After all, without intention, the vessel does not sanctify its contents so one should be able to put it in the vessel with the intent that it only becomes sanctified the following day! And there is a requisite amount so if there were to put a larger amount in the vessel, it would not become sanctified as the vessel only sanctifies when the proper amount is in it. Three possible answers are brought. If the water is left uncovered, it is invalid. Why is it not possible to take out the snake venom in a strainer? Is it because the mishna doesn’t hold like Rabbi Nechemiah who claims that venom can be removed by a strainer? The mishna mentions the playing of the flute in the Shoeva Celebration. Is the wording in the mishna “Shoeva celebration” or “Important celebration”?? Why would this event be called by these names? They used to play the flute in the temple during the Simchat Beit Hashoeva for five or six days because they do not play it on Yom Tov and Shabbat. This opinion is not agreed upon by everyone - Rabbi Yossi Bar Yehuda thinks that it also overrides Shabbat. However, Rav Yosef holds that his opinion and the debate between him and the rabbis concerns the flute that accompanied the daily sacrifice (12 days a year, including Sukkot) and not the flute of the Simchat Beit Hashoeva which clearly would not override Shabbat. The debate is whether the main part of the music is the singing or the instruments. He tries to prove that this is the root of their debate by bringing a different debate of Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda regarding wooden utensils – can they be used for sanctified utensils in the Temple or not – and tries to learn it from the wooden flute of Moshe. The gemara rejects his proof as it is possible to understand that the controversy there stems from another matter (two other possibilities are raised).

Sukkah 49 - August 25, 17 Elul Aug 25, 2021

Study Guide Sukkah 49

Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Cohn on the yahrzeit of her father Rav Dov Chaim ben Zeev z"l "who taught all his five daughters Talmud and the love of Torah. "Abballe: Since I started doing daf yomi with Rabanit Michelle I am reminded of many of your teachings and feel your presence." And a refuah shleima for Ashira bat Ilana Shoshana who is undergoing surgery today and Gavriel Moshe Ben Tzivia. And refuah shleima to Barel Achiya ben Nitza.

The shitin, drainpipes that were under the altar where the libation would be poured into, were already created in the creation of the world by God or by man? What verses imply that they were created in the six days of creation? To those who hold it was made by God, it descended into the depths of the earth. To Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok who held it was manmade, it has a floor. There was a marble tablet that cover up a hole in the ground where the wine would stop. Occasionally a young kohen would clean out coagulated wine that remained there and would be taken out and burned in sanctity. Why did it need to be burned? The mishna states that laws of meila do not apply to the libations once it is in the drainpipe. Is this mishna stated according to Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok or the rabbis? According to Reish Lakish they stopped up the drainpipes when they poured the wine to make it overflow to show satiation. Drashot are brought on the verses from the Song of Songs 7:2 that was quoted earlier as referring to the drainpipes. Now it is explained to relate to the pilgrimage to Jerusalem on the holidays. Another braita learns from this verse the importance of learning Torah with humility. Rabbi Elazar brings a drasha from another verse, teaching the same concept and he then brings several other drashot explaining the significance of going act of kindness, charity, justice, etc. He says that acts of kindness are more important than charity – why? What are the differences between then? He also explains what is meant by Torat chesed – two versions of what he said are brought.

Sukkah 48 - 16 Elul, August 24 Aug 24, 2021

Study Guide Sukkah 48

Today’s daf is sponsored by Dr. Daniel and Sara Berelowitz in honor of the marriage of Shevi Berelowitz to Jacob Namrow today. And by Mendel Rosbi in honor of his wife Chana Shacham-Rosbi on the occasion of her 35th birthday and her becoming a Yoetzet Halacha.

There is a braita to strengthen the opinion that we say shehechiyanu on Shemini Atzeret - there it is written that Shemini Atzeret is different in six ways and the acronym is Pz”r Ksh”v – P-payis- lottery, Z-zman - shehechiyanu, R-regel-holiday, K-karban - sacrifice, S-shir - song and B-bracha. One says Hallel and is required to fulfill the mitzva of simcha, eating sacrificial meat, on all eight days. How do you learn that there is an obligation of simcha even on Shmini Atzeret? What do you do on the seventh day of Sukkot after one has finished eating the last meal? Why? If one has no place inside one’s house to eat and needs the sukkah to eat on Shmini Atzeret, what does on do to make it clear that he/she is not sitting there to observe the mitzva of sitting in a sukkah? What difference is there in this matter between the people of Eretz Yisrael and the people living abroad? How would they do the water libations on Sukkot? From where did they bring the water? How much water did they bring? What route would the kohen take? Where would he pour the water? The one who poured the water would raise his hands because once there was a case where the kohen was a Sadducee and instead of pouring the water on the altar, he poured the water on his feet because the Sadducees claimed that there is no mitzvah of water libations. In response, the people stoned him with etrogs. What would they do differently on Shabbat? The gemara brings up an argument between two heretics whose names were "Sasson" and "Simcha". Each one brought verses with their name to show that he is better than the other. There is another dialogue between a heretic named Sasson and Rabbi Avahu. In the Temple, the kohanim would always turn to the right except for three instances and one of them is the water libations. Why? According to Rabbi Yehuda, the vessels on the altar into which the water and wine were poured were blackened - why? Why were the holes in the cups where the water and wine were poured of different sizes? Does the mishna that describes it follow the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda or the rabbis? The gemara tells a more detailed version of the story of the Sadducee who poured the water on his feet and tells that on that day the corner of the altar was damaged by the pelting and there fixed it with salt so that an altar would not appear damaged.

Sukkah 47 - August 23, 15 Elul Aug 23, 2021

Outside of Israel where the eighth day of the holiday is possibly the seventh (as they didn’t know exactly when the new moon was declared in Israel), do you sit in the Sukkah? There is a debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Rav. There are two different versions brought – each one understands differently - what exactly is the controversy over? Is it regarding sitting in the sukkah or making the blessing? And each one version concludes with the decision of Rav Yosef. The gemara concludes that one sits in the sukkah and does not make a blessing. Rabbi Yochanan says that we say shehechiyanu on Shmini Atzeret, the eighth day of the holiday as it is a separate holiday. The gemara brings four opinions explaining how we see that it is different (One is a list of laws that are different and the others derive from verses in the Torah). Why is it not similar to the seventh of Pesach that differs from the first day of Pesach, yet we do not say shehechiyanu? The gemara tries to prove Rabbi Yochanan’s opinion from a braita but it is rejected. The gemara discusses the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda regarding the requirement to stay overnight in Jerusalem on Shmini Atzeret (that was mentioned in the braita) and question it from another source. When they answer the question, they try to prove the answer from a mishna in Bikurim, but the proof is rejected. In the end, they say that there is a dispute among amoraim as to whether or not to say shehechiyanu on Shmini Atzeret but they rule that one should say it.

Sukkah 46 - August 22, 14 Elul Aug 22, 2021

Study Guide Sukkah 46

Today’s daf is sponsored by Dodi Lamm in memory of her sister Judy Young, Yehudis Leiba bat Shprintza A’HS. “My sister’s whole life revolved around teaching Torah, being mekarev the disenchanted, and dedicating herself to her beautiful family. She had an abundance of energy and radiated that love of life to all those she encountered far and wide. Her motto was, ‘how can I make Hashem proud of me?’ We were all proud of her.” And by Mark and Debbie Ziering in memory of Mark’s mother, Lea bat Mazalta and Yosef on her yahrzeit. "Lea was a dignified woman who raised her family dedicated to the values of modesty and commitment to Judaism."

The gemara brings a difficulty from the Tosefta on the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan (according to Rabba Bar Bar Hanna) who held that one makes a blessing the sukkah all seven days and the lulav only one day. The Tosefta says the reverse. The gemara answers that regarding lulav, the Tosefta was referring to when the Temple was around and Rabbi yochanan was referring to after the Temple was dstroyed. Regarding sukkah, they say that there is a tanaitic dispute on the issue and they bring a braita regarding tefillin. Rabbi Yochanan holds like the other tanna. Various amoraim disagree regarding the lulav blessing on all other days (excluding the first day). Rav held that he blesses all seven days - some people learn this from his opinion on Hanukkah and some say that he said this directly about the lulav. In the Tosefta quoted above, it says that one should make a shehechiyanu when building the sukkah and when binding the lulav. Another braita is brought regarding shehechiyanu on building the sukkah. And Rav Kahana’s practice is brought that he would say it with Kiddush. When one has to do several mitzvot, does one make one blessing on all or separate blessings for each? Usually, an empty vessel can accept contents and a full one cannot but with Torah and mitzvot, it is the opposite. Only those who have learned, can hold more. And only who reviews can one hold more. There is a controversy between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish: At what point can one benefit from one's etrog? How is our mishna used to question each opinion? Rabbi Zeira did not allow people to give a lulav to a child before performing the mitzvah on the first day because it is possible to give a gift to a child but the child is not able to return it as their action of passing on ownership is not considered in halakha. When can you enjoy lulav abroad when the eighth day is potentially also the seventh?

Sukkah 45 - Shabbat August 21, 13 Elul Aug 20, 2021

How was the mitzva of arava performed in the Temple? Where were the aravot taken from? What did they say at the ceremony? What did they do differently when the last day fell on Shabbat? Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka had a different tradition regarding the custom and instead of arava they used palm branches and placed them on the sides of the altar. What was the height of the aravot that were placed near the altar? Why? The gemara brings several different drashot on the verse "isru chag… on the corners of the altar" One of the drashot was said by Rabbi Yirmiah in the name of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai and the gemara quotes several statements made by Rabbi Yirmiah in the same of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai. In some of them, R. Shimon Bar Yochai talks about his greatness and that of his son. He speaks of them as if there are no others like them and the gemara raises a question on this from other sources, including one that mentions the 36 righteous people in every generation. Do we make a bracha on a lulav every day of the holiday? What about Sukkah? What are the different opinions?

Sukkah 44 - August 20, 12 Elul Aug 20, 2021

This week of learning is sponsored by Medinah Korn in memory of her dear mother, Rosalie Katchen, Shoshana Raizl bat Avraham Yehoshua ve-Baila Toiba, z"l, on her 21st yahrzeit. "Her kindness and grace, zest for life, delight in Torah study, and love for family and friends continue to inspire us every day. Yehi zichrah baruch."

As the gemara concluded, after the destruction of the Temple, the mitzva of lulav does not override Shabbat. If so, how can one explain the two mishnayot that seemed to contradict each other - one said they brought lulavim to the Temple Mount and the other to the synagogue. Why is the lulav taken all week to remember what was done in the Temple but the arava is not? The gemara brings up several possibilities but rejects some of them. Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about priests with blemishes - whether they are allowed to enter the temple between the Ulam and the altar in order to perform the mitzva of arava by encircling the altar. There is controversy as to whether arava is an ordinance of the prophets or a custom of the prophets. This is difficult as we have learned that it is a mitzva from the Torah or at least a halachah for Moses from Sinai - so how can one say that it is an ordinance or custom from the prophets? What is the requisite amount needed for arava? There is controversy as to whether or not it is possible to fulfill the mitzva of arava but taking the lulav twice since the lulav includes arava branches. The gemara tells several stories about Aivu and Rabbi Elazar Bar Tzadok - one regarding the chavata of the arava (Rabbi Elazar struck the arava twice and did not make a blessing - proof that this is the custom of the prophets) and one regarding the payment to workers in the shemita year from shemita produce. Aivu said a halakha in the name of Rabbi Elazar that one should not go more than three parasangs on Friday so that he would not surprise the people of his house and they would have no food for him on Shabbat. Is it a problem only at home or even if one is going to a hotel?

Sukkah 43 - August 19, 11 Elul Aug 19, 2021

Why does a lulav override Shabbat only when the first day falls on Shabbat? And why only in the time of the Temple? Does it override Shabbat in some places even after the time of the Temple? Why? The gemara brings a braita with a drasha from where it is derived that the lulav is taken even on Shabbat. However, based on a question, they conclude that the braita is only according to Rabbi Eliezer as it means that preparations for the lulav are permitted on Shabbat as per his approach in general. The gemara then tries to figure out what Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis each derive from the different parts of the verse - including from where does each derive that lulav is only to be taken during the day? From where is it derived that Sukkah is a mitzva during both the day and the night? The mitzva of arava on the seventh day overrides Shabbat in the time of the Temple? Why only the seventh and why specifically the seventh? What about after the destruction of the Temple? Could the seventh ever fall on Shabbat? Rav Yosef holds that it doesn't override Shabbat after the destruction as the mitzva of arava is to place them around the altar and there is no altar. Abaye brings 3 sources to question Rav Yosef. The first two have resolutions but the third does not. Part of the discussion resolves around a debate among many (including Rav Yosef and Abaye) whether when they encircled the altar were they holding aravot or a lulav? In the end, the gemara concludes that after the Temple, arava does not override Shabbat as we no longer know exactly when the holiday is, as those in Babylonia were far from where the new moon was determined. And those in Israel keep the same law as to keep the laws the same everywhere. They then conclude that the same is true for lulav.

Sukkah 42 - August 18, 10 Elul Aug 18, 2021

Today's daf is sponsored by Tova and David Kestenbaum in honor of Tova's parents, Rabbi Dr. Israel and Rebecca Rivkin, who are making Aliyah today. "We, your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren are anxiously awaiting your arrival in Israel, and wish you many more years of good health and nachat from all of us." And by Jeanne Klempner in honor of her father's 83rd birthday this week, his second bar mitzvah, and for his refuah shleima, Elimelech ben Malka.

According to Rabbi Yosi, one who makes a mistake and sins while performing a mitzva, is exempt from bringing a sin offering. In which cases does this rule apply? A woman can get a lulav from her husband or son and return it to the water on Shabbat. What is allowed on a Yom Tov and what about Chol Hamoed? Why does the mishna specifically talk about a woman? What does this come to teach us? A child who knows how to shake a lulav is obligated in the mitzva of lulav. When is a child obligated in other commandments? When can he be trusted to be careful regarding purity? When can he collect truma? When can his slaughter be trusted? How many days on Sukkot would they take a lulav, erect the arava around the altar, say Hallel, sit in a Sukkah, pour the water libations, play the flute? Regarding lulav and arava, it depends on when Shabbat falls that year. What would they do with everyone's lulavim in the temple for the first day of Sukkot? How is it different from the mishna that described what was done in the synagogue?

Sukkah 41 - August 17, 9 Elul Aug 17, 2021

Rav Ashi limits the debate between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yochanan regarding how one can transfer the sanctity of shmita fruits. At first, he says they are only debating the case of the fruits themselves but all would agree that money or an item that had kedusha sanctified by the fruits would be able to transfer sanctity to another item either by sale or by redemption, chilul. However, after a question is raised, he switches his opinion and says the debate is about items sanctified by the fruits, but all would agree regarding the fruits themselves that they can only transfer sanctity through a sale. In the days when the temple stood, they would take the lulav for seven days in the temple and outside the temple only one day. After the destruction of the temple, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai established that lulav be taken all seven days to remember what was done in the days the temple stood. He also instituted that the new wheat would be forbidden on the 16th of Nisan until the end of the day. Why was it forbidden all day? When the first day of Yom Tov falls on Shabbat in the times of the temple, everyone (even outside the temple) would take a lulav. They would all bring it to the synagogue. How would they ensure that they would have their own lulav? Rabban Gamliel came on a boat with some other rabbis and only he had a lulav that he bought for 1,000 zuz. After he took the lulav, he gave it to others as a gift so that they could use it and then give it back to him. Why did the story tell us that he bought it for so much money? To show how much he loved performing the mitzva. Ameimar would hold the lulav during prayers (the whole time). The gemara raises a question on this. How is it resolved? It is told about the people of Jerusalem that they held their lulavs all day, other than the times that it was not manageable, such as when they learned Torah.

Sukkah 40 - August 16, 8 Elul Aug 16, 2021

The gemara concludes from the previous discussion that a lulav has sanctity of the shmita year, k’dushat shviit. A difficulty is raised - why should there be a k’dushat shviit in a lulav if it appears in a braita that leaves of a tree do not have k’dushat shviit if they are not collected for eating? The answer is that there is a difference between the trees who provide enjoyment after they are destroyed and the lulav whose enjoyment is at the same time as its destruction (same as produce that is eaten). There is controversy over this point about whether trees not collected for eating would have k’dushat shviit. For what needs can a k’dushat shviit fruit be used – how do Tana Kama and Rabbi Yossi disagree on this matter? Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yochanan disagree regarding passing on sanctification of shmita produce to other items – money, other foods, etc. Is it done only by a sale or also by redeeming it (like second tithes)? The gemara brings the reason behind each opinion and also braitot to support each opinion.

Sukkah 39 - August 15, 7 Elul Aug 15, 2021

This week's learning is sponsored in memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim Ben Baruch (yahrzeit on 8 Elul). "Dear Dad: We miss you very much and especially cherish our summer memories of spending time in Cape Cod. We are continuing the tradition and thinking of you. With lots of love, Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Shim, Zoe and Yehuda."

There were various customs regarding which verses were doubled in Hallel. Abaye says that the blessing in Hallel that depended on the local custom of the place was the one recited at the end as the one at the beginning is obligatory as all in mitzvot the blessing is recited before performing the mitzva. According to the Mishnah, if one buys the four species in a shemita year, it is not possible to buy the etrog but the seller has to give it to the buyer as a gift. If the seller does not want to, one can buy it by absorbing the price in the price of the lulav, havla’ah. What is the problem with buying etrog in a shmita year? Apparently this halakha only refers to a buyer that is an am haaretz, because even in the ways that it is permitted to buy shmita produce, the sages forbade buying from an am haaretz. What is the reason? And why is it only an issue for the etrog and not the lulav?

Sukkah 38 - Shabbat August 14, 6 Elul Aug 13, 2021

If one did not fulfill one's mitzva of taking a lulav in the morning, for how long can it be done? If one started eating, should one stop eating and take the lulav? Is it possible to fulfill one's obligation of Hallel if one doesn't know the words by having someone else read it for him? What difference does it make if the person reciting it for him is a man, or a woman, a Canaanite slave or a minor? Raba brings all kinds of customs of Hillel from which it is possible to learn different laws of the recitation of Hillel. One who hears one recite a blessing, it is as if one answered amen/recited it by oneself. From where is this learned?

Sukkah 38 - Shabbat August 14, 6 Elul Aug 13, 2021

If one did not fulfill one's mitzva of taking a lulav in the morning, for how long can it be done? If one started eating, should one stop eating and take the lulav? Is it possible to fulfill one's obligation of Hallel if one doesn't know the words by having someone else read it for him? What difference does it make if the person reciting it for him is a man, or a woman, a Canaanite slave or a minor? Raba brings all kinds of customs of Hillel from which it is possible to learn different laws of the recitation of Hillel. One who hears one recite a blessing, it is as if one answered amen/recited it by oneself. From where is this learned?

Sukkah 37 - August 13, 5 Elul Aug 13, 2021

English Study Guide Sukkah 37

Today’s daf is sponsored by Tali Brown Kozlowski “in honor of the first yahrzeit of my grandfather Harvey Brown, Chayim Eli Ben Yehuda Noach who was an avid learner, always found with a sefer in hand, even on the beach. And also in honor of the first yahrzeit of Rabbi David Moss father of Talia Moss and former Executive Director of Ohr Torah Stone. May their Neshamot have an Aliya."

Does one need to use s'chach from one of the arba minim? From a braita where there is a debate regarding this issue, one can derive that Rabbi Yehuda holds that other parts of the palm tree are considered the same type as lulav for purposes of using it for binding. How? Raba is considered in a number of situations regarding barriers between the person and the four minim as well as between the four minim themselves. In each case Rava disagrees and thinks there is no reason for concern. Can one smell an etrog or hadas used for the mitzva? On Shabbat is one allowed to smell each of them or is there concern they may rip it out of the ground/tree? Why do we take the lulav in the right hand and the etrog in the left? Why do we make the blessing "on taking the lulav" and not the other species? When in Hallel do we shake the lulav? How do we shake and why?

Sukkah 36 - August 12, 4 Elul Aug 12, 2021

Pictures

Today's daf is sponsored by Emma Rinberg in memory of her beloved mum, Marjorie Glick, Miriam Chana bat Menachem Mendel and Rachel on the occasion of her stone setting and shloshim. "May her precious neshama glow brightly in the zechut of our learning together. And by Terri Krivosha for the refuah shleima of her dear friend Elisheva Bat Orah. And by the Hadran zoom group for a refuah shleima for Debbie Gevir, Devora Shulamit bat Yocheved Chana. 'Team Debbie'’s tefilot, thoughts, and love are with you. May HaShem grant you a speedy and easy recovery.

Rabba asks if defects that cause an animal to be a treifa would also cause the etrog to be tannaitic source, but without success. What is a Cushi etrog and in which case would it be invalid and in which case would it be valid? The gemara compares a dispute in our mishnah regarding the unripe etrog with a dispute regarding tithing an unripe etrog. Will those disqualify it for Sukkot, also say that they are exempt from tithing and vice-versa, or not? The gemara brings two different versions regarding the law that Rav said about an etrog chewed by mice - according to one version, he says it is invalid, and according to the other, he says it is kosher. Both versions compare the case to Rabbi Hanina who ate an etrog and used it for the mitzva. The opinions of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda regarding the minimum size of etrog are consistent with their opinions in another controversy regarding the carrying of stones for use in the bathroom on Shabbat. According to Rabbi Yehuda, one can bind a lulav only with something of the same type. So how did the people of Jerusalem bind their lulav’s with gold bands? Rava says that according to Rabbi Yehuda, one can also bind the lulav with other parts of the palm tree, such as the fibers or the trunk.

Sukkah 35 - August 11, 3 Elul Aug 11, 2021

Pictures

How do you know that the "fruit of the hadar tree" mentioned in the Torah is an etrog? The gemara brings some answers. Why is an etrog of orla (fruits from the first three years of a tree) prohibited? Is it because it cannot be eaten or because it has no monetary value, meaning it is not considered the property of the owner (since it is prohibited to benefit from it)? All agree that it needs to be eaten but there is a debate regarding whether or not it also needs to be the financial property of the owner. The case where they would disagree is regarding the second tithe that is permissible to eat in Jerusalem, but there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis as to whether it is considered the property of God (R. Meir) or the property of its owner (rabbis). There are a few other laws that require it be considered the financial property of the owner and according to Rabbi Meir one would not be able to fulfill his mitzva of eating matza with second tithe produce and also would not be obligated to separate challa from a dough made from second tithe flour. From where are these laws derived? The gemara goes on to explain the reason for the other disqualifications for etrog mentioned in the mishna – from impure truma, pure truma, demai according to Beit Shamai, and second tithes in Jerusalem.

Sukkah 34 - August 10, 2 Elul Aug 10, 2021

English Study Guide Sukkah 34

Pictures

In the times of the Temple they would surround the altar with aravot, willow branches. There is a debate whether this is derived from a verse or from a halacha l’Moshe m’Sinai. From where do we derive that a tzaftzafa cannot be used as a willow branch for the four minim. How can one tell the difference between an arava and a tzaftzafa? The rabbis list a number of words whose use changed after the destruction of the temple and they also explain what are the halakhic ramifications of those changes. One of the groups of words listed there are the arava and the chalfata (which is tzaftzafa) – what was once called chalfata became arava and what was once called arava is now chalfata. How much of each of the four species need to be taken? And how many of the hadasim need to be not cut off? There are several opinions in the mishna for both those questions and then gemara tries to explain the different opinions. Rav Yehuda says in the name of Shmuel that we hold like Rabbi Tarfon that all three hadasim branches can be cut off. The gemara tries to prove this by bringing a story that Shmuel told the hadas sellers that if they didn’t drop the prices, he would publicly teach that the halakha is like Rabbi Tarfon. The gemara, however, rejects this proof. The mishna lists all the disqualifications of an etrog.

Sukkah 33 - August 9, 1 Elul, Rosh Chodesh Elul Aug 09, 2021

Pictures

Today’s daf is sponsored by Dina Hirshfeld-Becker in memory of her father Alan Hirshfeld, zichrono livracha, on his third yahrzeit that was last week (August 1). "He was a loving father and grandfather who was committed to his daughters learning Torah."

Can an Egyptian myrtle branch be used for the mitzva of hadas? If the leaves have fallen off, how many need to be left on in order to still be considered able to be used? If the top is cut off but something grows in its place, it can be used. But what if it grew on Yom Tov – do we say that once an object is rejected for a mitzva, it can no longer be used or not? Do we say this isn’t the case only to be stringent but not to be lenient? Is there a difference between something that was not worthy in the beginning and became worthy and something that was worthy, then was rejected and then became worthy again? If the berries are more than the leaves, it is no good. But one can fix it. Can one fix it on Yom Tov? There is a debate regarding this manner in a case where one removed them on Yom Tov to eat and it is related to the debate regarding davar sheaino mitkaven on Shabbat (when one does a forbidden action but that was not one’s intent). Why in this case is it not considered a psik reisha (a case where the melacha will definitely be performed)? How can one fix a binding of the lulav if it untied on Yom Tov? What are disqualifications for arava? In what case will it still be valid even if it is not exactly a willow of the brook?

Sukkah 32 - August 8, 30 Av, Rosh Chodesh Elul Aug 08, 2021

Pictures

Today's daf is sponsored by Josh Waxman in memory of his father, Nahum Waxman, Nahum Gedalia ben Yirmiyahu and Faiga Mina who passed away a few days ago. Yehi Zichro Baruch.

The gemara brings a list of disqualifications of lulav and delves into them. How do we know that the verse in the Torah “branches of a date palm” refer to a lulav and not to a different part of the lulav? What is the minimum height needed for hadas, arava and lulav? Tana Kama holds three handbreadths for hadas and arava and four for lulav. Rabbi Tarfon says: A cubit that is 5 handbreadths. What does he mean by this? What disqualifies a hadas? How do we know that the verse “boughs of a dense-leaved tree” is referring to a hadas, a myrtle branch?

Sukkah 31 - Shabbat August 7, 29 Av Aug 06, 2021

Pictures

A stolen sukkah – can it be used? Rabbi Eliezer forbids and the rabbis permit. Rav Nachman limits the case in which they disagree – only in a case where one kicked another out of his sukkah, but all would agree if one stole wood and used it to build a sukkah, it would be permitted to use the sukkah and one would only need to return the value of the stolen wood. In the vein, the gemara bring a story of an elderly woman who came to Rav Nachman complaining that the Exilarch and the rabbis were sitting in a sukkah made of stolen wood of hers. When he ignored her, she continued to scream and he turned to the rabbis and said that she has no claim and all she can demand is the value of the wood. A braita is quoted that said “dry is disqualified by the rabbis but Rabbi Yehuda permits.” What is the subject of the braita? Rava claims it is referring to a lulav, but an etrog needs to be beautiful, hadar. First the gemara questions by bringing seemingly contradictory sources: Does Rabbi Yehuda really not require that a lulav be beautiful? Then they question whether Rabbi Yehuda really requires that the etrog be beautiful. Eventually they reject Rava’s claim as it seems clear the Rabbi Yehuda does not require hadar, beauty for lulav or etrog. The gemara then questions that assumption from various sources that could indicate that Rabbi Yehuda requires beauty by etrog. What is a lulav of ashera and a city of Jews that worshipped idols disqualified?

Sukkah 30 - August 6, 28 Av Aug 06, 2021

Today's daf is sponsored by Jennifer and Daniel Geretz in memory of Rachel "Chela" Geretz, ob"m, on the occasion of her second yahrtzeit.

The law that one cannot perform a mitzva through a transgression is learned from verses relating to sacrifices. From there, Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai learned that a stolen lulav is disqualified all the days of Sukkot. But Rabbi Yitzchak disagrees and holds that it is only disqualified for one day and because it is not considered one’s own and the verse says “One should take for oneself on the first day” – from one’s own. Due to the disqualification of a stolen lulav, Rav Huna suggested to those middlemen who buy from idol worshippers, who were known to steal land from others, to have the idol worshippers cut the myrtle branches to put on the lulav to ensure that the middlemen wouldn’t be using stolen items. Since one who land is stolen from never gives up hope on getting back the land, stolen land is still considered owned by the original owner (no yeush) Therefore if they would cut it themselves, the owner would give up hopes of getting it back after it was cut and the middlemen would be considered to have stolen them. If it is cut by the idol worshipped, the theft happens in their hands and then when ownership rights are transferred to the middlemen, that is enough to have it no longer considered stolen property. The gemara raises a few questions on this – why would binding it not be considered a change through action and changing the name from myrtle to hoshana? If those would be considered significant changes, then also it would help to remove it from being considered stolen property.

Sukkah 29 - August 5, 27 Av Aug 05, 2021

Pictures

Today's shiur is dedicated by Natalie Taylor for the refuah shleima of two women whom I love very much: Bracha bat Rachel and Devora Shulamit bat Yocheved Chana. May both these amazing women have successful operations this week and an easy recovery.

What items should/should not be brought into the Sukkah? If it starts to rain, at what point can you leave and at what point do you need to come back to the Sukkah once the rain stops? If it rains on Sukkot, it is seen as a bad sign. The gemara explains the parable mentioned in the mishna. The gemara mentioned other natural phenomena that are seen as a bad sign from God, such as, solar and lunar eclipse. Several sources are brought which suggest the meaning behind those events. A stolen lulav or a dry one is disqualified. Also, one from an Ashera tree and a city whose inhabitants all worships idols (ir hanidachat) are disqualified. What are other potential issues regarding a lulav? The gemara assumes that the mishna is referring to all the days of the holiday. If a stolen sukkah is disqualified because the lulav has to be your own, that would only be relevant for the first day! Rabbi Yochanan explains that it is disqualified as one cannot fulfill a mitzva through means of a transgression.

Sukkah 28 - August 4, 26 Av Aug 04, 2021

Today's daf is sponsored by Faye Schwartz "liluy nishmat avy, Moshe Schwartz, Yakov Moshe ben HaRav Chayim Klonymous on the 25th yahrzeit of his passing. My father was an ish tam who possessed tremendous emunah despite the many hardships he encountered throughout his lifetime. He was koveyah itim and managed to complete the daf yomi cycle multiple times notwithstanding his working long hours 6 days a week. He taught by example and imbued all of his children with a love of learning and the importance of gemilut chasadim." And by Debbie and Yossi Gevir in honor of the marriage of their son Eliav to Noia Pinhas, that will take place בע"ה this evening. "Dapim כ"ה and כ"ו that we learned this week contained quite a few references to the happiness and state of mind of the chatan as he approaches the impending marriage. These dapim and Rabbanit Michelle's explanations constituted a meaningful motif for me during this special time. Eliav, since you are such a bright and knowledgeable ben Torah, actually having chosen learning and teaching Torah as your vocation, it gave me particular joy to share these passages with you. May your marriage with Noia be a siman tov and mazal tov for all of us!"

Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus would not say anything he did not hear from his rabbi. Did he hear this law from his rabbi? What things did he learn from his rabbi, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, and how? Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai was the smallest (in stature) of the students of Hillel and yet was great! Yonatan Ben Uziel was the greatest of his students. The dispute between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel over the matter of the minimum size of a sukkah appears in our mishna. Women, slaves and young ones are exempt from the sukkah. From where is this derived? First, that same word came to include women in the obligation to fast. They conclude that one is really derived from the verse and the other from a halacha l'Moshe b'Sinai. Why are these even necessary to exempt women from a sukkah and obligate on Yom Kippur - after all, a sukkah is a positive mitzva that is time-bound, so women are exempt and Yom Kippur is a negative mitzva of which women are bound by just as men are! The gemara brings answers to these questions. What is the law for minors? From what age/stage is one obligated to sit in a sukkah? A person is supposed to make his sukkah his permanent home and his apartment arai (temporary) for the Sukkot holiday. How does one observe this halacha?

Sukkah 27 - August 3, 25 Av Aug 03, 2021

There are a number of issues upon which Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree. Is one obligated to eat 14 meals in the sukkah? Can one make up the first meal on Shmini Atzeret (or possibly on all other days of Sukkot) if one missed eating that meal in the sukkah? IF one can make it up, how is that done? Can one move from sukkah to sukkah during the holiday or does one need to eat in the same sukkah? Can one build a sukkah on Chol HaMoed? Can one fulfill one’s obligation in someone else’s sukkah? Can one leave one’s house on the holiday or does one need to stay home and be happy with one’s wife and family as per the verse in the Torah? The gemara looks for the reason for these laws and raises several questions against Rabbi Eliezer.

Sukkah 26 - August 2, 24 Av Aug 02, 2021

Today's daf is dedicated by Sara Berelowitz "in memory of my beautiful Mom Kayla bat Yehuda on her 8th yahrzeit who we all miss very much." And by Aviva Adler for a refuah shleima for Leah bat Chaya Rivka. And in memory of Yaakov Israel ben Chaim Peretz, Rav Yaakov Kanievsky, the Steipler.

Those who write and sell sifrei Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot are exempt from shema, davening and tefillin as one involved in a mitzva is exempt from other mitzvot. Those traveling or on their way to do a mitzva or guards and others, in what situations are they exempt from sitting/sleeping in a sukkah? What type of sick person is exempt from sukkah? Rava held that one who is very uncomfortable sitting in a sukkah is exempt. What amount is considered a "snack" which one would not need to eat in a sukkah? What about a nap? What is the law regarding sleeping/napping with tefillin? How does this compare to the laws of sukkah? Rav held that one should not nap in general, however, he permitted a short nap - how short? The mishna brings a few cases where rabbis ate small amounts and either insisted on eating in the sukkah or didn't. The gemara explains their positions.

Sukkah 25 - August 1, 23 Av Aug 01, 2021

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rina Goldberg in memory of her mother, Gitel Bat Dovid, Gertrude Kurz z"l whose yahrzeit is on 23 Av. "Our mother was in the first graduating class of the famed Hildesheimer Yeshiva in Berlin. She succeeded in instilling her love of Torah and Yiddishkeit to her two daughters, both of whom are studying the Daf with Rabbanit Michelle. The Siyum Hashas in January 2020 was one of the highlights of my life and I was overwhelmed to participate in the Hadran from the audience."

Those on their way to perform a mitzva are exempt from sukkah as one involved in performing a mitzva is exempt from other mitzvot. This principle is derived from verses of Shema - how? A groom is exempt from shema as he is preoccupied. Is anyone who is preoccupied with something exempt from shema? Why not? How is the groom unique? The gemara questions why the principle of one who is involved in a mitzva is exempt from another mitzva is not learned out from the verses regarding those who were impure when the Pesach sacrifice was meant to be brought in the desert? In the end, it seems both verses are necessary to teach this principle - why? A mourner is obligated in all mitzvot except tefillin on the first day - why? A mourner is obligated in sukkah. Why was it necessary to teach this? A groom and his wedding party are exempt from sukakh - why?

Sukkah 24 - Shabbat July 31, 22 Av Jul 30, 2021

Pictures

How does the gemara resolve the contradiction in Abaye regarding Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda - which one holds does one need to be concerned for death or not? In the end, they conclude that the debate regarding the wine of the Cutim was not about whether or not the flask will break but whether or not one holds by breira, retroactive designation. Another question is raised against Rabbi Yehuda from Yoma where he held that a second wife is brought for the Kohen Gadol in case his wife were to die. After the whole discussion regarding the two possibilities of how to understand why Rabbi Meir doesn't allow an animal to be a wall, the gemara raises a question against this from the cover of the grave (golel) and rejects both interpretations. Two other explanations are brought. What is the difference between them? Rabbi Yosi and the rabbis debate whether or not a get can be written on an animal and their proofs from the verses are brought. The mishna states that a tree can be used for walls of the sukkah. Rav Acha bar Yaakov said that a mechitza that can't stand up in a typical wind is not a valid mechitza. A question is raised from our mishna and other sources that have items that stand in the wind that are used as mechitzas. Each case is answered in the same way - they are all supported by something stronger that holds them in place.

Sukkah 23 - July 30, 21 Av Jul 30, 2021

Pictures

Today's daf is sponsored by David Eisenstein in memory of Channa Bat Yehudah Yosef Ravvin. "In memory of my Aunt Hannah Ravvin whose life and family inspire us in our commitment to Jewish Life and learning."

The mishna permits a sukkah on a boat. The gemara points out that this is a subject of debate among Rabbi Akiva and Rabban Gamliel. The root of the debate is: does a sukkah need to be able to stand up to an atypical wind on land (which is like a typical wind on the water) or does it just need to be able to stand up to a typical wind on land. A sukkah on a camel is also a subject of debate – between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis. Does it need to be a sukkah that can be used for all seven days or is it enough that on a Torah level it can be used for all seven days, even though the rabbis prohibited it? Can an animal be used as a wall for a sukkah, a lechi for an alleyway, etc? Rabbi Meir forbids and Rabbi Yehuda permits. Abaye and Rabbi Zeira disagree in their understanding of Rabbi Meir’s reasoning – is it concern maybe the animal will die or concern it may run away. The gemara discusses these opinions at length and finds a case where they would disagree. Next, the gemara questions Abaye’s opinion that Rabbi Meir is concern it may die. In a contradiction between a mishna and a braita regarding the daughter of an Israelite married to a Kohen – she can eat truma as long as her husband is alive. In one source, we are concerned that maybe he will die and not permit her to continue to eat truma. In the other, we are not concerned and she can continue to eat. Abaye resolved that contradiction by saying that Rabbi Meir is the one who is not concerned and Rabbi Yehuda is. He proves this from the case of one who buys wine from a Cuti (Shomroni) and can’t separate tithes (it is Shabbat or he doesn’t have pure vessels to separate it). Rabbi Meir has a resolution and Rabbi Yehuda does not. It seems that debate there is: are we worried the flask will crack. This is where Abaye brings his proof that Rabbi Meir is not concerned it will break (similar to not concerned the husband died) and Rabbi Yehuda is. This contradicts Abaye’s own understanding of the Rabbi Meir/Yehuda debate by the animal functioning as a wall.

Sukkah 22 - July 29, 20 Av Jul 29, 2021

Pictures

A month of shiurim are dedicated by Terri Krivosha for a refuah shleima for her beloved husband, Rabbi Hayim Herring, Hayim ben Feiga Riva.

A sukkah medublelet is a good sukkah. What is medublelet? Rav and Shmuel disagree. According to Shmuel it works by the principle chevot rami. What is that principle? Where else do we see it? There is a debate about whether or not the rows need to be within 3 handbreadths of each other in order for it to work. The mishna said that if there is more sun than shade, the sukkah is kosher. How does that work with the first mishna of the masechet that said that if the sukkah has more sun than shade, the sukkah is no good? Is a sukkah on a boat, wagon, camel, or tree a good sukkah? Can you use it on Yom Tov/Shabbat?

Sukkah 21 - July 28, 19 Av Jul 28, 2021

Pictures

Today’s daf is sponsored by Erin Piateski in honor of Jessica's wedding on Sunday. "Mazal tov Jessica and Harold!"

The gemara brings the mishna from Ohalot Chapter 3 Mishna 7 regarding a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis regarding the laws of impurity of a tent for a tent formed by nature. Rabbi Yehuda's opinion (that it does not have laws of tents regarding impurity) contradicts Rabbi Yehuda's opinion in the Mishna Para Chapter 3 Mishna 2 where the torse of an ox functions as a tent. The resolution of the contradiction raises a question on Rabbi Yehuda's opinion on our mishna that one can sleep under a bed in a sukkah. Several answers are brought and the gemara analyzes them. What exactly is the root of the debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis in the mishna? One who leans a sukkah of a bed - Rabbi YEhuda and the rabbis disagree about whether it works or not and on what does it depend.

Sukkah 20 - July 27, 18 Av Jul 27, 2021

Today's daf is sponsored by Tina Lamm in memory of Asher Mechanic, Asher ben Avraham v'Rina. "In the zechut of all those he helped as a passionately devoted physician, may his neshama have an aliyah." And by Tova and David Kestenbaum to mark the shloshim of Tova's dear Uncle, Harav Reuven Pinchas ben Harav Chaim Yaakov v'Yehudit Bulka z"l. "He was a special Uncle to us and an extraordinary man. He was a Mekadesh Shem Shamayim in the way he spread Torah through his actions, lectures and books and through his efforts to make peace between people of all faiths. We miss him terribly."

The gemara tries to clarify the details regarding the debate between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis regarding whether a mat of reeds can be used for s'chach or not and what the differences are between small/large mat, one intended for lying or sitting/s'chach/not intended for anything specific. Tannaitic sources that discuss different types of mats and their laws regarding impurity/s'chach. The second chapter begins with a debate regarding one who sleeps under a bed in a sukkah. Rabbi Shimon brings a story of Tavi, the Cannanite slave of Rabban Gamliel who slept under the bed in the sukkah since he was exempt from the mitzvah of sukkah

Sukkah 19 - July 26, 17 Av Jul 26, 2021

Pictures

Today’s daf is dedicated by Deborah Aschheim (Weiss) NYC is loving memory of her father, David Aschheim, David Moshe ben Meir, whose 41st yahrzeit is today. "Daddy, you were taken from us too early in life. I miss you. You laid the foundations for who I am today. You would be so proud of me and Robert, and our children and grandchildren. And by Cliff Felig in honor of Minna Ferziger Felig on her birthday.

The gemara raises a question from our mishna against Abaye who held that the sukkah in the courtyard outside the portico would work as a sukkah even without walls. Rava provides an answer for Abaye. A different version of the debate between Abaye and Rava is brought but it is rejected. Rav Kahane had a sukkah in a portico and when Rav Ashi questioned him about it, he explained on what basis he permitted it. A braita is brought that said "s'chach that comes out of the sukkah is treated as a sukkah." Four different explanations of this are brought. The mishna discusses sukkot that do not have a flat roof but an angled one. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the rabbis but there are different versions about who said what. A mat of reeds is permited as s'chach if it was built for s'chach but if it was built for sitting on, then it is not as it is susceptible to impurity. Does it depend though on whether it was a small mat or a large mat? And what if it was not designated for any particular use?

Sukkah 18 - July 25, 16 Av Jul 25, 2021

Pictures

Today's daf is sponsored by Jessica Jobaneck on the occasion of her marriage to Harold Kingsberg today and their joint siyum of Masekhet Yoma. "Here’s to being chevrutas for life." And by Michael Gordon in honor of his wife Avigail and their 15th wedding anniversary. "Avigail, I am so proud of everything that you do. And your learning daf yomi on top of it all." And by Ronit Shavit in honor of her son drafting into the IDF. "Wishing him much success. May God protect him. And in memory of her mother, Leah bat Masudi and Yaakov on her 16th yahrzeit. "My mother was my inspiration to learn the daf."

After the gemara brings a further attempt to prove whether disqualified s'chach ruins a sukkah at four handbreadths or four cubits, the gemara then brings a debate about whether laws of levud work only at the edge of a sukkah or even in the middle. Sources are brought to bring support to each opinion. In the case of a portico outside a house with a courtyard in the middle, can one use the edge of the portico to create the illusion of walls for the sukkah? Can the principle "the ceiling comes down and blocks it" be used here? Abaye and Rava disagree. Is it the same debate as between Rav and Shmuel regarding a portico in a valley as regards laws of Shabbat?

Sukkah 17 - Shabbat July 24, 15 Av Jul 23, 2021

Pictures

The mishna and gemara raise more cases of dofen akuma, when the disqualified s'chach is within four cubits of the walls, we view the wall as if it continues onto the s'chach and it does not disqualify the sukkah. Air space in the s'chach disqualifies the sukkah is it covers a space of three handbreadths. There are two different versions regarding a debate about whether non-kosher s'chach disqualifies a sukkah at four handbreadths or at four cubits.

Sukkah 16 - July 23, 14 Av Jul 23, 2021

Pictures

Today's daf is sponsored by Mark Goldstein in honor of his wife, Rena Septee Goldstein, on her birthday, "with love to my life chevruta."

If one uses remnants of clothes or utensils for s'chach, it is invalid as it still retains its status of being susceptible to impurity. What are examples of this? In which case would the sukkah be valid when one hollows out a pile of wheat stalks? The gemara discusses all different types of incomplete walls and whether or not they can be valid based on laws of l'vud and depending on where they are situated. Can a wall that doesn't reach within three handbreadths of the floor be valid? This is called a hanging wall. The gemara brings a mishna in Eruvin 86 where a debate regarding this issue is raised. Would those who allowed it in Eruvin allow it here and vice-versa? Or could one make an argument that the cases are not comparable?

Sukkah 15 - July 22, 13 Av Jul 22, 2021

Pictures

Today’s daf is dedicated by Lisa Kolodny in memory of Marjorie Glick, Miriam Chana bat Rachel, and in honor of her loving daughter Emma Rinberg who learns the daf. Miriam recently passed away and was a bright, intelligent woman who loved learning and always had a smile for everyone. May her Neshama have an aliya from our learning.

If there are beams on a ceiling that are not connected by tar or cement, what can be done to make these usable as s'chach? Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda debate whether or not this is a subject of debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel. How is this different from their debate in the previous mishna regarding whether or not one can use wooden beams for s'chach? If the s'chach is made from metal skewers or beams from a bed, the sukkah is disqualified. But one fills in the space between the beams or skewers with good s'chach, and it is equal in size to the disqualified s'chach, then the sukkah is a good sukkah. How could this be if regarding walls for Shabbat we say that if the part that is breached is equal to the part that is standing, the wall is not a good wall? Why are beams of a bed susceptible to impurity (and therefore not able to be used as s'chach?

Sukkah 14 - July 21, 12 Av Jul 21, 2021

Pictures

Can one change the status of handles of items from being susceptible to impurity to not being susceptible to impurity by rendering it useless through one's thoughts or is it necessary to do an action? Can one use wooden boards for sechach? Did the rabbis forbid it as it looks like a ceiling and people may come to think they can use their house for a sukkah? Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree. Rav and Shmuel disagree regarding the case in which Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree - were they referring to boards that are four handbreadths wide, but all would agree that less than four handbreadths would be allowed? Or do they disagree regarding boards that are 3-4 handbreadths but ones that are four are forbidden by all? The gemara brings tannaitic sources and tries to see how they fit with Rav and Shmuel's opinions.

Sukkah 13 - July 20, 11 Av Jul 20, 2021

Pictures

Today's daf is dedicated by Valerie Adler in honor of her daughter, Anoushka Adler on her wedding. "Dedicated to my darling daughter on her wedding day. May you be blessed to continue in your path and be a wonderful partner to Sagi in good health and happiness. Mazal tov - Ima and Abba."

Different rabbis mention different items that can be used for sechach as they are not susceptible to impurity. Even though bundles can't be used, items that are bound by nature are permitted. Also one item that is bound is permitted. Regarding two items, there is a tannitic debate. The gemara discusses different types of bindings and whether or not they are permitted to use as sechach. Can one use maror as sechach? Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Menashia disagree regarding a law that Rav Huna said regarding handles of fruit and cases where they would not be susceptible to impurity in a way that handles of fruit usually are. Is it only regarding grapes in a winepress or also in stalks of grain used for sechach?

Sukkah 12 - July 19, 10 Av Jul 19, 2021

Pictures

Today's daf is sponsored by Zichron Yaakov women’s daf yomi group, "in honor of Rabbanit Michelle and gratitude for her inspiration and her seemingly infinite willingness to be there for us, to share of her wisdom and time to enrich and encourage. Thank you for being part of our local siyum." And anonymously in memory of Yssaschar the son of Yaakov Avinu and in memory of Rabbi Yitzhak ben Yehuda the Abarbanel.

From where do we derive that the criteria for sechach are that it cannot be susceptible to impurity and must grow from the ground. The gemara brings four different suggested derivations. One cannot use bundles of straw, wood or reeds for sechach. Rabbi Yochanan gave the reason for this mishna (about the bundles) and another mishna about hollowing out a pile of straw – one was because the sukkah needs to be made and not from something already made, and one because of a rabbinic ordinance so that one not come to think one can use one’s storage house for a sukkah. Rabbi Yaakov did not know which reason corresponded to which mishna, but Rabbi Yirmia explained it based on a statement of Rabbi Yochanan that was passed down by Rabbi Chiya bar Abba. The gemara brings other statements of Amoraim regarding items that are able to be/not to be used for sechach.

Sukkah 11 - Tisha B'av, July 18, 9 Av Jul 16, 2021

Study Guide Sukkah 11

Pictures

Sukkah 10 - Shabbat July 17, 8 Av Jul 16, 2021

Study Guide Sukkah 10

Pictures

What was Rabbi Yirmia trying to teach by bringing all four cases of a sukkah on top of a sukkah? What is the minimum height needed for the upper sukkah in order for the sukkah to be considered a sukkah on top of a sukkah. Three opinions are brought and the gemara raises questions on Shmuel. Can one put a sheet on top of or below the sechach. On what does it depend?

Sukkah 9 - July 16, 7 Av Jul 16, 2021

Study Guide Sukkah 9

Pictures

Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim (Weiss) in memory of her mother, Edith Bettelheim Aschheim, Pesel bat Kalman, whose 38th Yartzeit is today. "Mommy. You often said that Hitler robbed you of a Jewish education, when you were forced to flee Vienna on the Kindertransport for London. Fortunately, you were reunited with your parents before the war in Bangor, Maine. You always encouraged me and were my closest, unconditional buddy. I still miss you greatly. You laid the foundations for who I am today. You would be so proud of me and Robert, and our children and grandchildren.

Can one use a sukkah that was built not for the sake of the holiday of Sukkot? Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree. From where does each find a source in the Torah for their opinion? If one built a sukkah under a tree, it is not a valid sukkah. In which case is there an exception? A sukkah on top of a sukkah - the upper one is valid but the bottom one is not. Rabbi Yehuda says it depends. Rabbi Yirmiah explains that there are four different types of cases regarding a sukkah on top of a sukkah and the law is different in each case.

Sukkah 8 - July 15, 6 Av Jul 15, 2021

Study Guide Sukkah 8

Pictures

Today's daf is sponsored by Zeev Felsen in memory of his grandmother Shirley Felsen, Sarah bat Ze'ev HaKohen, on her yahrtzeit. She valued education and loved the Land of Israel. Never had the opportunity to learn Talmud, but enjoyed learning about Rambam at elder hostels. She would enjoy these shiurim if she could figure out what a podcast is.

Rabbi Yochanan said that a sukkah round like a furnace is a good sukkah as long as it has a circumference that could fit 24 people around it. The gemara struggles to understand why the circle needs to be that large. A sukkah of a craftsman - can one use it as a sukkah to fulfill one's obligation on Sukkot using the inner one? What about the outer one? Are either or both of them obligated in mezuza? Sukkot Ganba"ch and Rakba"sh - acronyms for types of sukkot - can they be used for the holiday of Sukkot?

Sukkah 7 - July 14, 5 Av Jul 14, 2021

Study Guide Sukkah 7

Pictures

Today's daf is dedicated anonymously in memory of H'Ari Hakadosh.

The third wall of the sukkah (according to the rabbis) only needs to be one handbreadth. Where should that third wall be positioned? Do the same definitions apply to Shabbat? Abaye shows that several positions held by different rabbis are all part of the same concept - each of them hold that a sukkah needs to be a permanent structure.

Sukkah 6 - July 13, 4 Av Jul 13, 2021

Study Guide Sukkah 6

Pictures

Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim (Weiss) NYC "with much thanks to Hashem for the very speedy refuah shlema of Robert Weiss (Aaron ben Chana) from very recent partial knee replacement. Thank you to the entire staff of HSS for restoring Robert's life. And also with gratitude for the refuah slema of Yaacov Shimon ben Yisraela." And by Malka Abraham in honor of her father, Chaim Goodman's 97th birthday. "My dad has always been supportive of my continuing to learn. Even at 97, he is a sweet, kind, caring dad."

When Rav Chiya bar Ashi says that requisite amounts, barriers, and walls are halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai, to what was he referring? Aren't some of those learned out from the Torah? The gemara answers these questions and explains what is meant by each of these terms. There is a debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon regarding how many walls does a sukkah need - two whole walls and a third that is only one handbreadth? Or three whole walls and a fourth that is one handbreadth? What is the root of their debate? The gemara brings five possibilities.

Sukkah 5 - July 12, 3 Av Jul 12, 2021

Pictures

Today's daf is sponsored by the Shuster family of Edison in memory of Sharonna's mother Sandra Shimoff and Ozer's grandmother Malka Shuster.

A sukkah that is not ten handbreadths tall is invalid. Where do we learn this from? The first source is from the Ark which was ten handbreadths tall together with the kaporet. God spoke to Moshe from above that space according to the verse - from there we learn that God does not descend below ten handbreadths and man does not ascend to heaven except at a distance of ten handbreadths. This teaches us that that a domain in ten handbreadths. How do we know that the Ark was nine handbreadths and the kaporet was one? The Ark's height is mentioned explicitly but the kaporet is not. The gemara first derives it from the frame around the Table and then Rav Huna derives it from the words "on the face of the kaporet" and the face of a baby is the size of one handbreadth. The gemara offers various possibilities of sizes of other items in the Temple or other sizes of faces that it could have been derived from but rejects them. If we derive if from the Ark and the kaporet, why would the ten handbreadths not include the sechach of the sukkah as the Ark and the kaporet together equal ten? Because of this difficulty, the gemara brings a different proof from the ten handbreadths between the wings of the cherubim and the ark below (the height of the cherubim themselves). This however only works according to Rabbi Meir's opinion that the cubits of the Ark and other vessels in the Tabernacle were made of six handbreadths but according to Rabbi Yehuda who holds that vessels were five handbreadths, the calculation would lead us to eleven and a half, not ten! Rabbi Yehuda therefore must learn it from somewhere else. The gemara suggests that he holds it is a tradition passed down from Moshe at Sinai - Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai.

Sukkah 4 - July 11, 2 Av Jul 11, 2021

Study Guide Sukkah 4

Pictures

Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim (Weiss) NYC in honor of the recent graduation of Racheli Weiss Bergfeld from Bar Ilan University. "Mazal Tov, Racheli. Dad and I are very proud of you!" And by Goldie Gilad on the yahrzeit of her mother's family, ע"ה, who were killed in the holocaust: Yaacov and Sarah Cukerman and their sons: Fishel, Aharon, Leib, and Faige. And by an anonymous sponsor for a refuah shleima to Ariyah Rachel Miriam bat Malka.

In what ways can one fix a sukkah whose height is twenty cubits without having to actually lower the roof? The gemara brings several possibilities. Does the principle of gud asik mechitzta - one can view it as if there are walls in certain cases when there aren't - work by sukkah as it does in Shabbat?

Sukkah 3 - Shabbat July 10, Rosh Chodesh Av, 1 Av Jul 09, 2021

Study Guide Sukkah 3

Today's daf is sponsored by Elizabeth Kirshner "in loving memory of my father, Rabbi Gabriel M. Kirshner (HaRav Gavriel Meir ben HaRav Shraga Feivel), on his 25th yahrtzeit. I continue to grow, his absence feels even more prominent and painful at times, I imagine and grieve all the learning we could have explored together; I deeply hope that every word of Torah I learn on my Daf Yomi journey and beyond brings his soul and spirit great comfort. May his memory be a blessing for all of us." And by an anonymous donor in memory of Aharon HaCohen whose yahrzeit is today, according to tradition.

The gemara brings a braita to raise a question on two of the opinions regarding Rav about a proof Rabbi Yehuda tried to bring against the rabbis from the sukkah of Helene the queen. Rav Shmuel son of Yitzchak rules regarding the minimum size of a Sukkah. Could he be ruling like Beit Shamai? On what exactly do Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree about regarding sukkah that holds one's head and body and not one's table? The gemara brings a braita regarding the minimum size of a house needed for various laws. Is it the same measurement for a sukkah? The gemara analyzes the different rules in the braita.

Sukkah 2 - July 9, 29 Tamuz Jul 09, 2021

Study Guide Sukkah 2

The learning of Masechet Sukka is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham).

Today’s daf is sponsored by Marcia Baum in memory of the 18th Yartzeit that will be on Shabbat of her father Sam Baum, Chaim Simcha ben Aharon HaLevi and Liba. "My dad was a larger than life individual, full of joy and love for Judaism ,family and friends. He supported Jewish institutions throughout the world and would be so proud that I am learning the daf with Hadran. He is missed and remembered l'tov every day." And anonymously in memory of Rashi whose yahrzeit is today.

What is the maximum and minimum height of a sukkah? How many walls are required? If the sunlight is greater than the shade from the sechach, the covering, the sukkah is disqualified. The gemara compares the language in this mishna to the language in the mishna in Eruvin discussed the height of a cross beam used by the entrance of an alleyway to permit carrying in the alleyway. Why is different language used for each case (in Sukkah it says it is disqualified and in Eruvin it says how to fix it)? Why do the rabbis think that a sukkah taller than twenty cubits is disqualified? Three opinions are brought and the gemara discusses why each doesn't hold by the other. Rav narrows the case in which Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis disagree about the height of a sukkah. Three opinions are brought regarding the case in which Rav held that they disagreed. The gemara tries to connect these opinions with the earlier opinions regarding the reason for the height disqualification. The gemara brings a braita to raise a question on two of the opinions regarding Rav about a proof Rabbi Yehuda tried to bring against the rabbis from the sukkah of Helene the queen.

Yoma 88 - July 8, 28 Tamuz Jul 08, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 88

The Siyum of Masechet Yoma is dedicated by Esti Ben-David and Rachel Keren – neés Urbach "In memory of our parents who opened the gates of Torah for us and guided us through them. In memory of our late Father, Ephraim Elimelech Urbach z”l, whose 30th Yahrzeit we have just commemorated. During his lifetime, our father never stopped learning and teaching generations of students. Through his research, he developed new, extensive and diverse fields of learning and research, as testified by his numerous books and academic papers: The Sages – Concepts and Beliefs, The Tosafists (Baalei HaTosafot), The Halakha – Its Sources and Developments, Arugat Ha’Bosem and many others. And in honor of our dear mother, Channa Urbach, may she live a long life, who is currently celebrating her 103rd birthday (til 120!) and who has been throughout her life a model for all her descendants of the love of the Torah, its study and practice."

Rav held that if one prays neila, one is exempt from ma'ariv, the prayer said at night. The gemara raises an additional question from a braita against him. In order to answer the question, the gemara concludes that it is an issue that is debated by tannaim as can be found in another braita which discusses one who has to go to the mikveh on Yom Kippur from a seminal emission - can one go in the afternoon of Yom Kippur after mincha? This would depend on whether neila was said in the afternoon or at night. If it was said in the afternoon, one could go to the mikveh after mincha to allow one to pray. However, if neila was recited in the afternoon, one would not be able to fulfill one's obligation for ma'ariv. Once the gemara resolves the difficulty, another braita is brought which contradicts this braita. The contradiction is resolved as well. What happens when someone has a seminal emission on Yom Kippur? Is it seen as a bad sign or perhaps it is a good sign?

Yoma 87 - July 7, 27 Tamuz Jul 07, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 87

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Rabbanit Dasi Fruchter and the South Philadelphia Shtiebel on their siyum of Mesechet Yoma! "We are so inspired by your learning and leadership. Sending so much love your way!! Love, Chayim and Rena Fruchter, Temim Fruchter, Yoshie Fruchter and Leah Koenig, Ora Fruchter and Bradford Jordan, Hannah Heller, Elliot Heller, Amy Supraner and David Fruchter, Debbie Robinson, Yehudit and Sam Daitch, Yechiel Robinson, Sarah Robinson, Rabbi Nissan Antine, Ariel Hart, Maharat Ruth Balinsky Friedman, Rabbi Steven Exler."

Yoma 86 - July 6, 26 Tamuz Jul 06, 2021

Does repentance atone even for negative commandments or does one need to atone and also wait for Yom Kippur? What are the differences in the levels of atonement addressed by Rabbi Yishmael? What is considered a desecration of the name of God that only death atones for? What are the different virtues of repentance? Should one reveal his sins in public or keep silent about them? On what does it depend? How can one do true repentance? If one sinned and repeated one’s sin several times, at what point is one’s repentance no longer accepted? If one confessed one’s sins one year, is one obligated to confess again the following year? If the answer is no, is one allowed to if one wishes to do so? Should one specify exactly the sin one committed?

Yoma 85 - July 5, 25 Tamuz Jul 05, 2021

Today's daf is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham), "who was always sensitive to mitzvot bein adam la'chavero and extended that to a sensitivity and care for all living creatures. And by Caroline Ben Ari on the shloshim of Judy Prager, Yehudit bat Rabbi Yehuda and Daya, the mother of a dear friend Anne. "Anne has been there for me through thick and think. May your mother's neshama have an aliya." And in memory of Hannah Plunka, Chanah Esther Bat Eliyahu Eliezer, whose yahrzeit is tomorrow. And by Amy Cohn for a refuah shleima for Ariyah Rachel Miriam bat Malka.

Does Shmuel really hold that we do not follow the majority in cases of saving a life? Does that contradict something he says elsewhere? In the case of saving someone from under a pile of rubble, why did the mishna mention a list of three different doubts? What is the novelty in the sentence that if they find the person alive one can save him/her and if they find the person dead, they leave him/her? After all, isn’t that obvious! What determines death - that the person no longer breathes or that the heart no longer beats? Is the controversy over the determination of death similar to the controversy over from where do fetuses develop – from its head or its navel? Rabbi Papa limited the debate regarding heart beating or breathing. From where do we learn that saving a life, even if a doubt, will override Shabbat. The gemara brings a list of different opinions but at the end states that only one of them is really strong and the rest can be rejected in case of doubt. What types of things provide atonement? What is the difference in getting atonement for transgressions between one and God and one with fellow people? How is the atonement different for different levels of transgressions?

Yoma 84 - July 4, 24 Tamuz Jul 04, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 84

This week's learning is sponsored by Elana and Danny Storch. "Thank You to our dear friends Miriam and Eric Feldstein for their generous hospitality throughout the years. With love and deep appreciation." And for a refuah shleima to Deborah Shulamit bat Yocheved Chana. This week's learning is also sponsored by Howard Jacoby Ruben in honor of Debby Jacoby for a wonderful first decade of married life together." So glad that Hashem helped us find each other through Torah."

Today's daf is sponsored in memory of Hannah Plunka, Chanah Esther bat Eliyahu Eliezer, on her yahrzeit.

What is the remedy for one bitten by a mad dog? In what cases is one allowed to prepare and take medicine on Shabbat? Do the rabbis disagree with Rabbi Matia ben Charash about medicine for one with a throat ache or not? Saving one's life overrides Shabbat. Who can do it? Anyone? Or should we use someone who is not obligated in mitzvot? Shmuel holds that usual rules of majority don't hold in the case of life and death - to what case is he referring?

Yoma 83 - Shabbat July 3, 23 Tamuz Jul 02, 2021

This is the daf for Shabbat. For Friday's daf, click here.

Today's daf is sponsored by Vicki Herzog in honor of her father, Izzy Herzog. "May today's learning go to the Ilui of his Neshama. I miss my father each and every day."

How does one determine on what basis to let a sick person eat on Yom Kippur? Rabbi Yannai discusses scenarios where the sick person may feel differently than the doctor - in those cases, on what basis do we determine whether or not to let the person eat? How can the mishna be read according to Rabbi Yannai as the mishna seems to be weighing on the side of the experts, whereas Rabbi Yannai pushes the agenda of when in doubt of cases involving life and death, one is always lenient? Mar bar Rav Ashi agrees somewhat with Rabbi Yannai but disagrees in the case where there are many doctors who think the sick person does not need to eat. Rabbi Yannai would forbid eating in that case but Mar bar Rav Ashi allows it as in his opinion, patient autonomy supersedes all. One who has a disease called bulmus (from starvation), can eat non-kosher food. If bitten by a mad dog, can one eat the lobe of the dog's liver, which was believed to be a cure? One can take and even prepare medicine on Shabbat if one's life is endangered. If a rockslide fell upon someone, at what levels of uncertainty can one still desecrate Shabbat in order to potentially save a life? If one needs to eat non-kosher food on account of bulmus, what is the hierarchy of non-kosher foods that we can feed them - we go from least serious to most serious. The gemara discusses several cases where it is unclear which is better or worse. Stories are told of rabbis who had bulmus and whether or not they stole food in order to eat. Another story is brought to highlight the importance of deriving the source of people's names to determine if they can be trusted or not. What are signs of a mad dog and how does one become a mad dog (what causes the madness)?

Yoma 82 - July 2, 22 Tamuz Jul 02, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 82

From what age do children need to fast? What are the laws regarding chinuch on this issue? From what age do they fast part of the day? The mishna refers to "one or two years before" regarding fasting for part of the day. Why does it say "one or two"? Rav Chisda says that we distinguish between weaker and stringer children. The gemara (according to Rashi) assumes that the mishna means a year or two before the year before they reach maturity as the year before maturity they need to fast on a rabbinic level. Two approaches are brought by amoraim and the gemara tries to reconcile those opinions with what is stated in the mishna. If a pregnant woman has a craving or a sick person needs to eat on Yom Kippur, what can be done? What if a pregnant woman has a craving for non-kosher food (not on Yom Kippur)? To save a life one can do anything except for three commandments - idol worship, forbidden sexual relations, and murder. From where are these laws derived?

Yoma 81 - July 1, 21 Tamuz Jul 01, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 81

Today's daf is sponsored with love by Arlee and Kenny to Tamara Katz, "wishing you a very happy birthday. Thank you for providing us with the inspiration to learn the daf, which we can’t wait to pass on to our daughter Millie."

Food and drink cannot combine for a requisite amount to obligate one. Is this only one person's opinion? Why is there no warning on Yom Kippur, i.e. "do not eat"? If one needs to have a warning in order to get punished, where can we find a warning for fulfilling the commandment of affliction on Yom Kippur? Four different answers are brought. From where do we derive the commandment to add on extra time to Yom Kippur, Shabbat and other holidays? It is derived from Vaykikra 23:32 regarding the mention of the ninth of the month in the verse about Yom Kippur (which is on the tenth). A different way of understanding that verse is to learn there is a commandment to eat on erev Yom Kippur. What is the nature of that obligation? If one eats inedible food on Yom Kippur, one is not liable. What is considered inedible? What about drinks? Is vinegar allowed? Rav Gidal said one is not liable for vinegar and his words were misunderstood and people thought they were allowed to drink vinegar on Yom Kippur.

Yoma 80 - June 30, 20 Tamuz Jun 30, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 80

Today's shiur is dedicated for a refuah shleima of Devora Shulamit bat Yocheved Chana.

Usually the requisite amount for eating is an olive bulk but the size for the impurity of food is an exception - the size of an egg. This is derived from a change in language in the verse. This idea is reinforced from Yom Kippur where also a change in language reflects and change in requisite amount. How do you know that food impurity is the size of an egg? Rabbi Elazar states that we must write down the size of something forbidden that we ate in case a court in the future will change the definition of the requisite amounts and we may no longer be required to bring a sacrifice when the temple is rebuilt. Rabbi Yochanan holds that requisite amount are a halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai, however, others disagree. The requisite amount for drinking is "cheekfuls" - what does this mean? Is it subjective? If so, how does this differ from the requirement for food which is not subjective. Several questions are raised. Food can join with other foods and drinks with other drinks to get to the requisite amount but not food and drink together. What about gravy with meat? If one eats excessively, one is exempt. Likewise for a non-Kohen who eats teruma in that manner will have to pay the principle but not the extra fifth as one does not benefit from the act of eating in this manner.

Yoma 79 - June 29, 19 Tamuz Jun 29, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 79

The measurement for which one is liable for karet for eating on Yom Kippur is mentioned in the mishna as a date with its pit. Rav Pappa asks if it is referring to a date + its pit or not? Rav Ashi asks a similar question regarding the amount for which a bone passed on impurity – the size of barley – with its husk or not? Dry or moist? Why didn't each of them ask the other question? There is controversy among amoraim about the size of the date compared to an egg bulk. Accrording to Rav Yehuda, is more than an egg. To Rav Zevid it is less than an egg. The gemara brings a difficulty on Rav Yehuda's opinion from a case that took place in the Sukkah where it is implied that the size of a date is less than an egg. Two resolutions are brought - of Rabbi Yirmiah and of Rava. The gemara reinforces Rav Yirmiah’s answer from a common expression A question is raised on Rava from a braita in Sukkah which deals with the things that must be eaten in the Sukkah. After resolving the difficulty, another source is brought to reinforce Rava’s answer but it is rejected. The gemara reinforces Rav Zevid’s opinion from a mishna regarding chametz and leaven but it is rejected. Another proof is brought from the blessing after meals.

Yoma 78 - June 28, 18 Tamuz Jun 28, 2021

Today's daf is sponsored by Natasha Shabbat in honor of the second yahrtzeit of her father. "My teacher, David ben Shalom haKohen v'Sarah was a brilliant doctor and a lifelong learner and teacher. He would have been very proud of me for taking on the commitment to Daf Yomi and very interested to hear all about it. I still want to call him every day to tell him what I've learned in today's Daf."

In the book of Ezekiel there is a description of a stream that will come out of the Holy of Holies in the future and will create a mikveh at the entrance to King David's house. Is it permissible to pass through water on Shabbat wearing shoes or sandals? Does the prohibition of washing include other things that cool people off? Is it related to the action or to the result? On what does it depend? Stories are brought about rabbis who wet a cloth before Yom Kippur or Tisha B'av and used it to wash their face, hands and feet. What was the difference between what they did on Yom Kippur and Tisha b'av and why? Rabbi Elazar is asked about wearing cork shoes on Yom Kippur. Various rabbis are brought who wore shoes made of different materials (not leather) on Yom Kippur. Is it the same for public fast days? Rami Bar Hama raises a difficulty from a source about a prosthetic leg. Abaye and Rava each resolve the difficulty differently. Why is it permitted to bathe and anoint children but not to wear shoes? The mishna that permits certain people to wash or wear shoes is only according to Rabbi Chanania ben Tradiyon as in a braita it appears that the rabbis disagree and do not permit it. Why are those people permitted, according to him?

Yoma 77 - June 27, 17 Tamuz Jun 27, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 77

Today's daf is sponsored by Elisheva Gray in loving memory of her dear husband Ron, z''l, on his tenth yahrzeit. "Grateful for the 25 years we had together. We never took one moment of it for granted and created so many wonderful memories together. Ron was truly a mensch, a gentleman, a wonderful cook and a sage in his own right. I miss him every day, and I know he would be studying the daf right along with me." And by Shelley and Jerry Gornish "in memory of our עז - our beloved and greatly missed grandson, עז וילצ׳יק, whose fifth Yahrzeit was recently commemorated."

The gemara explains the verse in Daniel " and I came on account of your words. " And brings a story about the angels Gabriel and Michael and the sequence of events between them and the prophet Daniel based on verses from Ezekiel. The gemara goes back to bringing a third proof that washing is considered affliction from a verse, "The people are weary and hungry and thirsty in the wilderness" - tired and bathing. How do you prove that it is not a different kind of fatigue? From where do we know that not wearing shows and refraining from sexual relations is affliction? In what circumstances is washing allowed? If one's hands are full of dirt, one can wash them. Washing hands in the morning is allowed because of an evil spirit. It is permissible to go through the water to go to his rabbi or father or to go to a sermon, but is it permissible to return home? Rabbi Yosef questions: How is it permissible to go through the water on a weekday, since there is danger, as seen from verses in Ezekiel describing a river that will come out of the Holy of Holies in the future.

Yoma 76 - Shabbat June 26. 16 Tamuz Jun 25, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 76

Today's daf is sponsored by Danny and Sara Berelowitz "in honor of the bar-mitzva of our grandson Ariel Berelowitz on Shabbat Parashat Balak."

After the gemara brings another way of understanding the verse, “Strong bread was eaten by a man”, the gemara continues with three more discussions dealing with manna. The first - why did the manna go down daily? The second deals with the height of the manna learned from a comparison with the height of the water in the flood. The third - that the manna was a miracle that the world saw and not only the children of Israel. The gemara goes on to discuss the sources of the five afflictions that are practiced on Yom Kippur. Sources are brought to explain how it is known that avoiding washing and putting on oils is considered an affliction.

Yoma 75 - June 25, 15 Tamuz Jun 25, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 75

Today's daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein "following a family Shabbat Chukat of inspiring divrai torah and uplifting zmirot, celebrating my son Oryahel's 40th birthday, a siyum massechet by his 11 year old son and the graduation from yeshivat of 2 grandsons. זוכה לראות בנים ובני בנים עוסקים בתורה. Thank you to Rabbanit Michelle who enriches our daf yomi by making it relevant to our daily lives and encouraging a deepening chibur, connection, with Torah and Hashem." And by Julie Mendelsohn for a refuah shleima to Yosef Azriel ben Chaya Michal. Yosef, a teenager, was critically injured at Har Meron on Lag B'omer, and has not yet regained consciousness. The power of this group is very strong so let's all pray for his complete recovery.

The Gemara brings up a number of disagreements between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi regarding a number of verses (as a continuation of the disagreement between them in the verses regarding the manna). The last of them deals with the punishments given to the serpent and the woman by God. Rav and Shmuel disagree on the verse "We remembered the daga", the complaint of the children of Israel in the wilderness about the manna and how much better it was in Egypt - are these really fish or forbidden relations? The gemara brings several drashot regarding the manna - its nature, special qualities (miraculous nature) and place of descent. Several drashot are brought regarding the quail that was brought after the Jews complained about not having meat. How was this a punishment? In many of the drashot, there is a reference to the differences between the righteous, the mediocre, and the wicked and how they each received different treatment from God.

Yoma 74 - June 24, 14 Tamuz Jun 24, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 74

Today's daf is sponsored by Art Gould in thanks to HaShem for 48 years of marriage to my beloved bride and partner for life Carol Robinson. 50 years ago this August at a Hillel Summer Institute in Starlight, Pennsylvania on Erev Shabbat before davening I said to this really cute girl "sit with me and I'll get you a prayer book". (She said Yes!) We've been inseparable ever since." And by Robin Katcoff in honor of her 20th Anniversary to Jason. "Jason is my rock and my hero. He keeps me going every day and has helped me build an amazing family with our two daughters. His love of learning has inspired me to continue studying Daf for the past year and a half. I love having him as my partner in Daf learning and life."

The Gemara continues with a difficulty about the Reish Lakish's opinion that eating less than the requisite amount is forbidden by Rabbinic law. The gemara then questions the assumption the gemara made previously that the word "forbidden" would imply that there is no karet punishment. The opinions of Reish Lakish and rabbi Yochanan are discussed regarding less than a requisite amount (chatzi shiur) - is it or is it not forbidden by Torah law? What are the reasons behind each opinion? Rabbi Yochana brings a source against Reish Lakish. What is the definition of "affliction" of Yom Kippur and how is it derived from the verses?

Yoma 73 - June 23, 13 Tamuz Jun 23, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 73

Rav Dimi says that the Kohen who is anointed to strengthen the soldiers when going out to war wears the garments of the Kohen Gadol when he works in the Temple. Ravin says that he wears them when consulting with God through the Urim v’Tumim. Two questions are raised against Rav Dimi. Through these questions, an answer is given that the Kohen who is anointed for war cannot wear the Kohen Gadol's clothing due to jealousy of the Kohen Gadol (by Torah law, he can but the rabbis prohibited). A question is brought from a source that compares all the laws regarding the Kohen Gadol/former Kohen Gadol/and Kohen for war seems to indicate that jealousy is not a concern and yet the Kohen for war does not wear the same clothes as the Kohen Gadol. How is this resolved? Ravin brings a different statement regarding the Kohen for war and the clothing of the Kohen Gadol - he wears them when he consults with the Urim v'Tumim. How does one consult with the Urim v’Tumim? Examples are brought from the Prophets to learn what is said, how it should be said, etc. How was the answer given? What is forbidden on Yom Kippur? What are exceptions to the rule? What is the requisite amount of food that can’t be eaten? Can foods and drink combine to get to the requisite amount? Is it forbidden by Torah law to eat less than the requisite amount (chatzi shiur)?

Yoma 72 - June 22, 12 Tamuz Jun 22, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 72

Today's daf is sponsored by Dahlia Levy in honor of her 50th birthday, and in honor of the wedding anniversary of her dear friends and role models, Rabbanit Michelle and Rabbi Seth Farber. Mazel tov to Eric Leiderman and Sarah Pila on their wedding yesterday. And a refuah shleima to Netanel Ilan ben Shayna Tzippora.

How do we know how many threads were used in the rest of the clothes/fabrics in the list we saw on page 71? Is there a prohibition from the Torah against tearing priestly garments? Is it forbidden to disconnect the choshen from the ephod and the rings from the Ark? Drashot are brought to explain why the boards of the Tabernacle are described as "standing" and the priestly garments called "s'rad"? The gemara brings many drashot on the subject of Torah scholars (some of them derived from verses on the Ark) on the importance of internalizing what one learns and being a God fearing person.

Yoma 71 - June 21, 11 Tamuz Jun 21, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 71

Today's daf is sponsored by Jill Shames upon the Shloshim of her father, Ze'ev Velvel ben Reuven v'Chana, Bill Baker in gratitude for the love of learning he instilled in his children, his grandchildren and his great-grandchildren. And by Rivkie Berger Samson in memory of her father, Shea Berger, Yehoshua Heschel ben Ephraim Yisroel HaLevi, on his first yartzeit. "My father’s love of learning and attendance at multiple shiurim during his busy week as well as on Shabbat has inspired me to continue in his footsteps. He is sorely missed. Yihei Zichro Baruch."

When did Aharon remove the spoon and the pan? A braita explains that these verses are not in order. How do we know that? Rav Chisda and Rava prove it - each in a different way. The braita also explained that these verses are the only ones that are out of order in this chapter, but also that isn’t so as the burning of the bull and goat are out of order. The gemara proves that they are also out of order. What will a person do if he sees that his children have left the Torah way? The gemara tells a story about a high priest who met Shemaiah and Avtalion after he finished his work on Yom Kippur and the people who accompanied him went instead to escort Shemaiah and Avtalion. The high priest got angry and reminded them that they were once not Jewish (as they had converted). To which they responded: we are behaving more like Aaron's descendants than you because we pursue peace and you do not. The mishna compares the clothes of the lay priest to the clothes of the high priest. How thick do each of the threads need to?

Yoma 70 - June 20, 10 Tamuz Jun 20, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 70

This week's learning is sponsored by Bill and Shira Futornick in memory of Bill's father and Shira's grandfather, David ben Yaakov z"l on his third Yahrzeit. "Although not ritually observant in the traditional sense, he taught us through example. As a writer, he would never touch his IBM Selectric, Smith Corona, or any other means of writing, on Shabbat. He was a man who truly valued treating people with kindness, and for whom family was of paramount importance. "

Today's daf is sponsored by Emma Rinberg in loving memory of Dr. Eric Glick, "who passed away on 10 Tammuz, 31 years ago, taken from us too soon. Daddy had the calming hand of a doctor, a beautiful singing voice, a deep knowledge of Torah (he knew chumash by heart) and a great emunah in Hashem. He was a Zionist all his life and would be so proud of all of his family, his legacy. I miss him a lot. May his memory be blessed and our learning bring an aliya to his neshama."

The Gemara explains different details that were mentioned regarding the reading of the Torah by the Kohen Gadol. What is the order of the sacrifices performed in the Temple on Yom Kippur? The mishnah describes from the third dipping in the mikveh to the fifth and final one. There are some controversies over certain details - such as, when were the additional (musaf) sacrifices brought? Was there one ram (communal offering) the was mentioned both in Vayikra and referred back to in Bamidbar? Or was the ram mentioned in Bamidbar with the musaf offerings a different one than the one mentioned in Vayikra?

Yoma 69 - Shabbat June 19, 9 Tamuz Jun 18, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 69

Can one benefit from priestly garments? The gemara tries to find an answer to this question. Is it forbidden to wear priestly garments outside the Temple? If so, how did Shimon the Tzaddik wear them for his meeting with Alexander the Great when he convinced him to prevent the Cutim from destroying the Temple (Mount Gerizim Day)? In the book of Nehemiah it is said that they called on the name of the great God - what is the meaning of "the great"? How did the Jews manage to eliminate the evil instinct for idol worship? What was the problem when they sought to eliminate the evil instinct for forbidden sexual relationships? Is it possible to skip portions when reading the Torah? From the Prophets?

