Podcasts about Gemara

Gemara Chabura - Rabbi Karlinsky - Hilchos Yichud 14 by Shapell's Rabbeim

Unlock the profound wisdom of Jewish tradition and discover the mitzvah of owning Torah books with us. In this episode, we embark on an exploration of Siman 28 of the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, discussing the sacred obligation of writing or commissioning a Sefer Torah. We'll also reveal how acquiring other Jewish texts, like the Chumash, Mishnah, or Gemara, can fulfill this mitzvah, even for those who cannot commission a full Torah scroll. We'll highlight the accessibility of these sacred texts through publishers like ArtScroll, emphasizing their role in making Torah study available to all.As we continue our journey, I'll take you through the historical and cultural tapestry that underscores the reverence of holy books and scrolls within Jewish communities. Learn about the halachic guidelines that govern the handling and storage of sacred texts, as well as the practices that reflect these guidelines—such as standing when a Torah scroll is carried and ensuring holy books are treated with respect. Delve into the communal learning traditions shaped by the historic rarity and expense of these texts, and how these practices have helped preserve their sanctity over the ages.Finally, we'll explore the respectful use of Torah books and Judaica, focusing on the limitations and proper disposal practices that honor these sacred items. Discover the nuances of handling holy writings, including the respectful rebinding of books and the ethical considerations when purchasing sacred items from non-Jews. Through engaging discussions and insights, this episode illuminates the importance of upholding reverence for our treasured Torah books, ensuring their dignified treatment for generations to come. Join us for a meaningful reflection on these timeless practices that keep the sanctity and reverence of our sacred texts alive.To have your questions featured on the Ask Away series, 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. #41) 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 8, 2025, in Houston, Texas.Released as Podcast on June 18, 2025_____________DONATE to TORCH: Please consider supporting the podcasts by making a donation to help fund our Jewish outreach and educational efforts at https://www.torchweb.org/support.php. Thank you!_____________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 https://www.TORCHpodcasts.com_____________EMAIL your questions, comments, and feedback: awolbe@torchweb.org_____________Please visit www.torchweb.org to see a full listing of our outreach and educational resources available in the Greater Houston area!_____________#AskAway, #Halacha, #Jewishlaw, #TorahBooks, #SeferTorah, #Chumash, #Mishnah, #Gemara, #HolyBooks, #Scrolls ★ Support this podcast ★

Unlock the profound wisdom of Jewish tradition and discover the mitzvah of owning Torah books with us. In this episode, we embark on an exploration of Siman 28 of the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, discussing the sacred obligation of writing or commissioning a Sefer Torah. We'll also reveal how acquiring other Jewish texts, like the Chumash, Mishnah, or Gemara, can fulfill this mitzvah, even for those who cannot commission a full Torah scroll. We'll highlight the accessibility of these sacred texts through publishers like ArtScroll, emphasizing their role in making Torah study available to all.As we continue our journey, I'll take you through the historical and cultural tapestry that underscores the reverence of holy books and scrolls within Jewish communities. Learn about the halachic guidelines that govern the handling and storage of sacred texts, as well as the practices that reflect these guidelines—such as standing when a Torah scroll is carried and ensuring holy books are treated with respect. Delve into the communal learning traditions shaped by the historic rarity and expense of these texts, and how these practices have helped preserve their sanctity over the ages.Finally, we'll explore the respectful use of Torah books and Judaica, focusing on the limitations and proper disposal practices that honor these sacred items. Discover the nuances of handling holy writings, including the respectful rebinding of books and the ethical considerations when purchasing sacred items from non-Jews. Through engaging discussions and insights, this episode illuminates the importance of upholding reverence for our treasured Torah books, ensuring their dignified treatment for generations to come. Join us for a meaningful reflection on these timeless practices that keep the sanctity and reverence of our sacred texts alive.To have your questions featured on the Ask Away series, 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. #41) 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 8, 2025, in Houston, Texas.Released as Podcast on June 18, 2025_____________DONATE to TORCH: Please consider supporting the podcasts by making a donation to help fund our Jewish outreach and educational efforts at https://www.torchweb.org/support.php. Thank you!_____________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 https://www.TORCHpodcasts.com_____________EMAIL your questions, comments, and feedback: awolbe@torchweb.org_____________Please visit www.torchweb.org to see a full listing of our outreach and educational resources available in the Greater Houston area!_____________#AskAway, #Halacha, #Jewishlaw, #TorahBooks, #SeferTorah, #Chumash, #Mishnah, #Gemara, #HolyBooks, #Scrolls ★ Support this podcast ★

When both parties are untrustworthy and cannot take an oath, Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Meir disagree about the proper procedure. A debate emerges about who holds which opinion, as one maintains the money should be split while the other argues that the oath returns to its original place, though it remains unclear which rabbi said which. Additionally, there is disagreement about the meaning of the position stating "the oath returns to its place." Rabbi Ami explains that one position is held by the rabbis in Israel while the other belongs to the rabbis in Babylonia. Rav Pappa clarifies that the Babylonian rabbis are Rav and Shmuel, while the Israeli position is represented by Rabbi Abba. Shimon ben Tarfon offers several statements concerning the importance of associating with the right people and avoiding the wrong ones. The Gemara examines the case of a storekeeper who was asked to pay someone's workers. The workers claim they never received payment while the storekeeper insists he paid them. The question arises whether Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agreed with the Mishna's opinion that each party can take an oath to get paid by the employer. Another issue concerns contradictory witness testimony. If two groups of witnesses contradict each other in court, can they be believed to testify in a different case? Or since we know one group certainly lied, should we reject both groups' testimony in future cases? Rav Huna and Rav Chisda each take different positions on this matter.

