Podcasts about Gemara

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rava ruled that if a Jew is with a non-Jewish prostitute and there is wine present, one can assume that the Jew ensured the prostitute did not come into contact with the wine, and therefore it is permitted. Although he may not be able to control his sexual desires, he is not presumed to be lax in the laws of yayin nesech (forbidden wine). However, in the reverse case—where a Jewish prostitute is with a non-Jew—since the non-Jew holds the dominant position in the relationship, we assume she has no way to prevent him from touching the wine, and thus it is forbidden. There are nine different cases in which a Jew’s wine was left with a non-Jew, and Rava issued rulings on whether the wine was permitted or forbidden in each instance. In many of these cases, he permitted the wine based on his assessment that the non-Jew would likely not have touched it, due to the possibility of being caught by the owner or another Jew. In other cases, there was uncertainty about whether the non-Jew had even come into contact with the wine, or whether the individuals present were Jews or non-Jews. Two additional cases were brought before other rabbis. In the second case, Abaye introduces a comparison to the laws of impurity, and the Gemara addresses this comparison. It notes that the rabbis were stricter regarding impurity laws than they were with wine, citing a debate between Rav and Rabbi Yochanan to support this point. Three challenges are raised against the positions of Rav and Rabbi Yochanan—two against Rav and one against Rabbi Yochanan—and each is resolved.

One of the Berachot we are required to recite each morning is "She'lo Asani Goy," in which we thank Hashem for making us Jews. We have the great privilege of having been chosen to build a special relationship with G-d, and so the Sages instituted a Beracha to express our gratitude for the gift of being part of G-d's chosen people. There is considerable discussion and debate among the Poskim as to whether this text of the Beracha is indeed the correct text. The Zecher Yehosef (Rav Yosef Zecharya Stern, 1831-1903) noted that the term "Goy" – which means "nation" – is used even in reference to the Jewish People, as in the verse in Dibreh Hayamim I 17:21), "U'mi Ke'amcha Yisrael Goy Ehad Ba'aretz" ("And who is like Your nation, Israel, a singular nation on earth"). Accordingly, the Zecher Yehosef claims that the wording of this blessing was changed by the Church to "Goy" so that it would not be offensive to Christians. The Shulhan Aruch Ha'Rav (Rav Schneur Zalman of Liadi, founding Rebbe of Lubavitch, 1745-1812), among others, maintained that the proper text for this Beracha is "She'lo Asani Nochri," substituting the word "Goy" with "Nochri," which means "gentile." The Zecher Yehosef disagreed with this practice, arguing that the word "Nochri" technically means "foreigner," referring even to somebody from a different family or land, and does not necessarily refer to non-Jews. It is reported that the Hafetz Haim (Rav Yisrael Meir Kagan of Radin, 1839-1933) recited this Beracha as "She'lo Asani Obed Kochabim U'mazalot" – specifying that we are not worshippers of foreign deities. Others, however, dismissed this opinion, noting that there are many gentiles who do not worship foreign deities, and we are thankful also for not being among them, for being part of the Jewish Nation. In any event, common practice is to recite the text "She'lo Asani Goy." The explanation might be that although the Jewish People collectively is sometimes called a "Goy," this term used in the context of an individual refers specifically to a gentile. Hence, when we say "She'lo Asani Goy," we mean that Hashem did not make us a non-Jew. The Sedeh Hemed (Rav Haim Hizkiya Medini, 1834-1904) recited the text "She'lo Asani Goy Ke'goyeh Ha'arasot" – "who did not make me a 'Goy' like the nations of the other lands," in order to specify foreign nations. This is not the commonly accepted practice, though one certainly may recite this text, for even if the phrase "She'lo Asani Goy" is correct, adding the words "Ke'goyeh Ha'arasot" does not undermine the Beracha's legitimacy. The Bayit Hadash (Rav Yoel Sirkis, Poland, 1561-1640) raises the question of why this blessing is formulated in the negative form, thanking Hashem for not making us gentiles, rather than thanking Hashem for making us Jewish. One answer, as the Bayit Hadash brings, is based on the Gemara's sobering comment in Masechet Erubin (13), "No'ah Lo La'adam She'lo Nibra Yoter Mi'she'nibra" – "It would have been preferable for a person not to have been created, rather than to have been created." As life presents us with so many opportunities for failure, a person would have been better off having never been brought into this world. As such, it would be incorrect to thank Hashem for "making us" a certain way. The Bayit Hadash rejects this explanation, and suggests a different answer – that if we said "She'asani Yisrael," thanking Hashem for creating us as Jews, we would then be unable to recite the next two blessings – thanking Hashem for not making us a servant ("She'lo Asani Abed") and for not making us a woman "(She'lo Asani Isha"). The term "Yisrael" implies a free, Jewish man, and thus includes the next two Berachot. Hence, the Sages formulated this blessing in the negative form – "She'lo Asani Goy," so that we would be able to recite two additional blessings thanking Hashem for our freedom and for making us male. The Taz (Rav David Segal, 1586-1667) suggests a different answer, explaining that the text "She'asani Yisrael" would give the mistaken impression that only Jewish males have value and significance. Although we are thankful for being Jewish and for being male, we certainly do not believe that those who aren't Jewish, or Jewish women, are unimportant or do not have crucial roles to play in the world. For this reason, the Sages chose not to formulate the blessing as "She'asani Yisrael," and chose the negative form, instead. The Poskim debate the question of whether a Ger (convert) recites this blessing. The Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Poland, 1530-1572) maintained that a convert does not recite this Beracha, since he cannot say that Hashem made him a Jew, as he was born a gentile. The Bayit Hadash understood the Rama to mean that a Ger recites instead, "She'asani Yehudi" – "who has made me a Jew." However, the Bayit Hadash disputes this opinion, arguing that it was the convert himself, and not G-d, who turn him into a Jew, as he was born a gentile and then made the decision to become a Jew. Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) refutes this challenge, noting that Hashem enabled the convert to become Jewish by establishing the process of conversion. It is thus indeed appropriate for a convert to thank Hashem for "making" him a Jew by making conversion a possibility and assisting him along this process. A different view is brought by the Magen Abraham (Rav Abraham Gombiner, 1633-1683) – that a convert should recite the Beracha "She'asani Ger" – "who made me a convert." The verb "A.S.A." ("make") refers to the motivation to convert, as evidenced by the verse in the Book of Bereshit (12:5), "Ve'et Ha'nefesh Asher Asu Be'Haran" ("and the souls which they made in Haran"), which refers to the idolaters whom Abraham and Sara influenced to convert to monotheism. Others suggested that a Ger should recite the blessing, "She'hichnisani Tahat Kanfeh Ha'shechina" – "who has brought me under the wings of the Shechina," which refers to the process of joining the Jewish Nation. Others maintained that a Ger recites the standard Beracha of "She'lo Asani Goy," because he thanks Hashem for the fact that he is now a Jew. According to Kabbalah, this blessing thanks Hashem for restoring our Jewish soul in the morning, and this is relevant also to converts. Hence, according to this opinion, converts recite the same text as those who were born Jewish. In practice, however, the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) maintained that a convert should not recite "She'lo Asani Goy" or any variation thereof, noting that the Bet Yosef appears to concur with this ruling. Later Poskim also noted that given the differences of opinion on this subject, we apply the famous rule of "Safek Berachot Le'hakel" – that we do not recite a Beracha when it is uncertain whether it is warranted. Instead, a convert should recite "Baruch Ata She'lo Asani Goy," omitting Hashem's Name. If a woman converted to Judaism while she was pregnant, it is uncertain whether the child has the status of a gentile or of a regular Jew. The child in this case was conceived when the mother was a gentile, but was delivered after she became a Jew, and it is questionable whether the child's status is determined at conception or at birth. Therefore, this child when he grows up should not recite the Beracha of "She'lo Asani Goy," given the different opinions that exist. All opinions agree that a convert recites the Beracha of "She'lo Asani Abed" and (in the case of a male convert) the Beracha of "She'lo Asani Isha." The Mishna Berura explains that a convert must thank Hashem for having been given the opportunity to be free and to be a man, an opportunity which he would not have had if he had been born as a servant or a woman. These three Berachot – "She'lo Asani Goy," "She'lo Asani Abed," and "She'lo Asani Isha" – are to be recited in this sequence. One first thanks Hashem for making him a Jew, then for making him a free person, as opposed to a slave, and then for making him male. A gentile, of course, is not bound by the Torah's commands at all, whereas a servant has already begun the process of becoming a Jew, and is obligated in some Misvot. And a woman, of course, is a full-fledged Jew, though with fewer Misva obligations then men. These three Berachot, then, follow a specific sequence, proceeding gradually from more general to more specific. The Magen Abraham ruled that if a person recited these Berachot out of order – reciting "She'lo Asani Isha" first – then he can no longer recite the other two blessings. The Beracha of "She'lo Asani Isha," as mentioned, is the most specific, and it thus naturally includes the other two. Meaning, once a person thanks Hashem for making him a man with numerous Misva opportunities, he in effect thanks Hashem also for not making him a gentile – who has no Misva obligations – or a servant – who has relatively few Misva obligations. This resembles the situation addressed by the Poskim where a person recited the Beracha of "Zokef Kefufim" – thanking Hashem for the ability to stand up straight – before reciting the Beracha of "Matir Asurim," which thanks Hashem for the ability to move our limbs. According to some opinions, the person in this case can then not recite "Matur Asurim," because the ability to move our limbs is included in the ability to stand up straight. (This is, in fact, the Halacha.) By the same token, the Magen Abraham writes, a person who recited "She'lo Asani Isha" before reciting "She'lo Asani Goy" and "She'lo Asani Abed" does not then recite those two blessings. However, the Mishna Berura cites the Elya Rabba (Rav Eliyahu Shapira, Prague, 1660-1712) as disagreeing with this ruling, and maintaining that the Berachot of "She'lo Asani Goy" and "She'lo Asani Abed" may be recited even after "She'lo Asani Isha." The Taz explains that the Beracha of "She'lo Asani Isha" does not necessarily cover the other two blessings, because a servant and a gentile have certain advantages over a Jewish woman, in that they have the possibility of becoming a full-fledged Jewish male. Therefore, even after reciting "She'lo Asani Isha," one still has reason to thank Hashem for not making him a servant or a gentile. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, in Halichot Olam, cites a large number of Poskim who follow this second opinion, that "She'lo Asani Goy" and "She'lo Asani Abed" may be recited after "She'lo Asani Isha." (These include the Elya Rabba, the Taz, the Peri Hadash, the Mateh Yehuda, the Shulhan Aruch Ha'Rav, the Peri Megadim, Rabbi Akiva Eger and the Shalmeh Sibur.) Therefore, as this is clearly the consensus view, this opinion should be followed, and one who mistakenly recited "She'lo Asani Isha" before "She'lo Asani Goy" and "She'lo Asani Abed" may still recite those two Berachot. Summary: A Ger (convert), who was not born Jewish, should not recite the full text of the Beracha of "She'lo Asani Goy," and should recite instead, "Baruch Ata She'lo Asani Goy," omitting Hashem's Name. The Berachot of "She'lo Asani Goy," "She'lo Asani Abed" and "She'lo Asani Isha" should be recited in that specific sequence. Nevertheless, if one recited one of the later blessings first, he still recites the others.

