Podcasts about Rav

Rav held that Moshe served as a kohen gadol. Four tannaitic sources are brought to challenge this position, but each one is ultimately resolved. A braita is then cited to show that whether Moshe was a kohen gadol is itself a tannaitic dispute. One of the tannaitic views in that debate cites a statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha: whenever the Torah uses the expression charon af,  anger, it implies some concrete action or consequence. His statement is challenged by the verse in Shemot 11:8, where Moshe becomes angry at Pharaoh, yet no action seems to follow. Reish Lakish resolves this by saying that Moshe slapped Pharaoh in the face. This explanation is challenged by another statement of Reish Lakish, in which he says that Moshe showed respect toward Pharaoh. Two answers are offered to reconcile these conflicting statements. Two verses are then brought to support the principle that one must show respect to a king, even a wicked king, one verse concerning Pharaoh and another concerning Ahab. Earlier, a source had referred to Moshe as a king. However, Ulla stated that Moshe desired to be king but was not granted that status. Rava resolves this by qualifying Ulla's statement: Moshe wished for his sons to inherit kingship, and that request was denied, but Moshe himself was indeed considered a king. The Gemara then asks: from where do we derive that kohanim with any type of blemish are entitled to receive portions of the priestly gifts? Four braitot are cited, each offering a drasha that builds upon the previous one. The Mishna states that those who cannot serve in the Temple do not receive a portion, which seems to contradict the ruling regarding blemished kohanim. Furthermore, the implication that those who do serve may eat is difficult in the case of impure kohanim during communal offerings, where they may serve, yet do not receive a portion. The Gemara explains how this contradiction is resolved. Rav relates that Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon was once in the bathroom and devised various arguments that a tevul yom might use to claim a share of sacrificial portions. Yet for every argument he proposed, a pure kohen could cite a verse proving that a tevul yom is excluded, since he cannot perform the Temple service. The Gemara then asks: how was Rabbi Elazar able to think Torah thoughts in the bathroom, something that is normally forbidden?  

Rav held that Moshe served as a kohen gadol. Four tannaitic sources are brought to challenge this position, but each one is ultimately resolved. A braita is then cited to show that whether Moshe was a kohen gadol is itself a tannaitic dispute. One of the tannaitic views in that debate cites a statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha: whenever the Torah uses the expression charon af,  anger, it implies some concrete action or consequence. His statement is challenged by the verse in Shemot 11:8, where Moshe becomes angry at Pharaoh, yet no action seems to follow. Reish Lakish resolves this by saying that Moshe slapped Pharaoh in the face. This explanation is challenged by another statement of Reish Lakish, in which he says that Moshe showed respect toward Pharaoh. Two answers are offered to reconcile these conflicting statements. Two verses are then brought to support the principle that one must show respect to a king, even a wicked king, one verse concerning Pharaoh and another concerning Ahab. Earlier, a source had referred to Moshe as a king. However, Ulla stated that Moshe desired to be king but was not granted that status. Rava resolves this by qualifying Ulla's statement: Moshe wished for his sons to inherit kingship, and that request was denied, but Moshe himself was indeed considered a king. The Gemara then asks: from where do we derive that kohanim with any type of blemish are entitled to receive portions of the priestly gifts? Four braitot are cited, each offering a drasha that builds upon the previous one. The Mishna states that those who cannot serve in the Temple do not receive a portion, which seems to contradict the ruling regarding blemished kohanim. Furthermore, the implication that those who do serve may eat is difficult in the case of impure kohanim during communal offerings, where they may serve, yet do not receive a portion. The Gemara explains how this contradiction is resolved. Rav relates that Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon was once in the bathroom and devised various arguments that a tevul yom might use to claim a share of sacrificial portions. Yet for every argument he proposed, a pure kohen could cite a verse proving that a tevul yom is excluded, since he cannot perform the Temple service. The Gemara then asks: how was Rabbi Elazar able to think Torah thoughts in the bathroom, something that is normally forbidden?  

Study Guide There is a dispute between Rabbi Nechemia and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon regarding the reason Aaron burned the sin‑offering goat on the eighth day of the inauguration (miluim). Rabbi Nehemiah holds that the reason was aninut (the status of a mourner on the day of death), whereas Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda argue that the goat was burned because it had become impure. They raise three objections to Rabbi Nechemia's position - how can these objections be resolved, and how does each of them interpret the verses in the passage? When did Pinchas become a kohen? According to Rav, Moshe served as the kohen gadol. The Gemara raises objections to his statement.

In this conversation, Rav and Loch Kelly explore the intersection of mindfulness and psychotherapy. They discuss practical steps for experiencing non-duality, the importance of integrating mindfulness with psychotherapy, and the role of agency and free will in personal development. Loch shares his personal journey into meditation and psychotherapy, highlighting the significance of understanding consciousness and the “true self.” The conversation emphasizes the need for a balanced approach to healing and enjoyment in life, and how different meditation methods can lead to various experiences. The discussion emphasizes the significance of living awake in the world, integrating spiritual practices into daily life, and making wise decisions from a place of authenticity and trust.Apple linkSpotify linkYouTube link(Available on all other podcast platforms too)Timestamps:00:00 – Intro00:59 – Who Is Loch Kelly?06:05 – How Meditation And Therapy Differ10:30 – Discovering Awareness Through Sport14:20 – Losing A Parent And Opening Up18:10 – Psychedelics And Consciousness Explained26:30 – Why Spiritual Bypass Causes Problems34:10 – When Meditation Fails Emotionally41:16 – Agency Free Will And Mental Health57:50 – What Is ‘The Self' In IFS01:23:00 – Noticing The Anxious Part01:27:30 – The Root Of Dissatisfaction01:36:30 – A Meditation01:48:30 – Why Pure Awareness Is Not Enough02:03:47 – Making Wise Decisions From The SelfI highly recommend you download Loch Kelly's ‘Mindful Glimpses' App here:https://lochkelly.org/mindful-glimpsesSupport The Illusion of Consensus!The Illusion of Consensus is a fully reader-supported publication. If you support the high-quality mental health and wellness journalism on this site, consider becoming a paid or founding member to receive exclusive articles, early-access episodes, and ask questions for future episodes. Or support The Illusion of Consensus with a one-time donation. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.illusionconsensus.com/subscribe

Study Guide There is a dispute between Rabbi Nechemia and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon regarding the reason Aaron burned the sin‑offering goat on the eighth day of the inauguration (miluim). Rabbi Nehemiah holds that the reason was aninut (the status of a mourner on the day of death), whereas Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda argue that the goat was burned because it had become impure. They raise three objections to Rabbi Nechemia's position - how can these objections be resolved, and how does each of them interpret the verses in the passage? When did Pinchas become a kohen? According to Rav, Moshe served as the kohen gadol. The Gemara raises objections to his statement.

The Niggun Chabura – Reveal the Light Chanukah Concert was held at Aish Kodesh on December 15, 2025. Reb Yirmi interweaves Torah teachings on the Ohr HaGanuz—the primordial light hidden within every Jew—with powerful insights into how that light can be revealed in our own lives. These teachings are woven seamlessly between the moving music of the exceptionally talented artists listed below, creating an experience of inspiration, depth, and spiritual illumination.From the Zoldan Family - lichvod Rav & Rebbetzin Ginsberg - should be gebentched with much Yiddishe nachas from their precious kinderlach ♥️ Refuah shelama for Hertzel Yoni Ben Chaya TziviaFeatured Musical Artists:Akiva DavidBINYAMINEli DachsGelfWerntatty

This morning we ask why isn't today, Sunday, the last day of Chanukah (in other words the famous question why is Chanukah 8 days and not 7). We present a new answer based on the Rav, Rabbi Yosef Soloveitchik that gives us a new, sublime outlook on our mission in life, demonstrated by a heart stopping story. But first I share a story of looking for the helpers (paraphrasing Mr. Rogers) in last Sunday's horrifying attack in Bondi Beach. Michael Whitman is the senior rabbi of ADATH Congregation in Hampstead, Quebec, and an adjunct professor at McGill University Faculty of Law. ADATH is a modern orthodox synagogue community in suburban Montreal, providing Judaism for the next generation. We take great pleasure in welcoming everyone with a warm smile, while sharing inspiration through prayer, study, and friendship. Rabbi Whitman shares his thoughts and inspirations through online lectures and shiurim, which are available on: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5FLcsC6xz5TmkirT1qObkA Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/adathmichael/ Podcast - Mining the Riches of the Parsha: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/mining-the-riches-of-the-parsha/id1479615142?fbclid=IwAR1c6YygRR6pvAKFvEmMGCcs0Y6hpmK8tXzPinbum8drqw2zLIo7c9SR-jc Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3hWYhCG5GR8zygw4ZNsSmO Please contact Rabbi Whitman (rabbi@adath.ca) with any questions or feedback, or to receive a daily email, "Study with Rabbi Whitman Today," with current and past insights for that day, video, and audio, all in one short email sent directly to your inbox.

The same issue raised on the previous page regarding laundering vessels removed from the Azara is now applied to breaking earthenware vessels and performing merika (scrubbing) and shetifa (rinsing) of metal vessels. If these vessels are punctured and lose their status as valid utensils, how can the mitzva of breaking or cleaning them be fulfilled? Reish Lakish teaches how to handle a priestly garment that becomes impure, since it cannot be torn. Rav Adda bar Ahava challenges his suggestion, but the Gemara resolves the difficulty. The Gemara raises a difficulty with the obligation of laundering: how can blood be laundered in the Azara if Rav Nachman, quoting Raba bar Avuha, rules that blood of a sin offering and stains from nega'im require cleansing with the seven prescribed detergents, one of which is urine? According to a braita, urine may not be brought into the Temple. The resolution is to bring the urine mixed with saliva (rok tafel). The Mishna teaches that vessels in which sacrificial meat was cooked, or into which boiling liquid was poured, require merika and shetifa, whether from kodashei kodashim or kodashim kalim. Rabbi Shimon disagrees, exempting kodashim kalim from this requirement. A braita explains that the words in the verse in Vayikra 6:21, "that which was cooked in it," extend the law to include pouring boiling liquid into a vessel. Rami bar Chama raises the question of whether meat suspended in the air of the oven counts as cooking for the purposes of requiring breaking the oven. Rava brings a source to answer this question, but it is rejected. A statement of Rav Nachman in the name of Raba bar Avuha is also cited to answer the question, but it too is rejected. A practical case is cited where an oven was plastered with fat, and Raba bar Ahilai forbade eating bread baked in it forever, lest one come to eat it with dairy dip (kutach). This ruling is challenged by a braita that prohibits kneading dough with milk or plastering an oven with fat, but allows use once the oven is reheated (as koshering removes the flavor). Raba bar Ahilai's ruling is therefore rejected. Ravina asks Rav Ashi why, if Raba bar Ahilai was refuted, Rav ruled that pots on Pesach must be broken. Rav Ashi explains that Rav understood the braita to be referring to metal vessels. Alternatively, one can distinguish between earthenware ovens, whose heat is on the inside (so koshering works), and earthenware pots, which are heated from the outside and cannot be properly koshered.

The same issue raised on the previous page regarding laundering vessels removed from the Azara is now applied to breaking earthenware vessels and performing merika (scrubbing) and shetifa (rinsing) of metal vessels. If these vessels are punctured and lose their status as valid utensils, how can the mitzva of breaking or cleaning them be fulfilled? Reish Lakish teaches how to handle a priestly garment that becomes impure, since it cannot be torn. Rav Adda bar Ahava challenges his suggestion, but the Gemara resolves the difficulty. The Gemara raises a difficulty with the obligation of laundering: how can blood be laundered in the Azara if Rav Nachman, quoting Raba bar Avuha, rules that blood of a sin offering and stains from nega'im require cleansing with the seven prescribed detergents, one of which is urine? According to a braita, urine may not be brought into the Temple. The resolution is to bring the urine mixed with saliva (rok tafel). The Mishna teaches that vessels in which sacrificial meat was cooked, or into which boiling liquid was poured, require merika and shetifa, whether from kodashei kodashim or kodashim kalim. Rabbi Shimon disagrees, exempting kodashim kalim from this requirement. A braita explains that the words in the verse in Vayikra 6:21, "that which was cooked in it," extend the law to include pouring boiling liquid into a vessel. Rami bar Chama raises the question of whether meat suspended in the air of the oven counts as cooking for the purposes of requiring breaking the oven. Rava brings a source to answer this question, but it is rejected. A statement of Rav Nachman in the name of Raba bar Avuha is also cited to answer the question, but it too is rejected. A practical case is cited where an oven was plastered with fat, and Raba bar Ahilai forbade eating bread baked in it forever, lest one come to eat it with dairy dip (kutach). This ruling is challenged by a braita that prohibits kneading dough with milk or plastering an oven with fat, but allows use once the oven is reheated (as koshering removes the flavor). Raba bar Ahilai's ruling is therefore rejected. Ravina asks Rav Ashi why, if Raba bar Ahilai was refuted, Rav ruled that pots on Pesach must be broken. Rav Ashi explains that Rav understood the braita to be referring to metal vessels. Alternatively, one can distinguish between earthenware ovens, whose heat is on the inside (so koshering works), and earthenware pots, which are heated from the outside and cannot be properly koshered.

Evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller joins Rav on the Illusion of Consensus for a deep exploration of Gen Z's crisis of sex, dating, and relationships, unpacking why modern courtship is failing and how evolutionary instincts still shape today's mating market. Miller breaks down the rise of incel culture, the psychology of attraction, the impact of dating apps, and practical strategies young men can use to build confidence, social skills, and real-world romantic success. This conversation moves from societal trends to actionable insights on approaching women, navigating rejection, and understanding human mating psychology with clarity and honesty. A candid and highly informative session with Geoffrey Miller on how young people can thrive in a transformed romantic landscape.Follow Geoffrey on X: https://x.com/primalpolyTime-stamps: 00:00 – Intro05:55 – Queer Identity + Gen Z's Sexual Recession Unpacked13:25 – Sapiosexuals and Social Categories20:40 – What Intelligence Really Signals in Dating27:55 – Phones, Isolation, and the Collapse of Social Skills35:10 – Dating Apps and the New Mating Inequality42:25 – How Rejection Creates Modern Incel Psychology49:40 – Low-Stakes Flirting and Building Social Confidence56:55 – Approaching Women Without Creeping Them Out1:04:10 – Standards, Risk, and Smarter Short-Term Choices This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.illusionconsensus.com/subscribe

Rav asks us to yes be on our phone this Fabrengen campaign

The Gemara makes one final attempt to answer the question of whether the airspace of the altar can sanctify disqualified items just as the altar does. The attempt is rejected. The Mishna teaches that liquid sacred vessels sanctify liquids, and vessels used for dry ingredients sanctify dry items. Liquid vessels cannot sanctify dry items, nor vice versa. If sacred vessels are punctured, they only sanctify if they can still perform their original function and remain whole. All sanctification occurs only within the Azara. Shmuel limits the first ruling of the Mishna to measuring utensils, but bowls and similar items can sanctify even dry ingredients. His proof is a verse regarding flour mixed with oil that was placed into a bowl generally used for liquids (Bamidbar 7:13). Rav Acha questions this proof since flour mixed with oil is not exactly a solid, and Shmuel provides two possible answers. Shmuel further rules that sacred vessels sanctify only when they are whole, filled with the entire amount needed for the offering, and can only sanctify items from within. Variants of this teaching differ slightly, as one version reads "from inside the Azara" instead of "from within the vessel" and another includes both. The difference between two of these versions is whether overflow is sanctified. Rabbi Yohanan qualifies the ruling that if there is not a complete amount, the item inside will not be sanctified. He explains that this applies only when there was no intent to reach the full amount, but if one intends to add enough to reach the requisite measure, each portion becomes sanctified as it is placed inside. A braita is brought to support this. Rav or Rav Asi qualifies the Mishna's ruling that dry vessels do not sanctify liquids and vice versa. This applies to sanctification for offering on the altar, but they are sanctified to the extent that the contents can become disqualified. Some say his statement was made regarding a different braita about meal offerings brought from orla and diverse kinds. A braita teaches that damaged sacred vessels cannot be repaired by melting or patching. Similarly, knives with defects cannot be sharpened to remove the blemish, and if a blade slips out, it cannot be reattached. This ruling reflects the principle that there is "no poverty in a place of affluence," referring to the Temple as a place of affluence. Abba Shaul recalls a defective knife in the Temple that was buried so that is would not be used. Another braita, based on the same principle, explains that the clothes of the kohanim must be woven, not stitched, and if they become soiled, they cannot be washed with cleaning agents such as natron or soap. Abaye clarifies that they can be laundered if only mildly dirty, but if cleaning them would require agents, they cannot be cleaned even with water alone. Some say they may never be washed at all. A braita describes the kohen gadol's robe as entirely blue, with hem decorations resembling unopened pomegranates and children's buttons. Bells were attached, either seventy‑two in total or thirty‑six according to differing opinions. Rabbi Anani bar Sasson notes that this dispute parallels disagreements about the number of shades in leprous afflictions. Rabbi Anani bar Sasson explains that the Torah juxtaposes sacrifices with priestly garments to teach that just as sacrifices atone, so too do the garments. Each garment corresponds to atonement for a specific sin: the tunic for murder, the pants for sexual immorality, the turban for arrogance, the belt for improper thoughts, the breastplate for judicial errors, the ephod for idolatry, the robe for lashon hara, and the tzitz for brazenness. The Gemara raises a difficulty from the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who taught that murder and lashon hara have no atonement through sacrifices, only through other means - egla arufa for murder and ketoret, incense, for slander. The difficulty is resolved by distinguishing between situations: when the murderer is known, the tunic atones; when unknown, the egla arufa atones. Regarding lashon hara, they distinguish between public lashon hara, which is atoned by the robe with its bells, and private lashon hara, atoned by the ketoret, which is offered in the sanctuary, a private space.

