Podcasts about achav

After explaining that the source for Rav Anan's statement in the name of Shmuel, that one can trust the slaughter of a person who worships idols was derived from Yehoshafat, the Gemara seeks evidence that Yehoshafat actually consumed Achav's meat. Two additional sources are examined to support Rav Anan. The first involves Eliyahu, who was fed meat by ravens (orvim), which supposedly originated from Achav's kitchen. However, this is dismissed as a unique divine decree that cannot serve as a legal precedent. The second source is a braita previously cited about accepting the slaughter of a Jew who does not observe the commandment. While it was initially thought to support Rav Anan, and referring to one who worships idols, the proof is deemed inconclusive as it can also be reconciled with Rava's position, and be referring to one who eats non-kosher mean to satisfy one's appetite. A challenge is raised against Rav Anan from a braita that equates an idol-worshipping Jew to one who rejects the entire Torah. This difficulty remains unresolved. The braita cites the biblical source for the rule that an apostate cannot bring sacrifices from a verse regarding a burnt offering. However, another braita derives this from verses regarding a sin offering. The Gemara explains why both derivations are necessary. Rabbi Yaakov notes that Rabban Gamliel and his court prohibited slaughter performed by a Cuti. Rabbi Zeira suggests this only applies when no Jew is supervising. Rabbi Yaakov disagrees, arguing that such a case was already prohibited; Rabban Gamliel's decree applied even when a Jew is present. The Gemara questions whether Rabbi Zeira ultimately accepted this view.

On the way Yehoshafat stuck by Achav, even when it came to the reliability of his shechitah, despite Achav being guilty of worshipping idols. Note the relationship between the king of Yehudah and the king of Yisrael, despite the divine among the tribes. Plus, the ravens who brought Eliyahu (Elijah) the Prophet his daily bread and meat... ostensibly from Achav's slaughterhouse (so how can Eliyahu have eaten that shechitah if it weren't acceptable? But he's really in a different reality). Plus, what if these ravens were people, not ravens? Also, a return to the Kutim/Samaritans - how it was determined to reject their shechitah after all. Plus, God protects righteous people from inadvertent sinning - or, in this case, not eating meat that wasn't slaughtered properly.

After explaining that the source for Rav Anan's statement in the name of Shmuel, that one can trust the slaughter of a person who worships idols was derived from Yehoshafat, the Gemara seeks evidence that Yehoshafat actually consumed Achav's meat. Two additional sources are examined to support Rav Anan. The first involves Eliyahu, who was fed meat by ravens (orvim), which supposedly originated from Achav's kitchen. However, this is dismissed as a unique divine decree that cannot serve as a legal precedent. The second source is a braita previously cited about accepting the slaughter of a Jew who does not observe the commandment. While it was initially thought to support Rav Anan, and referring to one who worships idols, the proof is deemed inconclusive as it can also be reconciled with Rava's position, and be referring to one who eats non-kosher mean to satisfy one's appetite. A challenge is raised against Rav Anan from a braita that equates an idol-worshipping Jew to one who rejects the entire Torah. This difficulty remains unresolved. The braita cites the biblical source for the rule that an apostate cannot bring sacrifices from a verse regarding a burnt offering. However, another braita derives this from verses regarding a sin offering. The Gemara explains why both derivations are necessary. Rabbi Yaakov notes that Rabban Gamliel and his court prohibited slaughter performed by a Cuti. Rabbi Zeira suggests this only applies when no Jew is supervising. Rabbi Yaakov disagrees, arguing that such a case was already prohibited; Rabban Gamliel's decree applied even when a Jew is present. The Gemara questions whether Rabbi Zeira ultimately accepted this view.

