Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Latest Episodes:

Shevuot 35 - June 5, 9 Sivan Jun 05, 2025

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Avishag Edri for a refuah shleima and rescue of Alon Ben Idit.

In which cases are people not obligated in an oath of testimony?

What exact phraseology can be used for it to be considered an oath of testimony for which one is obligated to bring a sacrifice? Does one need to include the name of God? Is a word that refers to God also considered using the name of God? What names of God can or cannot be erased.

There are various places in the Tanach where it is unclear if a word references God or someone else. The Gemara lists a number of these cases.

Shevuot 34 - June 4, 8 Sivan Jun 04, 2025

Show notes

Study Guide Shevuot 34

Four different opinions are brought to explain why an oath of testimony is only for monetary cases. Difficulties are raised about each one of the four opinions and are resolved.

Shevuot 33 - June 3, 7 Sivan Jun 03, 2025

Show notes

The Mishna ruled that if there were two groups of witnesses and each group denied knowing testimony, both groups are liable. The Gemara raises a difficulty with this case, arguing that the first group should not be liable since another group of witnesses can still testify. Ravina resolves this difficulty by limiting the Mishna's ruling to a specific case: where the second group of witnesses are related to each other (as their wives are sisters) and both wives are about to die when the first group takes their oath denying knowledge of the testimony.

The Mishna lists various cases where witnesses are asked to testify about multiple things. In some cases, they are only liable one sacrifice and in others multiple sacrifices.

An oath of testimony only applies in monetary cases. A question is asked: Does this also include cases involving fines (kenas)? Before answering this question, the Gemara limits the question to the rabbis' position in their debate with Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Elazar rules that if someone admits owing a fine, they are exempt, but if witnesses come forward even after the confession, they are obligated to pay the fine. Therefore, an oath of testimony would clearly apply here, since the witnesses would definitively obligate the defendant. However, the rabbis hold that witnesses can only obligate the defendant if they testify before a confession. Therefore, the question arises whether an oath of testimony would apply here, since it's possible the witnesses are not causing a loss to the claimant—the defendant could simply confess and be exempt. This question is further limited by assuming the rabbis also hold by the position of the rabbis on a different issue: that davar hagorem l'mamon (something that can possibly lead to a monetary obligation) is not considered a monetary obligation. Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that such potential obligations are considered monetary obligations which would obligate the witnesses a sacrifice if they do not testify. After establishing these parameters for the question, the Gemara examines various cases from our Mishna and other sources to attempt an answer. However, neither source provides a conclusive resolution.

From where do they derive that an oath of testimony is only for monetary cases? Four different rabbis each bring different proofs.

Shevuot 32 - Shevuot - June 2, 6 Sivan Jun 01, 2025

Show notes

An oath of testimony is only relevant when the claimant has asked the witnesses to testify. Shmuel ruled that if the claimant was chasing the witnesses and they swore they did not know any testimony, this would not be considered an oath of testimony. Why did Shmuel need to specify this particular case?

From where do we derive that an oath of testimony initiated by others (rather than the witnesses themselves) is only valid if the witnesses agree to it in court? If the witnesses agreed to the oath while in court but had denied knowledge of the testimony multiple times previously outside the court, from where do we derive that they are liable for each denial made outside the court?

The Mishna discusses a case where both witnesses testified together. Since two people cannot testify at exactly the same moment, this is understood to mean one witness testified immediately after the other (toch k'dei dibbur - within the time it takes to speak a few words).

The Mishna ruled that if the two witnesses did not testify one right after the other, the second witness is exempt from bringing a sacrifice. This principle is a matter of debate when applied to an oath of testimony involving a single witness. What is the underlying basis of this debate?

Abaye makes a statement that sounds like a riddle: all agree regarding one witness in a sotah case, all agree regarding two witnesses in a sotah case, there is debate regarding two witnesses in a sotah case, all agree regarding one witness, and all agree regarding a case where the person who should take the oath is unable to do so. What is the meaning of each part of this cryptic statement? Rav Pappa adds additional cases where all agree.

