Podcasts about Rav

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.

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.

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.

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.

The unique tereifa of derusa, a mortal wound by being clawed • Clawed by a fox or a dog? • When assessing a claw wound, it is the predatory thought that counts • A backscratch or a lion's swipe? • What to do when the mandates of preventing financial losses among our brethren and honoring the local Rav are in conflict? • Examining a claw wound in context

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.

Cours Halakha Time du Dimanche 21 Juin 2026 (durée : 5 minutes) donné par Rav 'Haïm BENMOCHÉ.

A braita establishes the laws of a needle found in the thickness of the beit hakosot, ruling that a single-sided penetration is kosher while a complete perforation renders the animal a treifa. The presence of a drop of blood or a scab determines if the injury occurred before shechita. Internal organ crushing (risuk evarim) caused by falls is a treifa according to the Mishna. Rav Huna rules that an animal left on a roof and subsequently found below is not assumed to have crushed organs, a principle the Gemara applies to a practical case involving Ravina's goat. Addressing a sheep with dragging hind legs, Rav Yeimar and Ravina debate whether the cause is common rheumatism or a severed spinal cord. Rav Huna, Rav Menashye, and Rav further delineate which specific impacts - such as goring rams, sheep handled by thieves, or direct blows from a stick - instigate a concern for internal trauma. Rav Nachman rules that the womb protects a fetus from organ crushing during birth, and three sources are brought to attempt to prove his ruling, but all proofs are rejected. Animals falling in a slaughterhouse are similarly not suspected of risuk evarim. The Gemara outlines the physical indicators of recovery for a fallen animal, establishing when a twenty-four-hour waiting period or an internal inspection of the body cavity is required. Shmuel addresses a bird that strikes the surface of the water, ruling it valid if it swims its body length. The Gemara evaluates various impact surfaces - including garments, nets, sifted ash, and different preparations of flax - to determine whether their specific textures and density buffer a fall or cause a treifa status.

A braita establishes the laws of a needle found in the thickness of the beit hakosot, ruling that a single-sided penetration is kosher while a complete perforation renders the animal a treifa. The presence of a drop of blood or a scab determines if the injury occurred before shechita. Internal organ crushing (risuk evarim) caused by falls is a treifa according to the Mishna. Rav Huna rules that an animal left on a roof and subsequently found below is not assumed to have crushed organs, a principle the Gemara applies to a practical case involving Ravina's goat. Addressing a sheep with dragging hind legs, Rav Yeimar and Ravina debate whether the cause is common rheumatism or a severed spinal cord. Rav Huna, Rav Menashye, and Rav further delineate which specific impacts - such as goring rams, sheep handled by thieves, or direct blows from a stick - instigate a concern for internal trauma. Rav Nachman rules that the womb protects a fetus from organ crushing during birth, and three sources are brought to attempt to prove his ruling, but all proofs are rejected. Animals falling in a slaughterhouse are similarly not suspected of risuk evarim. The Gemara outlines the physical indicators of recovery for a fallen animal, establishing when a twenty-four-hour waiting period or an internal inspection of the body cavity is required. Shmuel addresses a bird that strikes the surface of the water, ruling it valid if it swims its body length. The Gemara evaluates various impact surfaces - including garments, nets, sifted ash, and different preparations of flax - to determine whether their specific textures and density buffer a fall or cause a treifa status.

 Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org Rav Yosef Greenwald, Rav of K'hal Dexter ParkQuestion: I subscribe to a newspaper that is delivered to my house early every morning. I started to realize that the newspaper doesn't seem so fresh when I bring it into my house. One morning, I looked out my window and spied my neighbor reading my newspaper. I realized that he has been reading it every day before I take it inside. Can I charge him for reading my paper? Answer: This may seem like a case of zeh neheneh v'zeh lo chaseir, which would mean that the neighbor would be patur. However, one could argue that the fact that he made the newspaper not as fresh is considered “chaseir”. This would depend on how we define “chaseir”. What is considered “a loss”?According to almost all Rishonim if one causes a loss of even a minimal amount, the owner is considered chaseir. At that point, these Rishonim say, “megalgelim alav es hakol”, we make him pay the full amount of the benefit he received. Although there is a dissenting opinion, this is how we pasken. In this case, that would mean that if making a newspaper lose its freshness is worth even a shaveh perutah [or perhaps even less], the neighbor would have to pay for the value he received, which may well be something like 50% of the cost of the newspaper. 

The Rebbe writes that when encountering spiritual laxity, one must not compromise Torah standards to make things easier. Instead, like Rav in Bavel, one should strengthen boundaries and uphold Torah values, ensuring the community remains steadfast even amid challenges. https://www.torahrecordings.com/rebbe/igroskodesh/007/007/2079

Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org Rav Yosef Greenwald, Rav of K'hal Dexter ParkQuestion: If someone offers someone else a ride, and they don't make up anything beforehand, is the passenger obligated to chip in towards the expenses of the trip? Answer: There is a rule of “zeh neheneh v'zeh lo chaseir.” If one person derives benefit from someone else, but the other person has no loss, the first person is not liable to pay. Regarding the gas and tolls, it would seem that this is a case of zeh neheneh v'zeh lo chaseir. The driver would have had to pay the same amount with or without a passenger. Even though the passenger is having a benefit from the ride, he isn't costing the driver anything; therefore, it would seem that he cannot be charged. However, the Nesivos Hamishpat says that zeh neheneh v'zeh lo chaseir is only patur after the fact. If one person derived benefit from someone else who lost nothing, the second person cannot demand to be paid retroactively. Going forward, however, he can ask for payment. This would mean that if two people are traveling together, they are both equally responsible to pay for the gas and tolls, and those expenses should be split 50-50. It would seem that wear and tear of the car, on the other hand, is not part of the traveling itself and is not an expense that the passenger is liable for. 

