Shavuot 20: כַּיּוֹם שֶׁמֵּת בּוֹ אָבִיו

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 20

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In the Torah we find that it is forbidden to take a shevuat sheker – a false oath (see Vayikra 19:12) – and also a shevuat shav – an oath taken in vain (see Shemot 20:6). What is the difference between them?

Rav Dimi quotes Rabbi Yoḥanan as teaching that a shevuat sheker is a false oath taken regarding the future that is not kept, while a shevuat shav is an oath in vain about something that happened in the past. The Gemara on our daf challenges this opinion with a baraita that teaches that these two are the same but explains that this means that the two were taught simultaneously – they were said at the same time in a manner that allowed the listener to realize that two similar laws were being taught and understand the nuance of difference between them.

If one says "It is hereby incumbent on me that I not eat meat nor drink wine, as on the day on which my father died (source for fasting on a yahrtzeit), or as on the day when Gedaliyah ben Achikam was killed (fast of the 3rd of Tishrei), or as on the day on which I viewed Jerusalem in its destruction" - he is indeed prohibited; and Shmuel commented on this, "This is only true if he already vowed from that day on.”

We explore the historical figure of Gedaliah…was he a victim or victimizer?

Shavuot 19: לִישָּׁנֵיהּ (דאיתקילא) [אִיתְּקִילא] לֵיהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 19

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The third perek of Massekhet Shevuot begins on today’s daf and with it the Gemara turns its attention to the main subject of the tractate – the issue of oaths – a topic discussed in a number of places in the Torah.

In the Ten Commandments (see Shemot 20:6) the Torah forbids taking God’s Name in vain, which is understood to be referring to the context of an oath. In Sefer Vayikra the Torah forbids false oaths (see Vayikra 19:12). These types of oaths are referred to by the Sages as shevuot shav.

If the shevuat bituy was made regarding past events, if his statement was false, he is held liable immediately – if it was done knowingly, he will receive malkot (lashes) and if unknowingly, he will have to bring a sacrifice according to his financial standing.

Shevuat shav is a type of false oath, when a person takes an oath that he will do something that cannot be done, or if he tries to affirm a false statement that he made by means of an oath or if he swears for no reason at all. In these situations he will be liable to receive malkot if he did it knowingly, if unknowingly there is no punishment.

We explore the dispute between R Akiva and Ishmael through the lens of Heschel’s theory.

Shavuot 18: נוֹעֵץ עֶשֶׂר צִפׇּרְנָיו בַּקַּרְקַע

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 18

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Sexual relations when a woman is a nidda – from the time when her period begins until she goes to the mikveh after it is over – is forbidden. Transgressing that negative commandment carries with it the punishment of karet – the people will be “cut off” from the community. The Mishna (14b) discusses the case of someone who transgresses a positive commandment of nidda and explains that the positive commandment is when a couple is engaged in permissible intercourse, and the woman suddenly realizes that she has become a nidda. When she informs the man of her status, his obligation is to remain in place until his erection is lost in order to avoid sexual pleasure with a nidda.

This parallels the case of the individual who enters the Temple and becomes tameh while he is there, since in both cases the entry was permissible, and the problem developed at a later time. The difference is that in the Temple, the man who became ritually defiled must leave as quickly as possible, while in the case of the nidda the recommendation is to wait until it is appropriate to leave.

Shavuot 17: תַלמְיִד חכָםָ לזְוֹ ואְיֵן תַּלמְיִד חכָםָ לזָוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 17

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Sexual relations when a woman is a nidda – from the time when her period begins until she goes to the mikveh after it is over – is forbidden. Transgressing that negative commandment carries with it the punishment of karet – the people will be “cut off” from the community. The Mishna (14b) discusses the case of someone who transgresses a positive commandment of nidda and explains that the positive commandment is when a couple is engaged in permissible intercourse, and the woman suddenly realizes that she has become a nidda. When she informs the man of her status, his obligation is to remain in place until his erection is lost in order to avoid sexual pleasure with a nidda.

