Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Study Guide Shevuot 10 This week's learning is sponsored by Moshe Silver in loving memory of Rebbitzen Miriam Maxine Elkins who passed away on Yom haAtzmaut. "Her love of Torah, the Jewish people, and the land and State of Israel was unsurpassed. Her loving family - Rabbi Dov Pearetz Elkins and her children - bear the lasting imprint of the passion she brought to everything she did, as do all of us who loved her." This week's learning is sponsored by Vicky Harari in loving memory of her father Abraham Eckstein. "He had a smile that could light up the room. He taught me what I know about love. As a Holocaust survivor, he taught me gratitude and resilience something that I have been relying on more today than ever." The Gemara continues to extrapolate verses to explain the basis of the opinions of Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Shimon in the Mishna regarding which sacrifices do each of the communal sin offerings atone for. Ulla explains in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that the extra sheep left at the end of the year that were designated for the Tamid (daily) sacrifice, but were not needed, are redeemed and repurchased with money from that next year's funds. When Raba explained this halakha, Rav Chisda raised a difficulty - how can an item that is sanctified with kedushat haguf  be redeemed? Raba responds by bringing an example from the incense, which is sanctified and can be redeemed. However, this is rejected as the sanctity of the incense is kedushat damim, its value is sanctified, not kedushat haguf.

Study Guide Shevuot 9 Today's daf is sponsored by Leya Landau in loving memory of her mother Ita bat Zvi on her 3rd yahrzeit. "She loved learning and encouraged me to start learning the daf." Today's daf is sponsored by Naama Tal in loving memory of her grandmother Devorah Cohen, who always valued learning.  The Gemara analyzes the different opinions brought in the Mishna regarding the purposes of the goat sin offerings brought on the outer altar on Yom Kippur and on the regalim and Rosh Chodesh. What is the basis for each opinion?

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of my uncle, Richard Cohen, Naftali ben Yosef haKohen v'Henna who passed away this week. He was a man who loved and appreciated by every person and was loved and appreciated by everyone who met him. The goat sin offering whose blood is sprinkled in the kodesh kodashim on Yom Kippur atones for sins for one who knew they were impure, then forgot and went into the Temple or ate sacrificial items while impure and did not yet remember that they are impure. A braita explains from where this is derived. The different parts of the braita are analyzed. First, the braita suggested that perhaps it atones for the three most grievous sins - idolatry, murder and licentious behavior. The Gemara explains this suggestion - in what manner of performing these transgressions would one have thought this sacrifice could atone for? The first opinion in the braita, Rabbi Yehuda, is that entering the Temple/eating sacrificial items while impure is uniquely distinguished and therefore it is clear that is the one being atoned for by this special offering. The Gemara explains what the braita meant by 'uniquely distinguished' - as it has a sliding scale offering. Several other sacrifices are also uniquely distinguished, such as idol worship as one can only bring a sin offering of a female goat, a woman after childbirth, a leper, and a nazir who became impure who also can bring a sliding scale offering. Why are these not considered 'uniquely distinguished'? Rabbi Shimon derives this from the verse itself describing the offering, as it says "It atones for sanctified items from impurities." Why didn't Rabbi Yehuda accept that understanding - how does he understand the verse? Why doesn't this offering atone for all sins relating to impurity? Why is it only for a person who knew at first they were impure, then forgot, and does not have awareness of the sin? The braita explains that this atones for something not atoned by a sacrifice of an individual, as can be derived from the verse. What is being excluded by this derivation that isn't already obvious? Another derivation in the braita teaches why it specifically atones for a sin that can eventually be atoned for by an individual sin offering (when the person will realize that a sin was committed, and not for one where the person did not know before entering the Temple that one was impure, as that type can never be obligated to bring an individual offering. Why does this case need excluding, if it is already known that the latter is atoned for by the sin offering whose blood is sprinkled on the outer altar on Yom Kippur? If the offering does not completely atone for the sin, but simply provides atonement until such time that the sinner realizes their sin and brings an individual offering, what is the purpose of the temporary atonement? Rabbi Zeira and Rava each offer a suggested answer - either to atone for the sin in case the sinner dies before realizing their sin or to protect from suffering. If the type of sin atoned for by the outer sin offering is derived from the inner sin offering, why can't the inner one atone for both types of sins? Or why can't the outer one atone for both?  

From where is it derived that the verses that obligate one to bring a sliding scale sin offering if one is impure refer to one who entered the Temple or ate sacrificial items? Four different answers are brought and analyzed. Some are rejected. From where is it derived that the sin offering of Yom Kippur offered inside is to atone for one who entered the Temple impure or ate sacrificial items when they knew at first they were impure, then forgot and then didn't remember?

This week's learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of Bessie “Nanny” Mauskopf, Basha Leah bat Tzivia Chaya and Meyer Yehuda. "A very special mother. By example she taught me how to be a mother and grandmother. We miss her dearly. May her Neshama have an Aliyah." The Mishna in Negaim is similar to the Mishna in Shevuot regarding the two shades of white that are considered leprous in the Torah and the two that the Rabbis added, and elaborates a little more. The Gemara explains that the Mishna there doesn't match Rabbi Akiva's opinion as the Mishna connects between avot, main categories and toladot, sub-categories and Rabbi Akiva connects between the order of the shades of white, which would mean one main category, baheret, then the next main category, se’et, and then each of their sub-categories – first the one for baheret, then the one for se’et. From where do we know that this is Rabbi Akiva's position? The first attempt to find the source is unsuccessful but it is proven from a second source.  From where do we derive that baheret also has sub-categories if the word in the verse mentioning sub-categories, sapachat, is said in connection with se'et?  From where is it derived that the verses that obligate one to bring a sliding scale sin offering if one is impure refer to one who entered the Temple or ate sacrificial items? 

Today's daf is sponsored by Gabrielle Altman in honor of her husband, Daniel Altman, on his fourth completion of the Daf Yomi cycle. "May he continue teaching the Daf and inspiring people to learn the Daf for decades to come, in good health." When Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi wrote in the Mishna "Shevuot there are two that are four," was it his own opinion also or was he just quoting Rabbi Akiva's opinion but he actually doesn't hold that way? At first, they tried to prove it was Rebbi's own opinion, but this option failed and they adopted the other explanation. Rebbi holds that "v'neelam" means he knew and then forgot - does that word necessarily translate in that manner? By a woman who is a sotah, that word is mentioned and it doesn't mean that.   The Mishna states "Taking things out on Shabbat there are two that are four" - this is different from the Mishna in Shabbat which lists two that are four inside and two that are four outside. What are the mishnayot in each place referring to and why are they referring to different things?  The Mishna states "Leprous marks two that are four" - does the Mishna not accord with Rabbi Akiva's position? 

