Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran (Michelle Cohen Farber)

Study Guide Yevamot 57

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Cohen, Raye & Maybaum families in loving memory of their mother Elisabeth Maybaum, Elisheva bat Yehuda, on her 3rd yahrzeit. “You inspired us, you supported us, you made us laugh. We miss your wise counsel and insights. We miss you.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Abi Yonitzman in loving memory of Albert Kobney ben Adel and health to Serina Kobney bat Rachel.

Is the debate in the Mishnah regarding a man who betroths a bat kohen the same debate as a patzua daka who is a kohen who marries a bat Yisrael? The Gemara tries to distinguish between the cases, but Rava and Abaye prove (each in a different way) that they are similar. Why did each not interpret like the other opinion? Rabbi Yochanan asked Rabbi Oshaya a question he could not answer - a patzua daka who was married to the daughter or converts - could she eat truma? There is a dispute between three tannaim regarding the daughter of a convert - is she disqualified to marry a kohen and is she considered “within the community” and can’t marry a patzua daka? According to which opinion did Rabb Yochanan ask his question? What is the answer to the question? Rav and Shmuel disagree in a case where there is a chuppah without a betrothal of a woman forbidden to a kohen with a kohen, will she be disqualified from eating truma?

Today's daf is sponsored by Martin Gaynor in loving memory of Dr. Jerry Rabinowitz, z"l.

Today's daf is sponsored by Tova and David Kestenbaum in loving memory of their dear Aunt Esther Press, Esther Faigel bat Raphael Zev v'Chaya Chasha. "She was who a role model of a life of Torah and Chesed. She cared so much about family and we all felt very close to her."

Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel have three disputes in the Mishna – one can make a vow to murderers, thieves, and tax collectors that is untrue but is it also permitted to swear? Can one decide on their own to vow to the murderer, thief, or tax collector or is it only permitted if they suggest the vow? If the murderer, etc. insisted that the person vow about something in particular, if the person vows about that and something else, is the other part also permitted or only the part about which they were forced to vow? How can one make a vow that is untrue to avoid taxes – didn’t Shmuel says that the law of the land is the law (dina d’malchuta dina) and therefore one cannot avoid paying taxes? The second vow mentioned in the Mishna was one who vowed that items belonged to the king. They explain this vow as: "Fruits will be forbidden to me if these are not the king's possessions. If so, why is it not a valid vow and the fruits should be forbidden? The Gemara quotes a braita with a debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel that seems to be on a similar issue to our Mishna –  regarding initiating a claim by oath. However, this braita seems to contradict our Mishna in two ways. Two resolutions are suggested. The Mishna brings a case where one made a declaration that if these saplings are not destroyed (from some impending storm), they will be like a sacrifice, they are in fact sanctified (if they are not destroyed) and need to be redeemed. If one declares: these saplings will be like a sacrifice until they are cut down, they are not able to be redeemed. Why is the language in the first part of the Mishna: ’they need to be redeemed' and not ‘they are sanctified’? The second case mentioned in the Mishna leads to a question – what exactly is the wording of the vow and what specific case is the Mishna concerned about? What does the Mishna mean when it says: They can’t be redeemed?

This week's learning is sponsored by Jonathan Aibel in honor of Natasha Shabat. "Giving in honor of my teacher, who has opened many doors of Torah for me." 

Rava explained the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the Mishna to be referring to a case where the woman sent an agent to accept a betrothal for her and specified with what the husband would betroth her and the messenger accepted something else of higher value. He ruled that this betrothal is effective as she was merely suggesting a possible method. Abaye explains that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar each hold the same thing but in a different case - one regarding a regular document/tied document and the other regarding a woman who appoints an agent to receive her divorce document and also specifies the location where the agent is to go to receive it. Ula qualified the debate between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis as a case of differences in monetary value, but not differences in social status as not every woman would be happy to marry a man of higher status. A braita is brought to strengthen his qualification and it is derived from the Mishnayot here as well. Mar, the son of Rav Ashi raises a difficulty about the derivation from the Mishna but it is resolved in two possible ways. The Gemara brings in a braita with possible terms a husband can use as a condition when betrothing a wife and an explanation is brought for each as to what is meant by that, such as, "that I am a learner," what type of learner does he need to be, i.e. how do we check the veracity of his statement? Following a discussion on "on the condition that I am wise" which mentioned a number of examples of the best of the sages, the Gemara agra brings a series of statements: "Ten measures of...came down to the world and nine of them were taken by..."

Study Guide Nazir 9

One who vowed to be a nazir not to eat figs, is that person considered a nazir? Are they forbidden from eating figs? Or is it just an absurd statement that means nothing? Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai disagree about this case. There are three different explanations about what Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai actually hold. According to one of the interpretations, Beit Hillel's opinion is based upon an opinion of Rabbi Shimon in a Minha in Menachot 103a. That Mishna is brought and Chizkiya and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about two issues in that Mishna. Firstly, to whom does tanna kama's opinion correspond? What would be the case if the declaration there was made with lentils instead of barley (the Mishna's case is with barley)? 

Study Guide Beitzah 22

Rabban Gamliel was stringent like Beit Shamai in three laws related to Yom Tov. He did not allow one to warm up hot water and wrap it to keep warm on Yom Tov for Shabbat. In what situation was this – with an Eruv Tavshilin or without? Rabbi Huna, Rava and Abaye each explain it in a different way. Rabban Gamliel also was stringent to not allow a menorah that hadfallen to be picked up. An explanation is brought that the debate is regarding a cnadelbra made in parts and the issue is whether or not building vessels is part of the melacha of building or not. The Gemara continues to discuss various laws regarding the lighting of candles on Shabbat and Yom Tov. Is it permissible to use an eye salve on Yom Tov? Is it permissible on Shabbat by a gentile? On what does it depend? Is it allowed on the second good day of Rosh Hashanah? Rabban Gamliel's third stringency was that he did not permit a thick dough to be made. A braita is brought showing a debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel about making a thick dough on Pesach. Is it a leavening issue or a Yom Tov issue? Rabban Gamliel also was lenient against the rabbis in three laws – sweeping the floors on Yom Tov, putting spices on hot coals to make a nice smell in the room and eating a whole goat with the innards on the top or sides as the Pesach sacrifice was roasted. For what purpose did he allow the spices to be roasted - for a better smell for clothing or for people? Rabbi Asi first said the issue was for clothing but after raising a question from a braita, it was determined that the debate was for a smell for people. Is it permitted to smoke fruit – this is a matter of dispute between Rav and Shmuel.

Study Guide Shabbat 42

Today's shiur is dedicated in memory of Natan Zvi ben Moshe Yehuda Leib Zeiger z|l by his daughter Dr. Robin Zeiger and his son-in-law Prof. Jonathan ben Ezra.

How can we say that Shmuel holds like Rabbi Shimon who permits performing a melacha in a case where one had no intention to do the melacha if in another case, he doesn't hold like Rabbi Shimon - if there is burning metal on the street one can extinguish it but not if it is a burning wood coal. The gemara answers that it is not the same category. The issue with the coals is what we call a melacha sheaina tzricha legufa - it is not done for the purpose that it was donein the tabernacle. Shmuel held like Rabbi Yehuda in that debate and like Rabbi Shimon in the other debate. There is an argument between Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasia regarding whether one can put hot water into cold or cold water into hot. Does it depend on what type of utensil - cup or bathtub? What about a basin?On what issue does Rabbi Shimon ben Mensai disagree with them or is he actually disagreeing about their debate? Spices cannot be put in a kli rishon - a utensil that was on the fire but can be put in a kli sheni. Is sal;t the same as spices or do they cook in less time? In more time? Laws of muktze are discussed - can one put a utensil under the oil that one set up for candles - in order to catch the oil that spills? Is it allowed if it was set up before Shabbat? In what way is one allowed to protect eggs that hatch on Shabbat (which are muktze) from being stepped on by people? The gemara distinguishes between common cases (one is allowed to) and less common cases (one is not permitted). The gemara questions that premise. 

Today's daf is sponsored by Susan Cashdan in loving memory of her father Yitzchak ben Moshe Chona.

Today's daf is sponsored by Hannah Piotrkowski. "May our learning be a segula for the safe return of the five "תצפיתניות" (IDF observers) Liri Albag, Karina Ariev, Agam Berger, Daniella Gilboa, and Naama Levy."

Today's daf is sponsored by Susan Kurzmann in honor of the yahrzeit of her mother, Rivkah bat h'Rav Simcha Bunim, A"H. "My mother showed my siblings and me through her example how wonderful and important it is to always keep learning."

The derivation for the law that capital cases can only be judged during the day comes from Bamidbar 25:4 when those who had worshipped ba'al peor were hung in broad daylight. The verse there uses the verb "v'hoka" which is explained to mean that they were hung. The proof for that definition comes from the verse Samuel 2 21:6 when King David allowed the Gibeonites to kill the sons of Saul in an act of revenge.

If the court wants to convict in a capital case, they wait until the following day, halanat hadin. Two different verses from Isaiah Chapter 1 are brought as a possible source for this law. Because of that law, capital cases cannot begin on a Friday as if they would convict, the case would need to be finished the next day and if the person was found guilty, they would need to execute on Shabbat and that is forbidden, as it is a violation of Shabbat. From here it is clear that capital punishment doesn't override Shabbat.

Several kal v'chomers are suggested regarding what types of things could possibly override Shabbat, and whether or not they do is clarified. The first suggestion is of Reish Lakish, that burial of a met mitzva should override Shabbat. If a met mitzva overrides worship in the Temple and worship in the Temple overrides Shabbat, then shouldn't met mitzva override Shabbat!? The derivation that a met mitzva overrides worship in the Temple is learned from a verse about the nazir, Bamidbar 6:7. Rabbi Yochanan responds to Reish Lakish that the kal v'chomer he suggested is invalid as can be proven from implementing the death penalty which does not override Shabbat but does override worship in the Temple. The Gemara questions Rabbi Yochanan by suggesting another kal v'chomer that could teach that implementing the death penalty perhaps overrides Shabbat. Rava rejects this suggestion as a braita of Rabbi Yishmael brings a derivation from Shmot 35:3 "You shall not kindle a fire throughout your settlements on Shabbat" that teaches that the court cannot implement the death penalty on Shabbat.

This week’s learning is sponsored by Bob & Paula Cohen in loving memory of Helen Cohen, Henna bat Yitzchak Nechemia whose yahrzeit is on Friday.

This week's learning is sponsored by Sara Averick & Jose Rosenfeld in loving memory of Sara’s mother, Leah bat Rav Yehuda Leib Chaikel v’Chaya Masha. "She made sure her children got an excellent Jewish education."

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of the eight soldiers who were killed yesterday in Gaza, and in memory of Yair Roitman who was injured a few days ago and died yesterday. 

A sharecropper who pays a set amount (chokher) cannot plant something that will weaken the land or will not regrow for seven years, such as flax or cut a sycamore tree, unless they will be cultivating the land for seven years. Abaye and Rava disagree on whether the enhancement to the sycamore tree goes to the sharecropper. Rav Papa worked as a sharecropper for growing hay, but a palm tree grew instead. He wanted to get money for the enhancement of the tree when he left the field, as the tree prevented him from planting hay, but Rav Sheisha entered into a debate with him and eventually ruled that he could only get the value of the tree if he had cut it for its wood. Another similar case is brought but since the tree grew on the border, where they wouldn't have planted anything, the sharecropper did not receive money for the enhancement of the tree. Rav Yosef had a planter working in his field who died and left five sons-in-law who all wanted to replace him. However, Rav Yosef threatened them to leave his land as he did not want five people working the land, as each would think another person would do the work and no one would take full responsibility. If a planter says, "If I cause a loss to the owner, I will leave without taking the enhancements," does the planter forfeit any enhancements there were, or is this a case of asmachta? A case is brought of a planter who left in the middle of a job to move to Israel. Rav Papa bar Shmuel and Rava disagreed about whether he could receive the full enhancements to the field that he would have received or whether he had to compensate the owner for his loss, as now the owner will need to find a sharecropper to finish the job. Rav Ashi understood the ruling in one way, but Rav Acha questioned his understanding.

This week's learning is dedicated by Marcia Baum in loving memory of Chaim Simcha ben Aharon Halevi and Liba on his 19th yahrzeit today. "My father was a larger than life individual whose impact is still felt many years after his petirah. He is missed every day."

The daughters of Shmuel were taken captive and yet knew how to save themselves from being prohibited to marry a kohen. If two women testify each about the other that they were not raped in captivity are they believed? Do we need to be concerned that they are lying for each other? What about two men testifying each about the other that he is a kohen? 

