This week's learning is sponsored by Nira Feldman in loving memory of her mother Faye Darack z"l. "A devoted Hadran learner, she approached each day with a renewed curiosity to learn and grow, she continues to inspire us each day." 

Today's daf is sponsored by Phyllis & Yossie Hecht in loving memory of Phyllis’s father’s, HaRav Yerachmiel Binyanim ben Zalman Tzvi Witkin on his 16th yahrzeit, “Jerry Witkin, the יושר לב, חבר לכל רואך וכל כך שמח בחלקו. We can only imagine the pride Dad must feel peeking down on his impactful legacy of 6 children, 28 grandchildren and continuous growth of great-grandchildren living lives of Am Yisrael b'Eretz Yisrael im Torat Yisrael! Dad, you are so missed and we have been so blessed. Yehi Zichro Baruch.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in loving memory of Carol’s mother, Irma Robinson, Hudda Bat Moshe on her 8th yahrzeit. “Irma built a rich life in the Chicago area. She loved to have the 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.” She and Carol are together in a different world, and this dedication will always remain the same. 

Today's daf is sponsored by Naomi Cohen. "Mazal Tov to Jack, Rivka, Itzik and Yoni on the birth of a daughter and sister, Elisheva bat Yaakov v'Rivka, Ella - with love from Mum and Dad/Savta and Sabba."

Assumptions are made about a rebellious child regarding the course his future will take and therefore he is killed to prevent him from sinning further.

Similar assumptions are also made regarding a robber - the assumption is that a robber will come to kill if the owner of the house stands up against the robber, and therefore it is permitted to kill a robber. The Gemara discusses the circumstances in which one can assume the robber is coming to kill.

Additionally, if at the time of the robbery the robber is viewed as a pursuer, there is a "death penalty" on the robber. Therefore, the robber is exempt from damages caused to property because of the law that if one incurs two punishments simultaneously, one is exempt from the more lenient one.

Rav takes this even further to say a robber who can be killed is exempt from returning the stolen items.  Rava disagrees and only exempts the robber if the item is broken or gone. Our Mishna is brought to support Rava's interpretation. Another source is brought to raise a difficulty against Rava's position. The difficulty is resolved.

Other drashot are brought on the verses regarding robbery, including laws that one can even kill a robber on Shabbat, in any way they want, and anyone can kill the robber, not only the one being robbed.

Two different drashot highlight why the verse specifically brought the example of a robber in a machteret, i.e. breaking in, even though the law would also apply to one who climbs up to the roof or enters the courtyard (easily). One explains that it is the typical manner of robbers, while the other learns from here that one who breaks in is already considered forewarned and no warning is necessary before killing the robber.

Rav Huna rules that a minor pursuer can be killed as well, as there is no need for a warning. Rav Chisda raised a difficulty from a Mishna in Ohalot 7:6 that if the mother's life is endangered during childbirth, if the head has emerged, one cannot kill the baby to save the mother, even if the baby is acting like a pursuer. The resolution is that the baby is not intending to kill the mother, as it is an act of God. In the earlier part of that Mishna it is explained that before the head has emerged, one can abort the fetus if it is causing risk to the mother, as the life of the mother takes precedence to an unborn fetus. A braita is brought to support Rav Huna's position and another is brought to contradict. However, both are rejected as inconclusive.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in loving memory of Art’s mother Shirley, Sarah bat Avraham v’Ziche Reicha on her 9th yahrzeit. “She was a life-long learner, a striver, she sewed and made mosaics. Once her three children were old enough, she went back to school, earned a master’s degree, created a new career doing social work and counseling, and published four books on raising a family. She lives on in the tallitot and quilts she made.

Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim Weiss is loving memory of Elsie Muller on her 30th yahrtzeit. "Elsie was a family friend, 50 years my senior. She had no children of her own, so she adopted my family as hers. We were close friends and we confided in each other. She devoted her retirement to Jewish causes and would be very proud of her adopted children and grandchildren in Israel and USA."

