Podcasts about Rav

Three actions were performed at the bottom of the altar on the southwest side, as derived from verses in the Torah. The bird burnt offering was usually brought on the southeast side so that the kohen could be close to the beit hadeshen, where parts of the bird were discarded. Three actions were performed at the top of the altar on the southwest side, and the kohen performing the action would go directly there instead of walking around the altar entirely. The reason was to avoid damaging the items from the smoke rising at the top of the altar. The Mishna describes in detail how the bird sin offering was performed. A braita provides a source explaining why the blood of this offering was placed on the lower part of the altar and not the upper part, as is done with the animal sin offering and the bird burnt offering. Two different versions of how to perform melika are presented—one in the name of Rav and one from a braita. It was known to be one of the more difficult actions the kohen had to perform. Performing the kmitza on the meal offering and the chafina with the incense on Yom Kippur were also known to be challenging. The Mishna describes in detail how the bird burnt offering was performed. Some elements were similar to the sin offering, yet many differed. For example, the head was not severed in the sin offering, but was in the burnt offering. The entire bird was eaten by the kohanim in the sin offering, whereas the burnt offering was completely burned, aside from the parts tossed into the beit hadeshen (crop, feathers, and innards). Other differences include the laws regarding sacrificing with intent for the wrong type of offering. The sin offering is disqualified, as with animal offerings, while the burnt offering is not. Regular laws of pigul apply to both.

Three actions were performed at the bottom of the altar on the southwest side, as derived from verses in the Torah. The bird burnt offering was usually brought on the southeast side so that the kohen could be close to the beit hadeshen, where parts of the bird were discarded. Three actions were performed at the top of the altar on the southwest side, and the kohen performing the action would go directly there instead of walking around the altar entirely. The reason was to avoid damaging the items from the smoke rising at the top of the altar. The Mishna describes in detail how the bird sin offering was performed. A braita provides a source explaining why the blood of this offering was placed on the lower part of the altar and not the upper part, as is done with the animal sin offering and the bird burnt offering. Two different versions of how to perform melika are presented—one in the name of Rav and one from a braita. It was known to be one of the more difficult actions the kohen had to perform. Performing the kmitza on the meal offering and the chafina with the incense on Yom Kippur were also known to be challenging. The Mishna describes in detail how the bird burnt offering was performed. Some elements were similar to the sin offering, yet many differed. For example, the head was not severed in the sin offering, but was in the burnt offering. The entire bird was eaten by the kohanim in the sin offering, whereas the burnt offering was completely burned, aside from the parts tossed into the beit hadeshen (crop, feathers, and innards). Other differences include the laws regarding sacrificing with intent for the wrong type of offering. The sin offering is disqualified, as with animal offerings, while the burnt offering is not. Regular laws of pigul apply to both.

Rabash. Make for Yourself a Rav and Buy Yourself a Friend - 2. 8 (1985)

Sources Can kodshim kalim be eaten when there is no altar? Abaye proved from a braita of Rabbi Yishmael that they cannot be eaten. Rabbi Yirmia raised a difficulty against Abaye from a contradiction between braitot, resolving it in a way that one would conclude that kodshim kalim could be eaten even without an altar. However, Ravina provides an alternative resolution to the contradiction, and the Gemara brings another. Rav Huna says in the name of Rav that the altar in the Tabernacle of Shilo was made of stone. However, a difficulty is raised against this from a braita that explains that the fire of Moshe's copper altar continued until the time of Shlomo. They resolve it by saying that Rav Huna held by a different tannaitic opinion. Alternatively, one can explain that the fire could have still been on Moshe's altar, even though they were using the stone altar. If so, what was the fire used for? The Gemara suggests two possible answers. A Mishna is brought which says that the altar in the time of the Second Temple was expanded to be larger than the one in the First Temple, from 28x28 cubits to 32x32. Why? Rav Yosef suggests it was expanded as they needed more space. Ravin explained it based on a Mishna in Middot that described the addition of the shitin, two holes that were added for the libations.

Sources Can kodshim kalim be eaten when there is no altar? Abaye proved from a braita of Rabbi Yishmael that they cannot be eaten. Rabbi Yirmia raised a difficulty against Abaye from a contradiction between braitot, resolving it in a way that one would conclude that kodshim kalim could be eaten even without an altar. However, Ravina provides an alternative resolution to the contradiction, and the Gemara brings another. Rav Huna says in the name of Rav that the altar in the Tabernacle of Shilo was made of stone. However, a difficulty is raised against this from a braita that explains that the fire of Moshe's copper altar continued until the time of Shlomo. They resolve it by saying that Rav Huna held by a different tannaitic opinion. Alternatively, one can explain that the fire could have still been on Moshe's altar, even though they were using the stone altar. If so, what was the fire used for? The Gemara suggests two possible answers. A Mishna is brought which says that the altar in the time of the Second Temple was expanded to be larger than the one in the First Temple, from 28x28 cubits to 32x32. Why? Rav Yosef suggests it was expanded as they needed more space. Ravin explained it based on a Mishna in Middot that described the addition of the shitin, two holes that were added for the libations.

In Zevachim 59, a difficulty was raised against Rav's position that a sacrifice slaughtered while the altar was damaged is disqualified. The contradiction came from a statement of Rav that incense could be burned even when the altar was removed. It was resolved by suggesting that just as Rava explained, Rabbi Yehuda distinguished between blood and burning (and required the altar for blood), so too Rav distinguished between blood and burning the incense (and required the altar to be complete for slaughtering and sprinkling the blood). Where did Rava make that statement? A lengthy argument between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi is brought to provide background. Then a proof is offered for Rava's understanding of Rabbi Yehuda, based on Rabbi Yehuda's suggestion regarding the blood from the Paschal sacrifices that spilled on the floor, but the proof is rejected. Rabbi Elazar brings a source to derive the requirement for the altar to be complete  to permit eating the remains of the meal offerings and other food of kodashim kodashim. Is a complete altar required for eating kodashim kalim? Abaye brings a braita of Rabbi Yishmael proving that the second tithe cannot be eaten in Jerusalem when there is no Temple. He first attempts to derive it from the firstborn by logical inference, but then derives it from a juxtaposition (heikesh). Abaye's explanation of Rabbi Yishmael leads to the understanding that kodashim kalim cannot be eaten when there is no altar. Rabbi Yirmia vehemently disagrees with Abaye, calling him a 'stupid Babylonian,' due to a contradiction between two braitot, which he resolves by differentiating between kodshai kodashim and kodashim kalim regarding this law.  