Rabbi Yehudah's opinion is that a worker could take an oath for an employer (and collect the funds), and the Gemara works to figure out the source for this halakhah. But that kind of dispute can't be about wages... Also, in the name of Rabbi Yehudah - when someone leaves another home with objects concealed beneath his clothes - that's suspect (when he says he bought the items), unless it's actually not suspect for a whole host of potential reasons.

A very long mishnah beginning on the previous daf to open chapter 7 -- about oaths that are rabbinic in nature. Also, some Gemara on the mishnah - that on who takes the oath gets out of paying - with a sourcetext in Exodus 22.

Gemara Chabura - Rabbi Karlinsky - Hilchos Yichud 13 by Shapell's Rabbeim

Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim (Weiss) on the occasion of the Bat Mitzvah of her granddaughter Tamar Chava Baumser. "She demonstrates that there are no boundaries to acts of gemulat chasidim." Today's daf is dedicated by the Hadran Zoom family in honor of Chani Farber and Saar Har-Chen, on the occasion of their wedding. We wish you a new home that will be grounded in the happiness that is promised to one who brings their learning always, as we learned with Chani's mother, Rabbanit Michelle: אַשְׁרִי מִי שֶׁבָּא לְכָאן וְתַלְמוּדוּ בְּיָדו. If the person who is obligated to take an oath by Torah law is not trustworthy, i.e. if they lied in a previous case or are in the category of those who are exempt from testifying, the obligation to take the oath is placed upon the other person. If one asks a storekeeper to pay their workers and they will pay back the storekeeper later, and the storekeeper claims that he/she paid them and the workers claim they were never paid, each of them takes an oath and the person needs to pay them both. Ben Nanas agrees that the person needs to pay both, but does not allow each side to take an oath as it creates a situation where clearly one side is taking a false oath. The Mishna lists other cases where there is a disagreement between a storekeeper and a buyer about whether the money was already paid or the item was given to the buyer. Who takes the oath in each case? Generally, when one holds a deed in hand, they have the upper hand. However, the Mishna mentions cases where the one holding the deed needs to take an oath in order to collect the money. The Gemara explains why the worker is believed to say he/she didn't get paid for a job performed. However, this halacha is qualified as only applying in a case where the time in which the worker should have been paid hasn't passed yet - once that time passes, there is an assumption that the employer paid the worker. Shmuel and Rav both hold that the worker can take this oath to get paid only if there were witnesses who saw the worker being hired. If not, the employer can claim he/she never hired the worker at all and therefore is believed by saying the worker was already paid because of a "migo." Rava disagrees with this.

What happens to a loan on collateral if the collateral is lost? A discussion that leads into an application of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer to Shmuel's position - which seems counter-historical in terms of how the Gemara is put together. Also, does the shemitah year cancel the debt that is loaned on collateral? Perhaps that depends on whether it's symbolic or covering the loan.

Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim (Weiss) on the occasion of the Bat Mitzvah of her granddaughter Tamar Chava Baumser. "She demonstrates that there are no boundaries to acts of gemulat chasidim." Today's daf is dedicated by the Hadran Zoom family in honor of Chani Farber and Saar Har-Chen, on the occasion of their wedding. We wish you a new home that will be grounded in the happiness that is promised to one who brings their learning always, as we learned with Chani's mother, Rabbanit Michelle: אַשְׁרִי מִי שֶׁבָּא לְכָאן וְתַלְמוּדוּ בְּיָדו. If the person who is obligated to take an oath by Torah law is not trustworthy, i.e. if they lied in a previous case or are in the category of those who are exempt from testifying, the obligation to take the oath is placed upon the other person. If one asks a storekeeper to pay their workers and they will pay back the storekeeper later, and the storekeeper claims that he/she paid them and the workers claim they were never paid, each of them takes an oath and the person needs to pay them both. Ben Nanas agrees that the person needs to pay both, but does not allow each side to take an oath as it creates a situation where clearly one side is taking a false oath. The Mishna lists other cases where there is a disagreement between a storekeeper and a buyer about whether the money was already paid or the item was given to the buyer. Who takes the oath in each case? Generally, when one holds a deed in hand, they have the upper hand. However, the Mishna mentions cases where the one holding the deed needs to take an oath in order to collect the money. The Gemara explains why the worker is believed to say he/she didn't get paid for a job performed. However, this halacha is qualified as only applying in a case where the time in which the worker should have been paid hasn't passed yet - once that time passes, there is an assumption that the employer paid the worker. Shmuel and Rav both hold that the worker can take this oath to get paid only if there were witnesses who saw the worker being hired. If not, the employer can claim he/she never hired the worker at all and therefore is believed by saying the worker was already paid because of a "migo." Rava disagrees with this.

