Podcasts about Rav

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this episode of The Heart to Heart podcast, host Dr. Mike Hart welcomes back Rav, an author and host of the Illusion of Consensus podcast. The conversation delves into Rav's evolving interests, from his initial focus on COVID-19 and myocarditis to his current pursuit of a more holistic and spiritually grounded life. Rav discusses his journey through rigorous psychotherapy, aided by psychedelics, to uncover subconscious patterns and improve his overall well-being. The discussion also touches on the utility of AI tools like ChatGPT as supplementary therapy, the impact of social media on Gen Z's social behaviors, and the rising influence of independent journalism. The episode sheds light on finding balance in a hyper-productive world, integrating different therapeutic pathways, and the significance of peaceful presence in one's life. Rav Arora is an independent journalist, cultural critic, and podcast host exploring the intersections of health, spirituality, and human performance. Rising to prominence through his widely read Substack, The Meta Mystic, and as co-host of The Illusion of Consensus podcast, Rav has become a leading voice challenging mainstream narratives in science, psychology, and culture. Follow him here: Substack: The Meta MysticPodcast: The Illusion of ConsensusTwitter/X: @Ravarora1 Links: Psilocybin & Religious Leaders Study Internal Family Systems (IFS) Pain Reprocessing Therapy (PRT) Show Notes: (00:00)Welcome back to the Hart2Heart Podcast with Dr. Mike Hart (01:00) Shifting gears: From COVID to holistic living (02:30) The role of psychedelics in therapy (04:00) Balancing productivity and relaxation (10:00) ChatGPT as a therapeutic tool (18:30) Exploring psychedelic therapy (28:00) The power of peaceful presence (39:00) Psilocybin study on religious leaders (40:30) Challenges in recruiting for the study (41:00) Gen Z and alcohol consumption (42:30) Impact of social media on social skills (43:00) Dating apps and their consequences (50:48) “Social media has provided this illusion and comfort.” (53:30) Independent journalism's rise (01:00:30) The future of media and podcasting   — The Hart2Heart podcast is hosted by family physician Dr. Michael Hart, who is dedicated to  cutting through the noise and uncovering the most effective strategies for optimizing health,  longevity, and peak performance. This podcast dives deep into evidence-based approaches to  hormone balance, peptides, sleep optimization, nutrition, psychedelics, supplements, exercise  protocols, leveraging sunlight light, and de-prescribing pharmaceuticals—using medications only when absolutely necessary.   Beyond health science, we tackle the intersection of public health and politics, exposing how  policy decisions shape our health landscape and what actionable steps people can take to reclaim control over their well-being.   Guests range from out-of-the-box thinking physicians such as Dr. Casey Means (author of "Good Energy") and Dr. Roger Sehult (Medcram lectures) to public health experts such as Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Dr. Marty Mckary  (Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and high-profile names such as  Zuby and Mark Sisson (Primal Blueprint and Primal Kitchen).   If you're ready to take control of your health and performance, this is the podcast for you. We cut through the jargon and deliver practical, no-BS advice that you can implement in your daily life, empowering you to make positive changes for your well-being.   Connect on social with Dr. Mike Hart: Instagram: @drmikehart Twitter: @drmikehart Facebook: @drmikehart  

Kieran Scott was in the BBC Tees studios this week for an hour-long chat with Mark Drury. So what were the key revelations from the interview with the club's head of football? We discuss what Scott had to say about the summer signings, the exits of Rav van den Berg and Finn Azaz, Rob Edwards, Michael Carrick and the January window. FOLLOW: X: @BoroEcho Facebook: www.facebook.com/NorthernEchoMiddlesbroughFC Bluesky: @domshawecho.bsky.social @scottwilsonecho.bsky.social

This morning we contrast the word Viduy (usually translated as confession) on Yom Kippur, with the same word used to describe fulfilling God's commands, in our Parsha. Based on the Rav, Rabbi Yosef Soloveitchik, we explore how the former is only made possible by the latter. Michael Whitman is the senior rabbi of ADATH Congregation in Hampstead, Quebec, and an adjunct professor at McGill University Faculty of Law. ADATH is a modern orthodox synagogue community in suburban Montreal, providing Judaism for the next generation. We take great pleasure in welcoming everyone with a warm smile, while sharing inspiration through prayer, study, and friendship. Rabbi Whitman shares his thoughts and inspirations through online lectures and shiurim, which are available on: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5FLcsC6xz5TmkirT1qObkA Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/adathmichael/ Podcast - Mining the Riches of the Parsha: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/mining-the-riches-of-the-parsha/id1479615142?fbclid=IwAR1c6YygRR6pvAKFvEmMGCcs0Y6hpmK8tXzPinbum8drqw2zLIo7c9SR-jc Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3hWYhCG5GR8zygw4ZNsSmO Please contact Rabbi Whitman (rabbi@adath.ca) with any questions or feedback, or to receive a daily email, "Study with Rabbi Whitman Today," with current and past insights for that day, video, and audio, all in one short email sent directly to your inbox.

Gemara Chabura - Rabbi Karlinsky - Da'as Torah and Asei L'cha Rav 04 by Shapell's Rabbeim

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

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

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

Gemara Chabura - Rabbi Karlinsky - Da'as Torah and Asei L'cha Rav 03 by Shapell's Rabbeim

Cours Halakha Time du Jeudi 4 Septembre 2025 (durée : 5 minutes) donné par Rav 'Haïm BENMOCHÉ.

