Podcasts about Rabbi Akiva

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 10, 2025 45:01

Study Guide The bloods of the firstborn, maaser, and Pesach are only sprinkled once on the altar. This is derived from the fact that the word "saviv"-"around" the altar - appears in the context of the burnt, sin, and guilt offerings. One cannot learn from those cases to others, as details that appear two or three times cannot be used to establish a paradigm for a different case. Rabbi Tarfon taught that the firstborn can be eaten for two days and one night, as it is similar to the peace offering. Rabbi Yosi Hagelili, on his first day in the Beit Midrash in Yavne, raised several difficulties with this comparison and likened it to a guilt and sin offering, which are eaten only for a day and night. When Rabbi Tarfon could no longer respond to the questioning, he left, and Rabbi Akiva took his place and said that in Vayikra 18:18, where the firstborn is compared to the thigh and breast given to the kohen, this is a juxtaposition between the firstborn and the peace offering. Rabbi Yosi Hagellil responded that also the thigh and breast are given to the kohen in a thanksgiving offering which is eaten only for a day and night. Therefore, perhaps the comparison should be made to the thanksgiving offering instead. Rabbi Akiva was convinced by Rabbi Yosi that the comparison should be to the thanksgiving offering, but he found other words in the verse from which to derive an additional day. When Rabbi Yishmael heard about this, he engaged in a lengthy debate with Rabbi Akiva regarding his change of position—that the comparison is to the thanksgiving offering. Rabbi Yishmael argued that the law of the thigh and breast in the thanksgiving offering is derived by juxtaposition (heikesh), and the law about the firstborn is derived from the thigh and breast by juxtaposition, and one cannot derive a law from a juxtaposition on a juxtaposition. However, the Gemara explains that this juxtaposition is not typical: while the law of the thigh and breast is derived by juxtaposition, the time limitation is stated directly. The debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael centers on whether a law derived partially by juxtaposition and partially stated explicitly can serve as the basis for a juxtaposition to another law. The Gemara raises two difficulties with Rabbi Yishmael's position—one regarding the number of times the kohen gadol must sprinkle the blood of the bull and goat in the Sanctuary (Heichal) on Yom Kippur, and one regarding the amount of flour required for the loaves of matza that accompany the thanksgiving offering. Each of these laws is derived by means of a juxtaposition on a juxtaposition, along with something explicitly stated or derived by a gezeira shava. Each difficulty is resolved. The Mishna stated that the Pesach may be eaten only until midnight. This is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, but Rabbi Akiva permits it until dawn. Each derives their opinion from a different verse.

sanctuaries yom kippur pesach vayikra study guide mishna gemara rabbi akiva cheshvan beit midrash rabbi elazar rabbi yosi

Zevahim 57: Who Eats What and When?

starting passover eats gemara rabbi akiva rabbi elazar

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 10, 2025 23:28

Starting with the last mishnah (on the bottom of 56:) - the offerings of the first-born, the tithes, Passover sacrifice, and more... in terms of what is eaten by whom. Starting with the first-born and the tithing - where the Gemara finds a source for the details and time frame of these offerings. The sages in these discussions are earlier - Tannaim, not Amoraim - and Rabbi Tarfon himself is a kohen. Which makes him more familiar with the details, perhaps. And Rabbi Yossi HaGelili has some questions for him. With a comparison to the piece-offering. Also, why the Passover sacrifice was eaten only at night and only until midnight (or the midpoint of the dark of the night). And it's another dispute between Tannaim - in this case, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariyah and Rabbi Akiva.

Zevachim 57 - November 10, 19 Cheshvan

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 10, 2025 45:01

Study Guide The bloods of the firstborn, maaser, and Pesach are only sprinkled once on the altar. This is derived from the fact that the word "saviv"-"around" the altar - appears in the context of the burnt, sin, and guilt offerings. One cannot learn from those cases to others, as details that appear two or three times cannot be used to establish a paradigm for a different case. Rabbi Tarfon taught that the firstborn can be eaten for two days and one night, as it is similar to the peace offering. Rabbi Yosi Hagelili, on his first day in the Beit Midrash in Yavne, raised several difficulties with this comparison and likened it to a guilt and sin offering, which are eaten only for a day and night. When Rabbi Tarfon could no longer respond to the questioning, he left, and Rabbi Akiva took his place and said that in Vayikra 18:18, where the firstborn is compared to the thigh and breast given to the kohen, this is a juxtaposition between the firstborn and the peace offering. Rabbi Yosi Hagellil responded that also the thigh and breast are given to the kohen in a thanksgiving offering which is eaten only for a day and night. Therefore, perhaps the comparison should be made to the thanksgiving offering instead. Rabbi Akiva was convinced by Rabbi Yosi that the comparison should be to the thanksgiving offering, but he found other words in the verse from which to derive an additional day. When Rabbi Yishmael heard about this, he engaged in a lengthy debate with Rabbi Akiva regarding his change of position—that the comparison is to the thanksgiving offering. Rabbi Yishmael argued that the law of the thigh and breast in the thanksgiving offering is derived by juxtaposition (heikesh), and the law about the firstborn is derived from the thigh and breast by juxtaposition, and one cannot derive a law from a juxtaposition on a juxtaposition. However, the Gemara explains that this juxtaposition is not typical: while the law of the thigh and breast is derived by juxtaposition, the time limitation is stated directly. The debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael centers on whether a law derived partially by juxtaposition and partially stated explicitly can serve as the basis for a juxtaposition to another law. The Gemara raises two difficulties with Rabbi Yishmael's position—one regarding the number of times the kohen gadol must sprinkle the blood of the bull and goat in the Sanctuary (Heichal) on Yom Kippur, and one regarding the amount of flour required for the loaves of matza that accompany the thanksgiving offering. Each of these laws is derived by means of a juxtaposition on a juxtaposition, along with something explicitly stated or derived by a gezeira shava. Each difficulty is resolved. The Mishna stated that the Pesach may be eaten only until midnight. This is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, but Rabbi Akiva permits it until dawn. Each derives their opinion from a different verse.

sanctuaries yom kippur pesach vayikra study guide mishna gemara rabbi akiva cheshvan beit midrash rabbi elazar rabbi yosi

Zevachim 52 - November 5, 14 Cheshvan

rami aptos hama gemara rabbi akiva ahava cheshvan rava rabbi yehuda rabbi yehoshua rabbi yochanan

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 5, 2025 47:40

The braita in Zevachim 51 extrapolates from the third mention (by the nasi) of the base of the altar that for all sacrifices on the outer altar the remainder of the blood is poured on the base, the yesod. The braita then raises a question: perhaps the extrapolation should be different — that the sprinkling of sacrificial blood on the outer altar must be performed only on the sides where there is a base, i.e., not on the southeast corner, since the base did not extend there. A difficulty on that suggestion is drawn from the verse's wording. The verse states "to the base of the altar of the olah," which suggests relevance to all sacrifices on the outer altar rather than only to the olah. But the sin offering, which is placed on the outer altar, is positioned on all four corners and not limited to the three corners where there is a base. If the verse had intended the latter ruling, it should have been phrased "to the base of the olah," referring specifically to the burnt offering where that limitation would apply. The Gemara resolves this difficulty by explaining the unique inclusion of the word "altar" in the verse: it teaches that when blood is spilled on the base, it must be spilled on the roof of the base (top flat surface) and not on the wall of the base. With this reading, the subsequent lines of the braita, where Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva each say the law could have been derived by a kal va'chomer are reread including mention of the roof of the base. Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva appear to assert the same logical argument using slightly different wording. Rav Ada bar Ahava and Rav Papa propose possible distinctions between their positions. Rav Ada argues that because Rabbi Akiva used more extended language about the remainder of the blood, that it "does not atone" and "does not come for atonement purposes," Rabbi Akiva must regard pouring the remainder as nonessential. Rabbi Yishmael, having said only "it doesn't atone," must hold that pouring the remainder is essential. Rav Papa rejects this reading, maintaining that no one posits an obligation to pour the remainder of the blood. He narrows the difference between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva to the specific case of the bird sin offering: whether mitzui, squeezing out the remainder of the blood and placing it directly on the wall of the altar while squeezing, is essential. Rav Papa understands Rabbi Yishmael to require mitzui, while Rabbi Akiva does not. A braita is then cited to support Rav Papa, showing that Rabbi Yishmael holds pouring the remainder is not essential. A difficulty is raised against Rav Papa's position, but the Gemara resolves it. Rami bar Hama introduces a tana who maintains that for sin offerings whose blood is placed on the inner altar, pouring the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar is essential; Rava, however, rejects this understanding of the braita and its conclusion. Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi dispute whether Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Akiva actually differ on the question of whether the remainder of the blood for inner sin offerings is essential.

Zevachim 52 - November 5, 14 Cheshvan

rami aptos hama gemara rabbi akiva ahava cheshvan rava rabbi yehuda rabbi yehoshua rabbi yochanan

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 5, 2025 47:40

The braita in Zevachim 51 extrapolates from the third mention (by the nasi) of the base of the altar that for all sacrifices on the outer altar the remainder of the blood is poured on the base, the yesod. The braita then raises a question: perhaps the extrapolation should be different — that the sprinkling of sacrificial blood on the outer altar must be performed only on the sides where there is a base, i.e., not on the southeast corner, since the base did not extend there. A difficulty on that suggestion is drawn from the verse's wording. The verse states "to the base of the altar of the olah," which suggests relevance to all sacrifices on the outer altar rather than only to the olah. But the sin offering, which is placed on the outer altar, is positioned on all four corners and not limited to the three corners where there is a base. If the verse had intended the latter ruling, it should have been phrased "to the base of the olah," referring specifically to the burnt offering where that limitation would apply. The Gemara resolves this difficulty by explaining the unique inclusion of the word "altar" in the verse: it teaches that when blood is spilled on the base, it must be spilled on the roof of the base (top flat surface) and not on the wall of the base. With this reading, the subsequent lines of the braita, where Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva each say the law could have been derived by a kal va'chomer are reread including mention of the roof of the base. Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva appear to assert the same logical argument using slightly different wording. Rav Ada bar Ahava and Rav Papa propose possible distinctions between their positions. Rav Ada argues that because Rabbi Akiva used more extended language about the remainder of the blood, that it "does not atone" and "does not come for atonement purposes," Rabbi Akiva must regard pouring the remainder as nonessential. Rabbi Yishmael, having said only "it doesn't atone," must hold that pouring the remainder is essential. Rav Papa rejects this reading, maintaining that no one posits an obligation to pour the remainder of the blood. He narrows the difference between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva to the specific case of the bird sin offering: whether mitzui, squeezing out the remainder of the blood and placing it directly on the wall of the altar while squeezing, is essential. Rav Papa understands Rabbi Yishmael to require mitzui, while Rabbi Akiva does not. A braita is then cited to support Rav Papa, showing that Rabbi Yishmael holds pouring the remainder is not essential. A difficulty is raised against Rav Papa's position, but the Gemara resolves it. Rami bar Hama introduces a tana who maintains that for sin offerings whose blood is placed on the inner altar, pouring the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar is essential; Rava, however, rejects this understanding of the braita and its conclusion. Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi dispute whether Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Akiva actually differ on the question of whether the remainder of the blood for inner sin offerings is essential.

Rabbi Akiva (with Abie Rotenberg)

Seforimchatter

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 2, 2025 52:42

#406> Sponsored by Cedar Media Studies. Contact them: Zevi@cedarmediastudios.com> To purchase "Rabbi Akiva": https://amzn.to/3WQYzXL> To purchase "Eliyahu Hanavi": https://amzn.to/4oQ9aOC> To purchase "The Season of Pepsi Myers": https://amzn.to/47hFiEH> To join the SeforimChatter WhatsApp community: https://chat.whatsapp.com/DZ3C2CjUeD9AGJvXeEODtK> To join the SeforimChatter WhatsApp status: https://wa.me/message/TI343XQHHMHPN1> To support the podcast or to sponsor an episode follow this link: https://seforimchatter.com/support-seforimchatter/or email seforimchatter@gmail.com (Zelle/QP this email address)Support the show

rabbi akiva rotenberg abie zevi

Zevachim 35 - October 19, 27 Tishrei

paschal mishna gemara tishrei rabbi akiva rabbi yehuda azara rabbi elazar

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 19, 2025 49:17

During the Paschal sacrifice, the drain in the floor of the Azara was plugged to ensure that any spilled blood would be collected. Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis offer different explanations for this practice. Rabbi Yehuda says the blood was collected and placed on the altar in case some of the blood from the sacrifices had spilled and had not yet been brought to the altar. The rabbis explain that it was to demonstrate the dedication of the kohanim, who stood knee-deep in blood as they performed their service. Each opinion faces challenges. Regarding Rabbi Yehuda, the Gemara asks how the blood could be valid for the altar if it had not been collected in a sanctified vessel. After resolving this, another issue is raised: the dam hatamtzit, the residual internal blood, might nullify the dam hanefesh, the lifeblood that exits during slaughter and is valid for the altar. Regarding the rabbis, the Gemara questions whether the accumulated blood would create a chatzitza, an interposition between the kohanim’s feet and the floor, potentially invalidating their service. It also asks whether the blood-soaked garments would be rendered unfit for priestly service. All these objections are ultimately resolved. The laws of pigul apply only to parts of the animal designated for consumption or burning on the altar. If a priest has a pigul thought, such as intending to eat or burn a part of the sacrifice beyond its permitted time, it only renders the sacrifice pigul if the thought concerns a part meant to be eaten or burned. Non-edible or non-sacrificial parts, such as the hide, tendons, horns, and similar items, are not subject to pigul. In a female animal, a thought regarding the fetus, placenta, or eggs does not render the sacrifice pigul. If a sacrifice becomes pigul, consuming the milk or eggs does not incur karet. Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree about whether a pigul thought regarding a non-sacrificial item, such as intending to eat something not meant to be eaten or burn something not meant to be burned, can render the offering pigul. Rabbi Eliezer is more stringent, while the rabbis are lenient. Rabbi Elazar adds that while a thought about a fetus or similar part does not independently render the sacrifice pigul, if the animal itself becomes pigul due to improper intent, then those parts, like the fetus, are also considered pigul. Three sources, including the Mishna under discussion, are brought to support Rabbi Elazar’s position. Attempts to refute his view are made, but ultimately only an inference from our Mishna stands as a conclusive proof in his favor. A Mishna in Zevachim 84a records a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis regarding a blemished animal that was mistakenly brought to the altar. Rabbi Akiva holds that if the animal has already been placed on the altar, it is not removed. The rabbis disagree, requiring its removal. The Gemara qualifies Rabbi Akiva’s leniency with three limitations: the ruling applies only to certain types of blemishes; if the blemish was present before the animal was sanctified, it must be removed; and a female animal designated for a burnt offering is also removed. Rabbi Zeira raises a challenge to the third limitation based on a braita previously cited in a discussion concerning Rabbi Eliezer. This challenge is ultimately resolved.

Zevachim 35 - October 19, 27 Tishrei

paschal mishna gemara tishrei rabbi akiva rabbi yehuda azara rabbi elazar

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 19, 2025 49:17

During the Paschal sacrifice, the drain in the floor of the Azara was plugged to ensure that any spilled blood would be collected. Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis offer different explanations for this practice. Rabbi Yehuda says the blood was collected and placed on the altar in case some of the blood from the sacrifices had spilled and had not yet been brought to the altar. The rabbis explain that it was to demonstrate the dedication of the kohanim, who stood knee-deep in blood as they performed their service. Each opinion faces challenges. Regarding Rabbi Yehuda, the Gemara asks how the blood could be valid for the altar if it had not been collected in a sanctified vessel. After resolving this, another issue is raised: the dam hatamtzit, the residual internal blood, might nullify the dam hanefesh, the lifeblood that exits during slaughter and is valid for the altar. Regarding the rabbis, the Gemara questions whether the accumulated blood would create a chatzitza, an interposition between the kohanim’s feet and the floor, potentially invalidating their service. It also asks whether the blood-soaked garments would be rendered unfit for priestly service. All these objections are ultimately resolved. The laws of pigul apply only to parts of the animal designated for consumption or burning on the altar. If a priest has a pigul thought, such as intending to eat or burn a part of the sacrifice beyond its permitted time, it only renders the sacrifice pigul if the thought concerns a part meant to be eaten or burned. Non-edible or non-sacrificial parts, such as the hide, tendons, horns, and similar items, are not subject to pigul. In a female animal, a thought regarding the fetus, placenta, or eggs does not render the sacrifice pigul. If a sacrifice becomes pigul, consuming the milk or eggs does not incur karet. Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree about whether a pigul thought regarding a non-sacrificial item, such as intending to eat something not meant to be eaten or burn something not meant to be burned, can render the offering pigul. Rabbi Eliezer is more stringent, while the rabbis are lenient. Rabbi Elazar adds that while a thought about a fetus or similar part does not independently render the sacrifice pigul, if the animal itself becomes pigul due to improper intent, then those parts, like the fetus, are also considered pigul. Three sources, including the Mishna under discussion, are brought to support Rabbi Elazar’s position. Attempts to refute his view are made, but ultimately only an inference from our Mishna stands as a conclusive proof in his favor. A Mishna in Zevachim 84a records a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis regarding a blemished animal that was mistakenly brought to the altar. Rabbi Akiva holds that if the animal has already been placed on the altar, it is not removed. The rabbis disagree, requiring its removal. The Gemara qualifies Rabbi Akiva’s leniency with three limitations: the ruling applies only to certain types of blemishes; if the blemish was present before the animal was sanctified, it must be removed; and a female animal designated for a burnt offering is also removed. Rabbi Zeira raises a challenge to the third limitation based on a braita previously cited in a discussion concerning Rabbi Eliezer. This challenge is ultimately resolved.

Bereshit 5786: Creation and Connection

Pardes from Jerusalem

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 15, 2025 35:25

What does the creation story teach us about our partnership with God? In this episode, Zvi Hirschfield and Aviva Lauer explore Parshat Bereshit and what the creation story reveals about humanity's relationship with God. They discuss how rain, prayer, and work symbolize dependence, gratitude, and partnership—and how the Torah calls us to balance effort with humility. Drawing on Midrash and Talmud, they contrast Rabbi Eliezer's demand for precision with Rabbi Akiva's compassion, uncovering a vision of creation grounded in divine presence, responsibility, and grace.

god drawing torah talmud midrash bereshit rabbi akiva

The Torah as Our Blueprint

Rise and Shine with Adrienne Gold Davis

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 13, 2025 9:44

From childhood reading to spiritual renewal, this episode explores how the Torah serves as the ultimate guide for living and rebuilding our inner worlds. Drawing on personal reflection, Jewish wisdom, and the story of Rabbi Akiva, we explore how Simchat Torah invites us to revisit our beginnings with fresh eyes. Discover how each year's Torah cycle offers new insight into who we've become, and how teshuvah allows us to renovate our lives with grace and intention. The Rise & Shine Podcast Series is made possible by the generous support of Bonnie Vozar of Chicago, Illinois. If you would like to sponsor an upcoming podcast, please email us at info@momentumunlimited.org

chicago discover drawing jewish illinois blueprint torah simchat torah rabbi akiva

Building Joy in a Shaky World | Rabbi Bernath's Sermon for Sukkot 2025

Daily Jewish Thought

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 9, 2025 38:27

When Rabbi Yisroel Bernath spotted a superyacht with an infinity pool merging into the sky, it sparked a journey through one of the most powerful Talmudic stories, Rabbi Akiva's “sukkah on a ship.” From that image of faith floating on waves, this class dives into the timeless tension between fragility and faith, exploring what it means to build Jewish life and joy even when the ground beneath us feels unstable.Through stories that span from ancient Rome to post-Holocaust Budapest, Rabbi Bernath reveals the unbreakable resilience of Jewish spirit and the eternal power of ideas that can't be burned, silenced, or washed away.Takeaways:Faith in Motion: Even when life feels unstable, your sukkah, your faith, your values, your light, can stand strong.Resilience Is Our Heritage: From Rabbi Akiva's ship to a siddur saved from the ashes, Jewish history proves that our strength comes from rebuilding, not retreating.Ideas Outlive Empires: The Romans burned scrolls, but not the words. Power fades; purpose endures.Your Sukkah Is a Statement: Every mitzvah you do in today's world is an act of defiance against despair and a declaration of hope.We Are the Calm in the Storm: Our task is to build joy, faith, and community even when the waves rise because that's where holiness truly lives.#sukkot #resilience #sukkah #sukkah2025 #sukkot2025 #sukkos #rabbigamliel #rabbiakiva #Hope #HopeAndResilience #JewishIdentity #Talmud #LightOverDarkness #joy #JewishHistory Sign up for "The Forgiveness Lab" HERE: theloverabbi.com/eventsSupport the showGot your own question for Rabbi Bernath? He can be reached at rabbi@jewishndg.com or http://www.theloverabbi.comSingle? You can make a profile on www.JMontreal.com and Rabbi Bernath will help you find that special someone.Donate and support Rabbi Bernath's work http://www.jewishndg.com/donateFollow Rabbi Bernath's YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/ybernathAccess Rabbi Bernath's Articles on Relationships https://medium.com/@loverabbi

relationships power jewish rome sermon calm rabbi shaky sukkot talmudic rabbi akiva eventssupport

Building Joy in a Shaky World | Sukkot 2025

Kabbalah for Everyone

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 9, 2025 38:27

Send us a textWhen Rabbi Yisroel Bernath spotted a superyacht with an infinity pool merging into the sky, it sparked a journey through one of the most powerful Talmudic stories, Rabbi Akiva's “sukkah on a ship.” From that image of faith floating on waves, this class dives into the timeless tension between fragility and faith, exploring what it means to build Jewish life and joy even when the ground beneath us feels unstable.Through stories that span from ancient Rome to post-Holocaust Budapest, Rabbi Bernath reveals the unbreakable resilience of Jewish spirit and the eternal power of ideas that can't be burned, silenced, or washed away.Takeaways:Faith in Motion: Even when life feels unstable, your sukkah, your faith, your values, your light, can stand strong.Resilience Is Our Heritage: From Rabbi Akiva's ship to a siddur saved from the ashes, Jewish history proves that our strength comes from rebuilding, not retreating.Ideas Outlive Empires: The Romans burned scrolls, but not the words. Power fades; purpose endures.Your Sukkah Is a Statement: Every mitzvah you do in today's world is an act of defiance against despair and a declaration of hope.We Are the Calm in the Storm: Our task is to build joy, faith, and community even when the waves rise because that's where holiness truly lives.#sukkot #resilience #sukkah #sukkah2025 #sukkot2025 #sukkos #rabbigamliel #rabbiakiva #Hope #HopeAndResilience #JewishIdentity #Talmud #LightOverDarkness #joy #JewishHistory Sign up for "The Forgiveness Lab" HERE: theloverabbi.com/eventsSupport the showGot your own question for Rabbi Bernath? He can be reached at rabbi@jewishndg.com or http://www.theloverabbi.comSingle? You can make a profile on www.JMontreal.com and Rabbi Bernath will help you find that special someone.Donate and support Rabbi Bernath's work http://www.jewishndg.com/donateFollow Rabbi Bernath's YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/ybernathAccess Rabbi Bernath's Articles on Relationships https://medium.com/@loverabbi

relationships power jewish rome calm shaky sukkot talmudic rabbi akiva eventssupport

On Teaching: Balancing Honesty and Encouragement

Gematria Refigured +

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 19, 2025 32:36

The Gemara in Eiruvin 13a describes Rabbi Akiva rejecting a student's proposal while simultaneously praising it. We analyze this and discover nuances involved in teaching.

teaching balancing encouragement honesty gemara rabbi akiva

Episode 132: Rabbi Shnayor Burton "Rambam on Mashiach & Redemption"

Judaism Demystified | A Guide for Todays Perplexed

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 18, 2025 79:56

In this episode we sit down with Rabbi Shnayor Burton to explore Rambam's view of Mashiach and Redemption. On the surface, the final chapters of Mishneh Torah read like a simple account of the messianic age, but a closer look opens far deeper questions: what truly changes in redemption, how maaseh bereshit and maaseh merkava should be studied, whether kingship can be redeemed from its past failures, and what halakha ultimately trains us toward. Hovering in the background is a parable of Rabbi Akiva—one that never fully discloses its nimshal, yet holds the key to humility and daat Hashem. Drawing on this, Rabbi Burton leads us to a convincing and surprising conclusion about how Rambam understands Mashiach: not as a miracle-worker, but as the leader who creates the conditions for humanity to live wisely under God's kingship.---*This episode is dedicated to the refua shelema of Sarah Miriam bat Tamar, Binyamin ben Zilpa, and our dear friend Yaakov ben Haya Sarah Malakh---• Bio: Rabbi Shnayor Burton is a Torah scholar, teacher, and author. He lectures regularly on Rambam, Chumash, and Jewish thought. He is Senior Editor at ArtScroll Mesorah Publications, where he works on major projects including Kisvei HaRambam. Rabbi Burton has authored several books, most recently Ha'Aretz Asher Areka, on the mitzvah of living in Eretz Yisrael. He also publishes essays and lectures on Substack and other platforms, including his ongoing work Exodus, Exile and Redemption: Decoding the Enigma of Judaism's Shifting Forms.---• Check out the Rabbi's blog here: https://shnayor.substack.com/---• Welcome to JUDAISM DEMYSTIFIED: A PODCAST FOR THE PERPLEXED | Co-hosted by Benjy & Benzi | Thank you to...Super Patron: Jordan Karmily, Platinum Patron: Craig Gordon, Rod Ilian, Gold Patrons: Dovidchai Abramchayev, Lazer Cohen, Travis Krueger, Vasili Volkoff, Vasya, Silver Patrons: Ellen Fleischer, Daniel M., Rabbi Pinny Rosenthal, Fred & Antonio, Jeffrey Wasserman, and Jacob Winston! Please SUBSCRIBE to this YouTube Channel and hit the BELL so you can get alerted whenever new clips get posted, thank you for your support!

Horayot 9 - September 10, 17 Elul

temple yom kippur elul mishna rabbi akiva rabbi shimon ravina

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 10, 2025 41:03

There are several differing opinions regarding whether a king and a kohen gadol are obligated to bring a sliding scale offering (korban oleh v’yored) for certain transgressions. Rabbi Yosi HaGelili holds that both are exempt, since they can never become poor—a condition necessary for this type of offering. Rabbi Akiva, however, obligates the king in all cases except for withholding testimony, as a king is not permitted to testify. He exempts the kohen gadol entirely, based on a drasha derived from the unique meal offering of the kohen gadol (minchat chavitin). Ravina raises a question about a king who contracts leprosy and is no longer considered a king: would he then be obligated to bring a sliding scale offering? The Mishna then summarizes which sacrifices are brought by various individuals—the kohen gadol, the king, a regular individual, and the court—for both standard sin offerings and those related to idolatry (avodah zarah). It also outlines who is obligated in provisional guilt offerings (asham talui), standard guilt offerings (asham vadai), and sliding scale offerings. Two additional opinions on sliding scale offerings appear here. Rabbi Shimon states that the king is obligated in all cases except testimony, while the kohen gadol is obligated in all cases except impurity in the Temple. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the king is obligated, but instead of a sliding scale offering, he brings a goat. A braita is cited to expand on Rabbi Shimon’s position. Although it contains an internal contradiction, this is resolved. Chizkia explains Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning for exempting the kohen gadol from bringing a sacrifice for impurity in the Temple: the kohen gadol has a unique Yom Kippur offering and does not receive atonement through the communal sacrifice that covers the rest of the nation. This sets him apart and excludes him from the verse regarding the punishment for entering the Temple in a state of impurity. There is a discussion about Rabbi Eliezer’s view—specifically, whether the king’s obligation to bring a goat applies only to impurity in the Temple or to all transgressions that would normally require a sliding scale offering.

