POPULARITY
Categories
115 episodes with rabbis
461 episodes with rabbis
76 episodes with rabbis
47 episodes with rabbis
124 episodes with rabbis
107 episodes with rabbis
40 episodes with rabbis
25 episodes with rabbis
100 episodes with rabbis
27 episodes with rabbis
27 episodes with rabbis
25 episodes with rabbis
27 episodes with rabbis
40 episodes with rabbis
23 episodes with rabbis
13 episodes with rabbis
18 episodes with rabbis
63 episodes with rabbis
14 episodes with rabbis
30 episodes with rabbis
11 episodes with rabbis
22 episodes with rabbis
14 episodes with rabbis
27 episodes with rabbis
12 episodes with rabbis
13 episodes with rabbis
26 episodes with rabbis
8 episodes with rabbis
9 episodes with rabbis
11 episodes with rabbis
14 episodes with rabbis
23 episodes with rabbis
10 episodes with rabbis
10 episodes with rabbis
7 episodes with rabbis
14 episodes with rabbis
10 episodes with rabbis
13 episodes with rabbis
8 episodes with rabbis
7 episodes with rabbis
6 episodes with rabbis
7 episodes with rabbis
23 episodes with rabbis
9 episodes with rabbis
17 episodes with rabbis
6 episodes with rabbis
8 episodes with rabbis
25 episodes with rabbis
13 episodes with rabbis
7 episodes with rabbis
8 episodes with rabbis
12 episodes with rabbis
11 episodes with rabbis
6 episodes with rabbis
Rav Hamnuna states in the name of Rabbi Shimon that the prohibition of oto v'et beno does not apply to consecrated animals (kodashim). This is based on Rabbi Shimon's principle that an invalid slaughter is not halakhically considered a slaughter (shechita she'eina reuya lo shema shechita), and since the meat of a sacrifice is not permitted for consumption until its blood is sprinkled, the slaughter itself is initially unfit. Rava challenges this using a text discussing various combinations of slaughtering consecutive sacrifices inside or outside the Temple courtyard (bifnim or bachutz), tracing the respective liabilities of karet and negative prohibitions under the views of Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis. To resolve the contradiction, Rava explains that Rabbi Shimon does acknowledge the prohibition for kodashim, but holds that one does not receive lashes for it because the warning given at the time of slaughter is a doubtful warning (hatra'at safek), as the validity of the slaughter depends on the future sprinkling of the blood, and a doubtful warning is legally invalid. The Mishna states that if one slaughters an animal and it is found to be a treifa, or slaughters it for idolatry, as a Red Heifer, an ox convicted to be stoned, or a broken-necked heifer, Rabbi Shimon exempts him from the prohibition of oto v'et beno because the slaughter is invalid since the animal is not permitted for consumption, while the Rabbis declare him liable. However, if the slaughter itself is physically disqualified, such as if the animal becomes a carcass during the shechita process or if one stabbed the animal, all agree he is exempt. Reish Lakish establishes the Mishna's liability (according to the Rabbis' position) for idolatry only when the first animal was slaughtered for idolatry and the second for consumption. If the second was for idolatry, the rule of kim lei b'draba minei applies (one incurs the capital punishment for idolatry and is exempt from the lashes of oto v'et beno) as one only receives the harsher of the two punishments. Rabbi Yochanan counters that even if the second animal was for idolatry, one can still be liable for lashes for oto v'et beno if one was warned specifically for that prohibition and not for idolatry. Reish Lakish maintains that since one would be exempt if properly warned for the capital crime, one remains exempt even without that warning, and even without receiving the harsher punishment. They have the same dispute regarding the rule of kim lei b'draba minei even in cases of death/lashes and monetary liability when one was not warned for the death/lashes.
Rav Hamnuna states in the name of Rabbi Shimon that the prohibition of oto v'et beno does not apply to consecrated animals (kodashim). This is based on Rabbi Shimon's principle that an invalid slaughter is not halakhically considered a slaughter (shechita she'eina reuya lo shema shechita), and since the meat of a sacrifice is not permitted for consumption until its blood is sprinkled, the slaughter itself is initially unfit. Rava challenges this using a text discussing various combinations of slaughtering consecutive sacrifices inside or outside the Temple courtyard (bifnim or bachutz), tracing the respective liabilities of karet and negative prohibitions under the views of Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis. To resolve the contradiction, Rava explains that Rabbi Shimon does acknowledge the prohibition for kodashim, but holds that one does not receive lashes for it because the warning given at the time of slaughter is a doubtful warning (hatra'at safek), as the validity of the slaughter depends on the future sprinkling of the blood, and a doubtful warning is legally invalid. The Mishna states that if one slaughters an animal and it is found to be a treifa, or slaughters it for idolatry, as a Red Heifer, an ox convicted to be stoned, or a broken-necked heifer, Rabbi Shimon exempts him from the prohibition of oto v'et beno because the slaughter is invalid since the animal is not permitted for consumption, while the Rabbis declare him liable. However, if the slaughter itself is physically disqualified, such as if the animal becomes a carcass during the shechita process or if one stabbed the animal, all agree he is exempt. Reish Lakish establishes the Mishna's liability (according to the Rabbis' position) for idolatry only when the first animal was slaughtered for idolatry and the second for consumption. If the second was for idolatry, the rule of kim lei b'draba minei applies (one incurs the capital punishment for idolatry and is exempt from the lashes of oto v'et beno) as one only receives the harsher of the two punishments. Rabbi Yochanan counters that even if the second animal was for idolatry, one can still be liable for lashes for oto v'et beno if one was warned specifically for that prohibition and not for idolatry. Reish Lakish maintains that since one would be exempt if properly warned for the capital crime, one remains exempt even without that warning, and even without receiving the harsher punishment. They have the same dispute regarding the rule of kim lei b'draba minei even in cases of death/lashes and monetary liability when one was not warned for the death/lashes.
Study Guide After the Gemara establishes the root of the debate between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis regarding a koy, Rav Papa clarifies the specific type of koy they dispute concerning the prohibition of slaughtering a parent and its offspring on the same day (oto v'et beno) and the distribution of priestly gifts (matnot kehuna). He also explains that the Mishna's ruling—which prohibits slaughtering a koy on Yom Tov due to the uncertainty of whether its blood requires covering (kisuy hadam)—aligns specifically with the Rabbis' position. The Gemara then introduces three other opinions regarding the exact definition of a koy. Rabbi Oshaya notes that the Mishna does not align with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who views any slaughter that is not fit for consumption—including the slaughter of sacrifices in general, since it does not permit the meat until the blood is sprinkled—as an invalid slaughter (shechita she'eina reuya). Consequently, under his view, one who slaughters an animal in the Temple and its offspring on the same day does not violate the prohibition of "you shall not slaughter it and its offspring on the same day" (oto v'et beno lo tishchatu b'yom echad). The Gemara questions why the Mishna omits the rule that one receives lashes for slaughtering an animal in the Temple courtyard whose time has not yet come (mechusar zman—because its mother was already slaughtered today) on account of slaughtering an unfit animal in the Temple, and offers two answers to resolve this.
Study Guide After the Gemara establishes the root of the debate between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis regarding a koy, Rav Papa clarifies the specific type of koy they dispute concerning the prohibition of slaughtering a parent and its offspring on the same day (oto v'et beno) and the distribution of priestly gifts (matnot kehuna). He also explains that the Mishna's ruling—which prohibits slaughtering a koy on Yom Tov due to the uncertainty of whether its blood requires covering (kisuy hadam)—aligns specifically with the Rabbis' position. The Gemara then introduces three other opinions regarding the exact definition of a koy. Rabbi Oshaya notes that the Mishna does not align with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who views any slaughter that is not fit for consumption—including the slaughter of sacrifices in general, since it does not permit the meat until the blood is sprinkled—as an invalid slaughter (shechita she'eina reuya). Consequently, under his view, one who slaughters an animal in the Temple and its offspring on the same day does not violate the prohibition of "you shall not slaughter it and its offspring on the same day" (oto v'et beno lo tishchatu b'yom echad). The Gemara questions why the Mishna omits the rule that one receives lashes for slaughtering an animal in the Temple courtyard whose time has not yet come (mechusar zman—because its mother was already slaughtered today) on account of slaughtering an unfit animal in the Temple, and offers two answers to resolve this.
The Gemara discusses the prohibition of slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day (oto v'et beno). The Mishna presents various permutations of non-sacred animals (chullin) and consecrated sacrifices slaughtered either inside or outside the Temple courtyard, outlining the respective punishments incurred and the halakhic status of the meat. A braita derives from biblical verses that this prohibition applies to consecrated animals, and the Gemara subsequently demonstrates that it applies to non-consecrated animals as well. Since the laws of oto v'et beno are learned from consecrated animals, the Gemara questions why the prohibition also applies to crossbreeds (kilayim), which are unfit for the Altar. This is resolved by explaining that the word "or" (o) in the verse serves to include crossbreeds. This explanation raises a difficulty, as the word "or" should be needed to teach that one is liable for slaughtering either an ox or a sheep with its offspring, rather than needing to slaughter both to violate the prohibition. The Gemara resolves this by pointing to the singular word "its" (oto), which teaches individual liability. Alternatively, according to Chananya - who uses the word "its" to include male parents in the prohibition - it is already self-evident that one is liable for either animal individually, in accordance with Rabbi Yonatan's interpretive principle regarding the biblical prohibition of cursing one's parents. This discussion leads to a discussion about the dispute between Chananya and the Rabbis r regarding whether the prohibition of oto v'et beno applies to both the father and mother, or exclusively to the mother.
The Gemara discusses the prohibition of slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day (oto v'et beno). The Mishna presents various permutations of non-sacred animals (chullin) and consecrated sacrifices slaughtered either inside or outside the Temple courtyard, outlining the respective punishments incurred and the halakhic status of the meat. A braita derives from biblical verses that this prohibition applies to consecrated animals, and the Gemara subsequently demonstrates that it applies to non-consecrated animals as well. Since the laws of oto v'et beno are learned from consecrated animals, the Gemara questions why the prohibition also applies to crossbreeds (kilayim), which are unfit for the Altar. This is resolved by explaining that the word "or" (o) in the verse serves to include crossbreeds. This explanation raises a difficulty, as the word "or" should be needed to teach that one is liable for slaughtering either an ox or a sheep with its offspring, rather than needing to slaughter both to violate the prohibition. The Gemara resolves this by pointing to the singular word "its" (oto), which teaches individual liability. Alternatively, according to Chananya - who uses the word "its" to include male parents in the prohibition - it is already self-evident that one is liable for either animal individually, in accordance with Rabbi Yonatan's interpretive principle regarding the biblical prohibition of cursing one's parents. This discussion leads to a discussion about the dispute between Chananya and the Rabbis r regarding whether the prohibition of oto v'et beno applies to both the father and mother, or exclusively to the mother.
Madlik Podcast – Torah Thoughts on Judaism From a Post-Orthodox Jew
What if the greatest cure for our distracted, scroll-addicted minds was written over 3,000 years ago? Deuteronomy isn't just repeating the Torah. It's teaching us how to pay attention. The fifth book of the Torah—Deuteronomy (Mishneh Torah)—is often dismissed as simply a review of what came before. But what if Moses' final retelling wasn't repetition at all, but one of the Torah's deepest lessons about how human beings learn, remember, and grow? In this episode of Madlik, Geoffrey Stern and Rabbi Adam Mintz explore how the Torah transforms review into a transforming discipline. From Ben Bag Bag's famous teaching, "Turn it over and turn it over, for everything is in it," to the Talmud's praise of the student who reviews a lesson 101 times, Judaism offers a timeless antidote to our modern epidemic of distraction. Along the way, we compare Moses' retelling of the story of the spies with its original telling in Numbers, discovering how each retelling reveals new truths. We explore why detectives, trial lawyers, and cognitive scientists know that repetition uncovers what first impressions often miss. And we meet an unexpected companion on the journey—the Roman philosopher Seneca—whose warnings about information overload sound uncannily like a critique of today's endless scrolling. Drawing on Moses, the Rabbis, the Stoic philosopher Seneca, and contemporary cognitive science, this conversation uncovers timeless practices for overcoming distraction, deepening attention, strengthening memory, enriching relationships, and living a more meaningful and connected life. If our greatest challenge today is not a lack of information but an inability to focus on what truly matters, perhaps the Bible's great book of reflection contains one of the newest and most necessary lessons. Join us as we discover why the path to wisdom isn't always found by chasing something new, but by returning to timeless ideas with fresh eyes—and renewed attention. Key Takeaways Repetition Isn't Redundancy—It's Revelation -Deuteronomy doesn't simply repeat the Torah; it reinterprets it. Moses teaches that every return to a familiar story can reveal a deeper truth. As Ben Bag Bag taught, "Turn it over and turn it over, for everything is in it." Attention Is a Transforming Discipline - From the rabbis' praise of reviewing a lesson 101 times to Seneca's warning against skimming too many scrolls, wisdom grows not from consuming more information but from dwelling deeply with what truly matters. The antidote to distraction is not novelty—it's sustained attention. Growth Comes from Returning - Whether studying Torah, reflecting on our own lives, or listening to another person's story, every retelling changes us. The Torah reminds us that meaning isn't found by constantly moving on, but by returning with fresh eyes, a deeper perspective, and an open heart. Timestamps [00:00] Why does Deuteronomy repeat the Torah? [02:08] Chazarah: The forgotten Jewish art of repetition [07:18] The spies story changes. Why does Moses retell it differently? [11:06] Ben Bag Bag: "Turn it over and turn it over" [13:36] Why reviewing something 101 times changes everything [16:05] Deep learning vs information overload [19:12] What police interrogations teach us about memory and truth [23:10] Seneca's ancient warning about distraction [26:33] The secret to remembering what you read [29:18] Why repetition keeps Judaism and wisdom alive Links & Learnings Sign up for free and get more from our weekly newsletter https://madlik.com/ Sefaria Source Sheet: https://voices.sefaria.org/sheets/738767?lang=bi Transcript here: https://madlik.substack.com/
A number of books draw an intriguing – though puzzling – parallel between two periods on the Jewish calendar: the period of Ben He'mesarim (the Three Weeks from Shiba Asar Be'Tammuz through Tisha B'Ab) and the period of the holidays in the month of Tishri. The month of Tishri begins with Rosh Hashanah, and the holiday season concludes with the celebration of Shemini Aseret on the 22nd of Tishri. (In the Diaspora, we observe Shemini Aseret as a two-day celebration, referring to the second day as Simhat Torah, but fundamentally, this is just one day, on the 22nd of Tishri, and this is how it is celebrated in Israel.) According to a number of Rabbis, these two 22-day periods parallel one another, and are linked to one another. This parallelism leads us to an astonishing conclusion – that the final days of these two periods, Tisha B'Ab and Simhat Torah, are connected. This conclusion is astonishing because, quite simply, it would have been hard to come up with any two days on the Jewish calendar that are more different from one another. In fact, these days are polar opposites – and not only because one day is spent fasting, sitting on the floor and mourning, while the other is spent dancing, singing and feasting. Simhat Torah marks the day when the first Bet Ha'mikdash was inaugurated. King Shlomo conducted a two-week celebration in honor of the Temple's inauguration, which culminated on the 22nd day of Tishri. And, for this reason, the Zohar teaches that Shlomo is considered the "Ushpizin" for Shemini Aseret, which is, in a sense, the eighth day of Sukkot. It thus emerges that the day when the Bet Ha'mikdash's inauguration was completed is, remarkably, linked to Tisha B'Ab, the day when the Bet Ha'mikdash was destroyed. If Shemini Aseret is associated with Shlomo Ha'melech, then Tisha B'Ab is associated with Yirmiyahu – the prophet who warned of the destruction of the Bet Ha'mikdash. Shlomo Ha'melech enjoyed a life of wealth, prestige, peace, comfort and serenity, and he composed Shir Ha'shirim – a joyful, heartwarming book about the intense love between Hashem and the Jewish People. Yirmiyahu suffered misery throughout his life, being constantly taunted and at one point even imprisoned, and then personally witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem and was driven into exile. The book he wrote – Echa, which we read while sitting on the floor on Tisha B'Ab – laments the rupture of the bond between G-d and His people, and the unspeakable calamities that befell our nation at the time of Jerusalem's destruction – the polar opposite of Shir Ha'shirim. Interestingly enough, the Arizal – based on a number of earlier sources – teaches that King Shlomo's soul returned in Yirmiyahu, further underscoring the connection between Simhat Torah – the day associated with King Shlomo – and Tisha B'Ab – the day associated with Yirmiyahu. These two figures shared the same soul, and thus the days that embody their lives' respective missions are closely linked. These two days are linked because Simhat Torah is the day when we celebrate the precious gift of the Torah – and it is through Torah that we become worthy of redemption. The Or Ha'haim (Rav Haim Ben-Attar, 1696-1743) writes that Mashiah does not wish to redeem a nation of ignoramuses. It is only when we recommit ourselves to Torah learning and put in the time and effort to learn that we earn our long-awaited final redemption. Tisha B'Ab is associated with Simhat Torah because it is through the joy of Torah learning, embodied by the festive celebration of Simhat Torah, that we end the exile which we mourn on Tisha B'Ab. In our community – and in many others, as well – we are witnessing a truly extraordinary phenomenon, one which clearly shows that we are well on our way to making the transition from Tisha B'Ab to Simhat Torah, from mourning the destruction of the Bet Ha'mikdash to celebrating the restoration of the Bet Ha'mikdash. My father recalled to me how in his time, people spent Tisha B'Ab afternoon at the beach. Now, as everyone knows, Tisha B'Ab is likely the greatest day of Torah learning in the entire year. Synagogues are packed with men and women of all ages hearing Torah classes for many hours throughout the day, and some even the entire day. Ironically, in our time, Tisha B'Ab has turned into a "Simhat Torah." Of course, it is still a day of mourning and grieving. But nevertheless, we cannot overlook the drastic change that has occurred, with the entire community – and many other communities – joining together for hours upon hours to learn Torah on this day. This phenomenon is representative of the broader transition that has been taking place in recent years. People are devoted to Torah learning like never before. With all the unique spiritual challenges of our generation which I and many other Rabbis speak about regularly, the amount of Torah being learned on a daily basis in our time is breathtaking. This is a clear sign that we are, gradually, transitioning from Tisha B'Ab to Simhat Torah, from a state of Hurban (destruction) to a state of redemption. May Hashem help us continue this transition, to continue devoting ourselves to Torah learning and inspiring others to do the same, so we may be worthy of Mashiah's arrival and the rebuilding of the Bet Ha'mikdash, when we will experience an everlasting Simhat Torah, amen.
Join Donniel Hartman and Rabbi Sharon Brous at the Shalom Hartman Institute for a profoundly honest and challenging conversation on the moral responsibility of Jewish leadership today. Together, they explore the complexities of holding onto faith and hope in a world facing overlapping crises—from climate change and the rise of AI to political extremism and the disturbing normalization of violence and antisemitism. Drawing on the teachings of the prophet Micah, Brous and Hartman share what keeps them up at night and where they find reasons to be optimistic. They delve into the crucial difference between winning the war in the Middle East vs. maintaining a moral standing on the global stage, the necessity of truthtelling within the Jewish community, and the controversial debate over the utility of the label "Zionist" in contemporary political discourse. This discussion is an essential watch for anyone grappling with identity, community, and the ongoing struggle to build a just and loving world in times of deep uncertainty. Topics Covered: The "polycrisis" of our time: Climate change, AI, and violent extremism. The tension between internal truthtelling and external public relations. What it means to drop a "sea anchor" when facing waves of fear and anti-Semitism. Why the words we use matter, and the growing debate over the term "Zionism".
The Gemara cites two conflicting statements of Rav regarding a hanging limb of an animal. In one statement, Rav rules that eating this limb incurs lashes, while in the other, he rules it does not. Rav Yosef resolves this contradiction: if the animal dies naturally, death causes legal detachment (oseh nipul), retroactively defining the hanging limb as ever min hachai (a limb from a living animal) which incurs lashes for one who eats it. Conversely, if the animal is slaughtered, slaughter does not cause legal detachment (eino oseh nipul), meaning the limb is not treated as a separate forbidden entity and the eater does not receive lashes. Rava brings a biblical source for this differentiation between death and slaughter, and the Gemara raises two difficulties against his proof but resolves them both. Rav Chisda and Rabba dispute whether the debate between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis - regarding whether slaughter causes legal detachment for an emerged fetal limb - applies only when the fetus is alive, or even when the fetus is dead. Rav Chisda holds that when the fetus is dead, the emerged limb is definitely considered detached and carries impurity. In the course of a back-and-forth argument between the Rabbis and Rabbi Meir in the Mishna, it was mentioned that slaughtering would not remove impurity from an eight-month fetus, as it is not viable, and there is no type of eight-month fetus that can be validly slaughtered. However, a braita states that there are eight-month fetuses that can be permitted by slaughter. Rav Kahana reconciles this by differentiating between slaughtering the fetus itself and permitting the animal via its mother's slaughter (ben pekua). Rav Hoshaya inquires whether a live nine-month-old fetus can be validly slaughtered while still in utero. This question is evaluated under the views of both Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis. Rav Chananya attempts to resolve this inquiry from a braita, but his answer is ultimately rejected by Rava. The Mishna introduces a dispute regarding the laws of ben pekua and whether they apply to a fully formed, nine-month-old fetus found inside its slaughtered mother. Rabbi Meir rules that the laws of ben pekua do not apply here, and the fetus requires its own independent slaughter. Conversely, the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri hold that as long as the fetus is still inside the womb, it is covered by the laws of ben pekua and is permitted by the slaughter of the mother. Operating under the Rabbis' position, Rabbi Eleazar states in the name of Rabbi Oshaya that the mother's slaughter only covers the animal born from this womb regarding the laws of eating. In other halakhot, this animal is considered a distinct entity and standard animal laws apply to it. The Gemara presents two versions of what Rabbi Oshaya's statement was coming to exclude: the first version suggests it excludes the animal's fat, sciatic nerve, and blood from the mother's exemption, while the second version suggests it excludes using the animal for work or illicit cross-breeding. The first version is ultimately rejected based on other sources, leaving the second version as the preferred explanation. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about whether the blood of a ben pekua (a nine-month fetus) is permitted as well. Rabbi Yochanan raises one difficulty against Reish Lakish's position, which the Gemara subsequently resolves. According to the position of the Rabbis, a question is asked whether one can redeem a firstborn donkey with a ben pekua. Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi disagree. A second question is asked whether a ben pekua that is still in utero can be considered a separate unit for the laws of ritual impurity. This is a dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish, and each one raises a difficulty against the other's position.
Welcome to The Daily Wrap Up, an in-depth investigatory show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant independent news, as we see it, from the last 24 hours (7/13/26). As always, take the information discussed in the video below and research it for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. Anyone telling you what the truth is, or claiming they have the answer, is likely leading you astray, for one reason or another. Stay Vigilant. !function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u2q643"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble"); Rumble("play", {"video":"v7ai5do","div":"rumble_v7ai5do"}); Source Links (In Chronological Order): (5) The Last American Vagabond on X: "Every say this platform suppressing honest, objective, non-partisan media." / X (5) Vani Hari on X: "THE NUMBERS ARE IN. Processed food is dying a slow death and BIG FOOD is crumbling. There's a massive shift happening. Look how much processed food companies have LOST in value in the last 22 months. Stock value lost since August 2024: * Campbell's: DOWN 54.9% (Goldfish, https://t.co/1O6mv9rDrl" / X Trump Cuts Habitat Protections for Endangered Species - The New York Times MAHA's Food Agenda Undermined By Trump Administration Policies Trump's New $2B WHO, FDA Walks Back Food Dye Ban & The US Gov's Long-Documented Cartel Connections Trump Ignores MAHA By Ruling Glyphosate "National Security" Imperative Despite Obvious Health Risks New Tab (6) Viral Reel Addict on X: "They all knew who Donald Trump really was. Lindsey Graham says it https://t.co/UEgU1N5mzQ" / X (21) This You? on X: "https://t.co/6AKy2zcq9p" / X (21) This You? on X: "https://t.co/l07xkoLVZs" / X (21) James Li on X: "So they are just openly admitting that Lindsey Graham was basically a mole for the Israel?! https://t.co/q6ISHUByzZ" / X Trump recommends Graham's sister for interim South Carolina senator (21) The Last American Vagabond on X: "So much for dEmOcRaCy. These people truly believe they are a special class. Almost like what would happen with a royal bloodline." / X (21) Owen Shroyer on X: "The scripts went from network news to X. It's easy to see once you spot it." / X (21) Dr. Simon on X: "2022
Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour
The Gemara in Masechet Kiddushin (31a) tells that Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua made a point of always keeping his head covered, and he explained that since the Shechina hovered over his head at all times, it is appropriate to cover one's head as a sign of respect. This same Rav Huna is cited elsewhere (Shabbat 118b) as saying that he was worthy of reward for ensuring never to walk four Amot (cubits) with his hair uncovered. In a different context (Shabbat 156b), the Gemara teaches that wearing a hair-covering helps engender Yir'at Shamayim (fear of Heaven) and thus prevent us from sin. It tells that a woman was warned by astrologers that her infant son would be a thief as an adult. She understood this to mean that the boy was born with a natural inclination toward theft. In an effort to avoid this outcome, she saw to it that the child's head would always remain covered, so he would be cognizant of Hashem's presence at all times and thus stay away from sin. In addition, she fervently prayed to G-d that he would be righteous. Once, the Gemara says, when this boy was still a child, he was sitting beneath somebody's palm tree learning Torah, and his head covering blew off. He looked up and saw a cluster of luscious dates. Enticed, he ate the dates, which were somebody's private property – showing how a head covering helps protect a person from the Yeser Ha'ra (evil inclination). (Thanks to his mother's efforts, though, this boy grew to become Rav Nahman Bar Yishak, one of the great Sages of the Talmud.) Similarly, the Zohar (Balak 187a) teaches that one must avoid walking more than four Amot with his head uncovered, because the Shechina hovers over his head. The Zohar adds that this concept is alluded to in the verse in Kohelet (9:8), "Ve'shemen Al Roshecha al Yehsar" – "Oil shall not be lacking upon your head." The Shechina (divine presence) is compared to fire, and Misvot are the "oil," the fuel that sustains its presence in our lives. Covering our heads brings us Yir'at Shamayim so that we remain loyal to G-d's commands. The Zohar reiterates this point later (Pinhas 245b), citing the verse, "Melo Kol Ha'aretz Kebodo" (Yeshayahu 6:3) – G-d's glory fills the entire earth. We acknowledge and give honor to His presence by wearing a head covering. The Rambam, too, in his Guide for the Perplexed (3:52), emphasizes that the great Sages always ensured to cover their heads out of respect for the divine presence. However, as we know, there are many otherwise observant Jews (especially in our community) who do not wear a Kippa all the time. They make a point of wearing a Kippa when they enter the synagogue, but not throughout the day when they go about their ordinary affairs. Is this acceptable, or are these individuals failing to fulfill a Halachic obligation? This question depends on whether we regard head-covering as a strict Halachic requirement, or as a Middat Hasidut – a recommended measure of piety. The Maharam of Rothenberg (Germany, c. 1215-1293), cited by the Orhot Haim and Kolbo, maintained that Halacha does not forbid going about bareheaded, and the Sages who ensured to have their heads covered did so as a Middat Hasidut. This is also the clear implication of the Rambam, in the passage cited earlier, where he mentions that great Rabbis made a point of covering their heads – indicating that this is a recommended measure of piety, and not a binding Halachic obligation. The Maharshal (Rav Shlomo Luria, Poland, 1510-1573) drew proof to this view from a passage in the Midrash which emphasizes how Hashem deals with us far more kindly than mortal kings deal with their subjects. Normally, the Midrash comments, when a king's messenger reads to the masses a written royal decree, everyone is expected to stand, remove their hats, and listen with fear and trepidation. But when we read the Shema in fulfillment of G-d's decree, we are not required to stand and remove our head coverings. The Midrash here clearly implies that there would be nothing wrong with baring our heads – even for the recitation of Shema. The Shebut Yaakov (Rav Yaakov Reischer, 1661-1733) refutes this proof, noting that the Midrash later observes that Hashem does not demand that we hunt wild animals to bring them as sacrifices, but rather commands that we offer as sacrifices domesticated animals, which do not need to be hunted. Clearly, this does not mean that it would be acceptable to offer wild animals as sacrifices. By the same token, we cannot necessarily deduce from the Midrash that it is acceptable to recite Shema with our heads uncovered. Maran (Rav Yosef Caro, author of the Shulhan Aruch), in Bet Yosef (91), brings the aforementioned opinion of the Maharam of Rothenberg, that covering one's head is not strictly required, indicating that he concurred with this view. Elsewhere in Bet Yosef (46), however, Maran appears to imply otherwise. In discussing the blessing recited each morning, "Oter Yisrael Be'tif'ara" ("He who crowns Israel with splendor"), Maran explains that we are "crowned" in the sense that we, unlike other nations, are required to cover our heads. Maran adds that even those who maintain that this is not strictly required, agree that it is recommended as an act of piety. Here Maran clearly sides with the opinion that head-covering constitutes an outright Halachic obligation. Regardless, the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) noted that in the Shulhan Aruch, Maran takes the position that covering one's head is recommended but not strictly required. In Siman 2, the Shulhan Aruch writes that "it is forbidden" to walk about "Be'koma Zekufa" – completely upright, appearing proud and overly confident. In the same sentence, the Shulhan Aruch writes that "one should not walk four Amot with his head bare." When it comes to "Koma Zekufa," the Shulhan Aruch uses the word "Assur" ("It is forbidden"), whereas regarding walking bareheaded, he writes simply that this should not be done. It would thus appear that although it is proper to wear a head-covering, this is not strictly required. However, the Taz (Rav David Ha'levi Segal, 1586-1667) writes that even assuming that head-covering was practiced in ancient times only as a Middat Hasidut, in modern times this has become a strict Halachic obligation. The Taz explains that since the Christians are accustomed to walk about bareheaded, doing so violates the prohibition of "Hukot Ha'akum" – following gentile practices. Hence, in the view of the Taz, one is required to wear a Kippa nowadays in order to avoid transgressing the Biblical prohibition of "Hukot Ha'akum." Hacham Ovadia Yosef disputes this claim. Based on the comments of the Mahari Kolon (Rav Yosef Kolon, d. 1480), Hacham Ovadia writes that one transgresses the prohibition of "Hukot Ha'akum" only if he does something with the specific intention of imitating gentile practices and resembling a non-Jew. If a person decides to leave his head uncovered in the interest of comfort, this does not violate the prohibition. Nevertheless, in a famous responsum in Yehaveh Da'at, Hacham Ovadia writes that nowadays, one is required to wear a Kippa, for a different reason – because this has become the "badge" or symbol of an observant Jewish man. By wearing a Kippa, one identifies himself as a member of the population of G-d-fearing Jews. Conversely, one who chooses not to wear a Kippa presents himself as being non-observant, thereby inviting suspicion, and for this reason, wearing a Kippa has today become an obligation. It seems, however, that this applies only in Israel, where the decision of whether or not to cover one's head is the clear marker of one's self-identification as religious or secular. Here in the United States, however, at least in some communities, this is not the case, and it is known that not all observant Jews ensure to keep their heads covered at all times. Therefore, while it is certainly preferred and advisable to wear a Kippa – and where a person fears antisemitism, he can wear a cap instead of, or over, his Kippa – one who wishes to leave his head uncovered has a basis on which to rely. (Indeed, in the school where I work, I advise the members of the basketball team to leave their Kippot off during games, because the Kippa would interfere with their playing; since the Kippa is not required as a strict obligation, it may certainly be removed for this purpose.) Nevertheless, wearing a Kippa when eating, praying, reciting Berachot and learning Torah is strictly required. Of course, one must wear a Kippa in the synagogue. In the presence of a Rabbi, it is proper to wear a Kippa in the interest of Derech Eretz (common courtesy). When a person wishes to fulfill the requirement of a Beracha by listening to its recitation by somebody else, he must wear a Kippa even though he remains silent, because he is considered as actually reciting the Beracha by listening to his fellow.
The Gemara cites two conflicting statements of Rav regarding a hanging limb of an animal. In one statement, Rav rules that eating this limb incurs lashes, while in the other, he rules it does not. Rav Yosef resolves this contradiction: if the animal dies naturally, death causes legal detachment (oseh nipul), retroactively defining the hanging limb as ever min hachai (a limb from a living animal) which incurs lashes for one who eats it. Conversely, if the animal is slaughtered, slaughter does not cause legal detachment (eino oseh nipul), meaning the limb is not treated as a separate forbidden entity and the eater does not receive lashes. Rava brings a biblical source for this differentiation between death and slaughter, and the Gemara raises two difficulties against his proof but resolves them both. Rav Chisda and Rabba dispute whether the debate between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis - regarding whether slaughter causes legal detachment for an emerged fetal limb - applies only when the fetus is alive, or even when the fetus is dead. Rav Chisda holds that when the fetus is dead, the emerged limb is definitely considered detached and carries impurity. In the course of a back-and-forth argument between the Rabbis and Rabbi Meir in the Mishna, it was mentioned that slaughtering would not remove impurity from an eight-month fetus, as it is not viable, and there is no type of eight-month fetus that can be validly slaughtered. However, a braita states that there are eight-month fetuses that can be permitted by slaughter. Rav Kahana reconciles this by differentiating between slaughtering the fetus itself and permitting the animal via its mother's slaughter (ben pekua). Rav Hoshaya inquires whether a live nine-month-old fetus can be validly slaughtered while still in utero. This question is evaluated under the views of both Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis. Rav Chananya attempts to resolve this inquiry from a braita, but his answer is ultimately rejected by Rava. The Mishna introduces a dispute regarding the laws of ben pekua and whether they apply to a fully formed, nine-month-old fetus found inside its slaughtered mother. Rabbi Meir rules that the laws of ben pekua do not apply here, and the fetus requires its own independent slaughter. Conversely, the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri hold that as long as the fetus is still inside the womb, it is covered by the laws of ben pekua and is permitted by the slaughter of the mother. Operating under the Rabbis' position, Rabbi Eleazar states in the name of Rabbi Oshaya that the mother's slaughter only covers the animal born from this womb regarding the laws of eating. In other halakhot, this animal is considered a distinct entity and standard animal laws apply to it. The Gemara presents two versions of what Rabbi Oshaya's statement was coming to exclude: the first version suggests it excludes the animal's fat, sciatic nerve, and blood from the mother's exemption, while the second version suggests it excludes using the animal for work or illicit cross-breeding. The first version is ultimately rejected based on other sources, leaving the second version as the preferred explanation. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about whether the blood of a ben pekua (a nine-month fetus) is permitted as well. Rabbi Yochanan raises one difficulty against Reish Lakish's position, which the Gemara subsequently resolves. According to the position of the Rabbis, a question is asked whether one can redeem a firstborn donkey with a ben pekua. Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi disagree. A second question is asked whether a ben pekua that is still in utero can be considered a separate unit for the laws of ritual impurity. This is a dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish, and each one raises a difficulty against the other's position.
The Mishna explains at what stage a delivery is considered a birth (even for a stillborn animal) to determine whether it exempts subsequent offspring from firstborn status, particularly in the case of a difficult birth where the fetus is extracted in pieces. Rav Huna and Raba disagree regarding when the majority of the animal emerges: does the sanctity of the firstborn apply retroactively or only from that moment onward? The Gemara presents two cases demonstrating the practical ramifications of this dispute. A difficulty is raised against Rav Huna's position from our Mishna, but it is ultimately resolved through a reinterpretation of the Mishna. A series of unanswered questions are then raised regarding whether a newborn is considered a firstborn if there is some type of chatzitza (interposition) between the fetus and the womb. The Mishna explains that touching a dead fetus while it is in utero does not convey the impurity of a carcass. However, the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosi haGelili debate whether this exemption applies to all animals - both kosher and non-kosher- or only to kosher animals, and the Gemara presents explanations for each position.
Rabbi Akiba's Tears Parashat Matot begins with a number of laws regarding vows, including the authority given to a husband to annul certain vows taken by his wife. The Torah states that in such a case, when a wife takes a vow and the husband declares its annulment, "V'Hashem Yislah Lah" – G-d will forgive the woman (30:13). The Sages understood this verse as referring to a situation where the wife did not know that her husband annulled the vow, and nevertheless proceeded to violate it. For example, the wife declared herself a Nezira, committing to abstain from wine, and she later decided to drink wine despite her vow. As it turned out, she committed no transgression by drinking wine, because her husband annulled her vow of Nezirut. Nevertheless, she requires G-d's forgiveness since she intended to violate the vow. The Gemara (Kiddushin 81b) tells that Rabbi Akiba would weep each time he read this verse. He was overcome by emotion upon seeing that even a person who did not commit a sin requires atonement if he intended to commit a sin. If even such an act – which was actually permissible – requires atonement, then how much more so is a person held accountable when he commits an act that is truly forbidden. A deep explanation for Rabbi Akiva's tears emerges from the teachings of Rav Shimshon of Ostropoli (1600-1648). Ashkenazic communities have the custom of including in the Kinnot on Tisha B'Ab a lament for the Asara Harugeh Malchut – the ten great sages who were murdered by the Romans. The Roman emperor learned the law in the Torah that kidnapping a person and then selling him as a slave is a capital offense, punishable by death. He thus decreed that ten great sages must be murdered to atone for the sin of Mechirat Yosef – when Yosef's brothers committed this exact crime, selling their brother as a slave. Since this crime was committed by Yosef's ten brothers, ten sages were brutally murdered to atone for this misdeed. In truth, only nine of Yosef's brothers participated in his sale as a slave. Binyamin, the youngest, was home and thus not present at the time of the sale, and Reuben tried to rescue Yosef. Thus, this crime was committed by only nine brothers. Rav Shimshon of Ostropoli cites the Arizal as teaching that the Almighty Himself, as it were, was the tenth participant. He decreed that this should happen, and He thus "completed the Minyan," so-to-speak, joining Yosef's brothers in selling him as a slave to Egypt. Now the Kabbalists have identified the specific correspondence between the Asara Harugeh Malchut and the brothers who sold Yosef – meaning, which of the ten great sages corresponds to which of Yosef's brothers. For example, one of these sages was Rabbi Huspit Ha'meturgeman – a great Rabbi who was blessed with a loud, clear voice, and thus worked as the "broadcaster" who would help the Rabbis deliver their lectures. He corresponds to Naftali, who is described as "Ha'noten Imreh Shafer" (49:21) – the speaker of beautiful words. Rav Shimshon of Ostropoli taught that Rabbi Akiba, who was among the ten sages murdered by the Romans, corresponded to G-d, the tenth "participant" in Mechirat Yosef. This is because Rabbi Akiba taught that the Torah's command to fear Hashem extends also to Torah scholars – meaning, just as one is obligated to fear Hashem, so must one show reverence to the sages. As Rabbi Akiba equated, in a sense, Torah scholars with the Almighty, he was chosen to "represent" G-d as one of the Asara Harugeh Malchut. We can now return to Rabbi Akiba's weeping upon reading the verse in Parashat Matot, "V'Hashem Yislah Lah." Rabbi Akiba knew that he represented G-d as the tenth participant in Mechirat Yosef. However, he felt comforted by Yosef's own words many years later, when he explained to his brothers that he felt no resentment toward them for what they did: "Ve'atam Hashabtem Alai Ra'a, Elokim Hashabah Le'Toba" – "You plotted evil against me, but G-d plotted for the good" (50:20). Although the brothers intended to inflict harm, their actions actually brought great blessing and good fortune, as Yosef ended up saving Egypt and the entire ancient world by predicting the seven years of famine and ordering the storage of grain during the preceding years of surplus. Rabbi Akiba thus figured that he – as a representative of Yosef's brothers – would not be held accountable for the sin of Mechirat Yosef, because it in truth turned out to be a blessing, and not a sin. However, when Rabbi Akiva read the verse "V'Hashem Yislah Lah," he wept. He then realized that even if a person's actions ended up being permissible, nevertheless, he requires atonement if he had intended to act wrongly. Rabbi Akiba thus understood that the time would come when an accounting would be made for the sin of Mechirat Yosef. As we approach the observance of Tisha B'Ab, let us all work together to rectify the sin of Mechirat Yosef by striving to be kinder, more compassionate and more forgiving. If Yosef's brothers brought calamity upon future generations through their efforts to harm Yosef, let us correct this mistake by redoubling our efforts to help and bring joy to all our brothers and sisters, even those with whom we have disagreements, and we will then be worthy of our final redemption, Amen.
The Mishna explains at what stage a delivery is considered a birth (even for a stillborn animal) to determine whether it exempts subsequent offspring from firstborn status, particularly in the case of a difficult birth where the fetus is extracted in pieces. Rav Huna and Raba disagree regarding when the majority of the animal emerges: does the sanctity of the firstborn apply retroactively or only from that moment onward? The Gemara presents two cases demonstrating the practical ramifications of this dispute. A difficulty is raised against Rav Huna's position from our Mishna, but it is ultimately resolved through a reinterpretation of the Mishna. A series of unanswered questions are then raised regarding whether a newborn is considered a firstborn if there is some type of chatzitza (interposition) between the fetus and the womb. The Mishna explains that touching a dead fetus while it is in utero does not convey the impurity of a carcass. However, the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosi haGelili debate whether this exemption applies to all animals - both kosher and non-kosher- or only to kosher animals, and the Gemara presents explanations for each position.
A Letter to Rabbis About the Ongoing Security Threat of Abortion in Israel https://jewishprolifefoundation.org/pro-life-blog/a-letter-to-rabbis-about-the-ongoing-security-threat-of-abortion-in-israel מכתב לרבנים בנוגע לאיום הביטחוני הדחוף של הפלות בישראל https://jewishprolifefoundation.co.il/%d7%9b%d7%aa%d7%91-%d7%9c%d7%a8%d7%91%d7%a0%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%91%d7%a0%d7%95%d7%92%d7%a2-%d7%9c%d7%90%d7%99%d7%95%d7%9d-%d7%94%d7%91%d7%99%d7%98%d7%97%d7%95%d7%a0%d7%99-%d7%a9%d7%9c-%d7%94%d7%a4%d7%9c/ Dina Kraft. Hadassah Magazine. May 2022. Abortion in Israel: Relatively Easy to Get, Hard to Discuss Steven Ertelt. LifeNews. May 23, 2013. Expert Tells Congress Unborn Babies Can Feel Pain Starting at 8 Weeks Rabbi J David Bleich. Contemporary Halakhic Problems. Vol I Part II. Chapter XV, Sefaria. Basis of the Prohibition Live Action. July 31, 2019. The Pro-Life Reply to: "Is Abortion Ever Medically Necessary?" Myles Kantor. Daily Caller. July 18, 2018. Ben Shapiro, Judaism And The Unborn: Which Stance Is The Right Stance? Vayikra (Leviticus) - Chapter 18. Chabad.org 1 Kings 11-14. Complete Jewish Bible. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Kings 11-14&version=CJB 2 Kings 17. Complete Jewish Bible. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%2017&version=CJB 2 Kings 24 - 25. Complete Jewish Bible. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%2017&version=CJB Devarim (Deuteronomy) - Chapter 28. Chabad.org Live Action. July 31, 2019. The Pro-Life Reply to: "Is Abortion Ever Medically Necessary?" Carole Novielli. LifeNews. Feb 3, 2014. Company That Made Zyklon B for Nazi Holocaust Made RU 486 for Abortions Abortion Pill Reversal. Abortion Pill Reversal Jim Geraghty. National Review. November 8, 2023. Israel, Gaza, and Abortion Emily Rose. APNews. June 27, 2022. Israel loosens abortion regulations in response to Roe Dina Kraft. Hadassah Magazine. May 2022. Abortion in Israel: Relatively Easy to Get, Hard to Discuss Mary Kekatos. ABC News, Oct 7, 2025. The Israel-Hamas war's devastating human toll after 2 years, by the numbers Cecily Routman. Jewish Pro-Life Foundation. October 2024. Public and Private Baby Killing Centers in Israel Prof. Benjamin Reubinoff, M.D., Ph.D. Hadassah University Medical Center. One-step beyond – Embryonic stem cells for drug discovery and treatment of degenerative diseases Abigail Klein Leichman. Israel21c. January 13, 2025. Breakthrough Prenatal Test Detects 250 Diseasesa at 9 Weeks Anne Buche. Top Class Actions. July 21, 2025. Natera agrees to a $8.5M settlement to end class action Shany Littman. Jewish Deaf Communications Center. July 15, 2019. The Abortion Conundrum: How Far Israelis Go to Make Sure Their Babies Are Born Perfect Charlotte Lozier Institute. August 23, 2023. Fact Sheet: Risks and Complications of Chemical Abortion Support After Abortion. April 2023. Study Shows Long-Term Negative Impact of Abortion on Men Jewish Pro-Life Foundation. Tikvat Rachel: Rachel's hope for all her children, born and unborn At the Jewish Pro-Life Foundation, we're making the original pro-life religion pro-life again! News, education, enlightenment and spiritual renewal. Saving Jewish Lives & Healing Jewish Hearts by providing the Jewish community with Pro-Life Education, Pregnancy Care and Adoption Referrals, and Healing After Abortion. To learn more visit https://jewishprolifefoundation.org/ Banned 3.18.26. No longer Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JewishProLifeFoundation/ Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/JewishProLife Follow us on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCk8B3l4KxJX4T9l8F5l-wkQ Follow us on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@jewishprolife Follow us on MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/cecilyroutman Follow us on Gab: https://gab.com/JewishProLife Follow us on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/cecily-routman-3085ab140/ Banned 3.18.26. No longer Follow us on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/cecilyroutman/ Follow us on Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/prolifececily Follow us on Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/JewishProLifeFoundation Follow us on TruthSocial: https://truthsocial.com/@prolifececily Follow us on Telegram: https://t.me/JewishProLife Follow us on Podcasts: https://jewishprolife.libsyn.com/ Donate: https://jewishprolifefoundation.org/donate In Israel: https://jewishprolifefoundation.co.il The Jewish Pro-Life Foundation is an IRS approved 501(c)3 non-profit educational public charity. We are committed to Torah and Jewish Tradition. We are not affiliated with any particular Jewish denomination, political organization or any other religious organization or movement.
3 Days of Emuna - Why Do I Have to Listen to the Rabbis? - Rabbi Wolfe by Shapell's Rabbeim
Parshas Pinchas: Stop the Plague of Abortion For God's Sake! https://jewishprolifefoundation.org/pro-life-blog/parshas-pinchas-stop-the-plague-of-abortion-for-god-s-sake !פרשת פנחס:עצרו את מכת ההפלות למען השם https://jewishprolifefoundation.co.il/%d7%a4%d7%a8%d7%a9%d7%aa-%d7%a4%d7%a0%d7%97%d7%a1-%d7%a2%d7%a6%d7%a8%d7%95-%d7%90%d7%aa-%d7%9e%d7%9b%d7%aa-%d7%94%d7%94%d7%a4%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%9c%d7%9e%d7%a2%d7%9f-%d7%94%d7%a9%d7%9d/ Tikvat Rachel Healing Program https://jewishprolifefoundation.org/healing-after-abortion Today, the plague of abortion ravages nations across the globe English letter to Rabbis English letter to Members of Knesset English letter to Community Leaders Hebrew letter to Rabbis on our Israel website blog Hebrew letter to Member of Knesset on our Israel website blog Hebrew letter to Community Leaders on our Israel website blog At the Jewish Pro-Life Foundation, we're making the original pro-life religion pro-life again! News, education, enlightenment and spiritual renewal. Saving Jewish Lives & Healing Jewish Hearts by providing the Jewish community with Pro-Life Education, Pregnancy Care and Adoption Referrals, and Healing After Abortion. To learn more visit https://jewishprolifefoundation.org/ Banned 3.18.26. No longer Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JewishProLifeFoundation/ Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/JewishProLife Follow us on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCk8B3l4KxJX4T9l8F5l-wkQ Follow us on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@jewishprolife Follow us on MeWe: https://mewe.com/i/cecilyroutman Follow us on Gab: https://gab.com/JewishProLife Follow us on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/cecily-routman-3085ab140/ Banned 3.18.26. No longer Follow us on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/cecilyroutman/ Follow us on Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/prolifececily Follow us on Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/JewishProLifeFoundation Follow us on TruthSocial: https://truthsocial.com/@prolifececily Follow us on Telegram: https://t.me/JewishProLife Follow us on Podcasts: https://jewishprolife.libsyn.com/ Donate: https://jewishprolifefoundation.org/donate In Israel: https://jewishprolifefoundation.co.il The Jewish Pro-Life Foundation is an IRS approved 501(c)3 non-profit educational public charity. We are committed to Torah and Jewish Tradition. We are not affiliated with any particular Jewish denomination, political organization or any other religious organization or movement.
The SilentWar Ep6472: Bloodskies, Rabbis Brag @ ChildStealing, Ritual Sacrifice, War100% audience funded, independent, and powered by your donations & purchases at RedPillLiving.com, Home of Sleepy Joe - the world's most powerful all natural sleep formula.If you appreciate the work we do and wish to support us, you can donate here >> https://www.nemosnewsnetwork.com/donateBitchute – Where We Don't Have To Watch Our Mouths!Click Here For Exclusive Deal and Remove all ads and secure your privacy!https://www.bitchute.com/affiliate/dustinnemosCarbonShield60 Oil Infusions 15% OFFGo to >> https://www.redpillliving.com/NEMOSCoupon Code: NEMOS(Coupon code good for one time use)✅ https://NemosNewsNetwork.com/sponsorsIf you wish to support our work by donating - Bitcoin Accepted.✅ https://NemosNewsNetwork.com/Donate———————————————————————FALL ASLEEP FAST - Stay Asleep Longer... Without Negative Side Effects.✅ https://redpillliving.com/sleep———————————————————————For breaking news from one of the most over the target and censored names in the world join our 100% Free newsletter at https://NemosNewsNetwork.com/news———————————————————————Follow on Truth Socialhttps://truthsocial.com/@REALDUSTINNEMOSAlso follow us at Gabhttps://gab.com/nemosnewsnetworkJoin our Telegram chat: https://NemosNewsNetwork.com/chat———————————————————————
Although pesak is not decided solely on scientific criteria especially when these contradict chazal in the Talmud, nevertheless the Gemara shows great respect for scientific expertise and at times uses it for the purpose of input into halachik decisions.Source Sheet
The Rebbe expresses surprise and disappointment that the recipient did not share his letter with the rabbis at their gathering, especially when asked. He discusses the importance of seizing opportunities, clarifies protocol for official correspondence, and encourages continued outreach. https://www.torahrecordings.com/rebbe/igroskodesh/012/006/4158
Support the show
In this episode, Dr. Baron sits down with Rabbi Daniel Fellman, Senior Rabbi of Temple Sinai in Pittsburgh, to discuss his deeply personal experience with loss and fertility challenges. Recorded live in Pittsburgh, this raw and honest conversation explores the unique intersection of communal religious leadership and private grief. Rabbi Fellman shares the story of his and his wife Melissa's fertility journey, navigating a polycystic ovarian syndrome diagnosis, and the heartbreaking loss of one of their fraternal twins at 22 weeks. He describes the painful medical and halakhic choices they faced, the profound "black hole" in Jewish law regarding early infant loss, and how they ultimately managed to save their surviving son, Zach, through an emergency cervical cerclage. The conversation explores the heavy burden of compartmentalizing personal trauma while serving a congregation through their own seasons of grief and joy. Rabbi Fellman opens up about his private moments of wrestling and "rebelling" against God, his family's subsequent experiences with a second trimester miscarriage and raising a child with special needs, and how these collective scars have shaped his life. If you are trying to understand how to hold faith alongside profound loss, or navigating the complicated emotions of pregnancy after loss, this episode is for you. About Rabbi Fellman: Rabbi Daniel J. Fellman, a native of Omaha, Nebraska, serves as the Senior Rabbi of Temple Sinai. Before joining Temple Sinai in 2021, Rabbi Fellman served as Rabbi at Temple Concord in Syracuse, New York, for 12 years and as Assistant and Associate Rabbi at Ashe Emeth Memorial Temple in New Brunswick, New Jersey, for four years. Rabbi Fellman earned his Master's Degree in Hebrew Letters in 2004 and was ordained by the Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion in 2005. His thesis, "An American Friendship: Harry Truman, Eddie Jacobson and the Establishment of the State of Israel," explored the extraordinary friendship of two Americans and the role that relationship played in America's early support for Israel. Rabbi Fellman is a 1996 graduate of Colorado College, where he earned his BA in Political Science and earned the Abel Greg and Lucy Finney Award for religious leadership on campus. In addition to his congregational duties, Rabbi Fellman was named one of the "40 under 40" in Syracuse, served as the chair of the Roundtable of Faith Leaders, and received the Interfaith Leadership Award for his work building civil society. Rabbi Fellman was a Clal Rabbis Without Borders Fellow and is currently a fellow with the Institute for Jewish Spirituality. Rabbi Fellman served as the Jewish Chaplain at Syracuse University for two years, and spent three years as an adjunct instructor at the State University of New York at Cortland where he taught Jewish studies. He resuscitated the Syracuse Board of Rabbis and was an active presence in Jewish community building. He is an Eagle Scout, and was a founder of the Hillel at Colorado College. Rabbi Fellman and his wife Melissa are the parents of three children—Zachary, Jacob, and Elizabeth Connect with Rabbi Daniel Fellman : Email Website Instagram Connect with us: Website Instagram - send us a message YouTube Facebook TikTok LinkedIn
In this episode of the IN-Jewish History Podcast, we speak with Rabbi Michael A. Davis, who has strong roots in Indiana. His grandfather, Rabbi Abraham Cronbach, was born in Indianapolis, and his father, Maurice Davis, served as the Rabbi of the Indianapolis Hebrew Congregation, where Rabbi Michael grew up. Starting in 1995, Rabbi Michael became the spiritual leader of Congregation Emanu-El. As a proud third-generation Reform rabbi, he obtained his rabbinic ordination from the Academy for Jewish Religion in New York, a post-denominational rabbinical seminary. Additionally, he pursued graduate rabbinic studies at the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute and completed his undergraduate studies at Indiana University.
Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour
As part of the Korbanot section of the morning prayer service, we read the Mishnayot of the fifth chapter of Masechet Zebahim – the chapter of Ezehu Mekoman. This chapter goes through all the various sacrifices that were offered in the Bet Ha'mikdash, and concisely tells us the procedure required for each sacrifice. One reason we read this chapter is so that through our reading, we will be considered as though we actually brought the sacrifices and receive atonement. But additionally, we read this chapter as a fixed daily regimen of Torah learning. By incorporating this reading into our daily prayer, we ensure to learn Mishnayot each day. However, if this is the reason for reciting these Mishnayot, then we must understand what we read. Reading Mishna, or Gemara, without understanding the meaning of the text has no value. When it comes to prayer, although we are of course encouraged and urged to try to pray with Kavana (concentration), our Rabbis taught that there is value to our prayers even without understanding the words. If a person prays with sincere feelings and emotions, then his prayers are accepted regardless of he actually understands the words. But this does not apply to Torah learning. If a person reads a Torah text without understanding what he read, he is not credited with the Misva of Torah study. (The exception is the reading of the Zohar, which has value even if one does not understand what he reads.) Therefore, in order for our daily reading of Ezehu Mekoman to have value and to be considered as Torah study, we must learn the text so we understand what we are saying. This point is made by Hacham Ovadia Yosef. Some add that we recite specifically this chapter each morning because of its unique characteristic – all the information is presented unanimously, without any disagreements. Throughout the Mishnayot we find Mahlokot – disagreements among the Tanna'im regarding the Halachot under discussion. In the chapter of Ezehu Mekoman, however, there are no disagreements. Every Halacha is unanimous, and not subject to debate. This makes this chapter special and worthy of our daily study. Furthermore, I heard many years ago from Rav Meir Mazuz (1945-2025) that this chapter consists of 345 words – the Gematria of the name "Moshe." This alludes to the fact that all the information presented in this chapter regarding the offering of the sacrifice was taught to Moshe at Mount Sinai.
Excuses, excuses: The Parable of the Banquet St. Luke 14:16-24 & Deuteronomy 20:1-9 by The Rev'd Dr. Matthew Colvin I am often asked about “application” in sermons. “I enjoy a good sermon,” someone will say, “but I need to have application so I know what to do with it.” Well, you will notice that neither Fr. Bill nor I, his understudy, do very much with “application.” The pulpit is not the place to give you “ten steps to a better marriage” or “key principles of childrearing” or “the blueprints to build a Christian business.” Rather, we are concerned with the Biblical story, and we want to apply you to it, so that you read the Bible as your story. When Paul says, “These things happened as examples for us, upon whom the ends of the ages have come,” he means that to follow Jesus, we need to understand ourselves as being part of the story of the people of God. That is why Hebrews 11 gives us the “hall of faith”; it is why Stephen's sermon in Acts 7 sums up the entire history of Israel; it is why, when Peter is telling Christian wives to respect their husbands, he calls them “daughters of Sarah.” We are consistently told to inscribe ourselves into the story of God's people Israel. There is nothing more practical. Indeed, if we do not get this right, no amount of “application” will work. Our lectionary for this morning pairs Deuteronomy's laws about exemption from military service with Jesus' parable of the banquet and the excuses made by those who were invited. It is, if we think about it, a very odd transposition, rather as though military language had found its way into a wedding or some similar occasion: “WILT thou have this Woman to thy wedded wife, to live together after God's ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honour, and keep her in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all others, keep thee only unto her, so long as ye both shall live?” “Yes, sir, corporal, SIR. Hoo-ah!” So what is going on here? To understand the parable, we need to think about the nature of banquets and the nature of the excuses. Let's start with the excuses. Verse 20's excuse, “I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come” is an allusion to Deuteronomy 24:5. That passage gives the grounds for the exemption of any newly married bridegroom from military service for a year: “that he may bring happiness to his wife whom he has taken.” There is here something of the logic of the law against boiling a kid in its mother's milk: in both cases, one must not mix up life and death, joy and sorrow. In verse 18, we should understand “I have bought a field and must go out and see it” to mean that the transaction needs to be complete. It is the “closing” of a real estate purchase, not an inspection at leisure that could just as easily be postponed for another day. Legally, socially, this is a very good excuse. Verse 19's excuse about needing to test “five yoke of oxen” recalls the calling of Elisha by Elijah in 1 Kings 19:19. There, Elisha is actually in the middle of plowing when Elijah throws his mantle over him: “Tag, you're it!” This is an act of sudden investiture. Elisha responds to it with alacrity: “he left the oxen and ran after Elijah” and said, “Please let me kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow you.” The excuses are such powerful ones that they actually have statutory warrant in Biblical law. Legally, socially, by all the etiquette of ancient Israel, these excuses are golden, unimpeachable, valid. But in the parable, they are not good excuses in the eyes of the host. Who is he? He is introduced as ἄνθρωπός τις, “a certain man.” Immediately, we recall other parables: “A certain man planted a vineyard, leased it to vinedressers, and went in a far country for a long time.” (Mt 21:33) “A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it, and found none.” (Lk. 13:6) “A certain man had two sons.” (Lk. 15:11) “A certain rich man had a steward, and an accusation was brought to him that this man was wasting his goods.” (Lk. 16:1) There are other instances where “a certain man” is someone else, but this is a pretty good sample of instances where “a certain man” is instantly known to stand for God. The parable, then, shows us God's response to the excuse-makers. Note that the “certain man” operates through servants. God is frequently depicted this way, sending his angels and human prophets to do his bidding and deliver his messages. God's reaction to the refusal of his invitations is anger (ὀργισθείς). This requires some explanation. In Matthew's gospel, the banquet is a wedding feast for a king's son, and the invited guests behave much like the wicked vinedressers: they “lay hold of his servants and treat them violently and kill them.” But Luke's version has a different emphasis. It is less allegorized and is designed rather to highlight the reversal of fortune and the approaching deadline. “Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the city and bring here the poor and crippled and blind and lame.” — all of them likely to be beggars, likely to smell bad, likely to be shabbily dressed. Precisely the sort of unsightly people one does not want at a banquet, any sort of banquet. They would never have been invited had not the originally invited guests refused. Just as Esau rejected his birthright and Jacob received it; just as the majority of the Jews rejected the Messiah so that the gospel might be preached to the gentiles, so here, as Paul puts it in 1 Corinthians 1:28, “God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no flesh might boast in the presence of God.” This is someting God did in history. Unlike every other religion on earth, the Bible makes public claims about events that took place at particular times: “In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against the fortified cities of Judah and took them.” “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria.” Or even in our Nicene Creed, where week after week, we make mention of the name of a corrupt Roman official named Pontius Pilate. Contrast the claims of other religions: that Mohammad was out there in the desert and an angel appeared to him and dictated the Quran. That Joseph Smith was guided by an angel named Moroni and found gold plates inscribed with “Reformed Hieroglyphics” which he translated into King James English. That Siddartha Gautama was meditating under a fig tree and became enlightened. The Mary Baker Eddy or L. Ron Hubbard or some other guru has discovered the secrets of the universe. Even in antiquity, the Stoic sage or Epicurus or the philosopher in Plato's Republic is never about history. It is always private revelation or special understanding of timeless truths or the realm of forms or deep insight into nature. By contrast, the assumption of Jesus' parables is that God deals with Israel in time. The invitation to the banquet and the host's angry reaction to the invited guests refusal, and the verdict at the end of the story that “none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet” — all presuppose that Israel is facing a decisive crisis in its history. The invitation to the banquet is the gospel summons to follow the Messiah — and this is appropriate, since Jesus is so frequently shown feasting during his earthly ministry. He feasts so much that he incurs the charge of being a glutton and a winebibber. Everywhere he goes, he feasts. He feasts in the house of the Pharisee named Simon; in the house of a tax collector named Zacchaeus; at a wedding at Cana; in company with immoral women, and with “tax collectors and sinners.” This was unusual even by Jewish standards, so that some come to Jesus and ask him, “The Pharisees and the disciples of John fast a lot, but your disciples do not fast.” Jesus explains that the disciples of Jesus do not fast because the bridegroom is with them. What is the appropriate response to the invitation? What do etiquette and emotional rightness and social expectation dictate? Jesus' words about John's ministry and the Jews' reaction to it, in Luke 7:32, are couched in similar terms: “We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; We mourned to you, and you did not weep.” The refusal to recognize Jesus as the one Israel has been waiting for is like the refusal of the invitation to the feast. It is a rejection of the good ending of the story, a refusal to take part in the consummation. It is as if all the actors walked off the stage of a Shakespeare play after act 4. There are times when we want to describe a process has failed to produce its intended fulfillment and consummation — say, when I am talking to my Greek students who are struggling with Greek grammar and vocabulary. If they never go on to actually read Greek literature, I say it is like “a courtship without a marriage.” This is not about timeless truths or Buddhist spiritual enlightenment. A marriage is a historical event. That is the language that God uses about his relationship with his people. The coming of Jesus is the climax of Israel's story. And to everyone, the invitation poses the stark alternative: either enter into the banquet, or be excluded. Remember the older brother of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15: Now his older son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. And he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound.' But he was angry and refused to go in•. (Luke 15:25–28, ESV) Or we may recall the words of Jesus after he has healed the centurion's servant in Matthew 8:11: I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. (Matthew 8:11–12, ESV) Or there is the parable of the wise and foolish virgins in Matthew 25: And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding; and the door was shut. 11 “Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, ‘Lord, Lord, open to us!' 12 But he answered and said, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, I do not know you.' (Matthew 25:10–12) Or we may remember what C.S. Lewis calls the “unforgettable words” in John's gospel's account of the Last Supper, once Jesus has handed the sop to Judas and told him, “What you are going to do, do quickly”: So, after receiving the morsel of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night. (John 13:30, ESV) It was night. Judas is literally in the outer darkness. To be excluded from the banquet, to be shut out in the darkness, away from the light and joy of the wedding or the feast or the Passover meal, is all the more tragic in light of the fact that those who are excluded are the very ones who had been invited. Jesus “came to his own, and his own did not receive him.” The result is a crucial difference between Judaism and Christianity over the place of Jesus in the story of the people of God. Can you be a Jew and believe in Jesus? It is a silly question. All the original disciples were Jews. As Peter says, “The promise is to you and to your children” and “You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.' (Acts 3:25, ESV) But can you follow Rabbinic Judaism and believe that Jesus is the Messiah? That is a different question. The Church places Jesus at the hinge of history, dating our years with the words “Anno Domini” from his first coming and looking forward to his second coming, when he will judge the quick and the dead. Judaism, by contrast, denies that Jesus is the Messiah, and insists that all the passages of Scripture that point to him — the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, Joseph and his brothers, the suffering servant in Isaiah, “behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”, Zechariah's “behold your king comes to you, meek and having compassion, lowly and riding on a donkey,” David's beloved son Absalom suspended from a tree and pierced by a spear, and all the rest — are really not about him. Christians say, with Paul, “Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; therefore, let us keep the feast.” In saying this, we are saying that Christ is the climax of the story. It is the natural function of feasting to mark consummations. Weddings, coronations, graduation, retirements, anniversaries, birthdays — all are marked by parties, cakes, feasting, toasts, ceremony. And that is the difference between Christianity and Judaism: Has the story of Israel reached its climax? Has the bridegroom come? Does history now stand revealed as His story? Or are we, with the Rabbis, in the position of insisting that the messiah has not come, and that the Passover does not point to him. God had promised Moses that “I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him.” (Deuteronomy 18:18–19, NKJV) And the rabbis say, “Jesus is certainly not the prophet like Moses, but unfortunately he is so much like Moses that we had better delete Moses from the Passover liturgy, lest Christians start using the haggadah to persuade Jews to follow Jesus.” And that is what they have done. David Daube says, “…[T]he figure of Moses, dominating the Biblical narrative of the exodus from Egypt and, naturally, at one time prominent, too, in the celebration of the deliverance on Passover eve, is radically eliminated: in the Passover eve liturgy as it stands, his name is not mentioned once in any of the prayers and recitals woven around the Biblical record, and, more than that, no Biblical passage mentioning it is quoted. It is a fantastic tour de force. Think what it means. It is as if one were to spend annually a night commemorating Britain's rescue in the Second World War, rehearsing the main course of events as well as telling elaborate stories about them — without once mentioning Churchill. A fantastic tour de force: but there must be no human Mediator. We are left with a religion full of pointers that were designed to lead us to Jesus as the climax of the covenant, but the rabbis insist that they do not; a religion of tabernacle and temple that are all about God dwelling with His people, but now that Jesus has come, and ascended and sent the Holy Spirit, complete with the sound of “a mighty rushing wind that filled the whole house where they sat” just like God moving into the temple of Solomon and the tabernacle of Moses — now, no, the rabbis say, it is not about Jesus. But then, Judaism no longer has a temple, and the entire system that God gave in the Torah does not work without the Temple. The emperor Constantine's grandson, Julian the Apostate, hated Christianity and decided he wanted to prove it false, and the way he decided to do it was by rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem that had been destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD, in fulfillment of Jesus' prophecies on the Mount of Olives. Julian died before he could do it. Again, Judaism is a religion whose Scriptures promised the forgiveness of sins, so that God's people could live with him, and that demonstrated, as though by a gigantic show and tell of continual slaughter of animals for centuries, of daily splashing of blood against the altar, of red heifers sacrificed every year on the day of atonement, that the forgiveness of sins would happen through blood. But now, the rabbis tell us, the death of Christ was not the fulfillment of the sacrificial system — and oh, by the way, you can't offer sacrifice anymore, anyway. There are still people named “Cohen” or “Cohn” — my mother in law's family, for instance — but they are more likely to be making movies than sacrificing animals. They continue to set out a cup for Elijah, that forerunner of the Messiah promised in Malachi. And Jesus says, “But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. (Matthew 17:12, NKJV) The church father, Athanasius of Alexandria puts it this way in his On the Incarnation: So the Jews are telling fables, and putting off the time which is actually now… They are suffering like one, maimed in mind, who might see the earth illumined by the sun, but denies the sun which illumines it. For what more has he who is expected by them to do when he comes? Call the Gentiles? But they have already been called. To make prophet and king and vision to cease? This has already happened. To refute the godlessness of idols? It has already been refuted and condemned. To destroy death? It is already destroyed. What then must christ do, which has not been done? Or what is left unfulfilled, that the Jews now rejoice and disbelieve? For if, as we see, they have neither king, nor prophet, nor Jerusalem, nor sacrifice, nor vision, but the whole world is filled with the knowledge of God, and those from the Gentiles are abandoning godlessness, and henceforth taking refuge in the God of Abraham through the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, it should be clear even to those who are exceedingly obstinate that Christ has come, and that he illumines absolutely all with his light and teaches the true and divine teaching concerning his Father. We are about to partake of Holy Communion, which is rightly understood as a continuation of Jesus' meals with his disciples, and an anticipation of the great wedding feast of the Lamb at which “many will come from east and west and recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” The Holy Communion is thus truly the consummation of the story of people of God. By partaking in it, we share in Christ our Passover. We have been crucified with Him, so that we may also share in his resurrection. We locate ourselves in the story of Israel, which is the story of the Messiah. And we recite the shape of the story and inscribe ourselves in it when we say, “Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ will come again.”
Episode Notes Niall McGowan of The BatMinute joins Rob as the patrol encounters something so cruel that they don't even know how to react.
On today's page, Chullin 35, the rabbis discuss the ritual status of the garments of an am ha'aretz—an ordinary person who is not meticulous about the laws of ritual purity. What begins as a technical legal discussion quickly opens onto a deeper question about the relationship between experts and everyone else. The daf preserves a surprisingly sharp tension between learned scholars and ordinary people, one that remains deeply familiar today. Can a society thrive without the constant push and pull between expertise and common sense? Listen and find out.
Madlik Podcast – Torah Thoughts on Judaism From a Post-Orthodox Jew
For thousands of years, who your father was determined your entire life—until the Torah decided to tear that system down to the ground. For most of us, the defining moments of Jewish history are obvious: the Exodus from Egypt and the Revelation at Sinai. But what if we've overlooked another revolution hiding in plain sight? Key Takeaways The Torah's hidden revolution was the attack on birthright. We tend to think of the Exodus as a liberation from slavery and Sinai as the birth of law. But running beneath the surface is another revolution: the dismantling of inherited privilege. 2. The Exodus story itself was reshaped to tell that story. The Torah repeatedly links the sanctification of the firstborn to the death of Egypt's firstborn. The result is that the Exodus becomes more than a story about freedom from Pharaoh. It becomes a polemic against the ideology that underpinned Egypt itself: hierarchy, inherited power, and entitlement. The plague of the firstborn is not only a punishment of Egypt. It becomes a theological statement that holiness and authority are not guaranteed by birth. 3. Judaism ultimately replaced pedigree with character and learning. The transfer from firstborn to Levites was only one stage in a much longer process. The Rabbis completed the revolution: A Torah scholar can outrank a High Priest. The crown of a good name surpasses priesthood and kingship. Maimonides teaches that the holiness of Levi is available to anyone who dedicates themselves to God. The trajectory of Judaism is clear: Birth → Service → Learning Or, put differently: The Torah begins by challenging inherited privilege and ends by teaching that true authority comes not from who your father was, but from who you become. Timestamps 00:00] Torah's Hidden Revolution [01:23] Madlik Intro and Setup [02:23] Menorah, Rashi, and Levite Tension [04:55] Levites Replace Firstborn [09:17] Golden Calf Theory Questioned [11:59] Sponsor Break [13:00] Exodus Firstborn Laws Reframed [19:36] Counting Swap and Five Shekels [23:28] Mashup Theory and Firstborn Focus [27:55] From Birthright to Merit [31:55] Closing Blessings Links & Learnings Sign up for free and get more from our weekly newsletter https://madlik.com/ Sefaria Source Sheet: https://voices.sefaria.org/sheets/732770 Transcript here: https://madlik.substack.com/
Prime Minister Mark Carney chose to deliver his highly anticipated speech to Canadians about “the scourge of antisemitism” from inside a storied Toronto synagogue, Holy Blossom. It's a spot where, for weeks this spring, heavily armed police SWAT teams were dispatched so worshippers could feel safe. Carney's speech — which was broadcast live nationally — follows years of increased violent attacks on Jewish institutions, including fire bombs, gunshots, physical altercations and graffiti. Carney acknowledged that antisemitism has reached levels not seen since the Second World War and announced his government will assemble a new team of experts who will study the causes and drivers of antisemitism right away. The new ministerial advisory council has only one Jewish member out of the seven. Rabbis, advocacy leaders and community figures said they appreciated the prime minister's speech, but questioned why it took him so long, why he didn't deliver it in the House of Commons, and — most glaringly — why he never mentioned Israel, Zionism, Hamas, Oct. 7 or Iran. On today's episode of The CJN's North Star podcast, host Ellin Bessner reports from the event, and hears reaction from nearly a dozen community leaders: Rabbis Debra Landsberg, Sam Taylor and Joe Kanofsky; Noah Shack of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs; Simon Wolle of B'nai Brith Canada; Mark Sandler of the Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism; Rabbi Jen Gorman, the president of the Toronto Board of Rabbis; Rabbi Baruch Frydman-Kohl for the Canadian Rabbinic Caucus; and his successor at Beth Tzedec, Rabbi Steven Wernick; and from host Rabbi Yael Splansky, who taped a pointed message for Carney but couldn't attend due to a family emergency. Related links Read or Watch Prime Minister Mark Carney's speech on antisemitism, delivered at Holy Blossom Temple June 1, 2026. Discover The CJN's Mitchell Consky's report on Carney's speech and some reaction by Jewish leaders, in The CJN. Compare Carney's promises with the 22 recommendations made in the recent Senate report on antisemitism, in The CJN's North Star from April 2026. Credits Host and writer: Ellin Bessner ( @ebessner ) Production team: Zachary Kauffman (senior producer), Izzy Helenchilde (producer), Michael Fraiman (executive producer), Alicia Richler (editorial director) Music: Bret Higgins Support our showhttps://www.youtube.com/@TheCJN Subscribe to The CJN newsletter Donate to The CJN (+ get a charitable tax receipt) Subscribe to North Star (Not sure how? Click here ) Watch our podcasts on YouTube. Help others find this podcast by leaving us a review for “North Star” on Apple Podcasts via your iPhone or iPad device, or with your Android. (Spotify allows only starred ratings but you can do that, too!)
Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour
It is customary to sit during the recitation of the Korbanot – despite the fact that the Kohanim were required to stand while performing the service in the Bet Ha'mikdash. Some Poskim required one to stand during the recitation of the section of the Korbanot, since it is recited in lieu of the offering of the sacrifices, and the service in the Bet Ha'mikdash would be invalid if it was performed seated. Common practice, however, does not follow this opinion. It is documented that the great Rabbis of Jerusalem several generations ago would sit during this recitation. Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868), in his work Lev Haim, inferred from earlier sources that although it is accepted to sit during the recitation of Korbanot, it is commendable to stand. However, if everyone in the synagogue is seated, and the person would clearly stand out if he made a point of standing up, then he should not stand, as this would constitute Yuhara (a display of arrogance). If the person is widely recognized as an especially righteous individual, and it would be expected for him to follow Halachic stringencies, then he may stand. Likewise, if a person's standing would not necessarily be perceived as the observance of a stringency, then this would not constitute Yuhara and he may stand if he wishes. It goes without saying that if one prays privately, or after the congregation completed the public prayer service, and he wishes to follow this stringency, he certainly may.
This week, Bron had a pet rabbit who went missing and you'll never guess where they found her! Vance Joy Fan and Chinese-Australian journalist, Cheng Lei, joined us to discuss her new play, 1154 Days, about her time incarcerated by the Chinese government; Rachel Bettiens was in to review a time-travelling trad wife in Yesteryear by Caro Claire Burke; Friday Funnybugger Freddie Arthur described a very suggestive defecation; Dr Jen opened our eyes with Weird Science on sleep and we peeled back the rights and wrongs of leftovers. Website: https://www.rrr.org.au/explore/programs/breakfasters/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Breakfasters3RRRFM/Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/breakfasters/
Welcome to Day 2869 of Wisdom-Trek. Thank you for joining me. This is Guthrie Chamberlain, Your Guide to Wisdom. Day 2869 – “Where Are You in This Picture” based on Luke 8:1-21 Putnam Church Message – 04/26/2026 The Good News According to Luke: “Where Are You in This Picture?” Last week's message was: “The Love and Grace of Jesus.” We explored how Jesus's Love and Grace extend to those others reject. Today, we continue with our twentieth message from Luke's narrative of the Good News of Jesus Christ. Today's message is: “Where Are You in This Picture?” Our core passage today is Luke 8:1-21, which is found on page 1605 of your pew Bibles. The Parable of the Sower 8 After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, 2 and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; 3 Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod's household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means. 4 While a large crowd was gathering and people were coming to Jesus from town after town, he told this parable: 5 “A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path; it was trampled on, and the birds ate it up. 6 Some fell on rocky ground, and when it came up, the plants withered because they had no moisture. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up with it and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up and yielded a crop, a hundred times more than was sown.” When he said this, he called out, “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.” 9 His disciples asked him what this parable meant. 10 He said, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, “‘though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'[a] 11 “This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God. 12 Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. 13 Those on the rocky ground are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away. 14 The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life's worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature. 15 But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop. A Lamp on a Stand 16 “No one lights a lamp and hides it in a clay jar or puts it under a bed. Instead, they put it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light. 17 For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open. 18 Therefore, consider carefully how you listen. Whoever has / will be given more; / whoever does not have, / even what they think they have, / will be taken from them.” Jesus' Mother and Brothers 19 Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. 20 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.” 21 He replied, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice.” Opening Prayer Heavenly Father, thank You for the gift of Your Word. Thank You for the Gospel of Luke, which continues to show us the beauty, authority, compassion, and truth of Jesus. As we open this passage today, we ask You to open our hearts as well. Let the seed of Your Word fall on good soil within us. Remove what is hard, shallow, distracted, or resistant. Give us ears to hear, minds to understand, and hearts ready to obey. Lord, do more than inform us today—transform us. Show each of us where we are in this picture, and by Your grace, lead us into deeper faithfulness. In Jesus' name, amen. As we continue in this twentieth message in our journey through Luke's Gospel, we come to a passage that feels almost like a mirror. In recent weeks, Luke has shown us again and again who Jesus is. He has authority over sickness. He has authority over death. He has authority over sin. He receives the broken. He forgives the guilty. He welcomes the outsider. And after all of that, Luke now brings us to a very personal question: What are we doing with Jesus? Or to put it in the title of today's message: Where are you in this picture? Because Luke 8:1–21 is not merely information about other people long ago. It is a spiritual portrait gallery. Somewhere in this scene, we will find ourselves. Are we like the women who served Jesus with grateful devotion? Are we like the crowds who listen but do not really change? Are we like the shallow soil that sprouts quickly but wilts under pressure? Are we like the thorny soil, slowly choked by worry and worldly cares? Or are we becoming good soil—receiving the Word, holding fast to it, and bearing fruit with perseverance? That is the question. And it is such an important question because in this passage, Jesus teaches us that ministry success, spiritual growth, and genuine discipleship do not begin “out there” somewhere. They begin in here—in the heart. A Simple Object Lesson I have four pictures here today: One is of hard-packed dirt—soil that has been walked on until it is stiff and unyielding. / One is a thin layer of dirt over a rock. / one is soil mixed with weeds and thorny roots. And one is soft, rich, prepared soil. What will happen if I spread seed over each of these plots of land? The seed would be the same. / The Sower would be the same. / The difference would be the soil. / That is the heart of this passage. The great issue is not whether God's Word is powerful enough. It is. The great issue is not whether the gospel is true enough. It is. The question is: What kind of heart receives it? And that leads us to our first of four truths for today. Main Point 1: Genuine faith expresses itself in practical devotion. Luke begins this section by reminding us that Jesus was traveling from town to town proclaiming the Good News of the Kingdom of God. The Twelve were with Him, and so were a number of women—Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and many others—who supported His ministry out of their own means. That opening matters. Right before this, in Luke 7, we saw a sinful woman pouring out her love at Jesus' feet. Now Luke shows us more people whose faith is not merely emotional or theoretical—it is practical, visible, and costly. The disciples had left nets, boats, tax tables, and ordinary routines. These women were giving their resources, their loyalty, their time, and their reputations. That would have been striking in the first-century Jewish world. Rabbis were followed by disciples, yes—but Luke makes a point of mentioning women here, not as background decorations. They are active participants in Jesus' mission. Some had been healed, some delivered, some redeemed from brokenness. And now their gratitude has become service. Mary Magdalene had been set free from demonic bondage. Joanna lived in close proximity to political power through her husband's position at Herod's court. Susanna is largely unknown to us, but not to Jesus. That in itself is comforting. Some names are well-known in the story of God, and some are not. But obscurity does not mean insignificance. The Lord sees every quiet act of faithfulness. This has been one of Luke's major themes all along. The people who truly receive...
Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour
There is a time-honored tradition to remain awake throughout the night of Shabuot and read the special "Tikkun Lel Shabuot" text that is printed in the Mahzorim. Hacham Ben Sion Abba Shaul (Israel, 1924-1998), in his work Or Le'siyon (vol. 3, 18:11), discusses the importance of this custom and presents numerous laws and guidelines relevant to the proper observance of this special occasion (listen to audio clip for precise citation). First, he mentions that even learned men who prefer studying Gemara must set aside their Talmudic studies in order to read the text of the Tikkun Lel Shabuot. If time remains after they complete the Tikkun, they may then study other material that they find more enjoyable. In Yeshivot, Hacham Ben Sion writes, students should follow the instructions of their Rosh Yeshiva in this regard. He also emphasizes that one should read the Tikkun even if he does not understand some sections of the service. Even if one plans to remain awake throughout the night, he should nevertheless recite the Keri'at Shema Al Ha'mita before Hassot (midnight as defined by Halacha). Already after Hassot, one may recite all the morning Berachot, with the exception of "Al Netilat Yadayim" and Birkot Ha'Torah. One should make a point to use the bathroom at some point before morning in order to be able to recite "Asher Yasar." At the point in the pre-dawn hours when it is uncertain whether Alot Ha'shahar (daybreak, the first appearance of light in the eastern sky) has occurred, one should discontinue his Torah learning. He should instead either immerse in a Mikveh or sing songs of praise until Alot Ha'shahar. After Alot Ha'shahar, one should wash his hands in preparation for prayer, but without reciting a Beracha. He then must recite Birkat HaTorah. Hacham Ben Sion cites in this context a passage in the work Sha'ar Ha'kavanot, which comments that whoever remains awake and diligently involves himself in Torah study throughout this night is guaranteed to survive the entire next year and to avoid all harm. Nevertheless, one should make a point of studying "Li'shmah" – with the proper motivation, out of sincere love for and commitment to Torah learning, and not to receive reward. Hacham Ben Sion also warns that sitting idly or engaging in meaningless chatter is no better than sleeping. It is therefore imperative to ensure to spend the entire night engrossed in Torah learning, and not in any other activities. In particular, one must avoid idle conversation inside the synagogue. Hacham Ben Sion also cites a comment from the Zohar that emphasizes the importance of studying with joy and fervor, in reward for which one is blessed with seventy blessings. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) similarly stressed the importance of studying on this night with great enthusiasm and what he termed "purity of heart." Furthermore, on the festival of Shabuot God decrees how many "Hiddushim" (new insights) each individual will be privileged to develop during the coming year, which is determined based on the level of one's intensive study on Shabuot. Hacham Ben Sion writes that when we speak of Shabuot as "the day of the giving of the Torah," we refer not merely to the historical event of Matan Torah, but rather of the process that is renewed each year on this day. God grants a person on Shabuot the ability to think of new Torah insights, and one must therefore pray on Shabuot for Torah knowledge and the wisdom to understand to the best of his soul's capability, and also try to think of "Hiddushim" during his study on Shabuot. During the day of Shabuot, too, one should try to minimize his sleeping in order to spend as much time as possible involved in Torah learning. Every moment spent learning on Shabuot earns a person reward, and one must not squander this opportunity. In fact, there were great Rabbis who would not sleep at all on Shabuot; after remaining awake throughout the night, they would simply continue learning through the day of Shabuot. The Hid"a (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) likewise advises against indulging in sleep on the day of Shabuot. He also emphasizes that one must ensure not to fall asleep during the prayer service. Finally, one should also devote himself to Torah study with extra vigor and diligence during the "Sheloshet Yemeh Hagbala" – the three days of preparation prior to Shabuot. Just as in the wilderness Beneh Yisrael were instructed to abstain from relations and prepare themselves for three days prior to Matan Torah, so must we increase our efforts to learn Torah and minimize our physical indulgence during these three days. Hacham Ben Sion writes that the level of inspiration one receives from the experience of Shabuot depends on the amount of effort he exerted during the three previous days to prepare for this great experience.
In this week's episode, we take a deep look at who R Menashe of Iliya was referring to when he divided the Rabbis into three groups. Is the reference to Kabalists only mean the Chassidic Rabbis? Is there any reference to the students of the Vilna Gaon here? We continue to look at the content of the Pesher Davar. What makes understanding the content of this pamphlet difficult to grasp? How common was it in the 1700's for Rabbis to be aware and interested in the latest scientific literature? You can now help Rabbi Wittenstien create new and original content via our non profit 'The Jewish History and Tanach Foundation'. Your support and partnership is greatly appreciated. Zelle : jewishhistorytnchfoundation@gmail.com Credit Card : https://thechesedfund.com/thejewishhistoryandtanachfoundation/support-r-wittenstein-s-tanach-and-jewish-history-project The Jewish History and Tanach Foundation is a registered 501-3c. EIN : 33-485 5627 Donor's Fund account number: 2642025 Nach Yomi: Join R' Wittenstein's Nach Yomi on WhatsApp. We learn a perek a day five days a week, with a nine minute shiur covering the key issues. Click here to join! For tours, speaking engagements, or sponsorships contact us at jewishhistoryuncensored@gmail.com PRODUCED BY: CEDAR MEDIA STUDIOS
Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour
A verse in the Book of Hoshea (14:3) states, "U'neshalema Farim Sefatenu" – "We will compensate for the cows with our lips." This means that in the absence of the Bet Ha'mikdash, when we are unable to offer sacrifices ("cows"), we can attain atonement with our lips – by reciting the sections of the Torah that discuss the sacrifices, as through this recitation we are considered to have actually brought these sacrifices. The verse mentions cows, even though other animals were also offered as sacrifices. The Ibn Ezra (Spain, 1089-1167) suggests that since the cow is the biggest animal offered as a Korban, the verse specifies this animal, expressing the idea that even the large offerings can be substituted nowadays with our mouths. Others suggest that the reference to cows alludes to the sin of the golden calf, the grievous sin which our ancestors committed that requires atonement. Finally, there are those who explain that this refers to the situation where the entire nation inadvertently commits a severe misdeed based on a mistaken ruling of the Sanhedrin, a situation which requires the offering a cow for atonement ("Par He'alem Dabar Shel Sibur"). The point being made is that we have the opportunity to attain atonement even for grave sins despite the absence of the Bet Ha'mikdash, through the recitation of the sections of the Torah dealing with the sacrifices. A story told in Masechet Shabbat (12b) seems, at first glance, to contradict this concept. The Gemara there discusses the enactment legislated by the Sages that one may not read by candlelight on Shabbat, as he might tilt the lamp to move the oil toward the flame to make it steadier, which would constitute an act of Shabbat desecration. Rabbi Yishmael Ben Elisha felt confident that he would certainly not make the mistake of tilting the lamp, and so he read by the light of a candle on Shabbat. He ended up mistakenly tilting the lamp. After Shabbat, he wrote in his ledger that when the Bet Ha'mikdash would be rebuilt, he would bring an animal as a Hatat (sin-offering) to atone for this inadvertent violation. It seems that Rabbi Yishmael was not able to atone for this misdeed by reciting the section of the Hatat; he needed to actually bring the sacrifice in order to attain atonement. One explanation might be that reading the section of Korbanot (sacrifices) is effective if one never has the opportunity to actually offer the required sacrifice. But if a person has the privilege of living to see the rebuilding of the Bet Ha'mikdash, then he must offer the sacrifice even though he had recited the section in the Torah. By contrast, the Sapihit Bi'dbash (Rav Hiya Pontremoli, Turkey, 1764–1831), citing the Ma'abar Yabok , asserted that a sin committed during the time of the Bet Ha'mikdash is more grievous, and thus necessitates the actual offering of a sacrifice. After the Temple's destruction, sins lack the same level of gravity, and so they can be atoned even with the recitation of the Korbanot. However, this view appears irreconcilable with the Gemara's account of Rabbi Yishmael, who was obligated to bring a sacrifice for an offense committed after the Temple's destruction. Moreover, the Arizal writes that a person must fulfill all 613 Misvot, and so souls will need to be reincarnated and return after the Bet Ha'mikdash is rebuilt so they can fulfill the Misvot that require a Bet Ha'mikdash. This teaching, too, implies that reciting the Korbanot is not considered equivalent to the actual offering of the sacrifices. A more compelling approach was advanced by the Petah Ha'debir (Rav Haim Binyamin Pontremoli, Turkey, d. 1873), who distinguished between the atonement achieved through the offering of a sacrifice, and the Misva to offer the sacrifice. Reciting the verses that speak of a required sacrifice suffices to atone like that sacrifice, but it does not suffice to satisfy the halachic requirement to bring that sacrifice after committing a misdeed. Therefore, even though Rabbi Yishmael could earn atonement through the recitation of Korbanot, he still bore the obligation to offer a sacrifice when the Bet Ha'mikdash would be rebuilt. Likewise, the Arizal taught that one will have to return after the restoration of the Mikdash to fulfill the Misvot of the sacrifices that could not be fulfilled without a Temple, even though atonement can be achieved even in the absence of the Bet Ha'mikdash, through the reading of Korbanot. One might wonder, then, why we do not read each day the entirety of Parashat Vayikra, which goes through all the different sacrifices which an individual can bring and those which one must bring on certain occasions. If reading about a sacrifice earns a person atonement as though he actually brought the sacrifice, then it would seemingly be recommended to read this entire Parasha each day. Some explain that one attains atonement for his misdeeds through Torah study, and so it is not necessary to read the sections of all the sacrifices every day. Rabbenu Yona (Spain, 1200-1263) writes that when a person makes the decision to perform Teshuba (repentance), he should increase his amount of Torah learning; if he had been accustomed to learning one page a day, then he should learn two pages a day, and so on. This is because Torah study has the ability to erase guilt for one's misdeeds. This is why the blessing in Shemona Esreh in which we beseech G-d to help us repent begins, "Hashibenu Abinu Le'Toratecha" – "Return us, our Father, to Your Torah." As Torah learning is a crucial element of repentance, we ask Hashem to draw us closer to Torah study so we can repent properly. This concept has been understood on the basis of the laws of "Kashering" utensils. The basic principle of "Kashering" is that a non-kosher flavor is expunged from a utensil through the same medium through which it was absorbed. Thus, utensils that were used to cook non-kosher food through direct exposure to fire must be directly exposed to fire to eliminate the forbidden taste so they may become permissible. The Yeser Ha'ra (evil inclination) leads us to sin through the "fire" of forbidden desires, and so we cleanse ourselves from wrongdoing through Torah learning, which is likened to fire. Therefore, some Rabbis explained that it is preferable to immerse oneself in Torah learning to achieve atonement, rather than spend time reading the sections of the Korbanot. Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868) explained that reading all the sections of the Korbanot is unnecessary because we recite the chapter of "Ezehu Mekoman," which goes through all the various kinds of sacrifices, and this is sufficient for us to be considered to have offered any sacrifice we are required to bring. Another approach was taken by the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806). We are required to recite 100 Berachot each day, and we also recite each morning Baruch She'amar, which contains eleven expressions that begin with the word "Baruch" (not including the two instances of "Baruch" that begin and end the concluding blessing of Baruch She'amar). These 111 blessings, the Hida writes, correspond to the 111 verses of Parashat Vayikra, and by reciting them we are considered to have recited all of Parashat Vayikra. This discussion underscores for us the importance of reading the Korbanot section each morning. As we have seen, this recitation is not simply an admirable and worthwhile practice; it actually provides us with atonement as though we brought the sacrifices in the Bet Ha'mikdash. Therefore, one should make every effort to arrive on time in the synagogue so he can recite this section and reap the great benefits that it offers.
Rabbi Jacobson will discuss the following topics: Rosh Chodesh Sivan What is the unique power of this day? What does “like one person, with one heart” mean? What's the most important way to prepare for Matan Torah? It's gratifying to see that Rabbis in Jerusalem reacted to your program last week, warning against harassment. What are we celebrating on Shavuos? What is the historic and cosmic significance of the Giving of the Torah? What exactly is Torah? Since Torah is the purpose of creation, why was it not given to Adam in the beginning of creation? What was the purpose of the patriarchs keeping the Torah before it was given? Why is the holiday called Shavuos? What is its connection to oaths? Is Shavuos the anniversary of our nation's birth? Why is the 50th day not counted? Why don't we begin the new cycle of reading the Torah after Shavuos, when we received the Torah? Why don't we dance with the Torah on Shavuos like we do on Simchas Torah? Why were there thunder and lightning when the Torah was given? What did we receive at Sinai – the entire Torah, or just the Ten Commandments? Why do the Ten Commandments begin with an Egyptian word – Anochi? Is there any connection with Adam using that word when he hid from G-d after eating from the Tree of Knowledge? Why are there differences between the two texts of the Ten Commandments documented in the Torah? Why is naaseh v'nishma considered a great act? What is the virtue of committing and acting before listening and understanding? If action is primary, why the need to understand? What is the meaning of the two crowns given to us at Matan Torah? What does the Rebbe Rashab say about this in his magnum opus Hemshech B'Shaah She'hikdimu Ayin Beis? Shavuos – Matan Torah The Ten Commandments Naaseh V'Nishma and the Crowns Why don't we recite the chapter about Manna in our daily prayers? Follow-up
Peace activists and religious leaders of all faiths will participate in the 4th annual Interfaith March for Human Rights and Peace, taking place May 18th in Jerusalem. The march will set out from the Jerusalem YMCA at 5 p.m. and conclude with an event at the Jaffa Gate, featuring singer Achinoam Nini and others. Rabbi Amichai Lau-Lavie, Co-Chair of Rabbis for Human Rights, spoke earlier with KAN's Naomi Segal (Photo: Interfaith march, 2024. Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Rabbis in Jesus' day taught that it was better to burn the Torah than teach it to a woman. Jewish men prayed, thanking God they hadn't been made a Gentile, a slave, or a woman. A devout rabbi wouldn't even speak to a woman in public. And into that world steps Jesus. He speaks with a Samaritan woman at a well. He travels with women. He counts them among his closest friends. And then at the single most important moment in all of human history, when the greatest announcement ever made needed a messenger, he chose women. In a culture where women couldn't even serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding, Jesus trusted them to be the first eyewitnesses of the resurrection and the first to carry the news that he was alive. As Dorothy Sayers wrote, it is no wonder women were first at the cradle and last at the cross. They had never known a man like this.Pursuing God with Gene Appel is designed to help you pursue God, build community, and unleash compassion. Grounded in Scripture and shaped by Eastside's conviction that God's grace is for everyone, each episode invites you to discover God's presence and activity in your life.
Episode 78 of What Gives?—the Jewish Philanthropy Podcast from Jewish Funders Network, hosted by JFN President and CEO Andrés Spokoiny. In this episode, Andrés speaks with Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove, Senior Rabbi at Park Avenue Synagogue and a leading voice in American Jewish life. Through his writing and public leadership, Elliot has been deeply engaged in some of the most contentious debates shaping the Jewish community right now. Andrés and Elliot take a close look at the questions raised about the role of rabbis in political life that arose during last fall's New York City mayoral campaign. They explore how Jewish leaders decide when to speak out, where the boundaries of communal discourse should be drawn, and how questions around Zionism, anti-Zionism, and internal disagreement are playing out across synagogues and campuses. They discuss the pressures facing today's rabbinate, the challenge of holding communities together amid deep division, and what responsible leadership looks like in a moment that resists easy consensus. Take a listen.
