Podcasts about Raba

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.

Da reist die Podcast-Crew zwar dezentral, aber immerhin geschlossen nach Ulm - und dann zeigt der Club dort eine insgesamt wirklich nicht gute Leistung und verliert mit 0:1. Viel zu erzählen rund ums Spiel und zum Spiel selbst gibt es natürlich trotzdem und das tun wir in Ausgabe 364 selbstverständlich auch. Außerdem blicken wir auf die Partie gegen Regensburg voraus und widmen uns unter "Sonstiges" noch einmal dem Sexismus-Thema bei Verl gegen Essen, der Gewalt gegen Schiedsrichter:innen, den Dauerkarten bei RaBa und der Fortsetzung der Causa "Unterhaching - Rostock". Viel Spaß mit der aktuellen Ausgabe! Ausgabe 365 erscheint voraussichtlich am 23.4..

Nove droge, novi izziviV Sloveniji se je letos v vzorcu heroina pojavil izjemno nevaren sintetični opioid fentanil, ki je 50-krat močnejši od heroina in zato vzrok za predoziranja in smrti. Strah pred fentanilom v Evropski uniji je velik, v Združenih državah Amerike in v Kanadi je namreč povzročil hudo zdravstveno krizo. Kako smo na pojav te smrtonosne droge pripravljeni v Sloveniji, kakšne so še druge nove psihoaktivne snovi pri nas ter kdo in kje danes uporablja tako nove kot stare psihoaktivne snovi? Odgovore na ta vprašanja in opis primerov zastrupitev, obravnave bolnikov in toksikološko analizo novih psihoaktivnih snovi je ponudil posvet z naslovom Nove droge, novi izzivi, Toksikologija 2025, ki sta ga organizirala Sekcija za klinično toksikologijo Slovenskega zdravniškega društva in Center za klinično toksikologijo in farmakologijo Univerzitetnega kliničnega centra Ljubljana. Nekaj zanimivih poudarkov boste slišali v tokratni oddaji Intelekta, ki jo je pripravila Urška Henigman.

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.

Felix Witanto - 2 Samuel 11:1-2 (TB) Pada pergantian tahun, pada waktu raja-raja biasanya maju berperang, maka Daud menyuruh Yoab maju beserta orang-orangnya dan seluruh orang Israel. Mereka memusnahkan bani Amon dan mengepung kota Raba, sedang Daud sendiri tinggal di Yerusalem.

En un córner, Moussa Diarra extiende el brazo e impacta en la cara de Nastasic. Penalti inapelable de Dani Raba que va hacia la escuadra derecha de la portería.

Segunda pena máxima del partido a favor del Leganés, esta vez por el derribo de Sivera a Diego García, que terminó con amarilla. Lo tuvo que revisar el VAR y Dani Raba terminó marcando desde los once metros, otra vez a su derecha, aunque esta vez por bajo.

RaBa Leipzig - FC St. Pauli 2:0 Der FC St. Pauli verliert bei RaBa Leipzig. Ein Podcast über eine Auswärtsfahrt, Polizeigewalt und auch über Fußball. (Titelfoto: Yannick) Bevor es mit der Folge losgeht zuerst traurige Nachrichten: Wie viele von Euch mitbekommen haben sind mit Bernd von den Veteranen und Andy Elbe zwei langjährige Bestandteile der Fanszene des FC St. Pauli nicht mehr aus Leipzig zurückgekehrt und dort verstorben. Auch Jan ist am Wochenende von uns gegangen, er war unter anderem DJ im Jolly. Wir wünschen allen Angehörigen und Betroffenen viel Kraft. Ruhet in Frieden, ihr ...Du möchtest deinen Podcast auch kostenlos hosten und damit Geld verdienen? Dann schaue auf www.kostenlos-hosten.de und informiere dich. Dort erhältst du alle Informationen zu unseren kostenlosen Podcast-Hosting-Angeboten. kostenlos-hosten.de ist ein Produkt der Podcastbude.Gern unterstützen wir dich bei deiner Podcast-Produktion.

Tue, 11 Feb 2025 10:07:17 +0000 https://fcsp-hamburg-vds-millernton-nds.podigee.io/709-202425_sp21_nds_rbleipzig 4a5db97597430afb62f862c236af58a7 RaBa Leipzig - FC St. Pauli 2:0 Der FC St. Pauli verliert bei RaBa Leipzig. Ein Podcast über eine Auswärtsfahrt, Polizeigewalt und auch über Fußball. (Titelfoto: Yannick) Bevor es mit der Folge losgeht zuerst traurige Nachrichten: Wie viele von Euch mitbekommen haben sind mit Bernd von den Veteranen und Andy Elbe zwei langjährige Bestandteile der Fanszene des FC St. Pauli nicht mehr aus Leipzig zurückgekehrt und dort verstorben. Auch Jan ist am Wochenende von uns gegangen, er war unter anderem DJ im Jolly. Wir wünschen allen Angehörigen und Betroffenen viel Kraft. Ruhet in Frieden, ihr drei! +++ 1:0 Šeško (16. Minute, Vorarbeit Simons) +++ 2:0 Simons (35., Šeško) +++ Das Gespräch führte ich wieder mit Kai Bieler, der die Partie krankheitsbedingt nur vor dem heimischen Fernseher verfolgen konnte. Daher ziehen wir den sportlichen Teil entgegen meiner Gewohnheit vor. Wir sprechen über Abläufe, Effizienz sowie Stellungsspiel und beleuchten die wesentlichen Momente der Begegnung. An dieser Stelle sei natürlich auch wie immer auf die Analyse von Tim verwiesen: "Ohne Lösung, aber mit zwei Toren". Im "Drumherum" beschränke ich mich aus gegebenem Anlass auf die Vorfälle im Zusammenhang mit der Polizei, von denen ich zum Teil auch selbst betroffen war. Sollte es euch auch so gehen wendet euch an info@braunweissehilfe.de und/oder nutzt das Fanfeedback-Tool. Jedes Wochenende hört man von ähnlichen Vorfällen wie jenen am Sonntag. Es kann nicht sein, dass wir als Fußballfans einen Teil unserer Menschenrechte mit einem Stadionbesuch abgeben. Die braunweisse Hilfe und andere Organisationen können dabei helfen, die Geschehnisse aufzuarbeiten und hoffentlich in Zukunft zu verhindern. Allen Betroffenen gute Besserung! Nutzt Eure Fanhilfe! Achtung, kein Übergang: Am Ende der Unterhaltung blicken wir noch auf die kommenden Begegnungen sowohl von RaBa Leipzig als auch vom FC St. Pauli und es gab eine Premiere im Heimblock. Außerdem schauen wir auf die Lage der Liga. Herausgekommen sind rund 30 Minuten zur Verarbeitung der Auswärtsniederlage im Ufo. Viel Spaß beim Hören! FORZA FCSP! // Yannick Und hier noch ein Hinweis in eigener Sache: Wir haben eine Unterstützen-Seite. Und wenn ihr uns noch mehr Gutes tun wollt, dann bewertet ihr uns hier und hier. Vielen Dank! 709 full RaBa Leipzig - FC St. Pauli 2:0 no FCSP,RaBa Leipzig,RBL,RBLFCSP,Bundesliga,Saison 2024/2025,Fußball,Podcast,MillernTon Yannick Pohl

Komisija za preprečevanje korupcije ugotavlja, da je bil nakup sodne stavbe na Litijski v Ljubljani nepregleden in negospodaren. Pri pregledu so zaznali tudi več korupcijskih tveganj, zato je vladi ter ministrstvoma za pravosodje in finance izdala več priporočil. Zaznala je tudi sum storitve kaznivih dejanj, katerih storilec se preganja po uradni dolžnosti; te že obravnavajo drugi pristojni organi. Niso pa zaznali kršitev iz svojih pristojnosti, zato je KPK postopek končala. Drugi poudarki oddaje: - Generalni sekretar Nata Mark Rutte napovedal zvišanje spodnje meje izdatkov za obrambo še letos. - Raba premoga v Evropi se zmanjšuje; proizvodnja elektrike iz sončne energije prvič presegla fosilna goriva. - V ljubljanskem Cankarjevem domu z razstavo odprli spominski program ob 30-ti obletnici genocida v Srebrenici.

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.

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.

Pirotehnični izdelki so, če nam je to všeč ali ne, redni spremljevalci božično-novoletnih praznovanj. Vsako leto poročajo tudi o zasegih prepovedane pirotehnike, o rabi, ki vznemirja prebivalce, pa tudi o nesrečah in poškodbah pri uporabi pirotehnike. Kaj glede prodaje in uporabe pirotehnike določa zakon? Morajo imeti dovoljeni izdelki kakšen certifikat? Kakšne so sankcije za posedovanje prepovedanih izdelkov? Kako je s starostno omejitvijo uporabnikov? Katera so tista območja, na katerih tudi sicer dovoljenih izdelkov po zakonu ne smemo uporabljati? Gost petkovega svetovalnega servisa bo višji samostojni policijski inšpektor Daniel Jug iz Uprave uniformirane policije na Generalni policijski upravi.

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.

¡Bienvenidos y bienvenidas a un nuevo episodio de El Rincón en Colombia! Hoy tenemos la experiencia hermosa de hablar con un actor, productor, podcaster y, sobre todo, con un maravilloso ser humano ¡Juan Pablo Raba! Juan Pablo trabajó en Noticia de un secuestro, Distrito salvaje, Narcos y lanzó un podcast llamado Los Hombres Si Lloran.Conversamos sobre las vivencias que lo llevaron a descubrir la necesidad de los hombres para tener un espacio en el cual se permitan ser vulnerables y atender sus heridas.También, nos cuenta qué cambios tuvo a partir de la crisis de la mediana edad, las consecuencias de la masculinidad tóxica, cómo pasó de la obsesión por el control a disfrutar más su vida y ser más libre, así como los dramáticos momentos de su infancia que lo marcaron.Esperamos que este episodio te ayude a recordar que, seas quien seas, eres suficiente.

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.

Poslanke in poslanci se bodo po včerajšnji maratonski seji o interpelaciji finančnega ministra Klemna Boštjančiča, ki jo je ta uspešno prestal, danes med drugim posvetili zdravstvu. Tema izredne seje bodo dodatni interventni ukrepi, usmerjeni v krepitev področij pediatrije in družinske medicine, tudi podaljšanje trajanja dodatkov. Govor bo tudi o noveli zakona o lekarniški dejavnosti, ki ne predvideva več ugovora vesti za farmacevte. V oddaji tudi o tem: - Bruselj: dvostranska vprašanja naj se ne vpletajo v širitev Unije. - Srbski študenti krepijo protestno gibanje in nadaljujejo blokade. - Raba pirotehnike ostaja priljubljena, kazni pa so visoke.

Study Guide Bava Batra 155 If one says on one's deathbed that money is owed to someone - is that statement believed or should we assume that the person was only trying to make it look like their children do not have a lot of money? Would the same apply in a case where all the money was dedicated to the Temple rather than to the person's children? Can an heir claim that even though their bequeather may have said they owed someone money, they subsequently said they had paid them back? In what case are they believed and in what case are they not believed? What are the differences between a loan with a contract and a loan with an oral agreement? One who has a loan with a document can collect from liened property that has been sold, but an oral loan can only be collected from free (unsold) property. If a guarantor signs after the loan takes place, can one collect from the guarantor, and if so, are there any limitations? Is the property of a borrower liened to the creditor by Torah law or by rabbinic law? Raba and Ulla each take sides on this debate. Rav and Shmuel disagree with Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish whether an oral loan can be collected from orphans or from purchasers. Rav Papa comes up with a unique ruling - not fully matching either position, as he saw a need in society to prevent creditors from refusing to loan money and to prevent a breakdown in the market where buyers are hesitant to purchase land.  

Study Guide Bava Batra 155 If one says on one's deathbed that money is owed to someone - is that statement believed or should we assume that the person was only trying to make it look like their children do not have a lot of money? Would the same apply in a case where all the money was dedicated to the Temple rather than to the person's children? Can an heir claim that even though their bequeather may have said they owed someone money, they subsequently said they had paid them back? In what case are they believed and in what case are they not believed? What are the differences between a loan with a contract and a loan with an oral agreement? One who has a loan with a document can collect from liened property that has been sold, but an oral loan can only be collected from free (unsold) property. If a guarantor signs after the loan takes place, can one collect from the guarantor, and if so, are there any limitations? Is the property of a borrower liened to the creditor by Torah law or by rabbinic law? Raba and Ulla each take sides on this debate. Rav and Shmuel disagree with Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish whether an oral loan can be collected from orphans or from purchasers. Rav Papa comes up with a unique ruling - not fully matching either position, as he saw a need in society to prevent creditors from refusing to loan money and to prevent a breakdown in the market where buyers are hesitant to purchase land.  

Rava and Rav made suggestions to scribes how to avoid writing documents that could raise suspicion of not being fully truthful. Rava did not allow a creditor to trade in promissory notes of large amounts to be divided in half, or two notes to be combined into one for the combined amount, as there is concern for deceit. Rav Ashi did not permit a credit even to trade a promissory note for a large amount into a smaller amount as also that could be used to cheat the borrower. If two brothers inherited an item, such as a bathhouse or an olive press that was more useful to one than the other, as one was wealthy and had more household members or more produce, can the poor brother have a claim on the rich brother? On what does it depend? What rules apply to documents when there are two people with the same name in the town? Is there a way to avoid confusion? And if not, what documents can/can't be collected? A person came into court before Rav Huna with a docuemnts that said that a certain person borrowed money from "him" and the "him" was not mentioned by name. Can the person holding the document collect it? Can the court assume that since it is in his possession, he is the one who the "him" is referring to? Rav Huna ruled that he could not collect the money, but Raba ruled that he could. On what basis? How does it relate to the case in the Mishna with two people with the same name?

Rava and Rav made suggestions to scribes how to avoid writing documents that could raise suspicion of not being fully truthful. Rava did not allow a creditor to trade in promissory notes of large amounts to be divided in half, or two notes to be combined into one for the combined amount, as there is concern for deceit. Rav Ashi did not permit a credit even to trade a promissory note for a large amount into a smaller amount as also that could be used to cheat the borrower. If two brothers inherited an item, such as a bathhouse or an olive press that was more useful to one than the other, as one was wealthy and had more household members or more produce, can the poor brother have a claim on the rich brother? On what does it depend? What rules apply to documents when there are two people with the same name in the town? Is there a way to avoid confusion? And if not, what documents can/can't be collected? A person came into court before Rav Huna with a docuemnts that said that a certain person borrowed money from "him" and the "him" was not mentioned by name. Can the person holding the document collect it? Can the court assume that since it is in his possession, he is the one who the "him" is referring to? Rav Huna ruled that he could not collect the money, but Raba ruled that he could. On what basis? How does it relate to the case in the Mishna with two people with the same name?

The Mourner's Kaddish - The Meaning of "Yehe Shmei Raba" by Rabbi Avi Harari

Hinter der Leipziger Krise stecken altbekannte Probleme, Sahin knackt Bayern fast mit seinem Plan, im Klassiker fehlt Nick Woltemade und beim SC heißt es: Alt ist immer besser. Nik Staiger und Benny Grund zum Spieltag.

When a gift document lacks language indicating either a deathbed or healthy status of the giver, and there is a dispute between the giver claiming it was written while dying and the recipients claiming otherwise, who bears the burden of proof? Rabbi Meir holds that we presume the person was healthy until proven otherwise. The rabbis, however, rule that the gift remains with the giver until proven otherwise. There are two different approaches to understanding this debate. Some hold that the proof necessary according to each opinion is witnesses who will corroborate the facts, whether the giver was healthy or not when the gift was given. According to that understanding, Rabbi Meir and the rabbis disagree along the same lines as Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yaakov - do we rely on the present state of the giver or the earlier presumption of ownership over the item? Others hold that the rabbis hold that the gift remains with the given unless the recipients can prove that the document is valid. The debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis is whether or not a document where the one who wrote it admits it is a document but raises a problem with its validity needs to be ratified. A difficulty is raised against the second understanding, as Rabbi Meir and the rabbi debate this issue elsewhere regarding witnesses who bring a document but raise a doubt on its validity. However, this is resolved as one could have thought to distinguish between a case where witnesses question the validity and where the giver questions the validity. Raba holds by the first explanation. When Abaye questioned his understanding, Raba explained the rabbi's position: since the document should have included that the giver was either sick or healthy and included neither, it creates a doubt on each side and therefore the gift remains in the original owner's property until proven otherwise. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish also disagree about whether the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis is about who needs to prove whether the giver was sick or healthy or whether the issue surrounds the ratification of the document. At first, the Gemara explains that Rabbi Yochanan holds the debate is about who needs to prove whether the giver was sick or healthy. He then questions Reish Lakish from a braita about a similar case where they needed to prove the seller's age, that he was not too young to have sold the property, rather than ratifying the document, thus proving that ratification alone would not have been effective. To resolve the difficulty, Reish Lakish explains the details of the case differently, in a way that ratification of the document was irrelevant. Reish Lakish brings a Mishna of Bar Kapara to Rabbi Yochanan that implies that a document where the owner admits to having written the document but claims that it is invalid is valid even without ratification. Reish Lakish asks Rabbi Yochanan if this only follows Rabbi Meir's position and not the rabbis, as discussed earlier. Rabbi Yochanan explains that it follows the rabbis' position as well as they both agree on this topic. Two questions are raised against Rabbi Yochanan's answer from sources quoted previously. One is resolved but the second is not. As a result, the entire sugya unravels as Rabbi Zeira explains Rabbi Yochanan's answer in a different manner, that the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis is about ratification of the document and Bar Kapara matches the rabbi's position. This explanation requires switching the positions of Rabbi Meir and the rabbis in both Mishna and the braita quoted previously about the witnesses and switching Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish's explanations of the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis in our Mishna. 

When a gift document lacks language indicating either a deathbed or healthy status of the giver, and there is a dispute between the giver claiming it was written while dying and the recipients claiming otherwise, who bears the burden of proof? Rabbi Meir holds that we presume the person was healthy until proven otherwise. The rabbis, however, rule that the gift remains with the giver until proven otherwise. There are two different approaches to understanding this debate. Some hold that the proof necessary according to each opinion is witnesses who will corroborate the facts, whether the giver was healthy or not when the gift was given. According to that understanding, Rabbi Meir and the rabbis disagree along the same lines as Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yaakov - do we rely on the present state of the giver or the earlier presumption of ownership over the item? Others hold that the rabbis hold that the gift remains with the given unless the recipients can prove that the document is valid. The debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis is whether or not a document where the one who wrote it admits it is a document but raises a problem with its validity needs to be ratified. A difficulty is raised against the second understanding, as Rabbi Meir and the rabbi debate this issue elsewhere regarding witnesses who bring a document but raise a doubt on its validity. However, this is resolved as one could have thought to distinguish between a case where witnesses question the validity and where the giver questions the validity. Raba holds by the first explanation. When Abaye questioned his understanding, Raba explained the rabbi's position: since the document should have included that the giver was either sick or healthy and included neither, it creates a doubt on each side and therefore the gift remains in the original owner's property until proven otherwise. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish also disagree about whether the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis is about who needs to prove whether the giver was sick or healthy or whether the issue surrounds the ratification of the document. At first, the Gemara explains that Rabbi Yochanan holds the debate is about who needs to prove whether the giver was sick or healthy. He then questions Reish Lakish from a braita about a similar case where they needed to prove the seller's age, that he was not too young to have sold the property, rather than ratifying the document, thus proving that ratification alone would not have been effective. To resolve the difficulty, Reish Lakish explains the details of the case differently, in a way that ratification of the document was irrelevant. Reish Lakish brings a Mishna of Bar Kapara to Rabbi Yochanan that implies that a document where the owner admits to having written the document but claims that it is invalid is valid even without ratification. Reish Lakish asks Rabbi Yochanan if this only follows Rabbi Meir's position and not the rabbis, as discussed earlier. Rabbi Yochanan explains that it follows the rabbis' position as well as they both agree on this topic. Two questions are raised against Rabbi Yochanan's answer from sources quoted previously. One is resolved but the second is not. As a result, the entire sugya unravels as Rabbi Zeira explains Rabbi Yochanan's answer in a different manner, that the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis is about ratification of the document and Bar Kapara matches the rabbi's position. This explanation requires switching the positions of Rabbi Meir and the rabbis in both Mishna and the braita quoted previously about the witnesses and switching Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish's explanations of the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis in our Mishna. 

Rav and Shmuel disagreed regarding a case where one promised a gift using the phrase "in life and in death." Rav held that this language indicated a deathbed gift, with "in life" being mentioned merely as an expression of hope. Shmuel, however, interpreted it as a gift from a healthy person. In Nehardea, they followed Rav's ruling. Later, Rava introduced a distinction: he argued that Rav would agree that using the phrase "from life" (rather than "in life") would be treated as a gift from a healthy person. Ameimar, however, rejected Rava's interpretation of Rav's position. When a case of this nature came before Rav Nachman in Nehardea, he sent it to be adjudicated in a different city, not wanting to rule against Shmuel in Shmuel's own city of Nehardea. In another instance, Rava ruled against a woman who tried to reclaim her gift, which was consistent with his position (as she had used the phrase "from life and in death"). When she persistently complained about his ruling, Rava arranged for another rabbi to write her the ruling she desired, but instructed him to add a citation at the bottom of the document from Bava Metzia regarding deception, signaling that he was deceiving her and the ruling should not be followed. Upon realizing this subterfuge, the woman cursed Rava that his boat should sink—and indeed, his boat sank. When a gift document lacks language indicating either a deathbed or healthy status of the giver, and there is a dispute between the giver claiming it was written while dying and the recipients claiming otherwise, who bears the burden of proof? Rabbi Meir holds that we presume the person was healthy until proven otherwise. The rabbis, however, rule that the money remains with the giver until proven otherwise. A case arose involving a deathbed gift that used appropriate deathbed gift language, but the document didn't record that the person had died. After the person's death, the recipients claimed the gift, while the heirs argued that their father had recovered from his illness (thus invalidating the gift) before becoming sick again and dying. Raba ruled in favor of the recipients, reasoning that since the person was now dead, it was likely they died from the original illness, making the gift valid. Abaye challenged Raba's ruling by citing the case of a sunken ship: even though we presume the passengers died, we must consider the possibility they survived if their bodies aren't found. Similarly, he argued, we should consider the possibility of recovery, as most sick people do recover. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, resolved the difficulty by explaining that Raba was following Rabbi Natan's position. Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yaakov disagreed about a case where the document did not include whether given while healthy or on one's deathbed. Rabbi Yaakov held that we follow the last known presumption of ownership, regardless of current possession. Rabbi Natan ruled that we follow the current presumption - if the person is currently on their deathbed, we assume the gift was given on their deathbed; if healthy, we assume they were healthy at the time the document was written. Rabbi Elazar noted that this same dispute between Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yaakov applies to a case in Mishna Taharot 6:7 regarding ritual impurity. The case involves a valley enclosed by a fence that is defined as a public space in summer (due to heavy foot traffic) but as a private space in winter (due to minimal traffic). When there's a known dead body present but uncertainty about whether someone passed over it, the rule is: doubt in a public space yields ritual purity, while doubt in a private space yields impurity (based on Sotah laws). If it's unknown whether the person was there in summer or winter, Rabbi Yaakov would rule based on the last known presumption of the person, which means they are deemed pure, while Rabbi Natan would rule based on the current season - they would be declared impure if the issue arises in the winter, and pure if it is summer.

Rav and Shmuel disagreed regarding a case where one promised a gift using the phrase "in life and in death." Rav held that this language indicated a deathbed gift, with "in life" being mentioned merely as an expression of hope. Shmuel, however, interpreted it as a gift from a healthy person. In Nehardea, they followed Rav's ruling. Later, Rava introduced a distinction: he argued that Rav would agree that using the phrase "from life" (rather than "in life") would be treated as a gift from a healthy person. Ameimar, however, rejected Rava's interpretation of Rav's position. When a case of this nature came before Rav Nachman in Nehardea, he sent it to be adjudicated in a different city, not wanting to rule against Shmuel in Shmuel's own city of Nehardea. In another instance, Rava ruled against a woman who tried to reclaim her gift, which was consistent with his position (as she had used the phrase "from life and in death"). When she persistently complained about his ruling, Rava arranged for another rabbi to write her the ruling she desired, but instructed him to add a citation at the bottom of the document from Bava Metzia regarding deception, signaling that he was deceiving her and the ruling should not be followed. Upon realizing this subterfuge, the woman cursed Rava that his boat should sink—and indeed, his boat sank. When a gift document lacks language indicating either a deathbed or healthy status of the giver, and there is a dispute between the giver claiming it was written while dying and the recipients claiming otherwise, who bears the burden of proof? Rabbi Meir holds that we presume the person was healthy until proven otherwise. The rabbis, however, rule that the money remains with the giver until proven otherwise. A case arose involving a deathbed gift that used appropriate deathbed gift language, but the document didn't record that the person had died. After the person's death, the recipients claimed the gift, while the heirs argued that their father had recovered from his illness (thus invalidating the gift) before becoming sick again and dying. Raba ruled in favor of the recipients, reasoning that since the person was now dead, it was likely they died from the original illness, making the gift valid. Abaye challenged Raba's ruling by citing the case of a sunken ship: even though we presume the passengers died, we must consider the possibility they survived if their bodies aren't found. Similarly, he argued, we should consider the possibility of recovery, as most sick people do recover. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, resolved the difficulty by explaining that Raba was following Rabbi Natan's position. Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yaakov disagreed about a case where the document did not include whether given while healthy or on one's deathbed. Rabbi Yaakov held that we follow the last known presumption of ownership, regardless of current possession. Rabbi Natan ruled that we follow the current presumption - if the person is currently on their deathbed, we assume the gift was given on their deathbed; if healthy, we assume they were healthy at the time the document was written. Rabbi Elazar noted that this same dispute between Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yaakov applies to a case in Mishna Taharot 6:7 regarding ritual impurity. The case involves a valley enclosed by a fence that is defined as a public space in summer (due to heavy foot traffic) but as a private space in winter (due to minimal traffic). When there's a known dead body present but uncertainty about whether someone passed over it, the rule is: doubt in a public space yields ritual purity, while doubt in a private space yields impurity (based on Sotah laws). If it's unknown whether the person was there in summer or winter, Rabbi Yaakov would rule based on the last known presumption of the person, which means they are deemed pure, while Rabbi Natan would rule based on the current season - they would be declared impure if the issue arises in the winter, and pure if it is summer.

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®

What is the language in a document that makes it clear that the document itself only served to strengthen the commitment of the person on their deathbed, and was not meant as a document necessary for affected the transaction? What wording must be used to designate one's property to others in his lifetime when he is healthy? Rabbi Yehuda holds that one must write "From today and after my death." Rabbi Yossi does not require adding "From today." Once this is written, the property is considered to belong to the recipient, while the proceeds belong to the giver. Can either of them sell their rights to their share? Why does the language of "From today and after my death" work here, but it is not effective in a divorce document? Raba bar Avuha accepted Rabbi Yossi's opinion because the date on the document makes it clear that it is in effect from the date it was written, even without adding the words "from today." If an act of acquiring was performed from the giver to witnesses on behalf of the recipient, this would preclude the need for writing "from today," even according to Rabbi Yehuda. However, there is a debate about whether this applies across the board or is it dependent on the language used in the document. If the recipient sells their rights and then predeceases the giver, does the buyer acquire the property upon the giver's death or does it revert to the giver's heirs? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree on this based on a debate about whether one who acquires proceeds to an item (in this case the giver retains rights to the proceeds) is considered the main owner of the item. They debate this issue in another case as well. Why is there a need to mention their debate here if it could be inferred from the other case? To answer this question, the Gemara explains why one could have differentiated between the cases. Rabbi Yochanan raises a difficulty from a braita on Reish Lakish's position, but it is resolved. 

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®

Today's daf is sponsored by Glenda Sacks Jaffe in honor of Sari Esserman's birthday and on her first grandchild, and to Rhona Fink on the birth of another grandchild. "Yom huledet sameach and mazal tov!" Does the firstborn receive a double portion of a loan due back to his father after his death? Raba and Rav Nachman each hold that the firstborn can receive a double portion but only if it is paid back in land, according to Raba or in cash according to Rav Nachman. Abaye raises two difficulties against each of their positions. Firstly, he sees no reason to distinguish - if the money "(or land) is not considered in the possession of the father, then the land (or money) should not be either. Secondly, he quotes a case for each of them where they held differently than they do here. Raba responds for himself and for Rav Nachman, claiming that they were both explaining the positions of the rabbis in Israel, but they do not actually agree with that position. The difficulty raised against Raba was from a case where a person on their deathbed gave all their property to their grandmother, to be then given to his heirs (which was his daughter) upon the grandmother's death. However, the daughter died before the grandmother. When the grandmother died, the daughter's husband claimed the property as the heir of the daughter. The rabbis in Israel ruled that the property was not in the daughter's possession at the time of her death and the husband could not inherit the property, as a husband inherits land/items of his wife that were in her possession at the time of her death. Rav Huna held that the husband could inherit it as when the father promised the property to the daughter after it first went to the grandmother, it was as if he said, "It will be yours from now, but the grandmother will enjoy the proceeds until her death." Raba sided with the rabbis in Israel as he claimed that it clearly belonged to the grandmother since if she were to sell it, the sale would be valid, thus proving that it was considered in her possession, not the daughter's, until her death. This shows that Raba holds that land/items are not considered possessed by someone (muchzak) if another person can sell them. Rav Pappa ruled: 1. a husband only inherits property that the wife possessed, not property due to her; 2. A firstborn only inherits the double portion of property that his father possessed, not property due to him; 3. A firstborn does not get a double portion of a loan due to his father, whether they collected land or money for the loan; 4. A loan that the firstborn borrowed from his father and did not repay until after the father's death is a case of doubt whether it is considered due to the father or in his possession and therefore the double portion is split between him and the brothers.

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of their friend and co-learner Debbie Weber Schreiber on the birth of a granddaughter. "May the new addition be a source of pride to the entire family and to Am Yisrael, and be a harbinger of simcha and shalom for us all.  תזכו לגדלה לתורה ולחופה ולמעשים טובים" A braita ruled that the firstborn gets a double portion of the enhancement of their father's property that happened on its own, without the orphans' intervention. However, the Gemara points out that this is Rabbi Yehuda haNasi's opinion as the rabbis disagree and hold that the firstborn does not get a double portion of any enhancement. Rabbi Yehuda haNasi brings an example of this - a promissory note that was paid back after the father's death. If the father's estate owed a debt, the firstborn would need to pay a double portion, but if he agreed to pass up on receiving a double portion of the inheritance, he would not have to pay double for the loan. The Gemara brings the verse in the Torah where the rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda haNasi derive their positions. Rav Papa limits the debate to a situation where the enhanced item is different from the original item, i.e. date flowers that became dates. There are four opinions about whether it is clear with whom the halakha accords or whether it is unclear and what we do with a case where a judge rules against the accepted opinion. Rav Nachman and Rami bar Hama each quote a Midrash Halakha (Sifrei) that accords with a different opinion on this issue. Rav Yehuda quoted Shmuel's ruling that a firstborn does not get a double portion on a loan. The Gemara tries to assess whether this ruling follows the opinion of the rabbis or Rabbi Yehuda haNasi, and concludes that it follows the rabbis' position. A ruling was sent from Israel to Babylonia that if a loan was paid back from a non-Jew, the firstborn would collect a double portion from the principal but not from the interest. This is understood to be the rabbis' opinion. Why would they distinguish between the principal and the interest? The principal is considered as if it is already collected, but the interest is not. The conclusion of this ruling seems to contradict Shmuel's ruling. Ameimar rules like the Israeli ruling and Rav Acha points out that he followed Rav Nachman's position as they were both from the same city, Nehardea. Raba and Rav Nachman each distinguish, in an opposite manner, between a loan that is paid back in land and one that is paid back in cash.

Today's daf is sponsored by Blima Sztorchain in loving memory of her sister, Rivka Sara Rina bat Tina and Yitzhak Tzvi. The daughters of Tzlofchad inherited Tzlofchad's double portion from his father, even though one only inherits a double portion that was in the deceased's property at the time of death (muchzak). The reason is that the land of Israel was considered as if it had already been owned by those who left Egypt. Earlier, a braita had explained that the sons of the spies and those with Korach, whose fathers did not get land in Israel, received land through their grandparents. However, a different braita explains that they received land on their own merit. The Gemara brings two explanations for how to reconcile these seemingly contradictory braitot. Raba explains, as was explained above, that the land of Israel was considered already possessed by those leaving Egypt, which explains why Tzlofchad's daughters inherited his double portion. However, a braita is brought against Raba as it explains that Moshe knew that they should inherit but was unsure regarding the double portion. This issue is resolved by explaining that the law is still clear that the land was possessed by the generation that left Egypt and that is exactly what Moshe was unsure of, and was then clarified. In that braita, they compare the case of Tzlofchad's daughters and the one who was chopping trees on Shabbat, as in both cases Moshe does not know the law and turns to God. The law in each case could have been transmitted directly but was told through the lens of Tzlofchad's daughters/the wood chopper to teach that merits are brought by one who is meritorious and liability by one who is liable. Why does it say in the verse that Tzlofchad's daughters went before Moshe, Elazar the princes (nesi'im), and the entire congregation? Two opinions are brought and each reflects different approaches - do we give respect to a student before his rabbi or not? The halakha accords with both - how can this be explained? The virtues of the daughters of Tzlofchad are explained - their wisdom, their ability to interpret the verses in the Torah, and their righteousness. From where can we see these traits?

If one performs a transaction with a kinyan chalipin, a symbolic act of acquiring, until what point can each side renege on the agreement? Raba and Rav Yosef differ on this point. Rav Yosef supports his opinion from the statement of Rav Yehuda regarding three who went to visit a dying person who can function as a court regarding dividing up the dying person's property. However, Raba rejects his proof. Why did the Mishna need to list the people who inherit but do not bequeath to each other, as it can be derived from the previous section of those who bequeath but do not inherit? The answer is that they wanted to teach something additional by connecting two of the three cases - a woman from her son and a woman from her husband - just as a husband does not inherit property the wife inherits after her death (property she would have inherited, were she still alive), a son does not inherit property from his mother if he is no longer alive to pass to his paternal brothers. Rabbi Yochanan quotes a statement of Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi Shimon that a mother inherits her son.

For this installment of CinemAddicts, Eric Holmes interviews "Long Gone Heroes" actor Juan Pablo Raba. We also review "Long Gone Heroes" and "Hounds of War," films that both star Frank Grillo. "Long Gone Heroes" poster/photos courtesy of Lionsgate "Hounds of War" poster/photos courtesy of XYZ Films Timestamps (0:00) -Intro (2:31) -  "Long Gone Heroes" Review (11:40) - "Hounds of War" Review (26:53) - Juan Pablo Raba interview for "Long Gone Heroes" **We receive a commission when you purchase items using our SiteStripe and/or our movie links. Thank you! 1. Subscribe to our  CinemAddicts YouTube Channel: 2. Like Our CinemAddicts Facebook Page  3. Join our CinemAddicts Facebook Group for daily movie recommendations. 4. Questions/comments on CinemAddicts email Greg Srisavasdi at info@findyourfilms.com. 5. Our website is Find Your Film. 6. Shop our CinemAddicts Merch store. 7. CinemAddicts Patreon Members receive a Bonus Episode, Early Access to our Weekly Episodes. Early Access to Spoilers and Interviews as well. 8. Check out Anderson Cowan's new documentary project Loaded For Bear. Hosts: Bruce Purkey, Eric Holmes, Greg Srisavasdi Thanks to our Patreon Community 1. Ryan Smith 2. Stephen Schrock 3. Susan 4. Charles Peterson 5. Nelson B. McClintock 6. Diana Van De Kamp 7. Pete Abeyta 8. Tyler Andula 9. Stephen Mand 10. Edmund Mendez 11. Abbie Schmidt 12. Jeff Tait 13. Superfan Giovanni 14. Robert Prakash 15. Kristen 16. Chris M 17. Jeremy Chappell 18. Lewis Longshadow 19. Iver 20. Alex Clayton 21. Daniel Hulbert 22. Andrew Martin 23. Angela Clark 24. Myron Freeman 25. Kayn Kalmbach 26. Aaron Fordham 27. Tracy Peters 28. Grant Boston 29. Ken Cunningham