With the world becoming more fast-paced and information so readily available, how do you know when you can look up a halachic question yourself and when it is necessary to call a Rav?No need to wonder any longer! Enjoy this insightful two-part series on how to navigate this modern dilemma.This Week -Part Two: Discussion with Mrs. Esther Piekarski & Conclusion with Mrs. Bayla Blumstein

 Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org Rav Yosef Greenwald, Rav of K'hal Dexter ParkQuestion: Reuven and Shimon are business partners. Due to a clerical error on behalf of the IRS, Reuven's personal taxes were charged to the partnership. Can Shimon demand that Reuven reimburse the business for the money that he should have paid individually? Answer: The Gemara talks about a case where the king's tax collectors take taxes from from grain that was not yet tithed, in lieu of money that was the owner was really supposed to pay. The Gemara says that even though the owner didn't really gain anything new – as he merely didn't have to give away some of his money – and he didn't actually take anything from maaser – as the tax collectors took the money, not him – he still is liable to reimburse the amount of the maaser. This chiyuv is called “mishtarshi”. The Ketzos Hachoshen explains that mishtarshi means that because one person's bottom line is bigger than it otherwise would have been because of his friend's expenditure or loss, it is considered as if the friend now owns part of his assets; therefore, the beneficiary will have to reimburse him the full amount that he lost because of him. Based on this rule, Reuven would be liable to reimburse the partnership for the money he gained by not paying his personal taxes. 

… Feeling Don't Care About Your Facts (Ep. 332) Rabbi Dovid Orlofsky Download Sponsor (Yehoshua Sova): I just went through ALL 326 Shiurim at double speed the past few months- GADZOOKS! Been a follower of yours since the Platinum Platonic Relationships tape. Also had to stop running/driving like Rabbis Sharfman/Krohn to prevent any collateral damage deaths due to laughter from the show. I would love to hear the Rav's take on the following: Red Flags I have seen in my life and how YOU can learn from my mistakes. For example:- The unfortunate situations of the ex son in laws- surely there were things that you saw and how we could be protected (besides the people who withheld info). Your Daughters should find their Bashert soon and enough of the pain that they are experiencing!- Psychotic teachers/adminstrators.- Dealing with "real" crazies- not the Rabbi Orlofsky ones!- What was so dark about being a Mashgiach?- Who was someone that you looked up to as a role model and had it dashed and the signs were there for you to see the entire time?The truth is I would love to host you on my TorahAnytime channel and 24/6 channel (I am also not on Naki Radio ;-)) as a podcast interview and this sponsorship ploy I am doing now was actually suggested by you! This opener of questions I always had can be part of a continued list of pressing questions I would love to ask at a later time if the Rav would like to entertain such an idea. Wishing continued Hatzlacha with all of the VERY powerful Divrei Chizuk mixed with great pop culture references and songs! Your Talmid- Rabbi Yehoshua Sova - Miami Beach

 Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org Rav Yosef Greenwald, Rav of K'hal Dexter ParkQuestion: A gift package of food is delivered to someone's office. Assuming it's for him, the person eats it. Afterwards, he discovers it was meant for the office next door. Does he have to pay for the food he ate?Answer: If it was an honest mistake that was no fault of his own, he is not liable as a mazik or a gazlan. However, he still is not fully exempt from liability.The Gemara discusses a case where someone inherits a barn full of cows from his father. He assumes all of the cows belonged to his father and he slaughters and eats one of them. Unbeknownst to him, that cow belonged to someone else and was only being kept in his father's barn.   The Gemara says that although the son is not a mazik, he is still liable because he derived enjoyment from someone else's property. He does not have to pay the full market value of the cow, but he has to pay the value of the pleasure he had. Chazal assessed this to be two-thirds of what the meat would have fetched in the market. So too, in this case the man who ate his neighbor's food would be liable to pay that basic amount. Question: Who does he have to pay that amount to? The man who the package was intended for or the one who sent the package? Answer: If it was a package that the office next door paid for, he would have to pay them. If they weren't paying for it, he would have to pay whoever did lay out the money for it. 

Qu'est-ce que la pudeur ? Se limite-t-elle à une retenue des instincts corporels ? La notion de pudeur n'existe-t-elle qu'entre êtres humains, ou même dans notre relation envers D.ieu ou envers nous-mêmes ? Réponse à travers des propos de Rav 'Haïm Friedlander et des passages de Guémara.

