Podcasts about Gemara

A braita explains that the words “מעם הארץ” — “from one of the land” — mentioned in the section about the individual’s sin offering serve to exclude the king and the kohen gadol. The braita then questions this drasha, noting that the king and kohen gadol are already explicitly excluded by the verses. It concludes that the exemption in the braita for the kohen gadol applies in a case where he committed a forbidden act unwittingly, but without relying on an erroneous ruling. The exemption for the king applies when he sinned before being appointed. However, this interpretation aligns only with Rabbi Shimon’s view, as the rabbis maintain that in such a case, the king must bring an individual sin offering. To reconcile this with the rabbis’ position, Rav Zevid in the name of Rava suggests a scenario in which the king ate half the requisite amount of forbidden fat (cheilev) before becoming king, and then ate the other half afterward. In this case, he would not be obligated to bring an individual sin offering. Rava asked Rav Nachman: if someone ate half the requisite amount before becoming king, then became king, and later ceased being king before eating the second half, would the two halves combine to obligate him to bring an individual sin offering? They attempt to resolve the question by comparing it to a parallel case involving a Jew who ceased practicing religion, a meshumad, but the comparison is ultimately rejected. Rabbi Zeira asked Rav Sheshet, according to Rabbi Shimon’s position: if someone ate a piece of fat whose status — permitted or forbidden — was unclear, and only discovered the issue after becoming king, would he bring a provisional guilt offering? The reasoning is that the type of sacrifice does not change with the person’s change in status from a regular individual to a king. The question remains unresolved. A braita presents two different drashot to derive that a meshumad does not bring an individual sin offering. The practical difference between the two derivations is explored. There is a debate regarding which transgressions qualify someone as a meshumad. A braita explains that when the Torah refers to a nasi, it means a king — as no one is above him except God. Rabbi Yehuda haNasi, known as Rebbi, asked Rabbi Chiya whether he would be required to bring the unique offering designated for a nasi. Rabbi Chiya responded that Rebbi had a counterpart in Babylonia, the Exilarch, and therefore did not meet the criteria of someone who has no one above him but God. A difficulty is raised, as both kings of the kingdoms of Judea and Israel would bring the offering, yet it is explained that Rebbi was subservient to the Exilarch. Rav Safra offers a different version of the discussion between Rebbi and Rabbi Chiya. The kohen gadol who brings a unique sacrifice is specifically one who was anointed with the shemen hamishcha, the special oil prepared by Moshe. The Mishna outlines the legal differences between a kohen gadol who was anointed and one who assumed the role by wearing the special garments. It also distinguishes between a kohen gadol currently serving and one who is no longer in the position. A braita records a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi regarding whether the shemen hamishcha was prepared in a miraculous manner. Rabbi Yehuda, who believes it was prepared miraculously, supports his view by citing several miracles associated with the oil, arguing that its miraculous preparation should not be surprising. If a king inherits the throne from his father, he is not anointed, but the kohen gadol is. Only kings from the Davidic dynasty were anointed. Challenges to this theory are raised: Shlomo was anointed despite his father being king, and Yehu, an Israelite king, was also anointed. These are resolved by explaining that Yehu was anointed with balsam oil, not the shemen hamishcha, and that Shlomo’s anointment was due to uncertainty over succession. Yehoachaz, whose father was also king, was anointed because he became king instead of his older brother Yehoyakim, who was two years his senior. Was he really two years his senior? The Gemara delves into the different verses to understand the age order among the brothers. 

How could Yehoachaz have been anointed with shemen hamishcha if Yoshiyahu hid the shemen hamishcha? What else did Yoshiyahu hide, and for what reason? The king and kohen gadol are anointed in different ways—how is each performed? Kings were anointed near a flowing stream as a good omen, symbolizing that their reign would endure. The Gemara digresses into a broader discussion about various practices people use to seek signs—whether they will survive the year, succeed in business, return safely from a journey, and so on. Some authorities caution against relying on such signs. Abaye, however, says that since we see signs do have meaning, one should eat symbolic foods on Rosh Hashana—such as gourds, chard, dates, and others—because they grow quickly, serving as a good omen for the coming year. Rabbi Meir disagrees with the Mishna, holding that even a kohen gadol who assumed the role by wearing the special garments (rather than being anointed) would still be required to bring a bull offering if he sinned. From where does he derive this ruling? A difficulty arises, as the continuation of the Mishna appears to align with Rabbi Meir’s position. Could it be that the Mishna is split—part following Rabbi Meir and part not? If not, how can the Mishna be reconciled? Three different answers are offered to resolve this question. The Mishna teaches that there are five mitzvot commanded to the kohen gadol that also apply to the mashuach milchama—the kohen who addresses the people before they go out to war. A braita provides the source for this ruling. Rava asked Rav Nachman whether a kohen gadol who becomes leprous is permitted to marry a widow. Rav Nachman did not know the answer. Rav Papa later posed the same question, and Rav Huna son of Rav Nachman responded. The Mishna discusses differences between a kohen gadol and a regular kohen regarding the laws of mourning—specifically, whether they may perform Temple service while in the state of onen (the period between the death of a relative and burial), and how they tear their garments. The kohen gadol tears his garment l’mata and a regular kohen l’maala. Rav and Shmuel disagree about how to translate these terms in this context. The Mishna rules that an action performed regularly (tadir) takes precedence over one that is less frequent. Additionally, if one mitzvah is more sanctified than another, it takes precedence. From where are these principles derived?  

A braita explains that the words “מעם הארץ” — “from one of the land” — mentioned in the section about the individual’s sin offering serve to exclude the king and the kohen gadol. The braita then questions this drasha, noting that the king and kohen gadol are already explicitly excluded by the verses. It concludes that the exemption in the braita for the kohen gadol applies in a case where he committed a forbidden act unwittingly, but without relying on an erroneous ruling. The exemption for the king applies when he sinned before being appointed. However, this interpretation aligns only with Rabbi Shimon’s view, as the rabbis maintain that in such a case, the king must bring an individual sin offering. To reconcile this with the rabbis’ position, Rav Zevid in the name of Rava suggests a scenario in which the king ate half the requisite amount of forbidden fat (cheilev) before becoming king, and then ate the other half afterward. In this case, he would not be obligated to bring an individual sin offering. Rava asked Rav Nachman: if someone ate half the requisite amount before becoming king, then became king, and later ceased being king before eating the second half, would the two halves combine to obligate him to bring an individual sin offering? They attempt to resolve the question by comparing it to a parallel case involving a Jew who ceased practicing religion, a meshumad, but the comparison is ultimately rejected. Rabbi Zeira asked Rav Sheshet, according to Rabbi Shimon’s position: if someone ate a piece of fat whose status — permitted or forbidden — was unclear, and only discovered the issue after becoming king, would he bring a provisional guilt offering? The reasoning is that the type of sacrifice does not change with the person’s change in status from a regular individual to a king. The question remains unresolved. A braita presents two different drashot to derive that a meshumad does not bring an individual sin offering. The practical difference between the two derivations is explored. There is a debate regarding which transgressions qualify someone as a meshumad. A braita explains that when the Torah refers to a nasi, it means a king — as no one is above him except God. Rabbi Yehuda haNasi, known as Rebbi, asked Rabbi Chiya whether he would be required to bring the unique offering designated for a nasi. Rabbi Chiya responded that Rebbi had a counterpart in Babylonia, the Exilarch, and therefore did not meet the criteria of someone who has no one above him but God. A difficulty is raised, as both kings of the kingdoms of Judea and Israel would bring the offering, yet it is explained that Rebbi was subservient to the Exilarch. Rav Safra offers a different version of the discussion between Rebbi and Rabbi Chiya. The kohen gadol who brings a unique sacrifice is specifically one who was anointed with the shemen hamishcha, the special oil prepared by Moshe. The Mishna outlines the legal differences between a kohen gadol who was anointed and one who assumed the role by wearing the special garments. It also distinguishes between a kohen gadol currently serving and one who is no longer in the position. A braita records a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi regarding whether the shemen hamishcha was prepared in a miraculous manner. Rabbi Yehuda, who believes it was prepared miraculously, supports his view by citing several miracles associated with the oil, arguing that its miraculous preparation should not be surprising. If a king inherits the throne from his father, he is not anointed, but the kohen gadol is. Only kings from the Davidic dynasty were anointed. Challenges to this theory are raised: Shlomo was anointed despite his father being king, and Yehu, an Israelite king, was also anointed. These are resolved by explaining that Yehu was anointed with balsam oil, not the shemen hamishcha, and that Shlomo’s anointment was due to uncertainty over succession. Yehoachaz, whose father was also king, was anointed because he became king instead of his older brother Yehoyakim, who was two years his senior. Was he really two years his senior? The Gemara delves into the different verses to understand the age order among the brothers. 

How could Yehoachaz have been anointed with shemen hamishcha if Yoshiyahu hid the shemen hamishcha? What else did Yoshiyahu hide, and for what reason? The king and kohen gadol are anointed in different ways—how is each performed? Kings were anointed near a flowing stream as a good omen, symbolizing that their reign would endure. The Gemara digresses into a broader discussion about various practices people use to seek signs—whether they will survive the year, succeed in business, return safely from a journey, and so on. Some authorities caution against relying on such signs. Abaye, however, says that since we see signs do have meaning, one should eat symbolic foods on Rosh Hashana—such as gourds, chard, dates, and others—because they grow quickly, serving as a good omen for the coming year. Rabbi Meir disagrees with the Mishna, holding that even a kohen gadol who assumed the role by wearing the special garments (rather than being anointed) would still be required to bring a bull offering if he sinned. From where does he derive this ruling? A difficulty arises, as the continuation of the Mishna appears to align with Rabbi Meir’s position. Could it be that the Mishna is split—part following Rabbi Meir and part not? If not, how can the Mishna be reconciled? Three different answers are offered to resolve this question. The Mishna teaches that there are five mitzvot commanded to the kohen gadol that also apply to the mashuach milchama—the kohen who addresses the people before they go out to war. A braita provides the source for this ruling. Rava asked Rav Nachman whether a kohen gadol who becomes leprous is permitted to marry a widow. Rav Nachman did not know the answer. Rav Papa later posed the same question, and Rav Huna son of Rav Nachman responded. The Mishna discusses differences between a kohen gadol and a regular kohen regarding the laws of mourning—specifically, whether they may perform Temple service while in the state of onen (the period between the death of a relative and burial), and how they tear their garments. The kohen gadol tears his garment l’mata and a regular kohen l’maala. Rav and Shmuel disagree about how to translate these terms in this context. The Mishna rules that an action performed regularly (tadir) takes precedence over one that is less frequent. Additionally, if one mitzvah is more sanctified than another, it takes precedence. From where are these principles derived?  

Virtually all the Berachot that we are required to recite were introduced by the Sages. One notable exception is Birkat Ha'mazon – the obligation to recite a series of blessings after eating bread, which is explicitly mentioned by the Torah: "You shall eat and be satiated, and you shall bless Hashem your G-d…" (Debarim 8:10). According to some Rishonim, however, there is also another exception – Birkot Ha'Torah, the special blessing recited over Torah study each day. The Gemara (Berachot 21a) infers the obligation to recite a Beracha over the Torah from the verse in Parashat Haazinu (Debarim 32:3), "Ki Shem Hashem Ekra, Habu Godel L'Elokenu" – "When I call the Name of G-d, give praise to G-d." The Torah is comprised of the Names of Hashem; they are encoded in the text of the Torah. Thus, this verse means that when we learn the Torah – "calling" the Names of G-d – we must give praise to Hashem for granting us this precious gift. Indeed, the text of the blessing over the Torah includes a prayer that we and all our descendants should be "knowers of Your Name, and people who study Torah for its sake." By studying the Torah, we become "knowers" of Hashem's Name. Based on the Gemara's comment, the Ramban (Rav Moshe Nahmanides, Spain, 1194-1270) maintained that this Beracha constitutes a Torah obligation. Others, however, disagree. They explain the verse to mean that when we hear someone recite G-d's Name in a Beracha, we must respond "Amen." According to this view, the Gemara does not actually point to this verse as the source of the obligation of Birkot Ha'Torah, but rather it finds a subtle allusion in the Biblical text to a law enacted later by the Sages. This is the opinion of the Rambam, who does not include Birkot Ha'Torah in his list of Torah commands. The Shulhan Aruch appears to follow this view, ruling that if someone is uncertain whether or not he recited a required Beracha, he does not recite it – except in the case of Birkat Ha'mazon. Since Birkat Ha'mazon is required on the level of Torah obligation, we apply the rule of "Safek De'Orayta Le'humra" – that we must act stringently in a situation of uncertainty when a Torah law is at stake. The fact that the Shulhan Aruch mentions Birkat Ha'mazon as the only exception clearly indicates that this is the only Beracha mandated by the Torah, and he regarded Birkot Ha'Torah as a Rabbinic obligation, such that we act leniently in a situation of doubt. This inference is made by the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806), who notes that others disagree, and follow the opinion that Birkot Ha'Torah is a Biblical requirement. Later scholars who embraced this position include the Peri Hadash (Rav Hizkiya Da Silva, 1659-1698), the Mor U'kesi'a (Rav Yaakov Emden, Germany, 1697-1776), the Yad Aharon (Rav Aharon Alfandari, d. 1774), the Hikreh Leb (Rav Raphael Yosef Hazan, 1741-1820), and the Sha'agat Aryeh (Rav Aryeh Leib Ginsburg, d. 1785). The Mishna Berura writes that given the large number of Aharonim (later scholars) who accept the view that Birkot Ha'Torah constitutes a Biblical obligation, it is difficult to rely on the lenient position in a case of uncertainty. As for the practical Halacha, the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) writes that although we follow the Shulhan Aruch's view, that Birkot Ha'Torah is required only by force of Rabbinic enactment, nevertheless, we must seek to satisfy the stringent view. Therefore, if one cannot remember whether or not he recited Birkot Ha'Torah, he should recite it, but instead of verbalizing the words "Hashem Elokenu Melech Ha'olam," he should instead think these words in his mind. This is the ruling accepted by the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939) and Hacham Ovadia Yosef. Summary: If a person is unsure whether or not he recited Birkot Ha'Torah, he should recite it, but instead of verbalizing the words "Hashem Elokenu Melech Ha'olam," he should instead think these words in his mind.

Sponsored by Mark and Tammy Friedman and family in memory of the 1st yartzeit of their father Marshall Friedman, Mutyah Yechezkel ben Shimon.

The Gemara in Masechet Nedarim (81a) famously attributes the destruction of the first Bet Ha'mikdash to the people's failure to recite Birkot Ha'Torah – the daily blessings over the Misva of Torah study. The prophet Yirmiyahu (9:11) rhetorically asks, "Al Ma Abeda Ha'aretz" – "On account of what was the land destroyed?" – and then relays to us Hashem's answer: "Al Ozbam Et Torati" – "on account of their abandoning My Torah." The Gemara clarifies that in truth, the people during the time of the first Bet Ha'mikdash learned Torah, but they were deemed guilty of "abandoning" the Torah in that they neglected to recite the required Berachot over Torah study. Later commentators advanced different approaches to explain why the failure to recite Birkot Ha'Torah was considered such a grievous infraction. One interpretation is that the Jews of the First Commonwealth viewed Torah study as nothing more than a practical necessity, a means of knowing what to do. They mistakenly thought that the only reason to learn Torah is to obtain the information needed for proper observance of the Misvot. But in truth, this is only one aspect of Torah learning. Certainly, we must learn practical Halacha so we can observe the Torah correctly – but the Misva of Torah study extends far beyond that. As we say each evening in the Arbit prayer, "Ki Hem Hayenu Ve'orech Yamenu" – "For they are our lives, and the length of our days." Torah is a vitally important component of religious life, the way we connect to Hashem and immerse ourselves in Kedusha. We learn Torah not just for the functional purpose of knowing how to perform the Misvot, but also as an integral part of our pursuit of spirituality and holiness, and our effort to build a close relationship with our Creator. During the time of the first Bet Ha'mikdash, the people did not recite Birkot Ha'Torah because Berachot are recited only over the fulfillment of a Misva, and not over the performance of a "Hechsher Misva" – the preparatory stage of a Misva. For example, we recite a Beracha on Sukkot when eat in the Sukka, which fulfills the Misva, but not when we build the Sukka, which we do only to facilitate the Misva. Similarly, a Sofer does not recite a Beracha when he prepares a pair of Tefillin; a Beracha is recited only when one actually fulfills the Misva by putting the Tefillin on. Hence, the people in the First Commonwealth, who mistakenly saw Torah study as just a means of facilitating Misva observance, did not see any reason to recite a Beracha over Torah study. But in truth, Torah study is itself a Misva – and an exceptionally important Misva – which warrants a Beracha, just like other Misvot. Rabbenu Yona (Spain, d. 1264) explained that the people of that time did not sufficiently value Torah learning. They learned Torah, but they failed to appreciate the singular importance of this great Misva, which, as the famous first Mishna in Pe'a teaches, is equivalent to all other Misvot combined ("Ve'talmud Torah Ke'negged Kulam"). The Gaon of Vilna (Rabbi Eliyahu of Vilna, 1720-1797) taught that each word of Torah that we learn is equivalent to the other 612 Misvot combined. The Jews during the period of the first Mikdash did not recognize the great value of this Misva – and they were thus considered to have neglected the Beracha, and for this they were punished.

Gemara Chabura - Rabbi Karlinsky - Da'as Torah and Asei L'cha Rav 04 by Shapell's Rabbeim

A kohen gadol is obligated to bring a special bull offering only if he issues an erroneous halachic ruling unintentionally and then personally acts upon that ruling. A braita derives this from the verse “לְאַשְׁמַת הָעָם” (“for the guilt of the nation”), which compares the kohen gadol’s actions to those of the community when they bring a communal sin offering. This drasha is necessary because one might have assumed that the kohen gadol’s obligation could be learned directly from the communal offering paradigm, given their similarities. However, since the kohen gadol could also be compared to the nasi (king), who brings a sacrifice without issuing a mistaken ruling, the comparison is not straightforward. The drasha clarifies that the kohen gadol’s case aligns specifically with the communal model. Another drasha teaches that if the kohen gadol issues an erroneous ruling but the people act on it while he himself does not, no special bull offering is brought. The offering is only required when the kohen gadol personally commits the sin. The Mishna rules that if the kohen gadol and the court issue rulings simultaneously but on different matters—where the community follows the court and the kohen gadol follows his own ruling—he must bring an individual sacrifice. However, if he rules with the court on the same issue and acts together with the community, he is atoned through the communal bull offering, not the unique one designated for the kohen gadol. A braita attempts to derive this latter case by comparing the kohen gadol to the nasi, but this is rejected. The nasi is included in the communal Yom Kippur offering, whereas the kohen gadol receives atonement through his own unique Yom Kippur sacrifice. Ultimately, the source is derived from the verse “עַל חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא” (“for the sin which he sinned,” Vayikra 4:3). Rava and Abaye disagree about whether the earlier case—where the kohen gadol and the court ruled simultaneously—refers to rulings made in the same location or in different places. The Gemara explores various scenarios in which the kohen gadol and the court ruled on different matters. Some cases are obvious, while others remain uncertain. The Mishna further explains that the kohen gadol’s sacrifice resembles the communal sin offering in that both require two conditions: (1) a mistaken ruling that leads to erroneous instruction, and (2) an unwitting action based on that ruling. The same principle applies to idol worship—to be liable, there must be both an erroneous ruling and a subsequent action. A braita derives this from a gezeira shava based on the phrase “מֵעֵינֵי” (“from the eyes”). When the Mishna states that the same applies to idol worship, it does not explicitly say, “And the same is true for the kohen gadol,” as it did earlier. Initially, the Gemara interprets this to mean that the Mishna follows Rebbi, who holds that the kohen gadol brings a sacrifice for idol worship based solely on an unwitting action, even without a mistaken ruling. However, this interpretation is rejected, and the Mishna is re-explained as the sentence “And such is true for the kohen gadol” would apply to both the sentence before and the sentence after, as is the case in the upcoming Mishna.  

The series of Berachot which we are required to recite each morning include Birkot Ha'Torah – three blessings over the privilege of studying Torah. The unique importance of these Berachot is expressed by the Gemara in Masechet Nedarim (81). The Gemara observes that some Torah scholars have children who do not become Torah scholars, and it attributes this phenomenon to the fact that these scholars do not recite Birkot Ha'Torah. It seems that in their eagerness to begin learning, they proceed directly to their studies without first reciting the Beracha over the Misva of Torah study. This neglect of Birkot Ha'Torah has an impact upon their children, causing them not to pursue Torah scholarship. Rav Yishak Abuhab (Spain, 14 th century) writes that the Gemara here refers to scholars who learned Torah as an intellectual exercise, for the mental satisfaction that Torah study brings, rather than for the purpose of fulfilling a Misva and connecting with Hashem. They therefore did not recite Birkot Ha'Torah, just as we do not recite Berachot over the study of other disciplines – because for them, Torah learning was just another field of study. This directly affected their children. In any event, it is clear from the Gemara's comment that one of the ways parents can help ensure that their children follow the path of Torah is by properly fulfilling the obligation of Birkot Ha'Torah. Many concerned parents approach me to receive advice, to ask what they can do so that their children will grow to become Torah-committed Jewish adults. One strategy is to recite Birkot Ha'Torah each morning with Kavana (concentration). Indeed, these Berachot include the prayer that our descendants should all study Torah ("Ve'niheyeh Anahnu Ve'se'esaenu Ve'se'esa'eh Se'esa'enu…"). By reciting this prayer with proper Kavana, we can help ensure that our children commit themselves to Torah. In our generation, especially, our children and grandchildren need all the help, encouragement and prayers they can get to remain committed to Torah learning, and so it behooves us all to do our part, which includes properly reciting Birkot Ha'Torah each morning. The Ateret Zekenim teaches that besides during Birkot Ha'Torah, there are also other places in the morning prayer service where one should pray with special intention that his offspring follow the path of Torah. One is the Beracha of "Ahabat Olam" recited before Shema, where we ask Hashem for the wisdom to properly learn and observe the Torah ("Ve'ten Be'libenu Bina Le'habin U'l'haskil…"). While one recites this prayer, he should have in mind his wish that his children and all his descendants become Torah scholars. And in the "U'ba Le'sion" prayer, we cite the verse in which G-d promises that the words of Torah "shall not leave your mouth, the mouth of your offspring, or the mouth of your offspring's offspring, from now and for all eternity" ("Lo Yamushu Mi'picha U'mi'pi Zar'acha…" – Yeshayahu 59:21). Here, too, one should pray that all his descendants will be devoted students of Torah. Toward the end of "U'ba Le'sion," we ask that Hashem "open our hearts" to learn Torah and to live with love and fear of Him – and one should concentrate at this point on his desire that his children grow to become Sadikim. Rav Yehezkel Landau of Prague (1713-1793) writes that in addition, reciting Birkot Ha'Torah properly, with Kavana, helps us remember the material we learn. Many students of Torah struggle to retain the information, and one way we can help remember what we learn is by paying closer attention to Birkot Ha'Torah each morning and reciting it with feeling and concentration.

A kohen gadol is obligated to bring a special bull offering only if he issues an erroneous halachic ruling unintentionally and then personally acts upon that ruling. A braita derives this from the verse “לְאַשְׁמַת הָעָם” (“for the guilt of the nation”), which compares the kohen gadol’s actions to those of the community when they bring a communal sin offering. This drasha is necessary because one might have assumed that the kohen gadol’s obligation could be learned directly from the communal offering paradigm, given their similarities. However, since the kohen gadol could also be compared to the nasi (king), who brings a sacrifice without issuing a mistaken ruling, the comparison is not straightforward. The drasha clarifies that the kohen gadol’s case aligns specifically with the communal model. Another drasha teaches that if the kohen gadol issues an erroneous ruling but the people act on it while he himself does not, no special bull offering is brought. The offering is only required when the kohen gadol personally commits the sin. The Mishna rules that if the kohen gadol and the court issue rulings simultaneously but on different matters—where the community follows the court and the kohen gadol follows his own ruling—he must bring an individual sacrifice. However, if he rules with the court on the same issue and acts together with the community, he is atoned through the communal bull offering, not the unique one designated for the kohen gadol. A braita attempts to derive this latter case by comparing the kohen gadol to the nasi, but this is rejected. The nasi is included in the communal Yom Kippur offering, whereas the kohen gadol receives atonement through his own unique Yom Kippur sacrifice. Ultimately, the source is derived from the verse “עַל חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא” (“for the sin which he sinned,” Vayikra 4:3). Rava and Abaye disagree about whether the earlier case—where the kohen gadol and the court ruled simultaneously—refers to rulings made in the same location or in different places. The Gemara explores various scenarios in which the kohen gadol and the court ruled on different matters. Some cases are obvious, while others remain uncertain. The Mishna further explains that the kohen gadol’s sacrifice resembles the communal sin offering in that both require two conditions: (1) a mistaken ruling that leads to erroneous instruction, and (2) an unwitting action based on that ruling. The same principle applies to idol worship—to be liable, there must be both an erroneous ruling and a subsequent action. A braita derives this from a gezeira shava based on the phrase “מֵעֵינֵי” (“from the eyes”). When the Mishna states that the same applies to idol worship, it does not explicitly say, “And the same is true for the kohen gadol,” as it did earlier. Initially, the Gemara interprets this to mean that the Mishna follows Rebbi, who holds that the kohen gadol brings a sacrifice for idol worship based solely on an unwitting action, even without a mistaken ruling. However, this interpretation is rejected, and the Mishna is re-explained as the sentence “And such is true for the kohen gadol” would apply to both the sentence before and the sentence after, as is the case in the upcoming Mishna.  

Today's daf is sponsored by Tina Lamm’s children in memory of their grandfather, Mike Senders z”l, from Cleveland, Ohio, and later Boca Raton, Florida.  "He dedicated much of his life to growing strong Jewish institutions, and his passion for Judaism, Torah, and Tefilla serves as a constant inspiration for us. May his neshama have an aliya and his memory be for a blessing." A braita is brought to raise a difficulty on Rabbi Meir’s position. The braita mentions two specific sin offerings whose meat is not eaten – the Levites' miluim offering and the offerings brought in the time of Ezra by those who returned to Zion. The latter offering consisted of twelve bulls and twelve goats. The Gemara assumes they were a communal sin offering for idol worship by the people during the time of Zedekiah. This number of sacrifices accords with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion that each tribe brings a bull and goat, and Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that both the tribes and the court bring (in a case where eleven tribes sinned), but it does not accord with Rabbi Meir’s opinion that only the court brings the sacrifice, as there should be only one bull and one goat. This difficulty is resolved by the suggestion that they sinned on twelve separate occasions.  Two other difficulties are raised on the braita. One, if the people of that time were already dead, how could the sin offering be brought, as an animal designated for a sin offering whose owners died is left to die, as the sacrifice can no longer be offered? Rav Papa suggests that the sin offering is left to die only for an individual offering, but not for one brought by the community. Three potential explanations are brought as a source for Rav Papa’s view, but all are rejected, and Rav Papa’s answer is rejected as well. The Gemara then answers that the people were still alive and proves it from a verse in Ezra 3:12. The second question is, didn’t they sin intentionally, in which case a sacrifice would not be able to be offered? They answer that it was a horaat sha’ah, unique circumstances, under which this was permitted. This answer can also resolve the previous difficulties. A braita teaches that if one of the community died, the communal sin offering would still be brought, but if one of the judges who issued the ruling died, the community is exempt from bringing the offering. Which tanna is the author of this braita? Rav Chisda attributes it to Rabbi Meir, while Rav Yosef questions why it cannot be attributed to Rabbi Shimon as well. Abaye disagrees with Rav Yosef’s suggestion, and there is a back-and-forth discussion between them. Ultimately, the Gemara sides with Abaye, based on a different source. In what cases does a kohen gadol bring a bull sin offering?

In the 13th episode of the Ask Away series on the Everyday Judaism Podcast, Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe responds to a variety of student questions, exploring the meaning and origin of Amen as an affirmation of truth derived from El Melech Ne'eman, clarifying that the person reciting a blessing does not say Amen but others should to join in the blessing's merit. He addresses whether saying Amen at a communal Motzi is appropriate, discusses the importance of integrity in light of Bernie Madoff's actions, and explains how to overcome negative traits like cruelty or anger through small, consistent steps toward God-like qualities, as taught in Mussar. Rabbi Wolbe also emphasizes the priority of supporting Torah study through non-profits as a form of charity, the value of anonymous giving, and the spiritual significance of the Mishnah recitation after Torah study with a minyan, concluding with a call to verify rabbinic teachings with sources and a blessing for a meaningful week.In this episode of Ask Away we address these questions and topics:Here are the questions asked by the students in the provided transcript of the Ask Away series on the Everyday Judaism Podcast:Ed: What is the origin of Amen, and if it is said after a blessing, does the person who gives/recites the blessing say Amen?Jimmy: When we say the HaMotzi at our dinner table or any of our meals and we all say Amen, are we incorrect?Ed: You said that Jews are not cruel, and if they are cruel, you got to inspect their lineage. Did anybody ever inspect Bernie Madoff's lineage?Anna: If you find yourself with a trait of cruelty, is there no workaround? You just do teshuvah and change your ways, or is there another approach, like becoming a butcher or surgeon for someone who favors bloodletting?Anna: Are non-profits considered poor in the context of the obligation to help the poor?Anna: If someone doesn't ask for charity, but you give to them anyway (e.g., a smile, food, or beverage), is that the same mitzvah as charity, or is it a different mitzvah?Jimmy: What is the good side of the trait of anger? (Combined with an online listener's question about how to be more patient.)Carlos: If we talk about Midrash and Gemara in classes, why doesn't the Rabbi end his classes with Rabbi Chananya ben Akashya Omer?And much more ... Please submit your questions at askaway@torchweb.org_____________The Everyday Judaism Podcast is dedicated to learning, understanding and appreciating the greatness of Jewish heritage and the Torah through the simplified, concise study of Halacha, Jewish Law, thereby enhancing our understanding of how Hashem wants us to live our daily lives in a Jewish way._____________This Podcast Series is Generously Underwritten by Marshall & Doreen LernerDownload & Print the Everyday Judaism Halacha Notes:https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1RL-PideM42B_LFn6pbrk8MMU5-zqlLG5This episode (Ep. #50) of the Everyday Judaism Podcast by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe of TORCH is dedicated to my dearest friends, Marshall & Doreen Lerner! May Hashem bless you and always lovingly accept your prayer for good health, success and true happiness!!!Recorded in the TORCH Centre - Levin Family Studio (B) to a live audience on June 15, 2025, in Houston, Texas.Released as Podcast on September 5, 2025_____________Connect with Us:Subscribe to the Everyday Judaism Podcast on Apple Podcasts (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/everyday-judaism-rabbi-aryeh-wolbe/id1600622789) or Spotify (https://open.spotify.com/show/3AXCNcyKSVsaOLsLQsCN1C) to stay inspired! Share your questions at askaway@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: awolbe@torchweb.org_____________Support Our Mission:Help us share Jewish wisdom globally by sponsoring an episode at torchweb.org. Your support makes a difference!_____________Subscribe and Listen to other podcasts by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe: NEW!! Prayer 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:#Torah, #Halacha, #Amen, #JewishBlessings, #Community, #RoshHashanah, #Shabbos, #Compassion, #SpiritualGrowth, #Mussar, #NegativeTraits, #Transformation, #Madoff, #Charity, #TorahStudy, #Institutions, #AnonymousDonations, #JewishOralLaw, #JewishLife, #Practice, #Q&A, #Sponsorship ★ Support this podcast ★

Today's daf is sponsored by Tina Lamm’s children in memory of their grandfather, Mike Senders z”l, from Cleveland, Ohio, and later Boca Raton, Florida.  "He dedicated much of his life to growing strong Jewish institutions, and his passion for Judaism, Torah, and Tefilla serves as a constant inspiration for us. May his neshama have an aliya and his memory be for a blessing." A braita is brought to raise a difficulty on Rabbi Meir’s position. The braita mentions two specific sin offerings whose meat is not eaten – the Levites' miluim offering and the offerings brought in the time of Ezra by those who returned to Zion. The latter offering consisted of twelve bulls and twelve goats. The Gemara assumes they were a communal sin offering for idol worship by the people during the time of Zedekiah. This number of sacrifices accords with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion that each tribe brings a bull and goat, and Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that both the tribes and the court bring (in a case where eleven tribes sinned), but it does not accord with Rabbi Meir’s opinion that only the court brings the sacrifice, as there should be only one bull and one goat. This difficulty is resolved by the suggestion that they sinned on twelve separate occasions.  Two other difficulties are raised on the braita. One, if the people of that time were already dead, how could the sin offering be brought, as an animal designated for a sin offering whose owners died is left to die, as the sacrifice can no longer be offered? Rav Papa suggests that the sin offering is left to die only for an individual offering, but not for one brought by the community. Three potential explanations are brought as a source for Rav Papa’s view, but all are rejected, and Rav Papa’s answer is rejected as well. The Gemara then answers that the people were still alive and proves it from a verse in Ezra 3:12. The second question is, didn’t they sin intentionally, in which case a sacrifice would not be able to be offered? They answer that it was a horaat sha’ah, unique circumstances, under which this was permitted. This answer can also resolve the previous difficulties. A braita teaches that if one of the community died, the communal sin offering would still be brought, but if one of the judges who issued the ruling died, the community is exempt from bringing the offering. Which tanna is the author of this braita? Rav Chisda attributes it to Rabbi Meir, while Rav Yosef questions why it cannot be attributed to Rabbi Shimon as well. Abaye disagrees with Rav Yosef’s suggestion, and there is a back-and-forth discussion between them. Ultimately, the Gemara sides with Abaye, based on a different source. In what cases does a kohen gadol bring a bull sin offering?

This week's learning is dedicated by Medinah Korn in loving memory of her mother, Rosalie Katchen, Shoshana Raizl bat Avraham Yehoshua ve-Baila Toibe, z"l, on her 25th yahrzeit. She left a profound legacy for her family and many devoted friends who continue to learn from her to this day. Yehi zichra baruch. Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of David's mother Ethel Petegorsky Geffen, on her 21st yarhzeit. She was devoted to her family and the Jewish community, volunteering on many synagogue and community committees and projects. Her two sons made aliyah to Israel and her daughter has had a long career in service of the American Jewish community. Today's daf is sponsored by Ayla Ginat in loving memory of Barak ben Lipa and Shlomit. If the Beit Din realized they made an erroneous ruling, but an individual is unaware and transgresses based on their original ruling, do they need to bring an individual sacrifice? While the Msihna brought two opinions, a braita brings four. Rabbi Meir obligates the individual to bring a sin offering, Rabbi Shimon exempts, Rabbi Elazar and Sumchus view it as a case of doubt, but Rabbi Elazar obligates in a provisional guilt offering, while Sumchus does not. Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Yossi bar Avin bring examples of other cases of doubt to explain the difference in approach between Rabbi Elazar and Sumchus – to what extent do we expect the individual to be aware that the rabbis corrected their mistake? Rava explains the disagreement in the Mishna between Ben Azai and Rabbi Akiva to be regarding a case where the court realized their mistake on the day that the individual in question was still in the city but preparing to leave. As in the previously mentioned debate, the question is to what extent the individual is expected to be aware of the court’s reversal of their decision while they are busy involved in their upcoming travel plans.  The Mishna taught that the case of a communal sin offering is only in a case where the court’s erroneous ruling was to uproot part of a mitzva, not a complete mitzva. A braita brings one derivation, Chizkiya has another, and Rav Ashi brings a third. Rav Yehuda says in the name of Shmuel that the ruling has to relate to something that the Saducees do not agree with, i.e. something rabbinic in origin and not able to be understood from the simple reading of the verses in the Torah. The reason for this is simple – if it is clear from the Torah and the court rules otherwise, and the people follow, this cannot be understood as unwitting, as it is closer to an intentional violation. Three difficulties are raised against Rav Yehuda from the examples brought in the Mishna, but each one is resolved. Rav Yosef asks: If the court rules there is no prohibition to plow on Shabbat, is that considered uprooting a complete mitzva or a partial one? The Gemara tries to answer the question by deriving it from cases in our Mishna, but is not able to. Rabbi Zeira asks if the court rules that there is no Shabbat observance in the Shmita year, is that considered uprooting a complete mitzva or a partial one? Ravina brings a source from a false prophet to answer that it is considered a partial mitzva, and they would be obligated to bring a communal sin offering.  There are several cases where there is an issue with judges – either disqualified judges, or the head judge was not there, where there is no communal sin offering, as the case is considered closer to intentional.    

