Podcasts about Shmuel

The Mishna discusses the laws of nullification regarding yayin nesech (wine used for idolatry) that becomes mixed with permitted wine. It distinguishes between wine mixed with wine (min b’minu—same substance), which is forbidden in any amount, and wine mixed with water (min b’she’eino mino—different substance), which is prohibited only if it imparts taste. Rav Dimi quotes Rabbi Yochanan as saying that if one pours yayin nesech from a barrel into a pit of kosher wine, each drop is immediately nullified upon contact. The Gemara raises three challenges to Rav Dimi’s interpretation based on the Mishna, and resolves them by reinterpreting the cases in the Mishna. Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef offers a narrower understanding of Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling—limiting it to pouring from a jug into a barrel, but not from a barrel into a pit. Ravin also transmits a halakha in Rabbi Yochanan’s name regarding a mixture that includes a forbidden item combined with both a similar and a different substance. In such a case, the forbidden item is nullified by the different substance (e.g., yayin nesech mixed with wine and water), while the similar substance is viewed as if it is not there. Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda also quotes Rabbi Yochanan, but there are two versions of his statement. In one version, he disagrees with Ravin and limits the ruling to cases where the different substance was present first. In the other version, his comment refers to the Mishna, and he actually agrees with Ravin. A debate between Chizkiya and Rabbi Yochanan also concerns a case where a forbidden item is mixed with both a similar and a different substance. What is the underlying basis of their disagreement? Rav and Shmuel dispute the position of Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding whether the distinction between mixtures of the same type and mixtures of different types applies universally to all prohibited items, or only to yayin nesech and tevel (untithed produce). The Gemara explains why the rabbis would have adopted a stricter approach with those two prohibitions.

Fluent Fiction - Hebrew: The Honest Deal: How Simple Integrity Won the Market Find the full episode transcript, vocabulary words, and more:fluentfiction.com/he/episode/2025-08-11-22-34-02-he Story Transcript:He: השוק בעיר העתיקה ירושלים היה מלא חיים.En: The market in the Old City of Jerusalem was full of life.He: סוחרים קראו בקול ללקוחות, והתבלינים הפיצו ריחות עזים באוויר.En: Merchants called out loudly to customers, and the spices filled the air with strong aromas.He: הבדים הצבעוניים השתלשלו מדוכנים מעוטרים, קורנים באור השמש הבוהקת של סוף הקיץ.En: Colorful fabrics hung down from decorated stalls, glowing in the bright end-of-summer sun.He: בין כל ההמון היו ארי ושרה, שני אחים צעירים.En: Among all the crowd were Ari and Sarah, two young siblings.He: הם עמדו ליד דוכן הטקסטילים שלהם, מחכים לקונים.En: They stood by their textile stall, waiting for buyers.He: ארי היה סוחר טקסטיל חכם וממולח.En: Ari was a wise and shrewd textile merchant.He: הוא תמיד חיפש את העסקה הבאה, מה שיפתח דלתות לעסקאות גדולות יותר.En: He was always looking for the next deal, something that would open doors to larger transactions.He: שרה, אחותו, העדיפה את הצד החברתי של השוק.En: Sarah, his sister, preferred the social side of the market.He: היא אהבה לשוחח עם אנשים, להקשיב וללמוד מהם.En: She loved talking to people, listening and learning from them.He: באותו יום הקיץ, סוחר זר הגיע לשוק.En: That summer day, a foreign merchant arrived at the market.He: כל הסוחרים ידעו שהאיש הזה מחפש לקנות כמות גדולה של בדים.En: All the traders knew this man was looking to buy a large quantity of fabrics.He: זו הייתה הזדמנות שלא כדאי לפספס.En: It was an opportunity not to be missed.He: גם ארי וגם יריבו הגדול בשוק, שמואל, רצו לזכות בלבו של הסוחר.En: Both Ari and his great rival in the market, Shmuel, wanted to win over the merchant's favor.He: שמואל ניסה להוריד מחירים ולמשוך את תשומת הלב של הסוחר הזר.En: Shmuel tried to drop prices and capture the foreign merchant's attention.He: ארי התחיל להתלבט.En: Ari began to hesitate.He: האם כדאי לו להרגיש לגיטימי להשיב מלחמה ולנסות להוריד את שמואל באופן לא הוגן?En: Should he feel justified to retaliate and try to undercut Shmuel unfairly?He: שרה לא הייתה שקטה לגבי זה.En: Sarah was uneasy about it.He: היא האמינה בצדק והגינות ולא הסכימה עם השיטות ששקל ארי.En: She believed in justice and fairness and disagreed with the tactics Ari was considering.He: כשארי הלך לפגוש את הסוחר הזר, הלב שלו פעם חזק.En: When Ari went to meet the foreign merchant, his heart was pounding hard.He: שרה עמדה מאחוריו, ידיה שלובות וגבותיה מוחזקות בלחץ קל.En: Sarah stood behind him, her hands clasped and her brows slightly furrowed.He: היא הביטה בארי במבט שהעניק לו כוח ואומץ.En: She looked at Ari with a gaze that gave him strength and courage.He: במהלך המפגש, ארי הרגיש את הפיתוי לשחק במרמה, אבל לבסוף הציע עסקה הוגנת.En: During the meeting, Ari felt the temptation to play dirty, but ultimately he offered a fair deal.He: הוא הבין שאת התמיכה והאהבה של אחותו הוא לא רוצה להפסיד.En: He realized that his sister's support and love were something he did not want to lose.He: הסוחר הזר חייך בהוקרה.En: The foreign merchant smiled appreciatively.He: הוא הבין והעריך את כנותו של ארי.En: He understood and valued Ari's honesty.He: חדשות הטוב התפשטו במהרה.En: The good news quickly spread.He: ארי ושרה זכו בחוזה.En: Ari and Sarah secured the contract.He: העסק שלהם עמד לגדול.En: Their business was about to grow.He: שמואל נשאר עם מזוודות מלאות בסחורה לא נמכרת.En: Shmuel was left with suitcases full of unsold goods.He: ארי למד להעריך את כוחו של יושר והבין שבעצם זו היא שרה שנתנה לו את הכוח להצליח באמת.En: Ari learned to appreciate the power of honesty and realized that it was actually Sarah who gave him the strength to truly succeed. Vocabulary Words:market: שוקmerchants: סוחריםaromas: ריחותfabrics: בדיםstalls: דוכניםtextile: טקסטילshrewd: ממולחtransactions: עסקאותforeign: זרattention: תשומת לבhesitate: להתלבטjustified: לגיטימיretaliate: להשיב מלחמהunfairly: באופן לא הוגןjustice: צדקcourage: אומץtemptation: פיתויhonesty: כנותappreciatively: בהוקרהcontract: חוזהrival: יריבsecured: זכוgoods: סחורהopportunity: הזדמנותbrows: גבותclasped: שלובותspread: התפשטוvalued: העריךstrength: כוחsucceed: להצליחBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/fluent-fiction-hebrew--5818690/support.

Hear about the groundbreaking, first of its kind initiative called Uniting Torah which unites the 4 Torah worlds. Let's show Hashem that the divisions of the past no longer define us. Now every Jew can support all Torah worlds equally. This time, we give to each other. www.UnitingTorah.com/js

Ateret Violet Shmuel is the founder and director of Indigenous Bridges, a nonprofit and nonpartisan international organization dedicated to the advancements of Indigenous communities across the world.For more, you can follow the show on Instagram @GraceforimpactpodcastProduced by Peoples Media Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Why shemen and yayin was asur machlokes rav and Shmuel and the gezeros of 18 things from Hillel and shamai

Today's daf is sponsored by Doreen Samuels for the shloshim of her dear mother, Elaine Charlton, Ella bat Rachmiel v'Riva Leah, z"l, on 23rd July - 27th Tammuz 5785. She was so proud of my Jewish learning." Rav and Shmuel disagree about the reason and origin of the prohibition on consuming oil from non-Jews. Rav maintains that Daniel instituted the ban to prevent intermarriage, while Shmuel attributes it to concerns of kashrut, arguing that the oil was placed in vessels previously used for non-kosher foods, causing flavor absorption. Three objections are raised against Rav’s view, prompting revisions based on other teachings. Rav holds that Daniel prohibited the oil within city limits, while Hillel and Shamai's students extended the prohibition to the fields as part of the eighteen decrees enacted on a day when Shamai’s students outnumbered Hillel’s and successfully passed rulings by majority. That same day, wine and bread from non-Jews were also banned due to concerns related to their daughters—potentially leading to idol worship and “something else.” Two interpretations are offered regarding "their daughters." Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak claims that the rabbis designated all non-Jewish females as possessing nidda impurity from birth, while Genieva, quoting Rav, suggests the concern was intermarriage. The Gemara challenges Rav’s reasoning—intermarriage is already prohibited by Torah law. After a chain of responses and further inquiries, the conclusion is that Rav saw the decree as either a prohibition on marrying non-Jews outside the seven nations (if Torah law applies only to those) or a ban on seclusion with a non-Jewish woman. To what was the "something else" referring?

Today's daf is sponsored by Doreen Samuels for the shloshim of her dear mother, Elaine Charlton, Ella bat Rachmiel v'Riva Leah, z"l, on 23rd July - 27th Tammuz 5785. She was so proud of my Jewish learning." Rav and Shmuel disagree about the reason and origin of the prohibition on consuming oil from non-Jews. Rav maintains that Daniel instituted the ban to prevent intermarriage, while Shmuel attributes it to concerns of kashrut, arguing that the oil was placed in vessels previously used for non-kosher foods, causing flavor absorption. Three objections are raised against Rav’s view, prompting revisions based on other teachings. Rav holds that Daniel prohibited the oil within city limits, while Hillel and Shamai's students extended the prohibition to the fields as part of the eighteen decrees enacted on a day when Shamai’s students outnumbered Hillel’s and successfully passed rulings by majority. That same day, wine and bread from non-Jews were also banned due to concerns related to their daughters—potentially leading to idol worship and “something else.” Two interpretations are offered regarding "their daughters." Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak claims that the rabbis designated all non-Jewish females as possessing nidda impurity from birth, while Genieva, quoting Rav, suggests the concern was intermarriage. The Gemara challenges Rav’s reasoning—intermarriage is already prohibited by Torah law. After a chain of responses and further inquiries, the conclusion is that Rav saw the decree as either a prohibition on marrying non-Jews outside the seven nations (if Torah law applies only to those) or a ban on seclusion with a non-Jewish woman. To what was the "something else" referring?

Yahrtzeit Yomi #1562!!כז תמוזRav Shmuel RozovskyRosh Yeshivas Ponovezhרב שמואל ב״ר מיכל דוד רוזובסקיראש ישיבת פונוב׳יז(1913 - 1979)---------------------------------------------------Tammuz Yahrtzeits!!1. First Bobover Rebbe, Reb Yonah Minsker2. Mike Tress3. Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rav Shneur Kotler4. Rabbeinu Tam, Baal Haflaah5. Maaseh Merkavah6. Sreifas HaTalmud, Yonatan Netanyahu7. Rav Gedalia Schorr, Lev Simcha8. Imrei Noam9. Klausenberger Rebbe10. Rebbetzin Elyashiv11. Rav Elchonon Wasserman12. The Tur13. Be'er HaGolah14. Rav Ruderman15. Ohr HaChaim16. Kapischnitzer Rebbe17. Rav Yaakov Yosef Herman, Rav Yaakov Weinberg18. Naroler Rebbe, Rav Shmuel Yehuda Levin19. Rav Herzog, Rav Lazer Yudel Finkel20. Rav Avrohom Chaim Na'eh, Rav Avrohom Yitzchok Bloch21. Meitscheter Iluy, The Shtefanester22. Rav Avrohom Grodzenski23. Ramak24. Rav Yaakov Yosef25. Shaagas Aryeh26. Rav Nachman Bulman27. Rav Shmuel Rozovsky28. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, Rav Elyashiv29. Rashi, Yismach Moshe---------------------------------------------------Share the Yahrtzeit Yomi link with your contacts!!https://chat.whatsapp.com/JimbwNtBaX31vmRDdnO3yk---------------------------------------------------To dedicate or sponsor, please contact 917-841-5059, or email yahrtzeityomidaily@gmail.com. Sponsorships can be paid by Zelle to the same number. First come, first served.Monthly sponsorships are $540.Weekly sponsorships are $180.Daily sponsorships are as follows:Dedications (l'Zecher Nishmas, Zechus shidduch/refuah/yeshuah, etc.) are $50.Sponsorships (fliers, advertising, promotions, additional links, etc.) are $100.The cost to request and sponsor a specific Tzaddik (unlisted on the Yahrtzeit Yomi schedule) is $180.MAY THE ZECHUS OF ALL THE TZADDIKIM PROTECT US FROM ALL TZAROS, AND MAY HASHEM GRANT US, AND ALL OF KLAL YISROEL, YESHUOS, NECHAMOS AND BESUROS TOVOS!!!

In this emotional and eye-opening interview, we sit down with Shmuie Hartstein, the founder of B'Sefer Chaim, an urgent initiative born out of heartbreak and driven by love. After witnessing the repeated devastation of families who lost a parent without life insurance, Shmuel decided enough was enough. With raw honesty, he shares the story that led him to launch B'Sefer Chaim—an awareness campaign dedicated to ensuring that no Jewish family ever faces financial ruin in the wake of personal loss. This isn't about business. It's about responsibility. About protecting those we love. About building a future where dignity, security, and foresight replace panic, shame, and last-minute fundraisers.

Shmuel, currently the Director of Lech L'cha Discipleship Ministry, served as the Associate Pastor of Adonai Roi (The Lord is My Shepherd) Congregation before joining the team of Lech L'cha. Shmuel was born in Tel Aviv to Jewish parents who immigrated to Israel fromIndia. He attended a Messianic Congregation for much of his childhood,and became serious about his own faith when he was 15 and, at a youth camp, decided to give his life to the Lord.After graduating from high school, he served as a combat medic in the Israeli army on the Golan Heights and in Lebanon. Later, while majoring in Geography at Tel Aviv University, Shmuel was drawn to serving in summer camps with a strong aspiration to reach out to youth - knowing how important it is for this age group to have someone to challenge them in the Lord.  After working for several years in security for El Al (Israeli Airlines) and the Israeli Consulate in New York, Shmuel returned to Israel and began attending Adonai Roi Congregation in the spring of 2003. That same year, he was invited to become the Youth Pastor. Through meetings with other youth leaders from different congregations around Israel, Shmuel met Suzie, who is also a native-born Israeli. In 2006, they married and currently have four children: Together they continued to be involved in leading youth and young believers in the inter-congregational youth group Neged Hazerem (Against the Flow) gathering the youth of multiple congregations together for weekly events. They were also actively involved in Katzir (The Harvest) organizing nationwide youth camps. Shmuel and his family moved to Yad Hashmona, a Messianic village in the Judean hills a few years ago, and they are blessed to have him serve in Lech L'cha. Shmuel's passion is to disciple the next generation of believers in Israel, equipping them to continue in their God-given callings.

