Podcasts about Rav

Rabbi Avahu cited in the name of Reish Lakish three situations where the measurement of walking four milin applies in halakha: traveling to find pure vessels for making dough, a minyan (or water for washing hands before prayer), and water for washing before eating bread. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak corrects this statement on two counts: first, it was stated by Aivu, not Rabbi Avahu; second, it applied to four matters, not three, adding the case from the Mishna of walking on a leather mat for the time it takes to walk four milin, which removes its impurity. Rabbi Yosi b'Rabbi Chanina limits the requirement of walking four milin to the direction one is already traveling, noting that one is not required to travel even a single mil backward. Regarding the impurity of human skin, a braita rules that a Roman legion entering a house renders the house ritually impure due to the presumption that soldiers carry skin from human skulls (karkaflein) for sorcery. A Mishna outlines the rules of connection (chibbur) regarding ritual impurity when flaying an animal's hide, as the detached part functions as a handle (yad): If flayed for a mat - where one cuts along the length first and removes it from the sides - the hide remains connected to the flesh until one removes more than a grip's width (kedei achizah), which the Gemara defines as a doubled handbreadth. If flayed top to bottom for a flask, it remains connected until the chest is flayed. If flayed upside down from the legs (margil), the entire hide remains connected until fully removed, since the chest is reached only at the end. Regarding the neck hide, Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri holds it is not connected, whereas the Sages hold it remains connected until completely flayed. The Gemara asks what the status of the hide is once flayed beyond the grip's width for a carpet. Rav answers that the detached hide becomes pure, while the attached hide remains impure as a protector (shomer) of the meat. Rabbi Asi holds that the handbreadth adjacent to the meat that is detached remains impure. Three difficulties raised against Rabbi Asi's position are resolved. A Mishna in Kelim (28:8) states that once the majority of an impure garment is torn, it becomes pure. Rabba bar Avuha limits this to a garment immersed that day (tevilat yom), as the owner's willingness to immerse it indicates he is unconcerned with ruining it and thus tore a full majority. Otherwise, one must be concerned that only half was torn, as the owner sought purity without destroying the garment and may not have been precise. Three difficulties raised against Rabbah bar Avuha's qualification - including one from our Mishna relying on precise measurements - are resolved in different manners. Regarding the Mishna in Kelim, Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan debate whether cut hide rebinds itself (chalim). Reish Lakish holds that hide rebinds itself, limiting the Mishna to cloth rather than leather, as torn leather rebinds and retains its impurity. Three difficulties raised against Reish Lakish, including two from our Mishna, are resolved. Abaye explains that the dispute between Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri and the Sages regarding neck hide centers on whether a protective covering destined to detach on its own (shomer he'asui linatek) retains the halakhic status of a protector (shomer).

Episode 196 Wednesday, August 12, 2026 On the Needles 1:55 ALL KNITTING LINKS GO TO RAVELRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.  Please visit our Instagram page @craftcookreadrepeat for non-Rav photos and info   FLOCK!   OMG Heel Socks by Megan Williams, Knit Picks Felici in Silent Film   Scultura by Cecelia Campochiaro, AVFKW Floating in Ripple Effect    135-1 Limestone by DROPS design, Baa Ram Ewe Donegal Twists in Banshee and Dullahan     SSAL 2026: Chameleonic Socks by Stephen West, Schoppel-Wolle Zauberball Crazy in Butterfly Kisses, West Wool Hex in Explore (blue- shocking, I know)       On the Easel 23:40 Some sewing—brown travel pants, cheer uniform & hemmed 3 pairs of denim.   Matisse exhibit at SFMoma On the Table 28:48   Cafe Suliman Mr West Monorail espresso  Sushi Kashiba   Not vodka sauce pasta: oh yes this is tasty   Pasta primavera—meh. Salmon with pickled cucumber salad On the Nightstand 41:40 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! Life Out of Order by Audrey Niffenger Seasons of Glass and Iron by Amal el-Mohtar My Pen Is the Wing of a Bird: New Fiction by Afghan Women A Perfect Hand by Ayelet Waldman (audio) The Week of Colors by Elena Garro    John of John by Douglas Stuart Bingo 53:19 Starts friday may 22, ends Mon Sept 7 Need to post a photo of completed Bingo with #CCRRsummerbingo2026 to instagram or Ravelry.  Get a blackout for a second entry.    Bingo thread on Ravelry (you may need to register to view/participate but it's free) Monica's Bingo New technique: intarsia POC book: tapestry of fate or good talk Read laugh: Perfect Hand   Cortney's Bingo Finished a WIP: brown travel pants Award nominee: John of John (long listed for Booker prize) Summer refresher at Dear SF show.

Hilchot Basar Bechalav Part 24: Fruit shakes?! Sherry cask is just not worth the lachatz… All the herbs are rough times. Ashki Maror and the Rav almost died!!!

Audio, eng_t_norav_2026-08-11_lesson_rb-1985-01-asa-lecha-rav-1_n3_p1. Lesson_part :: Lessons_series. Rabash. Make for Yourself a Rav and Buy Yourself a Friend - 1. 1 (1985) :: Daily_lesson 3

Video, eng_t_norav_2026-08-11_lesson_rb-1985-01-asa-lecha-rav-1_n3_p1. Lesson_part :: Lessons_series. Rabash. Make for Yourself a Rav and Buy Yourself a Friend - 1. 1 (1985) :: Daily_lesson 3

Audio, eng_t_norav_2026-08-11_lesson_rb-1985-01-asa-lecha-rav-1_n3_p1. Lesson_part :: Lessons_series. Rabash. Make for Yourself a Rav and Buy Yourself a Friend - 1. 1 (1985) :: Daily_lesson 3

Video, eng_t_norav_2026-08-11_lesson_rb-1985-01-asa-lecha-rav-1_n3_p1. Lesson_part :: Lessons_series. Rabash. Make for Yourself a Rav and Buy Yourself a Friend - 1. 1 (1985) :: Daily_lesson 3

Audio, spa_t_norav_2026-08-11_lesson_rb-1985-01-asa-lecha-rav-1_n3_p1. Lesson_part :: Lessons_series. Rabash. Hazte de un Rav y cómprate un amigo - 1. 1 (1985) :: Daily_lesson 3

Video, bul_t_norav_2026-08-11_lesson_rb-1985-01-asa-lecha-rav-1_n3_p1. Lesson_part :: Daily_lesson 1 :: Lessons_series. Rabash. Make for Yourself a Rav and Buy Yourself a Friend - 1. 1 (1985)

Video, fre_t_norav_2026-08-11_lesson_rb-1985-01-asa-lecha-rav-1_n3_p1. Lesson_part :: Daily_lesson 1 :: Lessons_series. Rabash. Make for Yourself a Rav and Buy Yourself a Friend - 1. 1 (1985)

Audio, ita_t_norav_2026-08-11_lesson_rb-1985-01-asa-lecha-rav-1_n3_p1. Lesson_part :: Lessons_series. Rabash. Fai per te un Rav e Comprati un Amico - 1. 1 (1985) :: Daily_lesson 1

Video, spa_t_norav_2026-08-11_lesson_rb-1985-01-asa-lecha-rav-1_n3_p1. Lesson_part :: Lessons_series. Rabash. Hazte de un Rav y cómprate un amigo - 1. 1 (1985) :: Daily_lesson 3

Audio, spa_t_norav_2026-08-11_lesson_rb-1985-01-asa-lecha-rav-1_n3_p1. Lesson_part :: Lessons_series. Rabash. Hazte de un Rav y cómprate un amigo - 1. 1 (1985) :: Daily_lesson 3

Audio, por_t_norav_2026-08-11_lesson_rb-1985-01-asa-lecha-rav-1_n3_p1. Lesson_part :: Daily_lesson 1 :: Lessons_series. Rabash. Make for Yourself a Rav and Buy Yourself a Friend - 1. 1 (1985)