Horayot 9 - September 10, 17 Elul

temple yom kippur elul mishna rabbi akiva rabbi shimon ravina

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 10, 2025 41:03

There are several differing opinions regarding whether a king and a kohen gadol are obligated to bring a sliding scale offering (korban oleh v’yored) for certain transgressions. Rabbi Yosi HaGelili holds that both are exempt, since they can never become poor—a condition necessary for this type of offering. Rabbi Akiva, however, obligates the king in all cases except for withholding testimony, as a king is not permitted to testify. He exempts the kohen gadol entirely, based on a drasha derived from the unique meal offering of the kohen gadol (minchat chavitin). Ravina raises a question about a king who contracts leprosy and is no longer considered a king: would he then be obligated to bring a sliding scale offering? The Mishna then summarizes which sacrifices are brought by various individuals—the kohen gadol, the king, a regular individual, and the court—for both standard sin offerings and those related to idolatry (avodah zarah). It also outlines who is obligated in provisional guilt offerings (asham talui), standard guilt offerings (asham vadai), and sliding scale offerings. Two additional opinions on sliding scale offerings appear here. Rabbi Shimon states that the king is obligated in all cases except testimony, while the kohen gadol is obligated in all cases except impurity in the Temple. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the king is obligated, but instead of a sliding scale offering, he brings a goat. A braita is cited to expand on Rabbi Shimon’s position. Although it contains an internal contradiction, this is resolved. Chizkia explains Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning for exempting the kohen gadol from bringing a sacrifice for impurity in the Temple: the kohen gadol has a unique Yom Kippur offering and does not receive atonement through the communal sacrifice that covers the rest of the nation. This sets him apart and excludes him from the verse regarding the punishment for entering the Temple in a state of impurity. There is a discussion about Rabbi Eliezer’s view—specifically, whether the king’s obligation to bring a goat applies only to impurity in the Temple or to all transgressions that would normally require a sliding scale offering.

Horayot 4 - September 5, 12 Elul

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 5, 2025 47:59

This week's learning is dedicated by Medinah Korn in loving memory of her mother, Rosalie Katchen, Shoshana Raizl bat Avraham Yehoshua ve-Baila Toibe, z"l, on her 25th yahrzeit. She left a profound legacy for her family and many devoted friends who continue to learn from her to this day. Yehi zichra baruch. Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of David's mother Ethel Petegorsky Geffen, on her 21st yarhzeit. She was devoted to her family and the Jewish community, volunteering on many synagogue and community committees and projects. Her two sons made aliyah to Israel and her daughter has had a long career in service of the American Jewish community. Today's daf is sponsored by Ayla Ginat in loving memory of Barak ben Lipa and Shlomit. If the Beit Din realized they made an erroneous ruling, but an individual is unaware and transgresses based on their original ruling, do they need to bring an individual sacrifice? While the Msihna brought two opinions, a braita brings four. Rabbi Meir obligates the individual to bring a sin offering, Rabbi Shimon exempts, Rabbi Elazar and Sumchus view it as a case of doubt, but Rabbi Elazar obligates in a provisional guilt offering, while Sumchus does not. Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Yossi bar Avin bring examples of other cases of doubt to explain the difference in approach between Rabbi Elazar and Sumchus – to what extent do we expect the individual to be aware that the rabbis corrected their mistake? Rava explains the disagreement in the Mishna between Ben Azai and Rabbi Akiva to be regarding a case where the court realized their mistake on the day that the individual in question was still in the city but preparing to leave. As in the previously mentioned debate, the question is to what extent the individual is expected to be aware of the court’s reversal of their decision while they are busy involved in their upcoming travel plans. The Mishna taught that the case of a communal sin offering is only in a case where the court’s erroneous ruling was to uproot part of a mitzva, not a complete mitzva. A braita brings one derivation, Chizkiya has another, and Rav Ashi brings a third. Rav Yehuda says in the name of Shmuel that the ruling has to relate to something that the Saducees do not agree with, i.e. something rabbinic in origin and not able to be understood from the simple reading of the verses in the Torah. The reason for this is simple – if it is clear from the Torah and the court rules otherwise, and the people follow, this cannot be understood as unwitting, as it is closer to an intentional violation. Three difficulties are raised against Rav Yehuda from the examples brought in the Mishna, but each one is resolved. Rav Yosef asks: If the court rules there is no prohibition to plow on Shabbat, is that considered uprooting a complete mitzva or a partial one? The Gemara tries to answer the question by deriving it from cases in our Mishna, but is not able to. Rabbi Zeira asks if the court rules that there is no Shabbat observance in the Shmita year, is that considered uprooting a complete mitzva or a partial one? Ravina brings a source from a false prophet to answer that it is considered a partial mitzva, and they would be obligated to bring a communal sin offering. There are several cases where there is an issue with judges – either disqualified judges, or the head judge was not there, where there is no communal sin offering, as the case is considered closer to intentional.

Horayot 4 - September 5, 12 Elul

The Daily Sicha - השיחה היומית

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 5, 2025 47:59

This week's learning is dedicated by Medinah Korn in loving memory of her mother, Rosalie Katchen, Shoshana Raizl bat Avraham Yehoshua ve-Baila Toibe, z"l, on her 25th yahrzeit. She left a profound legacy for her family and many devoted friends who continue to learn from her to this day. Yehi zichra baruch. Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of David's mother Ethel Petegorsky Geffen, on her 21st yarhzeit. She was devoted to her family and the Jewish community, volunteering on many synagogue and community committees and projects. Her two sons made aliyah to Israel and her daughter has had a long career in service of the American Jewish community. Today's daf is sponsored by Ayla Ginat in loving memory of Barak ben Lipa and Shlomit. If the Beit Din realized they made an erroneous ruling, but an individual is unaware and transgresses based on their original ruling, do they need to bring an individual sacrifice? While the Msihna brought two opinions, a braita brings four. Rabbi Meir obligates the individual to bring a sin offering, Rabbi Shimon exempts, Rabbi Elazar and Sumchus view it as a case of doubt, but Rabbi Elazar obligates in a provisional guilt offering, while Sumchus does not. Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Yossi bar Avin bring examples of other cases of doubt to explain the difference in approach between Rabbi Elazar and Sumchus – to what extent do we expect the individual to be aware that the rabbis corrected their mistake? Rava explains the disagreement in the Mishna between Ben Azai and Rabbi Akiva to be regarding a case where the court realized their mistake on the day that the individual in question was still in the city but preparing to leave. As in the previously mentioned debate, the question is to what extent the individual is expected to be aware of the court’s reversal of their decision while they are busy involved in their upcoming travel plans. The Mishna taught that the case of a communal sin offering is only in a case where the court’s erroneous ruling was to uproot part of a mitzva, not a complete mitzva. A braita brings one derivation, Chizkiya has another, and Rav Ashi brings a third. Rav Yehuda says in the name of Shmuel that the ruling has to relate to something that the Saducees do not agree with, i.e. something rabbinic in origin and not able to be understood from the simple reading of the verses in the Torah. The reason for this is simple – if it is clear from the Torah and the court rules otherwise, and the people follow, this cannot be understood as unwitting, as it is closer to an intentional violation. Three difficulties are raised against Rav Yehuda from the examples brought in the Mishna, but each one is resolved. Rav Yosef asks: If the court rules there is no prohibition to plow on Shabbat, is that considered uprooting a complete mitzva or a partial one? The Gemara tries to answer the question by deriving it from cases in our Mishna, but is not able to. Rabbi Zeira asks if the court rules that there is no Shabbat observance in the Shmita year, is that considered uprooting a complete mitzva or a partial one? Ravina brings a source from a false prophet to answer that it is considered a partial mitzva, and they would be obligated to bring a communal sin offering. There are several cases where there is an issue with judges – either disqualified judges, or the head judge was not there, where there is no communal sin offering, as the case is considered closer to intentional.

יום ג' פ' כי תצא, ט' אלול, ה'תשפ"ה

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 2, 2025 9:58

התוכן [המשך] הם טוענים שצריך לתת "עלי' לתורה" גם לנשים ובנות... – אמנם עלי' לתורה היא דבר גדול ביותר, אעפ"כ אומר הקב"ה שלנשים זה אסור. ואדרבה – העלי' שלהן היא כשלא יעלו לתורה אלא יענו אמן אחרי ברכות התורה של הגברים!; לא רק שאין לאשה להרגיש נחותה מבעלה, אדרבה – התורה קבעה שהבעל צריך את עזרתה, בכלל – האשה היא זו שלוקחת את החטים שהבעל מביא הביתה ועושה מהם לחם הראוי לאכול, ובפרט בחינוך הילדים; לעת"ל "נקבה תסובב גבר", וכדברי רבי עקיבא "שלי ושלכם שלה היא"!; הגיע הזמן שהנשים ובנות יצאו בקריאה: היתכן שמגדלים במדינה זו מליוני ילדים בבתי הספר באופן שאינם יודעים כלל אודות ה"עין רואה ואוזן שומעת"?! ולתבוע בתוקף שיונהג בבתי-הספר "רגע של שתיקה" בתחילת הלימודים וההורים יאמרו לילדים לחשוב אז על בורא העולם ועל זה שיש "עין רואה ואוזן שומעת".משיחות וא"ו תשרי ה'תשמ"ה ל"הנחה פרטית" או התרגום ללה"ק של השיחה: https://thedailysicha.com/?date=02-09-2025 Synopsis (Continued.) They claim that women and girls, too, should receive an aliyah to the Torah etc. But while it's true that receiving an aliyah is a very great thing, Hashem says it is not for women; to the contrary, they receive their aliyah (“ascendence”) precisely when they don't get called up the Torah but rather respond Amen to the blessings over the Torah recited by the men. And not only should a woman not feel inferior to her husband, but to the contrary – the Torah established that the husband needs her assistance. In general, it is the woman who takes the wheat brought home by the husband and turns it to bread that is fit to eat, and this is especially true when it comes to raising and educating the children; in the future, “the woman will court the man,” and as Rabbi Akiva said, “Mine and yours are hers!” The time has come for women and girls to protest: How can it be that millions of children in this country are educated in schools without even knowing about Hashem's “seeing eye and listening ear”?! They should firmly demand that a moment of silence be instituted at the start of every school day, and parents should tell their children to use that moment to think about the Creator of the world and about the fact that there is a “seeing eye and listening ear.”Excerpt from sichah of 6 Tishrei 5745 For a transcript in English of the Sicha: https://thedailysicha.com/?date=02-09-2025

english creator mine amen torah excerpt hashem rabbi akiva sicha

When is a New Idol Considered "Avodah Zarah"? (Avodah Zarah 52)

Daf Yomi: Babble on Talmud

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 8, 2025 60:30

Daf Yomi Avodah Zarah 52Episode 2044Join the community: https://chat.whatsapp.com/LMbsU3a5f4Y3b61DxFRsqfSefaria: https://www.sefaria.org/Avodah_Zarah.52a?lang=heEmail: sruli@babbleontalmud.comInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/babble_on_talmudFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/p/Babble-on-Talmud-100080258961218/#dafyomi #talmudOn daf 52 of masechta Avodah Zarah we dive into the machlokes between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael about at what point avodah zarah becomes prohibited. Then we talk about fixing up avodah zarah. Enjoy...00:00 Intro01:50 At which point avodah zarah becomes prohibited30:12 Fixing up an avodah zarah clunker59:34 Conclusion

conclusion fixing idol talmud babble avodah rabbi akiva

S7, E16 The Guide of the Perplexed, Rambam's Messianic Vision (04): The Messiah, the Law, and the Unknowable King

israel vision guide tree torah balaam messianic hashem perplexed rambam red heifer unknowable rabbi akiva inverting bar kochba

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 7, 2025 80:03

00:25 The essence of Rabbi Akiva's wisdom is that the Torah speaks in parables3:40 The sin that led to the death of Bar Kochba is the sin of taking the Torah literally 11:15 Balaam and the parables about the Messiah; the prophets themselves didn't know the meaning of their parables about the Messiah18:00 Balaam blessed Israel with kingship, which turned into a curse21:00 Inverting the meaning of the Torah and Balaam's endeavor24:00 The inversion of the Torah is its external, superficial meaning; Balaam as the anti-Moshe28:45 The function of a king is to craft a unified message; the connection between kings and parables33:45 The problem with kings, who occlude the kingship of Hashem43:00 How can there be a righteous king?44:15 The function of halacha and how it applies to establishing kings who stand as parables for Hashem55:00 The contradiction in Shemoneh Esreh whether Hashem alone will rule us or David will56:00 Solomon's failure revolved around thinking we know the reasons of mitzvahs fully59:30 The more progress we make in recognizing the limits of our reason, the more we can safely explore the reasons for the mitzvahs 1:05:30 The Guide is Gan Eden; the Tree of Life is the middle question in the middle chapter of the middle section of the Guide: "Why did he give these mitzvahs and these prohibitions?"1:11:30 Rabbi Akiva knew the reason of the Red Heifer, which is that paradoxes are appropriate1:13:00 Balaam as the anti-Moshe and his influence, together with Moshe, on all the prophets that come after Moshe1:15:00 Rabbi Meir, student of Rabbi Akiva, and his approach to parables

יום ה' פ' ואתחנן, י"ג מנחם-אב, ה'תשפ"ה

The Daily Sicha - השיחה היומית

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 7, 2025 10:06

התוכן [המשך] והראי' שהגאולה ותחיית המתים אכן תהי' בפועל באופן דאתהפכא ("עוד ישבו זקנים וזקנות ברחובות ירושלים"), אף שאין הכרח בדבר, היא "עכשיו שנתקיימה נבואתו של אורי'" ש"ציון שדה תחרש": אף שבחורבן בית שני לא נשאר כלום מהבית כ"א העצים והאבנים (דלא כבחורבן בית ראשון) –"ציון שדה נחרש", אבל רק על ידי זה, שלא נשאר אפי' היסוד של אבנים אלא זה נחרש, נעשה זה מקום ראוי לזריעה ולצמיחה. ומזה הוכיח שהגאולה הולכת בכיוון של אתהפכא. ואע"פ שזה מובן מהנבואה של "עוד ישבו זקנים וגו'" כשלעצמה, אבל מצינו שמצד סיבות (כמו הענין ש"הי' בידיהם למחות ולא מיחו", כמו שהי' בתקופת חורבן בית ראשון) יכולה לא להתקיים גם נבואה לטובה, משא"כ כשקיום הנבואה מתחיל בפועל. וכיון שישעי', שאמר "ואעידה לי עדים נאמנים את אורי' הכהן ואת זכרי' בן יברכיהו", עשה מב' הנבואות – נבואה אחת (כמו ב' עדים שמעידים על ענין א'), ו"ציון שדה תחרש" התקיים בפועל, מוכח שגם יתקיים המשך הנבואה – "עוד ישבו זקנים וגו'" – גאולה באופן של אתהפכא. וזה בא ע"י שגאולה הפרטית דכאו"א בעבודתו היא באופן של "אתהפכא".ב' חלקים משיחת יו"ד שבט ה'תשכ"ה ל"הנחה פרטית" או התרגום ללה"ק של השיחה: https://thedailysicha.com/?date=07-08-2025 Synopsis (Continued.) The proof that the Redemption and Techias Hameisim will indeed take place in a manner of transformation (“There will yet be elderly men and elderly women sitting in the streets of Yerushalayim”), even though it doesn't necessarily have to happen that way, lies in the fact that “the prophecy of Uriyah has been fulfilled,” that “Tzion was plowed like a field”: In the destruction of the second Beis Hamikdash, nothing remained of the structure except wood and stones (unlike the destruction of the first Beis Hamikdash), but it was only because it was razed to the foundation and plowed that the place became fit for sowing and growth. Fron this Rabbi Akiva proved that the Redemption will take place in a manner of transformation. Although the prophecy itself also alludes to transformation (“There will yet be elderly men and elderly women…”), however, we find that due to certain causes (such as the fact that “it was in their power to protest and they did not protest” at the time of the destruction of the first Beis Hamikdash) it is possible for even a positive prophecy to potentially not be fulfilled. But this doesn't apply when the fulfillment of the prophecy has already begun physically. Therefore, since Yeshayahu, who said “And I will take to Me faithful witnesses: Uriyah the Kohen and Zecharyah the son of Yevarechyahu” combined the two prophecies into one (like two witnesses whose testimony become one), when Rabbi Akiva saw that “Tzion was plowed like a field” in actuality, he knew that the continuation of the prophecy, “There will yet be elderly men and elderly women...” would be fulfilled – Redemption in a manner of transformation. This comes about as a result of every individual's redemption in their personal divine service being in a manner of transformation.2 excerpts from sichah of Yud Shevat 5725 For a transcript in English of the Sicha: https://thedailysicha.com/?date=07-08-2025 לזכות ר' זאב הכהן וזוגתו מרת פריידא הינדא שיחיו טייטלבוים ליובל החתונה שלהם ביום חמשה עשר באבלברכה והצלחה בכל הענינים ‏בגו"ר

english redemption rabbi akiva yerushalayim fron tzion sicha

יום ד' פ' ואתחנן, י"ב מנחם-אב, ה'תשפ"ה

The Daily Sicha - השיחה היומית

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 6, 2025 11:30

התוכן איתא בסיום מס' מכות: "כבר הי' ר"ג וראב"ע ור"י ור"ע מהלכין בדרך .. כיון שהגיעו להר הבית ראו שועל שיצא מבית קדשי הקדשים התחילו הן בוכין ור"ע מצחק .. אמרו לו מקום שכתוב בו והזר הקרב יומת ועכשו שועלים הלכו בו ולא נבכה, אמר להן לכך אני מצחק דכתיב ואעידה לי עדים נאמנים את אורי' הכהן ואת זכרי' בן יברכיהו, וכי מה ענין אורי' אצל זכרי' .. אלא תלה הכתוב נבואתו של זכרי' בנבואתו של אורי', באורי' כתיב לכן בגללכם ציון שדה תחרש בזכרי' כתיב עוד ישבו זקנים וזקנות ברחובות ירושלים, עד שלא נתקיימה נבואתו של אורי' הייתי מתיירא שלא תתקיים נבואתו של זכרי', עכשיו שנתקיימה נבואתו של אורי' בידוע שנבואתו של זכרי' מתקיימת בלשון הזה. אמרו לו עקיבא ניחמתנו עקיבא ניחמתנו". ראי' זו שהביא ר"ע אינה על עצם ענין הגאולה ותחיית המתים, שה"ז מפורש בתושב"כ, אלא על אופנה: שהרי תחיית המתים כשלעצמו הי' יכול להיות באופן (רק) כמו שהי' בג"ע לפני החטא – ביטול ענין המיתה, ו(במילא) יקומו מלכתחילה בריאים וחזקים. אבל מנבואת זכרי' "עוד ישבו זקנים וזקנות ברחובות ירושלים" מוכח שאז יהי' חידוש נעלה יותר שאינו מוכרח – הענין דאתהפכא, שיקומו באופן של "זקנים וזקנות" והם יהיו חזקים עד ש"ישבו .. ברחובות ירושלים" (לא כדרך זקנים)! [המשך יבוא]ב' חלקים משיחת יו"ד שבט ה'תשכ"ה ל"הנחה פרטית" או התרגום ללה"ק של השיחה: https://thedailysicha.com/?date=06-08-2025 Synopsis The conclusion of Masechta Makkos states: “It once was that Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Akiva were walking along the road…When they arrived at the Temple Mount, they saw a fox that emerged from the site of the Holy of Holies. They began weeping, and Rabbi Akiva was laughing…They said to him: This is the place of which it is written: “And the layman who approaches shall die,” and now foxes walk in it; and shall we not weep? He said to them: That is why I am laughing, as it is written: “And I will take to Me faithful witnesses to attest: Uriah the Kohen, and Zechariah ben Yevarchiyahu.” Now, what is the connection between Uriah and Zechariah…Rather, the verse hinged the fulfillment of the prophecy of Zechariah on the fulfillment of the prophecy of Uriah. In the prophecy of Uriah it is written: “Therefore, for your sake Tzion will be plowed as a field.” In Zechariah it is written: “There will yet be elderly men and elderly women sitting in the streets of Yerushalayim.” Until the prophecy of Uriah was fulfilled, I was afraid that the prophecy of Zechariah would not be fulfilled. Now that the prophecy of Uriah was fulfilled, it is evident that the prophecy of Zechariah remains valid. They said to him: Akiva, you have comforted us; Akiva, you have comforted us.” Rabbi Akiva here is not bringing proof for the Redemption and Techias Hameisim themselves, because they are stated explicitly in the Written Torah. Rather, he is bringing proof as to the manner in which they will occur: Conceptually, Techias Hameisim could occur in a manner similar to the state of Gan Eden before the sin, meaning, the abolition of death, as a result of which the dead would be resurrected in a state of optimum strength and health. But since Zechariah's prophecy states that “There will yet be elderly men and elderly women sitting in the streets of Yerushalayim,” that proves that there will be an even greater novelty – the fact that they will arise as “elderly men and elderly women,” and yet they will become strong enough to be “sitting in the streets of Yerushalayim” like young people. (To be continued).2 excerpts from sichah of Yud Shevat 5725 For a transcript in English of the Sicha: https://thedailysicha.com/?date=06-08-2025 לע"נ מרת צבי' אדל בת ר' צבי ע"ה ליום היארצייט שלה י"ב מנחם-אב. ת.נ.צ.ב.ה.

english holy redemption holies temple mount akiva rabbi akiva yerushalayim conceptually tzion sicha written torah rabbi elazar rabbi yehoshua rabban gamliel

Ep. 554: How Does Tisha B'Av Capture the Paradox of a Jew?

MyLife: Chassidus Applied

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 5, 2025 65:31

Rabbi Jacobson will discuss the following topics: Chassidus applied to Tisha B'Av How does this day capture the paradox of a Jew? Why are we still grieving? What is the healthy way of mourning over loss while not being defined by it? Should the main focus of this day be the sadness and grief over the destruction of the Holy Temple, or should it be the joy and happiness that the third Temple will be revealed and be greater than the first two? Why was Moshiach born in the darkest moments of this saddest day of the year? Why did the other sages not laugh like Rabbi Akiva; were they not aware of the future prophecy? Is there a custom to do a “prank” on Tisha B'av as in the story with Reb Yisroel Ruzhiner? Are we supposed to continue the mourning on the 10th of Av? How important is unity in repairing the wounds of Tisha B'Av? And how does that apply today to winning the battles with our enemies? Can we apply Tisha B'av to healing from all forms of illness? What is a balanced Torah approach to healing and medicine? Should we listen to doctors who only medicate and do not address the soul? What is the significance of Shabbat Nachamu? Why the double Nachamu Nachamu Ami? Why is the 15th of Av such a great holiday comparable to Yom Kippur? What can we learn from the joyous events that occurred on this day to give us hope that we will endure and thrive despite the latest demonstrations of antisemitism? Did the Rebbe say that the breaking of the axe also symbolizes that we have finished our work of refining the world? Why was public dancing permitted on this day? How is it consistent with strict standards of modesty followed today?Nachamu/15th of Av How should we respond to questions about the recently publicized photo of the Rebbe and the Rebbetzin? Follow-up

temple jews paradoxes capture torah av yom kippur rebbe holy temple tisha b moshiach rabbi akiva chassidus rebbetzin rabbi jacobson

Why Do Some Rabbis Exaggerate or Invent Stories? Discovering the Bliss of Living With Our Deepest Truth - Vaeschanan Women's Class

Weekly Women's Class by Rabbi YY Jacobson

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 5, 2025 93:15

Can You Communicate Without Defensiveness? The Incredible Lesson of Shimon Hamsoni and Rabbe AkivaThis class was presented on Tuesday, 11 Av, 5785, August 5, 2025, Parshas Vaeschanan, at The Barn in Montebello, NY. There is a story in the Talmud, in which Shimon the Imsonite retracts his entire theory that the term "Es" indicates the inclusion of another person or item, due to a single verse in this week’s portion, “You shall fear -- Es -- the Lord your G-d.” How can we be in awe of anybody but G-d? Yet his student, Rabbi Akiva, rescues his teacher’s refuted theory. The obvious question is what did Rabbi Akiva discover which Shimon did not? Shimon could not entertain the notion of including anything in the commandment to fear G-d. For him, such a proposition would be blasphemy. Why did Rabbi Akiva, then, not have a problem of adding Torah scholars to the mitzvah of fearing G-d? How is it that for what Shimon was blasphemy was for Rabbi Akiva perfectly acceptable, and even a mitzvah?! You were selected to win the Nobel Prize for your contribution to physics. You received your tickets to Norway to attend the lavish ceremony. You were featured on the cover of Time magazine, and have been interviewed by hundreds of journals and networks. Minutes after you received the call that the Nobel Committee had chosen you from 40 possible candidates, you went from being an anonymous physicist spending the last 45 years in a laboratory to becoming a world-class scientist whose name will be immortalized in the annals of scientific innovation and discovery. You become a household name. The world is buzzing with your praise. And then… the unthinkable happens. Hours before you go to the airport to fly to Norway, you discover a subtle mistake in one of your 20,000 equations. It is a mistake that no eye has perceived and perhaps will not be perceived for many years. But it is a mistake. Your calculation is erroneous. You have refuted your discovery. You now have a choice to make. Will you allow the “small truth” to destroy your eternal glory? What would you do? It is such a story that the Talmud is addressing. If only we can internalize this type of integrity our lives can be transformed.View Source Sheets: https://portal.theyeshiva.net/api/source-sheets/9744

women time lord stories ny class discovering norway barn nobel prize torah av deepest invent talmud rabbis shimon rabbi akiva montebello exaggerate nobel committee

S7, E15 The Guide of the Perplexed, Rambam's Messianic Vision (03): Torah and the Parable Without a Meaning

god vision guide meaning parable torah king solomon messianic perplexed rambam rabbi akiva oral torah

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 30, 2025 76:41

00:00 The project of the Guide is the rectification of the challenges associated with prophecy2:30 The need for the Torah to be unlocked12:00 King Solomon was a Messianic figure who commenced the unlocking of the Torah, which was then completed by Rabbi Akiva20:45 The innovation in the Torah which is itself rooted in the Torah: Rambam's rereading of the Torah's mission to uproot idolatry and his application of its teaching to God's incorporeality 36:30 The Oral Torah can undermine the surface-level meaning of the Written Torah40:45 How Moshe both did and didn't wage war against the erroneous belief in the corporeality of God44:00 It takes much knowledge to know that knowledge is limited48:45 How Rabbi Akiva's new teaching about parables improved on King Solomon's teaching about parables51:00 The endless sea and the infinitude of wisdom: The meaning of the parable of water is that we can't know the true meaning of the parable of water54:30 The purpose of parables is not to explain something but rather to make an abstract truth attractive to the body1:01:15 Rabbi Akiva's teaching about the water that has no end; how he faced endless waves and how Rabbi Meir faced endless waves1:12:30 Two kinds of parables1:15:30 What will be treated of in the next lecture

S7, E14 The Guide of the Perplexed, Rambam's Messianic Vision (02): Do Not Say "Water, Water"

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 23, 2025 71:32

0:00 How does Rambam intend to extract us from exile?2:30 Rabbi Akiva as the great teacher whose Torah completes the Messianic teaching6:30 The need for the Torah to be clarified and for its meaning to be unlocked10:00 In what sense Rabbi Akiva is called a "prophet"18:30 The diminished significance of the Messiah as an individual man of great wisdom and prophetic power24:00 Allusions in the Guide to the role of Rabbi Akiva and his new teaching30:00 What is the "new teaching" predicted by the prophets and who will teach it? 31:00 The teaching of Rabbi Akiva about what makes a human perfect: Do not say, "Water, water"34:45 Moshe went beyond human capabilities; the rest of humanity requires a way to approach God without transcending human limits46:30 The meaning of the word "water"; equivocal terms and parables54:20 Why there is a need for a "new teaching" and what is wrong with the "old teaching"58:00 The failure of the "Nobles of the Children of Israel" in their vision of God points to the flaw with the old teaching and the problem inherent in every prophet lesser than Moshe1:05:00 The Guide is meant to rectify the problem inherent to non-Mosaic prophecy

god children israel vision guide water torah mosaic messianic nobles perplexed rambam rabbi akiva allusions

Avodah Zarah 35: Rolling Out Decrees

talmud avodah rabbi akiva

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 23, 2025 17:08

First, a note on Rabbi Akiva's question on the previous daf. Then, a discussion about the cheese of non-Jews that leads into reflection on the verse, "for your love is better than wine" - is God talking? Are the Jewish people talking? Plus, how decrees were made quietly, lest people not be able to live up to the requirements of the decree, and tactfully. Also, a new mishnah! The list of non-Jews' foods from which Jews are prohibited to eat, but they can get benefit from the things on this list (milk, bread, oil, and more).

god jewish jews rolling decrees avodah rabbi akiva

Avodah Zarah 34 - Rabbi Akiva in Ginzak

Take One Daf Yomi

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 22, 2025 7:57

In today's page of Talmud, Avodah Zarah 34, we hear a story in which Rabbi Akiva visits a faraway city and is asked three seemingly unrelated yet straightforward questions by the folks who lived there. We're told that he did not know the answers. What's going on here? Listen and find out.

Avodah Zarah 34 - July 22, 26 Tamuz

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 22, 2025 45:19

Do glazed earthenware vessels absorb, and if so, to what extent? Can they be kashered? Meriemar appears to issue contradictory rulings regarding this topic, particularly vessels that contained wine of idol worshippers versus the kashering of vessels for Pesach. How is this contradiction resolved? Rabbi Akiva was asked three questions, one of which pertained to clay jugs previously owned by non-Jews. Unable to provide answers on the spot, he went to the beit midrash, where he ultimately discovered the correct rulings. The jugs can be used after twelve months of not having been used for wine. Grape seeds, grape peels, and fish stew (morayis) mentioned in the Mishna are discussed in detail, along with the halachic issues they raise. Different sages mention items that can be used after twelve months without undergoing any kashering process. Why are cheeses from Onaiki forbidden? Reish Lakish proposes an explanation, but his answer is challenged based on a seemingly contradictory statement he made in a different context. The resolution of this difficulty involves a clarification of his original statement. Feces from an ox that gored and was sentenced to be stoned are not forbidden, even though the ox itself is. However, feces from an animal that was used for idol worship are forbidden. The distinction between these two cases is clarified through logical reasoning and supported by verses from the Torah. Rava adds that our Mishna can also serve as a textual basis for these rulings.

jews torah grapes unable pesach feces mishna avodah rabbi akiva rava

Avodah Zarah 34: When Rabbi Akiva Didn't Know Everything

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 22, 2025 13:17

A Rabbi Akiva story -- wherein he didn't know the answer to 3 questions, though others in the beit midrash were able to shed light for him. (One of these questions being a straight-up "avodah zarah" Jew/non-Jew interaction question, and the possibility of rehabilitating jugs owned by a non-Jew, which explains the passage's presence on this daf). Also, more on the fish stew -- and the story of how guards were placed to guard the fish stew to make sure nobody added wine to it (risking libation wine, etc.). Note that "cheap wine" was understood to not be problematic to begin with. Plus, the cases of cheese and the woman who is betrothed with the excrement of an ox that awaits stoning.

jews avodah rabbi akiva

Avodah Zarah 34 - July 22, 26 Tamuz

Daf Yomi: Babble on Talmud

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 22, 2025 45:19

Do glazed earthenware vessels absorb, and if so, to what extent? Can they be kashered? Meriemar appears to issue contradictory rulings regarding this topic, particularly vessels that contained wine of idol worshippers versus the kashering of vessels for Pesach. How is this contradiction resolved? Rabbi Akiva was asked three questions, one of which pertained to clay jugs previously owned by non-Jews. Unable to provide answers on the spot, he went to the beit midrash, where he ultimately discovered the correct rulings. The jugs can be used after twelve months of not having been used for wine. Grape seeds, grape peels, and fish stew (morayis) mentioned in the Mishna are discussed in detail, along with the halachic issues they raise. Different sages mention items that can be used after twelve months without undergoing any kashering process. Why are cheeses from Onaiki forbidden? Reish Lakish proposes an explanation, but his answer is challenged based on a seemingly contradictory statement he made in a different context. The resolution of this difficulty involves a clarification of his original statement. Feces from an ox that gored and was sentenced to be stoned are not forbidden, even though the ox itself is. However, feces from an animal that was used for idol worship are forbidden. The distinction between these two cases is clarified through logical reasoning and supported by verses from the Torah. Rava adds that our Mishna can also serve as a textual basis for these rulings.

jews torah grapes unable pesach feces mishna avodah rabbi akiva rava

starting to talk about cheese

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 21, 2025 50:00

Daf Yomi Avodah Zarah 34Episode 2026We finish up the discussion of flasks and move on to the next section of the mishnah, on the topic of "pits and peels". After that we discuss some kind of fish dish, and then seguay into our discussions of cheese, which will continue into tomorrow. So a little bit of a smorgasbord, but a good smorgasbord. Enjoy

starting cheese pits talmud babble rabbi akiva

S7, E13 The Guide of the Perplexed, Rambam's Messianic Vision (01): Rabbi Akiva and the Redemption of Kingship

israel vision guide redemption torah mosaic messianic kingship perplexed rambam halacha rabbi akiva pardes solomonic mishneh torah chasam sofer bar kochba

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 16, 2025 76:56

0:00 Why are the Redemption and the Messiah not treated of in the Guide, considering that they comprise the 12th principle of faith?5:30 Chasam Sofer's dispute with Rambam regarding the 12th principle9:00 The redemption is a principle of faith since it involves the success of the Torah's overall project11:30 The entire Guide is the means for the Torah's project to succeed: Through this book, they will escape from exile18:30 The Messiah is the notion that kingship of Israel can and will be perfected25:00 The Torah, as opposed to the prophets, doesn't talk about the figure of the Messiah34:50 A contradiction within Mishneh Torah about whether the Messiah will be wiser than Solomon and achieve a level of prophecy close to Moses, or will be simply an effective king49:40 Rabbi Akiva's role in the Redemption; Rabbi Akiva as the Solomonic and Mosaic figure56:30 Rabbi Akiva as the figure bracketing the whole Mishneh Torah, who entered the Pardes in peace and exited in peace1:00:00 Halacha as the prerequisite for knowledge of Hashem1:02:00 The nature of Rabbi Akiva's perfection and the connection to his assumption that Bar Kochba was the Messiah1:05:30 The study of Mishneh Torah is required to be capable of recognizing that parables are not meant literally1:09:30 Who is the real king? Rabbi Akiva or Bar Kochba?

Avodah Zarah 27 - July 15, 19 Tamuz

jews torah sanhedrin gemara avodah rabbi akiva endfragment startfragment

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 15, 2025 47:23

Can an idol worshipper perform a brit mila on a Jew? If no Jew is available, is it preferable for a Samaritan (Cuti) or an idol worshipper to perform it? What are the sources for the various opinions, and which authorities support each view? Is brit mila required to be performed lishma—specifically for the sake of the mitzva? Two different verses are cited to explain why an idol worshipper may not perform a brit mila on a Jew. What is the practical difference between the two interpretations? The Gemara offers three possible distinctions, though the first two are ultimately rejected. The remaining practical implication concerns whether a woman is permitted to perform a brit mila. Can an idol worshipper perform a medical procedure or prescribe medicine for a Jew? Under what circumstances is it permitted? Is there a difference between an idol worshipper and a heretic, and if so, why? Why did Rabbi Yishmael not permit Ben Dama to be healed by a heretic? If the Torah says “and you shall live by them,” why wasn’t healing allowed in this case? Rabbi Yishmael prohibits transgressing idol worship and other commandments publicly, even under threat to life. This approach differs from Rabbi Akiva’s opinion in Sanhedrin, which holds that one must give up one's life rather than transgress the three cardinal sins: idolatry, murder, and forbidden sexual relations.

Avodah Zarah 27 - July 15, 19 Tamuz

jews torah sanhedrin gemara avodah rabbi akiva endfragment startfragment

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 15, 2025 47:23

Can an idol worshipper perform a brit mila on a Jew? If no Jew is available, is it preferable for a Samaritan (Cuti) or an idol worshipper to perform it? What are the sources for the various opinions, and which authorities support each view? Is brit mila required to be performed lishma—specifically for the sake of the mitzva? Two different verses are cited to explain why an idol worshipper may not perform a brit mila on a Jew. What is the practical difference between the two interpretations? The Gemara offers three possible distinctions, though the first two are ultimately rejected. The remaining practical implication concerns whether a woman is permitted to perform a brit mila. Can an idol worshipper perform a medical procedure or prescribe medicine for a Jew? Under what circumstances is it permitted? Is there a difference between an idol worshipper and a heretic, and if so, why? Why did Rabbi Yishmael not permit Ben Dama to be healed by a heretic? If the Torah says “and you shall live by them,” why wasn’t healing allowed in this case? Rabbi Yishmael prohibits transgressing idol worship and other commandments publicly, even under threat to life. This approach differs from Rabbi Akiva’s opinion in Sanhedrin, which holds that one must give up one's life rather than transgress the three cardinal sins: idolatry, murder, and forbidden sexual relations.

Etched in Stone (4:25)

Eternal Ethics - With Rabbi Yaakov Wolbe

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 11, 2025 48:14

Elisha Ben Avuyah was one of the greatest Sages with the potential to being a historic legend of Jewish history on par with Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues. But he went awry. He became a heretic and a sinner and abandoned Torah. Why did he go awry? That question is hotly debated among the Sages. […]

jewish stone torah sages rabbi akiva etched

Avodah Zarah 20: No Mercy, No Favors

Daily Emunah Podcast - Daily Emunah By Rabbi David Ashear

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 9, 2025 15:44

Beginning with a new mishnah that opens on the bottom of daf 19: One may not make jewelry for an object of idolatry -- but you can be hired to do such things, as an artist. Also, note that Jews may not sell that which is attached to the ground to non-Jews. The Gemara will investigate the source of this prohibition - lo techanem - don't do them any mercy - which demands a great deal of investigation, and several possible meanings. But the meaning of the text and the term itself don't quite line up nicely enough - which gives the Gemara more fodder to interpret. Also, a story in the context of this injunction: about Turnus Rufus and Rabbi Akiva, during the Hadrianic Persecutions. The story includes praising the beauty of a woman who worshipped idols, so isn't that an example of a violation of the prohibition - except that we also appreciate the beauty God brings into the world. But men aren't supposed to be gazing on women and contacting on them, regardless of whether they are beautiful.

god jews no mercy favors gemara avodah rabbi akiva

How Hashem Measures Our Success

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 7, 2025

For a 10% discount on Rabbi David Ashear's new book LIVING EMUNAH VOL 8 click the link below https://www.artscroll.com/ Books/9781422644645.html People sometimes see others giving millions to tzedakah and wonder why they don't have the same zechut to give such large amounts. Others see children with exceptional middot and ask themselves, "Why do they have such great children, while ours are so difficult?" Some struggle to grasp even the basics of Torah learning, while others seem to understand the most complex sugyot effortlessly. It's natural to wonder why Hashem didn't give everyone equal opportunity, especially when the purpose of this world is to serve Him. In Parashat Chukat, we read how the Jewish people complained when they had no water. The pasuk says: " וירב העם עם משה ויאמרו לאמר ולו גוענו בגוע אחינו לפני ה '" They quarreled with Moshe and said they wished they had died like the rest of the people in the desert. They asked why he brought them out of Egypt just to die in a wasteland. This happened almost 40 years after they left Egypt—this was the new generation that was supposed to enter Eretz Yisrael—and yet they were speaking just like their parents had. Moshe could have thought that everything he had done over the past 40 years was for nothing. He had worked so hard to prepare this nation to be Am Hashem and build the Beit HaMikdash, and now it seemed like nothing had changed. But as Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch explains, a person is not judged by results—because results are in Hashem's hands. A person's greatness is measured by effort and pure intentions. We don't know Hashem's calculations. We don't know why things turn out one way for one person and another way for someone else. But we do know we are sent here with a mission—to act the way Hashem wants us to act, regardless of the outcome. Some people appear to succeed in life with very little effort, while others see little success despite their hardest work. A person who has a brilliant mind and understands the Gemara instantly, yet doesn't review or put in much effort, receives little reward for that understanding—it was a gift from Hashem. On the other hand, someone who works tirelessly to understand even a little, even if he never reaches the same level, will be rewarded far more for his toil. Parents who are blessed with children who naturally have strong middot and a love for Torah, yet do little to raise them that way, will not receive nearly the same reward as parents who devote hours upon hours to raising children with learning disabilities or challenging personalities—even if those children struggle. Hashem rewards effort , not results. A person struggling to make ends meet might earn more reward for a small donation than a wealthy person who gives large amounts easily. It's all relative. What matters is how hard it was to give, not how much was given. A rebbe who teaches day after day and sees no apparent nachat from his students is not a failure. Results are not in his hands. Effort is. Hashem pays us for our hishtadlut —our effort—not our outcome. Imagine if Rabbi Akiva had given up after losing his 24,000 students. The world would have missed some of the greatest sages who ever lived. But he didn't give up. He started again. He knew that his mission came from Hashem, and that the results were not the measure of his success. The Gemara tells us that after 120 years, a person will be asked: " עסקת בפריה ורביה ?" —Were you involved in trying to build a family? It doesn't say, "Did you succeed?" because that part is not up to us. We are also asked, " קבעת עתים לתורה ?" —Did you set times to learn? Not, "Did you master Torah?" Everyone truly does have equal opportunity—because everyone is judged by their effort, not their results. And effort is something that each of us can choose to give, every single day.

success trust books parents jewish effort results torah measures hashem emunah gemara rabbi akiva eretz yisrael bitachon beit hamikdash

Avodah Zarah 5: Repentance Leaves Sin in the Dust

god jews repentance dust king david golden calf avodah rabbi akiva comparably

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 23, 2025 22:26

On sin and the purpose of sin! God allows sin to happen so that future sinners can repent. Consider the story of King David with Batsheva, with the implication that David wouldn't have done the sin were it not for his later repentance. Comparably, the sin of the Golden Calf. When an individual sin, we encourage reflection, repentance, and atonement. A group sin is a little more complicated, but the same principle stands. Plus, the differences between humans and angels, including, or especially, progeny. Plus, the harsh punishments for sin (for example, Rabbi Akiva). Also, a return to halakhah, with the question of why 3 days of not selling to non-Jews before their holidays (why not more or less)?

Shevuot 44: The Role of Collateral

collateral shmuel gemara rabbi akiva

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 15, 2025 14:25

What happens to a loan on collateral if the collateral is lost? A discussion that leads into an application of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer to Shmuel's position - which seems counter-historical in terms of how the Gemara is put together. Also, does the shemitah year cancel the debt that is loaned on collateral? Perhaps that depends on whether it's symbolic or covering the loan.

Making Torah a Priority (4:12)

Eternal Ethics - With Rabbi Yaakov Wolbe

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 11, 2025 49:31

Rabbi Meir is one of the most significant personalities in Jewish history. He was one of the five surviving students of Rabbi Akiva, and the one whose notes were used as the basis for the Mishnah. In this seminal teaching, he guides us on how to harmonize Torah study and making a livelihood and informs […]

jewish priority torah mishnah rabbi akiva

The calling of the Disciples

The Two Trees Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 10, 2025 68:42

We discuss the calling of the Disciples, and the shepherding motif in scripture. Warning: In a wondrous display of ineptitude I have misspoken and attributed a story of Rabbi Eliezer to Rabbi Akiva. A Rookie mistake and I apologize. Here are some links to the story of the Rabbis and the miracles associated with the debate over the oven of akhani. https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/144163?lang=bi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oven_of_Akhnai, https://sites.hofstra.edu/daniel-greenwood/the-oven-of-akhnai/, https://www.chabad.org/torah-texts/5455793/The-Talmud/Bava-Metzia/Chapter-4/59b

disciples rookies oven rabbis rabbi akiva

Shevuot 26 - May 27, 29 Iyar

Play Episode Listen Later May 27, 2025 45:20

Today's daf is sponsored by Tali Oberman in honor of her grandmother, Miriam Sklar, who has reached the incredible milestone of 90. A braita has a more expanded version of the debate between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva about whether or not the oath of expression for which one is obligated to bring a sliding-scale offering includes oaths regarding events that already happened (about the past). Each uses a different exegetical principle in reaching his conclusion, based on the method adopted by their teachers, Rabbi Nechunia Ish haKane, klal and prat (Rabbi Yishmael), and Nachum Ish Gamzu, ribui and miyut (Rabbi Akiva). An oath of expression is only brought if the person is shogeg, unwitting, when they forgot their oath, but not if they did it on purpose or if it was totally beyond their control. The Gemara brings an example of an oath that would be beyond one's control. A braita extrapolates from the verse that an oath of expression is only brought by one who forgot the oath but not the object. Is it possible to find a case of remembering that oath, but forgetting the object? Rava asks Rav Nachman what would be the case if one forgot both the oath and the object. This question is left unanswered as one can make an argument both to obligate and to exempt. Rava asks Rav Nachman what would be a case of shogeg for an oath of expression about the past? Rav Nachman answers that one who remembers the oath, but does not know that one is obligated to bring a sacrifice. This seems initially to match only Munbaz's approach in Shabbat 68b that one can be obligated to bring a sacrifice if one knew it was Shabbat and that the action was forbidden, but did not know that one is obligated to bring a sacrifice. But, then the Gemara explains that even the rabbis would agree by oaths as it is a unique halakha, as usually one is only obligated in oath for a prohibition punishable by karet. Shmuel rules that one is only obligated for an oath of expression that is expressed in words, not one that is in one's heart. Two sources are brought to raise a difficulty on Shmuel's position, but are resolved.

shabbat shmuel gemara rabbi akiva iyar rava

Shevuot 22 - May 23, 25 Iyar