Podcasts about rabbi shimon

Zohar for All. Introduction of The Book of Zohar. Rabbi Shimon's Exit from the Cave

Siyum Masechet Horayot and Seder Nezikin is sponsored by the Tannenbaum family in loving memory of their beloved mother/grandmother Ruth Zemsky z"l, Raizel bat Chaya Kayla, on her 9th yahrzeit on 23rd of Elul. "Marking the completion of Nezikin, a seder that is focused on bein adam l’chavero- both in the building and healing of society, aptly reflects the life she lead. She was a paragon of sensitivity and taking care of "the other", often those unseen, in community, work and home. Her example continues to inspire us all. Yehi zichra baruch." A braita outlines the protocols for showing respect to the Nasi, the Av Beit Din, and the Chacham—each accorded honor in a distinct manner. This differentiation was instituted by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (the Nasi) on a day when Rabbi Natan (Av Beit Din) and Rabbi Meir (the Chacham) were absent from the Beit Midrash. Feeling slighted, they conspired to remove Rabban Shimon from his position. However, their plan was overheard by Rabbi Yaakov ben Karshi and ultimately thwarted. Upon discovering their plot, Rabban Shimon expelled them from the Beit Midrash. In response, they began submitting challenging questions into the study hall. When the students inside couldn’t answer, they would send in the correct answers. Rabbi Yosi eventually intervened, arguing that it was absurd for Torah to remain outside while the students sat within. Rabban Shimon agreed to reinstate them—but imposed a penalty: the Torah they taught would no longer be attributed to them by name. Thus, Rabbi Meir’s teachings were transmitted as “acherim” (“others”), and Rabbi Natan’s as “yesh omrim” (“some say”). Later, they both dreamt that they should seek reconciliation with Rabban Shimon. Only Rabbi Natan acted on the dream. But Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was not exactly willing to reconcile. A generation later, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was teaching his son, Rabbi Shimon, a teaching of Rabbi Meir, referring to it as “acherim omrim.” When his son asked why he didn’t cite Rabbi Meir directly, Rabbi Yehuda explained that these sages had once tried to undermine their family’s honor. Rabbi Shimon replied that they were long deceased and had failed in their attempt. Rabbi Yehuda relented and agreed to cite Rabbi Meir—though still indirectly, saying “They say in the name of Rabbi Meir.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and other sages also debated a broader question: is it better to be a sinai - one with vast Torah knowledge, or an oker Harim - one with powerful analytical skills who can “uproot mountains”? Rav Yosef was a sinai, while Raba was an oker Harim. Although the scholars in Israel recommended Rav Yosef for leadership, he humbly deferred to Raba. Raba led the yeshiva for 22 years, and only after his passing did Rav Yosef assume the role. During Raba’s tenure, Rav Yosef refrained from receiving honor out of respect. In another case, Abaye, Rava, Rabbi Zeira, and Raba bar Matna were studying together and needed a leader. Abaye was chosen, as his teachings remained unrefuted, unlike the others. The Gemara concludes with a question: who was greater—Rabbi Zeira or Raba bar Rav Matna? Each had unique strengths, and the matter is left unresolved with the classic Talmudic closure: teiku.

Still and again, new mishnayot! 1 - An order of hierarchy when one has limited resources, where sometimes the man takes precedence and sometimes the woman does. Including a much too close for comfort recognition of this need, potentially, in the case of captives. Likewise, a man chooses to save himself, his teacher, his father - to save them in that order, though his mother would take precedence over all -- again, a bit disturbing, but in terms of irreplaceablity, perhaps reasonable. Plus, more stages, given various statuses. Also, there are 10 things that are harmful to one learning Torah, some of whcih sound distracting or destructive under other circumstances as well. Also, when the nasi (or king), the av beit din, or a Torah scholar enters the study hall, directives to the students when to stand and when it mattered less. Which leads to drama about who is worthy of being stood up for, especially when not everyone has the same degree of Torah scholarship as everyone else. Note the rudeness and kindness for Rabbi Shimon about Tractate Uktzin.

Siyum Masechet Horayot and Seder Nezikin is sponsored by the Tannenbaum family in loving memory of their beloved mother/grandmother Ruth Zemsky z"l, Raizel bat Chaya Kayla, on her 9th yahrzeit on 23rd of Elul. "Marking the completion of Nezikin, a seder that is focused on bein adam l’chavero- both in the building and healing of society, aptly reflects the life she lead. She was a paragon of sensitivity and taking care of "the other", often those unseen, in community, work and home. Her example continues to inspire us all. Yehi zichra baruch." A braita outlines the protocols for showing respect to the Nasi, the Av Beit Din, and the Chacham—each accorded honor in a distinct manner. This differentiation was instituted by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (the Nasi) on a day when Rabbi Natan (Av Beit Din) and Rabbi Meir (the Chacham) were absent from the Beit Midrash. Feeling slighted, they conspired to remove Rabban Shimon from his position. However, their plan was overheard by Rabbi Yaakov ben Karshi and ultimately thwarted. Upon discovering their plot, Rabban Shimon expelled them from the Beit Midrash. In response, they began submitting challenging questions into the study hall. When the students inside couldn’t answer, they would send in the correct answers. Rabbi Yosi eventually intervened, arguing that it was absurd for Torah to remain outside while the students sat within. Rabban Shimon agreed to reinstate them—but imposed a penalty: the Torah they taught would no longer be attributed to them by name. Thus, Rabbi Meir’s teachings were transmitted as “acherim” (“others”), and Rabbi Natan’s as “yesh omrim” (“some say”). Later, they both dreamt that they should seek reconciliation with Rabban Shimon. Only Rabbi Natan acted on the dream. But Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was not exactly willing to reconcile. A generation later, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was teaching his son, Rabbi Shimon, a teaching of Rabbi Meir, referring to it as “acherim omrim.” When his son asked why he didn’t cite Rabbi Meir directly, Rabbi Yehuda explained that these sages had once tried to undermine their family’s honor. Rabbi Shimon replied that they were long deceased and had failed in their attempt. Rabbi Yehuda relented and agreed to cite Rabbi Meir—though still indirectly, saying “They say in the name of Rabbi Meir.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and other sages also debated a broader question: is it better to be a sinai - one with vast Torah knowledge, or an oker Harim - one with powerful analytical skills who can “uproot mountains”? Rav Yosef was a sinai, while Raba was an oker Harim. Although the scholars in Israel recommended Rav Yosef for leadership, he humbly deferred to Raba. Raba led the yeshiva for 22 years, and only after his passing did Rav Yosef assume the role. During Raba’s tenure, Rav Yosef refrained from receiving honor out of respect. In another case, Abaye, Rava, Rabbi Zeira, and Raba bar Matna were studying together and needed a leader. Abaye was chosen, as his teachings remained unrefuted, unlike the others. The Gemara concludes with a question: who was greater—Rabbi Zeira or Raba bar Rav Matna? Each had unique strengths, and the matter is left unresolved with the classic Talmudic closure: teiku.

A braita explains that the words “מעם הארץ” — “from one of the land” — mentioned in the section about the individual’s sin offering serve to exclude the king and the kohen gadol. The braita then questions this drasha, noting that the king and kohen gadol are already explicitly excluded by the verses. It concludes that the exemption in the braita for the kohen gadol applies in a case where he committed a forbidden act unwittingly, but without relying on an erroneous ruling. The exemption for the king applies when he sinned before being appointed. However, this interpretation aligns only with Rabbi Shimon’s view, as the rabbis maintain that in such a case, the king must bring an individual sin offering. To reconcile this with the rabbis’ position, Rav Zevid in the name of Rava suggests a scenario in which the king ate half the requisite amount of forbidden fat (cheilev) before becoming king, and then ate the other half afterward. In this case, he would not be obligated to bring an individual sin offering. Rava asked Rav Nachman: if someone ate half the requisite amount before becoming king, then became king, and later ceased being king before eating the second half, would the two halves combine to obligate him to bring an individual sin offering? They attempt to resolve the question by comparing it to a parallel case involving a Jew who ceased practicing religion, a meshumad, but the comparison is ultimately rejected. Rabbi Zeira asked Rav Sheshet, according to Rabbi Shimon’s position: if someone ate a piece of fat whose status — permitted or forbidden — was unclear, and only discovered the issue after becoming king, would he bring a provisional guilt offering? The reasoning is that the type of sacrifice does not change with the person’s change in status from a regular individual to a king. The question remains unresolved. A braita presents two different drashot to derive that a meshumad does not bring an individual sin offering. The practical difference between the two derivations is explored. There is a debate regarding which transgressions qualify someone as a meshumad. A braita explains that when the Torah refers to a nasi, it means a king — as no one is above him except God. Rabbi Yehuda haNasi, known as Rebbi, asked Rabbi Chiya whether he would be required to bring the unique offering designated for a nasi. Rabbi Chiya responded that Rebbi had a counterpart in Babylonia, the Exilarch, and therefore did not meet the criteria of someone who has no one above him but God. A difficulty is raised, as both kings of the kingdoms of Judea and Israel would bring the offering, yet it is explained that Rebbi was subservient to the Exilarch. Rav Safra offers a different version of the discussion between Rebbi and Rabbi Chiya. The kohen gadol who brings a unique sacrifice is specifically one who was anointed with the shemen hamishcha, the special oil prepared by Moshe. The Mishna outlines the legal differences between a kohen gadol who was anointed and one who assumed the role by wearing the special garments. It also distinguishes between a kohen gadol currently serving and one who is no longer in the position. A braita records a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi regarding whether the shemen hamishcha was prepared in a miraculous manner. Rabbi Yehuda, who believes it was prepared miraculously, supports his view by citing several miracles associated with the oil, arguing that its miraculous preparation should not be surprising. If a king inherits the throne from his father, he is not anointed, but the kohen gadol is. Only kings from the Davidic dynasty were anointed. Challenges to this theory are raised: Shlomo was anointed despite his father being king, and Yehu, an Israelite king, was also anointed. These are resolved by explaining that Yehu was anointed with balsam oil, not the shemen hamishcha, and that Shlomo’s anointment was due to uncertainty over succession. Yehoachaz, whose father was also king, was anointed because he became king instead of his older brother Yehoyakim, who was two years his senior. Was he really two years his senior? The Gemara delves into the different verses to understand the age order among the brothers. 

A braita explains that the words “מעם הארץ” — “from one of the land” — mentioned in the section about the individual’s sin offering serve to exclude the king and the kohen gadol. The braita then questions this drasha, noting that the king and kohen gadol are already explicitly excluded by the verses. It concludes that the exemption in the braita for the kohen gadol applies in a case where he committed a forbidden act unwittingly, but without relying on an erroneous ruling. The exemption for the king applies when he sinned before being appointed. However, this interpretation aligns only with Rabbi Shimon’s view, as the rabbis maintain that in such a case, the king must bring an individual sin offering. To reconcile this with the rabbis’ position, Rav Zevid in the name of Rava suggests a scenario in which the king ate half the requisite amount of forbidden fat (cheilev) before becoming king, and then ate the other half afterward. In this case, he would not be obligated to bring an individual sin offering. Rava asked Rav Nachman: if someone ate half the requisite amount before becoming king, then became king, and later ceased being king before eating the second half, would the two halves combine to obligate him to bring an individual sin offering? They attempt to resolve the question by comparing it to a parallel case involving a Jew who ceased practicing religion, a meshumad, but the comparison is ultimately rejected. Rabbi Zeira asked Rav Sheshet, according to Rabbi Shimon’s position: if someone ate a piece of fat whose status — permitted or forbidden — was unclear, and only discovered the issue after becoming king, would he bring a provisional guilt offering? The reasoning is that the type of sacrifice does not change with the person’s change in status from a regular individual to a king. The question remains unresolved. A braita presents two different drashot to derive that a meshumad does not bring an individual sin offering. The practical difference between the two derivations is explored. There is a debate regarding which transgressions qualify someone as a meshumad. A braita explains that when the Torah refers to a nasi, it means a king — as no one is above him except God. Rabbi Yehuda haNasi, known as Rebbi, asked Rabbi Chiya whether he would be required to bring the unique offering designated for a nasi. Rabbi Chiya responded that Rebbi had a counterpart in Babylonia, the Exilarch, and therefore did not meet the criteria of someone who has no one above him but God. A difficulty is raised, as both kings of the kingdoms of Judea and Israel would bring the offering, yet it is explained that Rebbi was subservient to the Exilarch. Rav Safra offers a different version of the discussion between Rebbi and Rabbi Chiya. The kohen gadol who brings a unique sacrifice is specifically one who was anointed with the shemen hamishcha, the special oil prepared by Moshe. The Mishna outlines the legal differences between a kohen gadol who was anointed and one who assumed the role by wearing the special garments. It also distinguishes between a kohen gadol currently serving and one who is no longer in the position. A braita records a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi regarding whether the shemen hamishcha was prepared in a miraculous manner. Rabbi Yehuda, who believes it was prepared miraculously, supports his view by citing several miracles associated with the oil, arguing that its miraculous preparation should not be surprising. If a king inherits the throne from his father, he is not anointed, but the kohen gadol is. Only kings from the Davidic dynasty were anointed. Challenges to this theory are raised: Shlomo was anointed despite his father being king, and Yehu, an Israelite king, was also anointed. These are resolved by explaining that Yehu was anointed with balsam oil, not the shemen hamishcha, and that Shlomo’s anointment was due to uncertainty over succession. Yehoachaz, whose father was also king, was anointed because he became king instead of his older brother Yehoyakim, who was two years his senior. Was he really two years his senior? The Gemara delves into the different verses to understand the age order among the brothers. 

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

More on Rabbi Yossi HaGelili's opinion and the king's exemptions from having to bring atonement offerings. Note the privilege and, alternatively, the limitations of having wealth, as a king must. Also, a new mishnah! When various people violate mitzvot unwittingly that would get a "karet" sentence if done with intent, then they each bring specific animals as offerings. And here too, an unusual opinion, this time, Rabbi Shimon.

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

Today's daf is sponsored by Tina Lamm’s children in memory of their grandfather, Mike Senders z”l, from Cleveland, Ohio, and later Boca Raton, Florida.  "He dedicated much of his life to growing strong Jewish institutions, and his passion for Judaism, Torah, and Tefilla serves as a constant inspiration for us. May his neshama have an aliya and his memory be for a blessing." A braita is brought to raise a difficulty on Rabbi Meir’s position. The braita mentions two specific sin offerings whose meat is not eaten – the Levites' miluim offering and the offerings brought in the time of Ezra by those who returned to Zion. The latter offering consisted of twelve bulls and twelve goats. The Gemara assumes they were a communal sin offering for idol worship by the people during the time of Zedekiah. This number of sacrifices accords with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion that each tribe brings a bull and goat, and Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that both the tribes and the court bring (in a case where eleven tribes sinned), but it does not accord with Rabbi Meir’s opinion that only the court brings the sacrifice, as there should be only one bull and one goat. This difficulty is resolved by the suggestion that they sinned on twelve separate occasions.  Two other difficulties are raised on the braita. One, if the people of that time were already dead, how could the sin offering be brought, as an animal designated for a sin offering whose owners died is left to die, as the sacrifice can no longer be offered? Rav Papa suggests that the sin offering is left to die only for an individual offering, but not for one brought by the community. Three potential explanations are brought as a source for Rav Papa’s view, but all are rejected, and Rav Papa’s answer is rejected as well. The Gemara then answers that the people were still alive and proves it from a verse in Ezra 3:12. The second question is, didn’t they sin intentionally, in which case a sacrifice would not be able to be offered? They answer that it was a horaat sha’ah, unique circumstances, under which this was permitted. This answer can also resolve the previous difficulties. A braita teaches that if one of the community died, the communal sin offering would still be brought, but if one of the judges who issued the ruling died, the community is exempt from bringing the offering. Which tanna is the author of this braita? Rav Chisda attributes it to Rabbi Meir, while Rav Yosef questions why it cannot be attributed to Rabbi Shimon as well. Abaye disagrees with Rav Yosef’s suggestion, and there is a back-and-forth discussion between them. Ultimately, the Gemara sides with Abaye, based on a different source. In what cases does a kohen gadol bring a bull sin offering?

Today's daf is sponsored by Tina Lamm’s children in memory of their grandfather, Mike Senders z”l, from Cleveland, Ohio, and later Boca Raton, Florida.  "He dedicated much of his life to growing strong Jewish institutions, and his passion for Judaism, Torah, and Tefilla serves as a constant inspiration for us. May his neshama have an aliya and his memory be for a blessing." A braita is brought to raise a difficulty on Rabbi Meir’s position. The braita mentions two specific sin offerings whose meat is not eaten – the Levites' miluim offering and the offerings brought in the time of Ezra by those who returned to Zion. The latter offering consisted of twelve bulls and twelve goats. The Gemara assumes they were a communal sin offering for idol worship by the people during the time of Zedekiah. This number of sacrifices accords with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion that each tribe brings a bull and goat, and Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that both the tribes and the court bring (in a case where eleven tribes sinned), but it does not accord with Rabbi Meir’s opinion that only the court brings the sacrifice, as there should be only one bull and one goat. This difficulty is resolved by the suggestion that they sinned on twelve separate occasions.  Two other difficulties are raised on the braita. One, if the people of that time were already dead, how could the sin offering be brought, as an animal designated for a sin offering whose owners died is left to die, as the sacrifice can no longer be offered? Rav Papa suggests that the sin offering is left to die only for an individual offering, but not for one brought by the community. Three potential explanations are brought as a source for Rav Papa’s view, but all are rejected, and Rav Papa’s answer is rejected as well. The Gemara then answers that the people were still alive and proves it from a verse in Ezra 3:12. The second question is, didn’t they sin intentionally, in which case a sacrifice would not be able to be offered? They answer that it was a horaat sha’ah, unique circumstances, under which this was permitted. This answer can also resolve the previous difficulties. A braita teaches that if one of the community died, the communal sin offering would still be brought, but if one of the judges who issued the ruling died, the community is exempt from bringing the offering. Which tanna is the author of this braita? Rav Chisda attributes it to Rabbi Meir, while Rav Yosef questions why it cannot be attributed to Rabbi Shimon as well. Abaye disagrees with Rav Yosef’s suggestion, and there is a back-and-forth discussion between them. Ultimately, the Gemara sides with Abaye, based on a different source. In what cases does a kohen gadol bring a bull sin offering?

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

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

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel that the exemption discussed in the Mishna—for an individual who follows an erroneous ruling of the court—is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion. However, the other rabbis disagree and require the individual to bring a sin offering. In contrast, Rav Nachman, also quoting Shmuel, asserts that the Mishna reflects Rabbi Meir’s view, with the rabbis again dissenting. This dispute between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis appears in a braita, though it is unclear whether the braita is actually addressing this specific issue. Rav Papa offers an alternative interpretation of the braita, followed by three additional suggestions. Rav Asi maintains that the majority required for a communal sin offering refers specifically to the majority of Jews living in Israel, as supported by a verse in Melachim I (8:65). A question arises: if the people sinned while constituting a majority, but by the time the offering is to be brought, they are no longer the majority (e.g., due to death), are they still obligated to bring the offering? The Gemara links this to a debate between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis regarding a king who sinned before ascending the throne and only later realized his error once he had become king. The rabbis hold that he must bring an individual sin offering, since obligation is determined at the time of the sin. Rabbi Shimon, however, argues that both the sin and its realization must occur while the individual is in the same status—thus exempting the king entirely. The Gemara then explores whether this principle can be applied to a case where the people sinned as a minority and later became a majority. It concludes that the comparison is invalid, since Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning hinges on the sin and realization occurring during the same period of obligation, which does not apply in this scenario. A series of unresolved questions is posed regarding whether two distinct teaching errors could combine to obligate the community in a communal sin offering. None of these questions receives definitive answers. Rabbi Yonatan holds that a communal offering is only warranted if the court’s ruling was unanimous. However, after three challenges are raised against his position, the final one leads to its rejection. Ultimately, all judges—and even students present during deliberation—share responsibility for the verdict. As a result, rabbis would often invite others to participate in the judgment process, thereby distributing the responsibility more broadly. If the Beit Din realized they made an erroneous ruling, but an individual is unaware and transgresses based on their original ruling, do they need to bring an individual sacrifice? Rabbi Shimon does not obligate in a sacrifice, but Rabbi Elazar requires an asham talui, a provisional guilt offering. However, their debate only applies in cases where the person was in the city. If they were out of town, all agree that there is an exemption, as they had no way to know about the corrected ruling. A communal sin offering is relevant for erroneous rulings regarding details of a Torah law, but not if they rule to uproot a Torah law completely. Rav explains Rabbi Shimon’s position and the Gemara raises a difficulty to Rav from a braita, but resolves it.      

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel that the exemption discussed in the Mishna—for an individual who follows an erroneous ruling of the court—is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion. However, the other rabbis disagree and require the individual to bring a sin offering. In contrast, Rav Nachman, also quoting Shmuel, asserts that the Mishna reflects Rabbi Meir’s view, with the rabbis again dissenting. This dispute between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis appears in a braita, though it is unclear whether the braita is actually addressing this specific issue. Rav Papa offers an alternative interpretation of the braita, followed by three additional suggestions. Rav Asi maintains that the majority required for a communal sin offering refers specifically to the majority of Jews living in Israel, as supported by a verse in Melachim I (8:65). A question arises: if the people sinned while constituting a majority, but by the time the offering is to be brought, they are no longer the majority (e.g., due to death), are they still obligated to bring the offering? The Gemara links this to a debate between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis regarding a king who sinned before ascending the throne and only later realized his error once he had become king. The rabbis hold that he must bring an individual sin offering, since obligation is determined at the time of the sin. Rabbi Shimon, however, argues that both the sin and its realization must occur while the individual is in the same status—thus exempting the king entirely. The Gemara then explores whether this principle can be applied to a case where the people sinned as a minority and later became a majority. It concludes that the comparison is invalid, since Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning hinges on the sin and realization occurring during the same period of obligation, which does not apply in this scenario. A series of unresolved questions is posed regarding whether two distinct teaching errors could combine to obligate the community in a communal sin offering. None of these questions receives definitive answers. Rabbi Yonatan holds that a communal offering is only warranted if the court’s ruling was unanimous. However, after three challenges are raised against his position, the final one leads to its rejection. Ultimately, all judges—and even students present during deliberation—share responsibility for the verdict. As a result, rabbis would often invite others to participate in the judgment process, thereby distributing the responsibility more broadly. If the Beit Din realized they made an erroneous ruling, but an individual is unaware and transgresses based on their original ruling, do they need to bring an individual sacrifice? Rabbi Shimon does not obligate in a sacrifice, but Rabbi Elazar requires an asham talui, a provisional guilt offering. However, their debate only applies in cases where the person was in the city. If they were out of town, all agree that there is an exemption, as they had no way to know about the corrected ruling. A communal sin offering is relevant for erroneous rulings regarding details of a Torah law, but not if they rule to uproot a Torah law completely. Rav explains Rabbi Shimon’s position and the Gemara raises a difficulty to Rav from a braita, but resolves it.      

This week's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik and Professor Adi Wyner in honor of the birth of their first Israeli grandson, David Rafael, son of Rivkah & Charlie Gottlieb. Davidi was born at Sheba Medical Center on 26 Tammuz/ July 22. He is named after his great-grandfathers, David Malik z"l and Dr. Donald Stoltz z"l. As we begin the month of Elul with the recitation of Tehillim 27 (“L’David HaShem Ori v’Yishi”), we continue to pray for Davidi’s refuah shleima as he meets the challenges of a cleft palate, including surgery sometime before his first birthday. דוד רפאל בן רבקה אריאנא ואליעזר בנימין Today's daf is sponsored by Terri Krivosha in memory of her mother, חני מנדל בת שימה פיגה וירחמיאל הכהן, on her second yahrzeit. She was an eshet chayil whom we miss and think of every day. Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Meir dispute whether a mixture is prohibited when the forbidden component imparts a bad taste to the permitted food. Ulla and Rabbi Yochanan differ on the scope of the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Meir: Ulla holds that they disagree when the forbidden item initially gives a good taste and only later turns bad, while Rabbi Yochanan holds that they disagree in a case where the bad taste is immediate. A challenge to Ulla’s view is raised and resolved. The Gemara then asks whether Rabbi Yochanan holds that they disagree in both scenarios, but the question remains unresolved. Rav Amram raises a difficulty with Rabbi Yochanan’s view, noting that this debate is absent from the Mishna. After further searching, he identifies what seems to be the same dispute in Mishna Orlah 2:9. Rabbi Zeira, however, rejects the connection, explaining that the prohibition there rests on a different principle. A braita is then brought that directly supports Rabbi Yochanan: it describes a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis regarding two leavening agents — one of truma, one of chullin — each potent enough to leaven dough on its own. Since adding both would cause over-leavening and produce a bad taste, this proves that there is indeed a debate in cases where a prohibited item imparts a bad taste. The braita lists another disputed scenario — when both leavening agents are added simultaneously. Abaye explains the need for this case: it was brought to clarify Rabbi Shimon’s position that even when the prohibited agent initially aids leavening, if it acts in tandem with the permitted agent, it is not considered to have been beneficial to the dough initially, and therefore, the dough is permitted. A case is brought where a mouse fell into a barrel of beer, and Rav prohibited the consumption of the beer. Some assumed Rav ruled like Rabbi Meir, prohibiting mixtures even when the forbidden element imparts bad taste. Rav Sheshet instead interprets Rav’s decision as a special stringency regarding sheratzim (creeping creatures), and two objections to this reading are resolved. Rava rejects Rav Sheshet’s explanation and holds that if a prohibited item imparts bad taste, the mixture is permitted, and suggests either that the halakha is not in accordance with Rav, or that Rav held the mouse imparted a good taste to the beer.

This week's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik and Professor Adi Wyner in honor of the birth of their first Israeli grandson, David Rafael, son of Rivkah & Charlie Gottlieb. Davidi was born at Sheba Medical Center on 26 Tammuz/ July 22. He is named after his great-grandfathers, David Malik z"l and Dr. Donald Stoltz z"l. As we begin the month of Elul with the recitation of Tehillim 27 (“L’David HaShem Ori v’Yishi”), we continue to pray for Davidi’s refuah shleima as he meets the challenges of a cleft palate, including surgery sometime before his first birthday. דוד רפאל בן רבקה אריאנא ואליעזר בנימין Today's daf is sponsored by Terri Krivosha in memory of her mother, חני מנדל בת שימה פיגה וירחמיאל הכהן, on her second yahrzeit. She was an eshet chayil whom we miss and think of every day. Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Meir dispute whether a mixture is prohibited when the forbidden component imparts a bad taste to the permitted food. Ulla and Rabbi Yochanan differ on the scope of the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Meir: Ulla holds that they disagree when the forbidden item initially gives a good taste and only later turns bad, while Rabbi Yochanan holds that they disagree in a case where the bad taste is immediate. A challenge to Ulla’s view is raised and resolved. The Gemara then asks whether Rabbi Yochanan holds that they disagree in both scenarios, but the question remains unresolved. Rav Amram raises a difficulty with Rabbi Yochanan’s view, noting that this debate is absent from the Mishna. After further searching, he identifies what seems to be the same dispute in Mishna Orlah 2:9. Rabbi Zeira, however, rejects the connection, explaining that the prohibition there rests on a different principle. A braita is then brought that directly supports Rabbi Yochanan: it describes a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis regarding two leavening agents — one of truma, one of chullin — each potent enough to leaven dough on its own. Since adding both would cause over-leavening and produce a bad taste, this proves that there is indeed a debate in cases where a prohibited item imparts a bad taste. The braita lists another disputed scenario — when both leavening agents are added simultaneously. Abaye explains the need for this case: it was brought to clarify Rabbi Shimon’s position that even when the prohibited agent initially aids leavening, if it acts in tandem with the permitted agent, it is not considered to have been beneficial to the dough initially, and therefore, the dough is permitted. A case is brought where a mouse fell into a barrel of beer, and Rav prohibited the consumption of the beer. Some assumed Rav ruled like Rabbi Meir, prohibiting mixtures even when the forbidden element imparts bad taste. Rav Sheshet instead interprets Rav’s decision as a special stringency regarding sheratzim (creeping creatures), and two objections to this reading are resolved. Rava rejects Rav Sheshet’s explanation and holds that if a prohibited item imparts bad taste, the mixture is permitted, and suggests either that the halakha is not in accordance with Rav, or that Rav held the mouse imparted a good taste to the beer.

Avodah Zara 68 : Marc Chipkin : 2025-08-25 Leaven of terumah and non-sanctified leaven which fell into a dough. Rabbi Shimon holds different prohibitions do not combine to forbid a mixture. A mouse which fell into beer.

Rabbi Shimon Kronenberg is the driving force behind the development and mission of Mesivta Yesodei Yisrael of Beit Shemesh, an innovative yeshiva high school dedicated to educating first generation immigrants to Israel. But starting a new school is just one of Rabbi Kronenberg's accomplishments. He believes the greatest way to support the state of Israel […]

