Podcasts about Raba

a

Rava explains the Torah source for cases of improper intent (machshava) that disqualify sacrifices - specifically, when one intends to sprinkle the blood, burn the sacrificial parts, or eat the meat “outside its time” or “outside its location.” The intent of outside its time renders the sacrifice pigul and incurs the punishment of karet for one who eats the meat, whereas outside its location does not carry that penalty. Rava explains that all these laws are derived from the verse in Vayikra (Leviticus) 7:18, which also serves as the basis for additional halakhot related to pigul. An alternative interpretation is cited in a braita, which understands that verse as referring to someone who actually ate the meat beyond its designated time (on the third day), rather than to a disqualifying thought during the sacrificial process. Various drashot are brought on the wording of that verse and related verses, such as Vayikra 19:7, to further clarify the scope and implications of pigul. If one has a disqualifying thought of outside its time, but the sacrifice is also performed incorrectly in another way, such as outside its location, the punishment of karet does not apply. However, Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and rules that if the outside its time thought occurred first, the sacrifice is considered pigul and punishable by karet. Ilfa and Rabbi Yochanan debate whether the disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis applies only when the two improper thoughts occur in separate sacrificial rites, or even when they occur within the same rite.  

Latest Episode

Rava explains the Torah source for cases of improper intent (machshava) that disqualify sacrifices - specifically, when one intends to sprinkle the blood, burn the sacrificial parts, or eat the meat “outside its time” or “outside its location.” The intent of outside its time renders the sacrifice pigul and incurs the punishment of karet for one who eats the meat, whereas outside its location does not carry that penalty. Rava explains that all these laws are derived from the verse in Vayikra (Leviticus) 7:18, which also serves as the basis for additional halakhot related to pigul. An alternative interpretation is cited in a braita, which understands that verse as referring to someone who actually ate the meat beyond its designated time (on the third day), rather than to a disqualifying thought during the sacrificial process. Various drashot are brought on the wording of that verse and related verses, such as Vayikra 19:7, to further clarify the scope and implications of pigul. If one has a disqualifying thought of outside its time, but the sacrifice is also performed incorrectly in another way, such as outside its location, the punishment of karet does not apply. However, Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and rules that if the outside its time thought occurred first, the sacrifice is considered pigul and punishable by karet. Ilfa and Rabbi Yochanan debate whether the disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis applies only when the two improper thoughts occur in separate sacrificial rites, or even when they occur within the same rite.  

جایی که دالت ד هست منظور به ה میباشد

Harav Yussie Zakutinsky Shlita

What does it really mean to be not provoked? I called in my dear friend Andrew Raba for this one, because he's the final and complete master of Shanti, obviously never disturbed by anything ever. Well, not quite. But we did want to talk about this phrase from the tradition: Om Shanti Shanti Shanti. It's something we've both chanted a thousand times, but the meaning that's really stuck with us is one we learned from Mark, “not provoked.” Andrew shared so honestly about a moment where he lost it in front of a whole group of students. A group of teenage boys showed up to Yoga class, laughing and disrupting everything, and he found himself cold with anger. He was teaching Shanti, and he was not feeling it. What happened next was such a beautiful reminder of how the practice works over time, and how Om comes first for a reason. I loved this conversation so much. It's about friendship, real practice, and what becomes possible when we stop trying to be peaceful and start actually digesting what provokes us. Key Takeaways Not Provoked Is a Practice – Shanti doesn't mean calm or passive. It means being able to receive life without being hijacked by memory or reaction. Yoga as Internal Bomb Diffusal – The point of practice is to clear out those little bombs of pain that get lit up in a relationship. Om Comes First – Om reminds us that life is already complete. From that remembrance, peace becomes possible. Reaction Is a Signal – If I'm reacting, I'm being shown something. That's not failure. That's the moment the fruit is ripe to fall. Shame Doesn't Heal – Beating ourselves up for being reactive just keeps the cycle going. What helps is love, humor, and depersonalizing the pain. Peace Improves Relationships – The true test of Yoga isn't how long you can chant. It's whether your practice helps you stay open when you'd normally shut down. Where to Find Our Guest Andrew Raba's Website: https://www.yogainschools.org.nz Andrew Raba on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/_andyraba_  Links & Resources You are the beauty. You are the intelligence. You are already in perfect harmony with life. You don't need to seek it. You need only participate in it. Learn more and access the course at https://www.heartofyoga.com  Support the Heart of Yoga Foundation.  This podcast is sustained by your donations.

Konec septembra se je na Centru za energetsko učinkovitost Inštituta Jožef Štefan odvil drugi seminar z naslovom »Uporaba tehnologije geografskih informacijskih sistemov za energetsko načrtovanje«. Blaž Lesnik se je pogovarjal z dr. Juretom Čižman z Inštituta Jožef Štefan in vodjo seminarja dr. Tomažem Šturmom.