This parallels the case of the individual who enters the Temple and becomes tameh while he is there, since in both cases the entry was permissible, and the problem developed at a later time. The difference is that in the Temple, the man who became ritually defiled must leave as quickly as possible, while in the case of the nidda the recommendation is to wait until it is appropriate to leave.

Shavuot 16: קִידָּה – עַל אַפַּיִם

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 16

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf discusses whether the kedusha of mikdash and yerushalayim (to the exclusion of kedushas ha'aretz - see tosafos) is still present nowadays.

The Rambam (Hil. Beis HaBechira 6:14) writes that the kedusha of the shechina cannot become batul.

§ The mishna teaches: If he bowed down, or he tarried in the Temple courtyard long enough to bow down, or he went out by way of a longer route when he could have taken a shorter route, he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. Rava says: They taught this only when he bowed down in the Temple courtyard facing inward, toward the Holy of Holies, as that alone is proper bowing. But if he bowed down facing outward, that is not considered bowing. When he bows facing outward, if he tarried in the Temple courtyard long enough to bow down, yes, he is liable, but if he did not tarry long enough to bow down, he is not liable.

We continue to explore the prostrations and dancing in the temple as well as how we memorialize in liturgy.

Shavuot 15: בכנורות ובנבלים ובצלצלים

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 15

To download, click/tap here: PDF

§ The mishna teaches concerning the consecration of an addition to the city of Jerusalem or the Temple courtyard: And with a song. The Sages taught in a baraita: They sang the song of thanksgiving, i.e., Psalms, chapter 100, which begins:

“A psalm of thanksgiving,” accompanied by harps, lyres, and cymbals, at every corner and upon every large stone in Jerusalem. And they also recited Psalms, chapter 30, which begins:

“I will extol You, O Lord, for You have lifted me up,” and the song of evil spirits, i.e., Psalms, chapter 91, which begins: “He that dwells in the secret place of the Most High.” And some say that this psalm is called the song of plagues.

It is related that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would recite these verses to protect him from evil spirits during the night and fall asleep while saying them. The Gemara asks: How could he do that? But doesn’t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi himself say: One is prohibited from healing himself with words of Torah? The Gemara answers: To protect oneself is different, as he recited these verses only to protect himself from evil spirits, and not to heal himself.

We explore music and instruments used in the Beis Hamikdash.

Shavuot 14: הפנימית נאכלת, והחיצונה נשרפת

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 14

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The second perek of Massekhet Shevuot, Perek Yediot HaTumah, begins on our daf, and continues the discussion of issues of ritual defilement.

From the simple reading of the Torah (see Vayikra 5:2-3) it would seem that coming into physical contact with a dead creature that gives off ritual defilement is, itself prohibited. Nevertheless, the tradition of the Sages is that there is nothing inherently wrong with touching such a creature; the only prohibition is for someone who is ritually defiled through such contact to enter the Temple precincts or spread that tumah to something consecrated.

The first Mishna repeats the teaching that appeared at the beginning of Massekhet Shevuot (see 2a), that the laws of yediot ha-tumah – recognizing that someone was ritually defiled and then interacted with the Temple or some consecrated object – have the same “two that are four” pattern that parallel the case of shevuot – oaths – in that they contain two basic concepts that include four ideas. The two concepts that are written in the Torah are that –

We examine purity laws from a historical and cultural perspective.

Shavuot 13: סתם סיפרא אסתם סיפרא

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 13

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rav Yosef answers that the Mishna was authored by Rebbe, and he agrees with Rabbi Yehudah that all are included in the atonement of the sent goat. Abaye asked Rav Yosef why he said the author was Rebbe – was because Rabbi Yehudah does not agree with Rebbe, or was it simply because it is inappropriate to say that the senior author (Rabbi Yehudah) agrees with the junior author (Rebbe)? Rav Yosef answered that Rabbi Yehudah does not agree with Rebbe, so he had to say the author was Rebbe.

