Podcasts about rabbinic

The book of Deuteronomy has begun, and our people are as numerous as the stars in the sky. But Moses cries out, “Eikhah!” The famous heart-broken “how” that foreshadows the tragedies of Tisha B'Av. What mournful message does Moses see in the stars? And what, instead, can we learn from the dust?

The Rebbe's secretary encourages a student to pursue both teacher certification and rabbinic ordination, emphasizing the importance of official credentials for effective influence in Jewish education. He notes that such qualifications enhance respect and opportunities to spread Judaism. https://www.torahrecordings.com/rebbe/igroskodesh/017/010/6405

There are different types of rabbinic legislation, but all of them are designed to raise our consciousness of Yirat Shamayim.Source Sheet

Welcome to a Jewish History Uncensored with Dr. Marc Shapiro. This season we are covering the story of Dr. Shapiro's most recent book–a collection of letters from some of the great Rabbinic figures of our day. The correspondences between Dr. Shapiro and these luminaries cover a wide array of fascinating topics. This is episode 44.For more information visit torahinmotion.org/podcastsTo support more thoughtful Jewish content like this, visit torahinmotion.org/donateBuy the book here: https://www.ebay.com/itm/372750487550

The Rebbe addresses whether Torah-observant Jews may join rabbinic organizations that include Reform or Conservative representatives. He explains this is not just about organizational participation, but a fundamental issue affecting the Jewish public's relationship to core Torah principles. https://www.torahrecordings.com/rebbe/igroskodesh/012/006/4162

The letter clarifies that the Alter Rebbe did not intend to rule on whether prayer is a Torah or Rabbinic commandment, but rather to correct those who justify hurried prayer by claiming it is only Rabbinic. The focus is on the error of rushing through prayer. https://www.torahrecordings.com/rebbe/igroskodesh/012/007/4225

Now that faith in Yeshua has come, believers are no longer under the 611 Laws of the Torah (Maimonides, a Jewish philosopher and Rabbinic scholar reinterpreted two of the laws to give 613). So, what do we as believers do with the Ten Commandments. If a person breaks one of the 611 commands, for example, eating ham, he/she is a law breaker guilty of breaking ALL the laws even the ten commandments although the ten commandments mentioning about ham. How can that be. The Law is one unit, not three as people have separated them. The Law for the believer in Yeshua has been rendered inoperative and according to Hebrew 8:13 is obsolete.

Welcome to a Jewish History Uncensored with Dr. Marc Shapiro. This season we are covering the story of Dr. Shapiro's most recent book–a collection of letters from some of the great Rabbinic figures of our day. The correspondences between Dr. Shapiro and these luminaries cover a wide array of fascinating topics. This is episode 44.For more information visit torahinmotion.org/podcastsTo support more thoughtful Jewish content like this, visit torahinmotion.org/donateBuy the book here: https://www.ebay.com/itm/372750487550

A cat or a weasel (chulda) renders a bird a treifa through clawing (derisa), whereas only a cat can do so for small cattle such as young goats and lambs. Other predatory birds besides those explicitly listed in the Mishna can also render other birds a treifa by clawing, but only when targeting birds smaller than themselves, while a hawk (netz) can do so even to birds of its own size. According to an alternate version, ordinary predatory birds can claw birds of their own size or smaller, whereas the hawk can even render birds larger than itself a treifa. Furthermore, two conflicting versions are presented regarding Rav Kahana's ruling in the name of Rav Shimi bar Ashi concerning foxes, debating whether or not they possess the capacity to render animals a treifa through clawing. Abaye limits the laws of derisa to the predator's front legs, specifying that it must be executed specifically with a claw and not with teeth, must be done with intent, and must occur while the prey is still alive. In a case where a lion was found among oxen and a dislodged claw was subsequently discovered on the back of one of the oxen, Rabba bar Rav Huna ruled in the name of Rav that there is no concern for derisa. He reasoned that while most lions do claw, their claws do not generally detach in the process; thus, it is more probable that the ox rubbed against a wall and accidentally picked up a nail embedded there. The Gemara initially rejects this argument, countering that while oxen frequently rub against walls, nails rarely stick to their backs in this manner, and since the lion remains a viable source, one should rule stringently. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that because the logic can support either side, the ox retains its presumptive status of permissibility; as a matter of pure doubt, Rav remains consistent with his opinion stated elsewhere that we rule leniently in cases of uncertain clawing. Abaye restricts this leniency, clarifying that it only applies when an actual claw is found embedded rather than a mere mark, when the claw is moist rather than dry, and when there are only one, two, or three claws scattered at random rather than two or three found in a distinct row. Rav and Shmuel disagree on whether to rule leniently or stringently in cases of doubt regarding derisa. While both agree to rule leniently in certain scenarios, they dispute a case where a lion entered among oxen and the lion remained silent while the oxen were found bellowing in distress. Ameimar ruled stringently in accordance with Shmuel, either because he rejected Rav's view or because he believed Rav ultimately retracted his opinion, a shift suggested by a practical incident that occurred. Although several difficulties are raised regarding the specific details of that incident, they are successfully resolved. Rav Ashi similarly ruled leniently in a case of doubt. If there is a doubt as to whether an animal was clawed, the Gemara rules that one may inspect the internal areas of the carcass to see if redness has formed from the venom; if no redness is present, the animal is permitted. This testing method was originally stated by the sons of Rabbi Chiya, though Rav Yosef pointed out that Shmuel himself had already articulated this principle. This discussion leads the Gemara to a series of inquiries - some regarding the laws of clawing and others concerning unrelated laws of treifot - all of which were concisely resolved by an authority who declared that each question had already been answered by a prior Rabbinic statement.

A cat or a weasel (chulda) renders a bird a treifa through clawing (derisa), whereas only a cat can do so for small cattle such as young goats and lambs. Other predatory birds besides those explicitly listed in the Mishna can also render other birds a treifa by clawing, but only when targeting birds smaller than themselves, while a hawk (netz) can do so even to birds of its own size. According to an alternate version, ordinary predatory birds can claw birds of their own size or smaller, whereas the hawk can even render birds larger than itself a treifa. Furthermore, two conflicting versions are presented regarding Rav Kahana's ruling in the name of Rav Shimi bar Ashi concerning foxes, debating whether or not they possess the capacity to render animals a treifa through clawing. Abaye limits the laws of derisa to the predator's front legs, specifying that it must be executed specifically with a claw and not with teeth, must be done with intent, and must occur while the prey is still alive. In a case where a lion was found among oxen and a dislodged claw was subsequently discovered on the back of one of the oxen, Rabba bar Rav Huna ruled in the name of Rav that there is no concern for derisa. He reasoned that while most lions do claw, their claws do not generally detach in the process; thus, it is more probable that the ox rubbed against a wall and accidentally picked up a nail embedded there. The Gemara initially rejects this argument, countering that while oxen frequently rub against walls, nails rarely stick to their backs in this manner, and since the lion remains a viable source, one should rule stringently. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that because the logic can support either side, the ox retains its presumptive status of permissibility; as a matter of pure doubt, Rav remains consistent with his opinion stated elsewhere that we rule leniently in cases of uncertain clawing. Abaye restricts this leniency, clarifying that it only applies when an actual claw is found embedded rather than a mere mark, when the claw is moist rather than dry, and when there are only one, two, or three claws scattered at random rather than two or three found in a distinct row. Rav and Shmuel disagree on whether to rule leniently or stringently in cases of doubt regarding derisa. While both agree to rule leniently in certain scenarios, they dispute a case where a lion entered among oxen and the lion remained silent while the oxen were found bellowing in distress. Ameimar ruled stringently in accordance with Shmuel, either because he rejected Rav's view or because he believed Rav ultimately retracted his opinion, a shift suggested by a practical incident that occurred. Although several difficulties are raised regarding the specific details of that incident, they are successfully resolved. Rav Ashi similarly ruled leniently in a case of doubt. If there is a doubt as to whether an animal was clawed, the Gemara rules that one may inspect the internal areas of the carcass to see if redness has formed from the venom; if no redness is present, the animal is permitted. This testing method was originally stated by the sons of Rabbi Chiya, though Rav Yosef pointed out that Shmuel himself had already articulated this principle. This discussion leads the Gemara to a series of inquiries - some regarding the laws of clawing and others concerning unrelated laws of treifot - all of which were concisely resolved by an authority who declared that each question had already been answered by a prior Rabbinic statement.