Yoma 68 - July 18, 8 Tamuz Jun 18, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 68

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Mordechai ben Regina. May HaShem bring him a refu'ah shleima umheira. With love, Debbie and Gerard Engelen-Eigles.

From where do we learn that you do not flay the skin of the animal before burning but we do cut it into pieces? At what point do those who burn the bull and goat become impure and their clothes as well? There are two opinions – from where do each derive their answer? Where is the place where they burn the animals? And which people involved become impure? What method was used to determine that the goat was sent to the desert so that they could continue the work in the Temple? Up to what stage of the process of the goat to Azazel can the Kohen Gadol already continue his work in the Temple? The Kohen Gadol reads from the Torah - what exactly does he read? What clothes does he wear or can he wear? What can we learn from this about the reading and the priests’ clothing? What blessings did he bless after reading from the Torah?

Yoma 67 - June 17, 7 Tamuz Jun 17, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 67

Pictures

Today's daf is sponsored by Achsah Weinberg in honor of Rabbanit Michelle Farber, for the huge Hadran project, and for her daily teaching. And also in memory of her mother in law, Adele Weinberg, who passed away twenty years ago. "We are sure that she is very proud with the learning of her offspring." And by Rina Baumel in honor of her mother, Judy Schwartz, for her birthday. "Mom, your care and devotion to our family, daily acts of chessed and endless learning are a true inspiration to me. I'm happy we are taking this journey of the Daf Yomi together. Happy birthday."

The mishna and gemara describe the process of sending the goat to the desert and off the cliff. How many huts were on the way and how many mil (2000 cubits) were there between Jerusalem and the cliff? There are different opinions on the subject. They would offer him water to eat - how?? It was Yom Kippur!! He put a strip of red fabric - half on a rock and half between its horns. Why? Have they always done this or was tis originally done in the Temple? Are the limbs of the animal forbidden to benefit from? The gemara brings various drashot regarding the words used to describe the ceremony. The law of a goat is very difficult to understand – it is considered a chok, something we cannot understand but shouldn’t question. What is behind this ceremony? When does the sender become impure (also his clothes)? What happens in the Temple with the bull and the goat? They are taken out of Jerusalem to be burned and the innards are first removed to be burned on the altar.

Yoma 66 - June 16, 6 Tamuz Jun 16, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 66

Today's daf is sponsored by Oliver Mitchell in honor his my wife, Rabia Mitchell, on their 25th wedding anniversary. "Thank you HaKodosh Baruchu for enriching my life with Rabia - my best friend, wife, teacher, and mother to our 5 children. I’m appreciative for every minute we spend together. Your learning, mitzvot, and chessed is an inspiration to all. Looking forward to the next 25 and beyond! Lovingly." And by Shari Mendes in honor of her husband, David, on their 36th wedding anniversary. "It is a blessing and a joy to have merited a few rounds of chai (18) together. Grateful for the wonderful years and praying for many more in health together."

A fifth and final answer is brought regarding the contradiction between Rabbi Yehuda's opinion (according to Rava's explanation) regarding one who pays two half shekels and one who ends up with two animals dedicated for the bull or goat offering for Yom Kippur. What is the process of sending the goat out to the desert? Who can do it? Can he carry the goat out even on Shabbat, if necessary? Can he go into the Azara to get the goat if he is impure? Rabbi Eliezer is asked a slew of questions (|some relating to mess-ups that could happen on Yom Kippur with the scapegoat) that he is unwilling to answer and instead answers back with a question. Why was he behaving in that manner. One question is asked by a woman regarding the three methods by which people were killed after the sin of the Golden Calf. Rabbi Eliezer responds by saying, "A woman's wisdom is in the spindle." Even though Rabbi Eliezer didn't answer the questions, the gemara brings answers for the ones relating to Yom Kippur and for the one about the Golden Calf. Did all of the Levites not sin in the Golden Calf or did some?

Yoma 65 - June 15, 5 Tamuz Jun 15, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 65

Today's daf is sponsored by the Wilchek family in memory of their son Ozi on his fifth yahrzeit. And by Gitta Neufeld in memory of her father on his yahrzeit, Yosef ben Menachem Mendel v’Pesha, Phillip Jaroslawicz. And by Harriet Hartman in memory of her husband Moshe ben Yehuda Aryeh z"l. "I wish we had been able to learn Daf Yomi together, and I hope my learning is helpful to his nishama." And by Rabbi Michael & Alexis Singer. "Mazel Tov to our daughter Miriam on her graduation from Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy. We wish her continued success at List College & Columbia University. We are so proud of you as you keep up your study of Talmud." And by Sharon Russ for the refuah shleima of Ruchama Adina bat Mazal Shifra Chaya Tova. "Ruchama is G- d willing, having surgery this morning. May we hear good news and may she have a speedy complete recovery!"

The gemara raises several questions from various lines in our mishna on Rav and Rabbi Yochanan's approaches regarding a case where two lotteries are needed (if one animal dies) - which one is sacrificed and which one is left to graze. Each question is answered. On what points does Rabbi Yehuda disagree with the rabbis? The gemara explains his approach. The gemara raises a contradiction between two other statements of Rabbi Yehuda - one regarding someone who paid double for this year's half-shekel payment - it can be used for the next year. The other is regarding two goats or bulls for Yom Kippur that were both designated for the same sacrifice (as one got lost and was then found, after the other had been chosen) and Rabbi Yehuda doesn't allow it to be left for next year. Why the difference? The gemara brings several answers (4 on this page) and they are all rejected.

Yoma 64 - June 14, 4 Tamuz Jun 14, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 64

Presentation - Goats

This week of learning is sponsored by Yael & Mark Shayne in honor of their daughter, Dr. Elizabeth Shayne, who is receiving semicha from Yeshivat Maharat tomorrow. "We are proud of her accomplishments and thrilled to watch her evolve; but we are also excited to see how she continues to develop and contribute to Klal Yisrael. Yashar koach and Mazal tov."

Today's daf is sponsored by Ilana Fund in honor of her mother Rena Barta on her birthday tomorrow. "Mazal Tov and Happy Birthday Eema! So proud and inspired to be joining you on your daf yomi journey from halfway around the world. I am looking forward to being able to learn with in you person this summer, beezrat Hashem. I love you." And in memory of Yaakov ben Meir, Rabbeinu Tam.

What happens if one of the goats dies? A new lottery is performed. If the goat for Azazel dies, what happens to the two goats that were designated for Hashem? Which one is sacrificed and what happens to the other. Rav and Rabbi Yochanan disagree and their debate depends on their opinion regarding whether or not animals that get rejected remain rejected or not. From where is each opinion derived? Tannaitic sources are brought to support each opinion.

Yoma 63 - June 13, 3 Tamuz Jun 13, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 63

Today's daf is sponsored anonymously in memory of HaRav Menachem Mendel ben Levi Yitzhak, the Lubavitcher Rebbe.

According to Rav Chisda, if an animal is considered "missing an action associated with it," if one slaughters it outside, one would not be obligated for slaughtering outside the Temple. Therefore, one would not be obligated for offering outside the Temple peace offerings before the opening of the Sanctuary doors. A contradiction is brought regarding Rav Chisda's halacha that regarding the goats, one would be obligated, even though it is missing an action, as it can potentially be used for the musaf offering of a goat. Does Rav Chisda use the halachic principle "ho'il" - 'since it can be potentially valid'? Where does Rav Chisda hold that we don't use that principle? If a Pesach is offered not in its proper time (not on the fourteenth of Nisan) outside the Temple, is one obligated for slaughtering outside the Temple? Does it depend on whether he intended it as a Pesach or as a peach offering? Three opinions are brought. The goat that is sent to Azazel is excluded from laws of slaughtering outside the Temple, however, is included in other laws - must be sanctified only once it is eight days old and cannot be brought from a blemished animal.

Yoma 62 - Shabbat June 12, 2 Tamuz Jun 11, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 62

If the blood spills before all the sprinklings are finished, a new animal is slaughtered. What happens to the animals whose blood was sprinkled? If it was a goat, a new lottery must be done – are all the goats that were chosen to go to Azazel actually sent to Azazel? Rav Nachman concludes that only one is sent. Which one? The two goats are supposed to be identical in a number of ways, but if they are not, they can still be used. What happens if one of them dies? From where is the law derived that they should be identical but if not, they can still be used? The same laws apply also to the two lambs brought for a leper and the two birds used in the leper’s purification process and for the two lambs used for the Shabbat additional sacrifices. Why does it not apply to the two lambs used for the Tamid daily sacrifice?

Yoma 61 - Rosh Chodesh Tamuz, June 11, 1 Tamuz Jun 11, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 61

The month of Tamuz is sponsored by Rabbi Fredda Cohen and Eric Nussbaum in memory of Fredda's beloved father, Mitchell Cohen, Michael ben Shraga Faivel haLevi, whose 27th yahrzeit falls on 16 Tammuz. "He was so kind, sweet and funny. He had a big open heart for klal Yisrael v'chol yoshvei teivel. He would never have categorized himself as a Torah and Talmud scholar, but indeed he was. The father of three girls, he gave all of us a Jewish education. He was a loving husband who adored our mom. There was no one I missed more on the day I received s'micha as he was my inspiration and ballast. He would be delighted to know that he has nine grandchildren, two of whom carry his name, and two great-grandchildren. He was truly an ish neeman. The month is also dedicated for Refua of Pesha Ethel bat Sarah."

Today's daf is sponsored by Ilana Friedman, in memory of her dear cousin Dvora Ita bat Harav Azriel Zeev on her yahrtzeit. "Dvora was a brilliant woman with a strong sense of justice and integrity who loved to learn and who would have been my biggest Daf cheerleader. She is loved and missed. May she be a melitzat yosher for her family and women everywhere dedicated to Torah learning."

Ulla said: If the Kohen Gadol slaughtered the goat before sprinkling the blood of the bull in the Holy of Holies, he should start the process from the beginning. Does this contradict what is written in the mishna? For what are all the different parts of the sprinkling of the blood intended to atone? Do Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon disagree both on the matter of blood (if the blood is spilled, where do we start) and on the guilt offering of a leper (if the oil is spilled)?

Yoma 60 - Rosh Chodesh Tamuz, June 10, 30 Sivan Jun 10, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 60

A week of learning is sponsored by Sivya and Nahum Twersky in honor of Shoshana Baker's milestone birthday. "May Hashem grant her arichut yamim in good health with her beautiful family. There is so much nachat left to come. We are so very proud of her commitment to Torah, Avodah v.Gemilut Chasadim. Hamaevin Yavin. All of our love and admiration, Mom and Abba."

Today's daf is sponsored by Mark Baker in honor of his wife's Shoshana's birthday. Wishing her the happiest birthday to his beautiful wife. And by Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld for the refuah sheleima of David ben Adel and all that need health.

Is it really true always that once the mitzva is complete, there are no laws on misuse of consecrated property? After all, there are exceptions like the trumat hadeshen, removal of the ashes – once there are placed in the pile, they remain there and can’t be used. How is this issue resolved? Why was it necessary to bring 3 different drashot excluding it from laws of misuse of consecrated property? Each word comes to exclude a different law. Why is there no need for a verse to exclude laws of pigul by blood? Every act of Yom Kippur must be done in order. Does this really mean everything? There is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nehemiah - does it only apply to what is done in white clothes inside the Holy of Holies or to everything that is done in white clothes? The gemara discusses their opinions. What happens if the blood is spilled in the middle of the sprinklings? From what point does the Kohen Gadol need to start with a new animal?

Yoma 59 - June 9, 29 Sivan Jun 09, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 59

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabia Mitchell in honor of Oliver Mitchell on their 25th wedding anniversary. These past 25 years have been overflowing in joy and laughter, our 5 children, thousands of Shabbos guests, traveling with the family or simply sitting together and learning the Daf. It has all been a delight and I am so grateful for each and every day. Thank you for sharing your life with me.

What is the point on which Rabbi Yosi HaGlili and Rabbi Akiva disagree regarding the direction in which the Kohen Gadol goes when doing the placements of blood on the inner altar? The gemara brings several options and analyzes them. After that the Kohen Gadol sprinkled the blood on the "tiharo" of the altar seven times - what part of the altar is that? The Kohen Gadol now leaves the Sanctuary and spills the remainder of blood into a hole at the base of the altar. Into which hole - the Western or Southern one? Is this the same or different from sacrifices whose blood was sprinkled on the outer altar? There are different opinions brought. Is there a law of misuse of consecrated property (meila) by the blood that goes from the base and drains out to Nachal Kidron? If there is, it is only rabbinic as there are no laws of meila by blood. Three drashot are brought to explain from where this is derived in the Torah.

Yoma 58 - June 8, 28 Sivan Jun 08, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 58

Pictures

The gemara determines who said what in the dispute between Rabbi Yoshiya and Rabbi Yonatan regarding mixing the blood. Rami bar Hama asks some questions about something creating a separation between the blood and a utensil. Where does the Kohen Gadol stand when he puts the blood on the inner altar? How many does he do? In which direction is it done (up/down)? Which corner does he start with and what is the direction in which he continues from there? There is a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yossi Hagalili - what is the basis for the dispute?

Yoma 57 - June 7, 27 Sivan Jun 07, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 57

If the sprinklings of the bull and goat are derived by a hekesh, juxtaposition, how can we derive a further juxtaposition from the sprinklings in the Holy of Holies to the sprinklings in the Sanctuary – rules don’t allow for a juxtaposition on a juxtaposition in the realm of the Temple. The gemara offers several answers. Are the sprinklings in the Sanctuary done on the parochet or in front of the parochet, on the floor? What does one do if the bloods get mixed together before the Kohen Gadol sprinkles the blood in the Holy of Holies? What if they mix after sprinkling upward but before the downward sprinklings? What if the Kohen got confused and doesn’t know which blood is in each cup? If some of the bloods mixed together but some remained separate, is what’s mixed up considered the remainder, or is it considered “rejected”? The mishna explains that the last stage of the blood sprinklings is to mix them together and place them on the four corners of the golden altar. That is a subject of debate as according to one opinion, they are placed separately on the corners of the altar. Is it clear that there is a tannaitic debate on this topic? Perhaps they both agree?

Yoma 56 - June 6, 26 Sivan Jun 06, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 56

This week's learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in memory of Paula’s father, Chaim Avraham ben Alter Gershon HaKohen. And by Elana Storch in honor of the birth of her granddaughter, Reut Noa, born to our children Julianna and Reuben Habousha Cohen. Reut Noa is named for women of strength and courage. One day she will know that a week of learning was dedicated to her arrival and I will share the great achievements of Rabbanit Farber and the beautiful community of Hadran.

What is the reason why Rabbi Yehuda thinks there was only one pedestal for the bloods of the bull and the goat? Was it because the Kohen Gadol may not read the signs and may confuse between the bloods? Apparently, that is the issue, even though in the case of the shofarot in Shekalim, that was not the issue. In Shekalim the issue was a concern that someone may have died after their money went in and there would be no way to fix the situation as Rabbi Yehuda doesn't hold by laws of breira, retroactive designation. From where do we know that Rabbi Yehuda doesn't hold by breira? Why would Rabbi Yehuda think in the case of the Kohen Gadol, we cannot rely on the fact that he will read the signs but in the case of the shofarot, we can? A case is brought of a chazan who described the service of the Kohen Gadol in a way that was both according to Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis and Rava corrected him. From where do we derive that the blood is sprinkled in the Sanctuary onto the parochet in the same order and the same amount as was done inside the Holy of Holies?

Yoma 55 - Shabbat June 5, 25 Sivan Jun 04, 2021

Pictures

The Kohen Gadol first sprinkles the blood of the bull in the Holy of Holies. Then he slaughters the goat and sprinkles its blood. How is the sprinkling done – where? How many? In what direction? Is it the same for the bull and the goat? How is this all derived from the verses? The counting is done by also mentioning the one sparkling that was upwards at the time he is counting the downward ones. Why? Are there two stands or just one for the bloods of the bull and goat? Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with Tana Kama. The gemara brings the Mishna Shekalim 6:4 to try to understand why Rabbi Yehuda holds that there was only one stand – is it because people may not read what is written and may make a mistake? The gemara rejects this possibility and explains the reason in Shekalim differently and as such, it does not teach us anything about our mishna.

Yoma 54 - June 4, 24 Sivan Jun 04, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 54

Today's daf is sponsored by Goldie Gilad in memory of her father Yaacov Yisroel Tynkielrot z"l. "A holocaust survivor that continued to learn Daf Yomi immediately after the war by gathering and encouraging people around him to study the Daf realizing that it was the only constant in his life having lost everything else that mattered. He continued Daf Yomi for 7 1/2 cycles. He gave shiurim morning and night during his entire life." And by Rivka and Martin Himmel in honor of their 36th anniversary. While learning the daf, Rivka uses the Shas that her father gave to Martin for the wedding.

Was the Ark hidden or was it taken to Babylonia? What are the proofs for each opinion? The Ark and the Cherubs were used as a metaphor for the relationship between God and the Jewish people. How? How were there cherubs in the Second Temple if there was no Ark? Why was the stone called "Even Hashtia"? From where was the world created? Various opinions are brought? Is Jerusalem considered the center of the world/universe?

Yoma 53 - June 3, 23 Sivan Jun 03, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 53

Pictures

Today's daf is sponsored by Dodi Lee Lamm in memory of her beloved father, Rabbi Maurice Lamm, Moshe ben Meir Shmuel. "My father lived his life with joy, purpose, and an absolute abundance of love for his family. He was patient, kind, and wise. It is because of my father that I learn the daf, and I feel his presence in every word of Torah I read. May our learning give him pride and his neshama have an aliya."

What is the source of the Pharisees / Sadducees' controversy regarding the incense on Yom Kippur? How does the Kohen Gadol walk out of the Holy of Holies? We learn from this about how to part from one’s rabbi and how to walk at the end of the Shmoneh Esre, the silent prayer. What prayer does the Kohen Gadol say after leaving the Holy of Holies. A story is told of Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa who was able to very easily influence the bringing and stopping of rain in a way that no Kohen Gadol was able to do. It is said of one Kohen Gadol that extended his prayer and caused great worry among the people who were concerned that he had died. The mishna describes the sprinklings of blood that the Kohen Gadol from the bloods of the bull and the goat inside the Holy of Holies and outside on the parcohet. In what order? How many sprinklings?

Yoma 52 - June 2, 22 Sivan Jun 02, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 52

Pictures

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Shapiro for the upcoming birthdays of her grandchildren: Matan and Yakira in Baltimore, 2nd birthday; and Adin Abraham in Jerusalem, 1st birthday.

What exactly was the question regarding the status of the one cubit partition between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies? Ravina explains it and the gemara brings Rabbi Yochanan who quotes a question raised by Yosef Ish Hutzal about two possibilities to reading a verse regarding the partition to prove his reading. The gemara questions this as it is said in a braita that Isi ben Yehuda said there are five verses in the Torah that can be read in two different ways and this verse is not one of them and it is said that Yosef Ish Hutzal is the same person as Isi ben Yehuda. The mishna continues to describe the path the Kohen Gadol takes after reaching the parochet, partition between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. Then it describes how he offered the incense in the Holy of Holies and the path he took to leave when he finished. In the Sanctuary, on the way out, he would recite a short prayer – short, so as not to worry the people outside that were concerned the Kohen Gadol may die upon entering the Holy of Holies. The mishna is confusing as the parochet was only in the Second Temple, but the Ark was only in the First Temple as it was hidden. Why was it hidden and by whom? What else was hidden with it? How can it be explained? There is a debate regarding how the incense is placed on the coals – all at once or gradually. There is also a debate regarding where on the coal pile – closer to the Ark or closer to where the Kohen Gadol is standing?

Yoma 51 - June 1, 21 Sivan Jun 01, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 51

Pictures

The gemara had brought a braita that compared sacrifices to temura, substitution. What was the case of sacrifices that were mentioned? Was it specifically the bull of Yom Kippur, in which case we can learn from this source the answer to Rabbi Elazar's question about whether or not laws of substitution apply to that sacrifice? Or was it referring to the ram of Yom Kippur? The gemara raises some questions against Rav Sheshet's reading that it was referring to the ram of Yom Kippur - why couldn't it be referring to the Pesach or Pesach Sheni sacrifice? In referring back to a mishna and braita in which Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yaakov's arguments against the Tana Kama were brought and in which they listed a few communal and individual offerings, the gemara questions why if Chagiga is communal, shouldn't Pesach be, as well. The gemara answers that it is referring to Pesach Sheni which is clearly individual. But if so, does it really override impurities? A debate regarding this issue is explained. A question is raised against Rabbi Elazar's question regarding whether substitution is effective for the bull offering on Yom Kippur - from drashot in the verses, it seems to be clear that it is considered an individual offering! The gemara resolves the difficulty. The mishna brings two opinions regarding the separation between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies - in the Second Temple was it made of two parochets or one? What is the basis for each opinion? Three approaches are brought regarding the path the Kohen Gadol takes through the sanctuary to get to the Holy of Holies. What is the reason behind each approach?

Yoma 50 - May 31, 20 Sivan May 31, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 50

Today's daf is dedicated by Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker in memory of Marilyn Mirchin, Masha Bat Raizel v'Yitzchak. "Marilyn became my family when her daughter married my brother. She was known as Bubbe Marilyn not only to her own grandchildren but to my daughters as well. Her quiet, gentle manner and warm smile will be missed by all. May her neshama have an aliyah."

Rabbi Yitzchak now questions Rabbi Ami's opinion from the verses in the Torah which seem to indicate that "bull" would include also the blood. Rav Ashi supports Rabbi Yitzchak's approach from the wording of the verse in the Torah. But an alternative reading is brought to support the others. The gemara questions why if the Kohen Gadol dies, this would not be a case of a sin offering whose owner died, which is left to die. Then clearly the other Kohen Gadol would have to slaughter a new bull! A debate ensues between Rav Amram and Rava regarding the status of the bull offering - is it considered a communal offering (in which case it does not have to be left to die) or is it considered an individual offering (but one who has partners and therefore it is not left to die? Rav Amram brings a mishna to support his reading but Rava understands the source differently. Abaye brings who sources against Rava that seem to imply there are those who hold it is a communal offering, but Rava explains them all as referring to partnership and not communal offering. The second source relates to a question regarding laws of substitution for the bull offering and the gemara delves into the question - both to understand exactly what the question was and attempts to find an answer to the question.

Yoma 49 - May 30, 19 Sivan May 30, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 49

Pictures

Questions are raised against Rav Sheshet's opinion who held that carrying the blood to be sprinkled could be performed with the left hand. An additional question is brought by Rav Papa (continuation from the previous pages) regarding the handful of the incense. Rabbi Yehushua ben Levi asks a question about the handful - if a Kohen Gadol took the handful and died, would his replacement be able to take that handful or would he need to take his own? Rabbi Chanina's reaction to his question spurs a whole discussion in and of itself regarding when Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was born - in the generation before or after Rabbi Chanina? How does his question relate to the debate regarding what happens if the Kohen Gadol dies after slaughtering the bull - does his replacement need to slaughter a new one? What is the answer to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's question? The gemara brings two different answers. Does the Kohen Gadol take the incense in his hands again when he is inside the Holy of Holies? If so, how is it done, technically? If the Kohen Gadol dies after slaughtering but before sprinkling the bull's blood, does his replacement need to slaughter a new bull? Two sides of the debate are brought and analyzed.

Yoma 48 - Shabbat May 29, 18 Sivan May 28, 2021

Today's daf is sponsored by the Shalev family in memory of Genya Adi bat Lana veMisha. "She left an impact with her love, kindness and Torah learning."

Rav Papa asks a number of questions regarding both the sanctification of the meal offering and the incense on Yom Kippur. When the Kohen Gadol takes a handful of incense, how big a handful – overflowing or flat? If it falls on the floor after being in his hands, can he gather it up and reuse it? How does it compare to the blood of an animal that spills? Do laws of pigul apply to different parts of the process of the incense? Rav Sheshet is asked a question: When a kohen brings the blood to the altar, can it be carried in his left hand or not? He answers by learning from the incense which was brought in the Kohen Gadol’s left hand. Why isn’t it learned from the daily Tamid offering whose leg is carried to the ramp of the altar in the kohen’s left hand?

Yoma 47 - May 28, 17 Sivan May 28, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 47

Pictures

Today's daf is sponsored by William Futornick in honor of Shira Futornick’s birthday. "Happy 17th!"

The Kohen Gadol takes a handful of incense using both hands and places it in a spoon in his left hand and in the other hand is the coal pan. The size of the handful depending on the size of the kohen's hands. Why was the incense taken in the left hand and the coal pan in the right? Why was the incense placed in a spoon and not brought directly in the Kohen Gadols' hands? The gemara delves into the size of the handful - what if the Kohen's hands are particularly large like Yishmael ben Kimchit, the son of the woman who was rewarded by having sons who became High Priests as the walls of her house never "saw her hair" due to her being strict regarding laws of head covering. Two stories are brought of Rabbi Yishmael that he left the Temple on Yom Kippur and met a gentile officer in the marketplace and the saliva of the gentile got onto his clothing and he became impure and his brother had to fill in for him. The gemara compares laws of the handful required for a meal offering and the handful of incense on Yom Kippur. These are both two of three activities in the Temple that were considered very difficult. What is the status of dough for the meal offering that gets stuck in between one's fingers - it is considered part of the kmitza or the remainder? What if the handful is taken in an atypical manner? The same is asked regarding the handful of the incense.

If you're interested in learning more about the halachot of head covering that stem partially from the description of Kimchit in today's daf, read Head Covering: How and Head Covering: Where by Deracheha.

Yoma 46 - May 27, 16 Sivan May 27, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 46

The gemara brings in Rabbi Elazar in the name of Bar Kapara who brings an expanded version of Rabbi Meir’s opinion (that there was an additional woodpile for the parts that didn’t burn completely the previous night). He says that it was used every day and even on Shabbat. What did Bar Kapara add that wasn’t already clear from our mishna? Does Rav Huna disagree with Bar Kapara as he seems to say that it wasn’t used on Shabbat? Raba and Rav Chisda each have different ways of understanding Rav Huna. One explains that he holds that it overrides Shabbat but not impurity and the other says the reverse. Abaye raises a question on both approaches – why should one distinguish between Shabbat and impurity? Raba explains why according to both his opinion and Rav Chisda’s. One cannot extinguish coals from the woodpile. What if it was no longer on the woodpile and removed to bring to burn the incense or light the Menora? Rava and Abaye disagree on the subject. Do you disagree when it has already been lowered from the altar or while one is still on the altar? If so, how do their opinions work with the words of Rav Nachman in the name of Raba Bar Avuha who said that if one removes coals to the ground, one is still obligated for extinguishing?

Yoma 45 - May 26, 15 Sivan May 26, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 45

Pictures

Today’s daf is sponsored by Louis Polcin in honor of Rabbi Elisha Herb of Temple Beth Sholom. "Thank you for the support during my years in college, when you so selflessly welcomed me into your community. It has been an honor to learn from you and to daven alongside you. I am inspired by your deep sense of kavanah, your devotion to the local Jewish community and your love of Judaism. Thank you for introducing me to Talmud study and to Hadran."

How many types of gold are there? And how did each type get its name? The gemara demands the reason for other differences mentioned in the mishna between what was done daily and what was done on Yom Kippur. How many woodpiles were on the outer altar? There are three opinions and the gemara brings the drashot for each of the opinions, most of them from verses in Vakikra Chapter 6, verses 1-6. From where do we derive that the fire for the incense on Yom Kippur and for the Menora were brought from the outer altar? And where on the altar is the location for the woodpile for Yom Kippur?

Yoma 44 - May 25, 14 Sivan May 25, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 44

Pictures

No one is allowed to be in the sanctuary while the Kohen Gadol goes into the Holy of Holies. Is it only when he offers the incense or also when he sprinkles the blood in the Holy of Holies? Rabbi Elazar distinguishes between the separation during the offering of the incense daily (where no one can be in the Sanctuary or in the area between the altar and the Sanctuary) and the offering of the incense in the Holy of Holies where one is allowed to be in the latter but not in the former. A question is brought from a braita where a similar distinction is made (regarding separation from the Sanctuary and also between the area in between the altar and the Sanctuary), however it seems to be distinguishing between other actions and not the incense in the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. Can other things be inferred from this braita regarding differentiating levels of sanctity in the Temple? Why were two shovels used for the incense on a regular day? And why not on Yom Kippur?

Yoma 43 - May 24, 13 Sivan May 24, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 43

Pictures

The gemara goes on to extrapolate all the words in the section about the red heifer that indicate a particular person and explain in some cases whether this verse is different from the previous verse and it is a different person who can be involved or is it continuing the same meaning as the previous verse and the same person can do that action as well? Who is able to do each step of the process? The gemara returns to the controversy between Rav and Shmuel regarding whether or not a non-kohen can slaughter the red heifer. Rabbi Yochanan has a different position than them. Why in the first confession did the high priest not confess also for all the kohanim and only did so in the second confession? The mishnah continues with the continued work of the High Priest with the incense and brings a list of things they were done differently on Yom Kippur than on other days of the year.

Yoma 42 - May 23, 12 Sivan May 23, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 42

This week of learning is sponsored by Robert Cohen in memory his mother, my grandmother, Helen Cohen, Henna bat Yitzchak Nechemia z"l. This week is also sponsored for a refuah shleima of Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

What are the different opinions regarding the size of the red strip of wool needed for different mitzvot in the Torah? Regarding the slaughtering of the bull for Yom Kippur and the red heifer – one is permitted by a non-Kohen and one is not. There is a debate regarding which is permitted/forbidden? What are the proofs for each opinion? The gemara brings difficulties for each opinion. Ulla states that in the section of the red heifer, there are some laws that are unique to one part of the process and some that are relevant for the whole process. Ulla proceeds to bring drashot for the verses on the subject from Bamidbar 19.

Yoma 41 - Shabbat May 22, 11 Sivan May 21, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 41

Pictures

Rav Chisda brings a law regarding the designation of pairs of bird offerings (one as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering) - when is the designation valid and cannot be changed? The gemara brings a braita quoted on the previous page as a question against Rav Chisda. Another braita is also brought to question his opinion but all of these questions are resolved. The mishna continues with the Yom Kippur service in the Temple. The kohen ties a red strip of wool around the goat that will be sent to Azazel and moves its position. Then something is done to the other goat but it is unclear if it means that a red strip of wool is tied around its neck or if it relates to its position in the Temple? The gemara concludes that it has a strip tied around its neck. Where else are red strips of wool used and what is the difference between the strip in the different situations?

Yoma 40 - May 21, 10 Sivan May 21, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 40

The gemara raises several questions (four, including the one at the end of the previous page) on Rabbi Yannai's position according to the second reading, that even according to Rabbi Yehuda the drawing of lots is essential. Ultimately they bring proof from a braita that this position of Rabbi Yannai is correct.

Yoma 39 - May 20, 9 Sivan May 20, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 39

Pictures

Today's shiur is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

How was the lottery for the two goats performed? What was done in order to prevent trickery? What was done to prevent animosity between the Kohen Gadol and his potential replacement (s'gan)? If was seen as a good sign if the lot for God came out in the Kohen Gadol's right hand. Braitot are brought that describe miracles that happened when Shimon the Tzadik was the Kohen Gadol that did not happen after his death. How many times did the Kohen Gadol say the unique name of God on Yom Kippur and at what points in the service? Certain sounds and smells were heard/smelled in Jericho and Jerusalem. Is the drawing of the lot sand placing them on the goats an essential part of the Yom Kippur service, i.e. if either was not performed, would the ceremony still be valid?

Yoma 38 - May 19, 8 Sivan May 19, 2021

This week's learning is sponsored by Dodi Lamm and Tina Lamm in memory of their beloved Uncle and Father-in-law, Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm, Nachum Ben Meir Shmuel v’ Perel. "Rabbi Lamm taught us that Torah was a gift given by God equally to men and women. He championed women’s learning in passionate speeches. He expanded women’s learning in practice by, for example, instituting the post-graduate Talmud program at Stern. And Rabbi Lamm lived these values at home. He loved to learn with his daughters, nieces, and granddaughters and took great pride in their Torah accomplishments. Rabbi Lamm would look upon our group’s learning with great joy. He would be delighted to know that more women than ever before in Jewish history are accessing, internalizing, and developing Talmud knowledge. May we continue to enjoy the pleasures of Torah as we complete ALL of Shas - together."

What miracle happened with the doors to the Temple that Nikanor brought from Alexandria? The mishna lists a number of families of kohanim that were mentioned in a negative light as they were excellent at what they did but didn't share their secrets with others, like the Avtinas family who knew how to prepare the incense properly and the Garmu family who knew how to prepare the showbread, Hugras ben Levi who knew how to sing in a special way and ben Kamtzer who had a unique way of writing. The sages tried to replace Beit Avtinas and Beit Garmu but couldn't find others who could do it as they could and when they rehired them, the families only agreed to come back if they would receive double wages. Why was it important to them to not reveal their secrets? The gemara compares different aspects of righteous people as compared to evil people, particularly regarding the mentioning of their names and the blessing associated with the mention of a righteous person and the disparagement associated with the mention of an evil person. Other statements regarding the righteous are brought. One who continually does good, will be protected from sin and one who sins will not.

Yoma 37 - May 18, 7 Sivan May 18, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 37

Pictures

Today's daf is sponsored by Michelle and Laurence Berkowitz in memory of Joy Rochwarger Balsam z"l on her 17th yahrzeit, Joy was a pioneer in women's learning and taught many students in many parts of the world. Joy wanted to teach Torah to anybody who wanted to learn, from Poland to Russia to her many students from Midreshet Moriah. Joy would have been so proud of Hadran Daf Yomi and Rabbanit Farber and to all else involved in this great endeavor. Because as Joy did, Hadran spreads Torah to anybody who wants to learn anywhere. Joy was immensely involved in all that went on in Israel as she lived here for many years. During these difficult times, may Joy's neshama be a Meilitzat Yosher to bring peace and security to the people of Israel in the State of Israel.

The gemara explains the language of the confession on the bull - why is the word 'ana' (please) used and why is God's name mentioned? Where did the kohen stand when he did the lottery on the goats? Who stood beside him? In what formation did they stand? The mishna describes different people who designed beautiful or more useful items for the Temple. What were they and who was credited with each one?

Yoma 36 - Chag Shavuot, May 17, 6 Sivan May 16, 2021

Pictures

What areas in the azara are considered “in the North” for the purposes of slaughtering kodshei kodashim? There are three different opinions, based on different ways of understanding the verse in Vayikra 1:11. The mishna states that the bull was slaughtered between the altar and the ulam. According to whose opinion is this? Does it only fit with one opinion or can it fit with two? What is the exact position of the bull (which way is his body, which way does he face) and why? How is smicha performed on other kodshei kodashim? For what sins does one confess on a burnt offering – there are two opinions. What is the root of their debate? What is the language of the confession of the Kohen Gadol on the bull offering and on the goat? There are two opinions. According to who do we hold? From where do we derive that the Kohen Gadol needs to confess his sins on the bull offering?

Yoma 35 - May 16, 5 Sivan May 16, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 35

Pictures

This week's learning is sponsored by Joy Benatar in memory of Miriam David, Malka bat Michael v'Esther. Remembered as a devoted wife, mother, grandmother, and Jewish educator.

Why is the room called Beit HaParva? Why did they hold up specifically a garment made of linen? Why did the mishna tell us the total sum of how much the clothing cost? Can a kohen use his own clothing for work in the Temple? A story is told about the clothes of Rabbi Elazar ben Charsom whose mother made his very expensive fine clothing to work in the Temple but the threads were transparent and one could see his body underneath the clothing. Since Rabbi Elazar ben Charsom is mentioned, the gemara brings a braita that also relates to him. A poor person, a rich person and an evil person are brought to judgement and asked, “Why did you not learn Torah?” If they say they were too poor, they remind them of the story of Hillel who always learned Torah in the same place every day but one day couldn’t pay the entrance fee and he sacrificed his life to learn Torah by going up to the roof on a snowy day and risking his life to listen to the Torah through the skylight.” If he says he is too rich, they remind him of Rabbi Elazar ben Charsom who was so rich and yet left his business dealings to others and spent his time going from place to place learning Torah. If he says he is too beautiful, they remind him of the story of Yosef who didn’t give in to Potifar’s wife’s daily attempts to seduce him. The mishna continues in the actions of the Kohen Gadol. He takes the bull and does smicha, then vidui, confession of his sins and his family’s sins.

Yoma 34 - Shabbat May 15, 4 Sivan May 14, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 34

Pictures

The gemara continues to explain the order according to Abba Shaul and brings in different opinions regarding the order of certain activities. Are the requirement for libations for the Tamid sacrifice written in the Torah regarding the afternoon Tamid sacrifice and derived from there to the morning? Or is it the reverse? Rabbi Yehuda explain one way that they would heat the water of the mikveh by putting hot iron blocks into the water. Why is that not forbidden to do as it hardens the metal? Rav Bivai explain that the blocks were not hot enough. Abaye explains, it is because it is a davar sheaino mitkaven, a melacha was performed but it was not the intent of the action, as the action was meant to heat the water. But doesn’t Abaye hold by Rabbi Yehuda who holds that davar sheaino mitkaven is forbidden? The gemara distinguishes between rabbinic and Torah law. The mishna continues to describe the second dipping in the mikveh and changing of clothes of the Kohen Gadol in preparation of the Avoda of the day. The Kohen Gadol wore two different sets of the white linen clothing on Yom Kippur for the two different times he changed into them. The mishna describes where each came from and how much each set was worth (using very exaggerated numbers). Communal funds were used to purchase them, but the Kohen Gadol could add more money of his own if he wanted to.

Yoma 33 - May 14, 3 Sivan May 14, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 33

Pictures

This week's learning is sponsored by Lesley Glassberg Nadel and Don Nadel in memory of the yahrzeits of their mothers Theresa Glassberg Tova Bat Zvi Hirsch on Rosh Chodesh Sivan and Rhoda Nadel. Zisa Risa bat Aliya haCohen on 2nd Sivan.

Abaye brought the tradition that he was taught in the name of Abba Shaul regarding the order of daily activities in the Temple. The gemara begins to go through each item on the list and explain why each one comes before the next.

Yoma 32 - May 13, 2 Sivan May 13, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 32

Today's daf is sponsored by Lesley Glassberg Nadel and Don Nadel in memory of Don's mother, Rhoda Nadel, Zisa Risa bat Aliya haCohen.

According to the rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Meir and hold that each washing of hands and feet relates to removing the clothes and putting them on, how can there be ten washings of the hand if on the first time he goes to the mikveh, there is only one washing of the hands? Braitot are brought to explain why the Kohen Gadol needs to dip five times. Why does he wear the white linen clothes twice? There is something out of order in the Torah in that section of Vayikra 16 regarding entering into Ohel Moed – for what purpose does he go in again and when? From where do we derive that he needs to go to the mikveh each time he changes clothing? From where do we derive the obligation to wash his hands and feet ten times? Different approaches are brought. What is the exact order of washing hands and feet as related to undressing and dressing. Several different approaches are brought. What part of the slaughtering does the Kohen Gadol do before passing it on to another Kohen to finish it up so that he can collect the blood? What can we learn from here about the criteria for slaughtering?

Yoma 31 - March 12, Rosh Chodesh Sivan, 1 Sivan May 12, 2021

Pictures

The learning for the month of Sivan is sponsored by Josh Sussman in honor of both his wife, Romi’s 50th birthday and their son, Zeli. "He will, B’Ezrat HaShem, be making his first solo siyum on Masechet Yoma at his Bar Mitzvah in July. Romi and I are so proud to be sharing in our learning of Daf Yomi with Zeli and couldn’t be prouder of him."

Today's daf is sponsored by Lesley Glassberg Nadel and Don Nadel in memory of the yahrzeit of Leslie's mother Theresa Glassberg (Tova Bat Zvi Hirsch). And by Deborah Aschheim Weiss in honor of her 39th wedding anniversary to Robert Weiss. "Robert, you have enabled me to accomplish so much: 4 amazing children and a rewarding career. Now you have encouraged me to undertake the daf. May we continue to partner and support each other for many more years."

If only a small part of one’s body goes into the azara, is there a requirement to go to the mikveh first? Can one stand outside with a really long knife and slaughter an animal inside without going to the mikveh? Since the mikveh was above the Water Gate, one can determine the height of the water level at Ein Eitam from which the water streamed into that mikveh. They spread a sheet of linen over the entrance to the mikveh for privacy. Why linen? The mishna describes the Kohen Gadol first activities on the morning of Yom Kippur – beginning with the first dipping and changing clothes, sacrificing the Tamid sacrifice, its meal offerings and libations, the Kohen Gadol’s daily mincha offering, and the daily incense. How did they heat up the water in the mikveh if the Kohen Gadol was elderly or particular about going in cold water? The mishna described only one washing of hands and feet as one washing is on removing his holy garments and the second is for putting on holy garments. At this first stage, he is removing unsanctified clothing. It seems the mishna must not go according to Rabbi Meir as he holds that the two washings are both on getting dressed – one before and one after. Is there a way to explain the mishna also like Rabbi Meir? Can his approach only be explained in this manner?

Yoma 30 - May 11, 29 Iyar May 11, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 30

Pictures

In the Temple, one who urinates, needs to wash his hands and feet. Why? One cannot read Shema if one has excrement on one’s body in its place. The gemara tries to understand this halakha as the Torah was not given to the angels! If one leaves a meal to go to the bathroom or to talk to a friend outside for a long period of time, does one need to wash again upon returning to the meal? If so, does one need to do it in front of everyone so that they don’t suspect him of not washing? On what does this depend? One needs to go to the mikveh before entering the azara of the Temple. On Yom Kippur, the Kohen Gadol would dip in the mikveh five times and would wash his hands and feet ten times. Four of the five dippings were done in the azara in the Beit HaParva, but the first was done outside, above the water gate. Why does one need to go to the mikveh before going into the azara? Ben Zoma and Rabbi Yehuda debate this issue and whether it is by Torah law or rabbinic. What is the practical difference between their opinions? Rabbi Yehuda says in another braita that the leper doesn’t need to go to the mikveh on the 8th day of his purification process as he has gone the evening before. How does his opinion here fit with his opinion in his debate with Ben Zoma? From those who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda in the latter braita, it becomes clear that there is a third approach that only a leper needs to go to the mikveh before entering the azara. Why?

Yoma 29 - Yom Yerushalayim, May 10, 28 Iyar May 10, 2021

Today's daf is in honor of the city of Jerusalem. Celebrating 54 years since its unification. And for a refuah shleima of Pesha Etel bat Sara.

Rav Nachman brings a list of things that are surprisingly more difficult/stronger than something else, like the sun on a cloudy day in comparison to a non-cloudy day. Rabbi Avahu continues with a drasha regarding the difference between the rays of the sun and the moon by bringing a verse from Psalms 22 about ayelet hashachar. Others explain how the verse connects with Esther. The mishna explains that they had to burn the Tamid sacrifice one day where they made a mistake thinking it was morning. The house of Rabbi Avin brought a braita that also a bird offering slaughtered or a meal offering brought at night would also be burned. The gemara raises several questions on this.

Yoma 28 - May 9, 27 Iyar May 09, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 28

Today's daf is dedicated by Elana Perlin in honor of her mother, Barbara Alpert. Happy Mother's Day! I love you and I'm glad I can share my thoughts with you on the daf every day. May the American, Canadian border open soon!

The gemara brought two different versions of Rabbi Yochanan's statement regarding when a non-kohen will be liable for death. And also a different version of the question Rabbi Zeira asked on the original version of Rabbi Yochanan's statement. In the Temple, how did they determine when the sun had begun to rose in order to enable the beginning of the daily temple activities? What kind of issues arise when using shadows or rays that may enter the room from the outside to determine the time of day? Avraham prayer mincha at exactly midday - why don't we do that? According to the gemara, Avraham kept all the commandments, including Eruv Tavshilin. The Kohen Gadol would begin his day on Yom Kippur by going to the mikveh and washing his hands and feet.

Yoma 27 - Shabbat May 8, 26 Iyar May 07, 2021

Today’s daf is sponsored by Deborah Hamilton in honor of Susan Rosenberg's birthday. "With love from the women of IAM who wish Susan a day of her favorite things including a swim at the Point, chocolate-covered pomegranate, and learning with the amazing women of Hadran."

From where is it derived that the flaying and cutting of the animal of a sacrifice can be done by a non-kohen? If a non-kohen sets up the ma'aracha, the pile of logs on the altar, is he liable for death by the hands of God? What if he brings the two logs that the kohen is supposed to bring in the morning?

Yoma 26 - May 7, 25 Iyar May 07, 2021

The third lottery was for burning the incense and only those who had not done this job in the past could come - why? The fourth was to bring the body parts of the animal from the ramp to the top of the altar. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov disagrees with this and thinks that whoever brings it to the ramp, then brings it to the altar. What is the basis for the controversy? Was there a separate lottery for the afternoon sacrifice or did the one who won the position in the morning do the same job in the afternoon? The mishna lists days (or times of the day) when there are more than nine people bringing things up to the altar. How many people are there in each case? How do we know that in the morning one kohanim arranges two logs and in the afternoon two kohen? How many people did it take to bring the parts of other animals (rams and bulls) to the altar?

Yoma 25 - May 6, 24 Iyar May 06, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 25

Pictures

Today's daf is sponsored by Ruth Leah Kahan, Jessica Shklar, and Emily Michelson in memory of their mother Kadimah bat haRav Avraham Tzvi ben Tzion v'Chaya on her third yahrzeit. And by Robin Bodek Rosenbaum to mark the 11th yahrzeit of her father, Rav Reuven ben Tzvi Hersh, Reuben Bodek. A prince of a man who was loved by all who knew him. He is sorely missed.

Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshet each bring proof for their opinion regarding what clothes did the kohanim wear while doing the lottery. From one of the sources brought, they derive that the lishkat hagazit, the Chamber of Hewn Stone was partially in the sanctified area (in the azara) and partly in the non-sanctified area with entrances from either side. The second lottery was for the slaughtering of the Tamid sacrifice, the sprinkling of the blood, the cleaning of the inner altar and the menorah, and the carrying of the parts of the animal to be placed on the altar. There were thirteen jobs in the lottery. Would they do 13 separate lotteries or did one person "win" the lottery and the next 12 people in line got the other jobs? The job of accepting the blood doesn't appear in the list - was that job given to the slaughterer or to the one who sprinkled the blood? The gemara brings four different opinions regarding the order in which the parts were brought onto the altar. Why were the head and the right hind leg brought first and together according to all the opinions?

Yoma 24 - May 5, 23 Iyar May 05, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 24

Is the dispute between Reish and Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan regarding the removal of the ashes (whether it is considered an avoda, a ritual, or not) a dispute also between tannaim? Rav and Levi disagree about a non kohen who removes the ashes - is he liable for death in the hands of God or not? How does each one derive their opinion from the verse? The gemara raises some questions about Levi and also about both. Then, braitot are brought to strengthen each position. Why do they four lotteries and not just one? Do the priests wear holy garments or regular clothes when doing the lottery? Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshet disagree about this and each brings a psychological/behavioral explanation.

Yoma 23 - May 4, 22 Iyar May 04, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 23

This week's shiurim are dedicated by Shira and Bill Futornick for the refuah shleima of Michelle Futornick, Ilana bat Miryam. And by Aviva Adler on her father Joseph Kahane's 5th yahrzeit, Yoseph ben Tzvi HaKohen z"l.

In what situations must one take revenge and in what situations is it forbidden? If the kohanim could only be counted once in a lottery, how does it say in the mishna that they could put out one or two finger? What is 'pakia'? A braita quotes a tragic story where due to competition to get the job, one kohen stabbed another. Did this story happen first or did the other with the broken leg? This version of the story ends with a terrible reaction of the father of the kohen who was dying who was worried more about impurity than his son dying. Rabbi Tzadok got up and made a public statement that caused all attending to burst into tears. The gemara raises several questions on different parts of the story. Is the removal of the ashes considered a ritual or not? There is a debate that is derived from the verses in the Torah regarding what clothes the kohen wears to do this activity.

Yoma 22 - May 3, 21 Iyar May 03, 2021

How was the lottery system instituted for the job of the removal of the ashes? Originally, they didn't think so many kohanim would be interested in the job so they said that whoever came first would get the job. However one time two kohanim raced up the ramp of the altar and one pushed the other and he fell off and broke a leg. They didn't think kohanim would all be interested in doing this job because it was a night job and therefore less important. But aren't there other night jobs that have a lottery? Others suggest it was because they wouldn't be able to wake up in time. Once they instituted the lottery for removal of the ashes, kohanim were no longer interested in getting the job, so they added a few other jobs to the one who would win that lottery to incentivize kohanim to come. In the time when they used to race for the job, where was the finish line? When they did the lottery, they would put out fingers and the kohen would count fingers. This was because it was forbidden to count heads - from where is this derived? When one takes on a leadership position in the community, one becomes wealthy. This is learned from King Saul as first he counted the people with shards and later with sheep, a sign of his wealth. King Saul pitied the Amalekim and yet did not pity the city of Nov, a city of kohanim who helped save David when he ran away from him. The gemara compares King Saul's sin to King David's sin. Even though King Saul sinned once and King David twice, King Saul lost the kingship and King David did not. Why was King Saul punished so harshly? What other sins did King David commit that he was punished for?

Yoma 21 - May 2, 20 Iyar May 02, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 21

Pictures

Today's daf is sponsored by Elizabeth Jacob in memory of Danny Morris and all those killed in the tragic accident in Meron on Friday. May his memory be a blessing and may his family be comforted among the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem. And in memory of all those killed and for a refuah shleima to all the people injured. And by Elisheva Rappoport, in memory of her beloved sister Raizel Zucker's first Yartzeit. "Raizel and her husband made Aliya to Israel and were raising their eight children in Beitar Illit, where Raizel often hosted Jewish learning events for her tight-knit community of women. When Raizel came to New York for treatment last year, I recall sharing a particular daf with her - Shabbat 12B - in which the Gemara states that a sick person does not need the angels to bring her prayer before Hashem since the Divine Presence is with her. I felt the power of this statement firsthand. Raizel took much strength from her Yiddishkeit and always maintained her positivity. May our learning bring an aliyas neshama to Toiba Raizel bat Zlata."

During the holidays, the azara in the Temple would fill up with people but there was space for all to bow in a spaced out manner. This was one of the miracles that happened in the Temple. The mishna from Avot 5:5 is quoted listing the ten miracles. The gemara challenges the mishna as there are others besides those ten. Answers are brought to explain which ten are meant to be mentioned and why those and not others.

Yoma 20 - Shabbat May 1, 19 Iyar Apr 30, 2021

What does God have to say about those who sin on Yom Kippur? What about the Satan? Does he get heard on Yom Kippur? On what does it depend? What time was the removal of the ashes performed on different days of the year? Why? What is the definition of the word “gever” in the phrase “kriat hagever”? Is it a person or a rooster? Rav and Rabbi Shila disagree and a story is told of a day when Rav was the translator for Rabbi Shila and translated using his interpretation.

Yoma 19 - Lag Baomer, April 30, 18 Iyar Apr 30, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 19

Today's daf will be in memory of all those who were killed in the stampede in Meron last night and for a refuah shleima for all those injured. Today’s daf is also sponsored by Heather Seid. "I am so blessed to have a partner who is also my chevruta. I love you, Sammy. Thank you for encouraging me to do Daf Yomi. I’ve already gotten so much out of the experience."

The Kohen Gadol would sleep in the Parhedrin Chamber and would go to the Chamber of Beit Avtinas to learn how to perform the burning of the incense. Both were in the azara - one of in the North and one in the South. Which was where? The rabbis of the court would make the Kohen Gadol swear - what did he need to swear and why? What was the debate between the Sadducees and the Pharicees? By bringing a particular story, the gemara switches topics to discuss is one allowed to motion to someone during Kriat Shema. The Kohen Gadol wouldn't sleep all night on Yom Kippur night. How would they keep him awake? What customs developed from here and what bad things did they lead to?

Yoma 18 - April 29, 17 Iyar Apr 29, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 18

Today's daf is sponsored by Aryeh Cohen in honor of his wife Lillian's Birthday. Wishing her a very happy birthday on her special birthday today. "Lillian was so inspired by the Hadran women's Siyum Hashas last year that she took on Daf Yomi and enjoys discussing the gemara at home. With much love and appreciation to a wonderful wife, mother and grandmother from husband Aryeh, Gila and Doron, Sara and Isaac, Daniel, Amichai, Yedidya and Hannah." And by Chaya Bayla bat Rafael v'Rifka in memory of her beloved father, Rafael ben Avram Yaakov v'Breindl. "He was a Holocaust survivor who died when he was young, and I was just a child. I feel blessed by his memory every day. I dedicate my learning to him on this 49th yahrzeit."

What preparations would the Kohen Gadol do in the days leading up to Yom Kippur? They would bring him animals that he would be sacrificing to familiarize him with them. Why did the mishna leave out the goats? Were there limitations on what foods he could eat? Yes, in order to prevent seminal emissions. It was told that Rav and Rav Nachman that when they traveled, they would announce "Who will be my wife for the night?" How can one possibly explain this seemingly absurd story? How did the rabbis do this?

Yoma 17 - April 28, 16 Iyar Apr 28, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 17

Pictures

Rav Ada son of Rav Yitzchak brings a different suggestion for how to resolve the contradiction between the mishna in Middot and the mishna in Tamid – the chamber of the sheep must have been able to be perceived as both in the North and in the South, depending on one’s perspective. But in which was it actually situated? The gemara concludes that it must on been in the Southeast side as they infer from another contradiction between the mishnayot regarding the location of the showbread. Rav Huna has resolved it by saying that each mishna describes the order of the chambers in a different manner – one goes clockwise (left) and the other counter clockwise (right). In order for the location to match up based on Rav Huna’s answer, one can only explain it if the chamber of the lambs was in the Southwest side. How can one mishna’s order go to the left (clockwise) if we learned that all turns in the Temple were to the right? The gemara explains in more detail the mishna’s ruling that the Kohen Gadol can do whatever rituals they wanted and could take whatever portions they wanted. How much could they take? The rabbis and Rebbi disagree.

Yoma 16 - April 27, 15 Iyar Apr 27, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 16

Pictures

Today's daf is sponsored by Julie Landau in honor of Caroline Ben Ari, "a wonderful friend and chevruta, whose example inspired me to begin learning daf yomi."

The gemara brings a contradiction between a mishna in Tamid and a mishna in Midot and reconciles it by saying that the mishna in Midot follows Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov's tradition. This is proven by bringing another mishna in Midot which seems to be authored by Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. The gemara brings another bunch of mishnayot to prove this, explaining why the wall above the easternmost entrance to the Temple has to be low. Rav Huna tries to prove that this could be because of Rabbi Yehuda's opinion regarding the position of the altar within the width of the room, but the gemara rejects this explanation.

Yoma 15 - April 26, 14 Iyar Apr 26, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 15

תמונות

The gemara brings two different approaches to resolve the contradiction in the mishnayot of Yoma regarding the order of the cleaning of the menorah and the burning of the incense - which was first. The gemara analyzes each of the different approaches and brings proofs/difficulties on each. The gemara then goes back to the mishna in Tamid Chapter 4, Mishna 1, quoted in the previous page regarding how and where the blood was sprinkled for the daily Tamid offering. Rabbi Shimon from Mitzpe offered a different explanation. The gemara raises six questions against his approach and answers them all. The gemara then brings a contradiction between a mishna in Tamid Chapter 3, Mishna 3 and a mishna in Midot Chapter 1, Mishna 6 regarding the location of the room where the lambs for the Tamid sacrifice were kept.

Yoma 14 - April 25, 13 Iyar Apr 25, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 14

Today's daf is taught as part of the International Women's Talmud Day. An initiative that we at Hadran are happy to be part of. If you are looking for more classes as part of this day, follow the link. https://www.internationalwomenstalmudday.com/schedule

Did Rabbi Yehuda really say that a Kohen Gadol can't work in the Temple as a onen, lest he come to eat the meat? How does that work with his opinion in our mishna? The Kohen Gadol would practice during the seven days before Yom Kippur by doing many of the basic sacrificial rituals. Does the mishna not work in with Rabbi Akiva's position that if one is sprinkled with red heifer waters and one is pure, the waters make him impure? The gemara infers from the mishna that the incense was performed before the candles. This is contradicted by a mishna in Tamid and one in Yoma. How is this reconciled?

Yoma 13 - Shabbat April 24, 12 Iyar Apr 23, 2021

Do we hold like Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Yosi in their debate regarding the situation of the Kohen who replaces the Kohen Gadol when the original Kohen Gadol comes back to his job? On what issues does Rabbi Yosi agree with Rabbi Meir? The gemara delves into the back and forth discussion in the mishna between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis regarding a replacement wife for the Kohen Gadol in case his wife were to die. Why do the rabbis distinguish between a replacement wife and a replacement Kohen? On what basis does Rabbi Yehuda disagree with them? The gemara concludes that according to Rabbi Yehuda, the extra wife must marry the Kohen Gadol – how can this work as it can be derived from the verse that he is to have only one wife on Yom Kippur? The gemara concludes that he gives her a divorce document (a get) with a condition (it will be a get, if…). After a lot of trial and error, the gemara determines exactly what the condition needs to be and also concludes that both wives receive a conditional get. Why isn’t the same derivation used by a yevama (one who needs to do levirate marriage) to exclude one who had multiple wives? The rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda have a debate regarding a Kohen Gadol who becomes an onen (when a close relative dies until the burial). He is allowed to work in the Temple but cannot eat sacrificial meat. But if he is not in the Temple at the time do they bring him to the Temple?

Yoma 12 - April 23, 11 Iyar Apr 23, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 12

Pictures

Today's daf is sponsored by Peri Rosenfeld on the 11th yahrzeit of Yishaya Zev (Willie) Rosenfeld "who took great pride in the accomplishments and learning of his daughters. His devotion to hilarious storytelling was only surpassed by his love of his family, yiddishkeit and the State of Israel. He is sorely missed."

The gemara gave three different explanations regarding a contradiction between braitot regarding whether or not a synagogue could become a leprous house. One answer distinguished between a big city and a small town – a small town could be leprous as it is considered “owned” by the people in the town whereas a big city would not. The gemara questions this assumption from a braita which indicates that even in a city, a synagogue could become leprous. The question is resolved but the gemara tries to understand the debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis in the braita which is based on a debate regarding the city of Jerusalem – was is given to a particular tribe or did it remain communal, unowned property? Is one allowed to rent out property or beds in Jerusalem? The gemara then raises a question on the assumption that in a small town, a synagogue could be leprous. Since there is no resolution, the gemara rejects this answer. If the Kohen Gadol is replaced on Yom Kippur itself, how does the new Kohen become initiated - he generally gets initiated by doing service with the 8 articles of clothing of the Kohen Gadol, but the service on Yom Kippur is performed with only 4 garments? The Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur wore a belt of linen which was different than his usual belt which was sha’atnez (wool and linen mixed). Was this the same as what a regular Kohen wears? There is a disagreement about this. If the belt was different, then his initiation could be done by wearing the clothing, but if it was the same as a regular Kohen, he wouldn’t stand out in any way and would need to be initiated some other way. What happens to his clothes after he finishes using them on Yom Kippur? If a Kohen Gadol becomes disqualified and someone takes his place, what happens to each of them when the Kohen Gadol is no longer disqualified? Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosi disagree about this issue.

Yoma 11 - April 22, 10 Iyar Apr 22, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 11

Pictures

Today's daf is sponsored by Shana Lowell for the refuah of Bobby Schochet, Shaina Rochel bat Rivka. Bobby is an artist, loving mother, grandmother, aunt, and friend. She is both loyal and giving, and has always been supportive of women’s learning. And for a refuah shleima for Noach Avraham ben Batya Shana.

What types of places are obligated in mezuza? Rav Kahana and Rabbi Yehuda disagree regarding a storage room. The gemara brings various braitot and explains them according to each opinion. Is the house of a woman or partners obligated? Why would one think it is not? Can those houses also become a leprous house? How are the verses, which are masculine and singular to be understood? What about a shul?

Yoma 10 - April 21, 9 Iyar Apr 21, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 10

Today's daf is sponsored by Ellen Golub in loving memory of her aunt, Lottie Cohen, on her seventh yahrzeit. "Auntie Lottie spoke a beautiful Yiddish and was a woman of extraordinary patience, love, and generosity of spirit. Yehi zichrona li’vracha." And by Yoni Bock to his partner Ron Kaplan on achieving a half-century milestone. "From never having studied a page of Talmud to taking time to tackle daf yomi daily, you are an inspiration. Happy birthday! Ad meah v'esrim." And for a refuah shleima for Noach Avraham ben Batya Shana.

How do we know the Persians came from Yefet? The gemara brings lists of names in Genesis Chapter 10 and explains what they are referring to. Will the Persians fall into the hands of the Romans or the reverse? Is the Lishkat Parhedrin obligated in a mezuza or not? Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis disagree. They also have the same a similar debate regarding a mezuza on a sukka but their opinions there contradict their opinions here. How is that contradiction resolved?

Yoma 9 - April 20, 8 Iyar Apr 20, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 9

This week's learning is dedicated by Audrey Mondrow in memory of her precious mother Bessie ”Nanny” Mauskopf, Basya Leah bat Meir Yehuda and Tzevia Chaya. "A woman who not only practiced the Torah laws but by her actions and her being, taught us the thread that holds the entire Torah together and that is the manner in which she conducted herself.

The gemara quotes a mishna about bakers who buy wheat from people who are considered am haaretz and uses it to show another situation where the parhedrin is used. The gemara again speaks of the bad situation in the Second Temple where high priests were replaced at least once a year (except for a few exceptions). Why was the mishkan destroyed in Shilo? Why were the first Temple and second Temple destroyed? What sins were rampant in those times? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree on when it was worse - in the first Temple or in the second Temple? Reish Lakish claims that now there is no temple but there is Torah study and Rabbi Yochanan said that the temple is more important. They have another argument – Why did the divine presence not rest in the second Temple? Was it because not everyone immigrated to Israel in the days of Ezra or because the Persians were also involved in the building of the Temple?

Yoma 8 - April 19, 7 Iyar Apr 19, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 8

Pictures

Today's daf is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Basmat bat Yardena and Noach Avraham ben Batya Shana.

How do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon extrapolate the different parts of the verse relating to the tzitz each according to their interpretation? Are there other tannaim who debate the issue: is impurity overridden or is it entirely permitted? How many of the days do they sprinkle the Kohen Gadol before Yom Kippur and the Kohen who burned the red heifer? Why is the room where the Kohen Gadol goes called "Lishkat Parhedrin"?

Yoma 7 - April 18, 6 Iyar Apr 18, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 7

Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshet disagree regarding whether impurity is pushed aside or entirely permitted in cases involving the public. The gemara brings three tannaitic sources (including Tosefta Menachot Chapter 3) to raise difficulties against Rav Nachman, but answers them. From the answers, it becomes clear that Rav Nachman held that there were a few exceptions to the rule and there are cases where the impurity is not entirely permitted. Then they bring one source against Rav Sheshet and answer it by saying that it's a tannaitic debate whether or not impurity is pushed aside or entirely permitted. The tannaitic debate relates to the tzitz of the Kohen Gadol and whether it worked while it was on his forehead only or even if it were hanging on a peg. Some of the other sources brought also mentioned the tzitz and discussed when it was needed.

Yoma 6 - Shabbat April 17, 5 Iyar Apr 16, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 6

Today's daf is dedicated by Hannah and Michael Piotrkowski for a refuah shleima of Yaakov Haim Ben Saada, a man who is an awesome presence in his family. May he heal from COVID and return to his family in full health.

What are the proof texts for the different opinions regarding how Moshe dressed Aharon and his sons with the avnet, belt: all at once or one after the other? How could Moshe possibly have dressed them at the same time? Why does the Kohen Gadol need to be separated from his wife? What are they concerned about? Is this only according to one opinion or does it also fit in with the rabbi’s opinion about one who has relations with his wife and she later finds out she is menstruating? Can one infer from here that one who becomes impure from having relations with a menstruating woman goes to the mikveh during the day or at night? Why are we not concerned that the Kohen Gadol will become impure from a dead body? Does this connect to the debate regarding whether impurity is overridden when it comes to communal obligations or entirely nullified?

Yoma 5 - April 16, 4 Iyar Apr 16, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 5

The shiurim this week are dedicated by the Balkany Family for refuah shleima of Noach Avraham ben Batya Shana. And by Yonatan Hober for a refuah shleima and a successful operation for Bosmat bat Yardena.

What are the differences between the approaches of Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Chanina regarding whether or not all the details of the days of the inauguration were essential or only those that were essential on an ongoing basis, after the first days of inauguration? The four differences would be regarding smicha, tenufa, separation seven days before of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur, and his having to wear the clothes and be anointed for seven days before starting to work as the Kohen Gadol. The gemara explains for each how we know they are not essential on an ongoing basis? The one who holds everything done at the inauguration was essential, from where is that derived? How did Moshe dress Aharon and his sons? There is a contradiction in the verses and the gemara brings two different approaches to understanding how it was done.

Yoma 4 - Yom HaAzmaut, April 15, 3 Iyar Apr 15, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 4

Our learning today will be in honor of the State of Israel celebrating 73 years of independence. And in honor of Dr. Haya Shames who was chosen to light a beacon at the Independence Day ceremony of Neve Daniel, a beacon representing Torah study and more specifically Daf Yomi learning. Haya is a Dr. of Neuro Optometry and mother of six. She has lead many women to their Daf Yomi journey, has completed the Shas and is now in her second cycle. Yasher Koach! And by Bracha Rutner in memory of her mother, Anna Rutner - Sara bat Yom Tov. "She was the kindest person and curious about the world. When you spoke to her she gave you her full attention and asked you questions about your life and made you feel special. She loved learning, people and her family." And for a refuah shleima for Bosmat bat Yardena.

The gemara delves into the two different approaches to the derivation for the 7 days of separation of the Kohen Gadol before Yom Kippur – either from the inauguration days or from the giving of the Torah. Questions are raised and braitot are brought to prove each side. How does the debate regarding the verses from Shmot 24 about Moshe going into the cloud relate to this. Was that event before or after the giving of the Torah. Was the Torah given on the 6th of Sivan or the 7th? Was the cloud mentioned in Shmot 24 covering Moshe or the mountain? Were the six days leading up to the receiving of the Torah or was it after the Torah was received and it was before Moshe was to speak to God to learn the rest of the Torah?

Yoma 3 - Yom HaZikaron, April 14, 2 Iyar Apr 14, 2021

Study Guide Yoma 3

The daf today is dedicated in memory of the fallen soldiers that were killed protecting the State of Israel and in memory of those that were killed in terrorist attacks and died by Kiddush Hashem.

The month of Iyar is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island group in memory of Irwin Weber a"h, Yitzchak Dov ben Avraham Alter and Rachel, beloved father of our member Debbie Weber Schreiber.

Today’s Daf is dedicated by the Raye, Cohen and Maybaum families in honor of their mother- Liesel Maybaum, Elisheva bat Yehuda. "She had a great thirst for knowledge and championed her children and grandchildren to strive for knowledge in the Torah world. As today is Yom Hazikaron, we are sure she would want it mentioned as she was a lover of Israel and so proud of her grandchildren who have served and are currently serving in צהל." And by Tamara Katz in honor of the third yahrtzeit of her grandfather, Shlomo ben Yacov Zvi Hacohen and Dvora. And for a refuah shleima for Basmat bat Yardena.

The gemara continues to raise questions against the drasha from the inauguration days to Yom Kippur (that one needs to separate for seven days before) – why not learn instead to Shavuot or Rosh Hashana? The gemara brings another opinion of Rabbi Yochanan that the drasha was only for Yom Kippur and not for the red heifer. How does this fit in with the mishna in Para? After Reish Lakish raised another issue with the drasha, Rabbi Yochanan derives the separation on Yom Kippur instead from a verse relating to Mount Sinai when the Torah was given. However there only six days are mentioned – how do we get to seven?

Yoma 2 - April 13, Rosh Chodesh Iyar, 1 Iyar Apr 13, 2021

Pictures Yoma 2

Study Guide Yoma 2

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari "in commemoration of my father's yahrtzeit, on Pesach Sheini 14 Iyar 5777, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l. My father was a survivor of Auschwitz and a feminist before it was fashionable. He raised me to believe that women could achieve anything. He would be proud to know that his daughter is an avid learner of Hadran! And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide."

Today's daf is sponsored by Rabbi Ze'ev and Dr. Rebecca Felsen in honor of their daughter, Miriam Chaya Felsen "who was born when the Daf Yomi cycle last began Yoma, and so is one daf yomi cycle (2711 days) old on this day. We are immensely proud of her, how much she has learned, how much is learning and how much she will with Hashem's help learn in the future." And Aliza Avshalom "in memory and lezechut her mother and teacher in all things, Sara bat Esther and Arieh Bellehsen. And in honor of my father and teacher David Bellehsen. May he live a long and good life, that thanks to Hadran and Rabbanit Farber, has become my virtual chavruta." And by Ilene Strauss "in memory of my mother Leah bat Yaakov upon her 11th yahrzeit. She taught me to love Judaism and made each and every holiday and Shabbat special."

Masechet Yoma is sponsored by Vicky Harari "in commemoration of my father's yahrtzeit, on Pesach Sheini 14 Iyar 5777, Avraham Baruch Hacohen ben Zeev Eliyahu Eckstein z'l. My father was a survivor of Auschwitz and a feminist before it was fashionable. He raised me to believe that women could achieve anything. He would be proud to know that his daughter is an avid learner of Hadran! And in gratitude to Michelle Cohen Farber for revolutionizing women's learning worldwide."

Today's daf is sponsored by Rabbi Ze'ev and Dr. Rebecca Felsen in honor of their daughter, Miriam Chaya Felsen "who was born when the Daf Yomi cycle last began Yoma, and so is one daf yomi cycle (2711 days) old on this day. We are immensely proud of her, how much she has learned, how much is learning and how much she will with Hashem's help learn in the future." And Aliza Avshalom "in memory and lezechut her mother and teacher in all things, Sara bat Esther and Arieh Bellehsen. And in honor of my father and teacher David Bellehsen. May he live a long and good life, that thanks to Hadran and Rabbanit Farber, has become my virtual chavruta." And by Ilene Strauss "in memory of my mother Leah bat Yaakov upon her 11th yahrzeit. She taught me to love Judaism and made each and every holiday and Shabbat special."

Seven days before Yom Kippur, the Kohen Gadol left his house and came to the Temple. A replacement Kohen Gadol was put in place in case the Kohen Gadol became impure. Was there also a need for a wife "in waiting"? The Kohen who burned the red heifer would also separate from his home seven days before. Why? What else was done to prevent people from not taking seriously the laws of purity of a red heifer? Why was this necessary? From where do we derive that these Kohanim needed to separate before? It was derived from the "miluim." Why were these derived from there and not other days?

Shekalim 22 - April 12, 30 Nisan Apr 11, 2021

Study Guide Shekalim 22

Today's daf is dedicated by Shari Mendes in memory of her father, Martin Greenwald and Rav Ronen Neuwirth ז״ל. Both had a lasting influence and meaningful effect on Shari’s learning and completion of the Daf Yomi cycle.

What happens when sacrificial meat (kodshei kodashim) become impure either in or out of the Temple - can they be burned inside the Temple? On what does it depend? Where are the parts that are to be burned on the altar placed before going on the altar? Which sacrifices get put where? Are laws of shekalim, bikurim, tithes and firstborn animals still applicable when there is no longer a Temple? And if not, what happens if one designates them anyway, are they sanctified?

Shekalim 21 - April 11, 29 Nisan Apr 11, 2021

Study Guide Shekalim 21

Today’s Daf is sponsored by Julie Mendelsohn in honor of her father, Yakov Yosef ben Zipora Baila. "With gratitude to Hashem and the doctor (who asked if he could pray with you beforehand) and thanks to my fellow daf learners for their tefilot. You said the doctors don't like to operate on older people but you're not ready to stop being active! Refuah shlema Dad-- we can't wait to see you out hiking and biking again soon!"

According to Rabbi Shimon, why and how did the rabbis change the law regarding who pays for High Priest’s daily mincha offering when he dies until a new High Priest is appointed? In this scenario, the meal offering is brought whole and not split between the morning and afternoon. Does this mean that a full day’s worth is brought only in the morning or is a full day’s amount brought both in the morning and in the afternoon. If it is the latter, is it just the flour doubled or also the oil and frankincense? From where do we learn there is no meila by the ashes of the red heifer? What is the status regarding impurity of various items both found in Jerusalem during the holiday season and also not during that season, i.e. saliva, utensils, knives on erev Pesach? Does the blood of a dead animal pass on impurity? If the parochet, curtain, becomes impure, where do they immerse it to purify it? On what does it depend? How many strands were used to make the parochet and how many threads in each strand? What was the difference between the curtain between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies and the screen that was at the entrance to the Sanctuary?

Shekalim 20 - Shabbat April 10, 28 Nisan Apr 09, 2021

When Rav arrived in Babylonia, he saw that people were lenient regarding meat whose kosher/non kosher status was unclear and he ruled stringently in a number of cases. Others held that if there were signs indicating it was from Jews’ it would be permitted. Cases were also brought where the issue was both regarding finding meat that was ownerless – is it permitted to take? And also can one assume it is kosher? What criteria are used to determine the halakha? If an animal in the outskirts of Jerusalem, it is presumed to have been designated as a sacrifice. What is the finder supposed to do? What ordinances did the rabbis institute to rectify certain situations, both relating to the case at hand and to other issues as well? The gemara brings three different interpretations for the mishna regarding what one should do with an animal if one finds it. The gemara also discusses in depth the case in the mishna where the High Priest died after bringing the morning meal offering but before bringing the second. How was his meal offering prepared?

Shekalim 19 - April 9, 27 Nisan Apr 09, 2021

Today's Daf is sponsored by Caroline Ben-Ari "in memory of אבי מורי Ivor Rhodes ישראל בן מאיר ושרה on his 11th yahrzeit." And by Medinah Korn "in honor of her son Uriel's Bar Mitzvah this coming Shabbat. With gratitude for the virtual celebration within our Hadran zoom community." And by Barak Schecter "in honor of Shuli Schwartz Reznicovitch who joined the staff of Hadran this week and for all the amazing work she does for Am Yisrael."

The mishna mentions several cases of doubts - if money is found in between the different shofarot, what is done with the money? Then they move onto other cases regarding money found in or out of the Temple Mount - can one assume the money was sanctified money or not? On what does it depend? What if meat was found - can one assume it was sacrificial meat or not? If so, what has to be done with it? If not, is the meat assumed to be kosher or not? On what does it depend? The gemara raises the famous case, mentioned in Pesachim 9 and other places regarding 9 stores that sell kosher meat and one that sells non kosher meat or the reverse - can one assume the status of the meat based on majority or not? On what does it depend?

Shekalim 18 - April 8, 26 Nisan Apr 08, 2021

Today’s Daf is dedicated for Yom HaShoah in memory of all those who died in the Holocaust. And by Di Gittel Kuchar "in honor of her father’s second yartzeit, Moshe Ben Abraham Neuhauser a Holocaust survivor. Dad often spoke about life before and during the Shoah. At times I suffered from survivor’s guilt as a child of survivors, but then I turned it around from Dad’s example. One survives to fulfill a mission to learn, teach and live yiddishkeit. He would be so proud of all of us on our daily Daf journey as he too loved his daily learning." And by Ellen Werlin in honor of her sister, Rachel Geballe, on the occasion of her birthday. "With thanks to her for introducing myself and her niece, Avigayil, to the daf, as well as for other blessings of having her as a sister and an aunt."

Where was the golden altar situated? The menorah? In the time of King Solomon, there were also 10 menorahs. Where were they situated? Were they lit or was only the main one used? What were the 13 shofarot for collecting money in the Temple used for? There is a debate regarding some of them – were they used only for voluntary offerings or also for obligatory ones? According to Rabbi Yehuda, the one labeled “pairs” was not used for obligatory offerings in case one of those who put money in died. If that were to happen, the money would need to be destroyed and as it is now mixed with other money, all the money would be prohibited. If one volunteers wood or frankincense, what is the amount of each that needs to be brought?

Shekalim 17 - April 7, 25 Nisan Apr 07, 2021

Today's daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson - Karina Gola bat Huddah - and Art Gould "in gratitude to HaShem for the good news from Carol's scans last week. And to Carol's medical team for their excellent care - medical and emotional. And of course in gratitude to all of our friends in the Hadran Zoomer community and to Rabbanit Michelle for their affection, support and love." And by Sara and Danny Berelowitz in honor of the engagement of their daughter Shevi Berelowitz to Jacob Namrow. "Mazal Tov!"

Where were the prostrations done? In the mishna it is written that it was done by the 13 gates and mentions the names of all the gates and explains the meaning of some of the names. In the gemara they bring another opinion that it is against 13 breaches that the Greeks breaches in the walls of the soreg and the Hasmoneans restored. According to one opinion in the mishna, the water gate is called by its name because of water that will come out from there in the future. The gemara explains the verses in Ezekiel and Zechariah that describe this water and what its function is and where it will flow. What were the 13 tables that were in the temple and what was their use? In Solomon's time, there were ten tables inside the hall in addition to the great table. What purpose did they serve? How were they arranged - east/west or north/south?

Shekalim 16 - April 6, 24 Nisan Apr 06, 2021

Today’s daf is sponsored by Shari Judah "in honor of those who worked to help me obtain my freedom and receive a get after over a decade."

According to those who hold that the Ark was in fact buried, what else was buried with it. King Josiah was the one who buried it - why? How was the oil used for anointing the vessels of the Tabernacle, kings and High Priests prepared? What was miraculous about the oil? Only the first king in a dynasty or one who there was a debate regarding his appointment were anointed and only in the kingdom of Judah. All High Priests were anointed. Why is there a difference? Anointing of kings is done by the river as a sign of a long kingdom. How large was the Ark and what was inside of it? The gemara brings two opinions and explains the measurements and how the items fit inside according to each interpretation. Two explanations are brought regarding the Aron being covered in gold. How were the ten commandments written on the tablets - 4 different explanations. Was there a Torah inside the Ark or outside? Some say yes, some say no. The gemara brings explanations from the verses to match each opinion.

Shekalim 15 - April 5, 23 Nisan Apr 05, 2021

A week of learning is sponsored by Tina Lamm and Dodi Lamm in memory of their beloved mother-in-law and aunt, Mrs. Mindy Lamm, Mindel bat Shalom v’Toba Hessa, "whose first yahrzeit was on Acharon shel Pesach. We miss her love, her elegance and beauty, and her fierce dedication to family and to Torah, more than words can say."

Today’s Daf is sponsored by Achsah Weinberg "in memory of my cousin, Ketzia Fraenkel, a woman of love and chesed, an exemplary daughter and sister, an exemplary mother and savta, a תלמידה חכמה, who held ואהבת לרעך כמוך as her motto. Ketzia was taken from this world on the 17th of Nissan, 5781, Chol Ha'Moed Pesach. I miss you already!" And by Tamar Orvell in honor of Hamutal and Shira. "With gratitude for your spirited and joyous learning and teaching Talmud, and for bringing the conversations, dilemmas, personalities, commentaries, and lessons from the pages in compelling ways both fun and serious. With love and respect." And by Gitta Neufeld "in honor of our intrepid Di and the cookbook crew for enhancing our physical enjoyment of the chag while the Hadran shiur enhanced the spiritual side. Things are always better with the Daf and chocolate!"

There were two chambers in the Temple used to collect items from the public – one for charity and one for utensils. How were the money/items handling in each? What is the best way to give charity? The gemara brings a number of stories regarding charity giving. The rabbis rebuke those who put a lot of money into fancy synagogues instead of supporting people who are struggling to support themselves and cannot find time to learn Torah. If there is a need, can one use the money designated for sacrifices for other things and vice-versa? There were 13 shofarot for collecting money in the Temple, 13 tables and 13 prostrations. What happened to the Aron, Ark of the Covenant, after the destruction of the First Temple? Was it hidden somewhere underground in the Temple or was it plundered? Were there two of them or only one?

