Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
Hadran.org.il is the portal for Daf Yomi studies for women. Hadran.org.il is the first and only site where one can hear a daily Talmud class taught by a woman. The classes are taught in Israel by Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber, a graduate of Midreshet Lindenbaum’s scholars program with a BA in Talmud and Tanach from Bar-Ilan University. Michelle has taught Talmud and Halacha at Midreshet Lindenbaum, Pelech high school and MATAN. She lives in Ra’anana with her husband and their five children. Each morning the daf yomi class is delivered via ZOOM and then immediately uploaded and available for podcast and download. Hadran.org.il reaches women who can now have access to a woman’s perspective on the most essential Jewish traditional text. This podcast represents a revolutionary step in advancing women’s Torah study around the globe.
info_outline
Avodah Zarah 13 - July 1, 5 Tamuz
07/01/2025
Avodah Zarah 13 - July 1, 5 Tamuz
Today's daf is sponsored by Gitta and David Neufeld in memory of Gitta’s father, Yosef ben Menachem Mendel v’Pesha a”h on his tenth yahrzeit. He cherished his family and Torah, and would be so proud of the generations following in his footsteps and adhering to his values and moral compass. וכתר שם טוב עולה על כולם Today's daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in memory of Moshe Hartman, z’l, on his 6th yahrzeit. He continues to be missed dearly. He would delight in my learning, his children’s and his grandchildren’s learning, which we will honor with a family siyum on his yahrzeit. Today's daf is sponsored by Monica Steiner in honor of Rabbi David Abraham Kaplinsky, who begins his first pulpit in San Antonio, Texas today. May you find joy and strength in your work and community. I am so proud of you, David, and love you with all my heart. In an idolatrous city, one may purchase from stores that are not decorated for idolatry, but not from those that are adorned for such purposes. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about both the reason for this prohibition and its scope. Reish Lakish is concerned with decorations that have beautiful scents, as the Jews will benefit from idol worship. According to Rabbi Yochanan, the issue is because those stores pay tribute to the idols. A difficulty is raised against Reish Lakish's position. In resolving the difficulty, the difficulty is moved to Rabbi Yochanan's position, but is resolved as well. Items purchased in a forbidden manner are to be rendered useless. For animals, this means to cut off the hooves. A question is asked why this isn't forbidden on account of tzaar baalei hayim - mistreatment of animals? Why, in another context of sanctified items, is the penalty to close the animal in a room and let it die? What is the difference between the two cases? If an animal purchased from an idol worshipper needs to have its hooves cut off, does something similar need to be done to a gentile slave that is purchased? The Gemara brings a different source to prove that one is not allowed to cause physical damage to a slave. What items can one not sell to an idol worshipper as part of the prohibition to put a stumbling block in front of a blind person?
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/37233690
info_outline
Avodah Zarah 12 - June 30, 4 Tamuz
06/30/2025
Avodah Zarah 12 - June 30, 4 Tamuz
Today's daf is sponsored with gratitude to HKB"H by Tina and Shalom Lamm on the occasion of the brit and naming of their new grandson, Shilo Lavi, born to their children, Bracha and Akiva Berger. When a city contains idol worshippers but the surrounding areas do not, business dealings with those outside the city are permitted even when the city celebrates its holidays. Reish Lakish, citing Rabbi Chanina, defines "outside the city" by referencing the bazaar of Gaza as an example. In an alternative version of this teaching, Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Chanina specifically about shopping in Gaza's bazaar, which was located just outside the city limits. Rabbi Chanina permitted this activity, comparing it to a situation where a Jew and a Gentile cook in separate pots on the same stove—a practice the rabbis allowed. Three sages offer different interpretations of this comparison. Rabbi Meir and the other rabbis disagree about whether one may walk through an idolatrous city during their holiday celebrations when traveling to reach another destination. The Gemara presents four cases involving someone who bends down to perform an action directly in front of an idol. Even without intending to bow, such behavior is prohibited unless one can act in a way that clearly does not appear to be worship. Why did the rabbis need to mention all four cases? One example involves drinking water from a fountain where water flows from a human statue, since this creates the appearance of kissing the idol. This case leads to another case: one should not drink water directly from a pipe for health reasons, as this might result in swallowing a leech. Swallowing a leech was considered life-threatening, and Rabbi Chanina even permitted boiling water on Shabbat for someone who had swallowed one. Rav Huna also recommended drinking vinegar while waiting for the water to boil. Drinking water at night was also considered dangerous due to the evil spirit called shavrirei, which was believed to cause blindness and could be life threatening. The Gemara offers several possible remedies for those who are thirsty and need to drink water at night. In an idolatrous city, one may purchase from stores that are not decorated for idolatry, but not from those that are adorned for such purposes. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about both the reason for this prohibition and its scope.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/37214975
info_outline
Avodah Zarah 11 - June 29, 3 Tamuz
06/29/2025
Avodah Zarah 11 - June 29, 3 Tamuz
This week's learning is sponsored anonymously in gratitude to Rabbi Carl Perkins, a learned and compassionate rabbi, a gifted teacher, whose love of Judaism inspires all who are blessed to know him. Today's daf is sponsored by Paul and Danielle Nacamuli. "Mazel tov to our daughter and son-in-law on their marriage, may you enjoy many years of joy together!" Today's daf is sponsored by Natanya Slomowitz in loving memory of her mother, Haviva Lilka bat Necha and Avraham. Onkelos converted to Judaism. The emperor sent three different groups of troops to seize him, but he convinced each group to convert to Judaism by explaining to them that God takes care of his people better than the Roman leaders. The prophecy told to Rivka when she was pregnant with Esau and Yaakov, "There are two nations in your womb," is explained as meaning "two proud/great ones" and refers to Rebbi and Antoninus, who were both blessed with plenty. What is the basis of the argument between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding whether it is forbidden to do business with idol worshippers on the day of the death of their king, only if there is burning or even if there is not? How does that connect with the braita that says the Jews burn the items of a king, and it is not forbidden because it is the way of the non-Jews? They would burn items not only when kings died, but also heads of the Sanhedrin. What types of items would be burned? The Mishna mentions the day of shaving his beard and his locks. Is this referring to two separate days - one of shaving the beard and one of shaving the locks on the back of his neck to be offered to the idol, or the day where one shaved his beard, but kept his locks to grow, to later be offered to the idol? The Gemara concludes that both answers are correct. Another Roman holiday is described where they would celebrate their dominion over the Jews. This one is not listed in the Mishna as it happened only once in a lifetime, or very infrequently. What were the Babylonian and Persian holidays? Rav Huna son of Rav Chisda listed several pagan temples with which it was forbidden to ever do business, as they offered sacrifices daily to the idols. Shmuel was lenient with holidays in the Diaspora and forbade only the day of the holiday itself.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/37206170
info_outline
Avodah Zarah 10 - Shabbat June 28, 2 Tamuz
06/27/2025
Avodah Zarah 10 - Shabbat June 28, 2 Tamuz
Today's daf is sponsored by Samuel Berlad in honor of Esther Sarah bat Sarah, in thanks for a good and speedy result of her oral exams. The Gemara finishes the discussion of the dating of documents and then attempts to identify the meaning of the different terms used by the Mishna in describing the holidays of the pagans. Antoninus asked Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi several questions, and stories are told of their relationship. These stories and discussions highlight that not all the Romans were bad and some relied on Jews for advice and risked their lives to save them. How did Ketia bar Shalom try to help save the Jews from the Romans? Despite his outwitting the emperor, he was executed by the Romans specifically for outwitting the emperor. Upon his execution, a heavenly voice called out that Ketia acquired a place in the World-to-Come. When Rabbi Yehuda haNasi heard this, he cried and said, "There are those who acquire their share in the World-to-Come in one moment, while there are those for whom it takes many years."