Today's daf is sponsored by Dianne Kuchar in loving memory of her husband Dennis, Shimon Avraham, on his 3rd yahrzeit. "We all miss him." Today's daf is sponsored by Raquel Pilzer & Jennifer Lankin in loving memory of their beloved brother, Avigdor Chai Avraham on his 4th yahrzeit. "You are always on our minds and in our hearts." And also for the constant strength & safety of Raquel's husband Zevi in his current round of miluim." Today's daf is sponsored by Sara Berelowitz in honor of her newest grandchild, Levi, son of Chava and Meyer Sterman. The Gemara establishes the Mishna according to Rabbi Yishmael by explaining the case of oaths in the Mishna to refer to one who transgresses intentionally and is to receive lashes, not a sacrifice. This raises a difficulty with Rabbi Yochanan who holds like an unattributed Mishna but does not hold by this Mishna, as there is a case where no action is performed and Rabbi Yochanan holds there are no lashes in that case. To resolve the difficulty, they bring a different Mishna that Rabbi Yochanan holds by instead. Why would Rabbi Yochanan choose one and not the other? Why would Rebbi bring two different contradictory Mishnayot? After resolving all the issues, the Gemara raises a further issue. How can the Mishna be referring to lashes as leprosy and Shabbat as they are not punishable by lashes? There is a case of leprosy where one receives lashes and for Shabbat there are lashes if one is warned regarding lashes as Rabbi Yishmael holds that a negative commandment that is punishable by death can also be punishable by lashes. This explains why from the start the Mishna was explained according to Rabbi Yishmael. However, the Gemara questions this last point as the Mishna clearly doesn't accord with Rabbi Akiva for other reasons as he does not include one who forgets about the Temple and sacrificial items. This question can be resolved in the same way as we read the Mishna according to Rabbi Yishmael, with lashes instead of a sacrifice. After resolving the previous issues, more difficulties are raised with explaining the Mishna to be referring to lashes, as in the case of impurity, it is clear from the wording in the Mishna that the issue is one who sinned unwittingly and is obligated to bring a sacrifice. Therefore Rav Kahana (on the basis of Rav Yosef, but with a modification) explains that the Mishna accords with Rebbi who holds like Rabbi Yishmael in the case of impurity and Rabbi Akiva in the case of oaths. How can Rav Kahana be sure that Rebbi holds like Rabbi Yishmael in impurity and Rabbi Akiva in oaths. The Gemara provides sources for each one.  

This month's learning is sponsored by Bracha Rutner in loving memory of Anna Rutner. "She was a woman who was always curious about life. She came to the US in 1958 and learned English and made an incredible life for herself raising four children and seventeen grandchildren. She will always live on in our hearts and in the number of great-grandchildren named after her."  The Gemara begins with three structural questions regarding the Mishna. Why is Shevuot written right after Makkot? Why did the Mishna list all four cases that have two cases learned from the Torah and two from the rabbis, when in the context of Masechet Shabbat and Masechet Negaim (laws of leprosy), only the relevant case for the masechet is mentioned? Why did the Mishna begin with Shevuot, but when elaborating on the details, the case of impurity came first, and only after that does the Mishna move back to elaborate on laws of oaths? The Gemara explains in each of the four categories, what two cases appear in the Torah and what two are from rabbinic law. Does the Mishna follow Rabbi Yishmael or Rabbi Akiva? At first glance, it doesn't seem to follow either opinion as in oaths, Rabbi Yishmael holds one does not bring a sacrifice on oaths relating to past actions, and Rabbi Akiva holds that one does not bring a sacrifice if one forgot that the Temple was in that place or that the item was a sacrificial item. The first answer given is that each could fit with the Mishna if we adopt a different understanding of the Mishna. One could explain that the Mishna brings a list of two cases that are four, but not all obligate one in a sacrifice. This explanation is rejected since the Mishna also lists four cases for leprous marks and one is obligated to bring a sacrifice upon becoming purified from all four cases, and the assumption is that all four cases in the Mishna are similar in that way. The second answer given is that the Mishna follows Rabbi Yishmael and the Mishna refers to the obligation to receive lashes for an oath of expression that one did not keep intentionally, not a sacrifice for not keeping the oath because one forgot. This accords with Rava's position that one can derive from the verse about false oaths that one receives lashes for an oath of expression about something that happened in the past. To make this explanation fit with the Mishna, Rabbi Yishmael would need to hold that one receives lashes for a negative prohibition that to transgress it, one does not do an action, as the oath, "I will not eat," and one does not eat, does not involve an action on the part of the one who does not fulfill the oath. This raises a difficulty as Rabbi Yochanan holds like all unattributed Mishnayot, such as ours and he also holds that one does not receive lashes if no action is performed. To resolve this difficulty, the Gemara explains that Rabbi Yochanan holds by a different unattributed Mishna and they quote a Mishna in Makkot regarding notar, leftover meat from the Pesach sacrifice. However, this suggestion is rejected, as that Mishna can be understood following Rabbi Yehuda's explanation that it is a negative prohibition that has a positive way to fix it, lav hanitak l'asei, for which one is exempt from lashes.   

Shevuot bookmark Study Guide Shevuot 2 Masechet Shevuot is sponsored by Janet Hod "With immense gratitude to Hashem and also to Michelle and the Hadran team for all that they do" The Mishna lists four topics, each with four types of cases - two mentioned explicitly in the Torah and two that are extensions of the rabbis. the first topic is an oath of expression, when one takes an oath to either do or not to do something. The second is a person who is impure and forgets about their impure status and goes into the Temple or eats sacrificial items. The third and fourth relate to laws of carrying from one domain to another and a leprous mark. The first two cases incur the same type of sacrifice - a sliding scale offering, what one brings depends on the financial means of the one obligated to bring the sacrifice. The Mishna elaborates on the second category - one who goes to the Temple while impure and forgets momentarily about being impure or ate sacrificial items while being in a state of impurity. The process of atonement is through an individual sin offering. If one never realizes one's mistake or one does not even know that one became impure, one receives atonement from communal sin offerings. There are several communal sin offerings - brought on Rosh Chodesh, the three holidays (regalim) and Yom Kippur. For what sins do each of them atone? Are they meant to atone for the same transgressions or for different ones? What do the other sacrifices brought on Yom Kippur atone for (the two goats that are determined by a lottery - one is offered inside the Temple and one sent to Azazel)? There are several opinions about the purpose of each of the above sacrifices. For what purpose is the bull offering of the High Priest on Yom Kippur?  

For the text of the Hadran ceremony, click here. For more information about What is a Siyum, click here While there are 613 mitzvot in the Torah, King David and some of the prophets narrowed it down to a smaller list of the most basic mitzvot. Why were these specific ones chosen, most of them relating to justice and righteousness and involving relations between people? The masechet ends with the famous story of Rabbi Akiva laughing when seeing a fox running out of the kodesh kodashim or hearing the Romans on their way to attack, after the Temple was already destroyed, while his friends were crying. When questioned about his reaction, he explains, based on verses, that in order for the positive prophecy of Zecharia to be fulfilled, first the negative prophesy of Uriah needs to be fulfilled.  