Pictures Under what conditions do perforations, cracks, or missing fragments in the windpipe render an animal or bird a treifa? How do perforations add up to the requisite amount needed to determine the animal is a treifa? The Sages delineate specific measurements for damage to the windpipe, depending on the type of perforation. For a crack along its length, the organ remains kosher provided that a little remains intact at the beginning and the end of the windpipe. The Sages discuss the precise anatomical boundaries of several vital organs, as these definitions carry significant halakhic weight across multiple areas of law. This includes defining the exact parameters of the neck to establish the zone permitted for ritual slaughter, and identifying the borders of the chest to isolate the specific cut of meat designated for the kohen from a peace offering. Furthermore, the Sages map out the exact perimeters of the brain and the heart to establish the critical zones where a perforation of any minimal size immediately disqualifies the animal as a treifa. Rav and Shmuel disagree regarding the threshold size of a perforation in the aorta (the primary artery originating from the heart) that renders an animal a treifa. Rav maintains that a puncture of any minimal size is fatal, whereas Shmuel rules that the animal is only deemed a treifa if the majority of the aorta's circumference is perforated or severed. What are the precise boundaries of the spinal cord, and what specific injuries make it a treifa? The Gemara establishes the lower boundary of the spinal cord up to which physical trauma affects the animal's halakhic status. An animal is rendered a treifa if its spinal cord is severed, or if the internal neural tissue undergoes severe degradation, such as liquefying or softening to the point where the structural integrity of the cord is lost.

Pictures Under what conditions do perforations, cracks, or missing fragments in the windpipe render an animal or bird a treifa? How do perforations add up to the requisite amount needed to determine the animal is a treifa? The Sages delineate specific measurements for damage to the windpipe, depending on the type of perforation. For a crack along its length, the organ remains kosher provided that a little remains intact at the beginning and the end of the windpipe. The Sages discuss the precise anatomical boundaries of several vital organs, as these definitions carry significant halakhic weight across multiple areas of law. This includes defining the exact parameters of the neck to establish the zone permitted for ritual slaughter, and identifying the borders of the chest to isolate the specific cut of meat designated for the kohen from a peace offering. Furthermore, the Sages map out the exact perimeters of the brain and the heart to establish the critical zones where a perforation of any minimal size immediately disqualifies the animal as a treifa. Rav and Shmuel disagree regarding the threshold size of a perforation in the aorta (the primary artery originating from the heart) that renders an animal a treifa. Rav maintains that a puncture of any minimal size is fatal, whereas Shmuel rules that the animal is only deemed a treifa if the majority of the aorta's circumference is perforated or severed. What are the precise boundaries of the spinal cord, and what specific injuries make it a treifa? The Gemara establishes the lower boundary of the spinal cord up to which physical trauma affects the animal's halakhic status. An animal is rendered a treifa if its spinal cord is severed, or if the internal neural tissue undergoes severe degradation, such as liquefying or softening to the point where the structural integrity of the cord is lost.

An investigation into an acceptance of the stringencies of Rav and the stringencies of Shmuel when it comes to the details of shechitah, including the location of where one begins the process of slaughtering. But taking the stringencies of both sages, instead of following either of them for the full gamut of their respective views, seems incongruous in its inconsistency. Plus, the bat kol (heavenly voice) that establishes halakhah as per Beit Hillel, though it seems a contradiction here -- and also as against the statement that we do not determine practice from a bat kol! Also, what is the "majority" of the trachea? Is it the thickness of the trachea wall or is it the majority of the hollowness of the tube itself? Plus, the case of Yehezkel (Ezekiel), who never personally ate from the meat of an animal that had been called into question, even though it was subsequently declared fine. Also, the decision to offer the prime cut.

Is “Dati Leumi” in Israel the same as “Modern Orthodox” elsewhere? Is “Chareidi” in Israel the same as “Yeshivish” elsewhere? What are their respective views of secular studies, engaging in the modern world, and serving in the IDF? What are the most common misperceptions each has of the other, and what can each learn from the other? Host: Ari Wasserman with Rabbi Dr. Yitzchak Breitowitz – posek, Rav and Senior Lecturer at Yeshivas Ohr Somayach – 11:14 with Jonathan Rosenblum – Mishpacha Columnist and author – 40:02 with Rabbi Moshe Taragin – Ram at Yeshivat Har Etzion, Gush Etzion, Israel – 1:02:02 https://www.mtaraginbooks.com/ Conclusions and Takeaways – 1:56:37 מראי מקומות   