He proves this from a braisa from the sifra (which is always assumed to be Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion), which says that although Yom Kippur atones for intentional transgressions, it does not atone if one has not repented, since the verse qualifies it with the word ach – but.

The Gemora cites a contradictory sifra, which says that Yom Kippur atones even if one did not fast, did not commemorate it, and did work, since the verse categorically states yom kippurim hu – it is Yom Kippur. Abaye says that this second sifra was authored by Rebbe, and differs with the first one, authored by Rabbi Yehudah.

We explore the scholarship on midrash authorship specifically Sifrah (Toras Kohanim).

Shavuot 12: לָא זָז מִשָּׁם עַד שֶׁמּוֹחֲלִין לוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 12

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In the Mishnah, we learned that if a person is guilty of not fulfilling a positive commandment, the goat of Yom Kippur which is sent out for the procedure of עזאזל atones for him.

In its analysis of this halacha, the Gemara notes that if the person had not done teshuva, the atonement should apparently not be valid for him. The verse states (Mishlei 21:27): “The offering of the wicked is despised.”

And, on the other hand, if the person did do teshuva, he has achieved his atonement whatever day he expressed his remorse, as the Beraisa teaches that a person is forgiven immediately upon doing teshuva for neglectful lack of fulfillment of a positive commandment.

R. Isaac Arama (Spain, 15th century) says that the difference between an intentional and an unintentional sin is that in the former case, both the body and the soul were at fault. In the case of an unintentional sin only the body was at fault, not the soul. Therefore a physical sacrifice helps since it was only the physical act of the body that was in the wrong. A physical sacrifice cannot atone for a deliberate sin, because it cannot rectify a wrong in the soul.

Shavuot 11: שָׁאנֵי פָּרָה, הוֹאִיל וְדָמֶיהָ יְקָרִין

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 11

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rabbi Shimon says that the meat of a red heifer that was slaughtered properly is susceptible to becoming ritually impure with the ritual impurity of food, even though it is prohibited to partake of it in its current state, since it had a time when it was fit to be eaten. And in explanation of when it was fit to be eaten, Reish Lakish says: Rabbi Shimon would say that a red heifer may be redeemed even while it is upon its arrangement of wood.

Rabba concedes however the case of a red heifer is different, since it is of great monetary value. Therefore, to avoid a great loss, the court makes a stipulation despite its being an uncommon case.

We explore the notion of bringing cows heifers other animals reminding the divine of the sin of the golden calf yet midrashically interacting “let the mother come and clean the calf’s poop, or let the father come and clean the child” How do we read these parables midrashically and mystically.

Shavuot 10: עון אחד הוא נושא, ואינו נושא שני עונות

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 10

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Mishnah (2b) states that Rebbi Shimon used to say that the Se'irim of Rosh Chodesh atone for a person who ate Kodshim that was Tamei. The Se'irim of the Regalim (Pesach, Shavuos, and Sukos) atone for a person who became Tamei and ate Kodshim or entered the Beis ha'Mikdash without knowing about his Tum'ah, either at the beginning or the end. The Se'irim of Yom Kippur atone for a person who was not aware initially that he became Tamei, but afterwards he became aware of it.

The Mishnah continues and relates that Rebbi Shimon was asked whether each day's Sa'ir may be offered on the other days. That is, if the Sa'ir that had been set aside to be brought on Yom Kippur was lost and another Sa'ir was offered in its place, and then the original Sa'ir was found on the Regel (or on Rosh Chodesh), may that Sa'ir (that was intended for Yom Kippur) be offered on the Regel or on Rosh Chodesh (RASHI DH Hayah)?

We continue attempting to understand the origin of the Goat to Azazel from intertestamental texts.

Shavuot 9: אותה נושא עון, ואין אחרת נושא עון

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 9

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna (2a) taught that when a person who was tameh was unaware of his status and he entered the Temple or ate consecrated food, since he cannot bring a sacrifice for atonement (given that he was unaware that he had done anything wrong), sacrifices brought on holidays and on Rosh Ḥodesh (the New Moon) serve to offer him that atonement.