Introduction to Masechet Shevuot

Our learning today is dedicated in honor of the State of Israel celebrating 77 years of independence. We continue to pray for the safe and speedy return of our hostages, for the safety of our soldiers, and for a refuah shleima for all the injured soldiers.  We also dedicate our learning to the speedy extinguishing of the terrible fires blazing in Israel and to the safety of the firefighters.  How were the lashes administered? Why? What situations would provide enough embarrassment for the one getting the lashes that even if some of the lashes were given or in some cases, even if none were yet administered, one would already have fulfilled receiving the punishment? Why was the whip made from a calf and a donkey? Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel holds that one who is obligated to receive karet and then receives lashes for that sin, the lashes atone for the sin and the person will no longer receive karet. According to Rabbi Yochanan, the rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Chanina. Rav Ada proves this from a Mishna in Megilla. However, Rav Nachman and Rav Ashi reject the proof, each in a different way. The Mishna brings various statements regarding the value of observing mitzvot. When Rav Ada bar Ahava ruled like Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel, Rav Yosef asked rhetorically if he had gone up to the heavens and seen that those who received lashes did not receive karet? Abaye responded that Rabbi Chanina derived it from a verse, just as in a statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that there are three things the rabbis did that the heavens approved of - the obligation to read Megillat Esther, greeting a friend using the name of God, and bringing the tithes to the Temple to be distributed. Rabbi Elazar said that there are three instances where the Divine Spirit appeared in a court to intervene - with Yehuda, Shmuel, and Shlomo, as can be proven from verses in the Tanach. Rava rejects the proof from the verses, but says this was learned by a tradition. 

Today's daf is dedicated to the memory of the fallen soldiers of the IDF and security forces who fell in defense of Am Yisrael and Eretz Israel, and to the memory of those whose lives were tragically lost in terrorist attacks. May their memories be blessed. We are especially thinking of our Hadran learners who have lost children, grandchildren, siblings and close friends in the past year and a half. We continue to pray for the safety of our soldiers, for the safe and speedy return of our hostages, and for a refuah shleima for all the injured soldiers.  Today's daf is sponsored by Naomi Cohen in loving memory of her mother, Elisheva bat Yehuda, Elisabeth Maybaum, on her 6th yahrzeit. "Having fled the Nazi regime as a child, it gave her such joy and hope to see her children and grandchildren living Jewish lives, learning Torah, settling in Eretz Israel and defending it. Tehi zichra baruch." Does one get multiple punishments for an act on yom tov that involves multiple melachot (as is the case for sacrifices for one who violates Shabbat)?  If so, why isn't planting also listed in the Mishna? The Mishna listed a case where one plowed and received eight sets of lashes because of unique circumstances. Seven other suggestions are made to cases that could have been brought in the Mishna that would have added an additional set of lashes. Cases are brought regarding cross breeding with animals that are considered both hekdesh and chulin. How many lashes does one receive? If one cannot receive that many, the court assesses how many they can handle (must be a number divisible by 3).  What if they change the assessment? Does it depend on whether they already starting giving the person lashes or not? On what else does it depend?  How does an assessment work when there are multiple sets of lashes? How does the actual giving of lashes take place? What type of whip do they use? Where does the person receive the whipping?  

Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of David's father, Dr. Abraham Geffen, on his 10th yahrzeit. "He was the youngest of 8 children of Rav Tuvia and Sara Hene Geffen of Atlanta, and was devoted to his wife Ethel, his three children as well as his parents, siblings and extended family, synagogue community (Beth El of New Rochelle, NY) and was a dedicated physician, the Director of Radiology at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York for many years." What are the parameters of the prohibition to make an incision in one's body as an act of mourning? How are these details derived from the verses? Why is it forbidden to shave the corners of the beard specifically with a razor? Rabbi Eilezer adds other implements - tweezers and a plane. Why those and not scissors? What are the parameters of the prohibition of imprinting a tattoo? The Mishna lists various ways that one can be liable for many sets of lashes for the same action, or receive multiple sets of lashes for one action as one violated many negative commandments.

Today's daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz in loving memory of her mother, Chana Cohen, Chana bat Rav Moshe and Tzipora Mashbaum, on her 4th yartzeit. "You graced us all with your glorious smile, innate wisdom and beautiful neshama. To say that you are missed every day is an understatement." Today's daf is for the refuah shleima of Elad ben Netta. The Gemara questions Rabbi Yochanan's statement that one only receives lashes for eating maaser sheni outside Jerusalem after it was brought into Jerusalem, based on a derivation from Rabbi Yosi's words ina braita. The Gemara resolves this difficulty by explaining the derivation from Rabbi Yosi's as referring to a case where the produce had already been brought into Jerusalem, and the innovation is that it entered while still being tevel (untithed produce), and he holds that gifts that have not been separated are considered as if they have been separated. However, the Gemara raises a difficulty with this resolution (because it seems R' Yosi doesn't actually hold this position). The Gemara then presents two answers from Rabba and Ravina to resolve this difficulty. One who makes a bald spot on his head as a sign of mourning for the dead, who rounds the corners of his head or destroys the hair on his beard, or who makes a cut in his flesh for the dead receives lashes. The Gemara discusses the details of these commandments and the minimum measurements for which one would be liable.

This week's learning is sponsored by Sara Averick & Jose Rosenfeld in loving memory of Sara's beloved Aunt Rose, Rachel bat Chaim Nisan haLevi v'Nechama. "She was a Yiddish scholar who adored all her nieces and nephews. She was a beacon of light, laughter and joy." Rava bar Ada said in the name of Rabbi Yitzchak that a non-kohen is only liable for eating bikkurim once they have been brought into the azara, since until that point, they are still considered chulin. , not sacred. Rav Sheshet ruled that placing the bikkurim in front of the altar is critical, but reading the mikra bikkurim is not. The Gemara brings a braita of Rabbi Yishmael trying to prove that Rav Sheshet holds by his opinion. However, this suggestion is rejected. In the braita, Rabbi Yishmael derives the source for not eating maaser sheni after the destruction of the Temple. First, he tries to prove it from bechor, a firstborn animal, But after he rejects this suggestion, he proves it from a heikesh, a juxtaposition, from a verse in the Torah. The Gemara raises some questions against some of the content in the braita. Why couldn't they derive the law about maaser sheni from bechor and bikkurim together? Secondly, why was it so clear that the meat of a bechor could not be eaten after the Temple was destroyed, if, for example, the animal had already been offered as a sacrifice before the destruction? The first and second Mishna in the chapter both mention lashes for eating maaser sheni. To explain why the repetition, Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina establishes the second Mishna in a case of an impure person eating it in Jerusalem or the produce itself was impure and the person ate it in Jerusalem, whereas the first Mishna related to one receiving lashes for eating it outside Jerusalem (in a pure state). What is the source for receiving lashes for impurity of either the maaser sheni or the person eating it? From where is it derived that maaser sheni can be redeemed in Jerusalem if it is impure? From where is it derived that if a person bringing maaser sheni to Jerusalem is one step outside the walls of Jerusalem, one can still redeem it? What if the person is carrying it on their back and their body is in Jerusalem but the produce is not yet in Jerusalem?  