Shekalim 14 - April 4, 22 Nisan Apr 04, 2021

Today’s Daf is dedicated by Yechiel Berkowicz in honor of his mother's yahrzeit and in loving memory of Sara F. Berkowicz. Sara was a survivor of the Holocaust and valued Jewish education.

Nechunia was a well digger to have water for those coming to the Temple. His son died of thirst. How could this be? The gemara explains that God is very exacting with the more righteous. A similar story is told of a pious person whose daughter but the ending was different as she was saved. Does the word "gever" mean rooster or man? Can it be proven from our mishna? The family Garmu and the family Avtinas - each kept their specialty a secret - how to prepare the showbread and the incense. The rabbis were not pleased with them and tried to fire them and hire others to do it. However, they were unsuccessful and had to rehire them for double the wages. Did they pass on the secret even after the destruction? Even though the rabbis weren't pleased with them, there was something for which they were both mentioned positively - that they made sure not to arouse suspicion about using what they learned regarding the Temple for the own personal use. What was the hierarchy in the Temple regarding handling money to ensure that there was no misappropriation of funds? How would one purchase libations in the Temple? What was done to prevent deceit?

https://youtu.be/QjZWYskjRsM

Shekalim 13 - Shabbat and Chag, April 3, 21 Nisan Apr 02, 2021

Rabbi Elazar said in the mishna that if one consecrates all of one’s possessions and there are birds, wine and oil, they are only sanctified for their value, not they themselves. They sell to someone wanting to use them on the altar and the money is used to purchase burnt offerings. What is the source for this? A source is brought to support one reading of Rabbi Shimon that if one consecrated a female animal for a burnt offering, it would be only sanctified for its financial value. However, the gemara raises a question on that source and an alternative explanation of that verse is brought. That explanation also has a question raised against it. Prices were set each month for items needed to be bought by the temple treasury and if the price fluctuated, the temple was always favored – if prices went up, they bought at the lower price, if they went down, they bought also for the lower price. The mishna lists people who were in charge of certain jobs in the temple. Why were specifically those people mentioned? Why were certain rabbis called soferim? The organized laws in numbers to make them easier to remember/understand. The rabbis saw themselves as much less knowledgeable than those who came before them and compared themselves to the earlier rabbis as humans to angels or donkeys to people. A story is told of the donkey of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair who starved itself for 3 days as it was unwilling to eat demai, produce that was possibly untithed. This donkey is used as a comparison to the later generations as they are not even comparable to that donkey. Pitchiya was known to have unique skills and was able to understand things that others could not, such as signals that a mute was making to tell the rabbis where they could find barley for the Omer offering in a year where there was a drought. Why was there a need for a special doctor for the priests specializing in intestinal diseases?

Shekalim 12 - April 2, 20 Nisan Apr 02, 2021

Study Guide Shekalim 12

Today's Daf is sponsored by Rabbi Moshe Schwartz "in honor of Rabbi Gershon Schwartz on his 17th Yahrtzeit by his children. Rabbi Schwartz loved studying Talmud and teaching Talmud to his many students." And for a Refuah shleima for Rivka bat Esther from her family.

One who sanctifies all one's possessions and included in that are items worthy for communal offerings (incense) or animals or other items that can be brought on the altar, like wine, oil or birds, what level of sanctity do they have? What does one do with them? The mishna brings different opinions and the gemara delves into these opinions.

Shekalim 11 - April 1, 19 Nisan Apr 01, 2021

Study Guide Shekalim 11

What items in the Temple, if disqualified, would prevent the rituals in the Temple from being able to be performed? Why would every high priest build a new ramp to lead the red heifer to the Mount of Olives for burning? Was it because of arrogance or some other reason? To those who hold that one is not allowed to make profits with the Temple property, are there any ways that it would be permitted? What is the meaning of the term "leftover fruit" in the mishna? The Gemara brings two different interpretations and tries to fit each into the wording of the mishna. What about the overfill? Is there a difference between liquid and dry overfills? What would they do with the incense leftover from last year? How exactly does it work? What did they do with the first monies that they would use to redeem the incense?

Shekalim 10 - March 31, 18 Nisan Mar 31, 2021

What did they purchase with the money collected from the half-shekel? What was purchased with the remainder? What was done with the money from the previous year that was leftover? What salaries were paid from the money collected? Are people allowed to donate items to the Temple or volunteer their time? In what situations is it allowed and in what situations is it problematic? Which offerings must be brought from produce of the land of Israel? Does everyone agree about this? How did they do salary payments in a way that ensured the money would no longer be sanctified? What was purchased with different items that could be leftover? Various opinions are brought. Can one invest items that were sanctified in order to try to make more money for the Temple? If certain items in the Temple are disqualified, can one offer sacrifices? What are the various opinions on this topic?

Shekalim 9 - March 30, 17 Nisan Mar 30, 2021

Today's Daf is sponsored by Laurence A Coe "in honor of Mimi and Miki Neumann Glazak, grandchildren of Michael Neumann z"l, whose life embodied the values of Torah and who inspired me to begin Daf Yomi." And by Rabbi Claire Ginsburg Goldstein "in honor of her children Sam, Shira, and Shira's Ivan, Seth and Sarah Rose who carry on my parents, Shmuel Yudl ben Osher Zimmel haCohen z"l, and Mindl Devorah bat Shlomo z"l. My children represent my parents' legacy and values of continuing to build their Jewish homes in the Jewish community. May their Jewish journeys continue to be blessed."

The gemara discusses the measurement of a quarter-log. In that context, a situation is brought where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had blood of a dead animal and deemed it pure. The rabbis asked if it was because there was less than a quarter-log or is the blood of an animal always pure (and only the flesh is impure)? Different answers are given. Curly-haired people should not enter the Temple treasury as they may hide money in their curls. Various verses are brought to prove that people need to make sure not to arouse suspicion among others. How exactly did it work when they put the funds in baskets - from which baskets did they take the money? What did each of the three baskets represent? What would Rabban Gamliel do specifically? Why? How was the money taken? From which basket and when? What did the each of the three collections represent? The chapter end with a famous quote from Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair explaining how one good behavior leads to the next, etc. etc. and how one can start with zrizut and it will ultimately lead to bringing Eliyahu the Prophet. Rabbi Meir also brings a statement about what can gain someone entrance into the World to Come.

Shekalim 8 - March 29, 16 Nisan Mar 29, 2021

Today's Daf is sponsored by Barbara Ashkenas "in honor of her wonderful husband Ron whose warm support of my learning Daf Yomi spirited me to keep learning. I thank him with my full heart!" And in memory of Rav Ronen Neuwirth z"l.

What is the date for the new year for animal tithes? There are three different opinions. The gemara explains each one. What happens with animals that are born at the very end of the year and are not yet ready to be offered as sacrifices (as they need to be eight days old) - are they part of the tithe for the outgoing or incoming year? The mishna describes how many baskets were used for the activity of terumat halishka, designating the money that was collected for purchasing the sacrifices. How were the baskets labeled? The one who goes to do this activity had strict rules regarding dress to ensure that he wasn't suspected of stealing money. The rabbis learn from this mishna the size of baskets that were mentioned in the mishna in Masechet Shabbat regarding how many baskets are allowed to be moved on Shabbat. Other measurements are discussed here as well, such as the amount of wine that one is liable for carrying if one takes it out to the public domain on Shabbat. This measurement is derived from the amount one needs to have in each of the four cups on the night of Passover. Can one drink all four cups at once? Can one drink them little by little? One must drink red wine as it is considered stronger wine. Can one drink other types of wines such as sweet wine, cooked wine, diluted wine, spiced wine - many of which could not be offered as libations on the altar?

Shekalim 7 - 1st Day of Pesach, March 28, 15 Nisan Mar 26, 2021

A nazir brings a sin offering, burnt offering and peace offering. What happens to money that is leftover from funds set aside for the nazir? Does it depend on the order in which the animals were purchased? What about leftover bread and libations from the nazir offering? Money designated for redeeming captives or for poor people – can it be used for other things? If it is designated for an individual, can it be used for someone else? What about money collected for burying someone and they collected too much? The mishna brings three different opinions. Does it go to his heirs, left until Eliahu comes to determine, or to make a monument for the dead person. The gemara then says that tzadikim do not need monuments as their Torah is their monument. A story is told of Rabbi Yochanan who gets upset as his student Rabbi Elazar for a number of reasons, one of them being that he didn’t teach things he learned from Rabbi Yochanan in his name. Rav Yaakov bar Idi convinces Rabbi Yochanan why to not be upset with Rabbi Elazar. The gemara expands upon the idea of Torah scholars living on after their death by people mentioning the Torah they taught. The chapter ends with a comment on how it is more important to do justice than to bring public sacrifices. What are the three times a year that they take money collected from the half-shekel and purchase sacrifices with it? Three opinions are brought. It is the same dates as for the animal tithes.

Shekalim 6 - Shabbat March 27, 14 Nisan Mar 26, 2021

If one collects money over time to give for one’s half shekel and by accident, one collected more than half a shekel, what is the status of the extra money? In which case do Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree? How does it compare to money left over from a sin offering? What amount was given throughout the generations for the half shekel? Why did the Torah give the amount of half a shekel? The mishna discusses the extra money for various sanctified items and what is to be done with them. The gemara brings several debates regarding some of the issues in the mishna, including what happens with an animal designated for a Pesach sacrifice that was brought as a burnt offering before Pesach – is it considered a peace offering or only if it was brought as a peach offering? If it is considered a peace offering, can it become pigul if someone thinks to sprinkle the blood or do some other action at the wrong time?

Shekalim 5 - March 26, 13 Nisan Mar 26, 2021

Today's Daf is sponsored by Mona and David Schwartz and family in honor of the 27th yahrzeit of their mother and Bubby - Mary Horowitz a"h bat Aharon Halevi & Mirel. "A woman who's home epitomized the mitzvah of Hachnasat Orchim" And by Sara Berelowitz "in honor of our new grandson, son of Aliza and Ashi Harow."

Where would they set up boxes to collect the money for the shekels? Can you transfer the money into larger valued coins or other items valued at the same price? Who is responsible if something happens to the money on the way to the Temple? On what does it depend? If someone took money given to him to bring for them to the Temple and he used it for himself, at what point does he transgress the sin of meila, misuse of consecrated property?

Shekalim 4 - March 25, 12 Nisan Mar 25, 2021

Study Guide Shekalim 4

Today's Daf is sponsored by Naomi Oxman in honor of her beloved father, Rabbi David Younger. "There is no doubt how much we would have enjoyed learning daf yomi together. Your wisdom continues to inspire me. With continued love, admiration and much appreciation." And by Ruth Winkleron on the occasion of getting vaccinated against Covid-19 three weeks ago. "May you all be healthy!" And by Eva Schweber in memory of her father Ken Schweber z"l.

Gentiles and Kutim (Samaritans/Shomronim) cannot bring a half-shekel to the temple. Nor can they bring obligatory sacrifices. Does the law of obligatory sacrifices apply only to the gentiles or only to the Kutim or to both? How does this relate to the controversy over Kutim – did they convert only out of fear and therefore not true converts or are they considered true converts? Gentiles cannot bring items for building in the Temple or for upkeep. Is it only at the time the Temple was built or even later. If later, is it just an important item or even insignificant items? Rabbi Meir and the sages disagree regarding the charge of the kalbon, an extra coin which was added to the half-shekel regarding the reason why it was brought? In which case are exemptions granted and in which case is one obligated more than one kalbon? What is the law about siblings who inherited from their father - when does it seem as if the estate is paying for them and it is viewed as a gift which is exempt from the kalbon and when is it viewed as if they are paying for themselves (and will be obligated to pay the kalbon? What is the connection between these different categories and the laws regarding partnerships that exempt one from tithing animals?

Shekalim 3 - March 24, 11 Nisan Mar 24, 2021

Study Guide Shekalim 3

Today's Daf is sponsored by Jill Shames in memory of her mother, and teacher, Seena Baker, שפרה בת זאלה וברכה on her yahrzeit. "Mom, thank you for the love of learning you instilled in us and in so many, many others over the years." And by Josh Wilkenfeld "in honor of the Chevy Chase Parking Lot Hashkamah Minyan for providing a quality and efficient davening experience during these challenging times."

The gemara describes the need for the preparations they would do from mid-Adar and how exactly they set up markers on the graves. Originally the courts would send people to uproot diverse kinds if people didn't do it themselves. But over time, they changed their policy. How and why? Ultimately, they would make the fields hefker, ownerless. How did that resolve the issue? From where do we learn that the courts have the right to declare someone's possessions to be ownerless? Once they do that, the field is exempt from tithes. Can one declare a leap year in the shmita year or the year after shmita? Why would it be an issue? From the 25th of Adar, if people didn't give the half shekel, the court would take collateral from them. From which groups of people are they not allowed to demand collateral? Are kohanim allowed to give but not obligated or are they obligated? Why did kohanim think that they were not allowed to give the half-shekel? What are the rules regarding children? What is the difference in the law for those who have two hairs but are not yet aged 20 and those who do not yet have two hairs? The gemara brings a discussion between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis regarding different approaches to the kohanim and whether or not they are obligated or permitted to bring the half-shekel. Gentiles and Kutim cannot give a half-shekel. What are they allowed to bring to the Temple?

Shekalim 2 - March 23, 10 Nisan Mar 23, 2021

Study Guide Shekalim 2

Masechet Shekalim is sponsored by Sarene Shanus and Harold Treiber in memory of their parents, "who taught us the value of learning and of being part of the Jewish community."

On the first of Adar, the court would announce about bringing the half-shekel to the temple for communal offerings and to remind people not to plant diverse kinds in close proximity. On the fifteenth of Adar they would read the megilla in walled cities, fix the roads and other preparations necessary after the winter for the upcoming holiday. They would also uproot diverse kinds if people hadn’t done it themselves. We announce on the first of Adar so that the shekels will get to the Temple by the first of Nissan when we separate the money to buy all the communal offerings. Why was that done of the first of Nissan? When do we announce in a leap year? The gemara brings proofs from verses why people may not inherently do that right thing and will need reminding. There were 3 different types of donations to the tabernacle - from where is this derived and what were the differences between them? What are the differences between the first Adar and the second? What do we write on documents for Adar Rishon and Adar Sheni?

Pesachim 121 - Siyum, March 22, 9 Nisan Mar 22, 2021

Today's siyum is sponsored by Lynn Horwitz for the 6th yartzeit of רחל יונינה בת ישראל יעקב ולאה רייזל which will be on the first night of Pesach, Leil HaSeder. "It seems fitting to sponsor this siyum in Rachel’s memory as it was Rachel who inspired me to start daf yomi. When Rachel decided to go to Frisch for high school, to help her catch up to the boys who would be in her honors Talmud shiur, we arranged her to have a Sunday morning Talmud "boot camp". The Rebbi insisted that a parent attend as well so I joined her and together we learned basic gemara vocabulary and how to parse a sugya. While Rachel used these skills to hold her own in shiur, in an attempt to keep up with her growing knowledge of Torah, I began daf yomi, a cycle I completed with the help of Rabbanit Michelle Farber’s podcast. While Rachel’s years on this earth were short, her intense embrace of family, friend, nature and learning made a strong impression on and continues to inspire all who knew her. תנצבה And by Allison and Akiva Shapiro in honor of their daughter Meira’s completion of Masechet Pesachim and dedication to daf yomi. And by Avigail Gordon in honor of her daughters. "Tzipora, whose love of learning and dedication to daf yomi inspired me to start this journey in the first place, and Adira, my Pesach baby, who got a headstart in her Talmud learning as she grew inside me. May your lives always be full of Torah learning and commitment, and may you continue to know and learn from and with inspirational female scholars like those in the Hadran community. It is my great honor to learn with them, and with you."

Why did the rabbis determine that meat that was pigul and notar, that was left beyond the time that was permitted to eat the meat, were to make hands that touched them impure? What were they trying to prevent? And what proportion is the requisite amount that is needed to transfer impurity? There was be a blessing for eating the meat of the Paschal sacrifice and for the chagiga sacrifice. Does a blessing on one of them exempt the other? And if so, which one? Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree. What is the basis for the controversy? In the redemption of the firstborn son, pidyon haben, the father blesses the blessing on the redemption. Who blesses the blessing shehechiyanu - the priest who benefits because he receives money or the father who benefits from the observance of the mitzvah? It is ruled that the father of the son blesses that blessing also.

Pesachim 120 - March 21, 8 Nisan Mar 21, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 120

Today's Daf is sponsored by Sabina Weitzman in honor of her husband, Michael Camber, "a loving son and brother, husband and father – who encourages me in all things. I thank G-d for blessing me with the gift of this good man."

Is one forbidden to eat after matza? There are two different versions of what Shmuel said about this. The gemara brings out mishna and another braita to question/support each reading. According to the first version, the mishna is brought to question and the braita to support and the reverse for the second version. Each support/question is rejected as the source can be interpreted differently. Is the commandment to eat matza and maror after the destruction of the temple a Torah commandment or rabbinic? There is a debate on the matter regarding matza, while all agree that maror is rabbinic. Verses are brought to show the derivation of each opinion. If several members of the chabura (group of people eating the sacrifice together) fall asleep, can they continue to eat the sacrifice when they wake up? What if all of them fell asleep? Is there is difference between if they dozed or fell into a deep sleep? Until what time can one eat the meat of the Pesach sacrifice? Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria and Rabbi Akiva disagree - is it midnight or alot hashachar, dawn? Each derives the halacha from a different verse in the Torah and explains the other's verse in a different manner.

Pesachim 119 - Shabbat March 20, 6 Nisan Mar 19, 2021

This is Shabbat's daf. For Friday's daf please click here.

Today's daf is sponsored by Tova and David Kestenbaum in memory of Tova's grandmother, Ida Rivkin, a"h (Chaya Chasha bat Zvi Zeev and Leah Yente). "She was a wonderful Bubby. I will always remember her for how she davened with tremendous Kavanah, 3 times a day. May she continue to be a "Meilitsat Yosher" for our family, klal Yisrael and the world."

From where did the Romans get their wealth? It originated from Joseph in Egypt - where did it go from there until it eventually got to the Romans? The verses from the end of Hallel are explained to be connected to when Shmuel went to choose David to be king in place of Shaul. The mishna in Sukka is brought regarding different customs of how Hallel was recited - were all or only some of the verses repeated? One cannot eat afikoman after eating the Pesach sacrifice. What is afikoman? What is the issue at stake? Can one also not eat after matza?

Pesachim 118 - March 19, 6 Nisan Mar 19, 2021

Today's Daf is sponsored by Ellen Golub in memory of her brother, Richard Dennis Golub, Pesach Nahum ben Aryey Leib v'Leah, "on his 62nd yahrzeit. Yehi zichrono l'vracha." And by Rachel Leiser Levy "l’zecher nishmat Moshe b Betzalel v'Shprintza Pessel, my beloved father. Born in Berlin in 1931, Pesach, the holiday of liberation, was his favorite holiday and I know he’d be amazed at the work of Hadran and the learning being done by this wonderful community, especially in preparation for Pesach."

What is birkhat hashir that we say after Hallel? Rabbi Tarfon mentions that we say Hallel HaGadol. What is that? Some say we thank God with a different chapter of Psalms for the food of the meal. The gemara compares the difficulty of finding food to childbirth, redemption and the splitting of the sea. The gemara brings several explanations for words in Hallel that were recited by specific people at a particular moment such as, when Chania, Mishael and Azaria were thrown in a fiery furnace by Nevuchadnezar. Or possibly when Abraham was thrown in a fiery furnace by Nimrod. Each explanation explains why the words "God is true to his word" are said. What promise did God make that was fulfilled? Another explanation is brought that it was said by the fish in the sea as explained by a story in the gemara connecting the splitting of the sea and the Egyptians drowning with the drowning of Sisra's men in the book of Judges. The Romans are compared to the Egyptians and are seen in a much more negative light.

Pesachim 117 - March 18, 5 Nisan Mar 18, 2021

The gemara brings a debate regarding various words in the Torah that end with "יה" - are they written as one word or two. What is the meaning of the word הללויה? Who is the writing/first recitation of Hallel attributed to? Was the book of Psalms written by David as personal prayers or prayers for the community? Many Psalms begin with introductory words - what is the meaning of each of the different words? What state of mind should one be in before getting a prophecy, teaching a halacha and having a good dream? The gemara brings a list of people/situations throughout Jewish history who said Hallel. In what situations does one say Hallel? The word הללויה appears sometimes at the beginning and sometimes at the end of a chapter of Psalms. The gemara mentions several of them and discusses whether they are meant to be the last word of the chapter or the beginning of the next. Why is the blessing of the redeemer of Israel sometimes used in the present tense and sometimes past tense? The gemara discusses other places where similar blessings end with different wording. The third cup is said on birkhat hamazon and the fourth on the end of Hallel. One can drink other wine between all the cups, other than the last two.

Pesachim 116 - March 17, 4 Nisan Mar 17, 2021

What is the reason for dipping in charoset? Is it a mitzva or is it for some other reason? Why is charoset not liquidy? The second cup is poured at the seder and ten the section of telling the story begins. It begins with asking questions and the mishna brings questions that one asks "ma nishtana." It is unclear if all needs to ask those specific questions or if those are given for one who doesn't know how to ask. The structure is to begin with describing the disgrace and end with glory or praise. The gemara brings a debate regarding what this would be. Then we are to expound on the verses of "an Aramean sought to destroy my father" until the end of that section. What does one do if there are no children - who asks the questions? Did the content of the questions change over time? Could there be a case where there is no need to ask the questions? Rabban Gamliel says there are 3 things one is obligated to talk about at the seder - Pesach, Matza and Maror. The mishna continues to talk about the need to feel as if we ourselves were taken out of Egypt and therefore should praise God. Then one recites the first or first two paragraphs of Hallel (debate between Beit Shami and Beit Hillel) and recites a blessing about the redemption. Is a blind person obligated by Torah law to tell the story?

Pesachim 115 - March 16, 3 Nisan Mar 16, 2021

If one eats the same vegetable for karpas and maror, when is the blessing “on eating maror” blessed? Is it possible or desirable to wrap matza and maror together for eating as they did in the temple? Did they really do that in the time of the temple? This has to do with the controversy over whether mitzvot nullify each other. How did we get to the practice we do today? Why wash hands before karpas? Does one need to wash hands again before maror also? Is it possible to fulfill one's obligation of matzah and maror if swallowed and not chewed? Do we place matza, maror and charoset in front of everyone at the seder? Why do we remove the table at the beginning of the seder? So that the children will ask. Why is matza called bread of "oni"?

Pesachim 114 - March 15, 2 Nisan Mar 15, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 114

Today's Daf is sponsored by Tova and David Kestenbaum in memory of Tova's grandmother, Yehudit bat Reuven Pinchas V'Chaya Gutsia. "She was a true Eshet Chayil, the best Bubby, and a woman whose "hachnassat orchim" knew no bounds." And by Yehudit Robinson. "Happy birthday to Sarah and Bracha! Sarah, you are an amazing and inspiring mishna and talmud teacher and aunt, and Bracha, you are saving so many covid patients while also being an awesome aunt! You have both taught me so much about resilience and joy."

The mishna describes that the first cup of wine is poured for Kiddush. Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai debate which blessing of Kiddush comes first – the one on the wine or on the sanctity of the holiday. Explanations are given to support each opinion. The next mishna describes what other foods they brought to the table – first a vegetable that they would dip then they would bring matza, chazeret, charoset, and two cooked foods. Is charoset a mitzva or not? When the Temple still stood, they would bring the meat of the Paschal sacrifice. Reish Lakish derives from the mishna that mitzvot require intent as if not, there would be no need for maror as one would have already filled one’s obligation using the vegetable dipped at the beginning of the meal. But not all agree with him and try to prove otherwise. What foods are used for the two cooked items and what is their purpose? What blessing is made on the vegetable eaten for karpas and what blessing is made on the vegetable eaten as maror?

Pesachim 113 - Rosh Chodesh Nissan, March 14, 1 Nissan Mar 14, 2021

This month of learning is sponsored by Bill Futornick in memory of Rabbi David Teitelbaum z"l, "who led Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City, CA for 38 years. Rabbi Teitelbaum was a man who led by example. He worked tirelessly for civil rights, marching in Selma with Dr. King and Rabbi Heschel, and he was an outspoken advocate for Soviet Jewry. Rabbi Teitelbaum deeply embraced ahavat tzion and inspired that ahava in his community. Most important, he was a kind and loving man, a wonderful husband, father, grandfather and great-grandfather, and a man who embodied the values of Micah 6:8: asot mishpat, v’ahavat chesed v’hatzna’ah leket im elokecha."

Today's daf is sponsored by Sarah Waiman in honor of her father, Bernard Waiman, making aliyah on Sunday at long last. "I’m so jealous of you going on this journey to join your children and grandchildren and I hope to join you there sometime very soon. I’m sure you’re going to make yourself right at home in a Daf Yomi shiur somewhere in the Ra’anana/Herzliya region!"

Different rabbis offer advice about all sorts of issues - health, marriage, financial, business, behavior, political, etc. First Rav to his students and his sons and then rAbbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and others. Many are passed down with numbers - 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. The gemara expands on some of the topics.

Pesachim 112 - Shabbat March 13, 29 Adar Mar 12, 2021

The gemara discusses the importance of washing one’s hands after particular activities such as cutting hair or nails. One should not drink water on particular nights or from streams and lakes as there are evil spirits. If one is thirsty, the gemara offers suggestions of what one can do. Why does the mishna tell us the obvious, that even poor people need to have four cups of wine, even if it means taking from charity? It is said according to Rabbi Akiva who thinks that poor people should eat on Shabbat as they would on a weekday rather than take charity. Even for Rabbi Akiva, because of the importance of publicizing the miracle, the poor need to take four cups of wine from charity. From here, the gemara diverges into statements made by Rabbi Akiva and others that they passed down to their sons or to their students about ways one should behave or ways to avoid evil spirits and other things.

Pesachim 111 - March 12, 28 Adar Mar 12, 2021

Today's Daf is sponsored by Danny Sadinoff in memory of Frank Sadinoff, Efraim Mordechai ben Menachem Mendel z"l. "Remembered as a loving father, brother, husband and son." And by Romi Sussman in honor of her husband, Josh. "Happy birthday! Thank you for always inspiring me to keep learning and growing. You are such a role model to our sons. Love Romi and the boys." And by Zev Gewurz in honor of his wife, Risa’s, 50th Hebrew birthday "and in celebration of everything she does, including learning Arvei Pesachim this year, together with our daughters, in preparation for Pesach."

The gemara mentions all sorts of things that are dangerous to do because demons or evil spirits can catch a person in these situations. The gemara limits some cases and also offers solutions what to do if one encounters such a situation gets into trouble with a demon or witchcraft. Some are related to dangerous places or situations, some are related to immodesty and some to other things that are less understood. The gemara brings names of demons and details about the amount of demons that are in certain situations so that we know how to write an amulet to deal with them.

Pesachim 110 - March 11, 27 Adar Mar 11, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 110

Today's daf is sponsored by Sarah Robinson in honor of Yehudit Robinson. "I'm so lucky you are my sister and that you showed me how to love the challenge of gemara learning. Wishing you the most amazing day and a stupendous year! Happy birthday!"

The gemara deals with the issue of the dangers of eating and drinking in pairs as it arouses the danger of demons. In what situations is it an issue/not an issue? Is it all pairs? Some say drinking 10 cups is not an issue but less is. Some say the same for 8 and for 6 and for 4. Information is relayed about demons and witchcraft and suggestions are provided for incantations to recite if one encounters one. What types of people are more susceptible to demons? The gemara explains that one who is worried about pairs, the demons will attack them but one who is not concerned about them, the demons will not attack them.

Pesachim 109 - March 10, 26 Adar Mar 10, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 109

Today's daf is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Benyomin Zev ben Chaya Miriam.

Are children required to drink four glasses of wine and if not, what do they do instead? How do you fulfill the commandment of rejoicing on Yom Tov? Is there a difference between men and women? What is the area of a vessel that can hold a quarter-log of wine? How can it be obligatory to drink four glasses of wine if four is an even number and it is known that drinking in pairs can lead to danger because demons are known to harm people when they drink in pairs. The gemara brings three answers.

Pesachim 108 - March 9, 25 Adar Mar 09, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 108

Today’s daf is sponsored by Mark and Shoshana Baker in memory of the 48th Yartzeit of Mark’s late father, Anthony David Waltzer. And by Abby Flamholz in honor of her daughter-in-law Sigal on her Hebrew birthday. "A huge thank you for dragging me along on your daf yomi journey."

Rabbi Sheshet would fast on the eve of Passover all day. Why? At what point of the seder does one need to recline? How does one recline? Who is required to recline? Women in the presence of their husbands do not need to recline but if they are important women, then they do? What does it mean "important women"? A son reclines at his father's table. What about a student at his rabbi's table? The servant serving the meal? Women are obligated in four cups (and other seder law) as women were also part of the miracle. What are the different interpretations for "part of the miracle?" The gemara brings in the name of Shmuel different laws relating to the wine for the four cups. Other rabbis come and restrict his words. Do you need red wine? Where do we learn this from?

Pesachim 107 - March 8, 24 Adar Mar 08, 2021

Today's Daf is sponsored in celebration of Geri Goldstein’s birthday by her kids Audrey and Jake Levant and Michael and Stacy Goldstein. Happy birthday! And by Inbal in honor of her husband Gadi "Who's been teaching me about life for 25 years, and who I've enjoyed learning the Daf with over the past year."

What is the halacha regarding one who ate before Kiddush/Havdala? do we penalize them? What if they forgot to say Kiddush/Havdala - can they make it up the next day or later in the week? The gemara brings various stories and statements regarding beer and whether one can use it for making Kiddush/Havdala. How much does one need to drink in order to fulfill one's obligation of Kiddush/Havdala? The gemara now gets back to the mishna regarding not eating on erev Pesach. When it says close to mincha, it is referring to mincha ketana (nine and a half hours into the day) or mincha gedola (six and a half hours into the day) - and "close to" would be a half-hour before that. The gemara brings the logic for each option and brings a tannaitic source to determine the correct answer. What foods are forbidden/permitted after "close to mincha" on erev Pesach? Is it actually a good thing to eat foods that are permitted in the afternoon or better to refrain from that also?

Pesachim 106 - March 7, 23 Adar Mar 07, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 106

Today's Daf is sponsored by Rena Septee Goldstein and Mark Goldstein on the occasion of the yahrzeit of Rena’s father, Moe Septee, Moshe ben HaRav Elazar Shmuel. "Ish Shalem. Ish Shalom." And in celebration of Geri Goldstein’s birthday today! By her kids Audrey and Jake Levant and Michael and Stacy Goldstein.

What is a cup that is pagum, which is invalid for Kiddush? The gemara brings several different opinions for cases where it will be pagum/not pagum. What is the source for Kiddush from the Torah? Is the essential of Kiddush during the day or the night? What is the source for the Kiddush that is less essential? What is the content of Kiddush on Shabbat day? What is ‘Kiddusha Raba’? What did Rabbi Ashi do when he was asked to recite ‘Kiddusha Rabba' and he did not know what it was? How, in a wise manner, did he manage to figure it out? Is Kiddush considered a break between washing hands and making the blessing on the bread in the event that one washed his hands before Kiddush? To answer, the gemara brings the custom of Rav who would sometimes say Kiddush over bread and sometimes over wine - depending on what he preferred at that moment. If someone ate before Kiddush or Havdalah, is he allowed to make Kiddush/Havdala?

Pesachim 105 - Shabbat March 6, 22 Adar Mar 05, 2021

Today's Daf by is sponsored by Caroline Ben-Ari in memory of her beloved mother Daphne Rhodes (Dafna Devora bat Avraham ve-Chana) on her 4th yahrzeit.

In what different ways is the entry of Shabbat (kiddush) the same or different from the exit of Shabbat (havdala)? Are the laws regarding stopping a meal if one is in the middle when Shabbat comes in/goes out the same? Is it forbidden to eat and drink before making havdala, as is the case before making kiddush? If one forgot to smake Kiddush on Friday night, is it possible to do it the next day? Rav Nachman Bar Yitzchak says yes and the gemara raises some difficulties from other sources. In the context of the questions, a braita was quoted and the gemara derives eight laws/positions that clearly the one who wrote the braita held by.

Pesachim 104 - March 5, 21 Adar Mar 05, 2021

Today's Daf is sponsored by Orah F. Zipper in memory of her late husband, Stuart, Simcha haKohen ben Avraham. And by Ellen Golub and Steve Sass in memory of Ellen's father, Leo Golub - אריה לייב בן אליהו ומאסי on his seventh yahrzeit ."He was a native Yiddish speaker who loved the Jewish people and, despite a streak of atheism, insisted that his only daughter have an excellent Jewish education. He devoted his life to building a curious, creative, and loving Jewish family and is remembered joyfully by seven grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren. Yehi zichrono livracha."

What is the havdala blessing made up of? How many phrases of “separation”? What is the range of possibilities? Does one need to repeat ideas that are found in the words of the final part of the blessing at the beginning of the blessing or before the final blessing? The language in the phrases of “separations” in the havdala blessing should come from verses in the Torah where the word “lehavdil”, to separate, is used. The gemara suggests various possible endings for the blessing – "who organized the creations" "who created the world" “who sanctifies the Jewish people” “one who separates between the sacred and the profane” and also one that combines two of them. When Ulla came to Pumbedita, Rav Yehuda wanted to see what Ulla said during havdala so he sent his son with a basket of fruits to "spy". However, his son didn’t want to go and sent Abaye instead. Ulla only said simply the blessing “one who separates between the sacred and the profane." The gemara questioned why he did not have a longer version as per the stipulations for blessings as stipulated in a braita.

Pesachim 103 - March 4, 20 Adar Mar 04, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 103

Today’s Daf is sponsored by Natanya Slomowitz in memory of her grandfather (her mother's father) Avraham ben Chanoch Meir and Esther Dembinski. He was a hero of the Revisionist effort in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Murdered 20 Adar bet 5703, March 27, 1943. יהי זכרו ברוך.

What is the order of blessings for kiddush/havdala that one makes when Yom Tov falls out on Saturday night? The gemara brings seven opinions on the subject! Rava and Abaye disagree regarding the placement of the shehecheyanu blessing. The gemara brings several stories that took place from which we can derive halakhot. In the first, Rava explains why he made a blessing (in havdala on a regular Shabbat on the spices first and then the candle, even though that doesn’t seem to match either Beit Shamai or Beit Hillel’s position on the matter. He explained that there is a debate about how to understand the debate between them. The second story was about why Rava made a new blessing on the wine used for birkhat hamazon and as a result, the gemara brings a few other stories relating different opinions on that topic. In the continuation of the story with Rava, the servant lights a torch for havdala, and Rava is questioned about that, as well as why he used the particular wording that he used for the havdala blessing.

Pesachim 102 - March 3, 19 Adar Mar 03, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 102

Today's daf is dedicated for the refuah shleima of Yehudit bat Eli Simcha Nachma and Benyomin Zev ben Chaya Miriam.

The gemara brings a braita to raise a difficulty on Rav Chisda who said that one does not need to make a new blessing if one moved locations while one was eating a serious meal (items that require one to make the blessing after eating in the place where one ate). In the braita it stipulates that it is only on the condition that it leaves people at the original meal. The gemara explains that the braita is Rabbi Yehuda’s position and Rav Chisdo holds like the rabbis who disagree with him. After bringing a braita that highlights this debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis, the gemara suggests bringing this source to raise a difficulty on Rabbi Yochanan who says that a change of place does not necessitate a new blessing, but they resolve the difficulty. The gemara returns to the matter of a meal that began on Friday and lasts into Shabbat, should one stop and make kiddush or finish the meal? Rabbi Yehuda says to stop and Rabbi Yossi says none can finish the meal. Rabbi Yossi says to bring two cups of wine – one for birkhat hamazon on the first meal and the second for kiddush. Why not say both about one cup? Because mitzvot cannot be performed “in bundles” (chavilot chavilot)– joined together. The gemara raises a difficulty on this from other places where we see that you can combine blessings and they distinguish between the different cases in order to answer the difficulty.

Pesachim 101 - March 2, 18 Adar Mar 02, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 101

There was a custom of making kiddush in synagogues – can one fulfill one’s obligation for kiddush in this manner? If one wants to drink more wine at home, does one need to make a new blessing of “boreh pri hagafen” on the wine at home? There is a dispute between Rav, Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan. Shmuel rules that that one does not fulfill one’s obligation for kiddush because kiddush needs to be done in the place of a meal. What is considered a "place" - are there two places in the same house considered the same place? What is considered a "meal"? If they do not fulfill their obligation for kiddush, why did they make kiddush in the synagogue? And if so did why did they make kiddush at home also? The gemara brings stories from which you can see that Rabbi Huna and Rabba ruled like Shmuel. Rabbi Yochanan’s opinion is brought and the gemara raises a question from a braita against his opinion and cannot find a resolution. In the braita is stated that would require one to make a new blessing on the wine. The gemara brings Rav Chisda’s statement in the name of Rav Huna and his own statement limiting this law and braises difficulties on both these statements.

Pesachim 100 - March 1, 17 Adar Mar 01, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 100

Today's Daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson and Art Gould "in gratitude to HaShem who safeguarded Carol through last week’s surgery, and who enabled Carol’s doctors to care for her, and who grants wisdom to scientists everywhere, as both of us are now vaccinated. Also in gratitude to our friend and teacher Rabbanit Farber and the Hadran Zoom mishpacha who have showered us with such overwhelming warmth, support and affection."

The gemara determines that the mishna is only according to Rabbi Yosi, as per Rav Huna's answer. According to that, Rabbi Yosi agrees with Rabbi Yehuda on erev Pesach one is not allowed to eat from a half an hour before mincha. The gemara raises a question against that from a statement that makes it seem like Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi Yehuda disagree also regarding erev Pesach. The gemara responds by explaining that that statement was referring to a different issue - one who began a meal during the day and it extended to after the beginning of Shabbat/Chag - does one need to stop, finish the meal and begin again with kiddush or does one finish one's meal and only after that, make kiddush. The halakha was determined to be like Rabbi Yosi, in an interesting story where it was suggested to be stringent like Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi strongly objected. Shmuel ruled differently - that one puts a cloth over the food on the table when Shabbat comes in and makes kiddush. He rules the same regarding havdala. The issue of covering is relevant even for one beginning a one's meal - one should not bring other food to the table until after kiddush, but if it is there, it should be covered. From here the custom developed to cover the challot (at least this is one of the reasons). The gemara brings two braitot relating to the debate between Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Yehuda regarding eating on erev Pesach and explains what each braita is referring to.

Pesachim 99 - February 28, 16 Adar Feb 28, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 99

Today's daf is sponsored by Daniel and Eva Schweber, in loving memory of their father, Ken Schweber, who are learning daf yomi in honor of his own Talmud studies. And by Amy Goldstein in memory of her mother, Carolyn Barnett-Goldstein. "In honor of her 2nd Yahrtzeit, we miss her artistic spirit, wealth of knowledge, and joy for life."

If the animal for the Pesach sacrifice got lost and the original group divided into two and each group said to the other that if they found the animal or sacrificed another in its place, they should include the other in the slaughtering, if they both slaughtered and do not know who slaughtered first, no one can eat from the sacrifice and the whole animal is burned. And they are all exempt from Pesach Sheni. If they said nothing to each other, everyone fulfills their obligation with the animal they slaughtered and they can eat it. The gemara quotes a braita that concludes from this case that silence is preferable and quotes an verse from Proverbs to strengthen this claim. The mishna described a case in which the two Pesachs of two individuals got mixed up with each other. Each one will take one of the animals and bring someone else to join him and then will go with the other and stipulate, "If this one is my Pesach, then you will join with me and if this is not my Pesach, I will join with you." The Gemara discusses the connection between this mishna and the dispute between Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi Yehuda over whether one of the original members of the group must stay with the animal. The tenth chapter begins with a description of Passover eve - there is a prohibition to eat from close to the time of mincha. One needs to ensure that the poor people get four glasses of wine. Why did the mishna only talk about the prohibition of eat on the eve of Pesach and not mention all other erev Shabbats and Yom Tovs that also have a prohibition to eat from the time of the mincha. The gemara bring two answers - either the mishna is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yossi only, who holds that there is no prohibition to eat on erev Shabbats and holidays, only on Pesach because of the mitzva to eat matza or that there is a difference in the prohibitions - on the eve of Pesach is is a half hour before mincha and the others are from mincha. The gemara brings a braita that contradicts the second possibility, however Mar Zutra suggests that perhaps the braita is inaccurate.

Pesachim 98 - Shabbat, Shushan Purim, February 27, 15 Adar Feb 26, 2021

What are the laws for one who designates an animal for a Pesach sacrifice that cannot be used as it is too old or female? What if one dies before the sacrifice is brought? What can the inheritors do with the animal? On what does it depend? What if a Pesach gets mixed up with other sacrifices and one does not know which is which? What if one group's animal got mixed up with another's?

Pesachim 97 - Purim, 14 Adar, February 26 Feb 26, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 97

Today's Daf is sponsored by Sigal Spitzer in honor of her mother in law, Abby Flamholz, "for inspiring me and the whole extended family to learn torah, especially daf yomi!" And by Deborah and Binyamin Radomsky in honor of the Bar Mitzvah of their son Betzalel Tzvi Radomsky ben Binyamin HaLevi and Devorah Rut. "We are so proud that he has started learning Daf Yomi this cycle." And by Amy Cohn leilui nishmat her big sister Cindy Navah bat haRav Dov Chaim on her 16th yahrzeit. "She loved to learn Talmud with our father." And by Adam Cohen for a refuah shleima fro Benyomin Zev ben Chaya Miriam.

The mishna discussed a case of a Pesach sacrifice that got lost and another was taken in its place. What is the status of the original one if it is found, and what is the law regarding a replacement of the original one, temura. The laws depend on the time it was found. There are two versions of Rava concerning cases where the original animal was found before the second one was slaughtered but the substitution was after. What is the status of the substituted one? Shmuel says that in a case where an animal designated for a sin offering would be left to die, a Pesach in that same situation would be brought as a peace offering. And when a sin offering it left to graze, the Pesach will also be send to graze. The gemara raises some questions against this statement and explains how his statement could be understood.

Pesachim 96 - February 25, 13 Adar Feb 25, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 96

Today's Daf and the next month of study are sponsored by Terri Krivosha in in the memory of her beloved father Nahum Mayar ben Dovid Baer. "As we mark the last day of his shloshim, Mary Oliver's words describe perfectly my father's view of life: "When it's over I want to say: all my life I was the bride married to amazement, I was the bridegroom, taking the world into my arms. I don't want to wonder if I have made of my life something particular and real. I don't want to end up simply having visited this world". My dad, Judge Norman Krivosha was a remarkable individual who did far more than simply visit this world. We miss his presence but are honored by his memory. Yehi Zichro Baruch"

Today's daf is dedicated by Andria Eisen in loving memory of her mother, Sandra Joy Singer.

What is the difference between the first Pesach that was celebrated in Egypt and the Pesach in future generations. From where is this derived? The gemara raises seven questions against the derivation. If an animal is lost and another is taken and then the original animal is found - what happens to the first animal? It depends on whether it was found before the slaughter of the first (or before midday, according to some) or after, as when the other one is slaughtered, it becomes rejected. What is the law regarding a substitute of the original one? On what does that depend?

Pesachim 95 - February 24, 12 Adar Feb 24, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 95

Today's daf is sponsored by Anne Klausner in memory of her friend Jane Freedman z’l, Sheindel bat HaRav Pinchas and Edna Yenta whose 7th yahrzeit was Monday, the 10th of Adar. "Jane was an inspirational woman, her emunah in Hashem was awe-inspiring even in the face of tremendous health challenges. May she be a melitzat yosher for all of Am Yisrael." And by Rochie Sommer in honor of her mother Meryl Sasnowitz, on her birthday. "Her dedication to education and Torah learning has inspired her family. May she continue to take pleasure in the Hadran Daf Yomi. With love from her children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren."

What are the differences between Pesach Rishon and Pesach Sheni? From where are these details derived? On what issues are there differences of opinion? If it was a year where the majority of the people were impure, and those impure from a dead person are permitted to sacrifice the Pesach sacrifice, how does this affect others who are impure who are not allowed to partake in the sacrifice. Do they still receive karet if they eat the meat from the Pesach sacrifice? Do they still receive karet if they enter the Temple?

Pesachim 94 - February 23, 11 Adar Feb 23, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 94

Today's Daf is sponsored by by Mona Fishbane in memory of her beloved daughter-in-law, Leah Levitz Fishbane, z”l on her 14th yahrzeit. "The light of her soul still shines. Leah's spirit lives in those blessed to have loved her." And by Sara Berelowitz in memory of her mother in law (Sara Tiva bat David Shlomo a"h) Berelowitz. "At the beginning of the daf yomi cycle, my husband and I started learning the daf in order to do a siyum of Masechet Brachot on her yahrzeit. Neither of us thought that we would be still learning the daf a year later."And in memory of Shachne ben Yehuda v'Sara for his shloshim. And by Betsy Mehlman in memory of Harold Mondshein (Zvi Menachem Mendel ben Shlomo v Charna Bayla z"l) on the 37th anniversary of his yahrzeit. "My father was an outstanding baal koreh with a melodious voice and a kind and patient teacher to countless bar mitzvah students. He exemplified Pirkei Avot's saying to "meet everyone with a pleasing countenance." His love of family, jovial disposition and the respectful and welcoming manner in which he greeted people of all ages and from all walks of life inspire me to this day." And by Tina Lamm for a refuah shleima of Rivka Chana bat Sara Leah.

How do Ulla's and Rav Yehuda's approaches by one who is far from the Temple fit with their approaches about one who is impure from a sheretz on erev Pesach? How large is the world and how large is the firmament that separates between the world and the heavens? Rava explains his answer and the gemara brings 5 questions against him. The gemara compares some of the beliefs they have of how the sun/constellations work with the beliefs of other nations during their generation. The gemara grapples with Rabbi Eliezer's approach as mentioned in the mishna that one who is "far away" is one who is not inside the azara. Can this really be?

Pesachim 93 - February 22, 10 Adar Feb 22, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 93

Today's Daf is sponsored by Caroline Ben-Ari in memory of Marshall Kneller (Mordechai ben Gershom) z"l, and in memory of Marie Muller (Miriam bat Shmuel ve-Frimit) z"l on her 3rd yahrzeit tomorrow. And by Steven Perlin in memory of Sheindel bat Micha'el on her 2nd yahrzeit.

Rav Sheshet brings a proof for his opinion that one who was far away and can make it there in time to eat the sacrifice cannot fulfill one's obligation. The gemara then brings a bvraita to support Rav Nachman who disagrees with him. The gemara brings a braita with three different opinions regarding in what cases one would receive karet: from Pesach Rishon only, also Pesach Sheni - what is the interplay between them? Does one get a second chance if one purposely didn't bring a sacrifice the first time. If one converted in between or became obligated in mitzvot, would one be obligated in Pesach Sheni or is it only meant for those who were obligated in the first one? What is the source for each of the different opinions? What is considered far away? The mishna brings a debate about this.

Pesachim 92 - 9 Adar. February 21 Feb 21, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 92

Today's Daf is dedicated by the Tannenbaum family in loving memory of Miriam's father, Jack Zemsky z"l on his 17th yahrzeit. "Leiluy nishmat Yaakov Yitzchak ben Moshe Nachum HaLevi z"l. He modeled & imprinted Ahavat HaTorah & Ahavat Yisrael on his daughters throughout his life. He would have celebrated Hadran's imparting of these values to the world. Yehi Zichro Baruch."

People who were forbidden to eat sacrifices on the eve of Pesach such as one who lost a close relative and is an onen and others in similar situations or one who converted that day, are they allowed to be a part of the sacrifice that day and they go to the mikveh and can eat the sacrifice at night? In what cases did the sages put override rabbinic law in an issue where there was karet involved and in what cases did they not override rabbinic law in a case of karet. Who can offer a second Passover sacrifice? Who is liable to receive karet if he/she did not celebrate Pesach Rishon? If someone was too far at the time of the sacrifice and made sure that he was included in someone else's sacrifice, and arrived at night to eat the sacrifice, did he fulfill his obligation or not? Is he allowed to do this?

Pesachim 91 - Shabbat February 20, 8 Adar Feb 19, 2021

If there is someone who is unsure whether something will prevent them from being able to eat the sacrifice at night, can they be included in the sacrificing of the animal? The mishna describes various cases like this. Can one slaughter a Pesach sacrifice for one individual? Who can make up a group for Pesach – what combinations of people are not permitted? Why? Are women obligated in Pesach or in Pesach Sheni? Is it obligatory, optional, not allowed? Three opinions are brought and the gemara explains where in the verses they derive their positions. Pesach, matza and marror are obligatory on the first night only. Women are obligated in matza and marror as men – why?

Pesachim 90 - February 19, 7 Adar Feb 19, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 90

Today's Daf is sponsored by Sylvia (Sara Devora) Simmons to commemorate the yahrzeit of her father, Avrom Simelis z”l (Avraham Nachum ben Yisrael). "He was a survivor from Kovno, Lithuania who sang 'Ani Maamin' with fervour, led congregations in prayer, taught me basic Hebrew and inspires my daily learning." And by Esther and Eliakim Katz, in honor of the birth of Baby Girl Wolgin. "Welcome to a healthy beautiful baby girl." And by Sharon Russ "for a refuah shleima to Hadar bat Sharon Shelly, Sima bat Estreya, Itamar Reuven ben Rivka Malkah, and all who need a refuah b'toch sha'ar cholei yisrael"

How can money that was used to purchase a share in an animal for the Pesach sacrifice be switched from sanctified to not sanctified? For money to switch status like that, it needs to be placed on a non sanctified item, but here the animal is already sanctified. Can one who purchased a Pesach seels parts of it to make money? People who are impure or not yet finished with the purification process - can they be included in the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood in the Pesach sacrifice or not? Why is there a difference between different types of stages of impurity?

Pesachim 89 - February 18, 6 Adar Feb 18, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 89

Today's Daf is sponsored by Erica Kolatch in commemoration of the 5th yahrtzeit of her mother, "the Honorable Constance Glube, Chaya Rachel bat Shmuel. Connie shattered glass ceilings in the field of law in Canada throughout her life. Michelle was a scholar-in-residence at the Kemp Mill Synagogue in Maryland in spring 2016 while I was in avelut and I have been learning the daf ever since. I wonder what my mother's reaction would be?" And by Risa Tzohar in loving memory of Esther Deena bat Risa v'David on her fifth yahrtzeit. And by Dina Hirshfeld-Becker in memory of her mother, Sarina Bialik Hirshfeld, z"l whose 13th yahrtzeit is today. "My mother told me that she was in the first class at Yeshiva of Flatbush High School in which girls were allowed to learn Talmud, and her father was the teacher (Dr. Manoach Bialik, z"l). Her memory is a blessing that is with me." And by Stuart Pilichowski in loving memory of his mother, Faiga Rochel bat Yosef, "a survivor of the Shoah, who would be so proud of her great-granddaughter, Temimah, for learning Daf Yomi."

In a case of five people who sacrificed and the hides mixed and they realized one was blemished and they do not know which was blemished, everyone is exempt from Pesach Sheni. Why don’t they each bring a sacrifice on Pesach Sheni on condition - either it will be a Pesach if theirs was blemished and if not, will be offered as a peace offering? The gemara raises several explanations for why this is not a possibility and from the discussion, we learn about the differences between the Passover and peace offerings. The mishna brings a story about a father who tried to encourage (“bribe”) his children to get to Jerusalem quickly. The gemara discusses the case and the halakhic details. Until what point can one change groups (chaburas) for the Pesach offering? If someone invites guests to add to the group without checking with the others, the other members can give him his share and tell him to create a new group with his food only with the new guest. Is it possible to learn from this case to one where someone eats too much food that the group can give him his portion and tell him to sit separately? Does this also apply to a regular meal?

Pesachim 88 - February 17, 5 Adar Feb 17, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 88

Today's Daf is sponsored by Dr. Stu and Ellen Shaffren to commemorate the 14th yahrtzeit of Stu’s mother Henneyeh bat Moshe Binyamin. "She very much valued learning and would have been extremely proud of her granddaughter learning daf yomi for her second cycle and her daughter in law being inspired to start as well." And by Elana Riback Rand in memory of her grandfather, Harvey Riback (Yechiel Yaakov ben Moshe HaLevi) on the occasion of his shloshim. "Zaidy showed us what it means to live life to the fullest and to be a true mensch. May his neshama have an aliyah."

Ulla brings a different reason why the Jews were exiled to Babylonia and brings a story to support it. Other drashot are brought regarding the temple being referred to as the house of the God of Jacob – why not the other fathers? And also about the significance of the day of the ingathering of the exiles. The gemara discusses different types of people - who is automatically included in the Passover sacrifice of the head of the household and who is not? How is a woman different? In which cases and why? Who else has the same status? The gemara explains why in the mishnah a slave who works for two masters is not counted in either master’s sacrifice. What does one who is half a slave and half a free man do? There is a contradiction between the mishnah and braita and the gemara resolves the contradiction by bringing a famous dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai regarding a slave of this kind. Because he can not marry in such a situation, what do we do to rectify the situation. In the end, Beit Hillel agrees with Beit Shamai that we force the master to release him so that he can fulfill the commandment of procreation. To answer the contradiction, the gemara distinguishes between before Beit Hillel changed their minds to after. The mishnah describes different situations in which someone tells his servant to slaughter Pesach and then something is unclear, such as, what kind of animal? If there are two animals slaughtered, how do you know which animal was slaughtered for whom? In which cases is the sacrifice considered valid, but no one can eat the meat? The gemara raises several questions about the mishna.

Pesachim 87 - February 16, 4 Adar Feb 16, 2021

Today's Daf is sponsored by Rabbi David and Linda Freedman's family, in memory of "Zady" Leon Pultman (Yehudah Leib Ben Tzvi Yaacov), on his 6th Yahrzeit. Also for the bar mitzvah of his great grandson Jonathan Freedman, (Yehonatan Ben Yosef Moshe) and for the 94th birthday of "Bubby" Selmy, (Thelma Pultman). And lastly, for the Refuah Shleima of Bat Shevah bat Taube (Sheila Strulowitz) our sister. And by Rabbi Lee Wax in honor of her beloved father, Mitch Wax (Shlomo Michael ben David v’Hinde Malka) whose 5th Yahrzeit is today. "He brought many people (especially young people) to Torah. Yehi Zichro Baruch. And by Dr. Stu and Ellen Shaffren in memory of Stu’s Grandmother, Hentsche Leah bat Shalom. "She was zoche to make aliyah at the age of 92 and lived to nearly 101."

If one slaughtered two Pesachs for one person (if he was registered for both), the one that was slaughtered first is considered and not the second. The mishna refers to the case of a married woman - if the animal was slaughtered for her at both her father's house and her husband's house, which one does she eat? On what does it depend? And what about an orphan who has several guardians? Or a slave with two masters? The gemara brings a contradiction regarding the woman of the woman from a braita. Then the gemara moves on to the drashot on Hosea in an attempt to understand what sin Hosea was "punished" for the God told him to marry a prostitute? Exile is considered a positive for two reasons - one that it increases converts into the Jewish people and another that our enemies can't wipe us out entirely. The gemara brings several explanations as why the Jews were exiled to Babylonia?

Pesachim 86 - February 15, 3 Adar Feb 15, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 86

Today's Daf is sponsored by Judith Weil in memory of Rav Eliahu Chaim Greenberg z”l on his 46th Yahrzeit. "Grandpa showed his love for his children and grandchildren through learning Gemara with them." And by Dr. Stu and Ellen Shaffren to commemorate the 18th yahrzeit of Sarah bat Moshe z"l, Ellen’s mother, which was yesterday, 2 Adar. She survived the Shoah in Shanghai, very much valued learning and would have been extremely proud that her granddaughter is now learning her second cycle and her daughter, her first. And for a refuah sheima of David ben Aidel b'toch she'ar cholei Yisrael.

The gemara brings several questions against Rav who held that the roofs and second floors in the Temple courtyard and in Jerusalem were not sanctified. One can eat the Pesach sacrifice by splitting in two groups in one house (even in two different houses) but one cannot move from group to group. This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda but Rabbi Shimon holds that one cannot split into two groups. What is the source of their debate and what cases would create a difference in the law between them. The mishna, as well as the gemara discuss different issues that relate to the person serving at the meal. How do they eat? What happens if they nibble in the kitchen on the meat? A newly married woman can turn her face away from the group as she is timid. Some stories are brought of rabbis who visited at other rabbi's house relating to etiquette and sometimes one's etiquette wasn't understood by the other.

Pesachim 85 - February 14, 2 Adar Feb 14, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 85

This week of learning is sponsored by Hinda Herman in memory of her mother, Etel Bat Chaim z"l (Ethel Rosenthal), whose 4th yahrzeit is 3 Adar. "Among the many Mitzvot mom performed הכנסת אורחים was the one closest to her heart." Today's Daf is sponsored by Rochie Sommer for her dear friend. Wishing a Refuah Shleima for Chana Adel bas Yenta Fruma. And by Tova and David Kestenbaum in memory of Tova's grandfather Harav Chaim Yakov ben Yitzchok and Yetta Bulka zt"l. "He embodied Torah through his knowledge and his midot. He taught Torah his entire life as a young man sent from Germany to Gateshead Yeshiva soon after his Bar Mitzvah, as a Rav kehilla in the Bronx, and when he and my Bubby made Aliyah to Yerushalyim following retirement. He continued giving shiurim practically until his last day, on 2 Adar 5766. Teaching Torah invigorated him and he had the zechut of having chavrutot with his great grandchildren, who enjoyed every minute of learning with their Ur Zeidy. יהי זכרו ברוך." And by Pamela Kaplan, commemorating the yahrzeit of her grandmother, Debbie Kaplan, Devorah bat Noach z"l. "She was a role model as a leader in the Jewish community, and who contributed so much as a former Hadassah national president."

Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree regarding a limb that has meat on one part and one breaks a bone on the other part – is this forbidden or not? Reish Lakish says it is not and Rabbi Yochanan brings two sources that raise questions against him. Why did the rabbis decree that pigul and notar renders one’s hands impure? Would the same be true to something that was removed from the designated area that it is allowed (either outside the azara or outside the walls of Jerusalem? The gemara brings sources to answer this question but the attempts are unsuccessful. One who removes meat is not obligated unless it is placed on the ground. How do you handle a limb that was partially taken out of the walls and partially in, if you cannot break the bones? What parts of the wall, windows, doorways are considered in the walls or outside the walls?

Pesachim 84 - Shabbat, 1 Adar, Rosh Chodesh Adar, February 13 Feb 12, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 84

One needs to register for an animal that has at least a piece of meat the size of an olive to eat. What parts of the animal count as meat for these purposes? What is the status of sinews that are soft now but will ultimately harden, as the animal used for the Pesach sacrifice is young. One gets lashes for breaking a bone in a valid sacrifice but not if the sacrifice is invalid. Also one does not receive lashes if one leaves the meat over beyond the designated time. From where are there laws derived? Regarding breaking bones, two different sources are brought - what is the practical difference (nafka mina) between the two Eight answers are given. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about the law of a limb with an olive bulk of meat on one part and one breaks a bone on the other part - is one obligated or not?

Pesachim 83 - 30 Shvat, Rosh Chodesh Adar, February 12 Feb 12, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 83

Parts of the sacrifice that are leftover (notar), and bones and sinews must be burned, as since they cannot be eaten, they become leftover. But they are not to be burned on the fifteenth of Nissan as it is a Yom Tov, or on the sixteenth if it falls on a Shabbat. Rabbi Yitzchak said: Notar by rabbinic decree passes on impurity to hands that touch it, therefore also bones that have marrow from the Pesach sacrifice and cannot be eaten and thereby become leftover, since breaking the bones is forbidden, also pass on impurity to hands. The gemara tries to bring support for this and also raise a question against him. According to Rav, the sinews are considered meat, other than the sinews in the neck. The gemara raises a difficulty from our mishnah and brings some resolutions. Why is one not permitted to burn the leftovers on Shabbat / Yom Tov?

Pesachim 82 - February 11, 29 Shvat Feb 11, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 82

Today's daf is sponsored by Julia Lager-Mesulam in honor of her father, Robert Byron Lager's 7th Yahrzeit. "He would be amazed that I am participating in Daf Yomi. He always taught us the importance of learning about our heritage. He is in my thoughts."

And by Carol Robinson and Arthur Gould in memory of Carol’s mother, Irma Robinson, Hudda Bat Moshe, z”l. Today is her 6th yahrtzeit. "Irma met Carol's dad Lou in her hometown of New Haven during WWII. They fell in love. Irma moved to Chicago to marry him, leaving family and friends behind. She built a rich life in the Chicago area including work she loved at a nearby high school library and active participation in her synagogue. She made wonderful friends that lasted her lifetime. She loved playing bridge and traveling with Lou. Sadly, four years after she was widowed, Irma developed Alzheimer’s. Carol traveled monthly to Chicago to help make the hard decisions and watch over her care. My sister and I were blessed that though her illness progressed, she never forgot who we were. She would be proud of Carol studying daf yomi."

And by Phyllis and Yossie Hecht in memory of Phyllis’s father, Rabbi Yerachmiel Binyamin ben Harav Zalman Tzvi Witkin (Jerry Witkin) on his 12th yahrtzeit. "We remember my father who is so missed in our lives as he was a Yosher Lev, חבר לכל ראיך, שמח בחלקו, and a man who personified במקום שאין איש השתדל להיות איש. My father was a true source of Nachat to his friends, family and klal Yisrael. He was a loyal friend who made all feel comfortable and relaxed. He was a super dad Who knew how to learn so well and pre Rabbi google days could find answers and sources to all torah questions asked. He was the dad who came and strategized with us about all our team sport games and taught us how to be great learners and Torah Jews. He certainly would have been proud at the accomplishments of Hadran and my being part of such a talented learned group of women. I know he enjoys hearing the shiurim from his spot above in the Beit Midrash shel Maalah. He was zocheh to make Aliyah with my Mom, albeit it with terminal cancer and live for only another 8 months after. But this was 8 months more than even Moshe Rabbeinu was zoche to "יהי זכרו מבורך מעתה ועד עולם."

There is a contradiction between our mishna and a different mishna regarding where one burns meat of a sacrifice when a part of it became impure. How is the contradiction reconciled? If one burns it in the Temple, one uses the wood from the Temple but one can't bring one's own wood. And if one burns it in one's house, one must use one's own wood and not wood from the Temple. Why? If the Pesach went out of the walls of Jerusalem, one burns it immediately. If the owners died or became impure, one waits overnight and burns it on the 16th of Nissan (ibur tzura). From where are these derived? They try to learn it from the story of Moshe and Aharon during the days of the sanctification of the Mishkan when Moshe reprimands Aharon for burning the sin offering, but that would only teach high level santities and not lower level like the Pesach offering. In the end they conclude it is a halakha l'Moshe from Sinai. The gemara brings the opinion Raba bar Avuha that meat that is disqualified isn't burned immediately and explains how he derives it and why he doesn't derive that it is burned from the Aharon story. In the mishna there is a debate regarding what is done with the meat if the owners died or became impure. There is a debate about this debate - do they argue in a case where the owners died or became impure after/before the blood was sprinkled or in both cases?

Pesachim 81 - February 10, 28 Shvat Feb 10, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 81

Today’s daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson and Art Gould in memory of Art’s mother Shirley, Sarah bat Avraham v’Ziche Reicha. Today is her 7th yahrtzeit. She was a life-long learner and a striver; a woman born before her time. She sewed, she made mosaics; she was always busy with something. In today’s environment she would be running a Fortune 500 company - and doing a great job to boot. Once her three children were old enough, she went back to school, earned a master’s degree and created a new career doing social work and counseling as well as publishing four books on raising a family. She lives on in the tallitot and quilts she made for so many members of her family and her synagogue. Art sleeps every night under an official Shirley Gould quilt.

Is unknown impurity that is known to be permitted by a halacha l'Moshe mi'Sinai for the Nazir and Pesach sacrifices only for the owners or also a kohen, only for impurity from a dead person and not any other unknown impurity (like a sheretz or zav) only for Nazir and Pesach or also for the Tamid daily sacrifice, only if he finds out after the blood was sprinkled or even before? What is done with a Pesach sacrifice that becomes impure it is entirety or the majority? What is it is just a small part or it is left over beyond the permitted time to eat it (notar)? Both had to be burned but on in the Temple and one in Jerusalem. Why is there a difference in the law? Those who were stingy, would do it in the Temple so as to use the Temple wood and save their own wood.

Pesachim 80 - February 9, 27 Shvat Feb 09, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 80

Today's Daf is sponsored by Catriella Freedman and her family in memory of Zvi Stein zt"l, marking his second yahrzeit. "We miss his optimism, humor, and love of learning." And by Carol Robinson and Art Gould in memory of Art’s father Joseph, Yosef ben Shlomo Shabtai v’Rachel z”l. Today is his 22nd yahrtzeit. "Joe was an ordinary man of extraordinary dignity, decency and dedication. When my mother first saw him she thought him handsome and was immediately interested. Then he removed his hat; she saw his bald head and concluded he was already married with children. He wasn’t. The rest is family history. They raised three children in a house one block from the synagogue and across the street from tennis courts. Joe would come out and watch with great delight as my younger brother and I - both accomplished players - played tennis. To this day I remember that he joined us once and showed off a booming forehand; bigger than either my brother or I could produce. I wish we had had more time together." And by Tina Senders Lamm in memory of her wise and compassionate mother, Peppy Senders, a’h, Pesha Rivka bat Gershon Ha’Cohen u’Bina, whose 17th yahrzeit is today.

How do you define a case where the majority of the people are impure and we allow the sacrifice to be brought in a state of impurity? Is one tribe being impure enough? Can a majority of one be considered a majority? If it's 50/50, do you do anything to change that? If so, what and why? What do you do if most of the people are impure from zav (who were not permitted to bring the sacrifice in impurity) and a minority are impure from a dead person? What happens in the opposite case? What happens if one-third are impure from a dead person, one-third zav and one-third pure? The gemara discusses more details of laws regarding a Pesach sacrifice brought through impurity. In which cases does the tzitz atone? And in which case not? It atones for blood that was sprinkled in a case that the meat or blood was impure or the owner was defiled by impurity from the tehom (abyss) but not to owners who were defiled in a regular case of impurity of a dead person. An assumption made from the mishna regarding the order - it works if the blood was sprinkle dand then they found out the meat was impure, contradicts a braita. How can this be resolved. Does the impurity of an abyss allow even in the event that a priest is defiled or is it permitted only for the owner?

Pesachim 79 - February 8, 26 Shvat Feb 08, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 79

Today's Daf is sponsored by Regina Raphael in memory of her mother Rose B. Raphael on her second yahrzeit. "She was an advocate of women's learning and independence. Rose was the first in her family to attend College and had a career in television before starting a family. She always maintained a professional career until her passing starting a new career in real estate in her 60's." And by Elisheva Gray in memory of a dear teacher and friend, Yoel Melech ben Moshe v'Sarah, z''l. "His passion and fervor for Judaism and Jewish learning has been and continues to be an inspiration for me."

The gemara gives another explanation for the words of a Rav who said that the mishna was ab initio but if the blood was put on the altar, the sacrifice is valid, even if the meat is impure. The suggestion is that Rav holds like Rabbi Yehoshua. Also the rest of the mishna corresponds to Rabbi Yehoshua. From where do we derive that in other sacrifices, if the cheilev or the other parts that are burned on the altar are still pure, the blood can be brought? The mishna discusses the law that impurity was allowed in the case of a majority of impurity. When does this law apply? What if the public is 50% unclean and 50% pure, is it permitted to bring the sacrifice? Rav and Rav Kahana disagree on the matter. Within Rav Kahana, there are two different ways to understand his opinion. The gemara brings braitot to support each position and then try to reconcile each braita with the other positions.

Pesachim 78 - February 7, 25 Shvat Feb 07, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 78

This week of learning has been sponsored in memory of Arthur Levi, Avraham ben Elyakum, on his third yahrzeit. "From his daughters, Linda, Marsha, Marilyn and Barbara, and for their beloved Opa from his grandchildren and great-grandchildren." And by Ruth Rotenberg in memory of her daughter Tanielle Gavre'ea Margalit a"h.

Does our mishnah not fit in with Rabbi Yossi, who thinks that the tzitz does not atone for food? Rav Papa asks Abaye how to interpret the breita quoted on a previous page where Rabbi Yosi holds both like Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua both in sacrifices and offerings. How is this possible? The gemara tries to resolve this in different ways. According to the mishna, if the meat does not exist, a Passover sacrifice cannot be brought. Rav says it is only for the ab initio but the blood was put on the altar, it is effective. The gemara questions this - isn't the issue of the Pesach being sacrificed for those who can eat the meat something that disqualifies the meat? The gemara assumes Rav holds like Rabbi Natan who disagrees with that. Where did Rabbi Natan say this. Once the gemara finds the source, they raise a number of braitot and try to establish whether the braita holds like Rabbi Natan or like the rabbis.

Pesachim 77 - Shabbat February 6, 24 Shvat Feb 05, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 77

Today's Daf is sponsored by Elisheva Gray. "With much gratitude and appreciation everyone at Hadran. I feel truly blessed to have discovered Hadran at the time I decided to take on Daf Yomi, and to have such a skilled and dedicated morah leading us all on this wonderful journey through Talmud. I'm also thankful for all of the supporting teachers and resources available on the Hadran website. A heartfelt Todah Rabah to all." And by Shelly and Jerry Gornish in memory of our עז - our beloved and missed grandson, Oz Wilchek, z"l.

What public sacrifices are offered in impurity but are not permitted to be eaten? What case does this list come to exclude? From where do we derive that these all are offered even in impurity? When they say that impurity if overridden for communal offerings, do we mean the impurity is overridden entirely or is it just pushed aside, but one still needs the tzitz, head plate of the Kohen to atone? When the tzitz atones, does it permit just the blood to be brought on the altar or does it also permit the meat (to be eaten and also to sacrifice the parts on the altar that are to be burned)? Based on the answer to these two questions, the gemara brings the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua that if there is no meat it is impossible to bring the blood on the altar. This raises a question – could it be that our mishna doesn’t fit with Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion? The gemara gives four ways to explain how the mishna can work with Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion. All but one are rejected.

Pesachim 76 - February 5, 23 Shvat Feb 05, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 76

Today's Daf is sponsored by Ruth Rotenberg in commemoration of the yahrzeit of her daughter Tanielle Gavre'ea Margalit. "Tanielle a'h had a unique innate love of hashem, the torah and fellow man. We continue to hold her close and learn from her relatively short and powerful life." And by Faye Darack in honor of Tamir Feldman. "Mazel Tov on your Bar Mitzvah. Love Sabba and Savta."

If the meat of the Passover sacrifice touched the side of the oven and was roasted because of the heat of the oven and not the fire, or the sauce touched it and was absorbed back into the meat, thereby having the meat cook from heat and not fire, what needs to be done? If the Pesach sacrifice was smeared with oil of truma, how can it be fixed? Rav and Shmuel disagree regarding one item that falls into another is it the top one that overpowers the bottom or the reverse. For example, when meat falls into milk and one is cold and the other is hot, which one prevails the lower or upper? The gemara raises some difficulties from our mishnah for Shmuel who said that the lower prevails. Then they bring braitot that support his opinion. Shmuel also said salting foods is the same as boiling in terms of cooking milk and meat. But Rava limits his statement to food that has so much salt in it that one cannot eat it. The gemara brings up a controversy between Rav and Levi as to whether or not steam is considered significant. The gemara brings a difficulty on Levi from a braita regarding the roasting of two Passover sacrifices together. Rav Meri brings a source to show that the debate between Rav and Levi was also a subject of a tannaitic debate. Bread baked in the oven with roasted meat, cannot be eaten with dairy food.

Pesachim 75 - February 4, 22 Shvat Feb 04, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 75

How did Rabban Gamliel roast the Passover on a metal rack if it is written in the mishna that it is forbidden? The gemara explains that the rack he used was different. If you heat up an oven with Orla branches and sweep them away and bake a bread in the oven, is it considered gaining benefit from the forbidden orla? No! But how does this fit in with a braita that says that the Passover sacrifice cannot be roasted in that way (in an oven after the coals were swept aside) because it says twice in the verse roasted on a fire. From there one can derive that only because the verse specified, but otherwise it would be considered roasting. The gemara brings two answers. Rebbi says that the Passover sacrifice can be roasted over coals. Is putting it on coals considered a fire? The gemara brings a contradictory braita which learns from a verse about leprosy that fire would not include coals were it not for a drasha. There are two resolutions - one distinguishes between a coal from a tree (wood) and a coal of a metal. The gemara then questions this by the death by the hands of the court known as burning which was performed by pouring molten lead down one’s throat. This seems to say “burning with fire” includes even a coal of a metal. The other resolution "corrects" the braita by leprosy to include the coal in the category of fire even without the drasha. Rava brings another contradiction to the words of Rebbi from a braita which also seems to indicate that coals are not considered fire. Abaye and Rava each reread the braita to answer the contradiction.

Pesachim 74 - February 3, 21 Shvat Feb 03, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 74

The mishnah describes how the Passover sacrifice is roasted. On what kind of skewer? Why? Where did they put the legs and intestines? There is controversy over the issue. It is forbidden to eat roast meat while there is no Passover sacrifice? If it is roasted in what way, is it included in the prohibition not to roast mean anymore? Moliata, meat with a meat stuffing, is permitted by Raba. There is no need to worry that the meat outside will swallow blood from the meat inside because it has been swallowed, so they were emitted. Is this the same reason in the Passover sacrifice for those who hold that the intestines and legs went inside? Or is it the same reason about eating a heart that if they are not torn, they are torn after cooking to get the blood out? The gemara brings different cases of a food that had a dough around the meat and discusses them - when one should be afraid that there is blood that is expelled from the meat and swallowed in the dough. Is it possible from there to bring evidence to from there that as it is swallowed so it is emitted? Rabbi Acha and Ravina disagrees in three cases regarding kashering meat – by raw meat from an animal that was wounded before dying and had a lot of blood collected, animal testicles and a large vein in the neck. Can one salt it, roast it or put it directly on coals? The gemara adds more details of the law of the raw meat. And also discusses one who soaks the meat in vinegar.

Pesachim 73 - February 2, 20 Shvat Feb 02, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 73

Some of the cases in the mishna seem quite obvious, so why are they there? If one holds that one who injures in a destructive manner on Shabbat is exempt, why in the mishna is one liable for slaughtering the animal when the sacrifice became disqualified - the slaughter was purely destructive. This question is asked on three case sin the mishna and on a case brought in a braita. The gemara explains in each case what about each case was constructive. The gemara brings a statement of Rav regarding a guilt offering whose owners died or received atonement from a different animal in its stead and it is left to graze. If someone slaughters it without any particular intent it counts as a burnt offering - this implies that a sacrifice can be uprooted automatically and can default to a different sacrifice without intent. This should apply also to a Pesach whose owners left the animal or became impure or died. If so, this contradicts a braita on our mishna that says one must burn it immediately if it was slaughtered - that implies it was a Pesach that was disqualified and it didn't default automatically to a peace offering. The gemara bring 5 attempts to resolve the contradiction and all are rejected except for one.

Pesachim 72 - February 1, 19 Shvat Feb 01, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 72

Today's Daf is sponsored by Shira Krebs to mark the completion of shloshim for her father in law, Eliezer ben Dov v'Rachel, "who never stopped engaging our multifaceted Jewish tradition and who always appreciated a good debate." And by Jennifer Lankin in honor of Marilyn Kaiman, with love from her granddaughters who are consistently inspired by her dedication to gemara learning. "May we celebrate the next daf yomi siyum together be'ezrat Hashem." And by Gitta Neufeld in honor of Rabbanit Michelle Farber, her teacher, mentor and friend on her birthday. "May you be blessed with many years of health, wisdom and nachat from your family and your students. חילך לאורייתא."

Is the beginning of the mishna referring to a case where one intentionally changed the sacrifice or unintentionally. In the end, it is concluded that the first case was intentional and the next case in the mishna is unintentional. The gemara raises some questions on that interpretation. Rabbi Yehoshua claims in the mishna that something that is limited we would be more strict with and make the sinner liable. This doesn't hold true in the circumcision case where it is also limited. The gemara explains how the cases differ. Which tana is our mishna said according to regarding the distinction between a case where the animal could have been used for a Pesach offering and one where the animal could not have been use? Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan bring other cases where one would be liable or exempt regarding a mistake. Does Rabbi Yochanan disagree with Reish Lakish or is he adding? What is the distinction between the cases that Rabbi Yochanan brings? On which tannaitic opinion is he relying?

Pesachim 71 - January 31, 18 Shvat Jan 31, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 71

Ulah said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer that whole people who slaughtered a chagiga on the fourteenth day and ate it on the fifteenth day, do not fulfill their obligation for peace offerings of simcha or for peace offerings of chagiga that were brought on the holiday. Why? A braita is brought to support and a braita and mishna are brought to contradict but all are rejected/resolved. Ravin brings a different version in the name of Rabbi Elazar – that it can be used for peace offerings of simcha. The gemara questions this from a bratia and resolves the difficulty. Rabbi Kahana provides proof that the parts of the chagiga that get burned of the altar are disqualified by the morning if not burned overnight. Rav Yosef questions his proof. Abaye counters Rav Yosef’s question and as a result Rava reinterprets the question. If one makes a mistake while trying to perform a mitzvah and for example sacrifices an animal for a Pesach sacrifice on the fourteenth on Shabbat but does it in a way that disqualifies the sacrifice. Retroactively, he has now desecrated Shabbat. What is used for determining under what circumstances one will be obligated to bring a sin offering? Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree regarding some cases. The mishna brings a discussion between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua trying to prove their position and disprove the other. Rabbi Meir adds a more lenient approach to this matter.

Pesachim 70 - Shabbat January 30, 17 Shvat Jan 29, 2021

Today's Daf is sponsored by Professor Jonathan Ben-Ezra and Dr. Robin Zeiger in memory of Jonathan's mother, Phyllis Ben-Ezra (Pnina bat Yisrael and Rivka) z"l whose yahrzeit is today. "She believed in, and worked diligently for, quality education for both her son and daughter."

A chagiga sacrifice was sacrificed with the Pesach sacrifice to enable the meat of the Pesach sacrifice to be eaten while one is satiated. Under what circumstances was the chagiga not brought? Are the laws of the chagiga like a regular chagiga sacrifice that is brought on the holidays or are they like the Pesach sacrifice. Ben Teima holds that they are like the Pesach sacrifice as is derived from Shmot 34:25 while the rabbis disagree. How far does Ben Teima take the comparison? The rabbis held that the chagiga sacrifice does not override Shabbat. Yehuda ben Dortai disagreed and was upset with the rabbis for not insisting on sacrificing it on Shabbat and therefore moved down South in protest so that he would be exempt from bringing the Pesach sacrifice. What was his source and from where did the rabbis derive their opinion?

Pesachim 69 - January 29, 16 Shvat Jan 29, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 69

This week's learning is sponsored by Paul and Danielle Nacamuli in honor of her daughter, Ayelet Yancey's bat mitzvah. "We're so proud of you and can't wait to see where your Jewish journey takes you! Love, Paul and Ima."

Today's Daf is sponsored by Gabrielle Altman in honor of the yahrzeits of the Honorable Myriam Altman, Naomi Rosen and the shloshim of Aviva Rolnick, "beloved, cherished and treasured family and friends whom I will always miss and hold forever in my heart." And by Rachel Geballe in honor of her sister Ellen Werlin. "I am so honored to be learning daf yomi with and alongside you and your daughter Avigayil. You are an inspiring duo! I can't wait to see what the next year of dapim holds in store. Happy birthday!" And by the Hait family for a refuah shleima for Rabbi Joel Cohen, HaRav Yoel HaKohen ben Dina.

