Podcasts about Rabbi Akiva

Discover your style archetype free: https://tally.so/r/kdvR6jIn this episode I dive into some observations about the masculine and feminine based on Kabbalistic principles, female dignity, some important sex differences, and much more.TIMESTAMPS:00:00 — Introduction01:45 — Why I love being Jewish03:00 — Foundations of truth08:00 — Is a woman the infinite?10:30 — A Woman's dignity13:00 — What is the dark feminine?18:30 — Story of Rabbi Akiva and Rachel22:00 — Lessons about feminine power25:00 — Sex differences in attunement31:00 — Outro____________________ More Resources For You: FREE 50 Essential Books & Films - https://ancientintelligence.kit.com/t... Book a coaching consult: https://calendly.com/anyashakh/coaching

The explanation of the debate between Shimon Ha'amusani and Rabbi Akiva.Source Sheet: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YPbmgJwuIg5iFQ4YOx2r_2kpnvhdRRHb/view?usp=share_link

Following the dispute between the tanna of our Mishna and Rabbi Yosi HaGelili, where each derived from a different verse the exemption from firstborn status for an animal that gave birth to an offspring resembling a different species, the Gemara clarifies what Rabbi Yosi HaGelili derives from the proof-verses of our tanna ("peter hamor" twice). Rabbi Yosi HaGelili derives from there the source for exempting horses and camels from firstborn status. Rav Achai raises a difficulty against his derivation, but the Gemara answers his objection. Our tanna derives this rule (exempting the firstborn of horses and camels) from a general rule and a detail (klal u'phrat): "All your livestock you shall designate as male" is a general rule, "ox and sheep and donkey" is a detail, and a general rule includes only that which is in the detail; therefore, firstborn laws apply only to a donkey and not to other non-kosher animals. The Gemara discusses a series of uncertainties regarding an animal that gave birth to a different species that possesses some of the mother's features: regarding a cow that gave birth to a donkey-like offspring, do we judge it like a goat that gave birth to a sheep-like offspring that looks somewhat like its mother, which is subject to firstborn status because both are subject to firstborn status, or perhaps here the laws are different because one is sanctified with intrinsic holiness (kedushat haguf) and the other with monetary value (kedushat damim), and one is kosher while the other is not? Subsequently, the Gemara inquires about a donkey that gave birth to a horse-like offspring and a cow that gave birth to a horse-like offspring. From the braitot, the Gemara proves that the obligation when there are partial features was stated regarding a cow that gave birth to a donkey-like offspring, but it remains unclear regarding the other questions. Regarding eating, the Mishna clarifies the principle that what emerges from the non-kosher is non-kosher, and it is not judged according to the offspring's appearance but rather according to its mother - this rule was intended to remember the law. The source showing that a kosher animal born from a non-kosher mother is forbidden to be eaten is from the verse "These you shall not eat," whereas a non-kosher offspring born from a kosher mother is permitted, as it is said, "the camel... it is non-kosher" - it is non-kosher, but a non-kosher born from a kosher mother is kosher. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and forbids a non-kosher animal born from a kosher mother based on the repetition of the word "camel" in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and he derives the prohibition of milk from a non-kosher animal from the phrase "et ha-gamal" (the camel), whereas the Sages forbid milk from "camel" "camel" and do not derive laws from the word "et." To show that there are those who derive laws from the word, et, the Gemara brings the position  of Shimon HaAmsoni, who derives laws from that word, but changed his position when he reached "You shall fear the Lord (et Hashem) your God," until Rabbi Akiva came and taught that it serves to include Torah scholars. The Gemara clarifies why a special verse was needed to forbid the milk of a non-kosher animal and presents two possible explanations. Afterwards, it discusses the source for permitting the milk of a kosher animal and presents six proofs, of which three are rejected. The Gemara cites a braita stating that a sheep that gave birth to a goat-like offspring or a goat that gave birth to a sheep-like offspring is exempt from firstborn status unless it possesses some of the mother's features, and Rabbi Shimon disagrees, maintaining that it is not obligated until its head and most of its body resemble its mother. The Gemara concludes with the question: Does Rabbi Shimon require its head and most of its body to resemble its mother regarding the prohibition of eating as well?

A braita discusses whether a sea-mouse transmits impurity—that is, whether the word "mouse" includes a sea-mouse. Within that discussion, it also addresses a mouse that is half flesh and half earth, deriving from scripture that it transmits impurity like a standard mouse. The braita concludes that a sea-mouse does not transmit impurity. The Gemara raises two challenges against the braita, but resolves both. Following the discussion on the verse regarding the mouse, the Gemara turns to expound the words "ha-tzav le-minehu" from that same verse, which includes other unique creatures—the arod,  ben nefilim), and the salamander—and notes Rabbi Akiva's marveling at the diversity of creation ("Mah rabu ma'asecha Hashem"). Another braita asserts that every creature found on land has a counterpart in the sea except for the chulda (weasel), derived from "kol yoshvei chaled". The Gemara digresses to an aggadic discussion regarding the questionable character of the inhabitants of Naresh (after mentioning a law regarding the beavers of Naresh), and presents an account where Rav Huna bar Torta witnessed a snake mating with a tzav to produce an arod, which Rava characterizes as a "miracle within a miracle" sent as a punishment. The Mishna rules that a dangling limb or flesh attached to a live animal is susceptible to food impurity (tumat ochlin) in its place (if one thought to give it to a non-Jew to eat), provided a liquid came upon it rendering it susceptible to impurity, but it does not impart impurity as a limb from a living animal (ever min hachai). If the animal is slaughtered, Rabbi Meir holds that the slaughtering blood creates susceptibility to food impurity, whereas Rabbi Shimon holds that it does not; neither holds that there is impurity of a limb from a live animal. If the animal dies, Rabbi Meir holds that the flesh requires a liquid to render it susceptible to food impurity, while the dangling limb transmits impurity as a limb from a living animal, though not as a carcass (neveila). Rabbi Shimon, on the other hand, considers it pure from the impurity of a limb from a live animal. Analyzing the Mishna, the Gemara asks why dangling flesh/limbs transmit food impurity but not impurity of a limb from a live animal, in the case where the animal is alive. It resolves that even if the flesh cannot heal (ein ma'alin arucha), impurity as a limb from a living animal requires the limb to completely detach from the verse "ki yipol". A braita supports this, ruling that even if attached by only a hair's breadth, it does not transmit impurity until it falls off, yet it remains susceptible to food impurity. The Gemara compares this to produce withered on the tree, such as dried figs, which transmit food impurity while still considered attached regarding the prohibition of picking on Shabbat. Regarding the case in the Mishna where the animal was slaughtered, the Gemara asks what constitutes the core point of dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon, ultimately offering six different explanations. Rabba explains that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree on whether the main body of the animal acts as a "handle" (yad) to transmit hechsher to the dangling limb. Abaye and Rabbi Yochanan explain the debate differently: they disagree on the status of a handle where lifting the smaller dangling part does not carry the larger body (as it detaches), with Rabbi Meir considering it attached and Rabbi Shimon disagreeing.

A list of the creeping-crawlies... which diverts us to the fire that a salamander can generate, and the glory of God's creations, including animals that grow on land vs. those from sea vs. those from fire, and the wonder of Rabbi Akiva. Plus, the corruption of the people of Neresh, and various different strengths (or weaknesses) of various locations. Also, a new mishnah! The impurity of partially severed limbs.

A braita discusses whether a sea-mouse transmits impurity—that is, whether the word "mouse" includes a sea-mouse. Within that discussion, it also addresses a mouse that is half flesh and half earth, deriving from scripture that it transmits impurity like a standard mouse. The braita concludes that a sea-mouse does not transmit impurity. The Gemara raises two challenges against the braita, but resolves both. Following the discussion on the verse regarding the mouse, the Gemara turns to expound the words "ha-tzav le-minehu" from that same verse, which includes other unique creatures—the arod,  ben nefilim), and the salamander—and notes Rabbi Akiva's marveling at the diversity of creation ("Mah rabu ma'asecha Hashem"). Another braita asserts that every creature found on land has a counterpart in the sea except for the chulda (weasel), derived from "kol yoshvei chaled". The Gemara digresses to an aggadic discussion regarding the questionable character of the inhabitants of Naresh (after mentioning a law regarding the beavers of Naresh), and presents an account where Rav Huna bar Torta witnessed a snake mating with a tzav to produce an arod, which Rava characterizes as a "miracle within a miracle" sent as a punishment. The Mishna rules that a dangling limb or flesh attached to a live animal is susceptible to food impurity (tumat ochlin) in its place (if one thought to give it to a non-Jew to eat), provided a liquid came upon it rendering it susceptible to impurity, but it does not impart impurity as a limb from a living animal (ever min hachai). If the animal is slaughtered, Rabbi Meir holds that the slaughtering blood creates susceptibility to food impurity, whereas Rabbi Shimon holds that it does not; neither holds that there is impurity of a limb from a live animal. If the animal dies, Rabbi Meir holds that the flesh requires a liquid to render it susceptible to food impurity, while the dangling limb transmits impurity as a limb from a living animal, though not as a carcass (neveila). Rabbi Shimon, on the other hand, considers it pure from the impurity of a limb from a live animal. Analyzing the Mishna, the Gemara asks why dangling flesh/limbs transmit food impurity but not impurity of a limb from a live animal, in the case where the animal is alive. It resolves that even if the flesh cannot heal (ein ma'alin arucha), impurity as a limb from a living animal requires the limb to completely detach from the verse "ki yipol". A braita supports this, ruling that even if attached by only a hair's breadth, it does not transmit impurity until it falls off, yet it remains susceptible to food impurity. The Gemara compares this to produce withered on the tree, such as dried figs, which transmit food impurity while still considered attached regarding the prohibition of picking on Shabbat. Regarding the case in the Mishna where the animal was slaughtered, the Gemara asks what constitutes the core point of dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon, ultimately offering six different explanations. Rabba explains that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree on whether the main body of the animal acts as a "handle" (yad) to transmit hechsher to the dangling limb. Abaye and Rabbi Yochanan explain the debate differently: they disagree on the status of a handle where lifting the smaller dangling part does not carry the larger body (as it detaches), with Rabbi Meir considering it attached and Rabbi Shimon disagreeing.

This class explores two Talmudic stories—Rabbi Akiva's 'All is for the good' and Nachum Ish Gamzu's 'This too is for the good.' It examines their subtle differences, how they relate to divine discipline, and how these teachings can shape our perception of hardship. https://www.torahrecordings.com/classes/by_parsha/005_devarim/007_ki_tavo/007

This shiur explores how the Torah's rebuke sections, though seemingly harsh, conceal hidden blessings. Through stories of the Alter Rebbe, Nachum Ish Gamzu, and Rabbi Akiva, as well as analysis of parshiyos and Gemara, we learn that apparent adversity often brings deeper good. https://www.torahrecordings.com/classes/by_parsha/005_devarim/007_ki_tavo/008

Offering bikkurim teaches both that all success comes from Hashem and that one can sanctify material life itself by using worldly possessions in His service. The rebuke read before Rosh Hashanah is not punishment but a cleansing that prepares us to receive an even greater revelation of divine blessing. Rabbi Akiva recognized that painful events ultimately produce good, while Nachum Ish Gamzu perceived that everything is inherently good from the outset—a perspective that will be fully revealed in the Messianic era. The various acronyms of Elul encompass Torah, prayer, charity, teshuvah, and redemption, enabling every aspect of the person to become united with Hashem. By asking Hashem for tzedakah rather than blessings measured according to our merits, we appeal directly to His unlimited essence and draw down a sweet new year beyond all limitations. This class, taught by Rabbi Shais Taub, is based on Ki Savo in Likkutei Sichos Vol. 2.

The distinction between Rabbi Akiva's leniencies regarding cooking undomesticated animals and fowl in milk vs. those of Rabbi Yossi HaGelili's permission and stringency in that regard. Plus, the respect afforded Rabbi Yossi HaGelili's opinion because it was his opinion, in his own region -- even by those who strongly disagreed, like Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. Also, a new mishnah! On curdling milk to make cheese -- even when the process is done within the stomach of an animal. With implications when the animal was kosher or non-kosher, and dependent also on whether that "meat" gives flavor to the cheese.

In this lesson from the Gate of Repentance (Shaar HaTeshuvah), Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe explores one of the Torah's gravest prohibitions: Chillul Hashem—the desecration of Hashem's Name. The Talmud teaches that even seemingly minor actions can become a desecration when performed by someone whom others view as a Torah representative. A rabbi who delays paying a bill, appears lax in mitzvah observance, or behaves carelessly can unintentionally encourage others to imitate that conduct. Rabbi Wolbe explains that our actions are never isolated; they influence everyone watching us. Every Jew has the opportunity either to elevate Hashem's Name or, Heaven forbid, diminish it in the eyes of others.The lesson continues by explaining the importance of building protective barriers against temptation. Rabbi Wolbe clarifies a famous Talmudic passage instructing a person overwhelmed by temptation to go somewhere unfamiliar dressed in black. The purpose is not to permit sin, but to create enough obstacles that the impulse loses its power before any transgression occurs. Just as filters on electronic devices, counting before reacting in anger, or avoiding situations of temptation make poor decisions less likely, spiritual growth often depends on creating practical safeguards that keep the yetzer hara from gaining momentum.Finally, Rabbi Wolbe contrasts Chillul Hashem with its glorious opposite: Kiddush Hashem, sanctifying Hashem's Name. Every mitzvah performed with integrity brings honor to the Torah, while those who sacrifice themselves because they are Jewish achieve the highest form of sanctification. He reflects on recent Jewish victims of terrorism and recalls Rabbi Akiva's joyous acceptance of martyrdom as the ultimate fulfillment of loving Hashem "with all your soul." The episode concludes with the inspiring reminder that every Jew, through daily choices both public and private, has the ability to bring greater honor to Hashem and illuminate His presence in the world._____________This Podcast Series is Generously Underwritten by Peter & Becky BotvinRecorded at TORCH Centre in the Levin Family Studios (B) to a live audience on December 22, 2025, in Houston, Texas.Released as Podcast on July 24, 2026_____________This series on Orchos Tzadikim/Ways of the Righteous is produced in partnership with Hachzek.Join the revolution of daily Mussar study at hachzek.com.We are using the Treasure of Life edition of the Orchos Tzadikkim (Published by Feldheim)_____________Listen, Subscribe & Share: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/jewish-inspiration-podcast-rabbi-aryeh-wolbe/id1476610783Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4r0KfjMzmCNQbiNaZBCSU7) to stay inspired! Share your questions at aw@torchweb.org or visit torchweb.org for more Torah content.  _____________About the Host:Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe, Director of TORCH in Houston, brings decades of Torah scholarship to guide listeners in applying Jewish wisdom to daily life.  To directly send your questions, comments, and feedback, please email: awolbe@torchweb.org_____________Support Our Mission:Our Mission is Connecting Jews & Judaism. Help us spread Judaism globally by sponsoring an episode at torchweb.org.Your support makes a HUGE difference!_____________Listen MoreOther podcasts by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe: NEW!! Hey Rabbi! Podcast: https://heyrabbi.transistor.fm/episodesPrayer Podcast: https://prayerpodcast.transistor.fm/episodesJewish Inspiration Podcast: https://inspiration.transistor.fm/episodesParsha Review Podcast: https://parsha.transistor.fm/episodesLiving Jewishly Podcast: https://jewishly.transistor.fm/episodesThinking Talmudist Podcast: https://talmud.transistor.fm/episodesUnboxing Judaism Podcast: https://unboxing.transistor.fm/episodesRabbi Aryeh Wolbe Podcast Collection: https://collection.transistor.fm/episodesFor a full listing of podcasts available by TORCH at http://podcast.torchweb.orgv_____________Keywords:#JewishInspiration, #Mussar, #MasterClass, #Repentance, #Teshuva ★ Support this podcast ★