What are the primary categories of treifot? Ulla states that eight categories that were transmitted as halakha to Moshe from Sinai: perforated (nekuva), severed (pesuka), removed (netula), deficient (chasura), torn (kru'a), clawed (drusa), fallen (nefula), and broken (shevura). Chiya bar Rav said there are eight cases in the category of perforated, and this excludes the gall bladder, which is considered a treifa only by Rabbi Yosi b'Rabbi Yehuda. However, Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that the ruling is like Rabbi Yosi b'Rabbi Yehuda. He brings a proof for Rabbi Yosi's position from a verse in Iyov 16:13, in which Iyov explains that his gall bladder was poured on the ground, and yet, he still lived. The rabbis' retort to that is that Iyov's situation was miraculous and we cannot derive halakha from a miracle. Another ruling of Rabbi Yochanan was brought by Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef regarding the liver – if the liver is reduced to less than an olive bulk, the animal is a treifa. If, according to Rabba bar bar Hanna, Rabbi Yochanan holds like an unattributed Mishna, there is a contradiction as our Mishna rules it is a treifa only if the liver is completely removed. This is resolved by explaining there is a debate between the two amoraim what Rabbi Yochanan held. Two other rulings are brought by Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef in the name of Rabbi Yochanan regarding treifot. A gall bladder that was perforated but the liver covered up the hole, or a bird's gizzard that was perforated, but the inner lining was not, both are kosher. Raba notes that the gullet consists of two distinct linings - an outer red membrane and an inner white membrane. If only one layer is punctured while the other remains intact, the animal remains kosher. What happens if both layers of an organ are punctured, but the holes do not align? Rav Ashi rules that in a stationary organ like the gizzard, non-aligned punctures are kosher because the layers do not shift. However, in a dynamic organ like the gullet, which constantly expands, contracts, and moves during feeding, the holes are liable to realign; therefore, non-aligned punctures render the animal a treifa. In one version, Mar Zutra quotes Rav Papa saying the opposite; in another, he agrees. Raba notes that the gullet cannot be evaluated for predatory clawing (safek drusa) from the outside, as the outside is red and blood would not be noticeable. It must be inverted and inspected from the inside. If a thorn is found lodged inside the gullet with a perforation on the inside, but no noticeable perforation on the outside, Ulla rules that we do not fear it caused a perforation which healed, as free-roaming livestock regularly consume thorny vegetation without injury. Is the turbatz haveshet, the uppermost part of the gullet, legally treated as part of the gullet? Rav and Shmuel disagree on its status. Rav maintains it is a valid location for slaughter; thus, any extraneous puncture of even a minimal size renders it a treifa. Shmuel argues it is not a valid location for slaughter, meaning it is only rendered a treifa if the majority of it is severed. This dispute culminated in a practical case involving an ox belonging to the sons of Rav Ukva, where the slaughter began in the turbatz haveshet and finished in the gullet. Rava applied the stringencies of both Rav and Shmuel, declaring the animal a treifa. Rabbi Abba reversed Rava's decision, demonstrating that the ox was completely kosher under either authority individually. If one followed Rav, the slaughter location was valid; if one followed Shmuel, the minor cut in the turbatz haveshet did not render it a treifa before the slaughter was completed. Because Rava's logically contradictory ruling caused an impermissible destruction of kosher property, Rabbi Abba ordered Rava to financially compensate the owner of the ox.

What are the primary categories of treifot? Ulla states that eight categories that were transmitted as halakha to Moshe from Sinai: perforated (nekuva), severed (pesuka), removed (netula), deficient (chasura), torn (kru'a), clawed (drusa), fallen (nefula), and broken (shevura). Chiya bar Rav said there are eight cases in the category of perforated, and this excludes the gall bladder, which is considered a treifa only by Rabbi Yosi b'Rabbi Yehuda. However, Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that the ruling is like Rabbi Yosi b'Rabbi Yehuda. He brings a proof for Rabbi Yosi's position from a verse in Iyov 16:13, in which Iyov explains that his gall bladder was poured on the ground, and yet, he still lived. The rabbis' retort to that is that Iyov's situation was miraculous and we cannot derive halakha from a miracle. Another ruling of Rabbi Yochanan was brought by Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef regarding the liver – if the liver is reduced to less than an olive bulk, the animal is a treifa. If, according to Rabba bar bar Hanna, Rabbi Yochanan holds like an unattributed Mishna, there is a contradiction as our Mishna rules it is a treifa only if the liver is completely removed. This is resolved by explaining there is a debate between the two amoraim what Rabbi Yochanan held. Two other rulings are brought by Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef in the name of Rabbi Yochanan regarding treifot. A gall bladder that was perforated but the liver covered up the hole, or a bird's gizzard that was perforated, but the inner lining was not, both are kosher. Raba notes that the gullet consists of two distinct linings - an outer red membrane and an inner white membrane. If only one layer is punctured while the other remains intact, the animal remains kosher. What happens if both layers of an organ are punctured, but the holes do not align? Rav Ashi rules that in a stationary organ like the gizzard, non-aligned punctures are kosher because the layers do not shift. However, in a dynamic organ like the gullet, which constantly expands, contracts, and moves during feeding, the holes are liable to realign; therefore, non-aligned punctures render the animal a treifa. In one version, Mar Zutra quotes Rav Papa saying the opposite; in another, he agrees. Raba notes that the gullet cannot be evaluated for predatory clawing (safek drusa) from the outside, as the outside is red and blood would not be noticeable. It must be inverted and inspected from the inside. If a thorn is found lodged inside the gullet with a perforation on the inside, but no noticeable perforation on the outside, Ulla rules that we do not fear it caused a perforation which healed, as free-roaming livestock regularly consume thorny vegetation without injury. Is the turbatz haveshet, the uppermost part of the gullet, legally treated as part of the gullet? Rav and Shmuel disagree on its status. Rav maintains it is a valid location for slaughter; thus, any extraneous puncture of even a minimal size renders it a treifa. Shmuel argues it is not a valid location for slaughter, meaning it is only rendered a treifa if the majority of it is severed. This dispute culminated in a practical case involving an ox belonging to the sons of Rav Ukva, where the slaughter began in the turbatz haveshet and finished in the gullet. Rava applied the stringencies of both Rav and Shmuel, declaring the animal a treifa. Rabbi Abba reversed Rava's decision, demonstrating that the ox was completely kosher under either authority individually. If one followed Rav, the slaughter location was valid; if one followed Shmuel, the minor cut in the turbatz haveshet did not render it a treifa before the slaughter was completed. Because Rava's logically contradictory ruling caused an impermissible destruction of kosher property, Rabbi Abba ordered Rava to financially compensate the owner of the ox.