The Gemara discusses the words of R. Eliezer and R. Akiva in the Mishnah and brings braitot with expanded discussions between them. The gemara explains the discussion between them in our mishna regarding the matter of does sprinkling the purification waters override Shabbat or not. In the end, the gemara concludes that Rabbi Eliezer himself also didn’t hold that it overrides Shabbat and Rabbi Akiva was trying to remind him of that. in this matter. The gemara then asks why in fact does Rabbi Eliezer not hold that is overrides Shabbat if he holds preparations for mitzvot do override Shabbat. The gemara brings two answers, the first of which is rejected. The first one claims that one who is not capable of doing the mitzva in the current state, one does not override Shabbat to enable the mitzva. The second answer is that sprinkling is not necessary for the fulfillment of the mitzva. According to who do we hold regarding preparatory actions for mitzvot in general overriding Shabbat? The mishna then brings details regarding a holiday offering that was sacrificed on the fourteenth of Nissan with the Pesach sacrifice. When was it brought and when was it not brought? Are the details similar to the Pesach sacrifice or not?

Pesachim 68 - January 28, 15 Shvat Jan 28, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 68

Today's Daf is sponsored by Dr. David and Mitzi Geffen, in memory of Rabbanit Sara Hene Rabinowitz Geffen on her 60th yarzeit. "From 1910 to 1970 her husband, Rav Tuvya Geffen ,was the Rabbi of Sherith Israel synagogue in Atlanta, where she served the community with great dedication, and brought up their 8 children in a life of love and learning. Six of her 18 grandchildren made Aliyah to Israel and her life and memory is an inspiration to the generations of her descendants in the US and Israel." And by Jessica Jobanek in honor of her mother Margaret Hadaway. "She is completing radiation treatment for breast cancer today. I hope for a continued Refuah Shleimah" And by Leora Kukin in honor of Tu Bishvat and in celebration of Jonathan’s and her 39th wedding anniversary.

The gemara brings a number of sources that seem to contradict Rabbi Yochanan's statement that one who had a seminal emission is treated like a zav and cannot be in the two camps - shechina and levite. The gemara goes through the actions that are mentioned in the mishna that are either permitted to be done on Shabbat in the Temple and those that are not permitted. Since the gemara brings in verses from Isaiah 5:17 which reference which talk about the future and the reward that will be bestowed on the righteous people. Verses are explained to be referring to resurrection of the dead. The gemara discusses the mitzva of simcha on Yom Tov. How should one divide the day between eating and learning? Does it depend on which holiday it is?

Pesachim 67 - January 27, 14 Shvat Jan 27, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 67

Today's Daf is sponsored by Devorah Shapiro for the refuah sheleima of Yitzchak Daniel ben Batya Ilana and Moshe Zev. And by Barbara Goldschlag for the refuah sheleima of Avraham Gideon Ben Chana. "Wishing him a speedy and easy recovery from his surgery today." And by Leslie Treff in loving memory of her mother and father, Walter and Adele. Today was their anniversary.

How do we know that the Tamid and the Pesach can be brought if the majority of the people or the kohanim are impure? The Tamid sacrifice is learned from Pesach. Where is Pesach derived from? Is it from the verse in Bamidbar 9:10 regarding Pesach Sheni where it uses the words "a man" "a man" or is it from Bamidbar 5:2 "And you should send out of the camp a leper, a zav, and all who become impure from a dead person?" The gemara delves into the case of a leper who doesn't leave the camp - does he get lashes or not? It is a subject of debate among two tannaim. Which is more stringent - a zav, a leper or one who is impure from a dead person? If the majority of the people or kohanim are impure, sacrifices can be brought. Is this only for impurity from a dead person or other impurities as well? When laws of impurity from a dead person are suspended due to this law, if a zav or leper were to go into the Temple, they would not be liable to receive karet.

Pesachim 66 - January 26, 13 Shvat Jan 26, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 66

Today’s Daf is sponsored by Erica Kolatch in commemoration of the 24th yahrtzeit of her father, Richard Glube, Hillel ben Yosef Calman z"l. "Although he had very little Jewish education or practice, when I became observant he took it as a challenge to make me always feel welcome at home. He believed in forging your own path, and would be very proud that his daughter and granddaughter are learning gemara and keeping up with Daf Yomi."

The discussion between R. Eliezer and R. Akiva continues - is it possible to override Shabbat in order to sacrifice the Passover sacrifice regarding actions have been done the previous day? The gemara quotes a braita in which it is told that Hillel ascended to the presidency (became a Nasi) because the Bnei Bateira forgot the halakha regarding Pesach, which fell on Shabbat and they did not know whether bringing the sacrifice overrode Shabbat or not. When Hillel knew the answer, he was appointed to be the Nasi. Later that day, he began to belittle the Bnei Bateira for not knowing the halakha and not learning from Shemaya and Avtalion. Their response was to ask Hillel a question regarding one who forgot to bring the knife to slaughter the Pesach sacrifice on Shabbat, could he bring it? Hillel then said he forgot the halakhah and the way to learn it was to see what the people are doing as if they are not prophets, they are the sons of prophets. The story describes what the people did. Then the gemara raises various questions on details of the braita. The Gemara learns from the story and other characters not to be arrogant as Hillel did and not to be angry. How do we know that the Tamid and the Pesach can be brought if the majority of the people or the kohanim are impure?

Pesachim 65 - January 25, 12 Shvat Jan 25, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 65

Today's Daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in loving memory of her mother, Rose Fromm, Shoshana Rosa bat Shmuel and Minda Leah z"l. "A self made woman who received her High School Leaving Certificate at the age of 50, she persisted in trudging through snow and ice trodden streets to join any shiur. Her greatest quality was her desire and ability after each speaker ended, to rise and eloquently express her appreciation on behalf of the audience. This is a lesson that was transmitted to her children and grandchildren, thus inculcating the values and ideals set forth in our Torah of ben-adam lechavero. Yehi zichra baruch." And by Balima Shturchyan Slutsky in memory of her father, Yitzchak Zvi ben Balima and Chaim Shimon z"l.

The gemara continues to delve in depth into the different stages of sacrificing the Passover sacrifice. Why did they call the third group lazy if someone had to be in that third group? Against which opinion of the rabbis did the kohanim act when they washed the floor from the blood even when erev Pesach feel on Shabbat? Why did Rabbi Yehuda hold that they scooped up a cup of blood from the floor and threw it on the altar? The gemara raises several issues. How did the kohanim walk up to their ankles/knees in blood? Didn't their clothing get dirty and one cannot perform temple rituals with dirty clothing? What actions override Shabbat in the Temple for the Passover sacrifice and what does not? Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree and a discussion between them ensues, each one trying to prove their position.

Pesachim 64 - January 24, 11 Shvat Jan 24, 2021

Today's daf is dedicated by Rhona Fink in honor of Avigayil bat Miriam Baruch with blessing for a refuah shleima, refuat hanefesh v'refuat haguf.

on the blood of a sacrifice " (Exodus 34:25) - in one it is written that it is relevant in melika and in one it is written that it is not. In one it is written that whoever burn the innards on the altar is also liable and in one it is written that it is not. How does the Gemara resolve the contradictions? The Gemara brings the source to the words of R. Yehuda and to the words of R. Shimon in the mishnah who disagree as to which sacrifices are included in the prohibition that one can not slaughter while having chametz. The mishnah details how the Passover sacrifice was offered. They would split the people into 3 groups that would enter the Temple one after the other. Each sect enters separately and they would lock the doors, they would blow the trumpets, the owners would slaughter their sacrifice, the priests stand in rows with silver or gold bowls in their hands (a row of those with silver and a row with those with gold) and receive the blood. They would transfer the bowls from one to the other until it reached the last kohen and he would throw it on the altar on the side where there was a base to the altar. As they were slaughtering, they would recite Hallel, sometimes twice or three times. The kohanim would wash the floors even on Shabbat but the rabbis disagreed. Rabbi Yehuda would have them take a cupful of blood from the floor to thrown on the alter but the rabbis disagreed. They hung the animals on hooks to flay them and the mishna describes what they would do on weekdays or Shabbat when there were not enough hooks. The gemara starts to find derivations for the laws in the mishna or delve more in depth.

Pesachim 63 - Shabbat January 23, 10 Shvat Jan 22, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 63

A braita brings the opinion of acherim, attributed to Rabbi Meir, who holds that the order in which one says one is slaughtering the animal for those who are circumcised and those who are uncircumcised is important. If one begins with uncircumcised, it is invalid. This disagrees with the mishna. What is the root of the debate? The gemara brings 3 possible explanations and raises a difficulty with the second one. The mishna and gemara delve into the negative prohibition to have chametz in one’s possession when slaughtering a sacrifice. Which sacrifice- is it only the Paschal sacrifice or also the Tamid? What if one brought other sacrifices either on the 14th of Nissan on or Pesach and has chametz? Does the chametz need to be in the Temple to transgress the prohibition or even if it’s in one’s house? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about this and the gemara tries to figure out the source of the debate. The prohibition applies to the slaughterer, the kohen performing the rites and to all the people in the group who registered for that sacrifice.

Pesachim 62 - January 22, 9 Shvat Jan 22, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 62

Raba and Rav Chisda disagree on the issue of one who has intent while slaughtering that one will sprinkle the blood for uncircumcised people. Rabbi Ashi explains the source of the dispute between Rabbi and Rabbi Chisda. According to him, Rabbi Chisda uses the argument of “ho’il - since" and Raba does not. It contradicts their opinions regarding “ho’il” in the case of one who bakes on Yom Tov for after Yom Tov. How do they resolve the contradiction? The braita on the previous page took it for granted a sacrifice is valid if it was done for some impurity but not all. What type of impurity is this? And why was it so obvious that it is valid? The gemara raises several possibilities and raises questions against each possibility. Rabbi Simalai is said to have asked Rabbi Yochanan to teach him the book of genealogy (Sefer Yuchsin) and Rabbi Yochanan did not want to teach him. He mentions in this context the greatness of Bruria and how even though she was brilliant, it took her three years to learn Sefer Yuchsin. Rabbi Simlai also asked him about the difference between one who says one is sacrificing the Pesach for its own sake and not for its own sake which is invalid and one who says for those who can eat and those who cannot eat, which is valid.

Pesachim 61 - January 21, 8 Shvat Jan 21, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 61

Today's daf is sponsored by the Segel-Nissan-Noy family in memory of their father, Rabbi Shmuel HaLevy Segel.

Is it possible to make a comparison between the disqualification of l'ishma, for the sake of a different sacrifice, and the disqualification of changing owners and say that if Pesach not l'ishma is valid in a Passover sacrifice performed not in the right time, would change of owners also be valid if done to a Passover sacrifice not in the right time? Passover sacrifice is invalid if slaughtered for people who can not eat the sacrifice or for those not registered for that animal or uncircumcised or impure - but if one included them in a group with people who are not invalid, it is valid. Does an inclusion of uncircumcised people in one's thoughts regarding sprinkling the blood invalid? Or not? Raba and Rav Chisda disagree on this issue and each brings a proof from a different understanding of the same braita. But Rabbi Ashi rejects the premise of both their proofs.

Pesachim 60 - January 20, 7 Shvat Jan 20, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 60

Today's Daf is sponsored by Yonatan Huber in memory of Tzafrir ben Shaul and Yardena z"l, "A god-fearing man who loved learning torah."

Passover slaughtered not for its own sake (for example as a peace offering - if on the fourteenth day, it is invalid - if on any other day, it is valid and is brought as a peace offering. Rav Papa asks if when the Mishnah speaks one who sacrifices it for its own sake and not for its sake, does it mean within one stage of the sacrificial process (and then only valid with Rabbi Yosi’s opinion_ or does in mean in 2 stages and even Rabbi Meir would agree? The gemara tries in several ways to answer his question, but without success. Then a question is asked what if it was not the 14th and one brought an animal designated for a Pesach sacrifice for its own sake and not for its own sake – would it be comparable to the case in the mishna and be invalid or would this be different? Rabbi Dimi says that it is invalid and Rabbi Yirmiah says that it is valid. Rava rules like Rabbi Yirmiah and Rav Ada Bar Ahavah tries to reject his reasoning but Rava justifies his words.

Pesachim 59 - January 19, 6 Shvat Jan 19, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 59

Today's daf is sponsored by Belimah Schturchein Selotzki in memory of her mother, Mazal (Tina) bat Rina and David on her yahrzeit.

One cannot bring any sacrifices after the daily sacrifice. However there are some exceptions to the rule. What are they and why are exceptions made in each case? Also the incense was burned and the candles were lit after. In what order and why was it done after the daily sacrifice? The incense in the morning was also burned before the morning sacrifice. From where is that derived?

Pesachim 58 - January 18, 5 Shvat Jan 18, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 58

The learning for this week is in honor of Rachel bat Chana, wishing her a Refuah Shlema.

At what time of day is the afternoon Tamid sacrifice offered? And what time is the Passover sacrifice offered? When erev Pesach falls on Shabbat, they would prepare earlier in order to roast the meat before Shabbat. What is the source for the time of the Tamid sacrifice? Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi and Rabbi bring different answers. The Gemara quotes a verse in which there is a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael regarding the hours of Passover sacrifice on weekdays and Shabbat. Abaye, Rava and Rabba Bar Ulla bring different interpretations regarding the opinions of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael and different understandings regarding the basis of the dispute between them. The gemara brings sources that raise difficulties on Rava and Abaye's opinions. From where do we derive that the Tamid sacrifice the first and the last one of the day?

Pesachim 57 - January 17, 4 Shvat Jan 17, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 57

Today's daf is sponsored by Valerie Adler in honor of her daughter Anoushka's birthday “You are an amazing person and love sharing the daf and so much else with you. Mazal Tov on completing medical school this week! We are very proud of you.” And by Danielle and Paul Nacamuli, in honor of Ron Dechene and Robert Hovden. "Thank you for for your tireless support of Jewish learning."

The gemara discusses more the topic of not leaving the corner of one's field of vegetables - which vegetables are not included? A story is brought of someone who left the corner of a field that he was not supposed to and what his father told the poor when he saw them coming to take the vegetables from the corner of the field. The gemara brings several braitot, some from the Tosefta Menachot 13:4 that discuss bullying corruption in the Temple and also in the city of Jericho. Some sources highlight the differences between priests that did not abuse their power and those that did.

Pesachim 56 - Shabbat January 16, 3 Shvat Jan 15, 2021

The people in Jericho did six things - three of them the rabbis did not protest against and three of them they did protest. What did they do and what was the issue with what they did? Also the king Chizkiyahu did six things - three was approved by the rabbis and three were not. There are different traditions about what were the six things that the people of Jericho did. There is also disagreement about the cases that the rabbis did not protest, was it because they approved or did they not approve but also did not make an issue out of those things? The gemara goes through each act that they did and explains why they did it and why did the rabbis react?

Pesachim 55 - January 15, 2 Shvat Jan 15, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 55

In what way is Tisha B'av similar or different from Yom Kippur and from fasts that are instituted when there is a drought? How do the opinions regarding the debate in the mishna whether or not one can/should try to be like a Torah scholar and not work on Tisha B'av fit with their opinions on a groom on his wedding night saying shema? The mishna describes that in Judea and the Galilee there were different opinions regarding whether one could work on erev Pesach before midday. Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel argue about whether they also forbade at night. How does this mishna fit with the first mishna of the chapter that explained that it was only a custom? The mishna discusses according to those who permit working, is it only to continue work that was begun before erev Pesach? Is it only work needed for the holiday? There are certain professionals that can work - which ones? Why? The mishna adds other things that one can or can't do on erev Pesach relating to brooding hens, cleaning up animal dung, and bringing vessels to be repaired or bringing them back from being repaired.

Pesachim 54 - January 14, Rosh Chodesh Shvat, 1 Shvat Jan 14, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 54

Today’s Daf is sponsored by Nancy Kolodny to Lisa Tawil Kolodny, "our wonderful daughter-in-law, on the 25th anniversary of her becoming a member of our family. Lisa introduced me to Hadran and is my inspiration to start each day with Daf Yomi and the outstanding teaching of Rabbanit Michelle Farber." And by Debbie Ziering and Rebecca Levy in honor of dear friend Dodi Tobin, Miriam Dodi bat Chana Yocheved. Rosh Chodesh, is recognized as a special womens’ holiday. Dodi, your faith in Hashem inspires us all, and B’ezrat Hashem, the merit of this Rosh Chodesh, together with the prayers of your many friends and family, should bring you a refuah shleima. Also a refuah shleima to Hadar bat Sharon Sheli.

Do you make havdala with a fire after Yom Kippur? Or only on Shabbat? Why do we make a blessing on the fire? Why on Yom Kippur do we use a candle that was lit from before Yom Kippur? Was fire created on Saturday night? Or Friday evening? What items did God create at twilight on Friday? What was created on Saturday night? There are differences of opinions. Other sources are brought that relate to creation of various items or concepts. There was a custom not to work on Tisha B'av in certain places. Also Torah scholars dfid not work. Shmuel says that in Bavel there are no strict fasts only Tisha B'av. To what was he referring - as Shmuel says that twilight of Tisha B'av is not forbidden? Rava and Rabbi Yochanan disagree and hold that Tisha B'av is forbidden during twilight. Could one possibly have to fast two days in a row on for Yom Kippur?

Pesachim 53 - January 13, 29 Tevet Jan 13, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 53

Today’s Daf is sponsored by Marcia Baum in memory of her mother Helena K. Baum on her fifth Yartzeit. "Mom was a lifelong learner and lover of Torah studies, an anomaly for women of her generation. She is sorely missed by those whose lives she touched."

How did Rabbi Ilai cut wood with unripe fruits? It seems even the rabbis consider them fruits? The gemara brings contradictory braitot regarding when one needs to get rid of one's fruits in the house. Do they really contradict? A bratia is brought describing what different types of land or water is known for - mountains, valleys, streams and plains. What is the halachic relevance? There is a custom not to sell small animals, however large animals are always forbidden. Why? Are there exceptions to the rule? There was a custom to eat roasted meat on Pesach night and not to eat roasted meat. If one says they are doing it for Pesach, it is forbidden. The gemara brings a contradiction from a braita regarding a story with Todos. Who was Todos and why according to the story did the rabbis not excommunicate him because of his stature - why did he have stature? There was a custom to light candles on erev Yom Kippur and a custom not to light. Both customs had the same intent in mind - to prevent sexual relations between husband and wife. Some said thaqt Rabbi Yochanan said one only lights a candle for havdala on Saturday night but not after holidays and Yom Kippur. Did he really say that or did he say that if Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat, one does not light candles before?

Pesachim 52 - January 12, 28 Tevet Jan 12, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 52

Today’s Daf is sponsored by Gabrielle Altman in memory of Rabbi Ruby Davis z"l, "beloved father of Debby Rapps, who was in his 7th cycle of Daf Yomi, and Rabbi Moshe Rapps z"l, beloved father of AZ Rapps, who inspired thousands with a love of Torah and learning."

When someone comes from a place that knew when Rosh Chodesh was and knew when the holiday was and didn't keep two days of Yom Tov in his city but when to a city that did - what does one do? On what does it depend? There was a case of Rav Natan bar Asia who went outside of techum on Yom Tov - why did he think it was ok? Rav Yosef excommunicated him, or gave him lashes (according to a different version). Abaye questioned his actions. Can one excommunicate a Torah scholar even if it make cause a chilul HaShem, desecration of the name of God. The gemara brings 5 different explanations explaining the debate between tana kama and Rabbi Yehuda regarding someone going between two cities where there was still produce in one and not the other. There are three areas for considering whether there is no longer produce in the fields. From where is this derived? Tana kama and Rabbi Shimon debate whether produce taken out of Israel needs to be brought back to Israel to destroy after there are is no longer produce in the fields? How did Rav Safra rule in a case he was involved it? How did Rav Yosef relate to his ruling? Rabbi Ilai cut a tree for wood with some unripe fruits on it in the Sabbatical year. How was he allowed to do this if the dates were shmita produce and he was leaving them to be destroyed?

Pesachim 51 - January 11, 27 Tevet Jan 11, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 51

Today’s Daf is sponsored by Paula Winning in memory of Rabbi Robert (Ruby) David, z"l father of Suri Davis Stern. "In memory of someone who took pride in his learning and his transmission of his learning to his family and his students, particularly my dear friend Suri Davis Stern."

The gemara brings a few cases where people wanted to change the custom in their town and the rabbis reactions. When is this principle used "things that are permitted that people decided to be stringent about and forbid, one cannot permit in front of them"? Is it only referring to Kutim? Can one permit a custom that is a mistake? Rabba bar Chana came from Israel to Babylonia and ate the fat on the stomach that was a subject of debate between the rabbis in Israel and Babylonia. When the rabbis came, he hid what he was doing. Abaye commented that he treated them as if they were Kutim. Why didn't he keep the stringency of the place where he went? Abaye and Rava each bring a different answer. How do the words of the mishna "one should not do anything different so as not to create conflict" with the case of one who doesn't work going to the place where people do work?

Pesachim 50 - January 10, 26 Tevet Jan 10, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 50

Today’s daf is sponsored by Oliver Mitchell in honor of his wife, Rabia Mitchell. "You are an inspiration! From Oliver, Ellin & Jeremy, Rachel, Ari, Aaron, and Joshua."

The gemara explains two verses in Zecharia Chapter 14, each in three different ways. The connection to our mishna is one of the ways of explaining one of the verses is that the boundaries of Jerusalem will be expanded in the future, relating to the case of one who removed sanctified meat from the boundaries of Jerusalem. The gemara also explains the word "Caananite" in several different ways. Also the word "one" is explained in the verse describing that in the future God will be one and his name will be one. The fourth chapter begins with a discussion of customs that may differ from place to place - what does one do if one travels to a place with a different custom? The first case brought in the mishna is the custom not to work on the morning of Pesach. The second is if one's crops (of a particular type) are no longer in the fields on the Sabbatical year - what if they are for you but you travel to a place where they are not, do you need to get rid of all of your produce of that type? The mishna rules that one must keep the more strict custom. This is to prevent machloket, dispute. The gemara asks why the gemara mentions only erev Pesach is on all other holidays and Shabbat, one must also refrain from work in the afternoon before? The gemara quotes a braita where it says that one who works in the afternoon before Shabbat and holidays will not see any benefit from that work. The gemara then quotes a list of several types of jobs that if one does them, one is unlikely to get rewarded from that work. The gemara explains why it is for each one that the sages discouraged people from making money through these jobs.

Pesachim 49 - Shabbat January 9, 25 Tevet Jan 08, 2021

Today's Daf is sponsored by Tzippy Wolkenfeld. Tzippy wishes a Refuah Shleimah for Yakira Leeba bat Sara Gita. "Thank you, dearest Kiki, for inspiring us and so many others to grow in learning, mitzvot, yirat shamayim and emunah. May you continue to grow stronger and stronger! Love Savta and Zaidy."

When erev Pesach falls on Shabbat, when do you get rid of the chametz? If someone is on the way to do a mitzva and remembers they have chametz at home, do they need to go back or can they nullify it in their heart? On what does it depend? The mishna also brings a case of one who left Jerusalem carrying sanctified meat - depending on how far they are already from the city, do they need to go back to burn in on the Temple Mount? Is an engagement meal considered a mitzva? The gemara gets sidetracked into proper behavior - should scholars spend their time going to meals that aren't for a mitzva? As an example for a meal that is not a mitzva, the gemara mentions the engagement of a daughter of a kohen with an Israelite. Different statements are brought regarding whether a non-kohen should or should not marry the daughter of a kohen. There is also a discussion of what type of people one should marry and the value of the talmid chacham over the am haaretz. Also the hatred between those two groups of people is discussed. The mishna mentions the debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda regarding the size of chametz or sanctified meat that one needs to return for. Their opinions seem to contradict their opinions regarding the size needed to say the grace after meals, birkhat hamazon. How are these reconciled?

Pesachim 48 - January 8, 24 Tevet Jan 08, 2021

Today's Daf is sponsored by Moishe Morgenstern in honor of his wife Laya Mohadeb Morgenstern. "I honor your dedication to learn the daf every day. I am very proud of you." And by Deborah Lewis in honor of Traci Lewis "for all of the support and love. Traci always encourages me to continue my learning. She is a blessing." And by Harry Green in honor of Karena M. Perry "who has been learning the Daf Yomi with this Hadran program for a year. She has been in the formidable environment of Alaska, doing this on her own. May she continue from strength to strength in her growth, and love of Torah."

Is the debate between Raba and Rav Chisda regarding cooking on Yom tov for a regular day the same debate as between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua in our mishna regarding taking challa on Yom Tov of Pesach from an impure dough - it it also based on whether or not we say ho'il? What is the largest size dough that one can knead for making matza so that one need not worry that it leaven while kneading? If three women are sharing use of an oven, can they all knead their doughs at the same time or not? What is considered chametz nukshe - that one is not liable to receive karet, however one still needs to burn it?

Pesachim 47 - January 7, 23 Tevet Jan 07, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 47

Today's daf is sponsored by Dena Levie in honor of Hadran "who make learning a daf a day so enjoyable and attainable. Thank you to Shuli Mishkin who always writes an interesting article delving into the history behind the Daf." And by Bethia Straus in memory of her father, Joseph Samuel Straus, Yosef Shmuel ben Binyamin z"l, on his yahrzeit. "My father dedicated his life to founding and supporting organizations that are dedicated to limud Torah both in Israel and in the United States. He would be delighted that I am learning the daf in concert with so many other women." And by Ronnie Sichel in honor of Rochel Cheifetz "who inspired me to join them in learning Daf Yomi with Hadran."

The gemara brings several questions against Rav Chisda - is one permitted to bake/cook from Yom Tov to Shabbat on a Torah level - if so, why did one not be able to bake the showbread on Yom Tov that falls on erev Shabbat or the two breads that one makes on Shavuot? The gemara questions Raba from other sources that have cases where one does one act (or two) and can be liable for receiving multiple sets of lashes. On each list, there is an item that can be removed from the list based on laws of "ho'il," like plowing on Yom Tov, since it can be used for covering the blood, or making a fire to cook something forbidden to eat, since it can be used for cooking something permitted. Rava brings answers which are also questioned.

Pesachim 46 - January 6, 22 Tevet Jan 06, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 46

A week of learning is sponsored by Rhonda and David Newman in memory of Rhonda's father, Yosef Eliezer ben Yaakov Yitzchak z"l on his 18th yahrzeit.

Today's daf is sponsored by Ira and Natanya Slomowitz in memory of the shloshim of Ira’s mother, Lillian Slomowitz, Ahuva bat Rivka and Asher Tzvi z"l. And by Moishe Morgenstern in honor of his wife Laya Mohamed Morgenstern. "I honor your dedication to learn the daf every day. I am very proud of you."

The mishna contradicts itself - on the one hand it says for issues of impurity, the laws are the same as for chametz when there is dough filling in a crack - depends on the size and on the other hand it says that it depends on whether or not you plan to leave it there or remove it. Four different explanations of the mishna are brought. If the dough does not seem to rise, at what point does one need to assume it has leavened? How does one separate challa on Yom Tov of Pesach from a dough that has become impure - if one separates it, one cannot burn it (as cooking on a fire os only allowed for eating purposes), but if one leaves it, it will leaven? Three explanations are brought in the mishna and the gemara tries to assess the basis of the debate between two of the rabbis. Is it due to a debate about benefit gained from being able to determine who one gives the challa to - does that benefit have financial value to it? Or is it due to a debate about whether we can use the principle "ho'il" - since potentially something can happen, do we view it as if it did. Do we say since one could undo the challa as one nullifies a vow, it is still considered in the owner's possession? Also regarding cooking on Yom Tov to a regular day, there is a debate is one liable for lashes by Torah law - do we say it is not since potentially guests may show up on the holiday and one will need extra food. Raba raises two question on Rav Chisda who thinks one receives lashes as we can't use the ho'il principle.

Pesachim 45 - January 5, 21 Tevet Jan 05, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 45

Today’s daf is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Aryeh Hochberg. "Thank you for your support of all that I do and for learning Daf Yomi with me." And by Emma Stitcher "in celebration of all those who are on this amazing Daf Yomi journey and to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran team for their inspiration." And by Keren Sherrington on her birthday, in memory of her grandfather, Abraham ben Yitzchak Baruch and Rachel z"l, and her grandmother Chana bat Shraga Fievel Shprintze z"l. It is with everyday love, longing, and prayer that the family I am establishing and Torah learning brings nachas and light to your souls.

If the rabbis learns from "wine soaked" that flavor has significance and they learn from there to all other cases in the torah, , Rabbi Akiva learns from "wine soaked" of a nazir that permitted and forbidden items combine, wouldn't he also learn from also to all other cases in the Torah, and yet Rabbi Yochanan limited this law just to nazir! If one uses dough in a kneading bowl to fix a crack, does one have to get rid of it before Pesach or is it considered nullified? Would the same hold for laws of a chatzitza, barrier for toveling the bowl if it become impure? There are different interpretations brought to explain the case in the mishna. Food that is not edible but can be eaten by a dog, is that considered food for laws of impurity?

Pesachim 45 - January 5, 21 Tevet Jan 05, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 45

Today’s daf is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Aryeh Hochberg. "Thank you for your support of all that I do and for learning Daf Yomi with me." And by Emma Stitcher "in celebration of all those who are on this amazing Daf Yomi journey and to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran team for their inspiration." And by Keren Sherrington on her birthday, in memory of her grandfather, Abraham ben Yitzchak Baruch and Rachel z"l, and her grandmother Chana bat Shraga Fievel Shprintze z"l. It is with everyday love, longing, and prayer that the family I am establishing and Torah learning brings nachas and light to your souls.

If the rabbis learns from "wine soaked" that flavor has significance and they learn from there to all other cases in the torah, , Rabbi Akiva learns from "wine soaked" of a nazir that permitted and forbidden items combine, wouldn't he also learn from also to all other cases in the Torah, and yet Rabbi Yochanan limited this law just to nazir! If one uses dough in a kneading bowl to fix a crack, does one have to get rid of it before Pesach or is it considered nullified? Would the same hold for laws of a chatzitza, barrier for toveling the bowl if it become impure? There are different interpretations brought to explain the case in the mishna. Food that is not edible but can be eaten by a dog, is that considered food for laws of impurity?

Pesachim 44 - January 4, 20 Tevet Jan 04, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 44

Today's daf is sponsored by Sharon Hausdorff in memory of her mother, Minna Friedman, Menucha bat Moshe Yehezkel on her 10th yahrzeit. And by Susan Cashdan in memory of her dear father, Yitzchak ben Moshe Chuna on his 12th yahrzeit. He so inspired me with a deep love of Hebrew and lifelong learning, enabling me to work here in Israel and to learn Daf Yomi. And by Susan Shabsels in honor of Elisheva Rappaport. "Ellie, thank you for making our Daf Yomi meetings happen each week!"

In what cases do we say that heiter joins issur for requisite amounts - meaning if you eat an item that the forbidden item is mixed into the permitted item, do we measure the requisite amount needed for liability from the whole mixture? Rabbi Yochanan and Zeiri disagree about when this principle is used. Abaye questions Rabbi Yochanan's opinion (quoted by Rav Dimi) from a mishna in Tvul Yom 2:3 regarding impurity of a porridge with teruma spices mixed in. According to Rabba bar bar Chana, it becomes impure because if one ate an olive bulk of it, one would be liable. Is it because of heiter joins the issur or it is because one ate a whole olive bulk of the spices? Rav Dimi answers that it is the latter and Abaye asks several questions on his theory. IF Rabbi Yochanan derived from the Nazir the laws of heiter combining with issur only for a nazir, how does that work with a braita that derives the law for flavor not being nullified in a mixture, which is also derived from the same word by nazir? He must hold like Rabbi Akiva who holds the same as him with regards the previous principle. So where does he derive laws about flavor not being nullified? A number of suggestions are brought - milk and meat, kashering pots. How do the rabbis react to his proof if there derive it from nazir?

Pesachim 43 - January 3, 19 Tevet Jan 03, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 43

Today’s daf is sponsored by Professor Jonathan Ben-Ezra and Dr. Robin Zeiger on the yahrzeit of Jonathan's father, Aaron Ben-Ezra. "He was passionate about Jewish learning and worked diligently that both his son and daughter would have a quality Jewish education." And by Avi Hoffman in honor of Perel Mindal bat Menachem Mendel, “eemee moratee.”

What is the jewelry mentioned in the mishna that is problematic on Pesach? Why did the mishna list food items by name if they also listed the general principle? Who is the tana of our mishna who holds that chametz that is found in a mixture but dissolved and chametz nukshe is forbidden as a negative prohibition in the Torah that one would receive lashes for? There is a difference of opinion whether is it Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Eliezer. The gemara brings Rabbi Eliezer's derivation of mixtures from the Torah and questions why he doesn't derive that one receives karet for it? The gemara discusses the different verses in Exodus Chapter 12 and explains also how we derive that women receive karet for eating chametz and also how we derive that they are obligated to eat matza as theoretically it is a time bound positive commandment.

Pesachim 42 - Shabbat January 2, 18 Tevet Jan 01, 2021

Is one punished by lashes for transgressing a negative commandment that is derived from a positive one? What should one do with water used by a baker that has flour mixed in? One must knead flour for the matza with mayim she'lanu - water that rested. Why? One should not use water that had been heated to knead the dough. What if one did and the dough didn't leaven - is one penalized for this or not? The third chapter begins with a list of items that are mixtures that include chametz. There are several interpretations of how to understand what the mishna is saying about their status of Pesach. The gemara explains what each of these items are, as well as offering some nutritional information about some of the items mentioned.

Pesachim 41 - January 1, 17 Tevet Jan 01, 2021

Study Guide Pesachim 41

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rachel and Oren Seliger in memory of Rachel's father, Avner Yossef ben Yehuda Aryeh and Zelta Friva, on his 31 yahrzeit. "Avner Yehuda was a baal tshuva as a teenager. He was always in awe of people learning Talmud. He would be very proud to know that his children are learning daf yomi." And by Rivkah Isseroff l'iluy nishmat Yaakov ben R' Yehuda Leib "who encouraged torah learning for all his daughters, and would be so pleased to see his daughter and granddaughter, Alisa Benayoun, learning the daf." And by Carol and Art Gould "in recognition of the great goodness that we have received in learning that Carol's PET Scan results are clean and that she remains in remission from her lung cancer. We thank HaShem for His mercy. We thank the incredibly warm, supportive and loving Hadran Zoomer community and Rabbanit Farber for their concern." And by Rhea Brown in honor of her daughter in law, Liz Fisher’s birthday. "Happy Birthday Liz and keep studying. Liz loves the daily podcast and has turned me into it as well. Love Rhea and Ron."

One cannot add flour to mustard or to charoset (a dip made with vinegar) as its pungency may cause the flour to leaven. If one did, can one eat it or does it need to be burned immediately before it leavens? Rabi Meir and the rabbis disagree - but do they disagree about both or only about the mustard? Why the difference? The gemara moves to discuss in depth and from derashot from the verses in the Torah regarding the commandment to eat the meat of the Passover sacrifice roasted and not partially roasted or cooked in water. What if it was cooked in other liquids? Its own liquids? What if it was cooked in the hot spring of Tiberias? What if it was eaten totally wraw? Is the prohibition to eat it prepared in the wrong manner also an issue during the day of the 14th or only on the night of the 15th? Does one receive one or multiple sets of lashes if one eats it cooked or partially roasted? Or possibly no lashes as it is a lav she'bichlalot - one prohibition that includes a number of things. What if one ate is roasted during the day? Does one receive lashes - isn't it a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment and the rule should be no lashes.

Pesachim 40 - December 31, 16 Tevet Dec 31, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 40

Today’s daf is sponsored by Mona Fishbane in memory of her beloved mother-in-law, Bernice Fishbane (Nana), z"l, "Whose 14th yahrzeit we recently observed. Nana was a lifelong learner who continues to inspire me." And by Hanna and Michael Piotrkowski to Ann Schiff. "Ann introduced us to Hadran's daf yomi so she deserves the merit of our learning. Acknowledging with gratitude."

How can one prevent barley grains from leavening? Wheat? Do fruit juices cause leavening? Can one rinse off barley to make it easier to remove the chaff or will that hasten leavening? What about wheat? The gemara brings several opinions. Rava forbade but then changed his mind and even went so far as to say that it is a mitzvah to rinse the wheat kernels. He explains that is why one needs to watch the grains from an early stage as once they are rinsed, they have come in contact with water and are prone to leavening. The gemara mentions a case where there were wheat kernels that got wet before Pesach and Rava permitted selling them to gentiles. Rava bar Livai questioned this from a case of shaatnez and on account of the difficulty, Rava changed his mind. How can one prevent leavening in certain cases? The Mishna adds other cases where one need to be concerned about food leavening. And also mentions the prohibition to not cook the meat from the Pesach sacrifice.

Pesachim 39 - December 30, 15 Tevet Dec 30, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 39

Today’s Daf is sponsored by Marsha Wasserman in honor of her son Dr. Noam Wasserman, Dean of Sy Syms School of Business at YU. "Thank you for encouraging me to study daf yomi as you have been doing for many years. I am fortunate to have you as a son who motivates and encourages not only his own students but also his parents. We love you and are very proud of all of your accomplishments." And by Erin Piateski in honor of the 14th yahrzeit of Dr. Beth Samuels a"h. "Beth's life was dedicated to Torah learning, and in particular, to expanding Jewish learning opportunities for girls and women. Beth would have been thrilled to see the large community of women learning daf yomi." Today’s Daf is sponsored in honor of the 14th yahrzeit of Dr. Beth Samuels a"h on December 30th, 15 Tevet. Beth's life was dedicated to Torah learning, and in particular, to expanding Jewish learning opportunities for girls and women. Beth would have been thrilled to see the large community of women learning daf yomi. And by Debbie Gevir in the memory of her mother, Yocheved Gindsberg on her sixth yahrzeit today. Besides being a model of hesed, kibud horim, and grace, Yocheved was active in torah learning and teaching, especially for women. יהי זכרה ברוך

What can one use to fulfill one's obligation for marror? What are all the different types of vegetables mentioned in the mishna? Other sources are brought which list other types. Is there one type more ideal than the others? Can things other than vegetables be used that are bitter? The gemara continually compares matza to marror to derive various criteria. Rav says that all the types that can be used for marror can be planted together in one area. The gemara tries to understand what was he trying to say. One can eat marror moist or dry - is this just for the stalk or also the leaves? What about shriveled? Pickled? Cooked? Stewed? Can you use maaser sheni produce? How would this differ from the same question regarding matza from maaser sheni? What types of things can be done with bran that would or would not lead to leavening? If the food is already baked, it can no longer leaven, even if placed in water.

Pesachim 38 - December 29, 14 Tevet Dec 29, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 38

Today’s daf is sponsored by Joanna Rom, marking the 23rd Yahrzeit of her father, Julius Rom z"l, "who was always a loving, supportive father to both his daughters and a strong role model for lifelong learning. I have no doubt he would have been supportive of our Daf Yomi adventure." And by Becki Goldstein in memory of her father a Holocaust survivor, Yoel Ben Meir. "Always my guiding light who encouraged my unquestionable thirst for learning. He also imbued within me deep Emunah and taught me Hashem can say no and still love us like parents. יהי זכרו ברוך."

Can one fulfill one's obligation in matza from maaser sheni? It is dependent on the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding the status of maaser sheni - is it considered sanctified and belonging to God/the Temple or it is considered the owner's property? The same debate would hold for the obligation of separating challa from maaser sheni produce and also for an etrog (and the other species on the first day of Sukkot. The matza loaves made for a nazir sacrifice or a thanks offering cannot be used for matza. Raba and rav Yosef each bring a different derivation from the Torah and a braita is brought to support each reading. The gemara asks why three other possible answers weren't brought and explains why. Why is there a difference in the law whether one prepared the loaves for a sacrifice or prepared them to sell to someone needing a sacrifice (in the latter, it could be used for matza)?

Pesachim 37 - December 28, 13 Tevet Dec 28, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 37

Today’s daf is sponsored with hakarat hatov to Hashem by Shalom and Tina Lamm to celebrate their new granddaughter, Mindl Hodaya (“Mindy”) born to their children, Ari & Shlomit Lamm. And by Yonatan Huber for a refuah shleima for Basmat bat Yardena and Shaul and Nissim ben Rosa and Machluf Malul.

What is "thick dough" that Beit Hillel permits on Pesach? What is the difference in terms of concern for the dough leavening between matza baking and the baking of the showbread? From the comparison, the gemara rejects the first explanation of "thick dough" and explains it being an issue of Yom Tov and not specifically Pesach. What is the difficulty with that explanation and how is it resolved? Can one make matza in different shapes or with shapes etched in? Can one distinguish between a baker and a homemaker? Can one distinguish between different people or different situations? The gemara deals with with different types of doughs that are not obligated in challa. Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree regarding dough make in a pot. The gemara raises questions on each approach and tries to resolve.

Pesachim 36 - December 27, 12 Tevet Dec 27, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 36

Today’s daf is sponsored by Jenifer Nech in honor of her Talmud teacher, Samara Schwartz. "Samara started my learning journey by teaching the ‘way of the Talmud’. I am now proud to be a part of the Hadran community."

Can one fulfill one’s obligation to eat matza through eating matza in Jerusalem made from maaser sheni? Rabbi Yosi HaGelili learns from the fact that matza is called “lechem oni” – that sounds like “oni” meaning “onen” that one cannot fulfill one’s obligation with something that one cannot eat when one has the status of an onen (when one’s close relative dies until the burial) and maaser sheni cannot be eaten by an onen. Rabbi Akiva derives from “matzot” “matzot” that one can fulfill one’s obligation with maaser sheni. According to him, “Lechem oni” refers to poor man’s bread and comes to exclude matza ashira, one made with oil, honey or wine. In addition it is read as “oni” also referring to bread that one recites things on during the seder. Can one knead dough for matza with oil, honey or wine? And if not, what if one already did? What does Rabbi Akiva hold regarding this? His opinion seems to contradict what he says elsewhere. How is this resolved? One cannot knead matza dough in warm water as it hastens the leavening process. If so, why are menachot, meal offerings, kneaded with warm water, if they also are not allowed to leaven? Can one fulfill one’s obligation to eat matza using bikurim, the first fruits? Rabbi Yosi HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva both forbid it, each derive it from different verses. The gemara questions Rabbi Akiva’s proof and then shows that even Rabbi Akiva changed his mind and ultimately agreed with Rabbi Yosi HaGelili’s proof. Why did Rabbi Yosi HaGelili not use the same verse that he used to derive the halacha for maaser sheni from lechem oni? Because he held like Rabbi Shimon that an onen can eat bikurim. From where do Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis derive their opinions whether or not an onen can eat bikurim?

Pesachim 35 - Kitniot - Shabbat December 26, 11 Tevet Dec 25, 2020

From what grains does one fulfill one’s obligation to eat matza. Only from one of the 5 grains. What is the source for this? The rabbis and Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri debate the status of rice and millet both for fulfilling the mitzvah of matza using them and for receiving the punishment of karet if one eats them leavened on Pesach. Do they really leaven or not? Is one allowed to eat kitniot on Pesach? What is the status of a dough made with fruit juice, wine or honey that rose? Does one get karet for that? Do we say that since one can’t fulfill one’s obligation for matza with a dough like that, as it is not poor man’s bread, then one is not obligated karet if it leavens? The Mishna lists situations in which one can or cannot fulfill one’s obligation of matza for an outside reason – either it is permitted or forbidden because of a different halachic issue. The gemara goes through each case and explains either why or asks why is this mentioned – isn’t it obvious?

Pesachim 34 - December 25, 10 Tevet Dec 25, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 34

Today’s daf is sponsored by Susan Jaeger in memory of her beloved mother, Beatrice Jaeger, "who died 22 years ago this month, and whose presence I still feel everyday in my life."

Three opinions are brought to explain the Mishna Terumot 9:7 regarding saplings of impure truma that are planted - it removes the impurity but are forbidden to eat. To whom is it forbidden and why? Within the context of the second answer, the gemara brings a debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding the disqualification of one who does not watch his truma or sanctified items properly. What type of disqualification is it? The third answer assumes that truma and sanctified items are treated in a stricter manner than other things. Three other proofs are brought for this.

Pesachim 33 - December 24, 9 Tevet Dec 24, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 33

Today’s Daf is dedicated by Leora Secemski for a refuah shleima for Mordechai ben Raizel. "Wishing you a complete and quick refuah. We love you! Leora, David, Ari, Rose, and Elisheva." And by Sharon Russ (and Keren Gluch) in memory of their father's 3rd yartzeit, David ben Avraham z"l. "It is exactly one year since the Siyum HaShas for Women in Jerusalem, where I was so inspired and listened to the first daf on the way home. Our loving father, born and raised in Jamaica, did not have the privilege of a Jewish education. He was a proud devoted Jew, and his shul became his second home, davening 3 times a day and attending shiurim as often as possible. My hope is to finish Shas Daf Yomi in his memory."

The gemara proves from a braita and Rav Papa's question on an explanation of that braita that Rav Papa himself changed his mind and no longer things that when Abba Shaul said the measurement for being obligated for eating truma is the value of a coin, he did not mean that it needs to have also the value of a coin in addition to being an olive bulk. The gemara brings two other explanations to explain the braita that was brought. The gemara goes back to the braita quoted in Pesachim 32, in the debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri and asks what is the source for the halacha at the end of the braita that stated that the issues discussed were only regarding truma that was taken before the item leavened but truma that was taken from a leavened item on Pesach would not be considered truma at all. Two different answers are brought, each one being a derivation from different words in the same verse. The gemara shifts to discuss impurities of foods, particularly the status of liquids squeezed out of fruits - is the liquid considered a separate entity from the fruit that can be removed from it, i.e. if the fruit is impure, there may be a way to remove the juice without the juice becoming impure, Or is it part of the fruit and if the fruit is impure, so is the juice. The discussion eventually gets back to another line from the braita on Pesachim 32 which discusses mulberries and grapes that become impure and aren't valid for use at all. When are we concerned that people will mess up and when are we not. This issue comes up with truma foods that are impure and can be used for something - but can we leave them around and not be concerned that people will forget or won't know that they are impure?

Pesachim 32 - December 23, 8 Tevet Dec 23, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 32

The Daf Yomi women of Neve Daniel are proud to dedicate a month of Daf Yomi learning in honor of all the women learning Torah in the world and in honor of completing our first year of learning together. Thank you to Hadran and to the Rabbaniot Michelle, Chamotal, Tanya, Sally, Michal, Chayuta and Meirav that lead us in our in depth learning. Yishar Kochachen!

Today’s Daf is dedicated by Sarah Weil in memory of Michael Weil z"l and in honor of his unwavering commitment to his beloved family. May his memory be a blessing. And by Joanna Rom for a refuah sheleima of her mother-in-law, Shirley Goldberg. And in memory of Boaz Leib ben Meir on his 7th yahrzeit. May his neshama have an aliya today and may his legacy continue to shine through his family. Also for a refuah shleima for Shaindel Chaya bat Leah.

If someone (an Israelite) eats truma that that is chametz on Pesach, will he/she be obligated to pay? It depends if it was done intentionally or unwittingly. Eventually the gemara will explain this difference in two ways. The gemara quotes the Mishna Trumot 6:1 regarding the payment of the principle and the added fifth that one is obligated if one eats truma unwittingly and asks a question - is it valued at the financial value of what was eaten or by the measurement? The gemara limits the question to a case where there was a decrease in price from the time it was eaten until the time is was to be paid back. The gemara tries to bring an answer from two sources, one of them our mishna, but ultimately explains that each source can be explained according to each option. In the end the gemara proves that the answer to the question is the subject of a tannaitic debate between Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri and Rabbi Akiva. What is the requisite amount required to be obligated to pay for truma eaten - is it a law of eaten forbidden items and therefore an olive bulk or is it a law of stealing and therefore needs to be the value of a coin (pruta)? Abba Shaul says the value of a coin and it is suggested that perhaps he requires both, however this option is rejected.

Pesachim 31 - December 22, 7 Tevet Dec 22, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 31

Today’s daf is sponsored by Anne Rubin in honor of her Rabbi, Andrea Merow who has been an inspiration to her learning for as long as she has known her. Rabbi Merow is an inspiration to many in learning and living a Jewish life with a focus on social justice and Anne is grateful to be a part of her community. And by Elana Storch to the memory of Gloria Weisman, "the mom of my dear friend and chevruta partner Patti Evans. May her memory be for a blessing. Thinking of you Patti and the whole family at this sad time. HaMakom Yenachem Etchem B'toch Shear Avelei Zion v'Yerushalayim.

According to the mishna, if a gentile gave chametz as collateral for a loan to a Jew or the reverse, what are the laws regarding that chametz after Pesach - is it considered belonging to the Jew or the gentile? The gemara brings a debate between Rava and Abaye concerning laws of a collateral - in the event that the debtor doesn't pay back the loan, from when is the collateral considered in the possession of the creditor - from the very beginning or only from the time the loan is due and not repaid. The gemara raises several questions on Rava's opinion, including from our mishna. If there is a store and food is found there after Pesach - what is its status - do we assume it was the owner's or the workers'? What if the owner was Jewish and the workers gentiles or the reverse? What is the status of chametz that is buried under rubble - is it considered destroyed? Are there any limitations?

Pesachim 30 - December 21, 6 Tevet Dec 21, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 30

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabbi Fredda Cohen in honor of her husband, Eric Nussbaum. "With much love for an amazing 47 year journey with many more years to go, 'אם ירצה ה. You are the most wonderful husband and father and you are a Saba Sababa."

How do we hold regarding chametz that was owned by a Jew over Pesach that falls into a mixture (of non problematic food) on Pesach or after Pesach? Can it be nullified in the mixture or not? Is there an issue to use an earthenware vessel that was used for chametz before Pesach, after Pesach as the flavor will not come out into the food and it will be chametz that was left over Pesach, as earthenware vessels cannot be kashered? Rav and Shmuel disagree. The gemara tells that Shmuel used his lenient opinion as a threat to those selling new pots after Pesach to get them to lower their prices! Can one bake dairy bread? What is the issue? What types of utensils can be kashered? And how? Can eatherware ovens be kashered? What is the status of an earthenware glazed vessel? How are laws of glazed earthenware vessels different for cooking and storing wine? Why? If a Jew gives chametz as collateral for a loan or the reverse, what is its status after Pesach? Rava and Abaye disagree about when a collateral becomes the possession of the creditor in the event that the borrower doesn't pay back the loan - it is considered retroactively the creditors from the moment he/she received it? Or from the moment the loan is due and is not paid?

Pesachim 29 - December 20, 5 Tevet Dec 20, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 29

Today's Daf is sponsored by Judi Felber on the second yartzeit of Yovel MorYosef and Yossi Cohen, who were killed in a terror attack at Givat Assaf and for the continued Refuah Shelema of her son, Netanel Ilan ben Shayna Tzpora. And by Sylvia Simmons to mark the 8th yahrzeit of her mother, Pessy Simmons z”l, "whose lifelong dedication to Jewish values and learning inspired many during her long life with a reflective, enquiring mind; and who would be enthused by the opportunities offered by Hadran to the next generation of Jewish women."

To which tannaitic opinion can the mishna be attributed to, that forbids to benefit from chametz of a Jew that was owned by the Jew over Pesach and permits the same of a gentile? Rav Acha bar Yaakov and Rava answer the question each in a different way. According to Rav Acha bar Yaakov, Rabbi Yehuda holds that chametz of a gentile or that was sanctified is permitted to a Jew not only to benefit from but also to eat. However, the gemara says that Rav Acha changed his mind and to prove it they quote a braita regarding one who ate chametz on Pesach that was sanctified - is one obligated for meila or not. In order to explain the tannaitic debate in the braita, the gemara brings five explanations, one of them by Rav Acha bar Yaakov. From his explanation, one can understand that he changed his mind as he explains that Rabbi Yehuda holds that chametz of sanctified items is forbidden on Pesach. The next topic the gemara discusses is chametz mixed in with permitted foods - both on Pesach and chametz that was owned by a Jew on Pesach. Do regular laws of nullification apply? Rav, Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan disagree.

Pesachim 28 - Shabbat December 19, 4 Tevet Dec 18, 2020

Rabbi Yehuda finishes his arguments regarding why chametz should be burned before Pesach but the rabbis in the end win the debate and contradict Rabbi Yehuda from within his own opinion. The rabbis hold that one breaks it into pieces or throws the chametz into the river before throwing into the river, does one also need to break it up into pieces. The same question is asked on a mishna from Avoda Zara 43. Raba and Rav Yosef each distinguish between the two cases but each one in an opposite manner. Chametz that a gentile owned over Pesach is permitted to a Jew after Pesach but if owned by a Jew on Pesach, it is forbidden to benefit from after Pesach. The gemara questions - according to who is this mishna? It doesn't seem to match either of three opinions brought in a braitia regarding from when and until when is chametz forbidden by a negative transgression by Torah law and is it forbidden to benefit from. First the gemara brings sources for the different opinions and then explains why it seems the mishna doesn't correspond to any of these opinions.

Pesachim 27 - December 18, 3 Tevet Dec 18, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 27

Today's daf is sponsored by Rivkah Blutstein and Judah Bellin in honor of their mother and mother-in-law, Marcy Goldstein. "Your daily learning inspires both us to continue learning Daf Yomi as well. Sharing our first joint siyum together was a joy and we hope to share more siyumim together in the future! Happy Birthday!" And by Asher Rosen in honor of his wife’s birthday Yafit Fishbach."Yafit's daily daf learning brings much light and knowledge into our home. May god bless her with the strength and willingness to keep at it one day at a time." And by Sheindel Shapiro in memory of her father, Reuven ben Tevye z"l, Rubin Bressler on his 30th yahrzeit this Chanukah. May his neshama have an aliyah.

The gemara discusses a contradiction between two braitot - does one need to break an oven that was formed by a fire using wood that is forbidden to benefit from? The one who forbids use of the oven must hold that when two factors - one permitted and one forbidden - are used to create something, it is forbidden. Who is that? It must be Rabbi Eliezer and the gemara proceeds to find where it is clear from something Rabbi Eliezer holds that this is true. There is a debate between Abaye and others about whether a pot created by forbidden wood would be the same law as an oven or not? Shmuel taught the braita with the opinions of Rebbi and the rabbis holding opposite positions regarding bread baked from forbidden wood. Is it that he had a different version or did he switch them on purpose so people would now make a mistake about the law. Do the ends justify the means - as he "lied" in order to protect the law. According to the braita, if one baked the bread on the colas, all would permit the bread - what stage of the coals is this referring to - fiery red or dim? The gemara discusses each possibility. Rami bar Hama asked Rav Chisda if the same laws would apply for bread baked by wood that was sanctified. Why would there be a difference? Why would it not become unsanctified as soon as it was misused, meila? According to Rabbi Yehuda, chametz must be burned. The rabbis disagree. From where does Rabbi Yehuda try to prove it and how do the rabbis respond to his proofs?

Pesachim 26 - December 17, 2 Tevet Dec 17, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 26

Today’s daf is sponsored by Jeremy Zucker in honor of his fantastic wife Wendy Proskin! Wendy loves learning with Hadran daily. And by Deborah Bader in honor of Cheri Kessner's last day of radiation. Cheri, you have always encouraged your children and grandchildren to study Torah and have shown them how proud you are of them for their learning in numerous ways.

The gemara deals with the two different versions of Rava and Abaye's debate regarding one who benefits from something that's forbidden by being forced into it. Abaye and Rava bring sources to prove their opinion according to the second version. Each source is also explained by the opposing opinion. The gemara brings two proofs for Rava according to the second reading. However the gemara rejects each proof as it could be explained that it is a unique halacha for that particular case. Is one obligated in meila for benefiting from sight, smell or voice? The gemara distinguishes between sight and voice on the one hand and smell on the other. The gemara brings a question on Rava from the first reading using a mishna regarding shaatnez. The gemara brings a contradiction between two braitot regarding lighting a fire in a new oven with items that are forbidden to benefit from.

Pesachim 25 - December 16, 1 Tevet Dec 16, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 25

Today's daf is sponsored by Binny Shalev in memory of his mother, Nechi Shudovsky, Nacha Dvora bat Sarah Gitel v'Yossef z"l.

The gemara brings a question against Abaye who holds that one will get lashes for benefitting from diverse kinds even if used in an atypical manner. The question is raised from a braita that sets up a kal vachomer and diverse kinds are viewed as lenient - if Abaye was correct, it would be a stringency. Abaye answers the question. When does the prohibition to benefit from diverse kinds kick in - from planting, once they take root or only when they grow? One can use anything for medicinal purposes even if it forbidden to benefit from, if it is a life threatening situation, except for items used for idol worship. From where is this derived? There are three things that one must be willing to die for, rather than transgress - idol worship, murder and forbidden sexual relations. From where are these derived? Abaye and Rava disagree regarding a case where one benefits because one is forced to. The gemara describes four different possible scenarios (one can/cannot prevent it and one is intending/not intending to benefit) and determines that only in one of those scenarios do they disagree. How do their opinions correspond to the famous debate between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda regarding an act that one does without intent?

Pesachim 24 - December 15, 29 Kislev Dec 15, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 24

Today’s daf is sponsored by Dan Ross in honor of the anniversary of my marriage to my chevruta for life, Rabbi Jade Sank Ross. "You are my best friend and I look forward to many more years of learning Torah together." And by Jenna Katz in honor of her sister and brother in law Andrea and Max on the birth of their first child, a beautiful baby girl. Mazel Tov also to grandparents Ben and Felice, and great grandma Esther. May she grow in Torah and Mitzvot and be surrounded by all the love in the world.

A students brings a drasha of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to derive the fact that chametz on Pesach and an ox that killed a person are forbidden to benefit from besides that one cannot eat them. The drasha is from a verse regarding a sin offering whose blood is brought into the sanctuary (heichal). Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani rejects his proof and the student brings another proof from a verse regarding meat leftover during the days of the miluim beyond the first day in which it was allowed to be eaten. That too is rejected. Abaye brings a third verse in an attempt to derive that chametz and the ox are forbidden also to benefit - from the same verse that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi used but from different words. Rav Papa rejects his proof and brings another verse - from sacrificial meat that is impure. Ravina questions his proof but the question is resolved and rav Papa's proof stands. The gemara derives other things from the verses about eating impure sacrificial meat and about a person who is impure who eats sacrificial meat. There are two versions about what Rabbi Avahu said regarding what is and is not included in the prohibition to eat and benefit from items, i.e. if it is eaten or used in an atypical manner.

Pesachim 23 - December 14, 28 Kislev Dec 14, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 23

Today's daf is dedicated by Michael, Alexander, Ariel and Halle Kahan in honor of their mother, Ruth Kahan on her birthday. "Her inspirational commitment to Daf Yomi has been unsurprising to those who know her as she shows a similar level of care and dedication in all areas of her life. We wish her many more years of happy, healthy learning to come. With love from your children" And by Ruth's sister Jessica. "Thank you for introducing me to Hadran Daf Yomi. I may not understand it all, but I love knowing that across the continents, you and I are learning together." Love Jessica. The daf is also dedicated in honor of Eviatar Schwartz on his birthday. Eviatar recently started learning Gemara. May your curiosity and determination continue to be a source of pride and joy. Happy birthday Tari. From all the Schwartzs.

The gemara continues to question the approaches of Rabbi Avahu and Chizkia from various sources. After the gemara answers all the questions, the gemara wants to know what is the practical difference between them. The gemara then brings in Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who learns it from a different place.

Pesachim 22 - December 13, 27 Kislev Dec 13, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 22

Today’s daf is sponsored by Naomi Oxman in honor of her mother, Sara Younger, better known as "Bubaleh" whose 2nd yahrzeit was yesterday. And by Sophie Frankenthal in honor of her mother, Oprah. "Your modest passion and commitment to Torah inspires me more than you know, and your endless wisdom and dedication to your values are the guiding force of our family. HaShem should give you the strength to continue your learning. Love you Mommy! Chanukah Sameach!"

Chizkia and Rabbi Avahu each learn in different ways from where we derive the fact that one is forbidden to benefit from chametz on Pesach. The gemara brings questions against Rabbi Avahu's approach (that anytime it says one is forbidden to eat, it includes also benefitting) from the prohibition to eat the sciatic nerve, blood and a limb from a live animal. Each question is resolved. Then questions are raised on both Chizkia and Rabbi Avahu from an ox that killed a person and must be stoned and from fruits within the first three years of planting the tree. Each question is resolved according to each opinion.

Pesachim 21 - Shabbat December 12, 26 Kislev Dec 11, 2020

Today’s daf is dedicated by Rella Feldman, Mindy Hecht and family in memory of our beloved husband, father and saba, Dr. Charles H. Feldman, Yitzchak Tzvi Ben Yaakov V’Leah z"l, on his 9th Yahrzeit. Our light was extinguished with his passing on the second night of Chanukah, but his legacy of dedication to family, integrity, love of learning and inner strength lives on for each of us. He would have been so proud of all of our family members who are involved in learning daf yomi and helping build Hadran. May his memory be a blessing.

If one leaves wine that was truma that became disqualified in order to scatter for a good smell, one need be concerned that one will forget that it is disqualified truma and will drink it. Whether or not we are concerned about that is a subject of debate among tannaim. What if truma wine is spilling from the top of the wine press into a vat of impure chulin but the amount of chulin is 100 times the amount of truma at the top. In this case, there will not be a financial loss as the truma is nullified into the chulin. Therefore even Rabbi Yehoshua agrees that one would not be allowed to put the truma wine into impure vessels. The second chapter begins with a discussion of benefit from chametz - from what time is it forbidden to benefit from chametz on erev Pesach? If chametz is not yet forbidden can one sell to a gentile or give to one's animals - what is the potential concern? Does everyone agree that this is allowed despite the potential concern? From where do we derive that one is forbidden to benefit from chametz on Pesach - the Torah only wrote no eating. There are two approaches - Chizkiya learns it from a verse, Rabbi Avahu thinks that any time where the Torah says it is forbidden to eat, it includes benefit unless otherwise stated (as by neveila - a dead animal). The gemara brings two opinions where this halacha by neveila is derived from.

Pesachim 20 - December 11, 25 Kislev Dec 11, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 20

Today's daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson and Arthur Gould in memory of Carol's father Louis Robinson, Yehuda Leib ben Moshe, z"l. Today - the first day of Hanukah - we mark his 21st yahrtzeit and miss him dearly. Lou was a devoted family man and active participant in his synagogue. He could fix anything, and most memorably, rebuilt their kitchen cabinets and added new cabinets, in a manner that any professional would be proud to claim as his own. He loved Carol and her sister Debbi and would be very proud of Carol studying daf yomi.

In the case of the needle, how did the meat become impure - what liquid came in contact with it to make it susceptible to impurity? The gemara brings 4 possible answers - all are rejected, except the last one. Someone brings a braita before Rav Sheshet regarding levels of passing on impurity from a sheretz but the braita is problematic and suggestions are brought for how to fix it. If a sheretz falls into and oven and there is bread there, the bread has a status of second degree impurity. Why not first degree? Different emoraim bring contradictions in Rabbi Yehoshua's opinion from the mishna (truma that is in doubt whether or not it became impure can be burned with truma that is definitely impure) and other sources regarding Pesach and truma that seem to indicate otherwise. How are these contradictions resolved?

Pesachim 19 - December 10, 24 Kislev Dec 10, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 19

Today’s daf is sponsored by Neil Green in honor of Sabina. You are an inspiration in your leadership of our temple education committee and in your teaching of children in the school. You live the Torah you teach. I am so grateful that you are learning Daf Yomi with Hadran with me!

Rava says that Rabbi Yosi doesn't agree with Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Akiva doesn't agree with Rabbi Yosi so how did we say before that Rabbi Yosi's opinion is derived from Rabbi Akiva. How do we know that each doesn't hold like the other? The gemara brings another halacha that Rabbi Chanina Sgan HaKohanim testified about. A needle found inside a slaughtered animal will not pass on impurity to the hands of the slaughterer or the knife but it makes the meat impure. What exactly is the case? What is the doubt referring to?

Pesachim 18 - December 9, 23 Kislev Dec 09, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 18

There is a tannaitic debate on Pesachim 16a. According to Rabbi Yehuda, liquids pass on impurity by Torah law to everything, however the emoraim say that he changed his mind. About what did he change his mind? Did he say that liquids can't pass on impurity at all by Torah law or is it limited to food but not vessels? They try to prove it from the mishna Para 9:5, about waters of a red heifer (mei chatat) that are swallowed by an cow who is then slaughtered. Rabbi Yehuda rules leniently which seems to infer that he changed his opinion entirely. However two explanations are brought that explain his opinion is either not a leniency or because the liquid there is no longer considered a liquid. So there is no conclusion regarding Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosi who holds that liquids pass on impurity to other foods, holds like Rabbi Akiva his rabbi, who ruled that the word "will become impure" can be read also as "will pass on impurity." Rabbi Akiva learned from it that there is 3rd degree impurity also by non sacred items. From where to we derive that liquids only pass on impurity to foods by Torah law and not to other liquids and not to other vessels? Rava held that Rabbi Yosi did not hold like Rabbi Akiva, nor did Rabbi Akiva hold like Rabbi Yosi.

Pesachim 17 - December 8, 22 Kislev Dec 08, 2020

Today's daf is sponsored by Betsy Mehlman in honor of Natalie Taylor. "Natalie, thank you for inspiring me to start learning Daf Yomi with Hadran. You are a true friend and I'm grateful for your encouragement and support during these uncertain times." And by Bill Futornick in memory of his grandmother, Ruth Feiring Starace, Rivka Rachel bat Chaim Zvi z"l. And a refuah shlema of our One Week at a Time teacher, Rabbanit Dr. Tamara Spitz, Tamara Blimah bat Gitah and her parents, Joseph Matityahu ben Tehilla, and Gita bat Sima, who are struggling with Covid-19.

The gemara deals with different opinions regarding liquids and their ability to become impure or pass on impurity by Torah law. How if at all does this connect with Yosi ben Yoezer's opinion regarding the exemption for impurities in the Temple? Does his leniency relate to liquids in the slaughtering area (blood and water) or the liquids that went on the altar (wine, oil, blood and water for libations)? Rav and Levi each have two different versions of the mishna where Yosi ben Yoezer's opinion is brought. Rav Papa thinks that the whole exemption the Temple was a halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai. But the gemara raises several questions against his approach. Does Rabbi Yehuda hold that by Torah law, liquids can pass impurity on to vessels as it seems from the braita quoted in the previous page (Pesachim 16)?

Pesachim 16 - December 7, 21 Kislev Dec 07, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 16

Today's daf is dedicated by Michelle and Laurence Berkowitz in honor of their son Gilad who celebrated his Bar Mitzva on Shabbat Parshat Toldot and to his twin sister Joy who celebrated her 13th birthday, Gilad and Joy are named after their late aunt, Joy Rochwarger Balsam z"l. Joy was a pioneer in women's Torah learning and was known to many of the teachers and students of Hadran. Joy taught the joy of torah to hundreds of students and would have been so proud of the Hadran learning and the multitudes of people participating. Joy was Nechama Leibowitz's zt"l personal aide during Nechama's last years. "Joy and Gilad Berkowitz, may you continue to learn Torah in your namesake's memory." According to Rabbi Yochanan, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosi disagree about the conclusion one can reach from Rabbi Chanina Sgan HaKohanim. They both agree it was a case of a liquid that came in contact with the meat but they disagree about whether liquids can pass on impurity only on a rabbinic level or also by Torah law. The gemara brings the tannatic debate regarding the ability of liquids to become and to pass on impurity by Torah law. They also bring a source about Yosi ben Yoezer Ish Tzreida who testified that all liquids in the slaughtering area of the Temple are considered pure. Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether he meant they do not even become impure or that they do not pass on impurity. The gemara raises one question against Shmuel and six against Rav.

Pesachim 15 - December 6, 20 Kislev Dec 06, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 15

Today's daf is dedicated by Rabbi Joel and Shulamith Cohen for a refuah shelema for Emmy Hoffer, Chana Tema bat Chaya. After the gemara brings two ways to explain Rabbi Meir, Reish Lakish brings a different answer. He holds that Rabbi Meir was referring to Rabbi Yehoshua - that from him we learn that one can burn teruma chametz with impure teruma. The gemara tries to figure out from which statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is this derived. First they suggest from a debate regarding a case of doubt - if an impure person touched teruma. If the teruma in doubt was hidden, Rabbi Yehoshua allows it to be uncovered and unprotected. But the gemara rejects the comparison as to leave something unprotected is not the same as directly causing it to become impure (by burning with impure teruma). The gemara then brings a different opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua who permits taking teruma from a broken barrel that is about to spill into impure chulin and place it into an impure vessel, thereby taking something about to be ruined and permitting one to directly make it impure. Likewise, chametz on erev Pesach is about to be destroyed and therefore one can burn it with impure teruma. The gemara raises a question on Reish Lakish from a braita where it seems clear that Rabbi Meir derived it from Rabbi Chanina Sgan HaKohanim, however the gemara explains that it was Rabbi Yosi who misunderstood Rabbi Meir at first. thinking he was learning it from Rabbi Chanina but Rabbi Meir himself did not say that. According to Reish Lakish, why did Rabbi Yosi not agree with Rabbi Meir? Rabbi Yochanan understood that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosi only disagreed in the 6th hour but in the 7th hour, they both agreed that one can burn pure teruma with impure teruma. Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Asi derive from here that Rabbi Yochanan held that Rabbi Meir derived his opinion from Rabbi Chanina Sgan HaKohanim. How? The gemara brings two sources to prove Rabbi Yochanan but both are rejected. The gemara also tries to explain the continuation of the mishna according to Rabbi Yochanan, what is the connection to Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Yosi?

Pesachim 14 - Fiery Combinations - Shabbat December 5, 19 Kislev Dec 04, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 14

Today’s daf is sponsored by Shira Peleg in honor of Ariel Peleg. Congratulations on matching with one of your top choice hematology/medical oncology fellowship programs and thank you for introducing me to Hadran and encouraging me to learn”

The mishna brings statements of Rabbi Chanina Sgan HaKohanim and Rabbi Akiva that in the times of the Temple they would burn sanctified items that were impure with other impure items even if the levels of impurity were different and one would make the other a higher level of impurity. What is the difference between the cases that Rabbi Chanina and Rabbi Akiva bring? Can food pass on impurity to other foods? Can one assume from Rabbi Akiva's case that he holds that liquids pass on impurity to other items on a Torah level? Rabbi Meir derives from "their words" that chametz that was truma on erev Pesach can be burned with disqualified truma. From whose words does he derive this?

Pesachim 13: Thanksgiving on Pesach? - December 4, 18 Kislev Dec 04, 2020

Today's daf is sponsored by Peri Rosenfeld in honor of the Yahrzeit of her mother, Tovah Bodek Rosenfeld. "Her devotion to Judaism and life-long learning has been a continued source of inspiration". And by Onnie and Andy Schiffmiller in honor of Andy’s mother having made Aliyah yesterday ושבו בנים לגבולם. Mazal Tov. Rav held like Rabbi Yehuda regarding the time for forbidding eating chametz on Erev Pesach. The gemara questions - why didn't he hold like Rabbi Meir, as there is an unattributed mishna which holds like him, or Rabban Gamliel as he holds the compromise approach? Could it be Rav held like Rabbi YEhuda really because he held like a different tanna who also happened to hold like Rabbi Yehuda? The gemara rejects that suggestion. The gemara brings a source to show that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also held like Rabbi Yehuda (to strengthen Rav's psak). The gemara explains where the disqualified bread from the THanksgiving offering was placed in order to let the people know when were the times that chametz was forbidden or needed to be burned. In what way had they become disqualified? Two suggestions are brought. Others say that they weren't disqualified breads at all and others say that two cows would be set up to plow on the Mount of Olives instead of breads.

Pesachim 12 - Telling Time in the Time of the Talmud Dec 03, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 12

Pesachim 11 - December 2, 16 Kislev Dec 02, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 11

Today's daf is dedicated by Racheli Mendelson in memory of her mother Shoshana Spitz z"l on her third yartzeit. Rabbi Yehuda doesn't permit checking for chametz during the time that it is forbidden to eat chametz in case you may come to eat it. The rabbis permit. The gemara brings a contradiction from the new grain that is permitted after sacrificing the omer - as the shuk would immediately open with flour and toasted flour from the new crop - was this allowed or not? Should one be concerned that they may come to eat it while they were preparing the grain earlier? There the rabbis forbade and Rabbi Yehuda permitted? The rabbis bring three possible answers and questions are raised from other sources on each of these answers. From when is chametz forbidden on erev Pesach and by when does one need to burn the chametz? The rabbis forbid it earlier than it is actually forbidden so that people don't make mistakes in the timing. The gemara bring the mishna in Sanhedrin 40 that describes a debate between rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda about contradictory witnesses - to what extent can we assume they make a mistake and therefore even though they contradict each other, we accept their testimony as they really are not saying anything different. Abaye explains what is the root of the debate between them.

Pesachim 10 - December 1, 15 Kislev Dec 01, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 10

Masechet Pesachim is dedicated by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter Shoshana Baker. "She astounds me by her love of learning, the depth of her knowledge, and her dedication to Hadran." And in honor of the forthcoming bar mitzvah of our grandson, Ethan Lurie, on Shabbat Parshat Tezavah. Lastly, the masechet is dedicated in memory of Sivya's father Harav Pesach Zechariah Halevi ben Reuven v’Leah Z’late Z”L. "He was my inspiration for starting my first cycle of daf yomi eight years ago as the new cycle started when I was saying kaddish for him. I have no idea how many cycles of the daf he learned. I dove into uncharted waters and the learning brought me comfort in a year that I could not have predicted would be as difficult as it was. His yahrzeit occurs while we learn the masechet."

The gemara brings other cases of doubtful situations - does one need to recheck for chametz or not. Each case is compared to a situation mentioned in a different tannaitic source with a tannaitic debate. If there is a pile of chametz and two houses and a mouse brings it into one of the houses but we don't know which one. This is compared to the case of two paths - one pure and one impure and two people who each walked on one of the the paths. If a mouse took the chametz but it is unclear if he brought it into the house or not. It is compared to impurity in a field and we are unsure of someone walked into the field. If the mouse brought chametz and we check but can't find it, this is like piles of rocks with impurity underneath one of them but we are unable to find it. If a mouse brings in chametz and we find chametz, can we assume it is the chametz that the mouse brought or do we need to continue to check the house. This is similar to a debate of a field with a dead body whose location is unclear - if a grave is found, can we assume it was the one that we know about. If a baby or a mouse bring in bread and we find crumbs, can we assume the crumbs are theirs - is there a reason to differentiate between the cases? If we see a mouse go in and a mouse leave with bread in its mouth - can we assume it is the same one. Rava asks several questions that branch out from here. Do we make you check for bread in the rafters? Or in a pit? Or if in the mouth of a snake, do we need to get a snake charmer? Rabbi Yehuda seems from the mishna to require 3 bedikot, However Rav Yosef understands his debate with the rabbis differently.

Pesachim 9 - November 30, 14 Kislev Nov 30, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 9

Today's daf is sponsored by Naomi Ferziger in memory of her father, Chaim Zeev ben Pessel and Yoel Greenblatt z"l, on his 8th yartzeit.

After one checks one's house for chametz, one does not need to be concerned that a marten or other creature moved chametz from one place to another. The gemara assumes from here that if one saw a marten with chametz, pne would need to check. Why can't one assume the marten ate it, as appears in the mishna in Ohalot 18:7 regarding a house of a gentile and assumption of impurity of a miscarried fetus. There is it assumed that if there are martens around that the fetus was eaten and there is no impurity. Rabib Zeira says one can distinguish between flesh and bread and Rava says there is no contradiction because that case has a 2 doubts and our case has one definite and one doubt and a doubt (was it eaten) can't remove a concern regarding a definite (the marten definitely moved the chametz). Is rava's principle really true? There gemara brings 2 sources to question that but resolves them. The mishna seems to contradict the end of the mishna where there they say to hide the chametz after checking, presumably because one is worried a marten may come. Three answers are brought. The gemara brings cases of doubt regarding piles of chametz and matza and doubt which was moved by mice. One case if compared to the famous cases of 10 stores - 9 kosher and one not kosher from Ketubot 15. If one buys from a store and not sure which one, we see it as a 50/50 chance one bought non kosher meat and it is forbidden. If the meat was on the street and it is unsure where it came from, we follow the majority. Also a comparison is made between another case and a case regarding regular and sanctified produce where we assume the regular went into the regular and the sanctified combined with the sanctified and we rule leniently. Can we assume the same with chametz? Why?

Study Guide Pesachim 9

Pesachim 8 - November 29, 13 Kislev Nov 29, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Pesachim 8

Today’s daf is dedicated by Rhona Fink in memory of her brother Elliot Laxer, Yisrael Tzvi ben Chaim, on his yartzeit. And by Sara Berelowitz in honor of the engagement of my daughter Talya Sterman to David Wertenteil. שירבו שמחות בישראל! One should light with the light of a single candle. Are they places one can check with sunlight? Why? Why is it not better to use a torch? What places do not need to be checked for chametz? Why? What is the difference between storage houses for wine or for oil? What about other storage areas? A braita is quoted that says one does not need to check in holes in the wall due to danger. What type of danger? Two answers are brought. Wouldn't one be protected by the mitzva as a person on the way to do a mitzva is protected? To what extent is that effective? Are they also protected on the way home from doing a mitzva? The gemara brings two explanations for both Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel's opinions of which two rows need to be checked in a wine cellar.

Pesachim 7 - Shabbat November 28, 12 Kislev Nov 27, 2020

A week of learning is dedicated by Audrey Mondrow for the 7th yahrzeit of her father, Irving "Poppy" Mauskopf Yechezkel Ben Avraham and Rachel z"l "who taught us with his complete emunah, faith, in Hashem: 'Who is rich? One who is content with his lot'. My dad considered himself 'extremely' rich. May his neshama have an aliyah." Today's daf is dedicated by Natalie Taylor in honor of Jordy Hyman, "a wonderful friend, doctor and talmida chachama. Happy birthday!" Why do we nullify the chametz after the bedika and not during the late morning of erev Pesach? We can't nullify it once it is forbidden to eat because it is no longer considered in our possession as we cannot benefit from chametz on Pesach. The gemara brings a source that seems to contradict this premise. What if one finds mouldy bread in a drawer that is used for chametz during the year and matza on Pesach and one cannot tell if it is chametz or matza. If the majority is matza, we follow that. What does that and shouldn't we follow whatever was in the drawer last as we do regarding maaser sheni money? Based on that question, the gemara re-explains the law. What blessing to we make on bedikat chametz? There is a debate regarding the exact language. The gemara brings several questions from other blessings on mitzvot and discusses the idea of making the blessing before one performs the mitzva. Are there exceptions to this rule? From where do we learn that one needs to use a candle for bedikat chametz?

Pesachim 6 - November 27, 11 Kislev Nov 27, 2020

Today’s daf is dedicated by Sara Berelowitz "in honor of Rabbanit Michelle and my fellow zoomers on the milestone of finishing Eruvin and starting a new masechet." The end of Pesachim 5 focuses on a simple contradiction in the braita related to chametz. The phrase “lo yimatze” (Exodus 12:19) seems to say that anyone’s chametz cannot be found in your property. But the earlier part of the braita says “your own chametz cannot be found,” implying that other’s chametz is not a problem. The gemara’s solution to this differentiates between property which you accepted liability for (achriyut) and that which you did not accept liability. From here, the gemara discusses a principle known as “davar hagorem le-mamon” and discusses responsibility to rid oneself of chametz which the local authorities might make a claim on as part of a tax. Is there a distinction between laws of first born animals and laws of hafrashat challa regarding items taxed by gentile authorities? From here, the gemara asks a series of very practical questions: Would you be liable if a non Jew walked into your house on Pesach with a sandwich? What about if I designated for the non Jew a room in which to put her chametz? Must I do bedikat chametz if I’m going away for pesach? What if I plan to return home just before Pesach? And what happens if I find chametz on Pesach? Key to the gemara's questions is the “thirty day threshold” which says that there are some distinctions if a person leaves thirty days or more before pesach. From here we learn that one is supposed to study the laws of Pesach (and maybe other holidays as well) 30 days before their onset. Finally, the gemara addresses the relationship between bedikat chametz and bitul chametz and asks the question when does one nullify the chametz after one has searched for it.