Episode 179 Thursday December 4, 2025 On the Needles 3:44 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 Hens & Chicks– DONE!! And started joining!    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)-- DONE!!   Shire Hat by Hook Mountain Handmade, Cascade 128 (bulky) in White (restart cuz lace, the rip cuz added extra knit rows)-- DONE!!   Tentacula Cowl by Jenny Noto, Jems Luxe Fibers Monstrous Minis in Scylla    Gnandad's Grand Adventure by Sarah Schira, Little Squirrel Yarn Oak Sock in Gnandad's Adventure (skis!) On the Easel 17:04 300 Hand-painted amaryllis blooms Gouachevember Planning for 2026 Staffordshire notes–calendars still available On the Table 24:47 NYT Mortadella cookies   Thanksgiving recap Wild rice pilaf Smitten Kitchen Butterscotch Apple Crisp from Keepers Green Beans with Carmelized Shallots and Dill Three Color Chopped Cabbage Salad from DALS Weekday Vegetarian: Get Simple   Lunch pizzas with components from Good Things. Good Things Review On the Nightstand 54:51 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 Last Voice You Hear by Mick Herron Why We Die by Mick herron (audio)  Brimstone by Callie Hart The Entanglement of Rival Wizards by Sara Raasch Aftertaste by Daria Lavelle A Merry Little Lie by Sarah Morgan (audio) Everyone this Christmas Has a Secret by Benjamin Stevenson (audio)   The Anatomist's Wife by Anna Lee Huber The Women of Wild Hill by Kirsten Miller (I added to Eco-lit too)

The Gemara makes one final attempt to answer the question of whether the airspace of the altar can sanctify disqualified items just as the altar does. The attempt is rejected. The Mishna teaches that liquid sacred vessels sanctify liquids, and vessels used for dry ingredients sanctify dry items. Liquid vessels cannot sanctify dry items, nor vice versa. If sacred vessels are punctured, they only sanctify if they can still perform their original function and remain whole. All sanctification occurs only within the Azara. Shmuel limits the first ruling of the Mishna to measuring utensils, but bowls and similar items can sanctify even dry ingredients. His proof is a verse regarding flour mixed with oil that was placed into a bowl generally used for liquids (Bamidbar 7:13). Rav Acha questions this proof since flour mixed with oil is not exactly a solid, and Shmuel provides two possible answers. Shmuel further rules that sacred vessels sanctify only when they are whole, filled with the entire amount needed for the offering, and can only sanctify items from within. Variants of this teaching differ slightly, as one version reads "from inside the Azara" instead of "from within the vessel" and another includes both. The difference between two of these versions is whether overflow is sanctified. Rabbi Yohanan qualifies the ruling that if there is not a complete amount, the item inside will not be sanctified. He explains that this applies only when there was no intent to reach the full amount, but if one intends to add enough to reach the requisite measure, each portion becomes sanctified as it is placed inside. A braita is brought to support this. Rav or Rav Asi qualifies the Mishna's ruling that dry vessels do not sanctify liquids and vice versa. This applies to sanctification for offering on the altar, but they are sanctified to the extent that the contents can become disqualified. Some say his statement was made regarding a different braita about meal offerings brought from orla and diverse kinds. A braita teaches that damaged sacred vessels cannot be repaired by melting or patching. Similarly, knives with defects cannot be sharpened to remove the blemish, and if a blade slips out, it cannot be reattached. This ruling reflects the principle that there is "no poverty in a place of affluence," referring to the Temple as a place of affluence. Abba Shaul recalls a defective knife in the Temple that was buried so that is would not be used. Another braita, based on the same principle, explains that the clothes of the kohanim must be woven, not stitched, and if they become soiled, they cannot be washed with cleaning agents such as natron or soap. Abaye clarifies that they can be laundered if only mildly dirty, but if cleaning them would require agents, they cannot be cleaned even with water alone. Some say they may never be washed at all. A braita describes the kohen gadol's robe as entirely blue, with hem decorations resembling unopened pomegranates and children's buttons. Bells were attached, either seventy‑two in total or thirty‑six according to differing opinions. Rabbi Anani bar Sasson notes that this dispute parallels disagreements about the number of shades in leprous afflictions. Rabbi Anani bar Sasson explains that the Torah juxtaposes sacrifices with priestly garments to teach that just as sacrifices atone, so too do the garments. Each garment corresponds to atonement for a specific sin: the tunic for murder, the pants for sexual immorality, the turban for arrogance, the belt for improper thoughts, the breastplate for judicial errors, the ephod for idolatry, the robe for lashon hara, and the tzitz for brazenness. The Gemara raises a difficulty from the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who taught that murder and lashon hara have no atonement through sacrifices, only through other means - egla arufa for murder and ketoret, incense, for slander. The difficulty is resolved by distinguishing between situations: when the murderer is known, the tunic atones; when unknown, the egla arufa atones. Regarding lashon hara, they distinguish between public lashon hara, which is atoned by the robe with its bells, and private lashon hara, atoned by the ketoret, which is offered in the sanctuary, a private space.

"Either you have self-education or you're not educated." Personal transformation begins with the realization that technical skills alone cannot create a meaningful life or effective leadership. Real growth comes from learning how to navigate your own inner world—your thinking, your emotions, and the nervous system that drives your responses. When people learn to manage themselves, they become capable of leading others with clarity and compassion.  Rav Bains brings this truth to life through his own journey from adversity to impact. Rav shows how deep self-work not only reshapes individual potential but also transforms large, complex organizations. His insights demonstrate how courage, humility, and emotional intelligence allow a leader to create safety, connection, and meaningful change for the people they serve. Rav's stories—from homelessness to becoming a CEO—illustrate the power of self-education and the profound shift that occurs when a leader decides to "grow up" and lead from within.  Rav is a transformational leadership mentor known for reshaping child-welfare organizations and championing humane, emotionally intelligent leadership. His work has influenced legislation, empowered frontline teams, and created measurable breakthroughs for vulnerable children and families.  Learn more & connect:  RavSBains1@gmail.com  The Authorities: Powerful Wisdom from Leaders in the Field by Rav Bains, Les Brown, Raymond Aaron, Dr John Gray  Raymond Aaron has shared his vision and wisdom on radio and television programs for over 40 years. He is the author of over 100 books, including Branding Small Business For Dummies, Double Your Income Doing What You Love, Canadian best-seller Chicken Soup for the Canadian Soul, and he co-authored the New York Times best-seller Chicken Soup for the Parent's Soul. Raymond's latest, co-authored book is The AI Millionaire's Path: Discover How ChatGPT‐Written Books Become Bestsellers and How They Can Make You a Millionaire Author!.  www.Aaron.com 

  According to the Mishna, in a burnt offering, items that are connected to the meat but not the meat itself—such as bones, hooves, horns, and sinews—are left on the altar if they remain attached to the meat. However, if they are detached, they must be removed from the altar. This ruling is derived from two different verses in the Torah: in Vayikra 1:9 it says that everything is burned on the altar, while in Devarim 12:27 it specifies that in burnt offerings, meat and blood are brought on the altar. This opinion in the Mishna is attributed to Rebbi, while another tannaitic view interprets "everything" more broadly to include these parts, with the limiting verse excluding bones, sinews, etc. only once they have already been consumed by the fire and separated from it. Rabbi Zeira qualifies Rebbi's opinion, explaining that if these parts became separated from the meat but moved closer to the pyre, they are to remain on the altar. The Gemara rejects this explanation, and Rabba offers a different interpretation of Rabbi Zeira's qualification. He explains that the qualification was not on Rebbi's words themselves but on an inference drawn from them—that if they separate, they must be removed from the altar, though they still retain sanctity and cannot be used for personal benefit. Rabba then distinguishes between items that separated before the blood was placed on the altar and those that separated afterward. If they were still attached at the time of the blood sprinkling and later separated, they are considered sanctified items that became disqualified, which are forbidden for benefit. But if they were already detached at the time of sprinkling, they were never destined for the altar and are therefore permitted for the kohanim's use, as derived from a gezeira shava from the guilt offering. Rabbi Elazar takes the opposite approach. If they were still attached when the blood was sprinkled, the sprinkling permits them, so there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property, though they remain prohibited by rabbinic law. However, if they were already detached, the sprinkling has no effect on them, and they remain in their original consecrated state, making one liable for misuse of consecrated property. The Mishna further explains that if any of the disqualified offerings that are meant to remain on the altar (as mentioned in Zevachim 84a) fall off the altar, or if an ember of wood falls off, they do not need to be returned. The Mishna also rules that if parts of the sacrifice that are to be burned on the altar fall off, they must be put back on if this occurs before midnight. After midnight, however, they do not need to be returned. The Gemara limits this ruling to items that have hardened but not yet reduced to ash. Items not yet consumed to that state must be returned regardless of the time, while items already reduced to ash do not need to be returned. Rav brings a source for the significance of midnight in this law from a drasha on the verses in Vayikra 6:2–3. Rav Kahana raises a difficulty on this braita from a Mishna in Yoma 20a, and Rabbi Yochanan brings a different drasha to explain the Mishna.

  According to the Mishna, in a burnt offering, items that are connected to the meat but not the meat itself—such as bones, hooves, horns, and sinews—are left on the altar if they remain attached to the meat. However, if they are detached, they must be removed from the altar. This ruling is derived from two different verses in the Torah: in Vayikra 1:9 it says that everything is burned on the altar, while in Devarim 12:27 it specifies that in burnt offerings, meat and blood are brought on the altar. This opinion in the Mishna is attributed to Rebbi, while another tannaitic view interprets "everything" more broadly to include these parts, with the limiting verse excluding bones, sinews, etc. only once they have already been consumed by the fire and separated from it. Rabbi Zeira qualifies Rebbi's opinion, explaining that if these parts became separated from the meat but moved closer to the pyre, they are to remain on the altar. The Gemara rejects this explanation, and Rabba offers a different interpretation of Rabbi Zeira's qualification. He explains that the qualification was not on Rebbi's words themselves but on an inference drawn from them—that if they separate, they must be removed from the altar, though they still retain sanctity and cannot be used for personal benefit. Rabba then distinguishes between items that separated before the blood was placed on the altar and those that separated afterward. If they were still attached at the time of the blood sprinkling and later separated, they are considered sanctified items that became disqualified, which are forbidden for benefit. But if they were already detached at the time of sprinkling, they were never destined for the altar and are therefore permitted for the kohanim's use, as derived from a gezeira shava from the guilt offering. Rabbi Elazar takes the opposite approach. If they were still attached when the blood was sprinkled, the sprinkling permits them, so there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property, though they remain prohibited by rabbinic law. However, if they were already detached, the sprinkling has no effect on them, and they remain in their original consecrated state, making one liable for misuse of consecrated property. The Mishna further explains that if any of the disqualified offerings that are meant to remain on the altar (as mentioned in Zevachim 84a) fall off the altar, or if an ember of wood falls off, they do not need to be returned. The Mishna also rules that if parts of the sacrifice that are to be burned on the altar fall off, they must be put back on if this occurs before midnight. After midnight, however, they do not need to be returned. The Gemara limits this ruling to items that have hardened but not yet reduced to ash. Items not yet consumed to that state must be returned regardless of the time, while items already reduced to ash do not need to be returned. Rav brings a source for the significance of midnight in this law from a drasha on the verses in Vayikra 6:2–3. Rav Kahana raises a difficulty on this braita from a Mishna in Yoma 20a, and Rabbi Yochanan brings a different drasha to explain the Mishna.

Description:ZeroHedge brings together Alex Berenson and Dave Smith with Rav Arora moderating a volatile, high-stakes clash over Holocaust accusations, Daryl Cooper, and the broader discourse shaping today's political culture. This episode breaks down their heated exchange, the ideological fractures exposed on X, and the deeper tensions around Israel, Gaza, and media narratives. Berenson and Smith confront each other directly, forcing a raw look at evidence, rhetoric, and the boundaries of good-faith debate. Rav guides a turbulent conversation that pushes into the most contentious territory of the modern moment. This is a repost from the live debate in August for those who missed it.—Links:SpotifyApple—Chapters:00:00 – Opening Remarks & Immediate Friction03:32 – Alex References Holocaust Tweet09:58 – Holocaust Denial Accusation Emerges13:21 – Dave Challenges NYT Credibility21:17 – Genocide Framing Sparks Heated Exchange25:40 – Audience Reaction Alters the Dynamic33:50 – Escalating Fallout50:50 – Daryl's Clarifications Discussed1:01:50 – Accusations of Bad Faith1:18:30 – Mother Jones Allegations Raised1:24:00 –Turning Toward Israel Debate1:35:00 –Dave's Holocaust Perspective1:48:00 – Final Clash and Abrupt Ending This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.illusionconsensus.com/subscribe