The braita brought on Makkot 17 with Rabbi Shimon's position is amended, as the original version was rejected. Rava ruled that a non-kohen who ate from a burnt offering before the blood was sprinkled transgressed five different transgressions. The Gemara questions why there aren't more than five transgressions, and suggests four more that could have been mentioned. They explain why each one was not in rava's list. Rav Gidel quoted a halakha in the name of Rav that a kohen that ate from a guilt or sin offering before the blood was sprinkled would receive lashes. After raising a difficulty on this statement, they emend his words to be referring to a non-kohen andhe does not receive lashes for eating guilt or sin offering before the blood was sprinkled.  Rabbi Elazar, and then Rabbi Yochanan are quoted as having said that placing the bikkurim is critical to the fulfillment of the mitzva, but reading the text is not. A contradiction is raised on each of them from other statements they made. However, they are resolved.

Rav holds that if even the poor person's tithe wasn't separated, the produce is considered tevel and one who eats it receives lashes. The tannaitic opinion of Rabbi Yosi supports this. Rav Yosef explains that this is a tannaitic debate, as seen in a disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis. However, Abaye rejects Rav Yosef's explanation of the debate and claims it could be based on a different issue. The rabbis and Rabbi Shimon disagree in the Mishna regarding the requisite amount that one must eat of untithed produce to receive lashes - is it any amount or an olive-bulk? Rabbi Shimon, who holds it is any amount, questions the rabbis from the prohibition to eat an ant, for which one receives lashes even for eating just one. The rabbis counter by explaining that an ant is a complete creature and therefore has significance. But Rabbi Shimon responds that a complete grain of wheat also has significance. Rav Bivi and Rabbi Yirmia disagree about what Reish Lakish held about this debate - is it only about a grain of wheat or even about flour, as the flour is ground and not a complete grain and perhaps it loses its significance? Other sins are listed regarding sins concerning the Temple for which one would get lashes. The opinion in the Mishna matches Rabbi Akiva's opinion, which was also his student Rabbi Shimon's opinion, as can be found in a braita. Rabbi Shimon's derivation in the braita is questioned and rejected.

Study Guide Makkot 16 Today's daf is dedicated in commemoration of Yom HaShoah, in memory of all those who perished in the Holocaust. Today's daf is sponsored by Caroline Ben-Ari in loving memory of her father, Ivor Rhodes, Yisrael ben Meir v'Sara. "Please send me Dad jokes and bad puns--the worse, the better. Dad was a quiet man who cared deeply about doing the right thing. In the words of my sister-in-law to him 15 years and 2 days ago: 'You are a true gentleman... with a wicked sense of humour!' As the years go by, I find myself missing him more and more." Today's daf is sponsored by Tina Lamm in memory of her mother-in law, Mrs. Mindy Lamm, on her 5th yahrzeit.  "My mother-in-law was an extraordinary woman and the full partner of her husband, Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm, zt"l. Together, through 68 years of marriage, they raised a beautiful family while leading the Modern Orthodox world with brilliance, vision, and incredible dignity.  We miss her every day.” The debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding whether one gets lashes for a doubtful warning (a warning given when it wasn't clear whether the person was going to violate the prohibition) can be found in another case regarding one who takes an oath that they will eat a loaf of bread today. They also disagree about whether or not one gets lashes for a negative prohibition that does not have an action associated with it. Both are derived from the same tanna, Rabbi Yehuda, and the sources they use to support their opinions are brought. At first, they suggest that both derive it from the same statement of Rabbi Yehuda regarding notar, but that suggestion is rejected completely as neither opinion corresponds to that opinion. Two different sources of Rabbi Yehuda are brought - each one corresponding to a different opinion. Rabbi Yochanan says that there are only who mitzvot where one can get lashes for a negative commandment that has a positive commandment intended to fix it, as he holds that one only gets lashes if one nullifies the possibility for fixing it. There are only two cases where it is possible to nullify the possibility for fixing the mitzva. The first is the mitzva of sending the mother bird away, as if one takes the mother bird and her chicks and then kils the mother bird, there is no possibility to send away the mother bird. The other one he leaves to his student to figure out and the student makes various suggestions before arriving at a conclusion that it is peah. leaving over the corner of the field for the poor. The next part of the Mishna is discussed regarding lashes for creepy crawling creatures and it is explained that since there are various negative commandments in the Torah regarding this prohibition, and there are various cases where one could receive multiple sets of lashes. If one eats produce where only the tithe for the poor wasn't taken, one receives lashes. This accords with Rabbi Yosi's opinion. 

Study Guide Makkot 15 This week's learning is sponsored by Elana Storch for the refuah shleima of Avraham haLevi Ben Eidel.  Today's daf is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Chaya Golda Bat Esther. Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island for the refuah shleima of our friend and co-learner, Leah Brick, Leah Breindel bat Gittel Yenta בתוך שאר חולי ישראל. "We have watched and admired Leah as she meets this challenge with grace, equanimity and absolute faith, and look forward to sharing many smachot in good health with her - especially our Hadran LI trip to Israel!"  Rabba bar Hana quotes Rabbi Yochanan saying that if a positive commandment precedes a negative commandment, one receives lashes and this is not considered a lav hanitak l'ase, a negative commandment that can be corrected/uprooted by a positive commandment for which one does not receive lashes. Rabbi Yochanan denies having said that. Raba doesn't understand why Rabbi Yochanan would deny it, as a case in our Mishna can prove Rabbi Yochanan's rule. However, the Gemara bring a case of a rapist, trying to prove why Rabbi Yochanan changed his mind and did not accept the above rule. Ulla (in three different attempts) and Rava each try to explain why the case of a rapist does not fit into the category of the rule (a positive commandment the precedes the negative commandment). All attempts by Ulla are rejected, but Rava's is accepted.

Presentation in PDF format Study Guide Makkot 14 The debate between Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Yitzchak is discussed regarding whether or not one gets lashes for sins that one gets karet or death by the court. After bringing a third explanation for RAbbi Akiva's position, the Gemara brings the source for Rabbi Yitzchak's opinion. What do Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva derive from that verse? This question leads to a long back and forth discussion about what they each derive from various verses. The Mishna taught that one gets lashes for eating sacrificial items, kodashim,  when they are impure. Where can the warning for this be found? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish each offer different opinions. There is a back and forth discussion regarding their sources.

