Podcasts about rabban gamliel

* This week's Derasha is dedicated in memory of Avraham ben Gemilah* Toward the end of Maggid – the main section of the Haggadah, when we discuss Yesiat Misrayim in fulfillment of the obligation to speak about the miraculous Exodus from Egypt on this night – we cite a Halachic ruling of Rabban Gamliel regarding the obligation of the Seder. Rabban Gamliel stated that one must discuss at the Seder the meaning of the Korban Pesach (paschal sacrifice), the Masa, and the Marror, and if one does not, then he does not fulfill his obligation. At my Seder, when we reach this point, I make sure that everyone who had left the table – such as the women arranging the food in the kitchen – returns to the table, and that this passage is read in both in Hebrew and English, so that it will be clearly understood by all. One of the questions that arise regarding this section is its sequence. Rabban Gamliel lists the three Misvot which must be discussed in the order of Pesach, Masa and Marror. Seemingly, this order is incorrect; the Marror should be discussed first. After all, the Marror commemorates the bitterness of slavery, whereas the Korban Pesach commemorates the miraculous plague of the firstborn on the night of Yesiat Misrayim, and the Masa commemorates our ancestors' hasty, frantic departure from Egypt. Quite obviously, Beneh Yisrael first experienced the bitterness of slavery, and then the miracle of the plague of the firstborn. The correct order, therefore, should be Marror, Pesach, Masa. Why did Rabban Gamliel move the Marror to the end of the list? To answer this question, we need to revisit the meaning and significance of the Marror. The Gemara instructs that the best option for Marror is "Hasa," which we call Romaine lettuce. Although this lettuce is not particularly bitter, it is the preferred choice because of its name – "Hasa" which alludes to the fact that "Has Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu Alenu" – Hashem had mercy and compassion upon us. This seems very strange. If the entire purpose of the Marror is to remind us of the "bitterness," the pain and suffering that our ancestors endured, then why would we associate the Marror with compassion? Hashem's compassion was shown at the time of Yesiat Misrayim, not during the years of bitterness. Why, then, do we want the name of the vegetable used for Marror to allude to Hashem's mercy? The answer is that, indeed, the "bitterness" of slavery was an expression of Hashem's mercy and compassion. To understand how, let us consider an analogy to mortgage payments. A person with a mortgage can choose different payment plans. One possibility is to pay small, relatively easy sums each month, for a lengthy period of time. But he could also choose to "tighten his belt,", cutting back on other expenses so he can afford to pay more of his debt each month. This way, he is able to get out of debt faster. For reasons we do not fully understand, Hashem had told Abraham Abinu that his descendants would endure a 400-year period of slavery. However, Hashem saw that Beneh Yisrael would not survive such a lengthy period of exile. Beneh Yisrael were submerged in the impurity of Egypt, and had they remained there for 400 years, they would have plummeted to the lowest depths, from which they could not recover. Hashem therefore decided to increase the "monthly payments," so-to-speak, by intensifying the workload, so they could leave 190 years early – after just 210 years of slavery. The suffering the people endured during those 210 years amounted to the suffering they were to have experienced over the course of 400 years of bondage. It turns out, then, that the "bitterness" was a crucial component of the redemption from Egypt. Beneh Yisrael were able to leave Egypt only because they suffered not only exile, but "bitterness," such that 400 years' worth of exile was condensed into 210 years. Had this not happened, they could never have been redeemed. This easily explains why we eat "Hasa" as our Marror – because the bitterness commemorated by the Marror was indeed a manifestation of Hashem's boundless kindness and compassion for His beloved nation. With this in mind, we can return to Rabban Gamliel's statement. He listed "Pesach, Masa, Marror" in this sequence because it was only after the "Pesach" and the "Masa" that Beneh Yisrael understood the nature of the "Marror." While they were suffering, everything appeared "bitter." But later, in retrospect, after they left Egypt, they understood that the bitterness of those 210 years allowed them to "pay" their "debt" more quickly, which was critical for their survival as a people. We therefore discuss first the Korban Pesach and Masa, the redemption from Egypt, and then we are in a position to properly understand the Marror, the indispensable role played by the "bitterness" of slavery in the process of redemption. This might also be the reason why we dip the Marror in the sweet Haroset – to symbolize the fact that the bitterness of slavery was actually "sweet," as it ensured our ancestors' survival and eventual redemption. This is something we must remember during our own "bitter" periods, when we face challenges and hardship. At the moment, we see nothing "sweet" or beneficial about the difficult situation that we are experiencing. But we must trust that this "Marror," as "bitter" as it feels, is actually to our benefit. As regarding our ancestors' bondage in Egypt, Hashem is acting kindly toward us even when we endure hardship. This belief helps us remain strong and confident even in life's more challenging moments, as we will trust that everything we are going through is, in truth, to our benefit.

At times, people incorrectly depict Chazal as being petty or small-minded—and they often cite stories from the Gemara that seem to support this perspective. One such Gemara is Brachos 27b which depicts Rabban Gamliel (the Nasi) putting Rabbi Yehoshua in place for arguing with him, the other Rabbanan demoting Rabban Gamliel for this mistreatment, and the ensuing events (like Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria miraculously growing a massive beard overnight). This pair of episodes analyzes this story in light of the fact these were great men.

Welcome to our daily bitachon Haggadah Shel Pesach series . We're up to the piece of Maaseh , which lists many great Tanaim , Rebbe Eliezer , Rebbe Yehoshua , Rebbe Elazar ben Azariah Rebbe Akiva and Rebbe Tarfon who were all together in Bnei Brak one Pesach , and spent the whole night talking about Yetziyat Mitzrayim. Rebbe Yechiel Michel Epstein , better known as the Aruch HaShulchan, writes in his commentary on the Haggadah , that he's bothered by a few questions. Firstly,Rebbe Eliezer lived in a town called Lod , Rebbe Yehoshua lived in a town called Peki'in and Rebbe Akiva lived in Bnei Brak , as the Gemara in Sanhedrin 32a tells us. ( Rebbe Eliezer and Rebbe Yehoshua were teachers of Rebbe Akiva .) Why were they all by Rabbi Akiva for the holiday? Especially Rebbe Eliezer , as he is the one that holds (see Sukkah 27b), that one is supposed to stay home for the holiday. So why was he leaving his home on Pesach to go to his student, Rebbe Akiva ? He answers based on a Gemara in Mesechet Makkot 25b, that Raban Gamliel , Rebbe Elazar ben Azariah , Rebbe Yehoshua and Rebbe Akiva were all on the road, and heard a tremendous ruckus of partying coming from Rome. They started to cry, and Rabbi Akiva started to laugh. Rabbi Akiva asked, " Why are you crying ?" And they said, "They're sitting in serenity and confidence. They destroyed the Bet HaMikdash, and here we are. " They asked why he was laughing, and he said, "That's why I'm laughing. If this is what happens to those that go against God's will, imagine what's going to happen to those that fulfill God's will!" And he explains that Rabbi Akiva was telling them an important principle, that after someone goes through Midat HaDin , after there's justice on someone, the chesed that comes out is tremendous. Rabbi Akiva was trying to tell them was that if the Babylonians, who had no judgment on them, and thus no purification on them, merited so much kindness from Hashem , because Hashem's kindness is never-ending, imagine how much we, who went through (and are going through) this tremendous justice and judgment and purification by God, are going to be enveloped in God's tremendous kindness. Because of Rabbi Akiva's chizuk , and new way of looking at things, says the Aruch HaShulchan , they felt indebted to him. He strengthened their hope in the Jewish people, at a point in history, after the Chorban when they were suffering through so much. So they all came to his house, in his city (except for Rabban Gamliel , who was the Nasi , and didn't come), to spend the night with Rabbi Akiva, talking about Yetziyat Mitzrayim . Because Yetziyat Mitzrayim is the time that we get clear on the Nitzchiyut , the everlasting state of the Jewish people, that no one could destroy them. Rabbi Akiva was the expert on this, so they spent the night working on this concept of Nitzchiyut Yisrael , the eternal state of the Jewish people . That, he says, is the purpose of the night of Yetziyat Mitzrayim . Because Bechol Dor Vador , Omdim Alenu .. In every generation, they try to destroy us. Therefore, they felt the best way to gain this clarity, in the post-destruction era that they were in, was to go to Rebbe Akiva , who had this understanding. So they went firstly, as a token of appreciation and respect Rabbi Akiva , for what he did for them, and also for the chizuk that they would get from being at his seder . He doesn't say this, but Rabbi Akiva is known as the one who, while they're tearing his skin off, was saying My whole life I've been preparing for this. Rabbi Akiva was was able to go through tremendously challenging situations and stick with the attitude of Kol ma d'avid Rachmana latav , whatever God does is for the good . He was a student of Nachum Ish Gamzu, who said Gamzu L'Tovah , and the Yerushalmi cites a fascinating discussion between between them. Nachum Ish Gamzu, after not taking care of a poor man fast enough, asked God to give him a severe punishment. When Rebbe Akiva saw his Rebbe like that, he said, "Oy li / Woe onto me that I see you like this!" And Nachum told Rabbi Akiva , " Oy li, Woe onto me if I don't see you like this!" Rabbi Akiva said, Are you cursing me? And Nachum Ish Gamzu said, " No, I'm not cursing you." He saw what Rabbi Akiva would go through at the hand of the Romans in the future, and how it would bring him to his greatness. Rabbi Akiva is the quintessential picture of resilience. 24,000 of his students died, and he picked himself up, found five new students, and all the Torah Sh'beAl/all the oral law that we have, came from him. The Aruch Hashulchan says that they spent the whole night on this concept, until their students came and said, our Rabbotenu / Our Rabbis , the time of Kriyat Shema Shel Shachrit has come. Kriyat Shema Shel Shachrit symbolizes the upbeat attitude, as we say, Magen U'Moshiach , God is a shield and a protection, , bechol dor vador , in every generation. Kriyat Shema is our promise from Hashem that we're going to last forever. Shema Yisrael Hashem Elokenu Hashem Echad . Interestingly enough, Rabbotenu , Higiya HaZman Kriyat Shema Shel Shachrit , were the final of Rebbe Akiva , as it said, fortunate is Akiva , that his soul departed, as he was saying, Echad . So this was the place, and this was the night, to get that chizuk from Rabbi Akiva .