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

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

Gemara Chabura - Rabbi Karlinsky - Da'as Torah and Asei L'cha Rav 02 by Shapell's Rabbeim

Un jour, un Rav est décédé. Autour de lui, les gens ne pensaient pas qu'il s'occupait de rapprocher des Juifs de la Torah. Pourtant, pendant la semaine de deuil, un homme semblant être revenu depuis peu à la Torah raconta...

Siyum tomorrow, Sunday! Mixtures of something permitted with libation wine - is prohibited, no matter how little libation wine is added. But water with wine or wine with water - the question is whether it gives flavor to the mixture as a whole, and also depending on "like" and libation wine or tevel. With all kinds of permutations of mixtures with prohibited things. Also, Rav and Shmuel agree, disagreeing with R. Yochanan and Resh Lakish, who agree.

The Mishna discusses the laws of nullification regarding yayin nesech (wine used for idolatry) that becomes mixed with permitted wine. It distinguishes between wine mixed with wine (min b’minu—same substance), which is forbidden in any amount, and wine mixed with water (min b’she’eino mino—different substance), which is prohibited only if it imparts taste. Rav Dimi quotes Rabbi Yochanan as saying that if one pours yayin nesech from a barrel into a pit of kosher wine, each drop is immediately nullified upon contact. The Gemara raises three challenges to Rav Dimi’s interpretation based on the Mishna, and resolves them by reinterpreting the cases in the Mishna. Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef offers a narrower understanding of Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling—limiting it to pouring from a jug into a barrel, but not from a barrel into a pit. Ravin also transmits a halakha in Rabbi Yochanan’s name regarding a mixture that includes a forbidden item combined with both a similar and a different substance. In such a case, the forbidden item is nullified by the different substance (e.g., yayin nesech mixed with wine and water), while the similar substance is viewed as if it is not there. Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda also quotes Rabbi Yochanan, but there are two versions of his statement. In one version, he disagrees with Ravin and limits the ruling to cases where the different substance was present first. In the other version, his comment refers to the Mishna, and he actually agrees with Ravin. A debate between Chizkiya and Rabbi Yochanan also concerns a case where a forbidden item is mixed with both a similar and a different substance. What is the underlying basis of their disagreement? Rav and Shmuel dispute the position of Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding whether the distinction between mixtures of the same type and mixtures of different types applies universally to all prohibited items, or only to yayin nesech and tevel (untithed produce). The Gemara explains why the rabbis would have adopted a stricter approach with those two prohibitions.

Is mishicha koina by a goy machlokes ameimar and Rav ashi

The Mishna discusses the laws of nullification regarding yayin nesech (wine used for idolatry) that becomes mixed with permitted wine. It distinguishes between wine mixed with wine (min b’minu—same substance), which is forbidden in any amount, and wine mixed with water (min b’she’eino mino—different substance), which is prohibited only if it imparts taste. Rav Dimi quotes Rabbi Yochanan as saying that if one pours yayin nesech from a barrel into a pit of kosher wine, each drop is immediately nullified upon contact. The Gemara raises three challenges to Rav Dimi’s interpretation based on the Mishna, and resolves them by reinterpreting the cases in the Mishna. Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef offers a narrower understanding of Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling—limiting it to pouring from a jug into a barrel, but not from a barrel into a pit. Ravin also transmits a halakha in Rabbi Yochanan’s name regarding a mixture that includes a forbidden item combined with both a similar and a different substance. In such a case, the forbidden item is nullified by the different substance (e.g., yayin nesech mixed with wine and water), while the similar substance is viewed as if it is not there. Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda also quotes Rabbi Yochanan, but there are two versions of his statement. In one version, he disagrees with Ravin and limits the ruling to cases where the different substance was present first. In the other version, his comment refers to the Mishna, and he actually agrees with Ravin. A debate between Chizkiya and Rabbi Yochanan also concerns a case where a forbidden item is mixed with both a similar and a different substance. What is the underlying basis of their disagreement? Rav and Shmuel dispute the position of Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding whether the distinction between mixtures of the same type and mixtures of different types applies universally to all prohibited items, or only to yayin nesech and tevel (untithed produce). The Gemara explains why the rabbis would have adopted a stricter approach with those two prohibitions.

Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi's brother Dr. Dennis Lock on his yahrtzeit. He was a loving husband, father, uncle, and grandfather, a devoted physician; and had a love of learning Talmud. He is sorely missed. Today's daf is sponsored by Rachel Bayefsky and Michael Francus in honor of their baby daughter Avital Temima, born 12 Av/August 6. "She is already listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcast during feedings! May she grow up to love learning." If a fleet enters a city during peacetime, any open wine barrels are deemed forbidden due to the concern that the soldiers may have drunk from them. In contrast, during wartime, it is assumed they would not have had time to drink, and therefore the wine is not considered to have been used for libations. However, a conflicting source suggests that even in times of war, the women of the city may have been raped. Rav Meri resolves this contradiction by distinguishing between the concern of rape and the concern of wine consumption. The Mishna discusses how a Jewish laborer who is paid in wine by a non-Jew can request monetary compensation in a manner that avoids the prohibition of benefiting from yayin nesech (wine used for idolatrous purposes). It raises the question: can a non-Jew pay a wine tax to the king on behalf of a Jew, or would that be prohibited due to the Jew deriving benefit from yayin nesech? The Mishna further rules that when a Jew sells wine to a non-Jew, the price must be agreed upon before the wine is poured into the non-Jew’s container. If not, the wine is considered to be in the non-Jew’s possession before the sale is finalized, and the Jew would be benefiting from yayin nesech. Ameimar and Rav Ashi debate whether the act of pulling an item (meshicha) constitutes a valid acquisition (kinyan) for non-Jews. Rav Ashi, who holds that it does not, cites Rav’s instruction to wine sellers to ensure they receive payment before measuring out the wine. However, the Gemara offers an alternative explanation for Rav’s directive. A challenge is raised against Ameimar’s view, and two difficulties are posed against Rav Ashi—one stemming from our Mishna. Ultimately, all objections are resolved.

Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi's brother Dr. Dennis Lock on his yahrtzeit. He was a loving husband, father, uncle, and grandfather, a devoted physician; and had a love of learning Talmud. He is sorely missed. Today's daf is sponsored by Rachel Bayefsky and Michael Francus in honor of their baby daughter Avital Temima, born 12 Av/August 6. "She is already listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcast during feedings! May she grow up to love learning." If a fleet enters a city during peacetime, any open wine barrels are deemed forbidden due to the concern that the soldiers may have drunk from them. In contrast, during wartime, it is assumed they would not have had time to drink, and therefore the wine is not considered to have been used for libations. However, a conflicting source suggests that even in times of war, the women of the city may have been raped. Rav Meri resolves this contradiction by distinguishing between the concern of rape and the concern of wine consumption. The Mishna discusses how a Jewish laborer who is paid in wine by a non-Jew can request monetary compensation in a manner that avoids the prohibition of benefiting from yayin nesech (wine used for idolatrous purposes). It raises the question: can a non-Jew pay a wine tax to the king on behalf of a Jew, or would that be prohibited due to the Jew deriving benefit from yayin nesech? The Mishna further rules that when a Jew sells wine to a non-Jew, the price must be agreed upon before the wine is poured into the non-Jew’s container. If not, the wine is considered to be in the non-Jew’s possession before the sale is finalized, and the Jew would be benefiting from yayin nesech. Ameimar and Rav Ashi debate whether the act of pulling an item (meshicha) constitutes a valid acquisition (kinyan) for non-Jews. Rav Ashi, who holds that it does not, cites Rav’s instruction to wine sellers to ensure they receive payment before measuring out the wine. However, the Gemara offers an alternative explanation for Rav’s directive. A challenge is raised against Ameimar’s view, and two difficulties are posed against Rav Ashi—one stemming from our Mishna. Ultimately, all objections are resolved.

Gemara Chabura - Rabbi Karlinsky - Da'as Torah and Asei L'cha Rav 01 by Shapell's Rabbeim

Rava ruled that if a Jew is with a non-Jewish prostitute and there is wine present, one can assume that the Jew ensured the prostitute did not come into contact with the wine, and therefore it is permitted. Although he may not be able to control his sexual desires, he is not presumed to be lax in the laws of yayin nesech (forbidden wine). However, in the reverse case—where a Jewish prostitute is with a non-Jew—since the non-Jew holds the dominant position in the relationship, we assume she has no way to prevent him from touching the wine, and thus it is forbidden. There are nine different cases in which a Jew’s wine was left with a non-Jew, and Rava issued rulings on whether the wine was permitted or forbidden in each instance. In many of these cases, he permitted the wine based on his assessment that the non-Jew would likely not have touched it, due to the possibility of being caught by the owner or another Jew. In other cases, there was uncertainty about whether the non-Jew had even come into contact with the wine, or whether the individuals present were Jews or non-Jews. Two additional cases were brought before other rabbis. In the second case, Abaye introduces a comparison to the laws of impurity, and the Gemara addresses this comparison. It notes that the rabbis were stricter regarding impurity laws than they were with wine, citing a debate between Rav and Rabbi Yochanan to support this point. Three challenges are raised against the positions of Rav and Rabbi Yochanan—two against Rav and one against Rabbi Yochanan—and each is resolved.

Send us a textIn this episode of The Wealth Vibe Show, hosted by Vinki Loomba, we sit down with Rav Singh, CCIM Co-Founder of Spur Equity and veteran commercial real estate broker specializing in hotel sales and syndications to talk about how hospitality and syndication create wealth at scale.From Rav's journey starting in gas stations and hotels to his insights on extended-stay trends, team structures, and creative exit strategies, this conversation reveals why hotels are a unique, dynamic asset class that investors often overlook.You'll learn:Why hotels are a powerful vehicle for syndication compared to multifamily or industrialHow the hospitality sector has evolved post-COVID and what trends to watchWhat type of investors are best suited for hotel syndicationsKey strategies to mitigate operational risk while maximizing rewardHow hotel syndications leverage tax benefits and creative exit strategiesThis episode is your reminder that wealth isn't one-size-fits-all; it's personal, powerful, and entirely within reach when you align your investments with the right opportunities.Timestamps:00:00 – Intro03:15 – Rav's journey from flipping to commercial real estate08:38 – First steps into hotel brokerage and syndication15:40 – Lifelong learning, mindset, and building community20:52 – Hospitality trends post-COVID and the rise of extended stay25:08 – Airbnb vs hotels: competition or complement?28:54 – Managing risk and partnering with proven operators32:06 – Creative exit strategies in hotel syndications39:51 – Understanding ADR, RevPAR, and market dynamics40:14 – Rav's golden nugget on learning + applying knowledge41:10 – Rapid fire questions44:23 – Closing + where to connect with RavConnect with Rav Singh:Website: https://spurequity.comLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ravsinghccim/ 

Rava ruled that if a Jew is with a non-Jewish prostitute and there is wine present, one can assume that the Jew ensured the prostitute did not come into contact with the wine, and therefore it is permitted. Although he may not be able to control his sexual desires, he is not presumed to be lax in the laws of yayin nesech (forbidden wine). However, in the reverse case—where a Jewish prostitute is with a non-Jew—since the non-Jew holds the dominant position in the relationship, we assume she has no way to prevent him from touching the wine, and thus it is forbidden. There are nine different cases in which a Jew’s wine was left with a non-Jew, and Rava issued rulings on whether the wine was permitted or forbidden in each instance. In many of these cases, he permitted the wine based on his assessment that the non-Jew would likely not have touched it, due to the possibility of being caught by the owner or another Jew. In other cases, there was uncertainty about whether the non-Jew had even come into contact with the wine, or whether the individuals present were Jews or non-Jews. Two additional cases were brought before other rabbis. In the second case, Abaye introduces a comparison to the laws of impurity, and the Gemara addresses this comparison. It notes that the rabbis were stricter regarding impurity laws than they were with wine, citing a debate between Rav and Rabbi Yochanan to support this point. Three challenges are raised against the positions of Rav and Rabbi Yochanan—two against Rav and one against Rabbi Yochanan—and each is resolved.

This week's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik and Professor Adi Wyner in honor of the birth of their first Israeli grandson, David Rafael, son of Rivkah & Charlie Gottlieb. Davidi was born at Sheba Medical Center on 26 Tammuz/ July 22. He is named after his great-grandfathers, David Malik z"l and Dr. Donald Stoltz z"l. As we begin the month of Elul with the recitation of Tehillim 27 (“L’David HaShem Ori v’Yishi”), we continue to pray for Davidi’s refuah shleima as he meets the challenges of a cleft palate, including surgery sometime before his first birthday. דוד רפאל בן רבקה אריאנא ואליעזר בנימין Today's daf is sponsored by Terri Krivosha in memory of her mother, חני מנדל בת שימה פיגה וירחמיאל הכהן, on her second yahrzeit. She was an eshet chayil whom we miss and think of every day. Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Meir dispute whether a mixture is prohibited when the forbidden component imparts a bad taste to the permitted food. Ulla and Rabbi Yochanan differ on the scope of the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Meir: Ulla holds that they disagree when the forbidden item initially gives a good taste and only later turns bad, while Rabbi Yochanan holds that they disagree in a case where the bad taste is immediate. A challenge to Ulla’s view is raised and resolved. The Gemara then asks whether Rabbi Yochanan holds that they disagree in both scenarios, but the question remains unresolved. Rav Amram raises a difficulty with Rabbi Yochanan’s view, noting that this debate is absent from the Mishna. After further searching, he identifies what seems to be the same dispute in Mishna Orlah 2:9. Rabbi Zeira, however, rejects the connection, explaining that the prohibition there rests on a different principle. A braita is then brought that directly supports Rabbi Yochanan: it describes a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis regarding two leavening agents — one of truma, one of chullin — each potent enough to leaven dough on its own. Since adding both would cause over-leavening and produce a bad taste, this proves that there is indeed a debate in cases where a prohibited item imparts a bad taste. The braita lists another disputed scenario — when both leavening agents are added simultaneously. Abaye explains the need for this case: it was brought to clarify Rabbi Shimon’s position that even when the prohibited agent initially aids leavening, if it acts in tandem with the permitted agent, it is not considered to have been beneficial to the dough initially, and therefore, the dough is permitted. A case is brought where a mouse fell into a barrel of beer, and Rav prohibited the consumption of the beer. Some assumed Rav ruled like Rabbi Meir, prohibiting mixtures even when the forbidden element imparts bad taste. Rav Sheshet instead interprets Rav’s decision as a special stringency regarding sheratzim (creeping creatures), and two objections to this reading are resolved. Rava rejects Rav Sheshet’s explanation and holds that if a prohibited item imparts bad taste, the mixture is permitted, and suggests either that the halakha is not in accordance with Rav, or that Rav held the mouse imparted a good taste to the beer.

This week's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik and Professor Adi Wyner in honor of the birth of their first Israeli grandson, David Rafael, son of Rivkah & Charlie Gottlieb. Davidi was born at Sheba Medical Center on 26 Tammuz/ July 22. He is named after his great-grandfathers, David Malik z"l and Dr. Donald Stoltz z"l. As we begin the month of Elul with the recitation of Tehillim 27 (“L’David HaShem Ori v’Yishi”), we continue to pray for Davidi’s refuah shleima as he meets the challenges of a cleft palate, including surgery sometime before his first birthday. דוד רפאל בן רבקה אריאנא ואליעזר בנימין Today's daf is sponsored by Terri Krivosha in memory of her mother, חני מנדל בת שימה פיגה וירחמיאל הכהן, on her second yahrzeit. She was an eshet chayil whom we miss and think of every day. Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Meir dispute whether a mixture is prohibited when the forbidden component imparts a bad taste to the permitted food. Ulla and Rabbi Yochanan differ on the scope of the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Meir: Ulla holds that they disagree when the forbidden item initially gives a good taste and only later turns bad, while Rabbi Yochanan holds that they disagree in a case where the bad taste is immediate. A challenge to Ulla’s view is raised and resolved. The Gemara then asks whether Rabbi Yochanan holds that they disagree in both scenarios, but the question remains unresolved. Rav Amram raises a difficulty with Rabbi Yochanan’s view, noting that this debate is absent from the Mishna. After further searching, he identifies what seems to be the same dispute in Mishna Orlah 2:9. Rabbi Zeira, however, rejects the connection, explaining that the prohibition there rests on a different principle. A braita is then brought that directly supports Rabbi Yochanan: it describes a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis regarding two leavening agents — one of truma, one of chullin — each potent enough to leaven dough on its own. Since adding both would cause over-leavening and produce a bad taste, this proves that there is indeed a debate in cases where a prohibited item imparts a bad taste. The braita lists another disputed scenario — when both leavening agents are added simultaneously. Abaye explains the need for this case: it was brought to clarify Rabbi Shimon’s position that even when the prohibited agent initially aids leavening, if it acts in tandem with the permitted agent, it is not considered to have been beneficial to the dough initially, and therefore, the dough is permitted. A case is brought where a mouse fell into a barrel of beer, and Rav prohibited the consumption of the beer. Some assumed Rav ruled like Rabbi Meir, prohibiting mixtures even when the forbidden element imparts bad taste. Rav Sheshet instead interprets Rav’s decision as a special stringency regarding sheratzim (creeping creatures), and two objections to this reading are resolved. Rava rejects Rav Sheshet’s explanation and holds that if a prohibited item imparts bad taste, the mixture is permitted, and suggests either that the halakha is not in accordance with Rav, or that Rav held the mouse imparted a good taste to the beer.