Pesachim 5 - November 26, 10 Kislev Nov 26, 2020

Study Guide Pesachim 5

This next week of learning is dedicated in memory of Major Itai Zayden and Corporal Lihu ben-Bassa who were tragically killed in a plane crash in the course of training on Tuesday. Our hearts go out to their families. Today's daf is dedicated by Silke Goldberg in memory of her mother Leoni Kimmel z”l who was an amazing teacher and whose first yahrzeit has just passed. And by Peninah Lamm in honor of Tina and Shalom Lamm and Dodi Lamm who finished Masechet Eruvin! From the Elm Street Lamms. And by Victor and Caroline Ofstein and Abi and Jonty Blackman in honor of their mum Lyn Fisher - on her birthday today - may she have continued good health and happiness עד 120, and in honor of the respective 20 and 40-year yahrzeits of her dear parents, our grandparents, Edna and Harry Isaacs. May our learning be in their zchut and may their neshamot have an aliya. And by Shulamith and Joel Cohn for a refuah shleima for Tova Mattel bat Chana Ettel. From where do we derive that it is forbidden to eat chametz on erev Pesach and from midday? What is included and what is excluded from the prohibition against "seeing chametz" and "finding chametz"? How is this derived from the verses?

Pesachim 4 - November 25, 9 Kislev Nov 25, 2020

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Elana Storch. "We are dedicating today’s daf to our mom (and savta), Elana Storch, in honor of her birthday. We are so proud of her dedication to her daf yomi - even as she cares for her two young granddaughters full time during COVID. We are grateful for the Jewish values that she taught us and continues to model for us. With love, Ruthie, Ira, Reuben, Julianna, Emanuel, Arianne, Elia, and Elsa." The gemara brings more examples of the importance of speech and how the words one chooses are important as well as indicative of who the person is (i.e. what tribe one comes from). Why is bedikat chametz performed at night and not right before it is forbidden to eat chametz (midday on the 14th) or in the morning of the 14th? If one rents a house on the 14th, is the owner obligated in bedika or the renter? It depends who had access on the night of the 14th. If one moved in on the morning of the 14th, can an assumption be made that the owner checked for chametz the night before? Can we derive this from a source that says women, slaves and children are believed about checking for chametz or not? In the end the gemara says they are unrelated and women are trusted because it is only rabbinic in nature as by Torah law, one can just nullify. Why wouldn't they be trusted were it not for that? Aren't women trusted in other similar matters? When is it forbidden to eat chametz? Burn chametz? From where do we derive that by Torah law, one cannot eat from midday of the fourteenth?

Pesachim 3 - November 24, 8 Kislev Nov 24, 2020

Today’s daf is dedicated by Suri Stern in thanks to Hakodosh Baruch Hu. Baruch rofeh cholim! And by Yosi Zimilover in honor of Tali Zimilover "in honor of our first anniversary and Tali's continued dedication to the daf and Torah learning." And by Steven Perlin in honor of Elana Perlin "Mazal tov to my wife, Elana Perlin, on her siyum from Masechet Eruvim! I'm so proud of you! Also mazal tov to Judy Levitan - yasher co'ach on your siyum as well!" The gemara continues to raise questions and ultimately rejects their original understanding of Rav Huna that "light" means day and concludes that bedikat chametz happens on the night of the fourteenth of Nissan. Why did the mishna choose this language and not simply say "the night of the fourteenth?" The gemara explains that they wanted to use a nicer language and goes on to bring two statements - on of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and one a braita of Rabbi Yishmael regarding the importance of speaking in nicer language and not saying inappropriate words. The gemara delves more in depth into this, bringing proofs from the Tanach and also raising questions. Stories are brought to show how important it was to the sages to speak in a "clean" language.

Pesachim 2 - November 23, 7 Kislev Nov 22, 2020

This week's shiurim are sponsored by Valerie Adler in honor of her girlfriends who have been learning and sharing this journey - Sherry Begner, Kay Wineberger, Eti Kornbluth, Lisa Baratz and her daughter Anoushka Adler.

Today's shiur is dedicated by Judy Shapiro for the 13th yahrzeit of my beloved father, Albert Tychman, z"l. And by Deborah Kotz in memory of her grandmother, Frieda bat Yosef z"l on her yahrzeit and remembering how much she inspired her students. May her neshama have an aliyah. And by Lesley Nadel in memory of her late sister Ruth Lewis, Rachel bat Berel Halevy of blessed memory whose yahrzeit is today and in recognition of her husband Don who has now completed the entire Shas cycle and begins today his second cycle of Daf Yomi.

One needs to check for chametz on the fourteenth of Nissan at night. Why? One does not need to check a place where there is never chametz. The mishna uses the word "light" to denote night when stating when the check (bedika) should be done. The gemara brings two different opinions about the word "light" - does it mean day or night? Several sources are brought to question each of the opinions.

Eruvin 105 - November 22, 6 Kislev Nov 22, 2020

The siyum is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks zt"l.

It is also dedicated by Dora Chana and Josh Haar in honor of their daughter Evie's bat mitzva. We are so happy that you are celebrating becoming a bat mitzva in a world with wonderful female role models like Rabbanit Farber, who make Torah accessible and inspiring for all. And by Ora Rosenfeld Canter in honor of her daughter, Shira's bat mitzva. "I say a Shira of Thanks for you every day but the Torah itself is called Shira. As Rabbi Sacks A'H explains, it is because in order for Torah to penetrate and affect you spiritually ,it needs to sing to you. I know that as you watch me, toiling over Gemara for the first time in my life, R Akiva style, at age 40+, that you don't always "get it." My bracha to you at this special time is that in the merit of the tremendous effort of Torah study by all these incredible women, that you find your own melody of Torah that sings to you. Own it and make it your own and may Hashem grant me the privilege of humming along. I love you, Mommy." Mazel tov to both of you!

What is the source for Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas' and Rabbi Akiva's opinions regarding taking out a sheretz from the Temple. If the Temple needs repairs or building, who is allowed to go into sanctified areas to do it? Is a Levite or Israelite permitted to go? Is a blemished or impure priest allowed? The mishna ends with a cryptic statement of Rabbi Shimon. What does it mean? To what it is referring? And why is that the final line of the masechet?

Eruvin 104 - Shabbat November 21, 5 Kislev Nov 20, 2020

The gemara discusses other things that are permitted in the Temple but not outside the Temple. If you find an impure dead creature (on of the eight that according to the Torah are impure) in the Temple, how do you remove it and if it is Shabbat, how far do you carry it out to remove it, despite the fact that it is muktze?

Eruvin 103 - November 20, 4 Kislev Nov 20, 2020

Today's daf is dedicated by Sue Ann Hochberg in honor of her children, Zev Daniel and Hanna Paige, "the miracles of my life. I love you now and forever!"

A number of cases are brought of actions that are permitted in the Temple but not outside the Temple. However there are contradictory bratitot and the gemara tries to resolve the contradictions. Can one tie strings of a broken harp in the Temple for the Levites music? Can one cut off a wart either of a priest or a sacrificial animal (to remove the blemish)? Can a priest put on a bandage made of a reed, even though it is used for medicinal purposes? Is it different if he puts a sash on it? Would that create a problem of adding more clothing above what the priest is supposed to wear? Is that only an issue if he adds it in the place where the clothes are meant to be worn?

Eruvin 102 - November 19, 3 Kislev Nov 19, 2020

Pictures

Today’s daf is dedicated by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaimah for her daughter, Bella Winer, Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya, and that Hashem should guide the hands of Dr. John K. Petty, the surgeon operating on her today.

What types of bolts can be used on Shabbat? Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis disagree about bolts that can be used in the Temple and outside the Temple, as in the Temple, rabbinic prohibitions can be overridden. In what way can temporary tents be built? Is wearing a hat with a brim possibly problematic because of building a temporary tent or is it for a different reason? The next few mishnas discuss other things that can be done in the Temple but not outside the Temple, such as fixing bottom hinges. What is the difference between bottom and top hinges. Also returning a bandage that one took off can be done in the Temple but not putting one on from scratch. Or tying a string in a harp that broke but not attaching one to a harp that hadn't yet had strings.

Eruvin 101 - November 18, 2 Kislev Nov 18, 2020

Pictures

Today's daf is dedicated by Daniel and Hazzan Sarah Alexander in honor of their son, Aharon Shmuel ben Daniel v'heChazzan Sarah, who started daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle and today has reached the age of mitzvot. Mazel tov!

The gemara discusses when putting a door in its place is considered building on Shabbat. In what situations can one use a key to unlock a door on Shabbat without it being considered that one moved the key from one domain to another?

Eruvin 100 - November 17, 1 Kislev Nov 17, 2020

Pictures

Chodesh Tov! Our learning in the month of Kislev is dedicated by Pam and Yoav Schwartz to honor the 5th yahrtzeit of their nephew Ezra Schwartz z"l. Ezra's life was full of love, curiosity, laughter, and friendship. May this learning replace some of the light that was lost from this world.

Today's daf is sponsored by Dena and Mark Levie in honor of the birth of their first grandchild, Nadav Shlomo, Son of Ariella, and Ezra Kapetansky. May he grow up to love learning and be a source of nachat to all.

The gemara speaks of the prohibition of using, climbing on trees on Shabbat - under what conditions is it permitted Can one walk on grass on Shabbat? Through a verse in Mishlei they prove the opinion that one cannot; however that verse is also used to teach that a man can't force a women to have intercourse with him. Two contradictory statements are brought whether it is a good thing or is it frowned upon if a woman demands of her husband to fulfill is obligation to have relations with her. In this context, the gemara lists ten curses that Eve was cursed with.

Eruvin 99 - November 16, 29 Cheshvan Nov 16, 2020

Pictures

I would like to dedicate this week's learning in memory of my grandmother Sonja Waschitz, Sara bat Yitzchak and Yenta Rachel z'l who passed away on Shabbat. Thank you, to the amazing Hadran Zoom and some local Hadran communities who got together to make a donation to Hadran in her name, and also specifically to Gitta Neufeld and Mark and Debbie Ziering who sponsored dapim in her name. My grandmother was a special woman who was incredibly resilient and rebuilt her life a number of times, beginning with her first move at age 14 leaving her parents behind in Vienna in 1939 and heading to America on her own, never to see her parents again.

And today's daf is dedicated by Rebecca Schwarzmer for a refuah shelayma for her aunt, Debbie Ginsburg, Devorah bat Rachel v’Netanel haKohen.

The mishna and gemara discuss various examples of being in one domain and moving something in a different domain. Is this permitted or not? On what does it depend?

Eruvin 98 - Sunday November 15, 28 Cheshvan Nov 14, 2020

This week’s learning is dedicated in honor of our Ema, Savta, and Savta Rabba, Rookie Billet, aka “Daf”-ta, on her milestone birthday, one day for each decade. Your commitment to growth and Torah learning inspires us every day. We look forward to celebrating your daf yomi siyum midway between ״seivah” and “gevurah,” b’ezrat Hashem! With love from all the Billets, Exlers, Jacobsons, and Tegers.

In what case does the mishna allow one to bring in a scroll that is still in one's hand while one is sitting on the threshold but rolled out into the public domain? Is it a threshold that is a private domain or is it a carmelit? What is a basis of the debate regarding the case on the roof? The gemara explains the mishna differently than its simple reading. Can one carry out to a ledge outside one's window?

Eruvin 97 - Shabbat November 14, 27 Cheshvan Nov 13, 2020

Pictures

The gemara brings a different explanation for the new tefillin and why they can't be brought into the city on Shabbat. If one buys a number of sets of tefillin from an unreputable scribe, how many need to be checked before one can establish that this is a reliable scribe? What is the danger described in the mishna - danger from gentiles who don't allow Jews to don tefillin or from robbers? The mishna mentions one can pass from person to person - what about carry less than four cubits? What is the difference between those options? What is the case in the mishna regarding the child being carried? For what purpose do they need to carry the baby? Why does it say even one hundred people? Why does Rabbi Yehuda allow the barrel to be carried outside the techum? The mishna describes someone reading a scroll and part of the scroll rolls into the public domain - under what circumstances can one roll it back in?

Eruvin 96 - November 13, 26 Cheshvan Nov 13, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 96

A week of learning is dedicated by Lisa Malik in memory of her father, David Malik, David ben Aharon Tzvi v’ Shaindel z”l on his first yahrzeit.

The gemara brings two more possibilities to understand the debate between Tana Kama and Rabban Gamliel regarding how many pairs of tefillin can one wear at a time in order to bring them from the field into the city of Shabbat? According to the gemara's conclusion, at least Tana Kama holds that one wears tefillin on Shabbat and therefore the gemara tries to find who is the tana who holds that way? The gemara brings four suggestions. One of them is from a source regarding Michal daughter to Cushi (King Saul) who wore tefillin and the rabbis didn't protest. They assume it's because he held that one is obligated even on Shabbat and therefore it is not time bound, in which case women would be obligated. Despite the fact that the gemara rejects this, claiming that the rabbis didn't protest because women are allowed to opt in to commandments they are not commanded to do, in the end the gemara brings a proof from a different source that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda in fact hold this position. An interesting question is raised regarding women opting in - is it forbidden to do a commandment one is not obligated to? Is it bal tosif (one cannot add to what the Torah commanded)? If one finds techlelet-dyed wool strips or thread, can one assume they were dyed for tzitzit. It depends in what form as one can assume that one wouldn't burden themselves to do thing sin a complicated manner just for clothing and therefore it must have been for tzitzit. Rava questions this from our mishna regarding one confusing an amulet and tefillin - would one bother to make an amulet like tefillin - it is compliccated to make it in that way!

Eruvin 95 - November 12, 25 Cheshvan Nov 12, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 95

Do Rava and Abaye disagree about whether or not we can use imaginary walls created by a ceiling, pi tikra yored v'sotem (when there are no actual walls on any side), as Rav and Shmuel disagree? Does Rabbi Yosi in the mishna who disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda (that the beginning of Shabbat is the determining factor) permit in these cases or forbid? Do we hold like Rabbi Yehuda or Rabbi Yosi? Shmuel holds like Rabbi Yehuda, however the gemara questions that based on a different source. The mishna discusses cases of a bridge or a second floor built over the public domain - can one carry beneath it? On what basis would it be permitted? Can one fix (make an eruv) an alley that is open on two sides? On what basis could one permit? The tenth chapter begins with a discussion of tefillin found in a field. One is obligated to "save" them. How can one carry them on Shabbat - only if they wear them? Tana Kama and Rabban Gamliel disagree about whether one wears one pair or two at a time . What is the root of their debate? Does it connect with other basic debates such as, is one supposed to wear tefillin on Shabbat, do mitzvot need intent in order to fulfill them, is it forbidden due to bal tosif, adding to mitzvot, to wear two pairs at a time?

Eruvin 94 - November 11, 24 Cheshvan Nov 11, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 94

Today’s daf is dedicated by Tzippy Wolkenfeld for a refuah shleima for Yakira Leeba bat Sara Gita, “our sweet brave girl.”

If a courtyard wall is breached on Shabbat, do we say that since it was permitted at the onset of Shabbat to carry in each individual courtyard, the status remains the rest of Shabbat or not? If a courtyard is breached into the public domain, what is the status of that courtyard? Rabbi Eliezer says it is now considered a public domain and the rabbis call it a carmelit. The gemara struggles to understand how Rabbi Eliezer could view this space that belongs to the courtyard residents as a public domain and therefore narrows the debate to the space where the wall once stood that is not the subject of debate between the public and the courtyard residents. Or that the debate is really about the sides of the public domain that are sometimes used by the public and therefore also would extend to this case regarding the space near the border of the courtyard and the public domain. How does this work in with the wording of the mishna. The mishna states that if two walls of a courtyard or a house collapse on Shabbat, what is the status for that Shabbat. Two opinions are brought, however they both agree that regarding the next Shabbat, this is a breach. What size breach and why is it specifically two walls and not one? Due to this question, Rav and Shmuel each narrow the case of the mishna to a very specific type of breach in the corner. What do Rav and Shmuel disagree about regarding a ceiling dropping down and creating imaginary walls? In what size structure do they disagree?

Eruvin 93 - November 10, 23 Cheshvan Nov 10, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 93

Abaye disagrees with those who said that the larger courtyard absorbs the inhabitants of the smaller courtyard as how can there be a barrier that connects rather than separates and therefore forbids (like planting near a vineyard? Various rabbis try to show Abaye that walls can connect/forbid in various situations but each time Abaye responds that the case isn't comparable. Rav Yehuda brings a case of encampments in large spaces shared like the courtyards discussed (walls seen from one side but not the other) - they are viewed as one whole unit if the outer ones can see walls when going into the inner one for the same logic as stated before that the larger courtyard absorbs the inhabitants of the smaller. Rav Chisda and Rav Mesharshia disagree about whether an embankment of 5 handbreadths can join with a wall of 5 and be considered a proper wall for laws of courtyards. A bratia is brought against Rav Chisda and three answers are brought. If the situation changes on Shabbat and a wall between courtyards is breached, does this prevent the inhabitants from carrying as they are now viewed as one whole, or can they rely on the fact that when Shabbat started, they were permitted and therefore also now. Can we learn the answer from our mishna?

Eruvin 92 - November 9, 22 Cheshvan Nov 09, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 92

Today's daf is dedicated with gratitude to Hashem by Tina and Shalom Lamm to celebrate a new grandchild, Kedem Nachum Isaac, born to their children, Peninah and Eitan Kaplansky. The gemara questions Rabbi Yochanan's opinion regarding Rabbi Shimon based on a mishna. If there are two courtyards with a churva in between and one made an eruv and one didn't, can each of them carry to the churva or neither of them or both of them? The mishna discusses the case of a large roof opening up into a smaller one and the same for a courtyard. Why is it necessary to bring both cases? Some rabbis explained that the larger courtyard absorbs the residents of the smaller one but the smaller one does not absorb the larger one. They bring 5 different areas of halacha and explain the ramifications like giving a divorce document to a woman by placing it in the other courtyard or praying with nine people of the minyan in one space and one in the other, and other cases. Abaye disagrees with them on the basis that how can having a mechitza make the two areas seem closer? The rabbis try to disprove his logical argument.

Eruvin 91 - November 8, 21 Cheshvan Nov 08, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 91

Today’s daf is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, HaRav Yaakov Zvi ben David Aryeh, zt”l who passed away yesterday. His teachings of Torah and human values will be shared and valued for generations. May his memory be blessed and may his family be comforted among the mourners of Zion.

Rav Yehuda delves into the opinions of Rabbi Meir, the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon and explains what there would hold about carrying from the various areas to each other - like roof to courtyard to enclosure. The gemara brings a proof to support Rav's view of the rabbis that one can only carry four cubits on the roof if it is adjacent to another. Rav disagrees with Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan regarding whether Rabbi Shimon allows carrying between areas even in a case where the courtyard residents made a eruv or only in a case where no eruv was made? The gemara brings questions against each of the opinions.

Eruvin 90 - Shabbat November 7, 20 Cheshvan Nov 06, 2020

Pictures

Today’s daf is dedicated by Mindy Feldman Hecht in honor of her mother, Rella Feldman’s birthday. "Mom, I’m so proud by your commitment to learning daf yomi and thrilled that we are connected in our joint effort! The gemara deals with several debates between Rav and Shmuel regarding carrying on roofs according to Rabbi Meir and the rabbis and also regarding boats or a portico. Can one carry only four cubits - is it viewed as a carmelit - or can one carry in the whole space - is it viewed as a private domain? On what does it depend? When can we use the principles that we view the walls as if they go up gut asik mechitzta) or we can view a ceiling as if it drops down (pi tikra yored v'sotem)

Eruvin 89 - November 6, 19 Cheshvan Nov 06, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 89

Today's Daf is sponsored by Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker in loving Memory of her much-missed mother Arlene Goodstein, Enya Bat Chana v' Moshe's 5th yahrzeit. "My mother's presence is felt every day with all the wonderful things she taught us, her love of Judaism and Israel, and all the strength she gave us. She would be very proud of her daughter studying Talmud." Can one carry from roof to roof or enclosure to enclosure or courtyard to courtyard? There are three opinions. What is the background to these approaches? According to the rabbis, the roof follows the house and one cannot carry from one to the other. Rav and Shmuel debate whether according to the rabbis one could carry on the roof itself or only 4 cubits? Their argument depends on using imaginary walls (gut asik mechitzta) - in what situations can we use that principle?

Eruvin 88 - November 5, 18 Cheshvan Nov 05, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 88

Today's daf is sponsored by Rabbi Amy Bardack in memory of the 11 lives lost in the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting two years ago today. And our learning this week will be in memory of Eli Hoffman z"l who passed away yesterday. Why did Rabbi Chanania ben Akavia permit those three things in Tiberias? Can one use the suspended walls coming out of the ledge only to draw water, but not to dump waste water? Or can it be used for both? If one steals a space from someone, does the original owner need to be part of the eruv or not? How does this make sense in light of the case in the mishna of the one who had a lower ledge and didn't make a suspended wall and uses (seemingly without permission) the wall of the upper ledge and thereby forbids the owner from using it unless they make a eruv together? The mishna and gemara discuss ways in which people can or cannot remove water from their house through the courtyard or the roof. What are the necessary requirements/what are the issues involved?

Eruvin 87 - November 4, 17 Cheshvan Nov 04, 2020

Pictures

Today's daf is dedicated by Kay Weinberger for a refuah shlema to her dear sister Helen Taylor, Chana bat Chava, as well as a refuah shlema to her beloved grandson, Yuval Mironi, Yuval ben Elisheva Sarah, who is undergoing major surgery today. And by Caroline Ben-Ari in honor of her 65th birthday. Mazal Tov!

The gemara compares Rabbi Yehuda's opinion permitting the wall of the courtyard to allow sharing of the water underneath it to Rabbi Chanania ben Akavia's position allowing a large ledge (4x4 cubits) with a hole in the middle of 4x4 handbreadths to permit drawing water from a body of water underneath (particularly the Kinneret). Would they each agree with the other? The rabbis infer from Rabbi Chanania that he would even permit less in particular situations. If a channel runs through a courtyard, are the residents permitted to draw the water? What is necessary to enable that - what are the different opinions? If there are windows and they want to draw from the windows, if it is less than 3 or less than for (debate between the rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, they can. There are three opinions about what needs to be less the three - the bank of the channel, the channel itself or an outlet created in the mechitza at the entrance to the courtyard? What is the root of the debate between the rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? The mishna explains how one can draw water from the water below their house by making a hole in a ledge 4x4 and walls going either up or down for a length of ten handbreadths. The gemara states that the mishna doesn't agree with Chanania ben Akavia who permitted just a ledge 4x4 cubits with a hole 4x4 handbreadths. Rabbi Chanania permitted it just to the people of Tiberias. He also permitted them two other things. What were they?

Eruvin 86 - November 3, 16 Cheshvan Nov 03, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 86

Another week of our learning is dedicated for the refuah shleima of Eliahu Yonatan Ben Gittel Mira by Jeanne Klempner and Goody Weil. We continue to pray for Eli's recovery and hope all of our learning will be a source of strength and to him and his family.

According to Rabbi Yehuda, if the owner has some sort of hold on the property, even if someone else is living there, there is no need for an eruv. What type of hold is needed. in this context, a story is told about ben Bunios and his wealth and how the rabbis treated him with respect. Why is it important to respect the wealthy? If one leaves one's house for Shabbat, do they still need to be part of the eruv, and if not, they forbid the others from carrying? On what does it depend? Is there a difference between a Jew and a gentile? Rabbi Shimon says if one is going to one's daughter even in the same town, they do not forbid as clearly there are not going home. However, Rav infers that only one's daughter, but not one's son, due to the complicated nature of the relationship between a daughter-in-law and her in-laws. If there is a well between two courtyards, what is needed to allow each side to draw from their side of the well? Is the idea of viewing walls as imaginary walls that go do to the ground, allowed only where water is involved? Rabbi Sosi allows it for Sukka. Would he necessarily agree that it is allowed also for Shabbat. and if not, why in the case in Tzipori, in order to get a Torah to shul on Shabbat, they allowed it through walls that did not go all the way to the ground? The gemara suggests that maybe it was after his death and it was his son that permitted.

Eruvin 85 - November 2, 15 Cheshvan Nov 02, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 85

Today's daf is dedicated by Gitta Neufeld in honor of the Hadran English Zoom Shiur. With deepest gratitude for your care and concern. "As I sat in a scary emergency room waiting room, unable to be at my husband's bedside because of COVID regulations, the shiur was my anchor and my rock. Baruch Hashem, we were able to come home - and I managed to complete the daf! הודו לה' כי טוב כי לעולם חסדו"

A pit between two courtyards at a distance of four handbreadths from each courtyard - according to Shmuel, in order to permit drawing water, each would need to put up a small ledge as a reminder that if they were closer, each would forbid the other from carrying. Rav Yehuda allows even with a reed jutting out. Abaye says that Rav Yehuda was based on Shmuel and not Rav as Rav would not require anything here as access when one needs to get through airspace (of four handbreadths or more) would not forbid the other. The gemara tries to figure out from where Abaye knows Rav and Shmuel's opinions on this topic. After establishing that, the gemara questions both Rav and Shmuel. Where can one put eruv chatzerot? And what places are not allowed? What about shituf mevoot?

Eruvin 84 - November 1, 14 Cheshvan Nov 01, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 84

Today's daf is dedicated by Debbie Ziering in loving memory of her mother, Evelyn Trotzky, Esther Chava bat Avraham z"l on her 23rd yahrtzeit. "A woman of quiet strength, grace and dignity, taken from us much too early." And for a refuah shleima of David ben Eidel.

Rav and Shmuel disagree in a place that is accessible to one location by lowering down and the other by throwing - what is the law? To Rav, it is equally accessible to both and if they did not make a eruv with each other, meither can carry there. Shmuel holds that it is easier to access something by lowering than by throwing and therefore it is permitted for the one who it is accessible to by lowering. The gemara brings tannaitic sources, including our mishna, to try to prove who is right (two for each side) but each suggestion is rejected.

Eruvin 83 - Shabbat October 31, 13 Cheshvan Oct 30, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 83

This shiur is dedicated by the Greenstone cousins in honor of the birthday of our cousin, Lana Kerzner, a lawyer and advocate of social justice, a role model to the women and men of our family. The loaf mentioned in the mishna is relevant for various measurements - for what? Why isn't the measurement for food impurities listed in the mishna as that is also based on the loaf. The gemara goes through various measurements and discusses where the size of an egg used in these measurements is exactly an egg or not. The sizes used in measurements got larger over time. What are the differences between them? On what size loaf is one obligated to separate challah? The mishna describes a situation with a porch and a courtyard that had mead an eruv separately as they are considered two separate spaces. If there is an item in the courtyard at a height of 10 handbreadths and close to the porch, it is considered part of the porch. Otherwise, it is considered part of the courtyard.

Eruvin 83 - Shabbat October 31, 13 Cheshvan Oct 30, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 83

This shiur is dedicated by the Greenstone cousins in honor of the birthday of our cousin, Lana Kerzner, a lawyer and advocate of social justice, a role model to the women and men of our family. The loaf mentioned in the mishna is relevant for various measurements - for what? Why isn't the measurement for food impurities listed in the mishna as that is also based on the loaf. The gemara goes through various measurements and discusses where the size of an egg used in these measurements is exactly an egg or not. The sizes used in measurements got larger over time. What are the differences between them? On what size loaf is one obligated to separate challah? The mishna describes a situation with a porch and a courtyard that had mead an eruv separately as they are considered two separate spaces. If there is an item in the courtyard at a height of 10 handbreadths and close to the porch, it is considered part of the porch. Otherwise, it is considered part of the courtyard.

Eruvin 82 - October 30, 12 Cheshvan Oct 30, 2020

Is it really true that every time Rabbi Yehuda says "when is this the case?" in the mishna, he is explaining the rabbi's opinion and not disagreeing? In Sanhedrin when it talks about gamblers and others who are not allowed to testify in court, Rabib Yehuda said "When is it the case? Only when they have no other occupation." And it seems that the rabbis disagree from another source. The gemara proves that the opinion from the other source isn't the rabbis' but Rabbi Tarfon's. How can one do an eruv to include others who may want to join. By what point do they need to decide when they want to join - before Shabbat or during? Does it have to do with the laws regarding breira, retroactive designation? Is a child automatically included in their mother's eruv? Until what age? There seem to be some contradictions between sources and the gemara tries to resolve them. Can a man make a eruv for his wife, for his children or Jewish or Canaanite slaves without their knowledge? What if they protest? Two meals' worth are required for an eruv techimum. A Shabbat size meal or a weekday? Which is larger - there is a debate about this!! What is the size of an average loaf and is the size of tat loaf, the measure for two meals or only part of the average loaf? Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka and Rabbi Shimon disagree about these two points.

Eruvin 82 - October 30, 12 Cheshvan Oct 30, 2020

Is it really true that every time Rabbi Yehuda says "when is this the case?" in the mishna, he is explaining the rabbi's opinion and not disagreeing? In Sanhedrin when it talks about gamblers and others who are not allowed to testify in court, Rabib Yehuda said "When is it the case? Only when they have no other occupation." And it seems that the rabbis disagree from another source. The gemara proves that the opinion from the other source isn't the rabbis' but Rabbi Tarfon's. How can one do an eruv to include others who may want to join. By what point do they need to decide when they want to join - before Shabbat or during? Does it have to do with the laws regarding breira, retroactive designation? Is a child automatically included in their mother's eruv? Until what age? There seem to be some contradictions between sources and the gemara tries to resolve them. Can a man make a eruv for his wife, for his children or Jewish or Canaanite slaves without their knowledge? What if they protest? Two meals' worth are required for an eruv techimum. A Shabbat size meal or a weekday? Which is larger - there is a debate about this!! What is the size of an average loaf and is the size of tat loaf, the measure for two meals or only part of the average loaf? Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka and Rabbi Shimon disagree about these two points.

Eruvin 81 - October 29, 11 Cheshvan Oct 29, 2020

Today's daf is sponsored by the Cohen, Raye and Maybaum families in honor of the 35th yahrzeit of their father Michael Maybaum, Michael Avraham Zerach z"l. "A very unique and special man who loved Torah learning and inspired his children on this path". And by Navah Levine in memory of my spouse Claudia Yellin (Tzivya bat Leah v' Woolf z"l), on her 3rd yahrzeit a beloved partner and mother, relative, therapist, and friend, who brought love and laughter into a complicated world. And by Nina Black in memory of her father, Sidney Black, Shlomo Nissan ben Yakov Reuven z"l, on his yahrzeit. "He was a good, kind man who would have been so pleased that his daughter is doing Daf Yomi."

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree in the mishna about what can be used for eruv chatzerot. How does the gemara understand their disagreement? Rabbi Yehoshua does not allow slices on bread in order to decrease bad feelings between neighbors. The gemara asks several other details regarding these laws such as what if only a little piece was removed for challa for instance? What kinds of breads can be used - can one use lentil bread for instance? The gemara quotes a verse from Ezekiel Chapter 4 regarding a bread made from many different types of grains that was looked down upon as something for poor, desolate people - a sign of the impending destruction. If one wants to purchase one's share in the eruv and asks for the person to transfer them rights, if they only put money down, does that work? Are they in effect trying to do a purchase (and did not succeed as money does not create an acquisition) or were they just telling the person to be their messenger (which can be done). Is there a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis regarding whether or not in eruv chatzerot the principle applicable that we can transfer ownership to someone without their knowledge if it is good for them? Or do they agree?

Eruvin 80 - October 10, 11 Cheshvan Oct 28, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 80

Today's daf is dedicated by Judy and Jerel Shapiro in memory of the 7th yahrzeit of their dear brother David Tychman, z"l and by Risa Tzohar in loving memory of her grandmother Rissel bat Deena v'Shmuel Lev z"l on her yahrtzeit.

Eruvin 79 - October 27, 9 Cheshvan Oct 27, 2020

Pictures

Today’s daf is dedicated by Emma and Richard Rinberg and family in memory of Naftali Meir ben Harav Binyamin Dov and Emily Rickman on his first yahrzeit. Naftali was 15 when he passed away, a beloved son, grandson and brother. May his memory be blessed. And by Jeanne Klempner and Goody Weil for a refuah shleima for Eliyahu Yonatan ben Gitel Mira who is in critical condition and needs a refuah shleima. He is a high-tech executive whose previous experience as a Gemara rebbe shows through in his logic and sharp thinking. His wonderful family and many friends and colleagues all need him to get well.

The gemara raises a contradiction between the mishna in Ohalot and our mishna regarding unspecified dirt or rocks that fill a space. Do we assume, they are there permanently or not? The gemara brings three explanations. If there is a board over the ditch or connecting two porches, what are the conditions needed to this to effectively connect the two sides and allow them to make an eruv? The mishna brings a case of a wall made of hay that is ten handbreadths tall. It is considered a barrier between two courtyards and one can even bring one's animal to eat from the hay, even if the wall may diminish in size which would then require an eruv between the two sides. In what way is one allowed to bring one's animals to eat? How does this work out with a different braita regarding a house between two courtyards with a large mound of hay in the middle? The gemara delves into all the details mentioned in that braita including comparison to eruv techumim, changes that occur over Shabbat and relinquishing of rights. The mishna discusses how exactly one does shituf mevoot. The gemara then brings various statements made by the elders of Pumbedita. What do these random halachot have to do with each other and with shituf mevoot?

Eruvin 78 - October 26, 8 Cheshvan Oct 26, 2020

Pictures

The gemara continues its discussion regarding objects that can make the wall more accessible - objects jutting out of the wall - do they need ladders - situated where? If the height of the wall is 19 or more than 20, how many items jutting out of the wall need to be there and at what height and position? If there is a beam in the public domain that is 10 high and 4x4 wide and is considered a private domain for purposes of carrying between it and the public domain, if there is a peg on top of it, does that limits its use and therefore its size and would it become an exempt space? There are different opinions about this. When one puts in a ladder - at what angle and at what height would it diminish the space (what would then be the necessary length of the ladder)? Rav Yosef asks Rabba a number of questions of cases where the ladder does not have a minimum of 4 but something else can help it to be as if it has four - would these work? He raises a number of different situations. If a ladder was made out of a tree (which is forbidden by rabbinic law to use of Shabbat) or an Ashera tree (which was used for idol worship and is forbidden to benefit from), is it considered that the courtyards are accessible to each other theoretically, even if not practically. Various opinions are brought. Does it connect to other similar debates regarding eruv techumim in a tree or in a grave, that is also forbidden to benefit from? If there is a ditch 10 high and 4x4 wide, that separates two courtyards, one cannot make an eruv together. What if it was filled with straw or dirt? Is there a difference between the two? Why? If there is a beam that connects the two sides, then one can make an eruv together or separately.

Eruvin 77 - October 25, 7 Cheshvan Oct 25, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 77

Today’s daf (עז) is dedicated by Shelley and Jerry Gornish in memory of Oz Wilchek z"l, "our עז - our beloved and greatly missed grandson."

How tall a wall is considered a separation between two courtyards that they would not be able to make an eruv together? If the wall is four handbreadths wide, each courtyard can access items at the top of the wall but cannot bring them down to their courtyard as the wall is a private domain in and of itself. What if the wall were less than four wide? Can one bring items from their courtyard to the wall as it is considered an exempt domain? What if the wall is ten high to one courtyard but lower for the other (as the ground of that one is higher)? The gemara brings various cases where one tries to lower the height of the wall, meaning to make it more accessible - either by lowering the wall itself or putting something on the floor to allow easier access. Does this mean that one can now use the wall as it is considered lower than ten? The gemara brings several different cases including ladders and other items.

Eruvin 76 - Shabbat October 24, 6 Cheshvan Oct 23, 2020

Pictures

If there are three houses next to each other situated in between two courtyards, how can one make an eruv? What if there were only two houses? If two courtyards have a window in between them, if the window is 4x4 handbreadths and within 10 handbreadths from the ground, we consider this an opening and then can make an eruv together. What if the window was a circle, what would be the circumference of a circle that would encompass a square of 4x4 inside of it? Rav Nachman said that the requirement that it be within ten of the ground would not be relevant in a house. What if there was a wall in between the two courtyards that was ten high and 4 wide? Does this prevent the courtyards from being able to make an eruv? What if the wall was breached? At what size is it significant?

Eruvin 75 - October 23, 5 Cheshvan Oct 23, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 75

Today’s daf is dedicated by Rabbi Rebecca Einstein Schorr in honor of the first yahrtzeit of her grandfather Dov ben Yitzchak Yaakov HaLevi v'Rayzel z"l. "He would be thrilled to know that his death inspired me to take on the commitment to Daf Yomi." And by Sara Berelowitz in memory of her father Zvi ben Moshe z"l on his 12th yahrzeit. He always had a Soncino Gemara with him until the Shteinzaltz came out.

The mishna brings various permutations of two courtyards - an inner and an outer - what if one does an eruv and one does not, or both make their own eruv or they make one together and one person forgets, or there is only one person living in the courtyard. What is the law in each case? The gemara introduces the concept of "one who is allowed/not allowed to walk in their space, do they forbid/permit one who is in a different space" - if the space is space that they normally walk through (the inner as it walks through the outer). In other words - does the fact that the inner can walk through the outer forbid the outer space (if they don't make one eruv together) or not, and if so, under what circumstances? Who holds what (Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis) and are there two opinions or three? Rav Dimi brings and interpretation of the rabbis in the mishna in the name of Rabbi Yannai. But the gemara raises several questions until Ravin brought a different tradition. The gemara brings a bratia to support a statement and in that braita is another debate between Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis is brought up regarding an inner and outer courtyard. Raba bar Chanan and Abaye try to understand what is the root of the debate. The mishna permits a case of individuals - what about a case of 3 people living between the two courtyards?

Eruvin 74 - October 22, 4 Cheshvan Oct 22, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 74

Today’s daf is dedicated by Yehudit Robinson in honor of Sarah Robinson, Mishna and Talmud teacher at Manhattan Day School. And by Navah Levine in honor of Rachel Levy. With appreciation to a most enthusiastic and encouraging chevruta. "Thank you for helping to keep me on this Daf Yomi Derekh. Happy birthday."

In order to permit carrying in an alley by using a side post or a cross beam, what is the minimum requirement of houses/courtyards in the alley? If this minimum is not there, the alley must be treated like a courtyard and either two side posts, one side post four handbreadths wide or a frame (tzurat hapetach) is needed. There are three opinions brought - by Rav, Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan. The gemara first questions Rabbi Yochanan and also brings a different law of Rabbi Yochanan that matches his opinion here. Then they bring a difficulty for Shmuel - does he change his mind or not? Rav states a law regarding three houses that open to each other and only one opens directly to the alley. On the other side of the alley there is a gentile. One cannot make an eruv through the window of the inner houses. Why not? Would it be the same if they house of the Jew and the gentile opened up to a courtyard instead? Why would one think to distinguish between the cases?

Eruvin 73 - October 21, 3 Cheshvan Oct 21, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 73

Today's daf is sponsored by Arlene Sevrinsky in memory of her father, Mordechai ben Avraham z"l on his yahrzeit. He taught us to love family, torah, learning and music. May his neshama have an aliyah. And by Hannah and Michael Piotrkowski in memory of Hannah's mother, Tsina Tova bat Leib Yisroel z"l on her 50th yahrzeit. She valued humility above all and is more loved and remembered as the years pass.

What is the determining factor regarding eruv - where one sleeps or where one eats? If a man has a number of wives who each live in their own house, are they considered one unit for eruv or separate units? What about slaves? A student at his rabbi's house if he sleeps and eats there? Can one view a father and children or a rabbi and student as one unit for certain laws of eruvin and as separate units for others (in order to be lenient)? The mishna brings a number of cases regarding courtyards that open to each other and also to a shared alley. If they did only eruv of the courtyards or only shituf mevo'ot (sharing of alleyways), would it cover the other? What if there were both but one person/courtyard didn't join the eruv/shituf? The gemara struggles to understand the mishna as it seems to side on different sides of the Rabbi Meir/Rabbis debate regarding can one suffice with only one of the two. In the end, they conclude the mishna is all rabbi Meir and they explain the cases to match his opinion. Rav has an alternate version of the mishna - that the courtyards do not open to each other. Why does he not agree with the other version?

Today's daf is sponsored by Arlene Sevrinsky in memory of her father, Mordechai ben Avraham z"l on his yahrzeit. He taught us to love family, torah, learning and music. May his neshama have an aliyah. And by Hannah and Michael Piotrkowski in memory of Hannah's mother, Tsina Tova bat Leib Yisroel z"l on her 50th yahrzeit. She valued humility above all and is more loved and remembered as the years pass.

What is the determining factor regarding eruv - where one sleeps or where one eats? If a man has a number of wives who each live in their own house, are they considered one unit for eruv or separate units? What about slaves? A student at his rabbi's house if he sleeps and eats there? Can one view a father and children or a rabbi and student as one unit for certain laws of eruvin and as separate units for others (in order to be lenient)? The mishna brings a number of cases regarding courtyards that open to each other and also to a shared alley. If they did only eruv of the courtyards or only shituf mevo'ot (sharing of alleyways), would it cover the other? What if there were both but one person/courtyard didn't join the eruv/shituf? The gemara struggles to understand the mishna as it seems to side on different sides of the Rabbi Meir/Rabbis debate regarding can one suffice with only one of the two. In the end, they conclude the mishna is all rabbi Meir and they explain the cases to match his opinion. Rav has an alternate version of the mishna - that the courtyards do not open to each other. Why does he not agree with the other version?

Eruvin 72 - October 20, 2 Cheshvan Oct 20, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 72

Today's daf is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Harav Yaakov Zvi ben Liba. And by Dr. Robin Zeiger and Professor Jonathan Ben-Ezra in honor of the wedding today of their daughter Nechama. "Nechama- you have no idea how much joy you bring to your father when you send him a page of Gemara you are learning in class and say, 'Abba- I remember learning this sugya with you.'"

There is a debate how to understand the debate between rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding one who either did joining of the alleyway or eruv of the courtyards - can one carry both between the courtyards and into the alleyway. Do they disagree only in the case where the joining of the alleyway was done with bread or only when it was done with wine? Do we hold like Rabbi Meir who is stringent? The mishna brings a debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel regarding five people who live in a large room that is sectioned off into five unique spaces. Is this viewed as one for purposes of doing an eruv with other people in the courtyard or not (do they all give one portion or 5 separate ones)? The gemara first brings four different explanations regarding the debate. What type of separation is there between the sections? Do they disagree in the case of walls that do not have halachic status as walls (less than 120 handbreadths) or walls that are 10 handbreadths but do not reach the ceiling or walls that reach the ceiling? The gemara then brings two other explanations regarding the debate - is the debate about where the eruv is placed - in their room or in another house in the courtyard? If a family lives in a courtyard each with one's own separate space, do they join the eruv with others in the courtyard as one or as individuals? On what does it depend - where they sleep, where they eat? If one lives in someone else's property, what determines whether or not they need to join the eruv separately. Does it depend on what type of space is the person sleeping in - if it is a place normally used for living or not?

Eruvin 71 - October 19, 1 Cheshvan Oct 19, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 71

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Tamara Katz in honor of the yahrzeits of her grandparents, Sarah bat Chaya v'Tzvi Hirsh and Meir Leib ben Esther v'Harav Yehoshua Zelig z"l.

The gemara brings a third source to question Rav Nachman’s opinion that one who inherits property on Shabbat can relinquish rights to the property. The gemara brings two answers. Ulla and Abaye disagree regarding relinquishing of rights on Shabbat. According, their opinions are shaped by the way they understand how the mechanism of relinquishing rights works – it is that the others are acquiring rights to the other’s property or is it that one is removing oneself from the property? If one has food in two separate partnerships with each courtyard that is next to him/her, can that serve as an eruv between them all? Or between some of them? There are three opinions. Does it depend on whether the partnerships are with the same food item? Does it need to all be in one utensil? Raba and Rav Yosef disagree about how to understand the root of the debate among the tannaim.

Eruvin 70 - October 18, 30 Tishrei Oct 18, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 70

This week's shiurim are sponsored by Rabbi Fredda Cohen in honor of her grandchildren, Violet Noa and Remy Meyer, and their great grandmother bubbie Paula Cohen, on the occasion of her 88th birthday. Yom Huledet Sameach. Today's shiur is dedicated by Gary Zeitlin in honor of the 5th yahrzeit of Susan Zeitlin z"l, a "kanai" for her family and for yiddishkeit. And by Oren and Rachel Seliger in memory of Rifka Esther bat Sara Gittel and Yeshaya Halevi z"l on her 10th yahrzeit. She was always engaged in learning and went to weekly shiurim. She would be proud of her children learning daf yomi.

The gemara continues to analyze the cases in the mishna of when relinquishing of rights is effective and when it is not. Abaye asks Rabba whether one needs to relinquish rights to everyone or is it enough to relinquish to one of the people who were part of the eruv? Rabba says one needs to do it to everyone. Abaye disagrees and questions Rabba from a braita and the gemara goes in depth into all the cases in the braita to explain them in general and in accordance with Rabba and Abaye. Rava asks Rav Nachman if one who inherits property on Shabbat can relinquish rights. Rav Nachman says yes, but adds that Shmuel disagrees. Rava brings several sources that seem to go against Rav Nachman. Two are brought in this daf and they are both resolved.

Eruvin 69 - Shabbat October 17, 29 Tishrei Oct 16, 2020

The mishna and the braita have different versions of Rabbi Yehuda's opinion regarding Rabban Gamliel's approach to Sadducees and eruvin. One implies the law regarding Jews is true for them that they can relinquish their rights and the other seems to hold that they are treated as gentiles. How is this contradiction reconciled? What makes someone considered a mumar, an apostate for all laws of the Torah? Is there a different definition for eruv than for other areas of law? If there is a courtyard in which one or more members did not join the eruv, how can one relinquish their rights and what then is permitted in the courtyard? The mishna brings a number of different scenarios and the gemara begins to analyze the different cases.

Eruvin 68 - October 16, 28 Tishrei Oct 16, 2020

Pictures

Today's shiur is dedicated in memory of Rana Samuels Ofran z"l on her yahrzeit by Erin Piateski.

The gemara brings several cases where they had heated water before Shabbat for a baby for the brit milah and it spilled. In each case, they found a solution for how to get more water, either by carrying from a nearby courtyard, even though there was no eruv (by asking a gentile to move the water or by having someone relinquish rights) or by heating water for the mother if she was still considered in danger. Can one relinquish rights to another and then the other person can relinquish their rights back? Rav and Shmuel disagree about this. Is their debate connected to a tannitic debate? Is a Sadducee treated like a gentile for laws of eruv or like a Jew? There is a debate between Rabban Gamliel and the rabbis about this.

Eruvin 67 - October 15, 27 Tishrei Oct 15, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 67

Today's daf is dedicated in honor of Sam Cohen, starting a year of shlichut in Germany. Wishing you only the best and may we continue to strengthen each other and continue daf yomi. Also thank you to our amazing teacher who constantly makes complicated sugiout comprehensible and relatable. Ben and Shai.

Rav Chisda asks Rav Sheshet two questions regarding situations that changed over Shabbat regarding gentiles (the gentile fenced in two houses that were previously separated by a public domain or the gentile died on Shabbat) would relinquishing of rights be allowed? A gentile who lives in the same alleyway as Jews but has a separate smaller entrance, can one assume the gentile prefers that entrance and is not considered part of the shared alleyway and therefore one would not need to rent the space from the gentile. On what does it depend? What are laws regarding a karpaf when it comes to carrying from the public domain into it, if it is larger than beit sa'atayim and considered a carmelit. Rabbi Yochanan says it is still viewed as a private domain for those purposes and one would be obligated by Torah law. A braita is brought to contradict and Rava and Rav Ashi bring two possible answers.

Eruvin 66 - October 14, 26 Tishrei Oct 14, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 66

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of Avraham Nachum ben Yitzchak Refael z"l on his yahrzeit. His dedication to Daf Yomi is an inspiration to his family, who continue in his footsteps. And by Debbie and Michael Schreiber in honor of our first grandchild Naomi Frumit to our children Yarden and Adam Schreiber of Jerusalem. May she flourish and grow and may her parents raise her to torah, chuppah and maasim tovim in a home that I know will be filled with love and simcha and Torah learning.

Does Rabbi Yochanan really hold that one can make a rental arrangement on Shabbat with a gentile to allow carrying as happened in the situation at the inn? Didn't Rabbi Yochanan make a comparison between making an eruv (which can only be done on Shabbat) and renting from a gentile? The gemara explains the comparison as regarding other issues and not whether or not it can be done on Shabbat. Shmuel describes differences between cases where there are courtyards and one forbids or doesn't forbid the other and one can or cannot make an eruv with the other and concludes in which circumstances relinquishing rights would be permitted. One of his cases seems to be referring to the case in the inn with the gentile and Shmuel's conclusion contradicts Rabbi Yochanan who allowed relinquishing of rights in that case (after the gentile rented the space to them, they needed to relinquish their rights to one of the Jews as their eruv was nullified). The gemara delves more in depth into Shmuel's approach in some of the cases he mentioned which is based on the concept that relinquishing of rights from one courtyard to another is forbidden. Rava and Abaye disagree regarding the extent to which Shmuel said this? In which cases would be make exceptions?

Eruvin 65 - October 13, 25 Tishrei Oct 13, 2020

Pictures

Is one exempt from prayer, or prayer with the proper intent if one is drunk? Is one who is drunk liable for one's actions in general? Can one get punished for a sin committed while intoxicated? Does it depend on how intoxicated one is? One needs to have intent when praying or issuing a ruling and therefore one should make sure to be focused, and in a good mood, etc. Wine can have both positive and negative effects on people. One's true character is revealed through one's cup (drinking wine), one's pocket (business dealings) and one's anger. Some say: also one's laughter. If a Jew and gentile are living in an inner courtyard and a Jew by himself in the outer courtyard, is the outer courtyard considered like one Jew living with a non-Jew or two, meaning would he need to rent the space from the gentile or not? What about the reverse case - a Jew on the inside and a Jew and gentile in the outer courtyard? What if the gentile rents the space and is not there, can one rent from the landlord? If the gentile is not there before Shabbat but shows up on Shabbat, can one arrange the "rental" from the gentile on Shabbat in order to permit carrying?

Eruvin 64 - October 12, 24 Tishrei Oct 12, 2020

Rava did not agree with Abaye's solution in the alley where the non-Jew Lachman bar Ristak lived. He suggested an alternative solution. Rav Yehuda said two halachot in the name of Shmuel - one regarding a hired laborer or gatherer of a non-Jew can join the eruv on behalf of the non-Jew's property and one regarding one who drinks a quarter log of wine cannot teach/rule on halachic issues. Rav Nachman said that one thing he said was good and the other was not. He was reprimanded by Rava for speaking in that manner. Can one pray after one drank wine? Is there a difference if one just drank some wine or if one is drunk? Where does one draw the line? One who falls into money in a relatively easy manner, what can one do to prevent losing it? Walking a mil (2,000 cubits) or a bit of sleep helps on to become sober. The gemara brings a long story from a braita about Rabban Gamliel who went three mil after drinking before annuling someone's vow. Why three and not one? Various other laws are derived and discussed from this story such as picking up food that is thrown on the street, sitting while annuling vows, etc.

Eruvin 63 - October 11, 23 Tishrei Oct 11, 2020

Today's daf is dedicated to Ariella Radwin. Happy Birthday Ariella, the Talmud scholar of the Radwin family! We are so proud of your commitment to study the daf yomi and to share your love of Torah and learning in our house.

A student cannot teach a halacha in front of his rabbi. Can he check a shechita knife for himself without asking his rabbi? Can he teach a halacha if his rabbi is not there? Or if he is not in the rabbi's hometown? Or if he is a colleague? Can one reprimand someone doing something wrong if his rabbi is there? Nadav and Avihu were killed for teaching a halacha in front of Moshe. One cannot give all of one's gifts to the priests to one particular priest - it will cause famine in the world (proof from King David). Elazar the priest was also punished for teaching in front of Moshe. Why was Yehoshua punished that he did not have sons - was it also for this reason or because he prevented the nation from being able to reproduce by keeping them in battle at night thus preventing the men from coming home to their wives. The gemara gets back to the topic of eruv chatzerot and brings a story where there was a non-Jew named Lachman bar Ristak who was living in a courtyard with Jews and would not rent out his property to them. What was suggested that they do and was this a valid suggestion?

Eruvin 62 - Shabbat, Shmini Atzeret, Oct. 10, 22 Tishrei Oct 09, 2020

What are the laws regarding carrying in a courtyard where a Jew and a non-Jew are living? Does it matter if it is one Jew or two Jews living there? On what principles are these laws based? The gemara discusses the importance of the law to not teach a halacha if there is a more senior rabbi there - he should be the one to answer the question.

Eruvin 61 - October 9, 21 Tishrei Oct 09, 2020

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi brings two cases - if one acquired residence outside the city and measured the techum from there and it ended in the middle of a city, one's limit ends there. But if it ended at the end of the city, the entire city is like 4 cubits and one continues counting from the other side of the city. Rav Idi questions Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levy as there is no basis for saying this. Is there really no basis? Rav Yosef explains the law in a city that borders on a ravine. Is this considered a city or not for the purposes of measuring techum? Rav Yosef brings a proof from a ruling of Rebbi regarding people going in between two particular cities, but the gemara explains the reason in a different way and rejects the proof. If there are two cities - one smalla dn one large, if one is in one at the start of Shabbat but has an eruv in the other, does one get 2,000 cubits from the eruv or from the outskirts of the city? Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis disagree. They all agree in the case of an eruv in a cave that one counts 2,000 cubits from the eruv - but in what circumstances? What if one's eruv was outside and the 2,000 cubits ended in the middle of the cave? Shmuel and Rabbi Elazar disagree regarding acquiring residence in a desolate city. Would there be a distinction between one who acquired residence by being there physically or by putting food there? Are there proofs for Shmuel's approach? What are the laws of eruv chatzerot in a courtyard where there are non-Jews?

Eruvin 60 - October 8, 20 Tishrei Oct 08, 2020

Pictures

Today's daf is dedicated by Gary Zeitlin in honor or Dr. Earl Zeitlin. Happy birthday and gratitude for his many years as a tirelessly devoted neurologist, father and grandfather. And to Ellen Segal in honor of her 60th birthday with love from your children and grandchildren. Ema, your devotion to Limmud Daf Yomi fills us with pride and inspiration. Your example teaches us that we should always make time in our busy lives for Torah and for learning. May Hashem bless us all with many more years with you, full of health, growth, happiness, and Limmud Torah.

Is a ladder considered like a wall (even though one can get over the wall with a ladder, it is still a wall) or like an opening (since it is now accessible)? Do we rule leniently in each situation? The gemara brings questions against those who say we are lenient in every case. Rav Yosef asked Abaye to make an eruv for the city of Kakonia which was originally 'public' and now a 'private' city. which meant that he needed to leave a part out of the city. Rav Yosef said to make sure to do it in a way that you don't upset people. Because of that, Abaye thought and rethought the best way to do it until he reached the proper conclusion. In order to make an eruv techumim, one must be within 2,000 cubits at the start of Shabbat from the location of the eruv. The mishna brings a number of examples of this. If one makes an eruv in the 70 and 2/3 cubits around the city, it doesn't add anything. If one leaves that space and puts the eruv outside there, whatever one gains in that direction, one loses in the other direction. The gemara raises a contradiction to that line and then resolves it by describing two different scenarios.

Eruvin 59 - October 7, 19 Tishrei Oct 07, 2020

Pictures

Today's daf is dedicated by Gitta and David Neufeld as a zechut for our dear friend and mentor, Chaya bat Osna Rachel, a fierce advocate for Jewish education, בתוך שאר חולי ישראל. We are blessed by her friendship and leadership.

One can be lenient with mistakes in measurements regarding techum since alws of techum are rabbinic. Also one can accept testimony of people whose testimony regarding the location of the techum is not usually accepted. The mishna moves into issues of eruv for carrying purposes. They distinguish between a city that was an individual (what exactly does that mean) and became public and a city that was the reverse. In what cases and how can one make an eruv? Does one need to leave a section out of the eruv? Can the city be split? If so, how?

Eruvin 58 - October 6, 18 Tishrei Oct 06, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 58

How does one measure the 2,000 cubits if the terrain is not flat? When does one span the space and one does one pierce it? What is the difference between them? From where do we derive that 50-cubit ropes are used? Why can't they be shorter or longer? What material are the ropes? For the red heifer and the Sotah, ropes were needed - of what material for each? How do we span a space? What if a canyon curves and spanning is not possible? Or if there is a wall? Why is a wall different than a fence? Rav Yehuda says in the name of Shmuel that piercing is only allowed if a plumb line doesn't drop straight down. If it does drop straight down, one would measure just the floor of the canyon. Is there a limit to the depth by which one can measure by spanning? If so, what is that limit? Rava limits spanning to a hill that has a slope of 10 handbreadths for 4 cubits, but if it is less of a slope, one measures the slope itself as if it were the ground. However, Rav Huna brings a different version of this statement that was said by Rava. How does one pierce? Piercing is only used for techumim and not for measuring in a case of a beheaded heifer, egla arufa, or a refuge city because they are from the Torah. The measuring should be done by an expert. If one measure unevenly - we accept the wider measurement. Similarly, we accept testimony of a slave or maidservant regarding where the border is because the laws are rabbinic, one can be lenient.

Eruvin 57 - October 5, 17 Tishrei Oct 05, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 57

The gemara brings two more explanations regarding the Levite cities to explain how the empty space around the city comes out to a quarter - how is it measured and a quarter of what? Some questions are raised on some of the explanations. The mishna brings a debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis. According to Rabbi Meir, the 2,000 cubits of the techum are measured from 70.67 cubits outside the city. According to the rabbis, this is not the case - it is measured from the city borders but the 70.67 measurement is used to determine if two cities are considered as one for techum. There is a debate between emoraim whether it is a space of 70.67 per city or 70.67 all together. There is a situation where one city can combine two others that are on either side. What is that situation? The mishna begins to describe exactly how they did the measuring for the city.

Eruvin 56 - October 4, 16 Tishrei Oct 04, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 56

Today's daf is sponsored by by Rachel Alexander Levy in honor of her mother, Sheila Alexander. When Mom created the Jewish Day School 40 years ago, would she have every thought that I would be learning Daf Yomi at age 47! And by Caroline Ofstein in honor of Yakir's bar mitzvah and for a refuah sheleima to Sheindel Chaya Bat Leah בתוך שאר חולי ישראל.

Does a Torah scholar needs to live in a place that has vegetables? Are vegetables good for you or bad for you? One should not live in a place with uphills and downhills as it causes premature old age. When one squares off a round city for the purposes of techumim, how does one do it? Each side needs to correspond to the four directions - North, South, etc. The gemara gives advice about how to determine where the directions are - either based on the constellations or on the direction of the sun at different times of the year. How much extra does one get on the angles? A braita is quoted regarding the 1,000 cubits outside each of the Levite cities that are left wmpty as compared to the whole space around the city of 2,000 cubits - a ratio is brought of 1 to 4 and the gemara brings a number of explanations of how this ratio makes sense.

Eruvin 55 - Shabbat, !st Day of Sukkot, October 3, 15 Tishrei Oct 02, 2020

Pictures

The gemara disucsses what is considered part of the city and what is not considered part of the city regarding from where we would measure the techum. Straight lines are drawn from parts that protrude and if the shape of the inhabited part of the city is not square (i.e. round, rainbow-shaped, etc.) from where do we measure the 2,000 cubits?

Eruvin 54 - October 2, 14 Tishrei Oct 02, 2020

Today's daf is sponsored by Ben Teitelbaum in honor of Melissa Raphaely. And by Deborah Dickson in honor of Audrey Levant in lieu of the siyum and celebration we should be having at the completion of a year-long parasha chevruta. Looking forward to next year! And by Yoni and Clara Dolgin. Wishing my children a Hag Sukkot Sameach. We wish we were able to celebrate together instead of in Bidud.

The gemara discusses the benefits of learning Torah and methods by which one will be able to retain what one has learned.

Eruvin 53 - October 1, 13 Tishrei Oct 01, 2020

Pictures

Today's daf is dedicated by Joanna Rom in memory of her mother Rose Rom (Surah Raizel) on her twelfth yahrzeit. She was a lawyer by training, a teacher, and believer in equality and would have been thrilled to know that her daughter was studying Talmud with such a great teacher.

The mishna deala with setting the boundaries of the city when the boundaries are not in a straight line or there are structures within a small distance of the city. The wording used is "meabrin" - we make the boundaries wider. Rav and Shmuel have a debate if the letter in that word is an aleph or an ayin - is it from limbs that jut out of the body or a pregnant woman? The gemara quotes a few other debate of Rav and Shmuel regarding words - how to explain words in the Torah - like Maarat HaMachpela, the name Amrafel and the "new king" that rose in Egypt and didn't remember Joseph. The gemara talks about tactics that can help people remember what they learn. The gemara explain the differences between the Judeans and the Galileans - why the Judaen’s Torah kept with them and the Galilean’s did not. One answer is because they were careful with their words - spoke clearly and explained things well. The gemara provides examples of people who spoke clearly and those who did not. They also bring examples of people (women and men) who spoke in a particularly "high" language - lashon chochma. They bring stories of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chanania who was outsmarted by a woman, and two children - one male and one female. Bruria also reprimands both Rabbi Yosi the Galilean for speaking too much to a woman (herself) and to a student for whispering when learning and not learning out loud.

Eruvin 52 - September 30, 12 Tishrei Sep 30, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 52

The gemara brings a case in which Raba bar Rav Chanan acquires residence from afar from his house without going to the location. Abaye questions his actions based on the conclusions reached at the end of the previous section and Raba changes his behavior. If one acquires residence with food, does one get in addition to the 2,000 cubits' also 4 cubits like in the case where one is there physically or not? The mishna brings a case of one who went to put an eruv but got called back by someone. The eruv works anyway for that person but not for the people of the city, according to Rabbi Yehuda. What exactly is the case? Why is there a difference between the person and others? Does the person need to make a declaration or is the intent clear without a declaration? Rabbi Meir doesn't allow this - however the person is only allowed to walk in the space that is common to one's house and the place where one intended to put the eruv. Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda has a different, more lenient approach. Raba and Rav Yosef disagree as to how he differs from Rabbi Yehuda's approach. If one leaves the techum by one or two cubits, is one allowed back in? What if one foot is in and one is out? Are the limits the surveyors put up at 2,000 cubits around the city exact or do they make them less than 2,000 to make sure people don't err? What is the relevance of this for one who hasn't reached the techum before Shabbat? How does one measure from around the city in the event that there aren't walls and all the houses don't line up in an exact straight line?

Eruvin 51 - September 29, 11 Tishrei Sep 29, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 51

Today's daf is sponsored by Ari Welner for a refuah shleima for Chaim David ben Chana Zelda and Rivka bat Ita. The mishna states that one who is on the way can point out a distant place and acquire residence there. Rava limits it to a case where one could potentially arrive there before Shabbat by running. How does Rava read the mishna according to his explanation? The gemara brings a case of Raba and Rav Yosef where Raba knew of a particular tree and Rav Yosef did not. Raba was able to acquire residence for both of them, based on the Tosefta. From where in the Torah is the measurement of 2,000 cubits derived? From where do Rabbi Chanina and the rabbis derive their opinions regarding the shape of the 2,000 cubit measurement – circular or square? Rav Nachman and Rav Chisda disagree regarding the debate between Rabbi Meir (only allowed for a poor person, i.e. one who is travelling and got stuck) and Rabbi Yehuda (even for a rich person, one who is at home)– are they arguing in a case where one says I want to acquire residence in the place that I am standing or in the case where one wants to acquire residence in a distance place. The gemara explain the different lines in the mishna according to each approach.

Eruvin 50 - Yom Kippur, September 28, 10 Tishrei Sep 27, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 50

Today’s daf is dedicated by Gitta and David Neufeld in loving memory of Marvin Stokar, a"h Meir ben Aryeh Leib HaLevi on his first yahrzeit (Yom Kippur). Marvin was dedicated to his family and his learning, and was so proud of completing the Daf Yomi cycle. Like the postal service, he let nothing stand in his way! We miss our honorary Zaidy Marvin so much. May our learning be a zechut for him and תבדל לחיים טובים our precious Bubby Fran. And by Tova Kestenbaum in memory of her grandfather Refael Zeev ben Yisrael and Esther Feigel a”h who passed away during Neilah, Yom Kippur 5733. He, together with my grandmother, sacrificed so much to keep Shabbat, and to ensure that their children had a Torah education. They would be so proud to see so many generations continuing to make Torah values and study a part of their daily lives.

The gemara brings two versions of Raba explaining why Rav thinks that one who says “my shvita will be under a tree” didn’t succeed in doing anything. The second explanation is questioned based on a number of sources – from laws of tithing produce, animal tithes and the forty loaves of the thanksgiving offering. How wide is the space under the tree in the case of the mishna – 12 cubits or 8? Two braitot are brought – one which supports Rav and one which supports Shmuel.

Eruvin 49 - September 27, 9 Tishrei Sep 27, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 49

This week's learning is sponsored by Leora and Marty Fineberg in memory of their mother and mother in law, Miriam Ruda Adler, z"l, Miriam Ruda bat Yitzchak and Chana Zissel on her second yahrzeit, which will take place on Yom Kippur. And by Medinah Korn in memory of her beloved teacher and mentor Rav Reuven Aberman, Harav Reuven ben Tzvi Aryeh ve-Rivka zt"l, on his fifth yahrzeit. He dedicated his life to advanced Torah study for women and inspired so many toward personal and halakhic integrity with his wisdom, caring and sense of humor. Yehi zichro baruch.

Rav and Shmuel disagree regarding their understanding of the debate between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis in the three courtyards. The gemara brings a braita to strengthen Shmuel's position and also another similar halacha in the name of Shmuel regarding a courtyard situated in between two alleys. Other laws are quoted in the name of Shmuel regarding an eruv that is split or one in which one of the participants won't allow others to eat his food. Shmuel and Raba debate whether an eruv chatzerot works via kinyan, acquisition, or does it work by dira, it is as if they are all living in the same space. What are the halachic ramifications of the different approaches? One who is on the way and is not within 2,000 cubits of one's home - can one specify a location within 2,000 cubits on the way and designate that for shvita to allow he/she to arrive at home. On what does it depend? Are the 2,000 cubits measured as a circle or a square from one's location? Can only a poor person acquire shvita with one's body instead of food or also a rich person? The mishna says that if one who is on the way says "I want to acquire shvita under a particular tree" it is ineffective. Rav and Shmuel disagree about what the mishna means when it says it is ineffective.

Eruvin 48 - Shabbat September 26, 8 Tishrei Sep 25, 2020

Water in a ditch that is exactly in between the techum of two cities, does one need to put a partition in the water to not allow water to flow from one side to the other? Would a partition be effective? When the mishna says that one who leaves the techum gets four cubits, how do we measure those cubits? Is it four in each direction, two in each direction or can one move four in one direction? Are the cubits measured by the size of the forearm of that particular person or it by an objective measurement? Why did Rabbi Shimon compare the case of three people eating in three different techumim to the case of three courtyards? Why doesn't he view all three courtyards as being together if each side made an eruv with the middle? Rav Yehuda and Rav Sheshet each interpret the case differently in order to answer this question. Rav Acha raises a question on each opinion and Rav Ashi answers them. In what way do the rabbis disagree with Rabbi Shimon?

Eruvin 47 - September 25, 7 Tishrei Sep 25, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 47

Today's daf is dedicated by Heather Stone in memory of her mother, Ellie Stone, Esther Bina bat Rachel and Avraham HaLevi z"l. And by Ilana Mushkin in memory of her father, Rav Pinhas Shmuel Laderman z"l, on his fifth 5th yahrzeit on the 8th of Tishrei. My father was a well loved Rav, a social activist and a scholar who completed the Daf Yomi cycle 2.5 times. I learn every morning in his memory and am grateful for Hadran for enabling me to do so.

The gemara brings sources to prove from where Rav Mesharshia decided that we don't hold by the rules stated previosuly about who to hold like when various rabbis disagree. Each source is rejected and the gemara explains Rav Mesharshia in a different way. There is a debate regarding items that belong to a non Jew - do laws of techumim apply to them or not? How do these opinions relate to the debate regarding ownerless possessions (Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri and the rabbis)?

Eruvin 46 - September 24, 6 Tishrei Sep 24, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 46

Today's daf is sponsored by Ranana Dine in honor of Rabbi Dan Ross. To a great chevruta - thank you for supporting my Torah learning and supporting the Torah learning of women everywhere. And to my grandmother, Sonja Waschitz on her 95th birthday who has always been a role model to me. Wishing her more years of good health.

Why is rainwater that falls on Yom Tov not limited by laws of techumim even though they originated either in the ocean, which is outside the techum or from the clouds (does this mean that there are no laws of techumim above ten handbreadths)? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says both that we hold like Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri regarding a person who slept when Shabbat came in and also that we rule leniently when it comes to eruvin. Why was there a need to say both? When we are lenient in rabbinic laws, are we also lenient and hold like an individual even if he goes against the majority? They bring a number of examples that show that we do not rule leniently like an individual when he rules against the majority. What are rules of which rabbis we hold like when they disagree with others?

Eruvin 45 - September 23, 5 Tishrei Sep 23, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 45

Today's daf is sponsored by Natalie Taylor in honor of Betsy Mehlman. Wishing you a year of health and hatzlacha and nachat from your children and grandchildren.

Does everyone agree that overlapping techumim works? How can the last line of the mishna - that one who leaves the techum for saving someone can go back home - in light of the first line of the mishna that one only acquires 2,000 cubits from the new place? And even if one can say they are dealing with differnet situations, there is still a contradiction with the mishna in Rosh Hashana that says 2,000 cubits for all situations. The gemara brings two possible solutions, according to one of them, the mishna is dealing with carrying and not techum and is referring to carrying weapons home. The gemara brings a braita which explains in details why they permitted it. One can desecrate Shabbat and go out to fight against some sieges but not all. On what does it depend? If one is travelling and reaches an area near the city before Shabbat but doesn't realize, is one considered as if one acquired the city for the purposes of techum, as if he/she would have known he/she was near the techum, he/she certainly would have wanted to be considered within the techum of the city - or does one actually need knowledge of it at the time. If one was asleep in a spot when Shabbat came in, can one acquire 2,000 cubits or does one need knowledge? Is the debate regarding this issue based on a debate about items that are ownerless, are they subject to laws of techumim or not? How can one prove that this is the debate between them? What is the status of rainwater? Is rainwater considered having come from out of the techum as it originates in the ocean?

Eruvin 44 - September 22, 4 Tishrei Sep 22, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 44

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rivkah Isseroff in honor of all the women who participate in learning daf yomi, and especially in honor of our dear friends Sally Poolat and Shlomit Metz-Poolat who recently made aliya. Wishing them a wonderful sweet year, the first of many to come in Israel, and continued joy in learning (in this daf yomi class!).

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak asks Raba two questions about the situation with Nechemia who accidentally left the techum and Rav Nachman told Rav Chisda to build a human partition to allow him back in. 1. Why didn’t Rav Chisda know this himself – what was unclear to him? 2. A braita seems to imply that one cannot built a wall using a human on Shabbat or Chag (learned from walls of a sukka). Rava brings a different braita that says one can build a wall in order to answer his question. In any case, the braitot contradict. The gemara brings four explanations to resolve the contradiction – either they represent different opinions or different situations. In the end they conclude that it depends on whether or not the people know that they are forming a partition. A number of real life situations were brought in which people used human partitions. The Mishna discusses a person who leaves the techum for permitted purposes, i.e. to save someone, to testify about seeing the new moon, etc. If they left the techum and then found out that they were no longer needed, they have 2,000 cubits from where they are at the time they find out. If they are still within their original techum, then their home remains their techum. Why does the Mishna need to tell us that, isn’t it obvious?! Raba and Rav Shimi bar Chiya disagree about how to understand the Mishna and the root of their debate is: if there is an overlap between two techumim, can we view that as one large techum?

Eruvin 43 - September 21, 3 Tishrei Sep 21, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 43

Today's daf is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of Lynn Farber and the Ra'anana community. Thanks for helping us through yet another crisis. And by Joanna Rom and Rebecca Schwartzmer in memory of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a true tzadeket. She championed for the rights of women everywhere and loved knowledge and justice. May her memory be for a blessing and may her family be comforted.

Do Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehushua disagree in a case of a moving boat or only when the boat is stationary? Is the space ten handbreadths off the ground subject to laws of techumim or exempt? The gemara brings four sources to try to answer this question but are unable to conclude. Two are from cases of boats in our mishna as boats generally ride ten handbreadths off the ground. One is from a case of someone who "magically" went on Shabbat from Sura to Pumbedita - 100 kilometers - and the gemara first assumes it was Eliyahu who must have flown above ten handbreadths and therefore it must be allowed. However, the gemara suggests it could have been Yosef the demon which wouldn't teach us anything about the law. A final source is brought regarding one who says he will become a nazir on the day that the Messiah comes - he is allowed to drink wine on Shabbat as the Messiah will not come on Shabbat. First the gemara thinks this is because of techum, even above ten, but then explains that it is for a different reason. How did Rabban Gamliel in the mishna know that when they came on the boat and arrived after Shabbat started that they were within 2,000 cubits before Shabbat started? The braita explains that he has a measuring implement. The braita also mentions other measuring implements that were used at the time. A case happened where Nechemia left the techum by accident and Rav Hisda asked Rav Nachman how to help him and he suggested them make a human mechitza and he will be allowed to walk within those walls and come back into the techum.

Eruvin 42 - September 20, 2 Tishrei Sep 18, 2020

Today's daf is dedicated by Oren and Rachel Seliger in memory of Tzvi ben Aryeh (Zvi Seliger) husband, father, father in law, grand-father and great grand-father, שעלה בתרועה השמיימה one year ago, on א' תשרי תש"פ. He was a חוזר בתשובה who showed us all how to be dedicated to Torah and Mitzvot בשמחה. His way of life was an example to us all, and why all of his nearly 50 descendants are יראי שמיים and שומרי מצוות. May his memory be blessed. We miss you very much Abba/Sabba.

What is the law regarding fruits that left the techum that were then returned? Does is make a difference if they were returned intentionally or unwittingly? Rav Nachman and Rav Huna disagree about a case that one set his eruv in valley and on Shabbat non-Jews came and put up a wall around the valley - is one allowed to carry in the whole space or does one need to be concerned that one may also walk beyond the permitted limit if we allow carrying in the whole space (since one can still only walk 2,000 cubits from the original eruv)? Is this the same debate as between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria and Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva regarding one who was placed in a pen or stable or one traveling in a boat who leaves the techum on Shabbat - is the issue there, do we forbid it in case one may think it's allowed in an unenclosed space - likewise here, do we forbid it in case one may carry in the forbidden space? Or are the situations and thus the issues different? Who do we hold by in the case of the mishna?

Eruvin 41 - Shabbat, 1st day of Rosh Hashana, 1 Tishrei, September 19 Sep 17, 2020

Today's daf is dedicated anonymously in honor of our fearless leader and teacher Rabbanit Michelle Farber for her constant encouragement of our learning especially in the middle of Eruvin from all the women you inspire to learn daf yomi. Thank you!!

If Tisha B'av falls on erev Shabbat, does one finish fasting or does one eat before Shabbat starts so as not to enter Shabbat fasting? Two opinions are brought - one by Rabban Gamliel and one by Rabbi Yosi. Several tannaitic sources are brought to better understand the debate and see which position we hold by. If one leaves the techum on Shabbat, one can only walk within 4 cubits of where one is presently standing. Does it make a difference if the person left on their own or was removed by someone or something else? If one needs to go to the bathroom, does respect for one's body override laws of techum Shabbat? The gemara explains that there are three things that make people do things against their will and against that of God. What are they?

Eruvin 40 - Friday September 18, 29 Elul Sep 17, 2020

A different version of the story of Rav Sheshet and Rav Nachman in the Exilarch's house is told by Rav Ashi - the issue regards an animal brought from outside the techum and not two days of Yom Tov. The gemara discusses halachic issues regarding melacha done by a non-Jew for a Jew on Shabbat or chag. Can the Jew benefit? If so, when? Does it depend if it were done specifically for you or for a different Jew? What if it was done for non-Jews? Does one need to mention Rosh Chodesh in the Rosh Hashana davening? Does one say the shehechiyanu blessing on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur?

Eruvin 39 - September 17, 28 Elul Sep 17, 2020

Today's daf is dedicated by Gabrielle and Daniel Altman in honor of their wonderful nephew Eliyahu Stark on his upcoming wedding to Ariella Weiss.

What is the difference in the case of Shabbat and Yom Tov that fall out one after the other between one who puts out bread/food for an eruv and one who stands at the spot where one wants to designate as one's eruv? How do we understand the nature of the two days of Rosh Hashana - are they considered the same as two days of other holiday in the Exile, meaning one only day is sanctified and we don't know which one. Or is it treated as one sanctity. Ramifications of this debate are for making two eruvs - one for each day in a different direction or tithing produce with a stipulation: If today is not Rosh Hashana, then I will separate today..., and for an egg that hatched on the first day, can one eat it on the second day? Does one add in their prayers a stipulation that maybe today is the first day of the month or maybe it is tomorrow? Rabbi Yosi who forbids stipulations, would he differentiate between Rosh Hashana and two days of Yom Tov on other holidays in the Exile? An incident happened in the house of the Exilarch and Rav Sheshet disagreed with Rav Nachman and was later proven wrong but doesn't want word to get out to Rav Nachman of his mistake.

Eruvin 38 - September 16, 27 Elul Sep 16, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 38

Today’s daf is sponsored in honor of Ann Goldhirsch on her birthday. Happy birthday to our #1 Daf Yomi learner! Love, Barry, Aaron and Ezra. And by Yael in honor of her sister Shifra on her birthday.

What happens regarding an eruv techum when Shabbat and Yom Tov fall out right next to each other? Can one make a separate eruv in two different directions - each for a different day - as we can say they are each a separate day of sanctity? Or can we only make an eruv in the same place for both days as we treat them as one sanctity - or at least we should be stringent just in case it is considered one sanctity? The rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree on this issue. The gemara brings some sources that bring a back and forth discussion between the two. How does the issue of preparing on Yom Tov for Shabbat come into play here? The gemara quotes the Tosefta in which there are three approaches to the question. However, based on a statement of Rav, the gemara changes the version that was quoted in the Tosefta.

Eruvin 37 - September 15, Elul 26 Sep 15, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 37

Today's daf is sponsored by Ellen Golub & Steven Sass in honor of the Bar Mitzvah of their oldest grandson, Levi Moshe Weinograd, on Shabbat Nitzavim-Vayelech. Levi, Bobbe and Zayda love you so much! We offer two words of wisdom: D’kula bo. Ellen & Steve are also celebrating the brit milah of their newest grandchild, Leo Golub-Sass, named for Ellen’s beloved father, Leo Golub, Aryeh Leib Ben Eliyahu z"l. May Leo grow to love the Jewish people as his great-grandfather did and may he become a Talmid chacham. And by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaimah for her daughter, Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya. You keep handling each challenge as they come and manage to smile every day. As I learn each day’s daf, I do so with the hope that my and so many other women’s learning will help bring about a refuah shelaimah for you. And also our learning should be a refuah shleima for Netanel Ilan ben Shayna Tzipora.

Should we accept Ayo's braita which had Rabbi Yehuda saying breira, retroactive determination, doesn't work or our mishna saying it works? The gemara grapples with the Tosefta where Rabbi Yehuda holds we cannot use breira in order to support Ayo's reading. Ulla holds otherwise and reads the Tosefta differently. Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon also appear in the Tosefta regarding tithing wine forbidding it, seemingly because they don't allow breira. However, several other sources are brought which seem to contradict. The gemara reconciles the difficulties from the other sources in various ways. Would those who do not allow breira say that it would apply not only for Torah laws but also for Rabbinic laws?