The Gemara in Eiruvin 13b describes how the three year argument between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel culminated in a bas kol saying, “These and these are the words of the living God, and the Halacha is like Beis Hillel.” The Gemara goes on to explain that the psak is like Beis Hillel because of various good middos they had. We analyze these middos and discuss why they're relevant for halachik psak. We also discuss the meaning of the bas kol.

Rava ruled that if a Jew is with a non-Jewish prostitute and there is wine present, one can assume that the Jew ensured the prostitute did not come into contact with the wine, and therefore it is permitted. Although he may not be able to control his sexual desires, he is not presumed to be lax in the laws of yayin nesech (forbidden wine). However, in the reverse case—where a Jewish prostitute is with a non-Jew—since the non-Jew holds the dominant position in the relationship, we assume she has no way to prevent him from touching the wine, and thus it is forbidden. There are nine different cases in which a Jew’s wine was left with a non-Jew, and Rava issued rulings on whether the wine was permitted or forbidden in each instance. In many of these cases, he permitted the wine based on his assessment that the non-Jew would likely not have touched it, due to the possibility of being caught by the owner or another Jew. In other cases, there was uncertainty about whether the non-Jew had even come into contact with the wine, or whether the individuals present were Jews or non-Jews. Two additional cases were brought before other rabbis. In the second case, Abaye introduces a comparison to the laws of impurity, and the Gemara addresses this comparison. It notes that the rabbis were stricter regarding impurity laws than they were with wine, citing a debate between Rav and Rabbi Yochanan to support this point. Three challenges are raised against the positions of Rav and Rabbi Yochanan—two against Rav and one against Rabbi Yochanan—and each is resolved.

This week's learning is sponsored by Danielle & Jason Friedman in honor of Anabelle Friedman on her siyum of Mashechet Rosh Hashana on the occasion of her Bat Mitzvah, and in honor and appreciation of Rabbanit Michelle for inspiring and enabling multiple generations of women, in our family and around the world, to engage in Talmud study. Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in memory of Myer Senders a”h, beloved father of our friend and co-learner Tina Lamm. "May the Torah learned today by all of us be a zechut for his neshama ותהא נשמתו צרורה בצרור החיים." What is the law regarding a mouse that falls into vinegar? Is the mouse nullified, and if so, at what ratio? The Mishna presents three distinct scenarios involving a Jew and a non-Jew, where wine is left in a location accessible to the non-Jew, raising concerns about potential libation (נסך) and thus rendering the wine prohibited. In each case, the Mishna outlines whether there is reason to suspect that the non-Jew offered the wine as a libation. The determining factor is whether the Jew stated they would be gone for a while or whether the Jew is considered to be supervising. The Gemara defines supervision as a situation in which the Jew could return at any moment, even if they are not physically present. The amount of time that must elapse to prohibit the wine (in a case where the Jew leaves for a while) is debated between the Rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. The Rabbis hold that the wine becomes prohibited if enough time passes to pierce the stopper, reseal it, and allow it to dry. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that the required time is that needed to break the stopper entirely, fashion a new one, and let it dry. A fourth case involves a non-Jew dining in a Jew’s home, with wine left either on the table or on a side table. If the Jew leaves the room, there is concern that the non-Jew may touch the wine on the table, but not the wine on the side table—unless the Jew instructed the non-Jew to dilute the wine. If the bottle is sealed and enough time has passed for the stopper to be broken, replaced, and dried, the wine is prohibited. Why are all three cases necessary? What is unique about each, and why did the Mishna include them all? Rabbi Yochanan limits the scope of the debate between the Rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel to stoppers made of lime plaster, excluding those made of clay. If a non-Jew were to pierce a clay stopper and reseal it, the tampering would be visibly noticeable. A difficulty is raised against Rabbi Yochanan’s explanation from a braita, but it is ultimately resolved. Rava rules in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as the final case in the Mishna reflects his opinion exclusively, without presenting the view of the Rabbis. The sugya concludes with a practical question: If the halakha follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—requiring a longer time to prohibit the wine—and also follows Rabbi Eliezer (Avodah Zarah 31a), who permits leaving a barrel with a single seal in the possession of a non-Jew without concern for tampering, why is the current practice to avoid leaving wine in a non-Jew’s possession? The Gemara answers that the concern lies with the bunghole, which was used to smell the wine. The worry is that the non-Jew might widen the hole to drink from it and offer the wine as a libation. Bungholes were apparently not present in barrels during the time of the Mishna but were commonly used at a later time in Babylonia when the question was asked.

This week's learning is sponsored by Danielle & Jason Friedman in honor of Anabelle Friedman on her siyum of Mashechet Rosh Hashana on the occasion of her Bat Mitzvah, and in honor and appreciation of Rabbanit Michelle for inspiring and enabling multiple generations of women, in our family and around the world, to engage in Talmud study. Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in memory of Myer Senders a”h, beloved father of our friend and co-learner Tina Lamm. "May the Torah learned today by all of us be a zechut for his neshama ותהא נשמתו צרורה בצרור החיים." What is the law regarding a mouse that falls into vinegar? Is the mouse nullified, and if so, at what ratio? The Mishna presents three distinct scenarios involving a Jew and a non-Jew, where wine is left in a location accessible to the non-Jew, raising concerns about potential libation (נסך) and thus rendering the wine prohibited. In each case, the Mishna outlines whether there is reason to suspect that the non-Jew offered the wine as a libation. The determining factor is whether the Jew stated they would be gone for a while or whether the Jew is considered to be supervising. The Gemara defines supervision as a situation in which the Jew could return at any moment, even if they are not physically present. The amount of time that must elapse to prohibit the wine (in a case where the Jew leaves for a while) is debated between the Rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. The Rabbis hold that the wine becomes prohibited if enough time passes to pierce the stopper, reseal it, and allow it to dry. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that the required time is that needed to break the stopper entirely, fashion a new one, and let it dry. A fourth case involves a non-Jew dining in a Jew’s home, with wine left either on the table or on a side table. If the Jew leaves the room, there is concern that the non-Jew may touch the wine on the table, but not the wine on the side table—unless the Jew instructed the non-Jew to dilute the wine. If the bottle is sealed and enough time has passed for the stopper to be broken, replaced, and dried, the wine is prohibited. Why are all three cases necessary? What is unique about each, and why did the Mishna include them all? Rabbi Yochanan limits the scope of the debate between the Rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel to stoppers made of lime plaster, excluding those made of clay. If a non-Jew were to pierce a clay stopper and reseal it, the tampering would be visibly noticeable. A difficulty is raised against Rabbi Yochanan’s explanation from a braita, but it is ultimately resolved. Rava rules in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as the final case in the Mishna reflects his opinion exclusively, without presenting the view of the Rabbis. The sugya concludes with a practical question: If the halakha follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—requiring a longer time to prohibit the wine—and also follows Rabbi Eliezer (Avodah Zarah 31a), who permits leaving a barrel with a single seal in the possession of a non-Jew without concern for tampering, why is the current practice to avoid leaving wine in a non-Jew’s possession? The Gemara answers that the concern lies with the bunghole, which was used to smell the wine. The worry is that the non-Jew might widen the hole to drink from it and offer the wine as a libation. Bungholes were apparently not present in barrels during the time of the Mishna but were commonly used at a later time in Babylonia when the question was asked.

This week's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik and Professor Adi Wyner in honor of the birth of their first Israeli grandson, David Rafael, son of Rivkah & Charlie Gottlieb. Davidi was born at Sheba Medical Center on 26 Tammuz/ July 22. He is named after his great-grandfathers, David Malik z"l and Dr. Donald Stoltz z"l. As we begin the month of Elul with the recitation of Tehillim 27 (“L’David HaShem Ori v’Yishi”), we continue to pray for Davidi’s refuah shleima as he meets the challenges of a cleft palate, including surgery sometime before his first birthday. דוד רפאל בן רבקה אריאנא ואליעזר בנימין Today's daf is sponsored by Terri Krivosha in memory of her mother, חני מנדל בת שימה פיגה וירחמיאל הכהן, on her second yahrzeit. She was an eshet chayil whom we miss and think of every day. Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Meir dispute whether a mixture is prohibited when the forbidden component imparts a bad taste to the permitted food. Ulla and Rabbi Yochanan differ on the scope of the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Meir: Ulla holds that they disagree when the forbidden item initially gives a good taste and only later turns bad, while Rabbi Yochanan holds that they disagree in a case where the bad taste is immediate. A challenge to Ulla’s view is raised and resolved. The Gemara then asks whether Rabbi Yochanan holds that they disagree in both scenarios, but the question remains unresolved. Rav Amram raises a difficulty with Rabbi Yochanan’s view, noting that this debate is absent from the Mishna. After further searching, he identifies what seems to be the same dispute in Mishna Orlah 2:9. Rabbi Zeira, however, rejects the connection, explaining that the prohibition there rests on a different principle. A braita is then brought that directly supports Rabbi Yochanan: it describes a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis regarding two leavening agents — one of truma, one of chullin — each potent enough to leaven dough on its own. Since adding both would cause over-leavening and produce a bad taste, this proves that there is indeed a debate in cases where a prohibited item imparts a bad taste. The braita lists another disputed scenario — when both leavening agents are added simultaneously. Abaye explains the need for this case: it was brought to clarify Rabbi Shimon’s position that even when the prohibited agent initially aids leavening, if it acts in tandem with the permitted agent, it is not considered to have been beneficial to the dough initially, and therefore, the dough is permitted. A case is brought where a mouse fell into a barrel of beer, and Rav prohibited the consumption of the beer. Some assumed Rav ruled like Rabbi Meir, prohibiting mixtures even when the forbidden element imparts bad taste. Rav Sheshet instead interprets Rav’s decision as a special stringency regarding sheratzim (creeping creatures), and two objections to this reading are resolved. Rava rejects Rav Sheshet’s explanation and holds that if a prohibited item imparts bad taste, the mixture is permitted, and suggests either that the halakha is not in accordance with Rav, or that Rav held the mouse imparted a good taste to the beer.

The Gemara teaches that one recites each morning the blessing of "Ozer Yisrael Bi'gbura" – "who girds Israel with strength" – upon putting on an "Abnet." Most commentaries explain this term to mean a belt (like the belt worn by the Kohanim in the Bet Ha'mikdash, which is called "Abnet"), and indeed, the word "Ozer" means "gird," referring to putting on a belt. Others, however, including the Peri Hadash (Rav Hizkiya Da Silva, 1659-1698) and Rav David Abudarham (Spain, 14 th century), explain that this Beracha speaks of putting on pants. According to both understandings, this Beracha thanks Hashem for allowing us to make a separation between the upper body and lower body. On this basis, some explain why we speak in this blessing of our being girded with Gebura – "strength." As the Mishna in Abot (4:1) famously teaches, "Ezehu Gibor, Ha'kobesh Et Yisro" – the truly "strong" person is one who has the strength to restrain his evil inclination. The belt thus signifies our ability to separate between the lower body, which is associated with sinful desires, and the upper body, which is associated with the intellect and conscience. When we recite this Beracha, we praise Hashem for giving us the power of self-restraint, to use our upper body – such as the mind, the eyes, the mouth, etc. – for meaningful, spiritual endeavors, detached from sinful passions associated with the lower body. This ability is a precious gift which Hashem has given us, and so the Sages instituted the recitation of a special Beracha each morning to thank Him for this quality that He has mercifully embedded within us.

