Podcasts about rabbi yosi

התוכן עמ"ש [בראשון דפ' אחרי] בקשר לעבודה של הכה"ג ביוהכ"פ "וכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו" דרשו חז"ל "ביתו זו אשתו". וצ"ל: מדוע לא נאמר "אשתו" בפירוש?! ויובן בהקדם מ"ש בגמ' בין ההידורים שאמר רבי יוסי על עצמו ש"מעולם לא קריתי לאשתי אשתי ולשורי שורי אלא לאשתי ביתי (שהיא עיקר הבית), ולשורי שדי (שהוא עיקר של שדה)". וצ"ל: אף שאשה היא עיקר הבית, אבל מהו הדגש ש"מעולם לא קריתי לאשתי אשתי וכו'", ומהו ההידור שבזה?! והביאור: ר"י ראה בכל דבר בעולם רק את תכליתו. בנוגע לאשה: אף שלאשה יש גם חשיבות כשלעצמה (שלכן יש מצוה של "ושמח את אשתו" אפי' לפני הולדת ילדים וכו'), אבל תכליתה היא – קיום מצות פו"ר. ור"י ראה מיד באשתו שום מציאות אחרת, רק תכליתה. ולכן מעולם לא הי' יכול לקרוא לה "אשתי" אלא "ביתי". ויתירה מזו – אפי' במין החי, "שורי", ראה מיד רק את תכליתו – "שדי". ועפי"ז מובן מהו ההידור בזה. וזהו מה שתכלית השלימות בכה"ג הוא כאשר הוא בדרגא ש"וכפר בעד ביתו", ש"אשתו" אינה אלא "ביתו". ג' חלקים משיחת ו' תשרי ה'תשל"א ל"הנחה פרטית" או התרגום ללה"ק של השיחה: https://thedailysicha.com/?date=04-05-2025 Synopsis On the verse [in rishon of parashas Acharei], “he shall atone for himself and for his household,” our Sages said: “‘His household' – this refers to his wife.” Why does the verse not say explicitly “and for his wife”? This can be understood based on the statement of Rabbi Yosi, “I never called my wife ‘my wife,' nor my ox ‘my ox'; rather, [I called] my wife ‘my house' (because she is the mainstay of the home), and my ox ‘my field' (because it is the primary tool for the field).” Seemingly, while it's true that the wife is the mainstay of the home, why was Rabbi Yosi so careful to “never call my wife ‘my wife'”? And why is this considered such a special quality? The explanation is that Rabbi Yosi saw in everything only its ultimate purpose. Therefore, while it's true that a wife also has value in and of herself (which is why there's a mitzvah to “gladden one's wife” even before there are children, etc.), nonetheless, the ultimate purpose of marriage is to fulfill the mitzvah to be fruitful and multiply), and Rabbi Yosi immediately saw in his wife no other reality but this purpose. Therefore, he was never able to call her “my wife,” only “my house.” Moreover, even when it came to animal life, “my ox,” Rabbi Yosi immediately perceived only its ultimate purpose – “my field.” This is why Rabbi Yosi's conduct is considered such a hiddur, and also why the ultimate perfection of the Kohen Gadol is when “he atones for his household,” meaning when he attains such a level that to him, “his wife” is nothing but “his house.”3 excerpts from sichah of 6 Tishrei 5731 For a transcript in English of the Sicha: https://thedailysicha.com/?date=04-05-2025 לזכות הת' נפתלי שי' יוניק ליום ההולדת שלו ו' אייר - לשנת ברכה והצלחה, ואריכות ימים ושנים טובותנדבת הוריו ר' דוד וזוגתו מרת חנה שיחיו יוניק

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.

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?  

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?  

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.

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 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. 

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.

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.

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.  

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.  

Today's daf is sponsored by the Tannenbaum family in loving memory of Miriam's father Yaakov Yitzchak ben Moshe Nachum haLevi on his 21st yahrzeit "He raised his family with the positive ethos of אבא, כתיב בתורה כך. Yehi zichro baruch!" If one sees one's father doing something wrong, what is the proper language one should use to correct one's father?  If one is supposed to get two death penalties for two separate actions or for one action involving two prohibitions, the ruling goes by the harsher death penalty. Rabbi Yosi disagrees in the latter case and holds that it goes by the one that was first prohibited to the person. What is the source for the former?  The Mishna explains that if one sins and gets lashes and then sins again, the third time they are put into a kipa, a small cell, and fed barley until their innards explode and they die. The Gemara limits this to a case of a sin punishable by karet, death in the hands of God, and explains that since the person is actually considered like a dead person since they have a death penalty hanging over them, which allows for the law of kipa to go into effect. Is the Mishna like Rebbi only who holds that one creates a chazaka after two times, or can it be explained according to Rashbag as well? Ravina explains it according to Rashbag, as the chazaka is created by the sins, not the lashes, which are repeated three times. A difficulty is raised against Ravina's explanation, but is resolved. What is the source in Tanach for the law of kipa?  A murderer who can't be convicted also is put in a kipa. The sages offer various possibilities of a murderer for whom this would be relevant.  There are certain transgressions that do not need to be ruled in court, but a zealous person who is on the scene is permitted to take the law into his/her own hands and kill the person. In what situations?   

Today's daf is sponsored by the Tannenbaum family in loving memory of Miriam's father Yaakov Yitzchak ben Moshe Nachum haLevi on his 21st yahrzeit "He raised his family with the positive ethos of אבא, כתיב בתורה כך. Yehi zichro baruch!" If one sees one's father doing something wrong, what is the proper language one should use to correct one's father?  If one is supposed to get two death penalties for two separate actions or for one action involving two prohibitions, the ruling goes by the harsher death penalty. Rabbi Yosi disagrees in the latter case and holds that it goes by the one that was first prohibited to the person. What is the source for the former?  The Mishna explains that if one sins and gets lashes and then sins again, the third time they are put into a kipa, a small cell, and fed barley until their innards explode and they die. The Gemara limits this to a case of a sin punishable by karet, death in the hands of God, and explains that since the person is actually considered like a dead person since they have a death penalty hanging over them, which allows for the law of kipa to go into effect. Is the Mishna like Rebbi only who holds that one creates a chazaka after two times, or can it be explained according to Rashbag as well? Ravina explains it according to Rashbag, as the chazaka is created by the sins, not the lashes, which are repeated three times. A difficulty is raised against Ravina's explanation, but is resolved. What is the source in Tanach for the law of kipa?  A murderer who can't be convicted also is put in a kipa. The sages offer various possibilities of a murderer for whom this would be relevant.  There are certain transgressions that do not need to be ruled in court, but a zealous person who is on the scene is permitted to take the law into his/her own hands and kill the person. In what situations?   