The source for this is the passage (Bamidbar 28:15) that describes how the sacrifice is a sin offering la-HaShem – to God – which is understood to refer to sins that only God is aware of.

The Gemara quotes another teaching derived from this passage. Reish Lakish says that the sacrifice brought on Rosh Ḥodesh makes reference to a sin offering la-HaShem because God says to the Jewish people that this sacrifice should be brought to atone for God having minimized the moon.

The idea that God made the moon smaller is discussed at length in the Gemara Ḥullin (60b) where the Gemara describes that originally both the light of the day – the sun – and the light of the night – the moon – were the same size, but that God made the moon smaller after it complained that two equal rulers could not exist together (see also Rashi on Bereshit 1:16).

see daf ditty chullin 60 for more.

We explore the cabalistic dimension of this with the work of Elliot Wolfson.

Shavuot 8: אם מת – מיתה ממרקת

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 8

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Two similar se’irim – sacrificial goats – are set aside for use in the Temple service on Yom Kippur, and are chosen by lottery to be brought as a sacrifice in the Temple or sent to be thrown off the cliff to Azazel (see Vayikra 16:5-22). The Gemara on today’s daf discusses the se’ir that was brought as a sacrifice in the Temple – what purpose did it serve? Although the baraita is certain that it comes to atone for sins that relate to entering the Temple in a state of ritual defilement, our Gemara considers other possibilities, as well.

we continue our exploration of vicarious suffering and the implication of the two goats.

Shavuot 7: ממקומו הוא מוכרע

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 7

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna (2a) taught that the laws of yedi’ot ha-tumah – situations where a person forgot that he was ritually defiled and entered the Temple or ate consecrated food – are “two that are four.” That is to say that there are different situations regarding how the mistake was made – as noted he could have forgotten his status and either entered the Temple or eaten consecrated food – or he could remember his status but forget that the food was consecrated or that it was forbidden for him to enter the Temple in this state. These are the situations referred to by the Torah when it says (Vayikra 5:2-14) that the sinner must bring a korban oleh ve-yored – a “sliding scale” sacrifice where a wealthy person will bring goat or a lamb, a middle income person will bring a dove and a poor person will bring a meal offering.

The Gemara on our daf asks how we know that these laws apply specifically to the Temple and to food consecrated to the Temple, since the Torah itself simply says that the person erred, was ritually impure and was guilty, without specifying what he was guilty of. In response, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi suggested a gezera shava – a method of comparing similar words that appear in two places in the Torah. Rabbi’s statement was praised by Rava, who said that Rabbi “drew up water from deep wells” in suggesting this.

We explore the notion of Yom Kippur effecting atonement per se through the sacrifice of the 2 goats.

Shavuot 6: תרי מלכי ולתרי איפרכי

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 6

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we learned on yesterday’s daf, the Mishna (2a) described that mar’ot nega’im – shades of leprous marks – are “two that are four.” That is to say that the two signs of plagues of leprosy mentioned in the Torah (see Vayikra 13:1-2) – a se’et or a baheret – each have toladot – other, lower level signs of this plague – that are similar to them in color. According to the Gemara, a se’et is the color of the white wool of a newly born lamb, and its tolada is the color of the membrane of an egg. A beheret is the intense white color of snow and its tolada is white like the lime plaster of the Temple sanctuary walls.

On our daf, we find that the Sages attempt to offer parallels to this hierarchy by describing the relationship between a king and his underlings. Rava rejects the suggestions made by the other Sages arguing that the only true parallel is the relationship between two kings who are on the same level – like Shevor Malka, the king of Persia, and the Roman Caesar. In response, Rav Pappa asked him which of the two is greater. Rava replied that Rav Pappa’s question makes it sound as though he was living in a forest his whole life, since everyone knows which currency is more widely accepted in the world.

We explore medical therapies in talmud.

