Podcasts about Gemara

There are times when a person looks back and thinks, If only I had taken that opportunity. Perhaps it was a business deal that turned out to be very lucrative, or another chance that could have brought success. Naturally, he wonders what he could have had, imagining how life might look if only he had acted differently. But someone who has been learning Emunah knows better. He understands that he already has everything he is meant to have. If Hashem wants him to have more, He will send it in another way, from another source. Hashem is in charge not only of what we receive, but also how we receive it. We should never feel that we "could have" or "should have" had more. Sometimes Hashem's Hand is so obvious that we can't miss it. Michael Cohen, founder of the Mitzvah Man organization, related that he once received a call from a family with eight children who could not afford a car. They asked if he could help. He explained that his organization did not give away cars, but if he heard of something, he would let them know. That very week, he got an email from Eshel Shabbat announcing a Chinese auction with a car as one of the prizes. Michael bought a ticket, publicly committing that if he won, he would give the car to that family He then put a public notice on his webpage that he commits to giving the car away if he wins. He also told his daughter to make sure he doesn't renege in a moment of weakness if he wins. His daughter told him not to worry, as there were thousands of tickets in the raffle and he wasn't going to win anyway. Two days later, the organization called saying he won the car. He was so happy. He gave the car to that family and told them not to thank him. It was a gift from Hashem. A couple of years later, he received another call from a family with a lot of children who couldn't afford a car. He told them as well that he didn't have cars to give away, but if something came along, he would let them know. A few weeks later, he got a text message on his phone from Eshel Shabbat saying, Last chance for the car raffle. He once again bought a ticket and said if he wins, he would donate the car to this family in need. Amazingly, two days later, he got a phone call from them saying that he won the car raffle again—and once again, he gave away the car. It is obvious that Hashem decides who wins raffles and who gets cars. A man told me he was in Israel for Sukkot and on Shabbat Chol HaMoed, in the shul he attended, they were bidding for the aliyot. He bought one aliyah for his brother-in-law and then purchased aliyah Levi for himself. At first, the gabbai said he couldn't buy two, but when he explained the first was a gift, they agreed. Yet when the time came, they gave aliyah Levi to someone else. His first instinct was to protest, but then he remembered the Gemara which says that everybody gets exactly what's coming to them, and no one could take even a hair's breadth of what's yours. He even said he was still going to pay for that aliyah. After the aliyah, the gabbai approached him apologizing, saying it was an oversight. That afternoon, he was invited by a rabbi to eat seudah shlishit at his house. The rabbi told him minchah at his shul was going to be at 6:15. But later on that day, this man realized the rabbi must have been mistaken on the time, as sunset was 6:25. So he went to the shul at 5:30, and when he was almost there, he saw the rabbi standing outside the shul looking for someone. When he got closer, the rabbi called out to him, saying to come quickly. He wanted to give him aliyat Levi and he was hoping he was going to come. The moment he walked into the shul, he went right up to the Torah and got aliyat Levi. He said afterward, If Hashem doesn't want you to get an aliyah, you could be in the shul a few feet away from the Torah, having already bought the aliyah, and still not get it. And if Hashem wants you to get an aliyah, you could be very far away, and the rabbi will stop everything and wait for you to come to get the aliyah. Whatever we get is decided by Hashem. He knows how and when to give us what He wants us to have, and therefore we should never second-guess a decision we made or feel bad about passing up on any opportunity.

Study Guide The Mishna enumerates items that cannot become pigul - meaning that even if the offering is rendered pigul due to improper intent during the sacrificial process, consuming these items does not incur the punishment of karet. This is because pigul applies only to items that are permitted through another action. For example, sacrificial meat becomes permitted only after the imurim (the parts of the sacrifice designated to be burned on the altar) are burned. Items that cannot become pigul include the kometz (a handful of meal offering), incense, meal offerings that are entirely burned, and others. Some items are subject to tannaitic debate, such as the libations that accompany sacrifices and the oil used in the ceremony for leper purification. The libations may be considered an integral part of the sacrifice, and therefore become pigul, just like the sacrifice itself, and the oil may be permitted only after the placement of the blood from the guilt offering, which would also then enable it to become pigul. Conversely, the Mishna lists items that can become pigul, as they are permitted through a specific action. In some sacrifices, like a burnt offering, the sprinkling of blood permits the meat to be burned on the altar; in others, like a sin offering, it permits the meat to be eaten by the kohanim. Rabbi Shimon maintains that pigul applies only to sacrifices offered on the outer altar. Ulla presents an ambiguous statement: he claims that if a kometz becomes pigul but is nevertheless burned on the altar, its pigul status is nullified. He supports this by arguing that if the kometz were not considered properly offered (due to its pigul status), it could not serve as a valid matir (an enabling act) for the remainder of the meal offering to become pigul. The Gemara explores Ulla’s intent. Initially, it suggests that one who eats a kometz rendered pigul is not punished by karet, but this is rejected as it is explicitly stated in the Mishna. The second suggestion is that, although ideally it should not be placed on the altar, if it is placed there, it should not be removed. This too is taught in a Mishna. The third suggestion is that if it were placed on the altar and fell off, it may be returned. However, this is also addressed in a Mishna, which rules that it should not be replaced. The Gemara ultimately concludes that Ulla refers to a case where the kometz fell off after the fire had begun to consume it. Although Ulla discusses this elsewhere, the teaching here emphasizes that this principle applies not only to a limb of an animal that is partially burned, where even the unburned portion is considered connected, but also to a kometz, where even if only part was burned, the entire portion is treated as a single unit and may be returned to the altar. Rabbi Yochanan is quoted as saying that pigul, notar, and impure items that were offered on the altar lose their forbidden status. Rav Chisda challenges the inclusion of impure items, arguing that the altar does not function like a mikveh to purify them. Rabbi Zeira responds by qualifying Rabbi Yochanan’s statement: it applies only when the item was already being consumed by the fire. Rabbi Yitzchak bar Bisna raises a difficulty from a braita that categorizes sacrificial meat as something whose impurity cannot be removed. This challenge is resolved in three distinct ways: by Rava, whose answer is rejected, and by Rav Papa and Ravina. The braita above is then cited in full. It includes four different drashot that aim to prove that the verse in Vayikra 7:20 refers to a person who was impure and ate sacrificial meat, rather than a pure person who ate meat that had become impure. One of the opinions presented is difficult to understand in terms of its derivation. Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi is praised for offering a clear and insightful explanation, which is then brought and elaborated upon.  

Study Guide The Mishna enumerates items that cannot become pigul - meaning that even if the offering is rendered pigul due to improper intent during the sacrificial process, consuming these items does not incur the punishment of karet. This is because pigul applies only to items that are permitted through another action. For example, sacrificial meat becomes permitted only after the imurim (the parts of the sacrifice designated to be burned on the altar) are burned. Items that cannot become pigul include the kometz (a handful of meal offering), incense, meal offerings that are entirely burned, and others. Some items are subject to tannaitic debate, such as the libations that accompany sacrifices and the oil used in the ceremony for leper purification. The libations may be considered an integral part of the sacrifice, and therefore become pigul, just like the sacrifice itself, and the oil may be permitted only after the placement of the blood from the guilt offering, which would also then enable it to become pigul. Conversely, the Mishna lists items that can become pigul, as they are permitted through a specific action. In some sacrifices, like a burnt offering, the sprinkling of blood permits the meat to be burned on the altar; in others, like a sin offering, it permits the meat to be eaten by the kohanim. Rabbi Shimon maintains that pigul applies only to sacrifices offered on the outer altar. Ulla presents an ambiguous statement: he claims that if a kometz becomes pigul but is nevertheless burned on the altar, its pigul status is nullified. He supports this by arguing that if the kometz were not considered properly offered (due to its pigul status), it could not serve as a valid matir (an enabling act) for the remainder of the meal offering to become pigul. The Gemara explores Ulla’s intent. Initially, it suggests that one who eats a kometz rendered pigul is not punished by karet, but this is rejected as it is explicitly stated in the Mishna. The second suggestion is that, although ideally it should not be placed on the altar, if it is placed there, it should not be removed. This too is taught in a Mishna. The third suggestion is that if it were placed on the altar and fell off, it may be returned. However, this is also addressed in a Mishna, which rules that it should not be replaced. The Gemara ultimately concludes that Ulla refers to a case where the kometz fell off after the fire had begun to consume it. Although Ulla discusses this elsewhere, the teaching here emphasizes that this principle applies not only to a limb of an animal that is partially burned, where even the unburned portion is considered connected, but also to a kometz, where even if only part was burned, the entire portion is treated as a single unit and may be returned to the altar. Rabbi Yochanan is quoted as saying that pigul, notar, and impure items that were offered on the altar lose their forbidden status. Rav Chisda challenges the inclusion of impure items, arguing that the altar does not function like a mikveh to purify them. Rabbi Zeira responds by qualifying Rabbi Yochanan’s statement: it applies only when the item was already being consumed by the fire. Rabbi Yitzchak bar Bisna raises a difficulty from a braita that categorizes sacrificial meat as something whose impurity cannot be removed. This challenge is resolved in three distinct ways: by Rava, whose answer is rejected, and by Rav Papa and Ravina. The braita above is then cited in full. It includes four different drashot that aim to prove that the verse in Vayikra 7:20 refers to a person who was impure and ate sacrificial meat, rather than a pure person who ate meat that had become impure. One of the opinions presented is difficult to understand in terms of its derivation. Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi is praised for offering a clear and insightful explanation, which is then brought and elaborated upon.  

Gemara Chabura - Rabbi Karlinsky - Contemporary Topic 02 by Shapell's Rabbeim

Following the dispute about pigul for a meal-offering, the Gemara investigates all the permitting factors for an offering to be accepted, before there are any considerations of pigul. Note that the sprinkling of the blood on the inner altar needs to be done correctly. Also, the count of blood worship tasks: 43 or 47 or 48? If the bloods of two animals mingles, there is room to be lenient, in terms of how many placements there were on the altar.

Gemara Chabura - Rabbi Karlinsky - Contemporary Topic 01 by Shapell's Rabbeim

Study Guide Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (Rebbi) interprets the first mention of “bull” in Vayikra 4:20 as referring to the bull offering of Yom Kippur, even though the verse’s context concerns the communal sin offering. According to Rebbi, this verse teaches that the Yom Kippur bull is comparable to the bull brought by the kohen gadol who sins, referenced by the second mention of “bull” in the same verse. Rabbi Yishmael disagrees with Rebbi, arguing that the laws of the Yom Kippur bull can be derived through kal va’chomer (a fortiori) reasoning. However, the kal va’chomer argument he proposes is not fully spelled out in the text, and the Gemara clarifies which cases are being referenced and what laws are derived. Since Rabbi Yishmael does not interpret the word “bull” as referring to the Yom Kippur offering, but rather to the communal sin offering, the question arises: why use the term “bull” instead of simply saying “it”? Rav Pappa explains that the unnecessary word comes to teach a law not explicitly stated in the verses about the communal offering, but found in the kohen gadol’s sin offering - that the lobe of the liver and the kidneys are burned on the altar. Although this law could have been derived by juxtaposition, the inclusion of the word “bull” makes it as though it were written explicitly, which then allows it to be used to derive the same law by juxtaposition to the communal sin offering for idol worship. A braita is brought to support Rav Pappa’s explanation and shows how the juxtaposition between the communal sin offering and the communal offering for idol worship (from Bamidbar 15:25) is established. However, another braita derives the juxtaposition from the verse in Vayikra 4:20. Both derivations are considered necessary, as each teaches a different law. Rebbi’s position is cited earlier to support Rav Pappa’s explanation that the word “bull” serves to compare the Yom Kippur bull to the kohen gadol’s sin offering for specific laws derived from the words “et,” “b’dam,” and “taval.” However, Rebbi himself states that the comparison teaches that all the laws are the same, not just those three. This discrepancy is explained as stemming from two different tannaitic positions. Two braitot from the school of Rabbi Yishmael are brought, each explaining why certain words or laws appear only in the kohen gadol’s sin offering and not in the communal one. Both are interpreted through parables that reflect God’s relationship with His people. Finally, a Mishna in Menachot presents a debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding whether a pigul (disqualifying intent) during the taking of the handful of the meal offering, but not during the taking of the frankincense (or vice versa), renders the offering pigul. Reish Lakish explains Rabbi Meir’s position: the offering becomes pigul not because intent during part of the matir (the enabling act) can render an offering pigul, but because later actions follow the original intent. That is, if improper intent occurred during the first stage, and the second stage was performed without intent, the second stage is still governed by the initial thought. Reish Lakish supports this interpretation by asserting that our Mishna must align with Rabbi Meir’s view. However, Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzchak disagrees and interprets the Mishna according to the rabbis’ position.

Study Guide   The Gemara cites a braita to locate the source for the halakha that all placements of the sin-offering blood performed in the inner sanctuary are essential. The braita’s author treats the seven sprinklings as essential because they are treated as essential elsewhere - this statement is explained as referring to seven sprinklings in the rituals of the red heifer and the purification of a leper. The ruling that the four placements are essential is derived from the phrase “and as such he should do.” Why not derive them from the phrase “and he should do like he did,” which is used to teach the seven sprinklings - why can’t both be derived from the same verse? Rabbi Yirmiya and Abaye offer different answers. The braita explains that the word “bull” mentioned first in Vayikra 4:20 refers to the bull of Yom Kippur. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak teaches from this that the blood placements are essential. Rav Papa, however, maintains that the essential nature can be derived from the verses of Yom Kippur and therefore understands the verse as teaching three specific laws about dipping the finger in the blood, laws drawn from the sin offering of the kohen gadol. A braita is brought in support of Rav Papa’s position. Rabbi Yishmael held that the laws for the bull of Yom Kippur could be derived by kal va'chomer reasoning and therefore understood the "bull" in the verse to be referring to the communal sin offering.   

In light of the placement of blood on the inner altar - either one or two placements - preserving the atonement capacity of the offering, even without blood placed on all four corners, the question of blood on the curtain (parokhet) must be asked. The Gemara establishes that all seven placements must be made on the curtain - but it asks also about four placements, because of a verse with a plural term and R. Shimon's opinion. Also, why does the Torah specify the need for incense on the inner altar (which was the incense altar), as the terms are redundant? Plus, the focus on the verses as source material for the halakhic details.

Study Guide Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (Rebbi) interprets the first mention of “bull” in Vayikra 4:20 as referring to the bull offering of Yom Kippur, even though the verse’s context concerns the communal sin offering. According to Rebbi, this verse teaches that the Yom Kippur bull is comparable to the bull brought by the kohen gadol who sins, referenced by the second mention of “bull” in the same verse. Rabbi Yishmael disagrees with Rebbi, arguing that the laws of the Yom Kippur bull can be derived through kal va’chomer (a fortiori) reasoning. However, the kal va’chomer argument he proposes is not fully spelled out in the text, and the Gemara clarifies which cases are being referenced and what laws are derived. Since Rabbi Yishmael does not interpret the word “bull” as referring to the Yom Kippur offering, but rather to the communal sin offering, the question arises: why use the term “bull” instead of simply saying “it”? Rav Pappa explains that the unnecessary word comes to teach a law not explicitly stated in the verses about the communal offering, but found in the kohen gadol’s sin offering - that the lobe of the liver and the kidneys are burned on the altar. Although this law could have been derived by juxtaposition, the inclusion of the word “bull” makes it as though it were written explicitly, which then allows it to be used to derive the same law by juxtaposition to the communal sin offering for idol worship. A braita is brought to support Rav Pappa’s explanation and shows how the juxtaposition between the communal sin offering and the communal offering for idol worship (from Bamidbar 15:25) is established. However, another braita derives the juxtaposition from the verse in Vayikra 4:20. Both derivations are considered necessary, as each teaches a different law. Rebbi’s position is cited earlier to support Rav Pappa’s explanation that the word “bull” serves to compare the Yom Kippur bull to the kohen gadol’s sin offering for specific laws derived from the words “et,” “b’dam,” and “taval.” However, Rebbi himself states that the comparison teaches that all the laws are the same, not just those three. This discrepancy is explained as stemming from two different tannaitic positions. Two braitot from the school of Rabbi Yishmael are brought, each explaining why certain words or laws appear only in the kohen gadol’s sin offering and not in the communal one. Both are interpreted through parables that reflect God’s relationship with His people. Finally, a Mishna in Menachot presents a debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding whether a pigul (disqualifying intent) during the taking of the handful of the meal offering, but not during the taking of the frankincense (or vice versa), renders the offering pigul. Reish Lakish explains Rabbi Meir’s position: the offering becomes pigul not because intent during part of the matir (the enabling act) can render an offering pigul, but because later actions follow the original intent. That is, if improper intent occurred during the first stage, and the second stage was performed without intent, the second stage is still governed by the initial thought. Reish Lakish supports this interpretation by asserting that our Mishna must align with Rabbi Meir’s view. However, Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzchak disagrees and interprets the Mishna according to the rabbis’ position.

Study Guide   The Gemara cites a braita to locate the source for the halakha that all placements of the sin-offering blood performed in the inner sanctuary are essential. The braita’s author treats the seven sprinklings as essential because they are treated as essential elsewhere - this statement is explained as referring to seven sprinklings in the rituals of the red heifer and the purification of a leper. The ruling that the four placements are essential is derived from the phrase “and as such he should do.” Why not derive them from the phrase “and he should do like he did,” which is used to teach the seven sprinklings - why can’t both be derived from the same verse? Rabbi Yirmiya and Abaye offer different answers. The braita explains that the word “bull” mentioned first in Vayikra 4:20 refers to the bull of Yom Kippur. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak teaches from this that the blood placements are essential. Rav Papa, however, maintains that the essential nature can be derived from the verses of Yom Kippur and therefore understands the verse as teaching three specific laws about dipping the finger in the blood, laws drawn from the sin offering of the kohen gadol. A braita is brought in support of Rav Papa’s position. Rabbi Yishmael held that the laws for the bull of Yom Kippur could be derived by kal va'chomer reasoning and therefore understood the "bull" in the verse to be referring to the communal sin offering.   

Rav Papa cites a proof based on an inference from a Mishna in Zevachim 93a: if blood splashes onto one’s clothing from the blood designated for placement on the altar, specifically from the three sprinklings following the initial one, then the garments must be laundered in the Azara (Temple courtyard), a process known as kibus. This inference is challenged, as the Gemara suggests that the Mishna reflects the opinion of Rabbi Nechemia, who is more stringent in his treatment of the remainder of the blood (shirayim) that is to be poured into the base of the altar, and the Mishna does not adhere to the mainstream view. Ultimately, this suggestion is dismissed, since there is no definitive evidence that Rabbi Nechemia requires kibus for the remainder of the blood before it is poured on the base of the altar. Nonetheless, the inference remains problematic for Rav Papa, as it implies that blood requires laundering even before it is sprinkled on the altar, an implication that aligns with no known position. Ravina offers a resolution: while the term “from the keren” (corner of the altar) excludes the law of kibus before placement on the keren, the Mishna’s use of “from the base” includes blood that is awaiting placement on the base. A braita is introduced to explain the source of the halakha in the Mishna, that all placements of blood of sin offerings performed in the inner sanctuary are essential. This ruling is derived from a verse in Vayikra (Leviticus) 4:20, in the context of the communal sin offering. The verse is fully expounded to draw parallels between the bull sin offering of the kohen gadol, the bull offering of the kohen gadol on Yom Kippur, and the communal sin offering for idol worship. The exposition also distinguishes between essential and non-essential components of the offerings whose blood is applied to the inner altar.  

Rav Papa cites a proof based on an inference from a Mishna in Zevachim 93a: if blood splashes onto one’s clothing from the blood designated for placement on the altar, specifically from the three sprinklings following the initial one, then the garments must be laundered in the Azara (Temple courtyard), a process known as kibus. This inference is challenged, as the Gemara suggests that the Mishna reflects the opinion of Rabbi Nechemia, who is more stringent in his treatment of the remainder of the blood (shirayim) that is to be poured into the base of the altar, and the Mishna does not adhere to the mainstream view. Ultimately, this suggestion is dismissed, since there is no definitive evidence that Rabbi Nechemia requires kibus for the remainder of the blood before it is poured on the base of the altar. Nonetheless, the inference remains problematic for Rav Papa, as it implies that blood requires laundering even before it is sprinkled on the altar, an implication that aligns with no known position. Ravina offers a resolution: while the term “from the keren” (corner of the altar) excludes the law of kibus before placement on the keren, the Mishna’s use of “from the base” includes blood that is awaiting placement on the base. A braita is introduced to explain the source of the halakha in the Mishna, that all placements of blood of sin offerings performed in the inner sanctuary are essential. This ruling is derived from a verse in Vayikra (Leviticus) 4:20, in the context of the communal sin offering. The verse is fully expounded to draw parallels between the bull sin offering of the kohen gadol, the bull offering of the kohen gadol on Yom Kippur, and the communal sin offering for idol worship. The exposition also distinguishes between essential and non-essential components of the offerings whose blood is applied to the inner altar.  

The Gemara teaches that night was created for Torah — and those who learn then are blessed with long life and a special chein. Rambam says most Torah wisdom is acquired at night, because it's the time you choose what matters most. When others rest, your learning stands out. In this episode, we'll explain why learning at night carries such extraordinary reward and spiritual power.

The sugya of Ambatya becomes the halachic fault line for one of the most heated debates of the 20th century. In this episode, we trace how Rav Moshe Feinstein used this Gemara to rule that children born through donor insemination are not mamzeirim—and why the Satmar Rebbe fiercely disagreed. We'll explore the halachic logic, the hashkafic divide, and how a single sugya shaped the modern fertility discussion in the frum world.

The Gemara brings a braita in which a Tanna offers an alternative interpretation to explain Beit Hillel’s reasoning - that one application of blood in the sin offering is sufficient to fulfill the obligation, rather than two. Two objections are raised against this interpretation, and in the second objection, an alternative drasha is proposed. However, both objections are ultimately resolved. If, according to Beit Shammai, pigul applies only when the improper intent occurs during two applications of blood (in a sin offering), whereas according to Beit Hillel even one is sufficient, the question arises: why is this ruling not listed among the leniencies of Beit Shammai? Rabbi Yochanan and Rav Pappa enumerate various laws in which the three non-essential applications of blood are similar to or different from the one essential application.

More on Beit Hillel's understanding that one placement of blood on the altar is sufficient - as derived from the "atonement" as stated in each verse about the sin-offering. The Gemara probes whether the law can be derived via logic, which sounds plausible, and not only from the verses - for example, an inference about the outer altar placement of blood because of the placement of blood on the inner altar. Also, not the shift in the cases, where Beit Hillel's position ends up being more stringent, and Beit Shammai more lenient, which is not their usual way. But look to Tractate Eduyot - as early mishnah! Note also more details of the placement of the blood, with details of what makes the placement acceptable to qualify the offering for atonement.

The Gemara brings a braita in which a Tanna offers an alternative interpretation to explain Beit Hillel’s reasoning - that one application of blood in the sin offering is sufficient to fulfill the obligation, rather than two. Two objections are raised against this interpretation, and in the second objection, an alternative drasha is proposed. However, both objections are ultimately resolved. If, according to Beit Shammai, pigul applies only when the improper intent occurs during two applications of blood (in a sin offering), whereas according to Beit Hillel even one is sufficient, the question arises: why is this ruling not listed among the leniencies of Beit Shammai? Rabbi Yochanan and Rav Pappa enumerate various laws in which the three non-essential applications of blood are similar to or different from the one essential application.

We explain the Gemara in Avodah Zara (19a) that a person should always study what they desire. This is a rendition of a class given at the HaTurim Congregation on Shemini Atzeres 5786.

This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on the occasion of his first yahrzeit. Rabbi Harari was my first Gemara teacher and the one who sparked my love for learning Gemara. Over the course of his distinguished career as an educator, as principal of the Yeshiva of Flatbush, and as community rabbi, he inspired thousands of students with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah. As his wife Vicky beautifully expressed, Rabbi Harari embodied six core values that he cultivated with deep intentionality throughout his life: hard work, gratitude, forgiveness, patience, focusing on families and our priorities, and the inclusion of women in halakhic Judaism. Yehi zichro baruch. The Mishna presents a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis regarding a thought during the slaughtering of a sacrifice to leave the blood or the parts designated for burning until the next day. Rabbi Yehuda rules that such a thought disqualifies the offering, while the rabbis disagree, arguing that the thought does not pertain to “consumption,” and therefore does not invalidate the sacrifice. The Mishna further clarifies that only specific types of improper intent disqualify a sacrifice: namely, intent involving “outside of time,” “outside of location,” or “not for the sake of the correct sacrifice” and the latter only in the cases of sin offerings and the Paschal offering. It then enumerates several examples of thoughts that do not disqualify the offering, such as intending that an impure or uncircumcised person will eat the meat, or that the blood will be placed on the wrong altar or in the wrong location on the altar. Rabbi Yehuda’s position is initially derived from the verse in Vayikra (Leviticus) 7:15, which states “lo yaniach” - “do not leave it” - referring to meat left beyond its designated time. However, the Gemara ultimately rejects this derivation, noting that it cannot be applied to thoughts of “outside of location.” Additionally, a braita clarifies that Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning is based on logical inference: if physically leaving the blood beyond its designated time or place disqualifies the sacrifice, then merely intending to do so should also disqualify it. Rabbi Yehuda does not extend his logic to the other cases listed in the Mishna, such as consumption by an impure or uncircumcised person, because even if these acts were actually carried out, the sacrifice itself would not be invalidated. The Gemara analyzes each of the cases mentioned in the Mishna and explains why none of them would disqualify the offering. Rabbi Abba explains that although Rabbi Yehuda disqualifies a sacrifice when there is intent to leave the blood until the next day, if a pigul thought is later introduced, such as intending that the meat be eaten after its designated time, the sacrifice becomes pigul, despite the earlier disqualifying thought. Rava attempts to support Rabbi Abba’s statement, but his proof is ultimately rejected. Rav Huna raises a challenge to Rabbi Abba’s position, which remains unresolved. Rav Chisda presents two statements, both of which Rava attempts to prove, though each proof is refuted. The first states that if one intends for impure individuals to eat the sacrifice on the following day, the offering becomes pigul and is punishable by karet, even though impure individuals are already prohibited from eating it. The second concerns a Paschal offering that was not roasted, or a thanksgiving offering brought without its accompanying loaves. Although the meat of these offerings is forbidden to be eaten in such cases, if an impure person consumes them, it is still punishable by karet. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree regarding the minimum number of blood applications required on the altar for a sin offering. Both agree that for all sacrifices offered on the outer altar, except for the sin offering, if only one blood application is performed, the sacrifice is still valid. However, they differ on the sin offering itself: Beit Shammai maintains that at least two applications are required, while Beit Hillel holds that one suffices. In a case where only one application is required, if the first application is performed properly and a pigul thought (i.e., intent to eat the meat after its designated time) occurs during the second application, the sacrifice is not disqualified. However, if the first application is performed with a pigul thought and the second is done properly, the sacrifice is rendered pigul and is punishable by karet, since the disqualifying thought occurred during the essential act that permits the meat to be eaten. In contrast, for sacrifices offered on the inner altar, all blood applications are essential. Therefore, if a disqualifying thought, such as intending to eat or burn the meat beyond its designated time, occurs during only part of the applications, the sacrifice is disqualified. However, it is not considered pigul and is not punishable by karet, because pigul status only applies when the improper intent accompanies the entire act that permits the consumption of the meat.

A new mishnah! One who has intent to handle the food of an offering to be eaten at the wrong time or wrong location - or parts of the animal that are not customarily eaten - with a measurement of a kezayit, an olive's worth. But note that less than an olive's worth of something eaten does not combine with less than an olive's worth that is burned in the wrong place or the wrong way. Plus, many other cases, including a fetus or eggs in a female animal at the time of slaughter. The Gemara on the mishnah begins with a statement from the amora R. Elazar, which is unusual. Also, further discussion of intent in such a way that the result is pigul - and pigul itself carries a karet punishment.

This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on the occasion of his first yahrzeit. Rabbi Harari was my first Gemara teacher and the one who sparked my love for learning Gemara. Over the course of his distinguished career as an educator, as principal of the Yeshiva of Flatbush, and as community rabbi, he inspired thousands of students with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah. As his wife Vicky beautifully expressed, Rabbi Harari embodied six core values that he cultivated with deep intentionality throughout his life: hard work, gratitude, forgiveness, patience, focusing on families and our priorities, and the inclusion of women in halakhic Judaism. Yehi zichro baruch. The Mishna presents a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis regarding a thought during the slaughtering of a sacrifice to leave the blood or the parts designated for burning until the next day. Rabbi Yehuda rules that such a thought disqualifies the offering, while the rabbis disagree, arguing that the thought does not pertain to “consumption,” and therefore does not invalidate the sacrifice. The Mishna further clarifies that only specific types of improper intent disqualify a sacrifice: namely, intent involving “outside of time,” “outside of location,” or “not for the sake of the correct sacrifice” and the latter only in the cases of sin offerings and the Paschal offering. It then enumerates several examples of thoughts that do not disqualify the offering, such as intending that an impure or uncircumcised person will eat the meat, or that the blood will be placed on the wrong altar or in the wrong location on the altar. Rabbi Yehuda’s position is initially derived from the verse in Vayikra (Leviticus) 7:15, which states “lo yaniach” - “do not leave it” - referring to meat left beyond its designated time. However, the Gemara ultimately rejects this derivation, noting that it cannot be applied to thoughts of “outside of location.” Additionally, a braita clarifies that Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning is based on logical inference: if physically leaving the blood beyond its designated time or place disqualifies the sacrifice, then merely intending to do so should also disqualify it. Rabbi Yehuda does not extend his logic to the other cases listed in the Mishna, such as consumption by an impure or uncircumcised person, because even if these acts were actually carried out, the sacrifice itself would not be invalidated. The Gemara analyzes each of the cases mentioned in the Mishna and explains why none of them would disqualify the offering. Rabbi Abba explains that although Rabbi Yehuda disqualifies a sacrifice when there is intent to leave the blood until the next day, if a pigul thought is later introduced, such as intending that the meat be eaten after its designated time, the sacrifice becomes pigul, despite the earlier disqualifying thought. Rava attempts to support Rabbi Abba’s statement, but his proof is ultimately rejected. Rav Huna raises a challenge to Rabbi Abba’s position, which remains unresolved. Rav Chisda presents two statements, both of which Rava attempts to prove, though each proof is refuted. The first states that if one intends for impure individuals to eat the sacrifice on the following day, the offering becomes pigul and is punishable by karet, even though impure individuals are already prohibited from eating it. The second concerns a Paschal offering that was not roasted, or a thanksgiving offering brought without its accompanying loaves. Although the meat of these offerings is forbidden to be eaten in such cases, if an impure person consumes them, it is still punishable by karet. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree regarding the minimum number of blood applications required on the altar for a sin offering. Both agree that for all sacrifices offered on the outer altar, except for the sin offering, if only one blood application is performed, the sacrifice is still valid. However, they differ on the sin offering itself: Beit Shammai maintains that at least two applications are required, while Beit Hillel holds that one suffices. In a case where only one application is required, if the first application is performed properly and a pigul thought (i.e., intent to eat the meat after its designated time) occurs during the second application, the sacrifice is not disqualified. However, if the first application is performed with a pigul thought and the second is done properly, the sacrifice is rendered pigul and is punishable by karet, since the disqualifying thought occurred during the essential act that permits the meat to be eaten. In contrast, for sacrifices offered on the inner altar, all blood applications are essential. Therefore, if a disqualifying thought, such as intending to eat or burn the meat beyond its designated time, occurs during only part of the applications, the sacrifice is disqualified. However, it is not considered pigul and is not punishable by karet, because pigul status only applies when the improper intent accompanies the entire act that permits the consumption of the meat.

During the Paschal sacrifice, the drain in the floor of the Azara was plugged to ensure that any spilled blood would be collected. Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis offer different explanations for this practice. Rabbi Yehuda says the blood was collected and placed on the altar in case some of the blood from the sacrifices had spilled and had not yet been brought to the altar. The rabbis explain that it was to demonstrate the dedication of the kohanim, who stood knee-deep in blood as they performed their service. Each opinion faces challenges. Regarding Rabbi Yehuda, the Gemara asks how the blood could be valid for the altar if it had not been collected in a sanctified vessel. After resolving this, another issue is raised: the dam hatamtzit, the residual internal blood, might nullify the dam hanefesh, the lifeblood that exits during slaughter and is valid for the altar. Regarding the rabbis, the Gemara questions whether the accumulated blood would create a chatzitza, an interposition between the kohanim’s feet and the floor, potentially invalidating their service. It also asks whether the blood-soaked garments would be rendered unfit for priestly service. All these objections are ultimately resolved. The laws of pigul apply only to parts of the animal designated for consumption or burning on the altar. If a priest has a pigul thought, such as intending to eat or burn a part of the sacrifice beyond its permitted time, it only renders the sacrifice pigul if the thought concerns a part meant to be eaten or burned. Non-edible or non-sacrificial parts, such as the hide, tendons, horns, and similar items, are not subject to pigul. In a female animal, a thought regarding the fetus, placenta, or eggs does not render the sacrifice pigul. If a sacrifice becomes pigul, consuming the milk or eggs does not incur karet. Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree about whether a pigul thought regarding a non-sacrificial item, such as intending to eat something not meant to be eaten or burn something not meant to be burned, can render the offering pigul. Rabbi Eliezer is more stringent, while the rabbis are lenient. Rabbi Elazar adds that while a thought about a fetus or similar part does not independently render the sacrifice pigul, if the animal itself becomes pigul due to improper intent, then those parts, like the fetus, are also considered pigul. Three sources, including the Mishna under discussion, are brought to support Rabbi Elazar’s position. Attempts to refute his view are made, but ultimately only an inference from our Mishna stands as a conclusive proof in his favor. A Mishna in Zevachim 84a records a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis regarding a blemished animal that was mistakenly brought to the altar. Rabbi Akiva holds that if the animal has already been placed on the altar, it is not removed. The rabbis disagree, requiring its removal. The Gemara qualifies Rabbi Akiva’s leniency with three limitations: the ruling applies only to certain types of blemishes; if the blemish was present before the animal was sanctified, it must be removed; and a female animal designated for a burnt offering is also removed. Rabbi Zeira raises a challenge to the third limitation based on a braita previously cited in a discussion concerning Rabbi Eliezer. This challenge is ultimately resolved.  

During the Paschal sacrifice, the drain in the floor of the Azara was plugged to ensure that any spilled blood would be collected. Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis offer different explanations for this practice. Rabbi Yehuda says the blood was collected and placed on the altar in case some of the blood from the sacrifices had spilled and had not yet been brought to the altar. The rabbis explain that it was to demonstrate the dedication of the kohanim, who stood knee-deep in blood as they performed their service. Each opinion faces challenges. Regarding Rabbi Yehuda, the Gemara asks how the blood could be valid for the altar if it had not been collected in a sanctified vessel. After resolving this, another issue is raised: the dam hatamtzit, the residual internal blood, might nullify the dam hanefesh, the lifeblood that exits during slaughter and is valid for the altar. Regarding the rabbis, the Gemara questions whether the accumulated blood would create a chatzitza, an interposition between the kohanim’s feet and the floor, potentially invalidating their service. It also asks whether the blood-soaked garments would be rendered unfit for priestly service. All these objections are ultimately resolved. The laws of pigul apply only to parts of the animal designated for consumption or burning on the altar. If a priest has a pigul thought, such as intending to eat or burn a part of the sacrifice beyond its permitted time, it only renders the sacrifice pigul if the thought concerns a part meant to be eaten or burned. Non-edible or non-sacrificial parts, such as the hide, tendons, horns, and similar items, are not subject to pigul. In a female animal, a thought regarding the fetus, placenta, or eggs does not render the sacrifice pigul. If a sacrifice becomes pigul, consuming the milk or eggs does not incur karet. Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree about whether a pigul thought regarding a non-sacrificial item, such as intending to eat something not meant to be eaten or burn something not meant to be burned, can render the offering pigul. Rabbi Eliezer is more stringent, while the rabbis are lenient. Rabbi Elazar adds that while a thought about a fetus or similar part does not independently render the sacrifice pigul, if the animal itself becomes pigul due to improper intent, then those parts, like the fetus, are also considered pigul. Three sources, including the Mishna under discussion, are brought to support Rabbi Elazar’s position. Attempts to refute his view are made, but ultimately only an inference from our Mishna stands as a conclusive proof in his favor. A Mishna in Zevachim 84a records a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis regarding a blemished animal that was mistakenly brought to the altar. Rabbi Akiva holds that if the animal has already been placed on the altar, it is not removed. The rabbis disagree, requiring its removal. The Gemara qualifies Rabbi Akiva’s leniency with three limitations: the ruling applies only to certain types of blemishes; if the blemish was present before the animal was sanctified, it must be removed; and a female animal designated for a burnt offering is also removed. Rabbi Zeira raises a challenge to the third limitation based on a braita previously cited in a discussion concerning Rabbi Eliezer. This challenge is ultimately resolved.  

How can the verse “do not touch kodesh” be used by Reish Lakish to teach that one cannot eat sacrificial meat in a state of impurity, when that verse is needed to derive the prohibition for an impure person to eat sacrificial meat before the blood is sprinkled? To resolve the difficulty, the Gemara explains how both can be derived from the same verse.  There is a debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding an impure person who eats sacrificial meat before the blood is sprinkled – is it punishable by lashes or not? Abaye and Rava disagree about the scope of the debate. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish also disagree about whether one who brings parts of the body of a non-kosher animal onto the altar receives lashes or not. However, after raising a difficulty with this, they explain that all agree it is forbidden, but not punishable by lashes, as it is a negative commandment that is not written explicitly, but derived from a positive commandment. The debate is regarding a different, but similar issue - bringing a non-domesticated animal – is it a violation of a positive commandment, or is it only forbidden ab initio? Three versions of a question are brought regarding shirayim. If a disqualified person accepted and sprinkled the blood, does it render the animal disqualified from being used for a sacrifice, e.g. can one take more blood from the animal and sprinkle it on the altar? Or, if a cup with the blood was taken out of the Azara, can one get more blood from the animal? Or, if multiple cups were used to get blood from the animal and one was used for the altar, does the blood from the other cups also get poured on the base of the altar (as shirayim)? How does the Mishna allow for some mistakes to be rectified? Why are there three different cases like this mentioned in the Mishna – what is unique about each case?

Study Guide Ulla said in the name of Reish Lakish that even if an impure person inserts only a small part of their body into the Azara (Temple courtyard), it is forbidden. Rav Hoshaya challenges this ruling based on a case involving a leper who experienced a seminal emission on the eve of Passover. Despite his impurity, he is permitted to proceed with the purification process, which requires partial entry into the Azara. Ulla resolves this difficulty. A braita is brought in support of Ulla’s statement, discussing the smicha (laying of hands) on the guilt offering of a leper, which is performed outside the Azara. The implication is that if partial entry were permitted, the leper could simply insert his hands into the Azara to perform the smicha. Rav Yosef rejects this support, and there are two distinct versions of how he rejects this. A difficulty is raised against the content of the braita: if the guilt offering requires smicha by Torah law, and if smicha must be performed immediately prior to slaughtering, then it should be permitted to perform the smicha inside the Azara. Rav Ada bar Matna resolves this challenge, though there are differing accounts of how he does so. Ravina and Ravin each offer alternative resolutions to the difficulty with Ulla’s statement. Ravina maintains that partial entry into the Azara is prohibited only by a penalty of lashes, without the more severe punishment of karet. Ravin, on the other hand, argues that Ulla’s citation of Reish Lakish was inaccurate. According to Ravin, Reish Lakish was referring to lashes incurred by one who touches sacrificial items (kodashim), not one who enters the Azara. This leads to a broader debate between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan regarding the interpretation of the verse “do not touch kodesh.” Reish Lakish understands it as referring to sacrificial items, while Rabbi Yochanan interprets it as referring to teruma. A question arises: how can Reish Lakish derive both the prohibition to touch and the prohibition to eat sacrificial items from the same verse, as he does in a separate debate with Rabbi Yochanan? The Gemara addresses this and explains how both prohibitions can be learned from the same textual source.  

Living Emunah 2830 Bereshit-Never Losing Out by Giving The pasuk says in this week's parashah, " זֶה סֵפֶר תּוֹלְדוֹת אָדָם " (Bereshit 5:1). Chazal tell us that from this pasuk we learn that HaKadosh Baruch Hu showed Adam HaRishon all of the future generations, every single person who would eventually be born. Among the neshamot Adam saw was that of David HaMelech. Adam saw what a lofty neshamah David had, and also that it was destined to leave this world just three hours after entering it. Adam knew he himself had been granted a lifespan of one thousand years. Out of compassion, he decided to donate seventy years of his own life to David HaMelech. Hashem told him to sign on this pledge, and Adam did so. The Shelah HaKadosh writes in his siddur Sha'ar HaShamayim that when Adam was approaching the age of 930, Hashem told him that his time was near. At that moment Adam wanted to retract his pledge, but Hashem told him it was too late — he had already signed. Adam felt he still had more to accomplish in this world, but his time had come, and there was nothing he could do to extend it. On the surface it might appear that Adam lost out by giving away seventy years of his life. However, the Sefer Sas Bimratecha quotes the Zohar, which explains that Adam's main concern was to repair the damage caused by his sin, which had brought such destruction to the world. He had already fasted for 130 years to make a tikkun for it. David HaMelech, too, spent many years of his life immersed in teshuvah for the episode with Batsheva. The Gemara explains that David did not actually commit an aveirah — it only appeared as if he had. Nevertheless, he dedicated his life to teshuvah. All of David's teshuvah went towards rectifying Adam's sin, for David was only alive because of Adam's gift. Had David lived another thirty years, he would have completely rectified Adam's sin and the ge'ulah would have arrived in his time. Even so, the majority of the sin was corrected, and Adam ultimately gained far more from David than he ever could have accomplished with those seventy years himself. The lesson is clear: a person never loses out by giving. So often we use our time or money to help others, and then a thought crosses our mind that we could have done more for ourselves with those resources. But in truth, we never lose out from helping. Whatever we were meant to accomplish for ourselves is accomplished through the very act of chesed — and even more blessing comes in its place. Every neshamah is sent to this world with a mission, and Hashem knows exactly what each soul needs. He gives us the precise opportunities we require in order to fulfill our purpose. A rabbi recently shared a story. A community member called him from the hospital, where he sat at his father's bedside with his siblings. Their father's blood pressure had dropped dangerously low, and the doctor said he was expected to pass away at any moment. The rabbi explained that he had two shiurim to give back-to-back and absolutely could not miss them, but he promised to come as soon as he finished. After his first class, he called to check in. "Status quo," the man replied. After the second class, the same answer. The rabbi then drove forty minutes to the hospital, and still — unbelievably — nothing had changed. The blood pressure remained dangerously low, but the man was still alive. The rabbi told the family they should recite from the siddur the vidduyim and tefillot that are said before a person's passing. They all began reading together. They completed every last word, and the moment they finished, the machine began to beep. Their father's neshamah departed from this world at that precise instant. The rabbi later reflected: it was as if the neshamah was waiting for that final tikkun to be completed, holding on until it was done. Only then was it ready to leave. Each neshamah has its unique mission. As we begin Parashat Bereshit and embark on a new year, we must focus on utilizing every opportunity Hashem sends us to grow and become the people we are meant to be. Shabbat Shalom.

A new chapter (3)! With a new mishnah. Which continues the topics of chapter 2. If those who are disqualified from doing the Temple service do the slaughter of the offering, the offering is still valid. That is, assuming their intentions are correct, and so on, throughout their practice. What if collecting/receiving the blood is done by someone who is qualified, but hands it off to the disqualified person? What if blood spills to the floor? What if the blood was conveyed to the wrong place? The key element to making sure that the worship is valid is the capacity to revisit it and fix what has gone wrong - as long as there is "dam ha-nefesh." Also, the case of a ritually impure person who places his hand into the courtyard of the Temple - even though he hasn't entered fully - may require lashes (it's a machloket). In the case of the person who has had tzara'at and isn't yet purified, there may be leniency. Of course, the Gemara counters with examples why the leniency would not apply (until the Gemara specifies this impurity as being different).

In this episode of the Thinking Talmudist Podcast, Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe explores Tractate Baba Metzia 84a, focusing on a Talmudic discussion about Rabbi Yochanan's exceptional beauty and its spiritual implications. The episode delves into the concept of the evil eye, the influence of parental thoughts on conception, and the responsibility to use one's gifts thoughtfully. Key points include:Rabbi Yochanan's Beauty: Rabbi Yochanan claims to be the last of Jerusalem's beautiful people, described vividly: a silver goblet filled with pomegranate seeds, crowned with roses, and placed between sun and shade reflects a fraction of his radiance. The Talmud questions this, noting Rav Kahana's beauty resembled Rav Avohu's, which resembled Yaakov's, which resembled Adam's. Rabbi Yochanan's distinction was his beardless face, enhancing his radiant appearance.Mikvah Practice: Rabbi Yochanan sat at the women's mikvah entrance so that women, emerging from ritual immersion, would see him and retain his image, influencing their conception to produce beautiful, Torah-learned children. This mirrors Yaakov's use of streaked rods to influence sheep traits. Rabbi Wolbe defends this as a responsible use of his gift, not arrogance, citing his grandfather's teaching that knowing and using one's virtues is an obligation, akin to knowing one's wealth to give charity.Evil Eye Concerns: The sages question if Rabbi Yochanan feared the evil eye from displaying his beauty. He responds that, as a descendant of Yosef, he is immune, per Genesis 49:22 (“Yosef is a charming son, above the eye”) and 49:24 (likening Yosef's progeny to fish, hidden from the evil eye). Rabbi Wolbe explains the evil eye's real impact: flaunting wealth or beauty can cause jealousy, stress, or harm in others, affecting their relationships or finances.Practical Lessons: Rabbi Wolbe shares anecdotes to illustrate avoiding the evil eye: his father's choice of a modest Toyota Camry over a Lincoln Town Car to avoid neighbors' jealousy, and leaving a broken blinker light to deter envy. He recounts Marvy Finger's mentor, a wealthy man flying coach to avoid wasteful display, emphasizing humility and consideration for others' feelings.Broader Message: The episode underscores the responsibility to use God-given gifts (beauty, wealth) for positive impact while avoiding harm through jealousy. Rabbi Yochanan's actions aimed to inspire righteousness, not pride. Rabbi Wolbe urges mindfulness of how one's actions affect others, promoting sensitivity in a world prone to envy and comparison.The episode concludes with a blessing for a wonderful Shabbos and a call to share Torah content._____________The Thinking Talmudist Podcast shares select teachings of Talmud in a fresh, insightful and meaningful way. Many claim that they cannot learn Talmud because it is in ancient Aramaic or the concepts are too difficult. Well, no more excuses. In this podcast you will experience the refreshing and eye-opening teachings while gaining an amazing appreciation for the divine wisdom of the Torah and the depths of the Talmud._____________This Podcast Series is Generously Underwritten by David & Susan MarbinRecorded at TORCH Meyerland in the Levin Family Studios to a live audience on August 29, 2025, in Houston, Texas.Released as Podcast on October 17, 2025_____________Listen, Subscribe & Share: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/thinking-talmudist-podcast-rabbi-aryeh-wolbe/id1648951154Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0cZ7q9bGYSBYSPQfJvwgzmShare your questions at aw@torchweb.org or visit torchweb.org for more Torah content.  _____________About the Host:Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe, Director of TORCH in Houston, brings decades of Torah scholarship to guide listeners in applying Jewish wisdom to daily life.  To directly send your questions, comments, and feedback, please email: awolbe@torchweb.org_____________Support Our Mission:Help us share Jewish wisdom globally by sponsoring an episode at torchweb.org. Your support makes a difference!_____________Listen MoreOther podcasts by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe: NEW!! 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:#Talmud, #Beauty, #Yochanan, #Gemara, #Radiant, #Responsibility, #Humility, #Mentor, #Practicality, #Luxury, #Mindfulness ★ Support this podcast ★

How can the verse “do not touch kodesh” be used by Reish Lakish to teach that one cannot eat sacrificial meat in a state of impurity, when that verse is needed to derive the prohibition for an impure person to eat sacrificial meat before the blood is sprinkled? To resolve the difficulty, the Gemara explains how both can be derived from the same verse.  There is a debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding an impure person who eats sacrificial meat before the blood is sprinkled – is it punishable by lashes or not? Abaye and Rava disagree about the scope of the debate. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish also disagree about whether one who brings parts of the body of a non-kosher animal onto the altar receives lashes or not. However, after raising a difficulty with this, they explain that all agree it is forbidden, but not punishable by lashes, as it is a negative commandment that is not written explicitly, but derived from a positive commandment. The debate is regarding a different, but similar issue - bringing a non-domesticated animal – is it a violation of a positive commandment, or is it only forbidden ab initio? Three versions of a question are brought regarding shirayim. If a disqualified person accepted and sprinkled the blood, does it render the animal disqualified from being used for a sacrifice, e.g. can one take more blood from the animal and sprinkle it on the altar? Or, if a cup with the blood was taken out of the Azara, can one get more blood from the animal? Or, if multiple cups were used to get blood from the animal and one was used for the altar, does the blood from the other cups also get poured on the base of the altar (as shirayim)? How does the Mishna allow for some mistakes to be rectified? Why are there three different cases like this mentioned in the Mishna – what is unique about each case?

Study Guide Ulla said in the name of Reish Lakish that even if an impure person inserts only a small part of their body into the Azara (Temple courtyard), it is forbidden. Rav Hoshaya challenges this ruling based on a case involving a leper who experienced a seminal emission on the eve of Passover. Despite his impurity, he is permitted to proceed with the purification process, which requires partial entry into the Azara. Ulla resolves this difficulty. A braita is brought in support of Ulla’s statement, discussing the smicha (laying of hands) on the guilt offering of a leper, which is performed outside the Azara. The implication is that if partial entry were permitted, the leper could simply insert his hands into the Azara to perform the smicha. Rav Yosef rejects this support, and there are two distinct versions of how he rejects this. A difficulty is raised against the content of the braita: if the guilt offering requires smicha by Torah law, and if smicha must be performed immediately prior to slaughtering, then it should be permitted to perform the smicha inside the Azara. Rav Ada bar Matna resolves this challenge, though there are differing accounts of how he does so. Ravina and Ravin each offer alternative resolutions to the difficulty with Ulla’s statement. Ravina maintains that partial entry into the Azara is prohibited only by a penalty of lashes, without the more severe punishment of karet. Ravin, on the other hand, argues that Ulla’s citation of Reish Lakish was inaccurate. According to Ravin, Reish Lakish was referring to lashes incurred by one who touches sacrificial items (kodashim), not one who enters the Azara. This leads to a broader debate between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan regarding the interpretation of the verse “do not touch kodesh.” Reish Lakish understands it as referring to sacrificial items, while Rabbi Yochanan interprets it as referring to teruma. A question arises: how can Reish Lakish derive both the prohibition to touch and the prohibition to eat sacrificial items from the same verse, as he does in a separate debate with Rabbi Yochanan? The Gemara addresses this and explains how both prohibitions can be learned from the same textual source.  

After the Yamim Nora'im have concluded and our judgments for the upcoming year have been finalized, it is natural for a person to feel that his deeds and tefillot will no longer have such an effect on his life. After all, whatever will happen this year has already been determined. Yet, the Gemara teaches us otherwise. It says that although the total amount of rain for the year has already been decreed, if the people do teshuvah afterward, Hashem will ensure that every drop falls at the right time, in the right place, and not a single drop will go to waste. The Sfas Emet (Sukkot 5649) writes similarly regarding parnassah. Even though a person's income has already been determined on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, if he has bitachon in Hashem, that same income will be filled with blessing. Furthermore, Hashem can minimize the losses decreed for him. Instead of spending money on a dentist or repairing a leaky roof, those expenses may never arise at all. Someone told me that he was bracing himself for an astronomical tax bill. Yet when the final notice came, it was inexplicably only half of what he expected. Just like that, he saved a fortune. This is how Hashem blesses people — even after outcomes seem to have been decided. And when it comes to tefillah, it is even clearer. We need heartfelt tefillah just to receive what was already decreed for us. Rashi in Parashat Bereishit explains that although Hashem decreed that vegetation would sprout, He held it back until Adam HaRishon prayed. Only after Adam's tefillah did the rains come and bring forth the growth. So too with us: Hashem may decree blessing, but our tefillot are the key to bring it down into reality. Rav Shimshon Pincus pointed out a similar message from Rashi in Parashas Miketz. When Yaakov sent his sons back to Mitzrayim with Binyomin to buy more food, he gave them gifts — the money that had been returned to them, plus new money — and he told them he had made every possible preparation. And then he said, "Now you are not missing anything except prayer. I will pray on your behalf." Yaakov was teaching that everything could be perfectly in place, but without tefillah, nothing works. The same applies to our lives. Hashem may have decreed that the shidduch is ready this year, or the parnassah, the refuah, or the baby. But the only ingredient missing is our tefillah. Furthermore, the Passuk says כַּה׳ אֱלֹקֵינוּ בְּכָל־קָרְאֵנוּ אֵלָיו-How fortunate we are to have Hashem who answers whenever we call to Him! The Gemara teaches, based on this passuk, that when a person prays with a minyan, he can even change an existing decree. And therefore, our deeds and our tefillos are always of paramount importance. Every word of tefillah and every little deed carries tremendous weight in Shamayim. Now, as we begin anew, is the time to strengthen our tefillot and strengthen our deeds as much as we can.

What was Adam thinking? Of course, eating the fruit from the forbidden tree was wrong, and he – along with all humankind – was punished as a result. But we would certainly expect that he had some rationale, some thgouht process that justified this action in his mind. What might have led him to eat fruit which G-d had explicitly commanded him not to eat? The Arizal explains the spiritual effects of Adam's sin, how it fundamentally transformed the human being. Before his sin, the Yeser Ha'ra (evil inclination) was external to the person, not part and parcel of his being. Adam was pure and pristine, with a natural inclination to act the right way and do the right thing. Although temptation existed, it could be avoided. A person could keep a distance from sources of temptation, and serve G-d easily, without any inner resistance or inner struggle. After the sin, however, everything became a struggle. As we all know, virtually every good deed we do requires some degree of effort, a "tug-of-war" between our desire to do the right thing and the desire to do the wrong thing. This ongoing struggle was introduced once Adam and Havah partook of the forbidden fruit. This explains Adam's rationale when he decided to eat the fruit that Havah brought him. Imagine a baseball team that shows up ready to play a game, but after the pregame workouts and batting practice, just before the first pitch, the other team decides to forfeit the game. The first team will of course be happy to be credited with a win, but it won't feel very proud of this victory. But if the game is played, and it goes into extra innings, with both teams playing hard, and the game is won in dramatic fashion in the 14 th inning – the team will go home feeling very gratified over its hard-fought win. Adam reasoned that he could draw closer to G-d by inviting the Yeser Ha'ra into his being, by accepting the challenge of perpetual spiritual struggle. Serving G-d without this inner conflict would be like winning via a forfeit, without a fight, whereas serving G-d by constantly resisting lures and temptations would be a hard-fought triumph each and every day of his life. This is what Adam wanted. He strove for greatness, and he understood that greatness is achieved only through hard work and struggle. He thus decided to subject himself to the difficult challenges of the Yeser Ha'ra so he would have to wage a lifelong battle against them. Nevertheless, Adam was wrong. This decision was sinful – so sinful, in fact, that it brought to the world numerous curses, including death itself. The reason why Adam was wrong is very simple – because Hashem told him not to eat the fruit. No human being can ever try to "outsmart" G-d, or think that he has a better idea than G-d had. And no human being can ever think that he can draw close to G-d by disobeying G-d's command. No matter how certain a person is that a certain action will propel him to great spiritual heights and enhance his relationship with Hashem – he must not commit that act if Hashem Himself proscribed it. It is impossible to serve G-d by disobeying G-d. The Gemara teaches that the "Zuhama" ("filth") of Adam's sin remained until the time of Matan Torah, when Beneh Yisrael stood at Mount Sinai and accepted the Torah. They proclaimed, "Na'aseh Ve'nishma" ("We will do and we will hear" – Shemot 24:7), committing themselves unconditionally to G-d's will. They declared their unbridled obedience, that they would observe every command without any hesitation and without rationalization. This corrected the ill that plagued mankind since the time of Adam's sin, the tendency to arrogantly subject G-d's commands to human logic and reasoning. Tragically, however, Beneh Yisrael fell once again just 40 days later, when they worshipped the golden calf. The Ramban and others explain that Beneh Yisrael did not worship they golden calf as a deity. They made a graven image not to replace the Almighty, but rather to replace Moshe, their leader and prophet through whom they served G-d – and whom they had assumed was never returning. Their intentions may have been noble – but they erred by directly disobeying the explicit command not to build an idol for religious worship. Religious observance cannot be diluted or altered to suit our own ideas, our own preferences, or our own perceptions of right and wrong. No matter how convinced we might be that a certain course action is "spiritual" or religiously beneficial, and serves to advance our relationship with G-d, it must not be followed if it violates Hashem's word, if it transgresses the Torah that He gave us. Adam's mistake reminds us that even the noblest intentions cannot justify disobedience. Real Abodat Hashem (service of Gd) begins when we humbly trust His wisdom more than our own.

3 interpretations of the most recent mishnah: Shmuel maintains that the atonement kicks in when the blood is appropriately on the altar. Resh Lakish, however, says that if the offering is invalidated, the atonement doesn't work, but there is still room for Shmuel's understanding about atonement. A third understanding is R. Yohanan, which is that there's no atonement. Note that the Gemara does relate the views to each other. Also, a shift to focus on the burnt-offering, and Rabbi Shimon's understanding of the details of what invalidates such an offering - with a comparison between the mishandling or error in transferring or placing the blood vs. an issue with the suitability of the animal itself (for example, and this is the Gemara's first example of a problematic animal, the animal used in bestiality).

What happens if the animal to be slaughtered is partly outside of where it needs to be for the slaughtering in the courtyard - Shmuel's father answers Shmuel. Ideally, no. And then the Gemara brings other cases - what the animal were suspended in the air? Shmuel says it's fine, and his father notes that it has to be in the courtyard, and suspension in the air doesn't fulfill that requirement. What if the slaughterer was suspended in the air? Also, a new mishnah - with a list of what is NOT acceptable to do, rather than what is, in terms of where the blood needed to be placed.

In the Torah verse regarding the purification of the leper (Vayikra 14:17), the word “right” appears three times - once in reference to the hand, once to the foot, and once to the ear. Rava explains that each mention teaches the requirement to use the right hand in a different ritual: one for kemitza (taking a handful of flour) in meal offerings, one for chalitza (the release ceremony of levirate marriage), and one for piercing the ear of a Jewish slave. According to Rabba bar bar Hanna, quoting Rabbi Yochanan, wherever the Torah uses the term “kohen,” the action must be performed with the right hand. Based on this, Rava’s drasha regarding kemitza teaches that not only the taking of the kometz (handful) must be done with the right hand, but also its placement into the kli sharet (sanctified vessel). Rabbi Shimon, who either does not require this part of the process or does not require it to be done with the right hand, agrees that the kemitza itself must be performed with the right hand, as derived from Vayikra 6:10, which compares the meal offering to the sin offering. Therefore, Rava’s interpretation applies specifically to the meal offering of a sinner, brought as part of a sliding scale offering. The Mishna rules that if the blood spills directly onto the floor from the animal, without first being collected in a sanctified vessel, the blood is disqualified. A braita teaches that the blood to be collected must be the spurting blood from the act of slaughter - not blood from a cut, nor residual blood that flows after most of the blood has exited the animal. The blood must flow directly from the animal into the kli sharet, from which it will be sprinkled on the altar. These laws are derived from Vayikra 4:5, in the context of the sin offering of the Kohen Gadol. Rav rules that all of the blood must be collected, based on Vayikra 4:7. According to Shmuel, the knife must be lifted immediately after slaughter to prevent blood from dripping off the knife into the vessel, since the blood must come directly from the animal. Rav Chisda and Rabbi Yochanan explain that the animal’s throat must be held directly over the vessel to ensure the blood flows straight into it. Rabbi Asi posed a question to Rabbi Yochanan regarding the airspace above a vessel. The Gemara brings three versions of the question and Rabbi Yochanan’s response: If the bottom of the vessel broke before the blood reached it, but the blood had already entered the vessel’s airspace, does this count as if the blood had reached the vessel? If so, the blood could be collected from the floor and used on the altar. To answer the question, Rabbi Yochanan cited a braita regarding a barrel into which fresh water streamed into its airspace, disqualifying it for use in the red heifer purification waters, as it is considered as though the water entered the vessel. However, this comparison is problematic, since the red heifer case does not involve a broken vessel. To justify the citation, the Gemara reframes the question as a two-pronged inquiry. The question was about the barrel, and the answer was drawn from the aforementioned braita. The question was about the barrel, and the answer was derived from the laws of sacrificial blood, which must reach the vessel directly. Since the blood passes through the airspace first, this implies that the airspace is treated as part of the vessel. If the animal becomes blemished after slaughter but before the blood is collected, brought to the altar, or poured, the blood is disqualified. A source is cited from the laws of the sin offering to support this. The Gemara attempts to extend this ruling to offerings of lesser sanctity, such as the Paschal sacrifice, but the proof is ultimately rejected.  

A new mishnah! If the blood from the animal spills on the floor instead of being collected, and only then it's collected, that offering is invalid. The Gemara delves into the verses that teach what is necessary - in terms of what needs to be accepted. Plus, positioning in slaughtering the animal, such that no blood should fall. Also, a dilemma: if the bowl used for collecting the blood drops out before the blood reaches the air space of the bowl, is that valid or not? The answer may be a parallel to a barrel used to collect water from a pipe that may later be used for purification (or not - does the lack of fitness for purification answer the bottomless bowl question, or not?).

Today's daf is sponsored by Elana Kermaier in loving memory of her father, Moishe Fox, Moshe Yehuda ben Harav Binyamin and Chaya Tzipora, on his seventh yahrzeit. "I miss his smile, his chuckle, his humor, and his warmth more and more as the years go by." If the kohen does not stand directly on the floor but rather on an object placed upon the floor while performing one of the central sacrificial rites, this is considered a chatzitza—an interposition—and disqualifies the sacrifice. From where is this derived? The Mishna presents three examples of such interpositions between the kohen and the floor. Each example is necessary to illustrate different types of chatzitzot. A braita is cited with Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling: if a kohen has one foot on the ground and the other on an object, and the object is removed such that he can stand solely on the grounded foot, the sacrifice remains valid. Rabbi Ami raises a question regarding a kohen standing on a loose stone. One version of his inquiry concerns whether the looseness of the stone constitutes a chatzitza. An alternative version explores whether, if the stone were removed and the kohen stood directly on the ground beneath, the rite would be valid. The Mishna also discusses a debate between the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon regarding whether accepting the blood with the left hand renders the sacrifice invalid. Their disagreement centers on the interpretation of the verse in Vayikra 4:25. Three explanations are offered by Rav Yehuda, Rava, and Abaye to clarify the root of the dispute. Abaye further notes a third interpretation by Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that while the blood must be accepted with the right hand, the sprinkling may be performed with the left. Rabba bar bar Channa quotes Rabbi Yochanan, who teaches that if the Torah mentions both “kohen” and “finger,” the action must be performed with the right hand. Rava clarifies that Rabbi Yochanan meant that even if either term appears independently, the right hand is required. Abaye limits this principle to essential sacrificial rites. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Shimon requires the right hand if either “finger” appears alone or “kohen” together with “finger”. According to Rabbi Yochanan’s rule that the mention of “kohen” implies the use of the right hand, why did Rava derive a gezera shava—a textual analogy—from the three mentions of “right” in the leper purification ritual (right hand, right foot, right ear), applying one of them to kemitza (the flour offering), when the verse already includes the word “kohen”? This is there to teach an additional halakha that requires the right hand.

Even though the basin in the Temple must be large enough for four people to simultaneously wash their hands and feet from it, a kohen may also perform this washing using a smaller utensil - provided the water originates from the basin and the utensil is sanctified (a kli sharet). Reish Lakish ruled that a liquid suitable for completing the required volume of a mikveh may also be used to complete the volume of water in the Temple basin. However, such a liquid is not valid for the quarter-log amount required for netilat yadayim (ritual handwashing). The Gemara explores what types of liquids are excluded from use in netilat yadayim. Initially, it suggests excluding liquefied clay or aquatic organisms like red gnats, which are considered water-like. Both suggestions are ultimately rejected. Instead, the Gemara concludes that the exclusion applies to a case where one adds a se’ah of liquid to a mikveh that contains exactly forty se’ah, then removes a se’ah, repeating this process until half the mikveh consists of the added liquid. This method is acceptable for a mikveh and the Temple basin, but not for the quarter-log required for handwashing. Rav Papa introduces a unique case where such a liquid would be valid for tevilah (immersion) of very small items. Rabbi Yirmia, quoting Reish Lakish, stated that water from a mikveh may be used in the Temple basin. This raises a question: perhaps the basin requires flowing water rather than stagnant water. Although a tannaitic source seems to support this requirement, the Gemara resolves the issue by showing that it is a matter of dispute among the tannaim. The Mishna teaches that if an uncircumcised kohen performs sacrificial service in the Temple, the sacrifices are disqualified. This ruling is derived from Yechezkel 44:7,9. Similarly, a kohen who is impure disqualifies the sacrifices he offers. The elders of the South limit this disqualification to impurity from a sheretz (creeping creature), but not to impurity from contact with the dead, which is permitted when the majority of the community is impure. The Gemara challenges this view, noting that impurity from the dead is more severe as it lasts seven days and requires purification through the ashes of the red heifer. However, the elders argue that since communal sacrifices are accepted when the majority are impure from the dead but not from a sheretz, the same distinction applies to kohanim: a kohen’s sacrifice is not disqualified if he is impure from the dead. To better understand the elders’ position, the Gemara concludes that they must hold that someone impure from a sheretz on the 14th of Nissan may have the Paschal sacrifice offered on their behalf and eat it on the night of the 15th in a state of purity. Ulla explained that Reish Lakish strongly disagreed with the elders of the South. He argued that the laws governing the community are more lenient than those governing the kohanim. While the people may have their Paschal offering brought on their behalf when impure, a kohen’s offering is disqualified if he is impure from a sheretz. Therefore, if the Paschal offering cannot be brought on behalf of someone impure from the dead, then certainly a kohen who is impure from the dead should disqualify the sacrifice he offers. To resolve Reish Lakish’s difficulty, the Gemara suggests that the elders of the South may have held that even the Paschal offering could be brought on behalf of someone impure from the dead. This raises a question: how does this view align with the laws of Pesach Sheni?  

Several difficulties are raised against the conclusion that the elders of the South must hold that the Paschal sacrifice may be brought on behalf of someone who is impure from contact with the dead. After presenting a challenge based on a question posed by Rami bar Hama, the Gemara concludes that Rami bar Hama clearly disagrees with the elders of the South. He maintains that the Paschal sacrifice cannot be brought for someone who is impure, and if it is, the offering is disqualified. A baraita is cited as a challenge to Rami bar Hama’s position, but the difficulty is ultimately resolved. Notably, there are two different versions of this challenge. Additionally, the Gemara discusses the case of a kohen who sits while performing the sacrificial rites. In such a case, the sacrifice is disqualified. The source for this ruling is examined, and two textual proofs are brought to support it.