Podcasts about germany spain

**Today's Halacha is dedicated f or the refuah and haslacha of Ronnie, Sharon, Eli and all the children of CARE** The Afikoman must be eaten with Heseba – meaning, while leaning on the left side. The Sages forbade eating after the Afikoman so that the taste of the Afikoman will remain in one's mouth for the duration of the night. Therefore, after one finishes eating the Afikoman, he may not eat anything else, and should immediately recite Birkat Ha'mazon. Furthermore, one may not drink anything after eating the Afikoman besides the final two cups of wine. It is permissible, however, to drink water after the Afikoman, including carbonated water, and the Halachic authorities rule that one may also drink tea or coffee. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in Od Yosef Hai, writes that if one needs to add some sugar to the tea or coffee in order to be able to drink it, he may do so. Hacham Abraham Antebe (Aleppo, 1765-1858) was likewise lenient in this regard, and this was also the practice among the Jewish communities in Egypt, as documented in the work Nehar Misrayim. This ruling is mentioned by the Hid"a (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806), as well, and this is the position of Hacham Ovadia Yosef. Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Israel, 1923-1998) recommends drinking the tea or coffee without sugar, but he rules that one may add sugar if necessary. (This is also the Halacha regarding drinking before Shaharit in the morning; one may drink tea or coffee, and he may add sugar if he needs.) Other beverages, however, may not be drunk after eating the Afikoman. In the "Ha'rahaman" section of Birkat Ha'mazon, we add the special "Ha'rahaman" for Yom Tob ("Hu Yanhilenu Le'yom She'kulo Tob"). It should be noted that the custom in Halab (Aleppo), as documented in the work Derech Eretz, was not to add special "Ha'rahaman" prayers on Shabbat or Yom Tob, and to recite only the standard prayers that are included in the regular weekday Birkat Ha'mazon. Clearly, however, our community has since adopted the widespread custom to add the special "Ha'rahaman" prayers for Shabbat and Yom Tob. Immediately after Birkat Ha'mazon, one drinks the third cup of wine while leaning on his left side. One who drank without leaning must drink another cup of wine. After drinking the third cup, some have the custom to pour a special cup in honor of Eliyahu Ha'nabi and to leave it on the table throughout the remainder of the Seder. The Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles of Cracow, 1525-1572) cites a custom among Ashkenazim to then open the door as an expression of faith that Hashem will protect us on this special night, in the hope that Mashiah will come in the merit of our faith. As Eliyahu will come to herald our redemption, a special cup is poured in his honor. However, although this is the custom in many communities, the custom among Syrian Jews is to neither pour this cup for Eliyahu nor open the door. The Hallel is then recited, slowly and with festive song. The Shulhan Aruch writes that it is preferable to arrange for a Zimun (three or more men) to be present at the Seder so that the Hallel can be recited responsively, as it was in ancient times, when one person would recite "Hodu L'Hashem Ki Tob," and the others would respond, "Ki Le'olam Hasdo." Nevertheless, if a Zimun is not present, the Hallel may still be recited. The custom among Syrian Jews is to recite the regular full Hallel, followed by the chapter of Tehillim (136) "Hodu' Le'Hashem" ("Hallel Ha'gadol"), "Nishmat," "Yishtabah" (until just before the end), and then the Beracha of "Yehalelucha." The Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, Germany-Spain, 12269-1343) ruled that "Yehalelucha" should be recited immediately after the standard chapters of Hallel, but our custom follows the view of the Bet Yosef (commentary to the Tur by Maran, author of the Shulhan Aruch) to recite "Yehalelucha" at the very end. After reciting the concluding Beracha of "Melech Mehulal Ba'tishbahot," we drink the fourth cup of wine, without first reciting "Boreh Peri Ha'gefen." One must drink a Rebi'it and then recite the Beracha Aharona. Some people do not drink the fourth cup until the very end of the Seder, after singing the traditional songs, but this is improper; the fourth cup should be drunk upon the conclusion of Hallel. The Shulhan Aruch writes that if one forgot to lean while drinking the fourth cup of wine, and he must therefore drink another cup, he recites a new Beracha of "Boreh Peri Ha'gefen," as this cup was not covered by the Beracha recited earlier. However, Hacham Ovadia Yosef (Hazon Ovadia – Teshubot, Siman 49) clarifies that this applies only if one realized his mistake after drinking the entire cup of wine. If some of the wine was left in the cup, then he adds some wine and drinks a new cup while leaning without first reciting a new Beracha.

All Halachic authorities agree that one recites the Beracha of "Boreh Peri Ha'gefen" over the first and third of the four cups of wine at the Seder. Over the first cup of wine, of course, a Beracha is required, because one has not drunk any wine before this cup, and a Beracha is obviously required before drinking. Likewise, the third cup of wine is drunk after Birkat Ha'mazon, and the recitation of Birkat Ha'mazon effectively ends the "coverage" of all Berachot recited previously, such that new Berachot are recited before one eats or drinks after Birkat Ha'mazon. The more complicated issue is the recitation of this Beracha before drinking the other two cups of wine. Seemingly, the Beracha recited over the first cup should cover the second cup, and the Beracha recited over the third cup should cover the fourth cup. At first glance, then, no Beracha should be required over the second and fourth cups. Nevertheless, the Rif (Rav Yishak of Fez, Morocco, 1013-1103) rules that one must recite a Beracha of "Boreh Peri Ha'gefen" on each of the four cups. He bases this ruling on the Gemara's comment in Masechet Pesahim that each of the four cups constitutes a separate Misva. If each cup is its own Misva, the Rif reasons, then each cup should require its own Beracha. The Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, Germany-Spain, 1250-1327), however, questions this rationale, noting that we recite only one Beracha when putting on Tefillin ("Le'haniah Tefillin") even though the Tefillin Shel Rosh and Tefillin Shel Yad constitute two separate Misvot. The fact that the four cups constitute independent Misvot should not have any effect on the recitation of Berachot. The Rif also draws proof from the Gemara in Masechet Hulin, which implies that one must recite a new Beracha when drinking after Birkat Ha'mazon. Since one cannot recite a Beracha while reciting Birkat Ha'mazon – as this would constitute a Hefsek (improper interruption) in the middle of the Birkat Ha'mazon – he must recite a new Beracha when he drinks afterward. Likewise, the Rif comments, since one cannot interrupt the reading of the Haggada to recite a Beracha, he must recite a new Beracha of "Gefen" when he drinks the second and fourth cups. The Rosh questions this argument, too, claiming that there is no comparison in this regard between the reading of the Haggada and Birkat Ha'mazon. The Gemara states that if one interrupts a meal to pray Minha, when he returns he resumes his meal without having to recite new Berachot. Likewise, if one interrupts his drinking to read the Haggada, he does not have to recite a new Beracha when he then drinks again. Birkat Ha'mazon is unique, the Rosh argues, because when one decides to recite Birkat Ha'mazon, he establishes that he no longer plans on eating. Therefore, if he then decides to eat or drink afterward, he must recite a new Beracha. This quite obviously does not apply in the case of reading the Haggada. In practice, Ashkenazim follow the ruling of the Rif, which is also the position taken by Tosafot, and they recite a Beracha on each of the four cups of wine at the Seder. Despite the Rosh's compelling questions on the Rif's rationale, this is the practice of the Ashkenazim. The Taz (Rav David Halevi Segal, Poland, 1586-1667) explains this view by suggesting that perhaps there is an implicit intention when reciting the Beracha over each cup that the Beracha should cover only that cup. The Aruch Ha'shulhan (Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein of Nevarduk, 1829-1908), however, dismisses this approach. In any event, Sepharadim follow the ruling of Maran, in the Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 474:1), where he accepts the Rosh's view, that no Beracha is recited over the second and fourth cups. The second cup is covered by the Beracha recited over the first cup, and the fourth cup is covered by the Beracha recited over the third cup, and no separate Beracha is required. Summary: According to accepted Sephardic practice, the Beracha of "Boreh Peri Ha'gefen" is recited over the first and third of the four cups at the Seder, but not on the second and fourth cups.

There is a widespread custom to eat a hardboiled egg at the Pesah Seder, in order to commemorate the Korban Hagiga (the "festival sacrifice"). During the times of the Bet Ha'mikdash, the Hagiga offering was brought together with the Korban Pesah (paschal offering) on Erev Pesah, and one would partake of its meat prior to eating the meat of the Korban Pesah. We commemorate this practice by eating an egg, the traditional food of mourning, in order to express our sorrow over the absence of the Mikdash, on account of which we are unable to fulfill the Misvot of the holiday as we should. An interesting question arises regarding this Halacha in a case where Erev Pesah occurs on Shabbat, such that the Seder is held on Mosa'e Shabbat. During the times of the Mikdash, when Erev Pesah fell on Shabbat the Korban Hagiga was not offered on that day. Although the offering of the Korban Pesah overrides the Shabbat restrictions, this is not true of the Korban Hagigah, and thus when Erev Pesah fell on Shabbat the Korban Hagigah was not brought together with the Korban Pesah. Perhaps, then, in such a case we should not partake of an egg at the Seder in commemoration of the Hagiga sacrifice. Tosefot address this question in Masechet Pesahim, and they conclude that one must, in fact, eat an egg at the Seder even on Mosa'e Shabbat. They cite Rabbenu Peretz (France, 13th century) as explaining that if we would not eat an egg in this case, we would give the impression that in other years we actually partake of the Hagiga sacrifice, rather than a symbolic commemoration. This impression was especially likely in communities that would eat meat – rather than an egg – to commemorate the Korban Hagiga. In order to avoid giving this impression, we eat the egg at the Seder even in situations where the Korban Hagiga would not be offered, thus making it clear that the egg serves merely as a symbolic commemoration. The Rosh (Rabbi Asher Ben Yehiel, Germany-Spain, 1250-1327) cites a different theory in the name of Rabbi Yishak of Courbeil (the "Samak," France, 13th century). He suggested that one should eat an egg at the Seder even on Mosa'e Shabbat because when Erev Pesah occurred on Shabbat the Hagiga was offered on Friday. Since the Hagiga was brought even in years when Erev Pesah fell on Shabbat – albeit on the previous day – it is appropriate to include a commemoration of this sacrifice at the Seder. The Rosh, however, rejects this theory, noting that when the Hagiga was brought on Friday, its meat would no longer be permissible for consumption on Mosa'e Shabbat. Seemingly, then, there should be no reason to commemorate the Hagiga at the Seder on Mosa'e Shabbat. In any event, in light of the comments of Tosefot cited above, Halacha requires partaking of a hardboiled egg at the Seder even on Mosa'e Shabbat. This is indeed the ruling of the Ben Ish Hai (Rabbi Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), the Kaf Hahayim, and the Mishna Berura (commentary to the Shulhan Aruch by Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan, 1839-1933). Summary: One should eat a hardboiled egg at the Seder to commemorate the Hagiga sacrifice, even when the Seder is held on Mosa'e Shabbat.

The Shabbat prohibition of Borer forbids removing undesirable items that are mixed together with desirable items. The question arises as to whether it would be forbidden to remove bones from fish as one eats on Shabbat. The Hid"a (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806), in his work Birkeh Yosef, cites a debate among the Aharonim (post-Medieval Halachic authorities) as to whether the Borer prohibition applies to separating Pesolet (undesirable food) from Ochel (desirable food) during the eating process. On the one hand, one might argue that the Borer prohibition applies regardless of when the separation is performed; it is never permissible to separate Pesolet from Ochel on Shabbat. On the other hand, separating during the "hand to mouth" eating process might be considered an integral stage of eating. Since the Torah clearly allows eating on Shabbat, it perhaps allows separating Pesolet from one's food during eating, as this constitutes an important stage of the eating process. The Hid"a cites the Mahari Abulafia as permitting separating Pesolet from one's food as he eats, whereas the Rav Yom Tob Sahalon (1559-1638) rules stringently, and applies the Borer prohibition even to separating during the eating process. Of course, according to all opinions it is forbidden to separate Pesolet while preparing food to be served, even just before serving. The Mishna Berura (Rav Yisrael Meir Kagan of Radin, 1839-1933), in his Be'ur Halacha, notes that this issue was already debated earlier, by the Rishonim (Medieval Halachic scholars). The Ramban (Rabbi Moshe Nahmanides of Spain, 1194-1270) allowed separating during eating, while the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, Germany-Spain, 1250-1327) ruled stringently. As for the final Halacha, the Hid"a writes that since a Torah violation of Shabbat is at stake, we must follow the stringent opinion, and refrain from separating Pesolet from food even as we eat. Rabbi Moshe Halevi (Israel, 1961-2001), in his Menuhat Ahaba, likewise rules stringently, but he adds that the lenient ruling of the Mahari Abulafia may be taken into account in situations where there are other considerations warranting a lenient ruling. With regard to removing bones from fish, Rabbenu Hananel (early 11th century) held that since the meat of the fish is attached to the bone, removing the bone does not violate the prohibition of Borer. Furthermore, some authorities held that since fish is normally eaten by first removing the bones before bringing the meat to the mouth, this would not constitute Borer, and is rather the usual manner of eating. Rabbi Moshe Halevi thus rules that in consideration of these arguments, combined with the ruling of the Mahari Abulafia, who permits separating during the eating process, we may allow removing bones from fish while eating on Shabbat. He adds that adults feeding children may separate the bones before giving the food to the children, since the children are incapable of doing so themselves. Summary: It is permissible to remove bones from fish while eating on Shabbat. One may not, however, separate the bones before serving the fish, except when serving children, who cannot separate the bones themselves.

Many communities have the practice of accepting Shabbat and reciting Arbit before sundown on Friday afternoon during the summer months. Rather than waiting until after dark to recite Arbit, as we normally do, these communities recite Arbit and begin Shabbat after Pelag Ha'minha (approximately one and a quarter hours before sundown). If one begins Shabbat before sundown, may he recite Kiddush and begin his Shabbat meal immediately, or must he wait until dark? The Shulhan Aruch (267:2) rules explicitly that even when one begins Shabbat before sundown, he may nevertheless recite Kiddush and conduct his meal immediately, and need not wait until nightfall. However, the Mishna Berura (267:5) cites some authorities who require that one eat at least a Kezayit (approximately 1 oz.) of bread after nightfall. According to this view, the obligation to eat three meals on Shabbat requires that they be eaten on Shabbat itself, and not during the period on Friday afternoon that one added onto Shabbat. Hence, one should ensure to eat at least a Kezayit of bread – the minimum amount that constitutes a "meal" – after dark, in order to fulfill the obligation of the Shabbat meal. (Hacham Ovadia Yosef cites this stringent position, as well.) Often, when a person accepts Shabbat early, he returns home and begins his meal within a half-hour of nightfall, in which case an interesting Halachic question arises regarding the obligation of Keri'at Shema. The Mitzva to recite the evening Shema begins at Tzet Ha'kochavim (nightfall), and Halacha forbids beginning a meal within a half-hour of Tzet Ha'kochavim out of concern that one might forget to recite Shema as a result. Thus, if a person returns from the synagogue on Friday night within a half-hour of nightfall, he should perhaps be required to wait until after nightfall, recite Shema, and only then begin his meal. Maran (author of the Shulhan Aruch) addresses this question in his work Bet Yosef, where he rules that one may, in fact, begin his Shabbat meal within a half-hour of nightfall on Friday night. According to the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, Germany-Spain, 1250-1327), one may fulfill the evening Shema obligation before sundown, so long as he recites the Shema after Pelag Ha'minha. Although Halacha does not follow this view, and requires that the evening Shema be recited specifically after nightfall, we may nevertheless rely on this view with respect to the prohibition against beginning a meal within a half-hour of nightfall. Once a person has recited Arbit and has thus fulfilled his Shema obligation according to the Rosh's view, he may then begin his meal within a half-hour of Tzet Ha'kochavim. (Needless to say, when one recites Arbit before nightfall he must repeat the Shema after nightfall.) Summary: When one accepts Shabbat and recites Arbit on Friday afternoon before sundown, as is customary during the summer months, he may recite Kiddush and begin the Shabbat meal immediately upon returning from the synagogue. He must repeat the Shema after nightfall, and, according to some authorities, he should eat at least a Kezayit (1 oz.) of bread after nightfall.

In this episode, we recap the Olympic quarterfinal matches and get ready for the semifinals. 0:00 - USWNT beats Japan 8:50 - Dino fixes Olympic football 11:00 - Trinity Rodman's goal + teams playing the low block vs. USA 14:25 - Spain survives vs. Colombia: Mayra Ramirez is incredible 29:35 - Germany beats Canada in penalties 34:35 - Brazil sends France on the short trip home 42:40 - Previewing USWNT-Germany 53:10 - Shout out to @IronghaziStan for their lineup thoughts 54:40 - @AlyssaJSalter gives us a great nickname for USA's three forwards 59:20 - Previewing Spain-Brazil (Dino continues to disrespect Spain) 1:09:00 - Grant has the hair-brained idea that Spain has just been "lurking" during the start of the tournament 1:11:35 - Marta gets another match, and we'll be rooting for her Subscribe now to catch all of our women's football talk, including our ongoing coverage of the NWSL and the 2024 Olympics. Check us out: X/Twitter: @itc_pod  YouTube: www.youtube.com/@intothechannelpod Instagram: @intothechannelpod Threads: @intothechannelpod Tik Tok: @intothechannel

Alex is back with Alec and Tomás to preview a tantalising set of quarter-finals — starting with England's clash with Switzerland. Gareth Southgate looks set to make changes, but will they be enough against the tactically innovative Swiss? There's also a blockbuster encounter between Germany and Spain, Cristiano Ronaldo meets his Real Madrid heir Kylian Mbappe and Turkey look to spring another shock against the Netherlands.0:00: Introduction0:44: UK goes to the polls1:45: Can Southgate unlock the Swiss?10:05: Blockbuster clash Germany-Spain heating up already15:00: Will France-Portugal send us to sleep?18:28: Young Turks to meet their match?23:00: Sticker Cup (R10)X: https://x.com/EuroZoneShowInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/eurozonefootballshow/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61558993480514YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@EuroZoneFootballShowLogo by Alex BarkerMusic by John Luke Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Champions League will kick back off in a week, and we take a look through the top teams remaining and whether anything has changed since we last considered them. And at the same time, two of these teams are playing potentially title-deciding six pointers (Bayern against Bayer Leverkusen, Real Madrid against Girona) and we preview those matches as well. Support the show

We read in Parashat Shemot of the successful attempt made by Yochebed, the mother of Moshe Rabbenu, to rescue her beloved infant. After Pharaoh decreed that all newborn boys among Beneh Yisrael should be killed, Yochebed delivered a baby, and hid him from the Egyptian authorities for three months. Then, seeing that she could no longer hide him, she placed the baby in a basket and put the basket in the river. It was discovered by Pharaoh's daughter, who opened the basket and saw a child crying. She exclaimed, “This is from the children of the Hebrews!” (2:6). Pharaoh's daughter took the baby, brought him home, and raised him as her child. She named him “Moshe.” The question arises as to how the princess realized that this infant was Jewish. Immediately upon seeing him, she declared that this was an Israelite child. Why? The commentators also address a different question, regarding the syntax of this verse. The Torah tells, “Va'tiftach Ta'tir'ehu Et Ha'yeled, Ve'hineh Na'ar Bocheh” – “She opened it and saw the child, and behold, there was a lad crying.” Moshe is first called “Ha'yeled” – “the child,” but then referred to as a “Na'ar” – “lad.” Clearly, as Moshe was but three months old, the term “Yeled” is far more appropriate for him than “Na'ar,” a term that usually denotes a grown child. Why does the Torah here speak of a “Na'ar” crying, if Moshe was a small baby? An innovative reading of this verse was suggested by the Ba'al Ha'turim (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, Germany-Spain, 1269-1340). He notes that the words “Na'ar Bocheh” in Gematria equal the phrase “Zeh Aharon Ha'kohen” – “This is Aharon the Kohen.” According to the Ba'al Ha'turim, it wasn't Moshe who was crying. His older brother, Aharon, was standing along the riverbank to watch what would happen to Moshe, and he was crying out of fear and compassion for his baby brother. When Pharaoh's daughter opened the basket, she saw an infant – and she also heard a “Na'ar,” the infant's older brother, crying from a distance, worrying about what would happen to the baby. This perhaps explains why the princess immediately determined that the infant must belong to Am Yisrael – because this is a uniquely Jewish trait, crying for one another, caring about one other, feeling each other's pain, and shouldering each other's burden. In the Book of Yehezkel (34:31), the prophet turns to Beneh Yisrael and says, “Adam Atem” – “You are people.” The Gemara in Masechet Yebamot (61a) interprets this to mean that “Atem Keruyim Adam” – only the Jewish people are defined as “Adam,” whereas other nations are not. This classification of Jews as “Adam,” the Gemara explains, is relevant for a certain Halacha regarding the laws of impurity. But this enigmatic Talmudic teaching has, over the years, been used by anti-Semites as “evidence” of the Jews' contempt for gentiles. They claimed that the Talmud teaches Jews to view other peoples as subhuman species – despite the fact that numerous other sources in Torah literature make it very clear that to the contrary, all human beings are created in the divine image and demand our respect and concern. The Rabbis struggled to explain the meaning of the Talmudic teaching that the term “Adam” is reserved for the Jewish People. Rav Meir Shapiro of Lublin (1887-1933) offered a compelling, and especially meaningful, interpretation. He asserted that the Gemara here distinguishes not between “Adam” and animals, but rather between “Adam” and the other Hebrew term used in reference to human beings – “Ish.” The difference between the words “Adam” and “Ish,” Rav Shapiro noted, is that the word “Ish” has a plural form – “Anashim,” whereas the word “Adam” has no plural form. The Gemara teaches that Jews are called “Adam” because we comprise a single entity. We are all parts of one organic whole. We are not “plural,” because we are members of a single nation. No other nation is bound together in mutual love, care and concern like the Jewish Nation. When one Jew is in pain, or is in trouble, Jews around the world cry. This is one of the unique aspects of the Jewish experience – being an “Adam,” part of an organic entity, where everybody is interconnected and unconditionally devoted to one another. This is how Pharaoh's daughter knew that the infant she found belonged to Beneh Yisrael – because she saw somebody crying for him, worrying about him, concerned about him. When our Jewish brothers and sisters across the world are in crisis, we must all feel their pain. We shoulder their burden of sorrow with them, and we commit ourselves to doing everything we can to help them, to support them, to encourage them, and to ensure their safety and wellbeing.

ARCHESTRAL [Funeral Doom Metal, Australia] - https://gorestine.bandcamp.com/ ABANDONED HUMANITY [Progressive Groove/Death Metal; Germany/Spain] - https://abandonedhumanity.bandcamp.com/ PTOLEMEA [Ambient/Alternative Rock, Luxembourg] - https://ptolemea.com/ #archestral #funeraldoom #funeraldoommetal #australianmetal @abandoned_humanity #progressivedeathmetal #progressivemetal #deathmetal #groovemetal #germanmetal #spanishmetal @ptolemea_official #ambientrock #alternativerock @luxembourgishrock PODCAST THEM DOWN - https://linktr.ee/pctd https://patreon.com/podcastthemdown STEEL RESOLVE Bands - https://linktr.ee/steelresolve Including BURNING SHADOWS [US Power Metal], ISENMOR [Folk Metal], FADE TO BLACK [Metallica Tribute], RECENTLY VACATED GRAVES: TRUE ZOMBIE METAL [Zombie Metal], and more!

The final of the 613 Misvot, as listed by the Sefer Ha'hinuch, is the command to write a Sefer Torah. This Misva is introduced in Parashat Vayelech (Debarim 30:19), where Hashem commands, “Ve'ata Kitbu Lachem Et Ha'shira Ha'zot” (“And now, write for yourselves this song”). The Gemara teaches that it is “praiseworthy” to write a Sefer Torah oneself, if he can, and that one who does is considered as though he stood at Mount Sinai and received the Torah. If, however, one is not capable of writing his own Sefer Torah, then he may hire a Sofer (scribe) to write one for him. The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that the Torah commanded writing for oneself a Sefer Torah for the simple reason that this ensures access to a Sefer Torah from which to study. Since everyone is commanded to write a Sefer Torah, everyone will have a Sefer Torah to learn from, without having to go borrow one, and this will help ensure that a person spends time learning. The more accessible something is, the more likely one is to use it, and so the Torah wanted that we all have access to a Sefer Torah, as this will helps guarantee that we learn Torah. Halacha requires one to write his own Sefer Torah even if he inherited one from his father, and the Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that this provision serves to ensure a plethora of Sifreh Torah. Not everybody can afford a Sefer Torah, and so the Torah wanted everyone – even those who already have a Sefer Torah – to write one, such that there would be Sifreh Torah available for those who do not have one. Additionally, the Sefer Ha'hinuch writes, Sifreh Torah gradually wear out, and the ink fades, and so the Torah wanted people to write their own Sifreh Torah, in order for the Torah scrolls to be new and in good condition. The Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that although the Biblical command refers specifically to the writing of a Sefer Torah, there is certainly value also in having other works of Torah literature written. Even if one received such books from his predecessors, it is a Misva to have more Torah books produced. The Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that it was customary among righteous people to allocate a room in their home where scribes, whom they hired, would write Torah books. (Of course, the Sefer Ha'hinuch lived before the invention of the printing press, and thus all books had to be handwritten.) In discussing this Misva, the Sefer Ha'hinuch presents a number of Halachot relevant to the way a Sefer Torah should be written. He writes that a space the size of the letter Yod must be left in between each pair of adjacent words, and an empty space the size of a line of text must be left in between the lines. Each line should consist of thirty letters. The allusion given for this practice is the word “Le'mishpehotechem” (“according to your families”) written three times. This word consists of ten letters, and so three times this word teaches us the total of number of letters that should be written on each line of the Sefer Torah. The Rabbis of the Mussar movement taught that this allusion expresses the notion that if a person, his son and grandson all learn Torah, then he is guaranteed that Torah will remain in his family for all time. The Sages inferred this concept from the verse in the Book of Yeshayahu (59:21), “And these words, which I have placed in your mouth, shall not be removed from your mouth, from the mouth of your offspring, or from the mouth of your offspring's offspring…from now and forever” – indicating that once Torah is studied by three generations, it remains in that family for eternity. The three instances of “Le'mishpehotechem” hint to this concept, that after three generations of Torah study, the family is assured of having the Torah remain with it forever. A line in the Sefer Torah should not consist of fewer than thirty letters, as this would resemble an “Iggeret” (formal letter), and the Sefer Torah is to be a book. A line should not consist of more than thirty letters, as it would then be difficult to find the next line, since the beginning and end of the lines would be very far apart. If a word at the end of the line has five letters, but there's room for only three letters, then the extra two letters may be written outside the column. If there is room for only two letters, then those two spaces should be left empty, and the word should be written on the next line. Although two letters may be written outside the column in the case described above, a two-letter word should not be written outside the column. Tradition requires writing certain letters larger or smaller than the rest of the text. Also, certain letters are written with specific numbers of “Tagin” (“crowns”) above the letters. These laws apply only “Le'chatehila” (optimally). If the “Tagin” were not placed correctly, or if the lines were too close or too far from one another, or too lengthy or too short, the Sefer Torah is nevertheless valid, as long as the letters were written properly. This Misva applies in all places and in all time periods. The Sefer Ha'hinuch maintains that this Misva is binding only upon men, because this obligation is linked to the obligation to study Torah – as discussed above – and women are exempt from the Misva of Torah study. One who was able to write a Sefer Torah but failed to do so has neglected this affirmative command. The Sefer Ha'hinuch warns that such a person is deserving of harsh punishment, as fulfilling this Misva is necessary for learning Torah. Conversely, one who fulfills this Misva is rewarded with blessing and will be enriched by the ability to study. Many Rabbis addressed the question of why most people do not write a Sefer Torah, or even hire somebody to write a Sefer Torah for them. If, as we have seen, writing a Sefer Torah constitutes a Biblical obligation, then why do otherwise G-d-fearing people not write Torah scrolls for themselves? A famous answer to this question is given by the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, Germany-Spain, 1250-1327). He notes that whereas in earlier generations, people would use Sifreh Torah as their texts of Torah study, nowadays, we study from other books. Sifreh Torah are used only for the public reading in the synagogue, and we learn from printed Humashim and other Torah texts. Therefore, the Rosh writes, nowadays, we fulfill this Misva by obtaining texts of Torah literature to learn. The Sefer Ha'hinuch, as mentioned earlier, commented that having such books fulfills the spirit of the Misva of writing a Sefer Torah, but according to the Rosh, this is how we fulfill the actual Misva, since these texts are what we use for learning. According to the Rosh, then, we all fulfill this Misva by having works of Torah literature in our homes. We find among later Poskim different opinions as to how to understand the Rosh's position. The Perisha (commentary to the Tur by Rav Yehoshua Falk, Poland, 1555-1614) maintained that according to the Rosh, one who writes a Sefer Torah nowadays, but does not acquire other texts, does not fulfill the Biblical obligation. Since we do not use Sifreh Torah for learning, one cannot satisfy his obligation through the writing of a Sefer Torah, and he must acquire texts from which to study. The Perisha went even further, stating that having only a Sefer Torah is an insult to the Torah. Since we no longer have the tradition of how to interpret the “Tagin” and other features of the Torah text, one who has only a Torah scroll, and no works of Torah literature, is bound to misunderstand the Torah. The Bet Yosef (commentary to the Tur by Maran Rav Yosef Karo, Spain-Israel, 1488-1575), however, disagreed. In his view, the Rosh concedes that the primary Misva is to write a Sefer Torah, but he also allows fulfilling the Misva by acquiring works of Torah literature. The Sha'agat Aryeh (Rav Aryeh Leib Ginzburg, c. 1695-1785) offers an entirely different reason for why it is not customary for everyone to write a Sefer Torah. The Gemara in Masechet Kiddushin (30) states that some minor elements of the tradition for writing a Sefer Torah have been lost. We cannot definitively ascertain the precise spelling of a small number of words, whether they should be written with or without the letter “Vav.” Therefore, the Sha'agat Aryeh writes, we cannot fulfill the Torah obligation of writing a Sefer Torah, since we lack the knowledge necessary to ensure that the text is written correctly. The Torah reading in the synagogue is not a Biblical obligation, but rather a practice enacted by the prophets, and so we can observe this practice even if the text of the Sefer Torah is not precisely accurate. But writing a Sefer Torah constitutes a Biblical obligation, and it thus cannot be fulfilled, due to our lack of knowledge regarding the precise spelling of all the words. For this reason, the Sha'agat Aryeh avers, it is not customary for everyone to write a Sefer Torah. Rav Moshe Feinstein, in Iggerot Moshe, disputes this line of reasoning. A famous Halachic principle establishes that “Safek De'Orayta Le'humra” – when it comes to Torah obligations, we must act stringently in situations of uncertainty. Therefore, Rav Moshe argues, we should be required to write a Sefer Torah despite the uncertainties that we have regarding certain words, because of the possibility that we write them correctly. As long as there is a chance that we can fulfill the Torah obligation by writing a Sefer Torah, we should be required to do so, in accordance with the rule of “Safek De'Orayta Le'humra.” Rav Moshe therefore suggests a different reason for why people do not write a Sefer Torah, explaining that Halacha does not require incurring an exceedingly large expense for the fulfillment of a Misva. Although one must be willing to spend all the money he has if necessary to avoid transgressing a Misvat Lo Ta'aseh (Biblical prohibition), one is not required to spend more than one-fifth of his assets to fulfill a Misvat Aseh (affirmative command). For the vast majority of people, commissioning the writing of a Sefer Torah would require spending more than one-fifth of their assets, and so they are exempt. Rav Moshe then goes even further, showing that in fact one is not required to spend more than one-tenth of his assets for this Misva, as this would undermine his ability to fulfill other Misvot. Indeed, as Rav Moshe notes, the Tur (Rav Yaakob Ben Asher, Spain, 1269-1340) writes that everyone “Asher Yado Maseget” – “who can afford it” – is required to write a Sefer Torah. Now this condition, that one can afford to fulfill the Misva, applies to all affirmative commands, as mentioned. And yet, the Tur mentions this point specifically in the context of the Misva of writing a Sefer Torah. Apparently, the Tur felt that this Misva in particular is contingent upon one's financial abilities, and one should not commission the writing of a Sefer Torah if this would compromise his fiscal ability to fulfill other Misvot. Another explanation is that some views allow fulfilling this Misva jointly with other people. Therefore, by participating in the cost of writing a Sefer Torah (such as by “purchasing” a letter, which is customary in many communities), one satisfies his obligation according to this opinion. If a person does have the privilege of commissioning a Sefer Torah, and he wants to give it to a synagogue, he should lend it, rather than giving it as a gift. Writing a Sefer Torah does not suffice for fulfilling the Misva; he must own the Torah after it is written. Therefore, one should retain ownership over his Sefer Torah, and give it to a synagogue on loan. Indeed, it is customary to write contracts to this effect when a Sefer Torah is donated, stipulating that the Sefer Torah is being lent, and not given, to the synagogue. Rav Moshe Feinstein writes that if one has a respectable place in his home where he can keep a Sefer Torah, he should do so, and he should make a point of reading some of the weekly Torah portion from the scroll each week. This way, he fulfills the Misva according to all opinions, as he writes a Sefer Torah which he occasionally uses for study.

Halacha requires lighting candles each week before the onset of Shabbat, and before the onset of Yom Tob. Before lighting the Shabbat candles one recites the Beracha, "Le'hadlik Ner Shel Shabbat," and before the lighting for Yom Tob one recites, "Le'hadlik Ner Shel Yom Tob." This is codified by the Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 263).In this context, the Shulhan Aruch observes that some people have the custom to also light candles for Yom Kippur, though they do not recite a Beracha on this lighting.In truth, the issue of candle lighting for Yom Kippur is subject to a debate among the Rishonim. The Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, Germany-Spain, 1250-1327) maintained that candles should be lit in the home on Yom Kippur as a safeguard against marital relations, which are forbidden on Yom Kippur. Since marital relations should take place only in the dark, having lights in the home on Yom Kippur helps ensure that husbands and wives will not violate this prohibition. The Mordechi (Rav Mordechai Ben Hillel, 1250-1298), however, maintained that to the contrary, if lights are lit in the home, a husband may look at his wife and desire relations, and so it is preferable not to have lights in the home on Yom Kippur. In contradistinction to his aforementioned comments, the Shulhan Aruch later, in discussing the laws of Yom Kippur (610), mentions only the view of the Rosh, that candles should be lit for Yom Kippur, adding that according to this view, a Beracha is recited at the time of lighting ("Le'hadlik Ner Shel Yom Ha'kippurim"). It thus appears that he accepted the Rosh's ruling, and maintained that one should light candles for Yom Kippur and should even recite a Beracha over the lighting. The Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles of Cracow, 1525-1572) writes that this was the custom among Ashkenazic communities, and this is also the position taken by many Ashkenazic authorities (Rav Sheneur Zalman of Liadi, Peri Megadim, Mateh Efrayim and Hayeh Adam). Numerous Sephardic authorities accept this view, as well, including the Ben Ish Hai and Kaf Ha'haim.Others, however, disagree, and maintain that in light of the different views that exist among the Rishonim, we must apply the principle of "Safek Berachot Le'hakel" – we do not recite a Beracha when there is some uncertainty as to whether it is warranted. Therefore, in their view, a Beracha should not be recited over the Yom Kippur candle lighting. This is the view of Rav Haim Palachi (in Ruah Haim), the Peri Hadash, the Erech Ha'shulhan, and others.As for the final Halacha, Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that in communities with an established custom, we do not apply the principle of "Safek Berachot Le'hakel." Therefore, communities that have a custom to recite a Beracha over the Yom Kippur candle lighting should follow this custom. This is also the ruling of Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Israel, 1923-1998).The accepted custom in Halab (Aleppo, Syria) was to either not light candles for Yom Kippur, or to light candles without a Beracha. This is documented in the book Derech Eretz, and in the Kol Yaakob weekday Siddur, too, it says that the custom among the Jews of Halab was not to recite a Beracha over the Yom Kippur candle lighting. The exception to this rule, however, is when Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat, in which case candles must be lit before the onset of Yom Kippur because of Shabbat. The custom in Aleppo was to recite at the time of candle lighting in this case the Beracha, "Le'hadlik Ner Shel Shabbat Ve'Yom Ha'kippurim." Hacham Eliyahu Hamoui ruled that even in this case no Beracha should be recited, but the consensus view is that according to the custom of Halab, a Beracha is recited over the Yom Kippur candle lighting when Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat.It should be noted that women who attend the synagogue service on the night of Yom Kippur recite the Beracha of "She'he'hiyanu" together with the congregation in the synagogue. If a woman does not attend the service in the synagogue, she must still recite the Beracha, as this Beracha is recited over the occasion of Yom Kippur, not as part of the Kal Nidreh service.Summary: It is customary in most communities to light candles before the onset of Yom Kippur and to recite a Beracha over the candle lighting, but the custom in Halab (Aleppo) was not to recite a Beracha over this candle lighting, except when Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat.

There is considerable discussion among the Halachic authorities regarding the recitation of the Beracha of Shehehiyanu on the second night of Rosh Hashanah. It is clear according to all views that one must recite the Beracha in Kiddush on the first night of Rosh Hashanah, before drinking the wine, just as we do on the first night of every other Yom Tob. On the second night of Rosh Hashanah, however, some Rishonim (Medieval Halachic scholars) maintained that one should not recite Shehehiyanu. In their view, the two days of Rosh Hashanah differ from other Yamim Tobim in that they constitute a "Yama Arichta" – a prolonged day of Yom Tob. The two days of Rosh Hashanah, according to this position, are not to be viewed as two separate festive occasions, each of which requiring its own recitation of Shehehiyanu, but rather as a single occasion. As such, the Beracha of Shehehiyanu, which celebrates the onset of the festival, is recited only on the first night, and not on the second night.Other Rishonim, however, including Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yishaki of Troyes, France, 1040-1105) and the Rashba (Rabbi Shlomo Ben Aderet of Barcelona, Spain, 1235-1310), disagreed. They held that Rosh Hashanah is no different from other festivals in this regard, and the two days of the holiday constitute independent festive occasions, both of which require the recitation of Shehehiyanu. This also appears to be the view of the Rambam (Rabbi Moshe Maimonides, Spain-Egypt, 1135-1204).The Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, Germany-Spain, 1250-1327) suggested a compromise position, advising that one should place a new fruit – meaning, a fruit he had not eaten since the beginning of the fruit's season – on the table during Kiddush on the second night of Rosh Hashanah. He should have in mind while reciting Kiddush that if Halacha follows the view that Shehehiyanu is not required on the second night of Rosh Hashanah, then the Shehehiyanu which he recites should refer to the new fruit, which he then eats with his meal. This way, one may recite Shehehiyanu without running the risk of reciting a Beracha Le'batala (meaningless Beracha) according to all opinions.As for the final Halacha, the Shulhan Aruch rules in accordance with the view of Rashi and the Rashba, that one must recite Shehehiyanu on both nights of Rosh Hashanah. He adds, however, that it is preferable to place a new fruit on the table during Kiddush, as the Rosh recommended, in order to satisfy all opinions, though according to the strict Halacha this is not necessary.Indeed, the widespread practice is to place a new fruit on the table during Kiddush on the second night of Rosh Hashanah, and then to eat the fruit as part of the meal. Although Rav Haim Vital (Safed, Israel, 1543-1620) wrote in his Sha'ar Ha'kavanot that a new fruit is unnecessary, as Halacha accepts the view requiring the recitation of Shehehiyanu, this is nevertheless the widespread custom, in accordance with the Shulhan Aruch's ruling. It should be emphasized, however, that one who does not have a new fruit on the second night of Rosh Hashanah should certainly recite Shehehiyanu nonetheless. This is the ruling of the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909).Many later scholars addressed the interesting question of how placing a new fruit on the table resolves the dilemma and enables a person to satisfy all views. Let us assume, for argument's sake, that it is acceptable to recite Shehehiyanu upon seeing the new fruit, and then eat the fruit later, as part of the meal. Still, reciting this Beracha after reciting Kiddush and before drinking would appear to constitute a Hefsek (improper disruption) in between Kiddush and drinking. As discussed, we place the fruit on the table so that the Shehehiyanu recited as part of Kiddush will refer to the fruit according to the view that Shehehiyanu is not otherwise warranted on the second night of Rosh Hashanah. But if so, then this Beracha is entirely irrelevant to Kiddush, and thus constitutes a Hefsek in between Kiddush and drinking, which should, seemingly, disqualify the Kiddush. It would thus seem to emerge that while endeavoring to resolve one problem, we bring ourselves into another, far more serious, predicament!Rav Haim Palachi (Izmir, Turkey, 1788-1869) suggested that the Beracha of Shehehiyanu would not constitute a Hefsek because, as we saw, Halacha follows the view that one in any event should recite Shehehiyanu on the second night of Rosh Hashanah. This explanation, however, seems insufficient to answer the question, as it essentially concedes that placing a new fruit on the table will not achieve anything according to the view that Shehehiyanu is not recited on the second night of Rosh Hashanah. If so, then why do we place the fruit at all?Another answer is suggested by Rabbi Moshe Halevi (Israel, 1961-2001), in his work Birkat Hashem, where he explains that the Beracha of Shehehiyanu is not inconsistent with the spirit of Kiddush. This Beracha simply expresses gratitude to God for bringing us to this special occasion; it does not contain any specific reference that would be in contrast with the theme of Kiddush. For example, if in the middle of a Kiddush a person recited the Beracha of She'hakol, this would certainly constitute a Hefsek as this Beracha is entirely out of place in Kiddush. This is not the case with regard to Shehehiyanu, and therefore this Beracha would not constitute a disruption.In any event, one should preferably follow the widespread custom to place a new fruit on the table during Kiddush on the second night of Rosh Hashanah, if possible. One should then eat the fruit during the meal, without reciting an additional Beracha of Shehehiyanu, as it was covered by the Shehehiyanu recited at Kiddush.Summary: According to some authorities, one does not recite Shehehiyanu at Kiddush on the second night of Rosh Hashanah. It is therefore customary to place a new fruit on the table during Kiddush on this night, and have in mind while reciting Shehehiyanu that if Halacha follows the view that this Beracha is not recited, then the Beracha he recites applies to the fruit. He should eat the fruit during the meal without repeating Shehehiyanu. Although this is the widespread custom, according to the strict Halacha on recites Shehehiyanu on the second night of Rosh Hashanah even if he does not have a new fruit.

We read in Parashat Va'et'hanan the first of the three paragraphs that comprise the Shema text which we recite each morning and evening. This first paragraph contains the command, “Ve'ahabta Et Hashem Elokecha Be'chol Lebabecha U'b'chol Nafshecha U'b'chol Me'odecha”- “You shall love Hashem your G-d with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your means” (6:5). Rashi explains the precise meaning of this command, to love Hashem with all our “heart,” “soul,” and “means.” Loving Hashem “with all our heart” requires us to devote ourselves to Him with both “sides” of our heart – with our Yeser Tob (good inclination) and our Yeser Ha'ra (evil inclination). We serve Hashem with our Yeser Tob, of course, by acting upon our desire for goodness, and performing the Misvot. We serve Hashem with our Yeser Ha'ra by subduing our negative tendencies, overpowering our sinful inclinations in faithful obedience to G-d. The command to love Hashem “with all your soul,” Rashi explains, means that, if necessary, we are to be prepared to surrender our lives for Hashem. Under certain circumstances, we are required to sacrifice our lives rather than abandon our faith, as, unfortunately, many Jews have been forced to do throughout the ages. Finally, Rashi explains the command to love Hashem “Be'chol Me'odecha” to mean that we must be willing to part with our money for Hashem's sake. We must avoid violating His laws even at great financial expense. The Ba'al Ha'turim (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, Germany-Spain, 1269-1340) comments that these three commands correspond to the three Abot (patriarchs). The command to love Hashem with all our heart, he explains, is associated with Abraham Abinu, about whom it is said, “U'masata Et Lebabo Ne'eman Lefanecha” – Hashem “found His heart faithful” (Nehemya 9:8). Abraham was the paragon of unconditional and unwavering faith in Hashem, a man whose heart was pure and unquestioning in its devotion to G-d. He sets the example we must follow in fulfilling the command to serve Hashem “Be'chol Lebabecha.” Yishak Abinu, of course, was prepared to surrender his life to Hashem at the Akeda, when G-d commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son upon an altar, rescinding the command only at the final moment, just as Abraham lifted the knife. Thus, Yishak is the exemplar of “U'b'chol Nafshecha,” the willingness to sacrifice one's life for Hashem. Finally, Yaakob Abinu pledged to G-d as he fled from his brother that he would donate one-tenth of all his earnings (Bereshit 28:22). In fact, Yaakob ended up giving to his brother all the money he earned during his years outside Eretz Yisrael, in exchange for Me'arat Ha'machpela, the burial site of the patriarchs. Yaakob exemplifies the willingness to part with one's money for the sake of Hashem, and so he is associated with the command, “U'b'chol Me'odecha.” The Ba'al Ha'turim adds that the word “Ve'ahabta” (“You shall love”), with which this verse begins, has the same letters as the word “Ha'abot” – “the patriarchs.” Why is this important? What significance is there is to this connection between the command of “Ve'ahabta” and the three patriarchs? Very often, religious life can appear very difficult, and even intimidating. The numerous restrictions and obligations can make us feel discouraged, and many people feel they simply lack the inner strength, the resolve, the discipline or the skills to observe the Torah. The requirement to subdue our Yeser Ha'ra, and to make the considerable sacrifices entailed in serving Hashem, can be daunting. The Torah therefore alludes in this verse to the example set for us by our Abot, to remind us of our origins and roots. We have outstanding “spiritual genes.” As the descendants of Abraham, Yishak and Yaakob, we have inherited their faith and their strength. They set for us the precedent of overcoming difficult challenges in the service of Hashem, of steadfast devotion to Him even in times of hardship. We must not feel discouraged or intimidated by the Torah's obligations, but should instead feel confident in the “genes” we have received, in the power that we have as the heirs of our righteous forebears, which enables us to fully commit ourselves to the divine will.

“First landing on an asphalt runway more than three years after getting my licence!” – Nico Engmann In this first episode of TSC season 2, we enjoy a “Big Tire Bro Chat” with Nico Engmann from Germany/Spain and Maxence Pons from France –looking back at when and where they started their backcountry and mountain flying adventures as well as about their respective planes. We looked back to 2021 when several friends of us including myself and Marius Jumolea from Romania flew to the French national STOL competition. We talked about STOL competitions expending in France and as well about flight helmets. Sorry about some screechy noises coming back and forth during the episode. I tried to remove as much of them as I could in post processing. Maxence owes me a cold one for being the culprit :D If you search for an awesome vacation place in the heart of the Spanish Pyrenees mountains and love riding enduro motorcycles, go checkout Nico's wife and family camping/bungalow park “Isabena Bungalow Park”. https://www.isabena.eu/en/ If you happen to stay in the south-East of France and want to fly, go check out Maxence's flight school “Aeroclub du Soleil” in Cuers. https://aeroclubdusoleil.fr Let me know what you like and don´t like about the show! contact@thestolcollective.com and/or go checkout this episode's page on our website if you want to discover more content: www.thestolcollective.com Music credits: “Slowly”, Amon Tobin – Supermodified, 2000 Cover: Maxime Compagnon

If a person boils a fruit or vegetable, and then wishes to drink the water which now has the flavor of the fruit or vegetable, which Beracha does he recite?Generally speaking, one who drinks the juice extracted from a raw fruit – such as orange juice – recites the Beracha of "She'hakol," rather than "Bore Peri Ha'etz," because drinking a fruit's juice is not considered equivalent to partaking of the fruit itself. Would this principle apply as well to juices extracted by boiling a fruit, or might we distinguish between the two cases?The Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, Germany-Spain, 1250-1327), in his work on Masechet Berachot (6:18), writes that over juice extracted from cooking one must, in fact, recite the Beracha of "Bore Peri Ha'etz" (or "Bore Peri Ha'adama" when dealing with a vegetable). He contends that the taste imparted into the water during the process of boiling is far stronger and more potent than the taste of the juice extracted from a raw fruit. The juice produced by cooking is thus deemed equivalent to the fruit itself, and it therefore warrants the same Beracha as one would recite over the actual fruit. The Rosh cites as proof to his ruling the Gemara's comment, "Maya De'shalke Ke'shalke" – "the water of boiled fruits or vegetables is like the fruits or vegetables." This comment clearly establishes a Halachic parity between a fruit and the water in which it was boiled.The Ra'a (Rabbi Aharon Halevi, Spain, 1235-1300), however, disagreed, and held that the juice extracted through boiling is no different from the juice produced from a raw fruit. In his view, the Gemara's comment "Maya De'shalke Ke'shalke" refers to a case where a person recited a Beracha over a cooked fruit or vegetable, eats it, and then drinks the water in which it was boiled. The Gemara here establishes that the Beracha of "Bore Peri Ha'etz" or "Bore Peri Ha'adama" that one recites over a boiled fruit or vegetable covers the liquid, as well, and thus after eating the fruit he would not recite a separate Beracha over the liquid. However, if one only drinks the water in which a fruit was boiled, and does not eat the fruit, he recites the Beracha of "She'hakol," and not "Bore Peri Ha'etz."The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 202:10) cites both views. Rabbi Moshe Halevi (Israel, 1961-2001), in his work Birkat Hashem (vol. 3, 7:50), applies here the rule of "Safek Berachot Le'hakel," requiring that one avoid reciting a Beracha if it is subject to controversy. Given the debate surrounding juice extracted from boiling a fruit, one who drinks such juice should recite the Beracha of "She'hakol," which according to all views suffices to fulfill one's obligation.Earlier (7:45), Rabbi Moshe Halevi addresses a case of one who eats compote – cooked fruits – and then drinks their juice. In light of the previous discussion, he rules that the Beracha of "Bore Peri Ha'etz" recited over the compote covers the juice, as well, and therefore one who eats compote and then drinks the juice does not recite a separate Beracha over the juice.Summary: One who drinks juice produced by boiling a fruit or vegetable recites the Beracha of "She'hakol," just as one does over juice extracted from a raw fruit or vegetable. If, however, one first eats the cooked fruit or vegetable and then proceeds to drink the juice, such as one who eats compote and then drinks the juice, he does not recite any Beracha at all over the juice, since the Beracha recited over the fruit or vegetable covers the juice, as well.

The Gemara in Masechet Pesahim (101) tells that Abayeh was once with his Rabbi on Friday night, and his Rabbi urged him to recite Kiddush and eat in the place where they were. He warned Abayeh that by the time he returned to the place where he was lodging, the candle there will likely have gone out, and he would thus be unable to eat there. Since Kiddush must be recited in the place where one eats, the Rabbi urged Abayeh to recite Kiddush at the place where they were at that moment and then eat there.This comment seems to imply that the Shabbat meal must be eaten in the place where Shabbat candles are lit, and for this reason Abayeh would have been unable to eat his Shabbat meal at his place of lodging. Others, however, explain the Rabbi's comment to mean that as a practical matter, people do not enjoy eating in the dark. From a halachic perspective, Abayeh would have been allowed to recite Kiddush and eat in the dark, but since people prefer eating where there is illumination, his Rabbi instructed him to recite Kiddush and eat at his current location. The Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, Germany-Spain, 1250-1327) cites both opinions, as does the Shulhan Aruch, which writes that "some say" ("Yesh Omrim") one must eat where the Shabbat candles burn, and "some say" this is not necessary. There is a rule that when the Shulhan Aruch cites two views in this fashion ("Yesh Omrim…Ve'yesh Omrim"), he accepts the second opinion cited. Moreover, in this instance the Shulhan Aruch writes explicitly that the second view seems more reasonable ("Ve'hachi Mistabera"). Therefore, according to the strict Halacha, one does not have to eat in the place where the Shabbat candles are lit.However, the Arizal (Rav Yishak Luria of Safed, 1534-1572) ruled that one must eat his Friday night meal near the candles, and this is the view accepted by the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Israel, 1870-1939). The Kaf Ha'haim writes that if somebody wishes to eat outside on the roof or on the porch, he must light the Shabbat candles in that location, using a lantern or other device to protect the candles from the wind. This Halacha is very relevant nowadays. A person should not light Shabbat candles in the kitchen and eat in the dining room, or vice versa. People who spend Shabbat in a hotel should try, if possible, to bring two tea lights and light them on the table in the dining room where they will be eating. On Sukkot, one should try to light the candles in the Sukka. Although the strict Halacha, as we have seen, allows lighting Shabbat candles in one place and eating somewhere else, one should try to follow the Arizal's tradition and make a point of eating near the Shabbat candles.Summary: According to the strict Halacha, one may light the Shabbat candles in one place and eat the Friday night meal somewhere else, though one should preferably eat near the Shabbat candles, in accordance with the tradition of the Arizal.

In another edition of our daily World Cup betting podcast, host Carl Lewis is joined by coach and analyst Grant de Smidt and punter David Kappel. We look at the final matches of Groups E and F. Croatia v Belgium Morocco v Canada Spain v Japan Costa Rica v Germany  

In this Atlanta Soccer Tonight special, Kevin Kratz and Jose Silva of Atlanta United's academy break down today's 1-1 draw between Germany and Spain with Jason Longshore. A dynamic, intense match between two former World Cup champions delivered perhaps the highest quality game of this World Cup so far.

On this episode, Grant and Chris Wittyngham look back on the weekend at the World Cup and look ahead to the United States' game against Iran on Tuesday. We discuss how the USMNT should line up, how they approach needing to win, and the issues between US Soccer and Iran. Then, we discuss Grant's day at Germany-Spain, Mexico's struggles, and Canada being knocked out of the tournament by Croatia.

The ‘Offside Report' returns to recap the first lot of games from Qatar and what's to come for the remainder of the group stage. We've now had a look at every team at the World Cup as Brazil and Serbia rounded out the first lot of group stage fixtures and there was no shortage of upsets in Qatar, blow-outs and the good ol' nil-all stalemates. On this week's episode: - France too good for ambitious Aussies - England make statement with Iran win - Saudi's stun Argentina … and the world - Japan steal all three points against Germany - Spain make a mockery of Costa Rica - Cristiano Ronaldo scores in record 5th World Cup - Brazil announce themselves as tournament favourites - Match Day Two Previews Sit back and enjoy!

Kevin and Chris take a look at the day's action, as the CONCACAF teams remain winless. The boys were impressed by Japan in their 2-1 win over Germany. Even more so by Canada in their loss to Belgium. They fell asleep during the Spain 7-0 trouncing of Costa Rica. Think the 12 million estimated viewership across Univision, Fox, and Peacock is likely understated. And Kevin vehemently disagrees with Soccer America's Mike Woitalla's assessment of Zimmerman in the USMNT game against Wales. That and more on OTB.

Welcome to the dedicated OTB World Cup Brief with John Duggan of OTB Sports. We bring you all the latest World Cup news from Qatar and details of the daily schedule. The OTB World Cup Brief is in partnership with Deliveroo. Delivering matchday meal deals throughout the World Cup. Deliveroo, Food. We Get it.

Welcome to The OTB Lunchtime Wrap, a look at the top sports stories of the day at lunchtime, with Phil Egan of OTB Sports. We bring you the latest sports news and what's happening today. You can also tune into OTB, our daily sports show from 7pm - where we've reaction, news, and analysis of all today's sport - watch or listen live across OTB Sports.

Richie McCormack and Mick McCarthy joined Joe Molloy for Wednesday's edition of The Newsround. #OTBNR with Gillette | #EffortlessFlow

Richie McCormack and Mick McCarthy joined Joe Molloy for Wednesday's edition of The Newsround. #OTBNR with Gillette | #EffortlessFlow

Adam Zdroik and Ryan Belongia look at Wednesday's three-game World Cup slate at DraftKings. Germany, Spain and Belgium are all favored with decent odds to secure clean sheets. How much should you trust the odds? They look at some cash builds while discussing the best routes for tournaments/GPPs. For more daily fantasy soccer content, go to http://rotowire.com/daily/soccer DraftKings Fantasy Soccer Cheat Sheets: https://www.rotowire.com/soccer/cheat-sheets.php FREE 10-day trial to RotoWire (no credit card required): http://rotowire.com/soccertrial #DFS #EPL #DraftKings #FPL #DFSSoccer #PremierLeague Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Alex and Javier returned for Part 3 of their 4 part World Cup preview series before the tournament kicks off next Sunday. This time's two wide open groups as Spain, Germany, Japan, and Costa Rica make up Group E and Belgium, Croatia, Morocco, and Canada fill out Group F. The guys discuss the differences between styles of play in International competition as opposed to club football. Timestamps: Difference Between Club & Intl. Footy - 1:10 Germany Preview - 5:00 Spain Preview - 10:45 Japan Preview - 14:35 Costa Rica Preview - 21:20 Morocco Preview - 25:33 Canada Preview - 30:32 Belgium Preview - 35:47 Croatia Preview - 41:02 Email: ghostgoalpod@gmail.com Social Media: Twitter | Instagram Featuring Alex Moss Javier Arevalo Intro/Outro Music Love Syndrome - Enamour

Not only did Franz Wagner play in Germany's Quarterfinals meeting with Greece on Tuesday, but FIBA Franz started and starred in a big upset win over Giannis Antetokounmpo. I imagine that right ankle feels fine right now. Germany is on to the Semifinals where on Friday they'll host Spain. Does Franz actually have a chance to win EuroBasket MVP? #LetsGoMagic Warning: Adult Language

There is a custom that originates from the Arizal (Rabbi Yishak Luria of Safed, 1534-1572) to pray during the month of Elul for peers or family members who have, Heaven forbid, strayed from Torah observance. As Elul is a time of divine compassion, when the Almighty is particularly receptive to our prayers, especially with regard to Teshuba (repentance), it is proper to pray during this month that God should bring those who have strayed back to the path of religious observance. The Arizal taught that one should insert this prayer three times a day during Elul – in Shaharit, Minha and Arbit – in the Beracha in the Amida that deals with repentance ("Hashibenu"). Just prior to the concluding blessing of that Beracha, meaning, before one recites, "Baruch Ata Hashem Ha'rose Bi'tshuba," one should recite the following text: "Yehi Rason Milefanecha Hashem Elokenu V'Elokeh Abotenu She'tahtor Hatira Mi'tahat Kiseh Kebodecha Le'hahazir Bi'tshuba Shelemah Le'khol Posh'eh Yisrael U'bi'chlalam Tahazireni Li [the person's name] Ben [the person's father's name] Ki Yemincha Peshuta Le'kabel Shabim." (Translation: "May it be the will before You, Hashem our God and God of our forefathers, that You shall dig an opening underneath Your Throne of Glory to bring all sinners of Israel back in full repentance, and among them bring back for me so-and-so son of so-and-so, for Your right [hand] is outstretched to receive those who return.")There is also an admirable custom to spend additional time each day during the month of Elul studying works of Musar (religious exhortation). Recommended works to learn include Hobot Halebabot by Rabbenu Bahya Ibn Pakuda (Spain, 1050-1120), Reshit Hochma, and the third section of Shaareh Teshuba by Rabbenu Yona Gerondi (Spain, 1180-1263). This section offers important religious guidelines and deals with the various Misvot and prohibitions regarding which one must exercise particular care, and it is thus especially relevant to the period of Elul. Some also advise studying the work Orhot Hayim, which is attributed to the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, Germany-Spain, 1250-1327).Summary: It is proper during the month of Elul to pray in the Amida on behalf of those who have strayed from Torah observance. This prayer should be added in the "Hashibenu" section of the Amida. It is also proper to spend extra time each day during Elul studying the classic works of Musar.

Parashat Ekeb begins by telling of the great rewards which G-d promises to give us if we faithfully observe the Misvot. This includes the blessings of children, material prosperity, and victory over our hostile enemies. These verses become difficult to understand in light of the verse that immediately precedes this section – the final verse of the previous Parasha, Parashat Vaet'hanan. There Moshe exhorts us to fulfill all the laws "that I am commanding you today to perform." Rashi, based on the Gemara, explains the phrase "Hayom La'sotam" ("today to perform") as indicating that we perform them "today," in this world, but the reward will be received only in the future, in the world to come. This final verse of Parashat Vaet'hanan, then, establishes that the reward for Misva observance is paid not here in our world, but rather in the next world. How, then, can the Torah immediately then tell us of the rewards of children, prosperity and military victory? How are we promised these rewards for Torah observance, if Torah observance is rewarded only in the next world? One answer that has been given lies in a distinction between the two basic categories of Misvot – our obligations to G-d ("Ben Adam La'Makom"), and our interpersonal obligations ("Ben Adam La'habero"). The verse in Yeshayahu (3:10) speaks of a "Sadik Ki Tob" – "righteous person who is good," and says that such people will "consume the fruit of their deeds." The Gemara in Masechet Kiddushin (40a) explains that this refers to those Sadikim who are "Tob La'Shamayim Ve'la'beriyot" – "good to G-d and to people," meaning, who fulfill both their obligations to the Almighty, and their obligations to other people. Such a person "consumes the fruit of his deeds" – meaning, he enjoys the "fruit" of his Misvot already in this world. The reward for the Misvot "Ben Adam La'Makom" that we fulfill are given only in the next world, but the rewards for our interpersonal Misvot are paid already in this world. Indeed, the opening Mishna of Masechet Pe'a, which we recite after the Beracha over Torah learning each morning, lists certain Misvot "whose fruits a person eats in this word, while the principal remains intact for the next world." The vast majority of these Misvot are interpersonal Misvot. We consume the "fruits" of these Misvot already here in this world, without diminishing from the "principal," which will be given to us in full in the next world. This resolves the seeming contradiction between the end of Parashat Va'et'hanan and the beginning of Parashat Ekeb. When it comes to our Misvot "Ben Adam La'Makom," the reward is given only in the next world. But the opening verses of Parashat Ekeb speak of the fulfillment of even the Misvot "Ben Adam La'habero," for which we are rewarded already here in this world. We might add that, as already noted by the Ba'al Ha'turim (Rav Yaakob Ben Asher, Germany-Spain, 1269-1343), the word "Ekeb" in Gematria equals 172 – the same number of words as there are in the first version of the Ten Commandments (in Shemot, chapter 20). Perhaps, the word "Ekeb" in this verse alludes to the 172nd word in the Ten Commandments – meaning, the final word, which is "Le're'acha" – "to your fellow." The Torah here is indicating to us that if we ensure to fulfill not only our obligations to G-d, but also our obligations "Le're'acha," to our fellowman, then we will be worthy of all the great rewards described in this Parasha – because when it comes to interpersonal Misvot, we receive the "fruits" already in this world, and not only in the next world.

The Tur (Rabbenu Yaakov Ba'al Ha'turim, Germany-Spain, 1270-1340), in Orah Haim (Siman 585), cites his brother, Rabbenu Yehiel, as questioning the custom he observed among the Spanish Jewish communities to hire somebody to blow the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah (listen to audio recording for precise citation). It is forbidden to accept payment for services rendered on Shabbat or Yom Tob, and it would thus seem forbidden for somebody to receive payment for blowing the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah.The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 585:5) addresses this issue, and rules that if a person accepts payment to blow the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah, or to serve as Hazan or explain the Parasha on Shabbat or Yom Tob, he will not enjoy blessing from that money. Later authorities, including Hacham Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer, vol. 5, Orah Haim 25), note that the Shulhan Aruch does not forbid accepting payment for performing these services on Shabbat or Yom Tob, but merely warns that it is unadvisable. This ruling of the Shulhan Aruch thus appears to contradict an earlier passage (306:5) in which he rules that a Hazan may not be hired to lead the services on Shabbat, and then cites a view that allows such arrangements. There is a famous principle of "Setam Va'yesh Halacha Ki'stam," which means that when the Shulhan Aruch issues a ruling, and then cites a different view, he accepts as Halacha the first view. Seemingly, then, he sides with the position that forbids hiring people to serve in the synagogue on Shabbat. Yet, in the later passage, mentioned above, he allows doing so, albeit with a warning that the recipient of payment will not enjoy blessing from the money.Hacham Ovadia Yosef writes that we should follow the "Mishna Aharona," meaning, the later of these two contradictory passages in the Shulhan Aruch, which allows hiring people to perform synagogue functions on Shabbat and Yom Tob. Indeed, as Hacham Ovadia observes in his work Yehave Da'at (vol. 1, Siman 53), this is the accepted custom. This is also the ruling of the Mishna Berura (commentary by Rav Yisrael Meir Kagan of Radin, 1839-1933).Similarly, Rav Moshe Halevi (Israel, 1961-2001), in his work Menuhat Ahaba (vol. 1, 10:27), writes that it is permissible to accept payment to read the Torah or lead the services on Shabbat, or blow the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah, because the Sages did not forbid accepting payment for services involving a Misva. Nevertheless, he adds, in order to satisfy all opinions, there are those who make a point of performing some kind of service for the synagogue on a weekday, as well. For example, somebody who is hired to lead the services on Shabbat should, on at least one occasion, lead the services on a weekday. This way, the payment he receives will cover both work performed on Shabbat and work performed on a weekday, and Halacha permits accepting payment for a job that is done on both weekdays and Shabbat (a provision known in Halacha as "Habla'a").As for the final Halacha, then, it is, strictly speaking, permissible for somebody to perform a service in the synagogue on Shabbat for pay. Preferably, however, he should perform a service during the week, as well. Thus, youth group leaders who are hired to run programs for the youth on Shabbat should, preferably, be asked to buy games or other materials for the group during the week. Likewise, a Ba'al Keri'a who is hired to read the Torah on Shabbat should be asked to read occasionally during the week.Summary: It is permissible for a synagogue to hire somebody to perform a service for the congregation on Shabbat or Yom Tob, such as a Hazan, Ba'al Keri'a, Ba'al Teki'a, or youth group leaders. Preferably, they should also be given some responsibility to perform occasionally during the week, so that they are not paid solely for work done on Shabbat or Yom Tob.

The Rishonim (Medieval Halachic scholars) address the question regarding the status of a commitment to charity made in one's mind, without being verbalized. If a person made a decision to give a certain amount of money to charity, but he did not verbally express this commitment, does this non-verbal pledge have the status of a Neder (vow), such that one is obligated to fulfill the pledge?The Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, Germany-Spain, 1250-1327), in one of his responsa, writes that a pledge to charity is binding only if it is verbalized. A commitment made in one's mind, without being stated verbally, is not binding. However, in his commentary to the Talmud, the Rosh takes the opposite view, stating that even non-verbal pledges are binding and must be fulfilled. The Rosh cites a verse in Dibreh Hayamim – "Kol Nedib Leb Olot" – referring to a voluntary commitment made in one's heart to bring Olot (burnt offerings) to the Bet Ha'mikdash. Based on this verse, the Rosh rules that if a person resolves in his mind to give money to charity, this commitment is Halachically binding and he must fulfill the pledge.The Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles of Cracow, 1525-1572), in Hoshen Mishpat (212:8), follows the stringent ruling, and thus for Ashkenazim, it is clear that if one makes even a non-verbal pledge, it is binding. It should be noted that we refer only to a resolute decision to give charity. If one merely contemplated in his mind giving charity, or considered the possibility, this is certainly not a binding pledge. We deal here only with a firm, unambiguous decision to give charity.Maran, however, in Shulhan Aruch, cites both views. He first writes, "Yesh Omerim" ("There are those who say") that a non-verbal pledge is binding, and then writes, "Yesh Mi She'omer" ("There is someone who says") that it is not binding. There is a well-known rule that in a case of "Yesh Va'yesh," where Maran cites two different opinions as "Yesh Omerim," we follow the second opinion cited. Seemingly, then, in this instance, we should follow the lenient position, that a vow taken in one's mind is not Halachically binding. However, Hacham Ben Sion Abba Shaul (Israel, 1923-1998) claimed that this rule applies only if Maran uses the precise phrase "Yesh Omerim" in reference to both views. However, if he cites one view as "Yesh Omerim" and the other with the phrase "Yesh Mi She'omer," then he sides with the "Yesh Omerim," which is the majority position. Hence, with regard to the Halacha of a non-verbal pledge, Maran follows the stringent view, which he introduces as the "Yesh Omerim." Hacham Ben Sion further notes that given the especially grave consequences of violating vows, one who makes a non-verbal pledge should ensure to fulfill the pledge, in accordance with the stringent opinion.Our Sages teach that as a general rule it is preferable not to make formal pledges, in order to avoid the risk of violating a Neder. And thus certainly when it comes to non-verbal pledges, the status of which is subject to dispute, one should preferably not make formal pledges in his mind in order to avoid this Halachic uncertainty.Summary: Formal pledges to give charity are binding even if they are made in one's mind, without being verbalized.

The Shabbat before Pesach is famously called "Shabbat Ha'gadol" – "the Great Shabbat." The most common explanation for this name is that offered by the Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, Germany-Spain, 1269-1343), who writes that this Shabbat commemorates a miracle which occurred on the last Shabbat before the Exodus from Egypt. As the Torah tells in Parashat Bo, G-d commanded Beneh Yisrael to select a sheep for the Korban Pesach (paschal sacrifice) on the 10th of Nissan – four days before it was to be slaughtered, the afternoon of the 14th of Nissan. That year, the 10th of Nissan fell on Shabbat. The Egyptians regarded sheep as a sacred article, and so when they saw Beneh Yisrael preparing sheep, they naturally approached them and asked what this was about. Beneh Yisrael proudly and unabashedly proclaimed that they were preparing sheep to be sacrificed to the one, true G-d. This was, quite obviously, an affront to the Egyptians' faith, and they were incensed. Miraculously, however, they felt helpless, and did nothing to harm Beneh Yisrael. This is the great miracle that we commemorate on Shabbat Ha'gadol. The commentaries elaborate further on the significance of these events which transpired on the Shabbat before the Exodus. Many years earlier, G-d had informed Abraham Abinu of His decree that Abraham's descendants would be enslaved and oppressed for 430 years. As we know, however, G-d brought Beneh Yisrael out of Egypt after they had been there for just 210 years. Moreover, according to tradition, the period of harsh labor lasted just 86 years – from the time of the birth of Miriam, Moshe's sister, until the Exodus. This means that Beneh Yisrael endured just one-fifth of the decreed period of oppression (86 is one-fifth of 430). G-d saw that if Beneh Yisrael had remained in Egypt any longer, they would have been fully assimilated into Egyptian society, and would not have been able to be redeemed. Over the course of their stay in Egypt, Beneh Yisrael adopted the Egyptians' pagan beliefs and practices, to the point where had they remained any longer, they would never have spiritually recovered from their depths of paganism and immorality. G-d therefore mercifully brought them out of Egypt much earlier than they were to have been redeemed. This is one of the reasons for the Misva of Arba Kosot – the four cups of wine we drink at the Seder. The word "Kos" ("cup") in Gematria equals 86, and thus the four cups of wine represent the four-fifths of the 430 years which were deducted from the amount of years that the bondage was to have endured. We drink these four cups to celebrate the 344 years of suffering which our ancestors were spared. The question, however, arises, as to how the decree could be changed. If Beneh Yisrael were to endure 430 years of harsh labor, how could G-d have freed them after only 86 years? The answer, the commentaries explain, is found in the events of Shabbat Ha'gadol. We need to appreciate the great self-sacrifice that Beneh Yisrael displayed at that time. Despite still living under Egyptian rule, and having been submerged in Egyptian beliefs and culture for so long, they mustered the faith, courage and resolve to publicly renounce Egyptian paganism, and openly prepare to sacrifice a sheep to G-d. During the four days before the sacrifice – from the 10th of Nissan, when they first selected the sheep, until the 14th, the day the sacrifice was offered – they displayed extraordinary faith. At any point during that period, an angry Egyptian could have come along and killed them. But they were not deterred. They placed their faith in G-d, and faithfully obeyed His command despite the threat entailed, throughout this four-day period. This remarkable Mesirut Nefesh (self-sacrifice) exhibited during those four days compensated, as it were, for the four-fifths of the period of bondage which Beneh Yisrael were spared. Each day "covered" 86 years of slavery, and this is how they were freed after just 86 years of harsh labor. This shows us the precious value of Mesirut Nefesh, of making difficult sacrifices for the sake of fulfilling G-d's will. There is nothing more beloved to the Almighty then a Jew sacrificing something dear to him for the service of Hashem. Anytime Torah law requires us to give up something of value, whether it's money or some enjoyable activity, we must remember just how precious Mesirut Nefesh is, and how the rewards we accrue through our selfless devotion to G-d far outweigh whatever it is that we sacrificing.

Sandra Herrera and Lisa Roman recap the inaugural Arnold Clark Cup. The tournament coming down to not just the final matchday but the final match between England and Germany. Canada entered the final matchday in first place after tying England and defeating Germany. The reigning Gold medalists looked to clinch the first-ever Arnold Clark Trophy over Spain but Alexias Puttelas notched a first-half goal for the Spanish side. In the second match, England vs Germany, saw two teams tied at 1 apiece heading into halftime (16:46). But a late second-half tactical adjustment from England and some crafty moves by Lauren Hemp, Fran Kirby and Millie Bright saw the Lionesses defeat Germany 3-1 and win the inaugural Arnold Clark Cup. 'Attacking Third' is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, Castbox and wherever else you listen to podcasts.  Follow the Attacking Third team on Twitter: @AttackingThird, @SandHerrera_, @LRoman32 Visit the Attacking Third YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/attackingthird You can listen to Attacking Third on your smart speakers! Simply say "Alexa, play the latest episode of the Attacking Third podcast" or "Hey Google, play the latest episode of the Attacking Third podcast." For more soccer coverage from CBS Sports, visit https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/ To hear more from the CBS Sports Podcast Network, visit https://www.cbssports.com/podcasts/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Donnie, Danny, and Sean, talk Righteous Gemstones and movies...of course!!!!! Next we interview an honored feature guest, current (and hopefully permanent) OVW Champion and first from Kentucky, Luscious Lawrence!!!!! We talk more music/movies with King Luscious Lawrence, his personal influences, as well as his perception on wrestling from decades past vs modern-day wrestling and what OVW is doing to keep the spirit and character of old-school wrestling entertainment alive, while maintaining its integrity and adapting to the 21st century. He handled his most current match the other night and remains King Of The Juicy Mountain!!!! Thank you to all of our listeners from right here at home and around the world. Germany we appreciate the continued support. Thank you to Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, UK, Brazil, Caymen Islands (welcome aboard), Spain (welcome aboard), Japan (welcome aboard), Australia, Phillipines, Germany, & France. every listen helps us grow that much more. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/sean0493/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/sean0493/support

There is a major disagreement between the Poskim regarding how many Berachot are recited before putting on Tefilin. Rabbenu Tam )R. Ya'akob b. Meir, 1100-1171, France) and the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, 1250-1327, Germany-Spain) rule that two Berachot are recited, one on the Shel Yad (Tefilin of the arm) and one for the Shel Rosh (Tefilin of the head). They hold that they are two distinct Misvot, requiring a separate Beracha on each. On the other hand, the Rif (Rabbi Yishak of Fez, Morocco, 1013-1103), as well as Rashi and Rambam disagree and hold that only one Beracha of "L'haniah Tefilin" is recited before the Shel Yad, and that covers both. Both sides bring a proof to their position from the same Gemara in Menahot. The Gemara states that if a person spoke in between putting on the Shel Yad and the Shel Rosh, he must make a Beracha on the Shel Rosh. From here, Rashi derives that one makes a special second Beracha on the Shel Rosh only if he spoke, but ordinarily there is only one Beracha. Rabbenu Tam interprets the Gemara in line with his position. He says that of course one always makes a Beracha on the Shel Rosh. The Gemara is saying that if he talks, he now has to make two Berachot on the Shel Rosh, since he interrupted the first Beracha made on the Shel Yad. There is disagreement as to what Rabbenu HaAri's opinion was. The Ben Ish Hai writes that the Arizal explained the reasoning for each opinion, but did not rule in favor of one practice. The Kaf HaHaim writes in SIman 25 that he has proof from Sha'ar HaKavanot that the Arizal held like Rashi and the Rif.This disagreement evolves into divergent practice between Ashkenazim and Sepharadim. The Sepharadim follow the opinion of the Rif and Rambam that only one Beracha is recited. The author of the She'elot U'Teshubot Min Hashamayim (Responsa from Heaven, Rabbi Ya'akob of Mirvish, d. 1243) would ask a Halachic question of the Heavens before going to sleep and would receive answers in his dream. When he asked whom to follow in this question, he saw the Pasuk "And I will establish my covenant with YISHAK." He understood from this that the Halacha is in accordance with the Rif-Rabbi YISHAK Alfasi. That is the accepted practice.The Bet Yosef cites the Rabbenu Ya'akob b. Habib who says that those who recite two Berachot should say, "Baruch Shem K'vod Malchuto L'Olam Va'ed" after the second Beracha. This is meant to alleviate the possibility that the second Beracha was said in vein. The Bet Yosef, after paying respect to this opinion, says that it is hard to understand. If the Ashkenazim have a genuine uncertainty whether to say the second Beracha, they must refrain from making the doubtful Beracha and not risk saying Hashem's name in vein. The Mishna Berura (Rav Yisrael Meir Kagan of Radin, 1839-1933) answers that saying "Baruch Shem…" is just a Humra, and not really because of a doubt. There ae enough authorities to rely on who rule in favor of saying the second Beracha. Interestingly, saying "Baruch Shem…" became the accepted practice of the Ashkenazim.The Be'ur Halacha (Rav Yisrael Meir Kagan of Radin, 1839-1933) cites Rabbi Akiva Eger (1761-1837) who suggests in his glosses to Shulhan Aruch a way for Ashkenazim to recite the second Beracha without entering a Halachic uncertainty. He says that they should say the first Beracha on the Shel Yad with explicit intent that it should NOT cover the Shel Rosh. The Peri Megadim objects to this solution, but does not explain why. The Be'ur Halacha explains that the Peri Megadim objected because it is changing a long standing Minhag (custom). For generations, Ashkenazim recited two Berachot on Tefilin and said "Baruch Shem…" If there was a better way to do it, the giants of the previous generations would have already done so.The Poskim discuss whether a Sepharadi may answer Amen to an Ashkenazi's second Beracha. Hacham Bension rules that there is no problem since it is a legitimate Beracha for the Ashkenazi reciting it. This ruling applies to other cases where an Ashkenazi recites a Beracha that Sepharadim do not, such as Hallel on Rosh Hodesh and a Beracha by women on the Lulav. It is important to note that this was also the opinion of Hacham Baruch, even though Hacham Ovadia disagreed. Hacham Ovadia held that any Beracha that one cannot make for himself is considered a Beracha L'vatala (in vein), and he should not answer Amen to someone else who makes that Beracha. According to him, one should not answer Amen to an Ashkenazi's second Beracha, nor to Hallel on Rosh Hodesh and a woman's Beracha on the Lulav.L'Ma'aseh, one can adopt a compromise suggested by Hacham Bension. He can avoid the issue altogether by synchronizing the end of the other person's Beracha with saying the Pasuk "Baruch Hashem L'Olam Amen v'AMEN," which ends with Amen. However, if one did not do so, he MAY answer Amen, in accordance with Hacham BaruchSUMMARYA Sepharadi may answer Amen to the second Beracha recited by an Ashkenazi on his Tefilin, as well as to all other Berachot which Ashkenazim recite, but Sepharadim do not.

In a previous Daily Halacha, we discussed the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch (Hoshen Mishpat 232:3) that if somebody purchases defective merchandise, he can demand that the transaction be voided and the seller must fully refund the money. The question arises, under what circumstances, if any, may the seller insist on maintaining the transaction and simply refund part of the payment to compensate for the defect? May he refuse to void the sale, and instead offer to return some money as compensation for the low defective portion only?The Shulhan Aruch (Hoshen Mishpat 232:4-5) rules that the answer to this question depends on the nature of the defect. Based on a responsum of the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, Germany-Spain, 1250-1327), the Shulhan Aruch writes that if the defect does not detract from the item's inherent functionality, and the object still serves its basic purpose, then the seller has the option of paying compensation rather than voiding the sale. The Rosh addresses the case of a person who purchased a residence and when he arrived he saw that vandals had broken the windows and doors. Since the house still retained it basic definition as a residence, and merely required some refurbishing, the sale was not voided. The seller was therefore entitled to maintain the transaction and simply pay for the repairs. If, however, vandals had toppled the house's walls, then it loses its status as a viable residence and the buyer can demand that the sale be voided. Since he did not receive that for which he paid the money – a viable residence – the sale is null and void and he is entitled to a complete refund of his payment.A modern application of this principle pertains to the sale of used electrical appliances. If the buyer discovers an unsightly mark or scratch on the appliance that has no effect on its operation, then he cannot demand a full refund; he is entitled only to compensation for having paid for a higher-valued item than what he in fact received. If, however, the appliance does not work properly, then he can certainly declare the transaction null and void and the seller must refund all the money he had paid. (But if the seller allows a refund even for a scratch, then of course one may return it.)Needless to say, in all such cases one must consult with a competent Halachic authority to determine whether the defect is inherent to the object's operation or but a minor imperfection.Summary: If a buyer purchases an object and discovers that it is inherently defective, such that it cannot serve its basic function, he can declare the sale void and demand a full refund. If, however, the object functions properly but has a minor defect, such as an electrical appliance with external scratches or marks, then the seller has the option of refunding part of the payment as compensation, rather than voiding the sale.See the book- "Pure Money" by Dayan Cohen, pages 150-151.

There is a longstanding tradition among Torah scholars to find connections between the end of the Torah and the beginning of the Torah. This enterprise is aimed at underscoring the fact that the Torah is "circular," that the process of learning never ends, that we always have more knowledge and insight to gain. As we know, each year on Simhat Torah, as soon as we finish the Torah reading, we immediately read the first chapter of the Torah, demonstrating that we never consider ourselves "finished" learning Torah. Some have suggested that this is the deep meaning of the "Hakafot," our dancing in circles on Simhat Torah to celebrate the conclusion of the Torah reading. We dance in circles to show that Torah is "circular," that there is no beginning and no end. Similarly, Darshanim (lecturers) throughout the ages have sought to identify connections between the end of the Torah and the beginning, as part of this effort to emphasize the "circular" nature of Torah learning. One such connection is drawn by Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868), in his work Birkat Moadecha Le'Haim. He writes that if a couple is struggling to conceive, they should donate a Sefer Torah, as this is a Segula for begetting children. The reason, Rav Palagi explains, is that the final Misva in the Torah is the Misva to write a Sefer Torah (Debarim 31:19), and the first Misva in the Torah is "Peru U'rebu" – the obligation to procreate (Bereshit 1:28). These two Misvot are closely linked to one another, and thus in the merit of writing a Sefer Torah, one earns the privilege of fulfilling the Misva of "Peru U'rebu." On a deeper level, the Kabbalists explain that there are two forms of "procreation" in which we are to involve ourselves. The first, and more obvious, form is biological procreation. Quite simply, we are required to try to beget and raise children. But in addition, we are bidden to involve ourselves in spiritual procreation, to produce Kedusha. This is done by writing Torah scrolls, but also by producing other forms of Torah literature. The Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, 1269-1343) cites his father, the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, Germany-Spain, 1250-1327), as ruling that nowadays, when we learn not from Torah scrolls, but from texts such as the Talmud and its commentaries, we fulfill the Misva of writing a Sefer Torah by producing and purchasing these texts. Accordingly, the Kabbalists teach, when a Torah scholar conceives of new Torah insights and writes them down, this is a form of "procreation." The pen is comparable to the male, and the paper corresponds to the woman. Just as a man impregnates a woman to produce a child, the pen applies ink to the paper to produce a "child" – written Torah. It has been suggested that this is why the Tur and Shulhan Aruch present the laws of writing a Torah scroll in the 270th chapter of the Yoreh De'a section. The letters representing the number 270 are "Ayin" and "Resh," which spell "Er" – the name of Yehuda's son, who, as we read in Parashat Vayesheb (Bereshit 38), did not want to produce children, and engaged in marital relations in a manner that would not result in conception. This sin is rectified not only through begetting biological children, but also by begetting spiritual children, by writing Sifreh Torah and other books of Torah literature, whereby we increase sanctity and spirituality in the world. May Hashem grant us the assistance we need to both produce and raise biological offspring, and also produce holiness in the world through our efforts to learn Torah and facilitate the proliferation of Torah learning throughout the Jewish Nation.

The twentieth commandment in the Torah is the prohibition presented in the Book of Shemot (13:7), “Ve'lo Yera'eh Lecha Hametz Ve'lo Yera'eh Lecha Se'or,” which forbids having in one's possession during Pesach either Hametz (leavened products) or Se'or (a leavening agent). One who has either of these two products in his possession at any point during Pesach is in violation of this Biblical prohibition. The Sefer Ha'hinuch notes that this prohibition is punishable by Malkut (lashes) if it is violated through an action. There is a famous principle that one who transgresses a Biblical prohibition is liable to Malkut only if he violates the command by performing a concrete action, whereas one who transgresses a “Lav She'en Bo Ma'aseh” – a prohibition which does not involve a concrete action – is not liable to Malkut. Therefore, if a person had Hametz in his possession before Pesach, and he failed to eliminate it before Pesach, thus violating this prohibition through inaction – by neglecting to destroy or remove the Hametz before Pesach – he is not liable to Malkut. However, if somebody went out and acquired Hametz on Pesach, or turned flour into Hametz on Pesach, then since he transgressed this prohibition through a concrete action, he is liable to Malkut. The Kessef Mishneh (commentary to the Rambam's Mishneh Torah by Maran Rav Yosef Karo, 1488-1575) makes a famous comment (Hilchot Hametz U'masa 1:3) asserting that according to the Rambam, the prohibition of “Lo Yera'eh” is violated only if the Hametz is visible. Since the command “Lo Yera'eh” literally means that Hametz “shall not be seen” in one's property, the Rambam maintained that if one has Hametz stored in a concealed location, such as if it is buried underground, he does not transgress the prohibition of “Lo Yera'eh.” He has violated the related prohibition of “Lo Yimaseh,” which means that Hametz should not be present in the home, but he has not transgressed the command of “Lo Yera'eh.” Interestingly, the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, Germany-Spain, 1250-1327), in Masechet Pesahim (1:9), disagreed, and maintained that the command “Lo Yera'eh” should not be taken so literally as to be limited to visible Hametz. He explains that any Hametz which is present in one's possession, and thus could potentially be seen, suffices for one to violate this command. The Minhat Hinuch raises the question of whether the Kessef Mishneh's theory would apply also to a blind person. Conceivably, if the command of “Lo Yera'eh” is to be taken literally, as forbidding the sight of Hametz, then it would be limited to those capable of seeing it, and a blind person with Hametz in his possession would not be in violation of this command. On the other hand, one might argue that since the Hametz itself is visible, and can be seen by others, the blind person who has it in his possession is in violation of “Lo Yera'eh.” (This assumes, of course, that blind individuals are bound by the Torah's commands, which is a topic for a separate discussion.) The Minhat Hinuch leaves this question unresolved.

The Tur (R. Yaakob Ben Asher, 1343-1269, Germany-Spain) in Siman 428 brings down that the Jewish Calendar is arranged so that the first day of Rosh Hashana can never fall on a Sunday, Wednesday or Friday. This is represented by the mnemonic phrase, "Lo A'D'U' (numerically equivalent to 1,4,6) Rosh," meaning Rosh HaShana will not fall on the first, fourth or sixth day. The reason for this is as follows: If Rosh HaShana would fall on Sunday, Hoshana Rabba would fall on Shabbat, and the Misva of the Araba would be able to be performed. If Rosh Hashana would fall on Wednesday, Yom Kippur would be on Friday. This would create a situation of two consecutive days prohibited from the Torah to do Melacha. If someone, Heaven forbid, would pass away on Yom Kippur, he could not be buried until Sunday, and Heaven forbid, the body might begin to decompose. Similarly, Rosh Hashana cannot fall on Friday, to avoid the reverse situation in which Yom Kippur would be on Sunday, and the same problem of disrespect to the dead would exist.Parashat Ki Tavo is always read before Rosh Hashana, so that the curses detailed in it are on last year's account. The following Parasha, Nisavim, is read on the Shabbat immediately prior to Rosh Hashana. Some years Nisavim is read by itself and other years it is read together with the following Parasha, VaYelech. The Shulhan Aruch presents a mnemonic phrase, "BaG (numerically equivalent to 2,3=Monday, Tuesday) Hamelech, Pat VaYelech"-If the Melech (King), which alludes to Rosh Hashana, is on Monday or Tuesday, split Parashat VaYelech from Nisavim. However, if Rosh Hashana is on any other day, they are combined. This year, Rosh Hashana starts on Monday, and therefore Nisavim is read by itself. SUMMARYRosh Hashana never falls on Sunday, Wednesday or Friday.

Todd & Craig travel across Europe and beyond to discuss which countries currently allow for recreational and medical cannabis across Europe.  Two strains are featured as this weeks strains of the week. Craig and Todd both have complaints. Fun episode with information, humor and a bit of law. Enjoy!!!!

Rik Sharma and Dave Gibbs welcome back an oiled-up Joe Cassinelli from Munich to analyse England's win over Germany, Ukraine beating Sweden, Spain's wild affair with Croatia and France's elimination. Jonathan Johnson (@jon_legossip) on the line to tell us about the France situation after Deschamps drops the ball. --England's best win in years --Sterling and Kane --Jorgi's Low point --Sheva scores --Joe's apology to Switzerland --Favourites France out --Mbappe failure --Jonathan Johnson analyses --Spain's keeper problem --Morata redemption? FREE CRATE OF CRAFT BEER: www.beer52.com/euro2020 Use code: EURO2020 Follow on social media: @InsideEurosPod

A discussion of the big football stories and reactions to the latest results and headlines. LOADS OF BANTER!!!!!!! - England vs Scotland - Hungary vs France - Portugal vs Germany - Spain vs Poland - Italy vs Wales - Russia vs Denmark - Finland vs Belgium

This is an audio version of our YouTube video. Euro 2020 betting tips, picks and predictions from Oddspedia on Group E & D's Matchday 2 fixtures: Hungary vs France, Portugal vs Germany & Spain vs Poland. We're going to be bringing you our best betting tips and predictions for one Group E game and the two Group F games on Matchday 2 at Euro 2020. We'll start in Group E. We're fond of Group E. Some say we've got Groupie Love. Anyway… It's Spain vs Poland; and the Spaniards really do need to put their shooting boots on after their attacking duo of Alvaro Morata and Gerard Moreno both fluffed their lines in their competition opener against Sweden in a 0-0 draw. Juve striker Morata missed a sitter from the edge of the box in the first half and was withdrawn around the hour mark, only to be replaced by Villarreal hotshot Moreno. However, the Europa League winner also missed his header from inside the 6-yard box that would have won them the match. But he didn't. La Roja take on Poland, a side that consistently fail to impress on the international stage. In fact, despite them having the world's greatest striker - Robert Lewandowski - playing up front for them, their history at major tournaments of scoring goals looks more like a binary code than anything to write home about. Both sides will be desperate to secure all three points in this one. Let's take a look at Group F now and we'll start with Hungary against France. The Hungarians were competitive, solid and disciplined defensively in their clash with Portugal in the Group F opener. They managed to keep Portugal at bay until around the 70th minutes, however once the first goal went in, the floodgates opened and they went to went on to lose 3-0. Despite this, many will have been impressed with their resolute and solid display in the Euro 2020 opener. France on the other hand, did well to finally put away Germany. They huffed and they puffed but finally they found a breakthrough. They even had two goals (fairly) ruled out for offside. N'Golo Kante and Paul Pogba were superb as midfield pivot. Much more of that, please and thank you. Finally let's take a look at Germany vs Portugal, this has all the ingredients for an absolute classic between two heavyweights on the European stage. As mentioned, Portugal won and Germany lost in their opening clashes. The bookies still expect Germany to do well at the tournament, presumably because they expect Joachim Low's side to earn 3 points against Hungary next time out and therefore qualify as one of the best 3rd place finishes. It might not be that easy! Our resident host Eduardo Siles is back to preview all the best action across Euro 2020. For our Group E & Group F preview, he's joined by German football and betting expert Radek Vegas. All our experts are here to preview, discuss, analyse and dissect every fixture of the European Championships in 2021. They're also on hand to provide betting tips, odds, picks and predictions. For all the latest Euro 2020 (in 2021) info, news and betting tips, head to http://oddspedia.com/football where you'll find everything you need to secure your best bet. And don't forget to check our betting tools to discover Sure Bets, Dropping Odds, Value Bets, Blocked Odds and Blocked Matches to give you the upper hand this weekend. 00:00 Introduction 01:20 Hungary vs France betting tips and predictions 06:45 Portugal vs Germany betting tips and predictions 16:00 Spain vs Poland betting tips and predictions

A huge day of Euros action awaits with France, Portugal, Germany & Spain all in action and Kevin Hatchard is joined by Mark O'Haire and Jason Murphy to pick out all the best bets and their OddsBoosted treble. Read the latest insights and tips on the Euros at betting.betfair.com/football/euro-2020/ 18+ Please Gamble Responsibly. Visit www.begambleaware.org

With the recovery of the aviation industry, the discussion about short-haul flight bans in European countries heats up again. We check which countries are likely to follow the French way. Find out more on our blog: www.id1.de/blog

In this Euros special we take an in depth look at Belgium, Germany, Spain, Italy and Netherlands and how they should lineup for this summer. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/jap2020/support

The obligation of Heseba requires leaning to the left at certain points during the Seder, including when drinking each of the four cups. The Shulhan Aruch rules that this obligation applies equally to men and women. The Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles of Cracow, 1530-1572) writes that in ancient times, women often did not sit with their husbands, and thus would not be required to lean, but nowadays, women must lean just like men.The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 472:7) rules that if one forgot to lean when leaning is required, he must repeat the act while leaning. Thus, if one forgot to lean while drinking one of the four cups, he must drink another cup while leaning. For example, if, after eating the Karpas, one remembers that he had not leaned while drinking the wine at Kiddush, then he must fill his cup and drink while leaning, without reciting a Beracha. He then proceeds to Yahatz. When one forgets to lean while drinking one of the first three cups, it is clear that he does not recite the Beracha of "Boreh Peri Ha’gefen" when he then drinks again. When it comes to the fourth cup, however, the Poskim are in disagreement as to whether one who forgot to lean and then drinks a fifth cup recites a Beracha when he drinks the fifth cup. The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 480) writes that since we do not expect to drink any more wine after drinking the fourth cup, one who remembers afterward that he had forgotten to lean must recite a Beracha over the fifth cup. This case is one of "Heseh Ha’da’at" – where one’s attention was diverted from drinking, as he had assumed that he would not be drinking any more, and so a new Beracha is required when he then drinks again because he had forgotten to lean. This is the Shulhan Aruch’s ruling, based on the position of the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, Germany-Spain, 1250-1327).Rabbi Akiba Eiger (1761-1837), however, in his notes to the Shulhan Aruch, cites the Ginat Veradim as disagreeing with this ruling. In a different context, the Shulhan Aruch writes, based on a comment by Rabbenu Peretz (France, d. 1295), that when we sit at the Seder table, we are considered guests of the Almighty. We are to see ourselves not as sitting in our own homes, but rather as sitting at G-d’s table as His guests. Now when a guest finishes drinking, and then more wine is brought, he does not recite a Beracha over the additional wine. A guest is completely dependent on his host, and always anticipates the possibility that more will be served, and so even after he eats and drinks, there is no "Heseh Ha’da’at." As such, he does not recite a new Beracha when more food or drink is served. Therefore, even if one forgot to lean when drinking the fourth cup of wine at the Seder, he should not recite a Beracha when drinking again, because he has the status of a guest, who does not recite a new Beracha when he drinks again after having finished drinking.Accordingly, Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Israel, 1924-1998) rules that we apply to this situation the famous rule of "Safek Berachot Le’hakel" – that we do not recite a Beracha when it is uncertain whether it is required. Therefore, if one forgot to lean while drinking any of the four cups, he drinks another cup without reciting a new Beracha.Incidentally, it should be mentioned that although Haggadot include the Beracha Aharona for wine – "Al Ha’gefen" – after the fourth cup, only those who drank a Rebi’it of wine recite this Beracha. The cup of wine at the Seder must contain at least a Rebi’it – approximately 3.1 oz. – and one should preferably drink the entire cup for each of the four cups, but if this would be very difficult, it suffices to drink the majority of the cup. Many people find it difficult to drink an entire cup of wine toward the end of the Seder, and so it is quite common for people to drink less than a Rebi’it for the fourth cup. One who did not drink an entire Rebi’it for the fourth cup must ensure not to recite the Beracha of "Al Ha’gefen" after drinking.Summary: One who forgot to lean after drinking any of the four cups of wine at the Seder must drink an additional cup as soon as he remembers. He does not recite the Beracha of "Boreh Peri Ha’gefen" over the new cup. If one drank less than a Rebi’it (3.1 oz.) for the fourth cup of wine at the Seder, he must ensure not to recite the Beracha of "Al Ha’gefen" after drinking.

There is a widespread custom to eat a hardboiled egg at the Pesah Seder, in order to commemorate the Korban Hagiga (the "festival sacrifice"). During the times of the Bet Ha'mikdash, the Hagiga offering was brought together with the Korban Pesah (paschal offering) on Erev Pesah, and one would partake of its meat prior to eating the meat of the Korban Pesah. We commemorate this practice by eating an egg, the traditional food of mourning, in order to express our sorrow over the absence of the Mikdash, on account of which we are unable to fulfill the Misvot of the holiday as we should.An interesting question arises regarding this Halacha in a case where Erev Pesah occurs on Shabbat, such that the Seder is held on Mosa'e Shabbat. During the times of the Mikdash, when Erev Pesah fell on Shabbat the Korban Hagiga was not offered on that day. Although the offering of the Korban Pesah overrides the Shabbat restrictions, this is not true of the Korban Hagigah, and thus when Erev Pesah fell on Shabbat the Korban Hagigah was not brought together with the Korban Pesah. Perhaps, then, in such a case we should not partake of an egg at the Seder in commemoration of the Hagiga sacrifice.Tosefot address this question in Masechet Pesahim, and they conclude that one must, in fact, eat an egg at the Seder even on Mosa'e Shabbat. They cite Rabbenu Peretz (France, 13th century) as explaining that if we would not eat an egg in this case, we would give the impression that in other years we actually partake of the Hagiga sacrifice, rather than a symbolic commemoration. This impression was especially likely in communities that would eat meat – rather than an egg – to commemorate the Korban Hagiga. In order to avoid giving this impression, we eat the egg at the Seder even in situations where the Korban Hagiga would not be offered, thus making it clear that the egg serves merely as a symbolic commemoration.The Rosh (Rabbi Asher Ben Yehiel, Germany-Spain, 1250-1327) cites a different theory in the name of Rabbi Yishak of Courbeil (the "Samak," France, 13th century). He suggested that one should eat an egg at the Seder even on Mosa'e Shabbat because when Erev Pesah occurred on Shabbat the Hagiga was offered on Friday. Since the Hagiga was brought even in years when Erev Pesah fell on Shabbat – albeit on the previous day – it is appropriate to include a commemoration of this sacrifice at the Seder. The Rosh, however, rejects this theory, noting that when the Hagiga was brought on Friday, its meat would no longer be permissible for consumption on Mosa'e Shabbat. Seemingly, then, there should be no reason to commemorate the Hagiga at the Seder on Mosa'e Shabbat.In any event, in light of the comments of Tosefot cited above, Halacha requires partaking of a hardboiled egg at the Seder even on Mosa'e Shabbat. This is indeed the ruling of the Ben Ish Hai (Rabbi Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), the Kaf Hahayim, and the Mishna Berura (commentary to the Shulhan Aruch by Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan, 1839-1933).Summary: One should eat a hardboiled egg at the Seder to commemorate the Hagiga sacrifice, even when the Seder is held on Mosa'e Shabbat.

World News in 7 minutes. Wednesday 25th November 2020.Transcript here: send7.org/transcriptsToday: US Biden new cabinet. Colombia prisoner deaths. Ethiopia racial massacre. Burkina Faso slow results. UK Germany Spain vaccine timetables. Scotland free periods. China criticises Pope. Afghanistan explosions kill. And Trump pardons a turkey.Please leave a review on apple podcasts or on podchaser in English or your native language.With Stephen Devincenzi.SEND7 (Simple English News Daily in 7 minutes) tells news in intermediate English. Every day, listen to the most important stories in the world in slow, clear English.This easy English news podcast is perfect for English learners, people with English as a second language, and people who want to hear a fast news update from around the world. Learn English through hard topics, but simple grammar. SEND7 covers all news including politics, business, natural events and human rights. For more information visit send7.org/contact

The Halacha allows instructing a non-Jew to do a Melacha D'Rabanan (Shvut D'shvut) for the purpose of a Misva. The question is whether this is permitted even if the Misva will not be accomplished until the next day? For example, if the first night of Pesah falls out on Mosa'eh Shabbat, can you tell the non-Jew on Shabbat to go outside the Tehum (Shabbat Boundary) to get the Massot for Mosa'eh Shabbat?There is a big debate regarding this. Maran in 307:5 discusses a case where it is permitted to tell a non-Jew to climb a tree on Shabbat to get the Shofar. Telling the non-Jew is a Shvut (Rabbinic prohibition); climbing the tree is a Shvut and the Shofar is a Misva. However, the Shofar Is not a Misva for, because we do not blow the Shofar on Shabbat. The case must be that they need the Shofar for Sunday, and yet Maran says that it is permitted. It seems from here that Shvut D'shvut for a Misva for the next day is permitted. That is the way that some of the Poskim learn Maran. However, other Poskim, like the Tur (R. Ya'akob Ben Asher, Germany-Spain, 1269-1343) leave out the word ‘Shabbat,’ implying that the case is talking about getting the Shofar on the day of Rosh Hashana itself. Therefore, it is Bo Bayom- for that day. It could be that Maran only used the word ‘Shabbat’ because that is the wording of the Rambam, but really, he holds that it is not specifically Shabbat. The Poskim go back and forth, debating why Maran would write ‘Shabbat’ if he did not really mean ‘Shabbat,’ and actually meant on Rosh Hashana. Practically, Hacham David in his Halacha Berura, (p. 209, Siman 307) writes that one should only ask a non-Jew to do a d'Rabanan for the purpose of a Misva the next day if there is a pressing need, such as the possibility that if he waits until tomorrow, he may not be able to fulfil the Misva.SUMMARYOne may instruct a non-Jew to perform a Rabbinic prohibition on Shabbat for the sake doing a Misva after Shabbat, if there is a chance that otherwise, he may not be able to perform the Misva at all.

Exposing the real motive behind it paypal.me/KNOWLEDGEWordsmith

The Gemara in Masechet Erubin states that if enemies of the Jews wage battle against a Jewish community on Shabbat, then everything necessary to effectively respond to the threat and defend the community should be done, even if this requires violating Shabbat. However, the Gemara says that this applies only if the enemies seek to kill Jews. If their intent is to seize the Jews’ property, then the community is required to surrender their money. The Shabbat prohibitions are waived for the sake of saving human life, but not for the sake of protecting property, and so desecrating Shabbat is not allowed if enemies come to destroy or seize Jews’ property.However, the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, Germany-Spain, 1250-1327) cites the Or Zarua (Rav Yishak of Vienna, 13th century) as ruling that nowadays, even if gentiles attack to destroy or seize Jews’ property, there is reason to fear that they are prepared also to kill. The Gemara in Sanhedrin (82) addresses the case described by the Torah of "Ha’ba Ba’mahteret" – a burglar who breaks into one’s home to steal, and whom the Torah allows the homeowner to kill. Although the burglar’s intent is to rob, the Gemara explains, the Torah nevertheless permits the homeowner to kill the burglar because the burglar anticipates the possibility of a violent confrontation. The burglar breaks into the house knowing full well that if he is detected, the homeowner will defend his property and put up a fight. As such, the burglar comes in anticipating the possibility of having to kill the homeowner. This anticipation renders him a "Rodef" ("pursuer"), who seeks to kill, and the Torah therefore allows the homeowner to kill the burglar in self-defense. The Or Zarua applied this concept to situations where violent groups seek to loot and rob. Since they anticipate the likelihood of resistance, they can be presumed to be prepared to kill. Therefore, if they come on Shabbat, affected communities may violate Shabbat in order to protect their property – as they are in effect protecting their lives, as well.The Shulhan Aruch cites the Gemara’s ruling, and then adds, "There is one who says" (referring to the Or Zarua) that nowadays, one may violate Shabbat to defend against groups who come to seize property, given the potential risk to life. The Kaf Ha’haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939) writes that when the Shulhan Aruch uses the expression "Yesh Mi Sh’omer" ("There is one who says"), he accepts that ruling. Thus, the accepted Halacha permits violating Shabbat to protect a community from looters, even if the looters intend only to rob, because they mighty also perpetrate acts of violence in the process. The Magen Abraham (Rav Abraham Gombiner, 1633-1683), cited by the Mishna Berura (Rav Yisrael Meir Kagan of Radin, 1839-1933), maintains that this applies only if a community comes under attack. If people come to steal from only one Jew, the Jew may not violate Shabbat for the sake of defending his property.As for the practical Halacha, then, when groups of rioters are looting in Jewish neighborhoods on Shabbat, it would be permissible to violate Shabbat in order to protect the threatened property, given the real possibility of a threat to life.Summary: If groups of rioters are looting in a Jewish neighborhood on Shabbat, it is permissible to violate Shabbat in order to protect the threatened property, given the possibility that the looters might resort to life-threatening violence.

The Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, Germany-Spain, 1269-1343), in Orah Haim (419), draws three proofs to the fact that one is obligated to have a special Se’uda (meal) on Rosh Hodesh. His first proof is from the comment of the Talmud Yerushalmi (Megilla) that one is allowed to "delay the Rosh Hodesh meal." The Korban Ha’eda commentary to the Yerushalmi (by Rav David Frankel, Germany, 1704-1762) explains this remark to mean that if Rosh Hodesh falls on Shabbat, such that one eats special meals in honor of Shabbat, and there is no indication that one eats a meal in honor of Rosh Hodesh, he delays the Rosh Hodesh meal until Sunday. Somewhat similarly, the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) writes that the Ya’abetz would add a special portion of food to the Melaveh Malka meal on Mosa’eh Shabbat when Rosh Hodesh fell on Shabbat, in honor of Rosh Hodesh. The Ben Ish Hai writes that this is a proper practice to follow. In any event, the Yerushalmi clearly works off the assumption that there is a requirement to eat a special Se’uda on Rosh Hodesh.The second proof comes from the story told in the Book of Shemuel I (20) which is read as the Haftara on Shabbat Ereb Rosh Hodesh. We read that King Shaul was hostile to David, and so David decided that he would not be present at Shaul’s table on Rosh Hodesh. He asked his friend, Yehonatan – Shaul’s son – to tell Shaul that David could not be present because he had a family feast that day. The Tur notes that this appears to indicate that it was customary for families to have special feasts in honor of Rosh Hodesh. (The Bet Yosef clarifies that if it were not customary for families to have a special Rosh Hodesh meal, then this would not have been a plausible excuse for David’s absence from the royal palace on Rosh Hodesh.)The Tur’s third proof is a verse in the Book of Bamidbar (10:10) which requires blowing the Hasoserot (trumpets) "Be’yom Simhatchem U’be’mo’adechem U’be’rosheh Hodshechem" – "on your days of joy, on your festivals, and on your Rosh Hodesh days…" This verse clearly links Rosh Hodesh with the Yamim Tobim, suggesting that just like there is an obligation to have a special meal in honor of Yom Tob, one is similarly obligated to have a special meal in honor of Rosh Hodesh.Interestingly enough, the Shulhan Aruch sets aside an entire Siman (chapter) – Siman 419 – to tell us this brief Halacha, that one is required to have a special meal on Rosh Hodesh. The Shulhan Aruch similarly makes a special Siman earlier – 300 – to teach us the obligation to eat a Melaveh Malka meal on Mosa’eh Shabbat. It seems that these two meals were commonly neglected, and so the Shulhan Aruch found it necessary to make a special Siman for each Halacha, in order to impress upon us the importance of having a meal on Mosa’eh Shabbat and a meal on Rosh Hodesh. (When Eliyahu confronted the prophets of the idol Ba’al at Mount Carmel, he turned to the people and asked, "Ad Matai Atem Posehim Al Sheteh Ha’se’ifim" – "Until when will you be straddling both sides of the fence?" (Melachim I 18:21). One Rabbi said that this could also be read as, "Until when will you skip the two Se’ifim" – referring to the two Se’ifim (passages) in the Shulhan Aruch that talk about these two meals, Melaveh Malka and the Rosh Hodesh Se’uda…)The Mishna Berura (Rav Yisrael Meir Kagan of Radin, 1839-1933) writes that one is not required to eat bread with his Rosh Hodesh meal, whereas the Kaf Ha’haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Israel, 1870-1939) writes that one must eat bread, and one should even use two loaves as "Lehem Mishneh," like on Shabbat.The Pesikta comments that on Rosh Hashanah, G-d determines a person’s livelihood "from Tishri until Tishri" – for the entire coming year – except for "Tishri," meaning, except for "Torah," "Shabbat," "Rosh Hodesh" and "Yamim Tobim." That is to say, the money we spend for Torah education, and for our meals on Shabbat, Yom Tob and Rosh Hodesh, are on "G-d bill," so-to-speak. These funds are not taken from the amount we are decreed to have, and we are guaranteed to be fully reimbursed for whatever we spend to fulfill these Misvot.Summary: There is a requirement to eat a special meal on Rosh Hodesh. According to some views, one is not required to eat bread with the Rosh Hodesh meal, whereas other require having two loaves of bread, like on Shabbat. Some Poskim ruled that when Rosh Hodesh falls on Shabbat, it is proper to add a portion of food to the Melaveh Malka meal on Mosa’eh Shabbat in honor of Rosh Hodesh.

The Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, Germany-Spain, 1269-1343) writes (Orah Haim 281) that after reciting "Az Yashir" on Shabbat morning, it is customary to recite the special "Nishmat" prayer which gives praise to G-d. The Lebush (Rav Mordechai Yaffe, 1530-1612), citing from the Zohar (Vayakhel, 205b; listen to audio recording for precise citation), explains that this recitation was instituted because of the "Neshama Yetera" – the "extra soul" with which we are endowed on Shabbat. As we receive an extra soul on Shabbat, we recite this special prayer to give praise to G-d. Noting the special significance of this prayer, the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806), in his work Tov Ayin (18:35), writes that as this prayer is mentioned in the Zohar, it must have preceded even the Mishnayot, and is thus a very ancient prayer. The Hida adds that the text of "Nishmat" is very deep and contains numerous references to the sacred Names of G-d.Rav David Pardo (1718-1790), in his Michtab Le’David (Orah Haim 13), writes that the recitation of "Nishmat" serves to prepare us for receiving the extra soul of Shabbat. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) writes that there is a "tried and tested" tradition that a person experiencing some kind of crisis should commit to assemble ten people and recite "Nishmat" to praise G-d after the crisis is resolved, and this itself will be effective in resolving the problem. Furthermore, the Ben Ish Hai adds, reciting this prayer on Shabbat has the effect of preventing troubles and hardship. For this reason, we first recite "Az Yashir" – the song sung by Beneh Yisrael upon being rescued from the Egyptians – to praise G-d for saving us from past crises – and we then recite "Nishmat," which helps to prevent crises in the future.These sources should alert us to the special significance of this prayer text, and the need to recite it slowly and with proper concentration. Indeed, we hire Hazanim to sing it in a special and beautiful way, because of the special power of this text. By reciting "Nishmat" the proper way, we can enjoy the unique spiritual benefits it offers us.

The Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, Germany-Spain, 1269-1343) writes (Orah Haim 281) that after reciting "Az Yashir" on Shabbat morning, it is customary to recite the special "Nishmat" prayer which gives praise to G-d. The Lebush (Rav Mordechai Yaffe, 1530-1612), citing from the Zohar (Vayakhel, 205b; listen to audio recording for precise citation), explains that this recitation was instituted because of the "Neshama Yetera" – the "extra soul" with which we are endowed on Shabbat. As we receive an extra soul on Shabbat, we recite this special prayer to give praise to G-d. Noting the special significance of this prayer, the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806), in his work Tov Ayin (18:35), writes that as this prayer is mentioned in the Zohar, it must have preceded even the Mishnayot, and is thus a very ancient prayer. The Hida adds that the text of "Nishmat" is very deep and contains numerous references to the sacred Names of G-d.Rav David Pardo (1718-1790), in his Michtab Le’David (Orah Haim 13), writes that the recitation of "Nishmat" serves to prepare us for receiving the extra soul of Shabbat. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) writes that there is a "tried and tested" tradition that a person experiencing some kind of crisis should commit to assemble ten people and recite "Nishmat" to praise G-d after the crisis is resolved, and this itself will be effective in resolving the problem. Furthermore, the Ben Ish Hai adds, reciting this prayer on Shabbat has the effect of preventing troubles and hardship. For this reason, we first recite "Az Yashir" – the song sung by Beneh Yisrael upon being rescued from the Egyptians – to praise G-d for saving us from past crises – and we then recite "Nishmat," which helps to prevent crises in the future.These sources should alert us to the special significance of this prayer text, and the need to recite it slowly and with proper concentration. Indeed, we hire Hazanim to sing it in a special and beautiful way, because of the special power of this text. By reciting "Nishmat" the proper way, we can enjoy the unique spiritual benefits it offers us.

On this episode of the Football, Football, Football & Sometimes Other Sports Show, AJ Nicoletti opens up the show with The Kickoff by recapping & previewing soccer matches across Germany & Spain. Next AJ talks NFL offseason news & the NBA's Restart Plan. Finally AJ rants about MLB not playing games yet.

The Gemara in Masechet Pesahim (101) tells that Abayeh was once with his Rabbi on Friday night, and his Rabbi urged him to recite Kiddush and eat in the place where they were. He warned Abayeh that by the time he returned to the place where he was lodging, the candle there will likely have gone out, and he would thus be unable to eat there. Since Kiddush must be recited in the place where one eats, the Rabbi urged Abayeh to recite Kiddush at the place where they were at that moment and then eat there.This comment seems to imply that the Shabbat meal must be eaten in the place where Shabbat candles are lit, and for this reason Abayeh would have been unable to eat his Shabbat meal at his place of lodging. Others, however, explain the Rabbi’s comment to mean that as a practical matter, people do not enjoy eating in the dark. From a halachic perspective, Abayeh would have been allowed to recite Kiddush and eat in the dark, but since people prefer eating where there is illumination, his Rabbi instructed him to recite Kiddush and eat at his current location. The Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, Germany-Spain, 1250-1327) cites both opinions, as does the Shulhan Aruch, which writes that "some say" ("Yesh Omrim") one must eat where the Shabbat candles burn, and "some say" this is not necessary. There is a rule that when the Shulhan Aruch cites two views in this fashion ("Yesh Omrim…Ve’yesh Omrim"), he accepts the second opinion cited. Moreover, in this instance the Shulhan Aruch writes explicitly that the second view seems more reasonable ("Ve’hachi Mistabera"). Therefore, according to the strict Halacha, one does not have to eat in the place where the Shabbat candles are lit.However, the Arizal (Rav Yishak Luria of Safed, 1534-1572) ruled that one must eat his Friday night meal near the candles, and this is the view accepted by the Kaf Ha’haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Israel, 1870-1939). The Kaf Ha’haim writes that if somebody wishes to eat outside on the roof or on the porch, he must light the Shabbat candles in that location, using a lantern or other device to protect the candles from the wind. This Halacha is very relevant nowadays. A person should not light Shabbat candles in the kitchen and eat in the dining room, or vice versa. People who spend Shabbat in a hotel should try, if possible, to bring two tea lights and light them on the table in the dining room where they will be eating. On Sukkot, one should try to light the candles in the Sukka. Although the strict Halacha, as we have seen, allows lighting Shabbat candles in one place and eating somewhere else, one should try to follow the Arizal’s tradition and make a point of eating near the Shabbat candles.Summary: According to the strict Halacha, one may light the Shabbat candles in one place and eat the Friday night meal somewhere else, though one should preferably eat near the Shabbat candles, in accordance with the tradition of the Arizal.

Traveler, Dari Poli, is sharing her last 4 years of experience in 5 countries. She started her way in Ukraine where she finished high school, and later her parents decided to send her to Poland to study Journalism. However, Dari Poli got addicted to travels and during the first year visited 14 countries. So far, she has done her volunteering in Brazil and Spain, while studying and graduating in Poland and Germany. Right now, she is based in Barcelona and is eager to share the best tips on relocation and traveling all over the world.

Note: This post may contain affiliate links. Please see The Lost Geographer's Affiliate Disclosure for more details.   In this episode we are talking about living abroad, a fitting topic for the 100th episode of the podcast! It is the second half of my interview with Rachel Smets. To give some background on Rachel, she is an expat coach, bestselling author, 2x TEDx speaker, professor, and Cultural Trainer. In her work, Rachel is dedicated to helping dynamic single expats who feel overwhelmed or homesick to gain clarity, plan the next steps and build a social network so that they can feel energized and truly enjoy their new home abroad. She has been living and working abroad in various countries, for many years and has learned to turn every challenge into a new opportunity. Through her experience abroad, she developed a passion for languages and cultural diversity. Rachel provides workshops in various international companies to increase their cultural competence in doing business with other cultures. Her bestseller ‘'Living abroad Successfully'' is a complete and practical guide from deciding to live abroad to enjoying a successful stay abroad. Connect with Rachel: Website Facebook LinkedIn YouTube Instagram TEDx Talks: Your Next Step and Stop Comparing. Be the Best YOU. Books: Living Abroad Successfully: What Where, When, How and Awaken Your Confidence    Free Gift(s): Free Video Course: Feel Happy in your New Country 29 Suggestions to help you Settle in Easily and Successfully and Feel at Home   Mentioned in this episode: Episode 99: Belgium (Pt. 2) (Part 1 of interview) Belgium Episode 23: Business and Literacy How Cultural Literacy can Help you do Business China Feng shui Germany Spain

The 2018 World Cup is coming America, and you're going to love it. This week on the "NESN Soccer Show" Marc DiBenedetto and Marcus O'Mard discuss the various storylines surrounding international friendlies this past weekend. They discuss the importance and influence of the Mexican National Team on the soccer landscape in the United States as well as where Germany, Brazil, Spain and Argentina rank heading into this summer's World Cup. Finally, they break down the arrival of Zlatan Ibrahimovic in the Major League Soccer before wrapping up with a preview of DiBenedetto's soccer vacation. For more: http://nesn.com/soccer

Euan McTear (@emctear) is an author and journalist whose work can be seen at Marca, These Football Times, Tifo Football and LaLiga Lowdown. He’s also the guest on this edition of Colchonero Chat, where he joins Into the Calderón manager Jeremy Beren (@JBBeren) and finds stuff to talk about despite being knee-deep in the international break. Jeremy and Euan talk about José Giménez’s latest injury on international before backtracking to analyze Friday’s entertaining Germany-Spain friendly, in which Koke, Saúl and Diego Costa all partook. The podders also talk about Antoine Griezmann’s future, the Paulo Dybala story and the impossible Lautaro Martínez deal. Finally, the guys explore the latest debate and the petition circulating around changing Atlético Madrid’s nine-month-old badge. Jeremy and Euan wonder whether the club will relent and listen to supporter concerns or whether they will keep it moving with the new look.