Yahrtzeit Yomi #1550!!יח תמוזRav Shmuel Yehuda Levinרב שמואל יהודה ב״ר אברהם חיים הלוי לויןראש ישיבת טלז שיקאגו(1961 - 2022)---------------------------------------------------Rabboisai, Yahrtzeit Yomi is honored to host Reb Shmuel Kaminetzky Shlita, Associate Dean of Yeshiva of South Shore, who was a very close talmid of today's featured tzaddik, HaRav Shmuel Yehuda Levin ZTL, Rosh Yeshiva of Telshe, Chicago.Our most heartfelt thanks to Reb Shmuel for sharing his warm recollections of his Rebbi with us, and we wish him only continued Hatzlacha in all of his Holy endeavors!!יישר כחך!!----------------------------------------------------------Tammuz Yahrtzeits!!1. First Bobover Rebbe, Reb Yonah Minsker2. Mike Tress3. Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rav Shneur Kotler4. Rabbeinu Tam, Baal Haflaah5. Maaseh Merkavah6. Sreifas HaTalmud, Yonatan Netanyahu7. Rav Gedalia Schorr, Lev Simcha8. Imrei Noam9. Klausenberger Rebbe10. Rebbetzin Elyashiv11. Rav Elchonon Wasserman12. The Tur13. Be'er HaGolah14. Rav Ruderman15. Ohr HaChaim16. Kapischnitzer Rebbe17. Rav Yaakov Yosef Herman, Rav Yaakov Weinberg18. Naroler Rebbe, Rav Shmuel Yehuda Levin19. Rav Herzog, Rav Lazer Yudel Finkel20. Rav Avrohom Chaim Na'eh, Rav Avrohom Yitzchok Bloch21. Meitscheter Iluy, The Shtefanester22. Rav Avrohom Grodzenski23. Ramak24. Rav Yaakov Yosef25. Shaagas Aryeh26. Rav Nachman Bulman27. Rav Shmuel Rozovsky28. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, Rav Elyashiv29. Rashi, Yismach Moshe---------------------------------------------------Share the Yahrtzeit Yomi link with your contacts!!https://chat.whatsapp.com/JimbwNtBaX31vmRDdnO3yk---------------------------------------------------To dedicate or sponsor, please contact 917-841-5059, or email yahrtzeityomidaily@gmail.com. Sponsorships can be paid by Zelle to the same number. First come, first served.Monthly sponsorships are $540.Weekly sponsorships are $180.Daily sponsorships are as follows:Dedications (l'Zecher Nishmas, Zechus shidduch/refuah/yeshuah, etc.) are $50.Sponsorships (fliers, advertising, promotions, additional links, etc.) are $100.The cost to request and sponsor a specific Tzaddik (unlisted on the Yahrtzeit Yomi schedule) is $180.MAY THE ZECHUS OF ALL THE TZADDIKIM PROTECT US FROM ALL TZAROS, AND MAY HASHEM GRANT US, AND ALL OF KLAL YISROEL, YESHUOS, NECHAMOS AND BESUROS TOVOS!!!

In this conversation with Dr. Tanya White, we discuss the theological import of the parsha's unusual point of view, the parallels between Pharaoh and Balak's fear of Israel, and why coming to conclusions based on incomplete perceptions is a destructive behavior. This week's episode has been sponsored by Carole Damon in memory of her father Simcha Yisroel ben Shmuel whose yartzeit is on the 6th of Tammuz. Our Bamidbar Series explores different forms of leadership in the book and in the Jewish world.

Shmuel Goldman grew up in a Washington, DC, suburb, part of a traditional, if not Torah observant, family. When Shmuel was in sixth grade, the family came to Israel for a year of fun and adventure. And that's exactly what it was … for everyone else in the family. But for Shmuel, it was the beginning of a new worldview. He knew he'd come back to Israel someday. The only question was when, and how. Fast-forward 40-plus years, and there was Goel, with his wife Gilla waiting in line to order coffee at Makom Yaffe leCafe, an adorable and inspiring coffee spot in the northern part of Israel. As they approached the cashier to place their order, Goel couldn't believe it. “Wait, is this guy American?!” So what happened? Goel sat with Shmuel at Makom Yaffe LeCafe to talk all about it.

As children, many of us learn about respecting our parents. Let's learn the halachos and how they apply as we become adults.Help make classes like this happen!https://cash.app/$livingchassidushttp://Paypal.me/livingchassidushttps://livingchassidus.org/donate/Zelle: 205-937-9914https://www.venmo.com/u/LivingChassidus

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

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

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

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

1 section- debate Rav/Shmuel in capacity for liquids to recieve/transfer tumah mid'Oraitta, with questions and answers on the two opinions

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

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

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

Shvuas hashomrin that your chayev and patur on choimesh and ashum and the machlokes rav and Shmuel by shvuas bitui

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

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

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

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

Chapter 15 depicts the (successful) procession of the Aron to Jerusalem. The account in Sefer Shmuel (Book of Samuel ch.6) is so passionate. Our chapter is so technical, filled as it is with names and roles of the Levitical families. Beyond Chronicles' seeming obsession with names, what drives our chapter differently to the narrative in Shmuel?