The Rebbe addresses medical concerns regarding a woman's health, urging consultation with expert doctors and a qualified rabbi. He also discusses family assistance requests and emphasizes the importance of trust in Hashem and increasing Torah and mitzvos. https://www.torahrecordings.com/rebbe/igroskodesh/017/009/6343

The Rebbe urges a rabbinic candidate to strengthen his Yirat Shamayim both internally and externally, emphasizing the importance of practical observance and guiding the community, especially youth, in areas like Shabbat, family purity, and kosher education. https://www.torahrecordings.com/rebbe/igroskodesh/007/012/2237

The Rebbe writes that the proposed rabbinic position is appropriate, but due to concerns about negative environmental influence, one should increase study in both revealed Torah and Chassidus. This will help withstand challenges, especially imagined ones, and positively impact the surroundings. https://www.torahrecordings.com/rebbe/igroskodesh/008/002/2252

The custom of Aliyah La'regel continued after the Churban.Source Sheet: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Cu5v8xbH68vRJqjGpd8WZ-5CoQ_8jtky/view?usp=share_link

With the world becoming more fast-paced and information so readily available, how do you know when you can look up a halachic question yourself and when it is necessary to call a Rav?No need to wonder any longer! Enjoy this insightful two-part series on how to navigate this modern dilemma.This Week -Part Two: Discussion with Mrs. Esther Piekarski & Conclusion with Mrs. Bayla Blumstein

Danya Ruttenberg is a rabbi, writer, and activist who has been on the front-lines fighting for reproductive justice, through Jewish lenses, for many years. She joins Lex and Rena Yehuda for a conversation about abortion, the framework of bodily  autonomy, and how we might best conceptualize what it means to relate to these issues Jewishly. This episode is the 4th in an ongoing mini-series of Judaism Unbound episodes exploring Judaism through the framework of bodily autonomy. Access full shownotes for this episode via this link. If you're enjoying Judaism Unbound, please help us keep things going with a one-time or monthly tax-deductible donation -- support Judaism Unbound by clicking here! --------------Apply for the UnYeshiva's Certificate Program for Unbound Judaism by heading to www.judaismunbound.com/certificate! The final deadline to submit your application is June 14th.

Mindy Schaper is a unique personality. Not only did she volunteer a kidney to save the life of a young man whom she did not know, but she also volunteered as a surrogate mother, carrying the child of an Orthodox couple full-term … and she did this twice! So now you understand the title of this podcast. Mindy Schaper grew up Chassidic in Boro Park, Brooklyn and now identifies as Modern Orthodox. She is a writer and marketing project manager, with degrees in psychology, English and Judaic Studies She helped to found and run Project Makom, an organization that supports people transitioning out of or re‑orienting from the Haredi world and often seeking a place in the Modern Orthodox world. Her video about being an Orthodox Jewish surrogate ("Being an Orthodox Jewish (and Married!) Surrogate" explores the intersection of modern family-building and traditional Halacha. It highlights the profound cultural and religious considerations required, including navigating Kosher dietary laws during embryo transfers and receiving specific Rabbinic guidance on fertility treatments. Here is a LINK to the video. In our post-interview segment, we share results from our recent survey on the issue of how and why Modern / Centrist Orthodox and Haredi identify and define themselves. The findings are in our new study "Issues of the Day: Orthodox Jewish Community Views on Key Current Issues," which also covers: Our strengths and top challenges; Top issues that we need to better understand; Dialogue and relationships with non-orthodox Jews and with non-Jews; and an Update on modern / centrist orthodox attitudes toward women in shul leadership. Click HERE to access the full report; and click HERE to access all of the Orthodox community research.

With the world becoming more fast-paced and information so readily available, how do you know when you can look up a halachic question yourself and when it is necessary to call a Rav?No need to wonder any longer! Enjoy this insightful two-part series on how to navigate this modern dilemma.This Week -Part One: Rabbi Tuvia Kasimov

Welcome to a Jewish History Uncensored with Dr. Marc Shapiro. This season we are covering the story of Dr. Shapiro's most recent book–a collection of letters from some of the great Rabbinic figures of our day. The correspondences between Dr. Shapiro and these luminaries cover a wide array of fascinating topics. This is episode 43.For more information visit torahinmotion.org/podcastsTo support more thoughtful Jewish content like this, visit torahinmotion.org/donateBuy the book here: https://www.ebay.com/itm/372750487550

(2) James Tabor investigates the mysterious name "Pantera" (or Panta) found in early rabbinic sources, which refer to Jesus as "Yeshua bin Pantera." He explores historical evidence to determine if this was a family name or a specific individual, noting a Roman soldier's tombstone found in Germany belonging to Julius Abdes Pantera. While later critics used the name to suggest Mary was seduced by a soldier, Tabor posits a different historical possibility: Panteramay have been a Jewish youth and relative known to Mary's family who was later impressed into Roman military service.1492

The Rebbe advises how to present arguments in court regarding the mechitza issue, emphasizing reliance on unified Orthodox rabbinic authority and avoiding unnecessary proofs that could be challenged. He stresses the importance of clarity, responsibility, and persistence in defending Torah principles. https://www.torahrecordings.com/rebbe/igroskodesh/015/010/5521

Rabbi Chiya bar Abba recounts a discussion between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yochanan regarding the legal weight of a minor's intent. In the first version, the question is whether a minor's thoughts alone are significant. Rabbi Ami argues it is obvious they are not, citing a Mishna in Kelim 17:15. Rabbi Yochanan clarifies that the doubt applies when a minor's action reasonably demonstrates their intent, but not completely - such as moving an animal to the northern part of the Temple courtyard, the specific area for slaughtering burnt offerings. Rabbi Ami challenges this, noting that Rabbi Yochanan himself previously ruled in the context of ritual impurity that a minor's action is significant when the minor's intent is reasonably clear from the action. Rabbi Yochanan responds that his question was whether such actions are valid by Torah law or only by Rabbinic decree; the matter remains unresolved. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak offers a different version of the discussion, focusing on whether a minor's actions are effective. This version concludes with Rabbi Yochanan distinguishing between three categories: actions with clear intent, actions with reasonably clear, but not completely clear intent, and intent without any accompanying action. Shmuel asks Rav Huna for the biblical source disqualifying sacrifices that were slaughtered without the specific intent to perform a slaughter (mitasek). The Mishna rules that meat slaughtered by a non-Jew is considered neveila (a carcass) and imparts impurity by carrying (masa). Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Ami draw different inferences from this. Rabbi Yochanan suggests the Mishna follows the Sages (against Rabbi Eliezer) in assuming that gentiles do not automatically slaughter for idolatrous purposes; if they did, the meat would be forbidden even for benefit. Rabbi Ami infers that the slaughter of a heretic (min), one who is a devout idol worshipped is strictly forbidden for any benefit, a position supported by a braita. The Gemara explains that we generally do not fear a gentile will slaughter for idolatry because they are typically not devout in their practice. However, a min is considered deeply dedicated to their worship, and their slaughter is presumed to be for an idol. Rav Nachman distinguishes between Jewish heretics and gentile heretics, showing more leniency toward the latter, though the Gemara clarifies this applies specifically to accepting their sacrifices. The shechita of one who slaughters in the dark or a blind person is accepted.

Welcome to a Jewish History Uncensored with Dr. Marc Shapiro. This season we are covering the story of Dr. Shapiro's most recent book–a collection of letters from some of the great Rabbinic figures of our day. The correspondences between Dr. Shapiro and these luminaries cover a wide array of fascinating topics. This is episode 42.For more information visit torahinmotion.org/podcastsTo support more thoughtful Jewish content like this, visit torahinmotion.org/donateBuy the book here: https://www.ebay.com/itm/372750487550

Rabbi Chiya bar Abba recounts a discussion between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yochanan regarding the legal weight of a minor's intent. In the first version, the question is whether a minor's thoughts alone are significant. Rabbi Ami argues it is obvious they are not, citing a Mishna in Kelim 17:15. Rabbi Yochanan clarifies that the doubt applies when a minor's action reasonably demonstrates their intent, but not completely - such as moving an animal to the northern part of the Temple courtyard, the specific area for slaughtering burnt offerings. Rabbi Ami challenges this, noting that Rabbi Yochanan himself previously ruled in the context of ritual impurity that a minor's action is significant when the minor's intent is reasonably clear from the action. Rabbi Yochanan responds that his question was whether such actions are valid by Torah law or only by Rabbinic decree; the matter remains unresolved. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak offers a different version of the discussion, focusing on whether a minor's actions are effective. This version concludes with Rabbi Yochanan distinguishing between three categories: actions with clear intent, actions with reasonably clear, but not completely clear intent, and intent without any accompanying action. Shmuel asks Rav Huna for the biblical source disqualifying sacrifices that were slaughtered without the specific intent to perform a slaughter (mitasek). The Mishna rules that meat slaughtered by a non-Jew is considered neveila (a carcass) and imparts impurity by carrying (masa). Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Ami draw different inferences from this. Rabbi Yochanan suggests the Mishna follows the Sages (against Rabbi Eliezer) in assuming that gentiles do not automatically slaughter for idolatrous purposes; if they did, the meat would be forbidden even for benefit. Rabbi Ami infers that the slaughter of a heretic (min), one who is a devout idol worshipped is strictly forbidden for any benefit, a position supported by a braita. The Gemara explains that we generally do not fear a gentile will slaughter for idolatry because they are typically not devout in their practice. However, a min is considered deeply dedicated to their worship, and their slaughter is presumed to be for an idol. Rav Nachman distinguishes between Jewish heretics and gentile heretics, showing more leniency toward the latter, though the Gemara clarifies this applies specifically to accepting their sacrifices. The shechita of one who slaughters in the dark or a blind person is accepted.

In this episode of Hebrew Voices #244 - Daring To Be Different: Part 1, Nehemia brings on Tanakh-only teacher Israel Horowitz to discuss how ancient superstitions became the basis for Rabbinic laws, why arguments based on majority rule contradict the … Continue reading → The post Hebrew Voices #244 – Daring To Be Different: Part 1 appeared first on Nehemia's Wall.

Rabbinic Law is not merely behavioral governance, it actually affects the cosmic nature of the universe.Source Sheet

The Gemara in Menachos 68b discusses a question Rav Tarfon asked in the Beis Midrash: why is a korban brought before the Omer passul while one brought before the shtei halechem, while not allowed, is kasher. After Yehuda bar Nechemia gave the correct answer, with a big smile, Rabbi Akiva told Yehuda that he'd be shocked if he would live out the year. And he didn't.This Shiur is a mix of Halacha and Hashkafa. First it analyzes the difference between a Korban brought before the Omer and one brought before the shtei halechem. Then it analyzes the story of Rabbi Akiva and Yehuda Ben Nechemia, and explains why he was deserving of death.

Sermon by Rabbinic Intern Rebecca Thau, “Show Love to Your Neighbor” April 24, 2026

Welcome to a Jewish History Uncensored with Dr. Marc Shapiro. This season we are covering the story of Dr. Shapiro's most recent book–a collection of letters from some of the great Rabbinic figures of our day. The correspondences between Dr. Shapiro and these luminaries cover a wide array of fascinating topics. This is episode 41.For more information visit torahinmotion.org/podcastsTo support more thoughtful Jewish content like this, visit torahinmotion.org/donateBuy the book here: https://www.ebay.com/itm/372750487550

Watch the Sneak Peek of this Support Team Study - A United Future: The New Messianic Generation - Part 2, where Nehemia continues his discussion with 20-year-old Messianic Bible teacher Max Bonilla about debating both Rabbinic and Christian positions, the … Continue reading → The post SNEAK PEEK! STS – A United Future: The New Messianic Generation – Part 2 appeared first on Nehemia's Wall.

The Shulhan Aruch, the authoritative code of Halacha, begins with the following instruction: "Yitgaber Ka'ari La'amod Ba'boker La'abodat Bor'o" – "One shall strengthen himself like a lion to arise in the morning for the service of his Creator." The fact that this Halacha opens the Shulhan Aruch shows us that waking early in the morning is a fundamental part of our religious responsibilities. In fact, this quality is what impressed Bilam when he attempted to place a curse upon Beneh Yisrael, compelling him to bless them, instead, as he exclaimed, "Hen Am Ke'labi Yakum" – "Behold, a nation that rises like a lion" (Bamidbar 23:24). Rashi explains this as a reference to the way Beneh Yisrael rise in the morning and immediately "pounce" to perform Misvot, putting on Tallit and Tefillin, and praying. Indeed, Rashi (Shemot 19:3) brings from the Midrash that each time Moshe Rabbenu climbed to the top of Mount Sinai, he did so early in the morning – "Kol Aliyotav Be'hashkama Hayu." Some explain this to mean that every spiritual "ascent" requires "Hashkama" – rising early. The path to spiritual greatness begins with waking up early in the morning. Abraham Abinu is likewise described on several occasions as rising early in the morning, because this is how he became great – by beginning his day early. Rav Eliyahu Lopian (1876-1970) was known for rising early every morning. When he was asked about this practice, he said that when he leaves this world, and will stand before the Heavenly Tribunal, he will be judged regarding his compliance with the Shulhan Aruch. He wanted to at least "pass" the first question – whether he complied with the Shulhan Aruch's very first ruling, that one should make an effort to get up early in the morning. If a businessman scheduled an early morning meeting with a prospective customer, and the potential deal was worth a million dollars, there is no question that he would be up at the crack of dawn and arrive early so he could be fully prepared with his sales pitch. The money at stake motivates the businessman to arise early. If we knew that the Misvot we perform each morning are worth many times more than any amount of money, bringing us eternal rewards, we would never think to sleep late. We would eagerly get out of bed and rush to perform the Misvot energetically and enthusiastically, as early as we could. People want to stay in bed and sleep late only if they don't have anything to wake up for. Once we acknowledge the inestimable value and worth of each and every Misva, we realize how much we have to do, and we then excitedly get out of bed early in the morning to get started. Rising early is also a crucial component of our ongoing struggle against the Yeser Ha'ra (evil inclination). The Sha'reh Tefila comments that just as when an army goes out to war, the first battle is the most important one because it sets the tempo and momentum for the rest of the war, our first battle with the Yeser Ha'ra each day similarly sets the tone for the rest of the daily "war" against it. The Yeser Ha'ra tries to convince us to remain in bed, and if we win this struggle and get up early, then we are in a better position to emerge victorious in our subsequent struggles with the Yeser Ha'ra throughout the day. Waking up early, then, helps us overcome all spiritual challenges that we encounter. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) cites his grandfather, the Hesed Le'Abraham (Rav Abraham Azulai, Hebron, d. 1643), as finding an allusion to this concept in the Gemara's famous teaching, "Ha'ba Le'horgecha, Hashkem Le'horgo" – "He who comes to kill you, arise to kill him." On the simple level, this means that one is allowed to kill a person who seeks to kill him. On a deeper level, however, "He who comes to kill you" refers to the Yeser Ha'ra, which seeks to spiritually kill us by leading us to sin. The Gemara teaches us, "Hashkem Le'horgo" – that we should arise early in the morning in order to defeat the Yeser Ha'ra. The way we eliminate our evil inclination is by waking early. This is alluded to also in G-d's pronouncement to the snake after it lured Adam and Hava to sin in Gan Eden: "Hu Yeshufcha Rosh, Ve'ata Teshufenu Akeb" (Bereshit 3:15). Literally, this means that human beings will kill the snake by stomping on its head, whereas the snake can strike the human being only by biting its foot. Additionally, however, "Hu Yeshufcha Rosh" means that the way we defeat the Yeser Ha'ra – which is symbolized by the snake – is through "Rosh," by waking up at the "head," or beginning, of the day. Conversely, the snake can defeat a person through "Akeb," the "heel," by convincing him to oversleep and get a late start to the day. The Torah says that when Abraham Abinu set out to fulfill the command of Akedat Yishak, he arose early in the morning and saddled his donkey ("Va'yashkem Abraham Ba'boker Va'yahavosh Et Hamoro" – Bereshit 22:3). The word "Hamor" ("donkey") is often interpreted as an allusion to "Homriyut," physicality, the animalistic tendencies within every person. Abraham succeeded in "saddling" and restraining his physical qualities by rising early in the morning. The Midrash comments that this donkey was the same donkey on which Moshe Rabbenu rode when he journeyed from Midyan to Egypt, and Mashiah will ride this same donkey when it arrives to redeem the Jewish People. The deeper meaning of the Midrash is that all great Sadikim – like Moshe Rabbenu and Mashiah – succeed in overcoming their physical tendencies by rising early in the morning, like Abraham Abinu did. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in Parashat Vayishlah, writes that the first half of the night – from nightfall to midnight – is called "Layil," whereas the period from midnight until sunrise is called "Layla" – the word "Layil" with the letter Heh added. This letter Heh signifies a higher level, indicating that this is a time of great spiritual potential. Accordingly, the Ben Ish Hai writes, the great Sadikim would go to sleep right at nightfall and then rise at Hasot to learn Torah until the early morning. The Ben Ish Hai notes that the letters of the word "Layla" (Lamed, Yod, Lamed, Heh) are the first letters of the words "Ha'ba Le'horgecha Yashkim Le'horgo" – alluding to the aforementioned teaching that the way we defeat and eliminate the Yeser Ha'ra is by rising early, and being awake during the "Layla," the second part of the night. Although nowadays we are not able to keep to this schedule, nevertheless, this demonstrates for us the importance of rising early in the morning. The Sages teach, "Kol Hat'halot Kashot" – "All beginnings are difficult," which means simply that any new undertaking is difficult at the outset, when a person gets started. However, Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868) explained that this refers to the morning, the beginning of the day. Getting out of bed in the morning is difficult, but this is a challenge we must all work to overcome. Another reason to start the day early is that whenever we begin something new, it is critically important to start strong, as this builds a sturdy foundation for the rest of the undertaking. If the foundation of a structure is done improperly, the rest of the building will not be safe. Likewise, the beginning of any new project must be strong and sturdy for it to succeed. The Jewish Nation has succeeded because we are built on the strong foundation of our Abot (patriarchs) and Imahot (matriarchs), righteous men and women who laid the spiritual groundwork for Am Yisrael. This is true also of a new day – the stronger we start our day, the more likely we are to have an accomplished and successful day. We find numerous examples of this concept in our sources. Elisha Ben Abuya was an outstanding scholar, a Tanna, and the mentor of the great Rabbi Meir, but he ultimately lost his way and became a heretic, committing grievous sins such as desecrating Shabbat and even Yom Kippur. Different stories are told to explain how and why Elisha Ben Abuya abandoned the path of Torah observance. One story, told in the Talmud Yerushalmi, is that when he was a young child, his father showed him the great Sages of Israel, how their Torah study brought the fire of the Shechina into the home, and he said, "If you learn Torah, you can do amazing things like these Rabbis!" Since as a youngster Elisha was taught the message that he should learn Torah for self-serving motives, and not out of a sincere desire to serve Hashem, his educational foundations were shaky, and this allowed him to be led astray as an adult. Likewise, the Midrash comments that Noah was sharply reprimanded for planting a vineyard right after exiting the ark following the flood. As he set out to rebuild the earth, he should have begun with something more significant and meaningful than producing wine. The process was started on the wrong foot, as it were, on faulty foundations, and so Noah was criticized. This idea has also been developed in the context of the Hanukah story. As we know, the Gemara tells that the Hashmonaim, after driving the Greeks from Jerusalem, found only a small jug of pure oil with which to kindle the Menorah in the Bet Ha'mikdash, and this small quantity of oil miraculously sufficed for eight nights. The Peneh Yehoshua (Rav Yaakob Yehoshua Falk, Germany, 1680-1756) raises the question of why the Hashmonaim did not rely on the Halacha which permits performing the service in the Mikdash in a state of impurity if the entire nation is in such a state ("Tum'a Hutra Be'sibur"). After the Greeks had defiled the Bet Ha'mikdash, this leniency was certainly relevant and applicable, seemingly obviating the need to use specifically pure oil. The Peneh Yehoshua answered that the Hashmonaim did not wish to rely on Halachic leniencies as they inaugurated the Bet Ha'mikdash anew. They were now beginning a new chapter, restoring the service in the Bet Ha'mikdash after many years during which it could not be performed, and so they found it necessary to perform the service at the very highest standards, in order to set the tone for the years to come. They therefore refused to rely on the leniency of kindling the Menorah with impure oil. King Shlomo teaches in Kohelet (2:14), "He'hacham Enav Be'rosho" – "The wise man, his eyes are upon his head." The plain meaning of this verse is that a wise person looks at the potential outcome of his actions, and assesses potential risks before acting. Additionally, however, this verse has been understood to mean that a wise person focuses on the "head," on the beginning of his day, to ensure to start the day the right way, as this impacts the rest of the day. It is told that when Rav Shmuel Salant (1816-1909), the renowned Rabbi of Jerusalem, grew old, he decided to bring a Rabbi from Europe to assume his position, and the Rabbi chosen was the Aderet (Rav Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Teomim, 1843-1905). Immediately upon the Aderet's arrival, Rav Salant brought him to officiate at a wedding to show the community their new leader. The Aderet was weary from the long, grueling trip, and so when the time came to recite the Beracha over the wine under the Huppa, he mistakenly recited "She'ha'kol" instead of "Ha'gefen." He immediately corrected himself, and recited "Ha'gefen." Afterward, people spoke about the Aderet with disdain, charging that he was ignorant of Halacha. It is well-known that although the proper blessing over wine is, of course, "Ha'gefen," one who mistakenly recited "She'ha'kol" over wine has fulfilled his obligation and does not then recite "Ha'gefen." There were those who claimed that the Aderet was unfit to serve as a Rabbinic leader, as he was unfamiliar with this simple Halacha. The Aderet explained that he certainly knew this Halacha, but he nevertheless recited "Ha'gefen" because he was reciting the blessing over the wine not only for himself, but also on behalf of the Hatan (groom), who was standing under the Huppa with his bride, prepared to begin their new life together. This new beginning, the Aderet explained, could not be built on a shaky foundation, using Halachic leniencies. It was important for the proper Beracha to be recited, even if the wrong Beracha would normally suffice after the fact, so that the marriage would begin on a strong foundation. While as a practical matter, one could question this line of reasoning, the basic concept is an important one – whenever we start something new, we must strive to begin as strongly as possible. We must therefore try hard to begin each day the right way, by waking early in the morning with energy and enthusiasm, ready to serve our Creator.

Source Sheet here: https://ikar.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/The-Song-and-The-Star.pdf Judaism greets our most powerful experiences of salvation and redemption with song and music. Using the lens of Franz Rosenzweig's Star of Redemption, we find music not only passively accompanying our experiences of the Divine, but also actively attuning us toward justice, bringing redemption to others and joy to God.

Sermon by Rabbinic Intern Rebecca Thau, "Great Days Are to Come" - April 2, 2026

IntroductionHaving previously explored the four cups of wine minimum at the Passover Seder in Rabbinic literature on episode #62 of The Jewish Drinking Show, there also exists in the Babylonian Talmud a text relating to the fifth cup of wine at the Passover Seder. This 190th episode of The Jewish Drinking Show explores this text with first-time guest, Dr. Leor Jacobi. A couple of further episodes that we reference within this episode are episode #25 (Demons and the Four Cups of Wine at the Passover Seder with Rabbi Alana Suskin) & episode #99 (Demons and the Four Cups of Wine at the Passover Seder [Redux] with Prof. Sara Ronis).Brief Biography of the GuestDr. Leor Jacobi is a scholar of medieval Jewish art and visual culture affiliated with the Department of Jewish Art in the Faculty of Jewish Studies at Bar-Ilan University. He pursued early studies in cognitive science at the University of California, Berkeley before dedicating years to advanced Talmudic learning in Jerusalem and later returning to academia. He completed his MA and PhD at Bar-Ilan University, where his doctoral research explored the intersection of art and rabbinic literature in medieval culture. Jacobi has held prestigious fellowships, including a Humboldt Foundation postdoctoral fellowship at Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, and has served in various academic roles, including lecturer and research fellow, while contributing to major scholarly projects and journals in Jewish studies and art history, one of which is his "The Fifth Passover Cup and Magical Pairs: Isaac Baer Levinsohn and the Babylonian Talmud", European Journal of Jewish Studies, vol. 15 (2021): 84-103. Support the showThank you for listening!If you have any questions, suggestions, or more, feel free to reach out at Drew@JewishDrinking.coml'chaim!

Welcome to Day 2824 of Wisdom-Trek. Thank you for joining me. This is Guthrie Chamberlain, Your Guide to Wisdom. Day 2824 – Great Deeds, Strong Faith, Big God – Luke 5:12-26   Putnam Church Message – 02/22/2026 Luke's Account of the Good News - “Great Deeds, Strong Faith, Big God.”    Last week, we continued our study of the ministry of Jesus Christ with a message titled “What It's Like to Fish With Jesus,” where we learned that fishing with Jesus looks nothing like fishing alone. Today, we continue with the thirteenth message in Luke's narrative of the Good News of Jesus Christ in a message titled “Great Deeds, Strong Faith, Big God.” Our Core verses for this week are Luke 5:12-26, found on page 1598 of your Pew Bibles. Follow along as I read. SCRIPTURE READING — Luke 5:12-26 (NIV)  Jesus Heals a Man With Leprosy 12 While Jesus was in one of the towns, a man came along who was covered with leprosy.[a] When he saw Jesus, he fell with his face to the ground and begged him, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.” 13 Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” And immediately the leprosy left him. 14 Then Jesus ordered him, “Don't tell anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.” 15 Yet the news about him spread all the more, so that crowds of people came to hear him and to be healed of their sicknesses. 16 But Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed. Jesus Forgives and Heals a Paralyzed Man 17 One day Jesus was teaching, and Pharisees and teachers of the law were sitting there. They had come from every village of Galilee and from Judea and Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was with Jesus to heal the sick. 18 Some men came carrying a paralyzed man on a mat and tried to take him into the house to lay him before Jesus. 19 When they could not find a way to do this because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and lowered him on his mat through the tiles into the middle of the crowd, right in front of Jesus. 20 When Jesus saw their faith, he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.” 21 The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 22 Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked, “Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? 23 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, ‘Get up and walk'? 24 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 25 Immediately he stood up in front of them, took what he had been lying on and went home praising God. 26 Everyone was amazed and gave praise to God. They were filled with awe and said, “We have seen remarkable things today.” Opening Prayer Father, we come before You aware that our vision of You is often too small. We confess that we shrink You down to the size of our schedules, our worries, and our expectations. Enlarge our vision today. Open our eyes to see Your authority, Your compassion, and Your power to forgive. Give us strong faith in a big God. Through Christ our Lord, Amen. When God Gets Too Small And it happens so subtly. / Israel had done it. / The Pharisees had done it. Even sincere believers can do it. By the time of Tiberius Caesar, Herod Antipas, Pontius Pilate, Annas, and Caiaphas, God had been reduced to a cosmic scorekeeper — tallying good deeds, deducting points for bad behavior, enforcing Sabbath rules, inspecting hand-washing rituals, policing technicalities. God had become predictable. / Manageable. / Containable. / Small. And then Jesus walked into their world — and suddenly God began growing again. Luke 5:12–26 is not merely about miracles. / It is about vision. / It is about authority. /It is about discovering that God is far bigger than we imagined. Today we see: • A great deed • Strong faith • A very big God And the question Luke leaves hanging over the entire scene is this: Will our vision of God expand… or will we shrink Him back down? Main Point One: A Big God Touches the Untouchable (Luke 5:12–16) Let's begin with the leper. Luke tells us: “In one of the villages, Jesus met a man with an advanced case of leprosy…” (Luke 5:12, NLT) Not a mild case. / Not a recent diagnosis. / “Advanced Case or Covered” — literally full of it. In the ancient world, leprosy was not just a medical condition. / It was social death. / It was religious exclusion. / It was isolation. Leviticus 13 required the leper to live outside the camp. / To cry out “Unclean!” / To avoid contact. |Imagine the loneliness. / Imagine the silence. / Imagine the years without touch. / He had likely not felt a human hand in years. And then he sees Jesus. And he falls on his face and says: “Lord, if You are willing, You can heal me and make me clean.” (12) Notice what he does not say. / He does not question Jesus' ability. / He questions His willingness. / Ability wasn't the problem. / Acceptance was. And perhaps that's where some of us live. / We don't doubt that God can. / We wonder if He will. / Or if He wants to. / Or if we are worth touching. And then Luke records something breathtaking. “Jesus reached out and touched him.” / He touched him!  / Jesus could have spoken the word from across the street. / He healed from miles away in John 4. / He commanded demons with a phrase. / But here — He touches. Why? Because the miracle was not only physical. / It was relational. / The leper didn't just need cleansing. / He needed restoration. / He needed to feel accepted. / And in that moment, God got bigger. / The Pharisees saw uncleanness. / Jesus saw a man. Ancient Perspective In Jewish thought, leprosy symbolized sin. / It was visible corruption. / Outward manifestation of inward decay. / When Miriam was struck with leprosy (Numbers 12), it was associated with rebellion. / When Naaman was cleansed (2 Kings 5), it was seen as divine mercy. Rabbinic tradition even said curing leprosy was as difficult as raising the dead. / In other words, this was beyond human ability. / Which is exactly where Jesus operates. Object Lesson — Hold up a glove. Without a hand inside, it is lifeless. / Shapeless. Useless. / But when a hand enters it — suddenly it moves, grasps, functions. The leper's life was like that glove. / Empty. / Isolated. / Untouchable. Until God entered his story. / The difference was not in the glove. / It was in the hand. Modern Analogy There are “lepers” today. / Not with skin disease. / But with stigma. / Addiction. Failure. / Public scandal. / Divorce. / Depression. / Bankruptcy. / Shame. Society and even some churches say: Keep your distance.  Jesus says:  Come here. Hebrews 4:15 reminds us: “We do not have a high priest who...

The Gemara posits the principle that "Yisrael Af Al Pi She'hata Yisrael Hu" – a Jew does not lose his status as a Jew even after he sins. As a general rule, then, a Jew who violates Torah law is nevertheless considered a full-fledged Jew in all respects. There are, however, a number of exceptions. One is a person who commits sins 'Le'ha'ch'is" – with the specific intention to anger G-d. If a person not only transgresses the Torah, but has decided to spitefully reject G-d, and he thus commits Torah transgressions out of anger and resentment – and not due to convenience, for money, or due a lack of self-discipline – then he forfeits his status as a Jew. Such a person, therefore, cannot be counted toward a Minyan. (A fascinating story is told of Rav Levi Yishak of Berditchev, who once saw a Jewish fellow whom he knew eating pork, and he wished him, "Bon Appetit," that he should enjoy it. He explained to his students that this individual suffered from a certain condition that resulted in pain in his stomach when he ate pork, but he nevertheless ate it out of hostility toward religion. Rav Levi Yishak extended to him the wish that he should eat it for the pleasure that it brings, and not out of resentment, so that he would at least retain his status as a Jew.) Another exception – which is far more common – is Shabbat desecration. Since Shabbat desecration is equated with idol-worship, a public Shabbat desecrator is, in certain respects, considered not Jewish. The Hafetz Haim explained this Halacha by way of an analogy to a person who walks by a store which is currently closed. If the sign is still up, then the person will likely assume that the store is still in business, and has closed only temporarily. Once, however, the sign has been taken down, the person will conclude that the store has closed permanently. The Torah refers to Shabbat as an "Ot," a "sign." As long as a person observes Shabbat, he demonstrates that he's "open for business," that he's still "in the game," as it were, even if in other ways he might falter. Therefore, a public Shabbat violator – in principle – is not considered a Jew with respect to certain Halachot, such as being counted toward a Minyan. This applies to public Shabbat violators regardless of the reason why they desecrate Shabbat – whether it's for ideological reasons, out of anger toward G-d, or because of convenience or an unwillingness to make the sacrifices that Shabbat observance requires. The Poskim dispute the question of how often one must publicly violate Shabbat to be disqualified from counting toward a Minyan. Some maintain that this disqualification applies only to habitual Shabbat violators, but others contend that even if a person publicly violated Shabbat just once, he cannot be counted toward a Minyan. This is the view accepted by Hacham Ovadia Yosef. It goes without saying that once a person has performed Teshuba and committed to Shabbat observance, he regains his status as a full-fledged Jew and may be counted. Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that one becomes disqualified only by publicly committing an act that is forbidden on Shabbat by force of Torah law. This includes driving, cooking, writing, and carrying in a public domain. If, however, a person publicly commits acts which are forbidden on Shabbat only by force of Rabbinic enactment, he may be counted toward a Minyan. The act of Shabbat desecration must be committed publicly – meaning, in the presence of ten men, the violator included. The Mishna Berura ruled that the act does not need to have been committed publicly, as even if it becomes known to ten people, this qualifies as a "public" act. Hacham Ovadia, however, disagrees, and rules that a person is not considered a public Shabbat violator unless he committed a forbidden act that was seen by ten men at the same time. (Incidentally, these conditions apply also with regard to the prohibition against drinking wine handled by a public Shabbat violator (unless the wine has been previously boiled). This applies only to somebody who committed an act of Shabbat desecration in the presence of ten men.) Hacham Ovadia made a very significant exception to this Halacha, addressing the situation of generally G-d-fearing Jews who work on Shabbat. It was quite common in certain periods that Jews would come to the synagogue, recite Kiddush and eat a Shabbat meal, but then go to work, succumbing to the anxiety of otherwise being unable to support their families. Hacham Ovadia ruled that although such people act incorrectly, nevertheless, since in their eyes, they violate Shabbat under duress, they are not considered intentional Shabbat violators. Hence, they may be counted toward a Minyan (and wine which they handled remains permissible). Additionally, the Mishna Berura writes that if a person violates Shabbat in public, but is too embarrassed to do so in the presence of a Rabbi, then he is not considered a public Shabbat violator with respect to this Halacha. The fact that he still experiences shame shows that he recognizes the sanctity of Shabbat, and so he does not attain the status of a flagrant desecrator who may not be counted toward a Minyan. However, Hacham Ovadia clarified that this applies only if we are certain that this individual would not desecrate Shabbat in view of his Rabbi. Much has been written about whether and how these Halachot apply in our generation. In the case of a person who was raised without a religious education, there is a general consensus that we apply the rule of "Tinok She'nishba" (literally, "an infant who was taken captive"), which excuses from liability a sinner who was never taught about Halachic observance. If someone was not taught to observe Shabbat as Halacha requires, then he is not held accountable for his failure to do so. As such, he does not have the status of a flagrant Shabbat desecrator. Some extend this rule further, asserting that even if a person learned about Shabbat, he cannot be considered a Shabbat desecrator if he was not made aware of the severity of Shabbat. There are people who received some level of Jewish education but their training was not grounded in Halacha, and they were thus never taught about the various Shabbat prohibitions and how they constitute capital offenses. These people, too, might not be considered flagrant Shabbat desecrators. An even more drastic view was advanced by the Hazon Ish (Rav Avraham Yeshaya Karelitz, 1878-1952). He contended that a person does not attain the status of a public Shabbat desecrator unless he was reprimanded for violating Shabbat and then ignored the rebuke he received. Effective criticism is a difficult art, a skill which the vast majority of people do not have in our time. As such, the Hazon Ish wrote, violators can be assumed to not have ever received proper rebuke for their acts of desecration, and they therefore do not have the status of public Shabbat desecrators. This novel ruling of the Hazon Ish should seemingly allow any Shabbat violator to be counted toward a Minyan nowadays, given the assumption that proper rebuke was never administered. However, Rav Yisrael Bitan noted that one might question this conclusion, in light of the fact that technology has made knowledge about Torah law readily available to all, and, moreover, there are many Jews who were raised in Torah homes and received a proper religious education, and then decided to abandon halachic observance. It seems difficult to exclude such people from the category of intentional Shabbat desecrators. Rabbi Bitan therefore concludes that every community Rabbi must determine the policy for his congregation, given the different opinions that exist and different realities in each community. It must be emphasized that we speak here only of being counted toward the minimum quorum of ten men. By no means does Halacha disallow a Shabbat violator from entering a synagogue and participating in the Minyan. Personally, I went into the rabbinate specifically for such Jews, to help Jews grow in their observance, each on their level and in a way that suits them, irrespective of one's current level of commitment. Those who do not properly observe Shabbat should be at least as welcome in the synagogue as fully-observant Jews, if not more so. I am reminded of a story told by Hacham Baruch Ben-Haim of a person who once came to pray in Congregation Shaare Zion and was given an Aliya, and afterward, somebody else approached Hacham Baruch to object. He said that he knew for a fact that this individual who was given an Aliya regularly shaved with a razor – a strict Torah violation – and thus should not be given the honor of being called to the Torah. "Let me tell you a story," Hacham Baruch replied. "Many years ago, there was somebody who came to shul who was not at all serious about Halachic observance. We welcomed him very warmly, and gave him an Aliya. There were those who objected and were angry at me. But gradually, this fellow became more involved, attending prayers and classes, and building a relationship with me and other Rabbis. He ended up raising a fully observant home, and all his children are strictly observant. "As it so happens," the Hacham continued, "that man was your father. You would not be in the synagogue today if I had followed the policy you are advocating." This should be our attitude toward our fellow Jews who are not as observant as we would want. While there is some question about whether or not they may be counted toward the minimum required amount of ten men, and, as we saw, different opinions exist, there is no question about whether they should be warmly welcomed in our synagogues. Our institutions must be inviting for all Jews, regardless of their level of observance, so everyone can grow in a way and at a pace that is appropriate for them.

Unlike almost every other major world religion, Judaism has absolutely no Pope—and the beautiful reason why is hidden deep in the Book of Leviticus. Rabbis today are "ordained." But the original system of rabbinic ordination—semikhah, the laying on of hands—collapsed almost 1,600 years ago. So how did rabbinic authority survive? In this episode of Madlik Disruptive Torah, Geoffrey Stern and Rabbi Adam Mintz trace the surprising story of how a simple biblical gesture—placing hands on a sacrifice—became the foundation for Jewish leadership and authority. Key Takeaways Authority in Judaism started as a gesture, not an institution Rabbinic authority survives not because the chain held—but because it broke Judaism chose influence over control Timestamps [00:00] Hands and Authority [01:49] Leviticus Semikhah [05:26] Blessing and Transference [08:50] Two Hands Rule [11:40] Women and Semikhah [15:17] Sponsor Break [16:23] Communal Offerings [21:30] Joshua Commissioned [23:22] Chain of Tradition [25:13] Ordination Disrupted [29:14] No Pope in Judaism [30:53] Closing Reflections Links & Learnings Sign up for free and get more from our weekly newsletter https://madlik.com/ Sefaria Source Sheet: https://voices.sefaria.org/sheets/714754 Transcript here: https://madlik.substack.com/

Welcome to a Jewish History Uncensored with Dr. Marc Shapiro. This season we are covering the story of Dr. Shapiro's most recent book–a collection of letters from some of the great Rabbinic figures of our day. The correspondences between Dr. Shapiro and these luminaries cover a wide array of fascinating topics. This is episode 40.For more information visit torahinmotion.org/podcastsTo support more thoughtful Jewish content like this, visit torahinmotion.org/donateBuy the book here: https://www.ebay.com/itm/372750487550

This week we watch Jesus confront the Pharisee that is so fixated on the minor details of others and misses the heart of God in the process. Jesus warns against straining gnats and swallowing camels. This is a Rabbinic way of teaching where Jesus is using the smallest/largest creature to highlight a deep spiritual truth. Don't care so much about precision while neglecting compassion for others. Jesus is calling us to refocus on justice, mercy and faithfulness and to see that true clarity comes when we see through the lens of love rather than legalism

There is a debate regarding whether apple juice can be used to leaven the dough for the two mincha offerings that are required to be chametz. In Mishna Terumot 10:2, it is explained that apples of teruma that leaven a dough are significant and cannot be nullified; this is because leavening is considered a transformative action that fundamentally alters the dough. While it may initially appear that the Mishna supports the position that apple juice is a valid leavening agent for these offerings, the text can also be reconciled with the opposing view. One can distinguish between different levels of leavening, suggesting that the "leavening" mentioned in the Mishna may be chametz nukshe, which does not satisfy the specific leavening requirements for the mincha offerings. Rabbi Ila and Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi debate whether the mincha of a sinner, which is offered without oil, may contain water. Initially, the Gemara assumes the root of this debate is whether we determine the measurement of an item that has changed form based on its original state or its current state. If we follow the current size, water may be added because the kometz (handful) is measured based on the substance in its present form. However, if it must be measured by its original size, adding water would mean the handful no longer contains the required amount of flour, as the volume has been altered by the liquid. Ultimately, the Gemara rejects this explanation and concludes that both sages agree items are measured by their current state; their actual debate concerns how to interpret the requirement for a sinner's mincha to be "dry"—whether this means it must be completely dry of all liquid, or merely dry of oil. The Gemara continues to delve into whether the halakhic measurements of items that have changed in size are determined by their present state or their original state. A Mishna in Uktzin 2:8 is cited regarding the laws of ritual impurity (tumah) for a piece of meat that has shrunk to less than the size of an egg (kebeitzah)—the minimum volume required to transmit impurity. Two groups of sages disagree over the correct version of this Mishna: one asserting that we assess the item based on its original size, and the other maintaining we assess it by its current size. The Gemara raises a difficulty against the opinion that items are measured by their original size; specifically, in a case where meat expanded to exceed the size of an egg, it is ruled to transmit impurity. This challenge is resolved by explaining that the law in that specific source is Rabbinic in nature, rather than a Torah law. A second difficulty is raised from a braita discussing the opposite case: if meat shrinks below the required volume, it no longer transmits impurity. However, Raba rejects this proof, explaining that all would agree an item cannot transmit impurity if its current state is too small. He clarifies that the sages were only stringent in cases where an item was originally too small but later expanded to the requisite volume. The true point of disagreement, according to Raba, is a case where the item originally met the requirement, shrunk, and then expanded again. The question is whether the item was "rejected" (nidcheh) during its middle stage - thereby losing its ability to transfer impurity permanently - or if it regains its ability to transmit impurity upon re-expanding. A difficulty is then raised against the position that it remains pure even after re-expanding. A challenge from Tosefta Terumot 4:2 is brought against Raba's premise that everyone agrees a shrunken item is measured by its current state. This challenge involves the laws of separating tithes from fresh figs for dried ones; however, the difficulty is ultimately resolved by explaining that the case does not concern standard tithes, but rather terumat ma'aser (the tithe of the tithe). Unlike regular ma'aser, terumat ma'aser does not require an exact measurement, and it is considered preferable to err on the side of generosity by giving more to the Kohen.

Welcome to a Jewish History Uncensored with Dr. Marc Shapiro. This season we are covering the story of Dr. Shapiro's most recent book–a collection of letters from some of the great Rabbinic figures of our day. The correspondences between Dr. Shapiro and these luminaries cover a wide array of fascinating topics. This is episode 39.For more information visit torahinmotion.org/podcastsTo support more thoughtful Jewish content like this, visit torahinmotion.org/donateBuy the book here: https://www.ebay.com/itm/372750487550

Whereas Ashkenazic custom requires standing during Kaddish, the accepted practice among Sepharadim is to remain seated during Kaddish, unless one was standing when Kaddish began, in which case he must remain standing (until he completes his "Yeheh Shemeh Rabba" response). Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that if a Sepharadi wishes to follow the stringent practice of the Ashkenazim and stand for Kaddish, he should not do so, as this appears arrogant. Since the accepted Sephardic custom is to remain seated, and even the greatest Rabbis sit during Kaddish, making a point of standing gives the appearance of thinking that one is better than everyone else, and this is therefore inappropriate. Hacham Ovadia notes the ruling of the Kol Eliyahu that one who decides to stand during the Torah reading – when the commonly accepted custom is to sit – should be reprimanded for this display of arrogance. By the same token, it is inappropriate to break the accepted Sephardic practice by standing for Kaddish. The Sedeh Hemed (Rav Haim Hizkiya Medini, Hebron, 1834-1904) writes that his practice was to stand for Kaddish. The reason may have been that as a Rabbinic leader, he felt this was an appropriate stringency to accept. Regardless, as a general rule, this is discouraged. Summary: Sephardic practice is to remain seated during Kaddish, and it is improper for a Sepharadi to make a point of standing.

Welcome to a Jewish History Uncensored with Dr. Marc Shapiro. This season we are covering the story of Dr. Shapiro's most recent book–a collection of letters from some of the great Rabbinic figures of our day. The correspondences between Dr. Shapiro and these luminaries cover a wide array of fascinating topics. This is episode 38.For more information visit torahinmotion.org/podcastsTo support more thoughtful Jewish content like this, visit torahinmotion.org/donateBuy the book here: https://www.ebay.com/itm/372750487550

Link to Ptil Techelet website. The Gemara brings two different versions of the incident involving Mar bar Rav Ashi, whose tzitzit were torn on Shabbat while he was walking home. This raises the subject of "kevod haberiyot" (human dignity), which overrides a "lo ta'aseh" (negative commandment) in the Torah. Both versions bring the explanation of Rav bar Shaba, who explained that this law refers specifically to the negative commandment of "lo tasur" (do not stray from the words of the Sages), meaning that it only overrides Rabbinic prohibitions. For tzitzit, one must place two strings of techelet and two white strings. The Mishna rules, however, that this is not essential – one can have only white or only techelet. Also regarding the tefillin of the hand and the tefillin of the head - they are two independent mitzvot and do not hinder one another; someone who has only one of them puts it on and recites the blessing over it. The Gemara suggests that the Mishna does not follow the view of Rebbi, who holds that the techelet and the white do hinder one another. He learns this from the verse "And you shall see him" (u're-item oto), which teaches that both must be together, while the rabbis learn that it is possible to see each kind separately. However, two other suggestion were brought to explain the Mishna according to the view of Rebbi: Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav: The law in the Mishna (that they do not hinder) was stated regarding the order of precedence. It is a mitzva to first place the white (since the white is the color of the "corner" of the garment, which appears in the verse first), but if one placed techelet before white, one has fulfilled the obligation, though the mitzva has not been performed in the most ideal way. Rava: The Mishna is speaking about gerdumin (remnants) of one of the colors - strings that were torn after they were already placed in the garment - the tzitzit remains valid. His words rely on the words of the sons of Rabbi Chiya, who said that remnants of techelet are valid. The minimum measure that must remain in a string to maintain its validity is "enough to tie them" (kedei le'anvan), meaning a length sufficient to make a slipknot. From the statement of the sons of Rabbi Chiya, Rava concludes that one must tie a knot on each and every "chulya" (group of windings) in the tzitzit. The reason for this is that if one does not tie a knot at every chulya, if just a short strand is permitted, the moment the string is severed above the first knot, all the windings will unravel and disappear. The knots between the chulyot ensure that even if part of the string is cut off, the structure of the rest of the tzitzit will be preserved and it will remain valid under the law of gerdumin. However, Rava's assumption is rejected as the sons of Rabbi Chiya may only permit gardumim when there are knots at every chulya.  

Welcome to a Jewish History Uncensored with Dr. Marc Shapiro. This season we are covering the story of Dr. Shapiro's most recent book–a collection of letters from some of the great Rabbinic figures of our day. The correspondences between Dr. Shapiro and these luminaries cover a wide array of fascinating topics. This is episode 37.For more information visit torahinmotion.org/podcastsTo support more thoughtful Jewish content like this, visit torahinmotion.org/donateBuy the book here: https://www.ebay.com/itm/372750487550

In this episode of the 18Forty Podcast, we speak with Rabbis Eitan Webb and Ari Israel, head of a campus Chabad and Hillel respectively, about Jewish life on college campuses today. In this episode we discuss:Has there been a recent Jewish awakening on college campuses?How much attention should we pay to campus antisemitism?Are Chabad and Hillel able to work together on college campuses?Tune in to hear a conversation about what comes next for Jewish students in secular colleges. Interview begins at 18:01.Rabbi Eitan Webb co-founded the Princeton University Chabad House in 2002, with his wife Gitty. He has been a Jewish Chaplain at Princeton University since 2007. In addition to his Princeton activities, Eitan serves on the board of directors of the Chabad on Campus International Foundation, and of the Sinai Scholars Society. Rabbi Ari Israel serves as Maryland Hillel's Executive Director—a role he has held for more than 20 years. In addition to Rabbinic ordination, Ari has Master's degrees in Medieval Jewish History as well as Secondary Education. Ari is an adjunct professor at the University of Maryland where he teaches a Jewish Leadership course. References:No Country for Old Men (2007)Tanya by Rabbi Schneur Zalman of LiadiLikkutei Sichot - Volume 10This Is My God by Herman WoukFor more 18Forty:NEWSLETTER: 18forty.org/joinCALL: (212) 582-1840EMAIL: info@18forty.orgWEBSITE: 18forty.orgIG: @18fortyX: @18_fortyWhatsApp: join hereBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/18forty-podcast--4344730/support.

The sharp scholars (charifei) of Pumbedita argue that one burning can create pigul for another. Specifically, if one burns the kometz (handful) with the intention to burn the levona (frankincense) outside its designated time, it becomes pigul. They explain that even the Rabbis - who generally hold that a pigul thought during only half of a permitting act (matir) is ineffective - would agree here, because the levona was included in the person's thoughts. Rava supports this from the general rule in the Mishna, however, his proof is rejected as it is inconclusive. Rav Hisda, however, cites Rav to argue that one burning cannot create pigul for another. He reasons that since the kometz is not the permitting agent (matir) for the levona, an intention concerning burning the levona during the burning of the kometz is irrelevant. A proof is brought for this from a case involving the two lambs of Shavuot, but it is countered by distinguishing between items in separate vessels versus items in the same vessel. Rav Hamnuna presents a unique case that he considers of immense value, where the pigul thought "spreads" through the entire process. If one burns the kometz with intent to burn the levona tomorrow, and with intent to eat the shirayim (remnants) tomorrow, the offering is pigul. This is because the thoughts combined eventually cover both the completion of the permitting acts and the consumption of the remnants. The chapter concludes with a discussion of a braita regarding a case that all agree on. At first it seems they all agree that there is pigul even if the pigul thought is only in one matir. However, since it is clear that is not the case, they edit the braita to read "pasul" instead of "pigul," as all agree that it is disqualified, even if it is not necessarily pigul. The third chapter begins with a Mishna discussing intentions regarding items not normally meant for that specific use. If one has intent during the kometz service to eat something not usually eaten (like the kometz itself) or to burn something not usually burned (like the remnants), the rabbis rule the offering valid, while Rabbi Eliezer disqualifies it. Additionally, if the intention involves a quantity less than an olive-bulk, or if it combines half an olive-bulk of eating and half an olive-bulk of burning, it remains valid because eating and burning do not combine to reach the required measure for pigul. Rabbi Asi in the name of Rabbi Yochanan explains that Rabbi Eliezer derives his position from the double expression in the verse: "ve'im he'achol ye'achel" (and if it should surely be eaten). He understands this to include two types of "eating": human consumption and the consumption of the altar (burning). Therefore, an intention to switch these roles - intending to eat what is meant for the fire - is a valid disqualifying thought. The rabbis who disagree extrapolate that verse in a different manner, either to include a case of one who uses the language of eating instead of burning when having a pigul intent, or to derive the requisite amount of burning from the requisite amount for eating - an olive-bulk - meaning one who has a thought to burn less than an olive-bulk beyond its given time will not render the offering pigul. Rabbi Zeira questions Rav Asi that if Rabbi Eliezer derives his position from the Torah, it should carry the penalty of karet, and yet Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that is does not. Rav Asi answer that there is a Tannaitic dispute regarding the nature of Rabbi Eliezer's disqualification: one view holds it is a Torah-level disqualification punishable by karet, while another suggests it is a Rabbinic disqualification and he brings a braita to support this. The braita discusses one who slaughters a sacrifice with the intent to drink the blood tomorrow or to burn the meat tomorrow. Rabbi Eliezer disqualifies these cases, while the rabbis validate them. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar disagree in a case where one's intent was to leave the blood for tomorrow. Rabbi Yehuda says it is disqualified while Rabbi Elazar says that the rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree about this as well. In trying to assess the point of disagreement between Rabbis Yehuda and Elazar, they suggest that it is on their understanding of Rabbi Eliezer's position and whether he views these cases as disqualified (rabbinic) or as pigul (Torah law, with karet). However, this understanding of the braita is rejected.

INVESTIGATING THE NAME PANTERA Colleague James Tabor. Tabor explores the name "Pantera," found in rabbinic texts and on a Roman soldier's tombstone. He suggests this might be a family name rather than a slur, investigating the possibility that Jesus's father was a relative or soldier, which challenges the theological narrative of a virgin birth. NUMBER 2

On this episode of The Jon Gordon Podcast, I sit down with Rabbi Jason Sobel for a powerful conversation about his book Transformed by the Messiah. Raised in a Jewish family in Long Island, Rabbi Jason Sobel shares his unexpected spiritual journey and how discovering Jesus as the Messiah brought about dramatic transformation in his life. We dive into how connecting the dots between the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament reveals God's intentional story, and why faith isn't just about information...it's about experiencing deep change. Rabbi Jason Sobel discusses the importance of oneness, the link between forgiveness and healing, and how spiritual truth can bring hope and meaning in our everyday lives. If you're searching for real transformation and spiritual clarity, this episode offers inspiration and practical wisdom for anyone ready to step into their own story of change.   About Rabbi Jason, Rabbi Jason Sobel grew up in a Jewish home in New Jersey. In his late teens, Jason set out on a quest to discover the truth. After years of study, he discovered and embraced his true destiny as a Jewish follower of Jesus. As the founder of Fusion Global, Jason's purpose is to bring people's understanding of Jesus into high-definition by revealing the lost connection to our Hebrew roots and restoring our forgotten inheritance in Him. Rabbi Jason received his Rabbinic messianic ordination in 2005 and has a BA in Jewish Studies and an MA in Intercultural Studies. He is the spiritual advisor to The Chosen TV series and host of several TBN programs. He is the author of several books—including national best-sellers Mysteries of the Messiah and The God of the Way—and a much-anticipated new release in the fall of 2025. Rabbi Jason also leads and organizes rabbinic study tours to Israel and Greece at rockroadrabbitours.com. Find him on YouTube and Instagram at @RabbiJasonSobel and rabbijasonsobel.com   Here's a few additional resources for you… Do you feel called to share your story with the world? Check out Gordon Publishing  Follow me on Instagram: @JonGordon11 Order my new book 'The 7 Commitments of a Great Team' today! Every week, I send out a free Positive Tip newsletter via email. It's advice for your life, work and team. You can sign up now here and catch up on past newsletters. Ready to lead with greater clarity, confidence, and purpose? The Certified Positive Leader Program is for anyone who wants to grow as a leader from the inside out. It's a self-paced experience built around my most impactful leadership principles with tools you can apply right away to improve your mindset, relationships, and results. You'll discover what it really means to lead with positivity… and how to do it every day. Learn more here! Join me for my Day of Development! You'll learn proven strategies to develop confidence, improve your leadership and build a connected and committed team. You'll leave with an action plan to supercharge your growth and results. It's time to Create your Positive Advantage. Get details and sign up here. Do you feel called to do more? Would you like to impact more people as a leader, writer, speaker, coach and trainer? Get Jon Gordon Certified if you want to be mentored by me and my team to teach my proven frameworks principles, and programs for businesses, sports, education, healthcare!