Study Guide Shevuot 44 Is Shmuel's opinion—that a creditor who loses collateral cannot collect the loan even if the collateral was worth much less than the loan amount—the subject of a tannaitic debate? The Gemara suggests two possible tannaitic debates that could relate to this issue, but rejects both, since the basis for each argument can be explained differently. Generally, oaths are used to exempt defendants from payment. However, in several unique circumstances delineated in the Mishna, a claimant can take an oath in order to receive payment.

Study Guide Shevuot 44 Is Shmuel's opinion—that a creditor who loses collateral cannot collect the loan even if the collateral was worth much less than the loan amount—the subject of a tannaitic debate? The Gemara suggests two possible tannaitic debates that could relate to this issue, but rejects both, since the basis for each argument can be explained differently. Generally, oaths are used to exempt defendants from payment. However, in several unique circumstances delineated in the Mishna, a claimant can take an oath in order to receive payment.

Join me on Parsha and Prose for a dynamic conversation with Rabbi Shlomo Gemara, as we explore vital issues facing the Jewish people, Israel, and our community through the lens of Torah and literature. In this episode, we dive into the Torah portion Behalotcha, discussing the Haredi community's role in the Israel Defense Forces, with Rabbi Gemara emphasizing the unity of all Jews in defending our people during challenging times. We also reflect on important issues within the parsha including: Miriam and Aaron's lashon hara (gossip) against Moshe;, exploring how guarding our speech fosters moral integrity. Rabbi Gemara illuminates the menorah as a symbol of Jewish light, alongside the trumpet and manna, weaving a tapestry of spiritual resilience and meaning. This action-packed episode is a call to pride and purpose—Am Yisrael Chai! Subscribe, comment, and join us in celebrating Jewish wisdom and our beautiful peoplehood.

התוכן המן הי' "לחם מן השמים" שלא הי' בו פסולת, ואעפ"כ – כאו"א מישראל אכלו אותו. ואפי' הרשעים שבהם, שהיו צריכים לטרוח להכינו לאכילה [כמ"ש בגמ' בקשר למ"ש בשישי דפ' בהעלותך "שטו העם ולקטו וטחנו בריחים וגו'"], אכלו אותו. אף שזה לא פעל עליהם שיעשו תשובה בפועל, אבל בודאי שזה גרם להם "דחיפה" לזה. וההוראה: גם "לחם מן השמים", דקאי על קיום המצוות שמגיע לאדם בנקל בלי יגיעה (דלא כ"לחם מן הארץ" דקאי על מצוות שבאים ע"י יגיעה), נותנים לכאו"א מישראל, אפי' לרשעים, כדי להקל עליו עשיית התשובה. ועד"ז בנוגע ל"לחם מן השמים" בתורה דקאי על פנימיות התורה "דלית תמן לא קשיא כו' ולא מחלוקת", שאין למנוע זאת מאף יהודי, ועאכו"כ לא לנתקו מזה, כי הלימוד עצמו יעזור לו שיעשה תשובה (ובפרט שיכול להיות שהאדם שאותו הוא דוחה מלימוד פנימיות התורה, נעלה יותר ממנו..). משיחת יו"ד שבט ה'תשי"ז ל"הנחה פרטית" או התרגום ללה"ק של השיחה: https://thedailysicha.com/?date=13-06-2025 Synopsis Although the man was “bread from Heaven” that contained no waste, nevertheless every Jew was able to eat it, even the wicked (though they had to put in effort to prepare [as the Gemara says in connection with the verse in shishi of parashas Behaaloscha, “The people could walk about and gather it. They ground it in a mill…”]). Although eating the man didn't immediately cause them to do teshuvah, it certainly gave them a push in that direction. The lesson is that even “bread from heaven,” which refers to mitzvos that come easily to a person (as opposed to “bread from the earth,” which refers to mitzvos attained through effort), is given to every Jew, even to the wicked, to make it easier for them to do teshuvah. The same applies to “bread from heaven” in Torah – the inner dimension of Torah (“where there are no difficulties or disputes”): the inner dimension of Torah should not be withheld from any Jew, and certainly one should not tear a Jew away from it, because the very study of the inner dimension of Torah will assist them in doing teshuvah (especially considering that the person being pushed away might actually be on a higher level than the one pushing him away…).Excerpt from sichah of 10 Shevat 5717 For a transcript in English of the Sicha: https://thedailysicha.com/?date=13-06-2025 לזכות מרת פריידא הינדא תחי' טייטלבוים ליום ההולדת שלה י"ז סיון לשנת ברכה והצלחה, ואריכות ימים ושנים טובותנדבת בעלה ר' זאב הכהן שי' טייטלבוים