Why didn’t the Mishna mention a case of one who claimed that they borrowed money from another, but already paid it back? Why didn’t it mention the case of one who said “Your father lent me money but I paid him back half.” Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and the rabbis disagree regarding that case – what does each hold and why? Why is it different than a standard case of modeh b’miktzat, one who admits to part of the claim, who is obligated to swear regarding the half in question? The Mishna brings another case where one is believed as we only know of the claim at all from what the person told us and therefore, they are believed about the rest. The case is regarding verification of signature on a document. When the witnesses verified their signatures, they claimed they were forced into it or were too young to testify or were disqualified witnesses. Rami bar Chama limits one of the cases of the Mishna but there are two versions as to which one he is limiting. How does the Mishna work with the principle that once one has testified, one can no longer change their testimony? How does it work with the principle that a person does not come to court and self-incriminate themselves? A braita brings a debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding the law in our Mishna. The Gemara raises a difficulty with Rabbi Meir’s opinion.

Study Guide Shabbat 106

Is it true that any destructive act, one is not obligated by Torah law for doing on Shabbat? What about burning a fire and inflicting a bodily injury? There is a debate between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda. When is one obligated for trapping an animal, bird or fish? What are the differences between them? On what does it depend? 

Study Guide Chagigah 18

This week’s learning is sponsored by the Futornick Family, in honor of Michelle and Bill Futornick's anniversary. “B"H, we will begin our celebration on the plane ride back from Israel on March 1!” 

Reish Lakish brings a different proof that one can make up the chagigah and re'iya sacrifices for Shavuot on the 6 days after the holiday. Rabbi Yochanan rejects this proof, although the Gemara points out that both agree that work is forbidden on Chol Hamoed. From where is that derived? Three different answers are brought to answer that question. The next Mishna sets up different categories of items that require purity and ranks them in terms of severity. The Mishna explains laws in which the ranking has relevance. The Mishna required washing one's hands for chulin and maaser sheni - however, another source contradicts this as it indicates there is no need for washing hands for those items. How is this contradiction resolved?

Today's daf is sponsored by Ariele Mortkowitz for the refuah shleima of Aliza Yehudit bat Malka Esther. "For the merit of healing and continued health and long life."

Several assumptions about human behavior are used to determine ownership. One generally doesn't bring tools and harvest in a field that is not one's own. One wouldn't protest land that is unlikely to grow crops or unprotected land whose produce will likely be eaten by the animals, or produce that is forbidden to sell by law (orla, shmita, kelaim). According to the Mishna, there is presumptive ownership for slaves after three years. How can Reish Lakish's statement that possession of livestock cannot be used as proof of ownership as they are free to move on their own, be understood in light of the Mishna? Rava ruled that one can establish presumptive ownership on a small slave immediately - on what basis? There is a debate regarding whether or not plowing would be considered an act of chazaka if the owner did not protest. The Gemara first assume that this issue is the source of debate between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva in the Mishna, but then rejects that understanding. 

Study Guide Bava Batra 115

Rabbi Yochanan quotes a statement of Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi Shimon that a mother inherits her son. However, Rabbi Yochanan rejects this statement as it is contradicted by our Mishna which clearly states that a mother does not inherit her son. Rabbi Yehuda responded that he doesn't know who the author of the Mishna is and therefore is not concerned with the contradiction. The Gemara first explains why the Mishna cannot be explained according to Rabbi Zacharia ben haKatzav and then proceeds to explain that the Mishna has an inner contradiction regarding the drasha of the word 'matot'. However, they resolve the contradiction.

The Mishna discusses the order of inheritance - at each stage, if the person who should inherit is not alive, it does to their descendants before moving on to the next in line. There was a big debate between the Saducees and the rabbis. In a case where there are two siblings, a son and daughter, and the son is no longer alive but has a daughter, the rabbis ruled that the son's daughter precedes his sister for their father's inheritance. The Saducees held that the sister and the granddaughter split it 50/50. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai debates them and wins and sets the law according to the rabbis' understanding.

The gemara explains the importance of trying to prevent others from sinning, even if you know they won't listen to you. We have a communal responsibility to others - both leaders and individuals are responsible for others. Rav Ami says that people only die or are punished for their own sins, not the sins of others. The gemara brings several braitot that seem to contradict. Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani saya in the name of Rabbi Yonatan that Reuven did not actually sleep with Bilhah - if so, why does it say he did? The sons of Ely didn't really sleep with other women - if so, why does it say they did? 

Study Guide Bava Batra 72

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family. "In these turbulent days, where we lean on our routine of the daily Daf learning for comfort, we are thrilled with the piercing double joy of two of fellow Dafferette's smachot. To Julie Mendelssohn and her family, mazal Tov and joy on the marriage of her son Rafi to his bride, Adi. And to Miriam Tannenbaum and her family, on the marriage of her son Avrumy to his bride, Rochel. With a tefilla that this sasson v'simcha will herald in many more wonderful times. With lots of love from the Hadran Zoom family."

After reconciling Rav Huna's ruling (about one who sells a field but keeps two trees) with Rabbi Shimon's position by explaining that Rav Huna aligns with the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon with Rabbi Akiva, the Gemara raises a difficulty from braita. From the braita, which can only be explained according to Rabbi Shimon, it is clear that Rabbi Shimon does not hold that one sells generously, like Rabbi Akiva. Therefore the Gemara explains Rabbi Shimon's position in our Mishna differently - as a response to the rabbis according to their position and is not reflecting Rabbi Shimon's position. However, an additional issue is raised: the last line in the braita doesn't seem to match Rabbi Shimon's position, which undermines the conclusion of the previous section. This issue is resolved and the braita can be explained according to Rabbi Shimon.

Today's daf is sponsored by Dr. Robin Zeiger in loving memory of her mother Helen Zeiger's yahrzeit, and the first wedding anniversary of her son Akiva to Rivka. "Mom's love and support enabled me to become religious and begin my Jewish learning at ICJA."

Today's daf is sponsored by Vitti Rosenzweig Kones in loving memory of her mother, Sara bat David v'Vitti who passed away last Friday, 9 Tamuz. A righteous woman who survived the Holocaust and went on to build a beautiful family. Yehi Zichra Baruch. 

Rabbi Elazar holds that if a man claims his wife had a "petach patuach," meaning that when they had relations for the first time, he could tell that she wasn't a virgin, he is believed to forbid her to him as once can testify in order to forbid something on oneself (shavya nafsha chatichad'isura). Why would this be be the case if it is only a sefek safeka (2 doubts) as she could have had relations before they were betrothed and she could have been raped. The Gemara brings two answers which narrow the case of Rabbi Elazar's statement either to a woman married to a kohen or one who was betrothed by her father before age 3. Why couldn't this law of Rabbi Elazar have been derived from a Mishna in Kiddushin 65a which is based on the same principle? What is the difference between the cases? Rabbi Elazar also said that a woman is only forbidden to her husband if there was a warning issued by the husband and the woman then was secluded with the man in question (like a Sotah) and like the Batsheva/David situation. What exactly does this mean and how does this correspond to Rabbi Elazar's previous statement which seems to contradict this? Why was Batsheva not forbidden to return to her husband? There are two possible answers. Abaye attempts to bring support for Rabbi Elazar's statement from our Mishna (Ketubot 2) but it is rejected by differentiating between the claim of petach patuach and a claim that there was no blood. Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel that if a man claims his wife had a "petach patuach" he can divorce her without having to give her the ketuba money, meaning she would get 100 zuz like a non-virgin, instead of 200 zuz. Rav Yosef questions: We can derive that law from a Mishna Ketubot 12a! The Gemara resolves his question by differentiating between the claim of petach patuach and a claim that there was no blood.

According to Rav, a deaf person who can write can write a note instructing others to give a get to his wife.  The Gemara points out that his law is debated among tanaim. The Gemara here is grappling with issues of people with disabilities and is aware of the fact that although people may be categorized into a particular group, there are shades within each group and there are those with higher intellectual capabilities.

Study Guide Nazir 56

Today's daf is sponsored by Ruth Leah Kahan with gratitude to HKB"H for her recovery and return to health one year after being caught in a chlorine gas leak. "Thanks to my family and friends around the world for their unstinting encouragement and support."

Two further questions are raised against Rav Chisda’s understanding of our Mishna from tannaitic sources. One relates to a case where one is a nazir and possibly became impure and possibly was a leper but is unsure. The other relates to the source for the law that the days of leprosy are not counted as days of the nazirite's term. There are no resolutions to the difficulties. Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua that the impurities for which the nazir needs to shave are the same impurities that one is liable by the punishment of karet for entering the Temple. Impurities that the nazir does not need to shave for, are not punishable by karet if one enters the Temple with that state of impurity. Rabbi Meir raises a question on that - why would the latter category of impurity be more lenient than the light impurity of a sheretz, one of the eight creeping creatures who pass on impurity when dead? Why does our Mishna say that Rabbi Elazar quoted this law in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua when in the Tosefta it says that he learned it from Rabbi Yehoshua bar Mamel who heard it from Rabbi Yehoshua? We learn from here that when passing down a halacha in the name of a middle person who heard it from the source, one mentions the source and not the middle person from whom he learned it. Rabbi Akiva questions a law learned previously in the chapter - that a quarter-log of blood does not make a nazir shave. The question is a logical one: if a bone the size of a barley grain causes a nazir to shave, even though it only passes on impurity by touching or carrying, wouldn't a quarter-log of blood pass that passes on impurity also in a tent, also be a cause for the nazir to shave if he touches or carries it? Rabbi Yehoshua answered that while Rabbi Akiva's logic may be sound, the tradition passed down is not that way.

Study Guide Kiddushin 75

Today's daf is dedicated to the safety of our soldiers and our country. 

There are different opinions on whether having had any forbidden relationship forbids one from marrying a kohen or is it dependent on which type of forbidden relationship. In the last part of the Mishna, Rabbi Eliezer ruled that only a definite mamzer can marry a definite mamzer but if the status is one of doubt, they cannot marry a mamzer or another person whose lineage is in doubt. Rav holds by this opinion but Shmuel does not. This seems to contradict a different debate between Rav and Shmuel regarding an engaged woman whose child's father is unknown. Various explanations are brought to resolve the contradiction.Rabbi Eleazar ruled that a cuti can't marry a cutit. Several explanations are brought to understand this ruling.

Study Guide Shabbat 107

Today's daf is sponsored by Dr. Robin Zeiger and Professor Jonathan Ben-Ezra in honor of their daughter Bracha, of whom they are so proud that she is giving a siyum on Maseachet Taanit. And by Lillian Cohen in memory of her father Kurt Philipp, David ben Tzvi, z"l on what would have been his 91st birthday. And in honor of Father's Day by Carolyn Benger in honor of her father, Bernhard Benger (Dov ben Zvi). "He was my first teacher and opened my eyes to Torah. I miss you everyday, Daddy, and am thinking of you this Father's Day." And in honor of Paul Gompers, an exemplary Dad in every way. Love, Sivan, Annika and Zoe. And in honor of Adam Cohen from his children. Your dedication to learning Daf Yomi as well as living a true Torah lifestyle is truly inspiring. We love you so much. Love, Max Hannah Sam and Celia.

If an animal or bird are already captured, one can prevent it from getting out and keep it captured. What are the three known cases where the tannaim say "one is exempt" and they mean that it is permitted even by Torah law? According to the mishna, if one captures one of the eight creeply crawling creatures listed in the Torah (whose dead bodies carry impurities) or injures it, one is obligated and any others one is exempt. Why? There is a debate in the gemara whether this is only according to Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri or the rabbis also? Rav thinks it is also the rabbis (they only disagree regarding impurity, not Shabbat). The gemara questions this opinion from two tanaitic sources which imply that they disagree also about Shabbat. From where do we learn what defines "an injury" that one would be obligated for? Other creatures according to the mishna, one is exempt for capturing or injuring - this would imply that they would be obligated for killing them. Is that a subject of debate or do all agree? If one captures a creature not for its own purpose but to prevent it from bothering or some other reason, one is exempt, according to the mishna. This is according to Rabbi Shimon who exempt in a case of melacha seaina tzricha legufa. 

A week of learning is sponsored by Tina Lamm and Dodi Lamm in memory of their beloved mother-in-law and aunt, Mrs. Mindy Lamm, Mindel bat Shalom v’Toba Hessa, "whose first yahrzeit was on Acharon shel Pesach. We miss her love, her elegance and beauty, and her fierce dedication to family and to Torah, more than words can say."

Today’s Daf is sponsored by Achsah Weinberg "in memory of my cousin, Ketzia Fraenkel, a woman of love and chesed, an exemplary daughter and sister, an exemplary mother and savta, a תלמידה חכמה, who held ואהבת לרעך כמוך as her motto. Ketzia was taken from this world on the 17th of Nissan, 5781, Chol Ha'Moed Pesach. I miss you already!" And by Tamar Orvell in honor of Hamutal and Shira. "With gratitude for your spirited and joyous learning and teaching Talmud, and for bringing the conversations, dilemmas, personalities, commentaries, and lessons from the pages in compelling ways both fun and serious. With love and respect." And by Gitta Neufeld "in honor of our intrepid Di and the cookbook crew for enhancing our physical enjoyment of the chag while the Hadran shiur enhanced the spiritual side. Things are always better with the Daf and chocolate!"