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

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

What happens to a loan on collateral if the collateral is lost? A discussion that leads into an application of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer to Shmuel's position - which seems counter-historical in terms of how the Gemara is put together. Also, does the shemitah year cancel the debt that is loaned on collateral? Perhaps that depends on whether it's symbolic or covering the loan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

An oath of testimony is only relevant when the claimant has asked the witnesses to testify. Shmuel ruled that if the claimant was chasing the witnesses and they swore they did not know any testimony, this would not be considered an oath of testimony. Why did Shmuel need to specify this particular case? From where do we derive that an oath of testimony initiated by others (rather than the witnesses themselves) is only valid if the witnesses agree to it in court? If the witnesses agreed to the oath while in court but had denied knowledge of the testimony multiple times previously outside the court, from where do we derive that they are liable for each denial made outside the court? The Mishna discusses a case where both witnesses testified together. Since two people cannot testify at exactly the same moment, this is understood to mean one witness testified immediately after the other (toch k'dei dibbur - within the time it takes to speak a few words). The Mishna ruled that if the two witnesses did not testify one right after the other, the second witness is exempt from bringing a sacrifice. This principle is a matter of debate when applied to an oath of testimony involving a single witness. What is the underlying basis of this debate? Abaye makes a statement that sounds like a riddle: all agree regarding one witness in a sotah case, all agree regarding two witnesses in a sotah case, there is debate regarding two witnesses in a sotah case, all agree regarding one witness, and all agree regarding a case where the person who should take the oath is unable to do so. What is the meaning of each part of this cryptic statement? Rav Pappa adds additional cases where all agree.

Today's daf is sponsored by Laurence and Michelle Berkowitz in memory of Joy Rochwarger Balsam on her 21st yahrzeit. A pioneer of women's Jewish learning who cared for every Jew near and far. May her memory be a blessing for all her nephews and nieces serving in the IDF and protecting am Yisrael during these difficult times. What is an oath made in vain? There are three basic categories of this type of oath. Details regarding these categories are analyzed. The Mishna compares the cases where oaths of expression and oath in vain apply - men and women, non-kosher witnesses, in court or out of court, one who takes the oath on one's own or is sworn by another, etc. The laws are the same, other than the sacrifice, which only applies to oaths of expression.  Shmuel states that one who answers amen to someone else's oath is as if they took an oath themselves. This is derived from two different places, one of them being our Mishna. 

Today's daf is sponsored by Tali Oberman in honor of her grandmother, Miriam Sklar, who has reached the incredible milestone of 90. A braita has a more expanded version of the debate between  Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva about whether or not the oath of expression for which one is obligated to bring a sliding-scale offering includes oaths regarding events that already happened (about the past). Each uses a different exegetical principle in reaching his conclusion, based on the method adopted by their teachers, Rabbi Nechunia Ish haKane, klal and prat (Rabbi Yishmael), and Nachum Ish Gamzu, ribui and miyut (Rabbi Akiva). An oath of expression is only brought if the person is shogeg, unwitting, when they forgot their oath, but not if they did it on purpose or if it was totally beyond their control. The Gemara brings an example of an oath that would be beyond one's control. A braita extrapolates from the verse that an oath of expression is only brought by one who forgot the oath but not the object. Is it possible to find a case of remembering that oath, but forgetting the object? Rava asks Rav Nachman what would be the case if one forgot both the oath and the object. This question is left unanswered as one can make an argument both to obligate and to exempt. Rava asks Rav Nachman what would be a case of shogeg for an oath of expression about the past? Rav Nachman answers that one who remembers the oath, but does not know that one is obligated to bring a sacrifice. This seems initially to match only Munbaz's approach in Shabbat 68b that one can be obligated to bring a sacrifice if one knew it was Shabbat and that the action was forbidden, but did not know that one is obligated to bring a sacrifice. But, then the Gemara explains that even the rabbis would agree by oaths as it is a unique halakha, as usually one is only obligated in oath for a prohibition punishable by karet. Shmuel rules that one is only obligated for an oath of expression that is expressed in words, not one that is in one's heart. Two sources are brought to raise a difficulty on Shmuel's position, but are resolved.