Podcasts about caananite

It's not often you hear stories about Jesus being impressed with what he sees or hears but it was different with this Caananite woman.   Website: www.prayerhouse.uk Email: connect@prayerhouse.uk Facebook: www.facebook.com/prayerhouseweymouth Instagram: www.instagram.com/prayerhouseweymouth Give : www.prayerhouse.uk/give  

Today's daf is sponsored by the Greenstone cousins in honor of Lana Kerzner's birthday. "With love to our dear cousin Lana. Your commitment to learning is a profound tribute to the legacy of our parents, a testament to the values they instilled in us. May the merits of this learning bring you peace, joy, and health this year and every year, not only for yourself but as a blessing to all those around you." Today's daf is sponsored by Gabrielle and Daniel Altman in loving memory of Lisa Altman z"l on her 20th yahrzeit. "We miss her love, warmth, kindness, wisdom and spirit. Her memory and legacy will remain with us always." There are various halakhot relevant to males that do not apply to a tumtum (one whose genitals are covered up and it is unclear if they are male or female) whose skin is then perforated and is found to be a male. He cannot inherit as a firstborn, he cannot become a ben sorer u'moreh,  his brit milah does not override Shabbat, and his mother does not have laws of impurity of a woman who gave birth. A difficulty is raised against two of these laws from a Mishna in Nidda 28a.  A braita is brought to support the position that a tumtum described above cannot inherit a double portion as a firstborn. The braita also derives that one cannot be a firstborn if it is doubtful whether or not he is the firstborn. The Gemara then explains why this was stated - to explain that if two brothers are born at around the same time (from two different mothers) but it was dark and it was impossible to determine who was born first, no one receives the double portion. Rava held otherwise - they could each write an authorization that "If I am the firstborn, I give you my share," and they can jointly receive the double portion. However, Rav Pappa raised a difficulty with Rava's position and Rava retracted.  A father is believed to say a particular son is the firstborn but what if there is a chazaka that a different child is the firstborn? Shmuel ruled that the two brothers write an authorization as mentioned above. The Gemara explains Shmuel's position that he was unsure whether the ruling is like Rabbi Yehuda, who believes a father in that case, or the rabbis who do not accept the father's testimony when there is a chazaka. If the rabbis don't accept the father's testimony, for what purpose did the verse in the Torah use the language of "yakir"? If the father could have given the son a double portion as a gift, it would have been effective, so of course then we can believe the father that this is the firstborn?! The answer is that the father could have only given a double portion as a gift to the son for property in his possession at the time or possibly for items that would later be in his possession (according to Rabbi Meir), but it would not have covered property that would be brought into the father's possession as he was dying. For this situation, the verse taught "yakir."  Regarding believing a father about the status of his son, Rabbi Yochanan describes a situation in which a father says that a person is his son and then says that he is his Caananite slave. He is not believed to render the person a slave as he would never have called his slave his son in the first place. However, if he first called him his slave and then his son, we accept his last words as it's possible he meant originally that the son served him like a slave. The reverse is true for one who made a statement in front of the tax authorities. They raise a difficulty against Rabbi Yochanan from a braita, but resolve it. 

Today's daf is sponsored by the Greenstone cousins in honor of Lana Kerzner's birthday. "With love to our dear cousin Lana. Your commitment to learning is a profound tribute to the legacy of our parents, a testament to the values they instilled in us. May the merits of this learning bring you peace, joy, and health this year and every year, not only for yourself but as a blessing to all those around you." Today's daf is sponsored by Gabrielle and Daniel Altman in loving memory of Lisa Altman z"l on her 20th yahrzeit. "We miss her love, warmth, kindness, wisdom and spirit. Her memory and legacy will remain with us always." There are various halakhot relevant to males that do not apply to a tumtum (one whose genitals are covered up and it is unclear if they are male or female) whose skin is then perforated and is found to be a male. He cannot inherit as a firstborn, he cannot become a ben sorer u'moreh,  his brit milah does not override Shabbat, and his mother does not have laws of impurity of a woman who gave birth. A difficulty is raised against two of these laws from a Mishna in Nidda 28a.  A braita is brought to support the position that a tumtum described above cannot inherit a double portion as a firstborn. The braita also derives that one cannot be a firstborn if it is doubtful whether or not he is the firstborn. The Gemara then explains why this was stated - to explain that if two brothers are born at around the same time (from two different mothers) but it was dark and it was impossible to determine who was born first, no one receives the double portion. Rava held otherwise - they could each write an authorization that "If I am the firstborn, I give you my share," and they can jointly receive the double portion. However, Rav Pappa raised a difficulty with Rava's position and Rava retracted.  A father is believed to say a particular son is the firstborn but what if there is a chazaka that a different child is the firstborn? Shmuel ruled that the two brothers write an authorization as mentioned above. The Gemara explains Shmuel's position that he was unsure whether the ruling is like Rabbi Yehuda, who believes a father in that case, or the rabbis who do not accept the father's testimony when there is a chazaka. If the rabbis don't accept the father's testimony, for what purpose did the verse in the Torah use the language of "yakir"? If the father could have given the son a double portion as a gift, it would have been effective, so of course then we can believe the father that this is the firstborn?! The answer is that the father could have only given a double portion as a gift to the son for property in his possession at the time or possibly for items that would later be in his possession (according to Rabbi Meir), but it would not have covered property that would be brought into the father's possession as he was dying. For this situation, the verse taught "yakir."  Regarding believing a father about the status of his son, Rabbi Yochanan describes a situation in which a father says that a person is his son and then says that he is his Caananite slave. He is not believed to render the person a slave as he would never have called his slave his son in the first place. However, if he first called him his slave and then his son, we accept his last words as it's possible he meant originally that the son served him like a slave. The reverse is true for one who made a statement in front of the tax authorities. They raise a difficulty against Rabbi Yochanan from a braita, but resolve it. 

Horvat Tevet was a village in the early Iron Age Galilee. Caananite, Israelite, who knows? They liked beeswax though. Make of that what you will. With a shoutout to The Bangles and a completely incongruent Lightning Round!

Questions, comments, feedback? Send us a message.#295> This episode is sponsored by the Nine Days to Redemption podcast. During this season of communal mourning for the destruction of ancient Jerusalem and its Temples, join Dr. Erica Brown as she encounters classical Jewish texts integrated with Rabbi Sacks's wisdom and news stories of Israel's current war. Each podcast ends with a personal challenge to bring redemption each and every day.> To listen to Nine Days to Redemption podcast with Dr. Erica Brown click here.> We discussed the history of Jerusalem, the Caananite period, the size of early Jerusalem, Jerusalem under Dovid HaMelech's reign, Chizkiyah's reign, Babylonian conquest, Hasmonean Jerusalem, Herodian Jerusalem, the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash, post-Churban Jerusalem, Aelia Capitolina, Byzantine Jerusalem, Islamic, Crusader, how archeology is used in Jerusalem, and much more > To purchase "Jerusalem Through the Ages: From Its Beginnings to the Crusades " click here> To join the SeforimChatter WhatsApp community click here.>  To support the podcast or to sponsor an episode follow this link or email seforimchatter@gmail.com (Zelle/QP this email address)> Subscribe to the SeforimChatter YouTube channel here.> Subscribe and read the SeforimChatter Substack here.