In this world, there is so much more than meets the eye. Things may appear to be one way, when in fact they are completely the opposite. Nothing should be taken at face value. Hashem is very deep, the Torah is very deep, and we are charged to use all our wisdom to see through the surface and try to understand on deeper levels. In this week's parashah Ki Tetzeh , the Torah teaches us about the mitzvah of shiluach hakan — sending away the mother bird before taking the eggs. The Torah promises a reward: lema'an yitav lach veha'arachta yamim — "that it will be good for you and you will have long life." Yet the Gemara tells of a boy who listened to his father — a mitzvah that also promises long life — and went to perform shiluach hakan . Tragically, he fell off the ladder and died. Where was the long life that the Torah promised? Our rabbis teach that "long life" in these pesukim is not to be taken at face value. It refers to life in the World to Come. One day, Hashem will send the Mashiach to redeem us. At that time, techiyat hametim will begin. The righteous who passed away throughout the generations will come back to life to enjoy the world of Mashiach. This resurrection will take place over many years, and those who rise earlier will live longer lives in that future time. Beyond that, Hashem will create a new world — Olam Haba — where the pleasure will be eternal and unlimited. That is the true world that is kulo aruch — everlasting — and there the rewards for mitzvot will be paid in full. Every experience we encounter in this world can be viewed from different perspectives. We must train ourselves to view everything with an emunah perspective, trusting that Hashem is always doing the greatest kindness for us. A man from Bnei Brak told how his widowed aunt called him late one Friday afternoon. All her power had gone out. No lights, no hot plate, no air conditioning. She begged him to come quickly. After asking a few questions, he figured it was a blown fuse, but she had no idea where to find the fuse box. He told her he would be right over. He thanked Hashem that his family had the habit of being ready early for Shabbat. Since everything was prepared, he had time to leave and help. By then there were no taxis available, so he grabbed one of his children's bicycles and pedaled as fast as he could through the intense summer heat of Bnei Brak. He fixed the fuse, and all the electricity came back on. By the time he got home, there was no time to shower, though he was dripping in sweat. Shul was starting, so he went directly as he was. Entering Shabbat that way was unpleasant, but he accepted it as Hashem's will. Towards the end of that Shabbat, during seudah shelishit , the power in his own home suddenly went out. After Shabbat, he checked the panel and saw that water had seeped in and damaged the main fuse — the one controlling the oven, stove, fridge, and air conditioning. At that moment, he could have asked: "Where is the justice? I went out of my way to help a poor widow with her fuse box, and then my fuse box gets ruined?" But instead, he used his emunah perspective. He said: "Hashem, You are so kind. Really, this Shabbat we were meant to sit in the dark with no food and no air conditioning. But in Your mercy, You gave me the chance first to do a big chesed for someone else, and in that merit, You delayed our blackout until the very end of Shabbat." Everything that happens to us is chesed Hashem . It may not always seem that way, but with emunah , we can always view it that way. Shabbat Shalom.

In the 13th episode of the Ask Away series on the Everyday Judaism Podcast, Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe responds to a variety of student questions, exploring the meaning and origin of Amen as an affirmation of truth derived from El Melech Ne'eman, clarifying that the person reciting a blessing does not say Amen but others should to join in the blessing's merit. He addresses whether saying Amen at a communal Motzi is appropriate, discusses the importance of integrity in light of Bernie Madoff's actions, and explains how to overcome negative traits like cruelty or anger through small, consistent steps toward God-like qualities, as taught in Mussar. Rabbi Wolbe also emphasizes the priority of supporting Torah study through non-profits as a form of charity, the value of anonymous giving, and the spiritual significance of the Mishnah recitation after Torah study with a minyan, concluding with a call to verify rabbinic teachings with sources and a blessing for a meaningful week.In this episode of Ask Away we address these questions and topics:Here are the questions asked by the students in the provided transcript of the Ask Away series on the Everyday Judaism Podcast:Ed: What is the origin of Amen, and if it is said after a blessing, does the person who gives/recites the blessing say Amen?Jimmy: When we say the HaMotzi at our dinner table or any of our meals and we all say Amen, are we incorrect?Ed: You said that Jews are not cruel, and if they are cruel, you got to inspect their lineage. Did anybody ever inspect Bernie Madoff's lineage?Anna: If you find yourself with a trait of cruelty, is there no workaround? You just do teshuvah and change your ways, or is there another approach, like becoming a butcher or surgeon for someone who favors bloodletting?Anna: Are non-profits considered poor in the context of the obligation to help the poor?Anna: If someone doesn't ask for charity, but you give to them anyway (e.g., a smile, food, or beverage), is that the same mitzvah as charity, or is it a different mitzvah?Jimmy: What is the good side of the trait of anger? (Combined with an online listener's question about how to be more patient.)Carlos: If we talk about Midrash and Gemara in classes, why doesn't the Rabbi end his classes with Rabbi Chananya ben Akashya Omer?And much more ... Please submit your questions at askaway@torchweb.org_____________The Everyday Judaism Podcast is dedicated to learning, understanding and appreciating the greatness of Jewish heritage and the Torah through the simplified, concise study of Halacha, Jewish Law, thereby enhancing our understanding of how Hashem wants us to live our daily lives in a Jewish way._____________This Podcast Series is Generously Underwritten by Marshall & Doreen LernerDownload & Print the Everyday Judaism Halacha Notes:https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1RL-PideM42B_LFn6pbrk8MMU5-zqlLG5This episode (Ep. #50) of the Everyday Judaism Podcast by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe of TORCH is dedicated to my dearest friends, Marshall & Doreen Lerner! May Hashem bless you and always lovingly accept your prayer for good health, success and true happiness!!!Recorded in the TORCH Centre - Levin Family Studio (B) to a live audience on June 15, 2025, in Houston, Texas.Released as Podcast on September 5, 2025_____________Connect with Us:Subscribe to the Everyday Judaism Podcast on Apple Podcasts (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/everyday-judaism-rabbi-aryeh-wolbe/id1600622789) or Spotify (https://open.spotify.com/show/3AXCNcyKSVsaOLsLQsCN1C) to stay inspired! Share your questions at askaway@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: awolbe@torchweb.org_____________Support Our Mission:Help us share Jewish wisdom globally by sponsoring an episode at torchweb.org. Your support makes a difference!_____________Subscribe and Listen to other podcasts by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe: NEW!! Prayer 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:#Torah, #Halacha, #Amen, #JewishBlessings, #Community, #RoshHashanah, #Shabbos, #Compassion, #SpiritualGrowth, #Mussar, #NegativeTraits, #Transformation, #Madoff, #Charity, #TorahStudy, #Institutions, #AnonymousDonations, #JewishOralLaw, #JewishLife, #Practice, #Q&A, #Sponsorship ★ Support this podcast ★

This week's learning is dedicated by Medinah Korn in loving memory of her mother, Rosalie Katchen, Shoshana Raizl bat Avraham Yehoshua ve-Baila Toibe, z"l, on her 25th yahrzeit. She left a profound legacy for her family and many devoted friends who continue to learn from her to this day. Yehi zichra baruch. Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of David's mother Ethel Petegorsky Geffen, on her 21st yarhzeit. She was devoted to her family and the Jewish community, volunteering on many synagogue and community committees and projects. Her two sons made aliyah to Israel and her daughter has had a long career in service of the American Jewish community. Today's daf is sponsored by Ayla Ginat in loving memory of Barak ben Lipa and Shlomit. If the Beit Din realized they made an erroneous ruling, but an individual is unaware and transgresses based on their original ruling, do they need to bring an individual sacrifice? While the Msihna brought two opinions, a braita brings four. Rabbi Meir obligates the individual to bring a sin offering, Rabbi Shimon exempts, Rabbi Elazar and Sumchus view it as a case of doubt, but Rabbi Elazar obligates in a provisional guilt offering, while Sumchus does not. Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Yossi bar Avin bring examples of other cases of doubt to explain the difference in approach between Rabbi Elazar and Sumchus – to what extent do we expect the individual to be aware that the rabbis corrected their mistake? Rava explains the disagreement in the Mishna between Ben Azai and Rabbi Akiva to be regarding a case where the court realized their mistake on the day that the individual in question was still in the city but preparing to leave. As in the previously mentioned debate, the question is to what extent the individual is expected to be aware of the court’s reversal of their decision while they are busy involved in their upcoming travel plans.  The Mishna taught that the case of a communal sin offering is only in a case where the court’s erroneous ruling was to uproot part of a mitzva, not a complete mitzva. A braita brings one derivation, Chizkiya has another, and Rav Ashi brings a third. Rav Yehuda says in the name of Shmuel that the ruling has to relate to something that the Saducees do not agree with, i.e. something rabbinic in origin and not able to be understood from the simple reading of the verses in the Torah. The reason for this is simple – if it is clear from the Torah and the court rules otherwise, and the people follow, this cannot be understood as unwitting, as it is closer to an intentional violation. Three difficulties are raised against Rav Yehuda from the examples brought in the Mishna, but each one is resolved. Rav Yosef asks: If the court rules there is no prohibition to plow on Shabbat, is that considered uprooting a complete mitzva or a partial one? The Gemara tries to answer the question by deriving it from cases in our Mishna, but is not able to. Rabbi Zeira asks if the court rules that there is no Shabbat observance in the Shmita year, is that considered uprooting a complete mitzva or a partial one? Ravina brings a source from a false prophet to answer that it is considered a partial mitzva, and they would be obligated to bring a communal sin offering.  There are several cases where there is an issue with judges – either disqualified judges, or the head judge was not there, where there is no communal sin offering, as the case is considered closer to intentional.    

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel that the exemption discussed in the Mishna—for an individual who follows an erroneous ruling of the court—is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion. However, the other rabbis disagree and require the individual to bring a sin offering. In contrast, Rav Nachman, also quoting Shmuel, asserts that the Mishna reflects Rabbi Meir’s view, with the rabbis again dissenting. This dispute between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis appears in a braita, though it is unclear whether the braita is actually addressing this specific issue. Rav Papa offers an alternative interpretation of the braita, followed by three additional suggestions. Rav Asi maintains that the majority required for a communal sin offering refers specifically to the majority of Jews living in Israel, as supported by a verse in Melachim I (8:65). A question arises: if the people sinned while constituting a majority, but by the time the offering is to be brought, they are no longer the majority (e.g., due to death), are they still obligated to bring the offering? The Gemara links this to a debate between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis regarding a king who sinned before ascending the throne and only later realized his error once he had become king. The rabbis hold that he must bring an individual sin offering, since obligation is determined at the time of the sin. Rabbi Shimon, however, argues that both the sin and its realization must occur while the individual is in the same status—thus exempting the king entirely. The Gemara then explores whether this principle can be applied to a case where the people sinned as a minority and later became a majority. It concludes that the comparison is invalid, since Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning hinges on the sin and realization occurring during the same period of obligation, which does not apply in this scenario. A series of unresolved questions is posed regarding whether two distinct teaching errors could combine to obligate the community in a communal sin offering. None of these questions receives definitive answers. Rabbi Yonatan holds that a communal offering is only warranted if the court’s ruling was unanimous. However, after three challenges are raised against his position, the final one leads to its rejection. Ultimately, all judges—and even students present during deliberation—share responsibility for the verdict. As a result, rabbis would often invite others to participate in the judgment process, thereby distributing the responsibility more broadly. If the Beit Din realized they made an erroneous ruling, but an individual is unaware and transgresses based on their original ruling, do they need to bring an individual sacrifice? Rabbi Shimon does not obligate in a sacrifice, but Rabbi Elazar requires an asham talui, a provisional guilt offering. However, their debate only applies in cases where the person was in the city. If they were out of town, all agree that there is an exemption, as they had no way to know about the corrected ruling. A communal sin offering is relevant for erroneous rulings regarding details of a Torah law, but not if they rule to uproot a Torah law completely. Rav explains Rabbi Shimon’s position and the Gemara raises a difficulty to Rav from a braita, but resolves it.      