Eruvin 36 - September 14, 25 Elul Sep 14, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 36

Today’s daf is dedicated by Rachael Bentley. “I am so very grateful to be able to participate in this cycle of Daf Yomi and want to thank you all. Who would have thought at the outset that we would be living in such strange times? My Montreal group arranged to meet as we finished Tractate Berakhot but of course...even as we finished Tractate Shabbat, we have still not met in person but also by the miracle of Zoom. My prayer is to meet in Israel after completing, by the grace of God. Many thanks and my wishes for good health and safety for all.” And in honor of Jonathan Cohen, my brother, on his birthday today, who has been keeping up with the daf.

The gemara raises a contradiction from Rabbi Meir in our mishna who is stringent regarding an eruv that was good to begin with but later is not (one must assume it was not valid already during twilight) with Rabbi Meir in a different source regarding impurity where he is lenient. Two explanations are brought. Likewise, a contradiction is brought regarding Rabbi Yossi who is lenient in our mishna but stringent elsewhere. Three possible explanations are brought. When does one rely on its original chazaka and when do we not? If one makes a stipulation regarding an eruv - whether or not that will be one's eruv, does that work? On what does it depend? Rabbi Yehuda allows one to decide on Shabbat which one will be the eruv. How can this be if: 1. Ayo has a version of the braita that says he doesn't allow this, and 2. We know from other sources that Rabbi Yehuda doesn't allow breira, retroactive determination?

Eruvin 35 - September 13, 24 Elul Sep 13, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 35

The gemara brings three different explanations of the case in the mishna where the rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer debate the case of one who loses the key to the closet in which the eruv is placed. Is it only on Yom Tov and in a case where it is built with bricks places on each other without being cemented together? Or is it made of wood and it is a debate whether or not it is considered a utensil or a tent and if a utensil, the rabbis hold there is no issue of building or taking apart in utensils? Or is it a muktze issue because the lock is attached with a rope that can be cut by a knife – can one bring a knife to cut it? What is the law if the food rolls out of the 2,000 cubits from the city limits or a pile of rocks falls on top of it and it becomes inaccessible or it burns or it is truma that becomes impure? It depends on whether it happened before or after twilight. What if one doesn’t know when it happened? Why are each of these cases mentioned? Rabbi Meir is stringent – how does this work in with other statements of Rabbi that seem similar and yet he isn’t stringent?

Eruvin 34 - Shabbat September 12, Elul 23 Sep 11, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 34

Today's daf is dedicated by Miriam Tannenbaum in memory of her mother, Ruth Zemsky, Raizel bat Yehushua HaLevi and Chaya Keila z"l on her yahrzeit. Her greatest nachat was her children and grandchildren and their involvement in the learning and teaching of Torah. יהי זכרה ברוך

Two questions are brought on Rabbi Yirmia's explanation of the basket attached to the tree. What exactly is the case in the mishna regarding the eruv in a pit? Can one put an eruv at the top of a pole or a reed? Under what circumstances? If one put an eruv in a locked closet, does one need to have access to the key? What if the key is lost?

Eruvin 33 - September 11, 22 Elul Sep 11, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 33

Today's daf is dedicated by Rabbi Julie Danan in memory of a beloved friend, Rabbi Dr. Sarah Tauber, a brilliant teacher and scholar who will be sorely missed by a wide circle of family, friends, and communities.

The gemara continues to understand the cases brought in the mishna regarding accessibility to one's eruv. The more the gemara delves into it, the more the gemara limits the case of the mishna. Where is the debate between Rebbi and the rabbis regarding whether or not rabbinic prohibitions are in effect during the twilight period. In the braita quoted, there is a halacha regarding a basket attached to a tree and Rebbi allows one to put an eruv there. The gemara questions the reality of the case (dimensions?) and Ravina and Rabbi Yirmia each provide expplanations for teh case. According to Ravina the issue relates to stability of the eruv. According to Rabbi Yirmia, the issue is about accessibility and even though the basket in not in the same "place" as the person, since theoretically it can be tilte dand can be, that is sufficient.

Eruvin 32 - September 10, 21 Elul Sep 10, 2020

Click for Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 32

Today's daf is dedicated by Art Gould to the health, healing and well-being of his beloved bride of 47 years, Carol Robinson - Karina Gola bat Huddah. "Carol has been my best friend and partner, mother to our daughters, bubbe to our grand-daughter and the emotional center of our extended family. She has an almost magical ability to always know the right thing to do and the right thing to say. I love her more than words can possibly express."

Can one assume that if one appoints a messenger, the messenger will get the job done? Do we rely on this only with rabbinic issues or also with Torah obligations? Rav Sheshet and Rav Nachman disagree about this and Rav Sheshet brings three proofs for his position from tannaitic sources (although according to one version, one is brought as a proof for Rav Nachman). The gemara then brings an explanation for each source according to Rav Nachman. Within these sources, a debate between Rebbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is brought regarding tithed produce as to whether or not it is assumed that one will transgress a minor transgression in order to ensure that someone else does not transgress a more serious prohibition - relating to the issue of not putting a stumbling block in front of others. In order to make an eruv techumim, one needs to be able to be able to be in the same location as one's eruv, at least at twilight when Shabbat comes in. The mishna brings various cases regarding this issue and the rabbis try to figure out the exact case of the mishna.

Eruvin 32 - September 10, 21 Elul Sep 10, 2020

Click for Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 32

Today's daf is dedicated by Art Gould to the health, healing and well-being of his beloved bride of 47 years, Carol Robinson - Karina Gola bat Huddah. "Carol has been my best friend and partner, mother to our daughters, bubbe to our grand-daughter and the emotional center of our extended family. She has an almost magical ability to always know the right thing to do and the right thing to say. I love her more than words can possibly express."

Can one assume that if one appoints a messenger, the messenger will get the job done? Do we rely on this only with rabbinic issues or also with Torah obligations? Rav Sheshet and Rav Nachman disagree about this and Rav Sheshet brings three proofs for his position from tannaitic sources (although according to one version, one is brought as a proof for Rav Nachman). The gemara then brings an explanation for each source according to Rav Nachman. Within these sources, a debate between Rebbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is brought regarding tithed produce as to whether or not it is assumed that one will transgress a minor transgression in order to ensure that someone else does not transgress a more serious prohibition - relating to the issue of not putting a stumbling block in front of others. In order to make an eruv techumim, one needs to be able to be able to be in the same location as one's eruv, at least at twilight when Shabbat comes in. The mishna brings various cases regarding this issue and the rabbis try to figure out the exact case of the mishna.

Eruvin 31 - September 9, 20 Elul Sep 09, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 31

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Shapiro for the 7th yahrzeit of her mother Deera Tychman z"l.

The gemara brings another law of Rabbi Yehuda regarding a priest setting up an eruv in a cemetery – this time by putting pure truma on a grave. How is this even possible – the gemara raises several potential problems and resolves them. The gemara raises three possible ways to understand the root of the debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis on this issue. How does the concept of “mitzvot were not given for benefit” factor in? Can one use demai produce or other produce that was the maaser rishon that the levite did or did not separate truma from or maaser sheni or hekdesh that was or was not redeemed. What is the unique aspect of each of these and why were they mentioned in the mishna? Can one give one’s food to a minor, deaf-mute or cognitively limited person? What about someone who doesn’t believe in eruv? How do the laws differ from eruv chatzerot? One can send the eruv with one of those people to give to someone else to put down. How can we be sure it will get there?

Eruvin 30 - September 8, 19 Elul Sep 08, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 30

This week's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha in honor of Judge Norman Krivosha. My father, Judge Norman Krivosha, has encouraged my sister and me, since we were young girls growing up in the sixties, that girls could do anything to which we set our minds. Who would have ever thought that could mean reading the entire talmud from beginning to end? He has been and still is my mentor, father, friend and advisor and I love him very much.

Today's daf is sponsored by Mindy and Eric Hecht and family in honor of their niece Talya Agus who is drafting today. We are so proud of you and wish you much success over the next two years of your service to Medinat Yisrael.

Do we determine the amount of food one needs to use for the eruv based on the average person or based on the specific person making the eruv. Is it objective or subjective? If one vows not to eat a certain food, can one use it for the eruv? Does it depend on the wording used for the vow - whether or not it included not benefiting from the bread? Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree about whether or not an Israelite can use an eruv with truma or a nazir with wine. What does Sumchus hold that an Israelite cannot use truma for an eruv but a nazir can use wine? Why can a priest put his eruv in a beit hapras where there may be bones from a dead body? What it the root of the debate in the mishna regarding a priest putting an eruv in a cemetery?

Eruvin 29 - September 7, 18 Elul Sep 07, 2020

Today’s daf is dedicated by Judi Felber in memory of her father, Hershel-Tzvi Shlomo Haim ben Pesach v’Dina Sara z"l on his third yahrzeit. And by Leah Ackner in honor of her son Zev Yehuda Loring becoming a Bar Mitzvah. “Today I learn the daf in your honor and in honor of our past year of learning together to prepare for...” And by Candace Plotsker-Herman in honor of her mother Elaine Riff, Ilana Leah bat Esther and Meir on her 95th birthday! “She is a creative, lifelong learner who has inspired me to pursue and embrace serious, challenging Torah learning. I look forward to attending live, rather than zoom, shiurim with her soon.”

With what food items can one make/not make an eruv? Can one use raw beets? Apples? Onions? What is the requite amount needed for an eruv? The amount is for eating at two meals but that amount is determined differently if it is food that accompanies other main foods, like a dip for bread, or if it is eaten on its own. Since the gemara discusses food, statements are made regarding nutritional value of foods including what is healthy for various ailments and what contains toxins and could cause death? The gemara also relates to other laws regarding food like impurity of foods, what liquids can disqualify a mikveh, what is the minimum amount to give to each poor person for maaser ani.

Eruvin 28 - September 6, 17 Elul Sep 06, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 28

Today's shiur is sponsored by Shari Mendes in honor of women's learning and the marriage, this evening, of her daughter, Naomi to Menachem Lindner! Mazel tov. And by Amy Cohn on the yahrzeit of her father Rav Dov Chaim ben Zeev z"l who taught all his five daughters Talmud and the love of Torah.

Do fish fall into the category of those who get their nourishment from the ground or not and how does that affect whether or not we can use fish for an eruv? Instead of saying the debate between the unnamed tannaim is between fish, it is suggested that the debate is regarding birds as birds get sustenance from the ground but were created from mud, not the ground. If the type of method of drasha klal u'prat u'clal (a generalization, specifics and then a generalization) an outgrowth the klal u'prat method or the prat u'clal method? What is the relevance of that question? Rav lists certain types of plants and rules whether or not they can be used for an eruv. The gemara questions some of those items based on tannaitic sources or statements that Rav himself made. Questions about these items comes up regarding are they considered food for eruv, can one purchase them with maaser sheni money, can they become impure as food items, is one obligated to tithe them and would one say the blessing "blessed are the fruits of the earth" or the more general blessing "everything was created by the word of God"? What quantity of food is needed?

Eruvin 27 - Shabbat September 5, 16 Elul Sep 04, 2020

Rabbi Yochanan taught that any time there is a general rule in a mishna, one can assume that there are exceptions to that rule. Even in a case where exceptions are listed, there may be more exceptions. The gemara learns that this statement was made in reference to the mishna in Kiddushin 29 about women being exempt from time bound mitzvot and obligated in non time bound commandments. The gemara then lists a number of exceptions to that rule. The gemara then brings a mishna relating to zav and our mishna which both list exceptions and yet there are more exceptions. There was a statement made either about eruv or about maaser sheni that when our mishna said water and salt, it only meant on their own but salt water can be used. A question is raised regarding salt water for maaser sheni and the response is that it must have oil mixed in. It is coming to teach that if one uses the maaser money to buy salt water mixed with oil, even though salt water is insignificant, since it is mixed with oil, one can use the money to purchase it all even though some of it would not be worthy on its own. The gemara questions this as that law is learned directly from a drasha on the verse relating to maaser sheni. The gemara delves into that drasha and tries to understand what each part of the verse is coming to teach. Rabbi Yochanan understands why each word is there other than "cattle." What is the basis for the debate regarding buying fish from maaser sheni money?

Eruvin 26 - September 4, 15 Elul Sep 04, 2020

Today’s daf is sponsored by Gary Zeitlin in memory of Dr. Alexander Glassman z"l, a dedicated family man and anesthesiologist, who recently passed away at the age of 107. And in memory of Lea Ziering, Leah bat Mazal z”l on her yahrzeit.

The Exilarch has a dining pavillion (like an enclosure, karpaf) in an orchard and wanted to be able to carry there so they erected a fence made of reeds/posts. Rava disagreed and thought there was no need to he took it down. On Shabbat, the rabbis, including those who had helped him, started to question Rava and indeed proved him wrong. The gemara delves into the three cases brought in the mishna where Rabbi Ilai brought the law of Rabbi Eliezer - regarding the size of an enclosure, the situation where one person didn't join the eruv chatzerot before Shabbat and gives up his/her property to the others (can others carry into his house) and where one can eat a particular vegetable/plant called akrablin, on Pesach as the bitter herb. The gemara particularly delves into the root of the debate regarding the eruv chatzerot. The approaches are based on assumptions about human behavior. What if the person indicates they are doing something different from what one would expect one would do - do we go by what they say or do we assume that human behavior is so obviously one way that the person must not have meant what they said? What types of foods can one use/not use for eruv, maaser sheni and one who vows not to eat? Can one make an eruv with food that one cannot eat for specific reasons even though other can like an Israelite with truma or a nazir with wine? Do they need to have access to the location of the eruv? Can a priest make an eruv in a cemetery or a beit hapras?

Eruvin 25 - September 3, 14 Elul Sep 03, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 25

Sponsored in honor of Deborah Dickson's 40th birthday by Audrey Levant. Deborah: You enrich the lives of people around you by approaching life with passion. You are motivated, and decisive, and committed to your endeavors and I am so happy we are learning daf yomi together. Happy Birthday!

What methods can be used to fix an enclosure larger than beit saatayim (5,000 square cubits) that was not enclosed for living purposes in order to allow one to carry within the space? If done in a particular manner, one can either put up a new wall (debate regarding how far it needs to be from the new wall or if it can even be put up on top of the existing wall) or make the space smaller than or equal to beit saatayim. Is the issue regarding how a wall can or cannot be built the same as building a wall in property in order to acquire property that a convert without inheritors left after dying (that is considered ownerless property)? There is a case of a woman who tried to acquire ownerless property of a convert after his death but since it was done incorrectly and someone else acquired it in the correct manner after her, she was not granted the land. In exasperation, she started screaming but there was nothing to do to help her as she hadn't done it in the proper manner. What is the law regarding an enclosure that was a beit saatayim with a wall separating it from a courtyard, in the case where the wall was breached? Can one carry in the enclosure or in the courtyard?

Eruvin 24 - September 2, 13 Elul Sep 02, 2020

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 24

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Loebenberg family in honor of the yahrzeit of our father and grandfather, Ralph Loebenberg, Raphael ben Mordechai, z”l, who was able to be mesayem Masechet Eruvin two cycles ago, and also in honor of one of his granddaughters, Danya Gewurz, who is continuing on with her daf yomi learning with this third masechet as part of this cycle. Saba would be so proud.

What is the status of an enclosure that was enclosed for living purposes but one planted in it - does that change its status? On what does it depend? Rav Huna son of Rabbi Yehoshua limits the case but there are 3 versions of what exactly he said - what he was limiting and what were the limits he set. If one enclosed the space not for living purposes and then decides to live there, what does one need to do to make the space permitted for carrying? One needs to breach the wall more than ten cubits and rebuild. What if one breached a small amount at a time and fixed it up so that at every given point, there was not a breach of more than ten - does that work? If a space was walled in for purposes of living and then became filled with water - does that cancel its status "for living purposes" - on what does it depend? How did they fix the rechava, large open space in Pum Nahara that was open on one side to an alley that opened to the public domain and the other side was a path between vineyards that led to the river? What did that allow them to do?

Eruvin 23 - September 1, 12 Elul Sep 01, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 23

Pictures

Today’s daf is sponsored by Medinah Korn in memory of her dear mother, Rosalie Katchen, Shoshana Raizl bat Avraham Yehoshua ve-Baila Toiba, z"l, on her 20th Yahrzeit. She loved to learn Torah and connect with people and would have loved the incredible work Hadran is doing in promoting both of those values. And in honor of all the teachers and students who are starting school in these uniquely complicated circumstances.

We hold like Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava and only permit posts around a well if it is a well with fresh running water and communal. The mishna beings many different opinions regarding under what circumstances one could carry in an enclosure that is beit saatayim - is it only if it is used for living purposes and if so, what constitutes living purposes? Does it need to be square shaped or can it be rectangular and if a rectangle, only if its length is not more than double its width. If a square, the measurement if 70 and 2/3. From where is this measurement and the square shape derived? If an enclusure is surrounded with walls and then part of it is planted, what are the laws regarding carrying in this space? Rav Huna son of Rabbi Yehoshua limits this law - how and according to who?

Eruvin 22 - August 31, 11 Elul Aug 31, 2020

Pictures

Today's daf is sponsored by Ellie Gellman and Becky Portnoe, in memory of their father, Jerry Bach, Yosef Menachem ben Yaakov Yehuda and Leah z"l, on his 30th yahrtzeit. A father of daughters, he taught us that we could do anything we dreamed of. And by Tali and David Clements in honor of the birth of their daughter, Brielle Ava, whom they hope will grow up with a love of Torah, inspired by those who worked to empower women to become leaders in Jewish learning.

Every stroke in the Torah can be expounded upon. Who is worthy to do this? The gemara brings several explanations based on a verse in Shir HaShirim. How does God give reward differently to righteous people and evil people? There is a question asked regarding Rabbi Yehuda's limitation of posts for a well to a space of beit sa'atayim. Does that include the space around the well or just the well itself. The gemara does not succeed in finding an answer. If many people pass through the space in between the posts, does that cancel the "walls" and the status of it being a private domain or not? Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis disagree. In a different place, they seem to have opposite approaches but the gemara resolves that. Is Israel considered in its entirety not a public domain? Why would it (and is it in fact) different from other places? If there is a mound that goes up ten handbreadths over a space of four cubits in the public domain but people pass through there, is it still considered a private domain according to Rabbi Yehuda? Rava says no. The gemara brings several sources to question this but resolve each one. Is the law regarding posts around a well only applicable to a well and not a put with rainwater? Only those for public use and not private use?

Eruvin 21 - August 30, 10 Elul Aug 30, 2020

Today’s daf is sponsored by Mary Lee, whose husband Steven Lee studies with Hadran daily, who is happy to listen to the voices of women, especially studying Talmud, and who would likely drive her crazy -- being locked down together during this pandemic -- if he weren’t so immersed in it.

Is the allowance of beams around the well applicable only for those going to the Temple for the holidays? Is it only for their animals or also for people? Is it only in Israel or also Babylonia? Why differentiate between Babylonia and other places? Do the laws of huts, burganim, regarding eruv techumim apply in other places outside of Israel? Why? The gemara brings two drashot of Rav Chisda in the name of Meri son of Mar regarding the vastness of the Torah and that evil people do not give up hope of returning to God. Rava learns something else form the verse brought in the second drasha regarding the importance of the oral Torah. The gemara continues with drashot stressing the importance of the oral Torah as it protects the written Torah. They tell a story of Rabbi Akiva who was in jail and didn't have enough water and yet used it for washing hands as he did not want to go against what the rabbis instituted. Shlomo established the laws of washing hands and eruv and a heavenly voice came down and praised what he had done. The gemara describes other things that Shlomo did that were great, explaining verses in the Tanach that describe his greatness.

Eruvin 20 - Shabbat August 28, 9 Elul Aug 28, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 20

Pictures

Abaye asks Rabba more questions regarding the case of a well. Other issues are discussed - are these posts considered a real mechitza? In order for a person to drink from a well (without the posts), one's head and the majority of the body need to be in the private space of the well. Is the same true for an animal? This question appears in two variations. Attempts ar emade to learn this from our mishna but are unsuccessful.

Eruvin 19 - Friday August 28, 8 Elul Aug 27, 2020

Today's daf is sponsored by Adam Dicker and Caroline Hochstadter in commeration of the yahrzeit of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Baruch, z"l, an amazing father and Saba, as well as in celebration of the recent marriage of our son Shimshon Dicker to Zoe Abboudi. Saba would have been proud of you, Shim and Zoe, and he would have loved the learning at Hadran. Thank you all for providing a beautiful space and environment to learn the Daf! And by Gabi and Barry Gelman in honor of Amichai Shalom on becoming a bar mitzvah.

We finish the last statements of Rabbi Yirmia ben Elazar and through that get into a discussion about Gehenom - Hell. The gemara discussed the differences between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda regarding the space in between posts. Abaye asks Raba several questions about the posts put up around a well.

Eruvin 18 - August 27, 7 Elul Aug 27, 2020

How far/close can one distance the beams for the well from the well? Is there a difference between a well (from a spring) and a cistern (rain water)? Does it make a difference if it belongs to an individual or if it is communal? What is the approach of Chanania, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava and is it clear that our mishna doesn't hold like each of them? What is the etymology of the word diomed? The gemara then brings a few other words relating to the root "dio", meaning two. In this conext the gemara brings eight statements of Rabbi Yirmia ben Elazar (one will be in the next daf). 1. Man was created as two images of man and woman and then split. The gemara then brings a debate regarding this issue (was woman created from an appendage/tail of man) and analyzes/questions the different approaches. The gemara is grappling with the differences of the description of the creation of woman from Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 in Genesis. 2. When Adam was excommunicated after he sinned, he gave birth to evil spirits. 3. Don't say all the praise of a person to his/her face. 4. Better to be fed bitter food by the hand of God than to have sweet food given to you by other people (be dependent on others for food). 5. If those in the house learn Torah at night, the house will not be destroyed. 6. Once the Temple was destroyed, the full name of God was no longer used - only the two letters that spell "yah". 7. When Babylonia was destroyed, it affected the neighbors negatively but when the capital of the Israelite kingdom was destroyed it affect the neighboring area positively.

Eruvin 17 - August 26, 6 Elul Aug 26, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 17

Today's daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz in memory of her husband Leonard Cheifetz z"l on his yahrzeit.

What are the different opinions regarding "walls" that can be used to surround an encampment of a group of people or individuals? Can they be a few horizontal ropes that work using levud? Is there a difference if it's a group or individuals (one or two people)? Is it dependent on space per person or what their particular needs are (i.e. if they have a lot/little equipment/items). What if the number of people changes over Shabbat, i.e. someone dies - do we follow what was permitted when Shabbat started or do we go by the present status? There is a debate regarding this - is it the same debate as the one regarding a post or beam of an alleyway or walls of a courtyard or house that fall over the course of Shabbat? What dispensations were made for soldiers in a voluntary war? They can take wood from anywhere, do not need to wash their hands before eating bread, do not need to separate tithes from questionable produce, do not need to make an eruv and some say can camp wherever they want and get buried wherever they die. Why is this not considered a met mitzva (one who died with no relative to bury him/her)? The gemara delves into each of this cases. The second chapter begins with a discussion on boards that are put up to allow drawing water from wells in public domains. How many boards? What is the space in between the boards? What side do the boards need to be?

Eruvin 16 - August 25, 5 Elul Aug 25, 2020

The gemara brings three different tannaitic sources that contradict Rav Papa who holds if the breach is equal to the standing part, it is considered a partition. One of the sources is resolved and then brought as a contradiction for Rav Huna's position. In the end the halacha is determined like Rav Papa, even though one of the sources brought clearly contradicts, because as seen in Eruvin 15, our mishna fits better with Rav Papa. The mishna discusses putting up "flimsy" partitions made up of horizontal ropes or vertical posts using laws of levud to allow it (less than 3 handbreadths in between each). The mishna was discussing a case of a caravan, presumably with a lot of people. There is a debate in the mishna if that case was chosen specifically because only for many people is it allowed or is it permitted in all cases. Rav Hamnuna asks a question regarding a horizontal wall if it is solid more than breached, does that work? Abaye answers it simply from the mishna and comments on the details that show that it only works if the ropes have thickness to them - if they could be thinner, it still could have worked using the principle "standing more than breached" - since it doesn't say that, it must not be the case. The gemara rejects his suggestion of using thinner ropes as they explain it could not work halachically as he suggested. The gemara brings two other suggestions regarding what exactly Rav Hamnuna was asking. The gemara questions Rabbi Yehuda approach in our mishna that the leniencies in the mishna are only for caravans - didn't he say elsewhere that it works for individuals?

Eruvin 15 - August 24, 4 Elul Aug 24, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 15

Today's daf is sponsored by Elisha Gordan in honor of his mother, Shifra Vega for her hospitality and chizuk learning the daf alongside him during corona.

A post that was already standing and not placed with the intent to be a post, does that work? Rava and Abaye disagree. The gemara assumes they would also disagree about the same issue regarding a mechitza but later reject this assumption. Sources are brought to support Abaye's position. Can an animal function as a post? Can one write a get, bill of divorce, on an animal? What works as a mechitza? If the wall is more breached than standing, it does not. What if it is equal?

Eruvin 14 - August 23, 3 Elul Aug 23, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 14

Today's daf is sponsored by Elisha Gordan in honor of her mother, Shifra Vega for her hospitality and chizuk learning the daf alongside me during corona.

What is the minimum width of a cross beam? The gemara brings a number of different cases of beams that are not long enough or not wide enough on their own, but can combine with another. Under what circumstances would this work? What is the beam is curved outward toward the public domain? What if it is a circle, what circumference would mean that the beam is one handbreadth in diameter? The rabbis determined that it would be at a circumference of 3. This is derived from a verse in the book of Kings describing the utensil in the temple called the yam of Shlomo. It had 150 times the requisite measurement needed for a mikveh. The gemara goes through the calculations that confirm this. What is the height and width of a post? Rabbi Yosi and the rabbis disagree about the width. Who do we hold like? What are the factors that went into determining this?

Eruvin 13 - Shabbat August 22, 2 Elul Aug 21, 2020

Today's shiur is dedicated by Phil Lorang in honor of his wife Ellen Lorang who learns the daf regularly.

The student who quotes in the name in Rabbi Yishmael to Rabbi Akiva is Rabbi Meir who learned first with Rabbi Yishmael then with Rabbi Meir. Different versions are brought regarding who he learned with first in the context of one of them forbidding him to use kankanton in his ink for writing a sefer Torah. Each version has a different rabbi forbidding and the other permitting. The gemara tries to resolve these contradictory sources. Why would kankanton be forbidden? The issue connects with the section in the Torah regarding a Sotah that gets erased in preparation of the Sotah water. What made Rabbi Meir unique in his learning? Why if he was so great, do we not hold like him when determining halacha. Why do we rule like Beit Hillel over Beit Shamai? When and how was that determined? How can we rule by a heavenly voice? How wide does a beam need to be? What if it is rounded?

Eruvin 12 - August 21, Rosh Chodesh Elul, 1 Elul Aug 21, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 12

Today's daf is dedicated by David Freudenstein in honor of Dr. Anna Urowitz-Freudenstein - "From your loving husband and children, on the occasion of your upcoming birthday, and in appreciation of the Simcha Shel Mitzva of learning and teaching Torah which you bring to all of us and to your many students."

Rabbi Eliezer requires 2 posts - does that also include a crossbeam? How does one allow carrying in a courtyard if the wall is breached? Does one need one board or two? Is there a minimum measurement required for the board? Is there a difference between a post and a beam in terms of the way they "correct" an alley - does the post "create" a wall and a beam is a noticeable marker? Is an alley whose width is equal to (or greater than) its length treated like a courtyard?

Eruvin 11 - August 20, 30 Av, Rosh Chodesh Elul 1 Aug 20, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 11

Today's daf is sponsored Chanah and Michael Piotrkowski in honor of Azi and Reva Esensten (and siblings Margolit, Zev and Betzalel, and their parents) for the beautiful handmade card and for giving us tzedakah so we'd travel safely to Israel when we made Aliyah on the 27th of Av. Come be with us soon! Love, Chanah and Michael.

The exceptions to the rule of a decorative element if the alley is too high, and a form of a doorway if it is too wide, would they each work to resolve the other issue (doorway for height, decorative for width)? Rav had an alternate version of the mishna in which is said that a form of a doorway does not resolve an opening of more than 10 cubits. Rav Yosef derived from there a halacha regarding a courtyard with a wall mostly open with windows and doorframes - that Rav would also not permit that. But the gemara rejects his comparison. The gemara suggests that Rabbi Yochanan agrees with Rav by bringing a debate between him and Reish Lakish regarding a vine draped on beams to serve as a barrier for mixing crops. Rabbi Yochanan distinguished there between laws for crops and laws of Shabbat. However, the gemara rejects the comparison as it is not clear it is referring to the same situation (the vine case could be that they were attached in the middle of the beams and not at the top). The gemara brings a contradiction to Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish's positions in this case to their positions in a similar case. The gemara resolves the contradiction. The gemara brings several halachot regarding the form of a doorway that can be used. Rav Hisda says it cannot be used if the beam it attached in the middle of the pole. Reish Lakish says it needs a pivot hole - for a hinge. Rav Nachman says the beam does not need to be attached to the posts - just above it and Rav Sheshet requires they be touching. A case happened in the alley of the Exilarch where they held like Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshet asked his attendant to take it down. The attendant was thrown into jail by the Exilarch's men and Rav Sheshet had to bail him out. Later, Raba bar Shmuel explained to Rav Sheshet that his opinion was wrong from a debate regarding an arched doorway and in which cases it is obligated in mezuza. Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel debate how an alley can be fixed - it is enough to put a beam or post or does one need both? Rabbi Eliezer things one needs two posts. Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva debate in which cases do Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel argue? Is it at any width or only from 4-10 cubits? How many walls make a space considered a private domain according to Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel and is it different to forbid carrying into their from a public domain and to permit carrying inside?

Eruvin 10 - August 19, 29 Av Aug 19, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 10

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rebecca Schwarzmer In memory of Toby Schwarzmer, Toibe Gittel bat Moshe Tzvi Hirsch z”l. Her love of Torah was evident in the way she lived her life, her career as an educator, her welcoming kiruv and her loving compassion. I was a granddaughter, not just by marriage, but in her heart. And by Onnie and Andy Schiffmiller in memory of Andy’s father, Tzvi ben Moshe Zeev and Frieda z”l.

The gemara brings a question from a braita regarding the mishna about the small and large courtyards that put the measurements of each at 10 and 11 cubits. If that number was given, that would raise a question against the opinion that a post viewed from the outside but not the inside would work. The gemara explains why this would not work with that approach. In any case the gemara holds by that approach that it would work as a post even if not noticeable to the people inside the alley. In the mishna, it was stated that if the entrance to the alley is wider than 10, one needs to make the entrance smaller. Just as Rabbi Yehuda disagrees regarding the maximum height, does he disagree about this. If so, what is his limit? Can it be derived from laws about the barriers made around wells that are limited to 13 and a third? According to tanna kama, how does one fix a 20 cubit opening - is it enough to put up a beam in the center or is a proper a wall needed that juts into the alley by 4 cubits or goes along the opening of the alley to make the area smaller? Rav Yehuda gave an example of a 15 cubit space - one can add a wall of 3 and leave 2 cubits open at the end. This works because if the standing part is greater than the opening, we view it as if it were a solid wall. The gemara tries to make assumptions about how this principle would work if there were two beams together that covered a together greater amount of space than one opening - would that work? Can one assume it wouldn't since Rav Yehuda didn't bring that case? Several details regarding this principle are attempted to be derived from here but in the end are rejected. The gemara brings the case of a leather toilet cover regarding impurity as the hole is included in the measurement. Rav Dimi and Ravin debate the exact size of the solid sides and of the hole - do they debate in what cases two solid parts can override something empty as discussed above in the alley?

Eruvin 9 - August 18, 28 Av Aug 18, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 9

Today's daf is dedicated by Yael Asher in memory of her father, Elchanan Yosipuf ben Yeshua z"l on his yahrzeit.

If a peg was hung on the outside of the alley and the beam attached to that, would it work? Does it depend on what one holds regarding the way the beam functions as an imaginary wall - if we view it as if the outer edge comes down or the inner edge? Rava thinks that either way it is a problem. Rava's opinion is questioned from a braita which discusses a beam that is drawn away or suspended. In order to resolve it, the gemara brings different explanations for the case in the braita. Is the space between posts permitted? Rabbi Zakai brought a braita which said both under the beam and between the posts is allowed and Rabbi Yochanan told him it was a problematic braita. Rava and Abaye disagree over which part of the braita Rabbi Yochanan thought was incorrect. Each brings a source to prove their position. Rava is questioned by another source and two potential answers are brought. If the post can be seen from the outside but not the inside, is it valid? Different answers are brought. One is questioned by the mishna regarding a smaller courtyard open into a larger one. And the gemara explains the case slightly differently in order to resolve the question.

Eruvin 8 - August 17, 27 Av Aug 17, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 8

Today's daf is dedicated by Becky Fryant in memory of her mother, Faina Fraynt z"l on her yahrzeit. She was a great teacher and supporter of women's learning. May her memory be for blessing.

Before they concluded that Rav Yehuda in the case of an alley that opened to a backyard did not disagree with Rav in the case of an alley that opened into a courtyard, there was an assumption that they disagreed. According to that original understanding, what was the debate between them in the case where an eruv was made and what was the disagreement in a case where there was no eruv? Is the case where the alley opens to a backyard which leads to the public domain, only permitted if the entrances to the public domain are not directly opposite each other? Does it matter is the alley opens into the middle of the backyard or can it open to its side? Does it matter if it is a backyard owned by an individual or by a few people? Where are there other cases where this distinction is made between private and multiple owners? The gemara asks why Rav taught the case about the alley opening into a courtyard where the courtyard members can carry within the courtyard, isn't that an explicit mishna where a small courtyard opens into a larger one. And even if one can distinguish between the cases, there is a Tosefta that also says the same thing even when many people use the courtyard to get from place to place? An alley designed with multiple exits, how does one fix it? If one wall juts out farther than the other, where does one place the beam? Can one use the space under the beam? There is a debate and the gemara brings three possible explanations of the debate between them. By the posts, no one disagrees.

Eruvin 7 - August 16, 26 Av Aug 16, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 7

In a crooked alleyway in Nehardea, they ruled stringently like Rav that it was considered an open alleyway and stringently like Shmuel that an open alleyway requires a door on one side and a post or beam on the other. Is one allowed to rule stringently like two different opinions? The gemara questions this from a braita in which it says that one who holds like stringencies of Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai is a "fool who walks in the dark." There is a further issue with the braita itself as it says that the halacha is like Beit Hillel, yet if one wants to, one can follow Beit Shamai. The gemara brings answers to both their questions. Rav Yosef brings two halachot regarding cases of an alleyway opened on both sides - one relating to what it is open to and the other about a case where the alleyway opens to a backyard and the backyard is open. The first halacha was stated in the name of Ravi Yehuda in the name of Rav and the second was stated in the name of Rav Yehuda, but it is unclear if it was learned from Rav or not. Abaye suggests that it seems to contradict what Rav says in a similar case where the alleyway opens up to a courtyard, however the gemara suggests that one could distinguish between the two cases as people don't generally leave their houses through the backyard. And the issue is not connected to the alleyway being considered open on both sides, but has to do with whether or not the people in the courtyard joined the eruv.

Eruvin 6 - Shabbat August 15, 25 Av Aug 14, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 6

Today’s daf is dedicated by Alexis Rosoff Treeby in honor of the yahrzeit of Jennifer Rosoff, Malka Menucha bat Meir v'Esther Chaya z”l. And by Beth Fox in memory of her father Edward Fox, Ezra Chaim ben Zev v'Slova z”l on his shloshim. “A kind, wonderful man who always encouraged me in my learning. I miss him very much.”

If there is a breach in a wall of a mavoi, does it prevent one from using a korah or lechi to allow carrying the mavoi? At what size is it a problem and does it matter where the breach is? There are different types of alley - ones that are opened on both sizes (opposite sides) to the public domain (mavoi mefulash), ones that are only open on one side (mavoi satum) and ones that are "crooked" L-shaped, open on two sides but not opposite sides (mavoi akum). What are the laws for allowing carrying in each type of alley/mavoi? Can one accept stringencies of two different approaches? According to a braita, this is considered a bad practice.

Eruvin 5 - August 14, 24 Av Aug 14, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 5

Today's daf is dedicated by Sara Berelowitz in memory of her mother Kila bat Yehuda z"l on her yartzeit. She would have been delighted to know that her daughter is learning the daf.

If the beam is higher than 20 cubits, by how much does one need to lower it? The gemara tries to understand what exactly the question is. Rav Yosef and Abaye each have their own opinion and the gemara tries to explain the debate between them. Four different answers are brought. The same question is asked regarding a case where the beam is lower than ten handbreadths - how far into the mavoi does the floor need to be lowered. Rav Yosef and Abaye also have a debate regarding this matter. Abaye brings two proofs for his position and Rav Yosef explains those sources according to his view. Rav Huna describes a case where the entrance to the mavoi has a partial wall jutting out - does one still need to put up a lechi there? It depends on the size of the wall. In the case that one would put up a lechi, where should it be placed? Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua narrows the case of Rav Huna and doesn't require a lechi if the wall covers more than 50% of the opening as it can be derived from laws of courtyards by a kal vachomer. Some question whether this kal vachomer is valid, perhaps laws of mavoi are more stringent than courtyards?

Eruvin 4 - August 13, 23 Av Aug 13, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 4

Today's daf is dedicated by Dina Hirshfeld-Becker on her father's second yahrzeit, Alan Hirshfeld, Asher Tuvia ben Shlomo v'Chana z"l. And by Michael Radwin in honor of Ariella Radwin in celebration of their 20th wedding anniversary. And by Yael and Jon Cohen in honor of their son Eddie who drafted yesterday. May Hashem protect you as you do the work that enables our country to be free. עלה והצלח!

The gemara brings a tannatic source to question Abaye's understanding of Rav Nachman regarding the size of a cubit (5 or 6 handbreadths). The gemara resolves the issue. The requisite amount, mechitza (separations) and chatzitza (one cannot be purified by a mikveh if there is a separation between the water and one's body) are all oral traditions passed down from Moshe at Sinai. The gemara questions each - aren't they mentioned in the Torah? The gemara explains what is meant by each term in order to answer the question.

Eruvin 3 - Wednesday August 12, 22 Av Aug 11, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 3

Today’s daf is sponsored by Debby & Howard Jacoby Ruben in honor of our wise mothers, aunts, sisters, and daughters from whom we have learned so much. And by Joyce Bendavid in honor of Gail Stechler and Dena Levie for spearheading the Teaneck Hadran group. It was an honor to celebrate the Siyum for Masechet Shabbat with them. And by Tamar Wenocur-Hartmayer, to my chevrutah, Jeremy Rudoler, in honor of our siyum of Masechet Chagiga on Sunday. Mazal tov on starting graduate school this fall! Delaware is lucky to have you.

If Rav thought that the height was derived from the sanctuary, why aren't other details like those of the sanctuary? The gemara explains that the height was really for it to be noticeable and therefore why was this needed to be stated both by Sukka and by mavoi? What if the beam was partially within 20 cubits and partially above 20 cubits? What was the size of a cubit - 5 handbreaths or 6?

Eruvin 2 - August 11, 21 Av Aug 11, 2020

Study Guide Eruvin 2

What are the four domains? What is an eruv? What does it permit? What is a lechi, kora, tzurat hapetach? What is the maximum height of a kora, beam and the maximum width of the opening of the alley (mavoi)? The rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda have different opinions. The gemara compares our mishna to the first mishna in Sukka and question why the language used is different. Rav says that both measurement s of the rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda are learned from the measurements of the Temple - one from the entranceway to the ulam, antechamber and one from the entranceway to the heichal, sanctuary. They are both derived from verses relating to the tabernacle. How can we learn about the temple from the tabernacle? And if so, why not from the entranceway to the courtyard of the tabernacle which was wider? The gemara brings several questions on Rav and concludes that Rabbi Yehuda did not learn from the ulam, but learned from palaces of kings.

Shabbat 157 - August 10, 20 Av Aug 09, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 157

The Siyum is sponsored in memory of Rabbi Adin Even Yisrael Steinsaltz zt”l a true giant in Torah learning and a leading educator of our generation who made talmud accessible to all. And by Roslyn Jaffe in honor of the seventh Yahrzeit of her wonderful father Mickey Muhlrad, A”H, Moshe Yaakov Ben Dovid. He followed in Hashem’s ways with his kindness, chesed and love for Yiddishkeit and learning. He had great respect for talmidei chachamim and would be so proud of all the women learning Daf Yomi. And for a refuah shleima to Elchanan David ben Yatza Ruth and Tzippora bat Charna.

Can one nullify or dissolve vows on Shabbat? What is the difference between nullifying and dissolving? Does it matter if it is for the purposes of Shabbat or not? What if one could have done it before Shabbat and didn't? The rabbis take a situation that happened relating to a case of potential impurity from a dead body and derive from there that certain things are permitted for the purposes of a mitzva. The gemara ends with a story of a rabbi measuring a tub of water and when approaced by Ulla and questioned how one can do this, he responded that he was not measuring for any purpose - mitasek - and therefore it was permitted.

Shabbat 156 - August 9, 19 Av Aug 09, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 156

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of Mayer Penstein, Meyer Yosef ben Avraham v'Eta, a close family friend who loved to learn Torah, who passed away this past week. And by Racheli and Yaakov in honor of Deborah Aschheim on the occassion of her birthday. "Happy birthday Mom! We love you & miss you! Kol HaKavod on your Daf Yomi journey! Love, Cheli & Yaakov."

The gemara continues to delve into the debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda regarding kneading/mixing substances on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehushua ben Levi lists the significance of the day one is born and how that affects one's personality. Rabbi Chanina disagrees and says it is not the day that affects it but the hour as it is affected by the constellations and each hour a different constellation rules. He holds that the constellations affect the Jews. Rabbi Yochanan and others disagree and hold that constellations do not affect Jewish people and several stories are brought to show who holds that way and why, including the story of Shmuel and Avlet, and Rabbi Akiva's daughter on her wedding day who was destined to be bitten by a snake but due to her generous behavior, was able to overcome it. The mishna brings a debate regarding muktze between Rabbi Shimon (tana kama) and Rabbi Yehuda and the gemara lined up who held like who. The gemara then brings opinions that we hold like Rabbi Shimon on all debates between him and Rabbi Yehuda in masechet Shabbat other than one minor category of mutzke upon which there is a debate which category it is.

Shabbat 155 - August 8, 18 Av Aug 07, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 155

Today's shiur is dedicated in memory of Rav Adin Steinzaltz who dedicated his life to making the Talmud accessible to all.

Is there a difference between using the sides of a tree or using something attached to the side of the tree? Can one feed animals on Shabbat? What are the parameters? Which animals? Under what circumstances? In what way?

Shabbat 154 - August 7, 17 Av Aug 07, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 154

Today's daf is sponsored by Leslie Jakoby Green in honor of the first yahrzeit of her wonderful father, Alexander Jakoby, A"H Yehoshua Aryeh ben Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen. He survived starvation, hardship and the Dachau Concentration Camp as a teenager. He persevered to build a new life in New York, along with his wife Rose, also a survivor, and to impart to his children and grandchildren a love of Judaism and a belief in the destiny of Jewish people and Eretz Yisrael. He is deeply missed and forever in our hearts. And by Deborah Aschheim for the 40th yartzeit of her beloved father, David Aschheim, z"l on 17 Av. An ardent Zionist. He would be amazed by all the learning now available to women, especially his public school educated daughter.

Does one who leads a donkey with its load on Shabbat get punished and if so, what punishment? Three different opinions are brought. Rav Huna says that if the animal was carrying glass vessels, one brings pillows and blankets and unties the rope around the vessels and they fall without breaking. The gemara asks several questions on Rav Huna. Rabban Gamliel didn't remove a load from his donkey on shabbat and the donkey died. The gemara questions his actions. One cannot use animals on Shabbat but can one use the sides of the animal. Raba and Abaye disagree and questions are brought regarding each approach.

Shabbat 153 - August 6, 16 Av Aug 06, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 153

Today's shiur is sponsored by Ronit Shavit in memory of her beloved mother Leah ben Shoshan who dedicated her life to learning Torah and instilling a love of Torah in her children, nieces and students.

What are indicators that one will receive a share in the world to come? According to Rabbi Eliezer, one should always feel like each day may be the last day of one's life and therefore constantly be involved in repentance. What does one do if one is on the way home carrying one's wallet and other items and Shabbat starts? What is one allowed to do to ensure that one's property gets home safely. There are a list of possibilities that the gemara offers and discusses which is preferable (non-Jew, donkey, imbecile, deaf-mute, minor). Why do the rabbis allow this? There is one option that the rabbis do not reveal as they are concerned that people will make a mistake and carry it in a prohibited manner. Is it a positive thing that the rabbis limit people from doing permitted things in order to protect the Torah or is it not a positive thing as making the laws more stringent may be something that the people cannot handle? What is the issue with not allowing one's donkey to carry on Shabbat in general and what is the punishment one would receive if one works one's donkey on Shabbat?

Shabbat 152 - August 5, 15 Av Aug 05, 2020

Today's shiur is dedicated for a refuah shleima to Rav Adin Steinsaltz, HaRav Adin ben Rivka Leah.

The gemara explains verses in Kohelet that describe the deterioration of the body as one gets older as well as what happens to the body and soul after death. various stories involving conversations and something arguments are brought that connect with the ideas discussed. Where does the soul of the righteous, evil and average people go after death. Do the bodies of righteous people decompose?

Shabbat 151 - August 4, 14 Av Aug 04, 2020

What is Abba Shaul trying to add by saying, "If one can say it, then one can wait on the border when Shabbat is ending"? One can wait on the border to do a mitzva like for a bride or a dead person. One can also speak on Shabbat about buying or preparing things for these purposes. If a non-Jew does work on Shabbat, can a Jew benefit from this - on what does it depend? If the non-Jew did it for a non-Jew? Or what if it is unclear who it was done for? In the cases where the Jew can benefit, does he need to wait after Shabbat the amount of time it would take to do it after Shabbat? In cases where he cannot benefit, is it forbidden for him to benefit from it forever? One can do certain things with a person who died on Shabbat -what is allowed and what is not? One cannot close the eyes of a person about to die, even on a weekday as that hastens death. The gemara compares the fact that we desecrate Shabbat for a newborn baby but not for a dead person, even as great as King David. Poverty is cyclical - if you are not poor, likely one of your descendants will be. The gemara stresses the importance of helping and being sympathetic to others as you may need that kind of help in the future. The gemara describes old age and death and talks about how crying causes blindness in those over the age of forty. There are different types of tears - some that are good and some that are bad.

Shabbat 150 - August 3, 13 Av Aug 03, 2020

Today's daf is sponsored by Rabbi David Young in honor of his chevruta called "Day Yomi, Baby!” - Rabbi Rachel Greengrass, Rabbi Stephen Wise, Rabbi Eric Linder, Rabbi Andy Rosenkranz and Rabbi Sari Laufer.

Can one hire workers on Shabbat for work on Shabbat or after Shabbat? Can one tell someone else to hire workers for them? Is that referring to telling a Jew or a non-Jew? Can one go to the edge of techum Shabbat and wait there until Shabbat ends to do something immediately after Shabbat? It depends on whether or not what you are planning to do is something forbidden on Shabbat. Can one do calculations on Shabbat - under what circumstances? Can one gather to discuss public issues? If one did not make havdala at the end of Shabbat, can one perform melacha?

Shabbat 149 - August 2, 12 Av Aug 02, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 149

Can one go over a written list of guests that one wants one's servant to invite on Shabbat? Or a list of foods to serve? What is the concern? The gemara brings two explanations and tries to find the situation where there would be a disagreement between the two. Can one look in a mirror on Shabbat - what would be the concern and in what case would it be an issue? Can one cast lots on Shabbat to give out food? What is the concern? In what case would it be forbidden even on a weekday, due to a concern that one may come to gamble? If one causes another to get punished, he is not invited to dwell in the abode of God. From where is this derived - from the spirit of Navot who seduced the kind Achav and led him to his death, from Tzidkiahu the king who caused Nevuchadnetzer to be punished? Or from a verse in Proverbs? The gemara tells of the strength of Nevbuchanetzer and also of a story where he was punished in a very embarrassing manner.

Shabbat 148 - Shabbat August 1, 11 Av Jul 31, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 148

Today's daf is sponsored by Julie Mendelson in honor of her son who is drafting into the army on Sunday. “My favorite study partner - Iknow you might not have time to listen to the daf every day, but we’ll all learn on your behalf while you defend us. B’ezrat Hashem - I hope you have a successful and meaningful service, and come home safe and sound. Love, Mom

Can one set a broken bone on Shabbat? Can one lend food items to someone else on Shabbat – is it like a business transaction? In what way can it be done so that it will not be. Loaning bread to someone can create a problem of loaning on interest – how and how can this be avoided? Can one demand the return of the value of the item in court if it was loaned on Shabbat? Raba and Rav Yosef debate this and the gemara tries to bring sources to prove who is right.

Shabbat 147 - July 31, 10 Av Jul 31, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 147

Today’s daf is dedicated by David and Margie Zweibel in memory of David’s father, Yehuda Aryeh ben Moshe z”l and by Ayelet Hermel in memory of her grandmother Rivka Regina bat Faiga and Efraim z"l.

The mishna and gemara go over all sorts of actions that are either permitted or forbidden due to concern/no concern that one may do something forbidden or because it may be considered uvda d'chol - a weekday activity. Can one do something where it may look like to others that one has laundered? If it is forbidden can one do it where no one will see? Do we generally say that anything forbidden because of marit ayin, what others may think, is forbidden even where others may not see? Can one wipe off one's clothing - it that consdiered laundering? On what does it depend? How subjective it this? If one dried off with a towel after washing in the river, are we worried if we allow them to take it home, they may wring it out? Can one rub oil on one's body? On what does it depend? In te context of discussiong pleasurable things one does for one's body, the gemara references the story of Rabbi Elazar ben Arach who did not follow the rabbis to Yavneh and stayed in his city to engage in pleasurable activities and forgot all of his Torah.

Shabbat 146 - Tisha B'av Daf - July 30, 9 Av Jul 29, 2020

Today's daf is sponsored by Jane Shapiro in honor of Nina Black on her birthday, from her Machi who loves sharing grandchildren and children and daf yomi together.

Can one break a barrel on Shabbat? Can one make a spout? Can one perforate the cover of a barrel? Can one use a reed or a branch to make a spout? Can one open a hole that was sealed up? On what does it depend? Can one seal a hole with wax? With oil? To what extent did Rav go to respect other rabbis even though he was a more prominent rabbi than they were?

Shabbat 145 - July 29, 8 Av Jul 29, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 145

Today’s daf is sponsored by Margie Zweibel l’ilui nishmat Chami Tzvi ben Yosef Binyamin z”l. And by Aviva Baumser in honor of Deborah Aschheim in honor of your mother Edith Aschheim & all the hard work & Torah dedication you have been doing in her & her husband's name. Kol HaKavod!!!

The gemara delves into the concept of liquids that are squeezed onto a solid are considered food. Is that a subject of debate among tannaim? Fish brine is considered food and not a liquid and therefore can bbe squeezed on Shabbat. Was this said by Rav or Shmuel? If by Shmuel, it contradicts something he says elsewhere. Can one accept hearsay evidence? Only for testimony for a woman that her husband died in order to prevent her from being an aguna and allowing her to remarry. If one cooked an item before Shabbat, one can soak it in hot water on Shabbat, but if not, one can only pour hot water on it on Shabbat. However, there are some salted fish that are prepared by pouring hot water on them and therefore one cannot do that on Shabbat. The gemara discusses some foods that they ate in Babylonia and others that were eaten in Israel that were considered disgusting by those from the other locale. The gemara relates the tension between the rabbis in Babylonia and Israel in a story of rabbis from Israel who were speaking in a derogatory manner about the Babylonians but were then reprimanded by Rabbi Yochanan.

Shabbat 144 - July 28, 7 Av Jul 28, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 144

Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim Weiss in memory of her beloved mother, Edith Aschheim z"l on her 37th yartzeit. She loved yiddishkeit and learning despite the limitations on her childhood Jewish education due to WWII. And by Aviva Drazin in memory of Rabbi Joshua Shmidman z"l on his 15th Yahrzeit. His ways were דרכי נועם, and he led, taught and inspired his Kehila in Montreal with a love of Torah, Am Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael. יהי זכרו ברוך. And by Lesley Nadel for Don Nadel, her husband, best friend and chavruta to wish him a very happy birthday and many more happy and healthy years.

Does Rabbi Yehuda really hold that if one had no particular intent regarding pomegranates or mulberries, then they would be treated as if you planned to juice it and liquids seeping out of it would be forbidden? The question comes from a mishna regarding whether or not there is a difference between humans and animal regarding the need for intent for the breast milk to come out in order for it to be considered a liquid to create susceptibility to impurity, there is a claim that the rabbis make regarding a basket of olives and grapes and there it seems that if one had no intention for using it for liquids or solid, it would be considered designated for solids. The gemara provides two possible answers. From where does Raba know that the rabbis agree with Rabbi Yehuda about other fruits that are not meant for juicing - that one is allowed to drink liquids that seep out of it? A braita is brought to prove it and in that braita the family of Menashia is mentioned who often made pomegranate juice and the law was decided based on their practice. How could be make a law based on a unique practice? The gemara attempts to answer that question. If one squeezes onto a solid, it is allowed as it is considered a solid, but if one squeezes onto a liquid, it is considered a liquid. The gemara questions this.

Shabbat 143 - July 27, 6 Av Jul 27, 2020

Can one clear bones and peels off the table? Are they considered muktze? Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel debate how this can be done. Each one sides with either Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda regarding whether we have a narrow definition of what is muktze or a wider one. Rav Nachman says there's a mistake regarding who said which opinion. Can one use a sponge on Shabbat? Does one need to be concerned that one may squeeze out liquid? There is a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis regarding squeezing fruits. Both agree that juicing fruits is forbidden but they disagree regarding liquids that come out of the fruits on their own. There are different opinions regarding what categories of fruits they disagree about - ones that are mainly used for their juices, ones that are mainly used for eating or possibly only those in between.

Shabbat 142 - July 26, 5 Av Jul 26, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 142

This week's shiurim are dedicated for a refuah shleima for our dear Ellie, Chana Esther Bat Ayala Hadar - with all our love, Elana and Danny Storch and family. And by Cliff Felig in honor of Minna Ferziger Felig on the occasion of her birthday. Mazel tov!

Why is one allowed to carry a child with a rock in his/her hand but not money? In the case of the basket with money, it must be there are fruits in the basket also as the basket is serving as a base for both muktze and non muktze items and that is why it can be carried. Why don't we dump the fruits and the rock out and then put the fruits back in? One can carry pure and impure truma if they are together. Rav Chisda says this is only if the impure is at the top and one cannot access the pure that is underneath. However a braita is brought that says either way it is allowed. How can Rav Chisda explain himself in light of the braita? How does Rabbi Yehuda allow on Shabbat one to fix a mixture of 100 measures regular produce and one of truma by removing one that will now be considered the truma - isn't this like fixing something which should be forbidden on Shabbat? Three possible explanations are brought - the first two are rejected. Is there is a stone on top of a barrel, how can one get it off to get to the wine in the barrel? Or money on a pillow? The gemara explains the exact details of the cases and how and why it can be done in that way? Can one carry an item that is muktze in order to protect it by bringing something that is permitted to be carried and carrying them both? Or is that solution only permitted for a dead body out of respect for the body?

Shabbat 141 - July 25, 4 Av Jul 24, 2020

In what cases can one move things that are muktze indirectly? When one comes out of a river on Shabbat, one needs to worry about carrying water that is on one's body and therefore should dry off before walking. How can one clean off dirt off one's foot on Shabbat? How can one clean dirt off one's clothing? Can one scrape dirt off a shoe? Can one remove a shoe from the shoe frame? Why can't a child go out with shoes that are too big or a woman wearing shoes she has never worn before? Can one carry a child if the child is carrying a rock in its hand? The mishna discusses cases where an item can be considered secondary to another and therefore will be able to be carried together with it and is not considered muktze. The gemara brings up cases regarding carrying from a public to private domain a child with a purse around its neck. The conclusion there is different from the mishna as there we obligate one for carrying the purse. Why the difference?

Shabbat 140 - July 24, 3 Av Jul 24, 2020

Can one put eggs in a mustard strainer on Shabbat - why? If the mustard (oil or wine made from mustard) was kneaded in its own liquids before Shabbat, can one add liquid and mix it on Shabbat or is it a problem of kneading? Is there a difference if it is done with a utensil or by hand? Other drinks that people prepare in a way that involves kneading or may be used for medicinal purposes are discussed - can they be prepare don Shabbat or not? If one needs to take medicine for a number of days in a row, can one prepare the medicine on Shabbat? Can one rub a garment after laundering which was meant both to soften and to whiten - which is the main reason it is done? If for whitening, it would be forbidden. Rav Hisda has a long list of advice including financial, food-related, marital advice to his daughters, etc. Can one sweep the feeding trough of an animal on Shabbat? On what does it depend? Can one move food from one animal to another? It depends from which animal to which - how?

Shabbat 139 - July 23, 2 Av Jul 23, 2020

Today's shiur is dedicated by Mark Goldstein in honor of Rena Septee Goldstein, his wife of 38 years and his daf yomi chevruta.

The gemara discussed the problematic nature of having corrupt and arrogant leaders. The people of Baschar ask a number of questions regarding building a canopy on Shabbat, planting hops in a vineyard (issue of kelaim, mixing diverse kinds) and burial on Yom Tov. Rav Menashia tells them that all are forbidden because he is worried about the "slippery slope" as they are not "bnei Torah." Since all these things are allowed only in a particular manner or particular circumstances, he is concerned and they will not properly understand the nuances and think it is allowed across the board. People had non Jewish children plant their hops. Why can't one have Jewish children who are not yet obligated in mitzvot? There is concern that they will think they can also do it when they get older. The gemara brings cases where one can employ artifice to do something like build a wine strainer and claim to use it to hold pomegranates. Rav Ashi says it is allowed only if one actually uses it for pomegranates. In a similar situation, that wasn't necessary - the gemara explains the difference between the two cases. When it comes to rabbinic law, we allow a talmid chacham to use artifice because we are not worried that he do it without artifice. One can filter clear water and wine. What mechanisms can be used to filter the wine? The gemara explain how Rav Papa's family would strain beer (they were beer brewers).

Shabbat 138 - July 22, Rosh Chodesh Av, 1 Av Jul 22, 2020

Today's shiur is sponsored by Elizabeth Kirshner in loving memory of her father, Rabbi Gabriel M. Kirshner, HaRav Gavriel Meir ben HaRav Shraga Feyvel z"l, who instilled in her a love of Torah from the very first moments of her life. May his neshama have an aliyah and may his legacy bring healing and harmony to the world. And by Caroline Musin Berkowitz in honor of the 98th birthday of her grandmother, Florence Hirsch. As it says in Arakhin 19a, savta b'veita, sima (treasure) b'veita. She is our treasure indeed. And by Marcia Baum in memory of her father Sam Baum, Chaim Simcha Ben Aaron Halevi and Leba z"l , on his 17th Yartzeit. He taught his daughters that they could be, do and learn anything... including the Talmud. And wishing Kay Weinberger a very happy birthday, chodesh tov , and hope you are enjoying learning daf - with love from Valerie Adler.

According to the rabbis who forbid hanging up the wine strainer, is it forbidden by Torah law due to building or by rabbinic law due to the fact that it is considered uvda d'chol, a weekday activity? Rav Yosef and Abaye disagree. Abaye splits building into 3 categories and lists braitot that discuss what type of building is forbidden by Torah law, rabbinic law or entirely permitted (like folding chairs/tables). According to the rabbis who forbade straining the wine of Shabbat, is it by Torah or rabbinic law? Is it because of the melacha of separating or sifting? The gemara discusses various type of temporary tents and explains under what conditions can one build a bridal canopy? Rami bar Yechezkel asked Rav Huna to tell him some laws of Rav regarding Shabbat and also something regarding Torah. In that context, the gemara brings Rav's opinion that there will come a time when the Torah will be forgotten. A Tosefta is brought saying the same things, using a verse from Amos. The gemara goes to lengths to assess what type of Torah will be forgotten? Will it be even things written in the Torah explicitly or in the mishna or did he mean more complicated things? Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai disagrees and thinks that the Torah will not be forgotten - the issue will be that there will not be one central halachic authority and it will be unclear what the law is.

Shabbat 137 - July 21, 29 Tamuz Jul 21, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 137

This week’s learning is sponsored by Margie Zweibel in honor of Howie Shocket, Chaim Tzvi ben Yenta Bluma. He is in our tefillot.

Today’s daf is sponsored by The Mitchell Family in honor of Rabia Mitchell’s birthday. Mazel tov!

In which additional case does Rabbi Yehuda hold that an andrgyne is considered a case of doubt and not for sure male? If there are two babies (of one father) and was born on Friday and the other on Shabbat and the father mistakenly circumcises the Friday baby, or there were two babies one born on Sunday and one born on Shabbat and the father mistakenly circumcises the Sunday baby, is he obligated to bring a sacrifice for unwittingly desecrating Shabbat? Rabbi Eliezer and rabbi Yehoshua disagree in one of the cases and agree in the other but it is not clear in which case do they agree and do they both agree one is obligated or exempt? Three versions are brought in the gemara. The underlying issues is: does the fact that one performed a mitzva or was involved in trying to perform a mitzva exempt him from bringing a sacrifice for desecrating Shabbat? One can perform the brrit milah sometimes on the 9th, 10th, 11th or 12th day after the birth and still be circumcising in its proper time. The mishna describes each case and why. When is brit milah in its proper time for a child who is sick? What are the additional pieces of skin that must be removed in order for the circumcision to be valid? If someone is overweight, more needs to be removed so it will not appear (marit ayin) as if he isn't circumcised. If one is overweight, how can it be determined whether or not more needs to be removed? What blessings are recited at the brit milah? How are the blessings different for a convert and a Canaanite slave? Can one hang a wine strainer on Yom Tov? Is it a problem of building? Can one pour wine into an already set up wine strainer even on Shabbat? Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis debate this issue. Rabbi Eliezer is lenient. How does it connect with Rabbi Eliezer's stringent opinion about the window shutter where he forbids adding to an already existing temporary tent?

Shabbat 136 - July 20, 28 Tamuz Jul 20, 2020

Today's daf is sponsored by Danielle Leeshaw in honor of the wonderful community of daf yomi participants at Hillel International that inspire students and staff to learn and love Talmud study.

How does one perform a brit milah on Shabbat if according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, it is not clear until the thirtieth day if the baby will survive? How does one treat a case where one is not sure if a baby is viable (in the terminology of the rabbis - a baby born after eight months is not viable but after seven or nine would be viable - what if it is unclear what month the baby was born?) - do we view the baby as alive for the time is was living, even if it doesn't make it to day 30 or do we view it as if it was never alive? The relevance is in a case where the husband died while the woman was pregnant and they had no other children. If the child is considered to have lived for the time it was alive, she is exempt from levirate marriage. If not, she is obligated. The gemara brings two stories of rabbis whose children died within the first thirty days and they mourned for them. Others did not understand why and they needed to explain themselves. One can see from these stories, raising awareness about the difficulties of those dealing with infant loss/stillborn births. Rabbi Yehuda allows a brit milah on an androgenous/hermaphrodite on Shabbat. Rav Shizbi says that in other places Rabbi Yehuda does not treat an androgenous as a clear male - see for example laws of valuation.

Shabbat 135 - July 19, 27 Tamuz Jul 19, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 135

Today’s shiur is dedicated by Miriam Tannenbaum with gratitude to the inspiring Daf Yomi women of RBS-Kehillat Ahavat Tzvion. "So grateful to have started this journey together and to continue even as we move to Efrat" and by Margie Zwiebel for a refuah shleima for Chaim Tzvi ben Yetta Bluma.

In which situations does the mitzva of brit milah not override Shabbat? Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree although it is not clear if their disagreement is regarding a child who is already born circumcised or a convert who was circumcised before converting. What is the status of a child born after eight months of pregnancy? Rabbi Asi connects (based on the connection in the verses of the Torah) between a woman who has impurity from birth for seven days after the birth of a male to the law of performed the brit milah on the eighth day. He therefore holds that a child born though caesarean section would get a brit milah immediately. Abaye disagrees. The gemara then shows that this debate was also a subject of debate for tannaim where Rabbi Chama and tana kama debate the status of slave children and in what situations do are they circumcised on the first day and in which ones on the eighth day? For the first thirty days of a baby's life, it is not clear if the baby will live - only when it reaches day 30 does it become clear. This is why the law of pidyon haben, redeeming the baby, is one the tthirtieth day. If that is the case, how can we do a brit milah on Shabbat on day eight if it's not clear the baby will live?

Shabbat 134 - July 18, 26 Tamuz Jul 17, 2020

What can be done to take care of a child after his brit milah on Shabbat? The woman who brought up Abaye told him all sorts of remedies for babies, including some things relevant for brit milah. Can one wash one before or after a brit milah with hot water? For how many days? Can one wask normally or not? Can it be with water warmed up before Shabbat or even with water warmed up on Shabbat?

Shabbat 133 - July 17, 25 Tamuz Jul 17, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 133

Why do we need a drasha to teach us that brit milah overrides the prohibition to cut a leprous mark – isn’t it an act that one does without intention and one should be exempt? From where do we derive that brit milah done not on the eighth day does not override Yom Tov (and obviously, Shabbat). Four answers are brought. Rav Yehuda paskens in the name of Rav like Rabbi Akiva that preparations for milah do not override Shabbat. He also holds like Rabbi Akiva regarding the same issue with the Pashal sacrifice. Why does he need to say this in both cases – wouldn’t it be obvious we can learn from one to the other? All things relating directly to the brit milah override Shabbat – the mishna states what that includes. The gemara says it even includes pieces of the skin that are left that are necessary as part of the mitzvah to remove. However, if they do not prevent the mitzvah from being fulfilled, one can only remove them if one is still in the process of cutting but once the mohel has stopped, he cannot cut those pieces. The gemara tries to connect this opinion with a tanna who in a different case who holds that once one stops, the action is no longer connected with the previous one. Three different tannaitic arguments are brought – the first two are rejected. Why is metzitza allowed? The gemara discusses bandages as mentioned in the mishna and Rava taught how to make a good bandage and as a result got some people upset as he “stole” their business as they knew how to do this and would sell to others. Rava tries to appease them.

Shabbat 132 - July 16, Tamuz 24 Jul 16, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 132

Today's daf is sponsored by Robyn Samuels for a refuah shelaymah u'mehayra for Yaakov Wolf Ben Tzipa.

From where does Rabbi Eliezer derive that any preparations needed for a brit milah override Shabbat? From where do we derive (according to all opinions) that a brit milah can be performed on Shabbat? The gemara brings seven possible answers and delves into each possibility. The gemara brings a proof from a braita for Rabbi Yochanan's opinion that it is derived from the word "on the day." Before quoting the derivation from the verse, the braita first suggests two possibilities that maybe logically one could infer that brit milah would override Shabbat or maybe the opposite can be inferred. Rava explains the logic behind each one. In the suggestion of Rava, the issue is raised regarding the hlacha that one cannot remove a leprous mark, even if it means that sacrifices can't be brought in the Temple. However, one can cut off a leprous mark in the performance of the mitzva of brit milah. From where is that law derived? Why is there a difference?

Shabbat 131 - July 15, 23 Tamuz Jul 15, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 131

Today's daf is sponsored by Idana Goldberg and Michael Kellman in celebration of Idana's grandfather, Meyer Weitz's 100th birthday. Mr. Weitz loves studying Talmud and has always been a strong proponent of women's advanced Talmud study. And by Susan Fisher in memory of her father, Eliezer ben Shraga Pharvish Allweis z"l on his yahrzeit. "He loved learning and filled our home with sifrei kodesh and the books which made limmud Torah a joy." And by Vicki Gordon in memory of her father Yisroel (Izzy) Herzog z"l, a giant in Chesed - "I miss him every day."

The gemara brings two explanations of Rav's statement where he distinguishes between carrying in an alley without a proper eiruv (just one beam either horizontal or vertical) when 1. there was an eiruv done between the houses and the courtyard - in that case one is not permitted to carry in the alley more than 4 cubits in a case without a proper eiruv in the alley - and when 2. there was no eiruv between the houses and the courtyard - one is then not permitted to move items that are in the alley more than 4 cubits. Why does he distinguish between those two cases? Rabbi Eliezer holds that preparations for a brit milah are permitted. However, he doesn't hold this for every mitzva. For which mitzvot does he hold this way and for which does he not? From where is each derived from and why can't we learn from one to the other - why does each need its own drasha?

Shabbat 130 - July 14, 22 Tamuz Jul 14, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 130

What preparations, if any, are allowed to be done on Shabbat for the purposes of a brit milah? Can one carry a scalpel? Can one cuts trees to make a fire to create a scalpel? Rabbi Eliezer permits and says one should carry it in a way that is visible to all but Rabbi Akiva says that anything that can be done before Shabbat cannot be done on Shabbat. Why does Rabbi Eliezer insist that it be visible - is it to show how much one loves to do mitzvot or to prevent others from suspecting one of carrying on Shabbat? The gemara expounds on the issue of performing a mitzva out of happiness. In Rabbi Eliezer's city, they held like him and in Rabbi Yosi the Galilean's city, they held like Rabbi Yosi regarding eating milk and chicken together, even though in both cases, it was the minority opinion. The gemara talks about how mitzvot that the Jews accepted with happiness continue to be performed with happiness and those accepted with argumentation continue to be performed with argumentation. Likewise, ones that the Jews sacrificed their lives for, end up being performed widely (like circumcision not worshipping idols) and ones that they did not sacrifice their lives for (tefillin) are not widely held. The story of Elisha "the winged" is brought to show that only he sacrificed his life for tefillin but not others. A story is told of a scalpel that was carried via rooftops and courtyards on Shabbat not according to Rabbi Eliezer. According to whose opinion did they do this? Can one carry within an alley where an eiruv wasn't established (if the items were in the alleyway before Shabbat)? Two opposing opinions are brought.

Shabbat 129 - July 13, 21 Tamuz Jul 13, 2020

Can one desecrate Shabbat for a woman after childbirth and if so, how much after - 3 days? 7 days? 30 days? When is it considered the beginning of childbirth? The gemara discusses the danger of bloodletting and what one should do to prevent those potential dangers? Eating or drinking wine after was so important that Rav Nachman son of Yitzchak advised his student to engage in artifice in order to make sure one ate or drank. On what days of the week should one not bloodlet and what days of the month or on the calendar? what can be done with the umbilical cord and the placenta of Shabbat? What can be done to ensure the health of the newborn baby? This is derived from a verse describing the calamities that will befall the Jewish people in the days of destruction - what they will not be able to do then when a child is born is an indicator of what we are allowed to do even on Shabbat for a newborn.

Shabbat 128 - July 12, 20 Tamuz Jul 12, 2020

The gemara goes through all the cases in the mishna regarding items in the storehouse that are considered muktze that one is not allowed to move. All of the cases seem obvious that they are muktze so what is the mishna trying to tell us? If there are food items that are worthy for animals that only rich people have, can one carry them or not? Do we view all of us as if we are like "sons of kings"? Can one carry meat that is unsalted on Shabbat? What about unsalted fish? What actions are allowed to be performed for animals if it is to prevent financial loss or prevent the animal from suffering? How can one help an animal (who is considered muktze) to return home - what type of help is allowed - pushing only or actually helping to walk? Why are the rules for hens different than for other animals/birds? What about a child? Preventing animals from suffering, tzaar baalei chayim, is a Torah law - what is the source? And because if that, is can override a rabbinic law. What can be done to help an animal giving birth on Shabbat? What can be done to help a woman giving birth? A midwife is allowed to travel from far to help with the birth? How else can one desecrate Shabbat on her behalf?

Shabbat 127 - July 11, 19 Tamuz Jul 10, 2020

The gemara gets into lots of details regarding how one can remove 4 or 5 baskets from the storage house in the case where it is needed for a mitzva - can one carry in out in many smaller utensils or only in 4 or 5 baskets. Can one carry that amount for each person tha tneeds the space or for all the guests? If for all the guests, can one person do all the moving or does each person move for oneself? The gemara discusses the importance of having guests. A list is brought by Rabbi Yochanan of the top 6 mitzvot. One of them is judging one's friend favorably. The gemara brings several stories of people who judged others favorably. The gemara then goes through each of the items mentioned in the mishna that can be carried out of the storage house - meaning it is not muktze and explains why it was mentioned if it was obvious or why it isn't considered muktze?

Shabbat 126 - July 10, 18 Tamuz Jul 10, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 126

Is the opinion in the mishna to allow putting a shutter in a window "in any case" allowing it even if it is not tied, as long as it is designated before Shabbat or does it also need to be tied? Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Yirmia debate this issue and each brings a tannaitic source to support their claim - one about a bolt dragging on the floor and one about a reed used as a bolt. Rabbi Yochanan holds like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel about the reed used to lock the door and the gemara questions that based on another statement of Rabbi Yochanan that seems to disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Do we hold like Rabbi Eliezer or the rabbis in the mishna. Two approaches are brought. Does a cover of a utensil need a handle for it not to be considered muktze? Does it depend on what it is covering? The 18th chapter starts with a case of taking items out of a storage house in order to make space. How many can one remove? Under what conditions. Two different understandings of the mishna are brought.

Shabbat 125 - July 9, 17 Tamuz Jul 09, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 125

The gemara goes through a list of items, determining whether or not they are muktze - can they serve a function or not? There is a debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda regarding a broken piece of an earthenware oven. The gemara discussed the case in which they argue and what the argument is about. Two different explanations are suggested. If one built a utensil out of a gourd and put a stone in to weigh it down so one could draw water from a well or stream, can one use it on Shabbat - does the gourd fall into the category of a base for a muktze item or is the stone considered secondary to the gourd? How is it similar to the case of a stone placed on top of a barrel that appears in a different mishna. If one wants to use an item that is muktze machamat gufo, muktze because it doesn't serve any function, what is needed to be able to use it - is it enough to think before Shabbat that one plans to use it or is some action necessary and if so, how serious an action? Can one add an enclosure to a window? On what does it depend? Is it considered building a temporary wall?

Shabbat 124 - July 8, 1 Tamuz Jul 08, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 124

The gemara brings several mishnayot that discuss muktze items and there is a debate whether these mishnayot were taught before the leniencies regarding muktze were put into effect or not? A utensil that is designated for permitted actions on Shabbat and one that is designated for forbidden actions, in what situations can each of these be carried? What is Rabbi Nechemia's approach? Raba and Rava disagree about how to understand the debate between Rabbi Nechemia and tana kama. Broken utensils - can they be used on Shabbat and if so, how? There is a debate regarding this and within that there is a discussion about what types of broken utensils are they arguing about - ones that broke on Shabbat or before Shabbat? Is it an issue of nolad, something that didn't exist before Shabbat as it was part of a whole before Shabbat and now it is broken?

Shabbat 123 - July 7, 15 Tamuz Jul 07, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 123

Can one carry a utensil that is generally used for forbidden purposes for some permitted purpose? Raba thinks one can and Abaye brings some sources that seem to contradict. One Raba attributes to Rabbi Nechemia who has a stringent definition of muktze and the other Raba puts in the category of items that are more expensive and one is more particular about its use and therefore wouldn't use it for other purposes other than its main use. There are four different explanations regarding what type of mallet is the one mentioned in the mishna. If a vegetable is buried in the ground, can one remove it and not be concerned about moving the dirt, which is muktze? On what does it depend? If a needle gets ruined and the eye of the needle is no longer there, is it muktze? Are the laws the same for purity/impurity? Other items are discussed regarding whether they are muktze on Shabbat and whether they can become impure. Rabbi Yosi says that all items can be moved on Shabbat other than those that are muktze because of their high value. The gemara discusses what items fall into that category. The gemara then discusses the development over time of the prohibition of muktze and how the laws got more lenient as time went on. There is a debate among Rava and Abaye how to understand what the law was at each stage. In the time of Nechemia was when they first instituted laws of muktze. Why?

Shabbat 122 - July 6, 14 Tamuz Jul 06, 2020

Today's daf is sponsored in memory of Helen Glucksman, Chana Rachel bat Moshe Aharon Halevi z"l, beloved grandmother of our teacher, Lisa Septimus, from Malkie, Marcy, Rochelle, Sami and Gitta.

When a non-Jew performs an act that a Jew is forbidden to do on Shabbat, can a Jew benefit from what the non-Jew did? On what does it depend? Is it only for a candle or items like that as one candle can be used for many people? Does it depend on whether the non-Jew knows the Jew? Can one carry an item that is generally used for forbidden purposes for its own sake (if one needs it for a permitted purpose)? If a door breaks on Shabbat or before Shabbat, can it be carried? Can one put it back in its place? Is there a difference between a door that is serving something that is attached to the ground or a door of a utensil? Why? Does the melacha of building include building utensils or not?

Shabbat 121 - July 5, 13 Tamuz Jul 05, 2020

Today’s daf is sponsored by Dr. Robin Zeiger and Professor Jonathan Ben-Ezra in memory of Robin's mother Helen (Chana) Zeiger z"l, whose Yarzheit is today.

Does Rabbi Yosi really hold that it is a mitzva to go to the mikveh exactly at the time that one is able to go? If there is a fire in your house and a non-Jew comes to put out the fire, are you allowed to say anything to the non-Jew - to put it out, to stop putting it out? Can you hint to the fact that if the non-Jew puts it out, you will compensate him/her for their work? What about a child who goes to put out the fire? Does one have to prevent an child from sinning in general? Is the court commanded to do that? For what purposes can one carry a utensil in order to cover something? To cover a candle so it doesn't light the rafters on fire, to cover feces so a child doesn't touch them, to cover a scorpion so it doesn't bite. Why do we need to learn that we can cover the feces, can't we move it because a dog can eat it? Or because it is disgusting and one can move something that is disgusting, even if it's muktze. Can one kill bugs or creatures that can bite or endanger people? If so, according to Rabbi Shimon only or also according to Rabbi Yehuda? Does everyone agree? Is it only if it's done by way of walking and one steps on it?

Shabbat 120 - July 4, 12 Tamuz Jul 03, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 120

In the time of the destruction of the temple, were there no honest people remaining? What amount of food in baskets or clothing one take out of the house and how? To where can it be taken? How does this mishna work with the previous mishna that only allowed three meals worth? How can others help? Is one allowed to indirectly put out the fire? There is a debate in the mishna. The gemara brings some sources in other places which seem to contradict the opinions mentioned in the mishna. How can they be rectified?

Shabbat 119 - July 3, 11 Tamuz Jul 03, 2020

The gemara lists rabbis who all did special things to prepare food for Shabbat including being involved in cooking the food for Shabbat. The story is told of Yosef Mokir Shabbat who was rewarded financially for always buying good food for Shabbat and for borrowing money to do so. The gemara talks about the importance of other mitzvot (by promising rewards) like tithing, learning Torah, answering amen to a blessing and answering in Kaddish "may God's great name be blessed" with a lot of intent, and saying "veyechulu" on Friday night in davening. The gemara then says that a fire will break out in one's house if one doesn't keep Shabbat. They bring a verse from Jeremiah that discusses the fire of the destruction of Jerusalem (that will not be able to be extinguished) will be on account of not keeping Shabbat but it is derived that also one's personal house will burn on fire on Shabbat when one will not be able to extinguish it. Abaye uses that verse to teach that Jerusalem was destroyed on account of desecration of Shabbat. Seven other opinions are brought regarding why the temple was destroyed - people did not recite Shema twice a day, places of Torah learning for young children were closed, people had no shame, leaders were treated with disrespect, people did not rebuke one another, Torah scholars were disrespected, there were no longer honest people.

Shabbat 118 - July 2, 10 Tamuz Jul 02, 2020

Today's daf is sponsored by Emma Rinberg in memory of her beloved and much missed father Dr. Eric Glick, Yitzchak Nisan ben Yaacov z"l on his 30th yahrzeit and by Barbara Ashkenas in memory of her dear parents Edward and Evelyn Weinberger z"l who together taught her the beauty of learning Torah performing acts of kindness and giving Tzdakah. And in memory of Dr. Sandra Shimoff who devoted her life to Torah and Talmud study sponsored by her daughter and son in law Sharonna and Ozer Shuster and her grandchildren, Bentzi and Shiffy Shuster.

