About this episode
Today's daf is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari who inspired me to love learning Gemara in high school. He brought each case in the Gemara to life, making the material engaging and relevant. He was a master teacher who cared deeply about his students and their growth. He was a true role model whose legacy will live on in the countless lives he touched. Tanchumim to his wife, Vicky, a Hadran learner, and to the entire family. Yehi zichro baruch . Today's daf is sponsored by Miri Kadosh in memory of her dear friend Yafit Yaffa bat Yitzchak Mazal who passed away this morning. Seven teachings of Rabbi Abba from Israel are sent to Babylonia on various topics and Mar Zutra in the name of Rav Shimi bar Ashi paskens like him. If one claims that the person in another's house is his/her slave and it was stolen. The accused denies the claim and says that the slave was given as a gift/sold by the accuser. If the accused offers the accuser to take an oath that the slave is owned by him/her, then the accused can no longer reclaim the slave. The Gemara explains that the unique teaching of Rabbi Abba here is that the rabbis hold this even when money/property is being taken away from one side and given to the other (change of status quo). Others hold that this only in a case where the status quo is maintained. Creditors of a deceased can only collect from land that the father left the orphans. Rabbi Abba ruled that slaves are considered like land. Rav Nachman disagrees and does not equate slaves with land for this purpose. A person can testify for their father's first cousin as their connection is somewhat removed. It is called a third-generation testifying for a second-generation relative as they are both connected through brothers who are first-generation relatives. Rava holds that even a first-generation can testify for a third, i.e. a person and his great-uncle. Mar bar Rav Ashi even held that a person and his grandfather, but the ruling is not like his position as they are direct relatives. If one knew testimony about land borders and then became blind, one cannot testify. Shmuel rules that if the blind person can identify markers in the field, his testimony is accepted. Rav Sheshet and Rav Pappa extend this to other cases as well where one can identify items by size or weight (cloak and bar of silver). A braita is brought to raise a difficulty with Shmuel, Rav Sheshet and Rav Pappa. There are two interpretations of the fifth ruling of Rabbi Abba. One is he ruled like Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka that one can choose to bequeath all of one's property to one of the heirs (a son among sons or daughter among daughters). The other is that if a father identifies one of the sons to be the oldest, when a different one was presumed to be the oldest, he is believed, as per the position of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with Rabbi Abba on this ruling and holds by the rabbis' position (either in their disagreement with Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka or with Rabbi Yehuda). If a man says that his wife will inherit among the sons, this is effective. However, this would only include items owned by the man at that point and does not include possession he acquires later. And if there were more sons born later, the wife would have to divide the property with them as well. If a creditor puts out a promissory note and the borrower says that half was already paid back and then witnesses come and testify that the entire loan was paid back, Rabbi Abba rules that the borrower takes an oath ( modeh b'miktzat ) and pays the other half but the creditor can only collect from property in the borrower's possession and not from liened property as the buyers can rely on the witnesses' testimony. Mar bar Rav Ashi disagrees and views the borrower as one returning a lost item who would be exempt from an oath.