Podcasts about rabbis

The Rabbis call Joseph "Yoseph HaTzaddik" because he resists the seduction of Mrs. Potiphar. What can we learn from this story?

Rava explains the Torah source for cases of improper intent (machshava) that disqualify sacrifices - specifically, when one intends to sprinkle the blood, burn the sacrificial parts, or eat the meat “outside its time” or “outside its location.” The intent of outside its time renders the sacrifice pigul and incurs the punishment of karet for one who eats the meat, whereas outside its location does not carry that penalty. Rava explains that all these laws are derived from the verse in Vayikra (Leviticus) 7:18, which also serves as the basis for additional halakhot related to pigul. An alternative interpretation is cited in a braita, which understands that verse as referring to someone who actually ate the meat beyond its designated time (on the third day), rather than to a disqualifying thought during the sacrificial process. Various drashot are brought on the wording of that verse and related verses, such as Vayikra 19:7, to further clarify the scope and implications of pigul. If one has a disqualifying thought of outside its time, but the sacrifice is also performed incorrectly in another way, such as outside its location, the punishment of karet does not apply. However, Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and rules that if the outside its time thought occurred first, the sacrifice is considered pigul and punishable by karet. Ilfa and Rabbi Yochanan debate whether the disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis applies only when the two improper thoughts occur in separate sacrificial rites, or even when they occur within the same rite.  

Ilfa and Rabbi Yochanan debate whether the disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis applies only when the two improper thoughts occur in separate sacrificial rites, or even when they occur within the same rite. A difficulty is raised against each one. The one against Rabbi Yochanan is resolved, but the one against Ilfa is left unresolved. A debate in Masechet Temurah 25b between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosi regarding a similar situation is brought as a comparison. Abaye and Rava disagree about their understanding of the debate and whether it is similar to the debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis in our Mishna. There is a discussion about the language in the Mishna – is it referring to a case of a thought about “an olive-bulk and an olive-bulk” or “an olive-bulk, an olive-bulk.” What are the ramifications of the different versions? Which is established as the correct version, and how?

Rava explains the Torah source for cases of improper intent (machshava) that disqualify sacrifices - specifically, when one intends to sprinkle the blood, burn the sacrificial parts, or eat the meat “outside its time” or “outside its location.” The intent of outside its time renders the sacrifice pigul and incurs the punishment of karet for one who eats the meat, whereas outside its location does not carry that penalty. Rava explains that all these laws are derived from the verse in Vayikra (Leviticus) 7:18, which also serves as the basis for additional halakhot related to pigul. An alternative interpretation is cited in a braita, which understands that verse as referring to someone who actually ate the meat beyond its designated time (on the third day), rather than to a disqualifying thought during the sacrificial process. Various drashot are brought on the wording of that verse and related verses, such as Vayikra 19:7, to further clarify the scope and implications of pigul. If one has a disqualifying thought of outside its time, but the sacrifice is also performed incorrectly in another way, such as outside its location, the punishment of karet does not apply. However, Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and rules that if the outside its time thought occurred first, the sacrifice is considered pigul and punishable by karet. Ilfa and Rabbi Yochanan debate whether the disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis applies only when the two improper thoughts occur in separate sacrificial rites, or even when they occur within the same rite.  

Ilfa and Rabbi Yochanan debate whether the disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis applies only when the two improper thoughts occur in separate sacrificial rites, or even when they occur within the same rite. A difficulty is raised against each one. The one against Rabbi Yochanan is resolved, but the one against Ilfa is left unresolved. A debate in Masechet Temurah 25b between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosi regarding a similar situation is brought as a comparison. Abaye and Rava disagree about their understanding of the debate and whether it is similar to the debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis in our Mishna. There is a discussion about the language in the Mishna – is it referring to a case of a thought about “an olive-bulk and an olive-bulk” or “an olive-bulk, an olive-bulk.” What are the ramifications of the different versions? Which is established as the correct version, and how?

Today's daf is sponsored by Elana Kermaier in loving memory of her father, Moishe Fox, Moshe Yehuda ben Harav Binyamin and Chaya Tzipora, on his seventh yahrzeit. "I miss his smile, his chuckle, his humor, and his warmth more and more as the years go by." If the kohen does not stand directly on the floor but rather on an object placed upon the floor while performing one of the central sacrificial rites, this is considered a chatzitza—an interposition—and disqualifies the sacrifice. From where is this derived? The Mishna presents three examples of such interpositions between the kohen and the floor. Each example is necessary to illustrate different types of chatzitzot. A braita is cited with Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling: if a kohen has one foot on the ground and the other on an object, and the object is removed such that he can stand solely on the grounded foot, the sacrifice remains valid. Rabbi Ami raises a question regarding a kohen standing on a loose stone. One version of his inquiry concerns whether the looseness of the stone constitutes a chatzitza. An alternative version explores whether, if the stone were removed and the kohen stood directly on the ground beneath, the rite would be valid. The Mishna also discusses a debate between the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon regarding whether accepting the blood with the left hand renders the sacrifice invalid. Their disagreement centers on the interpretation of the verse in Vayikra 4:25. Three explanations are offered by Rav Yehuda, Rava, and Abaye to clarify the root of the dispute. Abaye further notes a third interpretation by Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that while the blood must be accepted with the right hand, the sprinkling may be performed with the left. Rabba bar bar Channa quotes Rabbi Yochanan, who teaches that if the Torah mentions both “kohen” and “finger,” the action must be performed with the right hand. Rava clarifies that Rabbi Yochanan meant that even if either term appears independently, the right hand is required. Abaye limits this principle to essential sacrificial rites. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Shimon requires the right hand if either “finger” appears alone or “kohen” together with “finger”. According to Rabbi Yochanan’s rule that the mention of “kohen” implies the use of the right hand, why did Rava derive a gezera shava—a textual analogy—from the three mentions of “right” in the leper purification ritual (right hand, right foot, right ear), applying one of them to kemitza (the flour offering), when the verse already includes the word “kohen”? This is there to teach an additional halakha that requires the right hand.

Today's daf is sponsored by Elana Kermaier in loving memory of her father, Moishe Fox, Moshe Yehuda ben Harav Binyamin and Chaya Tzipora, on his seventh yahrzeit. "I miss his smile, his chuckle, his humor, and his warmth more and more as the years go by." If the kohen does not stand directly on the floor but rather on an object placed upon the floor while performing one of the central sacrificial rites, this is considered a chatzitza—an interposition—and disqualifies the sacrifice. From where is this derived? The Mishna presents three examples of such interpositions between the kohen and the floor. Each example is necessary to illustrate different types of chatzitzot. A braita is cited with Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling: if a kohen has one foot on the ground and the other on an object, and the object is removed such that he can stand solely on the grounded foot, the sacrifice remains valid. Rabbi Ami raises a question regarding a kohen standing on a loose stone. One version of his inquiry concerns whether the looseness of the stone constitutes a chatzitza. An alternative version explores whether, if the stone were removed and the kohen stood directly on the ground beneath, the rite would be valid. The Mishna also discusses a debate between the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon regarding whether accepting the blood with the left hand renders the sacrifice invalid. Their disagreement centers on the interpretation of the verse in Vayikra 4:25. Three explanations are offered by Rav Yehuda, Rava, and Abaye to clarify the root of the dispute. Abaye further notes a third interpretation by Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that while the blood must be accepted with the right hand, the sprinkling may be performed with the left. Rabba bar bar Channa quotes Rabbi Yochanan, who teaches that if the Torah mentions both “kohen” and “finger,” the action must be performed with the right hand. Rava clarifies that Rabbi Yochanan meant that even if either term appears independently, the right hand is required. Abaye limits this principle to essential sacrificial rites. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Shimon requires the right hand if either “finger” appears alone or “kohen” together with “finger”. According to Rabbi Yochanan’s rule that the mention of “kohen” implies the use of the right hand, why did Rava derive a gezera shava—a textual analogy—from the three mentions of “right” in the leper purification ritual (right hand, right foot, right ear), applying one of them to kemitza (the flour offering), when the verse already includes the word “kohen”? This is there to teach an additional halakha that requires the right hand.

Following Ulla’s ruling that conveying the blood without moving one’s feet is invalid, the Gemara explores whether such a situation can be rectified if the initial conveying was performed without foot movement. The first attempt to prove that it can be corrected is from the Mishna in Zevachim 32a, but this derivation is ultimately rejected. A definitive proof is then brought from a statement of Ulla in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, establishing that the flaw cannot be corrected. Rav Nachman raises two challenges to Ulla’s position based on rulings in the Mishna (Zevachim 32a and 25a). The first challenge is addressed, though not convincingly, while the second remains unresolved. A new interpretation is proposed regarding the debate between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis in our Mishna concerning the act of conveying. According to this view, when Rabbi Shimon rules that improper intention during conveying does not disqualify the sacrifice, he refers specifically to conveying without foot movement. However, this interpretation is mocked by the Rabbis in Eretz Yisrael. Initially, the Gemara explains their ridicule by suggesting that if Rabbi Shimon is correct, there would be no case in the sprinkling of the blood of a bird sin offering where improper intent could disqualify the offering, despite the known principle that intent during sprinkling can indeed disqualify. This explanation is rejected, and a more compelling reason is offered: Rabbi Shimon’s own words in the Mishna indicate that he was discussing conveying by foot. He explains that conveying may be unnecessary because the animal can be slaughtered adjacent to the altar. Only foot-based conveying is deemed unnecessary, since even when slaughtered nearby, the blood still needs to be transferred to the altar by passing by hand. The Gemara then discusses a case where a non-kohen conveys the blood to the altar, and a kohen returns it to its original location before conveying it properly. There is a dispute over whether this sequence validates the offering or disqualifies it. In a reverse scenario, where a kohen conveys the blood, and a non-kohen returns it and then conveys it again, there is disagreement about whether this case parallels the previous one. Rav Shimi bar Ashi links the two cases: the one who permits in the first case forbids in the second, and vice versa, depending on whether the initial or final action is considered decisive. Rava, however, does not connect the cases, asserting that both would disqualify the second scenario. Once the blood is distanced from the altar, it must be returned in a valid manner - specifically, by a kohen. Rav Yirmia quotes Rav Yirmia of Difti, who claims that the question of whether blood that was brought to the altar and then distanced must be returned is itself a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis in our Mishna. This interpretation is based on Rava’s reading of the Mishna. Abaye challenges this view with a braita and ultimately rejects it, leading Rava to concede to Abaye’s position. The Mishna enumerates various cases in which the handling of blood by someone disqualified from performing Temple service invalidates the sacrifice. The first example is a non-kohen. What is the source for this? One possibility is a derivation from Vayikra 22:2–3, while another is a kal va’chomer from the case of a blemished kohen.