How many meals does one need to eat on Shabbat- three or four? The gemara grapples with the different approaches in light of different tannaitic sources. The gemara brings several statements to encourage people to keep the mitzva of eating three meals on Shabbat by promising rewards in this world or in the future. Why was all this necessary? There are rabbis that mention mitzvot they are keeping or customs that they do in a way that stands out from others who are either not keeping these laws or not as meticulously.

Shabbat 117 - July 1, 9 Tamuz Jul 01, 2020

Today's daf is sponsored by Rabbi Julie Danan in honor of Keren and Tim Carter. Mazal Tov on your 35th wedding anniversary, and with great appreciation to Keren for being such a wonderful and supportive Talmud chevruta. And by Ruth Leah Kahan in honor of Jessica Shklar. Wishing you a very happy birthday. I'm excited that we are sharing this journey and wish you a great year of learning ahead.

The gemara continues trying to figure out what question the rabbis asked Rabbi Yishmael, the son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka from our mishna (saving the case with the sefer Torah) on the case of flaying the hide of the animal on erev Pesach that falls on Shabbat. Several explanations are brought to explain what is an alleyway that is mefulash and not mefulash, mentioned in the mishna. One can save three meals with from the fire. Does it depend on what time of day – is it only the amount of meals still needed for that Shabbat or is one always allowed to save three meals worth? If food is not muktze and one is also allowed to carry it out to a space where carrying is allowed, why is it forbidden? The concern is that one will be worked up about losing one’s possessions and will come to put out the fire and therefore by limiting what is permitted, one will remember that it is Shabbat. Laws of meals on Shabbat including lechem mishne, using two loaves of bread, are derived from the manna in the desert.

Shabbat 116 - June 30, 8 Tamuz Jun 30, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 116

Today’s daf is sponsored by Jordy Hyman in honor of the birthday of two special friends, Natalie Taylor and Tanya Winchester Behr, who are both partners in my daf adventure. May your learning continue to be meaning and inspiring, and may we share many siyums together! And by Rabbi Dani Passow, the Orthodox Rabbi at Harvard Hillel in honor of Jaime Drucker, Harvard Hillel's Assistant Director. Jaime inspires me and all our students with her personal dedication to Talmud Torah and commitment to making Torah accessible and meaningful to all. Thank you.

Why are there 2 upside-down letter nuns around the section in Bamidbar "and when the ark traveled"? Why is this passage so central? Can one remove a blank parchment of a sacred book from a fire? The gemara attempts five times to answer this question from other sources but each attempt is rejected. What does one do with sacred books written by a heretic? The gemara discusses debates between Jews and early Christians and a section that was removed by the censure has "drashot" on the word "evangelion" having negative connotations. A story is also brought about a corrupt judge from the early Christians whose corruption was brought public in a creative way by Rabban Gamliel and his sister, Ima Shalom. Why don't we read from ketuvim? Under what circumstances? Rav and Shmuel disagree and there are different versions regarding their disagreement. One can also remove the cover of sacred books. To what type of space is one allowed to remove sacred texts into? The gemara brings a braita in which Rabbi Yismael son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka disagrees with the rabbis regarding removal on Shabbat of the hide of the animal being sacrificed before burning on the altar. Can one flay the all the skin or only up to the chest? The rabbis question Rabbi Yishmael and there are various versions of the question asked.

Shabbat 115 - June 29, 7 Tamuz Jun 29, 2020

Shoshana and Moshe Halberstadt are sponsoring the daf learning in memory of Shoshana's father, AJ Kurtz, Avraham Yaakov ben Eliyakum v'Chana z'l on his 3rd yahrzeit.

If there is a fire, what types of sacred books would you be able to remove from your house in a case of a fire (|in a place without an eiruv)? Can one move sacred books that are translated? Do those books need to be buried? Rav Huna and Rav Chisda disagree regarding books that were translated. How do each of the opinions fit in with the mishna? The gemara brought sources to question Rav Huna's opinion. If there a difference between books that are written in ink and ones written with substances that don't last? What if the Torah had large portions erased an only 85 letters in the scroll - could one carry it out of the fire? On what is it dependent?

Shabbat 114 - June 28, 6 Tamuz Jun 28, 2020

Today's shiur is sponsored by Rabbi Ilana Axel in honor of Rabbi Roger Ross, Rabbi Jill Hausman, Rabbi Mary Jane Newman and in memory of Rabbi William Kurry, z"l. With gratitude.

One should match the clothes to the event - this is derived from the Torah. From where? It is important for Torah scholars to dress in a respectful manner. Why? What is the size of a stain on clothing or on a saddle that would create a separation for laws of mikveh is one needed to purify it in a mikveh? Does it depend on whose clothing it is since different types of people would care about different sizes of stains. Can one burn fats on the altar from sacrifices on Shabbat that night if it happens to be Yom Kippur? Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva have different approaches? Would they both agree that one does not blow the shofar on Yom Kippur that falls on Erev Shabbat to herald in Shabbat (as they normally did on Fridays in those days)? What about havdala in davening from Shabbat to Yom Kippur when Yom Kippur falls on Sunday? One is allowed to prepare vegetables for after Yom Kippur on Yom Kippur afternoon from the time of mincha. Why is that allowed? How can one prepare from Yom Kippur for after the holiday? Is that allowed even when Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat?

Shabbat 113 - June 27, 5 Tamuz Jun 26, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 113

Today's daf is sponsored by Gitta Jaroslawicz Neufeld in memory of her father, Yosef Ben Menachem Mendel v’Pesha z"l and by Harriet Hartman in memory of her husband Moshe ben Yehuda Aryeh z"l on his first yahrzeit.

What kind of knot can be tied to a pail? What about to an animal and its eating trough? Can one fold laundry on Shabbat? Make one's bed? On what does it depend? The gemara extrapolates a verse in Isaiah relating to how one's behavior on Shabbat should be different than during the week in terms of dress, speech and walking. In the context of fancy clothing, the gemara sidetracks to discuss drashot from the book of Ruth relating to Ruth and Boaz's behavior in the story as well as allusions in the story to events that would happen in the future.

Shabbat 112 - June 26, 4 Tamuz Jun 26, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 112

Today's daf is sponsored by Eli and Karen Wilchek in memory of Oz Wilchek, z"l. And by Dena Dena and Mark Levie and family in honor of Dena’s father, Rabbi Avi Weiss's birthday. Rabbi Weiss is a pioneer for women’s learning and a true role model for am Yisroel. May he continue teaching in good health for many more years to come.

Which knots can one tie on Shabbat, which are forbidden by rabbinic law and which by Torah law? The gemara goes over the cases in the mishna that are permitted and explains why each needed to be stated and wasn't obvious. The gemara brings two cases where someone's shoe tore on Shabbat and the law was different in each case - why? Is the shoe considered muktze if the outer strap breaks since even if one fixes it, one may be embarrassed to walk around with a noticeable fix? If one can switch left and right shoes (in those days shoes were symmetrical), why would it matter if it were the outer or inner one as one can switch it to the other foot and it will be on the inside? According to whom in this debate does Rabbi Yochanan hold?

Shabbat 111 - June 25, 3 Tamuz Jun 25, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 111

A cup of ikarin - it is forbidden on Shabbat but how can one drink it on a regular day if it causes one to become sterile - isn't that forbidden. The gemara attempts to establish the case in the mishna to be one where one would not be commanded - several attempts are rejected until the gemara finds an answer. Can one gargle with vinegar to help with teeth issues? Is vinegar good for one's teeth? A braita says one can gargle and swallow - how does that work with our mishna? Rava and Abaye suggest different answers but Rava's is questioned by something he holds elsewhere regarding going to the mikveh on Yom Kippur. One can annoint a wound with oil but not rose oil, as it was uncommon to use it and therefore it would be obvious that one was using it for medicinal purposes. Sons of kings used it more commonly and therefore it was allowed for them. Rabbi Shimon holds that everyone is like the sons of kings and it is permitted to all. Rav holds like Rabbi Shimon. The gemara questions how this can be the case as it is known that Rav does not hold like Rabbi Shimon. The gemara concludes that his reality was different and rose oil was commonly used and that's why he allowed it and not because he agreed with Rabbi Shimon. The new chapter begins with tying knots - what types are prohibited by Torah law and which are permitted?

Shabbat 110 - June 24, Tamuz 2 Jun 24, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 110

Today's shiur is dedicated by my parents, Robert and Paula Cohen in memory of my grandfather, Chaim Avraham ben Alter Gershon HaKohen z"l.

What are remedies for one who has an issue with a snake, i.e. swallowed by, bitten by, pursued by a snake or pursued for sexual pursuits? What is "water of dekalim" mentioned in the mishna or "a cup of ikarin" that cannot be drunk on Shabbat? What are these used for and what are alternatives if one doesn't have them or it isn't effective? How can one drink "a cup of ikarin" if it causes one to become sterile - isn't that forbidden?

Shabbat 109 - June 23, 1 Tamuz Jun 23, 2020

Today’s daf is sponsored by Pearl Mattenson in memory of her sister Karen Tendler z”l on the occasion of her 10th yahrzeit.

What things can one do/eat on shabbat for medicinal purposes. What are the criteria for permitting it? Can one soak in a body of water for medicinal purposes? Does it depend on which body of water? The gemara explains all sorts of rememdies that people used in the times of the gemara for various ailments.

Shabbat 108 - June 22, 30 Sivan Jun 22, 2020

Some things are forbidden because it is considered removing it from its place of growth, including a fetus of an animal from the womb. Is a fetus considered a live being or not? What is the melacha that one is obligated for? Is the skin of a bird or fish considered skin? Can one write tefillin on parchment made from its skin? A story is told of the welcome that Rav received (not the most positive) when he arrived in Babylonia and was greeted first by Karna and quizzed and then by Shmuel. One can write tefillin on a kosher animal even if it was a treifa (sick) or died on its own. This was a subject of debate between a Baitusi and Rabbi Yehoshua the Garsi regarding the rabbinic traditions. Brine cannot be made on Shabbat as it is a tolada of ibud, processing. But can one prepare salt water for dipping one's bread? Taking medicine is problematic on Shabbat (in certain circumstances) lest one grind one's own medicines. However if one uses a medication that could also be used not as a medication and therefore it is not clear whether one is using it for medicinal purposes or not, it is allowed. In the context of salt water, the gemara asks regarding one who washes in the Dead Sea for medicinal purposes for one's eye. In what case would it be allowed? Other issues related to eye salves on Shabbat are discussed.

Shabbat 107 - June 21, 29 Sivan Jun 21, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 107

Today's daf is sponsored by Dr. Robin Zeiger and Professor Jonathan Ben-Ezra in honor of their daughter Bracha, of whom they are so proud that she is giving a siyum on Maseachet Taanit. And by Lillian Cohen in memory of her father Kurt Philipp, David ben Tzvi, z"l on what would have been his 91st birthday. And in honor of Father's Day by Carolyn Benger in honor of her father, Bernhard Benger (Dov ben Zvi). "He was my first teacher and opened my eyes to Torah. I miss you everyday, Daddy, and am thinking of you this Father's Day." And in honor of Paul Gompers, an exemplary Dad in every way. Love, Sivan, Annika and Zoe. And in honor of Adam Cohen from his children. Your dedication to learning Daf Yomi as well as living a true Torah lifestyle is truly inspiring. We love you so much. Love, Max Hannah Sam and Celia.

If an animal or bird are already captured, one can prevent it from getting out and keep it captured. What are the three known cases where the tannaim say "one is exempt" and they mean that it is permitted even by Torah law? According to the mishna, if one captures one of the eight creeply crawling creatures listed in the Torah (whose dead bodies carry impurities) or injures it, one is obligated and any others one is exempt. Why? There is a debate in the gemara whether this is only according to Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri or the rabbis also? Rav thinks it is also the rabbis (they only disagree regarding impurity, not Shabbat). The gemara questions this opinion from two tanaitic sources which imply that they disagree also about Shabbat. From where do we learn what defines "an injury" that one would be obligated for? Other creatures according to the mishna, one is exempt for capturing or injuring - this would imply that they would be obligated for killing them. Is that a subject of debate or do all agree? If one captures a creature not for its own purpose but to prevent it from bothering or some other reason, one is exempt, according to the mishna. This is according to Rabbi Shimon who exempt in a case of melacha seaina tzricha legufa.

Shabbat 106 - June 20, 28 Sivan Jun 19, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 106

Is it true that any destructive act, one is not obligated by Torah law for doing on Shabbat? What about burning a fire and inflicting a bodily injury? There is a debate between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda. When is one obligated for trapping an animal, bird or fish? What are the differences between them? On what does it depend?

Shabbat 105 - June 19, 27 Sivan Jun 19, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 105

Today's daf is dedicated by Ricki Gerger in honor of Orli Halpern, an 11-year-old girl in Takoma Park, Maryland, who is recovering from a liver transplant. She is the bravest person she knows.

From where in the Torah do we learn that there are abbreviations? The gemara finishes up the issue of writing with a debate regarding one who wrote two letters but in between found out that it was Shabbat or that it was forbidden to write. What are the requisite amount for weaving and other related melachot? One who tears to sew two stiches is olbigated but what about one who tears their clothing for a dead person or out of anger - is that considered a productive act or a destructive act? The gemara talks about the importance of eulogizing and mourning for others.

Shabbat 104 - June 18, 26 Sivan Jun 18, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 104

In writing a sefer torah, if a mem which is used in the middle of a word can function as a mem at the end of a word, would the same hold true in the reverse case? Historically, did one precede the other? The gemara brings a drasha on the meaning of all the letters in the Hebrew alphabet and also regarding the direction and shapes of the letters. Drashot are also brought using codes like Aleph-Tav, Bet-Shin and others. In what ways and with what types of ink is one obligated to bring a sin offering if one wrote on Shabbat and in what ways is one exempt from a sin offering (but obligated by rabbinic law). Is one obligated if one wrote over letters already written or added one letter to a letter that was already written and formed a word or wrote two letters nowhere near each other? What if one wrote on one's body? Or scratches letters on his body? A story is told of Ben Setada who etched secret magic spells on his flesh to be able to sneak it out of Egypt. There is a section about him that was removed by the censor. Was it referring to Jesus? If one wrote the last letter of a book, is that forbidden by Torah law? What if one wrote one letter in two different cities (one letter in each city)?

Shabbat 104 - June 18, 26 Sivan Jun 18, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 104

In writing a sefer torah, if a mem which is used in the middle of a word can function as a mem at the end of a word, would the same hold true in the reverse case? Historically, did one precede the other? The gemara brings a drasha on the meaning of all the letters in the Hebrew alphabet and also regarding the direction and shapes of the letters. Drashot are also brought using codes like Aleph-Tav, Bet-Shin and others. In what ways and with what types of ink is one obligated to bring a sin offering if one wrote on Shabbat and in what ways is one exempt from a sin offering (but obligated by rabbinic law). Is one obligated if one wrote over letters already written or added one letter to a letter that was already written and formed a word or wrote two letters nowhere near each other? What if one wrote on one's body? Or scratches letters on his body? A story is told of Ben Setada who etched secret magic spells on his flesh to be able to sneak it out of Egypt. There is a section about him that was removed by the censor. Was it referring to Jesus? If one wrote the last letter of a book, is that forbidden by Torah law? What if one wrote one letter in two different cities (one letter in each city)?

Shabbat 103 - June 17 - 25 Sivan Jun 17, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 103

Today's shiur is dedicated by Deborah Lewis in honor of Janet Lachais and by Sima Greenberg in memory of Paula Zaager z"l.

Why is one obligated for banging a sledgehammer on the anvil? What is the requisite amount for plowing, weeding, reaping, gathering wood, writing? It depends on what purpose one was doing it? Why is that important - if one weeds for the purposes of using what one weeded and not for benefitting the land, in any case the land benefits and therefore it is a case of a psik reisha (if will definitely happen) and even Rabbi Shimon agrees in this case that one would be obligated, even if one didn't intend (davar sheaino mitkaven)? The gemara's answer has important ramifications for understanding Rabbi Shimon's opinion. The gemara brings various opinions regarding writing on Shabbat. Does one need to write letters or is one also obligated for writing symbols and notations? What if one writes two of the same letter? If one intended to write a word and one stopped after two letters which also form a word, is one obligated? If in the Torah, one was supposed to write a mem in the middle of the word but wrote it as a mem used at the end of words, is that ok? Can one learn that from the sugya of writing on Shabbat?

Shabbat 102 - June 16, 24 Sivan Jun 16, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 102

Today's daf is dedicated by Anoushka Adler in honor of her mother, Valerie Adler, a lover of Jewish learning and Jewish life, who has taken on studying the Daf. You are her biggest role model. And by Kay Weinberger in loving memory of her mother, Eva Redstone, Hava bat Chaim v'Sarah z"l, on her 20th Yahrzeit.

The mishna says if one threw an item four cubits Unwittingly and then remembered before it landed and a dog ate it as it fell or it fell into a fire and burned, one is not obligated. In order to be obligated to bring a sin offering, one must have begun and ended the act unwittingly. The connection between the cases in the mishna and what exactly the mishna is referring to is a subject of debate as it seems to combine two different issues and possibly contradict itself. There are several different ways to read the mishna. The twelfth chapter begins with building. Is there a requisite amount that one would be responsible for building? If not, why not? What is the significance of building something so small? And where in the building of the mishkan was there of something so small? When building with stones, the act that is considered building depends of whether it is the top, middle or bottom row of stones. Which actions are considered building and which are considered forbidden on account of striking the final blow? Which are a subject of debate?

Shabbat 101 - June 15, 23 Sivan Jun 15, 2020

Today's daf is sponsored by Dodi Lamm in memory of her father, Harav Moshe ben Meir Shmuel v’Perel, Rabbi Maurice Lamm z"l,w ho brought nechama to so many and continues to do so in these difficult times via his books.

What is the law regarding a hanging mechitza (one that does not reach the ground)? In which cases do we view it as if it drops down to the ground and in which cases do we not allow that solution to be employed? Why? When the mishna mentioned boats that are tied to each other - what were they permitting? In what way did they need to be tied together - how strong a rope?

Shabbat 100 - June 14, 22 Sivan Jun 14, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 100 in English and Hebrew

Today's shiur is sponsored by Elizabeth Kirshner in memory of her Bubbie, Blanche Engel, Bluma bat Chaya Feiyga for her first yahrzeit. She was a supporter of Torah learning and a regular at many shiurim, and was so proud of my ongoing learning. May her neshama have an aliyah and may her memory continue to inspire.

The gemara deals with definitions of when an item is considered placed or taken from the ground - what if the item is in a liquid and is unstable? How do we view water in a pail - as resting on unstable water or is all the water viewed as one and considered resting in a stable manner in a utensil? How do we view oil that is settled on top of wine? The gemara goes back to the discussion regarding putting in item in a private domain and at the same moment filling the private domain so that it no longer has the requisite amount to be considered a private domain - is it cancelled. Does it depend on what is placed and how it is placed inside? Is there a different between water and solid items? The mishna deals with throwing items onto a wall. What if it fell into a hole in the wall that is not 4 handbreaths wide - is that hole viewed as part of the private domain and we view it as if it is 4 handbreaths wide since it is part of the wall which is that wide? Or do we view it by the size it is and maybe people in the public domain use the space, it is considered public? A mound 10 handbreaths tall in a pulibc domain - at what length of the incline it is considered a private domain? What if one threw an item less than or more than 4 cubits in public and it rolled to more thanor less than 4 cubits? What is the law regarding a puddle in a public domain - is it considered part of the public domain? On what does it depend? Why is the same sentence about the puddle repeatied in the mishna? The gemara brings 3 answers. How can one draw water while in a boat on Shabbat. Two potential solutions are brought.

Shabbat 99 - June 13, 21 Sivan Jun 12, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 99

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Judy Berman to celebrate her birthday. Your dedication to the daf is inspiring and we love you so much. Love, your children. And in memory of David Meir Shavit ben Shlomo Lipa z"l by his children who have joined the daf yomi learning, whose yahrzeit is on Shabbat.

In what way was the covering of the Tabernacle made of goat hairs more unique than the one made of colorful threads? What were the exact dimensions of the wagons that carried the beams and the space in between? The banks of a pit or a rock that is 4x4 and 10 handbreaths tall is a private domain and one is obligated for placing an item on top of it. Several questions are asked regarding placing items from a public domain or a pillar or wall in the public space that is tel handbreaths tall - doesn't it past through an exempt place (above 10 in the public space) before getting there - so maybe one should not be obligated. What if it was a wall that wasn't 4x4 wide and first functions as a wall of a carmelit and then became a wall of a private space - is the wall considered a private domain? What is the creation of the private space happens at the same time as one is moving something from it to the public space?

Shabbat 98 - June 12, 20 Sivan Jun 12, 2020

Today's shiur is dedicated to Elana Rand by her family.

One is not obligated for moving an item in the public domain if it is covered as that is not the way it was done in the Tabernacle. How can that be, if Rav said in the name of Rabbi Chiya that underneath, on the sides and in between the wagons is considered the public domain and those spaces are covered either by the beams or by the wagon? The gemara delves into the details of the size of the beams, the wagon, the wheels, the space in between wagons, in order to answer the question. There is a debate whether the beams were as wide at the top as they were at the bottom or were they one handbreath at the bottom and one finger's width at the top? What are the ramifications of each opinion?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ybr7qkHI8B0

Shabbat 97 - June 11, 19 Sivan Jun 11, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 97

What was Tzolfchad's sin according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, if he wasn't the wood gatherer? Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira also disagree regarding Aaron - did he get leprosy also with Miriam? One who accuses one of sinning if that person is innocent, is punished through the body. This is derived from Moshe. How? One who throws an item from one private domain to another through a public domain, there is a debate whether they are obligated by Torah law or not. Is the debate within ten handbreaths of the ground but above ten, all would agree that one is exempt or is the debate above 10 and below ten all would agree that one is obligated? Do they all agree that going through airspace is considered as if it had rested in that domain or is that a subject of debate? Do they all agree that we do not learn throwing from passing or is that a subject of debate? If one owned both private domains, one can throw and item from one to the other even with a public domain in between. What is the source for the law of levud, that a space less than 3 handbreaths is not viewed as a space but is perceived as if it is closed. If one passes an item from one public domain to another public domain through a private domain, one is obligated but only if the private domain had a roof. Then it is viewed as if it rested there. A statement was passed down in the name of Shmuel that Rebbi obligated in public to public through private two osin offerings - one for taking out and one for bringing in. This contradicts another statement of Rebbi and therefore Rav Yosef says the statement was made about Rabbi Yehuda instead and proves it from a braita. However his proof is rejected. The gemara tries again to prove is it Rabbi Yehuda but is not able to prove it. One who intends to throw an item 8 cubits but throw for or vice-versa - what is the law? Is one obligated?

Shabbat 96 - June 10, 18 Sivan Jun 10, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 96

Today's daf is sponsored by Audrey and Jake Levant in honour of Audrey’s mother, Geri Goldstein, who made aliya 10 years ago today.

The gemara finishes the discussion regarding the sizes of holes in earthenware utensils and what the halachic implications are for each size. The eleventh chapter starts with throwing items - from public to private domain or the reverse or from private to private through a public domain. In which cases is one obligated? On what does it depend? What is the source for the prohibition to take an item from a private domain to a public? From where do we learn that one cannot take an item from a public domain and move it into a private domain? Why is it important to categorize actions as Avot (primary categories) or Toladot (sub-categories)? If one throws an item more than four cubits in a public domain and it lands on a wall, if it lands higher than 10 handbreaths, one is not obligated as it landed in an "exempt space." If it landed lower than 10 handbreaths from the ground, one is obligated for carrying in a public domain. From where is this law derived? When the Jews were in the desert, there was a man accused of gathering wood - what melacha did he transgress? Why is it important to determine that? The gemara explains that it has implications for a statement of Isi ben Yehuda who claims that there is one melacha that one is not obligated by the death penalty. There is a debate about whether this person was Tzelofchad.

Shabbat 95 - June 9, Sivan 7 Jun 09, 2020

Today's shiur is sponsored in honour of Rabbanit Yehudit, Judith Levitan, of Sydney Australia, who just received semikha from Yeshivat Maharat. Mazal Tov, may your wisdom, intuition and Torah learning continue to shine and bring inspiration and knowledge to others - from Jordana Hyman. And by Rebecca Schwarzmer in memory of her grandmother Ruth Friedman Cohn, Rachel bat Chaim z"l, whose yartziet is today and her mother, Linda Cohn Brauner, Leah bat Netanel ha'Kohen z"l whose yartziet is tomorrow.

One who braids, puts on eye shadow, or a dough like substance to redden the cheeks or gel type substance in the hair - is it forbidden by Torah or rabbinic law and for what melacha? One who milks or prepares cheese for what is one obligated and is it forbidden by Torah or rabbinic law? What about sweeping or puring water on the ground or taking honey off the honeycomb? Is it forbidden to pull out something from a potted plant? Does it matter if the pot has a hole or not. Rabbi Shimon doesn't distinguish. The gemara questions him and tries to assess if he would change his mind in certain situations. What are the different sizes of holes in earthenware vessels that are significant for various law of purity/impurity?

Shabbat 94 - June 8, 16 Sivan Jun 08, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 94

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of Dvora bat Moshe vRachel z"l by Josh Kirsch and by Michael Lawrence in honor of his wife, Lisa's on her birthday. He is very proud of your dedication to learning daf yomi and wishes you many more years of continued learning "ad meah v'esrim."

If one carries out an item less than the requisite amount in a utensil or a live person on a bed, the utensil/bed is considered insignificant compare to the item/person and one is therefore not obligated for carrying it out as the item is less than the requisite amount and one is not obligated for carrying a live person as the person can carry him/herself. If one carries out a part of a dead body or impure item, if the amount was the amount that causes impurity in that item, Rabbi Shimon and tana kama (Rabbi Yehuda) debate if one would be obligated as this is a melacha sheaina tzricha legufa. Rashi and Tosafot disagree regarding the definition of melacha sheaina tzricha legufa. According to the braitia, one who removes a food in a utensil and has intent also to remove the utiensil is olbigated for both - how can this be - shouldn't one only need to bring one sin offering for carrying? Rav Sheshet and Rav Ashi bring different answers. A live person/animal who can carry themselves - is one obligated for carrying them or not? Rabbi Natan and the rabbis disagree in the case of animals - do they also disagree regarding humans? In which cases does Rabbi Shimon hold that one is exempt for melacha sheaina tzricha legufa. One who removes haris from a leprous mark is obligated - how many hairs? Does it depend how many were there in the first place? Does doing a partial act count as on its way to a whole act and therefore deemed significant or not? One who bites or picks off one's nails on Shabbat or pulls out hairs - Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis debate whether or not they are obligated by Torah law. Does it depend if one did with a utensil or by hand? Does it depend if the nail was already coming off?

Shabbat 93 - June 7, 15 Sivan Jun 07, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 93

Today's shiur is dedicated in memory of my grandmother Helen Cohen, Henna bat Yitzchak Nechemia z"l.

If two people do a melacha together are they obligated by Torah law? What are the different opinions? On what does it depend? What are the sources for each opinion? Several texts are brought to prove that something that is considered a supporting item is not considered significant. According to the opinion that two people are obligated for doing one melacha even if each could have done it alone, do they need to have carried a requisite amount for each or are they obligated even if they carried the requisite amount?

Shabbat 92 - June 6, 14 Sivan Jun 05, 2020

Rava and Abaye have the same debate as Rabbi Yochanan and Chizkiya. If one carries out an object in an atypical manner, one is not obligated. If one intended it to be carried in one manner and ended up carrying in a different manner, does it matter if the way it ended up being carried was a more protected or a less protected way?

Shabbat 91 - June 5, 13 Sivan Jun 05, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 91

Today's daf is dedicated by Raie Goodwach in memory of her mother, Rivkah bat Chaim v’Peshka z”l and by Nava Flesh in memory of her father Oriel Pozeilev ben Miriam and Avraham z”l.

How far do we take this issue of obligating one who fulfills one's intent even if it is atypical? Would it help to exempt someone also? If I consider an item important, would others be obligated for carrying it? What if the intent changed between the moment of removing it from one domain and placing it in the other domain? Rava brings various questions regarding this issue. If one brought an item from one's house into the threshold which was a karmelit and then to the public space, is one obligated? On what does it depend? If one brought a basket from a private space to a public space but some of the basket was still in the private domain, is one obligated? Is the basket viewed as one whole or not? On what does it depend? How do Chizkia and Rabbi Yochanan each understand the mishna?

Shabbat 91 - June 5, 13 Sivan Jun 05, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 91

Today's daf is dedicated by Raie Goodwach in memory of her mother, Rivkah bat Chaim v’Peshka z”l and by Nava Flesh in memory of her father Oriel Pozeilev ben Miriam and Avraham z”l.

How far do we take this issue of obligating one who fulfills one's intent even if it is atypical? Would it help to exempt someone also? If I consider an item important, would others be obligated for carrying it? What if the intent changed between the moment of removing it from one domain and placing it in the other domain? Rava brings various questions regarding this issue. If one brought an item from one's house into the threshold which was a karmelit and then to the public space, is one obligated? On what does it depend? If one brought a basket from a private space to a public space but some of the basket was still in the private domain, is one obligated? Is the basket viewed as one whole or not? On what does it depend? How do Chizkia and Rabbi Yochanan each understand the mishna?

Shabbat 90 - June 4, 12 Sivan Jun 04, 2020

Today's daf is dedicated by Nina Black in memory of her mother, Sophia bat Avram v'Esther z"l, who would have appreciatedthat her daughter is learning Daf Yomi.

Do different spices join together for the requisite amount? On what does it depend? There is a difference in the requisite amount for raw materials than for items that are already ready for use or planted vs. not yet planted. The gemara tries to determine what are the cleaning materials mentioned in the mishna. The mishna continues with the requisite amount for items like pepper, tar, sanctified items eaten by worms/bugs, and a debate regarding accessories to idols. Why are each of these items obligated for any amount - what are they used for? A peddler carrying a basket with many different items is only obligated one sin offering. What is the amount for seeds? What about grasshoppers - live or dead - kosher or non kosher? Did you know that kids played with grasshoppers? Hairs from animals tails - how many? What were they used for? If one stored an item, one is obligated even if the amount was smaller than the requisite amount. What if one changed one's mind about it? What if one forgot for what purpose it was stored?

Shabbat 89 - June 3, 11 Sivan Jun 03, 2020

Today's shiur is dedicated by Leah Brick in memory of Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm who was a champion of woman learning Torah. Leah thanks him for all that he has done for the entire Jewish community and for the kindness he has always shown to her family in particular.

Why was the Torah given to humans and not to angels? Why was Moshe worthy to have the Torah called "Moshe's Torah"? How did Satan trick the people into believing that Moshe was not coming down from the mountain and led them to worship the golden calf? Why was it called Sinai? What other names was it called and why? The gemara moves on to the next topic from the mishna of the red wool that was tied around the scapegoat. It is learned out from a verse in Ezekiel. Why is scarlet in plural form? The verse is used to elaborate on a potential conversation between the Jews and God about whether or not our forefathers would go out to bat for us and would rebuke us in a sympathetic manner. Another similar drasha is brought from a different verse showing that Isaac is the only one who would be sympathetic. The next mishna continues with the amount one is obligated for carrying wood, spices, materials used for dying and for cleaning.

Shabbat 88 - June 2, 10 Sivan Jun 02, 2020

Today's daf is sponsored by Josh Adler in honor of Dr. Rebecca Eisen's graduation from University of Toronto Medical School. Mazel tov! May our learning merit an end to the violence going on now in America.

The gemara brings more sources that raise questions on Rabbi Yosi or the rabbis opinion regarding the day the Torah was given. Then drashot regarding the giving of the Torah are brought. Some discuss whether the Jews were forced into acceptance of the Torah. Others discuss the fact that they first said "we will do" and then "let's hear what it says in the Torah." What is the greatness of the Torah and of the commandments that were given at matan Torah? A number of drashot relate to the connection between angels and the Jewish people at the giving of the Torah from a number of different perspectives. A midrash is brought that describes the scene in heaven when Moshe goes up to get the Torah and the angels ask why is God giving the Torah to humans. God tells Moshe to answer. What is Moshe's immediate reaction?

Shabbat 87 - June 1, 9 Sivan Jun 01, 2020

Today's daf is sponsored by Sarah Robinson in memory of her father Moshe Nachum ben Chana Leiba v'Yaakov z"l.

The gemara explains how Rabbi Yosi and the rabbis came to different dates regarding when the Torah was given and as a result a different number of days that spouses needed to separate. Several sources are brought either against Rabbi Yosi or against the rabbis and are then explained. According to Rabbi Yosi, one needs to explain that God told Moshe two days of separation but Moshe added a third and God agreed with him. There are two other cases brought where Moshe initiated something and God agreed. What are different opinions regarding what Moshe did the first three days upon arriving at Mount Sinai? Did he first teach them about the punishments, then the rewards or the reverse? What were they commanded about Shabbat in Marah - also techumin or everything except that? This affects whether or not they travelled on shabbat and arrived on Sunday or travelled and arrived on Sunday. The gemara gets into the counts of what day of the week did they leave Egypt and how many days were in Nissan and Iyar of that year and how one can arrive at the different opinions of rabbi Yosi adn the rabbis. Does the days of the week of Rosh Chodesh Sivan according to Rabbi Yosi and the rabbis fit in with a braita that explains the dates in the following year when the tabernacle was put up?

Shabbat 86 - May 31, 8 Sivan May 31, 2020

Today's daf is sponsored by Ami Plaksin in honor of his wife, Ilana, who despite her busy life, manages to find time to learn daf yomi.

The mishna lists the sources for the following laws: a women who has semen exit her body within 3 days of having intercourse is considered impure, one can wash an infant within three days of a brit milah even on Shabbat, a red string is tied around the scapegoat on Yom Kippur that turns white as a sign that their sins are forgiven, annointing is forbidden like drinking on Yom Kippur. Several opinions are brought regarding the amount of time semen from intercourse remains live in a woman's body and makes her impure. The opinions are derived from different traditions regarding the days leading up to the receiving of the Torah and how many days the husbands and wives needed to separate before receiving the Torah.

Shabbat 85 - May 30, 7 Sivan May 30, 2020

Today's daf is dedicated by Shira Merili Mervis in memory of her father, Yitzchak Eliahu ben Aliza and Moshe z"l.

From where do we learn that the area the rabbis determined for planting five different types of seeds is reliable? How much space does one need to leave around each square area of 6x6 handbreaths? Rav and Shmuel disagree regarding the mishna - was it stated in a case where the garden bed was alone or surrounded by others? Rabbi Yochanan explained how one can plant a number of different types in a square of 6x6 - using a circle or circles. There is debate about whether one can plant in betwteen the circles.

Shabbat 84 - Chag Shavuot - May 29, 6 Sivan May 28, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 84

Today's shiur is dedicated by Beth Fox for a refuah shleima for her father, Edward Fox, Ezra Chaim ben Slova. May he have a successful surgery and a refuah shleima!

According to Chanania, an item needs to be carried both full or empty in order to be susceptible to impurities. Does that include an item that can be pulled by oxen? From where can this be proven? A braita is brought showing a debate between tana kama and Rabbi Yosi regarding a boat. What exactly does each side hold? From where do we derive that an earthenware vessel cannot become impure through sitting on (by a zav, zava, nidda or woman after childbirth)? Three answers are given. The next mishna disucsses the source for how many different types of seed can be planted in one space of 6x6 tefachim without being worried about kilaim, mixing diverse kinds together?

Shabbat 83 - May 28, 5 Sivan May 28, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 83

This week's learning is sponsored by Joy Benatar in memory of Miriam David, Malka bat Michael and Esther z"l. She would have loved to study in a worldwide, non-denominational, non-gender segregated Jewish community.

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Jeff Cohen's 40th birthday. Happy birthday!

Raba and Rabbi Elazar disagree about what type of impurity idols have. The gemara analyzes the different opinions and raises questions from other sources. A few questions are raised regarding parts of idols carrying impurities and the minimum size of an idol required for passing on impurities. From where is it derived that a boat is not susceptible to impurity? Two answers are brought and the gemara discusses in which cases there would be a difference between them. The gemara ends with the importance on not missing a day in the beit midash and the importance of learning Torah.

Shabbat 82 - May 27 - 4 Sivan May 27, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 82

Rav Huna teaches his son that learning about issues related to health and particularly going to the bathroom is central to Torah. If one has the option to wipe on Shabbat with a shard or with a rock, which is better? A rock or grass? Other health issues related to constipation are brought up in the gemara. What size shard is one obligated for carrying - 3 opinions. Which is larger? The ninth chapter starts with a question relating to the source for impurity for idols. Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis have a debate in Masechet Avoda Zara what level of impurity they have. Raba and Rabbi Elazar disagree about the details of the debate between Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis.

Shabbat 81 - May 26, Sivan 3 May 26, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 81

Today's shiur is dedicated by Joni Brenner in honor of Rabbi Shuli Passow for introducing her to daf yomi.

What is the size of a bone, a piece of glass, or a rock or stone that one would be obligated for carrying on Shabbat? By which use of these items is the size determined? Even though rocks are generally muktze, the rabbis allowed one to carry them for wiping in the bathroom (in those days rocks were used as toilet paper). What size rocks were permitted to be carried on Shabbat for this purpose? What items can't be used on Shabbat for wiping? If one has a regular place for going to the bathroom or not, does that effect how many rocks one can carry? One can use a small mortar used to crushing spices to wipe with on Shabbat, but according to Rav Sheshet, only if it has signs that it was used in the past to wipe with in the bathroom. Is it really OK to use something that was used in the past to wipe with - isn't that unhealthy and can cause disease? Three answers are brought. What if the rain washed off any dirt from previous uses? Can one carry rocks to the attic to be uses for wiping or is that considered extra work on Shabbat that would be forbidden? It is permitted because of kavod habriot - human dignity. Under what circumstances does human dignity not permit mutzke items to be moved on Shabbat? Why is there a difference? One cannot use a plowed field as a bathroom on Shabbat - why not? Can one use a rock that has grass growing on it for wiping? Can one use an earthenware shard for wiping?

Shabbat 80 - May 25, 2 Sivan May 25, 2020

Today's shiur is dedicated by Don Nadel in memory of his mother, Zisa Risa bat Aliya HaCohen z"l on her yahrzeit.

What is the requisitve amount for carrying ink - does it matter if it is in dried form, in a quill or an inkwell? Rava brings a number of laws that deal with combining partial acts that independently would not obligate one but together could. Rabbi Yosi says if one takes a partial amount into one public domain and another part into a different public domain, one is not responsible. What distinguishes one public domain from another - various opinions are brought. Eye shadow for one eye - is that meant for medicinal purposes or for beauty? The gemara briefly discusses a number of the items listed in the mishna. In the beginning of the mishna, Rabbi Yehuda brought a smaller amount than the rabbis - why in the cases of earthenware shards did he bring a larger amount? The gemara delves into the issue of lime - why did they use it on girls? What is the amount that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nechemia list in the mishna? Does Rabbi yehuda also here obligate for a smaller amount? Teh mishna continues with amounts for carrying earth, fertilizer, fine sand, coarse sand and reeds. There are some debates between Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis.

Shabbat 79 - May 24, Rosh Chodesh Sivan, 1 Sivan May 24, 2020

Today's daf is sponsored by Leslie Glassberg Nadel in memory of her mother, Tova Bat Zvi Hirsch z"l and by an anonymous donor in loving memory of Emuna Bracha Esther and in honor of the incredible women in her life (both mentors and students) who are learning daf yomi.

The gemara brings four explanations regearding the debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Tana Kama about one who takes out a promissory note on Shabbat - if it is after it was paid back, is one obligated? Is it still a useful item? What is the basis for the debate and what exactly are the circumstances? Rava asks Rav Nachman about the requisite amount for taking out the hide of an animal at different stages - before it was processed, once it was processed, etc. Rav Nachman says it is the same for all. The gemara raises several questions on this from other cases where we distinguish between an item before it is processed and after. The mishna gave a size for parchment for tefillin. But in a braita a different amount appears in the context of tefillin and mezuza. The gemara distinguishes between tefillin and mezuza. However it is difficult as tefillin is generally made of klaf and mezuza on duchsustos and the braita mentioned both in relation to tefillin. The gemara rereads the braita to line up each type of parchment with what it can be used for. Rav says that one can use duchtostos for tefillin. The gemara raises several questions on this and also tries to bring a potential proof but ultimately concludes that Rav's statement was the reverse -that one can use klaf for mezuza.

Shabbat 78 - May 23, 29 Iyar May 22, 2020

The gemara continues to discuss the requisite amount needed for carrying items such as liquids, paper, ropes, reeds, etc.

Shabbat 77 - May 22, 28 Iyar, Yom Yerushalayim May 22, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 77

Today's daf is sponsored by Danielle Barta in honor of her mother - "she inspired me to start learning Daf Yomi with Hadran and insipires me to always be the best me!

What is the ratio of water to wine used to make wine? How does this effect the requisite amount required for carrying out wine? What is the requisite amount of congealed wne that one would be responsible for carrying? Since the mishna used the words "gemia" the gemara wants to know if it was written with an ayin or an aleph. The gemara then asks that same question regarding a number of other words. The gemara asks questions regarding the requisite amounts mentioned in the mishna and are left without answers (teiku). Nothing is creating in this world without a purpose. Several creatures are listed and their purpose is explained. There are small creatures that can scare larger creatures. Rabbi Zeira finds Rav Yehuda in a good mood one day and asks him all sorts of questions regarding things in nature and why they were created in that way. He also asked him the etymology of a number of words in Aramaic. The mishna says the amount of oil to put on a small limb - a small limb of a small person or of a grown person?

Shabbat 76 - May 21, 27 Iyar May 21, 2020

If one takes out an object from one domain to another, one is obligated only if it is an item that is important. How is significance of an item determined? Is it subjective? Does it depend on what use you are intending for it? Does past behavior play a role? The mishna lists food for animals - what amount of each food item would obligated you? Each food is intended for different animals who each eat different amounts so the amount depends on the particular food. What if you take food for one animal to feed a different type of animal - what amount would be needed to obligate one? Can different food items combine to get to a requisite amount? For food for humans, what is the amount? Can different foods combine? What about parts of the food that are inedible? What is the requisite amount for drinks?

Shabbat 75 - May 20, 26 Iyar May 20, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 75

The gemara continues discussing the 39 melachot. Rav Zutra says three halakhot - one connected to sewing and two forbidden learning or associating with a Persian amgosh/priest (two different interpretations what that is) and a Jew who knows how to understand weather and constellations and doesn't use that knowledge. If one catches snails and opens them up to remove the gland to make techelet dye, for what is one obligated? Is threshing forbidden only in items that grow from the ground? Why wasn't killing the snail mentioned? Is one who slaughters obligated also by coloring the animal with the blood? Why are both tanning and salting listed - isn't salting part of the tanning process? Is salting meat an outgrowth of tanning or does tanning not apply to foods? What are outgrowths of smoothing, cutting and the final blow (make be'patish). Is one obligated tfor writing or erasing a large letter that takes up the space of two? The next mishna delves into carrying - for what type/size items is one obligated - is it objective criteria that determine it is an item of importance or is it subjective?

Shabbat 74 - May 19, 25 Iyar May 19, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 74

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of Harriet Sommer, Hindel bat Zissel z"l, by Eric Sommer and by Francine Shraga in honor of her daughter Sarah on earning her PhD. Congratulations! We are all so proud! Love, Mom, Dad, Rose and Dov.

Why are certain actions perfomred in the Tabernacle (mishkan) on the list of 39 melachot and others are not? Laws of selection (separating good from bad or bad from good) are discussed in a braita but in a very unclear manner. The gemara bring five explanations. The gemara tries to assess if really one is allowed to select good from bad. What are toladot of grinding? Why did the mishna write baking instead of cooking? Rav Acha says that one can be olbigated for cooking by putting object/utensils in an oven or pot like a peg or tar to prepare it. One who crafts a barrel, oven or wicker basket is obligated many sacrifices - for what actions? Rashi and Rav Hai Gaon disagree about which ones, partially based on a debate about whether one can be obligated in building for crafting a utensil. When in the Tabernacle did they do the acts of tying, untying and tearing?

Shabbat 73 - May 18, 24 Iyar May 18, 2020

oday's shiur is dedicated to celebrating International Women's Talmud Day that took place yesterday and to all those learning and teaching by Adam Dicker and Carolyn Hochstadter and family.

The gemara continues to bring more cases where Rava and Abaye argue about whether or not one would be exempt because of mitasek. The mishna finally gets to the list of the 39 melachot. The gemara explains why the mishna specifies a number. The gemara begins to discuss different toladot of each of the melachot. They also bring cases where one can do one act and be obligated a number of sacrifices as the act can be classified under different melachot.

Shabbat 72 - May 17, 23 Iyar May 17, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 72

Today's shiur is dedicated for a refuah shleima to Leah Naomi bat Rachel by Deborah Dickson. We are pleased to be part of International Women's Talmud Day that is taking place today with Talmud learning events throughout the day.

What is the law regarding the guilt offering for one who has relations with a designated maidservant numerous times - does one bring a separate guilt offering for each time if he was made aware of his sin in between each act? On what does it depend? If someone intends to perform a permitted act on Shabbat and ends up doing a forbidden act instead - like for example, one wanted to pick up something off the ground that was detached but instead lifted up and detached something from the ground, one is not obligated - this is called mitasek. What if one intended to cut something that was detached and in the end cut something that was attached (or according to Tosafot - one thought it was detached but it was attached)., Rava and Abaye disagree as to whether this person is obligated or not. Rava brings proof from a braita comparing Shabbat to other mitzvot and explaining that Shabbat is both more lenient and more stringent than other mitzvot. What is the "other mitzvot" referring to in these comparisons?

Shabbat 71 - May 16, 22 Iyar May 15, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 71

Today's shiur is dedicated in memory of Yosef ben Tzvi HaCohen z"l by Aviva and Benny Adler.

Can one combine an act where one forgot it was Shabbat and another where one forgot melachot were forbidden, and bring one sacrifice for both? There are varying opinions. If one cannot combine them and one needs to bring separate sacrifices, does that mean one cannot combine a half shiur of each to obligated one in sacrifices? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree regarding one who ate two olive bulks of forbidden fats without realizing it was forbidden but with separate moments of realization of the sin - can one bring one sacrifice to cover both? There is a discussion regarding in what cases they disagree.

Shabbat 70 - May 15, 21 Iyar May 15, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 70

Today's shiur is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Netanel Ilan ben Shayna Tzipora and by Judy Shapiro in honor of all her children.

Why is there a difference between if one forgot it was Shabbat one brings one sacrifice and if one forgot melachot one brings a sacrifice for each? From where do we derive that one brings a separate sacrficie for each melacha that one performed? Shmuel brings a source and the gemara assesses why he did not bring one of the two sources offered by the tannaim Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yosi. Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yosi debate why the verse regarding fire was singled out - was it to create a paradigm for all the melachot or was it singled out because it is different (less stringent than all the others)? What does Rabbi Yosi derive from the words "from one from these?" How many sacrifices does one bring if one forgot it was Shabbat and forgot that melachot were forbidden? If one did two melachot two times - once forgetting it was Shabbat and once forgetting melachot and finds out about one before the other, can one sacrifice cover all the actions? Different permutations are brought.

Shabbat 69 - May 14, Iyar 20 May 14, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 69

Today's shiur is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Netanel Ilan ben Shayna Tzipora.

What are the different approaches to one who sins unwittingly - what about the prohibition was forgotten? Munbaz holds that one knew it was forbidden and knew the punishment for doing it on purpose but didn't know that one is obligated to bring a sacrifice for performing it unwittingly. The rabbis disagree and rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about whether one was unwitting about the prohibition or about the punishment for the prohibition (karet). Abaye compares two other cases where one is also obligated if one did it unwittingly but there is no punishment of karet if it was performed intentionally. He says that all agree in those cases (swearing falsely and a non priest who ate truma). Who is all - the rabbis and Munbaz or Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish. Rava disagrees with Abaye in the case of truma. If one is in the desert and lost track of days, how does one keep Shabbat?

Shabbat 68 - May 13, 19 Iyar May 13, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 68

Today's daf is sponsored by Natalie Taylor in memory of Rabbanit Rachel Taylor z"l whose 90th birthday would have been on Lag Baomer and for all her descendants to continue learning Torah. It is also sponsored by Ruti Amal for a refuah shleima for Rachel Permouth who is ungergoing a serious surgery today.

How many sin offerings is one obligated in the case where one forgot that there was a concept of Shabbat and did "work" on Shabbat over a course of many weeks/years? What if one forgot that today was Shabbat? What if one knew it was Shabbat but forgot that one cannot do melacha? The mishna details the laws in each case and calls it "a big rule." Why does it use that language? Where else is that language used? Rav anf Shmuel disagree with Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding the case of a tinok shenishba (a young child taken captive by non Jews) or a convert who lived only among non Jews (or possibly converted among non Jews) and never knew abotu the concept of Shabbat. The gemara grapples with each opinion. Basic issues underly the discussion such as where is the border between shogeg (unwitting) and ones (entirely not responsible)? Why is knowledge so important?

Shabbat 67 - May 12, 18 Iyar, Lag Baomer May 12, 2020

Today's shiur is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Ilana Leah bat Esther and David Binyamin ben Duba Feiga by Candace Plotsker-Herman.

The gemara continues to list incantations for various diseases or to protect from evil spirits. The mishna deals with carrying out objects that are used as segulot for protection. Rabbi Meir allows them and the rabbis forbid using them even on a weekday, as they are methods used by the Emorim, non Jews whose ways we are forbidden to follow. Abaye and Rava says that if they are used for medicinal purposes one is allowed to follow ways of non Jews. There is a debate whether or not some of these things are actually idol worship. Can we use any incantations or other methods mentioned in the gemara nowadays? Where does one draw the line between incantations and prayer?

Shabbat 66 - May 11, 17 Iyar May 11, 2020

Today's shiur is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Netanel Ilan ben Shayna Tzipora who is undergoing surgery today.

Can one go out on Shabbat with a prosthetic leg. The mishna discusses a number of different types of things that one who doesn't have a leg might be using and can they go out with it on Shabbat, are they susceptible to impurity of midras (an item one sits/leans on), are they consdiered a shoe as regards various laws that relate to shoes (forbidden to wear them in the azara of the temple, chalitza needs to be performed with a shoe). If a prosthetic leg has a concave space to put pads, would it be susceptible to impurity because it has a receptacle? Rava and Abaye disagree regarding whether this is referring to regular impurity or impurity of midras. Each brings support for his opinion. Male children (and others) can go out with knots. Apparently they were used for sick people or even to prevent people from getting sick. The gemara explains that the mishna spoke about boys because it was known to help boys who had issues separating from their father (there are different explanations as to what this means). The gemara discusses other things that are allowed for medicinal purposes as well as commonly used segulot.

Shabbat 65 - May 10, Iyar 16 May 10, 2020

Today’s daf and this week’s learning is sponsored in memory of Betty Minsk, Batsheva Rut bat Shalom and Faige z”l, by her daughter, Elisa Hartstein.

Today's shiur is sponsored in memory of Rhonda Mlodinoff by Becca Nagorsky. And in honor of Mother's Day, in honor of Debbie Pine - Happy Mother's Day from your children. We are so proud of your dedication to Torah and Am Yisrael. Love, Sarah, Danielle & Zachary Orenshein. And by Karolyn Benger in honor of all the mothers who are learning and teaching.

Are things that are forbidden for concern about marit ayin, because of what others may see and misunderstand, also forbidden in private spaces? The gemara explains more in details about allowing to go out with cotton in ones ears, one's shoe and to protect from menstrual blood. Does it need to be tied to the body? Some rabbis did not and what was the reaction of others? Shmuel's father forbade his daughters a number of things - one of them permitted by the mishna. Why? The gemara suggests that another one was possibly connected to his approach to two females rubbing against each other in a sexual manner - however this is rejected. The gemara deals with a contradiction in the mishna regarding prerifa, fastening a cloak using a rock, coin or nut.

Shabbat 64 - May 9, 15 Iyar May 08, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 64

The gemara discusses different items that are susceptible to impurity even if they don't have a minimum size. With what items are women allowed to go out on Shabbat? Certain items that are forbidden to go out with in public are permitted in a courtyard and others are forbidden - although there is a debate regarding this. Why do women go out with jewelry even when it is clear that the rabbis forbade it?

Shabbat 63 - May 8, 14 Iyar May 08, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 63

Today's shiur is sponsored in memory of Edwin Gilberg, Issur Ben Menachem Mendel v’Shenka Sarah z"l by Judy and David Gilberg and Yosef Flesh ben Miriam and Yitzchak z"l by Nava Flesh.

Men are not allowed to go out on Shabbat wearing certain items and if they do, it is forbidden by Torah law. Which items? Are weapons considered like jewelry and are permitted or not? Ifin the times of the messiah there will no longer be weapons, does this prove the weapons are not considered like jewelry as they are only worn when needed? The gemara brings various drashot regarding Torah scholars who learn in the "right" way will be rewarded. Other statements are brought - what is the best way to give charity, why is someone who has a bad dog in one's house considered to be preventing chesed, and what is the verse in Kohelet "one should be happy in one's youth..." referring to? What is a "birit" mentioned in the mishna. How is it different from "kevalim"? From where do we derive that an item that is woven is suscpetible to impurities at a very small size? And the same for jewelry.

Shabbat 62 - May 7, 13 Iyar May 07, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 62

The mishna mentions items that are forbidden by Torah law for a woman to carry in the public domain. Ulla explans that laws of what can and cannot be carried are opposite for men and women. The gemara brings two different explanations for his opinions. If a woman can't wear a signet ring, why is it forbidden by Torah law if she is wearing it and not carrying it in a normal manner, which would make it only rabbinic. There is a debate regarding weearing a satchel of herbs and a flask of balsam oil. The gemara brings verses from Amos relating to balsam oil and from there to verses in Yeshayahu, both discussing sins of the people and of the women's inappropriate behavior.

Shabbat 61 - May 6, 12 Iyar May 06, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 61

If one has an injured foot, one can go out on Shabbat with one shoe on. On which foot - the injured one or the other one? Are shoes meant to prevent pain or for pleasure? Which shoe should one put on first - right or left? Why can't one walk out in tefillin - is the mishna within the opinion that people can or cannot wear tefillin on Shabbat? The gemara brings different possibilities regarding how to determine whether or not an amulet has proven successful? Does an amulet have sanctity - does one need to remove it before going to the bathroom?

Shabbat 60 - May 5, 11 Iyar May 05, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 60

The gemara brings three resolutions to the contradiction between our mishna and the mishna in kelim regarding a signet ring - is it considered jewelry. What items did the rabbis forbid a man to go out with wearing in public. Why did they forbid a hobnailed sandal? It seems to have been to remember a particular incident relating to fear of the Romans, likely during the Bar Kochva rebellion. The gemara discusses exactly which type of sandal is forbidden and under what conditions would it be permitted.

Shabbat 59 - May 4 May 04, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 59

Why is a bell once the clapper is removed still susceptible to impurities - what can it be used for? Several answers are brought. Rabbi Yochanan says it can be used as a cup for a young child. But doesn't Rabbi Yochanan hold elsewhere that if a utensil can no longer be used for its original purpose, it is no longer susceptible to impurities? The gemara goes through the jewelry mentioned in the mishna and explains what they are, raises arguments regarding each case (if there are) and cases where women may be allowed to where jewelry according to some opinions. For example, prominent women are unlikely to remove jewelry so jewels that are only worn by prominent women may be allowed according to some.

Shabbat 58 - May 3 May 03, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 58

The gemara questions Shmuel's explanation on the previous page that kavul in the mishna (that one cannot go out with on Shabbat) is a kavla of slaves. If so, Shmuel himself says elsewhere that a slave can go out on Shabbat with that. The gemara resolves the contradiction by distinguishing between one that the owner gave him and one that he made for himself. There is a difference between one worn around the neck and one one his clothing - why? In a different braita there is no distinction made between the neck and the clothing. How is this reconciled? The braita quoted mentioned also a bell worn by the slave and distinguished between a bell around his neck and one on his clothing. Why? Another contradictory source is brought regarding whether or not the bell is susceptible to impurity and to resolve it, they distinguish between a bell with a clapper and one without. If the clapper is removed, the braita says it is still susceptible to impurity - why?

Shabbat 57 - May 2 May 01, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 57

Today’s shiur, as well as the whole month of Iyar, is dedicated in memory of Yehuda Aryeh Leib ben Yisachar Dov Barash, Ari Adler, z”l whose yahrzeit is today.

And two birthday dedications - Happy birthday to Deborah Kovsky from Yoni Apap and to Bill Abraham from his wife Malka Abraham who thanks you for all of your support in her Jewish learning.

With which items can a woman not go out with on Shabbat into the public domain? Accoridng to Troah law she can walk out with clothing or ornaments but the rabbis forbade items where there was a concern they would fall off or the women would remove them to show thier friends. The mishna lists items that cannot be worn for the reaosn mentioned above and also some that would be considered a barrier for the mikveh in which case she would take them off to dip and may then come to carry them. Which materials of strings are problematic if worn in the women's hair? Which are permissible? On what does it depend?

Shabbat 56 - May 1 May 01, 2020

Today's shiur is sponsored in Rabbi Fredda Cohen for her courageous and compassionate work as a Chaplain and director of Pastoral Care at White Plains Hospital in Westchester, New York, during this pandemic by Rabbi Julie Danan.

Today's daf continues to mention others who are mentioned in the Torah as having sinned and Rabbi Yonatan says that they didn't really sin according to what it says in the verse, however they did something wrong on account of which the sin is attrubuted to them. People mentioned are the sons of Shmuel, David, Solomon and Yoshiayahu (Josiah).

Shabbat 55 Apr 30, 2020

The gemara explains the importance of trying to prevent others from sinning, even if you know they won't listen to you. We have a communal responsibility to others - both leaders and individuals are responsible for others. Rav Ami says that people only die or are punished for their own sins, not the sins of others. The gemara brings several braitot that seem to contradict. Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani saya in the name of Rabbi Yonatan that Reuven did not actually sleep with Bilhah - if so, why does it say he did? The sons of Ely didn't really sleep with other women - if so, why does it say they did?

Shabbat 54 - Yom Haazmaut - April 29 Apr 29, 2020

The mishna and gemara deal with items that animals are not allowed to go out with in public on Shabbat. Different items are forbidden for different reasons. The gemara explains the reality of each of the cases mentioned in the mishna. The mishna says that the cow of Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria would go out with a strap between its horns and the rabbis were not pleased. The gemara explains that this wasn't his cow but his neighbor's cow and it was considered his since he could have rebuked her, but didn't. The gemara begins to discuss the importance of rebuking others and the issue of communal responsibility.

Shabbat 53 - April 28 Apr 28, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 53

In honor of Yom Hazikaron, we will dedicate our learning to all those who have given their lives to the State of Israel. Today's shiur is also dedicated by Cliff and Minna Felig in memory of their aunt Laura Tretin z”l who recently passed away.

Can an animal walk out with an item that is used to help the animal to prevent discomfort such as a saddlecloth to warm a donkey? This is only allowed if the animal is wearing it from before Shabbat. If the animal is staying in a private domain, can one even place thesaddlecloth on Shabbat? Is a basket meant for food allowed? Or a saddle? How do each of these cases differ? Can animals walk around in the public thoroughfare on Shabbat with amulets? How are amulet's different for humans and for animals? Can a she-goat go out with bound udders? Some stories are brought regarding a man whose breasts filled up with milk and a woman without a hand whose husband was unaware of it until her death. What is the meaning of "levuvim" in the mishna that is permitted for males to go out wearing? Three explanations are brought.

Shabbat 52 - April 27 Apr 27, 2020

Are animals allowed to carry items that are used for decorative purposes? The mishna discusses the purification of the implements worn on the animal but are they susceptible to impurities? Aren't only items used by humans susceptible to impurities? How can these items be purified by the animal while wearing it around one's neck? Isn't the animal considered a barrier for the water since the water can't fully surround the item? Rabbi Eliezer tells a student that all rings and all needles are the same when it comes to laws of impurity. The gemara questions this by bringing various sources that indicate otherwise.

Shabbat 51 Apr 26, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 51

Today’s shiur is dedicated by the Raye and Cohen families in memory of Elisabeth Maybaum, Elisheva bat Yehuda z”l and by Fredda Cohen in honor of Dr. Gary Zeitlin, infectious disease doctor at White Plains Hospital, who has saved many lives over the past few months, and whose spirit has been lifted by the study of Talmud and this podcast.

What situations are allowed regarding insulation on Shabbat? Can one uncover and recover and insulated pot on Shabbat? Can one insulate cold items? Can one swap an insulated item with a different material even if it may keep in the heat better? Can one insulate something that was moved out of the utensil it was cooking in (a kli sheni)? Do leaders need to hold themselves to a higher standard to set an example for others? In what way can one melt ice or snow on Shabbat to use? In what way is it forbidden? The fifth chapter discusses items that an animal is or is not allowed to carry from one domain to another. Why is it an issue for animals to carry and what criteria are used in determining whether or not this is permitted?

Shabbat 50 Apr 24, 2020

The month of Iyar is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in memory of their fathers Yosef ben Zvi HaKohen, Dr. Joseph Kahane and Yehuda Aryeh Leib ben Yisachar Dov Barash, Ari Adler zichronam l'vracha.

Today's daf is sponsored by Susan Handelman in loving memory of her mother Miriam bat Shmuel HaCohen. A friend wrote when she was niftar: "You were blessed to have a mother whose love you always felt , and about whom him you can can truly say 'Immi Morati' ["my Mother, my Teacher"]. She was indeed my best teacher, and epitomized the verse, "She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the Torah of kindness is on her tongue." And by David & Judy Gilberg in memory of Judy's mother, Elsie Cohn - Eshka Bat Aryeh Leib v’Chaya Zissel z"l, by Francine Shraga in memory of her father Dov Ber ben Yosef HaCohen z"l and by Ilene Strauss in memory of Leah bat Yaakov v'Yittel z"l.

Muktze is dependent on intent of the owner of the item. Is one's intent viewed as stronger if showed by actions or if one had intent in one's mind? If actions, what type of action is needed? The gemara brings several opinions. What if no action would be revelant for a given item? The gemara gets off on a tangent regarding the prohibition of smoothing something on Shabbat during the process of washing or also causing hair to fall out by washing with certain substances. The gemara explains the debate at the end of mishna regarding removing items that were insulated in a basket - how can one do it if it is insulated in soemthing muktze? Some other issues relating to muktze are discussed.

Shabbat 49 Apr 24, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 49

Today's shiur is sponsored in memory of Shlomo Chaim Asher ben Luna Sol z"l by Yael Asher.

Items that can be used to insulating foods when dry but not moist - do we mean moist from something external or from within the item? Which items can be used for insulation? Due to a mention of dove's wings, the gemara tells the story of Elisha ba'al knafayim (wings) who wore tefillin even though the Roman decreed against wearing them and he was saved via a miracle having to do with dove's wings. From him we learn that tefillin require a "clean body." The mishna describes items that one can use for insulating and discusses if they can be moved or are they muktze? If they can't be moved, hwo can one remove the food? Hides of animals are permitted to be moved - but do they mean a regular person or even a tanner who uses them for business purposes? From where do we derive that there are 39 forbidden melachot on Shabbat? Two answers are brought. Rava teaches about wool that was used for insulating that it is not muktze. A student on his first day in the yeshiva questions Rava from the mishna and Rava corrects his teaching.

Shabbat 48 Apr 23, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 48

Today's daf is dedicated in honor of a number of birthdays. In honor of Akiva Blander's birthday by his parents, Peri Rosenfeld and Stuart Blander. He lights up our lives with his wry humor and his ongoing support of our learning the daf. In honor of Rivka Greenstone’s birthday from her parents David and Shira. And in honor of my son, Moshe’s birthday.

Two events happened in the house of the Exilarch in which Raba was critical of the behavior of a servant - one regarding hatmana/warming water on Shabbat and one regarding covering a barrel with a kerchief. If one uses pieces of wool generally used for making clothing, but one time it was used for hatmana, would the wool be allowed to be carried on a different Shabbat as it was at some point useful on Shabbat? Can one refill the wool stuffing of a pillow if it falls out on Shabbat? Can one put the stuffing in to make the pillow? What about cutting out the part for the neck of clothing or untying the neck that was sewn together by the launderer? The gemara then talks about uncovering a sealed barrel - is that the same as cutting out the part for the neck in a new shirt? The gemara then discusses different issues regarding items that are temporarily connected - are they considered connecting for purity/impurity issues? On what does it depend?

Shabbat 47 Apr 22, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 47

Today's daf is sponsored by Elana Storch in appreciation of Hadran. Thank you for giving us the chizuk and continuing to inspire us, the women of Hadran daily with a love of learning.

Rebbi allowed carrying a coal pan with ashes. Why? Isn't it a utensil that is used for something forbidden? Three answers are brought - two of which are rejected. Is muktze subjective? Can something be muktze for someone and permitted for someone else? Can one put together a collapsible weaving loom or other collapsible item? There seem to be different opinions about this. On what might it depend? One can put something under the lamp to catch sparks - why? However one can't fill it with water as that will extinguish the sparks. Is that true only if one holds like Rabbi Yosi who thinks that indirect extinguishing is forbidden? Rav Ashi thinks that this is actually considered directly extinguishing. What materials can one not use for wrapping food - hatmana - even before Shabbat?

Shabbat 47 Apr 22, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 47

Today's daf is sponsored by Elana Storch in appreciation of Hadran. Thank you for giving us the chizuk and continuing to inspire us, the women of Hadran daily with a love of learning.

Rebbi allowed carrying a coal pan with ashes. Why? Isn't it a utensil that is used for something forbidden? Three answers are brought - two of which are rejected. Is muktze subjective? Can something be muktze for someone and permitted for someone else? Can one put together a collapsible weaving loom or other collapsible item? There seem to be different opinions about this. On what might it depend? One can put something under the lamp to catch sparks - why? However one can't fill it with water as that will extinguish the sparks. Is that true only if one holds like Rabbi Yosi who thinks that indirect extinguishing is forbidden? Rav Ashi thinks that this is actually considered directly extinguishing. What materials can one not use for wrapping food - hatmana - even before Shabbat?

Shabbat 46 Apr 21, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 46

This week’s shiurim are sponsored by Eva Schwartz in memory of her mother Hilde Schwartz z"l who still is a daily inspiration to her family.

Today’s shiur is sponsored by Carolyn Ben-Ari in memory of her father Ivor Rhodes, Yisrael ben Meir and Sarah z"l on his tenth yarzheit. And by Yael Asher in memory of Miriam Pesia Flesh bat Malka z”l. And as today is Yom HaShoah, in memory of all those who perished in the Holocaust.

Rav Yosef originally thought that Rabbi Yochanan held like Rabbi Shimon. Abaye questions this based on a story with Rabbi Yochanan's student who didn't move a candelabra. Rav Yosef explains that a candelabra is different and that case wasn't reflective of Rabbi Yochanan's position regarding the Rabbi Yehuda/Rabbi Shimon debate on muktze. Rebbi gave a ruling about a candelabra, however it was unclear what he ruled - to be lenient or stringent? There were different opinions among amoraim regarding wether to hold like Rabbi Shimon or Rabbi Yehuda regarding moving a lamp after it burned out. Would Rabbi Shimon hold in a case of a lamp with naphtha since it has a terrible odor that it would also be forbidden after it burned out? Several contradictions are brought regarding Rabbi Shimon's opinion - a firstborn animal that became blemished on Yom Tov that cannot be slaughtered because one did not assume it would become blemished. Why is that case different? Rabbi Shimon forbade moving a lamp while lit, presumably because it would extinguish, however, Rabbi Shimon himself would not think that was an issue as it was a davar sheino mitkaven - one did not intend to extinguish it. This is resolved by saying that the reason Rabbi Shimon forbids is because it serves as a base for a forbidden item.

Shabbat 45 Apr 20, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 45

Today's shiur is dedicated by Di Gittel Kuchar on her father, Michael Neuhauser, Moshe ben Avraham and Rivka z"l's first yahrzeit. He had a love of learning which his family continues. And for the birth of a grandson on Israel who was given his name at the brit on Friday.

The gemara concluded that Rav held like Rabbi Yehuda regarding muktze. After bringing a proof for this, the gemara questions this assumption from a different source. But it is resolved. There are various discussions and opinions regarding cases where even Rabbi Shimon would hold there is a law of muktze. Is it only in a candle while it is lit - mutzke because it is designated for a mitzvah? Or only figs and dates that are clearly set aside not to be eaten? Animals in the wild? There is also a debate regarding whether Rabbis like Rebbi and Rabbi Yochanan held like Rabbi Shimon or not?

Shabbat 44 Apr 19, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 44

The mishna and gemara delve into the different types of muktze and different tannaitic opinions about what is considered muktze and what isn't. According to Rabbi Yehuda, something that is disgusting like an earthenware vessel that was used for lighting a candle. According to Rabbi Meir, if something is designated not for use at twilight Friday afternoon (bein hashmashot), then it can't be used all Shabbat, like candles lit for Shabbat. Rabbi Shimon only forbids moving candles that are lit, lest one may extinguish them. Accroding to the gemara Rabbi Shimon also forbids it while it is lit because he holds that while it is designated for a forbidden use, it is muktze however not for all of Shabbat - just for the time it was designated. How is a metal candelabra different from eathenware? Rav brings a halacha regarding a bed with money on it. A mishna is brought to contradict and the gemara resolves it by saying the mishna holds by Rabbi Shimon and Rav holds by Rabbi Yehuda on muktze issues.

Shabbat 43 Apr 17, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 43

Today's shiur is dedicated in memory of the yahrzeit of Devorah Waiman of London, who was a huge fan and supporter of women's participation in Jewishe life and would have really enjoyed participating in the daf learning, from her granddaughter Sarah Waiman.

The gemara brings two different undertandings (Raba and Rav Yosef) of Rav Chisda's opinion regarding in which situations one can protect an egg from breaking on Shabbat. The answers reflect two different approaches to the mishna - why is it forbidden for one to place a utensil under the candle in order to catch oil that is dripping. Is it because one cannot move a utensil for the purposes of something that cannot be moved on Shabbat or is it because one cannot render a utensil unable to be used on Shabbat. Abaye raises questions from tannaitic sources against each position and they are all answered. Rabbi Yitzchak brings a different approach to Rav Chisda forbidding all cases of protecting eggs unless one moved the utensil for a permitted purpose initially. The reasoning follows Raba's position. The gemara raises questions on Rabbi Yitzchak also from tannaitic sources and resolves them. How can one move a dead body to protect it from rotting in the sun?

Shabbat 42 Apr 17, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 42

Today's shiur is dedicated in memory of Natan Zvi ben Moshe Yehuda Leib Zeiger z|l by his daughter Dr. Robin Zeiger and his son-in-law Prof. Jonathan ben Ezra.

How can we say that Shmuel holds like Rabbi Shimon who permits performing a melacha in a case where one had no intention to do the melacha if in another case, he doesn't hold like Rabbi Shimon - if there is burning metal on the street one can extinguish it but not if it is a burning wood coal. The gemara answers that it is not the same category. The issue with the coals is what we call a melacha sheaina tzricha legufa - it is not done for the purpose that it was donein the tabernacle. Shmuel held like Rabbi Yehuda in that debate and like Rabbi Shimon in the other debate. There is an argument between Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasia regarding whether one can put hot water into cold or cold water into hot. Does it depend on what type of utensil - cup or bathtub? What about a basin?On what issue does Rabbi Shimon ben Mensai disagree with them or is he actually disagreeing about their debate? Spices cannot be put in a kli rishon - a utensil that was on the fire but can be put in a kli sheni. Is sal;t the same as spices or do they cook in less time? In more time? Laws of muktze are discussed - can one put a utensil under the oil that one set up for candles - in order to catch the oil that spills? Is it allowed if it was set up before Shabbat? In what way is one allowed to protect eggs that hatch on Shabbat (which are muktze) from being stepped on by people? The gemara distinguishes between common cases (one is allowed to) and less common cases (one is not permitted). The gemara questions that premise.

Shabbat 41 Apr 16, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 41

Today's shiur is sponsored in honor of Chana Rivka Bracha's birthday by her mother, Malka Abraham.

The gemara brings two stories of Rabbi Zeira where he was with other rabbis while they were bathing and learned or tried to learn halachot from what he observed. The mishna describes different types of hot water boilers and can they be used on Shabbat. The mishna describes a case of a hot water boiler where one added cold water to it after it was removed from the fire or emptied. It is a subject of debate which case the mishna was referring to - removed from the fire or emptied? Does the mishna follow Rabbi Yehuda or Rabbi Shimon regarding one who does an act of Shabbat by which a melacha is performed - however one had no intention to perform that melacha.

Shabbat 40 Apr 14, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 40

**This is the daf for Wednesday, Seventh day of Pesach.

Rav and Shmuel debate what type of washing can be done on Shabbat with water that was heated up before Shabbat? Raba has a different, more lenient version of Rav. Rav Yosef watned to know if he actually held that way. A few braitot are brought which deal with issues in the bathhouse with water heated up before Shabbat and also explain the stages of the ordinance instituted forbidden bathing and steaming with water heated up before Shabbat and Yom Tov. Can oil be warmed? Is there an issue of cooking oil? Is warming it to take out the chill the same as cooking it? Various opinions are brought. How are laws regarding bathing in hot springs different from water heated before Shabbat?

Shabbat 39 Apr 14, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 39

Today's shiur is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Gershon Schwartz, Harav Gershon ben Shmuel V'Sarah z"l on his 17th yahrzeit by Moshe Schwartz and by Rabbi Seth Phillips in honor of the Daf Yomi learners of Allentown, PA.

It is forbidden according to everyone to cook with something heated up by a fire (toldot ha'or) but there is a debate between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosi regarding cooking with an item heated up by the sun. What is allowed to be placed in hot water on Shabbat and on what is one allowed to pour water that was heated up? Is the pouring referring to a kli rishon or a kli sheni? If Rabbi Yosi permits items cooked by the heat of the sun, why does he agree with the rabbis that one cannot place an egg in the sand to cook? Why is the story of the people of Tiberias brought? Is it telling us the Rabbi Yosi agrees with the rabbis in that case also or does Rabbi Yosi side with the people of Tiberias, against the rabbis. Are the hot springs of Tiberias considered toldot ha'or (fire) or toldot hachama (sun)? When the rabbis said that the water that was heated through the acqueduct in Tiberias was forbidden to use for washing, what washing was he referring to? The whole body or one's face, hands and feet? Each interpretation is difficult and the gemara suggests that the mishna is not referring to washing but to pouring water on oneself and holds like the most lenient of the opinions on the topic - Rabbi Shimon. Rabba bar bar Chana holds that Rabbi Yochanan held like the middle opinion - Rabbi Yehuda. Did he infer that from something that Rabbi Yochanan said or did he hear it stated explicitly? Why does it matter?

Shabbat 38 Apr 13, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 38

This week's shiurim are dedicated by Caroline Ben-Ari in appreciation of the Hadran community of Rabbanit Farber in particular and for a refuah shleima for all who need it.

If one forgot and left the pot on an open fire from before Shabbat, can one eat the food on Shabbat? Is there a difference if it was done on purpose or by accident? A braita is brought with opinions of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda and they seem to be different than what was brought in the previous daf regarding the difference between foods that improve if left on the fire and foods that don't improve. Which foods are in the category of "if they stay on the flame longer and shrivel, it is good for them"? The gemara discusses returning food on Shabbat - it is unclear whether they are referring to food that was taken off the fire before Shabbat and one wants to return it on Shabbat or to return Shabbat morning? Under what conditions can one return items to the fire on Shabbat? There are a number of debates regarding requirements - does it still need to be in one's hands and can't be put on the ground?Does one need to have intent to return it? Does one need both? Until now, we have been discussing a type of oven/burner called a kira. What about an oven (wide at the bottom, narrow at the top) or a kupach. What is a kupach? How does it differ from a kira? Can one place items near an oven just not on top of it or inside it? Can one cook using something that was heated by the sun or by a fire?

Shabbat 37 Apr 12, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 37

This week's shiurim are sponsored by Talia Kaplan Rubin in honor of her husband, Benjamin Rubin, who has been learning the daf. She's very proud of you - keep up the good work! Today's shiur is sponsored by Tracee Rosen in honor of all her friends and colleagues who are studying daf yomi this cycle and by Betsy Mehlman for a refuah shleima for Sarah Sally bat Carrie, mother of Shoshana Nissan.

The gemara tries to find an asnswer to the question - is the beginning of our mishna talking about leaving an item on the flame from before Shabbat or retunring something to the fire on Shabbat? Does the mishna ohld like Chananiya or not? Is one allowed to put a pot next to the fire to warm up even the coals are not swpet to the side or covered up with ashes? The gemara brings the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya and three versions of Rabbi Yochanan regarding the issue of putting something on the fire before Shabbat - do the ashes need to be swept to the side or covered? Does it matter if the food is fully cooked or is it sufficient if it is partially cooked (maachal ben drosai)? Does it matter if the food will be imporved with more cooking or is it only allowed if it will get worse if one cooks it too long? The gemara then brings different opinions that were practiced in different places.

Shabbat 36 Apr 10, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 36

Today's shiur is dedicated by Naomi Ferziger and Minna Felig in memory of their Aunt Helene Aylon z"l who passed away on Monday. A matriarch of female Jewish artists, Aunt Helene would have been thrilled to be a part of Hadran and probably would have thoroughly enjoyed learning the daf each day with us.

How can one reconcile various sources regarding whether or not a shofar or a trumpet is muktze? The terms shofar and trumpet changed after the destruction of the temple as did various other words. What are the halachic mplications of each name change? The third chapter discusses alws of cooking. Upon what type of flame can one leave food before Shabbat and return food on Shabbat? Does it depend on what type of food and how cooked it was before Shabbat? Is the mishna referring to placing before Shabbat or only to returning food to the flame on Shabbat.

Shabbat 33 Apr 08, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 33

Today's daf is sponsored in memory of Shoshana Chaya bat Shlomo and Mazal z"l by her daughter Nava Flesh and by Rabbi Fredda Cohen and Eric Nussbaum in honor of the sstaff of White Plains Hospital. To the most dedicated and wonderful colleagues.

The gemara mentions all sorts of sins that cause particular punishments. Despite these connections, the gemara in the end seems to qualify this by saying that sometimes these diseases can happen for natural causes and not because of sins. Regarding a discussion about askara , the gemara gets off on a tangent and brings in the story of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his son who end up hiding in a cave for thirteen years from the Romans because of something Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said against the Romans which was leaked to them by Yehuda son of converts who was careless and recounted the comment to others.

Shabbat 32 Apr 07, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 32

Today’s shiur is dedicated by Mona and David Schwartz and family in memory of Mary Horowitz, Miriam Etel bat Aharon Halevi z”l, on her 26th yahrzeit.

The mishna cites are three reasons why women die in childbirth - for not being careful about nidda, challa and lighting Shabbat candles. Why specifically these three? How can one relate to this troubling source? The gemara focuses on the vulnerability of women at the time of childbirth and stresses that when people are vulnerable that is when they are most likely to be punished. Adages are brought to prove that. When is the parallel time for men - when are they most vulnerable? The rabbis also offer opinions about what sins cause one's children to die young. Is it vows, not learning Torah, mezuza, tzitzit? The rabbis used these difficult, unfortunately common, phenomenon (women dying in cihldbirth and children dying young) as an oppportunity to encourage people to be careful about keeping mitzvot.

Shabbat 35 - ** Daf for second day of Pesach Apr 06, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 35

Today's shiur is dedicated by Aliza Avshalom in loving memory of her mother, Sara Bellehsen z"l, who lived and loved Torah and for a refuah shleima for all those worldwide who need it. This week's shiurim are dedicated in celebration of the birthday of Rabbi Fredda Cohen with love from her family.