Video, ita_t_norav_2026-08-11_lesson_rb-1985-01-asa-lecha-rav-1_n3_p1. Lesson_part :: Lessons_series. Rabash. Fai per te un Rav e Comprati un Amico - 1. 1 (1985) :: Daily_lesson 1

Audio, bul_t_norav_2026-08-11_lesson_rb-1985-01-asa-lecha-rav-1_n3_p1. Lesson_part :: Daily_lesson 1 :: Lessons_series. Rabash. Make for Yourself a Rav and Buy Yourself a Friend - 1. 1 (1985)

Audio, bul_t_norav_2026-08-11_lesson_rb-1985-01-asa-lecha-rav-1_n3_p1. Lesson_part :: Daily_lesson 1 :: Lessons_series. Rabash. Make for Yourself a Rav and Buy Yourself a Friend - 1. 1 (1985)

Video, hun_t_norav_2026-08-11_lesson_rb-1985-01-asa-lecha-rav-1_n3_p1. Lesson_part :: Daily_lesson 1 :: Lessons_series. Rabash. Make for Yourself a Rav and Buy Yourself a Friend - 1. 1 (1985)

Video, hun_t_norav_2026-08-11_lesson_rb-1985-01-asa-lecha-rav-1_n3_p1. Lesson_part :: Daily_lesson 1 :: Lessons_series. Rabash. Make for Yourself a Rav and Buy Yourself a Friend - 1. 1 (1985)

Video, por_t_norav_2026-08-11_lesson_rb-1985-01-asa-lecha-rav-1_n3_p1. Lesson_part :: Daily_lesson 1 :: Lessons_series. Rabash. Make for Yourself a Rav and Buy Yourself a Friend - 1. 1 (1985)

Video, ron_t_norav_2026-08-11_lesson_rb-1985-01-asa-lecha-rav-1_n3_p1. Lesson_part :: Daily_lesson 1 :: Lessons_series. Rabash. Make for Yourself a Rav and Buy Yourself a Friend - 1. 1 (1985)

Video, spa_t_norav_2026-08-11_lesson_rb-1985-01-asa-lecha-rav-1_n3_p1. Lesson_part :: Lessons_series. Rabash. Hazte de un Rav y cómprate un amigo - 1. 1 (1985) :: Daily_lesson 3

Welcome to Mikvah.org's Summer Learning Series. Throughout this series, you'll hear from esteemed Rabbanim as they discuss a variety of practical halachic topics, providing clarity, perspective, and guidance on questions that arise in everyday life.In this episode, Rabbi K. Zirkind explores the intersection of fertility treatments and halacha, offering practical guidance on navigating the medical and halachic aspects of infertility with clarity and sensitivity. He discusses when to seek help, the importance of involving both medical professionals and a Rav from the outset, and the key halachic considerations that arise throughout the fertility journey.Click Here to view the follow along PowerPoint

Cours Halakha Time du Mardi 11 Août 2026 (durée : 6 minutes) donné par Rav 'Haïm BENMOCHÉ.

Episode 195 July 30, 2026 On the Needles 1:51 ALL KNITTING LINKS GO TO RAVELRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.  Please visit our Instagram page @craftcookreadrepeat for non-Rav photos and info   Show Your Colors Tee by Sari Nordlund, De Rerum Natura Antigone in Lune and Voie Lactée (moon and milky way!)-- DONE!!   OMG Heel Socks by Megan Williams, Knit Picks Felici in Silent Film   Scultura by Cecelia Campochiaro, AVFKW Floating in Ripple Effect    135-1 Limestone by DROPS design, Baa Ram Ewe Donegal Twists in Banshee and Dullahan     SSAL 2026: Chameleonic Socks by Stephen West, Schoppel-Wolle Zauberball Crazy in Butterfly Kisses, West Wool Hex in Explore (blue- shocking, I know) On the Easel 9:41 Oils! Envelopes! Dragonflies!   On the Table 20:58 Sarti Rosa is here!   Japanese Curry- Tenderheart   July cookbook: minimalist cooks at home by mark bittman Sausage and grapes Paella Chicken with sweet and sour sherry sauce and mushrooms   Chicken Enchiladas mash up from America's Test Kitchen and Skinny Taste. Chicken pancake–blank canvas recipe NOT Vodka sauce pasta!!! SO GREAT! On the Nightstand 35:01 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! Good Talk by Mira Jacob Repetition by Vigdis Hjorth, trans by Charlotte Barslund Teo's Durami by Elaine U. Cho The Tapestry of Fate by Shannon Chakraborty An Edge Sharp Enough by Jesse Q. Sutanto Bodies of Magic by Freye Marske Son of Nobody by Yann Martel Land by Maggie O'Farrell   Land by Maggie O'Farrell The Loneliness of Sonia and Sunny by Kiran Desai Bingo 53:09 Starts friday may 22, ends Mon Sept 7 Need to post a photo of completed Bingo with #CCRRsummerbingo2026 to instagram or Ravelry.  Get a blackout for a second entry.    Bingo thread on Ravelry (you may need to register to view/participate but it's free)   Monica's bingo WC cooking: japanese curry WC crafting: de rerum natura is french! (thanks wanderlustknits for the inspo!)   Cortney's Bingo Sweet & Spicy–NOT vodka sauce Read POC–Kiran Desai  

Cours Halakha Time du Vendredi 7 Août 2026 (durée : 5 minutes) donné par Rav 'Haïm BENMOCHÉ.

Awakening The Jewish Hearts Questions & Answers| Monsey Satmar Communityhttps://youtu.be/lsLIZgsdKesAlthough we've all seen and heard about the beautiful unity in the Satmar community, this shiur proves the sages' words that "everyone needs chizuk." This special night in Monsey New York's Satmar community starts of with an interesting talk about awakening the Jewish heart, but then goes into an exciting and powerful Questions & Answers session that no one wanted to end even late into the night. Amazing questions covering the foundation and fundamentals of the Torah and how to deal with much of the confusion we have in the world today. This is one shiur you're not going to want to miss, and there's already talks about bringing the Rav back again for more. Enjoy, Learn, Share and Be Holy.#NY #Monsey #Satmar #Torah #Jewish #RabbiYaronReuven #Jews #God #inspiring #motivation #OrthodoxJudaism #Judaism #chizuk #NYC

The case of meat that is held by a non-Jew: what if it wasn't supervised continually? According to Rav - that's prohibited as a caution against the possibility that the kosher meat was swapped out for non-kosher meat. Which leads to a discussion of that likelihood, as the Gemara argues against Rav. Also, if the meat were unsupervised at any time, was it a stringency to not eat it, or was that required? With a story about a ferry and a festival. Which leads into discussion of how the sages used portents -- not quite divination, but some inference from "signs" that are established three times.

Cours Halakha Time du Vendredi 31 Juillet 2026 (durée : 6 minutes) donné par Rav 'Haïm BENMOCHÉ.