Today's daf is sponsored for a refua shleima for my uncle, Naftali ben Henna. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree about two issues regarding the accidental murderer - do they pay rent/taxes to the Levites/refuge city; when they are released, can they reassume their previous position in their city? Rav Kahana limits the first debate to the six refuge cities, while Rava limits the debate to the other forty-two Levite cities, but explains that in the six major refuge cities, all agree that no payment is necessary. The third chapter lists all those who receive lashes. The Mishna categorizies them. Those who are liable for karet for forbidden relations receive lashes, if they do not also receive a death penalty by the court. If a kohen marries a woman he is forbidden to marry, they both receives lashes. More prohibitions where one receives karet for violating it intentionally also receive lashes, such as, a impure person who enters the Temple or ate sacrificial meat, one who eats forbidden fats of an animal or the blood, and several other prohibtions. One who eats non kosher meat or untithed produce also receives lashes. The Mishna follows the position of Rabbi Akiva that only prohibitions that are punishable by karet only are also punishable by lashes. However, Rabbi Yishmael holds that even those punishable by death in the hands of the court are punishable by lashes. Rabbi Yitzchak holds that none of these cases obligate one in lashes. What is the root of the debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael?  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/09/18/the-sorrow-and-the-shame-of-the-accidental-killer

More details regarding the accidental killer are discussed - Where are they buried?  What happens if the Kohen Gadol is found out to be a chalal (son of a forbidden marriage)?  Is the relative of the victim allowed to kill the accidental murderer if the murderer leaves the city? What if the murderer is by a tree on the border where part is inside the border and part outside?

The sages expound some verses in Yehoshua that relate directly or indirectly to setting up the refuge cities.  The accidental killer leaves the city of refuge at the death of the Kohen Gadol. Who qualifies as a Kohen Gadol for this purpose? If there are multiple Kohanim Gedolim, do they all need to die or just one of them? Out of concern that the people in the city may pray for the death of the Kohen Gadol, their mothers would provide food and clothing for the accidental murderers.  The Gemara digresses to discuss prayers that have no basis (like praying for the Kohen Gadol to die) - do they come true? Different scenarios are brought regarding the timing of the death of the Kohen Gadol - after the killing but before the court determined that the killer needs to go to the city of refuge, or after the court's ruling but before the killer got to the city, etc. In each of these scenarios, does the accidental murderer go free or not? 

There were certain areas with more murderers and that affected where the refuge cities were set up. There are certain criteria for refuge cities: they should not be too small or too large, they should have a water supply, a market, etc., to allow for proper protection, and they should not need to leave the city for anything. There is a debate between Rabbi Nechemia and the rabbis whether or not weapons can be sold there. One's rabbi goes to the refuge city with the accidental murderer.  If a rabbi murders accidentally, his yeshiva goes with him to the refuge city. The Gemara raises a difficulty with a rabbi going to a refuge city as it is known that Torah learning protects - so why should he need a refuge city? Two suggested answers are brought. Several drashot are brought relating to the importance of setting up refuge cities. From one of the verses, the gemara digresses to discussing the importance of learning Torah, teaching Torah and group learning. Reish Lakish explains a verse in the Torah that God orchestrates things from above that one who kills accidentally and it is not known to anyone, and one who kills on purpose without witnesses, will both end up in the same place and the murderer will get killed accidentally by the one who killed accidentally before and each will then get their punishment they are deserving of. Similarly it is derived from various verses that God guides a person in the direction that the person wishes to go. If the relative kills the killer on the way to the city of refuge, does he receive a death penalty?

Today's daf is sponsored by Shulamith and Joel Cohn for a refuah shleima for Phyllis Hecht, Gittel Pesha bat Masha Rachel. Today's daf is sponsored by Batsheva Pava for a refuah shleima for Phyllis Hecht, Gittel Pesha bat Masha Rachel. "To my wonderful neighbor and dear friend, Phyllis, who is the person who sends me daily lists of shiurim that range from Daf Yomi, to Navi, to Parshat Hashavua, and Chaggim. She is a 24-hours-a-day Torah learning source. We cannot forget that it is the month of miracles and kriyat yam suf. May Phyllis continue to see many miracles. May our learning be for her zechut!" For what cases is a ger toshav allowed to go to a refuge city? Contradictory sources are brought and the contradictions are resolved. There is a debate one who killed someone and claimed "I thought it was allowed" - is that considered close to intentional or is it considered circumstances beyond one's control? Potential proofs are brought from the Torah for each position from the story of Avimelech when he took Sarah from Avraham. Does a blind person go to a city of refuge? What is the halakha if the accidental murderer hated the one who was murdered? How many refuge cities were there and where were they located?  

This week's learning is sponsored by the Hadran family for the refuah shleima of Phyllis Hecht, Gittel Pasha bat Masha Rachel. "Phyllis, you are a true fighter, a yereat shamayim a mega baalat chesed, and a "fellow" daf learner. May your surgery on Thursday go well, with the wonderful shlichim at Sheba Hospital. עברת את פרעה, תעברי גם את זה!!! We are behind you and continue davening for you with all our might." Rebbi and the rabbis disagree about whether one gets exiled for killing if the blade fell off the handle and killed someone and if one was killed from wood chips that splintered off while chopping. Rebbi holds that the case described in the Torah in Devraim 19:5 refers to the latter case and the rabbis hold that it refers to the former. A braita brings two proofs from the text for Rebbi's reading of the verse. Rav Chiya bar Ashi explains the root of the debate is whether there is em l'mikra, we follow the way the verse is traditionally read, or em l'masoret, we follow the way the verse is written. There are different rules for accidental murder depending on what domain the death occurred and whether the victim was already there or put his head out the window after, for example, a rock was thrown in that direction. Abba Shaul rules that if one accidentally killed while performing a mitzva, the murderer is exempt from exile. This is derived from Devraim 19:5. A rabbi raised a difficulty with this derivation to Rava, but it is resolved. In a different version of the sugya, the rabbi asked the same question but on a different sugya. The Mishna rules that a child is exiled to a refuge city for killing a parent, but a braita rules the opposite. Rav Kahana and Rava each reconcile the contradiction in a different manner. A braita rules that slave or a Cuti are exiled to a refuge city for killing a Jew and can receive lashes. Likewise, a Jew is exiled and receives lashes for doing the same to a Cuti or slave. For what offense are the lashes?

Today's daf is sponsored anonymously for a refuah shleima of Mia bat Yonina, for the safety of our soldiers and for the safe return of the hostages. If one is convicted to death by the court, runs away, and is caught by the same court, the court upholds the original decision and does not try to look for a reason to exonerate. However, if the convict is brought before a different court, under what circumstances do they reopen the case? The courts of twenty-three judges can rule in capital crimes. These courts can even be outside of Israel. If so, what are the differences between the rules for setting up courts in and out of Israel? Should the courts be using capital punishment? If so, how often? There are several opinions - once every seven years, once in seventy years, or never at all. An accidental murderer is exiled to a city of refuge which is punitive, restorative (provides atonement) and protects from the relatives of the deceased who may seek to avenge the death. However, not all accidental murderers are exiled to a refuge city. Some are more negligent and aren't permitted to go there, as they do not deserve the atonement and protection, while others are closer to oness, and are not required to be exiled. Which cases of an accidental murderer fall into which categories?