Episode 171 Monday, August 11, 2025 On the Needles 1:47 ALL KNITTING LINKS GO TO RAVELRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.  Please visit our Instagram page @craftcookreadrepeat for non-Rav photos and info     Succulents 2025 Blanket CAL by Mallory Krall, Hue Loco DK in ??   Rikke Hat by Sarah Young, Playful Day Yarns Funfetti DK in Blue Bonnet– DONE!!   SSAL Delectable Collectible Socks by Stephen West, Dark Omen Yarns Sock in Electric Minis (navy, royal, light blue with speckles, cream with speckles, cream)   Pop Rock Pullover by Tanis Lavallee, La Bien Aimée singles and Mohair Silk in AVFKW A Day by the Bay On the Easel, etc. 9:47 Ongoing floral paintings. Lots of moss rock action. Design Your Wardrobe via Seamwork Floral Vase at ceramics   On the Table 15:03   Strawberry lemonade cake by Yossy Arefi    Sarti spritz   Eggplant donburi from Dinner by Meera Sodha   Bacon-wrapped shrimp for cocktail club *the marinade is great!! Pantry pasta with artichokes, sun-dried tomatoes and gr. turkey   On the Nightstand 28:03 We are now a Bookshop.org affiliate!  You can visit our shop to find books we've talked about or click on the links below.  The books are supplied by local independent bookstores and a percentage goes to us at no cost to you!   The Well of Ascension by Brandon Sanderson You Dreamed of Empires by Álvaro Enrique, trans by Natasha Wimmer Along Came Amor by Alexis Daria  What Kind of Paradise by Janelle Brown Endling by Maria Reva    Mother-Daughter Murder Night by Nina Simon The Bewitching by Silvia Moreno-Garcia Bingo 46:08 Starts friday may 23, ends Mon Sept 1 Need to post a photo of completed Bingo with #CCRRsummerbingo2025 to instagram or Ravelry.  Get a blackout for a second entry.  Monica's BINGO Escapist: along comes amor- wedding! Lifestyle of the rich and famous!- BINGO!   Cortney's BINGO: Monica rec: Run for the Hills Craft, flower-focused: ceramic vase with daffodils Read LGBTQ+/Immigrant: The Bewitching Cook local: artichoke pasta

Final Plague of Darkness before MaShiach | WAR OF AMALEK (37) FINALEhttps://youtu.be/x7leFaig5woAs we complete this extraordinary series, we realize that the holy words of Rav Elchonon Wasserman were like a cure for the eyes. In his final message, the Rav tells us about the final plague of darkness that will hit the world before the coming of MaShiach. This will be like nothing we've ever seen before and only a minority of the population will survive. Tune in for final dose of truth and hear the good news in the end. We thank HaShem for giving us the zechut to learn and teach these holy words and feel that the Rav has been with us each step of the way, so we can spread the message and warn all who have ears to hear and eyes to see of the days that are no longer ahead, because they are here. BeEzrat HaShem we will succeed.

Episode 170 July 31, 2025 On the Needles 2:43 ALL KNITTING LINKS GO TO RAVELRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.  Please visit our Instagram page @craftcookreadrepeat for non-Rav photos and info     Succulents 2025 Blanket CAL by Mallory Krall, Hue Loco DK in Himalayan Skies– DONE!!   Sophie Scarf by PetiteKnit, Haidmaiden Fine Yarns Camelspin in Tourmaline (70% Silk, 30% Camel)-- DONE!!   Rikke Hat by Sarah Young, Playful Day Yarns Funfetti DK in Blue Bonnet   SSAL Delectable Collectible Socks by Stephen West, Dark Omen Yarns Sock in Electric Minis (navy, royal, light blue with speckles, cream with speckles, cream) On the Easel 12:51 Painting flowers. Attempting to GROW flowers. Sculpting flowers. And sewing! Seamwork's Design Your Wardrobe class. On the Table 24:32   Earl grey = fruit loops at the Ice Cream Bar   Miso mushroom pasta and Creamy Miso potato salad from Pass the Plate by Carolina Gelen   Papardelle bolognese with lentils and sausage from Dinner Changing the Game by Melissa Clark (couldn't find good link although there are some similar ones out there if you search)   Chicken & gnocchi with sun-dried tomatoes and spinach.   Jagalchi field trip!   On the Nightstand 40:34 We are now a Bookshop.org affiliate!  You can visit our shop to find books we've talked about or click on the links below.  The books are supplied by local independent bookstores and a percentage goes to us at no cost to you! The Knight and the Moth by Rachel Gillig Lady Macbeth by Ava Reid Worth Fighting For by Jesse Q. Sutanto Beautiful Summer by Cesare Pavese, trans by Peter Owen (1949) The Phoenix Pencil Company by Allison King   Heartwood by Amity Gaige Rich People Problems by Kevin Kwan Run for the Hills by Kevin Wilson   Bingo 1:03:36 Starts friday  may 23, ends Mon Sept 1 Need to post a photo of completed Bingo with #CCRRsummerbingo2025 to instagram or Ravelry.  Get a blackout for a second entry.    Monica: Summer book: Beautiful Summer Faraway place: phoenix pencil company Summery craft: sophie scarf   Cortney: Summer book: Heartwood Monica rec: Run for the Hills