Join me on Parsha and Prose for a dynamic conversation with Rabbi Shlomo Gemara, as we explore vital issues facing the Jewish people, Israel, and our community through the lens of Torah and literature. In this episode, we dive into the Torah portion Behalotcha, discussing the Haredi community's role in the Israel Defense Forces, with Rabbi Gemara emphasizing the unity of all Jews in defending our people during challenging times. We also reflect on important issues within the parsha including: Miriam and Aaron's lashon hara (gossip) against Moshe;, exploring how guarding our speech fosters moral integrity. Rabbi Gemara illuminates the menorah as a symbol of Jewish light, alongside the trumpet and manna, weaving a tapestry of spiritual resilience and meaning. This action-packed episode is a call to pride and purpose—Am Yisrael Chai! Subscribe, comment, and join us in celebrating Jewish wisdom and our beautiful peoplehood.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould “in gratitude to HaShem for helping me to find a new partner to love and be loved by, and to walk with on a new journey.” The Gemara continues by presenting cases involving disputes between lenders and borrowers regarding debt repayment, along with the ruling given in each case. In the Mishna there is a contradiction because it is written that we do not administer oaths to a minor and it is also written that we administer oaths to a minor. Rav and Shmuel each interpret the case of administering oaths to a minor in different ways. Rav says it refers to a child who makes a claim for their deceased father's money, and therefore we administer an oath because the loan was to an adult, even though he is not the actual creditor who gave the money originally. According to his explanation, the Mishna matches the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov because the Sages disagree in such a case and do not obligate. The Gemara brings two different explanations to understand what the point of dispute is between Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and the Sages. Shmuel's explanation is that the Mishna refers to the oath of one who tries to collect his father's loan from an orphan. There is no oath for cases of land, slaves, documents, and consecrated property. Also, there are no laws of double, four and five payment, and oaths of guardians for these type of items. From where is this derived in the verses?

In this week's Parsha we have the story of Miriam getting Tzaraas. Thought it would be interesting to share a fascinating Gemara about Miriam and her marriage to Kalev Ben Yefunah, and the lessons we can learn from them.Have a good Shabbos

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould “in gratitude to HaShem for helping me to find a new partner to love and be loved by, and to walk with on a new journey.” The Gemara continues by presenting cases involving disputes between lenders and borrowers regarding debt repayment, along with the ruling given in each case. In the Mishna there is a contradiction because it is written that we do not administer oaths to a minor and it is also written that we administer oaths to a minor. Rav and Shmuel each interpret the case of administering oaths to a minor in different ways. Rav says it refers to a child who makes a claim for their deceased father's money, and therefore we administer an oath because the loan was to an adult, even though he is not the actual creditor who gave the money originally. According to his explanation, the Mishna matches the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov because the Sages disagree in such a case and do not obligate. The Gemara brings two different explanations to understand what the point of dispute is between Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and the Sages. Shmuel's explanation is that the Mishna refers to the oath of one who tries to collect his father's loan from an orphan. There is no oath for cases of land, slaves, documents, and consecrated property. Also, there are no laws of double, four and five payment, and oaths of guardians for these type of items. From where is this derived in the verses?

Gemara Chabura - Rabbi Karlinsky - Hilchos Yichud 12 by Shapell's Rabbeim

Today's daf is sponsored for a refuah shleima for Shmuel Henoch Yaakov Ben Chiyena. Rav Nachman instituted a shevuat heiset, a rabbinic oath, for defendants who completely denied a claim. There is debate about the exact circumstances under which Rav Nachman required this oath. What distinguishes a Torah-mandated oath from a rabbinically instituted one (heiset)? The Gemara presents three possible differences. Under what circumstances can a creditor demand that a debtor repay money in front of witnesses, such that without witnesses, the debtor's claim of having already repaid becomes invalid? The Gemara quotes two different versions of Rav Asi's position, as well as two different versions of Shmuel's response to Rav Asi. Their opinions are then questioned and explained in light of our Mishna. The Gemara presents four actual cases involving disputes between creditors and debtors, explaining how each case was ruled. In some instances, Abaye and Rava disagreed about the proper ruling.

Today's daf is sponsored for a refuah shleima for Shmuel Henoch Yaakov Ben Chiyena. Rav Nachman instituted a shevuat heiset, a rabbinic oath, for defendants who completely denied a claim. There is debate about the exact circumstances under which Rav Nachman required this oath. What distinguishes a Torah-mandated oath from a rabbinically instituted one (heiset)? The Gemara presents three possible differences. Under what circumstances can a creditor demand that a debtor repay money in front of witnesses, such that without witnesses, the debtor's claim of having already repaid becomes invalid? The Gemara quotes two different versions of Rav Asi's position, as well as two different versions of Shmuel's response to Rav Asi. Their opinions are then questioned and explained in light of our Mishna. The Gemara presents four actual cases involving disputes between creditors and debtors, explaining how each case was ruled. In some instances, Abaye and Rava disagreed about the proper ruling.

Join us in Jerusalem for Ohr Samayach's Inaugural Yarchei Kallah event from July 7th to 9th, 2025! Featuring HaRav Yitzchak Breitowitz shlit"a & HaRav Asher Weiss shlit"a and more Click here for more information.   Dont miss this one of a kind experience! ---------------------------------------------------- Dedication opportunities are available for episodes and series at  https://ohr.edu/donate/qa   Questions? Comments? podcasts@ohr.edu   0:00 thoughts on Shavuot 1:25 how different should shana rishona be to other years of marriage 6:30 why does the Torah want Shmita to cancel loans 16:10 how should we navigate our divine purpose today without any Neviim 27:50 is birth control evil, do some poskim permit it? 36:00 why dont we see women taking on the option of making a zimmun together 43:25 under what circumstances can Chazal make multiple drashot from one pasuk 47:15 to what extent should secular education be allowed 57:35 what was the curriculum of Shem's yeshiva 1:00:00 why did there need to be different shvatim and what will their role be in the future 1:07:05 did people in chutzla aretz have to keep 2 days of Yom Kippur for not knowing when Rosh Hodesh Tishrei was declared 1:11:05 why did the rishonim write so much on Seder nazikim 1:19:25 origin of dikduk in lashon hakodesh 1:28:00 do any of the agricultural laws of Eretz Yisrael apply to produce in Chutzla Aretz 1:30:10 is the shmoneh esrei bracha taken from parashat kodshim 1:31:35 is tanning a problem of beged isha 1:32:50 are there problems with haskamas given to sefarim   Yeshivat Ohr Somayach located in the heart of Jerusalem, is an educational institution for young Jewish English-speaking men. We have a range of classes and programs designed for the intellectually curious and academically inclined - for those with no background in Jewish learning to those who are proficient in Gemara and other original source material. To find the perfect program for you, please visit our website https://ohr.edu/study_in_israel​whatsapp us at https://bit.ly/OSREGISTER or call our placement specialist at 1-254-981-0133 today! Subscribe to the Rabbi Breitowitz Q&A Podcast at https://plnk.to/rbq&a   Submit questions for the Q&A with Rabbi Breitowitz https://forms.gle/VCZSK3wQJJ4fSd3Q7   Subscribe to our YouTube Channel at https://www.youtube.com/c/OhrSomayach/videos     You can listen to this and many other Ohr Somayach programs by downloading our app, on Apple and Google Play, ohr.edu and all major podcast platforms. Visit us @ https://ohr.edu  PRODUCED BY: CEDAR MEDIA STUDIOS  

התוכן 1) אודות ה"אנשים אשר היו טמאים לנפש אדם" (נשיאת ארון יוסף או ההתעסקות בנדב ואביהוא) שטענו למשה בי"ד ניסן "למה נגרע לבלתי הקריב את קרבן ה' במועדו", [כמסופר בשלישי דפ' בהעלותך], איתא בגמ' ש"חל שביעי שלהן להיות בערב פסח". זה שחיכו עד לרגע האחרון, י"ד ניסן, ולא פנו למשה בטענת "למה נגרע" כמה ימים לפנ"ז, וגם לא ביררו אצל משה קודם המעשה האם דבר זה לא יהא בסתירה להקרבת הפסח במועדו, הוא, דמכיון שהי' מדובר אודות ענין של גמ"ח של אמת, לא הי' אצלם ספק האם צריכים להתעסק בזה והיו בטוחים שבודאי ימצא פתרון לשאלה זו, ולא הוצרכו לשאול ולברר וכו' עד שבא הדבר לידי פועל. ומכאן למדים הוראה נפלאה בגודל הענין דאהבת ישראל, גמ"ח עם החיים, בגשמיות, ועד"ז בנוגע ל"עני" ברוחניות, שאין לדחות ההתעסקות בזה, ועאכו"כ בעקבתא דמשיחא וכו'. 2) להשתדל לרשום את ילדי ישראל למחנה קיץ שבו יקבלו חינוך ליר"ש, אהבת ישראל, התמדה ושקידה בלימוד התורה וקיום המצוות בהידור.ב' חלקים מהתוועדות ל"ג בעומר ה'תשמ"ו ל"הנחה פרטית" או התרגום ללה"ק של השיחה: https://thedailysicha.com/?date=10-06-2025 Synopsis (1) Regarding the men (in shelishi of parashas Behaalosecha) who were unable to bring the korban Pesach because of their impurity (whether due to carrying the Yosef's coffin or handling the bodies of Nadav and Avihu), the Gemara states that “their seventh day fell on Erev Pesach,” which is the day they approached Moshe with their question, “Why should we be excluded”. Seemingly, if they already knew beforehand that they were impure, why did they wait until the last moment, the 14th of Nissan, to approach Moshe with their question? Moreover, why didn't they ask Moshe before becoming impure whether it would conflict with bringing the Pesach in its appointed time? The answer is that since they were involved with an act of true kindness, they had no doubt that they were obligated to complete the task at hand, and they were certain that a solution would be found to their question. Therefore, they saw no need to inquire until it came time to actually bring the korban. From this we learn a wondrous lesson: one should never delay an act of Ahavas Yisroel (helping a poor person physically, or helping someone who is spiritually poor) – and especially in the time of the footsteps of Moshiach etc. (2) Every effort should be made to ensure that Jewish children are enrolled in Jewish summer camps where they will be infused with fear of Heaven, Ahavas Yisrael, diligent Torah study, and the meticulous observance of mitzvos.2 excerpts from farbrengen of Lag B'Omer 5746 For a transcript in English of the Sicha: https://thedailysicha.com/?date=10-06-2025

Today's daf is dedicated by the Hadran Zoom family in honor of Maggie Sandler's birthday! "Your incredible work elevates not just the content of our daily learning, but its entire atmosphere, as you create a beautiful, seamless experience for all of us. You truly bring to life the principle of hiddur mitzva that we learned in Masechet Shabbat: ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״, הִתְנָאֵה לְפָנָיו בְּמִצְוֹת" Before administering the oath to a defendant, the court delivers several cautionary statements about the severity of swearing falsely. These warnings are designed to deter the person from taking a false oath. A braita lists all these statements, and the Gemara both raises difficulties with them and clarifies their meaning and sources. The Gemara then turns to a dispute between Rav and Shmuel regarding the minimum amounts required for a claim, denial, and admission. They disagree about the interpretation of the sentence: "The claim is two maah of silver and the admission is one pruta." Rav holds that for the oath to apply, the total claim must amount to two maah and a pruta—with the minimum denial being two maah and the minimum admission being one pruta. Shmuel, however, rules that both the minimum admission and the minimum denial need only be worth a pruta each, while the minimum total claim must be worth two maah. Rava explains that Rav's interpretation finds support in the Mishna, while Shmuel's position aligns with the biblical verses in the Torah.  

An oath on a deposit - to make it clear that it's not in the person's possession, for example. A deliberate false oath of deposit means a korban asham - a guilt-offering. Back when they were studying Shevuot in yeshiva in the time of the Gemara - witnesses warn the person not to swear falsely. Note - the korban asham is fairly unusual, in that it is itself the punishment, or the guilt, and not for the sake of atoning. Plus, Rav Kahana's question about witnesses warning against false testimony - but is that warning a halakhic warning for all sins, in general? It would seem not. Also, a refinement - the guilt-offering only is incumbent when the false oath is intentional - and without witnesses. Plus, the way the oath for the deposit has more stringent halakhot than those for the oath of testimony.

Today's daf is dedicated by the Hadran Zoom family in honor of Maggie Sandler's birthday! "Your incredible work elevates not just the content of our daily learning, but its entire atmosphere, as you create a beautiful, seamless experience for all of us. You truly bring to life the principle of hiddur mitzva that we learned in Masechet Shabbat: ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״, הִתְנָאֵה לְפָנָיו בְּמִצְוֹת" Before administering the oath to a defendant, the court delivers several cautionary statements about the severity of swearing falsely. These warnings are designed to deter the person from taking a false oath. A braita lists all these statements, and the Gemara both raises difficulties with them and clarifies their meaning and sources. The Gemara then turns to a dispute between Rav and Shmuel regarding the minimum amounts required for a claim, denial, and admission. They disagree about the interpretation of the sentence: "The claim is two maah of silver and the admission is one pruta." Rav holds that for the oath to apply, the total claim must amount to two maah and a pruta—with the minimum denial being two maah and the minimum admission being one pruta. Shmuel, however, rules that both the minimum admission and the minimum denial need only be worth a pruta each, while the minimum total claim must be worth two maah. Rava explains that Rav's interpretation finds support in the Mishna, while Shmuel's position aligns with the biblical verses in the Torah.  