Shavuot 5: ידיעת בית רבו שמה ידיעה

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 5

To download, click/tap here: PDF

It was stated above: How do we know one is only liable if he knows originally, forgets, and then remembers? The verse says: “But it became concealed,” “But it became concealed” twice. [This teaches us that he is only liable to bring a korban if he was aware that he was tamei, forgot, committed the transgression, and then became aware of it. Accordingly, he maintains that a korban is only brought if he was unaware that he was tamei, not if he was unaware that it was kodesh.]

These are the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rebbe says: This is not needed.

we explore the life and work of a great scholar of mishnah and tosefta Prof Shaul Lieberman (OBM).

Shavuot 4: רבי דריש כללי ופרטי

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 4

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The verse repeats the word "v'Ne'elam" when it discusses Yedi'os ha'Tum'ah. The verse first says, "v'Ne'elam v'Hu Tamei" (Vayikra 5:2), and then it says again, "v'Ne'elam v'Hu Yada" (5:3). Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi disagree about the intention of the verse.

RASHI explains their disagreement as follows: Rebbi Akiva learns from the first word of "v'Ne'elam" that one is liable only for He'elem Tum'ah but not for He'elem Mikdash. He derives from the second phrase, "v'Ne'elam v'Hu Yada," that there was a Yedi'ah that preceded the Ha'alamah, because the phrase "v'Hu Yada" should be read before the second "v'Ne'elam" and after the first, which implies that he forgot after he first knew.

We continue our exploration of the editing of the Mishnah.

Shavuot 3: הלכה כסתם משנה

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 3

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Gemara on our daf, the juxtaposition of these two tractates is based on stylistic concerns.

One of the last Mishnayot in Massekhet Makkot teaches the law restricting the way a Jewish man can cut his hair, and there, too, we find that two laws of hair-cutting extend to a number of laws, similar to the list of “two that are four” rules in our Mishna (see yesterday’s daf).

One of the issues os the attribution of the stam mishnah : As Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is always in accordance with the ruling of an unattributed mishna. Since the mishna here is unattributed and assumes that one is flogged for taking a false oath, Rabbi Yoḥanan should rule that this is the halakha.

We explore latter day scholars (Frankel, Guttman, Lieberman, Halivni) on the question of anonymous authorship in the Mishnah exposing a broader tension between historical recovery and legal continuity.

Shavuot 2: וְאַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא תַּרְתֵּי – תְּנָא כּוּלְּהוּ

For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 2

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

Our new Massechta begins with a mishnah that states that oaths can be of two types: to do something, or not to do it. For example, "I will eat this bread" or "I will not eat this bread." These are the oaths explicitly mentioned in the Torah. However, one can derive the same two types of oaths as related to the past, where the person swears that he did something, or didn't do it. All four types, if made inadvertently, require the offender to bring a variable-type offering, which depends on his means.

(Here the Talmud digresses from oaths to discuss other cases of "two that are in reality four." It will not come back to oaths until after eighteen pages.)

But why study oaths right after Makkot (lashes)? Because one of the last subjects in Makkot was multiple penalties for one transgression, and "two that are four" is formulated similarly.

Makkot 24: עקיבא ניחמתנו, עקיבא ניחמתנו

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 24

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Elozar ben Azaryah, Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Akiva were going on the road. They heard the voice of a large number of Romans emanating from a large building that was one hundred twenty mil away. They started crying, while Rabbi Akiva started laughing. They asked him: Why are you laughing?

He asked them: Why are you crying? They replied: These are evil people who are bowing down to sculptures and offering sacrifices to idolatry, and they are sitting securely and quietly in their land. In contrast, the footstool (i.e. house) of Hashem our God was burned in fire, and we should not cry?!

Rabbi Akiva responded: This is exactly why I am laughing. If He does good things for those who go against His will, certainly He will do great things for those who fulfill his will! Another time when these four sages were together, they walked to Yerushalayim. When they got to Mount Scopus, they tore their clothes. When they reached the Temple Mount, they saw a fox coming out of the area of the Holy of Holies, and they started crying while Rabbi Akiva started laughing.

In the last page of massechet Makkot we are left exploring the paradoxical humor as well as consolation of these last aggadot.