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in loving memory of Art’s mother Shirley, Sarah bat Avraham v’Ziche Reicha on her 9th yahrzeit. “She was a life-long learner, a striver, she sewed and made mosaics. Once her three children were old enough, she went back to school, earned a master’s degree, created a new career doing social work and counseling, and published four books on raising a family. She lives on in the tallitot and quilts she made. Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim Weiss is loving memory of Elsie Muller on her 30th yahrtzeit. "Elsie was a family friend, 50 years my senior. She had no children of her own, so she adopted my family as hers. We were close friends and we confided in each other. She devoted her retirement to Jewish causes and would be very proud of her adopted children and grandchildren in Israel and USA." Today's daf is sponsored by Tina Lamm in loving memory of her mother, Peppy Senders, Pesha Rivka bat Gershon HaCohen and Bina, on her yahrzeit. "It has been 21 years, and my mother's wisdom, kindness and patience are still my North Star." Today's daf is sponsored by the Shuster family in loving memory of Ozer's mother Devora bat Yisroel. "May her devotion to Torah and mitzvot be a merit to the entire Jewish people." A rebellious son will only be convicted if he steals money from his father and eats in the domain of others, as only in that situation will it be likely that the son continue to act in this way. Why? Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda rules that he must steal from both parents. Since the wife does not generally own her own property, two explanations are brought to understand his opinion. Both parents have to agree to bring the son to the court. Rabbi Yehuda adds that if the mother is not worthy for the father, the son cannot be convicted. The Gemara establishes the meaning of his statement - they must have the same voice, height, and look alike. This is derived from the verse in the Torah, Devarim 21:20 "he doesn't listen to our voice." The braita that says that a rebellious son never existed, nor will it ever exist, presumably accords with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is impossible to find a couple who are identical in appearance, voice, and height. Rabbi Shimon also agrees that a rebellious son never happened and never will. Rabbi Yonatan disagrees and says he sat on his grave. There is a similar debate about an ir hanidachat, a city that all worship idols, and a leprous house. The Mishna also excludes any case where one of the parents is lame, mute, blind, etc. as the parents will be unable to complete the process as defined in the Torah. Can we infer from here that when the Torah describes how a process is supposed to happen, it must be done exactly in that way? After the son steals and eats meat and wine in a large quantity, the parents bring the son to a court of three judges and he is flogged. If he continues in his ways, he is brought to a court of twenty-three and judged to be stoned. The obligation to flog is derived by means of a gezeira shava from the word "v'yisru" by the one who slanders his wife (Devarim 22:18)  to that same word in the rebellious son (Devarim 21:18) and from "ben" to "ben" (Devarim 25:2) in the verse regarding lashes. If the son is brought to court but then runs away and by the time they catch him, he is no longer within the age range of one who can be killed for being a rebellious child, can he be executed? It depends on whether he was convicted before he ran away. Rabbi Chanina rules that a ben Noah who curses God and then converts is not convicted as the laws for judging him and the death penalty have changed.  Four sources, including the two parts of our Mishna, regarding a rebellious son who aged out before the ruling/execution, are brought to prove or disprove this ruling, but all comparisons are rejected. A rebellious son is killed because of the concern for where these actions will lead him in the future.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in loving memory of Art’s mother Shirley, Sarah bat Avraham v’Ziche Reicha on her 9th yahrzeit. “She was a life-long learner, a striver, she sewed and made mosaics. Once her three children were old enough, she went back to school, earned a master’s degree, created a new career doing social work and counseling, and published four books on raising a family. She lives on in the tallitot and quilts she made. Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim Weiss is loving memory of Elsie Muller on her 30th yahrtzeit. "Elsie was a family friend, 50 years my senior. She had no children of her own, so she adopted my family as hers. We were close friends and we confided in each other. She devoted her retirement to Jewish causes and would be very proud of her adopted children and grandchildren in Israel and USA." Today's daf is sponsored by Tina Lamm in loving memory of her mother, Peppy Senders, Pesha Rivka bat Gershon HaCohen and Bina, on her yahrzeit. "It has been 21 years, and my mother's wisdom, kindness and patience are still my North Star." Today's daf is sponsored by the Shuster family in loving memory of Ozer's mother Devora bat Yisroel. "May her devotion to Torah and mitzvot be a merit to the entire Jewish people." A rebellious son will only be convicted if he steals money from his father and eats in the domain of others, as only in that situation will it be likely that the son continue to act in this way. Why? Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda rules that he must steal from both parents. Since the wife does not generally own her own property, two explanations are brought to understand his opinion. Both parents have to agree to bring the son to the court. Rabbi Yehuda adds that if the mother is not worthy for the father, the son cannot be convicted. The Gemara establishes the meaning of his statement - they must have the same voice, height, and look alike. This is derived from the verse in the Torah, Devarim 21:20 "he doesn't listen to our voice." The braita that says that a rebellious son never existed, nor will it ever exist, presumably accords with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is impossible to find a couple who are identical in appearance, voice, and height. Rabbi Shimon also agrees that a rebellious son never happened and never will. Rabbi Yonatan disagrees and says he sat on his grave. There is a similar debate about an ir hanidachat, a city that all worship idols, and a leprous house. The Mishna also excludes any case where one of the parents is lame, mute, blind, etc. as the parents will be unable to complete the process as defined in the Torah. Can we infer from here that when the Torah describes how a process is supposed to happen, it must be done exactly in that way? After the son steals and eats meat and wine in a large quantity, the parents bring the son to a court of three judges and he is flogged. If he continues in his ways, he is brought to a court of twenty-three and judged to be stoned. The obligation to flog is derived by means of a gezeira shava from the word "v'yisru" by the one who slanders his wife (Devarim 22:18)  to that same word in the rebellious son (Devarim 21:18) and from "ben" to "ben" (Devarim 25:2) in the verse regarding lashes. If the son is brought to court but then runs away and by the time they catch him, he is no longer within the age range of one who can be killed for being a rebellious child, can he be executed? It depends on whether he was convicted before he ran away. Rabbi Chanina rules that a ben Noah who curses God and then converts is not convicted as the laws for judging him and the death penalty have changed.  Four sources, including the two parts of our Mishna, regarding a rebellious son who aged out before the ruling/execution, are brought to prove or disprove this ruling, but all comparisons are rejected. A rebellious son is killed because of the concern for where these actions will lead him in the future.

Today's daf is dedicated to the release of Sagui Dekel-Chen, Alexandre Troufanov, and Iair Horn after 498 days in captivity. Wishing them a refuah shleima and praying for the safe release of the rest of the hostages.  Rabbi Zakai brought a braita which stated that one who performs multiple acts of idol worship in a single lapse of awareness is only liable for one sin offering. Rabbi Yochanan told him to teach this braita outside the study hall because the braita was corrupted. Rabbi Abba tried to justify Rabbi Zakai's words based on Rabbi Yosi's opinion in his dispute with Rabbi Natan regarding the laws of Shabbat - whether the prohibition of kindling fire was singled out as a negative commandment or to divide liability. However, Rav Yosef rejects this comparison as even Rabbi Yosi holds that if one does several actions in a single lapse of awareness, one will be liable to bring a sin offering for each one. The Gemara raises another difficulty and resolves it. Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda brought a different version of the braita that Rabbi Zakai had presented to Rabbi Yochanan, which also dealt with someone who performs multiple acts and is only liable for one sin offering. The Gemara brings four possible explanations to understand the braita, concluding with the final one, and explaining why Rabbi Yochanan did not accept this braita from Rabbi Zakai.

Today's daf is dedicated to the release of Sagui Dekel-Chen, Alexandre Troufanov, and Iair Horn after 498 days in captivity. Wishing them a refuah shleima and praying for the safe release of the rest of the hostages.  Rabbi Zakai brought a braita which stated that one who performs multiple acts of idol worship in a single lapse of awareness is only liable for one sin offering. Rabbi Yochanan told him to teach this braita outside the study hall because the braita was corrupted. Rabbi Abba tried to justify Rabbi Zakai's words based on Rabbi Yosi's opinion in his dispute with Rabbi Natan regarding the laws of Shabbat - whether the prohibition of kindling fire was singled out as a negative commandment or to divide liability. However, Rav Yosef rejects this comparison as even Rabbi Yosi holds that if one does several actions in a single lapse of awareness, one will be liable to bring a sin offering for each one. The Gemara raises another difficulty and resolves it. Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda brought a different version of the braita that Rabbi Zakai had presented to Rabbi Yochanan, which also dealt with someone who performs multiple acts and is only liable for one sin offering. The Gemara brings four possible explanations to understand the braita, concluding with the final one, and explaining why Rabbi Yochanan did not accept this braita from Rabbi Zakai.

There are four sources in the Torah to derive the law that the accused must be warned before committing the crime in order for the court to convict. Why were all four necessary? Rav Chanan ruled that eidim zomemim who falsely testified against a betrothed woman that she engaged in relations with another man are not killed as they can claim they were only trying to forbid her to her husband and not to get her killed. However, a question is raised regarding laws of warning - as when they testified, mustn't they need to testify that they warned her that if she engaged in relations with this man, she would receive the death penalty, and then it would be clear that they were trying to get her punished with murder?! The Gemara answers that Rav Chanan must have made his statement regarding a case where the woman was a chavera, a woman who adheres strictly to mitzvot and according to Rabbi Yosi b'Rabbi Yehuda who does not require a warning for chaverim. Rav Chisda explains which types of contradictions are accepted in testimony and which ones are not. However, four sources are brought to raise difficulties with Rav Chisda's statement, but each is resolved. One source was from our Mishna regarding Ben Zackai who asked about the stem of the fig. Is Ben Zackai Rabban Yochanan ben Zackai or not? The Mishna explains that if one witness says "I don't know" regarding a bedika question, the testimony is accepted, and also if both say "I don't know." The latter case is unnecessary and that leads Rav Sheshet and Rava to offer alternative versions of that line in the Mishna. Rami bar Hama asked Rav Safra and Rav Kahana: if both bedikot and chakirot are required by Torah law, why if the witnesses say they don't know in a chakira question, the testimony is cancelled but in a bedika question, their testimony stands? They answered that chakira questions are necessary to establish the testimony since without it, it is testimony that cannot be cancelled by eidim zommemim, as they establish where and when the event transpired. If the witnesses have a discrepancy of one day regarding the date, it can be assumed that one did not know when Rosh Chodesh was, and that they are actually referring to the same day. However, this is limited to the first part of the month, as once it is the middle of the month, one can assume that they know the correct date. There is a blessing that is recited each month on the new moon, birkhat (kiddush) ha'levana. Until what day of the month can it be recited? Rabbi Yochanan answered, however, there are two opinions to explain what date he was referring to - the seventh of the month or the sixteenth.  

There are four sources in the Torah to derive the law that the accused must be warned before committing the crime in order for the court to convict. Why were all four necessary? Rav Chanan ruled that eidim zomemim who falsely testified against a betrothed woman that she engaged in relations with another man are not killed as they can claim they were only trying to forbid her to her husband and not to get her killed. However, a question is raised regarding laws of warning - as when they testified, mustn't they need to testify that they warned her that if she engaged in relations with this man, she would receive the death penalty, and then it would be clear that they were trying to get her punished with murder?! The Gemara answers that Rav Chanan must have made his statement regarding a case where the woman was a chavera, a woman who adheres strictly to mitzvot and according to Rabbi Yosi b'Rabbi Yehuda who does not require a warning for chaverim. Rav Chisda explains which types of contradictions are accepted in testimony and which ones are not. However, four sources are brought to raise difficulties with Rav Chisda's statement, but each is resolved. One source was from our Mishna regarding Ben Zackai who asked about the stem of the fig. Is Ben Zackai Rabban Yochanan ben Zackai or not? The Mishna explains that if one witness says "I don't know" regarding a bedika question, the testimony is accepted, and also if both say "I don't know." The latter case is unnecessary and that leads Rav Sheshet and Rava to offer alternative versions of that line in the Mishna. Rami bar Hama asked Rav Safra and Rav Kahana: if both bedikot and chakirot are required by Torah law, why if the witnesses say they don't know in a chakira question, the testimony is cancelled but in a bedika question, their testimony stands? They answered that chakira questions are necessary to establish the testimony since without it, it is testimony that cannot be cancelled by eidim zommemim, as they establish where and when the event transpired. If the witnesses have a discrepancy of one day regarding the date, it can be assumed that one did not know when Rosh Chodesh was, and that they are actually referring to the same day. However, this is limited to the first part of the month, as once it is the middle of the month, one can assume that they know the correct date. There is a blessing that is recited each month on the new moon, birkhat (kiddush) ha'levana. Until what day of the month can it be recited? Rabbi Yochanan answered, however, there are two opinions to explain what date he was referring to - the seventh of the month or the sixteenth.  

Study Guide Sanhedrin 40 Today's daf is sponsored by Chavie Kahn and Heshy Kofman in loving memory of their father Yisrael ben Yehoshua Heschel on his first yahrzeit. Today's daf is dedicated in honor of the four tatzpitaniot that were released yesterday from captivity - Liri, Naama, Karina, and Daniela. We continue to pray for the safe release of all the other hostages.  How many essential questions (chakirot) are the witnesses asked? What other questions are asked in specific cases, like idol worship or murder? What is the difference between chakirot and bedikot? From where is the number of chakirot (7) derived? What is the root of the debate between Rabbi Yosi and the rabbis about whether there are three chakirot or two? 

Study Guide Sanhedrin 40 Today's daf is sponsored by Chavie Kahn and Heshy Kofman in loving memory of their father Yisrael ben Yehoshua Heschel on his first yahrzeit. Today's daf is dedicated in honor of the four tatzpitaniot that were released yesterday from captivity - Liri, Naama, Karina, and Daniela. We continue to pray for the safe release of all the other hostages.  How many essential questions (chakirot) are the witnesses asked? What other questions are asked in specific cases, like idol worship or murder? What is the difference between chakirot and bedikot? From where is the number of chakirot (7) derived? What is the root of the debate between Rabbi Yosi and the rabbis about whether there are three chakirot or two? 

Presentation of Relatives Today's daf is sponsored by Dianne Kuchar. "My love and gratitude to Rabanit Michelle for her teaching, Goldie and Debbie for their hospitality and friendship and all you dafferot/im during my wonderful time here at home in Israel, leaving today back ASAP." Today's daf is sponsored by Vitti Rosenzweig-Kones in loving memory of her brother, Eliyahu David ben Sara and Shmuel. From where do we derive that cousins cannot testify for each other, that relatives cannot testify together for other people, and that relatives from the mother's side are disqualified as well. The verse that serves as the main source for these laws is Devarim 24:16, whose topic is capital punishment. From where do we derive that these laws apply to monetary law as well? Rav brings a list of relatives who cannot testify for him and he cannot testify for them. However, the Gemara raises a difficulty with his ruling in light of the Mishna as he forbids a second-generation relative with a third (his cousin's son) and the Mishna only listed first and second-generation relatives. Three answers are suggested - the first two are rejected. In conclusion, Rav does not hold like the Mishna but partially agrees with Rabbi Elazar's position. Rav Nachman listed relatives through one's mother-in-law - her brother and the sons of her siblings. He then explains that these cases can be found in our Mishna as the son-in-law of his sister's husband is the same relationship viewed from the other direction. Rav Ashi does the same thing with the relatives through the father-in-law. When Rav was asked if a man could testify for his stepson's wife, Rav answered that he could not. Two versions of his answer were quoted either a husband is like his wife or a wife is like her husband. Rav Huna brings a source for this from Vaykira 18:14. If the son of his mother's husband is his brother, why is it necessary to list it separately in the Mishna? Two answers are brought, each based on a different understanding of the case - is it his mother's son or her husband's son from a different wife? Rav Chisda rules that the parents of the wife can testify for the parents of the husband as they are not considered relatives. Raba bar bar Hana permits a man to testify for a woman to whom he is betrothed. However, Ravina limits his ruling and the Gemara rejects it entirely. The Mishna listed that a stepson is disqualified, but not his son and stepson. Two braitot show a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi about whether that is true for the stepson or the brother-in-law, and perhaps both. The Gemara tries to understand the position of each of them and which opinion fits with our Mishna and which opinion disagrees with our Mishna. Shmuel ruled like Rabbi Yosi. Rav Yosef thought that the ruling related to Rabbi Yosi in our Mishna was that only relatives that inherit each other are forbidden, but Abaye suggested that it could mean Rabbi Yosi above in his debate with Rabbi Yehuda.

Presentation of Relatives Today's daf is sponsored by Dianne Kuchar. "My love and gratitude to Rabanit Michelle for her teaching, Goldie and Debbie for their hospitality and friendship and all you dafferot/im during my wonderful time here at home in Israel, leaving today back ASAP." Today's daf is sponsored by Vitti Rosenzweig-Kones in loving memory of her brother, Eliyahu David ben Sara and Shmuel. From where do we derive that cousins cannot testify for each other, that relatives cannot testify together for other people, and that relatives from the mother's side are disqualified as well. The verse that serves as the main source for these laws is Devarim 24:16, whose topic is capital punishment. From where do we derive that these laws apply to monetary law as well? Rav brings a list of relatives who cannot testify for him and he cannot testify for them. However, the Gemara raises a difficulty with his ruling in light of the Mishna as he forbids a second-generation relative with a third (his cousin's son) and the Mishna only listed first and second-generation relatives. Three answers are suggested - the first two are rejected. In conclusion, Rav does not hold like the Mishna but partially agrees with Rabbi Elazar's position. Rav Nachman listed relatives through one's mother-in-law - her brother and the sons of her siblings. He then explains that these cases can be found in our Mishna as the son-in-law of his sister's husband is the same relationship viewed from the other direction. Rav Ashi does the same thing with the relatives through the father-in-law. When Rav was asked if a man could testify for his stepson's wife, Rav answered that he could not. Two versions of his answer were quoted either a husband is like his wife or a wife is like her husband. Rav Huna brings a source for this from Vaykira 18:14. If the son of his mother's husband is his brother, why is it necessary to list it separately in the Mishna? Two answers are brought, each based on a different understanding of the case - is it his mother's son or her husband's son from a different wife? Rav Chisda rules that the parents of the wife can testify for the parents of the husband as they are not considered relatives. Raba bar bar Hana permits a man to testify for a woman to whom he is betrothed. However, Ravina limits his ruling and the Gemara rejects it entirely. The Mishna listed that a stepson is disqualified, but not his son and stepson. Two braitot show a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi about whether that is true for the stepson or the brother-in-law, and perhaps both. The Gemara tries to understand the position of each of them and which opinion fits with our Mishna and which opinion disagrees with our Mishna. Shmuel ruled like Rabbi Yosi. Rav Yosef thought that the ruling related to Rabbi Yosi in our Mishna was that only relatives that inherit each other are forbidden, but Abaye suggested that it could mean Rabbi Yosi above in his debate with Rabbi Yehuda.

Presentation of Relatives Today's daf is sponsored by Ronit and Shlomi Eini in honor of their son Avichai Avraham's marriage to Shilat. If someone is convicted as a false witness (ed zomem), when does their disqualification begin - from the time they testified falsely or only from the time of conviction? Abaye rules it begins from the time of the false testimony (retroactively), while Rava holds it begins only from the time of conviction. Two explanations are offered for Rava's position. The first suggests that we only believe the second group of witnesses who contradict the first because of a unique ruling derived from the Torah, and therefore the original witnesses are only considered liars upon conviction. The second explanation proposes that while Rava theoretically agrees with Abaye, he only disqualifies them from the time of conviction to prevent losses to those who relied on their testimony before knowing they had lied in court. What is the practical difference between these two explanations? This debate is one of only six cases (ya'al k'gam) where we rule like Abaye against Rava. If someone eats non-kosher meat specifically to express contempt for God, rather than for financial reasons or personal desire, are they disqualified from being a witness? This case is also debated between Rava and Abaye, and is another instance where we rule like Abaye. Does the debate between Rava and Abaye parallel a debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosi regarding whether an ed zomem who lied in a monetary case is also disqualified from testifying in capital cases? Initially, the debates are compared, with Abaye's position aligned with Rabbi Meir and Rava's with Rabbi Yosi, but this comparison is ultimately rejected. We follow Rabbi Meir's ruling that a witness who lied in a monetary case is disqualified from testifying in capital cases because there is an unattributed Mishna that holds his position. A story is brought where witnesses were disqualified as per Rabbi Meir's position and the ensuing discussion in the court was to find the Mishna which holds like Rabbi Meir to support the court's ruling. Which relatives are disqualified from serving as witnesses? What is the Torah source for the prohibition against relatives testifying for each other?

Presentation of Relatives Today's daf is sponsored by Ronit and Shlomi Eini in honor of their son Avichai Avraham's marriage to Shilat. If someone is convicted as a false witness (ed zomem), when does their disqualification begin - from the time they testified falsely or only from the time of conviction? Abaye rules it begins from the time of the false testimony (retroactively), while Rava holds it begins only from the time of conviction. Two explanations are offered for Rava's position. The first suggests that we only believe the second group of witnesses who contradict the first because of a unique ruling derived from the Torah, and therefore the original witnesses are only considered liars upon conviction. The second explanation proposes that while Rava theoretically agrees with Abaye, he only disqualifies them from the time of conviction to prevent losses to those who relied on their testimony before knowing they had lied in court. What is the practical difference between these two explanations? This debate is one of only six cases (ya'al k'gam) where we rule like Abaye against Rava. If someone eats non-kosher meat specifically to express contempt for God, rather than for financial reasons or personal desire, are they disqualified from being a witness? This case is also debated between Rava and Abaye, and is another instance where we rule like Abaye. Does the debate between Rava and Abaye parallel a debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosi regarding whether an ed zomem who lied in a monetary case is also disqualified from testifying in capital cases? Initially, the debates are compared, with Abaye's position aligned with Rabbi Meir and Rava's with Rabbi Yosi, but this comparison is ultimately rejected. We follow Rabbi Meir's ruling that a witness who lied in a monetary case is disqualified from testifying in capital cases because there is an unattributed Mishna that holds his position. A story is brought where witnesses were disqualified as per Rabbi Meir's position and the ensuing discussion in the court was to find the Mishna which holds like Rabbi Meir to support the court's ruling. Which relatives are disqualified from serving as witnesses? What is the Torah source for the prohibition against relatives testifying for each other?

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the birth of a grandson to our friend and co-learner Suri Davis. "May she and her family enjoy much nachat from the new arrival as he grows l'Torah (& daf), l'chupa and l'maasim tovim, and may his birth be the harbinger of smachot for all." Palti ben Layish is praised for refraining from relations with Michal, his wife, as she was still married to King David. His self-restraint is considered greater than Joseph and Boaz, who also overcame their desires. Regarding unique laws pertaining to kings: Their mourning practices are distinct. A king does not leave his palace to attend burials. However, Rabbi Yehuda challenges this, citing that King David accompanied Avner ben Ner's body. The rabbis explain that David did this specifically to prove to the people that he had not ordered Avner's death. During the seudat havra'a (mourner's meal), while the people sit on the floor, the king sits on a dargash. The Gemara presents two interpretations of what constitutes a dargash. The first interpretation is rejected. Concerning funeral processions, there is a question about whether women should follow or precede the bier. The rabbis defer to local custom, while Rabbi Yehuda cites King David's example to prove that women should walk in front. The rabbis' response to his proof is discussed. For what action was Avner punished? Rav explains that Avner could have protested King Saul's decision to kill the inhabitants of Nov (or King Saul's many attempts to kill David) but failed to do so. Rabbi Yitzchak contends that Avner did protest, but Saul did not listen. According to this interpretation, his sin was crowning Ish Boshet as king, which delayed David's reign over all of Israel by two and a half years. The requirement that a king must obtain permission from the Great Sanhedrin before engaging in optional warfare is restated here, despite being mentioned in the first chapter of Sanhedrin. A king has the right to create a path through private property. During wartime, when spoils are collected, the king claims his portion first, before the people may take their share. Shmuel and Rav debate whether a king is permitted to exercise all the powers that the prophet Shmuel warned about when the people requested a king (taking their sons, cattle, etc.). Was this a genuine description of royal prerogatives, or merely a warning to instill fear of the monarchy? This discussion parallels a debate between the tannaim Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Nehorai offers a third view: Shmuel's words were meant to discourage the request for a king. Rabbi Eliezer takes a middle ground, suggesting that while the elders' request for a king was appropriate, the amei haaretz sought one for improper reasons—to emulate other nations. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi explain that upon entering the land, the Jews received three commandments: to establish a king, to destroy Amalek, and to build the Beit haMikdash. Rabbi Yosi derives this sequence from verses in the Tanach. King Solomon initially ruled over both the celestial and terrestrial realms, but his marriage to non-Jewish wives diminished his authority in both spheres. There is disagreement about whether he regained his full authority after his downfall.

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the birth of a grandson to our friend and co-learner Suri Davis. "May she and her family enjoy much nachat from the new arrival as he grows l'Torah (& daf), l'chupa and l'maasim tovim, and may his birth be the harbinger of smachot for all." Palti ben Layish is praised for refraining from relations with Michal, his wife, as she was still married to King David. His self-restraint is considered greater than Joseph and Boaz, who also overcame their desires. Regarding unique laws pertaining to kings: Their mourning practices are distinct. A king does not leave his palace to attend burials. However, Rabbi Yehuda challenges this, citing that King David accompanied Avner ben Ner's body. The rabbis explain that David did this specifically to prove to the people that he had not ordered Avner's death. During the seudat havra'a (mourner's meal), while the people sit on the floor, the king sits on a dargash. The Gemara presents two interpretations of what constitutes a dargash. The first interpretation is rejected. Concerning funeral processions, there is a question about whether women should follow or precede the bier. The rabbis defer to local custom, while Rabbi Yehuda cites King David's example to prove that women should walk in front. The rabbis' response to his proof is discussed. For what action was Avner punished? Rav explains that Avner could have protested King Saul's decision to kill the inhabitants of Nov (or King Saul's many attempts to kill David) but failed to do so. Rabbi Yitzchak contends that Avner did protest, but Saul did not listen. According to this interpretation, his sin was crowning Ish Boshet as king, which delayed David's reign over all of Israel by two and a half years. The requirement that a king must obtain permission from the Great Sanhedrin before engaging in optional warfare is restated here, despite being mentioned in the first chapter of Sanhedrin. A king has the right to create a path through private property. During wartime, when spoils are collected, the king claims his portion first, before the people may take their share. Shmuel and Rav debate whether a king is permitted to exercise all the powers that the prophet Shmuel warned about when the people requested a king (taking their sons, cattle, etc.). Was this a genuine description of royal prerogatives, or merely a warning to instill fear of the monarchy? This discussion parallels a debate between the tannaim Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Nehorai offers a third view: Shmuel's words were meant to discourage the request for a king. Rabbi Eliezer takes a middle ground, suggesting that while the elders' request for a king was appropriate, the amei haaretz sought one for improper reasons—to emulate other nations. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi explain that upon entering the land, the Jews received three commandments: to establish a king, to destroy Amalek, and to build the Beit haMikdash. Rabbi Yosi derives this sequence from verses in the Tanach. King Solomon initially ruled over both the celestial and terrestrial realms, but his marriage to non-Jewish wives diminished his authority in both spheres. There is disagreement about whether he regained his full authority after his downfall.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Judi Felber in loving memory of Yovel MorYosef and Yossi Cohen who were killed in a terror attack (ה טבת תשע"ט/ December 13, 2018) at Givat Assaf, on their 6th yahrzeit, and for the continued refuah shleima of her son, Netanel Ilan ben Shayna Tzipora, who was critically injured in the attack. Today's daf is sponsored by Aimee Kahan and Rabbi Joshua Waxman in loving memory of Alex Kahan, Eliyahu ben Shlomo ha-Kohen v'Aliza, on his first yahrzeit. "May his gentleness and wisdom continue to guide us all."  Today's daf is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie, who continues to learn with her each day on the fifth anniversary of starting daf yomi.  A kohen gadol cannot perform yibum - why doesn't the positive commandment to fulfill yibum override the negative commandment to not marry a widow? Rabbis Meir and Yehuda disagree about whether a kohen gadol can escort a close relative's dead body until the city limits (at a distance) or is he not allowed to escort the body at all. This debate centers on a verse in the Torah, "And he shall not leave the Temple." How can this verse be explained according to both positions? When the kohen gadol would go to comfort mourners in a shura (line meant to comfort mourners), where would he stand and where was everyone else positioned? What about when a shura was created to comfort the kohen gadol? How does a shura work? Originally the people walked in a line and the mourners stood in one place. Later it was changed to be the reverse due to a fight that ensued between people who each wanted to walk first. In Tzipori, Rabbi Yosi reinstated the original custom. He also instituted that a mother should never walk in the marketplace with her child behind her, as a child was once kidnapped from behind her and when she went and screamed for the child, someone showed her where the kidnappers were and she was raped. A third takana of Rabbi Yosi was that women should always talk when going to the bathroom in an outhouse so that a man who may approach will know she is there and will not accidentally be secluded with her (yichud). Rabbi Yoshiya ruled that to have a shura, there is a minimum requirement of ten people, in addition to the mourners. Rav Yosef narrows the law in the Mishna that a king cannot be a judge or be judged to the Israelite kings, not from the Davidic dynasty, as kings from the Davidic dynasty were commanded to judge. This law limiting other kings from being judged was created as a reaction to a story where Shimon ben Shatach demanded that King Yannai (his brother-in-law) appear in court regarding one of his slaves who had murdered someone. Yannai challenged Shimon's decision to judge him and beseeched the other judges to side with him. When they did not get up to defend Shimon's position, they were struck down by Gabriel (the angel) and killed. At that moment they realized the dangers of judging a king. If a king is not allowed to relinquish the honor due to him, how can Rabbi Yehuda permit a king to do yibum? For the sake of a mitzva, this can be overridden. The student of Rabbi Yosi asked him how David was able to marry two sisters, Meirav and Michal? Rabbi Yosi answered that he married Michal after Meirav had died. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha brings a different answer - the betrothal to Meriav was never effective. The details of the story and how to explain certain complicated verses are explained according to both commentaries. One who raises someone else's children, those children are considered their own. This is proved by several verses in the Tanach. 

Today’s daf is sponsored by Judi Felber in loving memory of Yovel MorYosef and Yossi Cohen who were killed in a terror attack (ה טבת תשע"ט/ December 13, 2018) at Givat Assaf, on their 6th yahrzeit, and for the continued refuah shleima of her son, Netanel Ilan ben Shayna Tzipora, who was critically injured in the attack. Today's daf is sponsored by Aimee Kahan and Rabbi Joshua Waxman in loving memory of Alex Kahan, Eliyahu ben Shlomo ha-Kohen v'Aliza, on his first yahrzeit. "May his gentleness and wisdom continue to guide us all."  Today's daf is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie, who continues to learn with her each day on the fifth anniversary of starting daf yomi.  A kohen gadol cannot perform yibum - why doesn't the positive commandment to fulfill yibum override the negative commandment to not marry a widow? Rabbis Meir and Yehuda disagree about whether a kohen gadol can escort a close relative's dead body until the city limits (at a distance) or is he not allowed to escort the body at all. This debate centers on a verse in the Torah, "And he shall not leave the Temple." How can this verse be explained according to both positions? When the kohen gadol would go to comfort mourners in a shura (line meant to comfort mourners), where would he stand and where was everyone else positioned? What about when a shura was created to comfort the kohen gadol? How does a shura work? Originally the people walked in a line and the mourners stood in one place. Later it was changed to be the reverse due to a fight that ensued between people who each wanted to walk first. In Tzipori, Rabbi Yosi reinstated the original custom. He also instituted that a mother should never walk in the marketplace with her child behind her, as a child was once kidnapped from behind her and when she went and screamed for the child, someone showed her where the kidnappers were and she was raped. A third takana of Rabbi Yosi was that women should always talk when going to the bathroom in an outhouse so that a man who may approach will know she is there and will not accidentally be secluded with her (yichud). Rabbi Yoshiya ruled that to have a shura, there is a minimum requirement of ten people, in addition to the mourners. Rav Yosef narrows the law in the Mishna that a king cannot be a judge or be judged to the Israelite kings, not from the Davidic dynasty, as kings from the Davidic dynasty were commanded to judge. This law limiting other kings from being judged was created as a reaction to a story where Shimon ben Shatach demanded that King Yannai (his brother-in-law) appear in court regarding one of his slaves who had murdered someone. Yannai challenged Shimon's decision to judge him and beseeched the other judges to side with him. When they did not get up to defend Shimon's position, they were struck down by Gabriel (the angel) and killed. At that moment they realized the dangers of judging a king. If a king is not allowed to relinquish the honor due to him, how can Rabbi Yehuda permit a king to do yibum? For the sake of a mitzva, this can be overridden. The student of Rabbi Yosi asked him how David was able to marry two sisters, Meirav and Michal? Rabbi Yosi answered that he married Michal after Meirav had died. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha brings a different answer - the betrothal to Meriav was never effective. The details of the story and how to explain certain complicated verses are explained according to both commentaries. One who raises someone else's children, those children are considered their own. This is proved by several verses in the Tanach. 

Due to the brave actions of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, who defied the Roman decree forbidding semicha (ordination), the tradition of rabbinic ordination continued. Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava was killed for this act, but not before he ordained Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Yosi, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shamoa. Rav Avia added that Rabbi Nechemia was also ordained at this time. While the story appears to suggest that one person alone could perform ordination, this contradicts a braita requiring three judges. The Gemara resolves this contradiction by explaining that two others must have been present with Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi ruled that rabbinic ordination cannot occur outside of Israel. The Gemara explores whether someone in Israel could ordain someone in Babylonia through written authorization or a messenger. The conclusion is that ordination requires the physical presence of both parties - the ordainer and the one being ordained must be together in person, as demonstrated by several stories of failed attempts at ordination on account of the distance. Rabbi Zeira initially hid to avoid ordination, believing it better to remain humble and avoid positions of power. However, upon hearing that one's sins are forgiven when rising to a position of authority, he agreed to be ordained. Regarding the egla arufa ceremony, Rabbi Shimon holds it requires three judges, while Rabbi Yehuda requires five. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov presents a third position not mentioned in the Mishna - that the king and High Priest must also participate. Rav Yosef concludes that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov requires the entire Great Sanhedrin to attend, supporting this with a tannatic source. While Abaye interprets this source differently, a braita is brought supporting Rav Yosef's reading. Maaser sheni whose value is unclear must be evaluated by three people. What Is meant by the term "whose value is unclear"? What kind of people can do the evaluation? The Mishna also states that evaluation of consecrated movable items requires three judges. This contradicts Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov's position requiring ten, which he derives from the word 'kohen' appearing ten times in Vayikra 27 in the section about consecrated items. The Gemara leaves unanswered the question of how the rabbis derive their requirement of three judges.

