Podcasts about rabbi yosi

In Zevachim 59, a difficulty was raised against Rav's position that a sacrifice slaughtered while the altar was damaged is disqualified. The contradiction came from a statement of Rav that incense could be burned even when the altar was removed. It was resolved by suggesting that just as Rava explained, Rabbi Yehuda distinguished between blood and burning (and required the altar for blood), so too Rav distinguished between blood and burning the incense (and required the altar to be complete for slaughtering and sprinkling the blood). Where did Rava make that statement? A lengthy argument between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi is brought to provide background. Then a proof is offered for Rava's understanding of Rabbi Yehuda, based on Rabbi Yehuda's suggestion regarding the blood from the Paschal sacrifices that spilled on the floor, but the proof is rejected. Rabbi Elazar brings a source to derive the requirement for the altar to be complete  to permit eating the remains of the meal offerings and other food of kodashim kodashim. Is a complete altar required for eating kodashim kalim? Abaye brings a braita of Rabbi Yishmael proving that the second tithe cannot be eaten in Jerusalem when there is no Temple. He first attempts to derive it from the firstborn by logical inference, but then derives it from a juxtaposition (heikesh). Abaye's explanation of Rabbi Yishmael leads to the understanding that kodashim kalim cannot be eaten when there is no altar. Rabbi Yirmia vehemently disagrees with Abaye, calling him a 'stupid Babylonian,' due to a contradiction between two braitot, which he resolves by differentiating between kodshai kodashim and kodashim kalim regarding this law.  

In Zevachim 59, a difficulty was raised against Rav's position that a sacrifice slaughtered while the altar was damaged is disqualified. The contradiction came from a statement of Rav that incense could be burned even when the altar was removed. It was resolved by suggesting that just as Rava explained, Rabbi Yehuda distinguished between blood and burning (and required the altar for blood), so too Rav distinguished between blood and burning the incense (and required the altar to be complete for slaughtering and sprinkling the blood). Where did Rava make that statement? A lengthy argument between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi is brought to provide background. Then a proof is offered for Rava's understanding of Rabbi Yehuda, based on Rabbi Yehuda's suggestion regarding the blood from the Paschal sacrifices that spilled on the floor, but the proof is rejected. Rabbi Elazar brings a source to derive the requirement for the altar to be complete  to permit eating the remains of the meal offerings and other food of kodashim kodashim. Is a complete altar required for eating kodashim kalim? Abaye brings a braita of Rabbi Yishmael proving that the second tithe cannot be eaten in Jerusalem when there is no Temple. He first attempts to derive it from the firstborn by logical inference, but then derives it from a juxtaposition (heikesh). Abaye's explanation of Rabbi Yishmael leads to the understanding that kodashim kalim cannot be eaten when there is no altar. Rabbi Yirmia vehemently disagrees with Abaye, calling him a 'stupid Babylonian,' due to a contradiction between two braitot, which he resolves by differentiating between kodshai kodashim and kodashim kalim regarding this law.  

Diagrams Study Guide Rav Shravia raises a second difficulty against Rabbi Zeira's proof for Rabbi Yochanan's statement that Rabbi Yosi held the altar was completely in the north from the Mishna in Tamid 29a. He suggests that perhaps it was not Rabbi Yosi's opinion, but rather Rabbi Yosi the Galilean, who held that the altar was in the north. He cites a different braita relating to the placement of the basin (kiyur) and explains why that proves Rabbi Yosi the Galilean must have held that the altar was completely in the north. Rav and Rabbi Yochanan debate the status of sanctified animals that were designated, and then the altar becomes broken. A verse is brought as the source for Rav's position. Two difficulties are raised against Rav's view—one from a braita and one from a statement Rav himself made—and both are resolved. In resolving the second difficulty, the Gemara mentions a position of Rabbi Yehuda. It then explores this opinion in the context of a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi regarding the size and height of the altar in the time of Moshe.

Diagrams Study Guide Rav Shravia raises a second difficulty against Rabbi Zeira's proof for Rabbi Yochanan's statement that Rabbi Yosi held the altar was completely in the north from the Mishna in Tamid 29a. He suggests that perhaps it was not Rabbi Yosi's opinion, but rather Rabbi Yosi the Galilean, who held that the altar was in the north. He cites a different braita relating to the placement of the basin (kiyur) and explains why that proves Rabbi Yosi the Galilean must have held that the altar was completely in the north. Rav and Rabbi Yochanan debate the status of sanctified animals that were designated, and then the altar becomes broken. A verse is brought as the source for Rav's position. Two difficulties are raised against Rav's view—one from a braita and one from a statement Rav himself made—and both are resolved. In resolving the second difficulty, the Gemara mentions a position of Rabbi Yehuda. It then explores this opinion in the context of a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi regarding the size and height of the altar in the time of Moshe.

Diagrams If kodshei kodashim were slaughtered on top of the altar, is that considered a valid slaughter? Rabbi Yosi maintains that it is as if they were slaughtered in the north, and therefore valid. In contrast, Rabbi Yosi b'Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is only valid if performed on the northern half of the altar. Rav Asi cites Rabbi Yochanan, who explains that Rabbi Yosi viewed the altar as entirely situated in the north. Rav Asi assumes that this was derived from our Mishna, where Rabbi Yosi permits slaughtering on the altar. He further clarifies that when Rabbi Yosi stated, "It is as if it is in the north," he meant to emphasize that although the requirement to slaughter kodshei kodashim is "on the side of the altar," slaughtering on top of the altar is also valid. Rabbi Zeira challenges Rav Asi's interpretation by applying the same connection to Rabbi Yosi b'Rabbi Yehuda's position, that he must hold the altar is situated half in the north and half in the south, and introducing another statement from Rav Asi in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, which contradicts that. The second statement of Rabbi Yochanan is that, according to Rabbi Yosi b'Rabbi Yehuda, if one slaughtered on the ground under where the altar stands, it is invalid. Rav Asi responds by explaining that both Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Yosi b'Rabbi Yehuda derived their views from a verse in the Torah, and it does not hinge on the location of the altar. The verse is Shemot 20:21: "And you shall slaughter on it (the altar) your burnt and peace offerings." The debate centers on whether the verse states that both burnt and peace offerings may be slaughtered anywhere on the altar, or that burnt offerings must be slaughtered on one half (the north) and peace offerings on the other. Rav Acha of Difti asks Ravina to clarify the meaning of Rabbi Yochanan's statement that slaughtering on the ground where the altar stands is invalid. How can one slaughter on the ground where the altar is standing? Rabbi Zeira returns to the original statement of Rabbi Yochanan—that Rabbi Yosi held the altar was entirely in the north—and seeks a source for this in a Mishna. He cites a Mishna in Tamid 29a, which refers to the location of the ma'aracha hashniya, the second arrangement of wood on the altar, as being in the southwest corner, four cubits toward the north. Rabbi Yosi explained the need for this to be situated opposite the exit of the Sanctuary. Rabbi Zeira argues that the arrangement needed to be opposite the exit of the Sanctuary and four cubits north of the southwest corner, which can only be reconciled with Rabbi Yosi's position that the altar was entirely in the north. However, Rav Ada bar Ahava counters Rabbi Zeira's proof by suggesting that the Mishna can be understood according to Rabbi Yehuda, who held that the altar was situated half in the north and half in the south, centered in the room.

Diagrams If kodshei kodashim were slaughtered on top of the altar, is that considered a valid slaughter? Rabbi Yosi maintains that it is as if they were slaughtered in the north, and therefore valid. In contrast, Rabbi Yosi b'Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is only valid if performed on the northern half of the altar. Rav Asi cites Rabbi Yochanan, who explains that Rabbi Yosi viewed the altar as entirely situated in the north. Rav Asi assumes that this was derived from our Mishna, where Rabbi Yosi permits slaughtering on the altar. He further clarifies that when Rabbi Yosi stated, "It is as if it is in the north," he meant to emphasize that although the requirement to slaughter kodshei kodashim is "on the side of the altar," slaughtering on top of the altar is also valid. Rabbi Zeira challenges Rav Asi's interpretation by applying the same connection to Rabbi Yosi b'Rabbi Yehuda's position, that he must hold the altar is situated half in the north and half in the south, and introducing another statement from Rav Asi in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, which contradicts that. The second statement of Rabbi Yochanan is that, according to Rabbi Yosi b'Rabbi Yehuda, if one slaughtered on the ground under where the altar stands, it is invalid. Rav Asi responds by explaining that both Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Yosi b'Rabbi Yehuda derived their views from a verse in the Torah, and it does not hinge on the location of the altar. The verse is Shemot 20:21: "And you shall slaughter on it (the altar) your burnt and peace offerings." The debate centers on whether the verse states that both burnt and peace offerings may be slaughtered anywhere on the altar, or that burnt offerings must be slaughtered on one half (the north) and peace offerings on the other. Rav Acha of Difti asks Ravina to clarify the meaning of Rabbi Yochanan's statement that slaughtering on the ground where the altar stands is invalid. How can one slaughter on the ground where the altar is standing? Rabbi Zeira returns to the original statement of Rabbi Yochanan—that Rabbi Yosi held the altar was entirely in the north—and seeks a source for this in a Mishna. He cites a Mishna in Tamid 29a, which refers to the location of the ma'aracha hashniya, the second arrangement of wood on the altar, as being in the southwest corner, four cubits toward the north. Rabbi Yosi explained the need for this to be situated opposite the exit of the Sanctuary. Rabbi Zeira argues that the arrangement needed to be opposite the exit of the Sanctuary and four cubits north of the southwest corner, which can only be reconciled with Rabbi Yosi's position that the altar was entirely in the north. However, Rav Ada bar Ahava counters Rabbi Zeira's proof by suggesting that the Mishna can be understood according to Rabbi Yehuda, who held that the altar was situated half in the north and half in the south, centered in the room.

Study Guide The bloods of the firstborn, maaser, and Pesach are only sprinkled once on the altar. This is derived from the fact that the word "saviv"-"around" the altar - appears in the context of the burnt, sin, and guilt offerings. One cannot learn from those cases to others, as details that appear two or three times cannot be used to establish a paradigm for a different case. Rabbi Tarfon taught that the firstborn can be eaten for two days and one night, as it is similar to the peace offering. Rabbi Yosi Hagelili, on his first day in the Beit Midrash in Yavne, raised several difficulties with this comparison and likened it to a guilt and sin offering, which are eaten only for a day and night. When Rabbi Tarfon could no longer respond to the questioning, he left, and Rabbi Akiva took his place and said that in Vayikra 18:18, where the firstborn is compared to the thigh and breast given to the kohen, this is a juxtaposition between the firstborn and the peace offering. Rabbi Yosi Hagellil responded that also the thigh and breast are given to the kohen in a thanksgiving offering which is eaten only for a day and night. Therefore, perhaps the comparison should be made to the thanksgiving offering instead. Rabbi Akiva was convinced by Rabbi Yosi that the comparison should be to the thanksgiving offering, but he found other words in the verse from which to derive an additional day. When Rabbi Yishmael heard about this, he engaged in a lengthy debate with Rabbi Akiva regarding his change of position—that the comparison is to the thanksgiving offering. Rabbi Yishmael argued that the law of the thigh and breast in the thanksgiving offering is derived by juxtaposition (heikesh), and the law about the firstborn is derived from the thigh and breast by juxtaposition, and one cannot derive a law from a juxtaposition on a juxtaposition. However, the Gemara explains that this juxtaposition is not typical: while the law of the thigh and breast is derived by juxtaposition, the time limitation is stated directly. The debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael centers on whether a law derived partially by juxtaposition and partially stated explicitly can serve as the basis for a juxtaposition to another law. The Gemara raises two difficulties with Rabbi Yishmael's position—one regarding the number of times the kohen gadol must sprinkle the blood of the bull and goat in the Sanctuary (Heichal) on Yom Kippur, and one regarding the amount of flour required for the loaves of matza that accompany the thanksgiving offering. Each of these laws is derived by means of a juxtaposition on a juxtaposition, along with something explicitly stated or derived by a gezeira shava. Each difficulty is resolved. The Mishna stated that the Pesach may be eaten only until midnight. This is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, but Rabbi Akiva permits it until dawn. Each derives their opinion from a different verse.

Study Guide The bloods of the firstborn, maaser, and Pesach are only sprinkled once on the altar. This is derived from the fact that the word "saviv"-"around" the altar - appears in the context of the burnt, sin, and guilt offerings. One cannot learn from those cases to others, as details that appear two or three times cannot be used to establish a paradigm for a different case. Rabbi Tarfon taught that the firstborn can be eaten for two days and one night, as it is similar to the peace offering. Rabbi Yosi Hagelili, on his first day in the Beit Midrash in Yavne, raised several difficulties with this comparison and likened it to a guilt and sin offering, which are eaten only for a day and night. When Rabbi Tarfon could no longer respond to the questioning, he left, and Rabbi Akiva took his place and said that in Vayikra 18:18, where the firstborn is compared to the thigh and breast given to the kohen, this is a juxtaposition between the firstborn and the peace offering. Rabbi Yosi Hagellil responded that also the thigh and breast are given to the kohen in a thanksgiving offering which is eaten only for a day and night. Therefore, perhaps the comparison should be made to the thanksgiving offering instead. Rabbi Akiva was convinced by Rabbi Yosi that the comparison should be to the thanksgiving offering, but he found other words in the verse from which to derive an additional day. When Rabbi Yishmael heard about this, he engaged in a lengthy debate with Rabbi Akiva regarding his change of position—that the comparison is to the thanksgiving offering. Rabbi Yishmael argued that the law of the thigh and breast in the thanksgiving offering is derived by juxtaposition (heikesh), and the law about the firstborn is derived from the thigh and breast by juxtaposition, and one cannot derive a law from a juxtaposition on a juxtaposition. However, the Gemara explains that this juxtaposition is not typical: while the law of the thigh and breast is derived by juxtaposition, the time limitation is stated directly. The debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael centers on whether a law derived partially by juxtaposition and partially stated explicitly can serve as the basis for a juxtaposition to another law. The Gemara raises two difficulties with Rabbi Yishmael's position—one regarding the number of times the kohen gadol must sprinkle the blood of the bull and goat in the Sanctuary (Heichal) on Yom Kippur, and one regarding the amount of flour required for the loaves of matza that accompany the thanksgiving offering. Each of these laws is derived by means of a juxtaposition on a juxtaposition, along with something explicitly stated or derived by a gezeira shava. Each difficulty is resolved. The Mishna stated that the Pesach may be eaten only until midnight. This is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, but Rabbi Akiva permits it until dawn. Each derives their opinion from a different verse.

A sin offering that is slaughtered for the sake of a non-sacred animal, the sacrifice is valid. However, if the owner slaughtered it thinking that the animal was not sacred, it is disqualified. The second category is called mitasek, one who did not at all intend to do the act. The source for this disqualification is brought from two verses, as two are necessary to prove that the intention for the act of slaughtering a sacrifice is an essential component. The Gemara explains that both tanna kama in the Mishna and Rabbi Yosi hold that the intention that is necessary, and can disqualify, is that of the kohen performing the sacrificial rites (or non-kohen who slaughtered). However, Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Yosi holds that the owner's intention can disqualify a sacrifice. Abaye brings two others who seem to have a similar opinion to Rabbi Elazar regarding other areas of halakha. Each case involves an instance where one person is performing an action on someone else's item, and the owner's intent can determine the status of the item. One case deals with slaughtering for idol worship, and the other is whether or not an item is considered significant enough to be liable for carrying on Shabbat. The fifth perek specifies details relating to all the sacrifices, including the location of the slaughtering and acceptance of the blood, where the blood is placed, etc. It begins with kodshei kodashim, a higher level of sanctity. The slaughtering of these sacrifices must take place on the northern side of the Azara. Before the Mishna details each of the offerings, it begins with a general statement about all kodshei kodashim and says their slaughtering is performed in the North. Why didn't it also mention another issue that is true for all of them - that their blood is collected in a sacred vessel? The Gemara explains that at first, they thought the blood of the leper could be collected in the kohen's hand, but they then realized that his hand can be used only for the blood going on the leper's ear, finger, and toe. The blood that is placed on the altar must first be placed in a sacred vessel. Since they originally thought otherwise, and two kohanim accept blood, each in a different manner, this is omitted from the opening line of the Mishna.

A sin offering that is slaughtered for the sake of a non-sacred animal, the sacrifice is valid. However, if the owner slaughtered it thinking that the animal was not sacred, it is disqualified. The second category is called mitasek, one who did not at all intend to do the act. The source for this disqualification is brought from two verses, as two are necessary to prove that the intention for the act of slaughtering a sacrifice is an essential component. The Gemara explains that both tanna kama in the Mishna and Rabbi Yosi hold that the intention that is necessary, and can disqualify, is that of the kohen performing the sacrificial rites (or non-kohen who slaughtered). However, Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Yosi holds that the owner's intention can disqualify a sacrifice. Abaye brings two others who seem to have a similar opinion to Rabbi Elazar regarding other areas of halakha. Each case involves an instance where one person is performing an action on someone else's item, and the owner's intent can determine the status of the item. One case deals with slaughtering for idol worship, and the other is whether or not an item is considered significant enough to be liable for carrying on Shabbat. The fifth perek specifies details relating to all the sacrifices, including the location of the slaughtering and acceptance of the blood, where the blood is placed, etc. It begins with kodshei kodashim, a higher level of sanctity. The slaughtering of these sacrifices must take place on the northern side of the Azara. Before the Mishna details each of the offerings, it begins with a general statement about all kodshei kodashim and says their slaughtering is performed in the North. Why didn't it also mention another issue that is true for all of them - that their blood is collected in a sacred vessel? The Gemara explains that at first, they thought the blood of the leper could be collected in the kohen's hand, but they then realized that his hand can be used only for the blood going on the leper's ear, finger, and toe. The blood that is placed on the altar must first be placed in a sacred vessel. Since they originally thought otherwise, and two kohanim accept blood, each in a different manner, this is omitted from the opening line of the Mishna.

What is the source in the Mishna for the halakha that one is not liable for the laws of notar and impurity when eating blood? Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis disagree about whether one is liable for eating items that are not fit for consumption while in a state of impurity. Is their dispute limited to items that themselves became impure, or does it also apply to a person who is impure and eats sacrificial items that are pure? Sacrificial offerings are slaughtered with six intentions: for a specific sacrifice, for a specific person, for God, for consumption by fire, to produce a pleasing aroma, and to be accepted by God. In addition, sin and guilt offerings must be slaughtered with intent for the specific sin they atone for. Rabbi Yosi stated that even if the slaughterer did not explicitly have all these intentions in mind, the offering remains valid. This is due to a stipulation enacted by the court that the slaughterer should not articulate all these intentions, in order to prevent errors that could invalidate the sacrifice, as the intention is performed by the one slaughtering/offering the sacrifice, not the owner of the sacrifice.   

What is the source in the Mishna for the halakha that one is not liable for the laws of notar and impurity when eating blood? Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis disagree about whether one is liable for eating items that are not fit for consumption while in a state of impurity. Is their dispute limited to items that themselves became impure, or does it also apply to a person who is impure and eats sacrificial items that are pure? Sacrificial offerings are slaughtered with six intentions: for a specific sacrifice, for a specific person, for God, for consumption by fire, to produce a pleasing aroma, and to be accepted by God. In addition, sin and guilt offerings must be slaughtered with intent for the specific sin they atone for. Rabbi Yosi stated that even if the slaughterer did not explicitly have all these intentions in mind, the offering remains valid. This is due to a stipulation enacted by the court that the slaughterer should not articulate all these intentions, in order to prevent errors that could invalidate the sacrifice, as the intention is performed by the one slaughtering/offering the sacrifice, not the owner of the sacrifice.   

The halakha was decided according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar in the name of Rabbi Shimon regarding pigul in the inner sin offerings. Rava (and some say Rav Yosef) wondered: Why is halacha being decided on a matter that is no longer relevant in our times? To this, Abaye responded: "Expound and receive reward." Is there a difference between offerings brought by non-Jews and those brought by Jews? Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yosi disagree on this matter. From which verses does Rabbi Shimon derive that certain laws do not apply to offerings brought by non-Jews? A baraita is brought which states that the tzitz (forehead plate of the High Priest) does not atone for offerings brought by non-Jews. Does this baraita align with the opinion of Rabbi Yosi as well? The prohibition against eating notar (leftover sacrificial meat) and tamei (impure items) applies even to offerings that do not have elements permitting consumption. What is the source for these halakhot?

The halakha was decided according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar in the name of Rabbi Shimon regarding pigul in the inner sin offerings. Rava (and some say Rav Yosef) wondered: Why is halacha being decided on a matter that is no longer relevant in our times? To this, Abaye responded: "Expound and receive reward." Is there a difference between offerings brought by non-Jews and those brought by Jews? Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yosi disagree on this matter. From which verses does Rabbi Shimon derive that certain laws do not apply to offerings brought by non-Jews? A baraita is brought which states that the tzitz (forehead plate of the High Priest) does not atone for offerings brought by non-Jews. Does this baraita align with the opinion of Rabbi Yosi as well? The prohibition against eating notar (leftover sacrificial meat) and tamei (impure items) applies even to offerings that do not have elements permitting consumption. What is the source for these halakhot?

Study Guide Zeiri explains a very complicated braita referring to leniencies and stringencies regarding an impure person eating consecrated items and why each needed to be mentioned explicitly in the Torah. A braita is brought to explain the source of the law that one receives karet for eating part of a sacrifice that became pigul only if there is an action that permits it to be eaten or burned on the altar. The braita brings drashot on the verse in Vayikra 7:18 explaining how it applies to sacrifices other than peace offerings. It also specifies what items can and cannot become pigul. The braita says the oil of the leper can become pigul, but libations that are brought with a sacrifice cannot. This seems to contradict, as the oil follows Rabbi Meir's position and the libations follow that rabbi's position. Three possible solutions are suggested, but the first is rejected. From where do we derive that the meat of the bird sin offering is permitted for the kohen to eat? Rabbi Elazar cites a position of Rabbi Yosi that while there is pigul in the sin offerings whose blood is brought on the inner altar, it is only if both the action when the pigul thought occurs and the action that the thought is about occurs outside the sanctuary, in the Azara.  

Study Guide Zeiri explains a very complicated braita referring to leniencies and stringencies regarding an impure person eating consecrated items and why each needed to be mentioned explicitly in the Torah. A braita is brought to explain the source of the law that one receives karet for eating part of a sacrifice that became pigul only if there is an action that permits it to be eaten or burned on the altar. The braita brings drashot on the verse in Vayikra 7:18 explaining how it applies to sacrifices other than peace offerings. It also specifies what items can and cannot become pigul. The braita says the oil of the leper can become pigul, but libations that are brought with a sacrifice cannot. This seems to contradict, as the oil follows Rabbi Meir's position and the libations follow that rabbi's position. Three possible solutions are suggested, but the first is rejected. From where do we derive that the meat of the bird sin offering is permitted for the kohen to eat? Rabbi Elazar cites a position of Rabbi Yosi that while there is pigul in the sin offerings whose blood is brought on the inner altar, it is only if both the action when the pigul thought occurs and the action that the thought is about occurs outside the sanctuary, in the Azara.  

Ilfa and Rabbi Yochanan debate whether the disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis applies only when the two improper thoughts occur in separate sacrificial rites, or even when they occur within the same rite. A difficulty is raised against each one. The one against Rabbi Yochanan is resolved, but the one against Ilfa is left unresolved. A debate in Masechet Temurah 25b between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosi regarding a similar situation is brought as a comparison. Abaye and Rava disagree about their understanding of the debate and whether it is similar to the debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis in our Mishna. There is a discussion about the language in the Mishna – is it referring to a case of a thought about “an olive-bulk and an olive-bulk” or “an olive-bulk, an olive-bulk.” What are the ramifications of the different versions? Which is established as the correct version, and how?

Ilfa and Rabbi Yochanan debate whether the disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis applies only when the two improper thoughts occur in separate sacrificial rites, or even when they occur within the same rite. A difficulty is raised against each one. The one against Rabbi Yochanan is resolved, but the one against Ilfa is left unresolved. A debate in Masechet Temurah 25b between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosi regarding a similar situation is brought as a comparison. Abaye and Rava disagree about their understanding of the debate and whether it is similar to the debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis in our Mishna. There is a discussion about the language in the Mishna – is it referring to a case of a thought about “an olive-bulk and an olive-bulk” or “an olive-bulk, an olive-bulk.” What are the ramifications of the different versions? Which is established as the correct version, and how?

Siyum Masechet Horayot and Seder Nezikin is sponsored by the Tannenbaum family in loving memory of their beloved mother/grandmother Ruth Zemsky z"l, Raizel bat Chaya Kayla, on her 9th yahrzeit on 23rd of Elul. "Marking the completion of Nezikin, a seder that is focused on bein adam l’chavero- both in the building and healing of society, aptly reflects the life she lead. She was a paragon of sensitivity and taking care of "the other", often those unseen, in community, work and home. Her example continues to inspire us all. Yehi zichra baruch." A braita outlines the protocols for showing respect to the Nasi, the Av Beit Din, and the Chacham—each accorded honor in a distinct manner. This differentiation was instituted by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (the Nasi) on a day when Rabbi Natan (Av Beit Din) and Rabbi Meir (the Chacham) were absent from the Beit Midrash. Feeling slighted, they conspired to remove Rabban Shimon from his position. However, their plan was overheard by Rabbi Yaakov ben Karshi and ultimately thwarted. Upon discovering their plot, Rabban Shimon expelled them from the Beit Midrash. In response, they began submitting challenging questions into the study hall. When the students inside couldn’t answer, they would send in the correct answers. Rabbi Yosi eventually intervened, arguing that it was absurd for Torah to remain outside while the students sat within. Rabban Shimon agreed to reinstate them—but imposed a penalty: the Torah they taught would no longer be attributed to them by name. Thus, Rabbi Meir’s teachings were transmitted as “acherim” (“others”), and Rabbi Natan’s as “yesh omrim” (“some say”). Later, they both dreamt that they should seek reconciliation with Rabban Shimon. Only Rabbi Natan acted on the dream. But Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was not exactly willing to reconcile. A generation later, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was teaching his son, Rabbi Shimon, a teaching of Rabbi Meir, referring to it as “acherim omrim.” When his son asked why he didn’t cite Rabbi Meir directly, Rabbi Yehuda explained that these sages had once tried to undermine their family’s honor. Rabbi Shimon replied that they were long deceased and had failed in their attempt. Rabbi Yehuda relented and agreed to cite Rabbi Meir—though still indirectly, saying “They say in the name of Rabbi Meir.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and other sages also debated a broader question: is it better to be a sinai - one with vast Torah knowledge, or an oker Harim - one with powerful analytical skills who can “uproot mountains”? Rav Yosef was a sinai, while Raba was an oker Harim. Although the scholars in Israel recommended Rav Yosef for leadership, he humbly deferred to Raba. Raba led the yeshiva for 22 years, and only after his passing did Rav Yosef assume the role. During Raba’s tenure, Rav Yosef refrained from receiving honor out of respect. In another case, Abaye, Rava, Rabbi Zeira, and Raba bar Matna were studying together and needed a leader. Abaye was chosen, as his teachings remained unrefuted, unlike the others. The Gemara concludes with a question: who was greater—Rabbi Zeira or Raba bar Rav Matna? Each had unique strengths, and the matter is left unresolved with the classic Talmudic closure: teiku.

Siyum Masechet Horayot and Seder Nezikin is sponsored by the Tannenbaum family in loving memory of their beloved mother/grandmother Ruth Zemsky z"l, Raizel bat Chaya Kayla, on her 9th yahrzeit on 23rd of Elul. "Marking the completion of Nezikin, a seder that is focused on bein adam l’chavero- both in the building and healing of society, aptly reflects the life she lead. She was a paragon of sensitivity and taking care of "the other", often those unseen, in community, work and home. Her example continues to inspire us all. Yehi zichra baruch." A braita outlines the protocols for showing respect to the Nasi, the Av Beit Din, and the Chacham—each accorded honor in a distinct manner. This differentiation was instituted by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (the Nasi) on a day when Rabbi Natan (Av Beit Din) and Rabbi Meir (the Chacham) were absent from the Beit Midrash. Feeling slighted, they conspired to remove Rabban Shimon from his position. However, their plan was overheard by Rabbi Yaakov ben Karshi and ultimately thwarted. Upon discovering their plot, Rabban Shimon expelled them from the Beit Midrash. In response, they began submitting challenging questions into the study hall. When the students inside couldn’t answer, they would send in the correct answers. Rabbi Yosi eventually intervened, arguing that it was absurd for Torah to remain outside while the students sat within. Rabban Shimon agreed to reinstate them—but imposed a penalty: the Torah they taught would no longer be attributed to them by name. Thus, Rabbi Meir’s teachings were transmitted as “acherim” (“others”), and Rabbi Natan’s as “yesh omrim” (“some say”). Later, they both dreamt that they should seek reconciliation with Rabban Shimon. Only Rabbi Natan acted on the dream. But Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was not exactly willing to reconcile. A generation later, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was teaching his son, Rabbi Shimon, a teaching of Rabbi Meir, referring to it as “acherim omrim.” When his son asked why he didn’t cite Rabbi Meir directly, Rabbi Yehuda explained that these sages had once tried to undermine their family’s honor. Rabbi Shimon replied that they were long deceased and had failed in their attempt. Rabbi Yehuda relented and agreed to cite Rabbi Meir—though still indirectly, saying “They say in the name of Rabbi Meir.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and other sages also debated a broader question: is it better to be a sinai - one with vast Torah knowledge, or an oker Harim - one with powerful analytical skills who can “uproot mountains”? Rav Yosef was a sinai, while Raba was an oker Harim. Although the scholars in Israel recommended Rav Yosef for leadership, he humbly deferred to Raba. Raba led the yeshiva for 22 years, and only after his passing did Rav Yosef assume the role. During Raba’s tenure, Rav Yosef refrained from receiving honor out of respect. In another case, Abaye, Rava, Rabbi Zeira, and Raba bar Matna were studying together and needed a leader. Abaye was chosen, as his teachings remained unrefuted, unlike the others. The Gemara concludes with a question: who was greater—Rabbi Zeira or Raba bar Rav Matna? Each had unique strengths, and the matter is left unresolved with the classic Talmudic closure: teiku.

A braita explains that the words “מעם הארץ” — “from one of the land” — mentioned in the section about the individual’s sin offering serve to exclude the king and the kohen gadol. The braita then questions this drasha, noting that the king and kohen gadol are already explicitly excluded by the verses. It concludes that the exemption in the braita for the kohen gadol applies in a case where he committed a forbidden act unwittingly, but without relying on an erroneous ruling. The exemption for the king applies when he sinned before being appointed. However, this interpretation aligns only with Rabbi Shimon’s view, as the rabbis maintain that in such a case, the king must bring an individual sin offering. To reconcile this with the rabbis’ position, Rav Zevid in the name of Rava suggests a scenario in which the king ate half the requisite amount of forbidden fat (cheilev) before becoming king, and then ate the other half afterward. In this case, he would not be obligated to bring an individual sin offering. Rava asked Rav Nachman: if someone ate half the requisite amount before becoming king, then became king, and later ceased being king before eating the second half, would the two halves combine to obligate him to bring an individual sin offering? They attempt to resolve the question by comparing it to a parallel case involving a Jew who ceased practicing religion, a meshumad, but the comparison is ultimately rejected. Rabbi Zeira asked Rav Sheshet, according to Rabbi Shimon’s position: if someone ate a piece of fat whose status — permitted or forbidden — was unclear, and only discovered the issue after becoming king, would he bring a provisional guilt offering? The reasoning is that the type of sacrifice does not change with the person’s change in status from a regular individual to a king. The question remains unresolved. A braita presents two different drashot to derive that a meshumad does not bring an individual sin offering. The practical difference between the two derivations is explored. There is a debate regarding which transgressions qualify someone as a meshumad. A braita explains that when the Torah refers to a nasi, it means a king — as no one is above him except God. Rabbi Yehuda haNasi, known as Rebbi, asked Rabbi Chiya whether he would be required to bring the unique offering designated for a nasi. Rabbi Chiya responded that Rebbi had a counterpart in Babylonia, the Exilarch, and therefore did not meet the criteria of someone who has no one above him but God. A difficulty is raised, as both kings of the kingdoms of Judea and Israel would bring the offering, yet it is explained that Rebbi was subservient to the Exilarch. Rav Safra offers a different version of the discussion between Rebbi and Rabbi Chiya. The kohen gadol who brings a unique sacrifice is specifically one who was anointed with the shemen hamishcha, the special oil prepared by Moshe. The Mishna outlines the legal differences between a kohen gadol who was anointed and one who assumed the role by wearing the special garments. It also distinguishes between a kohen gadol currently serving and one who is no longer in the position. A braita records a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi regarding whether the shemen hamishcha was prepared in a miraculous manner. Rabbi Yehuda, who believes it was prepared miraculously, supports his view by citing several miracles associated with the oil, arguing that its miraculous preparation should not be surprising. If a king inherits the throne from his father, he is not anointed, but the kohen gadol is. Only kings from the Davidic dynasty were anointed. Challenges to this theory are raised: Shlomo was anointed despite his father being king, and Yehu, an Israelite king, was also anointed. These are resolved by explaining that Yehu was anointed with balsam oil, not the shemen hamishcha, and that Shlomo’s anointment was due to uncertainty over succession. Yehoachaz, whose father was also king, was anointed because he became king instead of his older brother Yehoyakim, who was two years his senior. Was he really two years his senior? The Gemara delves into the different verses to understand the age order among the brothers. 

A braita explains that the words “מעם הארץ” — “from one of the land” — mentioned in the section about the individual’s sin offering serve to exclude the king and the kohen gadol. The braita then questions this drasha, noting that the king and kohen gadol are already explicitly excluded by the verses. It concludes that the exemption in the braita for the kohen gadol applies in a case where he committed a forbidden act unwittingly, but without relying on an erroneous ruling. The exemption for the king applies when he sinned before being appointed. However, this interpretation aligns only with Rabbi Shimon’s view, as the rabbis maintain that in such a case, the king must bring an individual sin offering. To reconcile this with the rabbis’ position, Rav Zevid in the name of Rava suggests a scenario in which the king ate half the requisite amount of forbidden fat (cheilev) before becoming king, and then ate the other half afterward. In this case, he would not be obligated to bring an individual sin offering. Rava asked Rav Nachman: if someone ate half the requisite amount before becoming king, then became king, and later ceased being king before eating the second half, would the two halves combine to obligate him to bring an individual sin offering? They attempt to resolve the question by comparing it to a parallel case involving a Jew who ceased practicing religion, a meshumad, but the comparison is ultimately rejected. Rabbi Zeira asked Rav Sheshet, according to Rabbi Shimon’s position: if someone ate a piece of fat whose status — permitted or forbidden — was unclear, and only discovered the issue after becoming king, would he bring a provisional guilt offering? The reasoning is that the type of sacrifice does not change with the person’s change in status from a regular individual to a king. The question remains unresolved. A braita presents two different drashot to derive that a meshumad does not bring an individual sin offering. The practical difference between the two derivations is explored. There is a debate regarding which transgressions qualify someone as a meshumad. A braita explains that when the Torah refers to a nasi, it means a king — as no one is above him except God. Rabbi Yehuda haNasi, known as Rebbi, asked Rabbi Chiya whether he would be required to bring the unique offering designated for a nasi. Rabbi Chiya responded that Rebbi had a counterpart in Babylonia, the Exilarch, and therefore did not meet the criteria of someone who has no one above him but God. A difficulty is raised, as both kings of the kingdoms of Judea and Israel would bring the offering, yet it is explained that Rebbi was subservient to the Exilarch. Rav Safra offers a different version of the discussion between Rebbi and Rabbi Chiya. The kohen gadol who brings a unique sacrifice is specifically one who was anointed with the shemen hamishcha, the special oil prepared by Moshe. The Mishna outlines the legal differences between a kohen gadol who was anointed and one who assumed the role by wearing the special garments. It also distinguishes between a kohen gadol currently serving and one who is no longer in the position. A braita records a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi regarding whether the shemen hamishcha was prepared in a miraculous manner. Rabbi Yehuda, who believes it was prepared miraculously, supports his view by citing several miracles associated with the oil, arguing that its miraculous preparation should not be surprising. If a king inherits the throne from his father, he is not anointed, but the kohen gadol is. Only kings from the Davidic dynasty were anointed. Challenges to this theory are raised: Shlomo was anointed despite his father being king, and Yehu, an Israelite king, was also anointed. These are resolved by explaining that Yehu was anointed with balsam oil, not the shemen hamishcha, and that Shlomo’s anointment was due to uncertainty over succession. Yehoachaz, whose father was also king, was anointed because he became king instead of his older brother Yehoyakim, who was two years his senior. Was he really two years his senior? The Gemara delves into the different verses to understand the age order among the brothers. 

A dispute on the prohibition of the idol when it's owned by a Jew vs. owned by non-Jew (Rabbi Akiva vs. Rabbi Yishmael). Also, vessels that were used in the "Temple of Onias" -- "chonyo," outside of the Temple, once it had been built. [Note: Historically, the specific temple of Onias was a center of worship for Egyptian Judaism.] Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi forgot (!) the verse from which the external worship was prohibited -- and then he was reminded of it by Rabbi Yosi bar Shaul. Also, the specifics of the Temple - as presented in the tractate Middot - were key in terms of assessing what could and could not be used in the Temple - once they were used unlawfully, even unto the Temple's altar itself (in the time of the Hasmoneans). It was a problem of the stones not being smooth, and so they were hid - but why hide? Why not repurpose them? Plus, the gold of Jerusalem and the coins that were permitted for use.

Rabbi Yosi vs. the Rabbis - on a field that was fertilized by the manure of idolatry, or the like, and how that field can be planted, and what terms are required for that to happen. Plus, the potential ramifications of their same logic on leavened dough. When the problematic item that is prohibited from benefit, can it be redeemed for money, and then destroy those coins in the Dead Sea? The rabbis say that there's no financial redemption for idolatry. Also, several new mishnayot: One who takes wood from an asherah tree cannot get benefit from that wood, so what happens if that wood were used to heat a new oven? Or an old oven? Or bread? Or a garment that was woven with idolatrous items? What about revoking the idolatrous status? As long as thee non-Jew is clear that he's not treating the tree as an object of worship, then he is not. Plus, the Roman god of Mercury and the stone-throwing idolatrous worship thereof.

Daf Yomi Avodah Zarah 48Episode 2040Today's daf features three mishnayot. The first two define different kinds of asheira trees. As part of that exploration we tweak our understanding of the concept of a tree that was planted for non-idolatry purposes but was later worshipped, and the argument between Rabbi Yosi bar Rabbie Yehudah and the Rabbis. The last mishnah discusses benefitting from the shade of an asheira. I hope you enjoy. Cheers.Join the community: https://chat.whatsapp.com/LMbsU3a5f4Y3b61DxFRsqfSefaria: https://www.sefaria.org/Avodah_Zarah.48a?lang=heEmail: sruli@babbleontalmud.comInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/babble_on_talmudFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/p/Babble-on-Talmud-100080258961218/#dafyomi #talmud00:00 Intro01:28 Defining three types of asheiras10:02 Tweaking our understanding of worshipping a tree35:35 Benifitting from the shade of an asheira46:10 Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Today's daf is sponsored by 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 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.

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? 

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?