Abaye and Rava each found support for their respective positions in a braita - Abaye from the first sentence and Rava from the second. How does each Sage address the proof cited by the other? The second case in the braita permits a Jew to rely on a Cuti and consume birds strung together, provided the Cuti eats the head of one of the birds on the string. The Gemara raises difficulties with this case: perhaps the Cuti is merely tricking the Jew, or perhaps Cutim do not hold that one must slaughter birds at all, as the requirement is not explicitly written in the Torah. The Sages resolve the latter difficulty by explaining that Cutim accepted the laws of shechita upon themselves; therefore, they can be trusted even regarding details not explicitly stated in the Torah, including all the ways in which a slaughter can be disqualified. This, however, is a Tannaitic debate: whether or not Cutim can be relied upon regarding laws not mentioned in the Torah that they are known to have accepted. A separate braita is brought to demonstrate this dispute. Rava holds that one may rely on the slaughter of a person who does not observe the laws of kashrut, specifically one who eats nevelot, provided the knife was checked beforehand. Rava's ruling is based on the principle that a person would rather perform an act in a permissible way than a forbidden way, so long as it does not require significantly more effort. This is proven from a braita regarding the chametz of those who are generally untrusted; one can eat their food after Pesach, relying on the fact that they must have traded their food with gentiles to avoid the prohibition of chametz that remained over the holiday. A Tosefta is brought to further support Rava's position, but it is subsequently rejected. The Gemara explains that the Tosefta refers to a person who worships idols, rather than one who merely consumed non-slaughtered meat. This reading is supported by a statement of Rav Anan in the name of Shmuel that one can trust the meat of a person who worships idols. The source for this is the biblical figure Yehoshafat, who ate from Achav's meat in an incident that appears in Chronicles II, Chapter 18. The Gemara raises several difficulties about deriving this law from that incident, but all difficulties are eventually resolved.

Eating at Achav

Abaye and Rava each found support for their respective positions in a braita - Abaye from the first sentence and Rava from the second. How does each Sage address the proof cited by the other? The second case in the braita permits a Jew to rely on a Cuti and consume birds strung together, provided the Cuti eats the head of one of the birds on the string. The Gemara raises difficulties with this case: perhaps the Cuti is merely tricking the Jew, or perhaps Cutim do not hold that one must slaughter birds at all, as the requirement is not explicitly written in the Torah. The Sages resolve the latter difficulty by explaining that Cutim accepted the laws of shechita upon themselves; therefore, they can be trusted even regarding details not explicitly stated in the Torah, including all the ways in which a slaughter can be disqualified. This, however, is a Tannaitic debate: whether or not Cutim can be relied upon regarding laws not mentioned in the Torah that they are known to have accepted. A separate braita is brought to demonstrate this dispute. Rava holds that one may rely on the slaughter of a person who does not observe the laws of kashrut, specifically one who eats nevelot, provided the knife was checked beforehand. Rava's ruling is based on the principle that a person would rather perform an act in a permissible way than a forbidden way, so long as it does not require significantly more effort. This is proven from a braita regarding the chametz of those who are generally untrusted; one can eat their food after Pesach, relying on the fact that they must have traded their food with gentiles to avoid the prohibition of chametz that remained over the holiday. A Tosefta is brought to further support Rava's position, but it is subsequently rejected. The Gemara explains that the Tosefta refers to a person who worships idols, rather than one who merely consumed non-slaughtered meat. This reading is supported by a statement of Rav Anan in the name of Shmuel that one can trust the meat of a person who worships idols. The source for this is the biblical figure Yehoshafat, who ate from Achav's meat in an incident that appears in Chronicles II, Chapter 18. The Gemara raises several difficulties about deriving this law from that incident, but all difficulties are eventually resolved.

Aki bálványt imád, az lehet-e „csak kicsit” hitehagyott? Köves Slomó rabbi a Chullin (חולין) ötödik lapján lezárja az előző napok egyik legkényesebb kérdését: kinek a vágása számít még kósernek, ha az illető vallási megbízhatósága sérült? Az élvezetből vétkező hitehagyottnál még van helye különbségtételnek: ha nem elvből tagadja a kóserságot, és a kését ellenőrizték, a vágása […] A Chulin 5 – Napi Talmud 2312: Achav barbecue-ja bejegyzés először NapiTalmud.hu-én jelent meg.

Sanhedrin 89a and Melachim I:22The Navi/Gemara describes how Hashem sent the spirit of Navos to seduce Achav to go to war (and get killed, as punishment for the death of Navos). We analyze this strange story.