This week's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik and Professor Adi Wyner in honor of the birth of their first Israeli grandson, David Rafael, son of Rivkah & Charlie Gottlieb. Davidi was born at Sheba Medical Center on 26 Tammuz/ July 22. He is named after his great-grandfathers, David Malik z"l and Dr. Donald Stoltz z"l. As we begin the month of Elul with the recitation of Tehillim 27 (“L’David HaShem Ori v’Yishi”), we continue to pray for Davidi’s refuah shleima as he meets the challenges of a cleft palate, including surgery sometime before his first birthday. דוד רפאל בן רבקה אריאנא ואליעזר בנימין Today's daf is sponsored by Terri Krivosha in memory of her mother, חני מנדל בת שימה פיגה וירחמיאל הכהן, on her second yahrzeit. She was an eshet chayil whom we miss and think of every day. Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Meir dispute whether a mixture is prohibited when the forbidden component imparts a bad taste to the permitted food. Ulla and Rabbi Yochanan differ on the scope of the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Meir: Ulla holds that they disagree when the forbidden item initially gives a good taste and only later turns bad, while Rabbi Yochanan holds that they disagree in a case where the bad taste is immediate. A challenge to Ulla’s view is raised and resolved. The Gemara then asks whether Rabbi Yochanan holds that they disagree in both scenarios, but the question remains unresolved. Rav Amram raises a difficulty with Rabbi Yochanan’s view, noting that this debate is absent from the Mishna. After further searching, he identifies what seems to be the same dispute in Mishna Orlah 2:9. Rabbi Zeira, however, rejects the connection, explaining that the prohibition there rests on a different principle. A braita is then brought that directly supports Rabbi Yochanan: it describes a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis regarding two leavening agents — one of truma, one of chullin — each potent enough to leaven dough on its own. Since adding both would cause over-leavening and produce a bad taste, this proves that there is indeed a debate in cases where a prohibited item imparts a bad taste. The braita lists another disputed scenario — when both leavening agents are added simultaneously. Abaye explains the need for this case: it was brought to clarify Rabbi Shimon’s position that even when the prohibited agent initially aids leavening, if it acts in tandem with the permitted agent, it is not considered to have been beneficial to the dough initially, and therefore, the dough is permitted. A case is brought where a mouse fell into a barrel of beer, and Rav prohibited the consumption of the beer. Some assumed Rav ruled like Rabbi Meir, prohibiting mixtures even when the forbidden element imparts bad taste. Rav Sheshet instead interprets Rav’s decision as a special stringency regarding sheratzim (creeping creatures), and two objections to this reading are resolved. Rava rejects Rav Sheshet’s explanation and holds that if a prohibited item imparts bad taste, the mixture is permitted, and suggests either that the halakha is not in accordance with Rav, or that Rav held the mouse imparted a good taste to the beer.

Two stories about wine and categories of people: 1. A Jew sent to a non-Jew, on his festival, because he wasn't an idolater. But someone who hasn't converted might still be problematic. 2. Entering a bathhouse with a good number of prostitutes - with the fear of the monarchy or not? How to judge someone, and what if he's not who you think he is? Also, a new mishnah: wine that was used for a libation and skilled on grapes - when can you wash them off? Depending on the taste they give off - or not. Plus, a story to counter the apparent principle of the mishnah - leading into a general rule for application elsewhere. Plus, the Gemara re-writes the mishnah to correct it.

Miriam's well sustained her people step by step in the wilderness. In this episode of Survival Guide for a Spiritual Wilderness (featuring Judaism Unbound Gemara/commentary from Lex and Rena Yehuda), to tap into this wellspring of belonging. In addition, connect to the Tao de Ching, what it means to be a “Miriam person,” twilight creations, the mystical meaning of wells, Lakewood New Jersey, and a practice for bringing Miriam's wisdom to life.----------------------------------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!-----------------------------------Energized about Jewish learning and unlearning? Dive into our upcoming 3-week mini-courses in the UnYeshiva! Classes include Anti-Fascist Mussar, Elul: Your On-Ramp into Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, The Siddur (Prayer-Book) Unbound, and Comix Midrash: Drawing the Orchards (Pardes) of Elul. Head to JudaismUnbound.com/classes to learn more! Financial aid is available for all who need it.-------------------------------------

The Pasuk says in Parashat Re'eh: "וברכך ה' אלוקיך בכל אשר תעשה"-Hashem your G-d will bless you in everything you do. Our Rabbis learn from here our obligation to put in our Hishtadlut, our effort, to accomplish what we want. Along with this obligation comes a very big test that everyone faces on a daily basis- to be able to put in the effort, yet realize the whole time that Hashem is really the One getting everything done. Hashem wants the world to run בדרך הטבע , through nature, so in order to camouflage His presence, He makes it look like we are the ones accomplishing. But in truth, it is all Hashem. The Mesilat Yesharim calls our Hishtadlut a tax to pay. Once we have fulfilled the quota, Hashem sends His blessing down. Shlomo Hamelech summed it up in a Pasuk in Mishle: "סוס מוכן ליום מלחמה" We have to get the horse ready to go out and fight in battle. An army cannot go out to war expecting a miracle. Rabbenu Bachya says that if they do, they will lose. They have to make all of the necessary preparations to fight. But the Pasuk concludes: "לה' התשועה" The victory of the war is entirely in the hands of Hashem. The'בוטח בה- one who trusts in Hashem, knows that once he puts in his effort he can feel comfortable with the knowledge that he did his part. Then, whatever happens is the will of Hashem for his best. A person should never feel that his efforts were wasted , even if he didn't see his desired results. For example, a man worked on a sale for six weeks, and then it all fell through. His time was not wasted, he paid six weeks' worth of tax, and that opened the pipeline for Hashem to send blessing when He sees fit. If a person went to three doctors and didn't yet come up with a solution for his health issue, he didn't waste his time. He did his Hishtadlut, he paid his tax, and now he should feel great knowing that he did his part. If there is ever a situation where a reasonable Hishtadlut is not possible, then the person becomes exempt from Hishtadlut, and he can totally rely on Hashem. For example, if a person had an ailment, and tried one method to cure it, yet it didn't work, and then tried another, and a third, and still no results, and the doctors say that there is nothing else to try. At that moment, the person becomes exempt from Hishtadlut, and he can totally rely on Hashem for a cure. Rabbi Yechezkel Abramsky, זכר צדיק לברכה, used to tell over the following story which happened to him. He was taken to Siberia against his will along with a group of people. They were told to remove their shoes, their jackets and their shirts. They had to walk on snow and ice for miles. The Rabbi had a condition from a very young age that he was very sensitive to the cold, and he would frequently get sick from being exposed to even moderately cold temperatures. His mother, he recalls, used to send him to school in many layers of clothing to protect him. He still had this condition now, and he knew that many people had died in Siberia from being exposed to the frigid temperatures. On his first walk on the ice, he turned to Hashem and said, "The Gemara tells us: '-הכל בידי שמים חוץ מצינים ופחים"Everything is in the hands of Heaven except for cold and hot," which means that if a person goes outside in the winter without a jacket and gets sick, he brought that upon himself. Hashem commanded us to guard our health; we are not allowed to act recklessly. The Rabbi continued. "When I had extra layers and jackets I put them on to protect myself. But now, I don't have that ability, so I am exempt from that obligation. All that is left is the בידי שמים part. Now Hashem, it is only in Your hands. Please, save me from getting cold here." The Rabbi testified, that for over a year and a half in Siberia, he never felt cold even once. It is not the clothing that warms us up, it is Hashem. When we have the ability to help ourselves, we are obligated to. But when there is nothing for us to do, we can totally rely on Hashem. Those who are able to see through nature and recognize that everything is really Hashem, will not only pass this very big test, but they will reap the rewards both in this world and in the next.

One of the Berachot that we recite each morning as part of the Birkot Ha'shahar series of blessings is "Roka Ha'aretz Al Ha'mayim." This text is based on a verse in Tehillim (136:6) in which King David gives praise to G-d for the wonder of the earth being spread over the water. Water lies underneath the earth, and since earth is much heavier than water, the earth should sink into the water, making the world uninhabitable. If we throw a mound of earth into water, it will of course sink to the bottom of the water, and yet, miraculously, the earth remains afloat, allowing us to live here. This is an ongoing miracle which we are unlikely to be cognizant of, because we don't see the water. King David appreciated this wondrous phenomenon because he saw what could happen without it. The Gemara relates that when David laid the foundations for the Bet Ha'mikdash, the underground water began rising, and threatened to flood the entire earth. He needed to utilize one of the Names of G-d to make the water return to place. We catch glimpses of the threat that would be posed by the underground waters when we see or hear of a tsunami, whereby the ocean waters expand into the shoreline. The Sages wanted us to appreciate this miracle on a daily basis, and so they instituted a special blessing for us to recite each morning praising Hashem for keeping the earth above the underground waters. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) notes that this Beracha is unique in that, as opposed the other morning blessings, it does not speak of a phenomenon that is renewed each day. The other Berachot we recite in the morning praise Hashem for blessings He grants us anew every day – such as the ability to get out of bed, to open our eyes, to put on our clothing, and so on. The earth's floating on the underground waters, however, is a continuous condition that never ceases; this is not something which is discontinued during the night and then resumes in the morning. The Ben Ish Hai writes that precisely for this reason the Sages deemed this phenomenon worthy of a special Beracha – because it is a constant miracle, as at any moment the earth would sink if not for Hashem's kindness. The Rabbis instituted this Beracha to draw our attention to this wondrous reality so we recognize our enormous debt of gratitude to the Almighty.

One of the morning blessings (Birkot Ha'shahar) which we recite each day is "Ha'mechin Mis'adeh Gaber" – "…who prepares the steps of man." Some commentators explain that this Beracha praises Hashem for allowing us to walk upright, on two legs, as opposed to animals, who walk on four legs, their bodies hunched. Others understand this Beracha to mean that Hashem guides and directs each and every one of our steps, bringing us at all times to precisely where we need to be. We never take a "wrong turn," and we never end up in the "wrong place." Wherever we find ourselves at any moment is the exact place where Hashem wanted us to be at that exact moment. This is a crucial aspect of Emuna (faith) – the belief that we are always precisely where we are supposed to be at that time, that Hashem is constantly directing us, even when it seems that we are not in the right place. According to some commentators, this is what we thank Hashem for each morning when we recite the Beracha of "Ha'mechin Mis'adeh Gaber." This Beracha concludes with the word "Gaber," a variation of the word "Geber" – "man." Some suggest that this word refers specifically to Jews, as it is an acrostic representing the words "Gomleh Hasadim" (performers of kindness), "Bayshanim" (people with shame), and "Rahmanim" (compassionate people) – the three qualities which, the Gemara teaches, characterize the Jewish Nation. The word "Geber" is changed to "Gaber" because of a rule of Hebrew grammar – that at the end of a word or clause, the "Segol" vowel is changed to a "Kamatz" vowel. Thus, for example, when the word "Kesef" (money) appears at the end of a verse, it is changed to "Kasef." Similarly, the word "Geber" is changed to "Gaber" when it is the final word of a Beracha. (Another Beracha we recite each morning is "She'lo Asani Abed" – and there, too, the word "Ebed" is changed to "Abed" because it appears at the end of the Beracha.) This is why Ashkenazim have the practice to pronounce the blessing recited over wine "Boreh Peri Ha'gafen." Whereas Sephardic custom is to pronounce the final word of this Beracha "Ha'gefen," Ashkenazim pronounce it "Ha'gafen" because it is the last word of the blessing. Hacham Ovadia explained the Sephardic custom based on the fact that the Beracha over wine is generally recited in the presence of other people, who answer "Amen" to the Beracha. Since the people answer "Amen," the Beracha actually ends with "Amen," and not with the word "Ha'gefen." Therefore, it is not changed to "Ha'gafen." This is in contrast to Birkot Ha'shahar, which are usually recited at home, in private, with nobody around to answer "Amen," and so the Beracha ends with the word "Gaber." Some recite the text "Asher Hechin Mis'adeh Gaber," in past tense, but we follow the custom to recite this blessing in the present tense – "Ha'mechin Misa'adeh Gaber."

A question is presented before a group of the sages: What is the law regarding the money from a sale of an object of idolatry in the hands of a non-Jew? Similarly, what if a Jew is a creditor for a non-Jew who then sells an object of idolatry and has the funds to pay the Jew back...? The same group receives other questions as well: What about a ger toshav - can he nullify idols? What about when two non-Jews don't share the same idolatrous worship? Would nullifying the worship of the other be effective? Plus, does the Gemara consider all non-Jews, such as a ger toshav, to be idolaters?

The Torah in Parashat Re'eh commands us to give charity. It instructs that when there is a person in need, "you shall surely give to him, and your heart shall not feel bad when you give to him, because on account of this matter G-d shall bless you…" (15:10). The plain meaning of the word "Biglal" ("on account of") in this verse is that Hashem rewards those who generously give charity with great material blessings. The Gemara (Shabbat 151b), however, teaches that this word can be read as an allusion to a "Galgal" – "wheel." The "wheel of fortune," the Gemara states, is always turning. Those who enjoy financial success today can lose their fortunes in an instant, and those who currently struggle can suddenly see great blessing. The Torah therefore urges us to show compassion to the needy and lend them the assistance that they so desperately need, because we never know when the tables might be turned and we will come to them for assistance. The Kabbalists add yet another interpretation of this verse, reading the word "Biglal" as an allusion to "Gilgul" – the reincarnation of souls. As we saw, this verse begins by urging us to not only give charity, but to do so wholeheartedly, with pure intentions – "and your heart shall not feel bad when you give to him." We should give not begrudgingly, because of pressure, or for the sake of our reputations, but rather because we sincerely wish to help our fellow Jew in need. The Torah thus warns that if we give with the wrong intentions, then "Biglal Ha'dabar Ha'zeh" – we will be forced to return to the world in a different "Gilgul." The Kabbalists develop this concept further based on the Mishna's teaching in Pirkeh Abot (4:11) that each Misva that a person performs creates for him a "Praklit" – an angel that advocates for him before the Heavenly Tribunal. The best thing we can do to earn G-d's protection is perform more Misvot. However, just as a human being has both a body and a soul, angels likewise have two components – a physical component and an inner, spiritual component. Kabbalah teaches that the Misva act that we perform creates the angel's physical being, whereas our pure intentions when performing the Misva create its "soul." In order for our Misva to have the effect of creating a "Praklit," it must be complete; the action must be performed properly, and with the right intention. When we perform a Misva for ulterior motives, although we are credited with the fulfillment of a Misva, it does not create a "Praklit" that can advocate on our behalf. The Kabbalists thus teach that if a person gives charity for the wrong reasons, he will return to the world in another life as a pauper. Poor people genuinely wish they had the ability to give charity and help those in need. And thus in this second "Gilgul," the person will have the thought and the desire to give Sedaka. This yearning to give charity will supply the sincere intention that was lacking during his first sojourn in this world, and will combine with the charity he gave to comprise a complete Misva that will create a complete angel who will advocate on his behalf. We now begin the month of Elul, when we prepare for the judgment of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. As we know, charity is one of the most effective means we have to ensure a favorable judgment, and it is therefore customary to increase our charitable contributions during Elul and during the days in between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. This is among the best things we can do to bring "Praklitim" – "defense lawyers" – with us to the "trial" so they could plead on our behalf. However, in order for this to work, our motives must be sincere. We need to put aside our ego, our preoccupation with fame and prestige, our concern for our reputation, our obsession with the way other people see us – and do the right thing precisely because it is the right thing. When we give Sedaka for impure motives, we fulfill a Misva – but a deficient Misva. For our charity to be whole, we need to give with sincerity, without trying to impress or be noticed. Our Sedaka will then create perfect angels who will stand before G-d and plead our case, so that we will be blessed with a year filled with joy, happiness, peace and good fortune, Amen.