Episode 177 November 6, 2025 On the Needles 1:24 ALL KNITTING LINKS GO TO RAVELRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.  Please visit our Instagram page @craftcookreadrepeat for non-Rav photos and info   Succulents 2025 Blanket CAL by Mallory Krall, Hue Loco DK in Butterfly Agave   Pop Rock Pullover by Tanis Lavallee, La Bien Aimée singles and Mohair Silk in AVFKW A Day by the Bay– DONE!!   Aal Ower Torie by  Shetland Guild of Spinners, Knitters, Weavers and Dyers, Jamieson's of Shetland Shetland Spindrift in Vintage kit (8 colors: moorit, eesit, saphire, daffodil, madder, natural white, moss, nutmeg)   Ruuno by Nina Holubcova, Urth Yarn Lanalpaca in Amethyst On the Easel 14:18 Manet & Morisot exhibit at the Legion of Honor Museum (SF)   Gouachevemeber 2025 Finishing up ceramics Calendar coming soon! On the Table 26:53   LInger by Hetty Lui McKinnon Kale with sweet peanut sauce  Potato & Sumac Salad  Butternut with Lentils, olives and pickle sauce   ISO long crispy taco shells Seasonal fruit salads   On the Nightstand 37:37 We are now a Bookshop.org affiliate!  You can visit our shop to find books we've talked about or click on the links below.  The books are supplied by local independent bookstores and a percentage goes to us at no cost to you!   Rome: a history in seven sackings by Matthew Kneale (audio) The Summer War by Naomi Novik Cinder House by Freya Marske Audition for the Fox by Martin Cahill Thief of Night by Holly Black  Everything the Light Touches by Janice Pariat   The Phoebe Variations by Jane Hamilton Murder at Gulls Nest by Jess Kidd Bog Queen by Anna North

In Zevachim 59, a difficulty was raised against Rav's position that a sacrifice slaughtered while the altar was damaged is disqualified. The contradiction came from a statement of Rav that incense could be burned even when the altar was removed. It was resolved by suggesting that just as Rava explained, Rabbi Yehuda distinguished between blood and burning (and required the altar for blood), so too Rav distinguished between blood and burning the incense (and required the altar to be complete for slaughtering and sprinkling the blood). Where did Rava make that statement? A lengthy argument between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi is brought to provide background. Then a proof is offered for Rava's understanding of Rabbi Yehuda, based on Rabbi Yehuda's suggestion regarding the blood from the Paschal sacrifices that spilled on the floor, but the proof is rejected. Rabbi Elazar brings a source to derive the requirement for the altar to be complete  to permit eating the remains of the meal offerings and other food of kodashim kodashim. Is a complete altar required for eating kodashim kalim? Abaye brings a braita of Rabbi Yishmael proving that the second tithe cannot be eaten in Jerusalem when there is no Temple. He first attempts to derive it from the firstborn by logical inference, but then derives it from a juxtaposition (heikesh). Abaye's explanation of Rabbi Yishmael leads to the understanding that kodashim kalim cannot be eaten when there is no altar. Rabbi Yirmia vehemently disagrees with Abaye, calling him a 'stupid Babylonian,' due to a contradiction between two braitot, which he resolves by differentiating between kodshai kodashim and kodashim kalim regarding this law.  

Diagrams Study Guide Rav Shravia raises a second difficulty against Rabbi Zeira's proof for Rabbi Yochanan's statement that Rabbi Yosi held the altar was completely in the north from the Mishna in Tamid 29a. He suggests that perhaps it was not Rabbi Yosi's opinion, but rather Rabbi Yosi the Galilean, who held that the altar was in the north. He cites a different braita relating to the placement of the basin (kiyur) and explains why that proves Rabbi Yosi the Galilean must have held that the altar was completely in the north. Rav and Rabbi Yochanan debate the status of sanctified animals that were designated, and then the altar becomes broken. A verse is brought as the source for Rav's position. Two difficulties are raised against Rav's view—one from a braita and one from a statement Rav himself made—and both are resolved. In resolving the second difficulty, the Gemara mentions a position of Rabbi Yehuda. It then explores this opinion in the context of a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi regarding the size and height of the altar in the time of Moshe.

Diagrams Study Guide Rav Shravia raises a second difficulty against Rabbi Zeira's proof for Rabbi Yochanan's statement that Rabbi Yosi held the altar was completely in the north from the Mishna in Tamid 29a. He suggests that perhaps it was not Rabbi Yosi's opinion, but rather Rabbi Yosi the Galilean, who held that the altar was in the north. He cites a different braita relating to the placement of the basin (kiyur) and explains why that proves Rabbi Yosi the Galilean must have held that the altar was completely in the north. Rav and Rabbi Yochanan debate the status of sanctified animals that were designated, and then the altar becomes broken. A verse is brought as the source for Rav's position. Two difficulties are raised against Rav's view—one from a braita and one from a statement Rav himself made—and both are resolved. In resolving the second difficulty, the Gemara mentions a position of Rabbi Yehuda. It then explores this opinion in the context of a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi regarding the size and height of the altar in the time of Moshe.

Rav and Levi disagree about whether there was truly no base on the south and east sides of the altar, or whether a base existed but the blood could not be poured there. Various sources are cited to challenge both opinions, and each difficulty is addressed and resolved. One of the sources provides a detailed description of how the altar was constructed. Rava, based on a drasha from a verse in Shmuel I 19:19, explains how David and Shmuel determined that the Temple would be built specifically in the territory of Binyamin and precisely at that location—not elsewhere. Although Ein Eitam was actually higher in elevation, two reasons are given for why that site was ultimately rejected.  

Rav and Levi disagree about whether there was truly no base on the south and east sides of the altar, or whether a base existed but the blood could not be poured there. Various sources are cited to challenge both opinions, and each difficulty is addressed and resolved. One of the sources provides a detailed description of how the altar was constructed. Rava, based on a drasha from a verse in Shmuel I 19:19, explains how David and Shmuel determined that the Temple would be built specifically in the territory of Binyamin and precisely at that location—not elsewhere. Although Ein Eitam was actually higher in elevation, two reasons are given for why that site was ultimately rejected.  

Public and individual sin offerings are categorized as kodshei kodashim. Public offerings include the goat offerings on Rosh Chodesh and the holidays. They are slaughtered and blood is accepted in the North of the Azara. The blood is sprinkled on the top of the altar. The kohen goes onto the sovev, a ledge of the altar, one cubit wide and five cubits off the ground that extends across the length of the altar. From there, he walks around the altar, placing the blood, using his finger, at the top of the altar near the horns. The remainder of the blood is then spilled at the base of the altar, and the meat can be prepared in all manners, and is eaten by male kohanim for that day and night, until midnight. Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Shimon holds that the blood was placed on the horns, while Rebbi holds that the blood just needs to be placed above the red line at the mid-height of the altar (chut hasikra). Within Rebbi's opinion, there is a debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar whether it needs to be placed on the edge of the corner or can it be up to a cubit away from the corner. Even though a braita clearly states "the edge of the corner," it is possible that is only ideally, but a cubit away would be sufficient as well. Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Shimon agrees with Rebbi regarding the blood of a bird burnt offering, which can be done anywhere above the red line, but distinguishes between that and the sin offering of an animal as the Torah specified kranot, horns. The Gemara brings a source for Rebbi's opinion from Yechezkel 43:15 and a source for the red line from Shmot 27:5. There is a debate regarding the placement of the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar – some say both were on the Western part of the base, some say both were on the Southern part and some say the inner ones were poured on the Western part, while the outer ones were placed on the Southern part. What is the basis for the different opinions? The burnt offering is slaughtered in the North and blood is collected in the North. The blood is placed on two corners, but covers all four sides. Rav and Shmuel, based on a tannaitic debate, disagree about whether the kohen throws the blood twice in each corner to get on both sides or in one throw reaching both sides. The blood was placed only from two corners, as one of the corners does not have a yesod, base, underneath and the blood of the burnt offering needs to be placed on the altar where there is a base underneath, as derived from verses earlier in the Gemara. Why was there no base on the East and South sides? Since that area was specifically part of Yehuda's territory, and the rest of the altar was in Binyamin's territory, they did not extend the base there, as Binyamin was promised that the altar would be in his territory.  

Public and individual sin offerings are categorized as kodshei kodashim. Public offerings include the goat offerings on Rosh Chodesh and the holidays. They are slaughtered and blood is accepted in the North of the Azara. The blood is sprinkled on the top of the altar. The kohen goes onto the sovev, a ledge of the altar, one cubit wide and five cubits off the ground that extends across the length of the altar. From there, he walks around the altar, placing the blood, using his finger, at the top of the altar near the horns. The remainder of the blood is then spilled at the base of the altar, and the meat can be prepared in all manners, and is eaten by male kohanim for that day and night, until midnight. Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Shimon holds that the blood was placed on the horns, while Rebbi holds that the blood just needs to be placed above the red line at the mid-height of the altar (chut hasikra). Within Rebbi's opinion, there is a debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar whether it needs to be placed on the edge of the corner or can it be up to a cubit away from the corner. Even though a braita clearly states "the edge of the corner," it is possible that is only ideally, but a cubit away would be sufficient as well. Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Shimon agrees with Rebbi regarding the blood of a bird burnt offering, which can be done anywhere above the red line, but distinguishes between that and the sin offering of an animal as the Torah specified kranot, horns. The Gemara brings a source for Rebbi's opinion from Yechezkel 43:15 and a source for the red line from Shmot 27:5. There is a debate regarding the placement of the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar – some say both were on the Western part of the base, some say both were on the Southern part and some say the inner ones were poured on the Western part, while the outer ones were placed on the Southern part. What is the basis for the different opinions? The burnt offering is slaughtered in the North and blood is collected in the North. The blood is placed on two corners, but covers all four sides. Rav and Shmuel, based on a tannaitic debate, disagree about whether the kohen throws the blood twice in each corner to get on both sides or in one throw reaching both sides. The blood was placed only from two corners, as one of the corners does not have a yesod, base, underneath and the blood of the burnt offering needs to be placed on the altar where there is a base underneath, as derived from verses earlier in the Gemara. Why was there no base on the East and South sides? Since that area was specifically part of Yehuda's territory, and the rest of the altar was in Binyamin's territory, they did not extend the base there, as Binyamin was promised that the altar would be in his territory.  

This week I talk to Rav Michaela Brown, the Jewish chaplain at Carleton College and St. Olaf College, both in Northfield, Minnesota. We talk about what brought her to work on college campuses, what led her to rabbinic school, and the story behind the title of Rav, on this week's Who The Folk?! Podcast. Sponsor: Smith Jewish AcademyThe Who The Folk?! Podcast is part of the Jewfolk Podcast Network, a product of Jewfolk, Inc. Episodes are produced by Jewfolk editor-in-chief Lonny Goldsmith. If you have questions, comments, or a guest to nominate, send an e-mail to editor@jewfolk.com. For more information, go to TCJewfolk.com/podcast

Rabbi Fink is the Rav of Young Israel of St. Louis

Episode 176 October 28, 2025 On the Needles 3:54 ALL KNITTING LINKS GO TO RAVELRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.  Please visit our Instagram page @craftcookreadrepeat for non-Rav photos and info   Succulents 2025 Blanket CAL by Mallory Krall, Hue Loco DK in Hoya   SSAL Delectable Collectible Socks by Stephen West, Dark Omen Yarns Sock in Electric Minis (navy, royal, light blue with speckles, cream with speckles, cream)- DONE!! 2nd sock for PSP   Pop Rock Pullover by Tanis Lavallee, La Bien Aimée singles and Mohair Silk in AVFKW A Day by the Bay   Spooky Season socks: Cuff Club Vol. 2 by Summer Lee, Vanilla is the New Black by Anneh Fletcher, Gauge Dyeworks 4 ply sock in Pumpkin Stripe Latte– DONE!!   3D printed spinning wheel–source TBA       On the Easel 14:08/16:06 Courtney Cerruti's new CB class–Find your Creative Rhythm: 15 Ways to Spark & Sustain Creativity 2026 Calendar–coming soon (!!!) Gouachevemeber 2025   Uh Italy? Borghese Gallery Museo Nazionale Romano   Smithsonian–Little Beasts exhibit (currently closed due to govt shut down) MFAHouston–Impressionist & post-Impressionist wing, plus excellent Islamic & Judaic art collections   On the Table 30:13 Uh Italy? Pasticceria Regoli    Cooking and Eating in Lazio:  https://www.cooking-vacations.com/ https://www.nenaborgocastello.com/   Naples Food Tour: https://www.eatingeurope.com/naples/   Cranberry & White Chocolate Biscotti   On the Nightstand 44:40 We are now a Bookshop.org affiliate!  You can visit our shop to find books we've talked about or click on the links below.  The books are supplied by local independent bookstores and a percentage goes to us at no cost to you! Four Seasons in Rome by Anthony Doerr If an Egyptian Cannot Speak English by Noor Naga Murder at the Black Cat Cafe by Seishi Yokomizo, trans by Bryan Karetnyk  The Lost Masterpiece by B. A. Shapiro The Impossible Fortune by Richard Osman Automatic Noodle by Annalee Newitz Five Broken Blades by Mai Corland Liar's Knot by M. A. Carrick (audio) Katabasis by R. F. Kuang   Yours for the Taking by Gabrielle Korn City of Night Birds by Juhea Kim

This week I have three stories for you. The first begins with a powerful count who sets out to rid his land of a Rebbe — and discovers that Heaven has other plans. The second starts with an unexpected blessing from the Lubavitcher Rebbe that will one day turn a life upside down in the most miraculous way. And the last opens on the streets of Poznań, where a city gathers to welcome its new Rav — unaware of the quiet wonder about to unfold. If you're enjoying these Chassidic stories, please take a quick moment to buy me a coffee. https://ko-fi.com/barakhullman Thank you! I deeply appreciate your support! Also available at https://soundcloud.com/barak-hullman/the-empty-chariot To become a part of this project or sponsor an episode please go to https://hasidicstory.com/be-a-supporter. Hear all of the stories at https://hasidicstory.com. Go here to hear my other podcast https://jewishpeopleideas.com or https://soundcloud.com/jewishpeopleideas. Find my books, Figure It Out When You Get There: A Memoir of Stories About Living Life First and Watching How Everything Falls Into Place and A Shtikel Sholom: A Student, His Mentor and Their Unconventional Conversations on Amazon by going to https://bit.ly/barakhullman. My classes in Breslov Chassidus, Likutey Moharan, can be found here https://www.youtube.com/@barakhullman/videos I also have a YouTube channel of ceramics which can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/@thejerusalempotter

In his first-ever podcast conversation, Aimee sits down with Rabbi Elon Soniker, author of Uriel's Light, to talk about faith, family, and finding meaning after unimaginable loss. Rabbi Soniker shares the story of his son, Uriel, his brief but powerful life, and the light that continues to shine through his memory. Together, they explore what it means to grieve as a parent, as a rabbi, and as part of a community that often doesn't know what to say or do in the face of perinatal loss. This powerful conversation moves through so many of the questions we all wrestle with: How can faith and pain coexist without canceling each other out? How do we grapple with unimaginable pain when there are no easy answers? How can people show up for families after miscarriage, stillbirth, or other losses? How do we talk to children about death or loss without frightening them? Rabbi Soniker's honesty, humility, and spiritual insight offer comfort and clarity — reminding us that grief and light can, in fact, exist together. More about Rabbi Elon Soniker: Rabbi Elon Soniker is the Rav of Congregation Anshei Shalom in West Hempstead, NY, and Judaic Studies Principal at Ohr Yisroel in New Jersey. Rabbi Soniker recently published a book titled "Uriel's Light: Reflections on Tragedy and Emunah" in honor of his son Uriel z"l. The book contains letters, divrei Torah and reflections written during the brief life and the year following the passing of his baby son. Rabbi Soniker lives in West Hempstead with his wife and children. Resources Mentioned: View Rabbi Elon Soniker's book Our Son Uriel's Light: Reflections on tragedy and Emunah Pain is a Reality; Suffering is a Choice, by Rabbi Asher Resnick Connect with us: -Check out our Website -Follow us on Instagram and send us a message -Watch our TikToks -Follow us on Facebook -Watch us on YouTube -Connect with us on LinkedIn

Peut-on utiliser la Torah pour la détruire, ou justifier des mauvais comportements ? A-t-on le libre arbitre dans tous les domaines ? Comment comprendre que, d'une personne à l'autre, le libre arbitre puisse être différent ? Réponse à travers des propos de Rav Dessler et de Rav 'Haïm de Volozhin.

Ravneet Gill joins The Go-To Food Podcast with an episode full of chaos, charm, and honesty. She tells the hilarious story of how she met her now-husband Matty while developing menus at Llewellyn's—he didn't like her at first, unfollowed her on Instagram, and fell for her only after a passive-aggressive argument about blue roll on the hob. She relives his rainy proposal at Frieze Art Fair, the parking ticket that came with it, and their wedding filled with food from Lily Vanilli, Happy Endings, and half the London pastry scene. And of course, she shares the madness of opening Gina, their new restaurant in Chingford—five-star reviews from Faye Maschler, half a million pounds spent before serving a single plate, and one unforgettable Sunday when bad potatoes caused a local uproar.Rav opens up about life behind the pass—what happens when trolls flood your Google reviews, when diners complain the “fish has bones,” and when a burger brings in the wrong crowd. She talks about juggling motherhood, TV, and restaurant life, plus the unexpected secret to keeping her marriage strong: living apart during opening month. There's also the surreal story of being scouted for Junior Bake Off through a random DM she nearly ignored while private cheffing in Greece, only to sneak home in the night after her furious client found out she'd landed the gig.She also rewinds to her sweet-toothed childhood above her dad's corner shop, where Crunchies and chocolate-covered raisins ruled, and the fateful moment at 14 when she stopped being a fussy eater. From her first days at St. John (where Fergus Henderson once handed her a doodle of a pair of breasts that inspired a Paris-Brest dessert) to surviving bullying kitchens that pushed her to create Countertalk, Rav tells it all with warmth, humour, and absolute candour. --------Sponsor: This episode is brought to you by Blinq—POS made simple: £69/month, unlimited devices, 24/7 UK support, no contracts or hidden fees. Use code GOTOBLINQ for a free month. Got a true kitchen nightmare? Send it in—Ben's favourite wins a year of Blinq. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, we're joined by Rav Dhaliwal, recovering software exec turned early-stage VC at Crane. A longtime CS leader and board-level advisor, Rav breaks down how AI is reshaping Customer Success, from onboarding and telemetry-driven predictions to agentic workflows, while pushing CS to converge with account management and get far more revenue-centric. We spoke with Rav about what AI should (and shouldn't) automate, how to keep relationships authentic, and how leaders actually drive adoption, treating AI not as a tool drop but a behavioral change program.  Here are some of the key questions we address: Will AI compress or redefine CS, and where does it create leverage vs. require human expertise? What does the CS–Account Management convergence look like in practice (discovery, multi-threading, commercial acumen)? Which AI use cases move the needle now: telemetry-based churn/upsell prediction, voice sentiment, and agentic next-best-action? How do you avoid the “AI for efficiency only” trap and tie it to revenue, cost, and risk outcomes that customers actually buy? What's the playbook for AI adoption in GTM/CS? How do leaders run a change program (not a tool rollout) and measure progress? Where are the authenticity risks and how do you keep the customer relationship human? How far can we push AI-led onboarding and what's the 90% automated vs. 10% bespoke split likely to be?

What are the risks and halachic concerns of a mixed gender workplace? Should conversations be limited to only what's necessary for work? Can first names be used? What if a woman extends her hand to shake hands with a man? How can couples protect their shalom bayis when one spouse works in a mixed environment? Host: Ari Wasserman, author of the newly published, revised and expanded book Making it Work, on workplace challenges and Halachic Q & A on the Job Rabbi Moshe Hauer ZT”L with Rabbi Dr. Josh Joseph – Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer, OU – 12:44 with Rabbi Avi Berman – Executive Director of OU Israel – 22:09 with Rabbi Chaim Gottesman – close friend and neighbor of Rabbi Hauer for 30+ years – 35:30 Men & Women in a Mixed Workplace with Rabbi Dr. Yitzchak Breitowitz – posek, Rav and Senior Lecturer at Yeshivas Ohr Somayach – 50:32 with Charlie Harary – Business Executive and author of “Unlocking Greatness” – 1:26:10 with Rabbi Naftali Horowitz – Managing Director at Morgan Stanley and author of “You Revealed” – 1:26:10 with Harry Rothenberg, Esq. – partner at The Rothenberg Law Firm LLP (InjuryLawyer.com) and lecturer – 1:26:10 Conclusions and takeaways – 2:29:54 מראי מקומות   

Episode 175 October 15, 2025   HAPPY 7TH ANNIVERSARY! On the Needles ALL KNITTING LINKS GO TO RAVELRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.  Please visit our Instagram page @craftcookreadrepeat for non-Rav photos and info     Paul klee- saw in vienna! Flax worsted Fleetwood Cortney loved: the succulent squares–eager for tote bag collaboration. And the Paul Klee sweater. On the Easel 4:11   More variety, darker colors and backgrounds Grey parrot with red in March   Ceramics   Cortney loved: delving into floral paintings, floral ceramics, growing flowers…also–the kryptonite illustration, and Monica's Viennese cake collection. On the Table 7:11   Cocktail club   Empty nest= one gf veg meal!    Double swiss chicken cutlets   Cortney loved: cocktail club–so inspiring! And teaching my boys how to cook. On the Nightstand 12:49 We are now a Bookshop.org affiliate!  You can visit our shop to find books we've talked about or click on the links below.  The books are supplied by local independent bookstores and a percentage goes to us at no cost to you! Weird books are the best!   Endling by Maria Reva On the Calculation of Volume by Solvej Balle Orbital by Samatha Harvey Under the Eye of the Big Bird by Hiromi Kawakami   Cortney loved: catching up with the LouisePenny Three Pines series. All the floral volumes this spring (great resources!), and the Eco-lit list in our Bookshop.org site.

In the Torah verse regarding the purification of the leper (Vayikra 14:17), the word “right” appears three times - once in reference to the hand, once to the foot, and once to the ear. Rava explains that each mention teaches the requirement to use the right hand in a different ritual: one for kemitza (taking a handful of flour) in meal offerings, one for chalitza (the release ceremony of levirate marriage), and one for piercing the ear of a Jewish slave. According to Rabba bar bar Hanna, quoting Rabbi Yochanan, wherever the Torah uses the term “kohen,” the action must be performed with the right hand. Based on this, Rava’s drasha regarding kemitza teaches that not only the taking of the kometz (handful) must be done with the right hand, but also its placement into the kli sharet (sanctified vessel). Rabbi Shimon, who either does not require this part of the process or does not require it to be done with the right hand, agrees that the kemitza itself must be performed with the right hand, as derived from Vayikra 6:10, which compares the meal offering to the sin offering. Therefore, Rava’s interpretation applies specifically to the meal offering of a sinner, brought as part of a sliding scale offering. The Mishna rules that if the blood spills directly onto the floor from the animal, without first being collected in a sanctified vessel, the blood is disqualified. A braita teaches that the blood to be collected must be the spurting blood from the act of slaughter - not blood from a cut, nor residual blood that flows after most of the blood has exited the animal. The blood must flow directly from the animal into the kli sharet, from which it will be sprinkled on the altar. These laws are derived from Vayikra 4:5, in the context of the sin offering of the Kohen Gadol. Rav rules that all of the blood must be collected, based on Vayikra 4:7. According to Shmuel, the knife must be lifted immediately after slaughter to prevent blood from dripping off the knife into the vessel, since the blood must come directly from the animal. Rav Chisda and Rabbi Yochanan explain that the animal’s throat must be held directly over the vessel to ensure the blood flows straight into it. Rabbi Asi posed a question to Rabbi Yochanan regarding the airspace above a vessel. The Gemara brings three versions of the question and Rabbi Yochanan’s response: If the bottom of the vessel broke before the blood reached it, but the blood had already entered the vessel’s airspace, does this count as if the blood had reached the vessel? If so, the blood could be collected from the floor and used on the altar. To answer the question, Rabbi Yochanan cited a braita regarding a barrel into which fresh water streamed into its airspace, disqualifying it for use in the red heifer purification waters, as it is considered as though the water entered the vessel. However, this comparison is problematic, since the red heifer case does not involve a broken vessel. To justify the citation, the Gemara reframes the question as a two-pronged inquiry. The question was about the barrel, and the answer was drawn from the aforementioned braita. The question was about the barrel, and the answer was derived from the laws of sacrificial blood, which must reach the vessel directly. Since the blood passes through the airspace first, this implies that the airspace is treated as part of the vessel. If the animal becomes blemished after slaughter but before the blood is collected, brought to the altar, or poured, the blood is disqualified. A source is cited from the laws of the sin offering to support this. The Gemara attempts to extend this ruling to offerings of lesser sanctity, such as the Paschal sacrifice, but the proof is ultimately rejected.  

In the Torah verse regarding the purification of the leper (Vayikra 14:17), the word “right” appears three times - once in reference to the hand, once to the foot, and once to the ear. Rava explains that each mention teaches the requirement to use the right hand in a different ritual: one for kemitza (taking a handful of flour) in meal offerings, one for chalitza (the release ceremony of levirate marriage), and one for piercing the ear of a Jewish slave. According to Rabba bar bar Hanna, quoting Rabbi Yochanan, wherever the Torah uses the term “kohen,” the action must be performed with the right hand. Based on this, Rava’s drasha regarding kemitza teaches that not only the taking of the kometz (handful) must be done with the right hand, but also its placement into the kli sharet (sanctified vessel). Rabbi Shimon, who either does not require this part of the process or does not require it to be done with the right hand, agrees that the kemitza itself must be performed with the right hand, as derived from Vayikra 6:10, which compares the meal offering to the sin offering. Therefore, Rava’s interpretation applies specifically to the meal offering of a sinner, brought as part of a sliding scale offering. The Mishna rules that if the blood spills directly onto the floor from the animal, without first being collected in a sanctified vessel, the blood is disqualified. A braita teaches that the blood to be collected must be the spurting blood from the act of slaughter - not blood from a cut, nor residual blood that flows after most of the blood has exited the animal. The blood must flow directly from the animal into the kli sharet, from which it will be sprinkled on the altar. These laws are derived from Vayikra 4:5, in the context of the sin offering of the Kohen Gadol. Rav rules that all of the blood must be collected, based on Vayikra 4:7. According to Shmuel, the knife must be lifted immediately after slaughter to prevent blood from dripping off the knife into the vessel, since the blood must come directly from the animal. Rav Chisda and Rabbi Yochanan explain that the animal’s throat must be held directly over the vessel to ensure the blood flows straight into it. Rabbi Asi posed a question to Rabbi Yochanan regarding the airspace above a vessel. The Gemara brings three versions of the question and Rabbi Yochanan’s response: If the bottom of the vessel broke before the blood reached it, but the blood had already entered the vessel’s airspace, does this count as if the blood had reached the vessel? If so, the blood could be collected from the floor and used on the altar. To answer the question, Rabbi Yochanan cited a braita regarding a barrel into which fresh water streamed into its airspace, disqualifying it for use in the red heifer purification waters, as it is considered as though the water entered the vessel. However, this comparison is problematic, since the red heifer case does not involve a broken vessel. To justify the citation, the Gemara reframes the question as a two-pronged inquiry. The question was about the barrel, and the answer was drawn from the aforementioned braita. The question was about the barrel, and the answer was derived from the laws of sacrificial blood, which must reach the vessel directly. Since the blood passes through the airspace first, this implies that the airspace is treated as part of the vessel. If the animal becomes blemished after slaughter but before the blood is collected, brought to the altar, or poured, the blood is disqualified. A source is cited from the laws of the sin offering to support this. The Gemara attempts to extend this ruling to offerings of lesser sanctity, such as the Paschal sacrifice, but the proof is ultimately rejected.  

I just had the “Toyota people” give my “New To Us” 2022 Rav 4 a once over. I'm told I've purchased a Unicorn! 4-year-old car with only FOUR THOUSAND miles on it. Got the oil changed and the NEXT one in 10,000 miles! Alignment at 15K, and tire rotation every 5K. WOWZERS!  The Music Authority Podcast...download, listen, share, repeat…heard daily on Belter Radio, Podchaser, Deezer, Amazon Music, Audible, Listen Notes, Mixcloud, Player FM, Tune In, Podcast Addict, Cast Box, Radio Public, Pocket Cast, APPLE iTunes, and direct for the source distribution site: *Podcast - https://themusicauthority.transistor.fm/  AND NOW there is a website! TheMusicAuthority.comThe Music Authority Podcast! Special Recorded Network Shows, too! Different than my daily show! Seeing that I'm gone from FB now…Follow me on “X” Jim Prell@TMusicAuthority*The Music Authority on @BelterRadio Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 7 pm ET & Wednesday 9 pm ET*Radio Candy Radio Monday Wednesday, & Friday 7PM ET, 4PM PT*Rockin' The KOR Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday at 7PM UK time, 2PM ET, 11AM PT  www.koradio.rocks*Pop Radio UK Friday, Saturday, & Sunday 6PM UK, 1PM ET, 10AM PT! *The Sole Of Indie https://soleofindie.rocks/ Monday Through Friday 6-7PM EST!*AltPhillie.Rocks Sunday, Thursday, & Saturday At 11:00AM ET!October 9, 2025, Thursday…Musical Chaos sounding better than ever…@Orbis 2.0 - TMA SHOW OPEN THEME@Dolph Chaney featuring @The Speed of Sound - Zombie Century [Chilling, Thrilling Hooks & Haunted Harmonies] (@Big Stir Records)@Gas House Gorillas - Rock & Roll Revival [Shut Up!] (@Stoopid Brute Records) @Tommy Keene – Carrie Anne [Drowning]@Marc Valentine - You are One of Us Now [Basement Sparks] (@Wicked Cool Records)@The Scruffs - Break The Ice [Wanna Meet The Scruffs?]@Jekyll Wood - Not Me [Smokescreen - EP]@The Strangers - Spooky [The Return Of....]@The Gunboat Diplomats - She Said [Fine State Of Affairs]@Tommy James And The Shondells - Crystal Blue Persuasion@The Vague - When It Rains, It Pours [Fussy]@Screen Test - Hurt So Bad [Through The Past Brightly] (@Northside Records)@Joe Mansman And The Midnight Revival Band - Take It Easy@Aerial - Great Teenager [Why Don't They Teach Heartbreak At School?]@Jeremy Porter & The Tucos - Echoes Myron [All Good Kids - A Tribute To Guided By Voices]@The Easy Outs - I Can't Take It@The Viewers – 5 Weeks [Unstoppable]@Rattle Bones – Terminal Romance [Sleepwalking] (@Riffhaus Music)@2Sisters – My Zombie Girl

What is going on everyone and welcome back to TT. This week I welcome Mari Buckner of Luxury Auto Collection in Scottsdale, Arizona. Mari is the media and marketing director of LAC and a fantastic photographer to boot. We discuss her role at LAC, why she bought her Supra and her love affair with her Rav 4 (which is way doper than people realize), her near death experience which led her to live her life to the fullest and why we are in agreement that the Huracan Performante and the 580-2 are AWESOME!All that and much more. Huge thanks to Mari for coming on the podcast. Please give her a follow on social media @modded_mari and of course check out Luxury Auto Collection.Enthusiasts never die!

Episode 174 Monday September 22, 2025 On the Needles 5:35 ALL KNITTING LINKS GO TO RAVELRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.  Please visit our Instagram page @craftcookreadrepeat for non-Rav photos and info   Succulents 2025 Blanket CAL by Mallory Krall, Hue Loco DK in ??   SSAL Delectable Collectible Socks by Stephen West, Dark Omen Yarns Sock in Electric Minis (navy, royal, light blue with speckles, cream with speckles, cream)- 2nd sock for PSP   Pop Rock Pullover by Tanis Lavallee, La Bien Aimée singles and Mohair Silk in AVFKW A Day by the Bay   Clapotis ‘24 by Kate Davies, Three Irish Girls Adorn Sock in Ainsley (original 23.8K, sharon mcmahon 3IG) On the Easel 10:12 All the sewing, gardening, & painting…esp work on 2026 calendar. On the Table 18:13 Sheet-Pan Gnocchi with Mushroom Bolognese   my favorite vegetarian sandwich is.... - by Julia Turshen   Pickled potato salad by Casey Elsass from What Can I Bring: How to live your guest life   Secret Menu Dill-Pepperoncini Tuna Salad from Smitten Kitchen   Ottolenghi Spicy Mushroom lasagna Blueberry Cheesecake Phyllo cups Paper airplane cocktail On the Nightstand 31:18 We are now a Bookshop.org affiliate!  You can visit our shop to find books we've talked about or click on the links below.  The books are supplied by local independent bookstores and a percentage goes to us at no cost to you! Heart Lamp by Banu Mushtaq, trans by Deepa Bhasthi from Kannada  On the Calculation of Volume II by Solvej Balle, trans by Barbara J. Haveland The Other Side of Now by Paige Harbison The Bewitching by Silvia Moreno-Garcia Hemlock & Silver by T. Kingfisher A Witch's Guide to Magical Innkeeping by Sangu Mandanna   The Heaven & Earth Grocery Store by James McBride Project Hail Mary by Andy Weir  

Four distinct verses are cited to teach that a kohen who performs a service in the Temple without wearing the prescribed priestly garments renders the sacrifice invalid. Each verse contributes a unique aspect to this halakha, clarifying different scenarios. A braita further analyzes various garment-related issues—such as garments that are too long or too short, worn out, duplicated (e.g., wearing two pairs of pants), or missing one garment. It distinguishes between cases that invalidate the service and those that do not. However, statements by Shmuel and Rav regarding overly long or short garments appear to contradict the braita, which does not disqualify those cases. These apparent contradictions are addressed and resolved through deeper analysis. Additionally, several drashot are derived from the Torah’s use of the word "bad" in describing the kohen’s clothing. The term is interpreted to mean fine linen, and the derivation of this meaning is explored through textual and linguistic analysis.

Four distinct verses are cited to teach that a kohen who performs a service in the Temple without wearing the prescribed priestly garments renders the sacrifice invalid. Each verse contributes a unique aspect to this halakha, clarifying different scenarios. A braita further analyzes various garment-related issues—such as garments that are too long or too short, worn out, duplicated (e.g., wearing two pairs of pants), or missing one garment. It distinguishes between cases that invalidate the service and those that do not. However, statements by Shmuel and Rav regarding overly long or short garments appear to contradict the braita, which does not disqualify those cases. These apparent contradictions are addressed and resolved through deeper analysis. Additionally, several drashot are derived from the Torah’s use of the word "bad" in describing the kohen’s clothing. The term is interpreted to mean fine linen, and the derivation of this meaning is explored through textual and linguistic analysis.