Today's daf is sponsored by Tina Lamm in loving memory of her mother, Peppy Senders, Pesha Rivka bat Gershon HaCohen and Bina, on her yahrzeit. "It has been 21 years, and my mother's wisdom, kindness and patience are still my North Star."

Today's daf is sponsored by the Shuster family in loving memory of Ozer's mother Devora bat Yisroel. "May her devotion to Torah and mitzvot be a merit to the entire Jewish people."

A rebellious son will only be convicted if he steals money from his father and eats in the domain of others, as only in that situation will it be likely that the son continue to act in this way. Why? Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda rules that he must steal from both parents. Since the wife does not generally own her own property, two explanations are brought to understand his opinion.

Both parents have to agree to bring the son to the court. Rabbi Yehuda adds that if the mother is not worthy for the father, the son cannot be convicted. The Gemara establishes the meaning of his statement - they must have the same voice, height, and look alike. This is derived from the verse in the Torah, Devarim 21:20 "he doesn't listen to our voice." The braita that says that a rebellious son never existed, nor will it ever exist, presumably accords with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is impossible to find a couple who are identical in appearance, voice, and height. Rabbi Shimon also agrees that a rebellious son never happened and never will. Rabbi Yonatan disagrees and says he sat on his grave. There is a similar debate about an ir hanidachat, a city that all worship idols, and a leprous house.

The Mishna also excludes any case where one of the parents is lame, mute, blind, etc. as the parents will be unable to complete the process as defined in the Torah. Can we infer from here that when the Torah describes how a process is supposed to happen, it must be done exactly in that way?

After the son steals and eats meat and wine in a large quantity, the parents bring the son to a court of three judges and he is flogged. If he continues in his ways, he is brought to a court of twenty-three and judged to be stoned. The obligation to flog is derived by means of a gezeira shava from the word "v'yisru" by the one who slanders his wife (Devarim 22:18)  to that same word in the rebellious son (Devarim 21:18) and from "ben" to "ben" (Devarim 25:2) in the verse regarding lashes.

If the son is brought to court but then runs away and by the time they catch him, he is no longer within the age range of one who can be killed for being a rebellious child, can he be executed? It depends on whether he was convicted before he ran away.

Rabbi Chanina rules that a ben Noah who curses God and then converts is not convicted as the laws for judging him and the death penalty have changed.  Four sources, including the two parts of our Mishna, regarding a rebellious son who aged out before the ruling/execution, are brought to prove or disprove this ruling, but all comparisons are rejected.

A rebellious son is killed because of the concern for where these actions will lead him in the future.

This week's learning is sponsored by Minna and Cliff Felig in honor of their newborn twin grandchildren Naveh and Lia. "Naveh is an oasis, safe space, in the desert. Lia means God is with me. We wish for them a safe space to protect them and that God will be with them at all times."

Today’s daf is sponsored by Art Gould in loving memory of Art’s father Joseph, Yosef ben Shlomo Shabtai v’Rachel on his 24rd yahrzeit. “My father was an ordinary man of extraordinary dignity, decency and dedication. He loved to watch my brother and I play on the tennis courts directly opposite our living room window. One day he came out and shocked us both with a huge, booming, topspin forehand. We didn’t know he played! I wish we had had more time together.” 

Today's daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in loving memory of her parents, Binyamin ben Ze’ev v’Hinda Yosepha and Fruma bat Nachum Natan v’Ester, whose yahrzeits are 4 days apart, 23 and 27 Shvat. "They would have supported and admired my learning."

Why is a daughter not able to be judged as a rebellious child?

To be convicted as a rebellious son, he must eat a certain amount of meat and drink a certain amount of wine. However, there are also specific conditions regarding the type of meat/wine, the nature of the meal, the company present, and other factors. If he is eating as part of a seudat mitzva (ritual meal) or consuming forbidden food, he is not liable.