Se esta aula lhe tocou e você deseja contribuir para que mais pessoas tenham acesso, faça uma doação.Chave Pix: 43.154.897/0001-10 (CNPJ)Cada contribuição ajuda a manter as aulas gratuitas e expandir o alcance.

The Ramchal tells us how far our honor for Shabbos goes,Rav Anan wore black on Fridays to contrast with his Shabbos clothes. The wicked Achav merited to be king for so long,Because the Holy Torah, he refused to pass along.

Siyum Sanhedrin is sponsored in loving memory of Anita Dinerstein by her children and grandchildren on her second yahrzeit. "Her dedication to learning, interpersonal connection and creation of community has been a model for us as we have learned Sanhedrin and the rest of Nezikin." Siyum Sanhedrin is sponsored by Jeff and Jill Shames in memory of Jill's mother, Seena Baker, שפרה בת ברכה וזאלה. Ten years on, love beyond words from your children, your children's children and your children's children's children. What happens to all the items in a city of idol worshippers that have some level of sanctity to them? Can the destroyed idolatrous city be used for gardens and fields or can it never be rebuilt for any purpose? The city of Jericho can also never be rebuilt. In the book of Kings, it is told that Chial rebuilt Jericho and his sons were killed, as per Joshua's curse. The Gemara explains that he rebuilt a different city but called it Jericho, which was forbidden as well. This story was a lead-in to the drought in the time of Achav when Eliahu received the "key" for rain from God and brought a drought. How did God manage to get the key back from Eliyahu and end the drought? The masechet ends with a discussion of righteous and evil people and their effects on the world.

More on the idolatrous city - specifically, how to handle the sacred scrolls that cannot be burned (namely, bury them). How little prevents an ir ha-nidachat from being judged as such? Also, recognizing that the place of the destroyed city cannot be rebuilt as a city, can it be converted to gardens or orchards? A clear machloket! Plus, a detour into the question of Jericho, and also Achav. Also, who are the wicked referred to in the last mishnah? Thievery. Wickedness leading to anger - and God's anger. With a strong finish with an eye to redemption, when righteous people come to the world, which leads to joy in the world too.

Siyum Sanhedrin is sponsored in loving memory of Anita Dinerstein by her children and grandchildren on her second yahrzeit. "Her dedication to learning, interpersonal connection and creation of community has been a model for us as we have learned Sanhedrin and the rest of Nezikin." Siyum Sanhedrin is sponsored by Jeff and Jill Shames in memory of Jill's mother, Seena Baker, שפרה בת ברכה וזאלה. Ten years on, love beyond words from your children, your children's children and your children's children's children. What happens to all the items in a city of idol worshippers that have some level of sanctity to them? Can the destroyed idolatrous city be used for gardens and fields or can it never be rebuilt for any purpose? The city of Jericho can also never be rebuilt. In the book of Kings, it is told that Chial rebuilt Jericho and his sons were killed, as per Joshua's curse. The Gemara explains that he rebuilt a different city but called it Jericho, which was forbidden as well. This story was a lead-in to the drought in the time of Achav when Eliahu received the "key" for rain from God and brought a drought. How did God manage to get the key back from Eliyahu and end the drought? The masechet ends with a discussion of righteous and evil people and their effects on the world.

This month's learning is sponsored by Linda and Jay Marcus in honor of the recent birth of their granddaughter; and the anniversaries and birthdays of their children and grandchildren during Nissan. "בניסן נגאלו ובניסן עתידין להיגאל. May we merit to see the גאולה שלמה במהרה בימינו." Today's daf is sponsored by Lisa Kolodny in honor of Nancy Kolodny's birthday! "So happy you are spending more time in Israel this year, spreading your light, your wisdom and your love to all those around you."  There is a debate about whether Menashe received a portion in the World-to-Come. Rabbi Yochanan brings three drashot in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, each relating to different kings of the Judean kingdom, highlighting how far God goes to allow repentance. He also brought another drasha relating to the disgrace of the Sanhedrin at the time of the Babylonian exile. Rav Chisda says in the name of Rabbi Yirmia bar Abba three statements - one relating to the bad actions of some of the Judean kings, one relating to types of people who are not worthy of receiving the Divine Presence, and one explaining the verses in Tehillim 91:11-13 about evil not coming upon a person. Why is the letter ayin in 'reshaim' suspended above the other letters in the verse in Iyov 38:15? A braita explains that Menashe, Achav, and Yeravam all learned Torah, highlighting that their sins were worse, as they clearly understood the Torah and sinned nevertheless, with full intent. Other braitot suggest that other kings lost their portion in the World-to-Come. Descriptions are brought about some of the bad kings and how their action led to the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash.

