Podcasts about makkot

In this week's parasha, Va'era , we read about seven of the makot which Hashem brought upon the Mitzrim . The Ramban says one of the lessons we are supposed to learn from the makot is that in the same way it was obvious that Hashem was behind those open miracles, it's also supposed to be obvious that Hashem is controlling the world through nature as well. If a person's roof is leaking, it is Hashem who caused it to happen. If a person's car got dented, it was Hashem who made it happen. If a person made money through a business deal, it was Hashem who made the deal for him. And whenever a person receives any type of help from another individual, it was Hashem who brought it about. Each time a person experiences any situation in life and he attributes what happens to the workings of Hashem, that is included in the mitzvah of אנכי ה' אלוקיך אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים. A woman told, she was going through a lot of hardships. When Chanukah came, she managed to put them out of her mind and was looking forward to spending one of the evenings at her parents' house who were hosting a Chanukah party. That night when her son came home from school, he was very upset about his basketball practice. He made everyone in the house miserable because of it and, in the end, things got so bad, they didn't end up going to her parents' party. This made matters much worse. The next day, she did not want to talk to anyone, especially her son. That evening, her husband reminded her they had a Bar Mitzvah to attend. She wasn't feeling well, she was in a terrible mood and did not want to go, but she forced herself to go because it was the Bar Mitzvah of a close friend of theirs. She sat at a table there feeling sorry for herself, not wanting to talk to anyone. But then, a friend came over to say hello and that friend began talking to her about how difficult it has been raising her children. And then she mentioned, her eldest son, who was a senior in high school, just spent the whole night crying because his basketball team lost the game and it has been a strain on the house. This woman couldn't believe the hashgacha that was taking place. Here, she felt her son's attitude which ruined the previous night was so silly and now a friend, who she hadn't spoken to in a very long time, comes over to tell her the same thing happened in her house. This gave the woman so much chizuk . She felt Hashem talking to her and was able to move on happily, despite all the problems she was having. Her belief that it was Hashem who orchestrated that, and sent that friend to talk to her, is a mitzvah in its own right. So in addition to all of the other benefits that she received from that meeting, she also got a spiritual elevation by fulfilling a mitzvah. A relative of mine told me that for whatever reason, she hadn't made chulent in the past three months. This past Shabbat, she prepared it and, as usual, was planning to plug in the crock pot right before she lit the candles, but it completely slipped her mind. Her housekeeper had polished the tray that her candles are set upon this past week and therefore the tray was a little out of place so she moved the tray back into place and, all of a sudden, a small folded yellow piece of paper came out from underneath and fell right into her hands. She opened the paper and it had just one word on it. " Chulent ." She had written that note three months before to remind herself not to forget to plug in the crock pot. And on this day, it "accidentally" fell into her hands. She was so excited seeing how Hashem reminded her to plug in her crock pot. Although one could look at this and say, "Yeah, that just happened to be," she is fulfilling a mitzvah by believing it was all done by hashgacha peratit . The more we accustom ourselves to seeing the yad Hashem in everything that happens, the more we will be fulfilling the main purposes of Hashem's performances of the makot in Mitzrayim . Shabbat Shalom.

Vaera | The Makkot Curriculum, by Rav Yitzchak Etshalom A paideia for Pharaoh. How many Makkot were there? We inevitably approach our study of Parashat Va'era with an assumption of 10 Makkot (plagues) with which Hashem smote and 'judged" the Egyptians. However, that number does not appear in the Torah's record of the events and other presentations of the Exodus story in Tanakh highlight only some of these plagues, ending up with a smaller number - and the Midrash famously expands this number by a factor of up to 50, seeing 5 sub-plagues within each one. We look back at the structure of the plagues, following Hashem's directives to Moshe regarding warning - or not warning - Pharaoh before each one and discern a clear pattern which opens up an additional perspective on the purpose of these plagues and their role as didactic, beyond the punitive. Source sheet >>

This month's learning is sponsored by Bracha Rutner in loving memory of Anna Rutner. "She was a woman who was always curious about life. She came to the US in 1958 and learned English and made an incredible life for herself raising four children and seventeen grandchildren. She will always live on in our hearts and in the number of great-grandchildren named after her."  The Gemara begins with three structural questions regarding the Mishna. Why is Shevuot written right after Makkot? Why did the Mishna list all four cases that have two cases learned from the Torah and two from the rabbis, when in the context of Masechet Shabbat and Masechet Negaim (laws of leprosy), only the relevant case for the masechet is mentioned? Why did the Mishna begin with Shevuot, but when elaborating on the details, the case of impurity came first, and only after that does the Mishna move back to elaborate on laws of oaths? The Gemara explains in each of the four categories, what two cases appear in the Torah and what two are from rabbinic law. Does the Mishna follow Rabbi Yishmael or Rabbi Akiva? At first glance, it doesn't seem to follow either opinion as in oaths, Rabbi Yishmael holds one does not bring a sacrifice on oaths relating to past actions, and Rabbi Akiva holds that one does not bring a sacrifice if one forgot that the Temple was in that place or that the item was a sacrificial item. The first answer given is that each could fit with the Mishna if we adopt a different understanding of the Mishna. One could explain that the Mishna brings a list of two cases that are four, but not all obligate one in a sacrifice. This explanation is rejected since the Mishna also lists four cases for leprous marks and one is obligated to bring a sacrifice upon becoming purified from all four cases, and the assumption is that all four cases in the Mishna are similar in that way. The second answer given is that the Mishna follows Rabbi Yishmael and the Mishna refers to the obligation to receive lashes for an oath of expression that one did not keep intentionally, not a sacrifice for not keeping the oath because one forgot. This accords with Rava's position that one can derive from the verse about false oaths that one receives lashes for an oath of expression about something that happened in the past. To make this explanation fit with the Mishna, Rabbi Yishmael would need to hold that one receives lashes for a negative prohibition that to transgress it, one does not do an action, as the oath, "I will not eat," and one does not eat, does not involve an action on the part of the one who does not fulfill the oath. This raises a difficulty as Rabbi Yochanan holds like all unattributed Mishnayot, such as ours and he also holds that one does not receive lashes if no action is performed. To resolve this difficulty, the Gemara explains that Rabbi Yochanan holds by a different unattributed Mishna and they quote a Mishna in Makkot regarding notar, leftover meat from the Pesach sacrifice. However, this suggestion is rejected, as that Mishna can be understood following Rabbi Yehuda's explanation that it is a negative prohibition that has a positive way to fix it, lav hanitak l'asei, for which one is exempt from lashes.   

Today's Talmud page, Makkot 24, brings our tractate to a close. Rabbi Dovid Bashevkin joins us to sum up what we've learned, and explain Judaism's wonderful attitude to punishment and reward. Why did Rabbi Akiva laugh when he saw Jerusalem destroyed? Listen and find out.

For the text of the Hadran ceremony, click here. For more information about What is a Siyum, click here While there are 613 mitzvot in the Torah, King David and some of the prophets narrowed it down to a smaller list of the most basic mitzvot. Why were these specific ones chosen, most of them relating to justice and righteousness and involving relations between people? The masechet ends with the famous story of Rabbi Akiva laughing when seeing a fox running out of the kodesh kodashim or hearing the Romans on their way to attack, after the Temple was already destroyed, while his friends were crying. When questioned about his reaction, he explains, based on verses, that in order for the positive prophecy of Zecharia to be fulfilled, first the negative prophesy of Uriah needs to be fulfilled.  

More on the 613 mitzvot - and ways of encapsulating the most essential mitzvot into many fewer. Plus, the way one prophet follows the next, supplanting the message of the previous one (in concern and petition to God, not competition). Also, two stories of how the sages mourned the prominence and hegemony of Rome having taken over the holy places -- most of the sages weep, but Rabbi Akiva laughs. For all that desecration, even foxes in the ruins of the Temple, fulfills the prophecy of Uriah, which affirms for him that Zechariah's prophecy of redemption and a rebuilt Jerusalem will also come to pass.

Today's Talmud page, Makkot 23, issues a stern warning against lashon harah, or malicious speech. But hey, we all gossip, so what's so bad about that, anyway? And what great arguments did the rabbis give to convince us to think before we open our mouths? Listen and find out.

Our learning today is dedicated in honor of the State of Israel celebrating 77 years of independence. We continue to pray for the safe and speedy return of our hostages, for the safety of our soldiers, and for a refuah shleima for all the injured soldiers.  We also dedicate our learning to the speedy extinguishing of the terrible fires blazing in Israel and to the safety of the firefighters.  How were the lashes administered? Why? What situations would provide enough embarrassment for the one getting the lashes that even if some of the lashes were given or in some cases, even if none were yet administered, one would already have fulfilled receiving the punishment? Why was the whip made from a calf and a donkey? Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel holds that one who is obligated to receive karet and then receives lashes for that sin, the lashes atone for the sin and the person will no longer receive karet. According to Rabbi Yochanan, the rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Chanina. Rav Ada proves this from a Mishna in Megilla. However, Rav Nachman and Rav Ashi reject the proof, each in a different way. The Mishna brings various statements regarding the value of observing mitzvot. When Rav Ada bar Ahava ruled like Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel, Rav Yosef asked rhetorically if he had gone up to the heavens and seen that those who received lashes did not receive karet? Abaye responded that Rabbi Chanina derived it from a verse, just as in a statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that there are three things the rabbis did that the heavens approved of - the obligation to read Megillat Esther, greeting a friend using the name of God, and bringing the tithes to the Temple to be distributed. Rabbi Elazar said that there are three instances where the Divine Spirit appeared in a court to intervene - with Yehuda, Shmuel, and Shlomo, as can be proven from verses in the Tanach. Rava rejects the proof from the verses, but says this was learned by a tradition. 