This month's learning is sponsored in loving memory of Shay Uriel ben Carmit & Harav Shimon Pizam and Ayal Mevorach ben Shiri Chaya & Mordechai Moti Twito. This week's learning is sponsored by Nira Feldman in loving memory of Faye Darack z"l, Finkel bat Baruch v'Dina in commemoration of her first yahrzeit.  Rav Ashi explains why if a husband puts a bill of divorce in his wife's courtyard, it is only effective if she is standing nearby, whereas, for a gift, there is no need to be standing near the courtyard. This is based on the principle that one can do something that is in a person's best interest (gift) not in their presence but one cannot do something bad for another (divorce) not in their presence. Rava asks about a case where someone throws a wallet and it goes through the airspace of another's property - is it acquired by the owner of the property as in the case of the Mishna? How is the case different from the case brought in the Mishna? The next Mishna teaches: If the following people find a lost item, the item goes to the father/husband/owner: a young child, a wife, and a Caananite slave. If the following people find a lost item, they can keep it for themselves: an older child, a Jewish slave, and a divorced woman even if she did not receive her ketuba. Shmuel explains that a child who finds a lost item goes to his/her father as it is common for children to give items they find to their parents. This implies that Shmuel holds that a child does not acquire items by Torah law. A difficulty is raised against Shmuel from a braita regarding a worker who leaves sheaves that fall in the field (leket) and his child can collect them. The sages suggest three possible resolutions. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with Shmuel as he understands the word "minor" in the Mishna not to be referring to a minor as one underage but one who is supported by his father, in which case the Mishna teaches nothing regarding the ability of a minor to acquire items. A braita states that a day worker who is hired to do everything for the owner and finds a lost item on the job, the item goes to the one who hired him. This contradicts the Mishna which states that a Jewish slave who finds lost items can keep them. The sages suggest three solutions. What is the case of a Jewish slave woman in the Mishna who gets to keep lost items - shouldn't they go to her father, and if he died, didn't Reish Lakish teach that she go free? To resolve this, they explain that the Mishna means the item goes to her father, not her master. Why does the Mishna need to teach that a divorced woman can keep items she finds? Isn't this obvious?! The case must be one where there is a doubt about whether or not she is divorced. If one finds promissory notes, are they returned to the creditor? On what does it depend? Why?

This month's learning is sponsored in loving memory of Shay Uriel ben Carmit & Harav Shimon Pizam and Ayal Mevorach ben Shiri Chaya & Mordechai Moti Twito. This week's learning is sponsored by Nira Feldman in loving memory of Faye Darack z"l, Finkel bat Baruch v'Dina in commemoration of her first yahrzeit.  Rav Ashi explains why if a husband puts a bill of divorce in his wife's courtyard, it is only effective if she is standing nearby, whereas, for a gift, there is no need to be standing near the courtyard. This is based on the principle that one can do something that is in a person's best interest (gift) not in their presence but one cannot do something bad for another (divorce) not in their presence. Rava asks about a case where someone throws a wallet and it goes through the airspace of another's property - is it acquired by the owner of the property as in the case of the Mishna? How is the case different from the case brought in the Mishna? The next Mishna teaches: If the following people find a lost item, the item goes to the father/husband/owner: a young child, a wife, and a Caananite slave. If the following people find a lost item, they can keep it for themselves: an older child, a Jewish slave, and a divorced woman even if she did not receive her ketuba. Shmuel explains that a child who finds a lost item goes to his/her father as it is common for children to give items they find to their parents. This implies that Shmuel holds that a child does not acquire items by Torah law. A difficulty is raised against Shmuel from a braita regarding a worker who leaves sheaves that fall in the field (leket) and his child can collect them. The sages suggest three possible resolutions. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with Shmuel as he understands the word "minor" in the Mishna not to be referring to a minor as one underage but one who is supported by his father, in which case the Mishna teaches nothing regarding the ability of a minor to acquire items. A braita states that a day worker who is hired to do everything for the owner and finds a lost item on the job, the item goes to the one who hired him. This contradicts the Mishna which states that a Jewish slave who finds lost items can keep them. The sages suggest three solutions. What is the case of a Jewish slave woman in the Mishna who gets to keep lost items - shouldn't they go to her father, and if he died, didn't Reish Lakish teach that she go free? To resolve this, they explain that the Mishna means the item goes to her father, not her master. Why does the Mishna need to teach that a divorced woman can keep items she finds? Isn't this obvious?! The case must be one where there is a doubt about whether or not she is divorced. If one finds promissory notes, are they returned to the creditor? On what does it depend? Why?

Homilies from St. Anne's. This podcast is powered by Pinecast.

The rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree about whether a humiliation payment is paid by one who humiliates a Canaanite slave. The basis of their debate depends on whether a Caananite slave falls under the term ‘your brother’ that is used in the verse in the Torah regarding the humiliation payment. How do their interpretations of ‘brother’ fit in with other Torah verses that use that term as well, such as false witnesses (eidim zomeim) who testify against 'their brother', a king that is chosen from among 'your brothers', and who is qualified to be a witness. The Gemara brings two different ways to learn that slaves cannot be witnesses. How is it different than a convert whose testimony is accepted? The mother of Rav Shmuel bar Abba wanted him to inherit her property when she died instead of her husband so she wrote a document bequeathing it to him. Since her husband had rights to the produce of the property while they were married when she wrote the document, did she have the right to pass on the property to her son? The rabbis disagreed about this and the Gemara explains the basis of their positions.

The rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree about whether a humiliation payment is paid by one who humiliates a Canaanite slave. The basis of their debate depends on whether a Caananite slave falls under the term ‘your brother’ that is used in the verse in the Torah regarding the humiliation payment. How do their interpretations of ‘brother’ fit in with other Torah verses that use that term as well, such as false witnesses (eidim zomeim) who testify against 'their brother', a king that is chosen from among 'your brothers', and who is qualified to be a witness. The Gemara brings two different ways to learn that slaves cannot be witnesses. How is it different than a convert whose testimony is accepted? The mother of Rav Shmuel bar Abba wanted him to inherit her property when she died instead of her husband so she wrote a document bequeathing it to him. Since her husband had rights to the produce of the property while they were married when she wrote the document, did she have the right to pass on the property to her son? The rabbis disagreed about this and the Gemara explains the basis of their positions.

Study Guide Bava Kamma 87 Rabbi Yehuda's opinion regarding blind people appears in several braitot. In one braita, Rabbi Yehuda extends the exemption of blind people to judgment and in another one, he extends it to all mitzvot. Rav Yosef, who was blind, was, at first, thrilled to hear about this opinion and said that if we were to hold that way he would celebrate as it meant he was keeping mitzvot for which he was exempt and he assumed that meant he would get a greater reward. After he heard Rabbi Chanina say that one who is commanded gets a greater reward, he was hopeful that the halakha did not follow Rabbi Yehuda's opinion. The Mishna compares the laws for a person who damages another person and an animal who damages a person. The Mishna also sets out cases where one is exempt from paying damages as one is liable for the death penalty as well, such as hitting one's parents and causing an injury. What are the laws for one who injures a Jewish slave or a Caananite slave? What if the one who hits a minor, shoteh, or deaf-mute? What is the law if those people hit a different person? What if the one who hits is a woman or Caananite slave who doesn't have their own money? Rabbi Elazar asked Rav if a minor girl gets injured, does the money go to her father or her? Rav answers that it goes to her. Rabbi Elazar raises two difficulties against Rav - one from our Mishna and one from a braita. After Rav's response, the Gemara raises a contradiction against the braita from another braita and resolves it. Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree regarding the answer to Rabbi Elazar's question.

Study Guide Bava Kamma 87 Rabbi Yehuda's opinion regarding blind people appears in several braitot. In one braita, Rabbi Yehuda extends the exemption of blind people to judgment and in another one, he extends it to all mitzvot. Rav Yosef, who was blind, was, at first, thrilled to hear about this opinion and said that if we were to hold that way he would celebrate as it meant he was keeping mitzvot for which he was exempt and he assumed that meant he would get a greater reward. After he heard Rabbi Chanina say that one who is commanded gets a greater reward, he was hopeful that the halakha did not follow Rabbi Yehuda's opinion. The Mishna compares the laws for a person who damages another person and an animal who damages a person. The Mishna also sets out cases where one is exempt from paying damages as one is liable for the death penalty as well, such as hitting one's parents and causing an injury. What are the laws for one who injures a Jewish slave or a Caananite slave? What if the one who hits a minor, shoteh, or deaf-mute? What is the law if those people hit a different person? What if the one who hits is a woman or Caananite slave who doesn't have their own money? Rabbi Elazar asked Rav if a minor girl gets injured, does the money go to her father or her? Rav answers that it goes to her. Rabbi Elazar raises two difficulties against Rav - one from our Mishna and one from a braita. After Rav's response, the Gemara raises a contradiction against the braita from another braita and resolves it. Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree regarding the answer to Rabbi Elazar's question.