This month's learning is sponsored by Linda and Jay Marcus in honor of the recent birth of their granddaughter; and the anniversaries and birthdays of their children and grandchildren during Nissan. "בניסן נגאלו ובניסן עתידין להיגאל. May we merit to see the גאולה שלמה במהרה בימינו." Today's daf is sponsored by Lisa Kolodny in honor of Nancy Kolodny's birthday! "So happy you are spending more time in Israel this year, spreading your light, your wisdom and your love to all those around you."  There is a debate about whether Menashe received a portion in the World-to-Come. Rabbi Yochanan brings three drashot in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, each relating to different kings of the Judean kingdom, highlighting how far God goes to allow repentance. He also brought another drasha relating to the disgrace of the Sanhedrin at the time of the Babylonian exile. Rav Chisda says in the name of Rabbi Yirmia bar Abba three statements - one relating to the bad actions of some of the Judean kings, one relating to types of people who are not worthy of receiving the Divine Presence, and one explaining the verses in Tehillim 91:11-13 about evil not coming upon a person. Why is the letter ayin in 'reshaim' suspended above the other letters in the verse in Iyov 38:15? A braita explains that Menashe, Achav, and Yeravam all learned Torah, highlighting that their sins were worse, as they clearly understood the Torah and sinned nevertheless, with full intent. Other braitot suggest that other kings lost their portion in the World-to-Come. Descriptions are brought about some of the bad kings and how their action led to the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash.

Why did Yeravam, Achav, and Menashe lose their portion in the World-to-come? Despite the fact that they did terrible things, the rabbis also highlight that they did good things in their lives, particularly as it related to talmud Torah and respect for Torah scholars.

An approach to the Golden Calf that blames God for giving the Israelites gold and silver upon their departure from Egypt -- because they suddenly had the means for the wrong-doing, instead of when they were poor. This raises questions, of course, about wealth and leisure, and its desirability. Also, Rabbi Abbahu would lecture on the topic of 3 wicked kings -- even after he gave it up for a time, he came back to it, on the grounds that they hadn't repented yet, after all. Plus, King Menashe's appearance to Abaye in a dream, with his teaching of halakhah (yes, in the dream), and his defense of his own worship of idolatry. Also, Achav -- another wicked king who is treated far more gently than one might expect. For example, the Gemara counts his good deeds as equal to his bad deeds. Even in the story of the revenge of Navot... But wasn't Achav the worst of the worst?

Why did Yeravam, Achav, and Menashe lose their portion in the World-to-come? Despite the fact that they did terrible things, the rabbis also highlight that they did good things in their lives, particularly as it related to talmud Torah and respect for Torah scholars.

When Chanania, Mishael and Azaria were saved from the fiery furnace, it shed a bad light on the rest of the Jews, as the gentiles said, if their God is so great, how can the rest of the people be worshipping idols! God wanted to destroy the rest of the Jews because they were worshipping idols, but when God saw the actions of Chanania, Mishael and Azaria, his anger subsided. The sages try to fill in some missing details from the story. What happened to Chanania, Mishael and Azaria after they were saved, as they are not directly heard from again? Several options are brought by amoraim and their opinions match those of tannaim. Where was Daniel when Chanania, Mishael and Azaria were thrown into the fire? Several possibilities are offered. According to a braita, God, Daniel and Nevuchadnetzer each did not want Daniel to be there - each for their own reason. Two false prophets named Achav and Tzidkia were also thrown into a fire by Nevuchadnetzer, but were killed. What is the background story? According to the midrash, Yehoshua the High Priest was sent in with them, but was only singed and came out alive. Why was Yehoshua punished? In the book of Ruth, Ruth tells Naomi that Boaz gave her six grains of barley. Bar Kapara extrapolated this verse to mean that by giving her six grains, he was alluding to her that six sons would be born to her who were each blessed with six blessings - David, the Messiah, Daniel, Chanania, Mishael and Azaria. Verses are brought to show how each was blessed in six ways. There is a debate, however, about Chanania, Mishael and Azaria's lineage and whether or not they were from the tribe of Judah. Yishayahu prophesizes to Chizkiyahu that his descendants will be taken to Babylonia and will become sarisim. The Gemara understands this to be referring to Daniel, Chanania, Mishael and Azaria. What is the meaning of the word sarisim in this context? Rav and Rabbi Chanina disagree. Does it mean they were eunuchs? Or does it mean they were cut off from worshipping idols? The Gemara raises two difficulties against Rav, that they were eunuchs, and one difficulty against Rabbi Chanina, that they were cut off from worshipping idols. The difficulties are brought from verses in Daniel and Yeshayahu but are resolved. Why was the book of Ezra, which much of it was said and written by Nechemia, not called Nechemia? Two suggestions are brought.