One of the Berachot we recite each morning as part of Birkot Ha'shahar is "Malbish Arumim," with which we express gratitude to Hashem for the gift of clothing. The clothing that we wear protects us from the elements, and maintains our dignity. As such, it is a precious gift that we must never take for granted, and the Sages therefore instituted a special blessing to thank G-d for the garments that we are privileged to wear in the morning. The literal meaning of the words "Malbish Arumim" is "who clothes the naked." Grammatically, the letter Mem has a "Dagesh" (a dot for emphasis), such that it is to be pronounced as a strong "m," as opposed to a Mem without a "Dagesh" which is pronounced as a softer "m." One should pronounce the word properly, with a "Dagesh" in the Mem, because the word "Arumim" with a soft Mem, without a "Dagesh," means "clever people." It would thus sound as though G-d provides clothing only to the wise, which is, of course, not true. We want to emphasize that Hashem provides clothing to all His creatures, and so we must ensure to recite the word "Arumim" correctly. In several sources, the text of this Beracha is "Malbish Ha'arumim" (as opposed to "Malbish Arumim," without "Ha-"). This is the text found in Sha'ar Ha'kavanot (by Rav Haim Vital, 1542-1620), and this was the view also of Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868). The Sedeh Hemed (Rav Haim Hizkiya Medini, 1834-1904) writes that he taught his students to recite this text. The reason given is that if one recites, "Baruch Ata…Melech Ha'olam Malbish Arumim," he might pronounce the words "Ha'olam" and "Malbish" as one long word. Since the word "Ha'olam" ends with a Mem, and the word "Malbish" begins with a Mem, a separation must be made to avoid combining them into a single long word that has no meaning. This problem is avoided by adding the prefix "Ha-" before "Malbish." (Some also suggest proving this text from a phrase in the Book of Shmuel II 1:24.) Nevertheless, the common custom is to recite "Malbish," and not "Ha'malbish," and this is the text that appears in the ancient Siddur of Rav Amram Gaon (Babylonia, 810-875). Another Beracha which we recite each morning is "Ha'noten La'ya'ef Koah," thanking Hashem for "giving strength to the weary." G-d created our bodies with the ability to rejuvenate itself through sleep, such that we can regain our strength and energy, and so we thank Him each morning for granting us the physical strength we need to function. Interestingly enough, this Beracha appears nowhere in the Gemara. When the Gemara lists the blessings that one should make in the morning, it makes no mention of "Ha'noten La'ya'ef Koah." Therefore, the Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 46) writes that the custom to recite this Beracha is incorrect, as we do not have the authority to introduce new Berachot that the Sages in the Talmud did not institute. This Beracha does not appear in Rav Amram Gaon's Siddur, either. The question thus arises as to why the widespread practice is to recite this Beracha, which does not appear anywhere in the Talmud, and which the Shulhan Aruch thus opposed. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) writes that although the Shulhan Aruch opposed reciting this Beracha, the Arizal maintained that this Beracha should be said. In the view of the Hida, the teachings of the Arizal are authoritative and binding, even when they conflict with the rulings of the Shulhan Aruch. The Hida even speculates that if the Shulhan Aruch had been aware of the Arizal's teaching, requiring the recitation of this Beracha, he would have concurred. This is the position taken also by the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) – that we must always follow the Arizal's opinions, regardless of which and how many Rabbis rule differently. Hacham Ovadia Yosef does not accept this approach. In his view, the Arizal's opinions are not necessarily more authoritative than those of other Poskim. And in the case of "Ha'noten La'ya'ef Koah," Hacham Ovadia notes, the Ashkenazim also recite this Beracha, even though they do not always follow the Arizal's teachings. Hacham Ovadia therefore gives a different explanation for the widespread practice to recite this Beracha. He shows that this Beracha appears in early sources – such as in Mahzor Vitri, and in the writings of Rav David Abudarham (Spain, 14 th century), and the Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, 1270-1340) – indicating that this practice earned widespread acceptance well before the Shulhan Aruch. And when there is an accepted Minhag (custom), Hacham Ovadia writes, we follow the custom even if it runs counter to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch. Rav Haim Vital cites the Arizal as explaining the deeper meaning underlying the two Berachot we have been discussing – "Malbish Arumim" and "Ha'noten La'ya'ef Koah." The Arizal taught that our sins have the effect of removing, or tearing, the "garments" that cover our souls. The missing garment, or the missing portion of the garment, is replaced by the "Kelipot" – harmful spiritual energies. A relatively minor sin wears out this "garment," whereas a grievous sin causes the garment to be removed entirely. When a person goes to sleep at night, his soul ascends to the heavens, where Hashem, in His infinite mercy and kindness, "repairs" the damaged "garment" for us, so we will not be subject to the harmful effects of the "Kelipot." When our souls are restored in the morning, they are newly clean and pristine. The Arizal taught that the two Berachot of "Malbish Arumim" and "Ha'noten La'ya'ef Koah" thank Hashem for this precious gift. The Beracha of "Malbish Arumim" refers to the new "garments" that Hashem grants to those who had committed severe sins which caused the complete loss of their soul's "garment." The Beracha of "Ha'noten La'ya'ef Koah" speaks of the "weary" souls, those which had been tainted by minor transgressions, and whose garments thus needed "mending." These two blessings, then, thank Hashem for His mercifully cleansing and repairing our souls each and every night. In light of this teaching of the Arizal, some have suggested that we should reverse the order, and recite "Ha'noten La'ya'ef Koah" before "Malbish Arumim." After all, once we thank Hashem for replacing a lost "garment," this encompasses also His repairing the damaged "garments." Common practice, however, is to first recite "Malbish Arumim." These Berachot thank Hashem not for our personal experience of these phenomena, but rather for the phenomena themselves, for the fact that Hashem has made them part of the natural order. As such, the sequence of these blessings is not important, as both the replacement of lost spiritual "garments" and the repair of the damaged "garments" occur regularly, warranting our expression of praise and gratitude to the Almighty.

In today's page of Talmud, Avodah Zarah 57, the rabbis continue their discussion of the laws of wine. The Gemara relates a story which takes place in a city where the Jewish inhabitants ruled, and enjoyed access to influence and power, which the Gentile residents did not. There's a link between this story and this week's Torah portion of Eikev, in which the Jews are told, basically, not to get too comfortable. But is comfort really such a danger to spiritual health? Listen and find out. 

