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? 

Today's daf is dedicated to the release of Sagui Dekel-Chen, Alexandre Troufanov, and Iair Horn after 498 days in captivity. Wishing them a refuah shleima and praying for the safe release of the rest of the hostages. 

Rabbi Zakai brought a braita which stated that one who performs multiple acts of idol worship in a single lapse of awareness is only liable for one sin offering. Rabbi Yochanan told him to teach this braita outside the study hall because the braita was corrupted. Rabbi Abba tried to justify Rabbi Zakai's words based on Rabbi Yosi's opinion in his dispute with Rabbi Natan regarding the laws of Shabbat - whether the prohibition of kindling fire was singled out as a negative commandment or to divide liability. However, Rav Yosef rejects this comparison as even Rabbi Yosi holds that if one does several actions in a single lapse of awareness, one will be liable to bring a sin offering for each one. The Gemara raises another difficulty and resolves it.

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda brought a different version of the braita that Rabbi Zakai had presented to Rabbi Yochanan, which also dealt with someone who performs multiple acts and is only liable for one sin offering. The Gemara brings four possible explanations to understand the braita, concluding with the final one, and explaining why Rabbi Yochanan did not accept this braita from Rabbi Zakai.

Rabbi Yirmiya explains that there are two verses about idol worship - one about bowing and one about slaughtering - each teaching different principles. The verse about slaughtering teaches that if someone performs any Temple-like ritual for idols, they are punished by stoning, even if that's not the typical way to worship that particular idol. The verse about bowing teaches that bowing specifically is punishable even if it's not the usual way to worship that idol, while other acts are only punishable by stoning if done in the manner that particular idol is typically worshipped.

Rava bar Rav Chanan challenges Rabbi Yirmiya's interpretation. He suggests the opposite - that we should learn from the bowing verse that any act of idol worship is forbidden regardless of whether it's the typical way of worship. He argues that this must be the only relevant verse, since the slaughtering verse could be teaching a different law: that someone who slaughters an animal for their own use but intends to use its blood for idol worship is liable for the death penalty. This challenge only works according to Reish Lakish's view that the animal remains permitted despite such intent, making the verse necessary to teach about the person's punishment. However, according to Rabbi Yochanan, who holds the animal becomes forbidden (based on the laws of pigul), no verse would be needed to teach about punishing the person. Yet Rav Papa suggests the question works even according to Rabbi Yochanan's view. Rav Acha dismisses the entire question, arguing that both Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish were only discussing the animal's status - the person's liability for the death penalty would clearly follow from the laws of pigul, making this verse unnecessary for that purpose.

The Gemara raises and resolves two additional challenges to Rava bar Rav Chanan's question.

Rava asks Rav Hamnuna about an apparent contradiction in our chapter's mishnayot: one Mishna indicates that while actual idol worship is forbidden, merely declaring an intention to worship is not, while another Mishna states that simply saying "I will worship idols" is enough to make one liable. Seven different resolutions are offered to resolve this contradiction.

There's a debate about whether someone who worships idols out of love or fear for another person is liable. Rava and Abaye disagree on this point, with Abaye presenting three proofs to support his position that such a person is indeed liable.

Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer each proposed an additional Noahide law – sorcery and kilayim (forbidden mixtures) respectively. From where did they derive this? .

The Mishna details the courtroom procedure for cases involving blasphemy. It describes how witnesses testify about someone cursing God's name and how the judges must respond. Several key questions are examined: Which divine name must be blasphemed to incur the death penalty? What is the biblical source requiring judges to stand when hearing the testimony? What is the textual basis for the requirement to tear one's garments upon hearing God's name blasphemed? Is this rending of garments also required when hearing a non-Jew blaspheme?

How is it permissible for a second witness to simply confirm "I heard the same" without repeating the blasphemous statement, when such indirect testimony is typically not accepted in Jewish courts?

Which specific acts of idol worship are capital offenses and how these are derived from Torah verses? Which forms of idolatrous worship merit lashes rather than capital punishment for violating a negative commandment?