Patrick McDonald (writer, director, actor, formerly Smosh, co-host 'Artists on Artists on Artists on Artists', host 'Havin' a Day') picks up a ninety-nine question interview in the Rav-4 and goes on an adventure! Join Patrick and I as we discuss the origin of Smosh's funeral roast sax man, the name Patch, a ghost car theft, the T-Zone, one big cookie, TLC's Vevo, Cool Spot, pets with human names, & backup turtles.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠99 Questions on Instagram!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠99 Questions on BlueSky!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠r/99questionspod on Reddit!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠--ASK ME A QUESTION! The 99 Question Hotline!--732-592-9838 (aka REAL-WAX-VET)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠99questionspod@gmail.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠99Q Merch⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

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

Why does my Lexus have no overdrive? What's the squeak in my Tacoma front end? Using fuel additives or not? 11 F150 slipping 4x4 hubs Transmission fluid change or not? 09 Rav 4 Why does my carburetor lose prime overnight? 82 Ford F700 95 G20 Chevy Van misfire on highway only 75 Caprice could it be cam failure? Cold start only mis 10 Silverado 13 Titan should I do coils and plugs? 06 Jeep Commander ac won't work at idle 97 Mustang flashing OD light Acura MDX warning light

What's your favorite Devar Torah for the Yamim Noraim? How can we make our Kabbalos last – and what really works? What's the most powerful lesson you've learned this past year? What do you hope to carry forward into the year ahead? Host: Ari Wasserman, author of the newly published, revised and expanded book Making it Work, on workplace challenges and Halachic Q & A on the Job with Rebbetzin Slovie Jungreis Wolff – teacher, author and lecturer – 11:03 with Rabbi Michoel Frank – Rav, Ohr HaTorah, Silver Spring, Maryland – 18:50 with Rabbi Dovid Ostroff – posek and teacher at many seminaries in Yerushalayim – 34:26 with Rabbi Binyomin Wolff – shul Rav and magid shiur in Yerushalayim – Rebbe at Aish and Shapells - 52:50 with “Rav Gav” Friedman – lecturer at Aish HaTorah, Yerushalayim – 1:05:37 with Rabbi Yaakov Wolff – host of the Shtark Tank podcast – 1:22:05 with Mrs. Michal Horowitz – lecturer and teacher – 1:30:53 with Rabbi Aron Moss – Rabbi of the Nefesh Community in Sydney, Australia – 1:51:30 Conclusions and takeaways – 2:02:24 מראי מקומות   

2 sections- final points in Rava's thirds contradiction and 2 more contradiction of other Amoraim within positions of Rav regarding similiarity/dissimilarity interrupting processes

Episode 173 September 11,  2025 On the Needles 2:00 ALL KNITTING LINKS GO TO RAVELRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.  Please visit our Instagram page @craftcookreadrepeat for non-Rav photos and info     Orkney Library knit group Yap and Yarn!   Mystery Pumpkin witch gnome along   Succulents 2025 Blanket CAL by Mallory Krall, Hue Loco DK in String of Pearls   SSAL Delectable Collectible Socks by Stephen West, Dark Omen Yarns Sock in Electric Minis (navy, royal, light blue with speckles, cream with speckles, cream)   Pop Rock Pullover by Tanis Lavallee, La Bien Aimée singles and Mohair Silk in AVFKW A Day by the Bay   Clapotis ‘24 by Kate Davies, Three Irish Girls Adorn Sock in Ainsley (original 23.8K, sharon mcmahon 3IG) On the Easel 10:16 Flowers!   Sewing: the Paola Jacket, and blue cheetah pants (image coming soon) On the Table 16:09 Butter & Crumble   Huck's Broccoli and Lettuce Salad with an Accidental Ranch from Tenderheart by Hetty Lui McKinnon   Lentil Salad with Jammy Tomatoes by Jenny Rosenstrach Balsamic Gochujang Chicken with Red Onions and Tomatoes   Pizza catastrophe in the very cool Gozney oven. Pizza Beans from Smitten Kitchen. Breakfast burritos, chicken gyros, and white chocolate cranberry oatmeal cookies from 100 Cookies.   On the Nightstand 38:06 We are now a Bookshop.org affiliate!  You can visit our shop to find books we've talked about or click on the links below.  The books are supplied by local independent bookstores and a percentage goes to us at no cost to you!   The Hero of Ages by Brandon Sanderson The Habsburgs: To Rule the World by Martyn Rady The Paris Express by Emma Donoghue People Like Us by Jason Mott   The Unmaking of June Farrow by Adrienne Young Isola by Allegra Goodman Bingo 56:51 Starts friday may 23, ends Mon Sept 1 Need to post a photo of completed Bingo with #CCRRsummerbingo2025 to instagram or Ravelry.  Get a blackout for a second entry.  Crazy day so no ghiradelli  for Monica :( Cortney's bingo: ½ credit for finding a thrifted piece to re-work. Ambitious–pizzzzzas. 

2 sections- final points in Rava's thirds contradiction and 2 more contradiction of other Amoraim within positions of Rav regarding similiarity/dissimilarity interrupting processes

Study Guide Zevachim 3 This week's learning is sponsored by Tina Lamm in loving memory of her father, Mr. Mike Senders, A"H, Yitzchak Meir ben HaRav Tzvi Aryeh v'Esther Bayla, on his shloshim. "Reaching the age of 101 was not only a personal milestone for my father, but also a testament to the fullness of his life. He used those years well - building Torah institutions, nurturing family and living in intimacy with Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Today’s daf is sponsored by Lisa Malik & Adi Wyner in loving memory of Lisa’s grandmother, Regina Post z”l. "Babi Gina was the one who insisted on her grandchildren going to the Yeshivah Flatbush and who was especially proud of her 2 granddaughters who were Hebrew valedictorians. She would also be so proud to know that one of her namesakes, Rivkah Gottlieb, made aliyah and that she now has 6 Israeli grandchildren and 3 Israeli great-grandchildren. May the memory of Rivkah bat Shmuel v’Chavah be for a blessing." From where do we know for certain that a get that is written without any specific intent for the woman is disqualified (the basis of a contradiction in Zevachim 2)? After four failed attempts, they eventually find a fifth case in the Mishna in Gittin that clearly proves this. Four contradictions are raised against statements brought in the name of Rav relating to cases in which sacrifices are/are not disqualified when offered for a similar but different intent or for a completely different intent. Comparisons are made to divorce documents, impurities in utensils (what things are considered a barrier that the impurity cannot pass through), and laws within the topic itself (various cases where wrong intentions disqualify/don't disqualify the sacrifices). Each contradiction is resolved. How do we know with certainty that a get (divorce document) written without specific intent for the woman is invalid? This question arises as part of a contradiction discussed in Zevachim 2. After four unsuccessful attempts to find the source, the Gemara ultimately finds a definitive proof in a Mishna in Gittin, which clearly establishes that a get must be written lishmah—with specific intent for the woman receiving it. The sugya presents four challenges to statements attributed to Rav regarding when sacrificial offerings are disqualified due to improper intent. These challenges explore cases where the intent is slightly off (e.g., for a different type of offering) or entirely unrelated. The contradictions are from: The laws of gittin (divorce documents) The laws of tumah in utensils (what constitutes a barrier to impurity) Internal comparisons within the sacrificial laws themselves Each contradiction is carefully analyzed and ultimately resolved, reinforcing the nuanced understanding of how intent affects the validity of offerings—and by extension, other halachic domains.