Cours Halakha Time du Vendredi 8 Août 2025 (durée : 6 minutes) donné par Rav 'Haïm BENMOCHÉ.

Parachat Devarim - Message du Rav avant Shabbat Hazon by Rav David Touitou

Hi K'vod Harav, I'm the same sponsor from this week's episode, I just wanted to clarify that I don't deserve as much credit as it may have come off as, I had discovered the Rav's shiurim and podcasts about six years ago, when the podcast was still in its first few weeks (I think maybe episode 6, or somewhere around there), so there weren't that many podcasts yet at the time to catch up on. When I discovered it though I did go back to find and listen to all of the Rav's previous shiurim that I could find online. Thank you again K'vod Harav for everything the Rav does and for all of the chizzuk and inspiration that we all gain from the Rav's shiurim and podcasts. May the Rav always continue to inspire us, and may we all grow in Torah and all good things, and be zocheh to see mashiach and the binyan beit hamikdash bimheira beyameinu amen.

Hashem doesn't just hear every word we say — He knows every thought that passes through our minds. Last Friday, I was shopping for Shabbat and noticed that the prices were unusually high. I picked up an item and began debating whether or not to put it back. Just then, a man came over to me and asked, "Is it true that anything we spend for Shabbat doesn't come out of the yearly income Hashem allots for us?" I replied, "Absolutely. It's an explicit Gemara." As soon as I answered, I realized Hashem had sent this man to remind me of that truth. I smiled, thanked Hashem for the immediate correction, and bought the item I had been second-guessing. Hashem is intimately involved in our lives — not just every day, but every second. Just over a month ago, a mother was looking to take her children on outings to keep them entertained before camp started. She tried two different places, but both were completely booked. The children were disappointed, and the mother, trying to soften the letdown, took them for ice cream instead. It was an extremely hot day. As they left the ice cream shop, the children ran ahead and mistakenly opened the door of a car that looked like their own. To their shock, there was a four-month-old baby alone in the back seat. The baby had been forgotten. They ran into various stores searching for the baby's mother. When she saw them holding her child, she burst into tears. "I always double-check!" she cried. "I just forgot this time…" On a hot summer day, R"l, it only takes 10–15 minutes for a tragedy to occur in a car. At that moment, it became clear to the mother and children why their plans had been canceled earlier. Hashem had rerouted them, put the idea of ice cream in their minds, and guided them to open the wrong car door — just in time to save that baby's life. Another remarkable story was shared by Rabbi David Ozeri. Last Thursday night, he received a call from a panicked father — a Rav in Eretz Yisrael. His 17-year-old daughter had landed in Newark on a stopover from Israel, and her connecting flight had been canceled due to weather. She didn't speak English, she was alone in a foreign airport, and it was already 11:00 p.m. Rabbi Ozeri immediately contacted a baal chessed in his community, who answered the phone right away. "Of course she's welcome to stay with us," the man said. "I'll even send an Uber for her." But the father was too nervous to place his daughter in an Uber alone at night. Rabbi Ozeri then thought of a woman in Brooklyn who drove children to school each morning. She was divorced and may have needed some extra income. He called her and asked if she would be willing to drive from Brooklyn to Newark to pick up the girl, bring her all the way to Deal, New Jersey, and then return home. The woman answered immediately, "It would be my pleasure to do the chessed," and added that she didn't want to be paid. But Rabbi Ozeri went to the host's home and gave him an envelope with $450, asking him to give it to the driver when she dropped off the girl. The next morning, the woman texted Rabbi Ozeri thanking him for the opportunity to do the chessed — and for the money. What she shared afterward was incredible. She said it was her turn to host her children for Shabbat, but when she checked her bank account, she had only ten dollars left. She didn't know how she would buy food for her large family. At that moment, she saw a request for tzedakah for a worthy cause. With great Emunah, she donated her last $10 and prayed that in the zechut of that mitzvah, Hashem would help her provide for Shabbat. The very next night, at 11:00 p.m., she received the call from Rabbi Ozeri — and ended up earning more than enough to buy everything she needed. We don't fully understand the ways of Hashem, but it seems like one of the reasons the girl's flight was canceled was so this woman could have the parnassah she had so desperately prayed for. When people heard her story, they were so moved that they voluntarily donated more — and she ended up receiving a total of $6,000. Hashem is involved in every moment of every person's life. He orchestrates everything with precision and purpose. Our job is to build our connection with Him — through our tefillot , through our mitzvot , and through our emunah.

Description: Tu B'Av Night Date: 2000 From: The Rav & Karen (Rav Berg & Karen Berg) Length: 35 minutes Sources: The Sefer Yetzirah & The Writings of The Ari Notes: Tu B'Av, Love, Relationships, Soulmate Relationships & Personal Stories of The Rav & Karen 

Episode dedicated by Moshe, Naftoli & Avigdor Streicher

Sponsored by AnonymousDear Rabbi Orlofsky, Thank you K'vod Harav for everything the Rav does, and for all his shiurim and podcasts. I am one of those who, when I discovered the Rav's shiurim/podcasts, went back and watched any and all of the Rav's shiurim that I could find online, going back as far as possible.I would like to sponsor the episode le'iluy nishmat Rachamim ben Geula, whose yahrtzeit is on tisha b'avThank you again K'vod Harav. May the Rav continue to be marbitz torah barabim and give chizzuk and inspiration to many more people 'ad 120 and beyond, with health, happiness, and all good things, and may we be zocheh to see mashiach bimheira beyameinu amen.

The Sholom Bayis Series is a sampling of approaches from Torah educators, authors, and therapists offering ideas, tips, and resources for building and maintaining healthy relationships.In this final episode, join Rabbi Baruch Hertz, renowned Rav and community leader, for a heartfelt conversation on the Torah perspective of Sholom Bayis. Drawing from halacha, hashkafa, and years of experience guiding couples, Rabbi Hertz offers clarity and direction on fostering peace, respect, and emotional connection in marriage.A meaningful conclusion to a powerful series.Listen now at Mikvah.org/audioWatch now on Mikvah.org/mediaFor Rabbi Hertz's source sheet Click here

19 Suburban Transmission Fail. Honda Pilot Transmission Fluid. Lesabre Battery Drain. 05 Ram Broken AC Door Fix. 20 Traverse Engine Tick. 03 E450 Buying a bus used. 19 Escape Howl in the front end. 96 Pasao new cat or not? 21 Rav 4  Someone put Oil Stop Leak in the Gas. 00 Grand Am

Today's daf is sponsored by Doreen Samuels for the shloshim of her dear mother, Elaine Charlton, Ella bat Rachmiel v'Riva Leah, z"l, on 23rd July - 27th Tammuz 5785. She was so proud of my Jewish learning." Rav and Shmuel disagree about the reason and origin of the prohibition on consuming oil from non-Jews. Rav maintains that Daniel instituted the ban to prevent intermarriage, while Shmuel attributes it to concerns of kashrut, arguing that the oil was placed in vessels previously used for non-kosher foods, causing flavor absorption. Three objections are raised against Rav’s view, prompting revisions based on other teachings. Rav holds that Daniel prohibited the oil within city limits, while Hillel and Shamai's students extended the prohibition to the fields as part of the eighteen decrees enacted on a day when Shamai’s students outnumbered Hillel’s and successfully passed rulings by majority. That same day, wine and bread from non-Jews were also banned due to concerns related to their daughters—potentially leading to idol worship and “something else.” Two interpretations are offered regarding "their daughters." Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak claims that the rabbis designated all non-Jewish females as possessing nidda impurity from birth, while Genieva, quoting Rav, suggests the concern was intermarriage. The Gemara challenges Rav’s reasoning—intermarriage is already prohibited by Torah law. After a chain of responses and further inquiries, the conclusion is that Rav saw the decree as either a prohibition on marrying non-Jews outside the seven nations (if Torah law applies only to those) or a ban on seclusion with a non-Jewish woman. To what was the "something else" referring?

Episode 169 July 17, 2025 On the Needles 2:42 ALL KNITTING LINKS GO TO RAVELRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.  Please visit our Instagram page @craftcookreadrepeat for non-Rav photos and info     Succulents 2025 Blanket CAL by Mallory Krall, Hue Loco DK in ??   SABAI top by Susanne Müller, Lang Yarns Linello (linen, cotton, rayon)--DONE!! (ish)   Water Lily Cowl by Mu Fibers, Mu Fibers Fingering in Plum Blossom– DONE!!   Sophie Scarf by PetiteKnit, Haidmaiden Fine Yarns Camelspin in Tourmaline (70% Silk, 30% Camel) On the Easel/On the Wheel/In the Garden 8:21 Floral Series, in progress Ceramics: donut bowls, faceted vase, crazy vase beginnings Garden: all the thyme ground cover options  On the Table 15:07 Easy Three Cheese Lasagna Cups (Perfect Appetizer) - Pudge Factor   Pork & Pineapple Taco   Whitefish Peperonata from Justine Cooks   Chicken carving lessons Turkey Lentil Stew from Tuesday Nights by Christopher Kimball Citrus Pie Bar from 100 Cookies by Sarah Kieffer On the Nightstand 25:09 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!   Bury our Bones in the Midnight Soil by V.E. Schwab Where the Axe is Buried by Ray Nayler Olive Kitteridge by Elizabeth Strout On the Calculation of Volume 1 by Solvej Balle, trans by Barbara J Haveland Half a Lifelong Romance by Eileen Chang (ch-ah-ng), trans by Karen S. Kingsbury   China Rich Girlfriend by Kevin Kwan   Bingo 39:36 Starts friday may 23, ends Mon Sept 1 Need to post a photo of completed Bingo with #CCRRsummerbingo2025 to instagram or Ravelry.  Get a blackout for a second entry.    #D object–donut bowls Read escapist–China Rich Girlfriend  