The Torah in Parashat Ki-Teseh introduces the subject of the Ben Sorer U'moreh – the "wayward son." This is a delinquent 13-year-old child, whose delinquency manifests itself parituclarly in addictive indulgence. He eats and drinks so compulsively that he steals his parents' money to buy wine and meat. The Torah states that this child should be put to death, and the Gemara explains that this is because this child is set along a path to violent crime. Once he has reached this point, where he steals his parents' money to satisfy his lust for food and wine, we are certain that he will eventually mug people to steal their money, and will end up murdering. He should therefore be killed so he never grows to be a violent criminal. The Gemara further states that there has never been a child that qualified as a Ben Sorer U'moreh, and there never will be such a case. There are so many conditions that must be met for this law to take effect that it can never actually apply as a practical matter. The Torah nevertheless taught us this theoretical Halacha so we can earn reward by studying this subject. The Gemara then cites Rabbi Yochanan as testifying, "I saw him, and I sat on his grave." At first glance, it appears that there are two views in the Gemara as to whether there was a case of a Ben Sorer U'moreh. The first opinion said that it never happened, whereas Rabbi Yochanan said that it did. However, this sounds peculiar. Could the Sages have really been arguing about a historical point? Normally, debates among the Rabbis involve different rationales and different ways of understanding Torah laws. We are not accustomed to Rabbis arguing over historical facts. Perhaps we can advance a novel reading of the Gemara's discussion. We mentioned earlier that the Torah commands executing a Ben Sorer Ve'moreh because it is certain that he will grow to become a violent criminal. We must ask, why are we so certain? Do we not all know of juvenile delinquents who grew to become wonderful adults? Has there never been a child who caused a great deal of trouble as a young teenager but then put his life together and excelled? I know many outstanding Rabbis who were once troubled youths. Why are we so sure that this "wayward son" will turn out to be a criminal? The answer is that we aren't – and this is precisely why the Gemara tells us that there never was and never will be a case of a Ben Sorer U'moreh. The Torah speaks of a theoretical situation of a child who must be put to death because he will otherwise for certain become a violent killer as an adult – and the Sages tell us that this will always remain a theoretical possibility, because in actuality, every single person has the capacity to change, and to change drastically. No matter where a person is, no matter how low he has fallen, he always has the potential to achieve greatness. There are no exceptions. Rabbi Yochanan says that he saw a Ben Sorer U'moreh and went to his grave. Why do people visit graves? Mostly, people visit the graves of righteous Sadikim to pray to Hashem at the site. And this might have been what Rabbi Yohanan was doing at this grave – he was praying, because this wayward child, whom he saw in his state of rebelliousness and unbridled sinfulness, ended up becoming an outstanding Sadik, a pious and holy Jew at whose gravesite people should want to pray. Rabbi Yohanan is proving the point made earlier, that there never was and never will be a child determined to be a Ben Sorer U'moreh who must be put to death – because in reality, every child, no matter where he is currently, has the ability to turn his life around and rise to great spiritual heights. We must never give up on any Jew, because we are all the descendants of Abraham, Yishak and Yaakob, we all contain within our souls a divine spark, and we all have the potential for greatness. And just as we must never give up on another Jew, we must also never give up on ourselves. What we've done in the past does not determine who we are in the present, or who we will be in the future. We need to trust in our ability to change and in our potential to not only improve, but to achieve greatness and be worthy members of Hashem's special nation.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel that the exemption discussed in the Mishna—for an individual who follows an erroneous ruling of the court—is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion. However, the other rabbis disagree and require the individual to bring a sin offering. In contrast, Rav Nachman, also quoting Shmuel, asserts that the Mishna reflects Rabbi Meir’s view, with the rabbis again dissenting. This dispute between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis appears in a braita, though it is unclear whether the braita is actually addressing this specific issue. Rav Papa offers an alternative interpretation of the braita, followed by three additional suggestions. Rav Asi maintains that the majority required for a communal sin offering refers specifically to the majority of Jews living in Israel, as supported by a verse in Melachim I (8:65). A question arises: if the people sinned while constituting a majority, but by the time the offering is to be brought, they are no longer the majority (e.g., due to death), are they still obligated to bring the offering? The Gemara links this to a debate between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis regarding a king who sinned before ascending the throne and only later realized his error once he had become king. The rabbis hold that he must bring an individual sin offering, since obligation is determined at the time of the sin. Rabbi Shimon, however, argues that both the sin and its realization must occur while the individual is in the same status—thus exempting the king entirely. The Gemara then explores whether this principle can be applied to a case where the people sinned as a minority and later became a majority. It concludes that the comparison is invalid, since Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning hinges on the sin and realization occurring during the same period of obligation, which does not apply in this scenario. A series of unresolved questions is posed regarding whether two distinct teaching errors could combine to obligate the community in a communal sin offering. None of these questions receives definitive answers. Rabbi Yonatan holds that a communal offering is only warranted if the court’s ruling was unanimous. However, after three challenges are raised against his position, the final one leads to its rejection. Ultimately, all judges—and even students present during deliberation—share responsibility for the verdict. As a result, rabbis would often invite others to participate in the judgment process, thereby distributing the responsibility more broadly. If the Beit Din realized they made an erroneous ruling, but an individual is unaware and transgresses based on their original ruling, do they need to bring an individual sacrifice? Rabbi Shimon does not obligate in a sacrifice, but Rabbi Elazar requires an asham talui, a provisional guilt offering. However, their debate only applies in cases where the person was in the city. If they were out of town, all agree that there is an exemption, as they had no way to know about the corrected ruling. A communal sin offering is relevant for erroneous rulings regarding details of a Torah law, but not if they rule to uproot a Torah law completely. Rav explains Rabbi Shimon’s position and the Gemara raises a difficulty to Rav from a braita, but resolves it.      

The Power to Rule Part 31 – Key Takeaways Dive into a fascinating Gemara debate: Did King David know more than Moses about the exact time of midnight, and what does this teach us about spiritual progression? Explore the idea that spiritual growth is an ongoing journey built upon the efforts of previous generations—even if we feel like “spiritual midgets” standing on the shoulders of giants. Discover the powerful, symbolic meaning of “midnight” (chatzos) as a time of awakening, renewal, and connecting to your inner goodness—any time of day. Learn how King David's magical harp and his focus on finding the “good points” in each person are essential tools for personal and collective redemption. Understand how every individual plays a role in the ongoing process leading to the final redemption, not just the great tzadikim. Featuring teachings from the Hasidic masters, kabbalistic insights, and practical wisdom for anyone seeking greater vitality, connection, and joy. Subscribe to Living Aligned for more deep dives into Hasidic wisdom and living with purpose!

Gemara Chabura - Rabbi Karlinsky - Da'as Torah and Asei L'cha Rav 03 by Shapell's Rabbeim

Join this week's Torah podcast exploring the deeper mysteries of Parshas Ki Tetzay and the unique commandment to remember Amalek. Why does only Amalek merit a special mitzvah to remember their evil deeds - what about all the other nations that tried to destroy the Jewish people? What does Rashi mean when he explains that Amalek "cooled us down," and why does Chazal tell us that Hashem's throne remains incomplete until Amalek is eliminated from the world?Through the Gemara in Sanhedrin and Reb Chaim Shmulevitz's brilliant analysis, discover the fascinating story of Timnah - the princess who desperately wanted to convert but was rejected by the Avos, leading to Amalek's creation. Explore powerful insights about the ripple effects of our daily interactions, featuring contemporary stories that will transform how you view your relationships and responsibilities.This episode of Jewish learning combines traditional Torah analysis with practical mussar lessons, revealing timeless wisdom for modern living. Perfect for weekly parsha study and spiritual growth.Keywords: Torah podcast, weekly parsha, Parshas Ki Tetzay, Jewish learning, Amalek, Reb Chaim Shmulevitz, mussar, spiritual growth

This week's learning is sponsored by Helen Danczak. "My dear Uncle Phil passed on August 27 with family at hand. He was the kind of uncle that the kids (of all ages) gravitated to. I am not alone in saying he was my favorite uncle. He is missed. May his neshama have an aliyah." Today's daf is sponsored by Audrey Levant in honor of Deborah Dickson. "Happy birthday to Hadran’s newest wonderful addition to the team. I’m excited to start another (school) year of learning with you, my friend!” The Mishna teaches that if the Beit Din teaches an erroneous ruling and an individual follows, the individual does not have to bring a sin offering. However, the Gemara will later explain that this is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but the rabbis disagree and obligate the individual. If the Beit Din teaches an erroneous ruling and a judge or student who has reached a stage of one who can issue halakhic rulings realizes they have made a mistake but follows their ruling anyway, he is obligated to bring a sin offering. If the court issues an erroneous ruling and the majority of the community follow it, there is an obligation to bring a special sacrifice called ‘the bull offering of an unwitting communal sin (par he’elem davar shel tzibur). Shmuel and Rav Dimi disagree about the language that must be used by the court for it to be considered “an erroneous ruling of the court.” Three sources are brought to support Rav Dimi’s position. In a second version of the debate, they switch positions, and the sources are raised as difficulties against Rav Dimi. The Mishna described the actions of the individual who is exempt when sinning by following an erroneous ruling of the court using the words “shogeg al pihem, unwitting by their words.” In two different versions of Rava’s explanation of this term, it either refers to two different cases or to one. If it refers to two, it would include an exemption in an additional case – if the court ruled by mistake that a piece of forbidden fat was permitted, and the individual meant to eat a piece of permitted fat, but accidentally ate the piece that the court permitted. Even though Rava had an answer to that question (obligated or exempt, depending on the different versions of Rava’s explanation), Rami bar Hama asked the same question and did not know the answer. Again, in two different versions, Rava answers the question by explaining the term in the Mishna. However, Rami bar Hama rejects his answer as the term is ambiguous. The Mishna lists various ways in which the individual or a judge/student can potentially follow a ruling of the court. What is the significance of the order in each case? How is a “teacher capable of issuing halakhic rulings" defined, and why was it necessary to include this category in addition to that of a judge? The Gemara quotes two braitot, one explaining the source for Rabbi Yehuda’s position in the Mishna, exempting an individual who follows the court, and the other explaining the source for the rabbis' dissenting opinion obligating an individual who follows the court. The latter braita is complicated to understand, and the Gemara irons out its meaning and shows how it reflects the rabbis' position.  

