Podcasts about rabbi chanina

In this week's parasha , Shelach , the Jewish People were tested in emunah and bitachon and they failed. Kalev tried to give them chizuk , saying, "Hashem wants us to go in, we have nothing to fear." But it didn't help. The pasuk says סלחתי כדבריך ואולם חי אני – Hashem forgave them but they were not going to be allowed into Eretz Yisrael . Most mefarshim explain סלחתי כדבריך to mean Hashem forgave them for the עגל, but not for the meraglim . And that's why they were not allowed into Israel. The reason both sins are mentioned in the same pasuk is because both of them were due to a lack of bitachon . By the עגל, Hashem tested the people by showing them a vision which made it appear that Moshe Rabbenu was not coming back. They knew that the mann was in the merit of Moshe and so they feared without Moshe they would go hungry. Their test was they should have realized Hashem is the One supporting them. It is true that Hashem gives us things in the merit of tzaddikim , but He also gives us new tzaddikim when the ones we had were taken away. The Gemara says that one time the entire world was being sustained in the merit of Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa. But what happened when Rab Chanina ben Dosa passed away? There was still sustenance being given. The reason is because it is Hashem who gives sustenance and He is never bound by any one means to give it. The Jewish People received water in the midbar in the merit of Miriam. But when Miriam passed away, Hashem still continued giving them water in the zechut of Moshe. The Clouds of Glory were given in the merit of Aharon, but when Aharon passed away, Hashem brought the clouds back in the merit of Moshe. Then when Moshe passed away, Hashem continued helping His People through Yehoshua. Hashem is always the One who is taking care of us and He wants us to feel that in our hearts. He wants us to internalize that He is unlimited and has infinite ways of helping. When someone had an avenue of parnasa that is no longer producing the same money it used to, this person is being tested with the same type of test. Is he going to believe that it was the means that was supporting him, or that it was Hashem? No matter how good a person thinks he used to have it, Hashem could always make it even better. A man said his wife works as a nurse's aid at people's homes. Before she gave birth, she worked for a nice old lady and they both enjoyed the relationship and the pay was good too. When she gave birth, a substitute was put there instead and when her paid vacation ended, the substitute didn't want to leave. She too had fallen in love with this nice old lady. Instead of making a fuss about it, the man's wife set out to start over from the beginning. She tried several places but nothing was available. Frustrated, she started getting angry at the substitute who took her job. But then she caught herself and worked on her emunah. She managed to remove the anger from her heart and feel at ease, knowing she was in Hashem's Hands. The very same afternoon that she was finally calm, she got a call from an agency with a new offer. The lady she was given to work for was also very sweet like the other lady. This job gave her more hours and more pay and was much closer to her house. She thought she had it good before and would never get the same opportunity, now she has it much better. We are never dependent on one means in any area of life. Hashem is the One who provides the means and He is unlimited. And we are to know that He was, is and always will be there to help us. Shabbat Shalom.

The Mishna states that the method of slaughtering a red heifer (para aduma) is not the same method used for breaking the back of the neck of a decapitated heifer (egla arufa), and vice-versa. A braita brings a source demonstrating that one cannot break the back of the neck of the para aduma and that one cannot slaughter the egla arufa. Both laws are derived from verses found within the passage of the egla arufa. The Mishna notes that while blemished kohanim are disqualified from Temple service, blemished Levites are fit for their respective duties. Conversely, while Levites are restricted to a specific age range for their service, kohanim can work in the Temple at all ages. A braita derives a source for both of these exclusive rules from a verse in Bamidbar 8:24. The age limitation on Levites only concerned the period of carrying the Tabernacle in the desert; for the singing service, there is no age limitation, provided the Levite can still sing properly. Regarding this age restriction for the Levites, a contradiction arises between two verses, as one states the youngest age one can work is thirty, while another states twenty-five. The Gemara reconciles this by differentiating the stages: at twenty-five a Levite begins his training, and at thirty he can actually perform the service. A braita brings a debate about the minimum age for kohanim to begin serving in the Temple - either at the biological age of maturity (the appearance of two pubic hairs) or at the age of twenty. The maximum age for their service is when they reach old age, which Rabbi Ela in the name of Rabbi Chanina defines as the point when one begins to tremble. Rav Chisda explains the scriptural source behind this minimum age debate. Later, the Gemara brings two explanations regarding whether Rebbi's requirement of twenty as the minimum age is an enacted rabbinic law, or if it was instituted because the older kohanim felt uncomfortable with teenagers performing the sacred Temple service. The method of contracting ritual impurity in earthenware vessels is not the same method of contracting impurity in other vessels. A braita details the exact differences and delineates the scriptural sources from which they are derived.

The Mishna states that the method of slaughtering a red heifer (para aduma) is not the same method used for breaking the back of the neck of a decapitated heifer (egla arufa), and vice-versa. A braita brings a source demonstrating that one cannot break the back of the neck of the para aduma and that one cannot slaughter the egla arufa. Both laws are derived from verses found within the passage of the egla arufa. The Mishna notes that while blemished kohanim are disqualified from Temple service, blemished Levites are fit for their respective duties. Conversely, while Levites are restricted to a specific age range for their service, kohanim can work in the Temple at all ages. A braita derives a source for both of these exclusive rules from a verse in Bamidbar 8:24. The age limitation on Levites only concerned the period of carrying the Tabernacle in the desert; for the singing service, there is no age limitation, provided the Levite can still sing properly. Regarding this age restriction for the Levites, a contradiction arises between two verses, as one states the youngest age one can work is thirty, while another states twenty-five. The Gemara reconciles this by differentiating the stages: at twenty-five a Levite begins his training, and at thirty he can actually perform the service. A braita brings a debate about the minimum age for kohanim to begin serving in the Temple - either at the biological age of maturity (the appearance of two pubic hairs) or at the age of twenty. The maximum age for their service is when they reach old age, which Rabbi Ela in the name of Rabbi Chanina defines as the point when one begins to tremble. Rav Chisda explains the scriptural source behind this minimum age debate. Later, the Gemara brings two explanations regarding whether Rebbi's requirement of twenty as the minimum age is an enacted rabbinic law, or if it was instituted because the older kohanim felt uncomfortable with teenagers performing the sacred Temple service. The method of contracting ritual impurity in earthenware vessels is not the same method of contracting impurity in other vessels. A braita details the exact differences and delineates the scriptural sources from which they are derived.

Pictures Rav Nachman permitted slaughtering above the large ring, at the point where the "hat" begins to slope inward, provided that the chitim (wheat-shaped glands) are at least partially left intact below the cut. This ruling matches neither the rabbis nor Rabbi Yossi b'Rabbi Yehuda, but appears to follow the position of Rabbi Chanina ben Antignus. Rav Huna and Rav Nachman dispute the exact parameters of the disagreement between the Sages and Rabbi Yossi b'Rabbi Yehuda. One view posits that they disagree in a case where the slaughterer cut the first third too high up, and the remaining two-thirds in the correct place - whereas if one cut two-thirds in the correct place and then veered upward for the last third, all agree it is valid (as the majority was already severed properly). An alternative version shifts the opinions between Rav Huna and Rav Chisda. Both versions include a difficulty and resolution exchanged between either Rav Chisda, Rav Yosef, and Abaye. Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda further disagree on cases of alternating validity - such as when one slaughters the first third in the wrong place, the next third in the right place, and the final third in the wrong place (or the reverse scenario). Rav Yehuda follows the absolute majority; if the total sum of the valid cuts constitutes a majority, the slaughter is kosher. Rav Huna, however, evaluates the chronological moment the majority is achieved, requiring the majority to be made continuously in a valid manner. Rav Kahana asked Rav Yehuda for the ruling on the cases of alternating thirds. He then raised several subsequent queries regarding the validity of shechita performed over a pre-existing perforation (nekev) in the windpipe. The Mishna notes that the location for shechita is the exact opposite of the location for melika (the sacrificial pinching of a bird's neck). Melika must be performed from the back of the neck (oref), whereas shechita must be performed from the front or the sides of the neck.

Pictures Rav Nachman permitted slaughtering above the large ring, at the point where the "hat" begins to slope inward, provided that the chitim (wheat-shaped glands) are at least partially left intact below the cut. This ruling matches neither the rabbis nor Rabbi Yossi b'Rabbi Yehuda, but appears to follow the position of Rabbi Chanina ben Antignus. Rav Huna and Rav Nachman dispute the exact parameters of the disagreement between the Sages and Rabbi Yossi b'Rabbi Yehuda. One view posits that they disagree in a case where the slaughterer cut the first third too high up, and the remaining two-thirds in the correct place - whereas if one cut two-thirds in the correct place and then veered upward for the last third, all agree it is valid (as the majority was already severed properly). An alternative version shifts the opinions between Rav Huna and Rav Chisda. Both versions include a difficulty and resolution exchanged between either Rav Chisda, Rav Yosef, and Abaye. Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda further disagree on cases of alternating validity - such as when one slaughters the first third in the wrong place, the next third in the right place, and the final third in the wrong place (or the reverse scenario). Rav Yehuda follows the absolute majority; if the total sum of the valid cuts constitutes a majority, the slaughter is kosher. Rav Huna, however, evaluates the chronological moment the majority is achieved, requiring the majority to be made continuously in a valid manner. Rav Kahana asked Rav Yehuda for the ruling on the cases of alternating thirds. He then raised several subsequent queries regarding the validity of shechita performed over a pre-existing perforation (nekev) in the windpipe. The Mishna notes that the location for shechita is the exact opposite of the location for melika (the sacrificial pinching of a bird's neck). Melika must be performed from the back of the neck (oref), whereas shechita must be performed from the front or the sides of the neck.

Pictures The Mishna compares the details regarding the laws of semicha (leaning) and tenufa (waving). Semicha has a stringency in that all owners of the sacrifice are obligated to perform it, while the same does not hold true for tenufa. However, waving applies to both individual and communal sacrifices, to animals that are both alive and slaughtered, and to both animals and non-living items, such as breads. These do not apply to semicha, which is only performed on live animals and primarily for individual sacrifices. The Gemara brings a scriptural source for the ruling that semicha is obligatory for all owners of the sacrifice, while only one person performs tenufa on behalf of the others. A difficulty is raised against the fact that semicha is limited only to live animals based on a Mishna in Tamid 33b, which describes a process of semicha performed by a Kohen Gadol on a slaughtered animal. However, Abaye explains that this specific semicha is performed merely out of respect for the Kohen Gadol and is not a formal requirement of the sacrificial service. The loaves of the lechem hapanim (showbread) and the loaves of the shtei halechem (two loaves) were kneaded separately. The shtei halechem were baked separately, while the lechem hapanim - twelve in total - were baked two at a time. The Gemara brings the scriptural source for these details. What shape were the lechem hapanim? Rabbi Chanina and Rabbi Yochanan each describe a different shape: either like an "open box" or like a "rocking boat." The Gemara analyzes these different opinions based on other known details regarding the various components of the table (shulchan) upon which the bread sat.

Pictures The Mishna compares the details regarding the laws of semicha (leaning) and tenufa (waving). Semicha has a stringency in that all owners of the sacrifice are obligated to perform it, while the same does not hold true for tenufa. However, waving applies to both individual and communal sacrifices, to animals that are both alive and slaughtered, and to both animals and non-living items, such as breads. These do not apply to semicha, which is only performed on live animals and primarily for individual sacrifices. The Gemara brings a scriptural source for the ruling that semicha is obligatory for all owners of the sacrifice, while only one person performs tenufa on behalf of the others. A difficulty is raised against the fact that semicha is limited only to live animals based on a Mishna in Tamid 33b, which describes a process of semicha performed by a Kohen Gadol on a slaughtered animal. However, Abaye explains that this specific semicha is performed merely out of respect for the Kohen Gadol and is not a formal requirement of the sacrificial service. The loaves of the lechem hapanim (showbread) and the loaves of the shtei halechem (two loaves) were kneaded separately. The shtei halechem were baked separately, while the lechem hapanim - twelve in total - were baked two at a time. The Gemara brings the scriptural source for these details. What shape were the lechem hapanim? Rabbi Chanina and Rabbi Yochanan each describe a different shape: either like an "open box" or like a "rocking boat." The Gemara analyzes these different opinions based on other known details regarding the various components of the table (shulchan) upon which the bread sat.

Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel rules that a mezuza written on two sheets or columns is invalid. The Gemara raises a difficulty from a braita that invalidates a mezuza written on two sheets only when it is placed within two separate sippin (doorposts), implying that if it were placed within a single post, it would be valid. The difficulty is resolved by explaining that Shmuel's intent was that even if it is placed in one post, the mere fact that it is "fit" or able to be divided between two posts renders it invalid, as a mezuza. Regarding the determination of the right side in doorways between two rooms, Shmuel rules that one follows the "heker tzir" (the placement of the hinges). Rav Adda explains that this refers to the socket in which the door hinge turns; the side toward which the door opens is considered the primary room, and the right side is determined according to the direction of entry into that room. Rav Nachman instructed the Exilarch (Resh Galuta), who wished to fix a mezuza in his house before its construction was complete, that he must first hang the doors and only afterward fix the mezuza. Concerning the manner of placing the mezuza, Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav invalidates a mezuza placed "k'min neger" (like a bolt), meaning like a horizontal bar inserted into the doorway. The Gemara raises a difficulty from the practice in Rabbi's house, where the mezuzot were placed "k'min neger," and resolves it by distinguishing between a completely vertical placement and a horizontal placement. It is further mentioned in this context that Rav Huna would fix a mezuza in the doorway between his house and the Beit Midrash even though Rabbi did not do so, because Rav Huna followed the practice of those accustomed to using that doorway, which renders it a doorway obligated in a mezuza. In the matter of the mezuza's height, Shmuel rules that it should be placed at the beginning of the upper third of the doorway's height. Rav Huna disagrees, holding that the entire area of the doorway is valid, provided the mezuza is one handbreadth (tefach) away from the ground and one handbreadth away from the ceiling beam. The Gemara raises a difficulty against Shmuel from a braita and resolves it by explaining that Shmuel rules in accordance with Rabbi Yosi, who learns from a hekesh (textual comparison) between "u'kshartam" (tefillin) and "u'khtavtam" (mezuza) that just as tefillin are placed high up, so too the mezuza must be high up in the doorway. Rava adds that the mezuza should be placed in the handbreadth closest to the public domain so that a person encounters the mitzva immediately upon entry. Rabbi Chanina adds a conceptual dimension: unlike a king of flesh and blood who sits inside while his subjects guard him from the outside, God guards His servants from the outside while they sit inside, as it is written, "The Lord is your guardian." Additional laws discussed on this page deal with the requirements of a mezuza that depend on the structure of the doorway and the room. Rav Yosef in the name of Rava invalidates a mezuza that was recessed into the thickness of the wall more than a handbreadth. Rava exempts "pitchi shimai" (defective doorways) from mezuza; the Amoraim dispute whether this refers to a doorway without a ceiling or one without a proper doorpost. Similarly, an achsadra (portico) is exempt from mezuza because its posts are intended to support the ceiling rather than to create a doorway. A gatehouse (beit shaar) that opens both to a house and a courtyard needs a mezeua on both entrances. However, a gatehouse that opens to both a house and a garden, the Tannaim dispute - and the Amoraim dispute the interpretation of their words - whether the obligation is determined by the entry to the house or the exit to the garden. Rav Ashi rules according to the stringency of Rav and Shmuel: any doorway used for entry into a house, even if it leads to an open space like a garden, is obligated in a mezuza.  

Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel rules that a mezuza written on two sheets or columns is invalid. The Gemara raises a difficulty from a braita that invalidates a mezuza written on two sheets only when it is placed within two separate sippin (doorposts), implying that if it were placed within a single post, it would be valid. The difficulty is resolved by explaining that Shmuel's intent was that even if it is placed in one post, the mere fact that it is "fit" or able to be divided between two posts renders it invalid, as a mezuza. Regarding the determination of the right side in doorways between two rooms, Shmuel rules that one follows the "heker tzir" (the placement of the hinges). Rav Adda explains that this refers to the socket in which the door hinge turns; the side toward which the door opens is considered the primary room, and the right side is determined according to the direction of entry into that room. Rav Nachman instructed the Exilarch (Resh Galuta), who wished to fix a mezuza in his house before its construction was complete, that he must first hang the doors and only afterward fix the mezuza. Concerning the manner of placing the mezuza, Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav invalidates a mezuza placed "k'min neger" (like a bolt), meaning like a horizontal bar inserted into the doorway. The Gemara raises a difficulty from the practice in Rabbi's house, where the mezuzot were placed "k'min neger," and resolves it by distinguishing between a completely vertical placement and a horizontal placement. It is further mentioned in this context that Rav Huna would fix a mezuza in the doorway between his house and the Beit Midrash even though Rabbi did not do so, because Rav Huna followed the practice of those accustomed to using that doorway, which renders it a doorway obligated in a mezuza. In the matter of the mezuza's height, Shmuel rules that it should be placed at the beginning of the upper third of the doorway's height. Rav Huna disagrees, holding that the entire area of the doorway is valid, provided the mezuza is one handbreadth (tefach) away from the ground and one handbreadth away from the ceiling beam. The Gemara raises a difficulty against Shmuel from a braita and resolves it by explaining that Shmuel rules in accordance with Rabbi Yosi, who learns from a hekesh (textual comparison) between "u'kshartam" (tefillin) and "u'khtavtam" (mezuza) that just as tefillin are placed high up, so too the mezuza must be high up in the doorway. Rava adds that the mezuza should be placed in the handbreadth closest to the public domain so that a person encounters the mitzva immediately upon entry. Rabbi Chanina adds a conceptual dimension: unlike a king of flesh and blood who sits inside while his subjects guard him from the outside, God guards His servants from the outside while they sit inside, as it is written, "The Lord is your guardian." Additional laws discussed on this page deal with the requirements of a mezuza that depend on the structure of the doorway and the room. Rav Yosef in the name of Rava invalidates a mezuza that was recessed into the thickness of the wall more than a handbreadth. Rava exempts "pitchi shimai" (defective doorways) from mezuza; the Amoraim dispute whether this refers to a doorway without a ceiling or one without a proper doorpost. Similarly, an achsadra (portico) is exempt from mezuza because its posts are intended to support the ceiling rather than to create a doorway. A gatehouse (beit shaar) that opens both to a house and a courtyard needs a mezeua on both entrances. However, a gatehouse that opens to both a house and a garden, the Tannaim dispute - and the Amoraim dispute the interpretation of their words - whether the obligation is determined by the entry to the house or the exit to the garden. Rav Ashi rules according to the stringency of Rav and Shmuel: any doorway used for entry into a house, even if it leads to an open space like a garden, is obligated in a mezuza.  

Ravin, the son of Chinina, said in the name of Ulla in the name of Rabbi Chanina that the law follows Rabbi Shimon Shezuri in "this" issue and anywhere else he issued a ruling. Rav Papa and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak each identify a possible case where Rabbi Chanina ruled like Rabbi Shimon Shezuri. One suggests it was regarding how to measure 40 se'ah in a large box for purposes of impurity. The other suggests it was regarding the stringent ruling of the impurity of liquids - specifically, to which liquids this unique type of impurity extends. The Gemara brings a situation where Rabbi Shimon Shezuri mixed untithed produce with tithed produce and was told by Rabbi Tarfon to buy produce from the market to tithe upon it. In a different version, Rabbi Tarfon told him to buy produce from non-Jews. This advice is analyzed through two lenses: whether a market purchase is considered tithed by Torah law because most am ha'aretz tithe, or whether land ownership by non-Jews in Israel removes the Torah obligation of tithing the produce. Rav Papa confirms to Rav Yemar bar Shelamya that the halakha follows Rabbi Shimon Shezuri even in this specific case. A statement by Rav regarding a tear in the parchment of a Sefer Torah is also analyzed. Rav rules that a tear spanning two lines may be sewn, but a tear of three lines may not. This is qualified by Rabba Zuti, who distinguished between "new" and "old" parchment, which is defined not by age but by whether or not it was processed with gall. Furthermore, the sewing must be done with sinews (gidin) and not plain thread. A question is left unresolved regarding whether these measurements apply if the tear occurs between columns or between lines. Regarding the writing of a mezuza, Rav Chananel in the name of Rav states that if it is written with two words on a line, it is valid. Rav Nachman explains that it can be written like a shira (song) - for example, two words, then three, then one. When questioned by a braita, he distinguishes between the requirements of a Sefer Torah and a mezuza. The Gemara clarifies that while a mezuza can be written in shira format, it must not be formatted like a "tent" or a "tail" (narrowing or widening). There is a discussion regarding the final words of the mezuza, "al ha'aretz." Should they be placed at the end of the line or at the beginning? The two views reflect different symbolic meanings: one highlights the height of heaven above the earth, while the other highlights the distance between them. Rav Chelbo mentions Rav Huna, who would roll the mezuza scroll from the end to the beginning and made the paragraphs "closed" (setumot). This is challenged by a ruling of Rabbi Meir, who made the paragraph breaks "open" (petuchot).

Ravin, the son of Chinina, said in the name of Ulla in the name of Rabbi Chanina that the law follows Rabbi Shimon Shezuri in "this" issue and anywhere else he issued a ruling. Rav Papa and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak each identify a possible case where Rabbi Chanina ruled like Rabbi Shimon Shezuri. One suggests it was regarding how to measure 40 se'ah in a large box for purposes of impurity. The other suggests it was regarding the stringent ruling of the impurity of liquids - specifically, to which liquids this unique type of impurity extends. The Gemara brings a situation where Rabbi Shimon Shezuri mixed untithed produce with tithed produce and was told by Rabbi Tarfon to buy produce from the market to tithe upon it. In a different version, Rabbi Tarfon told him to buy produce from non-Jews. This advice is analyzed through two lenses: whether a market purchase is considered tithed by Torah law because most am ha'aretz tithe, or whether land ownership by non-Jews in Israel removes the Torah obligation of tithing the produce. Rav Papa confirms to Rav Yemar bar Shelamya that the halakha follows Rabbi Shimon Shezuri even in this specific case. A statement by Rav regarding a tear in the parchment of a Sefer Torah is also analyzed. Rav rules that a tear spanning two lines may be sewn, but a tear of three lines may not. This is qualified by Rabba Zuti, who distinguished between "new" and "old" parchment, which is defined not by age but by whether or not it was processed with gall. Furthermore, the sewing must be done with sinews (gidin) and not plain thread. A question is left unresolved regarding whether these measurements apply if the tear occurs between columns or between lines. Regarding the writing of a mezuza, Rav Chananel in the name of Rav states that if it is written with two words on a line, it is valid. Rav Nachman explains that it can be written like a shira (song) - for example, two words, then three, then one. When questioned by a braita, he distinguishes between the requirements of a Sefer Torah and a mezuza. The Gemara clarifies that while a mezuza can be written in shira format, it must not be formatted like a "tent" or a "tail" (narrowing or widening). There is a discussion regarding the final words of the mezuza, "al ha'aretz." Should they be placed at the end of the line or at the beginning? The two views reflect different symbolic meanings: one highlights the height of heaven above the earth, while the other highlights the distance between them. Rav Chelbo mentions Rav Huna, who would roll the mezuza scroll from the end to the beginning and made the paragraphs "closed" (setumot). This is challenged by a ruling of Rabbi Meir, who made the paragraph breaks "open" (petuchot).

Rav makes a statement that is contradicted by a braita. He says that the last page of a Sefer Torah can end in the middle of the page, while a braita says it must finish at the end. After trying to reconcile Rav's position with the braita by limiting it to a Chumash (a parchment containing only one book of the Torah) and not a full Sefer Torah, the Gemara questions this from another statement of Rav (brought by Rabbi Yehoshua bar Aba in the name of Rav Gidal). There are two versions of the explanation for Rav's second statement, which may affect whether his position can be reconciled with the braita and whether one needs or is permitted to finish the last line of the Torah in the middle of the line. Two other statements of Rabbi Yehoshua bar Aba in the name of Rav Gidal in the name of Rav are brought regarding the Torah. The first discusses a specific rule regarding the last eight verses of the Torah describing Moshe's death: an individual reads them in a shul. There is a debate among the commentaries regarding the meaning of this rule. Initially, it is suggested that this rule follows the view that Yehoshua wrote these verses, but the Gemara concludes it can also be explained according to Rabbi Shimon, who held that Moshe wrote them b'dema. The second statement is that one who buys a Sefer Torah in the market does not fulfill the mitzva in the proper manner, as ideally one should write a Sefer Torah rather than buy it. A piece of parchment used in a Sefer Torah can contain between three and eight columns. A column should include approximately 30 letters. However, there are different rules regarding the last page of the Torah. How many letters can be added in the margin if needed, and under what circumstances? If one omits the name of God, how can this be fixed? There are five tannaitic opinions, ranging from no solution to scraping the ink of a different word and inserting God's name there (placing the other word between the lines) to even allowing half the name of God to be added between the lines. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri's opinion is that the name of God can be added between the lines, but only if it is the whole name. Ravin son of Chinina said in the name of Ulla in the name of Rabbi Chanina that the law follows Rabbi Shimon Shezuri in "this" issue and anywhere else he issued a ruling. The Gemara tries to establish what "this" issue is. Each time a possibility is suggested, starting with our sugya,  it is rejected because others also issued rulings, and when the Gemara listed who ruled like whom, Ravin bar Chinina and rabbi Chanina did not appear there.

Rav makes a statement that is contradicted by a braita. He says that the last page of a Sefer Torah can end in the middle of the page, while a braita says it must finish at the end. After trying to reconcile Rav's position with the braita by limiting it to a Chumash (a parchment containing only one book of the Torah) and not a full Sefer Torah, the Gemara questions this from another statement of Rav (brought by Rabbi Yehoshua bar Aba in the name of Rav Gidal). There are two versions of the explanation for Rav's second statement, which may affect whether his position can be reconciled with the braita and whether one needs or is permitted to finish the last line of the Torah in the middle of the line. Two other statements of Rabbi Yehoshua bar Aba in the name of Rav Gidal in the name of Rav are brought regarding the Torah. The first discusses a specific rule regarding the last eight verses of the Torah describing Moshe's death: an individual reads them in a shul. There is a debate among the commentaries regarding the meaning of this rule. Initially, it is suggested that this rule follows the view that Yehoshua wrote these verses, but the Gemara concludes it can also be explained according to Rabbi Shimon, who held that Moshe wrote them b'dema. The second statement is that one who buys a Sefer Torah in the market does not fulfill the mitzva in the proper manner, as ideally one should write a Sefer Torah rather than buy it. A piece of parchment used in a Sefer Torah can contain between three and eight columns. A column should include approximately 30 letters. However, there are different rules regarding the last page of the Torah. How many letters can be added in the margin if needed, and under what circumstances? If one omits the name of God, how can this be fixed? There are five tannaitic opinions, ranging from no solution to scraping the ink of a different word and inserting God's name there (placing the other word between the lines) to even allowing half the name of God to be added between the lines. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri's opinion is that the name of God can be added between the lines, but only if it is the whole name. Ravin son of Chinina said in the name of Ulla in the name of Rabbi Chanina that the law follows Rabbi Shimon Shezuri in "this" issue and anywhere else he issued a ruling. The Gemara tries to establish what "this" issue is. Each time a possibility is suggested, starting with our sugya,  it is rejected because others also issued rulings, and when the Gemara listed who ruled like whom, Ravin bar Chinina and rabbi Chanina did not appear there.

If the remainder of the mincha offering becomes impure, lost, or burned before the kometz is offered, according to Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua's approaches regarding sacrifices, one can explain what they would each hold on whether the kometz may still be burned. In the case of animal sacrifices, Rabbi Eliezer permits the sprinkling of the blood even if there is no meat left, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua forbids it. Rav explains that Rabbi Yehoshua's restriction only applies if the entire remainder is lost; however, if even a portion remains, the kometz may be burned. This aligns with his view on animal sacrifices - that if even an olive-bulk of meat or sacrificial fats remains, the blood may be sprinkled. Does the kometz require a sacred vessel after being taken from the meal offering, or can it be brought by hand to the altar? Rabbi Shimon and the Sages differ on this requirement, with Rabbi Shimon ruling that a vessel is not required at this stage. The Gemara explores three different approaches to explain the underlying logic of Rabbi Shimon's lenient view, bringing braitot to challenge the different opinions. If the kometz is split into two parts, the Mishna rules that it can be burned in two separate actions. However, Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi disagree about whether it can be split into more than two parts. What is the basis of their debate? Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Chanina disagree about the exact point at which the burning of the kometz renders the remainder permitted for consumption.  

If the remainder of the mincha offering becomes impure, lost, or burned before the kometz is offered, according to Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua's approaches regarding sacrifices, one can explain what they would each hold on whether the kometz may still be burned. In the case of animal sacrifices, Rabbi Eliezer permits the sprinkling of the blood even if there is no meat left, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua forbids it. Rav explains that Rabbi Yehoshua's restriction only applies if the entire remainder is lost; however, if even a portion remains, the kometz may be burned. This aligns with his view on animal sacrifices - that if even an olive-bulk of meat or sacrificial fats remains, the blood may be sprinkled. Does the kometz require a sacred vessel after being taken from the meal offering, or can it be brought by hand to the altar? Rabbi Shimon and the Sages differ on this requirement, with Rabbi Shimon ruling that a vessel is not required at this stage. The Gemara explores three different approaches to explain the underlying logic of Rabbi Shimon's lenient view, bringing braitot to challenge the different opinions. If the kometz is split into two parts, the Mishna rules that it can be burned in two separate actions. However, Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi disagree about whether it can be split into more than two parts. What is the basis of their debate? Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Chanina disagree about the exact point at which the burning of the kometz renders the remainder permitted for consumption.  

