Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Today's daf is sponsored by the Sussman family on their aliyanniversary. Mazal tov! "As we stepped off the plane 21 years ago with two little boys, we could never have imagined all that Israel would give to us these many years; nor could we fathom what our boys would be giving back to the land and nation. Am Yisrael Chai." Today's daf is sponsored by Julie Mendelsohn in honor of her daughter Hannah’s graduation from medical school in Italy last week. "The Talmud teaches (Bava Kamma 85a) that permission is granted to a doctor to heal, and that a doctor is an essential partner with G-d in the healing of human beings. May you have wisdom, compassion and help from Heaven all of the days of your profession. Your hard work and persistence inspire all of us." A Jew cannot be a midwife or nursemaid for an idol worshipper. Rabbi Meir and the rabbis disagree about whether an idol worshipper can be a midwife to deliver a Jew's child or nurse the Jew's child. Rabbi Meir forbids out of fear they may kill the child, while the rabbis permit if there is another Jew in the room, as there is no concern for murder in that case. A braita permits a Jew to be a midwife for an idol worshipper if they get paid. Rav Yosef explains that the reason for this is to prevent enmity. Rav Yosef suggests extending this to three other situations, but Abaye explains why in each case the Jew has a legitimate excuse and therefore it will not cause enmity and is forbidden. One cannot put an idol worshipper or a shepherd of small animals in a pit, but it is also not required to save them from a pit. However, heretics, informers and apostates can even be put in a pit by a Jew. What is the definition of a heretic and an apostate? Rabbi Meir and the rabbis have a similar debate about circumcising idol worshippers. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a braita to Rabbi Meir's position and tries to resolve it.  

Study Guide Avodah Zarah 25 Today's daf is sponsored Malka Louzoun in memory of her father, Gilbert Louzoun, Nissim ben Sultana, on his 9th yahrzeit. "A man of many accomplishments, he taught us to work hard, to act honestly and with integrity, to be charitable, and to explore the world. Despite his great successes, he was a person of incredible humility. His warmth and intelligence are missed daily by all who knew him. The life lessons he taught us by simply being who he was, are ones we hope to pass to our children, the grandchildren he so dearly loved." How long did the sun stop in the time of Joshua? Two different versions are brought regarding a debate between three sages. Who else did the sun stop for? What is the "Sefer HaYashar" that is referred to both in the verse about the sun stopping (Joshua 10:13) and also in the Kina of David for the deaths of Shaul and Yonatan (Shmuel II 1:18)? The Mishna relates that a woman can't be alone with an idol worshipper. To what is the Mishna referring, as even with a Jew this is forbidden? Additionally, why is there no concern that the idol worshipper will kill her, as appears later in the Mishna when referring to a man? What precautions should a man take when walking alone on a path with an idol worshipper, to prevent a situation where the idol worshipper may kill him?  

Several challenges are raised against Shila’s interpretation of Rabbi Eliezer, who prohibits purchasing a red heifer from pagans based on a drasha on the word "vayikchu." The well-known story of Dama ben Netina—a non-Jew highlighted as a model for honoring one’s parents, illustrating the extent to which one must go to fulfill this mitzva—is cited in objection. This story raises questions both about Shila’s interpretation and about the alternative explanation that Rabbi Eliezer prohibits the purchase due to concerns about bestiality. Either way, if purchasing from pagans is not permitted, how did the rabbis intend to acquire the red heifer from Dama? Additional difficulties are posed against Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling that animals may not be purchased from pagans for sacrificial purposes.

Study Guide Avodah Zarah 23 Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in honor of her daughter Rina. "With love to my incredible daughter who started me on my Daf journey with Hadran. I am continuously in awe of her, with gratitude for who she is and what she contributes to the world." Two additional explanations (three in total) are presented to resolve the contradiction between our Mishna and the braita concerning whether one should be concerned that pagans engage in bestiality with animals. Ravina proposes that ideally, one should not place an animal in a secluded area with a pagan. However, if the animal is already with the pagan, there is no concern that they engaged in bestiality. Ravina attempts to support this distinction by resolving a similar contradiction: our Mishna prohibits a woman from being secluded with a pagan, while a Mishna in Ketubot 26b does not express concern that a captive woman engaged in relations with her captor. This proof, however, is dismissed for two reasons. Rabbi Pedat addresses the contradiction by suggesting that each source follows a different viewpoint—either that of Rabbi Eliezer or the rabbis—who disagree about whether a red heifer may be purchased from a pagan. The Gemara explores three alternate explanations of this debate in an effort to refute Rabbi Pedat’s comparison, but all three are ultimately rejected. The Gemara draws an inference from the debate between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis regarding the red heifer, as interpreted by Rabbi Pedat. Their discussion revolves around a case where it is uncertain whether the animal was involved in bestiality. If it were known with certainty, the animal could not be used for the purification process. This suggests that the red heifer carries the sanctity of offerings made on the altar, rather than the sanctity of bedek habayit—items designated for Temple maintenance. However, this conclusion is rejected on two grounds.

Study Guide Avodah Zarah 22 Today's daf is sponsored in memory of Deena Kalker's grandmother Tzipora Shoshana bat Bracha z"l. May her memory be a comfort and a blessing. Today's daf is sponsored by Becky Goldstein for the refuah shleima of David Mordechai ben Raizel who is undergoing a procedure this morning. Please Gd for a succesful operation with שליחים נאמנים. The Mishna prohibits one to leave one’s animal in an inn alone with a pagan as they are concerned the pagan will engage in bestiality with the animal and the Jew will transgress the prohibition to put a stumbling block in front of a blind person. The Gemara raises a contradiction to this from a braita that permits a Jew to buy an animal from a non-Jew to use for a sacrifice. Why is there no concern that the animal was used for bestiality, which would disqualify the animal for sacrifice? Rav Tachlifa quotes Rav who distinguishes between the pagan’s own animal and someone else’s, as bestiality is bad for the animal (females become unable to birth and males become weaker). Two difficulties are raised against Rav Tachlifa's answer and are resolved. Two other questions are asked about the Mishna. Why would it be forbidden to seclude a female pagan with a female animal? Does the prohibition apply to birds as well?

Study Guide Avodah Zarah 21 Can one sell or rent property to non-Jews in Israel, Syria, or outside of Israel entirely? What are the issues involved? What is at the root of this prohibition? How is it that people sell property anyway? What explanations did later authorities provide to explain this? Is it applicable to all non-Jews, or only to the seven nations, or only to idol worshippers? An additional issue is raised with renting a field or bathhouse to a non-Jew who will use it on Shabbat. In what situations is it permitted, and in what situations is it forbidden? What is the difference between a non-Jew and a Cuti (Samaritan)?

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree about whether one may sell an item that is still attached to the ground—such as a tree—to a non-Jew, on the condition that the non-Jew will cut it down himself, or whether the item must first be detached in order for the sale to be permitted. The basis for this prohibition is the Torah’s ban on selling land in Israel to gentiles, which extends to anything attached to the land. The source for this prohibition is found in Devarim (Deuteronomy) 7:2, in the phrase “לֹא תְחָנֵם” (“lo techanem”). From this verse, two additional prohibitions are derived: (1) praising or complimenting non-Jews, and (2) giving them gifts without compensation. Whether giving gifts is actually forbidden is the subject of a tannaitic dispute. The prohibition against praising non-Jews is also examined—does it truly apply? Seemingly contradictory sources are introduced, but ultimately reconciled with the prohibition. An additional question is raised: Does the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda extend to the prohibition against selling animals to non-Jews when the sale is for the purpose of slaughtering the animal?  

In Tehillim 1:1, the verse begins with "ashrei ha'ish," happy is the man. According to Rabbi Yonantan, the man is Avraham, who did not associate himself with the dor haflaga, the people of Sodom and the Philistines. A similar verse in Tehillim 112:1 employs the same phrase "ashrei ish" who fears God. Why is the masculine form used and not the feminine? Two explanations are offered: happy is the person who repents when still young or happy is the person who can control one's evil inclination like a man, i.e., a warrior overcoming his enemies. The continuation of the verse is, "He delights in God's mitzvot." This is explained as one who does mitzvot for the sake of doing a mitzva and not for receiving a reward. In Tehillim 1:1-2, the verse says that instead of being with evildoers, happy is the person who desires the Torah of God. Rebbi derives from this verse that a person can only learn Torah from the parts of the Torah that one desires to study. Rava extrapolates the verse in the same way and derives other concepts about stages of learning Torah and best practices of learning Torah from these verses and others. What are the rewards received for learning Torah? The Mishna forbids building the area in the bathhouse that was built for an idol. Rabbi Elazar in the name of Rabbi Yochanan explains that if one got paid, the money is permitted for use. How is this explained? The Mishna does not permit making jewelry for idol worship, but Rabbi Eliezer rules that one could get paid for doing that. Since one cannot sell land to gentiles in Israel, one can also not sell items that are attached to the ground, unless they are already detached. Rabbi Yehuda permits them if they are being sold to be detached after the sale.      

Today's daf is sponsored by Emma Rinberg in memory of her beloved father Dr. Eric N. Glick - Yitzchak Nisan ben Yaacov v'Etta Faiga. "Though you died 35 years ago, your wisdom and caring nature accompany me daily." Rabbi Chanina ben Tradion's death is described - for what was he punished? How and why were others in his family punished with him? Rabbi Yosi ben Kisma predicted his death and in the aftermath of Rabbi Yosi's death, Rabbi Chanina gets caught by the Romans and is killed in exactly the way Rabbi Yosi predicted. His daughter is punished by being sent to be a prostitute, and Bruria, her sister, convinces her husband, Rabbi Meir, to rescue her. This ultimately leads to his being wanted by the Romans and he flees to Babylonia. The Gemara quotes braitot that list different activities that are forbidden to be involved in on account of being connected with idol worship and others because of "moshav leitzim," which is defined as those who sit around idle and scorn others. The antidote to moshav leitzim is learning Torah, as is derived from verses in Tehillim 1:1-2.

The story of Rabbi Eliezer continues as he remembers a situation where he heard the claim of a heretic and agreed somewhat to his interpretation of the verse and assumes that is why he was punished. The Gemara discusses how much one should keep one's distance from heretics and from prostitutes/those who are forbidden to have sexual relations with. If one repents from being a heretic, one will die immediately - why? Does this apply only to heretics or also to those who engage in promiscuous sexual relations? Rabbi Chanina ben Tradion and Rabbi Elazer ben Prata are captured by the Romans - one is saved and one is killed? What is the explanation given for each one's fate?