Details of the whip itself are derived or inferred from verses in the Torah -- specifically to focus on the process of flogging the sinner. Also, the last mishnah of Makkot: with the list of one who gets lashes to the exclusion of karet, thanks to the inherent humiliation in the lashes. Also, 3 practices were decided by the earthly courts and then approved by the heavenly court - so the Gemara proves that heavenly support through supporting verses. Likewise, a heavenly voice that confirmed 3 other courts' decisions - including backing King Solomon's famous "cut the babt in half" decision, to make it clear that there was no chance that the other woman was the real mother. Plus, the tradition of the 613 mitzvot, with 365 negative ones and 248 positive ones, and how we get to 613 (hint: "Torah tzivah lanu Moshe....").

Today's Talmud page, Makkot 22, finally sheds light on one of the tractate's central questions, namely just how many lashes must a person sentenced to lashing receive. Why did the rabbis subtract one lash from the number indicated in the Torah? And what could their behavior teach us as we think of crime and punishment? Listen and find out.

Today's daf is dedicated to the memory of the fallen soldiers of the IDF and security forces who fell in defense of Am Yisrael and Eretz Israel, and to the memory of those whose lives were tragically lost in terrorist attacks. May their memories be blessed. We are especially thinking of our Hadran learners who have lost children, grandchildren, siblings and close friends in the past year and a half. We continue to pray for the safety of our soldiers, for the safe and speedy return of our hostages, and for a refuah shleima for all the injured soldiers.  Today's daf is sponsored by Naomi Cohen in loving memory of her mother, Elisheva bat Yehuda, Elisabeth Maybaum, on her 6th yahrzeit. "Having fled the Nazi regime as a child, it gave her such joy and hope to see her children and grandchildren living Jewish lives, learning Torah, settling in Eretz Israel and defending it. Tehi zichra baruch." Does one get multiple punishments for an act on yom tov that involves multiple melachot (as is the case for sacrifices for one who violates Shabbat)?  If so, why isn't planting also listed in the Mishna? The Mishna listed a case where one plowed and received eight sets of lashes because of unique circumstances. Seven other suggestions are made to cases that could have been brought in the Mishna that would have added an additional set of lashes. Cases are brought regarding cross breeding with animals that are considered both hekdesh and chulin. How many lashes does one receive? If one cannot receive that many, the court assesses how many they can handle (must be a number divisible by 3).  What if they change the assessment? Does it depend on whether they already starting giving the person lashes or not? On what else does it depend?  How does an assessment work when there are multiple sets of lashes? How does the actual giving of lashes take place? What type of whip do they use? Where does the person receive the whipping?  

3 mishnayot, but first: more on plowing, in such a way that leads to lashes. Then: details of lashes -- how many, where on the body, in numbers divisible by 3. Also, when transgressors are covered by one set of lashes or get several in a row - with time to heal in between the sets. And lastly, a detailed description of the process of the lashes - including where the person doing the flogging stands, how he flogs, and how the person getting the lashes stands, and holds himself, and so on.

Today's Talmud page, Makkot 21, dives into the controversial issue of tattoos. Are tatted Jews really prohibited from being buried in Jewish cemeteries? And what surprisingly moving lesson do the rabbis teach us about finding compassion even as we falter and sin? Listen and find out.

Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of David's father, Dr. Abraham Geffen, on his 10th yahrzeit. "He was the youngest of 8 children of Rav Tuvia and Sara Hene Geffen of Atlanta, and was devoted to his wife Ethel, his three children as well as his parents, siblings and extended family, synagogue community (Beth El of New Rochelle, NY) and was a dedicated physician, the Director of Radiology at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York for many years." What are the parameters of the prohibition to make an incision in one's body as an act of mourning? How are these details derived from the verses? Why is it forbidden to shave the corners of the beard specifically with a razor? Rabbi Eilezer adds other implements - tweezers and a plane. Why those and not scissors? What are the parameters of the prohibition of imprinting a tattoo? The Mishna lists various ways that one can be liable for many sets of lashes for the same action, or receive multiple sets of lashes for one action as one violated many negative commandments.

A daf with 2 mishnayot: 1. One who tattoos a tattoo is liable for lashes -- if the person both engraved in the skin and also added the ink. But maybe that's only if the tattooist wrote the Name of God. Or alternatively, the name of idolatry. Likewise, things that look like tattoos seems also to be at least taboo, even if they don't incur lashes. 2. Repeated violations of the same constraint on a nazir will incur multiple sets of lashes - or only one, depending on whether he was warned. The question arises with sha'atnez too - whether one is liable for one event or multiple events. And likewise kilayim - in terms of planting or plowing while mixing species.

Today's Talmud pages, Makkot 19 and 20, contain a long list of instructions pertaining to Jewish hair. Why can't men shave their beards with a razor, but scissors are fine? And how to address the anxieties around frizzy, curly hair? Listen and find out.

Today's daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz in loving memory of her mother, Chana Cohen, Chana bat Rav Moshe and Tzipora Mashbaum, on her 4th yartzeit. "You graced us all with your glorious smile, innate wisdom and beautiful neshama. To say that you are missed every day is an understatement." Today's daf is for the refuah shleima of Elad ben Netta. The Gemara questions Rabbi Yochanan's statement that one only receives lashes for eating maaser sheni outside Jerusalem after it was brought into Jerusalem, based on a derivation from Rabbi Yosi's words ina braita. The Gemara resolves this difficulty by explaining the derivation from Rabbi Yosi's as referring to a case where the produce had already been brought into Jerusalem, and the innovation is that it entered while still being tevel (untithed produce), and he holds that gifts that have not been separated are considered as if they have been separated. However, the Gemara raises a difficulty with this resolution (because it seems R' Yosi doesn't actually hold this position). The Gemara then presents two answers from Rabba and Ravina to resolve this difficulty. One who makes a bald spot on his head as a sign of mourning for the dead, who rounds the corners of his head or destroys the hair on his beard, or who makes a cut in his flesh for the dead receives lashes. The Gemara discusses the details of these commandments and the minimum measurements for which one would be liable.

Finishing out ma'aser sheni - determining when one would be subject to lashes if the produce is eaten outside of Jerusalem. That measure is derived from the proximity of verses in the Torah that align lashes with the phenomenon of eating outside of Jerusalem. Plus, the tithing of one fig that wasn't tithed - how does that work? Note how designating food for tithing might actually result in more lashes than if no designation had taken place. Also, a new mishnah -- on one who shaves his head or the like in mourning, which is prohibited. How is one held accountable, and for what actions, exactly?

This week's learning is sponsored by Sara Averick & Jose Rosenfeld in loving memory of Sara's beloved Aunt Rose, Rachel bat Chaim Nisan haLevi v'Nechama. "She was a Yiddish scholar who adored all her nieces and nephews. She was a beacon of light, laughter and joy." Rava bar Ada said in the name of Rabbi Yitzchak that a non-kohen is only liable for eating bikkurim once they have been brought into the azara, since until that point, they are still considered chulin. , not sacred. Rav Sheshet ruled that placing the bikkurim in front of the altar is critical, but reading the mikra bikkurim is not. The Gemara brings a braita of Rabbi Yishmael trying to prove that Rav Sheshet holds by his opinion. However, this suggestion is rejected. In the braita, Rabbi Yishmael derives the source for not eating maaser sheni after the destruction of the Temple. First, he tries to prove it from bechor, a firstborn animal, But after he rejects this suggestion, he proves it from a heikesh, a juxtaposition, from a verse in the Torah. The Gemara raises some questions against some of the content in the braita. Why couldn't they derive the law about maaser sheni from bechor and bikkurim together? Secondly, why was it so clear that the meat of a bechor could not be eaten after the Temple was destroyed, if, for example, the animal had already been offered as a sacrifice before the destruction? The first and second Mishna in the chapter both mention lashes for eating maaser sheni. To explain why the repetition, Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina establishes the second Mishna in a case of an impure person eating it in Jerusalem or the produce itself was impure and the person ate it in Jerusalem, whereas the first Mishna related to one receiving lashes for eating it outside Jerusalem (in a pure state). What is the source for receiving lashes for impurity of either the maaser sheni or the person eating it? From where is it derived that maaser sheni can be redeemed in Jerusalem if it is impure? From where is it derived that if a person bringing maaser sheni to Jerusalem is one step outside the walls of Jerusalem, one can still redeem it? What if the person is carrying it on their back and their body is in Jerusalem but the produce is not yet in Jerusalem?  

More on Bikkurim - first fruits: Rav Sheshet says that not placing the produce in the right place next to the altar will prevent it from counting as first fruits, but not reciting the verses from the Torah won't invalidate the first fruits. Which then leads to discussion of whose view he is citing. With comparisons to "bekhor" - first animals - and also to ma'aser sheni (second tithings). Also, from there, the discussion of why ma'aser sheni isn't practiced in the absence of the Temple (eating food in sanctity in Jerusalem could theoretically happen without the Temple, but the aim is to prove why that is not the case, even many years after the Temple's destruction).

Today's Talmud pages, Makkot 17 and 18, the rabbis warn us that there are times when we must follow very strict procedures or rob even life's most special and sacred moments of all meaning. How is this insight relevant for anyone trying to enjoy a meal these days at a fancy restaurant? Listen and find out.

Rav holds that if even the poor person's tithe wasn't separated, the produce is considered tevel and one who eats it receives lashes. The tannaitic opinion of Rabbi Yosi supports this. Rav Yosef explains that this is a tannaitic debate, as seen in a disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis. However, Abaye rejects Rav Yosef's explanation of the debate and claims it could be based on a different issue. The rabbis and Rabbi Shimon disagree in the Mishna regarding the requisite amount that one must eat of untithed produce to receive lashes - is it any amount or an olive-bulk? Rabbi Shimon, who holds it is any amount, questions the rabbis from the prohibition to eat an ant, for which one receives lashes even for eating just one. The rabbis counter by explaining that an ant is a complete creature and therefore has significance. But Rabbi Shimon responds that a complete grain of wheat also has significance. Rav Bivi and Rabbi Yirmia disagree about what Reish Lakish held about this debate - is it only about a grain of wheat or even about flour, as the flour is ground and not a complete grain and perhaps it loses its significance? Other sins are listed regarding sins concerning the Temple for which one would get lashes. The opinion in the Mishna matches Rabbi Akiva's opinion, which was also his student Rabbi Shimon's opinion, as can be found in a braita. Rabbi Shimon's derivation in the braita is questioned and rejected.

The braita brought on Makkot 17 with Rabbi Shimon's position is amended, as the original version was rejected. Rava ruled that a non-kohen who ate from a burnt offering before the blood was sprinkled transgressed five different transgressions. The Gemara questions why there aren't more than five transgressions, and suggests four more that could have been mentioned. They explain why each one was not in rava's list. Rav Gidel quoted a halakha in the name of Rav that a kohen that ate from a guilt or sin offering before the blood was sprinkled would receive lashes. After raising a difficulty on this statement, they emend his words to be referring to a non-kohen andhe does not receive lashes for eating guilt or sin offering before the blood was sprinkled.  Rabbi Elazar, and then Rabbi Yochanan are quoted as having said that placing the bikkurim is critical to the fulfillment of the mitzva, but reading the text is not. A contradiction is raised on each of them from other statements they made. However, they are resolved.

A case of a kohen who eats from a korban olah before the throwing of the blood on the altar... but even kohanim aren't allowed to eat from an olah/burnt-offering. In any case, the inappropriate eating of sacrifices leads to reason for 6 sets of lashes (or maybe 5, which is part of the discussion). Also, more on bikkurim, the first fruits - and what invalidates them as food for the kohen, or perhaps not. Plus, a comparison to mixing flour and oil for the meal-offering.

Today's Talmud page, Makkot 16, informs us that if you have to go to the bathroom and fail to do so in a timely fashion you risk making your soul detestable. Why is that? And how is relieving ourselves not just of bodily waste but of emotional and spiritual baggage as well key to staying healthy? Listen and find out.

Study Guide Makkot 16 Today's daf is dedicated in commemoration of Yom HaShoah, in memory of all those who perished in the Holocaust. Today's daf is sponsored by Caroline Ben-Ari in loving memory of her father, Ivor Rhodes, Yisrael ben Meir v'Sara. "Please send me Dad jokes and bad puns--the worse, the better. Dad was a quiet man who cared deeply about doing the right thing. In the words of my sister-in-law to him 15 years and 2 days ago: 'You are a true gentleman... with a wicked sense of humour!' As the years go by, I find myself missing him more and more." Today's daf is sponsored by Tina Lamm in memory of her mother-in law, Mrs. Mindy Lamm, on her 5th yahrzeit.  "My mother-in-law was an extraordinary woman and the full partner of her husband, Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm, zt"l. Together, through 68 years of marriage, they raised a beautiful family while leading the Modern Orthodox world with brilliance, vision, and incredible dignity.  We miss her every day.” The debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding whether one gets lashes for a doubtful warning (a warning given when it wasn't clear whether the person was going to violate the prohibition) can be found in another case regarding one who takes an oath that they will eat a loaf of bread today. They also disagree about whether or not one gets lashes for a negative prohibition that does not have an action associated with it. Both are derived from the same tanna, Rabbi Yehuda, and the sources they use to support their opinions are brought. At first, they suggest that both derive it from the same statement of Rabbi Yehuda regarding notar, but that suggestion is rejected completely as neither opinion corresponds to that opinion. Two different sources of Rabbi Yehuda are brought - each one corresponding to a different opinion. Rabbi Yochanan says that there are only who mitzvot where one can get lashes for a negative commandment that has a positive commandment intended to fix it, as he holds that one only gets lashes if one nullifies the possibility for fixing it. There are only two cases where it is possible to nullify the possibility for fixing the mitzva. The first is the mitzva of sending the mother bird away, as if one takes the mother bird and her chicks and then kils the mother bird, there is no possibility to send away the mother bird. The other one he leaves to his student to figure out and the student makes various suggestions before arriving at a conclusion that it is peah. leaving over the corner of the field for the poor. The next part of the Mishna is discussed regarding lashes for creepy crawling creatures and it is explained that since there are various negative commandments in the Torah regarding this prohibition, and there are various cases where one could receive multiple sets of lashes. If one eats produce where only the tithe for the poor wasn't taken, one receives lashes. This accords with Rabbi Yosi's opinion. 

Today's Talmud page, Makkot 15, asks a fascinating question: Are there any transgressions for which there's no punishment? It's a conundrum we've all faced when we vowed, say, to go to the gym and never did. What, if any, should be the consequences for promises unfulfilled? Listen and find out.

Study Guide Makkot 15 This week's learning is sponsored by Elana Storch for the refuah shleima of Avraham haLevi Ben Eidel.  Today's daf is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Chaya Golda Bat Esther. Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island for the refuah shleima of our friend and co-learner, Leah Brick, Leah Breindel bat Gittel Yenta בתוך שאר חולי ישראל. "We have watched and admired Leah as she meets this challenge with grace, equanimity and absolute faith, and look forward to sharing many smachot in good health with her - especially our Hadran LI trip to Israel!"  Rabba bar Hana quotes Rabbi Yochanan saying that if a positive commandment precedes a negative commandment, one receives lashes and this is not considered a lav hanitak l'ase, a negative commandment that can be corrected/uprooted by a positive commandment for which one does not receive lashes. Rabbi Yochanan denies having said that. Raba doesn't understand why Rabbi Yochanan would deny it, as a case in our Mishna can prove Rabbi Yochanan's rule. However, the Gemara bring a case of a rapist, trying to prove why Rabbi Yochanan changed his mind and did not accept the above rule. Ulla (in three different attempts) and Rava each try to explain why the case of a rapist does not fit into the category of the rule (a positive commandment the precedes the negative commandment). All attempts by Ulla are rejected, but Rava's is accepted.

Today's Talmud page, Makkot 14, delivers a charming little story of three of the most important rabbis of the Talmud talking Torah while buying meat at the butcher shop. What can this slice of life anecdote teach us about the rabbis style of leadership? And what time management skill can we still learn by following their advice? Listen and find out.

Presentation in PDF format Study Guide Makkot 14 The debate between Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Yitzchak is discussed regarding whether or not one gets lashes for sins that one gets karet or death by the court. After bringing a third explanation for RAbbi Akiva's position, the Gemara brings the source for Rabbi Yitzchak's opinion. What do Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva derive from that verse? This question leads to a long back and forth discussion about what they each derive from various verses. The Mishna taught that one gets lashes for eating sacrificial items, kodashim,  when they are impure. Where can the warning for this be found? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish each offer different opinions. There is a back and forth discussion regarding their sources.

Today's Talmud pages, Makkot 12 and 13, take up the thorny question of why, precisely, courts do not absolve those who are truly repentant. Rabbi Dovid Bashevkin joins us to explain why we may be forgiven for our sins in shul on Yom Kippur but not before an earthly judge. What was the most famous Talmudic discussion ever held in America, and how does it relate to the question at hand? Listen and find out.

Today's daf is sponsored for a refua shleima for my uncle, Naftali ben Henna. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree about two issues regarding the accidental murderer - do they pay rent/taxes to the Levites/refuge city; when they are released, can they reassume their previous position in their city? Rav Kahana limits the first debate to the six refuge cities, while Rava limits the debate to the other forty-two Levite cities, but explains that in the six major refuge cities, all agree that no payment is necessary. The third chapter lists all those who receive lashes. The Mishna categorizies them. Those who are liable for karet for forbidden relations receive lashes, if they do not also receive a death penalty by the court. If a kohen marries a woman he is forbidden to marry, they both receives lashes. More prohibitions where one receives karet for violating it intentionally also receive lashes, such as, a impure person who enters the Temple or ate sacrificial meat, one who eats forbidden fats of an animal or the blood, and several other prohibtions. One who eats non kosher meat or untithed produce also receives lashes. The Mishna follows the position of Rabbi Akiva that only prohibitions that are punishable by karet only are also punishable by lashes. However, Rabbi Yishmael holds that even those punishable by death in the hands of the court are punishable by lashes. Rabbi Yitzchak holds that none of these cases obligate one in lashes. What is the root of the debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael?  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/09/18/the-sorrow-and-the-shame-of-the-accidental-killer

Today's Talmud pages, Makkot 10 and 11, kick things off with a strange, spooky story about two murderers that soon blossoms into a gorgeous morality tale. Rabbi Dovid Bashevkin joins us to explain the important insight the story delivers. What did the rabbis mean when they taught us that we must assist a person to walk down whichever path the person chooses? Listen and find out.

More details regarding the accidental killer are discussed - Where are they buried?  What happens if the Kohen Gadol is found out to be a chalal (son of a forbidden marriage)?  Is the relative of the victim allowed to kill the accidental murderer if the murderer leaves the city? What if the murderer is by a tree on the border where part is inside the border and part outside?

The sages expound some verses in Yehoshua that relate directly or indirectly to setting up the refuge cities.  The accidental killer leaves the city of refuge at the death of the Kohen Gadol. Who qualifies as a Kohen Gadol for this purpose? If there are multiple Kohanim Gedolim, do they all need to die or just one of them? Out of concern that the people in the city may pray for the death of the Kohen Gadol, their mothers would provide food and clothing for the accidental murderers.  The Gemara digresses to discuss prayers that have no basis (like praying for the Kohen Gadol to die) - do they come true? Different scenarios are brought regarding the timing of the death of the Kohen Gadol - after the killing but before the court determined that the killer needs to go to the city of refuge, or after the court's ruling but before the killer got to the city, etc. In each of these scenarios, does the accidental murderer go free or not? 

There were certain areas with more murderers and that affected where the refuge cities were set up. There are certain criteria for refuge cities: they should not be too small or too large, they should have a water supply, a market, etc., to allow for proper protection, and they should not need to leave the city for anything. There is a debate between Rabbi Nechemia and the rabbis whether or not weapons can be sold there. One's rabbi goes to the refuge city with the accidental murderer.  If a rabbi murders accidentally, his yeshiva goes with him to the refuge city. The Gemara raises a difficulty with a rabbi going to a refuge city as it is known that Torah learning protects - so why should he need a refuge city? Two suggested answers are brought. Several drashot are brought relating to the importance of setting up refuge cities. From one of the verses, the gemara digresses to discussing the importance of learning Torah, teaching Torah and group learning. Reish Lakish explains a verse in the Torah that God orchestrates things from above that one who kills accidentally and it is not known to anyone, and one who kills on purpose without witnesses, will both end up in the same place and the murderer will get killed accidentally by the one who killed accidentally before and each will then get their punishment they are deserving of. Similarly it is derived from various verses that God guides a person in the direction that the person wishes to go. If the relative kills the killer on the way to the city of refuge, does he receive a death penalty?

Today's Talmud page, Makkot 9, delivers a subtle rebuke about the dangers of succumbing to hate. Why should we sometimes be much more attentive to those we hate than to the ones we love? Listen and find out.

Today's daf is sponsored by Shulamith and Joel Cohn for a refuah shleima for Phyllis Hecht, Gittel Pesha bat Masha Rachel. Today's daf is sponsored by Batsheva Pava for a refuah shleima for Phyllis Hecht, Gittel Pesha bat Masha Rachel. "To my wonderful neighbor and dear friend, Phyllis, who is the person who sends me daily lists of shiurim that range from Daf Yomi, to Navi, to Parshat Hashavua, and Chaggim. She is a 24-hours-a-day Torah learning source. We cannot forget that it is the month of miracles and kriyat yam suf. May Phyllis continue to see many miracles. May our learning be for her zechut!" For what cases is a ger toshav allowed to go to a refuge city? Contradictory sources are brought and the contradictions are resolved. There is a debate one who killed someone and claimed "I thought it was allowed" - is that considered close to intentional or is it considered circumstances beyond one's control? Potential proofs are brought from the Torah for each position from the story of Avimelech when he took Sarah from Avraham. Does a blind person go to a city of refuge? What is the halakha if the accidental murderer hated the one who was murdered? How many refuge cities were there and where were they located?  

Today's Talmud page, Makkot 8, delivers a stark reminder to watch the way we behave in public. Why should we be meticulously mindful when it comes to the general wellbeing of others? And how do we keep the public domain from becoming a public nuisance? Listen and find out.

This week's learning is sponsored by the Hadran family for the refuah shleima of Phyllis Hecht, Gittel Pasha bat Masha Rachel. "Phyllis, you are a true fighter, a yereat shamayim a mega baalat chesed, and a "fellow" daf learner. May your surgery on Thursday go well, with the wonderful shlichim at Sheba Hospital. עברת את פרעה, תעברי גם את זה!!! We are behind you and continue davening for you with all our might." Rebbi and the rabbis disagree about whether one gets exiled for killing if the blade fell off the handle and killed someone and if one was killed from wood chips that splintered off while chopping. Rebbi holds that the case described in the Torah in Devraim 19:5 refers to the latter case and the rabbis hold that it refers to the former. A braita brings two proofs from the text for Rebbi's reading of the verse. Rav Chiya bar Ashi explains the root of the debate is whether there is em l'mikra, we follow the way the verse is traditionally read, or em l'masoret, we follow the way the verse is written. There are different rules for accidental murder depending on what domain the death occurred and whether the victim was already there or put his head out the window after, for example, a rock was thrown in that direction. Abba Shaul rules that if one accidentally killed while performing a mitzva, the murderer is exempt from exile. This is derived from Devraim 19:5. A rabbi raised a difficulty with this derivation to Rava, but it is resolved. In a different version of the sugya, the rabbi asked the same question but on a different sugya. The Mishna rules that a child is exiled to a refuge city for killing a parent, but a braita rules the opposite. Rav Kahana and Rava each reconcile the contradiction in a different manner. A braita rules that slave or a Cuti are exiled to a refuge city for killing a Jew and can receive lashes. Likewise, a Jew is exiled and receives lashes for doing the same to a Cuti or slave. For what offense are the lashes?

Today's Talmud pages, Makkot 5, 6, and 7, contain a fierce debate of the death penalty. Should courts strive as much as they can to make sure we execute as few people as is possible, if not abolish capital punishment altogether? Or is the death penalty a necessary deterrent, without which we're sure to experience more chaos and crime? Listen and find out.

Today's daf is sponsored anonymously for a refuah shleima of Mia bat Yonina, for the safety of our soldiers and for the safe return of the hostages. If one is convicted to death by the court, runs away, and is caught by the same court, the court upholds the original decision and does not try to look for a reason to exonerate. However, if the convict is brought before a different court, under what circumstances do they reopen the case? The courts of twenty-three judges can rule in capital crimes. These courts can even be outside of Israel. If so, what are the differences between the rules for setting up courts in and out of Israel? Should the courts be using capital punishment? If so, how often? There are several opinions - once every seven years, once in seventy years, or never at all. An accidental murderer is exiled to a city of refuge which is punitive, restorative (provides atonement) and protects from the relatives of the deceased who may seek to avenge the death. However, not all accidental murderers are exiled to a refuge city. Some are more negligent and aren't permitted to go there, as they do not deserve the atonement and protection, while others are closer to oness, and are not required to be exiled. Which cases of an accidental murderer fall into which categories?

Today's Talmud pages, Makkot 3 and 4, gives us a good lesson on how to deal with situations of great uncertainty. Should we just trust our gut and hope for the best? Should we analyze all available metrics instead? Or is there a third, wiser solution? Listen and find out.

Today's daf is sponsored by Samuel Berlad in honor of Esther Sarah bat Sarah to get good passing grades in the exams and parnassah tova. Also in loving memory of Devorah bat Avraham, for the refuah shleima of Shmuel Lev ben Bracha.  Today's daf is sponsored by Audrey and Jake Levant in honor of Deborah and Michael Dickson. "Wishing you a huge mazel tov  on the engagement of Dalia to Yared Posnasky." Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav that a conspiring witness pays according to his share. After four unsuccessful attempts to explain the meaning of his statement, they explain it to be a case where the witness said he was convicted and charged money in a court for being a conspiring witness. Based on his testimony, he can be obligated to pay his share, even though his testimony cannot incriminate the other witness. If conspiring witnesses testify that a man divorced his wife and did not pay her the ketuba money, how is the payment for their punishment assessed, as they tried to obligate him to pay money that he may have had to pay later if he predeceases his wife or divorces her? If conspiring witnesses testify that a debtor who had a ten-year loan had a thirty-day loan, how is the payment for their punishment assessed? Both these cases are explained in the Mishna. Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rav that a ten-year loan is canceled when the shmita year arrives. Rav Kahana raises a difficulty on his statement from the Mishna as it implies that a ten-year loan can be collected. Rava resolves the contradiction. According to an alternative version of the sugya, Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav the opposite - that a ten-year loan is collected. Rav Kahana supported his statement from our Mishna.Rava rejects the support from the Mishna. Rav Yehuda says in the name of Shmuel that if one loans another upon the condition that the shmita year not cancel the loan, the loan is canceled anyway as the condition is invalid. However, this contradicts a different statement of Shmuel regarding ona'ah, that a condition that goes against the Torah is valid if the issue relates to money. How is this resolved? Two other statements are brought by Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rav and Rav Kahana raises a difficulty against them - one about laws of Shabbat and one about laws of mikveh.

Different statements of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav are brought regarding mikvaot.    The Mishna brings a basic argument between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis about whether or not conspiring witnesses get the punishment of what they conspired to do and also get lashes for the negative commandment of testifying falsely. The Gemara discusses their opinions.

When the conspiring witnesses pay/get lashes do they split the amount or do they each have to pay the full amount or get the full amount of lashes?  The Mishna discusses the definition of conspiring witnesses. What is the difference between conspiring witnesses and contradictory testimony? What happens in a case where every group that comes to testify is turned into conspiring witnesses by the same group of witnesses - do we assume the group saying "you were with us" to every group of witnesses is lying? Would it be the same if someone keeps bringing false witnesses to testify on their behalf and then brings witnesses who are not proven to be false? Do we suspect they are lying just because they were brought by someone already known to bring false witnesses? There is a basic argument between the Perushim and Tzedukim - do the conspiring witnesses get killed only if they succeeded in convicting the person but didn't succeed in getting them killed (Perushim) or only if they actually succeeded in getting him killed (Tzedukim)? The verse in Devarim 17:6 says that one gets killed based on the testimony of 2-3 witnesses. There are several drashot brought in the Mishna explaining what can be derived from the unnecessary mention of "three witnesses" in the verse. 

Today's Talmud page, Makkot 2, kicks off a brand new tractate. Rabbi Dovid Bashevkin joins us with a rollicking preview of what lies in store. Why are the conspiring witnesses punished with the same fate they schemed to afflict on another? Listen and find out.

Makkot bookmark Masechet Makkot is sponsored by Terri Krivosha and Rabbi Hayim Herring in loving memory of Terri’s father Judge Norman Krivosha, Nachum Meir ben David Beer v’Malka, on his 4th yahrzeit, and in honor of Dr. Judith Hauptman. "Our dad instilled in us a lifelong love of learning and in honor of Dr. Judith Hauptman, their first Talmud teacher and one of the pioneers who opened the doors of Talmud study to women." There are certain exceptions to the rule when conspiring witnesses (eidim zomemim) do not receive the punishment “that they tried to do to their brother.” In those cases, they receive lashes. For example, if they testify about the status of a person (about a kohen that his father married a divorcee) or that a person killed accidentally and should go to the refuge city. Why does the masechet begin with an exception to the rule, instead of beginning with the basic rule of conspiring witnesses? From where is it derived that in the two cases in the Mishna, conspiring witnesses do not receive the punishment “as he tried to do to his brother?” For each case, two suggestions are brought - one a drasha from a verse and the other a kal v'chomer argument. In both cases, the kal v'chomer argument is rejected. Where can one find an allusion in the Torah for the ruling that conspiring witnesses receive lashes in exceptional cases?  A braita is quoted which adds two more exceptions to the rule where the conspiring witnesses do not receive the punishment that they tried to bring upon the defendant. 

Introduction to Masechet Makkot