Podcasts about rabbi chanina

story about Rav Papa and series of stories of greatness of Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa and wife

Our learning today is dedicated in honor of the State of Israel celebrating 77 years of independence. We continue to pray for the safe and speedy return of our hostages, for the safety of our soldiers, and for a refuah shleima for all the injured soldiers.  We also dedicate our learning to the speedy extinguishing of the terrible fires blazing in Israel and to the safety of the firefighters.  How were the lashes administered? Why? What situations would provide enough embarrassment for the one getting the lashes that even if some of the lashes were given or in some cases, even if none were yet administered, one would already have fulfilled receiving the punishment? Why was the whip made from a calf and a donkey? Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel holds that one who is obligated to receive karet and then receives lashes for that sin, the lashes atone for the sin and the person will no longer receive karet. According to Rabbi Yochanan, the rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Chanina. Rav Ada proves this from a Mishna in Megilla. However, Rav Nachman and Rav Ashi reject the proof, each in a different way. The Mishna brings various statements regarding the value of observing mitzvot. When Rav Ada bar Ahava ruled like Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel, Rav Yosef asked rhetorically if he had gone up to the heavens and seen that those who received lashes did not receive karet? Abaye responded that Rabbi Chanina derived it from a verse, just as in a statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that there are three things the rabbis did that the heavens approved of - the obligation to read Megillat Esther, greeting a friend using the name of God, and bringing the tithes to the Temple to be distributed. Rabbi Elazar said that there are three instances where the Divine Spirit appeared in a court to intervene - with Yehuda, Shmuel, and Shlomo, as can be proven from verses in the Tanach. Rava rejects the proof from the verses, but says this was learned by a tradition. 

Our learning today is dedicated in honor of the State of Israel celebrating 77 years of independence. We continue to pray for the safe and speedy return of our hostages, for the safety of our soldiers, and for a refuah shleima for all the injured soldiers.  We also dedicate our learning to the speedy extinguishing of the terrible fires blazing in Israel and to the safety of the firefighters.  How were the lashes administered? Why? What situations would provide enough embarrassment for the one getting the lashes that even if some of the lashes were given or in some cases, even if none were yet administered, one would already have fulfilled receiving the punishment? Why was the whip made from a calf and a donkey? Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel holds that one who is obligated to receive karet and then receives lashes for that sin, the lashes atone for the sin and the person will no longer receive karet. According to Rabbi Yochanan, the rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Chanina. Rav Ada proves this from a Mishna in Megilla. However, Rav Nachman and Rav Ashi reject the proof, each in a different way. The Mishna brings various statements regarding the value of observing mitzvot. When Rav Ada bar Ahava ruled like Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel, Rav Yosef asked rhetorically if he had gone up to the heavens and seen that those who received lashes did not receive karet? Abaye responded that Rabbi Chanina derived it from a verse, just as in a statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that there are three things the rabbis did that the heavens approved of - the obligation to read Megillat Esther, greeting a friend using the name of God, and bringing the tithes to the Temple to be distributed. Rabbi Elazar said that there are three instances where the Divine Spirit appeared in a court to intervene - with Yehuda, Shmuel, and Shlomo, as can be proven from verses in the Tanach. Rava rejects the proof from the verses, but says this was learned by a tradition. 

When Chanania, Mishael and Azaria were saved from the fiery furnace, it shed a bad light on the rest of the Jews, as the gentiles said, if their God is so great, how can the rest of the people be worshipping idols! God wanted to destroy the rest of the Jews because they were worshipping idols, but when God saw the actions of Chanania, Mishael and Azaria, his anger subsided. The sages try to fill in some missing details from the story. What happened to Chanania, Mishael and Azaria after they were saved, as they are not directly heard from again? Several options are brought by amoraim and their opinions match those of tannaim. Where was Daniel when Chanania, Mishael and Azaria were thrown into the fire? Several possibilities are offered. According to a braita, God, Daniel and Nevuchadnetzer each did not want Daniel to be there - each for their own reason. Two false prophets named Achav and Tzidkia were also thrown into a fire by Nevuchadnetzer, but were killed. What is the background story? According to the midrash, Yehoshua the High Priest was sent in with them, but was only singed and came out alive. Why was Yehoshua punished? In the book of Ruth, Ruth tells Naomi that Boaz gave her six grains of barley. Bar Kapara extrapolated this verse to mean that by giving her six grains, he was alluding to her that six sons would be born to her who were each blessed with six blessings - David, the Messiah, Daniel, Chanania, Mishael and Azaria. Verses are brought to show how each was blessed in six ways. There is a debate, however, about Chanania, Mishael and Azaria's lineage and whether or not they were from the tribe of Judah. Yishayahu prophesizes to Chizkiyahu that his descendants will be taken to Babylonia and will become sarisim. The Gemara understands this to be referring to Daniel, Chanania, Mishael and Azaria. What is the meaning of the word sarisim in this context? Rav and Rabbi Chanina disagree. Does it mean they were eunuchs? Or does it mean they were cut off from worshipping idols? The Gemara raises two difficulties against Rav, that they were eunuchs, and one difficulty against Rabbi Chanina, that they were cut off from worshipping idols. The difficulties are brought from verses in Daniel and Yeshayahu but are resolved. Why was the book of Ezra, which much of it was said and written by Nechemia, not called Nechemia? Two suggestions are brought.

When Chanania, Mishael and Azaria were saved from the fiery furnace, it shed a bad light on the rest of the Jews, as the gentiles said, if their God is so great, how can the rest of the people be worshipping idols! God wanted to destroy the rest of the Jews because they were worshipping idols, but when God saw the actions of Chanania, Mishael and Azaria, his anger subsided. The sages try to fill in some missing details from the story. What happened to Chanania, Mishael and Azaria after they were saved, as they are not directly heard from again? Several options are brought by amoraim and their opinions match those of tannaim. Where was Daniel when Chanania, Mishael and Azaria were thrown into the fire? Several possibilities are offered. According to a braita, God, Daniel and Nevuchadnetzer each did not want Daniel to be there - each for their own reason. Two false prophets named Achav and Tzidkia were also thrown into a fire by Nevuchadnetzer, but were killed. What is the background story? According to the midrash, Yehoshua the High Priest was sent in with them, but was only singed and came out alive. Why was Yehoshua punished? In the book of Ruth, Ruth tells Naomi that Boaz gave her six grains of barley. Bar Kapara extrapolated this verse to mean that by giving her six grains, he was alluding to her that six sons would be born to her who were each blessed with six blessings - David, the Messiah, Daniel, Chanania, Mishael and Azaria. Verses are brought to show how each was blessed in six ways. There is a debate, however, about Chanania, Mishael and Azaria's lineage and whether or not they were from the tribe of Judah. Yishayahu prophesizes to Chizkiyahu that his descendants will be taken to Babylonia and will become sarisim. The Gemara understands this to be referring to Daniel, Chanania, Mishael and Azaria. What is the meaning of the word sarisim in this context? Rav and Rabbi Chanina disagree. Does it mean they were eunuchs? Or does it mean they were cut off from worshipping idols? The Gemara raises two difficulties against Rav, that they were eunuchs, and one difficulty against Rabbi Chanina, that they were cut off from worshipping idols. The difficulties are brought from verses in Daniel and Yeshayahu but are resolved. Why was the book of Ezra, which much of it was said and written by Nechemia, not called Nechemia? Two suggestions are brought.

"Welcome to our final class on Pirkei Shira . The student of Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa, Rabbi Yeshaya, fasted 85 times because of a profound question: Dogs, described as 'brazen of spirit' and 'insatiable,' are granted the merit to recite shira (song). How could dogs, of all creatures, deserve the zechut (merit) to sing a song, especially the final song in Pirkei Shira ? An angel appeared to Rabbi Yeshaya and said, 'Yeshaya, how much longer will you fast over this matter? I swear that since this was revealed to the prophet Chavakuk, it has not been revealed to anyone else. I am telling you now because you are a student of a great man, Chanina ben Dosa. I have been sent from Heaven to reveal the answer.' The answer is: Dogs are granted this merit because they did not bark when the Jewish people left Egypt. Furthermore, they are rewarded by having their excrement used in tanning hides, which are essential for writing Sefer Torah scrolls. This explanation seems cryptic. Why are dogs considered worse than other animals? Many unkosher animals sing songs in Pirkei Shira . What is so problematic about the dog? Rav David Cohen, the Rosh Yeshiva of Chevron, explains in his book Mizmor LeDavid (page 201) that shira is fundamentally an act of praise and Hallel (glorification) to Hashem. Brazenness is the antithesis of praise, as praise inherently involves hoda'ah (acknowledgment), which means admitting that someone else is greater than you. The opposite of modeh (one who admits) is me'eiz panav (one who is brazen). The Gemara in Bava Metzia 3a states that denying a debt is an act of brazenness. Someone who borrows money and denies it is the opposite of someone who admits their debt, whether fully or partially. Therefore, dogs, known for their ultimate brazenness, seem incompatible with the concept of shira . However, there is a deeper understanding. The Zohar (volume 2, 61a) states that the dog represents Amalek. This is echoed by Rashi, who, in his commentary on Shemot, connects Amalek's attack to the Jewish people's doubt about God's presence. Rashi uses the analogy of a father carrying his son, who then questions the father's whereabouts, leading to a dog biting him. Similarly, when the Jewish people questioned God's presence after leaving Egypt, Amalek attacked. Amalek is the dog, representing fundamental evil. The question remains: how can these brazen dogs sing a song? It seems contradictory. Interestingly, this class is being recorded on Ta'anit Esther, when we recite Psalm 22, Lamnatzeach al Ayelet Hashachar , which speaks of Esther's prayers and challenges. In Psalm 22:21, Esther prays to be saved from the dog, which the Sefer Toldot Yaakov Yosef identifies as Amalek. The incredible revelation is that the dogs did not bark on the night of Yetziat Mitzrayim (the Exodus from Egypt) because the revelation of God was so immense. We recite Hallel Hagadol (the full Hallel) on this night, which is the antithesis of Amalek. The profound revelation silenced Amalek. The dog could not bark. This was the one positive action Amalek performed. However, this silence was fleeting. Rav David Cohen explains that in Az Yashir , it says, ' Azi v'zimrat Yah ' (My strength and song come from God), using only a partial name of Hashem. He explains that Amalek's existence prevents the full manifestation of God's name, as stated in Shemot, ' Ki yad al kes Yah ' (God's hand is on His throne), where 'kes' is spelled out as 'kisei' (throne), representing an incomplete name. This is particularly relevant in Az Yashir because Amalek opposes shira , attempting to undermine it. Only for a brief moment in history was Amalek silent, allowing the dog to not bark. The Chatam Sofer, in his Drashot , adds that contentment leads to praise and gratitude, while spiritual growth requires continuous seeking. We say Modim (thanks) without asking for more, but we strive for more in avodat Hashem (divine service). The dog, known for its insatiability, sings shira only for the one moment when it was silenced by divine revelation. It celebrates this single instance of restraint. This insight is particularly relevant to a student of Chanina ben Dosa, who was content with little. The student struggled to understand how the dog, the antithesis of his rebbe's contentment, could sing shira . This reveals the paradox: the dog celebrates the one moment it mirrored Chanina ben Dosa's contentment. This concludes our study of Pirkei Shira . The dog represents the antithesis of praise, while our goal is to praise Hashem. In physicality, we should be content, but in spirituality, we should always strive for more. The Zohar, quoted by Rav Chaim Palagi, notes that on Rosh Hashanah, some people only ask for material blessings, exhibiting the brazenness of dogs. Instead, they should humble themselves before Hashem. This is the essence of Pirkei Shira : to reach the level of bowing in humility, which the dog fails to do. Finally, Chanina ben Dosa was also the antithesis of Amalek, who was powerful in black magic ( kishuf ). When Yehoshua fought Amalek, he brought those who could undo kishuf . Chanina ben Dosa, however, demonstrated that ' ein od milvado ' (there is none besides Him), as even witches could not cast spells on him. This is the final message of Pirkei Shira and the dogs. It connects beautifully to Purim, where we overcome the brazenness of Haman, who represents Amalek, with hoda'ah (acknowledgment and gratitude)."

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in loving memory of Art’s mother Shirley, Sarah bat Avraham v’Ziche Reicha on her 9th yahrzeit. “She was a life-long learner, a striver, she sewed and made mosaics. Once her three children were old enough, she went back to school, earned a master’s degree, created a new career doing social work and counseling, and published four books on raising a family. She lives on in the tallitot and quilts she made. Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim Weiss is loving memory of Elsie Muller on her 30th yahrtzeit. "Elsie was a family friend, 50 years my senior. She had no children of her own, so she adopted my family as hers. We were close friends and we confided in each other. She devoted her retirement to Jewish causes and would be very proud of her adopted children and grandchildren in Israel and USA." Today's daf is sponsored by Tina Lamm in loving memory of her mother, Peppy Senders, Pesha Rivka bat Gershon HaCohen and Bina, on her yahrzeit. "It has been 21 years, and my mother's wisdom, kindness and patience are still my North Star." Today's daf is sponsored by the Shuster family in loving memory of Ozer's mother Devora bat Yisroel. "May her devotion to Torah and mitzvot be a merit to the entire Jewish people." A rebellious son will only be convicted if he steals money from his father and eats in the domain of others, as only in that situation will it be likely that the son continue to act in this way. Why? Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda rules that he must steal from both parents. Since the wife does not generally own her own property, two explanations are brought to understand his opinion. Both parents have to agree to bring the son to the court. Rabbi Yehuda adds that if the mother is not worthy for the father, the son cannot be convicted. The Gemara establishes the meaning of his statement - they must have the same voice, height, and look alike. This is derived from the verse in the Torah, Devarim 21:20 "he doesn't listen to our voice." The braita that says that a rebellious son never existed, nor will it ever exist, presumably accords with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is impossible to find a couple who are identical in appearance, voice, and height. Rabbi Shimon also agrees that a rebellious son never happened and never will. Rabbi Yonatan disagrees and says he sat on his grave. There is a similar debate about an ir hanidachat, a city that all worship idols, and a leprous house. The Mishna also excludes any case where one of the parents is lame, mute, blind, etc. as the parents will be unable to complete the process as defined in the Torah. Can we infer from here that when the Torah describes how a process is supposed to happen, it must be done exactly in that way? After the son steals and eats meat and wine in a large quantity, the parents bring the son to a court of three judges and he is flogged. If he continues in his ways, he is brought to a court of twenty-three and judged to be stoned. The obligation to flog is derived by means of a gezeira shava from the word "v'yisru" by the one who slanders his wife (Devarim 22:18)  to that same word in the rebellious son (Devarim 21:18) and from "ben" to "ben" (Devarim 25:2) in the verse regarding lashes. If the son is brought to court but then runs away and by the time they catch him, he is no longer within the age range of one who can be killed for being a rebellious child, can he be executed? It depends on whether he was convicted before he ran away. Rabbi Chanina rules that a ben Noah who curses God and then converts is not convicted as the laws for judging him and the death penalty have changed.  Four sources, including the two parts of our Mishna, regarding a rebellious son who aged out before the ruling/execution, are brought to prove or disprove this ruling, but all comparisons are rejected. A rebellious son is killed because of the concern for where these actions will lead him in the future.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in loving memory of Art’s mother Shirley, Sarah bat Avraham v’Ziche Reicha on her 9th yahrzeit. “She was a life-long learner, a striver, she sewed and made mosaics. Once her three children were old enough, she went back to school, earned a master’s degree, created a new career doing social work and counseling, and published four books on raising a family. She lives on in the tallitot and quilts she made. Today's daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim Weiss is loving memory of Elsie Muller on her 30th yahrtzeit. "Elsie was a family friend, 50 years my senior. She had no children of her own, so she adopted my family as hers. We were close friends and we confided in each other. She devoted her retirement to Jewish causes and would be very proud of her adopted children and grandchildren in Israel and USA." Today's daf is sponsored by Tina Lamm in loving memory of her mother, Peppy Senders, Pesha Rivka bat Gershon HaCohen and Bina, on her yahrzeit. "It has been 21 years, and my mother's wisdom, kindness and patience are still my North Star." Today's daf is sponsored by the Shuster family in loving memory of Ozer's mother Devora bat Yisroel. "May her devotion to Torah and mitzvot be a merit to the entire Jewish people." A rebellious son will only be convicted if he steals money from his father and eats in the domain of others, as only in that situation will it be likely that the son continue to act in this way. Why? Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Yehuda rules that he must steal from both parents. Since the wife does not generally own her own property, two explanations are brought to understand his opinion. Both parents have to agree to bring the son to the court. Rabbi Yehuda adds that if the mother is not worthy for the father, the son cannot be convicted. The Gemara establishes the meaning of his statement - they must have the same voice, height, and look alike. This is derived from the verse in the Torah, Devarim 21:20 "he doesn't listen to our voice." The braita that says that a rebellious son never existed, nor will it ever exist, presumably accords with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is impossible to find a couple who are identical in appearance, voice, and height. Rabbi Shimon also agrees that a rebellious son never happened and never will. Rabbi Yonatan disagrees and says he sat on his grave. There is a similar debate about an ir hanidachat, a city that all worship idols, and a leprous house. The Mishna also excludes any case where one of the parents is lame, mute, blind, etc. as the parents will be unable to complete the process as defined in the Torah. Can we infer from here that when the Torah describes how a process is supposed to happen, it must be done exactly in that way? After the son steals and eats meat and wine in a large quantity, the parents bring the son to a court of three judges and he is flogged. If he continues in his ways, he is brought to a court of twenty-three and judged to be stoned. The obligation to flog is derived by means of a gezeira shava from the word "v'yisru" by the one who slanders his wife (Devarim 22:18)  to that same word in the rebellious son (Devarim 21:18) and from "ben" to "ben" (Devarim 25:2) in the verse regarding lashes. If the son is brought to court but then runs away and by the time they catch him, he is no longer within the age range of one who can be killed for being a rebellious child, can he be executed? It depends on whether he was convicted before he ran away. Rabbi Chanina rules that a ben Noah who curses God and then converts is not convicted as the laws for judging him and the death penalty have changed.  Four sources, including the two parts of our Mishna, regarding a rebellious son who aged out before the ruling/execution, are brought to prove or disprove this ruling, but all comparisons are rejected. A rebellious son is killed because of the concern for where these actions will lead him in the future.

Rabbi Yochanan holds that a gentile is not permitted to learn Torah. He views it as part of the Noahide laws - either under theft or forbidden sexual relations. This is derived from Devraim 33:4 as the Torah is considered morasha, an inheritance, and that is either understood that it belongs exclusively to the Jewish people, or it is understood as a reference to meurasa, that we are betrothed to God. A contradiction to Rabbi Yochanan is brought from a statement of Rabbi Meir that a gentile who learns Torah is like a kohen gadol, a high priest. The resolution is to differentiate between learning the seven Noahide laws and the rest of the Torah. What is the source in the Torah for Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel's position that blood from a live animal is forbidden as part of the Noahide laws? If a commandment was given to the sons of Noah and then repeated when the Torah was received, that is an indicator that the rule is meant both for the sons of Noah and for the Jewish people. But a commandment sons of Noah and then not repeated after the Torah was given, is meant to be for Jews only. this is Rabbi Chanina's position. First, the Gemara questions these rules as they seem counter-intuitive. After explaining the logic, they proceed to raise difficulties from actual commandments. Those, too, as resolved. Noach was permitted to eat meat but Adam was not.  The Gemara raises four difficulties on this and through the questions, several interesting issues are raised including, why did the snake seduce Adam and Chava? What is the status of meat that falls from the sky - can it be presumed to be kosher?

Rabbi Yochanan holds that a gentile is not permitted to learn Torah. He views it as part of the Noahide laws - either under theft or forbidden sexual relations. This is derived from Devraim 33:4 as the Torah is considered morasha, an inheritance, and that is either understood that it belongs exclusively to the Jewish people, or it is understood as a reference to meurasa, that we are betrothed to God. A contradiction to Rabbi Yochanan is brought from a statement of Rabbi Meir that a gentile who learns Torah is like a kohen gadol, a high priest. The resolution is to differentiate between learning the seven Noahide laws and the rest of the Torah. What is the source in the Torah for Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel's position that blood from a live animal is forbidden as part of the Noahide laws? If a commandment was given to the sons of Noah and then repeated when the Torah was received, that is an indicator that the rule is meant both for the sons of Noah and for the Jewish people. But a commandment sons of Noah and then not repeated after the Torah was given, is meant to be for Jews only. this is Rabbi Chanina's position. First, the Gemara questions these rules as they seem counter-intuitive. After explaining the logic, they proceed to raise difficulties from actual commandments. Those, too, as resolved. Noach was permitted to eat meat but Adam was not.  The Gemara raises four difficulties on this and through the questions, several interesting issues are raised including, why did the snake seduce Adam and Chava? What is the status of meat that falls from the sky - can it be presumed to be kosher?

If, as Rav holds, a document comes before the court that has been completely erased and written over and signed, it is acceptable, why is there not a concern that the text was erased a second time and the signatures of the witness were on a version that was erased? The reason is that it is noticeable if a document is erased once or twice. To answer a follow-up question about another concern for forgery, Abaye also explains that if witnesses are to sign on an erased document, they must also be present when the document is erased. A difficulty is raised against Rav's ruling from a braita, but is resolved. However, two difficulties are raised against the resolution but are resolved as well. On a tied document (get mekushar) the dating system differed from a regular document. Based on that, Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel's opinion in the Mishna is questioned by Rabbi Yehuda haNasi as he said that a tied document can be turned into a straight one and if the dating system is different, that could lead to issues of one collecting a debt that has already been repaid. How can this be resolved? Other issues regarding the dating system are discussed which include references to the Greek numbering system. In the context of a story showing that Rabbi Yehuda haNasi was not familiar with a tied document, he reprimands his son for speaking lashon hara. The Gemara digresses to discuss different types of lashon hara, some of which include just speaking about a person, not even saying something negative, or even complimenting someone. This is called avak lashon hara, as it can lead to lashon hara. Rav Amram in the name of Rav explains that three sins are unavoidable daily - having sinful thoughts, thoughts during prayer, and lashon hara. As it is difficult to say that people daily speak negatively about others, Rav's words are explained to be referring to avak lashon hara.  

If, as Rav holds, a document comes before the court that has been completely erased and written over and signed, it is acceptable, why is there not a concern that the text was erased a second time and the signatures of the witness were on a version that was erased? The reason is that it is noticeable if a document is erased once or twice. To answer a follow-up question about another concern for forgery, Abaye also explains that if witnesses are to sign on an erased document, they must also be present when the document is erased. A difficulty is raised against Rav's ruling from a braita, but is resolved. However, two difficulties are raised against the resolution but are resolved as well. On a tied document (get mekushar) the dating system differed from a regular document. Based on that, Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel's opinion in the Mishna is questioned by Rabbi Yehuda haNasi as he said that a tied document can be turned into a straight one and if the dating system is different, that could lead to issues of one collecting a debt that has already been repaid. How can this be resolved? Other issues regarding the dating system are discussed which include references to the Greek numbering system. In the context of a story showing that Rabbi Yehuda haNasi was not familiar with a tied document, he reprimands his son for speaking lashon hara. The Gemara digresses to discuss different types of lashon hara, some of which include just speaking about a person, not even saying something negative, or even complimenting someone. This is called avak lashon hara, as it can lead to lashon hara. Rav Amram in the name of Rav explains that three sins are unavoidable daily - having sinful thoughts, thoughts during prayer, and lashon hara. As it is difficult to say that people daily speak negatively about others, Rav's words are explained to be referring to avak lashon hara.  

Two statements in the name of Rabbi Yochanan contradicted each other. In one he ruled that a husband is believed to say he divorced his wife and in the other, he is not believed. The resolution was that the former meant that we accept his statement regarding her status from this moment forward and the latter is retroactive. Despite this resolution, Rava was unwilling to rule using this principle in a case that was before him where a man said his wife was exempt from levirate marriage (and should be believed since he could have said he divorced her) and preferred to be stringent and require chalitza. In another case, where it was presumed the man had no brothers and as he was dying, he also said he had no brothers. Abaye was stringent as there were rumors that there were people far away who could testify that he had brothers. Even though in the case of a woman taken captive, Rabbi Chanina did not forbid her to her husband based on rumors that people far away could testify that she engaged in relations with her captors, Abaye distinguishes between that case and this one. The Mishna brought a case where one brother claimed they had another brother, but the other brothers denied the claim. The Gemara establishes that the other brothers must have said "We don't know if he is our brother," meaning, their claim was one of uncertainty. This qualification is meant to explain why they receive an inheritance from that brother if they deny he is their brother. Can we learn from here regarding other cases where one has a confident claim (bari) and the other is unsure (shema), such as, one claimed money from another and the other responded, "I don't know if I owe you"? If the comparison is true, the ruling would be that the claimant who is unsure would not have to pay, like the brothers who do not have to give up their inheritance to the others. Rava agrees with this comparison, but Abaye denies it and rather compares our case to one where the confident claim is that the other owes money to a third party, not to the claimant. In the ruling of the Mishna, if the brother whose status is unclear dies, the property he received from the inheritance from one of the brothers is returned to that brother. Rava asks what happens if the property goes up in value. Would the brother receive the added value as well or would it be like money that the brother in question acquired on his own, which would be divided evenly between all the brothers? If one has a will wrapped around one's leg at the timeof death, it is invalid, even if it is later found in the hands of the person to whom the money was promised in the will. But if before the person died, they transferred ownership of the document to someone else, it is valid. What wording must be used to designate one's property to others in his lifetime when the person is healthy? The person needs to say, "From today and after my death. If one intended to transfer money to another using a document, i.e. on one's deathbed one said, "Write and give this document to...," if the person dies before the document was given, we do not write and give the document as one cannot transfer items using a document after one's death. However, if it is clear that the document was intended just as proof of the property transfer, one can write and give the document even after the person dies.

Two statements in the name of Rabbi Yochanan contradicted each other. In one he ruled that a husband is believed to say he divorced his wife and in the other, he is not believed. The resolution was that the former meant that we accept his statement regarding her status from this moment forward and the latter is retroactive. Despite this resolution, Rava was unwilling to rule using this principle in a case that was before him where a man said his wife was exempt from levirate marriage (and should be believed since he could have said he divorced her) and preferred to be stringent and require chalitza. In another case, where it was presumed the man had no brothers and as he was dying, he also said he had no brothers. Abaye was stringent as there were rumors that there were people far away who could testify that he had brothers. Even though in the case of a woman taken captive, Rabbi Chanina did not forbid her to her husband based on rumors that people far away could testify that she engaged in relations with her captors, Abaye distinguishes between that case and this one. The Mishna brought a case where one brother claimed they had another brother, but the other brothers denied the claim. The Gemara establishes that the other brothers must have said "We don't know if he is our brother," meaning, their claim was one of uncertainty. This qualification is meant to explain why they receive an inheritance from that brother if they deny he is their brother. Can we learn from here regarding other cases where one has a confident claim (bari) and the other is unsure (shema), such as, one claimed money from another and the other responded, "I don't know if I owe you"? If the comparison is true, the ruling would be that the claimant who is unsure would not have to pay, like the brothers who do not have to give up their inheritance to the others. Rava agrees with this comparison, but Abaye denies it and rather compares our case to one where the confident claim is that the other owes money to a third party, not to the claimant. In the ruling of the Mishna, if the brother whose status is unclear dies, the property he received from the inheritance from one of the brothers is returned to that brother. Rava asks what happens if the property goes up in value. Would the brother receive the added value as well or would it be like money that the brother in question acquired on his own, which would be divided evenly between all the brothers? If one has a will wrapped around one's leg at the timeof death, it is invalid, even if it is later found in the hands of the person to whom the money was promised in the will. But if before the person died, they transferred ownership of the document to someone else, it is valid. What wording must be used to designate one's property to others in his lifetime when the person is healthy? The person needs to say, "From today and after my death. If one intended to transfer money to another using a document, i.e. on one's deathbed one said, "Write and give this document to...," if the person dies before the document was given, we do not write and give the document as one cannot transfer items using a document after one's death. However, if it is clear that the document was intended just as proof of the property transfer, one can write and give the document even after the person dies.

The Mishna rules that if one sells wine and it turns to vinegar, the seller is not responsible. However, there are certain circumstances where the buyer can make the seller responsible. Rabbi Yosi b’Rabbi Chanina limits the ruling of the Mishna to a case where the buyer put the wine in his/her jugs, as then the buyer can be blamed. Rav Chiya bar Yosef disagrees as he deems the wine’s owner responsible for the wine souring, as wine turning sour is understood to be a punishment for arrogance, as can be found in Chabakuk 2:5. If one sells a small house for a young couple or widowed daughter, what is the minimum size? What about other types of houses? A cowshed? A banquet hall? There is a debate regarding the minimum height for a house and whether or not it should be derived from the height of the heichal, sanctuary. There are contradictory verses regarding the size of the kodesh h'kodashim in the Temple.

The Mishna rules that if one sells wine and it turns to vinegar, the seller is not responsible. However, there are certain circumstances where the buyer can make the seller responsible. Rabbi Yosi b’Rabbi Chanina limits the ruling of the Mishna to a case where the buyer put the wine in his/her jugs, as then the buyer can be blamed. Rav Chiya bar Yosef disagrees as he deems the wine’s owner responsible for the wine souring, as wine turning sour is understood to be a punishment for arrogance, as can be found in Chabakuk 2:5. If one sells a small house for a young couple or widowed daughter, what is the minimum size? What about other types of houses? A cowshed? A banquet hall? There is a debate regarding the minimum height for a house and whether or not it should be derived from the height of the heichal, sanctuary. There are contradictory verses regarding the size of the kodesh h'kodashim in the Temple.

This week's parasha begins with the words כי תצא למלחמה על אויבך - when you go out to war against your enemy. The sefarim hakedoshim tell us that besides for its simple explanation, this pasuk is also referring to the war against our evil inclination. The Maor V'Shemesh in parashat Ki Tetzeh writes that the main attack of the yetzer hara is to stop a person from praying properly. A person can become so close to Hashem through tefila and, therefore, the yetzer hara will do whatever is in its power to stop the person from attaining that closeness. One of the causes of people not valuing their prayers is when they see that they tried so hard to do it right and it still didn't help them get what they wanted. The Gemara says in Masechet Berachot: אָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אִם רָאָה אָדָם שֶׁהִתְפַּלֵּל וְלֹא נַעֲנָה — יַחְזוֹר וְיִתְפַּלֵּל. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״קַוֵּה אֶל ה׳ חֲזַק וְיַאֲמֵץ לִבֶּךָ וְקַוֵּה אֶל ה׳״ . Rabbi Chama, son of Rabbi CHanina, said: A person who prayed and saw that he was not answered should pray again, as it is stated: "Hope in the Lord, strengthen yourself, let your heart take courage, and hope in the Lord" (Psalms 27:14). One should turn to God with hope, and if necessary turn to God again with hope. The question has been asked, isn't that statement obvious? We know there's nowhere else in the world to turn other than Hashem. Of course we should keep praying to Him even though we haven't been answered yet. Rav Bunim of Peshischa explained, there are times when a person needs a salvation so badly. He prepares himself to pray properly. He goes to the holiest places in the world and prays at the most opportune times and then he begs Hashem for help. But after all of that, nothing changes. The person thinks to himself, if that tefila didn't get answered then I can't imagine any other one getting answered. Many times, when a person prays, he doesn't have full kavana , his heart is not into it. And he thinks, naturally, if my good prayers don't help, then how are these going to help? For this, Rabbi Chama b'Rabi Chanina comes to teach us, it's not so. It could be that even though a person's heartfelt tefila didn't get answered, a simple prayer on a regular day in a regular place will get answered. We are not capable of comprehending the ways of Hashem and therefore, although we prayed hard for something in the best place at the best time and weren't answered, that should not discourage us from praying again. One year, the Arizal prayed all of his tefilot on the Yamim Noraim with great kavana . Yet, he was shown from Shamayim that in another city there was a man whose prayers were considered better than his. The Arizal went to visit that man to see who he was. The man was a very simple Jew who didn't even know how to read Hebrew. The Arizal asked him how he prayed on the Yamim Noraim if he didn't know how to read. The man replied he was embarrassed to say it, but he didn't even know the full Aleph Bet. He only knew from Aleph through Yud. He said he walked into shul and saw everybody praying with such deep kavana and felt so bad that he couldn't do the same. So with a broken heart, he began reciting the Aleph Bet until Yud. And when he got to Yud, he started again from Aleph and he kept repeating it the entire tefila . He said to Hashem, "Master of the world, please take these letters that I am offering you and make nice words out of them and let them be pleasing to you." He was so sincere. His simple Aleph Bet accomplished more in heaven than the great kavanot of the Arizal. We don't know which prayer is more valuable than which. We don't know which times our prayers are more accepted and therefore, at all times, we always continue to pray. And even if we think the prayer will be worthless, חזק ויאמץ לבך וקוה אל ה ' we must strengthen our hearts and call out to Hashem anyway. Shabbat Shalom.

Study Guide Bava Batra 66 Today's daf is sponsored by Sarah & Inna Pasternak, in honor of their first wedding anniversary. "We fell in love studying the daf and look forward to remaining havrutas as we build a home full of Torah together."  Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of their friend and co-learner Miriam Eckstein-Koas on the engagement of her son, Daniel. "May Daniel and Talia build a bayit neeman b'Yisrael firmly grounded in Torah and chesed, and may all of Am Yisrael see smachot!" The Gemara continues to figure out which opinion of Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis doesn't seem to correspond to the Tosefta Mikvaot that distinguishes between a pipe that was constructed and then attached to the ground and one that was hollowed out from the ground or while it is attached to the ground. After rejecting the first two possibilities (the braita that related to our Mishna and a Mishna regarding a beehive), they find a Mishna Keilim 15:2 regarding a baker's board attached to a wall in which it seems that both Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree with the Tosefta Mikvaot. Since the Tosefta must fit with one of the two opinions, the Gemara then tries to assess which one. First, they attempt to reconcile it with Rabbi Eliezer, claiming that Rabbi Eliezer was more lenient in the baker's board case as it was only impure on a rabbinic level (a flat wood vessel). However, this is rejected on two accounts. One, mayim she'uvim disqualifies a mikveh by rabbinic law. Secondly, Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chanina's explained that the Mishna in Keilim refers to a metal baker's block, which would make it impure by Torah law. In conclusion, the Gemara establishes that the rabbi's opinion corresponds to the Tosefta Mikvaot, as the issue of mayim she'uvim is only rabbinic. Therefore the rabbis are more lenient there than in the case of a baker's board. If rain falls on a movable item (vessel) that is detached from the ground and at the same time on food that is inside/on that item, if the owner wants the rain to fall on the item, the food also becomes susceptible to impurity. What if the moveable item was attached to the ground, would it be considered like the ground and the food inside it would not become susceptible to impurity, or would it be considered a vessel and the food inside it would become susceptible to impurity? The question is only asked according to the rabbis (and there is no answer), as according to Rabbi Eliezer, it would clearly be considered like the ground and the food would not become susceptible to impurity.

Study Guide Bava Batra 66 Today's daf is sponsored by Sarah & Inna Pasternak, in honor of their first wedding anniversary. "We fell in love studying the daf and look forward to remaining havrutas as we build a home full of Torah together."  Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of their friend and co-learner Miriam Eckstein-Koas on the engagement of her son, Daniel. "May Daniel and Talia build a bayit neeman b'Yisrael firmly grounded in Torah and chesed, and may all of Am Yisrael see smachot!" The Gemara continues to figure out which opinion of Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis doesn't seem to correspond to the Tosefta Mikvaot that distinguishes between a pipe that was constructed and then attached to the ground and one that was hollowed out from the ground or while it is attached to the ground. After rejecting the first two possibilities (the braita that related to our Mishna and a Mishna regarding a beehive), they find a Mishna Keilim 15:2 regarding a baker's board attached to a wall in which it seems that both Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree with the Tosefta Mikvaot. Since the Tosefta must fit with one of the two opinions, the Gemara then tries to assess which one. First, they attempt to reconcile it with Rabbi Eliezer, claiming that Rabbi Eliezer was more lenient in the baker's board case as it was only impure on a rabbinic level (a flat wood vessel). However, this is rejected on two accounts. One, mayim she'uvim disqualifies a mikveh by rabbinic law. Secondly, Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chanina's explained that the Mishna in Keilim refers to a metal baker's block, which would make it impure by Torah law. In conclusion, the Gemara establishes that the rabbi's opinion corresponds to the Tosefta Mikvaot, as the issue of mayim she'uvim is only rabbinic. Therefore the rabbis are more lenient there than in the case of a baker's board. If rain falls on a movable item (vessel) that is detached from the ground and at the same time on food that is inside/on that item, if the owner wants the rain to fall on the item, the food also becomes susceptible to impurity. What if the moveable item was attached to the ground, would it be considered like the ground and the food inside it would not become susceptible to impurity, or would it be considered a vessel and the food inside it would become susceptible to impurity? The question is only asked according to the rabbis (and there is no answer), as according to Rabbi Eliezer, it would clearly be considered like the ground and the food would not become susceptible to impurity.

A dvar Torah on parashat Eikev by Ezra Furman. With rain, love, the Ronettes, the Shma, Rabbi Chanina and awe.

--- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/rabbikalish/support

Today's daf is sponsored by Mindy Sollisch. "Thank you to Hadran for generously welcoming all to learn Talmud from a brilliant Talmudic scholar who has made daf yomi a highlight of each of my days." Today's daf is sponsored by Daniel and Sara Berelowitz in honor of the marriage of their daughter, Estie Sterman to Jason Ast (nephew of Tina Lamm fellow dafferette). "A big Mazal Tov. Wishing Estie and Jason mazal and bracha ad 120!" Today's daf is sponsored in memory of Dr. Ilana (Hefter) Feuerstein who passed away this week.  Abaye brings proof for Rabbi Chanina's statement that the law goes by the majority over proximity from a Mishna in Nidda about blood found in the cervical canal which is rendered impure, as the majority of blood comes from the uterus (impure blood), but there is a closer chamber whose blood is pure. Rava disagrees with Abaye's comparison because he says the majority of uterine blood is different from a regular majority because of the frequency. In the end, though, Rava changes his mind and agrees that this case would support Rabbi Chanina. A debate between Rav and Shmuel is brought in an attempt to prove that they deliberated about the same issue and one held like Rabbi Chanina and the other did not. However, this suggestion is rejected. Two rulings are brought regarding situations with a safek (doubt), suggesting that one ruling follows Rabbi Chanina's opinion and the other does not, but both comparisons are rejected.  A tree must be distanced from the city a certain amount of space for aesthetic reasons. The law is different depending on whether the city was there when the tree was planted, if the city was not there when the tree was planted, or if it was unknown which came first. The Gemara compares the law here to the law in the case of a different mishna regarding a tree planted near a neighbor's pit and explains the differences between the cases. A threshing floor must be distanced fifty cubits from a city and neighboring fields. The last line in the Mishna is unclear and two explanations are brought - whether it is a different distance or simply explains the reason for the law already stated in the Mishna.

Today's daf is sponsored by Mindy Sollisch. "Thank you to Hadran for generously welcoming all to learn Talmud from a brilliant Talmudic scholar who has made daf yomi a highlight of each of my days." Today's daf is sponsored by Daniel and Sara Berelowitz in honor of the marriage of their daughter, Estie Sterman to Jason Ast (nephew of Tina Lamm fellow dafferette). "A big Mazal Tov. Wishing Estie and Jason mazal and bracha ad 120!" Today's daf is sponsored in memory of Dr. Ilana (Hefter) Feuerstein who passed away this week.  Abaye brings proof for Rabbi Chanina's statement that the law goes by the majority over proximity from a Mishna in Nidda about blood found in the cervical canal which is rendered impure, as the majority of blood comes from the uterus (impure blood), but there is a closer chamber whose blood is pure. Rava disagrees with Abaye's comparison because he says the majority of uterine blood is different from a regular majority because of the frequency. In the end, though, Rava changes his mind and agrees that this case would support Rabbi Chanina. A debate between Rav and Shmuel is brought in an attempt to prove that they deliberated about the same issue and one held like Rabbi Chanina and the other did not. However, this suggestion is rejected. Two rulings are brought regarding situations with a safek (doubt), suggesting that one ruling follows Rabbi Chanina's opinion and the other does not, but both comparisons are rejected.  A tree must be distanced from the city a certain amount of space for aesthetic reasons. The law is different depending on whether the city was there when the tree was planted, if the city was not there when the tree was planted, or if it was unknown which came first. The Gemara compares the law here to the law in the case of a different mishna regarding a tree planted near a neighbor's pit and explains the differences between the cases. A threshing floor must be distanced fifty cubits from a city and neighboring fields. The last line in the Mishna is unclear and two explanations are brought - whether it is a different distance or simply explains the reason for the law already stated in the Mishna.

Today's daf is sponsored by Gabrielle Altman in loving memory of Yechezkel Yitzhak Ben Shlomo Zev, Honorable Herbert Altman z”l on his Shloshim. "Beloved husband, father, grandfather and great grandfather, brilliant jurist, and wonderful Jew. He will be forever cherished, missed, and loved. Yehi Zichro Baruch." Today's daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in honor of the marriage of her cousin Aviva Engel to Mickey Fankhauser, the Aliyah of her parents from Montreal to Modiin, and welcomes her brother Rabbi Zvi Engel from Chicago who will be the mesader kiddushin. "My heart is full of thanksgiving to Hashem for all his chasadim. והריקותי לכם ברכה והצלחה בלי די." A story is told about Rav Yosef who has bloodletters that worked under his tree and attracted ravens that ruined his tree. He wanted to get rid of the bloodletters. Abaye questioned this as the damages were indirect, but Rav Yosef answered that even indirect damages are forbidden. Did the bloodletters have a legitimate claim that they had been doing this already for a while (chazaka) and Rav Yosef would not be able to kick them out? Can one create a chazaka for damages? One needs to distance one's dovecote from a city and other fields a certain distance to prevent one's doves from eating seeds or grains of others. But if one purchased a field with a dovecote within a short distance from one's neighbor, one can assume that it was done within the law (the neighbor allowed it or was compensated financially). What is the distance needed? How does this correspond to the distance mentioned regarding setting up traps for trapping doves? The Mishna discusses laws relating to a chick found in a certain area - how does one determine to whom the chick belongs? Rabbi Chanina says that in determining uncertainties, if there is a majority factor and a proximity factor that lead each to different conclusions, one follows the majority. Difficulties are raised from three sources (including our Mishna) which indicate that proximity is the more determining factor. Each one is resolved. In the context of those difficulties, Rabbi Yirmia asked a question on account of which he was kicked out of the Beit Midrash!  

Today's daf is sponsored by Gabrielle Altman in loving memory of Yechezkel Yitzhak Ben Shlomo Zev, Honorable Herbert Altman z”l on his Shloshim. "Beloved husband, father, grandfather and great grandfather, brilliant jurist, and wonderful Jew. He will be forever cherished, missed, and loved. Yehi Zichro Baruch." Today's daf is sponsored by Becki Goldstein in honor of the marriage of her cousin Aviva Engel to Mickey Fankhauser, the Aliyah of her parents from Montreal to Modiin, and welcomes her brother Rabbi Zvi Engel from Chicago who will be the mesader kiddushin. "My heart is full of thanksgiving to Hashem for all his chasadim. והריקותי לכם ברכה והצלחה בלי די." A story is told about Rav Yosef who has bloodletters that worked under his tree and attracted ravens that ruined his tree. He wanted to get rid of the bloodletters. Abaye questioned this as the damages were indirect, but Rav Yosef answered that even indirect damages are forbidden. Did the bloodletters have a legitimate claim that they had been doing this already for a while (chazaka) and Rav Yosef would not be able to kick them out? Can one create a chazaka for damages? One needs to distance one's dovecote from a city and other fields a certain distance to prevent one's doves from eating seeds or grains of others. But if one purchased a field with a dovecote within a short distance from one's neighbor, one can assume that it was done within the law (the neighbor allowed it or was compensated financially). What is the distance needed? How does this correspond to the distance mentioned regarding setting up traps for trapping doves? The Mishna discusses laws relating to a chick found in a certain area - how does one determine to whom the chick belongs? Rabbi Chanina says that in determining uncertainties, if there is a majority factor and a proximity factor that lead each to different conclusions, one follows the majority. Difficulties are raised from three sources (including our Mishna) which indicate that proximity is the more determining factor. Each one is resolved. In the context of those difficulties, Rabbi Yirmia asked a question on account of which he was kicked out of the Beit Midrash!  

The daf continues to teach about the importance of tzedakah and its special relationship to the Jewish people. A barita mentions the tzedakah that was administered by Rabbi Chanina ben Tryadon's that is mentioned in Avodah Zara 17b in the sorry if his martyrdom.

The Gemara provides many stories about Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa which present him as a type of miracle worker. This episode is the second of a two-part series presents a new perspective on this puzzling Torah personality.

The Gemara provides many stories about Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa which present him as a type of miracle worker. This episode is the first of a two-part series presents a new perspective on this puzzling Torah personality.

If a landowner expects the sharecropper to plant a certain crop, can the sharecropper change to a different crop? This question hinges on whether the change benefits or harms the field in the long term. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees with the rabbis and forbids any change. The Gemara suggests possible explanations of why he forbids it. The first explanation is rejected but the second is accepted. Rav Yehuda teaches Ravin three halakhot/advice regarding fields. One can steal cress that grows between flax plants, as it is detrimental to the growth of the flax. Another teaching addresses trees that grow on the border between two neighbors, explaining who has the right to eat the fruits and on what does it depend. Additionally, he advises that it is best not to have a field close to the city. There are contradictory sources regarding whether or not it is preferable to have fields close to the city. One source says it will bring an ayin hara, implying that proximity to the city might attract jealousy or negative attention. Another source says it is preferable as it is convenient, providing easier access. The reconciliation of these sources depends on whether one has put up a wall around the field, blocking the view of others. Verses from Devarim 28:3 and 6 regarding blessings that come upon a person in the city, in the field, when returning home and when leaving, are extrapolated with advice and recommendations. These verses provide practical guidance for living a blessed and healthy life. Five explanations are brought for the verse in Devarim 7:15 - "God will remove all disease" - to elucidate what is meant by "all disease." Rav says it refers to the ayin hara. Shmuel says it is the wind that gets into the body. Rabbi Chanina says it is the cold. Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chanina says it is excrement of the nose and ear. Rabbi Eliezer says it is the gall bladder. If one eats bread and water in the morning, it prevents sickness of the gall bladder. They attribute thirteen benefits to eating bread in the morning, highlighting this practice's importance in maintaining health. Rav Yehuda advised Rav Ada who was a measurer. Make sure to be exacting, as any piece of land, even small, can be used to plant something valuable. Four cubits of space should be left bare near the irrigation channel, but since it is only for individual use, one can estimate it, and it can be even less than four cubits. However, on the edge of one's field near the side of the river, one must leave four cubits of space for public use and should estimate generously. Those who own land near the river should cut all trees along the river's edge to allow those who pull in the boats to have space to do so.

If a landowner expects the sharecropper to plant a certain crop, can the sharecropper change to a different crop? This question hinges on whether the change benefits or harms the field in the long term. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees with the rabbis and forbids any change. The Gemara suggests possible explanations of why he forbids it. The first explanation is rejected but the second is accepted. Rav Yehuda teaches Ravin three halakhot/advice regarding fields. One can steal cress that grows between flax plants, as it is detrimental to the growth of the flax. Another teaching addresses trees that grow on the border between two neighbors, explaining who has the right to eat the fruits and on what does it depend. Additionally, he advises that it is best not to have a field close to the city. There are contradictory sources regarding whether or not it is preferable to have fields close to the city. One source says it will bring an ayin hara, implying that proximity to the city might attract jealousy or negative attention. Another source says it is preferable as it is convenient, providing easier access. The reconciliation of these sources depends on whether one has put up a wall around the field, blocking the view of others. Verses from Devarim 28:3 and 6 regarding blessings that come upon a person in the city, in the field, when returning home and when leaving, are extrapolated with advice and recommendations. These verses provide practical guidance for living a blessed and healthy life. Five explanations are brought for the verse in Devarim 7:15 - "God will remove all disease" - to elucidate what is meant by "all disease." Rav says it refers to the ayin hara. Shmuel says it is the wind that gets into the body. Rabbi Chanina says it is the cold. Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chanina says it is excrement of the nose and ear. Rabbi Eliezer says it is the gall bladder. If one eats bread and water in the morning, it prevents sickness of the gall bladder. They attribute thirteen benefits to eating bread in the morning, highlighting this practice's importance in maintaining health. Rav Yehuda advised Rav Ada who was a measurer. Make sure to be exacting, as any piece of land, even small, can be used to plant something valuable. Four cubits of space should be left bare near the irrigation channel, but since it is only for individual use, one can estimate it, and it can be even less than four cubits. However, on the edge of one's field near the side of the river, one must leave four cubits of space for public use and should estimate generously. Those who own land near the river should cut all trees along the river's edge to allow those who pull in the boats to have space to do so.

This week's learning is sponsored by Joy Benatar in loving memory of Miriam Quint David on her 8th yahrzeit. "Proud mother and grandmother; passionate Jewish educator; pastry, ice cream and needlework enthusiast." Today's daf is sponsored by Batsheva Pava in loving memory of her father's family who arrived at Auschwitz only a few days before Shavuot. "His mother, Batsheva, and son, Moshe Meshel and daughter, Adle, were taken to the crematoria only hours after arrival. My grandmother was a big baalat tzedaka. My father used to say that if he did not hide his pants at night she would give them away to a poor person. Hashem yinkom damam." Today's daf is dedicated to Noa Argamani, Almog Meir Jan, Andrey Kozlov and Shlomi Ziv who were rescued from captivity, and in memory of Arnon Zemira who was killed in the rescue mission. We are thrilled at the return of the hostages, but, at the same time, we mourn the loss of Arnon and pray for the safe return of the remaining 120 hostages. The responsibility for putting up a mezuza is on the renter, and the renter cannot remove the mezuza when leaving, unless the house belongs to a gentile. Items that come into the courtyard of the landlord, such as dung of animals who come into the courtyard, belong to the landlord, even if someone is renting the house, as the standard house rental does not include the courtyard. This explanation of the Mishna can be used to support Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Chanina's statement that an item that enters one's courtyard is acquired by the owner, even without their knowledge. Three tannaitic sources are quoted to raise a difficulty with Rabbi Yossi's opinion.  If one rents for a year and the year becomes a leap year, is the rental of the extra month included in the original price or does the renter need to pay extra? According to the Mishna, this depends on whether the agreement was for months or a year. If the agreement mentions both months and years, the Mishna rules that the money of the leap year month is divided. Rav disagrees with this opinion and Shmuel and Rav Nachman offer opinions as well. 

This week's learning is sponsored by Joy Benatar in loving memory of Miriam Quint David on her 8th yahrzeit. "Proud mother and grandmother; passionate Jewish educator; pastry, ice cream and needlework enthusiast." Today's daf is sponsored by Batsheva Pava in loving memory of her father's family who arrived at Auschwitz only a few days before Shavuot. "His mother, Batsheva, and son, Moshe Meshel and daughter, Adle, were taken to the crematoria only hours after arrival. My grandmother was a big baalat tzedaka. My father used to say that if he did not hide his pants at night she would give them away to a poor person. Hashem yinkom damam." Today's daf is dedicated to Noa Argamani, Almog Meir Jan, Andrey Kozlov and Shlomi Ziv who were rescued from captivity, and in memory of Arnon Zemira who was killed in the rescue mission. We are thrilled at the return of the hostages, but, at the same time, we mourn the loss of Arnon and pray for the safe return of the remaining 120 hostages. The responsibility for putting up a mezuza is on the renter, and the renter cannot remove the mezuza when leaving, unless the house belongs to a gentile. Items that come into the courtyard of the landlord, such as dung of animals who come into the courtyard, belong to the landlord, even if someone is renting the house, as the standard house rental does not include the courtyard. This explanation of the Mishna can be used to support Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Chanina's statement that an item that enters one's courtyard is acquired by the owner, even without their knowledge. Three tannaitic sources are quoted to raise a difficulty with Rabbi Yossi's opinion.  If one rents for a year and the year becomes a leap year, is the rental of the extra month included in the original price or does the renter need to pay extra? According to the Mishna, this depends on whether the agreement was for months or a year. If the agreement mentions both months and years, the Mishna rules that the money of the leap year month is divided. Rav disagrees with this opinion and Shmuel and Rav Nachman offer opinions as well. 

Welcome to Radio Chitaika, a story podcast from PJ Library. My name is Eugenia and I am very excited to read to you! Today's story is adapted by Alli Thresher.   How do you know something is really yours?   According to the Torah (the first five books of the Bible), if we find a lost ox or sheep, we must bring it back to its owner — and if we don't know who the owner is, we have to keep the animal until it's claimed. The same goes for other objects, including really awesome toys or money: “So shall you do with any lost article . . . you shall not ignore it” (Deuteronomy 22:3). It's not enough simply to hold on to the object; you must keep it safe.   Returning lost objects — in Hebrew, hashavat aveidah (or in traditional Eastern and Central European pronunciation, hashavat aveida) — is an important mitzvah, or commandment, for Jewish people. Today's story, about a pair of lost chickens, is inspired by Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa, a first-century sage who famously carried out this mitzvah.   Вітаємо знову і ласкаво просимо на *Радіо Читайка* – подкаст оповідань від Бібліотеки PJ. Мене звуть Євгенія, і я дуже рада почитати вам! Сьогоднішню історію адаптувала для вас Еллі Трешер.   Як дізнатися, що щось справді твоє?   Тора (перші п'ять книг Біблії) каже, що, якщо ми знаходимо загубленого вола або вівцю, ми повинні повернути цю тварину власнику, а якщо не знаємо, хто власник, то повинні тримати її в себе, доки її не зажадають. Те ж стосується й предметів, зокрема гарних іграшок чи грошей: «…так само зробиш з усім, що пропаде у твого одноплемінника, й що ти знайдеш. Не можна тобі того залишати» (Второзаконня 22:3). Недостатньо просто зберігати річ, ми мусимо саме берегти її.  Повернення загублених речей – івритом хашавАт авейдА важлива міцвА, або заповідь, для єврейського народу. Сьогоднішня історія про двійко загублених курчат надихана рабином Ханіною бен Доса, мудрецем першого століття, який прославився виконанням саме цієї міцви.  

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of all the soldiers who were killed this week and for a refuah shleima to all those injured.  Two answers are given to resolve the contradiction between the inference from our Mishna and a braita about whether or not heirs need to pay the chomesh. Since the Mishna establishes that the obligation to return the item directly to its owner only applies when the item owed is more than a pruta, Rava explains the law in a case where the price drops in value, but raises a question in a case where the value of the items stolen was a pruta and but half were already returned and what is left is no longer a pruta. Two other similar-type questions are brought that Rava asked about the shaving of a nazir and laws of impurity. Rava also asks about chametz that was stolen before Pesach and at the time the robber swore falsely, it was already after Pesach and the item no longer had value. Do the laws of swearing falsely for theft apply since the chametz has potential value as it can cause a monetary obligation or do they not apply since the chametz now has no inherent value, as it is forbidden to benefit from? Raba thought there was an obvious answer - one is obligated because of its potential value as he proves from a different case. Rav Amram questions his answer from a braita and Raba answers it by distinguishing between the chametz case and the case in the braita. Some clarifications are made regarding some of the cases mentioned in the braita quoted by Rav Amram. Ben Azai talks about three types of false claims one can swear about in denying one knows testimony about a lost item. Rabbi Chanina and Shmuel understand this source differently. The root of their debate is connected to the ideas discussed previously about a claim that could lead to a potential financial loss and whether or not laws of false oath denying monetary claims apply to those cases as well. Rav Sheshet holds that once one denies a claim regarding an item he/she was watching, he/she is considered a robber and is obligated to pay even for accidental damages, even if they didn't take an oath denying the claim. Rav Sheshet brings a source to prove his claim, but it is rejected. Rami bar Chama raises a contradiction to Rav Sheshet's opinion from a braita, but it is resolved.

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of all the soldiers who were killed this week and for a refuah shleima to all those injured.  Two answers are given to resolve the contradiction between the inference from our Mishna and a braita about whether or not heirs need to pay the chomesh. Since the Mishna establishes that the obligation to return the item directly to its owner only applies when the item owed is more than a pruta, Rava explains the law in a case where the price drops in value, but raises a question in a case where the value of the items stolen was a pruta and but half were already returned and what is left is no longer a pruta. Two other similar-type questions are brought that Rava asked about the shaving of a nazir and laws of impurity. Rava also asks about chametz that was stolen before Pesach and at the time the robber swore falsely, it was already after Pesach and the item no longer had value. Do the laws of swearing falsely for theft apply since the chametz has potential value as it can cause a monetary obligation or do they not apply since the chametz now has no inherent value, as it is forbidden to benefit from? Raba thought there was an obvious answer - one is obligated because of its potential value as he proves from a different case. Rav Amram questions his answer from a braita and Raba answers it by distinguishing between the chametz case and the case in the braita. Some clarifications are made regarding some of the cases mentioned in the braita quoted by Rav Amram. Ben Azai talks about three types of false claims one can swear about in denying one knows testimony about a lost item. Rabbi Chanina and Shmuel understand this source differently. The root of their debate is connected to the ideas discussed previously about a claim that could lead to a potential financial loss and whether or not laws of false oath denying monetary claims apply to those cases as well. Rav Sheshet holds that once one denies a claim regarding an item he/she was watching, he/she is considered a robber and is obligated to pay even for accidental damages, even if they didn't take an oath denying the claim. Rav Sheshet brings a source to prove his claim, but it is rejected. Rami bar Chama raises a contradiction to Rav Sheshet's opinion from a braita, but it is resolved.

Study Guide Bava Kamma 87 Rabbi Yehuda's opinion regarding blind people appears in several braitot. In one braita, Rabbi Yehuda extends the exemption of blind people to judgment and in another one, he extends it to all mitzvot. Rav Yosef, who was blind, was, at first, thrilled to hear about this opinion and said that if we were to hold that way he would celebrate as it meant he was keeping mitzvot for which he was exempt and he assumed that meant he would get a greater reward. After he heard Rabbi Chanina say that one who is commanded gets a greater reward, he was hopeful that the halakha did not follow Rabbi Yehuda's opinion. The Mishna compares the laws for a person who damages another person and an animal who damages a person. The Mishna also sets out cases where one is exempt from paying damages as one is liable for the death penalty as well, such as hitting one's parents and causing an injury. What are the laws for one who injures a Jewish slave or a Caananite slave? What if the one who hits a minor, shoteh, or deaf-mute? What is the law if those people hit a different person? What if the one who hits is a woman or Caananite slave who doesn't have their own money? Rabbi Elazar asked Rav if a minor girl gets injured, does the money go to her father or her? Rav answers that it goes to her. Rabbi Elazar raises two difficulties against Rav - one from our Mishna and one from a braita. After Rav's response, the Gemara raises a contradiction against the braita from another braita and resolves it. Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree regarding the answer to Rabbi Elazar's question.

Study Guide Bava Kamma 87 Rabbi Yehuda's opinion regarding blind people appears in several braitot. In one braita, Rabbi Yehuda extends the exemption of blind people to judgment and in another one, he extends it to all mitzvot. Rav Yosef, who was blind, was, at first, thrilled to hear about this opinion and said that if we were to hold that way he would celebrate as it meant he was keeping mitzvot for which he was exempt and he assumed that meant he would get a greater reward. After he heard Rabbi Chanina say that one who is commanded gets a greater reward, he was hopeful that the halakha did not follow Rabbi Yehuda's opinion. The Mishna compares the laws for a person who damages another person and an animal who damages a person. The Mishna also sets out cases where one is exempt from paying damages as one is liable for the death penalty as well, such as hitting one's parents and causing an injury. What are the laws for one who injures a Jewish slave or a Caananite slave? What if the one who hits a minor, shoteh, or deaf-mute? What is the law if those people hit a different person? What if the one who hits is a woman or Caananite slave who doesn't have their own money? Rabbi Elazar asked Rav if a minor girl gets injured, does the money go to her father or her? Rav answers that it goes to her. Rabbi Elazar raises two difficulties against Rav - one from our Mishna and one from a braita. After Rav's response, the Gemara raises a contradiction against the braita from another braita and resolves it. Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree regarding the answer to Rabbi Elazar's question.

Study Guide Bava Kamma 66 Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family in loving memory of Sgt. Ephraim ben haRav Shmuel v'Liat, HYD, Ephraim Yachman, son of Liat and Sammy, and grandson of our friend and fellow learner Harriet Hartman. "Even as he fought valiantly to defend Am Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael, his sincerity, commitment to Ahavat Yisrael and Torat Yisrael, and devotion to family and friends shone through as they did throughout his life. May Hashem comfort and give strength to his entire family. Yehi zichro baruch." Rabbi Il'ah and Rabbi Chanina disagreed about an animal that was stolen while still a calf and at the time of judgment was fully grown - is there a requirement to pay four or five times the animal? However, they both seem to agree that the double payment is assessed by its value at the time of the theft. Rav, however, held that the double payment is assessed based on its value at the time of judgment. How can these two approaches be reconciled? Rabba states that both from the Torah and a Mishna we learn that a thief who changes an item after stealing it, acquires the item and is only required to return the value of the item at the time it was stolen. But Rabba and Rav Yosef disagree regarding yei'ush, if the owner despairs of receiving the stolen item back, does the thief acquire it? Two sources are brought as difficulties against Rabba's position and one against Rav Yosef's. All are resolved. 

Study Guide Bava Kamma 66 Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family in loving memory of Sgt. Ephraim ben haRav Shmuel v'Liat, HYD, Ephraim Yachman, son of Liat and Sammy, and grandson of our friend and fellow learner Harriet Hartman. "Even as he fought valiantly to defend Am Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael, his sincerity, commitment to Ahavat Yisrael and Torat Yisrael, and devotion to family and friends shone through as they did throughout his life. May Hashem comfort and give strength to his entire family. Yehi zichro baruch." Rabbi Il'ah and Rabbi Chanina disagreed about an animal that was stolen while still a calf and at the time of judgment was fully grown - is there a requirement to pay four or five times the animal? However, they both seem to agree that the double payment is assessed by its value at the time of the theft. Rav, however, held that the double payment is assessed based on its value at the time of judgment. How can these two approaches be reconciled? Rabba states that both from the Torah and a Mishna we learn that a thief who changes an item after stealing it, acquires the item and is only required to return the value of the item at the time it was stolen. But Rabba and Rav Yosef disagree regarding yei'ush, if the owner despairs of receiving the stolen item back, does the thief acquire it? Two sources are brought as difficulties against Rabba's position and one against Rav Yosef's. All are resolved. 

Rav held that a thief repays a stolen item based on the price of the item at the time of the theft and the double payment and the four/five times payment based on the price at the judgment. Rav Sheshet raises two difficulties against Rav from braitot, but they are resolved. Rav's ruling is limited after resolving the difficulties. A braita is brought in support of Rav, but Rava rejects the proof. Rabbi Il'ah rules on the payment in a case where an animal was stolen as a calf but becomes a grown animal before the payment. Rabbi Chanina raises a difficulty on Rabbi Il'ah's ruling from a braita. What is the basis of their disagreement?

Rav held that a thief repays a stolen item based on the price of the item at the time of the theft and the double payment and the four/five times payment based on the price at the judgment. Rav Sheshet raises two difficulties against Rav from braitot, but they are resolved. Rav's ruling is limited after resolving the difficulties. A braita is brought in support of Rav, but Rava rejects the proof. Rabbi Il'ah rules on the payment in a case where an animal was stolen as a calf but becomes a grown animal before the payment. Rabbi Chanina raises a difficulty on Rabbi Il'ah's ruling from a braita. What is the basis of their disagreement?

Study Guide Bava Kamma 33 Today's daf is sponsored by Nina Black in honor of Jane Shapiro's birthday. "To my friend, machatenista, chevruta, and essential piece of my life, Happy Birthday. I am so lucky to have known you since I was three, and to share community, grandchildren and life with you. Happy Birthday, עד 120 !" If one enters a workshop and gets injured by the person working there, is the workshop owner obligated in the four payments for damages, and if there is an accidental death, does the owner need to go to a refuge city? Does it depend on whether the injured/dead person entered with permission or not? Is this the case where Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chanina made his statement that one is obligated in four payments of damages but exempt from going to a refuge city? Or did he say it about a case where one threw a rock in a public domain and after it was thrown, someone stuck their head out a window and was injured/killed by the rock? If one went to one's employer's house to get paid and was attacked by an animal of the employer, is the employer obligated or not? On what does it depend? How do we calculate damages in a case where two animals attacked each other, or two people attacked each other, or a person and an animal? If a shor tam attacks, since the owner needs to pay up to the value of his/her animal, does that mean that the ox is designated payment for the loan or not? There is an argument about this between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael and the ramifications of this argument are discussed and various sources are brought to try to see whose opinion they fit in with.

Study Guide Bava Kamma 33 Today's daf is sponsored by Nina Black in honor of Jane Shapiro's birthday. "To my friend, machatenista, chevruta, and essential piece of my life, Happy Birthday. I am so lucky to have known you since I was three, and to share community, grandchildren and life with you. Happy Birthday, עד 120 !" If one enters a workshop and gets injured by the person working there, is the workshop owner obligated in the four payments for damages, and if there is an accidental death, does the owner need to go to a refuge city? Does it depend on whether the injured/dead person entered with permission or not? Is this the case where Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chanina made his statement that one is obligated in four payments of damages but exempt from going to a refuge city? Or did he say it about a case where one threw a rock in a public domain and after it was thrown, someone stuck their head out a window and was injured/killed by the rock? If one went to one's employer's house to get paid and was attacked by an animal of the employer, is the employer obligated or not? On what does it depend? How do we calculate damages in a case where two animals attacked each other, or two people attacked each other, or a person and an animal? If a shor tam attacks, since the owner needs to pay up to the value of his/her animal, does that mean that the ox is designated payment for the loan or not? There is an argument about this between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael and the ramifications of this argument are discussed and various sources are brought to try to see whose opinion they fit in with.

Study Guide Bava Kamma 32 The Mishna brings a case of two people who are walking in the street - one with a beam and the other with a jug, if the beam breaks the jug, is the one walking with the beam responsible? On what does it depend? Raba bar Natan asks Rav Huna a question about a husband who injures his wife while having intercourse - does he need to compensate her or not? Rav Huna answers that we can learn from our Mishna that if he is permitted to be there, he does not need to pay for damages. Rava disagrees because he compares it to one who killed someone accidentally and is obligated to go to a refuge city even though the murderer had permission to be there. In addition, the Mishna referred to a case where the damage happened without any action taken on behalf of the one carrying the beam. Reish Lakish distinguishes between a case where two cows were on the road - one walking (typical behavior) and the other was crouching (atypical behavior) and one kicked the other. In which case is the owner obligated and in which case is the owner exempt? The Gemara tries to provide support for his ruling from two of the cases in our Mishna, but both attempts are unsuccessful. What is the law if one person is running in the public domain and one is walking and they bump into each other and cause damage? What if they are both running? Is there a difference if it happens on erev Shabbat when people are permitted to run to prepare for Shabbat? If one is chopping trees in one domain and the chips fly into another domain and injure, is the one chopping obligated? A braita compares a similar case with a store owner and someone walks into the store with/without permission. What is the difference in the ruling? Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chanina said that one is obligated four types of payments for damages and is exempt from going to a refuge city. Was his statement qualifying the case in the braita where one was obligated or the case where one was exempt?

Study Guide Bava Kamma 32 The Mishna brings a case of two people who are walking in the street - one with a beam and the other with a jug, if the beam breaks the jug, is the one walking with the beam responsible? On what does it depend? Raba bar Natan asks Rav Huna a question about a husband who injures his wife while having intercourse - does he need to compensate her or not? Rav Huna answers that we can learn from our Mishna that if he is permitted to be there, he does not need to pay for damages. Rava disagrees because he compares it to one who killed someone accidentally and is obligated to go to a refuge city even though the murderer had permission to be there. In addition, the Mishna referred to a case where the damage happened without any action taken on behalf of the one carrying the beam. Reish Lakish distinguishes between a case where two cows were on the road - one walking (typical behavior) and the other was crouching (atypical behavior) and one kicked the other. In which case is the owner obligated and in which case is the owner exempt? The Gemara tries to provide support for his ruling from two of the cases in our Mishna, but both attempts are unsuccessful. What is the law if one person is running in the public domain and one is walking and they bump into each other and cause damage? What if they are both running? Is there a difference if it happens on erev Shabbat when people are permitted to run to prepare for Shabbat? If one is chopping trees in one domain and the chips fly into another domain and injure, is the one chopping obligated? A braita compares a similar case with a store owner and someone walks into the store with/without permission. What is the difference in the ruling? Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chanina said that one is obligated four types of payments for damages and is exempt from going to a refuge city. Was his statement qualifying the case in the braita where one was obligated or the case where one was exempt?

Today's daf is dedicated to the families of those killed, injured, missing, or taken hostage. We are praying for you and wishing you much continued strength.  If a man betroths a woman claiming he owns a piece of land a particular size or in a particular place, how do we determine that measurement - does it include rocks and clefts or not?  The next Mishna raises a basic argument between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel regarding a condition - whether a tnai kaful is needed - does one need to state both sides of the condition - if x, then y and if not x then z? Or is it enough to say if x, then y, and one can infer what will happen if it is not fulfilled?

Eliyahu Hanavi related in the Tanna Dabeh Elihayu, perek 18, that a man once asked him why there are couples who have not been able to have children. Eliyahu answered, It is because Hashem loves those couples with a complete love and is so happy with them. Therefore, he wants them to reach the highest levels through praying heartfelt tefilot to have children. One of the reasons that our great Imahot became Imahot was because they prayed so much to have children. Sarah Imenu prayed for over seventy years, Rachel for fourteen, and Rivka for ten. Each emotional tefila that they prayed elevated them to a higher spiritual level until they became as great as they did. When Elkana asked his wife Hannah why she was crying so much, הלא אנכי טוב לך מעשרה בנים – aren't I better to you than ten sons? The Midrash says, the word " אנכי " there is out of place. It should have said: הלא אני טוב לך מעשרה בנים . The Midrash explains, the word אנכי there is referring to Hashem yitbarach who said ‘ אנכי ה . Elkana was telling his wife, “Don't feel bad, you became so close to Hashem and that is better for you than having ten sons.” The levels she rose to with her tefilot made her so great, and that is how Elkana comforted her. Besides for the spiritual elevation a person gets through heartfelt tefila , each one of the tefilot also produces blessings. Sometimes we see the blessings in this world and sometimes we don't realize them until Hashem reveals them in the Next World, but for sure a blessing was produced with every heartfelt tefila . Leah Imenu was able to see immediate blessings from her tefilot . She married Yaakov, she had six of the 12 shevatim and she was buried in the Maarat Hamachpela . Rachel, on the other hand, had a harder life and she is still praying, רחל מבכה על בניה . Rachel did not see all the fruits of her tefilot in her lifetime, but Chazal tell us it is because of her prayers that the entire Jewish Nation will merit the binyan Beit HaMikdash , the zechut of which is enormous. Her tefilot were accomplishing the greatest tikkun of all, but she was not able to see it while she was praying. A person should never lose faith in his tefilot, even if the specific request he has been making has not come yet. The Gemara says in Masechet Taanit that the entire world was being supported in the merit of Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa, while he sufficed on the bare minimum. Rabbi Eliezer Tauber, zatzal , explained, a person who does not have so much money is obviously being asked by Hashem to pray for parnasa . Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa's tefilot for parnasa were so powerful that because of them, the entire world was being fed. All he saw was the small amount that Hashem gave him each week, but when he got to Olam HaBa , he found out that his tefilot were supporting the entire world. A billionaire who gives millions and millions of dollars to tzedaka does not have the same merit as Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa. Although he was poor, he is credited for giving tzedaka to the entire world. That is the power of tefila . A childless couple may not have seen the fruits of their tefilot yet, but rest assured, their prayers have produced an abundance of blessing. One couple's prayers may have brought about hundreds of childbirths. The babies may not have been born into their family, but the babies will be credited to them. In the Future, they may see thousands of offspring that are considered their children. All the mitzvot that those children did and all the Torah that they learned were due to their tefilot . Tefila is one of the most powerful forces on this earth. Every heartfelt tefila always accomplishes something. And, it also raises the person to a higher spiritual level. Therefore, whether we see what we are asking for or not, we should always continue praying with all our emotions.

Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa- if beloved by people, Hashem Lives him too, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas- 4 things pull person in wrong direction and to destruction

Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa- importance of learning to apply practically to retain wisdom

Women's Class Pirkei Avos - Chapter 3: This class waspresented on Tuesday, Parshas Acharei-Kedoshim, 4 Iyar, 5783, April 25, 2023, at Bais Medrash Ohr Chaim in Monsey, NY. We learn in the third chapter of Pirkei Avos: Rabbi Chaninah, deputy to the kohanim, would say: Pray for the welfare of the government, for were it not for the fear it inspires, every man would swallow his neighbor alive. Rabbi Chaninah son of Tradyon would say: If two sit together and there are no words of Torah [spoken] between them, then this is a session of scorners ... Two who sit and exchange words of Torah, the Divine Presence rests amongst them... The basic meaning of (the first) Rabbi Chaninah's words is that for a society to be civilized its members must submit to the rule of government and law. The need for "fear of authority" may seem an insult to our sophistication and intelligence, but the fact remains that without it there would be nothing to check the worst in man, and the anarchic rule of the jungle would prevail. The question, though, is how this passage made it into Pirkei Avos, the Ethics of the Fathers, which is a book of character-building, of going beyond the letter of the law. In these chapters you will not find a prohibition of murder, theft, deception, or adultery. For that we have the Torah and the other tractates of Mishnah. Yet here we have an astounding exception. Suddenly the Mishnah tells us that we must do what we can to avoid people eating each other alive! A second enigma is this. The Mishnah rarely if ever employs poetic language. It is not a book of poetry, but of law. Why does the Mishnah use this phrase, every man would swallow his neighbor alive, not the ordinary and straightforward term in Torah and Tanach, every man would kill his neighbor. There is a third enigma. Rabbi Chanina was not only addressing the non-Jewish world, but also the Jewish world. In the words of Maimonides in his commentary on this Mishnah: If not for the fear of government we would swallow each other alive. But this seems unfair and harsh. Jews, who are born and bred with the values and mitzvos of the Torah, have rarely been involved in murder. Till today, no Jewish school in the world where Torah is taught has a metal detector. Is it really true that if we had not fear of government, we would murder each other? Finally, what is the juxtaposition between this clause of the Mishnah and the following one: Rabbi Chaninah son of Tradyon would say: ... Two who sit and exchange words of Torah, the Divine Presence rests amongst them. They seems disjointed. Why were they put together in one Mishnah? It was at a farbrengen Shabbos Parshas Shlach 1975, when the Lubavitcher Rebbe offered a marvelous and extremely relevant explanation into this Mishnah which answers all the above questionsand teaches us how to live. We also tell the story of a horse by the water, two groceries in Crown Heights, the arrogant scholar, the dignity of a child, and Rabbi Laus Bar mitzvah.