Podcasts about issur

Taanis 22a: Chukas HaGoyim - Yesod of the Issur (reuploaded)

1 section- Rav follows position of R Yehuda that "tolin" in 5th hour (and not RM/RG in Mishna) and Rebbi supports this psak

1 section- Rav follows position of R Yehuda that "tolin" in 5th hour (and not RM/RG in Mishna) and Rebbi supports this psak

1 section- clarification of the positions of R Yehuda and Chachamim when we do decree not to engage with something because may lead to consumption/action that is prohibited and when we do not decree

1 section- clarification of the positions of R Yehuda and Chachamim when we do decree not to engage with something because may lead to consumption/action that is prohibited and when we do not decree

This week's learning is sponsored by Dvora Lopez in loving memory of her mother on her 51st yahrzeit. "She had great strength and abundant love." This week's learning is sponsored by the Futornick family in honor of Shira's 21st birthday. This week's learning is sponsored by Yisroel and Masha Rotman, for a refuah shleima, a complete and speedy recovery, for Elisheva Mindel bat Masha Tzivia. The Mishna appears to contradict itself regarding general oaths about eating. It implies that a general oath "not to eat" would not include foods that cannot be eaten (which would encompass non-kosher food), yet another case in the Mishna rules that someone who makes a general oath "not to eat" does include non-kosher food in that prohibition. Two different resolutions are offered. The first resolution distinguishes between someone who made a general oath ("I will not eat") and someone who made a specific oath ("I will not eat regular and non-kosher foods"). The sages provide two different interpretations for why an oath that specifically mentions both non-kosher and kosher foods would be effective. Difficulties are raised against both positions, and one remains unresolved. The second interpretation explains that the previous implication from the Mishna is incorrect—"foods that cannot be eaten" refers to truly inedible items and does not include non-kosher foods, which are technically edible. The final case in the Mishna is cited as proof for this position but is ultimately rejected. What distinguishes issur kollel from issur mosif? Issur kollel occurs when a second prohibition encompasses additional prohibited items, while issur mosif occurs when a second prohibition adds further restrictions to the same item or extends the prohibition to additional people. Based on this distinction, Rava explains why someone who accepts that issur mosif applies would not necessarily accept the same for issur kollel. Since issur mosif relates to a single item—adding a prohibition to the item itself or prohibiting the item to more people, it can apply. However, when additional items are included in the prohibition, it will not necessarily apply to what was already forbidden. Rava further explains that just as issur kollel takes effect, the same principle applies to an oath that includes other items. He needed to specify this because one might have assumed it only applies to prohibitions that arise independently, not to oaths where a person creates the prohibition. Rava the son of Raba raises a challenge to Rava's statement based on a Mishna in Kreitut, which suggests that an oath adding additional prohibitions would not apply to what was already forbidden. Six different explanations are offered to resolve this contradiction.

This week's learning is sponsored by Dvora Lopez in loving memory of her mother on her 51st yahrzeit. "She had great strength and abundant love." This week's learning is sponsored by the Futornick family in honor of Shira's 21st birthday. This week's learning is sponsored by Yisroel and Masha Rotman, for a refuah shleima, a complete and speedy recovery, for Elisheva Mindel bat Masha Tzivia. The Mishna appears to contradict itself regarding general oaths about eating. It implies that a general oath "not to eat" would not include foods that cannot be eaten (which would encompass non-kosher food), yet another case in the Mishna rules that someone who makes a general oath "not to eat" does include non-kosher food in that prohibition. Two different resolutions are offered. The first resolution distinguishes between someone who made a general oath ("I will not eat") and someone who made a specific oath ("I will not eat regular and non-kosher foods"). The sages provide two different interpretations for why an oath that specifically mentions both non-kosher and kosher foods would be effective. Difficulties are raised against both positions, and one remains unresolved. The second interpretation explains that the previous implication from the Mishna is incorrect—"foods that cannot be eaten" refers to truly inedible items and does not include non-kosher foods, which are technically edible. The final case in the Mishna is cited as proof for this position but is ultimately rejected. What distinguishes issur kollel from issur mosif? Issur kollel occurs when a second prohibition encompasses additional prohibited items, while issur mosif occurs when a second prohibition adds further restrictions to the same item or extends the prohibition to additional people. Based on this distinction, Rava explains why someone who accepts that issur mosif applies would not necessarily accept the same for issur kollel. Since issur mosif relates to a single item—adding a prohibition to the item itself or prohibiting the item to more people, it can apply. However, when additional items are included in the prohibition, it will not necessarily apply to what was already forbidden. Rava further explains that just as issur kollel takes effect, the same principle applies to an oath that includes other items. He needed to specify this because one might have assumed it only applies to prohibitions that arise independently, not to oaths where a person creates the prohibition. Rava the son of Raba raises a challenge to Rava's statement based on a Mishna in Kreitut, which suggests that an oath adding additional prohibitions would not apply to what was already forbidden. Six different explanations are offered to resolve this contradiction.

Rabbi Feiner shiurim

1 section- various sources for the issur chametz beginning on the 14th (and not just with onset of Pesach on 15th)

2 sections- relying on am ha'aretz landlord to perform bedikas chametz and if deemed mekach ta'us if did not, source for midday 14th d'Orraissa prohibition of chametz

Parshas Vayishlach - The Issur Of Chanifah: Flattering And Praising A Sinner (Halachah From The Parshah Series) 11/16/2021

Is it permissible for a man and woman to take a trip together alone in a car? For example, if a man is driving somewhere, and the woman who lives next door needs a ride to that location, may she ride with him even though there is no one else in the car, or does this violate the prohibition of Yihud (forbidden seclusion)? The Halachic authorities rule that as long as there are other people on the road, either motorists or pedestrians, who can look into the car, it is permissible for a man and woman to ride in a car alone together. This is permissible even at nighttime, since it is possible for other people to look into the car, and this helps preclude the possibility of inappropriate behavior. However, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Russia-New York, 1895-1986), in one of his responsa, wrote that while this is permissible according to strict Halacha, in the interest of Seni'ut (modesty) it should be avoided when possible. Even though there is no technical Issur (prohibition), it is best to avoid such a situation, unless this would cause tension and enmity, such as if the woman would feel slighted by the man's refusal to give her a ride, for example. This Halacha is codified in the contemporary work Minhat Ish – Hilchot Yihud (section 2, p. 54; listen to audio recording for precise citation). The author (Rav Eyal Shraga) adds that it is especially important for a man to avoid being alone in a car with a woman driving. When the man is the driver, his mind is focused on the road, but this of course is not the case when the woman drives, and thus this situation should certainly be avoided if possible. Furthermore, a man and woman should not sit next to each other in a car. Although it is permissible for a man and woman to ride alone together, as mentioned, this is when the passenger sits in the back, and not next to the driver. This is the ruling of Rav Shemuel Wosner (contemporary) in his work Shebet Halevi (vol.10, 237), where he writes that proper standards of modesty dictate that a man and woman should not sit next to each other when driving alone in a car. He cites the adage, "Harhek Min Ha'ki'ur U'min Ha'domeh Lo" – "Distance yourself from what is inappropriate and from what resembles it." Therefore, while it is permissible for a man and woman to ride together alone, the passenger should sit in the back. Summary: It is permissible for a man and woman to ride alone together in a car if they are driving in a place where there are pedestrians or other motorists in the area. This should preferably be avoided, but it is permissible, especially if refusing would cause tension and enmity. If a man and woman do ride alone together, the passenger should sit in the back, and not next to the driver.

Issur Lo Tachmod - Document for Daf 25 by Simon Wolf

Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org

1 section- 3 levels of tying/untying: chiyuv d'Orraissa, Issur d'Rabanan, and mutar lechtchilla

Today's Talmud page, Bava Batra 149, begins with a heartbreaking scene of a father on his deathbed navigating halachic inheritance laws so that he could leave behind his fortune to his son. But study the biographies of these two, and a dark, troubled, and ultimately inspiring story emerges, a story of a man who had done very bad things yet went on to repent. What can Issur the Convert teach us about never, ever losing hope? Listen and find out. Like the show? Subscribe to our weekly newsletter. Send us a note at takeone@tabletmag.com. Follow us on Twitter at @takeonedafyomi and join the conversation in the Take One Facebook group. We think that you may also enjoy Liel's new book How the Talmud Can Change Your Life: Surprisingly Modern Advice from a Very Old Book, available directly from the publisher, or wherever you purchase books. Listen to the Testimonies Archive, a partnership between Tablet Studios and the USC Shoah Foundation, for eyewitness audio accounts from Israel in the wake of the Oct 7 Hamas attacks. Check out all of Tablet's podcasts at tabletmag.com/podcasts.

Study Guide Bava Batra 149 What language must be used for a gift stated on one's deathbed to be valid? If one sells all of one's property on one's deathbed, is it a valid sale if one recovers from one's illness? If one admits on one's deathbed that one owes money, do we believe the admission or is it possible the person is lying and just wants to show they don’t have a lot of money? A story is brought with Issur the convert and how he was able to use this (an admission) as a solution to passing on his money that was in Rava’s possession (as Rava was watching it for him) to his son, who was conceived before his conversion and therefore was unable to inherit the money. The Mishna says the gift is valid if one divides up one's possessions on one's deathbed but leaves over land of any amount, and then recovers. Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rav that "any amount" actually means an amount worthy of sustaining him/her. Rav Yirmiya bar Abba says that even if one leaves movable items worthy of sustaining the person. Rav Zeira supports their opinions and Rav Yosef questions them based on the wording in the Mishna ("land" and "any amount"). Abaye supports Rabbi Zeira from a Mishna in Peah where land includes movable items.

Study Guide Bava Batra 149 What language must be used for a gift stated on one's deathbed to be valid? If one sells all of one's property on one's deathbed, is it a valid sale if one recovers from one's illness? If one admits on one's deathbed that one owes money, do we believe the admission or is it possible the person is lying and just wants to show they don’t have a lot of money? A story is brought with Issur the convert and how he was able to use this (an admission) as a solution to passing on his money that was in Rava’s possession (as Rava was watching it for him) to his son, who was conceived before his conversion and therefore was unable to inherit the money. The Mishna says the gift is valid if one divides up one's possessions on one's deathbed but leaves over land of any amount, and then recovers. Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rav that "any amount" actually means an amount worthy of sustaining him/her. Rav Yirmiya bar Abba says that even if one leaves movable items worthy of sustaining the person. Rav Zeira supports their opinions and Rav Yosef questions them based on the wording in the Mishna ("land" and "any amount"). Abaye supports Rabbi Zeira from a Mishna in Peah where land includes movable items.

1 section- Gemara shows sources throwing issue as relates to hotza'ah and ha'avara

1 section- Gemara shows sources throwing issue as relates to hotza'ah and ha'avara

Electronics activated through brainwaves is it permissible to use them on Shabbos? Electronics activated through voice is it permissible to use them on Shabbos? with Rabbi Aharon Sorscher – Rov in Waterbury, Maggid Shiur for Oraysa – 13:33 Using a whoop strap or a Fitbit What is the issur of electricity? Is there an Issur of increasing current to exisitng electricity? What's called a מעשה regarding מלאכת שבת? Binyan in Keilim with Rabbi Tzvi Ortner – Head of Shabbos technology Dept for the OU, Rov of Linas Hatzedek in Boro Park – 44:39  מראי מקומות