There were two chambers in the Temple used to collect items from the public – one for charity and one for utensils. How were the money/items handling in each? What is the best way to give charity? The gemara brings a number of stories regarding charity giving. The rabbis rebuke those who put a lot of money into fancy synagogues instead of supporting people who are struggling to support themselves and cannot find time to learn Torah. If there is a need, can one use the money designated for sacrifices for other things and vice-versa? There were 13 shofarot for collecting money in the Temple, 13 tables and 13 prostrations. What happened to the Aron, Ark of the Covenant, after the destruction of the First Temple? Was it hidden somewhere underground in the Temple or was it plundered? Were there two of them or only one?

Today's daf is sponsored in honor of Dahlia and Jack Levy on the marriage of their son, Amitai to Shirli Noiman. 

There is a disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis about whether a naara can accept her own get or only her father can. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about whether the debate between them is also for kiddushin or do they both agree that the father must accept the kiddushin. What is the reason for Rabbi Yochanan who distinguishes between divorce and kiddushin? A braita states that a naara can accept maamar (which is like kiddushin for a yevama). How is this braita explained according to both Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish's positions? Our Mishna can also be used to raise a difficulty with Reish Lakish's position as only the father can appoint a messenger, not the naara. The first suggestion is to associate our Mishna with Rabbi Yehuda's position. However, this suggestion is rejected as the next Mishna does not follow Rabbi Yehuda's position. The conclusion is that both Mishnayot follow Rabbi Shimon who must hold like Rabbi Yehuda regarding the issue of the naara. Rabbi Avin testified that he was in the beit midrash when the rabbis voted to accept Rabbi Yochanan's position against Reish Lakish and permit only a father to accept the betrothal of a naara. Rava asked Rav Nachman: if a naara can accept her get, can she appoint an agent to accept it on her behalf or is it only the father that can do that? On what exactly is Rava's deliberation based? Rav Nachman answered that a naara cannot appoint an agent to accept her get. They raise a difficulty against his ruling from a Mishna in Gittin, but resolve it. If a minor girl accepted a betrothal on her own and when her father heard, he was silent, is that an indication that he accepted her actions and the betrothal is valid on a Torah level or not? Shmuel and Ulla disagree regarding this case.

A certain style of petach was used by a number of rabbis and yet, was discouraged by the Gemara for concern that people would not tell the truth. This petach took on different forms but the idea was that the chacham would say something like: "Had you known how terrible a sin it is to God to vow, would you have taken this vow?" Since it is unlikely someone would have the audacity to answer 'yes' to this question in front of a chacham, they ruled one cannot use it.  There is a debate between Rava and Abaye regarding whether or not one can use this petach: "Had you known it was like building a bama and sacrificing a sacrifice, would you have vowed?" There is a debate regarding what part of that sentence they disagree about - the bama or the sacrifice? The Gemara brings several statements about the dangers of anger since the assumption is that most people vow in a moment of anger. A story is told of Ulla who witnessed a murder on his travels from Babylonia to Israel. Rabbi Yochanan questions a detail of the story - how one could have gotten angry in Israel and murdered another, as the verse says that God will bring anger outside of Israel. Anger causes one to dismiss the divine presence, causes folly and sin. Is it possible to dissolve a vow/oath if one vowed/swore in the name of God? Most of the amoraim say that it is not, but Rav Nachman rules at the end of the sugya that it is allowed. It is told about Rav Sechora who came to Rabbi Nachman to permit a vow and after Rav Nachman tried all kinds of openings without success, he became angry with Rav Sechora. When Rabbi Sechora left there, he came up with a petach himself that if he had known that it would make Rabbi Nachman angry with him, he would not have made a vow. Another similar story is told about the breaking of a vow of Rabbi Shimon the son of Rebbi.

Today's daf is dedicated to the safety of Israel from the Iranian attack. 

Today's daf is sponsored by Mitzi and David Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi's mother, Ruth Toll Lock, Rut bat Miriam and Avraham z"l on her 38th yahrzeit. "She was a loving wife, mother, and mother-in-law; a devoted Zionist and wonderful educator in Harrisburg, PA. All 4 of her children made Aliyah and her many grandchildren and great-grandchildren, as well as her great-great-grandchild, all live in Israel!"

Rav Papa holds that a coin be acquired through a kinyan chalipin. A Minsha in Maaser Sheni 4:5 is raised as a difficulty on Rav Papa's position. Rav Papa eventually switches his position as is proven by Rav Papa's actions in a particular situation when he was trying to get back money from a loan. The Gemara returns to the previous discussion of whether or not a coin can be used to effect a kinyan chalipin (symbolic kinyan). Ulla, Rabbi Asi and Rabbi Yochanan ruled that money cannot be used. Rabbi Abba raises a difficulty from a braita against Ulla and Rabbi Abba himself suggests one possible resolution and Rav Ashi suggests another. Another source (Mishna in Kiddushin) is brought to raise a difficulty with Ulla, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yochanan's positions but is resolved. However, the resolution is only consistent with Rav Sheshet's position that chalipin can be effected with produce (and other moveable items that are not considered a kli), but not with Rav Nachman's position that chalipin cannot be effected with produce. How can the Mishna be explained according to Rav Nachman? The explanation given for Rav Nachman accords with Rabbi Yochanan's opinion in his debate with Reish Lakish about whether money effect a kinyan (acquisition) by Torah law. Both agree that practically money does not effect a transaction, however, Rabbi Yochanan holds that it is only because of a rabbinic decree, that does not apply in rare circumstances. Reish Lakish's explanation of a line in our Mishna is bought as a third source to raise a difficulty against the position that money cannot be used as chalipin. This difficulty is resolved as well. 

Today's daf is sponsored by Sue Talansky in loving memory of her mother, Ruth Stromer. "Holocaust survivor and woman of valor. You left us very young but imprinted in us great confidence and strength. Making you proud was one of my greatest joys."

Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi's brother, Dr. Dennis Lock, Yochanan ben Yaakov, on his 2nd yahrzeit tomorrow. "He was a loving husband, father, uncle and grandfather; a devoted physician; and had a love of learning Talmud. He is sorely missed."

What parts are included/not included in the sale of the boat? Since boats were mentioned, Raba and Rabba bar bar Chana bring many stories about things they saw while traveling or stories that were told to them by those who came from the sea. The stories are very exaggerated and their meaning unclear. Many view these stories as allegorical.

English Study Guide Nedarim 76

Today's daf is dedicated by Rhona Fink in honor of Avigayil bat Miriam Baruch with blessing for a refuah shleima, refuat hanefesh v'refuat haguf. 

on the blood of a sacrifice " (Exodus 34:25) - in one it is written that it is relevant in melika and in one it is written that it is not. In one it is written that whoever burn the innards on the altar is also liable and in one it is written that it is not. How does the Gemara resolve the contradictions? The Gemara brings the source to the words of R. Yehuda and to the words of R. Shimon in the mishnah who disagree as to which sacrifices are included in the prohibition that one can not slaughter while having chametz. The mishnah details how the Passover sacrifice was offered. They would split the people into 3 groups that would enter the Temple one after the other. Each sect enters separately and they would lock the doors, they would blow the trumpets, the owners would slaughter their sacrifice, the priests stand in rows with silver or gold bowls in their hands (a row of those with silver and a row with those with gold) and receive the blood. They would transfer the bowls from one to the other until it reached the last kohen and he would throw it on the altar on the side where there was a base to the altar. As they were slaughtering, they would recite Hallel, sometimes twice or three times. The kohanim would wash the floors even on Shabbat but the rabbis disagreed. Rabbi Yehuda would have them take a cupful of blood from the floor to thrown on the alter but the rabbis disagreed. They hung the animals on hooks to flay them and the mishna describes what they would do on weekdays or Shabbat when there were not enough hooks. The gemara starts to find derivations for the laws in the mishna or delve more in depth.

Study Guide Bava Metzia 22

Today's daf is sponsored by Nancy Kolodny in honor of the birthday of her daughter-in-law Lisa Kolodny. "Wife, mother, daughter, learner, teacher, athlete, friend extraordinaire." 

Today's daf is being sponsored by Betsy Mehlman in loving memory of her father, Harold Mondshein, Zvi Menahem Mendel ben Shlomo, on his 40th yahrzeit.  "He would have been proud to see how his grandchildren and Israeli great-grandchildren are thriving in Israel."

There are five more attempts to support either Rava or Abaye's position in their debate regarding ye'ush shelo mida'at, when one picks up a lost item without any identifiable features, if the owner has not yet despaired of the item (because the owner doesn't even know yet that it was lost), can we assume that since the owner will despair when he/she realizes it is lost, the finder can acquire the item now. After rejecting all of the attempted proofs, only the last one is brought as clear support for Abaye's position. This is one of six cases where the ruling is like Abaye over Rava. An abbreviation for the six cases is Ya'AL Ka'GaM. Raba and Rava disagree about whether a siman that can get trampled is a siman and whether location can be considered a siman. Then our Mishna and a braita are brought and the Gemara explains how the source can be understood according to Raba and Rava's opinions.

Today's daf is sponsored by Meryl and Harold Sasnowitz in loving memory of their mothers, Malka bat Chaya Etle & Mordechai, and Toby Raizel bat Rechel & Tzvi whose yahrzeits both fall on 16 Adar. "They left a legacy of Yiddishkite that has grown through multiple generations." 

Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree about whether one can keep impure truma wine in one's house to be used over time for creating a good smell in the house (ziluf) or does one need to be concerned that it may cause transgression as one may forget that the wine is impure and may drink it. Rabbi Yishamel son of Rabbi Yosi suggests a compromise approach, however, others did not like the suggestion. If honey is dripping from a vessel and the honey owner promises the wine owner that if he/she spills the wine, the honey owner will compensate him/her for the loss of wine, then the honey owner must pay. However, from a different braita it seems that one can claim, "I never really meant what I said, I was just fooling with you." How is this resolved? Why does the Mishna not only bring a case of honey/wine but also a case with two people who each have a donkey (one worth more than the other) that gets swept away by a river and one asks the other to save his/hers instead of saving their own donkey? Two questions are asked about variations on the donkey case. What if one saves the other donkey and is promised to be compensated for his/her donkey but then their donkey comes out of the river on its own - do they still receive compensation as promised? What if one tries to save the donkey but is unsuccessful? The Tosefta Bava Metzia 7:7 is quoted where there are several cases of distribution of expenditures for a group of people traveling together if for example robbers come or if they need to hire someone for the group. What are the criteria used for determining the method of dividing? The Tosefta continues with a case of people on a boat that is beginning to sink - how do they determine how much each person needs to throw off the boat to save themselves? If one steals a field and then gives it to thugs who come to seize property, does the thief need to return the land or can he/she say to the owner, "Go get it from the thugs?" On what does it depend?

The Mishna rules that if one finds money among fruits that one has purchased, one can keep the money. Rabbi Yannai limits this to what circumstances? A braita is brought which also corresponds to Rabbi Yannai's limitation. The verses in the Torah relating to lost items list several items that are lost that should be returned. What is derived from each of these terms? Rabbi Yehuda and Tana Kamma disagree about whether to derive the halakha that one does not need to return an item that is less than the value of a pruta from the words "that get lost" or from the word "and it was found." Is there a practical ramification between the two opinions or is it just a matter of which words to derive it from? What does each derive from the other word?  Is the ability to retrieve a lost item by providing simanim a Torah law or rabbinic? The ramifications for this question: would a lost get be able to be returned to the woman if she brought simanim? Four sources are brought in an attempt to prove that lost items can be retrieved by simanim by Torah law or rabbinic law, but all are rejected. Is this issue a tannaitic debate, as can be found in a debate regarding the identification of a dead man based on a mole, to permit his wife to remarry? However, the Gemara suggests three other possibilities for the reasoning for the debate that are not based on whether or not simanim are a Torah law. Rava explains that if simanim are not a Torah law, on what basis can the rabbis institute that items can be returned by simanim if perhaps it may allow for the "wrong person" to collect a lost item if he/she happens to be able to provide simanim? After Rav Safra raises a difficulty with Rava's reasoning, Rava offers an alternative explanation. The Gemara raises a difficulty with that as well but then resolves the difficulty.

Today's daf is sponsored by Lesley Glassberg Nadel in loving memory of her mother, Theresa Glassberg, Tova bat Tzvi Hirsch and Bayla on her 20th yahrzeit, on Rosh Chodesh Sivan. "May her memory be for a blessing."

If one traded animals or slaves and the animal/slave gave birth and each side claimed the offspring as their own (born before or after the sale), the offspring is split between the buyer and the owner. If one had two animals or slaves - one small and one large and each side claims they bought/sold the bigger/smaller one, what is the law? The Mishna delineates different possibilities depending on whether each side brought a definitive claim (bari) or a non-definitive claim (shema) and rules in each case. In the case of the animal/slave, why is it divided? Why does it not remain where it is presently? After resolving this question by assuming the case is where it is not in the hands of either side, the Gemara raises another question - why does it not remain in the original owner's possession where is the last place where it had presumptive ownership? The Mishna must be according to Sumchus who holds that money in doubt is split without swearing. But, there is a debate about whether Sumchus held that position even in a case where both cases have definitive claims. Therefore, the Mishna is explained according to each position - either they have non-definitive or definitive claims. Two difficulties are raised against Raba bar Rav Huna's explanation of the Mishna. In the case of the two slaves/two pieces of land, if each claims definitively which slave/piece of land they bought/sold, why do they take an oath? There are three reasons why there should not be an oath in this case. To resolve this, they suggest four possible answers and analyze whether these answers are feasible.