If you dream about a white horse (thanks to Zechariah's prophecy), that's a good thing (alluding to God's anger abating). Also, more on Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. With imports to Babylonia from Alexandria, possibly to the exclusion of breeding Egyptian hogs... Plus, Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar's idol. Plus, sexual immorality that is rejected by Nebuchadnezzar, no less. Plus, the experience of another three in the fiery furnace: Yehoshua, the high priest, Achav, and Tzidkiyahu (with a mini-study on Yehoshua, the high priest and a complicated interweaving of verses from many texts). Also, what traits are to be expected in the messiah? What about Bar Koziva who became Bar Kochba? After all, he said: I am the messiah! (What was his leadership? Could he have been the messiah? A false messiah?) Plus, the fortitude to withstand distraction, laughter, and the need for the bathroom, among other factors, when standing in the non-Jewish king's court. Plus, the way Jews are particularly geared to the messiah and redemption in historical periods of travail.

When Chanania, Mishael and Azaria were saved from the fiery furnace, it shed a bad light on the rest of the Jews, as the gentiles said, if their God is so great, how can the rest of the people be worshipping idols! God wanted to destroy the rest of the Jews because they were worshipping idols, but when God saw the actions of Chanania, Mishael and Azaria, his anger subsided. The sages try to fill in some missing details from the story. What happened to Chanania, Mishael and Azaria after they were saved, as they are not directly heard from again? Several options are brought by amoraim and their opinions match those of tannaim. Where was Daniel when Chanania, Mishael and Azaria were thrown into the fire? Several possibilities are offered. According to a braita, God, Daniel and Nevuchadnetzer each did not want Daniel to be there - each for their own reason. Two false prophets named Achav and Tzidkia were also thrown into a fire by Nevuchadnetzer, but were killed. What is the background story? According to the midrash, Yehoshua the High Priest was sent in with them, but was only singed and came out alive. Why was Yehoshua punished? In the book of Ruth, Ruth tells Naomi that Boaz gave her six grains of barley. Bar Kapara extrapolated this verse to mean that by giving her six grains, he was alluding to her that six sons would be born to her who were each blessed with six blessings - David, the Messiah, Daniel, Chanania, Mishael and Azaria. Verses are brought to show how each was blessed in six ways. There is a debate, however, about Chanania, Mishael and Azaria's lineage and whether or not they were from the tribe of Judah. Yishayahu prophesizes to Chizkiyahu that his descendants will be taken to Babylonia and will become sarisim. The Gemara understands this to be referring to Daniel, Chanania, Mishael and Azaria. What is the meaning of the word sarisim in this context? Rav and Rabbi Chanina disagree. Does it mean they were eunuchs? Or does it mean they were cut off from worshipping idols? The Gemara raises two difficulties against Rav, that they were eunuchs, and one difficulty against Rabbi Chanina, that they were cut off from worshipping idols. The difficulties are brought from verses in Daniel and Yeshayahu but are resolved. Why was the book of Ezra, which much of it was said and written by Nechemia, not called Nechemia? Two suggestions are brought.