Danes je na sporedu prelomna oddaja. Ker so prelomni časi, v katerih živimo. Kot vidimo, medijsko panogo počasi jemlje hudič, zato pa se krepi obrambna panoga. Tako je povsem normalno, da se kreativni del naše skromne redakcije razpušča in se seli, skupaj s kreativnostjo, na področje obrambne in vojaške industrije. Kako kmalu se bomo vključili v slovenski obrambni grozd, še ni povsem jasno; je pa zanimiv podatek, da se je, čim smo se Evropejci zavezali v obrambo pognati milijarde evrov, obrambni grozd povečal s petdesetih jagod na več kot sto trideset podjetij. Tako se bomo le preimenovali iz »zapisov iz močvirja« v pošasti iz močvirja in začeli služiti denar. Nasproti nam je prišla država v podobi nenadkriljivega Damirja Črnčeca. Kjerkoli se srečajo obramba, vpliv in denar, je najti tudi tega podjetnega strokovnjaka za obrambo; tako ne čudi, kako mu vsi priznavajo, da je prav njemu uspelo znotraj Slovenskega državnega holdinga ustanoviti podjetje, imenovano Dovos. »Družbo za obrambo, varnost in odpornost Slovenije«. Ker se bomo danes s kraticami še srečevali, naj izrazimo samo razočaranje, saj bi bilo ime družbe mnogo bolj zveneče, če bi prvi o spremenili v a, ali pa vsaj zadnji s v z. Kakorkoli; v kratkem – nekje do konca oktobra – je pričakovati javni poziv za prijavljanje obrambnih projektov, ki jih bo sofinancirala ali pa v celoti financirala država. Ker gre za eno največjih naložbenih priložnosti zadnjih desetletij, smo v našem novem obrambnem podjetju takoj zagnali nekaj projektov, ki jih kanimo prijaviti na javni poziv. Prvi projekt se imenuje P.E.N.I.S, kar je kratica za »Prenosni eliptični napadalni izstrelek Slovenije«. Do konca ga bomo sicer razvili, ko dobimo državne milijone; za zdaj lahko z javnostjo delimo samo osnovne taktične karakteristike in potrebne resurse za izdelavo tega obrambnega sistema. Za začetek potrebujemo močno leskovo palico in nekaj leskovih šib. Nato je treba palico elipsoidno upogniti in jo v elipsi držati z uporabo motvoza ali pa plastične vrvi za obešanje perila. Nato je treba s kuhinjskim nožem opremiti visokotehnološke leskove šibe – z utorom na eni in z bojno konico na drugi strani. Tako dobimo multifunkcijski obrambni sistem, saj je mišljeno, da se lahko P.E.N.I.S uporablja proti ciljem na kopnem, v morju in v zraku. YYYDrugi obrambni sistem, na katerem delamo v našem obrambno-raziskovalnem laboratoriju, se imenuje N.A.T.E.G, kar stoji za »natezni avtomatsko-taktični eruptor granat«. Kot za penis imamo tudi za nateg že izdelane prve inženirske skice; kot rečeno, pa ga bomo do konca razvili šele, ko dobimo od države nakazanih približno sto milijonov evrov, kolikor naj bi veljala fabrikacija tega orožja.  Za osnovo smo si zamislili rogovilo, najbolje bukovo, ki jo prirežemo v obliki črke ipsilon. Na zgornji tretjini obeh krajših delov rogovile, z visokotehnološkim »3D« rezkalnikom oziroma pipcem urežemo dva utora, v katera pritrdimo gumico, ki so jo mati zavrgli s kozarca vloženih hrušk. To orožje, v Natovi terminologiji imenovano »launcher« ali »frača« po domače, je enkratno predvsem zaradi velike prilagodljivosti kalibra posameznega izstrelka. Lahko izstreljuje gramoz kalibra »poljčanar«, posamezne prodnike, pa vse do klasičnega Natovega kalibra 7,62 mm. Edino, kjer bomo morali biti pazljivi, in Damir Črnčec bo pri tem kot nadzornik Dovosa še posebej natančen, je dvojna raba vojaških projektov, sprejetih v program. Kot vemo, evropske države, tako tudi Slovenija, ne bodo slepo in po ameriškem diktatu investirale v obrambno industrijo, ki ne bo znala početi nič drugega, kot ubijati sovražnika; oziroma kot se vidi v Združenih državah, pobijati naključne mimoidoče. Ob vojaški rabi morajo projekti imeti vsaj nekakšno funkcijo tudi v civilni sferi, in na srečo ga naša projekta P.E.N.I.S  in N.A.T.E.G imata. Ko bodo ostali vojaški projekti, ki se prav v tem trenutku globalno rojevajo v podobnih državnih podjetjih, kot je Dovos, realizirani … Se pravi, ko bodo damirji črnčeci po vsem planetu odlično opravili svoje delo in mirnodobski denar transformirali v ne-mirnodobskega ter posledično požgali civilizacijo …  Takrat bo mogoče s penisom zalezovati mamuta in ga ob sodelovanju vsega plemena tudi upleniti. In ko bomo mamutovine siti Slovenci zrli v nočno nebo, bomo lahko, kot dvojno rabo, vrhovnemu nategu posvetili plemensko daritev.  

UIzi prevedeno je lahko hitro UIzi zgrešeno, je osrednje sporočilo jezikovne kampanje, ki se začenja ob mednarodnem dnevu prevajanja. Raba umetne inteligence je sicer lahka in enostavna, vendar je lahko tudi nezanesljiva. Sedem strokovnih združenj in tri slovenske univerze bodo v mesecu oktobru javnost opozarjali na izzive sodobnega časa, pomembno vlogo in vidnost jezikovnih poklicev ter družbeno odgovornost za razvoj slovenskega jezika, kulture in prihodnje jezikovne politike. Kako bodo bili ta boj, ki se včasih zdi kot boj z mlini na veter? Gostji sta Tanja Petrič, predsednica Društva slovenskih književnih prevajalcev, in Nataša Hirci z Oddelka za prevajalstvo na Filozofski fakulteti Univerze v Ljubljani.

In the discussion regarding whether an improper intention, such as intending to eat or burn the meat outside its designated time, or to place the blood at the wrong time, during the act of dipping the finger into the blood of a sin offering brought on the inner altar renders the offering pigul, the Gemara presents two contradictory braitot. This suggests a tannaitic dispute over whether dipping the finger is akin to conveying the blood to the altar in a standard sacrifice. Initially, the Gemara attempts to resolve the contradiction by aligning the braitot with the views of Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis. According to this approach, both agree that dipping is equivalent to conveying the blood, but Rabbi Shimon holds that conveying is not an essential avoda (sacrificial service). However, this resolution is rejected, since Rabbi Shimon maintains that pigul does not apply to sacrifices whose blood is placed on the inner altar. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that the two braitot refer to different types of sin offerings - one brought on the inner altar and one on the outer altar. Dipping is essential for the inner altar offering, as the verse states, “and he dips his finger,” and therefore an improper intention during this act would render the offering pigul. In contrast, the outer altar offering does not require dipping, as the verse merely states, “the kohen takes the blood,” without mentioning dipping. Reish Lakish explains that according to Rabbi Shimon, an improper intention regarding the type of sacrifice during the act of conveying the blood to the inner altar would disqualify the offering, since the animal cannot be slaughtered adjacent to the inner altar, making the act of conveying necessary. This seems to contradict Rabbi Shimon’s position that an “outside its time” intention does not render such a sacrifice pigul, which would imply that a mistaken intention regarding the type of sacrifice should also not disqualify it. Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Chanina resolves this by clarifying that Rabbi Shimon agrees that an “outside its time” intention disqualifies the sacrifice, even though it does not render it pigul. The Gemara further derives that an “outside its place” intention would also disqualify this type of offering. Rava explores Rabbi Shimon’s position, as interpreted by Reish Lakish, regarding conveying the blood to the inner altar as being essential. He considers various scenarios depending on whether Rabbi Shimon accepts other positions. For instance, if Rabbi Shimon agrees with his son’s view that kodshei kodashim may be slaughtered between the ulam and the altar, then improper intention would only disqualify the sacrifice from the entrance to the ulam, since slaughtering adjacent to the ulam is permissible. Rava also discusses the case of carrying frankincense from the shulchan (table) in the sanctuary to burn it on the outer altar. The point at which intention disqualifies the offering depends on differing views regarding the sanctity of the ulam and the azara. Abaye asks Rav Chisda whether the blood is disqualified if conveyed by a non-kohen. Rav Chisda responds that it is not, citing a verse as proof. However, Rav Sheshet presents a braita suggesting the opposite. Raba and Rav Yosef argue that the answer depends on the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis. Abaye challenges their position, and Ulla quotes Rabbi Elazar’s ruling that even Rabbi Shimon would disqualify conveying by a non-kohen. Another question arises: Is conveying without moving one’s feet considered valid conveying? After three unsuccessful attempts to prove this from various sources, Ulla rules in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that valid conveying requires movement of the feet.