The opinions of Rabba and Rav Yosef regarding bein hashmashhot are flipped regarding the size of a basket that is considered mukze on Shabbat and cannot be carried. Rabba has the larger size for bein hashmashot and the smaller one for the basket. The rabbis provide methods by which one could determine when exactly bein hashmashot starts and ends. They also mention where to go if one wants to see the well of Miriam that provided water for the Jews when they were in the dessert. Since rabbi Yehuda says bein hashmashot begins when the east side begins to redden - does one look for that in the East or in the West? They would blow 6 shofar blasts before Shabbat - first one for the workers in the fields, then for the workers in the city then for lighting candles or to remind people to remove their tefillin and then 3 blasts together to signal the beginning of Shabbat. A more detailed description is brought also from another braita.

Shabbat 31 Apr 06, 2020

Hillel was known to be incredibly patient and answered silly questions on Erev Shabbat from someone who was just trying to get him angry. A number of people came to convert before Shamai and Hillel and had preconditions, like only wanting to accept the written Torah or wanted to convert to become the high priest. Shamai was impatient with them and kicked them out but Hillel accepted them and ultimately through learning, they came to accept all of Judaism. One came and asked to know all the Torah while standing on one leg - Shamai kicked him out but Hillel told him "What is hated by you, do not do to your friend. And the rest is all commentary." Fear of God is the most important thing and one who learns without having it is considered missing something very basic - like getting keys to an inner room without getting the keys to the main room that leads to that inner room. Various verses are brought showing the importance of fearing God. How do all these stories/statements connect to the topic of Shabbat and the mishna that we are learning regarding situations when one can or cannot extinguish a candle of Shabbat? The opinion of Rabbi Yossi in the mishna that one can extinguish for all the reasons other than one who wants to save the wick, is it according to Rabbi Shimon or Rabbi Yehuda regarding melacha sheina tzricha legufa? Two approaches are brought - one explaining it according to Rabbi Yehuda and one according to Rabbi Shimon.

Shabbat 34 - Daf for the First Day of Pesach Apr 05, 2020

דף נלווה שבת לד

The mishna recommends that a husband should ask his wife before Shabbat starts if she tithed the produce and set up an eiruv and if so, she should light the candles. What things cannot be done once the time of twilight (bein hashmashot) has arrived? What things can still be done during this time period? The gemara resolves a potential contradiction in the mishna regarding eiruv. What is hatmana? What type is forbidden even before Shabbat and what type is permitted even during twilight. Why? Twilight is considered a time that is maybe day, maybe night or maybe both. What is the tannatic debate regarding when exactly is twilight? What is the relevance for this time of doubt regarding impurity of a zav? Raba and Rav Yosef have a disagreement about how to understand the time of twilight according to Rabbi Yehuda, as his words seem to include contradictory statements and each resolves it in a different way. This disagreement is consistent with their opinion regarding the length of time that twilight spans.

Shabbat 30 Apr 05, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 30

Are there certain circumstances in which we allow one to extinguish a candle on Shabbat? In what circumstances and why? The gemara brings a long drasha that begins with contradictions between statements of Shlomo's in Kohelet and statements of David in Tehillim regarding the importance of dead people as compared to live people. This was brought as an intro to answer the question of whether one can extinguish a candle for a sick person on Shabbat. The gemara brings other contradicitions in Kohelet and Mishlei on account of which they wanted to suppress those books, however the gemara found ways to resolve the contradictions.

Shabbat 29 Apr 03, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 29

Another explanation is brought for explaining Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva's debate regarding the wicks made from a cloth and are not yet singed for purposes of impurities and another explanation is brought regarding their debate for lighting candles using it. The debate between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda regarding laws of nolad is discussed more in depth. Can one make a contraption with an eggshell or something else that allows extra oil to drip into the utensil where the candle is burning? Or does one have to be concerned that people may use the oil from there for other uses and will then be obligated for extinguishing? Can one make exceptions to the rule if people there are known to be careful or is that a tricky thing to start allowing some people and not others as it may lead to confusion.

Shabbat 28 Apr 03, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 28

Today's shiur is dedicated in memory of Freidl bat Meir and Rivka z"l, Frieda Carlin, by Rikki and Alan Zibitt on her 4th yahrzeit, and by Rachel Sabbath beit Halachmi in honor of her husband Ofer her ezer imadi and forever chevruta.

From where do we learn that from natural materials, only flax can create impurity of a tent over a dead body? It is learned out from the mishkan (Tabernacle). Does a tent/covering made from non kosher animals also create impurity of a tent? Is the tachash that Moshe used to make a covering for the mishkan a domesticated or not domesticated animal? Kosher or not kosher? If one takes a cloth and folds it into a wick but doesn't yet singe it, is it susceptible to impurities? Can one light with it for Shabbat? There is a debate between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva. The first explanation of each opinion is brought.

Shabbat 27 Apr 02, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 27

Today's shiur is dedicated by Chanah and Michael Piotrkowski in memory of Chanah's beloved father Avigdor Yosef ben Zvi Hirsh z"l and by Allison Ickovic for a refuah shleima for her little girl Zoe Arielle bat Rachel Yael.

From where does Rava derive that according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar all cloths that are 3x3 tefachim are susceptible to impurities? How does Abaye respond to this proof? There is a back and forth discussion between Rava and Abaye to match the berses according to each one's interpretation. Abaye brings a braita from the school of Rabbi Yishmael that contradicts the braita in the previous daf from the school of Rabbi Yishmael. One says that all materials other than linen are not susceptible to impurities at any size and the other one says that all materials are susceptible to impurities are 3x3 tefachim (handsbreaths). Three answers are brought (Rava, Rav Papa and Rav Nachman) to resolve this contradiction and for each one, the gemara raises questions. The mishna talks about all items that come from the tree itself - one cannot light with them and a covering made from something that comes from a tree would not create a tent for purposes of impurity of a dead body if it was used as a covering. The only expception to this rule is flax. Does flax come from a tree?

Shabbat 26 Apr 01, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 26

Today's daf is sponsored by the Vega/Gordon Family in Philadelphia in honor of Hadran for helping them to be "kove'a itim" with the daily daf and by Judy Shapiro in honor of Hadran for making Torah learning so accessible and engaging, and by Ruti Amal for a refuah shleima to her grandmother Anna Smirnova.

The gemara continues to discuss the nature of sap and oil of the balsam tree, regarding its flammability by bringing a story of a mother-in-law who used this to help kill her daughter-in-law whom she did not like. What can be learned from this seemingly strange story? One cannot light using untithed produce that became impure. From where is this derived? Another reason is given as to why one cannot light with sap from a balsam tree. Several other opinions are brought regarding oils that can or can't be used for lighting Shabbat candles. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri is not pleased that others forbade so many types of oil as various types of oils were limited in certain areas and this made it difficult for people to find oil with which to light. A braita is brought regarding susceptibility to impurity of a cloth made from items that come from trees - are they susceptible to impurities? Does it matter which type of material the cloth is made from? What is the minimum size if they are susceptible?

Shabbat 25 Mar 31, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 25

Today's daf is dedicated l'ilui nishmat Moshe ben Betzalel and Sprintze Pessel z"l by his daughter Rachel Levy and by Matt Nelson in honor of Liz Kershner's birthday. Happy birthday!

From where in the Torah do we learn that one can benefit from teruma that became impure while one is burning it? Three answers are brought. One is derived from ma'aser - one can't benefit from burning impure ma'aser but it is implied that in another case one would be allowed to. This case is attributed to teruma. However, the gemara questions - why teruma and not sanctified items? Why can't one light using tar? One is concerned since it smells bad, one won't eat by light of the candles - why is this a problem? Shabbat candles are an obligation so that there will be light in the house on Shabbat. Washing one's body before Shabbat is optional. A verse from Eicha is brought regarding a lamentation for the good things that they are missing when they went into exile. The beginning of the verse is explained as a reference to lighting Shabbat candles. For the end of the verse several explanations are brought regarding what is a sign of prosperity that they were missing and then the gemara brings a braita with four tannaitic opinions about "Who is considered wealthy?" An opinion is brought that one cannot light with sap from a balsam tree. Two reasons for this are brought.

Shabbat 24 Mar 30, 2020

Today's shiur is sponsored by the Mitchell family of New York City in honor of the b'nai mitzvah of their twins, Aaron and Joshua, and by Rachel and Oren Seliger in memory of Reuven ben Yehuda and Devora z"l, Saba Reuven, who lived his life by Torah ve'avoda and was a founding member of Kibbutz Tirat Zvi.

Does one mention of Chanuka in birkhat hamazon? If so, where and why there and not in the usual place for additions? Should one add mention of Rosh Chodesh in birkhat hamazon? It is the same as Chanuka or different - why? Does one mention Chanuka in mussaf on Shabbat? Does one mention Rosh Chodesh in the blessing for the haftorah if Rosh Chodesh falls on Shabbat? The gemara suggests various comparisons. The mishna raises different opinions about what oils one can or cannot use on Shabbat. Oil of truma that became impure cannot be used on Yom Tov because one cannot burn sanctified items on Yom Tov. From where is this derived? Four different answers are brought.

Shabbat 23 Mar 29, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 23

Today's shiur is dedicated by Heather Stone in memory of Debbie bat Shirley z"l, the best friend of her Aunt, Debbie Stone, who passed away before Shabbat from COVID19.

The gemara concludes that the mitzva is the lighting of the Chanika candles and not placing them down. Women are obligated in the mitzva of the Chanuka candles as they too were part of the miracle. In what way? Best to use olive oil for lighting Chanuka candles, even though all other oils can also be used. Same with preparing ink. How many blessings does one make on Chanuka candles? Which ones? What about a person who sees Chanuka candles? Do they make blessings? Which ones? How can be say the blessing "who commanded us" if Chanuka is not a Torah obligation? What is the determining factor for which rabbinic commandments we make blessings and on which do we not? If one has two different entraceways for one's courtyard, does one need to light in both entrances? On what does it depend? Why are we concerned about what others will think - where is there precendent for that? It is learned from pe'ah - the mitzva of leaving the corner of one's field for the poor. How? What has precedence (if one can't afford all) Shabbat candles, Chanuka candles and woine for kiddush? The gemara relates good things that will happen to people who light Shabbat and Chanuka candles (and some other mitzvot). The gemara explains what is "sereifa" oil mentioned in the mishna gives two different explanations as to why it is forbidden.

Shabbat 22 Mar 27, 2020

This week's shiurim are sponsored in memory of Zalman Leib ben Moshe and by Talia Kaplan in honor of her sister, Talia Kaplan for doing daf yomi - she's very proud of you and keep up the good work - and by Adam and Sharron Cohen for a refuah shleima for Daphna Chaya bat Sara.

What is the maximum height one can put Chanuka candles? Can one count money using the light of Chanuka candles? Is this different from what Rav said regarding Chanuka candles - that one cannot use the light from them? Rav and Shmuel disagree regarding can one light from one Chanuka candle to another. Two reasons are given for Rav's opinion and in exactly which situations they disagree. Is it the lighting that is the mitzva or placing the candles down?

Shabbat 21 Mar 27, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 21

Today's shiur is dedicated by Tova Taragin in memory of her father,Rabbi Jerome Fishman, HaRav Yirmia ben Yaakov Yosef, z"l who taught his granddaughter, Esther Korman, gemara at a young age and would be thrilled that his daughter is now learning gemara, and by Sandra Rubin in honor of her aunt Alba Rubin's 81st birthday. Mazel tov!

What is the issue with the materials that can't be used for making wicks and the oils that can't be used for lighting Shabbat candles. The gemara continues to identify the meaning of the words in the mishna. Can one light with one of those oils if it were mixed with a small amount of oil that does light well? The oils that can't be used on Shabbat also can't be used in the Temple for lighting the menora. Can they be used for Chanuka? Does it matter if it is Shabbat or a weekday? Three different opinions are brought. What is the reasoning behind each opinion? The mitzva of lighting candles on Chanuka is from sunset until the last people leave the marketplace. What is the meaning of this statement and does it contradict one of the opinions mentioned just before? How many candles should one light? There are three options brought - regular mitzva, for those who want to beautify the mitzva (mehadrin) and for those who want to do even more (mehadrin min hamehadrin). Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree regarding the last one. Two different explanations are brought for the reasoning behind this debate. Where does one put the Chanuka candles? What does one do if it is dangerous to put them outside? Why do we celebrate eight days of Chanuka? The mishna in Bava Kama says that if one's camel is carrying flax and it lights on fire from Chanuka candles that a storekeeper put outside and it burns down something else, the owner of the camel is responsible as he should have expected there would be candles there. Can one learn from here laws regarding the height of where Chanuka candles should be placed?

Shabbat 21 Mar 27, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 21

Today's shiur is dedicated by Tova Taragin in memory of her father,Rabbi Jerome Fishman, HaRav Yirmia ben Yaakov Yosef, z"l who taught his granddaughter, Esther Korman, gemara at a young age and would be thrilled that his daughter is now learning gemara, and by Sandra Rubin in honor of her aunt Alba Rubin's 81st birthday. Mazel tov!

What is the issue with the materials that can't be used for making wicks and the oils that can't be used for lighting Shabbat candles. The gemara continues to identify the meaning of the words in the mishna. Can one light with one of those oils if it were mixed with a small amount of oil that does light well? The oils that can't be used on Shabbat also can't be used in the Temple for lighting the menora. Can they be used for Chanuka? Does it matter if it is Shabbat or a weekday? Three different opinions are brought. What is the reasoning behind each opinion? The mitzva of lighting candles on Chanuka is from sunset until the last people leave the marketplace. What is the meaning of this statement and does it contradict one of the opinions mentioned just before? How many candles should one light? There are three options brought - regular mitzva, for those who want to beautify the mitzva (mehadrin) and for those who want to do even more (mehadrin min hamehadrin). Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree regarding the last one. Two different explanations are brought for the reasoning behind this debate. Where does one put the Chanuka candles? What does one do if it is dangerous to put them outside? Why do we celebrate eight days of Chanuka? The mishna in Bava Kama says that if one's camel is carrying flax and it lights on fire from Chanuka candles that a storekeeper put outside and it burns down something else, the owner of the camel is responsible as he should have expected there would be candles there. Can one learn from here laws regarding the height of where Chanuka candles should be placed?

Shabbat 20 Mar 26, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 20

Today's shiur is sponsored by Susie Handelman (Shayna Sara bat Miriam) in honor of all the brave and wonderful medical personnel taking care of coronavirus patients in Israel and around the world. May the learning be in their merit, give them divine asistance and protection. May HaKadosh Baruch Hu strengthen their hands in healing and help the scientists find a cure - and by Onnie Schiffmiller for a refuah shleima of Tzvi ben Frieda.

How much does an item need to be cooked in order to be able leave it on the fire before Shabbat? Like maachal ben drosai - what is that and where else does it appear in halacha? The gemara explain what part of the bread needs to be browned before Shabbat. Why is there a special dispensation for roasting the Pesach sacrifice and for the bonfire in the Beit Hamoked in the temple? How much does a regular bonfire need to be lit before Shabbat? The second chapter begins with a discussion of what cannot be used as wicks or oil for Shabbat candles since people need to use the light for seeing, it needs to be a good light. The gemara explains what each of the items in the mishna are.

Shabbat 19 Mar 25, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 19

Today's daf is sponsored by Margie Zwiebel in memory of her father Yitzchak ben Yechiel Eliezer z"l and for a refuach shleima to Yaakov Yehuda ben Chana and Esther Roisa bat Sara Mindel by Debbie and Ben Zion Niderberg and for Elimelech ben Malka by his daughter, Jeanne Klempner and for Amalia Sigal bat Faigel Rut and Chaim by Rabbi Shosh Dworsky - wishing Amalie a full and speedy recovery and refuat hanefesh to her loving family.

Does one have to sell one's chametz with enough time for the non Jew to eat it before Pesach? Can one send letters to be delivered for a non Jew if he might deliver them on Shabbat? Does it make a different if a price was agreed upon in advance? Why? Can one travel in a boat within a few days before Shabbat? Can one besiege a city? One can learn how to not get taken advantage of by store owners from the rabbis - see how through a story told of Abaye. Why do Beit Shamai allow placing the beam in the olive and wine press before Shabbat, even though they don't allow anything else? Rav and Shmuel disagreed regarding whether certain items are muktze or not, based on an earlier debate between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda. There are also two different opinions regarding what one can do in case of a fire to save one's items from burning - can one only carry out items in one basket or can one carry out items in multiple baskets.

Shabbat 18 Mar 24, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 18

Today's shiur is dedicated by Leah Brick in memory of her father-in-law, Murray Brick, Mordechai ben Chaim Yosef Gershon z"l and by Jonathan, Kenny and Danny Sadinoff in memory of their father, Frank Sadinoff, Efraim Mordechai ben Menachem Mendel z"l and for a refuah sheleima to Pesach Yehoshua ben Tova Chaya.

The gemara asks according to which approach regarding kneading does the mishna hold - by which one can be obligated for kneading by putting something in water that will thicken without actually kneading with one's hands or a utensil? The gemara bring various braitot with cases similar to our mishna - where an act is done before Shabbat that will continue through Shabbat - and tries to figure out if the source is authored by Beit Shamai or Beit Hillel. It is complicated as there seem to be many exceptions to the rule. Once the gemara explains the reasons for the exceptions, they bring relevant halachot that can be derived from the reasons given for the exceptions.

Shabbat 17 Mar 23, 2020

Today's shiur is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Eliezer Yehuda ben Chaya and Rivka Chaya bat Leah and by Elizabeth Kirshner in honor of the Hadran community and in honor of her inspiring and strong mother, Debbie Kirshner-Devries and for a refuah shleima for Avigayil bat Dina. A special mazel tov to David Schwartz who is celebrating his bar mitzva this morning (virtually) and this coming Shabbat.

The gemara discusses more of the 18 ordinances. 1. Moveable items bring impurity if they are thickness of an ox goad. What exactly is this? There is a difference of opinion. 2. One who harvest grapes - the liquid that seeps out of them renders the grapes susceptible to impurities. Several explanations are brought to explain why they instituted this. 3. If teruma is replanted, what grows is also teruma. 4. If one was carrying a wallet and Shabbat started, one should give it to a non Jew rather than carry it in increments less than 4 cubits. 5. The bread, oil wine and daughters of non Jews are forbidden. If one adds the previous list - 10 relating to impurities mentioned in daf 13 and one who leaves water under a pipe/gutter and the Kutim are considered nidda from birth and one can't take lice off clothing or read by candlelight, the count becomes 19, not 18. How is this reconciled? (Others get to 19 from a different count. 10 from daf 13, 4 mentioned above, bread, oil, wine and daughers of non Jews are counted as 4, gentiles are all considered zavim, numbers 1-4 mentinoed above and water under the gutter). The mishna brings a debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel regarding shvitat keilim. Can one start a melacha before Shabbat if the melacha will continue after Shabbat starts even if it is done on its own, without human intervention?

Shabbat 16 Mar 22, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 16

Today's daf is sponsored in memory of the soldier, Yaakov Proyev ben Rachel Victoria z"l by Yael Asher and by Valerie Adler in memory of her baby Simona Michaela chasya Bluma bat Zahava z"l.

The rabbis determined that glass utensils would be susceptible to impurities because of their similarity to earthenware vessels since they are made from sand. However, if that is the case, why are all the laws not the same? Is it because they are also similar to metal utensils that if broken, they can be melted down and welded back together? If so, why are certain laws of metal utensils not true for glass utensils? A story is brought regarding Shlomtzion the queen at her son's wedding when all the utensils became inpure due to impurity of a dead body and she broke them all and had them fixed but the rabbis forbade their use lest people come to forget laws of purification of vessels. Another of the 18 ordinances was that water collected in a utensils left by a gutter, even if unintentionally left there is considered water that is collected in a utensil that can disqualify a mikveh that doesn't yet have 40 seah of water. Rabbi Yossi doesn't think this is one of the ordinances and instead adds that even from birth, Kutim (Shomronim) are considered to be in nidda.

Shabbat 15 Mar 21, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 15

What are the three cases in which Hillel and Shamai disagreed? Are there no other cases? Who exactly instituted the decree regarding the impurity of other countries? There are varying sources that attribute it to different time periods. How can all these sources be reconciled? Why did they institute that glass vessels can become impure.

Shabbat 14 Mar 20, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 14

Which tannaitic opinion is reflected in the mishna in Zavim quoted by the gemara which listed that one who eats food that is a rishon/first degree or a sheni/second degree would disqualify teruma, but the teruma itself would not be able to pass on impurities (it would make the teruma a shlishi/third degree). Why does one who eats these impurites disqualify teruma? The gemara proceeds to go through the list of the other ordinances related to impurities and explain why the rabbis instituted each ordinance. The gemara then questions the fact that the students of Shamai and Hillel decreed that if one's hands touch food, it disqualifies teruma - wasn't this instituted by Shamai and Hillel themselves? After answering this question, the gemara then suggests that King Solomon decreed this - how can that be explained?

Shabbat 13 Mar 19, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 13

Today's daf is sponsored by Karolyn Benger in memory of her father Bernhard Benger, Dov ben Tzvi z"l and by Rena Septee Goldstein and Mark Goldstein in memory of Moe Septee, Moshe Ben Elazar Shmuel z"l and by Irine Schweitzer in memory of her grandmother Hasya bat Rachel and by Sharona and Binyamin Aranoff in memory of their grandmother, Mollie Chideckell, Esther Malka bat Zeev Wolf z"l who inspired them with her dedication to Limud Torah.

The gemara deals with the case of the chazan - what is permitted and what is forbidden for him to do? Why? The zav can't eat with a zava at the same table lest they come to sin. What can we learn from the fact that they didn't say a pure person can't eat with an impure person? Can a nidda sleep with her husband in the same bed each fully clothed? The gemara brings several sources to try to answer this question. Is being fully clothed enough of a distinction to remind them? What is required for one to assume that people will remember or remind each other - whether it relates to eating milk and meat together or a couple having sexual relations together when the wife is a nidda? A woman whose husband died young tries to figure out why. Eliyahu asks her details and discovers that during her seven clean days they were more leninent regarding certain things and that must be why he was punished. The mishna talks about the day the rabbis sat in the attic of Chananiya ben Chizkiya and there were more people from Beith Shamai than Beit Hillel and they determined halachot like Beit Shamai and instituted 18 ordinances. The gemara tells us a few things about Chananya that he wrote Megilat Taanit and also resolved the contradictions in Yechezkel and saved the book from being "taken out." The gemara starts to list some of the 18 ordinances, all relating to purity and impurity and items that can disqualify teruma.

Shabbat 12 Mar 18, 2020

Today's shiur is dedicated by Gitta Neufeld in honor of the daf yomi learners of Long Island and as a zechut for all the sick people.

The gemaara continues to resolve the contradiction between two sources relating to a zav going out into the public domain wearing a pouch tied on to him - one says it is forbidden by Torah law and one by rabbinic. Does it matter if he is wearing it to keep his clothes from getting dirty? The gemara concludes that whether or not it is forbidden by rabbinic or Torah law is dependent on the debate Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon regarding a melacha she'aina tzricha l'egufa. Can one walk out wearing one's tefillin close to Shabbat? Why is it forbidden to remove lice from clothing on Shabbat- is it because one may kill them or because one needs good light and may come to move the candle (and then it would only be forbidden at night). Can one visit sick people on Shabbat? Can one ask for one's needs in Aramaic? Can one pray for sick people in Aramaic? Why would it matter? Are there circumstances where one is allowed to read by candlelight on Shabbat?

Shabbat 11 Mar 17, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 11

Today's shiur is dedicated in memory of Sima bat Alter Avraham and Rachel z"l by her niece Debbie Schreiber.

The gemara continues to bring a number of different statements made by Rava bar Mechasia in the name of Rav. The gemara then goes back to our mishna - does someone who learns Torah need to stop learning for prayer? For Shema? The mishna lists things that one can't do before Shabbat, like a tailor carrying his needles, lest he come to also do it after Shabbat. The gemara brings the mishna in Eruvin regarding domains and asks if it also relates to a karmelit - Abaye says yes and Rava says no - since a karmelit is already only rabbinic and the rabbis wouldn't make a rabbinic decree on a rabbinic decree. Several questions including one from our mishna are brought to question Rava.

Shabbat 10 Mar 15, 2020

Today's shiur is dedicated in memory of Emanuel Plotker - Menachem Mendel ben Yechiel and Henya z"l by Candace Plotzker-Herman.

How should one dress for prayer? Does it depend on the situation? If one prays for a long time, is it a problem that it detracts from the time one should be learning? When is it considered that one started judgement and does not need to stop to pray mincha? Should one judge all day long? What time of day was the first meal eaten? Different categories of people ate at different specific times. Can one pray in a bathhouse? Under what circumstances? Why can't one greet a friend in the inner room of the bathhouse? Can one say the word "emunah" in a bathhouse? If one gives a gift to another, one should tell the friend. From where is this derived? One should not favor one child over another - learned out from Jacob who favored Joseph. One should settle in a newer developed city as there are less sins there- this is learned out from Tzoar and S'dom.

Shabbat 9 Mar 15, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 9

The Tosefta brings the opinion of Acherim, Rabbi Meir, who holds that the status of the threshold depends on whether the door os open or closed. The gemara asks how this could be even without a lechi? The gemara brings two answers - in each answer there is some sort of beam above and it is either for an alley or for a house. It is based upon a law that explains that one can view a beam as if it comes down and creates an imaginary wall. However that will only work upon certain conditions. If the threshold itself is private, one cannot carry from the house to there as the rabbis forbade carrying from one private domain to another. The next mishna discusses things one cannot do just before the time for mincha arrives as one may get distracted and forget to daven mincha. Which mincha are we referring to - gedola or ketana? If one started, one doesn't need to stop - what is considered "started"?

Shabbat 8 Mar 13, 2020

If one threw an object from a public domain to a pole in a private domain, even if the pole is very tall, one is obligated for passing from a public to a private domain. Does this match Rebbi's opinion regarding one who throw an item onto a protrusion? Abaye says they are not the same as the details of the case are different and the debate between Rebbi and the rabbis is on a different topic. Abaye brings a case where one throws a rounded basket from a private domain to a public domain. Does it depend on the size? Upon what else does it depend? Does it matter if it is thrown right size up or upside down (because of laws of levud)? How does one calculate the 4x4 width in a circular item? Ulla brings a case of a pole nine tefachim tall and says that since people use it to readjust their loads, it is considered public space. Would the same be true for a hole nine tefachim deep? There is a disagreement. Rava thinks it is not the same as using a hole to store things is not so convenient. Several questions are brought against Rava. What is the law regarding a threshold - does it depend on its size?

Shabbat 7 Mar 13, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 7

Shoshana (Rhoda) bat Yehuda Leib Polachek z"l.

Why is a valley mentioned in the Tosefta like a carmelit but in the mishna is Taharot, it is listed a a private domain? Gwo answers are brought. What is a karpaf and what are the laws relating to carrying in it? If there is a brick standing up in a public domain and it's 3 tefachim tall, if one throws something 4 amot in public and it lands there, is one obligated? What about other spaces in the public space that people don't generally walk through - ar they considered public or not? A karmelit is until 10. What is the meaning of that? What law of karmelit are like a public space and what are like a private space? If a space has walls 9 tefachim tall but the ceiling is one tefach thick, what are the laws regarding that space? What if one dug a whole one tefach deep and 4x4 wide in that space? This is called chorei reshut hayachid. What are the laws regarding chorei reshut harabim - holes in public areas. Rava and Abaye disagree and Abaye's opinion is questioned.

Shabbat 6 Mar 12, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 6

Today's shiur is sponsored by Meryl and Harold Sasnowitz in memory of Malka bat Chaya Ettel and Mordechai and Toba Raizel bat Rochel and Zvi. Refuah Sheleima to Zvi ben Freida.

If one removes an item from the public domain to the private domain (or the reverse) through a collonade (status of karmelit), is one obligated or not? Debate between Ben Azai and the rabbis. The gemara questions the rabbis opinion who obligates - where do we have a precedent for obligated in a case like this? The gemara brings three answers - the first two are rejected as they are not similar enough. Rabbi Yochanan narrows Ben Azai's opinion and said he agrees with the rabbis that one would be obligated if one threw it and it only passed through the airspace of the collonade. The gemara quotes the Tosefta which defines each of the four domains and what is allowed or not by Torah and rabbinic law. The gemara then analyzes the wording - questions and then provides answers.

Shabbat 5 Mar 11, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 5

Today's shiur is sponsored by Betsy Mehlman and the Mehlman family in memory of their father and grandfather z"l.

The gemara continues to bring answers and challenge them to the question: how did the minsha bring cases where one is obligated if the item was uprooted and placed in someone's hand and not from/in a space of four by four handsbreaths? The gemara brings six answers and rejects them all, other than the last - of Rava - that a person's hand is significant like a space of 4x4. The gemara brings various laws stated by Rabbi Yochanan regarding similar cases - throwing items in the public domain to someone else, throwing and catching it oneself in a different place than one intended originally, taking rainwater from someone else's domain and bringing it into the public domain, taking food that one intended to move around the house but then took them outside. In all these cases - is one obligated or not? On what circumstances does it depend?

Shabbat 4 Mar 10, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 4

Today's shiur is sponsored by Rebecca Schwarzmer in honor of her beloved grandmother Frances Rabitz Brauner, Fruma Malka bat Avraham v'Penina z"l.

Why in our mishna are they obligating even if the space where the object is placed and also uprooted from is not 4x4 tefachim? Rabba suggests that the mishna is authored by Rabbi Akiva who does not need it to rest in a place that is 4x4 tefachim as Rabbi Akiva holds if one throws and object from a private domain to another private domain through the public domain, one is obligated since going through airspace is as if it rested there. From here one can say he does not hold that it needs to rest on a space of 4x4. Two questions are raised against this answer. Rav Yosef suggests the mishna is authored by Rebbi and the gemara tries to figure out which opinion of Rebbi is he referring to. They bring two suggestinos but each is rejected.

Shabbat 3 Mar 09, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 3

Today's shiur is sponsored by Eva Schweber and Rabbi Daniel Schweber in memory of their father, Ken Schweber, Yaakov Kapel ben Moshe and Rivka, z"l.

The mishna says there are eight cases - but there seem to be twelve or sixteen, depending on how you count. Which were the eight that the mishna meant - why were only those counted? Shmuel says that whenever the rabbis say exempt (patur) regarding Shabbat issues and it means exempt by the Torah but prohibited by the rabbis, other than three cases. Are there other exceptions? Why if two people do a melacha together, are they each exempt from bringing a sin offering? Abaye asks if when one's hand is in the airspace of another domain while carrying something, is one's hand considered in a karmelit and one would be forbidden by rabbinic law to return one's hand to the original domain? Two contradictory braitot are brought to suggest that perhaps the tannaim debated exactly this issue - however several other possibilities are brought - all of which would not be able to be used to answer the question.

Shabbat 2 Mar 08, 2020

Study Guide Shabbat 2

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan in memory of/lilui nishmato of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l. Today's shiur is sponsored for a refuah sheleima for Chaim Yeshayahu ben Shprintze Faygel.

The masechet starts out with laws of moving things from one domain to another - why? In order to be obligated by Torah law for this, one needs to both uproot the item from one domain and place it an another. If one did the uprooting and another person did the placing, neither is obligated by Torah law, but the rabbis forbade it. The mishna mentions eight possible situations that can occur with one person passing something to another in a different domain and specifies in each case whether each person is obligated or not. The gemara asks why our mishna mentions eight cases when the mishna in Shevuot that mentions our issue in a list of other issues, only mentions four. Which four and why only those four? Two answers are brought but one is rejected.

Berakhot 64 Mar 06, 2020

Today's shiur is sponsored by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun in memory of/lilui nishmato of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi.

One should not force the moment. Is it better to have a Rosh Yeshiva who has lots of knowledge or one who has good analytical skills? Several statements of Rabbi Avin are brought regarding behavior, hosting Torah scholars, the proper wording to use when parting with someone. Torah scholars do not have rest in this world or the world to come. How can that be viewed positiviely? Torah scholars bring peace to the world.

Berakhot 63 Mar 05, 2020

Why does one bless one's friend using God's name? Why are so many verses brought to prove this? Know the neesd of the generation and whether teachers are needed or not. That should determine whether one should learn or teach. The rabbis give meaning to the juxtaposition of nazir and sotah and also for gifts to the priest and sotah. A story was told about Rabbi Chanina that when he went to Babylonia to teach, he determined when the months would be. The rabbis in Israel were not please and sent messengers to threaten him. When the rabbis came to "the vineyard in Yavne" - the Sanhedrin - they began with drashot about the importance of learning Torah and of of the importance of hosting others.

Berakhot 62 Mar 05, 2020

There were rabbis who would follow their teachers into the bathroom or hide under their beds to learn from their rabbis how to act in the bathroom or when having sex. Some were critical of this behavior to which they retorted, "It is Torah and I need to learn it!" People were sacred of demons in the outhouses. What did they do to protect themselves? One needs to be act modestly in the bathroom also. It is told of King Saul that acted modestly in the bathroom and that is why David didn't kill him when he came upon him in the cave. The gemara extrapolates other verses in that story and from there gets to the story of when David did a census by counting the people and not by using money (as commanded in the Torah) and explains why David made a mistake why when God brought the plague, he stopped it soon after. What is forbidden to do on the Temple Mount? What from that list can be done in a synogogue? Why is there a difference? Instead of saying amen in the Temple, they would say the verse "baruch shem kevod..."

Berakhot 62 Mar 05, 2020

There were rabbis who would follow their teachers into the bathroom or hide under their beds to learn from their rabbis how to act in the bathroom or when having sex. Some were critical of this behavior to which they retorted, "It is Torah and I need to learn it!" People were sacred of demons in the outhouses. What did they do to protect themselves? One needs to be act modestly in the bathroom also. It is told of King Saul that acted modestly in the bathroom and that is why David didn't kill him when he came upon him in the cave. The gemara extrapolates other verses in that story and from there gets to the story of when David did a census by counting the people and not by using money (as commanded in the Torah) and explains why David made a mistake why when God brought the plague, he stopped it soon after. What is forbidden to do on the Temple Mount? What from that list can be done in a synogogue? Why is there a difference? Instead of saying amen in the Temple, they would say the verse "baruch shem kevod..."

Berakhot 61 Mar 04, 2020

Today's daf is sponsored by the Tannenbaum family in memory of Miriam's father, Mr. Jack Zemsky who championed womens learning - לעילוי נשמת יעקב יצחק בן משה נחום הלוי ז"ל.

Everything that happens is for the good. What does one derive from the word "vayitzer" and God created - why does it have 2 yuds? How was woman created - did God create at first two images - male and female together - or was woman created from an appendage of man? One should love God with all his/her soul and money. Why are both mentioned? How did Rabbi Akiva die ? Even though he was torutured, he was happy to be able to fulfill the verse to love God and accept the yoke of God with all of one's soul. Laws of respect of the Temple are discussed. How far away can one be and still be obligated? When one goes to the bathroom, one needs to make sure not to face the Temple. Is this everywhere and at all times or only when the Temple is standing?

Berakhot 60 Mar 03, 2020

Today's shiur is sponsored by Shlomit Metz-Poolat in memory of her father HaRav Moshe Meiri Ben Tzvi Hirsch haLevi. May his neshama have an aliyah. His favorite masechet was Berakhot. And in honor of his granddaughter Joely Metz of whom he was so proud and who is currently serving in the IDF as a combat medic. May Hashem watch over her and all her fellow soldiers!

Does one say shehechiyani on items or a house that one already has in one's house? Does it matter if one had inherited them or purchased the original ones? Is it possible to change the sex of a fetus? Can one who trusts in God be confident that no trouble will befall them? What are the prayers said when entering or exiting the city, when entering and exiting the bathhouse, before and after bloodletting, before and after going to the bathroom, when going to sleep and waking up? What are the blessings one says in the morning - birkhot hashachar? How is a doctor permitted to be a doctor if we believe that God is the one who heals?

Berakhot 59 Mar 02, 2020

What causes earthqakes to happen? Lightening? Thunder? What blessing do we say on them? On what type of wind do we say a blessing? What do we do/say when we see a rainbow? In what situations do we make a blessing on the sun, moon, constellations? What blessing is said on rain? Is there a debate regarding this? On what basis do we determine whether to say in cretain situations shehechiyanu or hatov v'hameitiv? What blessing does one make on the birth of a son? On the birth of a daughter?

Berakhot 58 Mar 01, 2020

The gemara discusses all sorts of blessings that one says, for example, on seeing many Jewish people at once, a king, a smart person, even if they are not Jewish. The gemara tells a story of Rav Sheshet who was blind and was still able to tell when the king was coming and made a blessing, even though he couldn't see him. There are blessings for one who sees Jewish people and idol worshippers living in their settlements, and also seeing them destroyed, burial places of Jews and idol worshippers, one who sees a friend after 30 days or a year, one who sees strange looking people or animals. What is the word "zikin" mentioned in the mishna? The gemara starts a discussion of the constellations.

Berakhot 57 Feb 29, 2020

Today's daf is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in memory of her father HaRav Pesach Zecharia HaLevi ben HaRav Reuven and Leah z"l and in honor of his granddaughter Shoshana Baker of who he would be very proud.

The gemara lists all sorts of items that one may see in a dream and explains the meaning. The gemara also lists other things like three things that go into the body but the body does not benefit from, three things that do not go into the body but the body benefits from, six things that are considered one sixtieth of something else. What blessing does one say when seeing a place where idol worship was uprooted? What blessing does one say on seeing specific places in Babylonia?

Berakhot 56 Feb 28, 2020

The gemara continues to discuss dreams and the power of the interpreter to affect the outcome of the dream. Bar Hedya would intepret dreams positively to those who paid him and negatively to those who didn't. Abaye and Rava saw the same dreams but because Abaye paid and Rava didn't, he interpreted Abaye's positively and Rava's negatively and caused Rava great suffering including his wife's death. How did the story end? Did his fraud get revealed? Did he get punished? The gemara brings a list of various things that if one sees they can be viewed positively or negatively and recommends that one read a verse that says something postivie about it in order to effect a positive outcome. Psychology and the importance of positive thinking is a central theme in today's daf.

Berakhot 55 Feb 27, 2020

Today's shiur is sponsored by David and Eve Farber in honor of Olivia and Dov's birthdays.

What things should one spent a lot of time on? Why? The gemara proceeds to list all differnt types of things - three things that cut short one's life, three things that require mercy from God, three things that God directly brings. Sicne dreams were mentioned in the context of things that require mercy, the gemara delves into the issue of dreams and brings many differnt statements regarding dreams.

Berakhot 54 Feb 26, 2020

Today's shiur is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Miriam Rifka bat Leah and Yitzchak Zev.

The mishna lists blessings that are recited on particular things - if one passes a place where a miracle happened or mountains, the Mediterranean Sea, etc. It also lists blessings on natural and other occurences like thunder, lightening, earthquakes, building a new house, buying new clothing, hearing good/bad news. What is considered a meaningless prayer? What can't one bring/wear into the Temple Mount? When one greets a friend, one should greet using God's name - even though one may see this as a non respectful manner of using God's name, the rabbis permitted it in order to strengthen people's connection to God. We learn from Yitro that one should bless on a miracle. A braita lists places where miracles happened. There are four situations in which one makes a blessing of thanks (birkhat hagomel). what are they? From where is this derived?

Berakhot 53 Feb 25, 2020

The gemara discusses the candle and spices for havdala. One can't use a candle from a non-Jew because it needs to be a candle that was not lit on Shabbat. The candle needs to be one that is used for light, not oone used for cooking or heating. One can only light on spices that were used for smell and not to take away bad odors. Does one need to actually benefit from the light in order to make the blessing or can it just be light that potentially one could use. If one forgot to say birkhat hamazon in the place where one ate, does one need to return? On what does it depend? Beit Shamai say you need to retunr no matter what and give an analogy to one who would leave one's wallet who would clearly go back. How much time after eating, can one still say birkhat hamazon? Is it better to be the one saying the blessing or the one answering 'amen'? The chapter ends with a drasha from a verse commanding to be holy and connects it to rituals surrounding meal. Why?

Berakhot 53 Feb 25, 2020

The gemara discusses the candle and spices for havdala. One can't use a candle from a non-Jew because it needs to be a candle that was not lit on Shabbat. The candle needs to be one that is used for light, not oone used for cooking or heating. One can only light on spices that were used for smell and not to take away bad odors. Does one need to actually benefit from the light in order to make the blessing or can it just be light that potentially one could use. If one forgot to say birkhat hamazon in the place where one ate, does one need to return? On what does it depend? Beit Shamai say you need to retunr no matter what and give an analogy to one who would leave one's wallet who would clearly go back. How much time after eating, can one still say birkhat hamazon? Is it better to be the one saying the blessing or the one answering 'amen'? The chapter ends with a drasha from a verse commanding to be holy and connects it to rituals surrounding meal. Why?

Berakhot 52 Feb 24, 2020

The gemara explains the reasons for the debates between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel regarding customs at meals and at kiddush and havdala.

Berakhot 51 Feb 19, 2020

Study Guide Berakhot 51

What does one do if one ate without making a blessing - does make the blessing in the middle of the meal? What if one finished, can one make the blessing before the meal after one finished eating? The gemara discusses whether a drink made with wine or beer called 'asparagus' is healthy or not. Contradictory sounrces are brought and resolved. Two rabbis mention a number of things that were taught to them by angels regarding behavior and foods. There is a debate regarding laws that apply to a cup used for a blessing. This leads into a story with Yalta, wife of Rav Nachman who is insulted by Ula's behavior and breaks 400 barrels of wine. On what issues relating to meals do Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree?

Berakhot 50 Feb 19, 2020

Study Guide Berakhot 50

What is the proper wording for a zimun? What wording is not appropriate to use? Can a group that ate together split up into a smaller group? On what does it depend? Can one throw bread? What other things must one do to treat bread with respect? Is it true only for bread or for all foods? What if one started eating without making a blessing?

Berakhot 49 Feb 19, 2020

Today's shiur is sponsored by the Freedman family in memory of their Abba and Saba Zvi Stein, Zvi ben HaRav Mordechai David.

Study Guide Berakhot 49

What concepts are essential to mention in birkhat hamazon? How does the blessing of rebuilding Jerusalem end? Why is the structure of the fourth blessing different? how many times does malchut need to be mentioned in that blessing? Why? What if one forgets to add additions for special days in birkhat hamazon? How much does one need to eat to require a zimun? There is a debate. Does this match a debate between the same people somehwere else or does it contradict? How can it be explained? Is the text for zimun different depending on how many people there are? How?

Berakhot 48 Feb 19, 2020

Study Guide Berakhot 48

At what age/stage can a minor join the zimun? Can you join a zimun if you only ate vegetables? If so, how many of the participants can be those who only ate vegetables (in a case where we have ten and can add God's name)? A story is told of King Yannai who after having killed all the rabbis finds one rabbi still alive who can lead the zimun so he summons him, Shimon ben Shetach. However, he doesn't offer him food so how can he lead the zimun? Is there a difference between the foods one needs to eat to allow one to join a zimun and leading a zimun. What are the blessings of birkhat hamazon? Is the fourth blessing inherently different from the others? Was it instituted by the rabbis? If so, why? From where is it derived that birkhat hamazon is from the Torah?

Berakhot 47 Feb 19, 2020

The shiurim for the next month are sponsored for the refuah shleima of Ofek Yair ben Yaara.

In what scenarios is it not appropriate to give respect to important people? Why? The gemara goes over each of the cases in the mishna whereby one eats certain foods and either can or cannot join a zimmun. What is each one adding that we didn't already know? What makes someone an am haaretz? A braita is brought with many different opinions. Rami bar Hama dies and it is believed that it is because he didn't offer Rav Menashia to ever lead the zimun. Why did he not allow him to? And why was he punished for it? What caused him to be mistaken? In order to get to ten, can one use a child as a tenth? Or a Caananite slave? An aron kodesh? Shabbat? How can these be options?

Berakhot 46 Feb 18, 2020

Who is the preferred person to make hamotzi on the bread on behalf of everyone - the host/ess or the most respected person? What about for leading the zimun? What is the text that one adds for the host in birkhat hamazon? Where does the blessing on the zimun end - at the end of the actual zimun or at the end of the first blessing? What are the ramifications of the debate regarding this issue? A mourner has a special text that one says in the fourth blessing of birkhat hamazon. A discusssion ensues between the Exilarch and Rav Sheshet where the Exilarch praises the Persian customs regarding eating and rav Sheshet tries to prove that the rabbis also had smart customs regarding eating practices.

Berakhot 45 Feb 17, 2020

Three people who eat together are obligated to do a "zimun" - to say birkhat hamazon together - and one blesses on behalf of all. In which case would the three not be obligated? What is the source for it? Can two people also do a zimun if they want? Can women do a zimun? Are they obligated to or is it optional? Why can they not join together with slaves to get to three? What happens when three people eat together and one leaves early? Someone who walks into the room while they are saying the zimun, what does he answer? Why do we add the word amen to the end of the third blessing in birkhat hamazon?

Berakhot 44 Feb 16, 2020

Hadran Communities Form

Study Guide Berakhot 44

Today's shiur is sponsored in memory of the Hon. Judge Miriam Altman z"l by Gabrielle and Daniel Altman. If one eats a bread secondary to a salty dish, one only makes a blessing on the salt dish. In what kind of situation would one's bread be secondary? The gemara explains that one who ate fruits from Ginosar would eat a lot of salt and would then need bread to wash away the salt. The gemara brings several statements about the special nature of the fruits of Ginosar and other praises of Israel. What blessing does one make after eating the seven species? What blessing does one make before drinking water? The details regarding the blessing after grains and fruit of the seven species are discussed. After eating which foods does one say "boreh nefashot"? Are there food upon which one does not make a blessing after eating? In Israel people would make a blessing after removing their tefillin. The gemara talks about more foods that are healthy or unhealthy. One should not eat vegetables early in the day because it causes bad breath. Eggs are very healthy. Can one eat turnips?

Berakhot 43 Feb 15, 2020

Study Guide Berakhot 43

Can one set a meal over wine and then one person can say a blessing on behalf of others if they are all reclining? Rav and Rabbi Yochanan disagree - however there is a disagreement regarding what exactly they disagree about. What is the difference between wine during the meal and after? Why during the meal does each person make the blessing on wine by themselves? If one does one blessing for others, that gives one precendence for making another. What blessings do we make on smelling spices good frangrances? Why do we bless on this? Balsam oil has a special blessing. Laws regarding precedence of blessings is brought up regarding frangrances. A braita lists 6 things that a Torah scholar should not do.

Berakhot 43 Feb 15, 2020

Study Guide Berakhot 43

Can one set a meal over wine and then one person can say a blessing on behalf of others if they are all reclining? Rav and Rabbi Yochanan disagree - however there is a disagreement regarding what exactly they disagree about. What is the difference between wine during the meal and after? Why during the meal does each person make the blessing on wine by themselves? If one does one blessing for others, that gives one precendence for making another. What blessings do we make on smelling spices good frangrances? Why do we bless on this? Balsam oil has a special blessing. Laws regarding precedence of blessings is brought up regarding frangrances. A braita lists 6 things that a Torah scholar should not do.

Berakhot 43 Feb 15, 2020

Study Guide Berakhot 43

Can one set a meal over wine and then one person can say a blessing on behalf of others if they are all reclining? Rav and Rabbi Yochanan disagree - however there is a disagreement regarding what exactly they disagree about. What is the difference between wine during the meal and after? Why during the meal does each person make the blessing on wine by themselves? If one does one blessing for others, that gives one precendence for making another. What blessings do we make on smelling spices good frangrances? Why do we bless on this? Balsam oil has a special blessing. Laws regarding precedence of blessings is brought up regarding frangrances. A braita lists 6 things that a Torah scholar should not do.

Berakhot 42 Feb 14, 2020

Today's shiur is sponsored in memory of Gavriel ben Noach z"l by Chanah and Michael Piotrkowski.

Hadran Communities Form

Study Guide Berakhot 42

What blessing does one make on bread "that comes with kisnin" - generally understood to be some kind of sweet bread or sweet dough? What is considered the end of one's meal which would mean that if one wanted to eat more food at that point, one would need to make a new blessing. Is it different if one is a guest at someone else's table? Does a blessing on the wine before the meal exempt one from a blessing on wine after the meal (before saying birkhat hamazon)? Would it be the same for one who blessed on wine in the middle of the meal? Does it matter if it is a weekday or holiday/Shabbat? Does a blessing on bread cover foods that are eaten before the meal? Does a blessing on those foods exempt bread? If people are eating together does one bless for everyone or each person for themselves? Is the law different if they are sitting or reclining?

Berakhot 41 Feb 13, 2020

Hadran Learning Communities Form

Study Guide Berakhot 41

The rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree in the mishna regarding what does one do if one has a number of foods to make a blessing on - does one choose to bless on one of the seven species that Israel is known for or what one likes best? In whcih case are they arguing - when all the foods are of one type of blessing or also if there are different types? If one blesses on a vegetable and there were also fruits there, does the blessing on vegetables exempt the fruit? The laws regarding which blessing to do first comes from the verse about the seven species. Others learn requisite amounts for various laws from that verse. How exactly is the order learned from that verse - is it the order in the verse or the proximity of the species to the word "land" in the verse, which appears twice. If one eats fruits or dessert, does one need to make a separate blessing before and after? Does bread exmapt all foods and wine exempt all drinks from a separate blessing? Why doesn't the blessing on bread exempt wine?

Berakhot 40 Feb 12, 2020

Study Guide Berakhot 40

What is considered an interruption between making the blessing on bread and eating bread? One should feed one's animal before one eats. The gemara brings other advice about foods that are healthy and with what frequency should they be eaten. Why does Rabbi Yehuda think one should be specific in the blessing over legumes? If one says the wrong blessing, does it count? On what does it depend? Why type of tree was the Tree of Knowledge - 3 opinions. On what do we say "Shehakol"? What if something is spoiled? Can one word the blessing in one's own words? Can one say it in any language? One needs to use God's name in a blessing but does one also need to mention the kingship of God? What blessing does one make on mushrooms?

Berakhot 40 Feb 12, 2020

Study Guide Berakhot 40

What is considered an interruption between making the blessing on bread and eating bread? One should feed one's animal before one eats. The gemara brings other advice about foods that are healthy and with what frequency should they be eaten. Why does Rabbi Yehuda think one should be specific in the blessing over legumes? If one says the wrong blessing, does it count? On what does it depend? Why type of tree was the Tree of Knowledge - 3 opinions. On what do we say "Shehakol"? What if something is spoiled? Can one word the blessing in one's own words? Can one say it in any language? One needs to use God's name in a blessing but does one also need to mention the kingship of God? What blessing does one make on mushrooms?

Berakhot 40 Feb 12, 2020

Study Guide Berakhot 40

What is considered an interruption between making the blessing on bread and eating bread? One should feed one's animal before one eats. The gemara brings other advice about foods that are healthy and with what frequency should they be eaten. Why does Rabbi Yehuda think one should be specific in the blessing over legumes? If one says the wrong blessing, does it count? On what does it depend? Why type of tree was the Tree of Knowledge - 3 opinions. On what do we say "Shehakol"? What if something is spoiled? Can one word the blessing in one's own words? Can one say it in any language? One needs to use God's name in a blessing but does one also need to mention the kingship of God? What blessing does one make on mushrooms?

Berakhot 39 Feb 11, 2020

Study Guide Berakhot 39

Is the question what blessing one makes on cooked vegetables also a tannaitic debate? What does one bless on turnip? On what does it depend? If one adds flour to help the food stick together, what blessing does one make? What blessing is made on hard bread that is in pieces and is soaked? The issue connects to a debate regarding how one makes a blessing on a loaf of bread - at what point does one slice it? This connects with the issue of how we do the breaking of the bread on Shabbat. If one has smaller whole loaf and a larger slice of bread, what does one make the blessing on? Is the issue here connected to a similar issue regarding teruma (small whole onion or half of a larger one)? On seder night on Passover, how many matzot do we use and are they whole or not? Why do we use two loaves on Shabbat and how do we do it?

Berakhot 38 Feb 10, 2020

The gemara continues to bring various foods to discuss what blessings we make on them. Is dough baked in the ground under the burner considered bread or not? Does it depend on whether you eat it for a meal? What does one say of silan, date honey? What about "trima"? What is "trima"? Shetota that they made thick and thin - what blessing does one make? The thin was used for medicinal purposes. What does one say "the one who takes out" or "who takes out"? What does one bless on cooked vegetables - some say "boreh pri haadama" and some say "shehakol". Is the tradition about the debate accurate?

Berakhot 37 Feb 09, 2020

Study Guide Berakhot 37

What blessing does one make on rice and a dish made with rice? What blessing does one make on chavitaza - a dish with flour and honey - does it depend on how much honey is in there? What blessing is said on bread crumbs that are cooked or fried - does it depend on the size of the crumb? The question is also asked regarding other foods that are made with flour and are somewhat breadlike but made differently than bread.

Berakhot 36 Feb 08, 2020

Study Guide Berakhot 36

Why does one make a blessing on oil? In what cimcumstances? The gemara brings various items that are part of trees but aren't the fruit of the tree and questions what blessing one should make on them? Is something that protects the fruit considered like the fruit itself? if so, is it true even if it's at the early stage of growth?

Berakhot 35 Feb 07, 2020

Study Guide Berakhot 35

What blessing does one make on fruits from trees, fruits from the ground (legumes)? What are the exceptions to the rule? There is a debate regarding the blessing on vegetables. How specific does the blessing need to be? What is the reason/source for making blessings on foods before we eat them? The gemara tries to derive it from a verse about fruit trees in the fourth year after they are planted, but is unsuccessful. In the end they say it is based on reason - one cannot benefit from anything in this world without making a blessing. There is a debate between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai regarding whether one should work or spend all of one's time learning. Rabbi Yochanan compares the early generations with the later generations and mentions a few ways the earlier generations were better. Why is there a unique blessing for wine? The gemara suggests various suggestions until it finds the answer.

Berakhot 35 Feb 07, 2020

Study Guide Berakhot 35

What blessing does one make on fruits from trees, fruits from the ground (legumes)? What are the exceptions to the rule? There is a debate regarding the blessing on vegetables. How specific does the blessing need to be? What is the reason/source for making blessings on foods before we eat them? The gemara tries to derive it from a verse about fruit trees in the fourth year after they are planted, but is unsuccessful. In the end they say it is based on reason - one cannot benefit from anything in this world without making a blessing. There is a debate between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai regarding whether one should work or spend all of one's time learning. Rabbi Yochanan compares the early generations with the later generations and mentions a few ways the earlier generations were better. Why is there a unique blessing for wine? The gemara suggests various suggestions until it finds the answer.

Berakhot 35 Feb 07, 2020

Study Guide Berakhot 35

What blessing does one make on fruits from trees, fruits from the ground (legumes)? What are the exceptions to the rule? There is a debate regarding the blessing on vegetables. How specific does the blessing need to be? What is the reason/source for making blessings on foods before we eat them? The gemara tries to derive it from a verse about fruit trees in the fourth year after they are planted, but is unsuccessful. In the end they say it is based on reason - one cannot benefit from anything in this world without making a blessing. There is a debate between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai regarding whether one should work or spend all of one's time learning. Rabbi Yochanan compares the early generations with the later generations and mentions a few ways the earlier generations were better. Why is there a unique blessing for wine? The gemara suggests various suggestions until it finds the answer.

Berakhot 34 Feb 06, 2020

Study Guide Berakhot 34

The mishna mentions other words that if the chazan used them in prayer, he would be removed. What do we do when the chazan makes a mistake? A number of laws are mentioned regarding laws of a chazan. Can one answer to the blessing of the kohen? Can he bless the people if he is the only kohen? How should one respond when asked tobe a chazan? What does one do when one makes a msitake in his prayer? We learn from Moshe that short or long prayers are always accepted. When in shmone esreh does one bow? Is it a good thing to bow or not? Does it depend on who you are? Is it different for leaders? Why? One who makes a mistake in prayer, it's a bad sign. It was known that Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa would pray for people and would know based on his prayer whether or not the person would be healed.

Berakhot 33 Feb 05, 2020

Study Guide Berakhot 33

Can one stop in the middle of shmone esreh? And if yes, for what types of things? In which blessings of shmone esreh does one add praise of God for bringing rain, request for rain and havdala on Saturday night? Is the main havdala on a cup of wine or in prayer? How did this develop? Is the addition of havdala different on Yom Tov that falls on motzai Shabbat both in content and location in prayer? There are certain things that a prayer leader (chazan) would say that we would not allow - like saying modim (prayer thanking God) two times, thanking for the good and not the bad, and one who says that God's mercy is on the birds (relating to the commandment of sending away the mother bird before taking its young). Why?

Berakhot 32 Feb 04, 2020

Study Guide Berakhot 32

Chana, Eliahu and Moshe all spoke to God impertinently. Even though it was frowned upon, God answered their prayers. How did Moshe get up the courage to stand before God and ask for forgiveness for the nation? The gemara brings several different options. What is the meaning of the phrase used for Moshe’s prayer “and Moshe beseeched (vayechal).” Six different explanations of the root of the word are brought. One should first praise God and then request – from where is this derived? What is more important – prayer or good deeds? Fasting or giving charity? Prayer or sacrifices? A priest who kills someone is not allowed to say the preistly blessing. Once there was no longer a temple, the doors to prayers being accepted were somewhat closed.Is it permissible to pray for an extended period of time. What is the risk? If one’s prayers aren’t answered, one should try again. The early pious people would sit an hour before and an hour after prayer. From where is this derived? If they spent also an hour praying, then most of the their day was spent in prayer – how did they learn well and work? For what is one allowed/not allowed to stop in the middle of prayer?

Berakhot 31 Feb 03, 2020

The gemara brings situations where people were too happy at a wedding and the father of the groom (a rabbi) broke an expensive item to cause people to be sad. Tosafot say that this is the source for the custom to break a glass at a wedding. One must judge or learn before prayer as it will be distracting but one should learn a simple clear cut halacha like the chumra of women to wait seven clean days after seeing any blood or a leniency for tithes in order to feed one's animals without having to tithe the food or a law regarding misuse of consecrated property regarding blood of a sanctified animal. One should part with a friend with words of Torah. When Rabbi Akiva prayed with the community, he shortened his prayer so as not to inconvenience people and when he prayed alone, he bows many times. Many things are learned regarding prayer from Daniel, Shlomo and Chana. The gemara derives all sorts of laws about behavior and prayer from Chana. They also teach about sensitivity to barren women and how difficult their struggles are. According to one explanation, Chana thretened God that she would become suspecte dof being a Sotah in order to get the reward given to an excused woman who is innocent of bearing children.

Berakhot 30 Feb 02, 2020

When do we say tefillat haderech - the wayfarer's prayer? What are the differences between the prayer havinenu and the short prayer one says in place of shmone esreh if one is in a place of danger. In what direction does one pray? One who is leaving early in the morning - what does one do regarding prayer and shema if it is before the time that one can say those prayers? Does one pray musaf if one in not part of a community? What are the different opinions? If one forgot to add yaale v'yavo - the prayer for Rosh Chodesh - does one have to repeat shmone esreh? On what does it depend? One needs to pray with the proper frame of mind. The early chassidim would meditate an hour before prayer for this reason. From where can we derive the importance of prayer with the proper frame of mind? What is the meaning of the phrase "be happy with trepidation"?

Berakhot 29 Feb 01, 2020

When was the blessing against the Saducees instituted - by who and why? Once Shimon HaKatan was davening and forgot the words for that plessing and they waited for him a few hours - why didn't they remove him from being the chazan? Why weren't they concerned maybe he was a Saducee? Can good people turn bad? Where can we find references in the texts to the number of blessings in different shmone esrehs? What is the shortened version on shmone esreh that Rabbi Yehoshua says one can say? Are there days where one can't use the shortened version? Why? What does Rabbi Eliezer mean when he discourages people from making their prayer "set"? One who is in a dangerous place can say a short prayer instead of shmone esreh. What is that? One who goes on a journey shoudl say a prayer. What is the text?

Berakhot 28 Jan 31, 2020

The story continues with Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria being chosen - he consults with his wife who warns against taking the job for two reasons. The second one (of being too young and may not be resopected) is no longer an issue when he magically grows 18 rows of white hairs. He accepts the job. He opens the doors to the Beit Midrash as Rabban Gamliel had a guard who would only let in people whose insides wewre like their outsides. On that day, so much Torah was learned, include masechet eduyot, and many halachic issues were resolved. Rabban Gamliel feels like he may ahve been wrong, especially after he loses and argument to Rabbi Yehoshua regarding accepting a convert from Amon. He makes peace with Rabib Yehoshua and then they need to convince the rabbis to take Rabban Gamliele back adn they eventually agree to let him be in charge three weeks and keep Rabib Elazar ben Azaria for one week so as not to demote him entirely. If one needs to pray mincha and musaf, which comes first? What is said about one who doesn't pray within the timeframe alloted by Rabbi Yehuda? Can one eat before musaf? Before mincha? Rabbi Nechunia ben Hakane would say a prayer on entering and on leaving the beit midrash - what would he say? The gemara tells of the last words of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai before their deaths. What does one say daily - all 18 blessings of shmone esreh or a shortened version or does it depend (on what?)? There is a debate regarding this issue. Rabbi Eliezer says that one must make sure not to make prayer too set and static. In which direction does one face? What if one is traveling and can't? Why 18 blessings? One needs to bow in prayer- how far down? Why 18 - isn't it 19?

Berakhot 27 Jan 30, 2020

What does it mean "until four hours" - until and not including the fourth hour or until and including? Who do we hold like regarding times for the morning prayer and for the afternoon prayer? Can one pray arvit, the nighttime prayer, on Friday afternoon before sunset? And if one does this, is it considered Shabbat for them? If they accidentally accepted Shabbat early, thinking it was nighttime (i.e. gray rainy day), when they realize their mistake, is it Shabbat for them? Is arvit obligatory or optional? Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree regarding this and Rabban Gamliel embarassed Rabbi Yehoshua in the biet midrash because of their disagreement. The people got angry at Rabban Gamliel and removed him from his position of being head of the beit midrash. There was a discussion about whether to replace him with Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Akiva or Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria. The latter was chosen and he went to colsult with his wife about whether to take the job.

Berakhot 26 Jan 29, 2020

What do you do if a sefer Torah is in a room where one is planning to have sex? How far does one need to distance oneself from feces or urine in order to say shema? On what does it depend? Can one say shema in a place where there is a bathroom that had never been used? A zav that had a seminal emission or a woman who was a nidda and then semen discharged from her body or a woman who has sex with her husband and then becomes a nidda - all these need several days before they can become pure - but can they and should they go to the mikveh before learning Torah? Or since they can't become pure yet, they can't go to the mikveh and therefore maybe Ezra's ordinance did not include these cases? Is the order in which the events happened important (first baal keri and then zav or the reverse)? Until what time can one pray the morning, afternoon, evening and additional (on holidays) prayer? Is there a contradiction between what it says in the minsha regarding the times and other sources? How does this connect with laws of additional prayers that one can say if one forgot to pray - as one can make up the morning prayer in the afteronon? Were the prayers instituted by the fathers or were they set up as a replacement (or to correspond) to sacrifices?

Berakhot 25 Jan 28, 2020

Can one recite shema if there is feces one's body or in the area? What if the feces is being passed by? It there a different if the feces is not moving? If there is a foul odor from feces, does one need to move away from the feces or also from the odor? Until when is urine problematic - what if it is dry? How dry does it need to be to not be an issue for reciting shema? How can one say shema in the mikveh? Does one need to cloudy up the water? What types of foul smelling water can be fixed up by adding more water to it? How much water needs to be added? One cannot say shema in the vicinity of a utenstil used for collecting feces or urine. What does one do in order to allow one to say shema if there is a utensil there - three opinions are brought.

Berakhot 24 Jan 27, 2020

Can you sleep with tefillin under your pillow? Can a man do that if he is in bed with his wife? If two people are sleeping naked in a bed, can they each turn the other way and say shema? Is there a difference if it is one's qwife or someone else? What if it is one's young children? A handsbreath of a woman in a place that is usually covered is considered nakedness - to what is this referring and in what situation? What else is considered nakedness? Is it problematic of one yawns, sneezes or spits during prayer? There are contradictory sources regarding this - how are they resolved? Can one recite shema in a dirty place where there is feces or urine?

Berakhot 23 Jan 26, 2020

If one needs to go to the bathroom during shmone esreh, what does one do? Can one pray when one needs to go to the bathroom? Can one bring tefillin into the bathroom? Can one bring them in by carrying them in one's hand or wrapped in something? There are dangers if one leaves them outside and therefore Beit Hillel permits bringing them into a permanent bathroom in one's hand. Would he allow it also in a temporary bathroom? It was also believed that there were spirits in the bathroom and some brought tefillin there to protect them from the spirits. Why would there be a difference? Before sitting down to a meal, one should try to use the bathroom. Also one should not wear one's tefillin when eating, in case one gets drunk? Can one put money in a head covering that is being used to wrap one's tefillin? Can one sleep with tefillin under one's pillow? Is it allowed even if his wife is in bed with him?

Berakhot 22 Jan 25, 2020

There is a debate regarding whether one who experienced a seminal emission can learn some types of Torah, none at all, or all kinds? Was the takana of Ezra entirely cancelled? Does he need to go in a mikveh with 40 se'ah or can one pour nine kav of water. What does one do if one is in the middle of tefilla or reading from the Torah and one remembers that one has impurity from a seminal emission?

Berakhot 21 Jan 24, 2020

From where do we derive that one needs to make a blessing after eating and before learning Torah? Can we say that the reverse also applies? The gemara brings various cases where one is unsure if one already said shema or the blessing after shema or shmone esreh? What does one do? Is shema a Torah obligation or from the rabbis? If one says the everyday blessing on Shabbat, does one continue or stop immediately? If one remebers one has already davened when one is in the middle of a blessing of shmone esreh, does one stop in the middle or finish? If one enters a shul and has already prayed, does one pray again with them? If one entrers shul and they are already saying shmone esreh, does one wait until they finish kedusha or modim, or does one start one’s own shmone esreh – on what does it depend? Does one say kedusha as part of their silent shmone esreh? Does one answer to kadish if one is in the middle of shmone esreh? Rabbi Yehuda says that one who has a seminal emission can says blessings of shema – it seems to imply one can also learn Torah. How can that be? A contradition to Rabbi Yehuda is brought from a mishna further on. How is it resolved?

Berakhot 20 Jan 23, 2020

Rav Papa asked Abaye why miracles happened in previous generations but do not happen to them? Women, Canaanite slaves and children are exempt from shema and tefillin but are obligated in prayer, mezuza and blessings after the meal. Why? Why does each case need specifying? Why is it not obvious that they are exempt from time bound commandments and there is no need to specify? Why are women obligated in prayer - is it not a time bound commandment? Is women's obligation to make a blessing after the meal the same as men's in which case they can say it on behalf of a man and help him fulfill his obligation? Erza instituted that one who has a seminal emission cannot learn Torah until he goes to a mikveh. What should he do regarding saying shema and blessing after the meal? If one thinks something in his heart, is it as if he said it?

Berakhot 19 Jan 22, 2020

The court excommunicates those who mock the rabbis or don’t listen to the words of the rabbis. According to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, this is found 24 times in the mishna. The gemara tries to figure out where are these 24 occurences. the gemara delves into the issues regarding the exemptions of those attending the burial and making up the rows for the mourners. In what situations are the exempt or not exempt? Does human dignity override Torah or rabbinic law?

Berakhot 18 Jan 21, 2020

One whose close relative died is considered an ‘onen’ and is exempt from commandments. Why? What does it mean “if your dead is before you” – is it to be taken literally? What is forbidden to do in a cemetary if one is close to a dead body so that one does not upset the dead? If the dead can’t see then why will it upset them? There is a question whether or not dead people can see what goes on in this world – and verses and stories are brought to try to come to a conclusion regarding this topic.

Berakhot 17 Jan 20, 2020

The gemara lists prayers that rabbis would add at the end of their shmone esreh or at particular moments. What is the root of the debate between the rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel regarding whether or not a groom can say shema on his wedding night? Is the issue that he not appear arrogant? If so, this seems the exact opposite of their debate regarding working on Tisha B'av. One is exempt from mitzvot on the day a close relative dies before the burial. Also those carrying the body are exempt from certain mitzvot - depending on how needed they are.

Berakhot 16 Jan 19, 2020

Rabbi Elazar explains what to do when one gets confused at various points in shema. What are the laws regarding workers - can they come down from a tree or a high wall to say shema and shmone esreh? Is there a difference between the two? Why? Does it depend what type of salary the worker receives? A groom is exempt from shema on his wedding night and for a few days until he has sex with his wife for the first time. Why? A few stories are brought regarding Rabban Gamliel where he acted against mainstream halacha. Each time he is challenged by his students and explains to them why he made an exception. Laws regarding canaanite slaves are discussed - can one mourn for them? The gemara brings a list of personal prayers that rabbis added at the end of their shmone esreh. Some are incorporated into our prayers but not immediately following shmone esreh.

Berakhot 15 Jan 18, 2020

What is the order of activities one should do in the morning? Does one need to search far for water to wash one’s hands before shema and shmone esreh? Is it more important for one than the other? Does one need to hear the words one says in shema? Can one just think it in one’s heart? What about other blessings? Is the requirement the same? What exactly are the different opinions? How many different opinions are there? What do we learn from the words “and one should write them” what parts should be written? How careful does one need to be with reciting the words carefully? With which words does one need to be particularly careful?

Berakhot 14 Jan 18, 2020

Can one talk in the middle of hallel or megila? Can one taste food on a fast day? Can one greet someone or deal with things before praying in the morning? Can one stop to greet someone in between the words "is our God" to "truth"? Why? Do we say the entire third paragraph of shema at night or only part? Which part? Why? What is the significance to the order of shema? The gemara quotes a braita that tells a different answer than the one given in the mishna. Does one put on tefillin before or after saying shema? The gemara deals with this question by bringing sources and stories that seem to contradict and tries to resolve the contradiction.

Berakhot 13 Jan 16, 2020

Why is there a difference between the change of name of Yaakov and Avraham's name change? Is it forbidden to call Avraham Avram? Does the mitzva of shema need intent? Why type of intent? Is one allowed to speak at all during shema and its blessings? On what does it depend? What is the significance of the order of the sections of shema? Does one need to say shema in hebrew or can one say it in any language? There is a debate and each brings proof texts. Until what section of shema does one need intent? Can one say shema in one's heart or does one need to say the words? Does one need to hear the words? Can one say only the sentence "shema..." and fulfill one's obligation? It is told of Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi that he did that - why?

Berakhot 12 Jan 15, 2020

It was implied from something Rabbi Zeira said that the blessing the priests said in the temple before shema was "God who created light." But the gemara rejects this and says that one can interpret that statement in a different way and it could be the blessing of "great love that God has for the Jewish people." Why were the ten commandments no longer used as part of the liturgy in the temple and outside the temple? What do the priests who are leaving their watch bless those who are beginning their watch? What does this teach you about priests' behavior in the temple? If someone starts a blessing thinking she is going to drink wine and then remembers that it is beer, and finishes the blessing correctly, does that work? Do we go by the main part of the blessing or the ending? The gemara tries to answer the question from other sources but is unsuccessful.. The gemara brings five statements of Rabba son of Chinnana Saba in the name of Rav: 1. If one doesn't say emet v'yatziv in the morning or emet v'emuna at night one does not fulfill one's obligation (what obligation?). Why? 2. During prayer, we bow at baruch and stand up at God's name. Why? 3. In the ten days of repentance we say "the holy king" and "the king of judgement". There are those who disagree. What if one forgets to say them? 4. One who can pray for others and doesn't is considered a sinner. 5. One who pray and is then embarrassed by one's sin is pardons from all of one's sins. This is learned from King Saul. The rabbis wanted Parshat Balak to be said daily as part of shema. Why did they want to and why didn't this happen? Parshat tzitzit was chosen for five themes. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria and the rabbis argue about whether one needs to mention the exodus from Egypt at night. What is the source of their debate?

Berakhot 11 Jan 13, 2020

From the phrase "when you sit in your house and when you walk on your way" one derives that one who is occupied with a mitzvah or a groom on the night of his wedding are exempt from saying shema. The groom is exempt because his mind is preoccupied with the fulfillment of a mitzvah. Can one derived from here that one who is preoccupied for other reasons would be exempt also even if not for a mitzvah? A mourner is obligated in all mitzvot except for tefillin (he is exempt on the first day only). Can one hold like Beit Shamai and lie down for shema at night and stand up in the morning? Vatious opinions are brought. What are the blessings before shema in the morning? On what type of learning does one need to say the blessings on the Torah for? What is the blessing that needs to be said? In Masechet Tamid, there is a description of the prayers of the priests in the Temple. They said only one blessing before shema. Which one?

Berakhot 10 Jan 13, 2020

Bruria corrects Rabbi Meir, her husband, that one should not pray for the death of evildoers but for their repentance. There is a discussion between Bruria and a heretic and Rabbi Avahu and a heretic regarding verses that are hard to understand. The verse in Proverbs "the her mouth is full of intelligence" is said regarding King David who praised God throughout different stages in his life. The verses of Barchi Nafshi are explained. Why the phrase used five times? The soul is similar to God is five ways. The gemara describes the story in which Yeshayahu visits Chizkiyahu who is dying. How did the story play out? How did Chizkiyahu end up not dying then? What was his sin for which he was supposed to die? Is it better to pray based on one's own merits or to pray baed on the merits of others? Can leaders accept gifts from others? Examples from both directions are brought from Elisha and Shmuel. One should pray from a place of humility. One should not eat before praying. What happens if one doesn't say shema in the first three hours of the day? Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel debate what position one should be in when saying shema. Rabbi Tarfon tried to do like Beit Shamai and was told he was deserving of death!

Berakhot 9 Jan 12, 2020

Can one recite shema right before and right after sunrise and fulfill both the night and day obligations? Why when the mishna lists mitzvot that can be done all night, it doesn't list eating the Pesach sacrifice? Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria and Rabbi Akiva have a debate regarding the time one can eat the Pesach sacrifice - midnight or until the end of the night. Why did the Jews borrow jewelry from the Egyptians before they left? Were they happy to do this or not? From when can one read shema in the mornig and until when? Does one need to juxtapose the blessing after shema of redemption to shmone esreh? If so, how does this effect the time whne one can say shema?

Berakhot 8 Jan 11, 2020

It is best to pray at the time that the community is praying. Why is that? What type of things is it important to pray for? Is it better to pray in a synogogue or a place where one learns? Why? Is it best to live near one's rabbi or not? One should read the prasha twice and once with a translation before it is read in the synogogue. Is it ok to do a number of weeks at once? The gemara mentions things that rabbis taught there children regarding behaviors that one should be careful about - including some they learned from people of other nations. One should be careful not to sit on a bed of an Armean women - three interpretations are brought regarding the meaning of this. One explanantion includes a story of Rav Papa that was almost framed for killing a baby but was saved because he checked first under the bed and found the dead baby.

Berakhot 7 Jan 10, 2020

Does God pray? Does God get angry? If so, for how long? When? This was a secret that Bilam knew and would use it to curse people at that exact moment. It is more effective for one to realize one's mistakes internally and change their way, rather than to be punished and repent because of the punishment. Did God show his ways to Moshe or not when Moshe asked after the sin of the golden calf? If he didn't was it because of Moshe's behavior at the burning bush? Was his behavior there viewed favorably or not? Avraham was the first to call God master. One should not try to appease someone in their moment of anger. Leah was the first to thank. Why is Reuven called by that name? Why Ruth? It's much harder for a parent when a child deviates from the path, than the battle of Gog and Magog. Is it ok to rebuke wicked people? Under what circumstances? The gemara talks about the importance of have a set place to pray and of serving learned people.

Berakhot 6 Jan 09, 2020

One should pray facing the wall. One's bed shouold be facing North to South. One who finishes praying earlier, should not leave a friend behind. Is this the case in every situation? Evil spirits (which may just mean anxieties) are all around us. What is the best way to deal with it? Best to pray in a synagogue. If ten people pray together, three people judge together and two (or even one) people learn together, the presence of God is there. God wears (figuratively) tefillin. Just as we declare the God is one, God declares that we are the chosen one. Best to choose a place and always pray there. One should not run away from the synagogue. One gets rewarded for running to learn, for crowing on to hear a shiur, for delving into the text, for being silent in the house of a mourner, for giving charity on a fast day, for praising a bride and groom. One cannot pray while facing a different direction from everyone else. One should be careful always to pray the mincha service (and all the others). One must make the bride and groom happy at their wedding.

Berakhot 5 Jan 08, 2020

Why do we say Shema at night in bed? How do we view suffering? What is "suffering out of love"? Is there a way to know id the suffering is because you sinned or is it suffering out of love. Why do good things happen to bad people? How can we comfort others who are suffering? Rabbi Yochanan lost 10 children and would show people his faith by carrying the bone of his tenth son. Is it OK to steal from one who stole?

Berakhot 4 Jan 07, 2020

Did Moshe and King David really not know when it was midnight? It seems that they did know. If so, why did Moshe say "around midnight" and what was the need to David's harp? How was David different from other kings? How did he respond when Mefiboshet corrected him? In what way was his son Kilav special? Why are there dots on the word "lulai" in the verse in Psalms? How can sinning affect something that is supposed to happen? Why did the Rabbis say one can say shema until midnight? One who doesn't keep to the words of the rabbis on this issue are deserving of death. Why so severe? Does one need to mention redemption right before shmone esrei in maariv - meaning does one say shema before or after shmone esrei? What is the basis for each opinion? If one says ashrei 3 times a day, one is guaranteed entry in the World to Come. Why? Why is the letter samech missing from ashrei?

Berakhot 3 Jan 06, 2020

Rabbi Eliezer says one can say shema until the end of the first watch. How many watches were there? Three or four? What are signs of each watch? Rabbi Yosi went into a ruin and prayed. Eliyahu Hanavi rebukes him for doing that. What are the three reasons why people can't go into a ruin? Did King David wake up at midnight? Or before? How did he know even when midnight was if even Moshe Rabeinu didn't know?

Berakhot 2 Jan 05, 2020

What is the time range in which one can say the prayer of Shema at night? Why did the mishna start in mid topic? Why with the night prayer and not the morning prayer of Shema? Why did they describe the time based on an action and not in a time frame connected to the sun (from when three stars come out)? The gemara brings several braitot that deal with the same question but bring different answers and the gemara tries to figure out what the different times are and how these different sources work together.

Niddah 73 Jan 05, 2020

Are the differences between nidda and zava something passed from by an old established tradition (halacha l'Moshe mi Sinai) or from verses? The braita raises all sorts of possibilities in order to understand how we know what the Torah meant the difference to be between nidda and zava and how to determine if blood is seen, which category does it fall into?

Niddah 72 Jan 05, 2020

What is the status of a woman who bleeds on the eleventh day of her zava days? To what extent, on her twelfth day is she similar to a woman who is shomeret yom k'neged yom. Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree about that? After she goes to the mikveh on day 12, if she slept with her husband or dealt with pure items, what is the law? Is it dependent on whether she bleeds or not throughout that day? If a woman sees on day ten, is she considered a shomeret yom k'neged yom - because she cannot become a zava gedola. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish debate this.

Niddah 71 Jan 02, 2020

A woman who dies – do we treat her clothes as clothes of a niddah (and require purification) or not? Why do Beit Shammai think we do? What is the status of blood that comes out of a woman as she is dying – does it carry impurities of niddah or of blood from a dead person which transfer impurity of a tent? What level of impurity is a woman considered when she is in her pure days following childbirth (after she goes to the mikveh for the first set of either 7 or 14)? What items can she touch and what can’t she touch? What is the status of a woman who sees blood for one day on her last day of being a zava – to what extent is she considered like a woman who normally sees one zava day who needs to wait out the wohle next day to see if she bleeds – as in this case, if she bleeds, she won’t be considered a zava but a niddah! What is she goes to the mikveh that night? Or the next morning and then slept with her husband without waiting out the day?

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected