Daf Yomi for Women – דף יומי לנשים

Study Guide Shevuot 40

Rav and Shmuel have a basic argument in explaining “a claim must be 2 ma’ah of silver” – is it referring to the amount of the case – meaning what the claimant’s side is demanding or is it referring to the defendant’s side – how much is he/she denying? Many cases in the mishna are brought to question one or the other opinion and they are each explained according to each opinion. Likewise, 2 braitot are brought for the same reason although the last one only supports Rav’s position. Several other halachot of Shmuel are brought, including a basic one that if one claims the another owes him/her 2 different items and one claims one only owes one of the items, one takes an oath of admitting part of the claim. 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 and likewise, those same proofs are brought to disprove the opinion that Rabbi Yochanan disagrees but are rejected in the same way.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

An oath denying a pikadon does not apply to k’nas payments (fines). Rav Kahana questions whether there will be lashes in addition to a sacrifice or in place of a sacrifice in a case where there are witnesses who warned the person before he/she too0k the oath. Several attempts are made to answer his questions from various sources, but not prove conclusive. Raba then questions Rav Kahana’s question and suggests that there can never be 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 anyway. The gemara then tries to prove and then disprove this assumption of Raba that if there are witnesses, one cannot be obligated for an oath of pikadon. Only at the very last source do they succeed in conclusively disproving this assumption. Is an oath of pikadon relevant in a case relating to land?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

In which cases are people not obligated in an oath of testimony? What is the exact phraseology that can be used in order 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? The gemara tangents to places in the Tanach where it is unclear of a word is referencing God or someone else.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

An oath of testimony only applies in a monetary case. Does that also include a case of a fine (kenas)?  What is the source for the limitation to monetary cases?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

What is an oath regarding testimony for which one is obligated to bring a sliding scale sin offering? Anyone who cannot testify is excluded from responsibility, including women. The gemara asks from where in the Torah we know that women can’t testify and brings various braitot that all prove from the same verse – each using a different drasha that women cannot be witnesses. The gemara learns other halachot regarding court cases, i.e. who stands and who sits also from that verse as well as other halachot relating to the commandment to the judges to be fair and balanced. What types of exceptions are made if a talmid chacham comes to be judged in the court?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS