Podcasts about rabbi shimon

Three difficulties are raised from tannaitic sources against the opinion of Rav Nachman, Rav Avram, and Rav Yitzchak that a person cannot forbid property that is not theirs (ein adam oser davar she'eino shelo), and they are resolved. The first difficulty is from the braita regarding a sin offering slaughtered outside the Temple for idol worship, which the Gemara resolves by explaining that since the sacrifice achieves atonement for the owner, it is legally considered his own property. The second difficulty is from the Mishna regarding two people holding a knife where one slaughters for an idol, and the third is from a braita regarding one who renders another's property impure, mixes it with tithed produce, or pours it as an idolatrous libation. The Gemara resolves these by explaining that the individual has a financial partnership in the item. The Gemara suggests that the debate between Rav Huna and Rav Nachman is a tannaitic dispute, quoting a dispute regarding whether a gentile can forbid a Jew's wine by offering it up as a libation to idols. Rav Nachman, however, rejects the comparison, as a Jew who does the same thing would be doing it just to annoy his friend, and does not really intend to worship the idol. Some difficulties are raised against this theory from tannaitic sources, but are resolved by explaining them as referring to cases where the Jew is an apostate. The Mishna rules that one may not slaughter an animal directly into seas, rivers, or vessels because it looks to others like they are offering it to an idol (mar'it ayin). However, it is permitted to slaughter into a circular pool of water, which Rava clarifies must be murky. Furthermore, one may not slaughter directly into a pit (gumma) anywhere, but the Mishna then permits doing so in one's house. Abaye and Rava each resolve this seemingly contradictory statement in different manners, and Rava rejects Abaye's explanation. Rava explains that a person may slaughter next to a pit in their private courtyard so that the blood flows into it to keep the yard clean. In the marketplace, even this is strictly forbidden to prevent copying heretical practices (minim), and anyone who does so must be investigated for heresy. A braita is brought to support Rava's explanation. The Mishna establishes that slaughtering a non-sacrifice (chullin) for the sake of a sacrifice that can be voluntarily vowed or donated - such as an olah, asham talui, or todah - renders the shechita invalid, whereas Rabbi Shimon permits it. The rabbis are concerned that people will see this and think that one can slaughter sacrifices outside the Temple. Conversely, slaughtering for sacrifices that cannot be voluntarily vowed, like a sin offering, is valid, as people will assume the slaughterer is just saying it is for the sake of that offering but does not really intend to offer a sacrifice outside the Temple.

Three difficulties are raised from tannaitic sources against the opinion of Rav Nachman, Rav Avram, and Rav Yitzchak that a person cannot forbid property that is not theirs (ein adam oser davar she'eino shelo), and they are resolved. The first difficulty is from the braita regarding a sin offering slaughtered outside the Temple for idol worship, which the Gemara resolves by explaining that since the sacrifice achieves atonement for the owner, it is legally considered his own property. The second difficulty is from the Mishna regarding two people holding a knife where one slaughters for an idol, and the third is from a braita regarding one who renders another's property impure, mixes it with tithed produce, or pours it as an idolatrous libation. The Gemara resolves these by explaining that the individual has a financial partnership in the item. The Gemara suggests that the debate between Rav Huna and Rav Nachman is a tannaitic dispute, quoting a dispute regarding whether a gentile can forbid a Jew's wine by offering it up as a libation to idols. Rav Nachman, however, rejects the comparison, as a Jew who does the same thing would be doing it just to annoy his friend, and does not really intend to worship the idol. Some difficulties are raised against this theory from tannaitic sources, but are resolved by explaining them as referring to cases where the Jew is an apostate. The Mishna rules that one may not slaughter an animal directly into seas, rivers, or vessels because it looks to others like they are offering it to an idol (mar'it ayin). However, it is permitted to slaughter into a circular pool of water, which Rava clarifies must be murky. Furthermore, one may not slaughter directly into a pit (gumma) anywhere, but the Mishna then permits doing so in one's house. Abaye and Rava each resolve this seemingly contradictory statement in different manners, and Rava rejects Abaye's explanation. Rava explains that a person may slaughter next to a pit in their private courtyard so that the blood flows into it to keep the yard clean. In the marketplace, even this is strictly forbidden to prevent copying heretical practices (minim), and anyone who does so must be investigated for heresy. A braita is brought to support Rava's explanation. The Mishna establishes that slaughtering a non-sacrifice (chullin) for the sake of a sacrifice that can be voluntarily vowed or donated - such as an olah, asham talui, or todah - renders the shechita invalid, whereas Rabbi Shimon permits it. The rabbis are concerned that people will see this and think that one can slaughter sacrifices outside the Temple. Conversely, slaughtering for sacrifices that cannot be voluntarily vowed, like a sin offering, is valid, as people will assume the slaughterer is just saying it is for the sake of that offering but does not really intend to offer a sacrifice outside the Temple.

#485> To purchase the Sefer: https://alehzayis.com/product/%d7%a7%d7%a8%d7%9f-%d7%a4%d7%a0%d7%99-%d7%9e%d7%a9%d7%94/> To purchase "Memories of Two Generations: A Yiddish Life in Russia and Texas": https://amzn.to/4xh2IoL> To join the SeforimChatter WhatsApp community: https://chat.whatsapp.com/DZ3C2CjUeD9AGJvXeEODtK> To join the SeforimChatter WhatsApp status: https://wa.me/message/TI343XQHHMHPN1>  To support the podcast or to sponsor an episode follow this link: https://seforimchatter.com/support-seforimchatter/or email seforimchatter@gmail.com (Zelle/QP this email address)Support the show

Rabbi Shlomo Landau sits down with Rabbi Shimon Finkelman to discuss his new biography, Rav Moshe Wolfson. Drawing on decades as a close talmid, Rabbi Finkelman shares the life story of a revered mashgiach whose warmth, wisdom, and profound understanding of the Jewish soul touched thousands of individuals across generations. In this inspiring conversation, listeners will discover how Rav Moshe Wolfson combined deep Torah scholarship with boundless ahavas Yisrael, elevating those around him through heartfelt tefillah, genuine chessed, and unwavering emunah. Through personal recollections and unforgettable stories, this episode offers a glimpse into the life of a gadol whose influence continues to guide and inspire, while revealing timeless lessons that can enrich our own avodas Hashem.

A braita states that if blood spurts onto a gourd during slaughter, Rebbi holds it is susceptible to impurity, while Rabbi Chiya holds we suspend judgment (tolin). Rabbi Oshaya says that since they argue, we should rely on Rabbi Shimon's view that shechita makes an animal susceptible, not blood. Two different explanations are brought by Rav Papa and Rav Ashi to explain Rabbi Chiya's position, the point on which he disagrees with Rebbi, and how Rabbi Shimon's view helps determine that the halakha follows Rabbi Chiya. Rav Papa explains that both Rebbi and Rabbi Chiya agree that blood makes items susceptible if it remains from the beginning to the end of the slaughter, and they only argue if the blood was wiped away between cutting the two simanim. Rebbi holds slaughter is continuous from beginning to end, so it is considered slaughter blood. Rabbi Chiya holds slaughter only occurs at the very end, so the earlier blood is just wound blood, and tolin means we wait to see if blood remains at the end of the slaughter. Rav Ashi argues that for Rabbi Chiya, it is a doubt whether or not slaughter is continuous, so tolin means we neither eat it nor burn it. Both explanations show that Rabbi Oshaya aligned Rabbi Chiya with Rabbi Shimon to make Rebbi a minority opinion of one against two; even though he did not agree with Rabbi Chiya in theory, in practice, they hold the same position. Reish Lakish asks whether the endearment of sacred items (chibat hakodesh) allows the dry crumbs of a meal offering to pass on impurity to other items, or if it only functions to disqualify the item itself. Rabbi Eleazar attempts to prove from a verse that water is always required for susceptibility to pass on impurity to other items, and therefore it is clear that chibat hakodesh would not be able to pass on impurity, but the Gemara rejects his suggestion as it is inconclusive. Rav Yosef challenges Rabbi Elazar's position from Rabbi Shimon's statement that shechita makes an animal susceptible to impurity even to pass on impurity, and Rabbi Zeira brings a similar challenge from a different case. Abaye resolves both challenges by explaining that in those particular cases, the rabbis rabbinically treated them like a regular susceptibility by water, but by Torah law they are not susceptible to impurity at all. The Gemara then proves that chibat hakodesh operates on a Torah level, and therefore Reish Lakish's question is still in place. What is the source in the Torah for chibat hakodesh being a Torah law? The first attempted answer is rejected, but they bring a second answer, which is accepted. Reish Lakish's question regarding whether it can pass on impurity remains unresolved (teiku).

A braita states that if blood spurts onto a gourd during slaughter, Rebbi holds it is susceptible to impurity, while Rabbi Chiya holds we suspend judgment (tolin). Rabbi Oshaya says that since they argue, we should rely on Rabbi Shimon's view that shechita makes an animal susceptible, not blood. Two different explanations are brought by Rav Papa and Rav Ashi to explain Rabbi Chiya's position, the point on which he disagrees with Rebbi, and how Rabbi Shimon's view helps determine that the halakha follows Rabbi Chiya. Rav Papa explains that both Rebbi and Rabbi Chiya agree that blood makes items susceptible if it remains from the beginning to the end of the slaughter, and they only argue if the blood was wiped away between cutting the two simanim. Rebbi holds slaughter is continuous from beginning to end, so it is considered slaughter blood. Rabbi Chiya holds slaughter only occurs at the very end, so the earlier blood is just wound blood, and tolin means we wait to see if blood remains at the end of the slaughter. Rav Ashi argues that for Rabbi Chiya, it is a doubt whether or not slaughter is continuous, so tolin means we neither eat it nor burn it. Both explanations show that Rabbi Oshaya aligned Rabbi Chiya with Rabbi Shimon to make Rebbi a minority opinion of one against two; even though he did not agree with Rabbi Chiya in theory, in practice, they hold the same position. Reish Lakish asks whether the endearment of sacred items (chibat hakodesh) allows the dry crumbs of a meal offering to pass on impurity to other items, or if it only functions to disqualify the item itself. Rabbi Eleazar attempts to prove from a verse that water is always required for susceptibility to pass on impurity to other items, and therefore it is clear that chibat hakodesh would not be able to pass on impurity, but the Gemara rejects his suggestion as it is inconclusive. Rav Yosef challenges Rabbi Elazar's position from Rabbi Shimon's statement that shechita makes an animal susceptible to impurity even to pass on impurity, and Rabbi Zeira brings a similar challenge from a different case. Abaye resolves both challenges by explaining that in those particular cases, the rabbis rabbinically treated them like a regular susceptibility by water, but by Torah law they are not susceptible to impurity at all. The Gemara then proves that chibat hakodesh operates on a Torah level, and therefore Reish Lakish's question is still in place. What is the source in the Torah for chibat hakodesh being a Torah law? The first attempted answer is rejected, but they bring a second answer, which is accepted. Reish Lakish's question regarding whether it can pass on impurity remains unresolved (teiku).

Rabbi Yonatan says in the name of Rabbi that someone who eats a shelishi (third degree) of actual teruma is forbidden to eat teruma but is allowed to touch it. Ulla had said the same thing regarding one who eats a shelishi of chullin that was treated like teruma. The Gemara explains why both statements were needed and could not have necessarily been derived one from the other. Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marta says that someone who eats a shelishi of chullin treated like kodashim is still pure to eat actual kodashim, because only real kodashim that are sanctified by an action (like a meal offering when placed in a sanctified vessel or an animal when slaughtered) can create a revi'i (fourth degree). Rami bar Hama challenges this from Rabbi Yehoshua's opinion in the Mishna in Taharot (2:2) that a shelishi that was treated as teruma is considered a sheni for kodashim. The difficulty is resolved by distinguishing between items treated as teruma and those treated as kodashim. The reason to distinguish is that those who are careful from impurities for teruma are not cautious enough regarding kodashim. This distinction is proven from a Mishna in Chagiga (18b). Rava, however, disagrees with the application of the Mishna in Chagiga to this case, and disagrees with Rav Yitzchak. A difficulty is raised against this distinction from a Mishna in Chagiga (24b) where one designated part of the wine in a barrel of teruma to be kodashim. If the protection for teruma is not valid for kodashim, wouldn't the teruma wine make the kodashim wine impure? To resolve this they distinguish between teruma and kodashim that are combined and those that are not combined. A second difficulty on Rav Yitzchak is brought from a braita that clearly states that a shelishi of items that are treated as kodashim passes on impurity to kodashim. To resolve this difficulty, they conclude that there is a tannaitic debate and brings a braita with two opinions that both support Rav Yitzchak's position. Rabbi Shimon stated in the Mishna that shechita makes the animal susceptible to impurity. Rav Asi explains that Rabbi Shimon means only shechita makes it susceptible, but the blood of the animal does not. The Gemara challenges this to see if he means only shechita, and blood from the slaughter would not be considered a liquid that could render something susceptible to impurity, or did he mean shechita in addition to blood, as blood of the slaughter could also render something susceptible to impurity. Our Mishna is brought to strengthen Rav Asi's reading, but it is rejected as inconclusive. Then three other tannaitic sources are brought to try to either prove or disprove Rav Assi's claim, however, all are deemed inconclusive.

Rabbi Yonatan says in the name of Rabbi that someone who eats a shelishi (third degree) of actual teruma is forbidden to eat teruma but is allowed to touch it. Ulla had said the same thing regarding one who eats a shelishi of chullin that was treated like teruma. The Gemara explains why both statements were needed and could not have necessarily been derived one from the other. Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marta says that someone who eats a shelishi of chullin treated like kodashim is still pure to eat actual kodashim, because only real kodashim that are sanctified by an action (like a meal offering when placed in a sanctified vessel or an animal when slaughtered) can create a revi'i (fourth degree). Rami bar Hama challenges this from Rabbi Yehoshua's opinion in the Mishna in Taharot (2:2) that a shelishi that was treated as teruma is considered a sheni for kodashim. The difficulty is resolved by distinguishing between items treated as teruma and those treated as kodashim. The reason to distinguish is that those who are careful from impurities for teruma are not cautious enough regarding kodashim. This distinction is proven from a Mishna in Chagiga (18b). Rava, however, disagrees with the application of the Mishna in Chagiga to this case, and disagrees with Rav Yitzchak. A difficulty is raised against this distinction from a Mishna in Chagiga (24b) where one designated part of the wine in a barrel of teruma to be kodashim. If the protection for teruma is not valid for kodashim, wouldn't the teruma wine make the kodashim wine impure? To resolve this they distinguish between teruma and kodashim that are combined and those that are not combined. A second difficulty on Rav Yitzchak is brought from a braita that clearly states that a shelishi of items that are treated as kodashim passes on impurity to kodashim. To resolve this difficulty, they conclude that there is a tannaitic debate and brings a braita with two opinions that both support Rav Yitzchak's position. Rabbi Shimon stated in the Mishna that shechita makes the animal susceptible to impurity. Rav Asi explains that Rabbi Shimon means only shechita makes it susceptible, but the blood of the animal does not. The Gemara challenges this to see if he means only shechita, and blood from the slaughter would not be considered a liquid that could render something susceptible to impurity, or did he mean shechita in addition to blood, as blood of the slaughter could also render something susceptible to impurity. Our Mishna is brought to strengthen Rav Asi's reading, but it is rejected as inconclusive. Then three other tannaitic sources are brought to try to either prove or disprove Rav Assi's claim, however, all are deemed inconclusive.

A vér nem mindig vér: mitől lesz egy hús tisztátalanságra fogékony? A Chullin (חולין) 36. lapján Köves Slomó rabbi a tisztátalanságra való előkészítés, hechsher (הכשר), egyik legfinomabb kérdését magyarázta: vajon a vágáskor kifolyó vér ugyanolyan „folyadék-e”, mint a víz, amely alkalmassá teszi az ételt arra, hogy tisztátalanná váljon? Rabbi Shimon szerint a kóser vágás, shechitah […] A Chulin 36 – Napi Talmud 2343: A vér nem mindig vér: mitől lesz egy hús tisztátalanságra fogékony? bejegyzés először NapiTalmud.hu-én jelent meg.

June 2 second from 2:36 There are many people – including yeshiva students and Talmideh Hachamim – who skip the section of Korbanot, which discusses the sacrifices offered in the Bet Ha'mikdash, and begin with Pesukeh De'zimra, from Hodu or from Baruch She'amar. The Hikreh Leb ( Rav Raphael Yosef Hazan, 1741–1820) considered the possibility that those who devote their days to Torah study are perhaps justified in omitting the Korbanot section. Since they spend their time immersed in Torah learning, they might be excused for saving time by skipping this part of the Shaharit prayer. However, the Hikreh Leb dismisses this possibility, writing that as this is part of the daily prayer schedule, there is no excuse for omitting it. We cannot emphasize enough the importance and value of reading the Korbanot section, whereby we access the atonement and blessings that the sacrifices in the Bet Ha'mikdash bring. This is true of all the Korbanot, but it is especially true of the Ketoret – the section dealing with the incense offering that was brought each day in the Bet Ha'mikdash. The Zohar (Midrash Ha'ne'elam, Parashat Vayera) relates that Eliyahu Ha'nabi once appeared to Rabbi Pinhas, and taught him that the public recitation of the section of the Ketoret has the power to protect against plagues. Rabbi Aha, the Zohar writes, once visited the town of Tarsha, and the residents informed him that a plague had been ravaging the town for seven days, and was increasing in severity. He instructed them to choose the forty most righteous men of the town, and divide them into four groups of ten. Each was to go to a different corner of the town and recite the section of the Ketoret. Afterward, Rabbi Aha urged them to visit those who were on the brink of death, and to read the verses that tell of Aharon ending a plague by offering incense (Bamidbar 17). Sure enough, these patients survived. Elsewhere (Parashat Vayakhel), the Zohar emphasizes the protective powers of the recitation of the Ketoret. It cites Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai's exclamation that if people recognized just how precious this text is, they would take each word and wear it as a crown on their heads. If one recites the Ketoret with proper concentration, Rabbi Shimon taught, he is spared from punishments both in this world and the next world. The Zohar further teaches that the Ketoret should be recited before the Amida prayer, because it helps clear the pathway to the heavens from the harmful spiritual forces that seek to sabotage one's prayers, ensuring that they reach the heavens. Some explain that the special offerings of the Nesi'im (tribal leaders) which they brought in honor of the consecration of the Mishkan were especially cherished by G-d because they included Ketoret. Moreover, Rabbenu Bahya (Spain, 1255-1340) writes that the moments after the offering of the Ketoret were the most auspicious time for blessings and prayers. This is why the Kohen Gadol would recite a special prayer for the people after offering the Ketoret on Yom Kippur, and why Moshe and Aharon blessed the nation on the day of the Mishkan's inauguration, following the offering of Ketoret. I witnessed the power of the Ketoret recitation firsthand. When my congregation's synagogue was being constructed, we encountered one problem after another. For reasons we do not know, Hashem decided to test us by making the process exceedingly difficult. Nothing was working. We consulted with the great Kabbalist Rav Mordechai Attieh, and he came with ten great scholars. They stood around the construction site and recited the Ketoret. Sure enough, after that point, we were able to move forward and complete the project. The power of the Korbanot section and the rewards offered by its recitation should incentivize all of us to do everything we can to ensure that we read this section each day.

התוכן סיום הש"ס הוא: "אמר ריב'ל עתיד הקב"ה להנחיל לכל צדיק וצדיק ש"י עולמות שנאמר להנחיל אוהבי יש ואוצרותיהם אמלא. אמר רשב"ח לא מצא הקב"ה כלי מחזיק ברכה לישראל אלא השלום שנאמר ה' עוז לעמו יתן ה' יברך את עמו בשלום". מאמר רשב"ח אודות "ה' עוז לעמו יתן ה' יברך את עמו בשלום" הוא התירוץ כיצד יהי' בכחו של הצדיק לקבל ה"ש"י עולמות"! וזוהי גם המענה ליהודי ששואל מאיפה יקח את הזמן ואת הכח להוסיף בלימוד התורה כאשר גם עד עתה למד בכל רגע פנוי – "ה' עוז לעמו יתן וגו'"! המענה לזה ל"בעל נגלה" הוא – שיוסיף בנתינת הצדקה! עפ"י מ"ש אדה"ז שע"י קיום מצות הצדקה "נעשים מוחו ולבו זכים אלף פעמים ככה" כפשוטו! ובכן, אמנם צ"ל היגיעה בתורה, אבל ע"י נתינת הצדקה מ"יגיע כפיו" יצליח להשיג ע"י היגיעה בשעה א' מה שע"ד הרגיל זקוק לאלף שעות, ובמילא יישאר לו עוד 999 שעות להוסיף בלימוד התורה!ג' חלקים משיחת יום א' פ' ויגש, מוצאי "זאת חנוכה" ה'תשמ"ו ל"הנחה פרטית" או התרגום ללה"ק של השיחה: https://thedailysicha.com/?date=25-05-2026 Synopsis The Shas concludes with the Mishna: “Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In the future, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will give every tzaddik 310 worlds, as it is stated: ‘To bequeath to those who love Me substance (יש), and I will fil their treasuries.' Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta said: The Holy One, blessed be He, found no vessel capable of containing blessing for the Jewish people but peace, as it is stated: ‘Hashem will give strength to His people; Hashem will bless His people with peace.'” Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta's teaching on the verse “Hashem will give strength to His people; Hashem will bless His people with peace” is the explanation of how tzaddikim will have the ability to receive the 310 worlds. This is also the answer to a Jew who asks: Where will I find the time and strength to add in Torah study, when I already study during every free moment? The answer – for a person focused on Nigleh – is to add in giving tzedakah. As the Alter Rebbe writes: By giving tzedakah, “his mind and heart become refined a thousandfold” – in the literal sense. Therefore, while it is true that one must toil in Torah, nevertheless, by giving tzedakah from the “labor of his hands,” he will succeed in achieving through one hour of effort what would ordinarily require a thousand hours, leaving him another 999 hours to add in Torah study.3 excerpts from sichah of Sunday, parashas Vayigash, Motzaei Zos Chanukah 5746 For a transcript in English of the Sicha: https://thedailysicha.com/?date=25-05-2026 לזכות ר' ארי וזוגתו מרת רייזל שיחיו דבורקן ליום הנישואין שלהם ט' סיוןלברכה והצלחה בכל הענינים ‏בגו"ר

What makes Ribis so spiritually destructive that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai says the lender “loses more than he gains”?This shmooze, delivered at Mevaseret Mishmar, explores why Ribis is not merely a financial prohibition, but a worldview — one that slowly trains a person to see human vulnerability as opportunity, relationships as transactions, and morality as negotiable when profit is involved.Why does the Gemara say that lending with interest can ultimately lead a person to belittle Moshe Rabbeinu and the Torah itself?A deep psychological and spiritual analysis of desire, scarcity, ego, empathy, and the frightening human capacity to remake morality in the image of appetite.

The Mahari"l writes that when a person prays at the kever of a tzadik, since it is a place of holiness and spiritual purity, the tefillot there are more readily accepted. The Mateh Ephraim adds that even a Kohen, who is not permitted to approach the kever, can still connect to that holiness by standing at a distance from where he can see it and pray from there. Tefillah is always powerful, but there are times and places where it has an added strength. The day of the yahrzeit of a tzadik at his kever is especially מסוגל for tefillah. The Midrash says in Parashat Vezot HaBerachah that if we had known the burial place of Moshe Rabbeinu, we would have prevented the destruction of the first Bet HaMikdash through our tefillot there. The Ben Ish Chai explains that when a person goes to a kever of a tzadik, there are two proper ways to pray. He can ask Hashem to help him in the merit of the tzadik, or he can ask that the neshama of the tzadik should pray to Hashem on his behalf. But the tefillah is always directed only to Hashem, because He alone has the power to fulfill our requests. The tzadik is not the source of the yeshuah—he is a מליץ יושר , an advocate. Throughout the generations, people have received incredible yeshuot through their tefillot at kivrei tzadikim. But the foundation of it all is still tefillah—pouring out one's heart to Hashem. I heard a remarkable story from Rabbi Heller, told to his mother by the daughter of the man it happened to. Her father fought in the Yom Kippur War, and at one point it seemed certain that he would not survive. At that moment, he made a neder to Hashem that if his life would be spared, he would move his family to the north of Israel and build up a place of Torah and mitzvot. Miraculously, he survived. After the war, he realized how difficult that commitment would be and went to his rabbi to perform hatarat nedarim. The rabbi told him that perhaps it was in the merit of that very neder that Hashem had saved him, and it would not be proper to undo it. The man accepted this and moved his family—his wife and three daughters—to the north. They settled in an abandoned home on Moshav Meron, high above the kever of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. Life there was extremely simple. They bought a cow and lived off its milk, trading it for eggs and other necessities. The man would go often to the kever of Rabbi Shimon and pour out his heart in tefillah. In those days, few people came, and he would spend long periods there alone, feeling a deep connection as he spoke to Hashem in that holy place. One day, his wife became very ill with typhus, and he brought her to a hospital in Tiveria. She remained there for months. The man faced a painful challenge—he wanted to be with his wife, but he also had daughters at home. Travel was extremely difficult, yet every day he made the journey back and forth to be there for both. The hospital staff was amazed at his devotion. One morning, after sending his daughters to school, he went to a phone booth to call the hospital. He sensed something was wrong. The doctor came on the line and told him the truth—his wife was in her final moments. There was no point in rushing, he said, because he would not make it in time. The man hung up the phone and burst into tears. He walked up the road and saw the kever of Rabbi Shimon. He stopped and cried out, "Please, Rabbi Shimon, pray to Hashem to save my wife." He begged and then said, "If there is a harsh decree on our family, please ask Hashem to take our cow instead." With that, he ran to catch transportation to the hospital, but on the way someone stopped him and told him that his cow had just died. The man was elated. When he got to the hospital, the doctor hugged him and said, "It's a miracle—your wife is alive." He then told him something astonishing. At the time of the phone call, his wife had already passed—there was no pulse. They were about to cover her with a sheet, but the nurse said they should wait until he arrived. A couple of minutes later, they heard her coughing, and then she called out for a cup of water. This is a modern-day story of techiyat hametim in the merit of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. Tefillah is always wondrous and at Kivrei Tzadikim, it's even better.

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

Lag BaOmer - Le secret puissant de Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohaï que tout le monde doit connaître ! by Rav David Touitou

Lag BaOmer - Le secret de Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai pour réussir sa vie by Rav David Touitou

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

Parshas Bechukosai contains a rebuke of seemingly harsh curses which are actually the loftiest Divine blessings in a hidden form; similarly, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, whose yahrzeit is Lag B'Omer, possesses the unique power through the inner dimension of Torah to decode this reality and reveal that hidden good as tangible, physical blessings in this world.

The Relevance of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (רשב״י) Now More Than Ever, Rabbi Yussie Zakutinsky on let's Get real with Coach Menachem, sunday May 4, 2026 #270

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

We cannot begin to imagine how great and powerful our tefillot are. It says in the Tanna D'Bei Eliyahu Zutah, Perek Vav, that Hashem told Moshe, "You will not be able to understand My ways, but I will tell you something about Me." When I see a person stand up to pray before Me, say words of praise, and then beg for help—even if that person does not have good deeds, and his parents do not have good deeds, and even his grandparents do not have good deeds—just because he asked Me properly, I will help him. And if a person prays with true kavanah, the tefillah becomes infinitely greater. The Ya'avetz writes that a person must know how his tefillah can find favor in Hashem's eyes. The main focus should be on the Amidah. If a person says it with the simple meaning of the words in mind, it is more pleasing to Hashem than any type of korban. And the more a person's heart is in it, the more powerful the tefillah becomes. He writes further that tefillah with kavanah has the power to silence all of the prosecuting angels. The Shelah HaKadosh explains that having kavanah means not thinking about anything else while we are praying, and to feel happiness that we are connecting to Hashem as we speak to Him. When a person reaches that level, it is considered such a great avodah that it is beyond what we can even describe. And all of this is speaking about tefillah during regular times. A tefillah made during an et ratzon—a special time of favor—is even more powerful. A certain man once came to the holy Rabbi Moshe of Rozvodov, asking for a yeshuah for something he needed very badly. The Rabbi told him to come back on Lag B'omer, because then it would be an et ratzon—a time of great favor before Hashem—and it would be more fitting to receive salvation in the merit of the Tanna Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. He brought a hint from a pasuk: " לבי ובשרי ירננו אל א-ל חי ." לבי —after thirty-two days, which brings us to the thirty-third day. ובשרי —stands for Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. ירננו —referring to tefillah. אל א-ל חי —to the living Hashem. On this day, the Zohar writes, the heavenly gates are wide open. The Arizal teaches that on this day, judgments are sweetened—din turns into rachamim. It is a day of great divine favor. On this day, the lights in Shamayim begin to shine in preparation for the awesome day of Matan Torah. The Chatam Sofer says that on this day, the Jewish people began eating the mann, the heavenly food that elevated them and prepared them to receive the Torah. One of the reasons we light fires on this day is to show that the lights in Shamayim are beginning to shine—seventeen days( טוב ) before Matan Torah. In the Sefirot, Lag BaOmer is Hod she'b'Hod, which has a connection to the holiness of Yom Kippur. Throughout the generations, people have received great salvations on this day. Tefillah is always powerful, but on days of et ratzon, it is even more powerful. Let us take advantage of this special time and pray with more kavanah, understanding that Hashem is right in front of us, listening to every word. He can help us with any need that we have, and we do not need anyone but Him. Let us feel calm, knowing we are standing before the only One who can help us, and He is giving us His full attention, waiting for us to ask Him for all of our needs.

The Aggada of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai by Rabbi Joshua Maroof

A Spark of Rabbi Shimon - Lag Baomer - Rabbi Kaufman by Mayanot

Torah Class - Parshat Behar-Bechukotai: From Curse to Blessing: How Do We Get Rid of Trouble and Pain?The message that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai sent with a carrier pigeon from his cave about positive interpretation and the path to turning our greatest challenges into our clearest blessings.

The Gemara (Bava Mesia 23b) establishes that a Torah scholar is permitted to speak untruthfully in regard to three matters, one of which is "Masechet." Rashi explains that if a scholar is asked whether he has thoroughly studied a certain Masechet, he is permitted to untruthfully answer in the negative in order to avoid sounding boastful about his proficiency. The Gemara's teaching, then, instructs that when necessary, one is allowed to distort the truth for the sake of humility, in the interest of concealing one's achievements. Both humility and honesty are critically important religious values, but sometimes they might clash. And when they do, the value of humility overrides honesty, and one may untruthfully deny his accomplishments in order to remain humble. Interestingly, however, the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) noted that not everyone accepts this interpretation of the Gemara. The Rambam understood the Gemara to mean that a scholar can dishonestly deny having learned a Masechet to avoid being questioned about that Masechet. If a scholar fears that he will be asked about a certain Masechet and then suffer embarrassment when he is unable to answer questions about the topic, then Halacha allows him to avoid embarrassment by saying that he had not yet studied the material. According to the Rambam's reading of the Gemara, it does not provide a source for allowing dishonesty in the interest of humility. Regardless, the Hida brings a different source – the story told in the Gemara (Ketubot 77b) of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's encounter with Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai in Gan Eden. Rabbi Shimon asked Rabbi Yehoshua if a rainbow ever appeared in the sky during his lifetime, and Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi said that indeed it did. A rainbow is an inauspicious sign, indicating G-d's anger, that He considered bringing another flood, and so it does not appear in the lifetime of especially pious Sadikim whose merit sustains the world. Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi was indeed on this unique level, and a rainbow never appeared during his lifetime, but he answered in the affirmative in the interest of humility. This shows that it is permissible to speak untruthfully for the purpose of concealing one's achievements. Others cite the Yosef Ometz (by Rav Yosef Yuzpa, Germany, 1570-1637) as advancing a different line of reasoning. Halacha famously allows distorting the truth for the sake of peace. If being precisely truthful will cause tension or hostility between people, then the value of maintaining harmony supersedes the value of honesty, and it is preferable to speak imprecisely. The Yosef Ometz reasoned that this can be applied also to humility, because arrogance causes tension to the soul. An arrogant person is at odds with himself, whereas the humble person is at peace with himself. Therefore, the rule allowing dishonesty for the sake of peace can be extended to allow speaking dishonestly for the sake of maintaining humility, as maintaining humility means maintaining inner peace. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in his Ben Yehoyada (Bava Mesia 23b), suggested a different proof, from the story told in Masechet Baba Batra (8a) about Rabbi Yonatan falsely denying his scholarly achievements. However, the Ben Ish Hai then refutes this proof, noting that in that story, Rabbi Yonatan needed to speak untruthfully to avoid deriving benefit from his scholarly status. As it is strictly forbidden to use one's Torah scholarship for personal gain, it was necessary for him to falsely deny his credentials, and so this does not prove that one may do so in the interest of humility. Nevertheless, Halacha indeed allows one to falsely deny his spiritual and scholarly achievements for the sake of humility. It is worth adding in conclusion that as important as it is to be humble, and to conceal one's achievements, it is equally important to strive for greatness so that one has something to hide. Indeed, it is no coincidence that Moshe Rabbenu is described as the humblest of all men – precisely because he was the greatest of all men. It is because he had what to be humble about – more than any other person in world history – that he was able to excel in humility by concealing his greatness. The Sages famously explain that G-d chose to give the Torah specifically on a relatively low mountain – Mount Sinai – as opposed to the taller mountains in the region, in order to teach us the importance of humility in Torah study and practice. The Sefat Emet (Rav Yehuda Aryeh Leib Alter of Ger, 1847-1905) noted that although G-d wanted to teach us humility, He decided to give the Torah on a mountain, and not in a valley, or a canyon. The reason, the Sefat Emet explains, is because Hashem wants us to strive for great heights, to achieve greatness, to excel to the very best of our ability, to rise like a mountain – but while maintaining our humility. This is the symbolism of Mount Sinai – a mountain that extends into the air, but not as high as other mountains, showing us that we are to strive for excellence while concealing our accomplishments rather than putting them on display.

The Mishna rules that if one vows to bring a mincha (meal offering) but cannot recall which type, they must bring all five standard types. Abaye explains that this ruling can also align with Rabbi Shimon's position, which recognizes a sixth type consisting of both wafers and loaves; he argues that bringing the wafers and loaves separately covers the possibility of the combined type as well. The Gemara raises several practical difficulties regarding this possibility but resolves them all. Rav Kahana asks Rav Ashi why the person in the above case would not also need to offer a minchat nesachim (a meal offering brought with libations), given Rava's view that it can be brought as a voluntary offering. Rav Ashi identifies five distinct differences between a minchat nesachim and other voluntary meal offerings, demonstrating that someone in doubt about their vow would certainly not have been referring to an offering so fundamentally different. The Rabbis and Rebbi disagree in the Mishna regarding a case where one says, "I vowed to bring a mincha of esronim in one vessel, but I do not remember how many." The dispute centers on whether they must bring sixty esronim in one bowl or every amount from one to sixty in sixty separate bowls. The Gemara suggests five different explanations for the nature of this debate and analyzes each suggestion. The Mishna explains the minimum value one must provide when vowing to bring wood, frankincense, gold, silver, or copper to the Temple. The required amount depends on the phrasing used: if one said, "I vow to bring [the item]," they are required to bring the minimum. However, if one said, "I vowed an amount, but I do not remember what amount," they are required to bring the maximum.

The Mishna rules that if one vows to bring a mincha (meal offering) but cannot recall which type, they must bring all five standard types. Abaye explains that this ruling can also align with Rabbi Shimon's position, which recognizes a sixth type consisting of both wafers and loaves; he argues that bringing the wafers and loaves separately covers the possibility of the combined type as well. The Gemara raises several practical difficulties regarding this possibility but resolves them all. Rav Kahana asks Rav Ashi why the person in the above case would not also need to offer a minchat nesachim (a meal offering brought with libations), given Rava's view that it can be brought as a voluntary offering. Rav Ashi identifies five distinct differences between a minchat nesachim and other voluntary meal offerings, demonstrating that someone in doubt about their vow would certainly not have been referring to an offering so fundamentally different. The Rabbis and Rebbi disagree in the Mishna regarding a case where one says, "I vowed to bring a mincha of esronim in one vessel, but I do not remember how many." The dispute centers on whether they must bring sixty esronim in one bowl or every amount from one to sixty in sixty separate bowls. The Gemara suggests five different explanations for the nature of this debate and analyzes each suggestion. The Mishna explains the minimum value one must provide when vowing to bring wood, frankincense, gold, silver, or copper to the Temple. The required amount depends on the phrasing used: if one said, "I vow to bring [the item]," they are required to bring the minimum. However, if one said, "I vowed an amount, but I do not remember what amount," they are required to bring the maximum.

There is a dispute regarding a case where someone vowed to bring a mincha of barley. The Tana Kama says that because such a thing does not exist, we obligate them to bring a mincha of wheat. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says that what was said is nothing, as there is no voluntary mincha of barley. Chizkiya and Rabbi Yochanan attempt to understand the Tana Kama's position. For Chizkiya, it is based on the view of Beit Shammai who hold that we seize the first expression - the statement "I take upon myself a mincha" already creates an obligation to bring a wheat offering, and what one said afterward (where perhaps it was a retraction) is not accepted at all because it is too late. According to Rabbi Yochanan, who establishes an ukimta for the Mishna, it refers to a case where, when told there is no mincha of barley, the person says that they did not know, and had they known, they would have vowed wheat. There is another dispute in our Mishna between Chizkiya and Rabbi Yochanan that appears to present opinions opposite to what they said previously, but the Gemara explains the matter. Chizkiya retracted and agreed with Rabbi Yochanan, while Rabbi Yochanan challenged his retraction and explained how Chizkiya could have explained the words of the Mishna according to his original logic. Zeiri limits the words of the Mishna to a case where one said "I take upon myself a mincha...", but if one did not say "mincha" but rather "I take upon myself barley" or "I take upon myself a barley mincha," we do not apply the principle of seizing the first expression. Rava challenges Rav Nachman regarding Zeiri's words based on our Mishna, but Rav Nachman resolves his challenges. One who volunteers to bring more than sixty issaron must bring sixty in one vessel and the remainder in another vessel. Why is sixty established as the maximum amount for a single vessel? The Tana Kama explains this based on the day that has the most libations in the Temple - the first day of Sukkot that falls on Shabbat, when they bring libations in the amount of sixty-one issaron. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says it is based on what can be mixed in one vessel; more than sixty is impossible. The Sages challenge him as to why specifically this number was chosen. Rabbi Shimon responds that this is the case with all measurements established by the Sages. The Gemara challenges Rabbi Shimon, noting that a mincha is valid even if it was not actually mixed, so why is the potential for mixing so important? They answer based on the words of Rabbi Zeira, that it must be eligible for mixing (anything eligible for mixing, the lack of mixing does not invalidate it; but anything not eligible for mixing, the lack of mixing invalidates it).

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

There is a dispute regarding a case where someone vowed to bring a mincha of barley. The Tana Kama says that because such a thing does not exist, we obligate them to bring a mincha of wheat. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says that what was said is nothing, as there is no voluntary mincha of barley. Chizkiya and Rabbi Yochanan attempt to understand the Tana Kama's position. For Chizkiya, it is based on the view of Beit Shammai who hold that we seize the first expression - the statement "I take upon myself a mincha" already creates an obligation to bring a wheat offering, and what one said afterward (where perhaps it was a retraction) is not accepted at all because it is too late. According to Rabbi Yochanan, who establishes an ukimta for the Mishna, it refers to a case where, when told there is no mincha of barley, the person says that they did not know, and had they known, they would have vowed wheat. There is another dispute in our Mishna between Chizkiya and Rabbi Yochanan that appears to present opinions opposite to what they said previously, but the Gemara explains the matter. Chizkiya retracted and agreed with Rabbi Yochanan, while Rabbi Yochanan challenged his retraction and explained how Chizkiya could have explained the words of the Mishna according to his original logic. Zeiri limits the words of the Mishna to a case where one said "I take upon myself a mincha...", but if one did not say "mincha" but rather "I take upon myself barley" or "I take upon myself a barley mincha," we do not apply the principle of seizing the first expression. Rava challenges Rav Nachman regarding Zeiri's words based on our Mishna, but Rav Nachman resolves his challenges. One who volunteers to bring more than sixty issaron must bring sixty in one vessel and the remainder in another vessel. Why is sixty established as the maximum amount for a single vessel? The Tana Kama explains this based on the day that has the most libations in the Temple - the first day of Sukkot that falls on Shabbat, when they bring libations in the amount of sixty-one issaron. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says it is based on what can be mixed in one vessel; more than sixty is impossible. The Sages challenge him as to why specifically this number was chosen. Rabbi Shimon responds that this is the case with all measurements established by the Sages. The Gemara challenges Rabbi Shimon, noting that a mincha is valid even if it was not actually mixed, so why is the potential for mixing so important? They answer based on the words of Rabbi Zeira, that it must be eligible for mixing (anything eligible for mixing, the lack of mixing does not invalidate it; but anything not eligible for mixing, the lack of mixing invalidates it).

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

The Gemara raises a difficulty from the laws of pigul against the principle that "anything ready to be sprinkled is considered as if it were already sprinkled," which implies viewing the act of sprinkling the blood as having already occurred. After resolving this difficulty, the Gemara presents the position of Rav Ashi, who rejects this principle. However, following a challenge from the laws of meilah (misuse of consecrated property), it is clarified that his statement applies only to the laws of ritual impurity of foods; regarding meilah, conversely, Rav Ashi admits that the principle is valid, and the meat is released from the status of meilah the moment it is ready for sprinkling. Subsequently, another difficulty is raised against Rav Ashi from Rabbi Yosi's ruling regarding the meat of an asham talui, as Rabbi Yosi - according to Rava's understanding - agrees with Rabbi Shimon that "anything standing to be sprinkled is considered as if it were already sprinkled." This difficulty is resolved by providing an alternative explanation for Rabbi Yosi's position that does not rely on this principle. Additionally, Rav Ashi challenges the opposing view, and this difficulty is also resolved. The Mishna discusses the laws of deviations in meal-offering vows, detailing the law for cases where an individual vowed or pledged a specific type of mincha but brought a different type instead.

The Gemara raises a difficulty from the laws of pigul against the principle that "anything ready to be sprinkled is considered as if it were already sprinkled," which implies viewing the act of sprinkling the blood as having already occurred. After resolving this difficulty, the Gemara presents the position of Rav Ashi, who rejects this principle. However, following a challenge from the laws of meilah (misuse of consecrated property), it is clarified that his statement applies only to the laws of ritual impurity of foods; regarding meilah, conversely, Rav Ashi admits that the principle is valid, and the meat is released from the status of meilah the moment it is ready for sprinkling. Subsequently, another difficulty is raised against Rav Ashi from Rabbi Yosi's ruling regarding the meat of an asham talui, as Rabbi Yosi - according to Rava's understanding - agrees with Rabbi Shimon that "anything standing to be sprinkled is considered as if it were already sprinkled." This difficulty is resolved by providing an alternative explanation for Rabbi Yosi's position that does not rely on this principle. Additionally, Rav Ashi challenges the opposing view, and this difficulty is also resolved. The Mishna discusses the laws of deviations in meal-offering vows, detailing the law for cases where an individual vowed or pledged a specific type of mincha but brought a different type instead.

A conversation between three sages and the Roman empire sets the stage for one of the most profound journeys in Shas: the story of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and the cave.What happens when a person encounters absolute truth? And what happens when they return to the world afterward?In this shiur, delivered in Tomer Devorah, Rav Burg explores the tension between spiritual purity and physical life, the danger of truth that burns rather than builds, and the deeper refinement that allows Torah not to reject the world but to illuminate it.Because in the end, the question isn't whether you leave the cave.The question is: who are you when you come back?

The Mishna states that when Yom Kippur fell on a Friday, preventing the meat from being cooked, the Babylonians would eat the goat sin offering raw. Rabbi Yochanan clarifies that these people were actually Alexandrians, but they were called Babylonians due to a general dislike of the Babylonians. The Mishna discusses various errors that can occur while setting up the showbread and the frankincense, such as placing one or both on the wrong day or burning the frankincense at the incorrect time. For each scenario, the text explores the resulting legal status and the solution, if there is one. A Mishna from Tractate Yoma mentions a case where the Tamid offering was brought too early and had to be burned because it was disqualified. A braita applies this same rule to a mincha offering where the kemitza was taken at night. This raises a question: if sanctified vessels do not normally sanctify their contents at night when offerings cannot be brought, why is the mincha disqualified? To resolve this, it is explained that the offering is sanctified enough to be disqualified even if it is not sanctified for the altar. However, Rabbi Zeira raises a difficulty from our Mishna, noting that when the bread is placed too early, it is not sanctified enough to be disqualified and can remain on the table for extra days. Raba resolves this by distinguishing between an act performed the night before it is due and an act performed several days early. Yet, this distinction still faces issues with the Mishna's case, as the bread should theoretically become sanctified on Friday night and be disqualified by the next Shabbat morning. Ultimately, two resolutions are offered to address this difficulty. The Mishna outlines how many days after baking the two loaves and the showbread may be eaten. Different scenarios are presented based on whether festivals fall before or after Shabbat, since these loaves cannot typically be baked on Shabbat or a festival. Rabbi Shimon disagrees with this, permitting the baking on a festival though not on Shabbat. Items whose value is sanctified can be redeemed whether they are ritually pure or impure. However, items sanctified within a sacred vessel possess inherent sanctity and cannot be redeemed even if they become impure. The only exception to this rule is a blemished animal, which retains the possibility of being redeemed despite its status.

The Mishna states that when Yom Kippur fell on a Friday, preventing the meat from being cooked, the Babylonians would eat the goat sin offering raw. Rabbi Yochanan clarifies that these people were actually Alexandrians, but they were called Babylonians due to a general dislike of the Babylonians. The Mishna discusses various errors that can occur while setting up the showbread and the frankincense, such as placing one or both on the wrong day or burning the frankincense at the incorrect time. For each scenario, the text explores the resulting legal status and the solution, if there is one. A Mishna from Tractate Yoma mentions a case where the Tamid offering was brought too early and had to be burned because it was disqualified. A braita applies this same rule to a mincha offering where the kemitza was taken at night. This raises a question: if sanctified vessels do not normally sanctify their contents at night when offerings cannot be brought, why is the mincha disqualified? To resolve this, it is explained that the offering is sanctified enough to be disqualified even if it is not sanctified for the altar. However, Rabbi Zeira raises a difficulty from our Mishna, noting that when the bread is placed too early, it is not sanctified enough to be disqualified and can remain on the table for extra days. Raba resolves this by distinguishing between an act performed the night before it is due and an act performed several days early. Yet, this distinction still faces issues with the Mishna's case, as the bread should theoretically become sanctified on Friday night and be disqualified by the next Shabbat morning. Ultimately, two resolutions are offered to address this difficulty. The Mishna outlines how many days after baking the two loaves and the showbread may be eaten. Different scenarios are presented based on whether festivals fall before or after Shabbat, since these loaves cannot typically be baked on Shabbat or a festival. Rabbi Shimon disagrees with this, permitting the baking on a festival though not on Shabbat. Items whose value is sanctified can be redeemed whether they are ritually pure or impure. However, items sanctified within a sacred vessel possess inherent sanctity and cannot be redeemed even if they become impure. The only exception to this rule is a blemished animal, which retains the possibility of being redeemed despite its status.

#463> To purchase the new 2 volume set (for just $42 and free shipping!): https://alehzayis.com/product/%d7%a8%d7%91-%d7%a1%d7%a2%d7%93%d7%99%d7%94-%d7%92%d7%90%d7%95%d7%9f-%d7%a2%d7%9c-%d7%94%d7%aa%d7%95%d7%a8%d7%94-%d7%95%d7%99%d7%a7%d7%a8%d7%90/> This podcast episode is sponsored by The Holocaust, Genocide & Tolerance Education Program  at Touro Graduate School of Education. For more information or to apply to the Holocaust, Genocide & Tolerance Education Program at Touro University Graduate School of Education, please contact:Dr. Julie Golding jgolding3@touro.edu or visit https://rmi.touro.edu/holocaust/> To join the SeforimChatter WhatsApp community: https://chat.whatsapp.com/DZ3C2CjUeD9AGJvXeEODtK> To join the SeforimChatter WhatsApp status: https://wa.me/message/TI343XQHHMHPN1>  To support the podcast or to sponsor an episode follow this link: https://seforimchatter.com/support-seforimchatter/or email seforimchatter@gmail.com (Zelle/QP this email address)Support the show

Study Guide Did the lechem hapanim become disqualified in the desert whenever the Tabernacle was dismantled for travel? Furthermore, does this status depend on whether the bread remained on the Table (Shulchan) or had already been removed? There is a debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, which the Gemara interprets in three ways. In the final explanation, Ravin explains that there is actually no disagreement; rather, each Sage was referring to a different scenario - one discussed bread still on the Table, while the other addressed bread that had been removed. The Mishna presents a three-way Tannaitic debate regarding the preparation of the loaves: Can the kneading, shaping, and baking be performed outside the Temple courtyard, or must they occur within? Additionally, could these tasks be performed on Shabbat? This debate centers on the moment the loaves become sanctified. The three positions - held by the Tana Kamma, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon - differ on the catalyst for sanctification: When the flour is first placed into a sacred vessel. When the bread is baked in the oven. When the loaves are formally arranged on the Table. A challenge is raised against the Tanna Kamma's position that remains unresolved. Rabbi Abbahu attempts to derive the basis of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon from a verse, but this derivation is ultimately rejected. Instead, the Gemara explains that their positions are rooted in the specific traditions they each received.

Study Guide Did the lechem hapanim become disqualified in the desert whenever the Tabernacle was dismantled for travel? Furthermore, does this status depend on whether the bread remained on the Table (Shulchan) or had already been removed? There is a debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, which the Gemara interprets in three ways. In the final explanation, Ravin explains that there is actually no disagreement; rather, each Sage was referring to a different scenario - one discussed bread still on the Table, while the other addressed bread that had been removed. The Mishna presents a three-way Tannaitic debate regarding the preparation of the loaves: Can the kneading, shaping, and baking be performed outside the Temple courtyard, or must they occur within? Additionally, could these tasks be performed on Shabbat? This debate centers on the moment the loaves become sanctified. The three positions - held by the Tana Kamma, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon - differ on the catalyst for sanctification: When the flour is first placed into a sacred vessel. When the bread is baked in the oven. When the loaves are formally arranged on the Table. A challenge is raised against the Tanna Kamma's position that remains unresolved. Rabbi Abbahu attempts to derive the basis of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon from a verse, but this derivation is ultimately rejected. Instead, the Gemara explains that their positions are rooted in the specific traditions they each received.

There is a tradition that there are two communal offerings that require semicha. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree about which two they are. They both agree that the communal bull offering (brought for an unintentional sin of the congregation) requires semicha by the elders, but they disagree about the identity of the second one. Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is the scapegoat on Yom Kippur, noting that according to the verse in the Torah, the Kohen Gadol performs semicha on it. Rabbi Shimon disagrees because he holds that semicha must be performed by the owner, and he argues the Kohen Gadol is not the owner of that sacrifice; the scapegoat atones only for the sins of the Israelites, while the kohanim receive their atonement from the confession of the Kohen Gadol on his own bull offering. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with Rabbi Shimon's position, holding instead that the scapegoat atones for the sins of the kohanim as well, which makes the Kohen Gadol an owner of that sacrifice. Rabbi Shimon includes the communal goat offering for idolatry as the second sacrifice requiring semicha, deriving this from the word "goat" written in the context of the semicha of the nasi's (leader's) sin offering (Vayikra 4:24); the extra word implies that another goat - the communal one - is included in the requirement. Rabbi Yehuda, however, uses the verse in Vayikra 4:15, which specifies "the bull," to exclude the goat and limit the requirement to the bull alone. The Gemara questions why each sage needs a specific verse to prove his opinion when they could have simply relied on the established tradition that only two communal offerings require semicha. All individual offerings require semicha, with the exception of the firstborn animal, animal tithes, and the Pesach offering. The exclusion of these three is derived from the verse regarding peace offerings, "his offering," which implies an offering that is designated as "his" by choice.

There is a tradition that there are two communal offerings that require semicha. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree about which two they are. They both agree that the communal bull offering (brought for an unintentional sin of the congregation) requires semicha by the elders, but they disagree about the identity of the second one. Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is the scapegoat on Yom Kippur, noting that according to the verse in the Torah, the Kohen Gadol performs semicha on it. Rabbi Shimon disagrees because he holds that semicha must be performed by the owner, and he argues the Kohen Gadol is not the owner of that sacrifice; the scapegoat atones only for the sins of the Israelites, while the kohanim receive their atonement from the confession of the Kohen Gadol on his own bull offering. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with Rabbi Shimon's position, holding instead that the scapegoat atones for the sins of the kohanim as well, which makes the Kohen Gadol an owner of that sacrifice. Rabbi Shimon includes the communal goat offering for idolatry as the second sacrifice requiring semicha, deriving this from the word "goat" written in the context of the semicha of the nasi's (leader's) sin offering (Vayikra 4:24); the extra word implies that another goat - the communal one - is included in the requirement. Rabbi Yehuda, however, uses the verse in Vayikra 4:15, which specifies "the bull," to exclude the goat and limit the requirement to the bull alone. The Gemara questions why each sage needs a specific verse to prove his opinion when they could have simply relied on the established tradition that only two communal offerings require semicha. All individual offerings require semicha, with the exception of the firstborn animal, animal tithes, and the Pesach offering. The exclusion of these three is derived from the verse regarding peace offerings, "his offering," which implies an offering that is designated as "his" by choice.

Exclusions when it comes to harvesting the omer and bringing the offering - including an irrigated field, not fully ripe grain. The offering should come from standing grain, unless there's none to be found. Plus, what happens with fields that are "trimmed" via natural means, such as grasshoppers. Plus, making sense of Rabbi Meir's approach vs. Rabbi Shimon's approach.

#454> Purchase the Haggadah (with free shipping): https://alehzayis.com/product/%d7%94%d7%92%d7%93%d7%94-%d7%a9%d7%9c-%d7%a4%d7%a1%d7%97-%d7%a2%d7%9c%d7%94-%d7%96%d7%99%d7%aa/> To listen to Rabbi Szimonowitz's shiurim on haggadah: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kol-aleh-zayis/id1838344476?i=1000756155997> To join the SeforimChatter WhatsApp community: https://chat.whatsapp.com/DZ3C2CjUeD9AGJvXeEODtK> To join the SeforimChatter WhatsApp status: https://wa.me/message/TI343XQHHMHPN1>  To support the podcast or to sponsor an episode follow this link: https://seforimchatter.com/support-seforimchatter/or email seforimchatter@gmail.com (Zelle/QP this email address)Support the show

Rabbi Shimon derives from the words "et hamincha" that many additional menachot require hagasha (bringing the offering to the altar). However, he uses three other specific exclusions from the verse to exempt certain offerings: The two loaves and showbread: Excluded from the word "m'eleh" (from these), as these are not burned on the altar. The mincha of libations: Excluded from "v'hikriva" (and he shall bring it), as these offerings accompany animal sacrifices. Voluntary offerings of kohanim and the kohen gadol's griddle cakes: Excluded from "v'higisha" (and he shall bring it near), as these are burned entirely and no portion is given to the priests. The Mishna continues by categorizing sacrifices: those that require waving (tenufa) but not hagasha, those that require both, and those that require neither. The Gemara brings the biblical sources for the various sacrifices that require waving. Notably, waving can be performed even on the east side of the Temple courtyard. The Gemara questions why this differs from hagasha, which must be performed specifically at the southwest corner of the altar. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and Rabbi Yehuda each utilize a different verse to derive the source for the waving of the bikkurim. Why was only Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov mentioned in the Mishna? Two answers are suggested. Waving is a collaborative act performed by both the kohen and the owner of the sacrifice. The Gemara identifies the source for this joint action. However, an exception exists: if the owner is a woman, waving is still required, but the woman herself does not perform the act. The Gemara derives the source for this specific exemption. Converts are freed Caananite slaves are obligated in waving, as is derived from "hamakriv," the one who offers the sacrifice.

#450> To purchase the Haggadah: https://mosaicapress.com/product/psychology-personal-growth-haggadah/?sld=seforimchatter and use code CHATTER for 15% off> To purchase Rabbi Feder's books on Chumash: https://mosaicapress.com/product/psychology-and-personal-growth-in-the-torah/?sld=seforimchatter and https://mosaicapress.com/product/psychology-and-personal-growth-in-the-torah-vol-2/?sld=seforimchatter> To join the SeforimChatter WhatsApp community: https://chat.whatsapp.com/DZ3C2CjUeD9AGJvXeEODtK> To join the SeforimChatter WhatsApp status: https://wa.me/message/TI343XQHHMHPN1>  To support the podcast or to sponsor an episode follow this link: https://seforimchatter.com/support-seforimchatter/or email seforimchatter@gmail.com (Zelle/QP this email address)Support the show

The word "oto" (it) in the verse describing the sin offering of the Nasi, "and he slaughters it in the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered" (Vayikra 4:24), is seemingly redundant. The Gemara offers four possible suggestions for what this word is intended to teach. The first suggestion is that the word excludes a different goat sin offering from the requirement of being slaughtered in the north - specifically, the goat offerings brought by the tribal leaders during the consecration of the Tabernacle. This is rejected because there is no logical reason to assume those goats would have required slaughter in the north, making an exclusionary verse unnecessary. The second suggestion is that the word teaches that while the animal must be in the north during slaughter, the slaughterer does not. However, this is initially rejected because Rabbi Achiya derives this law from a different source. The third suggestion is that only animals require slaughter in the north, excluding bird offerings. This is also rejected because birds do not require a knife for their preparation; since their procedure is entirely different, there is no reason to think they would have been subject to the northern requirement. The final suggestion is that the Pesach offering does not need to be performed in the north. This is rejected because one would not logically derive rules for lower-level sanctity offerings, such as the Pesach, from higher-level sanctity offerings that require the north. In conclusion, the Gemara returns to the second answer and explains Rabbi Achiya's source differently. Regarding leavening, one is obligated if one continues any part of the leavening process of a meal offering, even if the dough had already leavened. An example of this is baking a dough that was already leavened during the kneading stage. Rav Papa adds that a person who bakes such dough is liable for two sets of lashes because the act of baking also serves as the final stage of shaping the dough. Although a difficulty is raised from a braita, the Gemara provides a resolution. For the sake of comparison, a braita is brought regarding a firstborn animal that has a blood-related ailment requiring bloodletting. Since this animal is already considered blemished, the question arises whether it is permitted to inflict a further blemish during the procedure. Rabbi Meir, the rabbis, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Yehuda each hold different positions on this issue. The Gemara focuses specifically on the first two opinions regarding whether this is legally defined as inflicting a blemish on an already blemished animal. This topic is compared to the obligation for continuing the leavening process through a new action or to the prohibition of castrating an animal that is already castrated. In those instances, there is no debate because the biblical verses indicate liability for each individual action. However, regarding a blemished animal, Rabbi Meir and the rabbis each derive their opinions from different words in the verse, leading them to their respective conclusions.

#447> To purchase the Sefer (with free shipping): https://alehzayis.com/product/%d7%91%d7%a8%d7%9b%d7%aa-%d7%99%d7%a9%d7%a8%d7%90%d7%9c/> To join the SeforimChatter WhatsApp community: https://chat.whatsapp.com/DZ3C2CjUeD9AGJvXeEODtK> To join the SeforimChatter WhatsApp status: https://wa.me/message/TI343XQHHMHPN1>  To support the podcast or to sponsor an episode follow this link: https://seforimchatter.com/support-seforimchatter/or email seforimchatter@gmail.com (Zelle/QP this email address)Support the show

On today's page, Menachot 51, the rabbis ask a practical yet profound question: If a high priest dies before his daily griddle cake offering is brought, who is responsible for the cost? This technical debate between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda touches on the very heart of leadership—is a leader merely an ordinary person, or are they sanctified and transformed by their office? Explore how we can view our leaders as both fallible mortals and as something much greater. Listen and find out.