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/37174295
info_outline
Avodah Zarah 9 - 2nd Day of Rosh Chodesh Tamuz - June 27, 1 Tamuz
06/27/2025
Avodah Zarah 9 - 2nd Day of Rosh Chodesh Tamuz - June 27, 1 Tamuz
The next six weeks of learning are dedicated to Susan Silkes, Sheina Blima bat Faigel for a refuah shleima from her loving and adoring friends. "Susan, you are the absolute epitome of ואהבת לרעך כמוך always putting others' needs first. Besides being a super bike rider, swimmer, hallah and chocolate chip cookie baker, you also started learning Daf Yomi with Hadran just a few months ago, taking on yet another new challenge and finding the daf so meaningful. We have no idea how you manage to fit so many of us into your life, but we are so very blessed that you do! חודש טוב מלא בריאות, רפואה ונעם ה'" Today's daf is sponsored by Gitta and David Neufeld in honor of our first year aliya-versary. כי טובה הארץ מאד מאד! How are they able to prove that the Romans first ruled pleasantly with the Jews for twenty-six years before subjugating them for one hundred and eighty years before they destroyed the Temple? Different calculations are brought regarding historical events from the time of the Second Temple period and the creation of the world. It was clear that different people counted years from different historical events, and the Rav Papa gives some tips for calculating what year one is in on one calendar if one knows what the year is according to a different calendar.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/37174090
info_outline
Avodah Zarah 8 - 1st Day of Rosh Chodesh Tamuz - June 26, 30 Sivan
06/26/2025
Avodah Zarah 8 - 1st Day of Rosh Chodesh Tamuz - June 26, 30 Sivan
Today's daf is sponsored by Aviran and Miki Kadosh on the occasion of their son, Avishai's bar mitzvah and in honor of him completing Shas Mishnayot, Masechet Tamid and Masechet Taanit during the past year. "We wish that you continue to persevere in learning, to advance and grow wise in all your hobbies and areas of interest! Mazel tov!" Today's daf is sponsored by Caroline Ben-Ari for the refuah shleima of Shaiel Ram ben Rivka. Today's daf is sponsored anonymously, "To all the women who have served as my role models for Jewish learning." In which place in prayer are personal requests inserted? What are the different opinions, and what is the basis for the dispute? What are the holidays of the idol worshippers during which there is a prohibition to sell to or buy from them? The Gemara works on the list of holidays and explains the reason behind the establishment of each of the holidays. Kalenda and Saturnalia were established in response to the first year of the first man (Adam) when he saw in winter that the days were getting shorter and thought that, because of his sin, God was returning the world to chaos. When he saw that the days were getting longer, he realized it was just the way of the world and established a holiday before and after that day on which the days began to lengthen (winter solstice). Another holiday was established in response to the successes of the Roman kingdom against the Egyptians and the Greeks. Rav Dimi explained that the Jews helped the Romans in their victory over the Greeks and ruled together with the Romans for twenty-six years before the Romans subjugated the Jews.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/37158380
info_outline
Avodah Zarah 7 - June 25, 29 Sivan
06/25/2025
Avodah Zarah 7 - June 25, 29 Sivan
Today's daf is sponsored by Sylvia Klein in loving memory of her brother, Bobby Klein, who passed away 40 years ago. "He taught us about love and acceptance. His humor, friendliness, and loving spirit is greatly missed." Rav Huna ruled like Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha, who distinguished between loans with a promissory note and those without, and permitted Jews to collect loans without a promissory note from gentiles before their holidays. He also ruled like Rabbi Yehuda on the issue of a dyer who dyed someone's wool the wrong color. Rav Yosef did not understand why Rav Huna needed to explain the ruling like Rabbi Yehuda, as he thought it was obvious from the stam Mishna in Bava Metzia that corresponded to his opinion, as when there is a Mishna with a debate that is followed by a stam Mishna, the ruling is always like the stam Mishna. What was that not obvious to Rav Huna? The Gemara quotes several other debates between Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha and others in which the ruling is like Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha. Rabbi Yishmael forbade doing business dealings with gentiles three days before and three days after their holidays. Shmuel explained that based on Rabbi Yishmael, it is forbidden to have any business dealings with Christians, as every Sunday they have a holiday. The rabbis disagree and forbid business dealings before. The Gemara questions how their opinion differs from the tanna's opinion in the first Mishna of the masechet. Four suggestions are brought. The last relates to an opinion of Nahum the Mede. There are several issues brought in the Gemara where Naum the Mede disagreed with the sages or individual sages on a particular issue, and the rabbis were unwilling to accept his position.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/37137130