The Mishna established that in cases involving hekdesh (sanctified property), a shomer who watches for free is exempt from taking an oath, while a paid shomer is exempt from liability in cases of theft or loss. However, there are tannaitic sources that appear to contradict the Mishna, prompting various proposed resolutions. Rabbi Shimon distinguishes between different categories of sanctified items, arguing that some are subject to exploitation laws. Rabbi Yehuda excludes specific items from exploitation laws altogether. The Gemara elucidates both positions. The Mishna asserts that alongside the Torah prohibition against exploitation in monetary matters, there exists a Torah injunction against verbal abuse. Various examples are cited to underscore the severity of this offense, highlighting its gravity in Jewish law.

Rav and Rabbi Yochanan hold differing views on the implications of a down payment in a transaction. Must both parties fulfill the entire agreement, risking a curse upon breach, or does the down payment bind them only to the part already transacted? The Gemara suggests that a similar debate arises in a tannaitic discussion regarding loan cancellation during the shmita year, when an object taken as collateral doesn't cover the loan's full value. However, in conclusion, the debate is explained differently - does the collateral act as payment or merely a reminder of the debt? Further questions emerge: Can one party unilaterally dissolve a verbal agreement? Rav and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about whether or not this action constitutes dishonesty. Two difficulties are raised against Rav from tannaitic sources and one against Rabbi Yochanan from a different statement he made. Most, if not all the difficulties are resolved. The Mishna delves into laws of ona'ah, addressing overcharging or underpaying. What percentage triggers ona'ah, and within what timeframe can a buyer claim fraud? Rav and Shmuel offer different opinions on whether this percentage is based on market value only, or also on the item's purchase price. Moreover, what recourse exists for a buyer/seller over/undercharged beyond or below the ona'ah threshold?

Today’s daf is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir in loving memory of their dear and wonderful friend Alvin Gordon. "Alvin returned his neshama to Hakadosh Baruch Hu on the 25th of Elul. His great wisdom, joy, ahavat ha’adam, love of Yahadut, generosity and humor will be sorely missed by all who knew and loved him. Yehi  zichro baruch."

This week's learning is sponsored by Debbie Pershan in loving memory of her mother Shirley Kaufman on her yahrzeit.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Hadran Women of LI in honor of the aliyah of our amazing and talented leader and co-learner Gita Neufeld and the birth of a granddaughter - we wish you lots of  mazal on this newest addition and know that you will lead her in the ways of daf yomi as she grows up. We also wish you hatzlacha on making this amazing, long-awaited, move to Eretz Yisrael - as long as you know that this does not let you off the hook for planning and organizing our Long Island siyums!

The narrative of the Job story is explained in detail including the Satan's convincing of God to test Job and Job's reaction to the situation. Some explain that he was firm in his belief and others claim he had serious complaints against God. Is having a daughter seen as a blessing or not? Can this be learned from the last chapter of Iyov? There are different opinions regarding this issue. One source is brought to show that the debate is tannitic as the verse that Avraham was blessed "bakol" (Breishit 24:1) is interpreted in seven different ways, three relating to the issue of having daughters.

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 19

There is a controversy over whether or not Megillat Taanit was canceled after the destruction of the Temple. Some amoraim raise a number of difficulties from tannaitic sources against the opinion of Rav and Rabbi Chanina that the Megillat Taanit was canceled. Through one of the sources brought, we learn that the Megillat Taanit forbade fasting and eulogies not only on the day of an event but also on the day before and after the event. This matter does not hold true for holidays and Sabbaths as the Sages needed to strengthen their own laws but not ones that were written in the Torah and also not to ones written in the Prophets, such as the fast days that were days of rejoicing in the time of the Temple. In response to the last question against Rav and Rabbi Chanina, the Gemara says that the issue was a source of debate among tannaim as well. The conclusion is that after the destruction, Megillat Taanit was canceled other than Purim and Hanukkah. Is Elul always a 29 day month? If so, why do messengers need to be sent in Tishrei? Is Adar always a 29 day month? If so, why do messengers need to be sent in Nissan? When there are two Adars, is it clear in advance how many days there will be in each month or not?

In connection with the debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, the Gemara quotes a mishna in Shekalim 7:4 regarding what one can do if one finds an animal near Jerusalem as it is suspected to have been designated for a sacrifice. The Mishna offers a suggestion of what one can do if the finder wants to keep the animal. However, Rabbi Oshaya has trouble understanding this solution. He and Rabbi Yochanan each offer different suggestions as to how to understand the Mishna. Rabbi Oshaya's explanation works with Rabbi Meir's opinion that if one purposely used hekdesh for his own means, he could turn it into chulin. However, a difficulty is raised against that, yet is resolved. Several other questions are raised about the Mishna until a proper understanding of the Mishna is brought.

Study Guide Sukkah 2

The learning of Masechet Sukka is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham).

Today’s daf is sponsored by Marcia Baum in memory of the 18th Yartzeit that will be on Shabbat of her father Sam Baum, Chaim Simcha ben Aharon HaLevi and Liba. "My dad was a larger than life individual, full of joy and love for Judaism ,family and friends. He supported Jewish institutions throughout the world and would be so proud that I am learning the daf with Hadran. He is missed and remembered l'tov every day." And anonymously in memory of Rashi whose yahrzeit is today.

What is the maximum and minimum height of a sukkah? How many walls are required? If the sunlight is greater than the shade from the sechach, the covering, the sukkah is disqualified. The gemara compares the language in this mishna to the language in the mishna in Eruvin discussed the height of a cross beam used by the entrance of an alleyway to permit carrying in the alleyway. Why is different language used for each case (in Sukkah it says it is disqualified and in Eruvin it says how to fix it)? Why do the rabbis think that a sukkah taller than twenty cubits is disqualified? Three opinions are brought and the gemara discusses why each doesn't hold by the other. Rav narrows the case in which Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis disagree about the height of a sukkah. Three opinions are brought regarding the case in which Rav held that they disagreed. The gemara tries to connect these opinions with the earlier opinions regarding the reason for the height disqualification. The gemara brings a braita to raise a question on two of the opinions regarding Rav about a proof Rabbi Yehuda tried to bring against the rabbis from the sukkah of Helene the queen. 

What is the order of activities one should do in the morning? Does one need to search far for water to wash one’s hands before shema and shmone esreh? Is it more important for one than the other? Does one need to hear the words one says in shema? Can one just think it in one’s heart? What about other blessings? Is the requirement the same? What exactly are the different opinions? How many different opinions are there? What do we learn from the words “and one should write them” what parts should be written? How careful does one need to be with reciting the words carefully? With which words does one need to be particularly careful?

The gemara goes through all the cases in the mishna regarding items in the storehouse that are considered muktze that one is not allowed to move. All of the cases seem obvious that they are muktze so what is the mishna trying to tell us? If there are food items that are worthy for animals that only rich people have, can one carry them or not? Do we view all of us as if we are like "sons of kings"? Can one carry meat that is unsalted on Shabbat? What about unsalted fish? What actions are allowed to be performed for animals if it is to prevent financial loss or prevent the animal from suffering? How can one help an animal (who is considered muktze) to return home - what type of help is allowed - pushing only or actually helping to walk? Why are the rules for hens different than for other animals/birds? What about a child? Preventing animals from suffering, tzaar baalei chayim, is a Torah law - what is the source? And because if that, is can override a rabbinic law. What can be done to help an animal giving birth on Shabbat? What can be done to help a woman giving birth? A midwife is allowed to travel from far to help with the birth? How else can one desecrate Shabbat on her behalf?

Today’s daf is sponsored by Arthur Gould in loving memory of Carol’s mother Irma Robinson, Hudda Bat Moshe on her 7th yahrzeit.  "Irma built a rich life in the Chicago area including work she loved at a nearby high school library and active participation in her synagogue. She loved to have the entire family over for special events. Sadly, four years after she was widowed, Irma developed Alzheimer’s. Carol and her sister Debbie were blessed that though her illness progressed, she never forgot who they were." 

If the currency changes on an outstanding loan that was set for a particular amount of the old currency, does one pay the same number of coins in the new currency or does that look like interest? Raba brings four rulings on cases of indirect damage and rules in all four cases that the one who caused the damage is exempt. Rava raises difficulties on the first three. Different important halachic principles are discussed such as garmei and davar hagorem l'mamon - an item that can have monetary significance even if the item is not worth anything at the time. Does everyone hold that if one steals items that become forbidden to benefit from, but there is no noticeable damage, the thief can return the item itself or does the thief need to return the value at the time of the theft? Rav Chisda and Raba disagree about whether or not this is a debate or do all agree that one can return the item itself, even though it no longer has any monetary value, as the damages are not noticeable in the object. If one hires another to fix something and they break it, they are responsible for paying the value of it. Rav Asi holds that if one gives wood to a carpenter to build a closet and builds it but breaks it before giving it back to the owner of the wood, the carpenter is not responsible for the broken item because the object created (the enhancement of the raw materials) is considered in their possession and the carpenter is like a seller who sells the enhancement back to the original owner. 

Today's daf is sponsored by Betsy and Tevie Mehlman in honor of the birth of their grandson Lavi to Hillel and Shaked. "His name symbolizes strength. May he be a continuing source of pride and joy to his parents and his entire family."

Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Kotz for the refuah shleima of Yonatan Yitzchak Ben Ateret, an IDF soldier critically injured in his tank in Gaza on Friday.

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of the twenty-one soldiers who were killed in Gaza on Monday. Our thoughts are with their families. 

Is it really forbidden to teach Greek wisdom, doesn't it say in a braita that the Greek language is better than the Sorsi language!? To answer, they distinguish between Greek language and Greek wisdom. But even this is challenged by a braita that tells about Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and his family who studied Greek wisdom. They were allowed because of political reasons – so they could interact with the Romans. It is allowed to raise a dog at home only if it is chained so as not to cause damage. The Mishna states that one cannot spread nets to catch pigeons unless it is a distance of thirty ris (8,000 cubits) from a settlement. The Gemara cites sources that seemingly contradict this source and then resolves the difficulties. One who damages another must pay five payments - damage, pain, doctor bills, the loss of employment, and humilation. How are these payments evaluated? Why do we think that the one who harms his friend pays damage, after all, it is written in the Torah an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc.! The Gemara brings different drashot to prove that even though it is written in the Torah an eye for an eye, the obligation is to pay money.

The Mishna rules that one who loans with collateral has the level of responsibility for the collateral akin to a paid worker. It seems that the Mishna does not follow the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that if the collateral is lost, the lender can take an oath and be exempt, like a shomer chinam. The Gemara then attempts in two different ways to reconcile the Mishna's ruling even according to Rabbi Eliezer. However, this is rejected because Rabbi Akiva disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer, and since most unattributed Mishnayot accord with Rabbi Akiva's opinion, the Gemara prefers to reconcile the Mishna according to Rabbi Akiva. There are four different explanations suggested to explain the situation in which Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva disagree and the basis of their disagreement. The halakha follows Abba Shaul, as quoted in the Mishna, that one can rent out a collateral of a poor person and deduct the rent amount from the loan. If one is moving a barrel of another and it breaks, there is a debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda about whether the halakha distinguishes between one who was paid for the job and one who was not. Rabbi Meir rules that both are exempt if it was not intentional. However, this contradicts Rabbi Meir's opinion in Bava Kamma that one who trips is considered negligent. Rabbi Elazar explained that there are two different opinions about what Rabbi Meir held. Rabbi Yehuda considers one who broke the barrel as similar to an item getting lost or stolen and therefore distinguishes between one who was paid and one who did it for free. Rabbi Elazar claims the ruling is like Rabbi Meir, but he does not understand how each can swear and exempt themselves.

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the engagement to Shai Laniado, son of our friend and co-learner Sami Groff,  to Lily Snyder. "May the home that they build together be filled with the passion for truth, clarity and equity and love for the Jewish nation that you model for all of us!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Avi Jencmen in loving memory of Menachem ben Tzvi haCohen.