The dangers of wine are discussed through the lens of various stories and texts in the Tanach, including those about Adam, Noah, and the rebuke of King Solomon by his mother in Proverbs Chapter 31. However, wine also has beneficial qualities, as it can help soothe the pain of those who are suffering. There is a debate between Rav and Shmuel about what Ham, Noah's son, did to him after Noah became drunk. One says he castrated him, while the other maintains that he sodomized him, with each sage providing textual support for their position. Some hold that the tree of knowledge was a grapevine, emphasizing the negative aspects of wine. Others claim it was either a wheat plant or a fig tree.

King Solomon's mother rebuked him and bound him to a pillar to be flogged for pursuing earthly pleasures that led him to sin, much like a rebellious son.

Details regarding the cases in the Mishna where a rebellious son is not liable are discussed, explained, and compared to other sources that appear to contradict some of the situations mentioned in the Mishna. These contradictions are ultimately resolved.

Today's daf is sponsored by Elisheva Gray in loving memory of Gidi Nahshon, z''l, Yoel Melech ben Moshe v'Sarah, on his tenth yahrzeit. "Gidi was a wonderful mentor, friend and chevruta. He made Aliyah to Israel from Prague and was in the IDF during both the 1967 and Yom Kippur wars. I feel his presence in my Daf Yomi studies every day, and I am grateful that he passed on to me his d'vekut for Israel and for Torah. May his neshama have an aliyah."

Today's daf is sponsored by Miri Darchi in loving memory of her father Aharon Shimon ben David and Malka Tzirel. 

Abaye raises a difficulty against Rabba's position, that males before reaching maturity cannot father a child, from a verse in the Torah regarding a man who engages in relations with a shifcha harufa. The drasha on that verse includes a male over the age of nine. However, the difficulty is resolved, as this is not an indicator that the child can impregnate a woman at that age.

Another difficulty is raised against Rabba from a braita of Rabbi Yishmael that derives an exemption for a ben sorer u'moreh who himself is a father - how could he be a father if he did not impregnate the woman before reaching maturity, since according to Rabbi Kruspedai, there is only a three-month window after reaching maturity to be a ben sorer u'moreh? This is resolved as well by explaining Rabbi Yishmael's drasha as the source for Rabbi Kruspedia's ruling - the three months is based on the fact that the child could potentially be called a father within three months of reaching maturity as his wife could become pregnant and would be showing it after the first three months.

Rabbi Kruspedai's opinion is based on the majority of women who give birth at nine months and begin showing at three months and doesn't consider a woman who gives birth at seven months and would be showing at two and a third months. Could this prove that woman who gives birth at seven months also begins showing at three months and not at a third of her pregnancy (two and a third months)? This suggestion is rejected as he follows the majority. However, is that really true? This contradicts the concept that in capital law we try to find any possible way to exonerate the accused from the verse "and the congregation shall save." Two Mishnayot are brought to prove that we do follow the majority even in capital cases, but the second one is rejected as it can be explained differently.

Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree about a mother who has an incomplete sexual encounter with her minor son. Does this disqualify her from marrying a kohen, as she could be considered a zona from the interaction? Rav Chisda (either quoted someone else or he was quoted by someone else) explains that they all agree if the child was nine, that she would become disqualified, and if he was younger than eight, then she would not. Their disagreement is about a child who is between eight and nine, as in the days of the Tanach men were able to father children at eight, even though already in the time of the tannaim, this was no longer the situation. The debate is whether we learn from those times or follow what is true presently.

What is the source that in the times of the Tanach men fathered children at age eight? At first, they try to prove from Shlomo, as his great grandfather Achitofel was twenty-six years older than him. However, this proof is rejected, as the lineage includes Bat-Sheva who was a woman and she could have been younger, and the men were older. The second attempt is brought from Avraham and Sara, but this is rejected as well as it is not clear whether Avraham was older than Sara's father, Haran or younger. The final proof comes from Bezalel who was the great-grandson of Caleb, who was twenty-six years older than him. If two years are deducted due to three pregnancies, then the remainder of the twenty-four years prove that each father was eight years old at the birth of his son.

Why are girls exempted from being a ben sorer u'moreh?