Tefillin is one of the 613 Misvot of the Torah and among the most iconic symbols of Judaism. It is referenced four separate times in the Torah and is described not with the term "Tefillin," but with the word "Totafot." Each of the four passages is written on the parchments inside the Tefillin, establishing both the arm (Shel Yad) and head (Shel Rosh) Tefillin as distinct Misvot. According to the Rambam, Tefillin Shel Yad and Tefillin Shel Rosh are counted as two separate commandments—Misvot 12 and 13 in his enumeration. This implies that if one cannot wear one of them (e.g., due to a physical limitation), he should still fulfill the other, as each stands independently. However, the Ramban disagrees and views them as parts of a single Misva. The Torah repeats the Misva of Tefillin multiple times, yet the Rambam teaches that repetition does not necessarily indicate separate commandments. Rather, the repetition underscores the importance of the Misva. In fact, one who neglects to wear Tefillin transgresses eight positive commandments —four from Shel Yad and four from Shel Rosh. What Does " Totafot " Mean? The term " Totafot " has numerous interpretations: The Gemara Menahot (34b) explains that "Tot" means "two" in the Katpi language, and " Fot " means "two" in African dialect— totalling four, referencing the four compartments of Tefillin Shel Rosh. Menahem ben Saruq interprets " Totafot " from the root " Hatof " (to speak), reflecting that Tefillin inspires us to speak of Hashem's teachings. Ramban says Totafot is an ornament, a kind of crown or glorious item worn on the head, based on Midrashim and biblical parallels. Hezkuni interprets it as something gazed upon, meant to visually remind the wearer of Hashem's miracles. Kabbalistic sources say Tefillin is a form of "Ot" (sign), symbolizing the covenant between the Jewish people and Hashem. The word "Tefillin" itself derives from "Peli"—to distinguish or to separate—or from " Tefila " (prayer), since Tefillin is primarily worn during prayer. Some suggest it comes from the root "Patil" (binding), as in the Torah's description of Naftali. Philosophical Purpose of Tefillin The Sefer HaHinuch (Misva 421) writes that humans are physical beings drawn to material pleasures. The soul is the counterforce, urging one to rise spiritually. Tefillin serves as a daily spiritual armor , empowering the soul to prevail in its ongoing struggle with the body. The Tefillin Shel Yad is worn near the heart, the seat of emotion and desire, while the Tefillin Shel Rosh rests above the brain, the seat of thought—reinforcing control over both. Tefillin is part of the "triple protection system" described in the Gemara—Tefillin, Sisit , and Mezuzah. A person surrounded by these reminders is far less likely to sin . The Rambam adds that donning Tefillin causes a person to behave with humility, awe, and discipline, shielding him from improper thoughts. Tefillin as a Sign Three Misvot are described in the Torah as an "Ot" (sign) : Tefillin, Shabbat, and Berit Milah. A Jew must always be accompanied by at least two signs testifying to his faith. During the week, Tefillin and Milah serve this role. On Shabbat and Yom Tob, when Tefillin is not worn, Shabbat and Milah function as the two signs. This explains the prohibition of wearing Tefillin on Shabbat—doing so would imply that Shabbat is not a sufficient "sign" on its own. Protection, Reward, and Spiritual Energy Wearing Tefillin not only fulfills a critical Misva but is associated with long life, Divine protection, spiritual clarity , and even atonement . Rabbi Shimon teaches that Tefillin atones for the sin of arrogance and, according to some Midrashim, even for more serious transgressions. The Zohar states that Tefillin draws Divine light around the wearer's head. The famed Baba Sali is said to have sensed when his Tefillin were invalid because he didn't feel this spiritual energy. In fact, studies have been cited showing subtle energy field changes when valid Tefillin are worn. The Gemara in Berachot teaches that those who wake early, clean their bodies, don Tefillin, and pray are considered as if they built an altar and brought a sacrifice. The Midrash Tanhuma says that one who desires to study Torah day and night but is preoccupied with work can still attain that merit through wearing Tefillin. The Spiritual Danger of Neglect The Gemara states that one who never wore Tefillin is categorized as a " Poshe'a B'gufo " —a sinner with his body—one of the most serious categories. Such a person does not merit resurrection and is punished severely in Gehinnam . Some authorities rule that even a person who only occasionally neglects Tefillin is included in this category, especially if done out of contempt or laziness. This explains why many Sephardi communities adopted the custom of donning Tefillin at Minha on Ereb Yom Kippur —to ensure that even the least observant Jews fulfill the Misva at least once annually. Tefillin and the Five Senses Tefillin affects not only the spiritual self but also the five senses : Eyes, ears, nose, and mouth are all situated in the head, thus corresponding to the four compartments of the Tefillin Shel Rosh. Touch corresponds to the Tefillin Shel Yad, placed on the arm and wrapped around the hand. This design serves as a daily reminder to guard our senses and align our behavior with holiness. Summary Tefillin is not just a ritual—it is a powerful spiritual and physical shield . The Torah refers to it repeatedly, highlighting its great value. Tefillin connects the mind and heart to Hashem, serves as a visible testimony to one's Jewish identity, brings protection and humility, and provides spiritual credit equivalent to the study of Torah. One who neglects it—especially willfully—risks significant spiritual consequences. Conversely, one who wears it properly fulfills multiple Misvot and draws down abundant blessing. As we begin our study of the practical Halachot of Tefillin, we now understand why this Misva is treated with such reverence and importance.

In moments of polarization, the wisdom of Tehora Hee — the recognition of inviolable goodness in all people—can be a revolutionary tool. In this episode, R' Jericho talks about seventy faces, checking Biblical assumptions, Tehora he (It is pure), pre-prayer tests, two villains from one of my own spiritual wildernesses, Anne Frank, and a practice for bringing Miriam's living Torah into our own lives.-------------------------------------We are proud to introduce the 3rd podcast in the Judaism Unbound family of podcasts: Survival Guide for a Spiritual Wilderness, hosted by Jericho Vincent. "We are the ancestors of the future." This new podcast offers a spiritual home for listeners seeking to connect Jewish ancestral, feminist wisdom with their own svara: moral intuition. Each episode of this limited series delves into a different story of our ancestor Miriam, illuminating her mystical teachings and offering practical tools for navigating and flourishing in personal or political spiritual wildernesses. We're thrilled to periodically feature episodes of Survival Guide for a Spiritual Wilderness here on Judaism Unbound. But we don't only feature those episodes alone. Lex Rofeberg and Rena Yehuda Newman, two members of Judaism Unbound's team, supplement each episode with some gemara (commentary) as well. We hope that our ideas will help spur you to form your own gemara, and channel your unique teachings -- about this podcast and beyond -- into the world. Subscribe to Survival Guide for a Spiritual Wilderness anywhere that podcasts are found!

Regarding an oath on a deposit, Rav Kahana questions: if witnesses warned the person before taking the oath, that in the event they are lying, they will receive lashes, will they receive lashes in addition to a sacrifice or in place of the sacrifice? Several attempts are made to answer his question from various sources, but none are conclusive. Raba then challenges Rav Kahana's question and suggests that there can never be such a case because if there are witnesses to warn, then they must also be witnesses to the act in which case the denial is irrelevant as the witnesses can make the person pay, regardless of their denial. The Gemara then attempts to prove and then disprove this assumption of Raba that if there are witnesses, one cannot be obligated for an oath of deposit. Only from the last source do they succeed in conclusively disproving this assumption. Is an oath of deposit relevant in a case relating to land?

The Mishna Berura (Rav Yisrael Meir Kagan of Radin, 1839-1933), in Siman 4, writes (citing the Seder Olam) that upon awakening in the morning, one should not touch his garments before washing Netilat Yadayim. One should immediately proceed to Netilat Yadayim after waking, before taking off his pajamas or getting his shirt, pants, or other garments. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995), in Isheh Yisrael (1:23), writes that an exception may be made regarding the Kippa. Many people wear their Kippa when they go to bed, and indeed the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) writes that this is a proper practice. Of course, by the time one wakes up his Kippa is no longer on his head, and Rav Shlomo Zalman noted that the prevalent custom is to allow putting one's Kippa on his head before Netilat Yadayim in the morning. The Magen Abraham (Rav Abraham Gombiner, Poland, 1635-1682) in any event wrote that from the Gemara it appears that one may touch his clothing before washing hands, and so although we generally do not follow this view, when it comes to the Kippa we may rely on the Magen Abraham and put it one before washing.

Regarding an oath on a deposit, Rav Kahana questions: if witnesses warned the person before taking the oath, that in the event they are lying, they will receive lashes, will they receive lashes in addition to a sacrifice or in place of the sacrifice? Several attempts are made to answer his question from various sources, but none are conclusive. Raba then challenges Rav Kahana's question and suggests that there can never be such a case because if there are witnesses to warn, then they must also be witnesses to the act in which case the denial is irrelevant as the witnesses can make the person pay, regardless of their denial. The Gemara then attempts to prove and then disprove this assumption of Raba that if there are witnesses, one cannot be obligated for an oath of deposit. Only from the last source do they succeed in conclusively disproving this assumption. Is an oath of deposit relevant in a case relating to land?

Today's daf is sponsored by Avishag Edri for a refuah shleima and rescue of Alon Ben Idit. In which cases are people not obligated in an oath of testimony? What exact phraseology can be used for it to be considered an oath of testimony for which one is obligated to bring a sacrifice? Does one need to include the name of God? Is a word that refers to God also considered using the name of God? What names of God can or cannot be erased. There are various places in the Tanach where it is unclear if a word references God or someone else. The Gemara lists a number of these cases.

2 mishnayot and a good amount of Gemara! 1 - Administering an oath to one who could testify about a plaintiff, but instead denies that he saw anything - the false-oath-maker would still be exempt from the korban. One who asks a whole congregation to come forward - that's not even an oath. Plus, several other cases where the oath-taking would not be sufficient to make a false oath incur the need to bring a korban. 2 - If one insists one take the stand, but not with the language of oath - the commitment is implicit. But taking an oath in the name of the heavens and earth - no, because they are not in the Name of God. Likewise, cursing in the Name of God needs God's name. Also, the Gemara: The question of whether erasing partials of God's name counts as erasing God's name. Plus, interpretation of verses to God's power, not angels. Plus, the vineyard of Navot. When are the texts talking to God, as compared to referring to something other than God?

Moreinu Rosh Hayeshiva Harav Aharon Feldman Shlit”a explains how the Gemara in Shabbos reveals three dimensions of Na'aseh V'nishma through its accounts of Kabbalas HaTorah

The Mishna ruled that if there were two groups of witnesses and each group denied knowing testimony, both groups are liable. The Gemara raises a difficulty with this case, arguing that the first group should not be liable since another group of witnesses can still testify. Ravina resolves this difficulty by limiting the Mishna's ruling to a specific case: where the second group of witnesses are related to each other (as their wives are sisters) and both wives are about to die when the first group takes their oath denying knowledge of the testimony. The Mishna lists various cases where witnesses are asked to testify about multiple things. In some cases, they are only liable one sacrifice and in others multiple sacrifices. An oath of testimony only applies in monetary cases. A question is asked: Does this also include cases involving fines (kenas)? Before answering this question, the Gemara limits the question to the rabbis' position in their debate with Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Elazar rules that if someone admits owing a fine, they are exempt, but if witnesses come forward even after the confession, they are obligated to pay the fine. Therefore, an oath of testimony would clearly apply here, since the witnesses would definitively obligate the defendant. However, the rabbis hold that witnesses can only obligate the defendant if they testify before a confession. Therefore, the question arises whether an oath of testimony would apply here, since it's possible the witnesses are not causing a loss to the claimant—the defendant could simply confess and be exempt. This question is further limited by assuming the rabbis also hold by the position of the rabbis on a different issue: that davar hagorem l'mamon (something that can possibly lead to a monetary obligation) is not considered a monetary obligation. Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that such potential obligations are considered monetary obligations which would obligate the witnesses a sacrifice if they do not testify. After establishing these parameters for the question, the Gemara examines various cases from our Mishna and other sources to attempt an answer. However, neither source provides a conclusive resolution. From where do they derive that an oath of testimony is only for monetary cases? Four different rabbis each bring different proofs.