info_outline
Avodah Zarah 6 - June 24, 28 Sivan
06/24/2025
Avodah Zarah 6 - June 24, 28 Sivan
Today’s daf is sponsored by Yisroel and Masha Rotman in loving memory of Masha’s grandfather, Jacob Maltz, Yaakov Yitzchak ben Moshe Aaron, ztz”l, on his 65th yahrzeit, which was last Thursday. "Although my Zeidie died when I was still a child, I was inspired by the stories of his sacrifices to stay religious at a time when many were leaving the fold. I still remember his smile, radiant with warmth and love." Today’s daf is sponsored by Cliff and Minna Felig in honor of Michelle and Seth Farber on the occasion of their daughter Chani’s marriage in the throes of our war with Iran. When the Mishna mentions "three days before the holiday," does this include the holiday itself (making three days total), or does it refer to three complete days prior to the holiday (with the holiday being additional)? The Gemara brings four sources attempting to prove that the Mishna means three full days before the holiday. While three proofs are rejected, the final one provides conclusive evidence. What underlies this prohibition? Is it because the idol worshipper will thank their gods for their commercial success, and the Jew will have indirectly caused idol worship, thereby transgressing the verse in Shmot 23:13: "Make no mention of names of other gods, they shall not be heard on your lips"? Or is the concern the prohibition against placing a stumbling block before others, as the Jew causes the idol worshipper to engage in idol worship? What is the practical ramification of these different rationales? If someone transgressed and conducted business with a gentile during the prohibited days before their holiday, is it forbidden to benefit from the money or items received? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree on this issue. Each raises objections against the other's position, and each resolves the difficulties posed against him. A braita is cited supporting Reish Lakish's view that benefiting from such transactions is permitted. Why does the Mishna forbid all the listed activities both when the Jew benefits the non-Jew and when the non-Jew benefits the Jew? What makes each of these cases unique, making it necessary for the Mishna to list them all? Regarding collecting loans from gentiles three days before their holidays, Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree in the Mishna about whether this is forbidden or permitted. The Gemara introduces a third position from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha, who distinguishes between oral loans and those documented in writing. Rav Huna ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha's position.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/37111145
info_outline
Avodah Zarah 5 - June 23, 27 Sivan
06/23/2025
Avodah Zarah 5 - June 23, 27 Sivan
Reish Lakish explains that if the Jews had not sinned with the golden calf, later generations would not have been born because the Jews would have been transformed into angels. After several objections are raised against this statement, the sages reinterpret his words to mean that the Jews would have become similar to angels in that they would have become immortal, yet still have children. Difficulties are raised against this interpretation as well, but these are resolved. Why is it forbidden to conduct business with gentiles specifically during the three days preceding their holidays? Objections are raised against this three-day restriction by drawing comparisons to Jewish practices before their own holidays. How are these discrepancies resolved?
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/37102235
info_outline
Shevuot 49 - Siyum Masechet Shevuot
06/22/2025
Shevuot 49 - Siyum Masechet Shevuot
For the text of the Hadran ceremony, . For more information about What is a Siyum, Siyum Masechet Shevuot is dedicated by Raquel & Joe Bijou in loving memory of our dearest Grandpa Richard Cohen. Naftali ben Yosef HaKohen. "You always cherished family and valued learning. By completing this masechet, we have accomplished both. We love and miss you deeply, and we hope to continue fulfilling many more mitzvot in your memory." If one watches an item belonging to another (shomer), there are different levels of responsibility, depending on whether the shomer was paid/not paid or one borrowed or rented an object. When a shomer takes a false oath regarding the item, if the lie either didn't change the level of responsibility or created an obligation instead of providing an exemption, then there is no liability since there were no financial repercussions from the lie. However, even though one is exempt from liability for an oath concerning a deposit, Rav rules that the person is still liable for an oath of expression. Shmuel disagrees. What is the basis of their debate?