When the conspiring witnesses pay/get lashes do they split the amount or do they each have to pay the full amount or get the full amount of lashes?  The Mishna discusses the definition of conspiring witnesses. What is the difference between conspiring witnesses and contradictory testimony? What happens in a case where every group that comes to testify is turned into conspiring witnesses by the same group of witnesses - do we assume the group saying "you were with us" to every group of witnesses is lying? Would it be the same if someone keeps bringing false witnesses to testify on their behalf and then brings witnesses who are not proven to be false? Do we suspect they are lying just because they were brought by someone already known to bring false witnesses? There is a basic argument between the Perushim and Tzedukim - do the conspiring witnesses get killed only if they succeeded in convicting the person but didn't succeed in getting them killed (Perushim) or only if they actually succeeded in getting him killed (Tzedukim)? The verse in Devarim 17:6 says that one gets killed based on the testimony of 2-3 witnesses. There are several drashot brought in the Mishna explaining what can be derived from the unnecessary mention of "three witnesses" in the verse. 

Different statements of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav are brought regarding mikvaot.    The Mishna brings a basic argument between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis about whether or not conspiring witnesses get the punishment of what they conspired to do and also get lashes for the negative commandment of testifying falsely. The Gemara discusses their opinions.

Today's daf is sponsored by Samuel Berlad in honor of Esther Sarah bat Sarah to get good passing grades in the exams and parnassah tova. Also in loving memory of Devorah bat Avraham, for the refuah shleima of Shmuel Lev ben Bracha.  Today's daf is sponsored by Audrey and Jake Levant in honor of Deborah and Michael Dickson. "Wishing you a huge mazel tov  on the engagement of Dalia to Yared Posnasky." Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav that a conspiring witness pays according to his share. After four unsuccessful attempts to explain the meaning of his statement, they explain it to be a case where the witness said he was convicted and charged money in a court for being a conspiring witness. Based on his testimony, he can be obligated to pay his share, even though his testimony cannot incriminate the other witness. If conspiring witnesses testify that a man divorced his wife and did not pay her the ketuba money, how is the payment for their punishment assessed, as they tried to obligate him to pay money that he may have had to pay later if he predeceases his wife or divorces her? If conspiring witnesses testify that a debtor who had a ten-year loan had a thirty-day loan, how is the payment for their punishment assessed? Both these cases are explained in the Mishna. Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rav that a ten-year loan is canceled when the shmita year arrives. Rav Kahana raises a difficulty on his statement from the Mishna as it implies that a ten-year loan can be collected. Rava resolves the contradiction. According to an alternative version of the sugya, Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav the opposite - that a ten-year loan is collected. Rav Kahana supported his statement from our Mishna.Rava rejects the support from the Mishna. Rav Yehuda says in the name of Shmuel that if one loans another upon the condition that the shmita year not cancel the loan, the loan is canceled anyway as the condition is invalid. However, this contradicts a different statement of Shmuel regarding ona'ah, that a condition that goes against the Torah is valid if the issue relates to money. How is this resolved? Two other statements are brought by Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rav and Rav Kahana raises a difficulty against them - one about laws of Shabbat and one about laws of mikveh.

Makkot bookmark Masechet Makkot is sponsored by Terri Krivosha and Rabbi Hayim Herring in loving memory of Terri’s father Judge Norman Krivosha, Nachum Meir ben David Beer v’Malka, on his 4th yahrzeit, and in honor of Dr. Judith Hauptman. "Our dad instilled in us a lifelong love of learning and in honor of Dr. Judith Hauptman, their first Talmud teacher and one of the pioneers who opened the doors of Talmud study to women." There are certain exceptions to the rule when conspiring witnesses (eidim zomemim) do not receive the punishment “that they tried to do to their brother.” In those cases, they receive lashes. For example, if they testify about the status of a person (about a kohen that his father married a divorcee) or that a person killed accidentally and should go to the refuge city. Why does the masechet begin with an exception to the rule, instead of beginning with the basic rule of conspiring witnesses? From where is it derived that in the two cases in the Mishna, conspiring witnesses do not receive the punishment “as he tried to do to his brother?” For each case, two suggestions are brought - one a drasha from a verse and the other a kal v'chomer argument. In both cases, the kal v'chomer argument is rejected. Where can one find an allusion in the Torah for the ruling that conspiring witnesses receive lashes in exceptional cases?  A braita is quoted which adds two more exceptions to the rule where the conspiring witnesses do not receive the punishment that they tried to bring upon the defendant. 

Siyum Sanhedrin is sponsored in loving memory of Anita Dinerstein by her children and grandchildren on her second yahrzeit. "Her dedication to learning, interpersonal connection and creation of community has been a model for us as we have learned Sanhedrin and the rest of Nezikin." Siyum Sanhedrin is sponsored by Jeff and Jill Shames in memory of Jill's mother, Seena Baker, שפרה בת ברכה וזאלה. Ten years on, love beyond words from your children, your children's children and your children's children's children. What happens to all the items in a city of idol worshippers that have some level of sanctity to them? Can the destroyed idolatrous city be used for gardens and fields or can it never be rebuilt for any purpose? The city of Jericho can also never be rebuilt. In the book of Kings, it is told that Chial rebuilt Jericho and his sons were killed, as per Joshua's curse. The Gemara explains that he rebuilt a different city but called it Jericho, which was forbidden as well. This story was a lead-in to the drought in the time of Achav when Eliahu received the "key" for rain from God and brought a drought. How did God manage to get the key back from Eliyahu and end the drought? The masechet ends with a discussion of righteous and evil people and their effects on the world.

Introduction to Masechet Makkot

Today's daf is sponsored by Tina and Shalom Lamm on the occasion of the brit and naming of their new grandson, Naveh Shimshon, born to their children, Peninah and Eitan Kaplansky. The Gemara delves into various issues regarding an "ir hanidachat," idolatrous city. Can a city become an idolatrous city if there was no subverted, but they decided on their own? If individuals get stoned, but if the majority of the city is convicted, they get killed by the sword, how does the court rule on the first half of the inhabitants before it is clear that the majority of the inhabitants will be guilty? Temporary residents are also considered part of the city, but how long do they need to live there to be considered temporary residents? Even though the righteous people of the city are not killed, their possessions are destroyed. What is the difference between the possessions of the righteous people and those of the idol worshippers different and how are there laws derived from the Devarim 13:16? Rav Chisda ruled that deposits of inhabitants are not burned. To what is he referring? If there is no square in the town, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yismael disagree about whether or not the city can be judged as idolatrous city. How does each derive their position from the verse in the Torah? The Mishna explained what is done with various sanctified items in the city - whether animals designated for sacrifices, second tithe produce and others. The Gemara brings a braita that expands on this list. What are animals designated for sacrificed left to die and cannot be redeemed and the money used so sacrifices? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish each bring a different answer to this question. The first explanation of Reish Lakish is rejected and an alternative is suggested. Why didn't each one hold by the other's position? In the braita, Rabbi Shimon excludes firstborn animals and tithed animals from the burning. Is this referring to unblemished or blemished animals? Ravina and Shmuel each take a different position on this.