Today's daf is sponsored by Kobi and Miri Darkei in honor of the birth of their new grandson, son of Reshit and Shlomo Breitley, brother to Cherut Shira, who enters today the brit of Avraham Avinu. "May he merit to grow in joy and health for Torah, marriage and good deeds, for the glory of the people of Israel and as a Jewish source of pride for his parents and family." Today's daf is sponsored by Vitti Rosenzweig in memory of her mother, Sarah Rosenzweig, a Holocaust survivor, and daughter of Vitti and David Greenbaum who perished in the Holocaust. "May her memory be a blessing. We miss her." Today's daf is sponsored by Shira Dishon for Staff Sergeant Eitan Dishon HY"D. "His 23rd birthday is on the 8th of Tammuz. At the end of chapter 23 in Tehillim it is written 'And I shall dwell in the house of Hashem for the length of days' - this was his dream. Since Eitan fell, I have merited through him to join Hadran and to learn the daf each day and to feel a bit of this dwelling in the house of the Hashem." Can one sell defensive weapons to non-Jews? What is the basis of the debate on this issue? Rabbi Yehuda permitted broken animals to be sold to gentiles. Does this apply to broken calves as well? Were they kept for reproducing, in which case they would be kept for the long-term (not purchased for slaughtering) and therefore forbidden to sell as people would notice they were sold and would think it is permitted to sell animals in general to gentiles. An ox that is being fattened for slaughter, can that animal be sold, as one can assume the gentile is purchasing for slaughter? The question is asked both according to the rabbi's position and Rabbi Yehuda's, as is explained by the Gemara. Can one sell dangerous animals to non-Jews? Are large non-domesticated animals (chayot) considered the same as large domesticated animals in terms of forbidding selling them to non-Jews? What types of buildings can Jews aid in the building process for non-Jews? Those that are used for judging people are problematic, as they would judge many people to death. The story of Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkanus is brought where he is captured by the Romans on suspicion of being a heretic.

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Schwartz "in memory of my very special mother Shirley K. Tydor (Sara Raizel bat Mordechai Yitzchak and Freidasima) on my birthday. A birthday is a time to make the world a better place: do a cheshbon nefesh (soul searching), give tzedaka, and thank one's mother for what she went through. And so I do, with love." Today's daf is sponsored by Batsheva & Daniel Pava on the second yahrzeit of Batsheva's father, Reb Shlomo ben Yehuda Aryeh Vegh, z"l. "My father was an orphaned child survivor of Auschwitz. He lived to see 3 generations of descendants, including grandchildren and great grandchildren serving in Tzahal and Sherut Leumi.  Every morning, my father would get up at 5 am and learn gemara. He would also complete the entire Sefer Tehillim each week. My Dad is, and will forever be, my hero."   Today's daf is sponsored by the Shuster family in memory of Dr. Sandra Shimoff, the mother of Randi Shuster. "Her devotion to the study of Torah and Shas will always be remembered by her family and all those who knew her."   Today's daf is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in gratitude to HaShem on the occasion of my engagement to Laini Millar Melnick. "I never thought I would be this happy again in my lifetime. I stood under the chuppa once and it worked out pretty well; I can't wait to stand under the chuppa again."   Today's daf is sponsored by Debbie Pershan for the 17th yahrzeit of her mother, Tziril bat Moshe Pinchus. Why is it forbidden to sell large cattle to a non-Jew? After deliberations, they conclude that this is a decree lest the Jew rent it out or lend it, or concern of a "test ride" that may be done as Shabbat begins. Rav Ada permitted selling through a broker because these concerns don't apply in that case. Rav Huna sold a cow to a non-Jew and claimed that perhaps he bought it for slaughter. Rav Chisda challenged him - why don't we worry about the matters mentioned previously? After deliberation, Rav Ashi defines in what situations it is permitted/forbidden. Rabba sold a donkey to a Jew who was suspected of selling to non-Jews. Abaye challenged him and convinced Rabba that he had made a mistake. Within Abaye's challenge, he quoted a baraita that forbids a Jew from selling weapons to a non-Jew. Rav Dimi expanded this prohibition to selling weapons to Jewish bandits/robbers. Can one sell defensive items to non-Jews? This is a subject of debate. 

Today's daf is sponsored by Mark & Semé Cooper in honor of their 25th wedding anniversary. Today's daf is sponsored by  Marc and Becki Goldstein with gratitude to the Almighty who will אי"ה celebrate the marriage of their first granddaughter Amiah to Neria today. שיזכו להוסיף עוד חוליה בשרשרת הדורות לבנין עדי עד Today's daf is sponsored by Hannah Piotrkowski, with prayers for the refuah shleima of Michal Naomi bat Zahava Gita, who is having major surgery for a life-threatening illness. What items are forbidden to sell all year round to idol worshippers? The Babylonian amoraim struggled to understand the terms used in the Mishna and relied mainly on the scholars in Israel to explain them. It is permitted to sell large quantities of items that are generally used for idol worship, as they are for resale, and there is no prohibition of putting a stumbling block indirectly (selling to someone who may sell to others who will transgress the prohibition). If one sells them with other similar items that are not used for idol worship, there is a debate whether or not it is permitted. Rabbi Yona explains that if the buyer asked specifically for the item used for idol worship, one cannot sell. But if the buyer was not specific about which type, it is permitted to sell even the one used for idol worship. The Gemara raises two difficulties with Rabbi Yonah's position, but resolves them both.  Whether or not it is forbidden to sell a small animal (like sheep, etc.) to non-Jews depends on the local custom, dependent on whether the non-Jews there engage in bestiality. It is forbidden to sell large animals to non-Jews, as it may lead one to rent them or loan them, which would be forbidden, as animals owned by Jews are not allowed to work on Shabbat.     