As one examines Exod. 25-31 and 35-39 one finds a repeat – almost word for word in some cases – of verses related to the construction of the Tabernacle.  In the first instance it is God giving detailed instructions to Moses about the construction and the details of the garments of the High Priest and the Priests of the Sanctuary and their ordination ceremony.  In the second case, in chapters 35-39, we read about the actual construction of the Mishkan HaKodesh, the Holy Dwelling place of the Lord, or His Ohel HaKodesh, the Holy Tent (tabernacle in Latin just means tent).  So, we ask why the repeat of so many verses almost word for word.  This has led a few Bible scholars to develop the DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS or the theory that the Torah was not written by only one man, namely Moses.  Thus, this makes Jesus, the Lord, God Himself, a liar when Jesus says the Torah are the books of Moses.  If they were written by special groups and more than one person, then Jesus should not say the Torah are the books of Moses implying Moses is the author.  Jesus is God and this creates a real problem as per the character of the Lord. However, a Jewish scholar, highly recognized and considered a superb Bible historian, Torah expert, and Hebrew scholar, Umberto Cassuto, found the answer to this repetition!  He found archaeologically that in the ancient near east those ancient peoples when writing about the construction of a special temple would repeat what they wrote.  The first writing was to show how a god or gods gave instruction to build the special temple.  The repeat was to describe the actual construction leading to the dedication.  This fits the Torah.  First … here's some background on Umberto Cassuto. UMBERTO CASSUTO Umberto (Moshe David) Cassuto, an early 20th-century Italian historian, rabbi, and scholar, wrote a popular Hebrew commentary on the Bible, as well as more detailed commentaries on the Book of Genesis and part of the Book of Exodus. His commentary is marked by an assumption that in order to understand the Bible, one must understand the Ancient Near-Eastern cultural context in which it was composed. As such, he incorporates archeological findings, his understanding of ancient Semitic languages, and literary tools into his analysis of biblical verses.  Cassuto in his own words discussing the repetition found not only in Exodus but throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. REPETITION IN EXODUS “The subject of the founding and building of a temple was a kind of permanent literary genre in the ancient literatures of the East; In it, it was customary to first come the divine speech describing the plan of the Temple in all its details and grammar, and then the story of the action, which repeats in an equal or similar way the description in the divine speech. And this is nothing more than a special detail of a general method, the method of repetition that was very popular with the writers of the ancient East.” (Accessed from https://www.sefaria.org/Cassuto_on_Exodus.35.2?lang=bi) Here are two links to two articles that are a must read.  These again will enhance and expand your understanding that Moses DID write the Torah and that the Documentary Hypothesis has been proven wrong. ARTICLE ON MOSES AS THE SOLE WRITER OF TORAH https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/moses/evidence-mosaic-authorship-of-torah/ SCHOLARLY ARTICLE BY CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS USNG CASSUTO'S FINDINGS  https://biblearchaeology.org/research-articles/the-documentary-hypothesis/ Once again I provide the article on Jesus' teaching about the Rabbi/Talmid model of His day.  He taught it precisely and accurately but NOT IN ENGLISH.  And He did not teach it IN GREEK but in HEBREW.  We in the church are commanded by the Lord to go and make disciples (talmidim in Hebrew).  And yet few churches even understand what Jesus meant when He mentioined disciples or talmidim.  Probably since so fe in the church know the Gree or the Biblical Hebrew and how to connect the Greek to the Hebrew.  Check it out … DID JESUS EVER SPEAK OF THE RABBI DISCIPLE RELATIONSHIP? DID HE EVER TEACH US USING HIS CULTURE? NOT IN ENGLISH OR GREEK BUT HEBREW!! Jesus said, "A pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher. (Luk 6:40) Pupil?  Nope.  The Greek word used here is μαθητής mathētēs (Strongs number G3101) meaning a learner, disciple or a pupil.  But, Jesus is speaking Hebrew and not Greek.  What is the Hebrew word for disciple?  It is Talmid (תַּלְמִיד) Strongs umber H8527 (pronounced talmeed). The plural form is Talmidim (תַּלְמִידִים) (pronounced talmideem). Teacher? Nope.  The Greek word used here is διδάσκαλος Didaskalos (Strongs number G1320) meaning instructor, doctor, master, teacher.  The Hebrew word in Jesus' day that διδάσκαλος Didaskalos translates is RAV ( רַב )(Strongs number is H8227) meaning master.  The Hebrew word RAVEE רבי meaning “my master.” So when Jesus is called “RABBI” in the Gospels in Hebrew He is being called RAVEE רבי or “my master.” So, so far, Luke 6:40 can be read … "A TALMID is not above his RAV but TALMIDIM, after they have been fully trained, will be like their RAV.” (Luk 6:40) FULLY TRAINED – Nope.  Better is “after he has been made καταρτίζω katartizō (Strongs number is G2675) meaning complete or perfect or finished).  In Jesus' day a TALMID of a RAV was finished when the RAV saw that his talmid was ready to go in the name of the RAV to teach the Bible just like the talmid's master or his rav.  Now we read Luke 6:40 from the Hebrew … "A TALMID is not above his RAV but TALMIDIM, after they have finished, will be like their RAV.” (Luk 6:40) BE?? – Nope.  The Greek word used here is ὡς hōs (Strongs; number 5613) meaning “exactly like.”  It translates the Hebrew letter used as a prefix KEE כְּ meaning just like, identical, the same as, be like.  So we finally come to the complete translation from the English to the Greek to the Hebrew of Luke 6:40.  "A TALMID is not above his RAV but TALMIDIM, after they have finished, will be EXACTLY LIKE their RAV.” (Luk 6:40) The RAV and TALMID Relationship To be a talmid was a highly esteemed honor. The relationship between a RAV (we'd say rabbi) and his talmidim went far beyond basic education: Total Dedication: A talmid would often leave their former life, home, and family to follow their rabbi full-time. Imitation: The primary goal of a disciple was not just to know what the rabbi knew, but to become exactly like the rabbi. This meant absorbing the rabbi's lifestyle, character, and interpretation of the scriptures. Walking in the Dust: Ancient Jewish writings describe disciples following their teacher so closely that they became covered in the "dust of the rabbi's feet". See this video Bible study from Light of Menorah ministries. Part 1 of what is a disciple - https://youtu.be/JZv2YhSoya8?si=_WidHCq2RTtDVl5R Link to part 2 - https://youtu.be/m9pNgjAI18g?si=CThLTsg5uLD9gtId Check out these links from Ray Vander Laan's website entitled THAT THE WORLD MAY KNOW … https://www.thattheworldmayknow.com/rabbi-and-talmidim https://www.thattheworldmayknow.com/preview/1539 https://www.thattheworldmayknow.com/preview/1540 https://www.thattheworldmayknow.com/preview/1540 https://www.thattheworldmayknow.com/preview/1568 https://www.thattheworldmayknow.com/preview/1557 In this Bible study podcast I brought up the verse 1 Cor. 3:16 that we are THE TEMPLE of God and the “you” in the verse in Greek is plural!  Check out the Bible study podcasts I did on these verses. Truth Nuggets #3 part 1 – https://lightofmenorah.podbean.com/e/truth-nuggets-lesson-3-part-1/ Truth Nuggets #3 part 2 - https://lightofmenorah.podbean.com/e/truth-nuggets-lesson-3-part-2/ Rev. Ferret - who is this guy?  (Ferret - teaching somewhere in the Galilee) What's his background?  Why should I listen to him?  Check his background at this link - https://www.dropbox.com/s/ortnret3oxcicu4/BackgrndTeacher%20mar%2025%202020.pdf?dl=0          

One of the first things Moses does is to gather all Israel and begin to teach them everything God told him since Exod. 20:19.  The Hebrews at this time, the time when Moses cam down from the mountain the 2nd time, knew none of all the things we've studied since the giving of the Ten Commandments.  Moses starts with the law of the Sabbath (Shabbat in Hebrew).  What we find is God talks about these commandments and says for those who love me as they keep my commandments.  And one of them is the law of Shabbat.  It probably is the most important of God's "feasts."  But, this commandment along with the other nine are God's commandments.  It is more impacting than when one reads it.  When did Jesus ever say He is God?  He did many times in the New Testament.  We missed it since few of our teachers today know Greek or Hebrew or realize Jesus spoke Hebrew.  Few of our teachers today know how to take the English to the Greek and to the Hebrew.  Few if any of our teachers have studied the Bible in its historical context or to understand the Jewish roots Old Testament of the New Testament.  In this lesson we studied one of Jesus' statements when He said … "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” (Joh 14:15) When He said this there was NO New Testament.  All they had when He said this was the Hebrew Scriptures or the Old Testament with the five foundational books being the Torah or Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.  So, if you are a Jew in Jesus' day and you hear these words you'll know that the Hebrew word for commandments is MITZAVOT מצוות (H4687).  The word to keep is SHAMAR שמר (H8104).  The Jewish disciples of Jesus wee brought up on the Torah and knew the following … “…but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep (SHAMAR שמר) My commandments (MITZAVOT מצוות).” (Exo 20:6) “…but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep (SHAMAR שמר) My commandments (MITZAVOT מצוות).” (Deu 5:10) God is using the words joining the idea of loving Him to keeping His commandments.  Jesus is saying the same thing.  Not in English but in Hebrew.  So, what is Jesus saying to them in His day, the Jews brought up on Torah?  Jesus is saying that He is God, the God of the Bible.    In a previous lesson we took a look at an alternative way of “looking” at the concept of what the church calls the TRINITY.  The standard way we look at Jesus is one person of three persons.  But, studying the Greek we find that an alternative viable “picture” of this concept.  Here's the link to that lesson - https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-qavkp-1b03249 We found in this lesson that Jesus is a “FACE” of God of God's many faces.  Check it out.  It makes so much more sense that when Jesus says, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments,” that He is saying He is God, one of the faces of God.  In this lesson we also focused on the Lord's Sabbath or SHABBAT in Hebrew.  Few Christians ever study the history of how the Roman church changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.  Few Christians ever study the concept of the Sabbath.  Below you'll find two links.  The first is to an excellent article that highlights the historical development of the change.  It is a great article to start your further study of the most important of God's feast that are actually in Hebrew called His “Appointed Times” or Moedim (מועדים).  God has NO feasts.  He has only appointed times that He commands. Link to article - https://www.sabbathtruth.com/sabbath-history/how-the-sabbath-was-changed The second link is to the “playlist” of a series of lessons I did on Shabbat for Christians.  It starts out with lessons that are introduced by saying whether you do Shabbat as per the Bible or as per the Church, we need to study what is the Sabbath as per the very words of God.  Also, inherent in the series is how does the Sabbath testify of Jesus.  Jesus said that scripture testifies of Himself.  So if the Shabbat is the most important of God's APPOINTED TIMES we'd better understand how Shabbat testifies of Jesus.  Here's the link … https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvcIXun2BQDLshZetXi0avkG665YNcI5I Finally, we come to Jesus' words … "A pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher. (Luk 6:40) As we take the English to the Greek and the Greek to the Hebrew we find that Jesus was telling us about the relationship of a disciple (talmid) and His rabbi (ravee).  The relationship is between a rabbi and his disciples is so misunderstood in the church that for the most part few churches today know how to “make disciples” as Jesus commanded and NOT converts.  DID JESUS EVER SPEAK OF THE RABBI DISCIPLE RELATIONSHIP?  DID HE EVER TEACH US USING HIS CULTURE?  NOT IN ENGLISH!! Jesus said, "A pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher. (Luk 6:40) Pupil?  Nope.  The Greek word used here is μαθητής mathētēs (Strongs number G3101) meaning a learner, disciple or a pupil.  But, Jesus is speaking Hebrew and not Greek.  What is the Hebrew word for disciple?  It is Talmid (תַּלְמִיד) Strongs umber H8527 (pronounced talmeed). The plural form is Talmidim (תַּלְמִידִים) (pronounced talmideem). Teacher? Nope.  The Greek word used here is διδάσκαλος Didaskalos (Strongs number G1320) meaning instructor, doctor, master, teacher.  The Hebrew word in Jesus' day that διδάσκαλος Didaskalos translates is RAV ( רַב )(Strongs number is H8227) meaning master.  The Hebrew word RAVEE רבי meaning “my master.” So when Jesus is called “RABBI” in the Gospels in Hebrew He is being called RAVEE רבי or “my master.” So, so far, Luke 6:40 can be read … "A TALMID is not above his RAV but TALMIDIM, after they have been fully trained, will be like their RAV.” (Luk 6:40) FULLY TRAINED – Nope.  Better is “after he has been made καταρτίζω katartizō (Strongs number is G2675) meaning complete or perfect or finished).  In Jesus' day a TALMID of a RAV was finished when the RAV saw that his talmid was ready to go in the name of the RAV to teach the Bible just like the talmid's master or his rav.  Now we read Luke 6:40 from the Hebrew … "A TALMID is not above his RAV but TALMIDIM, after they have finished, will be like their RAV.” (Luk 6:40) BE?? – Nope.  The Greek word used here is ὡς hōs (Strongs; number 5613) meaning “exactly like.”  It translates the Hebrew letter used as a prefix KEE כְּ meaning just like, identical, the same as, be like.  So we finally come to the complete translation from the English to the Greek to the Hebrew of Luke 6:40.  "A TALMID is not above his RAV but TALMIDIM, after they have finished, will be EXACTLY LIKE their RAV.” (Luk 6:40) The RAV and TALMID Relationship  To be a talmid was a highly esteemed honor. The relationship between a RAV (we'd say rabbi) and his talmidim went far beyond basic education:  Total Dedication: A talmid would often leave their former life, home, and family to follow their rabbi full-time.  Imitation: The primary goal of a disciple was not just to know what the rabbi knew, but to become exactly like the rabbi. This meant absorbing the rabbi's lifestyle, character, and interpretation of the scriptures.  Walking in the Dust: Ancient Jewish writings describe disciples following their teacher so closely that they became covered in the "dust of the rabbi's feet". See this video Bible study from Light of Menorah ministries – Part 1 of what is a disciple - https://youtu.be/JZv2YhSoya8?si=_WidHCq2RTtDVl5R Link to part 2 - https://youtu.be/m9pNgjAI18g?si=CThLTsg5uLD9gtId   Check out these links from Ray Vander Laan's website entitled THAT THE WORLD MAY KNOW … https://www.thattheworldmayknow.com/rabbi-and-talmidim https://www.thattheworldmayknow.com/preview/1539 https://www.thattheworldmayknow.com/preview/1540 https://www.thattheworldmayknow.com/preview/1540 https://www.thattheworldmayknow.com/preview/1568 https://www.thattheworldmayknow.com/preview/1557 Rev. Ferret - who is this guy?  (Ferret - teaching somewhere in the Galilee) What's his background?  Why should I listen to him?  Check his background at this link - https://www.dropbox.com/s/ortnret3oxcicu4/BackgrndTeacher%20mar%2025%202020.pdf?dl=0

The Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 2:6) writes that one must not walk "Be'koma Zekufa" – fully upright, with his head held high. This is based on the Gemara's teaching in Masechet Berachot (43b) that if a person walks in an overly confident, arrogant manner, he "crowds out" the Shechina. Elsewhere (Sota 4b), the Gemara states that an arrogant person is considered like a heretic, and like an idol-worshipper. G-d refuses to live together with an arrogant individual, because the world was created for His honor, not for the honor of human beings, and thus G-d's honor is meant to fill the entire earth. The Gemara later (Sota 5a) comments that a Torah scholar must have "one-eighth of one-eighth" – meaning, a smidgen – of arrogance, but only for the purpose of unyieldingly upholding the Torah's values and principles. Otherwise, arrogance has no place at all in the life and mindset of a Torah Jew. (The Vilna Gaon offered a different interpretation of the Gemara's comment, according to which even a Torah scholar is not permitted to have even a smidgen of arrogance.) The trait of humility must be reflected even in the way a person walks, and thus one should not walk with his head fully upright, appearing overly confident and self-assured. Some have noted that the Gemara's teaching seems to call into question Rashi's comment to a verse toward the end of the Book of Vayikra (26:13). There Hashem tells Beneh Yisrael, "Va'olech Etchem Komemiyut" – "I have led you upright," and Rashi explains, "Be'koma Zekufa" – that they walked tall and proud. How can Rashi's comment be reconciled with the Gemara's stern warning against walking about in such a manner? The Seda La'derech (work on Rashi's Torah commentary by Rav Yissachar Ber Eilenburg, c. 1550–1623) suggests that Rashi used this term figuratively, as a reference to Beneh Yisrael's unique stature. He draws a comparison to the difference between human beings – who walk upright – and animals, which walk on four legs. Animals walk looking toward the ground, because they are incapable of conceiving of lofty, spiritual matters or pursuing spiritual goals, whereas humans walk upright because they are to be focused on the heavens, on spiritual ambitions. We, who received the Torah, are to live with a special degree of "uprightness" in this sense, which our heads directed heavenward. According to the Seda La'derech, this is the meaning of the verse, "Va'olech Etchem Komemiyut" – that Hashem has granted us the privilege of living with a special connection to the heavens and spirituality. The Petah Ha'debir (Rav Binyamin Pontremoli, Turkey, d. 1784) answers differently, explaining that this verse foresees the time when the enemy nations will fear Beneh Yisrael. At that time, it will be permissible for Am Yisrael to walk "Be'koma Zekufa" in order to intimidate those peoples who might otherwise think to attack and persecute the Jewish Nation. The Petah Ha'debir also suggests an additional answer, explaining that we must display humility when we walk because of the sin of Adam and Hava in Gan Eden, which resulted in an inherent spiritual deficiency that we must always be cognizant of and that should bring us humility. In the future, however, when the sin of Adam and Hava will be fully rectified, this will no longer be necessary, and the verse "Va'olech Etchem Komemiyut" refers to that time, when we will, indeed, be allowed to walk with our heads held high. Hacham Ovadia Yosef asserted that this law, requiring one to avoid walking fully upright, applies only as a Midat Hasidut (measure of piety), and not on the level of a strict Halachic obligation. He draws proof to this conclusion from the story told of the time when Rav, the great Amora, passed away, and each of his leading disciples chose to adopt one of his unique religious practices. Rav Yehuda adopted the practice of ensuring not to walk four Amot (cubits) fully upright. This clearly proves that refraining from walking "Be'koma Zekufa" is a measure of piety, for if it constituted an outright Halachic requirement, then Rav Yehuda would have adopted this practice even before Rav's passing. Nevertheless, the Shulhan Aruch writes that this is a practice which everyone should follow. The definition of "Koma Zekufa" is walking with one's head turned upward such that his eyes cannot see the ground, thus requiring him to walk more slowly. The Aruch Ha'shulhan (Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein, 1829-1908) emphasizes that one does not need to walk with his back hunched; he must simply ensure not to walk with his head turned upward. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) similarly writes that one should avoid walking in a manner that expresses arrogance, but does not need to lower his head as he walks. A Torah scholar has an obligation to walk with a special degree of dignity. This means not only that he should avoid walking with his head held high, but also that he should not run in public. Some Rabbis would make a point of avoiding conversation in the street, deeming this undignified for a Torah sage. Although it is unbecoming for a Rabbi to run in public, he also should not walk about slowly and leisurely, as though he has nothing to do. He should walk quickly and with a sense of urgency, showing that he is constantly occupied with Torah learning, teaching, and Misvot. One must be especially careful with how he walks about in a synagogue or Bet Midrash, as these are, in a sense, the "houses" of the Almighty, and so one must conduct himself in these buildings with a sense of reverence and humility. One of the commentaries to Pirkeh Abot cites a passage from the Midrash relating that King David was once reprimanded by Ahitofel for walking with his head held upright in the Bet Midrash, in violation of the requirement to carry oneself reverently in the study hall, and David accepted the criticism. Several writers noted the seeming implication of the Midrash that walking upright is improper only in the Bet Midrash, but not in other places – in direct contradiction to the Halacha we have been discussing. Hacham Ovadia Yosef suggested that as a king, David was permitted to walk about with his held up high in order to earn the respect of the people, but in a Bet Midrash this is forbidden even for a king. The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) explained that David walked about in the Bet Midrash not with his head held high, but rather in a loose, carefree manner which is not proper in a Bet Midrash, and for this was he criticized. Returning to Hacham Ovadia's explanation – that a king is allowed to walk with his head held high – this is the opinion of the Bet Obed, cited by the Petah Ha'debir. Some, however, challenged this view, noting that the Torah requires a king to exercise greater humility than all other people and to avoid all feelings of superiority (Ramban, Debarim 17:20). The answer, it would seem, is that a king must make a special effort to remain in his heart humble and subservient to the Almighty, but outwardly may – and in fact must – carry himself with an aura of authority in order to earn the reverence of his subjects.

Episode 194 July 16, 2026   Christmas in july I got a little idea On the Needles 3:01 ALL KNITTING LINKS GO TO RAVELRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.  Please visit our Instagram page @craftcookreadrepeat for non-Rav photos and info   OMG Heel Socks by Megan Williams, Knit Picks Felici in Silent Film   135-1 Limestone by DROPS design, Baa Ram Ewe Donegal Twists in Banshee and Dullahan     Show Your Colors Tee by Sari Nordlund, De Rerum Natura Antigone in Lune and Voie Lactée (moon and milky way!)   On the Easel 8:47 Color charts for DaVinci oils and Holbein oils. Norway pitch On the Table 15:03 Peachy Pink Spritz!   Cucumber caesar salad   Julia Turshen Zucchini parm   braised chickpeas with zucchini and pesto – smitten kitchen   Sausage, potato and kale mini pies Celery Salad Bolognese and meatballs Old fashioned buttermilk loaf–meh Pesto Chicken  Corn Salad   **Summertime Treat Box How to Make a Cookie Advent Calendar - Justine Doiron NYT Cookie Week Petit Fours with Mark Bittman poundcake recipe filled with apricot jam and less-sweet almond buttercream, blood orange glaze. Strawberry Sandwich cookies (just the shells because I overrolled, overbaked them) from 100 cookies Chocolate chip cookie sticks Raspberry Macarons with olallabery crème Lemon Florals Blueberry & Pear pâte de fruits   On the Nightstand 40:56 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!   New American Literary Canon: Two Books from Each State & Territory | Strand Bookstore   Dolly All the Time by Annabel Monaghan (audio- Julia Whelan!) Hell's Heart by Alexis Hall A Drop of Corruption by Robert Jackson Bennett (Shadow of the Leviathan #2) Mrs Shim is a Killer by Kang Jiyoung, trans by Paige Morris The Typing Lady and Other Fictions by Ruth Ozeki   Painting the Light by Sally Cabot Gunning A Perfect Hand by Ayelet Waldman Bingo 55:45 Starts friday may 22, ends Mon Sept 7 Need to post a photo of completed Bingo with #CCRRsummerbingo2026 to instagram or Ravelry.  Get a blackout for a second entry.    Bingo thread on Ravelry (you may need to register to view/participate but it's free)   Prizes! Jen of Down Cellar Studio: free knitting kit: pattern, yarn and spa goodies Keri Fischer-Seehuetter's Ravelry Store patriotic star coasters Charlotte of Blue Shine Art: free class Daria of Daria Penta Art & Illustration: fun sticker sheets Jenny of Dinner a Love Story: free year of substack and copy of Weekday Vegetarians vol 1 & 2 (and second set of books entry for those who complete Cooking Only Bingo) Rancho Gordo deluxe gift box Jen of Books are My People: free month of substack so book club!   Monica's Bingo: Spritz! Summertime book: dolly all the time New recipe/old book and WC country: salad niçoise from Mastering the Art of French Cooking   Cortney's Bingo: Craft color—oil paint color charts Cook from a WC country—French macarons & pâté de fruits Read a funny book—A Perfect Hand