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of Shiri Bibas and in honor of the release of Tal Shoham, Omer Shem Tov, Omer Wenkert, and Eliya Cohen who returned to Israel after 505 days, and Avera Mengistu and Hisham Al-Sayed who returned after being held for a decade. Wishing them a refuah shleima and praying for the safe release of the rest of the hostages.

The Mishna quoted Rabbi Akiva who said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua that two people can gather cucumbers - one uses sorcery and will be liable, and the other who makes it look like they are gathered, but they are not really, is exempt. The Gemara brings the story of the death of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus to question this, as in the context of that dramatic story, a different incident is recounted where Rabbi Eliezer shows Rabbi Akiva how using magic one can gather cucumbers.

Upon his death, the rabbis wanted to see if Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanus changed his mind and if they could repeal the ex-communication they had placed upon him. However, he was still strongly holding onto his position. But since the word "pure" (*tahara*) was on his lips as he died, they took it as a sign that they could repeal the ex-communication.

A rebellious son, ben sorer u'moreh, can only be convicted if he has reached puberty and until he has significant hair growth by his genitals. Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav derives this from the verse in the Torah regarding a rebellious son that juxtaposes the words son and man. Rav Chisda learns a different drasha from that verse, that if the father of the child was a minor when the son was born, he cannot become a rebellious son. How can both be derived from the verse? Rabba disagrees with Rav Chisda as he holds that a minor is not capable of fathering a child.

Study Guide Sanhedrin 67

Today's daf is sponsored by Aviva Appleman Jacobowitz in loving memory of  Joseph Appleman, Yosef Ben Hillel, on his second yahrzeit. "May his neshama have an aliya!"

Today's daf is sponsored by Miki Kadosh in loving memory of her father, Daniel ben Avraham.

What distinguishes between two types of idol worship inciters: a meisit, who persuades individuals to worship idols, and a meidiach, who leads an entire city to idol worship? There is a unique legal provision regarding a meisit: witnesses may be hidden to observe when the meisit attempts to convince someone to worship idols - a practice not permitted for any other violation of law. The Mishna states that a meisit can only be a regular person, but what case does this specification exclude? Furthermore, is this Mishna ruling consistent only with Rabbi Shimon's interpretation, or can it also align with the position of the rabbis?

What constitutes a mechashef (sorcerer)? The Mishna provides a detailed classification of which actions qualify as sorcery and which do not. Why does the Torah use mechashefa, the feminine form of this term? What is the scriptural source indicating that a mechashef is executed by stoning? What is the linguistic origin of the word mechashef?

Several stories involving people who used magic are recounted.

This week's learning is sponsored by Ruth Rotenberg in loving memory of their eldest daughter Tanielle Gavre"ea Margalit on her 20th yahrzeit. "Hashem gifted us a beautiful neshama for 18 years. She remarkably accomplished so much, and so many continue to carry her passions and deeds."

Today's daf is sponsored by Miki Kadosh in loving memory of her father, Daniel ben Avraham.

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in loving memory of her mother Shirley K. Tydor, Sarah Raizel Bat Mordechai Yitzchak and Freida Sima, and her grandmother, Esther bat Sinai and Chaya. "My beloved mother had the zechut of living in Israel, my beloved grandmother, who I never knew, died of typhus in the Lodz ghetto. May their memories be a blessing."

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of Ariel and Kfir Bibas, and Oded Lifshitz, and pray for the safe return of Ariel and Kfir's mother, Shiri. Our hearts are with the families. 

One who desecrates Shabbat gets stoned. What exceptions to the rule are there?

One who curses one's father and mother gets stoned. However, this is limited to one who cursed them using the name of God. There is a debate about whether it is only if one uses the name of God and not a nickname. The verse regarding the punishment for this is extrapolated. The warning for this is derived from the verse in Shmot 22:27 from the prohibition to curse Elohim (either judges or God) and a Nasi. How is it derived from this verse?

One who engages in sexual relations with a betrothed young woman receives the punishment of stoning. To receive this specific punishment, the woman must be a naara (the stage between a ketana and a bogeret), virgin, betrothed, and still in her father's domain. If two men engage in relations with her, only the first is stoned, the second receives the typical punishment for adultery of strangulation. All these details are derived from verses in the Torah.