If a person hears a Beracha for the purpose of fulfilling an obligation, and he listens attentively and responds "Amen," then hearing this Beracha counts toward the required recitation of 100 blessings each day. Thus, for example, when a person hears Kiddush on Friday night to fulfill the Misva of Kiddush, those two Berachot – "Ha'gefen" and "Mekadesh Ha'Shabbat" – count as two of the 100 Berachot which he is obligated to recite each day. The same is true of the Misva over the Shofar blowing on Rosh Hashanah ("Li'shmoa Kol Shofar") and the Berachot recited over the Megilla reading on Purim ("Al Mikra Megilla," "She'asa Nissim," and – at night – "She'hehiyanu"). By listening to these Berachot and responding "Amen," one adds to his total number of Berachot recited that day. If a person recites a Beracha for others to fulfill their obligation, then, according to the ruling of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995), this Beracha counts toward his recitation of 100 blessings. Thus, for example, if someone works as a chaplain in a hospital, and on Friday night he goes around the hospital making Kiddush for patients, all those Berachot can be counted toward his obligation. Even though he had already fulfilled the Misva of Kiddush, and he is reciting Kiddush solely for the sake of others, nevertheless, since he is, after all, reciting these Berachot, they count toward his 100 daily blessings. An interesting question arises in the case of somebody who recited the Amida, and then realized that he did not concentrate on the meaning of the words during the first Beracha. The Shulhan Aruch ruled that although we must of course endeavor to pray the entire Amida with Kavana (concentration), one fulfills his obligation even if he prayed without Kavana, as long as he recited the first blessing with Kavana. If, however, one did not concentrate on the meaning of the words while reciting the first Beracha, then he did not fulfill his obligation. Nevertheless, the accepted practice follows the ruling of the Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Cracow, 1530-1572) that one does not repeat the Amida in such a case, given the likelihood that he will not have Kavana the second time, either. The Poskim posed the question of whether these 19 Berachot – the blessings that comprise the Amida – can be counted toward one's required 100 daily Berachot in such a case. Seemingly, since it turns out that the person did not fulfill his obligation through the recitation of the Amida, the Berachot are considered to have been recited in vain, and thus they cannot count toward the required 100 blessings. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, however, ruled that these Berachot do, in fact, count toward the 100 Berachot. He proves this from the fact that if a person realizes during the recitation of the Amida that he did not have Kavana while reciting the first Beracha, he nevertheless continues reciting the Amida. Although he cannot fulfill the Amida requirement, as he recited the first blessing without Kavana, nevertheless, he completes the Amida. This proves that the Berachot of the Amida are not considered to have been recited in vain even if one had not concentrated while reciting the first Beracha. Rav Shlomo Zalman explains that although the person does not fulfill his obligation in this case, his prayer still formally qualifies as a valid Amida prayer. Thus, for example, the prohibition against walking in front of someone praying the Amida applies even if someone prays the Amida and did not have Kavana during the first blessing. Since the remainder of his Amida qualifies as an Amida – notwithstanding the fact that the individual does not fulfill his prayer obligation through this Amida – one may not pass in front of him. By the same token, Rav Shlomo Zalman rules, the Berachot can be counted toward the obligatory 100 blessings. Rav Shlomo Zalman applies this ruling also to the case of somebody who mistakenly omitted "Ya'aleh Ve'yabo" from the Amida on Rosh Hodesh, or recited "Ve'ten Tal U'matar" in the summer, and thus needs to repeat the Amida. Although the Amida was invalid, and the individual did not fulfill his obligation, Rav Shlomo Zalman maintained that these blessings count toward the 100 required daily Berachot. Rav Shlomo Zalman writes that if someone hears his fellow make such a mistake in his Amida prayer without realizing it, and the fellow continues the Amida, the person may not walk in front of him, as the one reciting the Amida is still considered to be praying the Amida. As in the case of one who did not concentrate during the first Beracha, the Amida still qualifies as an Amida prayer, even though the person does not fulfill his prayer obligation through the recitation of this prayer. (Regarding "Ya'aleh Ve'yabo," there is a debate among the Rishonim as to whether one who mistakenly omits this addition is considered not to have prayed at all, or has simply not fulfilled the obligation of "Ya'aleh Ve'yabo." According to one view, if one forgets "Ya'aleh Ve'yabo" at Minha on Rosh Hodesh, and he realizes his mistake only that night, when it is no longer Rosh Hodesh, he must recite an extra Amida at Arbit, even though he will not be adding "Ya'aleh Ve'yabo," since he is considered not to have prayed Minha. The other view maintains that this fellow has fulfilled his obligation of Minha, but failed to fulfill his obligation to recite "Ya'aleh Ve'yabo," and so there is no value in adding an Amida at Arbit, since he will not be reciting "Ya'aleh Ve'yabo." At first glance, it seems that Rav Shlomo Zalman's ruling was said specifically according to this second view, though in truth, it applies according to all opinions. A comprehensive analysis of this subject lies beyond the scope of our discussion here.) The Poskim offer different solutions for reaching a total of 100 Berachot on Shabbat and Yom Tob, when the Amida prayer is much shorter than the weekday Amida. The Amida prayer on Shabbat and Yom Tov consists of only seven blessings, as opposed to the weekday Amida, which contains 19. The Musaf prayer – with its seven Berachot – is added on Shabbat and Yom Tob, but nevertheless, one is left with 19 fewer Berachot – and these become 20 Berachot once we consider that one does not recite the Beracha over Tefillin on Shabbat and Yom Tob. Several of these missing Berachot are supplied by reciting and listening to Kiddush, but nevertheless, one is missing a considerable number of Berachot. The Shulhan Aruch writes that this problem can be solved by listening attentively and answering "Amen" to the Berachot recited over the Torah reading. On Shabbat morning, eight people are called to the Torah (seven regular Aliyot, and Maftir), and another three are called to the Torah at Minha – and each of these 11 men recite two Berachot. If a person listens to these Berachot and recites "Amen," he adds 22 Berachot to his total. The Magen Abraham (Rav Avraham Gombiner, 1633-1683) writes that this solution should be relied upon only if one has no other possibility of reaching a total of 100 Berachot. Preferably, one should fulfill the obligation in other ways. This is the position taken by others, as well, including the Shulhan Aruch Ha'Rav (Rav Shneur Zalman of Liadi, founding Rebbe of Lubavitch, 1745-1812), and the Mishna Berura. This was also the view taken by Hacham Ovadia Yosef in his earlier works. However, in his Hazon Ovadia, which he wrote later in life, he cites the Magen Giborim as stating that one can rely on this solution even Le'chatehila (on the optimal level of Halachic observance), and this is the Halacha. By listening attentively to the Berachot recited before and after the Haftara reading, one adds even more Berachot to his total. Hacham Baruch Ben-Haim taught us an allusion to this Halacha in the final verses of Shir Hashirim, which speak of the fruit of King Shlomo's vineyard. The Gemara tells that if someone slaughtered a chicken, and before he fulfilled the Misva of Kisui Ha'dam (covering the blood), somebody else came along and covered the blood, the person who covered the blood owes the Shohet (slaughterer) 100 gold coins. The reason, the Gemara explains, is that this person caused the Shohet to lose the opportunity to recite the Beracha over this Misva, and so he owes compensation. It thus turns out that a Beracha is worth 100 gold coins – such that the 100 Berachot we recite each day have a total value of 1000 gold coins. The verse in Shir Hashirim says, "A thousand for you, Shlomo, and 200 for those who guard the fruit." The name "Shlomo" in Shir Hashirim sometimes refers to Hashem, and thus this verse alludes to the 1000 gold coins we are to earn through the recitation of 100 Berachot each day. The phrase "and 200 for those who guard the fruit" alludes to the 20 missing Berachot on Shabbat – valued at 200 gold coins – which some people achieve through "fruit," by eating extra delicacies on Shabbat so they add more Berachot. The next verse then says, "Haberim Makshibim Le'kolech" – "friends heeding your voice," alluding to attentively listening to the Torah reading, which is the other method of reaching the required 100 blessings. Rabbi Bitan notes that in light of this Halacha, it seems that one should not respond "Baruch Hu U'baruch Shemo" to Hashem's Name in the blessings recited over the Torah reading. Since one needs to be considered as though he recites these Berachot, so he can reach a total of 100 blessings, he should listen silently without saying "Baruch Hu U'baruch Shemo." Moreover, those who are called to the Torah should ensure to recite the Berachot loudly and clearly, so that everyone can hear the recitation. The Mishna Berura writes that if one listens attentively to the Hazan's repetition of the Amida, then he is considered to have recited those Berachot, and they count toward his total of 100 Berachot. The Abudarham (Spain, 14 th century), quoted by the Bet Yosef, goes even further, saying that one is considered to have recited the Hazan's blessings by listening to them, and then, by answering "Amen," he receives credit again for all those Berachot. According to the Abudarham, then, one can be credited with 57 Berachot at each weekday Shaharit and Minha. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) finds an allusion to this concept – that listening to the Hazan's repetition counts as the recitation of Berachot – in the verse, "L'Hashem Ha'yeshu'a Al Amcha Birchatecha Sela" (Tehillim 3:9). This could be read to mean that G-d's salvation is upon those who bless Him "Sela" – who recite 95 blessings, the numerical value of "Sela." By listening to the Hazan's repetition, one is considered as though he recites 38 Berachot (19 X 2) at Shaharit, another 38 at Minha, and 19 at Arbit (when the Hazan does not repeat the Amida), for a total of 95. However, the Shulhan Aruch clearly disagreed with this opinion. In presenting the way to reach 100 Berachot each day, he makes no mention at all of the Hazan's repetition, indicating that he did not feel that this counts toward the required 100 daily blessings. Some Poskim proposed that one can be considered to have recited 100 Berachot simply by reciting the blessing of "Modim" in the Amida with concentration. The word "Modim" in Gematria equals 100, and thus reciting this Beracha properly, with Kavana, is equivalent to reciting 100 blessings. Others suggest that this can be achieved through the recitation in Shaharit, after Shema, of the phrase "Ve'yasib Ve'nachon Ve'kayam…Ve'yafeh." This clause consists of 15 words which begin with the letter Vav, which in Gematria equals 6, for a total of 90. The next two words – "Ha'dabar Ha'zeh" – both begin with the letter Heh, which in Gematria equals 5, thus adding another 10, for a total of 100. By reciting these words with this in mind, one can perhaps be considered to have recited 100 Berachot. The Shiboleh Ha'leket (Rav Sidkiya Ben Abraham, Rome, 13 th century) writes that the recitation of "En K'Elokenu" adds an additional 12 Berachot to one's total. This prayer begins, "En K'Elokenu, En K'Adonenu, En Ke'Malkenu, En Ke'Moshi'enu" – four phrases that begin with the word "En." It continues with the same four phrases but that begin with "Mi," followed by these four phrases beginning with the word "Nodeh." The first letters of "En," "Mi" and "Nodeh" are Alef, Mem and Nun, which spell "Amen." Reciting this hymn, therefore, is akin to answering "Amen," and by answering "Amen" one is considered to have recited a Beracha. These three lines, then, can qualify as 12 Berachot (as each line contains four phrases). Other Poskim, however, are skeptical as to whether this recitation is really effective to be considered as the recitation of Berachot. The Ben Ish Hai, in Parashat Vayesheb, brings a source that suggests a different way of reaching 100 Berachot: reciting seven or ten times each day the verses of "Va'yebarech David" (Divrei Hayamim I 29:10-12), which contains a Beracha ("Baruch Ata Hashem Elokeh Yisrael…") and reciting after each time the verse "Baruch Ata Hashem Lamedeni Hukecha" (Tehillim 119:12). This recitation qualifies as the recitation of 100 Berachot. This practice is recommended for women, who do not recite as many Berachot as men, and thus face a challenge trying to reach a total of 100 Berachot each day. (As we saw in an earlier installment, Hacham Ovadia maintained that women are included in the obligation to recite 100 daily Berachot.) Hacham Ovadia Yosef had the practice of smelling different fragrant items over the course of Shabbat in order to add more Berachot. One who smells Hadas branches recites "Boreh Aseh Besamim"; before smelling mint leaves one recites "Boreh Asbeh Besamim"; over the scent of a fragrant fruit one recites "Ha'noten Re'ah Tob Ba'perot"; and over perfume one recites "Boreh Mineh Besamim." By smelling different items at different points over the course of Shabbat, one can add more Berachot. One can recite a new Beracha over a fragrance after "Heseh Ha'da'at" – meaning, when he smells it again after it was no longer on his mind. Normally, if a person has a fragrant plant requiring the Beracha of "Aseh Besamim," another which requires "Asbeh Besamim," and a third whose Beracha is uncertain, he simply recites the Brachot over the first two, having mind to cover the third. However, Hacham Ben Sion Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) writes that on Shabbat, one should first recite the generic blessing of "Boreh Mineh Besamim" over the questionable plant, and then recite the Berachot over the other two, in order to have the opportunity to recite an additional Beracha. Although we generally discourage unnecessarily putting oneself into a position to recite a Beracha ("Beracha She'ena Sericha"), this is permitted on Shabbat for the purpose of reaching a total of 100 blessings.