Today's daf is sponsored by Rikki and Alan Zibitt in loving memory of their mothers, Helen Zibitt, Hena bat Yaacov v' Rachel Leah, whose 20th yahrzeit was 28 Adar and Friedl bat Meir v' Rivkah, whose 10th yahrzeit is 9 Nisan. "They were true Women of Valor, who lived lives of hesed, loshon tov and ahavat Yisrael. We miss them every day! May their neshamot have the highest aliyah." Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about how to understand three different verses relating to Gehenom and the final redemption - Reish Lakish interprets them all harshly and rabbi Yochanan more leniently. The language of redemption used in the Torah describes both getting out of Egypt and coming into the land of Israel. Rabbi Simai makes a heikesh - just like the Jews entered the land with only two out of the 600,000 that came out of Egypt, they also came out of Egypt with the same percentage of people that were there. If 600,000 came out, it must be that there were 180 billion people there, and they died before the Exodus. The same will hold e for the days of the Messiah, as is derived from Hosea 2:17. Two situations are described in which Moshe is critical of God. The people of a wayward city, that were convinced by members of their city to worship idols, do not have a share in the World-to-Come. The halakhic details of this city are discussed.

Today's daf is sponsored by Abby Sosland in loving memory of Rabbi Henry Sosland. "He taught us that daily learning could be the ultimate source of comfort and sipuk nefesh." Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of our friend and co-learner, Bracha Rutner, whose completion of Masechet Sanhedrin marks her siyum on all of Shas. "You dedicated the last seven and one-half years to this monumental achievement, and we are so proud that you are one of our group, and that we are able to share in your simcha! לכי מחיל אל חיל." Korach's wife convinced him to rebel against Moshe, despite Korach initially arguing against her persuasion. What were her specific complaints against Moshe and Aharon? Based on inferences from Bamidbar 16:14 and Tehillim 106:16, Rabbi Yochanan explains that they accused Moshe of engaging in relations with their wives. Moshe approached Datan and Aviram, seeking reconciliation. From this action, Reish Lakish teaches that one should actively work to resolve disputes. Different verses are brought to prove that anyone who challenges their teacher is considered as challenging God directly. There is a debate regarding Korach's fate: Was he swallowed by the earth or burned with the others who offered incense? This remains unresolved due to different interpretations of the verses. However, the Torah clearly states that Korach's sons survived. Regarding the generation that wandered in the desert, sages debate whether they will have a share in the World-to-Come. Various verses are cited to support both positions. Similarly, the fate of the ten tribes is disputed. Will they eventually return to the land or were they permanently exiled? This discussion centers on different interpretations of Devarim 29:27. Scholars also debate whether these tribes will receive a portion in the World-to-Come, with various verses brought as evidence. In both these controversies, Rabbi Akiva takes the stricter position that they will neither return nor have a share in the World-to-Come. Rabba bar bar Hanna quotes Rabbi Yochanan questioning Rabbi Akiva's stance, noting that Rabbi Akiva typically adopts more lenient positions. What is the source for Rabbi Akiva's general tendency toward leniency? From what point in development can one merit entry to the World-to-Come: from conception, birth, the ability to speak, or the ability to say "amen"?

A story is brought of Nahum ish Gamzu and how he is saved from death by the Romans on account of magical dirt that came from the dirt that Avraham used against the four kings, which magically turned into swords. What was the generation of those who built the Tower of Bavel try to accomplish? What were the acts of Sodom? God gave them everything they could want, which made them self-sufficient, leading to arrogance, which led to their isolationist policy.    They mainly engaged in two categories of trangressions - not treating guests properly and perverting justice.  There is a debate about Korach and his followers - whether they are deserving of the World-to-Come. The Gemara extrapolates the names of the people in Korach's group and explains how On ben Pelet didn't rejoin Korach's group on account of his wife's actions.

 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 39th 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-grandchild, all live in Israel." The Mishna lists groups of people throught our early history that do not have a share in the World-to-Come and deliberates about whether they will be ressurected.  Arrogance caused the sin of the generation of the flood, as they had everything and therefore thought that they didn't need God. Was Noah a real righteous peerson or just in relation to his generation? How did Noah try before the flood to get the poeple to repent and what was their reposnse? What was the purpose of the seven days before the flood? How did they deal with animals while they were in the ark? These and other issues related to the flood are discussed. 

Today's daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein for a refuah sheleima for her grandson Eitan Ephraim ben Ayelet and her husband David Mordecai ben Reizal for a successful operation. "Refuat hanefesh v'haguf." In connection with Achitofel, the Gemara diverts to the story of David and Batsheva. Why was David tested in this way and why did he fail the test?  What was the reaction of those around him? How did he get forgiveness from God? How in the end was it made obvious to others that he received forgiveness? For what reason did Geichazi not get a portion in the World to Come? Elisha is also criticized for how he dealt with Geichazi, just as Yehoshua ben Perachia is criticized for not encouraging Yeshu (Jesus) to repent.  

"Better are the wounds from a friend than the kisses of an enemy" (Proverbs 27:6). An example of this is Achiya the Shiloni and Balaam's prophecies. The Gemara continues to analyze Balaam's words about the Jewish people and other nations. When Balaam was unsuccessful in cursing the Jews. he devised a plan, and advised Balak how to entice the Jews to sin in order to get God to punish them. The next character mentioned in the Mishna is Doeg HaEdomi. Why did he lose his share in the World-to-Come? Being that he was a great Torah scholar, the sages explain what was wrong about the Torah he learned that enabled him to speak lashon hara about David, which ultimately caused the death of the inhabitants of Nov.

Today's daf is sponsored by Pnina Lipskier in memory of Yoav Har Shoshanim. A verse is brought that is explained in a way that the Jews in the time leading up to the destruction thought that they had a winning answer to counter God and his prophets when they told the people to repent. There are three possible explanations of what was this "winning answer." Balaam in on the list of those who have no portion in the World-to-Come. What did he do wrong? How did he succeed in convincing God to let him go? What was the nature of the conversation he had with his donkey? Why did he get his own donkey ready instead of letting his servants do it? How did he think he would succeed in cursing the Jewish people?  And finally, did he really not succeed in cursing them?