Rabbi Bogopulsky is the Rav of Beis Medrash of Pomona

Episode 191 June 4, 2026 On the Needles 1:42 ALL KNITTING LINKS GO TO RAVELRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.  Please visit our Instagram page @craftcookreadrepeat for non-Rav photos and info   Vesna Tee by Ksenia Naidyon/Life is Cozy, Shel Designs Finito Fingering in Tutti Frutti and Shel Designs Suri Silk Lace in seafoam   Cuff Club Vol. 2 Socks (march) by Summer Lee, Seismic Yarn & Dyeworks Butter Sock in why did the frog cross the road and mini: To see what the chicken was doing – DONE!!   OMG Heel Socks by Megan Williams, Knit Picks Felici in Silent Film On the Easel 9:07 CONNECTIONS TODAY!   Calendar is a GO! Which means I'm painting envelopes this summer, and aiming for an OIL-paint theme.   On the Table 18:47 Rainbow Rave Cookies from Cookies by NYT   Strawberry Frosted Sugar Cookies - by Yossy Arefi   I Dream of Dinner– May cookbook Chicken with So Much Garlic Green Curry Meatball Soup (this is not exactly the same as the one I made from her book, but similar)   Simple pork tenderloin with garden rosemary Steak marinade–24 hour.   On the Nightstand 31:47 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! Antiquarian's Object of Desire by India Holton The Duke by Anna Cowan The Lost Book of Elizabeth Barton by Jennifer N. Brown  Everyone in this Bank is a Thief by Benjamin Stevenson The In Crowd by Charlotte Vassell (audio) The Fine Art of Lying by Alexandra Andrews Mostly Hero by Anna Burns   The Briars by Sarah Crouch Celestial Lights by Cecile Pin   Bingo 52:27 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.    Monica's Bingo Debut author: lost book of elizabeth barton Read something american: voter information pamphlet and my primary ballot!   Cortney's Bingo: Let someone else cook: Steaks on the grill Read an award NOMINEE: Celestial Lights

Rav hunas chidish that shachar kol shahu of behmas chavaro is chayiv

With the world becoming more fast-paced and information so readily available, how do you know when you can look up a halachic question yourself and when it is necessary to call a Rav?No need to wonder any longer! Enjoy this insightful two-part series on how to navigate this modern dilemma.This Week -Part One: Rabbi Tuvia Kasimov

“Out of the sources of Halakhah, a new world view awaits formulation”—so concludes Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik's Halakhic Mind, an essay penned in 1944 but only published in 1986. It is the Rav's most philosophically dense work. As such, it is the least understood and least studied even among the Rav’s main constituency—people such as yourself who are readers of TRADITION. Many have found it to be rather opaque. This is unfortunate, given that it is the work in which he sets out his method for “doing” Jewish philosophy; the subtitle is “An essay on Jewish tradition and modern thought.” That's why it was significant that at the recent annual convention of TRADITION's publisher, the Rabbinical Council of America, Daniel Rynhold presented a session to the assembled rabbis and educators offering an overview and “primer” to Halakhic Mind. This brief introduction to the book presents its key claims with the minimum of jargon so as to allow those without any philosophical background to understand what the Rav means when speaks of epistemological pluralism and scientific method, and how these ideas build to the conclusion that “there is only a single source from which a Jewish philosophical Weltanschauung could emerge; the objective order—the Halakhah.” Watch a video of this conversation on YouTube. Professor Daniel Rynhold is Dean at the Bernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish Studies at Yeshiva University. The conversation was recorded by TorahAnytime at the RCA Convention in Suffern, NY, on May 11, 2026. The post Halakhic Mind appeared first on Tradition Online.

Rav's contribution to the Siddur

What types of signs of life does one need to observe when performing shechita on an animal that is on the verge of death? Rav, Shmuel, and Rava each bring different actions that serve as indicators that would then permit this animal to be eaten, as it is clear the animal was still alive enough at the time of the shechita. At what point of the slaughtering process does one need to see these signs of life? Rav Chisda, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, and Rava each suggest different points - the middle, the beginning, or the end. Rav Chisda and Rav Nachman provide support for their positions from our Mishna, while Rava brings support from his understanding of a different tannaitic source. Can one perform shechita on an animal for an idol worshipper? Does one need to be concerned that it will be used for idol worship and therefore the Jew would be benefiting from idol worship? Is it the intent of the owner or the one performing the shechita that determines the designation of the animal?

Halachot of Shabbat!The Rav payed how much for his suit!?!What's considered nice clothes!!?