In this week's parasha, V'etchanan, we have, arguably, the most well-known pasuk in the entire Torah: "שמע ישראל ה' אלוקינו ה' אחד" This pasuk is the root of all of our emunah that Hashem is our G-d and He is the only One in control. The Gemara says in Masechet Sukkah (p. 42) that when a child is first able to speak, his father should teach him this line Shema Yisrael. With this, we are training our children and imbuing them with emunah from the earliest age. Something of such vital importance can't wait until the child is 5 or 6 years old, it must begin from the moment he/she can speak. We should not underestimate how much emunah our children can absorb. Emunah should be spoken about in the home and children should be trained from very young ages in it. I recently received an email which said, "Ever since I started listening to the Daily Emunah messages, it's as if I entered a whole new world. Growing up I was religious, but I never thought about Hashem too deeply or how He plays a role in our lives, but in the last two years, since I began listening, I became a whole new person. I'm so much happier and calmer and accepting and so grateful for the inspiring emunah lessons. I am a preschool teacher and one day, as my students walked into class, Hashem put a thought into my mind. I decided I was going to repeat a chizuk message in emunah to them in an age appropriate manner. I saw how they drank up every word with so much enthusiasm. I noticed how hungry their souls were for a connection to Hashem, even though they all came from religious backgrounds. From then on, every single day, I started repeating another chizuk lesson to them in a kid friendly way. It didn't take too long and I started noticing changes in my students' behavior. For example, little Esther told little Channah, 'I lost the snack that my mommy gave me this morning, but I am not upset because I know Hashem did it out of love and one day I'll find out why.' Channah replied, 'Did you make sure to thank Hashem for your lost snack?' This kind of talk has become the norm in my classroom, from just a little emunah message every day." I received a different email from a woman who says she speaks about emunah in her house all the time. It has changed the way her entire household thinks, and they are so much happier as a result. A few weeks ago, she was visiting her in-laws with her five year old son on Shabbat and, while he was playing outside, something banged into his eye very hard. There was no ice there so she took her son back to her house which was not too far away. While they were walking, she said out loud, "Baruch Hashem, I just remembered, I bought margarine right before Shabbat. That's the best thing to put on your eye." The little boy said in response, "Mommy, Hashem knew I was going to get a bump, so He told you to buy the margarine. He didn't tell you I was going to get the bump because then you wouldn't let it happen." The proud mother was so grateful for her little boy's response. His immediate thought that Hashem put it in her brain to buy the margarine just for him was so beautiful. He's only five. Emunah is for the very, very young as well. As a note of advice, if a very young child gets a bump and we tell him it was from Hashem for his best, he might not take it the right way, he might even come to resent Hashem because, at that time, the child is in pain. The key is to teach the child the lessons beforehand so that the child, on his own, will say it's from Hashem for his best. And when the child does that, we should make him feel so special and tell him how proud Hashem is of him for having that emunah. Shabbat Shalom.

Hashem doesn't just hear every word we say — He knows every thought that passes through our minds. Last Friday, I was shopping for Shabbat and noticed that the prices were unusually high. I picked up an item and began debating whether or not to put it back. Just then, a man came over to me and asked, "Is it true that anything we spend for Shabbat doesn't come out of the yearly income Hashem allots for us?" I replied, "Absolutely. It's an explicit Gemara." As soon as I answered, I realized Hashem had sent this man to remind me of that truth. I smiled, thanked Hashem for the immediate correction, and bought the item I had been second-guessing. Hashem is intimately involved in our lives — not just every day, but every second. Just over a month ago, a mother was looking to take her children on outings to keep them entertained before camp started. She tried two different places, but both were completely booked. The children were disappointed, and the mother, trying to soften the letdown, took them for ice cream instead. It was an extremely hot day. As they left the ice cream shop, the children ran ahead and mistakenly opened the door of a car that looked like their own. To their shock, there was a four-month-old baby alone in the back seat. The baby had been forgotten. They ran into various stores searching for the baby's mother. When she saw them holding her child, she burst into tears. "I always double-check!" she cried. "I just forgot this time…" On a hot summer day, R"l, it only takes 10–15 minutes for a tragedy to occur in a car. At that moment, it became clear to the mother and children why their plans had been canceled earlier. Hashem had rerouted them, put the idea of ice cream in their minds, and guided them to open the wrong car door — just in time to save that baby's life. Another remarkable story was shared by Rabbi David Ozeri. Last Thursday night, he received a call from a panicked father — a Rav in Eretz Yisrael. His 17-year-old daughter had landed in Newark on a stopover from Israel, and her connecting flight had been canceled due to weather. She didn't speak English, she was alone in a foreign airport, and it was already 11:00 p.m. Rabbi Ozeri immediately contacted a baal chessed in his community, who answered the phone right away. "Of course she's welcome to stay with us," the man said. "I'll even send an Uber for her." But the father was too nervous to place his daughter in an Uber alone at night. Rabbi Ozeri then thought of a woman in Brooklyn who drove children to school each morning. She was divorced and may have needed some extra income. He called her and asked if she would be willing to drive from Brooklyn to Newark to pick up the girl, bring her all the way to Deal, New Jersey, and then return home. The woman answered immediately, "It would be my pleasure to do the chessed," and added that she didn't want to be paid. But Rabbi Ozeri went to the host's home and gave him an envelope with $450, asking him to give it to the driver when she dropped off the girl. The next morning, the woman texted Rabbi Ozeri thanking him for the opportunity to do the chessed — and for the money. What she shared afterward was incredible. She said it was her turn to host her children for Shabbat, but when she checked her bank account, she had only ten dollars left. She didn't know how she would buy food for her large family. At that moment, she saw a request for tzedakah for a worthy cause. With great Emunah, she donated her last $10 and prayed that in the zechut of that mitzvah, Hashem would help her provide for Shabbat. The very next night, at 11:00 p.m., she received the call from Rabbi Ozeri — and ended up earning more than enough to buy everything she needed. We don't fully understand the ways of Hashem, but it seems like one of the reasons the girl's flight was canceled was so this woman could have the parnassah she had so desperately prayed for. When people heard her story, they were so moved that they voluntarily donated more — and she ended up receiving a total of $6,000. Hashem is involved in every moment of every person's life. He orchestrates everything with precision and purpose. Our job is to build our connection with Him — through our tefillot , through our mitzvot , and through our emunah.