History-34.Achav, Izevel

Rava and Abaye engage in a debate over the permissibility of using burial shrouds that were originally woven for a deceased person. The core of their disagreement lies in whether the mere act of designating an item for use for the dead is enough to prohibit others from using it. The Gemara analyzes the source each sage presents for his position, as well as their reasons for not accepting each other's sources. The Gemara presents eight tannaitic sources that challenge both positions equally - four questioning Rava's stance and four questioning Abaye's. While the Gemara successfully resolves the first seven difficulties, it struggles to directly address the final challenge to Abaye's position. Instead, it finds resolution by demonstrating through another tannaitic source that the Rava-Abaye debate actually mirrors an earlier disagreement between the rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Regarding the possessions of those executed by royal decree, a tannaitic debate exists over whether these belongings should pass to the deceased's heirs or revert to the king. While both sides cite supporting evidence from the biblical accounts of Achav and Yoav in the book of Melachim, the Gemara shows how each narrative can be interpreted to support either position.

Rava and Abaye engage in a debate over the permissibility of using burial shrouds that were originally woven for a deceased person. The core of their disagreement lies in whether the mere act of designating an item for use for the dead is enough to prohibit others from using it. The Gemara analyzes the source each sage presents for his position, as well as their reasons for not accepting each other's sources. The Gemara presents eight tannaitic sources that challenge both positions equally - four questioning Rava's stance and four questioning Abaye's. While the Gemara successfully resolves the first seven difficulties, it struggles to directly address the final challenge to Abaye's position. Instead, it finds resolution by demonstrating through another tannaitic source that the Rava-Abaye debate actually mirrors an earlier disagreement between the rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Regarding the possessions of those executed by royal decree, a tannaitic debate exists over whether these belongings should pass to the deceased's heirs or revert to the king. While both sides cite supporting evidence from the biblical accounts of Achav and Yoav in the book of Melachim, the Gemara shows how each narrative can be interpreted to support either position.

Yehu continues to capture and kill further members of Achav's House

The seventy sons of Achav are beheaded and the heads are delivered to Yehu

Yehu reaches out with an offer to the Guardians & Caretakers of Achav's 70 sons

Yonah anoints Yehu and instructs him to exterminate the house of Achav

Yehoram is an evil king who is led astray by his wife the daughter of Achav

1 ST KINGS Week 34, chapters 21, 22 We stopped in 1 st Kings 21 with the unjust execution of Navo t, the owner of a piece of land that the wicked and self-serving King of Israel wanted for his own enjoyment. This land was adjacent to Achav's and Jezebel's favorite palace, which was located […] The post Lesson 34 – 1 Kings 21, 22 appeared first on Torah Class.

Lesson 34 – Ist Kings 21, 22 1 ST KINGS Week 34, chapters 21, 22 We stopped in 1 st Kings 21 with the unjust execution of Navo t, the owner of a piece of land that the wicked and self-serving King of Israel wanted for his own enjoyment. This land was adjacent to Achav's […] The post Lesson 34 – Ist Kings 21, 22 appeared first on Torah Class.

The punishment to Achav's descendants begins when Moav rebels against Yehoram

Yehoram ben Achav assumes the throne though not as wicked as his predecessors

Achazyahu follows in Achav's evil ways; Divrei Bracha upon the completion of מלכים א׳

The fulfillment of Eliyahu's prophecy after Achav's death

Achav valiantly leads the army as he dies in his chariot

Achav is mortally wounded by a random arrow

Aram's strategy is a targeted strike on Achav; Yehoshafat is caught in the crosshairs

Micha doubles down on his prediction; Achav disguises himself for battle

Achav orders Micha imprisoned until he returns from battle

Micha tells Achav what he wants to hear but Achav insists on finding out the truth

Micha reveals his vision of the war; Achav reinforces his belief regarding Micha

Achav proposes to go to battle with Yehoshafat to recapture Ramot Gilad

Yehoshafat insists on hearing the word of G-d; Achav has 400 false prophets brought forward

After 3 years of peace between Aram and Yisroel, Yehoshafat allies himself with Achav

The Navi reflects on the infamy and depravity of Achav's malchus

The prophecy continues with the annihilation of Achav's descendants and Izevel's fate