This week's learning is sponsored by Helen Danczak. "My dear Uncle Phil passed on August 27 with family at hand. He was the kind of uncle that the kids (of all ages) gravitated to. I am not alone in saying he was my favorite uncle. He is missed. May his neshama have an aliyah." Today's daf is sponsored by Audrey Levant in honor of Deborah Dickson. "Happy birthday to Hadran’s newest wonderful addition to the team. I’m excited to start another (school) year of learning with you, my friend!” The Mishna teaches that if the Beit Din teaches an erroneous ruling and an individual follows, the individual does not have to bring a sin offering. However, the Gemara will later explain that this is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but the rabbis disagree and obligate the individual. If the Beit Din teaches an erroneous ruling and a judge or student who has reached a stage of one who can issue halakhic rulings realizes they have made a mistake but follows their ruling anyway, he is obligated to bring a sin offering. If the court issues an erroneous ruling and the majority of the community follow it, there is an obligation to bring a special sacrifice called ‘the bull offering of an unwitting communal sin (par he’elem davar shel tzibur). Shmuel and Rav Dimi disagree about the language that must be used by the court for it to be considered “an erroneous ruling of the court.” Three sources are brought to support Rav Dimi’s position. In a second version of the debate, they switch positions, and the sources are raised as difficulties against Rav Dimi. The Mishna described the actions of the individual who is exempt when sinning by following an erroneous ruling of the court using the words “shogeg al pihem, unwitting by their words.” In two different versions of Rava’s explanation of this term, it either refers to two different cases or to one. If it refers to two, it would include an exemption in an additional case – if the court ruled by mistake that a piece of forbidden fat was permitted, and the individual meant to eat a piece of permitted fat, but accidentally ate the piece that the court permitted. Even though Rava had an answer to that question (obligated or exempt, depending on the different versions of Rava’s explanation), Rami bar Hama asked the same question and did not know the answer. Again, in two different versions, Rava answers the question by explaining the term in the Mishna. However, Rami bar Hama rejects his answer as the term is ambiguous. The Mishna lists various ways in which the individual or a judge/student can potentially follow a ruling of the court. What is the significance of the order in each case? How is a “teacher capable of issuing halakhic rulings" defined, and why was it necessary to include this category in addition to that of a judge? The Gemara quotes two braitot, one explaining the source for Rabbi Yehuda’s position in the Mishna, exempting an individual who follows the court, and the other explaining the source for the rabbis' dissenting opinion obligating an individual who follows the court. The latter braita is complicated to understand, and the Gemara irons out its meaning and shows how it reflects the rabbis' position.  

The Gemara in Masechet Menahot (43) cites a verse in the Book of Debarim (10:12) in which Moshe Rabbenu turns to Beneh Yisrael and says, "Ma Hashem Elokecha Sho'el Me'imach" – "What does Hashem your G-d ask of you?" Moshe proceeds to explain that Hashem asks that we fear Him and obey His commands. The Gemara, however, comments that the word "Ma" in this verse may be read as "Me'a" – one hundred. This means that we are required to recite 100 Berachot each day, and this is what Hashem wants from us. It seems from the Gemara that source of this obligation is the word "Ma," which is read as though it is written "Me'a." Some commentators, however, understood the Gemara's inference from this verse differently. The Shiboleh Ha'leket (Rav Sidkiya Ben Abraham Ha'rofeh, Italy, 13 th century) noted that this verse contains 100 letters, and thus the Sages found in this verse an allusion to the requirement of 100 daily blessings. In truth, this verse contains only 99 letters, but since the Gemara reads the word "Ma" as "Me'a," which contains an additional letter (an Alef), the total reaches 100. Others explain that this inference is based on the "Atbash" system, whereby a letter can be substituted with its corresponding letter at the opposite end of the alphabet (e.g. Alef is replaced by Tav; Bet is replaced by Shin, Gimmel is replaced by Resh, etc.). In the system of "Atbash," the letters that form the word "Ma" – Mem and Heh – become Yud and Sadi, which have the combined numerical value of 100, alluding to the 100 daily Berachot. Another allusion to this requirement is found in the verse in Tehillim (128:4), "Hineh Ki Chen Yeborach Gaber Yereh Hashem" ("Behold, this is how a G-d-fearing man shall be blessed"). The word "Ki" in Gematria equals 30, and the word "Chen" equals 70, for a total of 100, such that the phrase "Ki Chen Yeborach Gaber" may be read to mean that a man should recite 100 Berachot. As the Gemara inferred this requirement from a verse in the Torah, we might conclude that this constitutes a Biblical obligation, mandated by the Torah. This is, in fact, the view taken by the Ba'al Halachot Gedolot, in his listing of the 613 Misvot. Rav Shlomo Ibn Gabirol, in his "Azharot" poem which lists the 613 Biblical commands following the view of the Behag (and which we customarily chant on Shabuot), makes reference to this requirement ("U'mi'berachot Tasmid Me'at Ha'nigmarim"). By contrast, the Rambam maintained that this obligation was enacted later, by the Sages. The Sefer Ha'yere'im (Rav Eliezer of Metz, France, 1140-1237) similarly maintained that this requirement was instituted by the Ansheh Kenesset Ha'gedola ("Men of the Great Assembly") at the beginning of the Second Commonwealth. According to this view, the inference from the verse in Debarim is meant as an allusion to a law enacted by the Sages, and is not the actual source of this requirement. A third opinion is that of the Shiboleh Ha'leket and others, who maintained that this obligation was verbally transmitted as a "Halacha Le'Moshe Mi'Sinai" – a law taught to Moshe at Sinai, without having been written in the Torah. At first glance, we might question the view of the Behag and Shiboleh Ha'leket based on the Midrash's comment that it was King David who instituted the recitation of 100 Berachot each day. The Midrash relates that a devastating plague ravaged the nation during the reign of King David, killing 100 people every day. David determined that to end the plague, everyone must recite 100 daily blessings. (David later refers to himself as "Hukam Al" (Shemuel II 23:1), which could be read to mean, "the one who established 'Al,' as the word "Al" in Gematria equals 100, an allusion to the 100 Berachot which David instituted.) Seemingly, if this constitutes a Biblical obligation, or a requirement transmitted orally since the time of Moshe Rabbenu, then there would be no need for David to introduce this law. The answer, it would seem, is that the people were lax in their fulfillment of this obligation, and so David ordered the people to be more scrupulous in this regard and ensure to recite 100 blessings every day. A fascinating theory regarding the origins of this obligation was advanced by Rav Aharon Amarillo (1700-1772), in his work Peneh Aharon. He writes that Moshe Rabbenu instituted the requirement to recite 100 Berachot each day at the time of the construction of the Mishkan. The wooden planks that formed the structure of the Mishkan were inserted into "Adanim" – sockets embedded in the ground. In all, there were one hundred sockets, which together formed the base and foundation of the Mishkan. The word "Me'a," Rav Amarillo writes, is an acrostic representing the words "Me'at Adneh Ha'Mishkan" – "the one hundred sockets of the Mishkan." The 100 daily blessings were instituted to correspond to the 100 sockets of the Mishkan. The question naturally arises, what connection is there between the "Adanim" and Berachot? Why are the 100 daily blessings associated with the sockets that formed the base of the Mishkan? We can perhaps answer this question based a discussion by Rav Yosef Salant (Jerusalem, 1885-1981), in his Be'er Yosef, regarding the symbolism of the "Adanim." He writes that the Mishkan itself represents the Misvot that the Torah commands us to observe, and the sockets represent the foundation of it all, the pillar upon which the entire Torah rests. And that pillar, Rav Salant explains, is Emuna – faith in Hashem. Our faith in Hashem as the Creator who governs and controls everything is the foundation upon which all of Torah is based. If so, then we can perhaps understand the association between the "Adanim" and the Berachot that we recite. Numerous times each day, we are required to take a few moments and recite a Beracha, with Kavana (concentration), reminding ourselves of Hashem's involvement in the world and in our lives. Indeed, the word "Beracha" in Gematria equals 227 – the same Gematria as the word "Zecher" – "remembrance." The purpose of Berachot is to remind us of Hashem's existence and control over the world. And, in fact, the verse from which the Gemara derived this obligation tells us that what Hashem asks is "Le'yir'a Et Hashem Elokecha" – that we "fear" Hashem, meaning, that we live with an awareness of His unlimited power and His greatness. Accordingly, the 100 Berachot we recite each day are truly the ''foundation" of Torah life, as they serve to reinforce our Emuna. For good reason, then, the Berachot we recite are associated with the "Adanim," which comprised the foundation of the Mishkan and thus symbolize faith, the foundation of the entire Torah. A number of sources speak of the great reward which one earns through the proper fulfillment of this obligation – reciting 100 Berachot each day with concentration, and pronouncing each word correctly. (For example, one must ensure that the words "Baruch Ata" do not sound like "Baru Chata," and to recite "Melech Ha'olam," and not "Melecholam," skipping the syllable "Ha-.") The Ba'al Ha'Turim (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, 1270-1340) writes that those who fulfill this Misva are rewarded with long life. Commenting on the verse, "And you who cling to Hashem your G-d, you are all alive today" (Debarim 4:4), the Ba'al Ha'Turim observes the custom followed in some communities to add a crown in the Torah scroll above the letter Kof in the word "Ha'debekim" ("who are attached") in this verse. This crown, he explains, emphasizes that we attach ourselves to Hashem through the 100 blessings we recite each day – as the letter Kof in Gematria equals 100, and the reward for reciting these Berachot is "Haim Kulechem Hayom" – long life. The Seder Ha'yom (Rav Moshe Ben Machir, Safed, 16 th century) adds that when one recites a Beracha properly, the Beracha ascends to G-d in the heavens, and He takes the Beracha and embeds it into His "crown." Hashem's "crown," as it were, is made from the Berachot which we recite properly with Kavana. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) would advise people experiencing hardship to devote themselves to the meticulous observance of this Misva, and try to recite 100 Berachot each day with proper attention and concentration. The verse from which the Gemara inferred this obligation begins with the letter Vav ("Ve'ata Yisrael") and ends with the letter Chaf ("Nafeshecha"), and these letters have the combined numerical value of 26 – the Gematria of the divine Name of "Havaya." The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) thus writes that the fulfillment of this Misva saves a person from the dreadful punishments described in the section of the "Kelalot" ("curses") in Parashat Ki-Tabo, a section in which the Name "Havaya" appears 26 times. Moreover, this section contains 98 curses, and also includes a warning about "every ailment and every punishment which is not mentioned in this book" (Debarim 28:61) – adding another two curses, for a total of 100. We protect against these 100 curses through the recitation of 100 Berachot each day. Additionally, the Zohar Hadash teaches that we remain in exile because of our failure to properly observe this requirement to recite 100 Berachot each day. It emerges, then, that our commitment to properly fulfill this obligation helps end our long, bitter exile and bring our final redemption. The Arizal taught that the 100 daily Berachot allow us to harness the power of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet – the letters that Hashem used to create the world. The 100 daily blessings are, according to Kabbalistic teaching, associated with the 22 letters, and we thus benefit from the spiritual force of these letters by properly reciting 100 Berachot every day. The Gemara in Masechet Menahot (43b) tells that Rabbi Hiyya went out of his way to purchase special foods for Shabbat and Yom Tob in order to ensure he would recite 100 Berachot. On Shabbat and Yom Tob, the Amida prayer contains far fewer blessings than the weekday Amida prayer, making it more challenging to reach a total of 100 Berachot. Rabbi Hiyya thus made a point of having additional foods on Shabbat and Yom Tob so he would have more Berachot to recite. The Hida, in his work Mahazik Beracha (290), noted the Gemara's implication that this practice marked a special measure of piety on Rabbi Hiyya's part. The Gemara appears to laud Rabbi Hiyya for his piety – indicating that this was not strictly required. The Hida thus suggests that reciting 100 Berachot each day does not constitute a strict Halachic obligation, but is rather a worthwhile practice to follow. The consensus view among the Poskim, however, is that this is indeed a strict obligation. The Petah Ha'debir (Rav Haim Binyamin Pontremoli, Turkey, d. 1872) explains that Rabbi Hiyya was praised for fulfilling the Misva at the highest standard – going out of his way to buy special delicacies, rather than buying simpler foods. But ensuring to recite 100 blessings is a strict requirement, and not just a measure of piety. Hacham Ovadia Yosef adds that there are ways to reach a total of 100 Berachot without actually reciting Berachot, but Rabbi Hiyya chose not to rely on these leniencies, and instead went out to buy food so he could recite 100 blessings on Shabbat and Yom Tob. Indeed, the Shulhan Aruch explicitly rules that one is required to recite 100 Berachot each day. The Poskim indicate that 100 Berachot is a minimum amount, and not an exact amount. Hacham Ovadia notes that from the explanation mentioned earlier associating the 100 daily Berachot with the 100 sockets beneath the Mishkan, one might conclude that we must recite precisely 100 Berachot, and no more, but this is not the Halacha. One must recite at least 100 Berachot, but certainly may recite more. The Rambam, in Hilchot Tefila, brings a custom that some observed to count the Berachot that one recites over the course of the day. This was the practice of Hacham Ovadia Yosef on Shabbat, when it is more difficult to reach a total of 100 blessings, as he wanted to ensure to fulfill this obligation. It is told that the Brisker Rav (Rav Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik, 1886-1959) would count the Berachot he recited every day, following this custom mentioned by the Rambam.