This morning we analyze the three questions Yaakov knows his brother Eisav will ask, and tells his messengers to answer only the last question. This passage is the basis of a foundational essay by the Rav, Rabbi Yosef Soloveitchik titled "Confrontation," laying out the position of the Jewish People vis a vis the rest of the world. Michael Whitman is the senior rabbi of ADATH Congregation in Hampstead, Quebec, and an adjunct professor at McGill University Faculty of Law. ADATH is a modern orthodox synagogue community in suburban Montreal, providing Judaism for the next generation. We take great pleasure in welcoming everyone with a warm smile, while sharing inspiration through prayer, study, and friendship. Rabbi Whitman shares his thoughts and inspirations through online lectures and shiurim, which are available on: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5FLcsC6xz5TmkirT1qObkA Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/adathmichael/ Podcast - Mining the Riches of the Parsha: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/mining-the-riches-of-the-parsha/id1479615142?fbclid=IwAR1c6YygRR6pvAKFvEmMGCcs0Y6hpmK8tXzPinbum8drqw2zLIo7c9SR-jc Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3hWYhCG5GR8zygw4ZNsSmO Please contact Rabbi Whitman (rabbi@adath.ca) with any questions or feedback, or to receive a daily email, "Study with Rabbi Whitman Today," with current and past insights for that day, video, and audio, all in one short email sent directly to your inbox.

Rav nachman Halacha that a avoda zara ring is batul one in hundre,sfek sfeika by avoda zara machlokes rav and Shmuel and why the Treifa that got mixed In you can't tell which one it is

In a set of intermingled parts of sacrifices, including from a blemished animal, Rabbi Eliezer rules that if one was sacrificed, we can "assume" that the one sacrificed was the blemished one and all the others are permitted. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Eliezer follows a unique opinion, that of Chanan the Egyptian, who holds that animals, even after slaughter, are not considered "rejected," and if they are brought on the altar, they can be accepted. Similarly, Rav Nachman cites a ruling of Rav that if one ring of idol worship was mixed in with many other rings, and one fell into the sea, all the rest are permitted. After Rava raised a difficulty on this from the Mishna—that all the animals are left to die, so why wouldn't we permit them after the first one dies—the Gemara concludes that Rav holds like Rabbi Eliezer. It is then established that both Rabbi Eliezer and Rav would permit the others only if they are sacrificed or sold in pairs, since one of the pair will certainly be a permitted item. Rav also ruled in a case where there were one hundred rings with one being of idol worship. If they were separated into sixty and forty, and then one from each section was mixed into separate sets of rings, the one that came from the forty is permitted based on a safek sefeika—two doubts: likely it was in the sixty, and even if it was in the forty, likely it remained in the original forty. Shmuel disagreed and did not permit safek sefeika in idol worship. A difficulty is raised against Shmuel's position from a braita that permits it, but it is established that there is a tannaitic debate. Reish Lakish brings a similar ruling to Rav Nachman regarding a barrel of wine of truma. The Gemara explains why both his case and Rav Nachman's case needed to be ruled on separately, as one would not necessarily be able to infer one from the other. Raba and Rav Yosef disagree about the extent to which Reish Lakish's leniency applies. Rabbi Elazar rules leniently in a case of a barrel of truma, but his ruling is modified after Rav Nachman raised a difficulty against it. Rabbi Oshaya rules about a similar case, adding another potential issue. The Mishna discusses a situation in which a treifa is mixed in with other animals. As a treifa should be recognizable, the Gemara asks how such a situation could occur. Three possible answers are given. If sacrifices of the same type are intermingled, the Mishna rules that they are sacrificed for "whichever owner they belong to." However, in sacrifices where smicha is necessary, how can the sacrifice be brought—since one cannot perform smicha on someone else's sacrifice? Rav Yosef explains that the Mishna must be referring to women, who are not obligated in smicha.

The Zohar HaKadosh writes that it is worth it for a person to seek out all of the delicacies that the world has to offer, just to be able to say Birkat Hamazon with joy, because Birkat Hamazon, when said properly, brings upon a person the greatest berachot from the Upper Worlds. The more joy and appreciation a person feels during Birkat Hamazon, the greater the blessings that are drawn down to him. The Zohar writes further that when a person says Birkat Hamazon properly, he brings joy to Heaven and to the earth. We should feel tremendous happiness that Hashem gave us the zechut to have the opportunity to say Birkat Hamazon. The Yesod VeShoresh HaAvodah would make a tefillah before Birkat Hamazon, asking Hashem to give him the zechut to say every word with kavanah. And when he succeeded in saying it with kavanah, he would recite a special tefillah afterward, thanking Hashem for granting him such a precious gift. Once, a talmid chacham came to see Rav Shach. When he entered, the Rav had just begun Birkat Hamazon. The visitor watched as Rav Shach said every word slowly from a siddur, as if he were counting precious jewels. It took about fifteen minutes to complete. When he finished, his face was glowing with joy. The talmid chacham asked why he looked so happy, and Rav Shach replied that he had just merited to say Birkat Hamazon properly, and that meant success in all areas of life and long life as well. The sefer Amud Esh relates that a woman once came to the Maharil Diskin, weeping that she had been married many years without meriting to have children. He advised her to accept upon herself to say Birkat Hamazon from a siddur, with kavanah. In time, she had a baby. When people would go to the Stipler for a berachah to have children, he would give them the same counsel, to say Birkat Hamazon from a siddur with kavanah. The Stipler would also say that Birkat Hamazon said properly is a segulah to merit children who are tzaddikim. The Midrash teaches that Hashem said, "Eat, be satisfied, and then bless My Name with Birkat Hamazon, and I will remove sickness from your midst." Rav Mendel of Rimanov found this hinted to in the pasuk that says וּבֵרַך אֶת לַחְמְךָ וְאֶת מֵימֶיךָ וַהֲסִרֹתִי מַחֲלָה מִקִּרְבֶּךָ-when we bless Hashem for our bread and our water, He will remove disease from among us. The Maor VaShemesh taught that when a Jew recites Birkat Hamazon with kavanah, the food he ate is transformed into medicine and heals him from illness. The Kotzker Rebbe said that through Birkat Hamazon, a person can become close to Hashem and acquire deeper yirat shamayim. The Zohar writes that one who recites Birkat Hamazon properly in this world will merit a special place in Gan Eden. Not only that, but the berachot themselves will accompany him and protect him on his way to that place. The Kav HaYashar writes that one who recites Birkat Hamazon with kavanah will be invited to the special seudah that Hashem will prepare for the tzaddikim in the future. The Magen Avraham writes that one who is careful with Birkat Hamazon brings the geulah closer. After the fourth berachah, we have the long series of requests in the HaRachamans. The Chafetz Chaim said that one cannot compare tefillah made before a mitzvah to tefillah made after completing a mitzvah. When a mitzvah is just performed, it becomes an eit ratzon, a special time of Heavenly favor, when prayers are accepted with far greater power. After Birkat Hamazon, the gates of Shamayim are wide open, and Chazal gave us beautiful requests to say so we should not lose that precious opportunity. The Gedolim of last generation have urged us to strengthen ourselves in this wondrous mitzvah. Doing it properly requires more time and attention, but we know that whatever we invest with Hashem returns to us many times over. The Gemara in Berachot tells us that the tzaddikim of earlier generations would spend three hours on each tefillah, which means nine hours a day in prayer. The Gemara asks how they had time to learn Torah and earn a livelihood. It answers that Hashem blessed their learning and their parnasah, enabling them to accomplish in a short time what would normally take many hours. Hashem can stretch a person's day, and He can also extend a person's years. We never lose from spending time on Birkat Hamazon. On the contrary, we gain everything from it. Let us strengthen ourselves to rejoice in the zechut of thanking and praising Hashem for His endless kindness, and to feel deep hakarat hatov as we recite the holy words of Birkat Hamazon.