Rami bar Hama holds that orphans are considered like purchasers. Was his statement derived from our Mishna or from a braita on a different issue - interest that a father collected and then passed on through inheritance to his children? What is the relevance of whether it was derived from our Mishna or the braita? The Gemara quotes two other braitot regarding stolen items consumed by a third party or passed on through inheritance. According to these braitot, do we distinguish between younger/older children? Are the older children believed if they claim they are certain the father returned the item? If a man borrows an item and then dies and the children use the item, what is their level of responsibility? What if they did not realize it was a borrowed item and consumed it? How does it affect the situation if the father leaves them land as inheritance? Do Rava and Rav Papa disagree about this case? Rav Papa's approach is premised on the understanding that a borrower takes on responsibility for accidents from the moment the accident happens, not from the moment the borrower borrows the item. According to some, Rava holds that it begins the moment the borrower borrows the item. Sumchus and the rabbis debate whether or not minors can be brought to court. Rabbi Yirmia has an issue with property rights to land of his father-in-law that he claimed was given to him but the orphans claimed they inherited it from their father (Rabbi Yirmia's father-in-law. Rabbi Avin was unsure about whether the case could be judged as the children were minors. Rabbi Avahu brought proof from a different situation where they ruled against minors, but the Gemara rejected the comparison. Can testimony be accepted without the presence of the litigant? What about the ratification of documents? Different opinions about the matter are mentioned and the amoraim explain the circumstances under which one can have a court session without the other side present.

 Today's daf is sponsored by Mitzi and David Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi's mother, Ruth Toll Lock, Rut bat Miriam and Avraham z"l on her 39th yahrzeit. "She was a loving wife, mother, and mother-in-law; a devoted Zionist and wonderful educator in Harrisburg, PA. All 4 of her children made Aliyah and her many grandchildren and great-grandchildren, as well as her great-grandchild, all live in Israel."

The Mishna lists groups of people throught our early history that do not have a share in the World-to-Come and deliberates about whether they will be ressurected. 

Arrogance caused the sin of the generation of the flood, as they had everything and therefore thought that they didn't need God. Was Noah a real righteous peerson or just in relation to his generation? How did Noah try before the flood to get the poeple to repent and what was their reposnse? What was the purpose of the seven days before the flood? How did they deal with animals while they were in the ark? These and other issues related to the flood are discussed. 

Today's daf is sponsored by Hannah Piotrkowski in honor of Amy Cohn and Karen Kirschenbaum for their gracious hosting and teaching at the Jerusalem Yevamot siyum. 

One should not engage in relations with one's wife for the first time on Friday night or Saturday night. Friday night - out of concern for tearing her hymen and causing her to bleed, which is forbidden on Shabbat. Saturday night - out of concern one will do calculations on Shabbat of expenses for the wedding. Why is that an issue if one is allowed to do calculations for a mitzva? All sorts of things that are either mitzvot or have to do with communal needs are permitted on Shabbat. Therefore that explanation is rejected and a different one is brought. The concern is that one may slaughter a young bird on Shabbat. Why is this not a concern when Yom Kippur falls on a Monday? Two distinctions are made - regarding Yom Kippur, there is more time (Sunday) and it is for oneself and not for others. This explanation (concern about slaughtering a bird) could also explain why one shouldn't get married on Friday. If one is supposed to get married on Wednesday, can the marriage be consummated on Wednesday or should they wait until Wednesday night so that if she is not a virgin, he will not change his mind by the next day and not go to court? To answer the question, they bring in Bar Kapara's opinion that connects between the creation of the world (the commandment to be fruitful and multiply - to the fish on Thursday and to humans on Friday) and the days on which virgins and widows are to marry. Widows marry on Thursday for another reason - the rabbis instituted it so that the husband would have three days to spend celebration with his wife before he goes back to work. Other drashot of Bar Kapara are brought. One discusses the greatness of the actions of the righteous and the other, the importance of closing your ears to hearing things that are best not to be heard. When a woman's hymen tears during intercourse, is that considered inflicting a wound on someone and therefore forbidden to do on Shabbat or is it perceived that the blood was collected there and one is just allowing it to leave. Further questions are asked according to each option relating to famous debates between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon regarding melachot that one does on Shabbat that one did not intend or destructive acts.

The gemara discusses the candle and spices for havdala. One can't use a candle from a non-Jew because it needs to be a candle that was not lit on Shabbat. The candle needs to be one that is used for light, not oone used for cooking or heating. One can only light on spices that were used for smell and not to take away bad odors. Does one need to actually benefit from the light in order to make the blessing or can it just be light that potentially one could use. If one forgot to say birkhat hamazon in the place where one ate, does one need to return? On what does it depend? Beit Shamai say you need to retunr no matter what and give an analogy to one who would leave one's wallet who would clearly go back. How much time after eating, can one still say birkhat hamazon? Is it better to be the one saying the blessing or the one answering 'amen'? The chapter ends with a drasha from a verse commanding to be holy and connects it to rituals surrounding meal. Why? 

The Gemara tells of a man who was dangerously ill due to his unfulfilled sexual desires with a particular woman. The doctors determined he would die unless these desires were satisfied. When consulted, the rabbis ruled that even allowing the man to merely be in the presence of the woman he desired was forbidden. The Gemara discusses whether this woman was married or single, and examines why the rabbis took such a strict position in this life-threatening situation.

The Gemara then discusses which relatives are liable to the punishment of death by burning. It examines which of these forbidden relationships are explicitly stated in the Torah and which are derived through interpretation. A debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael centers on whether the prohibition against relations with one's grandmother-in-law (punishable by burning) is explicitly stated in the Torah or derived through rabbinic interpretation.

A braita is presented that lists three categories of forbidden relationships, all derived from the case of relations with a mother-in-law. Due to the braita's complex language, the Gemara carefully analyzes each section, clarifying its meaning and specifying which forbidden relationships fall under each category.

The Gemara raises a logical challenge based on the second category of the braita: if relations with one's grandmother-in-law are forbidden, shouldn't relations with one's own grandmother be forbidden as well? However, it is established that relations with one's grandmother are not prohibited. Both Abaye and Rava offer explanations for why this logical extension does not apply and why one cannot derive a prohibition against relations with one's grandmother from this case.

Pictures

Study Guide Eruvin 92

This week’s learning is dedicated for the refuah shleima of Pesha Etel bat Sara who is undergoing surgery this week.

This week's learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of her mother Bessie “nanny” Mauskopf, Basha Leah bat Tzivia Chaya and Meir Yehudah. "A kind and devoted wife, daughter, mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She always embraced family and was so proud of all my learning. She exemplified good middot by just being herself. May her neshama have an aliyah."

This week's learning is sponsored by Rhona Fink. "With gratitude to Hashem, we welcome our first grandson, Ezra Lev, born on the first day of Pesach to our son and daughter-in-law, Daniel Fink and Abbey Marks. May Ezra Lev grow up to be a helper with an open and warm heart, and a blessing to the Jewish people."

What is a "situmta," and does it finalize a deal once completed? Rav and Shmuel hold differing views on a scenario where a product is sold and payment is received before the product's completion. They debate the number and nature of remaining steps in the process that still consider the item in the seller's possession, thus circumventing usury concerns. Several difficulties are raised with the different opinions based on the details brought in our Mishna and are resolved. The Mishna presents a debate on selling manure as fertilizer even if one does not have any. How many different opinions are there and what is the debate between them? Regarding prepayment at a set rate, if prices subsequently drop, can the buyer withdraw from the deal to avoid loss? Here, the Mishna records a dispute: the tana kamma asserts withdrawal is permissible only if initially stipulated, while Rabbi Yehuda dissents, allowing withdrawal regardless. In a case involving a son-in-law purchasing dowry jewelry on behalf of his father-in-law, paying upfront, then witnessing price reductions, Rav Papa bars withdrawal without initial stipulation. Despite money not constituting an act of acquisition, reneging is met with a "mi she'para," a curse for breaching one's word. The rabbis and Rav Acha raise objections to Rav Papa's ruling, which are subsequently resolved. The Mishna permits lending grains to a sharecropper for planting, even if prices rise. A related braita endorses the practice but restricts it to instances where the sharecropper hasn't commenced work. Rava elucidates the disparity: the Mishna concerns scenarios where the sharecropper typically provides seeds, rendering pre-planting agreements contractual rather than loans. Conversely, the braita pertains to situations where the owner typically supplies seeds, meaning that once the sharecropper begins work, the subsequent loan of grains is no longer part of the work contract, but an actual loan, which is forbidden, as any loan of grains for grains.

Pictures

Today's daf is sponsored by Zichron Yaakov women’s daf yomi group, "in honor of Rabbanit Michelle and gratitude for her inspiration and her seemingly infinite willingness to be there for us, to share of her wisdom and time to enrich and encourage. Thank you for being part of our local siyum." And anonymously in memory of Yssaschar the son of Yaakov Avinu and in memory of Rabbi Yitzhak ben Yehuda the Abarbanel.

From where do we derive that the criteria for sechach are that it cannot be susceptible to impurity and must grow from the ground. The gemara brings four different suggested derivations. One cannot use bundles of straw, wood or reeds for sechach. Rabbi Yochanan gave the reason for this mishna (about the bundles) and another mishna about hollowing out a pile of straw – one was because the sukkah needs to be made and not from something already made, and one because of a rabbinic ordinance so that one not come to think one can use one’s storage house for a sukkah. Rabbi Yaakov did not know which reason corresponded to which mishna, but Rabbi Yirmia explained it based on a statement of Rabbi Yochanan that was passed down by Rabbi Chiya bar Abba. The gemara brings other statements of Amoraim regarding items that are able to be/not to be used for sechach.

Study Guide Moed Katan 8

Pictures

Today’s daf is sponsored by Shira Eliaser in honor of Ellen Jaffe Cogan's birthday. “Happy birthday to a lifelong Torah learner, a devoted Jewish woman, and a very special Bubbie. With love from her children and grandchildren too.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Judy & David Gilberg in loving memory of Judy's sister, Hanna Cohn, Chana Sara Bat Meir Tuvyan v'Eshkah, on her 20th yahrzeit. 

There were two different opinions about which verse teaches us that a person, clothing or house is not leprous until it is pronounced by the kohen to be leprous. Why does each not use the verse that the other brought? How does Rabbi Yehuda derive it from the verse “and on the day…”? Abaye and Rava each understand it differently and this affects whether or not they derive that the kohen must rule on a leprous mark during the day from this verse or from a different verse, which affects the derivations of other details of a leper as well. Can one do likut atzamot (collection of bones for burial after the flesh has disintegrated) on chol hamoed? Is it considered a happy occasion or one that stirs up sad emotions? One cannot bring a eulogizer to encourage others to be sad along with him/her if it is within thirty days of the holiday. What is the reason for this? One cannot dig burial crypts or graves on chol hamoed. But one can dig a water ditch (for what use?) and make a coffin. Do the boards for the coffin need to be ready before the holiday? One cannot get married or perform yibum (levirate marriage), but one can remarry one who he divorced. A woman can put on makeup but Rabbi Yehuda doesn’t think she should put on lime because it will cause her discomfort. The Mishna lists some laws about other types of work that will be dealt with more in-depth in the Gemara. Why can’t one get married on chol hamoed? One answer is that one cannot mix one happiness with another. The second answer is that one will ignore the mitzva to be happy on the holiday as one will be busy being happy with one’s spouse. A third answer is because of the hard work involved in preparing for a wedding. A fourth answer is that one may push off the wedding until the holiday so that one can combine the wedding and holiday feasts and this will cause a delay in fulfilling the mitzva to procreate.

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 3

Today's daf is sponsored by Glenda Sacks Jaffe in honor of Rhona, Sharna & Diana "and my amazing San Diego Chavruta" and by Shmulik and Ronit Shavit in honor of the birth of their grandson, son of Lior and Yosi Weiss.

How do we know that Aharon died before Moshe began his speech, thereby proving that the counting from the Exodus began from the first of Nissan and not from the first of Tishrei? Because Moshe spoke after the killing of Sichon and the verse tells us that the Canaanite King of Arad came to attack upon hearing of Aharon’s death which had brought about the removal of the cloud of glory that had protected the Jews in the desert. What is the connection between the Caananite and Sichon? How do we know that it wasn’t from Iyar, Sivan, Tamuz, Av or Adar, all of which could have been the month the counting began and still the verses with Aharon and Moshe would have worked. Different verses, some from the Torah and one from Chronicles are brought to prove it. Rav Chisda says that the Rosh Hashana for kings that is on the first of Nissan is only for Jewish kings, but kings of other nations are counted from the first of Tishrei. He derives it from Nechemia 1:1 and Nechemia 2:1. Rav Yosef questions Rav Chisda based on verses from Chagai 1:15 and Chagai 2:1 regarding Darius’s (Daryavesh) reign. Rabbi Abahu answers by saying that Cyrus (Coresh) was a good king to the Jews as he allowed them to rebuild the Temple and therefore his years were counted like Jewish kings. Rav Yosef asks two questions – one, other verses about Darius in Ezra 6:15 and Ezra 7:8 seem to follow the calendar for kings of other nations and secondly, Rav Yosef was talking about Darius and Rabbi Abahu talked about Cyrus! The Gemara answers the second question by bringing a braita in which it states that they were the same person. The answer to the first question is that Darius was good to the Jews but then turned against them. Once things changed, his reign was counted like the kings of the nations of the world.

Study Guide Sotah 15

Today’s daf is sponsored by Yechiel Berkowicz in loving memory of Sara F. Berkowicz on her yahrzeit. “She was a holocaust survivor, a fighter, and a lover of Torah."