Although it is customary to refrain from eating meat during the Nine Days (from the 2 nd of Ab through Tisha B'Ab), Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that eating meat is allowed for health purposes. For example, if a physician advised a patient to eat meat for his health, or if a patient is recovering from illness or from a procedure and he wishes to eat meat to make him feel stronger, he may do so. In fact, Hacham Ovadia ruled that since meat during the Nine Days is forbidden by force of custom, and not according to the strict Halacha, there is room to allow anyone who feels a medical need to eat meat to do so. However, Hacham Ovadia cautioned that a healthy person who has no need for meat, but simply wants to eat some meat during the Nine Days, must not do so, and violating this custom without a valid reason constitutes a grievous sin. Additionally, if a patient's medical need can be met by eating fish, then this should be preferred. A pregnant woman who experiences a craving for meat may – and, in fact, must – be given meat, as failing to satisfy a craving for a particular food during pregnancy could endanger the fetus. A woman within thirty days after childbirth, and a woman who is nursing an infant, may eat meat in order to maintain her strength. Hacham Ovadia considered the possibility of allowing even a woman during menstruation to eat meat if she feels the need, as she might be weakened by the loss of blood, though he remained uncertain about this leniency. One who eats meat during the Nine Days for medical reasons does not require Hatarat Nedarim (annulment of vows) before eating meat. Normally, one who discontinues a custom must first perform Hatarat Nedarim, but in this case, since the custom allows eating meat for health purposes, the patient does not break the "vow" by eating meat. However, a patient with a chronic condition that will always require him to eat meat during the Nine Days, who thus needs to permanently discontinue the practice of refraining from meat, should perform Hatarat Nedarim. Is it permissible to feed meat to children during the Nine Days? When it comes to non-kosher food, there is a debate among the Rishonim as to whether one may feed children food that is forbidden Mi'de'rabbanan – by force of Rabbinic enactment. All agree that one may not feed a child food that the Torah itself forbids, but the Rashba (Rav Shlomo Ben Aderet of Barcelona, Spain, 1235-1310) maintained that foods proscribed by the Rabbis may be fed to children. According to the Rashba, it would certainly be permissible to feed children meat during the Nine Days, as meat is forbidden in this period only by force of custom. The Rambam, however, ruled that no forbidden food may be fed to children, even food which the Torah permits but the Sages prohibited. Accordingly, the Mishna Berura ruled that one may not feed meat even to very young children during the Nine Days. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, disagreed, arguing that meat is not forbidden at all during the Nine Days, and we refrain from meat only by force of custom. Moreover, the Magen Abraham (Rav Abraham Gombiner, Poland, 1635-1682) maintained that the custom to refrain from meat during the Nine Days from the outset did not include children. Another reason to permit feeding meat to children is that according to some opinions, this custom has the status of a vow, and children are allowed to eat food proscribed merely by force a vow. Additionally, a number of Poskim noted the frailty of children, particularly in modern times, such that denying meat to children who are accustomed to eating meat could adversely affect their health. And, it is permissible to feed children food whose permissibility is subject to a debate among the Poskim, and the practice to refrain from meat during the Nine Days is not universally accepted. For all these reasons, Hacham Ovadia maintained that children should not be denied meat during the Nine Days. The only exception he made was for a twelve-year-old boy, who, since he will soon become a bar-mitzvah, should be trained not to eat meat during this period. (It is worth noting that when it comes to fasting, Hacham Ovadia felt very strongly that children should not be allowed to fast, as they require food for their health. He ruled that children under the age of bar-mitzvah – even twelve-year-olds – should not fast, even on Yom Kippur, and that Rabbis should announce in the synagogue on Yom Kippur that parents should return home to make sure their children eat.) It is permissible during the Nine Days to eat meat and drink wine at a Se'udat Misva – meaning, a meal that constitutes a Misva. One who wishes to eat meat at a Se'udat Misva does not require Hatarat Nedarim, because the custom itself allows eating meat at such an event, and thus the "vow" is not being broken. One example is the meal celebrating a Berit Mila. All guests who were invited to participate in the meal may partake of meat and wine, but clearly a person who does not know the family cannot just show up at the meal in order to enjoy meat and wine. Although it is permissible to eat meat at a Berit, one may not take some meat home from the meal; eating meat is allowed only at the meal itself. The leftover meat should either be frozen or distributed to the needy. However, the infant's father, the Mohel and the Sandak are allowed to eat meat that entire day. For them, the day of the Berit is a Yom Tob, and so they may eat meat at any point during that day, even after the meal. Meat may be eaten at a Berit even in the case of a "Mila She'lo Bi'zmanah" – a Berit that was performed after the infant's eighth day because he was sick and unfit for circumcision on the eighth day. However, if the baby was deemed healthy enough for a Berit Mila before the Nine Days, the Berit may not be delayed until the Nine Days for the purpose of serving meat and wine, as it is forbidden to unnecessarily delay a Berit. And if the Berit was unnecessarily postponed until the Nine Days, meat and wine may not be eaten at the meal. Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Israel, 1924-1998) ruled that if the Berit was cancelled at the last minute because the infant became sick and unfit for circumcision, the meat that was prepared for the Se'uda may be eaten, despite the fact that no Berit took place. He bases this ruling on the principle that if a person genuinely tried performing a Misva, but was unsuccessful due to circumstances beyond his control, he is nevertheless credited with the fulfillment of a Misva. Since he planned to perform the Misva and attempted to do so, he receives credit for a Misva despite the outcome. Hence, if the infant suddenly became unfit for Berit Mila, the parents are nevertheless considered to have fulfilled the Misva of giving him a Berit that day, and thus the meal qualifies as a Se'udat Misva, where meat and wine may be served. The customary Zohar recitation conducted on the night before a Berit does not qualify as a Se'udat Misva, and thus meat may not be eaten at this event. This is the ruling of Hacham Ovadia Yosef. The meal at a Pidyon Ha'ben is considered a Se'udat Misva, and thus meat is allowed. If a boy turns thirteen during the Nine Days, and a meal is held on his birthday to celebrate the occasion, then this meal qualifies as a Se'udat Misva, and meat may be served. However, if the meal is held on a different day, and not on his birthday, then meat may not be eaten at the meal. If the boy's birthday is Ereb Rosh Hodesh Ab, the meal should be postponed until after Tisha B'Ab. A Siyum celebration following the completion of the study of a Masechet (tractate of Gemara) constitutes a Se'udat Misva, and meat may be eaten at such an event. All those invited to participate in the meal may eat meat, even if they were not involved at all in the learning of the Masechet. If a Siyum is made in a meat restaurant, those who happen to be in the restaurant may listen to the Siyum and eat meat (though it would certainly be inappropriate to intentionally go around to meat restaurants in the hope of finding a Siyum). Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that it is permissible to specifically schedule the completion of a Masechet for the Nine Days, though one who finished a Masechet before the Nine Days may not intentionally leave the final line for the Nine Days for the purpose of eating meat. Although some people look askance at the widespread practice to arrange Siyum celebrations for the Nine Days in order to permit meat, many great Rabbis not only approved of this practice, but even encouraged it. Some explained that by celebrating Torah learning we actually make a significant contribution to the rebuilding of the Bet Ha'mikdash. And it is told that the Ba'al Shem Tob (founder of Hasidism, 1698-1760) specifically arranged his Torah learning such that he would make a Siyum during the Nine Days – not because he craved meat and wine, but rather because this weakened the power of the Satan. The Satan wields great strength during this time of year, and one way we overpower the Satan is by increasing our Torah learning and celebrating our learning accomplishments. In fact, the letters that spell Satan's name – Samech, Mem, Alef and Lamed – can be read as an acrostic representing the phrase "Siyum Masechet En La'asot" – "Do not make a Siyum of a Masechet," or "Se'udat Misva En La'asot" – "Do not make a Se'udat Misva." The Satan specifically does not want us to conduct Siyum celebrations, and so we are encouraged to do so during this period when the Satan's strength is at its height. Thus, as many great Sages encouraged making Siyum celebrations during the Nine Days – and especially in light of the fact that to begin with, meat and wine are forbidden during this period only by force of custom – one should not object to those who make Siyumim for the sake of permitting meat and wine. Hacham Ovadia writes that it is improper for several people to divide a Masechet between them, such that each studies only a small portion, for the sake of conducting a joint Siyum. The Jewish community of Izmir, Turkey, had the custom not to allow meat at a Siyum during the Nine Days, and to eat fish, instead. Hacham Ovadia ruled that members of that community who settled in Eretz Yisrael may adopt the lenient practice of eating meat at a Siyum. A mourner in the twelve-month period of mourning for a parent, Heaven forbid, may attend a Siyum celebration as long as no music is played. As music is not permitted at a Se'udat Misva during the Nine Days, a mourner is allowed to attend and partake of meat and wine.

Episode dedicated by Moshe, Naftoli & Avigdor Streicher