Due to the brave actions of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, who defied the Roman decree forbidding semicha (ordination), the tradition of rabbinic ordination continued. Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava was killed for this act, but not before he ordained Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Yosi, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shamoa. Rav Avia added that Rabbi Nechemia was also ordained at this time. While the story appears to suggest that one person alone could perform ordination, this contradicts a braita requiring three judges. The Gemara resolves this contradiction by explaining that two others must have been present with Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi ruled that rabbinic ordination cannot occur outside of Israel. The Gemara explores whether someone in Israel could ordain someone in Babylonia through written authorization or a messenger. The conclusion is that ordination requires the physical presence of both parties - the ordainer and the one being ordained must be together in person, as demonstrated by several stories of failed attempts at ordination on account of the distance. Rabbi Zeira initially hid to avoid ordination, believing it better to remain humble and avoid positions of power. However, upon hearing that one's sins are forgiven when rising to a position of authority, he agreed to be ordained. Regarding the egla arufa ceremony, Rabbi Shimon holds it requires three judges, while Rabbi Yehuda requires five. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov presents a third position not mentioned in the Mishna - that the king and High Priest must also participate. Rav Yosef concludes that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov requires the entire Great Sanhedrin to attend, supporting this with a tannatic source. While Abaye interprets this source differently, a braita is brought supporting Rav Yosef's reading. Maaser sheni whose value is unclear must be evaluated by three people. What Is meant by the term "whose value is unclear"? What kind of people can do the evaluation? The Mishna also states that evaluation of consecrated movable items requires three judges. This contradicts Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov's position requiring ten, which he derives from the word 'kohen' appearing ten times in Vayikra 27 in the section about consecrated items. The Gemara leaves unanswered the question of how the rabbis derive their requirement of three judges.

This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of my grandfather, Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “My grandfather was hard working, loved to sing, especially as a chazan, and brought up his family to be strongly committed to Judaism.”  If two people have the same name, can they collect from other people if we cannot be sure that the document in their hand is really their own? It can be inferred from our Mishna that they can collect, but a braita rules that they cannot. The root of the debate is either regarding whether documents can be acquired by passing them from one to the other (otiyot niknot b'mesira) or perhaps both hold that they can, but the root of the debate is whether one needs to prove the document was passed to them from the other. Rava and Abaye debated the latter issue and a braita is quoted from which each one tries to prove his position. Another braita rules against both the Mishna and the previously quoted braita, holding that two people with the same name can pull out a loan document one on the other. The root of the debate is whether or not a borrower can have a scribe draft a promissory note not in the presence of the creditor. If it can be done, one can pretend to be the borrower, draft the note, and then use it to collect from the other. If a person tells one's children on their deathbed that one of their promissory notes in their possession is already collected, the children cannot claim any of the loans, as the burden of proof is on the one who collects. If there are two promissory notes for the same person, they can collect the one with the smaller amount. When one has a loan with a guarantor, can the creditor collect from the guarantor? If so, under what circumstances? What is the source from the Tanach for the responsibility of a guarantor? At first, they try to learn it from Yehuda and Reuven, when they each promised to take responsibility for bringing Binyamin to Egypt, but that source is rejected and instead, verses from Proverbs 20:16 and Proverbs 6:1-3 are used as the source. Ameimar views a guarantor's commitment as asmachta (a commitment that the guarantor never really meant to keep) and would then be a subject of debate between Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Yehuda if it is a valid commitment. Rav Ashi rejects this explanation and explains why it is not viewed as asmachta.

This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of my grandfather, Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “My grandfather was hard working, loved to sing, especially as a chazan, and brought up his family to be strongly committed to Judaism.”  If two people have the same name, can they collect from other people if we cannot be sure that the document in their hand is really their own? It can be inferred from our Mishna that they can collect, but a braita rules that they cannot. The root of the debate is either regarding whether documents can be acquired by passing them from one to the other (otiyot niknot b'mesira) or perhaps both hold that they can, but the root of the debate is whether one needs to prove the document was passed to them from the other. Rava and Abaye debated the latter issue and a braita is quoted from which each one tries to prove his position. Another braita rules against both the Mishna and the previously quoted braita, holding that two people with the same name can pull out a loan document one on the other. The root of the debate is whether or not a borrower can have a scribe draft a promissory note not in the presence of the creditor. If it can be done, one can pretend to be the borrower, draft the note, and then use it to collect from the other. If a person tells one's children on their deathbed that one of their promissory notes in their possession is already collected, the children cannot claim any of the loans, as the burden of proof is on the one who collects. If there are two promissory notes for the same person, they can collect the one with the smaller amount. When one has a loan with a guarantor, can the creditor collect from the guarantor? If so, under what circumstances? What is the source from the Tanach for the responsibility of a guarantor? At first, they try to learn it from Yehuda and Reuven, when they each promised to take responsibility for bringing Binyamin to Egypt, but that source is rejected and instead, verses from Proverbs 20:16 and Proverbs 6:1-3 are used as the source. Ameimar views a guarantor's commitment as asmachta (a commitment that the guarantor never really meant to keep) and would then be a subject of debate between Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Yehuda if it is a valid commitment. Rav Ashi rejects this explanation and explains why it is not viewed as asmachta.

Today's daf is sponsored by Meir and Ahuva Balofsky in loving memory of Ahuva's grandmother, Basia Chava bat Yirmiyahu, on her shloshim, and in honor of their son Moshe's engagement to Maya Wind. "May Bubbie Chava's legacy carry on in this auspicious new beginning."  Today's daf is sponsored by Sigal Spitzer in loving memory of her Grandma "GG" Rhoda, Raizel Bat Gital, whose first yahrzeit is today. "I love you and miss you. May her neshama have an aliyah."  Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi's father, Jack Lock, of Harrisburg PA, who passed away four years ago. "He was so proud that all four of his children made aliya to Israel, and that his “tribe” grew during his lifetime to nearly 100 family members, spanning three generations (now four!) all in Israel. He was a generous and loving husband, father, grandfather, uncle, and brother who is sorely missed."  When a borrower pays back part of a loan, two tannaitic opinions are proposed to prevent the creditor from attempting to collect the full original amount. Rabbi Yehuda suggests writing an entirely new loan document that reflects the reduced outstanding balance, replacing the original document to ensure clarity about the remaining debt. Rabbi Yosi recommends creating a receipt that the borrower keeps as proof of partial payment, serving as evidence that a portion of the loan has already been repaid and protecting the borrower from potential future claims. Rav diverges from both opinions, requiring a new document to be written specifically by the court and pre-dated to the original loan's date. This position is challenged by a braita that allows witnesses to rewrite and predate the document. However, Rav maintains his stance, arguing that witnesses lack the court's authority to create a lien on the buyer's property from the original date. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi also disagree about post-dated documents, specifically in cases where the post-dating is not explicitly clear. Rabbi Yehuda's position stems from his earlier view that receipts cannot be written, thus allowing post-dating as it cannot lead to deceit. Rabbi Yosi, who permits writing receipts, warns that a receipt pre-dating the post-dated document could potentially enable the creditor to collect on the loan twice. A broader question emerges regarding receipts: Are they applicable only for partial loan payments or also for fully paid loans? The conclusive view is that if a creditor claims a lost document cannot be torn, they may demand payment upon providing a receipt to the borrower. This approach is justified by the creditor's initial act of kindness in providing the loan. A Mishna in Shviit 10:5 distinguishes between pre-dated and post-dated documents. Since documents create property liens, pre-dated documents are disqualified for incorrectly placing liens on lands sold after the document's date. Post-dated documents, however, are acceptable. Rav Hamnuna limits post-dating to loan documents but raises concerns about post-dated bills of sale that could facilitate deception. He warns that a seller could repurchase land before the sale date, and the buyer might then use the deed to prove incorrect ownership. When questioned about why similar concerns do not apply to loans, the Gemara suggests that Rav Hamnuna must not permit receipts. Subsequently, post-dated documents became permitted, and people were also writing receipts. To prevent potential deceit, Rabbi Abba advised his scribes that when they wrote post-dated documents they should add to the document that it was post-dated, while Rav Safra suggested avoiding dating the receipts.