What does the process of conversion — joining the Jewish people— reveal about the meaning of chosenness? In his recent essay for SAPIR, Rabbi Adam Mintz writes that “we, Jews by birth and Jews by choice, are all destined for the same story.” Similarly, Rabbi Noa Kushner writes that “it is possible that to be chosen is not only a designation at birth or conversion.” They recently joined Rabbi David Wolpe for a conversation.Watch this SAPIR Conversation on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JspDKWCYs7Q Read Adam Mintz's essay: https://sapirjournal.org/chosenness/2025/the-paradoxes-of-conversion/ Read Noa Kushner's essay: https://sapirjournal.org/chosenness/2025/american-sinai/ Music from #Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/theo-gerard/monsieur-groove

Following Ulla’s ruling that conveying the blood without moving one’s feet is invalid, the Gemara explores whether such a situation can be rectified if the initial conveying was performed without foot movement. The first attempt to prove that it can be corrected is from the Mishna in Zevachim 32a, but this derivation is ultimately rejected. A definitive proof is then brought from a statement of Ulla in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, establishing that the flaw cannot be corrected. Rav Nachman raises two challenges to Ulla’s position based on rulings in the Mishna (Zevachim 32a and 25a). The first challenge is addressed, though not convincingly, while the second remains unresolved. A new interpretation is proposed regarding the debate between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis in our Mishna concerning the act of conveying. According to this view, when Rabbi Shimon rules that improper intention during conveying does not disqualify the sacrifice, he refers specifically to conveying without foot movement. However, this interpretation is mocked by the Rabbis in Eretz Yisrael. Initially, the Gemara explains their ridicule by suggesting that if Rabbi Shimon is correct, there would be no case in the sprinkling of the blood of a bird sin offering where improper intent could disqualify the offering, despite the known principle that intent during sprinkling can indeed disqualify. This explanation is rejected, and a more compelling reason is offered: Rabbi Shimon’s own words in the Mishna indicate that he was discussing conveying by foot. He explains that conveying may be unnecessary because the animal can be slaughtered adjacent to the altar. Only foot-based conveying is deemed unnecessary, since even when slaughtered nearby, the blood still needs to be transferred to the altar by passing by hand. The Gemara then discusses a case where a non-kohen conveys the blood to the altar, and a kohen returns it to its original location before conveying it properly. There is a dispute over whether this sequence validates the offering or disqualifies it. In a reverse scenario, where a kohen conveys the blood, and a non-kohen returns it and then conveys it again, there is disagreement about whether this case parallels the previous one. Rav Shimi bar Ashi links the two cases: the one who permits in the first case forbids in the second, and vice versa, depending on whether the initial or final action is considered decisive. Rava, however, does not connect the cases, asserting that both would disqualify the second scenario. Once the blood is distanced from the altar, it must be returned in a valid manner - specifically, by a kohen. Rav Yirmia quotes Rav Yirmia of Difti, who claims that the question of whether blood that was brought to the altar and then distanced must be returned is itself a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis in our Mishna. This interpretation is based on Rava’s reading of the Mishna. Abaye challenges this view with a braita and ultimately rejects it, leading Rava to concede to Abaye’s position. The Mishna enumerates various cases in which the handling of blood by someone disqualified from performing Temple service invalidates the sacrifice. The first example is a non-kohen. What is the source for this? One possibility is a derivation from Vayikra 22:2–3, while another is a kal va’chomer from the case of a blemished kohen.

In the discussion regarding whether an improper intention, such as intending to eat or burn the meat outside its designated time, or to place the blood at the wrong time, during the act of dipping the finger into the blood of a sin offering brought on the inner altar renders the offering pigul, the Gemara presents two contradictory braitot. This suggests a tannaitic dispute over whether dipping the finger is akin to conveying the blood to the altar in a standard sacrifice. Initially, the Gemara attempts to resolve the contradiction by aligning the braitot with the views of Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis. According to this approach, both agree that dipping is equivalent to conveying the blood, but Rabbi Shimon holds that conveying is not an essential avoda (sacrificial service). However, this resolution is rejected, since Rabbi Shimon maintains that pigul does not apply to sacrifices whose blood is placed on the inner altar. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that the two braitot refer to different types of sin offerings - one brought on the inner altar and one on the outer altar. Dipping is essential for the inner altar offering, as the verse states, “and he dips his finger,” and therefore an improper intention during this act would render the offering pigul. In contrast, the outer altar offering does not require dipping, as the verse merely states, “the kohen takes the blood,” without mentioning dipping. Reish Lakish explains that according to Rabbi Shimon, an improper intention regarding the type of sacrifice during the act of conveying the blood to the inner altar would disqualify the offering, since the animal cannot be slaughtered adjacent to the inner altar, making the act of conveying necessary. This seems to contradict Rabbi Shimon’s position that an “outside its time” intention does not render such a sacrifice pigul, which would imply that a mistaken intention regarding the type of sacrifice should also not disqualify it. Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Chanina resolves this by clarifying that Rabbi Shimon agrees that an “outside its time” intention disqualifies the sacrifice, even though it does not render it pigul. The Gemara further derives that an “outside its place” intention would also disqualify this type of offering. Rava explores Rabbi Shimon’s position, as interpreted by Reish Lakish, regarding conveying the blood to the inner altar as being essential. He considers various scenarios depending on whether Rabbi Shimon accepts other positions. For instance, if Rabbi Shimon agrees with his son’s view that kodshei kodashim may be slaughtered between the ulam and the altar, then improper intention would only disqualify the sacrifice from the entrance to the ulam, since slaughtering adjacent to the ulam is permissible. Rava also discusses the case of carrying frankincense from the shulchan (table) in the sanctuary to burn it on the outer altar. The point at which intention disqualifies the offering depends on differing views regarding the sanctity of the ulam and the azara. Abaye asks Rav Chisda whether the blood is disqualified if conveyed by a non-kohen. Rav Chisda responds that it is not, citing a verse as proof. However, Rav Sheshet presents a braita suggesting the opposite. Raba and Rav Yosef argue that the answer depends on the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis. Abaye challenges their position, and Ulla quotes Rabbi Elazar’s ruling that even Rabbi Shimon would disqualify conveying by a non-kohen. Another question arises: Is conveying without moving one’s feet considered valid conveying? After three unsuccessful attempts to prove this from various sources, Ulla rules in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that valid conveying requires movement of the feet.

In the discussion regarding whether an improper intention, such as intending to eat or burn the meat outside its designated time, or to place the blood at the wrong time, during the act of dipping the finger into the blood of a sin offering brought on the inner altar renders the offering pigul, the Gemara presents two contradictory braitot. This suggests a tannaitic dispute over whether dipping the finger is akin to conveying the blood to the altar in a standard sacrifice. Initially, the Gemara attempts to resolve the contradiction by aligning the braitot with the views of Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis. According to this approach, both agree that dipping is equivalent to conveying the blood, but Rabbi Shimon holds that conveying is not an essential avoda (sacrificial service). However, this resolution is rejected, since Rabbi Shimon maintains that pigul does not apply to sacrifices whose blood is placed on the inner altar. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that the two braitot refer to different types of sin offerings - one brought on the inner altar and one on the outer altar. Dipping is essential for the inner altar offering, as the verse states, “and he dips his finger,” and therefore an improper intention during this act would render the offering pigul. In contrast, the outer altar offering does not require dipping, as the verse merely states, “the kohen takes the blood,” without mentioning dipping. Reish Lakish explains that according to Rabbi Shimon, an improper intention regarding the type of sacrifice during the act of conveying the blood to the inner altar would disqualify the offering, since the animal cannot be slaughtered adjacent to the inner altar, making the act of conveying necessary. This seems to contradict Rabbi Shimon’s position that an “outside its time” intention does not render such a sacrifice pigul, which would imply that a mistaken intention regarding the type of sacrifice should also not disqualify it. Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Chanina resolves this by clarifying that Rabbi Shimon agrees that an “outside its time” intention disqualifies the sacrifice, even though it does not render it pigul. The Gemara further derives that an “outside its place” intention would also disqualify this type of offering. Rava explores Rabbi Shimon’s position, as interpreted by Reish Lakish, regarding conveying the blood to the inner altar as being essential. He considers various scenarios depending on whether Rabbi Shimon accepts other positions. For instance, if Rabbi Shimon agrees with his son’s view that kodshei kodashim may be slaughtered between the ulam and the altar, then improper intention would only disqualify the sacrifice from the entrance to the ulam, since slaughtering adjacent to the ulam is permissible. Rava also discusses the case of carrying frankincense from the shulchan (table) in the sanctuary to burn it on the outer altar. The point at which intention disqualifies the offering depends on differing views regarding the sanctity of the ulam and the azara. Abaye asks Rav Chisda whether the blood is disqualified if conveyed by a non-kohen. Rav Chisda responds that it is not, citing a verse as proof. However, Rav Sheshet presents a braita suggesting the opposite. Raba and Rav Yosef argue that the answer depends on the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis. Abaye challenges their position, and Ulla quotes Rabbi Elazar’s ruling that even Rabbi Shimon would disqualify conveying by a non-kohen. Another question arises: Is conveying without moving one’s feet considered valid conveying? After three unsuccessful attempts to prove this from various sources, Ulla rules in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that valid conveying requires movement of the feet.

Full TorahAnytime Lecture Video or Audio More classes from R' Joey Haber ⭐ 2,453

Because Every Day Is a Special Day on the Jewish Calendar. Giant Jewish Calendar. More than 2400 Jewish events. Holidays - Biblical - History. Hundreds of Rabbinic Yarzheits. Modern Celebrities and Sports Figures. Every Day Is a Special Day to Celebrate. Everyday Holiday: A Jewish Calendar of Events and Observances (Independently Published, 2024) is simply a list of Jewish events, perhaps the largest Jewish calendar ever assembled. Every day brings its own special energy to be recognized, appreciated and celebrated. More than 2400 memorable events in Jewish history and religious life. Biblical events and ancient holidays. Private purims and cultic holidays. Everyday Holiday is rich in religious observances and Biblical connections. Great souls and Rabbis are honored in Everyday Holiday. Famous Jews from all walks of life are included, from entertainers to politicians, to scholars to athletes. The Jewish story is rich in historical events, pleasant and painful, figures of power and note, beneficial and harmful. The hundreds of historical events in Everyday Holiday are each a new avenue to explore and learn. Because Every Day Is a Special Day on the Jewish Calendar. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Because Every Day Is a Special Day on the Jewish Calendar. Giant Jewish Calendar. More than 2400 Jewish events. Holidays - Biblical - History. Hundreds of Rabbinic Yarzheits. Modern Celebrities and Sports Figures. Every Day Is a Special Day to Celebrate. Everyday Holiday: A Jewish Calendar of Events and Observances (Independently Published, 2024) is simply a list of Jewish events, perhaps the largest Jewish calendar ever assembled. Every day brings its own special energy to be recognized, appreciated and celebrated. More than 2400 memorable events in Jewish history and religious life. Biblical events and ancient holidays. Private purims and cultic holidays. Everyday Holiday is rich in religious observances and Biblical connections. Great souls and Rabbis are honored in Everyday Holiday. Famous Jews from all walks of life are included, from entertainers to politicians, to scholars to athletes. The Jewish story is rich in historical events, pleasant and painful, figures of power and note, beneficial and harmful. The hundreds of historical events in Everyday Holiday are each a new avenue to explore and learn. Because Every Day Is a Special Day on the Jewish Calendar. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/jewish-studies

Rosh Hashanah, “The Head of the Year,” is the fifth of the seven holy observances mentioned in Leviticus 23. This name is never used in the Scriptures to refer to this feast, despite the fact that it is the most common name used today. This name is used because the Rabbis believed it was on this day that the creation took place. Thus, it has become known as the beginning of the Jewish civil calendar year.In the Bible, Rosh Hashanah is called “Yom Teruah,” (“A Day of Blowing”), referring to the blowing of the “shofar” or ram's horn (Numbers 29:1). It is also called “Zicharon Teruah,” (“a memorial of blowing,” or “a remembrance of blowing”) (Leviticus 23:24). Rosh Hashanah occurs on the 1st of Tishrei (the seventh month in the Hebrew calendar), whereas Yom Kippur (the next major festival) is observed on the 10th day of Tishrei. The ten days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are called “Yomim Naraiim” or “Days of Awe.” It is during these ten days that Jewish people are to perform deeds of repentance and restoration in order to be assured that their sins are forgiven on Yom Kippur.Most notably, Rosh Hashanah is known for the blowing of the ram's horn. According to the Rabbis, the sounding of the ram's horn symbolized the final regathering of the Jewish people when Messiah comes, and the dead are resurrected. In Isaiah 27:13 we read:“And in that day a great trumpet (shofar) will sound. Those who were perishing in Assyria and those who were exiled in Egypt will come and worship the Lord on the holy mountain in Jerusalem.”With this, the B'rit Hadashah (“New Testament”) agrees. Matthew 24:31 states,“And He will send His angels with a loud trumpet (shofar) call, and they will gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.”In this verse, Yeshua prophesied four things will happen at His second coming: First, angels will be sent out to regather the Jewish people; Second, this event will be accompanied with the blast of the shofar; Third, the focus is the regathering of the “elect” or “chosen,” by which is meant the Jewish people; Fourth, this regathering is from a worldwide dispersion.YouTube: https://youtube.com/live/JBIgpgVg5g4Send us a text

The Gemara (Yoma 87a) tells that the great sage Rav was once insulted by the local butcher. Over the next several months, Rav waited for the butcher to apologize, but he never did. Finally, on Erev Yom Kippur, Rav decided to go and stand right outside the butcher shop so the butcher would see him. He hoped that if he would stand there, and make it very easy and convenient for the butcher to request forgiveness, he would. The butcher saw Rav standing outside his shop, and he shouted angrily, "I have nothing to say to you!" Not only did he refuse to ask forgiveness, he doubled down, insisting that he had nothing to apologize for. At that moment, a bone from the animal the butcherwas carving darted from the counter into his neck, killing him. The Rabbis of Mussar explain that although the butcher had offended Rav many months earlier, he was punished only now because he squandered the opportunity to apologize and make amends. All people make mistakes, and it is not easy to admit we were wrong and initiate a process of reconciliation. But what's inexcusable is avoiding reconciliation when the opportunity comes right to our doorstep. The butcher was wrong to offend Rav, and he was wrong for not going to request forgiveness – but what sealed his fate was failing to approach Rav when Rav made himself available. This story sheds light on a pronouncement by the prophet Yeshayahu about the Aseret Yemeh Teshuba – the ten-day period from Rosh Hashanah through Yom Kippur. Yeshayahu (55:6) turns to the people and exclaims, "Dirshu Hashem Be'himase'o, Kera'uhu Bi'hyoto Karob" – "Seek out G-d when He is accessible, call upon Him when He is near." Of course, G-d is always "accessible," and He is always "near." In all seasons, at all times of year, and at any time of day, in any circumstance, we can turn to Hashem for help, we can ask Him for forgiveness, and we can ask for whatever it is we need. However, the Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 18a) explains, during the Aseret Yemeh Teshuba, Hashem is especially close, and is especially receptive to our sincere prayers. During this period, the prayers recited by an individual have the same power as prayers recited together with a Minyan during the rest of the year. We can only imagine how powerful congregational prayer is during the Aseret Yemeh Teshuba! Indeed, Rav Chaim Brim of Jerusalem (1922-2002) would say that spiritual achievements which normally take weeks to attain can be reached in just a few moments during the Aseret Yemeh Teshuba. This is a special time, when our prayers and our efforts to repent and improve are particularly effective, many times more than at other times of the year. At first glance, it seems that Yeshayahu is encouraging us and advising us by calling upon us to turn to Hashem during this period of Aseret Yemeh Teshuba. As Hashem is close, it is recommended that we seize this opportunity for prayer and repentance. But in light of the Gemara's story about Rav and the butcher, we might conclude that Yeshayahu isn't just giving advice – he's issuing a stern warning. If Hashem is close, then we must initiate a process of "reconciliation," a process of Teshuba. It's not just a good idea – it's an obligation. We are flawed human beings, and so it is understandable that we will make mistakes. We are not expected to be perfect. And, it is understandable that we will find it difficult to acknowledge our mistakes, to admit wrongdoing, to confess that we've acted improperly and have made bad choices. This is embarrassing and uncomfortable. And, change is always challenging. But even if we could be excused the rest of the year for not making an effort to improve and ask Hashem for forgiveness, we have no excuse during this week, when Hashem specifically comes to us and invites us back. During the Aseret Yemeh Teshuba, Hashem is right here next to us with His arms open. He is ready to forgive us as long as we take the first step by admitting we were wrong and committing to try harder. If we don't seize this opportunity, this period when Teshuba is especially accessible, then we have no more excuses. Let's ensure not to make the butcher's mistake. Let's take full advantage of this special opportunity, and sincerely turn to Hashem in heartfelt prayer and with a firm resolve to improve, to correct our mistakes, and to enhance our relationship with our Father in heaven.

In this episode we get deep into the Pharisees and how they and their Rabbinical offspring made up the oral Torah and wrote the Talmud which is the foundation of modern Judaism. This is only part one so check back soon for part two and please listen to the entire Those We Don't Speak of series. Cheers and Blessings! Support My Workhttps://www.patreon.com/theoddmanoutBuy Me A Coffee!https://buymeacoffee.com/theoddmanoutVenmo Tips - @theoddmanoutCash App Tips - https://cash.app/$theoddmanoutT-shirts, Mugs and Stickers The Odd Man Out Merch Store At Bonfire https://www.bonfire.com/store/the-odd-man-out/TeeSpringhttps://theoddmanout.creator-spring.com/All Linkshttps://linktr.ee/_theoddmanoutOddman Rumblehttps://rumble.com/user/TheOddManOut

Author Benjamin Resnick joins Margarita to talk about his debut novel Next Stop, the heart of Jewish storytelling, and the big questions that keep us all up at night. Insightful, thoughtful, and full of stories that linger long after the episode ends. Follow Benjamin on Instagram @Benjamin_Resnick and buy his book, Next Stop, anywhere where books are sold.What We Discuss: 00:00 Intro & Episode Agenda06:03 Novelist turned Rabbi 08:44 Rabbis are meant to be storytellers11:29 On Next Stop - Ben's debut novel 21:15 Jewish vs. Non-Jewish storytelling28:30 Post Oct 7th, what message does Ben want to leave for Jews? 36:35 Why must there be something bad with something good? 43:10 Closing Remarks & Guest Nomination

Rosh HaShanah begins at sundown on Monday, Sept. 22, 2025 and ends on Wednesday Sept. 24 2025. This begin the Jewish year 5786According to traditional Jewish thinking, this holiday honors the creation of mankind by Elohim. The Mishnah (earlier part of the Talmud) refers to Rosh Hashanah as the “Day of Judgment” (Yom ha-Din) since all of creation owes allegiance to the Creator and is accountable to Him. The name Elohim revealed in Genesis 1:1 speaks of Elohim as the Creator and Judge of the universe. In Jewish tradition on Rosh Hashanah we stand before Yahweh as our personal Creator and Judge. Many Messianic Jews believe that the sound of the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah is a symbol of the 2nd coming of the followers of Yahshua MessiahIn Hebrew, Rosh Hashanah means, literally, "Head of the Year," and as its name indicates, it is the beginning of the Jewish year. The days beginning with Rosh HaShana and ending with Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement) are known as “The Days of Awe.” This is a very special time of year on the Jewish calendar, a time of introspection and commitment to self-improvement for the coming year. Most of all, this is the season for repentance, prayer, and charity, as illustrated by the quotation above - since we are taught that these three things have the power to influence the outcome of our judgment in a favorable way. We are taught that on Rosh Hashana, Yahweh sits in judgment on all His creations and decides their fate. Everything is decided on this day, for every aspect of the entire creation, each individual and each nation.The Prophets of Israel repeatedly spoke of a future day when Yahweh would directly intervene in the affairs of men. They called that day “The Day of the Lord” [Isa. 13:6-13; Ezek. 13:3-8; Joel 1:15, 2:1; Amos 5:18-20; Zeph. 1:7-2:3; Zech 14:1-21; Mal. 4:5-6]. Two major themes are associated with the Day of the Lord.The first is the deliverance of the righteous.The second is the judgment of the wicked, in connection with His coming.The Son of Yahweh will call His own to Himself and then go to war against His enemies. It is the blowing of a Trumpet, which will signal those 2 events. In Paul's writing of 1 Thess. 4:16, the Lord will descend with the sound of the trumpet to call His own to His presence and in Chapter 5 Paul continues the thought, on the day of the Lord as it commences, during which time His wrath will be poured out against the wicked.In most basic terms, the Feast of Trumpets, the first of the Fall Feasts, which Yahweh gave to Israel, depicts the coming of Yahshua Messiah to take His virgin bride with Him into that eternal life, in that new Heaven and Earth! Perhaps one further thought is appropriate at this point. The Feast Trumpets occurs on the 1st day of the Hebrew 7th month Tisri. It would occur at the new moon. However clouds could obscure the moon and witnesses were required. Watchfulness was critical ingredient of this Feast. The Rabbis later added a second day to this Feast to make sure they did not miss it. This need for watchfulness and preparedness in connection with the Feast of Trumpets is echoed throughout the N.T. in connection with the Lord's coming. Watch, therefore; for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. [Matt. 24:42]Therefore, let us not sleep, as do others, but let us watch and be sober minded [1 Thess. 5:6]We know in the Parable of the Tares [Matt. 13] the harvest takes place in the fall. The reapers [angels] are sent forth to separate the wheat from the tares [zowan]. We read in Rev. 9:10 [read verses 3-10] about the locust army. [May-Sept.]The primary focus of the Feast of Trumpets is the return of Yahshua Messiah to this earth. The emphasis of this Trumpet Feast is mostly prophetic. Have any questions? Feel free to email me, keitner2024@outlook.com

Before one learns Torah in the morning, he must first recite Birkot Ha'Torah. The Gemara cites different opinions as to which particular subjects within the broad corpus of Torah may not be studied before the recitation of Birkot Ha'Torah. Rav Huna maintained that only the study of Tanach requires Birkot Ha'Torah; in his view, one may study anything else before reciting Birkot Ha'Torah in the morning. Rabbi Elazar ruled that both Tanach and Midrash require Birkot Ha'Torah, because the Midrash explains the verses of the Tanach. The next opinion brought is that of Rabbi Yohanan, who held that even the study of Mishna must be preceded by Birkot Ha'Torah. However, Halacha follows the final view brought by the Gemara – that of Raba, who asserted that even Gemara requires Birkot Ha'Torah. Accordingly, the Rambam and Shulhan Aruch write that one must recite Birkot Ha'Torah before studying either Tanach or any part of Torah She'be'al Peh (the oral law). Although the Shulhan Aruch does not specify the study of Midrash, the Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles of Cracow, 1520-1572) adds that Midrash also requires the recitation of Birkot Ha'Torah. The Peri Hadash (Rav Hizkiya Da Silva, 1659-1698) writes that the Shulhan Aruch does not disagree with the Rama on this point, even though he did not specifically mention Midrash. The Aruch Ha'shulhan (Rav Yehiel Michel Epstein of Nevardok, 1829-1908) notes the possibility of restricting this requirement to areas related to Halacha. It is possible, he writes, that Birkot Ha'Torah is required only before the study of texts that form the basis of Halacha. The Sages infer Halachot from the verses, and these inferences and their applications are discussed, elucidated and debated in the Midrash, Mishna and Gemara – and it might be for this reason that these texts are specified as the material requiring Birkot Ha'Torah. If so, then one would be permitted to study non-halachic portions of the Torah – such as the stories in Midrashic texts, Aggadic portions of the Gemara, and Zohar – before reciting Birkot Ha'Torah in the morning. The Aruch Ha'shulhan remains uncertain about this matter. By contrast, the Kaf Ha'haim Sofer (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939) writes that the study of the Zohar requires Birkot Ha'Torah. He does not explain the reason for this ruling, but we may presume that he equated the study of Zohar with the study of Gemara, and, moreover, we occasionally determine practical Halacha based on teachings in the Zohar. The final Halacha is that even the study of non-halachic texts such as the Midrash and Zohar requires Birkot Ha'Torah. The study of works of Mussar also requires Birkot Ha'Torah, because these works are based upon Torah sources. Texts such as Mesilat Yesharim and Michtab Me'Eliyahu, which guide and instruct how to live a religious life, are rooted entirely in Torah, and so they certainly qualify as parts of Torah requiring the recitation of Birkot Ha'Torah. This applies to works of Hassidic teachings, as well. In principle, biographies of Sadikim, or story books that tell about the lives of great Sages, may be read before Birkot Ha'Torah, because reading these stories – despite being very valuable – does not qualify as the study of Torah. In practice, however, books about great Rabbis almost invariably contain Torah insights which they taught, and so they require Birkot Ha'Torah. One is not required to recite Birkot Ha'Torah before studying general subjects, even those subjects which have great value and are important to learn. For example, one must study math in order to properly understand certain sections of the Gemara, such as those which deal with geometry (e.g. Sukka, Erubin and Kil'ayim). There are texts which address the dimensions and layout of the Bet Ha'mikdash which similarly cannot be understood without a background in mathematics. Scientific knowledge, too, is critically important for the understanding of certain sections of the Talmud – such as the Gemara's discussion about the volume of wine which a Nazir must drink to be liable for violating his vow, which touches upon the subject of volume displacement. This issue requires an understanding of how displacement works, and how the density of wine becomes a factor. One cannot understand the portions of the Talmud that deal with the Jewish calendar without basic knowledge of astronomy. An understanding of modern technology, too, is necessary for learning how Halacha applies in our time, and indeed, Hacham Ovadia Yosef studied the mechanics of boilers in order to determine the relevant Halachot. Nevertheless, the study of these subjects does not require Birkot Ha'Torah, since they are not actual Torah, but rather background information to help in the study of Torah. The Rambam writes that subjects such as mathematics and science are the "chefs" and "maidservants" of Torah, meaning, they are necessary for the understanding of Torah, but are not part of Torah. Therefore, one is not required to recite Birkot Ha'Torah before studying general subjects. Summary: One may not learn any Torah subject before reciting Birkot Ha'Torah in the morning. This includes Tanach, Midrash, Mishna, Gemara, Halachic texts, Zohar, Mussar and Hassidut. Biographies of Sadikim, too, require Birkot Ha'Torah since they usually incorporate Torah insights by the Sages whose lives and legacy they present. Birkot Ha'Torah is not required before the study of non-Torah subjects, even those which are necessary to learn to properly understand Torah.

