Podcasts about Gemara

Conflicting traditions existed regarding Rav's ruling in the case of a dislocated femur in a bird. Ultimately, the analysis indicates that Rav permitted such a bird, except in regions where the prevailing custom was to forbid it. However, after presenting various differing opinions regarding this issue, which leaned primarily toward permissibility, the Gemara brings an incident demonstrating that the widespread, accepted custom was indeed to forbid this condition; consequently, the practical halakha is established to be stringent in accordance with this accepted communal custom. Rav Huna defines a treifa as an animal that cannot survive for more than twelve months. A contradiction is raised against this definition from a braita that brings three alternative opinions regarding what legally constitutes a treifa, none of which align with Rav Huna's position. This difficulty is resolved by explaining that Rav Huna follows a different Tanna, whose view is reflected in another braita stating that one must wait through the winter months to determine whether an animal can successfully recover from its specific ailment.

It is incumbent upon observant Jews to always appear well-kempt and dignified. Nowadays, this applies to all observant Jews. As representatives of the Torah, we all bear the obligation to look respectable in order to reflect positively on the Torah. An observant Jew must not walk about with stained clothing, scuffed shoes, or a foul odor. People who encounter a religious Jew who appears this way lose respect for the Torah, and reach the conclusion that the Torah does not encourage self-dignity. In fact, the Sages teach (Shabbat 114a) that if a Torah scholar has "Rabab" – dirt – on his garment, then he is deserving of death, because he misrepresents the Torah. I had the privilege of knowing Rav Chaim Kreiswirth (1918-2001), the Chief Rabbi of Antwerp who frequently visited Israel. He was a towering spiritual giant, who mastered the entire Talmud. I saw him once take out a pocket mirror and comb before getting out of a car, to groom himself. He explained that the windows were open during the trip, and his hair and beard became disheveled. He therefore made sure to groom himself so he looked presentable before getting out of the car. Another example that I personally witnessed was the time when I went with a group of students to the home of Rav Chaim Brim (1922-2002) in Jerusalem, for a Torah class, after which we wanted to take a group picture with him. He did not allow the picture to be taken until he first straightened up the room and made sure he looked presentable. He wanted to ensure that people who looked at this picture would not see him unkempt or his home untidy. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, in Yehaveh Da'at, addressed the question of whether or not it is acceptable for a man to use a mirror. The Gemara teaches that a man should not use a mirror, as this is something that women do, and is considered vanity for men. Nevertheless, Hacham Ovadia ruled that nowadays it is specifically a Misva for men to use a mirror to ensure that they look presentable and thereby make a Kiddush Hashem (glorification of G-d's Name). Rav Yissachar Frand (contemporary) shared that when he traveled with his Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yaakov Ruderman (1900-1987), to fundraise, and they would pass through the train station, Rav Ruderman would have his shoes shined in order that he would look presentable when meeting with the donors. Just as an observant Jew must dress in a dignified manner, he must conduct himself in a dignified manner. This includes eating neatly and patiently. Needless to say, this applies to both men and women. Women must dress not only modestly, but also respectably so they appear dignified. Earlier, we noted the Gemara's teaching that a Torah scholar with a "Rabab" – stain – on his clothing is deserving of death. An alternate reading of this teaching has been suggested, based on the Gematria of the word "Rebab" (204), which is the same Gematria as the word "Sadik." The Gemara thus perhaps refers to a scholar who "wears" piety on his clothing, who shows himself to be more righteous than he really is. Just as it is wrong to appear unkempt and undignified, so it is wrong to appear greater and holier than one actually is. One who projects a false impression of piety is also deserving of death, as he deceives people in an effort to earn their respect and admiration. Finally, a Torah scholar should wear neither very expensive clothing, nor very cheap clothing. He must appear respectable, but should not appear as though he wastes large amounts of money on costly attire.

The Mishna enumerates all the physical defects that cause a bird to be rendered a treifa, as well as those that leave it kosher. If a weasel (chulda) attacks a bird in an area where the brain membrane could have been perforated, the bird is considered a treifa. There are, however, different tests one can perform to ascertain whether the membrane was actually punctured, and the Gemara suggests various methods for this inspection. Conversely, in the case of birds that live in the water, a broken skull creates an absolute presumption that the brain membrane was punctured, meaning that no subsequent test will be effective in permitting the bird. If a bird was caught in a fire and burned, the Gemara outlines specific ways to determine whether its internal organs were affected to the point of rendering the bird a treifa. This diagnostic procedure relies on checking for a change in color - either from red to green, or from green to red, depending on the specific internal organ being evaluated. Following the Mishnaic list of kosher conditions in a bird that do not render it a treifa, the Amoraim introduce specific qualifications and limitations to restrict the scope of some of these permitted cases.

Rav Bibi bar Abaye rules that although a standard hole in the windpipe requires the size of an issar (a coin), its clawing measurement (of redness) is a minimal amount, because the predator's venom burns and consumes the tissue continuously. Regarding the scope of the inspection required due to concern for venom, Rav Nachman testifies in the name of Rav that one must inspect from the base of the brain to the thigh, and not only adjacent to the intestines (as some hold). In an interesting story, Rabbi Yochanan defends the supreme authority of Rav against the queries of Reish Lakish, and consequently, Reish Lakish praises a different tradition of Rav, according to which an animal whose organs (simanim) were dislocated and was subsequently slaughtered is kosher. It was established that new cases of treifot may not be added beyond those enumerated by the Sages, even if these injuries cause the death of the animal. The Mishna enumerates structural defects that leave the animal kosher, including a windpipe that was perforated less than the size of an Italian issar, a brain membrane that was not punctured, and a liver of which a remains. This list gives rise to a fundamental dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding the scope of the lists in this chapter, which affects their approach to the ruling of Rav Matna, who rules that a femur bone that dislocated is a treifa. Rabbi Yochanan declares the animal kosher because the case was omitted from the exclusive list of treifot, while Reish Lakish rules it a treifa because it is absent from the exclusive list of kosher defects. For the Babylonians, they defined that the size of the isser is similar to a Kurdish dinar, and the Gemara brings a story following this involving Rabbi Yochanan who went to a moneychanger looking for this coin,and told the moneychanger that craftsmen engaged in their work are legally exempt from standing before Torah scholars. How does this differ from craftsmen who would stand up and greet those Jews who were bringing their first fruits to the Temple? Rav Nachman said that "up to an issar" it is not a treifa means up to but not including that size. Rava brings a series of difficulties against his view, but Rav Nachman answers them.

Investigating (final?) details about what makes an animal a treyfa - in terms of injuries. Is there a rule of thumb, or is the list of what makes an animal a treyfa complete, in terms of listing all the possibilities? But then the Gemara walks back the question... Also, a new mishnah! On how much damage can be done to the trachea (and other body parts), and the animal remains kosher. Plus, a comparison between two mishnayot that seem to contradict each other in methodology. Also, more on the perforation of a trachea -- and how the measure that keeps the animal kosher is less than an Italian issar - but that wasn't helpful in Babylonia, where they weren't familiar with the coin. Plus, the job of the money-changer who tried to stand up in honor of Rabbi Yochanan, who declined the honor because of the job at hand. Plus, the time the tradesmen stood up to honor those bringing their first fruits (bikkurim) to Jerusalem.

Learn a daily class on a Daf of Gemara, the perfect Daf Yomi class; clear and engaging shiurim from Rabbi Avraham Meyer Zajac. Or browse the series for classes on any Masechta and tractate of your choice.

Learn a daily class on a Daf of Gemara, the perfect Daf Yomi class; clear and engaging shiurim from Rabbi Avraham Meyer Zajac. Or browse the series for classes on any Masechta and tractate of your choice.

Learn a daily class on a Daf of Gemara, the perfect Daf Yomi class; clear and engaging shiurim from Rabbi Avraham Meyer Zajac. Or browse the series for classes on any Masechta and tractate of your choice.

Rav Bibi bar Abaye rules that although a standard hole in the windpipe requires the size of an issar (a coin), its clawing measurement (of redness) is a minimal amount, because the predator's venom burns and consumes the tissue continuously. Regarding the scope of the inspection required due to concern for venom, Rav Nachman testifies in the name of Rav that one must inspect from the base of the brain to the thigh, and not only adjacent to the intestines (as some hold). In an interesting story, Rabbi Yochanan defends the supreme authority of Rav against the queries of Reish Lakish, and consequently, Reish Lakish praises a different tradition of Rav, according to which an animal whose organs (simanim) were dislocated and was subsequently slaughtered is kosher. It was established that new cases of treifot may not be added beyond those enumerated by the Sages, even if these injuries cause the death of the animal. The Mishna enumerates structural defects that leave the animal kosher, including a windpipe that was perforated less than the size of an Italian issar, a brain membrane that was not punctured, and a liver of which a remains. This list gives rise to a fundamental dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding the scope of the lists in this chapter, which affects their approach to the ruling of Rav Matna, who rules that a femur bone that dislocated is a treifa. Rabbi Yochanan declares the animal kosher because the case was omitted from the exclusive list of treifot, while Reish Lakish rules it a treifa because it is absent from the exclusive list of kosher defects. For the Babylonians, they defined that the size of the isser is similar to a Kurdish dinar, and the Gemara brings a story following this involving Rabbi Yochanan who went to a moneychanger looking for this coin,and told the moneychanger that craftsmen engaged in their work are legally exempt from standing before Torah scholars. How does this differ from craftsmen who would stand up and greet those Jews who were bringing their first fruits to the Temple? Rav Nachman said that "up to an issar" it is not a treifa means up to but not including that size. Rava brings a series of difficulties against his view, but Rav Nachman answers them.

A cat or a weasel (chulda) renders a bird a treifa through clawing (derisa), whereas only a cat can do so for small cattle such as young goats and lambs. Other predatory birds besides those explicitly listed in the Mishna can also render other birds a treifa by clawing, but only when targeting birds smaller than themselves, while a hawk (netz) can do so even to birds of its own size. According to an alternate version, ordinary predatory birds can claw birds of their own size or smaller, whereas the hawk can even render birds larger than itself a treifa. Furthermore, two conflicting versions are presented regarding Rav Kahana's ruling in the name of Rav Shimi bar Ashi concerning foxes, debating whether or not they possess the capacity to render animals a treifa through clawing. Abaye limits the laws of derisa to the predator's front legs, specifying that it must be executed specifically with a claw and not with teeth, must be done with intent, and must occur while the prey is still alive. In a case where a lion was found among oxen and a dislodged claw was subsequently discovered on the back of one of the oxen, Rabba bar Rav Huna ruled in the name of Rav that there is no concern for derisa. He reasoned that while most lions do claw, their claws do not generally detach in the process; thus, it is more probable that the ox rubbed against a wall and accidentally picked up a nail embedded there. The Gemara initially rejects this argument, countering that while oxen frequently rub against walls, nails rarely stick to their backs in this manner, and since the lion remains a viable source, one should rule stringently. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that because the logic can support either side, the ox retains its presumptive status of permissibility; as a matter of pure doubt, Rav remains consistent with his opinion stated elsewhere that we rule leniently in cases of uncertain clawing. Abaye restricts this leniency, clarifying that it only applies when an actual claw is found embedded rather than a mere mark, when the claw is moist rather than dry, and when there are only one, two, or three claws scattered at random rather than two or three found in a distinct row. Rav and Shmuel disagree on whether to rule leniently or stringently in cases of doubt regarding derisa. While both agree to rule leniently in certain scenarios, they dispute a case where a lion entered among oxen and the lion remained silent while the oxen were found bellowing in distress. Ameimar ruled stringently in accordance with Shmuel, either because he rejected Rav's view or because he believed Rav ultimately retracted his opinion, a shift suggested by a practical incident that occurred. Although several difficulties are raised regarding the specific details of that incident, they are successfully resolved. Rav Ashi similarly ruled leniently in a case of doubt. If there is a doubt as to whether an animal was clawed, the Gemara rules that one may inspect the internal areas of the carcass to see if redness has formed from the venom; if no redness is present, the animal is permitted. This testing method was originally stated by the sons of Rabbi Chiya, though Rav Yosef pointed out that Shmuel himself had already articulated this principle. This discussion leads the Gemara to a series of inquiries - some regarding the laws of clawing and others concerning unrelated laws of treifot - all of which were concisely resolved by an authority who declared that each question had already been answered by a prior Rabbinic statement.

Learn a daily class on a Daf of Gemara, the perfect Daf Yomi class; clear and engaging shiurim from Rabbi Avraham Meyer Zajac. Or browse the series for classes on any Masechta and tractate of your choice.

In this episode of the Thinking Talmudist, Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe explores one of the Torah's most profound teachings on charity, dignity, and human sensitivity through a fascinating discussion in Tractate Ketubot. The Talmud teaches that helping another person is not merely about providing money or resources; it is about understanding what that individual truly lacks. Whether supporting orphans, helping a bride and groom marry, or caring for someone who has fallen on hard times, the Torah demands that we preserve a person's dignity while addressing their needs. Charity is not measured by what the giver wants to give, but by what the recipient genuinely requires. A central theme of the episode is the remarkable sensitivity the Torah expects from us. The Talmud teaches that if a person was accustomed to a life of wealth and suddenly loses everything, the community should help restore as much of that dignity as possible. Rabbi Wolbe explains that poverty is not merely a financial condition—it is often accompanied by shame, embarrassment, and emotional pain. True kindness requires empathy, understanding, and the willingness to see the world through another person's eyes rather than our own. The discussion culminates with one of the most powerful lessons in all of Jewish ethics: protecting another person's dignity. Through the famous story of Mar Ukva and his wife hiding in a burning oven rather than allowing a poor recipient to discover their identity, the Talmud teaches that it is preferable to endure personal suffering than to publicly embarrass another person. Rabbi Wolbe emphasizes that preserving human dignity is among the Torah's highest values and applies to every aspect of life—from charity and relationships to disagreements and public discourse._____________The Thinking Talmudist Podcast shares select teachings of Talmud in a fresh, insightful and meaningful way. Many claim that they cannot learn Talmud because it is in ancient Aramaic or the concepts are too difficult. Well, no more excuses. In this podcast you will experience the refreshing and eye-opening teachings while gaining an amazing appreciation for the divine wisdom of the Torah and the depths of the Talmud._____________This Podcast Series is Generously Underwritten by David & Susan MarbinRecorded at TORCH Meyerland in the Levin Family Studios (B) to a live audience on March 27, 2026, in Houston, Texas.Released as Podcast on June 22, 2026_____________Listen, Subscribe & Share: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/thinking-talmudist-podcast-rabbi-aryeh-wolbe/id1648951154Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0cZ7q9bGYSBYSPQfJvwgzmShare your questions at aw@torchweb.org or visit torchweb.org for more Torah content._____________About the Host:Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe, Director of TORCH in Houston, brings decades of Torah scholarship to guide listeners in applying Jewish wisdom to daily life.  To directly send your questions, comments, and feedback, please email: awolbe@torchweb.org_____________Support Our Mission:Help us share Jewish wisdom globally by sponsoring an episode at torchweb.org. Your support makes a difference!_____________Listen MoreOther podcasts by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe: NEW!! Hey Rabbi! Podcast: https://heyrabbi.transistor.fm/episodesPrayer Podcast: https://prayerpodcast.transistor.fm/episodesJewish Inspiration Podcast: https://inspiration.transistor.fm/episodesParsha Review Podcast: https://parsha.transistor.fm/episodesLiving Jewishly Podcast: https://jewishly.transistor.fm/episodesThinking Talmudist Podcast: https://talmud.transistor.fm/episodesUnboxing Judaism Podcast: https://unboxing.transistor.fm/episodesRabbi Aryeh Wolbe Podcast Collection: https://collection.transistor.fm/episodesFor a full listing of podcasts available by TORCH at http://podcast.torchweb.org_____________Keywords:#Talmud,  #Gemara, #Taanit, #Rainmaker, #Faith, #Emunah, #Honesty, #Integrity, #PositiveMindset, #Gratitude, #DivineProvidence, #PersonalGrowth, #CharacterDevelopment, #SpiritualGrowth, #AttitudeMatters, #Blessings, #MindsetShift, #LiveWithPurpose ★ Support this podcast ★

Shoftim 11: Finding an Opening Yiftach is back from exile. The elders who expelled him now need him, and he knows it. Before the battle, he attempts diplomacy, dismantling the Ammonite king's historical revisionism with a careful, point-by-point legal argument rooted in the Exodus narrative. The king ignores him, not because the argument fails, but because he refuses to recognize Yiftach's authority. Then Yiftach makes his vow. This shiur examines the most contested moment in Sefer Shoftim: the neder of Yiftach and what happened to his daughter. We work through the machlokes Rishonim, including the Ramban and Ibn Ezra, on whether the vow demanded death or separation, and why the Gemara in Taanis condemns it in the sharpest terms. The deeper tragedy, however, is institutional. Pinchas could have annulled the vow. Yiftach could have gone to Pinchas. Neither moved. A girl died between their competing pride. The Bereishis Rabbah is unsparing. Includes a striking parallel to Iphigenia in Greek tragedy and the haftorah connection to Parshas Chukas. Part of the ongoing Judges in the Nach series.

Learn a daily class on a Daf of Gemara, the perfect Daf Yomi class; clear and engaging shiurim from Rabbi Avraham Meyer Zajac. Or browse the series for classes on any Masechta and tractate of your choice.

Learn a daily class on a Daf of Gemara, the perfect Daf Yomi class; clear and engaging shiurim from Rabbi Avraham Meyer Zajac. Or browse the series for classes on any Masechta and tractate of your choice.

A cat or a weasel (chulda) renders a bird a treifa through clawing (derisa), whereas only a cat can do so for small cattle such as young goats and lambs. Other predatory birds besides those explicitly listed in the Mishna can also render other birds a treifa by clawing, but only when targeting birds smaller than themselves, while a hawk (netz) can do so even to birds of its own size. According to an alternate version, ordinary predatory birds can claw birds of their own size or smaller, whereas the hawk can even render birds larger than itself a treifa. Furthermore, two conflicting versions are presented regarding Rav Kahana's ruling in the name of Rav Shimi bar Ashi concerning foxes, debating whether or not they possess the capacity to render animals a treifa through clawing. Abaye limits the laws of derisa to the predator's front legs, specifying that it must be executed specifically with a claw and not with teeth, must be done with intent, and must occur while the prey is still alive. In a case where a lion was found among oxen and a dislodged claw was subsequently discovered on the back of one of the oxen, Rabba bar Rav Huna ruled in the name of Rav that there is no concern for derisa. He reasoned that while most lions do claw, their claws do not generally detach in the process; thus, it is more probable that the ox rubbed against a wall and accidentally picked up a nail embedded there. The Gemara initially rejects this argument, countering that while oxen frequently rub against walls, nails rarely stick to their backs in this manner, and since the lion remains a viable source, one should rule stringently. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that because the logic can support either side, the ox retains its presumptive status of permissibility; as a matter of pure doubt, Rav remains consistent with his opinion stated elsewhere that we rule leniently in cases of uncertain clawing. Abaye restricts this leniency, clarifying that it only applies when an actual claw is found embedded rather than a mere mark, when the claw is moist rather than dry, and when there are only one, two, or three claws scattered at random rather than two or three found in a distinct row. Rav and Shmuel disagree on whether to rule leniently or stringently in cases of doubt regarding derisa. While both agree to rule leniently in certain scenarios, they dispute a case where a lion entered among oxen and the lion remained silent while the oxen were found bellowing in distress. Ameimar ruled stringently in accordance with Shmuel, either because he rejected Rav's view or because he believed Rav ultimately retracted his opinion, a shift suggested by a practical incident that occurred. Although several difficulties are raised regarding the specific details of that incident, they are successfully resolved. Rav Ashi similarly ruled leniently in a case of doubt. If there is a doubt as to whether an animal was clawed, the Gemara rules that one may inspect the internal areas of the carcass to see if redness has formed from the venom; if no redness is present, the animal is permitted. This testing method was originally stated by the sons of Rabbi Chiya, though Rav Yosef pointed out that Shmuel himself had already articulated this principle. This discussion leads the Gemara to a series of inquiries - some regarding the laws of clawing and others concerning unrelated laws of treifot - all of which were concisely resolved by an authority who declared that each question had already been answered by a prior Rabbinic statement.

 Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org Rav Yosef GreenwaldQuestion: Reuven pays for two seats in his shul. He uses one for himself and the other one is meant for his son. However, his son prefers to daven elsewhere and rarely sits in his seat. Shimon notices the empty seat and begins to sit there every week. Eventually, Reuven tells him that since he is using the seat, he should pay for it. Is Reuven correct? Answer: This would seem like a case of zeh neheneh v'zeh lo chaseir. Since Shimon is not causing Reuven a loss, it would seem that he should be patur.The Gemara says that two conditions must be met in order to make someone pay for a hana'ah that he receives. 1. The owner must be having a loss in the sense that he could rent out the property being used if the other person wasn't there. In this case, since Reuven cannot sell the other seat, he would not be able to charge for its use. 2. The person having hana'ah can only be obligated to pay for something that would otherwise pay for. In this case, that would mean that Shimon would have to be the type of person who would pay for another seat if this one wasn't available. Whereas, if he is the type of person who wouldn't pay for a seat and would just stand in the back if there was no free seat available, the Gemara implies that he could not be obligated to pay.  Going forward, if Reuven continues to pay for the seat and he wants to use it to put down his talis bag or his coat and hat, he may prevent Shimon from sitting there in the future because he needs the seat for himself. Still, because Shimon is not considered a nehene because he wouldn't pay for a seat in any case, he may not be able to charge him for sitting there.However, practically speaking, although the Gemara implies to say that one can only charge the person having hana'ah if he is the type of person who would pay for such a benefit, the Poskim rule like the opinion of the Rif that this condition does not need to be met and one can charge someone for using something that is theirs and causing them a loss even if the person would not have been willing to pay for such hana'ah. 

Gemara with Rabbi Oster

Gemara Chabura - Rabbi Karlinsky - Ani HaMehapech B'Charara-Poaching Employees 03 by Shapell's Rabbeim

Join us in Jerusalem for Ohr Samayach's 3rd Yarchei Kallah event from July 6th to 8th, 2026! Featuring HaRav Yitzchak Breitowitz shlit"a & HaRav Asher Weiss shlit"a and more Click here for more information.   Dont miss this one of a kind experience! ---------------------------------------------------- Dedication opportunities are available for episodes and series at  https://ohr.edu/donate/qa   Questions? Comments? podcasts@ohr.edu   Yeshivat Ohr Somayach located in the heart of Jerusalem, is an educational institution for young Jewish English-speaking men. We have a range of classes and programs designed for the intellectually curious and academically inclined - for those with no background in Jewish learning to those who are proficient in Gemara and other original source material. To find the perfect program for you, please visit our website https://ohr.edu/study_in_israel​whatsapp us at https://bit.ly/OSREGISTER or call our placement specialist at 1-254-981-0133 today! Q&A 0:00 What is source of the prohibition not to cause self harm and to what extent does this apply?  4:45 The Mishnah Berurah fowns upon the custom of not wearing a tallit gadol. What should a person do regarding this halacha?  8:55 Should we pronounce hebrew according to a different a minhag if believe that minhag is more authentic?  14:15 Can you rent out glass plates for venues with the intention of kashering them before each use?  15:10 Why can we make the bracha on shabbat candles today if the main pleasure of illumination come from electric lights?  19:14 Who are the Gedolim and what qualifies a Gadol? 22:45 Did Rashi's daughters wear tefillin?  33:25 What is the purpose of the resurrection of the dead if the dead are receiving their  reward now in olam haba?  37:45 If limud of Torah is the main way to connect to Hashem why are women not chiyav to learn Torah?  45:05 Is there an inyan to grow peyot and a beard?  51:15 Why is a secular education frowned upon by religious communities?  55:15 Rav Elchanan says emunah in Hashem should be so obvious because a person can clearly see that Hashem is evident everywhere. Is this a universally accept hashkafa?  1:05:15 How does the Ramban define olam haba and how does that differ from the Rambam? Subscribe to the Rabbi Breitowitz Q&A Podcast at https://plnk.to/rbq&a   Submit questions for the Q&A with Rabbi Breitowitz https://forms.gle/VCZSK3wQJJ4fSd3Q7   Subscribe to our YouTube Channel at https://www.youtube.com/c/OhrSomayach/videos   You can listen to this and many other Ohr Somayach programs by downloading our app, on Apple and Google Play, ohr.edu and all major podcast platforms. Visit us @ https://ohr.edu  PRODUCED BY: CEDAR MEDIA STUDIOS  

The Gemara discusses what other protective materials a bird could fall upon that would successfully cushion its impact and prevent it from being rendered a treifa. Relatedly, if a bird's wings become stuck to each other or to its body, a debate arises as to whether or not the bird will become a treifa upon falling, as its ability to break the fall is compromised. Two opinions are brought regarding the scope of this debate - specifically, whether the dispute applies to a case where only one wing is glued or if it is restricted to a case where both wings are glued. The Mishna rules that if the majority of an animal's ribs are broken, it is a treifa. While there are twenty-six ribs total, consisting of thirteen on each side, two of these are excluded from the halakhic count; therefore, a majority is defined as twelve ribs, which can be comprised of six on each side or any other combination totaling twelve. Rav rules that even a single rib dislocated along with its socket from the vertebra renders the animal a treifa. Rav Asi and Rav Kahana then questioned Rav regarding a case where two opposite ribs are completely removed while the vertebra remains intact, to which Rav responded that it is a neveila because the animal is essentially cut in half. Several questions are raised against this response in light of Rav's own previous statement, wondering why they would ask about two ribs if Rav already held that even one dislocated rib is a treifa. Ultimately, the Gemara resolves this by reinterpreting the precise details of their question and explaining that they were unaware of Rav's original ruling when they questioned him. Three of the seven extra cases of treifot introduced by the Amoraim were authored by Shmuel and are analyzed here because one of them directly relates to uprooted ribs. The next case in the Mishna transitions to an attack by a predator animal that emits venom (derisa), creating a treifa status. At first, a statement of Rav is brought asserting that a cat does not emit venom capable of making an animal a treifa, prompting the Gemara to question why this rule could not be inferred directly from the wording of the Mishna itself. Rav Chisda rules that a cat and a mongoose do emit venom that can kill a small kid or a baby lamb. A contradictory braita is brought against this view, and the contradiction is ultimately resolved in two possible manners.

There are certain sections from the Torah that some communities have the custom of reciting each day. These include the verses in Parashat Ki-Tisa that speak of the Kiyor (the faucet in the Bet Ha'mikdash from which the Kohanim would wash); the verses in Parashat Sav that speak of the Terumat Ha'deshen (the daily removal of ashes from the top of the altar); and the verses in Parashat Tesaveh and Parashat Ki-Tisa that speak of the Ketoret (incense offering). Sephardic custom, however, following the teachings of the Arizal, is not to recite these sections from the Torah as part of the daily prayer service. Although we recite the verses of the Tamid (the daily sacrifice in the Bet Ha'mikdash), and the section from the Gemara that discusses the Ketoret, we do not recite this section. (In some communities, the Kohanim read the section of the Kiyor each day.) Many have the custom to recite the text called "Perek Shira" each day. This text speaks about the praises that the various animals sing to Hashem. Some women, in particular, recite a portion of Perek Shira each day, completing it over the course of the week, whereas others recite the entire text every day. The Sages teach that "Kol Ha'osek Be'Perek Shira" – "whoever involves himself in Perek Shira" – is guaranteed a share in the world to come, and will succeed in remembering the Torah that he studies. Notably, the Sages speak not of someone who "recites" Perek Shira, but rather of someone who "involves himself" in this text. To reap the benefits offered by Perek Shira, it does not suffice to simply mouth the words. One must understand what he is saying and reflect on the fact that even the animals give praise to Hashem – showing us that we, who recognize Hashem's greatness and kindness far more than the animals, certainly have the obligation to constantly give praise to G-d.

Learn a daily class on a Daf of Gemara, the perfect Daf Yomi class; clear and engaging shiurim from Rabbi Avraham Meyer Zajac. Or browse the series for classes on any Masechta and tractate of your choice.

Learn a daily class on a Daf of Gemara, the perfect Daf Yomi class; clear and engaging shiurim from Rabbi Avraham Meyer Zajac. Or browse the series for classes on any Masechta and tractate of your choice.

Learn a daily class on a Daf of Gemara, the perfect Daf Yomi class; clear and engaging shiurim from Rabbi Avraham Meyer Zajac. Or browse the series for classes on any Masechta and tractate of your choice.

The Gemara discusses what other protective materials a bird could fall upon that would successfully cushion its impact and prevent it from being rendered a treifa. Relatedly, if a bird's wings become stuck to each other or to its body, a debate arises as to whether or not the bird will become a treifa upon falling, as its ability to break the fall is compromised. Two opinions are brought regarding the scope of this debate - specifically, whether the dispute applies to a case where only one wing is glued or if it is restricted to a case where both wings are glued. The Mishna rules that if the majority of an animal's ribs are broken, it is a treifa. While there are twenty-six ribs total, consisting of thirteen on each side, two of these are excluded from the halakhic count; therefore, a majority is defined as twelve ribs, which can be comprised of six on each side or any other combination totaling twelve. Rav rules that even a single rib dislocated along with its socket from the vertebra renders the animal a treifa. Rav Asi and Rav Kahana then questioned Rav regarding a case where two opposite ribs are completely removed while the vertebra remains intact, to which Rav responded that it is a neveila because the animal is essentially cut in half. Several questions are raised against this response in light of Rav's own previous statement, wondering why they would ask about two ribs if Rav already held that even one dislocated rib is a treifa. Ultimately, the Gemara resolves this by reinterpreting the precise details of their question and explaining that they were unaware of Rav's original ruling when they questioned him. Three of the seven extra cases of treifot introduced by the Amoraim were authored by Shmuel and are analyzed here because one of them directly relates to uprooted ribs. The next case in the Mishna transitions to an attack by a predator animal that emits venom (derisa), creating a treifa status. At first, a statement of Rav is brought asserting that a cat does not emit venom capable of making an animal a treifa, prompting the Gemara to question why this rule could not be inferred directly from the wording of the Mishna itself. Rav Chisda rules that a cat and a mongoose do emit venom that can kill a small kid or a baby lamb. A contradictory braita is brought against this view, and the contradiction is ultimately resolved in two possible manners.

Learn a daily class on a Daf of Gemara, the perfect Daf Yomi class; clear and engaging shiurim from Rabbi Avraham Meyer Zajac. Or browse the series for classes on any Masechta and tractate of your choice.

Learn a daily class on a Daf of Gemara, the perfect Daf Yomi class; clear and engaging shiurim from Rabbi Avraham Meyer Zajac. Or browse the series for classes on any Masechta and tractate of your choice.

Learn a daily class on a Daf of Gemara, the perfect Daf Yomi class; clear and engaging shiurim from Rabbi Avraham Meyer Zajac. Or browse the series for classes on any Masechta and tractate of your choice.

Rav Nachman identifies two types of fat on the stomach: bar chimtza, which can effectively seal a perforation, and chimtza, which cannot. To clarify which specific fat constitutes bar chimtza, the Gemara cites an independent statement by Rav Nachman regarding a halakhic dispute between the Sages of the Land of Israel and those of the Diaspora. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel rules that if internal mucus seals a perforation in the intestines, the animal is not a treifa. Rabbi Yochanan is cited as ruling in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel on this issue and on an unrelated matter regarding mourning - that if a mourner returns home toward the end of shiva, they may conclude their mourning period alongside the other family members, provided they were not far away when the death occured. A discussion follows regarding whether the final halakha follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel on one or both of these issues. To determine whether a perforation occurred before or after the shechita, a practical test can be performed by creating a comparable post-mortem puncture to observe and compare the tissue's reaction. Different sages note that this testing method is applicable to the intestines, lung, and windpipe; however, some outline specific limitations to this procedure. The Mishna distinguishes between the laws of the keres hapnimi (inner stomach), where a perforation of any size renders the animal a treifa, and the keres hachitzona (outer stomach), which requires a rupture across the majority of its area to disqualify the animal. The Gemara presents seven distinct interpretations to identify precisely which anatomical section constitutes the inner stomach. Rabbi Yehuda's dissenting opinion regarding the outer stomach is explained to mean that a perforation of either a tefach (handbreadth) or a majority of the area will render the animal a treifa.

A braita establishes the laws of a needle found in the thickness of the beit hakosot, ruling that a single-sided penetration is kosher while a complete perforation renders the animal a treifa. The presence of a drop of blood or a scab determines if the injury occurred before shechita. Internal organ crushing (risuk evarim) caused by falls is a treifa according to the Mishna. Rav Huna rules that an animal left on a roof and subsequently found below is not assumed to have crushed organs, a principle the Gemara applies to a practical case involving Ravina's goat. Addressing a sheep with dragging hind legs, Rav Yeimar and Ravina debate whether the cause is common rheumatism or a severed spinal cord. Rav Huna, Rav Menashye, and Rav further delineate which specific impacts - such as goring rams, sheep handled by thieves, or direct blows from a stick - instigate a concern for internal trauma. Rav Nachman rules that the womb protects a fetus from organ crushing during birth, and three sources are brought to attempt to prove his ruling, but all proofs are rejected. Animals falling in a slaughterhouse are similarly not suspected of risuk evarim. The Gemara outlines the physical indicators of recovery for a fallen animal, establishing when a twenty-four-hour waiting period or an internal inspection of the body cavity is required. Shmuel addresses a bird that strikes the surface of the water, ruling it valid if it swims its body length. The Gemara evaluates various impact surfaces - including garments, nets, sifted ash, and different preparations of flax - to determine whether their specific textures and density buffer a fall or cause a treifa status.

Perforated intestines are likely to be sealed by internal mucous, which would leave the animal kosher. The Gemara then traces Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel's statement on this point - namely, that it would be kosher. And Rabbi Shimon's view on mourning -- that a mourner who first hears about the death late will join the count with the family that is sitting shiva if he is close enough to join them (and then continue his own count afterwards). Until the end of the discussion, when Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel's approach is rejected, and Rabbi Shimon's is upheld. Also, the inner and outer paunch - with a lot of detail regarding what needs to be intact to be able to call the animal kosher. But the sages themselves have a lot of questions here.

Learn a daily class on a Daf of Gemara, the perfect Daf Yomi class; clear and engaging shiurim from Rabbi Avraham Meyer Zajac. Or browse the series for classes on any Masechta and tractate of your choice.

Learn a daily class on a Daf of Gemara, the perfect Daf Yomi class; clear and engaging shiurim from Rabbi Avraham Meyer Zajac. Or browse the series for classes on any Masechta and tractate of your choice.

The Gemara explores the halakhic distinction between finding a needle embedded within the wall of the beit hakosot (reticulum) versus inside the liver. In the liver, the orientation of the needle indicates its trajectory, allowing the Sages to determine whether it caused a disqualifying perforation. Conversely, in the beit hakosot, the orientation is inconclusive, as the movement of food within the stomach could have pushed the needle out. When a perforation is discovered, it may be uncertain whether the puncture occurred before or after the shechita (ritual slaughter). The Sages present differing opinions regarding whether it can be assumed to have happened after the shechita in order to permit the animal. Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva dispute two unrelated matters: the status of certain fats (chelev) on the stomach as either permitted or forbidden, and the interpretation of the phrase "and I will bless them" in Birkat Kohanim (the Priestly Blessing)—specifically, whether God's blessing is directed toward the Kohanim or toward the Jewish people. The Gemara delineates which internal fats are sticky enough to serve as an effective seal over a tear, preventing it from rendering the animal a treifa. In this context, the Sages evaluate whether to rule leniently based on the overarching principle that the Torah has compassion for the financial resources of the Jewish people.

The Gemara (Berachot 12) tells that some Sages considered instituting the daily recitation of the Aseret Ha'diberot (Ten Commandments), but this was not done because of the heretics. Rashi explains that there those who spread the heretical belief that only the Ten Commandments are binding, while the rest of the Torah does not need to be observed. Reciting the Aseret Ha'diberot each day would be misunderstood as reinforcing this belief, implying that only these are the obligatory laws. Therefore, the Sages decided against incorporating the Ten Commandments into the daily prayer service. Surprisingly, the Tur writes that one may recite the Aseret Ha'diberot each day if he so wishes. The Bet Yosef explains that although the Gemara concluded that this should not be done, the Gemara refers only to the congregational prayer service. If the Ten Commandments are read each day publicly as part of the congregational Tefila, this might embolden the heretics, but if someone wishes to recite this text each day privately, he may. In fact, the Bet Yosef adds, it is commendable to recite the Ten Commandments each day, to strengthen one's faith in the Revelation at Sinai. The Shulhan Aruch rules accordingly, and the Rama clarifies that this applies only to a private recitation by an individual. By contrast, the Maharshal (Rav Shlomo Luria, Poland, 1510-1573) wrote that it is permissible even to include the Ten Commandments as part of the congregational prayer, and that this was his community's practice. He explained that the Gemara discouraged reading the Aseret Ha'diberot together with Shema, but this section may be recited by the congregation at other points during the prayer service. The Maharshal said that his congregation recited it each day before Baruch She'amar. Rav Haim Vital (1543-1620) writes that he had the custom of reciting the Aseret Ha'diberot each morning before Shaharit, until his mentor, the Arizal, instructed him to discontinue this practice. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) comments that the Arizal apparently felt that even private individuals should not recite the Aseret Ha'diberot each day. Elsewhere, the Hida speculates that the Arizal may have discouraged reciting this section before Shaharit, but did not oppose its recitation after the prayer service. Regardless, our practice is not to recite the Ten Commandments at all, even privately, perhaps because of the Arizal's instruction to his disciple. (However, some Siddurim list the Ten Commandments on the margins alongside the first paragraph of Shema, as these commands are alluded to in this paragraph.) Incidentally, the Rambam, in a famous responsum, strongly opposes the practice followed in some congregations to stand when the Ten Commandments are read from the Torah (on Shabbat Parashat Yitro, Shabbat Parashat Va'et'hanan, and Shabuot). Just as the Gemara forbade the incorporation of the Aseret Ha'diberot into the prayer service, fearing that this would embolden the heretics, the Rambam felt that giving special respect to this section by standing similarly could have this effect. Indeed, our custom is to remain seated for the reading of the Aseret Ha'diberot. If the Rabbi is called for the Aliya that includes the Ten Commandments, and thus the congregation stands out of respect for the Rabbi, they should sit after the Rabbi recites the blessings, before the reading begins. A number of Poskim similarly opposed the practice to display images of the Ten Commandments on the wall in the synagogue, giving them special prominence, as this, too, could embolden the heretics who claimed that only these commands are binding. This objection appears in several works, including Zecher Yehosef (Rav Yosef Zecharia Stern, 1831-1903), and Teshurat Shai ( Rav Shlomo Yehuda Tabak, 1832–1907). This is the ruling of Rav Betzalel Stern (1911-1989), in Be'sel Ha'hochma. Others justified the practice, suggesting that an image of the Ten Commandments serves as a reminder of the fact that the entire Torah was presented at Sinai. However, Rav Yisrael Bitan challenged this explanation, noting that this image could easily be misunderstood as indicating that only these ten laws were delivered at Mount Sinai. Regardless, Rav Moshe Sternbuch (contemporary), in Teshubot Ve'hanhagot, writes that common custom allows featuring such images in the synagogues. He explains that since the commandments are not written out fully, and only one or two words of each commandments appears, there is no concern of a misunderstanding. It should be noted that many synagogues feature the Ten Commandments on tablets which are rounded on top, which is incorrect. The tablets were rectangular, and not rounded.