In this episode of the Thinking Talmudist Podcast, Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe delves into the Talmudic discussion on Berachot 5A, focusing on Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai's teaching about three divine gifts given to the Jewish people through suffering: the Torah, the Land of Israel, and the World to Come. Rabbi Wolbe explains that these gifts—essential to Jewish spiritual identity—are acquired only through challenges and afflictions. He illustrates this with the historical struggles for the Land of Israel, such as the War of Independence, the Six-Day War, and other conflicts, emphasizing its unique spiritual significance as a land that "expands like a deer's hide" to accommodate its people, yet demands perseverance due to its contested nature. He also discusses the Torah's acquisition through distractions and personal sacrifices, sharing a story about Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, who prioritized Torah study over social events to invest in his spiritual growth. Finally, the World to Come is presented as an eternal reward earned through overcoming this world's challenges, each acting as a "badge of honor." Rabbi Wolbe concludes by previewing the next discussion on "afflictions of love" and invites listeners to engage further. The episode underscores the idea that spiritual rewards require effort and resilience, drawing from both Talmudic sources and contemporary examples.This Podcast Series is Generously Underwritten by David & Susan MarbinRecorded at TORCH Meyerland in the Levin Family Studios to a live audience on June 20, 2025, in Houston, Texas.Released as Podcast on June 27, 2025_____________The Thinking Talmudist Podcast shares select teachings of Talmud in a fresh, insightful and meaningful way. Many claim that they cannot learn Talmud because it is in ancient Aramaic or the concepts are too difficult. Well, no more excuses. In this podcast you will experience the refreshing and eye-opening teachings while gaining an amazing appreciation for the divine wisdom of the Torah and the depths of the Talmud._____________Listen, Subscribe & Share: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/thinking-talmudist-podcast-rabbi-aryeh-wolbe/id1648951154Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0cZ7q9bGYSBYSPQfJvwgzmShare your questions at aw@torchweb.org or visit torchweb.org for more Torah content.  _____________About the Host:Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe, Director of TORCH in Houston, brings decades of Torah scholarship to guide listeners in applying Jewish wisdom to daily life.  To directly send your questions, comments, and feedback, please email: awolbe@torchweb.org_____________Keywords:#Talmud, #Torah, #Resilience, #SpiritualGrowth, #Israel, #Challenges, #Overcoming_____________Support Our Mission:Help us share Jewish wisdom globally by sponsoring an episode at torchweb.org. Your support makes a difference!_____________Listen MoreOther podcasts by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe: NEW!! Prayer Podcast: https://prayerpodcast.transistor.fm/episodesJewish Inspiration Podcast: https://inspiration.transistor.fm/episodesParsha Review Podcast: https://parsha.transistor.fm/episodesLiving Jewishly Podcast: https://jewishly.transistor.fm/episodesThinking Talmudist Podcast: https://talmud.transistor.fm/episodesUnboxing Judaism Podcast: https://unboxing.transistor.fm/episodesRabbi Aryeh Wolbe Podcast Collection: https://collection.transistor.fm/episodesFor a full listing of podcasts available by TORCH at http://podcast.torchweb.org ★ Support this podcast ★

In this episode of the Thinking Talmudist Podcast, Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe delves into the Talmudic discussion on Berachot 5A, focusing on Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai's teaching about three divine gifts given to the Jewish people through suffering: the Torah, the Land of Israel, and the World to Come. Rabbi Wolbe explains that these gifts—essential to Jewish spiritual identity—are acquired only through challenges and afflictions. He illustrates this with the historical struggles for the Land of Israel, such as the War of Independence, the Six-Day War, and other conflicts, emphasizing its unique spiritual significance as a land that "expands like a deer's hide" to accommodate its people, yet demands perseverance due to its contested nature. He also discusses the Torah's acquisition through distractions and personal sacrifices, sharing a story about Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, who prioritized Torah study over social events to invest in his spiritual growth. Finally, the World to Come is presented as an eternal reward earned through overcoming this world's challenges, each acting as a "badge of honor." Rabbi Wolbe concludes by previewing the next discussion on "afflictions of love" and invites listeners to engage further. The episode underscores the idea that spiritual rewards require effort and resilience, drawing from both Talmudic sources and contemporary examples.This Podcast Series is Generously Underwritten by David & Susan MarbinRecorded at TORCH Meyerland in the Levin Family Studios to a live audience on June 20, 2025, in Houston, Texas.Released as Podcast on June 27, 2025_____________The Thinking Talmudist Podcast shares select teachings of Talmud in a fresh, insightful and meaningful way. Many claim that they cannot learn Talmud because it is in ancient Aramaic or the concepts are too difficult. Well, no more excuses. In this podcast you will experience the refreshing and eye-opening teachings while gaining an amazing appreciation for the divine wisdom of the Torah and the depths of the Talmud._____________Listen, Subscribe & Share: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/thinking-talmudist-podcast-rabbi-aryeh-wolbe/id1648951154Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0cZ7q9bGYSBYSPQfJvwgzmShare your questions at aw@torchweb.org or visit torchweb.org for more Torah content.  _____________About the Host:Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe, Director of TORCH in Houston, brings decades of Torah scholarship to guide listeners in applying Jewish wisdom to daily life.  To directly send your questions, comments, and feedback, please email: awolbe@torchweb.org_____________Keywords:#Talmud, #Torah, #Resilience, #SpiritualGrowth, #Israel, #Challenges, #Overcoming_____________Support Our Mission:Help us share Jewish wisdom globally by sponsoring an episode at torchweb.org. Your support makes a difference!_____________Listen MoreOther podcasts by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe: NEW!! Prayer Podcast: https://prayerpodcast.transistor.fm/episodesJewish Inspiration Podcast: https://inspiration.transistor.fm/episodesParsha Review Podcast: https://parsha.transistor.fm/episodesLiving Jewishly Podcast: https://jewishly.transistor.fm/episodesThinking Talmudist Podcast: https://talmud.transistor.fm/episodesUnboxing Judaism Podcast: https://unboxing.transistor.fm/episodesRabbi Aryeh Wolbe Podcast Collection: https://collection.transistor.fm/episodesFor a full listing of podcasts available by TORCH at http://podcast.torchweb.org ★ Support this podcast ★

Tefillin is one of the 613 Misvot of the Torah and among the most iconic symbols of Judaism. It is referenced four separate times in the Torah and is described not with the term "Tefillin," but with the word "Totafot." Each of the four passages is written on the parchments inside the Tefillin, establishing both the arm (Shel Yad) and head (Shel Rosh) Tefillin as distinct Misvot. According to the Rambam, Tefillin Shel Yad and Tefillin Shel Rosh are counted as two separate commandments—Misvot 12 and 13 in his enumeration. This implies that if one cannot wear one of them (e.g., due to a physical limitation), he should still fulfill the other, as each stands independently. However, the Ramban disagrees and views them as parts of a single Misva. The Torah repeats the Misva of Tefillin multiple times, yet the Rambam teaches that repetition does not necessarily indicate separate commandments. Rather, the repetition underscores the importance of the Misva. In fact, one who neglects to wear Tefillin transgresses eight positive commandments —four from Shel Yad and four from Shel Rosh. What Does " Totafot " Mean? The term " Totafot " has numerous interpretations: The Gemara Menahot (34b) explains that "Tot" means "two" in the Katpi language, and " Fot " means "two" in African dialect— totalling four, referencing the four compartments of Tefillin Shel Rosh. Menahem ben Saruq interprets " Totafot " from the root " Hatof " (to speak), reflecting that Tefillin inspires us to speak of Hashem's teachings. Ramban says Totafot is an ornament, a kind of crown or glorious item worn on the head, based on Midrashim and biblical parallels. Hezkuni interprets it as something gazed upon, meant to visually remind the wearer of Hashem's miracles. Kabbalistic sources say Tefillin is a form of "Ot" (sign), symbolizing the covenant between the Jewish people and Hashem. The word "Tefillin" itself derives from "Peli"—to distinguish or to separate—or from " Tefila " (prayer), since Tefillin is primarily worn during prayer. Some suggest it comes from the root "Patil" (binding), as in the Torah's description of Naftali. Philosophical Purpose of Tefillin The Sefer HaHinuch (Misva 421) writes that humans are physical beings drawn to material pleasures. The soul is the counterforce, urging one to rise spiritually. Tefillin serves as a daily spiritual armor , empowering the soul to prevail in its ongoing struggle with the body. The Tefillin Shel Yad is worn near the heart, the seat of emotion and desire, while the Tefillin Shel Rosh rests above the brain, the seat of thought—reinforcing control over both. Tefillin is part of the "triple protection system" described in the Gemara—Tefillin, Sisit , and Mezuzah. A person surrounded by these reminders is far less likely to sin . The Rambam adds that donning Tefillin causes a person to behave with humility, awe, and discipline, shielding him from improper thoughts. Tefillin as a Sign Three Misvot are described in the Torah as an "Ot" (sign) : Tefillin, Shabbat, and Berit Milah. A Jew must always be accompanied by at least two signs testifying to his faith. During the week, Tefillin and Milah serve this role. On Shabbat and Yom Tob, when Tefillin is not worn, Shabbat and Milah function as the two signs. This explains the prohibition of wearing Tefillin on Shabbat—doing so would imply that Shabbat is not a sufficient "sign" on its own. Protection, Reward, and Spiritual Energy Wearing Tefillin not only fulfills a critical Misva but is associated with long life, Divine protection, spiritual clarity , and even atonement . Rabbi Shimon teaches that Tefillin atones for the sin of arrogance and, according to some Midrashim, even for more serious transgressions. The Zohar states that Tefillin draws Divine light around the wearer's head. The famed Baba Sali is said to have sensed when his Tefillin were invalid because he didn't feel this spiritual energy. In fact, studies have been cited showing subtle energy field changes when valid Tefillin are worn. The Gemara in Berachot teaches that those who wake early, clean their bodies, don Tefillin, and pray are considered as if they built an altar and brought a sacrifice. The Midrash Tanhuma says that one who desires to study Torah day and night but is preoccupied with work can still attain that merit through wearing Tefillin. The Spiritual Danger of Neglect The Gemara states that one who never wore Tefillin is categorized as a " Poshe'a B'gufo " —a sinner with his body—one of the most serious categories. Such a person does not merit resurrection and is punished severely in Gehinnam . Some authorities rule that even a person who only occasionally neglects Tefillin is included in this category, especially if done out of contempt or laziness. This explains why many Sephardi communities adopted the custom of donning Tefillin at Minha on Ereb Yom Kippur —to ensure that even the least observant Jews fulfill the Misva at least once annually. Tefillin and the Five Senses Tefillin affects not only the spiritual self but also the five senses : Eyes, ears, nose, and mouth are all situated in the head, thus corresponding to the four compartments of the Tefillin Shel Rosh. Touch corresponds to the Tefillin Shel Yad, placed on the arm and wrapped around the hand. This design serves as a daily reminder to guard our senses and align our behavior with holiness. Summary Tefillin is not just a ritual—it is a powerful spiritual and physical shield . The Torah refers to it repeatedly, highlighting its great value. Tefillin connects the mind and heart to Hashem, serves as a visible testimony to one's Jewish identity, brings protection and humility, and provides spiritual credit equivalent to the study of Torah. One who neglects it—especially willfully—risks significant spiritual consequences. Conversely, one who wears it properly fulfills multiple Misvot and draws down abundant blessing. As we begin our study of the practical Halachot of Tefillin, we now understand why this Misva is treated with such reverence and importance.

Facing adversity often feels like a daunting challenge, but what if these struggles are actually stepping stones to profound spiritual growth? On this episode of the Thinking Talmudist podcast, we examine the teachings of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai and Rabbi Akiva, who illuminate the spiritual gifts attainable through perseverance. Rabbi Akiva's inspiring journey, beginning his Torah study at age 40 and overcoming immense hurdles, reminds us that resilience can lead to understanding and influence that transcend time. By embracing these "afflictions of love," we prepare ourselves for greater achievements and deeper connections with our spiritual heritage.Words hold immense power, shaping reality and relationships in ways we often overlook. We explore how maintaining integrity in our speech, even in the face of social discomfort, is vital for personal and communal growth. Through stories of resilience, like the collective spirit post-September 11th, we highlight how shared struggles can unite and transform communities, urging us to cultivate unity and kindness. Like the process of creating olive oil, where pressure brings forth purity, adversity can reveal our best qualities and foster an indomitable spirit within individuals and communities alike.Parenting holds the delicate power to shape a child's future through affirmation and encouragement. Drawing on Talmudic wisdom and the example of the High Priest, Aharon HaKohen, we discuss the necessity of bending the truth at times for the sake of peace and harmony. Positive reinforcement from parents can set the stage for a child's confidence and success, and we stress how expressing belief in their potential can nurture their greatness. Whether it's encouraging a child or fostering harmony among people, these affirmations are the foundation of nurturing confident, capable individuals who carry forward the legacy of resilience and integrity._____________The Thinking Talmudist Podcast shares select teachings of Talmud in a fresh, insightful and meaningful way. Many claim that they cannot learn Talmud because it is in ancient Aramaic or the concepts are too difficult. Well, no more excuses. In this podcast you will experience the refreshing and eye-opening teachings while gaining an amazing appreciation for the divine wisdom of the Torah and the depths of the Talmud.This Podcast Series is Generously Underwritten by David & Susan MarbinRecorded at TORCH Meyerland in the Levin Family Studios to a live audience on May 16, 2025, in Houston, Texas.Released as Podcast on June 6, 2025_____________DONATE to TORCH: Please consider supporting the podcasts by making a donation to help fund our Jewish outreach and educational efforts at https://www.torchweb.org/support.php. Thank you!_____________SUBSCRIBE and LISTEN to other podcasts by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe: NEW!! Prayer Podcast: https://prayerpodcast.transistor.fm/episodesJewish Inspiration Podcast: https://inspiration.transistor.fm/episodesParsha Review Podcast: https://parsha.transistor.fm/episodesLiving Jewishly Podcast: https://jewishly.transistor.fm/episodesThinking Talmudist Podcast: https://talmud.transistor.fm/episodesUnboxing Judaism Podcast: https://unboxing.transistor.fm/episodesRabbi Aryeh Wolbe Podcast Collection: https://collection.transistor.fm/episodesFor a full listing of podcasts available by TORCH at https://www.TORCHpodcasts.com_____________EMAIL your questions, comments, and feedback: awolbe@torchweb.org_____________Please visit www.torchweb.org to see a full listing of our outreach and educational resources available in the Greater Houston area!_____________#Talmud, #Berachos, #Talmudic, #Affliction, #SpiritualGrowth, #LandofIsrael, #WorldtoCome, #Resilience, #Perseverance ★ Support this podcast ★

Facing adversity often feels like a daunting challenge, but what if these struggles are actually stepping stones to profound spiritual growth? On this episode of the Thinking Talmudist podcast, we examine the teachings of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai and Rabbi Akiva, who illuminate the spiritual gifts attainable through perseverance. Rabbi Akiva's inspiring journey, beginning his Torah study at age 40 and overcoming immense hurdles, reminds us that resilience can lead to understanding and influence that transcend time. By embracing these "afflictions of love," we prepare ourselves for greater achievements and deeper connections with our spiritual heritage.Words hold immense power, shaping reality and relationships in ways we often overlook. We explore how maintaining integrity in our speech, even in the face of social discomfort, is vital for personal and communal growth. Through stories of resilience, like the collective spirit post-September 11th, we highlight how shared struggles can unite and transform communities, urging us to cultivate unity and kindness. Like the process of creating olive oil, where pressure brings forth purity, adversity can reveal our best qualities and foster an indomitable spirit within individuals and communities alike.Parenting holds the delicate power to shape a child's future through affirmation and encouragement. Drawing on Talmudic wisdom and the example of the High Priest, Aharon HaKohen, we discuss the necessity of bending the truth at times for the sake of peace and harmony. Positive reinforcement from parents can set the stage for a child's confidence and success, and we stress how expressing belief in their potential can nurture their greatness. Whether it's encouraging a child or fostering harmony among people, these affirmations are the foundation of nurturing confident, capable individuals who carry forward the legacy of resilience and integrity._____________The Thinking Talmudist Podcast shares select teachings of Talmud in a fresh, insightful and meaningful way. Many claim that they cannot learn Talmud because it is in ancient Aramaic or the concepts are too difficult. Well, no more excuses. In this podcast you will experience the refreshing and eye-opening teachings while gaining an amazing appreciation for the divine wisdom of the Torah and the depths of the Talmud.This Podcast Series is Generously Underwritten by David & Susan MarbinRecorded at TORCH Meyerland in the Levin Family Studios to a live audience on May 16, 2025, in Houston, Texas.Released as Podcast on June 6, 2025_____________DONATE to TORCH: Please consider supporting the podcasts by making a donation to help fund our Jewish outreach and educational efforts at https://www.torchweb.org/support.php. Thank you!_____________SUBSCRIBE and LISTEN to other podcasts by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe: NEW!! Prayer Podcast: https://prayerpodcast.transistor.fm/episodesJewish Inspiration Podcast: https://inspiration.transistor.fm/episodesParsha Review Podcast: https://parsha.transistor.fm/episodesLiving Jewishly Podcast: https://jewishly.transistor.fm/episodesThinking Talmudist Podcast: https://talmud.transistor.fm/episodesUnboxing Judaism Podcast: https://unboxing.transistor.fm/episodesRabbi Aryeh Wolbe Podcast Collection: https://collection.transistor.fm/episodesFor a full listing of podcasts available by TORCH at https://www.TORCHpodcasts.com_____________EMAIL your questions, comments, and feedback: awolbe@torchweb.org_____________Please visit www.torchweb.org to see a full listing of our outreach and educational resources available in the Greater Houston area!_____________#Talmud, #Berachos, #Talmudic, #Affliction, #SpiritualGrowth, #LandofIsrael, #WorldtoCome, #Resilience, #Perseverance ★ Support this podcast ★

Different opinions about the oath of testimony on monetary matters and monetary matters only. Note the example of camels and their propensity to bump into each other and even kill other animals, apparently during the mating process. Plus, the question of the degree to which circumstantial evidence would be accepted. Also, the question of liability for a false oath - in monetary claims. And Rabbi Shimon was mocked in the land of Israel - for his view that a case of false oath regarding a deposit (pikadon) can inform the case of an intentional false oath.

The Mishna ruled that if there were two groups of witnesses and each group denied knowing testimony, both groups are liable. The Gemara raises a difficulty with this case, arguing that the first group should not be liable since another group of witnesses can still testify. Ravina resolves this difficulty by limiting the Mishna's ruling to a specific case: where the second group of witnesses are related to each other (as their wives are sisters) and both wives are about to die when the first group takes their oath denying knowledge of the testimony. The Mishna lists various cases where witnesses are asked to testify about multiple things. In some cases, they are only liable one sacrifice and in others multiple sacrifices. An oath of testimony only applies in monetary cases. A question is asked: Does this also include cases involving fines (kenas)? Before answering this question, the Gemara limits the question to the rabbis' position in their debate with Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Elazar rules that if someone admits owing a fine, they are exempt, but if witnesses come forward even after the confession, they are obligated to pay the fine. Therefore, an oath of testimony would clearly apply here, since the witnesses would definitively obligate the defendant. However, the rabbis hold that witnesses can only obligate the defendant if they testify before a confession. Therefore, the question arises whether an oath of testimony would apply here, since it's possible the witnesses are not causing a loss to the claimant—the defendant could simply confess and be exempt. This question is further limited by assuming the rabbis also hold by the position of the rabbis on a different issue: that davar hagorem l'mamon (something that can possibly lead to a monetary obligation) is not considered a monetary obligation. Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that such potential obligations are considered monetary obligations which would obligate the witnesses a sacrifice if they do not testify. After establishing these parameters for the question, the Gemara examines various cases from our Mishna and other sources to attempt an answer. However, neither source provides a conclusive resolution. From where do they derive that an oath of testimony is only for monetary cases? Four different rabbis each bring different proofs.

The Mishna ruled that if there were two groups of witnesses and each group denied knowing testimony, both groups are liable. The Gemara raises a difficulty with this case, arguing that the first group should not be liable since another group of witnesses can still testify. Ravina resolves this difficulty by limiting the Mishna's ruling to a specific case: where the second group of witnesses are related to each other (as their wives are sisters) and both wives are about to die when the first group takes their oath denying knowledge of the testimony. The Mishna lists various cases where witnesses are asked to testify about multiple things. In some cases, they are only liable one sacrifice and in others multiple sacrifices. An oath of testimony only applies in monetary cases. A question is asked: Does this also include cases involving fines (kenas)? Before answering this question, the Gemara limits the question to the rabbis' position in their debate with Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Elazar rules that if someone admits owing a fine, they are exempt, but if witnesses come forward even after the confession, they are obligated to pay the fine. Therefore, an oath of testimony would clearly apply here, since the witnesses would definitively obligate the defendant. However, the rabbis hold that witnesses can only obligate the defendant if they testify before a confession. Therefore, the question arises whether an oath of testimony would apply here, since it's possible the witnesses are not causing a loss to the claimant—the defendant could simply confess and be exempt. This question is further limited by assuming the rabbis also hold by the position of the rabbis on a different issue: that davar hagorem l'mamon (something that can possibly lead to a monetary obligation) is not considered a monetary obligation. Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that such potential obligations are considered monetary obligations which would obligate the witnesses a sacrifice if they do not testify. After establishing these parameters for the question, the Gemara examines various cases from our Mishna and other sources to attempt an answer. However, neither source provides a conclusive resolution. From where do they derive that an oath of testimony is only for monetary cases? Four different rabbis each bring different proofs.

Study Guide Shevuot 21 Today's daf is sponsored by Ruth Leah Kahan, Jessica Shklar, and Emily Michelson in commemoration of the seventh yahrzeit of their mother, Kadimah Freedman Michelson -- קדימה בת הרב אברהם זבי וחיה. We miss her every day. What is the type of oath that is included in the negative commandment - do not swear falsely in my (God's) name? There is a debate regarding Rabbi Yochanan's opinion on this matter  - is it referring to an oath on future actions or on past actions? Difficulties are raised on both approaches and are resolved. When Rabbi Akiva in the Mishna says that one is obligated for not keeping to one's oath by eating a minuscule amount, meaning there is no requisite amount, does he hold this across the board (as per Rabbi Shimon's opinion), or only for oaths? The Gemara proves from other sources that it is a unique ruling only for oaths.  

Study Guide Shevuot 21 Today's daf is sponsored by Ruth Leah Kahan, Jessica Shklar, and Emily Michelson in commemoration of the seventh yahrzeit of their mother, Kadimah Freedman Michelson -- קדימה בת הרב אברהם זבי וחיה. We miss her every day. What is the type of oath that is included in the negative commandment - do not swear falsely in my (God's) name? There is a debate regarding Rabbi Yochanan's opinion on this matter  - is it referring to an oath on future actions or on past actions? Difficulties are raised on both approaches and are resolved. When Rabbi Akiva in the Mishna says that one is obligated for not keeping to one's oath by eating a minuscule amount, meaning there is no requisite amount, does he hold this across the board (as per Rabbi Shimon's opinion), or only for oaths? The Gemara proves from other sources that it is a unique ruling only for oaths.  

This week, Rabbi Josh Feigelson reflects on how his bar mitzvah helped shape his lifelong relationship with tzedakah—Jewish giving. Inspired by tzedakah advocate Danny Siegel, Rabbi Feigelson recounts how choosing generosity over gifts shifted his perspective on possessions, wealth, and happiness. This fifth installment in the “Jewish Ethics” miniseries goes beyond the immediate, face-to-face acts of charity discussed in the previous episode, and explores the quieter, often harder version of tzedakah: giving when no one is watching, when no one is asking. Along the way, we learn from Rabbi Shimon ben Zoma's timeless wisdom: “Who is wealthy? One who is happy with what they have.” Soulful Jewish Living: Mindful Practices for Every Day is a production of Unpacked, a division of OpenDor Media, and the Institute for Jewish Spirituality. This episode was sponsored by Jonathan and Kori Kalafer and the Somerset Patriots: The Bridgewater, NJ-based AA Affiliate of the New York Yankees. Be in touch at a new email address: josh@unpacked.media. --------------- This podcast was brought to you by Unpacked, a division of OpenDor Media. For other podcasts from Unpacked, check out: ⁠Jewish History Nerds⁠ ⁠Stars of David with Elon Gold⁠ ⁠Unpacking Israeli History⁠ ⁠Wondering Jews

The Lag BaOmer Perspective: Fire From Within Lag BaOmer begins in darkness—the plague that claimed Rabbi Akiva's students and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai's years in hiding—but ends in brilliance. We light bonfires not merely for celebration, but to honor the inner blaze that emerges when faith refuses to dim. Rabbi Akiva's humility sparked a fire that could break stone, and Rabbi Shimon's unwavering commitment transformed exile into revelation. This episode explores how true light is forged in silence and struggle, and how each of us can carry that flame into the world. In honor of Eretz Yisroel. May G-d protect our brave soldiers and return all the hostages in Gaza immediately. Dedicated in loving memory of Edward Ben Efraim, Shlomo Ben Edward, and Yirachmiel Daniel Ben Gedalia. For the Refuah Shlema of Pennina Bas Shoshanna Miriam and all who need healing. Listen now at ParshaPerspective.com

Tonight is Lag BaOmer. There is a minhag to hold a festive meal in honor of the holy Tanna, Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai. The Maharil writes in a teshuvah that a seudah made in honor of a talmid chacham has the status of a seudat mitzvah, because it is like eating in the radiance of the Shechinah. Therefore, a meal in honor of Rabbi Shimon carries has status of a seudat mitzvah(for certain halachot). It is also a minhag to light bonfires on Lag BaOmer, and the Bnei Yissaschar explains the reason based on the teachings of the Zohar. On the day Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai passed away—Lag BaOmer—he would not allow the sun to set before he finished revealing the deep secrets of the Torah to his students. Hashem had already decreed that Rashbi would pass away on that very day, but the Torah he wished to transmit was too vast to finish in time. Miraculously, he was able to stop the sun until he had completed his teachings. The special light that radiated from the Torah he was teaching outshone even the light of the sun. It was in the merit of this spiritual light—drawn from the hidden light, the Or HaGanuz—that the day was miraculously lengthened. This is the deeper reason why we light bonfires on this holy day. The Siddur of the Yaavetz notes that Lag BaOmer is considered a holiday instituted by the Chachamim. In the Sefirat HaOmer, Lag BaOmer corresponds to Hod shebeHod, which represents the strictest form of judgment. Yet, it is known that if a Sanhedrin unanimously rules someone guilty, he is actually exonerated. So too, on this day, harsh judgments are sweetened, and Hashem showers His chesed upon us. The Chatam Sofer writes in his derashot on the Omer that Lag BaOmer has the power of Yom Kippur within it. Throughout the generations, many people have experienced yeshuot on this day in the merit of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai. Sincere tefillah is always powerful—but on a holy day like this, it is even more so. A man named Yosef shared a story. One night, after finishing his learning in the beit midrash as usual, a man approached him and urged him to come to his car. The man explained that every Monday night, a local bakery gives him all of the day's leftovers, which he distributes to others. He had noticed Yosef's dedication to learning and wanted to offer some baked goods to him. Though the offer seemed unusual, Yosef went along with it. The bakery indeed had many delicious leftovers, and Yosef happily brought them home to his family. He hoped to surprise his children, but to his surprise, they asked him, "Did you bring home any baguettes?" Yosef, amazed, asked how they knew. They told him they had prayed to Hashem for it. Eagerly interrupting one another, the children shared the full story. Yosef's daughter, who was learning photography, had a project in which she wanted to photograph a baby holding a baguette. Normally, Yosef would never buy a baguette just for a photo. So instead, his daughter gathered all her siblings and asked them to pray to Hashem to send them a baguette—without having to buy it. It was a genuine tefillah, full of emunah that Hashem listens to every prayer. A few hours later, their father walked through the door with exactly what they had asked for—and even more. This story is a reminder that tefillah is powerful, even the simplest prayers for the simplest things. Let us tap into the koach of tefillah on this great day of Lag BaOmer. With the help of Hashem, may we all see blessings and yeshuot.

Lag B'Omer isn't just a day for bonfires and bow-and-arrows. It's the Hilula—the joyous “wedding day”—of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, the mystic who gave us the Zohar and opened the gates of Jewish spiritual consciousness. But why a wedding on the day of someone's passing? This class explores the paradox at the heart of both life and love: how our greatest limitations can be our most profound doorways to infinity.We'll explore Talmudic, Kabbalistic, and Chassidic sources—from the soul-body dynamic, to the power of mitzvot, to why life is likened to a wedding. You'll discover how the soul's “marriage” to the body mirrors our own sacred relationships and how Lag B'Omer invites us to celebrate the holiness hidden in the now.3 Takeaways:Life is a Wedding, Not a Waiting Room Rabbi Shimon taught us to stop postponing joy. Every mitzvah, every act of love, is a divine moment worth celebrating now—not later.Paradox is the Pathway to Eternity Through the union of opposites—soul and body, heaven and earth, law and love—we don't diminish ourselves. We become eternal.Kabbalah Illuminates the Ordinary Lag B'Omer marks the unveiling of the soul of Torah, where every halachah becomes a mystical spark and every moment a gateway to the Infinite#lagbaomer #zohar #Kabbalah #mysticism #Jewish #chassidic #chassidus #chabad #Hillula #soul #meaningoflife #meaning #JewishSpirituality #soul Support the showGot your own question for Rabbi Bernath? He can be reached at rabbi@jewishndg.com or http://www.theloverabbi.comSingle? You can make a profile on www.JMontreal.com and Rabbi Bernath will help you find that special someone.Donate and support Rabbi Bernath's work http://www.jewishndg.com/donateFollow Rabbi Bernath's YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/ybernathAccess Rabbi Bernath's Articles on Relationships https://medium.com/@loverabbi

The end of chapter 1! Does the goat that is sent to "Azazel" atone for kohanim? Unclear, but they have other means of atonement. Plus, the dispute between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon on atonement. And, with the new chapter, a long mishnah, beginning with the case of a person who touches an impure thing and then enters the holy (or handles the holy foods) - but inadvertently (namely, the transgression is "hidden from him" - the consequences depend on the particulars. And the mishnah continues with many cases, with details about purity -- including extending the size of Jerusalem or the courtyard of the Temple. Plus, the case of where the action is known, but not the impurity (specifically in the case of a sheretz -- creepy-crawly).

Send us a textThe Manna bread began falling on the 18th Of Iyar, the anniversary of the passing of Rabbi Shimon. What is the connection between his teachings and the Manna bread?Support the show

Send us a textLag B'Omer isn't just a day for bonfires and bow-and-arrows. It's the Hilula—the joyous “wedding day”—of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, the mystic who gave us the Zohar and opened the gates of Jewish spiritual consciousness. But why a wedding on the day of someone's passing? This class explores the paradox at the heart of both life and love: how our greatest limitations can be our most profound doorways to infinity.We'll explore Talmudic, Kabbalistic, and Chassidic sources—from the soul-body dynamic, to the power of mitzvot, to why life is likened to a wedding. You'll discover how the soul's “marriage” to the body mirrors our own sacred relationships and how Lag B'Omer invites us to celebrate the holiness hidden in the now.3 Takeaways:Life is a Wedding, Not a Waiting RoomRabbi Shimon taught us to stop postponing joy. Every mitzvah, every act of love, is a divine moment worth celebrating now—not later.Paradox is the Pathway to EternityThrough the union of opposites—soul and body, heaven and earth, law and love—we don't diminish ourselves. We become eternal.Kabbalah Illuminates the OrdinaryLag B'Omer marks the unveiling of the soul of Torah, where every halachah becomes a mystical spark and every moment a gateway to the Infinite#lagbaomer #zohar #Kabbalah #mysticism #Jewish #chassidic #chassidus #chabad #Hillula #soul #meaningoflife #meaning #JewishSpirituality #soul Support the showGot your own question for Rabbi Bernath? He can be reached at rabbi@jewishndg.com or http://www.theloverabbi.comSingle? You can make a profile on www.JMontreal.com and Rabbi Bernath will help you find that special someone.Donate and support Rabbi Bernath's work http://www.jewishndg.com/donateFollow Rabbi Bernath's YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/ybernathAccess Rabbi Bernath's Articles on Relationships https://medium.com/@loverabbi

This week's learning is sponsored by Sarah Zahavi to the continued health and good outcome for Chesya Rut bat Chana.  The Mishna explains that Yom Kippur atones for positive commandments. If one has already repented, they receive atonement immediately. Therefore, it is assumed that the Mishna is referring to one who has not yet repented. This accords with the opinion of Rebbi who holds that Yom Kippur atones even for sins for which one has not yet repented. The rabbis disagree and hold that Yom Kippur only atones for sins if one has repented. A difficulty is raised as the next part of the Mishna accords with Rabbi Yehuda's position that the goat sent to Azazel atones for kohanim as well. This issue is resolved - both parts of the Mishna are attributed to Rebbi, and on the issue of the goat to Azazel, he adopts Rabbi Yehuda's position. Abaye asked Rav Yosef if Rabbi Yehuda holds by Rebbi's position regarding one who did not repent before Yom Kippur. Rav Yosef explains that he does not and brings a source from Safra to support his answer, as it is known that an unattributed Safra is assumed to be authored by Rabbi Yehuda. There is a contradiction between two different sources in the Safra - one says that Yom Kippur atones even without repentance and the other says it only atones with repentance. Abaye and Rava each resolve the contradiction differently. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree about which sacrifices on Yom Kippur atone for all the kohanim's sins - the goat that is sent to Azazel or the bull of the high priest. What is the basis in the verses in the Torah for each of the approaches? A braita is brought regarding which sacrifice atones for the sins of the kohanim. Rava and Abaye disagree about whether the braita's author is Rabbi Shimon or Rabbi Yehuda.

This week's learning is sponsored by Sarah Zahavi to the continued health and good outcome for Chesya Rut bat Chana.  The Mishna explains that Yom Kippur atones for positive commandments. If one has already repented, they receive atonement immediately. Therefore, it is assumed that the Mishna is referring to one who has not yet repented. This accords with the opinion of Rebbi who holds that Yom Kippur atones even for sins for which one has not yet repented. The rabbis disagree and hold that Yom Kippur only atones for sins if one has repented. A difficulty is raised as the next part of the Mishna accords with Rabbi Yehuda's position that the goat sent to Azazel atones for kohanim as well. This issue is resolved - both parts of the Mishna are attributed to Rebbi, and on the issue of the goat to Azazel, he adopts Rabbi Yehuda's position. Abaye asked Rav Yosef if Rabbi Yehuda holds by Rebbi's position regarding one who did not repent before Yom Kippur. Rav Yosef explains that he does not and brings a source from Safra to support his answer, as it is known that an unattributed Safra is assumed to be authored by Rabbi Yehuda. There is a contradiction between two different sources in the Safra - one says that Yom Kippur atones even without repentance and the other says it only atones with repentance. Abaye and Rava each resolve the contradiction differently. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree about which sacrifices on Yom Kippur atone for all the kohanim's sins - the goat that is sent to Azazel or the bull of the high priest. What is the basis in the verses in the Torah for each of the approaches? A braita is brought regarding which sacrifice atones for the sins of the kohanim. Rava and Abaye disagree about whether the braita's author is Rabbi Shimon or Rabbi Yehuda.

Today's daf is dedicated to the release of Idan Alexander after 584 days in captivity. Wishing him a refuah shleima and praying for the safe release of the rest of the hostages.  According to Rabbi Yochanan, Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis disagree about whether or not animals left over from the previous year that were designated for the Tamid sacrifice can be redeemed without a blemish. The Gemara tries to find a source for Rabbi Yochanan's understanding that the rabbis disagree with Rabbi Shimon, but they are not successful. According to Rabbi Shimon, they cannot - so what does one do with them? If they were designated for communal burnt offerings, they would sacrifice them as voluntary communal offerings on the altar meant to keep the altar busy at all times. If they were designated for communal sin offerings, they could not be used directly as voluntary burnt offerings so they would wait until they were blemished, redeem them, and buy animals with the money to be sacrificed as voluntary burnt offerings. There is a concern that if this were to be permitted, one may think that one can change the destination even at an earlier stage (before the atonement for that sacrifice is achieved.  The rabbis bring three tannaitic sources to support this. Another braita is brought to support the explanation that the extra animals designated for the Tamid sacrifice are used for voluntary burnt offerings. Can one purchase birds for the burnt offerings used to fill the altar? Shmuel also held like Rabbi Yochanan that according to Rabbi Shimon, the extra animals could be used as voluntary burnt offerings. What is the source for the fact that the goat offering brought inside on Yom Kippur atones also for intentional sins of impurity in the Temple?    

Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1869), in his work Mo'ed Le'chol Hai, writes that the name of the month Iyar is an acronym for the names "Abraham," "Yishak," "Yaakob" and "Rahel," and thus alludes to our righteous patriarchs. This is why it is customary to learn Pirkeh Abot during this month, as it is closely associated with the Abot (patriarchs). Rav Haim Palachi adds that it is worthwhile for those who can to visit or to donate to the burial sites of our patriarchs – Me'arat Ha'machpela and Keber Rahel – during the month of Iyar. He further writes that on Pesah Sheni, which is observed on the 14th of Iyar, we omit Tahanunim from the prayer service, and one should conduct some sort of festivity. Those who are blessed with wealth should host a meal on Pesah Sheni for Torah scholars, and some have the practice to eat Masa. On Lag Ba'omer, which is observed on the 18th of Iyar and commemorates the day of the passing of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai, it is customary to make a pilgrimage to Rabbi Shimon's gravesite at Meron in Northern Israel. Rav Haim Palachi warns that one must ensure not to engage in frivolity at this occasion, as the opportunity to earn great merit will then be transformed into an occasion of sin. He cites the Midrash's comment that one can earn great blessings in the merit of Rabbi Shimon by participating in this event, but only if it is done the proper way. Rav Haim Palachi adds that it is proper to read on Lag Ba'omer the book Shibheh Rashbi, which tells of the greatness of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai, and various famous passages about him from the Zohar. The 28th of Iyar marks the anniversary of the death of the prophet Shemuel, and the Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 580) records the custom observed by some people to fast on this day. There is also a custom to pray by Shemuel's gravesite on this day.

Study Guide Shevuot 11 Today's daf is sponsored by the Pittsburgh daf yomi group for a refuah shleima for Rabbi Amy Bardack, haRav Ahuva bat Liba who is having surgery today. "Wishing our organizer and leader a speedy recovery." In support of Rabbi Yochanan's ruling that leftover animals designated for communal offerings can be redeemed at the end of the year, Raba brings an example of incense which has inherent sanctity and can be redeemed at the end of the year. Rav Chisda disagrees with Raba as he holds that incense does not have inherent sanctity until a later stage when it is brought into a sanctified vessel just before being offered on the altar. Raba proves his position that it has inherent sanctity.  The Gemara then returns to Rav Chisda's original question of how can one redeem items with inherent sanctity. Raba answers that the court stipulates at the beginning of the year that any animals not needed will be only sanctified for their value. Abaye raises a difficulty from other communal offerings that cannot be redeemed if lost and replaced and then found. However, Raba answers that the stipulation is for typical, not atypical cases. Why, then, can the red heifer be redeemed in certain circumstances? The Gemara concludes that a stipulation is made because of its high value.  Abaye raises a further difficulty from our Mishna, as Rabbi Shimon answers a question about whether animals designated for one sacrifice that are leftover can be used for another with a particular answer instead of answering that the court stipulated such, as Raba would have said. Raba answers that Rabbi Shimon doesn't agree with the rabbis that the court can stipulate. Rabbi Yochanan and Raba's approach is based only on the rabbis' position.   

Study Guide Shevuot 10 This week's learning is sponsored by Moshe Silver in loving memory of Rebbitzen Miriam Maxine Elkins who passed away on Yom haAtzmaut. "Her love of Torah, the Jewish people, and the land and State of Israel was unsurpassed. Her loving family - Rabbi Dov Pearetz Elkins and her children - bear the lasting imprint of the passion she brought to everything she did, as do all of us who loved her." This week's learning is sponsored by Vicky Harari in loving memory of her father Abraham Eckstein. "He had a smile that could light up the room. He taught me what I know about love. As a Holocaust survivor, he taught me gratitude and resilience something that I have been relying on more today than ever." The Gemara continues to extrapolate verses to explain the basis of the opinions of Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Shimon in the Mishna regarding which sacrifices do each of the communal sin offerings atone for. Ulla explains in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that the extra sheep left at the end of the year that were designated for the Tamid (daily) sacrifice, but were not needed, are redeemed and repurchased with money from that next year's funds. When Raba explained this halakha, Rav Chisda raised a difficulty - how can an item that is sanctified with kedushat haguf  be redeemed? Raba responds by bringing an example from the incense, which is sanctified and can be redeemed. However, this is rejected as the sanctity of the incense is kedushat damim, its value is sanctified, not kedushat haguf.

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of my uncle, Richard Cohen, Naftali ben Yosef haKohen v'Henna who passed away this week. He was a man who loved and appreciated by every person and was loved and appreciated by everyone who met him. The goat sin offering whose blood is sprinkled in the kodesh kodashim on Yom Kippur atones for sins for one who knew they were impure, then forgot and went into the Temple or ate sacrificial items while impure and did not yet remember that they are impure. A braita explains from where this is derived. The different parts of the braita are analyzed. First, the braita suggested that perhaps it atones for the three most grievous sins - idolatry, murder and licentious behavior. The Gemara explains this suggestion - in what manner of performing these transgressions would one have thought this sacrifice could atone for? The first opinion in the braita, Rabbi Yehuda, is that entering the Temple/eating sacrificial items while impure is uniquely distinguished and therefore it is clear that is the one being atoned for by this special offering. The Gemara explains what the braita meant by 'uniquely distinguished' - as it has a sliding scale offering. Several other sacrifices are also uniquely distinguished, such as idol worship as one can only bring a sin offering of a female goat, a woman after childbirth, a leper, and a nazir who became impure who also can bring a sliding scale offering. Why are these not considered 'uniquely distinguished'? Rabbi Shimon derives this from the verse itself describing the offering, as it says "It atones for sanctified items from impurities." Why didn't Rabbi Yehuda accept that understanding - how does he understand the verse? Why doesn't this offering atone for all sins relating to impurity? Why is it only for a person who knew at first they were impure, then forgot, and does not have awareness of the sin? The braita explains that this atones for something not atoned by a sacrifice of an individual, as can be derived from the verse. What is being excluded by this derivation that isn't already obvious? Another derivation in the braita teaches why it specifically atones for a sin that can eventually be atoned for by an individual sin offering (when the person will realize that a sin was committed, and not for one where the person did not know before entering the Temple that one was impure, as that type can never be obligated to bring an individual offering. Why does this case need excluding, if it is already known that the latter is atoned for by the sin offering whose blood is sprinkled on the outer altar on Yom Kippur? If the offering does not completely atone for the sin, but simply provides atonement until such time that the sinner realizes their sin and brings an individual offering, what is the purpose of the temporary atonement? Rabbi Zeira and Rava each offer a suggested answer - either to atone for the sin in case the sinner dies before realizing their sin or to protect from suffering. If the type of sin atoned for by the outer sin offering is derived from the inner sin offering, why can't the inner one atone for both types of sins? Or why can't the outer one atone for both?  

A new - and long - mishnah: Those who violate their oaths need to bring a sacrifice for not following through on their commitment (2 such cases). But is that only with regard to the future (with the past, another 2 are added)? Likewise, 2 that are 4 with regard to the oaths of the kohanim. Plus, 2 that are 4 in carrying from on domain to another (that is, from private to public; and then public to private is added to make 4). Plus, the various stages of lack of awareness while on is transgressing -- which can have impact on the person's sin-offerings. With various opinions represented in the mishnah (including that of Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Meir - regarding the cases of the lack of awareness).

Rav holds that if even the poor person's tithe wasn't separated, the produce is considered tevel and one who eats it receives lashes. The tannaitic opinion of Rabbi Yosi supports this. Rav Yosef explains that this is a tannaitic debate, as seen in a disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis. However, Abaye rejects Rav Yosef's explanation of the debate and claims it could be based on a different issue. The rabbis and Rabbi Shimon disagree in the Mishna regarding the requisite amount that one must eat of untithed produce to receive lashes - is it any amount or an olive-bulk? Rabbi Shimon, who holds it is any amount, questions the rabbis from the prohibition to eat an ant, for which one receives lashes even for eating just one. The rabbis counter by explaining that an ant is a complete creature and therefore has significance. But Rabbi Shimon responds that a complete grain of wheat also has significance. Rav Bivi and Rabbi Yirmia disagree about what Reish Lakish held about this debate - is it only about a grain of wheat or even about flour, as the flour is ground and not a complete grain and perhaps it loses its significance? Other sins are listed regarding sins concerning the Temple for which one would get lashes. The opinion in the Mishna matches Rabbi Akiva's opinion, which was also his student Rabbi Shimon's opinion, as can be found in a braita. Rabbi Shimon's derivation in the braita is questioned and rejected.

The braita brought on Makkot 17 with Rabbi Shimon's position is amended, as the original version was rejected. Rava ruled that a non-kohen who ate from a burnt offering before the blood was sprinkled transgressed five different transgressions. The Gemara questions why there aren't more than five transgressions, and suggests four more that could have been mentioned. They explain why each one was not in rava's list. Rav Gidel quoted a halakha in the name of Rav that a kohen that ate from a guilt or sin offering before the blood was sprinkled would receive lashes. After raising a difficulty on this statement, they emend his words to be referring to a non-kohen andhe does not receive lashes for eating guilt or sin offering before the blood was sprinkled.  Rabbi Elazar, and then Rabbi Yochanan are quoted as having said that placing the bikkurim is critical to the fulfillment of the mitzva, but reading the text is not. A contradiction is raised on each of them from other statements they made. However, they are resolved.

A new mishnah! Bikkurim - first fruits - and other special offerings where one who eats incorrectly and gets lashes. NOTE CLARIFICATION TO THE AUDIO: The issue of lashes upon eating the Bikkurim is specifically in the case that a kohen ate the offerings before the person who brought them recited the verses (two separate people (which wasn't clear, in listening to the recording). Plus other prohibited foods - like a korban Pesach, if it were left over night. Plus, the case of the mother bird and one who didn't send her away. Also, a discussion about whose opinion is represented in the mishnah -- Rabbi Akiva or Rabbi Shimon? With a deep dive into Rabbi Shimon's approach (via a very long baraita). Specifically with regard to eating specific foods outside of Jerusalem (what happens with Maaser Sheni, and the limitations on who can eat from it, for example).

Today's daf is sponsored by Tina and Shalom Lamm on the occasion of the brit and naming of their new grandson, Naveh Shimshon, born to their children, Peninah and Eitan Kaplansky. The Gemara delves into various issues regarding an "ir hanidachat," idolatrous city. Can a city become an idolatrous city if there was no subverted, but they decided on their own? If individuals get stoned, but if the majority of the city is convicted, they get killed by the sword, how does the court rule on the first half of the inhabitants before it is clear that the majority of the inhabitants will be guilty? Temporary residents are also considered part of the city, but how long do they need to live there to be considered temporary residents? Even though the righteous people of the city are not killed, their possessions are destroyed. What is the difference between the possessions of the righteous people and those of the idol worshippers different and how are there laws derived from the Devarim 13:16? Rav Chisda ruled that deposits of inhabitants are not burned. To what is he referring? If there is no square in the town, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yismael disagree about whether or not the city can be judged as idolatrous city. How does each derive their position from the verse in the Torah? The Mishna explained what is done with various sanctified items in the city - whether animals designated for sacrifices, second tithe produce and others. The Gemara brings a braita that expands on this list. What are animals designated for sacrificed left to die and cannot be redeemed and the money used so sacrifices? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish each bring a different answer to this question. The first explanation of Reish Lakish is rejected and an alternative is suggested. Why didn't each one hold by the other's position? In the braita, Rabbi Shimon excludes firstborn animals and tithed animals from the burning. Is this referring to unblemished or blemished animals? Ravina and Shmuel each take a different position on this.

" בניסן נגאלו ובניסן עתידין להיגאל "—just as our ancestors were redeemed in Nissan, so too will we be redeemed in Nissan. As we enter this glorious month, our hopes are higher than ever for the coming of Mashiach. We have been learning about the days of Mashiach in the Daf Yomi, and we see events unfolding in the world at large. It is up to us to do our part. Chazal teach us that our forefathers were redeemed from Mitzrayim in the merit of their emunah, and we, too, will be redeemed through our emunah. But what kind of emunah do we need? When the women brought their copper mirrors as donations for the Mishkan, Moshe Rabbenu initially did not want to accept them. However, Hashem told him that these mirrors were more precious to Him than anything else—more beloved than the menorah, which represents Torah, more than the mizbe'ach, which represents tefillah, and more than the shulchan, which represents tzedakah. What was so special about these mirrors? The men in Mitzrayim were suffering terribly. They had lost their will to continue, feeling that all their labor was in vain. The women used these mirrors to beautify themselves and encourage their husbands, giving them the strength to carry on. They reassured them, reminding them that there was a future—that Hashem runs the world. Their chizuk empowered their husbands to persevere and fulfill Hashem's will, even under the most trying conditions. The Tikkunei Zohar describes how Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, when looking into the future, saw the generation before Mashiach and lamented, " ווי מאן דיזדמן בהאי זמנא "—Woe to those who will live in that time. Yet, he also said, " זכאה מאן דמשתכח בההוא זמנא וקיים בהימנותא "—Fortunate are those who will be in that time and hold strong in their emunah. Our Rabbis have told us that we are living in the עקבתא דמשיחא , the final generation before Mashiach. We are the very ones that the Zohar was speaking about. One might ask: throughout history, our people have endured immense suffering—the Holocaust and many other persecutions. By contrast, today, baruch Hashem , we live with religious freedom. Why, then, did the Zohar express such concern for this generation? A great rabbi once explained that while, as a nation, we may have it good, if we examine individual households, we will find so many struggling with personal challenges. The pain people carry is often hidden. Just the other week, in a single day, I was approached by eight different individuals seeking chizuk. One had just been told that his wife might lose her pregnancy. Another had suddenly and tragically lost her husband. One had been diagnosed with a terminal illness. Another was at risk of going to jail. One had a sick child, another was struggling with business problems, and yet another was facing shalom bayit issues. Late that night, as I was leaving shul, a husband and wife approached me. The woman began to speak about her daughter, who was having an extremely difficult time with shidduchim. At first, I expected the conversation to be like the others I had that day. But then she surprised me. She wasn't downcast at all. She told me that, eight years ago, she started a nightly emunah conference in the zechut of her daughter finding a shidduch. Today, over 400 women participate. And through it, she has gained an unshakable emunah—like a pillar of fire. She is so grateful to Hashem for all He gives her each day. She goes to other people's weddings with complete joy, celebrating without a trace of jealousy. Her emunah is contagious. Wherever she goes, she uplifts others, infusing them with strength and faith. This is exactly what the Zohar meant: Fortunate are those who live in this time and have emunah. Today, so many struggle with personal darkness. But those who find a way to rise above it and praise Hashem, despite their hardships, shine the brightest. In previous generations, our ancestors were like burning torches, illuminating the world with their Torah and mitzvot—but they lived in broad daylight. In contrast, we may be but small flames, yet we are burning in the thickest darkness. Though we may not reach the Torah and mitzvah observance of previous generations, we have an extraordinary opportunity. We can shine with our emunah, something so precious to Hashem. May Hashem strengthen our emunah and grant us the merit to greet Mashiach in this great month of Nissan. Amen.