Shevuot 31 - June 1, 5 Sivan Jun 01, 2025

Show notes

Study Guide Shevuot 31

This week's learning is sponsored by Joy Benatar in memory of her mother, Miriam David, Malcah bat Meechael v'Esther, on her 9th yahrzeit. "A devoted wife, mother, grandmother, and educator."

This week's learning is sponsored by Naomi Kadish for a refuah shleima for Mordechai Getzel ben Reizel and Chana bat Leah.

Several bad practices are discouraged based on the verse in Shmot 23:7, "Distance yourself from false matters."

After listing in the Mishna that women, relatives and disqualified witnesses are not obligated for an oath of testimony, there was a general line saying "And all who are not qualified to testify." Rav Pappa understands this line to include a king and Rav Acha to include a gambler.

What is the root of the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding an oath of testimony taken outside the court on one's own? What is the root of the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding an oath on a deposit initiated by others taken outside the court? Rav Pappa and his students disagreed about whether the root of the debate in both situations was the same.

One is obligated to bring a sacrifice for an oath of testimony that was taken intentionally (the witnesses intentionally lied) and one for which they knew they were lying but did not understand the severity of the offense (that they would be obligated to bring a sacrifice. However, they do not bring a sacrifice if the witnesses do not remember that they knew the testimony.

What part of the oath of testimony needs to take place in the court? In what situations can the witnesses be liable to bring several sacrifices?

Shevuot 30 - Shabbat May 31, 4 Sivan May 30, 2025

Show notes

What is an oath of testimony for which one is obligated to bring a sliding-scale sin offering? Anyone who cannot testify is excluded from responsibility, including women. The Gemara asks from where in the Torah is it derived that women cannot testify. They bring various braitot that all prove from the same verse, Devarim 19:17, each using a different drasha, that women cannot be witnesses.

They learn other laws from that same verse regarding court cases, i.e. who stands and who sits, and requirements of the judges to be fair and balanced.

What types of exceptions are made if a talmid chacham is being judged in the court?

Shevuot 29 - May 30, 3 Sivan May 30, 2025

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Laurence and Michelle Berkowitz in memory of Joy Rochwarger Balsam on her 21st yahrzeit. A pioneer of women's Jewish learning who cared for every Jew near and far. May her memory be a blessing for all her nephews and nieces serving in the IDF and protecting am Yisrael during these difficult times.

What is an oath made in vain? There are three basic categories of this type of oath. Details regarding these categories are analyzed.

The Mishna compares the cases where oaths of expression and oath in vain apply - men and women, non-kosher witnesses, in court or out of court, one who takes the oath on one's own or is sworn by another, etc. The laws are the same, other than the sacrifice, which only applies to oaths of expression.

Shmuel states that one who answers amen to someone else's oath is as if they took an oath themselves. This is derived from two different places, one of them being our Mishna.

Shevuot 28 - May 29, 2 Sivan May 29, 2025

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Batsheva and Daniel Pava. "Eighty-one years ago, on bet Sivan, the deportation of Hungarian Jewry to Auschwitz began. May our learning be dedicated to the memory of my great-grandmother, Raizel, my grandmother, Batsheva bat Yisroel, the Steinmetz and Vegh families of Apsha, and all the Jews of Marmarosh who were murdered in Auschwitz. May their memories be a blessing."

Rava rules that one who takes an oath to not eat a loaf of bread, even if they have already eaten most of it, as long as there is still an olive bulk of bread left, the person can go to a chacham to repeal the oath retroactively. How can this case work with both the language of "I will not eat any of it" and "I will not eat it in its entirety"?

A source is brought regarding a nazir to raise a contradiction to Rava. However, it is resolved in three possible ways.

Ameimar disagrees with Rava and holds that one has even longer to repeal the oath, as long as the punishment has not yet been implemented.