The Gemara cites two conflicting statements of Rav regarding a hanging limb of an animal. In one statement, Rav rules that eating this limb incurs lashes, while in the other, he rules it does not. Rav Yosef resolves this contradiction: if the animal dies naturally, death causes legal detachment (oseh nipul), retroactively defining the hanging limb as ever min hachai (a limb from a living animal) which incurs lashes for one who eats it. Conversely, if the animal is slaughtered, slaughter does not cause legal detachment (eino oseh nipul), meaning the limb is not treated as a separate forbidden entity and the eater does not receive lashes. Rava brings a biblical source for this differentiation between death and slaughter, and the Gemara raises two difficulties against his proof but resolves them both. Rav Chisda and Rabba dispute whether the debate between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis - regarding whether slaughter causes legal detachment for an emerged fetal limb - applies only when the fetus is alive, or even when the fetus is dead. Rav Chisda holds that when the fetus is dead, the emerged limb is definitely considered detached and carries impurity. In the course of a back-and-forth argument between the Rabbis and Rabbi Meir in the Mishna, it was mentioned that slaughtering would not remove impurity from an eight-month fetus, as it is not viable, and there is no type of eight-month fetus that can be validly slaughtered. However, a braita states that there are eight-month fetuses that can be permitted by slaughter. Rav Kahana reconciles this by differentiating between slaughtering the fetus itself and permitting the animal via its mother's slaughter (ben pekua). Rav Hoshaya inquires whether a live nine-month-old fetus can be validly slaughtered while still in utero. This question is evaluated under the views of both Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis. Rav Chananya attempts to resolve this inquiry from a braita, but his answer is ultimately rejected by Rava. The Mishna introduces a dispute regarding the laws of ben pekua and whether they apply to a fully formed, nine-month-old fetus found inside its slaughtered mother. Rabbi Meir rules that the laws of ben pekua do not apply here, and the fetus requires its own independent slaughter. Conversely, the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri hold that as long as the fetus is still inside the womb, it is covered by the laws of ben pekua and is permitted by the slaughter of the mother. Operating under the Rabbis' position, Rabbi Eleazar states in the name of Rabbi Oshaya that the mother's slaughter only covers the animal born from this womb regarding the laws of eating. In other halakhot, this animal is considered a distinct entity and standard animal laws apply to it. The Gemara presents two versions of what Rabbi Oshaya's statement was coming to exclude: the first version suggests it excludes the animal's fat, sciatic nerve, and blood from the mother's exemption, while the second version suggests it excludes using the animal for work or illicit cross-breeding. The first version is ultimately rejected based on other sources, leaving the second version as the preferred explanation. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about whether the blood of a ben pekua (a nine-month fetus) is permitted as well. Rabbi Yochanan raises one difficulty against Reish Lakish's position, which the Gemara subsequently resolves. According to the position of the Rabbis, a question is asked whether one can redeem a firstborn donkey with a ben pekua. Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi disagree. A second question is asked whether a ben pekua that is still in utero can be considered a separate unit for the laws of ritual impurity. This is a dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish, and each one raises a difficulty against the other's position.

The Gemara cites two conflicting statements of Rav regarding a hanging limb of an animal. In one statement, Rav rules that eating this limb incurs lashes, while in the other, he rules it does not. Rav Yosef resolves this contradiction: if the animal dies naturally, death causes legal detachment (oseh nipul), retroactively defining the hanging limb as ever min hachai (a limb from a living animal) which incurs lashes for one who eats it. Conversely, if the animal is slaughtered, slaughter does not cause legal detachment (eino oseh nipul), meaning the limb is not treated as a separate forbidden entity and the eater does not receive lashes. Rava brings a biblical source for this differentiation between death and slaughter, and the Gemara raises two difficulties against his proof but resolves them both. Rav Chisda and Rabba dispute whether the debate between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis - regarding whether slaughter causes legal detachment for an emerged fetal limb - applies only when the fetus is alive, or even when the fetus is dead. Rav Chisda holds that when the fetus is dead, the emerged limb is definitely considered detached and carries impurity. In the course of a back-and-forth argument between the Rabbis and Rabbi Meir in the Mishna, it was mentioned that slaughtering would not remove impurity from an eight-month fetus, as it is not viable, and there is no type of eight-month fetus that can be validly slaughtered. However, a braita states that there are eight-month fetuses that can be permitted by slaughter. Rav Kahana reconciles this by differentiating between slaughtering the fetus itself and permitting the animal via its mother's slaughter (ben pekua). Rav Hoshaya inquires whether a live nine-month-old fetus can be validly slaughtered while still in utero. This question is evaluated under the views of both Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis. Rav Chananya attempts to resolve this inquiry from a braita, but his answer is ultimately rejected by Rava. The Mishna introduces a dispute regarding the laws of ben pekua and whether they apply to a fully formed, nine-month-old fetus found inside its slaughtered mother. Rabbi Meir rules that the laws of ben pekua do not apply here, and the fetus requires its own independent slaughter. Conversely, the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri hold that as long as the fetus is still inside the womb, it is covered by the laws of ben pekua and is permitted by the slaughter of the mother. Operating under the Rabbis' position, Rabbi Eleazar states in the name of Rabbi Oshaya that the mother's slaughter only covers the animal born from this womb regarding the laws of eating. In other halakhot, this animal is considered a distinct entity and standard animal laws apply to it. The Gemara presents two versions of what Rabbi Oshaya's statement was coming to exclude: the first version suggests it excludes the animal's fat, sciatic nerve, and blood from the mother's exemption, while the second version suggests it excludes using the animal for work or illicit cross-breeding. The first version is ultimately rejected based on other sources, leaving the second version as the preferred explanation. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about whether the blood of a ben pekua (a nine-month fetus) is permitted as well. Rabbi Yochanan raises one difficulty against Reish Lakish's position, which the Gemara subsequently resolves. According to the position of the Rabbis, a question is asked whether one can redeem a firstborn donkey with a ben pekua. Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi disagree. A second question is asked whether a ben pekua that is still in utero can be considered a separate unit for the laws of ritual impurity. This is a dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish, and each one raises a difficulty against the other's position.

Episode 193 Wednesday, July 1, 2026 On the Needles 2:54 ALL KNITTING LINKS GO TO RAVELRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.  Please visit our Instagram page @craftcookreadrepeat for non-Rav photos and info     West knits SSAL Olive Knits 4 day kal (10th year! Last one!)   OMG Heel Socks by Megan Williams, Knit Picks Felici in Silent Film   135-1 Limestone by DROPS design, Baa Ram Ewe Donegal Twists in Banshee and Dullahan     Link for sweater cabinet post, sweater that she's wearing is Harvest Flower. And I also love the Polina vest   Seamwork Fern blouse (membership required) On the Easel 18:18 Oil painting, and envelope painting. On the Table 20:47 June cookbook: justine cooks by Justine Doiron Baked kale salad with chili quinoa Broccolini, balsamic, burrata, amen Tiny Salted Tiramisu cookies   Peach scone & upside down coffee cake fails. Chicken chimichanga (oven baked) & frittata on repeat On the Nightstand 31:17 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!   Finding Grace by Loretta Rothschild (audio) Last One Out by Jane Harper Midwinter Break by Bernard MacLaverty Platform Decay by Martha Wells Why Q Needs U by Danny Bate   When the Devil Holds the Candle by Karin Fossum 41:08 Londoners: … by Craig Taylor This Story Might Save Your Life by Tiffany Crum Pineapple Street by Jenny Jackson Mad Mabel by Sally Hepworth Bingo 48:54 Starts friday may 22, ends Mon Sept 7 Need to post a photo of completed Bingo with #CCRRsummerbingo2026 to instagram or Ravelry.  Get a blackout for a second entry.    Omg the prizes!! Jen of Down Cellar Studio: free pattern Keri Fischer-Seehuetter's Ravelry Store patriotic star coasters Charlotte of Blue Shine Art: free class Daria of Daria Penta Art & Illustration: fun sticker sheets Jenny of Dinner a Love Story: free year of substack and copy of Weekday Vegetarians vol 1 & 2 Rancho Gordo deluxe gift box Jen of Books are My People: free month of substack so book club!   Monica's Bingo: Cook for a crowd X2   Cortney's Bingo: New project–lace top New recipe/old cookbook–coffee cake Book set in summertime–Pineapple Street More books from WC countries–Mad Mabel, The Devil Holds the Candle, Londoners Create...WC country–Norwegian animals

The sugya of Ben pekuah and the machlokes Rav and Reb yochanan if a limb comes out and goes back inside the mother is it part of the heter of the Ben pekuah

Study Guide A fetus that is inside the mother at the time of her slaughter is permitted without needing its own slaughter. If a limb of the fetus emerges before the mother is slaughtered, that limb is forbidden. However, if the limb is pulled back inside before the mother's slaughter, its status is subject to a dispute: Rav holds that the limb remains forbidden, while Rabbi Yochanan rules that it is permitted. Three difficulties are raised against Rav's position—one from our Mishna and two from other tannaitic sources—and all are ultimately resolved in the same manner. A difficulty raised against Rabbi Yochanan's position remains unresolved.