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom Family in loving memory of our fellow Daf learner Carol Robinson, z"l. "In all the spaces she touched she was an אישה כגפן פוריה, fruitful in all her endeavors." Micah was saved from losing his share in the World-to-Come because he gave food to travelers. Rabbi Yochanan, partially based on a statement of Rabbi Yosi bar Kisma explained that hospitality is so important that one can see its effect in several ways throughout Tanach history. Why were Achaz, Amon and Yehoyakim not included in the list of those not receiving a share in the World-to-Come? Even though hospitality is an important value, sometimes it is not. This is highlighted by Chizkiyahu who invited Babylonian messengers and fed them a lot of food, treating them with a lot of respect, which partially caused the destruction of the Temple. Several verses from Eicha are expounded to explain many different issues relating to the destruction. Rav Ashi explained that anshei kneset hagedola were the ones who created the list of those who did not receive a place in the World-to-Come. Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav that they wanted to include King Solomon in the list, but God disagreed with them. Others, dorshei reshumot, held that all of them had a place in the World-to-Come (other than Bilam), deriving it from a verse in Tehillim 60:9-10.

This month's learning is sponsored by Linda and Jay Marcus in honor of the recent birth of their granddaughter; and the anniversaries and birthdays of their children and grandchildren during Nissan. "בניסן נגאלו ובניסן עתידין להיגאל. May we merit to see the גאולה שלמה במהרה בימינו." Today's daf is sponsored by Lisa Kolodny in honor of Nancy Kolodny's birthday! "So happy you are spending more time in Israel this year, spreading your light, your wisdom and your love to all those around you."  There is a debate about whether Menashe received a portion in the World-to-Come. Rabbi Yochanan brings three drashot in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, each relating to different kings of the Judean kingdom, highlighting how far God goes to allow repentance. He also brought another drasha relating to the disgrace of the Sanhedrin at the time of the Babylonian exile. Rav Chisda says in the name of Rabbi Yirmia bar Abba three statements - one relating to the bad actions of some of the Judean kings, one relating to types of people who are not worthy of receiving the Divine Presence, and one explaining the verses in Tehillim 91:11-13 about evil not coming upon a person. Why is the letter ayin in 'reshaim' suspended above the other letters in the verse in Iyov 38:15? A braita explains that Menashe, Achav, and Yeravam all learned Torah, highlighting that their sins were worse, as they clearly understood the Torah and sinned nevertheless, with full intent. Other braitot suggest that other kings lost their portion in the World-to-Come. Descriptions are brought about some of the bad kings and how their action led to the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash.

Why did Yeravam, Achav, and Menashe lose their portion in the World-to-come? Despite the fact that they did terrible things, the rabbis also highlight that they did good things in their lives, particularly as it related to talmud Torah and respect for Torah scholars.

Can one sing verses from Shir HaShirim in a tune other than the taamei hamikra? In what manner/context is it problematic to read verses from the Torah? What is "someone who uses incantations" that will not get a part in the World-to-come? Are there ways to do this that are permitted? Is calling to demons allowed? Some stories are told about the rabbis visiting Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurkanus while he was sick and their conversations about suffering. Yeravam is listed in the Mishna as one who did not receive a portion in the World-to-come. What is the meaning of his name? Why did he lose his share in the World-to-come? What caused him to sin?

What is the definition of an apikoris? Several suggestions are brought, mainly related to one who does not treat the rabbis with the proper respect as it undermines belief in rabbinic Judaism. What is the definition of sefarim chitzoniyim, external literature, that if one reads them, one does not get a portion in the World-to-come, according to Rabbi Akiva? A braita says it is book of the Saducees. Rav Yosef says it is the book of Ben Sira. Abaye tries to understand what is wrong with learning it since many of the ideas there appear in the Tanach or in rabbinic thought.

Today's daf is dedicated in honor of the engagement of my daughter Chani to Saar Har-Chen. "May their love for each other continue to grow and may they always enjoy learning Torah together." How long will be the duration of time of the mashiach? Eight different answers are suggested. Many verses from the prophets explain the great blessings that will be in the future. However, another verse says that the blessings will be of the kind that no one has seen until this day, meaning they are indescribable. Rabbi Yochanan reconciles this contradiction in three different ways. One who doesn't believe that the Torah is from God has no share in the World-to-come. This is derived from a verse in the Torah. A braita is brought that derives other offenses from that braita as well. Since learning Torah was mentioned, the Gemara digresses to discuss the importance of learning Torah and ways to ensure that one's Torah is not forgotten. What is an apikores? What is the difference between an apikores and a "megale panim b'Torah"

Today's daf is sponsored by Hillel Gray in loving memory of Raizel Shoshana bat Rachel Perel on her shloshim. "She loved reading, teaching others to read, and Jewish education."  Today's daf is sponsored by Abby Flamholz in honor of her daughter in law Sigal’s hebrew birthday. "She continues to be a constant inspiration to me and especially to her daughters and husband. Happy birthday Sigal!"  The sages extensively discuss various signs, both auspicious and ominous, that are believed to herald the coming of the Messiah. Rabbi Yochanan explained the Messiah will arrive during an era that is either entirely virtuous or completely corrupt. This binary perspective highlights the spiritual extremes that might precipitate messianic redemption. The prophetic texts contain seemingly contradictory verses, such as "It will come in its time, I will hurry it." Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi resolves this apparent contradiction by explaining that the timing of the Messiah's arrival depends on the generation's spiritual merit. If the generation proves worthy, God will accelerate the redemption; if not, it will unfold according to the predetermined time. Why is the Messiah depicted as arriving on a donkey rather than a more noble animal like a horse? In an aggadic story, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi encounters Eliyahu at the entrance to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai's cave. He seeks answers about whether he will enter the world-to-come and the timing of the Messiah's arrival. Eliyahu directs him to the entrance of Rome, instructing him to seek out and directly ask the Messiah. In a parallel account, Rabbi Yosi ben Kisma's students similarly inquire about the anticipated redemption. Some rabbis acknowledge the inevitability of the Messiah's arrival but express trepidation about witnessing this momentous event. They fear that their personal sins might cause them to be consumed in the "chevlei mashiach" - the birth pangs of the messianic era. While they recognize that good deeds and Torah study offer spiritual protection, they remain acutely aware that sin can precipitate divine judgment. Intriguingly, the Messiah's name itself becomes a matter of interpretive tradition. In each beit midrash they named the future redeemer with a name that resonated with their own teacher's name.  

When is the Messiah going to come? What kind of destruction/change of world order will precede the coming of the Messiah? There are several different descriptions of the signs to be expected. Some sages offered suggestions for what year to expect the Messiah. However, some hold that one cannot try to estimate when the Messiah will come. However, we are commanded to wait in hope for the Messiah's arrival, as is derived from Yeshayahu 30:18. From that same verse, it is derived that there are thirty-six righteous people in every generation who greet the Divine Presence. Other sources indicate other amounts of righteous people and these differences are reconciled. Rav holds that all the times the Messiah was supposed to come have now passed, and it is all dependent on the people repenting and doing good deeds. Shmuel holds that even without good deeds and repentance, eventually, the mourning will be so great that God will redeem the people. Their debate is similar to a tannaitic debate between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. They each bring verses in the Torah to prove their side of the argument - will the repentance come from the people or will God force it upon them when God decides it is time?