Episode 178 November 20, 2025 On the Needles 2:01 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– 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– DONE!!   Clapotis ‘24 by Kate Davies, Three Irish Girls Adorn Sock in Ainsley (original 23.8K, sharon mcmahon 3IG)       On the Easel 11:54 Gouachevember–butter-themed? Envelope painting for the 2026 Calendar (coming soon!) On the Table 16:07   https://pinchofyum.com/house-favorite-brussels-sprouts   Gochujang Potato Stew   Roasted Rutabaga and Apple with Kale and Coconut Vinaigrette from Linger by Hetty Lui McKinnon   Rye crackers Oat cakes Persimmons & pomegranate salad with goat cheese, and cumin vinaigrette  Portuguese white bean & kale stew with sausage On the Nightstand 28:37 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!   Extreme North: A Cultural History by Bernd Brunner, trans by Jefferson Chase The Black Wolf by Louise Penny (Inspector Gamache #20) 36:54 Silver and Lead by Seanan McGuire (october daye #19)  40:19 A Mouthful of Dust by Nghi Vo (Singing Hills #6) 42:24 Things Gods Break by Abigail Owen (The crucible #2) 44:01 Queen Demon by Martha Wells (Rising World #2)   46:06 The Peepshow: The Murders at Rillington Place by Kate Summerscale The Elements by John Boyne The Book of Alchemy by Suleika Jaouad   Under the Tree 54:11 Needles Sock Sizing Ruler - Sock Knitting Bracelet Ruler - Twice Sheared Sheep   Knit Extension Cords - Stitch Holder Cords - Twice Sheared Sheep   Fandom knitting book https://www.nancybatesdesigns.com/product-page/knitting-the-national-parks-book   Easel Blackwing Ruth Asawa set Caran D'ache anniversary sets Travel paint Brush roll option one, option two Kakimori dip pen table Little Sheet & Little Chill | Great Jones   Earlywood wooden spatulas thin wooden spatula set - Earlywood Wooden Scraper Spoon - Earlywood   Shop Ground Up Nut Butters Holiday   A Cookbook Gift Guide - by Jenny Rosenstrach   GIR utensil set Seka Hills Olive oil Mackenzie's Fisherman hand scrub Butter flight with butter dish (I like Plugra and Beurre Disigny Salted) And there's a shop in San Francisco that sells Bordier Butter too. One65 Patisserie & Boutique   Nightstand personalized book press   Papier Italian Summer reading journal   custom book bobble ornament 1400 options   Book Nook kits–owl, so many options!  Fun readers &/or glasses case–IZIPIZI, eyebobs, peepers, Caddis Library candle–paddywax (sold out!)   ** extra: Lingua Franca sweaters –”Vote Blue” Kris & Dave collection

In a set of intermingled parts of sacrifices, including from a blemished animal, Rabbi Eliezer rules that if one was sacrificed, we can "assume" that the one sacrificed was the blemished one and all the others are permitted. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Eliezer follows a unique opinion, that of Chanan the Egyptian, who holds that animals, even after slaughter, are not considered "rejected," and if they are brought on the altar, they can be accepted. Similarly, Rav Nachman cites a ruling of Rav that if one ring of idol worship was mixed in with many other rings, and one fell into the sea, all the rest are permitted. After Rava raised a difficulty on this from the Mishna—that all the animals are left to die, so why wouldn't we permit them after the first one dies—the Gemara concludes that Rav holds like Rabbi Eliezer. It is then established that both Rabbi Eliezer and Rav would permit the others only if they are sacrificed or sold in pairs, since one of the pair will certainly be a permitted item. Rav also ruled in a case where there were one hundred rings with one being of idol worship. If they were separated into sixty and forty, and then one from each section was mixed into separate sets of rings, the one that came from the forty is permitted based on a safek sefeika—two doubts: likely it was in the sixty, and even if it was in the forty, likely it remained in the original forty. Shmuel disagreed and did not permit safek sefeika in idol worship. A difficulty is raised against Shmuel's position from a braita that permits it, but it is established that there is a tannaitic debate. Reish Lakish brings a similar ruling to Rav Nachman regarding a barrel of wine of truma. The Gemara explains why both his case and Rav Nachman's case needed to be ruled on separately, as one would not necessarily be able to infer one from the other. Raba and Rav Yosef disagree about the extent to which Reish Lakish's leniency applies. Rabbi Elazar rules leniently in a case of a barrel of truma, but his ruling is modified after Rav Nachman raised a difficulty against it. Rabbi Oshaya rules about a similar case, adding another potential issue. The Mishna discusses a situation in which a treifa is mixed in with other animals. As a treifa should be recognizable, the Gemara asks how such a situation could occur. Three possible answers are given. If sacrifices of the same type are intermingled, the Mishna rules that they are sacrificed for "whichever owner they belong to." However, in sacrifices where smicha is necessary, how can the sacrifice be brought—since one cannot perform smicha on someone else's sacrifice? Rav Yosef explains that the Mishna must be referring to women, who are not obligated in smicha.

Is the UK quietly slipping into the role of a cautious observer while other nations shape the future of AI with greater confidence and intent? In this episode of Tech Talks Daily, I sit down with Rav Hayer, Managing Director at ThoughtWorks and Head of BFSI, to explore why our approach to AI regulation may be slowing progress at a time when momentum matters.  We move beyond the headlines of multi-billion pound investment announcements and look at what is really happening on the ground for business leaders trying to innovate in an environment shaped by uncertainty, shifting guidance, and risk aversion. Throughout our conversation, Rav shares his perspective on how this climate is affecting founders, scaleups, and established enterprises alike. We examine why so much British innovation still finds its way overseas, and what that says about ownership, long-term competitiveness, and the confidence gap holding many organisations back.  I also ask Rav to compare the UK's position with regions such as Singapore, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia, where proactive regulation is being used to encourage innovation rather than create friction. Together, we unpack the hidden costs of ambiguity, from time lost in legal interpretation to talent being drawn away from building meaningful progress at home. We close the episode on a more human note as Rav reflects on his personal journey, the role his parents played in shaping his work ethic, and the values that continue to guide his leadership today. As the UK weighs protection against progress, should we continue to step carefully, or is it time to show greater conviction and direction in our AI strategy? I would love to hear your thoughts on where that balance should sit. What do you think, and how should the UK move forward from here? Tech Talks Daily is Sponsored by NordLayer: Get the exclusive Black Friday offer: 28% off NordLayer yearly plans with the coupon code: techdaily-28. Valid until December 10th, 2025. Try it risk-free with a 14-day money-back guarantee.

Everyone wants to feel secure and protected from the troubles and difficulties of life. Everyone wants success, heavenly assistance, abundant livelihood, good health, shalom bayit , nachat from their children, and a peaceful, happy life. People search far and wide for segulot that will bring them these blessings. But if we understood how many treasures lie within our mitzvot, we would never need to look elsewhere. Take, for example, the wondrous mitzvah of Birkat HaMazon. Chazal say that if a person accustoms himself to recite Birkat HaMazon properly, all the blessings and goodness in the world will come upon him. There was a man in Yerushalayim named Rabbi Shimon, who would say Birkat HaMazon with such feeling, passion, and kavanah that on Sukkot, neighbors would come to his sukkah just to watch him say it. When people asked him how he became so enthusiastic about this mitzvah, he shared the following story: When he was eleven years old, Rav Meir Shapiro—the founder of Yeshivat Chachmei Lublin and creator of Daf Yomi—came to his school to test the boys. After being impressed with their learning, Rav Meir Shapiro told them that he wanted to give them a gift that would help them throughout their entire lives. He opened the Shulchan Aruch to Siman 185 and read the words of the Ba'er Heitev. The Ba'er Heitev asks: Why is there no "Phe Sofit" anywhere in Birkat HaMazon? He answers: because anyone who recites Birkat HaMazon with kavanah will never experience what appears to be the " af "—the anger of Hashem—and his livelihood will always be given to him with honor and abundance. He then added: those who are very careful in this mitzvah should always say Birkat HaMazon from a siddur. The young Shimon accepted upon himself that moment to recite every word of Birkat HaMazon with deep kavanah . When the other children ran out to recess after lunch, he stayed behind, saying it word by word. Eventually he became known as "the Birkat HaMazon boy." When the Holocaust broke out, he was miraculously protected. Not one day passed in which he didn't have enough food—he worked in the kitchen, where he had access to anything he needed. In those very difficult times, he maintained his love and devotion to Birkat HaMazon. Birkat HaMazon was truly his key to success in life. The Maharsha writes that when a person says Birkat HaMazon the right way, the blessings ascend to Shamayim and advocate before Hashem to send him abundance in parnassah . The Zohar HaKadosh writes that there are prosecuting angels created from a person's sins, arguing against giving him easy livelihood. But the merit of Birkat HaMazon with kavanah overpowers them and brings the person parnassah . A man struggling with livelihood once went to Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld for advice. The Rav told him to recite Birkat HaMazon from a siddur, slowly and with intention. The man said, "I've already started doing that, but I haven't seen any change." Rav Sonnenfeld replied, "Continue doing it. The blessing will come." Not long afterward, the man experienced a dramatic salvation and received abundant parnassah . The Seder HaYom writes that when a person truly takes to heart the words he is saying when reciting berachot , those words pierce through all the heavens until they reach the Kisei HaKavod . Hashem takes those sincere praises, crowns Himself with them, and derives tremendous joy from them. In return, He opens His hands and satiates the person with abundant blessings. The Aruch HaShulchan writes that the proper way to recite Birkat HaMazon is slowly, word by word, like counting the most precious jewels. Just as a person eats with enthusiasm, he should say Birkst HaMazon with equal enthusiasm and gratitude. He should recite the words out loud, with joy. A man told me that when he learned about the power of Birkat HaMazon, he deliberately decided to eat bread at lunch just so he could say it. The first day, he opened a Hebrew–English siddur and took almost twenty minutes to say Birkat HaMazon. He refused to go on to the next word until he fully understood what he was saying. He did the same the next day. One hour later, two people who owed him money for a long time both called—one after the other—to say they were finally going to pay him. Birkat HaMazon has many more incredible segulot . With Hashem's help, we will continue discussing them tomorrow.

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.  

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

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