Today's daf is sponsored by Meir and Ahuva Balofsky in loving memory of Ahuva's grandmother, Basia Chava bat Yirmiyahu, on her shloshim, and in honor of their son Moshe's engagement to Maya Wind. "May Bubbie Chava's legacy carry on in this auspicious new beginning."  Today's daf is sponsored by Sigal Spitzer in loving memory of her Grandma "GG" Rhoda, Raizel Bat Gital, whose first yahrzeit is today. "I love you and miss you. May her neshama have an aliyah."  Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi's father, Jack Lock, of Harrisburg PA, who passed away four years ago. "He was so proud that all four of his children made aliya to Israel, and that his “tribe” grew during his lifetime to nearly 100 family members, spanning three generations (now four!) all in Israel. He was a generous and loving husband, father, grandfather, uncle, and brother who is sorely missed."  When a borrower pays back part of a loan, two tannaitic opinions are proposed to prevent the creditor from attempting to collect the full original amount. Rabbi Yehuda suggests writing an entirely new loan document that reflects the reduced outstanding balance, replacing the original document to ensure clarity about the remaining debt. Rabbi Yosi recommends creating a receipt that the borrower keeps as proof of partial payment, serving as evidence that a portion of the loan has already been repaid and protecting the borrower from potential future claims. Rav diverges from both opinions, requiring a new document to be written specifically by the court and pre-dated to the original loan's date. This position is challenged by a braita that allows witnesses to rewrite and predate the document. However, Rav maintains his stance, arguing that witnesses lack the court's authority to create a lien on the buyer's property from the original date. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi also disagree about post-dated documents, specifically in cases where the post-dating is not explicitly clear. Rabbi Yehuda's position stems from his earlier view that receipts cannot be written, thus allowing post-dating as it cannot lead to deceit. Rabbi Yosi, who permits writing receipts, warns that a receipt pre-dating the post-dated document could potentially enable the creditor to collect on the loan twice. A broader question emerges regarding receipts: Are they applicable only for partial loan payments or also for fully paid loans? The conclusive view is that if a creditor claims a lost document cannot be torn, they may demand payment upon providing a receipt to the borrower. This approach is justified by the creditor's initial act of kindness in providing the loan. A Mishna in Shviit 10:5 distinguishes between pre-dated and post-dated documents. Since documents create property liens, pre-dated documents are disqualified for incorrectly placing liens on lands sold after the document's date. Post-dated documents, however, are acceptable. Rav Hamnuna limits post-dating to loan documents but raises concerns about post-dated bills of sale that could facilitate deception. He warns that a seller could repurchase land before the sale date, and the buyer might then use the deed to prove incorrect ownership. When questioned about why similar concerns do not apply to loans, the Gemara suggests that Rav Hamnuna must not permit receipts. Subsequently, post-dated documents became permitted, and people were also writing receipts. To prevent potential deceit, Rabbi Abba advised his scribes that when they wrote post-dated documents they should add to the document that it was post-dated, while Rav Safra suggested avoiding dating the receipts.

Study Guide Bava Batra 170 This week's learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of Irving “poppy” Mauskopf, Yechezchel Ben Rachel and Abraham, whose yahrzeit is tomorrow. "A person of complete emuna that always had a smile for everyone. It is an honor and privilege to be his daughter. May his neshama have an aliya." Today’s daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi’s brother, Jerry Lock of Efrat, who passed away five years ago. “He was the first in the family to make Aliyah to Israel and was a loving husband, father, grandfather, uncle, and brother who is sorely missed.”  Today's daf is sponsored by Naomi and Adam Ferziger in loving memory of Naomi’s father David Weiss, Chaim Ze’ev Ben Yoel and Pessel on his 12th yahrzeit. "He was a Holocaust survivor, kind, generous, with a good sense of humor, devoted to family and community." A braita is brought regarding one who comes to court claiming one has proof of ownership of the land both in the form of a deed and a chazaka (lived on the land for 3 years without the owner protesting). There is a debate between Rebbi and Rashbag about whether one needs to bring the deed or the chazaka as proof (or either or). The Gemara brings five explanations as to what the case is and what is the root of the debate. The first explanation contradicted the conclusion of the previous section regarding the debate between Rashbag and the rabbis about whether or not a document can be acquired by passing it on to another. That led to the impetus to find other explanations to the debate. If one pays back half of a loan – what is done to ensure the creditor won’t try to collect the entire amount later by bringing the original document? Rabbi Yehuda holds that we write a new document. Rabbi Yosi says that we write a receipt that the borrower keeps to prove that part was already paid back.

Study Guide Bava Batra 170 This week's learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of Irving “poppy” Mauskopf, Yechezchel Ben Rachel and Abraham, whose yahrzeit is tomorrow. "A person of complete emuna that always had a smile for everyone. It is an honor and privilege to be his daughter. May his neshama have an aliya." Today’s daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi’s brother, Jerry Lock of Efrat, who passed away five years ago. “He was the first in the family to make Aliyah to Israel and was a loving husband, father, grandfather, uncle, and brother who is sorely missed.”  Today's daf is sponsored by Naomi and Adam Ferziger in loving memory of Naomi’s father David Weiss, Chaim Ze’ev Ben Yoel and Pessel on his 12th yahrzeit. "He was a Holocaust survivor, kind, generous, with a good sense of humor, devoted to family and community." A braita is brought regarding one who comes to court claiming one has proof of ownership of the land both in the form of a deed and a chazaka (lived on the land for 3 years without the owner protesting). There is a debate between Rebbi and Rashbag about whether one needs to bring the deed or the chazaka as proof (or either or). The Gemara brings five explanations as to what the case is and what is the root of the debate. The first explanation contradicted the conclusion of the previous section regarding the debate between Rashbag and the rabbis about whether or not a document can be acquired by passing it on to another. That led to the impetus to find other explanations to the debate. If one pays back half of a loan – what is done to ensure the creditor won’t try to collect the entire amount later by bringing the original document? Rabbi Yehuda holds that we write a new document. Rabbi Yosi says that we write a receipt that the borrower keeps to prove that part was already paid back.

Today's daf is sponsored by Miriam Benson in loving memory of her mother, Evelyn Benson, Yocheved bat Avram Leiv v'Chaya Batya. "She died on October 20th, 2024 at the age of 100. She was a wonderful mother and role model. I miss her terribly and am deeply grateful for her life. How lucky I am to have a mom such as this mom." Why did the Mishna need to specify which side needs to pay for the document in each case - is it not obvious? The Gemara brings explanations for each case. The Mishna explains that if one pays back part of a loan and both sides agree to give the document to a third party (instead of writing a receipt that part was paid) and the borrower declares, "I will the balance by a particular date and if not, return the document to the creditor," there is a debate about whether or not the creditor can claim the whole amount (if the loan is not paid back on time). This is a case of asmachta, an exaggerated claim, and Rabbi Yosi and the rabbis disagree about whether asmachta is valid or not. Even though Rav and Rabbi Yochanan held by Rabbi Yosi, that asmachta is valid, the Gemara ruled that we do not rule that way. If a document is erased/partially erased, if witnesses can testify that they saw the document, they can write a new document testifying to the validity of the erased one. How does one treat a torn document - under what circumstances is it valid? If one claims a document is lost, can a new one be written instead? 

Today's daf is sponsored by Miriam Benson in loving memory of her mother, Evelyn Benson, Yocheved bat Avram Leiv v'Chaya Batya. "She died on October 20th, 2024 at the age of 100. She was a wonderful mother and role model. I miss her terribly and am deeply grateful for her life. How lucky I am to have a mom such as this mom." Why did the Mishna need to specify which side needs to pay for the document in each case - is it not obvious? The Gemara brings explanations for each case. The Mishna explains that if one pays back part of a loan and both sides agree to give the document to a third party (instead of writing a receipt that part was paid) and the borrower declares, "I will the balance by a particular date and if not, return the document to the creditor," there is a debate about whether or not the creditor can claim the whole amount (if the loan is not paid back on time). This is a case of asmachta, an exaggerated claim, and Rabbi Yosi and the rabbis disagree about whether asmachta is valid or not. Even though Rav and Rabbi Yochanan held by Rabbi Yosi, that asmachta is valid, the Gemara ruled that we do not rule that way. If a document is erased/partially erased, if witnesses can testify that they saw the document, they can write a new document testifying to the validity of the erased one. How does one treat a torn document - under what circumstances is it valid? If one claims a document is lost, can a new one be written instead? 