The Mishna corresponds to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as the rabbis disagree and obligate one even if the woman is younger, a ketana. There is a tannaitic debate between Rabbi Yonatan and Rabbi Yoshea about whether according to Rabbi Meir there is a punishment of strangulation for the man if the girl is under the age of a naara or if there would be no punishment at all. Each establishes his position using a verse from the Torah. What does each one derive from the verse supporting the other's opinion?

Study Guide Sanhedrin 65

Today's daf is dedicated to the Bibas and Lifschitz families on this difficult day.

A baal ov and yidoni are punished by stoning. Baal ov raises the dead and they speak from between the baal ov's armpits. Yidoni. a sorcerer, takes a bone from an animal called yadua and puts it in their mouth and it speaks.

Why are baal ov and yidoni mentioned in this Mishna as receiving the punishment of stoning, but in the Mishna in Keritot only baal ov is mentioned for being obligated to bring a sin offering? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish offer two different answers. Their opinions are analyzed in the Gemara - why doesn't each hold by the other? What is considered an action? Generally one is only obligated for actions, according to the rabbis. How much of an action is needed to obligate one? Is moving one's lips an action? Bowing to an idol? Rabbi Akiva obligates even without an action - but does he include any non-action? Or does he have some minimal criteria?

What are the differences between the different types of witchcraft/magic mentioned in the Torah?

Today's daf is sponsored by David and Ruth Leah Kahan in honor of Dr. Jody Dushay and Prof. Paul Gompers, in celebration of the birth of their first grandchild, Aidan Oz Shulman.

Did the Jews worship idols because they believed in them or for other reasons?  How is it that the evil inclination for idol worship doesn't exist anymore?  A story, based on the elaboration on a verse in Zecharia is brought to illustrate how this transpired.

How does one violate the prohibition to pass one's son or daughter to Molech? Is the Molech considered idol worship? 

Today's daf is sponsored by Gabrielle and Daniel Altman in loving memory of Honorable Myriam Altman, Myriam Bat Shlomo z”l. “It’s been 20 years without her, and her love and wisdom still guides our every path.”

Rabbi Ami held that if one does various forbidden acts of idol worship unwittingly and then realizes one's mistake, one is obligated to bring only one sin offering. Abaye explained the source for Rabbi Ami, "Do not worship them," but he disagreed with Rabbi Ami and held that one would need to offer separate sin offerings for each action.

The Mishna rules that one receives the death penalty for saying to an idol, "You are my God." Rav Nachman quoted Rav as having said that also. The Gemara infers that Rav's statement must have referred to obligating one to bring a sacrifice, as the death penalty was already derived from the Mishna. They also explain that his opinion only accords with Rabbi Akiva's position in his disagreement with the rabbis (according to Reish Lakish's understanding of their debate) about whether one who curses God unwittingly can be obligated to bring a sin offering. The rabbis rule that since the person sinned with words only, there is no sin offering, while Rabbi Akiva disagrees. Rav's opinion is derived from a verse relating to the sin of the golden calf. The Gemara continues to bring a different drasha from the words in that verse Shmot 32:8, "heelucha" in plural, mentioning the idol and God, reflecting that the Jews did not reject God completely. However, there is a tannaitic debate regarding the meaning of the word in that context.

The Mishna listed various actions for which one does not receive the death penalty. Does one get lashes for them? And if so, for which of the actions? There are two different traditions relating to this and each one is challenged as some fall into the category of a negative commandment that does not have an action (words only) and a negative commandment that includes many different prohibitions, both of which are exempt from lashes. The first version is rejected, but the second is explained according to the position of Rabbi Yehuda, who obligates one to receive lashes even for a negative commandment without an action.

One cannot go into a partnership with an idol worshipper as it may cause the idol worshipped to vow in the name of the idol. One cannot mention the name of an idol, unless it is a name mentioned in the Tanach. 

Is idol worship something that people have a strong desire to do?