When does chazanus cross into tircha d'tzibburah? Can a chazan use popular tunes, repeat words, or sing with a choir? Should a professional chazan be hired for the Yamim Noraim, or is simplicity preferred? Is chazanus an ideal form of avodas Hashem — or is it frowned upon? What are the qualifications required of a Yamim Noraim chazan? Host: Ari Wasserman, author of the newly published, revised and expanded book Making it Work, on workplace challenges and Halachic Q & A on the Job with Rabbi Isaac Rice – Mora De'asra of Congregation Anshei Chesed, Hewlitt NY – 12:35 with Rabbi Zev Leff – Posek, Author, Rosh Yeshiva & Rav of Moshav Matisyahu – 48:03 with Rabbi Moshe Walter – Rabbi of Woodside Synagogue Ahavas Torah and prolific author https://www.rabbimoshewalter.com/ – 1:13:00 with Chazan Nissim Saal – Chief Chazzan at Yeshurun Central Synagogue – 1:38:55 Conclusions and takeaways – 1:50:43 מראי מקומות   

How could Yehoachaz have been anointed with shemen hamishcha if Yoshiyahu hid the shemen hamishcha? What else did Yoshiyahu hide, and for what reason? The king and kohen gadol are anointed in different ways—how is each performed? Kings were anointed near a flowing stream as a good omen, symbolizing that their reign would endure. The Gemara digresses into a broader discussion about various practices people use to seek signs—whether they will survive the year, succeed in business, return safely from a journey, and so on. Some authorities caution against relying on such signs. Abaye, however, says that since we see signs do have meaning, one should eat symbolic foods on Rosh Hashana—such as gourds, chard, dates, and others—because they grow quickly, serving as a good omen for the coming year. Rabbi Meir disagrees with the Mishna, holding that even a kohen gadol who assumed the role by wearing the special garments (rather than being anointed) would still be required to bring a bull offering if he sinned. From where does he derive this ruling? A difficulty arises, as the continuation of the Mishna appears to align with Rabbi Meir’s position. Could it be that the Mishna is split—part following Rabbi Meir and part not? If not, how can the Mishna be reconciled? Three different answers are offered to resolve this question. The Mishna teaches that there are five mitzvot commanded to the kohen gadol that also apply to the mashuach milchama—the kohen who addresses the people before they go out to war. A braita provides the source for this ruling. Rava asked Rav Nachman whether a kohen gadol who becomes leprous is permitted to marry a widow. Rav Nachman did not know the answer. Rav Papa later posed the same question, and Rav Huna son of Rav Nachman responded. The Mishna discusses differences between a kohen gadol and a regular kohen regarding the laws of mourning—specifically, whether they may perform Temple service while in the state of onen (the period between the death of a relative and burial), and how they tear their garments. The kohen gadol tears his garment l’mata and a regular kohen l’maala. Rav and Shmuel disagree about how to translate these terms in this context. The Mishna rules that an action performed regularly (tadir) takes precedence over one that is less frequent. Additionally, if one mitzvah is more sanctified than another, it takes precedence. From where are these principles derived?  

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel that the exemption discussed in the Mishna—for an individual who follows an erroneous ruling of the court—is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion. However, the other rabbis disagree and require the individual to bring a sin offering. In contrast, Rav Nachman, also quoting Shmuel, asserts that the Mishna reflects Rabbi Meir’s view, with the rabbis again dissenting. This dispute between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis appears in a braita, though it is unclear whether the braita is actually addressing this specific issue. Rav Papa offers an alternative interpretation of the braita, followed by three additional suggestions. Rav Asi maintains that the majority required for a communal sin offering refers specifically to the majority of Jews living in Israel, as supported by a verse in Melachim I (8:65). A question arises: if the people sinned while constituting a majority, but by the time the offering is to be brought, they are no longer the majority (e.g., due to death), are they still obligated to bring the offering? The Gemara links this to a debate between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis regarding a king who sinned before ascending the throne and only later realized his error once he had become king. The rabbis hold that he must bring an individual sin offering, since obligation is determined at the time of the sin. Rabbi Shimon, however, argues that both the sin and its realization must occur while the individual is in the same status—thus exempting the king entirely. The Gemara then explores whether this principle can be applied to a case where the people sinned as a minority and later became a majority. It concludes that the comparison is invalid, since Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning hinges on the sin and realization occurring during the same period of obligation, which does not apply in this scenario. A series of unresolved questions is posed regarding whether two distinct teaching errors could combine to obligate the community in a communal sin offering. None of these questions receives definitive answers. Rabbi Yonatan holds that a communal offering is only warranted if the court’s ruling was unanimous. However, after three challenges are raised against his position, the final one leads to its rejection. Ultimately, all judges—and even students present during deliberation—share responsibility for the verdict. As a result, rabbis would often invite others to participate in the judgment process, thereby distributing the responsibility more broadly. If the Beit Din realized they made an erroneous ruling, but an individual is unaware and transgresses based on their original ruling, do they need to bring an individual sacrifice? Rabbi Shimon does not obligate in a sacrifice, but Rabbi Elazar requires an asham talui, a provisional guilt offering. However, their debate only applies in cases where the person was in the city. If they were out of town, all agree that there is an exemption, as they had no way to know about the corrected ruling. A communal sin offering is relevant for erroneous rulings regarding details of a Torah law, but not if they rule to uproot a Torah law completely. Rav explains Rabbi Shimon’s position and the Gemara raises a difficulty to Rav from a braita, but resolves it.      

Episode 172 August 28, 2025 On the Needles 1:58 ALL KNITTING LINKS GO TO RAVELRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.  Please visit our Instagram page @craftcookreadrepeat for non-Rav photos and info   Succulents 2025 Blanket CAL by Mallory Krall, Hue Loco DK in String of Pearls   SSAL Delectable Collectible Socks by Stephen West, Dark Omen Yarns Sock in Electric Minis (navy, royal, light blue with speckles, cream with speckles, cream)   Pop Rock Pullover by Tanis Lavallee, La Bien Aimée singles and Mohair Silk in AVFKW A Day by the Bay   Clapotis ‘24 by Kate Davies, Three Irish Girls Adorn Sock in Ainsley   On the Easel 7:31 Ruth Asawa tour.   Flower series–on-going! Sewing: made custom tags, working on muslins. Class is via Seamwork. On the Table 27:01   Schnitzel, sausage stands, cake! Coffee!   Tian- vegetarian restaurant in Vienna Budapest farm to table TATI   Sarti Rosa   Pizza oven–patio pizza stories coming soon! On the Nightstand 41:03 We are now a Bookshop.org affiliate!  You can visit our shop to find books we've talked about or click on the links below.  The books are supplied by local independent bookstores and a percentage goes to us at no cost to you! Discomfort of Evening by Marieke Lucas Rijneveld, trans by Michele Hutchison  Heartwood by Amity Gaige Sestia by G.R. Macallister Mask of Mirrors by M.A. Carrick (audio) Is she really going out with him? By Sophie Cousens  The Love Hypothesis by Ali Hazelwood    The Fact Checker by Austin Kelley Nine Women, One Dress by Jane L. Rosen Real Americans by Rachel Khong Bingo 1:00:48 Starts friday may 23, ends Mon Sept 1 Need to post a photo of completed Bingo with #CCRRsummerbingo2025 to instagram or Ravelry.  Get a blackout for a second entry.  Monica's Bingo: Finally got the center square!   Cortney's Bingo: Debut Author with The Fact Checker Immigrant Perspective with Real Americans

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