Today's daf is sponsored by Gitta and David Neufeld in memory of Gitta’s father, Yosef ben Menachem Mendel v’Pesha a”h on his tenth yahrzeit. He cherished his family and Torah, and would be so proud of the generations following in his footsteps and adhering to his values and moral compass. וכתר שם טוב עולה על כולם Today's daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in memory of  Moshe Hartman, z’l, on his 6th yahrzeit. He continues to be missed dearly. He would delight in my learning, his children’s and his grandchildren’s learning, which we will honor with a family siyum on his yahrzeit. Today's daf is sponsored by Monica Steiner in honor of Rabbi David Abraham Kaplinsky, who begins his first pulpit in San Antonio, Texas today. May you find joy and strength in your work and community. I am so proud of you, David, and love you with all my heart. In an idolatrous city, one may purchase from stores that are not decorated for idolatry, but not from those that are adorned for such purposes. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about both the reason for this prohibition and its scope. Reish Lakish is concerned with decorations that have beautiful scents, as the Jews will benefit from idol worship. According to Rabbi Yochanan, the issue is because those stores pay tribute to the idols. A difficulty is raised against Reish Lakish's position. In resolving the difficulty, the difficulty is moved to Rabbi Yochanan's position, but is resolved as well. Items purchased in a forbidden manner are to be rendered useless. For animals, this means to cut off the hooves. A question is asked why this isn't forbidden on account of tzaar baalei hayim - mistreatment of animals? Why, in another context of sanctified items, is the penalty to close the animal in a room and let it die? What is the difference between the two cases? If an animal purchased from an idol worshipper needs to have its hooves cut off, does something similar need to be done to a gentile slave that is purchased? The Gemara brings a different source to prove that one is not allowed to cause physical damage to a slave. What items can one not sell to an idol worshipper as part of the prohibition to put a stumbling block in front of a blind person?

Today's daf is sponsored with gratitude to HKB"H by Tina and Shalom Lamm on the occasion of the brit and naming of their new grandson, Shilo Lavi, born to their children, Bracha and Akiva Berger. When a city contains idol worshippers but the surrounding areas do not, business dealings with those outside the city are permitted even when the city celebrates its holidays. Reish Lakish, citing Rabbi Chanina, defines "outside the city" by referencing the bazaar of Gaza as an example. In an alternative version of this teaching, Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Chanina specifically about shopping in Gaza's bazaar, which was located just outside the city limits. Rabbi Chanina permitted this activity, comparing it to a situation where a Jew and a Gentile cook in separate pots on the same stove—a practice the rabbis allowed. Three sages offer different interpretations of this comparison. Rabbi Meir and the other rabbis disagree about whether one may walk through an idolatrous city during their holiday celebrations when traveling to reach another destination. The Gemara presents four cases involving someone who bends down to perform an action directly in front of an idol. Even without intending to bow, such behavior is prohibited unless one can act in a way that clearly does not appear to be worship. Why did the rabbis need to mention all four cases? One example involves drinking water from a fountain where water flows from a human statue, since this creates the appearance of kissing the idol. This case leads to another case: one should not drink water directly from a pipe for health reasons, as this might result in swallowing a leech. Swallowing a leech was considered life-threatening, and Rabbi Chanina even permitted boiling water on Shabbat for someone who had swallowed one. Rav Huna also recommended drinking vinegar while waiting for the water to boil. Drinking water at night was also considered dangerous due to the evil spirit called shavrirei, which was believed to cause blindness and could be life threatening. The Gemara offers several possible remedies for those who are thirsty and need to drink water at night. In an idolatrous city, one may purchase from stores that are not decorated for idolatry, but not from those that are adorned for such purposes. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about both the reason for this prohibition and its scope.

This week's learning is sponsored anonymously in gratitude to Rabbi Carl Perkins, a learned and compassionate rabbi, a gifted teacher, whose love of Judaism inspires all who are blessed to know him. Today's daf is sponsored by Paul and Danielle Nacamuli. "Mazel tov to our daughter and son-in-law on their marriage, may you enjoy many years of joy together!" Today's daf is sponsored by Natanya Slomowitz in loving memory of her mother, Haviva Lilka bat Necha and Avraham. Onkelos converted to Judaism. The emperor sent three different groups of troops to seize him, but he convinced each group to convert to Judaism by explaining to them that God takes care of his people better than the Roman leaders. The prophecy told to Rivka when she was pregnant with Esau and Yaakov, "There are two nations in your womb," is explained as meaning "two proud/great ones" and refers to Rebbi and Antoninus, who were both blessed with plenty. What is the basis of the argument between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding whether it is forbidden to do business with idol worshippers on the day of the death of their king, only if there is burning or even if there is not? How does that connect with the braita that says the Jews burn the items of a king, and it is not forbidden because it is the way of the non-Jews? They would burn items not only when kings died, but also heads of the Sanhedrin. What types of items would be burned? The Mishna mentions the day of shaving his beard and his locks. Is this referring to two separate days - one of shaving the beard and one of shaving the locks on the back of his neck to be offered to the idol, or the day where one shaved his beard, but kept his locks to grow, to later be offered to the idol? The Gemara concludes that both answers are correct. Another Roman holiday is described where they would celebrate their dominion over the Jews. This one is not listed in the Mishna as it happened only once in a lifetime, or very infrequently. What were the Babylonian and Persian holidays? Rav Huna son of Rav Chisda listed several pagan temples with which it was forbidden to ever do business, as they offered sacrifices daily to the idols. Shmuel was lenient with holidays in the Diaspora and forbade only the day of the holiday itself.

Today's daf is sponsored by Samuel Berlad in honor of Esther Sarah bat Sarah, in thanks for a good and speedy result of her oral exams. The Gemara finishes the discussion of the dating of documents and then attempts to identify the meaning of the different terms used by the Mishna in describing the holidays of the pagans. Antoninus asked Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi several questions, and stories are told of their relationship. These stories and discussions highlight that not all the Romans were bad and some relied on Jews for advice and risked their lives to save them. How did Ketia bar Shalom try to help save the Jews from the Romans? Despite his outwitting the emperor, he was executed by the Romans specifically for outwitting the emperor. Upon his execution, a heavenly voice called out that Ketia acquired a place in the World-to-Come. When Rabbi Yehuda haNasi heard this, he cried and said, "There are those who acquire their share in the World-to-Come in one moment, while there are those for whom it takes many years."