In the discussion regarding whether an improper intention, such as intending to eat or burn the meat outside its designated time, or to place the blood at the wrong time, during the act of dipping the finger into the blood of a sin offering brought on the inner altar renders the offering pigul, the Gemara presents two contradictory braitot. This suggests a tannaitic dispute over whether dipping the finger is akin to conveying the blood to the altar in a standard sacrifice. Initially, the Gemara attempts to resolve the contradiction by aligning the braitot with the views of Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis. According to this approach, both agree that dipping is equivalent to conveying the blood, but Rabbi Shimon holds that conveying is not an essential avoda (sacrificial service). However, this resolution is rejected, since Rabbi Shimon maintains that pigul does not apply to sacrifices whose blood is placed on the inner altar. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that the two braitot refer to different types of sin offerings - one brought on the inner altar and one on the outer altar. Dipping is essential for the inner altar offering, as the verse states, “and he dips his finger,” and therefore an improper intention during this act would render the offering pigul. In contrast, the outer altar offering does not require dipping, as the verse merely states, “the kohen takes the blood,” without mentioning dipping. Reish Lakish explains that according to Rabbi Shimon, an improper intention regarding the type of sacrifice during the act of conveying the blood to the inner altar would disqualify the offering, since the animal cannot be slaughtered adjacent to the inner altar, making the act of conveying necessary. This seems to contradict Rabbi Shimon’s position that an “outside its time” intention does not render such a sacrifice pigul, which would imply that a mistaken intention regarding the type of sacrifice should also not disqualify it. Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Chanina resolves this by clarifying that Rabbi Shimon agrees that an “outside its time” intention disqualifies the sacrifice, even though it does not render it pigul. The Gemara further derives that an “outside its place” intention would also disqualify this type of offering. Rava explores Rabbi Shimon’s position, as interpreted by Reish Lakish, regarding conveying the blood to the inner altar as being essential. He considers various scenarios depending on whether Rabbi Shimon accepts other positions. For instance, if Rabbi Shimon agrees with his son’s view that kodshei kodashim may be slaughtered between the ulam and the altar, then improper intention would only disqualify the sacrifice from the entrance to the ulam, since slaughtering adjacent to the ulam is permissible. Rava also discusses the case of carrying frankincense from the shulchan (table) in the sanctuary to burn it on the outer altar. The point at which intention disqualifies the offering depends on differing views regarding the sanctity of the ulam and the azara. Abaye asks Rav Chisda whether the blood is disqualified if conveyed by a non-kohen. Rav Chisda responds that it is not, citing a verse as proof. However, Rav Sheshet presents a braita suggesting the opposite. Raba and Rav Yosef argue that the answer depends on the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis. Abaye challenges their position, and Ulla quotes Rabbi Elazar’s ruling that even Rabbi Shimon would disqualify conveying by a non-kohen. Another question arises: Is conveying without moving one’s feet considered valid conveying? After three unsuccessful attempts to prove this from various sources, Ulla rules in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that valid conveying requires movement of the feet.

The Special Quality of the Arava, Especially as the Arava of Hoshanah Rabbah

In trying to answer whether a burnt offering can atone for positive commandments neglected after the animal was designated (between designation and slaughter) or only for those neglected before designation, the Gemara cites Rabbi Shimon. He explains that the reason two goats are offered on Shavuot is that the second goat atones for impurities in the Temple that occurred after the first goat was offered. If both goats were designated at the same time, this would support the view that an offering can atone for sins committed after designation. A difficulty is raised with that proof because it assumes simultaneous designation; perhaps the second goat needs to be designated only after the first was offered. That possibility is hard to accept because the verse does not indicate a later designation. Rav Papa also rejects the proof, suggesting instead that the court could stipulate from the outset that the second goat will only become sanctified after the blood of the first goat is offered. Two objections are raised to Rav Papa’s reply. First, Rabbi Shimon does not accept the court's stipulations—he therefore would not recognize a court’s postponement of consecration, as shown by his ruling that animals reserved for one year cannot serve as the Tamid in the following year. Second, Rabbi Yirmeya’s question about whether the second goat can cover impurity that occurred between the sprinkling of the first goat’s blood and the second’s implies it was understood that the goat covers from the time of designation. That second difficulty is, however, resolved, and the original question remains unanswered. There is a dispute between Raba and Rav Chisda about a toda (thanksgiving offering) brought on behalf of another who needs to bring a toda. Each presents his reasoning; Raba cites a baraita in support, but his proof is rejected. Rava gives six rulings about issues of incorrect intention during the sacrificial rites and adds a seventh about the nature of the olah (burnt offering). He teaches that the olah does not itself provide atonement; rather, it is a gift to God offered after a person has repented for not fulfilling a positive commandment. If the person has not yet repented, the offering provides no atonement, for the sacrifices of the wicked are despicable. The Mishna states that both a sin offering and a Pesach sacrifice brought for the sake of the wrong sacrifice or for the wrong person are disqualified. The Gemara first adduces the source for this rule for Pesach and then for the sin offering.  

In trying to answer whether a burnt offering can atone for positive commandments neglected after the animal was designated (between designation and slaughter) or only for those neglected before designation, the Gemara cites Rabbi Shimon. He explains that the reason two goats are offered on Shavuot is that the second goat atones for impurities in the Temple that occurred after the first goat was offered. If both goats were designated at the same time, this would support the view that an offering can atone for sins committed after designation. A difficulty is raised with that proof because it assumes simultaneous designation; perhaps the second goat needs to be designated only after the first was offered. That possibility is hard to accept because the verse does not indicate a later designation. Rav Papa also rejects the proof, suggesting instead that the court could stipulate from the outset that the second goat will only become sanctified after the blood of the first goat is offered. Two objections are raised to Rav Papa’s reply. First, Rabbi Shimon does not accept the court's stipulations—he therefore would not recognize a court’s postponement of consecration, as shown by his ruling that animals reserved for one year cannot serve as the Tamid in the following year. Second, Rabbi Yirmeya’s question about whether the second goat can cover impurity that occurred between the sprinkling of the first goat’s blood and the second’s implies it was understood that the goat covers from the time of designation. That second difficulty is, however, resolved, and the original question remains unanswered. There is a dispute between Raba and Rav Chisda about a toda (thanksgiving offering) brought on behalf of another who needs to bring a toda. Each presents his reasoning; Raba cites a baraita in support, but his proof is rejected. Rava gives six rulings about issues of incorrect intention during the sacrificial rites and adds a seventh about the nature of the olah (burnt offering). He teaches that the olah does not itself provide atonement; rather, it is a gift to God offered after a person has repented for not fulfilling a positive commandment. If the person has not yet repented, the offering provides no atonement, for the sacrifices of the wicked are despicable. The Mishna states that both a sin offering and a Pesach sacrifice brought for the sake of the wrong sacrifice or for the wrong person are disqualified. The Gemara first adduces the source for this rule for Pesach and then for the sin offering.  

Kamfanin Dangote ya fara aikin rarraba man fetur daga matatarsa zuwa sassan Najeriya domin saukakawa jama'a, a dai-dai lokacin da manyan dilallan man fetur ke adawa da matakin. Dashi Ibrahim Idris ya tattauna da masanin tattalin arziki, Alahji Isa Tafida Mafindi a kan yadda talakawa zasu ci gajiyar wannan shirin. Danna alamar saurare domin jin cikakkiyar tattaunawar.

Ta teden poteka mednarodna kampanja, katere namen je ozaveščanje javnosti o varni uporabi zdravil, ki se izdajajo brez recepta. Raba teh zdravil mora biti premišljena, priporočljivo pa jih je jemati le krajši čas, pravi mag. Barbara Razinger, vodja Sektorja za preskrbo z zdravili in posebna dovoljenja pri Javni agenciji RS za zdravila in medicinske pripomočke.

Before one learns Torah in the morning, he must first recite Birkot Ha'Torah. The Gemara cites different opinions as to which particular subjects within the broad corpus of Torah may not be studied before the recitation of Birkot Ha'Torah. Rav Huna maintained that only the study of Tanach requires Birkot Ha'Torah; in his view, one may study anything else before reciting Birkot Ha'Torah in the morning. Rabbi Elazar ruled that both Tanach and Midrash require Birkot Ha'Torah, because the Midrash explains the verses of the Tanach. The next opinion brought is that of Rabbi Yohanan, who held that even the study of Mishna must be preceded by Birkot Ha'Torah. However, Halacha follows the final view brought by the Gemara – that of Raba, who asserted that even Gemara requires Birkot Ha'Torah. Accordingly, the Rambam and Shulhan Aruch write that one must recite Birkot Ha'Torah before studying either Tanach or any part of Torah She'be'al Peh (the oral law). Although the Shulhan Aruch does not specify the study of Midrash, the Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles of Cracow, 1520-1572) adds that Midrash also requires the recitation of Birkot Ha'Torah. The Peri Hadash (Rav Hizkiya Da Silva, 1659-1698) writes that the Shulhan Aruch does not disagree with the Rama on this point, even though he did not specifically mention Midrash. The Aruch Ha'shulhan (Rav Yehiel Michel Epstein of Nevardok, 1829-1908) notes the possibility of restricting this requirement to areas related to Halacha. It is possible, he writes, that Birkot Ha'Torah is required only before the study of texts that form the basis of Halacha. The Sages infer Halachot from the verses, and these inferences and their applications are discussed, elucidated and debated in the Midrash, Mishna and Gemara – and it might be for this reason that these texts are specified as the material requiring Birkot Ha'Torah. If so, then one would be permitted to study non-halachic portions of the Torah – such as the stories in Midrashic texts, Aggadic portions of the Gemara, and Zohar – before reciting Birkot Ha'Torah in the morning. The Aruch Ha'shulhan remains uncertain about this matter. By contrast, the Kaf Ha'haim Sofer (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939) writes that the study of the Zohar requires Birkot Ha'Torah. He does not explain the reason for this ruling, but we may presume that he equated the study of Zohar with the study of Gemara, and, moreover, we occasionally determine practical Halacha based on teachings in the Zohar. The final Halacha is that even the study of non-halachic texts such as the Midrash and Zohar requires Birkot Ha'Torah. The study of works of Mussar also requires Birkot Ha'Torah, because these works are based upon Torah sources. Texts such as Mesilat Yesharim and Michtab Me'Eliyahu, which guide and instruct how to live a religious life, are rooted entirely in Torah, and so they certainly qualify as parts of Torah requiring the recitation of Birkot Ha'Torah. This applies to works of Hassidic teachings, as well. In principle, biographies of Sadikim, or story books that tell about the lives of great Sages, may be read before Birkot Ha'Torah, because reading these stories – despite being very valuable – does not qualify as the study of Torah. In practice, however, books about great Rabbis almost invariably contain Torah insights which they taught, and so they require Birkot Ha'Torah. One is not required to recite Birkot Ha'Torah before studying general subjects, even those subjects which have great value and are important to learn. For example, one must study math in order to properly understand certain sections of the Gemara, such as those which deal with geometry (e.g. Sukka, Erubin and Kil'ayim). There are texts which address the dimensions and layout of the Bet Ha'mikdash which similarly cannot be understood without a background in mathematics. Scientific knowledge, too, is critically important for the understanding of certain sections of the Talmud – such as the Gemara's discussion about the volume of wine which a Nazir must drink to be liable for violating his vow, which touches upon the subject of volume displacement. This issue requires an understanding of how displacement works, and how the density of wine becomes a factor. One cannot understand the portions of the Talmud that deal with the Jewish calendar without basic knowledge of astronomy. An understanding of modern technology, too, is necessary for learning how Halacha applies in our time, and indeed, Hacham Ovadia Yosef studied the mechanics of boilers in order to determine the relevant Halachot. Nevertheless, the study of these subjects does not require Birkot Ha'Torah, since they are not actual Torah, but rather background information to help in the study of Torah. The Rambam writes that subjects such as mathematics and science are the "chefs" and "maidservants" of Torah, meaning, they are necessary for the understanding of Torah, but are not part of Torah. Therefore, one is not required to recite Birkot Ha'Torah before studying general subjects. Summary: One may not learn any Torah subject before reciting Birkot Ha'Torah in the morning. This includes Tanach, Midrash, Mishna, Gemara, Halachic texts, Zohar, Mussar and Hassidut. Biographies of Sadikim, too, require Birkot Ha'Torah since they usually incorporate Torah insights by the Sages whose lives and legacy they present. Birkot Ha'Torah is not required before the study of non-Torah subjects, even those which are necessary to learn to properly understand Torah.

Siyum Masechet Horayot and Seder Nezikin is sponsored by the Tannenbaum family in loving memory of their beloved mother/grandmother Ruth Zemsky z"l, Raizel bat Chaya Kayla, on her 9th yahrzeit on 23rd of Elul. "Marking the completion of Nezikin, a seder that is focused on bein adam l’chavero- both in the building and healing of society, aptly reflects the life she lead. She was a paragon of sensitivity and taking care of "the other", often those unseen, in community, work and home. Her example continues to inspire us all. Yehi zichra baruch." A braita outlines the protocols for showing respect to the Nasi, the Av Beit Din, and the Chacham—each accorded honor in a distinct manner. This differentiation was instituted by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (the Nasi) on a day when Rabbi Natan (Av Beit Din) and Rabbi Meir (the Chacham) were absent from the Beit Midrash. Feeling slighted, they conspired to remove Rabban Shimon from his position. However, their plan was overheard by Rabbi Yaakov ben Karshi and ultimately thwarted. Upon discovering their plot, Rabban Shimon expelled them from the Beit Midrash. In response, they began submitting challenging questions into the study hall. When the students inside couldn’t answer, they would send in the correct answers. Rabbi Yosi eventually intervened, arguing that it was absurd for Torah to remain outside while the students sat within. Rabban Shimon agreed to reinstate them—but imposed a penalty: the Torah they taught would no longer be attributed to them by name. Thus, Rabbi Meir’s teachings were transmitted as “acherim” (“others”), and Rabbi Natan’s as “yesh omrim” (“some say”). Later, they both dreamt that they should seek reconciliation with Rabban Shimon. Only Rabbi Natan acted on the dream. But Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was not exactly willing to reconcile. A generation later, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was teaching his son, Rabbi Shimon, a teaching of Rabbi Meir, referring to it as “acherim omrim.” When his son asked why he didn’t cite Rabbi Meir directly, Rabbi Yehuda explained that these sages had once tried to undermine their family’s honor. Rabbi Shimon replied that they were long deceased and had failed in their attempt. Rabbi Yehuda relented and agreed to cite Rabbi Meir—though still indirectly, saying “They say in the name of Rabbi Meir.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and other sages also debated a broader question: is it better to be a sinai - one with vast Torah knowledge, or an oker Harim - one with powerful analytical skills who can “uproot mountains”? Rav Yosef was a sinai, while Raba was an oker Harim. Although the scholars in Israel recommended Rav Yosef for leadership, he humbly deferred to Raba. Raba led the yeshiva for 22 years, and only after his passing did Rav Yosef assume the role. During Raba’s tenure, Rav Yosef refrained from receiving honor out of respect. In another case, Abaye, Rava, Rabbi Zeira, and Raba bar Matna were studying together and needed a leader. Abaye was chosen, as his teachings remained unrefuted, unlike the others. The Gemara concludes with a question: who was greater—Rabbi Zeira or Raba bar Rav Matna? Each had unique strengths, and the matter is left unresolved with the classic Talmudic closure: teiku.

Siyum Masechet Horayot and Seder Nezikin is sponsored by the Tannenbaum family in loving memory of their beloved mother/grandmother Ruth Zemsky z"l, Raizel bat Chaya Kayla, on her 9th yahrzeit on 23rd of Elul. "Marking the completion of Nezikin, a seder that is focused on bein adam l’chavero- both in the building and healing of society, aptly reflects the life she lead. She was a paragon of sensitivity and taking care of "the other", often those unseen, in community, work and home. Her example continues to inspire us all. Yehi zichra baruch." A braita outlines the protocols for showing respect to the Nasi, the Av Beit Din, and the Chacham—each accorded honor in a distinct manner. This differentiation was instituted by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (the Nasi) on a day when Rabbi Natan (Av Beit Din) and Rabbi Meir (the Chacham) were absent from the Beit Midrash. Feeling slighted, they conspired to remove Rabban Shimon from his position. However, their plan was overheard by Rabbi Yaakov ben Karshi and ultimately thwarted. Upon discovering their plot, Rabban Shimon expelled them from the Beit Midrash. In response, they began submitting challenging questions into the study hall. When the students inside couldn’t answer, they would send in the correct answers. Rabbi Yosi eventually intervened, arguing that it was absurd for Torah to remain outside while the students sat within. Rabban Shimon agreed to reinstate them—but imposed a penalty: the Torah they taught would no longer be attributed to them by name. Thus, Rabbi Meir’s teachings were transmitted as “acherim” (“others”), and Rabbi Natan’s as “yesh omrim” (“some say”). Later, they both dreamt that they should seek reconciliation with Rabban Shimon. Only Rabbi Natan acted on the dream. But Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was not exactly willing to reconcile. A generation later, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was teaching his son, Rabbi Shimon, a teaching of Rabbi Meir, referring to it as “acherim omrim.” When his son asked why he didn’t cite Rabbi Meir directly, Rabbi Yehuda explained that these sages had once tried to undermine their family’s honor. Rabbi Shimon replied that they were long deceased and had failed in their attempt. Rabbi Yehuda relented and agreed to cite Rabbi Meir—though still indirectly, saying “They say in the name of Rabbi Meir.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and other sages also debated a broader question: is it better to be a sinai - one with vast Torah knowledge, or an oker Harim - one with powerful analytical skills who can “uproot mountains”? Rav Yosef was a sinai, while Raba was an oker Harim. Although the scholars in Israel recommended Rav Yosef for leadership, he humbly deferred to Raba. Raba led the yeshiva for 22 years, and only after his passing did Rav Yosef assume the role. During Raba’s tenure, Rav Yosef refrained from receiving honor out of respect. In another case, Abaye, Rava, Rabbi Zeira, and Raba bar Matna were studying together and needed a leader. Abaye was chosen, as his teachings remained unrefuted, unlike the others. The Gemara concludes with a question: who was greater—Rabbi Zeira or Raba bar Rav Matna? Each had unique strengths, and the matter is left unresolved with the classic Talmudic closure: teiku.

Manoma a Najeriya na kokawa kan ƙarancin samun taimako daga gwamnati wajen sauƙaƙa musu ayyukan noma. Ƙorafi na baya bayan nan a Najeriyar shi ne jinkirin raba wasu kayayyakin noma ciki har da motocin Tantan aƙalla dubu biyu da gwamnatin Najeriyar ta sanar da sayowa yau fiye da watanni biyu, yayin da a gefe guda tuni daminar bana ta yi nisa. Kan wannan al'amari Nura Ado Suleiman ya tattauna da Alhaji Muhd Magaji, Sakataren tsare tsare na ƙungiyar manoman Najeriya.

In der letzten Episode der diesjährigen Saisonvorschau blickt Yannick mit Kai Bieler auf die anstehende Spielzeit von RaBa Leipzig.

Kelly Sepelyak is a Silicon Valley native driven by a passion for blending communications and technology to fuel innovation. As an Executive Assistant at RABA, she plays a key role in optimizing operations, leading impactful outreach efforts, and building meaningful connections within the community. Kelly is deeply committed to advancing accessibility and ensuring public services truly reflect the needs of those they serve.Tune in to discover how Kelly and other young changemakers are creating space to grow alongside their downtown—and how you can be part of the movement.

When there's hasra and you make a shvua what's the punishment,and Raba when your kofer against eidim your patur from a korban,and Reb yochanan that shvua kneged shtar is patur

Regarding an oath on a deposit, Rav Kahana questions: if witnesses warned the person before taking the oath, that in the event they are lying, they will receive lashes, will they receive lashes in addition to a sacrifice or in place of the sacrifice? Several attempts are made to answer his question from various sources, but none are conclusive. Raba then challenges Rav Kahana's question and suggests that there can never be such a case because if there are witnesses to warn, then they must also be witnesses to the act in which case the denial is irrelevant as the witnesses can make the person pay, regardless of their denial. The Gemara then attempts to prove and then disprove this assumption of Raba that if there are witnesses, one cannot be obligated for an oath of deposit. Only from the last source do they succeed in conclusively disproving this assumption. Is an oath of deposit relevant in a case relating to land?

Public transit in Redding is getting a major upgrade. In this episode, we talk with Redding Area Bus Authority (RABA) Transit General Manager John Andoh and EA Kelly Sepelyak about the many new services and innovations transforming how people move around Shasta County.From free shuttles to the Redding Rodeo and discounted rides to Colt 45s games, to the return of the summer Beach Bus and a brand-new Uber partnership — RABA is making transit more accessible, convenient, and connected than ever before. Riders can now plan and pay for trips through the Moovit app, combining RABA buses with scooters, e-bikes, Uber rides, and on-demand service.We also look ahead to RABA's plans for a zero-emission fleet and explore how public transit is being reimagined to better serve residents, commuters, and visitors alike.Whether you're a daily rider or new to public transit, this episode is packed with insights on how RABA is building a smarter, more flexible transportation system for our region.Learn more about RABA >>Contact the City of Redding Podcast Team Email us at podcast@cityofredding.org Connect with us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram Visit the City of Redding website Love the podcast? The best way to spread the word is to rate and review!

Regarding an oath on a deposit, Rav Kahana questions: if witnesses warned the person before taking the oath, that in the event they are lying, they will receive lashes, will they receive lashes in addition to a sacrifice or in place of the sacrifice? Several attempts are made to answer his question from various sources, but none are conclusive. Raba then challenges Rav Kahana's question and suggests that there can never be such a case because if there are witnesses to warn, then they must also be witnesses to the act in which case the denial is irrelevant as the witnesses can make the person pay, regardless of their denial. The Gemara then attempts to prove and then disprove this assumption of Raba that if there are witnesses, one cannot be obligated for an oath of deposit. Only from the last source do they succeed in conclusively disproving this assumption. Is an oath of deposit relevant in a case relating to land?

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.

Erstmals verpasst Raba Leipzig den Europapokal. Mit Kai Bieler analysieren wir die enttäuschende Spielzeit: Kaderzusammenstellung, fehlende Entwicklung, Führungswechsel, strategielose Komfortzone und warum der Verein vor einem XXL-Umbruch steht.

Raba aprovechó el rechace del guardameta de Las Palmas y tras la revisión en el VAR, el gol subió al marcador.

Za taborišči v Gonarsu in na Rabu sicer vemo, ni pa gotovo, da tudi vemo, kaj natanko so Slovenke in Slovenci tam doživeliVedno se bomo spominjali, so v dneh, ko smo obeleževali 80. obletnico konca druge svetovne vojne, malodane v en glas ponavljali voditelji držav, ki so se borile na strani velike, zmagovite antifašistične koalicije. A česa natanko se bomo spominjali? Junaštva naših dedov in babic? – Gotovo. In zasluženo tudi. A, priznajmo, tega se je menda vedno lažje, prijetneje spominjati kakor gorja, ki ga je povzročilo fašistično barbarstvo, gorja, na katerega je bilo potem treba odgovoriti z junaštvom. Pa vendar se zdi, da današnji svet še bolj kot spomin na junaške zmage potrebuje kolikor mučen toliko streznjujoč spomin na koncentracijska taborišča, na sumarne eksekucije, na posilstva, na mučenja, na stradež, na suženjsko delo, na popolno dehumanizacijo. Te nelahke naloge smo se lotili v tokratni Intelekti, ko smo – pars pro toto – spregovorili o izkušnji Slovenk in Slovencev v italijanskih fašističnih taboriščih. Pri tem sta nam pomagali izvrstni poznavalki te problematike, zgodovinarki dr. Marta Verginella s Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani in dr. Urška Strle z Inštituta za kulturno zgodovino ZRC SAZU ter Znanstveno-raziskovalnega središča Koper, ki sta v sodelovanju z zgodovinarjem dr. Otom Lutharjem pred dvema letoma in pol pri založbi ZRC objavili obsežno študijo Užaljeno maščevanje : spomin na italijanska fašistična taborišča, v kateri so zbrana in analizirana pričevanja poslednjih preživelih z Raba, Gonarsa in drugih krajev groze, ki jih je za Slovenke in Slovence med vojno vzpostavil italijanski fašizem. V pogovoru z gostjama smo preverjali, zakaj so bili vsi ti ljudje internirani, kaj je pravzaprav pomenilo potopiti se v temo fašističnega taborišča, koliko se jih od tam ni nikoli vrnilo, kaj so tisti, ki so nekako vendarle preživeli, potem morali nositi na svojih plečih skoz življenje in kakšno mesto njihova izkušnja zavzema v našem današnjem kolektivnem zgodovinskem spominu. Foto: risba »Gonars« Nikolaja Pirnata je del notranje grafične opreme knjige Užaljeno maščevanje, izsek (Goran Dekleva)

Study Guide Shevuot 11 Today's daf is sponsored by the Pittsburgh daf yomi group for a refuah shleima for Rabbi Amy Bardack, haRav Ahuva bat Liba who is having surgery today. "Wishing our organizer and leader a speedy recovery." In support of Rabbi Yochanan's ruling that leftover animals designated for communal offerings can be redeemed at the end of the year, Raba brings an example of incense which has inherent sanctity and can be redeemed at the end of the year. Rav Chisda disagrees with Raba as he holds that incense does not have inherent sanctity until a later stage when it is brought into a sanctified vessel just before being offered on the altar. Raba proves his position that it has inherent sanctity.  The Gemara then returns to Rav Chisda's original question of how can one redeem items with inherent sanctity. Raba answers that the court stipulates at the beginning of the year that any animals not needed will be only sanctified for their value. Abaye raises a difficulty from other communal offerings that cannot be redeemed if lost and replaced and then found. However, Raba answers that the stipulation is for typical, not atypical cases. Why, then, can the red heifer be redeemed in certain circumstances? The Gemara concludes that a stipulation is made because of its high value.  Abaye raises a further difficulty from our Mishna, as Rabbi Shimon answers a question about whether animals designated for one sacrifice that are leftover can be used for another with a particular answer instead of answering that the court stipulated such, as Raba would have said. Raba answers that Rabbi Shimon doesn't agree with the rabbis that the court can stipulate. Rabbi Yochanan and Raba's approach is based only on the rabbis' position.   

Study Guide Shevuot 11 Today's daf is sponsored by the Pittsburgh daf yomi group for a refuah shleima for Rabbi Amy Bardack, haRav Ahuva bat Liba who is having surgery today. "Wishing our organizer and leader a speedy recovery." In support of Rabbi Yochanan's ruling that leftover animals designated for communal offerings can be redeemed at the end of the year, Raba brings an example of incense which has inherent sanctity and can be redeemed at the end of the year. Rav Chisda disagrees with Raba as he holds that incense does not have inherent sanctity until a later stage when it is brought into a sanctified vessel just before being offered on the altar. Raba proves his position that it has inherent sanctity.  The Gemara then returns to Rav Chisda's original question of how can one redeem items with inherent sanctity. Raba answers that the court stipulates at the beginning of the year that any animals not needed will be only sanctified for their value. Abaye raises a difficulty from other communal offerings that cannot be redeemed if lost and replaced and then found. However, Raba answers that the stipulation is for typical, not atypical cases. Why, then, can the red heifer be redeemed in certain circumstances? The Gemara concludes that a stipulation is made because of its high value.  Abaye raises a further difficulty from our Mishna, as Rabbi Shimon answers a question about whether animals designated for one sacrifice that are leftover can be used for another with a particular answer instead of answering that the court stipulated such, as Raba would have said. Raba answers that Rabbi Shimon doesn't agree with the rabbis that the court can stipulate. Rabbi Yochanan and Raba's approach is based only on the rabbis' position.   

Study Guide Shevuot 10 This week's learning is sponsored by Moshe Silver in loving memory of Rebbitzen Miriam Maxine Elkins who passed away on Yom haAtzmaut. "Her love of Torah, the Jewish people, and the land and State of Israel was unsurpassed. Her loving family - Rabbi Dov Pearetz Elkins and her children - bear the lasting imprint of the passion she brought to everything she did, as do all of us who loved her." This week's learning is sponsored by Vicky Harari in loving memory of her father Abraham Eckstein. "He had a smile that could light up the room. He taught me what I know about love. As a Holocaust survivor, he taught me gratitude and resilience something that I have been relying on more today than ever." The Gemara continues to extrapolate verses to explain the basis of the opinions of Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Shimon in the Mishna regarding which sacrifices do each of the communal sin offerings atone for. Ulla explains in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that the extra sheep left at the end of the year that were designated for the Tamid (daily) sacrifice, but were not needed, are redeemed and repurchased with money from that next year's funds. When Raba explained this halakha, Rav Chisda raised a difficulty - how can an item that is sanctified with kedushat haguf  be redeemed? Raba responds by bringing an example from the incense, which is sanctified and can be redeemed. However, this is rejected as the sanctity of the incense is kedushat damim, its value is sanctified, not kedushat haguf.

Study Guide Shevuot 10 This week's learning is sponsored by Moshe Silver in loving memory of Rebbitzen Miriam Maxine Elkins who passed away on Yom haAtzmaut. "Her love of Torah, the Jewish people, and the land and State of Israel was unsurpassed. Her loving family - Rabbi Dov Pearetz Elkins and her children - bear the lasting imprint of the passion she brought to everything she did, as do all of us who loved her." This week's learning is sponsored by Vicky Harari in loving memory of her father Abraham Eckstein. "He had a smile that could light up the room. He taught me what I know about love. As a Holocaust survivor, he taught me gratitude and resilience something that I have been relying on more today than ever." The Gemara continues to extrapolate verses to explain the basis of the opinions of Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Shimon in the Mishna regarding which sacrifices do each of the communal sin offerings atone for. Ulla explains in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that the extra sheep left at the end of the year that were designated for the Tamid (daily) sacrifice, but were not needed, are redeemed and repurchased with money from that next year's funds. When Raba explained this halakha, Rav Chisda raised a difficulty - how can an item that is sanctified with kedushat haguf  be redeemed? Raba responds by bringing an example from the incense, which is sanctified and can be redeemed. However, this is rejected as the sanctity of the incense is kedushat damim, its value is sanctified, not kedushat haguf.

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.

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.

Los jugadores del Leganés realizaron una gran jugada colectiva que culminaron Óscar Rodríguez asistiendo y Raba marcando el segundo gol a placer para darle la vuelta al marcador.

Le roba la cartera Raba a Natan al borde de su propia área, emprende la aventura en solitario hasta perderla en la del Betis ante Diego Llorente, no se da por vencido, la vuelve a recuperar y cruza con la derecha ante Adrián.

Centro de Juan Cruz desde la derecha que Raba, adelantándose a la defensa del Betis, remata a menos de un metro de Adrián para firmar el segundo.

Presentation of Relatives Today's daf is sponsored by Dianne Kuchar. "My love and gratitude to Rabanit Michelle for her teaching, Goldie and Debbie for their hospitality and friendship and all you dafferot/im during my wonderful time here at home in Israel, leaving today back ASAP." Today's daf is sponsored by Vitti Rosenzweig-Kones in loving memory of her brother, Eliyahu David ben Sara and Shmuel. From where do we derive that cousins cannot testify for each other, that relatives cannot testify together for other people, and that relatives from the mother's side are disqualified as well. The verse that serves as the main source for these laws is Devarim 24:16, whose topic is capital punishment. From where do we derive that these laws apply to monetary law as well? Rav brings a list of relatives who cannot testify for him and he cannot testify for them. However, the Gemara raises a difficulty with his ruling in light of the Mishna as he forbids a second-generation relative with a third (his cousin's son) and the Mishna only listed first and second-generation relatives. Three answers are suggested - the first two are rejected. In conclusion, Rav does not hold like the Mishna but partially agrees with Rabbi Elazar's position. Rav Nachman listed relatives through one's mother-in-law - her brother and the sons of her siblings. He then explains that these cases can be found in our Mishna as the son-in-law of his sister's husband is the same relationship viewed from the other direction. Rav Ashi does the same thing with the relatives through the father-in-law. When Rav was asked if a man could testify for his stepson's wife, Rav answered that he could not. Two versions of his answer were quoted either a husband is like his wife or a wife is like her husband. Rav Huna brings a source for this from Vaykira 18:14. If the son of his mother's husband is his brother, why is it necessary to list it separately in the Mishna? Two answers are brought, each based on a different understanding of the case - is it his mother's son or her husband's son from a different wife? Rav Chisda rules that the parents of the wife can testify for the parents of the husband as they are not considered relatives. Raba bar bar Hana permits a man to testify for a woman to whom he is betrothed. However, Ravina limits his ruling and the Gemara rejects it entirely. The Mishna listed that a stepson is disqualified, but not his son and stepson. Two braitot show a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi about whether that is true for the stepson or the brother-in-law, and perhaps both. The Gemara tries to understand the position of each of them and which opinion fits with our Mishna and which opinion disagrees with our Mishna. Shmuel ruled like Rabbi Yosi. Rav Yosef thought that the ruling related to Rabbi Yosi in our Mishna was that only relatives that inherit each other are forbidden, but Abaye suggested that it could mean Rabbi Yosi above in his debate with Rabbi Yehuda.

This week's learning is sponsored by Jordana Schoor in honor of their son Saadya's marriage to Odel Perets. "Wishing them a home full of love, mazal, and Torah values." Even though it says in the Mishna that a court comprises three judges, there are exceptions. An expert can judge on his own. What determines that someone is an expert judge? Even though an expert does not need to get permission from the Nasi or Exilarch, if the Nasi or Exilarch gives him permission to judge, and he errs in a particular case, he is not obligated to compensate for the loss he caused. While it is clear that the Exilarch's permission exempt a judge ruling in Israel, but can the Nasi's (in Israel) appointment of the judge exempt the judge from liability in Babylonia? The answer is no, as learned from a story regarding Raba bar Hana who received permission from Rabbi Yehuda haNasi to rule, just as he was leaving Israel. In what cases does a judge who makes a mistake, need to pay to compensate for the loss he caused? Rabbi Yehuda haNasi also granted permission to Rav to rule as an expert, just before he went to Babylonia. However, he did not grant him the authority to permit firstborn animals to be eaten by identifying blemishes. Both Rav and Raba bar Hana were nephews of Rabbi Chiya, who was the one who asked Rabbi Yehuda haNasi to permit them both to judge. However, he called Raba the son of his brother and Rav the son of his sister, even though Rav was also the son of his brother. To explain this, the Gemara explains that Rabbi Chiya's half-brother and half-sister married each other and were Rav's parents. Another possible explanation is provided as well. Why did Rabbi Yehuda haNasi not allow Rav to permit firstborn animals? The Gemara brings two possible suggestions. The first explanation is that it was to ensure people would respect Raba bar Hana when he and Rav arrived in Babylonia, as they would see that he had the authority to do something that Rav did not. The second suggestion is that Rav was such an expert that Rabbi Yehuda haNasi was concerned he would permit certain blemishes and people would conclude on their own that blemishes that seemed similar were also permanent blemishes and incorrectly permit firstborn animals. Why did Rabbi Chiya ask Rabbi Yehuda haNasi not only to grant permission to Rav and Raba bar Hana to rule, but also to teach? An answer is brought from a story of a teacher who taught but was misunderstood and caused many people to make a mistake regarding laws of impurity. Therefore, one must also receive permission to teach only if they can teach clearly. Other stories relating to issues about teaching are brought, relating to not issuing a ruling in a city if one's teacher is nearby. Shmuel ruled that if two judges ruled in a case, their judgment would be effective, even though this is considered to be impudent. However, when mediation is done, only two judges are needed to mediate.

Únete a la comunidad #EnDefensaPropia — tenemos contenido exclusivo: talleres, mentorías con expertas y mucha gente bella www.erikadelavega.com/comunidad Mis suplementos favoritos de PaleoLife®