Pesach |  From Disgrace to Praise: A Reassessment, by Rav Yitzchak Etshalom What is the purpose of the texts between "Avadim Hayyinu" until "Arami Oved Avi"?  The "Maggid" section of our Haggada has two central components - the first of which is the Midrash on "Arami Oved Avi" and the other is Rabban Gamliel's explanation of the foods. However, our Haggadot have quite a bit of text between the "quick answer" given in response to "Mah Nishtanah" - and these passages don't seem to conform to the aims of the evening. We reassess the rabbinic dictum מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח - "begin with disgrace and end with praise" and propose an understanding of these four words and their location within the Mishna to offer a reassessment of these opening sections of Maggid. Source sheet >>

In this Mishnah, Rabban Gamliel the Elder provides us with a powerful lesson that, if observed, will empower our spiritual lives. This Ethics Podcast was originally released on the Ethics Podcast on Mar 5, 2018 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – […]

The emperor challenged Rabban Gamliel with several questions about God's actions and God's power as described in the Tanach, including verses that seemingly suggest the existence of multiple deities. While the emperor's daughter addressed the first question, Rabban Gamliel responded to the remaining ones. The text also describes similar debates between heretics and other rabbis. The discussion then relates to verse quotes in the Mishna about rejoicing when evil people fall. Rabbi Acha applies this concept to the celebration following King Ahab's death. However, this interpretation raises a conflict, as Rabbi Yonatan explains that God does not rejoice at the downfall of evil people, since they too are His creations. This principle is derived from multiple sources, including a verse related to the splitting of the Red Sea. The resolution offered is that while God Himself does not rejoice, God permits humans to do so. The text then examines Ovadia, who served as the supervisor of Ahab's household and was known for his devotion to God. This raises several questions: Why does the text specifically mention his devotion to God? What textual evidence demonstrates that his fear of God surpassed even that of Abraham? Furthermore, what factors led to his selection as a prophet, and why was he specifically chosen to prophesize about Edom?

Another daf of Aggadah - with debates between Rabban Gamliel and the Roman caesar - including his daughter - over various philosophical issues coming out of the Torah. Also, a significant inquiry into whether God rejoices in the downfall of the wicked.

Today's daf is sponsored by Lindsay Simmonds in loving memory of her father Baruch ben Eliezer v’Rachel. "His infectious ‘joy of life’ was a gift to all who were blessed to know him." The emperor challenged Rabban Gamliel with several questions about God's actions and God's power as described in the Tanach, including verses that seemingly suggest the existence of multiple deities. While the emperor's daughter addressed the first question, Rabban Gamliel responded to the remaining ones. The text also describes similar debates between heretics and other rabbis. The discussion then relates to verse quotes in the Mishna about rejoicing when evil people fall. Rabbi Acha applies this concept to the celebration following King Ahab's death. However, this interpretation raises a conflict, as Rabbi Yonatan explains that God does not rejoice at the downfall of evil people, since they too are His creations. This principle is derived from multiple sources, including a verse related to the splitting of the Red Sea. The resolution offered is that while God Himself does not rejoice, God permits humans to do so. The text then examines Ovadia, who served as the supervisor of Ahab's household and was known for his devotion to God. This raises several questions: Why does the text specifically mention his devotion to God? What textual evidence demonstrates that his fear of God surpassed even that of Abraham? Furthermore, what factors led to his selection as a prophet, and why was he specifically chosen to prophesize about Edom?

That time Shmuel HaKatan took the blame for someone else. [Who's Who: Shmuel HaKatan]. Also, that time Rabbi Hiyya took the blame for someone else. With the practical notes that intercalation for the calendar required invitation to participate in the decision-making and the ceremony -- and Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi did not like the smell of garlic. Also, Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel would proclaim the leap year - apparently, in contrast to Rabban Gamliel, who convened a committee. Plus, the reference to Rabban Gamliel's history as "nasi," and how he was removed -- plus a recognition of his personality.

On what criteria is the decision made to intercalate the month? One of the criteria is that it needs to be done by those chosen by the Nasi. A case is brought where an uninvited individual participated, and Rabban Gamliel asked whoever was not invited to leave. Shmuel HaKatan, to avoid embarrassing the individual, took the blame upon himself. Other rabbis have also acted in similar ways in different situations to prevent causing embarrassment to others. The decision to intercalate the year requires the approval of the Nasi. When making this decision, several factors are considered, while others are not. In addition to practical concerns like roads still being wet, three primary factors are evaluated: The readiness of the new grain crop, the ripening of new fruits, and the date of the equinox. Furthermore, the majority of the three main regions of Israel—Judea, the Galilee, and Trans-Jordan—are taken into consideration. The decision to intercalate must be made during the day, not at night.

On what criteria is the decision made to intercalate the month? One of the criteria is that it needs to be done by those chosen by the Nasi. A case is brought where an uninvited individual participated, and Rabban Gamliel asked whoever was not invited to leave. Shmuel HaKatan, to avoid embarrassing the individual, took the blame upon himself. Other rabbis have also acted in similar ways in different situations to prevent causing embarrassment to others. The decision to intercalate the year requires the approval of the Nasi. When making this decision, several factors are considered, while others are not. In addition to practical concerns like roads still being wet, three primary factors are evaluated: The readiness of the new grain crop, the ripening of new fruits, and the date of the equinox. Furthermore, the majority of the three main regions of Israel—Judea, the Galilee, and Trans-Jordan—are taken into consideration. The decision to intercalate must be made during the day, not at night.

Study Guide Bava Batra 139 Today's daf is sponsored by Judith Shapiro in loving memory of her brother David Tychman z"l on his eleventh yahrzeit. "He was a passionate Zionist and a wonderful uncle to my children." If a father gives their land as a gift to one son "from today and after death," the father has exclusive rights to all the produce detached from the ground throughout his lifetime. Upon his death, the heirs receive any produce detached from the ground, not the gift recipient. However, in Tosefta Ketubot, the ruling is that if the son sold the field and then the father died, the buyer would have to return the value of produce attached to the ground at the time of the father's death to the heirs, as even produce attached to the ground belongs to the giver. Ulla resolves the contradiction by differentiating between the generosity of a father to a son as opposed to a non-relative (the buyer). If a father died and left older and younger children, before the inheritance is divided, they all get an equal portion for their needs - food, clothing, dowry. However, if some children were married in the father's lifetime, the younger children who were not yet married cannot demand the same amount of money for the wedding/dowry as the older ones received when the father was still alive. Rava brings an exception to the rule - if the oldest brother is managing the inheritance money and he takes money from the estate for clothing so he can dress respectfully when dealing with the inheritance, we do not insist that all the other brothers receive an equal share for their clothing. The son of Geneiva asked Rava: If a woman takes out a loan without a document (oral loan) and then gets married - since her husband has rights to her possessions, is he considered a "buyer" in which case, the creditor can't collect the loan (as an oral loan is not collected from land that is sold) or is he considered an inheritor and the loan can be collected. Rava tries to prove that he is considered an heir from our Mishna, but the proof is rejected. Rav Papa and Abaye each bring other sources to prove that a husband is considered an heir, but Rava raises a difficulty based on the takana in Usha which treats the husband as a buyer since a woman who sells her usufruct property and dies, the husband can demand it back from the buyers. This would only make sense if he was considered a buyer. Rav Ashi resolves the contradiction by explaining that sometimes the rabbis gave the husband status like an heir and sometimes like a buyer, depending on the situation - whatever is in the husband's or someone else's best interest, i.e. providing for a widow. Sons have rights to the inheritance but daughters have rights to sustenance from the estate. If there aren't sufficient funds for both, the rabbis give the girls rights to sustenance before giving rights to the sons. The sons are expected to ask for charity. Admon questions their position and Rabban Gamliel supports Admon. The amoraim discuss what is considered sufficient funds for both the sons and daughters.

Study Guide Bava Batra 139 Today's daf is sponsored by Judith Shapiro in loving memory of her brother David Tychman z"l on his eleventh yahrzeit. "He was a passionate Zionist and a wonderful uncle to my children." If a father gives their land as a gift to one son "from today and after death," the father has exclusive rights to all the produce detached from the ground throughout his lifetime. Upon his death, the heirs receive any produce detached from the ground, not the gift recipient. However, in Tosefta Ketubot, the ruling is that if the son sold the field and then the father died, the buyer would have to return the value of produce attached to the ground at the time of the father's death to the heirs, as even produce attached to the ground belongs to the giver. Ulla resolves the contradiction by differentiating between the generosity of a father to a son as opposed to a non-relative (the buyer). If a father died and left older and younger children, before the inheritance is divided, they all get an equal portion for their needs - food, clothing, dowry. However, if some children were married in the father's lifetime, the younger children who were not yet married cannot demand the same amount of money for the wedding/dowry as the older ones received when the father was still alive. Rava brings an exception to the rule - if the oldest brother is managing the inheritance money and he takes money from the estate for clothing so he can dress respectfully when dealing with the inheritance, we do not insist that all the other brothers receive an equal share for their clothing. The son of Geneiva asked Rava: If a woman takes out a loan without a document (oral loan) and then gets married - since her husband has rights to her possessions, is he considered a "buyer" in which case, the creditor can't collect the loan (as an oral loan is not collected from land that is sold) or is he considered an inheritor and the loan can be collected. Rava tries to prove that he is considered an heir from our Mishna, but the proof is rejected. Rav Papa and Abaye each bring other sources to prove that a husband is considered an heir, but Rava raises a difficulty based on the takana in Usha which treats the husband as a buyer since a woman who sells her usufruct property and dies, the husband can demand it back from the buyers. This would only make sense if he was considered a buyer. Rav Ashi resolves the contradiction by explaining that sometimes the rabbis gave the husband status like an heir and sometimes like a buyer, depending on the situation - whatever is in the husband's or someone else's best interest, i.e. providing for a widow. Sons have rights to the inheritance but daughters have rights to sustenance from the estate. If there aren't sufficient funds for both, the rabbis give the girls rights to sustenance before giving rights to the sons. The sons are expected to ask for charity. Admon questions their position and Rabban Gamliel supports Admon. The amoraim discuss what is considered sufficient funds for both the sons and daughters.

We Learnfrom the Fruit of the Earth to Reinvent Ourselves in the Month of Elul so thatWe Will Be New Creatures at Rosh HaShanah Based onShvilei Pinchas – Rav Pinchas Friedman I canstart with the story Can aperson be reborn? Lastnight Chantelle took me along to an Emunah Dinner. I say Chantelle took mebecause if she didn't make me come out, I wouldn't. She lights the fire. Herfriends Liz Gindea and Fran Hirmes have been very involved with and generouslysupportive of the organization for years. Emunah funds a number of children'shomes in Israel, along with schools, an arts college, daycare services andthese days many mental health programs. My son in law, Daniel's brother Michaelthrough his organization Kol HaNearim also works with these children'shomes. Chantelleand all of my kids have volunteered and worked in some of these homes over theyears especially with Yehuda Kohen of Bet Elazraki. At thedinner, a young lady spoke and shared her very moving story. She grewup in the north of Israel in no mans land. Her mother did nothing and herfather raised goats. She was one of ten siblings. They had no rules, nodiscipline, no money, sometimes no food and ran amok. The kids sometimes foughtand often got in trouble. When shewas ten, social services showed up. After investigating, they took some of heryounger siblings to be raised outside the house. She convinced them that sheshould stay. But her situation went from bad to worse and a few months laterthey came back and took her as well. She wasplaced into one of Emunah's homes and was angry with her situation and everyonearound her. She was angry that she had been taken from home. She was angry thather parents had not provided a real home. She was angry to be told when to wakeup and when to go to sleep. She was angry to be sent to school. She was angryto be pressed to do homework. She was angry that she was subject to structureand in her mind lost her freedom. She was depressed and alone in the world. Ateleven years old, she had reached rock bottom. Butwithin a few weeks, things started to change. The people at the Emunah homemade her feel loved and wanted. She made friends in the home and at school. Thesocial workers and teachers encouraged her and in a short time she began tosoar as a phoenix rising from the ashes. She wasencouraged to pursue drama studies and loved it. In 2013 she joined the armyand became a combat paramedic assisting injured soldiers and people in thefield, sometimes under fire. When she completed her army duty, she continuedher studies focusing on drama. She eventually went to work for channel 12 newsin Israel. She currently heads their social media team and pursues feel goodstories to help lift people. Emunahbecame her family. Her goal is to raise her own family and break the cycle. Her storywas very moving. Chantelle noted that she wished she could have her share herstory with our own community children in school. She would surely touch someand encourage others. Some might be lifted and others might consider assistingin the homes one summer. Perhaps we can get a video from Emunah and share that. There isa beautiful story told of Rav Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev, a renowned Hasidicmaster, who was known for his compassion and ability to find sparks of holinessin every soul. One day, a poor, troubled Jew came to him, feeling hopeless andconsumed by darkness. The rabbilistened attentively, then began to tell a story: 'In the summer, when thesun shines brightly, the grasshopper sings a beautiful song. But in the winter,when snow covers the earth, the grasshopper's song is silenced. Does this meanthe grasshopper has lost its ability to sing?' The manshook his head. 'Ofcourse not!' the rabbi exclaimed. 'The grasshopper's song is stillwithin, waiting to emerge when the seasons change.' The rabbilooked deeply into the man's eyes: 'Similarly, within you, there is aspark of divine light, a song waiting to be sung. Though darkness may surroundyou now, it's temporary, like winter's snow. Your task is to find that innerlight, nurture it, and let it shine forth.' The man'sface lit up with newfound hope. In thisseason of Elul, we hope to be born again. We canimagine ourselves as caterpillars, hoping to shed our cocoons and emerge asbutterflies. Sometimesthough we think that success is based on achieving perfection. But isthat really what Hashem demands or even wants from us. There isa story, I heard from Rabbi Joey Haber, of a man seeking perfection in his ownlife. His rabbiasks his profession He is anartist, Hisfavorite painting is of sunset. Histeacher suggests taking a picture of a sunset and that will be a perfectreproduction. theartist explains the painting has imperfections and thats what makes it special. Theteacher explains, same with us Angelsmay be perfect, but our imperfection makes us special. imperfectionsadd uniqueness and value, both in art and in life. Thisweek's parsha is Ki Tavo. Based onthe teaching of the Shvilei Pinchas, Rabbi Pinchas Friedman, I would like toshare with you a connection of our efforts in Elul and the mitzvah of“bikkurim,” bringing the first fruits, which we open the perasha with The SefatEmet quotes the Chiddushei HaRim, zy”a. Heexplains why the month designated for teshuvah is named Elul based on thepassuk (ibid. 100, 3 דְּע֗וּ כִּֽי־ ה֮ ה֤וּא אֱלֹ֫קים הֽוּא־עָ֭שָׂנוּ (ולא) [וְל֣וֹ]אֲנַ֑חְנוּ עַ֝מּ֗וֹ וְצֹ֣אן מַרְעִיתֽוֹ׃ If onelooks in the book of Tehilim the word Loh is spelled Lamed alef or No But inthe siddur when we read this psalm each morning as Paslm 100 Miszor LeDavid wechange the aleph to a vav —know thatHashem, He is G-d; it is He Who made us and we are His—His nation and the sheepof His pasture. Traditionteaches us that the word “v'lo” in this passuk is written as ' ולא ',with an “aleph”; yet, it is read as ולו' ', with a “vav.” With an“aleph,” the passuk suggests that we are unworthy and inadequate to be Hispeople; with a “vav,” it means that we merit being close to Him. Heexplains that in reality both the way “v'lo” is written and the way it is readcomplement each other and achieve the same goal. By recognizing our lowlystature and the fact that we have sinned and failed to serve Hashemadequately--' ולא אנחנו עמו ' (the way the passuk is written)—we aremotivated to draw closer to Hashem by means of sincere teshuvah and attain thestatus of-- ולו אנחנו עמו' ' (the way the passuk is read) again. Bothprocesses enable us to achieve the goal of being ' עמו ', HKB”H'speople. This is alluded to by the name אלו'ל ; it combines thetwo spellings of the word “lo”-- ל'א and ל'ו . This teaches us thatour goal during the month of Elul is to combine these two processes, to correctall of our wrongdoings by means of complete teshuvah and to regain the statusof ' .'עמו Lets turnto the Gemara (Makkot 24a): 'וכברהיה רבן גמליאל ורבי אלעזר בן עזריה ורבי יהושע ורבי עקיבא מהלכין בדרך...The first story tells about the Goyim. Then the gemara continues Now Iimagine these stories take place following the rebellion of Bar Kochba and theedicts of Hadrian Yimach Shemo שׁוּב פַּעַםאַחַת הָיוּ עוֹלִין לִירוּשָׁלַיִם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעוּ לְהַר הַצּוֹפִים קָרְעוּבִּגְדֵיהֶם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעוּ לְהַר הַבַּיִת רָאוּ שׁוּעָל שֶׁיָּצָא מִבֵּיתקׇדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים, הִתְחִילוּ הֵן בּוֹכִין וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְצַחֵק. אָמְרוּלוֹ: מִפְּנֵי מָה אַתָּה מְצַחֵק? אָמַר לָהֶם: מִפְּנֵי מָה אַתֶּם בּוֹכִים? אָמְרוּלוֹ: מָקוֹם שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ ״וְהַזָּר הַקָּרֵב יוּמָת״, וְעַכְשָׁיו שׁוּעָלִים הִלְּכוּבּוֹ, וְלֹא נִבְכֶּה?! אָמַר לָהֶן:לְכָךְ אֲנִי מְצַחֵק, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאָעִידָה לִּי עֵדִים נֶאֱמָנִים אֵת אוּרִיָּההַכֹּהֵן וְאֶת זְכַרְיָה בֶּן יְבֶרֶכְיָהוּ״ – וְכִי מָה עִנְיַן אוּרִיָּה אֵצֶלזְכַרְיָה? אוּרִיָּה בְּמִקְדָּשׁ רִאשׁוֹן, וּזְכַרְיָה בְּמִקְדָּשׁ שֵׁנִי! אֶלָּא:תָּלָה הַכָּתוּב נְבוּאָתוֹ שֶׁל זְכַרְיָה בִּנְבוּאָתוֹ שֶׁל אוּרִיָּה. בְּאוּרִיָּהכְּתִיב ״לָכֵן בִּגְלַלְכֶם צִיּוֹן שָׂדֶה תֵחָרֵשׁ״, בִּזְכַרְיָה כְּתִיב ״עוֹדיֵשְׁבוּ זְקֵנִים וּזְקֵנוֹת בִּרְחֹבוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָם״. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַיְּימָהנְבוּאָתוֹ שֶׁל אוּרִיָּה הָיִיתִי מִתְיָירֵא שֶׁלֹּא תִּתְקַיֵּים נְבוּאָתוֹ שֶׁלזְכַרְיָה, עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁנִּתְקַיְּימָה נְבוּאָתוֹ שֶׁל אוּרִיָּה – בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁנְּבוּאָתוֹשֶׁל זְכַרְיָה מִתְקַיֶּימֶת. בַּלָּשׁוֹן הַזֶּה אָמְרוּ לוֹ: עֲקִיבָא נִיחַמְתָּנוּ,עֲקִיבָא נִיחַמְתָּנוּ. Once,Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva weretraveling on the road . . . When they reached Har HaTzofim, they tore theirgarments. When they came to Har HaBayis, they saw a fox emerging from KodeshHaKodashim, and they began to cry; however, Rabbi Akiva smiled. They said tohim, “Why are you smiling?” He responded to them, “Why are you crying?” Theyanswered him, “A place about which it is written (Bamidbar 1, 51): ‘Thenon-kohen who comes close shall be put to death,' and now (Eichah 5, 18) ‘foxesare walking about there,' should we not cry?” He saidto them, “This is why I am smiling . . . In the prophecy of Uriah, it iswritten (Michah 3, 12): ‘Therefore, because of you, Tziyon will be plowed likea field etc.' In the prophecy of Zechariah, it is written (Zechariah 8, 4):‘Old men and old women will yet sit in the streets of Yerushalayim.' As longas the nevuah of Uriah had not been fulfilled, I feared that the nevuah ofZechariah would not be fulfilled. Now, that the nevuah of Uriah has beenfulfilled, it is apparent that the nevuah of Zechariah will be fulfilled.” Theyresponded to him in these words, “Akiva, you have consoled us; Akiva, you haveconsoled us!” Itbehooves us to analyze Rabbi Akiva's reactions described above. Why did helaugh and smile upon seeing proof of Zechariah's nevuah related to the futuregeulah? Without a doubt, the other sages also believed wholeheartedly in theveracity of the prophecies concerning the future geulah. Nevertheless, whenconfronted with the extent of the churban—witnessing a fox exiting from theKodesh HaKodashim—they were overcome with grief and cried. So, what possessedRabbi Akiva to react so differently to the same disturbing sight? Additionally,why did he require seeing the fulfillment of Uriah's nevuah concerning theextent of the churban in order to substantiate that Zechariah's nevuahconcerning the geulah would be fulfilled? Toexplain the matter, the Maharal teaches us a basic principle. HKB”H created theworld such that there is always void and nullification prior to renewal.Furthermore, the degree of renewal relates to the degree of absence and divineconcealment. In other words, the greater the absence and void, the greater therenewal will be. TheMaharal asserts that HKB”H revealed this phenomenon to us at the beginning ofthe Torah (Bereishis 1, 1): 'בראשית ברא אלקים את השמיםואת הארץ, והארץ היתה תוהו ובוהו וחושך על פני תהום ורוח אלקיםמרחפת על פני המים, ויאמר אלקים יהי אור ויהי אור'. theMaharal interprets Rabbi Akiva's profound message. Uponseeing the fox emerge from the chamber of the Kodesh HaKodashim, he smiled. Hehad no doubt that the nevuah of Zechariah would come to pass—that old men andwomen would sit in the streets of Yerushalayim. However, he had no idea howgreat or grand the revival and renewal of Yerushalayim would be. The foxemerging from the Kodesh HaKodashim represented an extreme degree of “hesterpanim”—divine concealment. Therefore, he had cause to rejoice. For, heunderstood that the degree of churban and absence of the divine presencereflected on the commensurate greatness and glory of the renewal ofYerushalayim at the time of the geulah. InNetzach Yisrael (Chapter 30), the Maharal applies this incredible principle toexplain the galut in Mitzrayim that preceded Yisrael's entry into Eretz Yisraeland, for that matter, all the exiles that have preceded the future geulah. Theyall represent the void that precedes the new state of existence, like thedarkness of night that precedes the light of day. Therefore, HKB”H subjectedYisrael to the galut in Mitzrayim—which constituted a process ofnullification—prior to taking them into Eretz Yisrael. Thisexplains very nicely the following passuk related to the galuts in Mitzrayim(Shemos 1, 12): 'וכאשר יענו אותו כן ירבה וכן יפרוץ'—but as much as they afflict it, so it will increase and so it will burst forth. Here theTorah teaches us that the suffering and affliction in Mitzrayim constituted thevoid that gave rise to Yisrael's renewal and rebirth. After the exodus, theyreceived the Torah at Har Sinai and entered Eretz Yisrael. That demonstratesfor us magnificently how all of the galuyot constitute the absence and voidthat is destined to produce the incredible renewal of the future geulah. Its difficult to read this and not think of the Holocaust andthe miracles of 1948 and 1967 RabbiPinchas of Koretz—defines the state of nullification and void as ' אַיִן', which always precedes the state of renewal, referred to as '.'יֵשׁ.' Hecompares this concept to seeds of wheat or other fruit and vegetation that isplanted in the ground. Their growth only starts after the seed decays intoalmost nothingness -אַיִן'- '. Only then, from this state of nearnothingness, the seed begins to grow and sprout and renew itself. As he writes in Imrei Pinchas (Tishah B'Av 384): When grainis planted in the ground, it cannot grow unless it first decays and actuallybecomes nothing. In that void, remains a tremendous potential that can producean entire stalk. This is a type of metamorphosis. At the precise moment that itis virtually nothing, it immediately takes shape. There is a Hasidic story of a couple who come to their Rebbefor a blessing for a child. He asks for an exorbitant pidyon. They return,unable to raise it. He tells them that he can't help. They leave dejected andoutside his home they realize they can only turn to hashem. When the rebbehears that he calls them in and tells them they will be blessed with a child. We havelearned an important principle in the Mishnah (Avos 6, כלמה שברא הקב'ה בעולמו לא בראו אלא לכבודו' :( 11 '—everything that HKB”H created in His world, He created solely for His honor.That being the case, why did HKB”H create the world in such a way that nothingcan be renewed or revitalized without first undergoing a process of void andnullification? How does this enhance His honor? RabbiYisrael of Ruzhin, zy”a, explains regarding the following statement from DavidHaMelech (Tehillim 13, 2): 'עד אנה תסתיר את פניך ממני,עד אנה אשית עצות בנפשי' —how long will You hide Your countenance from me?How long will I continue to seek counsel within my own spirit? Heexplains that David HaMelech wished to teach us a vital lesson regarding ouremunah and trust in Hashem. When a Jew wants to receive salvation from Hashem,he must first understand that he is totally helpless on his own; his salvationdepends solely on Hashem. As long as he believes that he has a solution of hisown, his emunah and trust in Hashem are lacking. So, DavidHaMelech asks: How long will You continue to conceal Your presence from Me? Heanswers his own question: So long as I delude myself into thinking that I amcapable of resolving dilemmas with my own counsel and devices, the “hesterpanim”—divine concealment—will continue; however, as soon as I recognize withcertainty that I in fact lack any such wisdom or ability, the “hester panim”will cease, and Hashem's salvation will arrive instantaneously. Only whenI accept that I don't have all the answers Thus, it appears that this explains why HKB”H created theworld such that every renewal—situation of ' יש '–must be preceded bya state of void and nullification—situation of אין' '. It is becausesuch a difficult transformation causes man to understand that he does not havethe wisdom or resources to emerge from the darkness and void alone withoutHashem's assistance. As soon as he says to himself: “How long will I continueto seek counsel within my own spirit?”—he will succeed in emerging from thevoid to a state of renewal. In perekShirah Everythingin nature has a song And thesong sung by the wheat in Perek Shirah (Chapter 3): 'שיבולת חיטים אומרת שירהמעלות ממעמקים קראתיך ה'' —the stalk of wheat says (Tehillim 130, 1):“From the depths, I call to You, Hashem.” It isimportant to recognize that the term “lechem”—bread—encompasses all of man'sfood and nourishment. This is evident from the prayer of Yaakov Avinu(Bereishis 28, 20): 'ונתן לי לחם לאכול'—and He will give me bread to eat. Similarly, another passuk says (ibid. 47,12): 'ויכלכל יוסף את אביו ואת אחיו ואת כל בית אביו לחם לפי הטף'—Yosef provided his father and his brother and all of his father's householdwith food (“lechem”) according to the children. It is precisely for this reasonthat the berachah “hamotzi,” which is recited over bread, covers all the foodthat one consumes during a meal; it is because all other food is consideredsecondary to the bread. Weexplained above, that we learn from the growth of the wheat, from which breadis made, the vital principle that nothing can grow or be renewed without firstundergoing a stage of nullification—i.e. nullification of its current state.Therefore, only after the seeds of wheat decay and achieve a virtual state ofnothingness--' אין '—do they begin to grow and develop into a newentity. At that very moment, when they are in the ground and achieve the stateof » אין «, they pray to Hashem from the depths of the earth not to decaycompletely, to survive and grow into a new stalk of grain in the field above. We cannow appreciate and comprehend the song of the stalk of wheat. It recalls thechesed Hashem performed on its behalf whilst it was still deep in the ground ina state of decay. To express its gratitude to Hashem, it sings: 'שיר המעלותממעמקים קראתיך ה'' —thanking Hashem for hearing and responding to its pleafrom the depths of the earth. This iswhy David HaMelech instituted this psalm; so that we would join the stalk ofwheat in expressing gratitude to Hashem. For, we recognize all the kindness Heperforms on our behalf when we are in states of nothingness and helplessness.For instance, after every night of sleep, He returns our neshamos to usrevitalized. Itappears that we can suggest another reason that every situation of renewalrequires a prior state of nothingness. TheYosher Divrei Emet cites his Rav, the Maggid of Mezritsch, zy”a. He explainsthat this principle applies to spiritual matters as well. A person who wants torenew and revitalize his service of Hashem must first nullify his presentcircumstances—his ' יש '. This is accomplished by recognizing how farhe still has to go to serve Hashem properly. Through humility, submission andrecognition of his unworthiness, he will succeed in serving Hashem on a muchhigher level. Until he acknowledges his shortcomings in the service of Hashem,he will be unable to renew his spiritual self. We nowhave cause to rejoice! This illuminates for us the insight provided by theChiddushei HaRim, zy”a, concerning the name אלו'ל . As explained, itcombines the two spellings of the word “lo”-- ל'א and ל'ו . Thus, thename Elul reminds us that we must recognize that we have acted improperly andare not truly worthy of being Hashem's people--' .'ולא אנחנו עמו As aresult of this recognition and by mending our ways and attitudescorrespondingly, we will once again be deserving of the status of ' ולו אנחנועמו '. Let us explain this process in terms of our current discussion. Atthe end of the year, during the month of Elul, it is incumbent upon us to pushour personal reset buttons, so to speak. In order to create ourselves anewprior to Rosh HaShanah, we must nullify our old selves during the month ofElul. By recognizing that we are unworthy to be called His people--' ולא אנחנועמו '—we will succeed in transforming ourselves and taking on a newpersona in the new year consistent with the depiction--' .'ולו אנחנו עמו Followingthis glorious path, let us now address the opening pesukim of this week'sparsha discussing the mitzvah of bikkurim: “It will be when you enter the landthat Hashem, your G-d, gives you as an inheritance, and you take possession ofit, and dwell in it, that you shall take of the first of every fruit of theearth that you bring in from your land that Hashem, your G-d, gives you, andyou shall put it in a basket and go to the place that Hashem, your G-d, willchoose, to make His name rest there.” The KliYakar provides a rationale for this mitzvah. After conquering the new land,Yisrael were liable to become arrogant and attribute the conquest to their ownpowers and strategies. In particular, after working the land and growingvarious produce and fruit, they might think to themselves (Devarim 8, 17):' כוחי ועוצם ידי עשה לי את החיל הזה '—my strength and the might of myhand have generated this wealth for me. To eliminate this false belief, HKB”Hcommanded Yisrael to take the first of every fruit of the land, to take it upto the kohen in Yerushalayim and to recite an explicit expression of gratitudeto Hashem for giving us this land. This procedure was designed to fortify ouremunah in Hashem. Let usinterject a spicy tidbit. It is written (Tehillim 37, 11): וענוים יירשו ארץ''—the humble will inherit the earth. This passuk clearly implies that thequality of humility is propitious for inheriting Eretz Yisrael. For, we knowthat the kedushah of Eretz Yisrael is due to the presence of the Shechinah.This was especially true when the Beis HaMikdash was extant and operational. Asit is written (Shemos 25, 8): 'ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם' —they shallmake Me a sanctuary (Mikdash), so that I may dwell among them. Now, weknow that a prerequisite for the presence of the Shechinah is the midah ofhumility. In the words of the Gemara (Sotah 5a): 'לעולם ילמד אדם מדעת קונו,שהרי הקב'ה הניח כל הרים וגבעות והשרה שכינתו על הר סיני' —a personshould always learn from the good sense of his Creator—for behold, when HKB”Hgave the Torah, He abandoned all the great mountains and hills and insteadrested His Shechinah on Har Sinai (a lowly, unimpressive mountain). Additionally,they taught (ibid.): 'כל אדם שיש בו גסות הרוח, אמר הקב'ה אין אני והוא יכולים לדורבעולם' —concerning any person who possesses a haughtiness of spirit, HKB”Hsays: I and he cannot dwell together in the world. Therefore, HKB”H commandedthat upon entering the land, Yisrael would bring the bikkurim “to the placethat Hashem, your G-d, will choose, to make His name rest there.” This wouldinculcate in them the knowledge that HKB”H only rests His name in Eretz Yisraelin the merit of the midah of humility. Asexplained, the mitzvah of bikkurim is designed to shatter the klipah of “mystrength and the might of my hand have generated this wealth for me.” We willnow endeavor to explain why HKB”H used this mitzvah to hint to us theimportance of the midah of humility; for, this is the vital lesson we aresupposed to learn from the first fruit if we want to enter the land, keep itand endure in it. וְהָיָה֙ כִּֽי־תָב֣וֹאאֶל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁר֙ ה אֱלֹקיךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לְךָ֖ נַחֲלָ֑ה וִֽירִשְׁתָּ֖הּ וְיָשַׁ֥בְתָּבָּֽהּ׃ וְלָקַחְתָּ֞מֵרֵאשִׁ֣ית ׀ כׇּל־פְּרִ֣י הָאֲדָמָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר תָּבִ֧יא מֵֽאַרְצְךָ֛ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְהֹוָ֧האֱלֹהֶ֛יךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לָ֖ךְ וְשַׂמְתָּ֣ בַטֶּ֑נֶא וְהָֽלַכְתָּ֙ אֶל־הַמָּק֔וֹם אֲשֶׁ֤ריִבְחַר֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ לְשַׁכֵּ֥ן שְׁמ֖וֹ שָֽׁם׃ “It willbe when you enter the land that Hashem, your G-d, gives you as an inheritance,and you take possession of it, and dwell in it, that you shall take of thefirst of every fruit of the earth that you bring in from your land that Hashem,your G-d, gives you, and you shall put it in a basket and go to the place thatHashem, your G-d, will choose, to make His name rest there.” HKB”Hinstructs Yisrael: 'ולקחת מראשית כל פרי האדמה אשר תביא מארצך' . Letus expound: ' ולקחת '—you must learn a vital lesson— “lekach”—fromthe “first” yield of “every fruit of the earth.” When those fruits were yetseeds deep in the earth; they could not grow or sprout until they decayed intoa state of virtual nothingness— ״אין״ . In similar fashion, if you wish toremain in EretzYisrael, you must constantly humble yourselves, which is a type ofnullification and expression of nothingness. You must acknowledge how far youare still from serving Hashem properly. Only then will you be able to startanew, serving Hashem properly in His royal palace in Eretz Yisrael. Let usadd a valuable detail. When Moshe Rabeinu sent the meraglim to survey the land,he said to them (Bamidbar 13, 20): והתחזקתם ולקחתם מפרי הארץ' '—youshall strengthen yourselves and take from the fruit of the land. According tothe Zohar hakadosh (Shelach 158a), the meraglim did not want to enter the land,because they perceived that they would not maintain their elite status asprinces and leaders in Eretz Yisrael. This motivated them to speak ill of EretzYisrael, so that they would maintain thestatus of princes that they held in the midbar. In other words, the meraglim'sfailure is attributable to the klipah of arrogance— “ga'avah”; they feared thatthey would lose their prominence. Thus, itseems that this is what Moshe was hinting to the meraglim: ' והתחזקתם'—fortify yourselves against the yetzer of “ga'avah” that instills in youthe fear of losing authority and control; ' ולקחתם '—learn a vitallesson (“lekach”); ' —'מפרי הארץ from the fruit whose seeds cannotgrow and produce within the depths of the earth until they decay and achieve astate of nothingness. You, too,must fortify yourselves by achieving a state of virtual nothingness by totallyrelinquishing your prominent status as princes. By doing so, you will achieveyour complete tikun in Olam HaZeh and rise higher and higher in the service ofHashem. We cannow suggest the following. After the original generation of the midbar alldied—who were influenced by the meraglim, failing to learn the lessonconcerning the midah of humility from the fruit of the land—Moshe announced totheir children who were about to enter the land: “It will be when you enter theland that Hashem, your G-d, gives you as an inheritance, and you takepossession of it, and dwell in it.” He waswarning them that if they intend to enter the land and to prosper and survivein it, and not to suffer the fate of their fathers, who were not allowed toenter the land: 'ולקחת מראשית כל פרי האדמה' —be sure to learn thislesson (“lekach”) from the first yields of the fruits of the land—in contrastto their fathers who neglected to heed Moshe's warning: 'והתחזקתם ולקחתם מפריהארץ' —fortify yourselves and take (learn a lesson) from the fruit of theland. Thelesson relates to the avodah of the month of אלו'ל , whose name is formedby the two spellings of the word “lo”-- ל'א and ל'ו . As wehave explained, it is incumbent upon us to achieve a state of nothingnessthrough the midah of humility; we must acknowledge that due to our behavior, weare the embodiment of ' ולא אנחנו עמו '—we do not truly deserve to beHis people. Yet, withthis acknowledgment, we are able to renew ourselves through total teshuvah andreclaim the status of ' ולו אנחנו עמו '. In this merit, we willfinally deserve to be redeemed from the trials and tribulations of galus; aswe've learned, galus is the void and nothingness that must precede theflourishing growth of the future geulah—swiftly, in our times! Amen.

Introduction to Jewish prayer and shemoneh esrei: In this episode we look at the origins of set prayer and the history and evolution of the text of the Amida, or Shemoneh Esrei. We trace the history of a set text from the Men of the Great Assembly to Rabban Gamliel and Yavneh, and look at sources that state there were 17, 18 or 19 blessings in the Amida. For the original course page please visit https://webyeshiva.org/course/the-shemoneh-esrei-in-depth/

Rabban Gamliel's Differing Opinion: In Four Areas in the Talmud, Quality Outweighs Quantity

À travers deux histoires avec Rabbi 'Akiva, Rabban Gamliel, Rabban Élazar ben 'Azaria et Rabbi Yéhochou'a, on apprend deux enseignements essentiels : ce que l'on voit d'une situation, aussi décourageante soit-elle à un instant T, n'augure en rien de la manière dont cela va évoluer. Aucune situation n'est jamais désespérée pour le peuple juif car Hachem retourne toujours les évènements en faveur du 'Am Israël. Ne jamais laisser les difficultés et les défis du présent définir l'avenir et le potentiel de demain.

Business Judaico Como aumentar minha renda? OS SEGREDOS DA ÉTICA JUDAICA Pirkei Avot - Ética dos Pais 2:2 2– Rabban Gamliel, o filho de Rabi Yehudá HaNassi, disse: O estudo de Torá é belo junto com um trabalho, pois o esforço requerido afasta o pecado. Todo o estudo de Torá que não seja mesclado com trabalho terá o seu fim e conduzirá ao pecado. 4- não diga: “Quando eu estiver livre, estudarei”; pois talvez você não se torne livre. #chassidut #mistica #judaismo #pirkeiavot #tora #torah #eticajudaica #etica #eticadospais #Moral #educação #midot #comportamento #mashpia #mentor #orientador Curtiu a aula? Faça um pix 31267541806 Cpf, e nos ajude a darmos sequência neste projeto

It is regarded as a grave transgression to humiliate another person. Some emphasize the prohibition against verbally abusing one's spouse, noting that maintaining food (financial stability) in the household is advisable to preserve harmony. While many prayers may not always find immediate acceptance, the prayers of those who have suffered verbal abuse will always be heard, and God will punish the perpetrators. The story of the oven of Achnai illustrates the potency of prayers from those who have endured verbal abuse. Rabbi Eliezer, who stood against the majority opinion of the rabbis and was subsequently excommunicated and mistreated, serves as a prime example. Despite presenting miraculous signs and even a heavenly voice affirming the correctness of his stance, Rabbi Yehoshua asserted, "It is not in heaven." This narrative underscores the authority of the rabbinic system to establish its own truths, even if they diverge from the absolute truth of God. However, mentioning this story in this context highlights the impact of words and how the mistreatment of Rabbi Eliezer ultimately led to the death of Rabban Gamliel through his prayers. The prohibition against abusing converts is emphasized, with the Torah warning against it in thirty-six (or forty-six) instances. This underscores the severity of the offense and the importance of treating converts with respect and dignity.

It is regarded as a grave transgression to humiliate another person. Some emphasize the prohibition against verbally abusing one's spouse, noting that maintaining food (financial stability) in the household is advisable to preserve harmony. While many prayers may not always find immediate acceptance, the prayers of those who have suffered verbal abuse will always be heard, and God will punish the perpetrators. The story of the oven of Achnai illustrates the potency of prayers from those who have endured verbal abuse. Rabbi Eliezer, who stood against the majority opinion of the rabbis and was subsequently excommunicated and mistreated, serves as a prime example. Despite presenting miraculous signs and even a heavenly voice affirming the correctness of his stance, Rabbi Yehoshua asserted, "It is not in heaven." This narrative underscores the authority of the rabbinic system to establish its own truths, even if they diverge from the absolute truth of God. However, mentioning this story in this context highlights the impact of words and how the mistreatment of Rabbi Eliezer ultimately led to the death of Rabban Gamliel through his prayers. The prohibition against abusing converts is emphasized, with the Torah warning against it in thirty-six (or forty-six) instances. This underscores the severity of the offense and the importance of treating converts with respect and dignity.

This episode (a shiur from a few years ago) analyzes the part of the hagadah that we often rush through - from Rabban Gamliel through the end of Maggid.

Today's daf is sponsored by Emma and Richard Rinberg in honor of the engagement of their son Joseph to Shachar, daughter of Ayelet and Amir Yefet of Shoham. After concluding that everyone agrees that if a husband puts a get in his wife's courtyard, she is divorced because her courtyard is considered an extension of her hand, the Gemara brings three explanations as to what Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about regarding the acquiring of an item through the courtyard of a minor. If people are running after an animal with a broken leg who has entered into someone's field, the owner of the field can acquire it by saying "My field acquired it" since the animal is incapable of running away. But if the animal could run fast and escape, then that statement would be ineffective. Shmuel qualifies the Mishna that the field is unprotected and the owner is standing nearby. The Gemara brings proof from a braita that in an unprotected field, the owner must be nearby in order to acquire an ownerless item in the field. The braita contradicts itself and therefore an alternative reading is suggested which is used to prove Shmuel. However, the Gemara suggests an alternative reading of the braita to reject the proof, but that reading is not accepted. Ulla and Rabba bar bar Hana also qualified the Mishna in the same way as Shmuel. Rabbi Abba raises a difficulty against Ulla from a Mishna in Maaser Sheni 5:9 about Rabban Gamliel giving rights to maaser to Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva while they were on a boat by giving them rights to a piece of land on his property. Since they were not standing near the property, one can prove that they acquired it without being next to the property. One possible response to the difficulty is to explain that the act of acquiring was a kinyan agav, whereby one who acquires land and moveable items, acquires the land (through money) and the moveable items automatically become theirs. Rabbi Abba didn't accept this response and Rava explains why. Rava suggests that since there was an easier way to do it - by a kinyan sudar, and they did not use that method of acquiring, it must be because giving rights to maaser is not valued as money, since the maaser belongs to all the Levites/poor people and choosing which one is just considered a benefit. However, the Gemara rejects Rava's suggestion and explains that gifts of the tithes are considered money and explains why a symbolic act of acquisition would not have been effective, but kinyan agav is. Rav Papa offers a different answer to Rabbi Abba's difficulty by distinguishing between an ownerless item and one that is passed on by someone else. Is this an accurate distinction, as Ulla rules that when a husband passes a get to a wife's courtyard, it will only be effective if she is standing nearby? 

Today's daf is sponsored by Emma and Richard Rinberg in honor of the engagement of their son Joseph to Shachar, daughter of Ayelet and Amir Yefet of Shoham. After concluding that everyone agrees that if a husband puts a get in his wife's courtyard, she is divorced because her courtyard is considered an extension of her hand, the Gemara brings three explanations as to what Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about regarding the acquiring of an item through the courtyard of a minor. If people are running after an animal with a broken leg who has entered into someone's field, the owner of the field can acquire it by saying "My field acquired it" since the animal is incapable of running away. But if the animal could run fast and escape, then that statement would be ineffective. Shmuel qualifies the Mishna that the field is unprotected and the owner is standing nearby. The Gemara brings proof from a braita that in an unprotected field, the owner must be nearby in order to acquire an ownerless item in the field. The braita contradicts itself and therefore an alternative reading is suggested which is used to prove Shmuel. However, the Gemara suggests an alternative reading of the braita to reject the proof, but that reading is not accepted. Ulla and Rabba bar bar Hana also qualified the Mishna in the same way as Shmuel. Rabbi Abba raises a difficulty against Ulla from a Mishna in Maaser Sheni 5:9 about Rabban Gamliel giving rights to maaser to Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva while they were on a boat by giving them rights to a piece of land on his property. Since they were not standing near the property, one can prove that they acquired it without being next to the property. One possible response to the difficulty is to explain that the act of acquiring was a kinyan agav, whereby one who acquires land and moveable items, acquires the land (through money) and the moveable items automatically become theirs. Rabbi Abba didn't accept this response and Rava explains why. Rava suggests that since there was an easier way to do it - by a kinyan sudar, and they did not use that method of acquiring, it must be because giving rights to maaser is not valued as money, since the maaser belongs to all the Levites/poor people and choosing which one is just considered a benefit. However, the Gemara rejects Rava's suggestion and explains that gifts of the tithes are considered money and explains why a symbolic act of acquisition would not have been effective, but kinyan agav is. Rav Papa offers a different answer to Rabbi Abba's difficulty by distinguishing between an ownerless item and one that is passed on by someone else. Is this an accurate distinction, as Ulla rules that when a husband passes a get to a wife's courtyard, it will only be effective if she is standing nearby? 

Today's daf is sponsored by Rozy & Larry Jaffe in loving memory of Rozy's mother, Dita Muhlrad, Doba Faiga bat Menachem on her 8th yahrzeit. "Although she's gone 8 years, "nana" continues to inspire us all daily by recalling her elegance, generosity, and sharp witticisms. Born on Simchat Torah, she always smiled and exuded simcha to all who knew her." Under what circumstances can one raise small animals in Israel? Rabban Gamliel took a more lenient approach, however, in the Tosefta there is a more stringent approach. The Tosefta also rules the one who raises many small animals and wants to repent does not need to sell them all at once. Similarly, a convert who inherits dogs and pigs can sell them over time. Similarly, one who vowed to marry a woman or buy a house does not need to marry/buy the first woman/house he finds but can take his time to find the right one. A story is told of a widow who was desperate to marry to help discipline her son and vowed to marry the first man who proposed, but when inappropriate men proposed, the rabbis permitted her to wait until an appropriate man proposed. What kind of animals can one raise in the home and why? Cats are permitted, along with others, as they eat mice and worms. However, in a contradictory story, Rav rules that cats should be killed and it is forbidden to keep them, as they are dangerous! To resolve this, they distinguish between black and white cats. Rav Papa's sons mentioned three laws/ideas - when there is a plague of sores, people can cry out publicly in prayer on Shabbat (or perhaps it means they can declare fast days on account of it), a door that is closed, does not open very easily (understood metaphorically - how?) and one who purchases a house in Israel from a gentile can write a deed on Shabbat (by asking a gentile to write it for them). The Gemara raises a contradiction on the first, brings two suggestions to understand the second and better explains in what way the third is permitted. 

Today's daf is sponsored by Rozy & Larry Jaffe in loving memory of Rozy's mother, Dita Muhlrad, Doba Faiga bat Menachem on her 8th yahrzeit. "Although she's gone 8 years, "nana" continues to inspire us all daily by recalling her elegance, generosity, and sharp witticisms. Born on Simchat Torah, she always smiled and exuded simcha to all who knew her." Under what circumstances can one raise small animals in Israel? Rabban Gamliel took a more lenient approach, however, in the Tosefta there is a more stringent approach. The Tosefta also rules the one who raises many small animals and wants to repent does not need to sell them all at once. Similarly, a convert who inherits dogs and pigs can sell them over time. Similarly, one who vowed to marry a woman or buy a house does not need to marry/buy the first woman/house he finds but can take his time to find the right one. A story is told of a widow who was desperate to marry to help discipline her son and vowed to marry the first man who proposed, but when inappropriate men proposed, the rabbis permitted her to wait until an appropriate man proposed. What kind of animals can one raise in the home and why? Cats are permitted, along with others, as they eat mice and worms. However, in a contradictory story, Rav rules that cats should be killed and it is forbidden to keep them, as they are dangerous! To resolve this, they distinguish between black and white cats. Rav Papa's sons mentioned three laws/ideas - when there is a plague of sores, people can cry out publicly in prayer on Shabbat (or perhaps it means they can declare fast days on account of it), a door that is closed, does not open very easily (understood metaphorically - how?) and one who purchases a house in Israel from a gentile can write a deed on Shabbat (by asking a gentile to write it for them). The Gemara raises a contradiction on the first, brings two suggestions to understand the second and better explains in what way the third is permitted. 

The incredible story of Rabban Gamliel and his scholarly servant called Tevi

Rabban Gamliel b Rebbi (2/3)- courteous but cautious relations with government

Rabban Gamliel ben Rebbi (1/3)- ideal Torah with work, true leadership perspective

Rabban Gamliel- don't remain with/resolve innapropriately sfeikos

A widow can only collect her ketuba money from orphans by taking an oath (just like all creditors who collect from orphans on their father's debts). However, the rabbis would not permit widows to take oaths as they were concerned about false oaths. Why were they specifically concerned about widows and not about divorcees? Rabban Gamliel instituted a takana that widows could collect ketuba money by making a vow forbidding something that the orphans would agree to.  Why is a vow better than swearing in terms of concern for lying? Shmuel permitted oaths outside of a court as their level of severity is not as high. Rav would not permit any oaths and also would not allow women to collect their ketubot because he saw that people didn't take vows seriously. When Rav Huna ruled like this, the woman went ahead and swore anyway and was then permitted to collect her ketuba. In another situation with Rabba son of Rav Huna who also ruled like Rav, the woman then asked for her food allowance. However, Rabba told her that she is not eligible for her food allowance as Shmuel ruled that one who comes to court to claim her ketubah money is no longer eligible for food allowance. The woman was very frustrated and cursed Rabba for ruling by both Rav in one area and Shmuel in another, thus preventing her from getting any money. He subsequently died from the curse. Rav Yehuda made a public declaration endorsing Shmuel's opinion against Rav allowing widows to collect their ketubas. Why is there not a concern that a woman's husband will cancel her vow or she will go to a chacham to annul the vow? Some say she can only collect with a vow if she is not married and since people need to give the details of the vow when they go to a chacham, there is no chance this kind of vow will be canceled. Others permit it when she is married, but require her to take the vow in public as a public vow cannot be nullified by her husband. Rav Nachman and Rav Papa disagree about whether one needs to specify the vow when going to a chacham to permit a vow. What is the basis of their debate?

A widow can only collect her ketuba money from orphans by taking an oath (just like all creditors who collect from orphans on their father's debts). However, the rabbis would not permit widows to take oaths as they were concerned about false oaths. Why were they specifically concerned about widows and not about divorcees? Rabban Gamliel instituted a takana that widows could collect ketuba money by making a vow forbidding something that the orphans would agree to.  Why is a vow better than swearing in terms of concern for lying? Shmuel permitted oaths outside of a court as their level of severity is not as high. Rav would not permit any oaths and also would not allow women to collect their ketubot because he saw that people didn't take vows seriously. When Rav Huna ruled like this, the woman went ahead and swore anyway and was then permitted to collect her ketuba. In another situation with Rabba son of Rav Huna who also ruled like Rav, the woman then asked for her food allowance. However, Rabba told her that she is not eligible for her food allowance as Shmuel ruled that one who comes to court to claim her ketubah money is no longer eligible for food allowance. The woman was very frustrated and cursed Rabba for ruling by both Rav in one area and Shmuel in another, thus preventing her from getting any money. He subsequently died from the curse. Rav Yehuda made a public declaration endorsing Shmuel's opinion against Rav allowing widows to collect their ketubas. Why is there not a concern that a woman's husband will cancel her vow or she will go to a chacham to annul the vow? Some say she can only collect with a vow if she is not married and since people need to give the details of the vow when they go to a chacham, there is no chance this kind of vow will be canceled. Others permit it when she is married, but require her to take the vow in public as a public vow cannot be nullified by her husband. Rav Nachman and Rav Papa disagree about whether one needs to specify the vow when going to a chacham to permit a vow. What is the basis of their debate?

The earth cannot suffer the violence performed and the blood shed upon her surface. She will react. Text here: https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.24

Rav Nachman held like Rebbi on both issues - that one who cancels a get in a court, even after Rabban Gamliel's takana, the cancellation will be effective, and one can cancel some of the witnesses not in the presence of the others. A contradiction is raised against Rav Nachman , as elsewhere he rules the one needs to upholds the power of the court when it comes to dividing up the property of orphans. A distinction is made between monetary laws (orphan's property) and prohibitions (divorce). Rava and Abaye disagree about whether or not we accept gilui daat (where someone indicated his wishes but did not say them explicitly) in cases of divorce. This is one of the six cases (Y'AL K'GaM) where we hold like Abaye against Rava. The case in which they argue is when a messenger arrived with a get and the wife told him to come back tomorrow as she is busy weaving. When the messenger returns with this information to the husband, he responds, "Baruch hatov v'hameitiv," indicating that he was happy she did not receive the get, but not stating explicitly that the get was canceled. Abaye and Rava each bring cases to try to prove their position. The Gemara rules like Rav Nachman on two issues - one, that one cancels a get in front of two people and two, that we hold like Rebbi on both issues (see above). They also rule like Abaye that gilui daat is not effective in divorce. If people are known by different names in different places, originally, they would only write the name they were known as in their current city, but later they instituted that they should put in the get all the names they are known by (or perhaps just add the words "and any other name that they are known by). Rav Ashi limits this to a case where the person is known by both names in the place where the get is given (however, some understand Rav Ashi to be saying the reverse). A widow can only collect her ketuba money from orphans by taking an oath. However, the rabbis would not permit women to take oaths as they were concerned about false oaths. Therefore they instituted a takana that women could collect the money by making a vow that the orphans would agree to. Another two takanot were that witnesses need to sign a get and Hillel instituted prosbol to allow loans to be collected after the shmita year.

Rav Nachman held like Rebbi on both issues - that one who cancels a get in a court, even after Rabban Gamliel's takana, the cancellation will be effective, and one can cancel some of the witnesses not in the presence of the others. A contradiction is raised against Rav Nachman , as elsewhere he rules the one needs to upholds the power of the court when it comes to dividing up the property of orphans. A distinction is made between monetary laws (orphan's property) and prohibitions (divorce). Rava and Abaye disagree about whether or not we accept gilui daat (where someone indicated his wishes but did not say them explicitly) in cases of divorce. This is one of the six cases (Y'AL K'GaM) where we hold like Abaye against Rava. The case in which they argue is when a messenger arrived with a get and the wife told him to come back tomorrow as she is busy weaving. When the messenger returns with this information to the husband, he responds, "Baruch hatov v'hameitiv," indicating that he was happy she did not receive the get, but not stating explicitly that the get was canceled. Abaye and Rava each bring cases to try to prove their position. The Gemara rules like Rav Nachman on two issues - one, that one cancels a get in front of two people and two, that we hold like Rebbi on both issues (see above). They also rule like Abaye that gilui daat is not effective in divorce. If people are known by different names in different places, originally, they would only write the name they were known as in their current city, but later they instituted that they should put in the get all the names they are known by (or perhaps just add the words "and any other name that they are known by). Rav Ashi limits this to a case where the person is known by both names in the place where the get is given (however, some understand Rav Ashi to be saying the reverse). A widow can only collect her ketuba money from orphans by taking an oath. However, the rabbis would not permit women to take oaths as they were concerned about false oaths. Therefore they instituted a takana that women could collect the money by making a vow that the orphans would agree to. Another two takanot were that witnesses need to sign a get and Hillel instituted prosbol to allow loans to be collected after the shmita year.

Study Guide Gittin 33 This week's learning is sponsored by Bob & Paula Cohen in loving memory of Chaim Avraham HaKohen ben Alter Gershon HaKohen.  Today's daf is sponsored by Sylvia Klein in loving memory of her brother, Bobby Klein. "Bobby taught us love, acceptance, and compassion. We miss you all these years later."  What proof does Rav Nachman bring to show that two people can count as a beit din? What is the reason for the takana of Rabban Gamliel not permitting the cancellation of a get in front of a court and how does it connect to the debate between Rav Sheshet and Rav Nachman regarding the number of people who need to be present when one cancels a get. Is it to prevent mamzarim or agunot? If one goes against the takana of Rabban Gamliel and cancels a get in court is the get canceled or not? Do Rabbis have the power to override Torah law?  The Gemara explains that the Rabbis have the power to uproot the marriage (afki'inhu rabanan l'kiddushin minei) in this case because the husband didn't keep to their rules regarding marriage and therefore didn't keep to his conditions of "k'dat moshe v'yisrael" that he accepted when he got married. If a husband told ten people to write a get to his wife, can he cancel it in front of some of them? Rebbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel debate this issue. There are two different explanations as to what is the debate between them and what is the basis for the debate. Either they debate whether testimony that is partially canceled is fully canceled or whether one who cancels testimony needs to cancel it in front of all those they testified before. According to who do we rule on these two debates between Rebbi and Rashbag? 

The daf describes why Rabban Gamliel need to make a takana for Tikkun Olam. What does Tikkun Olam mean in the world of the Talmud.

Study Guide Gittin 33 This week's learning is sponsored by Bob & Paula Cohen in loving memory of Chaim Avraham HaKohen ben Alter Gershon HaKohen.  Today's daf is sponsored by Sylvia Klein in loving memory of her brother, Bobby Klein. "Bobby taught us love, acceptance, and compassion. We miss you all these years later."  What proof does Rav Nachman bring to show that two people can count as a beit din? What is the reason for the takana of Rabban Gamliel not permitting the cancellation of a get in front of a court and how does it connect to the debate between Rav Sheshet and Rav Nachman regarding the number of people who need to be present when one cancels a get. Is it to prevent mamzarim or agunot? If one goes against the takana of Rabban Gamliel and cancels a get in court is the get canceled or not? Do Rabbis have the power to override Torah law?  The Gemara explains that the Rabbis have the power to uproot the marriage (afki'inhu rabanan l'kiddushin minei) in this case because the husband didn't keep to their rules regarding marriage and therefore didn't keep to his conditions of "k'dat moshe v'yisrael" that he accepted when he got married. If a husband told ten people to write a get to his wife, can he cancel it in front of some of them? Rebbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel debate this issue. There are two different explanations as to what is the debate between them and what is the basis for the debate. Either they debate whether testimony that is partially canceled is fully canceled or whether one who cancels testimony needs to cancel it in front of all those they testified before. According to who do we rule on these two debates between Rebbi and Rashbag? 

How does a husband cancel a get? At what stage can it be canceled? Originally he could cancel the get (before it reached the wife) by going in front of the beit din but Rabban Gamliel instituted a takana that one could no longer cancel the get in that way, as the wife may not hear the get was canceled and would think she was divorced. Which wording is effective and which wording would not be effective to cancel? If he cancels the get that a messenger is sending, can he reuse the same get later if he decides later to divorce his wife or is the get itself canceled, meaning did he just cancel the messenger or did he cancel the get as well?

How does a husband cancel a get? At what stage can it be canceled? Originally he could cancel the get (before it reached the wife) by going in front of the beit din but Rabban Gamliel instituted a takana that one could no longer cancel the get in that way, as the wife may not hear the get was canceled and would think she was divorced. Which wording is effective and which wording would not be effective to cancel? If he cancels the get that a messenger is sending, can he reuse the same get later if he decides later to divorce his wife or is the get itself canceled, meaning did he just cancel the messenger or did he cancel the get as well?

Finishing one chapter and starting the next. Wrapping up some possible cases - for the relationships where the husband isn't present or available to continue with sotah proceedings, but his warning to her negates her claim on her ketubah even though she doesn't drink the bitter waters. Also, a mishnah that lists many of the halakhot that were taught in the Beit Midrash when R. Elazar ben Azariah took over the leadership, when Rabban Gamliel was deposed. The laws are far-ranging, though beginning with Sotah, and reporting the prowess of R. Akiva, in solving some issues that R. Yochanan ben Zakkai (who was no longer alive) predicted would be resolved by subsequent generations.

Source Sheet: https://tinyurl.com/2fnfyhed

Study Guide Nazir 29 This week’s learning is dedicated by Phyllis & Yossie Hecht in memory of Phyllis’s father’s 14th yahrzeit, l'zecher HaRav Yerachmiel Binyanim ben Zalman Tzvi Witkin. "Jerry Witkin, as he was affectionately known to all, was a true source of nachat to his friends, family and clal yisrael. Dad was a friend to all, activist and champion of causes and sameach b'chelko. As this week is Parshat Terumah, Dad only knew had to give and never learned how to take. It is so appropriate to commemorate this part of Adar in your memory as the yahrzeit is the first day of Rosh Chodesh Adar. Meshenichnas Adar Marbim B'Simcha! Dad was a baal koreh par excellence since he was 11 years old-and on Purim was the baal koreh of Megilat Esther which brought joy to so many. Your legacy of 6 children, 29 grandchildren and ever growing great-grandchildren - all Torah Jews continues to live on. You are so missed and we have been so blessed. Yehi Zichro Baruch." Why can a man make his son become a nazir but a woman cannot? Rabbi Yochanan says it is a halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai. Reish Lakish says it is because it is part of the father's obligation of chinuch (education) for his son. Seven questions are brought against Reish Lakish's opinion including, why wouldn't a woman also be obligated to educate her child, why wouldn't it apply to daughters as well, and how can the relatives protest the father's educating of his child. In answer to the seventh question, the Gemara assumes that Reish Lakish holds like Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda that by Torah law one does not need to slaughter birds. A question is raised against that as it seems from another source that Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda does hold birds need proper slaughtering by Torah law. But, in the end, it can be explained that the other source was referring to rabbinic law. It is suggested that Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish's debate between Rebbi and Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda regarding the cut-off age at which a father can no longer take on a nazirite vow for his son. But that suggestion is rejected. Rebbi and Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda have the same debate as Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yosi as found in the Tosefta Nidda 5:6.

Revoking and annulling vows on Shabbat - the latter, specifically for things needed that same Shabbat. Plus, revoking vows at night - but why does this need to be stated? What happens when the vow is made on Shabbat? Wrapping up these issues, or almost. Also, can judges nullify a vow while standing? Rabban Gamliel dismounted his donkey to adjudicate a case... Does that answer the case? Plus, the sin in vowing, and the source for it.

Today’s daf is dedicated with love by the Hadran Daf Yomi group of Hashmonaim to our wonderful friend and havruta Phyllis Hecht and her entire family on the occasion of the Bar Mitzvah of her son Caleb, celebrated this past Shabbat Breishit. May this special simcha bring joy and light as we pray for the good health of Phyllis (Gitel Pesha bat Masha Rahel) Today’s daf is sponsored in honor of the marriage of David and Eve Farber's daughter, Allie. The third debate between Admon and the rabbis is if a man commits money to his future son-in-law (one who is betrothed to his daughter) and then goes bankrupt, can the fiance delay the indefinitely or can the woman insist she either marry her or divorce her? A different version appears in the Tosefta where the debate is only regarding a case where the woman herself committed the money, but if it was the father, all agree that the woman can insist that he marry or divorce her as it is not she who made the commitment. Another braita limits the law to a grown woman, as if she is young and committed money, we do not take her commitment seriously as she is a minor. Rabban Gamliel supported Admon and Rabbi Yitzchak ben Elazar ruled like Rabban Gamliel where he sides like Admon. Rabbi Zeira made a ruling regarding the cases of Admon and Chanan and regarding which cases we hold by them. It seemed to contradict what Rabbi Yitzchak said, so they suggest a different reading/understanding of Rabbi Zeira's ruling. If one is signed on a document of sale between two people and then later claims that the field was stolen from him, Admon and the rabbi debate whether that person is believed. However, they both agree in a case where one signed a document regarding the sale of one field but mentioned that it bordered on the owner's field, that the signator cannot come and claim the bordering property was stolen from him. If it was a judge who signed verifying the signatures of the witnesses, this debate would be irrelevant as we assume that judges relate only to the signatures and not the content of the document. In the second case, regarding the bordering field, if the sale is to the one who later claims it was stolen, then the stolen claim can be accepted as one can say there was a reason for agreeing earlier to the border claim, in order to ensure that the sale go through. A case is brought where one claimed the land was stolen from him and then subsequently died, having appointed a steward in his place to plead the case for his orphans. The steward made one claim after another and succeeded in getting all the land for the orphans. If one went abroad and upon returning no longer remembered where one had a path that led from their property through the surrounding neighbor's property, Admon and the rabbis disagree about whether they get the shortest path or do they need to pay the owner of the surrounding territory to be able to pass through. Rava mentions a number of scenarios where there is no debate, depending on how many people own the surrounding territories. The debate is only in a case where it was originally owned by four different owners but now when the claim is made, there is only one. A case is brought up where a father promised his daughter upon his death one palm tree. Rav Yosef thought to compare it to our Mishna as each male heir can claim it is not in his territory, but his comparison is rejected. Another issue of that case is raised - if there are two separate half palms trees that they own (i.e. they have a partnership with someone's two palm trees), can they give her those, instead of one whole one, even though it will be more difficult for her to tend to them?

Today's daf is sponsored by Malka Abraham. " Thank you to Rabbanit Michelle and the entire Hadran community. Shana Tova!" Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel both agree that if a woman received usufruct property before she was betrothed, she had the rights to sell it. But they disagree regarding the usufruct property of a woman that comes to her possession when she is betrothed. Can she sell it? And if the answer is no, if she does it anyway, is the sale a valid sale? According to Rabbi Yehuda, a discussion ensued between the rabbis and Rabban Gamliel debating whether the husband during the betrothal should or should not be able to prevent his wife from being able to sell her property. In the case where she receives usufruct property during the marriage, all agree that if she were to sell it, the sale is not valid. However, Rabban Gamliel holds that if she received the property during or before the betrothal and sold it after she was married, the sale is valid. Rabbi Chanina ben Akavia holds explained that a discussion ensued between the rabbis and Rabban Gamliel debating whether the husband during the marriage should have full rights to the property she inherited before or not. Rabbi Shimon distinguishes between property the husband knew of (sale is not valid) and property he did not know of (sale is valid, even though ideally, she should not sell it). Why do Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel agree in the case before the betrothal but disagree after the betrothal? Was Rabbi Yehuda's description of the discussion between Rabban Gamliel and the rabbis referring to her ability to sell the property ab initio (Beit Shamai) or post facto (where both Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel agree)? To answer the question they quote the Tosefta Ketubot 8:1. In that source Rabbi Chanina is quoted there with a different version of the line of argumentation of Rabban Gamliel against the rabbis. Also there, he has a different opinion regarding the sale of property received before the wedding but sold during the marriage - he says it can be done ab initio. This contradicts our Mishna that says the sale is valid only after the fact, but ideally, she can't sell it. The contradiction is resolved by explaining that Rabbi Yehuda (the Mishna) and Rabbi Chanina (the Tosefta) disagree about what Rabban Gamliel held in this case. Rav and Shmuel have a third approach that in this case, the sale would be invalid. As this corresponds with no opinion we have seen thus far, how can they say that? Once she is married and inherits property, all agree that the sale is not valid. Is this the same as the takana they instituted in Usha? What did Rabbi Shimon mean by "property he knew about" and "property he did not know about"? Two explanations are brought. 

There is a case where Rabbi Yehoshua agrees with Rabban Gamliel - if one is in possession of land and says to the other claimant, "It was your father's but I purchased it from him," the claim is accepted, as "the mouth that forbade (admitted that it belonged to the other) is the mouth that permitted (but I purchased it)." This is true only if there were no witnesses attesting to the fact that it originally belonged to his father. In the first case in the Mishna, regarding a woman whose ketuba is lost and she claims she was a virgin and should get 200 zuz and the husband claims she was not and only gets 100, the ruling is that only is she brings witnesses, can we accept her claim. Is this not according to Rabban Gamliel or would he agree with Rabbi Yehoshua in this case? Can one prove from the language of the second case "Rabbi Yehoshua admits" that in the first case, Rabban Gamliel agreed with Rabbi Yehoshua? No! As that language is referring back to the previous chapter. To which case in the previous chapter? Why does Rabbi Yehoshua agree in our Mishna that since there is a migo (since a better claim could have been made and it wasn't, it is likely they are telling the truth), we can accept the claim, but in the case in Chapter One, he does not accept a migo claim? If we assume that most women are virgins, why do we need witnesses? If her ketuba is lost, why aren't we concerned that she is claiming her ketuba for the second time after she already collected it in a court earlier and now is lying that her ketuba is lost? Two answers are given. What were other customs that were practiced at the wedding of a virgin?

What do they sing when they dance before a kallah? Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel have different approaches. Stories are told of words of praise they would say to rabbis as well. Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak would juggle before brides – was this viewed as a positive act or not? Other rabbis would carry brides on their shoulders – how was this permitted? Could everyone do this as well? Can and should one stop learning Torah to go to a wedding or a funeral? On what does it depend? What goes on at a wedding of a woman who is a virgin that can later be used as testimony that she was a virgin at her wedding and therefore had a ketuba of 200 zuz. Rabbi Yehoshua agrees with Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer that one is believed in a case where they claim that they are living in a property that was owned by someone’s father, but that he purchased it from them. Why did the Mishna choose a case regarding a purchase from one’s father and not directly from the seller?

Today's daf is sponsored by Avi Yonitzman for the refuah shleima of Moshe David ben Tzvia. A case came before Rav Yosef with a pregnant fiancé - both she and the fiancé claimed that the child was his. Rav Yosef believed them since the man agreed with the woman and since we hold like Rabban Gamliel, even in a case where he didn’t agree, we believe the woman as we rely on her presumptive status (permitted to a kohen). Abaye raises a difficulty as Shmuel ruled like Rabban Gamliel only when there until there is a kosher majority. Rabbi Yosef replied Shmuel must have said that only ab initio but not post facto and our case is post facto as they are already betrothed and she is already pregnant. Abaye cites a Mishna in Eduyot 8:3 where Rabbi Yehushua had an opinion contradictory to his opinion here – regarding a widow isa (widow of a safek chalal). Raba resolves the contradiction, but Rava points out that he did not take into consideration that in the same Mishna, Rabban Gamliel also has an opinion that contradicts his opinion here. Therefore, Rava resolves the contradiction in a different manner. The Gemara brings a braita with a dispute between three regarding the almanat isa. The Gemara raises three questions in understanding the braita and then explains all three opinions in a way that solves all the difficulties. The Mishnah brings up a case of a young woman that was raped and ruled that she should only be permitted to marry a kohen if the majority of people in the area are “kosher”. How can this be because it does not conform to the opinion of Rabban Gamliel who allows even if the majority are not kosher and not Rabbi Yehoshua who forbids even if the majority are kosher?!

If the husband claims his wife is not a virgin and she says that it was from an injury (mukat etz) and he accuses her of having been with another man, again we have a debate between Rabbi Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer on one side and Rabbi Yehoshua on the other. Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree about whether the man claims 100 zuz and woman 200 zuz or the man claims that she deserves nothing and she claims 100 zuz. Their debate is based on the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding a mukat etz - whether she gets a ketuba or 100 or 200. It is also based on a disagreement regarding a man who finds out after the marriage that his wife was not a virgin, does she receive a ketuba or 100 or none at all. If a woman was "talking" to another man and there is concern she had relations with him, if she claims he was of "kosher" lineage, can we rely on her testimony and permit her to marry a kohen? Again, the same rabbis as above debate this issue. They also debate a case where the woman was pregnant and she testifies that the father is "kosher". What is the meaning of "talking" - was it that she went into a room alone with him or is it that we know she had intercourse with him? Zeiri and Rav Asi debate this issue and several sources are brought to raise difficulties against each of them and each difficulty is resolved, other than the last one which is left as a difficulty against Rav Asi. The last source was from the Tosefta Ketubot 1:9 which had a more detailed conversation between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer which ended with a confusing exchange regarding the differences/similarities between a woman taken into captivity and a pregnant woman or a woman who was seen in a secluded area with a man. Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree regarding whether each side holds their position also regarding the woman's testimony regarding the status of her daughter. Rabbi Eliezer raises a difficulty with Rabbi Yochanan from the Tosefta. Rabbi Yochanan responds by limiting what was meant by the designation in the Tosefta of the child being a shtuki.