The Sages endeavored to change the shofar blowing from an anti-Satan ritual to an exprssion of sublime philosophical monotheism cum Chosen People narrative (מלכויות, זכרונותת ושופרות)

In the second of the three Berachot that comprise Birkot Ha'Torah – the series of blessings we recite each morning over Torah learning – we include a prayer that we and all our descendants should be devoted students of Torah. Some Rabbis teach that one should have special intention when reciting this prayer that his children and all his offspring should grow into Torah-committed adults. This second Beracha concludes, "Baruch Ata Hashem Ha'melamed Torah Le'amo Yisrael" – "Blessed are You, O G-d, who teaches Torah to His nation, Israel." This formulation reminds us that Hashem Himself teaches us Torah. Although we are, of course, required to invest maximum effort and exertion in the pursuit of Torah knowledge and understanding, we cannot attain any knowledge or comprehension without Hashem's assistance. Whenever we attend a class, or open a book to learn, Hashem is there with us teaching us the material, and it is only because of Him that we know all that we know and understand all that we understand. I was privileged to learn with several great Rabbis who, when they encountered a difficult passage or a difficult concept, and were struggling to understand the material, they turned to Hashem and prayed for His help. They truly understood that G-d is "Ha'melamed Torah Le'amo Yisrael," that He is the one teaching us whenever we learn. This text of the Beracha should also remind us of the great stature of Torah educators. I once visited the Skverer Rebbe together with a prestigious educator in our community, and the Rebbe turned to him and asked what he did. He replied that he teaches Torah. "You are emulating your Creator," the Rebbe said. "He is a teacher – and you're following in His ways." Teaching Torah is a special privilege, and a job which should elicit our respect and esteem – if for no other reason that a Torah educator is doing precisely what Hashem does. The final blessing of Birkot Ha'Torah concludes, "Baruch Ata Hashem Noten Ha'Torah" – "Blessed are You, Hashem, who gives the Torah." Significantly, we speak of Hashem giving us the Torah in the present tense. He did not give our nation the Torah only once, at Mount Sinai. Every time we learn, He is giving it to us anew. Each and every day, and at every moment, we have the opportunity to renew our connection to Hashem by receiving the Torah from Him. We must cherish every such opportunity and seize every moment we can to strengthen our bond with our Creator by inviting Him to give us the Torah anew.

A panel of leading U.S. rabbis - Angela Buchdahl (Reform), Elliot Cosgrove (Conservative) and Chaim Steinmetz (Orthodox) - share insights and preparations for the upcoming High Holidays.

Parashat Ki-Tabo begins with the Misva of Bikkkurim – the obligation upon a farmer to bring the first fruits that ripen to the Bet Ha'mikdash and present them to a Kohen. The farmer then makes a special declaration praising and expressing gratitude to Hashem for bringing our nation out of Egypt into the Land of Israel, where he was able to till the land and produce delicious, nourishing fruit. The unique significance and importance of this Misva is expressed in the special fanfare that characterized the process of bringing Bikkurim. The farmers would assemble and march with song and festivity through the roads, and the shopkeepers in Jerusalem would close their stores and come out to welcome and celebrate the visitors who were bringing their fruits to the Bet Ha'mikdash. The importance of Bikkurim is also articulated by the Midrash, which teaches that this Misva is mentioned in the very first word of the Torah: "Bereshit." The Midrash interprets this word to mean that the world was created for the sake of Bikkurim, which is called "Reshit" ("Reshit Bikkureh Admatecha" – "the first of the fruits of your land that ripen" – Shemot 23:19). Remarkably, the Midrash is telling us that the entire world was created so we can fulfill the Misva of Bikkurim! The reason is that G-d created the world so that He could shower us with goodness which we would then appreciate and be grateful for. The most elementary of all Torah values is gratitude, acknowledging and appreciating what was done for us. Hence, the Misva of Bikkurim, which revolves around the concept of gratitude, thanking Hashem for providing us with food, can be seen as the purpose of all creation. Our Sages teach that gratitude toward Hashem begins with feeling and showing appreciation for other people. The Midrash states: "Whoever denies his fellow's goodness will ultimately deny the Almighty's goodness." The classic example demonstrating this principle is Pharaoh, who is said to have "not known Yosef" (Shemot 1:8). It is inconceivable, the Rabbis explain, that a king who ascended the throne soon after Yosef's lifetime had not heard of Yosef. He was the one who saved Egypt from the devastating famine that struck the rest of the region, and thereby enriched the kingdom, as all the surrounding peoples came to purchase grain which Yosef had stored in anticipation of the looming drought. Rather, this means that the new Pharaoh did not acknowledge Yosef's role in saving the kingdom and bringing it to great heights of wealth and prestige. Because Pharaoh denied all the good that Yosef brought to the kingdom, he ultimately denied G-d Himself, brazenly and outrageously telling Moshe many years later, "Lo Yadati Et Hashem" – "I do not know G-d!" (Shemot 5:2). Translating this message into practical terms – one cannot be considered "religious" if he recites Birkat Ha'mazon after every meal with intense concentration, thanking Hashem for his food, and says "Modim" in the Amida prayer three times a day with great emotion, expressing gratitude to Hashem for all He does – but he does not show gratitude to the people in his life. Gratitude begins at home, with the people who do the most for us – first and foremost our parents, who gave us life and exerted so much hard work and made so many sacrifices for us, and then our spouse, the one closest to us, with whom we build and run our families. If we are not grateful to them and to everyone who helps us and does things for us, we will ultimately feel ungrateful also toward G-d. And, yes, this applies also to those who are paid to do things for us. Many years ago, I was hired as a private tutor for a teenage boy in the community. While we were learning, he called the family's housekeeper on the intercom system, and told her to bring him soda and some snacks. I was startled by the way he spoke, not even using the word "please." She came a minute later with the soda and snacks, and he said, "Close the door on your way out." I turned to the boy and asked, "You don't say 'thank you'??" "Rabbi," the boy replied, "she works for us. We're paying her to do this." "Now you're making me very nervous," I said. "Why?" "Because I also work for you. Your parents pay me, too. Are you going to treat me that way because I'm getting paid?" Whether it's the secretary, the cashier, the uber driver, the coworker, the delivery guy – feeling and expressing gratitude is not just required, but it is the ABC's of the Torah, our most basic obligation as Jews and as human beings. The more we appreciate all the people in our lives and all that they do for us, the more we will appreciate all that Hashem does for us – and this will, in turn, make us worthy of even more of His unlimited blessings and goodness.

YOUR MOST POWERFUL MOTIVATIONAL O Yes! Hello my dear — Today is GREAT!Subscribe & Enjoy Watching our vital video: https://youtu.be/1ICDCWVG8Qg

O Yes! Hello my dear — Today is GREAT!Subscribe & Enjoy Watching our vital video: https://youtu.be/1ICDCWVG8Qg

00:08 Rabbi Alissa Wise is currently the Lead Organizer and Co-founder of Rabbis for Ceasefire; Rebecca Vilkomerson is former Executive Director of Jewish Voice for Peace and now Co-Director of the Funding Freedom project. They've co-authored the book Solidarity is the Political Version of Love: Lessons from jewish Anti-Zionist Organizing  [rebroadcast of an interview originally recorded on January 16 2025]  The post Organizing Jewish Anti-Zionism [rebroadcast] appeared first on KPFA.

The Torah in Parashat Ki-Teseh introduces the subject of the Ben Sorer U'moreh – the "wayward son." This is a delinquent 13-year-old child, whose delinquency manifests itself parituclarly in addictive indulgence. He eats and drinks so compulsively that he steals his parents' money to buy wine and meat. The Torah states that this child should be put to death, and the Gemara explains that this is because this child is set along a path to violent crime. Once he has reached this point, where he steals his parents' money to satisfy his lust for food and wine, we are certain that he will eventually mug people to steal their money, and will end up murdering. He should therefore be killed so he never grows to be a violent criminal. The Gemara further states that there has never been a child that qualified as a Ben Sorer U'moreh, and there never will be such a case. There are so many conditions that must be met for this law to take effect that it can never actually apply as a practical matter. The Torah nevertheless taught us this theoretical Halacha so we can earn reward by studying this subject. The Gemara then cites Rabbi Yochanan as testifying, "I saw him, and I sat on his grave." At first glance, it appears that there are two views in the Gemara as to whether there was a case of a Ben Sorer U'moreh. The first opinion said that it never happened, whereas Rabbi Yochanan said that it did. However, this sounds peculiar. Could the Sages have really been arguing about a historical point? Normally, debates among the Rabbis involve different rationales and different ways of understanding Torah laws. We are not accustomed to Rabbis arguing over historical facts. Perhaps we can advance a novel reading of the Gemara's discussion. We mentioned earlier that the Torah commands executing a Ben Sorer Ve'moreh because it is certain that he will grow to become a violent criminal. We must ask, why are we so certain? Do we not all know of juvenile delinquents who grew to become wonderful adults? Has there never been a child who caused a great deal of trouble as a young teenager but then put his life together and excelled? I know many outstanding Rabbis who were once troubled youths. Why are we so sure that this "wayward son" will turn out to be a criminal? The answer is that we aren't – and this is precisely why the Gemara tells us that there never was and never will be a case of a Ben Sorer U'moreh. The Torah speaks of a theoretical situation of a child who must be put to death because he will otherwise for certain become a violent killer as an adult – and the Sages tell us that this will always remain a theoretical possibility, because in actuality, every single person has the capacity to change, and to change drastically. No matter where a person is, no matter how low he has fallen, he always has the potential to achieve greatness. There are no exceptions. Rabbi Yochanan says that he saw a Ben Sorer U'moreh and went to his grave. Why do people visit graves? Mostly, people visit the graves of righteous Sadikim to pray to Hashem at the site. And this might have been what Rabbi Yohanan was doing at this grave – he was praying, because this wayward child, whom he saw in his state of rebelliousness and unbridled sinfulness, ended up becoming an outstanding Sadik, a pious and holy Jew at whose gravesite people should want to pray. Rabbi Yohanan is proving the point made earlier, that there never was and never will be a child determined to be a Ben Sorer U'moreh who must be put to death – because in reality, every child, no matter where he is currently, has the ability to turn his life around and rise to great spiritual heights. We must never give up on any Jew, because we are all the descendants of Abraham, Yishak and Yaakob, we all contain within our souls a divine spark, and we all have the potential for greatness. And just as we must never give up on another Jew, we must also never give up on ourselves. What we've done in the past does not determine who we are in the present, or who we will be in the future. We need to trust in our ability to change and in our potential to not only improve, but to achieve greatness and be worthy members of Hashem's special nation.

Alan Skorski interviewed Rabbi Yaakov Menken, Executive Vice President of the Coalition for Jewish Values, CJV, who spearheaded a strong response - signed by over 180 Orthodox rabbis - to an earlier letter from a group of 80, mostly ‘Open Orthodox” leaders, whose letter called into question Israel's morality in “starving Gaza.” The letter, created by Rabbi Yosef Blau, titled, “A Call for Moral Clarity, Responsibility, and a Jewish Orthodox Response in the Face of the Gaza Humanitarian Crisis,” claimed that, “Hamas's sins and crimes do not relieve the government of Israel of its obligations to make whatever efforts are necessary to prevent mass starvation.” The letter continues, “Amid this devastation, the absence of a clear post-war vision from Prime Minister Netanyahu has allowed the most extreme voices in the Israeli government….These include the forced “voluntary” exile of Palestinians from Gaza and the sacrifice of remaining Israeli hostages in the pursuit of an elusive “total victory.” “Meanwhile, in Yehuda and Shomron (the West Bank), extremist settler violence has resulted in the murder of civilians and has forced Palestinian villagers from their homes, further destabilizing the region.” Another disgusting criticism against Israel from this group claims; “The justified anger toward Hamas has dangerously expanded by some extremists into blanket suspicion of the entire population of Gaza — children included — tarnished as future terrorists.” A portion of Rabbi Menken's response includes; The "Call for Moral Clarity" statement claimed that Israel bears some responsibility for the suffering of the civilian population, but the CJV letter rejected this as providing “unintended support to antisemitic inversions of… obvious truth.” In reality, and according to international law, CJV asserted, the current war and its impact upon civilians are all due to the Hamas terror organization, the massacre it perpetrated on October 7, 2023, and its unchanged genocidal agenda. CJV added that the "Moral Clarity" statement exaggerated the significance of isolated, inappropriate reactions to Arab terror attacks upon Jewish citizens, mainly vandalism, while entirely omitting the numerous, murderous Arab terror attacks themselves. In response to the criticisms of Israel's responsibility to provide “aid” to Gaza, CJV stated; Our faith indeed demands compassion and dignity for all, but the value that the Torah places upon the protection of every life begins with one's own. Deuteronomy 4:15 commands, Venishmartem me'od lenafshoseichem, “you shall profoundly guard your life,” and in 13:16, Uvi'arta hara mikirbecha, “you shall eradicate evil from your midst.” And in the Medrash (Tanchuma, Parshas Metzora), Rebbe Eliezer teaches us that “Whoever is kind to the cruel will end up being cruel to the kind.” The claim that Israel has deliberately starved Gaza is a falsehood spread by Israel's enemies. In fact, Israel has facilitated the entry of thousands of tons of food, medicine, water, and fuel into Gaza. Israel continues to provide electricity and water, and has allowed multiple international efforts to deliver humanitarian relief. Alan Skorski Reports 02SEPT2025 - PODCAST

Why are Christians Duped by Trump Why Christians are duped by Trump and how does this link to end of days eschatology? Genocide scholars agree, Israel is committing genocide (da). Remember, Oct 7th was a total stand down to maximize Israeli's death according to IDF soldiers, Rabbis, and other whistle blowers. Trump tweets a creepy Q and the Cross in his hand with the earth burning. The tweet headline says, the world will understand, nothing can stop what is coming. Is he talking about the turning on of the bio hack quantum computer beast system (real Abomination of Desolation), fallen angels, financial collapse, World War three, or a fake takedown of the deep state. If Trump was to take the deep state down, he would eliminate the FED RES bank and get back to sound money vs. crypto / stablecoins. It is official, poke causes turbo cancer yet Trump launches new defilement pokes all while asking big pharma to give data on the success of the devil juice. The theater of war appears to be going live soon. The right is pushing for censoring the net and red gun flag laws just like the Left. Wings of the same bird. What is the bigger picture of troops on the street and why should you care. Send this video to Trump fans.

This is a recording of a New Jewish Narrative webinar from August 25th, 2025. Experts share updates on the evolving humanitarian situation in Gaza. Featuring: Dr. Tarek Loubani, a medical doctor and founder of the Glia project, which provides medical aid and services in war-torn regions, Palestine the first among them. He is currently working at a hospital in Gaza. Dr. Lee Mordecai, an Israeli historian who is well known for his recent documentation of war crimes in Gaza, especially as they relate to starvation. Karam Al-Shanti, a native Gazan who works for the Red Cross and is currently based in Belgium. This webinar was cosponsored by New Jewish Narrative, T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, Satyam, Combatants for Peace, Rabbis for Human Rights, Partners for Progressive Israel, Mizrahi Civic Collective, and Smol Emuni. Moderated by: Annie Kantar, award-winning Israeli writer, and Noam Shelef, New Jewish Narrative's Vice President for Communications.

In this episode we're joined by Professor Jordan Rosenblum, who is the Belzer Professor of Classical Judaism at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Director of the Mosse/Weinstein Center for Jewish Studies, and he's also the author of Rabbinic Drinking: What Beverages Teach Us About Rabbinic Literature (published by the University of California Press). In our conversation we discuss how the Talmud relates to the Mishnah, how topics of drinking in the Talmud provide a helpful in-road into the wider sea of Talmud, key Rabbis that feature prominently with reference to wine and beer, and the matter of the four cups of the Passover seder. Team members on the episode from The Two Cities include: Dr. John Anthony Dunne. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

War Room Rabbis Join Israeli Protestors After Netanyahu's Slaughter of Innocents at a Hospital is Caught on Camera

This week's learning is sponsored by Danielle & Jason Friedman in honor of Anabelle Friedman on her siyum of Mashechet Rosh Hashana on the occasion of her Bat Mitzvah, and in honor and appreciation of Rabbanit Michelle for inspiring and enabling multiple generations of women, in our family and around the world, to engage in Talmud study. Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in memory of Myer Senders a”h, beloved father of our friend and co-learner Tina Lamm. "May the Torah learned today by all of us be a zechut for his neshama ותהא נשמתו צרורה בצרור החיים." What is the law regarding a mouse that falls into vinegar? Is the mouse nullified, and if so, at what ratio? The Mishna presents three distinct scenarios involving a Jew and a non-Jew, where wine is left in a location accessible to the non-Jew, raising concerns about potential libation (נסך) and thus rendering the wine prohibited. In each case, the Mishna outlines whether there is reason to suspect that the non-Jew offered the wine as a libation. The determining factor is whether the Jew stated they would be gone for a while or whether the Jew is considered to be supervising. The Gemara defines supervision as a situation in which the Jew could return at any moment, even if they are not physically present. The amount of time that must elapse to prohibit the wine (in a case where the Jew leaves for a while) is debated between the Rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. The Rabbis hold that the wine becomes prohibited if enough time passes to pierce the stopper, reseal it, and allow it to dry. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that the required time is that needed to break the stopper entirely, fashion a new one, and let it dry. A fourth case involves a non-Jew dining in a Jew’s home, with wine left either on the table or on a side table. If the Jew leaves the room, there is concern that the non-Jew may touch the wine on the table, but not the wine on the side table—unless the Jew instructed the non-Jew to dilute the wine. If the bottle is sealed and enough time has passed for the stopper to be broken, replaced, and dried, the wine is prohibited. Why are all three cases necessary? What is unique about each, and why did the Mishna include them all? Rabbi Yochanan limits the scope of the debate between the Rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel to stoppers made of lime plaster, excluding those made of clay. If a non-Jew were to pierce a clay stopper and reseal it, the tampering would be visibly noticeable. A difficulty is raised against Rabbi Yochanan’s explanation from a braita, but it is ultimately resolved. Rava rules in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as the final case in the Mishna reflects his opinion exclusively, without presenting the view of the Rabbis. The sugya concludes with a practical question: If the halakha follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—requiring a longer time to prohibit the wine—and also follows Rabbi Eliezer (Avodah Zarah 31a), who permits leaving a barrel with a single seal in the possession of a non-Jew without concern for tampering, why is the current practice to avoid leaving wine in a non-Jew’s possession? The Gemara answers that the concern lies with the bunghole, which was used to smell the wine. The worry is that the non-Jew might widen the hole to drink from it and offer the wine as a libation. Bungholes were apparently not present in barrels during the time of the Mishna but were commonly used at a later time in Babylonia when the question was asked.

The Rabbis instituted the recitation each morning of the Beracha "Oter Yisrael Be'tif'ara" – "who crowns Israel with glory," which refers to our wearing a hat on our heads. Rav David Abudarham (Spain, 14 th century) understood that this Beracha is recited specifically over turbans, which were commonly worn in Arab lands. Turbans resemble a crown, and thus the term "Oter" – "crowns" – is appropriate for this kind of hat. According to this view, the Beracha is recited only by those who wear turbans, and not in countries where people are not accustomed to wearing this special kind of hat. Others, however, follow the view of Tosafot, that this Beracha refers to any head covering. This is, indeed, the commonly accepted practice – to recite this Beracha regardless of which kind of head covering a person wears. The Shulhan Aruch explains that although we already recite a Beracha praising Hashem for the gift of clothing ("Malbish Arumim"), a special Beracha was instituted for head-coverings because of the prohibition to leave our heads uncovered. Some Poskim maintained that covering one's head does not constitute an outright Halachic requirement, but all agree that this is the proper practice, and the Zohar, in particular, emphasizes the importance of covering one's head. The Shechina hovers over a person's head, and so we are to wear a head-covering to show deference to the divine presence and so that we are mindful at all times of Hashem's watchful eye and protection. Indeed, the word commonly used today in reference to a head-covering – "Yarmulke" – is a combination of the words "Yareh Malka" – "fearful of the King," as the Yarmulke serves to ensure that we conduct ourselves with an awareness of the King's constant presence. This is why this Beracha specifies the Jewish People – "Oter Yisrael…" We refer here not to ordinary hats – which even gentiles wear – but rather to the special requirement we observe to wear a head-covering as a sign of "glory," of our cognizance of Hashem's presence in our lives. The Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, 1270-1340) writes that his father, the Rosh (1250-1327), had the practice of reciting this Beracha after putting on his Tefillin. He felt that when this Beracha speaks of us being "crowned with glory," it refers to the Tefillin Shel Rosh, which is described as our source of "glory" in the Book of Yehezkel (24:17 – "Pe'ercha Habosh Alecha"). However, this is not the accepted practice. In fact, we follow the view that it is preferable to recite the morning blessings at home, before coming to the synagogue and putting on our Tefillin for Shaharit. The accepted view is that the Beracha of "Oter Yisrael Be'tif'ara" refers to our covering our heads out of reverence for G-d, as discussed, and not to the Tefillin on our heads.

This week's learning is sponsored by Danielle & Jason Friedman in honor of Anabelle Friedman on her siyum of Mashechet Rosh Hashana on the occasion of her Bat Mitzvah, and in honor and appreciation of Rabbanit Michelle for inspiring and enabling multiple generations of women, in our family and around the world, to engage in Talmud study. Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in memory of Myer Senders a”h, beloved father of our friend and co-learner Tina Lamm. "May the Torah learned today by all of us be a zechut for his neshama ותהא נשמתו צרורה בצרור החיים." What is the law regarding a mouse that falls into vinegar? Is the mouse nullified, and if so, at what ratio? The Mishna presents three distinct scenarios involving a Jew and a non-Jew, where wine is left in a location accessible to the non-Jew, raising concerns about potential libation (נסך) and thus rendering the wine prohibited. In each case, the Mishna outlines whether there is reason to suspect that the non-Jew offered the wine as a libation. The determining factor is whether the Jew stated they would be gone for a while or whether the Jew is considered to be supervising. The Gemara defines supervision as a situation in which the Jew could return at any moment, even if they are not physically present. The amount of time that must elapse to prohibit the wine (in a case where the Jew leaves for a while) is debated between the Rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. The Rabbis hold that the wine becomes prohibited if enough time passes to pierce the stopper, reseal it, and allow it to dry. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that the required time is that needed to break the stopper entirely, fashion a new one, and let it dry. A fourth case involves a non-Jew dining in a Jew’s home, with wine left either on the table or on a side table. If the Jew leaves the room, there is concern that the non-Jew may touch the wine on the table, but not the wine on the side table—unless the Jew instructed the non-Jew to dilute the wine. If the bottle is sealed and enough time has passed for the stopper to be broken, replaced, and dried, the wine is prohibited. Why are all three cases necessary? What is unique about each, and why did the Mishna include them all? Rabbi Yochanan limits the scope of the debate between the Rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel to stoppers made of lime plaster, excluding those made of clay. If a non-Jew were to pierce a clay stopper and reseal it, the tampering would be visibly noticeable. A difficulty is raised against Rabbi Yochanan’s explanation from a braita, but it is ultimately resolved. Rava rules in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as the final case in the Mishna reflects his opinion exclusively, without presenting the view of the Rabbis. The sugya concludes with a practical question: If the halakha follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—requiring a longer time to prohibit the wine—and also follows Rabbi Eliezer (Avodah Zarah 31a), who permits leaving a barrel with a single seal in the possession of a non-Jew without concern for tampering, why is the current practice to avoid leaving wine in a non-Jew’s possession? The Gemara answers that the concern lies with the bunghole, which was used to smell the wine. The worry is that the non-Jew might widen the hole to drink from it and offer the wine as a libation. Bungholes were apparently not present in barrels during the time of the Mishna but were commonly used at a later time in Babylonia when the question was asked.

Recently, a group of 80 rabbis signed a public letter criticizing Israel's war in Gaza, using the very language our enemies wield against us. With sorrow, I must say clearly: this is a dangerous mistake that confuses compassion with weakness and endangers the Jewish people at a critical hour in our ongoing multi-front war.Join Our Whatsapp Channel: https://chat.whatsapp.com/GkavRznXy731nxxRyptCMvFollow us on Twitter: https://x.com/AviAbelowJoin our Telegram Channel: https://t.me/aviabelowpulseFollow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/pulse_of_israel/?hl=enPulse of Israel on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IsraelVideoNetworkVisit Our Website - https://pulseofisrael.com/Donate to Pulse of Israel: https://pulseofisrael.com/boost-this-video/

One of the Berachot that we recite each morning as part of the Birkot Ha'shahar series of blessings is "Roka Ha'aretz Al Ha'mayim." This text is based on a verse in Tehillim (136:6) in which King David gives praise to G-d for the wonder of the earth being spread over the water. Water lies underneath the earth, and since earth is much heavier than water, the earth should sink into the water, making the world uninhabitable. If we throw a mound of earth into water, it will of course sink to the bottom of the water, and yet, miraculously, the earth remains afloat, allowing us to live here. This is an ongoing miracle which we are unlikely to be cognizant of, because we don't see the water. King David appreciated this wondrous phenomenon because he saw what could happen without it. The Gemara relates that when David laid the foundations for the Bet Ha'mikdash, the underground water began rising, and threatened to flood the entire earth. He needed to utilize one of the Names of G-d to make the water return to place. We catch glimpses of the threat that would be posed by the underground waters when we see or hear of a tsunami, whereby the ocean waters expand into the shoreline. The Sages wanted us to appreciate this miracle on a daily basis, and so they instituted a special blessing for us to recite each morning praising Hashem for keeping the earth above the underground waters. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) notes that this Beracha is unique in that, as opposed the other morning blessings, it does not speak of a phenomenon that is renewed each day. The other Berachot we recite in the morning praise Hashem for blessings He grants us anew every day – such as the ability to get out of bed, to open our eyes, to put on our clothing, and so on. The earth's floating on the underground waters, however, is a continuous condition that never ceases; this is not something which is discontinued during the night and then resumes in the morning. The Ben Ish Hai writes that precisely for this reason the Sages deemed this phenomenon worthy of a special Beracha – because it is a constant miracle, as at any moment the earth would sink if not for Hashem's kindness. The Rabbis instituted this Beracha to draw our attention to this wondrous reality so we recognize our enormous debt of gratitude to the Almighty.

One of the Berachot we recite each morning as part of Birkot Ha'shahar is "Malbish Arumim," with which we express gratitude to Hashem for the gift of clothing. The clothing that we wear protects us from the elements, and maintains our dignity. As such, it is a precious gift that we must never take for granted, and the Sages therefore instituted a special blessing to thank G-d for the garments that we are privileged to wear in the morning. The literal meaning of the words "Malbish Arumim" is "who clothes the naked." Grammatically, the letter Mem has a "Dagesh" (a dot for emphasis), such that it is to be pronounced as a strong "m," as opposed to a Mem without a "Dagesh" which is pronounced as a softer "m." One should pronounce the word properly, with a "Dagesh" in the Mem, because the word "Arumim" with a soft Mem, without a "Dagesh," means "clever people." It would thus sound as though G-d provides clothing only to the wise, which is, of course, not true. We want to emphasize that Hashem provides clothing to all His creatures, and so we must ensure to recite the word "Arumim" correctly. In several sources, the text of this Beracha is "Malbish Ha'arumim" (as opposed to "Malbish Arumim," without "Ha-"). This is the text found in Sha'ar Ha'kavanot (by Rav Haim Vital, 1542-1620), and this was the view also of Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868). The Sedeh Hemed (Rav Haim Hizkiya Medini, 1834-1904) writes that he taught his students to recite this text. The reason given is that if one recites, "Baruch Ata…Melech Ha'olam Malbish Arumim," he might pronounce the words "Ha'olam" and "Malbish" as one long word. Since the word "Ha'olam" ends with a Mem, and the word "Malbish" begins with a Mem, a separation must be made to avoid combining them into a single long word that has no meaning. This problem is avoided by adding the prefix "Ha-" before "Malbish." (Some also suggest proving this text from a phrase in the Book of Shmuel II 1:24.) Nevertheless, the common custom is to recite "Malbish," and not "Ha'malbish," and this is the text that appears in the ancient Siddur of Rav Amram Gaon (Babylonia, 810-875). Another Beracha which we recite each morning is "Ha'noten La'ya'ef Koah," thanking Hashem for "giving strength to the weary." G-d created our bodies with the ability to rejuvenate itself through sleep, such that we can regain our strength and energy, and so we thank Him each morning for granting us the physical strength we need to function. Interestingly enough, this Beracha appears nowhere in the Gemara. When the Gemara lists the blessings that one should make in the morning, it makes no mention of "Ha'noten La'ya'ef Koah." Therefore, the Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 46) writes that the custom to recite this Beracha is incorrect, as we do not have the authority to introduce new Berachot that the Sages in the Talmud did not institute. This Beracha does not appear in Rav Amram Gaon's Siddur, either. The question thus arises as to why the widespread practice is to recite this Beracha, which does not appear anywhere in the Talmud, and which the Shulhan Aruch thus opposed. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) writes that although the Shulhan Aruch opposed reciting this Beracha, the Arizal maintained that this Beracha should be said. In the view of the Hida, the teachings of the Arizal are authoritative and binding, even when they conflict with the rulings of the Shulhan Aruch. The Hida even speculates that if the Shulhan Aruch had been aware of the Arizal's teaching, requiring the recitation of this Beracha, he would have concurred. This is the position taken also by the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) – that we must always follow the Arizal's opinions, regardless of which and how many Rabbis rule differently. Hacham Ovadia Yosef does not accept this approach. In his view, the Arizal's opinions are not necessarily more authoritative than those of other Poskim. And in the case of "Ha'noten La'ya'ef Koah," Hacham Ovadia notes, the Ashkenazim also recite this Beracha, even though they do not always follow the Arizal's teachings. Hacham Ovadia therefore gives a different explanation for the widespread practice to recite this Beracha. He shows that this Beracha appears in early sources – such as in Mahzor Vitri, and in the writings of Rav David Abudarham (Spain, 14 th century), and the Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, 1270-1340) – indicating that this practice earned widespread acceptance well before the Shulhan Aruch. And when there is an accepted Minhag (custom), Hacham Ovadia writes, we follow the custom even if it runs counter to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch. Rav Haim Vital cites the Arizal as explaining the deeper meaning underlying the two Berachot we have been discussing – "Malbish Arumim" and "Ha'noten La'ya'ef Koah." The Arizal taught that our sins have the effect of removing, or tearing, the "garments" that cover our souls. The missing garment, or the missing portion of the garment, is replaced by the "Kelipot" – harmful spiritual energies. A relatively minor sin wears out this "garment," whereas a grievous sin causes the garment to be removed entirely. When a person goes to sleep at night, his soul ascends to the heavens, where Hashem, in His infinite mercy and kindness, "repairs" the damaged "garment" for us, so we will not be subject to the harmful effects of the "Kelipot." When our souls are restored in the morning, they are newly clean and pristine. The Arizal taught that the two Berachot of "Malbish Arumim" and "Ha'noten La'ya'ef Koah" thank Hashem for this precious gift. The Beracha of "Malbish Arumim" refers to the new "garments" that Hashem grants to those who had committed severe sins which caused the complete loss of their soul's "garment." The Beracha of "Ha'noten La'ya'ef Koah" speaks of the "weary" souls, those which had been tainted by minor transgressions, and whose garments thus needed "mending." These two blessings, then, thank Hashem for His mercifully cleansing and repairing our souls each and every night. In light of this teaching of the Arizal, some have suggested that we should reverse the order, and recite "Ha'noten La'ya'ef Koah" before "Malbish Arumim." After all, once we thank Hashem for replacing a lost "garment," this encompasses also His repairing the damaged "garments." Common practice, however, is to first recite "Malbish Arumim." These Berachot thank Hashem not for our personal experience of these phenomena, but rather for the phenomena themselves, for the fact that Hashem has made them part of the natural order. As such, the sequence of these blessings is not important, as both the replacement of lost spiritual "garments" and the repair of the damaged "garments" occur regularly, warranting our expression of praise and gratitude to the Almighty.

In this episode we're joined by Rabbi Drew Kaplan, who is Campus Rabbi for Cincinnati Hillel, hosts The Jewish Drinking Show podcast (over 175 episodes and counting), and publishes a weekly newsletter and Torah portion sheet on drinking that covers the Tanakh, Rabbinic Literature, Jewish history, Jewish practice, and more. In our conversation we talk about the appearances of wine and beer in the Mishnah, when wine is particularly a matter of controversy for the Rabbis, and how the Mishnah relates to contemporary normative practices among different Jewish denominations. Team members on the episode from The Two Cities include: Dr. John Anthony Dunne and Stanley Ng. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Mishnah five! Discussing becoming a Nazir equivalent to the capacity of a basket gets us a little more philosophical, and makes us wonder what the hell we or the Rabbis get out of any of this. Sign up for Deny, Defend, D'Rabbanan here: http://bit.ly/denydefend To ask us questions, text or leaves us a voicemail at the Talmud Hotline at 401-484-1619 or email us at xaihowareyou@gmail.com. Support us on patreon at patreon.com/xaihowareyou. Music by Ben Schreiber.

The Beracha of "Matir Asurim," which we recite each morning, praises G-d for the ability He grants us to move our body. While we sleep, our body remains "trapped" in place, without moving. Although we might move a little during the night, these motions are involuntary. In the morning, we have the ability to voluntarily move our limbs, and it is for this gift that we recite the Beracha of "Matir Asurim," which literally means, "He who releases those who are bound." Upon waking in the morning, we are "freed" from our "shackles" and able to move our body. The next Beracha we recite is "Zokef Kefufim," praising Hashem for allowing us to stand upright. The term "Kefufim" means "those who are bent," and "Zokef" means "make upright." Hashem gives us the ability each morning to not only move our arms and legs, but also to get out of bed and stand up straight. A person who is sick and bedridden, unable to stand up, nevertheless recites the Beracha of "Zokef Kefufim." This is because common custom follows the view of Rav Natrunai Gaon (9 th century) that the morning blessings are recited to praise Hashem not for personally experiencing these phenomena, but rather for the phenomena themselves. Thus, for example, we recite the Beracha "Ha'noten La'sechvi Bina" – thanking Hashem for granting the rooster the wisdom to crow at daybreak – even though we do not hear the rooster's crow. These Berachot refer to "Minhago Shel Olam" – the features that G-d built into the natural order from which mankind in general derives benefit, and not to thank Him for the benefit that we personally experience. Therefore, even if someone is unable to get out of bed due to illness, he recites the Beracha of "Zokef Kefufim," thanking Hashem for granting people the ability to stand up straight. At first glance, it would follow from this line of reasoning that even somebody who is, G-d forbid, permanently paralyzed should recite this Beracha. In truth, however, this is not clear. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, in discussing the question of whether a blind person recites the Beracha of "Poke'ah Ivrim," which thanks Hashem for the gift of sight, raises the possibility that even according to our practice, a blind person might not recite this blessing. Perhaps, the Hacham writes, we recite "Ha'noten La'sechvi Bina" because although we do not actually hear the rooster's crow, we have the ability to do so. A blind person, however, is not able to see, and one could thus argue that he cannot recite the Beracha of "Poke'ah Ivrim," which speaks of a phenomenon which he is incapable of experiencing. Due to this uncertainty, Hacham Ovadia concludes that a blind person should not recite "Poke'ah Ivrim." Seemingly, this same rationale should apply to the question of a person with paralysis reciting the Beracha of "Zokef Kefufim." There is no record of Hacham Ovadia's ruling on this subject, and so it remains uncertain whether such an individual recites this Beracha. (Of course, we hope and pray that this question will always remain theoretical.) The Poskim address the question of whether these two Berachot – "Matir Asurim" and "Zokef Kefufim" – can be recited out of order. Meaning, if a person mistakenly recited "Zokef Kefufim" before having recited "Matir Asurim," may he then recite "Matir Asurim"? (These questions often arise when people recite the morning blessings mindlessly, by rote, without proper concentration, and without looking in a Siddur. Particularly in the morning, when people tend to be less focused and attentive, it is crucial to recite these Berachot patiently and from a Siddur to avoid mistakes.) Rav Amram Gaon (810-875) ruled that once a person recites "Zokef Kefufim," thanking Hashem for the ability to stand upright, it is too late to recite "Matir Asurim," which thanks Hashem for the ability to move one's limbs. The ability to move one's arms and legs is, quite obviously, included in the ability to get out of bed and stand up straight. Hence, when one recites "Zokef Kefufim," this Beracha covers also the ability referred to in the Beracha of "Matir Asurim," and it is therefore too late to recite "Matir Asurim." The Bah (Rav Yoel Sirkis, Poland, 1561-1640), however, disagreed, and maintained that these two Berachot may be recited out of order. In his view, then, one who mistakenly recited "Zokef Kefufim" before "Matir Asurim" still recites "Matir Asurim." The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) initially followed the position of Rav Amram Gaon, ruling that the Beracha of "Matir Asurim" cannot be recited after "Zokef Kefufim." However, in a later work – Od Yosef Hai – the Ben Ish Hai retracted this ruling, and concluded that one may, in fact, recite "Matir Asurim" after "Zokef Kefufim." He presents three reasons for this ruling. First, as mentioned earlier, we recite these Berachot to thank Hashem not for our personal benefit from the phenomena they mention, but rather for "Minhago Shel Olam" – for His making these phenomena part of the natural order, which help mankind generally. Therefore, the fact that one moves his arms and legs before getting out of bed has no bearing whatsoever on the required sequence of the Berachot that thank Hashem for these capabilities. Secondly, the Ben Ish Hai noted the teaching of the Arizal that these blessings encompass profound Kabbalistic concepts, beyond their straightforward, literal meaning, and these are relevant to all people, regardless of how and when they experience the phenomena mentioned in the text of the Berachot. Therefore, the Beracha of "Matir Asurim" retains its value and relevance even after one has recited "Zokef Kefufim." The Ben Ish Hai's third argument is the simple fact that the Sages instituted two separate blessings – one for the ability to move our limbs, and a second blessing for the ability to stand up straight. If the Beracha of "Matir Asurim" were subsumed under the Beracha of "Zokef Kefufim," then there would be no reason for the Rabbis to institute two separate blessings; it would have sufficed to simply recite "Zokef Kefufim," which includes both our ability to move our limbs and our ability to stand up straight. An analogy might be reciting "She'hakol" over the cheese before reciting "Ha'mosi" over the cheese sandwich. Since "Ha'mosi" covers the entire sandwich, there is clearly no reason to first recite a Beracha over the cheese by itself. Similarly, there would be no value in reciting "Matir Asurim" before "Zokef Kefufim" if the Beracha of "Zokef Kefufim" covers the ability to move one's limbs. Evidently, the Beracha of "Matir Asurim" must have significance that extends beyond that which is covered by "Zokef Kefufim," and so even if one first recited "Zokef Kefufim," he then recites "Matir Asurim." Hacham Ovadia Yosef, in Halichot Olam, refutes these three arguments advanced by the Ben Ish Hai. He makes the interesting observation that Rav Amram Gaon, who ruled that one cannot recite "Matir Asurim" after "Zokef Kefufim," was a disciple of Rav Natrunai Gaon – who, as mentioned, maintained that the morning blessings praise Hashem for these phenomena, and not for one's personally benefitting from them. This shows that Rav Amram's ruling does not hinge upon the issue of how one understands the nature and purpose of Birkot Ha'shahar, that even if they praise Hashem for "Minhago Shel Olam," the sequence of "Matir Asurim" and "Zokef Kefufim" must nevertheless be followed. As for the Ben Ish Hai's proof from the very fact that two separate Berachot were instituted, Hacham Ovadia counters that we cannot know the reasons why the Sages chose to institute the various blessings, and so this does not provide any proof. Given the uncertainty surrounding this issue, Hacham Ovadia writes, one who mistakenly recited "Zokef Kefufim" before "Matir Asurim" does not then recite "Matir Asurim," in light of the rule of "Safek Berachot Le'hakel" – we do not recite a Beracha when it is questionable whether it is required. A person in this situation should preferably find somebody who had yet to recite Birkot Ha'shahar and listen to his recitation of the Beracha of "Matir Asurim," so he can satisfy the view that he must still recite the Beracha, without running the risk of reciting a Beracha in vain. If this is not possible, then he should recite "Baruch Ata," think silently in his mind the words "Hashem Elokenu Melech Ha'olam," and then conclude "Matir Asurim." If a person recited "Baruch Ata Hashem Elokenu Melech Ha'olam" with the intention of concluding "Zokef Kefufim," and at that moment he realized he had not yet recited "Matir Asurim," he should conclude with "Zokef Kefufim" as he had intended. Although he will then be unable to recite the Beracha of "Matir Asurim," as discussed, nevertheless, this is preferable to concluding with "Matir Asurim" after having recited the first part of the Beracha with the intention of concluding "Zokef Kefufim." This is the ruling of Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998). He explains that according to the Rambam, the critical component of the recitation of a Beracha is the intention one has while reciting "Baruch Ata Hashem Elokenu Melech Ha'olam." In the Rambam's view, once a person recited these words with the intention of conclude "Zokef Kefufim," he will be credited with the recitation of this Beracha even if he then recites "Matir Asurim." It is therefore preferable to conclude, "Zokef Kefufim" even though he will then be unable to recite "Matir Asurim." Summary: A person who is ill and bedridden in the morning recites the Beracha of "Zokef Kefufim" even though this blessing speaks of the ability to stand up straight. It is uncertain whether this applies also to somebody who is paralyzed, Heaven forbid. If a person mistakenly recited "Zokef Kefufim" before reciting "Matir Asurim," he should not then recite "Matir Asurim." Preferably, he should find somebody who had yet to recite Birkot Ha'shahar and listen to his recitation of the Beracha of "Matir Asurim." If this is not possible, he should recite "Baruch Ata," think silently in his mind the words "Hashem Elokenu Melech Ha'olam," and then conclude "Matir Asurim." A person who recited "Baruch Ata Hashem Elokenu Melech Ha'olam" with the intention of reciting "Zokef Kefufim," and then realized he did not recite "Matir Asurim," should conclude "Zokef Kefufim," and should not switch to "Matir Asurim."

In today's page of Talmud, Avodah Zarah 60 and 61, the Rabbis debate touchless wine presses, leading to speculation about Rashi's side hustle—wine maker, egg seller, or both. But what does this teach us about balancing learning with making a living? Listen and find out.

Why is American Judaism fundamentally different from its European or Middle Eastern counterparts?I discuss the past, present, and future of American Judaism with Professor Zev EleffLet me hear your thoughts belowHope you enjoy!#rabbi #americanjudasim #reformjudaism Jewish History, Politics, Israel, Antisemitism, and Zionism - I cover it all.Politics:    • Should Jews Abandon the Democratic Party? ...  Jewish History:    • Law, Revolution, and the Messiah w/ Zevi S...  Antisemitism:    • To Be a Pro-Israel Student Leader — A Conv...  Facebook:   / daniel.levine.31  Instagram:   / rabbidaniellevine  #israel #rabbi #jewishhistory #WhatisZionism #dojews ?

It is well known that if a person begins reciting a Beracha that is not required, and he realizes his mistake after reciting the words "Baruch Ata Hashem," he has the possibility of avoiding an accidental utterance of Hashem's Name in vain. He can do this by immediately reciting the words "Lamedeni Hukecha," which has the effect of turning his words into a Biblical verse. The phrase "Baruch Ata Hashem Lamedeni Hukecha" is a verse in Tehillim (119:12), and so by adding the words "Lamedeni Hukecha," one transforms his recitation of "Baruch Ata Hashem" into the first words of a verse, such that he is not considered to have recited Hashem's Name in vain. One common case is when a person recites a Beracha over food during a meal, forgetting that he had recited "Ha'mosi" over bread and thus does not need to recite a Beracha over the various foods eaten during the meal. If he began reciting a Beracha, and after saying "Baruch Ata Hashem" he realized his mistake, he should quickly add the words "Lamedeni Hukecha." Less known, however, is the option that one has even if he realized his mistake later, after he already recited the words "Elokenu Melech Ha'olam." At this point, of course, it is too late to turn his mistakenly-recited words into a verse from the Tanach. What he can do, however, is to recite a Beracha which, although we do not customarily recite, some Rishonim (early Medieval scholars) had the practice of reciting. The Bet Yosef brings that some earlier Rabbis would include in the Birkot Ha'shahar (morning blessings) a number of Berachot which do not appear in other sources. For example, some recited a Beracha "Baruch Ata Hashem…Magbi'ah Shefalim," praising Hashem for raising the downtrodden. Another Beracha that some Rabbis recited was "Baruch Ata Hashem…Somech Nofelim," praising Hashem for supporting those who are falling. The Bet Yosef disapproves of this practice, despite the fact that these Berachot were included in several editions of the Siddur in Spain. He notes that these Berachot are mentioned nowhere in the Talmud, and we do not have the authority to introduce our own Berachot. However, the Mishmeret Shalom writes that the fact that some early Rabbis advocated for the recitation of these Berachot allows a person the opportunity to avoid a mistaken recitation of Hashem's Name in vain if he had begun reciting an unwarranted Beracha. If a person realized after reciting the words "Baruch Ata Hashem Elokenu Melech Ha'olam" that his Beracha is not needed, he should immediately recite the words "Magbi'ah Shefalim" or "Somech Nofelim." This way, at least according to some Rabbis, he had recited a legitimate Beracha, and has not recited G-d's Name in vain. Summary: If a person began reciting a Beracha, and after saying the words "Baruch Ata Hashem" he realizes that the Beracha is not warranted, he should immediately say "Lamedeni Hukecha," so he will be considered to have recited a verse, instead of having recited G-d's Name in vain. If he realized his mistake only after he said "…Elokenu Melech Ha'olam," he should immediately add the words "Magbi'ah Shefalim" or "Somech Nofelim," as these are Berachot which some Rabbis had the practice of reciting each day. Although we do not follow this custom, it is preferable to add these words in this case so that at least according to these Rabbis, the person has recited a legitimate Beracha and has not recited G-d's Name in vain.