Study Guide Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about a case where oil was placed on the kometz of a mincha of a sinner, which is not meant to be mixed with oil. Rabbi Yochanan disqualifies it, but Reish Lakish does not, as he holds that the oil should not be mixed with the mincha before the kometz is taken, but the kometz can (and ideally should) be mixed with a little bit of oil. Rabbi Yochanan brings a tannaitic source to raise a difficulty against Reish Lakish's position, but it is resolved. Rava asks a question about a kometz whose oil (some of it) was absorbed onto a piece of wood. Can both be burned together to ensure that all the oil of the kometz is burned, or would this not be effective as the wood is completely separate from the kometz? Ravina questions Rava as the issue is already known as a debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish. But they explain why the question can be asked according to each. The Mishna explains what to do in three different cases of mixtures of meal offerings that were at various stages - either two minchas before the kometz was taken, or a kometz with a different mincha where the kometz was not yet taken, or a kometz mixed with the remainder. Rav Chisda and Rabbi Chanina disagree within Rabbi Yehuda's position of min b'mino (items of the same type) is not nullified, as understood by Rabbi Chiya, that items are considered the same if the status of one can change to be like the other. Rav Chisda says it is determined by the item trying to nullify, and Rabbi Chanina by the item being nullified. The three cases in our Mishna and a fourth source regarding matza are brought as difficulties to one or both of the opinions, but all are resolved.  

Study Guide Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about a case where oil was placed on the kometz of a mincha of a sinner, which is not meant to be mixed with oil. Rabbi Yochanan disqualifies it, but Reish Lakish does not, as he holds that the oil should not be mixed with the mincha before the kometz is taken, but the kometz can (and ideally should) be mixed with a little bit of oil. Rabbi Yochanan brings a tannaitic source to raise a difficulty against Reish Lakish's position, but it is resolved. Rava asks a question about a kometz whose oil (some of it) was absorbed onto a piece of wood. Can both be burned together to ensure that all the oil of the kometz is burned, or would this not be effective as the wood is completely separate from the kometz? Ravina questions Rava as the issue is already known as a debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish. But they explain why the question can be asked according to each. The Mishna explains what to do in three different cases of mixtures of meal offerings that were at various stages - either two minchas before the kometz was taken, or a kometz with a different mincha where the kometz was not yet taken, or a kometz mixed with the remainder. Rav Chisda and Rabbi Chanina disagree within Rabbi Yehuda's position of min b'mino (items of the same type) is not nullified, as understood by Rabbi Chiya, that items are considered the same if the status of one can change to be like the other. Rav Chisda says it is determined by the item trying to nullify, and Rabbi Chanina by the item being nullified. The three cases in our Mishna and a fourth source regarding matza are brought as difficulties to one or both of the opinions, but all are resolved.  

Rabbi Eliezer holds that when the Kohen accepts the blood from a sacrifice into a sanctified vessel, there must be enough collected in that single bowl to be used for placing the blood on the altar. If one collects some blood in one bowl and some in another, and later mixes them together before performing the placements, the blood is not sanctified. The Gemara suggests that Rabbi Eliezer contradicts himself, as regarding the Kohen Gadol's griddle-cake offering (minchat chavitin), he holds that it is sanctified even if placed in two separate bowls. To resolve this, the Gemara first suggests that perhaps Rabbi Eliezer does not derive one law from another—specifically, a mincha offering from blood. However, this is rejected because Rabbi Eliezer does derive laws for a mincha from the bowls of frankincense of the Showbread. In conclusion, the Gemara distinguishes between learning a mincha offering from another mincha-style offering and learning a mincha offering from an animal sacrifice (blood). Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with Rabbi Elazar regarding the minchat chavitin and rules that it is not sanctified if placed in the vessel in parts. Rabbi Acha brings the source in the Torah for his prohibition, and the Gemara brings two braitot that support his opinion and contradict Rabbi Elazar's position. Rabbi Yochanan's position regarding the Kohen Gadol's griddle-cake offering (minchat chavitin) is questioned in light of a position he holds against Rav in a case of a regular mincha offering that is sanctified even before the person completely filled the vessel with the fine flour. Why does he differentiate between the cases? The Gemara then asks about Rav, who disagrees with Rabbi Yochanan and requires the vessel to be filled: would he hold like Rabbi Yochanan or Rabbi Elazar regarding the minchat chavitin offering? They conclude that since he derives one item from another (on a different mincha-related issue), he would derive from the minchat chavitin to here, and therefore he must hold like Rabbi Yochanan by the minchat chavitin and requires it to be complete to sanctify. Since the Gemara mentions a different mincha-related issue where Rav derives one thing from another, they quote that source in its entirety and delve into his debate with Rabbi Chanina about mincha offerings where not all the parts were added yet to the bowl – are they sanctified without everything being there? At the beginning of the daf, Rabbi Elazar had made a comparison of taking the kometz from a mincha in the Sanctuary, which is permitted as it is derived from the bowls of frankincense from the Showbread. Rabbi Yirmia raises a difficulty against this from a braita, but the drasha in that braita is reinterpreted to fit with Rabbi Elazar's ruling.

Rabbi Eliezer holds that when the Kohen accepts the blood from a sacrifice into a sanctified vessel, there must be enough collected in that single bowl to be used for placing the blood on the altar. If one collects some blood in one bowl and some in another, and later mixes them together before performing the placements, the blood is not sanctified. The Gemara suggests that Rabbi Eliezer contradicts himself, as regarding the Kohen Gadol's griddle-cake offering (minchat chavitin), he holds that it is sanctified even if placed in two separate bowls. To resolve this, the Gemara first suggests that perhaps Rabbi Eliezer does not derive one law from another—specifically, a mincha offering from blood. However, this is rejected because Rabbi Eliezer does derive laws for a mincha from the bowls of frankincense of the Showbread. In conclusion, the Gemara distinguishes between learning a mincha offering from another mincha-style offering and learning a mincha offering from an animal sacrifice (blood). Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with Rabbi Elazar regarding the minchat chavitin and rules that it is not sanctified if placed in the vessel in parts. Rabbi Acha brings the source in the Torah for his prohibition, and the Gemara brings two braitot that support his opinion and contradict Rabbi Elazar's position. Rabbi Yochanan's position regarding the Kohen Gadol's griddle-cake offering (minchat chavitin) is questioned in light of a position he holds against Rav in a case of a regular mincha offering that is sanctified even before the person completely filled the vessel with the fine flour. Why does he differentiate between the cases? The Gemara then asks about Rav, who disagrees with Rabbi Yochanan and requires the vessel to be filled: would he hold like Rabbi Yochanan or Rabbi Elazar regarding the minchat chavitin offering? They conclude that since he derives one item from another (on a different mincha-related issue), he would derive from the minchat chavitin to here, and therefore he must hold like Rabbi Yochanan by the minchat chavitin and requires it to be complete to sanctify. Since the Gemara mentions a different mincha-related issue where Rav derives one thing from another, they quote that source in its entirety and delve into his debate with Rabbi Chanina about mincha offerings where not all the parts were added yet to the bowl – are they sanctified without everything being there? At the beginning of the daf, Rabbi Elazar had made a comparison of taking the kometz from a mincha in the Sanctuary, which is permitted as it is derived from the bowls of frankincense from the Showbread. Rabbi Yirmia raises a difficulty against this from a braita, but the drasha in that braita is reinterpreted to fit with Rabbi Elazar's ruling.

If a man is betrayed by someone he trusted, the pain can be overwhelming. Imagine he is told about a great business opportunity, and with complete trust he invests most of his life savings. Later, he discovers that it was all a lie. He was cheated. The money is gone, with no way to recover it. Beyond the financial loss, the deeper pain sets in. How could such injustice take place? It seems as if the thieves live happily ever after, while the innocent, unassuming person is left to suffer for nothing. But we know this is never the full story. Hashem is always in charge. No one can take a single dollar from a person unless it was meant for him to lose it, and no one can keep a dollar unless it was meant for him to have it. Hashem is the perfect Judge. No one ever gets away with anything in this world. It may look like evil prospers, but that appearance itself is part of the test. Every single action a person does is accounted for. Nothing slips through the cracks. When Titus HaRasha stabbed the parochet at the time of the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash and blood appeared to flow from it, he believed he had overpowered Hashem. It looked like evil had triumphed. But in the end, Hashem sent the smallest creature—a gnat—to eat away at Titus's brain until he died. Justice was exact, measured, and unavoidable. The Mitzrim seemed to have their way with the Jewish people in Mitzrayim for generations. It appeared as if cruelty and oppression ruled unchecked. Yet when the time for retribution came, every Mitzri received exactly what he deserved. Even those who drowned in the Yam Suf did not all die the same way. Some sank like lead, some like stone, and some like straw. Each death was calibrated precisely according to what that person deserved. Hashem's justice is exact down to the smallest detail. Every single thing that happens to a person, every minute of the day, is calculated with perfect precision based on his deeds. It is almost never obvious that something is happening because of what a person did. We label events as "natural," but those who understand know there is nothing natural about life. Everything is Hashem. The Yerushalmi relates that one Leil Shabbat, Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa was eating his Shabbat seudah when suddenly his table collapsed. He did not ask if a screw was loose or if the wood had weakened. Instead, he asked his Rebbetzin what might have caused this spiritually. She then remembered that she had borrowed spices from a neighbor and forgot to take off ma'aser. Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa immediately did what was necessary according to halacha to rectify it, and the table fixed itself on the spot. He knew that even if there was a physical reason, that was never the true cause. The cause was always Hashem. When Yosef's brothers were treated harshly by the viceroy of Mitzrayim, they did not say, "Look at this antisemitism." They said, "We are guilty because of what we did to Yosef." They understood that a viceroy has no power of his own. It was Hashem giving them kaparah. And notice how exact that kaparah was. Shimon, who wanted Yosef killed, was the only brother taken to prison. Levi, who was next in suggesting harm, was the one who found his money in his sack and had to endure additional agony. Yehudah, who suggested selling Yosef, suffered the torment of thinking Binyamin would not return and that he would be held responsible. Every detail was measured. Hashem is exacting. It may take days, months, or even years, but everyone always gets exactly what he deserves. Sometimes events happen to correct something from a previous lifetime. We don't know the calculations, but we know they are perfect. Hashem arranges everything so we can fulfill our mission in this world and live eternally with true bliss. The Shomer Emunim teaches that when something happens that appears to be a kaparah, a person should tell Hashem that he accepts it fully and knows he deserves it. That avodah elevates a person tremendously and can spare him from additional yesurim. We never need to worry about what others do or whether they are getting away with anything. That is Hashem's department—and He is the most righteous and perfect Judge.

התוכן במענה על שאלת רבים איך אלו שיכלו לשבת וללמוד תורה באופן של "יגדיל תורה ויאדיר" – נוסעים למקומות רחוקים לעסוק ב"ופרצת"?!: מסופר בכתובות (קג:) אודות ר' חייא שהי' בעצמו צד צביים ופושט עורם וכותב על הקלף את הה' חומשי תורה ומלמדם לה' ילדים, ואת הו' סדרי משנה ומלמדם לו' ילדים, וכ"א מהם הי' מלמד להאחרים את מה שהוא למד וכו'. ר' חייא בעצמו עשה כל זה ולא סמך על אחרים (אף שהשאלה "תורתו מתי נעשית" היתה ידועה גם לו...)! ובכך פעל "שלא תשתכח תורה מישראל" מלכתחילה, שלכן "כמה גדולים מעשה חייא" מר' חנינא שאמר שאם ח"ו נשתכחה תורה מישראל הי' מחזירה ע"י הפלפול וכו'. ובמכ"ש בזמננו, שאנו צריכים לפעול באחרים שבכלל ירצו לשמוע ענין בתורה..., שההנהגה האמורה היא "מצוה שהזמן גרמא" שאא"פ לעשותה ע"י אחרים שדוחה תלמוד תורה. ויש לעשותה מתוך חיות והתלהבות ורגש, ובכך יצליחו עוד יותר לקרב את הנוער (במיוחד) לתומ"צ וכו'.ב' חלקים משיחת מוצש"ק פ' בשלח, יו"ד שבט ה'תשל"ד ל"הנחה פרטית" או התרגום ללה"ק של השיחה: https://thedailysicha.com/?date=16-11-2025 Synopsis Some have asked, how is it that people capable of sitting and learning Torah are traveling to distant places to engage in spreading the wellsprings outward? The answer can be understood based on the Gemara (Kesubos 103b) describing how Rabbi Chiya would personally trap deer, skin them, and write the Five Books of the Torah on their parchment, and then teach each Chumash to one child in such a way that each child would then teach the other four children the Chumash he had learned. And he did the same with the Six Orders of the Mishna. Rabbi Chiya did all this himself, without relying on others (even though the question “When will his Torah learning be done” surely could be asked of him, too). They said, “How great are the deeds of Chiya” – greater than the approach of Rabbi Chanina, who said that if chas v'shalom the Torah were forgotten from the Jewish people, then he would restore it through pilpul etc. – because in this way Rabbi Chiya ensured that the Torah would not be forgotten from the Jewish people in the first place. This applies even more so these days, when we it is necessary to influence people to even want to hear words of Torah; today this is a “time-sensitive mitzvah” that “cannot be done by others” and therefore overrides the obligation of Torah study. It must be done with vitality, passion, and feeling, and in this way, one will be even more successful in drawing close (especially) the youth to Torah and mitzvos etc.2 excerpts from sichah of Motzaei Shabbos parashas Beshalach, 10 Shevat 5734 For a transcript in English of the Sicha: https://thedailysicha.com/?date=16-11-2025 לע"נ מרת שרה שפרה ע"ה - בת יבלחט"א ר' בנימין זאב הלוי שי' - צירקוס ליום היארצייט שלה כ"ה מרחשון. ת.נ.צ.ב.ה.

Explore Parshas Chayei Sarah and discover profound Torah wisdom about spiritual growth and character development through Abraham's life. This weekly Torah portion reveals surprising insights about faith and daily Torah practice that transform how we understand Jewish living.Why does Rabbeinu Yonah teach that Abraham's purchase of the Cave of Machpelah was his greatest test—even more challenging than the Akeidah? How can an ordinary real estate transaction reveal more about spiritual greatness than ultimate sacrifice? This Torah podcast examines questions that challenge conventional understanding of Jewish faith and personal growth.Drawing on Torah commentary from Rabbi Frand and Rav Dessler, alongside powerful stories from the Gemara about Rabbi Chanina ben Tardyon, this episode explores how ordinary moments reveal authentic character more accurately than dramatic spiritual peaks. Learn Torah insights about the difference between adrenaline-fueled tests and unwatched daily choices that define who we truly are.Perfect for Orthodox Jews, Torah learners, and anyone seeking practical Judaism and spiritual development. This Jewish podcast offers Torah teachings that speak to modern Orthodox families and Torah students looking to deepen their understanding of biblical insights and Jewish wisdom. Discover how daily Torah practice and small, unnoticed actions reveal genuine spiritual growth more powerfully than any public performance.Weekly Torah podcast series bringing ancient Jewish teachings into practical daily living.

In the discussion regarding whether an improper intention, such as intending to eat or burn the meat outside its designated time, or to place the blood at the wrong time, during the act of dipping the finger into the blood of a sin offering brought on the inner altar renders the offering pigul, the Gemara presents two contradictory braitot. This suggests a tannaitic dispute over whether dipping the finger is akin to conveying the blood to the altar in a standard sacrifice. Initially, the Gemara attempts to resolve the contradiction by aligning the braitot with the views of Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis. According to this approach, both agree that dipping is equivalent to conveying the blood, but Rabbi Shimon holds that conveying is not an essential avoda (sacrificial service). However, this resolution is rejected, since Rabbi Shimon maintains that pigul does not apply to sacrifices whose blood is placed on the inner altar. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that the two braitot refer to different types of sin offerings - one brought on the inner altar and one on the outer altar. Dipping is essential for the inner altar offering, as the verse states, “and he dips his finger,” and therefore an improper intention during this act would render the offering pigul. In contrast, the outer altar offering does not require dipping, as the verse merely states, “the kohen takes the blood,” without mentioning dipping. Reish Lakish explains that according to Rabbi Shimon, an improper intention regarding the type of sacrifice during the act of conveying the blood to the inner altar would disqualify the offering, since the animal cannot be slaughtered adjacent to the inner altar, making the act of conveying necessary. This seems to contradict Rabbi Shimon’s position that an “outside its time” intention does not render such a sacrifice pigul, which would imply that a mistaken intention regarding the type of sacrifice should also not disqualify it. Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Chanina resolves this by clarifying that Rabbi Shimon agrees that an “outside its time” intention disqualifies the sacrifice, even though it does not render it pigul. The Gemara further derives that an “outside its place” intention would also disqualify this type of offering. Rava explores Rabbi Shimon’s position, as interpreted by Reish Lakish, regarding conveying the blood to the inner altar as being essential. He considers various scenarios depending on whether Rabbi Shimon accepts other positions. For instance, if Rabbi Shimon agrees with his son’s view that kodshei kodashim may be slaughtered between the ulam and the altar, then improper intention would only disqualify the sacrifice from the entrance to the ulam, since slaughtering adjacent to the ulam is permissible. Rava also discusses the case of carrying frankincense from the shulchan (table) in the sanctuary to burn it on the outer altar. The point at which intention disqualifies the offering depends on differing views regarding the sanctity of the ulam and the azara. Abaye asks Rav Chisda whether the blood is disqualified if conveyed by a non-kohen. Rav Chisda responds that it is not, citing a verse as proof. However, Rav Sheshet presents a braita suggesting the opposite. Raba and Rav Yosef argue that the answer depends on the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis. Abaye challenges their position, and Ulla quotes Rabbi Elazar’s ruling that even Rabbi Shimon would disqualify conveying by a non-kohen. Another question arises: Is conveying without moving one’s feet considered valid conveying? After three unsuccessful attempts to prove this from various sources, Ulla rules in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that valid conveying requires movement of the feet.

In the discussion regarding whether an improper intention, such as intending to eat or burn the meat outside its designated time, or to place the blood at the wrong time, during the act of dipping the finger into the blood of a sin offering brought on the inner altar renders the offering pigul, the Gemara presents two contradictory braitot. This suggests a tannaitic dispute over whether dipping the finger is akin to conveying the blood to the altar in a standard sacrifice. Initially, the Gemara attempts to resolve the contradiction by aligning the braitot with the views of Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis. According to this approach, both agree that dipping is equivalent to conveying the blood, but Rabbi Shimon holds that conveying is not an essential avoda (sacrificial service). However, this resolution is rejected, since Rabbi Shimon maintains that pigul does not apply to sacrifices whose blood is placed on the inner altar. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that the two braitot refer to different types of sin offerings - one brought on the inner altar and one on the outer altar. Dipping is essential for the inner altar offering, as the verse states, “and he dips his finger,” and therefore an improper intention during this act would render the offering pigul. In contrast, the outer altar offering does not require dipping, as the verse merely states, “the kohen takes the blood,” without mentioning dipping. Reish Lakish explains that according to Rabbi Shimon, an improper intention regarding the type of sacrifice during the act of conveying the blood to the inner altar would disqualify the offering, since the animal cannot be slaughtered adjacent to the inner altar, making the act of conveying necessary. This seems to contradict Rabbi Shimon’s position that an “outside its time” intention does not render such a sacrifice pigul, which would imply that a mistaken intention regarding the type of sacrifice should also not disqualify it. Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Chanina resolves this by clarifying that Rabbi Shimon agrees that an “outside its time” intention disqualifies the sacrifice, even though it does not render it pigul. The Gemara further derives that an “outside its place” intention would also disqualify this type of offering. Rava explores Rabbi Shimon’s position, as interpreted by Reish Lakish, regarding conveying the blood to the inner altar as being essential. He considers various scenarios depending on whether Rabbi Shimon accepts other positions. For instance, if Rabbi Shimon agrees with his son’s view that kodshei kodashim may be slaughtered between the ulam and the altar, then improper intention would only disqualify the sacrifice from the entrance to the ulam, since slaughtering adjacent to the ulam is permissible. Rava also discusses the case of carrying frankincense from the shulchan (table) in the sanctuary to burn it on the outer altar. The point at which intention disqualifies the offering depends on differing views regarding the sanctity of the ulam and the azara. Abaye asks Rav Chisda whether the blood is disqualified if conveyed by a non-kohen. Rav Chisda responds that it is not, citing a verse as proof. However, Rav Sheshet presents a braita suggesting the opposite. Raba and Rav Yosef argue that the answer depends on the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis. Abaye challenges their position, and Ulla quotes Rabbi Elazar’s ruling that even Rabbi Shimon would disqualify conveying by a non-kohen. Another question arises: Is conveying without moving one’s feet considered valid conveying? After three unsuccessful attempts to prove this from various sources, Ulla rules in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that valid conveying requires movement of the feet.

In today's pages of Talmud, Avodah Zarah 18 and 19, the sages share yet another story of Jewish resistance in the face of Roman cruelty. The harrowing story of the Rabbi Chanina ben Teradyon is a tale of unbelievable tragedy, but embedded within is a deeply moving idea about the sacred relationship between Jewish people and the actual physical scroll of a Torah. What is it? Listen and find out. 

The beautiful yiddishkeit of Rabbi Chanina ben Tradyon

Today's daf is sponsored by Emma Rinberg in memory of her beloved father Dr. Eric N. Glick - Yitzchak Nisan ben Yaacov v'Etta Faiga. "Though you died 35 years ago, your wisdom and caring nature accompany me daily." Rabbi Chanina ben Tradion's death is described - for what was he punished? How and why were others in his family punished with him? Rabbi Yosi ben Kisma predicted his death and in the aftermath of Rabbi Yosi's death, Rabbi Chanina gets caught by the Romans and is killed in exactly the way Rabbi Yosi predicted. His daughter is punished by being sent to be a prostitute, and Bruria, her sister, convinces her husband, Rabbi Meir, to rescue her. This ultimately leads to his being wanted by the Romans and he flees to Babylonia. The Gemara quotes braitot that list different activities that are forbidden to be involved in on account of being connected with idol worship and others because of "moshav leitzim," which is defined as those who sit around idle and scorn others. The antidote to moshav leitzim is learning Torah, as is derived from verses in Tehillim 1:1-2.

Today's daf is sponsored by Emma Rinberg in memory of her beloved father Dr. Eric N. Glick - Yitzchak Nisan ben Yaacov v'Etta Faiga. "Though you died 35 years ago, your wisdom and caring nature accompany me daily." Rabbi Chanina ben Tradion's death is described - for what was he punished? How and why were others in his family punished with him? Rabbi Yosi ben Kisma predicted his death and in the aftermath of Rabbi Yosi's death, Rabbi Chanina gets caught by the Romans and is killed in exactly the way Rabbi Yosi predicted. His daughter is punished by being sent to be a prostitute, and Bruria, her sister, convinces her husband, Rabbi Meir, to rescue her. This ultimately leads to his being wanted by the Romans and he flees to Babylonia. The Gemara quotes braitot that list different activities that are forbidden to be involved in on account of being connected with idol worship and others because of "moshav leitzim," which is defined as those who sit around idle and scorn others. The antidote to moshav leitzim is learning Torah, as is derived from verses in Tehillim 1:1-2.

Daf 18 of masechta Avodah Zarah contains stories about Rabbi Chanina ben Teradyon and his son in law, Rabbi Meir. It tells of the tragic killing of Rabbi Chanina ben Teradyon, along with his with wife. And the forced prostitution of one of his daughts. Rabbi Meir miraculously releases her using a cryptic phrase for salvation: Eloha d'Meir aneini.Sefaria: https://www.sefaria.org/Avodah_Zarah.18a?lang=heEmail: sruli@babbleontalmud.com

The story of Rabbi Eliezer continues as he remembers a situation where he heard the claim of a heretic and agreed somewhat to his interpretation of the verse and assumes that is why he was punished. The Gemara discusses how much one should keep one's distance from heretics and from prostitutes/those who are forbidden to have sexual relations with. If one repents from being a heretic, one will die immediately - why? Does this apply only to heretics or also to those who engage in promiscuous sexual relations? Rabbi Chanina ben Tradion and Rabbi Elazer ben Prata are captured by the Romans - one is saved and one is killed? What is the explanation given for each one's fate?

The story of Rabbi Eliezer continues as he remembers a situation where he heard the claim of a heretic and agreed somewhat to his interpretation of the verse and assumes that is why he was punished. The Gemara discusses how much one should keep one's distance from heretics and from prostitutes/those who are forbidden to have sexual relations with. If one repents from being a heretic, one will die immediately - why? Does this apply only to heretics or also to those who engage in promiscuous sexual relations? Rabbi Chanina ben Tradion and Rabbi Elazer ben Prata are captured by the Romans - one is saved and one is killed? What is the explanation given for each one's fate?

What is the meaning of the phrase, "yesh koneh olamo b'shaa achat" regarding Rabbi Elazar ben Durdaya and the Roman executioner of Rabbi Chanina ben Tradyon?

Today's daf is sponsored with gratitude to HKB"H by Tina and Shalom Lamm on the occasion of the brit and naming of their new grandson, Shilo Lavi, born to their children, Bracha and Akiva Berger. When a city contains idol worshippers but the surrounding areas do not, business dealings with those outside the city are permitted even when the city celebrates its holidays. Reish Lakish, citing Rabbi Chanina, defines "outside the city" by referencing the bazaar of Gaza as an example. In an alternative version of this teaching, Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Chanina specifically about shopping in Gaza's bazaar, which was located just outside the city limits. Rabbi Chanina permitted this activity, comparing it to a situation where a Jew and a Gentile cook in separate pots on the same stove—a practice the rabbis allowed. Three sages offer different interpretations of this comparison. Rabbi Meir and the other rabbis disagree about whether one may walk through an idolatrous city during their holiday celebrations when traveling to reach another destination. The Gemara presents four cases involving someone who bends down to perform an action directly in front of an idol. Even without intending to bow, such behavior is prohibited unless one can act in a way that clearly does not appear to be worship. Why did the rabbis need to mention all four cases? One example involves drinking water from a fountain where water flows from a human statue, since this creates the appearance of kissing the idol. This case leads to another case: one should not drink water directly from a pipe for health reasons, as this might result in swallowing a leech. Swallowing a leech was considered life-threatening, and Rabbi Chanina even permitted boiling water on Shabbat for someone who had swallowed one. Rav Huna also recommended drinking vinegar while waiting for the water to boil. Drinking water at night was also considered dangerous due to the evil spirit called shavrirei, which was believed to cause blindness and could be life threatening. The Gemara offers several possible remedies for those who are thirsty and need to drink water at night. In an idolatrous city, one may purchase from stores that are not decorated for idolatry, but not from those that are adorned for such purposes. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about both the reason for this prohibition and its scope.

Today's daf is sponsored with gratitude to HKB"H by Tina and Shalom Lamm on the occasion of the brit and naming of their new grandson, Shilo Lavi, born to their children, Bracha and Akiva Berger. When a city contains idol worshippers but the surrounding areas do not, business dealings with those outside the city are permitted even when the city celebrates its holidays. Reish Lakish, citing Rabbi Chanina, defines "outside the city" by referencing the bazaar of Gaza as an example. In an alternative version of this teaching, Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Chanina specifically about shopping in Gaza's bazaar, which was located just outside the city limits. Rabbi Chanina permitted this activity, comparing it to a situation where a Jew and a Gentile cook in separate pots on the same stove—a practice the rabbis allowed. Three sages offer different interpretations of this comparison. Rabbi Meir and the other rabbis disagree about whether one may walk through an idolatrous city during their holiday celebrations when traveling to reach another destination. The Gemara presents four cases involving someone who bends down to perform an action directly in front of an idol. Even without intending to bow, such behavior is prohibited unless one can act in a way that clearly does not appear to be worship. Why did the rabbis need to mention all four cases? One example involves drinking water from a fountain where water flows from a human statue, since this creates the appearance of kissing the idol. This case leads to another case: one should not drink water directly from a pipe for health reasons, as this might result in swallowing a leech. Swallowing a leech was considered life-threatening, and Rabbi Chanina even permitted boiling water on Shabbat for someone who had swallowed one. Rav Huna also recommended drinking vinegar while waiting for the water to boil. Drinking water at night was also considered dangerous due to the evil spirit called shavrirei, which was believed to cause blindness and could be life threatening. The Gemara offers several possible remedies for those who are thirsty and need to drink water at night. In an idolatrous city, one may purchase from stores that are not decorated for idolatry, but not from those that are adorned for such purposes. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about both the reason for this prohibition and its scope.

Continued stories about Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa relating to his poverty and miracles

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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