Podcasts about rabbi yossi

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.    

Torah Thought "Ki teitzei" by Rabbi Yossi Madvig - September 5, 2025

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.    

Today's daf is sponsored by Lisa Elon in honor of her steadfast chevruta, Rhondda Ma Today's daf is sponsored by Lisa Elon in honor of her steadfast chevruta, Rhondda May, "May G-d grant us many more years of great learning together. " Today's daf is sponsored by Rachel Alexander Levy in memory of Jack Schuster, father of my chevruta, Rabbi Jordi Schuster. May his memory be for a blessing. Today's daf is sponsored by Adam Dicker in honor of Carolyn Hochstadter Dicker on her birthday. There is a debate between Rav and Shmuel regarding the kashering process known as niguv. In one version of the debate, Rav requires that ashes be used once during the process, while Shmuel requires them to be used twice. In another version, there is no actual disagreement—Rav simply omits the final step of rinsing with water, since its sole purpose is to remove the ashes. Shmuel, however, includes it as part of the process. How are wicker nets in a winepress kashered? Rabbi Avahu derives from the laws of purifying wicker nets that they require niguv. If the nets are made of reeds, which are more absorbent, they must be left unused for twelve months—or, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, until the next wine-making season. What is the practical difference between these two opinions? Rabbi Yossi offers an alternative to waiting a year: pouring boiling water over them. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel cites Rabbi Yossi, suggesting instead that the nets be placed under running water for an onah. What is an onah? Some define it as either a day or a night, while others say it means twelve hours. Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak explains that both interpretations ultimately mean the same thing. How? The strainer and baskets used in the winepress are kashered differently depending on the material they are made from, since the level of absorption varies. If grape clusters are placed in the winepress and surrounded by the juice from the grapes, are they considered a single unit for the purposes of impurity? This has practical implications: if an am haaretz—someone who may not be trusted regarding purity laws—touches one cluster, does that render all the surrounding clusters impure? If one purchases utensils from a non-Jew, how are they to be kashered? The method depends on how the utensil was used: if used with cold food, rinse with water; if used with hot water, perform hagala (boiling); and if exposed to direct fire, apply libun (burning with fire). A knife must be polished. All these utensils also require tevila—immersion in a mikveh. Two different phrases in Bamidbar 31:23, following the battle with Midian, are cited to derive the requirement for tevila. Why are both phrases needed? Rav Nachman explains that even new utensils purchased from a non-Jew require tevila, since kashered old utensils are considered equivalent to new ones. Borrowed utensils from a non-Jew do not require tevila, but a question arises regarding utensils given to a Jew as collateral. Metal and glass utensils require tevila, but earthenware does not. If an earthenware vessel is coated with a lead glaze, should it be treated as earthenware or as metal? If utensils were used without being kashered, is food prepared in them forbidden? The answer depends on when the vessel was last used and whether one holds that a substance imparting a bad flavor is permitted or prohibited.   y, "May G-d grant us many more years of great learning together. " Today's daf is sponsored by Rachel Alexander Levy in memory of Jack Schuster, father of my chevruta, Rabbi Jordi Schuster. May his memory be for a blessing. Today's daf is sponsored by Adam Dicker in honor of Carolyn Hochstadter Dicker on her birthday. There is a debate between Rav and Shmuel regarding the kashering process known as niguv. In one version of the debate, Rav requires that ashes be used once during the process, while Shmuel requires them to be used twice. In another version, there is no actual disagreement—Rav simply omits the final step of rinsing with water, since its sole purpose is to remove the ashes. Shmuel, however, includes it as part of the process. How are wicker nets in a winepress kashered? Rabbi Avahu derives from the laws of purifying wicker nets that they require niguv. If the nets are made of reeds, which are more absorbent, they must be left unused for twelve months—or, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, until the next wine-making season. What is the practical difference between these two opinions? Rabbi Yossi offers an alternative to waiting a year: pouring boiling water over them. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel cites Rabbi Yossi, suggesting instead that the nets be placed under running water for an onah. What is an onah? Some define it as either a day or a night, while others say it means twelve hours. Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak explains that both interpretations ultimately mean the same thing. How? The strainer and baskets used in the winepress are kashered differently depending on the material they are made from, since the level of absorption varies. If grape clusters are placed in the winepress and surrounded by the juice from the grapes, are they considered a single unit for the purposes of impurity? This has practical implications: if an am haaretz—someone who may not be trusted regarding purity laws—touches one cluster, does that render all the surrounding clusters impure? If one purchases utensils from a non-Jew, how are they to be kashered? The method depends on how the utensil was used: if used with cold food, rinse with water; if used with hot water, perform hagala (boiling); and if exposed to direct fire, apply libun (burning with fire). A knife must be polished. All these utensils also require tevila—immersion in a mikveh. Two different phrases in Bamidbar 31:23, following the battle with Midian, are cited to derive the requirement for tevila. Why are both phrases needed? Rav Nachman explains that even new utensils purchased from a non-Jew require tevila, since kashered old utensils are considered equivalent to new ones. Borrowed utensils from a non-Jew do not require tevila, but a question arises regarding utensils given to a Jew as collateral. Metal and glass utensils require tevila, but earthenware does not. If an earthenware vessel is coated with a lead glaze, should it be treated as earthenware or as metal? If utensils were used without being kashered, is food prepared in them forbidden? The answer depends on when the vessel was last used and whether one holds that a substance imparting a bad flavor is permitted or prohibited.

Today's daf is sponsored by Lisa Elon in honor of her steadfast chevruta, Rhondda Ma Today's daf is sponsored by Lisa Elon in honor of her steadfast chevruta, Rhondda May, "May G-d grant us many more years of great learning together. " Today's daf is sponsored by Rachel Alexander Levy in memory of Jack Schuster, father of my chevruta, Rabbi Jordi Schuster. May his memory be for a blessing. Today's daf is sponsored by Adam Dicker in honor of Carolyn Hochstadter Dicker on her birthday. There is a debate between Rav and Shmuel regarding the kashering process known as niguv. In one version of the debate, Rav requires that ashes be used once during the process, while Shmuel requires them to be used twice. In another version, there is no actual disagreement—Rav simply omits the final step of rinsing with water, since its sole purpose is to remove the ashes. Shmuel, however, includes it as part of the process. How are wicker nets in a winepress kashered? Rabbi Avahu derives from the laws of purifying wicker nets that they require niguv. If the nets are made of reeds, which are more absorbent, they must be left unused for twelve months—or, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, until the next wine-making season. What is the practical difference between these two opinions? Rabbi Yossi offers an alternative to waiting a year: pouring boiling water over them. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel cites Rabbi Yossi, suggesting instead that the nets be placed under running water for an onah. What is an onah? Some define it as either a day or a night, while others say it means twelve hours. Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak explains that both interpretations ultimately mean the same thing. How? The strainer and baskets used in the winepress are kashered differently depending on the material they are made from, since the level of absorption varies. If grape clusters are placed in the winepress and surrounded by the juice from the grapes, are they considered a single unit for the purposes of impurity? This has practical implications: if an am haaretz—someone who may not be trusted regarding purity laws—touches one cluster, does that render all the surrounding clusters impure? If one purchases utensils from a non-Jew, how are they to be kashered? The method depends on how the utensil was used: if used with cold food, rinse with water; if used with hot water, perform hagala (boiling); and if exposed to direct fire, apply libun (burning with fire). A knife must be polished. All these utensils also require tevila—immersion in a mikveh. Two different phrases in Bamidbar 31:23, following the battle with Midian, are cited to derive the requirement for tevila. Why are both phrases needed? Rav Nachman explains that even new utensils purchased from a non-Jew require tevila, since kashered old utensils are considered equivalent to new ones. Borrowed utensils from a non-Jew do not require tevila, but a question arises regarding utensils given to a Jew as collateral. Metal and glass utensils require tevila, but earthenware does not. If an earthenware vessel is coated with a lead glaze, should it be treated as earthenware or as metal? If utensils were used without being kashered, is food prepared in them forbidden? The answer depends on when the vessel was last used and whether one holds that a substance imparting a bad flavor is permitted or prohibited.   y, "May G-d grant us many more years of great learning together. " Today's daf is sponsored by Rachel Alexander Levy in memory of Jack Schuster, father of my chevruta, Rabbi Jordi Schuster. May his memory be for a blessing. Today's daf is sponsored by Adam Dicker in honor of Carolyn Hochstadter Dicker on her birthday. There is a debate between Rav and Shmuel regarding the kashering process known as niguv. In one version of the debate, Rav requires that ashes be used once during the process, while Shmuel requires them to be used twice. In another version, there is no actual disagreement—Rav simply omits the final step of rinsing with water, since its sole purpose is to remove the ashes. Shmuel, however, includes it as part of the process. How are wicker nets in a winepress kashered? Rabbi Avahu derives from the laws of purifying wicker nets that they require niguv. If the nets are made of reeds, which are more absorbent, they must be left unused for twelve months—or, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, until the next wine-making season. What is the practical difference between these two opinions? Rabbi Yossi offers an alternative to waiting a year: pouring boiling water over them. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel cites Rabbi Yossi, suggesting instead that the nets be placed under running water for an onah. What is an onah? Some define it as either a day or a night, while others say it means twelve hours. Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak explains that both interpretations ultimately mean the same thing. How? The strainer and baskets used in the winepress are kashered differently depending on the material they are made from, since the level of absorption varies. If grape clusters are placed in the winepress and surrounded by the juice from the grapes, are they considered a single unit for the purposes of impurity? This has practical implications: if an am haaretz—someone who may not be trusted regarding purity laws—touches one cluster, does that render all the surrounding clusters impure? If one purchases utensils from a non-Jew, how are they to be kashered? The method depends on how the utensil was used: if used with cold food, rinse with water; if used with hot water, perform hagala (boiling); and if exposed to direct fire, apply libun (burning with fire). A knife must be polished. All these utensils also require tevila—immersion in a mikveh. Two different phrases in Bamidbar 31:23, following the battle with Midian, are cited to derive the requirement for tevila. Why are both phrases needed? Rav Nachman explains that even new utensils purchased from a non-Jew require tevila, since kashered old utensils are considered equivalent to new ones. Borrowed utensils from a non-Jew do not require tevila, but a question arises regarding utensils given to a Jew as collateral. Metal and glass utensils require tevila, but earthenware does not. If an earthenware vessel is coated with a lead glaze, should it be treated as earthenware or as metal? If utensils were used without being kashered, is food prepared in them forbidden? The answer depends on when the vessel was last used and whether one holds that a substance imparting a bad flavor is permitted or prohibited.

"Shoftim" Torah Thought by Rabbi Yossi Madvig of Oswego New York

"Re'eh" Torah Thought by Rabbi Yossi Madvig of Oswego New York

Torah Thought by Rabbi Yossi Madvig of Oswego, New York. August 14, 2025

Programming Update:We're in the process of moving to a new studio! That means the Israel Daily News Podcast will be taking a short break — but don't worry, we'll be back with your regular programming next week, better than ever. Thanks for sticking with us!

Rabbi Yossi Lipsker grew up on shlichus in Northeast Philadelphia and lives today on shlichus in Swampscott, a suburb of Boston.In this episode, Yossi shares his childhood memories of growing up on shlichus and coming on occasion to 770 and the distance between those two worlds.We discuss the tensions between a parent's dreams for their child and the child's own dreams, between the boundaries of the community and the identity of the individual, and how tzimtzum lo kipshuto plays a role in everything.____Support this podcast at: ⁠https://www.hflpodcast.com/donate⁠____If you would like to sponsor an episode or advertise on the podcast please reach out to bentzi@yuvlamedia.com____This week's episode is brought to you by "This World Is A Garden," a new film and live concert production by Yuvla Media based on the Rebbe's first talk, Bosi Lgani.Combining beautiful cinematography with a live performance by a string quartet, this production is a meditation on hope and holding on to a vision even as time passes by.Now you can bring this groundbreaking experience of Bosi Lgani to your community.For more info please visit: ⁠https://www.yuvlamedia.com/thisworldi..⁠.____Homesick for Lubavitch is a project of Yuvla Media.Bentzi Avtzon is a filmmaker who specializes in telling the stories of thoughtful and heartfelt organizations. Business inquiries only: hello@yuvlamedia.comConnect with BentziWebsite | ⁠https://www.yuvlamedia.com⁠

Shabbat Chazon - A Torah Thought from Rabbi Yossi Madvig of Oswego New York

A new mishnah! A Jew may not rent a house to a non-Jew in the land of Israel, and clearly not a field. In Syria, a Jew may rent a house to the non-Jew, but not the field. And in the Diaspora, a Jew may indeed sell a house to a non-Jew and rent out the fields. (All according to Rabbi Meir). Rabbi Yossi's response is more generous. The Gemara notes that even where one may rent out a house to a non-Jews, there is no permit to do so for purpose of using the space as residential. Plus, the questions that arise (including mezuzah) when a Jew wants to rent to the non-Jew, for example. But for the one who sells in the land of Israel, he would still have puzzlement over what is leftover as a concern of idolatry, for example. Note the extra caution of not selling houses to the Syrians (regardless of the fields). Plus, no bathhouses...

More on Rabbi Hanina ben Teradyon - his trial and interrogation about why he engaged in Torah study. Plus, his daughter who ended up sentenced to a brothel, and why his wife and daughter were punished on account of him. Yet, they all accepted the judgements as deserved, which raises theological questions about reward and punishment. Plus, those who worked alongside Rome and those who defied them, and the difference in their deaths (Rabbi Yossi ben Kismah and Rabbi Haninah ben Teradyon) - including the piety of Rabbi Haninah ben Teradyon, burned with the Torah scroll. With inquiries to him from his daughter, his students, and the Roman executioner. Also, recognition of Beruriah, and her mission for Rabbi Meir to go get her sister out of the brothel. Plus, the question of the "incident with Beruriah."

Rabbi Rabinowich is a Rebbi in the Mesivta of Greater Philadelphia

Israel Daily News website: https://israeldailynews.orgIsrael Daily News Roundtable: https://www.patreon.com/shannafuldSupport our Wartime News Coverage: https://www.gofundme.com/f/independent-journalist-covering-israels-warLinks to all things IDN:⁠ https://linktr.ee/israeldailynews

Happy Yom Haatzmaut! Israel turns 77. Here's a Torah thought by Rabbi Yossi Madvig to recenter us. Israel Daily News website: https://israeldailynews.orgIsrael Daily News Roundtable: https://www.patreon.com/shannafuldSupport our Wartime News Coverage: https://www.gofundme.com/f/independent-journalist-covering-israels-warLinks to all things IDN:⁠ https://linktr.ee/israeldailynews⁠

Rabbi Yossi Rosenblum is an educator at Yeshiva Schools in Pittsburgh for several decades, where he began as a teacher and now serves as Head of School. In this conversation, we discuss how his priorities as a teacher has changed over time, how both the world around the school but also the world within the school makes new demands of teachers but also offers new opportunities.We discuss how he navigates the changing relationship between the school and the parents and his advice for parents thinking about where to send their child. We also discuss his views about incorporating mental health awareness into a school, and what ends it is meant to serve.But while we discuss much about what has changed, we also discuss the basic truths about educations that are relevant as ever today.____Support this podcast at: https://www.hflpodcast.com/donate____This week's episode is brought to you by "This World Is A Garden," a new film and live concert production by Yuvla Media based on the Rebbe's first talk, Bosi Lgani.Combining beautiful cinematography with a live performance by a string quartet, this production is a meditation on hope and holding on to a vision even as time passes by.Now you can bring this groundbreaking experience of Bosi Lgani to your community.For more info please visit: https://www.yuvlamedia.com/thisworldi...____Homesick for Lubavitch is a project of Yuvla Media.Bentzi Avtzon is a filmmaker who specializes in telling the stories of thoughtful and heartfelt organizations. Business inquiries only: hello@yuvlamedia.comConnect with BentziWebsite | https://www.yuvlamedia.com

Rabbi Flamm is a Maggid Shiur at Yeshivas Chofetz Chaim in Baltimore

First of all, Happy New Year!  Let us hope for a healthy 2025 and success in our personal and business lives.  Today you will meet Rabbi Yossi Jacobson who, thirty years ago, was sent from Brooklyn to Iowa.  How that happened, what business he started, a bit about Chanukah and those 613 Commandments are all in this conversation.  His business Maccabee's Glatt Kosher Deli is the only one of its kind in the State of Iowa.  How did Yossi get here from Brooklyn, why a deli, how it got its name and more.  Oh, Happy Chanukah as well. Thanks for listening! The award winning Insight on Business the News Hour with Michael Libbie is the only weekday business news podcast in the Midwest. The national, regional and some local business news along with long-form business interviews can be heard Monday - Friday. You can subscribe on  PlayerFM, Podbean, iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher or TuneIn Radio. And you can catch The Business News Hour Week in Review each Sunday Noon Central on News/Talk 1540 KXEL. The Business News Hour is a production of Insight Advertising, Marketing & Communications. You can follow us on Twitter @IoB_NewsHour...and on Threads @Insight_On_Business.

Welcome to a shortened version of the Business News Headlines.  You might say we're into the "Holiday Spirit"! Thanks for being here and after the headlines you'll meet Rabbi Yossi Jacobson who, thirty years ago, was sent from Brooklyn to Iowa.  How that happened, what business he started, a bit about Chanukah and those 613 Commandments are all in this conversation. Stick around. If you want to follow us  on social media you can find us all day on Twitter or "X" @IOB_NewsHour and on Instagram. Facebook? Sure were there too.  And our website is just a click away where you can scroll through all of our newscasts. Here's what we've got for you today: The Markets fell apart today and we'll offer details; 2024 was a good year for some...not so good for others; We have a list of each For the conversation meet Rabbi Yossi Jacobson and his business Maccabee's Glatt Kosher Deli the only one of its kind in the State of Iowa.  How did Yossi get here from Brooklyn, why a deli, how it got its name and, because we are in the midst of Chanukah we'll cover that as well as a bit about those 613 Commandment.  Yes, 613. Thanks for listening! The award winning Insight on Business the News Hour with Michael Libbie is the only weekday business news podcast in the Midwest. The national, regional and some local business news along with long-form business interviews can be heard Monday - Friday. You can subscribe on  PlayerFM, Podbean, iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher or TuneIn Radio. And you can catch The Business News Hour Week in Review each Sunday Noon Central on News/Talk 1540 KXEL. The Business News Hour is a production of Insight Advertising, Marketing & Communications. You can follow us on Twitter @IoB_NewsHour...and on Threads @Insight_On_Business.

Everyone agrees that if the date of an IOU is the date of a Shabbat or Yom Kippur, the given assumption is that the document was post-dated, with some occasions that - despite this apparent exceptions that are the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Yossi. Also, other cases of bills being dated to some future date, after the funds for that bill becoming available -- presumably for financial flexibility.

Send us a textToras Hagalus

Rabbi Yossi Birman de Jabad Palermo  Palabras de Sabiduría Kinus HaShluchim Chabad Lubavitch Dec 1, 2024 New Jersey, US --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/leandrotaub/support

Stay updated via WhatsApp: https://chat.whatsapp.com/LcLgVe52sIw4yyUW3RG1wZFind out about our programmes, journals, and books: www.TheHabura.comWe are an online and global Bet Midrash with international students, striving to know God by embracing the world through the lens of Torah. Web: www.TheHabura.com Instagram: @TheHabura Facebook: The Habura A project of the Senior Rabbi's Office (www.seniorrabbi.com), S&P Sephardi Community of the UK, Montefiore Endowment, and Dangoor Education.#torah #talmud #yeshiva #betmidrash #sephardi #sepharadi #sephardic #sefardi #sefardic #rambam Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A contradiction was brought from a braita against the Mishna regarding returning reciprocal gifts for a wedding (shushbinim). There were three resolutions. The third established the case of the Mishna of one when the groom died and left a yabam, a brother to perform levirate marriage. When the gifts are given to the yabam, he must share them with his brothers. To raise a difficulty against this answer they compare the case to one where the groom dies after betrothal and before the marriage. Just as in that case, the money from the betrothal does not have to be returned as the woman can claim that it is not her fault that they are not getting married, likewise with the shushbinim, the family that first received gifts can claim that there is no need for them to send gifts if the groom is no longer alive since they did not rejoice with him at the wedding. However, Rav Yosef explains that the cases aren't comparable as the case with the yabam was one where the other family did join the brother's wedding before he died and rejoiced with him, but did not yet bring the gifts. The Gemara attempts to establish that the opinion mentioned previously, that a woman does not have to return the money of the betrothal if the husband died as she can claim it was not her fault they never got married, is a subject of a tannaitic debate. However, this suggestion is rejected and the tannaitic debate is explained to be regarding a case where the woman, not the man, died and the debate is whether or not betrothal money was meant to be given and kept even if the marriage never happened. If one holds that it was not intended to be kept even if the marriage never happened, the woman's heirs would need to return the money if that was the custom in the place where they lived. That issue was not only a debate between Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yehuda haNasi in the source quoted previously, but also can help explain a debate in a different braita between Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yossi. In the time of the amoraim, there were different opinions about whether the betrothal money would be returned or whether other gifts given from the groom to the bride were to be returned. The five unique laws that govern the shushbinot gifts. The court can enforce its collection. It is returned only when the one who gave first gets married. There is no interest if the reciprocal gift is larger than the first. It is not canceled in the shmita year like other loans. And a firstborn would not collect a double portion if the father was owed shushbinot gifts for his sons. If one doesn't attend the wedding, one is still obligated to bring reciprocal gifts. However, if he was not invited to the wedding, while he still needs to pay, he can hold a grievance against the person. However, since he did not eat at the wedding, he can deduct the amount he would have eaten from his gift. How is the amount of the deduction calculated? A braita sets up various cases in which one is not obligated to return the shushbinot. In the context of that braita, they mention a public wedding (pumbi) and therefore another braita that mentions this word pumbi in a different context is brought. That braita quotes various drashot comparing one who is wealthy in different types of property to one who is wealthy in different types of Torah knowledge. What is the ideal? Rav and Rava deliberation about whether it is better to master Mishna or better to matter Talmud. They each derive their opinion from Proverbs 15:15. Other drashot are brought on that verse which relate to middot or other things that will make a person happy or will cause them to lead an unhappy life. Some of these sources view having a happy life as a good thing whereas others do not view it in a positive light.

A contradiction was brought from a braita against the Mishna regarding returning reciprocal gifts for a wedding (shushbinim). There were three resolutions. The third established the case of the Mishna of one when the groom died and left a yabam, a brother to perform levirate marriage. When the gifts are given to the yabam, he must share them with his brothers. To raise a difficulty against this answer they compare the case to one where the groom dies after betrothal and before the marriage. Just as in that case, the money from the betrothal does not have to be returned as the woman can claim that it is not her fault that they are not getting married, likewise with the shushbinim, the family that first received gifts can claim that there is no need for them to send gifts if the groom is no longer alive since they did not rejoice with him at the wedding. However, Rav Yosef explains that the cases aren't comparable as the case with the yabam was one where the other family did join the brother's wedding before he died and rejoiced with him, but did not yet bring the gifts. The Gemara attempts to establish that the opinion mentioned previously, that a woman does not have to return the money of the betrothal if the husband died as she can claim it was not her fault they never got married, is a subject of a tannaitic debate. However, this suggestion is rejected and the tannaitic debate is explained to be regarding a case where the woman, not the man, died and the debate is whether or not betrothal money was meant to be given and kept even if the marriage never happened. If one holds that it was not intended to be kept even if the marriage never happened, the woman's heirs would need to return the money if that was the custom in the place where they lived. That issue was not only a debate between Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yehuda haNasi in the source quoted previously, but also can help explain a debate in a different braita between Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yossi. In the time of the amoraim, there were different opinions about whether the betrothal money would be returned or whether other gifts given from the groom to the bride were to be returned. The five unique laws that govern the shushbinot gifts. The court can enforce its collection. It is returned only when the one who gave first gets married. There is no interest if the reciprocal gift is larger than the first. It is not canceled in the shmita year like other loans. And a firstborn would not collect a double portion if the father was owed shushbinot gifts for his sons. If one doesn't attend the wedding, one is still obligated to bring reciprocal gifts. However, if he was not invited to the wedding, while he still needs to pay, he can hold a grievance against the person. However, since he did not eat at the wedding, he can deduct the amount he would have eaten from his gift. How is the amount of the deduction calculated? A braita sets up various cases in which one is not obligated to return the shushbinot. In the context of that braita, they mention a public wedding (pumbi) and therefore another braita that mentions this word pumbi in a different context is brought. That braita quotes various drashot comparing one who is wealthy in different types of property to one who is wealthy in different types of Torah knowledge. What is the ideal? Rav and Rava deliberation about whether it is better to master Mishna or better to matter Talmud. They each derive their opinion from Proverbs 15:15. Other drashot are brought on that verse which relate to middot or other things that will make a person happy or will cause them to lead an unhappy life. Some of these sources view having a happy life as a good thing whereas others do not view it in a positive light.

What is the language in a document that makes it clear that the document itself only served to strengthen the commitment of the person on their deathbed, and was not meant as a document necessary for affected the transaction? What wording must be used to designate one's property to others in his lifetime when he is healthy? Rabbi Yehuda holds that one must write "From today and after my death." Rabbi Yossi does not require adding "From today." Once this is written, the property is considered to belong to the recipient, while the proceeds belong to the giver. Can either of them sell their rights to their share? Why does the language of "From today and after my death" work here, but it is not effective in a divorce document? Raba bar Avuha accepted Rabbi Yossi's opinion because the date on the document makes it clear that it is in effect from the date it was written, even without adding the words "from today." If an act of acquiring was performed from the giver to witnesses on behalf of the recipient, this would preclude the need for writing "from today," even according to Rabbi Yehuda. However, there is a debate about whether this applies across the board or is it dependent on the language used in the document. If the recipient sells their rights and then predeceases the giver, does the buyer acquire the property upon the giver's death or does it revert to the giver's heirs? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree on this based on a debate about whether one who acquires proceeds to an item (in this case the giver retains rights to the proceeds) is considered the main owner of the item. They debate this issue in another case as well. Why is there a need to mention their debate here if it could be inferred from the other case? To answer this question, the Gemara explains why one could have differentiated between the cases. Rabbi Yochanan raises a difficulty from a braita on Reish Lakish's position, but it is resolved. 

What is the language in a document that makes it clear that the document itself only served to strengthen the commitment of the person on their deathbed, and was not meant as a document necessary for affected the transaction? What wording must be used to designate one's property to others in his lifetime when he is healthy? Rabbi Yehuda holds that one must write "From today and after my death." Rabbi Yossi does not require adding "From today." Once this is written, the property is considered to belong to the recipient, while the proceeds belong to the giver. Can either of them sell their rights to their share? Why does the language of "From today and after my death" work here, but it is not effective in a divorce document? Raba bar Avuha accepted Rabbi Yossi's opinion because the date on the document makes it clear that it is in effect from the date it was written, even without adding the words "from today." If an act of acquiring was performed from the giver to witnesses on behalf of the recipient, this would preclude the need for writing "from today," even according to Rabbi Yehuda. However, there is a debate about whether this applies across the board or is it dependent on the language used in the document. If the recipient sells their rights and then predeceases the giver, does the buyer acquire the property upon the giver's death or does it revert to the giver's heirs? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree on this based on a debate about whether one who acquires proceeds to an item (in this case the giver retains rights to the proceeds) is considered the main owner of the item. They debate this issue in another case as well. Why is there a need to mention their debate here if it could be inferred from the other case? To answer this question, the Gemara explains why one could have differentiated between the cases. Rabbi Yochanan raises a difficulty from a braita on Reish Lakish's position, but it is resolved. 

If one wrote all of his possessions to his wife it assumed that the man intended only to appoint her as a steward and wrote it in that manner so that the recipients of the will would respect the executor. Would this be the case only if he wrote it on his deathbed or would it apply even if it was written when the husband was healthy? The answer to this question is brought from a braita relating to a case where the husband wrote to give his wife all of his property and on account of a debt of the husband, the property was collected from the wife, does she forfeit the right to collect her ketuba. Although there is a debate about this, it is clear that if he wrote to give her all of his property, she inherits it all and is not appointed to be a steward. First, the Gemara assumes that it is a case where the husband is not on his deathbed, as on his deathbed, she would be appointed to be a steward. However, this answer is rejected as the rule on one's deathbed has some exceptions, like a woman who was only betrothed or divorced. If the case was in one of those situations, then it could have been even if he was on his deathbed, thus leaving the original question unanswered. Rav Nachman ruled in the ketuba case above that the woman forfeits her right to collect the ketuba when she accepts all of the husband's property. A difficulty is raised from a braita, from a different case where Rav Nachman ruled that we assess one's intention and allow one's possessions to be returned, which we do not do by the woman regarding her ketuba. It was resolved by differentiating between the cases. A Mishna in Peah is quoted, as later Rava will ask if the ruling also applies only if it was done on a man's deathbed or even if he was healthy. If a husband writes all of his possessions to his son and gives his wife any size portion of land, she loses her right to her ketuba. Three amoraim suggest different explanations for this puzzling ruling - each suggesting that the woman indicated (although not explicitly) her acceptance of this arrangement. The Gemara quotes the continuation of the Mishna to raise a difficulty on the three opinions as Rabbi Yossi holds that even if the husband did not write a document to her granting her the land, but the woman accepts it she gives up her rights. This implies that the first tanna requires both a written document and the woman's explicit consent. There is no resolution to the difficulty against the three amoraim. Rav Nachman ruled that the woman forfeits her right to collect the ketuba in the case described above. He explained that the woman is willing to give up these rights as the husband made her his partner is dividing the property to the sons and this affords her honor on account of which she is willing to forfeit her right to her ketuba. Rava asked if this ruling applies also to a man who divided his property in this manner when he was healthy, or only on his deathbed. The Gemara explains the two sides of the question but leaves the question unresolved.

If one wrote all of his possessions to his wife it assumed that the man intended only to appoint her as a steward and wrote it in that manner so that the recipients of the will would respect the executor. Would this be the case only if he wrote it on his deathbed or would it apply even if it was written when the husband was healthy? The answer to this question is brought from a braita relating to a case where the husband wrote to give his wife all of his property and on account of a debt of the husband, the property was collected from the wife, does she forfeit the right to collect her ketuba. Although there is a debate about this, it is clear that if he wrote to give her all of his property, she inherits it all and is not appointed to be a steward. First, the Gemara assumes that it is a case where the husband is not on his deathbed, as on his deathbed, she would be appointed to be a steward. However, this answer is rejected as the rule on one's deathbed has some exceptions, like a woman who was only betrothed or divorced. If the case was in one of those situations, then it could have been even if he was on his deathbed, thus leaving the original question unanswered. Rav Nachman ruled in the ketuba case above that the woman forfeits her right to collect the ketuba when she accepts all of the husband's property. A difficulty is raised from a braita, from a different case where Rav Nachman ruled that we assess one's intention and allow one's possessions to be returned, which we do not do by the woman regarding her ketuba. It was resolved by differentiating between the cases. A Mishna in Peah is quoted, as later Rava will ask if the ruling also applies only if it was done on a man's deathbed or even if he was healthy. If a husband writes all of his possessions to his son and gives his wife any size portion of land, she loses her right to her ketuba. Three amoraim suggest different explanations for this puzzling ruling - each suggesting that the woman indicated (although not explicitly) her acceptance of this arrangement. The Gemara quotes the continuation of the Mishna to raise a difficulty on the three opinions as Rabbi Yossi holds that even if the husband did not write a document to her granting her the land, but the woman accepts it she gives up her rights. This implies that the first tanna requires both a written document and the woman's explicit consent. There is no resolution to the difficulty against the three amoraim. Rav Nachman ruled that the woman forfeits her right to collect the ketuba in the case described above. He explained that the woman is willing to give up these rights as the husband made her his partner is dividing the property to the sons and this affords her honor on account of which she is willing to forfeit her right to her ketuba. Rava asked if this ruling applies also to a man who divided his property in this manner when he was healthy, or only on his deathbed. The Gemara explains the two sides of the question but leaves the question unresolved.

The Mishna on RH 32a quotes a machlokes whether the final of the ten pesukim should be from Navi or Torah. In analyzing this machlokes, we discovered Rabbi Yossi's novel take on the role of these pesukim.

Send us a textBlack, Jewish and Proud: How Rabbi Yossi Kulek Promotes Inclusion To inquire about dedicating an episode - please email podcast@lubavitch.comDid you enjoy listening to this episode? Leave us a five-star review on the podcast platform and/or email us at Podcast@Lubavitch.com - we truly value your feedback!“I told my mother, ‘I'm ashamed. I'm ashamed to be Black. I look in the mirror and I ask G-d, “Why me? Why do I have to look this way? Why do I have to be Black?'” - Rabbi Yossi Kulek“I instilled in my children that if there's anyone that's ever had an issue with them, it's because they have a problem. You're not the problem.” - Rebbetzin Dalia KulekProduced by: Gary Waleik & Shneur Brook for Lubavitch International/Lubavitch.com - A Project of Machne IsraelAvailable on all major podcast platforms - and online at Lubavitch.com/podcastSupport the show

In this episode, Rabbi Yossi Katz delves into the fascinating life and works of Rav Nosson Nota Zuber, a Talmudic scholar who served as the rabbi of Roselle, NJ. Through a general exploration of Rav Zuber's responsa contained in Zichron Menachem, Rabbi Katz reveals the remarkable rulings and insights made by this less-well-known, yet exceedingly erudite 20th century rabbinic figure.  Rabbi Katz has compiled historical data about Rabbi Zuber and created the following wikipedia page: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Zuber 

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

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

In this episode, Rabbi Yossi Kamman joins us to explore a fascinating responsum (Likutei Sichos, Vol. 16, p. 518) of the Lubavitcher Rebbe (R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson) against scheduling elective surgeries within a few days of Shabbos. Rabbi Kamman presents us with an insightful profile of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, his approach to halachah, and what made him unique and so widely renowned. A synopsis of this topic, can be found in Rabbi Kamman's publication, a A Chassidisher Derher. This episode is sponsored by Lev Podelko in honor of the upcoming 30th wedding anniversary of his parents Marina and Dr. Alexander Podelko.

Thu., May 16, 2024  A Torah Thought from Rabbi Yossi Madvig on this week's parsha called “Emor.”  News of the day: Five IDF Soldiers killed in friendly fire incident in northern Gaza. See israeldailynews.org for more information.  Israel Daily News website: https://israeldailynews.org Israel Daily News Roundtable: https://www.patreon.com/shannafuld Support our Wartime News Coverage: https://www.gofundme.com/f/independent-journalist-covering-israels-war Links to all things IDN:⁠ https://linktr.ee/israeldailynews⁠ --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/israeldailynews/support

Send us a Text Message.Eretz Yisrael and YOU!

Rabbi Yossi Morozov grew up in Brooklyn and was on shlichus with his family for twelve years in Ulyanovsk, a city one thousand kilometers east of Moscow. After being forced to leave Russia, Yossi moved with his family to the Pomona area in New York and became a life insurance agent. In this conversation we discuss his choices to go on shlichus and then into business and the challenges these choices posed to his own Lubavitch identity.

The Jewish people are now in an interesting time between the holiday of Passover and Shavuot. But who's counting? We are. Take a listen to this message before Shabbat from our spiritual leader and guide, Rabbi Yossi Madvig of Oswego, New York. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/israeldailynews/support

The spiritual leader of the Israel Daily News Podcast, Rabbi Yossi Madvig comes to you with a Shabbat and end-of-Passover message. Hint: It's about miracles. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/israeldailynews/support

Chag Purim Sameach from Rabbi Yossi Madvig and the Israel Daily News team! We know that as war wages on in Gaza, it can be difficult to celebrate what is meant to be such a joyous holiday. Find solace in the words of IDN spiritual leader, Rabbi Yossi Madvig of Oswego, New York. For Thursday's news, head over to IsraelDailyNews.org --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/israeldailynews/support

Tu B'Shvat is a Jewish holiday that celebrates the renewal of trees in a yearly cycle. Elliott notes, the timing of the holiday on the Jewish calendar is weird, falling out in the middle of winter. If we really wanted to get into the spirit of the day, we'd send everyone out into the middle of nature, "into the wild," to experience the trees. Rabbi Yossi points out that the winter is also a cool time to think about trees, because it is when the sap starts to run. The trees are starting to come alive, on the inside, where the sap is starting to build. Really, this is symbolic of the inner growth that takes place inside of us as human beings. Yossi adds that maple syrup is an ancient food but you have to get rid of the excess foam, which is a great metaphor for what people have to do - to keep the sweet parts of ourselves and get rid of the excess. As Yossi says, "whatever your winter looks like" you have to learn to go through the dark nights and come out on the other side.Elliott also notes that educationally, Tu B'shvat should teach us to "throw out the playbook." Jewish schools could plan a trip, throw away the books for a day, and take students out into nature to experience renewal and the miracle of creation. The holiday of the trees shows us that religious education can be found as much in nature as in textbooks. Yossi says there should be "Outward Bound" program for Tu B'shvat. This holiday represents the environmental ethic of the ancient rabbis and their view of the ecosystem, exemplified in the discussion of rain in the second paragraph of the Shema prayer. God gives human stewardship over the earth and it is up to us to make sure we treat that as a sacred trust. In an age of climate change, this is a powerful message.Shout out to the late great Neil Peart of Rush and his wonderful song "The Trees!"This‌ ‌episode discusses:‌ ‌ The importance of Tu B'Shvat How to use this time of year to cultivate renewal in oneselfThe history of Tu B'ShvatEmail us at hello@livingjewishly.org, we would love to hear from you!Be sure to follow us on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/living.jewishly/ and on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/livingjewishly/ If you like the show, please leave a review, it helps us to reach more people just like you.Links:‌ ‌ To get in contact or learn more about Living Jewishly:  Visit‌ ‌our ‌website: https://livingjewishly.org  Follow us on Instagram: @living.jewishly  Watch us on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCO2YEegjapKpQeXG6zh6tzw   or send us an email at hello@livingjewishly.org.    Shalom!

Holy High: How Milwaukee Became Home to a Revolutionary Jewish Prep School - Rabbi Yossi & Ilana BassmanTo inquire about dedicating an episode - please email podcast@lubavitch.com"There was one instance where a bunch of kids over there brought this bag of chips, they gave it to me. And I was like, "You know, what could be wrong with chips?" And ate it. And then, afterwards, they were just mocking me. "Oh, that was pork rinds. The Jew ate pork rinds." - Gedaliah Liberman, Bader Hillel High '19 "If we're stepping up and taking ownership of the future of the Yiddishkeit, of the Jewish people, that begins and ends in authentic Jewish education. - Rabbi Yossi Bassman"I do remember, vividly, looking at my husband and telling him, "No, I seriously, I cannot plan a program. I wouldn't even be able to make a lesson plan. I can't even do that." And he looked me straight in the eye and he said, "Yes, you could." - Rebbetzin Ilana BassmanProduced by: Gary Waleik & Shneur Brook for Lubavitch International/Lubavitch.com - A Project of Machne IsraelAvailable on all major podcast platforms - and online at Lubavitch.com/podcastDid you enjoy listening to this episode? Leave us a five-star review on the podcast platform and/or email us at Podcast@Lubavitch.com - we truly value your feedback!

The Gemara in Shabbos 25b cites a four way machlokes about who is rich? Rabbi Meir gives the classic answer (from Avos 4:1) that it's one who is happy with his portion. Rabbi Tarfon says it's one who has 100 vineyards, 100 fields, and 100 servants to work them. Rabbi Akiva says it's one who has a wife who is “pleasant in her actions.” Rabbi Yossi says it's one who has a bathroom near his table. This episode analyzes these positions.

Have a 2024 new year blessing from Rabbi Yossi Madvig of Oswego, New York. Sign up for this week's Newsletter to include a 2023 rundown of accomplishments and milestones along with a 2024 message from IDNP host Shanna Fuld: Israeldaily.news Israel Daily News Roundtable: https://www.patreon.com/shannafuld Support our Wartime News Coverage: https://www.gofundme.com/f/independent-journalist-covering-israels-war Support the show here:⁠ https://linktr.ee/israeldailynews⁠ Music: Tzuf Family Band at the Baam Nature Reserve https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2712386232335422 --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/israeldailynews/support

Rav Nachmun issues a halahkic ruling about orphans and the repayment of loans. The daf explores when do kodshim kalim becone subject to meilah and thereby except from damages.

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family "We extend a heartfelt Mazal Tov to our fellow learner, Eric Sommer, on the marriage of his daughter, Ariel to Nitay. In the merit of their wedding, the words of the passuk should be realized quickly: מהרה ה' א-לוקינו ישמע בערי יהודה ובחוצות ירושלים קול ששון וקול שמחה." Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik in memory of the 7-month anniversary of the death of 12-year old Aryeh Kluger z”l and the second yahrzeit of 27-year old Jonathan Loeb on Rosh Chodesh MarCheshvan and in memory of all of the children and adults who were mercilessly murdered on Simchat Torah. May their memories be for a blessing. Today’s daf is sponsored by Rachel Savin in honor of my son Itai who is coming to Israel on aliya today. We are so proud of you.  A father is believed to testify about his daughter whether she is betrothed or betrothed and divorced but only if she is still a minor. A father is not believed to testify about his daughter to forbid her to marry a kohen (that she was taken into captivity and redeemed) What is the difference between the cases? A husband is believed to testify that his wife is exempt from yibum (he has sons or no brothers) but is not believed to obligate her in yibum (he has no sons/has brothers). Do these two rulings, that were said in the Mishna, not accord with Rabbi Natan’s approach who said in braita that a man is believed to obligate his wife in yibum. Rava and Abaye each bring explanations of how the case in braita is different from the case in the Mishna in order to prove that Rabbi Natan would also agree with the ruling in our. If one betrothed his daughter and did not say which daughter, it would not include an adult daughter. If he had two wives and two sets of daughters and he said that he betrothed the older (or the younger), there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yossi about whether all the daughters except the younger (older) are potentially betrothed or did he only mean the oldest (youngest) daughter?