Study Guide Avodah Zarah 9 The next six weeks of learning are dedicated to Susan Silkes, Sheina Blima bat Faigel for a refuah shleima from her loving and adoring friends. "Susan, you are the absolute epitome of ואהבת לרעך כמוך always putting others' needs first. Besides being a super bike rider, swimmer, hallah and chocolate chip cookie baker, you also started learning Daf Yomi with Hadran just a few months ago, taking on yet another new challenge and finding the daf so meaningful. We have no idea how you manage to fit so many of us into your life, but we are so very blessed that you do! חודש טוב מלא בריאות, רפואה ונעם ה'" Today's daf is sponsored by Gitta and David Neufeld in honor of our first year aliya-versary. כי טובה הארץ מאד מאד! How are they able to prove that the Romans first ruled pleasantly with the Jews for twenty-six years before subjugating them for one hundred and eighty years before they destroyed the Temple? Different calculations are brought regarding historical events from the time of the Second Temple period and the creation of the world. It was clear that different people counted years from different historical events, and the Rav Papa gives some tips for calculating what year one is in on one calendar if one knows what the year is according to a different calendar.

Today's daf is sponsored by Aviran and Miki Kadosh on the occasion of their son, Avishai's bar mitzvah and in honor of him completing Shas Mishnayot, Masechet Tamid and Masechet Taanit during the past year. "We wish that you continue to persevere in learning, to advance and grow wise in all your hobbies and areas of interest! Mazel tov!" Today's daf is sponsored by Caroline Ben-Ari for the refuah shleima of Shaiel Ram ben Rivka. Today's daf is sponsored anonymously, "To all the women who have served as my role models for Jewish learning." In which place in prayer are personal requests inserted? What are the different opinions, and what is the basis for the dispute? What are the holidays of the idol worshippers during which there is a prohibition to sell to or buy from them? The Gemara works on the list of holidays and explains the reason behind the establishment of each of the holidays. Kalenda and Saturnalia were established in response to the first year of the first man (Adam) when he saw in winter that the days were getting shorter and thought that, because of his sin, God was returning the world to chaos. When he saw that the days were getting longer, he realized it was just the way of the world and established a holiday before and after that day on which the days began to lengthen (winter solstice). Another holiday was established in response to the successes of the Roman kingdom against the Egyptians and the Greeks. Rav Dimi explained that the Jews helped the Romans in their victory over the Greeks and ruled together with the Romans for twenty-six years before the Romans subjugated the Jews. 

Today's daf is sponsored by Sylvia Klein in loving memory of her brother, Bobby Klein, who passed away 40 years ago. "He taught us about love and acceptance. His humor, friendliness, and loving spirit is greatly missed." Rav Huna ruled like Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha, who distinguished between loans with a promissory note and those without, and permitted Jews to collect loans without a promissory note from gentiles before their holidays. He also ruled like Rabbi Yehuda on the issue of a dyer who dyed someone's wool the wrong color. Rav Yosef did not understand why Rav Huna needed to explain the ruling like Rabbi Yehuda, as he thought it was obvious from the stam Mishna in Bava Metzia that corresponded to his opinion, as when there is a Mishna with a debate that is followed by a stam Mishna, the ruling is always like the stam Mishna. What was that not obvious to Rav Huna?  The Gemara quotes several other debates between Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha and others in which the ruling is like Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha. Rabbi Yishmael forbade doing business dealings with gentiles three days before and three days after their holidays. Shmuel explained that based on Rabbi Yishmael, it is forbidden to have any business dealings with Christians, as every Sunday they have a holiday.  The rabbis disagree and forbid business dealings before. The Gemara questions how their opinion differs from the tanna's opinion in the first Mishna of the masechet. Four suggestions are brought. The last relates to an opinion of Nahum the Mede. There are several issues brought in the Gemara where Naum the Mede disagreed with the sages or individual sages on a particular issue, and the rabbis were unwilling to accept his position. 

Study Guide Avodah Zarah 6 Today’s daf is sponsored by Yisroel and Masha Rotman in loving memory of Masha’s grandfather, Jacob Maltz, Yaakov Yitzchak ben Moshe Aaron, ztz”l, on his 65th yahrzeit, which was last Thursday. "Although my Zeidie died when I was still a child, I was inspired by the stories of his sacrifices to stay religious at a time when many were leaving the fold. I still remember his smile, radiant with warmth and love." Today’s daf is sponsored by Cliff and Minna Felig in honor of Michelle and Seth Farber on the occasion of their daughter Chani’s marriage in the throes of our war with Iran. When the Mishna mentions "three days before the holiday," does this include the holiday itself (making three days total), or does it refer to three complete days prior to the holiday (with the holiday being additional)? The Gemara brings four sources attempting to prove that the Mishna means three full days before the holiday. While three proofs are rejected, the final one provides conclusive evidence. What underlies this prohibition? Is it because the idol worshipper will thank their gods for their commercial success, and the Jew will have indirectly caused idol worship, thereby transgressing the verse in Shmot 23:13: "Make no mention of names of other gods, they shall not be heard on your lips"? Or is the concern the prohibition against placing a stumbling block before others, as the Jew causes the idol worshipper to engage in idol worship? What is the practical ramification of these different rationales? If someone transgressed and conducted business with a gentile during the prohibited days before their holiday, is it forbidden to benefit from the money or items received? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree on this issue. Each raises objections against the other's position, and each resolves the difficulties posed against him. A braita is cited supporting Reish Lakish's view that benefiting from such transactions is permitted. Why does the Mishna forbid all the listed activities both when the Jew benefits the non-Jew and when the non-Jew benefits the Jew? What makes each of these cases unique, making it necessary for the Mishna to list them all? Regarding collecting loans from gentiles three days before their holidays, Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree in the Mishna about whether this is forbidden or permitted. The Gemara introduces a third position from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha, who distinguishes between oral loans and those documented in writing. Rav Huna ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha's position.