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/37105355
info_outline
Avodah Zarah 4 - June 22, 26 Sivan
06/22/2025
Avodah Zarah 4 - June 22, 26 Sivan
This week's learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Chaim Avraham HaKohen ben Alter Gershon HaKohen. Various statements are brought regarding differences between the way God relates to Jews and non-Jews, and particularly that God punishes the Jews in small doses to enable them to get their reward in the World-to-Come.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/37099580
info_outline
Avodah Zarah 3 - Shabbat June 21, 25 Sivan
06/20/2025
Avodah Zarah 3 - Shabbat June 21, 25 Sivan
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/37069145
info_outline
Avodah Zarah 2 - June 20, 24 Sivan
06/20/2025
Avodah Zarah 2 - June 20, 24 Sivan
Masechet Avodah Zarah is sponsored by the Talmud class of Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City, CA in honor of the staff of Hadran who make learning possible. "Pirkei Avot 1:6 teaches us עֲשֵׂה לְךָ רַב, וּקְנֵה לְךָ חָבֵר, make for yourself a Rav, and acquire for yourself a companion. We are blessed to have Rabbanit Michelle Farber as our extraordinary teacher, and we- Leslie, Joe, David, Sue, Helen, Batya, Adam, Alana, and Bill- are blessed to have the companionship of our learning." Today's daf is sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik & Prof. Adi Wyner in honor of the upcoming wedding of their daughter, Eva Wyner, who was just promoted to Director of Jewish Affairs for the State of NY in Governor Hochul’s Executive Chamber. And in honor of their future son-in-law, Reuven Rosen, who just graduated with honors from Rutgers’ MD/ Ph.D. program and who will be starting his medical residency at NYU. The Mishna says that all types of business dealings with idol worshippers are forbidden three days before their holidays. Rav and Shmuel discuss the spelling of the word used for holidays - "eidaihem" - is it with an aleph or ayin? From which verse in the Torah is the meaning of the term derived from, according to each opinion? One of the verses mentioned is the basis of a long aggada about the nations coming before God in the World-to-Come, looking to get rewarded. God reprimands them for never having kept the Torah. Various claims are made by the nations trying to justify why they didn't keep the Torah.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/37068880
info_outline
Introduction to Masechet Avodah Zarah with Dr. Ayelet Hoffman Libson
06/18/2025
Introduction to Masechet Avodah Zarah with Dr. Ayelet Hoffman Libson
Introduction to Masechet Avodah Zarah
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/37052665
info_outline
Shevuot 48 - June 18, 22 Sivan
06/18/2025
Shevuot 48 - June 18, 22 Sivan
Today's daf is sponsored by Rena Kurs in loving memory of Dr. Leatrice Rabinsky, on her 7th yahrzeit. "She instilled the love of learning in all of her children, grandchildren and generations of students. May her memory be for a blessing." Rav and Shmuel held that orphans cannot collect a loan of their parents from other orphans if the parent of the debtor died first, as a parent can't pass an oath on to one's children. Rabbi Elazar disagreed and permitted them to collect with an oath of orphans (that their father did not tell them that the loan was already collected). The rabbis of later generations tried to override Rav and Shmuel's opinion without success but managed to limit it in various ways. Can one do a gilgul shvua in a case where the oath is a rabbinic oath?
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/37044565
info_outline
Shevuot 47 - June 17, 21 Sivan
06/17/2025
Shevuot 47 - June 17, 21 Sivan
When both parties are untrustworthy and cannot take an oath, Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Meir disagree about the proper procedure. A debate emerges about who holds which opinion, as one maintains the money should be split while the other argues that the oath returns to its original place, though it remains unclear which rabbi said which. Additionally, there is disagreement about the meaning of the position stating "the oath returns to its place." Rabbi Ami explains that one position is held by the rabbis in Israel while the other belongs to the rabbis in Babylonia. Rav Pappa clarifies that the Babylonian rabbis are Rav and Shmuel, while the Israeli position is represented by Rabbi Abba. Shimon ben Tarfon offers several statements concerning the importance of associating with the right people and avoiding the wrong ones. The Gemara examines the case of a storekeeper who was asked to pay someone's workers. The workers claim they never received payment while the storekeeper insists he paid them. The question arises whether Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agreed with the Mishna's opinion that each party can take an oath to get paid by the employer. Another issue concerns contradictory witness testimony. If two groups of witnesses contradict each other in court, can they be believed to testify in a different case? Or since we know one group certainly lied, should we reject both groups' testimony in future cases? Rav Huna and Rav Chisda each take different positions on this matter.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/37025615
info_outline
Shevuot 46 - June 16, 20 Sivan
06/16/2025
Shevuot 46 - June 16, 20 Sivan
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/37013830
info_outline
Shevuot 45 - June 15, 19 Sivan
06/15/2025
Shevuot 45 - June 15, 19 Sivan
Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim (Weiss) on the occasion of the Bat Mitzvah of her granddaughter Tamar Chava Baumser. "She demonstrates that there are no boundaries to acts of gemulat chasidim." Today's daf is dedicated by the Hadran Zoom family in honor of Chani Farber and Saar Har-Chen, on the occasion of their wedding. We wish you a new home that will be grounded in the happiness that is promised to one who brings their learning always, as we learned with Chani's mother, Rabbanit Michelle: אַשְׁרִי מִי שֶׁבָּא לְכָאן וְתַלְמוּדוּ בְּיָדו. If the person who is obligated to take an oath by Torah law is not trustworthy, i.e. if they lied in a previous case or are in the category of those who are exempt from testifying, the obligation to take the oath is placed upon the other person. If one asks a storekeeper to pay their workers and they will pay back the storekeeper later, and the storekeeper claims that he/she paid them and the workers claim they were never paid, each of them takes an oath and the person needs to pay them both. Ben Nanas agrees that the person needs to pay both, but does not allow each side to take an oath as it creates a situation where clearly one side is taking a false oath. The Mishna lists other cases where there is a disagreement between a storekeeper and a buyer about whether the money was already paid or the item was given to the buyer. Who takes the oath in each case? Generally, when one holds a deed in hand, they have the upper hand. However, the Mishna mentions cases where the one holding the deed needs to take an oath in order to collect the money. The Gemara explains why the worker is believed to say he/she didn't get paid for a job performed. However, this halacha is qualified as only applying in a case where the time in which the worker should have been paid hasn't passed yet - once that time passes, there is an assumption that the employer paid the worker. Shmuel and Rav both hold that the worker can take this oath to get paid only if there were witnesses who saw the worker being hired. If not, the employer can claim he/she never hired the worker at all and therefore is believed by saying the worker was already paid because of a "migo." Rava disagrees with this.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/37013695
info_outline
Shevuot 44 -Shabbat June 14, 18 Sivan
06/13/2025
Shevuot 44 -Shabbat June 14, 18 Sivan
Is Shmuel's opinion—that a creditor who loses collateral cannot collect the loan even if the collateral was worth much less than the loan amount—the subject of a tannaitic debate? The Gemara suggests two possible tannaitic debates that could relate to this issue, but rejects both, since the basis for each argument can be explained differently. Generally, oaths are used to exempt defendants from payment. However, in several unique circumstances delineated in the Mishna, a claimant can take an oath in order to receive payment.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/36973995
info_outline
Shevuot 43 - June 13, 17 Sivan
06/13/2025
Shevuot 43 - June 13, 17 Sivan
Today's daf is sponsored by Binyamin Cohen to wish Mazel tov to Caroline Musin Berkowitz on completing Shas! "We're inspired by your amazing accomplishment and dedication to learning." What categories of items are excluded from oaths of the shomrim? How is this derived from the Torah? What is the argument between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis in the Mishna regarding items that are or are not considered like land (to be exempt from oaths)? Another criterion for oaths is that the claim must be for a measured item. Rava and Abaye disagree about how to understand this. The Mishna lists several cases regarding a disagreement between the creditor and debtor about the value of an item given as collateral that the creditor claims was lost. In which cases would one side, or perhaps both, need to take an oath? If one loans money with collateral and the item gets lost, what type of responsibility does the creditor assume for the item? What if the creditor and debtor disagree regarding the value of the lost item? Shmuel holds that the creditor no longer owes any money even if the item is worth significantly less than the loan. How does his opinion work with the Mishna?
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/36980675
info_outline
Shevuot 42 - June 12, 16 Sivan
06/12/2025
Shevuot 42 - June 12, 16 Sivan
Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould “in gratitude to HaShem for helping me to find a new partner to love and be loved by, and to walk with on a new journey.” The Gemara continues by presenting cases involving disputes between lenders and borrowers regarding debt repayment, along with the ruling given in each case. In the Mishna there is a contradiction because it is written that we do not administer oaths to a minor and it is also written that we administer oaths to a minor. Rav and Shmuel each interpret the case of administering oaths to a minor in different ways. Rav says it refers to a child who makes a claim for their deceased father's money, and therefore we administer an oath because the loan was to an adult, even though he is not the actual creditor who gave the money originally. According to his explanation, the Mishna matches the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov because the Sages disagree in such a case and do not obligate. The Gemara brings two different explanations to understand what the point of dispute is between Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and the Sages. Shmuel's explanation is that the Mishna refers to the oath of one who tries to collect his father's loan from an orphan. There is no oath for cases of land, slaves, documents, and consecrated property. Also, there are no laws of double, four and five payment, and oaths of guardians for these type of items. From where is this derived in the verses?