Today's daf is sponsored l'ilui nishmat David ben Avraham v'Naomi on his 6th yahrzeit. An animal who attacks a pregnant woman and she miscarries does not pay the value of the fetus but a person who attacks a pregnant woman does pay. This is because the verse in the Torah only mentions payment for a fetus regarding a case where a man attacked a pregnant woman. How is the amount evaluated? Is it possible there is some case where one would pay the value of an animal fetus? Rashbag disagrees with the rabbis of the Mishna but two different interpretations are brought regarding the point of contention. The payment of the fetus goes to the husband. If the husband is no longer alive, it goes to his heirs, but what if he is a convert or a freed Caananite servant and has no inheritors, does the payment go to the wife? A distinction is also made (according to one opinion) between the value of the fetus and the value of the woman who is now larger from eating more as a result of the pregnancy. The Gemara brings other laws regarding the property of converts after their death. Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree over what is the classic case of bor in the Torah?

Today's daf is sponsored l'ilui nishmat David ben Avraham v'Naomi on his 6th yahrzeit. An animal who attacks a pregnant woman and she miscarries does not pay the value of the fetus but a person who attacks a pregnant woman does pay. This is because the verse in the Torah only mentions payment for a fetus regarding a case where a man attacked a pregnant woman. How is the amount evaluated? Is it possible there is some case where one would pay the value of an animal fetus? Rashbag disagrees with the rabbis of the Mishna but two different interpretations are brought regarding the point of contention. The payment of the fetus goes to the husband. If the husband is no longer alive, it goes to his heirs, but what if he is a convert or a freed Caananite servant and has no inheritors, does the payment go to the wife? A distinction is also made (according to one opinion) between the value of the fetus and the value of the woman who is now larger from eating more as a result of the pregnancy. The Gemara brings other laws regarding the property of converts after their death. Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree over what is the classic case of bor in the Torah?

Study Guide Bava Kamma 26 The Gemara suggests a number of kal v'chomer arguments to reach conclusions opposite of what is known to be the case, such as, one should be obligated for shen and regel damages in the public domain as can be derived from keren in the public domain. Each suggestion is rejected based on inferences from the verses in the Torah. Is there a ransom payment only by keren damages or would one also pay a ransom payment if an animal killed a person by trampling them on the property of the one who was killed? From a braita, they derived that Rabbi Tarfon holds that there can be a ransom payment for one who kills by trampling. The Mishna discusses the responsibility of a person for damages. A person is always responsible, even if it was an accident or someone damaged while sleeping. Raba brings a list of cases where an act was done unintentionally and discusses the law for different areas of law - damages, melacha on Shabbat, going to a refuge city for killing unintentionally, and damage to a Caananite slave on account of which a slave may go free.

Study Guide Bava Kamma 26 The Gemara suggests a number of kal v'chomer arguments to reach conclusions opposite of what is known to be the case, such as, one should be obligated for shen and regel damages in the public domain as can be derived from keren in the public domain. Each suggestion is rejected based on inferences from the verses in the Torah. Is there a ransom payment only by keren damages or would one also pay a ransom payment if an animal killed a person by trampling them on the property of the one who was killed? From a braita, they derived that Rabbi Tarfon holds that there can be a ransom payment for one who kills by trampling. The Mishna discusses the responsibility of a person for damages. A person is always responsible, even if it was an accident or someone damaged while sleeping. Raba brings a list of cases where an act was done unintentionally and discusses the law for different areas of law - damages, melacha on Shabbat, going to a refuge city for killing unintentionally, and damage to a Caananite slave on account of which a slave may go free.

Kiddushin 24 : Marc Chipkin : 2023-09-06 A Caananite slave goes free for destruction of the tooth, eye, or ends of limbs which do not regenerate. Damages caused by sound. Requirement of destructive intent for the slave to go free.

Study Guide Kiddushin 22 Today’s daf is sponsored by Judi Felber in loving memory of her father, Armin Abramson, Hershel Tzvi Shlomo Chaim ben Dina Sara and Pesach, on his 6th yahrzeit. “He was always amazed by the topics the rabbis discussed and the details they considered.”  Today's daf is sponsored by Erica and Barry Kolatch in celebration of the Bar Mitzvah of their grandson, Alon Hillel Kolatch, son of Eliezer and Shoshana Covel Kolatch. "Mazal Tov also to Alon's other grandparents, Leah Covel, and James Covel." Today's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family for a refuah shleima of Avi, Avraham Shraga Feivush ben Hilda, "the husband of our dear friend and co-learner, Goldie Gilad. With tefillot and wishes for a full and speedy recovery for Avi, b'toch she'ar cholei Yisrael." Can a master give a Jewish slave who is a kohen a Caananite slave for bearing children? Is it permissible for a kohen to go through the process with an eshet yefat toar as prescribed by the Torah? In what way is it permissible to pierce the slave's ear and allow him to remain enslaved until the Jubilee year? The Gemara brings braitot with drashot on the verses of a slave whose ear gets pierced and limits the possibilities in which this can happen. Anyone who buys a Jewish slave is buying a master himself because he needs to be treated as one would treat oneself. The master also needs to provide food for his wife and children. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakhai explains that specifically the ear is pierced as a sign that the slave who wanted to remain a slave heard the words of the Torah at Mount Sinai that the sons of Yisrael are slaves to God and not slaves to slaves and transgressed this and sold himself into slavery. Rabbi Shimon b'Rebbi explains that the reason the ear is pierced near the door is to remember that God passed over the doorposts in Egypt showing that we would leave slavery behind and become slaves to God only and this slave is going against that.  According to the Mishna, a Canaanite slave was bought with money, a document and chazaka. However, there are other ways as well and the Gemara explains what they are. 

Study Guide Kiddushin 22 Today’s daf is sponsored by Judi Felber in loving memory of her father, Armin Abramson, Hershel Tzvi Shlomo Chaim ben Dina Sara and Pesach, on his 6th yahrzeit. “He was always amazed by the topics the rabbis discussed and the details they considered.”  Today's daf is sponsored by Erica and Barry Kolatch in celebration of the Bar Mitzvah of their grandson, Alon Hillel Kolatch, son of Eliezer and Shoshana Covel Kolatch. "Mazal Tov also to Alon's other grandparents, Leah Covel, and James Covel." Today's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family for a refuah shleima of Avi, Avraham Shraga Feivush ben Hilda, "the husband of our dear friend and co-learner, Goldie Gilad. With tefillot and wishes for a full and speedy recovery for Avi, b'toch she'ar cholei Yisrael." Can a master give a Jewish slave who is a kohen a Caananite slave for bearing children? Is it permissible for a kohen to go through the process with an eshet yefat toar as prescribed by the Torah? In what way is it permissible to pierce the slave's ear and allow him to remain enslaved until the Jubilee year? The Gemara brings braitot with drashot on the verses of a slave whose ear gets pierced and limits the possibilities in which this can happen. Anyone who buys a Jewish slave is buying a master himself because he needs to be treated as one would treat oneself. The master also needs to provide food for his wife and children. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakhai explains that specifically the ear is pierced as a sign that the slave who wanted to remain a slave heard the words of the Torah at Mount Sinai that the sons of Yisrael are slaves to God and not slaves to slaves and transgressed this and sold himself into slavery. Rabbi Shimon b'Rebbi explains that the reason the ear is pierced near the door is to remember that God passed over the doorposts in Egypt showing that we would leave slavery behind and become slaves to God only and this slave is going against that.  According to the Mishna, a Canaanite slave was bought with money, a document and chazaka. However, there are other ways as well and the Gemara explains what they are. 

Interim Priest-In-Charge Amy Winkle teaches on Jesus's interaction with the Caananite woman in Matthew 15.For more information, visit immanueatl.org.

Study Guide Gittin 38 Today's daf is sponsored by Art Gould in loving memory of Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v'Yehudah Tzvi. "My beloved bride of almost 50 years. Tomorrow, Shabbat, we would have been married 50 years on the secular calendar.  It's no accident that Joy was Carol's middle name. She brought joy to everyone who knew her.  I will be forever grateful to HaShem for dropping Carol into my life like an angel from the heavens on an erev Shabbat in August of 1971.  And I will love Carol forever. רַבּ֣וֹת בָּ֭נוֹת עָ֣שׂוּ חָ֑יִל וְ֝אַ֗תְּ עָלִ֥ית עַל־כֻּלָּֽנָה." A gentile can acquire a gentile or a Jew for his labor either by paying money or even by chazaka. From where is this derived? Rabbi Yochanan ruled that a Caananite slave who escapes from prison is automatically freed (and becomes Jewish). How does this fit with his other ruling that whenever a Mishna quotes Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the halakha is like him other than three cases and in our Mishna, he ruled that the slave who is redeemed stays a slave. How can we distinguish between the two cases? The Gemara brings the stories of three maidservants of rabbis that were either taken into captivity or there was an issue with freeing her. Each story is explained according to the rules of redemption/freeing of slaves. One is not supposed to free a Caananite slave, as derived from a verse in the Torah. However, there is a debate whether that verse is obligatory or perhaps it is just permitting keeping a slave, but not forbidding freeing a slave. Also, there are exceptions to the rule, such as for the purposes of a mitzva, like needing a tenth for a minyan. Rav and Shmuel argue in a case where one is mafkir (makes ownerless) his slave, whether or not he also needs to give the slave an emancipation document freeing the slave in order to permit marriage with a Jew. Rav says that one who sanctifies one's slave is really just freeing the slave, but also needs to give an emancipation document to permit marriage with a Jew. Three other sources say that one who sanctifies a slave needs to bring the value of the slave to the Temple, thus indicating against Rav that one is not setting the slave free. Each difficulty is resolved.

Study Guide Gittin 38 Today's daf is sponsored by Art Gould in loving memory of Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v'Yehudah Tzvi. "My beloved bride of almost 50 years. Tomorrow, Shabbat, we would have been married 50 years on the secular calendar.  It's no accident that Joy was Carol's middle name. She brought joy to everyone who knew her.  I will be forever grateful to HaShem for dropping Carol into my life like an angel from the heavens on an erev Shabbat in August of 1971.  And I will love Carol forever. רַבּ֣וֹת בָּ֭נוֹת עָ֣שׂוּ חָ֑יִל וְ֝אַ֗תְּ עָלִ֥ית עַל־כֻּלָּֽנָה." A gentile can acquire a gentile or a Jew for his labor either by paying money or even by chazaka. From where is this derived? Rabbi Yochanan ruled that a Caananite slave who escapes from prison is automatically freed (and becomes Jewish). How does this fit with his other ruling that whenever a Mishna quotes Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the halakha is like him other than three cases and in our Mishna, he ruled that the slave who is redeemed stays a slave. How can we distinguish between the two cases? The Gemara brings the stories of three maidservants of rabbis that were either taken into captivity or there was an issue with freeing her. Each story is explained according to the rules of redemption/freeing of slaves. One is not supposed to free a Caananite slave, as derived from a verse in the Torah. However, there is a debate whether that verse is obligatory or perhaps it is just permitting keeping a slave, but not forbidding freeing a slave. Also, there are exceptions to the rule, such as for the purposes of a mitzva, like needing a tenth for a minyan. Rav and Shmuel argue in a case where one is mafkir (makes ownerless) his slave, whether or not he also needs to give the slave an emancipation document freeing the slave in order to permit marriage with a Jew. Rav says that one who sanctifies one's slave is really just freeing the slave, but also needs to give an emancipation document to permit marriage with a Jew. Three other sources say that one who sanctifies a slave needs to bring the value of the slave to the Temple, thus indicating against Rav that one is not setting the slave free. Each difficulty is resolved.

Today's daf is sponsored by Natanya Slomowitz in loving memory of her mother, Haviva Lilka Bat Necha and Avraham.  Today’s daf is sponsored by Tina Lamm in celebration of the engagement of her daughter, Devorah, to Daniel Battat of Jerusalem! Mazal tov! What is the etymology of the word pruzbol? Orphans do not need a pruzbol to collect their father's loans as they are considered under the court's jurisdiction. Since one can only write a pruzbol if the borrower has land, the rabbis come up with ways to give people a minimum amount of land or allow other things to qualify as land in order to ensure a pruzbol can be written. Some allow pruzbol to be just said, without requiring a document. Some allow pruzbol if the guarantor to the loan has land or even if one who owes money to the lender has land, based on the principle of shiabuda d'Rabbi Natan that if one borrows money and subsequently lends that money to someone else, the creditor can collect the loan directly from the second borrower. There is a debate about whether shmita cancels loans that have a property guarantee. Despite the fact that Rabbi Yochanan held that the loan is not canceled, he was unwilling to act upon that and ruled that the loan was canceled. There are two major exceptions to the rule of cancellation of loans - one is if one gave one's promissory notes to the court and the other is one who loaned with collateral, as it is as if the loan is already collected. This follows Rabbi Yitzchak's opinion that the collateral is considered acquired by the creditor. In the event there was not a pruzbol, if the borrower comes to pay back the loan, the one creditor needs to say that shmita has canceled the loan, but then the borrower should say he wants to give him back the money anyway as a gift. Others allow one to claim he has a pruzbol but lost it, and they even ask those who came to court without one if perhaps they had one and lost it. If a Caananite slave is taken captive and redeemed not by its owner, what is the status of the slave? There is a debate about whether or not it depends on if the redeemer had in mind to redeem him to be a slave or with the intent to make him a free man. According to the Gemara, it also may depend on whether or not the original owner had "ye'ush" - had given up on ever getting the slave back or not. Rava and Abaye have different interpretations of the case in the Mishna. Each interprets both the takana itself and the need for the takana in an entirely different manner.     

Today's daf is sponsored by Natanya Slomowitz in loving memory of her mother, Haviva Lilka Bat Necha and Avraham.  Today’s daf is sponsored by Tina Lamm in celebration of the engagement of her daughter, Devorah, to Daniel Battat of Jerusalem! Mazal tov! What is the etymology of the word pruzbol? Orphans do not need a pruzbol to collect their father's loans as they are considered under the court's jurisdiction. Since one can only write a pruzbol if the borrower has land, the rabbis come up with ways to give people a minimum amount of land or allow other things to qualify as land in order to ensure a pruzbol can be written. Some allow pruzbol to be just said, without requiring a document. Some allow pruzbol if the guarantor to the loan has land or even if one who owes money to the lender has land, based on the principle of shiabuda d'Rabbi Natan that if one borrows money and subsequently lends that money to someone else, the creditor can collect the loan directly from the second borrower. There is a debate about whether shmita cancels loans that have a property guarantee. Despite the fact that Rabbi Yochanan held that the loan is not canceled, he was unwilling to act upon that and ruled that the loan was canceled. There are two major exceptions to the rule of cancellation of loans - one is if one gave one's promissory notes to the court and the other is one who loaned with collateral, as it is as if the loan is already collected. This follows Rabbi Yitzchak's opinion that the collateral is considered acquired by the creditor. In the event there was not a pruzbol, if the borrower comes to pay back the loan, the one creditor needs to say that shmita has canceled the loan, but then the borrower should say he wants to give him back the money anyway as a gift. Others allow one to claim he has a pruzbol but lost it, and they even ask those who came to court without one if perhaps they had one and lost it. If a Caananite slave is taken captive and redeemed not by its owner, what is the status of the slave? There is a debate about whether or not it depends on if the redeemer had in mind to redeem him to be a slave or with the intent to make him a free man. According to the Gemara, it also may depend on whether or not the original owner had "ye'ush" - had given up on ever getting the slave back or not. Rava and Abaye have different interpretations of the case in the Mishna. Each interprets both the takana itself and the need for the takana in an entirely different manner.     

Study Guide Gittin 23 Today's daf is sponsored by the Billets, Cohns and Hararis in loving memory of their dear friend Tova Rhein z"l on her yahrzeit.  How can we allow those without understanding (like a minor, deaf-mute) to write the get if it needs to be written li'shma?There are three different answers to resolve this difficulty. Who can be a messenger to bring a get? Why is a blind person not allowed to bring a get? Two rabbis who were blind, Rav Sheshet and Rav Yosef,  answer the question - each with his own answer. Can a Caananite slave be a messenger to deliver a get? Rav Ami infers from the Mishna that he can, but Rabbi Yochanan says he cannot. What is the logic behind each position? There are women who are not believed to testify that a woman's husband has died as there is a concern that they may have ulterior motives to lie so as to ruin the life of the wife (she will get remarried as a result of their testimony, then the husband will return and she will be forbidden to both husbands). These women are her mother-in-law, her husband's sister, her rival wife, her yevama (her husband's brother's wife after he died childless), and her husband's daughter (from another marriage). These women are believed to bring a get, as there is a written document to support them. However, there is a braita that says that cannot bring a get. Rav Yosef explains the contradiction by differentiating between a get written in Israel (as there is no need for any testimony so they are believed) and one written abroad (they are not believed as we need to rely on their testimony, "in front of me it was written...") and they cannot be trusted to testify. Abaye resolves the contradiction in the opposite manner, as in Israel the husband can still come and contest that the get is invalid, therefore there is concern the women are lying and the wife will get married based on the get, the husband will later contest the get, and the woman will be forbidden both to both husbands. But if it was written abroad, he cannot contest the get as it was immediately certified in court. Therefore there is no concern they will lie.

Study Guide Gittin 23 Today's daf is sponsored by the Billets, Cohns and Hararis in loving memory of their dear friend Tova Rhein z"l on her yahrzeit.  How can we allow those without understanding (like a minor, deaf-mute) to write the get if it needs to be written li'shma?There are three different answers to resolve this difficulty. Who can be a messenger to bring a get? Why is a blind person not allowed to bring a get? Two rabbis who were blind, Rav Sheshet and Rav Yosef,  answer the question - each with his own answer. Can a Caananite slave be a messenger to deliver a get? Rav Ami infers from the Mishna that he can, but Rabbi Yochanan says he cannot. What is the logic behind each position? There are women who are not believed to testify that a woman's husband has died as there is a concern that they may have ulterior motives to lie so as to ruin the life of the wife (she will get remarried as a result of their testimony, then the husband will return and she will be forbidden to both husbands). These women are her mother-in-law, her husband's sister, her rival wife, her yevama (her husband's brother's wife after he died childless), and her husband's daughter (from another marriage). These women are believed to bring a get, as there is a written document to support them. However, there is a braita that says that cannot bring a get. Rav Yosef explains the contradiction by differentiating between a get written in Israel (as there is no need for any testimony so they are believed) and one written abroad (they are not believed as we need to rely on their testimony, "in front of me it was written...") and they cannot be trusted to testify. Abaye resolves the contradiction in the opposite manner, as in Israel the husband can still come and contest that the get is invalid, therefore there is concern the women are lying and the wife will get married based on the get, the husband will later contest the get, and the woman will be forbidden both to both husbands. But if it was written abroad, he cannot contest the get as it was immediately certified in court. Therefore there is no concern they will lie.

Another braita is brought to show the differences between the shaving of a nazir and the shaving of a leper. Is the shaving for an impure nazir just to remove the hair of impurity or the act of shaving a mitzva? What is the ramification and how do they learn the answer from the braita we learned earlier about the four shavings? A gentile cannot be a nazir. But a woman and a Canaanite slave can be. A woman appears explicitly in the verse. A Caananite slave is derived from a verse. A Gentile is excluded from the words “bnei yisrael” used to introduce the section about nazir. A question is raised from laws of valuations, as there the gentile is excluded from making valuations as it says “bnei yisrael” but they are included in a certain way as one can make a valuation on a gentile as is derived from the word “man.” Also by nazir we have both  “bnei yisrael” and “man” so why are gentiles not at least partially included? The Gemara attempts in four ways to explain the difference. The first three derive it from the verse stating that a nazir cannot become impure to their mother or father so either the gentile doesn’t have a father or can’t become impure or doesn’t have laws of passing on slaves to his children and therefore not included here. The first and third are rejected but the fact that laws of impurity don’t apply to a gentile is eventually proven. Rava tries a fourth track where he suggests that perhaps nazir would be just like valuations that one is a nazir but not in the same way as a Jew. He then rejects each of those suggestions one by one thus showing that the nazir is different than the laws of valuations regarding gentiles.

Another braita is brought to show the differences between the shaving of a nazir and the shaving of a leper. Is the shaving for an impure nazir just to remove the hair of impurity or the act of shaving a mitzva? What is the ramification and how do they learn the answer from the braita we learned earlier about the four shavings? A gentile cannot be a nazir. But a woman and a Canaanite slave can be. A woman appears explicitly in the verse. A Caananite slave is derived from a verse. A Gentile is excluded from the words “bnei yisrael” used to introduce the section about nazir. A question is raised from laws of valuations, as there the gentile is excluded from making valuations as it says “bnei yisrael” but they are included in a certain way as one can make a valuation on a gentile as is derived from the word “man.” Also by nazir we have both  “bnei yisrael” and “man” so why are gentiles not at least partially included? The Gemara attempts in four ways to explain the difference. The first three derive it from the verse stating that a nazir cannot become impure to their mother or father so either the gentile doesn’t have a father or can’t become impure or doesn’t have laws of passing on slaves to his children and therefore not included here. The first and third are rejected but the fact that laws of impurity don’t apply to a gentile is eventually proven. Rava tries a fourth track where he suggests that perhaps nazir would be just like valuations that one is a nazir but not in the same way as a Jew. He then rejects each of those suggestions one by one thus showing that the nazir is different than the laws of valuations regarding gentiles.

Study Guide Yevamot 22 Presentation in PDF format Today's daf is sponsored by Rochel Cheifetz for the refuah shleima of Rabbi Chaim Wasserman, Rav Chaim Tzvi Ben Devora.  Today's daf is sponsored by Josh Blicker in honor of his wife, Atara on their wedding anniversary. "Here's to more years of depth in, marriage, Torah, and in life!"  Today's daf is sponsored by Brenda Coren and Achsah Weinberg in honor of their granddaughter, Talia Coren, on her 15th Birthday. "She started to learn Daf Yomi this past summer. We love you so much, and are proud of you too." Is the wife of one’s paternal great uncle or one’s paternal great aunt (grandfather’s sister) forbidden? Even though it is not on the list of secondary forbidden relations in the braita, it seems to be among those left off the list. All the ones in Rabbi Chiya’s list were left off as well. Ameimar permits those cases (great aunts) and Rav Hillel questions him on this based on a list of Mar the son of Rabana who had 16 – eight of the braita, six of Rabbi Chiya and these two. In the end, they add another and connect these two to count as one (great aunt) but the list of Rabana is rejected as he hadn’t signed off on it and therefore it is considered unreliable. Rabbi Chiya’s list of forbidden relations by rabbinic law is brought and some questions are asked about it. Are the rabbinic laws about forbidden relationships relevant to converts, as once they convert, they are considered born again and not actually related to their relatives? Can one accept witnesses from a convert and his brother? Does it make a difference if they share the same mother or father? All brothers through the father are obligated in yibum, even mamzerim, but not ones born to a non-Jewish woman or a Caananite slave. Any child exempts the father’s wife from yibum, even if the child is a mamzer. He/she is considered his child for all intents and purposes. For example, a kohen can become impure to the child upon death and the child receives the death penalty for hitting or cursing one’s parent. But isn’t that law only true for ones who observe the laws, not ones who sin, such as one who gives birth to a mamzer? If one has relations with one’s sister who also shares both parents, is one obligated two sets of lashes, based on two different verses or only one? This is a subject of debate and the different readings of the verses according to each opinion are brought and explained.

Study Guide Yevamot 22 Presentation in PDF format Today's daf is sponsored by Rochel Cheifetz for the refuah shleima of Rabbi Chaim Wasserman, Rav Chaim Tzvi Ben Devora.  Today's daf is sponsored by Josh Blicker in honor of his wife, Atara on their wedding anniversary. "Here's to more years of depth in, marriage, Torah, and in life!"  Today's daf is sponsored by Brenda Coren and Achsah Weinberg in honor of their granddaughter, Talia Coren, on her 15th Birthday. "She started to learn Daf Yomi this past summer. We love you so much, and are proud of you too." Is the wife of one’s paternal great uncle or one’s paternal great aunt (grandfather’s sister) forbidden? Even though it is not on the list of secondary forbidden relations in the braita, it seems to be among those left off the list. All the ones in Rabbi Chiya’s list were left off as well. Ameimar permits those cases (great aunts) and Rav Hillel questions him on this based on a list of Mar the son of Rabana who had 16 – eight of the braita, six of Rabbi Chiya and these two. In the end, they add another and connect these two to count as one (great aunt) but the list of Rabana is rejected as he hadn’t signed off on it and therefore it is considered unreliable. Rabbi Chiya’s list of forbidden relations by rabbinic law is brought and some questions are asked about it. Are the rabbinic laws about forbidden relationships relevant to converts, as once they convert, they are considered born again and not actually related to their relatives? Can one accept witnesses from a convert and his brother? Does it make a difference if they share the same mother or father? All brothers through the father are obligated in yibum, even mamzerim, but not ones born to a non-Jewish woman or a Caananite slave. Any child exempts the father’s wife from yibum, even if the child is a mamzer. He/she is considered his child for all intents and purposes. For example, a kohen can become impure to the child upon death and the child receives the death penalty for hitting or cursing one’s parent. But isn’t that law only true for ones who observe the laws, not ones who sin, such as one who gives birth to a mamzer? If one has relations with one’s sister who also shares both parents, is one obligated two sets of lashes, based on two different verses or only one? This is a subject of debate and the different readings of the verses according to each opinion are brought and explained.

https://thehappyhomeschool.com/reading-joshua-chapter-9/

Today's Reading: Luke 11:14-28Daily Lectionary: Genesis 27:30-45; 28:10-22; Mark 9:1-13 "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace. But when one stronger than he comes upon him and overcomes him, he takes from him all his armor in which he trusted, and divides his spoils." (Luke 11:21-22) In the Name + of Jesus. Amen. "He is possessed by Beelzebub and by the prince of demons he casts out demons" (Mark 3:22). It's the ultimate Old Testament insult: If you don't like what someone says, call ‘em the devil. In the Old Testament Beelzebub was a Caananite god, the lord of the flies, the god of dung. A crass euphemism for the ruler of death. Eventually it became another name for Satan. The Scribes are accusing Jesus of being in league with the devil, like in an old country song. Problem is, that's most illogical. Divided kingdoms don't stand. Divided houses fall. If Satan is actually opposed to himself, then his days are over.Jesus didn't join the devil's ranks. He came to defeat the devil. And it's a good thing He did. Like Adam and Eve, we're guilty of treason. "Fast bound in Satan's chains we lay" ("Dear Christians, One and All, Rejoice" LSB 556, st.2). That's why Jesus, the rightful King, lands in enemy occupied territory. Jesus comes for you. To your rescue. To save you. It's a great invasion, and Bethlehem is the beachhead. The wilderness temptation is a key battleground and skirmishes break out all over. Demons are cast out in Capernaum, Galilee, and Gerasene. Jesus is on the move, headed toward Jerusalem and the Cross, the last battle.Jesus dies the same way He is born: in humility and utter helplessness. "He must be crazy. So weak. How foolish," the world cries out. But the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisest men. And the weakness of God is stronger than both men and the devil. So, this is Jesus' battle plan: "Bind the strong man" and plunder his goods. Jesus does what we are unable and unwilling to do. Jesus the Burglar comes in human flesh, ties up the devil, storms the dragon's lair and reclaims you, His rightful treasure. We're the plunder the Divine Thief carries off after He's tied up the strong man. We who were once dogs, rebels, and sinners are now Jesus' greatest treasure in the Cross. In the Name + of Jesus. Amen. O God, whose glory it is always to have mercy, be gracious to all who have gone astray from Your ways and bring them again with penitent hearts and steadfast faith to embrace and hold fast the unchangeable truth of Your Word; through Jesus Christ, Your Son, our Lord, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen. (Collect for the Third Sunday in Lent)-Rev. Samuel Schuldheisz is pastor of Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church in Milton, WA.Audio Reflections Speaker: Rev. Duane BamschLearn more about your favorite hymns and find the deeper meaning behind the text with Eternal Anthems: The Story Behind Your Favorite Hymns. The book includes devotional commentary and historical facts from forty different contributing authors on fifty different hymns. Now available from Concordia Publishing House.

Deborah was a leader of ancient Israel. She was a judge and prophetess. The Israelites had been oppressed for twenty years by a general named Sisera, who served a Caananite king. But God used Deborah to deliver Israel. Judges 4:6-7 says, “She sent for Barak son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali and said to him, ‘The LORD, the God of Israel, commands you: “Go, take with you ten thousand men of Naphtali and Zebulun and lead the way to Mount Tabor. I will lure Sisera, the commander of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his troops to the Kishon River and give him into your hands.”'” (NIV) Deborah and Barak assemble their forces at Mount Tabor and the enemy army arrives. The story continues in Judges 4:14, “Then Deborah said to Barak, ‘Go! This is the day the LORD has given Sisera into your hands. Has not the LORD gone ahead of you?'” (NIV) So, Barak leads the charge and the enemy is defeated. What encouragement do we find in this ancient battle? Well, as in Deborah's time, God commands us to go on a mission. According to Matthew 28:19, that mission is making disciples for Jesus. But unlike Deborah's time, God does not go ahead of us. No, Jesus goes with us. The very last words of the command are “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:20 NIV) If we're by Jesus' side, who can stop us?! How to leave a review: https://www.sparkingfaith.com/rate-and-review/ Please provide feedback and suggestions at: https://www.sparkingfaith.com/feedback/ Bumper music “Landing Place” performed by Mark July, used under license from Shutterstock.

Ian Ferguson returns for another controversial episode! We discuss the cult of Moloch an ancient Caananite god that is still venerated today but not in the way some would think. Ian also explains Molochs connection to other deities and his place in the world and how his symbolism is used by many world leaders. Ian Ferguson is an expert in Vedic Astrology and Angelic Magick and has services on his website White Lotus of Light and his YouTube channel under the same name. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/thefarsideofmidnight/message

This week we return to our Bible studies and focus on the Book of Joshua. Joshua, now faced with filling the admittedly big shoes of the deceased Moses, must prove himself as an authority figure to the Israelites by committing heinous war crimes and genocide against the people of Caanan, which was promised to their forefathers by God. We also discuss the disingenuous excuse making and flat out ignoring that much of the modern Christian theological discourse does to justify these historical as well as modern Zionist war crimes. Don't forget to join our Telegram channel at T.me/historyhomos and to join our group chat at T.me/historyhomoschat The video version of the show is available on Youtube, bitchute, odysee and our telegram channel and all of those can be reached through the Link.tree in any of our social media bios. For weekly premium episodes or to contribute to the show subscribe to our channel at www.rokfin.com/historyhomos Any questions comments concerns or T-shirt/sticker requests can be leveled at historyhomos@gmail.com Later homos --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/historyhomos/support

STEWARDSHIP OF MONEY SERMON SERIES --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

After the conquest of Ai, Joshua recognizes that it is time to remind the people of the purpose of this war. It is time to fulfill the directive of Moshe, and to teach the people the lessons of the Torah. It is this that stirs up the united opposition to the Israelites by the Caananite kings.

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 3 Today's daf is sponsored by Glenda Sacks Jaffe in honor of Rhona, Sharna & Diana "and my amazing San Diego Chavruta" and by Shmulik and Ronit Shavit in honor of the birth of their grandson, son of Lior and Yosi Weiss. How do we know that Aharon died before Moshe began his speech, thereby proving that the counting from the Exodus began from the first of Nissan and not from the first of Tishrei? Because Moshe spoke after the killing of Sichon and the verse tells us that the Canaanite King of Arad came to attack upon hearing of Aharon’s death which had brought about the removal of the cloud of glory that had protected the Jews in the desert. What is the connection between the Caananite and Sichon? How do we know that it wasn’t from Iyar, Sivan, Tamuz, Av or Adar, all of which could have been the month the counting began and still the verses with Aharon and Moshe would have worked. Different verses, some from the Torah and one from Chronicles are brought to prove it. Rav Chisda says that the Rosh Hashana for kings that is on the first of Nissan is only for Jewish kings, but kings of other nations are counted from the first of Tishrei. He derives it from Nechemia 1:1 and Nechemia 2:1. Rav Yosef questions Rav Chisda based on verses from Chagai 1:15 and Chagai 2:1 regarding Darius’s (Daryavesh) reign. Rabbi Abahu answers by saying that Cyrus (Coresh) was a good king to the Jews as he allowed them to rebuild the Temple and therefore his years were counted like Jewish kings. Rav Yosef asks two questions – one, other verses about Darius in Ezra 6:15 and Ezra 7:8 seem to follow the calendar for kings of other nations and secondly, Rav Yosef was talking about Darius and Rabbi Abahu talked about Cyrus! The Gemara answers the second question by bringing a braita in which it states that they were the same person. The answer to the first question is that Darius was good to the Jews but then turned against them. Once things changed, his reign was counted like the kings of the nations of the world.    

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 3 Today's daf is sponsored by Glenda Sacks Jaffe in honor of Rhona, Sharna & Diana "and my amazing San Diego Chavruta" and by Shmulik and Ronit Shavit in honor of the birth of their grandson, son of Lior and Yosi Weiss. How do we know that Aharon died before Moshe began his speech, thereby proving that the counting from the Exodus began from the first of Nissan and not from the first of Tishrei? Because Moshe spoke after the killing of Sichon and the verse tells us that the Canaanite King of Arad came to attack upon hearing of Aharon’s death which had brought about the removal of the cloud of glory that had protected the Jews in the desert. What is the connection between the Caananite and Sichon? How do we know that it wasn’t from Iyar, Sivan, Tamuz, Av or Adar, all of which could have been the month the counting began and still the verses with Aharon and Moshe would have worked. Different verses, some from the Torah and one from Chronicles are brought to prove it. Rav Chisda says that the Rosh Hashana for kings that is on the first of Nissan is only for Jewish kings, but kings of other nations are counted from the first of Tishrei. He derives it from Nechemia 1:1 and Nechemia 2:1. Rav Yosef questions Rav Chisda based on verses from Chagai 1:15 and Chagai 2:1 regarding Darius’s (Daryavesh) reign. Rabbi Abahu answers by saying that Cyrus (Coresh) was a good king to the Jews as he allowed them to rebuild the Temple and therefore his years were counted like Jewish kings. Rav Yosef asks two questions – one, other verses about Darius in Ezra 6:15 and Ezra 7:8 seem to follow the calendar for kings of other nations and secondly, Rav Yosef was talking about Darius and Rabbi Abahu talked about Cyrus! The Gemara answers the second question by bringing a braita in which it states that they were the same person. The answer to the first question is that Darius was good to the Jews but then turned against them. Once things changed, his reign was counted like the kings of the nations of the world.    

Full episode on all Patreon tiers New Texas transplants Barrett & Justin Murphy embark on a nocturnal pilgrimage to the Infowars HQ to record a makeshift episode there and discuss M/F age-gap relationships, Alex Jones, why pedophiles are not that interesting-but also stumble upon an Occult playground where George Bush Sr. clearly did some weird shit with a Caananite diety. Music cues by Delivery LA Subscribe to Justin's newsletter and Youtube

Study Guide Pesachim 50 Today’s daf is sponsored by Oliver Mitchell in honor of his wife, Rabia Mitchell. "You are an inspiration! From Oliver, Ellin & Jeremy, Rachel, Ari, Aaron, and Joshua." The gemara explains two verses in Zecharia Chapter 14, each in three different ways. The connection to our mishna is one of the ways of explaining one of the verses is that the boundaries of Jerusalem will be expanded in the future, relating to the case of one who removed sanctified meat from the boundaries of Jerusalem. The gemara also explains the word "Caananite" in several different ways. Also the word "one"  is explained in the verse describing that in the future God will be one and his name will be one. The fourth chapter begins with a discussion of customs that may differ from place to place - what does one do if one travels to a place with a different custom? The first case brought in the mishna is the custom not to work on the morning of Pesach. The second is if one's crops (of a particular type) are no longer in the fields on the Sabbatical year - what if they are for you but you travel to a place where they are not, do you need to get rid of all of your produce of that type? The mishna rules that one must keep the more strict custom. This is to prevent machloket, dispute. The gemara asks why the gemara mentions only erev Pesach is on all other holidays and Shabbat, one must also refrain from work in the afternoon before? The gemara quotes a braita where it says that one who works in the afternoon before Shabbat and holidays will not see any benefit from that work. The gemara then quotes a list of several types of jobs that if one does them, one is unlikely to get rewarded from that work. The gemara explains why it is for each one that the sages discouraged people from making money through these jobs.     

Study Guide Pesachim 50 Today’s daf is sponsored by Oliver Mitchell in honor of his wife, Rabia Mitchell. "You are an inspiration! From Oliver, Ellin & Jeremy, Rachel, Ari, Aaron, and Joshua." The gemara explains two verses in Zecharia Chapter 14, each in three different ways. The connection to our mishna is one of the ways of explaining one of the verses is that the boundaries of Jerusalem will be expanded in the future, relating to the case of one who removed sanctified meat from the boundaries of Jerusalem. The gemara also explains the word "Caananite" in several different ways. Also the word "one"  is explained in the verse describing that in the future God will be one and his name will be one. The fourth chapter begins with a discussion of customs that may differ from place to place - what does one do if one travels to a place with a different custom? The first case brought in the mishna is the custom not to work on the morning of Pesach. The second is if one's crops (of a particular type) are no longer in the fields on the Sabbatical year - what if they are for you but you travel to a place where they are not, do you need to get rid of all of your produce of that type? The mishna rules that one must keep the more strict custom. This is to prevent machloket, dispute. The gemara asks why the gemara mentions only erev Pesach is on all other holidays and Shabbat, one must also refrain from work in the afternoon before? The gemara quotes a braita where it says that one who works in the afternoon before Shabbat and holidays will not see any benefit from that work. The gemara then quotes a list of several types of jobs that if one does them, one is unlikely to get rewarded from that work. The gemara explains why it is for each one that the sages discouraged people from making money through these jobs.     

In this week's study, we see the Pharisees question Jesus about his disciples, not "ceremonially" washing their hands. We see Jesus confronted by a Caananite woman wanting healing for her daughter and we see Jesus feed a group of 4,000 gentiles (estimated 10,000 or more in total). The theme that we hit on, and that Dave argues is the key thing Christ is looking for; "where is your heart at?"

Sunday Sermon by Kevin Jensen, Summit View Church of Christ • Rahab became a model of faith when she, a Caananite prostitute, put her faith in God and helped the Israelites. As a result, God transformed her life—and he does the same for us when we put our faith in him. Texts: Hebrews 11:31, Joshua 2:1-16 & 6:20-25

The Caananite woman seeks our Jesus to heal her daughter. In that encounter, he finds someone who gets what he has been teaching and admires her great faith. How can we raise our faith level to go from good to great? --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/rev-craig-gommer/message

Eleventh Sunday after Pentecost, Lectionary Year A Matthew 15:1-28 The compassion of Jesus and the Caananite woman's persistence offer us models for how to engage in God's work in our lives.

In this sermon, based on Matthew 15:21-28, Pastor Scott explores a troublesome story of Jesus' interaction with the Caananite woman seeking healing for her daughter. All sorts of cultural boundaries and power structures are seemingly at play in this odd interaction. This is the assigned text for Sunday August 16th, 2020, the 11th Sunday after Pentecost.

The shiurim for the next month are sponsored for the refuah shleima of Ofek Yair ben Yaara. In what scenarios is it not appropriate to give respect to important people? Why? The gemara goes over each of the cases in the mishna whereby one eats certain foods and either can or cannot join a zimmun. What is each one adding that we didn't already know? What makes someone an am haaretz? A braita is brought with many different opinions. Rami bar Hama dies and it is believed that it is because he didn't offer Rav Menashia to ever lead the zimun. Why did he not allow him to? And why was he punished for it? What caused him to be mistaken? In order to get to ten, can one use a child as a tenth? Or a Caananite slave? An aron kodesh? Shabbat? How can these be options?

The shiurim for the next month are sponsored for the refuah shleima of Ofek Yair ben Yaara. In what scenarios is it not appropriate to give respect to important people? Why? The gemara goes over each of the cases in the mishna whereby one eats certain foods and either can or cannot join a zimmun. What is each one adding that we didn't already know? What makes someone an am haaretz? A braita is brought with many different opinions. Rami bar Hama dies and it is believed that it is because he didn't offer Rav Menashia to ever lead the zimun. Why did he not allow him to? And why was he punished for it? What caused him to be mistaken? In order to get to ten, can one use a child as a tenth? Or a Caananite slave? An aron kodesh? Shabbat? How can these be options?

http://ift.tt/2k1GUxi

http://ift.tt/2k1GUxi

References to a divine council of gods are found in several ancient Near Eastern cultures, including Mesopotamia, Greece, Egypt and Canaan. There are also numerous references to the divine counsel in the Hebrew Bible. The concept was pervasive. Members of the LDS Church may not realize that references to the divine council are also found in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham, the Doctrine and Covenants, and in Joseph Smith's Nauvoo discourses. The Book of Abraham's depiction of creation, which includes a divine council, fits nicely in an ancient New Eastern cultural background and has strong affinities with the depiction of the cosmos found in other ancient Near Eastern texts. This places the divine council not only within the time frame of Abraham but also within the LDS canon. Many of the Hebrew descriptions of the divine counsel mirror a heavenly court with God the Father sitting at the head of a court of angelic hosts. Joseph Smith preached in the King Follett discourse that the head of the Gods sat with the council of Gods and "concocted a plan" for God's children at the Creation. Does this mean that members of the LDS Church believe in polytheism or that the ancient Israelites did? The very concept, notes Stephen O. Smoot, may be jarring to Mormons. The answer to both questions is complicated. In fact, if Stephen were to travel back in time to ancient Israel and pose the question of whether the people were monotheistic or polytheistic, they would likely be confused. The ancient Israelites conceptualized their relationship with God more in covenantal terms, rather than in terms of strict monotheism or polytheism. Smoot also notes that undoubtedly the Israelites were aware of Caananite creation myths and the Mesopotamian creation epic known as the Enuma Elish. The creation account in Genesis may have been an engagement with or reaction to these (and other) ancient myths. Join Laura Harris Hales as she discusses with Stephen the divine council's role in the religions of the ancient Near East and what references to the divine council in the LDS canon could mean for Latter-day Saint theology. Download Transcript

References to a divine council of gods are found in several ancient Near Eastern cultures, including Mesopotamia, Greece, Egypt and Canaan. There are also numerous references to the divine counsel in the Hebrew Bible. The concept was pervasive. Members of the LDS Church may not realize that references to the divine council are also found in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham, the Doctrine and Covenants, and in Joseph Smith's Nauvoo discourses. The Book of Abraham's depiction of creation, which includes a divine council, fits nicely in an ancient New Eastern cultural background and has strong affinities with the depiction of the cosmos found in other ancient Near Eastern texts. This places the divine council not only within the time frame of Abraham but also within the LDS canon. Many of the Hebrew descriptions of the divine counsel mirror a heavenly court with God the Father sitting at the head of a court of angelic hosts. Joseph Smith preached in the King Follett discourse that the head of the Gods sat with the council of Gods and "concocted a plan" for God's children at the Creation. Does this mean that members of the LDS Church believe in polytheism or that the ancient Israelites did? The very concept, notes Stephen O. Smoot, may be jarring to Mormons. The answer to both questions is complicated. In fact, if Stephen were to travel back in time to ancient Israel and pose the question of whether the people were monotheistic or polytheistic, they would likely be confused. The ancient Israelites conceptualized their relationship with God more in covenantal terms, rather than in terms of strict monotheism or polytheism. Smoot also notes that undoubtedly the Israelites were aware of Caananite creation myths and the Mesopotamian creation epic known as the Enuma Elish. The creation account in Genesis may have been an engagement with or reaction to these (and other) ancient myths. Join Laura Harris Hales as she discusses with Stephen the divine council's role in the religions of the ancient Near East and what references to the divine council in the LDS canon could mean for Latter-day Saint theology. Extra Resources: Episode 42 Transcript The Divine Council in the Hebrew Bible and the Book of Mormon Council, Chaos, and Creation in the Book of Abraham The Divine Council (Website)

Revd Sally Muggeridge * Matthew 15, 21-28

Joseph & his exile to Egypt, at the hands of his brothers; Judah takes a Caananite wife.

How does the Jewish notion of Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David influence the New Testament? Is the presence of Joshua as one of the scouts in Numbers 13 a later editorial redaction? What's the deal with Caleb's ancestry? He is called both a representative of the tribe of Judah, but it often mentions that he is a Kenizzite. What does it mean by saying that Caleb "hath another spirit in him"? Fascinating stuff from Dr. Barton on Moses' burning bush and the Garden of Eden! Ditto on the Parable of the Dishonest Steward and the "leaven of the Pharisees." Was the Bible written "to convert the masses"? Is it proper to refer to the Christian community of any nation as "The Church"? Is El Elyon a Caananite god that eventually morphed into the Hebrew god? Did Yahweh/God sit down to dinner with Abraham in Genesis 18? Are modern Christians right in interpreting such "God as human" Old Testament sightings as Jesus?

2008 Aug 17 SUN: TWENTIETH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME Is 56: 1. 6-7/ Ps 67: 2-3. 5. 6. 8 (4)/ Rom 11: 13-15. 29-32/ Mt 15: 21-28

Synopsis:  The destruction of Jerusalem. Shalim (semetic):  Caananite god of dusk and the evening star, paired with Shahar, god of dawn and the morning star.  Root of Hebrew shalom and Arabic salam(peace), associated with sunset and the completion of the workday.  Related to the Caananite […] The post Episode B20 – The God of Dusk first appeared on THE ANCIENT WORLD.

Since we established what Lent is really about last Sunday, this Sunday we can do some of the reflection which should be a major part of anyone's Lent. One subject that gets batted about is compassion, and in Today's Gospel reading we have Jesus confronted by a woman who, according to the law of the time, was at the bottom of society, not even really considered a person. It would have been perfectly okay, by the standards of the time, for Jesus to outright ignore her. See what he did, and what that means for us. It's an issue in today's news!

Who is Alfred Adask?, The contractual nature of government, Man in God's image = dominion, Suing government agents, Drugs and "animals", Religious freedom, Census and livestock count, Human Resources?, Dehumanization, Caananite = like Cain, Who wants to serve?, Christ's different way, 501(c)3 churches, Self-taxation, Thomas Paine's "Common Sense", Men in God's image, The world's "Made men", The two kingdoms, Church coronations, Sovereign or son of Sovereign?, Jesus WAS king, We are all kings, The right to be ruled by God, Early America = self government, What Christ's kingdom looked like, Needs met by church, Declaration of Independence discussion, A more perfect union, "Contracts, Covenants, and Constitutions", Who are "We the People"?, What about the Articles of Confederation?, The opposition of Patric Henry, Second Exodous, Views on "Republic", Group vs Individual, "Pure Republic", The US Creed, Anarchy again, Religion defined, Spiritual warfare, Won't be forced into hell - it's your choice, Turning over power of attorney, Getting it back, Rome's birth registration, The perfect law of liberty, Invisible bread lines, Righteous motiviation, Who's your daddy?, No coveting!, Gold and silver, What have state governments become?, Wheat and the Roman denari, "States" impotent, In spirit and truth.

Another Tough Nut to Crack 'You shall totally annihilate them' Grappling with the Caananite genocide Part 2

Another Tough Nut to Crack'You shall totally annihilate them' Grappling with the Caananite genocide Part 1.

The encounter of Jesus with the Caananite woman in Matthew 15:21-28 demonstrates the barriers and obstacles that faith sometimes needs to overcome in order to find blessing at the feet of Jesus. Many Christians today give up too easily in the face of difficulty and the apparent silence of God. This message is a call to a faith that overcomes.

The encounter of Jesus with the Caananite woman in Matthew 15:21-28 demonstrates the barriers and obstacles that faith sometimes needs to overcome in order to find blessing at the feet of Jesus. Many Christians today give up too easily in the face of difficulty and the apparent silence of God. This message is a call to a faith that overcomes.