What types of signs of life does one need to observe when performing shechita on an animal that is on the verge of death? Rav, Shmuel, and Rava each bring different actions that serve as indicators that would then permit this animal to be eaten, as it is clear the animal was still alive enough at the time of the shechita. At what point of the slaughtering process does one need to see these signs of life? Rav Chisda, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, and Rava each suggest different points - the middle, the beginning, or the end. Rav Chisda and Rav Nachman provide support for their positions from our Mishna, while Rava brings support from his understanding of a different tannaitic source. Can one perform shechita on an animal for an idol worshipper? Does one need to be concerned that it will be used for idol worship and therefore the Jew would be benefiting from idol worship? Is it the intent of the owner or the one performing the shechita that determines the designation of the animal?

Rav asi's shita in Reb shimon that dam schita is not mitameh,machlokes Reb chiya and rebi about dam schita that falls on a gourd,is chibas hakodesh mitameh,and how we know chibas hakodesh mdoraisa

The dispute between Rabbi Natan and the rabbis regarding whether a secular slaughter requires intent has ramifications in the case of one who slaughters an additional animal during the slaughter of a para aduma (engaging in an extraneous activity). If slaughter does not require intent, the cutting of the second animal's simanim is considered a completed act of slaughter, and consequently, the para aduma is disqualified because an extraneous activity was performed at that time. Conversely, if slaughter requires intent, the unintended slaughter is not considered an act at all, and the para aduma remains valid. The disqualifications of shechita begin with the law of shehiya (pausing), which occurs when the slaughterer pauses between the slaughter of one siman and the next. A tannaitic dispute is analyzed regarding the duration of time that disqualifies due to pausing, questioning whether it is the time of an act of slaughter or the time it takes to examine the knife. Several amoraim define the duration of slaughter: Rav defines it as the time needed to slaughter another animal, while Rav and Shmuel dispute whether the disqualifying pause for a bird slaughter is measured by the time it takes to slaughter an animal or a bird. Additional opinions expand this duration to include the time required for physical handling of the animal, such as the time it takes to lower it to the ground or lift it and push it down. The details of the disqualifications continue with ikur (tearing the simanim instead of cutting them) and chalada (inserting the knife beneath the simanim or behind them). These flaws in the act of slaughter trigger a tannitic dispute between Rabbi Yeshevav and Rabbi Akiva over whether animals disqualified by an improper slaughter, such as shehiya, chalada, or ikur, are considered a treifa and do not impart impurity, or whether they are treated as a neveila and impart impurity through carrying. Ultimately, Rabbi Akiva reversed his original understanding and agreed with Rabbi Yeshevav that the status of these animals is like a neveila in all regards. A contradiction to the Mishna arises from a Mishna at the beginning of the third chapter, which lists a severed windpipe among the defects that define an animal as a treifa, seemingly contradicting our Mishna's ruling that such a defect is considered a neveila. To resolve this contradiction, four potential resolutions are proposed, two of which are ultimately rejected.

The dispute between Rabbi Natan and the rabbis regarding whether a secular slaughter requires intent has ramifications in the case of one who slaughters an additional animal during the slaughter of a para aduma (engaging in an extraneous activity). If slaughter does not require intent, the cutting of the second animal's simanim is considered a completed act of slaughter, and consequently, the para aduma is disqualified because an extraneous activity was performed at that time. Conversely, if slaughter requires intent, the unintended slaughter is not considered an act at all, and the para aduma remains valid. The disqualifications of shechita begin with the law of shehiya (pausing), which occurs when the slaughterer pauses between the slaughter of one siman and the next. A tannaitic dispute is analyzed regarding the duration of time that disqualifies due to pausing, questioning whether it is the time of an act of slaughter or the time it takes to examine the knife. Several amoraim define the duration of slaughter: Rav defines it as the time needed to slaughter another animal, while Rav and Shmuel dispute whether the disqualifying pause for a bird slaughter is measured by the time it takes to slaughter an animal or a bird. Additional opinions expand this duration to include the time required for physical handling of the animal, such as the time it takes to lower it to the ground or lift it and push it down. The details of the disqualifications continue with ikur (tearing the simanim instead of cutting them) and chalada (inserting the knife beneath the simanim or behind them). These flaws in the act of slaughter trigger a tannitic dispute between Rabbi Yeshevav and Rabbi Akiva over whether animals disqualified by an improper slaughter, such as shehiya, chalada, or ikur, are considered a treifa and do not impart impurity, or whether they are treated as a neveila and impart impurity through carrying. Ultimately, Rabbi Akiva reversed his original understanding and agreed with Rabbi Yeshevav that the status of these animals is like a neveila in all regards. A contradiction to the Mishna arises from a Mishna at the beginning of the third chapter, which lists a severed windpipe among the defects that define an animal as a treifa, seemingly contradicting our Mishna's ruling that such a defect is considered a neveila. To resolve this contradiction, four potential resolutions are proposed, two of which are ultimately rejected.

Bret Weinstein joins Rav Arora on The Illusion of Consensus to discuss dating, mating, sex, relationships, marriage, pornography, OnlyFans, dating apps and the collapse of courtship among Gen Z. Weinstein, an evolutionary theorist, author of A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century and host of The DarkHorse Podcast, explains modern romance through evolutionary biology, including male mating strategies, monogamy, mate selection and the effects of contraception. The conversation covers Valentine's Day, sexual signals, promiscuity, long-term commitment, the rise of the “sex recession”, and new concerns around declining dating among young people. Rav and Bret also discuss Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, Nick Fuentes, The Weeknd, Zayn Malik and Gigi Hadid while examining how pop culture, social media and technology shape relationships today. Subscribe to Rav's Substack to get podcasts straight to your inbox: https://www.illusionconsensus.com/

The Gemara continues evaluating the position that exactly half of a siman is considered like a majority (mechtza kerov). Two difficulties are raised from braitot concerning pausing after slaughtering half a siman, or a siman that was pre-damaged. Ultimately, the Gemara rejects the initial understanding of Rav's statement regarding shechita and concludes that everyone agrees 50% is not a majority. The original debate between Rav and Rav Kahana applies exclusively to the laws of Pesach, in a case where the population is exactly half ritually pure and half impure. The Gemara notes a repetitive phrasing in the Mishna regarding the rule that a majority of a siman is sufficient. It explains that one sentence is needed for regular slaughter (chullin) and a second sentence for sacrifices (kodashim), as neither could be logically derived from the other. Various textual proofs and linguistic analyses of the Mishna's phrasing are brought by five Amoraim, each proving in a different way that the first sentence deals with chullin and the second with kodashim. Study Guide A fundamental debate is introduced between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan over whether shechita takes effect continuously from the beginning of the act until the end (yeshna leshechita mitchila ve'ad sof), or if it only takes effect at the very final moment (eina leshechita ela basof). Rava and Rav Yosef narrow the scope of the dispute, noting that everyone agrees in certain scenarios, but they differ over what exact case is actually the subject of the disagreement between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan. Rabbi Zeira raises a difficulty from a Mishna in Para against the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan that shechita applies from beginning to end. However, Rava refutes his difficulty and instead raises a counter-difficulty from that same Mishna against the opinion of Reish Lakish that shechita only takes effect at the final moment.

The Gemara continues the debate over whether shechita takes effect continuously from the beginning of the act until the end (yeshna l'shechita mitchila ve'ad sof), or if it only takes effect at the very final moment (eina l'shechita ela basof). Two further difficulties are raised against the latter opinion and are resolved. There is a debate about whether the shechita needs to be done in a single, continuous cut (shechita mefura'at) or can be done in two or three different spots along the neck. The Gemara raises two difficulties against those who require shechita mefura'at. These challenges are resolved. Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav brings a ruling about chalada, a disqualification of shechita when the knife is hidden under the simanim. The Gemara tries to assess what he is adding which wasn't already stated in the Mishna in Chullin 32a. The second part of Rav's statement was that if the knife is under the hide, the shechita is valid. However, the beit midrash of Rav (Bei Rav) stated that it was unknown whether he actually permitted it under the hide. This statement by the scholars of his beit midrash led to several related questions that remain unresolved (teiku), such as hiding the knife under a cloth, under tangled wool, or concealing it during only a minority of the cut. A Mishna rules that slaughtering two heads at once or two people holding a single knife and slaughtering are both valid. However, completely severing the head in one instantaneous downward blow is invalid due to pressing (drisa). The Mishna qualifies this: if the person was actually drawing the knife back and forth, but it came off after just moving the knife in one direction, if the knife was long enough, the shechita is valid. If they slaughtered with a back-and-forth motion, even if the blade is very small, the meat is kosher. Two sources are brought to support the need for moving the blade back and forth when slaughtering.

The Gemara asks whether the requirement to slaughter birds is a Torah law or a rabbinic law. Rabbi Yitzchak bar Pinchas rules that it is only a rabbinic law. The Gemara raises three difficulties against his position but resolves them. The final difficulty is resolved by pointing out that this matter is subject to a Tannaitic debate, and the Gemara brings both positions. Although only one siman needs to be slaughtered in a bird, the Gemara asks if it can be any siman or specifically the gullet. Rav Nachman and Rav Ada bar Ahava disagree on this point, and difficulties are raised against both positions. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that cutting either siman is valid. Rabbi Yehuda requires that the veins in the neck (veridin) must also be cut during slaughter. Rav Chisda explains that this rule applies specifically to birds, and its purpose is to drain out the extra blood so people will not come to eat it, but it is not an essential part of the shechita obligation. The Gemara raises three difficulties against this explanation, but they are all resolved. If exactly half of a siman was slaughtered, there is a debate between Rav and Rav Kahana - do we say that since the majority is not unslaughtered, the shechita is valid, or do we say that since the majority has not been slaughtered, the shechita is invalid? The Gemara begins by raising difficulties against Rav's position that half of a siman is considered as if the majority is slaughtered and the bird is permitted.

Episode 190 May 21, 2026 On the Needles 2:45 ALL KNITTING LINKS GO TO RAVELRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.  Please visit our Instagram page @craftcookreadrepeat for non-Rav photos and info     Vesna Tee by Ksenia Naidyon/Life is Cozy, Shel Designs Finito Fingering in Tutti Frutti and Shel Designs Suri Silk Lace in seafoam   Cuff Club Vol. 2 Socks (march) by Summer Lee, Seismic Yarn & Dyeworks Butter Sock in why did the frog cross the road and mini: To see what the chicken was doing    Sophie Scarf by PetiteKnit, AVFKW Floating in Current and Wild Bloom in Raincloud– DONE!! On the Easel 7:19 Oil studies! On the Table 16:08 Buffalo Salad with Blue Cheese Toasts from I Dream of Dinner by Ali Slagle Buffalo Crudités With Blue Cheese Dip Recipe   A Great "Happens to Be Vegan" Korean Meal at Home Sundays with Julia video library KIMCHI FRIED RICE WITH SCALLION SALAD from Small Victories DUBU JORIM (BRAISED TOFU)  GARLIC-SESAME SPINACH    Successful strawberry shortcake with buttermilk biscuit Unsuccessful sweet potato waffle Pan-fried tofu on repeat: marinate firm tofu sticks in 1/4c tamari or soy sauce, ¼ c sake, 3T rice wine vinegar, a splash or yuzu hot sauce (optional) for at least an hour or so. Pat dry. Coat with corn starch & corn meal (¼ corn starch + 3T corn meal). Pan fry. On the Nightstand 32:17 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!   Go Gentle by Maria Semple Dungeon Anarchist's Cookbook by Matt Dinniman (audio) On the Calculation of Volume IV by Solvej Balle, trans by Sophia Hersi Smith and Jennifer Russell The Other Half by Charlotte Vassell (audio)  Once and Again by Rebecca Serle Beheading Game by Rebecca Lehmann How to Commit a PostColonial Murder by Nina McConigley Last Night in Brooklyn by Xóchitl González We Do Not Part by Han Kang, trans by E. Yaewon and Paige Aniyah Morris  Time Shelter by Georgi Gospodinov, trans by Angela Rodel Yesteryear by Caro Claire Burke The Reservation by Rebecca Kauffman Gifted & Talented by Olivie Blake  

Study Guide The Gemara clarifies which Tanna the Mishna follows regarding temed (grape-seed water). Rav Nachman in the name of Rabba bar Avahu explains that the dispute in the Mishna in Ma'asrot between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages applies after it ferments, so our Mishna can align with the view of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabba bar Avahu that if a person bought temed with second tithe funds before it fermented, and it ultimately fermented, it is treated as wine. His words pose a difficulty for our Mishna, which did not present such an option. Rabba establishes the Mishna in a case where it is clear that it will not ferment later, while Rava suggests that the Mishna follows the view of Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri, who holds that everything follows the visual appearance (chazuta) at the time of the sale. Rabbi Elazar disputes Rav Nachman's understanding of the Mishna in Ma'asrot, holding that the dispute applies when it has not fermented, but once it ferments, everyone agrees it is considered wine. A braita brings the laws of purifying temed that has not yet fermented by connecting it to water (haska). Rava limits this rule, explaining that this applies only when the water of the temed was pure from the beginning and became impure after it became temed, but if it was impure from the outset, it does not. However, Rav Ashi rejects his ruling and argues that there is no logic to distinguish between the cases. The Mishna states that anywhere there is a sale (a minor girl, ketana), there is no fine for rape (whose law only applies to a young woman, na'ara), and anywhere there is a fine, there is no sale. Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav explains that this is the view of Rabbi Meir, but the Sages say that a fine applies even to a ketana. A Mishna states that anywhere there is refusal (miun, for a ketana), there is no chalitza (for a na'ara), and anywhere there is chalitza, there is no miun. Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav says that this is also the view of Rabbi Meir, but the Sages say that miun applies even to a na'ara. A Mishna states that anywhere there is a shofar blast (tekiya), there is no havdala, and anywhere there is havdala, there is no tekiya. If a Festival falls on the eve of the Sabbath, you blow the shofar and do not say havdala. If it falls on the conclusion of the Sabbath, you say havdala and do not blow. The Sages and Rabbi Dosa dispute the exact wording of the havdala.

Groundbreaking Study Reveals Psilocybin Can CRUSH Smoking Addiction | Dr Matt Johnson Psilocybin Beats Nicotine Patches in BREAKTHROUGH Smoking Trial | Dr Matt Johnson Johns Hopkins Scientist Reveals Psilocybin OUTPERFORMS Patches for Smokers | Dr Matt Johnson Matt Johnson joins Rav Arora on The Illusion of Consensus to discuss his new JAMA Network Open study on psilocybin, nicotine patches, CBT and smoking cessation. A Johns Hopkins psychiatry and behavioural sciences professor, Johnson has been central to modern psychedelic research, including work on psilocybin for addiction, depression and end of life distress. He explains why one psilocybin session paired with CBT showed higher six month smoking abstinence rates than nicotine patch treatment with CBT, and what that could mean for tobacco use disorder. The discussion also covers vaping, nicotine harm reduction, the UK Tobacco and Vapes Bill, addiction treatment, mystical experiences, emotional breakthrough, neuroplasticity, agency and why psychedelics may help people change entrenched behaviour. Rav and his guest examine both the promise and the risks of psychedelic therapy, including bad experiences, vulnerable patients, clinical safeguards and the future of FDA approved addiction treatments. Link to Matt's Paper: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2846155 Subscribe to Rav's Substack for exclusive content: https://www.illusionconsensus.com/