More comparisons are made between the meal offering of the sotah and other meal offerings. The Mishna discusses the process of preparing the water that the sotah will drink. From where are these details derived? 

Today's daf is dedicated anonymously in honor of our fearless leader and teacher Rabbanit Michelle Farber for her constant encouragement of our learning especially in the middle of Eruvin from all the women you inspire to learn daf yomi. Thank you!!

If Tisha B'av falls on erev Shabbat, does one finish fasting or does one eat before Shabbat starts so as not to enter Shabbat fasting? Two opinions are brought - one by Rabban Gamliel and one by Rabbi Yosi. Several tannaitic sources are brought to better understand the debate and see which position we hold by. If one leaves the techum on Shabbat, one can only walk within 4 cubits of where one is presently standing. Does it make a difference if the person left on their own or was removed by someone or something else? If one needs to go to the bathroom, does respect for one's body override laws of techum Shabbat? The gemara explains that there are three things that make people do things against their will and against that of God. What are they?

Does repentance atone even for negative commandments or does one need to atone and also wait for Yom Kippur? What are the differences in the levels of atonement addressed by Rabbi Yishmael? What is considered a desecration of the name of God that only death atones for? What are the different virtues of repentance? Should one reveal his sins in public or keep silent about them? On what does it depend? How can one do true repentance? If one sinned and repeated one’s sin several times, at what point is one’s repentance no longer accepted? If one confessed one’s sins one year, is one obligated to confess again the following year? If the answer is no, is one allowed to if one wishes to do so? Should one specify exactly the sin one committed?

Study Guide Eruvin 17

Today's daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz in memory of her husband Leonard Cheifetz z"l on his yahrzeit.

What are the different opinions regarding "walls" that can be used to surround an encampment of a group of people or individuals? Can they be a few horizontal ropes that work using levud? Is there a difference if it's a group or individuals (one or two people)? Is it dependent on space per person or what their particular needs are (i.e. if they have a lot/little equipment/items). What if the number of people changes over Shabbat, i.e. someone dies - do we follow what was permitted when Shabbat started or do we go by the present status? There is a debate regarding this - is it the same debate as the one regarding a post or beam of an alleyway or walls of a courtyard or house that fall over the course of Shabbat? What dispensations were made for soldiers in a voluntary war?  They can take wood from anywhere, do not need to wash their hands before eating bread, do not need to separate tithes from questionable produce, do not need to make an eruv and some say can camp wherever they want and get buried wherever they die. Why is this not considered a met mitzva (one who died with no relative to bury him/her)? The gemara delves into each of this cases. The second chapter begins with a discussion on boards that are put up to allow drawing water from wells in public domains. How many boards? What is the space in between the boards? What side do the boards need to be? 

Study Guide Eruvin 6

Today’s daf is dedicated by Alexis Rosoff Treeby in honor of the yahrzeit of Jennifer Rosoff, Malka Menucha bat Meir v'Esther Chaya z”l. And by Beth Fox in memory of her father Edward Fox, Ezra Chaim ben Zev v'Slova z”l on his shloshim. “A kind, wonderful man who always encouraged me in my learning. I miss him very much.”

If there is a breach in a wall of a mavoi, does it prevent one from using a korah or lechi to allow carrying the mavoi? At what size is it a problem and does it matter where the breach is? There are different types of alley - ones that are opened on both sizes (opposite sides) to the public domain (mavoi mefulash), ones that are only open on one side (mavoi satum) and ones that are "crooked" L-shaped, open on two sides but not opposite sides (mavoi akum). What are the laws for allowing carrying in each type of alley/mavoi? Can one accept stringencies of two different approaches? According to a braita, this is considered a bad practice. 

The rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree about whether a humiliation payment is paid by one who humiliates a Canaanite slave. The basis of their debate depends on whether a Caananite slave falls under the term ‘your brother’ that is used in the verse in the Torah regarding the humiliation payment. How do their interpretations of ‘brother’ fit in with other Torah verses that use that term as well, such as false witnesses (eidim zomeim) who testify against 'their brother', a king that is chosen from among 'your brothers', and who is qualified to be a witness. The Gemara brings two different ways to learn that slaves cannot be witnesses. How is it different than a convert whose testimony is accepted? The mother of Rav Shmuel bar Abba wanted him to inherit her property when she died instead of her husband so she wrote a document bequeathing it to him. Since her husband had rights to the produce of the property while they were married when she wrote the document, did she have the right to pass on the property to her son? The rabbis disagreed about this and the Gemara explains the basis of their positions.

Is the braita that Rav Yosef quoted actually reflecting the same debate that Rabbi Akiva and Ben Nanas were arguing about – whether in a case where one wife died before the husband died and another after the husband died, can the sons of the first one collect their ketuba of male children? Several alternative explanations are brought for the debate in the braita. Mar Zutra brings a ruling on this issue and the Gemara explains why he needed to rule about two issues – why couldn’t we have inferred one from the other? To collect the ketuba of male children, there needs to be one dinar more than the ketubas that need collecting. The orphans cannot try to inflate the amount to try to collect their ketuba. What if the amount of the estate went up or down in value after the death and there was/was not an extra dinar? Two stories are brought related to inflation of the value of a property (not in a case regarding orphans) and there were those who wanted to rule from our Mishna that inflation of property is not allowed. However, others differentiated between the case at hand and the one in the Mishna.

Study Guide Pesachim 9

Today's daf is sponsored by Naomi Ferziger in memory of her father, Chaim Zeev ben Pessel and Yoel Greenblatt z"l, on his 8th yartzeit.

After one checks one's house for chametz, one does not need to be concerned that a marten or other creature moved chametz from one place to another. The gemara assumes from here that if one saw a marten with chametz, pne would need to check. Why can't one assume the marten ate it, as appears in the mishna in Ohalot 18:7 regarding a house of a gentile and assumption of impurity of a miscarried fetus. There is it assumed that if there are martens around that the fetus was eaten and there is no impurity. Rabib Zeira says one can distinguish between flesh and bread and Rava says there is no contradiction because that case has a 2 doubts and our case has one definite and one doubt and a doubt (was it eaten) can't remove a concern regarding a definite (the marten definitely moved the chametz). Is rava's principle really true? There gemara brings 2 sources to question that but resolves them. The mishna seems to contradict the end of the mishna where there they say to hide the chametz after checking, presumably because one is worried a marten may come. Three answers are brought. The gemara brings cases of doubt regarding piles of chametz and matza and doubt which was moved by mice. One case if compared to the famous cases of 10 stores - 9 kosher and one not kosher from Ketubot 15. If one buys from a store and not sure which one, we see it as a 50/50 chance one bought non kosher meat and it is forbidden. If the meat was on the street and it is unsure where it came from, we follow the majority. Also a comparison is made between another case and a case regarding regular and sanctified produce where we assume the regular went into the regular and the sanctified combined with the sanctified and we rule leniently. Can we assume the same with chametz? Why? 

Study Guide Pesachim 9

Study Guide Beitzah 23

Today’s daf is sponsored anonymously in memory of Batsheva Esther bat Yosef Shalom, Rebbetzin Batsheva Kanievsky.

The Gemara discusses different opinions and different laws related to burning aromatic spices in other to produce scents on Yom Tob. Rabbi Gaviha permitted ketura. Ameimar wants to understand what ketura is and Rav Ashi answers him that it is smoking fruits and is permitted as it is similar to putting meat on coals. The rabbis forbade eating a goat mekulas (roasted in the way the Pesach sacrifice was roasted) on Passover night because it will cause people to think that after the destruction of the Temple, people can eat sacrificial meat outside of Jerusalem. The Mishnah lists three things that Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria permitted, even though the Sages did not. He permitted for a cow to go out on Shabbat with a decorative strap between its horns and did not forbid it because of the requirement for animals to rest as well. He permitted one to comb an animal on Yom Tov with a fine comb to remove ticks and lice. And to grind pepper in its mill. Rabbi Yehuda forbade combing an animal with a fine comb and the rabbis forbade it even with a thick wooden comb. What is the basis for the dispute between the three? The Mishnah explains the laws of impurity to the three parts of the mill - and why each part is susceptible to impurity. The Mishnah speaks of laws related to a child’s wagon in matters of impurity, of carrying it on  Shabbat, and also in the matter of dragging it on the ground on Shabbat. The third chapter begins with a discussion of trapping on Yom Tov -  when it is permitted/not permitted to trap fish/birds/animals on Yom Tov.

This week’s learning is sponsored by Cindy Dolgin for the yahrzeits of Mira and Avram Dolgin. "Loving in-laws of Cindy and dedicated public servants of The Zionist and Democratic State of Israel.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sari Esserman in memory of her father Moshe ben Yosef Hakohen.

Today's daf is sponsored by Marcia Baum in loving memory of her mother Helen Baum, Chaya Chana Alter bat Chana v’Yekutiel Yehudah on her 7th yahrzeit. “Mom was a lover of learning and yahadut who instilled those values in her daughters. She is sorely missed!"

The Mishna rules that if a vow is made by a woman to start in thirty days, if she gets married before the vow takes effect, her husband cannot nullify the vow. If she was married at the time she made the vow (to start at a later date) and her husband nullified the vow but she got divorced before the vow took effect, the nullification is still valid. This Mishna rules that the nullification follows the time the vow was made and not the time it takes effect. This issue also was raised in a similar case of a woman who vows to be a nazir when she gets married or when she gets divorced. There, Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva debate whether we follow the time the vow was made or the time it takes effect. Is this the same debate or can we distinguish between the cases? The Mishna stated at the end that if a woman vowed and on the same day got divorced and remarried to the same person, her husband would not be able to nullify the vow she made earlier that day before they were remarried. The Mishna ended with the words: "This is the rule..." What do those words come to include in our Mishna and what do they come to include in a Mishna that appeared previously on Nedarim 71a on a similar topic but regarding a woman who was betrothed both times and not married? The Mishna lists nine cases where a father cannot nullify his daughter's vows. The main reasons why he cannot nullify are: 1. if she is already a bogeret (has reached maturity), 2. if she was married already (and now widowed or divorced), and 3. if her father died. The Mishna rules that if she makes a vow on condition that she will not benefit from others if she does work for her husband or the reverse, the husband can nullify the vow even though it the condition has not been fulfilled and the vow has not yet taken effect. The Gemara quotes a braita which shows there is a tannaitic debate regarding one of these cases and a different case. Rabbi Natan holds that since the vow has not yet taken effect, he cannot nullify it.

Study Guide Pesachim 69

This week's learning is sponsored by Paul and Danielle Nacamuli in honor of her daughter, Ayelet Yancey's bat mitzvah. "We're so proud of you and can't wait to see where your Jewish journey takes you! Love, Paul and Ima."

Today's Daf is sponsored by Gabrielle Altman in honor of the yahrzeits of the Honorable Myriam Altman, Naomi Rosen and the shloshim of Aviva Rolnick, "beloved, cherished and treasured family and friends whom I will always miss and hold forever in my heart." And by Rachel Geballe in honor of her sister Ellen Werlin. "I am so honored to be learning daf yomi with and alongside you and your daughter Avigayil. You are an inspiring duo! I can't wait to see what the next year of dapim holds in store. Happy birthday!" And by the Hait family for a refuah shleima for Rabbi Joel Cohen, HaRav Yoel HaKohen ben Dina. 

The Gemara discusses the words of R. Eliezer and R. Akiva in the Mishnah and brings braitot with expanded discussions between them. The gemara explains the discussion between them in our mishna regarding the matter of does sprinkling the purification waters override Shabbat or not. In the end, the gemara concludes that Rabbi Eliezer himself also didn’t hold that it overrides Shabbat and Rabbi Akiva was trying to remind him of that. in this matter. The gemara then asks why in fact does Rabbi Eliezer not hold that is overrides Shabbat if he holds preparations for mitzvot do override Shabbat. The gemara brings two answers, the first of which is rejected. The first one claims that one who is not capable of doing the mitzva in the current state, one does not override Shabbat to enable the mitzva. The second answer is that sprinkling is not necessary for the fulfillment of the mitzva. According to who do we hold regarding preparatory actions for mitzvot in general overriding Shabbat? The mishna then brings details regarding a holiday offering that was sacrificed on the fourteenth of Nissan with the Pesach sacrifice. When was it brought and when was it not brought? Are the details similar to the Pesach sacrifice or not?