Reish Lakish explains that if the Jews had not sinned with the golden calf, later generations would not have been born because the Jews would have been transformed into angels. After several objections are raised against this statement, the sages reinterpret his words to mean that the Jews would have become similar to angels in that they would have become immortal, yet still have children. Difficulties are raised against this interpretation as well, but these are resolved. Why is it forbidden to conduct business with gentiles specifically during the three days preceding their holidays? Objections are raised against this three-day restriction by drawing comparisons to Jewish practices before their own holidays. How are these discrepancies resolved?  

For the text of the Hadran ceremony, click here. For more information about What is a Siyum, click here. Siyum Masechet Shevuot is dedicated by Raquel & Joe Bijou in loving memory of our dearest Grandpa Richard Cohen. Naftali ben Yosef HaKohen. "You always cherished family and valued learning. By completing this masechet, we have accomplished both. We love and miss you deeply, and we hope to continue fulfilling many more mitzvot in your memory." If one watches an item belonging to another (shomer), there are different levels of responsibility, depending on whether the shomer was paid/not paid or one borrowed or rented an object. When a shomer takes a false oath regarding the item, if the lie either didn't change the level of responsibility or created an obligation instead of providing an exemption, then there is no liability since there were no financial repercussions from the lie. However, even though one is exempt from liability for an oath concerning a deposit, Rav rules that the person is still liable for an oath of expression. Shmuel disagrees. What is the basis of their debate?

This week's learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Chaim Avraham HaKohen ben Alter Gershon HaKohen. Various statements are brought regarding differences between the way God relates to Jews and non-Jews, and particularly that God punishes the Jews in small doses to enable them to get their reward in the World-to-Come. 

Avodah Zarah Bookmark Masechet Avodah Zarah is sponsored by the Talmud class of Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City, CA in honor of the staff of Hadran who make learning possible. "Pirkei Avot 1:6 teaches us עֲשֵׂה לְךָ רַב, וּקְנֵה לְךָ חָבֵר, make for yourself a Rav, and acquire for yourself a companion. We are blessed to have Rabbanit Michelle Farber as our extraordinary teacher, and we- Leslie, Joe, David, Sue, Helen, Batya, Adam, Alana, and Bill- are blessed to have the companionship of our learning." Today's daf is sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik & Prof. Adi Wyner in honor of the upcoming wedding of their daughter, Eva Wyner, who was just promoted to Director of Jewish Affairs for the State of NY in Governor Hochul’s Executive Chamber. And in honor of their future son-in-law, Reuven Rosen, who just graduated with honors from Rutgers’ MD/ Ph.D. program and who will be starting his medical residency at NYU. The Mishna says that all types of business dealings with idol worshippers are forbidden three days before their holidays. Rav and Shmuel discuss the spelling of the word used for holidays - "eidaihem" - is it with an aleph or ayin? From which verse in the Torah is the meaning of the term derived from, according to each opinion? One of the verses mentioned is the basis of a long aggada about the nations coming before God in the World-to-Come, looking to get rewarded. God reprimands them for never having kept the Torah. Various claims are made by the nations trying to justify why they didn't keep the Torah.

Introduction to Masechet Avodah Zarah

Today's daf is sponsored by Rena Kurs in loving memory of Dr. Leatrice Rabinsky, on her 7th yahrzeit. "She instilled the love of learning in all of her children, grandchildren and generations of students. May her memory be for a blessing." Rav and Shmuel held that orphans cannot collect a loan of their parents from other orphans if the parent of the debtor died first, as a parent can't pass an oath on to one's children. Rabbi Elazar disagreed and permitted them to collect with an oath of orphans (that their father did not tell them that the loan was already collected). The rabbis of later generations tried to override Rav and Shmuel's opinion without success but managed to limit it in various ways. Can one do a gilgul shvua in a case where the oath is a rabbinic oath?

When both parties are untrustworthy and cannot take an oath, Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Meir disagree about the proper procedure. A debate emerges about who holds which opinion, as one maintains the money should be split while the other argues that the oath returns to its original place, though it remains unclear which rabbi said which. Additionally, there is disagreement about the meaning of the position stating "the oath returns to its place." Rabbi Ami explains that one position is held by the rabbis in Israel while the other belongs to the rabbis in Babylonia. Rav Pappa clarifies that the Babylonian rabbis are Rav and Shmuel, while the Israeli position is represented by Rabbi Abba. Shimon ben Tarfon offers several statements concerning the importance of associating with the right people and avoiding the wrong ones. The Gemara examines the case of a storekeeper who was asked to pay someone's workers. The workers claim they never received payment while the storekeeper insists he paid them. The question arises whether Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agreed with the Mishna's opinion that each party can take an oath to get paid by the employer. Another issue concerns contradictory witness testimony. If two groups of witnesses contradict each other in court, can they be believed to testify in a different case? Or since we know one group certainly lied, should we reject both groups' testimony in future cases? Rav Huna and Rav Chisda each take different positions on this matter.

Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim (Weiss) on the occasion of the Bat Mitzvah of her granddaughter Tamar Chava Baumser. "She demonstrates that there are no boundaries to acts of gemulat chasidim." Today's daf is dedicated by the Hadran Zoom family in honor of Chani Farber and Saar Har-Chen, on the occasion of their wedding. We wish you a new home that will be grounded in the happiness that is promised to one who brings their learning always, as we learned with Chani's mother, Rabbanit Michelle: אַשְׁרִי מִי שֶׁבָּא לְכָאן וְתַלְמוּדוּ בְּיָדו. If the person who is obligated to take an oath by Torah law is not trustworthy, i.e. if they lied in a previous case or are in the category of those who are exempt from testifying, the obligation to take the oath is placed upon the other person. If one asks a storekeeper to pay their workers and they will pay back the storekeeper later, and the storekeeper claims that he/she paid them and the workers claim they were never paid, each of them takes an oath and the person needs to pay them both. Ben Nanas agrees that the person needs to pay both, but does not allow each side to take an oath as it creates a situation where clearly one side is taking a false oath. The Mishna lists other cases where there is a disagreement between a storekeeper and a buyer about whether the money was already paid or the item was given to the buyer. Who takes the oath in each case? Generally, when one holds a deed in hand, they have the upper hand. However, the Mishna mentions cases where the one holding the deed needs to take an oath in order to collect the money. The Gemara explains why the worker is believed to say he/she didn't get paid for a job performed. However, this halacha is qualified as only applying in a case where the time in which the worker should have been paid hasn't passed yet - once that time passes, there is an assumption that the employer paid the worker. Shmuel and Rav both hold that the worker can take this oath to get paid only if there were witnesses who saw the worker being hired. If not, the employer can claim he/she never hired the worker at all and therefore is believed by saying the worker was already paid because of a "migo." Rava disagrees with this.

Study Guide Shevuot 44 Is Shmuel's opinion—that a creditor who loses collateral cannot collect the loan even if the collateral was worth much less than the loan amount—the subject of a tannaitic debate? The Gemara suggests two possible tannaitic debates that could relate to this issue, but rejects both, since the basis for each argument can be explained differently. Generally, oaths are used to exempt defendants from payment. However, in several unique circumstances delineated in the Mishna, a claimant can take an oath in order to receive payment.

Today's daf is sponsored by Binyamin Cohen to wish Mazel tov to Caroline Musin Berkowitz on completing Shas! "We're inspired by your amazing accomplishment and dedication to learning." What categories of items are excluded from oaths of the shomrim? How is this derived from the Torah? What is the argument between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis in the Mishna regarding items that are or are not considered like land (to be exempt from oaths)? Another criterion for oaths is that the claim must be for a measured item. Rava and Abaye disagree about how to understand this. The Mishna lists several cases regarding a disagreement between the creditor and debtor about the value of an item given as collateral that the creditor claims was lost. In which cases would one side, or perhaps both, need to take an oath? If one loans money with collateral and the item gets lost, what type of responsibility does the creditor assume for the item? What if the creditor and debtor disagree regarding the value of the lost item? Shmuel holds that the creditor no longer owes any money even if the item is worth significantly less than the loan. How does his opinion work with the Mishna?

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould “in gratitude to HaShem for helping me to find a new partner to love and be loved by, and to walk with on a new journey.” The Gemara continues by presenting cases involving disputes between lenders and borrowers regarding debt repayment, along with the ruling given in each case. In the Mishna there is a contradiction because it is written that we do not administer oaths to a minor and it is also written that we administer oaths to a minor. Rav and Shmuel each interpret the case of administering oaths to a minor in different ways. Rav says it refers to a child who makes a claim for their deceased father's money, and therefore we administer an oath because the loan was to an adult, even though he is not the actual creditor who gave the money originally. According to his explanation, the Mishna matches the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov because the Sages disagree in such a case and do not obligate. The Gemara brings two different explanations to understand what the point of dispute is between Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and the Sages. Shmuel's explanation is that the Mishna refers to the oath of one who tries to collect his father's loan from an orphan. There is no oath for cases of land, slaves, documents, and consecrated property. Also, there are no laws of double, four and five payment, and oaths of guardians for these type of items. From where is this derived in the verses?

Today's daf is sponsored for a refuah shleima for Shmuel Henoch Yaakov Ben Chiyena. Rav Nachman instituted a shevuat heiset, a rabbinic oath, for defendants who completely denied a claim. There is debate about the exact circumstances under which Rav Nachman required this oath. What distinguishes a Torah-mandated oath from a rabbinically instituted one (heiset)? The Gemara presents three possible differences. Under what circumstances can a creditor demand that a debtor repay money in front of witnesses, such that without witnesses, the debtor's claim of having already repaid becomes invalid? The Gemara quotes two different versions of Rav Asi's position, as well as two different versions of Shmuel's response to Rav Asi. Their opinions are then questioned and explained in light of our Mishna. The Gemara presents four actual cases involving disputes between creditors and debtors, explaining how each case was ruled. In some instances, Abaye and Rava disagreed about the proper ruling.

Study Guide Shevuot 40 Rav and Shmuel disagree about how to understand the line in the Mishna regarding an oath of a partial admission: "a claim must be two ma'ah of silver" - is it referring to the amount of the claim - meaning what the claimant's side is demanding or is it referring to the defendant's claim - how much is the defendant denying? There are four attempts to support Rav's understanding from the Mishna and other tannaitic sources, however the first three can be explained according to Shmuel as well. Two other rulings of Shmuel are brought, including a basic one that if one claims the other owes two different items and the other admits of having one of the items, the defendant takes an oath of partial admission. Two versions are brought about whether Rabbi Yochanan agreed or disagreed with this opinion. Proofs are brought to prove Shmuel's opinion but are proven to be inconclusive. Likewise, those same proofs are brought to disprove the opinion that Rabbi Yochanan disagrees but are rejected in the same way.  