The Gemara in Masechet Berachot (3a) teaches that the night is divided into three periods, and at the points when one period leads to the other, Hashem "roars like a lion," bemoaning the fact that our sins compelled him to destroy the Bet Ha'mikdash. The Bet Yosef brings from earlier sources that it is proper to join Hashem at those moments and lament the destruction of the Bet Ha'mikdash. The Kabbalists, however, determined that this should be done at the point of Hasot, halachic midnight. This is the time best suited to mourn the destruction of the Bet Ha'mikdash, the Jewish People's dispersion, and the death of the righteous Sadikim. The Kabbalists taught that it is especially important not to sleep at the moment of Hasot, as this brings upon the person a certain level of impurity. For many generations, the practice of Tikkun Hasot – reciting a special prayer mourning the destruction of the Bet Ha'mikdash at Hasot – was observed by the Sadikim. There are accounts of how the synagogue in Halab (Aleppo, Syria) would be filled at Hasot by men reciting Tikkun Hasot and then remaining to learn Torah. Tikkun Hasot is normally recited in a manner reflecting mourning – on the floor, without shoes, wearing sackcloth, with ashes on one's head, and crying loudly. Hacham Baruch Ben-Haim shared with us his memories of his father reciting Tikkun Hasot while sitting on the floor. People in our community remember seeing Hacham Shaul Kassin crying on the floor while reciting Tikkun Hasot. I had the opportunity to join the special Thursday night Tikkun Hasot service led by Rav Benayahu Shmueli in Jerusalem, near the Temple Mount, in close proximity to the site of the Kodesh Ha'kodashim (the inner sanctum of the Bet Ha'mikdash). For two hours, the small group of Rabbis sit on the floor, weep, and sing, beseeching Hashem to rebuild the Bet Ha'mikdash. Although Tikkun Hasot is not required as a strict Halachic obligation, Hacham Ovadia Yosef writes that one who is in any event awake shortly before Hasot should certainly remain awake a bit longer in order to recite Tikkun Hasot. It should be noted the during the winter months, Hasot is around 11:30-11:45pm, which is not very late for many people, and so it is certainly worthwhile for those who are awake at that time to recite this special prayer. Halachic Hasot is defined as the midway point between sunset and sunrise. Some claimed that Hacham Ovadia Yosef permitted during Elul reciting Selihot – which may not be recited prior to Hasot – after the time of Hasot in Jerusalem, wherever one is located. This would mean that in New York, for example, it would be permissible to recite Selihot already in the late afternoon hours. However, Rav Yisrael Bitan writes that these reports are unreliable. Nevertheless, with regard to Tikkun Hasot, Rav Bitan cites Hacham David Yosef as ruling in Halacha Berura that there is room to allow reciting Tikkun Hasot shortly before midnight in areas west of Eretz Yisrael. There is a view among the Poskim that permits reciting Tikkun Hasot even before Hasot, and so although we do not follow this opinion, we can combine this lenient ruling with the possibility that the time of Hasot depends on the moment of Hasot in Jerusalem. Since in any event Tikkun Hasot is not required as a strict Halachic obligation, there is room to rely on these two lenient positions to permit reciting Tikkun Hasot even before halachic midnight, if it is after Hasot in Jerusalem.
In this week's episode, we start properly examining R Menashe of Iliya's written works. We start by looking at his Sefer on Tanach, Binas HaMikra. We will be able to have a solid understanding of his attitude towards Chazal from this sefer. We also start looking at his first printed work, the Kuntress Pesher Davar. We examine who he is referring to when he divides the Rabbis into three groups. Which groups does he put together? What can we learn from this? Are the Kabbalists he refers to only the Chassidim? You can now help Rabbi Wittenstien create new and original content via our non profit 'The Jewish History and Tanach Foundation'. Your support and partnership is greatly appreciated. Zelle : jewishhistorytnchfoundation@gmail.com Credit Card : https://thechesedfund.com/thejewishhistoryandtanachfoundation/support-r-wittenstein-s-tanach-and-jewish-history-project The Jewish History and Tanach Foundation is a registered 501-3c. EIN : 33-485 5627 Donor's Fund account number: 2642025 Nach Yomi: Join R' Wittenstein's Nach Yomi on WhatsApp. We learn a perek a day five days a week, with a nine minute shiur covering the key issues. Click here to join! For tours, speaking engagements, or sponsorships contact us at jewishhistoryuncensored@gmail.com PRODUCED BY: CEDAR MEDIA STUDIOS
Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour
The Kabbalists taught that it is preferable to sleep during the first part of the night – from nightfall (when the stars come out) until Hasot (halachic midnight). During this first half of the night, the Kabbalists explained, the harmful spiritual energies are in force, posing danger to the purity of the Neshama (soul). It is thus best to go to sleep right at nightfall, when these energies surface, as when one sleeps his soul is entrusted to Hashem and hence protected from these forces. Then, right before Hasot, one should rise and involve himself in Torah and prayer. This was the practice followed by the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909). Citing the Arizal, the Ben Ish Hai taught that the first part of the night of called "Layil," whereas the second part of the night is called "Layla." The exceptions to this rule are Friday night and the night of the Seder. On Friday night, the sanctity of Shabbat protects the soul from harm, and the night of the Seder is called "Lel Shimurim" (Shemot 12:42), a night of protection, when even the "Layil" portion of the night is safe for the soul due to the special quality of this night. However, Hacham Ovadia Yosef noted that both the Gemara (Berachot 62b) and the Rambam (Hilchot De'ot 4:4) instruct that sleep is most beneficial during the latter part of the night. Hacham Ovadia writes that he saw Rabbis in Jerusalem who followed the Ben Ish Hai's practice, but his practice was to learn until late at night and then go to sleep. Practically speaking, it seems that the advent of electric lighting and modern travel and communication has rendered this question moot. Years ago, there was no possibility of working or doing much else after dark, and so people stayed home. Today, of course, people are still busy after nightfall, and it is not practical for most people to go to sleep right at nightfall – which can be as early as 5:30pm or so in the winter – and then wake up at Hasot. Therefore, while there are those (such as the "Kollel Hasot" program) who sleep during the first part of the night and then rise before Hasot, for most people it is more proper to learn at night and then go to sleep.
Six containers were used in the Temple for collecting voluntary offerings, for which six different explanations are provided to clarify their specific purposes. If a person vows to bring a specific animal for a voluntary offering and it becomes blemished, the animal must be redeemed and replaced. The Rabbis permit using the redemption money to purchase a different type, size, or number of animals, whereas Rebbi requires the replacement to match the original animal's type, size, and number exactly. When a person vows to bring "one of my oxen," the best and the middle-quality oxen are sanctified because the specific intent remains unclear. Raba bar Ulla distinguishes this from the phrase "an ox from my oxen," explaining that such language clearly indicates the best ox was intended. The Gemara challenges this distinction by citing laws from house sales, where the definitions of intended property follow different standards.
Daily Halacha Podcast - Daily Halacha By Rabbi Eli J. Mansour
One should strive to perform Misvot humbly and discreetly, without publicizing the religious act or making a spectacle of himself. In fact, the greatest Sadikim are "Sadikim Nistarim" – "concealed" Sadikim whose piety is not discernible, whom people view as ordinary laymen. There is great value to Misvot fulfilled in private, without anyone knowing about it. Conversely, the Rabbis of Mussar warn of the severity of performing Misvot for the sake of impressing people and drawing attention to oneself. Based on the comments of the Hobot Ha'lebabot (Rabbenu Bahya Ibn Pakuda, Spain, d. 1120), they warn that performing Misvot for publicity could be even graver than idol-worship. When a person performs a Misva to earn people's admiration, then he is serving himself, not G-d – and this is a grievous sin akin to idolatry. We must always remember that the objective of Misvot is to bring glory and honor to Hashem, and not to bring glory and honor to oneself. Some Rabbis taught that when a person receives praise and compliments for a Misva which he performed, then Hashem sends angels to bring his reward, instead of rewarding him directly. The angels delivering the reward are exposed to the risk of sabotage by the prosecuting angels who deny the individual's worthiness, and so the reward is not certain to materialize. By contrast, people who fulfill Misvot in an invisible manner, hidden from view, become "invisible" to the prosecuting angels, and cannot be harmed by them. Indeed, there are stories of "hidden" Sadikim, who kept their piety secret, and actually became invisible, unseen by those who were trying to harm them. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) writes that if a person receives praise for a Misva or for his good qualities, he should immediately remind himself that he has yet to accomplish even a fraction of what he is meant to accomplish. He should recognize, first and foremost, that a lot of the praise people give is false flattery, spoken to earn his favor. And even if it was spoken sincerely, he should remember that he has so much more to do. Even Abraham Abinu, as great as he was, said about himself, "I am but dust and ash" (Bereshit 18:27). King Shlomo teaches us in Mishleh (27:2), "Yehalelucha Zar, Ve'lo Picha" – "Let others praise you, but not your mouth." Even if other people give us praise, we should refrain from giving ourselves praise, and should instead humbly acknowledge our imperfections and how much better we can be. Unfortunately, in our day and age, people expect their good deeds to be noticed and praised, instead of feeling content knowing that they did a Misva. The desire for attention and compliments calls the person's sincerity into question, and could undermine the value of the Misva which he performed. If a person takes upon himself a fast, for example, he should keep it private and not tell anyone about it. A fascinating story is told of Rav Yaakob Kuli (Turkey, d. 1732) who decided to observe a three-day fast, for a full 72 hours. Toward the very end of the fast, with only about one hour left, he was with somebody who was drinking coffee and offered him some. Rav Yaakob agreed to drink the coffee, breaking his fast which he had nearly completed, in order not to disclose his piety. If a person wishes to accept upon himself a certain stringency, he must try to conceal it. People often use stringency as a way to showcase themselves, to put themselves on display, to make themselves appear more religiously committed than others. This undermines the value of an otherwise admirable religious practice. It is also not uncommon for people to use stringencies as a way of "upstaging" their Rabbi, of pretending that they are more devout than he is. They choose to observe a certain stringency that he does not observe and then make a point of telling him about it, thus presenting themselves as more religious. This is not only very disrespectful, but also the diametric opposite of the kind of humility and sincerity with which Misvot are to be performed. The Mishna in Pirkeh Abot (1:13) warns very sternly, "U'd'ishtamash Be'taga Halaf" – one who uses Torah as a "crown" for glorifying himself deserves to be eliminated from the world. I am reminded of the time when, many years ago, before it was common for married men to wear Tefillin Rabbenu Tam, a regular fellow started putting on Tefillin Rabbenu Tam in front of everyone in the Deal Synagogue. Rav Yom Tob Yedid reprimanded him, noting that even the great Rabbis of Halab (Aleppo, Syria) would not put on Tefillin Rabbenu Tam in the synagogue; they wore it in the privacy of their home, so as not to publicize their observance of this admirable measure of piety. Another example of this mistake is when a person walks into shul in the morning with a towel around his neck, publicizing the fact that he went to the Mikveh before praying. If he were really sincere in his desire to achieve purity, then he would not need to draw attention to himself by wearing a towel. This applies also to the way we pray in the synagogue. A person should not pray in an unusual manner, swaying and throwing his hands around, turning his emotions into a public display. It is told that Rabbi Akiba would be standing at the end of his prayer in a different part of the room because he moved so much while praying – but this was only when he prayed at home. In public, one must not do anything unusual that would attract attention. The Peri Megadim (Rav Yosef Teomim, 1727-1792) notes that refraining from public displays of religiosity helps one avoid scorn and derision. One of the difficult obstacles that arise when people seek to grow in their religious observance is the ridicule that they hear from their peers. If one keeps his religious growth private, he is not subject to the scorn of cynical onlookers who seek to discourage him. Moreover, private endeavors are more likely to succeed and endure. The first Luhot (tablets) which Hashem gave to Moshe were shattered soon afterward – in response to the sin of the golden calf – whereas the second lasted forever. The Sages noted that the first Luhot were given as part of a public spectacle, whereas the second Luhot were given to Moshe privately, in quiet – and so the second Luhot endured. An important exception to this rule is religious observance in the presence of one's children. It is crucially important for children to see their parents' religious devotion so they learn from their example. The Torah says in the Book of Debarim (29:28), "Ha'nistarot L'Hashem Elokenu, Ve'ha'niglot Lanu U'l'banenu Ad Olam" – "The concealed matters are for Hashem our G-d, whereas the revealed matters are for us and our children, for all time." This has been explained to mean that everything we do for Hashem should be "Nistarot" – kept hidden, except that "Lanu U'l'banenu," with respect to our role as parents educating our children, our deeds should be "Niglot," revealed, open for them to see, so they can learn how to properly serve Hashem. Ultimately, of course, the most important factor is one's sincerity. The goal of every Misva act must be the pure service of Hashem, and connecting to Him to the best of one's ability, without any ulterior motives.
The Mishna rules that if one vows to bring a mincha (meal offering) but cannot recall which type, they must bring all five standard types. Abaye explains that this ruling can also align with Rabbi Shimon's position, which recognizes a sixth type consisting of both wafers and loaves; he argues that bringing the wafers and loaves separately covers the possibility of the combined type as well. The Gemara raises several practical difficulties regarding this possibility but resolves them all. Rav Kahana asks Rav Ashi why the person in the above case would not also need to offer a minchat nesachim (a meal offering brought with libations), given Rava's view that it can be brought as a voluntary offering. Rav Ashi identifies five distinct differences between a minchat nesachim and other voluntary meal offerings, demonstrating that someone in doubt about their vow would certainly not have been referring to an offering so fundamentally different. The Rabbis and Rebbi disagree in the Mishna regarding a case where one says, "I vowed to bring a mincha of esronim in one vessel, but I do not remember how many." The dispute centers on whether they must bring sixty esronim in one bowl or every amount from one to sixty in sixty separate bowls. The Gemara suggests five different explanations for the nature of this debate and analyzes each suggestion. The Mishna explains the minimum value one must provide when vowing to bring wood, frankincense, gold, silver, or copper to the Temple. The required amount depends on the phrasing used: if one said, "I vow to bring [the item]," they are required to bring the minimum. However, if one said, "I vowed an amount, but I do not remember what amount," they are required to bring the maximum.
For fantastic extra content, join us at https://www.patreon.com/c/EnlightenEdgeEDU , where you will also be supporting the podcast. This week the extra content will help learn more about your temple worship by examining Egyptian temples with Kerry.This is a special episode to go with the Come Follow Me program's extra thoughts about Temple and Sacrifice. Kerry explores with Rabbi Jarrod Grover how the temple was about creating a relationship with God, and about overcoming what happened in the Garden of Eden. They also look at the Tree of Life symbolism and how God wants to be with us and we want to be with Him, and how God walks among us when we go to the temple. Then Kerry and Rabbi Joe Charnes talk about how temples are about holy encounters, such as holy encounters with place and with God, and how we must make place for the holy, and for God, within us. Then Kerry explores the tabernacle as a model for our journey to be with God again, drawing on symbolism and making room for Christ to make us new and like Him. We are grateful for our executive producers, P. Franzen, J. Parke, D. Watson, B. Van Blerkom, the Dawsons, M. Cannon, M. Rosema, B. Fisher, J. Beardall, D. Anderson, M. Zitar, J. Edwards, A. Dixon, and H. Umphlett, and for all our generous and loyal donors. We are also very grateful for all our Patreon members. We are so thankful for Beehive Broadcast for producing the podcast and for Rich Nicholls, who composed and plays the music for the podcast.
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