Study Guide Beitzah 28

Is it permissible to weigh meat for sale on a Yom Tov? Under what conditions? And what are the different opinions? Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Shimon the son of Rebbe divided meat between each other by weighing each piece against the other to make sure it was divided evenly. According to whose opinion did they rule as it doesn’t match either opinion in the Mishnah. Apparently, it was according to Rabbi Yehoshua whose opinion is presented in a braita. Rav Yosef ruled like him as in the case of the firstborn animal who had a blemish, they ruled that it was possible to weigh a portion against a portion, even though it was forbidden to weigh it with weights. But Abaye argues that it is not clear whether the firstborn can be compared to weighing on a Yom Tov as the issues are not the same. In addition, another difficulty is raised against this case as it was described as it does not seem that Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Shimon the son of Rebbe would be so exacting with each other to weigh the meat and therefore the Gemara concludes that it was probably one of them with someone else. According to the Mishnah, it is forbidden to sharpen a knife but it is permissible to rub two knives against each other. Rav Huna says that the Mishnah is referring to sharpening it on a stone vessel but it would be permitted on a wooden one. There are four versions of what Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel – he either limited the first part of the words of Rav Huna, or the last part of his words or the first part of the Mishnah or the last part of the Mishnah and thus each version reaches a different conclusion about what kind of come to different conclusions about what kind of sharpening is allowed/forbidden and for what purpose (to sharpen or remove the fat). The one who allowed the sharpening of the knife was Rabbi Yehuda, who permitted on Yom Tov not only food preparation but also actions that facilitated the food preparation. The rabbis did not permit that. Although many ruled like Rabbi Yehuda, they did not want to teach publicly that it is permissible to sharpen a knife on a Yom Tov. How do Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbi derive their opinions from the verses in the Torah?  Is it permitted to repair a broken skewer? Is it permissible to move a skewer after grilling? This is one of a few laws recited by Rav Malkiyo. The Gemara brings up a controversy as to which cases were recited by Rabbi Malkiyo and which by Rabbi Malkia.

Is one punished by lashes for transgressing a negative commandment that is derived from a positive one? What should one do with water used by a baker that has flour mixed in? One must knead flour for the matza with mayim she'lanu - water that rested. Why? One should not use water that had been heated to knead the dough. What if one did and the dough didn't leaven - is one penalized for this or not? The third chapter begins with a list of items that are mixtures that include chametz. There are several interpretations of how to understand what the mishna is saying about their status of Pesach. The gemara explains what each of these items are, as well as offering some nutritional information about some of the items mentioned.  

Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel debate what sacrifices can be brought on Yom Tov. If Shavuot falls on Friday, the sacrifices are brought on Sunday, according to Beit Shamai. If Shavuot falls on Shabbat, even Beit Hillel hold that the sacrifices are pushed off until Sunday. The Sadducees believed that Shavuot always came out on Sunday and therefore in the event that the sacrifice was pushed off to Sunday, other things were instituted to ensure that no one thought we were celebrating the holiday on Sunday, just the sacrifices. Rabbi Oshaya brings a drasha to explain that Shavuot has seven days (6 in addition to Shavuot) in which one can bring the Chagigah offerings and the burnt “appearance” offerings. Four sources are brought to raise doubts regarding his drasha, but they are all resolved. A second proof is brought by Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and the Gemara then explains why we needed both Rabbi Oshaya’s drasha and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s.

Study Guide Shabbat 16

Today's daf is sponsored in memory of the soldier, Yaakov Proyev ben Rachel Victoria z"l  by Yael Asher and by Valerie Adler in memory of her baby Simona Michaela chasya Bluma bat Zahava z"l.

The rabbis determined that glass utensils would be susceptible to impurities because of their similarity to earthenware vessels since they are made from sand. However, if that is the case, why are all the laws not the same? Is it because they are also similar to metal utensils that if broken, they can be melted down and welded back together? If so, why are certain laws of metal utensils not true for glass utensils? A story is brought regarding Shlomtzion the queen at her son's wedding when all the utensils became inpure due to impurity of a dead body and she broke them all and had them fixed but the rabbis forbade their use lest people come to forget laws of purification of vessels. Another of the 18 ordinances was that water collected in a utensils left by a gutter, even if unintentionally left there is considered water that is collected in a utensil that can disqualify a mikveh that doesn't yet have 40 seah of water. Rabbi Yossi doesn't think this is one of the ordinances and instead adds that even from birth, Kutim (Shomronim) are considered to be in nidda.

One cannot accuse witnesses to be zomemim unless they are present. However, there is a debate regarding witnesses who come to contradict a different group of witnesses – can they be done not in their presence? This affects a case where the witnesses signed on a document die. It is derived from a braita that to verify the signatures of witnesses from other documents, it must be from a document that one had raised doubts about its veracity. Other criteria for verification of documents are brought. If one writes down something one witnessed, can one testify years later, based on their written testimony? On what does it depend? What other methods of jogging one’s memory can be/not be employed? If there are mounds of dirt near the city or the roads, one needs to be concerned that there are bodies buried there. What is considered near? If the mounds are far from the city, it depends if they are old or new. This is because regarding the old ones, we can assume that if people were buried there, no one would remember. After how many years can we assume that people no longer remember? Can witnesses verify their own signatures? Do they need another witness together with them in order to verify their signature?

Today’s daf is sponsored by Shanna Winters in honor of Ruth Raskas. “Thank you for your friendship and for inspiring so many.”

If sanctified items are sold, what can be done with the money. There is a hierarchy of sanctified items and one can only go up the list, not down. Does the public square where prayers take place on a public fast have sanctity or since it is not used permanently, it does not? A shul in a city is considered owned by many people, even those not from the town, and therefore one cannot sell it as it belongs to the public. Why was Rav Ashi's shul in Mata Mechasia an exception to this rule? A contradiction to this rule is raised from a braita regarding the sale of a shul in Jerusalem. Why was the law different there? Another question is raised from a tannaitic debate regarding laws of a leperous house in Jerusalem - can it become leperous as it is a private space and only the Temple is not or can it not become leprous as it is all considered public space? If one holds that only the Temple is public, shuls are private! Perhaps what was meant was "holy spaces" and not only the Temple. The root of that debate is whether Jerusalem was divided between Benjamin and Judah or didn't belong to any particular tribe. The Gemara brings another tannaitic debate on that topic - one opinion holds that the Temple was divided between Benjamin and Judah - which parts belonged to who? Where is there a reference to this in the Torah? The other holds that one cannot rent out space in Jerusalem when people come to the Temple for aliya laregel as the space is owned by all. In that case, what was customarily taken by the hosts as compensation since they couldn't charge rent? What can be derived from here as good advice for one who is a guest in another's house? Even though sanctified items cannot be sold for something of lesser sanctity, there is an exception to the rule - if it is stipulated by seven people who are in charge of communal activities for the city and in front of the people of the city. It is forbidden to take apart bricks or beams from an old shul and put them in a new shul. Why? If one sells a shul, the money becomes sanctified and the sanctity leaves the shul and the space can be used for other lesser things. But can it be rented? Is the same true for the bricks and other parts? On what does it depend? If the shul is given as a gift, does the sanctity leave the space? There are different levels of sanctity to items that are used for a mitzva and items that are used for a sanctified item. What falls into which category and can those items be thrown away or do they need to be buried? What can be done with a safer Torah that has fallen apart?

Study Guide Ketubot 67

The Mishna continues to deal with cases where one rented an item under certain conditions and then used the item differently, resulting in damage. If the damage occurred because of the change in use, the renter is responsible. For example, what happens if the renter loaded more weight on an animal than standard, or if the renter used a different item that is lighter but results in a greater volume, such as barley instead of wheat? Abaye and Rava disagree on the details of the ruling in the latter case. The Mishna discusses various laws related to the responsibility of a worker regarding an item the worker is fixing or working on, or received as collateral, as well as other laws concerning shomrim. The implications of these discussions help clarify the extent of liability and responsibility in cases of damage under differing conditions and the specific usage of rented or borrowed items. The Gemara attempts to see if the first part of the Mishna can be attributed to Rabbi Meir, as at first glance it seems not the case.

Study Guide Pesachim 52

Today’s Daf is sponsored by Gabrielle Altman in memory of Rabbi Ruby Davis z"l, "beloved father of Debby Rapps, who was in his 7th cycle of Daf Yomi, and Rabbi Moshe Rapps z"l, beloved father of AZ Rapps, who inspired thousands with a love of Torah and learning."

When someone comes from a place that knew when Rosh Chodesh was and knew when the holiday was and didn't keep two days of Yom Tov in his city but when to a city that did - what does one do? On what does it depend? There was a case of Rav Natan bar Asia who went outside of techum on Yom Tov - why did he think it was ok? Rav Yosef excommunicated him, or gave him lashes (according to a different version). Abaye questioned his actions. Can one excommunicate a Torah scholar even if it make cause a chilul HaShem, desecration of the name of God. The gemara brings 5 different explanations explaining the debate between tana kama and Rabbi Yehuda regarding someone going between two cities where there was still produce in one and not the other. There are three areas for considering whether there is no longer produce in the fields. From where is this derived? Tana kama and Rabbi Shimon debate whether produce taken out of Israel needs to be brought back to Israel to destroy after there are is no longer produce in the fields? How did Rav Safra rule in a case he was involved it? How did Rav Yosef relate to his ruling? Rabbi Ilai cut a tree for wood with some unripe fruits on it in the Sabbatical year. How was he allowed to do this if the dates were shmita produce and he was leaving them to be destroyed? 

Study Guide Pesachim 100

Today's Daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson and Art Gould "in gratitude to HaShem who safeguarded Carol through last week’s surgery, and who enabled Carol’s doctors to care for her, and who grants wisdom to scientists everywhere, as both of us are now vaccinated. Also in gratitude to our friend and teacher Rabbanit Farber and the Hadran Zoom mishpacha who have showered us with such overwhelming warmth, support and affection."

The gemara determines that the mishna is only according to Rabbi Yosi, as per Rav Huna's answer. According to that, Rabbi Yosi agrees with Rabbi Yehuda on erev Pesach one is not allowed to eat from a half an hour before mincha. The gemara raises a question against that from a statement that makes it seem like Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi Yehuda disagree also regarding erev Pesach. The gemara responds by explaining that that statement was referring to a different issue - one who began a meal during the day and it extended to after the beginning of Shabbat/Chag - does one need to stop, finish the meal and begin again with kiddush or does one finish one's meal and only after that, make kiddush. The halakha was determined to be like Rabbi Yosi, in an interesting story where it was suggested to be stringent like Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi strongly objected. Shmuel ruled differently - that one puts a cloth over the food on the table when Shabbat comes in and makes kiddush. He rules the same regarding havdala. The issue of covering is relevant even for one beginning a one's meal - one should not bring other food to the table until after kiddush, but if it is there, it should be covered. From here the custom developed to cover the challot (at least this is one of the reasons).  The gemara brings two braitot relating to the debate between Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Yehuda regarding eating on erev Pesach and explains what each braita is referring to. 

Today's daf is sponsored by Helen Danczak in loving memory of her Aunt Doris. "Remembering my Aunt who passed away yesterday. May her neshama have an aliyah."

How were the rows of students who stood before the court organized and why?

The court of twenty-three judges and the Great Sanhedrin (of 71) were organized in a semi-circle. This is derived from a phrase in a verse in Shir haShirim 7:3. The verse in its entirety is extrapolated, teaching other virtues of the court and the Jewish people.

How would they intimidate the witnesses in capital cases? The intimidation tactics were to prevent false witnesses, those who heard about the act but didn't witness it themselves, and also to encourage those who really saw what happened to come forward and not to withhold testimony out of laziness or fear. The Gemara provides an example for one of the things mentioned in the intimidation of the witnesses - not to testify from circumstantial evidence. And a case is brought of Shimon ben Shatach who saw a murder based on circumstantial evidence and did not testify about it.

Drashot about Kayin and Hevel (Cain and able) are brought as a verse from there is quoted in the intimidation speech of the court.

Today's daf is sponsored by Abby Sosland in loving memory of Rabbi Henry Sosland. "He taught us that daily learning could be the ultimate source of comfort and sipuk nefesh."

Korach's wife convinced him to rebel against Moshe, despite Korach initially arguing against her persuasion. What were her specific complaints against Moshe and Aharon?

Based on inferences from Bamidbar 16:14 and Tehillim 106:16, Rabbi Yochanan explains that they accused Moshe of engaging in relations with their wives.

Moshe approached Datan and Aviram, seeking reconciliation. From this action, Reish Lakish teaches that one should actively work to resolve disputes. Different verses are brought to prove that anyone who challenges their teacher is considered as challenging God directly.

There is a debate regarding Korach's fate: Was he swallowed by the earth or burned with the others who offered incense? This remains unresolved due to different interpretations of the verses. However, the Torah clearly states that Korach's sons survived.

Regarding the generation that wandered in the desert, sages debate whether they will have a share in the World-to-Come. Various verses are cited to support both positions.

Similarly, the fate of the ten tribes is disputed. Will they eventually return to the land or were they permanently exiled? This discussion centers on different interpretations of Devarim 29:27. Scholars also debate whether these tribes will receive a portion in the World-to-Come, with various verses brought as evidence.

In both these controversies, Rabbi Akiva takes the stricter position that they will neither return nor have a share in the World-to-Come. Rabba bar bar Hanna quotes Rabbi Yochanan questioning Rabbi Akiva's stance, noting that Rabbi Akiva typically adopts more lenient positions. What is the source for Rabbi Akiva's general tendency toward leniency?

From what point in development can one merit entry to the World-to-Come: from conception, birth, the ability to speak, or the ability to say "amen"?