Study Guide A fetus that is inside the mother at the time of her slaughter is permitted without needing its own slaughter. If a limb of the fetus emerges before the mother is slaughtered, that limb is forbidden. However, if the limb is pulled back inside before the mother's slaughter, its status is subject to a dispute: Rav holds that the limb remains forbidden, while Rabbi Yochanan rules that it is permitted. Three difficulties are raised against Rav's position—one from our Mishna and two from other tannaitic sources—and all are ultimately resolved in the same manner. A difficulty raised against Rabbi Yochanan's position remains unresolved.

The braita from the school of Rav and the braita from the school of Rabbi Yishmael disagree about whether a grasshopper with a long head is kosher. The source of the dispute stems from their application of different hermeneutical principles to the verse. Further on, the Gemara raises two difficulties against other parts of the braita of the school of Rabbi Yishmael and resolves them. The definitive kosher signs of fish are fins and scales. A fish that lacks scales in its youth but will grow them later, or a fish that has scales but sheds them upon leaving the water, is kosher. Since any fish with scales inherently has fins, the Torah did not need to specify fin, but did so to magnify the Torah and make it glorious. The need for two separate verses, one permitting fish with fins and scales and one prohibiting fish without fins and scales, is to establish both a positive and a negative commandment for one who transgresses. The words "This you can eat from all that are in the waters," which are seemingly superfluous, teach that one who drinks water from pits, ditches, and caves does not need to be concerned about fish that grew there that lack fins and scales, as they are not included in the prohibition.

How we know eggs from a tameh bird are not kosher and the machlokes Tana dbei Rav and Tana Dbei Reb yishmael About grasshoppers that are Rosho aruch

Rav Yehuda discusses the physical dangers of consuming chiltit (asafoetida), particularly on an empty stomach, which Rav Yosef expands upon by listing other hazardous foods consumed on an empty stomach. The Gemara notes that Rav initially permitted an animal whose legs had been severed because he verified that the convergence of sinews (tzumat hagidim) remained intact. Shmuel, however, cautioned him that the severing might have been caused by a venomous snakebite, rendering the animal forbidden due to mortal danger. Shmuel proposed a specific diagnostic test to detect the presence of venom; upon execution, the test confirmed Shmuel's suspicion that the injury was indeed the result of a snakebite. The Mishna enumerates the physiological kosher signs for animals, birds, grasshoppers, and fish. A kosher mammal must possess fully split hooves and chew its cud. While explicit kosher signs for birds are absent from the Torah, the Sages established four indicators: a bird must not be predatory (dores), and it must possess an extra digit, a crop, and a gizzard with an easily peelable inner lining. Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Tzadok adds another sign, noting that a bird that evenly splits its digits when perched on a rope is definitively non-kosher. For fish, the required signs are fins and scales, though the Sages debate whether multiple scales are required or if a single scale suffices. Kosher grasshoppers must exhibit four specific traits: four legs, four wings, two extra jumping legs (kartzulayim), and wings that cover the majority of their body. A braita asserts that any animal that chews its cud lacks upper front teeth. After addressing a series of difficulties regarding this rule, the Gemara clarifies that the absence of upper front teeth serves as a reliable indicator that an animal chews its cud and is kosher, with the sole exception of the camel (namely, a young camel). This anatomical indicator is practically valuable in cases where an animal's hooves have been severed, leaving no other means to determine its kosher status. To differentiate between domesticated animals (behema) and wild animals (chaya) - a distinction crucial for determining the prohibition of forbidden fats (chelev), which applies exclusively to domesticated species - a braita states that a wild animal is identified by its horns and cloven hooves. The Sages debate whether the horn alone is a clear sign or if both criteria must be checked. To resolve the anomaly of the goat and an ox, which possess both traits yet are classified as domesticated, the Gemara explains that the horns of a wild animal must be either branched, or layered, grooved, and rounded. The braita further notes that a single-horned animal, known as the keresh, is classified as a wild animal. This introduces a discussion regarding legendary creatures, specifically the keresh and the tigris. The Gemara recounts an incident where a Roman emperor requested that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananya show him the tigris. However, the creature's immense power caused widespread destruction from a distance, prompting the terrified emperor to beg Rabbi Yehoshua to return the beast to its place.

Conflicting traditions existed regarding Rav's ruling in the case of a dislocated femur in a bird. Ultimately, the analysis indicates that Rav permitted such a bird, except in regions where the prevailing custom was to forbid it. However, after presenting various differing opinions regarding this issue, which leaned primarily toward permissibility, the Gemara brings an incident demonstrating that the widespread, accepted custom was indeed to forbid this condition; consequently, the practical halakha is established to be stringent in accordance with this accepted communal custom. Rav Huna defines a treifa as an animal that cannot survive for more than twelve months. A contradiction is raised against this definition from a braita that brings three alternative opinions regarding what legally constitutes a treifa, none of which align with Rav Huna's position. This difficulty is resolved by explaining that Rav Huna follows a different Tanna, whose view is reflected in another braita stating that one must wait through the winter months to determine whether an animal can successfully recover from its specific ailment.

Episode 192 Friday, June 19, 2026 On the Needles 1:40 ALL KNITTING LINKS GO TO RAVELRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.  Please visit our Instagram page @craftcookreadrepeat for non-Rav photos and info     OMG Heel Socks by Megan Williams, Knit Picks Felici in Silent Film   135-1 Limestone by DROPS design, Baa Ram Ewe Donegal Twists in Banshee and Dullahan     Vesna Tee by Ksenia Naidyon/Life is Cozy, Shel Designs Finito Fingering in Tutti Frutti and Shel Designs Suri Silk Lace in seafoam– DONE!! On the Easel 9:20 Oil studies with R&F oil drawing sticks Plus, the japanese color palette book On the Table 16:22 Julia Turshen's Sticky Chicken or sheet pan Sticky Pork   Pizza Beans with Rancho Gordo Caballeros beans. Chicken & Zucchini Fritter/burger Cookie parcels: browned butter-corn flake choc chippers, neopolitans, confetti cookies, and classic choc chippers. Strawberry Rye cookies (from 100 Cookies; subbed strawberry for raspberry)   On the Nightstand 27:36 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!   A Long and Speaking Silence by Nghi Vo (singing hills #7) The Tainted Cup by Robert Jackson Bennett (Shadow of the Leviathan #1) (audio) Japanese Gothic by Kylie Lee Baker The Shippers by Katherine Center The Safekeep by Yael van der Wouden This Kingdom Will Not Kill Me by Ilona Andrews (maggie the undying #1) Lady Tremaine by Rachel Hochhauser   Lady Tremaine by Rachel Hochhauser The Fountain by Casey Scieszka The Other Half by Charlotte Vassell (audio) This Book Made Me Think of You by Libby Page  (sort of JOYFUL).   Bingo 50:04 Starts Friday May 22, ends Mon Sept 7 Need to post a photo of completed Bingo with #CCRRsummerbingo2026 to instagram or Ravelry.  Get a blackout for a second entry.    Bingo thread on Ravelry (you may need to register to view/participate but it's free)   Monica's Bingo: Award winner: The In Crowd, The Safekeep, The Tainted Cup Start new project:  sweater for Boy #1 Sweet & spicy: Julia Tushen sticky pork World Cup book: the Safekeep (Holland) Let someone cook for you: friends in San Diego  Vacation reading/crafting: on the beach in San Diego   Cortney's Bingo: Cook for sharing–cookies Debut author–Lady Tremaine Monica Rec–The Other Half New Technique–using the drawing oils under the oil paint (because I learned that the oil pastels would have been an unstable foundation for any oil sketch or painting).  

Pictures Rava raises several difficulties against Rav Nachman's position that the term "until" implies up to but not including the final value. However, it concludes that the exact meaning depends on the specific context as one must always rule stringently with requisite amounts (shiurim), with the sole exception of a single requisite amount regarding the laws of niddah. Regarding some of the cases enumerated as kosher in the Mishna (if the spleen and kidneys are removed, or the lungs shrivel up out of fear), the Sages qualify and restrict the specific parameters under which the animal is permitted. Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagree regarding a skinned animal (geludah), where the skin has been entirely removed. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar notes, however, that Rabbi Meir ultimately retracted his position and conceded to the view of the Sages.

Rav Bibi bar Abaye rules that although a standard hole in the windpipe requires the size of an issar (a coin), its clawing measurement (of redness) is a minimal amount, because the predator's venom burns and consumes the tissue continuously. Regarding the scope of the inspection required due to concern for venom, Rav Nachman testifies in the name of Rav that one must inspect from the base of the brain to the thigh, and not only adjacent to the intestines (as some hold). In an interesting story, Rabbi Yochanan defends the supreme authority of Rav against the queries of Reish Lakish, and consequently, Reish Lakish praises a different tradition of Rav, according to which an animal whose organs (simanim) were dislocated and was subsequently slaughtered is kosher. It was established that new cases of treifot may not be added beyond those enumerated by the Sages, even if these injuries cause the death of the animal. The Mishna enumerates structural defects that leave the animal kosher, including a windpipe that was perforated less than the size of an Italian issar, a brain membrane that was not punctured, and a liver of which a remains. This list gives rise to a fundamental dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding the scope of the lists in this chapter, which affects their approach to the ruling of Rav Matna, who rules that a femur bone that dislocated is a treifa. Rabbi Yochanan declares the animal kosher because the case was omitted from the exclusive list of treifot, while Reish Lakish rules it a treifa because it is absent from the exclusive list of kosher defects. For the Babylonians, they defined that the size of the isser is similar to a Kurdish dinar, and the Gemara brings a story following this involving Rabbi Yochanan who went to a moneychanger looking for this coin,and told the moneychanger that craftsmen engaged in their work are legally exempt from standing before Torah scholars. How does this differ from craftsmen who would stand up and greet those Jews who were bringing their first fruits to the Temple? Rav Nachman said that "up to an issar" it is not a treifa means up to but not including that size. Rava brings a series of difficulties against his view, but Rav Nachman answers them.

A cat or a weasel (chulda) renders a bird a treifa through clawing (derisa), whereas only a cat can do so for small cattle such as young goats and lambs. Other predatory birds besides those explicitly listed in the Mishna can also render other birds a treifa by clawing, but only when targeting birds smaller than themselves, while a hawk (netz) can do so even to birds of its own size. According to an alternate version, ordinary predatory birds can claw birds of their own size or smaller, whereas the hawk can even render birds larger than itself a treifa. Furthermore, two conflicting versions are presented regarding Rav Kahana's ruling in the name of Rav Shimi bar Ashi concerning foxes, debating whether or not they possess the capacity to render animals a treifa through clawing. Abaye limits the laws of derisa to the predator's front legs, specifying that it must be executed specifically with a claw and not with teeth, must be done with intent, and must occur while the prey is still alive. In a case where a lion was found among oxen and a dislodged claw was subsequently discovered on the back of one of the oxen, Rabba bar Rav Huna ruled in the name of Rav that there is no concern for derisa. He reasoned that while most lions do claw, their claws do not generally detach in the process; thus, it is more probable that the ox rubbed against a wall and accidentally picked up a nail embedded there. The Gemara initially rejects this argument, countering that while oxen frequently rub against walls, nails rarely stick to their backs in this manner, and since the lion remains a viable source, one should rule stringently. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that because the logic can support either side, the ox retains its presumptive status of permissibility; as a matter of pure doubt, Rav remains consistent with his opinion stated elsewhere that we rule leniently in cases of uncertain clawing. Abaye restricts this leniency, clarifying that it only applies when an actual claw is found embedded rather than a mere mark, when the claw is moist rather than dry, and when there are only one, two, or three claws scattered at random rather than two or three found in a distinct row. Rav and Shmuel disagree on whether to rule leniently or stringently in cases of doubt regarding derisa. While both agree to rule leniently in certain scenarios, they dispute a case where a lion entered among oxen and the lion remained silent while the oxen were found bellowing in distress. Ameimar ruled stringently in accordance with Shmuel, either because he rejected Rav's view or because he believed Rav ultimately retracted his opinion, a shift suggested by a practical incident that occurred. Although several difficulties are raised regarding the specific details of that incident, they are successfully resolved. Rav Ashi similarly ruled leniently in a case of doubt. If there is a doubt as to whether an animal was clawed, the Gemara rules that one may inspect the internal areas of the carcass to see if redness has formed from the venom; if no redness is present, the animal is permitted. This testing method was originally stated by the sons of Rabbi Chiya, though Rav Yosef pointed out that Shmuel himself had already articulated this principle. This discussion leads the Gemara to a series of inquiries - some regarding the laws of clawing and others concerning unrelated laws of treifot - all of which were concisely resolved by an authority who declared that each question had already been answered by a prior Rabbinic statement.

The Gemara discusses what other protective materials a bird could fall upon that would successfully cushion its impact and prevent it from being rendered a treifa. Relatedly, if a bird's wings become stuck to each other or to its body, a debate arises as to whether or not the bird will become a treifa upon falling, as its ability to break the fall is compromised. Two opinions are brought regarding the scope of this debate - specifically, whether the dispute applies to a case where only one wing is glued or if it is restricted to a case where both wings are glued. The Mishna rules that if the majority of an animal's ribs are broken, it is a treifa. While there are twenty-six ribs total, consisting of thirteen on each side, two of these are excluded from the halakhic count; therefore, a majority is defined as twelve ribs, which can be comprised of six on each side or any other combination totaling twelve. Rav rules that even a single rib dislocated along with its socket from the vertebra renders the animal a treifa. Rav Asi and Rav Kahana then questioned Rav regarding a case where two opposite ribs are completely removed while the vertebra remains intact, to which Rav responded that it is a neveila because the animal is essentially cut in half. Several questions are raised against this response in light of Rav's own previous statement, wondering why they would ask about two ribs if Rav already held that even one dislocated rib is a treifa. Ultimately, the Gemara resolves this by reinterpreting the precise details of their question and explaining that they were unaware of Rav's original ruling when they questioned him. Three of the seven extra cases of treifot introduced by the Amoraim were authored by Shmuel and are analyzed here because one of them directly relates to uprooted ribs. The next case in the Mishna transitions to an attack by a predator animal that emits venom (derisa), creating a treifa status. At first, a statement of Rav is brought asserting that a cat does not emit venom capable of making an animal a treifa, prompting the Gemara to question why this rule could not be inferred directly from the wording of the Mishna itself. Rav Chisda rules that a cat and a mongoose do emit venom that can kill a small kid or a baby lamb. A contradictory braita is brought against this view, and the contradiction is ultimately resolved in two possible manners.