Today's daf is dedicated by the Hadran Zoom family in honor of Maggie Sandler's birthday! "Your incredible work elevates not just the content of our daily learning, but its entire atmosphere, as you create a beautiful, seamless experience for all of us. You truly bring to life the principle of hiddur mitzva that we learned in Masechet Shabbat: ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״, הִתְנָאֵה לְפָנָיו בְּמִצְוֹת" Before administering the oath to a defendant, the court delivers several cautionary statements about the severity of swearing falsely. These warnings are designed to deter the person from taking a false oath. A braita lists all these statements, and the Gemara both raises difficulties with them and clarifies their meaning and sources. The Gemara then turns to a dispute between Rav and Shmuel regarding the minimum amounts required for a claim, denial, and admission. They disagree about the interpretation of the sentence: "The claim is two maah of silver and the admission is one pruta." Rav holds that for the oath to apply, the total claim must amount to two maah and a pruta—with the minimum denial being two maah and the minimum admission being one pruta. Shmuel, however, rules that both the minimum admission and the minimum denial need only be worth a pruta each, while the minimum total claim must be worth two maah. Rava explains that Rav's interpretation finds support in the Mishna, while Shmuel's position aligns with the biblical verses in the Torah.  

Study Guide Shevuot 38 This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Helen Cohen, Henna bat Yitzchak Nechemia.  Today's daf is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg, in memory of her father Zvi Tyberg on his yahrzeit today. If one takes an oath of deposit to several people at once, in what circumstances will that be required to bring multiple sacrifices? The Mishna listed three different opinions and a braita is brought with two opinions - Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan bring different explanations as to which wording Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree about. If one takes an oath that one does not have several items of another, if it was a lie, are they liable also for the general statement that they do not have any item or only on the particular different items? There is a debate between amoraim about this issue. The sixth chapter discusses an oath administered by the judges, more particularly an oath of one who admits to part of a claim. What is the minimum value of the claim and the partial admission required in order to be obligated to take an oath? Another requirement is that the admission be about the same type of item as the claim. However, Rabban Gamliel disagrees about this.

Regarding an oath on a deposit, Rav Kahana questions: if witnesses warned the person before taking the oath, that in the event they are lying, they will receive lashes, will they receive lashes in addition to a sacrifice or in place of the sacrifice? Several attempts are made to answer his question from various sources, but none are conclusive. Raba then challenges Rav Kahana's question and suggests that there can never be such a case because if there are witnesses to warn, then they must also be witnesses to the act in which case the denial is irrelevant as the witnesses can make the person pay, regardless of their denial. The Gemara then attempts to prove and then disprove this assumption of Raba that if there are witnesses, one cannot be obligated for an oath of deposit. Only from the last source do they succeed in conclusively disproving this assumption. Is an oath of deposit relevant in a case relating to land?

Today's daf is sponsored by Meryll Page in loving memory of her father George M. Levine, Yosef Michael haLevi, on his 16th yahrzeit. "His memory is a blessing and a constant presence in my life." Words can carry different meanings depending on their context. Several examples are brought from the Tanach to show the meanings of various words.  Rabbi Meir and the rabbis debate whether invoking God's name in various contexts requires using the actual divine name or whether a substitute designation suffices. What textual sources do they cite to support their respective positions? One should be careful to change the language of the Mishna and even a verse if it may sound like one is cursing someone else while reciting it.  In the Mishna, Rabbi Meir disagreed with the rabbis that one can apply the principle that allows deriving a positive statement from a negative one. However, this creates a contradiction with his stance on stipulations, where he maintains that they must be formulated in both positive and negative terms. To resolve this inconsistency, the text reassigns the positions—switching who said what in our Mishna. Under what circumstances would someone be obligated or exempt from bringing a guilt offering for an oath of deposit? In which situations could a person become liable for multiple sacrifices regarding a single oath of deposit? An oath of deposit applies only to denying monetary claims, not to matters involving fines.  

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?  

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?

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. 

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.

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.  

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.

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Ariel Bruce on her birthday. "A wonderful daughter, wife, and mother of three beautiful, strong, sweet children. May this year bring you only happiness and peace to Kol Yisrael. All our love, Saba, Steve and Savta Lisa."  Today's daf is sponsored by Rebecca Darshan in memory of (lilui nishmat) Helene Isaacs, her mother, on the occasion of her 25th yahrzeit. "She encouraged women's learning and especially loved learning in Jerusalem during the last 10 years of her life. Her life was too short in years, but full every day." The Mishna delineates different possible oaths of expression (shevuot bitui), both those relating to future actions and past actions. Rabbi Yishmael does not hold that past oaths are considered oaths of expression for which one would be liable to bring a sacrifice. Oaths can apply to intangible matters, whereas vows cannot. However, vows can apply to a mitzva while an oath cannot, as one can render the object of a mitzva forbidden, such as a sukka, through a vow. Rav and Shmuel disagree about a case where one takes an oath that someone else threw or didn't throw a stone in the sea. Rav holds the oath is valid as it can be stated in both the positive and negative formulations. Shmuel holds the oath is invalid as it cannot be stated in the future, as one cannot take an oath regarding an action that is out of one's control, and whether or not someone else will throw a stone or not is out of one's control. The Gemara makes two attempts to connect the debate of Rav and Shmuel to a tannaitic debate, but both attempts are unsuccessful. The Gemara raises two difficulties on Shmuel's opinion from tannitic sources but resolves both difficulties. Why did the Torah create a different category for a shevuat haedut, one who withholds testimony, if it could have been considered an oath of expression? Rava and Abaye have different approaches to understanding the connection between the two categories.