Did the Rabbis of Eretz Yisroel learn the lesson of שִׂנְאַת חִנָּם in the wake of the Destruction of the בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ?

For many years, I chased other things on this planet.    Money.    Cars.     Houses.    Fame.    Businesses.   A family.    And the craziest thing is after all of the chasing of tangible things tied to this Earth, I fgured out what I want.    I'm chasing the purpose of taking complex concepts and breaking them down for everyone to use in their lives.     Put them into practice.    I'm here to teach, help people, and do so in a rough and aggressive way to make it happen.    Jesus did it.    To clarify, I'm not compariing myself to Jesus.    He pissed off the Rabbis, Pharisees, the Roman Empire.......there's a long list.    He never chased people, money, power, fame, or anything like that.    No matter what or who you believe in, once you lock into your purpose, you will be unstoppable.    Believe me.......   I know it.      About the ReWire Podcast   The ReWire Podcast with Ryan Stewman – Dive into powerful insights as Ryan Stewman, the HardCore Closer, breaks down mental barriers and shares actionable steps to rewire your thoughts. Each episode is a fast-paced journey designed to reshape your mindset, align your actions, and guide you toward becoming the best version of yourself. Join in for a daily dose of real talk that empowers you to embrace change and unlock your full potential.    Learn how you can become a member of a powerful community consistently rewiring itself for success at https://www.jointheapex.com/   Rise Above

Rabbi Yosi vs. the Rabbis - on a field that was fertilized by the manure of idolatry, or the like, and how that field can be planted, and what terms are required for that to happen. Plus, the potential ramifications of their same logic on leavened dough. When the problematic item that is prohibited from benefit, can it be redeemed for money, and then destroy those coins in the Dead Sea? The rabbis say that there's no financial redemption for idolatry. Also, several new mishnayot: One who takes wood from an asherah tree cannot get benefit from that wood, so what happens if that wood were used to heat a new oven? Or an old oven? Or bread? Or a garment that was woven with idolatrous items? What about revoking the idolatrous status? As long as thee non-Jew is clear that he's not treating the tree as an object of worship, then he is not. Plus, the Roman god of Mercury and the stone-throwing idolatrous worship thereof.

Although it is customary to refrain from eating meat during the Nine Days (from the 2 nd of Ab through Tisha B'Ab), Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that eating meat is allowed for health purposes. For example, if a physician advised a patient to eat meat for his health, or if a patient is recovering from illness or from a procedure and he wishes to eat meat to make him feel stronger, he may do so. In fact, Hacham Ovadia ruled that since meat during the Nine Days is forbidden by force of custom, and not according to the strict Halacha, there is room to allow anyone who feels a medical need to eat meat to do so. However, Hacham Ovadia cautioned that a healthy person who has no need for meat, but simply wants to eat some meat during the Nine Days, must not do so, and violating this custom without a valid reason constitutes a grievous sin. Additionally, if a patient's medical need can be met by eating fish, then this should be preferred. A pregnant woman who experiences a craving for meat may – and, in fact, must – be given meat, as failing to satisfy a craving for a particular food during pregnancy could endanger the fetus. A woman within thirty days after childbirth, and a woman who is nursing an infant, may eat meat in order to maintain her strength. Hacham Ovadia considered the possibility of allowing even a woman during menstruation to eat meat if she feels the need, as she might be weakened by the loss of blood, though he remained uncertain about this leniency. One who eats meat during the Nine Days for medical reasons does not require Hatarat Nedarim (annulment of vows) before eating meat. Normally, one who discontinues a custom must first perform Hatarat Nedarim, but in this case, since the custom allows eating meat for health purposes, the patient does not break the "vow" by eating meat. However, a patient with a chronic condition that will always require him to eat meat during the Nine Days, who thus needs to permanently discontinue the practice of refraining from meat, should perform Hatarat Nedarim. Is it permissible to feed meat to children during the Nine Days? When it comes to non-kosher food, there is a debate among the Rishonim as to whether one may feed children food that is forbidden Mi'de'rabbanan – by force of Rabbinic enactment. All agree that one may not feed a child food that the Torah itself forbids, but the Rashba (Rav Shlomo Ben Aderet of Barcelona, Spain, 1235-1310) maintained that foods proscribed by the Rabbis may be fed to children. According to the Rashba, it would certainly be permissible to feed children meat during the Nine Days, as meat is forbidden in this period only by force of custom. The Rambam, however, ruled that no forbidden food may be fed to children, even food which the Torah permits but the Sages prohibited. Accordingly, the Mishna Berura ruled that one may not feed meat even to very young children during the Nine Days. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, disagreed, arguing that meat is not forbidden at all during the Nine Days, and we refrain from meat only by force of custom. Moreover, the Magen Abraham (Rav Abraham Gombiner, Poland, 1635-1682) maintained that the custom to refrain from meat during the Nine Days from the outset did not include children. Another reason to permit feeding meat to children is that according to some opinions, this custom has the status of a vow, and children are allowed to eat food proscribed merely by force a vow. Additionally, a number of Poskim noted the frailty of children, particularly in modern times, such that denying meat to children who are accustomed to eating meat could adversely affect their health. And, it is permissible to feed children food whose permissibility is subject to a debate among the Poskim, and the practice to refrain from meat during the Nine Days is not universally accepted. For all these reasons, Hacham Ovadia maintained that children should not be denied meat during the Nine Days. The only exception he made was for a twelve-year-old boy, who, since he will soon become a bar-mitzvah, should be trained not to eat meat during this period. (It is worth noting that when it comes to fasting, Hacham Ovadia felt very strongly that children should not be allowed to fast, as they require food for their health. He ruled that children under the age of bar-mitzvah – even twelve-year-olds – should not fast, even on Yom Kippur, and that Rabbis should announce in the synagogue on Yom Kippur that parents should return home to make sure their children eat.) It is permissible during the Nine Days to eat meat and drink wine at a Se'udat Misva – meaning, a meal that constitutes a Misva. One who wishes to eat meat at a Se'udat Misva does not require Hatarat Nedarim, because the custom itself allows eating meat at such an event, and thus the "vow" is not being broken. One example is the meal celebrating a Berit Mila. All guests who were invited to participate in the meal may partake of meat and wine, but clearly a person who does not know the family cannot just show up at the meal in order to enjoy meat and wine. Although it is permissible to eat meat at a Berit, one may not take some meat home from the meal; eating meat is allowed only at the meal itself. The leftover meat should either be frozen or distributed to the needy. However, the infant's father, the Mohel and the Sandak are allowed to eat meat that entire day. For them, the day of the Berit is a Yom Tob, and so they may eat meat at any point during that day, even after the meal. Meat may be eaten at a Berit even in the case of a "Mila She'lo Bi'zmanah" – a Berit that was performed after the infant's eighth day because he was sick and unfit for circumcision on the eighth day. However, if the baby was deemed healthy enough for a Berit Mila before the Nine Days, the Berit may not be delayed until the Nine Days for the purpose of serving meat and wine, as it is forbidden to unnecessarily delay a Berit. And if the Berit was unnecessarily postponed until the Nine Days, meat and wine may not be eaten at the meal. Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Israel, 1924-1998) ruled that if the Berit was cancelled at the last minute because the infant became sick and unfit for circumcision, the meat that was prepared for the Se'uda may be eaten, despite the fact that no Berit took place. He bases this ruling on the principle that if a person genuinely tried performing a Misva, but was unsuccessful due to circumstances beyond his control, he is nevertheless credited with the fulfillment of a Misva. Since he planned to perform the Misva and attempted to do so, he receives credit for a Misva despite the outcome. Hence, if the infant suddenly became unfit for Berit Mila, the parents are nevertheless considered to have fulfilled the Misva of giving him a Berit that day, and thus the meal qualifies as a Se'udat Misva, where meat and wine may be served. The customary Zohar recitation conducted on the night before a Berit does not qualify as a Se'udat Misva, and thus meat may not be eaten at this event. This is the ruling of Hacham Ovadia Yosef. The meal at a Pidyon Ha'ben is considered a Se'udat Misva, and thus meat is allowed. If a boy turns thirteen during the Nine Days, and a meal is held on his birthday to celebrate the occasion, then this meal qualifies as a Se'udat Misva, and meat may be served. However, if the meal is held on a different day, and not on his birthday, then meat may not be eaten at the meal. If the boy's birthday is Ereb Rosh Hodesh Ab, the meal should be postponed until after Tisha B'Ab. A Siyum celebration following the completion of the study of a Masechet (tractate of Gemara) constitutes a Se'udat Misva, and meat may be eaten at such an event. All those invited to participate in the meal may eat meat, even if they were not involved at all in the learning of the Masechet. If a Siyum is made in a meat restaurant, those who happen to be in the restaurant may listen to the Siyum and eat meat (though it would certainly be inappropriate to intentionally go around to meat restaurants in the hope of finding a Siyum). Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that it is permissible to specifically schedule the completion of a Masechet for the Nine Days, though one who finished a Masechet before the Nine Days may not intentionally leave the final line for the Nine Days for the purpose of eating meat. Although some people look askance at the widespread practice to arrange Siyum celebrations for the Nine Days in order to permit meat, many great Rabbis not only approved of this practice, but even encouraged it. Some explained that by celebrating Torah learning we actually make a significant contribution to the rebuilding of the Bet Ha'mikdash. And it is told that the Ba'al Shem Tob (founder of Hasidism, 1698-1760) specifically arranged his Torah learning such that he would make a Siyum during the Nine Days – not because he craved meat and wine, but rather because this weakened the power of the Satan. The Satan wields great strength during this time of year, and one way we overpower the Satan is by increasing our Torah learning and celebrating our learning accomplishments. In fact, the letters that spell Satan's name – Samech, Mem, Alef and Lamed – can be read as an acrostic representing the phrase "Siyum Masechet En La'asot" – "Do not make a Siyum of a Masechet," or "Se'udat Misva En La'asot" – "Do not make a Se'udat Misva." The Satan specifically does not want us to conduct Siyum celebrations, and so we are encouraged to do so during this period when the Satan's strength is at its height. Thus, as many great Sages encouraged making Siyum celebrations during the Nine Days – and especially in light of the fact that to begin with, meat and wine are forbidden during this period only by force of custom – one should not object to those who make Siyumim for the sake of permitting meat and wine. Hacham Ovadia writes that it is improper for several people to divide a Masechet between them, such that each studies only a small portion, for the sake of conducting a joint Siyum. The Jewish community of Izmir, Turkey, had the custom not to allow meat at a Siyum during the Nine Days, and to eat fish, instead. Hacham Ovadia ruled that members of that community who settled in Eretz Yisrael may adopt the lenient practice of eating meat at a Siyum. A mourner in the twelve-month period of mourning for a parent, Heaven forbid, may attend a Siyum celebration as long as no music is played. As music is not permitted at a Se'udat Misva during the Nine Days, a mourner is allowed to attend and partake of meat and wine.