In this lesson from the Gate of Repentance (Shaar HaTeshuvah), Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe explores one of the Torah's gravest prohibitions: Chillul Hashem—the desecration of Hashem's Name. The Talmud teaches that even seemingly minor actions can become a desecration when performed by someone whom others view as a Torah representative. A rabbi who delays paying a bill, appears lax in mitzvah observance, or behaves carelessly can unintentionally encourage others to imitate that conduct. Rabbi Wolbe explains that our actions are never isolated; they influence everyone watching us. Every Jew has the opportunity either to elevate Hashem's Name or, Heaven forbid, diminish it in the eyes of others.The lesson continues by explaining the importance of building protective barriers against temptation. Rabbi Wolbe clarifies a famous Talmudic passage instructing a person overwhelmed by temptation to go somewhere unfamiliar dressed in black. The purpose is not to permit sin, but to create enough obstacles that the impulse loses its power before any transgression occurs. Just as filters on electronic devices, counting before reacting in anger, or avoiding situations of temptation make poor decisions less likely, spiritual growth often depends on creating practical safeguards that keep the yetzer hara from gaining momentum.Finally, Rabbi Wolbe contrasts Chillul Hashem with its glorious opposite: Kiddush Hashem, sanctifying Hashem's Name. Every mitzvah performed with integrity brings honor to the Torah, while those who sacrifice themselves because they are Jewish achieve the highest form of sanctification. He reflects on recent Jewish victims of terrorism and recalls Rabbi Akiva's joyous acceptance of martyrdom as the ultimate fulfillment of loving Hashem "with all your soul." The episode concludes with the inspiring reminder that every Jew, through daily choices both public and private, has the ability to bring greater honor to Hashem and illuminate His presence in the world._____________This Podcast Series is Generously Underwritten by Peter & Becky BotvinRecorded at TORCH Centre in the Levin Family Studios (B) to a live audience on December 22, 2025, in Houston, Texas.Released as Podcast on July 24, 2026_____________This series on Orchos Tzadikim/Ways of the Righteous is produced in partnership with Hachzek.Join the revolution of daily Mussar study at hachzek.com.We are using the Treasure of Life edition of the Orchos Tzadikkim (Published by Feldheim)_____________Listen, Subscribe & Share: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/jewish-inspiration-podcast-rabbi-aryeh-wolbe/id1476610783Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4r0KfjMzmCNQbiNaZBCSU7) to stay inspired! Share your questions at aw@torchweb.org or visit torchweb.org for more Torah content.  _____________About the Host:Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe, Director of TORCH in Houston, brings decades of Torah scholarship to guide listeners in applying Jewish wisdom to daily life.  To directly send your questions, comments, and feedback, please email: awolbe@torchweb.org_____________Support Our Mission:Our Mission is Connecting Jews & Judaism. Help us spread Judaism globally by sponsoring an episode at torchweb.org.Your support makes a HUGE difference!_____________Listen MoreOther podcasts by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe: NEW!! Hey Rabbi! Podcast: https://heyrabbi.transistor.fm/episodesPrayer Podcast: https://prayerpodcast.transistor.fm/episodesJewish Inspiration Podcast: https://inspiration.transistor.fm/episodesParsha Review Podcast: https://parsha.transistor.fm/episodesLiving Jewishly Podcast: https://jewishly.transistor.fm/episodesThinking Talmudist Podcast: https://talmud.transistor.fm/episodesUnboxing Judaism Podcast: https://unboxing.transistor.fm/episodesRabbi Aryeh Wolbe Podcast Collection: https://collection.transistor.fm/episodesFor a full listing of podcasts available by TORCH at http://podcast.torchweb.orgv_____________Keywords:#JewishInspiration, #Mussar, #MasterClass, #Repentance, #Teshuva ★ Support this podcast ★

The Book of Devarim is full of stories we've already heard. Yet Moshe tells them again, choosing carefully what to emphasize. He isn't changing the facts. He's teaching us that the meaning of our lives depends on the story we choose to tell about them. A child falls while learning to ride a bicycle. Is that a story of failure, or the first step toward independence? Moshe tells us how God refused his request to enter the Land of Israel, yet he also shows us how to see the blessing he was given instead, and how to understand his life's mission in a new way. As Tisha B'Av approaches, the Talmud offers us two models to remember the destruction of Jerusalem. We use both. We begin by mourning with the rabbis who weep over what was lost. We end with Rabbi Akiva, who laughs because he sees in those same ruins the certainty of redemption. The facts have not changed. But the ending has. And the story we choose to tell shapes the people we become. Michael Whitman is the senior rabbi of ADATH Congregation in Hampstead, Quebec, and an adjunct professor at McGill University Faculty of Law. ADATH is a modern orthodox synagogue community in suburban Montreal, providing Judaism for the next generation. We take great pleasure in welcoming everyone with a warm smile, while sharing inspiration through prayer, study, and friendship. Rabbi Whitman shares his thoughts and inspirations through online lectures and shiurim, which are available on: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5FLcsC6xz5TmkirT1qObkA Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/adathmichael/ Podcast - Mining the Riches of the Parsha: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/mining-the-riches-of-the-parsha/id1479615142?fbclid=IwAR1c6YygRR6pvAKFvEmMGCcs0Y6hpmK8tXzPinbum8drqw2zLIo7c9SR-jc Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3hWYhCG5GR8zygw4ZNsSmO Please contact Rabbi Whitman (michael@adath.ca) with any questions or feedback, or to receive a daily email, "Study with Rabbi Whitman Today," with current and past insights for that day, video, and audio, all in one short email sent directly to your inbox.

Rabbi Akiba's Tears Parashat Matot begins with a number of laws regarding vows, including the authority given to a husband to annul certain vows taken by his wife. The Torah states that in such a case, when a wife takes a vow and the husband declares its annulment, "V'Hashem Yislah Lah" – G-d will forgive the woman (30:13). The Sages understood this verse as referring to a situation where the wife did not know that her husband annulled the vow, and nevertheless proceeded to violate it. For example, the wife declared herself a Nezira, committing to abstain from wine, and she later decided to drink wine despite her vow. As it turned out, she committed no transgression by drinking wine, because her husband annulled her vow of Nezirut. Nevertheless, she requires G-d's forgiveness since she intended to violate the vow. The Gemara (Kiddushin 81b) tells that Rabbi Akiba would weep each time he read this verse. He was overcome by emotion upon seeing that even a person who did not commit a sin requires atonement if he intended to commit a sin. If even such an act – which was actually permissible – requires atonement, then how much more so is a person held accountable when he commits an act that is truly forbidden. A deep explanation for Rabbi Akiva's tears emerges from the teachings of Rav Shimshon of Ostropoli (1600-1648). Ashkenazic communities have the custom of including in the Kinnot on Tisha B'Ab a lament for the Asara Harugeh Malchut – the ten great sages who were murdered by the Romans. The Roman emperor learned the law in the Torah that kidnapping a person and then selling him as a slave is a capital offense, punishable by death. He thus decreed that ten great sages must be murdered to atone for the sin of Mechirat Yosef – when Yosef's brothers committed this exact crime, selling their brother as a slave. Since this crime was committed by Yosef's ten brothers, ten sages were brutally murdered to atone for this misdeed. In truth, only nine of Yosef's brothers participated in his sale as a slave. Binyamin, the youngest, was home and thus not present at the time of the sale, and Reuben tried to rescue Yosef. Thus, this crime was committed by only nine brothers. Rav Shimshon of Ostropoli cites the Arizal as teaching that the Almighty Himself, as it were, was the tenth participant. He decreed that this should happen, and He thus "completed the Minyan," so-to-speak, joining Yosef's brothers in selling him as a slave to Egypt. Now the Kabbalists have identified the specific correspondence between the Asara Harugeh Malchut and the brothers who sold Yosef – meaning, which of the ten great sages corresponds to which of Yosef's brothers. For example, one of these sages was Rabbi Huspit Ha'meturgeman – a great Rabbi who was blessed with a loud, clear voice, and thus worked as the "broadcaster" who would help the Rabbis deliver their lectures. He corresponds to Naftali, who is described as "Ha'noten Imreh Shafer" (49:21) – the speaker of beautiful words. Rav Shimshon of Ostropoli taught that Rabbi Akiba, who was among the ten sages murdered by the Romans, corresponded to G-d, the tenth "participant" in Mechirat Yosef. This is because Rabbi Akiba taught that the Torah's command to fear Hashem extends also to Torah scholars – meaning, just as one is obligated to fear Hashem, so must one show reverence to the sages. As Rabbi Akiba equated, in a sense, Torah scholars with the Almighty, he was chosen to "represent" G-d as one of the Asara Harugeh Malchut. We can now return to Rabbi Akiba's weeping upon reading the verse in Parashat Matot, "V'Hashem Yislah Lah." Rabbi Akiba knew that he represented G-d as the tenth participant in Mechirat Yosef. However, he felt comforted by Yosef's own words many years later, when he explained to his brothers that he felt no resentment toward them for what they did: "Ve'atam Hashabtem Alai Ra'a, Elokim Hashabah Le'Toba" – "You plotted evil against me, but G-d plotted for the good" (50:20). Although the brothers intended to inflict harm, their actions actually brought great blessing and good fortune, as Yosef ended up saving Egypt and the entire ancient world by predicting the seven years of famine and ordering the storage of grain during the preceding years of surplus. Rabbi Akiba thus figured that he – as a representative of Yosef's brothers – would not be held accountable for the sin of Mechirat Yosef, because it in truth turned out to be a blessing, and not a sin. However, when Rabbi Akiva read the verse "V'Hashem Yislah Lah," he wept. He then realized that even if a person's actions ended up being permissible, nevertheless, he requires atonement if he had intended to act wrongly. Rabbi Akiba thus understood that the time would come when an accounting would be made for the sin of Mechirat Yosef. As we approach the observance of Tisha B'Ab, let us all work together to rectify the sin of Mechirat Yosef by striving to be kinder, more compassionate and more forgiving. If Yosef's brothers brought calamity upon future generations through their efforts to harm Yosef, let us correct this mistake by redoubling our efforts to help and bring joy to all our brothers and sisters, even those with whom we have disagreements, and we will then be worthy of our final redemption, Amen.

This evening we remember and pay tribute to Aviva Ravel, a regular and beloved part of our group Thursday nights and every morning at our 10@9, who passed away last week. We discuss an insight from Rabbi Meilech Biderman on last week's Torah portion, Balak, gaining a profound lesson from the rebuke of Bilaam's donkey, which all too often could be directed to many of us. We examine when we should and should not identify someone who has acted improperly, learning that even the great Rabbi Akiva once got this wrong. And we investigate how Moshe intuited the motivation behind the question asked by the daughters of Tzelofchad, "raising" their question before God by assuming the highest motive and not the most malicious, another practice especially relevant to us now as we begin the Three Weeks when we should be especially careful to see the best in each other and not the opposite. Michael Whitman is the senior rabbi of ADATH Congregation in Hampstead, Quebec, and an adjunct professor at McGill University Faculty of Law. ADATH is a modern orthodox synagogue community in suburban Montreal, providing Judaism for the next generation. We take great pleasure in welcoming everyone with a warm smile, while sharing inspiration through prayer, study, and friendship. Rabbi Whitman shares his thoughts and inspirations through online lectures and shiurim, which are available on: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5FLcsC6xz5TmkirT1qObkA Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/adathmichael/ Podcast - Mining the Riches of the Parsha: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/mining-the-riches-of-the-parsha/id1479615142?fbclid=IwAR1c6YygRR6pvAKFvEmMGCcs0Y6hpmK8tXzPinbum8drqw2zLIo7c9SR-jc Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3hWYhCG5GR8zygw4ZNsSmO Please contact Rabbi Whitman (michael@adath.ca) with any questions or feedback, or to receive a daily email, "Study with Rabbi Whitman Today," with current and past insights for that day, video, and audio, all in one short email sent directly to your inbox.

043 Chullin 32a- Machlokes Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yeshoveiv

The Gemara explores the halakhic distinction between finding a needle embedded within the wall of the beit hakosot (reticulum) versus inside the liver. In the liver, the orientation of the needle indicates its trajectory, allowing the Sages to determine whether it caused a disqualifying perforation. Conversely, in the beit hakosot, the orientation is inconclusive, as the movement of food within the stomach could have pushed the needle out. When a perforation is discovered, it may be uncertain whether the puncture occurred before or after the shechita (ritual slaughter). The Sages present differing opinions regarding whether it can be assumed to have happened after the shechita in order to permit the animal. Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva dispute two unrelated matters: the status of certain fats (chelev) on the stomach as either permitted or forbidden, and the interpretation of the phrase "and I will bless them" in Birkat Kohanim (the Priestly Blessing)—specifically, whether God's blessing is directed toward the Kohanim or toward the Jewish people. The Gemara delineates which internal fats are sticky enough to serve as an effective seal over a tear, preventing it from rendering the animal a treifa. In this context, the Sages evaluate whether to rule leniently based on the overarching principle that the Torah has compassion for the financial resources of the Jewish people.

The Gemara explores the halakhic distinction between finding a needle embedded within the wall of the beit hakosot (reticulum) versus inside the liver. In the liver, the orientation of the needle indicates its trajectory, allowing the Sages to determine whether it caused a disqualifying perforation. Conversely, in the beit hakosot, the orientation is inconclusive, as the movement of food within the stomach could have pushed the needle out. When a perforation is discovered, it may be uncertain whether the puncture occurred before or after the shechita (ritual slaughter). The Sages present differing opinions regarding whether it can be assumed to have happened after the shechita in order to permit the animal. Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva dispute two unrelated matters: the status of certain fats (chelev) on the stomach as either permitted or forbidden, and the interpretation of the phrase "and I will bless them" in Birkat Kohanim (the Priestly Blessing)—specifically, whether God's blessing is directed toward the Kohanim or toward the Jewish people. The Gemara delineates which internal fats are sticky enough to serve as an effective seal over a tear, preventing it from rendering the animal a treifa. In this context, the Sages evaluate whether to rule leniently based on the overarching principle that the Torah has compassion for the financial resources of the Jewish people.

WOW!!!

The dispute between Rabbi Natan and the rabbis regarding whether a secular slaughter requires intent has ramifications in the case of one who slaughters an additional animal during the slaughter of a para aduma (engaging in an extraneous activity). If slaughter does not require intent, the cutting of the second animal's simanim is considered a completed act of slaughter, and consequently, the para aduma is disqualified because an extraneous activity was performed at that time. Conversely, if slaughter requires intent, the unintended slaughter is not considered an act at all, and the para aduma remains valid. The disqualifications of shechita begin with the law of shehiya (pausing), which occurs when the slaughterer pauses between the slaughter of one siman and the next. A tannaitic dispute is analyzed regarding the duration of time that disqualifies due to pausing, questioning whether it is the time of an act of slaughter or the time it takes to examine the knife. Several amoraim define the duration of slaughter: Rav defines it as the time needed to slaughter another animal, while Rav and Shmuel dispute whether the disqualifying pause for a bird slaughter is measured by the time it takes to slaughter an animal or a bird. Additional opinions expand this duration to include the time required for physical handling of the animal, such as the time it takes to lower it to the ground or lift it and push it down. The details of the disqualifications continue with ikur (tearing the simanim instead of cutting them) and chalada (inserting the knife beneath the simanim or behind them). These flaws in the act of slaughter trigger a tannitic dispute between Rabbi Yeshevav and Rabbi Akiva over whether animals disqualified by an improper slaughter, such as shehiya, chalada, or ikur, are considered a treifa and do not impart impurity, or whether they are treated as a neveila and impart impurity through carrying. Ultimately, Rabbi Akiva reversed his original understanding and agreed with Rabbi Yeshevav that the status of these animals is like a neveila in all regards. A contradiction to the Mishna arises from a Mishna at the beginning of the third chapter, which lists a severed windpipe among the defects that define an animal as a treifa, seemingly contradicting our Mishna's ruling that such a defect is considered a neveila. To resolve this contradiction, four potential resolutions are proposed, two of which are ultimately rejected.

The dispute between Rabbi Natan and the rabbis regarding whether a secular slaughter requires intent has ramifications in the case of one who slaughters an additional animal during the slaughter of a para aduma (engaging in an extraneous activity). If slaughter does not require intent, the cutting of the second animal's simanim is considered a completed act of slaughter, and consequently, the para aduma is disqualified because an extraneous activity was performed at that time. Conversely, if slaughter requires intent, the unintended slaughter is not considered an act at all, and the para aduma remains valid. The disqualifications of shechita begin with the law of shehiya (pausing), which occurs when the slaughterer pauses between the slaughter of one siman and the next. A tannaitic dispute is analyzed regarding the duration of time that disqualifies due to pausing, questioning whether it is the time of an act of slaughter or the time it takes to examine the knife. Several amoraim define the duration of slaughter: Rav defines it as the time needed to slaughter another animal, while Rav and Shmuel dispute whether the disqualifying pause for a bird slaughter is measured by the time it takes to slaughter an animal or a bird. Additional opinions expand this duration to include the time required for physical handling of the animal, such as the time it takes to lower it to the ground or lift it and push it down. The details of the disqualifications continue with ikur (tearing the simanim instead of cutting them) and chalada (inserting the knife beneath the simanim or behind them). These flaws in the act of slaughter trigger a tannitic dispute between Rabbi Yeshevav and Rabbi Akiva over whether animals disqualified by an improper slaughter, such as shehiya, chalada, or ikur, are considered a treifa and do not impart impurity, or whether they are treated as a neveila and impart impurity through carrying. Ultimately, Rabbi Akiva reversed his original understanding and agreed with Rabbi Yeshevav that the status of these animals is like a neveila in all regards. A contradiction to the Mishna arises from a Mishna at the beginning of the third chapter, which lists a severed windpipe among the defects that define an animal as a treifa, seemingly contradicting our Mishna's ruling that such a defect is considered a neveila. To resolve this contradiction, four potential resolutions are proposed, two of which are ultimately rejected.

Love Your Fellow As Yourself- Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Akiva

Having received his Ph.D. in mathematical logic at Brandeis University, Rabbi Dr. Dovid Gottlieb went on to become Professor of Philosophy at Johns Hopkins University. Today he is a senior faculty member at Ohr Somayach in Jerusalem. An accomplished author and lecturer, Rabbi Gottlieb has electrified audiences with his stimulating and energetic presentations on ethical and philosophical issues. In Jewish Philosophy with Rabbi Dr. Gottlieb, we are invited to explore the most fascinating and elemental concepts of Jewish Philosophy. https://podcasts.ohr.edu/ podcasts@ohr.edu

The Shavuos Perspective: Nourished By G-d Why do we celebrate the giving of the Torah with dairy foods? In this special Shavuos episode, we explore the deeper meaning behind one of the most beloved customs of the Yom Tov. Through the teachings of the Rama, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and Rabbi Akiva, we uncover how Torah is not only wisdom to study, but nourishment that sustains the Jewish soul. From Har Sinai to today, Shavuos reminds us that Torah is more than commandments, it is G-d drawing us close, sustaining us, and giving us clarity, purpose, and life itself. ✨ More than we long to receive Torah, G-d longs to give it.

The Mishna rules that "one may always slaughter." Raba and Rav Yosef both understand this to refer to the period of Exile, but each explains it according to a different Tannaitic view - either Rabbi Yishmael or Rabbi Akiva. These Sages disagreed over whether the Jewsl in the desert were forbidden to eat meat unless it was brought as a sacrifice, or whether they were permitted to eat meat even without formal ritual slaughter (shechita). After delving into the debate between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva and resolving various difficulties raised against each position, the Gemara challenges the explanations of both Raba and Rav Yosef based on the textual context of the Mishna. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that the phrase "one may always slaughter" includes even a Jew who eats non-kosher meat l'teavon (out of appetite). The Gemara then analyzes which specific types of nicks in a knife disqualify a slaughter and render the animal a treifa, and which do not. The Gemara outlines various customs regarding the method used to check the knife, alongside a debate concerning which parts of the blade must be examined.

The Mishna rules that "one may always slaughter." Raba and Rav Yosef both understand this to refer to the period of Exile, but each explains it according to a different Tannaitic view - either Rabbi Yishmael or Rabbi Akiva. These Sages disagreed over whether the Jewsl in the desert were forbidden to eat meat unless it was brought as a sacrifice, or whether they were permitted to eat meat even without formal ritual slaughter (shechita). After delving into the debate between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva and resolving various difficulties raised against each position, the Gemara challenges the explanations of both Raba and Rav Yosef based on the textual context of the Mishna. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that the phrase "one may always slaughter" includes even a Jew who eats non-kosher meat l'teavon (out of appetite). The Gemara then analyzes which specific types of nicks in a knife disqualify a slaughter and render the animal a treifa, and which do not. The Gemara outlines various customs regarding the method used to check the knife, alongside a debate concerning which parts of the blade must be examined.

What if one accomplishes shechitah by means of a mechanism that slaughters the animal - is that shechitah kosher? The answer lies in how much human involvement there is to activate that mechanism. Also, parsing the statements that "all are slaughtered" -- namely, every animal needs proper slaughtering. Plus, how eating meat in the wilderness was not allowed because shechitah wasn't possible, but then, when the Israelites came to the land of Israel, they were able to slaughter and eat the meat of animals. And now (in the time of the Gemara), after exile, shechitah continues instead of returning to the practice of the wilderness. Plus, the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva with regard to how meat could be made acceptable in the wilderness.

This week Israel observed the 'minor' holiday of Lag B'Omer - the 33rd day of the Counting of the Omer. What is the story behind this day? Jim Long and Rabbi Chaim Richman reflect on the history of the great sage Rabbi Akiva and his student Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, who rebelled against Roman occupation of the Land of Israel, and is credited with authoring the Zohar. What is the role of a 'tzaddik,' an exceptionally righteous person, in Torah thought? And why is it customary to pray at the tombs of the righteous? Our hosts engage in a fascinating conversation that conveys many lessons about venerating the righteous, and the power of prayer._________Rabbi Chaim Richman Jerusalem Lights | Torah for Everyone Join our new WhatsApp channel! https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbDN...Rabbi Chaim Richman's 'Jerusalem Lights', a non-profit educational organization, shares the wisdom of Torah teachings with all sincere spiritual seekers, emphasizing the ennoblement of the human spirit, the brotherhood of mankind, and the nurturing and development of each individual's personal faith and relationship with the Creator. Torah for Everyone!If you enjoy these videos, please consider supporting the work of Jerusalem Lights, Inc., a USA recognized 501 ( c ) 3 non-profit organization to enable these productions to continue and grow: PayPal: infojerusalemlights@gmail.com or: https://paypal.me/JerusalemLights?loc...In the USA: Jerusalem Lights Inc. Post Office Box 16886Lubbock Texas 79490In Israel: Tel. 972 54 7000395 Mail: PO Box 23808, Jerusalem Israel For more information: https://www.rabbirichman.comSubscribe to our YouTube channel:    / @jerusalemlights-rabbirichman  Follow us on Facebook:   / rabbichaimrichman    / 282440396475839  

Why do we celebrate Lag Ba'Omer on a day born from tragedy?Chazal teach that Rabbi Akiva's students stopped dying on this day. But the Pri Chadash offers a piercing twist: they stopped dying because there was no one left.And yet the Torah didn't disappear.In this shiur, delivered to the Chizuk Mission, Rav Burg explains how from total devastation emerged five students who rebuilt the future of Torah.We dive into the deeper idea that even at the edge of complete collapse, what some describe as the “fiftieth level”, there remains an irreducible point that cannot be extinguished. A hidden spark. A place where Hashem is never absent.Lag Ba'Omer is not just a pause in tragedy.It is the revelation that even in the darkest place… something essential remains.And from that place, everything begins again.

Lag Ba'Omer is a unique day in the Jewish calendar. It's a minor festival celebrated in surprising ways for surprising reasons: on this day, the plague that was ravaging the the students of Rabbi Akiva ceased. On this day as well, Rabbi Akiva's prize student, Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochi, died. The death of a great […]

Lag Ba'Omer is a unique day in the Jewish calendar. It's a minor festival celebrated in surprising ways for surprising reasons: on this day, the plague that was ravaging the the students of Rabbi Akiva ceased. On this day as well, Rabbi Akiva's prize student, Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochi, died. The death of a great sage is more of a transition to the heavenly academy. Rabbi Shimon, the great cognoscente and promulgator of the Kabbalistic Torah, ascended to heaven on this auspicious day, and therefore, the power of his life, lessons, and teachings is particularly strong on this day. But why is Rabbi Shimon singled out as the day, as the person whose day of transition to the heavenly academy is particularly celebrated? In this interesting podcast, we identify a unique theme strong throughout the life and teachings of Rabbi Shimon that makes his influence and message ever so relevant.– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –DONATE: Please consider supporting the podcasts by making a donation to help fund our Jewish outreach and educational efforts at https://www.torchweb.org/support.php. Thank you!– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –NEW TORCH Mailing Address POBox:TORCHPO BOX 310246HOUSTON, TX 77231-0246– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –Email me with questions, comments, and feedback: rabbiwolbe@gmail.com– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –SUBSCRIBE to my Newsletterrabbiwolbe.com/newsletter– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –SUBSCRIBE to Rabbi Yaakov Wolbe's PodcastsThe Parsha PodcastThe Jewish History PodcastThe Mitzvah Podcast This Jewish LifeThe Ethics PodcastTORAH 101 ★ Support this podcast ★

Rabbi Jacobson will discuss the following topics: 16 Iyar Why don't we recite the Parsha about Manna every day, as well as the Ten Commandments, like we do the Parsha of the Akeidah, as stated in Shulchan Aruch?  What is the significance of this special day? How could the students of Rabbi Akiva not respect each other to the point of it causing a plague? Why don't we see such harsh consequences (G-d forbid) due to other acts of disrespect in our times? How did the Mitteler Rebbe celebrate Lag B'Omer? Why was it a day of miracles? How can Lag B'Omer open up channels of connection between parents and children? What is the source that this day is the hilula of Rashbi? Why is the day of Rashbi's passing a time of joy and celebration? What is the connection with Hod of Hod? Why is Rashbi referred to as Shabbos? What were some of the big secrets Rashbi revealed right before his passing? How could Rashbi have passed away while he was teaching Torah? What is the connection between Lag B'Omer and the gal (mound) that Jacob built to serve as a witness of the boundary between him and Laban? How is that consistent with the verse gal einei, which is a state of open revelation, the opposite of Jacob's gal that separates and conceals? How does Chassidus explain the difference between Choni HaMaagel and Rashbi causing it to rain? Why did Rashbi hide from the Romans, while the Alter Rebbe allowed himself to be arrested? How could Rashbi have caused fire to consume and destroy? Is Lag B'Omer or Yud Tes Kislev the Rosh Hashana of the Inner Torah? What did the Rebbe mean when he said that Rashbi is at the Ohel? Should I write a pan to the Rebbe or to Rashbi, or both?Chassidus Applied to Lag B'Omer 

Shiur given by Rabbi Daniel Coren on Lag BaOmer. Shiur recorded in Yeshivas Ohr Reuven, Monsey, NY.

The Gemara in Menachos 68b discusses a question Rav Tarfon asked in the Beis Midrash: why is a korban brought before the Omer passul while one brought before the shtei halechem, while not allowed, is kasher. After Yehuda bar Nechemia gave the correct answer, with a big smile, Rabbi Akiva told Yehuda that he'd be shocked if he would live out the year. And he didn't.This Shiur is a mix of Halacha and Hashkafa. First it analyzes the difference between a Korban brought before the Omer and one brought before the shtei halechem. Then it analyzes the story of Rabbi Akiva and Yehuda Ben Nechemia, and explains why he was deserving of death.

Part of the mitzvah of honoring Hashem is honoring the people He created in His image. Imagine a man speaking words of praise to a king, while at the same time spitting on a picture of that very king. That is what it is like when a person dishonors others—it is a direct lack of respect toward Hashem Himself. We are currently mourning the deaths of Rabbi Akiva's 24,000 students, and the question is striking: how could such great Torah scholars have lacked proper respect for one another? The Chafetz Chaim makes an eye-opening observation. Rabbi Akiva taught: ואהבת לרעך כמוך זה כלל גדול בתורה —a person must love his fellow as himself. This mitzvah means we must treat others the way we want to be treated. The students of Rabbi Akiva were working on humility. They did not seek honor for themselves, and they minimized physicality. As a result, they did not feel the need to give honor to others either. They misunderstood that true humility does not mean withholding honor—it means elevating others. Rabbi Akiva's teacher, Rabbi Eliezer HaGadol, taught: יהי כבוד חברך חביב עליך כשלך —a person should value his friend's honor like his own. But after the tragedy, Rabbi Akiva taught his new students with a deeper emphasis: a person must treat his friend even better than himself. From this came the teaching: יהי כבוד חברך כמורא רבך ומורא רבך כמורא שמים —one should honor his friend as he fears his rabbi, and fear his rabbi as he fears Hashem. This means that honoring another person is, in essence, an expression of honoring Hashem. Rabbi Akiva himself later said: חביב אדם שנברא בצלם —man is beloved because he was created in the image of Hashem. If a person would pass us on the street and we ignored him, and then someone told us that this was the top student of the Gadol Hador, we would likely run back to greet him properly. The truth is, we should feel that way about every person, because each one carries the image of Hashem within him. Rabbi Yerucham Levovitz made a remarkable observation from the following halachah. During Keriat Shema, when we are praising Hashem, we are not allowed to even gesture or signal with our hands—even for the sake of a mitzvah. Imagine a case where someone walks into the shul during Shema selling etrogim, and if we do not signal to him to wait, no one in that shul will have an etrog for Sukkot. Even then, we are not allowed to make a gesture. And yet, if someone greets us and would be offended if we do not respond, we are permitted to answer him. What do we see from here? That honoring another person is so significant that it takes precedence even at a moment when we are directly praising Hashem. It would be a contradiction to honor Hashem while causing embarrassment to one of His creations. When we give kavod to another person, we are giving kavod to Hashem. Pirkei Avot teaches: "Who is honored? One who honors others," and it brings the pasuk: כי מכבדי אכבד —those who honor Me, I will honor them. The connection is clear: when a person honors others, it is considered as if he is honoring Hashem Himself. As we prepare for Matan Torah and the upcoming חג of Shavuot, we remember that the Torah was given when the Jewish people stood in unity. Now is the time to strengthen ourselves in giving honor and respect to others. We must recognize that every person is deserving of dignity. When we honor others, we are honoring Hashem—and in turn, Hashem will honor us.

Shiur given by Rabbi Ben Zion Bamberger on Rabbi Bamberger Mussar Shmooze. Shiur recorded in Yeshivas Ohr Reuven, Monsey, NY.

There is a contradiction raised against Rav Bibi, who testified about a case where the blood of a carcass was measured to see if there was enough to convey impurity. This contradicts a Mishna in Eduyot, where others testified that the blood of a dead animal is pure. The Gemara resolves this by explaining that there is a tannaitic debate on the matter and clarifies why those who declare it impure set the requisite amount at a quarter-log (revi'it). One may offer voluntary wine libations in the Temple, but only in the volumes used for obligatory offerings: three, four, or six log (or a combination thereof). A question is raised: must the pledged libations be offered all at once, or can they be split? This question is asked egarding someone who pledged five log (an invalid single amount): can one "divide" the five - meaning offer four and redeems the fifth or gives it away - or must one wait until one acquires another log to complete a set of six? Although Abaye and Rava both attempted to bring proofs to resolve this, their answers were rejected as inconclusive. Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon disagree over whether one can offer voluntary oil libations. Their debate centers on whether the laws of oil can be derived from the laws of wine. Regarding ownership, a mincha cannot be brought if it is jointly owned by partners. The Gemara explores why this differs from animal and bird sacrifices, which can be brought by partners. There are five (or six, according to Rabbi Shimon) types of voluntary mincha offerings: solet (no pre-baking/frying), machavat (pan), marcheshet (deep pan), rekikim (wafers), and challot (loaves). The Mishna delves into various ambiguous formulations used in vows and explains what specific type and quantity the individual is obligated to bring to ensure they fulfill their commitment.

Another 2 mishnayot! 1 - Making donations of libations to the Temple must be made in the specific amount of the offerings themselves, rather than being too much or too little for the one given libation. Which gives rise to the question whether libations need to be in fixed amounts or not. And that answer is elusive. 2 - With regard to bringing oil as its own offering - that doesn't really work, according to Rabbi Akiva, but Rabbi Tarfon says it does work. Why would oil be different from wine in this regard? But they are. Also, some restrictions on one who vows to donate grain-offerings, depending on what he has or has not specified. Plus, the significance of the grain-offering.

There is a contradiction raised against Rav Bibi, who testified about a case where the blood of a carcass was measured to see if there was enough to convey impurity. This contradicts a Mishna in Eduyot, where others testified that the blood of a dead animal is pure. The Gemara resolves this by explaining that there is a tannaitic debate on the matter and clarifies why those who declare it impure set the requisite amount at a quarter-log (revi'it). One may offer voluntary wine libations in the Temple, but only in the volumes used for obligatory offerings: three, four, or six log (or a combination thereof). A question is raised: must the pledged libations be offered all at once, or can they be split? This question is asked egarding someone who pledged five log (an invalid single amount): can one "divide" the five - meaning offer four and redeems the fifth or gives it away - or must one wait until one acquires another log to complete a set of six? Although Abaye and Rava both attempted to bring proofs to resolve this, their answers were rejected as inconclusive. Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon disagree over whether one can offer voluntary oil libations. Their debate centers on whether the laws of oil can be derived from the laws of wine. Regarding ownership, a mincha cannot be brought if it is jointly owned by partners. The Gemara explores why this differs from animal and bird sacrifices, which can be brought by partners. There are five (or six, according to Rabbi Shimon) types of voluntary mincha offerings: solet (no pre-baking/frying), machavat (pan), marcheshet (deep pan), rekikim (wafers), and challot (loaves). The Mishna delves into various ambiguous formulations used in vows and explains what specific type and quantity the individual is obligated to bring to ensure they fulfill their commitment.

Who was Rabbi Akiva and why—at 40 years old—did he think he had what it takes to turn his life around?

Opening with a very (very!) long mishnah on the 12 loaves of the shewbread, including their process and their location and their shaping and their measurements and their placement. Also, how some of that processing overrode Shabbat rules, and some did not. Rabbi Akiva's general principle here is that if something can be done before Shabbat, it will not override the laws of Shabbat, but if it cannot be done before Shabbat (and not because a person ran out of time), those practices would override Shabbat. Plus, some of the comments of the Gemara - specifically on the way the shewbread was bent upwards but a significant measure, and set up on rods to allow the air to circulate and prevent mold.

Avram is 99 years old when Hashem appears to him with a new name for Himself, El Shaddai, and an interesting command: walk before Me and be perfect. Rabbi Epstein and Tom spend this episode unpacking what that actually asks of a person, and why Rashi reads "walk before Me" as something more demanding than walking with G-d, and what separates Avram's path from Noach's.The verse goes on to talk about circumcision, and Rabbi Epstein relates the Talmud's exchange between Rabbi Akiva and a Roman about whether a perfect Creator would make an imperfect creation.Finally, we learn about the three spiritual safeguards of the land of Israel hidden inside the second blessing of Birkas Hamazon, and why the Crusaders lost Jerusalem to a people who shared at least one thing with Avraham's descendants.

LISTEN!!!

Daf Yomi Menachos 83Episode 2282Babble on Talmud with Sruli RappsJoin the chat: https://chat.whatsapp.com/LMbsU3a5f4Y3b61DxFRsqfMERCH: https://www.etsy.com/shop/BabbleOnTalmudSefaria: https://www.sefaria.org.il/Menachot.83a?lang=heEmail: sruli@babbleontalmud.comInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/babble_on_talmudFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/p/Babble-on-Talmud-100080258961218/#dafyomi #talmud00:00 Intro 01:49 How R Akiva knows the korbin Pesach must be chulin29:45 Conclusion

As I was speaking to different people about the various issues they were going through, it struck me that all of them, deep down, were suffering from the same kind of pain. One person was struggling with shidduchim, another was having difficulty finding a job, another was dealing with family issues, and the list goes on. Yet beneath all these different situations, there was one common thread — the pain of feeling rejected or excluded. The hurt of feeling unwanted was just as painful as not being married or not having an income. In fact, studies have shown that the same regions of the brain that become active when a person experiences physical pain also become active when someone experiences social rejection. Even a brief moment of rejection can sting — for example, when a phone call is declined or when someone passes by without acknowledging us. All the more so when friends gather and one person is not invited, when teams are formed and one individual is left out, or when a party is planned and someone is not included on the guest list. All of these experiences can cause deep emotional pain. The Gemara tells us that Rachel, the daughter of Kalba Savua, wanted to marry Akiva the shepherd because she recognized his great qualities, even though at that time he was unlearned. Tosafot ask that there is another Gemara in which Rabbi Akiva says about himself that before he became learned, he wanted to bite Torah scholars like a donkey bites — which seems to indicate that he did not have good character. Rabbeinu Tam answers that in truth he did possess good character, but he became angry at the Torah scholars because he felt that, since he was an am ha'aretz, they were distancing themselves from him. In other words, he felt rejected by them. In general, when a person feels rejected, it causes him pain, and naturally a person tends to dislike someone who causes him pain. People have a deep need to feel wanted, accepted, and included, and when that need is not fulfilled, it creates real suffering. How is a person supposed to deal with this pain? Fortunately, we know that every amount of pain a person experiences is precisely calculated and given by Hashem for his benefit. The Chovot HaLevavot teaches us that people are not truly capable of hurting us; they are merely messengers of Hashem. When a person experiences rejection, he should not think that there is something inherently wrong with him. Rather, he should believe that Hashem determined that he needed to be excluded at that moment for his own good. When someone is rejected in shidduchim, it is because those individuals are not the ones Hashem intended for him or her. When someone is turned down for a job, it is because Hashem knows that position is not good for him. It is true that a person does not necessarily need to experience rejection in order to get married or find employment, but if he does go through it, it is because that experience is necessary for his growth and benefit. The Reshit Chochmah writes that when it comes to kaparah, emotional pain can accomplish even more than physical pain, and if a person is embarrassed, it can erase countless sins. We do not fully understand all the benefits of suffering, especially emotional suffering, but when we trust that Hashem knows what is best for us, it becomes easier to bear. Moreover, when a person feels rejected, instead of remaining stuck in the pain, he should channel those feelings into heartfelt tefillah to Hashem. Leah Imenu felt tremendous pain when Yaakov chose Rachel over her. What did she do with that pain? She turned to Hashem and cried out for children and blessing. As a result, she merited to have six of the twelve shevatim. She became the mother of the bechor, the mother of the kohanim and levi'im, the mother of the kings, and the mother of Mashiach Tzidkeinu. Feeling excluded or rejected may be very painful, but we must remember that it is always for our ultimate good, and if we respond correctly, we can gain immeasurably from it.

Study Guide The Gemara cites a second braita featuring five arguments against the Baytusi claim that the Omer offering must always be brought on the first Sunday following the first day of Pesach. The braita concludes by deriving from the biblical verses that both the harvesting and the counting of the Omer must take place at night, while the actual sacrifice is offered during the day. Rava reviews the nine rabbinic arguments presented against the Baytusim(compiled from both braitot) and systematically rejects the first three claims found in each. The Mishna continues by describing the process of singeing (parching) the barley grains. Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagree regarding the specific stage at which this is done and the manner in which it should be performed. Any barley flour remaining after the sifting process is redeemed. The Sages and Rabbi Akiva dispute whether this redeemed flour is ultimately exempt from tithing.

The verse in Vayikra 2:12 regarding the unique case where one can bring leaven and honey to the Temple on Shavuot uses the phrase "As an offering of the first produce you can offer them." Rabbi Elazar derived that the word "them" is exclusionary. It means that only regarding the two loaves and the bikkurim the ramp of the altar is considered like the altar (as derived from the words following that phrase). Items that came from an item that was burned on the altar are forbidden to be burned on the altar, but can be brought onto the ramp. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with him and forbids even those items to be brought on the ramp. He must have a different drasha on the word "them." To explain his reading of the verse, the Gemara quotes a braita which derives from "them" that even the community cannot bring two loaves as a voluntary sacrifice. The Gemara brings a contradictory braita that seems to say that the two loaves can be brought as a voluntary offering, but this understanding is ultimately rejected. Rami bar Hama asked Rav Chisda whether the words "you shall not burn any of it as an offering made by fire" (Vayikra 2:11) only excludes items from which part of it was burned on the altar, or does it exclude any item that is considered a korban (offering) but was not meant to be burned on the altar, such as a bird sin offering or the oil of the leper. Rav Chisda responded that this is a tannaitic debate between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva. A drasha on the words "because all leaven and all honey" teaches that one is liable for offering even a small amount and even in a mixture. Rava and Abaye disagree about what is meant by a "small amount." Abaye says it is half an olive-bulk, while Rava holds it is half a handful. Their difference of opinion derives from whether they hold a handful needs to be at least the size of two olives and is it only considered a halakhically significant burning on the altar if the item burned is the size of an olive (Rava), or if the handful can be less than two olives and burning less than one olive is considered halakhically significant (Abaye). If one offered leavened dough and honey together on the altar, how many sets of lashes (if any) would one receive? Rava holds that one would receive four sets - one for leaven, one for honey, one for a mixture with leaven, and one for a mixture with honey. Abaye explains that this is a "lav shebikhlalot" - a negative prohibition including many prohibitions - and one does not receive lashes for this type of negative prohibition. Some explain Abaye to be saying that there would be no sets of lashes for this action, while others explain that one would receive lashes for the leaven and the honey but not for the mixture.

Rabbi Ami rules that one is liable for placing a leavening agent onto a meal offering dough and leaving it to leaven on its own, just as one is liable on Shabbat for an act of cooking in the same manner. The Gemara questions this, noting Rabbi Yochanan's ruling that on Shabbat, one who places meat on coals is generally only liable if they actively turn the meat. Rava explains that Rabbi Ami's comparison means one is liable for the result even without active intervention, provided the leavening reaches a certain minimum level. The Gemara delves into Rabbi Yochanan's statement regarding turning the meat and establishes the case as one where the meat would not cook on both sides to the minimum level of ben Drosai (1/3 cooked) if not turned. Rava adds that if a portion the size of a fig-bulk were cooked fully on one side, in one place, one would be liable. A Mishna regarding building on Shabbat is brought as a difficulty for Rava's statement, but the challenge is ultimately rejected. Some have a version where Rava said that even if not in one place, and the Mishna is brought to support, but the support is rejected. A braita derives from Vayikra 2:11 that the leavening prohibition applies to the entire mincha, not just the kometz burned on the altar. However, it also derives that this applies only to a valid offering, not a disqualified one. This leads to two unresolved inquiries. Rav Papa asks: if one leavened a dough, took it outside the Temple courtyard, and then leavened it further, is there liability for the second stage? Or, is removing it not considered a disqualification since it was already leavened and invalid? Rav Meri asks if one is liable for leavening an offering already on top of the altar, or if the act of "bringing" is considered complete at that point. The Gemara discusses which additional offerings are included in the prohibition. According to a corrected version, Rabbi Yosi haGelili includes the showbread, while Rabbi Akiva includes the mincha libation accompanying sacrifices. This dispute hinges on whether dry-measure vessels possess the inherent sanctity to disqualify an offering if it leavens within them. This is linked to a debate between Rabbi Yoshiya and Rabbi Yonatan regarding the sanctification of liquid versus dry-measure vessels in the Temple. The Torah prohibits offering leaven or honey as a fire-offering, and Vayikra 2:11 further teaches that leftovers of various offerings cannot be offered on the altar if a portion has already been burned. Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree on whether one is liable for offering these prohibited substances on the ramp (kevesh) of the altar.