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/36967045
info_outline
Shevuot 41 - June 11, 15 Sivan
06/11/2025
Shevuot 41 - June 11, 15 Sivan
Today's daf is sponsored for a refuah shleima for Shmuel Henoch Yaakov Ben Chiyena. Rav Nachman instituted a shevuat heiset, a rabbinic oath, for defendants who completely denied a claim. There is debate about the exact circumstances under which Rav Nachman required this oath. What distinguishes a Torah-mandated oath from a rabbinically instituted one (heiset)? The Gemara presents three possible differences. Under what circumstances can a creditor demand that a debtor repay money in front of witnesses, such that without witnesses, the debtor's claim of having already repaid becomes invalid? The Gemara quotes two different versions of Rav Asi's position, as well as two different versions of Shmuel's response to Rav Asi. Their opinions are then questioned and explained in light of our Mishna. The Gemara presents four actual cases involving disputes between creditors and debtors, explaining how each case was ruled. In some instances, Abaye and Rava disagreed about the proper ruling.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/36948800
info_outline
Shevuot 40 - June 10, 14 Sivan
06/10/2025
Shevuot 40 - June 10, 14 Sivan
Rav and Shmuel disagree about how to understand the line in the Mishna regarding an oath of a partial admission: "a claim must be two ma'ah of silver" - is it referring to the amount of the claim - meaning what the claimant's side is demanding or is it referring to the defendant's claim - how much is the defendant denying? There are four attempts to support Rav's understanding from the Mishna and other tannaitic sources, however the first three can be explained according to Shmuel as well. Two other rulings of Shmuel are brought, including a basic one that if one claims the other owes two different items and the other admits of having one of the items, the defendant takes an oath of partial admission. Two versions are brought about whether Rabbi Yochanan agreed or disagreed with this opinion. Proofs are brought to prove Shmuel's opinion but are proven to be inconclusive. Likewise, those same proofs are brought to disprove the opinion that Rabbi Yochanan disagrees but are rejected in the same way.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/36933150
info_outline
Shevuot 39 - June 9, 13 Sivan
06/09/2025
Shevuot 39 - June 9, 13 Sivan
Today's daf is dedicated by the Hadran Zoom family in honor of Maggie Sandler's birthday! "Your incredible work elevates not just the content of our daily learning, but its entire atmosphere, as you create a beautiful, seamless experience for all of us. You truly bring to life the principle of hiddur mitzva that we learned in Masechet Shabbat: ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״, הִתְנָאֵה לְפָנָיו בְּמִצְוֹת" Before administering the oath to a defendant, the court delivers several cautionary statements about the severity of swearing falsely. These warnings are designed to deter the person from taking a false oath. A braita lists all these statements, and the Gemara both raises difficulties with them and clarifies their meaning and sources. The Gemara then turns to a dispute between Rav and Shmuel regarding the minimum amounts required for a claim, denial, and admission. They disagree about the interpretation of the sentence: "The claim is two maah of silver and the admission is one pruta." Rav holds that for the oath to apply, the total claim must amount to two maah and a pruta—with the minimum denial being two maah and the minimum admission being one pruta. Shmuel, however, rules that both the minimum admission and the minimum denial need only be worth a pruta each, while the minimum total claim must be worth two maah. Rava explains that Rav's interpretation finds support in the Mishna, while Shmuel's position aligns with the biblical verses in the Torah.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/36912810
info_outline
Shevuot 38 - June 8, 12 Sivan
06/08/2025
Shevuot 38 - June 8, 12 Sivan
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Helen Cohen, Henna bat Yitzchak Nechemia. Today's daf is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg, in memory of her father Zvi Tyberg on his yahrzeit today. If one takes an oath of deposit to several people at once, in what circumstances will that be required to bring multiple sacrifices? The Mishna listed three different opinions and a braita is brought with two opinions - Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan bring different explanations as to which wording Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree about. If one takes an oath that one does not have several items of another, if it was a lie, are they liable also for the general statement that they do not have any item or only on the particular different items? There is a debate between amoraim about this issue. The sixth chapter discusses an oath administered by the judges, more particularly an oath of one who admits to part of a claim. What is the minimum value of the claim and the partial admission required in order to be obligated to take an oath? Another requirement is that the admission be about the same type of item as the claim. However, Rabban Gamliel disagrees about this.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/36904420
info_outline
Shevuot 37 - Shabbat June 7, 11 Sivan
06/06/2025
Shevuot 37 - Shabbat June 7, 11 Sivan
Regarding an oath on a deposit, Rav Kahana questions: if witnesses warned the person before taking the oath, that in the event they are lying, they will receive lashes, will they receive lashes in addition to a sacrifice or in place of the sacrifice? Several attempts are made to answer his question from various sources, but none are conclusive. Raba then challenges Rav Kahana's question and suggests that there can never be such a case because if there are witnesses to warn, then they must also be witnesses to the act in which case the denial is irrelevant as the witnesses can make the person pay, regardless of their denial. The Gemara then attempts to prove and then disprove this assumption of Raba that if there are witnesses, one cannot be obligated for an oath of deposit. Only from the last source do they succeed in conclusively disproving this assumption. Is an oath of deposit relevant in a case relating to land?