  Two different opinions are presented regarding if and when one may receive medical treatment from an idol worshipper. Rav Yehuda strictly prohibits it under all circumstances, except when treating one's animals. Rabbi Yochanan, however, permits it if the patient would otherwise die without treatment. Additionally, two versions of a statement by Rabbi Yochanan offer further nuance. In the first, he prohibits receiving treatment from an idol worshipper for an illness severe enough to justify desecrating Shabbat. In the second, he forbids it only in cases of internal injuries. What is the practical difference between these two versions? Rav and Rabbi Yochanan also offer differing criteria for when desecrating Shabbat for medical treatment is permitted. Rav defines this case as a wound requiring assessment to determine whether the person will survive. Rabbi Yochanan, by contrast, permits for internal injuries. This leads to a question: are tooth pains considered internal injuries? Two sources are brought to address this, though neither offers a conclusive answer. The second source recounts a story in which Rabbi Yochanan himself sought medication from an idol worshipper for a tooth ailment and was prepared to desecrate Shabbat for it. This seems to contradict his stated prohibition against seeking such treatment for illnesses that permit desecrating Shabbat. How, then, was his action permissible? Finally, the Gemara offers various remedies suggested by the sages for various ailments, such as a gash from a sword, boils, high fever, hemorrhoids, earaches, and a dislocated jaw or eye.  

The pasuk in Kohelet says: " עֵת לָלֶדֶת וְעֵת לָמוּת " — "A time to be born, and a time to die." (Kohelet 3:2). The Midrash in Kohelet Rabbah teaches that from the moment a person is born, Hashem determines exactly how long that person will live. Every breath, every second, is measured. And it is considered a great merit for someone to live out every single moment of their allotted time in this world. We cannot begin to grasp the infinite value of just one second of life. Sometimes, patients who are suffering deeply may wish to pass on rather than continue living in pain, connected to machines. Their families, too, may struggle watching them suffer. These situations are deeply painful and emotionally charged—but they are also halachically complex, and a competent Rav must always be consulted. These are not decisions anyone should take into their own hands. Halachah teaches us that we desecrate Shabbat to extend the life of a patient even in a vegetable state, even if it's just for one more second. That is how precious life is in Hashem's eyes. Rabbi Aryeh Levin once visited a man who was suffering terribly in the hospital. The man asked the rabbi, "Why should I continue living like this? I can't pray, I can't learn. I'm just in pain." Rabbi Levin gently took his hand and answered, "Who knows? Perhaps one word of Shema said in pain is worth more than a lifetime of mitzvot done in comfort. Every breath you take now—with emunah—brings Hashem so much nachat." The man began to cry. From that moment on, he accepted each breath with emunah and gratitude. He passed away just a few days later—peaceful, uplifted, and surrounded by meaning. Chazal say: "Sha'ah achat shel teshuvah u'maasim tovim ba'olam hazeh yafeh mikol chayei ha'olam haba"—one hour of repentance and good deeds in this world is greater than all of the World to Come. In just one moment, a person can elevate himself spiritually forever. The Gemara in Avodah Zarah shares three separate stories of individuals who earned their entire portion in the World to Come in one moment of their life. When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi heard them, he wept, recognizing the unimaginable power of even a single second. The Sifrei Kodesh teach that even one thought of teshuvah can have massive spiritual effects. Even a person on his deathbed, who cannot speak or move, can—through one pure thought, one yearning for Hashem—accomplish more than all the angels in Heaven combined. If all a person can do is breathe, that breath is a treasure beyond comprehension. As long as someone is breathing, Hashem wants him alive. His mission in this world is not yet complete. A man shared with me that his father, Eddie, recently passed away. He had told his children that if he reached the end of life, he didn't want to be kept alive artificially and in pain. But when the time came, his children called Chayim Aruchim, an organization that helps families navigate end-of-life issues according to halachah. They were given a personal Rav who was an expert in this field. He came down to the hospital and explained the halachic importance—and the spiritual benefit to Eddie and his family—of staying connected to the machine, even for a short time. The Rav monitored his condition every day for ten days, ensuring halachah was followed precisely. Eventually, the doctors said Eddie's final moments had come. His children gathered around his bed and watched their father take his last breaths. They were so grateful they had consulted daat Torah and allowed their father to live every moment Hashem had intended for him. And then, just as they left the hospital, a truck drove by with the word "Eddie's" written in big letters—something they had never seen before. To them, it felt like a wink from Hashem, a small smile from Above, affirming that they had done the right thing. Every second of life is a priceless gift. In one moment, a person can earn eternity. And sometimes, the last breath we breathe with emunah is something that brings the greatest glory to Hashem.

Study Guide Avodah Zarah 22 Today's daf is sponsored in memory of Deena Kalker's grandmother Tzipora Shoshana bat Bracha z"l. May her memory be a comfort and a blessing. Today's daf is sponsored by Becky Goldstein for the refuah shleima of David Mordechai ben Raizel who is undergoing a procedure this morning. Please Gd for a succesful operation with שליחים נאמנים. The Mishna prohibits one to leave one’s animal in an inn alone with a pagan as they are concerned the pagan will engage in bestiality with the animal and the Jew will transgress the prohibition to put a stumbling block in front of a blind person. The Gemara raises a contradiction to this from a braita that permits a Jew to buy an animal from a non-Jew to use for a sacrifice. Why is there no concern that the animal was used for bestiality, which would disqualify the animal for sacrifice? Rav Tachlifa quotes Rav who distinguishes between the pagan’s own animal and someone else’s, as bestiality is bad for the animal (females become unable to birth and males become weaker). Two difficulties are raised against Rav Tachlifa's answer and are resolved. Two other questions are asked about the Mishna. Why would it be forbidden to seclude a female pagan with a female animal? Does the prohibition apply to birds as well?