If a seller says "I am selling you land the size of a beit kor measured out with a rope, more or less" - is the second part of the statement indicating a change of mind, or was it meant to keep open both possibilities? Ben Nanas says we hold by the last words. Rav points out that the rabbis disagree and hold that they split the difference since it is unclear what the seller intended. Why was it necessary for Rav to point this out when there is already a case in a Mishna regarding a rental agreement for "twelve months for twelve gold dinarim, one dinar per month" and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yosi ruled in a case of a leap year that the rent for the thirteenth month was to be split between the owner and the renter? The Gemara distinguishes between the two cases, explaining why it may not have been clear that the law would be the same in both cases. Shmuel held that those who disagree and think that the language is unclear hold that the seller has the upper hand as the land is in the seller's possession (in a case of doubt, the burden of proof lies on the one trying to take something from the possession of another). When Shmuel pointed out that some disagreed with Ben Nanas, did he mean to say that he held like the others or not? The Gemara brings other similar cases to assess whether Shmuel held like/against Ben Nanas and after differentiating between the cases, concludes that Shmuel held like the rabbis. Rav Huna explains that Rav rules like Ben Nanas in a different, but similar case. Why was it necessary for him to teach that ruling, if Rav's ruling was known from a different case?

If a seller says "I am selling you land the size of a beit kor measured out with a rope, more or less" - is the second part of the statement indicating a change of mind, or was it meant to keep open both possibilities? Ben Nanas says we hold by the last words. Rav points out that the rabbis disagree and hold that they split the difference since it is unclear what the seller intended. Why was it necessary for Rav to point this out when there is already a case in a Mishna regarding a rental agreement for "twelve months for twelve gold dinarim, one dinar per month" and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yosi ruled in a case of a leap year that the rent for the thirteenth month was to be split between the owner and the renter? The Gemara distinguishes between the two cases, explaining why it may not have been clear that the law would be the same in both cases. Shmuel held that those who disagree and think that the language is unclear hold that the seller has the upper hand as the land is in the seller's possession (in a case of doubt, the burden of proof lies on the one trying to take something from the possession of another). When Shmuel pointed out that some disagreed with Ben Nanas, did he mean to say that he held like the others or not? The Gemara brings other similar cases to assess whether Shmuel held like/against Ben Nanas and after differentiating between the cases, concludes that Shmuel held like the rabbis. Rav Huna explains that Rav rules like Ben Nanas in a different, but similar case. Why was it necessary for him to teach that ruling, if Rav's ruling was known from a different case?

The Mishna rules that if one sells wine and it turns to vinegar, the seller is not responsible. However, there are certain circumstances where the buyer can make the seller responsible. Rabbi Yosi b’Rabbi Chanina limits the ruling of the Mishna to a case where the buyer put the wine in his/her jugs, as then the buyer can be blamed. Rav Chiya bar Yosef disagrees as he deems the wine’s owner responsible for the wine souring, as wine turning sour is understood to be a punishment for arrogance, as can be found in Chabakuk 2:5. If one sells a small house for a young couple or widowed daughter, what is the minimum size? What about other types of houses? A cowshed? A banquet hall? There is a debate regarding the minimum height for a house and whether or not it should be derived from the height of the heichal, sanctuary. There are contradictory verses regarding the size of the kodesh h'kodashim in the Temple.

The Mishna rules that if one sells wine and it turns to vinegar, the seller is not responsible. However, there are certain circumstances where the buyer can make the seller responsible. Rabbi Yosi b’Rabbi Chanina limits the ruling of the Mishna to a case where the buyer put the wine in his/her jugs, as then the buyer can be blamed. Rav Chiya bar Yosef disagrees as he deems the wine’s owner responsible for the wine souring, as wine turning sour is understood to be a punishment for arrogance, as can be found in Chabakuk 2:5. If one sells a small house for a young couple or widowed daughter, what is the minimum size? What about other types of houses? A cowshed? A banquet hall? There is a debate regarding the minimum height for a house and whether or not it should be derived from the height of the heichal, sanctuary. There are contradictory verses regarding the size of the kodesh h'kodashim in the Temple.

 Study Guide Bava Batra 79 Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran zoom family in loving memory of the beloved mother of their dear Hadran learner and friend, Rhona Fink - Millie Laxer, Malka bat Sarah v'Avraham z"l, who passed away yesterday. “May her family be comforted among aveilei Zion v’Yerushalayim. What is the punishment for those who separate themselves from the words of Torah? A Mishna in Meila is brought which discusses one who consecrates an item that generally holds something else like a pit with water, or a field with crops. If one consecrates the pit, is the water consecrated as well? Does it depend on whether it was full of water when it was consecrated or if it was empty? In which items do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi disagree? After reconciling the disagreement between them with the words of Rebbi in a braita, the Gemara proceeds to bring a different braita also regarding this issue. In that braita, there is a debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Shimon. First Raba explains the debate to be parallel to that of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi, but this is rejected in light of the latter case in the braita where Rabbi Elazar. In conclusion, they explain the debate differently. The debate in the first part of the braita is based on a debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis about whether one can acquire items that are not yet in existence. A difficulty is raised, but it is resolved. The debate in the second part depends on whether we learn laws of consecrated items from laws of sales. A difficulty is raised with the explanations of each of these. A difficulty is raised on this explanation, as well, from our Mishna but it is resolved, as is proven from a braita, that the position in our Mishna is a minority opinion.

A mishnah in Meila discusses if a consecrated item includes its contents and how it relates to a machloket between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi. Can you sell a pit without the water.ReplyForwardAdd reaction

Study Guide Bava Batra 66 Today's daf is sponsored by Sarah & Inna Pasternak, in honor of their first wedding anniversary. "We fell in love studying the daf and look forward to remaining havrutas as we build a home full of Torah together."  Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of their friend and co-learner Miriam Eckstein-Koas on the engagement of her son, Daniel. "May Daniel and Talia build a bayit neeman b'Yisrael firmly grounded in Torah and chesed, and may all of Am Yisrael see smachot!" The Gemara continues to figure out which opinion of Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis doesn't seem to correspond to the Tosefta Mikvaot that distinguishes between a pipe that was constructed and then attached to the ground and one that was hollowed out from the ground or while it is attached to the ground. After rejecting the first two possibilities (the braita that related to our Mishna and a Mishna regarding a beehive), they find a Mishna Keilim 15:2 regarding a baker's board attached to a wall in which it seems that both Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree with the Tosefta Mikvaot. Since the Tosefta must fit with one of the two opinions, the Gemara then tries to assess which one. First, they attempt to reconcile it with Rabbi Eliezer, claiming that Rabbi Eliezer was more lenient in the baker's board case as it was only impure on a rabbinic level (a flat wood vessel). However, this is rejected on two accounts. One, mayim she'uvim disqualifies a mikveh by rabbinic law. Secondly, Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chanina's explained that the Mishna in Keilim refers to a metal baker's block, which would make it impure by Torah law. In conclusion, the Gemara establishes that the rabbi's opinion corresponds to the Tosefta Mikvaot, as the issue of mayim she'uvim is only rabbinic. Therefore the rabbis are more lenient there than in the case of a baker's board. If rain falls on a movable item (vessel) that is detached from the ground and at the same time on food that is inside/on that item, if the owner wants the rain to fall on the item, the food also becomes susceptible to impurity. What if the moveable item was attached to the ground, would it be considered like the ground and the food inside it would not become susceptible to impurity, or would it be considered a vessel and the food inside it would become susceptible to impurity? The question is only asked according to the rabbis (and there is no answer), as according to Rabbi Eliezer, it would clearly be considered like the ground and the food would not become susceptible to impurity.

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in honor of her daughter Rina. "Rina got me started on my journey of Daf Yomi with Hadran. You are a magnificent person who does incredible chessed for Am Yisrael and serves as an example to all of us. With love and admiration for who you are." People in the Bar Marion household were pounding flax, and the flax waste flew in the wind to the neighbor and caused damage. Is this considered damages (giri didei) for which Rabbi Yosi would obligate? Can we learn from the laws of Sabbath (winnowing with the wind's assistance)? One needs to distance one's tree from another's property by four cubits to leave room for the neighbor to plow. If one's roots grow into a neighboring field, one can cut them to a certain depth, depending on why one is cutting them (what one needs the space for). Various cases are brought discussing these halakhot.  The Mishna says that when one is allowed to cut the roots of a neighbor's tree, the roots go to "him."  The Gemara tries to figure out whether the "him" refers to the owner of the tree or the owner of the neighboring field. Ravina and Ulla each understand that the first sixteen cubits of the roots are considered part of the tree, but beyond that, they are not. Based on that, Ulla rules that a tree within sixteen cubits of a neighboring field is considered to be stealing from the neighbor's field and one should therefore not bring bikurim from such a tree. The Gemara tries to bring tannaitic sources to prove how Ulla arrived at the number sixteen.