This week's learning is dedicated by Carolyn Hochstadter, Adam Dicker and family on the 17th yahrzeit of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla v'Baruch this Monday, 8 Elul. "'Dad' was a holocaust survivor who was saved via the Kindertransport, came to Canada and met 'Ma' in Montreal. Together, they built a family, business, community, and legacy of support and love for Medinat Yisrael. We miss you and are managing to catch up on some of your reading material, including Menachem Elon's Mishpat Ivri — to which Hadran's Daf Yomi has given so much background and context. We continue to laugh at your jokes and follow your wise guidance. And also in honor of today's pidyon haben of our first Sabra grandchild, Zecharia Ami - Zach. Saba and Savta would be proud." Today's daf is sponsored by Rochel Cheifetz in commemoration of her husband’s, Aryeh Leib ben Yehuda, Lenny Cheifetz's,  33rd yahrzeit. "You were taken much too soon. But I thank HKB"H for the time we were blessed with your smile, goodness, sense of humor, and love. Yehi zichro baruch."  Today's daf is sponsored by Emma Rinberg for a refuah shlemah for her son Joseph, Yosef Yitzchak Nisan Ben Nechama Leah Esther, who is having surgery today to repair a broken femur after a bike accident. The Mishna lists various items that are forbidden to derive benefit from and remain prohibited even in the smallest amount when mixed with permitted substances. The Gemara asks and explains why certain items are not included in the Mishna’s list. If yayin nesech falls into a pit, the entire quantity of wine becomes forbidden. However, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel ruled that the mixture may be sold, provided the value of the yayin nesech is deducted from the sale price. There is a debate among the amoraim about whether we rule like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in all cases, or only in specific situations—such as when a barrel of yayin nesech is mixed with a barrel of permitted wine, as opposed to a smaller quantity of forbidden wine that is mixed into a jug or barrel of permitted wine. To kasher a winepress that was used by or prepared by a non-Jew, the process depends on the material from which the winepress is made and whether it was lined with pitch.

Several mishnayot: 1 - A long list of those items that are prohibited and in a mixture, prohibit the entire mixture in any amount. 2 - Libation wine that falls into a cistern prohibits the entire mixture, though it could be sold to an idolater, as long as the libation wine itself is not compensated. 3 - If a stone wine press is covered with pitch, by a non-Jew, and then covered in wine - that is usable. But if it were made of wood - that might be usable (with cleaning), or the alternate view - peel off the pitch altogether. If earthenware, there's no usability. Also, the Gemara delves into how to purify a wine press.

1 section- proofs to their positions within R' Yehuda about "hana'ah ba'al korcho" in case of "unavoidable but intend to enjoy" as explained in the second approach of the Gemara above

1 section- proofs to their positions within R' Yehuda about "hana'ah ba'al korcho" in case of "unavoidable but intend to enjoy" as explained in the second approach of the Gemara above

The resolution to the second difficulty against Rav Ashi's position is rejected, and the Gemara concludes that pulling does affect acquisition for a non-Jew. The Mishna on Avodah Zarah 71 stresses the issue of agreement on price as a precondition for acquisition. Some situations arose regarding this issue in selling property. At first, Rav Yosef and Abaye disagree about whether or not the same principle applies in a sale, as the Mishna only discussed it about yayin nesech. However, the Gemara concludes that Abaye is correct, that the same logic applies for both, based on a ruling of Rav Huna, which was based on a Mishna in Bava Batra 85b. However, in a different case, there is a further debate about whether this holds, albeit under more unique circumstances. The Mishna discusses two cases. In the first case, a Jew pours wine through a funnel into the non-Jew's jug. If there are some droplets of wine in the funnel, they are prohibited. If the Jew pours wine from a vessel into another vessel, the wine in the first vessel is permitted, while the wine in the second vessel is prohibited. The Gemara first quotes a Mishna in Taharot 8:9 relating to the issue of nitzok, a stream of water, as regards impurity. If water that streams down becomes impure, i.e., is poured into an impure vessel, it does not affect the water at the top that has not entered the vessel. Rav Huna, however, ruled that the upper liquid would be forbidden in a parallel case of yayin nesech.  

The Mishna discusses the laws of nullification regarding yayin nesech (wine used for idolatry) that becomes mixed with permitted wine. It distinguishes between wine mixed with wine (min b’minu—same substance), which is forbidden in any amount, and wine mixed with water (min b’she’eino mino—different substance), which is prohibited only if it imparts taste. Rav Dimi quotes Rabbi Yochanan as saying that if one pours yayin nesech from a barrel into a pit of kosher wine, each drop is immediately nullified upon contact. The Gemara raises three challenges to Rav Dimi’s interpretation based on the Mishna, and resolves them by reinterpreting the cases in the Mishna. Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef offers a narrower understanding of Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling—limiting it to pouring from a jug into a barrel, but not from a barrel into a pit. Ravin also transmits a halakha in Rabbi Yochanan’s name regarding a mixture that includes a forbidden item combined with both a similar and a different substance. In such a case, the forbidden item is nullified by the different substance (e.g., yayin nesech mixed with wine and water), while the similar substance is viewed as if it is not there. Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda also quotes Rabbi Yochanan, but there are two versions of his statement. In one version, he disagrees with Ravin and limits the ruling to cases where the different substance was present first. In the other version, his comment refers to the Mishna, and he actually agrees with Ravin. A debate between Chizkiya and Rabbi Yochanan also concerns a case where a forbidden item is mixed with both a similar and a different substance. What is the underlying basis of their disagreement? Rav and Shmuel dispute the position of Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding whether the distinction between mixtures of the same type and mixtures of different types applies universally to all prohibited items, or only to yayin nesech and tevel (untithed produce). The Gemara explains why the rabbis would have adopted a stricter approach with those two prohibitions.

We recite in the morning a special Beracha thanking Hashem for enabling us to wake up refreshed and reinvigorated after a night's sleep – "Ha'ma'abir Hebleh Shena Me'enai U'tnufa Me'af'apai." We then proceed immediately to the "Vi'yhi Rason" prayer, which concludes, "Baruch Ata Hashem Ha'gomel Hasadim Tobim Le'amo Yisrael." The Beracha of "Ha'ma'abir Hebleh Shena" and the subsequent "Vi'yhi Rason" prayer are considered a single, lengthy blessing. Therefore, somebody who hears another person reciting the Beracha of "Ha'ma'abir Hebleh Shena" does not answer "Amen" when that person completes the words "Al Af'apai," because this blessing continues with "Vi'yhi Rason." One answers "Amen" only at the end, after hearing the recitation of "Ha'gomel Hasadim Tobim Le'amo Yisrael." There is a general rule requiring that when a lengthy Beracha is recited, the conclusion must resemble the beginning; meaning, the end of the Beracha must speak of the same theme with which the Beracha opened. At first glance, the lengthy Beracha of "Ha'ma'abir Hebleh Shena" violates this rule, as it begins by speaking of Hashem allowing us to wake up refreshed in the morning, and concludes with the more general statement that Hashem performs kindness for the Jewish People ("Ha'gomel Hasadim Tobim…"). Tosafot, cited by the Bet Yosef, explains that in truth, the beginning and conclusion of this Beracha are indeed the same, only that the Beracha begins with a specific kindness that Hashem performs, and concludes with a general statement about Hashem's kindness. We open this Beracha by mentioning Hashem's restoring our strength and alertness in the morning, and we end by thanking Him for always acting kindly toward us. Further insight into this Beracha may be gleaned from the Midrash Tehillim (25:2), which teaches that Hashem returns our souls to us in the morning in better condition than when we went to sleep. Normally, the Midrash states, when somebody lends an object, he receives it back in slightly worse condition; it experienced at least some degree of-wear and-tear in the borrower's possession. But after we entrust our souls to G-d at night, He cleanses them for us, and returns them to us pure and pristine. This is, indeed, a great act of kindness that we experience each and every morning, warranting the recitation of a special Beracha. The text of this Beracha that appears in the Talmud is written in the singular form ("Me'enai… Me'af'apai," etc.), and this is the text brought by the Rif, Rambam and Rosh. Accordingly, the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) and the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Israel, 1870-1939) ruled that this Beracha should be recited in the singular form. The Ben Ish Hai adds that in the Siddur of the Rashash (Rav Shalom Sharabi, 1720-1777), which was written based on deep Kabbalistic teachings, this Beracha appears in the singular form. By contrast, the Mishna Berura brings several Poskim (the Kenesset Ha'gedola, Magen Abraham and Mateh Yehuda) as stating that this blessing should be recited in the plural form. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, in Halichot Olam, refutes the proofs brought by the Ben Ish Hai, noting that we do not always follow the precise text of Berachot that appears in the Gemara. (For example, we recite the Beracha of "Ha'noten La'sechvi Bina," which appears in the Gemara in past tense – "Asher Natan La'sechvi Bina.") And as for the Siddur of the Rashash, there are different versions of this work, as according to tradition, the original manuscript was buried by the Rashash's son. Therefore, no proof can be brought from the Siddur of the Rashash. Accordingly, Hacham Ovadia ruled that those communities who have the custom to recite this Beracha in the plural form should follow their custom. This was, in the fact, the custom among the Jewish community of Damascus. This is also the practice among Ashkenazim. Most Sepharadim, however, recite this Beracha in the singular form, following the opinion of the Ben Ish Hai and Kaf Ha'haim.

Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi's brother Dr. Dennis Lock on his yahrtzeit. He was a loving husband, father, uncle, and grandfather, a devoted physician; and had a love of learning Talmud. He is sorely missed. Today's daf is sponsored by Rachel Bayefsky and Michael Francus in honor of their baby daughter Avital Temima, born 12 Av/August 6. "She is already listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcast during feedings! May she grow up to love learning." If a fleet enters a city during peacetime, any open wine barrels are deemed forbidden due to the concern that the soldiers may have drunk from them. In contrast, during wartime, it is assumed they would not have had time to drink, and therefore the wine is not considered to have been used for libations. However, a conflicting source suggests that even in times of war, the women of the city may have been raped. Rav Meri resolves this contradiction by distinguishing between the concern of rape and the concern of wine consumption. The Mishna discusses how a Jewish laborer who is paid in wine by a non-Jew can request monetary compensation in a manner that avoids the prohibition of benefiting from yayin nesech (wine used for idolatrous purposes). It raises the question: can a non-Jew pay a wine tax to the king on behalf of a Jew, or would that be prohibited due to the Jew deriving benefit from yayin nesech? The Mishna further rules that when a Jew sells wine to a non-Jew, the price must be agreed upon before the wine is poured into the non-Jew’s container. If not, the wine is considered to be in the non-Jew’s possession before the sale is finalized, and the Jew would be benefiting from yayin nesech. Ameimar and Rav Ashi debate whether the act of pulling an item (meshicha) constitutes a valid acquisition (kinyan) for non-Jews. Rav Ashi, who holds that it does not, cites Rav’s instruction to wine sellers to ensure they receive payment before measuring out the wine. However, the Gemara offers an alternative explanation for Rav’s directive. A challenge is raised against Ameimar’s view, and two difficulties are posed against Rav Ashi—one stemming from our Mishna. Ultimately, all objections are resolved.