Rava explains that if an oath is made with a condition, if the condition is fulfilled without intention, the oath does not take effect. If the person remembers the condition but forgets the oath when eating the forbidden item, one is liable to bring a sacrifice. If the person remembers both the condition and the oath when eating both, and first eats the one fulfilling the condition, they will receive lashes. If the person first eats the forbidden one and then eats the one fulfilling the condition, it is a debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding a warning given in doubt, hatraat safek.

Rava continues with another case where a person said that each item is forbidden on condition that they eat the other item. He discusses four possible permutations of what the person did unintentionally and intentionally and explains the law in each case.

Rav Meri brings support from a Mishna and braita for Rava's principle in the above cases that if the condition is fulfilled unintentionally, the oath does not go into effect.

Avimi asks his brother Eifa about the ruling in different cases of a double/overlapping oath. Each time Eifa answers, Avimi disagrees with Eifa's ruling.

Shevuot 27 - Rosh Chodesh Sivan - May 28, 1 Sivan May 28, 2025

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Shapiro in honor of Shira Krebs, our fearless Minneapolis Hadran convener, on yesterday's frailich wedding of her daughter Yonit to Yaakov Zinberg: Mazal tov!!!

Tali Oberman sponsors today's daf in honor of her grandmother, Barbara Oberman, who has contributed greatly to the Jewish people and celebrated her 90th birthday this week.

Would one be obligated to bring a sacrifice if one takes an oath of expression to fulfill a mitzva? There is a debate in the Mishna on this issue between Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and the rabbis.

A braita teaches that one who takes an oath not to observe a mitzva or to observe a mitzva is not a valid oath. From where do they derive this? The working assumption is that the topic of the verse in the Torah is optional actions. From where is this derived? The Gemara brings three suggested answers, while the first one is rejected.

If one takes an oath that repeats itself without adding on something new, the subsequent oaths are not valid and if one breaks them accidentally, one would be only obligated to bring one sacrifice. However, if the person were to go to a chacham to repeal the oath, the second oath would apply.

Shevuot 26 - May 27, 29 Iyar May 27, 2025

Show notes

Today's daf is sponsored by Tali Oberman in honor of her grandmother, Miriam Sklar, who has reached the incredible milestone of 90.

A braita has a more expanded version of the debate between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva about whether or not the oath of expression for which one is obligated to bring a sliding-scale offering includes oaths regarding events that already happened (about the past). Each uses a different exegetical principle in reaching his conclusion, based on the method adopted by their teachers, Rabbi Nechunia Ish haKane, klal and prat (Rabbi Yishmael), and Nachum Ish Gamzu, ribui and miyut (Rabbi Akiva).

An oath of expression is only brought if the person is shogeg, unwitting, when they forgot their oath, but not if they did it on purpose or if it was totally beyond their control. The Gemara brings an example of an oath that would be beyond one's control.

A braita extrapolates from the verse that an oath of expression is only brought by one who forgot the oath but not the object. Is it possible to find a case of remembering that oath, but forgetting the object?

Rava asks Rav Nachman what would be the case if one forgot both the oath and the object. This question is left unanswered as one can make an argument both to obligate and to exempt.

Rava asks Rav Nachman what would be a case of shogeg for an oath of expression about the past? Rav Nachman answers that one who remembers the oath, but does not know that one is obligated to bring a sacrifice. This seems initially to match only Munbaz's approach in Shabbat 68b that one can be obligated to bring a sacrifice if one knew it was Shabbat and that the action was forbidden, but did not know that one is obligated to bring a sacrifice. But, then the Gemara explains that even the rabbis would agree by oaths as it is a unique halakha, as usually one is only obligated in oath for a prohibition punishable by karet.

Shmuel rules that one is only obligated for an oath of expression that is expressed in words, not one that is in one's heart. Two sources are brought to raise a difficulty on Shmuel's position, but are resolved.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Daf Yomi for Women – Hadran

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected