Podcasts about rabbinic

7 takeaways from this study Invite honest spiritual diagnosis. Like the priest examining skin, ask trusted, mature believers to help you “see between” (i.e., discern) surface symptoms and deeper heart issues. Treat words as covenant weighty. Refuse gossip, venting, and subtle character attacks. Before speaking, ask: “Will this build this person's name, or damage it?” Watch for “spreading marks.” Pay attention when a small compromise, habit or resentment begins to spread into more areas of your life. Act early; don't wait for “raw flesh.” Guard your environments. Examine your “house” and “garments” — your home culture, media intake, and closest relationships. Remove influences that repeatedly pull you toward uncleanness. Pursue restoration, not disposal. When someone falls, think in terms of Leviticus 14 and Matthew 18 — clear, sometimes firm steps whose goal is reconciliation and return, not humiliation. Practice confession in safe spaces. Cultivate relationships where sins can be confessed without fear of public exposure, yet with a commitment to real change and mutual prayer (James 5:16). Come to Yeshua as the Leper-Bearer. Do not try to “clean up” first. Bring your visible failures and hidden rot to the Messiah who bears our plagues and alone declares us clean. Leviticus 13–14 presents צָרַעַת tzara'at (“leprosy”) as a covenantal condition rather than a simple medical diagnosis. The text treats skin, garments, and houses as potential carriers of impurity. It assigns priests the task of careful observation and verdict. These chapters sit within a broader biblical pattern that links visible affliction to inner and communal realities, and they anticipate a figure who bears the community's plagues and restores access to God. Key terms and covenant framework To begin, let’s recap some several foundational Hebrew terms in Leviticus. קָרְבָּן korban/qorban (“offering” or “gift”) denotes what is brought near to God. It derives from קָרַב karav (“to approach”). קָדוֹשׁ kadosh (“holy”) describes what is set apart for God. Its opposite on the broader spectrum is חוֹל khol (“common,” “profane”). Within that spectrum, another axis appears: טָהוֹר tahor (“clean”) versus טָמֵא tamé/tamei (“unclean”). These categories answer a central question: may a person, object, or place approach the divine presence. Alongside these stand terms related to the condition itself. צָרַעַת tzara'at refers to the condition often translated “leprosy.” הַמְּצֹרָע ha‑metzora (“the leper”) denotes the afflicted person. The Greek Old Testament (Septuagint/LXX) uses λέπρα lepra (“leprosy”) from λέπις lepis (“scale”), which influenced traditional English renderings. Within this framework, Leviticus does not primarily ask whether a condition is dangerous to public health. It asks whether a person or object is fit to approach the holy. The priest as observer and discerner Next, the text defines a specific role for the priest. Priests do not prescribe remedies. They look, examine, and declare. Leviticus 13 repeatedly uses verbs of seeing. It commands that a person with a suspicious mark “shall be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons the priests” (Leviticus 13:2 NASB95). The priest then looks and pronounces the person clean (tahor) or unclean (tamei) (Leviticus 13:3). This activity reflects the idea of discernment expressed by the Hebrew word בֵּין bein (“between”). Discernment involves seeing between options, not merely reacting to appearances. In this context, the priest discerns between temporary, harmless eruptions and conditions that indicate deeper defilement. The verdict has immediate communal consequences. An unclean person must live outside the camp and cry “Unclean! Unclean!” (Leviticus 13:45–46 NASB95). Signs, criteria, and the logic of examination From here, the text lays out detailed criteria. Leviticus 13:3–8 describes a swelling, scab, or bright spot on the skin. If the hair in the infection has turned white and the infection appears deeper than the skin, the priest declares it tzara’at and pronounces the person unclean (Leviticus 13:3). If the spot is not deeper than the skin and the hair has not turned white, the priest isolates the person for seven days and then re‑examines (Leviticus 13:4–5). As the chapter continues, it applies similar logic to other situations: spreading versus non‑spreading rashes raw (living) flesh inside a white area conditions on the scalp or beard eruptions after boils or burns total whiteness of the body ordinary baldness In each case, depth, color, and spread determine the verdict. Some severe‑looking conditions, such as total whiteness, may be declared clean (Leviticus 13:12–13). Other less conspicuous signs, such as raw flesh appearing within whiteness, result in an unclean verdict (Leviticus 13:14–15). The text requires time, repetition, and attention to change over time. The priest does not rush. He isolates, observes, and only then pronounces. ConditionResultDeep lesion with white hairTameiSpreading lesionTameiRaw/living fleshTameiYellow-haired scalp diseaseTameiStable non-spreading eruptionTahorEntire body turned whiteTahorHealed lesion turned whiteTahorBaldnessTahorWhite spots (bohaq)Tahor Garments and houses under inspection Furthermore, the same pattern extends beyond human skin. Leviticus 13:47–59 addresses “a mark of leprosy” (נֶגַע צָרָעַת nega tzara'at) in garments of wool or linen, or in leather items. If the mark is greenish or reddish and appears deeper than the material, the priest isolates the item for seven days (Leviticus 13:49–50). After washing and further observation, persistent or spreading marks result in burning; disappearing marks allow the garment to be used again (Leviticus 13:53–58). ConditionVerdictGreen/red mark under investigationIsolateMark spreadsTameiMark unchanged after washingTameiMark reappearsTameiMark disappears after treatmentTahor Leviticus 14 then moves to houses in the land. If a “mark of leprosy” appears as greenish or reddish depressions that seem deeper than the wall surface, the priest orders the house emptied and examined (Leviticus 14:33–36). He shuts it up for seven days. If the mark spreads, he commands that affected stones be torn out and thrown into an unclean place. He has other stones and plaster used to repair the house. If the mark returns after repair, the house is condemned and demolished (Leviticus 14:43–45). If the mark does not spread and fades after replastering, the priest declares the house clean (Leviticus 14:48). ConditionVerdictGreen/red depressionsIsolateMark spreadsTameiStones removed and repairedReevaluateMark returns after repairsTameiMark does not returnTahor In this way, Leviticus treats garments and houses almost like extensions of the body. The same logic of observation, isolation, treatment, and re‑evaluation governs all three. Symbolic movement from surface to core At this point, a pattern emerges. Tzara'at affects skin, clothing, and structures. Rabbinic literature often notes a progression: first the house, then the garments, then the body. This order suggests a movement from environment to personal sphere to the person himself. The biblical text does not explicitly state this sequence. However, the parallel procedures support the idea that impurity can permeate all layers of life. This perspective also clarifies why the total whiteness of the body in Leviticus 13:12–13 can result in a “clean” verdict. In that case, nothing remains hidden. The condition has reached full exposure. Some commentators take this as evidence that the text addresses a covenantal sign, not an ordinary communicable disease. The priest evaluates the meaning of the mark in relation to God's covenant with Israel, rather than functioning as a physician. Inner origin of defilement When the wider canon comes into view, this ritual logic links to broader moral teaching. Mark 7:20–23 records Yeshua's statement that “that which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man” (Mark 7:20 NASB95). He lists evil thoughts, immoral behavior, thefts, murders, adulteries, greed, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness as originating within and defiling a person (Mark 7:21–23). In this light, the outward mark of tzara’at can be read as a visible sign of inner disorder. The priest's task then resembles spiritual discernment. He recognizes when something has moved from superficial irritation to deep‑seated corruption. This reading does not require that every case of tzara'at derive from a specific sin. It does, however, align the ritual legislation with the larger scriptural theme that the heart is the true source of uncleanness. The ‘plague’ of the tongue Building on this, a long‑standing Jewish association links tzara'at with לָשׁוֹן הָרַע lashon hara (“evil tongue,” i.e., slander). Leviticus 19:16 commands, “You shall not go about as a slanderer among your people, and you are not to act against the life of your neighbor; I am the LORD” (NASB95). Psalm 34:13 similarly urges, “Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit” (NASB95). Rabbinic works such as the חפץ חיים Chafetz Chaim systematize this connection. They describe lashon hara as spreading “plague” through a community. In that framework, tzara'at becomes a physical counterpart to social and moral rot. It functions as a divine alarm that something in the speech life of the covenant people has turned destructive. At the same time, these traditions also draw careful boundaries. They exclude from lashon hara necessary testimony about abuse or wrongdoing that must be exposed to protect others or correct grave injustice. Thus, Scripture's concern for truth and protection of the vulnerable remains intact. Summary: What is and isn't lashon ha-ra It is derogatory information: Describes a person's negative characteristics. Spreads potentially harmful information. Embarrasses the person discussed. Garners ill-will against the subject. What it isn't: Helping the person in question. Discussing with a trustworthy person — not a tale-bearer — whether correction is needed and how to do it. Helping a victim or preventing victimization. Resolving a major dispute: peacemaking. Discipline, exclusion and restoration Turning now to the New Testament, similar patterns of exclusion and restoration appear. Matthew 18:15–17 outlines a process for dealing with sin within the community. First comes private confrontation. If that fails, the offended person brings one or two witnesses who practice discretion. If the sinner still refuses to listen, the matter goes before the congregation. Persistent refusal leads to treating the person “as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17 NASB95). Paul applies a similar process in the morally challenged Greek port city of Corinth. In 1Corinthians 5, the apostle commands the congregation to remove a man engaged in flagrant immorality “so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Corinthians 5:5 NASB95). In 2Corinthians 2:6–8, Paul then urges the congregation to forgive and comfort the now‑repentant man, to prevent overwhelming sorrow. Thus, exclusion serves a restorative aim, like the temporary isolation of the metzora. This parallel underscores a key principle. The goal is not permanent banishment. The objective is cleansing, healing, and reintegration into the people of God. Leviticus 14 will make this explicit in its detailed restoration rites. The suffering servant and the bearing of plagues Isaiah 52–53 is a key passage for understanding the true solution to tzara’at foreshadowed in Torah. Isaiah 53:4–5 states, “Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities” (Isaiah 53:4–5 NASB95). “Stricken” is translated from נָגַע naga (“to strike, to plague”), the same root behind נֶגַע nega (“mark,” “plague”) in Leviticus and for the 10 plagues during the Exodus. Isaiah 53:6 adds, “the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him” (Isaiah 53:6 NASB95). It continues, “My Servant, will justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities” (Isaiah 53:11 NASB95). Here, one righteous figure bears both the guilt and the afflictions of many. Earlier Jewish sources sometimes refer to this figure as a “leper” or afflicted Messiah, drawing on the association between being “stricken” and the imagery of tzara'at. In this context, the servant takes the role of ultimate bearer of uncleanness and sin. He functions as the one on whom the community's nega falls, so that others may be cleansed and restored. Jewish commentators wrestle with Isaiah 53 Within this framework, it is helpful to note how different Jewish streams interpret Isaiah 52:13–53:12 and then compare those readings to the text itself. To begin with, many modern rabbinic commentators identify the “Servant” with Israel as a nation or with a righteous remnant. On this view, the plural language elsewhere in Isaiah about Israel as “My servant” (e.g., Isaiah 41:8–9; 49:3 NASB 1995) governs the reading of Isaiah 53. Israel suffers in exile, is “despised and forsaken” (Isaiah 53:3 NASB 1995), and bears the hostility of the nations. The nation's suffering then has a redemptive dimension for the world. However, this approach must handle details such as the Servant's innocence (“He had done no violence, nor was there any deceit in His mouth,” Isaiah 53:9 NASB 1995) and vicarious language (“the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him,” Isaiah 53:6 NASB 1995). National Israel in the book of Isaiah is repeatedly rebuked for sin (e.g., Isaiah 1:2–4 NASB 1995), so applying the Servant's consistent righteousness to the same corporate entity requires either restricting the Servant to a purified subset of Israel or treating the description as idealized. By contrast, Karaite interpreters, who reject the binding authority of the Talmud, tend to read Isaiah 53 more straightforwardly. Some Karaite exegesis identifies the Servant as a singular, future, righteous figure closely tied to messianic expectation, though not associated with the New Testament. Others still apply the passage corporately to Israel. Where they see an individual, they emphasize the Servant's innocence, his unjust suffering “for our transgressions” (Isaiah 53:5 NASB 1995), his death (“cut off out of the land of the living,” Isaiah 53:8 NASB 1995), and subsequent exaltation (“He will be high and lifted up and greatly exalted,” Isaiah 52:13 NASB 1995). In doing so, they align more directly with the plain singular grammar of the chapter, while differing sharply in identifying who that righteous sufferer is. At the same time, classical Talmudic sources preserve yet another line of interpretation. In Babylonian tractate Sanhedrin 98b, one opinion names the Messiah as “the leper scholar,” and then cites Isaiah 53:4: “Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried” (Isaiah 53:4 NASB95), inserting the word “leper” into the paraphrase. Other midrashic materials occasionally apply parts of Isaiah 53 to righteous individuals or to the Messiah son of Joseph, a suffering messianic figure distinct from the royal Messiah son of David. These readings treat the Servant as an individual who bears sufferings and reproach on behalf of Israel and sometimes of the nations. In this way, they track closely with the passage's singular subject, his innocence, his bearing of others' sins, and his death followed by seeing “offspring” and prolonging his days (Isaiah 53:10–11). When these approaches are set alongside the text, several features stand out. The Servant is consistently singular: Suffers willingly and unjustly. Bears the sins and iniquities of “many” (Isaiah 53:11–12 NASB95). Dies as “cut off” and yet afterward sees offspring and days prolonged. Corporate-identity interpretations must explain how a sinful nation can be described as entirely righteous and substituting for others, while individual‑messianic interpretations must explain how one person's suffering can rightly stand in for the guilt of many. The passage itself keeps these tensions in view and holds together vicarious suffering, innocence, death, and exaltation in a single Servant figure. More ancient witnesses weigh in Within this same line of comparison, medieval Jewish commentators provide two influential and contrasting approaches to Isaiah 52:13–53:12. To begin with, Rashi (11th century) reads the Servant almost entirely as Israel. He anchors his interpretation in earlier “servant” passages where Israel is explicitly named: “But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen” (Isaiah 41:8 NASB95; cf. Isaiah 44:1–2; 49:3). For Rashi, the “despised and forsaken” figure (Isaiah 53:3 NASB95) fits the persecuted, exilic nation. The nations, having misjudged Israel as cursed, will one day recognize that Israel's suffering has brought them blessing. On this reading, “He was pierced through for our transgressions” (Isaiah 53:5 NASB95) means that Israel is pierced because of the sins of the Gentile nations, not as a substitute bearing Israel's own guilt. However, when this interpretation is measured against the chapter's details, certain tensions appear. The Servant is described as wholly innocent: “He had done no violence, nor was there any deceit in His mouth” (Isaiah 53:9 NASB95). Yet earlier in Isaiah, Israel is repeatedly indicted: “Alas, sinful nation, people weighed down with iniquity” (Isaiah 1:4 NASB95). To address this, national‑Servant readings must either treat the Servant as the ideal righteous Israel within Israel, or as a future purified Israel no longer marked by sin. In addition, the text repeatedly sets the Servant over against “we” and “our”: “All of us like sheep have gone astray… but the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him” (Isaiah 53:6 NASB95). A strictly corporate view must explain how the same entity can be both the guilty “we” and the innocent “He” who bears their iniquity. By contrast, Ramban (Nachmanides, 13th century) offers a more individual, often implicitly messianic reading. While he acknowledges that “servant” can sometimes refer to Israel, he argues that the specific language in Isaiah 53 goes beyond the nation. He highlights the Servant's spotless righteousness, his voluntary acceptance of suffering, and the clearly substitutionary statements: “He was pierced through for our transgressions … the chastening for our well‑being fell upon Him” (Isaiah 53:5 NASB95). Ramban notes that Israel's own sins are heavy and frequent in the book; therefore, Israel cannot coherently be both the guilty party and the innocent substitute. Ramban also draws attention to the Servant's death and subsequent exaltation. Isaiah 53:8 speaks of Him being “cut off out of the land of the living” (NASB95), while Isaiah 53:10–11 states that after making “His soul a guilt offering,” “He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, and the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand” (Isaiah 53:10–11 NASB95). For Ramban, this pattern — suffering, death, then seeing offspring and prolonged days — points to a particular righteous sufferer whose story does not end in defeat. He stops short of identifying this figure with Yeshua, but he preserves the text's singular, personal shape and its vicarious logic. Set alongside the passage itself, these two medieval readings frame the main options. A corporate-national reading underscores Israel's role in redemptive history, but must re‑configure clear “He/We” contrasts and absolute declarations of innocence. An individual‑servant reading preserves the straightforward grammar, the Servant's blamelessness, and the repeated emphasis on bearing others' iniquities, but must then explain how one righteous sufferer can justly carry the guilt of “many” (Isaiah 53:11–12 NASB95). Isaiah 53 itself holds together a singular Servant, perfect righteousness, substitutionary suffering, real death, and subsequent exaltation, and it invites every interpreter — medieval and modern — to reckon carefully with that full portrait. Yeshua's ministry: healing and priestly declaration In the Gospels, this pattern converges in the ministry of Yeshua. Luke 5:12–14 records a man “covered with leprosy” who falls on his face and begs, “Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean” (Luke 5:12 NASB 1995). Yeshua touches him, saying, “I am willing; be cleansed.” Immediately the leprosy leaves him. Then Yeshua commands him, “Go and show yourself to the priest and make an offering for your cleansing, just as Moses commanded, as a testimony to them” (Luke 5:13–14 NASB95). This episode unites divine authority and Torah observance. Yeshua both heals and sends the man into the priestly system for formal recognition of restoration. The priest confirms what the Messiah has already accomplished. Luke 17:11–19 narrates the healing of 10 lepers. All cry out from a distance. All are cleansed as they go to show themselves to the priests. Yet only one, a Samaritan, returns to give glory to God and falls at Yeshua's feet in gratitude. Yeshua notes that only this foreigner came back and tells him, “Your faith has made you well” (Luke 17:19 NASB95). Here faith, gratitude, and cross‑boundary mercy stand beside physical cleansing and priestly verification. Holiness, community, and ongoing application Taken together, these texts present a coherent picture. Holiness (kadosh) requires separation from defilement. Clean and unclean (tahor and tamei) categories govern approach to God and participation in the covenant community. Outward signs, whether on skin, garments, or houses, reveal deeper realities and require careful discernment. Speech can function as a plague. Communities must deal with sin and abuse honestly yet with a view to restoration. At the same time, the prophetic witness and the Gospel narratives direct attention to a central figure who bears iniquity and affliction for many. Through Him, ultimate cleansing and restoration become possible. He both fulfills the priestly discernment and surpasses it by providing effective atonement. In daily practice, these themes invite self‑examination, responsible speech, wise pastoral care, and hope. They call communities to resist both careless toleration of evil and harsh, hopeless rejection of the fallen. They also summon individuals to bring their visible and hidden uncleanness to the One who discerns truly and cleanses completely. Step beyond diagnosis into restoration. In Leviticus 13 we watched tzara'at expose what is wrong. In Leviticus 14 we'll see how God makes a way back. Next Shabbat, we'll explore the cleansing rites for the metzora, the strange use of birds, cedar, scarlet, and hyssop, and how these ceremonies whisper of resurrection, new beginnings, and a Messiah who not only declares us clean but brings us home to the community. The post Can spiritual issues cause physical problems? A biblical look at ‘leprosy’ (Leviticus 13; 2Kings 5; Isaiah 53) appeared first on Hallel Fellowship.

(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.

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

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.  

This transcript features a rabbi responding to diverse questions concerning Jewish law, communal standards, and spiritual life. He begins by debating whether winning a Torah scroll in a raffle fulfills the religious obligation to write one personally. The discussion then shifts to the permissibility of digital photo frames on the Sabbath and the complex history of the Manhattan eruv. Addressing broader theological concerns, the speaker explores divine providence as it relates to non-Jews and explains the spiritual advantages of praying in a formal synagogue rather than a home setting. He concludes with practical advice on maintaining religious focus amidst modern temptations and the protocol for handling interruptions during prayer.How do Rabbinic authorities apply ancient laws to modern technologies like digital screens?In what ways does communal environment influence the spiritual quality of religious practice?How does Jewish law navigate historical disputes regarding the definition of public spaces?Today • 2:02 AMwrite a podcast blurb for this audio with all the questions askedWelcome back to another weekly session of answering your questions, organized and arranged by Jonathan. In this episode, we explore a wide variety of halachic inquiries and philosophical reflections, ranging from modern technological challenges on Shabbat to the deep spiritual mechanics of repentance.This episode answers the following questions:• Does winning a Sefer Torah in a raffle fulfill the mitzvah? We provide a follow-up on whether winning a raffle qualifies as the mitzvah of writing a Sefer Torah, debating if it is more similar to inheriting one (which does not fulfill the mitzvah) or commissioning/buying one (which most hold does fulfill it).• Are digital photo frames and screens permitted on Shabbat? We discuss the use of screens in homes and shuls that display rotating photos, headlines, or sports scores, examining concerns like reading secular news on Shabbat and the halachic concept of Shevisas Kelim (resting of utensils).• What is the halachic status of the Manhattan Eruv? We dive into the complex history of the Manhattan Eruv, focusing on the debate over whether an area requires 600,000 residents to be considered a Reshus HaRabim (public domain) and Rav Moshe Feinstein's influential rulings on the matter.• How does God's influence (Hashgacha) affect non-Jews? Drawing on various opinions, we explore whether non-Jews are guided by general or individual providence and how they are judged based on their personal mission in society.• Is it preferable to daven in a shul if there is a house minyan on your block? We explain why davening in a shul is superior to a house minyan, citing reasons such as B'rov Am Hadras Melech (glory in a large crowd), the inherent sanctity of the building, and the presence of an Aron Kodesh.• How strictly should we follow the rule of Paska (not splitting verses)? We look at why we sometimes split verses in songs or Torah readings despite the general prohibition, noting that it is often permitted when there is no other viable option.• Does seeing the top of the Golden Dome require Keriah? We discuss whether seeing the dome on the Temple Mount from a distance—without seeing the base—obligates a person to tear their clothes in mourning for the Temple.• How do sins transform into merits through teshuva? We examine the profound concept that proper repentance can turn past transgressions into merits, including the idea that the drive to overcome sin can lead a person to a higher spiritual level than they would have otherwise reached.• Where should one light candles when staying in one hotel but eating in another? We address the logistics of lighting Shabbat and Chanukah candles for those away from home, determining whether the place of eating or the place of sleeping takes precedence.• What is the best way for teenagers to handle modern temptations? We share advice on avoiding temptation through filters and environment rather than just "fighting" it, while emphasizing the importance of not obsessing over past failures.• How should you signal someone to stop talking during sensitive parts of prayer? We offer practical tips for communicating the need for silence during Chazaras HaShatz or Kaddish without violating the prohibition against speaking.To understand the concept of avoiding obsession with sin, consider it like putting down a heavy load after crossing a puddle; if you keep rehashing your mistakes, you are still carrying the weight of the sin long after the moment has passed.Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/ten-minute-halacha/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

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 36.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.

Having received his Ph.D. in mathematical logic at Brandeis University, Rabbi Dr. Dovid Gottlieb went on to become Professor of Philosophy at Johns Hopkins University. Today he is a senior faculty member at Ohr Somayach in Jerusalem. An accomplished author and lecturer, Rabbi Gottlieb has electrified audiences with his stimulating and energetic presentations on ethical and philosophical issues. In Jewish Philosophy with Rabbi Dr. Gottlieb, we are invited to explore the most fascinating and elemental concepts of Jewish Philosophy. https://podcasts.ohr.edu/ podcasts@ohr.edu

The Suffering Warrior: Unveiling Judah's Mashiyach ben Yosef and the Messianic Mystery Overview In this post, Rod explores Judah's conception of Mashiyach ben Yosef (Messiah son of Joseph), tracing its development through biblical, Rabbinic, and apocalyptic literature, and connecting it to Messianic faith in Yeshua. The study highlights the "suffering warrior" motif, the precursor role to Mashiyach ben David, and the eschatological implications for Israel and the world. Key Themes & Scriptural Foundations Mashiyach ben Yosef as Precursor: Mashiyach ben Yosef is depicted as a leader who precedes Mashiyach ben David, preparing Israel through military, political, and spiritual means (repentance and Torah observance). This role is likened to John the Immerser as a type of precursor. Two-Stage Eschatology: Rabbinic tradition envisions two Messiahs—ben Yosef (the suffering, martyred leader) and ben David (the glorious, reigning king). The first stage is marked by suffering and conflict, the second by peace and restoration. Scriptural Roots: Genesis 49:22–26: Joseph's blessing as a "fruitful bough" and a suffering deliverer, foreshadowing the Messiah's role. Isaiah 11:13: Prophecy of Ephraim and Judah's reconciliation, interpreted as the work of two Messiahs. Zechariah 12:10: The pierced one, mourned by Israel, linked to Mashiyach ben Yosefciteturn4search1L20, L29-30. Obadiah 1:18, 21: Two "saviors" leading Israel, interpreted as ben Yosef and ben David. Rabbinic and Apocalyptic References Talmudic Sources: Sukkah 52a–b: Explicit references to Mashiyach ben Yosef, his death in the war of Gog and Magog, and the mourning that follows. Also mentions four eschatological figures: Mashiyach ben David, Mashiyach ben Yosef, Elijah, and the righteous High Priest (https://www.sefaria.org/Sukkah.52b.16?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en)citeturn4search1L25, L29-31. Genesis Rabbah 75:6, 99:2: Describes the "War Messiah" from Joseph's lineage, involved in Temple restoration. Pesikta de-Rav Kahana 5:9 and Pesikta Rabbati 15.14/16: Discuss the "Anointed One for War" and the four messianic figures. Songs of Rabbah: Mentions Elijah, King Messiah, Melchizedek, and the Anointed for War (https://books.google.com/books?id=3YH99skQxGIC&q=Song+of+Songs+Rabbah+messiah+Elijah+war&pg=PA138). Sefer Zerubbabel: 7th-century apocalyptic text introducing Nehemiah ben Hushiel (Mashiyach ben Yosef) and Menahem ben Ammiel (Mashiyach ben David), outlining the sequence of redemption, warfare, death, resurrection, and the Messianic Age (https://pages.charlotte.edu/john-reeves/research-projects/trajectories-in-near-eastern-apocalyptic/sefer-zerubbabel). Dead Sea Scrolls: 4Q175 ("The Testimonia") and 4Q372 ("The Joseph Apocryphon"): Present a suffering, priestly, and warrior leader matching the ben Yosef persona. 1QS (Community Rule): Describes two Messiahs—of Aaron (priestly) and of Israel (kingly/warrior), with the latter subordinate to the former. Liturgical and Kabbalistic References: Amidah (Shemoneh Esrei): Kabbalists see the prayer for David's throne as a plea for Mashiyach ben Yosef's protection (https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/867674/jewish/Translation.htm). Kol HaTor: "Yosef is still alive" prayer for Mashiyach ben Yosef's mercy (https://vilnagaon.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/KOL_HATOR.pdf). Messianic Fulfillment and Insights Typology and Yeshua: Rod argues that Yeshua fulfills the typology of Mashiyach ben Yosef—suffering, atoning, gathering the lost sheep, and preparing the way for the Messianic Age. Scriptural parallels include Isaiah 53, Luke 4, Mark 13, Revelation 19, Zechariah 14, Ezekiel 34, and others. Conditional Redemption: Some Rabbinic sources suggest that the suffering and death of Mashiyach ben Yosef are conditional upon Israel's spiritual state. Practical Insights for Believers: Suffering: True discipleship involves suffering and persecution, echoing the path of Mashiyach ben Yosef and Yeshua (Matthew 24:9, John 15:20). Atonement: The suffering of Mashiyach ben Yosef is linked to atonement for Israel's sins, paralleling Yeshua's redemptive work (Ephesians 2:8, Matthew 5:3, 5). Redemption: The manuscript emphasizes the final redemption of Israel, rooted in biblical prophecy (Romans 11, Ezekiel 36–37, Zechariah 12–14, Isaiah 11, Jeremiah 31). Warfare: Both spiritual and physical warfare are central, with believers called to "put on the whole armor of God" (Ephesians 6). Call to Action Intercession for Judah: The manuscript urges Messianic believers to pray for and love the Jewish people, recognizing the "partial blindness" until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in (Romans 11:25). Invitation to Discipleship: The closing invites readers to enter into covenant relationship with Yehovah through Yeshua Messiah (2 Corinthians 6:2). References & Further Reading https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/101747/jewish/Mashiach-ben-Yossef.htm https://www.sefaria.org/Sukkah.52b.16?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en https://books.google.com/books?id=3YH99skQxGIC&q=Song+of+Songs+Rabbah+messiah+Elijah+war&pg=PA138 https://pages.charlotte.edu/john-reeves/research-projects/trajectories-in-near-eastern-apocalyptic/sefer-zerubbabel https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/867674/jewish/Translation.htm https://vilnagaon.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/KOL_HATOR.pdf https://www.sefaria.org/Sukkah.52a.1-52b.17?lang=bi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_ben_Joseph https://www.themessianictorahobserver.org/2026/01/16/beyond-protests-how-prayer-and-fasting-topple-evil-regimes-venezuela-minnesota-iran-the-extreme-radical-left-weighing-heavy-on-my-mind/

In this Ask Away #28 episode of Everyday Judaism, Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe answers live and emailed questions on practical halacha and deeper Jewish life:Netilat yadayim technique — One continuous flow is ideal; your wrist-to-fingers method is fine if uninterrupted.Running water / faucets — Requires human force (koach gavra); turn faucet on/off repeatedly so first spurt washes each hand.Morning blessings order — Body needs first (restroom), then wash hands + Al Netilat Yadayim, Asher Yatzar, Elokai Neshama (attach them); Modeh Ani immediately upon waking.Aliyah in current times — Massive wave of aliyah is real and prophetic; if livelihood transfers easily, move (great mitzvah—every moment/step in Eretz Yisrael is a mitzvah); if not, stay and be intentional (e.g., spread Torah, as Rabbi does in Houston). Cultural/language barriers for children over 6 are real; prepare spiritually (Torah growth, closeness to Hashem) for Moshiach—have a "go bag" ready.Tattoos & henna — Tattoos forbidden biblically; henna generally permitted (ask rabbi); neither blocks hand-washing unless substantial chatzitzah.Infidelity & King Solomon — Torah forbids casual intimacy outside marriage; Solomon's 1,000 wives/concubines is a cautionary tale—he later warns against it. Rabbinic decree limits men to one wife at a time. Modern promiscuity/infidelity rises with internet; use filters/accountability, delete temptations, prioritize emotional depth via niddah laws.Shabbat automatic toilets — Triggering sensors is problematic (creative labor); if unavoidable, some poskim permit as gram/indirect; best avoid or use manual options.Finding a rabbi — Pursue actively (run after them); persistence (e.g., persistent voicemails) works; rabbi guides halacha/life; don't wait for one to chase you.The rabbi shares personal stories (mikvah healing soul-leaving sensation, persistent rabbi outreach) and stresses intentional Judaism, community, and using modern tools for good while guarding against harm.Please submit your questions at askaway@torchweb.org_____________The Everyday Judaism Podcast is dedicated to learning, understanding and appreciating the greatness of Jewish heritage and the Torah through the simplified, concise study of Halacha, Jewish Law, thereby enhancing our understanding of how Hashem wants us to live our daily lives in a Jewish way._____________This Podcast Series is Generously Underwritten by Marshall & Doreen LernerDownload & Print the Everyday Judaism Halacha Notes:https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1RL-PideM42B_LFn6pbrk8MMU5-zqlLG5This episode (Ep. #82) of the Everyday Judaism Podcast by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe of TORCH is dedicated to my dearest friends, Marshall & Doreen Lerner! May Hashem bless you and always lovingly accept your prayer for good health, success and true happiness!!!Recorded in the TORCH Centre - Levin Family Studio (B) to a live audience on January 4, 2026, in Houston, Texas.Released as Podcast on January 29, 2026_____________Connect with Us:Subscribe to the Everyday Judaism PodcastApple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/everyday-judaism-rabbi-aryeh-wolbe/id1600622789Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3AXCNcyKSVsaOLsLQsCN1CShare your questions at askaway@torchweb.org or visit torchweb.org for more Torah content.  _____________About the Host:Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe, Director of TORCH in Houston, brings decades of Torah scholarship to guide listeners in applying Jewish wisdom to daily life.  To directly send your questions, comments, and feedback: awolbe@torchweb.org_____________Support Our Mission:Help us share Jewish wisdom globally by sponsoring an episode at torchweb.org. Your support makes a difference!_____________Subscribe and Listen to other podcasts by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe: NEW!! Hey Rabbi! Podcast: https://heyrabbi.transistor.fm/episodesPrayer Podcast: https://prayerpodcast.transistor.fm/episodesJewish Inspiration Podcast: https://inspiration.transistor.fm/episodesParsha Review Podcast: https://parsha.transistor.fm/episodesLiving Jewishly Podcast: https://jewishly.transistor.fm/episodesThinking Talmudist Podcast: https://talmud.transistor.fm/episodesUnboxing Judaism Podcast: https://unboxing.transistor.fm/episodesRabbi Aryeh Wolbe Podcast Collection: https://collection.transistor.fm/episodesFor a full listing of podcasts available by TORCH at http://podcast.torchweb.org_____________Keywords:#AskAway, #Torah, #Halacha, #Q&A, #Jewish, #Halacha, #NetilatYadayim, #HandWashing, #Mikvah, #Rabbi, #Tzedakah ★ Support this podcast ★

In this Ask Away #28 episode of Everyday Judaism, Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe answers live and emailed questions on practical halacha and deeper Jewish life:Netilat yadayim technique — One continuous flow is ideal; your wrist-to-fingers method is fine if uninterrupted.Running water / faucets — Requires human force (koach gavra); turn faucet on/off repeatedly so first spurt washes each hand.Morning blessings order — Body needs first (restroom), then wash hands + Al Netilat Yadayim, Asher Yatzar, Elokai Neshama (attach them); Modeh Ani immediately upon waking.Aliyah in current times — Massive wave of aliyah is real and prophetic; if livelihood transfers easily, move (great mitzvah—every moment/step in Eretz Yisrael is a mitzvah); if not, stay and be intentional (e.g., spread Torah, as Rabbi does in Houston). Cultural/language barriers for children over 6 are real; prepare spiritually (Torah growth, closeness to Hashem) for Moshiach—have a "go bag" ready.Tattoos & henna — Tattoos forbidden biblically; henna generally permitted (ask rabbi); neither blocks hand-washing unless substantial chatzitzah.Infidelity & King Solomon — Torah forbids casual intimacy outside marriage; Solomon's 1,000 wives/concubines is a cautionary tale—he later warns against it. Rabbinic decree limits men to one wife at a time. Modern promiscuity/infidelity rises with internet; use filters/accountability, delete temptations, prioritize emotional depth via niddah laws.Shabbat automatic toilets — Triggering sensors is problematic (creative labor); if unavoidable, some poskim permit as gram/indirect; best avoid or use manual options.Finding a rabbi — Pursue actively (run after them); persistence (e.g., persistent voicemails) works; rabbi guides halacha/life; don't wait for one to chase you.The rabbi shares personal stories (mikvah healing soul-leaving sensation, persistent rabbi outreach) and stresses intentional Judaism, community, and using modern tools for good while guarding against harm.Please submit your questions at askaway@torchweb.org_____________The Everyday Judaism Podcast is dedicated to learning, understanding and appreciating the greatness of Jewish heritage and the Torah through the simplified, concise study of Halacha, Jewish Law, thereby enhancing our understanding of how Hashem wants us to live our daily lives in a Jewish way._____________This Podcast Series is Generously Underwritten by Marshall & Doreen LernerDownload & Print the Everyday Judaism Halacha Notes:https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1RL-PideM42B_LFn6pbrk8MMU5-zqlLG5This episode (Ep. #82) of the Everyday Judaism Podcast by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe of TORCH is dedicated to my dearest friends, Marshall & Doreen Lerner! May Hashem bless you and always lovingly accept your prayer for good health, success and true happiness!!!Recorded in the TORCH Centre - Levin Family Studio (B) to a live audience on January 4, 2026, in Houston, Texas.Released as Podcast on January 29, 2026_____________Connect with Us:Subscribe to the Everyday Judaism PodcastApple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/everyday-judaism-rabbi-aryeh-wolbe/id1600622789Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3AXCNcyKSVsaOLsLQsCN1CShare your questions at askaway@torchweb.org or visit torchweb.org for more Torah content.  _____________About the Host:Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe, Director of TORCH in Houston, brings decades of Torah scholarship to guide listeners in applying Jewish wisdom to daily life.  To directly send your questions, comments, and feedback: awolbe@torchweb.org_____________Support Our Mission:Help us share Jewish wisdom globally by sponsoring an episode at torchweb.org. Your support makes a difference!_____________Subscribe and Listen to other podcasts by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe: NEW!! Hey Rabbi! Podcast: https://heyrabbi.transistor.fm/episodesPrayer Podcast: https://prayerpodcast.transistor.fm/episodesJewish Inspiration Podcast: https://inspiration.transistor.fm/episodesParsha Review Podcast: https://parsha.transistor.fm/episodesLiving Jewishly Podcast: https://jewishly.transistor.fm/episodesThinking Talmudist Podcast: https://talmud.transistor.fm/episodesUnboxing Judaism Podcast: https://unboxing.transistor.fm/episodesRabbi Aryeh Wolbe Podcast Collection: https://collection.transistor.fm/episodesFor a full listing of podcasts available by TORCH at http://podcast.torchweb.org_____________Keywords:#AskAway, #Torah, #Halacha, #Q&A, #Jewish, #Halacha, #NetilatYadayim, #HandWashing, #Mikvah, #Rabbi, #Tzedakah ★ Support this podcast ★

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.

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 35.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 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.

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 34.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

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 33.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

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 32.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

Jacob's farewell address in Parashat VaYechi features a vision of a snake and a cry for Divine salvation. As our world backslides into fear, anger, violence, and deceit, we nonetheless find hope in self-transformation. By caring for the needy and welcoming the stranger, we preserve the legacy of B'nei Yisrael, and become partners with God in redeeming a broken world. 

The Mishna in Pirkeh Abot (5:25) teaches, "Ben Shelosh Esreh Le'misvot" – a youngster becomes obligated in Misvot upon reaching the age of thirteen. At this point, he may be counted toward a Minyan and may serve as Hazzan. The source for this rule is "Halacha Le'Moshe Mi'Sinai" – an oral tradition taught to Moshe at Mount Sinai. The Gemara in Masechet Sukka (5b) teaches that all Shiurim – halachic measurements – were taught as a "Halacha Le'Moshe Mi'Sinai," and this includes the "measurement" of adulthood, when a boy becomes obligated in Misvot. Rashi, however, in his commentary to Abot, finds a Biblical source for this rule. The Torah uses the word "Ish" ("man") in reference to Shimon and Levi when they waged war on the city of Shechem ("Ish Harbo" – Bereshit 34:25), and, as Rashi shows, Levi – the younger of these two brothers – was thirteen years old at this time. This establishes that a boy attains the status of "Ish" – a man – at the age of thirteen. The Maharil (Rav Yaakov Moelin, Germany, d. 1427) refutes this proof, noting that the use of the word "Ish" in this context does not necessarily mean that this word would not be used if Levi was younger. Therefore, the Maharil concludes that there is no textual basis for this rule, and it was transmitted through oral tradition. Some suggested an allusion to this Halacha in a verse in the Book of Yeshayahu (43:21) in which Hashem pronounces, "Am Zu Yasarti Li, Tehilati Yesaperu" – "I have created this nation for Me, that they tell My praise." The word "Zu" in Gematria equals 13 (7+6), thus hinting to the fact that it is at this age when Hashem wants us to praise Him and perform Misvot. There is a debate among the early authorities as to when precisely a boy is considered a Bar-Misva. The She'iltot (Rav Ahai Gaon, d. 752) writes that a boy becomes a Bar-Misva the moment he fully completes his thirteenth year – meaning, at the time of day when he was born thirteen years earlier. Thus, for example, according to this opinion, a boy who was born at 2pm cannot be counted for a Minyan or serve as Hazan on his thirteenth birthday until 2pm, the point at which he has completed thirteen full years. The consensus among the Poskim, however, is that a boy becomes Bar-Misva once the date of his thirteenth birthday arrives, in the evening. This is, indeed, the Halacha. Therefore, regardless of the time of day of a child's birth, he may serve as Hazan already at Arbit on the night of his thirteenth birthday. The Yalkut Yosef writes that the thirteen years are counted from the child's birth even if he was born prematurely and needed to spend a significant amount of time in an incubator. In addition to the requirement of completing thirteen years, a boy must also have reached a certain point of physical maturity to be considered a Halachic adult. Specifically, he must have grown two pubic hairs. The Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Cracow, 1530-1572), based on a ruling of Rav Yosef Kolon (1426-1490), writes that a child who has turned thirteen may be allowed to serve as Hazzan on the assumption that he has reached the point of physical maturity. This assumption may be relied upon with respect to matters instituted by the Sages (as opposed to Torah obligations), and thus, since praying with a Minyan is a Misva ordained by Sages, a child who reached Bar Misva age may lead the service. The Ribash (Rav Yishak Bar Sheshet, Algiers, 1326-1408) went even further, allowing relying on this assumption even with respect to Torah obligations. According to his view, a full-fledged adult may fulfill his Torah obligation of Kiddush on Friday night by listening to Kiddush recited by a boy who has just turned thirteen, on the assumption that he has reached physical maturity. Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that those who wish to rely on this position may be allowed to do so. However, Hacham Ovadia's son, Hacham David Yosef, writes in Halacha Berura that one must not assume a boy's physical maturity with respect to Torah obligations such as the Friday night Kiddush, and this assumption may be made only with respect to Rabbinic obligations. All opinions agree that a thirteen-year-old boy may read the Megilla in the synagogue on Purim, since the obligation of Megilla reading was instituted by the Rabbis. If it is known that a young man has not yet reached this stage of physical development, then he is not considered a Bar-Misva even though his thirteenth birthday has passed. In fact, even if he is older than thirteen, he is not considered a Bar-Misva if it has been determined that he does not have the physical properties required to establish halachic adulthood. If, Heaven forbid, a man does not physically develop until the age of 35, at that point he is considered a "Saris" – an adult man who will never experience physical maturity, and he may thus be counted toward a Minyan. Until then, however, he cannot be considered an adult and may thus not be counted toward a Minyan.

The Mishna in Pirkeh Abot (5:25) teaches, "Ben Shelosh Esreh Le'misvot" – a youngster becomes obligated in Misvot upon reaching the age of thirteen. At this point, he may be counted toward a Minyan and may serve as Hazzan. The source for this rule is "Halacha Le'Moshe Mi'Sinai" – an oral tradition taught to Moshe at Mount Sinai. The Gemara in Masechet Sukka (5b) teaches that all Shiurim – halachic measurements – were taught as a "Halacha Le'Moshe Mi'Sinai," and this includes the "measurement" of adulthood, when a boy becomes obligated in Misvot. Rashi, however, in his commentary to Abot, finds a Biblical source for this rule. The Torah uses the word "Ish" ("man") in reference to Shimon and Levi when they waged war on the city of Shechem ("Ish Harbo" – Bereshit 34:25), and, as Rashi shows, Levi – the younger of these two brothers – was thirteen years old at this time. This establishes that a boy attains the status of "Ish" – a man – at the age of thirteen. The Maharil (Rav Yaakov Moelin, Germany, d. 1427) refutes this proof, noting that the use of the word "Ish" in this context does not necessarily mean that this word would not be used if Levi was younger. Therefore, the Maharil concludes that there is no textual basis for this rule, and it was transmitted through oral tradition. Some suggested an allusion to this Halacha in a verse in the Book of Yeshayahu (43:21) in which Hashem pronounces, "Am Zu Yasarti Li, Tehilati Yesaperu" – "I have created this nation for Me, that they tell My praise." The word "Zu" in Gematria equals 13 (7+6), thus hinting to the fact that it is at this age when Hashem wants us to praise Him and perform Misvot. There is a debate among the early authorities as to when precisely a boy is considered a Bar-Misva. The She'iltot (Rav Ahai Gaon, d. 752) writes that a boy becomes a Bar-Misva the moment he fully completes his thirteenth year – meaning, at the time of day when he was born thirteen years earlier. Thus, for example, according to this opinion, a boy who was born at 2pm cannot be counted for a Minyan or serve as Hazan on his thirteenth birthday until 2pm, the point at which he has completed thirteen full years. The consensus among the Poskim, however, is that a boy becomes Bar-Misva once the date of his thirteenth birthday arrives, in the evening. This is, indeed, the Halacha. Therefore, regardless of the time of day of a child's birth, he may serve as Hazan already at Arbit on the night of his thirteenth birthday. The Yalkut Yosef writes that the thirteen years are counted from the child's birth even if he was born prematurely and needed to spend a significant amount of time in an incubator. In addition to the requirement of completing thirteen years, a boy must also have reached a certain point of physical maturity to be considered a Halachic adult. Specifically, he must have grown two pubic hairs. The Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Cracow, 1530-1572), based on a ruling of Rav Yosef Kolon (1426-1490), writes that a child who has turned thirteen may be allowed to serve as Hazzan on the assumption that he has reached the point of physical maturity. This assumption may be relied upon with respect to matters instituted by the Sages (as opposed to Torah obligations), and thus, since praying with a Minyan is a Misva ordained by Sages, a child who reached Bar Misva age may lead the service. The Ribash (Rav Yishak Bar Sheshet, Algiers, 1326-1408) went even further, allowing relying on this assumption even with respect to Torah obligations. According to his view, a full-fledged adult may fulfill his Torah obligation of Kiddush on Friday night by listening to Kiddush recited by a boy who has just turned thirteen, on the assumption that he has reached physical maturity. Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that those who wish to rely on this position may be allowed to do so. However, Hacham Ovadia's son, Hacham David Yosef, writes in Halacha Berura that one must not assume a boy's physical maturity with respect to Torah obligations such as the Friday night Kiddush, and this assumption may be made only with respect to Rabbinic obligations. All opinions agree that a thirteen-year-old boy may read the Megilla in the synagogue on Purim, since the obligation of Megilla reading was instituted by the Rabbis. If it is known that a young man has not yet reached this stage of physical development, then he is not considered a Bar-Misva even though his thirteenth birthday has passed. In fact, even if he is older than thirteen, he is not considered a Bar-Misva if it has been determined that he does not have the physical properties required to establish halachic adulthood. If, Heaven forbid, a man does not physically develop until the age of 35, at that point he is considered a "Saris" – an adult man who will never experience physical maturity, and he may thus be counted toward a Minyan. Until then, however, he cannot be considered an adult and may thus not be counted toward a Minyan.

The Mishna in Pirkeh Abot (5:25) teaches, "Ben Shelosh Esreh Le'misvot" – a youngster becomes obligated in Misvot upon reaching the age of thirteen. At this point, he may be counted toward a Minyan and may serve as Hazzan. The source for this rule is "Halacha Le'Moshe Mi'Sinai" – an oral tradition taught to Moshe at Mount Sinai. The Gemara in Masechet Sukka (5b) teaches that all Shiurim – halachic measurements – were taught as a "Halacha Le'Moshe Mi'Sinai," and this includes the "measurement" of adulthood, when a boy becomes obligated in Misvot. Rashi, however, in his commentary to Abot, finds a Biblical source for this rule. The Torah uses the word "Ish" ("man") in reference to Shimon and Levi when they waged war on the city of Shechem ("Ish Harbo" – Bereshit 34:25), and, as Rashi shows, Levi – the younger of these two brothers – was thirteen years old at this time. This establishes that a boy attains the status of "Ish" – a man – at the age of thirteen. The Maharil (Rav Yaakov Moelin, Germany, d. 1427) refutes this proof, noting that the use of the word "Ish" in this context does not necessarily mean that this word would not be used if Levi was younger. Therefore, the Maharil concludes that there is no textual basis for this rule, and it was transmitted through oral tradition. Some suggested an allusion to this Halacha in a verse in the Book of Yeshayahu (43:21) in which Hashem pronounces, "Am Zu Yasarti Li, Tehilati Yesaperu" – "I have created this nation for Me, that they tell My praise." The word "Zu" in Gematria equals 13 (7+6), thus hinting to the fact that it is at this age when Hashem wants us to praise Him and perform Misvot. There is a debate among the early authorities as to when precisely a boy is considered a Bar-Misva. The She'iltot (Rav Ahai Gaon, d. 752) writes that a boy becomes a Bar-Misva the moment he fully completes his thirteenth year – meaning, at the time of day when he was born thirteen years earlier. Thus, for example, according to this opinion, a boy who was born at 2pm cannot be counted for a Minyan or serve as Hazan on his thirteenth birthday until 2pm, the point at which he has completed thirteen full years. The consensus among the Poskim, however, is that a boy becomes Bar-Misva once the date of his thirteenth birthday arrives, in the evening. This is, indeed, the Halacha. Therefore, regardless of the time of day of a child's birth, he may serve as Hazan already at Arbit on the night of his thirteenth birthday. The Yalkut Yosef writes that the thirteen years are counted from the child's birth even if he was born prematurely and needed to spend a significant amount of time in an incubator. In addition to the requirement of completing thirteen years, a boy must also have reached a certain point of physical maturity to be considered a Halachic adult. Specifically, he must have grown two pubic hairs. The Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Cracow, 1530-1572), based on a ruling of Rav Yosef Kolon (1426-1490), writes that a child who has turned thirteen may be allowed to serve as Hazzan on the assumption that he has reached the point of physical maturity. This assumption may be relied upon with respect to matters instituted by the Sages (as opposed to Torah obligations), and thus, since praying with a Minyan is a Misva ordained by Sages, a child who reached Bar Misva age may lead the service. The Ribash (Rav Yishak Bar Sheshet, Algiers, 1326-1408) went even further, allowing relying on this assumption even with respect to Torah obligations. According to his view, a full-fledged adult may fulfill his Torah obligation of Kiddush on Friday night by listening to Kiddush recited by a boy who has just turned thirteen, on the assumption that he has reached physical maturity. Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that those who wish to rely on this position may be allowed to do so. However, Hacham Ovadia's son, Hacham David Yosef, writes in Halacha Berura that one must not assume a boy's physical maturity with respect to Torah obligations such as the Friday night Kiddush, and this assumption may be made only with respect to Rabbinic obligations. All opinions agree that a thirteen-year-old boy may read the Megilla in the synagogue on Purim, since the obligation of Megilla reading was instituted by the Rabbis.

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!