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/36886040
info_outline
Shevuot 36 - June 6, 10 Sivan
06/06/2025
Shevuot 36 - June 6, 10 Sivan
Today's daf is sponsored by Meryll Page in loving memory of her father George M. Levine, Yosef Michael haLevi, on his 16th yahrzeit. "His memory is a blessing and a constant presence in my life." Words can carry different meanings depending on their context. Several examples are brought from the Tanach to show the meanings of various words. Rabbi Meir and the rabbis debate whether invoking God's name in various contexts requires using the actual divine name or whether a substitute designation suffices. What textual sources do they cite to support their respective positions? One should be careful to change the language of the Mishna and even a verse if it may sound like one is cursing someone else while reciting it. In the Mishna, Rabbi Meir disagreed with the rabbis that one can apply the principle that allows deriving a positive statement from a negative one. However, this creates a contradiction with his stance on stipulations, where he maintains that they must be formulated in both positive and negative terms. To resolve this inconsistency, the text reassigns the positions—switching who said what in our Mishna. Under what circumstances would someone be obligated or exempt from bringing a guilt offering for an oath of deposit? In which situations could a person become liable for multiple sacrifices regarding a single oath of deposit? An oath of deposit applies only to denying monetary claims, not to matters involving fines.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/36885970
info_outline
Shevuot 35 - June 5, 9 Sivan
06/05/2025
Shevuot 35 - June 5, 9 Sivan
Today's daf is sponsored by Avishag Edri for a refuah shleima and rescue of Alon Ben Idit. In which cases are people not obligated in an oath of testimony? What exact phraseology can be used for it to be considered an oath of testimony for which one is obligated to bring a sacrifice? Does one need to include the name of God? Is a word that refers to God also considered using the name of God? What names of God can or cannot be erased. There are various places in the Tanach where it is unclear if a word references God or someone else. The Gemara lists a number of these cases.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/36858650
info_outline
Shevuot 34 - June 4, 8 Sivan
06/04/2025
Shevuot 34 - June 4, 8 Sivan
Four different opinions are brought to explain why an oath of testimony is only for monetary cases. Difficulties are raised about each one of the four opinions and are resolved.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/36844525
info_outline
Shevuot 33 - June 3, 7 Sivan
06/03/2025
Shevuot 33 - June 3, 7 Sivan
The Mishna ruled that if there were two groups of witnesses and each group denied knowing testimony, both groups are liable. The Gemara raises a difficulty with this case, arguing that the first group should not be liable since another group of witnesses can still testify. Ravina resolves this difficulty by limiting the Mishna's ruling to a specific case: where the second group of witnesses are related to each other (as their wives are sisters) and both wives are about to die when the first group takes their oath denying knowledge of the testimony. The Mishna lists various cases where witnesses are asked to testify about multiple things. In some cases, they are only liable one sacrifice and in others multiple sacrifices. An oath of testimony only applies in monetary cases. A question is asked: Does this also include cases involving fines (kenas)? Before answering this question, the Gemara limits the question to the rabbis' position in their debate with Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Elazar rules that if someone admits owing a fine, they are exempt, but if witnesses come forward even after the confession, they are obligated to pay the fine. Therefore, an oath of testimony would clearly apply here, since the witnesses would definitively obligate the defendant. However, the rabbis hold that witnesses can only obligate the defendant if they testify before a confession. Therefore, the question arises whether an oath of testimony would apply here, since it's possible the witnesses are not causing a loss to the claimant—the defendant could simply confess and be exempt. This question is further limited by assuming the rabbis also hold by the position of the rabbis on a different issue: that davar hagorem l'mamon (something that can possibly lead to a monetary obligation) is not considered a monetary obligation. Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that such potential obligations are considered monetary obligations which would obligate the witnesses a sacrifice if they do not testify. After establishing these parameters for the question, the Gemara examines various cases from our Mishna and other sources to attempt an answer. However, neither source provides a conclusive resolution. From where do they derive that an oath of testimony is only for monetary cases? Four different rabbis each bring different proofs.
/episode/index/show/hadran/id/36829585