What does it mean "until four hours" - until and not including the fourth hour or until and including? Who do we hold like regarding times for the morning prayer and for the afternoon prayer? Can one pray arvit, the nighttime prayer, on Friday afternoon before sunset? And if one does this, is it considered Shabbat for them? If they accidentally accepted Shabbat early, thinking it was nighttime (i.e. gray rainy day), when they realize their mistake, is it Shabbat for them? Is arvit obligatory or optional? Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree regarding this and Rabban Gamliel embarassed Rabbi Yehoshua in the biet midrash because of their disagreement. The people got angry at Rabban Gamliel and removed him from his position of being head of the beit midrash. There was a discussion about whether to replace him with Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Akiva or Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria. The latter was chosen and he went to colsult with his wife about whether to take the job.

Abaye is jealous of Abba the bloodletter and sends messengers to test him and see if he is really as good a person as he seems. Rava was jealous of Abaye as he heard from the yeshiva in the heavens once a week and Rava only once a year. Rabbi Broka meets Eliyahu in the market and asks him to point out people who are going to merit life in the World to Come. Eliyahu points out people who don’t exactly look the part and Rabbi Broka talks to them to find out what deeds they have done on account of which they are worthy. If a wild animal acts in an unusual manner, that is cause for instituting fasts, but if it is the usual manner, then they do not. What is considered un/usual? If one comes to the city with a sword, one declares fasts, even if it is a sword of peace as in the story of Pharoah Necho and Yoshiyahu as described in Chronicles 2 Chapter 35. The Gemara delves in more detail into the cases of the Mishna regarding blight, a case where wolves ate 2 children, on what issues one calls out in prayer on Shabbat, and the debate regarding pestilence on Shabbat. Why are we not allowed to pray if there is too much rain? Is there an exception to this rule?

The Mishna rules that if one sells wine and it turns to vinegar, the seller is not responsible. However, there are certain circumstances where the buyer can make the seller responsible. Rabbi Yosi b’Rabbi Chanina limits the ruling of the Mishna to a case where the buyer put the wine in his/her jugs, as then the buyer can be blamed. Rav Chiya bar Yosef disagrees as he deems the wine’s owner responsible for the wine souring, as wine turning sour is understood to be a punishment for arrogance, as can be found in Chabakuk 2:5.

If one sells a small house for a young couple or widowed daughter, what is the minimum size? What about other types of houses? A cowshed? A banquet hall? There is a debate regarding the minimum height for a house and whether or not it should be derived from the height of the heichal, sanctuary. There are contradictory verses regarding the size of the kodesh h'kodashim in the Temple.

Today's daf is sponsored by Rabbi David Young in honor of his chevruta called "Day Yomi, Baby!” - Rabbi Rachel Greengrass, Rabbi Stephen Wise, Rabbi Eric Linder, Rabbi Andy Rosenkranz and Rabbi Sari Laufer.

Can one hire workers on Shabbat for work on Shabbat or after Shabbat? Can one tell someone else to hire workers for them? Is that referring to telling a Jew or a non-Jew? Can one go to the edge of techum Shabbat and wait there until Shabbat ends to do something immediately after Shabbat? It depends on whether or not what you are planning to do is something forbidden on Shabbat. Can one do calculations on Shabbat - under what circumstances? Can one gather to discuss public issues? If one did not make havdala at the end of Shabbat, can one perform melacha? 

Today's daf is sponsored by Debbie Engelen-Eigles in memory of her father Hank Eigles, Henach ben Mendel z"l, to mark the end of his shloshim. May his neshama have an aliyah.

If two people share a courtyard, what are all the rules regarding the use of the courtyard when one is forbidden to benefit from the other or when each is forbidden to benefit from the other? The rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov in all the cases. Is there a difference if they forbade themselves through a vow or they were forbidden by a vow that the other person made? Is the debate in the Mishna regarding a courtyard that can be split or one that cannot be split? If one rented the space out to someone else, can the person who is forbidden to benefit from the owner be allowed to use the rented space? On what does it depend?

Study Guide Sanhedrin 50

The rabbis and Rabbi Shimon present conflicting views on how to rank the four death penalties by severity. The Gemara examines both positions in detail, exploring the textual and logical proofs each side uses to support their ordering. For the rabbis' position, the Gemara investigates the basis for claiming that stoning is the most severe, followed by burning, then execution by sword, and finally strangulation as the least severe. It similarly examines Rabbi Shimon's reasoning for ranking burning as more severe than both death by the sword and strangulation, stoning as more severe than the sword and strangulation, and finally, strangulation as more severe than the sword. 

This fundamental disagreement about the death penalties' relative severity is based on other disputes between the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon regarding capital punishment. One such case involves a betrothed daughter of a kohen (priest) who commits adultery. The rabbis maintain she should be stoned, following the law for any betrothed woman who commits adultery. Rabbi Shimon, however, rules she should be burned, treating her case like a married kohen's daughter. They also differ on the punishment for someone who leads a city into idol worship - the rabbis prescribe stoning, while Rabbi Shimon advocates strangulation.

Hadran Learning Communities Form

Study Guide Berakhot 41

The rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree in the mishna regarding what does one do if one has a number of foods to make a blessing on - does one choose to bless on one of the seven species that Israel is known for or what one likes best? In whcih case are they arguing - when all the foods are of one type of blessing or also if there are different types? If one blesses on a vegetable and there were also fruits there, does the blessing on vegetables exempt the fruit? The laws regarding which blessing to do first comes from the verse about the seven species. Others learn requisite amounts for various laws from that verse. How exactly is the order learned from that verse - is it the order in the verse or the proximity of the species to the word "land" in the verse, which appears twice. If one eats fruits or dessert, does one need to make a separate blessing before and after? Does bread exmapt all foods and wine exempt all drinks from a separate blessing? Why doesn't the blessing on bread exempt wine?

Today’s Daf is dedicated by Yechiel Berkowicz in honor of his mother's yahrzeit and in loving memory of Sara F. Berkowicz. Sara was a survivor of the Holocaust and valued Jewish education.

Nechunia was a well digger to have water for those coming to the Temple. His son died of thirst. How could this be? The gemara explains that God is very exacting with the more righteous. A similar story is told of a pious person whose daughter but the ending was different as she was saved. Does the word "gever" mean rooster or man? Can it be proven from our mishna? The family Garmu and the family Avtinas - each kept their specialty a secret - how to prepare the showbread and the incense. The rabbis were not pleased with them and tried to fire them and hire others to do it. However, they were unsuccessful and had to rehire them for double the wages. Did they pass on the secret even after the destruction? Even though the rabbis weren't pleased with them, there was something for which they were both mentioned positively - that they made sure not to arouse suspicion about using what they learned regarding the Temple for the own personal use. What was the hierarchy in the Temple regarding handling money to ensure that there was no misappropriation of funds? How would one purchase libations in the Temple? What was done to prevent deceit? 

https://youtu.be/QjZWYskjRsM

Today's daf is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in loving memory of his beloved bride and best friend of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v’Yehuda Tzvi, on the occasion of her first yahrzeit. "You will be in my heart forever." 

There are two more attempts to prove that tza'ar ba'alei chayim is a rabbinic law, but they are rejected. Within what distance from the animal is one obligated to help load/unload? What is the order of precedence in dealing with people's lost items between oneself, one's father, and one's rabbi? What is the definition of 'one's rabbi'? Is it better to learn Torah, Mishna, or Gemara? What are the dangers of learning Mishna without learning Gemara? What are the dangers of learning Gemara without learning Mishna? If one is watching another's item (an animal or vessels) and is not getting paid (shomer chinam), and the item is stolen, the shomer can take an oath and is exempt. If they find the thief and retrieve the item, the thief pays the double payment to the original owner. But if the shomer decides to pay for the stolen item, the thief will pay the double payment to the shomer. Why was it necessary to mention both an animal and vessels?

If the word "bo" comes to exclude other situations, the Gemara asks about other times this word appeared and what these verses came exclude. The same types of questions that were asked on Rabbi Eliezer's drasha regarding the geziera shava between Pesach and truma are asked about Rabbi Akiva who derived the halacha from “a man a man.” What each one do with the words that the other used to derive this halacha? Rabbi Chama Bar Ukva asked about a baby who was born and did not reach the age of eight days when the time came to sacrifice the Passover sacrifice - does this prevent the child from being rubbed with oil that is truma? They try to answer out of understanding a braita in a particular way, but then reject that answer and bring five other explanations for the braita, so there is no answer to the question. Rabbi Yochanan said that an uncircumcised male can be sprinkled with the red heifer waters as can be proven from the Jews who entered the land of Israel with Joshua and then purified, circumcised and then brought the Pesach sacrifice. It is clear from there that they did the first sprinkling (on day 3) when they were still uncircumcised because the circumcision was on the eleventh of the month and they sacrificed the Passover sacrifice on the 14th. The Gemara begins to discuss the circumcision they did. The first thing we learn is the law of priah was given then and they derive that from the verses.

What is a homeowner's liability if someone brings in items without permission or with permission? What is the liability of damages caused by the item by the one who brought it in? By permitting to bring in the item, the homeowner assumes responsibility for any damages to the item. Rebbi disagrees and says unless the owner explicitly said he/she would watch it, the owner has not accepted the responsibility of a shomer. Suppose fruits are left without permission and the animal gets damaged from eating them. Rav holds the owner of the fruits is not responsible (only if the animal tripped on the fruits) because he/she can say, "What was the animal doing eating my fruits?" Three difficulties are raised against Rav but are resolved.

Study Guide Yoma 24

Is the dispute between Reish and Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan regarding the removal of the ashes (whether it is considered an avoda, a ritual, or not) a dispute also between tannaim? Rav and Levi disagree about a non kohen who removes the ashes - is he liable for death in the hands of God or not? How does each one derive their opinion from the verse? The gemara raises some questions about Levi and also about both. Then, braitot are brought to strengthen each position. Why do they four lotteries and not just one? Do the priests wear holy garments or  regular clothes when doing the lottery? Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshet disagree about this and each brings a psychological/behavioral explanation.

What is the language in a document that makes it clear that the document itself only served to strengthen the commitment of the person on their deathbed, and was not meant as a document necessary for affected the transaction?

What wording must be used to designate one's property to others in his lifetime when he is healthy? Rabbi Yehuda holds that one must write "From today and after my death." Rabbi Yossi does not require adding "From today." Once this is written, the property is considered to belong to the recipient, while the proceeds belong to the giver. Can either of them sell their rights to their share?

Why does the language of "From today and after my death" work here, but it is not effective in a divorce document?

Raba bar Avuha accepted Rabbi Yossi's opinion because the date on the document makes it clear that it is in effect from the date it was written, even without adding the words "from today."

If an act of acquiring was performed from the giver to witnesses on behalf of the recipient, this would preclude the need for writing "from today," even according to Rabbi Yehuda. However, there is a debate about whether this applies across the board or is it dependent on the language used in the document.

If the recipient sells their rights and then predeceases the giver, does the buyer acquire the property upon the giver's death or does it revert to the giver's heirs? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree on this based on a debate about whether one who acquires proceeds to an item (in this case the giver retains rights to the proceeds) is considered the main owner of the item. They debate this issue in another case as well. Why is there a need to mention their debate here if it could be inferred from the other case? To answer this question, the Gemara explains why one could have differentiated between the cases. Rabbi Yochanan raises a difficulty from a braita on Reish Lakish's position, but it is resolved. 

Today's shiur is sponsored by Rabbi Ilana Axel in honor of Rabbi Roger Ross, Rabbi Jill Hausman, Rabbi Mary Jane Newman and in memory of Rabbi William Kurry, z"l. With gratitude. 

One should match the clothes to the event - this is derived from the Torah. From where? It is important for Torah scholars to dress in a respectful manner. Why? What is the size of a stain on clothing or on a saddle that would create a separation for laws of mikveh is one needed to purify it in a mikveh? Does it depend on whose clothing it is since different types of people would care about different sizes of stains. Can one burn fats on the altar from sacrifices on Shabbat that night if it happens to be Yom Kippur? Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva have different approaches? Would they both agree that one does not blow the shofar on Yom Kippur that falls on Erev Shabbat to herald in Shabbat (as they normally did on Fridays in those days)? What about havdala in davening from Shabbat to Yom Kippur when Yom Kippur falls on Sunday? One is allowed to prepare vegetables for after Yom Kippur on Yom Kippur afternoon from the time of mincha. Why is that allowed? How can one prepare from Yom Kippur for after the holiday? Is that allowed even when Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat? 

Study Guide Yoma 43

Pictures

The gemara goes on to extrapolate all the words in the section about the red heifer that indicate a particular person and explain in some cases whether this verse is different from the previous verse and it is a different person who can be involved or is it continuing the same meaning as the previous verse and the same person can do that action as well? Who is able to do each step of the process? The gemara returns to the controversy between Rav and Shmuel regarding whether or not a non-kohen can slaughter the red heifer. Rabbi Yochanan has a different position than them. Why in the first confession did the high priest not confess also for all the kohanim and only did so in the second confession? The mishnah continues with the continued work of the High Priest with the incense and brings a list of things they were done differently on Yom Kippur than on other days of the year.